3.	SCOPING ACTIVITIES

At its 27^th meeting in Niagara Falls, Ontario, the Council defined an activity called "scoping" which was conducted at each of the Council’s subsequent meetings. Below is the text of a resolution passed unanimously at that meeting:

The CGLRM will identify and prioritize the science needs and research activities needed to address IJC Biennial Priorities.

The Council will use the Research Inventory and other sources of information to determine the current level of scientific knowledge on each priority and identify gaps in our knowledge and rank research needs to fill the gaps (scoping).

The Council will report this information and any new priorities identified during the process to the Commission for transmittal to the Parties.

3.1.	Sediment Priority

There is a consensus among diverse sectors in the Great Lakes Basin (e.g., government, industry, non-governmental organizations, RAP groups) that contaminated sediment is an important element leading to many of the impairments to beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. All 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern have contaminated sediment based on application of chemical guidelines. This universal obstacle to environmental recovery in Areas of Concern can potentially pose a challenge to restoring 11 of the 14 beneficial use impairments identified in the GLWQA (SedPAC 1997).

For RAPs, sediment management decisions need to be made bearing in mind the relationship between contaminated sediment and restoration of beneficial uses. This goes far beyond setting a numerical chemical cleanup criteria, as these are not based on the need to fully restore beneficial uses. The ultimate success of sediment management activities will be judged upon restoration of beneficial uses (e.g., elimination of fish consumption advisories, restoration of fish and wildlife populations, restoration of benthos).

Bioassessment frameworks have evolved substantially recently, and in many cases, large data sets have the required elements for developing a sediment management strategy. Equally important to the collection of data, however, is that sufficient attention be placed on thorough and comprehensive interpretation of the data. By employing scientifically sound methods of data interpretation, the information from an intensive sediment assessment can finally be integrated to make a decision to intervene (i.e., remediate contaminated sediment) or pursue source control and natural recovery as the preferred remedial option.

Research into ecologically meaningful data interpretation tools would advance sediment management decision-making by RAP practitioners. In addition to researching data interpretation tools, the Sediment Priority Action Committee (SedPAC) recognizes that the IJC can offer more assistance in the efforts to overcome obstacles to sediment management.

The Council supports SedPAC's findings that there are currently few, if any, simple or proven methods to predict recovery of use impairments based on sediment cleanup. More research is needed to quantify the relationships between contaminated sediment and known use impairments. The concept of ecological benefit forecasting (i.e., predicting ecological benefits and restoration of beneficial uses) is an important management need which, if accomplished, would be a substantial step forward.

Finally, deciding when to intervene is embedded with multiple elements. Data interpretation tools and techniques are a central element in developing the sediment management strategy. Other aspects involve what is and is not known about linking sediment clean up to ecological recovery and restoration of beneficial uses, as well as economic benefits that may accrue from effective management of contaminated sediment.

Existing studies that assess the economic benefits of remediating contaminated aquatic sediment are few. Most of the quantitative work to date has focused on the economics of navigational dredging and disposal. Further, given the lack of biophysical documentation that links sediment cleanup with beneficial use restoration, it is difficult to generate economic benefit estimates with any degree of rigor. Case studies using a range of economic valuation methods, applied to sites where sediment cleanup is complete, underway or proposed, is needed. These case studies will help identify the nature and extent of potential benefit types, and which valuation methodologies are best suited for the local characteristics of the remediation site. Perhaps most importantly, economic valuation can help legitimize the need to expedite sediment management decision-making in the Great Lakes basin.

The Council concurs with SedPAC in the following recommendations regarding contaminated sediment:

• The Commission recommends to the Parties and Jurisdictions that they develop and reach agreement on methods or programs to predict and measure successful ecological recovery in Areas of Concern (e.g., ecological benefit forecasting, monitoring and surveillance programs to measure use restoration); and
• The Commission recommends to the Parties and Jurisdictions that they establish procedures for consistent data collection and interpretation across Areas of Concern, recognizing the importance of site specificity in applying methodologies and tools.

3.2.	Indicators Priority Implementation

The emphasis for the Indicators Priority is on demonstrating feasibility of implementing indicators for the nine desired outcomes that were previously identified. The Indicators Implementation Task Force (IITF) has been sharing their metadata findings with SOLEC, and the two initatives are collaborating towards reporting on indicators. IITF has been examining indicators and measurements to track 9 desired outcomes of the water quality agreement (such as swimmability, fish edibility, drinkability). SOLEC has been considering ecosystem type indicators in regions or on a basin-wide perspective. Relationships between IITF indicators and those of SOLEC are now being catalogued.

Ecosystem objectives (equivalent to desired outcomes) are also being developed by LaMP (Lakewide Management Plans) and SOLEC is interacting with LaMPs. Currently, there is a list of several indicators under each of the nine outcomes. The IITF is also interested in the question of how to integrate data from different regions.

The Council formed a subcommittee to "scope" the indicator priority. Here are the results of the effort:

Current Status: There has been more than 25 years of work under the GLWQA. There has been more than 10 years of debate and discussion on indicators.

Gaps/Problems:

• no scientific/management consensus on some of the desired outcomes
• weak or inappropriate indicators for some desired outcomes
• local collection/storage/reporting of data ie., municipal or county level
• non-uniformity of data standards, methods, and coherence in spatial or temporal coverage

The Council identified the following research/data needs:

• Critical Path Analysis for implementation ie, by the year 2000, how can some indicators actually be happening (costed-out, data acquisition questions answered, management responsibility assigned).
• Global literature review and evaluation of indicator theory.
• Research and Development of Ecosystem models to illustrate theory and the quantitative relationship of indicators.
• Research to identify specific species, chemicals and space/time coverage for indicators.
• Great Lakes centralized meta-data base (ie. Data on data: who, where, QA/QC, etc.
• Research and development on tools for use of indicator data such as GIS (geographic information systems) and relational databases. These should be made available to local users.
• Coordinated, binational monitoring program driven by indicators.

3.3.

Lake Erie

The Council first called for a Reference on Lake Erie at the April 1993 meeting in Atlanta. The request was based on the huge changes that were occurring in the ecosystem as the zebra mussel population expanded. This continues to be a priority area for the Council. In 1998 and 1999, the Council focused on:

• modeling efforts (previously discussed in the Modeling section);
• organizing two special meetings of regional experts to discuss phosphorus levels and loading; and
• supporting a major conference at the University of Windsor hosted by the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research and the University of Windsor, the Ohio Sea Grant College Program and Stone Laboratory at The Ohio State University, US EPA-Duluth, and National Water Research Institute of Canada.

Lake Erie Phosphorus Issue. In February 1998, the Lake Erie Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission expressed grave concern over the drastic reduction in some important Lake Erie fish populations and requested that no further phosphorus loading reductions be made until managers had a better understanding of the impact. They also urged scientists on both sides of the border to focus research on this important issue. The Council rapidly brought together a group of about 50 experts on phosphorus, zebra mussels, and the Lake Erie ecosystem to discuss the issues, share their most recent research results, and make recommendations regarding research needs. Kent State University hosted the first meeting of the group on April 23-24, 1998. The University of Buffalo hosted the second meeting on June 29-30, 1998.

The models developed in the 1970's to control phosphorus loading to Lake Erie in an effort to reduce algal production and decomposition rates (oxygen depletion rates in the hypolimnion of the central basin-eutrophication) recommended a loading target level of 11,000 metric tons/year. In the period from 1982 to 1993 - most recent period of good phosphorous loading data - the total phosphorus loading to Lake Erie has hovered around the target load, with annual loading varying from about 7500 metric tons/year to about 12,500 metric tons/year depending on hydrology-driven non-point sources. This range of phosphorus loading reduced chlorophyll a concentrations to target levels; however, with the invasion zebra mussels in 1988 further reductions in phytoplankton standing crop were observed. It was this further reduction in phytoplankton coupled with the decreases in walleye standing crops that led to the questioning of the appropriateness of the 11,000 metric tons/year target phosphorous loading. However, it is not at all clear that there is a quantitative relationship between increasing phosphorus loading and increasing fish production. It is quite possible that an increase in phosphorus load will only increase zebra mussel biomass. It was primarily this uncertainty that led to the deliberations of the phosphorus expert panel.

This issue was discussed at great length at both the Kent State University and University of Buffalo meetings by the panel of experts. The Council’s conclusions and recommendations follow.

Conclusions

1. Lake Erie is probably still very productive in the western basin, but primary productivity in the eastern basin is more problematic. More importantly, productivity goes down as one moves from west to east within the Lake.
2. The smelt fishery in the eastern basin has all but collapsed.
3. The zebra mussel has changed the ecosystem and food webs to the extent that it is entirely unclear that adding phosphorus will produce the kind of plankton populations needed to support larger fish populations of target species.
4. Recent blooms of blue-green algae (including the toxin producer Microcystis) can cause taste and odor problems and are clearly associated with the selective filtering/feeding of zebra mussels and their alteration of phosphorus cycling in the western basin.
5. Dissolved reactive phosphorus levels near zebra mussel beds are high.
6. Adding phosphorus is more likely to cause increases in blue-green algae populations and taste and odor problems with public drinking water supplies than increased fish populations.
7. Hypothetically, we considered several scenarios for increasing phosphorus loadings. It was determined that it would be unreasonable to expect that relaxing point source controls could be expected to increase annual loading by more than 10-20%; given that the natural variability in loading over the last 10-15 years has been close to 50%, it is unlikely that relaxing point source controls will greatly affect productivity in the lake.
8. The suggestion to increase phosphorus loading during the spring at a time when diatoms would be produced was not practical, because at that time phytoplankton populations did not appear to be phosphorus limited.

Recommendations

1. In view of the significant changes in the Lake Erie ecosystem that have occurred subsequent to the zebra mussel invasion, the group recommended that a new effort to quantify the relationship between phosphorus loading and lake productivity at all trophic levels was sorely needed.
2. Research to better understand lower trophic levels and the relationships between nutrients, phytoplankton and zooplankton, and zebra mussels is greatly needed.
3. Research to determine the relationship between nutrient loading and fish production is badly needed.
4. The research recommended in items 2-3, should be driven by and integrated by sophisticated ecosystem models. Only then can we achieve the quantitative relationship between phosphorus loading and walleye production that is necessary to address the question at hand.
5. All management agencies should be encouraged to maintain and reinvigorate their monitoring programs, including a statistically-significant yet cost-effective monitoring of phosphorus loading to the lake. It was observed that budget cuts have forced cutbacks in some monitoring programs to the point that it is no longer possible for the IJC to accurately estimate nutrient loading to Lake Erie.
6. At the Buffalo meeting, the group supported a plan to participate in the Lake Erie at the Millenium Program to better coordinate Lake Erie research and monitoring efforts.

Lake Erie at the Millenium Conference. The Council helped to support a major conference at the University of Windsor on April 26-28, 1999. This conference was hosted by the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research and the University of Windsor, the Ohio Sea Grant College Program and Stone Laboratory at The Ohio State University, US EPA-Duluth, and National Water Research Institute of Canada. The conference was attended by approximately 140 scientists and included sessions on:

• Physical Structure of Lake Erie;
• Lake Erie Loadings and Flux;
• Environmental Features;
• Open-Water Biotic Processes;
• Nearshore/Coastal Biotic Processes;
• Invaders; and
• Human-Related Concerns.

Each speaker summarized current knowledge on the topic, followed by a listing of research needs. A conference proceedings is being prepared by the University of Windsor. A series of 4-6 follow-up workshops on priority issues is planned. The first workshop, scheduled to occur during the fall of 1999, will focus on nutrients and the base of the food chain.

3.4.	Great Lakes Commercial Aquaculture

Background: Great Lakes commercial aquaculture has been identified as an emerging issue. The wild harvest of fisheries has put tremendous pressure on natural populations worldwide, and in many instances has exhausted traditional fishing grounds and eliminated many species from the commercial catch. "By-catch", the incidental harvesting of unwanted species, is also a major concern. The United Nations estimates that nearly one-quarter of the protein in human diets derives from seafood. The underdeveloped world currently relies on seafood for nearly 50% of its protein requirements. The demand for seafood is predicted to continue to increase as the human population increases from roughly 5.8 billion today to an estimated 8 billion within the next 25 years. In order to meet this demand it is estimated that aquaculture will supply more than one half of the world's seafood by the year 2025. In the United States the seafood industry has an estimated annual sales of $40 billion (U.S.). 1998 consumption of seafood in the U.S. was approximately 16 lbs. per capita.

Aquaculture activities are growing rapidly. This is in part due to an increase in the demand for seafood as a "healthy" red meat substitute. The aquaculture industry grew 265% in United States from 1980-1995 and is projected to produce 1.26-2.2 billion lbs. annually in the United States by the year 2000. In 1995, the Canadian aquaculture industry was valued at $289 million (Cdn.). In Ontario, the industry generated $50 million in 1995 (~7 million lbs.), principally through the farming of rainbow trout. Ontario forecasters are predicting a tripling of production by the year 2000. However, it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on the industry in all states and provinces because no uniform accounting practices and regulations are in place. The majority of aquaculture operations are small (~$5000 per year), but the demand for larger facilities is growing rapidly. The industry provides opportunities for alternate aquatic businesses in some depressed regions and amongst some aboriginal communities associated with declining Great Lakes fisheries. Currently, very little infrastructure exists for this industry.

There are two basic types of aquaculture: within-lake and land-based facilities. Within-lake facilities consist of pen or cage cultures and at present this practice is at a low level within the Great Lakes and, for the most part, is restricted to Canadian waters. These are generally open-mesh nylon bags suspended from frames. Cage culture sites are concentrated principally Lake Huron/Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario (Bay of Quinte) farming rainbow trout. There are approximately 10 cage culture sites in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence with 6-12 cages per site yielding approximately 22 tonnes of fish per cage annually.

Within the U.S. there appear to no active cage culture operations within the Great Lakes basin, and there appears to be little enthusiasm for cage culture operations in U.S. waters from either the natural resource management community or commercial operators.

Land-based aquaculture facilities include recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), pond aquaculture, raceways, aquaria, garden ponds, and bait fish culture. Many of the potential problems resulting from the flow-through aquaculture systems typically used in a large portion of the industry today would be largely eliminated by recirculating aquaculture technology wherein the water is recycled and reused. Consequently, RAS are seen as a much more "environmentally friendly" technology, and an increasing number of land-based operations are secure, indoor facilities that utilize recirculating systems. Current recirculating systems, however, are expensive and the technology is in its infancy in terms of development. An R&D effort to establish cost effective RAS technologies is needed.

ISSUES: A number of technological, economic, environmental, regulatory and health issues have arisen along with the rise in the aquaculture industry.

A major issue for the aquaculture industry is the regulations and guidelines that govern all phases of operations and best management practices including construction and termination. In many instances, the regulations in use are not designed with the aquaculture industry in mind, or they are lacking entirely. Environmental and regulatory issues surrounding aquaculture will need to receive more attention as the industry expands. Issues include: pond construction guidelines; well digging and aquifer sustainability and protection; water consumption; effluent discharge, treatment and water quality impacts on surface waters and wetlands; waste management; predator control (largely birds); disease infection, control and prevention; accidental release of exotic and/or domesticated species into the wild gene pool or ecosystem; land use and natural habitat modification for pond or lagoon aquaculture; packaging, processing, transportation and food safety; and economic, operational or aesthetic conflicts with commercial fishing, cottagers, boaters, First Nations land claims, the shipping industry, etc.

Research, Policy and Planning Needs:

There is a need for uniform, thoughtful legislation that minimizes environmental impacts but does not over-regulate the industry. This must be based on sound scientific knowledge and research. Kathy Shwayder at Great Lakes Commission is developing draft legislative language that could be adapted in various jurisdictions to fit local needs and suggests a permit approach that takes into account the relative risk of the operation to environmental integrity.

There is also a need for more uniform, clearly defined Best Management Practices (BMP) in commercial aquaculture, including siting criteria and monitoring requirements. Anne Kapuscinski and Deborah Brister (UMN St. Paul) are developing a "Model Management Program for Private Aquaculture" for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Council of Lake Committees. This computer-based system is designed to be a user-friendly, interactive program that will address within-lake, land-based, and secured aquaculture systems. The system is a computer-based decision support tool with 2 tiers of decision making whereby a manager, farmer, or other user determines whether a target species appears on a "consideration list" and if so, the user assesses risks to genetic diversity and ecological integrity. If present, the user or manager considers risk management measures, or denies a permit for the operation.

From its initial scoping exercise, the Council identified a number of research needs for the practice, monitoring, and management of aquaculture within the Great Lakes basin:

• determination of the actual number and types of aquaculture facilities currently in existence;
• development of standardized monitoring protocols, including what is essential for management, what are the requirements of scale (temporal and spatial), what parameters (chemical and biological) are diagnostic of impacts on water quality, local biological communities, etc.;
• development of siting criteria;
• development of mass balance accounting protocols and models for assessing nutrient loading following examples from marine cage culture and recirculating systems;
• development of safe, effective certified and approved drugs, therapeutants, water treatment chemicals, and disease control agents for use in aquaculture;
• development of efficient feeds that are not derived from fish meal;
• development of cost-effective RAS (Recirculating Aquatic Systems) to minimize high water consumption and effluent discharge;
• refinement of net and pen culture technologies;
• assessment of the potential effects of drawdown on aquifers, streams, rivers; and the capacity of streams, rivers and aquifers to sustain aquaculture facilities;
• assessment of methods to minimize predation, particularly from birds, via predator friendly technologies;
• assessment of the potential impacts of thermal alteration of receiving waters by aquaculture effluent discharges;
• assessment of the potential impacts of modification of existing wetlands and littoral areas;
• development of requirements that importation of aquaculture species to the Great Lakes jurisdictions be subject to same consultative process as government importations and require similar controls to those used for soil and agricultural plants;
• establishment of a "clean list" of species eligible for private possession; and
• development of education and outreach tools in support of personal and industry responsibility and the implementation of best management practices.

3.5.	Review of Progress of Governments in the Control and Management of Persistent Toxic Substances and Endocrine Disruptors

3.5.1.

Persistent Toxic Substances (PTSs)

A. Findings in Humans

There is no evidence over the past five years of dramatic shifts in levels or types of bioaccumulating contaminants in tissues of residents of the Great Lakes basin. However, the levels of such contaminants in the tissues of people eating large amounts of Great Lakes fish continue to be several fold higher than in people who do not eat such fish. SOLEC 1996

Exposure

• At-risk populations continue to be exposed to PTSs. Some highly exposed groups have body burden levels 3-4 times higher than the background level (e.g., data from Schantz and coworkers on DDE, Hg, and PCBs).
• Fish consumption remains the major pathway for exposure to PTS in fish eaters. Levels of some contaminants in Great Lakes fish exceed state and federal guidelines. Contaminated sediments are also of concern.
• Sport fish eaters consume 2 to 3 times more fish than is estimated for the general population - FDA estimate is 6.5 grams/person-day, for example, Schantz and coworkers report that high-fish eaters consume over 32 lbs/yr; Anderson and coworkers indicate that fish eaters on average consume 55 meals/yr with some consuming twice this amount; and Kearney and coworkers found Lake Ontario fish eaters in Canada consumed approximately 21 g/day).
• The biological significance of these increases is uncertain. Preliminary evidence in humans of neurobehavioural effects has been reported by Jacobson et.al. and very recently by Mergler.

Demographics

• 4.7 million people consumed Great Lakes sport fish in 1994 / Fish is an essential component of diets of minority populations and Native Americans.
• Men consume more fish than women; men and women eat Great Lakes fish during most of their reproductive years.

Health Effects

• Reproductive function (e.g., delay in time to pregnancy and shortened menstrual cycles) may be disrupted by exposure to PTSs.
• Neurobehavioral and developmental deficits occur in newborns and continue through school-age children from in utero exposure to PTSs .
• Other systemic effects, e.g., self-reported liver disease and diabetes may be associated with elevated serum levels of PCBs.

Other Conclusions:

• Weight of evidence can be used in lieu of causality.
• Data are compelling: People are continuing to be exposed, and there are health consequences associated with these exposures.
• There is an immediate need to put science to service in implementing health intervention / health promotion strategies where necessary.
• Strategies should recognize the importance and benefits of fish consumption to particular populations. Risk and benefit analysis is essential for meaningful strategies.

References

Johnson BL, Hicks HE, Jones DE, Cibulas W, Wargo A, and De Rosa CT. 1998. Public Health Implications of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basins. J Great Lakes Research. 24(2):698-722.

Health Canada. 1997. State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin. Eds. D. Riedel, N. Tremblay and E. Tompkins. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 354 pp.

De Rosa, C.T., Gilman, A.P., and Rosemond, Z. A. Eds. Proceedings of Health Conference `97 - Great Lakes/St. Lawrence. Env. Res.: Vol. 80 (2): 1-248.

Health Canada. 1998. Persistent Environmental Contaminants and the Great Lakes Basin Population: An Exposure Assessment. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 358pp.

Health Canada and Ontario Ministry of Health. 1998. The Health and Environment Handbook for Health Professionals. Government of Canada, Ottawa.

Health Canada. 1998. Health Related Indicators for the Great Lakes Basin Population: Numbers 1 to 20. Government of Canada, Ottawa, (in press).

Haines, D. and Craan, A. 1998. Twenty five year Trends on Breast Milk Contaminants. Arch. Env. Contam. And Toxicol. (in press).

Canadian Institute for Child Health. 1998. Literature Review – Environmental Contaminants and the Implications for Child Health. CICH, Ottawa (in press).

Feeley, M., Jordan S., and Gilman, A.. 1998. The Health Canada Great Lakes Multigeneration Study – Summary and Regulatory Considerations. Reg. Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 27, S90-S98.

St. Laurent Vision 2000. 1998. (French - Report on Health and the Environment in the St. Lawrence Basin). (in press).

B. Environmental Trends

• Concentrations of some persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes in air, water, and biota appear to have leveled off, or declined only slightly, in recent years.100 % of the Great Lakes waters continue to be under fishing advisories. PCBs are most commonly the focus of advisories issued in the basin, followed by dioxins, chlordane and mercury.
• The 1993 TRI data (USEPA Toxics Release Inventory data released in 1995) showed that all of the Great Lakes Basin states and counties had shown a decrease in releases of targeted chemicals between 1988 and 1993.
• USEPA's 33/50 Program was a nationwide voluntary effort aimed at reducing the releases and transfers of 17 targeted chemicals (including PCBs, Hg, Pb, and other heavy metals and organics) tracked under TRI, with a goal of 50% reduction by the end of 1995. The Program was successful, exhibiting 55.6% decrease from 1988, which is equivalent to a reduction of over 664 million lbs. In three areas of the basin (SE Chicago, NW Indiana, and SE Michigan), an average reduction of 62% was achieved.
• Up to 1997, Canada has reported substantial decreases in alkyl-lead (85%), octachloro-styrene (18%), dioxins and furans (66%), and benzo(a)pyrene (20%) primarily as a result of the ARET Program in the Great Lakes Basin.

Focus on Mercury

• Fish consumption advisories for human health have been issued in 38 states and Ontario and Quebec due to mercury.
• There was an 82% decline in mercury use in the USA from 1980-1995 due to bans in paints and pesticides, phaseouts in batteries, and reductions in industrial uses.
• Mercury emissions were also curtailed under the US federal Clean Air Act amendments. Eight Great Lake states have implemented numerous programs to reduce mercury. In 1996, the US chlor-alkali sector voluntarily committed to reduce emissions and use of mercury by 50% during the next decade.
• Canada and the US included mercury in the Binational Toxics Strategy signed in 1997.

Focus on PCBs

• Although banned or tightly restricted, all 5 Great Lakes, as well as numerous inland lakes and rivers, have fish consumption advisories as a result of PCB contamination.
• In the US, 12 major utility companies have accelerated their voluntary phasedown of electric equipment which contain PCBs.
• USEPA and many states are working to remove sediments contaminated with PCBs from Great Lakes rivers and embayments.
• In Ontario, 46% of high level PCBs have been decommissioned in Ontario. 30% of high level PCB wastes and 20% of low level PCB wastes have been destroyed.
• Measurable levels of PCBs can be found in the tissues of all residents of the Great Lakes Basin (majority of monitoring is in blood and breast milk).

Focus on Pesticides.

• In US Great Lakes basin counties, the overall use of pesticides has decreased by almost 10 million lbs. from 1994-1995. Annual pesticide usage now stands at 57 million lbs.
• There is increasing concern about possible endocrine disrupting properties associated with some pesticides.
• A USEPA Great Lakes Basin Pesticide Report was made available in 1998.
• In 1996, Canada and Ontario confirmed zero use and availability of five priority substances (aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, toxaphene, and mirex).

References

USEPA Great Lakes Program Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (December 1997).

USEPA Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters. Second Report to Congress (June 1977).

Governments of Canada and Ontario. Canada-Ontario Agreement Progress Report (1997)

3.5.2.

Endocrine Disruptors

Background: A major issue in toxicology today is potential endocrine disruption. The current view is that a number of environmental chemicals and/or natural products may mimic, block, or alter hormonal activity in offspring and thus pose a hazard to normal development. Canada and the US have both initiated action to address scientific and regulatory issues related to endocrine disruptors.

US Activities: As a result of growing concerns regarding the presence of endocrine disruptors in food, water, and the environment, and the 1996 passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA was required to develop a screening and testing program. Specifically, EPA was required to:

• develop a screening program and testing program by August, 1998,
• implement the program by August, 1999, and;
• report to Congress on the program’s progress by August 2000.

To implement this plan, USEPA formed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) in 1996 and charged this committee with providing advice on how to design an appropriate screening and testing program. The EDSTAC was composed of scientists and representatives from USEPA, other federal agencies, state agencies, industry, water providers, worker protection and labor organizations, national environmental groups, environmental justice groups, public health groups, and research scientists. The committee was organized into work groups, and as of July 16, 1998, the draft document developed by the EDSTAC committee had been accepted by the full committee and delivered to USEPA on September 1.

Summary of recommendations:

1. The universe of chemicals (+ 87,000) considered for screening and testing should include:
   • all chemicals currently listed on the TSCA inventory (~75,500).
   • all active ingredients (approximately 900) and approximately 2,500 inert ingredients used to formulate over 20,000 pesticide products.
   • approximately 8,000 chemicals regulated by the FDA, including 5,000 ingredients in cosmetics and 3,000 food additives.
   • naturally occurring non-steroidal estrogens (NONEs) and other naturally occurring or environmentally degraded chemicals.
   • nutritional supplements (currently not regulated therefore difficult to estimate the number).
2. The screening and testing program should be implemented in a phased manner. This means the chemicals which are determined to be a high priority should be screened and, if necessary, tested prior to those which are determined to be a lower priority.

The proposed 2-tier battery follows.

Tier 1 was designed to detect chemical substances or mixtures capable of interacting with estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone systems. The recommended battery includes three in vitro assays, three in vivo mammalian assays, and two in vivo nonmammalian assays (Table 4).

Table 4. Proposed Tier 1 Assays.

In Vitro	Estrogen Receptor (ER) Binding/Transcriptional Activation Assay Androgen Receptor (AR) Binding/Transcriptional Activation Assay Steroidogenesis Assay with Minced Testis
In Vivo	Rodent 3-day Uterotrophic Assay (Subcutaneous) Rodent 20-day Pubertal Female Assay with Thyroid Rodent 5-7-day Hershberger Assay Frog Metamorphosis Assay Fish Gonadal Recrudescence Assay
Alternate assays for possible inclusion:
In Vitro	Placental Aromatase Assay
In Vivo	Modified Rodent 3-day Uterotrophic Assay (Intraperitoneal) Rodent 14-day Intact Adult Male Assay With Thyroid Rodent 20-day Thyroid/Pubertal Male Assay

Tier 2 was designed to characterize the nature, likelihood, and dose-response relationship of endocrine disruption of estrogen, androgen, and thyroid in humans and wildlife. These tests are longer term studies designed to encompass critical life stages and processes, a broad range of doses, and administration by a relevant route of exposure. A more comprehensive profile of biological consequences of chemical exposure can be identified and related to the dose of exposure which caused them. Tests will usually encompass 2 generations since effects associated with endocrine disruption may be latent and not manifested until later in life or may not appear until the reproductive period is reached (Table 5).

Table 5. Proposed Tier 2 tests.

Mammalian Tests	Two-generation Mammalian Reproductive Toxicity Study; or A Less Comprehensive Test (when appropriate): Alternative Mammalian Reproductive Test; or One-Generation Test
Multigeneration Tests in Other Taxa	Avian Reproduction (with bobwhite quail and mallard) Fish Life Cycle (fathead minnow) Mysid Life Cycle (Americamysis) Amphibian Development and Reproduction (Xenopus)

Canadian Activities: Health Canada works with Environment Canada on an inter-departmental committee on endocrine disruptors. The committee coordinates research activities and provides support for policy initiatives required to address endocrine disrupting substances currently in the environment, found in food, consumer products or drugs, or as pesticides, or those that may enter into commerce in the future.

Health Canada has an endocrine disruptor committee that addresses research, regulatory, and policy issues.

Health Canada also participates in international activities under the OECD Working Group on Endocrine Disruptor Testing and Assessment and the WHO/IPCS Steering Committee for the Global Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors.

An increase in research funding will be directed to endocrine disruptors and their implications for health and the environment in 1999.

In assessing the risk of a persistent toxic substance or possible endocrine disruptor in the Great Lakes, it is necessary to consider both exposure potential and effects potential. Ideally, we have a good quantitative understanding of the entire pathway from source to transport and fate to bioaccumulation to effects (either human or ecological). Therefore, it is strongly recommended that health risk research be coordinated so as to develop this linkage between source and effects through the exposure pathway. Agencies responsible for environmental fate and exposure research should continue to closely coordinate with those responsible for health effects research. Indeed, the development of programs of coordinated, synoptic studies of specific contaminants of concern in specific ecosystems is the best way to develop this linkage.

The Council recommends that:

There is an immediate need to put science to service in implementing health intervention / health promotion strategies where necessary.

All strategies should recognize the importance and benefits of fish consumption to particular populations.

3.6.	RAP and LaMP Research Needs

Purpose: A primary function of the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers is to advise the International Joint Commission on research needs related to the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The purpose of this white paper is to help determine the research needs associated with development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) under Annex 2 of the Agreement, and to begin a process of building a common understanding of the priorities.

Articulation of RAP Needs

In recent years, there have been three separate attempts to articulate the needs of RAPs, both in general terms and specifically related to research. As part of a Workshop on Research, Assessment, and Analysis at the 1996 SOLEC, a breakout session was conducted with the principal theme of "Improving the Effectiveness of Great Lakes Research." Breakout groups were instructed to participate in subgroups that addressed questions relating to the overall Great Lakes research arena. One of the subgroups consisting of about 10 individuals addressed the area of RAPs and LaMPs. While this is a small subgroup of respondents and therefore does not constitute basin-wide consensus, some insightful findings were revealed.

From the discussions, two general types of RAP/LaMP research needs emerged. 1.) Research to support the development of technologies for remediation, mitigation or restoration. Particular research requirements would depend dependent on the specific types of degradation, such as sediment and habitat.

A second class of research needs surrounded benefits forcasting. This consists of methods and data that enable RAP practitioners to evaluate and predict future conditions in response to remediation scenarios. These types of analytical tools were identified by category of study (e.g. ecology, socio-economic).

The consideration of monitoring and surveillance within the context of research was also highlighted.

The articulation of RAP needs has also been conducted by the IJC Sediment Priority Action Committee (SedPAC), who prepared a white paper on the "Overcoming Obstacles to Sediment Remediation in the Great Lakes Basin" (IJC, 1997). Contaminated sediment is a major factor limiting the implementation of many RAPs and the ability to restore beneficial uses. The paper identified the following six obstacles to sediment remediation in Great lakes Areas of Concern:

• limited funding and resources;
• regulatory complexity;
• lack of a decision-making framework;
• limited corporate involvement;
• insufficient research and technology development; and
• limited public support.

To overcome these obstacles, research needs surround the creation of innovative funding formulas, policy and legislative flexibility, science-based data interpretation tools, private sector incentives, technology, and public awareness, consultation and engagement.

The most recent articulation of RAP needs was presented by the IJC in a paper entitled "Beacons of Light: Special Report on Successful Strategies Toward Restoration in Areas of Concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement" (IJC 1998). This paper identified the following seven major obstacles to implementation of RAPs:

• lack of planning for implementation of "big ticket" remedial measures;
• reductions in government support with no associated increase in local capacity;
• failure to set priorities within and between AOCs;
• public participation;
• information transfer; and
• failure to quantify benefits of remediation, particularly regarding human health.

Analysis of RAP Needs

Using the above, recent efforts to articulate the needs of RAPs, one possible way of analyzing these needs is by grouping them according to their root cause. The causes of these needs might be considered as three major categories of limitations:

• process limitations;
• funding/resource limitations; and
• science/research limitations.

These categories are artificial, and not exclusive, but may enable us to discriminate science/research-limited needs from those limited by other factors. While some needs may be due to a single limitation, most are probably limited by two or all three to a degree. In an effort to examine the RAP needs systematically, the RAP needs have been matched with limitations on the attached matrix (Table 3).

This cursory analysis suggests that the majority of RAP needs are either process or funding limited. While science/research appears to be the primary limitation for only a few RAP needs, it is a contributing limitation for more than half.

Table 3. Analysis of Great Lakes RAP Needs

RAP Need	Limitations
	Process	Funds	Science
Remediation technologies		++	+
Evaluation & predictive tools		+	+
Regulatory/policy changes	++		+
Monitoring data & information		++	+
Decision-making framework	+		+
Corporate involvement	+	++
Public support	++	+	+
Planning for hi-cost features	++
Information transfer	++
Benefit quantification		+	++

Legend: primary limitation ++, contributing limitation +