Despite decades of talk, the United States and Canada have failed to provide sufficient funding and regulation to clean up the Great Lakes, charges a report released September 12 by the International Joint Commission (IJC), a binational watchdog for the Great Lakes restoration effort. The IJC’s Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality blasts the lack of progress in remediating contaminated sediments and monitoring watersheds. In particular, the two countries must act swiftly to close loopholes in regulations that have allowed invasions of exotic species to continue unabated.

In the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, Canada and the United States pledged to reclaim the physical, chemical, and biological health of the five lakes, but there is no evidence that the ecosystem will be restored within the next generation’s lifetime, says Herb Gray, chair of the IJC’s Canadian section. For example, PCB concentrations in all the lakes remain 100 times higher than is considered safe for human health and approximately 95 million cubic meters of contaminated sediments are found in 43 “aquatic pollution hotspots”. Moreover, a lack of funds for monitoring is preventing meaningful reporting on changes in environmental quality, according to the September 12 report. The IJC is calling for directed funding for the Great Lakes, similar to the $7.8 billion restoration plan for the Everglades.

However, the most stubborn threat arises from the 160 non-native animals, plants, and pathogens that have invaded the lakes and now cost several billion dollars each year to treat and control, says Jim Houston, environmental adviser for the IJC’s Canadian section. Invasive species, along with habitat loss, are the leading threat to biodiversity, and cost the United States alone $137 billion per year, says IJC. The rate of invasions, facilitated largely by ships dumping their ballast water, has increased throughout the 20th century and has held steady at 15 alien species per decade in the lakes over the past 40 years.

Since 1993, ships are required to exchange contaminated ballast water for safer saltwater before entering the St. Lawrence River, the entrance to the Great Lakes. Even though compliance is nearly 100%, this is not solving the problem, says the report. Over 70% of ships entering the Great Lakes are exempted from the rules because they declare that they have no ballast on board, Gray says.

“Officially these ballast tanks are empty, but cross-members in the tanks trap up to 20 centimeters of sediment and more than 50,000 liters of water that remain ” says Hugh MacIsaac, ecologist at the University of Windsor’s Great Lakes Institute. He and his colleagues have found live plants and animals, cysts, and dormant eggs in this residual water and sediment. After dropping cargo off at one Great Lakes port, ships take on ballast water, which mixes with the residual contaminated sediment and water. The ships sail to another Great Lakes port to take on new cargo, and spill the mixed ballast water and exotic species into that lake.

With the cooperation of the shipping industry, MacIsaac is now conducting experiments to determine the risk of invasions from ships with no ballast on board. He is also looking at how effective ballast water exchange is at killing alien species. Both sets of results could help drive new standards, which are called for by the IJC report.

In the meantime, IJC is recommending making voluntary guidelines for ballast water management practices mandatory, developing enforceable biological standards for ballast water treatment, and requiring all ships built after a certain date to have treatment technology incorporated into their construction as a condition for entry into the Great Lakes. The report also recommends more stringent and mandatory guidelines for ballast water management for ships, including those without ballast. A copy of the report is available at www.ijc.org/ijcweb-e.html. —JANET PELLEY