[Senate Hearing 107-1008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1008
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE ERIE
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
ANOXIA IN THE CENTRAL BASIN OF LAKE ERIE, AND THE IMPACT OF ``DEAD
ZONES'' ON THE ECOLOGY OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION
__________
AUGUST 5, 2002--CLEVELAND, OH
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
83-720 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
second session
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
AUGUST 5, 2002--CLEVELAND, OH
OPENING STATEMENT
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 1
WITNESSES
Culver, David A., professor, Department of Evolution, Ecology,
and Organismal Biology, the Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 15
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 74
Heath, Robert T., professor and director of the Water Resources
Research Institute, Department of Biological Sciences, Kent
State University, Kent, OH..................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Isbell, Gary L., Executive Administrator, Fisheries Management
and Research, Ohio Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Columbus, OH................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 71
Marsh, Elaine, board member, Great Lakes United, Buffalo, NY..... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 82
Matisoff, Gerald, professor and chair, Department of Geological
Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH....... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Reutter, Jeffrey M., director, Ohio Sea Grant College Program,
Franz Theodore Stone Laboratory, Center for Lake Erie Area
Research, Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium,
Columbus, OH................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 92
Ullrich, David A., Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5,
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Report, Great Lakes Strategy 2002............................ 40-70
Responses to additional questions from Senator Voinovich..... 37
(iii)
WATER QUALITY IN LAKE ERIE
----------
MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Cleveland, Ohio.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. at the
U.S. Coast Guard Moorings Club, 1055 East Ninth Street,
Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. George V. Voinovich presiding.
Present: Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. The meeting will please
come to order.
First, and foremost, I'd like to thank all of you for
taking time out of your busy schedules to participate in
today's field hearing of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, to better understand recent changes in Lake
Erie's ecosystem, particularly, the central basin.
Second, I'd like to thank Chairman Jim Jeffords for calling
this hearing at my request. I'd like to thank Senator Jeffords'
staff member, Catharine Ransom, who is with us today, and, of
course, my member of my staff, Karen Bachman, for their
cooperation and hard work in putting this hearing together this
morning.
Looking at the witness list, I think we we're going to have
a very informative discussion.
On Panel One, I'd like to welcome Dave Ullrich, Deputy
Regional Administrator for Region 5 of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and Gary Isbell of the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife.
Gary and I have known each other for years--when you were
just starting out in the department--he had a little more hair
on his head and I had a lot fewer gray hairs. We were up at
that wonderful hatchery that the State of Ohio purchased in
Castalia.
Gary, I want you to know at one time I said at a meeting of
the Trout Clubs of Ohio that before I died, I wanted to catch a
steelhead on a fly in Ohio waters. I'm ready to go to heaven,
because we've done wonderful things. That program has really
made a big difference. I think that hatchery has something to
do with it.
On Panel Two, I'd like to welcome Dr. Dave Culver of Ohio
State University; Dr. Bob Heath of Kent State University;
Elaine Marsh, Lake Erie Board Member of Great Lakes United; and
Gerald Matisoff of Case Western Reserve University; and then
Dr. Jeff Reutter of the Ohio Sea Grant Program. Jeff and I have
known each other quite some time. I visited him up at Stone Lab
on many occasions over the years.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and learning more
about the current status of Ohio's Great Lake.
I'd like to take a little bit of time, some of you might be
interested in hearing this, some might not. I just want you to
know that I've had a love affair with the Great Lakes all of my
life in terms of my public service. One of the greatest sources
of comfort and satisfaction has been my work to help clean up
and protect the environment, particularly Lake Erie.
Lake Erie's ecology has come a long way since I was in the
State legislature. I was commenting to some of the members of
the media that when I ran for the State legislature, the
northern district of my boundary was Lake Erie, and I made it
an issue in the campaign. It was a dying lake. It was suffering
from eutrophication. We had the BBC in here, it was a cause all
over the world. This great fresh water lake was in such
terrible shape.
So as a State legislature, we made a commitment to try to
stop the deterioration, and what I'd like to refer to as wage
the ``Second Battle of Lake Erie'' to reclaim and restore, to
the best of our ability, Ohio's Great Lake. We continued that
fight throughout my career in the legislature, Commissioner,
Mayor, Governor, and now Senator.
Seeing the effects of pollution on Lake Erie and the
surrounding region, I knew firsthand in 1966 that something had
to be done immediately, or it would be too late.
I recall a neighbor of ours warning us not to swim in Lake
Erie because of the problems, to get shots, go to a doctor
before going into Lake Erie. We might get some disease from
swimming in the lake. That's how bad it was.
Today, we celebrate Lake Erie's improved water quality.
It's been a long struggle to win the ``Second Battle of Lake
Erie.'' I think it's really important that we understand the
battle continues today. It's almost like the battle against
terrorism in the world. It's never going to end, because the
threats are always there. We think we got things taken care of
in Lake Erie, and all of a sudden new threats come on the scene
that we've got to deal with. So it's something that's going to
require vigilance. We never can take the water quality or the
lake for granted.
I was glad to see the chart downstairs of the amount of
reduction in phosphates going into the lake from municipal
waste. My first resolution in the legislature was a $360
million dollar bond issue to help the State of Ohio help
municipalities clean up municipal waste. Of course, we saw the
great progress made in this area with the 75/25 program by the
Federal Government. I can assure you, that if the Federal
Government hadn't come through with 75 percent of that money,
we wouldn't see the progress that we have seen in terms of
reduction of phosphates into the lake or the improvement of our
waste treatment facilities.
Of course, during that same period of time we had the
problem of the threat of drilling for gas and oil, exploratory
drilling, in the bed of Lake Erie. I'll never forget calling
the Speaker of the House, Charles Curfos, in fact, going in to
see him. We formed, almost overnight, the four-State
legislative committee on Lake Erie. Within 2 weeks we got
resolutions passed for four State legislatures of not to go
forward with the exploratory drilling of that lake.
I've got to tell you something, the Governors were really
excited. They were getting boats and helicopters, they were
going to do the whole thing. It was a new venture for them.
Then I was very much involved with the Seven-State
Legislative Committee on the environment where we all, on the
legislative side, put together the EPA for our respective
States. I was the ``House Father'' of our EPA and worked with
the Department of Natural Resources, Sam Speck was also with me
on that committee.
Then the environment wasn't getting enough attention, so we
created a House Environment Committee. I became vice-chairman
of that committee. Then I became County Commissioner, and one
of the things we needed to face was the Department of Energy
wanted to use the salt mines out here to store radioactive--the
waste from nuclear power plants. We fought that off.
Then, also as Mayor, we sponsored that first big
international hearing on zebra mussels. We were really getting
choked air, because they were clogging the water intakes, and
we tried to figure out what to do about that. All of the people
predicting what would happen because of the zebra mussels.
I'm pleased that Governor Taft now is chairman of the
Council of Great Lakes Governors. When I was Governor, we
funded Ohio's share of the funding, $14 million. We have a
$100-million endowment, the interest from which is used to do
research work on the Great Lakes. Some of you now benefited
from some of that research work.
Then the Lake Erie Commission was kind of like a dead
horse, so we breathed new life in that, moved it up to Toledo,
and got Jeb Bush involved in that. We created the Lake Erie
Protection Fund. We get some money that could help do research
on issues that impacted the lake.
Then, of course, the Lake Erie Quality Index, which I
thought was very important. I'm trying to get that done,
nationally, for the Great Lakes. We ought to have an index on
all the Great Lakes, so we have a baseline number, then we know
where we're going in the future.
The Governor, I understand, has put together an
implementation plan, and I'm hoping that in 2003 we'll have
another one, report in Ohio about how we're doing and what
progress we're making. We have to continue to monitor
constantly.
Then how did I luck out? I got to be on the Environment and
Public Works Committee. I'll never forget the first day we had
a hearing, it was hard for me to believe I was on the
Environment and Public Works Committee which the Federal EPA
testifies before. In 1971 Bill Ruckleshaus sent me out to
Cheyenne, Wyoming to talk to Rocky Mountain legislators about
not giving up their water and air on the altar of economic
development. That was long ago.
I had the chance of working on the WRDA bill, the 2000 bill
was my bill, and also that bill dealt with the largest
restoration project ever undertaken in the world. That's the
Everglades. I know some of you want to do the same thing on
Lake Erie, so we get the same kind of attention, here, as they
do in the Everglades, and also the Chesapeake Bay area.
We were able to authorize a $100 million dollars for
projects to restore the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. By
the way, there's some comments that have come in your reports
about the Army Corps of Engineers, whether the Army Corps of
Engineers should be doing this work. The money for this comes
out of WRDA, and Catharine knows, that one of the testimonies
suggested we ought to separate the money out for environmental
restoration and the other for typical Army Corps of Engineers.
There didn't seem to be that much enthusiasm for that.
I want to point out is that because the Corps is doing it,
that does not mean that that money for research isn't going to
be going out to people, like yourselves, doing research. I want
to make sure that is the need is taken care. I think that is
some of the concerns that you have, that the Corps is
overlooking.
The other thing that I've been working on since my first
year, 1999, was the reauthorization of the State Revolving Loan
Fund for the Clean Water Act Revolving Loan Fund. We are just
underfunding that miserably. We need to increase that. We're
just asking for $3 billion more a year for 5 years. The bill
has been voted out of committee. I have a little problem with
it because all of the local people in the National Governors'
Association are opposed to it. Too many mandates are connected
with it and very little money. But, hopefully, we're going to
resolve those and be able to bring that bill to the floor this
year.
The bottom line is the Federal Government is not spending
enough money to deal with waste treatment in this country. It
needs to be given a much greater priority. There's a group
called WIN that says we're going to have to spend $57 billion
in the next 5 years to deal with our waste treatment problems,
and also problems in terms of safe drinking water. Big, big
problems. They need to be addressed. In addition, we have two
additional bills that we are co-sponsoring. One is the Great
Lakes Ecology Protection Fund, which would help prevent the
introduction of aquatic nuisance species in the Great Lakes by
regulating vessels that enter the Great Lakes. Then the Great
Lakes Legacy Act, which would authorize $250 million in grants
to States to clean up contaminated areas, such as the Maumee,
the Black River, Ashtabula, and Cuyahoga Rivers.
You all know that Lake Erie is a great natural asset. It's
a major supply of drinking water, a recreational resource, a
fishery, and a source for transportation. It has enormous,
positive impact on the economy, environment, and the quality of
life in our State, enormous. I have seen, firsthand, the
tremendous impact Lake Erie's revival has had not only on the
ecology of the lake, but also on Ohio's economy.
If you look back 40 years to the time when the lake was
dying, and look what it is now, you can appreciate the impact
that the lake has had on Ohio. We cannot let anything diminish
or set us back in our efforts to maintain and improve Lake
Erie's water quality. From the testimony submitted for today's
hearing, I am very concerned that we may be on the edge of
sliding back, rather than moving ahead.
That is why we're here today, to discuss increasingly and
extensive oxygen depletion, anoxia, in Lake Erie's central
basin. The existence of this ``dead zone'' phenomenon is deeply
troubling. You know, anoxia over the long term could result in
massive fish kills, toxic algae, and bad-tasting or bad-
smelling water.
In order to better understand this occurrence in Lake Erie
and determine what, if anything, can or should be done to
prevent dead zones in the future, we have to conduct extensive
research.
I look forward to hearing more about the research being
conducted in Lake Erie, and its results thus far. I'd also like
to hear from you today, about your opinion of the adequacy of
funding to do the research on this phenomenon that we're
confronted with. I'm pleased that the USEPA has taken this on
very seriously and that you've got the Lake Guardian out here
doing the research work and monitoring the progress, if any is
being made.
I'd also like to thank Governor Taft. Recently, I wrote to
him about my concern about dead zones in Lake Erie. Last week,
I received a very, very informative response describing the
State's efforts to address this new challenge, which I will
make part of this hearing record.
I'm pleased, also, that the Lake Erie Protection Fund has
provided some billion--not billion, too many days in
Washington--this million and a half dollars for ten projects
that directly assess issues related to oxygen depletion. I also
have requested that a provision be included in WRDA 2002 to
authorize the Army Corps to study and report on water quality,
environmental quality problems throughout the waters of Lake
Erie resulting from the formation of dead zones.
I notice that Admiral Silva is here today. Admiral, we're
very happy to have you here. I had a chance to meet the Admiral
several weeks ago, and with you on board we're looking forward
to having a wonderful relationship with the Coast Guard.
And, again, I apologize for the long statement, but I
thought some of you should get a little perspective about how
long I've been working on this battle to save Lake Erie, and
how, after all of this work, I don't want to see us go back at
all, period. We've got to move forward.
So we are very, very fortunate to have with us David
Ullrich, who is the Deputy Regional Administrator of Region 5,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Gary.
I think I'll first call on Dr. Ullrich for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. ULLRICH, DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
REGION 5, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS
Mr. Ullrich. Good morning, Senator, and thank you very
much. I'm very pleased to be here.
As you mentioned, I'm the Deputy Regional Administrator for
EPA out of Chicago. I'm here on behalf of Tom Skinner, who is
our regional administrator and head of our Great Lakes office
as well. I thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to
talk about the troubling changes that we are seeing in Lake
Erie.
What I hope to do is present a summary of the current
situation as we see it, and our response to what may be
occurring in the lake. I will address the committee's questions
regarding why anoxia, or the low oxygen levels, is occurring,
particularly, in the central basin of Lake Erie. The effects of
anoxia on the lake's ecosystem, and solutions to prevent anoxia
from occurring in the future.
I will also be submitting, for the record, the Lake Erie
Lakewide Management Plan, the Lake Erie Supplemental Study on
Trophic Status, and the Great Lakes Strategy. I will address
these during my presentation.
As you mentioned, it was two to three----
Senator Voinovich. We'll also make them part of the record.
Mr. Ullrich. Very good, thank you.
Senator Voinovich. And one of the things I would like to
explain to our witnesses, if you could keep your testimony to
within 5 minutes or so, I would be very, very grateful, so we
can get everybody on. Thank you.
Mr. Ullrich. I will do my best.
It was two to three decades ago that the U.S. and Canada
spent, literally, billions of dollars to upgrade sewage
treatment plants, ban phosphorus from detergents, and improve
agricultural nutrient management practices, all of which helped
bring Lake Erie back from the brink of disaster to what it is
now, one of the greatest environmental successes today.
Instead of sitting here on the shores of Lake Erie in
Cleveland, next to a dead lake, we now see the affects of a
true environmental renaissance on the Lake Erie shore line. The
fruits of this economic rebirth have been spurred by the
cleanup and revitalization of the Cuyahoga River, and the lake
itself.
Senator we appreciate all you've done to contribute to
that. You've given Lake Erie back to its citizens with the
attendant recreational and economic opportunities, not the
least of which, is a billion dollar world-class walleye
fishery.
To maintain this success, EPA monitors nutrient levels as
part of our Great Lakes Office Annual Monitoring Program.
Through this program, we started noticing troubling signs of
change in Lake Erie in the 1990's. Total phosphorus
measurements, always considered a good indicator of the health
of the lake, started to increase after years of decrease. These
results were supported by Canadian data. Perhaps more telling
was the return of a very low oxygen level in a large area in
the central basin of Lake Erie, an area which has been referred
to as ``the dead zone.''
The appearance of anoxia in Lake Erie is not a new problem.
It's something that EPA is quite familiar with, and which we
have successfully addressed in the past. But there is a new
twist to the problem this time around.
Our past experience identified external loadings of
nutrients, particularly phosphorus, as the main reason for the
existence of anoxic conditions in the lake. EPA, and others,
created the models that set targets for reductions of
phosphorus to alleviate the anoxic condition in the lake. Once
we reached these targets, the lake responded accordingly. Our
current data, however, does not indicate any significant
increases in loading of phosphorus or other nutrients to Lake
Erie from external sources. So something different seems to be
taking place.
One might ask if we should be concerned about these
changes. My answer to that is an emphatic, yes. We should be
concerned because there are a number of possible large scale
and, potentially, very costly impacts which may be due to the
changes we are observing. These changes could include impacts
on fish and wildlife, beach closures, impacts on drinking water
quality, and impacts from exotic species.
So clearly there are ample reasons to justify our concerns
regarding the changes in the Lake Erie ecosystem. But why is
this happening now? What is different about the current
situation, as compared to the past problems?
Many scientists suspect the zebra mussels and other exotic
species are starting to reshape Lake Erie's ecosystem in ways
which they have not fully fathomed. Others theorize that the
lake can be suffering from the combined effects of increased
temperatures and lower lake levels.
Whatever the reason, I am here today to assure this
committee, and the public, that EPA is aware of the recurrence
of this problem, that we are already taking steps to address
many of the concerns raised in this hearing. I will elaborate
on two of these steps. First, in response to our identification
of rising levels of phosphorus in Lake Erie, the Great Lakes
office is undertaking, with many others, a $2 million dollar
Lake Erie Supplemental Study of the Trophic Status. You'll be
hearing more about that, and we have a number of prominent
scientists, including once from Ohio University, the Ohio State
University, and Case Western Reserve University, among others.
I strongly feel that this study will help us identify, if
not answer, many of the questions that the committee has
raised, and will help guide our solutions.
The second major step being taken is what we refer to as
the Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Erie, which looks at a
wide range of things that need to be addressed, including this
problem. It involves many state organizations of the U.S. and
Canada, and we'll be working together on implementing those
solutions for the problems, and particularly the ones we
identify in connection with the increased phosphorus levels.
These two things together, the study and the Lakewide
Management Plan, plus a recently developed Great Lakes
Strategy, which covers the broader five Great Lakes area and
developed by the U.S. side, are things that will work together,
again, to help identify the problems, the causes of the
problems, and implement the solutions.
With this study in place it will help us understand and
develop these solutions that we need to develop. We need to
have a full understanding of the relationship between the
external phosphorus inputs and the anoxia problem. There is no
indication, at this time, that the loadings have increased, but
I might add, that that needs further investigation.
A likely part of any long-term solution to the anoxia
problem is made to aggressively address and to limit the
introduction of exotic species into the Great Lakes. If zebra
mussels are identified as the root cause of the anoxic
conditions in Lake Erie, we will need actions above and beyond
what the scope of EPA can do to address this problem and
prevent future introductions that could cause even more severe
problems in the Great Lakes.
You may be aware of the Asian Big Head Carp that is now
threatening the lakes. This is a voracious bottom feeder that
would further complicate the situation, and adversely effect
the ecosystem. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that what is
happening in Lake Erie is not new, but its root causes may be.
We are aware of this problem, and we have mobilized the
resources and expertise to help us determine what actions need
to be taken to address this troubling situation. Again, I thank
the committee, and you, Senator, personally, for giving us an
opportunity to speak. I will do my best to answer any questions
that may be presented later.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Gary?
STATEMENT OF GARY L. ISBELL, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, OHIO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. Isbell. Thank you for taking such an interest in the
issue, and on behalf of Director Speck and those in the State
of Ohio, I want to express appreciation for the committee's
willingness to seek input on this serious issue.
One of the things that I want to point out, it was my hope
that in our examination of this issue that people don't
erroneously conclude that the lake is dead or that fishing out
here is less than pretty spectacular. I know that. You know
that, and I want to make sure that, from a fishery management
standpoint, that people understand that the lake is still a
very viable resource.
Senator Voinovich. Gary, I'm glad you brought that up. One
of the reasons why I want to have this hearing is to clear the
air on that. We have writers here that cover outdoors, and I
want to make it clear that that's the case. So often what
happens is that people say the lake is dead, and before you
know it everybody gets down on it, and the psychology just goes
in the other direction.
Mr. Isbell. Thank you.
While many of the rampant problems of the 1960's and all
the images of the burning Cuyahoga River are gone, there are
some new challenges, as the first witness has talked about.
The problem that the anoxic zone in Lake Erie is not that
it exists, but it's size, frequency, and duration are changing.
The anoxic zone is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but can be
a serious detriment to the ecosystem if it gets too large,
thereby limiting the potential of the lake to produce the
benefits we really enjoy.
The real problem about the anoxic zone is just when we
thought we had it figured out and managed, it's behaving in
ways that we don't fully understand. We are unsettled by the
observation that the reduction in nutrient loading, brought
about by pollution controls over the last 0 years, appear to be
trumped by something mysterious. A leading hypothesis is that
zebra mussels are at the heart of the mystery, perhaps
recycling nutrients that contribute to the development of a
larger anoxic zone. A couple comments I want to make about what
should be done. First, we must be aware that there may not be a
reasonable cure or fix to this current problem. However, we
think that the collaborative study sponsored by the USEPA is a
step in the right direction. Levels of nutrients in the lake
and their effects on microorganisms were monitored fairly
comprehensively in the past, through a similar USEPA sponsored
study.
However, recent monitoring has not been funded sufficiently
to help us detect problems or to devise solutions. As a result,
comprehensive phosphorus monitoring, for example, was
discontinued in 1994 for a brief time. While sampling was
resumed in 1996, it really hasn't been consistent from year to
year, and coverage of the lake, in terms of time and space, is
not sufficient for us to be able to determine cures.
A stronger and more robust monitoring effort, we think, is
justified and fundamental to the development of sound
management strategies for the lake. This is an effort that is
appropriate for Federal funding and leadership. We must have a
solid, long-term data about the basic features of the lake in
order to detect problems and prescribe solutions.
Second, this mystery about the anoxic zone is yet, I think,
another wake-up call about the seriousness of invasions of
aquatic nuisance species, and you know I've been involved in
that whole issue for a long time in the department. Each new
invader brings with it a random box of mostly negative effects.
Some of the effects are not so subtle, such as predator-prey
interactions of sea lamprey that devastated fisheries in the
last century.
Sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes, we think, is a
success story, thanks to the congressional support of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission and those sea lamprey control
measures. Although difficult, these types of effects, those
predator-prey effects are much easier to control and to model
than the ultimate effects of nutrient recycling on, perhaps,
yellow perch off of Cleveland here.
It's been 12 years since the passage of the first
comprehensive Federal law regarding aquatic nuisance species.
Even so, each year there is still more alien species that find
their way to the Great Lakes. This is biological pollution that
has the potential to permanently devastate many of the lakes'
beneficial uses. A legacy we should strive to leave is a solid
Federal policy that shuts the door to future invasions of the
Great Lakes.
Anoxic zone mystery is just another part of a larger,
complicated set of issues. It's encouraging to us, at the State
level, to see Congress taking an interest and being willing to
act. We urge you to do so, quickly, by funding more
comprehensive monitoring with the lake. Lake Erie, given its
hydrology, can change very quickly. Quick action may avert some
significant and lasting negative effects.
Also, we urge you to act with a response that is
appropriately scaled to the size of the problem. This is a huge
resource; therefore, investigations and solutions will not be
cheap. Water quality programs, lamprey control measures,
electric fish barriers, ballast water management systems may be
very expensive. However, the billions of dollars of resource
values that are generated in the Great Lakes are worth it.
Finally, we urge you to act comprehensively. The anoxic
zone problem is not an isolated issue within the Great Lakes
ecosystem. It is critical for the development of long-range
solutions to address the influx of invasive species into our
waters as well. Therefore, I would encourage Congress to
support a re-authorization of the National Invasive Species
Act, and work collaboratively in strengthening and monitoring
the survey efforts necessary. With proper funding, numerous
State and Federal and private entities should be utilized to
partner in the effort to conserve and protect this resource.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide input to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Please feel free to
call upon the State agencies for additional information or
review of strategies that may evolve from your initiatives.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Gary.
Thank you both for your testimony.
Mr. Ullrich, how much coordination goes on between the Army
Corps of Engineers and the EPA on this specific problem?
Mr. Ullrich. On this particular problem, we're really just
beginning to work with the Corps of Engineers on this. We have
an office in Chicago that focuses on activities there. It would
be out of our Cincinnati office that has responsibility for the
Great Lakes and Ohio River.
I think we're really, still, in the early stages on this
particular issue. We've worked on lake level issues and
contamination sediments very extensively, so we've got this
network of working relationships there, but we're very much in
the early stages on this specific issue. But I think we've got
an effective working relationship that should form the basis of
a good partnership on this effort.
Senator Voinovich. Do you think it needs a little bit of
encouragement?
The reason, I keep observing, in a lot of Federal agencies
where they have relationships with each other so often--you say
the same thing on war on terrorism, at home agencies talking to
each other. We don't seem to have enough of that going on.
What I might do is get hold of General Flowers and ask if
he can talk to Administrator Whitman and see if we can get a
memorandum put together that focuses all the resources that
concentrate on this problem, so the left hand knows what the
right hand is doing.
Mr. Ullrich. That is always helpful, Senator. We recently
signed a memorandum agreement on contaminated sediments in
urban rivers, which could help the Cuyahoga, among others, but
that kind of thing is always helpful. Again, it deals with
people working with one another to try to break through the
institutional barriers that are there. I have certainly found
in the past that letters, like you suggest, can be very
beneficial.
Senator Voinovich. The other thing that would be very
helpful to me, is to get a summary of all of the funding
sources, right now, that are going to this issue, and identify
what they are and the prospect of looking at additional money
for this kind of work.
For example, the Great Lakes Protection Fund has provided a
million and a half dollars. That's basically dealing with what
the phosphorus levels are, looking at this problem.
Has any of that money gone into dealing with the invasive
species?
Mr. Ullrich. There are separate funding from the Great
Lakes Protection Fund, and also from our Great Lakes office,
particularly this new electric barrier that's put in the
sanitarian chip canal in Illinois to keep the big head carp out
of that. But, yes, there has been funding that has been used.
Senator Voinovich. Do you want to tell me about that? All I
know about it is somebody called me and said that there's a
problem with this Asian carp, talking about electric barriers.
Where is it at, and how do the barriers work?
Mr. Ullrich. Well, it's just southwest of Chicago, I think
the closest smaller town there is Lamont.
It's basically a wire stretched across the Illinois
Sanitarian Chip Canal that is basically the connection between
the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watershed through the
Illinois River. In April, under the Corps of Engineer's
leadership and Fish & Wildlife Service, USEPA and many others
were involved, it's basically an electric current that is put
through that portion of the river, or the Sanitarian Chip
Canal, and it's basically designed to keep all of the fish
species on the Lake Michigan side on that side, and on the
Illinois River side on the other side.
Senator Voinovich. So it's an electronic wall that's aimed
at all species?
Mr. Ullrich. All species, correct.
Senator Voinovich. You want to keep the river species out
of the lake?
Mr. Ullrich. Correct.
Senator Voinovich. And vice versa? Actually, it's flowing
in.
Mr. Ullrich. Right. The early indications are that it looks
like it's effective. I think there are some concerns about it's
long-term viability, but something needed to be done
immediately, because these big head carp, and there are other
varieties as well, have been slowly working their way up the
Mississippi and then the Illinois River.
Once they get into the Great Lakes, as much as we
experience with both sea lampreys and zebra mussels, it's
extraordinarily difficult to control it at that point, so
keeping it out of the system, is really where a priority has to
be put. So we are optimistic about this, but it's something
that has to be watched very carefully.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that many of us are
concerned about is the zebra mussels, and now there's another
mussel related to it.
Mr. Ullrich. Quagga mussel.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, the quagga.
We talked about this a long time, there isn't any predator
for them, I guess. We've done some studies on that.
Is there any way that we can get rid of the zebra mussels
as we did with the lamprey?
Mr. Ullrich. My understanding is that we haven't been very
successful with that as of yet. Gary is probably more familiar
with some of the work that's been done. I guess the round
gobies do eat some of them.
Mr. Isbell. We find zebra mussels and quagga mussels in the
stomach of a lot of the fish in Lake Erie, even yellow perch,
which is quite surprising, but not to the extent that they
would really control their abundance in great numbers yet.
As far as physically removing them, other than in the water
intakes and so forth, there doesn't seem to be any control
measures there.
Senator Voinovich. There's nothing that anyone has come up
with, either chemical or predator or anything of that sort,
that would start?
Mr. Isbell. To reduce their abundance, in general, in the
lake, no. To reduce their abundance, maybe locally, I think
gobies may, indeed, have effects on them. There are some
control measures we're using, for instance, in our hatcheries
and so forth, to make sure they're not spreading out, but not
in a general sense out in the lake.
Senator Voinovich. Well, what worries me is that if the
research were completed and that's the problem, what do you do
about it?
Mr. Isbell. That's why I mentioned in my text that it may,
indeed, be something that we're aware of and if it effects
things out there, there may not be much we can do, other than
control the loading phosphorus, things that we do have control
over.
Senator Voinovich. I would be interested in your
recommendations, yours and anybody else here, in terms of the
Invasive Species Act we talked about, re-authorization of that.
Also, you're--getting back to what I said earlier about
funding in terms of its adequacy.
Mr. Isbell. Let me talk about aquatic nuisance species.
First, Dave mentioned the Sanitarian Chip Canal issue and the
electric barrier issue, that is, indeed, one of the focal
points of aquatic nuisance species, both leaving the Great
Lakes and affecting the Mississippi drainage, as well as
Mississippi aquatic nuisance species, such as the Asian Carp
finding their ways into the Great Lakes.
That's an issue that is yet unresolved. The electric
barrier, as David talked about, is a first measure. It was
originally designed with gobies in mind, trying to keep gobies
from coming to the Mississippi. But, obviously, it has a much
broader use.
The other point, as you're well aware, is that everything
that comes into the Great Lakes via ballast water, comes up the
St. Lawrence, pretty much. We have that issue to deal with,
ballast water. I think the National Invasive Species Act is an
excellent instrument to address additional ballast water
research, ballast water management systems, regulations and so
forth, which has probably slowed the parade of aquatic nuisance
species to the Great Lakes. Nowhere to the point where we feel
comfortable about it.
Again, if we don't have the sort of constant monitoring out
here, what's going on in these lower levels, such as the
nutrient levels and microorganism levels, by the time you and I
see a difference in our walleye and perch fishing, it's too
late.
Senator Voinovich. Right.
Mr. Isbell. That's what worries me.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that you mentioned,
also, was the issue of how valuable Lake Erie is to this
region, and to the country. I suspect that the Department of
Natural Resources, or someone, has captured the economic impact
of our Great Lake.
Mr. Isbell. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. It would be very important to me if we
get that information in one place, because if we're going to be
arguing, as you can well imagine, there is competing needs in
Washington. Everybody has got their own pet project, as I
mentioned the Everglades, the money we're spending there and
other places, and we need as much information as possible to
say, look, this is a real problem, something needs to be done
with it, and this is the impact that it has on the State and on
the region. So that I've got some ammunition there to justify
the expenditure of more money. I'm sure that's someplace.
Mr. Isbell. Senator, if I know Jeff Reutter at all, he'll
probably give you some numbers before we leave.
Senator Voinovich. His eyes are gleaming there.
Mr. Ullrich. We do have data on that as well, Senator. I
think the sport fishery, alone, on Lake Erie is estimated at
well over a billion dollars.
Going back to your question on the invasive species, my
concern is that it isn't being recognized for the magnitude of
the problem that it is, and just getting some more visibility
to it.
Invasive species are causing billions of dollars in this
country to deal with. In the Great Lakes, alone, we're seeing
about one new species a year introduced. The area that we're
most concerned about, in the work that we've done, are these no
ballast on board ships that aren't required to do the ballast
water exchange out beyond the exclusive economic zone of 00
miles, but come in with no ballast on board, but have some live
predators still in the ballast tanks. As water is exchanged,
while it's going through the Great Lakes, we feel that that is
the primary source of the new introduction of species.
We work very closely with the Coast Guard and Fish and
Wildlife Service, both on the U.S. and Canadian side, to really
pinpoint this. The real problem, right now, is effective
treatment of the ballast water, and finding a way to deal with
that is really where research is needed. EPA is doing some of
that research, but much more is necessary.
So that's really--there are other vectors, but that no
ballast on board situation is the one we're most concerned
about and we're working closely with the Coast Guard.
Senator Voinovich. The Coast Guard is in charge of
enforcement?
Mr. Ullrich. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. But, again, you also need the
cooperation of the countries that are bringing this stuff in?
Mr. Ullrich. Yes, we do. But, again, the primary
cooperation has to be with Canada, so we have a uniform set of
standards that would be applied. A lot of work is being done
with the International Maritime Organization. Again, trying to
get an agreement across the entire globe on these things is
very difficult. Because of the sensitivity of the Great Lakes,
it's particularly important that we get these controls on
because it may be creating situations like----
Senator Voinovich. Again, if you've got some more on that,
I'd like to zero in on that.
One of the frustrating things I've had over the years, is
all the organizations that deal with the Great Lakes and trying
to keep track of them. It's just amazing. As you well know,
once an organization is created it's very difficult to get rid
of it.
I have one other question for you, Mr. Ullrich, and that
is, in your testimony you briefly discussed the occurrence of
type E botulism and avian botulism in Lake Erie in recent
years.
What are type E botulism, avian botulism? How are they
affecting the ecosystem? And why are they occurring, and what
are we doing to stop it? And do these exotic species have any
play in increased occurrence of this?
Mr. Ullrich. What we're dealing with with this botulism is
a bacteria that is particularly threatening to the avian
community, the birds and the water fowl and the gulls. Again,
this is something that does require more research, but there is
a feeling that there may be some connection with the phosphorus
and the zebra mussels. I'm going to leave this to the
scientists ultimately to determine this.
But it's felt with the buildup of decaying matter on the
bottom of the lake, and this being picked up through this zebra
mussels, perhaps, and through the round gobies, what has been
found, particularly, with some of the cormorants and loons that
have died, and the red-breasted mergansers as well, that there
have been some of these round gobies found in their guts where
the botulism may well have come from that have killed these
birds.
So, again, and maybe Gary has some more information on
this, but it's felt that there may be a link between these. The
die offs have increased recently, and it is an area of great
concern, so there is a feeling that that link may exist. Again,
it goes right back to the phosphorus zebra round gobie problem,
which are the invasive species. At a minimum, we've got to keep
new ones from getting in, and figure out, better, how to deal
with the ones we have.
Senator Voinovich. Gary?
Mr. Isbell. I think he's got it covered from that
standpoint. Just to let you know that, geographically, it seems
as though the problem has been east of here. We're not sticking
our heads in the sand, we're out there sampling fish and
following up on calls from anglers and so forth, and looking
when there is dead fish and sending fish for testing.
We have not experienced serious botulism problems down this
way, but since we don't know why exactly it's being caused,
we're trying to look and see if it's going to occur. It has
been quite serious for the recent year in Pennsylvania waters
and New York waters, and so forth. Those folks are very, very
concerned about it.
Senator Voinovich. Again, it's one of those mysteries?
Mr. Isbell. It's a mystery. Like he said, there is some
exotic species in the western basin, and with sheepshead, we
saw lots and lots of sheepshead, and we collected some samples
and sent those in, but it wasn't due to anything in the
environment, like low oxygen or decaying materials or anything
like that, so we are going to have to sort out what naturally
occurs each year versus some of the systematic effects. We
don't know that about botulism yet.
Senator Voinovich. You think possibly gobies might be----
Mr. Culver. It has been true that down east from here when
they open up animals that have died from botulism, they do find
gobies in there. Whether that's cause and effect or just an
association, has yet to be determined.
Senator Voinovich. Reminds me of the Everglades. There is
one problem, there's another one, we clean it up, but they have
some come exotic species that have invaded that, and unless
they get those under control, they're in big trouble.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I appreciate you
being here and we'll look forward to hearing on some of those
things I asked about.
Mr. Ullrich. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Isbell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Our next panel is Dave A. Culver, Ph.D.,
Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio
State University. Robert T. Heath, Ph.D., professor and
director of the Water Resources Research Institute, Department
of Biological Sciences, Kent State University. Elaine Marsh,
who is a board member of the Great Lakes United, Buffalo, New
York. And Great Lakes United, I've worked with them over the
years. Gerald Matisoff, Ph.D., professor and chairman
Department of Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve
University. And Jeff Reutter, director of the Ohio Sea Grant
College Program, F.T. Stone Laboratory, Center for Lake Erie
Research, Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium in
Columbus, Ohio.
Thank you very, very much for being here today. And I think
we'll start off with Dr. Culver.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. CULVER, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
EVOLUTION, ECOLOGY, AND ORGANISMAL BIOLOGY, THE OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. Culver. Thank you very much. I come here representing a
very large group of researchers who are involved in the LaMP,
involved in the EPA Supplemental Sampling Trophic Studies
Project, Lake Erie Index Program, and many, many others
activities.
What I would like to do is--actually, what I would like to
do is present some information that shows some of the results
of what we found. Probably, what I'll do very first thing is
restore that overhead.
What I would like to show is the fact that as it's been
discussed, the removal of phosphorus from Lake Erie in the
1970's and 1980's have been very effective in decreasing the
amounts of algae. We have the western, central, and eastern
basins represented on this graph. And you can see that although
we have different groups of researchers and different methods
and so forth, the general trend is down. Here is where my data
comes up, starting from LaMP sampling, and these have been done
by the Ohio Division of Wildlife, and the Canada Center for
Inland Waters.
Senator Voinovich. What year is that again?
Mr. Culver. 1995 was the first samples that we had.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mr. Culver. And you can see we had 3 years there where we
had fairly consistent low values of algae. And then, starting
in 1998, we see one very high point from the western basin when
we had a microcystis and toxic algobloom go on, I have not
included that point in regression, but you can see the western
basin has been getting back up to 1980's kinds of values. The
central basin has also increased, and I don't have data yet on
recent years for the eastern basin.
But this data, right here, are consistent with the EPA's
phosphorus data, which suggests that starting about the same
time, total phosphorus was going up. As we all observed before,
when total phosphorus goes up, the algae responds to that and
the increase in algae is going to be responsible for a faster
consumption of oxygen in the deep water of Lake Erie. So
there's the problem right there, and the fact that you can
measure it with oxygen or you an measure it with algae, either
one, clearly indicates we are seeing some changes that are
regressive, they're going back toward higher algo
concentrations like we had in the past.
I support what Gary Isbell said, it's absolutely just a
gorgeous lake out there. We were just out there 2 weeks ago on
the Lake Guardian, and it's just spectacular. But these datas
clearly suggest that we're going in the wrong direction.
The other couple points that I want to make about this is
that we have been measuring, in conjunction with our work, the
amounts of phosphorus released by zebra mussels. And we're also
concerned about the fact that quagga mussels are gradually
replacing zebra mussels in the lake. In fact, in the eastern
end of the lake there has always been lots of quagga mussels,
once they became introduced, in the deepest waters, but they
have also come into shallow waters now along the hard
substrates.
They're out there, and we just sampled again around South
Bass Island, and there is 10 times as many quagga mussels as
there are zebra mussels around South Bass Island, so this is a
huge change. In 1993 there was one quagga mussel for every 100
zebra mussels. Now there's one zebra mussel for every 10 quagga
mussels, so that's a big change. We also find that quagga
mussels, in our preliminary data, tend to release more
phosphate and ammonia than zebra mussels. So there's one
possible thing we're following up as part of the trophic study
as a potential source for the extra phosphorus we're observing.
But my final point is in terms of solving these problems, we're
not going to get rid of quaggas. We're not going to get rid of
zebras. I think what we're going to have to do is to work all
the harder on combined sewer overflows, reduce discharge by
agriculture, reduce discharge by cities and industrial
programs, and that's going to be expensive. Those are the
things we do have control over in terms of nutrient input into
the lake, and we're getting extra from zebra mussels or what
other source, the few things we do have control over require
additional help.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Heath?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. HEATH, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES, KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, KENT, OHIO
Mr. Heath. Senator, you know how professors are, we can't
clear our throat unless we have an overhead in our
presentation.
Senator Voinovich. We don't have that much in Washington. I
think we'd be better off if we had more.
Mr. Heath. I'm going to talk about one particular point
that we have been examining for the past several years, a point
that is about half a mile south of the international boundary,
due north of Huron, and is located at that point there. It is a
point----
Senator Voinovich. South----
Mr. Heath. So it's due north of Huron.
Senator Voinovich. Where is Kelly's at?
Mr. Heath. Kelly's is this, and this is Pelee Island
Senator Voinovich. You know it well.
Mr. Heath. One of the questions that we've asked is what is
different this year. And what is, first of all, not different
is that it becomes anoxic at this particular point. For the
past several years, and years before that, we have seen that
this particular station regularly becomes anoxic, so as it's
been pointed out before, it's not the--it's not that the bottom
waters are becoming anoxic, but rather that the region of
anoxia has become so much further expanded.
We have also asked at this point what--we've followed the
rate at which it has become anoxic and asked what is different
at this point, and whether this point is representative of what
is going on elsewhere or not. We don't know, but we would
suggest that these are places that need to be examined.
First of all, we've seen that there is lower transparency.
There is greater phytoplankton biomass. We've seen an increased
photosynthesis, at this point. There is also a diminished
phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton, which is an important
issue if we want to control this. If we see this as a
phosphorus problem, then it's a problem that can be contained
and controlled, only if the phytoplankton are responsive to
diminished phosphorus.
So we're seeing a diminished phosphorus limitation, and
also seeing greater total phosphorus, and most of that that we
have seen at this point is an increased dissolved organic
phosphorus, which is phosphorus that is conditionally available
to organisms, but is not necessarily immediately available to
organisms. And, finally, we've seen larger bacteria at this
point this year than we normally see, indicating that they be
more active, there may be a greater activity in the base of the
food web, or that their grazers are diminished. So it's
important to keep in mind that this may not be simply a
eutrophication problem akin to what we've had in the past. It
can also be many--there are many other possible explanations
for this.
How does this lead to anoxia? Just to step quickly through
this, increased production at the base of the food web can lead
to phytoplankton that are incompletely grazed and that, in
turn, leads to oxygen depletion when they're decomposed in the
bottom waters for naturally occurring bacteria.
How it is that we have this, you see it could be a food web
problem, which, I believe, is where further research needs to
be done. My colleagues, who I respect greatly, have focused
exclusively on this being a phosphorus production problem, and
we need to recognize that research needs to be done to examine
all of the possibilities with it being, perhaps, a greater food
web problem.
Senator Voinovich. You're saying it's a food----
Mr. Heath. A problem with the food web. So if you have too
many algae, it could be because something is causing
overproduction, which is where the predominant hypotheses are.
Phosphorus being recycled from zebra mussels, or it could also
be an inadequate consumption problem, that there is something
with the grazers, with the grazing food chains involved in an
incomplete grazing of the phytoplankton.
What I believe we need is, first of all, that we need new
ways of placing the current research into a more useful
context. We have--every time that the problem occurs in the
Great Lakes, as you know, we rush out and we do more research,
yet that research is seldom parceled together and grouped
together. We need to have ways of coordinating those
activities. For example, in large models such as found in the
Great Lakes Modeling Summit the focus on Lake Erie, which was
an IJC publication 2 years ago.
Also, we need ways of incorporating continuous,
comprehensive monitoring activities, such as is being done by
the USEPA, that are at levels far expanded than what we have at
the moment. Much of what we do is when there is a problem, then
we go out and we begin to do something. We need to have some
continuous, intensive monitoring to guard these Great Lakes.
And, finally, and I know that you have been one of the
champions of the Great Lakes for a long time, the Great Lakes
need to be valued as international treasures, and that issues
besetting the Great Lakes need to be addressed in innovative,
binational ecosystem monitoring, research and management
programs. So I would say that we need, also, to incorporate our
efforts with the Canadians.
Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
We are working with the Canadians on the issue of taking
from the Great Lakes, and it's comforting to know that Sam
Speck of Ohio is kind of coordinating that effort. I suspect in
the next year or so, what is it called the Lake Erie annex,
we'll be coming up with some Federal legislation to deal with
that problem.
It's amazing all of these international agreements, if it
wasn't for the WTO I don't think we would be involved in that.
Up to that time the Governors, I thought, were doing a good job
of handling the Great Lakes. And, of course, some of them said
that it's in commerce and, therefore, we need to look at that
aspect of it.
Never ends.
Elaine, I'm very glad to have you here today.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE MARSH, BOARD MEMBER, GREAT LAKES UNITED,
BUFFALO, NEW YORK
Ms. Marsh. Thank you very much, Senator. I was on a
conference call for my work with Great Lakes United last
Tuesday, and we were talking about what remains of the toxic
problems in Lake Erie and what needs to be done. And we were
talking, specifically, about you, Senator, and the work of the
Great Lakes Legacy Act that you are proposing, and we were
talking about things like Senate Bill 961 and how important
your work has been.
On the conference call someone said, we simply have to find
a way to thank Senator Voinovich for all of his hard work, so I
would like to take this opportunity, Senator, to thank you for
that. We really appreciate it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Marsh. I'm here as Lake Erie Regional Representative on
the Board of Great Lakes United, an international not-for-
profit coalition dedicated to protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem. Great Lakes United's
150 member groups represent tens of thousands of people from
eight Great Lakes States and the Provinces of Ontario and
Quebec.
We get most of our information from the other people on
this panel related to the scientific causes of the problems,
and our research certainly agrees that this is a very
complicated problem. That it involves nutrients from combined
sewer and sanitary sewer overflows. That it is related to
nuisance and exotic species, and that it's also related to the
global warming issues. So I would like to focus on a couple of
issues that we believe need to be corrected.
One of those is the issue of sewage infrastructure. As you
are well aware, it's a huge and expensive problem and one that
will not be solved unless there are some funds available from
the Federal Government. The city of Toledo is talking about
$400 million dollars. The city of Akron $370 million dollars.
There is no way, even with the best of intentions and greatest
plans that both of these cities have, that they can do that.
Ten times the rate of paying for sewage treatment which some
cities claim would be necessary in order to meet the 15-year
requirement of the CSO regulations, is not a possibility.
So this is just very, very important, and, in addition to
the anexia, there are other aspects of the problems related to
incomplete sewage treatment from combined sewer and sanitary
overflows. One of those is, beach closings. Beach closings are
more than a problem of phosphorus loadings, they are a problem
for recreational use, which is, in turn, a quality of life and
economic problem.
So we're very concerned about that and we're very
supportive of efforts to get new sewage treatment
infrastructure spending. We believe that the dead zone in Lake
Erie and the increased number of beach closings around the lake
are strong indicators that untreated waste inputs are on their
way to becoming a health crisis for Lake Erie communities.
Great Lakes citizens are advocating immediate end of
combined sewer overflows, and also we want mandatory
notification of daily bacteria counts at public beaches. We
believe that this would increase awareness, as well as safety
for the region's populations.
We certainly support the control of exotic species through
ballast water and other shipping issues.
Finally, in terms of protecting Great Lakes levels from the
potential future effects of climate change, we believe that we
need to greatly reduce CO2 emissions from two major
sources, coal fire power plants and automobile emissions. Great
Lakes citizen groups are advocating for mandatory cap of
CO2 emissions from power and transportation sectors
that guarantee reductions of CO2 emissions by 60
percent by 2020.
We also strongly support the research on Lake Erie under
the binational Lakewide Management Plan, headed by EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office and Environment Canada's Great
Lakes program. The LaMP mechanism, as mentioned by others, set
up under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, includes
government and public participation that are so critical to
successfully dealing with the complex set of events that we're
dealing with in Lake Erie.
We also ask that you and the committee support restored
funding of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Lakes
program to enhance monitoring and oversight of Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Dr. Matisoff?
STATEMENT OF GERALD MATISOFF, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT
OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY,
CLEVELAND, OHIO
Mr. Matisoff. I've been asked to provide technical
expertise, in part, because of my role as a project director on
EPA-funded grant Lake Erie Trophic Status, which began this
summer. Before proceeding, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank EPA personnel and the Great Lakes National
Program Office for making this project possible. It is only
through their recognition and involvement and rapid response to
mobilize the necessary resources that enabled us to conduct
this study.
My name is Gerald Matisoff, and I'm professor and Chair of
the Department of Geological Sciences at Case Western Reserve
University. I've also served as editor of the Journal of Great
Lakes Research for the past 5 years, and have been active in
Great Lakes research since the 1970's. I've provided a CV with
my written testimony, which includes my publications pertinent
to Lake Erie.
In my written testimony I have provided brief explanations
about why anoxia is occurring in the central basin of Lake
Erie, about the effects of anoxia on the Lake Erie ecosystem,
and about solutions to prevent anoxia from occurring in the
future.
I'll not reiterate those comments here, instead, I'd like
to take the remainder of my time to familiarize you with the
nature of our EPA-funded research on Lake Erie this summer.
Some of the other panel participants are actively involved in
the project.
Perhaps the best way to explain the nature of the research
is within the framework of a Lake Erie ecosystem model. If you
consider the projected figure, entitled Lake Erie Ecological
Model Lien, this figure is not in my written testimony because
it is not my work, but rather that of two colleagues of mine in
the Biology Department at CWRU. However, it illustrates, quite
nicely, the complex nature of the ecosystem and the problems
that we're trying to address.
What I would like to point out are the following four
points. First, note the black box with phosphorus and sunlight
as input materials, and fish as the output product. In this
conception, the entire system is driven phosphorus input to the
lake. In order to better understand this system, it is
necessary to better understand and quantify all of the
phosphorus sources, including point sources, tributarial
loadings, and internal cycling within the lake itself.
Second, the model does not consider spatial or temporal
variability. Clearly, the distribution of phosphorus varies
daily on a weather, seasonal, and annual basis. Similarly,
various ecosystem components are known to have patchy
distributions, which are small relative to the size of a very
large lake.
Also, it is well known that there are differences between
the three basins of the lake between the near shore and the off
shore. These various spatial and temporal variations are not
regularly measured and are not well understood. Third, zebra
mussels have completely changed the ecosystem. The lake is not
at equilibrium, so it is not known what equilibrium mussel
population will eventually be. Zebra and quagga mussels are not
the only non-indigenous species. To date, there are more 161
known exotic species and some, but not all of them, have caused
significant ecological havoc. The ecosystem changes will
continue to occur until the regular invasion of the Great Lakes
by non-indigenous species is stopped.
Finally, please note that this model is not linked to lake
chemistry, water exchange, dissolved oxygen, or the physical
flow of water nutrients or contaminants. A better understanding
of those linkages will be needed to better describe the
dynamics of the system.
Note that although the model appears to be a very
simplified description of the lake, and in some ways it is,
there are ,942 parameters buried in there. They represent
processes, and those processes are what the researchers on the
grant seek to understand. Our approach is to apply as many
tools and techniques as possible in order to collect the broad
spectrum of data need to determine its relationship between
widely different pieces of the ecosystem.
As a result, we developed a project that included
investigators to study as many pieces of the problem as
possible. In our project, we ended up with 27 investigators
from 18 institutions. Project is primarily field-based and was
designed to collect samples and data using EPA's RV Lake
Guardian and the Canadian Coast Guard Vessel Limnos. The
sampling effort includes the measurement of water-related
attributes, sediment-related attributes, an inventory of the
organisms within the water column and at the bottom of the
lake, including zebra mussels, to derive and extrapolate energy
processing and nutrient transfer from zebra mussels to round
gobies, and to quantify particle transport processes and
nutrient sources among compartments. There were 11 specific
objectives itemized in my written testimony and which are given
in the grant proposal. The field sampling is to continue
throughout the summer. To date, sampling trips aboard the RV
Lake Guardian occurred in June and July. Since the research
efforts have been focused on data collection, no attempt has
yet been made to fully coordinate the data and/or interpret it.
However, we are planning group meetings in mid-November and
next March and next June to compile and interpret the data.
We hope to have answers to many of your committee's and
EPA's questions. But while we hope to have those answers, it's
important to understand that this one time field-based sampling
survey will not, necessarily, provide all of the answers to the
complex ecosystem problems that are previously described.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Jeff?
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. REUTTER, DIRECTOR, OHIO SEA GRANT
COLLEGE PROGRAM, FRANZ THEODORE STONE LABORATORY, CENTER FOR
LAKE ERIE AREA RESEARCH, GREAT LAKES AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH
CONSORTIUM, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. Reutter. Thank you, Senator. It's always a pleasure to
see you, and I thank you very much for your leadership of this
and hosting this. I also want to compliment the other speakers,
and it is indeed a pleasure to work with all of the scientists
that have presented today. They are outstanding scientists.
It's also been a pleasure to work with your staff here in Ohio
and in Washington.
The take-home message from my testimony is simple. Due in
part to changes brought about by invading species, zebra and
quagga mussels and reduced water levels, I'm concerned that
Lake Erie is headed back to the condition of the, quote, dead
lake years in the 1960's and early 1970's. We must determine if
that is, indeed, accurate. And if accurate, we must identify
corrective actions.
Finally, we must recognize that Lake Erie may be a model
for many other bodies of water in this country, and we must
transfer the knowledge we gain from this lake to prevent the
same thing from occurring in other locations of the country.
Lake Erie is the southernmost, the shallowest, and the
warmest of the Great Lakes. The other Great Lakes are all in
excess of 750 feet deep. The deepest point in Lake Erie is 212
feet, making it the smallest by volume. The watersheds around
the other four Great Lakes are all dominated by forest
ecosystems. The watershed around Lake Erie is dominated by
agricultural and an urban ecosystem. As a result, Lake Erie
receives more sediment and more nutrients than the other Great
Lakes.
Now, if the lake is the southernmost, the shallowest, the
warmest, and the most nutrient enriched, it should be the most
productive. It is. In fact, we often produce more fish for
human consumption from Lake Erie than from the other four Great
Lakes combined, but it is possible to have too much of a good
thing.
A little over 30 years ago the Cuyahoga River burned, and
Lake Erie was labeled a dead lake. Nothing could have been
further from the truth. In reality, the lake was still alive.
We had put too nutrients into the lake from sewage and
agricultural runoff. These nutrients, especially phosphorus,
allowed too much algae to grow, and that alga used up all the
oxygen in the water and when it died, it sank to the bottom and
was decomposed by bacteria.
Scientists divide the lake into three basins. The western
basin is the area west of Sandusky, and has an average depth of
only 24 feet. The eastern basin is the area east of Erie,
Pennsylvania and contains the deepest points in the lake. The
central basin is the large area between Sandusky and Erie, and
the average depth in that basin is between 60 and 80 feet, and
it's also very flat. Unfortunately, it is that shape that
causes this basin to become the home of the dead zone.
Lake Erie stratifies, in the spring, with a warm layer on
top and a cold layer on the bottom. The line of rapid
temperature change between these layers is referred to as the
thermocline. These layers break up in the fall when the surface
layer cools to the temperature of the bottom layer. The
thermocline usually forms around 45 to 55 feet. This means that
the western basin is too shallow to have a thermocline, except
on rare occasions. The eastern basin will have a thermocline
and there will be a lot of water below the thermocline in that
cold bottom layer. The central basin will have a thermocline,
but there will be a very thin layer of cold water beneath it.
At the time the thermocline forms there is plenty of
dissolved oxygen in the bottom layer. However, due to its
depth, there is no way to add oxygen to the cold bottom layer
until the thermocline disappears in the fall.
Throughout the summer, the oxygen that was present when the
thermocline formed, is used by organisms living in the area,
including the bacteria, bacteria that are decomposing the
algae. If large amounts of algae are present, then large
amounts of oxygen will be required for the decomposition
process. Therefore, if we could reduce the amount of algae, we
could reduce the amount of oxygen required to decompose it.
Because the western basin seldom has a thermocline, this is
seldom a problem there. And because the eastern basin is so
deep, there is a large reservoir of oxygen in the bottom layer,
enough to last until the thermocline disappears in the fall.
The central basin, however, does not have a large reservoir of
water or oxygen in the bottom layer because the basin is not
deep enough. As a result, loss of oxygen or anoxia can be a
serious problem in the bottom waters of the central basin.
Areas of anoxia were first observed as early as 1930. And
by the 1960's and 1970's, as much 90 percent of the bottom
layer of the central basin was becoming anoxic each year. This
is why the lake was labeled a ``dead lake.'' To reduce the
amount of algae in the lake we needed to reduce the amount of
limiting nutrient. By limiting nutrient, I mean the essential
nutrient that is in the shortest supply. In fresh water this is
often phosphorus.
Our models told us that in order to keep dissolved oxygen
in the central basin, we needed to reduce the annual loading of
phosphorus to 11,000 metric tons. This was accomplished and the
recovery of the lake has been truly remarkable. That's the
history. That got us up to the late 1980's.
Then we've seen unpredicted results since that time. On
October 15th, 1988 we found the first zebra mussel in Lake
Erie. Sea Grant initiated a research project to document the
expansion, and 1 year later the densities in the western basin
had reached 30,000 per square meter. Our research indicated
that these mussels changed the way phosphorus cycles through
the system.
Beginning in the mid 1990's, USEPA Great Lakes National
Program Office observed a trend of increasing phosphorus levels
in Lake Erie. We shared our observations of unexplained
problems in Lake Erie with the GLNPO scientists, and they asked
that we bring together a group of Lake Erie experts for a
meeting in their Chicago offices in December of 2001 to discuss
the problems that we were observing, and to strategize about
solutions.
As a result of this meeting, GLNPO is currently funding a
one-year project, which Dr. Matisoff is leading, to better
understand the dissolved oxygen problem. And I know that Paul
Horviton and Glenn Warren were very much involved with that.
That rapid response was really pleasing to see a large
Federal agency really turnaround a large project within very
few months, and to see a group of scientists, again, led by Dr.
Matisoff, I think there are about 25 scientists involved with
that, to come together and address a problem that quickly.
I believe the oxygen problem is real and that it's growing.
I believe its caused by excess phosphorus and reduced water
levels, but I also believe that zebra and quagga mussels are
having a significant impact. And more phosphorus means more
algae and more zebra mussels, and because of zebra mussels,
Lake Erie may not be able to tolerate the large amounts of
phosphorus that it did in the past. Finally, with regard to
climate change, we should mention that because it's also
exacerbating the dead zone problem in Lake Erie. Since 1997,
the water level has gone down by three to four feet. This
reduction comes primarily from the cold bottom layer.
Therefore, as the water level goes down, the volume of this
layer is reduced, the oxygen reservoir is reduced, and we have
a greater chance of having an oxygen problem.
As for the current year, I fear this could be a very bad
year. We had a very wet spring. This means we probably received
large loadings of phosphorus from agricultural runoff and from
sewage treatment plants. Because many of our systems still have
combined storm and sanitary sewers, allowing untreated sewage
and the nutrients it carries to enter the lake.
I'm really pleased with your supportive efforts to try to
eliminate that problem and resolve the sewage treatment
problem, but we still have agricultural runoff and we still
have the zebra mussels to deal with. I have some thoughts and
recommendations, but I think I'll hold those for the
discussion. And I thank you for bringing this whole group
together.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
The quagga mussels were exotic species that were brought in
by the ballast, too. Were they here before the zebra mussel?
Mr. Culver. They came later, and they were brought in with
the ballast water.
Senator Voinovich. They're rapidly taking over the zebra
mussels?
Mr. Culver. Yes. We don't exactly understand why that is
the case. We anticipate that it's associated with faster
grazing or faster growth. There is some research now going on.
Mr. Reutter. There is much more research on zebra mussels
than quagga mussels. There are also about five additional
mussel species that could be introduced into the lake at any
time.
Senator Voinovich. So we don't have enough research--there
is no leveling off, it doesn't reach a future point where----
Mr. Culver. Actually, it works a different way, because
initially we felt there would be a leveling off because the
zebra mussels were associated primarily with hard substrates,
and they didn't live or grow as well on sandy or muddy
substrates. Gradually those areas have been covered with mats
of them, which make their own substrate. And then there are
quagga mussels that live very well in the soft substrate, which
they did in the eastern basin when they first came in.
It's hard for us to predict exactly how will eventually be
covered. One of the things this has been shown, is that unlike
many times when a species is introduced wherein you have just a
few specimens which form the founding population, very low
genetic diversity, very slow adaptation to new conditions,
zebra mussels came in with huge founding population, great
genetic diversity, and people were saying they could never live
very far south of here. And, of course, as everyone knows, it's
living down in Texas, very nicely in Texas, because of that
great genetic diversity. I'm anticipating the quagga will
follow the same.
Senator Voinovich. What other parts of the world have the
zebra mussels?
Mr. Culver. The only place that I'm familiar with are
Europe. They originally came from eastern Europe and moved into
western Europe about 300 years ago when they built a rather
extensive canal system, and that allowed the zebra mussels to
move through. And then there's some suggestion that the
improvement of water quality of the harbors in Europe has
helped as well. These are areas where low salt conditions and
all of these non-indigenous species can survive in the harbor
areas where the ships may pull in their ballast water.
Senator Voinovich. Have any of the Europeans tried to do
anything about it, any efforts, internationally, to deal with
the problem?
Mr. Culver. They were not very interested in zebra mussels.
They'd always thought everybody had them. And with major
research that's been done over here has stimulated a lot of
research in Europe. Ireland has just recently received zebra
mussels, and they weren't happy with that either. Boats that
were coming on ferries, pleasure boats that were coming on
ferries, from England over to Ireland were responsible, in
part, for introducing the zebra mussels into the rivers and
lakes of Ireland. That was happening in the late 1990's.
Senator Voinovich. So we can't learn from anyone else's
experience, we're the genesis of the research?
Mr. Culver. In large part that's true, but we're the only
one with a Lake Erie.
Mr. Reutter. When the zebra mussels first came in, we did a
great deal of looking through the literature what was learned
in other countries. One thing that we learned is zebra mussels
were going to be able reproduce when they are three or 4 years
old. In Lake Erie they are reproducing at 11 months old. Said
that they'd be able to lay 50,000 eggs, in Lake Erie they lay
one million eggs. Said that the larvae when they hatch would be
able to be suspended within the water column for 11 days before
they settle. They can scatter very far in 11 days in the water
columns. In Lake Erie they can stay suspended for 33 days.
Essentially, what we're seeing is that there is no place in
the world that has the kind of densities that we have. This is
zebra mussel heaven.
Senator Voinovich. Those were some of the observations
early on. Some said, ultimately, that will level off and that
hasn't been the case, and the quagga has added to that.
Mr. Reutter. We have done so much more work on zebra
mussels. It's a real mistake to assume they behave the same.
Senator Voinovich. They're a different species all
together--not all together but----
Mr. Culver. Same genus, different species. The quagga has
clearly been able to push the zebra mussels out. What that
means for the long term is hard to say.
Senator Voinovich. The theory is that they're what, they
excrete more phosphorus, is that it?
Mr. Culver. It's possible that they're producing a larger
number of larvae, and larvae are sticking to established zebra
mussels and covering them up, or they're growing faster or
they're competing for food at the bottom. And so if the quagga
mussel is able to suck in more of the water faster and extract
algae so that the zebra mussels that are there are receiving
primarily water that's already been cleared of its food supply,
then the zebra mussels will not grow as fast, will not produce
as many eggs and so forth.
But I've been amazed by how rapidly that change has
occurred, in 9 years to go from 1 in hundred to 10 to 1 is just
amazing.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Matisoff, you're coordinating--
somebody mentioned, the issue of does the left hand know what
the right hand is doing in terms of all of this research.
That's one of the questions I have, does anybody really
keep track of this in one place that knows what everybody is
doing, so that we're utilizing our research money in the most
effective way?
Mr. Matisoff. Not on a daily basis certainly, but we are
planning a meeting in November in which to share everybody's
data and try and see if we can, in fact, use the data to help
us understand and answer the broader questions.
Senator Voinovich. You have 27 people from 18 institutions
that are working on this?
Mr. Matisoff. That's correct, so we'll get the----
Senator Voinovich. Pardon me--who determined who the 27
were?
Mr. Matisoff. We knew pretty much who did what kinds of
research, so when we needed phytoplankton people, I called Dave
Culver, and when I needed bacteria people I asked Bob Heath--
and he turned me down, but so the answer to the question is we
know who does what kinds of research and we called around. And
I have a Canadian counterpart who did the same with the
Canadian institutions. So we assembled a team, and there were
many people who called--it was posted on a web page and they
gave us a ring after they found out about it. We tried to work
them into the project.
Senator Voinovich. You're coordinating this with the
Canadians?
Mr. Matisoff. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. And so the report that finally comes out
next year will be applicable, and both governments will be
benefiting from this?
Mr. Matisoff. That's correct. We hope to get everybody
together three times over the next year, to work assembling the
data.
Mr. Culver. It should also be pointed out, there are a
large number of Canadian researcher vessels that are providing
this kind of support. They're conducting this research project
in the same way that the USEPA Lake Guardian is doing.
Senator Voinovich. It's a real coordinated effort, that's
good.
Miss Marsh, are you doing what you can to lobby Washington
to try and get more money for sewage treatment facilities?
Ms. Marsh. Yes, we are, Senator, but we need support. We'd
be very happy to work with you to coordinate that, in whatever
way we can.
Senator Voinovich. One of the frustrating things, from what
I've heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that after all of
the research, we may conclude there isn't much we can do about
quagga or zebra mussels, that the only alternative we have is
do a better job with sewage treatment and dealing with the
problems of combined sewer overflows and agricultural runoff,
and you mentioned, also, some industrial problems that we could
be having, is that correct?
Ms. Marsh. Yes. And we also agree climate change is a
factor and CO2 emissions should be reduced in order
to alleviate further effects.
Senator Voinovich. Jeff, you talked about the fact that you
got lower water levels.
This will be my 23d year to go up to the Islands in my,
now, very old boat. It's very interesting that I was out with
Admiral Silva doing some public service announcements. One of
them was with the Coast Guard. And the day before they were
going to shoot the commercial on boater safety, I was told by
the man that ran the marina I had gasoline in my bulk, in our
boat there. I was saying afterwards to the admiral, thank God
the camera couldn't smell, or you would have had to go to
another boat.
But, anyhow, I've seen a lot over that period of time, and,
you know, it's going to be difficult if that's the problem and
we can't do anything about the other. I think that, somehow,
we're going to have to capture that so people understand that
that may be the only way we can do it; therefore, it becomes
more important that we deal with that problem.
Getting back to my point about water levels, I've been
going back and forth and I've seen the water levels going up
and down, and there were times, early on, when I was in the
legislature, they wanted me to turn on--have them turn off the
spigots so we weren't getting so much water, because the levels
were so high, and it wasn't too many years ago that they redid
the docks and raised them up. Now they're down. And I wish I
had brought some property on Cedar Point Road over by Cedar
Point. Everybody was selling their houses, it looked like the
water was just going to come over and invade them. Gary, you
remember that, too, I think.
And, of course, now the water levels are down. The issue
is--that's the debate we have in Congress about what impact
does global warming have on these water levels. But you
genuinely feel that the scientists here if you had another
three feet of water that it would be much different in terms of
the problems that we're seeing here with this anoxic situation?
Mr. Culver. Really the hypolimnion loses out. Because we
have the same wind stress and everything else that mixes water
down, so the hypolimnion tends to be thinner when the water
level is low. That's where we lose out under those
circumstances, that's correct.
Mr. Heath. I was going to say part of the problem, though,
is the water is warmer this year. As the lake becomes
shallower, then the bottom waters will be warmer, so while
there would be less--there would be a greater--the bottom
waters would be warmer, that would stimulate the activities of
the bacteria in decomposing the organic materials at the
bottom. So it's hard to say whether we would have larger areas,
or not.
Also, the problem with looking at this as a zebra mussel
problem is that that would be highly ironic, because the one
way in which you can get rid of zebra mussels on the bottom is
to have large regions of anoxia. Zebra mussels are not tolerant
to anoxic conditions. They require oxygen as well. I think we
need to examine these areas and to look at our research and our
hypotheses more broadly, than to simply focus on it as a zebra
mussel issue.
Senator Voinovich. It would be interesting, just to say, if
we've had warmer water and shallower water, then what impact
would that have on this increase on phosphorus in the lake, and
compare that with what you think you're getting from the quagga
and the zebra mussels.
Mr. Reutter. Those things really have to be looked at,
Senator. If we reduce the thickness of that bottom layer, there
is less oxygen available. In the sediments we're probably going
to have the same demand for oxygen. We'll use up what is there
more quickly. We'll see the anoxic problem occur sooner. It
will last longer. If the temperature continues to go up, for
every 10 degree increase in temperature, the rate of chemical
reaction is double, so not only will we have a greater demand
for oxygen, the rate at which we use it will also be increased.
All of those things are working against us right now.
There is an old adage we used to say when we had the high
water levels starting back in the 1972, 1973 area, we said that
dilution of the solution to the water pollution. We are going
exactly opposite of that.
Senator Voinovich. Colder waters, warmer waters, how does
that all fit together?
I was interested in Professor Heath, he talked about that
area I'm familiar with, and that's not the central basin, it's
the western. Wouldn't that be considered the western basin?
Mr. Heath. We would consider it right on the edge. Normally
we'll note that as the Sandusky subbasin, which is sort of the
gateway to the central basin.
As Dr. Matisoff mentioned, a lot of the assumptions in lake
research have been that if we look at the nearshore stations,
they will be very similar to off shore stations, but that's not
the case.
Senator Voinovich. What is the water depth out there?
Mr. Heath. Fourteen meters.
Senator Voinovich. You talked about the issue of
coordination, do you think that, from your perspective, we need
to do a much better job, or a better job, or a much better job
in terms of coordination?
Mr. Heath. I think we need to have a watershed coordination
plan in place, recognizing that the Great Lakes watersheds are
in both nations, in the United States and Canada, and we do
not, in my opinion, do a good job of that, despite the valiant
efforts of the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers and
International Joint Commission. We do not have a continuous,
ongoing data repository, nor do we have an annual meeting, that
Dr. Matisoff mentioned, to include Canadians. Senator
Voinovich. How can we improve that?
Mr. Heath. Well, I think we can improve that by doing just
that, perhaps, organizing meetings through the International
Joint Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Research
Managers, or by having web and Internet based data
repositories.
Senator Voinovich. Who would be the one that would put that
together?
Mr. Heath. Well, hopefully--I guess, hopefully us.
I don't have a ready answer for that. I would hope that
that would go through the International Joint Commission.
Senator Voinovich. I sure would be interested in your
thoughts on it. I mean, I think that's a big deal.
Mr. Reutter. I think we could make that happen, Senator.
I'm the past chair of the Council. David Ullrich is the chair
of the U.S. chair of the Water Quality Board. I think we could
make that kind of thing happen.
Senator Voinovich. I'd like your thoughts and consensus.
Maybe David, you, and Jeff could put together a recommendation,
memorandum, or something to me, that I could share with the
committee and with the Federal agencies, see if we can't move
this along.
I know I just had breakfast recently with the new Canadian
ambassador to the United States. We discovered that we knew
each other in different capacities. He's very concerned as I am
about all of the organizations, accessing all of our resources
and working as closely as we can with each other in some of
these areas.
The problem today is getting the resources, and you want to
make darn sure that you get them, you're using them as
efficiently as you can.
I'm going to tell you, switching the subject, to getting
money for sewage treatment, with the Federal budget today, as
it is, and all of the competing demands for the dollars, to get
more money for just, for the revolving, you know, the SRF, it's
going to be difficult. We need about $3 billion, at least. We
get about a $1,350,000,000. A few years ago I worked with
Senator Smith and some others, and we were able to increase
that. And also some grants, grant program, very modest 2-year
grant program, a billion and a half dollars, and you couldn't
do the grant program unless you fully funded the loan program.
They didn't do it.
So it's going to take an enormous amount of lobbying on the
part of a lot of responsible organizations to get Congress to
face up to the fact that we need to move forward and do
something in this area.
So I just--you know, one of the things that the public
doesn't know is that we have gone from a situation where we had
a $313 billion dollar surplus for 002, we're going to probably
borrow $340 billion dollars for 2002 just to run the
government. That is all of the Social Security surplus, plus
borrowing equivalent to about $340 billion, despite of what OMB
says, we're probably going to have to borrow $400 billion
dollars for 002. So everything that we're doing, it's all
borrowed money.
In the context of that, we've got to try to make some hard
choices and prioritize. The problem is that everybody wants to
do everything. You can't if we're going to turn this economy
around and get it moving. Then all of us have to be concerned,
because looking down the road, what are we going to have left
when the baby boomers hit Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,
there won't be any money for any domestic issues, even our
national defense, at the rate we're going.
We've got to make some tough decisions and put some money
into some of these areas. You know that the municipalities
can't handle it. The rate increases, I don't even want to tell
you how much we increased rates when I was mayor. That's a
military secret. It was a hell of a lot of money.
Ms. Marsh. Senator, I also think that there is insufficient
public understanding of the problem of combined sewer
overflows. We really are just beginning to understand their
effects on health, their effects on the economy, and we need to
do more to educate the public of what this actually means.
I think a lot of people don't even know what the terms
mean. When I talk with people and talk about untreated human
waste entering our streams and Lake Erie, everyone is aghast,
they don't know that that is still happening. So I think that's
a big part of the challenge.
Another part of the challenge, I think, is looking at our
definition of infrastructure. We need to look at non-point
source methods of capturing of storm water. Storm water Phase
II has two very good parts in it that deal with using the land
as a filter before it gets into a pipe. I think we need to do
that. I think there needs to be leadership on local, State, and
national levels related to, for example, wetlands. We need to
restore the protection that wetlands once had and,
specifically, isolated wetlands.
So there are a number of things that we as communities and
as States and a nation can do, in addition to sewage treatment
infrastructure.
Senator Voinovich. Well, one of the things I think that you
know, the EPA, Federal EPA, made all kinds of demands on
communities. And one of the questions I've always had is that
are those realistic demands? Combined sewer overflow, this has
got to be done, as you know. Again, the communities can't do it
themselves.
I keep referring back to the days when we did something,
remember it was 75/25, in 1985 we knocked it out and went to
the loan growth. We haven't seen very much progress since that
time.
Are you all confident that we're capturing the numbers on
the municipal waste? We're doing a good enough job?
I was kind of shocked to see that chart that was over at
the boat where it showed that it's kind of the same. My thought
would be from reading everything, you believe that we're
really--that is really the case?
Mr. Culver. Those are point source data and there is
monitoring being done of some of the streams and rivers to
capture non-point source and other sorts of things. We have a
little problem, like the one for the Maumee River, the location
of that sampling site is 10 miles upstream. So there might be
something happening in the town of Toledo that we don't know
about.
So there's a real need, if we're trying to model phosphorus
flow through the Lake Erie ecosystem, if there's an error of 50
or 75 percent in the loading that's coming in those data, if
they're off by that much, we simply cannot come up with an
answer or prediction of what will happen in the future, because
we're working--it would be like having a budget where there was
expenditure that didn't show up on the ballot sheet. You simply
can't plan under those circumstances or model.
Mr. Heath. Also, part of the problem is that the inputs are
episodic, and that monitoring does not always catch the highest
input events because those are often occurring after storms, so
you have agricultural non-point runoff and the combined sewer
overflow problems are not always accounted for because of the
episodic and the unpredictable nature of the input.
So I'm not satisfied that we know as well as we would like,
regarding the inputs. And that if we miss even a small amount
of those inputs in terms of time, we may be missing major
events in terms of quantity estimates.
Senator Voinovich. What's the breakdown in terms of
agricultural runoff versus municipal sewage?
Mr. Heath. Well, I don't know, but we're in a largely
agricultural watershed.
Senator Voinovich. The point I'm making, it gets back to
allocation of resources, and I know, in Ohio, we really tried
to work with the agricultural community in doing this no till
farming and use less fertilizer and all of the other stuff.
So if we're going to invest money, where would you get the
biggest return for your investment? If you had one choice, put
more money into the agricultural runoff and sedimentation, or
would you do the municipal?
Where would we get the biggest return on our dollar?
Mr. Culver. The greatest year-to-year variation is in the
stream flow or watershed, which would include the non-point
source, so it really strongly responds to rainfall and so
forth. But you might question whether or not the same number of
dollars applied to a agricultural source would be as effective
as where you had an institutionalized piece of equipment there,
here's that storm water, treating the phosphorus in it, and
reducing that to practical levels.
So it may well be that the effectiveness of the dollar
would be higher for storm water controls and sewage treatment,
but the total mass of phosphorus and the variation of that mass
of phosphorus is greater for non-point source.
Mr. Reutter. If we're putting in about 29 metric tons of
phosphorus, the model says we had to get back to 11,000 metric
tons, now we are down to the point it's about two-thirds coming
in from agricultural runoff, one-third from the other, we need
research. Those models that say that should be our target,
appear that they are no longer accurate. So we need to reassess
the way phosphorus is moving through the system, how it's being
cycled, how it's being used, because it's quite likely that in
the given scenario we have right now, 11,000 is not right. It
needs to be some other number.
So before we could really honestly tell you where the
reduction should come, we should determine what level is now
appropriate and acceptable because of the size of the reduction
is going to have a big impact on where we say that we should
take that.
Senator Voinovich. Dr. Culver, you, in your testimony,
talked a little bit about the bacterial contamination of
combined sewer overflows. Now we're talking about bacterial.
How much of the dead zone problem is attributed to bacterial
contamination?
Mr. Culver. I don't think very much at all. I think the
dissolved organic carbon coming from waste of that sort, really
are severely diluted by the time we get out far enough off
shore where we're getting anoxic zones. Problems for those are
more where that water is being held, close to shore, where it
will impact intakes for potable waters and the beaches, that
she has already mentioned.
So I think, it's probably fair to say, that most of that
effect will be near shore. It is clearly the case that sewage
does have organic matter in it. It does consume oxygen when
it's decomposed.
Senator Voinovich. So that problem is more for the beaches
and more for the folks that are trying to provide us with clean
water, but not this other problem?
Mr. Culver. That's correct.
Mr. Matisoff. I might add, it's two different kinds of
bacteria. The one source, that you're concerned about, is the
sewage source of bacteria. There are natural bacteria in the
mud and our water column and out in our lake. Those are the
ones that are consuming the oxygen in the bottom that we're
talking about.
Senator Voinovich. You've heard each other testify, is
there some comments that you would like to make regarding each
other's testimony, or any other comments that you would like to
share with me?
Mr. Reutter. Senator, I request--I think we've been most
successful in addressing this problem, by when it comes to
Federal funds, by getting directed funds from EPA through the
Great Lakes National Program Office and Sea Grant Program.
Those two groups, I would be very confident, would be able to
respond quickly to address this problem if additional funds
were made available.
Senator Voinovich. Pardon me.
Don't we get our Army Corps of Engineers money, and then
you get--your EPA comes out of a different budget, doesn't it?
EPA comes out of what budget?
Ms. Ransom. VA-HUD appropriations.
Senator Voinovich. VA-HUD, right, and then we get ours out
of energy and water.
So that's sometimes the problem, because VA-HUD, you can
imagine, think about that, EPA budget comes out of VA-HUD.
Mr. Reutter. You could be very helpful. Sea Grant is part
of NOAA. The Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab is part of
NOAA. It's currently going through a strategic planning
process. They'll be going around the county to gather input on
what should be incorporated into that strategic plan. They have
identified five hearings that they want to have around the
country.
One of the things that always frustrates me is that the
Great Lakes never gets its due. Our coastline is longer than
the east coast, west coast or the gulf coast.
Senator Voinovich. By the way, you have some wonderful
statistical information in your testimony.
Mr. Reutter. It's really a passion with me. We're often
overlooked. And here's another example, five hearings around
the country, the coasts are all covered except the Great Lakes
coast. They have identified one hearing to be cover the Midwest
and Great Lakes, and that hearing will be in Boulder, Colorado.
Senator Voinovich. Let's get this information down. Maybe
we'll get involved with that.
When are these hearings again?
Mr. Reutter. They're going to take place during the next
six to 8 months.
Senator Voinovich. Who's doing it again?
Mr. Reutter. This is NOAA. It would be really nice for you,
just as you've done here, to offer to host a hearing right here
in Cleveland. It would really get a focus for that particular
issue.
Senator Voinovich. Well, there is no question that the
Great Lakes have not received the attention that they deserve.
Even with the Coast Guard, one of the things that we finally
got them to do, even the admiral is knowledgeable about, in
terms of infrastructure problems that are needed for
transportation. You have them for the Mississippi River, you
have them for the other places in the country, but we don't
have that kind of plan in place. We don't have a priority list
of projects that need to be undertaken to just facilitate
movements of boats throughout the Great Lakes. It's just not
there. And I think that we really need to do a better job of
getting the Great Lakes legislatures to be more coordinated in
their efforts.
I think that gets back, to a certain degree, with all the
multiplicity of organizations. If you look at that list of
organizations, you would throw up your hands. Who do you talk
to? So perhaps we ought to get some folks together to talk
about how we can do a better job of coordinating advocacy of
the Great Lakes through various organizations that exist, so we
can get the message across.
How about the gobies, are they a threat?
Mr. Reutter. They're a threat to the fishery. The
information on the botulism is a real interesting one, because
it's possible that botulin is being transferred by gobies. That
should be almost impossible. There is some things going on that
we don't understand. There are also 14 other species of gobies
that are poised and the ready to invade.
Senator Voinovich. Wait a minute, what do you mean poised
to invade?
Are they here? Is the boat coming?
Mr. Reutter. Hopefully, no, to both of those. But they're
in the region that shipping comes from. The round gobies is one
of those species is more salt tolerant, it could do more damage
on our salt water coasts. They're clearly posing a human health
problem because they're allowing contaminants to be transferred
from zebra mussels to gobies to smallmouth bass. That is a
target species for anglers.
Mr. Culver. We've found that gobies attack nests of
smallmouth bass. Someone catches the bass, it's supposed to be
a fine thing, it happened to be on a nest, and while it's gone,
the gobies move in and eat the eggs of the juveniles of the
smallmouth bass.
Mr. Isbell can give you more information on that.
Mr. Isbell. All of these things are changing the way things
work.
Senator Voinovich. Well, it emphasizes that we have to have
ongoing research in a lot of areas, if we're going to stay up
on a lot of things. We have to take significant preventative
efforts, one is this issue of ballast water. We have to get on
that right away. Let's, at least, prevent anything new from
coming in.
Mr. Culver. The International Ecological Society has had
meetings in which the Europeans, in particular, have identified
invasive species that are moving around Europe, that are, as he
says, poised. There is a species called amphipods and various
sundry, other things, that are problems in Europe which we
don't have yet, but which could easily get here by the same
routes as the previous species. Those would make additional
biological changes to the system.
Senator Voinovich. We have our work cut out, don't we?
Thank you very, very much for coming today. I really
appreciate your taking time out of your schedules to share the
information.
This will all go into the hearing record, and we'll have
that available for the other members of my committee. And I'm
anxious to get back from you some of the things that I
requested of you.
I may have some other written questions that I may ask you
to respond to.
Thanks very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of David A. Ullrich, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5,
Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am David
Ullrich, Deputy Regional Administrator and Acting Regional Counsel for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5. I am here today
representing Thomas V. Skinner, EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Manager. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you
today regarding a potentially troubling change in the Lake Erie
ecosystem.
In my testimony today I will present a brief summary of the current
situation and EPA's response to what we think may be occurring in the
lake. I will try to address the Committee's questions regarding why
anoxia is occurring in the central basin of Lake Erie, the effect of
anoxia on the Lake Erie ecosystem, and solutions to prevent anoxia from
occurring in the future. I will also be submitting for the record the
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, the proposal for the Lake Erie
Supplemental Study of Trophic Status, and a copy of the Great Lakes
Strategy. All of these documents will be explained during this
presentation.
It was little over two decades ago that the U.S. and Canada spent
literally billions of dollars on intensive efforts to upgrade sewage
treatment plants, ban phosphorus from detergents, and improve
agricultural nutrient management practices, all of which helped to
bring Lake Erie back from the brink of disaster to one of the greatest
environmental successes to date. Today, instead of sitting here in
Cleveland on the shores of a dead lake, we now see the effects of a
true environmental renaissance here on the Lake Erie shoreline. We can
see the fruits of this economic rebirth that has been spurred by the
cleanup and revitalization of the Cuyahoga River and of the lake
itself. We have given the Lake Erie citizens back their lake along with
the attendant recreational and economic opportunities, not the least of
which is a billion dollar world-class walleye fishery.
To maintain this success, EPA continues to monitor nutrient levels
as part of the Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
annual intensive monitoring program. And because this program is in
place, we started noticing troubling signs of a change in Lake Erie in
the 1990's. Total phosphorus measurements, always considered a good
indicator of the health of the lake, started to increase, after years
of decrease. These results are corroborated by Canadian data. Perhaps
more telling was the return of very low oxygen levels in a large area
in the central basin of Lake Erie. This condition, whose technical name
is ``anoxia'', has gained the term ``the dead zone.''
The appearance of the ``dead zone'' is not a new problem; it is
something that EPA is quite familiar with and has successfully
addressed in the past. But there is a new twist to the problem this
time around. Our past experience identified external loadings of
nutrients, principally phosphorus, as the main reason for the existence
of anoxic conditions in the lake. EPA's Office of Research and
Development helped create the models that set the targets for reduction
of phosphorus to alleviate the anoxic condition in the lake. Once we
reached these targets, the lake responded accordingly. Currently,
however, our available information does not indicate any substantial or
significant increases in loadings of phosphorus or other nutrients to
Lake Erie from external sources. So something different seems to be
taking place.
One may rightly ask if we should be concerned about these changes
in Lake Erie. My answer to that is an emphatic yes. We should be
concerned because there are a number of possible large-scale and
potentially very costly impacts due to the changes we are observing.
These changes could include:
Impacts on the Lake Erie Fishery and Other Wildlife:
There are indications that a variety of changes are taking place that
may seriously impact the Lake Erie fishery. Larger areas and/or
increased duration of reduced oxygen levels in the water could lead to
reductions in the food base for fish populations, such as walleye. We
also have recent indications that burrowing mayfly larvae, another part
of the food base for many Lake Erie fish populations are being severely
diminished along the edges of the lake's central basin. These losses
indicate that future reductions of fish populations may occur.
We have also seen four straight years of large-scale fish and bird
die-offs, partly due to type E botulism which was last seen in the
Great Lakes in the 1960's but had never been found in Lake Erie. Mud
puppies, an aquatic salamander, sheepshead, rock bass and smallmouth
bass have all experienced kills during this period.
At the same time, avian botulism has caused the deaths of thousands
of water birds, including common loons and ring-billed gulls.
The presence of botulism in the lake may be due to the impact of
exotic species, such as the round goby, and the quagga and zebra
mussels.
Such changes in the Lake Erie ecosystem as outlined above could
lead to the formation of a fishery from one dominated by top sport fish
such as walleye and salmon to one dominated by bottom feeders. Such a
change would have serious implications for Lake Erie's billion-dollar
fishery.
Beach Closures and Loss of Recreational Opportunities: We
are observing many impacts of increased phosphorus levels in the lake,
including large, unsightly and smelly mats of algae called Cladophora
washing up on beaches, leading to beach closures and seriously
impacting recreational opportunities for Lake Erie residents.
Impacts on Drinking Water Quality: Microcystis blooms (a
form of blue-green algae) are also occurring. These blooms are thought
to be a direct result of a combination of over-enrichment of the lake
and the zebra mussel infestation. As these large blooms die and sink to
the bottom, they commonly release chemicals that can produce a foul
odor and musty taste that can be detected in tap water.
Present and Future Impacts of Exotic Species: If these
changes are related to zebra mussel invasion of the Lake, then what we
are observing may be the tip of the iceberg. As other exotic species
establish themselves, the Lake may go through continual disruptions in
its biology.
Lake Erie is the proverbial ``Canary in the Coal Mine'':
Due to its relatively short water retention time, Lake Erie is
ecologically susceptible and often the first of the Great Lakes
affected by chemical and biological change. It is a bellwether for
parts of the other Great Lakes, especially for shallow embayments such
as Saginaw Bay, Michigan and Green Bay, Wisconsin.
So, clearly there are ample reasons to justify our concerns
regarding the changes in the Lake Erie ecosystem. But why is this
happening again and what is different about the current situation as
compared to the problem in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's?
Many scientists suspect that zebra mussels and other exotic species
such as round gobies are starting to reshape Lake Erie's ecosystem in
ways that lake researchers have yet to fully fathom. Others theorize
that the lake may be suffering from the combined effects of increased
temperatures and lower lake levels. Whatever the reason, I am here
today to assure this Committee and the public that EPA is keenly aware
of the reoccurrence of this problem and that we are already taking
steps to address many of the concerns raised in this hearing through
activities that have been underway for some time. I will elaborate on
two of these.
In response to our identification of rising levels of phosphorus in
Lake Erie, GLNPO has undertaken the $2M Lake Erie Supplemental Study of
Trophic Status which began on June 17, 2002, and which is being
cooperatively funded and managed by GLNPO ($500,000), Environment
Canada, and a roster of the preeminent Lake Erie experts from more than
20 universities and institutions, including Ohio University, the Ohio
State University, and Case Western Reserve University among others.
EPA is very pleased by the level of commitment of the researchers
involved in this study. We view the study results as the critical
element in our ability to address the issue of Lake Erie's changing
ecosystem.
Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the Lake Erie Supplemental Study
of Trophic Status, which is currently funded, already underway, and
being conducted in full cooperation with the Canadian government will
help us identify, if not answer, many of the questions this committee
has raised, and will help guide our solutions.
The other effort which must be mentioned is the Lake Erie Lakewide
Management Plan, or LaMP, that has been underway since 1995 and which
includes participation by both Canadian and U.S. Federal, Provincial,
State, and non-governmental organizations.
LaMPs are required under the 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, originally signed by the United States and
Canada in 1972. This historic agreement, created under the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada committed both
countries ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem''. There is also a statutory requirement in the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act of 1990 that requires EPA to develop LaMPs for
each of the Great Lakes.
LaMPs are cooperative binational plans of action to assess,
restore, protect and monitor the health of the individual Great Lakes.
They are used to coordinate the work of the many governmental and non-
governmental partners involved in managing the Great Lakes. EPA and
Environment Canada are the Federal co-leads for the Lake Erie LaMP.
Other LaMP member agencies include 6 State and 3 Federal agencies in
the U.S., 3 provincial and 3 Federal agencies in Canada, and one
binational commission.
LaMPs are shining examples of the ecosystem approach--the belief
that management efforts should address environmental, economic and
social factors in an integrated manner along ecological, rather than
geopolitical, boundaries.
The Lake Erie LaMP has already developed measures and
recommendations to improve water quality, environmental quality,
recreation, fish and wildlife habitats, and has identified remedies to
address associated problems in the Lake Erie basin. The LaMP considers
all existing relevant programs at all levels of government as well as
at non-governmental agencies that can be used to implement the required
remedial actions. And more importantly, the actions identified in the
LaMP have been approved by the Canadian and U.S. Federal, State and
provincial agencies involved in the effort.
In terms of phosphorus and other nutrients, it is the goal of the
Lake Erie LaMP that inputs from both point and non-point sources be
managed to ensure that loadings are within bounds of sustainable
watershed management. Currently, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement allows a maximum of 11,000 metric tons per year of phosphorus
loadings from point and nonpoint sources.
The Lake Erie Supplemental Study of Trophic Status will work with
the LaMP to inform and support its goals for addressing nutrient issues
within the basin, as well as other LaMP goals which seek to address
problems related to water quality and environmental quality.
I want to also mention that the work we are doing in Lake Erie
supports the goals and objectives of the multi-agency U.S. Policy
Committee's Great Lakes Strategy 2002 which was announced by EPA
Administrator Whitman on April 2, 2002. This Strategy is a shared
expression of the partners at the U.S. Federal, State, and tribal
levels of government, working together to restore and protect the Great
Lakes.
Given that we are aware of the problem, that we have a scientific
study in place to help us understand the situation and the decision
support system required, and we have the LaMP as the proper delivery
mechanism for the needed actions, what should our next steps be?
We need to develop a full understanding of the relationship between
external phosphorus inputs and the anoxia problem. There is no
indication at this time that loadings from any sources have increased.
There may be a need for more intensive monitoring of tributaries to
Lake Erie and for a review of point source permits and compliance with
their limits to see if there are facilities that may be inadvertently
contributing to the present change in conditions. Before re-examining
the phosphorus targets for Lake Erie we need to, at the very least,
insure that existing programs to control and reduce point and nonpoint
sources of nutrients to Lake Erie are fully implemented.
Any future work on resetting binational phosphorus targets for Lake
Erie would require extensive negotiations with our Canadian colleagues
to revise the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This would have to
be followed by in-depth Federal-State discussions regarding what would
be needed to achieve any newly set targets. Any such negotiations would
need to be based on good monitoring data, ecosystem models (such as
those developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development and GLNPO
to diagnose the cause or causes of the decreased oxygen), and sound
science.
A likely part of any long-term solution to the problem may be to
aggressively address and limit the introduction of exotic species into
the Great Lakes. If zebra mussels are identified as the root cause of
the anoxic conditions in Lake Erie, then we will need actions above and
beyond the scope of what EPA can do to address this problem and to
prevent future introductions that could cause even more problems in the
lakes. I am sure you are all aware of the Asian Big Head Carp that is
moving up the Illinois River and could enter the Great Lakes in the
very near future. These voracious bottom feeders would further muddy an
already complicated ecosystem in Lake Erie and in the rest of the
lakes.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that what is happening in Lake
Erie is not something new, but it's root causes may be. EPA is aware of
this problem and we have mobilized the resources and expertise to help
us determine what actions are needed to address this troubling
situation.
I again thank the Committee for the opportunity to address this
important issue for the Great Lakes. I would be happy to take any
questions that you may have.
______
Responses of David A. Ullrich to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Mr. Ullrich, please provide me with a summary of the
funding sources available for research on Lake Erie.
Response. There are several potential funding sources for Lake Erie
research. Federal agencies that provide funds include NOAA (Sea Grant)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including EPA's
Great Lakes National Program Office. The State of Ohio has provided
funding in the past through the Lake Erie Protection Fund, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources.
Question 2. Mr. Ullrich, what, if any, research of the Lake Erie
``dead zone'' has been funded by the Great Lakes Protection Fund?
Response. The Great Lakes Protection Fund has not directly
supported any research on Lake Erie anoxia. The Lake Erie Protection
Fund, however, has supported almost $2 million in projects that address
the changing Lake Erie ecosystem. These projects have served as a
springboard for the EPA Lake Erie supplemental study.
Question 3. Mr. Ullrich, are the targets for the reduction of
external phosphorus inputs into Lake Erie set appropriately? Do they
need to be revised?
Response. Phosphorus reduction targets were based on water-quality
models developed in the mid-1970's. Decreased phosphorus trends and
improved oxygen levels throughout the 1980's indicate that external
phosphorus loading targets have been appropriate until recently.
Research efforts are underway to determine the reasons for the
increases in phosphorus levels. Determinations about the P loading
targets cannot be made until this research is complete.
Question 4. Mr. Ullrich, how are aquatic nuisance species changing
Lake Erie's ecosystem? What is U.S. EPA doing to address aquatic
nuisance species already established in the Great Lakes and to prevent
the future introduction of additional species?
Response. Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) severely impact the Lake
Erie ecosystem in multiple ways. ANS in Lake Erie have caused
ecological changes to the lake by modifying the food web, changing
water clarity, and disrupting predator/prey relationships. ANS are
partially responsible for decreased populations of walleye and trout in
parts of Lake Erie. One nuisance species, the round goby, may be
responsible for the increase in Botulism E outbreaks in Lake Erie's
eastern basin. Botulism E is communicable to humans. Furthermore, zebra
mussels may cause sediment-bound phosphorus to ``recycle'' through the
lake, contributing to the larger and more frequent dead zones and algal
blooms within Lake Erie's central basin.
Once introduced and established in an ecosystem, ANS can be
impossible to eradicate. Even when control technology exists, these
efforts are burdensome and costly. For example, over $10 million a year
is spent on sea lamprey control to protect the Great Lakes fishery.
Unfortunately, control technology does not exist for most ANS.
EPA focuses on supporting efforts to prevent the future
introduction and establishment of aquatic nuisance species. EPA has
supported the development of an electrical barrier at the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the exchange of organisms between
the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems. The agency is also
working with the Great Lakes Commission to establish a rapid response
plan that would coordinate Federal, State, and local responses to
eliminate new introductions before they have a chance to become
established. EPA is continuing to pursue several efforts that would
decrease the threat of new introductions via ballast water from cargo
ships. In coordination with NOAA and USCG, we are investigating the
threat of so-called ``NOBOB'' (no ballast on board) vessels. (These
vessels have pumped out their ballast tanks prior to entering the Great
Lakes system, however there are still organisms in the residual,
unpumpable ballast that remains in their tanks.) EPA has also
contributed to the funding of ballast water treatment methods, in
particular the testing of ozone and UV technology. Finally, EPA has
funded a wide variety of ANS education/outreach efforts.
The Great Lakes Panel on ANS, established in the early 1990's,
advises the national ANS Task Force and coordinates prevention and
control efforts and education/outreach activities within the Great
Lakes. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office has long been an
active member of the Great Lakes Panel on ANS.
Question 5. Mr. Ullrich, how many beach closures in Ohio last year
were caused by Algae or bacteria discharged from municipal sewer
systems?
Response. Of 51 Ohio Lake Erie beaches that reported on their
status in 2001, 13 reported no-swimming advisories, all due to elevated
levels of indicator bacteria. High levels of these bacteria indicate
the possible presence of fecal contamination. Thirteen beaches were
under no-swimming advisories for a total of 342 beach days. Eight-two
percent of the advisory postings were related primarily to storm water
runoff; 5 percent were due to sewage-system overflows, and 13 percent
of the advisories were due to unknown sources.
Question 6. Mr. Ullrich, how exactly is the lake's ecosystem
affected by climate changes and lower lake levels?
Response. The regional or localized impacts of global climate
change cannot be predicted with any confidence at this time. In its
June 2001 Report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key
Questions, the National Academy of Sciences cautioned: ``Because there
is considerable uncertainty in the current understanding of how the
climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse
gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future
warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future
adjustments (either upward or downward).'' And the United States'
recent Climate Action Report--2002, that was submitted to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in May, further advised:
``One of the weakest links in our knowledge is the connection between
global and regional predictions of climate change. The National
Research Council's response to the President's request for a review of
climate change policy specifically noted that fundamental scientific
questions remain regarding the specifics of regional and local
projections. Predicting the potential impacts of climate change is
compounded by a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of many
environmental systems and resources--both managed and unmanaged--to
climate change.''
While science cannot currently answer whether climate change would
lower or
raise Great Lakes levels, it is understood that lower lake levels
influence the severity of the dissolved oxygen problem in the central
basin. And higher temperatures would cause increased rates of oxygen
loss. The warmer the water, the faster the organisms use oxygen and the
less oxygen the water is physically capable of holding. Lower lake
levels reduce the total volume of the layer of cooler bottom water,
thereby making the oxygen depletion occur more quickly in this layer.
Higher temperatures would also have the likely effect of extending the
period of seasonal stratification, giving more time for oxygen
depletion to occur.
Question 7. Mr. Ullrich, how successful have binational agreements
such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Boundary Water
Treaty been in Restoring the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem? What
were the particular challenges and goals identified in these
agreements? What still needs to be done to achieve those goals?
Response. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)--an
executive agreement established in 1972 under the Boundary Water Treaty
of 1909--has been very successful in guiding the U.S. and Canadian
Great Lakes programs. It continues to be a model for international
cooperation on a shared natural resource. EPA has hosted many foreign
visitors who have requested briefs on the Agreement in order to use it
as a model in their home countries.
The original GLWQA of 1972 focused on the problem of excess
nutrients. It set goals for phosphorus loadings, including those that
led to the restoration of Lake Erie. The 1978 revisions emphasized
controls for toxic contaminants. Specific objectives for many
contaminants were established to help guide U.S. and Canadian domestic
pollution reduction programs, and as a result, contaminant levels in
fish and colonial nesting birds have been significantly reduced. This
is particularly true for DDT and PCBs. The 1987 revisions to the GLWQA
focused on using an ``ecosystem approach'' and established the use of
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs).
These management plans are holistic efforts that move beyond problems
caused solely by toxic contaminants to address ecosystemic problems
such as habitat loss and impacts on fish and wildlife populations.
It should be noted that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which
was established in 1955 by the Canadian/U.S. Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries, coordinates fisheries research, controls the invasive sea
lamprey, and facilitates cooperative fishery management, including
stocking, among the Federal, State, provincial, and tribal natural
resource management agencies. The Commission develops fishery
management plans and fish community goals for each of the Great Lakes.
For example, the LaMPs are coordinating their goals with those
contained in the fishery management plans. The GLWQA has helped restore
and protect aquatic habitats, improve water quality, and limit inputs
of toxic contaminants, resulting in improved conditions that promote
the health of the Great Lakes fishery.
The Great Lakes Strategy of 2002 (www.epa.gov/grtlakes/gls/
glstoc.html, also attached) identifies high-priority, basin-wide
activities that need to be accomplished to fulfill the goals of the
GLWQA. Lake-specific activities are identified in the LaMPs and the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission's fishery management plans.
Question 8. Mr. Ullrich, what are U.S. EPA's priorities for Lake
Erie?
Response. The collective, basin-wide vision for the Great Lakes is
outlined in the Great Lakes Strategy of 2002:
The Great Lakes Basin is a healthy natural environment
for
wildlife and people.
All Great Lakes beaches are open for swimming.
All Great Lakes fish are safe to eat.
The Great Lakes are protected as a safe source of
drinking water.
Shared binational goals more specific to Lake Erie are outlined in
the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan. Through international
agreement, EPA takes the U.S. lead in developing and implementing this
plan. The EPA, through its partnership work with other Federal and
State agencies in the United States and with the Federal and Provincial
governments of Canada, has adopted an ecosystem approach to restoring
and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
Lake Erie. The most recent Lake Erie LaMP was published in Spring 2002
(www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakeerie/2002update/index.html).
The Lake Erie LaMP uses an adaptive-management approach, depending
on senior management decisions to change priorities according to
unexpected and often disturbing trends within the lake, such as the
anoxia trend in the central basin. In broad terms, the Lake Erie LaMP
bi-national work group has envisioned a future Lake Erie in which
phosphorus and nitrate loadings from all sources are reduced, and
critical ecosystem habitat is restored, enhanced, and maintained for
current and future generations.
Accordingly, key EPA strategic actions within the Lake Erie basin
have focused on, and will continue to focus on, demonstrating and
encouraging activities to reduce phosphorus and nitrate loadings to
Lake Erie, and will focus on habitat-restoration and preservation
activities.
Many of these activities will require EPA to work closely with
State and local governments, since those governments hold the primary
jurisdiction to conduct many of the actions necessary to improve the
physical, chemical and biological integrity of Lake Erie.
Question 9. Mr. Ullrich, given all the Federal, State, local,
international, and non-profit entities involved in restoring and
protecting the Great Lakes, how can all these efforts be better
coordinated and funding sources be stretched farther?
Response. The framework for multi-agency, multi-organization
coordination is in place for the Great Lakes.
The Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) identifies problems,
establishes goals and initiates management actions to address the
beneficial-use impairments of Lake Erie. The LaMP work group and
management committee is comprised of a variety of binational Federal,
State, provincial, and non-profit agencies that have responsibilities
for pollution control and natural resource management. Through the
LaMP, opportunities to creatively use limited resources are identified
and pursued to the extent practicable.
At the domestic, basin-wide scale, the Great Lakes Strategy of 2002
was created to help coordinate and streamline efforts of the many
governmental partners involved with protecting the Great Lakes. The
Strategy is managed by the U.S. Policy Committee, a forum of senior-
level U.S. representatives from the Federal, State, and Tribal agencies
responsible for environmental and natural resources management of the
Great Lakes. The Strategy focuses on multi-Lake and basin-wide
environmental issues and establishes common goals that the governmental
partners will work toward.
On a binational, basin-wide scale, activities are coordinated
through the Binational Executive Committee (BEC), a forum of U.S. and
Canadian senior managers. The BEC supports the assessment and reporting
of health of the Great Lakes through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC), as required under the terms of the GLWQA, and
through the State of the Great Lakes biennial report issued by the
SOLEC steering committee. BEC discussions are also currently underway
to improve coordination of Great Lake monitoring programs.
Question 10. Mr. Ullrich, how can we improve phosphorus monitoring
data and ecosystem modeling in the Lake Erie basin?
Response. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office's annual
monitoring program continues to provide data on P concentrations in the
lake. Improvements in phosphorus trend and ecological monitoring
potentially could be facilitated by:
An assessment of total loadings to determine how much
phosphorus is going into Lake Erie.
More extensive source monitoring to determine where
phosphorus originates. This requires estimating contributions from both
point sources, including waste water treatment plants (WWTP), and non-
point sources, including agricultural runoff, combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), and storm sewer overflows (SSOs).
Models exist for Lake Erie, but they may need to be rebuilt to take
into account the changes to this important ecosystem, particularly the
influences of non-native species (i.e., the relationship between zebra
mussels and phosphorus cycling within Lake Erie). Any changes to
monitoring and ecosystem modeling for Lake Erie would occur in the
context of available Federal, State, and Provincial resources.
______
INTRODUCING THE GREAT LAKES STRATEGY 2002: A PLAN FOR THE NEW
MILLENNIUM
DEVELOPED BY THE U.S. POLICY COMMITTEE FOR THE GREAT LAKES
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS--U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-U.S.
COAST GUARD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES' AND DISEASE REGISTRY--U.S.
FOREST SERVICE GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION
ILLINOIS INDIANA MICHIGAN MINNESOTA NEW YORK OHIO PENNSYLVANIA'
WISCONSIN
GREAT LAKES TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
As the largest freshwater system on the face of the earth, the
Great Lakes ecosystem holds the key to the quality of life and economic
prosperity for tens of millions of people. While significant progress
has been made to restore the environmental health of the Great Lakes,
much work remains to be done. Chemical or biological contaminants still
limit our ability to eat the fish we catch. Prevent us from swimming at
our public beaches, and can make us vulnerable to health problems.
Natural areas have been degraded, and the diversity of our fish and
wildlife populations is increasingly threatened. The U.S. Policy
Committee has developed Great Lakes Strategy 2002 to advance Great
Lakes protection and restoration efforts in the new millennium.
Great Lakes Strategy 2002 was created by the U.S. Policy
Committee--a forum of senior-level representatives from the Federal,
State, and Tribal agencies responsible for environmental and natural
resources management of the Great Lakes--to help coordinate and
streamline efforts of the many governmental partners involved with
protecting the Great Lakes. The Strategy focuses on multi-Lake and
basin-wide environmental issues and establishes common goals that the
governmental partners will work toward. It supports existing efforts
underway, including Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans
for Areas of Concern, by addressing issues that are beyond the scope of
these programs and helping integrate them into an overall basinwide
context. It also advances the implementation of the United States'
responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987;
The Strategy was developed cooperatively by the Federal, State, and
Tribal, members of the U.S. Policy Committee, with the consultation of
the Great Lakes public. Public workshops. were held throughout the
basin--in Duluth, Chicago, Detroit, and Niagara Fails--to solicit
comments from local governments, industry, nongovernmental
environmental organizations, and the general public. Together we have
developed a shared, long-range vision for the Great Lakes:
The Vision--The Great Lakes Basin is a healthy natural environment for
wildlife and people
All Great Lakes beaches are open for swimming.
All Great Lakes fish are safe to eat.
The Great Lakes are protected as a safe source of
drinking water.
In support of this vision, the member agencies of the U.S. Policy
Committee commit to work together to ``protect and restore the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem.'' The Strategy sets forth specific objectives and actions
that will reduce contaminants, restore habitat, and protect the living
resources of the basin. Specific objectives in this ambitious plan
include:
By 2005, clean-up and delist 3 Areas of Concern, with a
cumulative total of 10 by 2010.
By 2007, reduce concentrations of PCBs in lake trout and
walleye by 25 percent..
By 2007, establish 300,000 acres of buffer strips in
agricultural lands.
By 2010, 90 percent of Great Lakes beaches will be open
95 percent of the season.
By 2010, restore or enhance 100,000 acres of wetlands in
the Basin.
By 2010, substantially reduce the further introduction of
invasive species, both aquatic and terrestrial, to the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem.
Accelerate the pace of sediment remediation, leading to
the clean-up of all sites by 2025.
Great Lakes Strategy 2002 will guide the efforts of the
governmental partners in the U.S. Policy Committee for several years.
Working with the broader Great Lakes community, the U.S. Policy
Committee looks forward to implementing this ``Great Plan for the Great
Lakes.''
RENEWING THE PARTNERSHIP
Since the signing of the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), programs and policies to restore and protect the Great Lakes
have served as a worldwide model for inter-jurisdictional cooperative
environmental protection arid natural resource management. Toxic
substances in the environment have been greatly reduced and the
ecosystem shows signs of recovery. Billions of dollars in wastewater
Infrastructure Improvements arid bans, on high phosphate household
detergents have largely addressed the excess nutrient loads which
choked the Great Lakes with nuisance algae. The treatment of Industrial
effluent discharges has greatly improved water quality. Multimedia
Initiatives to prevent pollution from persistent, toxic substances,
have evolved to become a national program. Multi-stakeholder lake-wide
and local stewardship initiatives are serving to Identify and protect
habitats which support an important variety of plants, fish,
terrestrial, wildlife, and other important species found in this world-
class freshwater ecosystem. Despite these impressive accomplishments,
much work remains to be done to ensure a healthy Great Lakes ecosystem.
Great Lakes Strategy 2602 (hereunder the ``Strategy') was created
by the U.S. Policy Committee (USPC)--a forum of senior-level
representatives from the Federal, State, and Tribal governmental
agencies that share responsibility for environmental protection and
natural resources management of the Great Lakes--to advance the
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The
purview of this Strategy is focused on U.S. Federal, State and Tribal
government environmental protection and natural resource management
activities as they relate to fulfilling the goals of the GLWQA.\1\
Activities such as economic development, while related the goals of
this Strategy, are not specifically addressed. This Strategy will serve
to coordinate and streamline efforts of the USPC, by focusing and
establishing a set of common goals on high priority multi-Lake and
basin-wide environmental issues. The Strategy employs and supports
multi-stakeholder environmental protection efforts in the Great Lakes,
such as Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs), by integrating them in an overall
basin-wide context to address issues that are beyond the individual
scopes of these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The GLWQA, first signed by President Nixon and Prime Minister
Trudeau in 1972, establishes a joint, binational commitment by the
United States and Canada to restore and maintain the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The restoration and protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem is a
massive undertaking. This international watershed Includes two nations,
eight U.S. States, a Canadian Province\2\ , more than 40 Tribes and
First Nations\3\, and many local governments. Only through a
cooperative partnership can we ensure its health. Great Lakes Strategy
2002 will guide the efforts of the USPC for the next several years.
Working with the broader Great Lakes community, the USPC looks forward
to implementing this ``Great Plan for the Great Lakes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\While not located within the Great Lakes Basin Watershed, the
Province of Quebec is a partner in Annex 2001 of the Great Lakes
Charter and other Great Lakes initiatives.
\3\ Canada refers to communities of indigenous people as ``First
Nations''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the Great Lakes Are Important Regionally, Nationally, And Globally
The Great Lakes basin is home to more than 30 million people. It is
where many of us live, work, and play. The Great Lakes--deep fresh
water seas--are the largest system of surface freshwater on the Earth,
spanning about 800 miles and containing about 20 percent of the world's
surface freshwater resource (5,500 cubic miles or about six quadrillion
gallons of water). The water in the Great Lakes accounts for more than
90 percent of the surface freshwater in the United States. In the
United States, the Great Lakes are considered a fourth seacoast. The
total shoreline (U.S. and Canadian, including connecting channels and
islands) is more than 10,000 miles, or about 40 percent of the earth's
circumference.
The Great Lakes basin holds major urbanized areas that are home to
more than one-tenth of the population of the United States and one-
quarter of the population of Canada (a total of more than 33 million
people). Over 30 million people in the United States and in Canada rely
on the Great Lakes watershed as a source of drinking water.
The basin contains many thriving, ecologically rich areas. The
Great Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern
evergreen forests, deciduous forests, tall grass and lake plain
prairies, sandy barrens, alvars, dunes, and coastal wetlands. Over 30
of the basin's biological communities and over 100 species are globally
rare or found only in the Great Lakes basin.
The wealth of natural resources has long made the region a
heartland of both the U.S. and Canadian industrial economy. Economic
activity in the Great Lakes basin exceeds $200 billion a year. There
are notable concentrations of multi-sector manufacturing facilities in
each of the Great Lakes States. The Region generates more than 50
percent of the total U.S. manufacturing output. About one-third of the
Great Lakes basin's land is in agricultural use. The eight Great Lakes
States account for 30 percent of nationwide agricultural sales, a $45
billion industry. The international shipping trade annually transports
50 million tons of cargo through the Great Lakes. Main commodities are
grain, iron ore, coal, coke, and petroleum products. Almost 50 percent
of this cargo travels to and from oversea ports, especially Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa.
Recreation is also an important part of the economy. The annual
value of the commercial and sport fishery is estimated at over $4.5
billion. The eight Great Lakes States have about 3.7 million registered
recreational boats, or about one-third of the Nation's total. The 600-
plus State parks in the Region accommodate more than 250 million
visitors each year. It has been estimated that nearly 5.5 million
hunters spend more than $2.6 billion annually. A four season climate
supports many other types of recreation.
The economic potential of the Great Lakes region is closely tied to
the health of the ecosystem. The challenge of Great Lakes environmental
protection and natural resource management is to balance the use of the
resources of this unique ecosystem with its protection, restoration,
and conservation.
Our Commitment
Despite their large size, the Great Lakes are sensitive to a wide
range of stressors,. including toxic pollution, invasive species, and
habitat degradation. The USPC is dedicated to combating these and other
important stressors in order to carry out our mission to restore and
protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem for the benefit of its citizens and future
generations. In addition, the USPC will strive to ensure that the Great
Lakes Region does not adversely affect other ecosystems, outside and/or
downstream of the Basin. The USPC has been working to address these
problems since the early 1990's, following the development of the
previous Great Lakes Strategy. This Strategy Is a re-commitment that
expands upon and incorporates lessons learned from that endeavor.
The USPC fully supports the achievement of the goals, objectives,
and actions set forth In this Strategy and will use it to monitor and
evaluate progress. The near-term goals, objectives, and actions' are
intended to be ambitious but achievable given current funding,
resources, and regulatory requirements. Recognizing that governmental
agencies' budgets are appropriated annually or biennially, successful
implementation will depend, in part, on continued adequate funding and
resources and on-going implementation and enforcement of current
regulatory requirements. The mid-term goals, objectives, and actions
represent the USPC's assessment of reasonable progress over a longer
timeframe, while recognizing that there is a significant degree of
uncertainty Involved with protecting and restoring a large, dynamic
ecosystem such as the Great Lakes. The USPC will review and adjust
these mid-term targets, as appropriate, to manage protection and
restoration efforts hi an adaptive manner. The Strategy should not be
construed as a commitment by the U.S. Government for additional funding
and resources for its implementation. Nor does it represent a
commitment by the U.S. Government to adopt new regulations. In future
meetings, where warranted, the USPC will carefully consider and
recommend corrective measures to facilitate Strategy implementation.
The USPC will update the Strategy periodically. International issues
will be discussed between the USPC and Canadian counterparts at
Binational Executive Committee (BEC) meetings, a similar high-level
forum with representatives from both countries, which are typically
conducted twice a year.
Our Long-Term Vision
The people of the Great Lakes Region will know we have been
successful in our environmental protection efforts when the need to
issue health advisories for fish consumption, beaches, or drinking
water is eliminated; the aquatic environment supports a balanced, self-
sustaining fishery; the full range of native species, natural
communities and ecological systems are restored and protected; land use
and water quantity decisions are made with a comprehensive
understanding of the environment; and environmental, and economic
prosperity are maintained in a sustainable balance.
This long-term vision can be expressed simply, as follows:
The Vision: The Great Lakes Basin is a healthy natural environment for
wildlife and people.
All Great Lakes beaches are open for swimming.
All Great Lakes fish are safe to eat.
The Great Lakes are protected as a safe source of
drinking water.
Our Collective Goals and Priorities
In keeping with our mission and long-term vision for the Great
Lakes, the member agencies of the IJSPC will work together to protect
and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Accordingly, we have expressed our
strategic priorities under four major goals:
1. Chemical Integrity--Reduce toxic substances in the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem, with an emphasis on persistent bioaccumulative toxic
(PBTs) substances, so that all organisms are protected. Over time,
these substances will be virtually eliminated. Maintain an appropriate
nutrient balance In the Great Lakes to ensure aquatic ecosystem health.
2. Physical Integrity--Protect and restore the physical integrity
of the Great Lakes, supporting habitats of healthy and diverse
communities of plants, fish and other aquatic life, and wildlife In the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Protect Great Lakes water as a regional
natural resource from non-sustainable diversions and exports. Promote
improved land use practices and the enhancement of the Great Lakes
Basin as a source of recreatio n and economic prosperity.
3. Biological Integrity-Protect human and biological health.
Restore and maintain stable, diverse and self-sustaining populations of
predominantly native fish and other aquatic life, wildlife, and plants
In the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Control and eliminate pathogens and
prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, to protect
human health, ecological health, and economic vitality.
4. Working Together--Work together as an environmental community to
establish effective programs, coordinate authorities and resources,
report on progress, and hold forums for information exchange and
collective decisionmaking, so the Great Lakes are protected and the
objectives of the GLWQA are achieved. This last goal acknowledges the
management and institutional challenges to effectively coordinate
programs and authorities to achieve the restoration and protection of
the Great Lakes.
Under each of the four goals, this Strategy identifies major
environmental challenges facing the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Each
section, which represents a specific environmental challenge, provides
a description of the issue, lists the major current or future
governmental program(s) to address the issue, sets forth an ambitious
objective(s), which typically includes a date and a measurable
environmental outcome, and lists specific key actions to achieve or
support the objective(s). Some of the key actions in a particular
section may support a variety of environmental objectives in the
Strategy, but are listed only once to avoid redundancy.
Chemical Integrity: Reducing and Eliminating the Threat of Toxic
Pollution and Excess Nutrients
Goal: To reduce toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem--with an emphasis on persistent toxic substances--so that all
organisms are adequately protected. Over time, these substances will be
virtually eliminated. Maintain and appropriate nutrient balance in the
Great Lakes to ensure aquatic ecosystem health.
Due in part to the long retention time of water in the system (up
to 190 years in Lake Superior), the Great Lakes are adversely impacted
by toxic substances. Substances which are persistent and bioaccumulate
are the greatest threat. The presence of toxic substances at certain
concentrations can negatively impact human health. For example, there
are currently numerous fish advisories in the Great Lakes which
indicate that toxic substances are still accumulating in the food chain
at unacceptable levels. In addition, new research is identifying
potential emerging problems with respect to toxic substances. The
possible endocrine disrupting nature of some chemicals could be the
cause of human health effects of serious concern.
The sources of pollution include air deposition, industrial and
municipal dischargers, previously contaminated sediments, runoff from
farms and urban areas, and contributions of pollution from waste sites.
Much progress has been made to decrease the threat of toxic substances
in the Great Lakes Basin. Levels of most toxic substances' have
significantly decreased over the time. However, chemical inputs to the
Great Lakes still continue, causing unacceptable concentrations of
these chemicals in water and fish tissue. Many of these toxic inputs
are the result of air deposition and may come from other areas of the
continent, or from global long-range transport. Achieving further
reductions, leading to the virtual elimination of PBTs, is still a
major priority.
The Great Lakes Region has long been a site for innovative
regulatory efforts to protect human health and the health of the
environment Efforts such as the phase-out of mixing zones (the use of
dilution to reduce concentrations in. discharges) for PBTs are now in
place and may serve, as models fox the rest of the Nation, where
appropriate.
IMPLEMENTING THE GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE
A number of regulatory programs provide a foundation for the
cleanup and protection of the Great takes. An important tool was
developed through the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI). USEPA
and the States developed the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (the
Guidance) that Includes water quality standards and implementation
procedures for the Great Lakes system. It consists of water quality
criteria to protect aquatic life, human health, and wildlife, and
contains antidegradation policies and implementation procedures
specific to the Great Lakes. Equally important, it provides methods for
deriving water quality criteria that can reflect bioaccumulation and
chemical additivity, providing States and Tribes with a tool to address
a universe of pollutants that might affect the Great Lakes. In
addition, the Guidance provides a method for States to implement their
narrative water quality criteria (``no toxics in toxic amounts''), even
when there are not enough data to support a numeric water quality
criterion. This program is expected to reduce direct toxic water
discharges by six to eight million pounds per year.
Water quality standards and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit implementation rules consistent with
the Guidance are now in place in all Great Lakes States. The States are
currently issuing permits based on those standards. The Great Lakes
Stales' work in this area has been exemplary and has positioned the
Great Lakes to be a world class leader with regard to advancing water
quality regulatory protection.
Key Objectives:
By 2006, 100 percent of all NPDES permitted discharges to
the Lakes or major tributaries will have permit limits that reflect the
Guidance's water quality standards, where applicable.
Key Actions:
USEPA will work with the States and eligible Tribes as
they are beginning to incorporate the Guidance into their regulatory
programs in order to help Stales and eligible Tribes identify and
correct problems. USEPA will provide technical assistance, permit
writing training, and other training courses.
ESTABLISHING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, States have listed,
with Federal approval, portions of the Great Lakes and their
tributaries as ``impaired waters.'' These waters do not meet the
approved State water quality standards even after permits or other
pollution control requirements have been issued. The Clean Water Act
requires that States and authorized Tribes address these impaired
waters by developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determination
which specifies the maximum amount of a specific pollutant that a
waterbody can receive from multiple pathways, including stormwater
runoff and air deposition, and still meet water quality standards
(Including the GLI, where applicable).
Recent State actions have established priority rankings for
impaired waters, including the Great Lakes and have scheduled TMDL
development for these waters. The TMDL effort for each of the Great
Lakes will be described in the TMDL Great Lakes Strategy, which will be
discussed in the next LaMP update and closely linked to lakewide
management planning. The development and use of Innovative approaches
will also be considered in order to expedite the improvement of water
quality and removal of impairments.
Key Objectives:
By 2013, complete TMDLs for each Great Lake and Great
Lake tributary listed on each State's 1998 303(d) list. Complete TMDLS
for all waterbodies subsequently added to future 303(d) lists no later
than 15 years after their first appearance on the list.
Key Actions:
By 2002, include an update on the status of the Great
Lakes TMDL Strategy in each of the LaMP updates.
By 2004, USEPA, with assistance from States, will
complete the Great Lakes TMDL Strategy, which will include EPA, States,
and Tribal roles and responsibilities for completing TMDLs for the
Great Lakes and their tributaries.
Continue to explore innovative or alternative approaches for
developing TMDLs to address impaired waters and for implementing
programs to restore these waters.
USEPA will assist the States and Tribes in their
development of TMDLs for waterbodies tributary to the Great Lakes by
providing training, resources, guidance, and technical support as
needed.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will provide technical
assistance to States, Tribes, and local agencies in developing TMDL5,
including data and information on Great Lakes tributaries, by
undertaking in-depth studies with State and local agencies through the
Cooperative Water-Resources Investigations Program.
ACHIEVING THE CHALLENGES OF THE GREAT LAKES BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
On April 7, 1997 the governments of Canada and the United States
adopted the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) for the
virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes,
setting a precedent for cooperation between the two countries in the
area of toxic reductions. For the first time, the United States and
Canada acted together to establish specific, quantitative reduction
targets for chemical substances. The GLBTS uses pollution prevention as
the principal tool in achieving results.
Level! substances in the GLBTS Include PCBs, mercury, dioxins and
furans, five bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin,
DDT, mirex, and toxaphene), octachlorostyrene, alkyl-lead,
hexacblorobenzene, and benzo(a)pyrene. The GLBTS establishes reduction
targets for the Level I Substances, and progress In meeting these
targets is tracked. Management of Level II Substances, undertaken
through pollution prevention activities and In compliance with the laws
and policies, of each country, will be at the discretion of the various
stakeholders of the GLBTS.
The GLBTS implementation emphasizes voluntary approaches and is
carried out in a flexible, participatory, and action-oriented manner.
Progress on GLBTS implementation is ongoing. During the first 3 years
of implementation, under a mercury reduction challenge, the chlorine
Industrial sector reduced consumption of mercury by 42 percent (on a
production adjusted basis). A number of key partnerships have also been
initiated with the health care sector and the iron and steel sector to
explore other toxics reduction and pollution prevention opportunities.
Key Objectives:
By 2006, achieve all challenge goals of the GLBTS, making
measurable and reportable progress, particularly:
A 90 percent reduction nationally of high level PCBs
(greater than 500 ppm) used in electrical equipment.
A 50 percent reduction nationally in the deliberate use
and a 50 percent reduction nationally in the release of mercury from
sources resulting from human activity,
A 75 percent reduction nationally in total releases of
dioxins and furans from sources resulting from human activity.
Key Actions:
By 2006, create ten additional voluntary partnerships
with sources that use or release persistent toxic substances.
Continue to initiate pesticide Clean Sweep programs in
the Basin to promote the safe disposal and elimination of toxic
substances.
By 2003, investigate the contribution of backyard refuse
burning to total releases of dioxins and furans and if appropriate,
initiate State and local programs to provide affordable local
alternatives to backyard refuse burning.
By 2007, evaluate the implementation of the GLBTS and
develop a process to renew commitments and challenges.
ADDRESSING IMPACTS FROM AIR DEPOSITION
Great Lakes researchers have collected a convincing amount of data
demonstrating that toxic pollutants emitted into the atmosphere are
being deposited directly into the Great Lakes, or deposited into inland
ecosystems with subsequent transport to the Great Lakes by tributary
flows and other processes. Furthermore, toxic air pollutants may be
transported short or long distances from their original sources and
some chemicals are transported atmospherically on a global scale. The
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMB), which focuses on four
chemicals that are representative of classes of pollutants in the Great
Lakes (PCBs, tram-nonachlor, atrazine, and mercury), estimates that
1600 pounds of mercury and 3400 pounds of PCBs are deposited into Lake
Michigan every year. Fish consumption advisories remain in effect in
the Great Lakes for mercury, PCBs, and other pollutants, and
atmospheric deposition is known to be a major contributor of these
substances.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), USEPA has been working to reduce
emissions of toxic pollutants through regulatory and non-regulatory
methods. Under the Maximum Available Control Technology (MACF) program,
IJSEPA Is using a performance-based approach to controlling toxic air
pollutants. Since 1993, MACF standards have been developed by USEPA for
over 80 source categories, with additional source categories still
under development\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Regulations for large municipal waste combustors that have
recently been fully implemented and regulations for medical waste and
small municipal waste incinerators that will be implemented in 2002 and
2005, respectively, will greatly reduce mercury and dioxin emissions
from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State agencies and USEPA have also developed voluntary partnerships
and agreements with facilities to reduce their toxics use, including
steel mills, hospitals, schools, automobile manufacturers, dairy farms
and dental offices.
In response to the mounting evidence of air deposition pollution to
water bodies, Congress included the Great Waters program (section
112(m)) in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. This program requires
USEPA, in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), to investigate the air deposition of toxic air
pollutants to the Great Lakes and other water bodies by establishing
sampling networks, investigating sources, assessing the contribution of
air deposition to water quality violations, and determining if the
current Clean Air Act provisions are sufficient to prevent serious
adverse effects to public health and the environment.
Since 1990, the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN)
has monitored deposition rates of priority air toxic pollutants to the
Great Lakes. In addition, the eight Great Lakes States, the Province of
Ontario and the Great Lakes Commission have developed the Great Lakes
Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory and Regional Air Pollutant
Inventory Development System (RAPIDS) to create the best available
toxics emission estimates from all sources (point, area, and mobile)
for regional modeling efforts.
Working together, USEPA, NOAA, States, and Tribes will continue to
support efforts to monitor, characterize, model, and quantify emissions
sources of toxics in the Great Lakes Region. We will work to reduce
international emissions and support models that define the relationship
between air pollutant sources and the effects of pollutants deposited
on the Great Lakes. This information will guide regulatory and non-
regulatory programs that work to eliminate the impacts of air toxic
deposition and the risks of air toxics to both humans and the Great
Lakes Ecosystem.
Key Objectives:
Through the implementation of MACT standards promulgated
in September 1997, achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in mercury
and dioxin emissions from 1996 baselines from medical waste
incinerators.
Key Actions:
Implement the Clean Air Act provisions, including MACF
standards, and commit to strong enforcement of these standards by USEPA
and State Agencies.
USEPA is committed to reducing emissions of mercury from
coal-fired utilities through a nationwide cap and trade program. This
program has been announced by the President and is currently under
consideration by Congress.
Adopt and implement emissions standards covering source
categories accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of 30 identified
urban air toxic pollutants.
Establish national measures which enable Stale, Tribal,
and local agencies to develop strong and flexible programs to reduce
air toxics.
Conduct periodic assessments of air quality, exposure and
estimated risks from toxics for urban areas in the Great Lakes Region
and provide information to the public.
The State of Wisconsin will propose regulations to reduce
atmospheric mercury emissions from major electric utilities by 90
percent within iS years after promulgation.
Consistent with its statutory goal, Minnesota will reduce
statewide mercury releases to air by at least 70 percent by 2005,
compared to 1990 levels.
Support the expansion of State and tribal monitoring
efforts related to air toxic deposition, particularly for PBTs which
support legislation and policy efforts. Support the efforts of Tribes
in the Great Lakes Basin in the development of Tribal Implementation
Plans (TIPs) to address adverse environmental impacts resulting from
air deposition.
Integrate IADN with new regional, national, and
international monitoring efforts and report on the deposition of PBTs.
Add mercury deposition monitoring to at least one U.S. IADN station and
evaluate the feasibility and cost of adding additional chemicals of
concern to the network, as appropriate. Evaluate the expansion of the
IADN network to include new urban sites in order to determine urban
sources and evaluate current and future regulations.
Expand and improve the Great Lakes Regional Air Toxics
Emissions Inventory, and RAPIDS to support analyses of emission trends.
Make special efforts to focus on PBTs of concern to the Great Lakes
including an in-depth quality assurance effort.
Study the relationship between the Great Lakes Regional
Air Toxics Emissions Inventory and atmospheric deposition monitoring
data. Work to better understand source/receptor relationships and
improve inventory and modeling techniques to better characterize
emissions and forecast deposition, and support future efforts to
resolve these issues.
Promote the Urban Air Toxics Strategy on the Federal,
State, and Tribal level. Commit to further defining air toxics risks to
the Great Lakes Basin's residents and ecosystems by conducting multi-
pathway risk studies and community assessments. Assure that the
residual risk (112(1)) program addresses atmospheric deposition
concerns of PBTs, including evaluation of emissions, impacts, and
multiple exposure pathways.
ACHIEVING OUT-OF-BASIN TOXICS REDUCTIONS
A major challenge for the Great Lakes is to address persistent
toxic pollutants on a national, international, and global scale. These
pollutants easily transfer among air, land and water and travel across
vast geographic boundaries. Recognizing the need to achieve out-of-
basin toxics reductions, the GLBTS is closely coordinated with other
domestic and international programs. The national multi-media PBT
Program is focused on reductions for the same set of pollutants, and
the efforts of the GLBTS chemical-specific workgroups have supported
the development of the PBT Program national action plans. The GLBTS
also is coordinated with USEPA's Office of International Affairs to
support international efforts, such as the Persistent Organic
Pollutants and Heavy Metals Protocols under the United Nations'
Economic Commission for Europe's Convention (UNECE) on Long Range
Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)P the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the North American Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Sound Management of Chemicals Program.
Under the latter program, North American Regional Action Plans (NARAPs)
have been developed for a number of chemicals. These efforts work
toward international voluntary activities and legally binding
agreements resulting in reductions of persistent toxic substances.
Key Actions:
Continue to support and coordinate with national initiatives that
will reduce or eliminate out-of-basin inputs of toxics to the Great
Lakes, including the PBT Program.
Work within international forums to reduce air toxics from sources
outside the Great Lakes Basin. Actively participate in international
efforts which focus on air toxic reductions such as the 1998 Persistent
Organic Pollutants Protocol of the UNECE LRTAP Convention and the CEC
Sound Management of Chemicals Program. Support actions in the CEC's
NARAP for mercury.
CLEANING UP PAST CONTAMINATION: SEDIMENTS
Due to the highly industrialized nature of many harbors and
tributaries on the Great Lakes, these areas have historically received
inputs of chemical pollutants which have concentrated in the bottom
sediments. Although discharges of persistent toxic substances to the
Great Lakes have been reduced in the last three decades, high
concentrations of contaminants remaining in the bottom sediments of
many rivers and harbors have raised considerable concern about risks to
aquatic organisms, wildlife and humans. Exposure to contaminated
sediment may impact aquatic life through the development of cancerous
tumors, loss of suitable habitat, and toxicity to fish and benthic
organisms. Exposure also impacts wildlife and human health by the
bioaccumulation of toxic substances through the food chain.
Contaminated sediments are one of the major causes of fish consumption
advisories that are in place at many locations around the Great Lakes.
There are economic consequences to contaminated sediments as well. They
can prevent or delay the dredging in navigational channels and
recreational ports, require additional costs for removal and
management, and impose other costs to waterborne commerce and local
recreational economies.
Annexes 14 (Contaminated Sediments) and 2 (Remedial Action Plans)
of the GLWQA focus on specific activities that should be undertaken to
address Beneficial Use Impairments related to contaminated sediments.
In addition, the GLBTS calls for action to address PBTs present in
Great Lakes sediment.. The Great Lakes agencies have completed or are
currently addressing the remediation of over three million cubic yards
of contaminated sediments in the Basin, at an estimated cost of Over
two hundred million dollars. These actions are principally within the
AOCs. Unfortunately, this work represents only a fraction of the total
effort necessary to fully remediate contaminated sediments in the Great
Lakes. Progress in cleaning up contaminated sediments and restoring the
associated beneficial uses has been slow since the GLWQA was signed and
only one of the 43 AOCs has been delisted to date (Collingwood Harbour,
Ontario, Canada).
The International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board prepared a
document in 1997 entitled, ``Overcoming Obstacles to Sediment
Remediation in the Great Lakes Basin.'' The UC report summarized major
obstacles to sediment remediation, and grouped them into the following
six categories: limited funding and resources; regulatory complexity;
lack of a decisionmaking framework; limited corporate involvement;
insufficient research and technology development; and limited public
and local support. Successfully addressing the contaminated sediment
problem will necessitate overcoming these obstacles.
In recent years, Congress has enacted legislation giving the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authority to support States, local
governments, and Tribes responsible for addressing contaminated
sediment problems including: 1) technical support for Remedial Action
Planning, 2) removal and remediation of contaminated sediments from
areas outside Federal navigation channels, and 3) development and
demonstration of promising remediation technologies.
Federal, State, and Tribal regulatory and trustee agencies will
continue to address contaminated sediments through their respective
enforcement authorities\5\ and also through innovative approaches and
Federal/State/private partnerships. These agencies will coordinate
complementary Federal and State authorities, to leverage government and
private resources to address the contaminated sediment problem and its
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Including the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Objectives:
Accelerate the pace of contaminated sediment remediation,
working to overcome barriers to progress identified at each site. Bring
together complementary Federal and State authorities, and/or government
and private resources to address the contaminated sediment problem and
its source, so that:
beginning in 2002, initiate three remedial action starts each year.
Beginning in 2004, complete three sediment remedial
actions per year until all known sites in the Basin are addressed.
Complete the cleanup of all known sites in the Basin by
2025.
Key Actions:
Restore the beneficial uses impaired by sediment
contamination in AOCs, as a critical step toward their delisting.
Monitor before, during, and after sediment remediation assess and
document remedy effectiveness.
Beginning in 2002, track and report on an annual basis
the number of sediment remediation project starts and completions in
the Great Lakes.
By 2004, each State member of the U.S. Policy Committee,
working with USEPA, USACE, NOAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), will develop an integrated list of sites for remedial and
restoration activities, with estimated costs and schedules. These lists
will be updated biennially. USEPA will maintain this comprehensive list
of known contaminated sediment sites in the Great Lakes, including, but
not limited to AOCs, that will help to inform the Great Lakes community
On the location and magnitude of remaining sediment contamination that
could require remedial and restoration actions.
Develop and implement a collaborative outreach strategy
to promote greater public awareness of contaminated sediments issues
and enhance public involvement in the remedial decisionmaking process
early and often.
Engage in a dialog with regional industrial and
manufacturing groups to promote greater corporate participation in
contaminated sediment remediation.
promoting the safe consumption of great lakes fish and wildlife
Many North Americans enjoy fishing and hunting in the Great Lakes
Basin, and many residents earn their livelihood from these activities.
Unfortunately, a variety of persistent toxic substances circulate
within the Great Lakes environment and bioaccumulate in animal tissues.
Several studies of Great Lakes fish consumers have shown that long-term
exposures can cause chronic health effects and pose a special risk to
fetuses, children, women of child-bearing age, and those who
extensively fish for food. Contaminant levels and resulting exposures
due to wildlife consumption have received less intensive study.
The use of consumption advisories is an interim measure to reduce
exposure by promoting the safe consumption of fish and wildlife. All
the Great Lakes and their connecting channels are currently under a
fish advisory, mainly due to PCBs, although dioxin and chlordane also
cause advisories. In addition, several States have State-wide mercury,
advisories for their inland waters. Unfortunately, surveys have
revealed that a large portion of the subsistence and sport fish
consuming public is unaware of these advisories.
Based on our current understanding of how these chemicals circulate
in the environment, It Is expected that advisories will be in place for
several decades. However, cleaning up contaminated sediments and
reducing new loadings of toxic substances would significantly shorten
this timeframe. There is also a concern that Invasive species can
potentially redistribute pollutants in the food web. The long-term goal
is to ensure that all Great Lakes fish and wildlife are safe to eat
without restriction.
Key Objectives:
Implement actions Identified throughout this Strategy,
particularly, in the Contaminated Sediments and Air Deposition
sections, to reduce exposure to toxic substances from the consumption
of contaminated fish and wildlife. As an indicator of progress toward
the reduction of toxic substances in native, top-level predators,
concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples will
decline by 25 percent in the period from 2000 to 2007.
Key Actions:
ATSDR, State health and environmental agencies, Tribes,
and USEPA will continue to improve their understanding of exposure and
health risks associated with the consumption of contaminated fish and
wildlife. Enhanced communications will be provided to the public,
including at-risk populations, about the importance of following
existing fish and wildlife advisories.
USEPA will report every 2 years on concentrations of key pollutants
(PCBs, chlordane, and mercury) in coho and chinook fillets, as well as
whole lake trout and walleye. Consideration will be given to monitoring
and reporting of other chemicals of potential health concern, such as
chlorinated napthalenes, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and toxaphene,
as part of a long term trend monitoring program.
Evaluate the result of surveys sponsored by ATSDR,
States, USEPA, Tribes, and academic institutions on the effectiveness
of fish advisories and develop improved systems for communicating
information to high-risk communities, including non-English speaking
minorities and sensitive populations.
ATSDR, USEPA, State and Tribal health agencies will
pursue further research in the area of mercury exposure from fish and
wildlife consumption.
Federal, State, and Tribes will support the work of the
LaMPs and any Great Lakes human health committees by providing
information on contaminants and fish and wildlife consumption
advisories.
Federal, State, and Tribes will provide data from their
fish tissue sampling programs to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for
inclusion in the Commission's State of the Lake reports, which are
issued on a rotating basis for each Lake every 5 years.
States, USEPA, and Tribes will explore contaminant levels
and exposures from the consumption of wildlife and native foods.
MAINTAINING A HEALTHY NUTRIENT BALANCE
Phosphorus is an essential element for all organisms and is often
the limiting factor for aquatic plant growth In the Great Lakes.
Although phosphorus is found naturally in tributaries and run-off
waters, the historical problems caused by elevated levels have
predominately originated from human-made sources. Sewage treatment
plant effluent, agricultural run-off, and industrial processes have
released large amounts of phosphorus into the Lakes.
Strong efforts that began in the 1970's to reduce phosphorus
loadings have been successful in also reducing nutrient concentrations
in the Lakes, although high concentrations still occur locally in some
bays and harbors. Phosphorus loads have decreased in part due to
changes in agricultural practices (e.g., conservation tillage and
integrated crop management), use of non-phosphorus detergents, and
improvements made to sewage treatment plants and sewer systems.
Our overall approach is to ensure that Great Lakes waters shall be
free from nutrients, directly or indirectly entering, the waters as a
result of human activity, in amounts that create growths of aquatic
life that interfere with beneficial uses.
Key Actions:
Continue to monitor phosphorus concentrations closely to
ensure nutrient levels can Support desired fish community structures
and populations.
Continue to support the implementation of rural and urban
nutrient management practices under Section 319 of the CWA and Section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
Construct and test models of nutrient cycling in each of
the Great Lakes to account for the role now played by zebra mussels.
Assess the capacity and operation of existing sewage
treatment plants in the context of increasing human populations being
served to determine if additional upgrades in construction or
operations may be' required.
In cooperation with participating State, Tribal, and
Federal agencies, USGS will continue to collect streamflow data, and,
in selected areas, water-quality and ancillary data to support the
calculation of annual tributary loadings to the Lakes.
Physical Integrity: Promoting Habitat Protection, Water Quantity
Management and Improved Land Use Practices
Goal: Protect and restore the physical integrity of the Great
Lakes, supporting habitats of healthy and diverse communities of
plants, fish, and other aquatic life, and wildlife in the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem. Protect Great Lakes water as a regional natural
resource from non-sustainable diversions and exports, and promote
improved land use practices.
The Great Lakes Basin is a unique Ecosystem, containing many
ecologically rich areas and diverse community types, including
terrestrial forests, dunes, prairie, savannah, barrens, wetlands,
alvars, islands, and aquatic habitat. These areas, many of which are at
risk of being lost or degraded, provide essential habitat for important
native biota and rare species. Numerous stressors threaten the physical
integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, as discussed in more
detail below.
HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
Risks to habitat in the Great Lakes Basin include sprawl and the
loss of greenspace, invasive species, hydrological alterations,
shoreline hardening, incompatible land uses, and the problems of
urbanization and pollution. The long-term restoration and protection of
the Great Lakes Ecosystem requires the cooperation of a wide variety of
partners, including non-governmental organizations, private landowners,
industry, and government, because many of these issues' cut across
traditional political and organizational boundaries. Several ongoing
multi-partner programs comprise the primary tools for prioritizing and
coordinating Great Lakes habitat protection, including the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), LaMPs, and RAPs, which continue to
identify ecologically rich areas for protection and restoration.
Through the SOLEC process, ``Biodiversity Investment Areas'' have been
identified in the Great Lakes Basin to assist local land use
jurisdictions as they develop protection and restoration plans. Lake-
specific habitat work is coordinated through the LaMPs, and local
habitat restoration is taking place through the RAP process at AOCs.
All Federal agencies have a mandate to conserve Federal endangered
and threatened species under Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species
Act. Several Federal and State agencies are conducting ongoing analyses
to identify important habitat for protection and restoration.
``Critical Ecosystems'' are being identified in the Basin by a variety
of partners. The Fish and Wildlife Service's Coastal Program and,
through NOAA's Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, State coastal
management programs provide grants for State, Tribal and local
initiatives such as: biological inventories, site management plans,
greenways, ecological corridors, on-the-ground restorations, and site
conservation plans. NOAA's National Strategy to Restore Coastal Habitat
continues to direct restoration and protection activities. USEPA
supports support habitat improvement practices, including construction
and enhancement of coastal wetland systems, under Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act. The USGS, USFWS, and Tribes are involved in mapping
fish spawning grounds. Some States are preparing ``biodiversity
management plans'' and mapping fish spawning grounds as well.
In addition, non-governmental organizations (NGO's) are identifying
``priority conservation areas,'' ``potential wilderness areas,''
``American Heritage Rivers,' ``biodiversity hotspots,'' ``important
bird areas' and preparing many other recommendations for protecting or
restoring high priority natural areas. Most of these efforts are
ongoing, and this short list is far from complete.
Recognizing the particular vulnerability of coastal habitat, this
Strategy focuses on its protection and restoration as a first priority,
with a special focus on coastal wetlands, a unique and limited
resource. It also recognizes and addresses the long-term need to
protect and restore habitat throughout the entire Great Lakes Basin.
Key Objectives:
With the philosophy of no net loss, continue to fulfill Federal,
State, and Tribal management responsibilities for the estimated 10
million acres of coastal and inland wetlands on the United States side
of the Basin.
By 2005, support the restoration of fish and wildlife habitats by
developing partnerships with Federal, States, Tribes, and private
interests to construct habitats by beneficially using dredged material
at six sites.
By 2005, support the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Tribes and
others in the control and management of sea lampreys by constructing 20
sea lamprey barriers on tributaries to the Great Lakes, taking into
account effects on fish populations.
By 2005, support the restoration of aquatic habitats by developing
partnerships between Federal and State agencies to dredge contaminated
sediments at five locations, using existing non-regulatory Federal,
State, and Tribal programs.
By 2007, support the restoration of the Great Lakes fishery by
developing partnerships with Federal, State, and private interests to
construct 20 wetlands, using existing non-regulatory Federal, State,
and Tribal programs.
By 2007 restore and protect coastal bald eagle habitat to allow the
recovery of eagle populations and achieve a 10 percent increase,
relative to the year 2000, in the number of occupied territories that
produce at least one young per year in coastal habitat.
By 2010, restore, enhance, or rehabilitate 100.000 acres of coastal
and inland wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin, using existing Federal,
State, and Tribal programs\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This goal will be achieved primarily through non-regulatory
programs (e.g., USDA's Wetland Reserve Programs and Emergency Wetlands
Reserve Program, USFWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife, various State
programs, etc.). USACOE's Section 404 regulatory program is designed to
ensure no net loss of wetlands from projects involving the discharge of
dredge or till material to waters. Due to site-specific factors
affecting mitigation projects, (e.g., timing, probability of success,
differing ecological values and functions), Section 404 permits
sometimes require greater than one-for-one mitigation of last wetland
acreage. In such cases, additional wetlands that are created, restored,
or enhanced may be counted toward this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Actions:
By 2002, USFWS's Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team
wiliprioritize and coordinate conservation efforts for Great Lakes
islands and lake sturgeon habitat.
The USGS, through its GAP Analysis Program, wiil work
with State and Tribal natural resource and wildlife agencies to
identify conservation priorities for preservation and restoration of
terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity in the Great Lakes Region.
By 2002,the: USACE, with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and the signatories to A Joint Strategic Plan for The
Management of The Great Lakes Fisheries, will complete the support plan
for Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program.
By 2003, collect the lists, descriptions, and maps of the
high quality ecosystems that have been identified by the great variety
of partners in the Great Lakes Basin. By 2004, develop selection
criteria and compare the various high quality ecosystems from all of
the partners and make recommendations to the USPC about which sites are
of greatest interest.
Ensure that management plans for publicly owned land in
the Great Lakes Basin address the critical species, natural
communities, and ecosystems that are representative of Great Lakes
Basin biodiversity.
Promote native species and plantings in contiguous
watershed environments through Conservation Districts and Drain
Commissions.
By 2005, identify a continuum of stopover sites for
migratory birds that pass through the Great Lakes Region, and critical
areas in need of restoration and/or protection.
By 2005, establish projects in coastal National Parks or
National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin as
demonstrationsites for successful invasive species eradication and
control, as well as habitat restoration, on public lands.
States' Coastal Zone Management Programs, in partnership
with NOAA, will continue to inventory and designate areas of special
coastal-related value, including Areas of Particular Concern and Areas
for Restoration and Preservation.
SPECIAL FOCUS AREA: GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS
The Great Lakes coastal zone includes the relatively warm and
shallow waters near the shore, coastal wetlands, and the land areas
directly affected by lake. processes. These areas are the most diverse
and productive parts of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Great Lakes coastal
wetlands play a pivotal role in the aquatic ecosystem of the Great
Lakes, storing and cycling nutrients and organic material from the land
into the aquatic food web. Most of the Lakes' fish species depend upon
them for some portion of their life cycles. Large populations of
migratory birds rely on them for staging and feeding areas. Coastal
areas also receive some of the most intense human activity. As a
result, the areas that contain the greatest biological resources are
subject to the greatest stress.
Two important tools in coastal wetland protection are NOAA' s CZM
Program and the SOLEC Indicators Initiative. Under the CZM Program,
NOAA, and the States select enhancement areas for funding to protect,
restore, or enhance the existing coastal wetlands base or to create new
coastal wetlands. Participants in the SOLEC Indicators Initiative have
identified coastal wetlands as a special focus area, and the Great
Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium will develop basin-wide monitoring
methods for these important habitats.
Key Actions:
Federal, State, and Tribal agencies will continue to
participate in the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium, initiated
in early 2000.
By 2003, the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium will
create and populate a binational GIS data base on Great Lakes coastal
wetlands accessible to all scientists, decisionmakers, and the public.
This data base will contain data on the location and classification of
coastal wetlands and data on indicators of wetland quality.
By 2003, the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium will
design and establish a program for monitoring the quality of
international Great Lakes coastal wetlands. In addition, It will
identify and rank major threats to coastal wetlands (e.g., development,
invasive species, hydrological alteration, resource extraction,
shoreline hardening, etc.).
PROTECTION OF GREAT LAKES WATER RESOURCES
Over the past few years, the diversion of water from the Great
Lakes Basin has become a high profile issue, both nationally and
internationally, most notably centered on a Canadian company's 1998
proposal to export Lake Superior water to markets overseas. Throughout
the Basin, numerous concerns were voiced over the lack of any
consultation or analysis of the environmental implications of such a
withdrawal. The request was subsequently withdrawn. This situation
brought the issue of water diversion to the top of the Great Lakes
agenda.
In accordance with Section 504 of the 2000 amendments to the Water
Resource Development Act (WRDA), the Great Lakes Governors have led the
development of a stronger regional water management system. Under WRDA,
no bulk export or diversions from the Basin can take place without the
unanimous approval of all Great Lakes Governors. Recently, the Great
Lakes Governors and Premiers have committed to developing conservation
and restoration-based standards for reviewing proposed withdrawals. The
long-term goal is to manage Great Lakes water resources in a manner
which will protect and sustain the Great Lakes Ecosystem, while also
maintaining a strong economy.
Groundwater is the source of drinking water for about 8.2 million
people within the Great Lakes Watershed. Recent publications, including
USGS's report The Importance of Groundwater in the Great Lakes Region,
have increased public awareness of groundwater resources. Besides
providing drinking water, this important natural resource is a large,
subsurface reservoir that slowly releases water to provide reliable
stream water flow and helps ensure habitat for aquatic animals and
plants during periods of low precipitation. This resource needs to be
characterized according to its availability, quality, and demand to
develop a sustainable supply for all uses.
Key Actions:
Support the efforts of the Great Lakes Governors and
Premiers, as articulated in ``Annex 2001'', to prepare a binding
agreement within 3 years, with broad public participation, on
conservation and restoration-based standards for withdrawals of Great
Lakes water.
Protect Great Lakes groundwater resources through
existing multi-agency groundwater protection programs. Increase
understanding of the linkage between the watershed, groundwater, and
the Great Lakes.
Support the work of the Central Great Lakes. Geologic
Mapping Coalition whose purpose is to map and characterize glacial and
related deposits in three dimensions, from the land surface all the way
down to and including the underlying bedrock, so that groundwater can
be carefully managed and protected.
NOAA and States will continue to implement the CZM
Program, including elements which address policies regulating water
withdrawals within their boundaries.
USGS will continue to compile information on water use at
5-year intervals for the Great Lakes Basin as part of the National
Water Use Program.
USGS will continue to develop an increased understanding of the
role of groundwater in the Great Lakes through the projects supported
by the National Ground-Water Resources Program National Water-Quality
Assessment Program, and in cooperation with the State geologists and
State geologic mapping programs through the Central Great Lakes
Geologic Mapping Coalition.
SUSTAINABLE LAND USE
In communities across the Great Lakes Region, there is a growing
concern that current sprawling development patterns are. not in the
long-term interest of the existing suburbs, small towns, inner cities,
rural communities, or wilderness areas in the Basin. The cost of
abandoned infrastructure in the city; loss of open space and prime
agricultural lands at the suburban fringe, and longer vehicle commuting
times with attendant increases in air pollution, all impact on the
environmental health and overall quality of life in the Great Lakes
Basin. These concerns have spurred a national ``Smart Growth''
movement.
The principles of Smart Growth include the preservation of open
spaces, farmland, natural beauty, historic buildings, and critical
environmental areas; reinvestment in and strengthening of existing
communities; fostering distinctive, attractive communities with a
strong sense of place; maintaining local authority for planning and
managing growth while recognizing the need for regional perspectives
and cooperation; providing a variety of transportation choices;
providing incentives for collaboration among local governments; and
partnerships among local, Tribal, State, and Federal levels of
government; and encouraging revenue policies that promote balanced
growth decisions. There are a wide variety of stakeholders in the Smart
Growth movement including environmentalists and community activists,
community development organizations; real estate developers; planners;
Federal, State, Tribal, and local government officials; lending
institutions, and architects.
Great Lakes States have been leaders in pioneering innovative Smart
Growth legislation. Examples Include Wisconsin's Comprehensive Planning
Grant programs, and Pennsylvania's $650 million ``Growing Greener''
investment, ``Growing Smarter'' land-use reforms, and nationally known
Land Recycling Program. In 1996, the USEPA and NOAA joined with several
non-profit and government organizations to form the Smart Growth
Network. The Smart Growth Network (SON) works to encourage development
that serves the economy, community, and the environment. The Network
provides a forum for:
Raising public awareness of Smart Growth and the
implications of development decisions for the economy, community, and
the environment;
Promoting Smart Growth best practices through educational
publications and other venues;
Developing and sharing information, innovative policies,
tools, and ideas;
Fostering collaboration, among Network partners and
members who represent various interests, to apply Smart Growth
approaches to resolve problems of the built environment; and,
Cultivating strategies to address barriers to, and to
advance opportunities for, Smart Growth.
Other relevant activities Include the implementation of State
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs developed pursuant to
section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA). This program provides for the implementation of management
measures for site development designed to protect sensitive areas,
limit increases in impervious cover, and limit land disturbance
activities. Also, the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials
Program (NEMO) supports improved land use decisionmaking by educating
local officials on the principles of natural resource based planning.
Key Actions:
Continue to participate in and support the Smart Growth
Network.
Continue to implement State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Programs.
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
A key component of Smart Growth is brownfields redevelopment. A
Brownfield is a site that has actual or perceived contamination, as
well as an active potential for redevelopment or reuse, It is estimated
that there could be as many as 100,000 such sites in the Great Lake
States, many of which are in the Basin. Because lenders, investors, and
developers fear that involvement with these sites may make them liable
for cleaning up contamination they did not create, they are more
attracted to developing new sites in pristine areas, or
``greenfields.''
USEPA's Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative is designed
to empower States, Tribes, communities, and other stakeholders to work
together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and
sustainably reuse Brownfields. Through this initiative, over 20
agencies have worked in partnership to coordinate Federal programs
related to Brownfields redevelopment. The centerpiece of this national
partnership has been the designation of Brownfield Showcase Communities
to serve as models for community-based cleanup and redevelopment.
USEPA's Superfund Redevelopment Initiative similarly helps communities
return Superfund sites to productive use. Great Lakes States have also
taken a leadership role in Brownfields redevelopment. For example, in
FY1998, Michigan passed the Clean. Michigan Initiative bond, a
$650mlllion program focused on cleaning up Brownfields and greenspace
preservation. Similarly, in FY2000, the State of Ohio passed Issue 1, a
$400 million program also aimed at Brownfields restoration and farmland
preservation. All Great Lakes States also have voluntary cleanup
programs, by which many of the Brownfield sites are remediated.
Key Actions:
USEPA, Federal, State, and Tribal agencies will continue
to support local Brownfield redevelopment efforts through funding and
Implementation of:
Site assessment, job training, cleanup revolving loan
funds, and showcase community pilot programs, Federal tax incentives
for Brownfield redevelopment, and programs which fund site pre-
development and infrastructure needs, including transportation,
demolition, and other necessary activities to revitalize sites.
State voluntary cleanup programs and Brownfield programs
that provide technical assistance to local Brownfield practitioners,
and various financial incentives for redevelopment.
Interagency and interjurisdictional partnerships such as
the Brownfields National Partnership and Brownfield Showcase
Communities.
Technical assistance such as the field services from
USACE, USGS, and State Geological Surveys.
PROMOTING CONSERVATION PRACTICES ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Based on State analyses (305(b) reports), a leading cause of water
quality impairment in the Great Lakes Basin is contaminated runoff, and
agriculture is one of the most extensive source of this pollution.
Continuing efforts over the last several years have promoted the
reduction of pesticide and nutrient run-off through improved
agricultural practices such as conservation tillage, no-till planting,
and the use of buffer strips, while also addressing more recent
problems that can occur from mismanagement of large-scale animal
production farms.
Practices such as conservation tillage and no-till planting have
proven effective in reducing erosion on agricultural lands.
Conservation tillage is rapidly becoming the primary cultivation
practice in the Basin, affecting as much as 70 percent of the total
acreage in many counties, and 48 percent basin wide. Buffer strips,
vegetation established between fields' and surface waters, also help
reduce sediment, nutrients, and chemicals entering tributaries that
flow into the Great Lakes. Innovative programs, such as USDA's
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), National Conservation Buffer
Initiative, and the Environment Quality Incentive Program (EQIP),
provide a systems approach for addressing agricultural non-point source
pollution to the Great Lakes. The Federal Farmland Protection Program,
administered by the NRCS, supports matching grants and non governmental
organizations to purchase conservation easements on agricultural lands.
NRCS also supports the Great Lakes Commission's Great Lakes Basin
Program for soil erosion and sediment control.
Through the CZMA, State coastal management programs coordinate,
promote, and implement State efforts to address nonpoint sources of
pollution. In addition, USEPA has several. standing programs to address
soil erosion and sedimentation within the Basin. Local conservation
districts also play a key role in enhancing efforts to establish
conservation buffers and no-till planting methods. Together, these
efforts help sustain the production of food and fiber products while
maintaining environmental quality and a strong natural resource base.
Thirty-eight percent of the Nation's 450,000 animal feeding
operations exist in the Midwest, and the many of these are in the Great
Lakes Basin. In 1999, the USDA and the USEPA issued a Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (UNSAFO) to minimize the water
quality and public health impacts of livestock operations. Two
important steps in the Strategy were the recently proposed regulations
to address water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations
and the voluntary development of Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plans (CNMP). The USEPA and USDA, in coordination with the States, have
sought public comment, and will revise' and implement this regulation
and planning effort.
Key Objectives:
Consistent with the goals of the National Conservation
Buffer Initiative, establish 300,000 acres of buffers in the Great
Lakes Basin by 2007 (base year 1999), using existing, non-regulatory
Federal and State programs, and track this progress under USDA's CRP.
In accordance with the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations, assist and track the development of CNMP for
Animal Feeding Operations in the Great Lakes Basin by 2009. The
continued technical and financial support provided under the UNSAFO and
EQIP will be necessary to complete this goal.
Key Actions:
USDA will continue to implement CRP and will work with
any State's effort to supplement the CRP funding with a Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program targeted to the Great Lakes Basin. The
development of forested riparian areas in the northern Great Lakes
Basin will also be promoted as a means to support cold water fisheries.
Encourage and support the National Association of
Conservation Districts' Great Lakes Buffer/No-Till Program, which will
help protect and enhance water quality in the Great Lakes and the
tributaries that flow into the Lakes.
USEPA will work with States to issue NPDES permits to
concentrated animal feeding operations, or implement functionally
equivalent approaches as per the Unified National Strategy for Animal
Feeding Operations, Strategic Issue #3, or future Federal guidance or
rules.
Continue to support the implementation of rural and urban
nutrient conservation practices by the States under Section 319 of the
CWA and Section 6217 of the CZMA.
By 2013, implement the CZARA management measures for
facility wastewater and runoff from confined animal facility
management.
OVERFLOWS FROM SANITARY SEWERS AND COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
During heavy wet weather events, sewer systems can be overwhelmed
by, high flows, resulting in the release of raw sewage from combined
sewer overflows (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). Combined
sewers, systems designed to collect both storm water and sanitary
wastewater, can overflow when the capacity of the wastewater treatment
facility is exceeded or when flows exceed the capacity of sections of
the transport system. Separate sanitary sewer systems can also
experience untreated discharges related to wet weather events. These
can be caused by excessive inflow and infiltration, inadequate
maintenance, and insufficient wet weather transport capacity. SSOs and
untreated CSOs can contain pathogens that lead to beach closures and
human health concerns, as well as oxygen demanding substances that can
lead to low dissolved oxygen levels. Untreated CSOs discharges may also
contain industrial pollutants.
USEPA's CSO Control Policy outlines approaches for addressing CSOs
in order to achieve the requirements of the Clean Water Act. States
have also adopted policies, strategies and rules consistent with the
National CSO Policy, and use these as a basis for issuing permits and
compliance orders for CSO control. CSO communities are required to
develop and implement interim controls and long term control plans for
assuring that CSOs do not cause or contribute to violations of water
quality standards.
Avoidable SSO discharges can lead to enforcement actions by States
or USEPA. USEPA is developing an SSO policy to help prevent avoidable
SSOs and mitigate the impacts of those which are unavoidable.
Key Objectives:
By 2005 100 percent of all CSO permits in the Great Lakes
basin will be consistent with the national CSO Pohcy. All issued/
reissued permits for CSO discharges will contain conditions that
conform to the National CSO policy, and Sates will prioritize the
reissuance of CSO permits under their permit backlog strategies.'
By 2010, all sewer systems will be operated under long-
term Comprehensive management plans which will optimize performance and
minimize discharges from SSOs.
Key Actions:
Prioritize wet weather program activities to focus on CSO
and SSO discharges impacting bathing beaches and other areas of
potential health risk exposure in the Great Lakes Basin.
By 2003, USEPA and States will assist local governments
in establishing alternate funding vehicles to implement CSO/SSO
abatement construction projects.
STORM WATER DISCHARGES
With increasing urban growth, storm water discharges are a growing
concern in the Great Lakes. After heavy rains or snowmelt, pollutants
from lawns, streets, parking lots, constructionsites, and industrial or
commercial areas are collected in storm drains and transported directly
to nearby waters without treatment. Illicit discharges and discharges
from failing septic systems can also find their way to storm drains.
``Phase I'' storm water regulations currently require permits for storm
water discharges from industrial sites, construction activities
disturbing five acres of land, and larger municipal separate storm
sewer systems (``MS4's''). Phase LI regulations will require NPDES
permits for constructionsites' disturbing one acre or greater and from
most MS4's in urbanized areas. The focus of the permit requirements is
to develop and implement best management practices to control
pollutants in storm water. Phase II permits must be effective by March
2003. USEPA and the Great Lakes States are working together to reduce
the threat of wet weather discharges to water quality, while reducing
pollution control costs. Other relevant activities include the
implementation of management measures for new development under CZARA.
Key Objective:
By December 31, 2003, storm water permits will be in
place for all phase II storm water discharges (small construction and
small MS4's), unless States choose to phase in permit coverage on a
watershed basis.
Biological Integrity: Protecting Human Health and the Ecosystem's
Species
Goal: To protect human health and restore and maintain stable,
diverse, and self-sustaining populations of plants, fish and other
aquatic life, and wildlife in the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Our first two goals--reducing toxic pollution and protecting
habitats--will improve the fundamental capacity of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem to sustain life. This goal addresses other actions needed to
protect human health and the health of other species in the Ecosystem.
The public requires safe drinking water and clean beaches, as well as
clear warnings about periods when these resources may be compromised,
to ensure their well-being. Other species that share this Ecosystem
need to be protected from human activities, such as the introduction of
new non-indigenous invasive species. The following actions are needed
to ensure our continuing enjoyment of a11 these resources.
HUMAN HEALTH STUDIES
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Great
Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program (GLHHERP) has made
significant progress in evaluating and reporting the findings that
address public health issues from exposure ,to contaminants in the
Basin. The program has been proactive in initiating risk communication
and public health intervention strategies in sensitive populations to
reduce their exposure to persistent toxic substances. Continued support
of our Great Lakes research program is vita] to the success of the
overall research effort in the Basin and our capacity to' address key
human health research gaps in the years ahead. Conclusions and finding
from these studies will be assessed and will support management actions
and research plans.
Key Action:
Continue human health studies under the Great Lakes Human
Health Effects Research Program, and make results available to
environmental managers and the public.
maintaining the great lakes as a safe source of drinking water
The Great Lakes have been, and continue to be, an abundant and high
quality source of drinking water for millions of people. We must assure
that the Great Lakes continue to provide a safe source of drinking
water for residents of the Basin. We will work together to carry out
several initiatives that will assist us in meeting this goal.
The SOLEC and the American Water Works Association will undertake a
joint binational effort to assess the quality of water at 22 drinking
water treatment plants around the Lakes. These plants will monitor raw
water for parameters such as Total Organic Carbon (TOC), turbidity, and
microbial indicators. Measurement of these parameters over time at the
U.S. locations will provide a useful snapshot of the untreated water as
it enters the drinking water treatment system.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), additional measures will
be taken to address the possible formation of disinfection byproducts.
The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule will require
most large surface water plants, Including those on the Great Lakes, to
begin monitoring Total Organic Carbon (TOC) of raw waters by January of
2002. TOC levels are an important indicator of water quality and the
potential formation of disinfection byproducts. This Rule requires
additional treatments to address disinfection byproducts If TOC
standards are exceeded in the raw water intake. This preventative
measure will help insure that the subsequently treated water is of a
high quality.
The SDWA also requires Source Water Assessments (SWAs) to be
completed by 2003 for all public water systems. SWAs are largely
qualitative assessments of potential vulnerabilities in the system,
identifying intake points, potential contaminant sources, drainage
area, etc. SWAS are conducted by the States and Tribes, and
implementation measures to reduce vulnerabilities will be carried out
by the States, Tribes, and local governments.
Key Action:
Beginning in 2002, USEPA, in cooperation with local utilities, will
track water quality at the intake points of selected drinking water
treatment plants around the Lakes. Findings will be reported to the
public through the biennial SOLEC State of the Lakes report.
PROMOTING CLEAN AND HEALTHY BEACHES
Most Great Lakes beaches provide a safe and enjoyable location for
outdoor recreation and swimming. Past monitoring studies have shown
that beach pollution is usually infrequent or confined to areas near
pollution sources after a heavy rainfall or where a sewage treatment
plant malfunctions. However, recent increases in beach advisories have
suggested that there may not be enough information available now to
fully define the cause and extent of beach pollution throughout the
Basin.
The majority of beach advisories are due to indications of the
presence of high levels of harmful microorganisms (e.g., E. coli) found
in untreated or partially treated sewage. Sewage enters the water from
combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and malfunctioning
sewage treatment plants and septic' tanks. Untreated storm water runoff
from cities and rural areas, which may contain wildlife feces and pet
waste, can be an additional source of beach water pollution.
USEPA, in concert with States, eligible Tribes, and local agencies,
will implement the newly passed Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000. The Act requires each State having
coastal waters (which includes the Great Lakes) to review current water
quality criteria and standards for coastal recreation waters of the
State for certain pathogens, and adopt protective water quality
standards. The Act authorizes studies and assessments regarding human
health impacts of pathogens and the development of indicators for
improving detection of pathogens in coastal waters. The Act also
provides funding to States and eligible Tribes to develop and implement
beach monitoring and notification programs, based on criteria outlined
in USEPA's National Beach Guidance and Grant Performance Criteria for
Recreational Waters.
Key Objectives:
By 2010, 90 percent of monitored high priority Great
Lakes beaches will meet bacteria standards more than 95 percent of the
swimming season.
Key Actions:
By 2005, States and local agencies win put into place
water quality monitoring and public notification programs that comply
with the USEPA National Beaches Guidance at 95 percent of all high
priority Great Lakes beaches.
By 2004 or according to approved TMDL schedules, States
and local agencies will evaluate Great Lakes beaches which are closed
more than 5 percent of the swimming season to determine pollutant
sources.
By April 2004, all Great Lakes States will adopt bacteria
criteria at least as protective as USEPA's Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria--1986.
By 2003, there will be pilot projects in the Great Lakes
to support research being conducted on better indicators of the
potential presence of pathogens, and rapid sampling technologies and
techniques, for microbial and viral contamination to identify risk
before exposure takes place.
Federal, State, Tribal and local government agencies will
work to reduce or eliminate closings, understand reasons for closings,
and identify pollution sources at all monitored beaches closed more
than 5 percent of the swimming season. USEPA win work with States to
target CSOs, SSOs, and CAFOs that may be contributing to these beach
closings in order to reduce or eliminate them as a source of pollution,
and will target existing technical, administrative, and financial
support to States and local agencies to assist in the identification
and remediation of pollutant sources.
USEPA will provide tools and available funding to State,
local, and Tribal governments to improve infrastructure for monitoring
Great Lakes beach water quality, communicating to the public and
implementing actions to reduce closings. Such actions include:
Encouraging the States to ensure that a reasonable
proportion of resources for infrastructure improvements be devoted
to projects having a positive beneficial effect on the water
quality of Great Lakes beaches.
Participating in conferences, workshops, and meetings to
disseminate guidance and methods information to help beach managers
and public health officials responsible for managing designated
swimming waters develop or improve beach monitoring and
notification programs.
Developing Great Lakes beach maps: beach location maps,
including CSOs, SSOs, and TMDLs.
Develop an Internet based site that allows for transfer
of information on beach opening status to potential customers from
beach managers. Link local Internet based sites to State and USEPA's
BEACH Watch websites.
Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, private
companies, and other Great Lakes partners will work collaboratively to
develop rapid analytical methods for bacteria (E. coli and Entercoccus
faecalis), for protozoa (Cryptosporidium parvium and Giardia Lambia),
and for viruses (Norwalk and Rotavirus). As an interim measure, USEPA
will support the development of local predictive models based on rain
events.
In cooperation with States and local partners, the USGS
will continue to pursue research and development in recreational waters
on methods to track pathogens and indicators to their sources and will
continue to develop predictive models of beach-water quality through
Cooperative Water-Resources Investigations Program and other programs.
States' and local communities' Coastal Zone Management
Programs, in cooperation with NOAA, will assist in providing access to
public beaches.
PROMOTING A HEALTHY GREAT LAKES FISHERY
The fishery resources of the Great Lakes are held in trust for
society and managed through State and Tribal fishery management
programs. Fishery resources are managed for their intrinsic value and
for their continuing valuable contributions to society. These include
such benefits as: a healthy aquatic environment, aesthetic and
recreational values, scientific knowledge and economic activity, as
well as sufficient stocks of fish for commercial, subsistence, and
recreational anglers.
Stressors affecting fishery resources rarely act singly, often
having complex interactions, and frequently impact several levels of
the aquatic ecosystem. As a consequence, remedial management must
address problems on a comprehensive whole-system basis. A natural focus
of the fishery agencies, therefore, is the maintenance and development
of entire fish communities which can provide improved contributions to
society. Such an ecosystem approach requires the protection and'
rehabilitation of aquatic habitat and fishery management to ensure
stable self-sustaining populations. This approach also requires the
judicious stocking of hatchery-reared fish to meet public demands for
recreational fishing opportunities and to rehabilitate depleted stocks
of desirable species.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) is a binational
organization whose commissioners are appointed by the United States and
Canadian Federal Governments. It is responsible for the management of
sea lampreys in the Great Lakes Basin, supporting fisheries research,
and advising the U.S. and Canadian governments on means to improve the
productivity of Great Lakes fisheries. The GLFC's Lake Committees,
consisting of representatives of State, Provincial and Tribal Fishery
agencies, have' developed fish community objectives for each lake.
Key Actions:
Support GLFC Lake Committees' fishery management efforts
so that each lake supports a healthy and productive fishery, including
naturally reproducing populations of native fish.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The GLFC Lake Committees' efforts are consistent with the Annex
1 of the GLWQA, which States that lake trout should be maintained as
the top predator in Lake Superior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREVENTING UNPLANNED INTRODUCTIONS AND CONTROLLING INVASIVE SPECIES
Invasive species adversely affect both the economy and ecology of
the entire Great Lakes Basin, including aquatic, wetland, and
terrestrial ecosystems. Over 160 invasive species have entered the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system over the last 150 years. Almost one-
third of such species have been introduced since the late 1950's,
coinciding with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway system and the
associated transport of invasive species in ballast water of commercial
vessels. Once lathe Great Lakes, these invaders can spread to nearby
inland lakes and distant ecosystems, including the vast watershed of
the Mississippi River\8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Since 1848, the Chicago River diverts some of the waters of
Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River watershed as a means of
alleviating water quality concerns in Lake Michigan and to provide a
navigation link between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Agriculture has major programs to address
invasive species on farmland, but these efforts are narrowly focused
and distributed among different units of government on public and
private non-agricultural lands. Similarly, authorities and
responsibilities for addressing aquatic invasive species are shared
among various agencies, with the exception of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission that was specifically created to control the invasive sea
lamprey. SInce 1991, the Great Lakes Commission has convened the Great
Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species which has promoted the
coordination of prevention and control efforts. The panel membership is
drawn from U.S. and Canadian Federal agencies, the eight Great Lakes
States and the province of Ontario, tribal authorities, regional
agencies, user groups, local communities, tribal authorities,
commercial interests, and the university/research community. A Great
Lakes Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Species has been recently adopted by the Great Lakes
States and Canadian Provinces. The Action Plan includes the goals of
preventing introductions, limiting the spread, and minimizing the
impacts of aquatic nuisance species. The Action Plan also includes
numerous principles, objectives, and strategic actions.
Improved coordination and cooperation of Federal, State, and Tribal
efforts will be needed to prevent invasive species from entering and
becoming established in the Great Lakes Basin, as well as to research
and develop adaptive management strategies that lessen the ecological
and economic impacts caused by invasive species already established in
the Great Lakes Basin. The partners to this Strategy will work together
through existing institutional arrangements, such as the Great Lakes
Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, and create new initiatives as
necessary to advance the prevention, containment, and control of
invasive species. The ultimate goal is to eliminate further
introductions of invasive species to the Great Lakes Basin.
Key Objectives:
By 2010, substantially reduce the further introduction of
invasive species, both aquatic and terrestrial, to the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem.
Key Actions:
Ensure that all vessels entering the Great Lakes comply
with ballast water management standards developed by the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG). Currently, these standards require open-ocean ballast
water exchange where feasible. The USCG is currently developing new,
environmentally protective standards to guide the development and
implementation of the next generation of ballast water management
technologies.
Implement ongoing research activities and adapt
strategies to contain and control aquatic and terrestrial Species that
have already invaded the Great Lakes Basin, in order to reduce their
negative impacts on native biota and their habitats.
By 2005, through the cooperative effort between NOAA and
other agencies, determine the efficiency of open water ballast water
exchange as the primary method to prevent introductions via ballast
water,
By 2005, through the cooperative effort between NOAA,
USEPA, USCG, and the Great Lakes shipping industry, determine the
potential threat of ``no ballast on board'' (NOBOB) vessels and
prioritize actions to address this issue.
By 2005, further investigate the relative risk from other
sources and pathways or including new invasive species, including bait
fish, recreational boating, cargo, ornamental plants, and aquaculture.
Develop cooperative programs between Federal agencies and
representatives of foreign governments to identify potential source
regions and pathways and to anticipate and prevent invasive species
introductions Into the Great Lakes Basin.
Provide information and Great Lakes perspective to
Congress for consideration during the Act (NISA), which is expected to
occur in 2002, as well as to the International Maritime Organization
policy forum, which is currently developing a global policy for ballast
water management.
By 2003; develop a framework to integrate and coordinate
multi-agency responses, including Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies, to address and potentially control new invasive species as
soon as they are discovered.
Continue to examine and implement chemical, physical, and
biological control methods to address already established species,
including the use of barriers, such as the dispersal barrier at the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, to restrict the spread of aquatic
invasive species.
Continue to support a variety of programs to help
recreation boaters ensure that their boats do not transport invasive
species via motor props, hull fouling, or in bait tank water.
Continue and expand research to determine the spread and
impacts (biological and economic) of invasive species in the Great
Lakes Ecosystem.
By 2006, coordinate and enhance the monitoring of high-
risk areas for the early detection of invasive species.
Working Together: Effectively Coordinating Programs and Resources to
Protect and Restore the Great Lakes
Goal: To work together as an environmental community to establish
effective programs, coordinate authorities, and hold forums for
information exchange and collective decisionmaking, so that the Great
Lakes are protected and the objectives of the Agreement are achieved.
IMPLEMENTING THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
Binatlonal responsibility for the protection of the Great Lakes is
a necessity as four of the five Great Lakes are shared by the United
States and Canada. Beginning in 1909 with the signing of the Boundary
Waters Treaty between the United States and Canada, there have been
over 90 years of international and interstate cooperation on Great
Lakes issues. The GLWQA was signed in 1972, and was amended in 1978,
1983, and 1987. It was reviewed by the United States and Canada in
1999-2000 and will be reviewed periodically in the future.
The GLWQA establishes environmental goals and commitments for the
Great Lakes to monitor and control pollution and water quality
throughout the Basin. These goals help to establish joint priorities
and lay the groundwork for joint strategies to clean up and protect the
Great Lakes. The GLWQA has served as a prime example of international
cooperation to address issues of mutual concern. The evolution of this
institutional framework serves as a model for other areas of the
country and for other countries to follow in the 21st century.
As outlined in Annex 2 of the GLWQA, the Great Lakes Program is
characterized by three progressive scales of problem definition:
``Basin-wide'', ``Lake-wide'' and localized ``AOCs.'' Environmental
problems are addressed at different scales depending on their scope, in
order to design effective, prevention and control strategies.
Consequently, the Great Lakes Program involves a ``nested'' set of
activities, managed and implemented by an alliance of Federal, State,
Tribal, and non-government agencies. LaMPs and RAPs are the major
organizing tools of the program.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION'S OVERSIGHT ROLE
The International Joint Commission (IJC) was established under The
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The IJC is an independent international
organization charged with preventing and resolving disputes over the
use of waters shared by the United States and Canada. Under the GLWQA,
the IJC assesses progress and makes recommendations to the Parties to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
The IJC's Water Quality Board is the principal advisor to the IIC
on all matters related to the GLWQA. In 1996, The Water Quality Board
made recommendations to the Parties on broad desired outcomes for the
Great Lakes. These outcomes appear in Appendix 2.
The USPC coordinates with the IJC and its boards, using existing
mechanisms and protocols. It reports progress and provides responses to
IJC recommendations to improve GLWQA implementation.
IMPLEMENTING LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANS
The Great Lakes Basin presents challenges owing to its vast area,
multiple-jurisdictions, and the unique character and nature of each
Lake and its problems. For these reasons, a separate LaMP has been or
will be developed for each Lake. Each LaMP's primary goal is to support
the overall goal called for in the GLWQA to restore the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes, and to serve as
a mechanism to more specifically address a variety of ecosystem
stressors or beneficial use impairments as listed in Appendix 1, such
as critical pollutants, habitat protection and loss, nutrient loadings,
and the control of invasive species. Loadings of critical pollutants to
the open lake waters will continue to be reduced through the
development and implementation of the LaMPs.
The LaMPs will serve as the primary delivery mechanism for the
coordination and planning of environmental/ecosystem protection
activities for the Lakes. Each LaMP includes an identification of
priority actions, and Implementation schedules and responsibilities. As
of the date of this Strategy, LaMPs for Lakes Michigan, Superior, Erie
and Ontario have been published. A Lake Huron Initiative (LHI) began in
1999, was published, and is moving forward. The United States and our
Canadian partners have agreed to Issue LaMP updates every 2 years,
which will report on progress and incorporate new information as it
becomes available. The LaMP process will assist in coordinating U.S.
activities with Canadian Federal and Provincial governments, and among
Federal, State, and Tribal agencies within the United States on a lake-
specific basis.
Key Actions:
Continue to implement LaMPs. By April 2002, complete
update of LaMPs and report on implementation progress. Issue updates on
a 2-year cycle.
CLEANING UP AREAS OF CONCERN THROUGH REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS
The United States and Canada have identified 43\9\ geographic
problem areas around the lakes called AOCs. There are 31 AOCs in the
United States, and five of these are shared with Canada. For each AOC,
a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed. Each RAP identifies
the nature, cause, and extent of the environmental problems (beneficial
use impairments) in the AOC and develops appropriate remedial response
actions. Remedial response actions are implemented through the use of
Federal and State programs and authorities. Clean up work in these
areas has gone on for several decades, and recently there has been
heightened attention to accelerating cleanups and delisting of AOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Collingwood Harbor, Ontario has been delisted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA, its Federal partners and the States will continue to clean
up AOCs and will move forward to delist areas where beneficial use
impairments have been restored. A U.S. Delisting Principles and
Guidelines will be published by the end of 2001.
Key Objectives:
Delist at least three AOCs by 2005 and a cumulative total
of 10 by 2010. AOCs that are initial candidates for meeting the first
part of this goal are Waukegan Harbor, IL; Presque Isle Bay, PA; and
Manistique, ML
Key Actions:
Complete final U.S. Delisting Principles and Guidelines
by the end o12001.
By 2002, evaluate the use of a new management paradigm
for AOC5 that better demonstrates and tracks progress toward restoring
beneficial uses.
Bring all RAPs to implementation phase by 2005. Special
Focus Area: Lake St. Clair
USEPA sponsored a Lake St. Clair conference in December 1999, which
highlighted environmental concerns in this Important binational
waterway, including sediment contamination, non-point source pollution,
sewer overflows, fish advisories, and impacts from jnvasive species.
Despite these problems, the lake is also recognized, through the SOLEC
process, as an ecologically rich area. Efforts are now underway to
address these issues, and to document historical conditions and
existing high-quality habitat. Lake St. Clair has been identified as a
special focus area and current and future activities are planed to
protect the watershed.
Key Actions:
Support the development of a locally driven, binational
program to coordinate management of Lake St. Clair, including habitat
assessment, monitoring coordination, and periodic ``State of the Lake''
reports and conferences.
Support the development of a larger advisory forum from
the binational community. Reporting on Environmental Indicators-Data
and Trends
As part of the Great Lakes Ecosystem, humans have bad an undeniable
impact on the health of all ecosystem components.. To gain an
understanding of the status and trends of the health of the Great Lakes
and its ecosystem components, a set of indicators have been developed.
No one organization has the resources, expertise, or the mandate to
examine all aspects of the State of the Lakes. However, dozens of
organizations and thousands of individuals routinely collect and
analyze data, and report on parts of the health of the ecosystem.
Because of the size of the Great Lakes and the number of collecting
and reporting jurisdictions, a consensus by environmental management
and natural resource agencies and other interested stakeholders
regarding necessary and sufficient information to characterize the
State of the Lakes Ecosystem is a way to facilitate more efficient
monitoring and reporting programs. The relative strengths of the
agencies will be utilize to improve the quality and timeliness of data
collection, avoid duplication of effort, and make the information
available to multiple users, including the general public.
The dialog developed as part of the biennial SOLEC has been an
appropriate launching point for addressing and agreeing on indicator
development, information gathering, and reporting. The SOLEC process,
which is binational, has identified over 80 indicators to date that
will provide information on all components of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem. These indicators will provide information to the public, the
LaMP committees, and a wide spectrum of other Federal, State and Tribal
agencies to gauge the health of the lakes. Trends and status will be
coordinated with the Government Performance and Reports Act requirement
to insure fully coordinated reporting processes and procedures. In
addition, a Lake Michigan Monitoring Council has been formed to assist
in ensuring that monitoring resources and information is shared,
coordinated, and support agreed upon indicators. This effort will serve
as a model for other Lakes.
Key Objectives:
By 2006, the SOLEC, LaMP, and RAP processes will provide
clear information on Great Lakes water quality measures, trends, and
actions (e.g., water quality trends, fish tissue trends, beach
closures, RAP and LaMP Implementation, ecosystems restored ); will be
accessible to the public via the Internet; and will be updated on a
regular basis.
Key Actions:
Continue supporting SOLEC indicator process, through a
network o Federal, State, Tribal and non-governmental groups. Include
reports on indicators and ensure the process is fully coordinated at
the Lake-wide and local levels.
Support the establishment and operation of Lake-specific
monitoring committees designed to coordinate monitoring, data
gathering, and data quality activities by multiple agencies and
organizations.
ESTABLISHING RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR THE GREAT LAKES
The challenges facing the Great Lakes community are complex and
interrelated. Addressing all of the multiple challenges discussed in
this Strategy requires a strong, well-focused research program.
Scientifically sound management decisions based on fundamental
ecosystem understanding and reliable facts about human health and the
environment are the keys to success. New research technologies must be
developed to identify and assess environmental stressors. New remedial
technologies must be developed to help restore and sustain the natural
resources of the Ecosystem. The Great Lakes community is fortunate to
have numerous Federal, Tribal, State, Provincial, and university
research organizations that are poised to fulfill these scientific
needs.
The International Joint Commission's Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers (CGLRM) has a responsibility to identify binational
research priorities and emerging issues relative to the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. In addition, the Council produces an annual
Great Lakes Research Inventory.
The information produced by the Council can be used to identify the
scientific knowledge gaps that limit the ability of Great Lakes
managers to meet specific goals of the GLWQA. The research priorities
and Research Inventory can assist Federal, Tribal, State, Provincial,
academic institutions, and funding organizations in developing research
objectives for the Great Lakes.
Most agencies conduct or fund research that address their mission-
specific priorities. Though communication and collaboration,
information is developed that provides the science-based decisionmaking
framework for the management goals and key objectives throughout this
strategic plan. Examples of several agency research programs follow:
A broad research foundation is necessary for understanding the
ecosystems that support the Great Lakes. NOAA has a very broad and
multidisciplinary scientific mission in the Great Lakes. NOAA, through
the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and through the Sea
Grant Research and Extension Program conducts research and monitoring
that provides the fundamental understanding necessary to model and
predict the structure and function of aquatic environments and to
identify and integrate information to improve the scientific basis for
decisionmaking. GLERL houses a unique combination of scientific
expertise in ecosystem modeling and food webs, biogeochemistry,
invasive species, physical limnology, fish ecology, climate,
contaminant cycling, and water resources. New tools, approaches, and
models use the new knowledge and the growth of understanding obtained
to advance assessment and prediction. Improved models are able to
better predict ecosystem behavior, and hence offer better guidance to
resource managers and decisionmakers. NOAA research partnerships with
academia, with other Federal agencies, and with the private sector are
critical components in an overall strategy to provide our Nation's
leaders with the knowledge and application-oriented findings and
recommendations they need to make informed decisions.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a science and Information
agency that plays an important role in providing sound information on
the environmental and natural resources to management and regulatory
agencies. In the Great Lakes region, the USGS Great Lakes Science
Center in Ann Arbor, Mi (and its eight field stations and fisheries
research vessels on each lake) and the USGS water resources offices in
each of the eight Great Lakes States are the most well known units of
the USGS. The Great Lakes Science Center conducts annual fish stock
assessments, fishery research, coastal and wetlands ecology,
terrestrial ecology with emphasis on Federal public lands, and non-
indigenous species research. The water resources offices conduct
tributary monitoring programs and a wide spectrum of surface and
groundwater research. Recently, the USGS embarked upon a strategic
change initiative and is promoting integrated scientific investigations
that take advantage of its expertise in biology, geology, mapping, and
water disciplines and to enhance its partnerships with other
organizations in order to better address the resource issues nationwide
and specifically in the Great Lakes region.
The USEPA Office of Research and Development, in partnership with
Program and Regional Offices, has established Clean Water and Sound
Science research strategies that address national needs to advance
monitoring designs for assessing the ecological condition of aquatic
resources, develop techniques to identify causes of impairments,
establish nutrient, habitat and toxics criteria, and forecast future
condition to support risk-based remediation and restoration options.
Consistent with development and implementation of these strategies,.
USEPA's research effort in the Great Lakes Basin parallels the national
effort. For example, the USEPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division in
Duluth, MN, which is responsible (or coordinating and undertaking ORD's
assessment and effects-based research in the Great Lakes Basin, meets
semi-annually with the Great Lakes National Program Office to
facilitate integration of the basin-specific efforts within' the
national strategies.
To implement a synergistic research strategy, interagency research
coordination will he accomplished binationally on a continual basis,
through professional conferences, agency workshops, and related venues
that address specific key research areas. Through ongoing efforts
undertaken on multiple program levels, addressing high priority
research needs, the scientific community in the Great Lakes will assist
decisionmakers in solving pressing environmental problems in the Basin.
ENSURING U. S. COORDINATION AND COOPERATION
The U.S. Policy Committee was reestablished and reinvigorated in
1999 and has spearheaded the development and implementation of this
Strategy. The USPC is comprised of representatives of State, Tribal,
and Federal agencies. The USPC will set overall priorities and
coordinate the development of individual actions and commitments by
each Agency to achieve the goals, objectives, and actions in this
Strategy.
Each year the USPC will review the joint progress against
priorities set and ensure collective accountability. In order to ensure
progress and overall accountability for these joint priorities, the
USPC will promote international, interagency, and cross-program
coordination for the Great Lakes and ensure that the necessary
communication and decisionmaking is occurring on a timely basis. The
USPC may recommend adjustments in Agencies' actions to facilitate the
accomplishment of this plan, as well as in other important related
plans and initiatives such as LaMPs and RAPS. The USPC will be the key
forum for developing U.S. consensus positions on Great Lakes
environmental policy issues that will be coordinated with our Canadian
partners.
FOSTERING BINATIONAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) is a high-level forum
composed of senior-level representatives of the IJSPC and Canadian
counterpart agencies who are accountable for delivering major programs
and activities to fulfill the terms of the GLWQA. The BEC derives its
mandate from the provisions of the GLWQA which relate broadly to
notification, consultation, coordination, and joint activity. In
particular, Article X specifies the commitments of the Parties to
consultation and review:
``The Parties (United States and Canada), in cooperation with State
and Provincial Governments, shall meet twice a year to coordinate their
respective work plans with regard to the implementation of this
Agreement and to evaluate progress made.''
The BEC meets twice a year to:
Set priorities and strategic direction for binational
programming in the Basin;
Coordinate binational programs and activities;
Respond to new and emerging issues on the Great Lakes,
task existing or create new work groups to undertake designated
activities; and
Evaluate progress and ensure accountability for achieving
commitments under the GLWQA.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement is an important aspect of the successful
management of the Great Lakes. The partners of this Strategy recognize
our trust responsibilities to the public and commit to seeking
meaningful public involvement in our decisionmaking process. Major
venues for public involvement include LaMP and RAP forums, each
comprised of a broad array of stakeholders, as well as the biennial
listening sessions at the EJC's Water Quality Forum.
We also recognize the extensive technical expertise of
environmental organizations, public groups, educational institutions,
and industry. The partners to this Strategy will actively seek views
and perspectives on major activities through existing forums, focused
public comment periods, and listening sessions.
Key Actions:
Continue to foster public involvement in Great Lakes programs by
supporting AOC and LaMP Public Advisory Councils and Forums, and other
specially designed mechanisms to obtain meaningful involvement.
COMMUNICATING AND REPORTING PROGRESS
The USPC will work with our Canadian partners to provide periodic
updates and progress reports to the public and other entities that have
an interest or role in Great Lakes environmental protection. The
primary vehicle for this will be periodic reports such as the overall
Report on the Great Lakes Ecosystem, required by section 118 of the
Clean Water Act, as well as State and other Agency reports. Other
important vehicles for reporting are the binational SOLEC report, and
periodic updates and reports from the LaMP and RAP processes. The SOLEC
report emphasizes the health of the takes from a scientific
perspective. LaMPs and RAPs will report on progress toward achieving
ecosystem restoration goals and restoring beneficial uses. A
comprehensive progress report on the Great Lakes Ecosystem will be
provided to the IJC biannually, as required by the GLWQA. The partners
to this Strategy commit to placing reports and information on the
Internet on a timely basis so information can reach a wide audience. In
our implementation of the Strategy, we will endeavor to reduce
reporting overlap and redundancy in order to improve public
comprehension of key issues and trends.
EMERGING PROBLEMS AND CONTINUING CHALLENGES
The environmental protection and natural resource management
problems of the Great Lakes Basin are a great challenge. As our
knowledge of the Ecosystem progresses, we can expect newly identified
problems to emerge. This Strategy is not a static work plan, but rather
reflects an ongoing commitment to the long-term protection and
restoration of the Great Lakes.
Future challenges for the Great Lakes will continue to be in the
area of traditional environmental protection, but other issues such as
global climate change, impacts of energy policies, and water uses and
exports may become increasingly important.
CONCLUSION
This multi-Agency Strategy charts the course of environmental
protection and ecosystem management in the Basin for the' next 5 years
and beyond to meet the environmental challenges facing the Great Lakes.
The focus of this Strategy is on ecosystem management and environmental
protection. We have identified a full array of specific initiatives and
programs to improve the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Through this Strategy,
we continue our tradition of building cooperation and coordination
among partners that have a shared interest and responsibility to
preserve and protect the Great Lakes.
This Strategy seeks to include our citizens and stakeholders in
these actions as full participants who may take the lead in many areas.
The States, Tribal, and Federal partners recognize the challenge of
this effort but believe that such an approach is essential to achieving
success. This Strategy demonstrates that we have entered a new era,
with a commitment to renewing our partnership. We will continue to
pursue cooperative actions to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. We
recognize that the world's largest freshwater system and the vulnerable
living resources that rely on it, merit the highest level of our
efforts and attention.
Adopted by consensus of the USPC on February 22, 2002.
Thomas V. Skinner, Chair
U.S. Policy Committee
Released on April 2, 2002 in Muskegon, Michigan.
______
Appendix I
BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS
ELIMINATION OF IMPAIRMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USES TO THE GREAT LAKES
The Great Lakes shall be free of the following as a result of human
activities in the Basin:
Restrictions on its fish and wildlife consumption
Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor
Degradation of its fish and wildlife populations
Fish tumor or other deformities
Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
Degradation of benthos
Restrictions on dredging activities
Eutrophication or undesirable algae
Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and
odor problems Beach closings
Degradation of aesthetics
Added costs to agriculture or industry
Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
______
Appendix 2
DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR THE GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM
Fishability--There shall be no restrictions on the human
consumption offish in the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem as
a result of anthropogenic (human) inputs of persistent toxics.
Swimmability--No public bathing beaches closed as a result of human
activities, or conversely, all beaches are open and available for
public swimming.
Drinkability--Treated drinking water is safe for human
consumption;, human activities do not result in application of
consumption restrictions.
Healthy Human Populations--Human populations in the Great Lakes are
healthy and free from acute illness associated with locally high levels
of contaminants or chronic illness associated with long-term exposure
to low levels of contaminants.
Economic Viability--A regional economy that is viable, sustainable,
and provides adequate sustenance and dignity for the human population
of the Great Lakes.
Biological Community Integrity--Maintenance of the diversity of
biological communities, species, and genetic variations within a
species.
Virtual Elimination of Inputs of Persistent Toxic Substances--
Virtual Elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances to the
Great Lakes system.
Absence of Excess Phosphorus--Absence of excess phosphorus entering
the water as a result of human activity.
Physical Environmental Integrity--Land development and use
compatible with maintaining aquatic habitat of a quantity and quality
necessary and sufficient to sustain an endemic assemblage of fish and
wildlife populations.
Water Quantity--There will be no diversion of Great Lakes waters
that adversely affects any aspect of the Basin.
the international joint commission's indicators to evaluate progress
under the great lakes water quality agreement
Note: The desired outcomes have been developed by an IJC indicator
task force and are provided here for reference. For more information
see:
______
Appendix 3
BINATIONAL TOXIC STRATEGY GOALS AND CHALLENGES FOR TILE UNITED STATES
Confirm by 1998, that there is no longer use, generation
or release from sources thatenter the Great Lakes Basin, of five
bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and
toxaphene), and of the industrial by-product octachlorostyrene. If
ongoing, long range sources of these substances from outside of the
United States and Canada are confirmed, work within existing
international framework to reduce or phaseout releases of the
substances.
Confirm by 1998, that there is no longer use of alkyl-
lead in automotive gasoline; reduce or replace by 2005, alkyl-lead in
aviation fuel.
Seek by 2006, a 90 percent reduction nationally of high
level PCBs (>500ppm) used in electrical equipment
Seek by 2006, a 50 percent reduction nationally in the
deliberate use and 50 percent reduction nationally in the release of
mercury from sources resulting from human activity.
Seek by 2006, a 75 percent reduction nationally in total
releases of dioxins and furans from sources resulting from human
activity. Seek by 2005, reductions nationally In releases of
bexachlorobenzene, B(a)P, and dioxins, from sources resulting from
human activity that enter the Great Lakes Basin.
Promote prevention and reduced releases of Level 11
substances. Increase knowledge on sources and environmental levels of
these chemicals.
Assess atmospheric inputs of persistent toxic substances.
The aim of this effort is to jointly evaluate and report on impact of
long range transport of persistent toxic substances from world sources
by 1998. If ongoing long-range sources are confirmed, work within
existing international framework to reduce releases of such substances.
Complete or be well advanced in remediation of priority
sites with contaminated bottom sediments, in the Great Lakes Basin by
2006.
Binational Toxic Strategy of 1997
______
Appendix 4
ROLE OF PARTNERS AND AGENCIES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
A number of Federal, State and Tribal agencies and jurisdictions
have important and essential roles to play in Great Lakes cleanup and
protection, are partners to this Strategy, and have significant
authorities and resources that will be coordinated effectively to
assist in accomplishing this Strategy. Following is a brief description
of their roles and responsibilities with respect to Great Lakes cleanup
and protection.
Role of the Great Lakes States and Local Partners
Each of the eight Great Lakes States has environmental and natural
resource agencies or divisions. These agencies have primary
responsibility in implementing key pollution control programs. In
addition, they have developed many unique programs to meet the needs of
the Great Lakes and have been leaders, individually and as a group, in
addressing major environmental issues. The States have primacy in
managing fisheries and many other natural resource issues.
Role of Great Lakes Tribes and Tribal Organizations
The Great Lakes Tribal Governments (over 30 U.S. Tribes) have
important roles to play in ecosystem protection for the Great Lakes and
will implement activities as part of the Tribal Environmental
Agreements. In addition, many Tribes have participated in the
development of this Strategy, and will assist in its Implementation.
The Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority and the Great
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission have also been invited to
participate in implementing the Strategy. Activities within their
jurisdictions will be identified and implemented as part of the
Strategy.
Role of Federal Agencies
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has
funded epidemiologic research in the Great Lakes Basin since 1992. Over
the past 3 years, the ATSDR Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research
Program (GLHHERP) has made significant progress in reporting and
evaluating findings that address public health issues from exposure to
contaminants in the Basin.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has
environmental stewardship, assessment, and prediction responsibilities
in the Great Lakes. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory conducts physical,
chemical, and biotic research and environmental modeling, providing
scientific expertise and services to manage and protect ecosystems. The
laboratory's investigations help to improve the understanding and
prediction of coastal and estuarine processes, including the
interdependencies with the atmosphere and sediments.
Through the National Ocean Service's Office of Response and
Restoration (OR&R), NOAA acts for the Secretary of Commerce on behalf
of the public as a natural resource trustee agency to protect and
restore aquatic natural resources and associated human-use services
such as safe navigation and transportation via maintained navigation
channels, recreation, commercial fishing, and flood control provided by
wetlands. OR&R actively promotes protection of aquatic species and
habitats by working with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, as well
as with industry, to assess and clean up contaminated sediments in the
Great Lakes and receiving waters. OR&R strives to resolve liability for
natural resource injury by restoring: habitat, affected species, and
associated services provided by those natural resources. OR&R provides
information on shoreline classification, occurrence of biological
resources, and human-use resources to assist in remedial and
restoration planning at contaminated sediment sites and to support
spill response activities. OR&R also conducts prevention and
preparedness activities to prevent further degradation of Great Lakes
sediments.
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in partnership
with State Coastal Zone Management programs, works with local
communities and State agencies to preserve, protect, develop, restore,
and enhance coastal zone resources. OCRM provides research, education,
and protection of coastal and estuarine areas through the National
Estuarine Research Reserve and National Marine Sanctuary programs and
fosters economic redevelopment through Brownfields Showcase Grants.
The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) conducts
research, monitoring, and assessments of the coastal environment. NCCOS
predicts impacts of pollution and coastal development on sensitive
habitats and resources. NCCOS maintains contaminantmonitoring sites in
Green Bay, and Lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, Erie and Ontario to
determine temporal contaminant trends.
The Office of Coast Survey provides surveying, nautical charts, and
other navigation services for safe shipping and boating. National Sea
Grant Program, a partnership between universities and NOAA, encourages
stewardship of Great Lakes coastal natural resources by providing
funding to area universities for research of biotic, physical, and
chemical systems, and for education, outreach and technology transfer.
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies (CIMSS)
develops and implements techniques and products to improve severe storm
forecasting.
The National Weather Service provides the weather and flood
warnings, forecasts, and meteorological and hydrologic data used by
research, environmental management, transportation, and community
interests in the Great Lakes.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has responsibility for a
civil works program under which it develops, maintains, and conserves
the Nation's water and related land resources. It administers permit
programs related to navigation and changes to the waters of the United
States. The USACE plays a critical role in operating and maintaining
the navigable waterways of the Great Lakes.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulates pollution from ships, as well
as the ship borne introduction of exotic species. Under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990, the Coast Guard has the lead responsibility for
responding to oil spills in the Great Lakes. The USCO also works with
USEPA to establish and implement area and regional Joint. Contingency
Plans for spills of oil and hazardous substances in the Great Lakes.
Three agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assist
landowners with pollution prevention and control of non-point
discharges-from agricultural operations: the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CREES), and the Farm Services Agency (FSA). NRCS
provides national leadership in the conservation and wise use of soil,
water, plant, animal, and related resources; it works directly with
agricultural producers on pollution prevention and control of non-point
source discharges from agricultural operations. It also has an urban
conservation program that provides technical assistance on non-point
sources, such as: constructionsite runoff, fertilizer and pesticide
inputs from lawns and other grassed areas, septic systems, flood
control basins, and sediment storage ponds.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for
the Nation's regulatory programs for air, water, pesticides, and toxic
chemicals. USEPA also sets national direction in environmental policy.
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will further the systematic
and comprehensive approach to ecosystem management of the Great Lakes,
as required by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, by working with
the Canadians and with other Federal and State agencies to ensure that
compatible and consistent approaches to environmental protection occur
across the Basin. GLNPO will continue to provide leadership in updating
and implementing this Strategy and will report overall progress, trends
in environmental conditions, as well as specific accomplishments, in a
timely manner to Congress and the public. GLNPO will assist the Regions
and States in the implementation of the Great Lakes-efforts and will
seek to fulfill its specific mission as set forth in Section 1 18 of
the Clean Water Act. USEPA Headquarters, particularly the Office of
Water and the Office of International Activities will continue to set
overall national policy regarding USEPA's program and implementation of
environmental statutes. USEPA Regions 2, 3, and 5 have important roles
for carrying out Great Lakes programs, particularly through
implementation and targeting of base program activities, and will
continue this work to ensure mandates are fulfilled and goals are met.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) serves as trustee to
protect the interests of endangered species, migratory birds, and
interjurisdictional fishery resources, such as the lake trout and lake
sturgeon, and supports the States and other Federal agencies with
population and habitat inventories. USFWS also manages 140,000 acres of
Federal land holdings in the form of Fish and Wildlife Refuges in this
Region and performs resource assessment and research. They are also
responsible for Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs) to recover
damages for injuries caused to natural resources (e.g., endangered
species, migratory birds, and trust fisheries) by the release of
hazardous substances.
The US. Forest Service (USFS) and the National Park Service (NPS)
both play important roles as stewards of vast, and often unique,
Federal land holdings. State and private forestry programs, a
cooperative effort of the USFS and State forestry agencies, assist
public and private landowners in managing and protecting forest
resources.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts various core research
and assessment programs within the Great Lakes Region among its four
major discipline areas of biology, geology, mapping, and hydrology. The
major activities within the geologic discipline include detailed
geologic mapping of glacial materials in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
and Ohio; studies of earth-surface processes in areas prone to
shoreline erosion, landslides, and earthquakes; research into the
potential effects of changing climate on the earth and its resources;
and aquatic-habitat mapping in coastal areas. The major activities
within the water discipline include water-quality assessments of
nonpoint sources of natural and human-derived contaminants in the
watersheds of Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and the St.
Clair and Detroit Rivers;, water-quality research on emerging
contaminants such as pathogens, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and
mercury; a streamflow-gaging program for appraisal and assessment of
water-resource quality and availability, for flood warning systems, and
for drought management plans; and a groundwater levels network for
water use, environmental assessment, and ground-water management. The
major activities within the biology discipline include fisheries
research and assessment in the Lakes, biodiversity studies in
terrestrial, aquatic and coastal habitats, and research into and
assessment of invasive species and related control practices. Major
activities within the mapping discipline include production of a vast
array of mapping products describing the land surface, such as
elevation maps, hydrologic maps, maps of land use and land cover,
studies of land-surface change in urban and agricultural areas, and new
technologies based on satellites and remote sensing.
Role of Binational Agencies
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was established by the
Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United
States in i955. The Commission develops coordinated programs of
research on the Great Lakes, and, on the basis of the findings,
recommends measures which will permit the maximum sustained
productivity of stocks of fish of common concern. It also formulates
and implements a program to eradicate or minimize sea lamprey
populations in the Great Lakes., Role of Canadian Partners
Four of the five Lakes (all but Lake Michigan) are shared with
Canada. Coordination with Canada involves Federal agencies, as well as
provincial agency counterparts in Quebec and Ontario. The binational
International Joint Commission is charged with advising the national
governments on issues of concern regarding joint stewardship of the
Lakes. The U.S. Department of State assists all U.S. Federal agencies
as they address Great Lakes issues of concern to both countries. USEPA
has lead agency responsibility for coordinating activities relative to
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada (as amended by
Protocol signed November 18, 1987). The Great Lakes National Program
Office informs the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Review Committee
(soon to be replaced by the COA Management Committee) about matters
related to water quality and fishery resources.
______
Statement of Gary Isbell, Ohio Department of Natural Resources
On behalf of the State of Ohio and particularly the Department of
Natural Resources, I want to express appreciation for the Committee's
willingness to seek input on this serious issue affecting Lake Erie. It
is great that there is such recognition of the value of Lake Erie to
Ohio by our congressional delegation, and especially Senator Voinovich.
When Senator Voinovich was our Governor, I personally had the
opportunity to share with him our common concern for the lake and our
common appreciation for the fantastic yellow perch and walleye fishing.
As we examine and discuss the current issue, let's not allow people to
erroneously conclude that the lake is dead or that the fisheries are
not outstanding. This truly is one of the top fisheries in the country.
While the rampant pollution problems of the 1960's and the images of
the burning Cuyahoga River are gone, there are new challenges to the
integrity of the lake's ecosystem and we must collectively address
them.
The problem of the anoxic zone in Lake Erie is not that it exists,
but that its size, frequency, and duration are changing. The anoxic
zone is a naturally occurring phenomenon, but can be a serious
detriment to the ecosystem if it gets too large, thereby limiting the
potential of the lake to produce the benefits we enjoy. The real
problem about the anoxic zone is that just when we thought we had it
figured out and managed, it is behaving in ways that we do not fully
understand. We are unsettled by the observation that the reduction in
nutrient loading, brought about by pollution controls over the last 30
years, appear to be trumped by something mysterious. A leading
hypothesis is that zebra mussels are at the heart of the mystery,
perhaps recycling nutrients that contribute to the development of a
larger anoxic zone than we would expect.
What should be done?
First, we must be aware that there may not be a reasonable cure or
fix to the current problem. However, we think that the collaborative
study sponsored by the USEPA is a step in the right direction. Levels
of nutrients in the lake and their effects on microorganisms were
monitored fairly comprehensively in the past through a similar USEPA
sponsored study. However, recent monitoring has not been funded
sufficiently to help us detect problems or devise solutions. As a
result, comprehensive phosphorus monitoring was discontinued in 1994.
While sampling was resumed in 1996, it has not been consistent from
year to year and coverage of the lake has been mostly limited to
offshore sites. A stronger and more robust monitoring effort is
justified and fundamental to the development of sound management
strategies for the lake. This is an effort that is appropriate for
Federal funding and leadership. We must have solid long-term data about
the basic features of the lake in order to detect problems and
prescribe solutions.
Second, this mystery about the anoxic zone is yet another wake up
call about the seriousness of invasions of aquatic nuisance species.
Each new invader brings with it a random box of mostly negative
effects. Some of the effects are not so subtle, such as the predator-
prey interactions of the sea lamprey that devastated fisheries in the
last century. Sea lamprey control in the Great Lakes is a success
story, thanks to congressional support of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission. Although difficult, these types of effects are much easier
to model and to control than the ultimate effects of nutrient recycling
on populations of walleye or yellow perch off Cleveland. It has been 12
years since passage of the first comprehensive Federal law regarding
aquatic nuisance species. Even so, each year there are still more alien
species that find their way to the Great Lakes. This is biological
pollution that has the potential to permanently devastate many of the
lakes' beneficial uses. A legacy we should strive to leave is a solid
Federal policy that shuts the door to future invasions of the Great
Lakes.
The anoxic zone mystery is just part of a larger, complicated set
of issues. It is encouraging to us at the State level to see Congress
taking an interest and being willing to act. We urge you to do so
quickly by funding more comprehensive monitoring within the lake. Lake
Erie, given its hydrology can change very quickly. Quick action may
avert some significant and lasting negative effects. Also, we urge you
act with a response that is appropriately scaled to the size of the
problem. This is a huge resource; therefore, investigations and
solutions will not be cheap. Water quality programs, lamprey control
measures, electric fish barriers, and ballast water management systems
may be very expensive. However, the billions of dollars of resource
values that are generated in the Great Lakes are worth it. Finally, we
urge you to act comprehensively. The anoxic zone problem is not an
isolated issue within the Great Lakes ecosystem. It is critical for
development of long-range solutions to address the influx of invasive
species into our waters, as well. Therefore, I would encourage Congress
to support a re-authorization of NISA and work collaborately in
strengthening the monitoring and survey efforts necessary. With proper
funding, numerous State, Federal and private entities could be utilized
to partner in the effort to conserve and protect this resource.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Please feel free to call
upon the State agencies for additional information or review of
strategies that may evolve from your initiatives.
______
Responses of Gary L. Isbell to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Mr. Isbell, do Federal laws regarding aquatic nuisance
species need to be revised? What changes would you recommend to
Congress? What is the proper role of State and Federal Government
entities in aquatic nuisance species control efforts?
Response. Yes. Currently there is a draft law (National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act) that is being circulated to Members of Congress.
We would urge the Committee to give the law serious consideration,
because it has many new provisions and timelines for prevention and
control of nuisance species. We are currently reviewing the draft and
will make comments directly and through various other entities (such as
the Great Lakes Commission's Panel on Exotic Species). We view the
Federal role of prevention of aquatic nuisance species as absolutely
critical. Primary needs are in the area of ballast water management and
regulation.
Question 2. Mr. Isbell, what aquatic nuisance species has had the
most damaging effect on Lake Erie? Are you aware of new species that
threaten Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes? What is the State doing
to address current and future species?
Response. Historically, sea lampreys have had the most significant
direct effect on fish populations. However, zebra mussels have probably
had the most far-reaching effect, due to effects throughout the food
chain. There are many species still in Europe that probably could
invade, but I do not know which ones are potentially harmful. Within
the Great Lakes, the ruffe has invaded, but has yet to spread
throughout the range we would expect. When it comes to Lake Erie, for
example, we would expect for it to become abundant and to have a
significant effect on other species. Ohio is doing what it can to
address prevention and control through its Aquatic Nuisance Species
State Management Plan. This is a multi-agency plan that uses State and
some Federal resources to implement control and prevention strategies.
Much of the efforts are in the area of information/education to limit
the spread of existing species through the actions of anglers and
boaters. There is some direct support for the control of purple
loosestrife in Ohio marshes.
Question 3. Mr. Isbell, what is the most important challenge to
Lake Erie water quality? What is the State doing to address that
challenge?
Response. From my perspective, I would say that toxic contamination
is the most important challenge. We still have many Areas of Concern.
The State is doing its part via Remedial Action Plans, implementation
of water quality programs, etc. This is an area when other agencies
should have the opportunity to provide comment, as well (OEPA, Health,
etc.).
Question 4. Mr. Isbell, please describe any research efforts being
funded by the Lake Erie Protection Fund of oxygen depletion in Lake
Erie.
Response. N/A
Question 5. Mr. Isbell, what progress has Ohio made toward
implementing the Ohio Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan?
Response. Jeff Busch, Director of the Lake Erie Office, would be
able to answer this question. I do not know.
Question 6. Mr. Isbell, the Lake Erie Quality Index is expected to
be updated next year. Do you know if next year's report will show that
we have made progress over the last 5 year
Response. N.A.
__________
Statement of Professor David A. Culver, Ph.D., Department of Evolution,
Ecology, and Organismal Biology and The Graduate Program in
Environmental Science, The Ohio State University,
The Problem: Lake Erie water quality affects drinking water,
swimming, and fish survival High availability of phosphorus decreases
Lake Erie water quality. Low water quality increases the amounts of
taste and odor causing compounds and even toxic compounds from algae in
drinking water. Toxic algae tend to float to the surface in later
summer and can be blown to shore, increasing the likelihood they will
be taken in by potable water intakes and causing risks for swimmers,
and for wildlife, livestock, and pet animals that may drink from the
shore of the lake. Toxic algae have been shown to negatively affect the
food chain upon which fish depend. Bacterial contamination from
combined sewer overflows similarly affects these groups.
Causes: The thin central basin hypolimnion makes it susceptible to
anoxia
The cool layer at the bottom of the lake (the hypolimnion) receives
too little light for much photosynthesis, and is cutoff from
atmospheric oxygen because it is denser than the warm layer
(epilimnion) floating on top. Because of the shape of Lake Erie, its
central basin hypolimnion is only 2 or 3 m deep, whereas its epilimnion
is 18 m deep. As the lake decreases to water levels closer to the long-
term average, the hypolimnion can become even thinner. Algae and
animals produced in the epilimnion die and release feces that settle
into the hypolimnion, where they decompose, consuming oxygen. The more
nutrients available in the epilimnion, the greater the algal growth
there. The more algae produced, the faster the rate of consumption of
oxygen in the hypolimnion. It is a race between the rate of consumption
of oxygen and the occurrence of the totalcirculation of the lake in
September, which is caused by cooling of the surface waters.
Effects: Low oxygen in the central basin bottom waters decreases
fish habitat
Most fish species cannot tolerate oxygen levels less than 3 ppm
(e.g. walleye, yellow perch), and some require 4 ppm or more. Because
the central basin is very flat, an increase in the area where
concentration at the bottom is less than 3 ppm will greatly decrease
the area useable by game fish and small fish upon which they depend for
food. Lower concentrations yet will kill the benthic insects (e.g.,
mayflies) and plankton that these fish eat.
Effects: Low oxygen in the central basin bottom waters recycles
phosphorus, producing more algae Phosphate ions in the sediments are
bound by iron and clays fairly well under aerobic conditions. When
sediments become anoxic, however, the ferric iron is reduced to ferrous
iron and the phosphate is then much more soluble and diffuses out of
the sediment. This phosphate can be mixed up into the surface waters
when the lake circulates in September, causing additional algal growth.
Effects: Algae decreased in abundance from 1970 to 1997, but have
increased since then central basin algae biomass declined from 3 to 0.6
g/m3 from 1970 to 1997, but 2001 abundances (2.0 g/m3) (please see
Figure 1) are now as high as they were in the early 1980's, suggesting
that water quality improvements are being reversed. This is all
reflected in the planktonic animals in the lake (Please see Figure 2).
Algae increases are made up in part by toxic strains of Blue-green
Algae, which had become rare in the early 1990's. EPA phosphorus data
also show this trend. There is no evidence that increases in inputs
from the watershed have occurred, although accurate estimates of inputs
are difficult to obtain.
Possible Causes: Zebra mussels have recycled phosphorus
Zebra mussels have recycled phosphorus and nitrogen in algae that
otherwise would have settled to the sediments and stayed there. They
consume algae all year round, providing continuous recycling of
nutrients that can encourage algal growth. Their effects will be
particularly felt in the western basin and near shore, but these waters
also flow into the central basin where the anoxic hypolimnion occurs.
Possible Causes: Quagga mussels are replacing zebra mussels
Quagga mussels (another introduced species) are replacing zebra
mussels in the whole lake. Our preliminary data suggest quagga mussels
excrete more phosphate and ammonia than do zebra mussels for
equivalent-sized individuals.
Possible Causes: Combined sewer overflows bypass nutrient removal
at sewage treatment plants
Phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to the lake are increased by storm-
induced overflows from combined storm water and sanitary sewers.
Solutions: zebra or quagga mussels cannot be removed
There is no way to remove zebra or quagga mussels from the lake.
Solutions: decrease human input of nutrients
If recycling by animals in the lake is increasing, our only
solution is to decrease inputs of nutrients, particularly phosphorus,
from point and non-point sources. As the human population increases in
the Lake Erie watershed, it will require even greater efforts to
decrease nutrient inputs.
Solutions: support better nutrient modeling of the lake
Scientific studies of the interactions among water circulation,
nutrient inputs, and the plants and animals in the lake are hampered by
incomplete information on the sources and amounts of nutrients coming
in from rivers and direct discharge into the lake. I recommend
increased efforts in monitoring inputs of nutrients, especially
phosphorus and nitrogen into the lake.
Figure 1. Seasonal (May-September) averages of phytoplankton algae
wet weight (g/m3) in the western (WB), central (CB), and eastern basins
(EB) of Lake Erie. The toxic Microcystis bloom in 1998 caused a very
high algal weight (4.6 g/m3) in the western basin. This value was not
included in the regression line. Names above the regression lines
indicate the sources of data.
Figure 2. Seasonal (May-September) averages of crustacean
zooplankton dry weight (g/m3) in the western (WB), central (CB), and
eastern basins (EB) of Lake Erie. Contributions of rotifers and zebra
and quagga mussel larvae are not included. Names above the regression
lines indicate the sources of data.
______
Responses of David A. Culver to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Dr. Culver, in your testimony, you explain how zebra
mussels recycle phosphorus and nitrogen that encourage algal growth.
According to your testimony, their effects will be primarily felt in
the western basin and near shore. Since anoxia is unlikely to occur in
the western basin, what is their impact on the ecosystem in this
region?
Response. The recycling of nutrients by zebra and quagga mussels in
the western basin (and in the shallower regions of the central basin)
will indeed return nitrogen and phosphorus to the dissolved phase that
otherwise would have mostly stayed in the sediments. These nutrients
stimulate the growth of algae, which is reflected in algal abundance in
the western basin and nearshore areas of the central basin. In
particular, as phosphate concentration increases, algal species
composition changes from that dominated by the small algae easily
edible by zooplankton that are fish food, to large, filamentous and
colonial algae that are not. Some of these are the bluegreen algae that
may release taste and odor compounds that are undesirable in drinking
water or, worse, produce toxic compounds. Hence water quality and fish
production in western basin and nearshore central basin areas may
decline.
Furthermore, the warm western basin water does not stay there. Its
volume is 25 km3, and outflow averages 13.7 km3/month. About 93 percent
of the water eventually flowing over Niagara Falls or out the Welland
Canal comes from the western basin. The central basin volume is 305
km3, so at least 23 percent of its surface volume is displaced by warm
western basin water that is rich in nutrients and algae during the May-
September period while the central basin is stratified thermally. This
result is reflected in USEPA data for the last few years that show
increases in the algal and nutrient concentrations in the western half
of the central basin (but not in its eastern half). Therefore, external
loading and zebra and quagga mussel recycling activities in the western
basin can affect water quality (and oxygen consumption) in the central
basin. We are attempting now to determine how much they do so.
Question 2. Dr. Culver, one of the messages I think I will take
from this hearing is that more needs to be done to monitor inputs of
nutrients into Lake Erie. In your opinion, what can be done to improve
nutrient input monitoring?
Response. Nutrient inputs come from a variety of sources. At this
time they are monitored as Lake Huron outputs (apparently ignoring the
effects of Lake St. Clair), atmospheric inputs, monitored tributaries,
unmonitored tributaries (estimated by comparing the area of their
drainage basins with those of adjacent monitored tributaries), and
point-sources (pipes from sewage treatment facilities, industrial
discharges, etc.). Presumably the point source data are only from sites
for which National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits have been issued with their associated requirements for self-
monitoring.
David Dolan (Univ. Wisconsin--Green Bay) has calculated annual
loadings for recent years at the request of the USEPA (to add to his
previous estimates up to 1993) and found the nutrient inputs from Lake
Huron, NPDES sites, and the atmosphere have been relatively stable over
the last few years, with most of the variation in inputs being
associated with the impact of varying rainfall on tributary inputs
(monitored and, by estimation, unmonitored ones as well). The tributary
monitoring is performed by various individuals, but most notably by the
Water Quality Laboratory (WQL) at Heidelberg College, Tiffin, OH, in
conjunction with the US Geological Survey (USGS). USGS monitors stream
flow and coordinates those activities with those monitoring water
quality in the Great Lakes basin. The WQL and USGS monitoring program
is based on stations several miles above the confluences of four major
rivers (Maumee, Sandusky, Cuyahoga, and Grand) with Lake Erie, so there
is no opportunity to take into account the effects of sedimentation of
materials and their resuspension during storm events. That is, temporal
variation in nutrient flux at the monitoring stations can be very
different from actual discharge at the river mouth due to resuspension
(particularly after storms) and the input of point sources. Note also
that the WQL does not monitor the Detroit River water quality. NPDES
discharges are self-monitored by the entities holding the permits, and
there is little independent confirmation of data received by onsite
measurements by the USEPA or State agencies. Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) can discharge large amounts of nutrients and bacteria into the
lake, but these events are poorly monitored, if at all, so we have
little information on the amounts or timing of material discharged.
Often events are only reported as having occurred, with no measurements
of the amount of the discharge.
Historically, monitoring of Lake Erie nutrient inputs intensified
in the 1970's, but decreased after the phosphorus loading targets were
met in the early 1990's. The presumption was that less intense sampling
was required because the lake water was clearer and the masses of
bluegreen algae and Cladophora had abated. Those of us trying to
estimate the contribution of zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and
nutrient inputs into the lake, however, need to know the loading values
for nutrients to model the system to estimate the mussels' impact.
Annual loading estimates may be used as a ``report card'' of whether
the lake's total loading is going up or down, but they do not serve the
modeling community well at all.
Therefore, I propose that monitoring can be improved by: 1) adding
regular (continuous, or at least weekly) nutrient monitoring of river
mouths (including the Detroit River) for flow and nutrient
concentration with increased frequency during periods of major
discharge (e.g., after storm events); 2) regularly making independent
measurements of nutrient loading from NPDES-permitted discharges,
particularly sewage treatment facilities; and 3) monitoring the
nutrient content and volume from large storm-water discharge pipes that
may receive CS overflows.
__________
Statement of Dr. Robert T. Heath, Water Resources Research Institute
and Dept. Biological Sciences, Kent State University
History of the problem of anoxia in Lake Erie: Anoxia in the bottom
waters of Lake Erie has been observed since 1930 (Figure 1 from
Bolsenga and Herdendorf 1993). Originally it was constrained to the
Sandusky subbasin, the region of the lake north of Huron, between
Sandusky and Lorain. As eutrophication of the lake increased in the
1960's and early 1970's the region of the lake that became anoxic in
the summer spread to cover substantial portions of the sediments of the
central basin of the lake.
Eutrophication of the lake was caused by excessive inputs of
nutrients from human activities including sewage, industrial processes
and agricultural fertilizers. High concentrations of nutrients in turn
stimulated growth of noxious forms of phytoplankton (algae suspended in
the water). These noxious phytoplankton (such as Microcystis) put
compounds into the water that are distasteful and may be harmful to
humans, thereby diminishing the quality of the water for fish and birds
and for human consumption. These noxious phytoplankton also were
inefficiently grazed by zooplankton, so the carbon fixed by
photosynthesis of these phytoplankton was not moved efficiently through
the base of the food web to higher organisms, such as fish and birds.
Although these algae fixed large quantities of energy, it was wasted
instead of supporting a healthy food chain. When phytoplankton died
they sank to the lower reaches of the lake and were decomposed by
bacteria that are natural components of the food web. The bacterial
metabolic decomposition processes required oxygen, consuming all oxygen
available, in turn leading to oxygen depletion in the lower waters of
the lake. The oxygen in the lower waters is replaced only through
circulation of the bottom waters with the oxygenated surface waters.
Circulation is constrained because of the thermal stratification of the
lake in the summer. Typically, complete re-circulation of the water
column doesn't occur until the autumn and the decline of thermal
stratification.
Mandated constraint of inputs of nutrients to the lake in the
1980's succeeded in reversing the eutrophication process. The essential
nutrient in the least relative supply was identified as phosphorus (P).
Limiting the input of P to Lake Erie was seen as the most efficient
means of limiting growth of noxious phytoplankton. As the
concentrations of P in forms readily available to algae and bacteria
declined, the abundance of noxious phytoplankton declined and were
replaced by species of phytoplankton that were efficiently grazed and
did not diminish water quality with noxious exudates.
The reclamation of Lake Erie's water quality and its food web from
the eutrophic conditions that existed 30 years ago is one of the major
successes in large-scale ecosystem management. That success is now
threatened by increases in phytoplankton production, return of some of
the noxious phytoplankton species, and by an increase in the area of
the lake covered by anoxia in the late summer. The cause of this is
uncertain.
Figure 1. Anoxic regions of Lake Erie from 1930--1982. Shaded regions
indicate anoxic regions detected in summer. From Bolsenga and
Herdendorf 1993.
What is different this summer? For the past decade my research
group has investigated the structure and function of the base of the
food web, both under the influence of zebra mussels and in their
absence. We have focused on the uptake and transport of carbon (C) and
P because of the significance of these elements to the ecosystem
function.
The base of the food web is comprised of phytoplankton, zooplankton
(micro-crustaceans, rotifers and protists) and bacterioplankton. The
bacterioplankton are a large number of species of non-pathogenic
bacteria that are essential for performance of many ecosystem
functions. The base of the food web is an interplay between growth of
phytoplankton and bacterioplankton. The movement of energy and
materials through the base of the food web can take two major pathways:
1) phytoplankton can be grazed directly by microcrustaceans or 2)
dissolved photosynthate released by phytoplankton can support bacterial
growth and a microbial food web. We have shown that the relative
importance of these pathways is not constant in Lake Erie. The direct
grazing pathway is most important in coastal regions of the lake and
the microbial food web becomes relatively more important in offshore
and oligotrophic regions. As part of our research we have studied
several sites that include the portion of the lake that most frequently
became anoxic, the Sandusky subbasin (SSB).
Here I describe in brief our findings from the past 2 years in the
SSB and compare them with our findings from two cruises in July 2002.
The observations that I present here were taken from a station in the
SSB near the international boundary:
LAT 41o 40' LON 82o 30'
Depth profiles of dissolved oxygen at this site are shown in Figure
2. Dissolved oxygen concentration was determined potentiometrically
with a Hydrolab multi-parameter data sonde, calibrated within 24 hours
of the observation. Oxygen depletion in the bottom waters at this
station is not unique to this summer.
Figure 2. Depth profiles of oxygen concentrations during July 2000,
2001, 2002 at Sandusky Subbasin Station.
Following collection of physical variables onsite, water samples
were collected and returned to the Biochemical Limnology Laboratory at
Kent State University where we examined the status of the base of the
food web. Our observations are summarized in Table 1. We also provide a
comparison with the past 2 years and note observations that are
statistically and scientifically significant in bold type.
Water transparency, estimated by the maximum depth at which a 20 cm
white plate can be discerned--the Secchi depth--is significantly lower
this summer than in the recent past indicating a significant decrease
in the transparency of the water. We also observed a significant
increase in chlorophyll content in samples over past years. This
increase in chlorophyll supported photosynthesis. The ``health'' of the
algae is indicated by the photosynthetic potential and the optimum
photosynthetic rate, scaled for unit amount of chlorophyll. The
observations indicate that the algae are growing actively; their
photosynthetic capabilities do not appear to be limited by nutrient
availability. Consistent with this is seen a significant increase in
the amount of P in algal particles. When algae are in nutrient rich
waters they store excess amounts of P in their tissues as insurance
against nutrient limitation at a later time.
We also observe large amounts of P in bacterial particles. Bacteria
growing actively increase their amount of P by increasing the amount of
RNA, an essential biochemical necessary for protein synthesis and
active growth. Active bacteria, in general, increase in size and rate
of incorporation of dissolved carbon compounds. We observed that
bacteria this year were significantly larger, and incorporated
significantly more dissolved leucine (a dissolved biochemical compound
we use to test their growth rate). Our observations are consistent with
the view that bacterioplankton in Lake Erie are growing significantly
faster than in years past--at least at the site and times we have
investigated. Available-P, estimated both with a bioassay and by
chemical means, does not appear to differ significantly this summer vs.
previous summers. The amount of dissolved organic P (DOP) is
significantly increased and the total P is significantly increased.
Our observations indicate that phytoplankton remain P-limited and
susceptible to management plans devised around the assumption that they
are P-limited. The phosphate turnover times of about 30 minutes
indicate that the plankton community is P-limited but not severely so.
If it were severely P-limited, many plankton would be capable of
producing large amounts of alkaline phosphatase to obtain available P
from certain DOP compounds. Alkaline phosphatase is detected
fluorometrically by the hydrolysis of methyl-umbelliferyl phosphate
(MUP). The rate of MUP hydrolysis can be used to detect P-limitation,
high MUP rates indicate severe P-limitation. The rates of MUP
hydrolysis were modest, indicating that the community is not severely
P-limited.
These findings (based on very limited observations) are consistent
with the view that phytoplankton and bacterioplankton--the base of the
food web--are more abundant and active this year in Lake Erie than in
the recent past. We observe significant increases in the amount of P as
dissolved organic P, forms of P available for phytoplankton growth only
under certain conditions. The sources of additional DOP and the
stimulation of plankton growth are unknown and a matter of concern and
conjecture.
Implications for increased regions of anoxia: Given these
observations, I believe a likely explanation for increased regions of
anoxia in Lake Erie is increased production at the base of the food
web. If these increased amounts of phytoplankton are incompletely
grazed, they could sink to the lower regions of the lake on death and
be decomposed by natural non-pathogenic bacteria that consume oxygen to
depletion. I should like to emphasize that this explanation is not the
only possible explanation; it is the one I regard as the most likely
explanation. Natural geochemical and biological processes can also
consume oxygen. Oxygen consumption by these natural processes is
normally replenished by entrainment of oxygenated waters during storms.
During unusually long periods of stagnation, oxygen can be depleted
from bottom waters without extraordinary production occurring in the
surface waters.
Possible Causes of increased phytoplankton and bacterioplankton
growth: Because the phytoplankton appear to be P-limited (although
weakly), I believe we need to examine possible sources of P and the
processes by which it can be supplied at a rate to support increased
phytoplankton growth.
External loading of P comes from the watershed but external to the
lake. Such external sources can come from identifiable points (point-
source loading: sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows,
industrial effluents, etc.). Regulation of point source loading is
strict and generally works well to control unwanted excessive inputs of
P to the lake. Alternatively, non-point sources of P-loading from
sources such as agricultural and residential runoff of fertilizers is
not well regulated nor easily monitored because of its diffuse nature.
Internal loading of P is a term applied to processes that recycle P
already in the lake from unavailable forms to available forms of P
(e.g. inorganic orthophosphate). P is unavailable for growth of
phytoplankton and bacteria when it is sorbed to sediments, when it is
in dissolved organic P compounds (DOP), or when it is incorporated into
living or dead organic particles. P sorbed to sediment surfaces can be
released when the oxygen concentrations decline below 0.4 ppm. This
means that when oxygen is depleted from waters immediately above the
sediment surface, P can be released in a useful form by desorption,
potentially further stimulating the growth of P-limited phytoplankton.
P can also be released in useful forms through the action of certain
enzymes capable of hydrolyzing specific DOP compounds (Francko and
Heath 1979) or through photolysis of DOP compounds by UV light capable
of penetrating several meters into clear lake water (Cotner and Heath
1990). High temperatures of the lake water can increase the activity of
hydrolytic enzymes acting on enzyme-sensitive DOP; clear water and
increased intensity of UV light can increase the rate of photolysis of
UV-sensitive DOP.
Organisms grazing on particulate organic matter (e.g. living or
dead tissue material) release P in available and unavailable dissolved
forms. Increased grazing activities by zebra mussels and their
congener, quagga mussels, may be a source of increased P-availability.
My research over the past several years has shown that zebra mussels
release sufficient available P to relieve phytoplankton in surrounding
waters from P-limitation (Heath et al. 1995). Their effect on the whole
lake community remains unclear (Heath et al. 2000), although they may
exacerbate blooms of the nuisance cyanobacterium, Microcystis (Culver
et al. 1999).
Conclusions and Specific Recommendations: It is not clear why the
zone of anoxia has apparently begun to expand after at least a decade
of being confined to small regions of the central basin of Lake Erie.
With apparent increases in phytoplankton abundance, it is tempting to
reminisce about the causes of large regions of anoxia observed during
the 1960's and early 1970's. Anoxia of those days resulted from
eutrophication due to excessive external loading of available P from
point sources. Because of the great restrictions on point-source P-
loading, it is unlikely that the current problems arise in the same
way. The role of other sources needs to be investigated. It is unclear
whether external non-point source loading from urban and agricultural
sites or internal loading due to zebra-and quagga mussels or a
combination of external and internal sources are capable of causing the
problems currently observed.
I don't believe we need new research of the issues involved as much
as we need new ways of placing current research into a more useful
context.
(1) Research on ecosystem level effects of P-loading and the
possible effects of dreissenid mussels need to be placed into
comprehensive models useful for ecosystem management. The ``Great Lakes
Modeling Summit: Focus on Lake Erie'' (IJC 2000) is an excellent point
of departure for this purpose.
(2) Scientific research on the Great Lakes needs to move beyond its
current ad hoc status by incorporating continuous comprehensive
monitoring activities at levels far expanded beyond current efforts.
(3) The Great Lakes need to be valued as national (indeed, an
international) treasures rather than being viewed as regional resources
alone. Issues besetting the Great Lakes need to be addressed in
innovative bi-national ecosystem research, monitoring and management
programs.
References:
Bolsenga, S. J. and C. E. Herdendorf. 1993. Lake Erie and Lake St.
Clair Handbook. Wayne State Univ. Press. (Detroit). x + 467 pp.
Cotner, J. B., Jr. and R. T. Heath. 1990. Iron redox effects on
photosensitive phosphorus release from dissolved humic materials.
Limnol and Oceanogr. 35: 1175--1181.
Culver, D. A, D.B. Baker, R.P. Richards, A.M. Beeton, T.H. Johengen,
G.A Leshkevich, H.A. Vanderploeg, J.W.Budd, W. W. Carmichael, R.T.
Heath, C. E. Wickstrom, H.J. MacIsaac, and L.Wu. 1999. ``Toxicity,
ecological impact, monitoring, causes and public awareness of
Microcystis blooms in Lake Erie.'' Final Report to the Lake Erie
Commission. 57 pp + 12 tables + 78 figures. 31 March 1999.
Francko, D.A. and R.T. Heath. 1979. Functionally distinct classes of
complex phosphorus compounds in lake water. Limnol and Oceanogr. 24
(3):463-473.
Heath, R.T. 1986. Dissolved organic phosphorus compounds: do they
satisfy planktonic phosphate demand in summer? Can. J. Fisheries
Aquat. Sci. 43 (2):343-350.
Heath, R.T., G. Fahnenstiel, W.S.Gardner, J.F. Cavaletto and S-J
Hwang. 1995. Ecosystem level effects of zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha): An enclosure experiment in Saginaw Bay. J. Great Lakes
Research 21: 501--516.
Heath, R.T., X. Gao, H. Wang, and V. Mattson. 2000. Influence of
zebra mussels on phytoplankton photosynthesis in Lake Erie. Ohio
Journal of Science 100: A-43.
Int. Joint Com. 2000. Great Lakes Modeling Summit: Focus on Lake
Erie. ISBN 1-894280-17-2.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported by grants from the Lake
Erie Protection Fund (98-09) and Ohio Sea Grant (R/ZM-25). I thank Dr.
Xueqing Gao and Tracey Trzebuckowski for help in preparing this report
and Carla Skytta and Laurie White for technical assistance.
__________
Statement of Elaine Marsh, Lake Erie Region Representative, Great Lakes
United
Dear committee members: I am here as the Lake Erie regional
representative on the board of Great Lakes United, an international
not-for-profit coalition dedicated to protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem. Great Lakes United's 150
member groups represent tens of thousands of people from the eight
Great Lakes States and the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The Great Lakes are the largest surface fresh water supply on
earth, representing almost 20 percent of the world's fresh surface
water. They are irreplaceable and nonrenewable--a gift of the last
glacier, renewed at less than 1 percent annually.
There is no one answer to the question of why anoxia is occurring
in the central basin of Lake Erie. We know that it is a historical
problem since the 1930's, that it peaked in the late 1960's and early
1970's, and that it was largely alleviated at that time by pollutant
and discharge regulation measures taken in the 1970's. Specifically,
these included phosphorous controls including bans on phosphates in
detergents and construction and upgrade of sewage treatment plants
around the Great Lakes.
The research performed at that time alone gives us one important
clue as to what is happening in Lake Erie. As the shallowest, Lake Erie
is the most vulnerable of the Great Lakes to stress. Lake Erie is
currently suffering from lower than normal levels and warmer than usual
temperatures. At the same time, the sewage treatment infrastructure
around the Lake is aging, and bacteria counts along many community
shorelines are on the rise. This is indicated by the rising number of
beach closings around the Lake after storm events, which cause combined
sewer systems to overflow directly into tributary streams or into the
Lake itself.
The nutrients in raw sewage fertilize vegetation in the Lake,
especially algae, which grows, blooms, dies and decays. Decaying algae
consumes oxygen.
The problem may be intensified by lower water levels, warmer water
and clearer water. Clearer water allows sunlight to penetrate further,
which again contributes to algae growth. Lake Erie waters are clearer
since the invasion/colonization of the Lake by zebra and quagga
mussels, which consume and filter floating debris. Massive die-offs and
decay of exotic species unsuited to ecosystem conditions in the Lake
may also be consuming oxygen.
Low water levels, exotic species and aging sewage treatment plants
are all likely to be contributing to the anoxic conditions in Lake
Erie.
These are large problems requiring large solutions. Great Lakes
groups are calling for a new era of investment in sewage treatment. We
believe the ``dead zone'' in Lake Erie and the increased number of
beach closings around the Lake are strong indicators that untreated
waste inputs are on their way to becoming a health crisis for Lake Erie
communities. Great Lakes citizens are advocating an immediate end to
combined and sanitary sewer overflows into Great Lakes waters, and
mandatory notification of daily bacteria counts at public beaches to
increase awareness as well as safety for the region's population.
We must protect Lake Erie and all the Great Lakes from new influxes
of exotic species such as the zebra and quagga mussels which are
thought to be linked not only to the anoxia in Lake Erie but also to
the botulism outbreak that has devastated fish, amphibian and bird
populations in the eastern basin. Great Lakes citizens are calling for
invasive species legislation in Canada and the U.S. by 2004 that
include ballast water standards that eliminate the risk of exotic
specie introductions, or that foreign ships be restricted from
discharging the contents of their ballast tanks at any time.
Finally, in terms of protecting Great Lakes water levels from the
potential future effects of climate change, we need to greatly reduce
CO2 emissions from two major sources: coal-fired power
plants and automobile emissions. Great Lakes citizen groups are
advocating for mandatory caps on CO2 emissions from the
power and transportation sectors that guarantee reductions of
CO2 emissions by 60 percent by 2020.
In closing, we ask the Committee to support research on Lake Erie
under the binational Lakewide Management Plan, headed by the EPA's
Great Lakes National Program Office and Environment Canada's Great
Lakes Program. The LaMP mechanism, set up under the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, includes the government partners as well as the
public participation that are critical to successfully dealing with the
complex set of events that are currently affecting Lake Erie.
We also ask the Committee to support restored funding to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Lakes program to enhance monitoring and
oversight of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
______
Responses of Elaine Marsh to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Ms. Marsh, in your testimony you state that phosphorus
controls have alleviated Lake Erie's problems over the last several
decades. Given today's concerns, do you think we ought to do more to
control phosphorus inputs into Lake Erie?
Response. Emphatically yes, Great Lakes United believes more needs
to be done to control phosphorus. We need to determine and control the
current loadings of phosphorus from all sources.
Current de-emphasis on tributary deposition
I have heard and read the statement that while the phosphorus
levels in the Lake Erie are rising, levels in the tributaries are
declining. This is certainly not true of the Cuyahoga River, the river
with which I am most familiar. The phosphorus levels in the lower
Cuyahoga exceed the Ohio EPA target levels during nearly all flow
regimes. For many years, Hiram College has monitored a stretch of the
lower river for a number of parameters, including phosphorus.
Therefore, the phosphorus information that we have on the lower river
is empirical, and we can have confidence in the data.
However, since phosphorus is not a regulated pollutant in the NPDES
system, ambient phosphorus levels, both particulate and dissolved, may
not be available in many tributaries. And while Storm Water Phase II
may have some monitoring effect on the overall particulate forms of
phosphorus, the program will not affect dissolved forms. And it is the
dissolved forms which are of greatest concerns to the anoxia problem in
Lake Erie.
Monitoring tributaries
Since phosphorus is not a regulated pollutant, consistent
monitoring of total phosphorus and phosphates is not required. This can
result in an inconsistent or sporadic monitoring program which may not
capture an accurate picture of loading. Often, this sporadic
information goes into modeling equations which drive conclusions and
recommend technology controls.
The Lake Erie basin is a very dynamic system. We believe that too
much of the information that we have about tributary loadings comes
from incomplete, sporadic sampling. That information gets built into
models. And while modeling is a very effective tool without which we
would be very restricted, it only works in a system which is fairly
predictable.
We believe that the Lake Erie monitoring and modeling system needs
to be evaluated and revised. The current research effort should result
in recommendations for a broader model and for an on-going monitoring
program.
Also, current research efforts should identify all institutions
that are currently monitoring phosphorus and establish a data
collection system.
Partnering opportunities should be identified for major tributaries
which have no current monitoring program.
Nutrient limits
We believe that EPA should move forward to regulate nutrient
loadings. EPA has been studying this issue for the past several years.
The agency should move forward to publish enact rules and guidance on
nutrients. Phosphorus limits, regulated through the NPDES system, will
greatly reduce phosphorus loading, regardless of their sources, as
local and State governments will be required to examine strategies and
policies to achieve compliance. To date, chemical numeric standards are
the only enforcement strategy which has effectively and uniformly
reduced pollution loading. Phosphorus limits in the NPDES system will
be an effective way of reducing anoxia in the Lake.
CSOs and SSOs
These antiquated systems must be corrected. Billions of gallons of
untreated water flow into Lake Erie each year. The amount of phosphorus
this water contributes to Lake Erie is astonishing. With the nine
minimum control strategy, we are beginning to quantify the
contributions from CSOs.
In addition to phosphorus loading, CSOs take a weighty toll on
recreation, human health, quality of life and economic development.
Here in the Cuyahoga watershed, we enjoy the beauty of the Cuyahoga
Valley National Park and of the Ohio and Erie Canal National Heritage
Corridor. However, due to poor water quality in wet weather related to
CSOs, water-based recreation, even wading, poses significant threat to
human health. And along certain stretches of the Ohio and Erie Canal
Towpath Trail, one of the nation's most visited trails, the smell of
sewage is overwhelming.
Over the past several years, municipalities and sewer districts
impacted by CSOs and SSOs have been arguing that wet weather standards
should be lowered. They argue that the bacteria standards for primary
contact cannot be attained in wet weather in urban stream. If this
argument results in allowing CSOs and SSOs to continue discharging
untreated waste into our streams, it will be a disaster.
Please help hold the standard. This is not the time to argue
attainability.
Let's correct the sewers and then, perhaps, attainability might be
a reasonable topic. There is no argument that can justify dumping
untreated waste into our streams, our fishing holes, our canoeing
rivers, our stone-skipping runs, or our drinking water source. We must
rise to the occasion. We must for do it for health of our streams, the
health of our children, the health of our local economies and the
health of our future. And, we must do it in order to face our legacy
with dignity. What will we tell the next generation if we don't solve
this problem? How can we hold ourselves as the world's superpower and
refuse to treat our own waste just because we don't want to spend the
money?
Correcting CSOs will have a substantial effect on phosphorus
loadings in Lake Erie and an enormous effect on recreation and quality
of life in the basin.
We hope that the Senate will probe into the issues of funding and
policy related to SSOs and CSOs. We hope that Senator Voinovich will
continue to be a leader on this issue.
Non-point source contributions
Stream protection, wetland retention, control of impervious
surfaces and urban forestry are topics that must be addressed in order
to minimize run-off that contributes significantly to phosphorous
loading. Ohio EPA research indicates that hydromodification and urban
run-off are the largest---- growing causes of pollution in our streams.
In order to reduce the phosphorus contributions from non-point sources,
the Senate should enact laws that restore protection to isolated
wetlands, protect and encourage the natural stream channel, encourage
the protection and restoration of the flood plain, and encourage the
preservation and restoration of the urban tree canopy.
What we have come to understand is that if we are to effectively
manage our environment, we must expand our definition of infrastructure
to include measures that provide a sustainable environment. The
environmental service of green infrastructure is as important as
traditional infrastructure.
Engineers of our future infrastructure will include wetland
ecologists, urban foresters and geo-fluvial hydro-morphologists. Lake
Erie would be an excellent place to locate a large-scale demonstration
project on green infrastructure as a strategy to reduce phosphorus
loading. Certainly, the Cuyahoga River would be a likely spot for such
a project.
Question 2. Ms. Marsh, what do you think should be done help
prevent the introduction of additional aquatic nuisance species into
the Great Lakes? What should we do to address species that have already
been introduced into the Great Lakes? What is the appropriate role of
the Federal Government and State government in aquatic nuisance species
control?
Response. Aquatic nuisance species are arguably the No. 1 problem
facing the lakes. Both existing but as-yet unidentified introductions
and new introductions have the potential to catastrophically decimate
the Great Lakes food web and general lakes ecology as we know it today.
Current efforts to control new introductions are of extremely limited
effectiveness. Attached to this submission are articles from past Great
Lakes United newsletters that summarize current scientific research
that addresses the severe potential consequences of the deficiencies of
current aquatic nuisance species control programs.
Of top priority is the prevention of new invasive species into the
Great Lakes basin. The United States should make protection from the
introduction of all invasive species a national priority. Strong and
fully funded national policy, such as the reauthorization of the
National Invasive Species Act (being reauthorized as the National
Aquatic Invasive Species Act) is critical for the long term prevention
of introductions for all of the Nation. It must be noted that while the
draft NAISA appears strong, it could take decades to realize the
benefits from this legislation. The Great Lakes need better, more
immediate protection.
Furthermore, strong national policies to prevent invasive species
are moot if the Federal Government also pursues navigation expansion
projects that would further facilitate, and increase the number of,
future invasions into the Great Lakes. The current Great Lakes
Navigation System review, which is in its draft reconnaissance phase,
proposes to investigate the feasibility of expanding the Great Lakes
navigation system to allow larger oceangoing ships into the basin. This
approach to enhancing the movement of goods in the basin is problematic
for many reasons. Perhaps the most important is the certainty of an
increased pace of invasions from the ballast water of oceangoing ships.
The Federal Government should direct the Army Corps of Engineers to
examine alternative means of moving goods through the Great Lakes basin
that prevent new invasions and reduce the movement of invasive species
within the basin. Great Lakes United articulated some alternative
approaches to the Corps in an April 2002 letter. A properly designed
study would look at:
How to modify trade on the Great Lakes to reduce the
overall impact of shipping trade on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
ecosystem
The feasibility of restricting foreign ships that trade
in the basin to a central transfer station in the lower reaches of the
St. Lawrence River
Assessing the environmental benefit of this trade
modification on the lakes, the subsequent economic benefit associated
with this environmental protection and the cost and benefit of
establishing a fixed ballast water treatment facility to service both
domestic and foreign ships trading in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River basin and the Laurentian channel.
These alternative approaches to the study of Great Lakes navigation
could lead to basin transportation modifications that support both
overall economic development and the vitality of basin sub-economies
that depend substantially or entirely on the health of the ecosystem.
__________
Statement of Gerald Matisoff, Professor and Chair, Department of
Geological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University
I am Gerald Matisoff, Professor and Chair of the Department of
Geological Sciences at Case Western Reserve University. I have been
asked to provide technical expertise to the Committee because of my
role as Project Director of the EPA-funded grant ``Lake Erie Trophic
Status'' which began this summer. I have also served as Editor of the
Journal of Great Lakes Research for the past 5 years and have been
active in Great Lakes research since the 1970's. Attached to this
document is a CV which lists my publications pertinent to Lake Erie.
Provided here are brief comments about why anoxia is occurring in
the central basin of Lake Erie, about the effects of anoxia on the Lake
Erie ecosystem, and about solutions to prevent anoxia from occurring in
the future. My comments are necessarily brief, in part because we don't
have complete answers to all of your questions so more detailed
explanations would border on speculation, and in part because of the
limited time in which to prepare my report. I would be happy to provide
you with additional information or answer additional questions at a
later date.
Causes of Anoxia
Low oxygen during the summer in the bottom waters of lakes is a
natural phenomenon. What happens is that heating of the surface of a
lake during the spring warms the surface water. Since warm water is
less dense than cold water, it floats on top, effectively isolating the
cold bottom water from the atmosphere. As a result, although the
surface water can replenish oxygen by exchange with the atmosphere the
bottom water cannot. Bacterial respiration of organic matter in the
water column and on the lake bottom consumes oxygen, so oxygen
concentrations in the bottom water gradually decrease throughout the
summer. Water with low oxygen concentrations are termed ``hypoxic''; if
oxygen concentrations go to zero, then the water is termed ``anoxic.''
In the autumn, the surface waters cool and when the densities of the
surface water and bottom water are the same the water column mixes
vertically destroying the 2-layer stratification and oxygen is returned
to the deeper water and nutrients in the bottom water are mixed into
the surface water. This process is termed ``fall overturn'' and occurs
in Lake Erie's central basin during August to September.
Human activity can and has exacerbated the development of anoxic
bottom waters. The addition of algal nutrients such as phosphorus (and
nitrogen in coastal ocean systems) from fertilizer derived from
agricultural runoff and from sewage discharges has led to an increase
in algal growth and a consequent increase in the amount of organic
matter undergoing respiration and decay during the summer. This process
is termed ``eutrophication.'' The Great Lakes research community played
a major leadership role in the 1960's and 1970's in demonstrating
eutrophication control by phosphorus load reduction. The basic approach
was to synthesize a great deal of eutrophication process-oriented
research into complex mathematical models of the relationship between
nutrient loads and eutrophication symptoms, then those models were used
to set target P loads for each lake or major embayment, then the IJC
recommended programs that would achieve those loads, then the Parties
implemented those programs; and when the target loads were achieved the
models were post-audited and in general found to be ``right on'' in
their predictions. For Lake Erie that target load is 11,000 metric tons
of phosphorus per year. Twenty years later this process has been
heralded as one of humankind's greatest environmental success stories
and since then it has been copied and implemented in numerous other
locations throughout the world.
Data from the IJC and from EPA indicates that the phosphorus
loading goal of 11,000 metric tons per year has, more or less, been
achieved on a regular basis over the last decade or two. So the
question is why, if phosphorus loading goals have been met, are anoxic
bottom waters recurring in the central basin of Lake Erie? My multi-
investigator research project, ``Lake Erie Trophic Status'' is an
initial survey to begin to answer this question.
There are at least three potential explanations which are
illustrated in Figures 1 through 3. The first hypothesis is that the
problem is climate related (Figure 1). Variations in climate which lead
to a longer time period in which the lake is stratified or leads to a
thinner bottom water layer will lead to the development of anoxia in
the bottom waters. These conditions include a longer summer season, a
warmer, less windy season, lower lake levels, or temperature conditions
that lead to the development of a thin bottom water layer. Because Lake
Erie is so shallow it naturally has a thin bottom water layer and is
therefore more susceptible to anoxia than the other, deeper Great
Lakes.
Figure 1. Effects of climate on the development of bottom water
anoxia. Anoxia can be facilitated by a longer summer season, a warmer,
less windy season, lower lake levels, or a thinner bottom water layer.
A second hypothesis is that the actual P loading to Lake Erie is
greater than we are aware of (Figure 2). This could occur because there
may be unrecognized P loadings, some point source P loadings may be
under-reported, or there may be errors in how some P loadings are
calculated, especially from unmonitored non-point source tributaries.
If P loadings are actually higher than it is thought, then axoxia may
be occurring because the target goal of 11,000 metric tons per year
actually has been exceeded.
The third hypothesis is that zebra mussels changed the carbon
transfer system of the lake from a pelagic food web to a benthic system
(Figure 3). Before zebra mussels, Lake Erie had a pelagic food web
where phytoplankton (or at least the larger size fractions) were
consumed by zooplankton which were fed on by fish. Since the
introduction of the zebra mussel the phytoplankton have been removed
from the surface waters of the lake by the filtering action of the
zebra mussels. In addition, zebra mussel filtration has facilitated
deeper light penetration which has allowed benthic algae and rooted
aquatic plants to grow. This has put the majority of the carbon on the
bottom of the lake where its decay will consume bottom water oxygen.
Effects of Anoxia
The development of bottom water anoxia has a number of undesirable
consequences. Perhaps the most obvious are massive fish kills. Fish
kills result from species that need cold oxygen-rich water to survive
but find neither the warm surface water nor the cold anoxic water
tolerable. Second, there are often taste and odor (musty smell)
problems that occur because of blooms of undesirable algae. Anoxic
bottom waters can cause ecosystem changes; for example, mayfly nymphs,
a desired food for several fisheries, cannot survive in bottom waters
that periodically go anoxic. In fact, their recent return in large
numbers in the western basin of Lake Erie has been cited as evidence of
the positive response of the lake to reduced phosphorus loadings.
Fourth, anoxia and especially eutrophication can lead to blooms of
nuisance and toxic algae and the production of water-borne toxins.
Anoxia can also lead to increased phosphorus cycling and further
eutrophication. Finally, anoxia results in other beneficial use
impairments, such as beach closures.
Solutions to Anoxia
Since the cause(s) for the current anoxia are not known, it is
premature to propose solutions to solve the problem. The key to
determining an appropriate solution to anoxia is to identify the
cause(s), understand how the ecosystem responds to the stresses, and
then select an appropriate course of action based on potential for
success, adverse effects, ease of implementation, and cost. However, if
the problem is recurring and expected to continue to remain a problem
in the foreseeable future, then the target phosphorus load of 11,000
metric tons per year may need to be revisited. Some other causes, for
example a zebra mussel induced problem, will have other possible
solution options. Some of these may be untenable or excessively
expensive, such as controlling the zebra mussel population by
eradication (like lampricide applications for sea lamprey control) or
may include natural or induced biological control (such as predation on
zebra mussels by round gobies). Climate change causes certainly have
significant implications for lake water levels and water diversions.
One area of concern is that the continuing introduction of non-
indigenous species has generated an ecosystem that is not in
equilibrium, and the dynamic nature of the changes are difficult to
predict. For example, predation on the zebra mussel by the round goby
may lead to control of the zebra mussel population and reverse some of
the adverse effects of the zebra mussel. This means that it will be
difficult to understand sufficiently the ecosystem in order to develop
an appropriate course of action. Considerably more study on nutrient
cycling and on the dynamic nature of the ecosystem will be required.
Current Research
My research grant on the ``Trophic Status of Lake Erie'' is an
initial investigation to begin to develop and understanding of the
complex interactions in this highly dynamic ecosystem. Because of the
complex nature of the problem, we designed a research project that was
substantially more comprehensive than the usual single investigator
project. The project includes 27 principal investigators from 18
institutions. The project is primarily field-based to collect samples
and data using EPA's RV Lake Guardian and the Canadian Coast Guard
Vessel Limnos. The sampling effort includes the measurement of water-
related attributes, sediment-related attributes, a zoobenthic inventory
and includes studies to derive and extrapolate energy processing and
nutrient transfer from zoobenthos though round gobies, and to quantify
particle transport processes and nutrient sources among compartments.
Specific objectives include the following:
1) Estimate the historical frequency and extent of episodic anoxia
in the bottom waters of the central basin by interpreting geochemical
markers (stable isotopes, chemical species of trace materials, ostacode
fragments), and other indicators of environmental change derived from
sediment cores;
2) A simulated reconstruction of the areal extent, volume,
duration, and oxygen depletion of the central basin bottom waters
through the 1990's;
3) A lakewide quantitative assessment of dominant zoobenthos
populations and distributions, especially dreissenids, oligochaete
worms, chironomids, burrowing mayflies, and amphipods;
4) An evaluation of the accuracy and utility of remote-sense
technology (side-scan sonar, ROV, videography) in analyzing sediment
composition and dreissenid distribution;
5) A bioenergetic model of benthic energy and nutrient transfer
through benthivorous round gobies;
6) Estimates of sediment-water boundary exchanges through
sublittoral and profundal measurements of sediment oxygen demand,
benthic primary production, solute and particle advection induced by
physical processes, and bioturbation, and sedimentation rates;
7) Estimates of vertical distribution of nutrients, oxygen,
phytopigments and particulate matter;
8) Estimates of epilimnetic and hypolimnetic primary production,
respiratory demand, and cycling efficiency using both established and
novel approaches;
9) Determination of factors and cofactors (nutrients, trace metals)
limiting primary production;
10) Determination of lake-wide phosphorus loading, among-basin
transport, and net export;
11) An improved conceptual model of nutrient dynamics that better
explains trends in nutrient behavior, primary production, and
hypolimnetic oxygen depletion than currently used models.
The field sampling is continuing throughout the summer. To date,
sampling trips aboard the RV Lake Guardian occurred in June and July.
Since the research efforts have been focussed on data collection, no
attempt has been made yet to fully coordinate the data and/or interpret
it. However, there have already been some unusual observations. Some of
these key, but preliminary findings to date include the following:
Anecdotal observations suggest that most of the dressenid
mussels were quagga mussels and not zebra mussels and they were mostly
dead or in poor condition. A quantitative lake-wide survey is planned
for the August cruise. Predation on mussels by another non-indigenous
specie, the round goby, may be controlling the dressenid population.
Part of this study seeks to evaluate that hypothesis.
A lot of green algae (Spirogyra) were found on the bottom
of the lake in the nearshore eastern basin. This is similar to what was
found in Saginaw Bay the year after zebra mussels were reported to have
cleared the water column. Benthic algal production is probably the
result of deeper light penetration and will produce oxygen. It is not
known how the amounts of oxygen produced by benthic production compares
with oxygen consumed by respiration of bottom algae.
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) loads to the
Detroit River from its main outfall were estimated to be 512 MTA in
2001. Along with the 2000 load (517 MTA), this load represents the
minimum ever reported and is due to continued effluent flow rates of
less than 700 million gallons per day (annual average) and declining
weighted average phosphorus concentrations. These loads do not include
CSOs or bypasses.
There is no evidence for iron limitation of phytoplankton
growth in the western or central basins.
Phosphorus deficiency was assessed by alkaline
phosphatase activities in the central and eastern basins. Higher
activities were found in the bottom waters which, along with high
concentrations of chlorophyll suggest that there is primary production
occurring in the bottom water.
Subjective evaluation of benthic invertebrate populations
suggests that densities of mayfly larvae in the western basin are
somewhat lower than the previous 2-3 years. Also of interest is the
finding of empty shells of the Asian clam Corbicula, another non-
indigenous specie, on beaches at 3 locations around the basin.
Measurements of sediment oxygen demand indicate that
current rates are near normal for the past decade, with oxygen removal
from the bottom water at a rate of about 0.1 ppm/day. However, the data
are variable throughout the lake, with higher demands in the central
basin than in the western basin and higher demands in shallower water
sites than most deeper water sites.
__________
Statement of Jeffrey M. Reutter, Director, Ohio Sea Grant College
Program,
F.T. Stone Laboratory, Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR),
and Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium, the Ohio State
University
``THE DEAD ZONE IN LAKE ERIE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE''
My name is Jeffrey M. Reutter. I have been doing research on Lake
Erie, studying this wonderful resource, and teaching about it since
1971. I am the Director of the Ohio Sea Grant College Program (part of
NOAA), the F.T. Stone Laboratory (the oldest freshwater biological
field station in the country), the Center for Lake Erie Area Research
(CLEAR), and the Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystem Research Consortium
(GLAERC). I have held these positions since 1987. I am here today to
speak to you about the area of anoxia in the middle of Lake Erie, the
so-called ``Dead Zone.'' To do this I need to tell you a little about
all of the Great Lakes, how Lake Erie differs from the other Great
Lakes, and a little basic limnology so you can understand the problem.
But first, while this is a very complex issue, the take-home
message from my testimony is simple. Due in part to changes brought
about by invading species, zebra and quagga mussels, I am concerned
that we are seeing indications that Lake Erie is heading back to the
conditions of the ``dead lake'' years in the 1960's and early 70's. We
must determine if that assessment is accurate, and if accurate, we must
identify corrective actions and take them. Finally, we must recognize
that Lake Erie may be a model for many other bodies of water in this
country, and we must transfer the knowledge we gain from this lake to
prevent the same thing from occurring in other locations in this
country.
The Great Lakes hold 20 percent of all the freshwater in the world
and 95 percent of the freshwater in the United States. The US shoreline
of the lakes is longer than the Atlantic Coast, Gulf Coast and Pacific
Coast, if we leave out Alaska. Approximately 30 percent of the US
population lives around these lakes.
Lake Erie is the southernmost and shallowest of the Great Lakes. As
a result, it is also the warmest. It also provides drinking water to 11
million people each day. The other Great Lakes are all in excess of 750
feet deep, and Lake Superior is 1,333 feet deep. The deepest point of
Lake Erie is 212 feet in the eastern basin, off Long Point. As a
result, Lake Erie is the smallest of the lakes by volume, and Lake
Superior is 20 times larger than Lake Erie. The watersheds around the
other four Great Lakes are all dominated by forest ecosystems. The
watershed around Lake Erie is the home to 14 million people and is
dominated by an agricultural and urban ecosystem. As a result Lake Erie
receives more sediment and more nutrients than the other Great Lakes.
Now, if Lake Erie is the southernmost, shallowest, warmest, and most
nutrient enriched of the Lakes, we should expect it to be the most
productive of the Great Lakes. It is. In fact, we often produce more
fish for human consumption from Lake Erie than from the other four
lakes combined.
Lake Erie has gone from being the poster child for pollution
problems in this country to being one of the best examples in the world
of ecosystem recovery. A little over 30 years ago, 1969, the Cuyahoga
River burned and Lake Erie was labeled a dead lake. Nothing could have
been further from the truth. In reality the Lake was too alive. We had
put too many nutrients into the Lake from sewage and agricultural
runoff. These nutrients had allowed too much algae to grow, and that
algae, when it died and sank to the bottom, had used up the dissolved
oxygen in the water as the algae was decomposed by bacteria. This
sequence is a natural aging process in lakes called eutrophication, but
man had accelerated the process by 300 years by putting in too much
phosphorus. It is very similar to what we are seeing today in the Gulf
of Mexico, but the problem in salt water is nitrogen.
Scientists divide the Lake into three basins based on significant
differences in shape and depth. The western basin is the area west of
Sandusky and has an average depth on only 24 feet. The eastern basin is
the area east of Erie, Pennsylvania and contains the deepest point in
the Lake. The western and eastern basins have irregular bottoms with a
lot of variation in depth. The central basin is the large area between
Sandusky and Erie. The average depth of this basin is between 60 and 80
feet and the bottom is very flat. Unfortunately, it is this shape that
causes this basin to be the home of the Dead Zones.
Many of you have probably experienced swimming in a pond and
noticed that the deep water was much colder than the surface water.
This layering with warm water on top because it is less dense and
lighter, and cold water on the bottom because it is heavier, is very
common in the Great Lakes. The warm surface layer is called the
epilimnion. The cold bottom layer is called the hypolimnion. The line
of rapid temperature change between the layers is called the
thermocline. In Lake Erie, these layers form in the late spring and
break up in the fall when the surface layer cools to the temperature of
the bottom layer--normally around September or October.
In Lake Erie, the thermocline usually forms around 45-55 feet.
Based on the depths of the three basins, this means the western basin
is too shallow to have a thermocline except on rare occasions, the
eastern basin will have a thermocline and there will be a lot of water
below it in the cold hypolimnion, and the central basin will have a
thermocline but there will be a very thin layer of cold water under it
in the hypolimnion.
At the time the thermocline forms, there is plenty of dissolved
oxygen in the hypolimnion. However, due to its depth, there is often no
way to add oxygen to the water in the hypolimnion until the thermocline
disappears in the fall. Therefore, throughout the summer the oxygen
that was present when the thermocline formed is used by organisms
living in this area, including bacteria, which are decomposing algae as
it dies and sinks to the bottom. If large amounts of algae are dieing
and sinking, then large amounts of oxygen will be required for the
decomposition process. It should then seem logical that if we could
reduce the amount of algae, we could reduce the amount of oxygen that
would be required to decompose the algae.
Because the western basin seldom has a thermocline, this is not a
problem there. And, because the eastern basin is so deep, there is a
large reservoir of oxygen in the hypolimnion--enough to last through
the summer until the thermocline disappears in the fall. The central
basin, however, does not have a large reservoir of water or oxygen in
the hypolimnion because the basin is not deep enough. As a result, loss
of all the oxygen, or anoxia, can be a serious problem in the bottom
waters of the central basin. Areas of anoxia were first observed as
early as 1930, and by the 1960's and 1970's, as much as 90 percent or
the hypolimnion in the central basin was becoming anoxic each year.
This is why Lake Erie was labeled a ``dead lake.'' When an area becomes
anoxic, nothing but anaerobic bacteria can live there. Also, this water
creates severe taste and odor problems if it is drawn in by water
treatment plants servicing the population surrounding the Lake.
To reduce the amount of algae in the Lake, we needed to reduce the
amount of the limiting nutrient. By ``limiting nutrient,'' I mean the
essential nutrient that is in the shortest supply. Without this
nutrient algae cannot grow and reproduce. In freshwater this nutrient
is phosphorus. In 1969, we were loading about 29,000 metric tons of
phosphorus into Lake Erie each year. Our models told us that in order
to keep dissolved oxygen in the central basin, we needed to reduce the
annual loading of phosphorus to 11,000 metric tons. This was
accomplished and the recovery of the Lake has been truly remarkable.
The walleye harvest from the Ohio waters jumped from 112,000 in 1976 to
5 million in 1988 and the value of this fishery exceeds the value of
the lobster fishery in the Gulf of Maine. Small businesses associated
with charter fishing increased from 34 in 1975 to about 900 today, and
Lake Erie became the ``Walleye Capital of the World.''
Then on 15 October 1988, we documented the first zebra mussel in
Lake Erie. Recognizing the significance of this discovery, Ohio Sea
Grant initiated a research project on 15 November to document the
expansion of the mussels. One year later, the densities in the western
basin had reached 30,000 per square meter. Their impact was so great
that in 1993 I addressed the International Joint Commission and asked
them to create a special task force to try to understand the huge
changes that were occurring in Lake Erie. I was asked to be US Co-Chair
of the Lake Erie Task Force for the International Joint Commission from
1994-1997 as we developed models to better understand the impact of the
zebra mussel on the ecosystem of the Lake.
In 1998 I formed the Phosphorus Group, a group of about 50
scientists from the US and Canada to discuss phosphorus levels to
determine if they might have gotten too low and were harming the
fishery--at that point the walleye fishery had been reduced by about 60
percent and the smelt population had been decimated. This group
concluded that based on changes in the system caused by zebra mussels,
adding more phosphorus would create more zebra mussels and more
inedible, blue-green algae.
At the end of 1998, Drs. Jan Ciborowski (University of Windsor),
Murray Charlton (National Water Research Institute of Canada), Russ
Kreis (US EPA) and I formed the Lake Erie at the Millennium Program to
continue to lead discussions and focus attention on the huge changes
that were occurring in Lake Erie. We have documented a number of new
invaders to the Lake, including the round goby, and have observed the
gradual transition from zebra mussels to quagga mussels.
In the mid-1990's, US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) observed an increase in phosphorus levels in Lake Erie and the
increasing trend has continued. They also observed areas of anoxia in
the central basin that showed indications of growth. In 1996 we
observed a bloom of blue-green algae in the western basin--an
indication that phosphorus levels were high. In 2001 we saw more
indications that dissolved oxygen levels were critically low, and we
observed that mayfly larvae had been eradicated from several regions--a
clear indication that oxygen had been eliminated. We also observed
reduced water transparency over the artificial reefs we had worked with
the city of Cleveland to produce from old Brown's Stadium--another
indication of an anoxic hypolimnion.
The above information was shared with the GLNPO and they asked me
to bring together a group of Lake Erie experts for a meeting in their
Chicago offices on 13 December 2001 to discuss the problems we were
observing in Lake Erie and strategize about solutions. As a result of
this meeting, GLNPO issued a call for research proposals in January
2002 and they are currently funding a one-year project lead by Dr.
Gerry Matisoff, Case Western Reserve University, and the four
scientists mentioned above from the Millennium Program, to attempt to
better understand the dissolved oxygen problem in Lake Erie.
We believe the oxygen problem is real and that it is growing. We
believe it is caused by excess phosphorus, but we also believe zebra
mussels and quagga mussels are having an impact because they appear to
alter the way phosphorus cycles through the system. I also wish we had
better loading estimates for phosphorus, because it is possible that
loads are increasing.
Finally, I must mention global warming and climate change because
that is also exacerbating the dead zone problem in Lake Erie. When I
first started working on this lake, water levels were increasing and we
often said, ``dilution is the solution to water pollution.'' This is no
longer the case. Since 1997 the water level has gone down by 3-4 feet.
We are currently near the long-term average water level for Lake Erie,
but we are lower than we have been for over 30 years. This is important
because this reduction comes primarily from the hypolimnion (the cold
bottom layer). Therefore, as the water level goes down, the volume or
thickness of the hypolimnion is reduced, the oxygen reservoir in the
hypolimnion is reduced, and, as a result, the area of anoxia will
increase and last longer each year. This will hurt fish populations,
the charter and commercial fisheries (Lake Erie supports the largest
freshwater commercial fishery in the world), our boating and tourism
industries, and public health.
As for my predictions for this year, I hope I am wrong, but I fear
that this could be a very bad year. We had a very wet spring. This
means we probably received large loadings of phosphorus from
agricultural runoff and from sewage treatment plants--many of our
systems still have combined storm and sanitary sewers allowing
untreated sewage and the nutrients it carries to enter the Lake every
time we have a storm. Water levels have remained very low so the
hypolimnion will not have a large reservoir of oxygen. Together these
things mean we could experience a very large dead zone.
We need your support to rapidly do the necessary research to
confirm our beliefs about this situation. The current GLNPO study
should be expanded and continued for at least two more years. We also
need to accurately measure phosphorus loading to all of the Great Lakes
on a continuing basis. We need research to determine how best to reduce
phosphorus loading. We need to prevent future introductions of aquatic
nuisance species. We need to determine if there is a link between the
dead zone and the botulism problems we are observing in the eastern
basin. We need to do the best we can to solve these problems with our
current technologies, but we also need support for research on new
technologies to: address the oxygen problem, control zebra mussels and
other aquatic nuisance species, remove nutrients at sewage treatment
plants, reduce agricultural runoff, etc.
I believe Lake Erie is the sentinel and we should develop models to
extrapolate our results to other bodies of water that contain mussels
so they can be prepared for the problem and take preventative action
before it occurs.
______
Responses of Jeffrey M. Reutter to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Dr. Reutter, how is the round goby impacting Lake Erie?
Response. The round goby invaded Lake Erie in the early 1990's.
Whereas zebra mussels expanded primarily from west to east, gobies did
the opposite. By the mid-1990's, gobies were the most abundant
nearshore, bottom fish in northeastern Ohio (numbers in the range of
20/square meter were not uncommon), whereas they were rare in 1996 in
the island region of the western basin. By the early 2000's, densities
of gobies on the western basin Reefs ranged up to 50/square meter.
In the central and eastern basins of the Lake they appear to be
forcing the native mottled sculpin (a small fish) out.
Round gobies are eating zebra and quagga mussels. This sounds good,
but there is a serious problem. Zebra mussels have a fat content 10
times the level of native clams. This allows them to concentrate
(bioaccumulate) fat-soluble contaminants like PCBs at 10 times the
level of native clams. They pass this contaminant burden on to the
round gobies when they are eaten. Round gobies are in turn eaten by
smallmouth bass, a prized sport species, and they pass the contaminant
burden on to the bass when they are eaten. Thus, we have a new pathway
to adversely impact human health by increasing exposure to toxic
substances. All of these contaminant transfers have been identified and
confirmed by research we have supported.
Round gobies do not have an air bladder. Therefore, when they stop
swimming they sink to the bottom. Consequently, their normal habitat
has them resting on the bottom and feeding in that location. They like
to eat fish eggs. Research supported by Ohio Sea Grant and the Ohio
Division of Wildlife has confirmed that they do invade smallmouth bass
nests and steal the eggs when the bass parents are removed from, or
vacate, the nests for even very short periods of time. This may
adversely impact bass populations.
Finally, round gobies are a real nuisance to the sport fishing
community, as they steal bait and are difficult to keep off the line
when the angler is targeting other species.
Question 2. Dr. Reutter, what can be done to more accurately
monitor and measure phosphorus loading into the Great Lakes?
Response. This is a great question and an important issue for at
this point our estimates of phosphorus loading are not accurate enough.
They must be improved if we decide that phosphorus loads require
further reductions. A number of new programs (the buffer initiative,
for example) have been initiated in the past few years, but the impact
of these programs is seldom, if ever, measured.
Clearly, phosphorus levels have increased since 1995. We believe
that zebra and quagga mussels are playing a role in that increase. This
recycling of nutrients within the system is extremely important.
Research and monitoring is needed to measure this recycling in addition
to the standard external loading.
In the 1970's we had pretty good estimates of phosphorus loading,
but it required cooperation between the States, provinces, and the
Federal Government to get the estimates. I believe many people felt
that this old phosphorus problem was solved, so over the years the
commitment on the part of all involved waned--States and provinces
chose to put their resources in other areas.
To re-establish the monitoring network, I would suggest the
establishment of a Nutrient Loading Task Force within the International
Joint Commission with representation from US EPA and Environment
Canada. The Task Force would be charged to rapidly assess the accuracy
of our current loading estimates and to make recommendations to the
governments on how to increase the accuracy.
While it is very important for us to be able to accurately measure
phosphorus loading, we will need to review and extensively modify our
old phosphorus models. Now that we have zebra and quagga mussels, it is
likely that our old phosphorus models no longer work. Therefore, the
old target for allowable phosphorus loading (11,000 metric tons per
year) may no longer be accurate.
Question 3. Dr. Reutter, what efforts are underway to prevent the
introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes? What
more can be done to protect the Great Lakes from future introductions
of aquatic nuisance species?
Response. The first ANS act was passed in 1990. Since then we have
averaged about one new invader each year. Therefore, we have not closed
the door. A new act is currently being developed. However, no existing
technology is 100 percent effective. Therefore, we need additional
support for research to develop new and better technologies. A current
technology that is 99 percent effective, could still be allowing
millions of viruses or bacteria to enter the lakes from one vessel. We
clearly need a technology that is 100 percent effective. Without such a
technology, we must either greatly reduce shipping and or shipping
volumes by eliminating any discharge of ballast water, or we must
accept the continued risk of ANS introductions and continue to try to
minimize that risk.
Question 4. Dr. Reutter, given all the Federal, State, local,
international, and non-profit entities involved in research and efforts
to restore and protect the Great Lakes, how can all these efforts be
better coordinated and funding sources be stretched farther?
Response. I have to admit that there are times I wish we could
throw out all of the current organizations and start over--not likely
to happen. We are most likely to continue with a wide variety of
somewhat overlapping agencies. While this can be quite confusing,
particularly to someone unfamiliar with the system, regional efforts to
communicate and collaborate are quite effective. In Lake Erie, I can
assure you that there is no duplication of effort.
Addressing the ``dead zone'' issue--developing a plan to solve it
and implementing the plan--will take significantly increased funding. I
hope the Federal Government can provide that money. With regard to
where it should go, I strongly recommend US EPA and Ohio Sea Grant
(through NOAA). I make this recommendation because these are the only
two organizations (other than the Lake Erie Protection Fund) that have
been funding research on this critical issue and these are the two
groups with the most expertise and capabilities to address the problem.
I am also confident that dollars invested in these groups will actually
reach the problem (I can guarantee it for Ohio Sea Grant). US EPA and
Ohio Sea Grant recognized this problem early, are familiar with it, and
have collaborated and cooperated on projects to address it.
Furthermore, both groups use a peer review strategy to be sure that
only the best research and monitoring efforts are funded.