6.0	DESIRED OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS

The task force examined in detail the Desired Outcomes and indicators proposed by the IETF and considered how these could be implemented. As well, the IITF compared the IETF proposed suite of indicators with the SOLEC suite, as follows:

6.1	Swimmability

IITF Recommended Indicator: Trends in number of beaches posted/closed because water posed a human health risk over a predetermined swimming season.

Related SOLEC Indicators: Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters (ID: 4081). Measurements: 1) Counts of Fecal Coliform and/or E. Coli in Recreational Waters and 2) Frequency of beach closings at specific locations.

Local governments are responsible for beach postings and closings. Such decisions have significant repercussions on a community as the result of lost revenue from tourism and recreational activities, negative public perception regarding the quality of water, and direct costs of closing the beach. Beaches are closed for a number of reasons, not all of which are quantifiable. Professional judgement plays a significant role in decisions made about the swimmability of local water bodies. For example, beaches may be routinely closed after a period of heavy rainfall in anticipation of water quality problems. Thus, in order to answer the question "Can I swim in the water?" it is necessary to incorporate a level of flexibility into the indicator definition.

The 1992 Ontario Beach Management Protocol recommends beach postings where there is evidence "that the beach water poses a risk to the health of bathers." The evidence of potential danger may be based on bacteriological analysis, historical and epidemiological data, or the physical quality of the water. Reasons for beach postings may include:

• unacceptable results from bacteriological tests;
• outbreak of infectious disease in the community;
• presence of hazardous or infectious material, (such as medical waste);
• high water temperatures;
• pH outside the range 6.5-8.5;
• water clarity reductions; and
• any visible blue-green algae.

In the U.S.A., beach monitoring documents are issued by EPA, the National Resources Defense Council and by each state. In both countries, monitoring is the responsibility of local agencies. In May 1999, EPA announced the results of its 1998 survey of 1,400 beaches nation-wide based on a survey of 300 mostly local or regional agencies. Results of the 1999 survey will be on the EPA Beach Watch web site.

In the opinion of the IITF, the recommended indicator and the related SOLEC indicator and measurements are now compatible.

Several questions need further consideration.

• Does the definition of "beaches" include all recreational beaches in the Great Lakes basin including inland lakes, regardless of water body size?
• Over what time period will beach closings be measured, given spatial and temporal variability of the swimming season?
• Should beach posting, as opposed to beach closing, data also be tracked?

The IITF and SOLEC are participating in a workshop for the fall of 1999 to resolve these and other questions.

6.2	Fishability or Fish Safe for Human Consumption

IITF Recommended Indicator: Fish consumption advisories.

Measurement: Number of added, altered, or lifted advisories, by Great Lake, and by Great Lake sub-basin.

SOLEC advocates as an endpoint, the elimination of fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. Related SOLEC indicators:

1. Contaminants in Recreational Fish (ID:113); and
2. Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue (ID:4083).

The term Fishability is misleading. It mistakenly implies that the ability to catch Great Lakes fish is under consideration. Therefore, the Desired Outcome should be renamed "Fish Safe for Human Consumption."

Fish consumption advisories are issued by all Great Lakes state and provincial governments. In addition, U.S. EPA has recommended "Fish Consumption Advisories" as an indicator for its own work. The U.S. EPA supports a comprehensive database that contains information about both Canadian and American fish consumption advisories.

Certain issues confound the development of this indicator, including:

• Criteria to define fish advisories and sampling protocols to collect data to support them vary among jurisdictions. Until a common set of protocols and criteria are implemented basin-wide, there will be inequities in comparing progress among lakes or sub-basins.
• A limited number of chemicals are routinely measured (e.g. PCBs, dioxin, lead, mercury). This limited analysis may miss other harmful compounds. For example, the potent liver toxin Microcystin is a serious problem in Lake Erie.
• A limited number of fish species are routinely monitored for contaminants.
• A limited number of samples per fish species are routinely monitored for contaminants.
• Human populations are exposed to different levels of risk from eating Great Lakes fish (i.e. women of child-bearing age and children are more susceptible to health threats caused by eating contaminated Great Lakes fish, as are high consumers of Great Lakes fish).
• The communication of fish consumption advisory information to the public (particularly non-anglophones and low-income populations) is inadequate.
• Over the course of a year, fish consumption advisories are added, altered and withdrawn making them difficult to count in a given jurisdiction.
• Compatibility of IJC indicator with those proposed by SOLEC (May 1999).

The adoption of a basinwide indicator would improve communication of fish consumption advisories to the public, and the coordination of sampling protocols and criteria.

These issues will be addressed during an IITF/SOLEC expert panel workshop scheduled for the autumn of 1999.

6.3	Drinkability

IITF Recommended Indicators:

1. Trends in the number of exceedences of established drinking water standards; and
2. Trends in the number of drinking water restrictions.

Related SOLEC Indicator: Drinking Water Quality (ID:4175) features trends in contaminant levels in raw, treated and distributed water.

There are a number of issues yet to be addressed:

Current Monitoring Programs: The limitations of current drinking water databases, in both Canada and the U.S., need to be examined. Privatization of water treatment may further exacerbate difficulties in both monitoring and reporting. The Ontario Drinking Water Water Information System contains water quality data collected through the Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) and the Water Inspections Program. DWSP monitors water quality 2-6 times per year based on source water type. Thms are monitored quarterly. DWSP monitors at least as frequently as the operating authories of the water supply systems are required under the Ontario Drinking Water Objectives (MOE, revised 1994). There is no organized water quality monitoring program for private (often groundwater) supplies. The U.S. Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED) is not currently a fully reliable source of information. In 1998, the U.S. EPA acknowledged that "it had serious data problems after finding that 16% of violations in 1996 were missing from the database".

Raw versus Finished Water Quality: Drinking water quality is a function of: raw water quality; the capability of the treatment plant to clean the water; and, the state of the water distribution infrastructure. If any of these parameters is substandard, drinking water problems usually result.

Raw water quality is directly linked to water quality at the tap. Even well-managed water treatment plants can release chemical and/or microbial contaminants into the distribution system. Poorly maintained and aging distribution systems contaminate drinking water supplies due to the introduction of untreated water from outside the conduit. Thus, indicators are needed that reflect these various stages of drinking water treatment and delivery. Public concern about drinking water quality is high, and a significant proportion of the population has responded by installing point-of-use devices and by using bottled water.

Sources of Raw Water: Groundwater versus Surface Water: Approximately one-half of the Great Lakes Basin population uses groundwater for its potable water supply. There are also many water supply systems within the Great Lakes watershed that use surface water supplies that are tributary to the lakes themselves. Private groundwater systems are not monitored as closely as large water utilities that take water from surface or groundwater. Many rural households drink groundwater with little or no treatment.

Raw Water Turbidity: Throughout North America, water treatment plants keep records of the turbidity of their raw water. Turbidity is measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) which relate to how light is scattered in water. This parameter is sampled frequently each day or continuously, with in-line turbidity meters, to meet U.S. and Canadian drinking water requirements (under the Safe Drinking Water Act, commonly known as the "Surface Water Treatment Rule" in the U.S.). It is intrinsically related to every water treatment plant daily operating procedures. The information is plant-specific, but may also be found, albeit for more limited sampling periods, in the Ontario DWSP database.

Several studies show a strong correlation between turbidity levels and significant cost increases for treatment, as well as chemical (pesticides and nutrients), disinfection by-products (THMs) and microbiological contamination of finished drinking water. Waterborne disease outbreaks are often found to be associated with increased raw water turbidity (e.g. Milwaukee, 1993). The Thunder Bay Post (MacDonald, 1998) reported that it would cost the city approximately $1.5 million to install chlorine dioxide treatment to combat its problems with Giardia and Cryptosporidium. The estimated cost of installing microfiltration was $56 million with a five-month installation waiting period.

While treated (or finished) water turbidity is information that must be reported to the U.S. EPA by each body with primacy for all of their water treatment plants, they are not required to report information about raw water turbidity. Therefore, this information is found either at the plant level or in the plant monthly reports to the agency with primacy.

These issues are on the agenda for the IITF/SOLEC workshop in August 1999.

Therefore, the IITF recommends that:

The IJC use these three Desired Outcomes and indicators for its 10th Biennial Report, and subsequent reporting cycles.

6.4	Healthy Human Populations

This Desired Outcome is still under review by the IITF and the IJC Health Professionals Task Force and the International Air Quality Advisory Board. SOLEC has incorporated the IITF and IETF recommended indicators for this Desired Outcome into the SOLEC Report (May 1999). The IITF will have a recommendation in its final report for December 1999.

6.5	Economic Viability

This Desired Outcome will not be researched by the IITF as agreed by the IJC in October 1998. However, significant work is underway in national and binational arenas, e.g. the GPI is being tested by StatsCan as a measure of economic and environmental activities in Nova Scotia (see Section 3.3).

The following IJC Desired Outcomes have not yet been thoroughly reviewed and considered by the IITF. This is work to be completed by December 1999. However, there have been some indicators and measurements investigated as outlined below.

6.6	Biological Community Integrity and Diversity

There are several indicators (and measurements) that have potential for use with this Desired Outcome, for example: PCBs in lake trout, mercury levels in sport fish, and concentrations of PTS in top predator fish and fish-eating birds.

As well, indicators for several other Desired Outcomes (e.g. Quality and Quantity of Wetlands for Physical Environment Integrity) will be useful.

A number of databases that contain relevant information about this topic have been identified. However, the sampling techniques, monitoring frequencies and geographic coverage vary significantly between databases.

In addition, SOLEC '98 is considering at least 26 indicators with potential to apply to this Desired Outcome.

6.7	Virtual Elimination of Inputs of Persistent Toxic Substances

Again, there are many indicators nominated by the IETF (1996) and SOLEC '98, which apply to this Desired Outcome.

There is a major question yet to be addressed, i.e. "what are the specific chemicals to be considered?" Should a focus be on the 23 persistent toxic substances groups listed in Annex 7 of the Agreement, or should the list be reduced, or expanded?

6.8	Absence of Excess Phosphorus

Significant scientific studies have changed the understanding of phosphorus dynamics in large freshwater lakes. The IITF proposes that this Desired Outcome be changed to "Return to a Nutrient-Balanced State."

As well, new indicators and measurements reflect these changes:

• Hypolimnetic oxygen levels;
• Extent of temporal/spatial coverage of undersirable/harmful algal blooms; and
• Amount of nearshore submerged vegetation.

Extent of Temporal/Spatial Coverage of Undesirable/Harmful Algal Blooms

Undesirable/harmful algal blooms are a problem in the Great Lakes. The Rondeau Bay, Ontario area, appears to have "persistent annual problems (July-September) with excessive Cladophera growth and fouling." The Lake Erie LaMP (1998) recently reported the following about Microcystis:

"Between 1995-1998 Microcystis bloom appeared during the late summer and fall, in the western and central basins. Microcystis is a blue-green algae which can be described as a "thick slick of grass-green paint"."

Some water quality databases, such as EC's STAR database, do contain information about algae. The STAR database uses a scale from 0-4 to rank floating alga samples. This ranking scale, and the amount of data on this subject that are contained in the database, needs to be examined further.

According to Dolan (1998, personal communication), current information about undesirable algal blooms in the Great Lakes is, for the most part, study-specific. Although detailed information does exist for certain areas of the Lakes, much more information is in the form of anecdotal reports from people on the Lakes. Some field stations have information about the presence/absence of algal blooms. Unless these phenomena are within the research mandate of the station, it may not have more specific information about them (i.e. temporal/spatial data).

Information about harmful algal growths could be collected by aerial or satellite surveillance of the Lakes. The ground-truthing and updating of this record would require a substantial investment of time and money (Dolan, 1998, personal communication).

6.9	Physical Environment Integrity

There are five indicators proposed by the IETF for this Desired Outcome. Additionally, SOLEC '98 has nominated at least 26 indicators which would serve this Desired Outcome.

The IITF proposes that three specific indicators modified from the IETF list should be considered for IJC use. These are nominated because of relevance, many data to support and they integrate many other potential indicators and their measurements.

a. Quantity and Quality of Wetlands

Wetlands are among the most studied habitat types of the Great Lakes Basin. Although a significant amount of information about both Canadian and American wetlands is available, a consistent binational inventory of Great Lakes wetlands is required. There appears to be more information about the quantity of remaining wetlands than about the quality of those wetlands.

Recent compilations of information related to Great Lakes wetlands include:

• SOLEC '98 discussion paper by Chow-Fraser and Albert (1998) entitled "Coastal Wetland Ecosystems";
• Environment Canada (1995) "A Catalogue of Wetland Databases and Inventories for the Canadian Great Lakes Basin"; and
• Nature Conservancy of Canada (1998) on-line "Catalogue of Great Lakes Wetlands Information Resources".

In addition, non-governmental organizations, in particular Ducks Unlimited, have done much to promote and protect wetland habitats; there is much information and data available from these sources.

b. Quality and Quantity of Stream Base Flow

Surface water is usually hydraulically connected to groundwater, but the interactions are difficult to observe and measure and commonly have been ignored in water management decisions and policies. Most groundwater contamination caused by leaking petroleum storage tanks and hazardous waste disposal sites, attributed to agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, and to sewage pathogens and deicing compounds, is located in shallow aquifers that are directly connected to surface water. Therefore, groundwater can be a major and potentially long-term contributor to contamination of surface water. In some cases, surface water quality standards and criteria are unlikely to be met without reducing contaminant loads from groundwater discharges.

The amount of water that groundwater contributes to streams can be estimated by analyzing stream flow hydrographs to determine the groundwater component, which is termed "base flow" (Troyak, 1996). Withdrawing water from shallow aquifers near surface water bodies can diminish the available supply by capturing some of the groundwater flow that otherwise would have discharged to surface water. The quantity of groundwater withdrawn is approximately equal to the reduction in stream flow that is potentially available to downstream users. In landscapes that are relatively flat, drainage of land is a common practice preceding agricultural and urban development. Drainage is often accomplished by burying tile drains beneath the land surface, which can change the areal distribution of groundwater recharge and discharge. These changes ultimately affect stream base flow.

The USGS has water quality and stream flow datasets for 679 locations in the U.S. from 1962 to 1995, and for 618 stations from 1973 to 1995. In the Great Lakes Region, water quality and stream flow data are organized in separate station and parameter files. This data is readily available and can be easily accessed. Environment Canada also has such data. The web site where this information can be found is: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/wqn96/ .

The daily stream flow values for 54 U.S. streams for the 30-year period, 1962-1991, were used by the USGS for base flow analysis. An average of 52 percent of the stream flow was found to be contributed by groundwater. Base flow ranged from 14 percent to 90 percent, with a median of 55 percent. The Sturgeon River Basin in Michigan, which is underlain by highly permeable sand and gravel, has approximately 90 percent of its average annual flow contributed by groundwater. Other USGS data estimate that the groundwater contribution to total tributary flow averages 45 percent in the Lake Erie Basin and averages 62 percent in the Lake Huron Basin.

c. Number and Extent of Engineered Land/Water Interfaces

This indicator addresses two separate issues dealing with anthropocentric manipulation of shorelines and land/water interfaces, leading to changes in the dynamics of natural water flow.

The first issue encompasses "true" land/water interfaces such as wharfs, sheet piles, groynes and other engineered shoreline interfaces. A better understanding of the extent of these structures could lead to improved shoreline habitat protection.

The second issue deals with the increase in the amounts of impervious/hardened surfaces resulting from increasing urban density (e.g. roofs, airports, parking lots, roads, sidewalks, etc.) This spread of engineered interfaces has led to more artificial landscapes in which hardened surfaces lead to: enhanced runoff due to decreased water absorption into the ground, less groundwater recharge, reduced stream base flow, increased soil erosion, wider and straighter stream channels, and increased water temperatures and salinity, in turn leading to altered aquatic habitats (Reisman, 1999b). All of these impacts are attributable to "serious hydrological disruption" in which there is a reduction in "the natural infiltration of rainfall and a great increase in the amount and rate of stormwater runoff" (Reisman, 1999b).

6.10	Conclusions

6.10.1

General Findings

• Ample data are available to support the concept of Indicators to Evaluate Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
• The data are not of uniform quality and many gaps are apparent that may adversely impact the implementation of individual indicators.
• The wording of some proposed indicators need to be more clearly defined to help facilitate the data collection process.
• Many proposed indicators and measurements need refinement.
• The compilation of a Catalogue of Great Lakes Databases is a worthwhile initiative (Morrison 1999).
• There are a number of surveillance and monitoring activities currently taking place in the basin that are not guided by a coherent strategy.

These and other findings will be incorporated into the final IITF Report in late 1999.

6.10.2

Proposed Long Term Involvement by the Commission

The IITF recommends that the Commission dedicate resources to Indicators application, use and implementation over the next decade because:

• SOLEC is proposing a staged implementation of indicators.
• Surveillance and monitoring programs will need to be modified and, in some cases, initiated.
• New and different partnerships (e.g. collaboration with muncipal and local governments and agencies) will develop.
• Information management and portrayal (i.e. GIS) will require more attention and organization (i.e. who does what?)

The Commission should consider:

• ensuring that indicators development continues to be an ongoing IJC priority;
• maintaining indicator development expertise and momentum by assigning this task to a staff member;
• working with the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers and the Science Advisory Board to identify and foster research needed to advance our understanding, interpretation and dissemination of indicators; and
• continuing to collaborate closely with the Parties to reach consensus on a common set of indicators for the Great Lakes, and to implement a binational, integrated monitoring program.

Additionally, the IJC could:

• convene biennially an expert workshop to update the IJC on international indicator initiatives and development.
• establish a standing work group to sustain the Commission's interests in indicators.