STATE OF
THE GREAT LAKES
2001
-------
Environment Canada
and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ISBN 0-662-30488-8
EPA 905-R-01-003
Cat. No. EN40-11/35-2001E
The State of the Great Lakes 2001 carries the Canadian State of Environment
(SOE) reporting symbol, because this report satisfies the guidelines for the
Government of Canada's SOE reporting program. The two purposes of SOE
reports are to 1) foster the use of science in policy- and decision-making and 2)
to report to Canadians on the condition of their environment. The State of the
Great Lakes 2001 meets SOE reporting requirements by providing an easily
understood overview of the state of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem for the
non-scientist; examining the key trends in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem; pro-
viding a set of environmental indicators; and discussing links amongst issues.
Photo credits:
Blue Heron, Don Breneman
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Robert De Jonge, courtesy Michigan Travel Bureau
Port Huron Mackinac Race, Michigan Travel Bureau
Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, Lake Michigan Federation
-------
STATE OF
THE GREAT LAKES
2001
by the Governments of
Canada
and
the United States of America
Prepared by
Environment Canada
and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
A Promise
to Future Generations
Created by the student delegates of the 2001 Great Lakes Student Summit
May 9-11, 2001
Buffalo, New York
We, the students of the Fourth Biennial Great Lakes Student Summit, embark on the
new millennium with this solemn and heartfelt promise:
We promise to continue our quest for knowledge related to the Great Lakes
and the environment.
We promise to support recycling efforts and encourage our friends and
family to recycle and reduce waste.
We promise to join in community clean-ups, beach sweeps, tree plantings
and other restoration efforts.
We promise to reduce our use of energy and natural resources and
encourage those around us to do the same.
We promise to practice water conservation, pesticide reduction and other
environmentally friendly practices and convince our families and peers
to join our efforts.
We promise to make others aware of the problems of the Great Lakes and
try to convince them to work towards addressing these problems.
We promise to protect the habitats around the Great Lakes, especially
wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.
We promise to make political leaders more aware of environmental issues
and concerns, so that we can keep the Great Lakes healthy for
generations to come.
We promise to encourage stronger and more meaningful cooperation among
the Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario.
We promise to put the needs of the Great Lakes and the environment before
our own personal needs.
We promise to make a conscious effort to respect all living and non-living
components of our watershed.
Finally, we promise to give back to the Earth more than we take from it.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION 7
2.0 LAKES ASSESSMENT 9
St. Lawrence River: State of Biodiversity and Aquatic Non-Native Species 9
Lake Ontario: State of Lake Trout 11
Lake Erie: A Changing Ecosystem 13
St. Clair River - Lake St. Clair - Detroit River Corridor 15
Lake Huron: The Lake in the Middle 17
Lake Michigan: State of the Fishery 20
Lake Superior: State of the Ecosystem 22
3.0 STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES BASED ON INDICATORS 25
3.1 Nearshore and Open Waters 27
Nearshore and Open Water Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 27
Walleye 28
Hexagenia 29
Preyfish Populations 29
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey Abundance 31
Native Unionid Mussels 32
Lake Trout 34
Scud (Diporeia hoyi) 34
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and Tumours (DELT) in Nearshore Fish 36
Phytoplankton Populations 37
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings 38
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 38
Zooplankton Populations 40
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals 41
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters 42
3.2 Coastal Wetlands 44
Coastal Wetland Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 44
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance 44
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs 45
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance 46
Coastal Wetland Area by Type 48
Effects of Water Level Fluctuations 48
3.3 Nearshore Terrestrial 51
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 51
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar Communities 51
Extent of Hardened Shoreline 52
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles 53
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter 54
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.4 Land Use 55
Land Use Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 55
Urban Density 55
Brownfields Redevelopment 56
Mass Transportation 57
Sustainable Agricultural Practices 57
3.5 Human Health 59
Human Health Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 59
E. coli and Fecal Coliform in Recreational Waters 59
Chemical Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue 60
Drinking Water Quality 61
Air Quality 63
3.6 Societal 64
Societal Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 64
Economic Prosperity 64
Water Use 65
3.7 Unbounded 66
Unbounded Indicators - Assessment at a Glance 66
Acid Rain 66
3.8 Under Construction 67
Exotic Species Introduced into the Great Lakes 67
4.0 FUTURE WORK ON INDICATORS 69
5.0 BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT AREAS 71
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 75
CHEMICAL ACRONYMS/TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 79
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 81
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Executive
Summary
This State of the Great Lakes (2001) report is the
fourth biennial report issued by the governments of
Canada and the United States of America (the Parties
to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement),
pursuant to reporting requirements of the
Agreement. Previous reports presented information
on the state of the Lakes based on ad hoc indicators
suggested by scientific experts involved in the State
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC). In
1996, those involved in SOLEC saw the need to
develop a comprehensive, basin-wide set of
indicators that would allow the Parties to report on
progress under the Agreement in a comparable and
standard format.
Indicators will tell us whether we are meeting the
goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
("...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem"), and provide us with answers to
'simpler' questions such as: Can we drink the
water?; Can we eat the fish?; and Can we swim in
the water? Indicators help us to measure our
progress towards reaching our goals, or,
alternatively, how far we have left to go.
This report represents the first in the indicator-based
format, giving information on 33 of the 80 indicators
being proposed by the Parties. These 33 indicators
were selected because data for them were readily
available with the individual indicator reports
prepared by subject experts.
Not all of the proposed 80 indicators are presently
being monitored. This situation represents a
challenge to the Parties to ensure that information is
available in a timely fashion to allow reporting on
progress on all indicators, at a frequency suitable for
each indicator. It is essential that monitoring
systems be put in place to ensure collection of all
essential information applicable to each indicator.
A full description of the indicators is in the Selection
of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health, Version 4.
The Parties cannot provide a detailed quantitative
assessment of all aspects of the State of the Lakes
based on 33 of 80 indicators. Nevertheless, the
Parties make the following overall qualitative
assessment:
The status of the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem has been assessed and is considered
mixed because:
• Surface waters are still amongst the best sources
of drinking water in the world;
• Progress has been made both in cleaning up
contaminants and in rehabilitating some fish
and wildlife species;
• Invasive species continue as a significant threat
to Great Lakes biological communities;
• Atmospheric deposition of contaminants from
distant sources outside the basin confound
efforts to eliminate these substances;
• Urban sprawl threatens high quality natural
areas, rare species, farmland and open space;
and
• Development, drainage, and pollution are
shrinking coastal wetlands.
The assessments for each of the 33 indicators are on
the following page. The section that follows the
Executive Summary contains implications for
managers. This section was prepared in order to
meet one of the SOLEC objectives: "...to strengthen
the decision-making and environmental
management concerning the Great Lakes."
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Indicator Name
Walleye
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Drinking Water Quality
Hexagenia
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Brownfields Redevelopment
Chemical Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Preyfish Populations
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey Abundance
Lake Trout
Phosphorus Concentrations & Loadings
Toxic Chemical Concentrations
in Offshore Waters
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Area, Quality & Protection of Alvar Communities
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
£ co// and Fecal Coliform in Recreational Waters
Air Quality
Economic Prosperity
Acid Rain
Native Unionid Mussels
Scud (Diporeia hoyi)
Amphibian Diversity & Abundance
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity
& Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations "
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
DELT in Nearshore Fish
Exotic Species Introduced into
the Great Lakes (aquatic only)
Population Monitoring & Contaminants Affecting
the American Otter
Phytoplankton Populations
Zooplankton Populations
Urban Density
Mass Transportation
Water Use
Indicator ID #
9
115
4175
9
117
8135
7006
4083
17
18
93
111
118
4506
81 29 (in part)
7028
4081
4176
7043
9000
68
93
4504
4507
4510
4861
8131
101
9002
8147
109
116
7000
7012
7056
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Human Health
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore Terrestrial
Land Use
Human Health
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Nearshore Terrestrial
Land Use
Human Health
Human Health
Societal
Unbounded
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetlands
Nearshore Terrestrial
Nearshore & Open Waters
Unbounded
Nearshore Terrestrial
Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore & Open Waters
Land Use
Land Use
Societal
Assessment *
Good
Good
Good
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Poor (Lake Erie)
Poor
Insufficient data to
assess indicator
Unable to assess
status until targets are
determined
Unable to assess
status until targets are
determined
Unable to assess
status until targets are
determined
Unable to assess
status until targets are
determined
Unable to assess
status until targets are
determined
"See page 25 for definitions
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Implications
for Managers
This report presents a subjective assessment, based
on best professional judgment, of 33 of 80 indicators
of ecosystem health. One of the objectives for using
indicators to assess the status and trends of Great
Lakes ecosystem components is "... to strengthen the
decision-making and environmental management
concerning the Great Lakes." The material presented in
this report leads to certain inevitable implications for
environmental and natural resource managers.
These implications can be grouped into two major
categories: those that relate to the development and
use of indicators and those that relate to
management of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Indicator Development and Use
Indicator Development and Testing. Many of
the indicators presented in this report were not fully
implemented, and many more were not presented
because they have not been sufficiently developed
and tested. To provide an assessment of the Great
Lakes based on all the indicators that are necessary
and sufficient, further work on the indicators will be
required.
Setting Endpoints. Many of the indicators do not
have an associated endpoint, target or reference
value that establishes when the designation "good"
can be applied to the ecosystem component being
assessed. Some can be determined through planning
exercises such as LaMPs and RAPs, but for others,
specific research may be needed. Until such
endpoints are provided, however, assessing an
indicator will still be useful as it will show trends
(i.e. is the condition getting better, worse or staying
the same).
Monitoring, Data Collection. Without consistent
monitoring or other data collection techniques
directed to the suite of Great Lakes indicators, an
assessment of the state of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem health will be incomplete. This issue is
fundamental to measuring progress toward the goals
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Consistency in monitoring programs is important in
geographic scope, timing and methods.
Data Quality. The quality of data collected and
reported is important in order to influence
environmental management decisions. Poor quality
data can lead to erroneous conclusions about the
environment and result in wasted or ill-advised
managerial actions.
Information Management, Databases. Because
multiple jurisdictions are involved in monitoring
and data collection in the Great Lakes basin, the data
are scattered widely. As the suite of indicators
becomes more fully implemented, the effort required
to assemble, analyze and summarize all the data
may become a challenge. A deliberate system of
information management for Great Lakes indicator
data will facilitate rapid and accurate distribution of
indicator information to environmental managers,
decision makers, and other interested people.
Commitments and Ownership. For state of the
Great Lakes reporting to be sustainable,
commitments are required for agencies to accept lead
roles to collect and interpret data and report on
selected indicators prior to each State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). Data for some
indicators are distributed amongst several agencies.
Some agencies have accepted responsibility for
preparing biennial indicator reports, and some are
considering to which indicators they can commit and
to which they can contribute. Many of the indicators
still await "adoption," however.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Environmental Management
and Programs
Non-native Species Control. In addition to
causing severe disruptions to the food web, the
introduction and establishment of many non-native
species into the Great Lakes basin has severe
negative economic consequences. Decreased
spending for sport fishing and other recreational
opportunities, increased costs to industry for
infrastructure, and altered management plans can be
anticipated as non-native species displace native
ones. Non-native species control is a priority issue.
Implementation and maintenance of effective control
programs will reduce the risk of further invasions.
Source Controls: Point, Non-point,
Agriculture, Atmospheric Emissions.
Continuing loadings of contaminants and nutrients
remain a problem in many areas of the Great Lakes.
Sources may be point or non-point, and they may
involve industrial, agricultural, municipal or other
sectors of the economy. In all cases, diligence toward
controlling all the sources will facilitate progress
toward the goals of the Water Quality Agreement.
Drinking Water. Although the Great Lakes
themselves are a good source of treatable drinking
water, diligence must be taken to ensure proper
treatment, and to minimize the possibility of
contaminants entering the distribution system. In
addition, consideration of the quality of other
sources of water within the basin must be examined
(i.e. river and ground water).
Infrastructure, Maintenance. Much progress has
been made to reduce the quantity of contaminants
and nutrients entering the Great Lakes, in part
through the construction and maintenance of sewage
treatment facilities, industrial processes to reduce
waste, and other physical solutions. This
infrastructure requires maintenance to continue
efficient, effective operations.
Technology Development. Some Great Lakes
problems continue to be unresolved in part because
of inadequate technology, e.g., complete remediation
of in-place contaminated sediments and zero
discharge of toxic chemicals within the Great Lakes
basin. Aggressive pursuit of new devices, systems
and/or methodologies will hasten progress toward
the virtual elimination of toxic substances in the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Restoration, Protection Programs. The overall
goal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is
to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
Basin." Administrative programs such as ecological
preserves, zoning restrictions, parks, wildlife
refuges, etc., help to maintain natural features. The
application of such controls toward wetlands and
terrestrial features is important for the restoration
and maintenance of Great Lakes ecosystem
components.
Human Population Impacts. Human
populations greatly influence and modify the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem. Although the problems
observed in the Great Lakes can be traced to human
origins, particular attention to societal pressures
such as urban sprawl, energy consumption and
climate change may help to reduce potentially
adverse impacts.
Emerging Issues. Not all issues and concerns
about the Great Lakes have been anticipated in the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and other
planning documents. Diligence in monitoring and
timely communication of findings will help ensure
that government agencies and other organizations
identify emerging issues quickly so that
environmental management activities can be
implemented. New issues may be chemical (e.g.,
endocrine disrupting chemicals), biological (e.g.,
disappearance of Diporeia from many lake areas), or
physical (e.g., effects of water level controls).
Environmental Research. The best managerial
activities are based on the best understanding of the
structure and functioning of the ecosystem being
addressed. Fundamental research into ecosystem
processes and the impacts of new or continued
stresses will assist environmental managers to best
allocate resources toward resolution of identified
problems. Similarly, environmental management
objectives will help direct basic research toward an
understanding of critical ecosystem processes.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Climate Change. Climate change scenarios have
been developed for the Great Lakes basin. Projected
climate changes will impact both ecological and
economic systems. For instance, the possibility of
lower water levels will have an impact on coastal
wetlands, aquatic habitat and the shipping industry.
A potentially warmer and drier climate will impact
agriculture, the recreation industry (skiing) and the
migration of species northward. Management plans
need to be developed with these scenarios in mind.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Section 1
Introduction
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, or
SOLEC, has its roots in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, and its overall purpose:
"... to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem."
The revisions to the Agreement in 1987 established
what are now well known concepts and programs
such as Beneficial Use Impairments, Remedial Action
Plans for Areas of Concern, and Lakewide
Management Plans.
Also in the Agreement, however, is the commitment
by the two Parties for regular reporting on progress
toward several of the general and specific objectives.
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences were
established by the governments of Canada and the
United States in 1992 in response to those reporting
requirements. The conferences were to provide
independent, science-based reporting on the state of
health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem every two
years.
Four objectives were established for the conferences:
• To assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based
on accepted indicators. SOLEC facilitates a rational,
disciplined approach toward assessing the
various components of the Great Lakes
ecosystem and reporting the findings.
• To strengthen decision-making and environmental
management concerning the Great Lakes. SOLEC
specifically seeks to provide information and
interpretations that are useful to those who make
decisions or who influence environmental
management practices, whether they are in
government, industry, environmental groups or
private practice.
• To inform local decision-makers of Great Lakes
environmental issues. This objective emphasizes
the importance of participation by local
government and organizations.
• To provide a forum for communication and
networking amongst all the Great Lakes stakeholders.
Great Lakes stakeholders include representatives
from federal governments, state and provincial
governments, local governments, First Nations
and native American Tribes, non-government
environmental organizations, industry, academia,
and private citizens.
SOLEC has provided an opportunity to look at the
"big picture", by starting to integrate science issues.
Air, land, water, biota, economics, and human health
have been examined in a broad context, with
linkages between and amongst these issues being
drawn. SOLEC provides information on the state of
the Lakes and the stresses on the Lakes to decision-
makers in the basin. There is no other forum for this
type of scientific debate.
The first SOLEC, 1994, provided a basic assessment
of the state of the Great Lakes. This was an
overview of the Great Lakes ecosystem, including
human health and socio-economics. In 1996, SOLEC
evaluated the nearshore environment and some land
use issues, introducing the concept of Biodiversity
Investment Areas. Both SOLECs assessed the health
of the system using only ad hoc indicators and
expert opinion.
In 1996, the Parties agreed that a basin-wide,
systematic framework using science-based indicators
was essential for reporting on ecosystem health. The
Parties took this as a challenge for SOLEC 98.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
At SOLEC 98, the Parties advanced the development
of easily understood indicators which objectively
represented the condition of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem, the stresses on the ecosystem, and the
human responses to those stresses. These indicators
would measure both the health of the system, and
progress toward remedying existing problems. A
suite of 80 ecosystem health indicators was presented
for discussion, with the intention that this suite form
the basis of reporting on the state of the Great Lakes.
The complete suite and details on the process of
indicator selection is in the Selection of Indicators for
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4.
This present report on the State of the Great Lakes is
the first report which applies the accepted suite of
indicators, starting with 33 indicator assessments.
The report is not comprehensive in terms of all 80
indicators. Some of these indicators will require
agencies to collect additional data. Others need
analysis and synthesis of data from non-traditional
sources, such as municipalities, private sector and
volunteer organizations. Some indicators need
further development through research before they can
be used for routine reporting.
This report also presents the condition of each of the
Great Lakes and connecting channels as a whole. A
general assessment has been made for Lakes
Superior, Huron and Erie, and for the St. Clair -
Detroit River corridor. The status of the fishery is
presented for Lakes Michigan and Ontario, and the
issue of biodiversity and non-native species are
explored for the St. Lawrence River.
Another major thrust for SOLEC has been the
development of the Biodiversity Investment Area
(BIA) concept. This concept was first proposed in
1996 in the Nearshore Terrestrial paper for SOLEC
96, and subsequently included in the 1997 State of
the Great Lakes report. In this present document,
we provide a status report on the integration of
nearshore terrestrial, coastal wetland and aquatic
BIAs. The full text of the BIA report can be found on
the SOLEC website.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Section 2
Lakes Assessment
St. Lawrence River
State of Biodiversity and
Aquatic Non-Native Species
The status of biodiversity in the St. Lawrence River is
mixed-deteriorating because of continued habitat loss
and the introduction of aquatic non-native species,
The recently released Biodiversity Portrait of the St.
Lawrence River (http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/fauna/biodiver/)
has emphasized the loss of wetlands as one of the
major factors affecting the integrity of the River
ecosystem. The amplitude of annual water level
fluctuations has decreased following the opening of
the St. Lawrence Seaway, reducing the diversity of
wetland flora and affecting fish populations that
depend upon flooded wetlands for spawning.
Approximately 50% of the St. Lawrence River
shoreline has been modified by agriculture and
urbanization. Erosion is a concern along 25% of the
shoreline. The result is the loss of both terrestrial
and aquatic natural habitats. For example, more
than 1,500 hectares of island habitats have been lost
since 1950. Still more important losses are predicted
if River flows decline because of climate change.
Although habitat loss is having an impact on the St.
Lawrence freshwater fish community, aquatic non-
native species introductions to the River may be a
more serious threat. To aid in developing a
conservation strategy for the St. Lawrence River
ecosystem, aquatic non-native species introductions
are now being studied by Environment Canada. A list
of introduced aquatic species is being compiled, the
transfer of species between the Great Lakes and the
River is being evaluated, and the spatial distribution
and temporal trend of introduced species is being
assessed using available literature and databases.
St. Lawrence River
z
Areas of Concern
Q St. Lawrence River (Cornwall)
O St. Lawrence River (Massena)
Legend
• Cities/Towns
/\/ Province/State Border
/'••/' International Border
Ontario
Quebec
Quebec City __x ^x
Trois-Rivieres
mtreal
~£ake St. Louis
St. Francis
Lake Ontario
New York
•i,ff/...//' / L
_ ^p x ••^--••"\
Orleans Islanc^'' \
.• ';
/ /
/ i New
( Maine • Brunswick
i. ;
50 0 50 Kilometres ^
0 50 Miles /
<«i.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
St-Lnwr»Tic» ftivar
i
Year at fin I report
Trends in species introductions since 1820.
Source: St. Lawrence Centre-Environment Canada
Recent information indicates a continuing upward
trend in aquatic non-native species introductions to the
St. Lawrence River with an average rate of one species
per year. Approximately 50% of the aquatic non-native
species introduced to the Great Lakes have been
reported in the St. Lawrence River. Upstream transfer
of species from the River to the Lakes is also a source
of species introductions to the Great Lakes. However,
the problem of non-native species introductions to the
St. Lawrence River is due primarily to downstream
transfer from the Great Lakes. The percent of species
transferred has increased with time, and is expected to
remain high over the next decade considering that
close to half the species introduced in the Great Lakes
have not yet reached the River.
The conclusions regarding biodiversity and aquatic
non-native species in the St. Lawrence River are that:
• Despite important habitat losses and
modifications, further losses are anticipated as a
result of climatic changes that will certainly
affect the biodiversity of the River;
• There are insufficient data to assess or predict the
potential impact of non-native species in the river;
• The information on aquatic non-native species
presence and their distribution need to be validated;
• Guidelines for ship ballast exchange should be
rigorously applied and compliance should be
enforced for the St. Lawrence River; and
• Overall, the biodiversity of the St. Lawrence
River is under considerable stress.
Elevation
Length
miles
kilometers
Mean Annual
Discharge
ft.Vs
mVs
Land Drainage Area
sq. mi.
km2
Water Surface Area
sq. mi.
km2
Kingston
246ft. 75m
Lake St. Francis
151 ft. 46m
Lake St. Louis
66ft. 20m
Montreal
18ft. 5.5m
599
964 a
44,965
12,600"
78,090
204,842 c
6,593
17,077 d
Shoreline Length North Shore
305 mi. 490 km
South Shore
280 mi. 450 km
Transient Time
hours (minimum) 100e
Outlet Gulf of
St. Lawrence
' Length of 964 km is from Kingston to
Pointe-des-Monts
b The mean annual discharge of 12,600 mVs is
at Quebec City Level
° The land drainage area of 204,842 km2
represents the freshwater section in the
Quebec Region
(Cornwall to Orleans Island)
d Total water surface from Cornwall to
Pointe-des-Monts
" The transient time applies to Quebec and does
not include New York State and Ontario
Source: The River at a Glance, Environment
Canada - Quebec Region
10
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Lake Ontario
State of Lake Trout
The status of Lake Ontario lake trout is mixed because of
recent increases in wild young-of-the-year juveniles, but
also because of decreased survival of stocked lake trout, no
increase in wild fish abundance, a diet consisting mostly
of alewives, and early mortality syndrome.
Lake trout is native to all five lakes. It is a top
predator that requires oligotrophic (low nutrient
levels) conditions and clean spawning substrate.
It has a long life span, is genetically diverse, and
integrates many ecosystem components. The
dominant dietary item is the alewife. The paradox is
that the alewives prey on lake trout fry and are
probably linked with Early Mortality Syndrome. The
Syndrome is caused by thiamine (vitamin Bl)
deficiency. The management dilemma is that the prey
species that supports an economically valuable fishery
inhibits the survival of lake trout and other native
species.
Native lake trout have been extirpated (eliminated)
from all of the Great Lakes except Superior. Four
stressors contributed to the extirpation: over-fishing
as early as the nineteenth century; habitat loss from
development and agriculture; non-native invasive
species such as the sea lamprey; and, contamination
of fish by dioxin-like chemicals beginning in the 1930s
and peaking in the late 1960s. Contamination levels
may have been high enough for 100% mortality of
Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
Onto Ho
New York
Fail,
Hamilton M*rfcewr Q
Mrt/o Tofonta O EoehofU*' £«4uynwit
Fort Here Q Dghtanmib Creek
Baj. of Quints Q ta*«am«Her (New Tort,}
Q KllBg,M
/V 55*te Bonder
Pennsylvania
< Like Ontirto &*»!"
11
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
young fish (fry) from 1945 to 1975. After 1991, levels
were below the threshold for adverse effects.
Fishery management agencies for Lake Ontario have
established a goal of rehabilitating the lake trout
population such that, "The adult spawning stock(s)
encompasses several year classes, sustains itself at a
relatively stable level by natural reproduction, and
produces a usable annual surplus (harvest)."
On the positive side, natural reproduction of lake
trout has occurred in Lake Ontario since 1985. The
proportion of older fish has increased since 1994,
while the average age of mature females has been
increasing. Fishing mortality remains low. The
distribution of naturally produced fish has been
widespread throughout the lake, and recent
information from the U.S. side of Lake Ontario
indicates that numbers of wild lake trout young-of-
the-year increased in the spring of 2001. The sea
lamprey control program has been effective and
lamprey are under control.
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
• New York • Ontario
Lake trout sport harvest, Lake Ontario.
Source: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
On the negative side, there is decreased survival of
stocked lake trout, there has been no increase in total
numbers of wild fish, lake trout diet consists mostly
of alewives, and early mortality syndrome is still a
problem.
The keys to the future success of lake trout
rehabilitation in Lake Ontario include improved
survival of stocked lake trout; diversification of diet;
continued effective sea lamprey control; habitat
protection; restrictive
angling regulations;
and continued low
contaminant levels.
Beyond lake trout
rehabilitation work,
the Lakewide
Management Plan for
Lake Ontario
proposes three
categories of
ecosystem indicators:
1) critical pollutant
indicators including
open water, young-of-
the-year fish, herring
gull eggs, and lake
trout; 2) lower food
web biological
indicators including
nutrients,
zooplankton, and
preyfish; and, 3)
upper food web
biological indicators
including herring
gull, lake trout, mink
and otter, and bald
eagle.
Lake Ontario Statistics
Elevation"
feet 243
metres 74
Length
miles 193
kilometers 311
Breadth
miles 53
kilometers 85
Average Depth"
feet 283
metres 86
Maximum Depth"
feet 802
metres 244
Volume"
cu. mi. 393
km3 1,640
Water Area
sq. mi. 7,340
km2 18,960
Land Drainage Areab
sq. mi. 24,720
km2 64,030
Total Area
sq. mi. 32,060
km2 82,990
Shoreline Length0
miles 712
kilometres 1,146
Retention Time
years 6
Population:
USA(1990)t 2,704,284
Canada (1991) 5,446,611
Totals 8,150,895
Outlet St. Lawrence River
' measured at low water datum
b Lake Ontario includes the Niagara River
° including islands
11990-1991 population census data were
collected on different watershed boundaries
and are not directly comparable to previous
years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental
Atlas and Resource Book
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Lake Erie
A Changing Ecosystem
The status of Lake Erie is mixed to mixed-deteriorating
because of continued aquatic non-native species impacts,
habitat loss or alteration, and contamination by toxic
chemicals.
One-third of the human population of the Great
Lakes basin lives in the intensively urbanized and
agricultural Lake Erie watershed. In addition to
providing drinking water for 11 million people, Lake
Erie is used for many purposes, including industrial,
recreational, municipal and agricultural. Issues and
concerns affecting the health of the Lake Erie
ecosystem include continued contamination of fish
and wildlife by toxic chemicals, increasing nutrient
levels, an influx of aquatic non-native species, and
continued habitat loss.
Contaminants
The chemicals of concern include toxic substances
(PCBs, chlordane, DDT and metabolites, dioxins,
dieldrin, PAHs, agricultural pesticides, endocrine
disruptors), heavy metals (lead, mercury), and
nutrients (phosphorus, nitrates). For example,
although PCBs in Lake Erie sediments decreased
from 1971 to 1995, there are still high concentrations
in the Western Basin despite contaminant reductions.
Lake Erie Drainage Basin
I CUnWfl KJWtf-
Detroit EJ«r
I fc»g* fch*r
0 £i,y*hflflj fchw
0 A«ht*thJ* «**"
Q iSirffala Eh*r
O V^wttey H^slbw
Michigan
0
49kw«idior
0
Indi
iana
Ontario
jjOfgjQft
New TOfk
9 Pennsylvonb
\
-
; UkA Erta B«Hti
13
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Nutrients
Although
significant
reductions in
the annual
loadings of
phosphorus to
Lake Erie has
been achieved
since the early
1970s,
concentrations
of phosphorus
in the Western
and Central
Basins still
regularly
exceed the
target levels
derived from
the Great Lakes
Water Quality
Agreement. In
addition, the
concentration
of nitrates in
the Eastern and
Western Basins
has increased
since the early
1980s, possibly
affecting amphibians
and reptiles.
Non-native
Species
Aquatic non-native
species such as zebra
mussels, the round
goby, purple loosestrife, and the fishhook water flea
(Cercopagis) are continuing to disrupt the food web.
Zebra mussel grazing in particular appears to be
altering community structure. The abundance of
phytoplankton in the Eastern Basin is less than
predicted from phosphorus concentrations in the
water, and Microcystis (a type of blue green alga)
blooms have appeared in the Western Basin.
Populations of large, cold water species of
zooplankton have been reduced, and zebra mussel
Elevation"
feet
metres
Length
miles
kilometers
Breadth
miles
kilometers
Average Depth"
feet
metres
Maximum Depth"
feet
metres
Volume"
cu. mi.
km3
Water Area
sq. mi.
km2
Land Drainage Areab
sq. mi.
km2
Total Area
sq. mi.
km2
Shoreline Length0
miles
kilometres
Retention Time
years
Population:
USA(1990)f
Canada (1991)
Totals
569
173
241
388
57
92
62
12
210
64
116
484
9,910
25,700
30,140
78,000
40,050
103,700
871
1,402
2.6
10,017,530
1,664,639
11,682,169
Outlet Niagara River Welland Canal
' measured at low water datum
b Lake Erie includes the St. Clair-Detroit system
° including islands
11990-1991 population census data were
collected on different watershed boundaries
and are not directly comparable to previous
years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental
Atlas and Resource Book
1920s
1960s
1970s
Time
1980s
2000s
Influences on the Lake Erie ecosystem through time.
Source: Environment Canada
larvae and the spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes) are
replacing native zooplankton populations.
Fisheries
Walleye and yellow perch populations are declining,
while lake whitefish harvest is increasing.
Habitat
Lake Erie basin natural habitats are continuing to
degrade, including wetlands, forests, sand beaches,
dunes and barrens, lakeplain prairies, as well as
tributaries and the open lake. Emerging issues such
as climate change will add to existing problems as
will continued human population growth.
The ability to monitor and track changes in the Lake
Erie ecosystem has been diminished because
ecosystem changes are occurring rapidly, and because
resources for monitoring are declining. Research is
needed to understand changes in the ecosystem.
14
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
St. Clair River - Lake St. Clair -
Detroit River Corridor
The status of the St. Clair River - Lake St. Clair - Detroit
River Corridor is mixed because offish consumption
advisories, historical and current wetland losses, a
degraded benthos, contaminated sediments, exceedances in
water quality standards, beach closures, and problems
with drinking water; but contaminants are generally
below problem levels and there have been incremental
gains in habitat protection and restoration.
The corridor consists of the St. Clair and Detroit
Rivers, and Lake St. Clair. The major population
centres are Port Huron, Michigan; Sarnia, Ontario;
The St. Clair - Detroit Corridor
Areas of Concern
O St. Clair River
O Clinton River
O Detroit River
O Rouge River
Legend
• Cities/Towns
International Border
Tributaries
Detroit, Michigan; and Windsor, Ontario. The
population centres are also industrial centres. The
Michigan side of the corridor is largely populated,
with wetland areas remaining on the north side of
Lake St. Clair. The Ontario side is agricultural.
Walpole Island, which is First Nations territory, has
superb tallgrass prairie, wetland, and oak savanna
habitats.
Lake St. Clair was surrounded primarily by
wetlands prior to European settlement, and although
these wetlands are considerably smaller today, Lake
St. Clair is still habitat for a diverse fishery.
Recreational boating and fishing are of great
economic importance in the region. There are
currently about 200 marinas and 150,000 boats in
Michigan alone, with an annual value to the
economy of approximately $260 million. More
than 1.5 million fish are taken from Lake St.
Clair annually, accounting for nearly half of the
entire Great Lakes sport fishing industry.
The issues or problems that indicate the health
of the Corridor is degraded are: fish
consumption advisories, historical and current
wetland losses, a degraded benthos,
contaminated sediments, exceedances of water
quality standards and guidelines, beach
closures, and problems with drinking water.
In the St. Clair River, lead and chloride levels
have decreased. Phosphorus levels increased
in the mid-1990s but are now leveling off.
Levels of copper are constant, but zinc levels
have been rising.
In Lake St. Clair, chloride levels are constant.
Mercury levels in the edible portion of walleye
have decreased significantly, PCB levels
increased in 2000 after a steady decline. HCB
and OCS levels in channel catfish have declined.
In the Detroit River, lead has decreased, while
chloride has increased slightly at the head of the
river. Levels of copper and zinc are constant.
Historic coastal wetland losses in the Corridor
were severe. However, since the early 1980s,
the total area of protected and restored
wetlands has increased. In the last two
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
St. Clair River - Phosphorus
St. Clair River -Lead
.
1.40
l.20
1.00
0.40
0.20
1987 198* 1991 1003 IMS 1DK
-•-River Head -«- River Mouth
Detroit River - Phosphorus
92 1994
- River Mouth
Detroit River - Lead
( 1.20
• 1.00
0.80
OJO
(MX)
Comparison of phosphorus and lead levels at St.
Clair and Detroit Rivers.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada
Mercury levels in Lake St. Clair walleye.
Source: Environment Canada
decades, more than 500 hectares in the St. Clair River,
3000 hectares in Lake St. Clair, and 500 hectares in the
Detroit River have been protected or restored.
Spills to the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers have
decreased considerably since 1986. Water quality
has shown a marked improvement.
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat is a primary and
consistent concern throughout the Corridor. Current
activities to mitigate habitat loss are:
• Critical habitat acquisition;
• Shoreline
enhancement;
• Development of a
biodiversity
conservation
strategy and
atlas;
• Identification of
candidate sites
for protection
and rehabilitation;
and
• Protection of
designated
wetlands.
In conclusion, the
Corridor is important
ecologically and
commercially.
Current needs are:
• Effective source
controls for
current
contamination
and better
management of
historical
contamination;
• Focus on habitat
protection and
restoration with a
view toward
incremental
gains; and
• Ongoing monitoring to ensure continuous
improvement.
Elevation
feet 569
metres 173
Length
miles 26
kilometers 42
Mean Breadth
miles 24
kilometres 39
Mean Depth
feet 11
metres 3.4
Mean Annual
Discharge
ft.Vs 183,000 a
mVs 5,182a
Maximum Depth (natural)
feet 21
metres 6.5
Watershed Area
sq. mi. 460
km2 1,191
Land Drainage Area
sq. mi. 6,100"
km2 5,799b
Water Surface Area
sq. mi. 400°
km2 1,036°
Shoreline Length
miles 62
kilometres 100
' Inflow into Lake St. Clair
b Land areas include the total drainage area to
the outlet of the upstream lake
° Water Surface Area does not include area of
connecting channels
Source: Lake St. Clair: Its Current State and
Future Prospects, Lake St. Clair Network,
United States Geological Survey
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Lake Huron
The Lake in the Middle
The status of Lake Huron is mixed because, despite gains
in terms of point source controls and progress in Areas of
Concern, there are still stresses attributed to large
atmospheric inputs of contaminants; hardened shorelines;
and continued threats from non-native species.
Lake Huron is often called "the lake in the middle"
due to its position in the Great Lakes and the view
that the level of pollution is somewhere between
"pristine" Lake Superior and Lake Ontario. In spite
of its "middle" status, Lake Huron is interesting and
unique. Lake Huron has over 30,000 islands, more
than any other lake in the world. The largest,
Lake Huron Drainage Basin
Manitoulin, is the largest island in a freshwater lake.
If the shorelines of the islands are included, Lake
Huron has the longest lakeshore of any lake in the
world as well. More than 2.5 million people live in
the basin, mostly in the southern portion. Historical
pollution discharges, particularly in Sarnia, Ontario
and Saginaw Bay, Michigan, have caused serious
problems in a number of areas in the basin, including
the designation of five Areas of Concern. The five
Areas are the St. Marys River, Spanish River, Saginaw
River and Bay, Severn Sound, and the St. Clair River.
Current activities, including industry and seasonal
land use development, are putting increasing
pressures on wildlife habitats and unique ecosystems.
Critical pollutants have been identified and include
PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, mercury,
SaASl*. Mm*
linl*
f.. :r".!
Ontario
Pony!
Alpono
Michigan
C-*
Sound
Godwkh
Midland*
0
O
->?.: -- •.;"., rj. •'•• -:-.-T-
Ti*uLjrtM
Later Hurw
17
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
n statistics
sediment/suspended
solids, and DDT.
Concentrations of
PCBs in whole lake
trout have declined
significantly since
1978, but are still
above the protection
values for fish-
eating birds and
mammals. There
has been no
significant decline in
PCBs or mercury
since the mid-1980s.
Continuing sources
may include
historical discharges
and air deposition.
The rate of decrease
for contaminant
trends in fish eating
birds has slowed.
Most bird
populations have
become re-
established, but
some reproductive
problems persist.
Bald eagle
populations
continue to grow,
with interior
breeding areas
having greater
productivity than
nearshore ones.
Loadings from water
sources are the
lowest of the Great
Lakes, but air sources are the highest. About 80%-
90% of dioxins are from atmospheric sources.
Contaminated sediments in the Areas of Concern and
out-of-basin atmospheric deposition must be
addressed to deal with critical pollutant issues.
Nearshore terrestrial ecosystems still sustain a great
diversity of wildlife. They sustain important
habitats as food sources for fish and wildlife.
Saginaw Bay continues to provide essential habitat,
Elevation"
feet
metres
Length
miles
kilometers
Breadth
miles
kilometers
Average Depth"
feet
metres
Maximum Depth"
feet
metres
Volume"
cu. mi.
km3
Water Area
sq. mi.
km2
Land Drainage Areab
sq. mi.
km2
Total Area
sq. mi.
km2
Shoreline Length0
miles
kilometres
Retention Time
years
Population:
USA (1990)f
Canada (1991)
Totals
Outlet
577
176
206
332
183
245
195
59
750
229
850
3,540
23,000
59,600
51,700
134,100
74,700
193,700
3,827
6,157
22
1,502,687
1,191,467
2,694,154
St. Clair River
' measured at low water datum
b land drainage area for Lake Huron includes
St. Marys River
° including islands
11990-1991 population census data were
collected on different watershed boundaries
and are not directly comparable to previous
years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental
Atlas and Resource Book
Outside Great
Lakes Basin
25%
Ontario
4%
Great Lakes
States
71%
Sources of atmospheric deposition of dioxin to
Lake Huron, 1999.
Source: Great Lakes Trends: Into the New Millennium, Office of the Great
Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
but a continued loss of wetlands is a serious threat.
Critical stresses include degradation and loss of
historical tributary and nearshore habitats, the
introduction of non-native species, over-fishing, and
fish and wildlife reproductive failure.
The Lake Huron fisheries goals are:
• to protect and enhance existing habitats and
rehabilitate degraded habitats;
• to achieve no net loss of the productive
capacity of habitats;
• to restore damaged habitats; and
• to support the reduction of contaminants.
However, there are several fishery concerns such as
the dependence on hatchery production, the impact of
non-native species on fish communities, and the
insufficient rate of lake trout reproduction, as well as
those concerns discussed in the following paragraphs.
One fishery concern is that historically, tributaries
were important sources of cool, high quality water
serving as spawning and nursery habitat. The
construction of dams has excluded fish from many
tributaries. This is a deterrent to achieving balanced
fish communities because tributaries are now
inadequate habitat for all life cycle stages. Dams
now fragment many streams where historical
spawning occurred.
18
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
A second fishery concern is nearshore habitat. Many
nearshore areas have been altered with shoreline
protection structures. In many areas, the band of
transition vegetation has disappeared. The
cumulative impact of these structures is significant
and increasing in regard to the fishery.
A third concern is the loss of coastal wetlands. Most
current coastal wetland losses have been around
small urban centres on the lakeshore. Losses are due
to agriculture, cottage development, road
construction, dredging, and channelization.
350000 -
o
c
(C
3
£1
O
Q.
50000 -
0 -
_H_
Superior M
D1995 Levels
• Target
m , n
chigan Huron Erie Ontario
Sea lamprey populations and targets.
Source: Great Lakes Fishery Commission
A fourth fishery concern is the significant stress to
aquatic communities caused by non-native species.
Species that are having a great impact are the sea
lamprey, zebra mussel, ruffe, round goby, and purple
loosestrife. The sea lamprey problem is associated
with production in the St. Marys River and is the
most severe impediment to a healthy fish community.
Cost effective sea lamprey control on the river may
be within reach. The sea lamprey population is
expected to be reduced by 85% by 2010.
Finally, aquaculture is a growing fishery concern.
Fish farms now account for over 60% of rainbow
trout production in the Ontario waters of Lake Huron.
Aquaculture pens near Parry Sound, Georgian Bay.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
The following actions are still needed to improve the
Lake Huron ecosystem:
• Control atmospheric inputs of persistent
toxic substances;
• Initiate an aquatic nuisance species control
program beyond the sea lamprey control
program;
• Continue progress in Areas of Concern;
• Implement watershed management plans;
• Fully fund the lamprey control program;
• Encourage local protection and restoration
efforts;
• Research lower trophic levels; and
• Control pathogen sources (Saginaw Bay and
southeast Lake Huron).
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Lake Michigan
State of the Fishery
The status of Lake Michigan is mixed because of
continued impairments and only slight improvement
towards the goals established by the Lakewide
Management Plan. The status of progress toward
achieving Lake Michigan fish community objectives is as
follows: fish population structures-mixed/improving;
restoration or protection offish
habitat-mixed/deteriorating; prevention or control of
aquatic nuisance species-mixed.
Lake Michigan is an outstanding natural resource of
global significance, but it is under stress and in need
of special attention. It is the second largest lake by
volume and has the world's largest collection of
freshwater sand dunes. It has approximately 40% of
all the Great Lakes coastal wetlands and more than
26% of the prime waterfowl. It also has ten Areas of
Concern in various stages of cleanup.
The sources of continuing contamination to the lake
include atmospheric deposition, tributaries, and
historic sediment deposition. The southern-most end
of the lake has the highest concentrations of PCBs,
with the PCB loadings for the lake primarily from the
atmosphere at 1536 kilograms (3386 pounds) per
year. Atmospheric mercury and atrazine loadings, in
large part deposited by rain and snow, are 729 and
1694 kilograms per year respectively (1607 and 3735
Lake Michigan Drainage Basin
A
Michigan
Wisconsin
t>
6
Illinois
rf
*
5laZe Bcrdcr
®o
Grand Haptdi
•
Michigan
KannMMM
Indiana
20
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
1
• Chicago
Beaver Island
Indiana Dunes
• Chiwaukee Prairie
• South Haven
Manitowoc
Sleeping Bear Dunes
B. s S 3 a ~ ^
< g •=. "" < en O
Month
Atmospheric concentration of PCB over Lake
Michigan.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office
pounds respectively). PCB loadings (1994 data) from
major monitored tributaries are greatest from the Fox
River, Grand Calumet Harbor, and Kalamazoo River.
According to 1995 data, atrazine loadings are greatest
from the Fox, St. Joseph, Pere Marquette, and
Kalamazoo Rivers. Mercury loadings (1995 data) are
greatest from the Fox, Grand, Kalamazoo, and St.
Joseph Rivers.
The fish community goal for Lake Michigan is to
restore and maintain the biological integrity of the
fish community so that production of desirable fish
is sustainable and ecologically efficient. For preyfish
species, the objective is to maintain a diversity of
preyfish species at population levels matched to
primary production and to predator demands.
Expectations are for a lakewide preyfish biomass of
0.5 to 0.8 billion kilograms (1.2 to 1.7 billion pounds).
However the abundance of benthos (bottom
organisms) at 40 sites in Lake Michigan's southern
basin has shown a decline in bottom life, likely
linked to the introduction of zebra mussels. The
dominant species, Diporeia, is eaten by a variety of
Great Lakes fish and is an important component of
the Lake Michigan food web. Another component of
the forage base, bloater chub, alewife, and rainbow
smelt has also declined since the early 1990s.
sustaining lake trout
populations.
Lakewide trout and
salmon harvests have
dropped since the
mid-1980s.
For bottom feeders,
the objective is to
maintain self-
sustaining stocks of
lake whitefish, round
whitefish, sturgeon,
suckers, and burbot.
The expected annual
yield of lake whitefish
alone should be 1.8 -
2.7 million kilograms
(4 to 6 million
pounds), but for 1999,
the lakewide harvest
of all these fish was
about 3.2 million
kilograms (7 million
pounds).
The goal of inshore
fish stocks is to
maintain self-
sustaining stocks of
yellow perch, walleye,
smallmouth bass,
pike, catfish, and
panfish. Expected
annual yields should
be 0.9 to 1.8 million
kilograms (2 to 4
million pounds) for yellow perch and 0.1 to 0.2
million kilograms (0.2 to 0.4 million pounds) for
walleye. In 1999, the lakewide yellow perch harvest
was about 272,000 kilograms (600,000 pounds), a
steady decline from the mid to late 1980s. The
lakewide walleye harvest was just under 68,000
kilograms (150,000 pounds), or at about the same
level since 1985.
ake Michigan Statistics
Elevation3
feet
metres
Length
miles
kilometers
Breadth
miles
kilometers
Average Depth"
feet
metres
Maximum Depth"
feet
metres
Volume"
cu. mi.
km3
Water Area
sq. mi.
km2
Land Drainage Area
sq. mi.
km2
Total Area
sq. mi.
km2
577
176
307
494
118
190
279
85
925
282
1,180
4,920
22,300
57,800
45,600
118,000
67,900
175,800
1,638
2,633
Shoreline Lengthb
miles
kilometres
Retention Time
years 99
Population: USA (1990)t 10,057,026
Outlet Strait of Mackinac
' measured at low water datum
b including islands
11990-1991 population census data were
collected on different watershed boundaries
and are not directly comparable to previous
years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental
Atlas and Resource Book
For salmon and lake trout, the objective is to
establish a diverse harvest of 2.7 to 6.8 million
kilograms (6 to 15 million pounds) of which 20-25%
is lake trout. Another objective is to establish self-
Other fish community objectives include protecting
and sustaining a diverse community of native
species, including other species not specifically
mentioned earlier such as gars and bowfin. These
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
species contribute to the biological integrity of the
fish community and should be recognized and
protected for their ecological significance and
cultural and economic values. Another fish
community objective is to suppress the sea lamprey
to allow the achievement of other fish community
objectives.
In conclusion, progress toward achieving fish
community objectives is mixed/improving for fish
population structures; mixed/deteriorating for the
restoration and protection of fish habitat; and mixed
for the prevention/control of aquatic nuisance
species. To protect and enhance fish habitat and
rehabilitate degraded habitats, it will be necessary to
achieve a "no net loss" of the productive capacity of
habitat supporting Lake Michigan's fish
communities. High priority should be given to the
restoration and enhancement of historic riverine
spawning and nursery areas for anadromous
species.
Lake Superior
State of the Ecosystem
The status of the Lake Superior basin ecosystem is mixed
because of: poor offshore chub populations; mixed (some
gains and some losses) in terms of continued fish
consumption advisories, the status of herring gull
populations, critical pollutant reductions, atmospheric
deposition, human population change, quantity of water
consumed; mixed/improving for lake trout nearshore, all
habitats for lake herring, sea lamprey abundance; and good
for lake trout offshore habitat and lake whitefish nearshore.
Lake Superior's aquatic communities are closest to what
the communities of the Great Lakes must have been like
prior to European settlement. The status of these
aquatic communities is measured by two indicators: fish
abundance, including lake trout, chubs, lake herring,
and whitefish, and sea lamprey abundance.
The trend in catch for lean and Siscowet lake trout in
commercial fisheries from 1950 to 1998 has not
changed for lean trout and is upward with
fluctuations for Siscowet trout. Catch per unit effort
for lake herring is declining while the chub fishery is
almost non-existent. Lake whitefish catch per unit
effort for both gill net and trap net has risen over the
last decades. Sea lamprey has declined since the
1950s with a slight rise in 1999.
PCB DDE Mirex Dieldrin HCB Hep E pox TCDD
Percent decline
Contaminants in herring gull eggs, Lake
Superior, 1974 vs. 1999 data.
Source: Environment Canada
22
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Wildlife community indicators are forest breeding birds,
with trends unique to the local environment, and colonial
waterbirds, where herring gulls are indicators of regional
contaminant levels. Herring gull contaminants-PCBs,
DDE, mirex, dieldrin, HCB, heptachlor-epoxide, and
TCDD-have declined from 51% to 97% since 1974.
Herring gull abundance, measured in number of
breeding pairs and number of colonies, has nearly
doubled in Canada between 1976 and 1999. In the
United States, numbers have increased only slightly, from
7,106 pairs to 7,715 and from 90 colonies to 134.
Progress toward the management goal of zero
discharge of emissions of nine critical pollutants is
mixed. The mercury goal for 2000 has been met. But
meeting the 2010 milestones will require strategies
relating to fuel combustion and mining. Mercury
emissions from sources in the Lake Superior basin
have decreased to about 1,000 kilograms per year.
Open lake concentrations of most toxic chemicals are
lower than the most sensitive guidelines, except for
dieldrin at 0.114 ng/L; PCBs at 0.0705 per ng/L; and
toxaphene at 0.9 and 0.7 ng/L. PCBs in Chinook
salmon (0.3 ppm) are still well above the unlimited
consumption level of 0.05 ppm.
One Lakewide Management Plan objective is the
virtual elimination of atmospheric emissions of toxic
chemicals of human origin from the lake.
Atmospheric deposition is the dominant pathway for
critical pollutants. Atmospheric loadings will continue
for an unknown length of time.
Lake Superior Drainage Basin
Q 5t, LraJ» Khar
®FCTtrt*uUi Hlrtwr
Q TOR* u**
I } Ufce Sgperfcr Bwoin
CwxtManfi
Gt^nWtot*
Orjtorio
5oo> Sv. War*
rf
23
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
84 85 86 87
90 91 92 93 94 95 96
Year
Dieldrin trends in Lake Superior precipitation.
Source: Environment Canada
Indicators of how well humans are being sustained by
the landscape are related to use of ecosystem
resources, trends in human population density and
municipal water use. Data from Ontario show a
relatively stable population base and a stable per
capita residential water use.
Lake Superior emerging issues are numerous and
include: introduction of non-native species, airborne
pollutants, human migration into the basin, habitat
fragmentation, meeting zero-discharge milestones,
exposure and effects of chemical mixtures, endocrine
disrupting chemicals, mercury, new chemicals, and
domestic use of burn barrels. The Lake Superior
Binational Program's initial focus has been on the Zero
Discharge Demonstration Program. In 1997, the
Program broadened to incorporate six ecosystem
themes in its charge. Active public participation was
sought through the Binational Forum. Project
implementation is underway during 2000 to 2002.
Elevation"
feet
metres
Length
miles
kilometers
Breadth
miles
kilometers
Average Depth"
feet
metres
Maximum Depth"
feet
metres
Volume"
cu. mi.
km3
Water Area
sq. mi.
km2
Land Drainage Area
sq. mi.
km2
Total Area
sq. mi.
km2
Shoreline Lengthb
miles
kilometres
Retention Time
years
Population:
USA(1990)f
Canada (1991)
Totals
Outlet
600
183
350
563
160
257
483
147
1,332
406
2,900
12,100
31,700
82,100
49,300
127,700
81,000
209,800
2,729
4,385
191
425,548
181,573
607,121
St. Marys River
' measured at low water datum
b including islands
11990-1991 population census data were
collected on different watershed boundaries
and are not directly comparable to previous
years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental
Atlas and Resource Book
24
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Section 3
State of the Great Lakes
Based on Indicators
The status of the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem has been assessed and is considered
mixed because:
• Surface waters are still amongst the best
sources of drinking water in the world;
• Progress has been made both in cleaning up
contaminants and in rehabilitating some fish
and wildlife species;
• Invasive species continue as a significant
threat to Great Lakes biological
communities;
• Atmospheric deposition of contaminants
from distant sources outside the basin
confounds efforts to eliminate these
substances;
• Urban sprawl threatens high quality natural
areas, rare species, farmland and open space;
and
• Development, drainage, and pollution are
shrinking coastal wetlands.
These conclusions are based on assessments of 33
indicators made by the governments of Canada,
United States, Provinces, States, Tribes, and First
Nations, including local governments, industry,
academia, and non-governmental organizations. The
indicators are part of suite of 80 that have been
determined to be necessary, sufficient and feasible in
order to convey a picture of Great Lakes basin
health. Several categories comprise the suite: open
and nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore
terrestrial, land use, human health, societal, and
unbounded (those indicators that transcend the
other categories - for example, Acid Rain or
indicators of climate change).
The assessment is incomplete. Data for several
indicators within this report are uneven (or not
basin-wide) across jurisdictions. Of a total of 80
Great Lakes ecosystem indicators, 47 have yet to be
reported or require further development. In some
cases, the required data have not been collected.
Changes to existing monitoring programs or the
initiation of new monitoring programs are also
needed. Several indicators are under development.
More research or testing may be needed before these
indicators can be assessed.
This section details the purpose, state, and future
pressures for each of the 33 indicators that were
analyzed. The authors of the indicator reports were
asked to assess, in his or her best professional
judgment, the overall status of the ecosystem
component in relation to established endpoints or
ecosystem objectives, when available. Five broad
categories were used:
• Good. The state of the ecosystem
component is presently meeting ecosystem
objectives or otherwise is in acceptable
condition.
• Mixed, Improving. The ecosystem
component displays both good and
degraded features, but overall, conditions
are improving toward an acceptable state.
• Mixed. The state of the ecosystem
component has some features that are in
good condition and some features that are
degraded, perhaps differing between lake
basins.
• Mixed, Deteriorating. The ecosystem
component displays both good and
degraded features, but overall, conditions
are deteriorating from an acceptable state.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
• Poor. The ecosystem component is severely
negatively impacted and it does not display
even minimally acceptable conditions.
Over the next several State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conferences, additional indicators will be
developed, monitoring programs will be adjusted,
information management systems put into place,
and research and testing completed to refine the
indicators. A robust suite of indicators will
strengthen the biennial assessment of the status of
the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes community is encouraged to assist
in this assessment by exploring the detailed
indicator summaries and conclusions, and providing
feedback on the content, format, conclusions, and
implications for management. The complete
indicator reports for these 33 indicators can be found
in Implementing Indicators, November 2000.
26
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.1 Nearshore & Open Waters
Nearshore and Open Water Indicators - Assessment at a Glance
CO
OC
UJ
I
UJ
Q.
O
06
O
CO
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
GOOD
Hexagenia
Preyfish populations
Spawning-phase sea
lamprey abundance
Native unionid mussels
Lake trout
Scud (Diporeia hoyi)
DELT in nearshore fish
(Lake Erie)
Phytoplankton
populations
Phosphorus
concentrations 6>
loadings
Contaminants in colonial
nesting waterbirds
Zooplankton
populations
Atmospheric
deposition of toxic
chemicals
Toxic chemical
concentrations in
offshore waters
27
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Walleye
Assessment: Good
Purpose
Trends in the amount of walleye harvested indicate
changes in overall fish community structure, the
health of percids (the family of fish to which walleye
belong), and the stability and resiliency of the Great
Lakes aquatic ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
In general, walleye yields peaked during periods of
environmental conditions that favoured walleye
(mid-1980s), and they remain substantially improved
from levels of the 1970s. Total yields were highest in
Lake Erie, intermediate in Lakes Huron and Ontario,
and lowest in Lakes Michigan and Superior, as
shown by the historical pattern before the 1930s.
Declines in the 1990s were likely related to shifts in
environmental states, i.e., reduced nutrient levels in
the water, changing fisheries, and, perhaps in Lake
Lake Erie Walleye Harvest
Year
Lake Huron Walleye Harvest
Year
Lake Ontario Walleye Harvest
Year
Lake Superior Walleye Harvest
Year
Lake Michigan Walleye Harvest
75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97
Year
Walleye harvests for each of the Great
Lakes.
(Note: Established Fish Community Goals and
Objectives are: Lake Huron: 700 metric tonnes,
Lake Michigan: 100-200 metric tonnes,
Lake Erie: sustainable harvests in all basins.
Achievement of these targets will require
healthy walleye stocks in each lake.)
Source: Tom Stewart (Lake Ontario-OMNR), Tom Eckhart (Lake
Ontario-NYDEC), Dave Fielder (Lake Huron-MDNR), various annual
OMNR and ODNR Lake Erie fisheries reports, and the GLFC
commercial fishery data base
28
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Erie, a population naturally coming into balance
with its prey base.
Future Pressures
Walleye populations will be influenced by loss of
habitats; environmental factors that alter water
levels, water temperature, water clarity, and flow
(currents); climate change impacts; non-native
species, like zebra mussels, ruffe, and round gobies;
and human disturbance of tributary and nearshore
habitats through activities like dredging, diking,
farming, and filling of wetlands.
Acknowledgments
Author: Roger Knight, Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
Fishery harvest data were obtained from Tom Stewart (Lake Ontario-OMNR),
Tom Eckhart (Lake Ontario-NYDEC), Karen Wright (Upper Lakes tribal data-
COTFMA), Dave Fielder (Lake Huron-MDNR), Terry Lychwyck (Green Bay-
WDNR), various annual OMNR and ODNR Lake Erie fisheries reports, and the
GLFC commerdal fishery data base. Gene Emond (ODNR) collated data into a
standardized form. Fishery data should not be used for purposes outside of this
document without first contacting the agencies that collected them.
Hexagenia
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
Hexagenia (or burrowing mayfly) is intolerant of
pollution and thus reflects the quality of water and
lakebed sediments in mesotrophic Great Lakes
habitats (moderate nutrient levels). It was
historically an important item in the diets of many
valuable fishes, and the massive swarms of winged
adults that are typical of healthy, productive
Hexagenia populations are highly visible.
State of the Ecosystem
There is now evidence that Hexagenia have begun to
recover in Green Bay (Lake Michigan), Saginaw Bay
(Lake Huron), and the Western Basin of Lake Erie,
and that they have fully recovered in the
southwestern part of the Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Most of Lake St. Clair and portions of the upper Great
Lakes connecting channels support populations of
Hexagenia with the highest biomass and production
measured anywhere in North America. In sharp
contrast, Hexagenia have been extirpated (eliminated)
in polluted portions of these same Great Lakes waters
and no recovery is presently evident. The recovery of
Hexagenia in western Lake Erie is a signal which
Areas of Hexagenla recovery
I Areas where Diporeia are rare or absent
Hexagenia recovery and Diporeia decline in the
Great Lakes.
Source: Thomas Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Ann Arbor, Ml, unpublished data. Figure created by Melanie
Neilson, Environment Canada
shows clearly that properly implemented pollution
controls can bring about the recovery of a major Great
Lakes mesotrophic ecosystem.
Future Pressures
Hexagenia are sensitive to periodic occurrences of
anoxic (lacking oxygen) bottom waters resulting from
excessive nutrient inputs; and toxic pollutants,
including oil and heavy metals, which accumulate
and persist in the lakebed sediments. Stormwater
runoff from impervious surfaces and combined sewer
overflows are significant sources of these pollutants.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Ann Arbor, MI.
Preyfish Populations
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator directly measures the abundance and
diversity of preyfish populations, especially in relation
to the stability of predator species which are necessary
to maintain the biological integrity of each lake.
State of the Ecosystem
Lake Superior. The population of lake herring has
declined in recent years, believed to be the result of
environmental factors rather than parental stock size.
In contrast, rainbow smelt biomass has remained
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
• Herring
• Rainbow Smelt
DMisc. D Rainbow Smelt HAIewife D Bloater
300,000
200,000 H
- 150,000 H
Rainbow Smelt
8 60
g 50
I 40
DAIewife DRainbow Smelt
D Deepwater Sculpin D Bloater
400000 -
350000 -
300000 -
250000 -
200000 -
150000
100000 -
50000 -
0
Soft-rayed D Spiny-rayed
1999
1973
Preyfish population trends in
the Great Lakes.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes
Science Center, except Lake Erie, which is
from surveys conducted by the Ohio Division
of Wildlife
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Year
30
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
low and is likely controlled by predation from trout
and salmon. Sculpins remain at low but consistent
levels of abundance.
Lake Michigan. Alewives and smelt remain at lower
levels than in previous years, apparently controlled
in large part by predation pressure. Bloater biomass
continues to decline due to lack of recruitment and
slow growth. Sculpins continue to contribute a
significant portion of the preyfish biomass.
Lake Huron. The decline in bloater abundance has
resulted in an increased proportion of alewives in the
preyfish community. Predation pressure may be an
important force in both alewife and rainbow smelt
populations. Sculpin populations have varied over
time, but have been at lower levels in recent years.
Lake Erie. The preyfish community in Lake Erie has a
high species diversity, but recently it has shown declining
trends in all three basins. In the eastern basin, rainbow
smelt (soft-rayed) have shown significant declines in
abundance. In the western and central basins, white
perch (spiny-rayed) and rainbow smelt have declined.
Gizzard shad and alewife (clupeids) abundance has
been quite variable across the survey period.
Lake Ontario. Alewives and to a lesser degree
rainbow smelt dominate the preyfish population.
Alewives had declined to low levels; though this
species has exhibited strong 1998 and 1999 year
classes (a year class refers to all the fish of a
particular species born that year) which have recently
increased their abundance. Rainbow smelt show
some increase due to influence of 1996 year class, but
the scarcity of large individuals indicates heavy
predation. Overall, shifts to deeper water have been
noted in fish distributions and may be related to
establishment of zebra mussels. Sculpin populations
have declined and remained at low levels since 1990.
Future Pressures
Preyfish populations are likely to be impacted by
predation by salmon and trout, pressures from
Dreissena (zebra and quagga mussels) populations,
and dramatic declines in Diporeia (scud) populations.
Acknowledgments
Author: Guy W. Fleischer, U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science
Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Contributions from Robert O'Gorman and Randy W. Owens, U.S.
Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario Biological
Station, Oswego NY, Charles Madenjian, Gary Curtis, Ray Argyle and Jeff
Schaeffer, U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor,
MI, and Charles Bronte and Mike Hoff, U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes
Science Center, Lake Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WI., and Jeffrey
Tyson, Ohio Div. of Wildlife Sandusky Fish Research Unit, Sandusky OH.
All preyfish trend figures are based on annual bottom trawl surveys
performed by U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, except
Lake Erie, which is from surveys conducted by the Ohio Division of Wildlife.
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey Abundance
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator estimates the abundance of sea
lampreys in the Great Lakes, which has a direct
impact on the structure of the fish community and
health of the aquatic ecosystem. Populations of
large, native, predatory fishes can be diminished by
sea lamprey predation.
State of the Ecosystem
Lake Superior. During the past 20 years populations
have fluctuated but remain at levels less than 10% of
peak abundance. Although there is concern that
abundance has increased since 1995, survival
objectives for lake trout continue to be met.
Lake Michigan. Over most of the lake, populations
have been relatively stable. However, an increase in
the population in the north is caused by an
expansion of the large population in Lake Huron
moving into Lake Michigan.
Lake Huron. During the early 1980s, populations
increased, particularly in the north. Through the 1990s
Lake Huron contained more sea lamprey than all the
other lakes combined. Lake trout restoration activities
were abandoned in the northern portion of the lake
during 1995 because so few lake trout were surviving
to maturity because of attacks by sea lamprey. An
integrated control strategy was initiated in the St.
Marys River in 1997, including targeted application of
a new bottom-release lampricide, enhanced trapping of
spawning animals, and sterile-male release.
Lake Erie. Lamprey abundance has increased since
the early 1990's to levels that threaten the lake trout
success. An assessment during 1998 indicated that
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
5.
£
Q.
JS
<0
w
0)
(0
(0
O)
'E
(0
Q.
0)
0)
O
<0
TJ
3
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie
Ontario
Total lakewide abundance of sea lamprey
estimated during the spawning migration.
*Note the scale for Lake Erie is 1/5 larger than
the other lakes.
Source: Gavin Christie and Jeffrey Slade, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Rodney McDonald, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, and Katherine Mullen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
the sources of this increase were several streams in
which treatments had been deferred due to low
water flows or concerns for non-target organisms.
Lake Ontario. Abundance of spawning-phase sea
lampreys has continued to decline to low levels
throughout the 1990s.
Future Pressures
As water quality improves in Great Lakes tributaries
so does the potential for sea lampreys to colonize
new locations. Short lapses in control can result in
rapid increases in abundance. Significant additional
control efforts, like those on the St. Marys River, may
be necessary to maintain suppression.
Acknowledgments
Author: Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Native Unionid Mussels
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
Unionid distribution and abundance patterns reflect
the general health of the aquatic ecosystem, and in
particular those components interacting with the
bottom substrates. Unionid mussels are long-lived,
relatively sedentary animals, which are highly sensitive
to habitat degradation, organic, inorganic, and metal
pollutants, and biofouling by zebra mussels.
State of the Ecosystem
Many species of unionid mussels are listed as
endangered or threatened. Most unionid
populations in the Great Lakes and associated
watersheds have declined as a result of decades of
habitat alteration such as dredging, urbanization,
increased sedimentation, and shoreline armouring.
Additional stresses include changes in fish
distribution, chemical pollutants in the water
column and sediments and the arrival of competitive
and predatory non-native species.
Unionid species diversity and density have severely
declined in the open waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit
River, and Lake St. Clair since the arrival of zebra
mussels in the mid-1980s. Many sites do not contain
any live unionids. Healthy and diverse
32
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
1961
• 14
1982
• 4
• 4
1972
1991
Abundance of freshwater mussels (numbers/m2) collected in 1961, 1972, 1982 and 1991 from 17 sites
in the western basin of Lake Erie. Black circles indicate the presence of native unionid mussels and
the number indicates the quantity found at the test site. White circles indicate the absence of native
unionid mussels.
Source: T. Nalepa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, B. Manny, J. Roth, S. Mozley, and D. Scholesser
communities, however, were recently discovered in
Lake Erie in nearshore areas with firm substrates, in
soft sediments associated with coastal marshes, and
in a coastal marsh in the St. Clair River delta.
Future Pressures
Pressures on the native unionid mussel populations
include: zebra mussel expansion (biofouling);
changes to native fish community structure by non-
native species (unionid reproductive cycles contain a
parasitic larval stage requiring specific fish hosts);
increasing urban sprawl; development of factory
farms; and elevated use of herbicides.
Acknowledgments
Authors: S. Jerrine Nichols, U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science
Centre, Ann Arbor, MI and Janice Smith, Environment Canada, Burlington,
ON.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Lake Trout
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator tracks the status and trends in lake
trout populations, and it will be used to infer the
basic structure of cold water predator and prey
communities and the
general health of the
ecosystem. By the late
1950s, lake trout were
extirpated throughout
most of the Great Lakes.
Full restoration will not
be achieved until natural
reproduction is re-
established and
maintained.
State of the Ecosystem
Lake trout abundance
dramatically increased in
all the Great Lakes shortly
after the initiation of sea
lamprey control, stocking,
and harvest control.
Natural reproduction is
now widespread in Lake
Superior, and stocking has
been discontinued
throughout most of the
lake. Densities of wild
fish have exceeded that
of hatchery-reared fish
since the mid 1980s. Unfortunately natural
reproduction is at very low levels or non-existent in
the rest of the Great Lakes, therefore populations in
these waters are maintained solely by stocking.
Future Pressures
Predarion on newly hatched lake trout larvae by
native and non-native predators is a problem.
Excessive sea lamprey predation will result in few
fish reaching sexual maturity. Hatchery-reared fish
appear unable to select suitable substrate for egg
deposition and genetic diversity is lacking in the
strains of hatchery-reared fish stocked into the
Lakes. Early mortality syndrome (EMS) of fish
larvae is thought to be due to thiamine deficiencies
in the parental diet of alewives.
Acknowledgments
Author: Charles Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay, WI.
Contributions by James Bence, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI,
Donald Einhouse, New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
Dunkirk, NY, and Robert O'Gorman, U.S. Geological Survey, Oswego, NY.
Lake trout abundance in the Great Lakes.
Source: R.L. Eshenroder, Great Lakes Fishery Commision, J.W. Peck, and C.H. Olver
Scud (Diporeia hoyi)
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator provides a measure of the biological
integrity of the offshore regions of the Great Lakes.
It consists of assessing the abundance of the benthic
macroinvertebrate Diporeia, which are the most
abundant benthic organisms in cold, offshore regions
of each of the lakes, and which are a key component
in the food web of offshore regions.
34
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
V t. . ••• I
, ,..._:J.
0 3 Q i IB IB
Density (numbers/m2x 103) of Diporeia in the southern basin of Lake Michigan between 1980 and 1998.
Note recent declines in the southeastern portion of the basin.
Source: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
35
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
State of the Ecosystem
Populations of Diporeia have been observed to
decline shortly after zebra mussels become
established. Diporeia are currently declining in
portions of Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, and
eastern Lake Erie (see the figure with the Hexagenia
indicator report - page 29). Areas where Diporeia are
known to be rare or absent include the southeastern
portion of Lake Michigan from Chicago to Grand
Haven at water depths < 70 metres, all of Lake
Ontario at depths < 70 metres except for some areas
along the northern shoreline, and all of the eastern
basin of Lake Erie. In other areas of Lakes Michigan
and Ontario, Diporeia are still present, but
abundances have decreased by one-half or more.
Populations appear to be stable in Lake Superior.
Recent evidence suggests that the reason for the
decline of Diporeia may be related to the infestation
of zebra mussels.
Future Pressures
Expansion of zebra and quagga mussel populations
at water depths of 30-50 metres will pose a threat to
Diporeia.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas Nalepa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, GLERL, Ann Arbor, MI.
Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and
Tumours (DELT) in Nearshore Fish
Assessment: Poor
Purpose
This indicator assesses the
prevalence of external anomalies in
nearshore fish. It will be used to
infer areas where fish are exposed
to contaminated sediments within
the Great Lakes.
Editor's Note:
The DELT Index (deformities, eroded
fins, lesions, and tumours) was
developed as a measure for the Index of
Biological Integrity (IBI), and it has
been included as one of the SOLEC
indicators. Although the DELT index
looks at the entire fish community, its inclusion of all
species and age groups lessens its discriminatory power in
distinguishing amongst levels of contaminant exposure of
fish from various tributaries.
As an alternative indicator, the ELF Index (external lesion
frequency) is being developed as an estimate of
contaminant exposure of mature fish in a single species.
Brown bullhead have been used to develop the index, since
they are the most frequently used benthic indicator species
in the southern Great Lakes. Information is included here
to assist an evaluation of ELF as a SOLEC indicator.
State of the Ecosystem
Field and laboratory studies have correlated
chemical carcinogens found in sediments at some
Areas of Concern in Lakes Erie, Michigan, and
Huron with an elevated incidence of liver and
external tumours. Other external anomalies may
also be related to exposure to toxic chemicals, but
their use must be carefully evaluated.
The most common external anomalies found in
bullhead over the last twenty years are raised
growths (RG) on the body or lips (often called
tumours), focal discoloration (called melanistic
spots), and stubbed or shortened/missing barbels
(SB). Knobbed barbels (KB) have not been as
consistently reported in the historical database, but
also appear to be a useful parameter.
Preliminary findings from bullhead populations in
several Lake Erie contaminated tributaries and a
External lesion frequency for brown bullheads in Lake Erie, 1999-
2000. RG-raised growth, KB-knobbed barbels, SB-stubbed barbels.
Source: Lake Erie Ecological Investigation, unpublished. P. Baumann, U.S. Geological Survey, and
D. Peterson, Ohio State University
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
reference site indicate that single anomalies
occurring at > 0.4 per fish or multiple anomalies
occurring at greater than 0.8 per fish would indicate
possible impairment.
Future Pressures
Continued exposure of the fish populations to
contaminated sediments could cause deformities to
persist.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Stephen B. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Reston, VA, and Paul C. Baumann, U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division, Columbus, OH.
Phytoplankton Populations
Assessment: Unable to assess status until
targets are determined
Purpose
This indicator involves the direct measurement of
phytoplankton species composition, biomass, and
primary productivity in the Great Lakes, and
indirectly assesses the impact of nutrient/
contaminant enrichment and invasive non-native
predators on the microbial food-web of the Great
Lakes.
Superior
^» ™
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 £
Other
Dinoflagellates
Cyanophytes
Cryptophytes
Chrysophytes
Chlorophytes
Diatoms
Michigan
Rfl
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Erie
Western Basin
Huron
BRHH.nSnn R n
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
•
0
-
1
•
-
Ontario
1
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Erie
Eastern Basin
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Phytoplankton biovolume (gm/m3) and community comparison in the Great Lakes 1983-1998 (summer,
open lake, epilimnion or upper waters). Blank indicates no data.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
37
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
State of the Ecosystem
Substantial reductions in summer phytoplankton
populations occurred in the late 1980s in the eastern
basin of Lake Erie and in the early 1990s for the
central and western basins. The data were highly
variable year-to-year, so possible changes in
community composition were not determined. In
general, phytoplankton biomass in Lake Michigan
was lower in the 1990s than in the 1980s. The timing
of these declines in phytoplankton biomass suggest
the possible impact of zebra mussels. No trends are
apparent in phytoplankton biomass in Lakes Huron
or Ontario.
Future Pressures
Pressures on phytoplankton include changes in
nutrient loadings; continued introductions and/or
expansions of non-native species.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp I&ET, Alexandria, VA, and Marc L.
Tuchman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Phosphorus Concentrations
and Loadings
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses total phosphorus levels in the
Great Lakes, and it is used to support the evaluation
of trophic status and food web dynamics in the
Great Lakes. Phosphorus is an essential element for
all organisms and is often the limiting factor for
aquatic plant growth in the Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
Strong efforts begun in the 1970s to reduce
phosphorus loadings have been successful in
maintaining or reducing nutrient concentrations in
the Lakes, although high concentrations still occur
locally in some embayments and harbours.
Average concentrations in the open waters of Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or
below guideline levels. Concentrations in all three
basins of Lake Erie exceed phosphorus guidelines
and recent data suggest an increasing trend,
however, this may be an effect of large populations
of non-native zebra and quagga mussels. Further
research is necessary. In Lakes Ontario and Huron,
almost all offshore waters meet the desired guideline
although some nearshore areas and embayments
showed elevated levels which could promote
nuisance algae growths such as the attached green
algae, Cladophora.
Future Pressures
Current control measures may no longer be
sufficient because increasing numbers of people
living along the Lakes will exert increasing demands
on existing sewage treatment facilities, and
additional loadings can be expected.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation
Branch, Burlington, ON, and Glenn Warren, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office, Chicago, IL.
Contaminants in Colonial
Nesting Waterbirds
Assessment: Good
Purpose
This indicator assesses current chemical
concentration levels and trends as well as ecological
and physiological endpoints in representative
colonial waterbirds (gulls, terns, cormorants and/or
herons). These features will be used to infer the
impact of contaminants on the health of the
waterbird populations.
State of the Ecosystem
Most contaminants in herring gull eggs have
declined by a minimum of 50% and many have
declined more than 90% since monitoring began in
1974. As well, the rate of decline in more than 70%
of cases is as fast or faster than in the past. Gull
eggs from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River
continue to have the greatest levels of mirex and
dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD), those from the upper lakes
have the greatest levels of dieldrin and heptachlor
epoxide, those from Lake Michigan have the greatest
levels of DDE and those from Lake Michigan and
the Detroit River-Western Lake Erie area have the
greatest levels of PCBs.
38
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Western
Erie
Central
Erie
1970 1975 1930 1935 1990 1995 2000
Eastern
Erie
Total phosphorus trends in the Great Lakes 1971-2000 (spring, open lake, surface). Blank indicates
no sampling.
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
Populations of most species have increased over
those of 25-30 years ago. Interestingly, Double-
crested Cormorants, whose population levels have
increased more than 400-fold, still exhibit some
eggshell thinning.
Future Pressures
All contaminants entering the Great Lakes including
those from re-suspension of contaminated
sediments, atmospheric inputs, and underground
leaks from landfill sites, will continue to put
pressure on colonial nesting waterbirds.
Acknowledgments
Author: D.V. Chip Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment
Canada, Downsview, ON.
Thanks to other past and present staff at CWS-Ontario Region (Burlington
and Downsview), as well as staff at the CWS National Wildlife Research
Centre (Hull, Que.) and wildlife biologists Ray Faber, Ralph Morris, Jim
Quinn, John Ryder, Brian Ratcliff and Keith Grasman for egg collections,
preparation, analysis and data management over the 27 years of this
project.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
25000
22500
20000
17500
15000
12500
10000
7500
5000
2500
0
Year
Double-crested Cormorant nests (breeding pairs)
in Lake Ontario (1979-2000). Temporal trends.
Source: C. Pekarik and D.V. Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished
Year
DDE in Herring Gull eggs, Toronto Harbour 1974-
1999. Spatial trends.
Source: C. Pekarik and D.V. Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished
g- 25^
I •
"& 1S
I "
§
1
m
/'//
Colonies (arranged W to E)
PCBs in Great Lakes Herring Gull eggs, 1999.
Population trends.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service, unpublished
Zooplankton Populations
Assessment: Unable to assess status until
targets are determined
Purpose
This indicator directly measures changes in
community composition, mean individual size and
biomass of zooplankton populations in the Great
Lakes basin, and indirectly measures changes in
food-web dynamics due to changes in vertebrate or
invertebrate predation.
State of the Ecosystem
This indicator should provide information on the
biological integrity of the Great Lakes. However,
since specific targets or endpoints for this indicator
have yet to be identified, it will be hard to determine
whether conditions are improving or deteriorating.
«
£ 90
if"
J «••
| JO
C
0rjJ
449
I
j
u
I
su
&I7 °'? 1.01 Ofifl
C3 _L =1 _i_ 0-21 0.3*
31 •<• -t" *tb -t-
Ml HU E C W ON
ER
Ratio of biomass of calanoid copepods to that of
cladocerans and cyclopid copepods for the five
Great Lakes. Lake Erie is divided into western,
central and eastern basins.
(Data collected with 153 |xm mesh net tows to a
depth of 100 metres or the bottom of the water
column, whichever was shallower. Numbers
indicate arithmetic averages.)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office (1998)
The ratio of calanoids to cladocerans and cyclopoids
(different groups of zooplankton) showed a clear
relationship with trophic state of the waters. The
average value for the oligotrophic (low nutrient
levels) Lake Superior was at least four times as high
as that for any other lake, while Lakes Michigan and
Huron and the eastern basin of Lake Erie were also
40
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
high. The western basin of Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario were both low, while the central basin of
Lake Erie had an intermediate value. In the western
and central basins of Lake Erie, a significant increase
in the ratio of calanoids to cladocerans and
cyclopoids was observed between 1970 and 1983-
1987, and this increase was sustained throughout the
1990s.
Future Pressures
Zooplankton populations will continue to be affected
by invasive non-native species, e.g., the spiny water
flea and the fishhook water flea, and continued
proliferation of zebra and quagga mussel
populations.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp I&ET, Alexandria, VA, Marc L.
Tuchman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago IL, and Ora Johannsson, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Burlington, ON.
Atmospheric Deposition
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator estimates the annual average loadings
of priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to
the Great Lakes, and it is used to determine temporal
trends in contaminant concentrations.
State of the Ecosystem
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) consists of five master sampling sites, one
near each of the Great Lakes, and several satellite
stations. The data set is large, and only selected data
are presented here.
For gas-phase total PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls), elevated concentrations were consistently
observed at the Lake Erie site compared to the other
Lakes. For all sites, the trend over time is generally
n
I
*Note scale change
for Lake Michigan.
90 91c3sa----$394 95 96
Year
Atmospheric concentration of total PCB and total HCH.
Source: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Steering Committee (2000)
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
downward. Total PCB concentrations at a satellite
site in downtown Chicago were about 10 times
higher than at the more remote sites.
Gas-phase a- and -y-HCH (hexachloro-cyclohexane)
concentrations declined at all sites until 1996.
•y-HCH (lindane) is a pesticide used as a seed
treatment in the United States and Canada, and
atmospheric concentrations may not decrease
further.
The loadings from the atmosphere to the Great
Lakes for total PCB, HCH, and BaP (Benzo-[«]-
pyrene) are displayed in the accompanying figure.
A negative bar indicates that the lake is vaporizing
the compound to the atmosphere. A missing bar
indicates that the loading could not be calculated,
not that the loading was zero. These data show that
the loadings are generally getting smaller and the
lake water and the air above it are getting closer to
being in equilibrium.
(A
D)
c o
•D
8
-1 -500-
1500
n
i
j 1E
J,
r
i92
•\
J,
f i g
193 \
\
n
iJJl
9^94 re
i R i
f
95 1996
J
E3 PCB, Sup.
DHCH, Sup.
HBaP, Sup
DPCB, Mich.
• HCH, Mich.
DBaP, Mich.
0PCB, Erie
• HCH, Erie
E3BaP, Erie
Loadings of Total PCBs, Total HCHs, and BaP to
the Great Lakes.
Source: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Steering Committee
(2000)
Future Pressures
Atmospheric loadings of toxic compounds are likely
to continue well into the future.
Acknowledgments
Ron Kites and Ilora Basu at Indiana University prepared this report on
behalf of the IADN Steering Committee.
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in
Offshore Waters
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator reports the concentration of toxic
chemicals in offshore waters, and it infers the
potential for impacts on the health of the Great
Lakes aquatic ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Many toxic chemicals are present in the Great Lakes.
Examples of only a few illustrate spatial and
temporal trends from a single source of information.
Organochlorine pesticides such as lindane and
dieldrin are observed at relatively similar
concentrations in all lakes and connecting channels.
Concentrations decreased by approximately 50%
between 1986 and 1996, but dieldrin still far exceeds
the most sensitive water quality criterion for the
protection of human consumers of fish.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), octachlorostyrene, and
mirex are chemicals whose presence is due to
historical localized sources. Concentrations of all
three in the Niagara River have decreased by more
than 50% between 1986 and 1996. However, both
HCB and mirex continue to exceed the most
stringent criteria for the protection of human
consumers of fish.
Concentrations of some (not all) polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) appear to be increasing,
suggesting localized sources. For example,
comparisons of upstream/downstream
concentrations of fluoranthene over time suggest
increasing inputs from localized sources in the
Niagara River.
Future Pressures
Active sources for some chemicals still exist; classes
of chemicals such as endocrine disrupting chemicals,
in-use pesticides, and pharmaceuticals are emerging
issues.
Acknowledgments
Author: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation
Branch, Burlington, ON.
42
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Dieldrin Concentrations
Symbol ng/L
Missing
O ND
<0.10
0.10-0.15
0.15-0.20
0.20 - 0.25
9 0.25 +
Spatial dieldrin
patterns in the Great
Lakes (spring 1997 or
1998, surface) and
annual most likely
estimated averages for
the interconnecting
channels from 1986 to
1998. Units = ng/L
Source: Environmental
Conservation Branch, Environment
Canada
Spatial fluoranthene
patterns in the Great
Lakes (spring 1997 or
1998, surface) and
annual most likely
estimated averages for
the interconnecting
channels from 1986 to
1998. Units = ng/L
Source: Environmental Conservation
Branch. Environment Canada
Fluoranthene Concentrations
Symbol nq/L
• Missing
0 ND
<0.50
0.50-1.00
1.00-1.50
• 1.50-2.00
• 2.00 - 2.50
• 2.50 +
43
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.2 Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetland Indicators - Assessment at a Glance
CO
i
o
Amphibian diversity &
abundance
Contaminants in
snapping turtle eggs
Wetland-dependent
bird diversity &
abundance
Coastal wetland area by
type
Effect of water level
fluctuations
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
Assessments of the species composition and relative
abundance of calling frogs and toads are used to
help infer the condition of Great Lakes basin
marshes (i.e. wetlands dominated by non-woody
emergent plants).
State of the Ecosystem
With only five years of data collected across the
Great Lakes basin, the Marsh Monitoring Program
(MMP) is quite new as a monitoring program. From
1995 through 1999,11 frog and two toad species
were recorded by MMP participants surveying 354
routes across the Great Lakes basin. Spring Peeper
was the most frequently detected species. Green
Frog was detected in more than half of station years.
Gray Treefrog, American Toad and Northern
Leopard Frog were also common.
Although some trends were suggested for species
such as American Toad and Bullfrog, only the
declining trend for Chorus Frog could be resolved
with statistical confidence. Anecdotal and research
evidence suggests that wide variations in the
occurrence of many amphibian species at a given site
is a natural and ongoing phenomenon.
Future Pressures
Threats to amphibians include habitat loss and
deterioration, water level stabilization,
44
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Species Name % station-years Average calling
present* code
Spring Peeper
Green Frog
Gray Treefrog
American Toad
N. Leopard Frog
Bullfrog
Chorus Frog
Wood Frog
Pickerel Frog
Fowler's Frog
Mink Frog
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
Cope's Gray Treefrog
69
56.6
37.9
36.9
32.6
26.6
25.3
18.7
2.4
1.4
1.3
0.9
0.9
2.5
1.3
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
* MMP Survey stations monitored for multiple years considered as
individual samples.
Frequency of occurrence and average Call Level
Code for amphibian species detected inside
Great Lakes basin MMP stations, 1995 through
1999. Average calling codes are based upon the
three level call code standard for all MMP
amphibian surveys; surveyors record Code 1
(little overlap among calls, numbers of
individuals can be determined), Code 2 (some
overlap, numbers can be estimated) or Code 3
(much overlap, too numerous to be estimated).
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
sedimentation, contaminant and nutrient inputs, and
invasion of non-native plants and animals.
Acknowledgments
Author: Russ Weeber, Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowen, ON.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered
by Bird Studies Canada in partnership with
Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife
Service and with significant support from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Great Lakes National Program Office and
Lake Erie Team. The contributions of all
Marsh Monitoring Program staff and
volunteers are gratefully acknowledged.
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator measures the concentrations of persistent
contaminants in the eggs of common snapping turtles
living in wetlands of the Great Lakes basin in order to
provide an indirect measure of foodweb contamination
and its effects on wetland wildlife.
State of the Ecosystem
Snapping turtle eggs collected at two Lake Ontario
sites (Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek) had the
highest polychlorinated dioxins (PCDD)
concentrations (notably 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and number
of detectable furans (PCDF). Eggs from Cranberry
Marsh (Lake Ontario) and two Lake Erie sites (Long
Point and Rondeau Provincial Park) had similar
levels of PCBs and organochlorines. Eggs from
Akwesasne (St. Lawrence River) contained the
highest level of PCBs relative to all other sites.
Levels of PCBs and DDE (not shown) increased
significantly from 1984 to 1990/91 in eggs from
Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek, but levels of
PCDDs (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and PCDFs
decreased significantly at Cootes Paradise during
this time.
Eggs with the highest contaminant levels also
showed the poorest developmental success. Rates of
abnormal development of snapping turtle eggs from
(1986-1991) were highest at all four Lake Ontario
sites compared to all other sites studied.
03 100
.Q
s 60
fl)
-£. 20 .
Q.
•
1 1
II
Ljl 1^
-=? ° '
^Tt os ® ^
O O
"
^^ ^frn ^H „ ND
1 Is I8 is L 1
.- pi r i |? |?
• 2378-TCDD
n 12378-PnCDD
n 123678-HxCDD
• 23478-PnCDF
H 12478-PnCDF
Dioxin and furan concentrations (1984; 1989/90) in snapping turtle
eggs at Canadian Great Lakes study sites.
Source: C. Bishop, Canadian Wildlife Service
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
5 1
Cfi
n 4
1
e
s
ra 2 -
D)
1 -
r.
E
-i
1
I
n
r
— a
B
£
|
'.
4 n
| n 0
i rD 1
u
Cfi ~ "c 05 •* <5
se 5-2 £e S S
8,2 ° If I S
0 °s ii ^
n£1 *
i_U F?1
E53 1981
Ba 1984
• 1988
O 1989
9 1990
^ 1991
c = g
0 "^ |
t gi ^f '1981-0.19
g £ « S 1988-0.03
J w 1989-0.02
Mean sum PCB concentrations (1981-1991) in snapping turtle eggs
at Canadian Great Lakes study sites and one inland reference site.
Source: C. Bishop, Canadian Wildlife Service
Future Pressures
Snapping turtles in some Great Lakes locations will
continue to be exposed to toxic chemicals through a
diet of contaminated fish.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kim Hughes, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Downsview, ON.
Contributions from Christine Bishop, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada, R.J. Brooks, University of Guelph, Canadian Wildlife
Service - National Wildlife Research Centre and Peggy Ng, York University.
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity
and Abundance
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
Assessments of the diversity and abundance of
wetland-dependent birds in the Great Lakes basin,
combined with an analysis of habitat characteristics,
are used to evaluate the health and function of
wetlands.
State of the Ecosystem
Although results are still preliminary, from 1995
through 1999, 53 species of birds that use marshes
(wetlands dominated by non-woody emergent
plants) for feeding, nesting or both were recorded by
Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers at 322
routes throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Statistically significant basin-wide increases were
observed for Canada Goose, Mallard, Chimney
Swift, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Common
Yellowthroat and Common Crackle. Species with
significant basin-wide declines were Pied-billed
Grebe, Blue-winged Teal, American Coot,
undifferenriated Common Moorhen/American Coot,
and Black Tern. Each of the declining species
depends upon wetlands for breeding, but because
they use wetland habitats almost exclusively, the
Pied-billed Grebe, American Coot, Common
Moorhen, and Black Tern are particularly dependent
on the availability of healthy wetlands.
46
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
a)
Pied-billed Grebe Blue-winged Teal
-11.6 (-19.9, -2.5) -13.2 (-24.3, -0.5)
3-
2-
1-
-^
3-
2-
1-
- — „
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999
American Coot Moorhen/Coot
-22.1 (-34.7, -7.2) -9.9 (-16.6, -2.8)
Dopulation Index
M -N O) O
^^.
1995 1996 1997 1998 199!
Black Tern
-20.2 (-28.7, -10.8)
12-
11-
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
\__^
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
•-—,
1995 1996 1997 1996 1999
Tree Swallow
-4.6 (-10.5, 1.7)
21-
20-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
o-
\— X
1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 <995 1996 1997 1996 1999
Red-winged Blackbird
-2.7 (-5.8, 0.6) Annual population
27-
26-
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
/V~
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
nesting and aerial 1
basin MMP routes,
on counts of indivk
defined relative to
(trend) are indicate
upper extremes of
parentheses.
Source: Marsh Monitoring P
indie
orac
199^
Jual;
1 999
dfo
95%
ograrr
b)
Canada Goose Mallard
20.2 (4.9, 37.7) 29.2 (1 7.0, 42.6)
a-
7-
5-
3-
_^~
1995 1996 1997 1996 199
Chimney Swift
15.8(1.7,31.8)
8 5.
I 4-
"S 2-
g.1-
S. 0-
/~^-
4-
3-
2-
1-
_//
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
N. Rough-winged Swallow
20.1 (0.8,43.1)
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
_^-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 iggg 1997 1993 1999
Common Yellowthroat Common Crackle
6.8(2.0,11.7) 42.5(27.1,59.7)
4-
3-
^-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
8-
6-
4-
2-
_J^
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
;es of a) declining and b) increasing marsh
jing bird species detected on Great Lakes
5 through 1999. Population indices are based
3 inside the MMP station boundary and are
values. The estimated annual percent change
r each species and the associated lower and
confidence limits are enclosed in
Future Pressures
Continuing loss and degradation of important
breeding habitats through wetland loss, water level
stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant and
nutrient inputs, and the invasion of non-native
plants and animals will continue putting pressure on
these bird populations.
Acknowledgments
Author: Russ Weeber, Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowen, ON.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies in partnership
with Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service and with significant
support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes
National Program Office and Lake Erie Team. The contributions of all Marsh
Monitoring Program staff and volunteers are gratefully acknowledged.
47
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to examine and
better understand periodic changes in area of coastal
wetland types, taking into account natural variations
in areal extent and changes within wetlands.
State of the Ecosystem
Wetlands continue to be lost and degraded, yet the
ability to track and determine the extent and rate of
this loss in a standardized way is not yet feasible.
Adding up the area of individual wetlands from the
Ontario Coastal Wetland Atlas will provide an initial
estimate of the total Canadian Great Lakes coastal
wetland area. This process is unlikely to be
repeated, however, since it is labour intensive,
expensive, and covers a very large geographic area.
Other methods to look at trends in coastal wetland area
rely on remotely sensed data. For example, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service published the National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) in 1982, based on the analysis
of aerial photographs with ground-truth. The NWI
includes delineated wetland types with updates to be
prepared every 10 years. The first one was in 1990.
Updates are based on a statistical sampling of wetlands,
not on a full set of aerial photos. The NWI, however,
does not specifically identify coastal wetlands.
Numerous research efforts are underway to assess
the use of remote sensing technologies, and in some
cases combine the results of satellite remote sensing,
aerial photography and field work to document
recent wetland loss. In the future, remote sensing
will be used to provide an overview and facilitate a
binational map of Great Lakes coastal wetlands as
well as to establish a consistent methodology for
tracking change and to facilitate faster updates in
areas of high land-use change.
Future Pressures
Reductions in wetland area are continuing from
filling, dredging and draining for conversion to
other uses such as urban, agricultural, marina, and
cottage development; shoreline modification; water
level regulation; sediment and nutrient loading from
watersheds; adjacent land use; non-native invasive
species; and climate variability and change.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Lesley Dunn, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Downsview, ON and Laurie Maynard, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada, Guelph, ON.
Contributions from Doug Forder, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment
Canada, Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Linda
Mortsch, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Nancy
Patterson, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada and Brian
Potter, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Effects of Water Level Fluctuations
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to assess the lake
level trends that may significantly affect components
of wetland and nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, and
to infer the effect of water level regulation on
emergent wetland extent.
State of the Ecosystem
Quasi-periodic lake level fluctuations, both in period
and amplitude, occur on an average of about 160
years, with sub-fluctuations of approximately 33
years. The levels in Lakes Michigan and Huron
show the characteristic high and low water levels.
Data for Lake Ontario show these fluctuations, but
their amplitude has been reduced since the Lake
level began to be regulated by various dams in 1959.
During periods of high water, there is a die-off of
species that cannot tolerate long periods of increased
depth of inundation. As the water levels recede,
seeds buried in the sediments germinate and
vegetate the newly exposed zone. During periods of
low water, woody plants and emergents become
established. This is the 'normal' relationship
between wetlands and fluctuating water levels.
Under more stable water levels, such as in Lake
Ontario, coastal wetlands occupy narrower zones
along the Lakes and are considerably less diverse
because dominant species such as cattails take over.
48
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
LaAce Michigan-Huron Actual Levels.
76.0
Lake Ontario Actual Levels.
Year
Actual water levels for Lakes Huron and Michigan (upper) and Lake Ontario (lower).
IGLD-lnternational Great Lakes Datum. Zero for IGLD 1985 is Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the
St. Lawrence River. Water level elevations in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River system are
measured above water level at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Future Pressures
Future pressures include additional withdrawals or
diversions of water from the Lakes; additional
regulation or smoothing of the high and low water
levels; and global climate variability and change.
Acknowledgments
Author: Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
Contributions from Douglas A. Wilcox, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological
Resources Division, Todd A. Thompson, Indiana Geological Survey, and
Steve J. Baedke, James Madison University.
»T 7 V
Time series at Fish Point (east shore of
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron) from 1988 to 1993
showing the effects of fluctuating water levels
on a coastal wetland.
Photo credits: Douglas A. Wilcox, U.S. Geological Survey
50
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.3 Nearshore Terrestrial
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators - Assessment at a Glance
CO
LU
o
CO
Area, quality £?
protection of alvar
communities
Extent of hardened
shoreline
Contaminants affecting
productivity of bald
eagles
Population monitoring 6?
contaminants affecting
the American otter
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar
Communities
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the status of one of the 12
special lakeshore communities identified within the
nearshore terrestrial area. Alvar communities are
naturally open habitats occurring on flat limestone
bedrock.
State of the Ecosystem
More than 90% of the original extent of alvar
habitats has been destroyed or substantially
degraded. Emphasis is focused on protecting the
remaining 10%. Approximately 64% of the
remaining alvar area exists within Ontario, 16% in
New York State, 15% in Michigan, and smaller areas
in Ohio, Wisconsin and Quebec.
Less than 20% of the nearshore alvar acreage is
currently fully protected, while over 60% is at high
risk. Michigan has 66% of its nearshore alvar
acreage in the Fully Protected category, while
Ontario has only 7%. In part, this is a reflection of
the much larger total shoreline acreage in Ontario.
A1 HlQh R IS* 60 2%
Protection status 2000. Nearshore alvar acreage.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
51
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Orn.v • •
Mictuqan
Al High Risk
Partly
Limited
Fully
Comparison of acreage protected. Nearshore
alvars: Ontario and Michigan.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Each alvar community occurrence has been assigned
an "EO (Element Occurrence) rank" to reflect its
relative quality and condition. (EO ranks summarize
the quality and condition of each individual alvar
community at a site, based on standardized criteria for
size, site condition, and landscape content.) A and B-
ranks are considered viable, while C-ranks are
marginal and D ranks are poor. Protection efforts to
secure alvars have clearly focused on the best quality
sites. Recently, 10 securement projects have resulted in
protection of at least 5,289 acres of alvars across the
Great Lakes basin.
AH 3
EO Rank
BC&C
Protected
Fully
Protection of high quality alvars.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Future Pressures
Continuing pressures on alvars include habitat
fragmentation and loss; trails; off-road vehicles;
resource extraction uses such as quarrying or
logging; adjacent land uses such as residential
subdivisions; grazing or deer browsing; plant
collecting for bonsai or other hobbies; and invasion
by non-native plants.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON, and Heather
Potter, The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator assesses the extent of hardened
shoreline through the construction of sheet piling,
rip rap, or other erosion control structures.
Shoreline hardening not only directly destroys
natural features, but also disrupts biological
communities that are dependent upon the transport
of shoreline sediment by lake currents. Hardening
also destroys inshore habitat for fish, birds and other
biota.
State of the Ecosystem
The St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara Rivers have a
higher percentage of their shorelines hardened than
anywhere else in the basin. Of the Lakes
All 5 Lakes
Entire Basin
• 0-15% Hardened
D 40-70% Hardened
D15-40% Hardened
D 70-100% Hardened
Shoreline hardening in the Great Lakes (compiled
from 1979 data for the state of Michigan and 1987-
1989 data for rest of the basin).
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
52
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
25 i
Shoreline hardening by lake (compiled from 1979
data for the state of Michigan and 1987-1989 data
for rest of the basin).
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
themselves, Lake Erie has the highest percentage of
its shoreline hardened, and Lakes Huron and
Superior have the lowest.
Along about 22 kilometres of the Canadian side of
the St. Clair River, an additional 5.5 kilometres (32%)
of the shoreline had been hardened over the 8-year
period from 1991 to 1999. This rate of hardening is
not representative of the overall basin, however. The
St. Clair River is a narrow shipping channel with
high volumes of Great Lakes traffic, and many
property owners are hardening the shoreline to
reduce the impacts of erosion.
Future Pressures
Shoreline hardening can be considered a permanent
feature and additional stretches of shoreline will be
hardened, especially during periods of high lake
levels. This additional hardening will, in turn, starve
the downcurrent areas of sediment to replenish the
eroded materials and causes further erosion and
further incentive for additional hardening.
Acknowledgments
Authors: John Schneider, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, Duane Heaton, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL, and Harold Leadlay Environment Canada, Environmental
Emergencies Section, Downsview, ON.
Contaminants Affecting
Productivity of Bald Eagles
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number of fledged young,
number of developmental deformities, and the
concentrations of organic contaminants and heavy
metals in bald eagle eggs, blood, and feathers. The
data will be used to infer the potential for harm to
other wildlife and human health through the
consumption of contaminated fish.
State of the Ecosystem
The concentrations of p,p-DDE, total PCBs, and
mercury in blood plasma and feathers of nestling
bald eagles in Michigan are either stable or declining
from concentrations observed in the late 1980s and
early 1990s. The majority (>95%) of eggs tested,
however, exhibited contaminant concentrations
greater than No Observed Adverse Effects
Concentrations (NOAECs) for PCBs and p,p'-DDE,
and the number of observed developmental
deformities has increased over time.
Approximate nesting locations of bald eagles
along the Great Lakes shorelines, 2000.
Source: W. Bowerman, Clemson University, Lake Erie and Lake Superior
LaMPs, and for Lake Ontario, Peter Nye, NY Department of Environmental
Conservation
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
The number of nestling eagles fledged from nests
along the shorelines of the Great Lakes has steadily
increased from six in 1977 to over 200 in 2000,
including the first record of a nesting pair along the
shoreline of Lake Ontario.
Future Pressures
Pressures on bald eagles include continued
exposure, through food chain mechanisms, to
environmental pollutants; human related
disturbances near nest sites; food availability; loss of
habitat due to development; and the loss of
protection after delisting from the U.S. Endangered
Species list. For those eagles nesting above barrier
dams, there is the potential for fish passage of
contaminated Great Lakes fishes.
Acknowledgments
Authors: William Bowerman, Clemson University, David Best, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and Michael Gilbertson, International Joint Commission.
Population Monitoring & Contaminants
Affecting the American Otter
Assessment: Insufficient data to assess
Purpose
This indicator directly measures the contaminant
concentrations found in American otter populations
within the Great Lakes basin, and it indirectly
measures the health of Great Lakes habitat, progress
in Great Lakes ecosystem management, and/or
concentrations of contaminants present in the Great
Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
General otter population indices derived from state
and provincial data indicate that primary areas of
suppression still exist in western Lake Ontario
watersheds, southern Lake Huron watersheds, lower
Lake Michigan and most Lake Erie watersheds.
Data suggest that otter are almost absent in western
Lake Ontario. Most coastal shoreline areas have
more suppressed populations than interior zones
and Great Lakes drainage populations.
Areas of otter population suppression are directly
related to human population centres and subsequent
habitat loss.
Future Pressures
Otter will continue to be under pressure from
organic and heavy metal concentrations in the food
chain, and anthropogenic alterations of river and
lake habitats.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas C.J. Doolittle, Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, Odanah, WI.
54
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.4 Land Use
Land Use Indicators - Assessment at a Glance
CO
o
Urban density
Brownfield
redevelopment
Mass transportation
Sustainable agricultural
practices
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
Urban Density
Assessment: Unable to assess status until
targets are determined
Purpose
This indicator measures human population density
and indirectly measures the degree of inefficient land
use and urban sprawl for communities in the Great
Lakes basin. The number of people that inhabit a
community relative to its size is an indicator of the
economic efficiency of that community based on the
existence of 'economies of scale' associated with high
density development.
State of the Ecosystem
There are marked differences around the Great Lakes
basin in communities' urban densities. Initial
research compared the larger more established urban
cities of Toronto, Ontario and Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (which includes Cleveland) and the two
smaller communities of the Regional Municipality of
Niagara, Ontario and Niagara County, New York.
Factors such as ongoing 'rust belt' U.S. population
Toronto
1999
Cuyahoga Niagara NY Niagara ON
1998 1998 1999
Urban densities in four Great Lakes urban
communities.
Source: Rivers Consulting and J. Barr Consulting
55
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
declines may be partly responsible for the statistical
differences in urban densities.
Trends over the last ten years indicate that
population densities are increasing in both of the
Canadian communities sampled and are stable to
declining in the U.S. communities.
Future Pressures
Continued urban sprawl and low density
development throughout the basin represent
significant pressures.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ray River, Rivers Consulting, Campbellville, ON, and John Barr,
Burlington, ON.
Brownfields Redevelopment
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the acreage of redeveloped
brownfields, and it is used to evaluate over time the
rate at which society rehabilitates and reuses former
developed sites that have been degraded or
abandoned.
State of the Ecosystem
Information on acres of brownfields remediated
from Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and
Pennsylvania indicates that a total of 28,789 acres of
brownfields have been remediated in these
jurisdictions alone. Available data from six Great
Lakes states indicate that more than 8,662
brownfield sites have participated in brownfields
cleanup programs. Though there are inconsistent
and inadequate data on acres of brownfields
remediated and/or redeveloped, available data
indicate that both brownfields cleanup and
redevelopment efforts have risen dramatically since
the mid 1990s. This is due to the new wave of risk-
based cleanup standards and widespread use of
state liability relief mechanisms that allow private
parties to redevelop, buy or sell property without
being held liable for contamination they did not
cause. Data also indicate that the majority of
cleanups in Great Lakes states and provinces are
occurring in older urbanized areas, many of which
are located on the Great Lakes and in the basin.
Based on this information, the state of brownfields
redevelopment is good and improving.
Future Pressures
Continued pressures include: lack of long-term
monitoring and enforcement of exposure controls
(examples of exposure control include capping a site
with clean soil or restricting the use of ground
water); cleanup standards based on risks to human
health that may not be appropriate for habitat
creation/enhancement; the potential for
contaminated groundwater to interface with surface
waters and cause degradation of surface waters; and
policies that encourage new development to occur
outside already developed areas over urban
brownfields.
Acknowledgments
Author: Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Brownfield site in Detroit, Michigan, 1998.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pebbles. Great Lakes Commission
56
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Mass Transportation
Assessment: Unable to assess status until
targets are determined
Purpose
This indicator measures the percentage of daily
commuters that use public transportation or other
alternatives to the private car. It indirectly measures
the stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem caused by
the use of the private motor vehicle and its resulting
high resource utilization and creation of pollution.
State of the Ecosystem
There are marked differences amongst four sample Great
Lakes basin communities in automobile usage for
commuting. Initial research showed that there is a direct
relationship between public transportation and the
degree of urban density. Higher usage of transportation
alternatives occurs within the larger more established
urban cities of Toronto, Ontario and Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (which includes Cleveland) than within the more
lightly populated and smaller communities of the
Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario and Niagara
County, New York. This relationship was pronounced in
Toronto where higher density also facilitated greater use
of bicycling and walking amongst urban commuters.
Cuyahoga Niagara NY Niagara ON
1991 1990 1996
Percentage of commuters using alternatives to
automobiles in selected communities.
Source: Rivers Consulting and J. Barr Consulting
Future Pressures
Significant pressures arguing for more mass
transportation are population growth combined with
urban sprawl.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting, Campbellville, ON, and John Barr,
Burlington, ON.
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number of Environmental
and Conservation farm plans and environmentally
friendly agricultural practices in place, such as
integrated pest management to reduce the potential
adverse impacts of pesticides, and conservation
tillage and other soil preservation practices to reduce
energy consumption, prevent ground and surface
water contamination, and achieve sustainable
natural resources.
State of the Ecosystem
Agriculture accounts for 35% of the land area of the
Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern
portion of the basin. In the past, excessive tillage and
intensive crop rotations led to soil erosion and the
resulting sedimentation of major tributaries.
Agriculture is a major user of pesticides with an
annual use of 26,000 tons. These practices led to a
decline of soil organic matter. Recently there has been
increasing cooperation between government and the
farm community on Great Lakes water quality
management programs. The adoption of more
environmentally responsible practices has helped to
replenish carbon in the soils back to 60% of turn-of-
the-cenrury levels.
Both the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provide
conservation planning advice, technical assistance
and incentives to farm clients and rural landowners.
On a voluntary basis clients develop and implement
conservation plans to protect, conserve, and enhance
natural resources that harmonize productivity,
business objectives and the environment.
Future Pressures
Sustainable agricultural practices will be
compromised by increasing farm size and
concentration of livestock; changing land use and
development pressures (including higher taxes),
traffic congestion, flooding and pollution.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Roger Nanney, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Chicago, IL, and Peter Roberts, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs, Guelph, ON.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
acres of conservation planned systems for cropland
0 - 5000
5000-15000
15000-25000
25000-140000
Annual U.S.
conservation planned
systems for 2000.
Farm Acreage Managed
by EFP Participants
Ontario Statistics
Registered Farm Businesses: 56,500
EFP Participants: 15,000
Source: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, NRCS, Performance
and Results Measurement System
Ontario
Environmental Farm
Plan (EFP).
Source: Ontario Soil and Crop
Improvement Association, April
1999, 1997 Ontario farm
registration database, 1996
Census of Agriculture
58
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.5 Human Health
Human Health Indicators - Assessment at a Glance
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
GOOD
E. coli 8> fecal coliform
in recreational waters
Chemical contaminants
in edible fish tissue
Drinking water quality
Air quality
E. coli and Fecal Coliform in
Recreational Waters
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses E. coli and fecal coliform
contamination levels in nearshore recreational
waters, acting as a surrogate indicator for other
pathogen types, and it is used to infer potential harm
to human health through body contact with
nearshore recreational waters.
State of the Ecosystem
Survey reports of U.S. beach advisories during the
1998 swimming season (June, July, August) show
that 78% of the reporting beaches were open for the
entire 1998 season. Results were similar for
Canadian beaches where 78% of the reporting
beaches were open the entire season.
United States
Total Number of Beaches Surveyed: 389
Canada
Total Number of Beaches Surveyed: 218
Comparison of U.S. and Canadian beach
advisories for Great Lakes beaches, 1998.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Beach Watch Program,
National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for Swimming (1998) and
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Survey reports of U.S. beach closings or advisories
during the 1999 season show that 65% of the
reporting beaches were open for the entire 1999
season. Several factors may have influenced the
apparent increase in percentage of beach closings in
1999 compared with 1998:
59
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Fewer beach managers responded to survey
questionnaires in 1999, and of those beaches that
were reported, not all had been included in the
1998 data;
More beach managers were using E. coli testing in
1999 than in 1998. E. coli is a more sensitive
indicator of public health risks for swimmers, and
it gives more consistent results. U.S. jurisdictions
have begun to adopt uniform testing procedures
for E. coli in the water at swimming beaches. This
is an improvement over past methods and will
provide more accurate information about
potential risks to human health from swimming.
While the actual water quality near beaches may
not have changed, this new method may result in
more beach advisories in the future; and
A different accounting for the number of beach
advisory days was used in 1999. For example, a
two day episode of elevated bacterial levels in
1998 would have counted as one beach advisory.
1998
Total Number of Beaches Sui
1999
Total Number of Beaches Surveyed: 287
U.S. beach advisories for Great Lakes beaches,
1998 vs. 1999.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Beach Watch Program,
National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for Swimming (1998)
Future Pressures
Population growth causing both increased demands
made on sewage treatment plant capacities and the
probability of release of untreated effluent, as well as
more private treatment systems, especially in
resort/vacation areas, may cause an increase of
undetected releases of inadequately treated waste.
Acknowledgments
The following personnel contributed data, analysis, or reporting expertise
to this indicator:
David Rockwell, Paul Bertram, and Wade Jacobson (SEE Program), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, Illinois. Richard Whitman, U.S. Geological Survey, Lake Michigan
Ecological Research Station, Porter, Indiana. Marcia Jimenez, City of
Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Duncan Boyd and Mary Wilson, Ontario
Ministry of Environment, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
Branch, Toronto, Ontario. Peter Gauthier, City of Toronto, Environmental
Health Services, Toronto, Ontario.
Chemical Contaminants in Edible Fish
Tissue
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the concentration of persistent,
bioaccumulating, toxic (PBT) chemicals in Great Lakes
fish, and it is used to infer the potential exposure of
humans to PBT chemicals through consumption of
Great Lakes fish caught via sport and subsistence
fishing. This will be accomplished using fish
contaminant data and a standardized fish advisory
protocol. The approach is illustrated using the Great
Lakes protocol for PCBs as the standardized fish
advisory benchmark applied to historical data to track
trends in fish consumption advice.
State of the Ecosystem
Fish Consumption Advisory Programs are well
established in the Great Lakes. States, tribes, and the
province of Ontario have extensive fish contaminant
monitoring programs and issue advice to their
residents about how much fish and which fish are
safe to eat. Advice from these agencies to limit
consumption of fish is related to levels of PCBs,
mercury, chlordane, dioxin, and toxaphene in the
fish, but vary by lake.
The accompanying figures illustrate the results of
applying a uniform fish advisory protocol to
historical data on PCBs in coho salmon fillets. The
resulting advisories do not necessarily reflect actual
advisories issued in each lake basin.
Future Pressures
Fish consumption advisories will still be required
because of organochlorine contaminants, although
these are generally decreasing. Mercury, the health
effects of multiple contaminants, and endocrine
disrupters are also of concern.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of Health, and Sandy
Hellman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
PCBs in Lake Superior Coho Salmon
2
1. 1.5
DO
g
0.5
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
I • •
88 90 92 94 96 I 98 00
Year
One meal per week Unlimited consum
PCBs in Lake Michigan Coho Salmon
:
0.5
2-
|1.S-
s
m . .
Q_
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
.ill I I
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
stion
1 0
0.2
2 84 86 88 90 92 94 I 96 98
Year |
One meal perweek Unlimited consumption
PCBs In Lake Huron Coho Salmon
Do not eat
One meal every two months
UOne meal per month
1 0
0.2
81 I 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97
Year
One meal per week Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Erie Coho Salmon
2
I 1.5.
S
0 1
S
0.5
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
I 1 1
85 87 89 91 93 95 97
Year
One meal per week Unlimited consump
PCBs in Lake Ontario Coho Salmon
2
1.1.5-
S1
Q.
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
1,
1 One meal
1 per month 1
83 85 87 89 91 93 I 95 97
Year
One meal per week Unlimited consum
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
Bon
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
ption
Results of a uniform fish advisory protocol
applied to historical data (PCBs, coho salmon) in
the Great Lakes.
Source: Sandy Hellman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office
Drinking Water Quality
Assessment: Good
Purpose
This indicator evaluates the chemical and
microbiological contaminant levels in drinking
water. It also assesses the potential for human
exposure to drinking water contaminants and the
effectiveness of policies and technologies to ensure
safe drinking water.
State of the Ecosystem
There are many facets of drinking water, however
this report focuses mainly on raw water from the
Great Lakes proper.
At present, data from 22 sites around the basin have
been assessed. The parameters used include both
microbiological and chemical contaminants in raw
water. Taste and odour, however, are most
appropriately measured in treated water. The
chemical parameters chosen were atrazine, nitrate
and nitrite. These chemicals are seasonal and flow
dependent. While minimal levels of atrazine, nitrate
and nitrite were detected in raw water, monthly
averages and maximums fell below the federal
regulations for treated water. However, it should be
noted that although atrazine seasonally enters the
lakes by way of tributaries, this pattern was not
detected at the 22 intakes included here.
Turbidity was chosen as a parameter for its
correlation with potential microbial problems. High
turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide
a medium for microbial growth. Turbidity values
vary depending on season, location and lake. There
are no raw water maximum levels for turbidity.
However, by sampling raw water turbidity levels,
the treatment plants can adjust treatment for optimal
removal of microbial contaminants.
The level of organic matter can be determined by
examining Total Organic Carbon (TOC) or Total
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). The DOC
concentrations in raw water at the Canadian sites were
fairly low, as was TOC at the majority of U.S. sites.
Taste and odour is a complex indicator. While it is
an extremely important indicator to consumers, it is
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
U.S. and Canadian water treatment plants used in this report.
also difficult to quantitatively measure. Not all of
the chosen water treatment sites had taste and odour
data readily available. This indicator was evaluated
for August 1999 at the six sites where data were
available. Testing is done in August, since increased
odour problems are usually associated with
increased water temperatures. There were minimal
problems with taste and odour at the six water
treatment facilities that reported this parameter.
The microbiological indicators suggested are total
coliform, Escherischia coli, Giardia lambalia, and
Cryptosporidium parvum. The methods of analyzing
water for Giardia lambalia and Cryptosporidium parvum
are not the most reliable at this time, but it is
suggested that these remain indicators as better
methods become available. Escherischia coli is only
tested when tap water tests positive for total coliform.
Total coliform is probably the best choice for a
microbial indicator at this time because it is the most
uniformly tested. It is a required test in the U.S. and
Canada. At the U.S. sites there have been no total
coliform
exceedances for the
last ten years.
While the total
coliform data were
available for the
Canadian sites,
there presently is no
user-friendly
method for
exceedance
interpretation.
The health of the
Great Lakes, as
determined by
these drinking
water parameters at
these 22 sites, is
good. Chemical
contaminants are
consistently tested
to be at minimal
levels even prior to
treatment.
Additionally,
violations of these
chemical and
microbial parameters are extremely rare. The risk of
human exposure to contaminants is low. The quality
of drinking water as it leaves the water treatment
plants meets standards. The quality of water
delivered, however, can vary due to the possibility
of contaminants entering the distribution system.
Future Pressures
Pressures that could compromise the quality of
drinking water include land use and agricultural
runoff; increases in both algal presence and water
temperatures; byproducts of the drinking water
disinfection process; and aging distribution systems.
Acknowledgments
This report was assembled by Molly Madden (Environmental Careers
Organization), with the assistance of Rod Holme (American Water Works
Association), Pat Lachmaniuk (Ontario Ministry of Environment), Tom
Murphy (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5), and Paul
Bertram (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO). Additional
thanks are due to the water treatment plant operators and managers who
submitted the requested data.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Air Quality
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the air quality in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, and it is used to infer the potential impact of
air quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Overall, there has been significant progress in
reducing air pollution in the Great Lakes basin. For
most substances of interest, both emissions and
ambient concentrations have decreased over the last
ten years or more. However, progress has not been
uniform and differences in weather from one year to
the next complicate analysis of ambient trends.
Ozone can be particularly elevated during hot
summers. Drought conditions result in more
fugitive dust emissions from roads and fields,
increasing the ambient levels of particulate matter.
The pollutants have been divided into urban (or
local) and regional pollutants for this report.
Mention of the U.S. or Canada in this discussion
refers to the respective portions of the Great Lakes
basin. Latest published air quality data are for 1997
(Canada - Ontario) and 1999 (U.S.).
Urban/local pollutants include carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen dioxide (NCh), sulphur dioxide (SCh),
lead, total reduced sulphur (TRS) and particulate
matter. In general, there has been significant progress
with urban/local pollutants over the past decade or
more, though somewhat less in recent years, with a
few remaining problem districts. For example, in
Canada average ambient NO2 levels have remained
relatively constant through the 1990s, however the
only year without exceedances of the ambient criteria
was in 1997. In the U.S, for both SO2 and particulate
matter (with diameter of 10 microns or less), there are
six regions that do not meet ambient criteria.
Emissions in Canada of SO2 have increased slightly in
the last two years of the period and ambient levels
have only shown a slight decrease in the 1990s.
For regional pollutants, transport is a significant issue,
from hundreds of kilometres to the scale of the globe.
Formation from other pollutants, both natural and
man-made, can also be important. There are still short
periods each year during which regional pollutants
(primarily ozone and fine particulates and related
pollutants - collectively called smog) reach levels of
concern, essentially in southern and eastern portions
of the basin. Regional pollutants include ground level
ozone (Os), fine particulate matter, and air toxics.
Ozone is a problem pollutant over broad areas of the
Great Lakes basin (except Lake Superior). Local
circulations around the Great Lakes can exacerbate the
problem: high levels are found near Lakes Huron and
Erie, even in areas such as in provincial parks that are
well removed from local industry, and western
Michigan is strongly impacted by transport across
Lake Michigan from Chicago. Fine particulate matter
(diameter 2.5 microns or less) is a health concern as it
can penetrate deeply into the lung. In Canada,
available data indicate that many locations in Southern
Ontario will exceed the recently endorsed standard of
30mg/m3 (24-hour average). In the U.S., there are not
enough years of data to determine trends, but it
appears that there may be many areas which do not
attain the new U.S. standard. Air toxics of interest
include those that have potential to harm human
health (e.g. cancer), based on the toxicity and
likelihood for exposure. Some ambient trends have
been found: in the U.S. concentrations of benzene and
toluene have shown significant decreases from 1993-
1998, notably in the Lake Michigan region. Styrene
has also shown a significant decrease (1996-1998).
Future Pressures
Continued population growth and associated urban
sprawl are threatening to offset emission reduction
efforts and better control technologies, both through
increased car-travel and energy consumption.
Climate change may affect the frequency of weather
conditions leading to high ambient concentrations of
many pollutants. Evidence exists of changes to the
atmosphere as a whole. Average ground-level ozone
concentrations may be increasing on a global scale.
Continuing health research is both broadening the
number of toxics of potential concern, and producing
evidence that some existing standards should be
reconsidered. There is epidemiologic evidence of
health effects from ozone or fine particulates at or
below levels previously considered to be background
or "natural" levels.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Fred Conway Environment Canada, Meteorological Services of
Canada, Downsview, ON and Joseph Chung, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Division, Chicago, IL.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.6 Societal
Societal Indicators - Assessment at a Glance
O
O
CO
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
Economic prosperity
Water use
Economic Prosperity
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the unemployment rates
within the Great Lakes basin, and, when used in
association with other Societal indicators, infers the
capacity for society in the Great Lakes region to
make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes
ecosystem. During periods of low unemployment
(i.e. economic well-being), public support for
environmental initiatives by government agencies
and elected officials may be increased.
State of the Ecosystem
By most measures, the binational Great Lakes
regional economy is healthy. The unemployment
rate for the Great Lakes states dipped below the U.S.
average in 1991 and remained there during the
1990's and, for the Great Lakes states collectively,
unemployment is at a 30 year low. Canadian and
Ontario economic recoveries unfolded later than the
U.S. but have now nearly caught up. Ontario
unemployment rates are currently at the lowest level
since 1990.
Both sides of the border reflect a manufacturing
intensity greater than their national economies. The
Great Lakes states represent about 27% of national
output in manufacturing whereas Ontario is twice as
large. The manufacturing sector has many cross-
border linkages particularly for the auto industry.
About half of the billion dollar-a-day U.S.-Canada
trade is tied to the Great Lakes states with Ontario as
the most prominent province in this relationship.
Future Pressures
Good economic times translate into high levels of
consumer spending and home buying. This may
cause increased household and business waste
generation, increased air pollution, and accelerated
land use changes.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Steve Thorp, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, Tom Muir,
Environment Canada, Burlington, ON and Mike Zegarac, Environment
Canada, Burlington, ON.
64
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Water Use
Assessment: Unable to assess status until
targets are determined
Purpose
This indicator measures the amount of water used
by residents of the Great Lakes basin. It also
indirectly measures the stress to the Great Lakes
ecosystem caused by the extraction of this water and
the generation of wastewater pollution (there is a
direct relationship between the amount of water
used and the quantity and quality of wastewater
discharged).
State of the Ecosystem
Water use was compared between four sample sites.
These included two larger urban cities, Toronto,
Ontario and Cuyahoga County, Ohio (which includes
Cleveland) and two smaller communities, the Regional
Municipality of Niagara, Ontario and Niagara County,
New York. Generally, there are not great differences
amongst the Great Lakes basin communities in terms
of water use per capita, although the Regional
Municipality of Niagara, Ontario appears to be using
more per capita (by approximately 50 cubic metres
each year) than the other municipalities studied. The
larger urban communities of Toronto, Ontario and
Cuyahoga, Ohio exhibited similar water use patterns
per capita. The largely rural community of Niagara
County, New York had the lowest per capita water
usage rates of the sample, although a bias was possible
since there were a small number of residents that were
using ground water (and therefore, water use was not
recorded).
Future Pressures
As Great Lakes populations grow, there will be
increasing demand for water for all purposes.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting, Campbellville, ON and John Barr,
Burlington, ON.
236.82
Toronto 1996
Cuyahoga
1996
Niagara NY Niagara ON
1990 1999
Water use rates of four communities in the Great
Lakes basin.
Source: Rivers Consulting and J. Barr Consulting
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
3.7 Unbounded
Some of the Great Lakes indicators do not fit neatly into any of the other ecological categories. These
indicators may have application to more than one category or they may reflect issues that affect the Great
Lakes but have global origins or implications. One such indicator, acid rain, is included here.
Unbounded Indicators -Assessment at a Glance
Q
111
O
o
CD
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
D ETERIORATING IMPROVING
Acid rain
Acid Rain
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the pH levels in precipitation
and critical loadings of sulphate to the Great Lakes
basin. This indicator can be used to infer the
effectiveness of policies to reduce sulphur and
nitrogen acidic compounds released to the
atmosphere.
"3T
»!
.1 0
I g
1
30 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
^^n CL
^****** *\VSD— __
^^*~^ D D
* *
- 25
- 20
- 15
- 10
- 5
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
— D— Total — •— U.S. —A— Canada
"3T
» °
° 0
« *-
.2 =
"I
Past and predicted sulphur dioxide emissions in
Canada, the U.S. and combined. Emissions after
1995 are estimates. Canadian emissions data are
preliminary.
Source: Robert Vet, Meteorological Service of Canada
State of the Ecosystem
Much of the acidic precipitation in North America
falls in areas around and including the Great Lakes
basin. The five Great Lakes are so large that acid
precipitation has little effect on them directly.
Impacts mainly effect vegetation and inland lakes,
especially those areas on the Canadian Shield.
SC>2 emission levels in Canada and the United States
have decreased from 1980 to 1995. U.S. levels are
expected to decrease by up to 40% by 2010.
Canadian levels dropped 54% from 1980 to 1994 and
are expected to remain at these levels. Despite these
efforts, rain is still too acidic throughout most of the Great
Lakes region. Wet sulphate deposition over eastern
North America has been compared between two
five-year periods, 1980-84 and 1991-95. In response
to the decline in SC>2 emissions, deposition decreased
between the two periods. If SC>2 emissions remain
relatively constant after the year 2000, as predicted,
it is unlikely that sulphate deposition will change in the
coming decade.
66
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
1980-84 five-year mean
wet sulphate deposition for
eastern North America
Legend (kg/ha per year)
<5
500 kilometres
Mean wet sulphate deposition in Eastern North
America, 1980-1984.
Source: Robert Vet, Meteorological Service of Canada
3.8 Under Construction
From time to time, changes to the suite of Great
Lakes indicators will be necessary in order to add,
remove or revise indicators. Efforts are currently
underway to develop an indicator to assess the
status and potential impact of non-native species in
the Great Lakes basin. Although details of this
indicator have not yet been worked out, an example
indicator report for aquatic exotic species is included
here.
Exotic Species Introduced into the Great
Lakes
Assessment: Poor
1991-95 five-year mean
wet sulphate deposition for
eastern North America
Legend (kg/ha per year)
H<5
>1B~<15
3 215-<20
3 >20-
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
_ Railroads & hig
1
£ F
O
H Solid t
§J Ballast
CD
-s Accidental re
rr
Fish re
Cultivation re
Aquarium re
Deliberate re
• No. of Aquatic Fauna Species D No. of Aquatic Flora Species I
Bait
ways
anals
ouling
lease
lease
lease
=1
=»
i^
'
— i
^^^=
1
— '!
1
^m
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of Species
Future Pressures
Introductions of non-native species will continue
because of increasing global trade; new diversions of
water into the Great Lakes; aquaculrure industries,
such as fish farming, live food, and garden ponds;
changes in water quality, temperature, and even the
previous introduction of key species from outside
(making the region potentially more hospitable for
the establishment of new invaders).
Acknowledgments
Authors: Edward L. Mills, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University, Bridgeport, NY and Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Release mechanisms for non-native species
introduced into the Great Lakes.
Source: E. Mills, Cornell University, NY
The main entry mechanisms for aquatic plants
include ship ballast water, cultivation release,
aquarium releases, and solid ballast from ships.
Even with voluntary and mandatory ballast
exchange programs recently implemented in Canada
and the United States, new species associated with
shipping activities have been reported and
identified. It is essential that entry mechanisms be
closely monitored and effective safeguards
introduced and adjusted as necessary.
Regions of origin for non-native species
established in the Great Lakes.
Source: E. Mills, Cornell University, NY
68
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Section 4
Future Work on Indicators
Phase-in Approach
To begin the assessment of the state of the Great
Lakes through the use of indicators, 33 summary
reports were prepared for SOLEC 2000. These
indicators were chosen based on the availability of
data and on the cooperation of the report authors.
For many of the indicators, the data were
incomplete, i.e., lacking time series or geographic
coverage, but an initial assessment of the ecosystem
component could be made with the information
available.
SOLEC organizers were pleased with the number of
indicator reports that were generated, but they
recognize that additional effort is needed. There is
now an expectation that updates can be provided on
this first set of indicators at future SOLEC events.
Likewise, additional indicators are expected to be
phased in at each future SOLEC until the entire suite
is fully reported.
Concept of Tiers
In order to facilitate the implementation of the
indicators, they have been grouped into three tiers.
Tier 1 indicators are those for which at least some
data are believed to exist, and an indicator report can
be generated. All 33 indicators in this report are
designated Tier 1, along with 10 others. Not all 43
belonging to this group have been reported on
because some did not have identified authors.
Additional indicator development, refinement and
testing of some Tier 1 indicators will continue.
Tier 2 indicators are those for which data are not
currently available, but for which an active project is
underway. Activities could include establishing a
monitoring program, developing the details of the
indicator, or conducting research and testing of the
indicator. Most of the 10 indicators currently
designated Tier 2 are included in the SOLEC Coastal
Wetlands category.
An active research effort to fully develop Tier 2
indicators is called the Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands Monitoring Consortium. A cooperative
agreement between the Great Lakes Commission
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office has been established
for the first large scale, binational, collaborative
effort to assess the ecological health of Great Lakes
coastal wetlands. A consortium brought together by
the Great Lakes Commission will:
• design and validate SOLEC indicators to assess
the ecological integrity of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands;
• design a long-term program to monitor Great
Lakes coastal wetlands; and
• create and populate a binational coastal wetlands
database accessible to all scientists, decision
makers, and the public.
This consortium currently includes Great Lakes
wetland scientists and resource managers from both
federal governments, states/provinces, non-profit
organizations, and academia. Funding for the first
two years exceeds $500,000 (U.S.), and the project
may be continued for up to six years.
Tier 3 indicators are those for which data do not
exist, monitoring programs need to be established, or
the indicator itself needs more developmental work
and/or testing. There are currently 27 of these
"orphans," with representation of all SOLEC
indicator categories. These indicators require
deliberate attention before they can be phased into
the reporting process at a future SOLEC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Great Lakes
Natioinal Program Office issues an annual request
for proposals for projects that help provide progress
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
toward the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. To facilitate development and testing of
some of the Tier 3 indicators, projects were requested
in 2001 specifically to develop, test and implement
"underdeveloped" SOLEC indicators. Up to
$300,000 (U.S.) may be awarded to move Tier 3
indicators toward fully implemented, Tier 1
designation.
Commitments and Ownership
No one organization has the resources or the
mandate to examine the state of all the Great Lakes
ecosystem components. In collating the available
information for the indicator reports, a number of
difficulties became apparent while attempting to
summarize different sources of information collected
using different sampling and analytical methods at
different locations at different times. Some
differences were impossible to resolve. For the
Parties to report on an on-going basis, a monitoring
program with consistent protocols would have to be
the primary source of the information, and a
commitment to maintain such a program would be
required.
Many organizations routinely collect and analyze
data about some part of the ecosystem. A consensus
by environmental management agencies and other
interested stakeholders about what information is
necessary and sufficient to characterize the state of
Great Lakes ecosystem health would facilitate more
efficient monitoring and reporting programs. The
relative strengths of the agencies could be utilized to
improve the timeliness and quality of the data
collection and the availability of the information to
multiple users.
For state of the Great Lakes reporting to be
sustainable, commitments are required for agencies
to accept lead roles to collect and interpret data and
report on selected indicators prior to each SOLEC.
Data for some indicators are distributed throughout
several agencies. One agency, or perhaps co-lead
agencies, should accept the lead role for the purpose
of SOLEC reporting. The lead agency need not
necessarily be the same as the one(s) conducting the
monitoring, but a close association should exist
between the two.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Section 5
Biodiversity Investment Areas
Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIAs) are areas
having clusters of biodiversity values, specifically,
species or communities of special interest, a diversity
of habitats, communities and species, and
productivity and integrity. The nearshore terrestrial
background paper, Land by the Lakes, Nearshore
Terrestrial Ecosystems, prepared for SOLEC 1996,
coined the phrase to signify areas of unusual
biological diversity in need of protection from
human impacts. For SOLEC 1998, two additional
BIA papers on coastal wetlands and nearshore
aquatic habitats further refined the BIA concept. At
SOLEC 2000, the BIA work from previous SOLECs
on nearshore terrestrial, coastal wetlands, and
nearshore aquatic BIAs was integrated.
BIA integration was undertaken to begin to show the
relationships amongst nearshore components of the
Great Lakes. A series of 70 shoreline units were
selected as a basis for the integration analysis. The
coastal eco-reaches identified by the 1998 coastal
wetlands BIA paper were used as a starting point. In
order to fairly address all three nearshore zones
(terrestrial, coastal wetlands, aquatic), three broad
evaluation criteria were proposed: species or
communities of special interest; diversity of habitats,
communities and species; and productivity and
integrity. A total of ten data sets were identified
which could be used to apply the evaluation criteria
to the entire Great Lakes shoreline. Data were
summarized for each of the 70 shoreline units.
Tier Composite ranking Shoreline units within Total length of shoreline
combination group units in group (km)
1
2
3
4
5
6
AAA
AAB
AAC, ABB
AAD, ABC, BBB
ABD, ACC, BBC
All other
combinations
S1
OS3a, OS4c, E3, E6b, HG2a,
HG2b, HG3, HG7b, M1,S6c
E6a, HG7a, HG9, M2b, S2,
S4b
OS1.0S2, OS3b, E7c, SC2,
HG1b, HG4b, HG6, HG8a,
M6b, S4c, S7c
OS4b, HG4a, HG10, M2a,
M6c, S3b, S4a
34 units
687
3552
2452
5108
1992
5432
shoreline length
3.6%
18.5%
12.8%
26.7%
10.4%
28.0%
Biodiversity Investment Area integration rankings.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office, Heather Potter and
Michele DePhilip, The Nature Conservancy
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Biodiversity Investment Area integration status.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office, Heather Potter and
Michele DePhilip, The Nature Conservancy
An evaluation ranking was assigned for each of the
three criteria for each shoreline unit. Units were
then assigned to tiers based on their composite
rankings for all three criteria. Shoreline units with
the highest overall rankings were highlighted.
Clusters of high ranking shoreline units are potential
Biodiversity Investment Areas. Thus far, these
potential BIAs have been named informally using
nearshore terrestrial BIA names from Land by the
Lakes, or commonly known geographic names.
The results of the rankings for each of the three
criteria were compiled to produce composite
rankings. The top two tiers encompass just over 22%
of the shoreline length in 11 shoreline units. Their
distribution dramatically illustrates the importance of
the "Mackinac-Manitoulin Arch" - the crescent of
significant biodiversity sites that encompasses the
northern parts of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and
Georgian Bay. In particular, the outstanding
significance of the St. Marys River is noted. Adding
the next tier of shoreline units brings the total
shoreline encompassed by these priority units to over
one-third of the Great Lakes coast, and broadens the
distribution across other sections of the lakes.
The results suggest that a few of the previously
identified terrestrial BIAs have only medium ranks
when coastal wetland and nearshore aquatic data
sets are included in the analysis. Eastern Lake
72
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Superior, Chicago Wilderness, and Presque Isle, for
example, are terrestrially significant, but did not
rank high in the integrated BIA process, a conclusion
not well received by those working to restore the
areas. It is important to note that while in some
areas, such as the southern end of Lake Michigan, a
highly developed and hardened shoreline has
inhibited land - water interactions, thereby posing a
threat to rare terrestrial species, significant but
fragmented terrestrial areas remain that need
protection and restoration.
Recommendations for further BIA work include:
1. Maps for BIAs need to be updated
periodically to accommodate new scientific
findings as additional digital data sets are
developed.
2. Data contributing to the assessment of
Criterion 3, Productivity and Integrity, needs
to be refined to include direct measures of
current productivity or ecosystem integrity.
3. The United States data set on rare species and
communities needs to be refined.
4. A more detailed review of values and
potential BIA boundaries is needed, at least
for the top four tiers of shoreline units.
5. Long term monitoring of ecosystem health
indicators needs to be implemented both
within and outside of BIAs.
6. The level of local awareness about the special
qualities of BIAs needs to be raised and local
support and participation in ecological
restoration programs needs to be encouraged.
Care must be taken to show that although an
area is not as biologically rich as the
Mackinac-Manitoulin Arch does not mean it is
unimportant and therefore disposable.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Section 6
Conclusions
This State of the Great Lakes report represents a new
way of reporting. Previously we reported on the
state of the ecosystem and on the stressors to the
system, but our reports lacked any predictable format
or framework. The Parties to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement recognized that a means to report
on the Great Lakes basin ecosystem in a
comprehensive, consistent and understandable way
was needed. The Parties have moved from a series of
ad hoc indicators, reported in the State of the Great
Lakes 1995 and 1997, to a refined and accepted suite
of 80 indicators. These indicators will be used by the
Parties and other organizations to measure the state
of the Great Lakes ecosystem now and in the future.
In determining the state of the Great Lakes for this
present report, only 33 of the 80 indicators were
assessed. What about the others? In some cases the
information is available, but the identification of an
author or agency to prepare the report is all that is
necessary. In other cases, more work is needed in
terms of research and refinement, and monitoring
programs may need to be initiated in order to
implement these indicators.
The results of those indicator assessments have been
summarized within each of the six major groups -
human health, open and nearshore waters, coastal
wetlands, land and land use, societal, and
unbounded, along with a summary of the conditions
in each Lake and the interconnecting channels.
Human Health
Surface waters of the Great Lakes are still amongst
the best sources of drinking water in the world, and
they continue to serve a large part of the 33 million
people who live in the Great Lakes basin. Protection
of water at its source, prior to any treatment, is still
one of the best means to assure safe drinking water,
not to mention maintenance of a healthy aquatic
ecosystem. Advisories related to humans eating fish
are still in place on all the Great Lakes, even though
chemical contamination is decreasing in most
species. Contaminant levels will need to continue to
decline for many more years before advisories can be
lifted, or, in some areas/cases, even modified. New
procedures to standardize testing for E. coli will help
to improve swimming advisories and help beach
operators to better protect human health.
Open and Nearshore Waters
Invasive, non-native aquatic species are the greatest
biological threat to Great Lakes aquatic ecosystems.
Despite the decline in toxic contamination in many
species of Great Lakes fish, as just noted, fish
populations continue to be stressed by other causes.
These stresses include: weakening of the forage base,
food chain disruptions, habitat loss, and competition
with, or replacement by, non-native species. Sea
lamprey controls since the 1960s, have allowed the
rehabilitation of the Great Lakes fishery. However,
evidence presented in this report shows that
populations of sea lamprey in Northern Lake Huron
and the St. Marys River continue to be a problem for
fish populations in those areas. The process of
habitat improvement through projects such as dam
removal and sediment clean-up, as a part of the
overall reduction in contaminants, has resulted in
increased prey availability for the lamprey as well as
increased lamprey spawning habitat. This has
created continued dependence on controls well into
the future. Suspension of such controls will have an
adverse effect on the fisheries.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Coastal Wetlands
Four of the five indicators for this assessment
category show that coastal wetlands continue to
decline in both quantity and quality. Over two-
thirds of the Great Lakes wetlands have already been
lost and many of those remaining are threatened by
pressures such as development, drainage, and
pollution.
Land and Land Use
Urban sprawl is the greatest physical threat to high
quality natural areas, rare species, farmland, and
open space in the Great Lakes basin. The Great
Lakes coastline still retains significant, important,
and diverse natural areas such as northern Lakes
Michigan and Huron, Georgian Bay, and the St.
Marys River. These areas are extraordinarily
biologically diverse and deserve special protection.
Societal
This category of indicators requires considerable
work. Stewardship of Great Lakes natural resources
is widespread throughout the basin and includes
urban ecological restoration, rural conservation of
open space, and native preservation of species of
cultural significance.
Unbounded / Under
Construction
Indicators for both terrestrial and aquatic
environments identify invasive, non-native aquatic
species as the greatest biological threat to the Great
Lakes aquatic ecosystem. Further work is required to
document the impact of terrestrial non-native species
and their subsequent impacts to the ecosystem.
Lake by Lake Assessments
Assessments for the state of the five Great Lakes and
Interconnecting Channels show generally that
conditions are mixed, with some ecosystem compo-
nents assessed as good, and others assessed as poor.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
77
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
78
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Chemical Acronyms/Terms
Used in This Report
a- and -y-HCH
atrazine
BaP
DDE
DDT
dieldrin
HCB
heptachlor epoxide
mirex
nitrate and nitrite
ng/L
Hexachloro-cyclohexane - a manufactured chemical that does not occur naturally in the
environment. It exists in eight chemical forms (called isomers). One of these forms,
7 (gamma)-HCH (also known as lindane) was used as an insecticide on fruit and
vegetable crops (including greenhouse vegetables and tobacco) and forest crops
(including Christmas trees). It is still used in ointments to treat head and body lice, and
scabies. It is also known as BHC (benzene hexachloride).
Microgram per cubic metre - unit of measure.
A common herbicide used on agricultural crops, especially corn.
Benzo-[fl]-pyrene - one type of PAH (see definition).
Dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene - a degradation product of DDT.
Dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane - the first organochlorine pesticide developed (1939).
It is persistent in the environment and has been linked to numerous ecosystem effects.
It has been banned from use in Canada and the United States.
Dieldrin was a popular pesticide for crops such as corn and cotton from 1950-1970.
Concerns about damage to the environment and the potential harm to human health led
EPA to ban all uses of dieldrin in 1974 except to control termites. In 1987, EPA banned
all uses.
Hexachlorobenzene is released primarily as a byproduct of industrial and combustion
processes. It was used as an industrial chemical and is currently present as an impurity
in pesticides, Hexachlorobenzene is considered to be a persistent, bioaccumulastive
toxic substance (PBT). PBTs have serious potential human health and/or environmental
effects.
Heptachlor was used extensively in the past for killing insects in homes, buildings, and
on food crops, especially corn. Use slowed in the 1970s and stopped in 1988.
Heptachlor epoxide is a degradation product of heptachlor and is more commonly
found in the environment.
Mirex was used to control fire ants, and as a flame retardant in plastics, rubber, paint,
paper, and electrical goods from 1959 to 1972. It has not been manufactured since 1978.
Inorganic chemicals occurring naturally as part of the nitrogen cycle. Nitrate is also
used or found in fertilizers as potassium or sodium nitrate.
Nanogram per litre - unit of measure.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
DCS
PAH
PCB
PCDD / PCDF
ppm
toxaphene
Octachlorostyrene - not commercially manufactured, but has been reported to be an
inadvertent by-product of certain chemical processes. OCS may also result from
various incineration processes. OCS is persistent (i.e., it is resistant to chemical and/or
metabolic degradation), has high bioaccumulation potential (i.e., increase in
concentration in the upper levels of an aquatic food web) and is toxic.
Poly-aromatic hydrocarbons - a class of over 100 very stable organic molecules; they are
highly carcinogenic but are also very common; they are a standard product of
combustion, and are usually found as a mixture of 2 or more.
Polychlorinated biphenyls - a class of manufactured organic chemicals that contain 209
individual chemicals (known as congeners); there are no known natural sources of
PCBs. PCBs contain one or more atoms of chlorine, are resistant to high temperatures,
and do not break down in the environment.
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins / polychlorinated dibenzofurans - a group of
unwanted by-products of many chemical, industrial and combustion processes. Also
found as impurities in some pesticides.
Parts per million - unit of measure.
An insecticide containing over 670 chemicals; used primarily in the southern United
States to control insect pests on cotton and other crops; it was also used to control insect
pests on livestock and to kill unwanted fish in lakes. Toxaphene was one of the most
heavily used insecticides in the United States until 1982, when it was banned for most
uses; all uses were banned in 1990.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 200
Acknowledgments
The State of the Great Lakes 2001 preparation team included:
Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, lead
Harvey Shear
Stacey Cherwaty
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, lead
Paul Horvatin
Karen Rodriguez
This report contains contributions from over 100 authors, contributors, reviewers and editors. Many of the
individuals participated in the preparation of one or more reports assembled in the document Implementing
Indicators, Draft for Review, November 2000. Others provided advice, guidance or reviews. Their
enthusiasm and collaboration are gratefully acknowledged.
Over 50 governmental and non-governmental sectors were represented by the contributions. We recognize
the participation of the following organizations. Those represented by two or more internal organizational
units are denoted by *. While we have tried to be thorough, any misrepresentation or oversight is entirely
unintentional, and we sincerely regret any omissions.
Federal
^Environment Canada
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ecosystem Science Directorate
Environmental Conservation Branch
Environmental Emergencies Section
Meteorological Service of Canada
National Water Research Institute
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Region 2
*Region 5
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Green Bay Fishery Resources Office
*U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division
Great Lakes Science Center
Lake Ontario Biological Station
Lake Superior Biological Station
Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2001
Provincial and State
Indiana Geological Survey
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
*New York Department of Environmental Conservation
^Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Foods, and Rural Affairs
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Ohio Division of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Municipal
City of Chicago
City of Toronto
Aboriginal
Bad River Tribe
Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
Academic
Clemson University, SC
Cornell University, NY
Indiana University, IN
James Madison University, VA
Michigan State University, MI
York University, ON
Commissions
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
International Joint Commission
Environmental Non-Government Organizations
Bird Studies Canada
The Nature Conservancy
Industry
American Water Works Association
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Private Organizations
Bobolink Enterprises
DynCorp I&ET
Environmental Careers Organization
Rivers Consulting
Private Citizens
-------
-------
xrx
Canada
30% post consumer waste
Acid free/Chlorinefree
------- |