1.0	INTRODUCTION

During the 1997-1999 priorities cycle, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) was involved in numerous issues. They include Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; reviewing progress of governments in the control and management of persistent toxic substances; review of government programs; contaminated sediment; biodiversity and habitat; and Great Lakes commercial aquaculture.

The WQB uses a four category framework to organize its work, consistent with the Agreement. These categories include:

• physical integrity;
• chemical integrity;
• biological integrity; and
• ecosystem approach.

Highlights of WQB activities and projects during 1997-1999 are presented in Table 1. More detailed information can be found on the WQB's homepage . Brief summaries of key activities and projects are presented below.

Table 1. Highlights of key WQB activities and projects during 1997-1999.

CATEGORY	ACTIVITY/PROJECT
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement - Ecosystem Approach	WQB completed and submitted to the Commission a 1998 report titled Review of Government Resources and Changing Program Thrusts as They Relate to Delivery of Programs Under the GLWQA. WQB held a roundtable discussion on the question of, "Does the recent trend of fewer government resources have a bearing on delivery of RAPs and LaMPs?" on May 14, 1999. WQB helped organize a symposium titled The Decline of Great Lakes Monitoring: Causes and Solutions as part of the 1999 annual meeting of the International Association for Great Lakes Research. WQB convened its 1998 annual public meeting in Lorain, Ohio on October 8-9 and submitted a final report to the Commission. More than 125 people attended. WQB members convened a student forum at Oberlin College on October 7, 1998 in conjunction with its annual meeting in Lorain, Ohio. More than 75 students participated. WQB convened its 1999 annual public meeting in Toronto, Ontario on May 13, 1999. More than 110 people attended. WQB provided input to IJC on the concept of an International Watershed Board.
Physical Integrity	WQB co-sponsored a March 4, 1998 conference titled Rehabilitating and Conserving Detroit River Habitats and submitted a final report to the Commission.
Chemical Integrity	WQB is co-sponsoring with the International Air Quality Advisory Board an October 1999 workshop on Regulating Point Sources of Air Contaminants Based on Violations of Great Lakes Water Quality Standards. As part of reviewing progress in control and management of persistent toxic substances, WQB members participated in the June 9-11, 1998 Great Waters Workshop in Chicago, Illinois. WQB's Beyond Compliance Report was published in the November 1998 issue of Water Environment & Technology. WQB's Sediment Priority Action Committee convened a Workshop to Evaluate Data Interpretation Tools Used to Make Sediment Management Decisions at the Great Lakes Institute for Environment Research of University of Windsor on December 1-2, 1998 and prepared a report titled Deciding When to Intervene. Members from WQB's Sediment Priority Action Committee convened a session titled Management of Contaminated Sediment in the Great Lakes Basin and Benefits of Action at the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Mayors' Conference on July 9, 1998. Members from WQB's Sediment Priority Action Committee spoke at a Muskegon and White Lake RAP conference titled Cleaning Up Our Lakes, Rivers, and Streams in Muskegon, Michigan on October 2, 1998. WQB's Sediment Priority Action Committee prepared a report titled Ecological Benefits of Contaminated Sediment Remediation in the Great Lakes Basin. WQB's Sediment Priority Action Committee published its contaminated sediment white paper in the Journal of Great Lakes Research. Three case studies of environmental benefits of sediment remediation have been placed on the WQB's homepage. Work on economic benefits of sediment remediation is underway in partnership with Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Northeast Midwest Institute.
Biological Integrity	WQB and the Habitat Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission co-sponsored a roundtable discussion on Water Quality Impacts of Great Lakes Aquaculture, January 27-28, 1999 and a report was prepared. WQB co-sponsored the April 26-28, 1999 conference titled Lake Erie at the Millennium at the University of Windsor.

2.0	REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND CHANGING PROGRAM THRUSTS AS THEY RELATE TO DELIVERY OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

In 1997, the Commission requested that the Great Lakes Water Quality Board undertake a review of government resources and changing program thrusts as they relate to delivery of programs under the Agreement. At a minimum, the Commission requested that this review include: monitoring and surveillance activities, Area of Concern commitments and regulatory and enforcement activities.

The WQB initiated a survey in 1997 of key state, provincial and federal agencies with responsibilities for delivery of programs under the Agreement. This survey requested:

• descriptive information on the nature and rationale for recent changes in program thrusts and government resource support as they relate to delivery of programs under the Agreement; and
• economic information on selected indicators of government programs.

Both the descriptive and economic information pertaining to monitoring and surveillance activities, Annex 2 commitments and regulatory and enforcement activities were reviewed and evaluated to gain insight into resource trends within individual jurisdictions and the impact on program effectiveness. The geographical, political and administrative differences among the jurisdictions and between the Parties represented a considerable challenge.

Based on the review of narrative and survey information from 1994-1997 provided by the agencies who responded, the following findings are made.

• Governments are making changes in what they do and how they deliver programs. However, dollars are not a good measure of progress and the WQB does not encourage new investments be necessarily made following historical priorities.
• A one-to-one relationship does not exist between resource expenditures and program delivery.
• Creative partnerships that have been developed and are being developed that share responsibility for program delivery, create efficiencies and build the institutional capacity to achieve ecosystem results.
• Regarding Annex 2 activities, ten of the 15 agencies providing survey data experienced a decrease in funding (>10% decrease), three of the 15 experienced an increase in funding (>10% increase) and two of the 15 showed no change in funding (less than or equal to a 10% increase or decrease) based on a comparison of 1997 data with the average of 1994-1997.
• The IJC should support new and creative initiatives, such as Ontario's Great Lakes Renewal Foundation and the Clean Michigan Initiative, which build the capacity to restore uses through RAPs and LaMPs.
• Regarding monitoring and surveillance activities, nine of the 14 agencies providing survey data experienced a decrease in funding (>10% decrease), one of the 14 experienced an increase in funding (>10% increase) and four of the 14 showed no change in funding (less than or equal to a 10% increase or decrease), based on a comparison of 1997 data with the average of 1994-1997.
• The IJC should support agency proposals to enhance monitoring and surveillance programs targeting key ecosystem indicators.
• Regarding regulatory and enforcement activities, four of the 12 agencies providing survey data experienced an increase in funding (>10% increase), seven of the 12 showed no change in funding (less than or equal to a 10% increase or decrease) and the remaining one experienced a decrease in funding (>10% decrease) based on a comparison of 1997 data with the average from 1994-1997.
• Some agencies reported substantial reductions in resource expenditures in certain programs.
• There is a need to identify how effectively governments are assisting other organizations/institutions in performing the functions previously performed by state/provincial/federal governments (e.g. certain functions under RAPs are now being carried out by county or municipal governments, conservation authorities, watershed councils or nonprofit organizations).
• Continued emphasis must be placed on evaluating program effectiveness based on measuring ecosystem results.

The complete report can be found on the WQB's homepage http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/govres/review.html(.)

3.0	PROTECTING WHAT HAS BEEN GAINED IN THE BLACK RIVER

On October 8, 1998 the Black River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and Great Lakes Water Quality Board co-sponsored a public symposium in Lorain, Ohio. Participants were challenged by the symposium theme of Protecting What's Been Gained in the Black River. More than 125 participants including decision-makers from all levels of governments, industry, environmental groups, faculty and students from surrounding universities and concerned citizens gathered to:

• learn about the progress made in the Black River watershed in recent years;
• share and celebrate successes; and
• provide advice on required future activities to protect and rehabilitate the Black River watershed.

This symposium was an action-oriented public meeting and provided a forum for the exchange of ideas pertaining to watershed management. Research presentations focused on improvements in the river and what remains to be done. Breakout sessions were used to spur interaction between WQB members, Black River RAP Coordinating Committee members, key watershed stakeholders and concerned citizens on specific issues related to the protection and rehabilitation of the Black River watershed.

Key conclusions and recommendations from Symposium Steering Committee include the following:

• Substantial progress is being made in implementing the Black River RAP and restoring uses, such as progress toward elimination of liver tumors in the brown bullhead population and improvements in sediment quality. However, much needs to be done to protect what has been gained and to further rehabilitate degraded areas in the watershed.
• The Black River RAP Committee has taken a leadership role in developing and advancing efforts to protect the Black River and this process needs to be sustained for the future. This community-based process requires the active involvement of informed citizens who are ecologically literate and willing to act as stewards of the watershed.
• Mechanisms should be considered to control urban sediment erosion, manage storm water and address failing residential sewage disposal systems.
• There is a need to more effectively engage the public in understanding and supporting long-term environmental monitoring. Citizens volunteers can have a direct role in this effort, through realistic and practical goals for monitoring programs. To support this, effective training and quality control mechanisms for data collection by volunteers need to be developed.
• The International Joint Commission and the WQB must continue to be champions for community-based RAP processes. The IJC and the WQB are in a unique position to celebrate the progress of RAPs and help sustain community-based RAP groups working to restore and sustain uses in the Areas of Concern.
• The WQB should continue to convene public meetings with RAP groups in Areas of Concern. Such meetings help the public learn more about how local RAP efforts fit into the larger Great Lakes context. These meetings provide important opportunities to meet, share and learn from each other. They also serve as an effective community building project for RAP groups.

The Black River RAP Coordinating Committee is a model for multi-stakeholder cooperation in use of an ecosystem approach to restore uses on a watershed scale.

The complete report can be found on the WQB's homepage http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/black/cover.html(.)

4.0	REHABILITATING AND CONSERVING DETROIT RIVER HABITATS

The Detroit River is a 51 km (32 mi) international connecting channel linking Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. The Detroit River is one of 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem where a remedial action plan (RAP) is being developed and implemented to restore beneficial uses. The Detroit River RAP identifies "loss of fish and wildlife habitat" as one of the impaired

beneficial uses. Significant loss of Detroit River wetlands and other habitats has occurred as a result of conversion of land to agriculture practices, urban development and industrial growth. For example, 97 percent of the coastal wetlands on the U.S. mainland of the Detroit River have been lost to development and the remaining 3 percent are threatened by development pressures.

Further loss of habitat due to contaminated sediment is documented.

On March 4, 1998, the University of Windsor's Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, the Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario and other partners, including the IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, convened a binational conference titled Rehabilitating and Conserving Detroit River Habitats. The conference attracted more than 170 participants.

Major conclusions of the conference include the following:

• There is an urgent need to protect the few remaining natural areas along the Detroit River.
• Management agencies must take the lead in using available guidance tools to set priorities for habitat rehabilitation and conservation, such as Environment Canada's A Draft Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern, and move forward with habitat rehabilitation and conservation projects.
• Individuals and organizations with habitat expertise need to be prominently involved early in the planning processes for waterfront development, shoreline modification and similar projects.
• Habitat rehabilitation and conservation projects should be recognized as important experiments from which we can learn -- program managers must therefore explicitly link research/monitoring with planning and management of habitats.
• Greater emphasis must be placed on quantifying economic, social and ecological benefits of habitat rehabilitation and conservation projects.

The conference report reflects the high level of commitment that agencies, universities and the public have made to reverse the trends of erosion of quality and quantity of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. This work is especially important because participants are committed to improving the Detroit River corridor, where it would be easy to write-off the area and look elsewhere for the investment of limited resources. The support by WQB and Council of Great Lakes Research Managers for this conference sends a clear message that aquatic habitat is important to the Great Lakes community.

Recommendations:

• the IJC continue to track progress in habitat management and repair, and that, without adequate attention by the Parties, that part of the Purpose of the Agreement that speaks to biological integrity may not be achieved.
• the Commission to recommends to the Parties, appropriate jurisdictions and stakeholders in the Detroit River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that they take into account the recommendations from the conference into their efforts to further develop and implement remedial and preventive actions to restore impaired uses in the Detroit River.

The complete report can be found on the WQB's homepage http://www.mnsi.net/~riccawu/title.html(.)

5.0	REGULATING POINT SOURCES OF AIR CONTAMINANTS BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

As part of a continuing priority on significant sources, pathways and reduction/elimination strategies for persistent toxic substances, the WQB and the International Air Quality Advisory Board are collaborating to explore the ability to take regulatory action against a point source of air pollution based on violations of water quality standards. Technical and legal scenarios appropriate to Canada and the U.S. are being prepared, as are legal briefs designed to explore the applicability of legal tools to address the issue in both countries. The scenarios and legal arguments -- pro and con -- will be presented at a moot court event, to be held October 26-27, 1999 at the University of Windsor.

6.0	CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT

6.1	DECIDING WHEN TO INTERVENE - Data Interpretation Tools For Making Sediment Management Decisions Beyond Source Control

There is consensus among diverse sectors in the Great Lakes basin, such as government, industry, non-governmental organizations and Remedial Action Plan groups, that contaminated sediment is an important element leading to many beneficial uses impairments around the Great Lakes. All 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern have sediment classified as contaminated based on sediment quality guidelines for chemicals. This universal obstacle to environmental recovery in Areas of Concern is a challenge to restoring 11 of the 14 beneficial uses identified in the Agreement.

Sediment management decisions for Remedial Action Plans 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. What is needed is a pragmatic decision-making framework that leads to the selection of ecosystem and cost-effective options for management of contaminated sediment.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Board has called for a step-wise and incremental approach to management of contaminated sediment and restoration of beneficial uses. Sediment remediation, removal by dredging of a mass of contaminants, and reduction of risk are important indicators of incremental progress. The ultimate success of sediment management activities will be judged upon restoration of beneficial uses such as elimination of fish consumption advisories, restoration of fish and wildlife populations and restoration of benthos.

The complete report can be found on the WQB's homepage http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/sedrem.html(.)

Bioassessment frameworks have evolved substantially, 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 be integrated to make a decision whether to intervene (i.e. remediate contaminated sediment) or pursue source control and natural recovery as the preferred remedial option.

On December 1-2, 1998, the WQB's Sediment Priority Action Committee (SedPAC) convened a workshop at the University of Windsor to evaluate data interpretation tools used to make sediment management decisions beyond source control. A workshop report has been prepared. The primary intent of the report is to share advances in data interpretation regarding sediment management decision-making with RAP practitioners. Presently, a great deal of data have been collected on the physical, chemical and biological elements that modify contaminant bioavailability and ecological effects. This literature can help guide RAP practitioners through a transparent, use restoration decision-making process.

In addition to this review of data interpretation tools, the SedPAC recognizes that the IJC can offer more assistance in the efforts to overcome obstacles to sediment management. Specifically, SedPAC recommends the following.

• The Parties and jurisdictions develop and reach agreement on methods or programs to predict and measure successful ecological recovery in Areas of Concern such as ecological benefit forecasting, monitoring and surveillance programs to measure use restoration.
• The Parties and jurisdictions establish procedures for consistent data collection and interpretation across Areas of Concern, recognizing the importance of site specificity in applying methodologies and tools.

The Commissioners also have an important role to fulfill in overcoming obstacles to sediment management for beneficial use restoration. SedPAC recommends that:

• Commissioners develop and implement an IJC public outreach strategy to help make contaminated sediment management a priority throughout the basin.

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. This workshop report is one in a series that will explore a number of aspects affecting sediment management. Other aspects involve what is and is not known about linking sediment cleanup to ecological recovery and restoration of beneficial uses, as well as economic benefits that may accrue from effective management of contaminated sediment.

The complete report can be found on the WQB's homepage http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/sedwkshp(.) (In Press)

6.2	ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF SEDIMENT REMEDIATION IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Over the past 20 years, considerable progress has been made in the control and management of point and nonpoint sources of chemical contaminants. Reduced loadings of contaminants have, in general, resulted in a 50-70 percent reduction of contaminant levels in fish between the early 1970s and the mid 1980s. However, since the mid 1980s, ambient levels of contaminants appear to have generally either leveled off or their rate of decrease has slowed substantially. Fish consumption advisories remain in effect in all of the Great Lakes. It is believed that the major reason why contaminant levels in fish have generally leveled off and health advisories on human consumption of fish remain in effect is that there are continued inputs of contaminants from the atmosphere, groundwater discharge, surface runoff and contaminated sediment. The lakes have also become now a source of contaminants to the atmosphere, which in turn, deposits contaminants back into the lakes.

The importance of the contaminated sediment issue continues to escalate in both the United States and Canada. For example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 5 has identified cleaning up contaminated sediment as one of its top five priorities in its Agenda for Action for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The Agenda for Action states that:

"Polluted sediments are the largest major source of contaminants to the Great Lakes food chain, and over 97% (8,325 km)of the shoreline is considered impaired. The Region V inventory contains 346 contaminated sediment sites. Fish consumption advisories remain in place throughout the Great Lakes and many inland lakes. Contaminated sediments also cause restriction and delays in the dredging of navigable waterways, which in turn can negatively affect local and regional economies. Contaminated sediments must be cleaned up before they move downstream or into open waters, which makes them inaccessible and cleanup impossible."

Contaminated sediment has been identified as a source of ecological impacts throughout the Great Lakes basin. While contaminated sediment is not designated as a specific impairment in Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, in-place pollutants potentially pose a challenge to restoring 11 of the 14 beneficial use impairments: restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; degradation of fish and wildlife populations; fish tumors or other deformities; bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems; degradation of benthos; loss of fish and wildlife habitat; eutrophication or undesirable algae; degradation of phytoplankton or zooplankton populations; degradation of aesthetics; added costs to agriculture or industry; and restrictions on dredging activities.

The 14 beneficial uses identified in the Agreement can be grouped into four aspects of ecosystem health or state: human health, societal value, economic value and ecological performance. The first eight of the 11 beneficial use impairments identified above deal with ecological performance. Therefore, restoration of their use and the realization of ecological benefit requires an understanding of the relationship between contaminated sediment and a specific use impairment. It is also imperative, prior to embarking upon sediment remediation, to have developed some quantifiable expectation of result ecological benefit and a program to monitor the predicted recovery.

In most Areas of Concern, documentation of the sediment problem has not been quantitatively coupled to the ecological beneficial use impairments. Therefore, stipulating how much needs to be cleaned up, why, and what improvements can be expected to the beneficial use impairment(s) over what time frame has not been possible. A clear understanding of these relationships and some level of quantification is critical for the development of a complete sediment management strategy. This understanding should provide adequate justification for an active cleanup program, and also represents a principle consideration in the adoption of non-intervention alternative strategies. In developing this understanding, it is important not only to know the existing degree of ecological impairment associated with sediment contaminants, but also the circumstances under which those relationships and impacts might change, such as contaminants becoming more available or more detrimental.

Over the past 13 years, over $570 million has been spent on 37 sediment remediation projects in 19 Areas of Concern. Of these projects, only two currently have adequate data and information on ecological effectiveness (i.e. post-project monitoring of beneficial use restoration). In some cases there is planned monitoring of ecological effectiveness, but the data will not be available for a number of years. In the cases where sediment remediation was undertaken as a result of regulatory action, the projects removed a mass of contaminants to reduce environmental risk. These projects were very effective in meeting the regulatory requirements, and are consistent with the step-wise and incremental approach to management of contaminated sediment called for by the WQB. However, it is recognized that in many cases, much more effort should be placed on forecasting and assessing ecological recovery of an Area of Concern, as well as beneficial use restoration consistent with Annex 2 of the Agreement.

Therefore, it is recommended that:

• Much greater emphasis be placed on post-project monitoring of the effectiveness of sediment remediation. The assessment of effectiveness relative to restoration of uses with appropriate quality assurance and quality control.

One way of achieving post-project monitoring of sediment remediation effectiveness would be for the state/provincial/federal agency staff responsible to have specific commitments and resources required to incorporate into settlements and cooperative agreements. Good examples of this include the Welland River project (Ontario), the settlement under the National Resources Damage Assessment for Saginaw River and Bay (Michigan) and the Thunder Bay cleanup project (Ontario).

It is recognized that ecological benefits of partial sediment remediation may not be measured because of the magnitude of the contaminated sediment problem in the area and in remaining downstream areas of contamination, which would mask or delay ecological recovery, such as in the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. Areas of Concern where the probability of measuring ecological benefits of sediment remediation is high include: Manistique River, Collingwood Harbour, River Raisin, Newburgh Lake Impoundment on the Rouge River and the Maumee River.

Sediment Priority Action Committee recommends:

• a high priority be placed on monitoring ecological benefits and beneficial use restoration at sites where sediment remediation has taken place.

Although a basic understanding of aquatic ecosystem function and chemical fate is generally available, aquatic ecosystems appear to be sufficiently unique and our understanding sufficiently lacking, that an adaptive management approach (i.e. assess, set priorities and take aciton in an iterative fashion) is the prudent course to follow. This approach requires a much tighter coupling of research, monitoring and management, in every case, to develop quantifiable, realistic goals and measures of success or failure to achieve them.

Clearly, there are knowledge gaps in our understanding of the relationship between contaminated sediment and the 11 use impairments from the Agreement that are potentially impacted by contaminated sediment. Therefore, the Sediment Priority Action Committee recommends that:

• additional research is essential to quantify the relationships between contaminated sediment and known use impairments, forecast ecological benefits, and monitor ecological recovery and beneficial use restoration in a scientifically-defensible and cost-effective fashion.

The complete report can be found on the WQB's homepage http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/ecolsed(.) (In Press)

6.3	ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SEDIMENT REMEDIATION

There are few quantitative studies that assessing the economic benefits of remediating contaminated sediment. There are at least two reasons for this. First, attention to the economic aspect of sediment contamination has been relatively recent. Historically, economic analyses were undertaken in conjunction with navigational dredging. These analyses focussed largely on the economics of dredging and disposal. By the mid-1980s, the focus in the Great Lakes had begun to shift to consider the broader ecological impacts, in part due to the 1987 revisions to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The second reason is that documentation of sediment contamination has not been quantitatively coupled to the ecological beneficial use impairments. Of the 37 sediment remediation projects undertaken in the last 13 years in Great Lakes Areas of Concern, only two have adequate information and data on ecological effectiveness. The lack of quantitative biophysical data makes it difficult to instil confidence in the estimation of economic benefits, which in turn deters economic analysis.

Nevertheless, anecdotal information indicates that the economic benefits from sediment cleanup could be substantial. For example, vessels entering Waukegan Harbor (Illinois) can only be filled to 40 percent capacity because of draft restrictions related to sediment contamination. This light-loading of vessels results in millions of dollars of lost revenue annually could be avoided when a suitable remedial strategy for contaminated sediment is finally implemented yielding considerable economic benefits to Waukegan Harbor industries.

Preliminary analysis in Thunder Bay, Ontario indicates the cleanup of sediment at the Northern Wood Preservers site could be linked with potential economic benefits from waterfront development. In this case, the city of Thunder Bay has approximately $50 million of proposed waterfront redevelopment plans, some of which are linked to cleanup of this site. It is suggested that remediation of contaminated sediment at the Northern Wood Preservers site will be a catalyst for helping to realize the economic waterfront development opportunities to their fullest extent. Without cleanup, some of these opportunities may not be realized.

Towards developing more information on the potential economic benefits of contaminated sediment remediation, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board's Sediment Priority Action Committee collaborated with the Northeast Midwest Institute in preparing its Great Lakes Valuation Guidebook during the 1997-1999 biennial cycle. SedPAC is now working with experts from the Parties, jurisdictions and the Northeast Midwest Institute to encourage undertaking case studies of economic valuation.

While some benefits assessment work is currently underway in the St. Clair River Area of Concern, more case studies using a range of economic valuation methods are needed. These case studies will help identify the nature and extent of potential benefit types and identify those valuation methodologies best suited for the local characteristics of a remediation site. Potential benefit categories include:

• use benefits (e.g. fishing, swimming and boating);
• avoided costs (e.g. navigational dredging and human health);
• economic development opportunities (e.g. waterfront development investments previously deferred and attracted businesses);
• property value (e.g. land value impacts); and
• non-use/sustainability benefits (e.g. bequest and existence values often associated with biodiversity and habitat).

Identifying the potential benefits of remediating contaminated aquatic sediment can help raise the profile of the problem and expedite and strengthen the decision as to whether cleanup is warranted in a given site. Raising the profile also can help identify possible funding opportunities, stimulate corporate involvement and generate local support when a decision to intervene has been made.

7.0	ADDRESSING CONCERNS FOR WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM LARGE-SCALE GREAT LAKES AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture is an emerging issue in the Great Lakes basin caused by an increased demand for freshwater fish and by concern for a rapid expansion of a relatively new industry. Globally, the current demand for seafood has increased to the point where the United Nations estimates that nearly one-quarter of the protein in human diets is derived from seafood, of which 21 percent of the world consumption of seafood comes from aquaculture. With the rapid expansion of aquaculture there has been an increased concern for the impacts the industry might have on water quality and biota, as well as economic and social benefits.

As part of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission mandate to assess habitat alterations and recommend mitigative strategies to address concerns for aquaculture in the Great Lakes basin, a roundtable discussion of water quality impacts of Great Lakes aquaculture was held on January 27-28, 1999 in collaboration with the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. Water quality impacts (i.e. elevated phosphorus levels, increased primary productivity and reduced water transparency). due to hatchery operations have been documented in Michigan's Platte Lake. In addition, water quality impacts due to caged aquaculture have been documented in Minnesota lakes (i.e. approximately an order of magnitude increase in water column phosphorus, nitrogen and chlorophyll levels and increased attached algal growth) and in Ontario on the North Channel and Georgian Bay of Lake Huron (i.e. elevated phosphorus levels, reduced water transparency, algal blooms and dissolved oxygen depletion over 250 ha). Industry representatives provided information that other operations in Georgian Bay have been well managed and have not resulted in any significant water quality problems. Roundtable participants were of the opinion that water quality problems can be substantially prevented with better assessment, siting, prediction of carrying capacity and management of food, fish and waste.

Caged aquaculture operations in the Great Lakes are currently limited by available technology. Neither cage nor land-based aquaculture is expected to grow substantially. The aquaculture industry is interested in achieving economically-viable and environmentally-sustainable operations. Both the aquaculture industry and governments want to limit water quality and habitat impacts.

One promising analytical tool, sponsored by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, is being developed to prevent water quality impacts from aquaculture and prevent introductions of exotic species. This decision support system titled Environmental Assessment Tool for Private Aquaculture in the Great Lakes Basin is being developed by the University of Minnesota. This user-friendly, computer-based system is designed to help direct impact assessments and guide risk management decisions regarding private aquaculture operations.

Based on a review of the information and discussions from the roundtable, and the extended abstracts presented in this report, the roundtable steering committee has made the following recommendations:

It is recommended that:

• Jurisdictions/government agencies perform better site assessments as part of the application for all new caged aquaculture operations, including site specific prediction of carrying capacity (e.g. the University of Minnesota Environmental Assessment Tool could be field tested on new permit/license applications);
• limit caged aquaculture operations based on a feed quota;
• required as part of each caged aquaculture license or permit (e.g., benthic community structure, chemistry, periphyton, etc.); and
• best management practices be develop and implement BMP for all caged aquaculture operations.

It is recommended that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International Joint Commission:

• continue to track the issue of water quality impacts from Great Lakes aquaculture; and
• ensure that related aquaculture issues of comprehensive disease management, introduction of exotic species, use of therapeutics and antifoulants be addressed in the future.

It is recommended that the following research needs be addressed:

• development and application of simple, rapid, bioassessment tools and practical early warning indicators for signs of changing benthos, phytoplankton and zooplankton;
• development and application of models to estimate carrying capacity and predict site suitability for aquaculture operations;
• frequency, extent and feasibility of fallowing or resting a site required to minimize impacts;
• nutrient/energy efficiencies of fish feed;
• efficacy of alternative nutrient abatement technologies;
• impacts of caged aquaculture operations on structure and function of the fishery; and
• relative impact of existing land-based aquaculture operations.

It is recommended that the aquaculture industry :

• cage-culture aquaculture applicants assess the carrying capacity of the proposed site and allocate waste loadings within that capacity;
• adequate pre- and post-operational monitoring be conducted;
• efforts be made to involve all stakeholders early-on (e.g. cottage owners) in planning to gain acceptance and avoid problems;
• fish farmers consider using highly digestible, nutrient dense diets that are less polluting and could prove cost-effective for fish production; and
• fish farmers consider developing an environmental management system under ISO 14000 that incorporates use of best available technologies and requires adequate monitoring for continuous improvement in operations.

8.0	GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD MEMBERSHIP

Canadian Members
Mr. Vic Shantora, Cochair Director General Toxic Pollution Prevention Directorate Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 13th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3	Dr. James Ashman Director, Ministry and Corporate Affairs Deputy Minister's Office Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2
Mr. Vic Cairns Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Canada Centre for Inland Waters 867 Lakeshore Rd./P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6	Dr. Steve Clarkson Bureau of Chemical Hazards Environmental Health Center Health Canada Tunney's Pasture, Building 8 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L2
Mr. Guy Demers Quebec Ministry of Environment & Wildlife Aquatic Ecosystems 675 Rene-Levesque E., Box 22 Québec, Québec G1R 5V7	Dr. Doug P. Dodge Fish & Wildlife Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 300 Water Street P.O. Box 7000 Peterborough, Ontario K9J 3C7
Mr. Michael Goffin Director, Great Lakes and Corporate Affairs Environment Canada, Ontario Region 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4	Ms. Madhu K. Malhotra (alternate) Interangency Program Coordinator Great Lakes Environment Office Environment Canada, Ontario Region 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
Mr. J. Craig Mather Chief Administrative Officer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4	Ms. Helle M. Tosine Director, Policy and Research OPS Restructuring Secretariat Cabinet Office 77 Wellesley St. W., 5th Floor Ferguson Building Toronto, Ontario M7A 1N3
Mr. Hardy Wong, Director Water Policy Branch Toronto Head Office Ontario Ministry of Environment 135 St. Clair Ave. W., 11th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5	Dr. John M. Cooley, Director Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, CCIW P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
Ms. Denyse Gouin Ministry of Environment and Wildlife Aquatic Systems 675 Rene-Levesque E., Box 22 Québec, Québec G1R 5V7	Ms. Gail Kranzberg Great Lakes Strategic Coordinator Ontario Ministry of Environment 135 St. Clair Ave. West, 11th Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
United States Members
Mr. David Ullrich, U.S. Cochair A/Administrator U.S. National Program Manager U.S. EPA, Region V 77 W. Jackson St., R-19-J Chicago, Illinois 60604	Mr. Gary V. Gulezian, Director, (alternate) U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (G-17J) Chicago, Illinois 60604
Pennsylvania Mr. Kelly Burch Chief, Office of the Great Lakes Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection 230 Chestnut St. Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335-3481	New York Mr. N.G. Kaul, P.E., Director Division of Water New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-3500 Mr. Richard Draper (alternate) NYSDEC Great Lakes Section, Division of Water 50 Wolf Road, Rm 310 Albany, New York 12233-3500
Minnesota Ms. Suzanne Hanson, Regional Manager Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NE Region Duluth Government Services Center Room 704, 320 W 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55802 Ms. Carri Lohse-Hanson (alternate) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Rod Massey, Manager Water Quality Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Mr. Dan Helwig (alternate) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155	Michigan Mr. G. Tracy Mehan, III Director, Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (106 W. Allegan, 6th Floor Hollister Building) P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, Michigan 48909
Ohio Mr. Christopher Jones, Director Ohio EPA 122 South Front Street, P.O. 1049 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 Mr. Donald R. Schregardus, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Mr. George Elmaraghy (alternate) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049, 122 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049	Wisconsin Ms. Susan Sylvester Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Administrator, AD/5 Division of Water 101 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 Mr. Greg Hill (alternate) Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Administrator, AD/5, Division of Water 101 S. Webster St.,P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921
Illinois Mr. Peter L. Wise, Associate Director Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue E., P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Mr. Jim Parks (alternate) Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, Illinois 62706	Indiana Mr. John Hamilton Commissioner Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management 100 North Senate, PO Box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015 Mr. Matt Rueff, Asst. Commissioner (alternate) Office of Water Management Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management 100 North Senate, PO Box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Acting Representative Mr. Pearlie S. Reed, Chief, NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 2890, MNCS-USDA Washington, D.C. 20013 Mr. Percy Magee (alternate) USDA/Nat. Res. Cons. Serv. One Maritime Plaza, 4th Floor Toledo OH 43604-1866 Mr. Dan Smith (alternate) Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 2890 MNCS-USDA Washington, D.C. 20013
Section Liaisons Mr. James G. Chandler International Joint Commission United States Section 1250 23rd Street NW, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20440 Mr. Edward A. Bailey International Joint Commission Canadian Section 100 Metcalfe Street, 18th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5M1 Ms. Ann MacKenzie International Joint Commission Canadian Section 100 Metcalfe Street, 18th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5M1	Secretariat Responsibilities Dr. John H. Hartig, Secretary Great Lakes Regional Office International Joint Commission 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3