AN INVENTORY OF GREAT LAKES CONTAMINANT SURVEILLANCE/MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Overview

Numerous agencies at the federal and state (or provincial) level are involved in contaminant monitoring of the Great Lakes and its tributaries, as shown in the attached tables. The purpose of this review is to determine whether these efforts are economically administered and properly targeted.

The key ingredient in implementing an integrated system-wide surveillance network for the Great Lakes is to demonstrate that it supports well-defined goals and objectives that foster ecosystem health. The means for accomplishing this task lies in the development and coordinated use of biologic and physical indicators. Various environmental indicator committees have proposed sets of these indicators, but they have not been finalized to date.

Water Column Achievement and Diagnostic Indicators: each component is being routinely monitored periodically at probability based grid locations (including those of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)) in the case of the open lake, primarily by GLNPO. However, the tributaries appear to be less systematically sampled. Several factors, including USGS cutbacks on the North American Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) monitoring programs, and state budgetary constraints, have led to the predominant use of short-term special studies at or near Remedial Action Plan (RAP) sites. These studies are quite helpful in providing a "snapshot" of contamination, but are relatively inefficient and costly with respect to determining long-term trends toward attainment of aquatic water quality standards.

Additionally, fish contaminant monitoring is handled differently by the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. federal agencies (GLNPO and USFWS) target fewer species, monitor tributaries and harbors less frequently and do not monitor for heavy metals, such as mercury. This requires greater reliance on special studies and more intensive state monitoring. A recent program called Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) is expected to integrate data from various fish monitoring programs to better guide the monitoring teams in locating monitoring sites and measure changes through time. A detailed Program Plan is expected to be promulgated very soon, with full program implementation planned for Fiscal Year 1997.

Atmospheric Indicators: each component is being routinely monitored periodically at geographically dispersed stations; however, the number of GLAD stations is decreasing at a significant rate. The strategy is to conduct more intensive monitoring of major tributaries and open lake on a selective basis, in support of mass balance calculations. This effort should provide a useful baseline from which future trends may be readily analyzed by the IADN system.

The Canadian APIOS monitoring program includes a greater number of organic parameters than the U.S. systems, and should be evaluated to determine whether these additional parameters are required to be routinely monitored at the U.S. Areas of Responsibility, given concentration levels and potential for harm to the environment.

Open Lake Sediment Indicators: only the Canadians routinely monitor open lake sediment toxicity under their Long-term Sensing Study (LSS), a relatively new initiative. Some U.S. research, particularly that of Steve Eisenreich of U. of Minnesota, appears to indicate that sediment toxic concentrations ar dependent on focusing factors, which are a measure of the lateral transport of fine particulates form non-depositional regions to depositional regions in a lake basin. However, bioavailability of sediment toxics is also facilitated in the nearshore regions by navigation of vessels, dredging operations and other anthropogenic activity, as well as wind/weather and more intensive biological activity.

Nearshore Sediment Indicators: the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently expanded their National Status and Trends Program to include the Great Lakes, beginning in 1992 with surface sediment collections at 7 sites in 3 of the Lakes, and continuing in 1993 with 5 sites, all in Lake Michigan. This limited effort will include organic contaminant and metal analysis but will not examine the impact on benthic community structure. The Canadian effort is even more restricted, focusing on organics only near the AOCs.

It appears that the only trend data currently available are those collected near the AOCs as part of the ARCS or RAP programs. A local limnologist, Dr. Barry Lescht of the U. of Chicago, recently briefed GLNPO on the design of sampling networks for large mass balance studies. In that brief, he recommended that sediments be sampled by a semi-random network design utilizing geostatistics to key on areas where sediment fluxes occur, as well as more intensive sampling in areas of high deposition. This scheme would require some additional monitoring beyond the AOCs, in areas subject to sediment fluxes, such as remixing and resuspension.

Now that we have reviewed current monitoring schemes and their rationales in terms of developing indicators of ecosystem toxicity, their overlaps and gaps, the next step is to determine what environmental managers of the Great Lakes want to be monitored and then translate those priorities into a coordinated system of appropriately targeted programs.

12 Jan 94

From: W. Crow

To: P. Horvatin

Subj: Monitoring Inventory Turnover/Review

1. Per your request, attached is my status report regarding my efforts to date on phases 1&2 of the monitoring inventory. Appendix A contains a summary of my findings and is provided for your information and consideration. The bottom enclosure is the tables I have updated based on inputs received to date.

2. Although this project is being turned over to others within GLNPO, I am certainly available for any questions you or the staff may have. The impetus for my requesting reassignment within the staff is purely to broaden my experience and thus strengthen my chances for challenging and rewarding employment within EPA or other federal agency.

3. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your capable staff. It has been a stimulating learning experience for me, and I hope that has been the case for you as well.

Winston K. Crow

AN INVENTORY OF GREAT LAKES CONTAMINANT SURVEILLANCE/MONITORING ACTIVITIES

A STATUS REPORT BY WINSTON KIM CROW, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE FELLOW

OUTLINE:

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

PURPOSE

EXPECTED UTILITY

II.METHODOLOGY

III.STATUS

IV.CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

V. FEEDBACK/STAFF INPUT

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

- Genesis: FY 93 Workplan,Goal 1,Objective 3 (then, subsequently,in FY 94 Workplan,Goal 5,Objective 3 - see slide 1)

- Purpose: To identify gaps and redundancies in existing routine contaminant monitoring programs (see attached summary provided as Appendix A).

- Expected Utility: Use as a tool for ensuring programs are properly structured, with minimum overlap and maximum coverage.

- W. Crow assigned task of compiling monitoring inventory upon arrival May 93.

II. Methodology

W. Crow conducted kick-off meeting to gather SRS staff input held 5/26/93; initial draft of phase 1 (GLNPO-administered or funded programs) prepared based on follow-on individual interviews with SRS members in June 93. Phase 2 (other agencies) begun late June, first draft completed Aug. Iterative drafts prepared subsequently and submitted to individual staff members for review and comment. Meetings conducted with: RPS staff (Fox, Flagler, Tuchman, Cowgill), Water div. (G. Kohlhepp), Susan Boldt.

III. Status

Hard copy comments received from: L. Superior Binational Committee, IJC, GLIFWC, USGS, NOAA, USFWS (all incorporated). Pamphlets received from states of Minn, Wis, and Mich, as well as province of Ont., but not completely incorporated pending further direction (branch chief indicated he wanted to "wrap it up" based on this brief and the consensus reached herein). See tables provided for current inventory database.

IV. Conclusions/Recommendations

The inventory, as presently configured, gives majority of federal agency monitoring activity in Great Lakes Basin. However, state programs are not included in great detail, and Canadian research programs are not included at branch chief's request, although a catalog is available.

Phase III, which was to be a "wish list" of those programs that would be implemented if funding were not constrained, has not been attempted, although some data were gathered during conversations with SRS staff members during individual interviews. This is expected to be a large effort that may not have immediate utility in the current fiscal environment of both the federal and state/provincial governments.

As far as where we should go from here, I suggest we feed the inventory to the various LAMP subcommittees responsible for these activities, and assign one person to compile and incorporate their comments.

V. Feedback/Staff Input

It is desired that this project be completed expeditiously in the most efficient manner that will yield adequate results for the purpose stated. Accordingly, staff input would be highly beneficial. However, as the introduction of other projects, travel, coursework, etc., is essential to providing a successful conclusion to my fellowship, it is necessary to constrain this effort in terms of my own time/schedule demands. Therefore, a replacement project officer should be assigned prior to the conclusion of this briefing. My assignment is to be altered, at the suggestion of Mr. Grundler, to that of Special Assistant to the Director, effective as soon as possible following turnover of the monitoring project work. I would expect this turnover to take on the order of 1 to 2 days, with my continued availability on an "as required" basis, should the need arise thereafter.

It has been a pleasure working with SRS personnel, and I hope to stay in contact with you all in the future. Thank you.

Appendix A - Summary of findings re:GL Monitoring Status & Trends

Overview

Numerous agencies at the federal and state (or provincial) level are involved in contaminant monitoring of the Great Lakes and its tributaries, as shown in the attached tables. The purpose of this review is to determine whether these efforts are economically administered and properly targeted.

The key ingredient in implementing an integrated system-wide surveillance network for the Great Lakes is to demonstrate that it supports well-defined goals and objectives that foster ecosystem health. The means for accomplishing this task lies in the development and coordinated use of biologic and physical indicators. Various environmental indicator committees have proposed sets of these indicators, but they have not been finalized to date.

Water Column Achievement and Diagnostic Indicators: each component is being routinely monitored periodically at probability based grid locations (including those of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)) in the case of the open lake, primarily by GLNPO. However, the tributaries appear to be less systematically sampled. Several factors, including USGS cutbacks on the North American Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) monitoring programs, and state budgetary constraints, have led to the predominant use of short-term special studies at or near Remedial Action Plan (RAP) sites. These studies are quite helpful in providing a "snapshot" of contamination, but are relatively inefficient and costly with respect to determining long-term trends toward attainment of aquatic water quality standards.

Additionally, fish contaminant monitoring is handled differently by the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. federal agencies (GLNPO and USFWS) target fewer species, monitor tributaries and harbors less frequently and do not monitor for heavy metals, such as mercury. This requires greater reliance on special studies and more intensive state monitoring. A recent program called Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) is expected to integrate data from various fish monitoring programs to better guide the monitoring teams in locating monitoring sites and measure changes through time. A detailed Program Plan is expected to be promulgated very soon, with full program implementation planned for Fiscal Year 1997.

Atmospheric Indicators: each component is being routinely monitored periodically at geographically dispersed stations; however, the number of GLAD stations is decreasing at a significant rate. The strategy is to conduct more intensive monitoring of major tributaries and open lake on a selective basis, in support of mass balance calculations. This effort should provide a useful baseline from which future trends may be readily analyzed by the IADN system.

The Canadian APIOS monitoring program includes a greater number of organic parameters than the U.S. systems, and should be evaluated to determine whether these additional parameters are required to be routinely monitored at the U.S. Areas of Responsibility, given concentration levels and potential for harm to the environment.

Open Lake Sediment Indicators: only the Canadians routinely monitor open lake sediment toxicity under their Long-term Sensing Study (LSS), a relatively new initiative. Some U.S. research, particularly that of Steve Eisenreich of U. of Minnesota, appears to indicate that sediment toxic concentrations ar dependent on focusing factors, which are a measure of the lateral transport of fine particulates form non-depositional regions to depositional regions in a lake basin. However, bioavailability of sediment toxics is also facilitated in the nearshore regions by navigation of vessels, dredging operations and other anthropogenic activity, as well as wind/weather and more intensive biological activity.

Nearshore Sediment Indicators: the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently expanded their National Status and Trends Program to include the Great Lakes, beginning in 1992 with surface sediment collections at 7 sites in 3 of the Lakes, and continuing in 1993 with 5 sites, all in Lake Michigan. This limited effort will include organic contaminant and metal analysis but will not examine the impact on benthic community structure. The Canadian effort is even more restricted, focusing on organics only near the AOCs.

It appears that the only trend data currently available are those collected near the AOCs as part of the ARCS or RAP programs. A local limnologist, Dr. Barry Lescht of the U. of Chicago, recently briefed GLNPO on the design of sampling networks for large mass balance studies. In that brief, he recommended that sediments be sampled by a semi-random network design utilizing geostatistics to key on areas where sediment fluxes occur, as well as more intensive sampling in areas of high deposition. This scheme would require some additional monitoring beyond the AOCs, in areas subject to sediment fluxes, such as remixing and resuspension.

Now that we have reviewed current monitoring schemes and their rationales in terms of developing indicators of ecosystem toxicity, their overlaps and gaps, the next step is to determine what environmental managers of the Great Lakes want to be monitored and then translate those priorities into a coordinated system of appropriately targeted programs.

Note for Paul Horvatin: The above represents my initial cut at a brief, but I would welcome your feedback and/or that of the staff as to any additions, deletions, etc. you deem necessary. Certainly, paragraph V. does not need to be included in the written portion of this briefing, but requires your action at some point before its conclusion. I would be glad to meet with you to discuss it further with you after my return to the office on 3 Jan. The timeframe that Chris and I discussed for delivery of the brief is the third week of Jan, but can be earlier if desired. As a reminder, I will be at the Mid Year Conference 7-11 Jan. Please check your calendar and let me know when you would like the brief to be scheduled, and I'll send out a WPO mail message to the staff. The alternative is for me to check the calendar when I get back on the 3rd, and go ahead and schedule the brief. It's your call, but Chris told me it will happen by the 3rd week in Jan.

Have a happy holiday season.

Winston

P.S. If you need to get in touch with me over the holidays, the phone no. is (919) 845-2518.

Return to the References Page