The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Navigational Links
- Areas of Concern
- The Clean Water Act
- Great Lakes Image Collection
- State-of-the-Lakes Ecosystem
- The Great Lakes Atlas
- 25 Years of Great Protection
______________________
View Full Report
(file size: 72kb )
about PDF Files
______________________
Several of the reports above are linked outside the EPA.gov domain. This link provides additional information that may be useful or interesting and is being provided consistent with the intended purpose of the EPA Web site. However, EPA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by this link or any other linked site. Providing links to a non-EPA Web site does not constitute an endorsement by EPA or any of its employees of the sponsors of the site or the information or products presented on the site. Also, be aware that the privacy protection provided on the EPA.gov domain (see
Privacy and Security Notice) may not be available at the external link.
U.S. Response to Recommendation to the
IJC's 11th Biennial Report on Great Lake Water Quality - May 2003
- Chapter 1: The State of the Great
Lakes
- Chapter 2: Toward Chemical Integrity:
The Challenge of Contaminated Sediment and Human Health
Impacts
- Chapter 3: Toward Biological Integrity: The Challenge of Alien Invasive Species
_________________________________________
Chapter 1:
The State of the Great Lakes
Recommendations
1. Develop reliable data and accessible information to
support indicators for the three desired outcomes of Drinkability,
Swimmability and Fishability (fish that are safe to eat). This
action should have priority status in the indicator process.
The Parties recognize the overall purpose of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
“ . . . to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem.” The suite of Great Lakes indicators developed through
SOLEC reflects the importance
of assessing the Great Lakes basin ecosystem components, including
human health. The issues of “drinkability,” “swimmability,” and
“fishability” are addressed through the indicators to evaluate the
quality of drinking water, the number and duration of swimming
advisories due to elevated bacterial levels in the water, and the
concentration of bioaccumulative chemicals in edible fish tissue.
Although much of the GLWQA addresses issues of ecosystem integrity,
these three issues pertaining to human health are widely recognized
and are meaningful to the public.
The Parties will continue to collect information and report on
these indicators through the SOLEC process. Reliable data are
essential to the assessment and reporting process, and considerable
efforts are involved in the collection and evaluation of data to
support these three human health indicators. Between
SOLEC 2000 and
SOLEC 2002, for example,
the number of public drinking water facilities surveyed was
increased from 22 to 114; additional data were provided for
contaminants in edible fish from Lakes Superior and Lake Michigan;
and the information on the number and frequency of beach advisories
reflects a transition period toward more nearly uniform monitoring
and reporting systems across jurisdictions.
Quality assurance and quality control are parts of the process
necessary to provide reliable data. The SOLEC process relies on the
expertise and professionalism of the contributing authors of the
indicator reports to base their assessments on data of good quality.
Data frequently are gathered from multiple sources in varying
formats, which can present challenges for their evaluation and
synthesis into indicator reports. Beginning in 2003, a technical
version of the biennial State of the Great Lakes report will contain
citations, references and/or personal contact information for all of
the data presented. The Parties fully cooperate with the Commission,
however, to provide the underlying data that are collected to
support these indicators, if such information is requested.
2. Expand indicator development and reporting on
additional desired outcomes only where resources are sufficient to
access scientifically valid and reliable data.
One of the goals of the SOLEC process is to “strengthen decision
making and management.” Because the Great Lakes ecosystem is so
complex, any one component can be influenced by a variety of
management activities. Therefore, a considerable amount of
information is required to make better, more informed decisions
about potential management interventions. The Parties are well aware
of resource limitations, and we are investing in those indicators
which provide the greatest information about Great Lakes ecosystem
function, status and trends, and which support informed management
decisions.
The Parties do not consider a detailed assessment of only a few
environmental components to be sufficient to meet the requirements
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Great Lakes
indicators were selected under the general criteria of “necessary,
sufficient and feasible,” following the organizational framework of
indicators that reflect the state of the environment, the pressures
being exerted on ecosystem, and the human activities or responses
that influence the pressures. Through the SOLEC process of
identifying candidate indicators for the major ecosystem components,
existing and future data needs can be identified. The Parties can
then determine which data needs can be met through existing
monitoring programs and which would require new efforts. The Parties
agree that the quality of underlying indicator data are important
and have a direct bearing on subsequent management decisions that
may be made based on those data.
Development and reporting efforts for Great Lakes indicators have
attracted the interest of several organizations who are now
assisting the Parties. For example, the Great Lakes Forest Alliance
has provided leadership to select a subset of extensive forest
indicators for reporting through SOLEC. Fostering this type of
partnership between the Parties and non-government groups benefits
the comprehensive assessment of the Great Lakes by providing
information on previously unreported ecosystem components with
minimal additional resource expenditures by the Parties.
Several research efforts are also currently in progress for
developing or refining effective indicators for selected ecosystem
components. For example, the results of research being conducted by
the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium and the consortium for
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators for coastal conditions are
expected to lead to more reliable, cost efficient indicators than
might otherwise be proposed. Resources currently directed toward
these activities are an investment that will provide future
benefits.
3. Improve public information and decision-making by:
- increasing funding, technology and staff for monitoring,
surveillance and information management to support the SOLEC
indicator reporting
The SOLEC process itself is not a monitoring program. To date,
all of the information provided for the assessment of Great Lakes
indicators has been supplied by existing monitoring programs or
other data collection activities that were established for other
(though perhaps similar) purposes. The Parties recognize that better
coordination of monitoring efforts among the various jurisdictions
and agencies could be achieved, implying that conserved resources
would then be available to obtain additional information. A
concerted effort has already begun to develop a basin-wide
monitoring inventory; to identify monitoring drivers and existing
coordination mechanisms; and to discuss possible means of improving
binational monitoring coordination.
The Parties recognize that issues concerning information
management will continue to confront the SOLEC process. As more
information is obtained supporting the current indicators, and as
more indicators come into use, the need will increase to define and
implement a formal system to obtain, store, analyze and archive
data. Additional views of the Parties regarding information
management are presented in the following two sections.
- making the findings from indicators and their supporting
databases generally available to decision-makers and the public,
and
The Parties prepare and release a biennial report based on the
findings from the indicators. The most recent issue, State of the
Great Lakes 2001, provided indicator assessments and lake basin
assessments in clear, easy to read, language. The report was widely
distributed and remains readily available on line at
www.binational.net.
The Parties intend to prepare the State of the Great Lakes 2003 in a
similar style, and distribute it widely along with simplified
highlight reports. The Parties continue to explore additional
approaches to communicating the findings to environmental decision
makers and managers at all levels of governance and to the broad
interested public.
Making the supporting databases generally available will remain
problematic at this time. For many of the indicators, the data
reside with the cooperating agency or organization, and the
indicator reports are prepared by the subject matter experts who
have access to the underlying data. The indicator reports
acknowledge the report authors and the data sources so that the
reader can inquire directly about the underlying data. As part of
the process for preparing the State of the Great Lakes 2003 report,
a detailed technical reference document will also be assembled and
made available. This technical report will provide contact
information, data sources, literature citations, and quality
assurance references for the indicator data and/or information. The
Parties will continue to investigate more satisfactory solutions to
providing the underlying data to secondary users.
- coordinating the databases in both Canada and the U.S. and
linking significant Great Lakes databases.
Information management will continue to be a central issue to the success of reaching the goals of the GLWQA. The Parties agree with the IJC’s statement in the 11th Biennial Report that, “(W)e cannot overstate the enormous task of organizing a broad diversity of data and information from an array of organizations into a system that is accessible to and useable by a variety of audiences.“ Unfortunately, the linking of various databases is not easily undertaken, and issues remain to be resolved concerning the security of computing systems that grant public access and the integrity of the data that are provided. SOLEC organizers will continue to explore means to provide access to indicator data in a timely manner for multiple users.
Chapter 2:
Toward Chemical Integrity: The Challenge of Contaminated Sediment
and Human Health Impacts
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510070246im_/http://epa.gov/grtlakes/active/images/top.gif)
Recommendations
1. Define explicitly the extent of sediment contamination and the goals for restoration so that remediation needs may be understood and publicly supported.
The United States fully supports the intent of this
recommendation. Such an undertaking, however, may require time,
effort, and resources beyond which are readily available at the
present.
The United States Great Lakes Program (comprised of those
federal, state, and tribal agencies with significant environmental
protection and natural resources management responsibilities) is
strongly committed to managing and, where appropriate, remediating
contaminated sediments in all Areas
of Concern (AoC), and in other priority areas of the Basin which
do not have AoC status. Contaminated sediments are a significant
problem. They pose concerns from both ecological and human health
standpoints. Although discharges of persistent toxic substances to
the Great Lakes have been reduced in the last three decades, high
concentrations of contaminants remaining in the bottom sediments of
many rivers and harbors have raised concerns about risks to aquatic
organisms, wildlife and humans. There are economic consequences to
contaminated sediments, as well. They can prevent or delay the
dredging in navigational channels and recreational ports, require
additional costs for removal and management, and impose other costs
to waterborne commerce and local economies.
In the United States, much work and substantial progress toward
remediating contaminated sediments has taken place. Through the
congressionally mandated Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
Sediments (ARCS) Program, EPA developed methods for both assessing
and remediating contaminated sediments; EPA’s
Research Vessel R/V
Mudpuppy has to date visited 27 of the 31 U.S. AoCs, and
provided support to the eight Great Lakes States and various Tribes
to better assess and characterize the nature and extent of the
contamination at these sites. Many of these locations have been
visited more than once, with the ultimate goal of this work to make
informed, cost-effective decisions on sediment clean-ups. But even
with the most thorough sampling of a contaminated site, an explicit
estimate of the size of the remediation project may not be possible
because of the need to develop appropriate cleanup objectives for
individual sites through coordination with States and other
stakeholders.
Since most AoCs have been characterized for the nature and extent
of contaminated sediment, future efforts will focus primarily on
developing remediation plans for projects, with public consultation.
Identifying remediation needs is being addressed by many of the
comprehensive sediment goals contained in the U.S. Great Lakes
Strategy, including:
By 2004, each State member of the U.S. Policy Committee, working with USEPA, USACE, NOAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), will develop an integrated list of sites for remedial and restoration activities, with estimated costs and schedules. These lists will be updated biennially. USEPA will maintain this comprehensive list of known contaminated sediment sites in the Great Lakes, including, but not limited to AoCs, that will help to inform the Great Lakes community on the location and magnitude of remaining sediment contamination that could require remedial and restoration actions.
This assessment will support the stated Strategy Key Objectives
for remediating Great Lakes contaminated sediments:
- Beginning in 2002, initiate three remedial action starts each year;
- Beginning in 2004, complete three sediment remedial actions per year until all known sites in the Basin are addressed; and
- Complete the clean up of all known sites in the Basin by 2025.
These actions will address sites contained in a comprehensive
listing of sites which require remediation; the list, to be
completed by 2004, is another Great Lakes Strategy commitment.
The Strategy also recognizes the need for public outreach so that
remedial options can be clearly understood and supported:
Develop and implement a collaborative outreach strategy to promote greater public awareness of contaminated sediments issues and enhance public involvement in the remedial decision-making process early and often.
This Great Lakes Strategy commitment will be developed and
implemented, as needed, on a site-by-site basis.
Our primary objective remains to accelerate the pace of
contaminated sediment remediation, and continuing to work to
overcome barriers to progress identified at each site. This will be
achieved by bringing together complementary Federal and State
authorities, and/or government and private resources to address the
contaminated sediment problem and its source.
One new and welcomed source of resources to support our work is the recently enacted Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 which authorizes up to $50 million a year for five years (beginning in FY2004) for projects to address contaminated sediments at Great Lakes AoCs. Funding under this act, if and when appropriated, will provide EPA with greater financial resources to directly address sediment remediation at Great Lakes AoCs. The Act also authorizes up to one million dollars per year to specifically focus on public information for contaminated sediment projects.
The U.S. Great Lakes Program acknowledges that it can always make
progress on better informing the public of the nature and extent of
contaminated sediment problems in the AoCs. As we complete our
assessments and gather better information on these parameters, we
will work more closely with the federal and state RAP coordinators
as well as with the AoC-based public advisory committees to
communicate this information in a clear manner and fully explain the
options and implications for all potential remedial scenarios.
2. Set priorities and a schedule for contaminated
sediment remediation based on the potential for benefits to
ecosystem and human health.
As stated in previous responses to similar recommendations from
the Commission, given the nature of the federal government budgeting
process in the United States, the nature multiple clean-up
authorities among a number of federal and state agencies, and
potential litigation, it is very difficult to set reliable schedules
for remediation (although we have established aggressive clean-up
goals in the Great Lakes Strategy
as addressed in the previous recommendation, as well as a Strategy
commitment that an integrated list of sites be prepared on the U.S.
side by 2004). In addition, addressing an historic legacy of
pollution which occurred over many years requires a substantial
investment of time and effort to remediate. Many of our actions will
depend on the regulatory scheme under which a given remedial project
is implemented. Timetables might be developed on a site by site
basis, but to do this on a large, AoC-wide scale would be very
difficult.
Adding another level of complexity is the fact that many AoCs
consist of multiple “hot spots” that require remediation. Each hot
spot may be potentially addressed through different statutory
authorities and programs, and some may not be readily dealt with by
current programs. Given this scenario, trying to predict when each
and every site might be remediated would be difficult. To further
complicate matters, there are many remaining or orphan sites where
no potentially responsible parties are readily identifiable; this
makes it extremely difficult to schedule/prioritize remedial actions
since the source of funding has not been secured. If funding becomes
available under the Great Lakes Legacy Act, this will increase our
ability to address orphan sites.
Some clean-ups are opportunistic in nature, and can incorporate
innovative public-private partnerships. These situations cannot be
planned for or scheduled. For example, in some remedial actions such
as the recently completed Tannery Bay project in the White Lake,
Michigan AoC, private sector funding can play a vital role. It would
be difficult at best to incorporate such an important funding
source, which may arise on an ad hoc basis, into schedules and work
plans.
Any attempt to prioritize sites requires accurate and timely
information. As explained in the response to the first
recommendation above, complete assessments of all sediment sites in
the AoCs are necessary to do any prioritization. This will take
funding which may be made available in part by the Great Lakes
Legacy Act and programmatic funds from Superfund and other EPA
programs, as well as via Natural Resource Damage Assessments. Once
these assessments are completed and analyzed, we may have some
ability to prioritize, but this would not necessarily mean that the
highest priority sites are the first to be remediated. This remains
dependent on which program implements the remediation and their
statutorily mandated procedures for setting priorities, as well as
securing community acceptance. There is no one sediment clean-up
program within EPA or within the U.S. government; hence, it is
nearly impossible to implement clean-ups following a predetermined
sequence across these various programs. Within particular programs,
risk assessment is part of prioritizing and setting cleanup goals
under remedial programs; these programs have and will continue to
consider the benefits to the ecosystem and human health as they
decide on remedial actions.
Another complicating factor in trying to set priorities and
schedules is that contaminated sediments are also present in Great
Lakes areas that do not carry the AoC designation. EPA programs and
offices focus their efforts on the highest priority contaminated
sediment sites, which may not be within AoCs. Prioritization factors
include contribution of substantial risks to human health and the
environment, location within Great Lakes AoCs, location where delay
could result in the spread of toxic chemicals into areas where
remediation is no longer feasible, and adverse impacts on resources.
Given all these impediments, we do recognize the importance of
setting schedules and priorities for remediation. Given the varying
nature of the environmental problems occurring at the 31 U.S. AoCs,
the setting of these schedules is best accomplished on a site by
site basis as each works to define remediation goals with local
stakeholders and those federal and state agencies which implement
the remedial activities. It should also be noted that there is the
possibility that some RAPs may determine that sediment remediation
is not practicable and that natural processes should be allowed to
remedy the problem once pollution sources are controlled. We
anticipate that future timetables will continue to be developed on a
site by site and project-specific basis, and will be buttressed by
the Great Lakes Strategy sediment assessment goals as discussed in
the response to the previous recommendation. For the remaining U.S.
AoCs where sediment contamination is being assessed, those U.S.
federal and state agencies with the legal authorities to develop
plans and take action in remediating these sites are working in
close cooperation with the RAP processes to develop the detailed
work plans, schedules and benchmarks needed to complete sediment
remediation and other important projects. The U.S. will make every
effort to ensure that RAPs articulate schedules and deadlines when
they are established.
We would enjoy the predictability of a priority scheme and are
predisposed to prioritize certain sites based on factors including
those expressed by the IJC, but realistically there are competing
factors (as noted above) which can shift our view of what is a
priority, such as the recognition that clean-up may be impractical,
due to various factors such as cost and technological limitations.
But rather than being stymied by the complex nature of the work, we
intend to be entrepreneurial and seize upon opportunities that arise
and enable more and better clean-ups. Thus, priorities need not
imply schedules and workplans.
3. Develop a long-term strategy for the remediation of
contaminated sediment; ensure that it is adequately funded; and
report on progress.
The Great Lakes Strategy contains the beginnings of a long-term
strategy for the remediation of contaminated sediments. Some of the
mechanics of activities in the Strategy for the remediation of
contaminated sediments has been described in our response to the
previous recommendations. But at present, given the situation of
multiple authorities spread over multiple agencies, there is no one
U.S. contaminated sediments strategy for the Great Lakes. Having
said that, there are a number of ongoing complementary activities,
outlined below, which will aid in developing and implementing such a
strategy.
At the national level, EPA published a document entitled, EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy in April 1998 (EPA-823-R-98-001), describing goals, policies, and how we intend to accomplish these goals for managing the problem of contaminated sediment and actions that EPA intends to take to accomplish those goals. This EPA nationwide strategy specifically notes the importance of meeting the goals of the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and RAPs (page 56). The stated goal for active remediation and natural attenuation projects, outlined in this strategy is, “...to achieve sediments that pose no acute or chronic toxicity to aquatic life and wildlife, and no significant risk to human health and the environment”. In the U.S., the specific framework utilized to achieve this goal will vary, depending on the governmental program used to achieve it.
EPA is also developing an Agency-wide Contaminated Sediment
Science Plan (CSSP) to develop and coordinate science activities.
The anticipated results of the CSSP will be improved environmental
decision-making which conserves both human and financial resources.
EPA’s also issued Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment
Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (February 12, 2002) which helps EPA
site managers make scientifically sound and nationally consistent
risk management decisions at contaminated sediment sites. It
presents eleven risk management principles that Remedial Project
Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, and RCRA Corrective Action project
managers should carefully consider when planning and conducting site
investigations, involving the affected parties, and selecting and
implementing a response. It recommends that EPA site managers make
risk-based site decisions using an iterative decision process, as
appropriate, that evaluates the short-term and long-term risks of
all potential cleanup alternatives consistent with the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan’s (NCP’s) nine
remedy selection criteria (40 CFR Part 300.430). EPA site managers
are also encouraged to consider the societal and cultural impacts of
existing sediment contamination and of potential remedies through
meaningful involvement of affected stakeholders.
Until all detailed sediment assessment work is completed, the pockets of sediments that need to be remediated are delineated, and the disposal/treatment methods are developed, coming up with costs on a large-scale basis will be tenuous. As a specific site moves towards remediation and after feasibility studies are conducted, realistic cost estimates can be developed. Therefore, we favor compiling high quality cost information as it becomes available, and including such information in progress reports.
Although comprehensive magnitude and cost estimates are not
presently available, it should be noted that the Superfund Program
routinely develops cost estimates and timetables (made available to
the public) to address remediation of sites, including contaminated
sediment sites.
The U.S. is committed to regular and comprehensive reporting on
our progress in remediating contaminated sediments. We are employing
a variety of reporting mechanisms to ensure that this occurs,
including:
- annual reporting on progress toward implementing the Great
Lakes Strategy;
- annual GLBTS progress reports on sediment remediation which
are prepared by the U.S. and Canada, beginning in the year 2000;
- GLNPO’s sediment program has produced two reports on successful remediations and the number of sediment assessments planned or completed: “Realizing Remediation,” a summary of 33 past or current sediment remediation projects, led by either EPA or by a state environmental agency, and “Realizing Remediation 2," a 2002 update to the first report;
- U.S. Great Lakes Ecosystem Report which is submitted to Congress and the IJC which reports on progress under Annex 2 of the Agreement;
- EPA’s First Report to Congress on the Extent and Severity of Contaminated Sediment, and the Second Report to Congress, published in 2001;
- Progress concerning Natural Resource Damage Claims located on
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s website at:
http://midwest.fws.gov/nrda/nrda.html
and highlighting notable sediment activities through website postings and other technology transfer venues in order to promote successful cleanup actions within and outside of the Basin.
We will continue to examine our reporting mechanisms to improve the quality of information reported.
2. Provide dedicated U.S. and Canadian funding and
programs focused on contaminated sediment remediation of Areas of
Concern in the Great Lakes.
The U.S. agrees with the intent of this recommendation. There is
no doubt that more resources would quicken the pace of sediment
remediation in the Great Lakes and elsewhere as it has been
estimated that the total cost of remediating Great Lakes sediments
range from $2 billion to $6 billion. But as we have explained in our
responses to previous recommendations, dedicated funding and
programs focused on this issue are limited.
We are hopeful that the
Great Lakes Legacy Act could supply a
substantial source of funding for remediating contaminated sediments
via appropriations beginning in FY2004. But this source of funding
is not guaranteed; it would depend on Congressional appropriations.
The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes $15
million for Legacy Act projects.
There are some federal agencies that have dedicated resources for
some remedial activities (GLNPO’s sediment grants and the USACE’s
funding for environmental dredging under section 312 of the
Water
Resources Development Act), but the amount of funding available
through these programs are by no means sufficient to address all the
sites in the basin.
Some States have passed innovative bond issues to try and fund
some of the needed work. Of particular note is the State of
Michigan’s $650M Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) which targets $25M
for contaminated sediment cleanups (particularly those contaminated
with PCBs, DDT, and mercury), many of which have occurred in AoCs
(Detroit River,
Muskegon Lake,
White Lake,
Deer Lake,
River Raisin,
and Rouge River); the CMI also includes $5M to provide funding to
local units of government and non profit entities to implement water
quality protection or improvement recommendations in LaMPs and RAPs,
other than the recommendations that involve remediation of
contaminated sediments. Such state funding could be used to amass
the 35% non-Federal cost-share required by the Great Lakes Legacy
Act.
It has become more and more evident that many of the most complex
remedial actions will have to take place under the authorities of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, or Superfund) Program. In the three
EPA Regions that border on the Great Lakes (Regions 2, 3, and 5),
for the years covering FY1987 - FY2002, the Superfund Program has
spent over $530M on remedial activities, including sediment
cleanups, in the Great Lakes AoCs.
CERCLA also provides for the use of Natural Resource Damage
Assessments (NRDAs) by the federal trustees. The federal trustees
(as outlined in 40 CFR 300.600), led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, along with State and Tribal co-trustees, are responsible
under the NRDA provisions of CERCLA and the Clean Water Act for the
assessment of damages for injuries to natural resources which result
from hazardous substances. Damages recovered from responsible
parties based on these assessments are used to restore, enhance or
replace natural resources and the services they provide. The federal
trustees, working with State and Tribal co-trustees, are committed
to pursuing NRD claims in the Great Lakes basin and nationally.
NRDAs are taking place in many of the AoCs, including Saginaw River
and Bay, Michigan, Kalamazoo River, Michigan, Fox River/Green Bay,
Wisconsin, and Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal, Indiana.
Through these efforts, there has been progress towards restoring
natural resources, along with their beneficial uses.
Another authority that has been used to address contaminated
sediments sites in the Great Lakes (such as an arsenic-contaminated
site in the Menominee River
AoC) is the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Additional sites will likely be addressed in
the future using this authority.
Given the uncertainty of guaranteed funding, the U.S. Great Lakes
Program will continue to look for opportunities to create unique
partnerships, design innovative funding plans, and leverage
additional resources to build upon our progress to date.
3. Strengthen leadership for Remedial Action Plan
implementation with the focus on the restoration of beneficial uses.
The U.S. agrees that there is a need for renewed and strengthened
leadership in implementing the RAP Program. Such a need was made
clear in the General Accounting Office (GAO) May 2002 report on the
U.S. AoC program.
EPA responded to the GAO report by telling Congress that the RAP
Program would undergo a thorough review and assessment to determine
what resources are needed to make substantial progress in restoring
beneficial uses. The first step to achieve this will be to give the
lead for the RAP program to GLNPO, which was completed in October
2002.
EPA also recognizes that we must address the restoration of
beneficial uses for several compelling reasons:
- we are committed to restoring all U.S. AoCs;
- the AoCs are, in many cases, sources of impairments to the open lake waters; and
- we cannot complete work on the LaMPs until we clean up and
delist the AoCs.
We intend to identify the resources needed to re-energize the AoC
program and to better define what needs to be done to move the AoCs
towards delisting. At a minimum, we want to secure a federal RAP
liaison for each U.S. AoC, secure the active involvement of the
Superfund Program in accelerating clean-ups, provide adequate
support for state and local level RAP practitioners, and create an
atmosphere which promotes a “bias for action” through renewed
partnerships with our state partners, where we can openly and
honestly assess the needs and barriers in each AoC.
It is important to recognize that several states have remained strongly committed to the RAP program throughout its existence. The State of Indiana, for example, has always supported a RAP coordinator position. This has been the case, to varying degrees, in all eight of the Great Lakes States.
Chapter 3:
Toward Biological Integrity: The Challenge of Alien Invasive Species
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090510070246im_/http://epa.gov/grtlakes/active/images/top.gif)
Recommendations
The U.S. welcomes the IJC's continued attention to the very real
threat of future introductions and movements of alien species and
remains open to any suggestions on how these threats can be reduced
and eventually eliminated.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is the lead agency for the
development and implementation of a federal ballast water management
(BWM) regime and is guided in its efforts by domestic legislation (Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (NANPCA) as
amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). The
IJC's recommendations will be taken into account in their
programmatic actions and it is anticipated that the majority of the
recommendations will be addressed.
1. Immediately make existing voluntary guidelines for
ballast water management practice mandatory and provide for measures
of enforcement and compliance for all ships capable of carrying
ballast water, including those currently not carrying ballast water.
The U.S. partially agrees with this recommendation. As it
continues to carry out its responsilbilities and authorities under
NISA, the USCG intends to establish a national mandatory BWM
program. This will include the application of best management
practices to all vessels entering U.S. waters. However, due to the
need for public consultation and comment, it cannot be established
immediately. The Coast Guard anticipates transitioning to a
mandatory national BWM program with a Notice of Propose Rulemaking
ready for Departmental and Interdepartmental review by Fall of 2003
and a Final Rule in Summer of 2004.
2. Develop uniform protocols for performance testing of
ballast water:
- develop best practices and any improvements for ballast management operations
- establish by the end of 2003 enforceable interim biological
standards concurrently, establish biological standards for ballast
water discharges from all ships and for new technologies for
ballast water treatment.
The U.S. conditionally agrees with this recommendation. The
development and implementation of “best management practices” will
be part of the national BWM program mentioned in the response to the
previous recommendation. The USCG’s effort to develop treatment
standards and technologies is described below. There is a
substantial amount of debate regarding whether an interim standard
is an advisable approach. While an interim standard is included in
legislation being considered by Congress at this time (H.R. 1080 and
S. 525), implementation of this recommendation is conditional upon
its passage and the publication of implementing regulations.
Concurrently, the USCG is leading a coordinated effort involving
a wide range of stakeholders to develop a ballast water treatment
standard. A notice requesting public comment on four possible
approaches to setting standards for ballast water treatment, as well
as answers to several specific questions related to setting,
implementing, and enforcing such standards was published in the
Federal Register on May 1, 2001 and the comment period closed on
July 2, 2001. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a
treatment standard, which incorporates the public comments, as well
as domestic and international developments over the past 2 years,
was published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2002, and the
public comment period closed on June 3, 2002. The USCG anticipates
that it will have a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ready for
Departmental and Interdepartmental review by Winter of 2003 and a
Final Rule in the Fall of 2004.
The USCG has established a formal engineering test program with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) program. This alliance is designed to
accelerate the development and commercialization of ballast water
treatment technologies through third party verification and
reporting of performance. Some of the anticipated products of this
collaboration are protocols for testing, verifying and reporting on
ballast water treatment technologies. The Ballast Water Stakeholder
Advisory Group assists in identifying the direction of the ETV
efforts, and serves as conduits between the organizations they
represent and the ETV program. A separate technical panel has been
formed to develop the protocols, drafts of which should be available
for distribution in early.
NSF International of Ann Arbor, MI, is the ETV partner organization for this effort, which currently is part of the Source Water Protection Technologies Pilot. More information on ETV, the pilot and NSF International is available at the ETV website:
To support future enforcement efforts, the USCG R&D Center is
also coordinating the development of an improved method for
verifying that ballast water in a vessel was in fact taken on in
mid-ocean. To establish the proof of concept, the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center convened a panel of experts on the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of seawater. This
group identified a set of parameters (e.g. trace metals,
fluorescence of dissolved organic material and radium isotopes),
that taken together, may be able to discriminate better between
mid-ocean and coastal water than the salinity measurement currently
used by port state control officers. Follow on testing of these
parameters is being done by Smithsonian scientists, as well as
researchers at Portland State University as part of the Columbia
River ANS Initiative. The USCG is exploring opportunities for
additional testing of the verification method in conjunction with
other ballast water management research by scientists in New Zealand
and Singapore.
3. Ensure all ships built after a certain date have a
treatment technology incorporated in their construction as a
condition for entry into the Great Lakes.
The U.S. conditionally agrees with this recommendation. The
position of the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime
Organization is that a biologically effective performance standard
should be implemented by a date certain. This would ultimately be
more effective than merely mandating incorporation of treatment
technology without regard for its biological effectiveness. The
requirement for treatment technology to be mandatory in new ships
constructed after a date certain [2006] is included in legislation
recently introduced in the current session of Congress (H.R. 1080
and S. 525), and the implementation of this recommendation is
conditional upon its passage and publication of implementing
regulations.
4. Design and implement economic incentives to encourage
shippers to continuously improve (ISO 14000) Ballast Management
Practices.
The U.S. agrees with the intent of this recommendation. The USCG
is in the process of developing a program that it hopes will provide
the necessary incentives for ship owners and operators to actively
participate in projects testing ballast water treatment
technologies. The details are being worked out, but are expected to
include the conditional advance approval of experimentally installed
systems with respect to future treatment standards. The USCG remains
open to suggestions on other actions it can take that would serve as
incentives. To prevent misuse of this approval, the program will
contain safeguards to insure that the proposed studies have a
reasonable chance of being as effective as ballast water exchange
and are conducted according to well-established principles of
experimental design and analysis.
A notice requesting public comment on how such a program might be
structured was published in the May 22, 2001 edition of the Federal
Register and the comment period closed on July 23, 2001. The Coast
Guard anticipates that it will have an Interim Rule ready for
Departmental and Interdepartmental review by Spring of 2003.
5. Fund research recommended by expert regional,
national and binational panels, task forces and committees,
especially focused on:
- Research (including research for biological standards, criteria and indicators) for ballast water treatment necessary to drive technology, product development, and ship design
- Research to develop alternative technologies including biocides to achieve new standards and criteria for the elimination of Alien Invasive Species in ballast water
- Research and technology development to reduce entrained and accumulated sediment in ship ballast water and tanks, and
- Research to develop analytical tools and procedures to
permit the identification of new invasive species and to link
these species to their possible points of origin and vessels of
introduction
The U.S. agrees with the intent of this recommendation.
Effective policies and control programs are founded upon a scientific understanding of the potentially invading species and the mechanism or vector for its introduction. A complete catalog of all U.S. research activities is beyond the scope of this report; however, the following brief summary is provided to convey the scope of funded initiatives, through Federal, State, academic, and private research institutions, that continue to investigate methods for addressing the commercial shipping vector.
Previous sections have described the Coast Guard’s efforts to
develop treatment standards and verify on-board treatment technology
performance. The cooperative project between NOAA, USEPA, USCG, and
the Great Lakes shipping industry, is investigating the potential
threat of “no ballast on board” (NOBOB) vessels and will prioritize
actions to address this issue.
Additional funding is targeted through such competitive processes as the 2002 Department of Commerce (NOAA), Department of the Interior (USFWS) and Department of Transportation (Maritime Administration) Ballast Water Treatment Technology Demonstration Program, 2003 NOAA-Sea Grant Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Competition, and EPA Great Lakes National Program’s annual funding program.
Great Lakes States also contribute to our understanding of
commercial shipping treatment technologies, including the work of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s ballast water
treatment project in which hypochlorite and copper ion were
evaluated as potential ballast water biocides. A follow-up study to
address the issues identified in the first investigation will be
completed in September 2003.
In addition, the provision for expanding research into the
pathways and taxonomy of invasive species, as well as the further
development of control technologies, is included in legislation
being considered by Congress at this time (H.R. 1080 and S. 525).
6. Issue the Commission a reference to coordinate and harmonize binational efforts for action to stop this ongoing threat to the economy and the biological integrity of the Great Lakes.
The U.S. supports further discussions with the IJC and our
Canadian partners to identify the potential scope of such an effort.
The U.S. values the IJC’s recent efforts to identify and
communicate the threat posed by invasive species in the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem. The U.S. Government responded rapidly to the IJC’s
July 2002 letter requesting immediate action to address the
potential spread of Asian Carp to the Great Lakes. We have also
taken note of the IJC’s letter of October 10, 2002, raising concern
about the potential linkage between changes in Lake Erie and a
possible increased threat of aquatic invasive alien species
introductions.
We agree that a coordinated binational approach is essential to
address invasive species, and we recognize the IJC's unique role as
an impartial advisor to the GLWQA Parties. The U.S. believes that
additional consultation with the Government of Canada and the IJC is
essential in order to identify how a reference to the IJC could help
facilitate more effective prevention policies and programs.
Such consultation would be timely given language included in
recently introduced legislation (H.R. 1080 and S. 525) during the
current session of Congress that would authorize the U.S. Department
of State to enter into negotiations with Canada on an invasive
species reference to the IJC. It should be noted that the language
in the legislation allows for a reference that goes beyond the
subject of ballast water.
The U.S. believes that the scope of a potential reference must be carefully considered to ensure that it would advance the many ongoing programs to address invasive species and would not be duplicative of binational discussions and work occurring in existing forums. We believe that our efforts would benefit from additional input and support from the IJC, and we look forward to continuing this dialog.