United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905-R-01-001
December 2000
&EPA Great Lakes
Ecosystem Report
2000
-------
This report is prepared pursuant to various reporting requirements under the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978
as amended by Protocol in 1987, and Sections 118 (c) (10) and 118 (0 of the Clean Water Act, which state:
118{c) {10} Comprehensive Report
Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a comprehensive report which -
(A) describes the achievements in the preceding fiscal year In implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978, as amended by the Water Quality Agreement of 1987 and any other agreements and amendments, and shows
by categories (including judicial enforcement, research, State cooperative efforts, and general administration) the amounts
expended on Great Lakes water quality initiatives in such preceding fiscal year;
(B) describes the progress made in such preceding fiscal year in implementing the system of surveillance of the water in
the Great Lakes System, including the monitoring of groundwater and sediment, with particular reference to toxic pollutants;
(C) describes the long-term prospects for improving the condition of the Great Lakes; and
(D) provides a comprehensive assessment of the planned efforts to be pursued in the succeeding fiscal year for
implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by the Water Quality Agreement of 1987 and any
other agreements and amendments, which assessment shall -
(i) show by categories (including judicial enforcement, research, State cooperative efforts, and general
administration) the amount anticipated to be expended on Great Lakes water quality initiatives in the fiscal year to which
the assessment relates; and
(if) include a report of current programs administered by other Federal agencies which make available resources
to the Great Lakes water quality management efforts.
118(f) Interagency Cooperation
The head of each department, agency, or other instrumentality of the Federal Government which is engaged in, is concerned
with, or has authority over programs relating to research, monitoring, and planning to maintain, enhance, preserve, or rehabilitate
the environmental quality and natural resources of the Great Lakes, including the Chief of Engineers of Army, the Chief of the Soil
Conservation Service, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Administrator
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall submit an annual report to the Administrator with respect to the
activities of that agency or office affecting compliance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by
the Water Quality Agreement of 1987 and any other agreements and amendments.
-------
GREAT LAKES
ECOSYSTEM REPORT 2000
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Chicago, IL
January 2001
Questions Regarding this Report Should be Directed to:
Mark Elster
Senior Program Analyst
USEPA-GLNPO
77 West Jackson Boulevard (G-17J)
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 886-3857; Fax: (312) 353-2018
email: elster.mark@epa.gov
This document will be available on the Internet at:
www.epa.gov/glnpo/rptcong/2001/
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank his staff counterparts at the numerous Federal, State, Tribal, and non-governmental
agencies and organizations who contributed information to this Report.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-1
INTRODUCTION 1
ONGOING AND EMERGING ISSUES 5
PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF BASIN RESIDENTS 8
TOXIC CONTAMINANTS 13
FOCUS ON CLEANING UP THE NIAGARA RIVER 24
ADDRESSING ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION 26
MANAGING GREAT LAKES SEDIMENTS 30
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 37
WETLANDS 43
HABITAT PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT 44
RESTORING AQUATIC SPECIES 46
RESTORING WATER BIRD POPULATIONS 50
RESTORING NATIVE WETLAND AND TERRESTRIAL SPECIES 53
INVASIVE SPECIES 55
MONITORING THE GREAT LAKES 62
PUBLIC ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 66
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND COMPLIANCE 68
INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS 71
INNOVATIVE FUNDING 73
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT 73
CONCLUSION 75
Appendixes
Appendix! AI-1
Appendix II AIM
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Figure
Page
1 The Great Lakes Region 1
2 Great Lakes Areas of Concern 2
3 Average Lake Levels for Lakes Michigan and Huron 5
4 Density of Diporeia 7
5 Number of Fish Consumption Advisories 9
6 U.S. Great Lakes Beach Closings 13
7 PCB and DDT Levels 14
8 Hazardous Waste Sites on the Niagara River 25
9 Decreasing Mirex Levels in Sediments at the Mouth of the Niagara River 26
10 Decreasing 2,3,7,8-TCDD Levels in Sediments at the Mouth of the Niagara River 26
11 Decreasing PCB Loads Entering Lake Ontario 26
12 Distribution of IADN Sites in the Great Lakes Basin 26
13 Gas Phase Total PCBs (1996) 27
14 Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics 27
15 Clean Air Act-National Reductions 30
16 Great Lakes Sediment Remediations in FY 1999 33
17 R/V Mudpuppy Sediment Assessments 34
18 Total Phosporus Trends in the Great Lakes 38
19 CRP Acres in Great Lakes CPA Counties 40
20 Loss of Original Wetlands 44
21 Shoreline Biodiversity Investment Areas 47
22 Changes in Abundance of the Burrowing Mayfly 48
23 Contaminant Levels in Colonial Nesting Birds 52
24 Number of Established Bald Eagle Nesting Territories Within Lake Ontario Basin 54
25 Canadian Geese Populations 55
26 Black Tern Species Decline 55
27 Sea Lamprey Control Levels 57
28 Zebra Mussel Range (June 1988 and February 1998) 59
29 Southern Basin Plume 64
30 Mercury Loadings from Various Lake Michigan Tributaries 64
31 Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative 68
32 Saginaw Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment 69
Table Page
1 Status of Areas of Concern 3
2 Select Pollutant Emission Levels in the Great Lakes Region 28
3 Great Lakes Navigational Dredging 31
4 Great Lakes States CRP Acres and Contracts as of June 1998 40
5 Farmland Loss in the Great Lakes Basin 73
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFO Animal feeding operation
Agreement Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
AHA American Hospital Association
AOC Area of Concern
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substance and
Disease Registry
B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene
BCC Bioaccumulative chemical of concern
BEC Binational Executive Committee
BMP Best management practice
CAFO Confined animal feeding operation
CDF Confined disposal facility
CEC Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
CNMP Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plan
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
COF Circle of Flight
CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CSO Combined sewer overflow
CWAP Clean Water Action Plan
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Funds
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DoD Department of Defense
DOT Department of Transportation
ECE United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe
EEGLE Episodic Events-Great lakes
Experiment
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive
Program
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GLC Great Lakes Commission
GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory
GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLI Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
GLIN Great Lakes Information Network
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GLSC Great Lakes Science Center
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
HAA Hormonally active agent
HCB hexachlorobenzene
Hg Mercury
IADN Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
IJC International Joint Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
LSI Lake Superior Initiative
MACT Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
MCHD Monroe County, New York, Health
Department
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NABCI North American Bird Conservation
Initiative
NAWMP North American Waterfowl
Management Plan
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NISA National Invasive Species Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NOx Nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NPPC National Pork Producers Council
NPS National Park Service
NRC National Research Council
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation
Service
NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment
NYSDEC New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
OCS Octachlorostyrene
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
OMOE Ontario Ministry of Environment
OWC NERR Old Woman Creek Natural
Estuarine Research Reserve
P2 Pollution prevention
PADEP Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PBT Persistent bioaccumulative toxic
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
PIA Printing Industries of America, Inc.
POP Persistent organic pollutant
ppm Parts per million
ppt Parts per trillion
PRP Potentially responsible party
PTS Persistent toxic substance
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RAPIDS Regional Air Pollutant Inventory
Development System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REPP Regional Environmental Priorities Project
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Nitrogen oxide
SAN Sustainable Agriculture Network
SARE Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SMP State Management Plan
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
Strategy U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Binational Toxics Reduction Strategy
TCDD Trichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
U.N. United Nations
U.S. United States
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USPC United States Policy Committee
VOC Volatile organic compound
WLSSD Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
WIN Watershed Initiative Network
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Great Lakes, with 20 percent of the world's
surface freshwater, are one of the world's most
important natural resources. Human impacts
were once devastating, epitomized by a burning
Cuyahoga River and a Lake Erie declared dead.
Since then, the Great Lakes have improved
tremendously. Nutrient targets have largely been
achieved and contaminant levels are decreasing
or leveling off. However, contaminant levels
remain a concern, still triggering fish consumption
advisories, and monitoring shows that invasive
species continue to enter the Great Lakes with
the potential to alter food web dynamics and
threaten community structures.
The United States Great Lakes Program is a
nested structure of activities, managed and
implemented by an alliance of Federal, State,
Tribal, and nongovernmental agencies, working
in a complementary and collaborative manner with
their Canadian Federal, Provincial, and local
counterparts, to protect and restore the Great
Lakes. This nested structure is meant to parallel
the natural boundaries found in the Great Lakes
ecosystem: from local landscapes to sub-
watersheds, to individual lake basins, to the entire
Great Lakes Basin, and beyond. Places are
stressed over programs, with environmental and
natural resource programs applied along naturally-
occurring borders instead of jurisdictional
boundaries. And because the interactions
between ecosystem levels are very complex, this
structure is intended to be both flexible and
adaptable to respond to the needs of the
ecosystem. The goal of these various programs
and efforts is to achieve significant environmental
improvements through the implementation of a
multimedia, ecosystem-based approach in the
Great Lakes. This management structure must
foster cross-program and cross-agency
integration of programs at a variety of scales; from
areas of concern (using remedial action plans),
to issues of lakewide importance (using lakewide
management plans), to those of basinwide
concern.
Examples of this last type include: atmospheric
deposition of toxicants, exotic species
introductions, and the loss of critical habitats and
biodiversity. A number of basinwide programs
have been undertaken as the most efficient and
technically feasible scale for addressing these
(and other) stressors, such as the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative and the Integrated
Atmospheric Deposition Network. The impetus
for these programs comes from a number of
areas: the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
congressional mandates, recommendations from
the lakewide management plans and remedial
action plans, and/or agreements between Federal
and State agencies.
Reducing and Virtually Eliminating Toxic
Chemicals
The United States Great Lakes Program has
made significant progress in reducing persistent
toxic substances in the Great Lakes. The
remedial action plan and iakewide management
plan programs are providing the vehicles for
delivering toxic reduction activities both lakewide
and at local hotspots. Many of these activities
are being guided by the targets set in the historic
United States-Canada Great Lakes Binational
Toxics Reduction Strategy. The Strategy set
national and international commitments for the
reduction in the use and release of a targeted list
of persistent toxic substances including mercury,
polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, and furans.
Under the United States-Canada Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Reduction Strategy, for example,
toxic reductions will be achieved through
commitments made by the DaimlerChrysler,
General Motors, and Ford Motor companies to
eliminate polychlorinated biphenyls-containing
electrical equipment at their facilities in North
America and globally; and by theOlin Corporation
to achieve a goal of zero discharge of mercury at
its chlor-alkali facilities. Noteworthy progress on
mercury reduction has been made under existing
agreements with the American Hospital
Association, three Northwest Indiana steel mills,
and the Chlorine Institute.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Managing Contaminated Sediments
Cycling of contaminants from bottom sediments
is a leading source of water quality and food chain
contamination. The United States Great Lakes
Program provides technical, financial, and field
support for Federal, State, and Tribal partners to
assist in addressing contaminated sediments.
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency's research vessel the R/V Mudpuppy, for
example, has conducted sediment assessment
surveys at 26 locations throughout the Great
Lakes, including surveys at 24 of the 31 United
States Great Lakes areas of concern.
Recent sediment remediations under a variety of
authorities have resulted in the removal of large
amounts of contaminated sediments, including:
(1) a Superfund removal of 150,000 cubic yards
of polychlorinated biphenyls-contaminated
materials (containing 20,000 pounds of
polychlorinated biphenyls) from Bryant Mill Pond
on the Kalamazoo River, Michigan; (2) a removal
of over 12,000 cubic yards of arsenic-
contaminated sediments in the Menominee River,
Wisconsin where arsenic levels were so high the
dredged material was classified as a hazardous
waste; and (3) a Fox River, Wisconsin dredging
demonstration project that removed over 10,000
cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyls-
contaminated sediments from the river that is the
major source of polychlorinated biphenyls to Lake
Michigan.
Protecting and Restoring Habitat and
Natural Areas
To protect and restore important habitats, a
variety of Federal, State, Tribal, and non-profit
organizations are working together to address
these issues. We have coalesced around the
protection and restoration of biologically rich
areas, an idea that is now spreading outside of
the Great Lakes Basin. Initiatives include
facilitation of local sustainable development efforts
such as Springfield, Michigan's development of
standards and ordinances that encourage
integration of native vegetation into design and
development practices, such as stormwater
management; and the Les Cheneaux Island's
community-driven strategic plan, involving over
eighty local businesses, for economic
development that depends on and provides for
the long-term protection of the rich biological
diversity of their Northern Lake Huron Islands,
while at the same time planning for economic
sustainability.
Monitoring the Health of the Lakes
Through several years of a binational, multi-
organizational effort known as the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference, Great Lakes
Program partners have identified 80 com-
prehensive, basinwide indicators. The Lakes can
now be assessed based on 19 of those indicators,
which will provide a consistent means by which
agencies can report on the health of the Lakes.
Indicator descriptions can be found at:
www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec
Recent biological monitoring reveals a Great
Lakes ecosystem in flux. Significant changes to
the food web have occurred, likely as a result of
invasive species. New invasive species, in
addition to zebra mussels, have recently arrived.
In 1998, Cercopagis, an invasive zooplankton, was
discovered in Lake Ontario. It has the potential to
disperse throughout the Great Lakes in very high
numbers, impacting plankton and fish
communities. Scientists are also concerned that
the round goby may be a threat to the integrity of
the biological community.
Biological monitoring also shows other changes
that require attention. Recent data indicate an
escalation of the decline of Diporeia in Lakes
Michigan and Ontario. This amphipod at the base
of the food chain is a principal food source for
young fish; its decline has serious ramifications
for the food web. Various agencies are working
together to determine if its decline is related to
zebra mussels.
Monitoring of the lakes also provides information
for decision-makers. One example is the multi-
agency Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study, one
of the largest and most detailed investigations of
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
its kind, providing State and Federal environmental
managers with data fortoxic and nutrient loadings
to Lake Michigan rivers, air, and open waters.
Managers can now determine the relative pollutant
contributions from the atmosphere, tributaries,
and sediments and determine what the most
effective long-term steps will be to further reduce
levels of toxicants, with the goal of lifting all fish
consumption advisories on Lake Michigan.
Protecting Human Health
Protection of human health is of paramount
importance. States issue fish consumption
advisories to inform citizens of the risks involved
in consuming certain varieties of Great Lakes fish
due to the presence of toxic contaminants in fish.
Susceptible sub-populations such as infants and
the elderly, sportfishers, pregnant women, and
Tribal members are at an increased risk. A variety
of domestic, binational, and multilateral toxic
control programs and initiatives are addressing
both point and nonpoint sources of pollution to
further protect human health.
Great challenges still face us as we work to
restore the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes. The United States
Great Lakes Program remains strongly
committed to conducting the research,
implementing the programs, and monitoring the
results of its actions in order to maintain these
freshwater treasures. We take pride in our
accomplishments to date, but we are not
complacent. We understand that much more
work is to be done to achieve the goal of a Great
Lakes ecosystem where there are no limits on
the fish we eat, and no concerns regarding the
water we drink and use for recreational purposes.
The United States Great Lakes Program is
pleased to have this opportunity to report to the
International Joint Commission, to Congress, and
to our citizens on our continuing efforts to protect
these sweetwater seas.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is the sixth Biennial Progress Report to the
International Joint Commission (IJC), Congress,
and the citizens of the Great Lakes Basin on
actions taken by the United States (U.S.) to
protect and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This report reviews some principal challenges
facing the ecosystem; outlines approaches taken
by Basin stakeholders to address these
challenges; highlights some historic and recent
actions by Federal, State, and Tribal agencies,
as well as their non-governmental partners, to
implement these approaches; and outlines future
activities on behalf of the Great Lakes.
present themselves as the U.S. Great Lakes
Program continues to make steady progress
toward improving the Great Lakes ecosystem for
all of its inhabitants. Environmental protection and
natural resource agencies are working together
in pursuit of the common goals of reducing the
levels of toxic contaminants in the environment,
protecting and restoring vital habitats, and
protecting the health of the ecosystem's living
resources. These goals drive the majority of
actions highlighted in this report.
Integrating the Ecosystem Management
Approach Across the Basin
The Great Lakes Region
Formed by the melting and retreat of mile-thick
glaciers 10 to 12 thousand years ago, the Great
Lakes system is, by
area, the world's
largest body of sur-
face freshwater.
The deep network of
5 lakes contain
nearly 20 percent of
the world's freshwa-
ter, representing 95
percent of the sur-
face freshwater of
the U.S. If the Great
Lakes' 6 quadrillion
gallons of wafer was
poured over the
land-mass of the
continental U.S., the
entire land mass of
Figure 1. The Great Lakes region encompasses parts of eight states
and the Province of Ontario.
the lower 48 States
would be covered to
a depth of almost 10 feet.
The Great Lakes Program
Innovative partnerships, projects, and research
are the norms in the Great Lakes. We are working
smarter and more efficiently to deliver on the
promises made under the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (Agreement) via the Lakewide
Management Plan (LaMP), remedial action plan
(RAP), and other Agreement programs. New
challenges and opportunities will continue to
The Great Lakes Program is a nested structure of
activities, managed and implemented by an
alliance of Federal, State, Tribal, and nongovern-
mental agencies.
This nested struc-
ture is meant to
parallel the natural
boundaries found in
the Great Lakes
ecosystem: from
local landscapes to
subwatersheds to
individual lake ba-
sins to the entire
Great Lakes Basin
and beyond. Places
are stressed over
programs, with en-
vironmental and
natural resource
programs applied
along naturally-
occurring borders
instead of jurisdictional boundaries. And because
the inter-actions between ecosystem levels are
very complex, the structure of the program is
intended to be flexible in order to respond to the
evolving needs of the ecosystem.
The goal of these various programs and efforts is
to achieve significant environmental
improvements through the implementation of a
multimedia, ecosystem-based approach in the
Great Lakes. This management structure must
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
foster cross-program and cross-agency
integration at a variety of scales: from the local
level to issues of lakewide and basinwide
concern.
A Strong Foundation: Local Planning
and Implementation
Any structure must have a strong foundation. The
foundation for the Great Lakes Program resides
with the many sub-lake basin, geographically
focused efforts, including RAPs, throughout the
basin, and special geographic initiatives in
Chicago, Northwest Indiana, Southeast Michigan,
Northeast Ohio, and the Niagara River frontier.
RAPs are developed and implemented through
an ecosystem-based, multimedia approach for
assessing and remediating impaired uses. RAPs
provide a process for individuals, organizations,
and local governments to become actively
involved in restoring their part of the Great Lakes
ecosystems. States approach RAPs in different
ways. Some have a "hands-on" style of
involvement in the process, while others delegate
much of the decision-making to local groups or
agencies within the area of concern (AOC).
These approaches are complemented by Federal
and State technical and financial support and
GREAT LAKES
AREAS OF CONCERN
St. Lawrence River
at Massona ^
Grand Calum«t Riven
Figure 2. There are 42 AOCs; 26 In the U.S., 11 In Canada,
and 5 located binatlonally.
where necessary, the application of Federal and State
statutes and authorities. It is important to note that
solutions for problems in AOCs and other local,
geographically-focused efforts do not fall into the "one
size fits all" category. Each of these areas have a unique
blend of circumstances and solutions based upon the
complexities of the issues that are being addressed.
Managing Activities on a Lakewide Scale
While the RAPs and other sub-basin processes are
crucial for restoring the ecosystems in the AOCs and
other localized areas, the beneficial effects of these
efforts extend well beyond their boundaries. Remedying
problems at these levels provide lakewide benefits by
reducing pollutant loadings and protecting vital habitats.
Integrating the activities of all the sub-basin projects on
a given lake, where necessary, falls under the LaMP
programs, comprised of representatives of Federal,
State, Provincial, Tribal, and non-governmental
organizations, including public forums.
A LaMP, and indeed the entire LaMP process, is a multi-
faceted undertaking that requires close integration of
all parties involved to make the best use of resources
and to deliver environmental protection, restoration, and
remediation programs most effectively. They represent
a marked increase in scale and complexity for
implementing ecosystem management. The goal of a
LaMP is to restore and protect beneficial uses in the
open waters of a given Great Lake from
both existing and potential impairments.
They serve as the platforms for
addressing a variety of ecosystem
stressors, such as critical pollutants,
habitat loss, nutrient loadings, and
invasive species, which are impacting,
or have the potential to impact, beneficial
uses. In addition to the work being done
on four of the Great Lakes, there is now
a Lake Huron Initiative. There is a strong
effort being led by the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in conjunction with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and a variety of other partners to ensure
that the Lake Huron Basin is fully
protected. A management plan has been
developed and a suite of actions
formulated for Lake Huron.
leenmila Creek
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Status of Areas of Concern (AOCs)
Areas of Concern
Ashtabula River
Black River
Buffalo River
Clinton River
Cuyahoga River
Deer Lake
Eighteenmile Creek
Fox River*
Grand Calumet River
Kalamazoo River
Lower Menominee River
Manistique River
Maumee River
Milwaukee Estuary
Muskegon Lake
Oswego
Presque Isle Bay
River Raisin
Rochester Embayment
Rouge River
Saginaw River/Bay
Sheboygan River
St. Louis Bay / River
Torch Lake
Waukegan Harbor
White Lake
State
OH
OH
NY
Ml
OH
Ml
NY
Wl
IN
Ml
MI/WI
Ml
IN/OH
Wl
Ml
NY
PA
Ml
NY
Ml
Wl
Wl
MN/WI
Ml
IL
Ml
Report to IJC
Stage
1
1991
1994
1989
1988
1992
1987
1997
1988
1991
1991
1987
1992
1994
1987
1990
1993
1987
1993
1989
1988
1989
1992
1987
1993
1987
Stage
2
1989
1995
1997
1998
1996
1997
1994
1991
1997
1994
1995
1995
1995
Stage
3
1999
Latest
Update
1997
1999
1998
1996
1998
1996
1997
1997
1994
1999
1995
1998
1995
1995
No. of Use
Impairments
6
10
5
8
10
3
10
14
8
6
5
10
10
10
4
2
12
13
12
8
9
5
10
Impact from
Superfund Site
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Toxic
Sediments
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Binational Areas of Concern
St. Marys River
St. Clair River
Detroit River
Niagara River, NY
St. Lawrence River, Massena
Total
Ml
Ml
Ml
NY
NY
1992
1991
1991
1994
1990
1995
1996
1994
1991
1999
1997
1996
1996
10
9
9
5
3
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
22
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
31
Table 1. Status of 31 U.S. and Binational AOCs as of June 1999.
Please note: The state of Michigan no longer uses a staged approach to AOCs. In addition, the Fox River RAP was
accepted by the IJC as both a Stage 1 and a partial Stage 2 when it was submitted.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
During this past year, the U.S. Great Lakes
Program has worked to accelerate the LaMPs
from the planning phase to one that is focused
on implementation. This culminated in an April
2000 release of a LaMP 2000 document for each
of the lakes. These documents will provide a
blue-print for action over the next few years (see
discussion regarding the Binational Executive
Committee (BEC) position on LaMPs for more
details). Information on the LaMPs can be found
at:
www.epa.govlglnpolgl2000llampsl
Supporting Basinwide Policy
Coordination
Certain environmental problems in the Great
Lakes are basinwide in scale and require a
basinwide response. A number of basinwide
programs have been undertaken as the most
efficient and technically feasible scale for
addressing these (and other) stressors.
Examples include: the Binational Toxics Strategy,
the IADN, which is a monitoring program, and
SOLEC, which develops suggested monitoring
and reporting objectives. The impetus for these
programs comes from a number of areas: the
Agreement, congressional mandates,
recommendations from the LaMPs and RAPs,
and agreements between Federal and State
agencies. In this regard, these activities are the
next step in the nested structure of the Great
Lakes Program, expanding to the next level of
natural boundaries of the ecosystem.
Basinwide programs can encompass up to eight
states, two Provinces, Tribes, First Nations, and
a number of Federal agencies from both the U.S.
and Canada. The coordinating body for the U.S.
side of the basin is the U.S. Policy Committee
(USPC). The USPC sets strategic goals and
directions for U.S. Great Lakes ecosystem
management and protection, and represents
these views in a variety of binational forums. The
blueprint for the USPC's activities is contained
within the Great Lakes Strategy, which is currently
undergoing an update.
The main binational forum for discussing Great
Lakes issues at the basinwide level is the
Binational Executive Committee (BEC), which is
comprised of selected USPC members and their
Canadian counterparts. The BEC addresses
binational, basinwide issues of concern and
provides strategic direction to the LaMPs, RAPs,
and other Great Lakes programs. As an example
of its role, the BEC, at its July 22,1999 meeting,
called for a significant refinement of the process,
substance, and schedule of the LaMPs.
Specifically, a resolution called for the significant
acceleration of the LaMP process so that a "LaMP
2000" document would be completed by Earth
Day in April 2000 for each lake. It was envisioned
that "LaMP 2000" will be a working document with
iterative updates reflective of current knowledge
and ecosystem status. This April 2000 target was
successfully met.
Beyond the Basin
Environmental impacts to the Great Lakes extend
beyond political and natural borders and are truly
global in scale. A number of initiatives under the
aegis of the United Nations (U.N.), the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC), and other international bodies are dealing
with issues regarding toxic contaminants, exotic
species, and global warming, to name a few. The
U.S. Great Lakes Program is well-represented at
most of these venues and its representatives are
working to ensure that Great Lakes environmental
protection is on the agenda of these multilateral
negotiations.
This progress report on U.S. Great Lakes
activities highlights success stories at all levels
of the Basin. There are stories to tell at the local,
regional, basinwide, and international levels.
Through these examples, this report provides a
sense of the scope and scale of these actions as
a way of informing the public about the multitude
of activities being implemented by a broad
spectrum of public and private partners, working
towards the protection and restoration of the Great
Lakes Basin.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
ONGOING AND EMERGING
ISSUES
Low Lake Levels
Due to a variety of factors, Great Lakes water
levels are at a 30-year low, 3 to 9 inches below
their long-term averages. While providing wider
beaches for swimmers and those living along the
shore, lower water levels are causing problems
for some boat owners who need to seek deeper
water for docking and recreational boating or in-
crease the need for dredging harbors and chan-
nels. Lower water levels also mean that lake
freighters cannot travel fully loaded because of
the low water levels in the harbors and connect-
ing channels.
Although the water levels seem quite low, they
remain close to their historical average levels and
are significantly higher than the recorded extreme
low levels.
Water levels affect the amount of cargo Great Lakes
Ships can carry.
These two views (photograph on the left was taken in June 1997 and the photograph on the right was taken in March
1999) of the same southern Lake Michigan shoreline illustrate the changing lake levels that are now taking place
In the basin.
meters above
sea level
177.4
m-y
,L
m_
1 1f\ ft -
1 "7*. d -
mA -
,1
1"7& "> -
/U.i
1 *JK ft -
175. o
/^~~-\
^ \ / — ^
/ \
J \
>s — — ^-\ f\
u \
1 75. 1 i i i i i i • i i ( i i i
S^ ^Q \Q t™» f-«n f^ QQ QJJ QQ Q\ ^\ gj^
C^ ®\ ON CJv o\ ffs Os Os ^i Os CN , a, a ^ a, c >> a,
i£ tisKi ^ ^E
Figure 3. Average lake levels for Lakes Michigan and Huron . This chart provides an example of how Great
Lakes water levels can fluctuate over time (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Detroit District Office).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Water Diversions/Export
The diversion of water from the Great Lakes Ba-
sin has become a hotly debated issue, both na-
tionally and internationally, over the last 2 years.
The most notable story centered around a Cana-
dian company's 1998 proposal to export Lake
Superior water to markets overseas. Throughout
the basin, concerns were voiced over the lack of
consultation and the environmental implications
of the withdrawal. The request was subsequently
withdrawn. This situation brought water diver-
sion issues to the top of the Great Lakes agenda.
Both the U.S. and Canadian governments remain
concerned that existing management principles
and conservation measures may be inadequate
to ensure future sustainable use of the lakes. The
Great Lakes Commission, comprised of del-
egates from the eight Great Lake states and the
Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, unanimously
adopted a policy position opposing the withdrawal
of Great Lakes water for overseas export at their
1998 Annual Meeting. On February 10, 1999,
the two Federal governments formally asked the
IJC to examine and report on the use, diversion,
and removal of waters along the common border,
as well as current laws and policies that may affect
the sustainability of the Great Lakes water re-
sources.
In August 1999, the IJC urged the U.S. and
Canada to impose a 6-month moratorium on the
sale of Great Lakes water until studies determine
whether the lakes could withstand the loss. An
interim IJC report stated that removing bulk quan-
tities of water reduces the resilience of the Great
Lakes to withstand stress. The IJC issued its
final report in February 2000 and requested that
the U.S. and Canada enforce the moratorium until
the recommended studies take place.
Abnormal Growths on Zooplankton
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration's (NOAA) Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory's (GLERL) long-term South-
ern Lake Michigan Monitoring Program recently
reported findings of tumor-like anomalies in
zooplankton collected from an offshore region of
the lake, specifically several species of copepods
and Cladocera. Samples collected in 1995 and
1998 contained possible tumor-bearing
zooplankton, and preliminary evidence indicates
that the anomalies are possibly cancerous and
more common nearshore than offshore. Although
tumors were reported in 1994 in zooplankton from
the Baltic Sea, they were not identified as being
cancerous, nor were they photographed. Analy-
ses of additional samples from closer to shore,
in collaboration with scientists at the University
of Michigan, showed an apparent higher
incidence of possible tumors in nearshore
zooplankton. Further studies, including a check
of archival samples prior to 1994, are being
planned.
Two spherical tumor-like anomalies can be seen at-
tached to the ventral (bottom) surface of
Limnocalanus, a calanoid copepod from Lake Michi-
gan. (Courtesy of NOAA-GLERL)
Concern over Declining Diporeia
The work of GLERL and EPA has documented a
decline in macroinvertebrates, a major fish prey
food, including the small shrimp-like crustacean
Diporeia throughout the Great Lakes. In 1998,
sample analyses revealed that overall, densities
of the three major groups, Diporeia, worms
(Oligochaeta), and fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae),
declined 58 percent at sites located in less than
50-meter water depth. For the first two groups,
the decline occurred over the entire southern
basin of Lake Michigan and was likely a result of
phosphorus abatement programs and declines
in pelagic productivity. The decline in Diporeia
occurred mostly in the south/southeastern portion
of the lake and is believed related to food
competition with the zebra mussel. The average
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
decline in Diporeia was 82 percent at sites in this
portion of the lake. At some sites, Diporeia
declined from 10,000 per square meter to less
than 100 per square meter.
Scientists have now found that the decrease in
Diporeia is rapidly spreading north and into
deeper water, a situation that may eventually
affect popular Great Lakes sports fish such as
non-native salmon and trout. Other researchers
have noted similar declines in Lake Ontario
(essentially no Diporeia in much of the nearshore
waters <100 meters deep) and suspect that
numbers are also dropping in Lake Huron.
Density (No. m'xIO')
Figure 4. Diporeia, a key component of the Great
Lakes food chain, Is experiencing a disturbing
decline in numbers in southern Lake Michigan.
(Source: NOAA-GLERL, 1999)
Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Advisories Still In Place
The Great Lakes food web remains contaminated
by a variety of bioaccumulative toxic substances,
causing unacceptable levels of these
contaminants in some fish and wildlife. Levels
have decreased significantly since the 1970s, but
still justify the issuance of public health advisories
regarding fish and wildlife consumption.
Advisories especially apply to vulnerable
consumers, such as children, women who
anticipate bearing children, and frequent
consumers, such as sport fishermen and Native
Americans. ERA'S 1998 summary of State-issued
fish and wildlife consumption advisories showed,
as in prior years, that 100 percent of the Great
Lakes waters continue to be under some sort of
advisory, most of which are due to mercury and
PCBs.
Addressing Urban Sprawl
One of the Basin's most significant cross-cutting
issue is the continuing growth of major
metropolitan areas and the sprawl of residential
areas and other development. This trend is
having social, environmental, and economic
impacts, many of which may threaten the long-
term sustainability of the Basin's ecosystem.
Urban sprawl contributes to polluted runoff by
replacing green open spaces and farmland with
paved surfaces and requiring the building of
additional roads and commuter highways; it
contributes to air pollution by boosting commuter
distances and vehicle miles travelled per person;
and it results in the loss of viable habitat for
animals and plants. Areas of greatest decrease
tend to be either in close proximity to major urban
areas or towards fringe areas where farmland
makes up less than 40 percent of the total land
area. EPA has implemented a variety of projects
under its Project XL and Brownfield
Redevelopment initiatives, which have the
desired results of accelerating cleanups of urban
industrial sites while averting increased
environmental impacts associated with the
development of open spaces as described above.
Urban sprawl can lead to increased air pollution,
polluted runoff, and reduced habitats for Great
Lakes flora and fauna.
Climate Change Impacts
If climate change occurs as currently predicted,
one concern is the probable increase in exotic
species due to warmer waters and a lack of
capacity to deal with the problem. Exotics are
currently considered by some to have caused
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
more damage to the ecological balance of the
Great Lakes ecosystem than have contaminants.
Reduction in water supply and levels and flows
due to climate change could also pose serious
problems, both environmentally and economically.
Water exports and diversions that are being
discussed would add to these problems.
GLERL is providing the U.S. leadership for the
U.S./Canada Binational Great Lakes - St.
Lawrence Basin Climate Change and Variability
Project to assess the physical, biological,
hydrological, and socio-economic impacts of
climate change and variability in the Great Lakes
Basin. GLERL is also developing water resources
models that couple the Great Lakes hydrologic
cycle and atmospheric circulation and simulate
moisture storage and runoff from the 121
watersheds draining into the Great Lakes. A major
achievement was the implementation of an
Advanced Hydrologic Forecast System that
produces probable water supply and lake level
outlooks based on multiple 1* to 9-month climate
projections from the National Weather Service.
Combined Sewer Overflows and Beach
Closings
One example of this basinwide problem of
combined sewer overflows is the heart-shaped
Lake St. Clair, which straddles the Michigan-
Ontario border and is a highly utilized recreational
lake with high quality wetlands and a viable
fishery. In recent years it has been negatively
impacted by numerous environmental threats.
These have included high levels of bacteria due
to combined sewer overflows and failing septic
systems that have led to beach closures and
human health issues; chemical contamination of
water and sediments; loss of habitat, fish and
wildlife; and a decrease in the overall recreational
quality of the lake. The Blue Ribbon Commission
Report on Lake St. Clair, that was released by
Macomb County, called on the U.S. government
to play a role in bringing the local parties and
international partners together. EPA Region 5
sponsored a binational conference, which
provided an overview of the state of the lake and
promoted information sharing while identifying
opportunities for future collaboration.
PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF
BASIN RESIDENTS
A variety of potentially harmful compounds are
found in the Great Lakes. Humans come into
contact with these through consuming Great
Lakes fish and wildlife, drinking Great Lakes
water, swimming in the Lakes, and breathing
Great Lakes air. However, drinking water and air
exposure are generally considered to be relatively
minor compared to fish consumption. The U.S.
is addressing these multiple exposure pathways
in order to thoroughly protect all basin residents.
Through a large number of programs at all levels
of government, protecting human health is given
the highest priority in all our work.
PARTMEW OF HEALTH
,\GMST mm fisH
A major goal of the Great Lakes program Is the lifting
of all fish consumption advisories.
Great Lakes Fish Consumption
Advisories
Great Lakes fish accumulate contaminants from
the water they live in and from the food they eat.
All of the Great Lakes states currently have fish
consumption advisories in place for one or more
species of fish. Two contaminants — mercury and
PCBs - are the major causes of fish advisories.
In high amounts, mercury can cause severe
mental and physical retardation in an infant
(although such effects have not been observed
in Great Lakes populations).
Advisory Trends
According to EPA's 1998 National Listing of Fish
and Wildlife Advisories (USEPA-OW-OST,
EPA823-F-99-005, July 1999), the number of
waterbodies in the U.S. under advisory reported
in 1998 (2,506) represents a 9 percent increase
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
from the number of advisories reported in 1997
(2,299) and a 98 percent increase from the
number of advisories issued since 1993 (1,266).
The increase in advisories issued by the states
generally reflects an increase in the number of
assessments of the levels of chemical
contaminants in fish and wildlife tissues. These
additional assessments were conducted as a
result of the increased awareness of the health
risks associated with the consumption of
chemically-contaminated fish and wildlife.
Figure 5. This figure shows the number of fish con-
sumption advisories for each Great Lakes state for
1998. Currently, each state has advisories for one or
more species of fish (Source: USEPA-OW-OST, July
1999).
STATEWIDE ADVISORIES
Indiana Hg, PCBs in Rivers
Michigan Hg in Lakes
Ohio Hg in Lakes, Rivers
In addition, all Great Lakes and connecting chan-
nels are under advisories:
GREAT LAKES LAKEWIDE ADVISORIES
Superior PCBs, Hg, chlordane
Michigan PCBs, Hg, chlordane, dioxins
Huron PCBs, dioxins, chlordane
Erie PCBs
Ontario PCBs, dioxins
Some additional facts about Great Lakes State
fish advisories include:
• Advisories are due to mercury, PCBs,
chlordane, dioxins, and DDT;
• Of all new PCB advisories issued in 1998,77
percent were issued in Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, and Minnesota;
• Indiana has issued statewide PCB advisories
in freshwater lakes and/or rivers; and
• Consumption advisories for turtles are in
place in Minnesota and New York (statewide);
New York has a statewide advisory for
waterfowl.
The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry's (ATSDR) Great Lakes Human Health
Effects Research Program has made significant
progress in reporting and evaluating findings
about public health for at-risk populations. These
populations include sport and subsistence fish
anglers, pregnant women, fetuses, nursing in-
fants, young children, the elderly, and urban poor.
Some of their recent exposure findings indicate
the following:
• Persistant toxic substance (PTS) contam-
inants in the bodies of individuals in sensitive
populations are two to four times higher than
those of the general U.S. population;
• Residents in the Great Lakes Basin ate more
fish than the 6.5 grams per day often
estimated for the U.S. population;
• Men consume more fish than women; and
• Maternal consumption of Lake Ontario Great
Lakes fish increases the risk of prenatal
exposure to the most heavily chlorinated
PCBs.
Research findings in the area of health effects
include the following:
• Conception rates and the incidences of a live
birth are lower in some women who are fish
consumers;
Reproductive functions may be disrupted by
exposure to PTS;
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
• Significant menstrual cycle reductions were
indicated in women who reported consuming
more than one meal per month of
contaminated Great Lakes sport fish;
• Neuro-behavioral and developmental deficits
have been observed in some newborns of
mothers who consumed approximately 2.3
meals per month of contaminated Lake
Ontario fish; and
• Liver disease, diabetes, and muscle/joint
pain may be associated with exposure to
PCBs and other contaminants via fish
consumption.
These research findings in the areas of exposure,
socio-demographics, and health effects are a
public health concern. Nursing infants,
subsistence and sport anglers, as well as the
elderly, are among these sensitive groups
because of their elevated exposures.
The reports of neuro-developmental deficits and
reproductive effects remain a concern. There is
a need to improve the effectiveness of fish
consumption advisories. Data indicate that some
of those people who are most at risk are the least
informed about fish advisories and that health
education can be especially valuable in mitigating
potential effects and informing individuals who
may be at risk. Finally, there is a need to develop
strategies for prudent public health interventions
and new risk communication tools that are
intended to reduce human exposures.
Endocrine Disrupters
The U.S. is actively reviewing information
indicating the possibility of impacts on human
health and the environment associated with
exposure to chemicals or environmental agents
that act as endocrine disrupters. At the present
time, there is little agreement on the extent of the
problem. A major new report by the National
Research Council (NRC) on chemicals that affect
human hormonal systems has offered few
conclusions and no strong recommendations,
indicating that EPA should push ahead with its
plans to screen a host of chemicals to test their
ability to affect hormones in both people and
animals. The scientists agreed EPA's screening
and research are key to finding an answer. The
report closely follows EPA's own research and
report on hormonally active agents (HAAs), which
also endorsed the need for more research and
the need for a screening process for suspected
HAAs.
EPA and its partners have developed the following
two-part strategy for dealing with endocrine
disrupters: (1) research to understand the basic
science and inform the process of risk
assessment; and (2) develop a screening
program to identify chemicals that act as
endocrine disrupters and the effects they cause.
Activities in support of this strategy are listed
below.
EPA Region 5 and the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) have initiated
investigatory studies to determine whether fish
in effluent dominated streams and Great Lakes
harbors are being adversely effected by endocrine
disrupters. A survey of several large effluents for
known endocrine disrupters was recently
completed and is currently being expanded to
allow for better analytical methods that can
measure endocrine disrupters in the low parts per
trillion (ppt) range. Also, fish health is being
monitored at several locations to determine if
endocrine disruption is occurring in fish collected
from open Lake Michigan waters as well as from
fish in effluent dominated harbors and streams.
It is noted that Environment Canada initiated a
similar investigation before EPA and has the lead
in this effort.
In addition, ATSDR is characterizing exposure to
the eleven critical pollutants, identified by the IJC,
in susceptible populations. These eleven
pollutants include chemicals that have been
identified as endocrine disrupters (dioxins, furans,
PCBs, mirex, and DDT). Research findings from
ATSDR's Great Lakes program indicate neuro-
behavioral deficits in newborns exposed in utero,
and indicate disturbances in reproductive
parameters in women who consumed
contaminated Great Lakes fish.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Several Great Lakes States are implementing
programs to address potential endocrine
disrupting substances. Ohio, for example, has
several Lake Erie related projects underway for
measuring chemicals that have been associated
with endocrine disruption. Great Lakes States
are presently coordinating fish contaminant
monitoring programs through the Council of Great
Lakes Governors and EPA. Additional
parameters are routinely added to the monitoring
regime as needed.
Improved Protection for Drinking Water
and Groundwater
The water resources of a watershed are a
combination of surface and groundwater;
groundwater provides the base flow to many
watercourses and wetlands in the Great Lakes
watershed. The current and projected population
of the Great Lakes region places high demands
on groundwater for potable water supplies.
Increasing groundwater demands linked to
population growth and anticipated reductions in
supplies combine to make groundwater protection
a significant emerging issue. By setting stringent
water quality standards for contaminants in
drinking water, EPA and its state partners are hard
at work to provide a safe and plentiful supply of
drinking water to basin residents.
To insure that this is indeed the case, the U.S.
Geological Survey {USGS) has implemented the
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
program to address the need for consistent and
scientifically sound information for managing the
nation's water resources. The objectives of the
program are to (1) describe current water quality
conditions for a large part of the nation's
freshwater streams, rivers, and aquifers; (2)
describe trends in water quality over time; and
(3) improve the understanding of the primary
natural and human factors that affect water quality
conditions. Two of these studies are located in
the Great Lakes region: the Lake Erie-Lake St.
Clair Basin and the Western Lake Michigan
Basin.
As a key component of EPA's 1991 Pesticides
and Groundwater Strategy, EPA is proposing to
restrict the use of certain pesticides through the
development and use of Tribal and State
Management Plans. Because of their potential
to contaminate groundwater and their
classification as "probable" or "possible" human
carcinogens, EPA has determined that these
pesticides may cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment and humans in the
absence of effective management measures
provided by these management plans.
A 1999 USGS-EPA report (USGS Water
Resources Investigation Report 98-4245)
provides an overview of data on detection of
pesticides of concern in groundwater, primarily
on the basis of the results from two recent multi-
state studies by the NAWQA program (including
the western drainage of Lake Michigan) and the
Midwest Pesticide Study, which includes areas
within the Great Lakes Basin. Consistent with
the results from previous large-scale studies of
pesticide occurrence in groundwater, more than
98 percent of the pesticide detections during
these USGS studies were at concentrations less
than 1 microgram per liter (ug/L). Consequently,
criteria for the protection of drinking-water quality
were rarely exceeded. However, these guidelines
may underestimate overall health risks because
they (1) have been established for only a relatively
small number of pesticides; (2) do not account
for additive or synergistic effects among
combinations of pesticides; (3) neglect the
potential toxicity of pesticide degradates; and (4)
do not consider effects on aquatic ecosystems
included by groundwater discharge.
To help identify health risks from waterborne
disease, new monitoring methods for microbial
pathogens and indicators are continuously being
developed, and these new methods need to be
validated (field tested) as part of the EPA approval
process. The USGS is coordinating sampling and
testing for total coliforms, E. coli, enteric viruses,
and Cryptosporidium in six NAWQA study units
across the nation (including the Lake Erie-Lake
St. Clair drainage) and two other areas, to field
test new microbiological methods in surface
waters. The results of the study will help
determine whether traditional methods such as
E. coli testing are a good indicator of the presence
of viruses in water.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Beaches and Recreational Waters
Past monitoring studies have shown that beach
pollution is usually infrequent or confined to local
areas. Problems can develop in areas near
pollution sources after a heavy rainfall or when a
sewage treatment plant (STP) malfunctions.
Pollution can also occur from disruption or damage
to wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure due to severe natural events like
hurricanes or flooding. Beach advisories and
closings in the U.S. are generally due to elevated
levels of indicator organisms that may indicate the
presence of disease-causing micro-organisms.
Recreational water users are at risk of infection
from water-borne pathogens through ingestion or
inhalation of contaminated water or through
contact with the water. Most of these enter the
local waterways when flows exceed the capacity
of STPs, usually due to heavy rainfall, causing
sewer overflows and/or requiring the discharge of
untreated sewage from pump stations. Untreated
stormwater runoff from cities and rural areas can
be another significant source of beach water
pollution.
EPA recognizes the need for stronger beach
monitoring programs, improved water quality
standards, and broader public guidance relating
to the use of recreational waters. In response to
national directives such as the Beaches
Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health
Program, ERA has prepared an Action Plan for
Beaches and Recreational Waters (the "Beach
Action Plan"), a multi-year strategy for reducing
risks of infection to recreational water users
through improved recreational water quality
programs, risk communication, and scientific
advances. The Beach Action Plan describes EPA's
actions to improve and assist in State, Tribal, and
local implementation of recreational water
monitoring and public notification programs.
EPA's GLNPO has been conducting annual
surveys of beach closings for the 582 recognized
beaches along the U.S. coast of the Great Lakes.
This information in now available in a document
entitled, A Summary of U. S. Great Lakes Beach
Closings 1981-1994, which is available online at:
www.epa.govlglnpolbeachlindex.html
The report finds that for the reporting years, on
average, approximately 20 percent of the beaches
experienced a period of closure. In addition, there
are AOCs in 11 of the 19 counties having beaches
considered poor or deteriorating. The information
contained in this report is helping county health
departments concentrate their monitoring efforts
and remedial activities on those beaches that
experience periodic closings. GLNPO is preparing
data for the years 1995 to 1997 for posting on the
Internet.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Waterways Experiment Station is funding research
focused on the shoreline area located between the
mouth of the Clinton River and the Clinton River
Cutoff Channel in Michigan's Lake St. Clair to
examine the effects of submersed aquatic
vegetation on hydraulic exchanges and water
quality for the western shoreline of Lake St. Clair.
The lake has experienced beach closings due to
poor water quality. Specifically, the investigation
was designed to examine water movement and the
dispersion of fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients
during low, mid, and peak aquatic plant biomass
periods.
In another development, the Environmental
Monitoring for Public Access and Community
Tracking Program awarded a 1998 Metro Grant to
Milwaukee, Wisconsin to implement a Community
Recreational Water Risk Assessment and Public
Outreach project that will focus on collecting and
disseminating recreational water quality data to a
diverse public, particularly focusing on £. co//levels
and the associated health risks of beach water at
10 beaches in Milwaukee and Racine. Beaches
will be posted based on results, and information
will be placed daily on a hotline and a website and
on a noon news broadcast.
Of course, the most desirable solution to protect
public health is to eliminate the need for beach
closings through the effective control of pollution
sources. But until that time, the U.S. program will
continue to increase and improve the means for
monitoring water quality and informing the public
regarding any potential attendant health risks.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Figure 6. Number of U.S. Great Lakes beaches reported permanently closed (Source: EPA-GLNPO,
Summary of U.S. Great Lakes Beach Closings, 1981-1994; revised, April 1998).
TOXIC CONTAMINANTS
Many of North America's estuaries, rivers,
streams, lakes and groundwater reserves are
being impacted by a variety of point and nonpoint
sources of toxic contaminants. Much progress
is being made to address these substances.
Mercury emissions alone declined from 202 tons
per year in 1990 to 152 tons in 1995.
Concentrations of DDT and PCBs have generally
been declining in the North American
environment. Nationally, the number and
magnitude of PCB sources have decreased 20
fold in the past 20 years.
The most notable decrease came in the 1970s
with the introduction of strict regulatory controls
on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). There
have been fluctuations in the 1990s for a variety
of reasons, but measurements in the Great Lakes
show that levels of DDT and PCBs (see Figure 7
on page 14), as well as a number of other POPs,
have been at or near their lowest levels in most
lakes since monitoring began. These reductions
have resulted in improvements in the number and
health of Great Lakes birds and fish.
A number of domestic, binational, and
international programs are being established to
address these contaminants.
Implementation of the Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Reduction Strategy
On March 23, 1998, EPA and Environment
Canada officially began the implementation of the
Strategy. A variety of actions are currently taking
place at the Federal, State, Provincial and local
levels to achieve the Strategy's reduction goals
within the 10-year timeframe of 1997-2006, for
the following Level 1 substances targeted by the
Strategy: dioxins/furans, mercury, PCBs,
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
a
6
JB
UJ
o
•c
I
CO
a
.EP
o
i
PCB
U.S.
89 92 95 98
77 BO S3 86
87 90 93
77 80 83 16
92 95 98
72 75 78 81 M 87 90 93 98
DDT
U.S.
77 80 S3 86 89 92 95 98
83 88 89 92 95
78 81 84 87 90 93 96
H n S I
JUS
77 80 83 86
92 95 98
70 73 78 79 82 85 88 91
Figure 7. PCB and DOT levels found In whole lake trout (1977 • 1997). Amounts are in ug/g wet weight +/- 95%
C.I., whole fish, composite samples, 600 - 700 mm size range (Lake Erie data are from walleye in the 400 - 500
mm size range). PCB level declines are evident from the levels found in whole fish in the Great Lakes. Fluctuations
are due to a number of reasons, Including abnormal rain and runoff and changes In the availability of
contaminants, rather than to direct loadings (Source: EPA-GLNPO, 1998).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
hexachloro-benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, alky I lead,
octachloro-styrene, and a number of canceled or
restricted pesticides (aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane,
DDT, mirex and toxaphene).
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
Strategy
The U.S. Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics
(PBT) Strategy targets those PBT substances
included in the Strategy's Level 1 list for
immediate focus. EPA is in the process of
developing national action plans to reduce
emissions of and exposure to these substances.
A number of near-term regulatory and
programmatic actions are aimed at PBT
reductions. For example, EPA's New Chemicals
Program aims to prevent the introduction of
harmful new PBTs in commerce by prohibiting
companies from using a substance in the U.S.
until the risks associated with the substance are
known. And EPA is taking actions aimed at
reducing certain PBTs in hazardous waste by
targeting certain additional PBT chemicals found
in hazardous waste for voluntary waste
minimization activities. The PBT Strategy also
calls for developing a process to select additional
pollutants of concern that are not Level 1
substances and developing action plans for them.
Multilateral International Cooperation
The U.S. is also cooperating in the following
multilateral international and global efforts to
address toxic contaminants:
> The North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation and its
Secretariat, the CEC, were established to
address transboundary and regional
environmental concerns in North America.
The CEC has facilitated the development of
regional action plans for the phaseout or
management of PCBs, DDT, chlordane, and
mercury pursuant to a resolution on the Sound
Management of Chemicals adopted by the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico in October 1995.
> POPs, which are a subset of PBTs, have been
the focus of treaty negotiations sponsored by
the U.N. Negotiations have been ongoing
since June 1998, and a final negotiating
session is scheduled for December 4-9,
2000, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The
POPs treaty will immediately address 12
chemicals: pesticides (mirex, chlordane,
heptachlor, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, toxaphene,
hexachlorobenzene, and DDT); industrial
chemicals (PCBs); and by-products (dioxins
and furans). It will also include a procedure
and criteria for adding new POPs to the treaty.
The POPs treaty will seek to immediately ban
use and production of eight of the
internationally-produced pesticides, and will
seek to phase out the use and production of
DDT as viable alternatives for vector control
become available. The treaty will also seek
to ban new production of PCBs and to reduce
releases of dioxins and furans.
> EPA played a key role in successfully
concluding negotiations on two legally binding
protocols on POPs and heavy metals to the
UN Economic Commission for Europe's
(ECE) Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution. The protocols
commit over 50 member countries to reducing
the transboundary air movement and
deposition of certain POPs (industrial
chemicals, pesticides, and unintentional
combustion byproducts, as well as cadmium,
lead, and mercury). The protocols include
provisions to ban or phase out the production
and use of certain substances, employ
process controls to restrict the unintentional
creation or release of dioxins and furans,
reduce the content of mercury in products
(e.g., medical instruments), and develop and
exchange emission and source inventories.
The POPs protocol served as a basis for the
December 2000 agreement on the POPs
Treaty which will reduce and eliminate ten
substances.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Listed below are specific actions undertaken by
these programs, and others, to address these
contaminants in the Great Lakes Basin. For each
compound, the Strategy reduction target provides
a goal to guide these activities.
Mercury
Mercury contamination is a potential threat to
wildlife and human health. It is a potent neurotoxin
that can produce irreversible brain damage if
ingested at high enough levels. The fetal nervous
system is particularly vulnerable. Mercury
contamination of aquatic ecosystems has
become a problem of national and international
concern. Currently, consumption advisories for
human health have been issued in at least 38
states.
The Strategy Challenge: By 2006 seek a 50
percent reduction nationally in the deliberate
use of mercury and a 50 percent reduction in
the release of mercury from sources resulting
from human activity.
The release challenge will apply
to the aggregate of releases to
the air nationwide and to
releases to the water within
the Great Lakes Basin. A
Strategy mercury
workgroup has been
formed to help identify reduction opportunities in
the use and release of mercury. It has spurred
States to develop projects for removal of mercury
devices in autos prior to scrappage. For example,
New York is piloting such a program currently
under an EPA grant, and Wisconsin is exploring
the development of such a project. The
workgroup has also raised awareness of the use
of mercury in devices and chemicals at gas and
electric utilities. Workshops on this issue are
being planned in order to encourage utilities to
adopt reduction projects. It is also providing a
forum for coordination among states and industry
in efforts to expand used thermostat collection
programs.
Federal Actions
EPA has promulgated standards for municipal
waste combustors and hazardous waste
incinerators and cement kilns. Implementation
of these rules should significantly reduce mercury
emissions from these sectors.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is concerned
that the combustion of some mercury-bearing
organic wastes is adding to the overall mercury
contamination problem, given that mercury
capture and removal devices are not installed on
incinerators or other commercial waste
combustors. As a result, OSW has instituted a
broad-ranging inquiry into technical and policy
alternatives to the current land disposal
restrictions (LDR) treatment standards. This effort
began with the publication of an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 28,
1999. In particular, the ANPRM focused attention
on the current treatment standard of incineration
for wastes that have both organics and high
mercury levels.
With our current effort, EPA is seeking, among
other things, to narrow the mercury waste types
going to combustion facilities so that the overall
mercury emissions will be reduced. A key issue
with this effort is developing the research and
demonstration data that show there are
technologically-sound and lower risk alternatives
to thermal treatment for wastes that contain both
mercury and organics. This research is ongoing
and will yield final results in mid-2001.
To protect public health and the environment, EPA
announced on December 14, 2000 that the
Agency will require reductions, for the first time
ever, of harmful mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants — the largest source of such emis-
sions in America. After extensive study, EPA de-
termined mercury emissions from power plants
pose significant hazards to public health and must
be reduced. The agency will propose regulations
by 2003 and issue final rules by 2004. On the
same day, EPA began posting, on its website,
mercury emissions from every coal-fired power
plant in the country. This is consistent with EPA's
strong commitment to provide citizens with infor-
mation about pollution in their communities.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
CHLOR-ALKALI INDUSTRY MERCURY REDUCTION INITIATIVE
The chlor-alkali industry, the largest mercury user in the U.S., is committed to a 50 percent reduction in mercury use by
2005, which is expected to cause an equivalent reduction in emissions. Since 1996, the chlor-alkali industry's mercury
use is down 35 percent from the average annual levels of the first half of the 1990s - a reduction of 56 tons. The industry
is now cooperating with EPA and academic researchers (under a GLNPO grant) on the development of a project to
measure fugitive mercury emissions. This cooperation would likely not be possible without the trust and credibility built
through cooperation on the voluntary initiative. The U.S. chlor-alkali sector can and plans to do more. One world-class
factory has mercury consumption at about 50 fold under the U.S. average, showing the potential. One U.S. factory
consumes under 5 percent of the mercury consumed by the higher consuming U.S. factories, again illustrating the potential
for better performance.
The chairman of one chlor-alkali producer, Olin Corporation, has announced a goal of zero discharge of mercury because
this "not only makes good ethical and moral sense, but responds to what (our) customers demand and our communities
expect: that we operate in a safe and environmentally-sound manner." In addition, Olin Corporation has agreed to volunteer
one of its factories to support an emissions study by EPA grantees so that there can be better scientific understanding of
how factories consume mercury. The actual amount of substances reduced can be estimated. For instance, the following
reduction from average consumption figures related to the chlor-alkali agreement for the U.S. sources can be described
as follows: during 1996, there was a reduction of 23 tons of mercury from average annual use; in 1997, a reduction of 42
tons; and in 1998, a reduction of 56 tons. These figures and statements should be used with caution because they
represent reduced mercury use as opposed to mercury emissions per se and that the annual usage of mercury for the
chlor-alkali industry fluctuates with market conditions.
In addition to these efforts, other EPA research
activities concerning mercury include those that
will improve our understanding of mercury
transport and fate in the environment.
The USGS Wisconsin District Office has a
state-of-the-art mercury research laboratory that
helps facilitate cooperative projects across the
nation dealing with mercury in the environment.
Mercury Studies program leaders are currently
drafting work plans to initiate a national-scale
effort to examine mercury contamination across
a wide variety of ecosystems that receive mercury
loads from multiple sources.
In November 1999, EPA announced a new step
to further expand the public's right to know. This
new EPA rule lowered the reporting thresholds
for 18 persistent, bioaccumulative toxicants
including mercury, dioxin, and PCBs. These toxic
chemicals have the potential to pose significant
exposures because they do not easily break
down. Instead, they build up in the environment
and may be passed up the food chain, just as the
pesticide DDT threatened bald eagles and other
birds by accumulating in their eggs. As of January
1,2000:
> Six persistent bioaccumulative chemicals,
one persistent chemical, and two categories
of persistent bioaccumulation toxic chemical
compounds, including dioxin, are subject to
reporting requirements for the first time.
> Covered companies are required to report
releases of certain persistent bioaccumulative
chemicals if they manufacture, process, or
otherwise use as little as 100 pounds per year
or, for those that are highly persistent and
bioaccumulative, 10 pounds per year. Prior
to this rule, covered companies needed to
report releases only if they manufactured or
processed more than 25,000 pounds or used
more than 10,000 pounds in a year.
> In the case of dioxin, an industrial byproduct
that is toxic in very low doses, companies are
required to report if, for example, they
generate a tenth of a gram.
State and Local Actions
Faced with the impacts of new air pollution control
requirements for incinerators and rising disposal
costs, many hospitals are re-examining their
waste management practices. The Illinois EPA,
with financial support from GLNPO, has created
a pilot program that helps hospitals assess current
practices and identify additional opportunities for
segregating, reducing, and recycling materials
found in hospital wastes, with special emphasis
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
placed on promoting alternatives to mercury-
containing devices and equipment.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) is taking action to reduce mercury
emissions. This includes a mercury emission
cap, trade, and bank program aimed at reducing
emissions by 50 percent by 2010. A guiding
principle is that emission reductions should be
accomplished in the most cost effective way. One
Wisconsin chlor-alkali factory has recently
purchased and installed a newer generation cell
that offers the promise of longer life and reduced
frequency of cell-openings that result in mercury
emissions.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
assembled a group of Minnesota stakeholders,
including representatives from industry and
environmental groups, to develop a strategy to
reduce mercury release. The advisory council
agreed on a statewide goal of 60 percent
reduction of mercury release by 2000, and 70
percent by 2005, compared to 1990 levels. These
goals were formalized by the Minnesota
legislature in 1999. To reach these goals, the
advisory council recommended using an
assortment of reduction activities, some of which
are already being implemented. These
recommended activities include reducing the
intentional use of mercury in products, improved
national and international coordination, research,
and pursuing voluntary agreements with major
mercury sources to reduce their releases.
In September through November 1999, the
MPCA's Lake Superior Initiative (LSI) and the
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD)
combined efforts to exchange old mercury
thermometers for new, nonmercury ones. The
LSI purchased nonmercury thermometers and
blood pressure cuffs and placed advertisements
for a thermometer exchange. The WLSSD
household hazardous waste program collected
487 mercury thermometers, which were
exchanged for 438 nonmercury Geratherm®
thermometers. Five hospitals along the shore of
Lake Superior as well as a college and Head Start
program collected a total of 908 mercury
thermometers and 771 Geratherm®
thermometers were distributed. Each
participating hospital received three nonmercury
blood pressure cuffs. Some additional mercury-
bearing equipment was also turned in, including
five blood pressure cuffs. These exchanges were
promoted using newspaper, television, and radio
advertisements. The opportunity was taken to
educate the public about the dangers of mercury
both in the home after a spill or from improper
disposal resulting in fish consumption and
advisories. This effort was made in conjunction
with similar exchanges in Michigan and
Wisconsin, which were coordinated by Health
Care Without Harm.
In March 2000, the Duluth City Council passed
an ordinance that prohibits the sale of mercury
fever or basal thermometers in the city. The
Council passed the resolution after considering
information on the toxicity of mercury, the existing
Minnesota mercury laws and the availability of
alternatives.
Five EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) have formed
State/U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Pollution
Prevention (P2) Partnerships. The Partnerships
are a collaborative effort designed to improve
environmental performance at DoD facilities.
Information exchange among the partners is one
of the most common benefits. The partnership
in Illinois was the first to kick-off in July 1997,
and the Illinois EPA has conducted mercury
reduction audits at two Great Lakes facilities
under a GLNPO grant.
The Monroe County, New York
Health Department (MCHD),
working with its partners, has
developed a P2 strategy aimed
at hospitals and dental clinics.
The program had a number of
successes including:
> The largest hospital in the Rochester
metropolitan area replaced all mercury blood
pressure meters, reduced mercury
thermometer use by 90 percent, and
developed an annual mercury thermometer
disposal training program.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
> The MCHD (1) developed a mercury
pollution prevention manual and distributed
it to 19 hospitals; (2) developed a dental
mercury amalgam best management practice
(BMP) manual and distributed it to 571
dentists; (3) recruited 45 dentists to
participate in an amalgam recycling program;
and (4) collected 8,000 mercury
thermometers plus an additional 1,000
pounds of mercury from other sources.
> The Eastman Dental Center replaced
mercury contaminated sink traps; adopted
the amalgam recycling program; and
developed a wastewater self-monitoring
program.
The MCHD was awarded an EPA Region 2
Environmental Quality Award {April 1999) for their
outstanding work on this project.
Great Lakes industries are leading the way towards
reductions in mercury emissions.
Industry Actions
Three Northwest Indiana steel mills signed a
mercury reduction agreement in September 1998
with EPA, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) and the Lake
Michigan Forum. The mills agreed to inventory
all mercury on the premises and to develop
facility- specific reduction plans. The partners
have held several meetings focusing on inventory
development and collected substantial
information on the mercury content of various
materials.
In 1998, EPA and the American Hospital
Association (AHA) negotiated a voluntary
agreement designed to eliminate mercury-
containing waste by 2005, and reduce overall
volume of waste by 50 percent by 2010. The AHA
adopted the MCHD's mercury prevention manual
(see above) as their national standard for
developing hospital mercury P2 strategies. This
could reduce mercury emissions by 16 tons a
year. In 1999, the partnership received the Vice
President's Hammer Award, which recognizes
innovative approaches to improving
governmental effectiveness.
PCBs
The Strategy Challenge: Seek by 2006 a 90
percent reduction nationally of high-level PCBs
(greater than 500 ppm) used in electrical equip-
ment. Ensure that all PCBs retired from use
are properly managed and disposed of to
prevent accidental releases within or to the
Great Lakes Basin.
PCBs, although banned or tightly restricted in
almost all industrial and commercial uses
because of their persistence and high toxicity,
remain a major cause of contamination in the
Great Lakes. All five of the lakes, as well as
numerous inland lakes, have fish consumption
advisories as a result of PCB contamination. A
number of activities are addressing the removal
of PCBs from the environment.
A PCB: Sources and Regulations report and a
Draft Options Paper: Virtual Elimination of PCBs
have been prepared. These reports provide a
framework toward meeting the PCB challenge.
The Strategy PCB Workgroup drafted a letter for
signature by senior Environment Canada and
EPA officials seeking an organization's
commitments to reduce their remaining PCBs. In
July, letters were sent to the U.S. automobile
manufacturers General Motors, Ford, and
DaimlerChrysler, by EPA Region 5's Regional
Administrator. DaimlerChrysler responded that
they established a voluntary program in 1989 to
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
eliminate all PCS electrical equipment from its
facilities. They reported that they have removed
100 percent of their PCB-containing transformers
and 99 percent of their PCB-containing
capacitors, and that they will complete the
removal of their remaining PCB capacitors.
Responses from General Motors and Ford also
have been received. General Motors responded
that they began a formal program in 1996 to
eliminate all high-level PCB transformers from
their facilities in the U.S. and Canada. They
reported that they have removed 298 PCB
transformers, or more than 3 million pounds of
PCBs, and that they plan to eliminate their
remaining PCB-containing transformers by the
end of the year 2000. Ford responded that they
formalized a PCB phase-out program in 1995 to
eliminate all PCB equipment at their facilities
globally. They projected that by 2006, 95 percent
of all PCB equipment will have been removed
and properly disposed of from their facilities
worldwide. Additional letters were sent to
businesses in the steel industry in September
1999.
EPA is attempting to adjust a 1994 estimate that
200,000 PCB transformers (those containing
liquids with PCB concentrations greater than 500
ppm) existed in order to develop a Strategy PCB
baseline. PCB-containing capacitors are also
considered in baseline calculations. The 1998
Amendments to the Federal PCB regulations that
required owners to register their PCB
transformers with EPA by December, 1998 should
make this task easier. The initial registration
database (which needs to be quality assured) has
been updated and the new information indicates
that there are about 20,500 PCB transformers in
service nationally, with 5,800 of those
transformers located in the Great Lakes States.
EPA Region 5 and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) drafted a
proposal to promote the early voluntary
phasedown of PCB electrical equipment. As part
of the proposal, a company would commit to
voluntarily remove and dispose its PCB
equipment and self-disclose violations detected
during a phasedown period. After the company
completes phasing down its PCB equipment, if a
company disclosed violations, Region 5 could use
a specific policy to provide penalty relief. The
program will be implemented as a pilot project
with utilities in Region 5. If successful, it will
include other industries and maybe other EPA
regions. In August 1999, Region 5 and OECA
met with nine major utilities that service the Great
Lakes Basin. EPA is currently evaluating
comments on the proposal. In the meantime,
many utilities continue to phasedown PCB
transformers and capacitors.
In 1998 and 1999 Region 5 EPA continued to
develop the Clean Sweep Program in Cook
County, Illinois. The program educates small
business, local government, and local nonprofit
organizations so they can identify PCB and
mercury containing materials they own. It also
provides financial incentives and organized
collection for the disposal of those materials. EPA
Region 5 also funded a feasibility study of a PCB
Used Oil Clean Sweep project. The project
consists of the identification of potential PCB
generators through a computer database;
development and mailing of an Information
package; telephone follow-up; and analysis of
findings.
Dioxin/Furans
The Strategy Challenge: By 2006 seek a 75
percent reduction in total releases of dioxins
and furans from sources resulting from human
activities. This challenge will apply to the
aggregate of releases to the air nationwide and
of releases to the water within the Great Lakes
Basin.
EPA has announced standards for major source
municipal waste combustors for dioxins/furans
and will finalize standards for medical waste in-
cinerators and for minor source municipal waste
combustors. Implementation of these standards
is expected to reduce releases of dioxin from
these sectors by more than 75 percent by 2006
(these are discussed more fully in the Address-
ing Atmospheric Deposition section on page 26).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Pulp and Paper Industry "Cluster Rule"
EPA's Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule will help paper
mills significantly reduce releases of dioxln.
In November 1997, EPA issued a final rule that
will virtually eliminate dioxin discharges into
waterways and reduce many other toxic pollutants
into air and water from the nation's pulp and paper
mills that produce bleached paper products. This
rule will eliminate, overtime, all dioxin-based fish
advisories that have been attributed to the mills,
particularly benefiting subsistence fishers who
depend primarily on fish for food. This action for
pulping and bleaching mills will result in:
> a 96 percent reduction in dioxin, resulting in
undetectable levels to waterways;
> a nearly 60 percent reduction in toxic air
pollutants, equal to 160,000 tons annually;
and
> the expedited cleanup of 73 rivers and
streams around the nation due to reductions
in discharges of toxic pollutants.
This rule also adds flexibility because it is a
coordinated, simultaneous effort under both the
Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act that allows
mills to select the best combination of pollution
prevention and control technologies to achieve
pollution reductions.
Toxic Contaminant Reduction Efforts
A cooperative EPA, NYSDEC, and Monroe
Country project conducted in Rochester, New
York, illustrates how unrecognized, potentially
significant PCB sources can be located by
sampling wastewater at key points within a sewer
collection system. Rochester's sewage treatment
plant (STP) is the largest U.S. direct discharger
of wastewaters to Lake Ontario. Metropolitan
areas warrant special attention given their higher
concentrations of industrial, manufacturing and
waste sites. Wastewater from different parts of
Rochester were systematically screened for
PCBs. Relatively high levels of PCBs were found
in the sewers of west Rochester. Additional
sampling conducted further upgradient in the west
Rochester sewer system, followed a pattern of
high PCB concentrations and identified a
manufacturing facility as a current source of PCBs
to the sewer. These problems are being
addressed through on-site remedial actions and
the imposition of new PCB pretreatment
requirements for this manufacturer.
Similar contaminant trackdown studies are
underway in the Carthage and Lockport STPs to
help the Lake Ontario LaMP identify and control
sources of critical pollutants. In addition to
developing actions to address identified sources,
these results will be considered in revising STP
discharge permits to be consistent with GLI
provisions limiting discharges of persistent toxic
substances.
Benzo(a)pyrene/Hexachlorobenzene
The Strategy Challenge: Seek by 2006,
reductions in releases of hexachlorobenzene
(HCB) and benzo(a) pyrene [B{a)P] that are
within, or have the potential to enter, the Great
Lakes Basin for sources resulting from human
activity.
Residential wood combustion (primarily wood
stoves) contributes 46 percent of the B{a)P
emissions in the States and Provinces
surrounding the Great Lakes. Because wood
stoves have an extremely long life, EPA is
currently working to implement wood stove
change-out programs in Green Bay, Wisconsin
and Traverse City, Michigan. During a wood stove
change-out program, dealers provide discounts
on new gas or wood stoves, which have only 10
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
percent of the emissions of older wood stoves, if
the old stoves are turned in to be scrapped.
To obtain current hexachlorobenzene {HCB)
emission levels and information on activities to
reduce HCB emissions, letters have been sent to
U.S. facilities reporting 1996 HCB releases to the
Toxics Release Inventory. EPA's Final Report of
Emission Inventory Data for Section 112(c)(6)
Pollutants, released in April 1998, lists the source
categories for national estimated HCB emissions.
Total emissions are estimated at 2.3 tons per year.
The Great Lakes Regional Air Toxic Emissions
Inventory Report released in August 1998,
identifies the source categories for estimated
B(a)P point and area source emissions. Total
B(a)P emissions are estimated at 60.8 tons per
year.
Efforts are being made to work with petroleum
refineries and steel mills to obtain voluntary B(a)P
reductions in coke oven emissions.
Communications with a rubber tire manufacturing
association have begun and discussions
concerning HCB reductions are planned.
Alkyl Lead
The Strategy Challenge: Confirm by 1998 that
there is no longer use of alkyl-lead in automotive
gasoline. Support and encourage stakeholder
efforts to reduce alkyl lead releases from other
sources.
The U.S. released a challenge report that
concluded that alkyl lead has been virtually
eliminated from use in automotive gasoline.
Information is being gathered on identifying and
encouraging stakeholder efforts to reduce alkyl
lead emissions from other sources, and will be
presented in a subsequent report.
Octachlorostyrene
An extensive review of literature was conducted
to establish potential sources, releases and
environmental loadings of OCS that may enter
the Great Lakes Basin. Although OCS has been
gaining attention because it is persistent,
bioaccumulative and toxic, EPA has not
previously compiled any inventory of sources and
The Strategy Challenge: Confirm by 1998 that
there is no longer use or release from sources
that enter the Great Lakes Basin of the industrial
byproduct/contaminant octachlorostyrene
(OCS). If ongoing, long-range sources of this
substance are confirmed from outside the U.S.,
work within international frameworks to reduce
or phase out releases of this substance.
releases, regional or nationwide. In December
1998, the U.S. released a challenge report for
OCS. The report concluded that insufficient OCS
data exists, thus confirmation of no use or release
of OCS from sources that enter the Great Lakes
Basin cannot be made. Additional information
would be needed to confirm with certainty that
there are continuing releases of OSC.
Pesticides
The Strategy Challenge: Confirm by 1998 that
there is no longer use or release from sources
that enter the Great Lakes Basin of five
bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane, aldrin/
dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and toxaphene).
In the Great Lakes Basin, the predominant trend
in environmental concentrations of pesticides is
a general decline in most media. For example,
DDT levels in Lake Michigan lake trout have
declined from 13 parts per million (ppm) to 1 ppm
over the period from 1972 to 1992. Typical
sediment analysis in the Great Lakes shows the
accumulation of pesticides in lake sediments and
the amounts deposited declining after peak-use
years. Based on recent water concentration
measurements, the quantities of chlordane,
aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex and toxaphene
remaining in the water column of all five Great
Lakes total about 48,000 pounds.
Non-atmospheric sources of these pesticides
entering the Great Lakes have been suggested,
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
measurements, the quantities of chlordane,
aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex and toxaphene
remaining in the water column of all five Great
Lakes total about 48,000 pounds.
Non-atmospheric sources of these pesticides
entering the Great Lakes have been suggested,
but have not been confirmed in follow-up testing.
Information has been collected and assessed to
confirm that all Level I pesticides have been
canceled. All production facilities in the U.S. have
been closed. No evidence of non-atmospheric
sources entering the Great Lakes have been
identified. The U.S. released a challenge report
that concluded that, in spite of the above, it cannot
be concluded that the challenge has been met.
This is due to the potential for use or release from
sources that enter the Great Lakes Basin from
the following:
(1) remaining stockpiles -- as significant
quantities of the Level I pesticides continue
to be collected in Clean Sweeps in the Great
Lakes Region, stored materials may be used
or released to the environment;
(2) atmospheric contributions from continued
production and use internationally; and
(3) release from reservoir sources — sediments,
soil and localized contaminated industrial
sites remain a potential release source for the
Great Lakes Basin.
The Great Lakes Program has implemented a
multifaceted approach to address pesticides and
the attendant potential for groundwater
contamination in the Great Lakes Basin. In Great
Lakes Basin counties, the overall use of
agricultural pesticides has decreased by almost
10 million pounds from 1994 to 1995. Annual
pesticide usage now stands at 57 million pounds.
There is increasing concern not only because of
toxic contamination from these substances, but
also because of their potentially endocrine
disrupting properties.
Federal Actions
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
established a new standard of safety for pesticide
residues in food. EPA must conclude with
"reasonable certainty" that "no harm" to human
health will be caused by residues in food.
Pesticide exposure (from food, drinking water,
home and garden use, and other non-
occupational sources) must be considered in
determining allowable levels of pesticides in food.
EPA has met an important deadline in the new
law by issuing a schedule showing how the
Agency will reassess the more than 9,700 existing
"tolerances" — or maximum pesticide residue
limits for foods — by August 2006, considering
the pesticides that appear to pose the greatest
risk first. Protection of infants and children is a
high priority. Of the approximately 1,800
organophosphate tolerances receiving priority
review, over 300 are for residues on crops that
are among the top twenty foods consumed by
children.
In a recent USGS study of pesticides in streams
(USGS Water Resources Investigations Report
98-4245, 1999), atrazine was detected in every
sample (although criteria for the protection of
drinking-water quality were rarely exceeded),
regardless of the dominant land use in the basin
or time of the year. Cyanazine, prometon,
simazine, desethyla-trazine, and metolachlor
were found in 71 to 99 percent of all samples. In
areas where pesticides were applied in similar
quantities, basins with poorly drained soils tended
to have higher concentrations of pesticides. This
is believed to be tied to increased use of tile drains
in these fields. Tile drains deliver surface runoff
carrying pesticides directly to the steams. In
areas where pesticides were applied in similar
quantities, streams that had a greater input from
groundwater had smaller concentrations of
pesticides. The increased percolation allows for
increased attachment of pesticides to soil.
Over the past decade, approximately 90,000
pounds of pesticides have been collected in the
Great Lakes Basin Clean Sweeps collection
program. This is quite significant considering that
these collections represent about twice the total
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
quantity estimated to be contained in the water
of all five Great Lakes.
In 1998, EPA Region 5 states disposed of over 4
million pounds of waste pesticides. Wisconsin
and Minnesota have disposed of over 1 million
pounds of pesticides since the late 1980s. In
1997, 12,000 pounds of DDT were disposed of
in Wisconsin. The states also participate in the
recycling of pesticide containers to reduce waste
sent to landfills. At the end of 1998, EPA Region
5 had recycled 2,000 tons of plastic containers.
Pollution Prevention (P2)
Prevention is the preferred means to avert the
generation of harmful substances and thereby to
reduce their release to the environment; it heads
off ecological damage and saves resources
otherwise needed to treat or clean up
contaminants. ERA'S Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) database provides information to the public
about releases, waste management, and waste
transfers of toxic chemicals from certain
manufacturing facilities into the environment and
provides one method of measuring the
effectiveness of pollution prevention efforts. The
1993 program data (released in 1995) illustrated
that all of the Great Lakes Basin States and
Counties had shown a decrease in releases of
targeted chemicals between 1988 and 1993.
The Pollution Prevention Unit of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) is conducting a Comparative Risk
Project that will develop a risk-based P2 strategy
for New York State. Risk information will be used
to develop a statewide pollution prevention
strategy that will focus on those stressors found
to be posing the greatest risk.
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors (the
Big Three automakers) reported a 48 percent
reduction in TRI reportable releases from 1991
until 1997 in the fourth and final U.S. Automotive
Pollution Prevention Project Progress Report. A
renewal of partnership between the Big Three
automakers and the Michigan DEQ was
announced in September 1999. The Michigan
Auto Project will serve as the successor to the
aforementioned U.S. Auto Project, which
concluded in 1998. It will focus on reducing
pollution during vehicle manufacturing and
assembly.
The Council of Great Lakes Governors, along with
the Environmental Defense Fund and the Printing
Industries of America, Inc. (PIA), successfully
launched the Great Printers Project in 1993. The
project centered around developing and
implementing precedent setting environmental
policy recommendations for the printing industry
in the Great Lakes Basin.
Michigan Pulp and Paper mills achieved or
surpassed eight of nine industry-wide emission
reduction goals set for 1997. Started in 1996,
the Pulp and Paper Pollution Prevention Program
has 15 current members who make up over 75
percent of the total paper production in the state.
These mills have tracked their pollution releases
and emissions since 1987. Since that time,
production has increased 30 percent, while air
and water pollution have decreased 29 percent,
and hazardous waste generation decreased by
94 percent.
FOCUS ON CLEANING UP THE
NIAGARA RIVER
Famous for its spectacular waterfalls, the Niagara
River flows for 37 miles from Lake Erie to Lake
Ontario. Along the way, the river provides drinking
water, recreational opportunities, and hydropower
electricity. Over time, this important resource has
received significant quantities of pollution from
both point and nonpoint sources. Of particular
concern were the high levels of toxicants,
including mercury, PCBs, dioxtns, and pesticides,
many of which accumulate in the food chain,
threatening the ecological health of the river
ecosystem and those who consume its fish and
wildlife.
In 1987, alarmed by the river's high levels of toxic
chemicals, Canadian and U.S. government
agencies (NYSDEC, EPA, Environment Canada
and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
[OMOE]) committed to reduce toxic inputs to the
river by developing the Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan (the Plan). The Plan targeted
18 priority toxic chemicals and called for 50
percent loadings reductions of 10 of these
substances by 1996. Some of the actions taken
to reduce toxic loadings to the river include
reducing both nonpoint and point source toxicants
discharges; cleaning up nearby hazardous waste
sites contributing contaminated groundwater and
runoff to the river; and diverting contaminated
groundwater to a STP. Work continues to contain
nonpoint sources on the U.S. side, particularly at
26 significant hazardous waste sites on the U.S.
side of the river.
U.S. remedial activities to contain and/or remove
the wastes have been completed at 13 waste sites
and are under construction at another 10. EPA
estimates this work has reduced waste site
contaminant loads to the river by at least 80
percent. All sites should be remediated by the
year 2003. To date, $320 million has already been
spent on waste site remediation, and the dollars
are still mounting. Partially as a result of these
activities, New York just recently downgraded the
fish consumption advisory for a portion of Gill
Creek (a tributary to the Niagara River) from the
Hyde Park Dam to the mouth (see Figure 8).
An intensive monitoring program involving
sampling at the head and mouth of the river, as
well as measuring concentrations of toxicants in
the river's fish and mussel species, shows that
the plan is yielding significant results. Between
1986 and 1996, the levels of many of the priority
toxicants found at the river's head and mouth
have dropped by over 50 percent. Dated
sediment core samples collected from the
Niagara River depositional zone in Lake Ontario
tell the history of toxic chemical loadings from the
Niagara River to Lake Ontario. The
concentrations of many chemicals in these cores
have decreased significantly since the 1960s and
1970s. The data show that suspended sediments
flowing through the Niagara River are becoming
cleaner. The older contaminated sediments in
this depositional area are being buried by the new
cleaner sediments. The figures on the next page
show decreasing levels of mirex (Figure 9),
Figure 8. Hazardous waste sites on the U.S. side of the
Niagara River.
2,3,7,8-trichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) dioxin
(Figure 10), and PCB (Figure 11) contamination
in sediment being deposited at the mouth of the
Niagara River and provide a dramatic example
of the success of contaminant reduction efforts
in the Great Lakes.
In addition, toxicants found in fish and mussels
have been drastically reduced. These reductions
point to the effectiveness of remedial programs
in reducing inputs of contaminants to the Niagara
River. To ensure that these encouraging trends
continue in the future, the U.S. and Canada reaf-
firmed their commitment to the Plan in 1996.
The U.S. and Canada have reported annually to
the public on progress in reducing toxic contami-
nation in the Niagara River. Most recently, in May
1999, the two governments reported that the im-
proving trends in river contamination are continu-
ing. In October 1999, the Four Parties (EPA, EC,
NYSDEC, and OMOE) held a public meeting at
which time the most recent Progress Report and
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
00-02
02-04
04-08
0848
„ 08-10
| 10-12
* 12-14
f 14-18
18-20 .
20-25 ;
25-30 .
30-43
— 1
m
HIM
0.7 50 100 ISO 200 250 300
Ml»x (ng/g)
(PKMwr> LEI . 7 119/9)
Figure 9. Decreasing mirex levels In sediments at the mouth
of the Niagara River (Source: Niagara River Toxics Man-
agement Plan Report and Workplan, Niagara River
Secretariat, May 1999).
00412
02-04
04-oe
06-08
08-10
| 10-12
^T 12-14
* 18-18
18-20
20-29
2540
30-43
1
|
3
^
i
ii
TO
.1
I
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
2,3,7,3 -TCDD(pg/g)
Figure 10. Decreasing 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in sediments at
the mouth of the Niagara River (Source: Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan Report and Workplan, Niagara River Sec-
retariat, May 1999).
PCS Loads Entering Lake Ontario via the Niagara River
2500
n 1500
I
ID
U 1000
— Niagara on the Lake
96/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/81 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97
Year
Figure 11. Decreasing PCB loads entering Lake
Ontario (Source: Niagara River Toxics Manage-
ment Plan Report and Workplan, Niagara River Sec-
retariat, May 1999).
Work Plan were released. The Progress Report
includes the results of monitoring activities and
descriptions of recent activities. The Work Plan
identifies the Four Party activities for the
upcoming year and includes a focus on identify-
ing and remediating current sources of priority
toxicants that exceed water quality criteria and/
or contaminate sport fish.
ADDRESSING ATMOSPHERIC
DEPOSITION
During the 1980s, studies showed that
atmospheric deposition may be a major pathway
of some toxic contaminants to the Great Lakes.
In response, the U.S. program has initiated a
variety of regulations, inventories, and monitoring
activities to reduce these loadings and to monitor
how successful these actions have been.
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN)
The U.S. and Canada established IADN, a joint
monitoring network designed to assess the
magnitude and trends of atmospheric deposition
of target chemicals (polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [PAHs], PCBs, dichlorodiphenyldi-
chloroethane [DDE], DDT, lindane, lead, and
more recently, toxaphene) to the Great Lakes, and
to determine emission sources whenever
possible. IADN involves a series of monitoring
stations on each of the Great Lakes in both
Canada and the U.S.
Figure 12. The distribution of IADN sites in the Great
Lakes Basin.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Once every two years, IADN reports on the
atmospheric deposition of chemicals to each
Great Lake. IADN started in 1990 and the first
phase ended in 1997. In 1998, the U.S. and
Canada agreed to continue the program until at
least 2004.
The first binational report on IADN data, published
in December 1994, indicated that there was little
spatial variability in many of the critical chemical
species across the Basin, although the influence
of urban areas is clearly substantial, especially
in heavily developed areas such as the
southwestern shores of Lake Michigan near
Chicago.
Gas Phase Total PCBs (1996)
Eagle Harbor Sleeping
Bear Dunes
Sturgeon
Point
NT-Chicago
Station
Figure 13. The influence of urban areas on air
emissions is illustrated in this chart comparing a
Chicago site to less urban areas. (Source: Technical
Summary of Progress Under the IADN Program, 1990-
1996, EC/EPA, January 1998)
Air pollutant deposition is highest in and around
cities. Rain contaminated by PCBs in Chicago's
air can increase wet deposition to Lake Michigan
by 50 to 200 percent. In FY 1999, EPA's Great
Lakes Program published information about
atmospheric deposition of pollutants to each Great
Lake at:
www.epa.govlglnpoliadn
From 1988 to 1996, deposition of PCBs to Lakes
Michigan and Superior has decreased by
approximately 90 percent, and in Lake Erie, there
was an 80 percent reduction. Similarly, deposition
of DDT to Lake Michigan has decreased by about
80 percent, and for Lakes Superior and Erie, there
was a 90 percent decrease for the same time
period.
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics
1988-1996 Reductions
PCBs
DDT
500
^400
1 300
§200
"100
0
»g| B^fIIM
I
s.
01996
Figure 14. Atmospheric monitoring has shown that wet
and dry deposition of PCBs and DDT (no gas exchange
Included) have been on the decrease (Source: 1988
data from Hoff, et. al., 1996; 1996 data from Preliminary
IADN Loadings Data, Report in Progress).
In January 1998, the governments of Canada and
the U.S. released their Technical Summary of
Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Program 1990-1996. Data are from
1986 to 1994 for one monitoring location in Lake
Superior (Sibley), one in Lake Erie (Pelee), and
one in Lake Ontario (Point Petre). Some of the
findings for long-term spatial and temporal trends
for four chemicals are listed below.
> PCB concentrations in air are generally
decreasing. Wet and dry deposition of PCBs
to Lake Michigan have decreased from 880
pounds in 1988 to 92 pounds in 1996. Wet
and dry deposition to Lake Superior fell from
550 to 50, and in Lake Erie it fell from 180 to
34.
> Dieldrin concentrations show a general
decrease, with recorded values 3 to 4 times
higher at the Pelee station than at the other
stations. The proximity of the station to
agricultural activities and increased
insecticide usage could explain these higher
concentrations.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
The next phase of IADN will address concerns
and comments of a 1997 science review panel
about the following:
• addressing data quality,
addressing urban inputs,
• developing a joint database,
• making data readily available,
* gathering simultaneous air/water data,
and
• developing a chemical selection process.
In addition, one IAON master station (to be
determined) will initiate mercury monitoring for a
5-year period, beginning in the fall of 2000.
The following sections illustrate how some of
these concerns are being addressed.
Greaf Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emissions
Inventory
In response to the 1986 Great Lakes Governors'
Toxic Substances Control Agreement's specified
provisions to address atmospheric deposition, the
Great Lakes States and the Province of Ontario,
in cooperation with EPA and the Great Lakes
Commission (GLC), developed the Great Lakes
Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory and the
Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development
System (RAPIDS), a computerized inventory that
houses the emissions data. RAPIDS has been
developed to identify the sources that are the
largest contributors to the total emissions in a
given geographic area. In December 1999, the
GLC released an updated Toxic Air Emissions
Inventory in a continuing effort to quantify the toxic
air emissions that impact the waters and
communities of the Great Lakes Basin. The new
inventory, using 1996 data, focuses on point and
area sources such as industrial facilities, small
businesses and residential units. In early 2000,
a new element of the inventory was released that
addresses emissions from mobile sources such
as motor vehicles and airplanes.
This inventory represents the best single
compilation of emissions data from all eight Great
Lakes states and the Province of Ontario for point
and area sources. Working cooperatively through
the GLC, work on the inventory is undertaken by
the air quality departments of each Great Lakes
state and Province of Ontario. The inventory
project strengthens decisionmaking capabilities
in the basin by promoting interjurisdictional
consistency in data collection and analysis,
establishing standard procedures and protocols,
developing an automated emission estimation
and inventory system, and demonstrating the
value of Internet technology to exchange
environmental data. The objective of this ongoing
partnership with EPA is to provide researchers
and policymakers with bastnwide data on the
source and emission levels of toxic air
contaminants. Select emissions levels are listed
in Table 2 below.
Compound
Manganese
Lead
Mercury
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Toluene
Xylene
Benzene
Pounds/Year
3,336,000
891,000
220,000
16,438,000
6,445,000
545,000,000
311,000,000
144,000,000
Table 2. Select Pollutant Emissions Levels in the Great
Lakes Region (based on 1996 sample data) (Source:
1996 Inventory of Toxic Air Emissions, December 1999,
Great Lakes Commission).
For more information, please access the full report
at:
www.glc.orglairl1996H996.html
Using RAPIDS, state air regulatory agencies are
building statewide air toxic contaminant
inventories for point, area, and mobile sources
for air pollutants of concern to the Great Lakes,
including mercury, PCBs, and dioxin. These
inventories will help guide the states in future
regulatory and P2 efforts. The next basinwide
inventory for point, area, and mobile sources for
1997 is expected to be completed in March 2001.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
The implementation of MACT standards will help achieve emission reductions
from a variety of industries throughout the basin.
Regulatory Actions
EPA is also using its authorities under the Clean
Air Act to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants
from many other sources. Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards have been
and are continuing to be developed to reduce
emissions of 188 hazardous air pollutants from a
diverse list of source types ranging from steel mills
to synthetic chemical manufacturing to dry
cleaners. Included on the list of pollutants are
mercury, dioxins, PCBs, HCB, and other Great
Lakes pollutants of concern. Other activities are
focused on urban areas, electric utility steam
generating units, and sources of mercury.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (enacted
on November 15, 1990) required MACT
standards to be developed over specific periods
of time from the date of enactment for a number
of source categories. For the 45 source
categories in the 2- and 4-year MACT groups,
EPA estimates that the regulations will reduce air
toxic emissions by approximately 1 million tons
per year; for the 42 source categories in the 7-year
MACT group, EPA has proposed or promulgated
regulations that are estimated to reduce air toxic
emissions by 500,000 tons per year. Many of
these regulations have already been issued, and
EPA expects them all to be completed by the end
of the year 2000. These are more fully explained
below.
As with most industrialized countries, combustion
is the dominant source of dioxins in the U.S. Of
all combustion processes, municipal and medical
waste incineration appears to be the largest dioxin
sources over the last decade. As a result of
Federal and State efforts, emissions from these
sources have been reduced during the 1987-1995
period by approximately 86 percent and 80
percent respectively. These decreases are based
on a draft inventory conducted as part of EPA's
Dioxin Reassessment. With the full
implementation of MACT rules for these sources,
EPA anticipates dioxin reductions from municipal
waste incinerators to reach about 98 percent, and
96 percent from medical waste incinerators.
These reductions are from preregulatory baseline
levels.
In July 1999, EPA tightened standards for
controlling hazardous air pollutants such as dioxin
and lead emitted from incinerators, cement kilns,
and lightweight aggregate kilns burning
hazardous waste. Dioxin and furan emissions at
these facilities will be reduced by 70 percent,
mercury emissions will be reduced by 55 percent,
and metals emissions will be reduced by up to
86 percent. The incinerators and cement kilns
controlled under these standards burn 80 percent
of the hazardous waste combusted each year in
America. These standards, combined with
previous measures to control air toxicants from
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
sources like medical incinerators and municipal
combustors, should reduce total emissions of
dioxin by 95 percent, emissions of mercury by 80
percent, and emissions of lead and cadmium by
83 percent.
Regarding mercury emissions, EPA has
established emission standards (for new units)
and emission guidelines (to be implemented by
states for existing units) for municipal waste
combustors and medical waste incinerators (the
latter is referred to as the hospital/medical/
infectious waste incinerator final rule because it
covers both hospital waste and medical infectious
waste). When fully implemented, these rules will
reduce mercury emissions from municipal waste
sources by about 90 percent and from medical
incinerators by 95 percent. Work is underway to
develop standards for several categories of
combustion units (including hazardous waste and
nonhazardous boilers) and for chlor-alkali plants.
Clean Air Act
National Reductions
Mercury Dloxin/Furan
Municipal Waste
Combustor Rule
Mercury Oioxin/Puran
Medical Waste
Incinerator Rule
Reductions
Figure 15. Significant reductions In mercury and di-
oxin/furan emissions will be achieved under rules tar-
geting municipal and medical waste Incinerators.
As stated earlier in this report, coal-burning elec-
tric utilities, the highest remaining source category
in the U.S., will be addressed by regulations by
2004. EPA and the U. S. Department of Energy
(DOE) will support the development and commer-
cialization of cost-effective control technologies
for mercury. Efforts are underway to continue to
report and communicate with the public on
progress made in all of these areas.
The use of leaded gasoline in on-road vehicles
is prohibited under Clean Air Act regulations. As
a result, the use of leaded gas in on-road vehicles
has been virtually eliminated. In 1998, EPA
issued a notice that includes "Gasoline
Distribution Stage I Aviation" in a listing under
Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act that places
the evaporative loss emissions of aviation gas
associated with airplane fueling, a source of alkyl
lead, on a schedule for the development of MACT
regulations.
Lead emissions in the Great Lakes region have
declined at a rate of 6.4 percent per year from
1982 to 1993. Lead deposition to the Great Lakes
correspondingly declined from 1988 to 1996.
These reductions can be attributed to the
reduction of lead in gasoline and the increased
use of unleaded gasoline.
As a result of the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry Hazardous Organic
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants, there has been about a 90% reduction
in HCB air emissions since 1990. A June 1999
air toxic standard for pesticide active ingredients
will further reduce HCB emissions.
EPA Region 5 toxic air emissions, as reported in
the TRI, have decreased overall from 585 million
pounds per year in 1987 to the current level of
215 million pounds, a reduction of more than 60
percent.
MANAGING GREAT LAKES
SEDIMENTS
One of the most prevalent problems in the Great
Lakes is contaminated bottom sediments.
Contaminated sediments impact virtually all AOCs
and are a source of continuing pollutant loadings
to nearshore areas and open lakes waters.
Cycling of contaminants from bottom sediments
is a leading source of contamination of the Great
Lakes food chain.
Contaminated sediments can also cause severe
economic impacts on our harbors and restrict
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
travel through navigational channels.
Contaminated sediment problems are being
addressed at many sites throughout the Great
Lakes Basin and their cleanup is another
essential element of addressing toxic
contamination. The IJC has estimated that in the
period covering 1986 to 1999, over $580 million
has been spent on 38 remediation projects in 19
AOCs throughout the Basin. EPAand its Federal
and State partners have a program for
remediating these sites, using a wide range of
regulatory approaches and an increasing
emphasis on partnerships. Since 1995, remedial
activities have been completed or are currently
underway at 21 new sites.
Navigational Dredging
Through its navigational dredging program, the
Corps conducts a comprehensive monitoring
program of sediment quality. The Corps' sediment
quality database is used extensively by RAPs and
LaMPs. During FY 1998 and FY 1999, the Corps
collected sediment quality data from
approximately 20 Great Lakes harbors.
Navigational dredging supports Great Lakes shipping
and boating as well as helping to monitor water quality.
The Corps monitors water quality at dredged
material disposal operations and at disposal fa-
cilities to assure compliance with water quality
standards. Disposal facilities are also monitored
for biological activity to protect wildlife that inhabit
or visit these facilities.
Great Lakes navigational dredging in the last 2
years by the Corps is summarized in Table 3.
Number of projects
Volume (cubic yards)
FY 1998
(actual)
32
3,254,000
FY 1999
(estimated)
36
3.742.000
Table 3. Great Lakes Navigational Dredging. (Source:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999)
Although not conducted for environmental resto-
ration purposes, navigation dredging has re-
moved over 4.5 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments from Great Lakes AOCs.
The Corps has joined into partnerships with Fed-
eral, State and local agencies to develop facilities
for the disposal of contaminated sediments
dredged from Great Lakes AOCs for navigation
and environmental restoration purposes. The
Corps is planning and designing multi-purpose
confined disposal facilities at the following AOCs:
Ashtabula River, Ohio; Indiana Harbor/Grand
Calumet River, Indiana; and Waukegan Harbor,
Illinois.
The Great Lakes Dredging Team, established in
1996, continues to provide a mechanism for the
coordination and decision-making among local,
State, Tribal, and Federal agencies responsible
for maintaining and regulating dredging-related
activities on the Great Lakes.
Cleanup Dredging
In the Great Lakes Basin, remedial efforts have
traditionally been catalyzed by enforcement ac-
tions. In an attempt to move even more sites
towards remediation, the use of partnerships be-
tween government agencies, industry, and citi-
zen groups has been encouraged as an alterna-
tive and/or in addition to enforcement or litigation.
During the last two years, large amounts of con-
taminated sediments were removed from the
Great Lakes in remedial cleanup actions. Some
of these projects are highlighted below.
About 8,000 cubic yards of sediments containing
56,000 pounds of PCBs were dredged from the
Unnamed Tributary to the Ottawa River, which
drains into Lake Erie at Toledo, Ohio. This had
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
been one of the major sources of PCBs to Lake
Erie. This cleanup was carried out under a pub-
lic-private partnership which included the City of
Toledo, Ohio EPA, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and GenCorp, Inc.
Ottawa River cleanup site, completed under a
unique public/private partnership.
In September 1999, EPA and the Corps
completed a time-critical removal action at the
Bryant Mill Pond portion of the Allied Paper site,
at the Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/
Kalamazoo River Superfund site in Kalamazoo
and Allegan Counties, Michigan. This site
comprises the uppermost reach of PCB
contamination on the Kalamazoo River. PCB
concentrations have been found to be as high as
1,000 ppm in these sediments. The entire
Kalamazoo River has been impacted by PCBs,
and fish advisories cautioning people to limit or
restrict eating fish caught from the river have been
in effect for many years. Approximately 150,000
cubic yards of PCB-contaminated residual paper
pulp waste, soil, and sediment (20,000 pounds
of PCBs by mass) were removed from the 22-
acre area. The removed material was dewatered,
solidified in-place, and graded for drainage.
Dredging of 450,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sediment and soil (which included
440,000 pounds of PCBs) from the Willow Run
Creek, Huron River, Michigan was completed in
1998. This work has been performed by the
Willow Run Cleanup Group, a consortium of
private and public interests, including the
Michigan DEQ.
At the Fox River in Wisconsin, dredging was
completed in Fall 1999 at Deposit N near the city
of Kimberly, completing dredging that occurred
in 1998 at this site. This project removed most
of the remaining PCBs at this location by
removing another 3,500 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment. This is in addition to the
100 pounds of PCBs removed last year along with
5,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. This
clean up was managed by the Wisconsin DNR,
while jointly funded by the State and EPA-GLNPO.
About 400,000 cubic yards of sediment
contaminated with low levels of PCBs were
removed from Newburgh Lake, a 100 acre
recreational impoundment located on the Middle
Rouge River near the cities of Livonia and
Plymouth in Wayne County, Michigan, and were
disposed of in a state licensed landfill. The project
was completed in 1998 at a cost of $11,000,000.
Excavation of the sediments also resulted in the
deepening of the impoundment for enhanced
recreational use in this urbanized area. As part
of the restoration, 10 acres of aquatic vegetation
were established, 30,000 pounds of contaminated
and undesirable fish were removed, structural fish
habitat and fish spawning beds were created, and
a new boat ramp and docks were constructed.
Approximately 21,500 cubic yards of the
contaminated sediments exceeding 3,000 ppm
total DDT were removed from the Pine River, St.
Louis, Michigan. Approximately430,400 pounds
of DDT will be removed by the end of 1999. Pine
River sediments contain total DDT concentrations
as high as 32,600 ppm and are also contaminated
with polybrominated biphenyls near the site of
Velsicol Chemical.
During 2000, about 350,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments were removed from the
Saginaw River using a special clamshell bucket
that greatly reduces the water and potential
resuspension of sediments compared to a
conventional dredging bucket. This remediation
is being accomplished through a partnership of
the Michigan DEQ, FWS, the Corps, and General
Motors.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
GREAT LAKES SEDIMENT REMEDIATIONS IN FY 1999
• Action taken in 1999
• Sites that have been remediated
e Sites where some
remediation has occurred
• Sites awaiting remediation
Figure 16. Great Lakes sediment remediations in FY 1999 (Source: EPA-GLNPO, 1999).
Sediments in the River Raisin, which has the
highest concentrations of PCBs in Michigan, were
remediated in 1998 by EPA Superfund, in co-
operation with the Michigan DEQ, the Corps, and
Ford.
In 1998, at the Monguagon Creek in Michigan, a
tributary to the Detroit River (an AOC), the
Michigan OEQ oversaw the potentially
responsible party remediation of 25,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediment using
stabilization and excavation techniques.
The cleanup of the Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Superfund site began in May 1999 and was
completed in October of the same year. The
cleanup was supervised by EPA with the
assistance of the Corps. The site lies on the shore
of the St. Mary's River AOC in Michigan. A total
of 33,000 tons of tannery waste and other material
were removed and disposed of at an off-site
landfill. Contaminants included chromium,
cadmium, lead, arsenic, and mercury. Natural
attenuation of the contaminants with monitoring
was the remedy selected for the Tannery Bay area
in the river and the wetland area. A monitoring
program is in place in Tannery Bay to confirm that
erosion of sediments do not become a concern;
biological monitoring of the sediments will also
be conducted for comparison with a baseline
study which was designed and conducted by
NOAA in 1997 for EPA.
Ansul Inc. of Marinette, Wl recently completed
the removal of 12,329 cubic yards of arsenic
contaminated sediment from the Eighth Street
Slip as part of an agreement with EPA for
conducting corrective action at the site.
Sediments from the slip are highly contaminated
with arsenic, with concentrations as high as
22,000 ppm, a level that resulted in these
sediments being classified as a hazardous waste
pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The sediments were
treated on-site to nonhazardous levels and sent
for disposal off-site in a solid waste landfill.
Carriage return water from the dredging operation
was pumped back into the Eighth Street Slip for
treatment at a later date. An on-site wastewater
treatment plant will be constructed in early 2000
for treatment of the contaminated water and
discharged under permit to the Menominee River.
Many of these and similar efforts have been
highlighted in EPA reports, which cover remedial
activities achieved through a number of
partnerships with Federal, State and Tribal
agencies. These reports include "Moving Mud"
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
a synopsis of EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office's sediment grants program; and
"Realizing Remediation," a summary of 33 past
or current sediment remediation projects, led by
either EPA or by a State environmental agency.
These reports are available on the Internet at:
www.epa.govlglnpolsediments.html
Assessment
EPA's GLNPO has been responding in a number
of ways to the need for gathering high-quality
sediment information to assist AOCs in making
remedial action decisions. One such route has
been through the services of the RIV Mudpuppy.
a 32-foot flat-bottom boat specifically designed
for sediment sampling in shallow rivers and
harbors. To date, the RIV Mudpuppy has been
used to perform sediment assessments at 16
Great Lakes AOCs (see Figure 17 below).
The bulk of this work has been conducted to
collect information on the physical, chemical, and
biological nature of sediments. Typically, projects
use a two-phased sediment assessment
approach. The first phase includes a
comprehensive sampling of the entire AOC to help
pinpoint the location of hot spots. These hot spots
are then delineated in the second phase to provide
The RIV Mudpuppy conducts sediment assessments
throughout the Basin in cooperation with a variety of
governmental partners.
information necessary for making remedial
decisions. The overall goal of this effort is to
generate the information needed to make
scientifically defensible remediation decisions.
Sediment Treatment and Beneficial
Reuse
A major hurdle to sediment remediation in the
Great Lakes is determining the final disposal site
for the dredged material. Beneficial reuse of
dredged material provides an opportunity to solve
the disposal problem by utilizing the processed
dredge sediments for soil amendments, industrial
R/V Mudpuppy
Sediment Assessments
'•go River
reek
Waukegan Harbor
Chicago River!
Grand Calumet Rl
Figure 17. R/V Mudpuppy Sediment Assessment sites in the Great Lakes (Source:
EPA-GLNPO, 1999}..
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
applications, beach nourishment, and other uses.
During FY 1998 and FY 1999, the Corps, in
cooperation with EPA, conducted demonstrations
of technologies for the treatment and recycling
of dredged material at confined disposal facilities
(CDFs) in Toledo, Milwaukee, Green Bay, and
Duluth. The objective was to advance
technologies that may allow dredged material in
existing CDFs to be reclaimed for beneficial uses
offsite. This would prolong the operating life of
existing facilities and reduce the need for new
CDFs. Technologies being evaluated include
composting, oxidation, size fractionation, and
creating manufactured soils.
GLNPO is active in investigating beneficial reuse
options for dredged sediments. It has provided
$650,000 of funding for such projects since FY
1997. Some of these projects are described
below.
> Redevelopment and Expansion of Land-
Side Dredge Disposal Facility, Brown
County Harbor Commission: This project
funded the redevelopment of the Bayport CDF
and the creation of a de-watering cell for de-
watering sediments for potential reuse.
> Soil Separation Technology Development,
the Corps Waterways Experiment Station:
The Corps and GLNPO have initiated a joint
investigation of technologies for physical
separation of dredged material. The project
resulted in the preparation of a guidance
document on soil separation technology.
> Mined Land Reclamation, Minnesota DNR:
This project is investigating the use of dredged
material from the Erie Pier CDF in Duluth,
Minnesota for reclamation of strip mines in
northern Minnesota.
> Contaminated Sediment Management,
Corps-Great Lakes and Ohio River
Division: This agreement funds work to
investigate the creation of topsoil material
from dredged material in Wisconsin. Dredged
material will be combined with manure, wood
chips, biosolids, and/or other organic material
and composted within the CDF. A second
work item is the design and acquisition of a
hydro-cyclone array for use in mining sand
material from Great Lakes CDFs.
Michigan DEQ Treatment Technologies
Studies: With funding from GLNPO, the
Michigan DEQ reviewed hundreds of
sediment treatment technologies from
existing databases, and conducted bench-
scale tests (approximately 20 gallons) on five
technologies, using sediments from hotspots
in the Detroit River. They also evaluated the
marketing and reuse aspects of three
technologies. Michigan DEQ anticipates
conducting a sediment treatment
demonstration in conjunction with the
remediation of the Black Lagoon site on the
Detroit River in 2000 (see photograph below).
Site of planned cleanup In the Black Lagoon on the
Detroit River where maximum contaminant concentra-
tions include mercury (7.8 ppm) and oil and grease
(20,000 ppm).
In addition, a Great Lakes Dredging Team project
entitled, "Promoting Beneficial Use of Dredged
Material" will inform and promote beneficial uses
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
of dredged material to the general public. A Re-
gional Beneficial Use Task Force has been es-
tablished to develop and send the message. In
addition, a survey will be conducted to identify
and assess the existing beneficial use projects
in the Great Lakes Basin and make this
information available to the public as part of their
effort. Finally, the Task Force will convene the
eight Great Lakes states to work with GLNPO to
prioritize issues in the development of risk-based
guidance materials to advance the beneficial use
of dredged material. EPA's National Dredging
Team's beneficial use project will entail the
development of a beneficial uses database and
website which will provide access to the database.
NOAA has provided a linkage between these two
projects through an offer of its services.
Specifically, NOAA will help develop the survey
to provide the needed information for both the
GLC project and to provide data for the database.
Looking Ahead
In the near future, several major contaminated
sediment cleanups are planned, including those
described below.
The removal of 700,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment from the east branch of
the Grand Calumet River, Indiana (USX Site) is
targeted to begin in 2002, following design and
construction of the sediment disposal facility. The
cleanup is a result of a $30 million settlement
between the Federal government, the State of
Indiana, and USX, located in Gary, Indiana. The
sediments targeted for cleanup have been highly
contaminated with PCBs, heavy metals, benzene,
PAHs, and cyanide. The settlement is believed
to be the largest sediment cleanup to date in the
inland U.S. In addition, a natural resources
damage settlement targets the purchase of rare
dune and swale wildlife habitat along Lake
Michigan and wildlife habitat along Salt Creek.
The final cost of this settlement is expected to
exceed $50 million.
Approximately 4.65 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediment will eventually be
removed from the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal,
Indiana, with construction of the sediment
management facility targeted to begin in 2001 and
dredging to follow in 2003. It has been estimated
that about 150,000 cubic yards (200 million
pounds) of polluted sediments enter Lake
Michigan each year from the Indiana Harbor and
Ship Canal and the Grand Calumet River. These
sediments are highly contaminated with a wide
variety of toxicants, including chromium, lead, and
PCBs. It will take about 10 years to deepen the
navigation channel and harbor. It is expected that
an additional 20 years of maintenance dredging
will be required.
The Corps is moving forward with a
Comprehensive Dredge Material Management
Plan for Waukegan Harbor, Illinois, to be
completed in September 2000. Currently, the plan
calls for dredging 250,000 cubic yards of polluted
material, beginning in 2002 or 2003. A critical
component of the plan is securing an acceptable
site for a CDF.
The Ashtabula River Partnership is a public-
private partnership working to dredge PCB-
contaminated sediment from the Ashtabula River
in Ohio. On September 10,1999 the Partnership
announced the release of the draft plan for
remediating the river. Officially called an
Environmental Impact Statement, the Corps
announced the official Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register, opening the plan up for a formal
45-day public comment period. The draft plan
represents 5 years of work between EPA, Ohio
EPA, the Corps Buffalo District, FWS, and the
Ashtabula community. This $42.5 million dollar
cleanup will remove 700,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sediment from the river and place
it into a specially constructed confined disposal
landfill. The cleanup project is slated to begin in
2002.
This project has received a $500,000 start-up
grant from EPA-GLNPO and will receive funding
from the State of Ohio and the 15 or so companies
responsible for the pollution of the Fields Brook
Superfund Site (Fields Brook is a tributary to the
Ashtabula Harbor). The Ashtabula Harbor project
is especially significant because it outlines a first-
time justification for the use of a new Federal
environmental dredging authority (Water
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Resources Development Act, Section 205) that
provides Federal involvement in such projects.
Additional planned sediment remediations
include: approximately 30,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sludge from the Black Lagoon (see
the photograph on page 44), one of the most
contaminated sites on the Detroit River, with 5,000
cubic yards to be turned into a safe cement
compound as part of a pilot program jointly funded
by EPA, Michigan DEQ, and the Institute of Gas
Technology; the Pine River, the White Lake AOC,
and Hayton Mill Pond on the Manitowoc River in
Wisconsin; and the Grasse River and St.
Lawrence River, both in New York. All of these
actions are scheduled to be taken in the 1999-
2002 time frame.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
EPA identifies polluted runoff as the most
important remaining source of water pollution and
provides for a coordinated effort to reduce polluted
runoff from a variety of sources. Previous
technology-based controls, such as secondary
treatment of sewage, effluent limitation guidelines
for industrial sources, and management practices
for some nonpoint sources, have dramatically
reduced water pollution and laid the foundation
for further progress. Over the next several years,
States will be developing many Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pollutants entering into
water bodies from both point and nonpoint
sources. TMDLs will help manage water quality
on a watershed scale. States and Tribes, working
in full partnership with EPA, will work to establish
TMDLs for all listed waters and attempt to
ascertain that ail load allocations established by
TMDLs are implemented by point and nonpoint
sources alike.
A significant remaining water quality problem is
polluted runoff, or nonpoint source pollution.
Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollution from
industrial and STPs, comes from many diffuse
sources. It can be caused by rainfall or snowmelt
moving over and through the ground. As the
runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural
and man-made pollutants, finally depositing them
into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and
even our underground sources of drinking water.
These pollutants can be pesticides, fertilizers,
bacteria and nutrients from animal waste,
household chemicals, and petroleum products,
such as gasoline and motor oil.
Controlling Polluted Runoff to Further
Protect Drinking Water and Waterways
Stormwater is water from rain or snow that runs
off of city streets, parking lots, construction sites
and residential yards. It can carry sediment, oil,
grease, toxicants, pesticides, pathogens and
other pollutants into nearby storm drains. Once
this polluted runoff enters the storm sewer system,
it is discharged, usually untreated, into local
streams and waterways. It can contaminate
drinking and recreational waters and remains a
major source of beach and shellfish bed closures.
EPA announced it would reduce stormwater runoff
from construction sites between 1 and 5 acres
and municipal storm sewer systems in urbanized
areas serving populations of less than 100,000
through the issuance of permits. This new
stormwater rule builds on the existing program to
control stormwater runoff from municipalities with
populations greater than 100,000 and 11 industrial
categories, including construction disturbing over
5 acres. Under the expanded program, sediment
discharges from approximately 97.5 percent of
the acreage under development across the
country will be controlled through permits.
Another measure to address polluted runoff is the
new stormwater Phase II rule. This rule is
structured for maximum flexibility and is expected
to make approximately 3,000 more river miles
safe for boating and protect up to 500,000 people
a year from illness due to swimming in
contaminated waters. It will prevent beach
closures, make fish and seafood safer to eat, and
reduce costs of drinking water treatment.
The joint EPA-NOAA Coastal Nonpoint Source
Control Program (Coastal Nonpoint Program)
requires State Coastal Management Programs to
develop Coastal Nonpoint Programs to reduce
nonpoint sources of pollution flowing into coastal
waters. EPA has continued to work with NOAA
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
and the State Coastal Management Programs
and their counterpart state water quality programs
to develop and implement state Coastal Nonpoint
Programs. This is another important partnership
with EPA that builds on the Clean Water Act
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management
Program and advances our nationwide efforts to
reduce polluted runoff, especially in coastal
waters and river tributaries to coastal waters.
The coastal programs in Michigan and Wisconsin
have received conditional approval of their
Coastal Nonpoint Programs, and EPA and NOAA
are working with Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio to
develop their nonpoint programs. The programs
have resulted in faster implementation of nonpoint
control measures and have significantly improved
communication and coordination across different
state agencies.
Eliminating Eutrophication Problems
One of the consequences of nonpoint source pollution
is the eutrophication of bodies of water. Eutrophication,
or the presence of high levels of nutrients in a lake, has
several symptoms, often including large "blooms'* of
undesirable algae. A second symptom of eutrophication
is a decrease in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the
water, particularly at near-bottom depths in lakes.
Much work has been done to prevent eutrophication of
lakes. The 1997 State of the Great Lakes Report
reviewed nutrient data since 1994 and concluded that
no appreciable change has occurred in the nutrient
status of the lakes.
' Proposed TP Guideline
(Phosphorus Management
Strategies Task Force, 1980)
Erie
Western Basin
71 73 75 77 7» 11 83 8SW 19 »U3 K 97
Central Basin
Erie
Eastern Basin
Figure 18. Total phosphorus trends in the Great Lake from 1971 -1997 (Spring, Open Lake
Surface); Blank indicates no sampling (Source: Environmental Conservation Branch,
Environment Canada and the Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Current phosphorus loads are clearly below the
target loads of the Agreement for Lakes Superior,
Huron, and Michigan and are at or near target
limits for Lakes Erie and Ontario. While total
loadings of phosphorus-have decreased from
28,000 tons in 1968 to 11,000 tons in recent years,
Lake Erie still is experiencing brief periods of
anoxia in some areas in its central basin.
Phosphorus target levels in open lake waters
have been achieved through efforts to improve
the performance of STPs, reducing levels of
phosphorus in detergents, and implementing
agricultural BMPs, which include programs to
control soil erosion, sedimentation, and other
forms of nonpoint source control. Because of this
concerted effort, eutrophication is no longer a
problem for the open lake waters of the Great
Lakes, although there are concerns regarding
nutrient levels in Lake Erie, which will continue
to be assessed.
Managing Animal Wastes
The management of animal waste from animal feeding
operations will help to protect and enhance water qual-
ity in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Basin has a high concentration
of agricultural enterprises where animals are kept
and raised in confined environments. Polluted
runoff from animal feeding operations is a leading
source of water pollution in some watersheds.
Potential impacts include the absence or low
levels of dissolved oxygen in surface water,
harmful algae blooms, fish kills, and
contamination of drinking water from nitrates and
pathogens.
On March 9,1999, EPA and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) announced a joint strategy
to control agricultural waste runoff. In order to
minimize water quality and public health impacts
from animal feeding operations {AFOs) and land
application of animal waste, this strategy is based
on a national performance expectation that all
AFO owners and operators will develop and
implement technically sound and site-specific
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
(CNMPs). CNMPs may include the following
components: feed management, manure
handling and storage, land application of manure,
record keeping, and other operations. The
Strategy sets out a desired outcome that all AFOs
will have CNMPs by 2009.
For the vast majority of AFOs, voluntary efforts
will be the principal approach to assist owners
and operators in developing and implementing
site-specific management plans. Impacts from
higher risk, confined animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), such as sites with the equivalent of
1,000 beef cows, are addressed through National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits under the authority of the Clean Water
Act. About 5 percent of all animal feeding
operations are expected to require permits. On
August 6, 1999, EPA issued a Draft Guidance
Manual for the development of permits for
CAFOs.
EPA and the National Pork Producers Council
{NPPC) negotiated a voluntary compliance pro-
gram to reduce environmental and public health
threats to the nation's waterways from runoff of
animal wastes from pork-producing operations.
The program was formally announced on Novem-
ber 25,1998. The NPPC plans assessments for
more than 10,000 pork production facilities.
NPPC developed the assessment program at a
cost of $1.5 million, and will fund the training of
independent inspectors and the program's over-
sight. EPA has provided a $5 million grant to
America's Clean Water Foundation to assist with
the assessments.
The compliance audit program provides an in-
centive for pork producers to take the initiative to
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
find and correct Clean Water Act violations and
prevent discharges to waterways without com-
promising the ability of EPA or states to enforce
the law under this initiative. Participating pork
producers will have their operations voluntarily
assessed for Clean Water Act violations by certi-
fied independent inspectors. Producers who
promptly disclose and correct any discovered vio-
lations from these audits will receive a much
smaller civil penalty than they might otherwise
be liable for under the law.
Controlling Pesticide and Soil Nutrient
Runoff
Innovative programs such as USDA's Conserva-
tion Reserve Program (CRP), National Conser-
vation Buffer Initiative, and Environment Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP) provide a "systems
approach" for addressing agricultural nonpoint
source pollution to the Great Lakes. This ap-
proach allows for sustainable production of food
and fiber products while maintaining environmen-
tal quality and a strong natural resource base. In
addition, EPA has several standing programs
State
Illinois
Indiana
Mchigan
Mnnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
CRP Acres
None in GL watershed
118,402
284,452
796
50,733
175.683
4,840
174,755
809,661
CRP Contracts
None in GL watershed
3,944
i 3,927
24
1,487
6,592
140
7,236
23,350
Table 4. Great Lakes States CRP Acres and Contracts
as of June 1998 (Source: USDA-Farm Services Agency,
1998).
(e.g., Section 319 nonpoint source pollution con-
trol) to address soil erosion and sedimentation
within the basin.
The CRP Program reduces soil erosion by encour-
aging farmers to convert highly erodible cropland
or other environmentally sensitive acreage to
CRP Acres in Great Lakes CPA Counties
As of June 1998
Acres by County
r—i o.i- 5.000
n~i 5,000-10,000
m 10.000-15,000
S 15,000 -20.000
20,000-25,000
••25,000-30,000
530,000-37.000
N/A
Figure 19. The Conservation Reserve Program Is reducing soil erosion through the Great Lakes Basin
(Source: USDA-Farm Services Agency, 1998).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
vegetative cover, such as native grasses, wildlife
plantings, trees, filterstrips, or riparian buffers.
Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the
term of the multi-year contract. Cost sharing is
provided to establish the vegetative cover
practices. As of June, 1998,23,350 agreements
were in place in the U.S. Great Lakes basin coun-
ties, affecting nearly 810,000 acres.
Conservation practices such as conservation till-
age and buffer strips reduce the loads of nutri-
ents, herbicides, and pesticides to the surface
waters of the Great Lakes Basin.
Conservation tillage is any planting method that
leaves at least 30 percent of the soil surface
covered with crop residue after planting. The soil
is tilled only to the extent needed to prepare a
seedbed, incorporate chemicals, control weeds,
and plant the crop. Conservation tillage is rapidly
becoming the primary cultivation practice in the
Basin, affecting as much as 70 percent of the
total acreage in many counties, and 48 percent
basinwide.
Buffer strips are strips of land in permanent
vegetation, designed to intercept pollutants and
manage other environmental concerns.
Strategically placed buffer strips can effectively
mitigate the movement of sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides within and from farm fields. Buffer
strips can also enhance wildlife habitat by
providing a source of food, nesting cover, and
shelter for many wildlife species. USDA's
unprecedented National Conservation Buffer
Initiative is set to install conservation buffers along
2 million miles of the nation's 3.5 million riperian
miles by 2002.
The Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP) works primarily in locally identified
conservation priority areas where there are
significant problems with natural resources. High
priority is given to areas where agricultural
improvements will help meet water quality
objectives. EQIP offers contracts for conservation
practices such as manure management systems,
pest management, erosion control, and other
practices to improve and maintain the health of
natural resources. Activities must be carried out
according to a conservation plan.
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) program works to increase
knowledge about, and help farmers and ranchers
adopt, practices that are economically viable,
environmentally sound and socially responsible.
To advance such knowledge nationwide, SARE
administers a competitive grants program first
funded by Congress in 1988. For the combined
years of 1997 and 1998,78 grants were awarded
within the eight Great Lakes states. As the
outreach arm of SARE, the Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN) provides national
leadership in facilitating information exchanges
in support of sustainable agriculture. Information
is produced in a variety of formats including print,
World Wide Web, and electronic books or diskette
versions.
The Farmland Protection Program provides funds
to help purchase development rights to keep
productive farmland in use. Working through
existing programs, USDA joins with State, Tribal,
or local governments to acquire conservation
easements or other interests from landowners.
To qualify, farmland must meet several criteria,
including having a conservation plan.
Groundwater Impacts
The Great Lakes watershed is being impacted
by nonpoint source loadings from groundwater.
Nonpoint source loadings from groundwater may
take years, decades, or longer to decrease and,
therefore may make it difficult to achieve the 30
percent reduction goal by the year 2005 as
recommended by the IJC. The USGS and USDA
are working to improve the understanding of the
impacts of groundwater as a major source of
herbicide loadings to the Great Lakes. Recent
improvements in herbicide application BMPs
(e.g., lower application rates, spot spraying) are
designed to help reduce the infiltration of these
substances into the groundwater and, therefore,
reduce loadings. The USGS has determined that
pesticide loads from urban watersheds can be
as high or higher than those found in agricultural
watersheds, chiefly due to stormwater runoff, and
may further impact the ability to achieve the
recommended reductions. The U.S. Great Lakes
Program in general, and the USGS in particular,
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
will continue to research and address the impacts
of ground water in the basin.
Additional Progress in Reducing Nonpoint
Source Pollution
The following programs are examples of the
progress that has been accomplished in reducing
nonpoint source pollution:
> The Corps, in cooperation with EPA, is
supporting IDEM's development of TMDLs for
the Grand Calumet River in Indiana. This effort
will identify nonpoint sources of pollution and
evaluate ways to reduce these loadings.
> The Corps, in cooperation with the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago,
completed construction of the first of three
reservoirs that will store stormwater and
sewage and reduce the backflow of
contaminants into Lake Michigan at Chicago
during extreme storm events.
> A wetland restoration project was developed
at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in
Gary, Indiana. Two sites, Derby Ditch and the
Island Manor Project, have helped reduce peak
outflow rates during a storm events.
> The Lake and Porter County, Indiana Soil and
Water Conservation Districts are presently
working with the Corps-Chicago District to
evaluate a land treatment project for the Deep
River Watershed. This watershed
encompasses 79,000 acres that include
37,700 acres of cropland. The project would
include erosion control, sediment reduction,
and nutrient and pesticide management.
> In July 2000, the State of Michigan and USDA
signed a Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) agreement totaling $177
million. This agreement allows landowners in
targeted areas of Michigan to automatically
enroll in the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) and provides them with regular CRP
payments, as well as additional state funds.
In return, the farmer must implement approved
practices such as filter strips, riparian buffers,
and grassed waterways and maintain them for at
least 15 years. The Michigan CREP targets
80,000 acres of environmentally sensitive
farmland along the Raisin River and other
waterways in the Macatawa and Saginaw
watersheds. Other Great Lakes states with CREP
agreements include Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and New Yorkk.
> Federal and state grants are funding
implementation of the National Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS) Nemadji River
Basin Project in Minnesota. Reducing
streambank erosion rates through land
management is a major long-term goal. A local
Forestry Committee will begin collectively
analyzing timber stands and coordinating
harvesting in order to minimize runoff rate
increases. The Corps is currently working to
produce a sediment transport model that will
facilitate land management planning. The
Michigan DNR Fisheries Department has targeted
sections of key tributaries for stream bank erosion
control projects. State trout stamp and clean
water partnership funding will pay for materials
that volunteer groups will use to stabilize critical
areas.
> The Penfield Watershed Management Committee
in New York will produce a trifold informational
brochure to increase the public's awareness of
water quality issues, sediment control, and soil
erosion. The brochure will be directly mailed to
approximately 13,000 households.
> NRCS, with the Ohio Lake Erie Commission, has
established a resource team to enhance the
National Conservation Buffer Initiative. The
Initiative will improve water quality in Ohio's Lake
Erie Watershed, while providing adjacent
landowners with financial incentives to reduce
agricultural runoff. The Ohio Lake Erie Buffer
Team, established nearly a year ago, is comprised
of 22 pubic and private individuals from
agricultural and natural resource organizations
and is guided by NRCS. The team has developed
and instituted a 12-point strategic plan to
implement and sustain Ohio's program with a goal
of establishing 50,000 acres of new conservation
buffers. Over the last 15 years, conservation
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
tillage increased from 5 to 50 percent within
the Lake Erie basin.
> The Toledo Harbor Sediment Reduction
Project is a pilot project by the NRCS to
demonstrate how upland erosion control can
reduce sediment delivery and dredging needs
in the Toledo Harbor. A study by an economist
at Ohio State University concludes that a 15
percent reduction in dredging would provide
a present market value of reduced dredging
costs worth $1.3 million per year. The project
used a locally ted approach, including county
sediment committees, county sediment
reduction strategies, and competitive grants
to distribute available grant funds. The project
successfully demonstrated a delivery system
that can be effective in accelerating the rate
of application of sediment reduction practices
within the Maumee Watershed, as well as
generating many innovative ideas for
promoting conservation tillage and sediment
reduction activities.
> Investigations to date indicate nonpoint
source pollution to be the largest contributor
of contaminants to the Presque Isle BayAOC.
EPA has provided funding to the Erie-Western
Pennsylvania Port Authority for construction
of a path system at the water edge to prevent
sediments from entering the Bay, as well as
to neutralize acidic runoff. Measuring will be
conducted over the next 2 years to evaluate
the effectiveness of this system.
WETLANDS
Playing a Vital Role
A vital component of the Great Lakes ecosystem,
wetlands serve a variety of important functions.
Wetlands protect shorelines from erosion, store
flood waters with their dense vegetation, and trap
sediments that can pollute waterways. They also
provide nursery, resting, feeding, and breeding
grounds for a rich diversity of birds, fish, and
wildlife. They protect a variety of fish species
from waves and predators. Coastal wetlands offer
fish warmer temperatures than open lake waters.
Wetlands provide vital habitat for Great Lakes fish
and wildlife.
Larval and juvenile fish harbored by wetlands are
an important food source for waterfowl. Ducks
consume plants that extend above and below the
water, and geese graze on plants above water.
More than half of Great Lakes wetlands have
been lost since 1800 {see Figure 20 on the
following page). The most extensive losses took
place in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries when many wetlands were drained for
agricultural use. Remaining wetlands continue
to be threatened by building construction, waste
disposal, and mining of sand. Consumption of
groundwater has diminished recharge of certain
wetlands.
Restoring and Protecting Remaining Wetlands
The following examples (and others highlighted
in the habitat section of the report) provide
information regarding the scope of wetland
protection and restoration projects and programs
occurring around the U.S. portion of the Great
Lakes Basin.
A partnership consisting of the FWS, the Ohio
Division of Wildlife, EPA, Ducks Unlimited, and
other private conservation groups, with the
support of locally elected members of Congress,
has completed construction associated with the
restoration of Metzger Marsh, which borders the
coast of Lake Erie. This project may serve as a
model for coastal wetland restoration in other
parts of the Great Lakes. Construction of water
level/fish control structures and other features will
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Figure 20. Almost every Great Lake state has lost at
least SO percent of their original wetlands statewide,
giving an Indication of the losses experienced within
each state's portion of the basin; Indiana, Illinois, and
Ohio have lost at least 85 percent statewide (Source:
Mitch and Gosseiink, Wetlands. 2nd Edition, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1993).
protect this 900-acre wetland from storm damage
and will allow this area to once again provide a
diverse aquatic plant community and habitat for
a variety offish and wildlife species. The Metzger
Marsh project is one of ten flagship projects of
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
that was created to protect, restore, and enhance
wetlands from Mexico to Canada.
Through partnerships, the Michigan Private Lands
Office completed 22 wetland restorations totaling
160 acres. The Michigan Wildlife Habitat
Foundation, through a cooperative agreement,
completed the bulk of these restorations. These
projects were often completed with cooperation
from county drain commissioners. Additional
restorations were completed through the
Kalamazoo Conservation District. Partners,
including landowners, contributed approximately
50 percent of the cost of the projects.
Nearly 11,000 acres of wetlands have been
restored through the USDA Wetlands Reserve
Program in Wisconsin's Great Lakes watershed.
These 126 sites are long-term restorations or
permanent easements, providing flood control,
improved water quality, and wildlife habitat in the
North American Flyway.
Three biologists hired through a partnership
between the FWS, NRCS, and the Wisconsin
Waterfowl Association have secured over 3,800
acres of restorabte wetland and associated
uplands in key wetland areas of Wisconsin for
the Wetlands Reserve Program. The lands,
located in 108 different parcels, will be restored
under either 10- or 30-year agreements or
perpetual easements. Funds are being provided
by the Wetlands Reserve Program and the FWS.
The FWS recently participated in a multi-agency
winter navigation agreement that will protect the
St. Marys River and more than 13,300 acres of
Michigan's coastal wetlands. The 10-year
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) fixes opening
and closing dates for the Soo Locks at Sault Ste.
Marie, Michigan, vessel speed limits, and other
monitoring responsibilities relating to commercial
shipping traffic on the St. Mary's River. In the
MOA, the FWS East Lansing Field Office
negotiated provisions to protect more than 75
miles of riverine habitat and wetlands from the
effects of early navigation season. The parties
to the MOA include the Corps, the U.S. Coast
Guard, Michigan DNR, and Michigan DEQ.
The Old Woman Creek National Estuarine
Research Reserve (OWC NERR), the only Great
Lakes-type freshwater estuary in the System,
continues to build upon its strong relationship with
federal, state, and local partners. The Reserve's
science program provides information to the
coastal community on functions of the complex
Lake Erie Coastal wetlands ecosystem. The
Program is directed toward determining the role
of estuaries and other wetlands in the Great Lakes
ecosystem. A second responsibility is to develop
a database to evaluate subtle, long-range
changes in the Lake Erie system. Recent
research has focused on the movement of
sediments from fair fields and on mitigating runoff
from agricultural lands. This work allows the
Reserve to serve as a regional model and
stim ulus for improving the health of the threatened
coasts of the lower Great Lakes.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
HABITAT PROTECTION AND
ENHANCEMENT
Native Great Lakes ecosystems provide habitats
upon which a diversity of plant and animal species
depend. The current percentage rate of loss of
the little natural habitat that remains, while lower
than in times past, is still quite high and threatens
the health and survival of many Great Lakes
species. Under a variety of unique programs and
partnerships at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local
landowner levels, a large number of wetland and
upland habitat creation, protection, restoration,
and enhancement activities are being conducted
to address this issue. Much of the needed work
orients itself towards the goal of protecting and
restoring ecosystem health. This is important in
both environmental and economic terms. Fishing,
hunting, bird-watching and other wildlife-related
recreation are enjoyed by 77 million people
annually. Wildlife remains a remarkable engine
for economic growth and job creation, accounting
for approximately $100 billion annually.
and 96.4 acres of native prairie were restored. In
Erie County, one site and 10 acres of native prairie
were restored. The restoration projects will
improve waterfowl nesting habitat and provide
enhanced winter cover for game and non-game
birds. In the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, 20
acres of native prairie were restored for waterfowl
nesting habitat and winter cover for both game
and nongame birds.
Re-establishing native trout populations will depend
upon the restoration of its habitat.
Fishing and other outdoor activities are enjoyed by 77
million people and is a $100 billion Industry.
The following examples of habitat protection and
enhancement projects (and other highlighted in
the wetlands and fish and wildlife sections of this
report) touch on the variety of such activities
taking place in the Great Lakes.
Native prairie restoration projects at 16 sites in 3
Ohio counties have enhanced waterfowl nesting
habitat on more than 225 acres. In Ottawa
County, 12 sites and 119 acres of native prairie
were restored. In Sandusky County, three sites
The USGS/FWS Great Lakes Initiative to restore
native fish (lake trout, coaster brook trout, and
lake sturgeon) and habitat began with a $1.5
million investment in 1998. The purpose of this
project is to pick restoration sites and restock
those sites using native fish populations. Various
Tribal groups, States, and Canadian organizations
are also involved in the Initiative.
The FWS Ashland Fishery Resources Office, in
cooperation with Michigan DNR, Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community, and Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, is developing site-specific plans for
stocking and assessment of coaster brook trout,
under guidance of the newly-adopted "Brook Trout
Rehabilitation Plan for Lake Superior".
Sturgeon restoration activities are being Implemented
in the Detroit River.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Fingerlings hatched and reared at the Iron River
National Fish Hatchery will be stocked in selected
Michigan streams in 1999. Coaster brook trout
were once abundant in the upper Great Lakes,
but were depleted by fishing, habitat degradation,
and introduced species.
The FWS developed a partnership with Michigan
DNR, Trout Unlimited, and the Huron Mountains
Club to protect and restore habitat in the
Salmon-Trout River, where the last suspected
self-sustaining coaster brook trout population in
a mainland U.S. stream spawns. The initiative
would create a voluntary watershed management
program to address remediation of a serious sand
loading problem.
The FWS is working with USGS partners to
survey the use and condition of historically
reported lake sturgeon spawning habitats in the
Detroit River. The spawning habitats are being
investigated to determine current habitat
characterization of the sites, as well as current
use of sites by lake sturgeon. Another component
of this study is to examine nursery habitats being
utilized in the Detroit River by juvenile lake
sturgeon.
The Nature Conservancy's Great Lakes Office
developed a model to classify freshwater
biological habitats and communities and piloted
the application of this model to identify priority
aquatic conservation sites across the Great
Lakes basin. The goal was to identify places that
together represent the diversity of biological
communities in the Great Lakes. This project is
an excellent starting point for the portfolio of
places necessary to conserve the region's
aquatic biological diversity.
NOAA has released its final proposal to designate
Thunder Bay, Michigan and surrounding waters
on Lake Huron as the 13th National Marine
Sanctuary. The proposal, detailed in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and
Management Plan (FEIS/MP) for the Thunder
Bay National Marine Sanctuary, includes a 5-year
management plan and draft final regulations as
well as responses to public comments received
during the sanctuary designation process.
Thunder Bay contains a nationally important
collection of historic shipwrecks that represents
maritime heritage of regional, national and
international significance. This would be the first
national marine sanctuary to focus solely upon a
large collection of underwater cultural resources.
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians is presently working in
partnership with the Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed Initiative, the Great Lakes
Environmental Center, and Meridian Geographies
through a Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund
Grant to identify and assess 6 potentially critical
habitats in the Grand Traverse Bay. The selected
habitats are located strategically around the entire
bay. The assessments include water quality,
benthic populations, fish, wildlife, and plants. An
additional grant from the Michigan Coastal Zone
Management program is allowing for the
assessment of three additional sites in Grand
Traverse Bay in 1999.
In 1998, GLNPO awarded more than $1.1 million
in grants for the protection and restoration of
significant ecosystems. The 20 projects will
provide a scientific base for priority setting, build
institutions to protect biodiversity, build community
support for protection and restoration of significant
habitat, and implement on-the-ground protection
and restoration activities across the Great Lakes
basin. In addition, GLNPO funds were
instrumental in supporting the Natural Areas
Association Conference and a Wild Rice
Conference organized by Great Lakes Tribes.
Three papers on the topic of Biodiversity
Investment Areas (BIAs) (see Figure 21 on the
following page) were presented and discussed
at SOLEC'98. These papers describe
outstanding areas throughout the Great Lakes
basin of aquatic, coastal wetland, and nearshore
terrestrial ecosystems. Properly protected, these
areas will preserve ecological integrity and,
ultimately, help protect the health of the Great
Lakes themselves.
RESTORING AQUATIC SPECIES
Fish populations have been greatly depleted over
the last 2 centuries. Population depletion can be
attributed to food chain disruptions, pollution,
habitat loss and degradation, overfishing, exotic
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Shoreline Biodiversity
Investment Areas
Figure 21. The protection of Shoreline Biodiversity Investment Areas will help
preserve the ecosystem health of the lakes (Source Land by the Lakes: Nearshore
Terrestrial Ecosystems, EPA/EC, SOLEC, 1996).
species, and other factors. Damage to once
abundant fish populations has been profound;
however, recent signs of recovery are very
encouraging.
Lake trout in Lake Superior are now reproducing
at a rate that does not require additional stocking,
and mayfly populations, an insect that is important
prey food for many fish in Lake Erie, are
approaching historic abundance. Recent
discoveries of deepwater sculpin in Lake Ontario
provide hope for the recovery of this species that
was thought to be eliminated from the Great
Lakes. Several projects are assisting the
recovery of other species, including Atlantic
salmon (in Lake Ontario) and lake sturgeon.
The following variety of important actions are
examples of the many steps being taken to aid in
the recovery of basin populations of native
species.
Progress on Self-Sustaining Lake Trout
Lake trout were historically the top native predator
fish in the Great Lakes and an important
component of commercial and sport fisheries. A
combination of overfishing and predation by the
sea lamprey, along with other contributing factors,
caused the disappearance of lake trout during
Sea lamprey predation, which once took a drastic toll
on the Great Lakes fishery, is being effectively
controlled through successful programs requiring
multi-agency cooperation.
the 1950s in all of the Great Lakes except Lake
Superior, where populations were greatly
diminished.
Progress of lake trout restoration in the Great
Lakes:
• Lake Superior - Lake trout reproduction and
survival have reached a modern high. The
rate of reproduction can sustain the population
without requiring additional stocking. Trout
restoration activities that proved successful
in Lake Superior are being adapted to other
lakes and other species.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
• Late Michigan - Spawning of stocked lake
trout and subsequent production of young
have been evident since the early 1970s.
However, survival of young fish to adults has
not been documented. Offshore reefs appear
to be the most promising areas for
establishing reproducing populations.
• Lake Erie - Abundance of lake trout have been
improving annually since 1992. Reproduction
has not been detected, but lake trout are
surviving to sexual maturity and offspring of
stocked lake trout have been raised
successfully in a hatchery.
• Lake Huron - Intensive stocking on mid-lake
reefs has resulted in the production of young
lake trout each year since 1993.
• Lake Ontario • Naturally produced 2-year-old
lake trout are present in many areas of the
lake. Prior to 1995, spawning by stocked lake
trout failed to produce detectable numbers of
2-year-old fish, although fry were detected as
early as 1983.
Revival of Mayfly Population
The burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia) was an im-
portant part of the benthic fauna and a huge food
Figure 22. Water quality improvements in Lake Erie
has led to a resurgence of the mayfly population
(Source: Presentation, Nearshore and Offshore Wa-
ters, EPA/EC, SOLEC, 1998).
source for fisheries in western Lake Erie. The
population suddenly disappeared in 1953, pre-
sumably because of pollution and dissolved oxy-
gen depletion. In the early 1990s, after an ab-
sence of 40 years, burrowing mayfly adults were
seen along the shores of western Lake Erie.
Scientists from the Great Lakes Science Center
were encouraged by these sightings and obtained
bottom samples from western Lake Erie to docu-
ment the presence of burrowing mayfly nymphs
with densities increasing throughout western Lake
Erie. The last 5 years have seen a remarkable
recovery in population, from zero to numbers
approaching those of the early twentieth century.
This is a strong sign of improvement of water
quality, which is good news for all inhabitants for
the Lake Erie ecosystem.
Reappearance of Deepwater Sculpin
The deepwater sculpin, thought to be extirpated, was
recently discovered in Lake Ontario.
In April 1998 in southwestern Lake Ontario, USGS
scientists caught a deepwater sculpin. A
deepwater sculpin had not been captured in the
U.S. waters of Lake Ontario since 1942. In the
Canadian portion of Lake Ontario the fish Is ex-
tremely rare; only six deepwater sculpin have
been reported in Canadian waters since 1972
(three in 1972 and three in 1996). Deepwater
sculpins are an important link in the food chain,
eating bottom-dwelling invertebrates and, in turn,
being eaten by lake trout. The reappearance of
deepwater sculpin in U.S. waters of Lake Ontario
is one of many recent signs that a general recov-
ery of the lake's native fish community is under
way.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Atlantic Salmon
The landlocked Atlantic salmon, native to Lake
Ontario and the Finger Lakes of New York, expe-
rienced a population reduction in the late 1800s
due to dams on tributary streams where the
salmon spawned. Currently, disease prevents the
salmon from reproducing. However, scientists
at Cornell University, NYSDEC, and USGS de-
veloped a treatment for this malady at fish hatch-
eries. They are examining the feasibility of re-
storing self-sustaining populations of Atlantic
salmon in Lake Ontario and the Finger Lakes.
Other Activities to Restore Aquatic Species
• Maintaining the Lake Superior Walleye
Fishery: The Natural Resources Department
of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, as the primary steward of Kakagon
Slough, and the FWS limit and monitor an
annual Tribal subsistence walleye fishery in
this system. Harvest limits are periodically
evaluated by the Band to maintain and protect
this thriving walleye fishery, the second largest
in the Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior.
Re-establishing Native Clams in Metzger
Marsh: In 1996, a large population of native
clams was discovered during the dewatering
of Metzger Marsh. This population is critical
to the future restoration of clams in Lake Erie,
since it is one of the few populations in the
lake that survived the negative effects of zebra
mussels. During the marsh restoration
project, all clams in Metzger were removed
and boarded in various locations in Ohio and
Michigan. Once the marsh is reopened to
Lake Erie, the clams will be returned and
assisted in rebuilding their population
structure.
• Recovery of Sticklebacks and Emerald
Shiners: In Lake Ontario, threespine
sticklebacks began to appear in midwater
trawl catches in 1993 and have become quite
abundant since. Emerald shiners began to
appear in midwater trawls in 1995, and
abundance has been highly variable since, but
this is typical for that species. The appearance
of significant numbers of threespine
sticklebacks and emerald shiners, both native
species, is believed to be a response to
diminished alewife abundance.
Evaluating Remnant Lake Sturgeon
Stocks: The FWS has been working with
State and Tribal agencies in the evaluation of
remaining lake sturgeon stocks. The Bad
River (Wisconsin) supports one of two
self-sustaining populations of lake sturgeon
in U.S. waters of Lake Superior. The lower
portion of the river is within the Bad River
Indian Reservation, and activity there has
been closely coordinated with the Tribal
government. Surveys in the Bad River also
provided information used to develop
treatment strategies in the Sea Lamprey
Management Program. The FWS and the
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community planned
and cooperatively conducted lake sturgeon
assessment in Huron Bay, Michigan. The
objectives are to gather biological statistics
of sturgeon, describe their distribution and
movement, and monitor habitat usage in
Huron Bay.
Juvenile Lake Sturgeon Receive Ultrasonic
Transmitters: Lake sturgeon rehabilitation
efforts in Lake Superior will benefit from
determination of preferred habitat for juveniles.
Efforts to protect or enhance juvenile lake
sturgeon habitat are hindered by lack of
knowledge of habitat requirements during this
life stage. Eight juvenile lake sturgeon in Lake
Superior were captured and will be tracked in
the Chequamegon Bay and Apostle Island
region during ice free months through June
2000.
Grand Portage Experimental Restoration:
The Grand Portage Indian Reservation in
Minnesota has been the site of experimental
reintroduction of coaster brook trout since
1992. In 1997, reproduction of coaster brook
trout was documented in Grand Portage
streams for the first time since reintroduction.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore (Ml)
Experimental Restoration: The FWS
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
conducted backpack electrofishing
assessment of fish communities of all streams
at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and
visually inspected the streams to evaluate
potential as coaster brook trout habitat. Some
fish found below the barrier on Sable Creek
could be a tiny, remnant population of native,
anadromous brook trout.
Four Great Lakes States Agree to Stocking
Reduction of Introduced Species: Coho
and chinook Salmon, which limit alewife
populations and are prized game fish, do not
create self-sustaining populations and require
continuous stocking. Michigan, Wisconsin,
Indiana, and Illinois have agreed to a 27
percent reduction in the number of chinook
salmon stocked in Lake Michigan in 1999
because food supply is limited for existing trout
and salmon populations. Additionally, the
Michigan DNR plans a 20 percent reduction
in Lake Huron chinook stock this year.
Fisheries in both Lakes Michigan and Huron
have evolved into highly complex biological
systems over the 30-year period since coho
and chinook salmon were first introduced into
the Great Lakes Basin. Officials say these
developments require a broader, ecological
approach rather than the traditional single
species management practices.
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Lake
Trout Production: The FWS and the
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community are
celebrating the success of a 2-year agreement
for the Community to operate a fish health
isolation facility to aid efforts to restore lake
trout in the Great Lakes region. Midwestern
Tribes have responded to the challenges of
resource management in their unique role as
users and managers of more than 900,000
acres of reservation inland lakes, treaty ceded
territories, and the Great Lakes.
Presque Isle Bay AOC: Brown bullhead liver
tumor rates have dramatically decreased from
a 22 percent rate in 1992 to just a 3 percent
rate as of 1997, according to studies by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP), Pennsylvania Sea Grant,
Fishery resource managers at the Federal, State and
Tribal levels are working together to reestablish health
Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems.
the Erie Country Department of Public Health, and
EPA. This is good news since the RAP identified
fish tumors and other deformities as a use
impairment in the AOC. A new study will help
determine if these declining rates are due to
improving environmental conditions, such as
improved sediment quality, or because older
tumored fish are dying off and not being replaced
at the same rate. Results of this study will help
determine future actions in the AOC.
RESTORING WATER BIRD
POPULATIONS
The Great Lakes Basin supports a rich diversity
and abundance of breeding birds, making it one
of the most important regions on the North
American continent for many species. Long-term,
comprehensive monitoring of the status and
trends of bird populations and communities can
allow resource managers to determine the health
of bird communities and habitat conditions.
Twenty-five years after the U.S. canceled the
pesticide DDT, many fish-eating bird species have
experienced remarkable recoveries. The ban has
been characterized as one of history's great
environmental success stories. Bald eagles,
peregrine falcons, osprey, and double-crested
cormorants, viewed as "DDT victims," have all
experienced increases in breeding populations
in the Great Lakes Basin. Decreases in PCBs,
dioxins, mercury and other pesticides, in addition
to DDT, have also greatly contributed to these
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
success stories. Other shorebirds have also
experienced dramatic population increases.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Upper Mississippi River-Great Lakes Region Joint
Venture updated its implementation plan in 1998,
expanding partnerships into 10 upper Midwest
states and revising its habitat and population
objectives to include migrating waterfowl and
nongame migratory birds. In addition to funding
several projects, new partnerships have been
initiated. Federal, Tribal, State and local
governments, and nonprofit groups are
collaborating in the Superior Coastal Wetland
Initiative to protect sensitive coastal wetlands
along Wisconsin's Lake Superior shoreline.
Saginaw Bay is a focus area for current efforts to
restore waterfowl populations under the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. Through
diverse partnerships involving Federal, State, and
Provincial governments, corporations, private
conservation organizations and others, key
waterfowl habitats are identified and protected.
Recently, Ducks Unlimited received funding from
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act
on behalf of its partners to conserve wetlands and
associated habitats in the Saginaw Bay
watershed. Thus far, almost 1,200 acres of
wetlands and associated uplands have been
acquired for public ownership, and over 2,600
acres of wetlands and associated uplands have
been restored.
In 1991 the House of Representatives Committee
on Appropriations for the Department of the
Interior recommended an initial $900,000 grant
to fund the Circle of Flight {COF) Waterfowl
Initiative to improve wetlands and manage
waterfowl habitat on the reservations of 18 Tribes
in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. From 1992 to 1998, the total acres
of resource base for COF increased over 100
percent and the miles of rivers and streams
included in the project management areas
increased by 1,079 miles. This enhancement
program has included the restoration of wetlands,
restoration of grasslands, and enhancement of
existing ecosystems. In FY 1997, 37 COF
projects on 23 reservations and treaty ceded
areas were funded with the $600,000
appropriated for that year. Some of the projects
funded are:
• wild rice seeding on the Bay Mills Reservation
in upper Michigan;
• waterfowl management (wild rice seeding and
the construction of nesting structures and
floating docks) on four wetlands and
impoundments located on the Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community in upper Michigan; and
• trumpeter swan reintroduction on the Bad
River Reservation in upper Wisconsin and at
the Keweenaw Bay Indian community in
Michigan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative:
A North American initiative to coordinate regional
action and plans for monitoring and protecting
habitat has been launched. More than 120
conservationists established the North American
Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), an umbrella
organization of individuals, groups, agencies and
programs. National committees are now
choosing pilot regions in Canada, the United
States, and Mexico where bird populations are
most vulnerable. NABCI's efforts will be
concentrated in these areas, where it will also be
developing mechanisms for delivering
conservation programs; it will be involved in hiring
staff, assigning responsibilities, and raising
volunteers and money to promote its work.
Monitoring Contaminants in Great Lakes Birds
The Herring Gull Egg Contaminants Monitoring
Program, run by the Canadian government, has
produced the longest running, continuous data set
for wildlife in the Great Lakes. Each year since
1974, concentrations of 76 organochlorine
compounds such as DDT/DDE, PCBs,
polychlorinated dibenzofurans/polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDFs/PCDDs), and
periodically some metals, are measured in the
eggs of herring gulls from sites throughout the
Great Lakes. Adult herring gulls nest on all the
Great Lakes and the connecting channels and
remain on the Great Lakes year round. Because
the diet of herring gull colonies on islands is made
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Lake Erie
to
70
«0
SO
40 I
3D
*°t
10 |
0
Lake Huron
T479766082M86M9092M9688
120
100
BO
DO
40
20
0
Lake Michigan
180
140
120
100 |
80
60
40 f
20
0
Lake Ontario
76 78 60 82 84 88 B6 BO 92 94 96
BO
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 i
Lake Superior
82 64 86 S8 90 92 94 86 96
74 78 78 SO 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 9«
Figure 23. Temporal trends of PCBs (mg/g - wet weight) In herring gull eggs from the Great Lakes, 1974 -1998
(Source: Canadian Wildlife Service, 1999).
Contaminant concentrations in most colonial nesting, fish eating birds are at levels where gross ecological
effects such as eggshell thinning, reduced hatching and fledgling success and population declines are
no longer apparent. Greater reliance for detecting biological effects of contaminants is being put upon
physiological and genetic biomarkers.
Contaminant levels in almost all Great Lakes colonial waterbirds are significantly and substantively
reduced from what they were 25 years ago. Now, in the 1990s, year-to-year differences in contaminant
levels are quite small and detailed statistical analyses are needed to tell if a compound has "stabilized"
and is undergoing non-significant fluctuations, or if it is still declining. These analyses show that most
contaminants at most sites are continuing to decline at a rate similar to that over the last decade or two.
Geographic differences among sites for a given compound are not as dramatic as they once were.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
up primarily of fish (gulls are fairly opportunistic,
consuming garbage in urban areas and mice and
insects in agricultural areas), they are an excellent
terrestrial nesting indicator of the aquatic
community. Periodically, biological features such
as clutch size, egg shell thickness, and hatching
success are also measured. A database of
chemical levels and biological measures is
available. The data can be used to illustrate
temporal trends and geographical patterns,
showing all sites relative to one another (see
Figure 23 on the next page). Tissues are archived
to permit other assessments such as retrospective
analyses when new chemicals are identified.
Herring gull populations are fully recovered after
having had significant reproductive problems due
to PCBs and DDT.
RESTORING NATIVE WETLAND
AND TERRESTRIAL SPECIES
Birds are among the most visible and diverse
groups of wildlife in coastal Great Lakes wetlands.
Because breeding wetland birds require an
appropriate mix and density of vegetation,
sufficient and safe food resources, and freedom
from predation and other disturbances, their
presence and abundance provides information
that integrates the physical, chemical, and
biological status of their habitats. The recent
growth in nature-oriented recreation, particularly
the sport of birding, has helped develop strong
natural history and identification skills in a large
proportion of the basin's citizens. The connections
between wetland functions and breeding birds,
and the potential for involving skilled citizens in
monitoring present an important opportunity to
gather information on the health of coastal Great
Lakes wetlands.
Recovery of the Peregrine Falcon: The FWS
removed the peregrine falcon from the list of
endangered and threatened species, marking
one of the most dramatic success stories of the
Endangered Species Act. Hunting, nest
destruction, DDT and other contaminants all
played a role in their decline. The banning of
DDT made the recovery of the peregrine falcon
possible, but the protections provided by the
Endangered Species Act and the extraordinary
partnership efforts of the Service, state wildlife
The peregrine falcon has been removed from the
endangered species list due in large part to the ban-
ning of DDT and to the restoration of vital breeding
habitats.
agencies, and nongovernmental organizations
accelerated the pace of recovery through captive
breeding programs, reintroduction efforts, and the
protection of nest sites during the breeding
season. Similar efforts took place in Canada.
Currently, there are at least 1,650 peregrine
breeding pairs in the U.S. and Canada, well above
the overall recovery goal of 631 pairs. The
peregrine will continue to be protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Michigan Census Shows Kirtland's Warbler
Population at Record High: A recent census of
Kirtland's Warbler populations in Michigan
revealed a record high number of breeding pairs.
The census, conducted by biologists,
researchers, and volunteers, revealed 805
singing males. The 1998 census result is a
remarkable increase from low numbers in 1987
when only 167 singing males were counted. This
year's census results indicate that recovery
efforts, including habitat management and
The reestablishment of the double-crested cormo-
rant, after being near extinction, has been so suc-
cessful that population control plans may be needed.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
cowbird control, have been successful in helping
recover the federally endangered Kirtland's
Warbler.
Double Crested Cormorant: After being near
extinction in the 1970s as a result of impacts from
toxic chemicals, the Double Crested Cormorant
population increased over 300-fold to more than
38,000 pairs from 1973 to 1993. Though the
cormorant is now more numerous on the Great
Lakes than at any time in its previously recorded
history, the growth in cormorant populations seen
in the early 1990s is no longer evident. Some
interest groups in the Great Lakes Basin believe
that the population of cormorants is having a
significant impact on fish populations, but it does
not appear that they have a significant impact on
the fishery. Despite such conclusions, some
individuals have chosen to take control of the
rapid cormorant population growth into their own
hands. In 1999, nine individuals were arrested
and convicted for the killing of more than 1,000
double-breasted cormorants on Little Galloo
Island in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario. The
states of New York and Vermont have been
granted permission from the FWS to control the
double-crested cormorant populations by placing
corn oil on eggs, which limits hatching success.
The FWS is also developing a comprehensive
national cormorant plan in response to these
increasing concerns about the possible effect of
cormorant populations on recreational fishing,
habitat and other migratory birds. The FWS
hopes to complete an Environmental Impact
The endangered piping plover is being well-protected
at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
Statement, which addresses these questions, by
Spring 2001.
Piping Plover Populations make a home at
Sleeping Bear Dunes: In 1998,5 of the 24 nests
of the endangered piping plover found in Michigan
were located in Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore. Park staff attribute this high
percentage of park nests to a recovery program
that includes exclosure fences, beach closures,
information programs, and volunteers. In 1986
the Great Lakes and Atlantic Coast piping plover
populations were added to the Michigan and
federal lists of endangered species. Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore began
management to protect the piping plover nests.
Each spring, all the suitable nesting beaches in
the park are searched for breeding piping plovers.
In 1997 and 1998, the park had two nesting piping
plover pairs at Platte Point, the most popular
swimming beach in the park. The park closed a
portion of this beach to protect the plovers, which
affected public use of the beach. To mitigate this
user impact, resource management staff and
volunteers were stationed at the point to protect
the birds from disturbance and to explain the
delicate habitat conditions to visitors. The staff
set up spotting scopes and invited approaching
visitors to view the birds from a safe distance
outside the closed area.
o iu -
0
™ ft „
D) A
£
•5 '
& '-
E n
^W"
* 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Year
Figure 24. Number of established bald eagle nesting
territories within New York's Lake Ontario Basin
(Source: Peter Nye, NYSDEC, Personal
Communication, 2000).
Gradual Recovery of Bald Eagle: Bald eagle
habitat has been steadily improving throughout
the Great Lakes. In the Lake Ontario Basin, bald
eagle nesting territories have steadily grown from
two nests in 1984 to eight nests in 1999.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Canada Goose Recovery: For several decades
prior to 1962, the Giant Canada Goose was
thought to be extinct. Its rediscovery that year
began a rapid restoration of the subspecies
throughout its previous range. While many
municipalities in the Great Lakes now consider
this species a nuisance, its restoration is actually
considered a success story. The geese are well
adapted to living in populated and urbanized
areas and goose-human conflicts are increasing.
Figure 25 shows the dramatic increase in Canada
Canada Goose
96
Figure 25. Canada Geese populations have staged a
remarkable recovery in the Great Lakes (Source: Sauer,
J.R., J.E. Mines, I. Thomas, J. Fallen, and G. Gough, 2000.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and
Analysis, 1966-1999, Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wild-
life Research Center, Laurel, MD).
Goose populations in the Great Lakes. In
response to the high goose populations,
regulatory agencies are implementing hunting
regulations to increase the kill of Giant Canada
Geese, while protecting other subspecies of
migrant Canada Geese. Some communities are
also getting involved in goose capture and
relocation projects, while others are now
considering the use of border collies to scare
geese from areas such as airport runways and
golf courses.
Trumpeter Swans: On May 5, 1999, a female
trumpeter swan made the 730-mile return journey
from Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge to
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The trumpeter was
one of four swans that followed an ultra-light
aircraft last winter in an effort to teach the birds
to migrate between summer nesting grounds and
a new wintering area. These efforts will hopefully
establish a new migratory flock.
Black Tern
71 76
81 86
Year
91
96
Figure 26. Some species continue to decline, such as
the black tern; perhaps due to the loss of vital coastal
marsh habitats (Source: Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I.Tho-
mas, J. Fallen, and G. Gough, 2000. The North Ameri-
can Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis, 1966-
1999, Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, MD).
Black Tern Population in Decline: While some
breeding bird populations are thriving throughout
the basin, others are experiencing a decline. One
such species is the marsh-nesting species, the
Black Tern. The Black Tern is still considered
locally common in some areas, although its range
has declined significantly over the past decades.
It is currently considered endangered in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York, threatened
in Ontario, and a species of special concern in
Michigan. The exact reasons for decline are not
known, but habitat loss in coastal marshes is an
important issue. The Black Tern nests in marshes
that have the ratio of open water to emergent
vegetation of about 50:50. Extreme changes in
Great Lakes water levels can significantly
influence the proportion of the two habitats in
coastal wetlands.
RESTORING NATIVE TERRESTRIAL SPECIES
Wolf Comeback Continues in Upper
Peninsula, Michigan: Results of the 1998 to
1999 winter wolf survey conducted by the
Michigan DNR confirmed the presence of at least
74 wolves, in at least 30 packs, scattered across
the Upper Peninsula. Last year's count was 140
wolves. No wolves were confirmed in the Lower
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Peninsula. Wolves have increased in the Upper
Peninsula from near extinction in the 1970s to
their present numbers. It is believed all wolves
now in Michigan either are descendants of
Michigan breeding wolves or the result of
immigration from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
Ontario, Canada. Currently, the U.S. Department
of the Interior is considering a proposal to delist
wolves in the Great Lakes states.
INVASIVE SPECIES
During the past 200 years, at least 141 invasive
species (also referred to as exotic, non-
indigenous, or non-native species) have entered
the Great Lakes. Approximately 10 percent of
these species have profoundly affected the
populations of native wildlife and plants species.
Of the invasive species introduced (either
intentionally or unintentionally) to the Lakes since
1810, about one-third have appeared since 1960.
This increased pace is largely due to greater
transoceanic shipping traffic on the Great Lakes
since completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway in
1959. Ballast water accounts for about 30 percent
of exotic introductions and almost all of the new
introductions over the past 10 years. The other
principal vectors are deliberate introductions,
range extension, and accidental/incidental
introductions.
The Great Lakes sport and commercial fishing
industry, valued at almost $4.5 billion annually,
is at risk due to growing numbers of invasive
mussel and fish species, including the zebra and
quagga mussels, sea lamprey, Eurasian ruffe,
and round goby. Native lake trout, walleye, yellow
perch and whiteflsh populations are threatened
by the establishment of these invasive species.
Because new invasive species are still being
found in the Basin, there is an ongoing concern
that all sources of introduction have not been fully
controlled.
The U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment found that the U.S. is spending
hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars trying
to repair the damage caused by invasive species.
The cost to North Americans of repairing and
combating damage by zebra mussels alone to
municipal and industrial water intakes is estimated
at $3.3 billion over the past 10 years. Large Great
Lakes water users, such as industry and larger
municipalities, pay on average $360,000 per year
to control zebra mussels. Nuclear power plants
face a average yearly cost of $825,000 per plant.
Small municipalities pay about $20,000 per year.
In response to the rapidly spreading zebra mussel
infestation and other concerns about
nonindigenous aquatic species introductions, the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act was enacted in 1990 and amended
by the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) of
1996. It provides an intergovernmental
mechanism for the development of a cooperative
national program to:
• reduce the risk of or prevent the
unintentional introduction and dispersal
of nonindigenous aquatic species that
may be nuisances;
• ensure prompt detection of the presence of
and monitor changes in the distribution of
nonindigenous aquatic species; and
• control established aquatic nuisance species
in a cost-effective, environmentally sound
manner.
The States of Michigan and Ohio announced the
completion and submission of a Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management
Plan to a National Task Force in fulfillment of the
requirements of NISA. The plans emphasize
prevention as the key for long-term protection of
state waters from harmful invasive species.
To continue the focus on invasive species,
President Clinton signed an Executive Order on
February 3, 1999, which is raising the profile on
invasive species prevention and control efforts
in the Great Lakes Basin. The Executive Order
aims to prevent the introduction of invasive
species, provide for their control, and minimize
the economic, ecological, and human health
impacts that invasive species cause. This
executive order features:
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
* a requirement that all relevant Federal
agencies use their programs and authorities
to prevent the introduction of invasive species,
detect and respond to new populations,
restore natives species in affected
ecosystems, and promote public education;
• establishment of a federal multi-agency
Invasive Species Council; and
• development of an Invasive Species
Management Plan to detail and recommend
performance-oriented goals and objectives.
Controlling the Spread of Established
Species
Protecting a $4.5 Billion Fishery from Sea
Lamprey Predation
The sea lamprey is a parasitic invasive species
native to the Atlantic Ocean that is able to spawn
and live entirely in fresh water. It was first found
in Lake Ontario in 1835, made its way to Lake
Erie by 1921, and then spread quickly into the
upper Great Lakes. The sea lamprey is still found
in great abundance in Lakes Michigan and Huron.
This aggressive species feeds on bodily fluids of
Great Lakes fish, often resulting in the scarring
and/or subsequent death of the host individual.
Control measures coordinated by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission (GLFC), conducted by the
FWS, and supported by Federal, Provincial, State
and Tribal governments have brought the lamprey
population under control in most areas. Methods
of control include introduction of sterile males in
order to decrease spawning success, lampricide
treatments, and barriers in streams to prevent the
species from reaching the lake. The program has
allowed the re-emergence of some of the fish
species thought to have previously disappeared
from the Great Lakes. In Lake Michigan, sea
lamprey numbers are currently 10 percent of their
maximum populations in the 1950s.
Recent efforts have focused on reducing
populations in the St. Mary's River, which contains
the largest uncontrolled sea lamprey population
in the Great Lakes Basin. The integrated control
program began in 1997 and continued in 1999.
This program consists of trapping and removing
spawning lampreys, stocking sterile male
lampreys, and treatment of larval concentrations
with granular Bayluscide. Approximately 24,000
sterile male lampreys have been released into
900
800-
Vertical I nes represent the first complete lake-wide stream treatment in the associated lake
1950
1955 1960 1965 1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995 2000
Lake Superior • • Lake Michigan
•Lake Huron
• Lake Erie Lake Ontario
Figure 27. Sea lamprey control has achieved varying levels of success in the Great Lakes Basin (Source:
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1999).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
the river to date. Control crews completed the
application of granular Bayluscide to
approximately 2,000 acres of larval habitat. After
this extraordinary international effort, the GLFC
announced in December 1999 that preliminary
assessments showed significant reductions in
sea lamprey larvae populations in the St. Mary's
River. Data indicate that the lampricide treatment
eliminated nearly half of the sea lampreys in the
St. Mary's River and it also achieved a significant
increase in trapping and sterile male release. The
integrated lampricide, trapping, and sterile male
release puts the GLFC on track to eliminate 92
percent of the sea lampreys produced in the river,
thereby achieving the goal of reducing parasitic
lampreys in Lake Huron and northern Lake
Michigan by 85 percent over the next 15 years.
Such a reduction will allow for the resumption of
other fishery rehabilitation efforts in Lake Huron.
The FY 2000 Federal budget includes an
additional $1 million for Great Lakes sea lamprey
control, largely to address the sea lamprey
problem on the St. Mary's River. The federal
increase, coupled with funds provided by the State
of Michigan, will allow the GLFC to reign in the
last remaining out-of-control population of sea
lampreys in the Great Lakes.
"We spend several million dollars a year
sterilizing, catching, poisoning, putting up
barriers to suppress the sea lamprey. Well,
it's still there. And it may never go away.
But for every dollar we invest, the Great
Lakes earn $30.25 in increased fisheries
revenue. Your stock portfolio should
perform as well."
— "Launching a Counterattack Against
the Pathogens of Global Commerce"
Prepared Remarks of Secretary of the
Interior Bruce Babbitt First National
Conference on Marine Bioinvasions
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sea
Grant College, January 26, 1999.
Understanding the Impacts of Zebra Mussels
Zebra mussels are believed to have been
transported to the Great Lakes through ballast
water from the Caspian Sea. Discovered in 1988,
they have spread rapidly to all of the Great Lakes.
Zebra mussels, accidentally transported by
recreational boaters, are now turning up in inland
waters in all eight Great Lakes states. Because
they rapidly reproduce, they have clogged up
water and drain pipes at municipal water supplies
and industries, they have displaced native
freshwater mussels, and they have drastically
altered the food chain.
Ecosystem Response to Zebra Mussels
Zebra mussels attached to a native species.
Zebra mussels continue to profoundly affect the
Great Lakes ecosystem. This prolific mollusk
filters microscopic algae from the water column,
diverting nutrients from open water to lake bottom
systems, thus favoring bottom-feeding fish and
their predators over those that feed in the open
water, traditionally lake trout, lake herring (Cisco),
and chubs. Aquatic rooted plants and their
communities (e.g., large mouth bass) thrive in
water cleared by zebra mussels, while habitat is
reduced for species adapted for turbid waters
{e.g., walleye).
Results from a 3-year study designed to compare
the structure and productivity of the lower food
webs across the Great Lakes documented
unprecedented changes in the flow of nutrients
in the lower food web of Lakes Ontario and Erie.
Nutrient concentrations in the lower lakes are
approaching those in the upper lakes and the
biological community appears to be in transition,
as present communities are very different from
those previously documented.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Native Union ids (clams), the largest and longest-
lived invertebrates in the Great Lakes Basin, are
key players in the movement of organic and
inorganic particulate matter between the sediment
layer and overlying water column. Native Unionid
populations are generally highly vulnerable to
impact and even extirpation by invading zebra
mussels. The species diversity and density of
Unionids has severely declined in Lake Erie, the
Detroit River, and Lake St. Clair since the arrival
of zebra mussels in the mid-1980s.
In some areas of the lakes, such as Saginaw Bay,
the growth of zebra mussels may be leveling off.
A 7-consecutive-year study by NOAA's GLERL
covering the period before, during, and after the
peak invasion of zebra mussels has shown that
the abundances and biomass of zebra mussels
have not changed since 1993. This may indicate
that the population in Saginaw Bay has assumed
an equilibrium with the altered environment.
Ongoing Contaminant Pathway Studies
Because of the huge volumes of water they filter
and their high body-fat content, zebra mussels
can accumulate about 10 times more PCBs and
other toxic contaminants than native mussels.
These contaminants are transferred up the food
chain to waterfowl and fish. This potential to
significantly affect contaminant cycling is of
concern in the Great Lakes, where health
advisories already exist for consumption of some
species of fish, and is the subject of several
ongoing investigations.
Zebra Mussels and Toxic Microcystis Algae
Blooms
A particular emphasis of GLERL's nonindigenous
species research from 1995 to 1997 has been
examining the role of the zebra mussel in
promoting nuisance blooms of the potentially toxic
blue-green algae Microcystis in Saginaw Bay, and
the effects of these blooms on the ecosystem and
the mussels themselves. Microcystis blooms
have also been recently experienced in Lake
Michigan and Lake Erie. These blooms are
associated with taste and odor problems in
drinking water. Experiments at GLERL with water
Zebra Mussel Range
June 1988
, '/j I * rrfiKt
- {' < J>1C / %
f—:
i V
Zebra Mussel Range/ ^
February 1998
VI
Figure 28. These maps Illustrate the remarkable rate
of expansion of the zebra mussels from Isolated ar-
eas in June 1988 to a large area distribution by Feb-
ruary 1998 (Source: National Zebra Mussel & Aquatic
Nuisance Species Clearinghouse).
from Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie have shown that
zebra mussels selectively filter and reject
phytoplankton so as to promote and maintain
Microcystis blooms. Using special video
equipment, GLERL showed that mussels filter the
water whether or not Microcystis are present, but
they expel Microcystis back into the water while,
at the same time, eating other algae.
Round Goby Dispersal Barrier for the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal
The round goby, first found in the St. Clair River
in 1990, has already spread to all the Great Lakes.
This small, bottom-dwelling, aggressive exotic
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
fish, which feeds on zebra mussels, found an
abundant food supply in the Great Lakes, thus
fueling their rapid expansion throughout the
The aggressive round goby is competing with and
often replacing native species sharing their habitat.
system. Unfortunately, they also compete with
and can replace native species sharing their
habitat. They have already extirpated the native
mottled scufpin in several areas. It is now well
positioned to invade the Mississippi River basin
via the Calumet Sag Channel and the Sanitary
and Ship Canal near Chicago. To control the
short-term spread of the goby, a barrier consisting
of an electric field appears to be the best approach
to control the downstream spread of the goby. The
goby dispersal barrier will be located downstream
from farthest point of the goby's range. Federal
funding through the Corps ($500,000) and EPA
($250,000) will support the design and
construction of the dispersal barrier.
Ongoing Monitoring of the Eurasian Ruffe
The Eurasian ruffe Is another unwelcome visitor to
our lakes, competing with native trout and perch.
The Eurasian ruffe, a spiny fish with minimal food
value, continues to pose a major threat to the
Great Lakes ecosystem. Native species such as
trout and perch have trouble competing with the
prolific ruffe. Introduced to Duluth Harbor in the
early 1980s, the ruffe has spread much more
gradually than the zebra mussel.
In western Lake Superior, the ruffe has become
the predominant fish species in bays and
estuaries. The ruffe has now extended its range
from Lake Superior to northern Lake Huron and
poses a threat to native species, especially yellow
perch.
New Exotic Species Found in the Great Lakes
Cercopagis pengoi
is the latest exotic
crustacean to in-
vade the Great
Lakes (Source: M.
Rosenberg, IKI, Fin-
land).
Cercopagis pengoi is the latest exotic crustacean
to invade the Great Lakes. This predatory
cladoceran was first identified by Canadian
scientists in Lake Ontario in early August of 1998.
Cercopagis is indigenous to the Caspian, Azov,
and Aral Seas. It is unknown at this point how
long Cercopagis has inhabited the Great Lakes
before first being reported, and what future
impacts it may have. Given the linkages between
Lake Ontario and the other lakes, it is likely that
this animal will spread throughout the lakes in
time. Given the high densities observed during
the summer of 1998, it is possible that predation
pressure by Cercopagis on smaller cladocerans
can affect both the size and composition of phyto-
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
plankton communities. In addition, Cercopagis
may impact fish populations by competing with
newly-hatched fishes for small prey items, or
conversely, by becoming prey itself for fish beyond
the first year.
Prevention of Future Introductions from
Ballast Water
The primary vector for unintentional invasions of
aquatic nuisance species is ballast water in ships.
Over the past 10 years, virtually all of the known
invasive species introductions have been
associated with ballast water. The problem of
exotics in ballast water has risen to attention in
the U.N. International Maritime Organization
(IMO) as a serious environmental issue and has
now received attention from a number of the
maritime nations, with Australia, Canada, and the
U.S. taking the lead.
The Great Lakes regime established under the
U.S. Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 and NISA (1996) is as
yet the only general, mandatory control regime
that is based on research and guidelines
previously developed by Canada and Australia.
The existing Great Lakes regime requires vessels
entering from the sea to either exchange ballast
during their ocean voyage or seal ballast tanks
for the duration of their stay. The increase in
salinity from a ballast exchange kills many
freshwater organisms that may be in the vessel's
tanks.
The Challenge of Managing Ballast Water
It is now widely recognized that ballast exchange
is not safe or practical for a significant number of
ships without some alteration of tanks or piping
systems. Therefore, it is imperative to develop
improvements in the design of ballast systems
allowing for either improved exchange or
treatment of the water. The problem is further
compounded by the fact that many water
vesselsenter the Lakes fully loaded and, thus,
have no ballast on board ("NOBOB" vessels).
However, there is always a small amount of ballast
water that cannot be pumped out and that water
is enough to support fishlife. Also, over time,
bottom sediment collects in ballast tanks and that
"mud" can likewise support fish and plant life.
Preventing the introduction of exotics via ballast
water Is of paramount Importance in the Great
Lakes.
The most recent review of potential ballast water
control options conducted by the U.S. National
Research Council Marine Board indicated that
four options should be given priority
consideration: (1) filtering; (2) nonoxidizing
biocides; (3) heat; and (4) retrofitting or redesign
of ballast systems to allow safe and effective
exchange. These approaches are addressed in
a "Binational Ballast Water Research Strategy
and Plan" laid out in the 1996-1997 Binational
Report on Protection of Great Lakes Water
Quality submitted by Canada's Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada Marine
Safety, and the U.S. Coast Guard in October
1997. This binational report presents a clearly
focused plan, supported by both the Canadian
and U.S. agencies responsible for regulating
ballast water, for conducting the additional work
that needs to be done to raise the level of
protection for the Great Lakes watershed and the
North American continent in the near future.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Coasf Guard Actions to Prevent Invasive
Species Introductions
In 1998, the Coast Guard published a draft
national ballast management program pursuant
to NISA and is expected to issue final rules for
U.S. national ballast management. Beginning on
July 1,1999, all ships entering the U.S. must tell
the Government what they have done on the high
seas to protect American waterways from invading
species. This interim regulation puts into action
a 1996 law extending to all ports measures that
had been in effect only on the Great Lakes. The
year 2000 is the earliest date an international
ballast management regulation (currently under
development by the IMO) could be enacted. In a
move supportive of the Coast Guard measures,
the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force passed a resolution on April 30, 1999, to
accelerate its efforts to eliminate invasive species
that enter U.S. harbors through ballast water
pumped from ships.
Preventing introductions via ballast water will not
end the potential for new invasive species in the
Great Lakes. Intentional and unintended releases
will still occur. Educating the public about the
impacts of these foreign invaders to the basin
ecosystem and restoring native populations are
equally important components for addressing this
ongoing issue.
MONITORING THE GREAT LAKES
Ongoing monitoring is essential to successfully
manage the natural resources and ensure the
environmental protection of the Great Lakes.
Yearly or cyclical monitoring ensures that the
effectiveness of long-term programs can be
assessed and enables the early detection of new
environmental problems. Special short-term
studies can help elucidate more specialized
information as needed. Together, this information
helps researchers and managers separate the
effects of each of the stressors that influence the
biology and chemistry of the Great Lakes.
Through a partnership of Federal, State, and
Tribal agencies, the Great Lakes monitoring
programs help develop more informed and
improved decisions for restoring and maintaining
a healthy ecosystem.
Monitoring the health of the Great Lakes
Is a cooperative effort involving all levels
of government.
Open Water Monitoring
Open water programs help track progress made
towards mitigating long-standing problems in the
Great Lakes, such as PBTs and nutrient
enrichment (eutrophication). Monitoring
programs help determine sources of PBTs and
how they move through the ecosystem. Similarly,
nutrient trends and loads can be determined, as
well as the resulting effects on nuisance algae,
oxygen concentrations, and fish community
structure. These studies help direct resources
to where they will have their greatest impact.
Three Federal agencies implement significant
open water monitoring on the Great Lakes:
NOAA, USGS, and EPA's GLNPO (air toxicants
monitoring is addressed in the air toxics section
of this report).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Most of NOAA's Great Lakes research is
performed at the GLERL. GLERL is multi-
disciplinary, with the goal of developing and
advancing improved understandings of the
structure and function of the Great Lakes and
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
other coastal ecosystems. GLERL performs
research in several core programmatic areas,
furthering our understanding of the Great Lakes
ecosystems and how they can be sustained.
These core programs include field and laboratory
nonindigenous species research, lower food web
studies, toxic organic contaminants studies, and
climate change analyses.
U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC)
uses interdisciplinary approaches, teams, and
collaboration to provide the information needed
to solve the complex biological issues and natural
resource management problems facing the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Center staff have a wealth of
expertise in fish stock assessment and
community dynamics, aquatic habitat and food
web interactions, nearshore and coastal
wetlands, terrestrial ecology, and exotic species.
The GLSC operates five research vessels, one
on each lake. The vessels are equipped for fish
population assessment studies, as well as for
limnological and habitat sampling. The Center
also has extensive laboratory facilities. Studies
are conducted in the field and in the Center's
laboratories to provide information for
management of populations and control of exotic
nuisance species. Key species, such as lake
trout and their prey, are studied to restore and
enhance fish populations. Field studies range
from evaluating habitat, such as oak savannah,
to determining the spread of zebra mussels and
their impact.
EPA's state of the art Great Lakes Research Vessel,
RIV Lake Guardian.
Great Lakes National Program Office
As part of its long-term trends program, the EPA's
GLNPO conducts biannual monitoring surveys of
the Great Lakes from the RIV Lake Guardian.
The objectives of the surveys are to:
• assess the state of water quality in the open
lake basins (water greater than 30 meters in
depth or greater than 3 miles from shore);
• provide data to detect and evaluate trends and
annual changes in nutrients, phytoplankton,
and zooplankton; and
• provide data sufficient to verify or modify water
quality models.
The RIV Lake Guardian also assists other Great
Lakes monitoring as well, including the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance and the Episodic
Events-Great Lakes Experiment (EEGLE) Study.
Cooperative Monitoring Programs
Certain Great Lakes studies are beyond the scope
of any one agency. Various partnerships of
Federal, State, and Tribal agencies have been
established for several new Great Lakes
monitoring programs over the past 2 years as well
as continuing their efforts on the ongoing Great
Lakes Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program.
Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program
The Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program (GLFMP) began in 1980 as a
cooperative effort by EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, the Biological Resources Division
of the USGS (formerly part of FWS), and the eight
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Great Lakes States, to monitor and better define
the fish contaminant problem in the Great Lakes.
The GLFMP has, since its inception, served as a
model for interagency cooperation and
coordination.
There are two major components of this program.
The first focuses on evaluating the impacts of
contaminants on the fishery; the second focus is
on quantifying potential human exposure to
contaminants through fish consumption. The
impacts on the fishery are investigated by the
collection and analysis of lake trout (walleye in
Lake Erie) and their primary forage from each of
the Great Lakes. Water column contaminant data
have also been collected to assist interpretation
of fish contaminant trends, and to allow for
calculation of exposure of open lake fish to
contaminants.
vmtni ZH»HI?Z inzrniu
Figure 29. Southern Basin Plume as identified dur-
ing the EEGLE study (Source: NOAA-GLERU
Potential human exposure to contaminants is
monitored by sampling two popular sport species:
coho and chlnook salmon. The inclusion of coho
salmon in this program also provides a snapshot
of contaminant concentrations across the Great
Lakes in fish of consistent age. These top
predator species typically have shorter exposures
than the lake trout and walleye. Coho and Chinook
salmon are collected by the eight Great Lakes
States from tributary mouths during the fall
spawning run. In Lake Erie, rainbow trout are
also collected from the Ohio and Pennsylvania
waters.
Episodic Events-Great Lakes Experiment
(EEGLE) Study
NOAA's GLERL is leading a study of the impact
of episodic storm events on sediment
resuspension and constituent transport, and the
subsequent ecological effects, in Lake Michigan.
During 1998, a record resuspension event oc-
curred, creating a plume of high turbidity that
spread around the perimeter of the southern ba-
sin {Figure 29). A total of 38 cruises on four
different vessels totaling approximately 120 days
and a 1-day Coast Guard helicopter drifter de-
ployment flight were conducted. In addition to
extensive sampling of the resuspension plume
and background environments, several new in-
struments were tested.
A complementary study of the importance of such
episodic resuspension events to the cycling of
contaminants has also been initiated by GLNPO.
Researchers onboard the R/V Lake Guardian
measured levels of PCBs and PAHs in both the
air and water in order to determine the influence
of this plume on the rate of exchange of toxicants
between air and water.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study/
Enhanced Monitoring Program is the largest
multimedia toxic contaminant monitoring and
modeling project ever undertaken by EPA. It is
designed to answer questions that will help
environmental managers make well informed,
scientifically-based decisions on reducing toxic
pollutants in Lake Michigan. The mass balance
model will determine what effects reduction in
pollutant loads will have on the lake and, in
particular, on contaminant levels in fish tissue.
The model's findings will help target future Lake
Michigan LaMP toxic load reduction efforts at the
Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels. EPA will
use the lake models, including computational
transport models, mass balance models, and
bioaccumulation models, in conjunction with
measured constituent loadings, to simulate the
seasonal cycle of primary production in the lake,
as well as the transport, exchange, phase
distribution, and biogeochemical transformation
of the target chemical pollutants through the water
column and the sediments.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Figure 30. The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study
has identified levels of mercury loadings from vari-
ous Lake Michigan tributaries (Source: Lake Michi-
gan Mass Balance, U.S. EPA, 1999).
St. Louis River Loading Study
In September 1999, the MPCA, under an EPA
grant, completed a study on toxicants loading to
Lake Superior from the Duluth-Superior Harbor.
The study found that some toxic contaminants
(such as mercury, dieldrin, DDT, PCBs, and
2,3,7,8-TCDD) regularly exceed water quality
standards in parts of the lower St. Louis River.
The MPCA has listed the reaches that exceed
standards for these chemicals on the draft 2000
303(d) list. The study also found that the load of
some chemicals leaving the harbor and entering
Lake Superior was greater than the load to the
harbor from the St. Louis and Nemadji Rivers.
This suggests that the harbor is an additional
source of dieldrin, DDT, and PCBs. The study
also estimates that the St. Louis River system
contributes less than 2 percent of the toxicants
loading to Lake Superior.
Lake Ontario Biomonitoring Project
The Lake Ontario Biomonitoring Project is a
cooperative long-term study being carried out by
NYSDEC, FWS, the MCDH, and Cornell
University. The program provides basic
information on the status of the lower food web
of Lake Ontario and links with closely allied
projects such as current Sea Grant projects
assessing the role of embayments and inshore
habitats as critical nursery grounds for alewife;
the ecology of new exotic zooplankton,
Cercopagis pengoi; and the early life history of
trout and salmon. Nutrients, phytoplankton, and
zooplankton are sampled from spring through fall
at several embayment, nearshore and openwater
stations that allow the identification of temporal
and geographic trends. This information will help
better understand the impacts that the zebra and
quagga mussels have had on the system. A
similar cooperative monitoring project is being
initiated for Lake Erie.
A New Partnership: The Lake Michigan
Monitoring Coordination Council
The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination
Council was established jointly by various
Federal, State and Tribal agencies involved in the
environmental protection and resource
management efforts in the Lake Michigan basin,
in conjunction with the National Water Quality
Monitoring Council. Its mission is to provide a
forum for the coordination and support of
monitoring activities in the basin and to develop
and make available a shared resource of
information, based on accepted standards and
protocols, that is usable across agency and
jurisdictional boundaries.
Sfafe of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC)
The third biennial SOLEC was held October
21-23,1998, in Buffalo, NY, and attended by over
450 people who make decisions that affect the
Great Lakes. During the year prior to SOLEC'98,
an intensive binational effort was directed toward
establishing a consistent, easily understood set
of ecosystem indicators to allow for more
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
coordinated monitoring and better reporting on
progress achieved under the GLWQA. The
indicators were organized around seven principal
categories: open and nearshore waters, coastal
wetlands, nearshore terrestrial areas, human
health, land use, and stewardship. After the
conference, the list was refined to reflect the
comments and observations received at
SOLEC'98, and it will be widely distributed for
review and suggestions by all Great Lakes
stakeholders.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
The U.S. Great Lakes
Program recognizes the
importance of citizen
knowledge of and participation
in issues of environmental
significance. It is because of
this that program partners constantly strive to
identify new means of disseminating information
to the public. The Internet has proven to be an
excellent tool in the effort to increase public
access to Great Lakes environmental information.
Many agency home pages on a wide variety of
topics are now available to the public. The Great
Lakes Information Network (GLIN), financially
backed in part by GLNPO, provides information
relating to the binational Great Lakes region at:
http:llwww.great-lakes.net
A great number of high quality spatial data sets
covering the Great Lakes region are owned,
enhanced, and used by a few Federal, State and
Provincial agencies. At this time, there is no easy,
reliable, and cost-effective mechanism to promote
data-sharing and coordination. Based on GLIN's
formula for building online partnerships among
U.S. and Canadian agencies and organizations,
the Great Lakes GIS Online project will provide a
solid foundation for interagency spatial data
sharing and collaboration.
EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" Internet site, which
houses the Agency's first comprehensive
assessment of U.S. watersheds, allows the public
to locate, use, and share environmental
information on a particular watershed or
community. The main purpose of "Surf Your
Watershed" is to get environmental information
into the hands of citizens and groups active in
protecting and managing the environment.
Providing the public with this information is an
extremely important step in improving our nation's
water quality and protecting the health of the
American public. This site can be found at:
www.epa.gov/suif
A particular watershed can be selected by using
maps or searching by State, Indian Tribe, County,
or zip code. A search can also be based local
stream names, water bodies, or even large-scale
ecosystems. At the state or watershed level, there
is information regarding protection efforts,
environmental/public health conditions, fish
advisories, drinking water, land use, population,
Superfund sites, and effluent discharges. The
public also will be able to retrieve the overall score
for a watershed, which will reflect conditions and
vulnerability, additional information provided by
states, and links to public and volunteer
organizations working to protect and restore water
at the regional, State, and watershed level. A map
of the watershed or area can also be requested.
An index of watershed indicators is located at:
www.epa.gov/surf/iwi
The Great Lakes Computer Center provides a
database to support regional information systems
including Great Lakes Envirofacts, which consists
of EPA facility information in an easily accessible
format, RAPIDS, and the database of the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance. The public is now able
to easily search Great Lakes Envirofacts through
the Internet at:
www.epa.gov/enwro
GLNPO, through a grant to the Great Lakes
Commission, has developed a publicly-
accessible homepage to provide information on
AOCs. The site provides multi-part reports on
each of the AOCs. The reports begin with
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
background information such as the location of
the AOC, the use of the AOC, the community
surrounding the AOC, and the reason why the
AOC is polluted. The report also lists the status
of each of the 14 beneficial uses. The final section
of each article illustrates graphically the RAP
status: how close to completion the RAP is for
problem definition, planning, implementation, and
restoration of beneficial use. The text portion of
this section describes these efforts in detail. This
information can be viewed at:
www.epa.gov/glnpolaoc
EPA continues to distribute large numbers of the
popular third edition of The Great Lakes: An
Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, which
was co-authored with Environment Canada. This
excellent resource has been distributed to many
of the Basin's schools and libraries as well as to
a variety of other public and private institutions.
The atlas is also available on the Internet at:
www.epa.govlglnpolatlaslintro.html
EPA has initiated the Sector Facility Indexing
Project to make it easier for the public to evaluate
the environmental records of facilities and
compare their environmental performance. This
initiative is the first time that cross-program EPA
data has been compiled in one place in a manner
that will allow examination of facility-level
environmental records. Data collected under the
Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, RCRA, and the
TRI for five industry sectors (petroleum refining,
iron and steel, pulp mills, primary nonferrous
metals, and automobile assembly) relating to past
compliance history, facility size, pollutant releases
and toxicity, and surrounding population has been
aggregated and is available for public review at:
http:lles.epa.govloecalsfil
GLERL and the Ohio State University have
successfully developed and implemented the
Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System, which
makes regularly scheduled forecasts of the
physical environment and related variables, such
as surface water temperature, vertical
temperature structure, water surface elevation
and currents for Lake Erie; and wind fields and
wave heights for all the Great Lakes. This
information can be found at:
http:llsuperior.eng.ohio-state.edul
The state of Michigan has created two web sites
containing important Great Lakes information.
The first site, describing the Lake Huron Initiative,
can be found at:
www.deq.state.mi.uslogllhuron.html
Another site containing information on Great
Lakes trends can be found at:
www.deq.state.mi.uslogilTrends.pdf
The Inland Seas Education Association will
design, program, and set-up an interactive
website to expand and enhance its education
program entitled "Schoolship." Through the
"virtual schoolship," those students unable to
participate in education programs on-board an
Inland Seas research vessel will be able to
interact online. Students will be able to download
and manipulate data, request specific information,
and ask questions of Schoolship professionals
and other Schoolship participants. They will be
challenged to navigate through the website,
perform virtual testing and sampling, view
pictures, and record observations. The website
will also facilitate participation in the pre/post
"Schoolship" activities and will enable students
to apply their knowledge to their own
communities.
The Great Lakes Science Center In Cleveland allows
for "hands on" learning about the lakes.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
The Northern Michigan University Seaborg
Center will create a comprehensive water quality
monitoring program in their local watershed. Ten
middle and high schools will monitor the quality
of their local water supply with equipment
provided by the Center. Data collected will then
be posted on a website along with other water
quality information and resources. Teachers in
participating schools will attend two water
education workshops in which they will learn how
to incorporate interactive activities into their
classroom curriculum. Participating schools will
also conduct a public education session for their
local community in which they will educate
residents about water quality issues.
Cleveland's GLSC, a museum dedicated to
educating the public on science and the Great
Lakes in a hands-on, interactive manner, opened
in July 1996 to throngs of school children and
others, pushing first year attendance numbers
well above the goal of 650,000. Aided by a $2
million grant from EPA, the museum will use the
hands-on approach to serve one of its primary
goals of being an engine for science education
for school-aged children.
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
AND COMPLIANCE
vent a million pounds
substances from
ischarged to the
t Lakes annually.
Figure 31. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
The commitment to ecosystem protection is
buttressed by strong compliance with and
enforcement of environmental laws. State and
Federal agencies continue to develop necessary
regulations and take enforcement actions around
the Great Lakes region. Some examples follow.
Implementation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance
The Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (the
Guidance) establishes consistent goals for state
water quality management plans, which are
critical to the success of domestic and
international efforts to protect and restore the
Great Lakes Ecosystem. Over the past 2 years,
all of the Great Lakes States and the Oneida Tribe
have adopted and implemented revisions to their
water quality standards to comply with the
Guidance, with a few insignificant exceptions.
The States are also using the procedures outlined
in the Guidance to derive new criteria and values
where they are needed to protect aquatic
organisms, wildlife, and humans. New York State
has chosen to apply the water quality standard-
based provisions of the Guidance statewide. EPA
is actively reviewing the State standards and
implementation procedures, a process that turned
out to be significantly more complex than was
anticipated. Several Great Lakes Tribes are also
developing water quality standards.
The Guidance uses current scientific principles
and data analysis to address the threat of
persistent toxic pollutants that accumulate in the
Great Lakes food web. It was initially developed
by the eight Great Lakes States, EPA, and other
Federal agencies in consultation with citizens,
local governments, and industries.
To further protect public health and help restore
the Great Lakes, EPA proposed an amendment
to the Guidance (published in the Federal
Register on October 4, 1999) that would
significantly reduce direct discharges of Guidance
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs)
into the Great Lakes. These include mercury,
PCBs, dioxin, chlordane, DDT and mirex. The
proposal seeks to phase out the discharges of
these BCCs into "mixing zones" - areas of the
Lakes where discharges of toxic chemicals are
allowed to mix with receiving waters and dilute.
This proposal would prohibit new discharges of
BCCs into mixing zones in the Great Lakes Basin
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
and would phase out the use of existing mixing
zones for BCCs in the Great Lakes Basin over
10 years. Governors in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin have already
eliminated mixing zones for BCCs in the Great
Lakes. The EPA proposal would eliminate mixing
zones in the states of New York, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania. Information on the proposed rule
is available on the Internet at:
ivwvv.epa.gov/osf/6L/
SEPsllnjunctive Relief
A Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) is
a project, not strictly necessary for compliance,
that a violator agrees to undertake as part of a
settlement to better the environment. Injunctive
relief requires the violator to cease the
environmentally injurious behavior. EPAcan use
SEPs and injunctive relief to correct problems and
to improve the environment. Between FY 1997
and 1999, Great Lakes Basin SEPs have yielded
$90.2 million in environmental protection
(pollution reduction, pollution prevention, etc.)
while injunctive relief has yielded almost $476
million during the same period. Appendix I
addresses this subject in more detail.
Natural Resource Damage Assessments
(NRDAs)
The U.S. is pursuing cleanup and restoration of
natural resources at sites impacted by
contaminants through NRDAs. The major goals
of NRDAs are to eliminate or reduce the impact
of persistent contaminants on natural resources,
restore the services and benefits provided to the
public by natural resources, and collect monetary
damages for injuries to natural resources. NRDAs
are being conducted or have been completed in
Northwest Indiana; Saginaw River, Michigan; and
the Fox River, Wisconsin.
Saginaw River and Bay NRDA
As a result of a June 1999 Consent Decree, the
natural resource damages settlement will fund the
removal of 345,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sediments from the Saginaw River,
Michigan AOC, provide for land acquisition for
Saginaw Bay
Nature Resource Damage Settlement
• 345,000 cubic yard of
PCB contaminated
sediments, removed
with an environmental
dredge.
In addition:
• 1600+acres threatened
species habitat.
• Lakeplain and coastal
wetland habitat.
Saginaw Bay Watershed
Figure 32. The Saginaw Bay NRDA will lead to on-
the-ground environmental improvements.
habitat enhancement and restoration, and
establish a restoration account for restoring,
studying, and monitoring the Saginaw River and
Bay watershed. At the Saginaw River and Bay
AOC, the Corps' existing CDF will be used for
the management of contaminated sediments
removed as part of a environmental remediation
settlement with industry.
Grand Calumet NRDA
In 1996, a NRDA Pre-Assessment Screen was
signed for the Grand Calumet area in Northwest
Indiana. The Trustees, which include IDEM,
Indiana DNR, FWS, and the National Park
Service (NPS), determined that damage to natural
resources occurred in the area due to releases
of hazardous substances and oil and have, to
date, identified 16 PRPs. The final assessment
plan, which will serve as the guiding document
for all damage assessment activities, was
completed in October 1997, with implementation
beginning immediately thereafter.
Fox River NRDA
The FWS, acting on behalf of the Federal and
Tribal natural resource trustees, has undertaken
one of the largest and most complex NRDAs in
the U.S. This assessment now forms the nucleus
of a joint trustee-EPA-State-Tribal effort to
understand, remediate, and restore the Lower Fox
River, Green Bay, and Lake Michigan, particularly
as related to Fox River PCBs. The assessment
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
is based on the goals and information developed
by the Lake Michigan LaMP and will lead to
reductions of PCB loadings to the Great Lakes,
as well as significant restoration of the Fox River
and Green Bay environment. In November 1999,
as part of the assessment process, the FWS
estimated that over $100 million in public
damages caused by lost fishing opportunities
were incurred due to the impacts of fish
consumption advisories for PCBs in the Fox River
and Green Bay areas.
Superfund Cleanups
ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-MASSENA AOC
SUPERFUND CLEANUPS
In New York State at the St. Lawrence River-
Massena AOC, cleanup activities at three
large industrial sites (ALCOA, General
Motors, and Reynolds Metals), are in the
process of remediating hundreds of
thousands of cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated waste. Remediation involves
excavation, dredging, and in-place strategies
at both land-based and in-river sites. At
ALCOA, over 1 million cubic yards of haz-
ardous waste will eventually be remediated;
at General Motors and Reynolds Metals
these figures approach 500,000 and 250,000
cubic yards, respectively. Contaminated
sediment removal has taken place at Gen-
eral Motors and ALCOA involving approxi-
mately 15,000 and 3,500 cubic yards respec-
tively. Reynolds Metals is planning to dredge
over 50,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediments during the summer of 2000. Gen-
eral Motors and ALCOA are also expected
to conduct further dredging. Considerable
progress has been made with the land-based
remediation at both the ALCOA and
Reynolds Metals sites. ALCOA has com-
pleted 12 of the 14 sites addressed by en-
forcement orders and two of four additional
identified sites are complete. Reynolds Met-
als has essentially completed land-based
remediation except for activities linked to the
river work planned for 2000.
MANISTIQUE RIVER AND HARBOR
AOC SEDIMENT CLEANUP
The Manistique River flows through
Michigan's central Upper Peninsula, and
discharges into Lake Michigan at
Manistique. The AOC is the last 1.7 miles
of the river, including the harbor. Beneficial
use impairments (BUls) resulted from PCBs,
oils, and heavy metals identified as
contaminants in the 1970s. In addition, large
quantities of undecomposed sawdust
remain in harbor and river sediments from
the white pine lumbering era of more than
100 years ago, along with the relatively
sterile sandy sediment that eroded from river
banks as a result of log drives. Some
beneficial uses in the AOC continue to be
impaired because of historical pollution,
especially PCB contamination of sediments.
In 1996, EPA proposed that it had developed
innovative dredging and treatment
technologies that could be used in an
environmentally sound dredging project that
could remove PCB contamination from the
AOC. There was mutual support for the
effort among the community, the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), and EPA. Under
the agreement, PRPs will provide funding
for the dredging project equal to what it
would cost to cap the harbor and maintain it
for 30 years (estimated to be $6 million),
EPA will provide additional funding to
supplement the PRPs1 contribution, if
needed, to complete the cleanup. The PRPs
also are providing in-kind services to support
implementation of the remedy. To date, over
111,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediments containing over 2,700 pounds of
PCBs have been removed for treatment and
disposal. EPA anticipates that all the
Superfund dredging of contaminated
sediments in the harbor will be completed
by Winter 2001. Most of the BUls should
be restored, and the process for delisting
the AOC may then begin.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
The pace of Superfund site cleanups in the Great
Lakes and throughout the nation has greatly
increased. More Superfund sites have been
cleaned up in the past 3 years than in all of the
prior years of the program combined. As of March
31,1999, of the 270 Superfund sites placed on
the NPL list in EPA Region 5 {a large percentage
of which are located in the Great Lakes
watershed), cleanup construction has been
completed at 156 sites. This means long-term
response actions are in place. Many of these
sites have been completely remediated. It is
projected that the majority of the remaining sites
will have reached this stage by FY 2003.
Other Actions
> In April 1999, EPA Region 5 and the Indiana
DEQ settled a law suit with the Hammond
Sanitary District for $36 million. The money
will be used to help clean up the heavily
polluted west branch of the Grand Calumet
River. This settlement arose from claims that
the Hammond Sanitary District, the City of
Hammond, and the City of Munster were
responsible for 19,000 violations of the Clean
Water Act through the discharge of untreated
and improperly treated sewage into the west
branch of the Grand Calumet River over the
past decade. As part of the terms of the
settlement, the Hammond Sanitary District
agreed to pay $225,000 in penalties, split
equally between the U.S. and the State,
contribute $2.1 million to the existing Grand
Calumet Restoration Fund, and spend $34
million on environmental improvements to its
system including $22 million on construction
projects to eliminate illegal discharges and
$12 million on sludge lagoon closure. This
settlement, including river cleanup projects,
follows several other settlements reached with
companies along the Grand Calumet River.
Notably, it follows a 1995 settlement with major
industrial dischargers that established the
Grand Calumet River Fund to pay for the
dredging and disposal of contaminated
sediments in the river.
> The City of Erie, Pennsylvania has entered
into a Consent Decree with PADEP to spend
an estimated $90 million to upgrade and
double the capacity of the publicly-owned
treatment works, construct an overflow
retention facility, and eliminate the remaining
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the
City's system. EPA Region III awarded $13
million in March 1999 to partially fund this
project. When this work is complete, the City
of Erie will be the first major city on Lake Erie
to eliminate all CSO discharges.
INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
Partners to the U.S. Great Lakes Program have
long recognized the need to create new and
innovative solutions to the problems affecting the
Basin and that new ideas are needed among all
sectors of society to achieve the goals of the
Program. The following activities present
highlights of this approach.
Since its establishment in 1986, the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP) has benefited wetlands and bird
species that reside in wetlands. Through the
combined efforts of Federal, State, Tribal and
private natural resource organizations, projects
such as the acquisition and restoration of coastal
habitats have allowed most targeted species of
waterfowl to meet or exceed their population level
objectives under the NAWMP.
Northwest Indiana environmentalists, government
employees, and industrialists have formed the
Grand Calumet Area Partnership to clean and
revitalize the Grand Calumet River. The
Partnership will take a comprehensive approach
to cleanup and will allow for coordinated planning
and action.
Electric utility deregulation now allows consumers
to choose their electric power products and
services. The Great Lakes Protection Fund,
created by the Governors of the Great Lakes
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
States in 1989, sees this as an opportunity to
encourage the public to use the health of the
Great Lakes as a criterion in this selection and is
offering $2 million to fund projects that encourage
consumer demand for environmentally benign
sources of energy.
EPA, the Corps, the State of Ohio, and a large
number of diverse public and private
organizations at the Federal, State and local
levels have formed the locally based Ashtabula
River Partnership. The Partnership, an outgrowth
of the Ashtabula River RAP process, is seeking
to address and implement an ambitious,
comprehensive full-scale cleanup of the
contaminated sediments in the Ashtabula River
and Harbor in order to restore beneficial uses.
Signatories to the Partnership are strongly
committed to investigating the extent of
contaminated sediments, developing a plan for
the dredging and disposal of river sediments,
identifying resources necessary to carry out the
cleanup, and generating a timeline of milestones
and activities. The Partnership plans to remove
and properly dispose of roughly 1.1 million cubic
yards of sediments contaminated with PCBs,
other chlorinated organic com pounds, and heavy
metals.
A landmark agreement signed in February 1997
allows 8 of Wisconsin Electric Power Company's
13 hydroelectric projects to continue operating
and protects and enhances environmental and
recreational natural resources on nearly 23,000
acres of public utility-owned land in northern
Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. As
non-federal hydroelectric projects are normally
relicensed individually, this pioneering agreement
has resulted in greatly increased efficiency and
time savings for all signatories, which include the
company, FWS, NPS, the States of Wisconsin
and Michigan, the Michigan Hydro Relicensing
Coalition, and the River Alliance of Wisconsin.
FWS continues to actively pursue efforts to
restore and protect wetlands and associated
upland habitats on private lands through its
Partners for Wildlife program. These habitats are
valuable for migratory birds, endangered species,
anadromous and native fish, and for the many
functions they provide. In fiscal years 1996 and
1997, more than 275 wetland sites encompassing
more than 870 acres were restored or enhanced
in upper Great Lakes counties.
The State of Pennsylvania has put together a 5-
year plan to address fish species habitat diversity
and angler use of the Presque Isle Bay AOC.
While neither 'Loss of Fish Habitat' or
'Degradation of Fish Population' are considered
impairments in the AOC, the habitat enhancement
projects under this plan will improve existing
fisheries and result in positive steps toward
restoration of the Bay.
Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative
Network (WIN)
The Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network
(WIN) was created to enhance the quality of life
in the Saginaw Bay Watershed by creating
regional networks of on-the-ground projects that
demonstrate sustainability through partnerships.
The partnership includes communities,
conservationists, foundations, and businesses
working together to balance the region's
economic, environmental, and social goals.
Twelve area foundations work together as a
network to support WIN projects. This Foundation
Network includes the Bay Area Community
Foundation, Charles J. Strosacker Foundation,
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Consumers
Energy Foundation, Harry A. and Margaret D.
Towsley Foundation, Kantzler Foundation,
Midland Foundation, Rollin M. Gerstacker
Foundation, Saginaw Community Foundation,
The Dow Chemical Company Foundation, The
Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation, and
The Johnson Foundation. The Foundations
contribute a minimum of $300,000 per year to
support WIN projects.
For additional information regarding WIN see:
www.saginawbaywin. org
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
INNOVATIVE FUNDING
Clean Michigan Initiative
The State of Michigan's $675 million Clean
Michigan Bond Initiative is funding important work
in the Great Lakes Basin. Areas being addressed
include: brownfields and waterfront
redevelopment, nonpoint source control ($50
million commitment), pollution prevention, and
contaminated sediment remediation. During FY
1999, $143 million has been targeted for projects,
include the following contaminated sediment
projects:
> Detroit River/Black Lagoon - $400,000
> Pine River - $1,700,000
> Unnamed Tributary to Wolf Creek - $100,000
> Muskegon Lake/Ruddiman Creek -
$1,000,000
> White Lake-Whitehall Leather - $1,100,000
Through the Clean Michigan Initiative, the state
of Michigan has committed $25 million to the
clean up of contaminated sediment sites.
New York State Clean Air/Clean Water Bond
Act
The Bond Act authorized $25 million to implement
priorities for the Great Lakes Basin as identified
in the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie LaMPs, the
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, and the
RAPs for New York's six AOCs. The highest
priorities for selecting Bond Act projects are
controlling persistent toxicants, cleaning up
contaminated sediments, and enhancing aquatic
habitat. Approximately $23,9 million in Bond Act
funding has been awarded to 27 projects that
address these issues. These projects include
18 municipal wastewater improvement projects,
six agricultural and non-agricultural nonpoint
source abatement projects, and three aquatic
habitat restoration projects.
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
In addition to the negative impacts of sprawl,
brownfields pose a direct threat to water quality
through polluted runoff and groundwater
contamination. Brownfields economic
development and greenspace restoration in the
Great Lakes region helps protect and improve the
environmental quality and livability of the entire
Great Lakes ecosystem. By cleaning up
brownfields along lakes and rivers, we not only
restore the land, but help support beneficial water
uses - industrial, commercial and recreational —
that are inextricably linked to the adjacent land.
A brownfield is a site, or portion thereof, that has
actual or perceived contamination and an active
potential for redevelopment or reuse. Brownfield
redevelopment can be thought of as a kind of land
recycling. Often, the fears of environmental
liability or uncertainties in cleanup costs keep
developers and businesses from reusing old
commercial and industrial properties. Instead,
the tendency has been to build on greenfield sites,
with no history of past contamination. This has
been a highly destructive pattern, leading to the
consumption of prime farmland and the departure
of inner-city jobs to suburban fringe areas.
Between 1981 and 1997, the binational Great
Lakes region lost more than 11 million acres of
its farmland, an area greater, than the size of
Lakes Ontario and Erie combined. Between 1992
and 1997 alone, the U.S. side of the Great Lakes
Basin lost more than 650,000 acres of farmland.
U.S.
IL
IN
Ml
MN
FARMLAND LOSS
Great Lakes Basin (acres)
55,283 NY
214,084 OH
1,071,568 PA
133,311 PA
Total: 4,055,223
'82-'97
1,157,034
427,284
95,745
95,745
Table 5. Farmland Loss in the Great Lakes Basin from
1982 to 1997 (Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture,
USD A - National Agricultural Statistics Service, April
1999).
This problem has also afflicted small towns and
older, inner-ring suburbs, many of which are faced
with the daunting task of trying to finance the
cleanup and reuse of obsolete, abandoned
structures. In response to this situation, EPA
Region 5 made 'Promoting Sustainable Urban
Development and Reuse of Brownfields' one of
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
its five Regional Environmental Priorities in FY
1998. Sustainable development seeks to meet
the present needs of society without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. EPA's Brownfields
Initiative strategies include funding pilot programs
and other research efforts, clarifying liability
issues, entering into partnerships, conducting
outreach activities, developing job training
programs, and addressing environmental justice
concerns.
A number of notable activities have taken place
in support of reviving Brownfields and promoting
sustainable development:
> Through the Brownfields National Partnership,
the Federal government has been
encouraging its partners to incorporate the
principles of Smart Growth, sustainability and
livability into development plans. Through
these initiatives, we are showing that
environmental protection and economic
development can work together to benefit
communities.
> Thanks to the work begun by the Northwest
Indiana Cities Brownfields Pilot, the effects of
20 years of illegal dumping have vanished
from a 10-acre property. The site is now home
to a new $5 million automobile shredding
facility. Prior to its inclusion in the Pilot, the
piece of land was a vacant lot favored by
midnight dumpers. Over the years, the
accumulated garbage reached monstrous
proportions. Fears of environmental
contamination preventing redevelopment of
the site were ultimately allayed through the
combined efforts of the pilot, the State of
Indiana, and EPA. Selecting sites for
assessment that will lead to successful
redevelopment and job creation is a continued
goal of the Northwest Indiana Cities
Brownfields Pilot.
> The Grand Traverse Bay watershed is one of
the fastest growing in the Great Lakes region.
The USGS is working with Michigan State
University on a study to develop a model that
planners and policymakers can use to predict
how socioeconomic factors cause changes in
land use/land cover and how these changes
affect water quality. A standard approach to
monitor and detect water quality changes
caused by changes in land use is also being
developed. Because the watershed is
relatively healthy now, any human-caused
impact on the water quality should be easily
detected, and the findings will be transferable
throughout the Great Lakes region.
> The Cleveland metro area's Regional
Environmental Priorities Project (REPP) sets
environmental priorities for the region and
develops coalition approaches and action
strategies for addressing environmental
problems. The REPP concluded that many
of their highly ranked problems were directly
or indirectly driven by urban sprawl. It was
thus decided that urban sprawl, which was not
on the originally compiled working list of 16
problems, should take priority as the "umbrella
issue" to be addressed during the
implementation phase of the project. The
REPP was recently recognized by EPA as 1
of 10 "success story" examples of community-
based environmental protection at work.
> Other EPA regional teams in the Great Lakes
Basin have also begun to incorporate this
issue into their work. The Southeast Michigan
Team is funding a grant that is working to
increase one community's involvement in local
land use development and watershed
protection decisions; the Northwest Indiana
Team is participating in a local council on
sustainable development; the Lake Michigan
Team is assisting the Lake Michigan Public
Forum in promoting better land use planning;
the Lake Superior Team is sponsoring a land
use conference promoting better nearshore
development practices; and the Lake Erie
Team is currently studying how to incorporate
sprawl and sustainable development issues
into its planning process.
> The Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG) estimates that its
region will grow by an estimated 426,000
persons between 1995 and 2020. However,
95 percent of this growth is likely to occur in
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
32 relatively rural communities that are also
headwaters to several river systems, i.e., the
Huron, Shiawassee, Rouge, Clinton, Grand,
Belle, Black, Pine, and Raisin. SEMCOG is
working with many communities who are
proactively working to manage this growth.
This new Headwaters Project has resulted in
workshops, and the provision of data,
information and maps to enable communities
to make better planning decisions. Relevant
topics range from impervious surfaces to
greenways to appropriate zoning density.
Michigan DEQ's Office of the Great Lakes is
participating in this project as a supporting
partner.
> A company wanted to redevelop a parking lot
into a new high rise apartment complex
located at a prime location for housing and
tourist attractions near Chicago's Navy Pier.
After investigating the property, the
developers discovered the land was
contaminated with lead and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). In order to redevelop
the property, the company enrolled the site in
the Illinois Voluntary Cleanup Program. With
help from EPA and Illinois EPA, remedial
efforts were put into place, after which the
groundwater was tested and met cleanup
standards. Therefore, Illinois EPA issued a
"no further remedial/corrective action letter."
The project was completed in nine months
and allowed for the construction of a forty story
high rise complex, home to nearly 360
families, with at least 20 new jobs created.
> Kessler Products manufactured extruded
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) polymer products
from 1964 until 1994 on 15 acres in
Boardman, Ohio. Kessler Products had
previously tried to sell the facility as an
operating concern; however, because of soil
contamination at the site, no one would buy
it. The manufacturing equipment was sold
and moved to another factory and the facility
remained empty. The company tried to sell
the property, but still no one would buy it
because of the potential liability associated
with the soil contamination. EPA and the State
of Ohio worked to evaluate the level of
contamination. The State issued a
covenant-not-to-sue under the Voluntary
Action Program to Kessler Products. With
these liability uncertainties resolved and the
Kessler Product's commitment to bring the site
into compliance with the clean-up goals of the
Interim Voluntary Action, Kessler Products
was able to negotiate a sale of the property.
> Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF)
can be a powerful financial instrument for
cleanup to deal with non-point source
contamination affecting water quality.
Brownfields projects to correct or prevent
water quality problems may be eligible for
CWSRF funding, depending on the particular
State. The list of brownfields projects that may
be eligible includes site assessments,
excavation and disposal of underground
storage tanks, constructed wetlands,
stormwater runoff, well capping, and
excavation and disposal of contaminated soil.
Ohio and Wisconsin have used CWSRF funds
for a variety of brownfields/water quality
projects.
CONCLUSION
The U.S. Great Lakes Program will continue to
evolve and adapt to address ever changing
challenges. We will continue to focus efforts on
protecting the health of the residents of the Basin;
the restoration and protection of vital habitats; and
controlling the introduction and impacts of exotic
species. The Program will implement a wide
variety of means to address these issues. These
include the Remedial Action Plan and Lakewide
Management Plan processes and the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference (and other tools)
to define research priorities, ecological needs,
objectives and indicators, and appropriate
remedial actions. And we will continue to pursue
opportunities to work with our Canadian partners
on Great Lakes issues of common concern. By
successfully implementing these goals, the
United States Great Lakes Program will continue
to make tremendous strides towards protecting
and restoring the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin.
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
-------
Appendix
Appendix I
Judicial Enforcement Activities
Fiscal Years 1997 to 1999
EPA is empowered by Congress to take
enforcement action against parties that violate
Federal environmental laws. Federal
environmental laws contain enforceable
standards which, when violated, are subject to
enforcement (provided, of course, that the law at
issue, e.g., the Clean Water Act, authorizes the
enforcement).
Most all environmental statutes authorize both
the assessment of a civil penalty for violations
and injunctive relief to bring the violator back into
compliance. The Federal environmental laws also
provide for criminal penalties and jail time for
egregious violations. Civil penalties work best
for single, noncontinuous violations.
However, in cases in which the violations
continue, a civil penalty in itself is insufficient to
bring the violator into compliance. Therefore,
judges (and EPA) can order a violator to cease
its violative behavior. This is what is known as
injunctive relief (IR). An injunction is simply a
court orderto do, or refrain from doing, a particular
act. An injunction is limited to those measures that
a violator must undertake to achieve and maintain
final compliance (and to reduce the adverse
effect(s) of the violations to the greatest extent
practicable pending the achievement of final
compliance).
The Federal environmental laws also empower
EPA to issue administrative orders that require a
regulated entity to perform, or refrain from
performing, some designated action, and to come
into, and maintain, compliance with those
environmental laws.
A Supplemental Environmental Project, or SEP,
is defined as an environmentally beneficial project
that a violator agrees to undertake in settlement
of an enforcement action, but which the violator
is not otherwise legally required to perform. To
be considered a SEP, the project proposed by
the Defendant must be significantly in excess of
what is necessary to achieve and maintain
compliance with all applicable environmental laws.
The SEP is incorporated as an enforceable term
of settlement. In exchange for performance of the
SEP, the entity will receive a partial offset against
the penalty assessed in settlement of the action.
EPA places particular emphasis upon SEPs since
they provide direct environmental and/or public
health protection and improvement (and other
benefits, such as pollution prevention,
environmental justice, and environmental
education). While injunctive relief and penalties
also achieve this goal, SEPs represent a
commitment on the part of a regulated entity to
exceed compliance requirements.
The following tables provide the total numbers
and dollar amounts of SEPs, IR, and penalties
that were secured through settlement and
litigation of enforcement actions during fiscal
years 1997 to 1999. (Source: EPA Offices of
Regional Counsel, Regions 2, 3, and 5).
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Appendix
Total values for Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
Region
2
3
5
Totals
1997
Dollars
$85,128.00
$0.00
$8,502,969.50
$8,588,097.50
Cases
3
0
42
45
1998
Dollars
$119,596.00
$0.00
$9,699,064.00
$9,818,660.00
Cases
2
0
30
32
1999
Dollars
$80,626.00
$17,028.00
$71,774,891.00
$71,872,545.00
Cases
2
2
19
23
T, = $90,249,302.50
Total values for Injunctive Relief (IR)
Region
2
3
5
Totals
1997
Dollars
$20,012,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$78,189,360.00
$98,201,360.00
Cases
5
0
67
72
1998
Dollars
$75,768,000.00
$0.00
$144,229,464.00
$219,997,464.00
Cases
10
0
122
132
1999
Dollars
$216,127.00
$0.00
$141,488,458.00
$157,469,458.00
Cases
10
0
157
167
T, = $475,668,282.00
Total values for Penalties
Region
2
3
5
Totals
1997
Dollars
$191,953.00
$480,300.00
$3,391,459.00
$4,063,712.00
Cases
6
5
41
11
1998
Dollars
$252,485.00
$223,875.00
$11,546,958.00
$12,023,318.00
Cases
9
3
207
219
1999
Dollars
$216,127.00
$40,195.00
$10,422,476.00
$10,678,768.00
Cases
15
5
169
189
T. = $26,765,828.00
T, + T2 + T3 = $592,683,412.50
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Appendix
Appendix II
Federal Programs Serving the Great Lakes
Great Lakes environmental protection and natural resource management programs are divided among
many agencies, including EPA, NOAA, FWS and the USGS Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD)
in the Department of Interior, the NRCS of the Department of Agriculture, the Coast Guard of DOT, the
international commissions of the Department of State, and the Corps. This appendix briefly describes the
recent fiscal year budgets of selected Federal programs. These tables do not reflect Great Lakes funding
included in national programs. They only reflect specific Great Lakes-related programs and associated
funding.
Funding for Select Great Lakes Programs
(in millions of dollars)
Bill
Agriculture
Commerce, Justice,
State, & Judiciary
Energy & Water
Program
Conservation Operations
Great Lakes Basin Program
Conservation Reserve Program
Wetland Reserve
Great Lakes Fishery
Commission
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory
RAP Assistance
Sediment Transport Models &
Sediment Management
Planning
Environmental Dredging
Restoration of Environmental
Quality
Lake Michigan Diversion
Accounting
Soo Locks Improvements
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
Beneficial Reuse of Dredged
Materials
Duluth Alternative Technologies
Project
Planning Assistance to States
Dredging Operations
Environmental Research
Fiscal 1997
707
.35
1,857
119
8.3
3.225
5.2
0.5
0
0
17.0
0
.25
0
1.5
0
2.0
2.0
Fiscal
1998
633
.35
1,799
236
8.353
3.189
6,825
0.5
0.5
.125
21.175
.537
0.1
6
2
.2
6.0
4.0
Fiscal
1999
641
0.5
1,576
132
8.353
3.432
6.825
0.5
0.5
0
11.0
1.037
0.5
11.2
.35
.5
6.3
5.0
Fiscal 2000
661
0.5
1,578
157
9.353
3.432
6.825
0.5
0
10
11.2
0.837
0.2
6.26
1.0
0
5.8
6.5
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Appendix
Funding for Select Great Lakes Programs (Continued)
(in millions of dollars)
Bill
Interior
Transportation
VA. HUD &
Independent
Agencies
Program
Great Lakes Fish &
Wildlife Restoration
Program
USGS/BRD Great Lakes
Science Center
Icebreaker Mackinaw
Replacement
St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corp.
Great Waters Program
Great Lakes National
Program Office
ATSDR/Great Lakes
Fish Consumption Study
Watershed Management
Great Lakes
RAPs/LaMPs
Fiscal
1997
1.0
4.9
0
0
3.0
13.1
2.0
6.37
Fiscal
1998
1.578
5.9
0
11.2
3.0
15.7
2.5
6.47
Fiscal
1999
1.578
6.575
5.3
12.0
3.0
14.7
2.5
5.38
Fiscal
2000
1.978
6.575 + 0.5
for Vessel
Retrofit
13.0
12.0
1.8
15.1
1.87
4.39
Funding for Select Aquatic Nuisance Species Control Programs
(in millions of dollars)
Bill
Commerce, Justice,
State & Judiciary
Energy & Water
Interior
Transportation
Program
Sea Grant ANS Research
National ANS Task Force &
Ballast Water Demo
Program
Dispersal Barrier
Demonstration
Public Facility R&D
Aquatic Nuisance Plant
Control Research
FWS ANS Program
USGS/BRD ANS Program
Ballast Water Guidelines &
Prevention Program
Fiscal
1997
2.8
0
0
1.5
2.0
1.192
0
1.0
Fiscal
1998
2.8
1.5
0.5
2.0
3.0
2.192
.5
1.995
Fiscal
1999
2.8
1.65
0.3
0.75
3.0
2.192
5.0
3.0
Fiscal
2000
2.8
1.65
0.3
1.0
4.0
4.7
5.0
4.0
GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEM REPORT
-------
Technical Report 2005-01
NOAA's NATIONAL CLIMATIC
DATA CENTER
^t^7
Axel Graumann, Tamara Houston,
Jay Lawrimore, David Levinson, Neal Lott,
Sam McCown, Scott Stephens, David Wuertz
Asheville, NC 28801-5696
October 2005
US Department of Commerce
NOAA/NESDIS
-------
Hurricane Katrina, A Climatological Perspective
October 2005, Updated January 2006
1. Introduction
Hurricane Katrina appears to be the most costly natural disaster to strike the United States ever,
and the deadliest since the Lake Okeechobee disaster (hurricane) of September, 1928. In
addition, Katrina was one of the strongest storms to impact the coast of the United States during
the last 100 years. At landfall, sustained winds were 127 mph (a strong Category 3 hurricane on
the Saffir-Simpson scale—see Figure 2), and the minimum central pressure was the third lowest
on record (920 mb). Katrina caused widespread, massive devastation along the central Gulf
Coast states of the U.S. The flooding of New Orleans, LA following the passage of Katrina was
catastrophic, resulting in the displacement of more than 250,000 people, a higher number than
during the Dust Bow! years of the 1930's. As of early December, the death toll exceeded 1300
and damage estimates were in excess of $100 billion. For information in addition to this
climatological report, NOAA's National Hurricane Center has a detailed report online:
http://vvww.nhc.noaa.gov/20Q5atlan.shtml
2. Description and Impacts
2.1 Storm Chronology
During August 25-31,2005, Hurricane Katrina created a path of destruction across southern
Florida, and caused devastation into parts of southeast Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
The storm then tracked northward into Tennessee and Kentucky and points northeast from there,
where heavy rainfall was the main impact of the storm.
Katrina began as a tropical depression 175 miles southeast of Nassau on August 23 and
strengthened into Tropical Storm Katrina the next day as it moved erratically through the central
Bahamas. (See Figure 1 for the path of Katrina.) Katrina began strengthening rapidly and a
hurricane watch was issued for southeast Florida at 1700 EOT followed by a hurricane warning
by 2300 EDT. Katrina moved slowly westward and became a minimal Category 1 hurricane 15
miles east northeast of Fort Lauderdale at 1700 EDT on August 25. At 1830 EDT, the hurricane
made landfall between Hallandale Beach and North Miami Beach with sustained winds
estimated at 80 mph and gusts of above 90 mph. Though the storm moved southwest across the
tip of the Florida peninsula during the night, Katrina's winds decreased only slightly and it
quickly re-intensified shortly after moving over the warm waters of the Gulf. In addition to the
gusty winds, heavy rains accompanied Katrina in her trek across Florida. Although the storm
over Florida never had sustained winds higher than 80 mph, substantial damage and flooding
occurred and fourteen people lost their lives.
Katrina moved almost due westward after entering the Gulf of Mexico. A mid-level ridge
centered over Texas weakened and moved westward allowing Katrina to gradually turn to the
northwest and then north into the weakness in the ridging over the days that followed.
Atmospheric and sea-surface conditions (an upper level anticyclone over the Gulf and warm sea
-------
surface temperatures - see Figure 7) were conducive to the cyclone's rapid intensification, which
led to Katrina attaining 'major hurricane' status on the afternoon of the 26th.
Continuing to strengthen, a hurricane watch was issued by NOAA's National Hurricane Center
for parts of Louisiana at 10:00 CDT on August 27 and a hurricane warning was issued for the
north central Gulf from Morgan City eastward to the Alabama / Florida border at 10 PM CDT.
By 0700 CDT on Sunday, August 28, Hurricane Katrina reached Category 5 status with wind
speeds of 160 mph and a pressure of 908 millibars. Three hours later, the maximum sustained
wind speeds peaked near 175 mph and remained at that speed until the afternoon. At 1600 CDT,
Katrina's minimum central pressure dropped to 902 mb - the 4th lowest on record at that time for
an Atlantic storm. (Note: Three week later, Hurricane Rita reached an intensity of 897 millibars
on September 22 - the 3rd lowest on record for an Atlantic storm and knocked Katrina's record to
5th lowest pressure.) By this time Katrina was at its peak strength with hurricane force winds
extending outward up to 105 miles from the center and tropical storm force winds extending
outward up to 230 miles. Sustained tropical storm force winds were already battering the
southeast Louisiana coast. Though the storm was comparable to Camille's intensity, it was a
significantly larger storm (see Figure 14). Ominously, the 4 PM CDT Bulletin from the National
Hurricane Center warned of coastal storm surge flooding of 18 to 22 feet above normal tide
levels ... locally as high as 28 feet, and stated "Some levees in the Greater New Orleans Area
could be overtopped."
Katrina advanced toward Louisiana during the night, and by 0400 CDT on Monday, August 29,
the center was 90 miles south southeast of New Orleans. Though winds near the center had
dropped to 150 mph, gusts to hurricane force were occurring along the coast. NOAA Buoy
42040 located about 50 miles east of the mouth of the Mississippi River reported wave heights of
over 55 feet.
At 0610 AM CDT, Katrina made landfall in Plaquemines Parish just south of Buras (between
Grand Isle and the mouth of the Mississippi River) as a strong Category 3 storm, despite
entrainment of dryer air and an opening of the eyewall to the south and southwest. Landfalling
wind speeds were approximately 127 mph with a central pressure of 920 millibars-the 3rd
lowest pressure on record for a landfalling storm in the U.S. Winds at this time were gusting to
96 mph at the Naval Air Station at Belle Chasse, LA and to 85 mph at New Orleans Lakefront.
By 0800 CDT, Katrina was only 40 miles southeast of New Orleans with hurricane force winds
extending outward up to 125 miles. In the dangerous right front quadrant of the storm,
Pascagoula Mississippi Civil Defense reported a wind gust to 119 mph and Gulfport Emergency
Operations Center reported sustained winds of 94 mph with a gust to 100 mph. New Orleans
Lakefront reported sustained winds of 69 mph with gusts to 86 mph. A little earlier, Belle
Chasse reported a gust to 105 mph.
By 1000 CDT, the eye of Katrina was making its second northern Gulf coast landfall near the
Louisiana - Mississippi border. The northern eyewall was still reported to be very intense by
WSR-88D radar data and the intensity was estimated to be near 125 mph. Even an hour later and
far from the center, Dauphin Island, AL reported sustained winds of 76 mph with a gust to 102
mph, Mobile reported a gust to 83 mph, and Pensacola, FL reported a gust of 69 mph.
-------
Katrina continued to weaken as it moved north northeastward during the remainder of the day. It
was still at hurricane strength 100 miles inland near Laurel, MS. The storm was reduced to
tropical storm status by 1900 CDT when the storm was 30 miles northwest of Meridian, MS, and
became a tropical depression near Clarkesville, TN on August 30.
South of the mainland and east of Louisiana, the Chandeieur Islands have been devastated during
recent hurricane seasons. Hurricanes Lili (2002), Ivan (2004), and Dennis (2005) all did
damage, but the surge from Hurricane Katrina (2005, the strongest and closest to the
Chandeleurs) nearly destroyed the island chain.
Damage to homes and businesses in both Louisiana and Mississippi was catastrophic. The
estimate for the damage exceeds $100 billion and the death toll exceeded 1300 in early
December, and may rise somewhat higher. Katrina was the third deadliest hurricane since 1900,
being topped only by the Galveston hurricane of 1900 (8000 deaths) and the Lake Okeechobee
Hurricane of 1928 (2500 deaths). Following is a preliminary death toll by state: Louisiana -
1090, Mississippi - 228, Florida - 14, Georgia - 2, Alabama - 2.
o
Figure 1. Path and Intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
-------
Saf fir-Simpson Hurricane Scale
Category
1
2
3
4
5
Knots
64-82
83-95
96-113
114-135
136 and >
(MPH)
(74-95)
(96-110)
(111-130)
(131-155)
(156 and >)
Figure 2. Saffir-Simpson Scale for Hurricane Intensity.
2.2 Storm Surge
Though wind damage was significant, the legacy of Hurricane Katrina will be the horrific storm
surge which accompanied the storm, and appears to have exceeded 25 feet in some locations in
Mississippi (surveys are ongoing). Even though weakening before landfall, several factors
contributed to the extreme storm surge: a) the massive size of the storm, b) the strength of the
system (Category 5) just prior to landfall, c) the 920 mb central pressure at landfall, and d) the
shallow offshore waters. Sweeping through the delta country southeast of New Orleans, several
small towns were virtually obliterated and Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes were
devastated. (See Figure 4 for the preliminary US Geological Survey (USGS) stage height of the
Mississippi River at New Orleans). The surge caused the level of Lake Pontchartrain to rise,
straining the levee system protecting New Orleans. Significant failures in the levee system
occurred on August 30 on the 17th Street Canal, Industrial Canal, and London Avenue Canal
levees. Water poured into the city which sits mostly below sea level. Eventually 80 percent of
the city was underwater at depths of up to 20 feet. Though the city was essentially pumped dry
by September 20, the approaching storm surge from Hurricane Rita on September 23 caused a
new breach in the repaired Industrial Canal levee and many of the areas of the city were flooded
again.
Surges on the Mississippi coast, to the right of Katrina's second landfall, also nearly obliterated
towns. The Hancock Emergency Operations Center reported an estimated surge level of 27 feet
at their location. The damage and high water marks indicate that the surge reached from 6 to as
far as 12 miles inland in some areas, especially along bays and rivers. In Waveland, 80 percent
of all the dwellings were declared uninhabitable. The surge in the Saint Louis Bay area was
similar to that accompanying Hurricane CamiHe in 1969. (See Figure 4 for preliminary USGS
river stage height for the Wolf River station west of Landon, MS.) Further east in the Gulfport
and Biloxi areas, the surges were unprecedented, topping those of Camille by approximately 5 to
10 feet or more. (See Figure 4 for the USGS stage height for the Biloxi River.) Along much of
the spans of the Bay St. Louis Bridge and the Biloxi-Ocean Springs Bridge, only pylons remain.
-------
Refer to Figure 3 for a before and after photo in Biloxi, MS (courtesy of USGS -
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/katrina/).
September 1998
August.31, 2005
o
ZUSGS
Figure 3. USGS Before and After Photo in Biloxi, MS, Along the Coast.
Though surveys are ongoing to determine the height of the surge in various locations, the USGS
has river gauge data online (http://waterdatausgs.gov/nwis) which provides a good perspective
on the impact of the surge, rainfall, and levee breaks, along the "mouth" of several rivers—see
Figure 4. Note that these data are showing the surge of water from the Gulf of Mexico into the
-------
entrance zone for each river into the Gulf. The rises (from previous levels) for the Wolf,
Mississippi, and Biloxi Rivers are 22, 13, and 24 feet, respectively.
ruses
USGS 02481510 WOLF RIVER NR LANDON, MS
I
1
28 Rug 29 Dug 38 Hug 31Sep 81 Sep B2Sep 83 Sep 84 Sep 95 5ep 88Sep 87 Sep 88
Provisional Data Subject to Revision
ruses
USGS 07374510 (COE) Mississippi River at New Orleans, LA
16
14
12
18
8
6
4
2
8
Hug
1
It ?
..... i .4 i j_.
,J .....I j j. .„ I
T
i
28 Hug 29 Hug 38 Rug 31 Sep 81 Sep 82 Sep 83 Sep 84 Sep 85 Sep 86 Sep 87 Sep
EXPLflNflTIOM
GRGE HEIGHT
National Heather Service Floodstage, In feet
Provisional Data Subject to Revision
-------
ruses
USGS 02481000 BILOX! RIVER AT WORTHAM, MS
23
28
15
18
Rug 28 Hug 29 Rue 38 Rue 31 Sep 81 Sep 82 Sep 83 3ep 84 Sep 05 Sep 88 Sup 87 Sep 08
Provisional Data Subject to Revision
Figure 4. USGS River Gauge Data Showing Affects of Katrina's Storm Surge, Rainfall,
and Levee Breaks, at Landon, New Orleans, and Wortham.
2.3 Rainfall Data
The rainfall amounts from Katrina, though rather high in some places, were not the main impact
of the storm. The table below shows the preliminary storm totals (in inches) for the period
affected by Katrina (August 24-30, 2005), for locations with at least six inches of rain. The data
were provided by NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. Please note that due to the affects of the
storm, some totals are incomplete, and many stations along the immediate Gulf coast are not
listed for this reason.
STATION NAME
RED_BAY_12_NNE
PERRINE_5_WSW
HOMESTEAD
HOMESTEAD_5_W
FLORIDA_CITY_8_SSW
CUTLERjRIDGE_3_SSE
KEY_WEST
CUTLER_RIDGE_3_NE
MARATHON
MIAMI
RICHMOND_HEIGHTS_13_W
SWEETWATERJ 4_WSW
PORT_SALERNO_9_WSW
HOMESTEAD 24 NW
ID
CCTA1
PRRF1
HST
HGAF1
SDAF1
BCPF1
EYW
CTRF1
MTH
TMB
CHKF1
SHAF1
PTSF1
ENPF1
STATE
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
LAT
34,55
25.58
25.48
25.48
25.33
25.54
24.56
25.61
24.73
25.65
25.63
25.69
27.09
25.61
LON
-87.99
-80.44
-80.38
-80.56
-80.53
-80.33
-81.76
-80.31
-81.05
-80.43
-80.58
-80.63
-80.33
-80.85
RAINFALL
6.6
16.3
14.6
14.4
12.3
11.1
10.4
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.1
8.6
6.6
6.1
-------
SW
CUTLER_RIDGE_4_S
MOUNT_VERNON
POSEWILLE
HOPKINSVILLE_4_SW
COBB
FINNEY
ABERDEEN
BARDSTOWN
BOWLING_GREEN
DAM_49_UNION
NOLIN
BOSTON_6_SW
PROVIDENCE
BROOKSVILLE_2_
BIG_BRANCH
NEW_ORLEANS
LAPLACE_5_NE
HAMMOND_5_E
NATALBANY
BUSH
PEARL_RIVER
KENNER
COVINGTON
COVINGTON
VENICE
VENICE
SLIDELL_10_SSW
NEW_ORLEANS
COVINGTON
FRANKLINTON
DULAC_5_E
YCLOSKEY
COVINGTON_7_
NECAISE_1_N
HANCOCK
TROY_2_SE
SARAH_1_W
NOXAPATER_1_N
COLUMBIA_6_WSW
IUKA_5_S
CAESAR_3_WSW
NW
HOLCUT
ACKERMAN_3_SE
HATTIESBURG"
KOSCIUSKO
BROOKLYN_1_SW
KOSCIUSKO_13_SE
CONEHATTA
PHILADELPHIA 5 N
BBBF1
MTVI3
POSI3
HOPK2
CBBK2
BRRK2
ABEK2
BTNK2
BWG
UNWK2
NOLK2
BOSK2
PDNK2
PWVK2
NORL1
WSLL1
ROBL1
BSHL1
PERL1
CVEL1
CUSL1
VNCL1
BVE
LIBL1
MSY
FRNL1
PCDL1
BLYL1
CGSL1
NNHM6
TROM6
SARM6
NXPM6
RMAM6
IKAM6
CREM6
BLCM6
HCTM6
TNFM6
HBG
KOSM6
BKNM6
KSOM6
PLAM6
FL
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
25.52
37.95
38.17
36.85
36.98
36.90
37.23
37.80
36.96
37.80
37.28
37.75
37.40
38.65
30.55
29.93
30.10
30.51
30.55
30.63
30.39
30.13
30.48
30.49
29.28
29.33
30.14
29.99
30.48
30.84
29.39
29.84
30.56
30.62
30.39
34.09
34.58
33.02
31.21
34.73
30.57
30.85
34.73
33.28
31.27
33.05
31.05
32.98
32.46
32.84
-80.35
-87.88
-87.78
-87.55
-87.78
-86.13
-86.68
-85.47
-86.42
-87.98
-86.25
-85.75
-87.77
-84.10
-89.93
-90.14
-90.42
-90.36
-90.48
-89.90
-89.74
-90.23
-90.09
-90.17
-89.35
-89.42
-89.86
-90.26
-90.11
-90.16
-90.62
-89.69
-90.15
-89.41
-89.47
-88.86
-90.22
-89.05
-89.92
-88.18
-89.59
-89.03
-88.30
-89.14
-89.25
-89.60
-89.20
-89.39
-89.27
-89.10
6.0
7.6
6.9
11.9
9.1
8.7
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.1
14.8
13.6
12.9
11.9
10.5
10.3
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.6
8.8
8.8
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.2
6.0
10.1
9.8
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.3
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
-------
FOREST_7_N
PHILADELPHIA 3_SSE
YAZOO_CITY 5 NNE
YAZOO_CITY~ "
BRUCE_2_W
DENNIS_6_WSW
WIGGINS_13_E
ABERDEEN
ARKABUTLA
EDINBURG
SANFORD
LAURELJ7_SE
THREE_RIVERS
CORINTH
BLACK_MOUNTAIN_10_NNE
NASHVILLE
PHARISBURG
NEWARK
GEORGETOWN_2_NE
MASTEN_1_S
OBION_2_SW
FAIRVIEW
WHITE_HOUSE_1_S
DYERSBURG_10_W
BETHPAGE_1_S
SPRINGFIELD_3_SE
COLLINWOOD
BOGOTA
ORLINDA
WINFIELD
FSTM6
RNEM6
YAZM6
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
BRUM6
DNNM6
WGAM6 MS
ABEM6 MS
ARKM6 MS
ENBM6
OKCM6
LAUM6
PCBM6
CORM6
MMTN7
NSH01
PBG01
NWK01
BCAO1
MASP1
OBNT1
FBNT1
WHST1
MGLT1
BETT1
SPRT1
CLLT1
BOGT1
ODAT1
WINW2
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
NC
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
WV
32.31
32.73
32.90
32.86
34.00
34.52
30.85
33.83
34.76
32.80
31.49
31.53
30.58
34.92
35.76
40.61
40.35
40.05
38.88
41.50
36.24
35.99
36.45
36.05
36.47
36.47
35.17
36.13
36.60
38.53
-89.49
-89.10
-90.38
-90.41
-89.37
-88.32
-88.91
-88.52
-90.12
-89.33
-89.43
-88.89
-88.57
-88.52
-82.27
-82.16
-83.30
-82.39
-83.89
-76.82
-89.22
-87.12
-86.65
-89.56
-86.32
-86.83
-87.75
-89.43
-86.70
-81.92
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.6
6.5
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.3
6.9
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
6.0
o
Figure 5 from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center provides a general picture of the rainfall
amounts. Heaviest rainfall occurred in southeast Louisiana, then across parts of Mississippi,
western Tennessee, and western Kentucky.
-------
Observed Precipitation
4" - 6"
6" - 8"
8"-10"
10"-12"
12" -17"
NOAA/NWS
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER
Figure 5. Preliminary Estimate of Rainfall Amounts Associated with Katrina.
2.4 High Winds
Very high winds occurred along a rather large swath in Katrina's path, due to the size of the
storm, with highest winds in the eyewall near landfall, especially in the right-front quadrant.
However, due to the severe affects of the storm, many reporting stations in the areas of highest
10
-------
winds did not observe/report observations during the time of maximum winds. NEXRAD radial
velocity data indicated peak winds near the surface of around 140 mph in the eyewall at time of
landfall. The tables below show the peak wind gusts recorded by land stations (first table) along
with Coastal Marine (CMAN) and buoy stations (second table), for locations which recorded
speeds of at least 60 mph. Figure 6 provides a map of the estimated maximum wind gusts.
State
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
LA
MS
MS
Wind
Gust
(mph)
83
79
82
80
78
74
71
69
68
66
64
64
60
86
90
80
Wind
Gust
(mph)
114
105
101
98
89
83
80
79
79
79
77
77
72
69
62
Station
ID
MOB
BFM
FLL
1MB
MIA
EYW
NPA
PNS
OPF
FXE
BCT
PMP
HRT
NEW
BIX
NMM
Station Name
MOBILE/BATES FIELD
MOBILE DOWNTOWN
FT LAUDERDALBHOLLY
MIAMI/KENDALL-TAMIA
MIAMI INTL AIRPORT
KEY WEST INTL ARPT
PENSACOLA NAS
PENSACOLA REGIONAL
MIAMI/OPA LOCKA
FORT LAUDERDALE
BOCA RATON AIRPORT
POMPANO BEACH
HURLBURT FIELD (AF)
NEW ORLEANS/LAKEFRO
KEESLERAFB/BILOXI
MERIDIAN NAS/MCCAIN
CMAN or
Buoy ID
GDIL1
DRYF1
BURL1
DPIA1
42003
42040
42007
FWYF1
SMKF1
TAML1
MLRF1
SANF1
42001
LONF1
LUML1
Lat Lon
29.27 -89.95
24.63 -82.86
28.89 -89.43
30.25 -88.06
26.00 -85.90
29.20 -88.20
30.10 -88.80
25.59 -80.09
24.62 -81.11
29.19 -90.66
25.01 -80.37
24.45 -81.87
25.80 -89.70
24.84 -80.86
29.25 -90.66
11
-------
Observed Peak Wind Gusts (mph), Aug. 25-30,2005
Figure 6. Preliminary Observations for Maximum Wind Gusts Associated with Katrina.
3. Contributing Factors
A number of factors contributed to making Katrina a strong Category 5 hurricane (though
weakening to Category 3 just prior to landfall). Sea surface temperatures (SST) in the Gulf of
Mexico were one to two degrees Celsius above normal (see Figure 7), and the warm
temperatures extended to a considerable depth through the upper ocean layer. Also, Katrina
crossed the "loop current" (belt of even warmer water), during which time explosive
intensification occurred. The temperature of the ocean surface is a critical element in the
formation and strength of hurricanes. As shown in Figure 8, there has been an overall increasing
trend in July-September Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SSTs during the past 100 years marked by
two distinct periods of increasing temperatures (1910-1945; 1976-present). This pattern is
similar to that observed across global land and ocean surfaces.
Also, vertical wind shear was less than normal, which allowed for the storm to develop quickly.
Figure 9 illustrates the wind shear in the area, using the 200 mb to 850 mb zonal shear anomaly
for the month of August 2005, with negative zonal shear anomalies.
12
-------
32N
12N
20N
IBM
100W
Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly ("C)
Week of 24AUG2005
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 7. Gulf of Mexico SST Anomaly (Departure from Normal) During Katrina's
Development.
13
-------
JAS Ave 20N-35N, 100W-80W
o
CO
0.6
0.3
0.0
-0.3-
-0.6
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
JAS Ave 10N-30N, 80W-40W
£
CO
0.6
0.3
0.0
-0.6
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1&80 1990 2000 2010
Figure 8. July - September SST Anomalies for 1880-Present, for the Gulf of Mexico (top
graph) and Atlantic (bottom graph), (Smith and Reynolds, 2004 with updates).
14
-------
200-850MB ZONAL WIND SHEAR ANOMALIES DURING AUGUST 200
UNITS IN KNOTS
26N
25N
2+N
23N
NCEP REANALYSIS BASE PERIOD 1968-1996
GfADS COLA/ICES
Figure 9. 200 mb to 850 mb Zonal Wind Shear Anomaly for August 2005.
4. Views Via Remote Sensing
Satellite and radar images of Katrina provide an excellent view of the storm from space and as
seen by local NEXRAD sites along the Gulf coast. Figures 10-13 show the very well organized
nature of the storm. These images include NEXRAD reflectivity from New Orleans and Mobile,
along with NOAA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) and Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) images.
The heaviest bands of rainfall shown on radar coincide with the strongest wind gusts at the
surface, as the heavy rain and thunderstorms transfer momentum from the level of highest winds
(above the surface) down closer to the surface. Although Katrina weakened somewhat just prior
to landfall, the height and extent of the storm surge was not affected much by this trend, as the
"buildup" of the ocean surface not only relates to storm strength but storm duration and size,
along with the shape and ocean water depth along the coastline.
15
-------
Finally, Figure 14 shows a satellite comparison of Camille vs Katrina, which provides a good
perspective of Katrina's large size.
NEXRADLEVEL-U "
KUX-NEW ORLEANS, LO :'
OS/29RCD511:11:26O1T ...
U>T: 30/as;i3 N
1:99/49/33W : ! -'"'•-
NE»)ADl£va;-II •
n.B - new ORLEWS, IA
08/29#OG513:5451 GHT
16
-------
Figure 10. NEXRAD Images Prior to, During, and After Landfall.
17
-------
Figure 11. GOES-12 Visible Image of Katrina.
18
-------
Figure 12. NOAA-18 (Polar Orbiter) Image of Katrina.
19
-------
«i
Figure 13. GOES-12 Colorized Infrared Image of Katrina.
Figure 14. Side-by-side Images of Camille (left) vs Katrina (right).
20
-------
5. Historical Perspective
5.1 Previous Hurricanes
Hurricane Katrina, while likely becoming the most costly hurricane on record, was not the most
intense U.S. landfalling hurricane. Hurricane Camille, which followed a similar path to Katrina,
was a much stronger storm when it made landfall along the Mississippi coast in 1969. The most
costly hurricane to strike the U.S. prior to Katrina was Hurricane Andrew, which made landfall
in southern Florida in 1992. These storms, as well as 4 major hurricanes in 2004 that led to the
most costly hurricane season on record at the time, are briefly discussed below. Landfalling
hurricanes in 2004 created approximately $45 billion in estimated losses in the U.S., along with
167 fatalities from direct and indirect causes related to the hurricanes.
Hurricane Camille: Hurricane Camille ravaged the Mississippi coastline when it made landfall
on the night of August 17, 1969 with winds approaching 190 mph and a storm surge of 24.2 feet.
The storm was an extremely strong Category 5 hurricane which caused 144 deaths in Mississippi
and Louisiana and another 112 flood-related deaths in Virginia where up to 27 inches of rain fell
within about 8 hours. Total damage was $1.42 billion in 1969, which equates to approximately
$8.9 billion when adjusted for inflation. Only one hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. has had
wind speeds estimated to be higher: the Labor Day hurricane of 1935 that struck the Florida
Keys with sustained winds approaching 200 mph. Although Hurricane Camille took a path
similar to Hurricane Katrina, and its estimated maximum wind speeds were greater than those of
Katrina, the extent of hurricane force winds was much less, stretching only 75 miles from the
center of the storm, as compared to well over 100 miles for Katrina. The smaller size of this
category 5 hurricane resulted in damage that was more localized than that from Katrina. See
Figure 14 for satellite images of Katrina vs Camille.
Hurricane Andrew: Prior to 2005, the most costly hurricane to strike the U.S. was Hurricane
Andrew, which made landfall in southern Florida south of Miami on August 24, 1992. It caused
$25 billion damage in Florida and was the most expensive of all natural disasters in United States
history until Hurricane Katrina. Total damages equate to approximately $43.7 billion when
adjusted for inflation. Maximum sustained winds at the time of landfall were estimated at 165
mph, a category 5 storm. The central pressure was 922 millibars, which is the third lowest on
record for a landfalling hurricane in the U.S (after the 1935 Florida Keys Labor Day storm and
Hurricane Camille in 1969). After striking Florida, Andrew moved northwest across the Gulf of
Mexico to make a second landfall in a sparsely populated area of south-central Louisiana as a
Category 3 storm.
Hurricane Charley: In August 2004, this Category 4 hurricane made landfall in southwest
Florida, resulting in major wind and some storm surge damage in Florida, along with some
damage in the states of South Carolina and North Carolina. The total damages were
approximately $15 billion, with at least 34 deaths.
Hurricane Frances: In September 2004, this Category 2 hurricane made landfall in east-central
Florida, causing significant wind, storm surge, and flooding damage in Florida, along with
considerable flood damage in the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and New
21
-------
York, due to 5 to 15-inch rains. The total damages were approximately $9 billion, with at least
48 deaths.
Hurricane Ivan: In September 2004, this Category 3 hurricane made landfall on the Gulf coast
of Alabama, with significant wind, storm surge, and flooding damage in coastal Alabama and the
Florida panhandle, along with wind/flood damage in the states of Georgia, Mississippi,
Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. The estimated damages
exceeded $14 billion, and there were at least 57 deaths.
Hurricane Jeanne: In September 2004, this Category 3 hurricane made landfall in east-central
Florida, causing considerable wind, storm surge, and flooding damage in Florida, with some
flood damage also in the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, along with Puerto Rico. The estimated
damages exceeded $6.9 billion, and there were at least 28 deaths.
For additional information and statistics on historic storms, see:
- National Hurricane Center - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml
- National Climatic Data Center - http://www.ncdc.noaa.eov/oa/reports/bilHon2.html
- National Climatic Data Center —
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/hurricanes.htmi
5.2 Hurricanes Along the Central Gulf Coast
The central Gulf Coast has been impacted by a large number of topical cyclones over the years.
From 1722-2005,45 hurricanes made landfall between Houma, LA and Mobile, AL (see table
below). Literature sites additional storms prior to the 20th Century but little information is
available to confirm these events (Ludlum, 1963; Sullivan, 1986; and Roth, 1998). The area has
also felt the affects of several more hurricanes and tropical storms that have passed or made
landfall nearby.
Hurricanes that have made landfall between Houma, LA and Mobile, AL, 1722 to
2005
Date
September, 1722
September, 1740 (Mid-month)
September, 1740 (A week later)
Fall, 1746
August/ September, 1772
October, 1778
August, 1779
Auqust, 1780
August, 1794
August, 1812
July, 1819
September, 1821
August, 1831
August, 1848
August 19-30, 1852
September 15-17, 1855
Category
Major Hurricane
Mai or Hurricane
Hurricane Name
22
-------
September 15-18, 1859
August 8-16, 1860
September 11-16, 1860
October 2-9, 1867
July 30, 1870
September 14-21, 1877
October 9-22, 1887
September 11-26, 1889
September 27 - October 5, 1893
August 2-18, 1901
September 19-30, 1906
September 10-21, 1909
September 11-14, 1912
September 22 - October 1, 1915
June 29 - July 10, 1916
August 26 - September 3, 1932
September 4-21, 1947
September 1-6, 1948
August 20 - September 1, 1950
September 21- 30, 1956
September 14-17, 1960
August 26 - September 12, 1965
August 14-22, 1969
July 9-16, 1979
August 29 - September 14, 1979
August 27 - September 4, 1985
September 7-11, 1988
July 16-26, 1997
September 15 - October 1, 1998
Hurricane
Major Hurricane
Hurricane
Hurricane
Hurricane
Hurricane
Hurricane
Hurricane
Major Hurricane
2
3
4
1
4
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
5
1
3
3
1
1
1
Baker
Flossy
Ethel
Betsy
Camille
Bob
Frederic
Elena
Florence
Danny
Georges
5.3 Indices and Trends
The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index is one method to describe trends in tropical
cyclone activity. This index uses a combination of the tropical cyclone's duration in a particular
ocean basin, along with the strength of each storm. Figure 15 shows the recent upward trend,
which appears to be part of a long-term cycle in activity, with the 1950's-1960's also being an
active period. Of course, during that time, there was much less commercial and residential
development along our coastlines. Figures 16-17 show the number of tropical cyclones, number
of hurricane-days, and number of days with hurricanes, from 1960 through 2005.
ft
23
-------
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
Annual Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)
Atlantic Basin
ACE is defined a* the sum of wind speed squared
for ail synoptic hour winds > 34t«
1960
1970
1990
1980
Year
Update data from University or Hawaii
2000
*Ycar-to-Datc
totals plotted in
current year
ACEX&»
-------
25
Tropical Storms, Hurricanes and Major Hurricanes
Atlantic Basin
30 rr-^
Tropicsl storm windi > Wfctt
llamesne winds >WkB
Major Hurricane winds > Wkti
1960
1970
1990
1980
Year
Update data from University or Hawaii
2000
*Year-to-Date
totals plotted in
current year
Tropical Storms
HitrnC3flc$
Major Hurricanes
Figure 16. Number of Tropical Cyclones by Year for 1960 through 2005.
25
-------
41
100
Hurricane Days and Days with Hurricanes
Atlantic Basin
Hurricane Days = Daw with winds > 64ju$ * t of Sums
with windi > Wku on those days
Day$ with Hurricanes = * Days with winds > WkM
*Ycar-to-Da»e
totals plotted in
current year
Hurricane Days
Day* wiih Hurricanes
I960
1970
1990
1980
Year
Update data from University of Hawaii
2000
Figure 17. Number of Hurricane Days and Days with Hurricanes, 1960 through 2005.
6. Additional Resources
NWS Jackson, MS images of Katrina Damage: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ian/katrina/
NWS Mobile/Pensacola images of Katrina Damage: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mob/0805Katrina/
FEMA Photo Library: http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibrarv/index.isp
NOAA aerial photos of Katrina damage: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories20Q5/s2500.htm
NOAA hurricane hunter images of Katrina:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2496.htm
USGS photos and other information: http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/katrina/
National Hurricane Center - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov
National Climatic Data Center — http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html
National Climatic Data Center —
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/hurricanes.html
26
-------
7. References
Ludlum, D.M. 1963. Early American Hurricanes, 1492-1870. Amer. Met. Soc. Boston, MA. 198
p.p.
NOAA, 1999. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998. Historical
Climatology Series 6-2. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC. 206 p.p.
NOAA, 2005. Track Maps, 1851-2004. Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory Reanalysis Project. [http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Track-Maps.htm]
NOAA, 2005. 1901-2003 United States Landfalling Hurricanes. National Climatic Data Center.
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/hurricanes.html]
Roth, D. 1998. Louisiana Hurricanes. NOAA National Weather Service, Lake Charles, LA.
[http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/research/lahur.htm]
Smith, T.M., and R.W. Reynolds, 2004: Improved extended reconstruction of SST (1854-1997).
Journal of climate, 17 (12), 2466-2477.
Sullivan, C.L. 1986. Hurricanes of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, 1717 to Present. Gulf Publishing
Company - The Sun Herald. 139 p.p.
27
------- |