Researchers are trying to come up with a manageable number of measurements to regularly determine the health of the Great Lakes. They've reduced the total number of indicators from 850 to about 80.
For years, activists, researchers and government officials have all been trying to figure out how they could best measure the health of the Great Lakes. Now, they’re getting close to an answer. Scientists have announced that they are almost finished designing a set ofindicators that together can provide an in-depth look at how well the lakes aredoing. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
For years, activists, researchers and government officials have all been
trying to figure out how they could best measure the health of the Great
Lakes. Now, they’re getting close to an answer. Scientists have announced
that they are almost finished designing a set of indicators that together
can provide an in-depth look at how well the lakes are doing. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
Lots of different agencies and groups have been working on ways to improve
the environment in the great lakes region. for years- the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Environment Canada have been identifying polluted
areas and cracking down on pollution sources. Other federal agencies in both
countries have been trying to improve wildlife habitat and restore a
natural balance in the lakes. state and provincial agencies- environmental
groups- and hunting groups- have all been working on bits and parts of the
great lakes ecosystems- trying to make things better.
And the Great Lakes are certainly better than they were 35 years ago- but
how much better? Until recently no one seemed to have a good way of
measuring progress. In the early 1990’s it became clearer to all those
involved in improving the Great Lakes that there needed to be a gauge
everyone could use, a way to measure the health of the Great Lakes. Paul
Horvatin is with the US EPA and co-chairs the effort to find that gauge. He says it was
hard to decide where to start.
“What is the best measurement? What is the best yardstick that we
should be using to be able to measure against, to be able to say whether
things are getting better or not.”
Scientists of all stripes- government agencies- and environmental groups
came up with 850 indicators- different things that might tell how healthy
the Great Lakes are. Things such as the number of fish- the amount of
contaminants in the water- the number of birds hatching from eggs. Horvatin
says the initial list was overwhelming.
“Well, we realized that, you know, we would not be able to use
and collect all that data, assimilate it into something useful to be able to
explain to the public, so what we did is we took that information and
actually boiled it down to the eighty, the eighty indicators that we do have
reporting on, of which the 31 we do have data now, hopefully we’ll be able
to point to the future to be able to tell the public says ‘yep, the fish are
safe to eat,’ or ‘no, they’re not.’ ”
Paul Horvatin’s counterpart in Environment Canada is Harvey Shear. Shear
says it was tough reducing the number of indicators. Several indicators
might be necessary to measure the health of one component of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. For example- the health of lake trout might be a component. The
number of fish- the size of the fish- and each contaminant found in the fish
flesh might each be a separate indicator. Shear says they had to screen some
of the data somehow- so they agreed to use three criteria on each of the 850
indicators.
“Was the indicator necessary to describe the component? Was it
sufficient; was it on its own enough to describe that component of the
system? And was it feasible to do it? Feasible was important because it may
be a great indicator, but if it cost 500-million dollars a year to collect
three samples or something, obviously it’s not feasible. So, that was a very
important factor. So, when we screened that 850 through that sieve of those
three criteria, we reduced it down to 80. And this was done through
scientific panels of people within the Great Lakes basin. And that’s how we
came up with 80.”
But shear says as more information is gathered the list of indicators will
likely change.
“This list is not sort of set in concrete. We may find that some of
these indicators that are in the developmental phase are just not practical.
we thought they were feasible; they may not be. There may be nobody out
there doing the research or monitoring. There may be others that we for some
reason we didn’t put in and so we feel it’s more like a framework in which
people can work in a kind of comprehensive way.”
The researchers hope to gather data for a final list of 80 or so indicators
by the year 2006.
All of this measuring and clean-up is being done because of a treaty between
the United States and Canada called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The
international joint commission —the IJC— is the organization that’s supposed to monitor
how well the two nations are meeting the agreement. Thomas Baldini heads up the US
sector of the IJC. He’s been closely watching the governments and others come up with
the list of indicators- and is impressed with the progress.
“I mean, I remember when we began talking about this and everyone
said it was impossible to do it. Well, now at least we’re beginning to say
at least we have a target date of six years from now that we should have
sufficient data to support those eighty indicators.”
Baldini says whether the number of indicators ends up to be 80 or 800- is
not as important as what is learned about the Great Lakes.
“Eighty may be too many, may not be enough, but you have to begin
somewhere. I mean, when we first started, we asked only three questions: is
the water of the great lakes drinkable; is it swimmable; and are the fish in
it edible?”
The organizers trying to determine the best list of indicators say- those
are still exactly the questions they’re trying to answer. For the GLRC, this is Lester
Graham.