State
of the
Great
1 999
Prepared by
Environment Canada
and the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
by
the Governments of
Canada
and
the United States of America
For additional copies please contact:
ENVIRONMENT CANADA lu.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of the Regional Science Advisor I Great Lakes National Program Office
867 Lakeshore Road I 77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 I Chicago, Illinois 60604
ISBN 0-662-28115-2 EPA 905-R-99-008
Catalogoue No. En40-ll/35-1999E
Also available on-line at:
http://www.cciw.ca/solec/ and http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
-------
STATEMENT OF STEWARDSHIP
I am proud to take stewardship of the water, land, and air in any way that I can. As I
return to my home I pledge to:
1) study the ecology in and of my area
2) teach others about my area's ecology
3) increase my own awareness of the effects that I have on the
environment
4) promote the wise use of products and packaging
5) devote time every year to group community service to benefit and beautify
the environment
6) participate in the conservation of water, energy and natural resources
7) get involved in local decision-making
8) invite scientists and others to help us
9) do what I know is right
Presented by Grades 5-8 Students at:
Great Lakes Student Summit
May 14, 1999
Buffalo NY
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 INDICATORS 4
2.1 What is an Indicator? 4
2.2 Types of Indicators 5
2.3 Why the Parties Need Indicators for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem 6
2.4 Why Should There be Agreement on a Suite of Indicators? 6
2.5 The Process of Selecting Indicators 7
2.6 The Indicator List 7
2.7 How Relevant are the Indicators? 7
2.8 Unfinished Business 8
3.0 WHAT is THE STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES? 9
3.1 Indicators 11
3.1.1 Nearshore and Open Waters 11
Sea Lamprey 12
Native Unionid Mussels 13
Benthos Diversity and Abundance 15
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings 17
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 18
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals 19
3.1.2 Coastal Wetland Ecosystems 22
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance 22
Gain in Restored Wetland Area by Type 24
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands 26
3.1.3 Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems 28
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities 28
3.1.4 Land Use 31
Sustainable Agricultural Practices 31
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance 35
3.1.5 Human Health 37
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters 37
Chemical Contaminants in (edible) Fish Tissue 38
Air Quality 42
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food 43
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue 44
3.1.6 Societal 45
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities 47
Remedial Action Plan Updates 49
3.1.7 Unbounded 51
Acid Rain 51
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.2 Lake Updates 54
3.2.1 Lake Superior 54
3.2.2 Lake Michigan 54
3.2.3 Lake Huron 56
3.2.4 Lake Erie 58
3.2.5 Lake Ontario 60
4.0 BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT AREAS 62
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES 66
APPENDIX 1 Brief Description of the Indicators List 69
APPENDIX 2 How Relavant are the Indicators? 77
SOURCES OF INFORMATION 83
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people have dedicated a great deal of time and effort to the preparation of this report:
Environment Canada
Harvey Shear
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Maggie Young
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram
Paul Horvatin
Kent Fuller
Karen Rodriguez
The SOLEC indicator Core Group leaders and Biodiversity Investment Area paper authors (and
contributors who are too numerous to list here) must also be recognized for their hard work and for meeting
the challenge of writing papers under very tight deadlines:
Indicators Core Groups
Nearshore and Open Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Nearshore Terrestrial
Land Use
Human Health
Societal
Biodiversity Investment Area Papers
Aquatic Ecosystems
Coastal Wetland Ecosystems
Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
Thomas Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey
Lesley Dunn, Environment Canada
Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nancy Patterson, Environment Canada
Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ray Rivers, Rivers Consulting
Doug Haines, Health Canada
Mark Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ron Baba, Oneida Nation
Joseph Koonce, Case Western Reserve University
Ken Minns, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Heather Morrison, Aqualink
Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Patricia Chow-Fraser, McMaster University
Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
And lastly, thanks must go out to the many reviewers of this report.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Executive
Summary
This State of the Great Lakes (1999) report is the third 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 predictable format.
This report is a transition to that indicator-based format, giving information on 19 of the 80
indicators being proposed by the Parties. These 19 indicators were selected as representative of
the kinds of information that the Parties will be presenting biennially. They are also indicators
for which information was readily available. The indicators are presented in the categories
(nearshore terrestrial, coastal wetlands, etc.) under which they were organized for the Parties'
Indicator List (Appendix 1).
Not all of the proposed 80 indicators are presently being monitored, and this represents a
challenge to the Parties to ensure that information is available in a timely fashion to allow
reporting on progress. It should be noted that not all indicators need be reported on every two
years. Some lend themselves to less frequent reporting. Nevertheless, information-gathering
systems must be put in place to ensure that collection of information is in hand. A full
description of the indicators can be found in the Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Health, Version 4, available on line at: www.cciw.ca/solec/ or www.epa.gov/glnpo/
solec/98/.
The 80 indicators, however, do not easily lend themselves to the questions most frequently
asked by the public: How's the water? Is it safe to drink? How's the air? Is it safe to breathe?
And so forth. Therefore, for SOLEC 2000, the 80 indicators will be grouped and reported on
within seven environmental compartments: air, water, land, sediments, biota, fish, and humans;
and additionally, issue by issue including: persistent toxic chemicals, nutrients, exotic species,
habitat, climate change, and stewardship.
Given the incomplete nature of the information available for the 80 indicators, the Parties can
not provide a detailed quantitative assessment of the State of the Lakes. The Parties however, do
provide the following overall qualitative assessment: The state of the Great Lakes in 1999 has
not changed significantly from the state reported on in 1997. With respect to herring gull eggs,
analyses show that most contaminants at most sites are continuing to decline at a rate similar to
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
that over the last decade or two. The Parties also note that the emergence of the round goby as
yet another non-native species to become established in the Lakes, could pose a threat to the
integrity of the biological community in the Great Lakes.
Another feature of this report is the description of Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIAs). BIAs
were first reported in the State of the Great Lakes (1997) report for the terrestrial nearshore
areas. The BIA concept has been expanded to include coastal wetlands and open water areas of
the Lakes. Biodiversity Investment Areas are a concept intended to recognize the importance of
protecting the rich biological diversity of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the many kinds of
habitat needed to support that diversity. The concept is also intended to provide a locally based
recognition and support for areas of key biological importance, whether relatively undisturbed,
or degraded. Such areas play a key role in maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem and its
long term viability. The idea is not that some areas can be written off as not being important,
but that some areas are of such importance that special efforts are needed to ensure preservation.
The BIA papers are also available on line at: www.cciw.ca/solec/ or www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/
987.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Introduction
The State of the Great Lakes (1999) report takes a significant departure from the format of the
previous State of the Great Lakes reports. In the past a general overview of the Great Lakes
ecosystem was presented, however, there was no pattern or consistency in the reporting method.
The reports summarized information to describe the state of the ecosystem, and the stressors on
the system, but lacked any predictable format or framework. It was recognized that a means to
report on the system in a comprehensive, consistent and understandable way was needed. This
State of the Great Lakes report describes the process necessary to get to that stage. This process is
not instantaneous and will take several years before all the major components of the Great Lakes
ecosystem will be reported on. Future State of the Great Lakes reports will communicate more
completely on the health of the ecosystem but the State of the Great Lakes (1999) report is a transition to a
more unified reporting method.
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) were established by the governments of Canada
and the United States (the Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) in 1992 to provide
independent reporting on the state of health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The Parties directed that
SOLEC be a science-based reporting forum. SOLEC has not presented information on programs, because
the Parties firmly believe that a forum devoted to program achievements could lead to the presentation of
information that would not be particularly useful in assessing progress. Comparison of jurisdictional
approaches, dollars spent, reports issued, fines levied etc. would not, in and of itself, be very useful. Rather,
by keeping the discussions to science-based assessments of the state of the Lakes, and the stresses on the
Lakes, participants at SOLEC have participated in an open process where the "playing field" was level, and
any view was acceptable, provided it was based in science, and backed by verifiable data.
SOLEC also 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 the
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 exchange of information.
Starting at SOLEC 94, the governments reported on basin-wide conditions relating to: a) aquatic ecosystem
health; b) human health; c) aquatic habitat and wetlands; d) nutrients; e) contaminants; and f) the economy.
These categories ensured that major components of the ecosystem were covered, as well as a major
component of human activity (the economy). The organizers developed a series of ad hoc indicators against
which to report progress or provide an assessment of the state of these components. These indicators were
based on the best professional judgment of a number of scientists and mangers who had prepared
background papers on the subject components. The reader is referred to the State of the Great Lakes 1995
for more detail (www.cciw.ca/solec/ and www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/). A similar process was followed for
SOLEC 96, where the focus was on the nearshore environment, including the terrestrial nearshore.
In planning for SOLEC 98, the organizers wanted to support the further 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 provide a predictable set of
signs of the health of the system, and the progress being made to remedy existing problems.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The demand for high-quality, relevant data concerning the health of various components of the Great Lakes
ecosystem has been escalating rapidly for the past decade or so. The U.S. and Canada have spent billions of
dollars and uncounted hours attempting to reverse the effects of cultural eutrophication, toxic chemical
pollution, over-fishing, habitat destruction, introduced species, etc. Environmental management agencies
are being asked to demonstrate that past programs have been successful and that the success of future or
continuing programs will be commensurate with the resources expended (financial and personnel time). At
the same time, in both countries, the amount of taxpayers dollars being devoted to Great Lakes environment
issues is decreasing. The demand for high quality data, while operating with limited resources, is forcing
environmental and natural resource agencies to be more selective and more efficient in the collection and
analysis of data.
The most efficient data collection efforts will be those that are cost-effective and relevant to multiple users.
A consensus about what information is necessary and sufficient to characterize the state of Great Lakes
ecosystem health and to measure progress toward ecosystem goals would facilitate efficient monitoring and
reporting programs.
The State of the Great Lakes (1999) represents a transition between reporting on the ad hoc indicators from
1994 and 1996, and reporting on an accepted suite of indicators. The proposed suite consists of 80
indicators and can be found in full with a brief description in Appendix 1. We have tried to link to
information presented in 1994-1996 in a form consistent with the proposed suite of indicators. The update
is not comprehensive in terms of what has been presented in the past, nor is it comprehensive in terms of
reporting on all 80 indicators. Some of these indicators will require agencies to collect additional data.
Others will require the analysis and synthesis of data from non-traditional sources, such as municipalities,
private sector or volunteer organizations. Still others will require further development through research
before they can be used as routine reporting tools. It is the intention of the Parties to use indicators as a
basis for monitoring, and as a focus for some research. Clearly there is a period of phasing in the indicators,
and the Parties expect to be reporting on all the indicators within the next 10 years.
This has not been the only indicator initiative in the Great Lakes basin. Many other groups have developed
indicators for their own use. The process to develop a suite of basin-wide indicators has tried to use and
build upon the work of others as much as possible. A set of indicators that is relevant to both the Parties
and other organizations will prevent a dilution of monitoring effort for competing purposes, and will foster
cooperation amongst all agencies for the common good of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Another major thrust for the Parties has been the development of the Biodiversity Investment Area (BIA)
concept. This 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. The idea of highlighting areas of
significant natural biodiversity and habitat value for conservation was well received in 1996, but SOLEC
participants demanded more. They wanted an analysis of the proposed areas in terms of species and
habitats, and the importance of the area to the overall health of the Great Lakes. Therefore, at SOLEC 98,
three papers were presented, examining the terrestrial nearshore in some detail, as well as coastal wetlands
and aquatic ecosystems. The development of the BIA concept is at different stages, with the terrestrial being
the most highly developed, and the aquatic ecosystem BIA the least developed. It is the intention of the
Parties to continue with the development and refinement of the BIA concept and to report on progress at
SOLEC 2000. The BIAs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
There are four papers related to this report that give further details on the indicator process and the BIA
concept:
Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4
Biodiversity Investment Areas:
- Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
- Coastal Wetland Ecosystems, Identification of "Eco-Reaches" of Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands
- Aquatic Ecosystems - Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin:
Identification and Validation
These reports are available for viewing or downloading from the SOLEC web sites:
www.cciw.ca/solec/ or www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/98/.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Indicators
Canada and the United States have invested billions of dollars to improve the health of the Great
Lakes and to meet the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); but how do
the Parties know if they are actually making progress? Do they know what to measure, and do they
have an easily understood way of reporting findings? A comprehensive set of Great Lakes basin
indicators will help to assess the present condition of the Great Lakes and to determine how much
more is needed to meet the goals of the GLWQA. Through SOLEC, a comprehensive suite of
basin-wide indicators (the Indicators List) is being established in order to determine the health of
the Great Lakes basin ecosystem and report on that health in a consistent manner.
2.1 WHAT is AN INDICATOR?
An indicator is a piece of evidence or signal that tells us something about the conditions around us. It is a
tool that gives a clue about the "bigger picture" by looking at a small piece of the puzzle, or at several pieces
together. For example, atmospheric pressure is an indicator of the weather to a sailor or a pilot. To a
doctor, blood pressure provides a clue about the overall health of a patient, and to an economist, gross
domestic product (GDP) gives a snapshot of the state of a country's economy. Similarly, environmental
indicators provide bits of information that are useful to us to assess our surroundings.
G I OSSary Of Terms (Figure 1 outlines the relationship between these terms)
O**
90'
A general description of the desired state of a lake, geographic area, or region that is expressed by a group of
stakeholders. A vision statement provides a description of a desired state - providing direction and establishing a
horizon to be sought.
A condition or state desired to be brought about through a course of action or program. Goals are usually
qualitative statements that provide direction for plans and projects.
-\\le
Specific descriptions of the state or condition that must be met in order to achieve goals and the vision.
A parameter or value that reflects the condition of an environmental (or human health) component, usually with a
significance that extends beyond the measurement or value itself. Indicators provide the means to assess
progress toward an objective.
A single measurement of an environmental feature. Data points may be combined to serve as an indicator.
^6> Specific, attainable, quantitative endpoint or reference values for an indicator that provides the context for
assessing whether or not an objective is being met.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Each of the indicators
above provides
information about
conditions at a
particular point in time.
However, we also
would like information
about trends over time.
Is the atmospheric
pressure rising, falling
or staying the same?
Indicators measured
repeatedly over time
provide the basis for
tracking trends in
environmental
conditions. Also, by
looking at a number of
indicators together, we
can assess whether the
whole system is getting
better or worse or
staying the same.
VISION
COALS
OBJECTIVES
INDICATORS
MEASURES
(DATA POINT)
Figure 1. Conceptual Model of the Relationships between Indicators, Measures,
Targets, Objectives, Goals and Visions.
An indicator is more than a data point. It consists of both a value (which may be a direct environmental
measurement or may be derived from measurements) and a target or reference point. An indicator is
intended to be used, alone or in combination with other indicators, to assess progress toward one or more
objectives. In addition, to be widely used by decision-makers and others, indicators should be readily
understood by the general public.
2.2 TYPES OF INDICATORS
There are several classification schemes or models for indicators, one of which is the StatePressure
Human Activity (Response) model. Because of it's simplicity and broad applicability, this is a widely
accepted classification scheme and the one used for the Indicator List.
State: These indicators address the state of the environment, the quality and quantity of natural
resources, and the state of human and ecological health.
Pressure: These indicators describe natural processes and human activities that impact, stress or pose
a threat to environmental quality.
Human Activity (Response): These indicators include individual and collective actions to halt,
mitigate, adapt to, or prevent damage to the environment. They also include actions for the
preservation and the conservation of the environment and natural resources.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
These three indicator types are closely linked. For example, the pressure (or stressor) of a particular pollutant
entering a system may cause a change of state of some species (i.e. population declines) which may, in turn,
cause a response of (additional) restrictions on the discharge of the pollutant. The additional restrictions
reduce the pressure which improves the state.
2.3 WHY THE PARTIES NEED INDICATORS FOR THE
GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM
Assessing the health of something as large
and complex as the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem is a significant challenge - the
Lakes contain one fifth of the world's fresh
water, there are over 10,000 miles (17,000
kilometres) of shoreline, the basin consists
of over 200,000 square miles (520,000
square kilometres) of land, and about 33.5
million people reside within the basin!
Add to this a political complexity of two
nations, eight states, two provinces, and
hundreds of municipal and local
governments. A set of Great Lakes basin
ecosystem indicators will enable the Great
Lakes community government and non-
government organizations, academia,
industry, and individual citizens to
work together within a consistent
framework to assess and monitor changes
in the state of the ecosystem.
For more geographical, physical and
historical information on the Great
Lakes basin, have a look at these great
Great Lakes websites:
www.great-lakes.net
www.cciw.ca/glimr
2.4 WHY SHOULD THERE BE AGREEMENT ON A SUITE
OF INDICATORS?
High quality, relevant data that concerns the health of various components of the Great Lakes ecosystem is
in demand and this demand has been escalating rapidly for the past decade or so. However, in both Canada
and the U.S., the amount of taxpayers dollars being devoted to Great Lakes environment issues has been
decreasing. This has forced environmental and natural resource agencies to be more selective and more
efficient in the collection and analysis of data.
Efficient data collection efforts are cost-effective and also relevant to multiple users. No one organization
has the resources or the mandate to examine the state of the entire system. However, dozens of
organizations and thousands of individuals routinely collect data, analyze them, and report on parts of the
ecosystem. An understanding of what information is necessary and sufficient to characterize the state of
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
9-
Great Lakes ecosystem health would facilitate efficient monitoring and reporting programs. Shared
databases would provide easier access to relevant supporting data, and the relative strengths of the agencies
couldbe utilized to improve the timeliness and quality of the data collection.
Achieving consensus on a set of core indicators means that individual programs and jurisdictions may
continue to maintain their own unique indicators. Individual user groups may need to retain certain
indicators or other data requirements that are not shared by other groups or needed by the core set of
indicators. However, the Indicators List is expected to influence future monitoring and data gathering
efforts for a common broad scale set of indicators.
2.5 THE PROCESS OF SELECTING INDICATORS
Much work has gone into the development of the suite of Great Lakes indicators. Over 150 people from
various agencies, industry, academia, and other individuals have been involved, bringing a wealth of
expertise to the process.
There will never be a list that every stakeholder in the basin agrees is optimum. However, reviews by
stakeholders have been a very important part of the process. Three separate reviews have taken place, and
comments incorporated so that the list presented represents many viewpoints. For many of the SOLEC
Indicators that are presented in Appendix 1, more research or information is needed before the indicator can
be used and data collected for it. In addition, this core set of indicators is flexible enough to expand to take
into account new emerging issues in the future. This is a living list, one that can be modified as issues
change or new ones arise.
2.6 THE INDICATOR LIST
The Indicator List currently contains 80 indicators that together can be used to assess the health of the major
components of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The list is organized by the seven groups and then further
categorized by indicator type within each group (State, Pressure, or Human Activity). A listing of the 80
indicators with a brief description can be found in Appendix 1.
For further information on the indicators and how they were selected, please see the report Selection of
Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4. This report is available for viewing or
downloading from the SOLEC web sites: www.cciw.ca/solec/ or www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/98/.
2.7 How RELEVANT ARE THE INDICATORS?
In an era of rapid ecosystem change, the Indicator List must be flexible enough so that targets or endpoints
within an indicator, or even the addition or removal of complete indicators as future emerging issues arise,
in order for the list to remain relevant.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
In addition to this, the indicator selection process has tried to be relevant to the work of many groups. The
Indicator List was developed according to the categories of open and nearshore waters, coastal wetlands,
nearshore terrestrial, human health, land use, societal and unbounded (these are indicators that did not
neatly fit into one of the other categories or that may have more global origins or implications). These
groupings are convenient for reporting, but they represent only one of many ways to organize information
about the Great Lakes. Depending on the user's perspective, other groupings will be more convenient or
will provide insight to aspects of the Great Lakes that differ from the groupings in the Indicator List.
Each of the proposed indicators has been evaluated for relevance to several other organizational categories,
and the results are displayed in Appendix 2 on pages 77-85. Included are categories of Indicator Type (state,
pressure, human activity), Environmental Compartments (air, water, land etc.), Issues (toxics, nutrients,
exotics etc.), GLWQA Annexes, GLWQA Beneficial Use Impairments, IJC Desired Outcomes, and Great
Lakes Fish Community Objectives. Further explanation of these categories can also be found in Appendix
2.
2.8 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The proposed indicators in the Indicator List are not complete, for some indicators further research is
necessary to fill in the details, for most indicators some fine-tuning is necessary, and for the suite of
indicators as a whole, general acceptance by agencies and stakeholders, and commitment to do long term
monitoring and data collection is critical.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
9-
What is the
State of the Great Lakes
in 1999?
This section provides an update and overview of the health of some components of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Since the last State of the Great Lakes Report in 1997, where simple, general
indicators were presented, some improvements in reporting have been made, as just described in
Chapter 2. A new suite of indicators has been assembled that provides a more organized and
detailed look at the overall health of the basin (Appendix 1). Over the next several years the
Parties intend that these indicators become the basis of their reporting on progress under the
GLWQA. In this present report we have selected some sample indicators. The indicators presented are not
chosen on the basis of their importance within the suite of 80 indicators, but rather on their data availability
and that they represent different components of ecosystem health. This is only meant to give a flavour of
future, more comprehensive reporting. Many other equally important indicators will require a change in
monitoring programs before they can be reported on in a quantitative and comprehensive manner. Others
will require further research and development. While efforts were made for the descriptions and illustrations
presented in this section to directly relate to the indicators as described in Appendix 1, in some cases
preliminary data were used in order to present a proposed approach for future reporting.
As stated previously, this State of the Great Lakes report is a transition to a more unified reporting method.
The seven categories of indicators evolved from SOLEC 94 and SOLEC 96. The categories were used to
more readily involve a large number of people in the development of the Indicator List, so that we may
more fully know the status of the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. As such, and using the state-pressure-
human activity model, 80 indicators were deemed necessary to form a rich base for determining overall basin
health.
The 80 indicators, however, do not easily lend themselves to the questions most frequently asked by the
public: How's the water? Is it safe to drink? How's the air? Is it safe to breathe? And so forth. Therefore,
for SOLEC 2000, the 80 indicators will be grouped and reported on within seven environmental
compartments: air, water, land, sediments, biota, fish, and humans; and additionally, issue by issue
including: persistent toxic chemicals, nutrients, exotic species, habitat, climate change, and stewardship.
For example, of the 80 indicators, 14 are directly concerned with the waters of the Great Lakes (see
Appendix 2 for a breakdown of the indicators by environmental compartment, issue, and other groupings).
By analyzing the monitoring data of the 14 and aggregating the results, a picture of the health of the waters
of the Great Lakes should emerge. Currently, however, data may not be available for all 14 indicators so the
picture will be incomplete.
As capacity to monitor and report on the 14 water indicators builds over the next ten years, a more complete
answer to the questions about water posed by the public will emerge. Gaps will no doubt be identified that
require both an adjustment in the number of indicators needed and a fine tuning of indicators in order to
report more fully. For example, the present 14 water indicators do not include a direct indicator of tributary
health. Yet the hundreds of tributaries feeding the Great Lakes greatly affect lake health. Additional
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
indicators may therefore be needed. Over time and with such adjustments, the indicators concerned with
water will present us with a relatively complete report on the status of the waters. This will be true of the
other environmental compartments and issues.
Over the next ten years, beginning with SOLEC 2000, State of the Great Lakes reports will uncover other
indicator issues and gaps. Steps will be taken to modify, adjust, and improve the indicators and associated
monitoring of these indicators. In time, reporting on the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem will provide
all Great Lakes residents with a good understanding of the basin's overall health.
The indicators presented here represent each of the geographical, biological and anthropological
components of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. For each indicator, a short overview is followed by a
description of the indicator, with examples of the data available for that indicator. For sources of
information on each of the indicators presented here, please see pages 98-101. The following is a list of
indicators described in this section:
Nearshore and Open Waters
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Coastal Wetlands
Wetland Bird Diversity and Abundance
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Nearshore Terrestrial
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Land Use
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Human Health
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Societal
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Unbounded
Acid Rain
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
o-
3.1 INDICATORS
3.1.1 Nearshore and Open Waters
The nearshore waters of the Great Lakes largely occupy a band of varying width around the perimeter of
each lake between the land and the deeper offshore waters of the lake. Also included as nearshore waters are
the Great Lakes connecting channels, and the lower reaches of tributaries that are influenced by changes in
water levels in the Great Lakes. The open waters of the Great Lakes are all of the waters beyond the
lakeward edge of the nearshore waters.
Virtually all species of Great Lakes fish use the nearshore waters for one or more critical life stages or
functions. The nearshore waters are areas of permanent residence for some fishes, migratory pathways for
anadromous fishes, and temporary feeding or nursery grounds for other species from the offshore waters.
Only the deepwater ciscoes (members of the whitefish family) and the deepwater sculpin avoid and are rarely
found in the nearshore waters. Fish species diversity and production in the nearshore waters are higher than
in offshore waters; they also vary from lake to lake and are generally highest in the shallower, more enriched
embayments with large tributary systems.
Human activities have substantially altered the Great Lakes basin landscape and the nearshore waters
element of the basin ecosystem. Some of the most significant stresses include:
High density patterns of settlement, development, and population growth;
Agricultural settlement in the southern portion of the basin created an abundance of food and
fibre causing increased nutrient and pesticide loading;
High usage of surface water for drinking, manufacturing, power production, and waste disposal
into tributaries;
Navigational structures such as dams and canals; and
Development of sheltered areas into marinas and deepwater ports.
The offshore waters of the Great Lakes are also subject to many of the same stresses as the nearshore
environment plus some unique offshore issues. Atmospheric deposition of contaminants, nutrient loadings,
accumulation of toxics in open water fish species, invasion of exotic species, and the alteration of fish
communities and loss of biodiversity associated with over-fishing and fish stocking practices are some of the
on-going issues that face Great Lakes managers today.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Note: The numbers following the indicator name (here and in all of the following sections) are a means of
identifying the indicator in the electronic database.
Sea Lamprey
| Pressure Indicator (18)
The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is a parasitic aquatic vertebrate
native to the Atlantic Ocean that is able to spawn and live entirely in fresh
water. It was first found in Lake Ontario in 1835 and had made its way
to Lake Erie by 1921. From there, this rapidly colonizing species spread
quickly into the upper Great Lakes and was found in Lake Huron in
1932, Lake Michigan in 1936, and Lake Superior in 1946. The sea
lamprey is still found in great abundance in the Upper Great Lakes.
The long narrow body of the sea lamprey greatly resembles an eel and has a characteristic round, tooth-filled
mouth that it uses to attach to fish. Adults spawn in streams including portions of the St Marys River.
Juvenile stages live in stream sediments and feed on organic matter. In the adult stage, this aggressive species
feeds on body fluids of Great Lakes fish which often results in the scarring and/or subsequent death of the
host individual. The sea lamprey is not selective in its feeding as it preys on all species of large fish including
salmon, lake trout, whitefish, walleye and chubs. During its adult stage, it is possible that an individual sea
lamprey can cause the death of more than 40 pounds of fish.
Control measures managed by the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and supported by federal, provincial, state and
tribal governments has brought the lamprey population under
control in most areas. Methods of control include introduction
of sterile-males in order to decrease spawning success,
lampricide treatments and barriers in streams to prevent the
species from reaching spawning areas. The control programs
have allowed the re-emergence of some of the fish species which
seemed to have previously disappeared from the Great Lakes.
In Lake Michigan, sea lamprey numbers are currently 10
percent of their maximum populations in the 1950s.
This indicator measures the number of spawning run adult sea lampreys and the wounding rates on large
salmonids in order to assess the impact of the species on other fish populations in the Great Lakes.
The information presented in Figure 2 shows estimates of parasitic phase sea lamprey populations through-
out the Great Lakes. Note that Lake Huron populations remain at very high levels since the early 1980s
because of large spawning populations in the St. Marys River. Fishery agencies and the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission are concerned about the pattern of increase in Lake Michigan, but generally believe that this
may be a result of "spill over" from Lake Huron and the St. Marys River. These agencies are also concerned
about the pattern of increase in Lake Erie, but feel that with enhanced assessment during 1998, they have
identified and will have treated all sea lamprey spawning streams in 1999. One could expect a decline in
parasitic sea lamprey in Lake Erie during 2000 and spawners in 2001. Lake Superior populations (only U.S.
waters - no historic Canadian data) remain at low levels because of successful control. Lake Ontario
populations have also remained constant in recent years because of adequate control.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
I
X
8
TO
T3
TO
a.
900
800 -
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
Vertical lines represent the first complete
ake-wide stream treatment in the associated lake
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Lake Superior - - - Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie Lake Ontario
Figure 2. Estimated Parasitic-phase Sea Lamprey in the Five Great Lakes (1950-present).
Source: Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1999.
| Native Unionid Mussels
| State Indicator (68)
Native Unionids (clams) are the largest and longest-lived invertebrates in the Great Lakes basin and are key
players in the movement of organic and inorganic particulate matter between the sediment layer and overly-
ing water column. Native Unionid populations are generally highly vulnerable to impact and even extirpa-
tion by invading zebra mussels (Dreissena sp.J. Unionid mortality results both from attachment of zebra
mussels to their shells (biofouling) and from food competition with zebra mussels. Mortality can occur
within two years of the initial zebra mussel invasion, and the rate generally varies directly with zebra mussel
population density. The type of habitat occupied by the Unionids also strongly influences the impact from
zebra mussels. For example, Unionids may be able to survive in soft-bottomed habitats where they can
burrow deeply and suffocate zebra mussels that attach to their shells. Unionids may also survive better in
free-flowing streams than in streams with dams where zebra mussel populations rarely reach densities high
enough to adversely affect Unionid populations.
This indicator assesses the distribution and reproductive output of the Native Unionid mussel. From data
collected, information can be derived concerning the impact of the invading zebra mussel on Unionid
mussels.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The species diversity and density of Unionids has severely declined in Lake Erie, the Detroit River, and Lake
St. Clair since the arrival of zebra mussels there in the mid-1980s. Species diversity of Unionids in these
areas has dropped from an average of 16 in the early years to less than one in recent years with many of these
sites no longer supporting Unionids. Figures 3a and b illustrate the increase in zebra mussel infestation since
introduction in 1986 at Puce, Ontario located on Lake
St. Clair and the associated decrease in native species in
the years following. Within seven years of the
introduction of zebra mussels into Lake St. Clair, the
Unionid population at Puce appears to have been
eliminated. Changes in the density of living Unionids
and zebra mussel infestation in the St. Lawrence River
from 1992 to 1994 are shown in Figure 4. Data suggest
that Unionids will be eliminated within four or five
years of zebra mussel invasion should the zebra mussel
population grow to sufficient levels (>6000/m2).
Number of
zebra
mussels/
unionid
Year
Figure 3a. Annual Infestation of Zebra Mussels
on Unionids at Puce, Ontario in Lake St. Clair.
Source: Gillis and Mackie, 1994.
Depth (m)
Year
Figure 3b. Density of Living Unionidae at Puce,
Ontario in Lake St. Clair.
Source: Gillis and Mackie, 1994.
An encouraging example of a surviving Unionid
population in Metzger Marsh, Lake Erie illustrates how
crucial localized habitat conditions are to the survival of
native species. In 1994 zebra mussels had been found
colonizing all emergent vegetation and rocks at this site.
In 1996 during the dewatering of the marsh as part of a
restoration project, 22 species of native clams were
discovered including several threatened species. Zebra
mussel colonization was evident on less than 1 % of the
7000 clams collected. In this case it is likely that the
specific sediment type and water temperatures of this
wetland allowed for the co-existence of the various
species of mussels. Since the initial discovery, live native
clams have been found at two other coastal wetland
sites.
t 15.
s |0
D _
0 N
Mm-
§£
O)
;> b
V
LivingyUmonia Density
\
Dreissena lnfe<
11
tatioH^
V
1992 1993 1994
Year
20 M- S
o E
S &
- is £ c
15 E|
i =
c 0>
10 a «
-5 **
Figure 4. Changes in Living Unionid Density in
response to Zebra Mussel Infestation in the
Soulanges Canal, St. Lawrence River.
Source: Ricciardi, Whoriskey and Rasmussen, 1995.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
| State Indicator (104)
The benthic community includes the variety of diverse organisms that call the lake bottom their homes.
The species diversity and abundance of benthic invertebrates is an ideal indicator of the impacts of human
induced stress in aquatic ecosystems. They live longer than many free floating organisms, they are relatively
sedentary (which makes sampling easy) , and they reflect the effects of local environmental conditions. Many
species of benthos feed on organic material produced in the open water zone and fish then feed on the
benthos. This provides a link between open water production and higher trophic levels within the aquatic
food chain.
If the historical changes in benthic community structure relative to human induced stresses, and the
tolerances of individual species to those stresses, are known, we can make an assessment of the present status
of the benthic community. This assessment can provide a consistent, precise indicator of environmental
quality in the nearshore region.
3500,
»
» 3000 -
£
| 2500 -
CN
a
S 2000 -
1
0)
J1500-
in
g 3000
'£
Q 2000
^ 1500
| 1000
| 500
z
PI
nri
nn
I'iVl'j'fYt'fi't'j'fi'f'fiVfi'j
,2 ii(S.ffiS-o(Ocic^-5; *JJ g_^^Q-5 E £
QQ Q. i-L* iu Q.ZE: "ij^1
20 most abundant species
1 1 4
S L /*
E1 1000 -I /
0 luuu I /
° /
s /
1 Hi/
Diporeia hoyi (Dia hoy)
Dreissena bugensis (Drequa)
Dreissenapdymorpha (Drepol)
Pisidium casertanum (Pis cas)
Stylodriulus heringianus (Sty her)
Procladius spp. (Pro spp)
Tanytarsus spp. (Pot vej)
Chironomusspp. (Tan spp)
Spirosperma ferox (Spi fer)
Heterotrissocladius spp. (Met spp)
Caecidota racot/itzai (Cae rac)
Vejdovskyella intermedia (Vej int)
Pdypedium nitidum (Ppe spp)
Microspectra spp (Mps spp)
Manayunkiaspeciosa (Man spe)
Pisidium nitidum (Pis nit)
Claddanytarsus spp. (Cta spp)
Gammaruspseudolimnaeus (Gam pse)
Arcteonais lomondi (Arc lorn)
- IIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIllll»nM****u 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IJJJJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Species (sorted in decreasing order of abundance)
In a study carried out from
1991 to 1993 by
Environment Canada's
National Water Research
Institute in Ontario,
nearshore locations were
visited throughout the Great
Lakes to establish a reference
database describing natural
invertebrate community
assemblages. Two hundred
and fifty-two locations
relatively unaffected by
pollution were chosen as
acceptable reference sites.
One hundred and sixty-two
species of invertebrates were
identified with the 1 0 most
abundant accounting for
more than 70% of all the
organisms found (Figure 5) . Oligochaetes were the second most diverse group of benthic organisms with 40
species recorded (the most diverse group were the Chironomidae or midge larvae) .
One index often used to assess the relative health of the benthic community is the abundance and species
composition of oligochaete worms. This is the proposed measure for the indicator. Oligochaete
abundances vary directly with the degree of organic enrichment.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also
recognized the importance of benthic indicator organisms in the evaluation of the Great Lakes. In 1997 a
benthic invertebrate monitoring program was initiated that encompassed all five Lakes, with plans for
biological, physical and chemical data to be collected from a minimum of 45 stations on an annual basis.
Figure 5. Abundance of Invertebrate Benthic Species Collected at 252 Sites
around the Great Lakes.
Source: Reynoldson and Day, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Figure 6 illustrates the results of the 1997 benthic community monitoring. GLNPO found maximum
numbers of species ranging from 10-15 per site, with Lake Huron and Lake Ontario having the greatest
species richness. As in the 1991-1993 Environment Canada study, GLNPO found the amphipod Diporeia
hoyi most abundant, with the exceptions of Lake Erie and parts of Lake Ontario where oligochaetes were
dominant.
The baseline benthic community data collected in the 1990s through these and other studies will facilitate
future reporting on trends and status of the Great Lakes benthic community.
The state of the benthic community was summarized in the Nearshore Waters background paper
accompanying the State of the Great Lakes 1997 report,
"Benthic community structure has generally improved over broad areas in the nearshore zone within
the past few decades. Diversity has increased, and forms considered to be pollution-sensitive have
become more dominant. Degraded communities are still evident, however, in many local harbours
and bays. Broad changes in communities reflect an improved trophic status resulting from
abatement programs that were in place before the establishment of the zebra mussel. Large numbers
of zebra mussels now present in the nearshore zone have also brought about broad changes in
benthic community structure. Many of these changes resemble those resulting from abatement
programs. The challenge for the future is to interpret benthic community changes relative to the
appropriate causative agent".
Mysi
Sptaeririae
Other
Figure 6. Results of Great Lakes National Program Office 1997 Summer Benthic Monitoring.
Source: Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
e-
I Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings I
| Pressure Indicator (111)
Phosphorus is an essential element for all organisms and is often the limiting factor for plant growth in
aquatic ecosystems such as the Great Lakes. Although phosphorus is found naturally in tributaries and run-
off waters, the historical problems have predominately originated from man-made sources. Sewage
treatment plant effluent, agricultural run-off and industrial processes have released high concentrations of
phosphorus into the Lakes. Strict phosphorus loading targets implemented in the 1980s have been
successful in reducing nutrient concentrations in the lakes, although high concentrations still occur locally in
embayments and harbours. Phosphorus loads have decreased in part due to conservation tillage, integrated
crop management, and improvements made to sewage treatment plants and sewer systems.
This indicator assesses total phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes. Simultaneously, it is hoped that
information will be obtained on the overall degradation of the aquatic ecosystem and loss of beneficial uses,
and also on human-induced causes of phosphorus loadings. The analysis of phosphorus concentrations in
the Great Lakes is ongoing and reliable.
Concentrations of total phosphorus in the open waters of the Great Lakes have remained nearly stable since
the mid-1980's. Concentrations in Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or below expected
levels. Observed concentrations in the western basin of Lake Erie continue to fluctuate widely, while those
in the central and eastern basins slightly exceed expected concentrations based on annual target loadings of
phosphorus (Figure 7).
Erie
Western Basin
71 73 75 77 79 8183 B5 87 89 91 93 95 97
Central Basin
71 73 75 77 79 81 B3 8587 89 9193 95 97
Eastern Basin
Erie
Figure 7. Total Phosphorus Trends in the Great Lakes 1971-1997 (Spring, Open Lake, Surface)
(blank indicates no sampling).
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada and Great Lakes National Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
[Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirdsl
| Pressure Indicator (115)
The Herring Gull egg contaminants monitoring program has produced the longest running, continuous
data set for wildlife in the Great Lakes. Each year since 1974, concentrations of 76 organochlorine
compounds such as DDT/DDE, PCBs, PCDFs/PCDDs, and periodically some metals, are measured in the
eggs of Herring Gulls from sites throughout the Great Lakes (Canada and U.S.) Adult Herring Gulls nest
on all the Great Lakes and the connecting channels and remain on the Great Lakes year-round. Because
their diet is made up primarily of fish, they are an excellent terrestrial nesting indicator of the aquatic
community. The value of the Herring Gull as a chemical indicator will remain, and probably increase, as
contaminant levels become harder to measure in water, fish or sediments. Periodically, biological features
such as clutch size, eggshell thickness and hatching success of gulls and other colonial waterbirds are also
measured. A database of chemical levels and biological measures is available. The data can be used to
illustrate temporal trends and geographical patterns, showing all sites relative to one another. Tissues are
archived to permit other assessments such as retrospective analyses when new chemicals are identified.
Contaminant concentrations in most colonial-nesting, fish-eating birds are at levels where gross ecological
effects such as eggshell thinning, reduced hatching and fledging success and population declines are no
longer apparent. Greater reliance for detecting biological effects of contaminants is now being put on
physiological and genetic markers.
Contaminant levels in almost all Great Lakes colonial waterbirds are significantly and substantively reduced
from what they were 25 years ago. Now, in the 1990s, year-to-year differences in contaminant levels are
quite small and detailed statistical analyses are needed to tell if a compound has "stabilized" and is
undergoing non-significant fluctuations, or if it is still declining. These analyses show that most
contaminants at most sites are continuing to decline at a rate similar to that over the last decade or two.
Geographic differences among sites for a given compound are not as dramatic as they once were.
Sites include:
1. St. Lawrence River - Strachan Island (Cornwall)
2. Lake Ontario - Snake Island (Kingston); Toronto Harbour
3. Niagara River - unnamed island 300 m above the Falls
4. Lake Erie - Port Colborne Lighthouse; Middle Island (south of Pelee Island)
5. Detroit River - Fighting Island (LaSalle)
6. Lake Huron - Chantry Island (Southampton), Double Island (Blind River), Channel-
Shelter Island (Saginaw Bay, Bay City, Michigan).
7. Lake Michigan - Gull Island (Beaver Islands, northern Lake Mich.), Big Sister Island
(Dore Peninsula).
8. Lake Superior - Agawa Rocks (Montreal River), Granite Island (Thunder Bay).
Figure 8 illustrates temporal trends for PCBs in Herring Gull eggs.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10-0
5.0
0.0
St. Lawrence River
86 88 90 92 94 96
Lake Ontario
74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 82 94 96
Niagara River
79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97
50
40-
20-
10
Lake Erie
74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
©
120-
100
Detroit River
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Late Huron
74 76 78 80 82 84 86 SB 90 92 94 96 98
Lake Michigan
76 78 BO 82 B4 86 flfl 90 92 94 96
Lake Superior
74 78 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Figure 8. Temporal trends of PCBs (mg/g- wet weight) in Herring Gull eggs from the
Great Lakes, 1974-1998.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service, 1999.
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
| Pressure Indicator (117)
The presence, distribution and cycling of toxic chemicals in the environment is one of the primary concerns
of Great Lakes scientists and managers. After initial success with control programs in the late 1970s and
early 1980s, a downward trend in contaminants in fish and other biota appears to be levelling out. One
explanation was that the continuing contamination was a result of atmospheric deposition.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
I'l
I-
r.
i-
L. Strait
I AON
-81
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) was
established pursuant to Annex 15 of the Agreement. This is a joint
Canada-U.S. network that formally began in January of 1990 to
acquire "...sufficient, quality-assured data to estimate with a
specified degree of confidence the loading to the Great Lake basin
of selected toxic substances'. IADN involves a series of monitoring
stations on each of the Great Lakes in both Canada and the U.S.
(Figure 9).
The IADN measures concentrations of target chemicals in the
atmosphere. In order to calculate atmospheric loadings to bodies
of water, there are many different things to consider in order to
describe the movement of atmospheric contaminants between air
and water. In general, an equation is used to determine the wet,
dry and gas phase inputs to the water surface minus the amount
lost back to the atmosphere. Loadings of pollutants to the lake are a balance of input and output (Figure
10). For some pollutants, there is a net output from the lakes, i.e. the lake is a net source of these pollutants
to the atmosphere. If input and output of the gas phase of the pollutants are roughly equal, the atmospheric
concentration of the pollutants is said to be in equilibrium with the lakes.
Figure 9. IADN Monitoring Stations
located around the Great Lakes Basin.
Source: IADN, 1998.
In January of 1998, the governments of
Canada and the United States released their
Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Program 1990-1996 . Much of the
following data are taken from this report
and provide an example of the information
available through IADN to support this
indicator. Monitoring will continue into
the future. This indicator will assess the
annual average loadings of certain toxic
chemicals (including the IJC priority
chemicals) from the atmosphere to the
Great Lakes.
Gas Transfer
Dust, aerosols and
particlate matter
(Dry deposition)
Rain and snow
(Wet deposition)
Jl
Vapor
(Gas absorption)
Vapor
(Volatilization)
Atmospheric Loading = Dry Deposition + Wet Deposition + Gas Absorption - Volatilization
Figure 10. Model used to Estimate the Atmospheric
Loadings of Contaminants to the Great Lakes.
Source: IADN, 1999.
Figures lla-d illustrate long-term spatial
and temporal trends in four chemicals.
Data are from 1986 to 1994 for one monitoring location in each of Lake Superior (Sibley), Erie (Pelee) and
Ontario (Point Petre). Although IADN was not formally initiated until 1990, data are available for these
three locations prior to 1990. OC-HCH (alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane), lindane (y-HCH), (3-endosulphan
and dieldrin are all organochlorine insecticides that are frequently detected in the environment.
O Ot-HCH and lindane precipitation concentrations do not show marked differences between
monitoring stations, although there has been an overall decline in concentrations over time in all
three locations. Lindane sales in Canada have doubled since 1990 possibly resulting in the increase
in concentrations seen at the Lake Superior and Lake Ontario stations between 1991 and 1994.
Once applied, lindane transforms into the isomer OC-HCH. For this reason, increases in OC-HCH
concentrations may be seen in the future due to the increased application of lindane throughout
North America.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Dieldrin concentrations show a general decrease in concentrations with recorded values 3-4 times
higher at the Pelee station. The proximity of the station to agricultural activities and increased
insecticide usage could explain these higher concentrations.
p-Endosulphan concentrations show no sign of long-term decrease as there has been no restriction
on its use as a broad-spectrum insecticide. Levels are generally higher at Pelee Island and
substantially higher at Pt. Petre as compared to Sibley.
Detectable insecticide concentrations in the environment vary widely as a result of the physical and chemical
properties of the substance, where it is used, how much is used and the weather conditions under which it
was applied. Evaporation is an important pathway of pesticide entry into the atmosphere. Depending on
the pesticide, 75% or more of what is applied can be lost to the atmosphere over time. Much of this will be
returned to the environment through atmospheric deposition causing potentially harmful impacts to fish
and wildlife, human health, habitat and water quality.
a-HCH
10 -
8 -
ng/L 6
4 -
2 -
-I
n
Sibley
Dieldrin
2
1.5
ng/L
1
0.5
i
. J
Sibley
,
T-,
Pe ee
Site
Lindane
in
D1986
D1987
D1988
D1989
D1990
D1991
1992
D1993
D1994
6J
5 J
4 - i-
ng/L
3
2
1
Pt Petre
_
Hi
1
_r
In
Site
I
Pt
i
D1986
D1987
D1988
D1989
D1990
D1991
1992
D1993
D1994
I
b-endosulphan
i
\
m
ml
I JJ
1
m
Site
'
ftn
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
9
8
7
6
ng/L 5
4
2
1
^
UJ,
-,
j-| n
jl
^>etre Sibley ^ft|ee
Site
r
r
^ '
k
1986
a 1987
a 1988
a 1989
D 1990
D1991
1992
1993
a 1994
Figure lla-d. OC-HCH, Lindane, Dieldrin and (3-endosulphan concentrations found in
precipitation at Sibley (Lake Superior), Pelee (Lake Erie) and Point Petre (Lake Ontario).
Source: IADN, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.1.2 Coastal Wetland Ecosystems
Great Lakes coastal wetlands have formed in shallow, sheltered areas, at the interface between of land and
water and can extend up to the 100-year floodline. They range from narrow bands to expansive wetland
complexes, shaped by waves, wind tides, seiches, and especially the seasonal and long-term fluctuations in
Lake levels.
Wetlands are important ecologically, socially, and economically, and are one of the most productive
ecosystems in the world. Wetland plant and animal communities are not only adapted to life on the edge of
the terrestrial and aquatic zones, they depend on it and on lake level fluctuations for their continued
survival. The social and economic importance includes storm protection, nutrient removal and storage,
nursery areas for fish, and recreation.
Despite these values, coastal wetlands are in trouble. Threats include!
Regulation of lake water levels. Coastal wetlands exist because of water level changes, with a
landward shift during periods of high water levels, and a lakeward shift during low water periods.
Regulation decreases both wetland extent and diversity in the long term.
Land use change. Wetlands can be directly removed by shoreline development, or indirectly lost by
alteration of the natural sediment supply and transport through land use change either at the shore
or in the watershed. If sediments needed to maintain barrier beaches and sand spits are cut off,
sheltered wetlands can be exposed to wave attack. Conversely, excess sediments deposited into
wetlands significantly reduce germination of many wetland plants, degrade fish habitat and
ultimately, can fill in wetlands.
Exotic species. Species such as carp and purple loosestrife have greatly impacted the ecological
balance of many wetland communities.
Toxic chemicals. Chemicals deposited in coastal wetlands can accumulate as they move up the food
chain, becoming most harmful to animals at the top of the food chain, including humans.
To select indicators of the health and integrity of coastal wetlands, the following criteria for coastal wetland
health were used:
capability to self-maintain assemblages of organisms that have a composition and functional
organization comparable to natural habitat;
resiliency to natural disturbances; and
risk factors or human-induced pressures at an "acceptable level".
There are few existing monitoring programs for Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Efforts were made to select
indicators for which there are existing data and monitoring programs, although many of the indicators will
require new or improved monitoring programs.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
| State Indicator (4507)
Birds are among the most visible and diverse groups of wildlife in coastal Great Lakes wetlands. Because
breeding wetland birds require an appropriate mix and density of vegetation, sufficient and safe food
resources, and freedom from predation and other disturbances, their presence and abundance provides
information that integrates the physical, chemical and biological status of their habitats. The recent growth
in nature-oriented recreation, particularly the sport of birding, has helped develop strong natural history and
identification skills in a large proportion of the basin's citizens. The connections between wetland functions
and breeding birds, and the potential for involving skilled citizens in monitoring, present an important
opportunity to gather information on the health of coastal Great Lakes wetlands.
The Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) is a bi-national, long-term monitoring program that coordinates
volunteers in annual surveys of breeding birds and amphibians of coastal and inland emergent wetlands (i.e.
marshes) of the Great Lakes. The program's objectives are to: monitor marsh birds and amphibians at large
spatial and temporal scales, contribute to understanding habitat associations of marsh birds and amphibians,
and help in the assessment of recovery in Areas of Concern. Volunteers apply standardized methods and
conduct bird surveys twice annually at permanent stations
along wetland edges and report annually on the vegetation
and other habitat characteristics at each station. The MMP
is delivered by Bird Studies Canada (formerly Long Point
Bird Observatory) in partnership with Environment Canada
and with support from the U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office and Lake Erie Team, and the Great Lakes
Protection Fund. After one year of protocol development
and field testing, the bird survey component of the MMP
was initiated in Ontario in 1994; the program expanded to
the entire Great Lakes basin and a
calling amphibian survey was
added in 1995. Since that time,
the program has involved
approximately 300 volunteers
annually, with surveys established
broadly throughout the basin.
High
O fl)
>. o
fi
n o
e 8
D. °
Low
Black Tern
Large wetlands with
moderate density of
emergents
Small wetlands f ^\
with dense x
emergents ^/
1 ^^^^
f^^^^^
For more information on
the MMP visit the Bird
Studies Canada web site
www.bsc-eoc.org
Figure 12. Probability of Black Tern Occurrence in
Wetlands of Various Sizes and Different Emergent
Vegetation Density.
Source! Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Patterns in the species composition and
numbers of breeding wetland birds may
reflect changes in the condition of
breeding habitats. Five years of MMP
monitoring data is expected to provide
sufficient resolution to identify trends in
numbers of marsh nesting birds, including
those in Table 1. When combined with
an analysis of habitat characteristics such
as those summarized in Figure 12, trends
in species abundance and diversity can
contribute to an assessment of the ability
Table 1. Examples of Projected Detectable Annual Change in
Numbers of Marsh Nesting Species
Example of Species/Group
Detectable annual change in
numbers (projected)*
Black Tern
Marsh Wren
Virginia Rail
Number of marsh nesting species
4%
3%
3%
1%
*With 100 MMP routes surveyed for five years
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
of Great Lakes coastal wetlands to support birds and other wetland dependent wildlife. When analyzed at
various spatial scales, MMP data can help assess the status of marsh birds and their habitats across regions,
individual lake basins or over the whole Great Lakes basin (Figure 12). The use of this indicator to assess
Great Lakes wetlands health will be illustrated at SOLEC 2000 through a summary of trends in marsh bird
abundance and species composition.
Providing the habitat quality and quantity necessary to sustain breeding populations of wetland-dependent
birds across their historical range is an important target for efforts to conserve and restore Great Lakes
coastal wetlands. Monitoring the richness and abundance of marsh bird communities is critical to achieving
this objective and makes a strong contribution to the overall assessment of Great Lakes wetland health. The
MMP provides a large-scale, bi-national, and volunteer-based foundation for this monitoring. With the
continued cooperation of agencies, non-governmental organizations and citizen naturalists from across the
basin, additional years of data will strengthen the contribution of this indicator to assessments of Great
Lakes wetlands.
Example of Future Reporting
Decline
the Black Tern, a Population in
While some breeding bird populations are thriving throughout the
basin, others are experiencing decline. One such species is the
marsh-nesting Black Tern. The Black Tern is still considered locally
common in some areas, although its range has declined significantly
over the past decades. It is currently considered endangered in
Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York, threatened in Ontario, and a
species of special concern in Michigan.
The MMP is collecting data on marsh birds in order to look at
trends in the various species. While the MMP is still in its early
stages, and data are inadequate to determine significant trends, their
surveys found that the tern was only recorded in 65 of the 273 MMP
routes surveyed in 1995 and/or 1996.
Until the MMP has a more extensive data collection, we can examine
trends found in the continental Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). The
BBS reports that the Black Tern population has been declining by an
average of 4.7% per year since 1966, or an overall loss of 75% of the
population (Figure 13). Other wetland bird species are also
experiencing declining populations such as the American Bittern as
seen in Figure 14.
The exact reasons for decline are not known, but habitat loss in
coastal marshes is an important issue. The Black Tern nests in
marshes that have the right ratio of open water to emergent vegetation,
usually about 50 / 50. Extreme changes in Great Lakes water levels can
significantly influence the proportion of the two habitats in coastal
wetlands. Another possible cause for the decline is the continued use of
DDT in the Black Tern's wintering grounds in Latin America.
Figure 13. Black Tern Population Trends
in the Great Lakes Area 1966-1996.
Source! Breeding Bird Survey, 1996.
Year
Figure 14. American Bittern Population
Trends in the Great Lakes Area 1966-1996.
Source! Breeding Bird Survey, 1996.
Population Index:
The population indices displayed in this
indicator are based on the methods of
the Breeding Bird Survey analysis.
For more information:
http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
I Gain in Restored Wetland Area by Type
| State Indicator (4511)
This indicator was chosen to measure the success of rehabilitation efforts across the basin. With extensive
areas of coastal wetlands lost each year as a result of various threats, it is important to track where and to
what extent efforts have been made to create additional wetlands, or rehabilitate lost or seriously degraded
wetland area. Another indicator in the suite, Coastal Wetland Area by Type, will address the total loss (or
gain) of coastal wetland area in the Great Lakes basin. The area, quality and type of restored wetlands is
important. Current information presents rehabilitation effort for wetlands in the whole basin,
distinguishing neither coastal ones, nor wetland types, nor enhancements of existing wetland areas from
'new' restored area. These distinctions should be monitored and
separated from changes in wetland area and type caused by
natural water level fluctuations.
From April 1994 through May 1999,
projects to rehabilitate or create more
than 2,500 hectares of wetlands have
been completed in the Canadian Great
Lakes basin, with an additional 1,340
hectares in progress.
The Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan
(GLWCAP) is a Canadian program of federal and provincial
governments as well as non-governmental organizations with a
common goal to create, reclaim, rehabilitate and protect wetland
habitat in the lower Great Lakes basin. One of the aims of this
program is to rehabilitate or create 6,000 hectares of wetland by
the year 2001.
The following are some of the projects and programs occurring around the U.S. Great Lakes.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard and the Michigan
departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality recently participated in a multi-agency
winter navigation agreement that will protect the St. Marys River and more than 13,300 acres of
Michigan's coastal wetlands. In the agreement, there are provisions to protect more than 75 miles of
riverine habitat and wetlands from the effects of the early navigation season.
Through partnerships, the Michigan Private Lands Office has
completed 22 wetland restorations totaling 160 acres. The Michigan
Wildlife Habitat Foundation, through a cooperative agreement,
completed the bulk of these restorations with additional restorations
completed through the Kalamazoo Conservation district. Partners,
including landowners, contributed approximately 50 percent of the
cost of the projects.
Nearly 11,000 acres of wetlands have been restored through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Wetlands Reserve Program in the Great
Lakes watershed within Wisconsin. These 126 sites are long-term
restorations or permanent easements, providing flood control,
improved water quality, and wildlife habitat in the North American
Fly way.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Restoration of Metzger Marsh
Metzger Marsh is a 367-hectare wetland in an embayment in western Lake Erie near Toledo, Ohio
managed as a refuge by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ohio Division of Wildlife. The
embayment was formerly protected from waves on the lake by a barrier beach that was lost to erosion
during high lake levels in 1973. Progressive loss of vegetated area accompanied erosion of the protective
barrier. Therefore, the management agencies opted for an active restoration program that incorporated
a dike to mimic the protective function of the lost barrier beach but included a water-control structure
that could be opened following restoration to allow hydrologic connection with the lake. After the dike
was constructed, the control structure remained closed for two years to allow a drawdown of water levels
to mimic a low lake-level period. The seed bank produced a quick response in revegetating the wetland.
The wetland was reflooded in 1998, and the control structure will be opened in 1999. The control
structure also contains an experimental fish-control system that will allow direct wetland access by most
fish, yet restrict access by large carp.
Cootes Paradise Marsh, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Internet address for the project: http://www.mcmaster.ca/ecowise
Cootes Paradise is a 250 hectare marsh at the west end of Lake Ontario. The marsh watershed supports
over 500,000 people including the cities of Hamilton and Burlington. Since 1934 emergent vegetation
cover in this once thriving and diverse wetland has decreased by 85% leaving largely cattails and manna
grass. High water levels, the regulation of Lake Ontario, excessive nutrients, and high turbidity are
some of the factors that are thought to be responsible for this loss of wetland area and biodiversity.
Despite the degradation of the marsh, it is classified as a Class 1 Provincially Significant Wetland, and
an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest among numerous other designations.
A goal of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action
Plan, is to restore Cootes Paradise. Point-source inputs
of nutrients from the three main tributaries, four
combined sewer overflows and a local sewage treatment
plant will be reduced. A barrier/fishway was built to
prevent large carp from entering Cootes Paradise from
Hamilton Harbour.
With the help of hundreds of volunteers of all ages,
numerous planting sessions were held in the summers
of 1993 and 1994 using over 10,000 plants grown by
students in local schools.
By 1999, 200 hectares of vegetation in the marsh have been restored. Ninety percent is submergent
vegetation, including wild celery which has not been seen in the marsh in 50 years. The other 10
percent is emergent vegetation. Other improvements include higher plant densities, improved water
clarity especially in the spring, and the return of Common Moorhen, Pied-Billed Grebe, Bullfrog and
the Northern Spring Peeper.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands |
| Pressure Indicator (4516)
A major stressor affecting coastal wetlands is change in the location and movement of sediments. Where
sediments feed barrier beaches and sand spits that protect wetlands, sediment reduction can shrink
protection barriers and expose wetlands to wave attack. If excess sediments are deposited into existing
wetlands, they can bury submergent vegetation and affect fish spawning and other functions. As little as
0.25 centimetres deposition of excess sediment can have a significant effect on the germination of many
wetland plant species.
Human activities in the Great Lakes basin have substantially altered the amount and particle size of
sediments flowing into the Great Lakes. Increased sediment loads entering coastal wetlands are largely due
to changes in land use in the upstream watersheds. Changes include reduction of vegetated cover, increased
agricultural runoff, urbanization, construction, and logging activities.
Because much of the sediment load originates in agricultural areas, sediments can carry high loads of
nutrients, pesticides and other farm chemicals. High sediment concentrations cause turbidity which reduces
the light reaching submergent vegetation and phytoplankton and limits plant growth.
The SOLEC 96 background paper Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes reported that severe sediment
loading is extensive throughout the lower lakes where agricultural activity and urbanization are common,
but is more localized in the upper lakes.
For many years the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada have monitored sediment yields from
numerous Great Lakes tributary watersheds including many associated with coastal wetlands. This provides
an accessible data source. Figure 15 illustrates estimates of sediment yields from monitored Lake St. Clair
coastal wetland watersheds (Canadian) between 1990 and 1996. In this case, higher yields indicate a greater
human-induced pressure on the associated coastal wetlands but all years are high relative to rates for other
Great Lakes wetland watersheds. The St. Clair watersheds support intensive agriculture. Information on
land use changes in the watershed is needed before annual changes in sediment loads yields can be related to
changes in land use patterns. The higher sediment yields in some years correspond to higher rainfall years.
With climatologists suggesting that climate
change might include more frequent highly
erosive storms, future reduction of
sediment yield from agricultural areas
could be an even greater challenge than it is
today.
90-
80
70-
~O "? 60
" ?a
^ V2 Kn-
Sediment ^
(Tonnes/krr
D 0 0 0 0
^
I
==
^_,
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Year
^
Figure 15. Sediment Yield from Monitored Coastal Wetland
Watersheds: Lake St. Clair (Canadian Side).
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.1.3 Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
The nearshore terrestrial environment or the "land by the Lakes' is an integral part of the Great Lakes
ecosystem, the extent of which is defined by the Lakes themselves. As with all ecosystems, they have a
physical component, living biological communities and the processes that support them. In general terms,
the lands within about one kilometre from the Great Lakes shoreline are included in this category.
While the dynamic lakeshore provides ideal conditions for diverse plant and animal communities and
habitats, it is also the focal point for human settlement, industry and recreation. This inevitably causes
major stresses on these natural communities. In the State of the Great Lakes (1997), a rough assessment was
made of how well the nearshore terrestrial environment was doing by looking at the health of 17 Great
Lakes coastal ecoregions, 12 special Great Lakes ecological communities and the overall nearshore terrestrial
ecosystem health of each Lake. The conclusion was that the health of the nearshore environment was
degrading throughout the Great Lakes. It is still degrading today. More information can be found in the
SOLEC 96 background report - The Land by the Lakes, Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems.
Thirteen indicators of nearshore terrestrial ecosystem health have been developed to fulfil the need for a
cost-effective and easily understood set of measures that will tell us how nearshore ecosystems across the
basin are changing, what is causing the changes, the current status of these ecosystems and component parts,
and how effectively humans are responding to the changes. One of those indicators provides information
for each of 12 special lakeshore communities.
[Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities |
| State Indicator (8129)
The twelve special lakeshore communities presented in this indicator are some of the most ecologically
significant habitats in the terrestrial nearshore. The twelve special lakeshore communities are:
sand beaches;
sand dunes;
bedrock and cobble beaches;
unconsolidated shore bluffs;
coastal gneissic rocklands;
limestone cliffs and talus slopes;
lakeplain prairies;
sand barrens;
arctic-alpine disjunct communities;
Atlantic coastal plain disjunct communities;
shoreline alvars; and,
islands.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The indicator was designed to measure the area, quality, and protected status of these twelve special
lakeshore communities occurring within one kilometre of the shoreline. The information collected to satisfy
this measure may also help to identify the sources of threats to some of the most ecologically significant
habitats in the Great Lakes terrestrial nearshore, as well as the success of management activities associated
with the protection status.
In order to thoroughly track changes in this indicator, a baseline of the area of each of the twelve special
lakeshore communities will need to be established for comparison with periodic monitoring every three to
five years. Unfortunately, data collection may be difficult because of the large area and the number of
different jurisdictions. In addition, information on location and quality for some special lakeshore
communities is incomplete, therefore, this indicator will require some expense and time to establish a
reliable baseline.
An example of one of the communities (sand dunes) can be explored to show the kinds of data that will be
required for all 12 communities.
Area, Quality and Protection of Sand Dunes
Sand dunes form where sand grains from one-sixteenth to two millimetres in size are abundant, wind blows
frequently, and there is a place for sand to be deposited. Over time, dunes actively move. The major stress
on this community is habitat alteration which is caused by blowouts, sand mining, primary and second-
home development, and recreational impacts. The health of this community was rated D in the State of the
Great Lakes (1997) report and was considered moderately degrading. It is not likely that this rating has
changed significantly since that time. Several of the 20 Nearshore Terrestrial Biodiversity Investment Areas
proposed in a background report to the State of the Great Lakes (1997) report include sand dune landscapes
which may be a future protection measure for these fragile communities. For further information on BIAs
see Chapter 4 or visit one of the SOLEC websites www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/98/ or www.cciw.ca/solec/.
As shown in Figures
16-18, there are
numerous ways to
illustrate this
indicator including: a
simple map of the
location and extent of
sand dunes; the
percent of sand dune
communities
included within areas
formally managed for
conservation at
various levels; or a
summary of quality
rankings for special
natural communities
such as dunes, based
on such criteria as the
Figure 16. Sand Dune Complexes in the Great Lakes Basin.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
size and viability of each occurrence and the integrity of the surrounding landscape. These figures are based
on preliminary data and are provided primarily to give an idea of how this indicator will look when
complete data are available.
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Figure 17. Level of Protection Provided to Sand
Dune Complexes within Managed Areas.
o
HI
O)
c
20
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
A-Ranked
AB- Ranked
Ranking
B-Ranked
Figure 18. Quality of Sand Dune Complexes in
the Great Lakes Basin.
Working Towards Dune Protection
The Ontario Dune Coalition
The Ontario Dune Coalition has one main concern! the stabilization of dunes on the eastern shore of
Lake Ontario. The more than 30 organizations who are members have several objectives. First, they
assist in stabilizing the dunes as natural systems. Second, they are developing measures to maintain
dune stability. Finally, they hope to encourage public use which is in keeping with their dune protec-
tion goals.
For more than a dozen years the members of the Ontario Dune Coalition have been working to stabi-
lize, restore and protect the dunes of eastern Lake Ontario. By improving access for the public, educat-
ing users, providing technical assistance, and coordinating research, the dunes have not disappeared.
They are healthier and richer ecologically and as a consequence, enjoyed and appreciated by more
people each year.
The Coalition's activities are numerous and varied. One
private landowner is growing a native beachgrass to be
used in dune restorations. Dune stewards walk the dunes,
greeting visitors and helping them to understand the
importance of staying on trails and telling stories about
dune animals and plants. Brochures and interpretive signs
inform visitors about dune and wetland ecology. Walko-
vers and boardwalks have been constructed to limit access
to newly vegetated and sensitive dunes. All activities are
designed to decrease visitor impacts in sensitive areas while
improving access to the beaches.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.1.4 Land Use
Changing patterns of land use are a major ecosystem stressor for the Great Lakes basin and its nearshore
areas. The five Great Lakes themselves and the connecting channels account for approximately one-third of
the total area covered by the basin with various land use classes making up the remainder. Forests account
for the largest percentage of total basin area, at about 40%. Agriculture accounts for about 25% of present
basin area, and the "built environment" representing industrial, commercial, residential, institutional, and
transportation usestakes up less than 3% of the area of the Great Lakes basin. These numbers are not
static, fluctuating with changing patterns of land use. Although natural forces have the greatest potential for
altering landscapes and land cover, the current human imprint on the land in the Great Lakes area is obvious
and substantial. Human activities ranging from farming to urban development are affecting the basin's
ecosystem.
The many forms of developmentincluding industrial, commercial, residential, agricultural, and
transportation-related activitiescarry specific, significant, and cumulative impacts for the natural world
and particularly for Great Lakes water quality. These activities take place throughout the basin, but their
most immediate and direct impact on the Great Lakes appears to be on lands proximate to the Lakes
themselves and their tributary waters. These nearshore areas suffer from a particular and disproportionate
environmental burden because of their unique and sensitive environments and proximity to development.
Land use in coastal areas of the Great Lakes is changing in response to the region's evolving economy and
industrial restructuring as well as to the relentless forces of urban sprawl. The aesthetic and recreational
attraction of the shores is also spurring renewed public appreciation and use of this asset, whether it be an
urban waterfront or a remote location.
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
| Human Activity Indicator (7028)
Ontario Activities
Our Farm Environmental Agenda was released by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC) in
January of 1992. The Coalition was formed to enable farm groups to deal better with political challenges
and take control of their environmental agenda. Government ministries, agencies, non-government
organizations and farm groups devoted thousands of hours of time developing an Environmental Farm
Management Plan (EFP) program in the early 1990s. The farm plan is a process that starts with a workshop
on environmental farm issues and culminates in a completed plan of remedial actions that are eligible for
limited grant funding. The program is voluntary and of the over 50,000 farmers in Ontario that are eligible
it is hoped that most will participate in the process to raise awareness and enhance the role of farmers as
stewards of the land.
Farmers complete a farm plan identifying environmental areas of concerns on their farms with activities and
specific actions that will be taken to remediate these. For example, ensuring that farm manure is managed to
avoid contaminating surface water courses and groundwater is critical to safe and clean drinking water for
the farmer as well as preventing contamination of downstream water or aquifers. The farm plan will identify
the possibility of contamination and identify preventative or remedial solutions and actions.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Farmers are eligible for grants up to $1,500.00 (Can) to assist them in delivering the specified
environmental remedial actions in their farm plans, once their plan has been reviewed and approved. The
farm plan then becomes a stewardship
guidebook for environmental management
by the farmer and a reference document for
further remedial or preventative actions.
Program Results
From 1993 to April 1999, there have been
over 1,000 workshops held for farmers,
involving almost 15,000 or a third of
Ontario's farmers leading to the approval of
7,892 farm plans. Environmental Farm Plan
workshops continue to be well attended and
in the last several years have exceeded
projected attendance. Figure 19 depicts the
number of approved Environmental Farm
Plans in Ontario.
United States Activities
2000 -1
1600-
1200-
_D
I 400 -}
3
z
0
Year
Figure 19. Number of Environmental Farm Plans Approved
in Ontario 1993-1999.
Source! Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers landowners financial, technical, and educational
assistance to implement conservation practices on privately owned land, and to promote sustainable
agricultural practices. The following are brief overviews of some of the cost-share programs managed by
USDA.
Conservation Reserve Program
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) reduces soil erosion, protects the Nation's ability to produce
food and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife
habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible
cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses,
wildlife plantings, trees,
Table 2. Conservation Reserve Program contracts issued and acres affected in
U.S. Great Lakes basin counties, as of June, 1998.
filterstrips, or riparian
buffers. Farmers receive an
annual rental payment for
the term of the multi-year
contract. Cost sharing is
provided to establish the
vegetative cover practices.
As of June, 1998,23,350
agreements were in place in
the U.S. Great Lakes basin
counties affecting nearly
810,000 acres (Table 2).
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
CRP Acres
None in GL watershed
118,402
284,452
796
50,733
175,683
4,840
174,755
809,661
CRP Contracts
None in GL watershed
3,944
3,927
42
1,487
6,592
140
7,236
23,350
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) works primarily in locally identified conservation
priority areas where there are significant problems with natural resources. High priority is given to areas
where agricultural improvements will help meet water quality objectives. EQIP offers contracts for
conservation practices, such as manure management systems, pest management, erosion control, and other
practices to improve and maintain the health of natural resources. Activities must be carried out according
to a conservation plan.
Farmland Protection Program
The Farmland Protection Program provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive
farmland in use. Working through existing programs, USDA joins with State, tribal, or local governments
to acquire conservation easements or other interests from landowners. To qualify, farmland must meet
several criteria, including having a conservation plan.
Stewardship Incentive Program
The Stewardship Incentive Program provides technical and financial assistance to encourage nonindustrial
private forest landowners to keep their lands and natural resources productive and healthy. Eligible
landowners must have an approved Forest Stewardship Plan and own 1,000 or fewer acres of qualifying
land.
Wetlands Reserve Program
The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program to restore wetlands. Participating landowners can
establish conservation easements of either permanent or 30-year duration or can enter into restoration cost-
share agreements where no easement is involved. Restoration cost-share agreements establish wetland
protection and restoration as the primary land use for the duration of the agreement. In all instances,
landowners continue to control access to their land.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program provides financial incentives to develop habitat for fish and
wildlife on private lands. Participants agree to implement a wildlife habitat development plan. USDA and
program participants enter into a cost-share agreement for wildlife habitat development. This agreement
generally lasts a minimum of 5 years.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program works to increase knowledge about -
and help farmers and ranchers adopt - practices that are economically viable, environmentally sound and
socially responsible. To advance such knowledge nationwide, SARE administers a competitive grants
program first funded by Congress in 1988.
For the combined years 1997 - 1998, 78 grants were awarded within the eight Great Lakes states. As the
outreach arm of SARE, the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) provides national leadership in
facilitating information exchanges in support of sustainable agriculture. Information is produced in a variety
of formats, including print, World Wide Web, and electronic books, or diskette versions.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
| State Indicator (8150)
The Great Lakes basin supports a rich diversity and abundance of breeding birds making it one of the most
important regions on the North American continent for many species. Long-term, comprehensive
monitoring of the status and trends of bird populations and communities can allow resource managers to
determine the health of bird communities and habitat conditions.
The proposed measure for this indicator is the diversity and abundance of breeding bird populations and
communities in selected habitat types, and an index of the biological integrity of the populations. Breeding
birds are strongly linked to habitat conditions so this indicator also has potential to have cross applications
to other wildlife species and other indicators. Changes in abundance, density, and productivity of breeding
birds are caused by many factors both on and off the breeding territories. Care must be used in determining
the causes of these changes, especially for birds that spend much of each year on migration or in distant
wintering habitats.
This indicator is similar to the Coastal Wetland Bird Diversity and Abundance indicator, but has a much
broader scope, thus allowing interpretation at many levels. Population trends of an individual species within
a limited geographic area provides useful information to land managers and may suggest specific
management activities that should be undertaken. In the future, comparisons of indices of biological
integrity among sites would provide a way to evaluate the variety of management strategies employed in
similar environmental settings. Analysis of broad patterns, using biodiversity maps provide opportunities to
identify landscape level activities that influence ecosystem health.
Until data are collected to support the calculation of these indices of biological integrity, a look at
population and distribution trends of breeding bird species found in the basin provides a glimpse into the
potential contribution of this indicator to determining the health of the Great Lakes.
Peregrine Falcon - Staging a Comeback
Peregrine falcons were widely distributed throughout the Great Lakes basin before populations dropped
drastically in the 1940s and 1950s because of increasing use of DDT
across North America. Following the ban on DDT use, a continent
wide recovery program was introduced to attempt to bring back the
species. Between 1977 and 1996, over 600 peregrines were released in
Ontario, and the neighbouring Great Lakes States also released hundreds
of individuals. By 1997 there were over 100 confirmed pairs in the
Great Lakes States and 21 pairs in Ontario. Today, there are more than
1,600 pairs in the skies throughout Canada and the United States.
These data prompted the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada to improve the status of the Anatum Peregrine Falcon
to nationally threatened rather than nationally endangered. In August of
1998 the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed to remove the falcon
from the Endangered Species List. One year later, on August 20, 1999,
the peregrine falcon became the first bird to be removed off the
endangered species list in the U.S.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Giant Canada Goose -"Nuisance" Species on the Rise
For several decades prior to 1962, the Giant Canada Goose (Branta canadensis maxima) was thought to be
extinct. Its rediscovery that year began a rapid restoration of the subspecies throughout its previous range
(Figure 20). While many municipalities in the Great Lakes basin now consider this species a nuisance, its
restoration is actually considered a success story. The geese are well adapted to living in populated and
urbanized areas and goose-human conflicts are increasing. Municipalities request permits and assistance in
dealing with the problems incurred by the geese in
such areas as parks, golf courses and beaches. The
agricultural community is also in need of assistance
to prevent the geese from damaging crops.
In response to the high goose populations,
regulatory agencies are implementing hunting
regulations to increase the kill of Giant Canada
Geese, while protecting other subspecies of migrant
Canada Geese. Some communities are also getting
involved in goose capture and relocation projects,
while others are now considering the use of border
collies to scare geese from areas such as airport
runways and golf courses.
Double Crested Cormorant
£ so-k
Year
Figure 20. Canada Goose Population Trends in
the Great Lakes Area 1966-1996.
Source! Breeding Bird Survey, 1996.
The Double Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) was near extinction in the 1970s as a result of
drastic impacts from toxic chemicals. From 1973 to 1993, however, the cormorant population increased
over 300 fold to more than 38,000 pairs (Figure 21). The cormorant is now more numerous on the Great
Lakes than at any time in its previously recorded history because of decreases in contaminant releases in the
Great Lakes basin and changes in the preyfish populations in the Lakes.
The growth in cormorant populations seen in the early 1990s is no longer evident. It is difficult for a
species to maintain such growth rates as resources such as food and habitat become limiting. It is likely that
the cormorant populations will stabilize sometime in the future.
Some interest groups in the Great Lakes basin believe that the population of cormorants
significant impact on fish populations. Scientists and fish managers suggest
that the amount offish which cormorants consume in eastern Lake Ontario,
for example, is posing a serious threat to the sport fishery (as reported in a
report released by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
entitled To Assess the Impact of Double-Crested Cormorant Predation on
Smallmouth Bass and other Fishes of the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario).
Some individuals have chosen to take control of the rapid cormorant
population growth into their own hands. In April of 1999, nine individuals
pleaded guilty to inhumanely killing more than 1,000 double-breasted
cormorants on Little Galloo Island in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario. The
states of New York and Vermont have been granted permission from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to control the double-crested cormorant populations
by placing oil on eggs. This limits hatching success.
is having a
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
For more information on the double-crested cormorant, see the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' cormorant
web page at www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html, or the Canadian Wildlife Services'
fact sheet at www.cciw.ca//glimr/data/cormorant-fact-sheet/intro.html.
20000
15000
Lake Huron, Georgian Bap, ,
North Channel*
O
5 10000
.a
E
5000
Lake Su£ erior *
St. Lawrence
River**
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
* Canadian data only
** Binational data Some years have no data available, otherabnormally low
years (e.g. Lake Erie, 1996) are due to incomplete data.
Figure 21. Number of Double-crested Cormorant Nests Found on Lakes Ontario, Erie,
Huron and Superior between 1979-1999.
Source! Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, 1999.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.1.5 Human Health
Human populations in the Great Lakes basin, as with those living elsewhere, are exposed to many toxic
pollutants present in the environment. This reality positions issues dealing with the health of individuals
and communities as a continuing priority identified by residents and governments in the Great Lakes basin.
In addition, the majority of people consider that protecting human health is one of the more important
goals of environmental management. Consequently, there is interest in having indicators for monitoring
changes in human health, or changes in factors that affect health, as they relate to the Great Lakes
environment. The premise is that as social, economic and environmental conditions change in the Great
Lakes basin, so could the health of the population. Such indicators are also needed to assess the effectiveness
of social, economic, health and environment policies and actions in protecting or improving the health of
the Great Lakes basin population.
For practical purposes, this effort to develop health indicators has focussed primarily on indicators of human
exposure to environmental contaminants. The indicators of exposure are either contaminant levels
measured in human tissues, such as breast milk or blood, estimates of daily intake of persistent contaminants
by the Great Lakes population (e.g. via fish consumption), or contaminant levels in air, drinking water and
recreational water. The contribution of these exposures as causative factors in disease, such as cancer and
birth defects, can be difficult to identify. However, a different indicator which analyses geographic patterns
and trends in incidence rates can serve to identify potential areas of concern and may lead to testable
hypotheses regarding the correlation of environmental exposure with human disease. The health indicators
presented below focus on human exposure.
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Pressure Indicator (4081)
One of the most important factors in nearshore recreational water quality is that it be free from harmful
microbial contamination. Recreational waters may become contaminated with animal and human feces
from sources such as combined sewer overflows that occur in certain areas after heavy rains, agricultural run-
off, and poorly treated sewage. Gastrointestinal disorders and minor skin, eye, ear, nose and throat
infections have been associated with microbial contamination. Human exposure to micro-organisms occurs
primarily through ingestion of water and can also occur via the entry of water through the ears, eyes, nose,
broken skin, and through contact with the skin. Children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune
systems are those most likely to develop illnesses or infections after swimming in polluted water.
This indicator will track E. coli and fecal coliform abundance and the frequency of beach closings over time
and across geographic locations throughout the basin. Analysis of data may show seasonal and local trends
in nearshore recreational waters. The trends provided by this indicator will aid in beach management and in
the prediction of episodes of poor water quality.
Figure 22 illustrates one way of presenting this indicator, and is based on measurements of the number of E.
coli at Ontario public beaches. Guideline exceedances were used to assess whether beaches were impaired
from a human health standpoint. Using the geometric mean E. coli levels reported for each sampling
session, the median, 5th and 95th percentile values were calculated, by beach and by year, for selected
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Canadian Great Lakes basin beaches. These summary values were chosen to give a snapshot of overall
microbial quality, as well as the range of geometric mean E. coli levels experienced during the bathing
season.
Median levels for the June 1st to August 31st swimming season for the years 1992 to 1996 for Ontario public
beaches generally fall below the Ontario guideline of 100 E. coli 7100 ml water. Nonetheless, there are
instances where the median value is above the guideline.
As the Great Lakes population grows, there will be increasing pressure on the shoreline by users, and
possibly increased microbial pollution. However, pollution controls and remediations such as reducing
combined sewer overflows, and improvements in sewage treatment, have improved water quality in some
areas of the Great Lakes basin in recent years. The continuation of such efforts will greatly contribute to the
improvement of recreational water quality.
Real Grand Park
Long Point New Park
Ryerson Park
Sunnytaank Park
Long Point Old Park
Long Point West
Long °oint East
Long Point Beach
Sandhill Beach
Port Ryerse West
Port Ryerse East
Port Dover West
Port Dover Inkerman St
Port Dover Main Beach
Turkey Point
Oncida Baptist Camp
Maple Bay
Austin1 s Trailer Park
Grant Point
Port Maidland West
Port Maidland East
Sandy Shore
Rock Point Park
Port Glasgow
Port Stanley Main
Port Stanley Little
Port Bruce Municipal
Port Burwell Prov . Pk .
Port Burwell Municipal
Cedar Beach
Holiday
Colchester
Lakeshore
*
N
-
H
H
H-H
"
-
Q Q° Cf
/"
Ontario Guideline
r"
, 1
^
E. coli (count/100 mL)
Figure 22. E. colilevels at Selected Lake Erie Beaches, 1996 Swimming Season.
Source: Health Canada
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Chemical Contaminants in (edible) Fish Tissue |
| Pressure Indicator (408 3)
Monitoring changes in the concentration of contaminants in fish from each Great Lake will allow regulatory
agencies to make suggestions regarding remedial planning throughout the basin as well as issue advisories on
consumption limits. While the measurement of the concentrations of persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic
chemicals (PBT) in fish tissue is a direct measure, this indicator also provides information on the exposure of
humans to PBT chemicals through consumption of Great Lakes fish caught via sport and subsistence
fishing. The data presented here represent concentrations of chemicals in the whole fish. This gives an
indication of trends in PBT in the ecosystem. One can infer human health implications, but clearly data on
edible portions are more directly indicative of human health exposure to PBT chemicals and in the future
this data will be used for this indicator.
Lake Superior
Lake Huron (including Georgian Bay, St. Marys
Mercury
Toxaphene
Lake St. Clair, St. Clair and Detroit
Rivers
Mercui
48%
Lake Erie
Toxaphene
Mercury
All jurisdictions in the Great Lakes basin collect information on contaminants in sport fish. For example,
the current Guide to
Eating Ontario Sport
Fish, released in the
spring of 1999, shows
that there are five
contaminants or groups
of contaminants
responsible for fish
consumption advisories.
These include mercury,
PCBs, mirex/
photomirex, toxaphene
and dioxins. Figure 23
shows the percentage of
consumption restrictions
based on each of the
groups of contaminants
in the four Ontario
Great Lakes, Lake St.
Clair and the connecting
channels. In the future,
reports using this
indicator will include
other jurisdictions' fish
consumption
information.
Lake Ontario
Mercury
Mirex/
photomirex
20%
Toxaphene
PCBs
53%
Figure 23. Consumption Limiting Contaminants in Each of the Four Canadian
Great Lakes. Percentages indicate the proportion of consumption advisories issued
due to that contaminant.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Environment, 1999.
Contaminant Trends
After a decade or more of decline, the concentration of some contaminants appears not to be decreasing at
the same rate as in previous years, whereas other contaminant concentrations are fluctuating about a level
reached in the 1980's. Mercury is an example of such a contaminant. Figure 24 shows that mercury
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
concentrations in walleye have not changed
significantly in Lake St. Clair over the past decade,
and this trend is true for mercury in many fish
species throughout the Great Lakes. There has,
however, been a dramatic change in the food chain
which is occurring at many locations in the Great
Lakes, due in large part to zebra mussel infestation.
These changes confound conclusions regarding
overall Great Lakes trends. Mercury levels in
forage fish species such as smelt tend to be higher
in the upper Great Lakes (Figure 25), while there
is little difference in mercury levels for lake trout
between Lakes.
i 5
O
E
g-1.5
>*
k.
R 1
0)
5
0 5
Q
-
-
i-i
i-i
70 72 74 76 78
-
80
-
n-i
Iff
82 84 86 88
Year
1
m
90 92 94 96
Figure 24. Mercury Concentrations in 45 cm
Walleye, Lake St. Clair.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Environment, 1999.
Concentrations of DDT in fish appear to have
remained relatively stable for the last several years.
Since a pattern of increasing concentrations
appeared in the mid to late 1980's, DDT levels have fluctuated around a point representing the lowest
concentration measured in fish over the past 20 years. Statistical analysis, however, shows that there is a
continuing decline in DDT levels consistent with the decline seen since the early 1970s. DDT levels are still
highest in Lake Ontario fish and lowest in those of Lake Superior (Figure 26). There are currently no fish
consumption advisories for DDT in Great Lakes fish.
0 100 200 km
I I I
I 1915 1117 11
Huron
c/:\
197719791981198*1 915198719891991199319951997
Ontario
(ug/g wet weight +/- S.E., 5 Whole Fish Composite Samples)
(' >50% below detection limit, MA - Not Analyzed))
Figure 25. Total Mercury Concentrations in Whole Rainbow Smelt (1977-1997).
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
PCB
Canada
O 2
1
10-,
2-
o
10 -i
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0 -
«
Q-
3
10
6
4-
U.S.
5 -
77 80 83 86 89 92 95 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 77 80 83 86 89 92 95
H=>H 0
h
llfllf
80 83 86 89 92 95 78 81 84 87 90 93 96
4
3
2 -
1 -
80 83 86 89 92 95 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98
30
20
10
0
72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96
DDT
Canada U.S.
5 -,.-
4 -
3 -
~
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
77 80 83 86 89 92 95 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98
1 -,
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.8 -i
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0
84 86 88 90 92 94 96 77 80 83 86 89 92 95
1.2 -,
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
80 83 86 89 92 95 78 81 84 87 90 93 96
83 86 89 92 95
77 80 83 86 89 92 95
70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94
Note:
1. Canadian PCB and DDT data: ug/g wet weight +/- S.E., whole fish, age 4+ yrs., NA - not analyzed
2. U.S. PCB and DDT data: ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I., whole fish, composite samples, 600-700 mm size range (Lake Erie data are for
walleye in the 400-500 mm size range)
Figure 26. PCB and DDT found in Whole Lake Trout (1977-1997). (Note the different scales between
lakes).
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1998, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
e-
Similar to DDT, concentrations of total PCB have demonstrated a decline over the last two decades at most
monitoring locations. Although total PCB concentrations in top predator fish (lake trout, salmon and
walleye) remain at levels approximately one-tenth that of their peak in the mid-1970's, concentrations are
still high enough that fish consumption advisories remain in place for all five Great Lakes. Fluctuations in
PCB concentrations that have been observed in Lake Erie and Lake Michigan fish may be caused by changes
in the composition of the food web (Figure 26).
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
| Pressure Indicator (4088)
As most North Americans, Great Lakes basin residents are exposed to persistent contaminants through the
ingestion of food and water, the incidental ingestion of soil and house dust, and the inhalation of air
(indoors and out). This indicator tracks contaminant levels in various media and their intake via ingestion
and inhalation, and indirectly estimates the potential harm to human health and the efficacy of policies and
technology intended to reduce PBT chemicals.
Exposure assessments for the Canadian Great Lakes basin population have been completed for 11 PBT
chemicals (aldrin/dieldrin, benzo(a)pyrene, chlordane, DDT, dioxins and furans, hexachlorobenzene,
mercury, mirex, octachlostyrene, PCBs, and toxaphene). Daily intakes have been estimated for the
following age groups : 0 - 0.5 years, 0.5-4 years, 5-11 years, 12-19 years, 20 + years, and total lifetime,
using available data up to 1996. The assessments provide a snap-shot of current human exposure to
persistent chemicals in the environment, and are useful for gauging trends in population exposures over
time. Estimated daily intakes can be updated periodically, as new data become available.
For many of the Great Lakes PBT chemicals, the highest estimated daily intakes appear in the youngest age
groups and especially for infants who are exclusively breast-fed, albeit for a relatively brief portion of overall
lifetime exposure (Figure 27).
70
60 -
CO
5 50
.Q
0
UJ
30 -
0)
IS 20
NBF
BF*
u
3
M
G
u
a
tn
5-11 12-19
Age (years)
lifetime (70
years)
* BF - Breast-fed
** NBF - Not breast-fed
Figure 27. Estimated Intake of Dioxins and Furans [Estimated
Daily Intake expressed in picograms toxic equivalents per kg body
weight per day (pg TEQ/kg bw/day) ].
Source: Health Canada, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Air Quality
Pressure Indicator (4176)
Air pollution does not respect geographical or political boundaries. Cities around the Great Lakes basin
continue to experience many days a year where the quality of air is unacceptable according to federal, state
or provincial guidelines. The inhalation of polluted air can pose significant health threats to humans,
especially to specific populations at risk such as the young, the elderly and those with recurring respiratory
problems. This indicator will monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem and tie into the potential
impact of air quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
Studies conducted in the Great Lakes region and elsewhere have provided strong evidence linking priority
air pollutants, such as ground-level ozone (described below), airborne particles, and acid aerosols, to reduced
lung function in children, to increased rates of hospital admission for respiratory and cardiac diseases, and to
increased death rates.
Ground-level Ozone
This gas is created in the presence of high temperatures and sunlight,
when oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons interact in the atmosphere.
Recent studies have found a significant association between atmospheric
ozone and sulphate levels and the number of daily hospital admissions
for respiratory conditions (Figure 28). These findings show that
exposure to even low levels of outdoor air pollutants can cause adverse
effects on cardiorespiratory health. In particular, there does not appear
to be a level for ozone below which no adverse respiratory health effects
are observed. Ozone pollution is most common during the summer
months and is closely monitored in most major cities in Ontario and the
U.S. (Figure 29).
Respiratory Admissions
^*
%-S*^
°^^
_^^i
*^
10 30 50 70 90
Maximum One-hour Ozone level (ppb)
(recorded on previous day)
T«ll VWDMM
Figure 28. Relationship between
Daily Respiratory Admissions and
Daily Maximum 1 -hour Ozone Levels
(ppb) on the Previous Day, Ontario
Hospitals, 1983-1988.
Source: Burnette et al, 1994.
Figure 29. U.S. Great Lakes Counties with Violations of Ozone Air Quality
Standard, 1990-97.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
I Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
| Pressure Indicator (4177)
With increasing public education and concern, residents of the Great Lakes basin are becoming more aware
of the presence of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic substances in the air, water and some food sources. As a
result, more emphasis is being placed on the effects of PBT chemicals on short-term and long-term human
health. Although progress has been made in reducing or eliminating the production and release of these
substances in the Great Lakes, many of them are so persistent that through bioaccumulation and
biomagnification within the food chain, contaminants remain within the ecosystem, as does the potential
risk to humans. Primarily because of their persistence and presence in the food chain, these substances are
also taken in by humans and tend to accumulate in their tissues. Substances of concern include PCBs,
DDT, DDE, heavy metals such as mercury, and many others.
In the future this indicator will report on the concentrations of PBT chemicals (targeted by the GLWQA) in
human tissues including blood, breast milk, hair and adipose (fat) tissues. Implications on the efficacy of
policies and technology to reduce PBT chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem can also be assessed through
data presented with this indicator.
Trends in Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Over the past 20 years, there have
been steady declines in the
concentrations of many key
pollutants in the environment,
leading to declines in levels in human
tissues, for example, lead in blood,
and organochlorine contaminants in
breast milk. Composite levels of
seven persistent organochlorine
pesticides in human breast milk in
Canada have declined 80% since
1975 (Figure 30). This translates
into a reduced risk to health. The
banning and restrictions on the use
of Great Lakes critical pollutants has
been the greatest reason for decreases
in the body burden of these PBT
chemicals in Great Lakes basin
residents. Improved promotion
strategies for fish consumption
advisories and more advanced and
extensive public education in recent
decades, have also contributed to
reducing the body burdens.
(0
a.
O ""
180
160
140
120
100 4f
80
60
40
20
0
1975
1982 1986
Year
-Quebec ....^Ontario Canada
1992
Figure 30. Aggregate Mean Concentrations of Seven Organochlorine
Pesticides in Human Breast Milk - Ontario, Quebec, and Canada, 1975-
1992 (expressed as percentages of 1975 levels).
Source: Craan and Haines, 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.1.6 Societal
Integrated management of society as part of the ecosystem requires organization of human activities
consistent with the need to respect other ecosystem components. For example, the creation and discharge of
waste materials by humans may have an impact on the habitat of plant and animal species, result in
contamination and other health problems. From an aesthetic viewpoint, trash, oil slicks, sludge, smog etc.,
are easily noticed and offensive to a well developed and organized society.
Socio-economics, stewardship and other societal aspects of Great Lakes communities are not easy to monitor
due to the complexity of the relationships between jurisdictions and the lack of a coordinated approach
towards developing and monitoring indicators. For this reason, the societal indicators developed for
SOLEC 98 are still in a very preliminary stage and under continuing review. A more comprehensive set of
societal indicator will be presented at SOLEC 2000.
Socio-Economics
The health of the environment is closely tied to a region's economy as well as its societal values. In the
Great Lakes region, an international border separates distinct political traditions and national cultures, but
despite this, an integrated economy has developed - with a strong resource base and manufacturing complex.
However, increased competition from both domestic and global economies, a maturing industrial
infrastructure, continued urbanization and the environmental impacts of economic and social activity are
forcing a new development path - one that both supports the economy and preserves the environment.
Stewardship and Sustainability
A "steward" is someone who manages the affairs of a household or estate on behalf of an employer, owner,
or beneficiary. "Stewardship" is a process requiring competence, vigilance, and an ethic of responsibility for
the condition of that which is being looked after.
Stewardship is not sustainability, but sustainability provides the conceptual structure for which the process
of stewardship is pursued. That is, stewardship activities are intended to achieve a sustainable future a
balance between environmental integrity, economic viability, and social well being. In this regard, stewardship is
closely related to ecosystem-based management which seeks to sustain ecosystem integrity across time.
Within this suite of proposed Great Lakes indicators, sustainability is implicit within the entire set, and a
separate set of indicators for sustainability would be redundant. A comprehensive set of indicators to assess
human activities, or "program responses," however, reflects our collective stewardship of the Great Lakes
ecosystem - our individual and collective actions to halt, mitigate, adapt to, or prevent damage to the
environment.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
[Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities |
Human Ac t
3513)
Like many of the other societal indicators, this one will be a challenge to monitor. The proposed measure is
an enumeration and description of programs and projects that engage citizens in the stewardship of their
ecosystems and/or foster the ethic of stewardship. It might include the total number of identified programs,
the total number of program participants and the location of the projects throughout the Great Lakes basin.
While the task of enumerating the hundreds of community projects across the Great Lakes basin is
enormous, at this time it is possible to provide examples of some of the high quality, effectively
implemented projects being carried out across the basin that have a goal of protecting some aspect of the
Great Lakes ecosystem. The importance of community projects that have demonstrated a strong
commitment to the environment was recognized at SOLEC 96 and 98. Projects were nominated against a
set of "success story" criteria:
Showed improvement in the Great Lakes ecosystem;
Forged linkages among economy, environment, and community;
Created a "win-win" solution;
Formed strong partnerships;
Established sustainability as a goal;
Fostered broad stakeholder involvement; and
Demonstrated adequate monitoring of effectiveness.
In 1996, seven projects ranging from responsible industrial land-owners to active local citizens groups, were
chosen as Success Story recipients. The following five projects were selected for recognition in 1998:
Brantford Division of Union Gas Limited
When it came time for a new customer service building in Brantford, Ontario, the management at Union
Gas felt it was important to implement a philosophy of sustainable development into the building design
and the surrounding landscape. Lands around the property, known as the Brant Prairie, were restored to
their natural state, including Tall Grass Prairie, an oak-maple forest and sedge marsh. Rare indigenous plant
species were identified during the naturalization
process, including the Fringed Gentian and the
Partridge Pea. The latter had been recorded in Ontario
r on " l*«i--
but not seen for oU years.
Because it is a naturalized landscape, the Brantford
customer service centre requires no mowing, watering,
spraying or fertilizing. The local marsh provides
habitat for various species of plans, birds, butterflies,
frogs and wildlife. School groups and other visitors can
explore trails on the site, and learn about natural
heritage, biodiversity and sensitive ecosystems through
the outdoor classroom.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
e-
The City of Buffalo
Industrial decline and restructuring have been particularly
pronounced in Great Lakes cities like Buffalo where
industrial activities have concentrated on the waterfront.
Buffalo faces enormous economic, social and environmental
challenges and many of these challenges are tied directly to
brownfields. More than 10,000 acres have been vacated
and/or are under-utilized. The City of Buffalo has had
notable success in removing threats to human health and
the environment and returning contaminated lands to
productive use.
Successful brownfield redevelopment projects have resulted in the excavation and clean up of over 17,000
cubic yards of petroleum soaked soil. One site now houses 18 acres of high-tech hydroponic tomato
greenhouses and exemplifies the efforts underway to help the community make a transition from a heavy-
industry based economy to a more diverse and sustainable economic base.
The City of Buffalo does not and cannot separate its brownfields strategy from its overall long range
development strategy for sustainability. Several long-term plans are currently being developed and
implemented to promote job creation, provide long-term environmental protection, improve ecological
conditions and provide the region with a strong economic base.
Buffalo River Habitat Restoration Sites
The Buffalo Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration
Demonstration Project has transformed over 10 acres of
former brownfield property into a string of three pocket
parks along the Buffalo River. This is a collaborative effort
involving Erie County, U.S. EPA, the City of Buffalo and
New York State agencies, local community organizations
and industry.
These sites are designed to benefit urban neighbourhoods
as well as wildlife. The Buffalo River awaits boaters,
canoeists, fishermen, naturalists, picnickers and folks who
just want to get away from it all.
Rondeau Bay Rehabilitation Program
In response to the ban on lead, this Chatham based environmental group
mounted its first "take a little lead out" project during the summer of 1997 to
encourage fishers to exchange their lead jigs and sinkers for non-toxic
alternatives.
The Watershed Rehabilitation Program teamed up with local bait shops and
sporting good stores to offer the alternative materials free of charge. In
addition, two students hired to survey fishers' catches took time to point out
the benefits of using alternative metals. Local radio stations helped out with
public service announcements and reduced-rate advertising, while a number
of fishing and wildlife organizations spread the word to their members.
Kikt a linlr Lead Oui:
-. . i
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The Rondeau Bay group collected just over 100 kilograms of lead sinkers, jigs, and slip shot during 1997.
With a supply of alternative materials left over, the group continued the exchange program through 1998.
The Waukegan Harbour Citizens Advisory Group
The Waukegan Harbor Citizens Advisory Group was recognized for its
progress in the Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern. This Success Story
recipient exemplifies the broad stakeholder involvement. Monitoring
efforts have documented reduced contaminant levels in harbour fish,
which allowed the removal of fish consumption advisory signs at
Waukegan Harbor in February, 1997. Sign removal was a major
milestone showing environmental improvement following remediation of
harbour sediments in 1993.
Strong public participation and cooperation of many stakeholders has
continued since the advisory group was formed in 1990. A brownfield
pilot was initiated through efforts of the advisory group and the City of
Waukegan has recently applied for a U.S. EPA brownfield grant to further
this effort. Additional dredging of the harbour for navigational purposes
is being pursued with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I Remedial Action Plan Updates
One cannot have a discussion on citizen/community place-based stewardship activities without briefly
touching on Remedial Action Plans or RAPs of which Waukegan Harbour is one. There are 42 Areas of
Concern (AOCs) around the Great Lakes, having impairments to one or more "beneficial uses." One AOC,
Collingwood Harbour, has been delisted. Many of these AOCs have received decades of abuse. Identifying
the problems, and planning and implementing the remedial strategies necessary to restore the beneficial uses
in these areas can also take many years. For each AOC a Remedial Action Plan has been (or is in the process
of being) developed. Restoration of beneficial uses within the AOCs is the primary mission of RAPs and is
an essential step in restoring the integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Local involvement is integral
to the success of the remediation effort, and communities throughout the basin are working together in the
clean-up process (through RAPs) to restore and protect environmental quality in these areas. Table 3 shows
the status of the beneficial use impairments for each AOC.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
T3
"5
-------
w
LU
W
Q
LU
o;
oo
o>
o;
LLI
I-
o;
o
o
-5
U)
i/)
a)
i/)
a)
| ,
£ £
o w "o '«
5 f.! .i
Q. CT (/) *J
c a) a) o
£ a: a: z
DDID
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.1.7 Unbounded
[Acid Rain
| Pressure Indicator (9000)
Canada
Acid rain is caused when two common air pollutants (sulphur dioxide SO2 and nitrogen oxide
are released to the atmosphere, mix with high altitude water droplets and return to the earth as acidic rain,
snow, fog or dust. These pollutants can be carried over long distances by prevailing winds, creating acid
precipitation far from the original source of the problem. Environmental damage often occurs when natural
geological processes on the earth's surface are unable to neutralize the acid being deposited.
Many compartments of the environment can be affected by acid
rain. Lakes and rivers are known to become acidified due to highly
acidic precipitation. This can cause the disappearance of many
species of fish, invertebrates and plants. Not all lakes exposed to
acid rain become acidified. Lakes formed on a limestone
foundation rich in calcium carbonate are able to neutralize acid
deposition. Much of the acid precipitation in North America falls
in areas around and including the Great Lakes basin. Northern
Lakes Huron, Superior and Michigan and their tributaries and
small inland lakes are located on the geological feature known as the
Canadian Precambrian Shield where rock is mostly granite. These
lakes cannot neutralize acid, leading to the "death" of many of these
small lakes (many of which are in northern Ontario). The five
Great Lakes themselves are so large that acid precipitation has little
effect on them directly. Impacts are mainly felt on vegetation and
on inland lakes.
Canadian Total:
2.7 million tonnes
3.0 million short tons
United States
Transportation
U.S. Total:
16.8 million tonnes
18.6 million short tons
Figure 31. Sources of Sulphur Dioxide
Emissions in Canada and the U.S. (1995).
Source: Governments of Canada and the U.S.,
1998.
Humans can also be affected by acid in the atmosphere. Sulphate
particles that form one of the primary components of acid rain also
react in the atmosphere to create urban smog which is a key human
health hazard (Air Quality indicator).
Sulphur dioxide emissions come from a variety of sources. Most
common releases of SO2 in Canada are a byproduct of industrial
processes. In the United States, emissions from electrical utilities
constitute the highest releases (Figure 31). The primary source of
NO emissions in both countries is the combustion of fuels in
X
motor vehicles.
The effects of acid rain can be seen far from the source and so the governments of Canada and the United
States are working together to reduce acid emissions. The 1991 Canada/United States Air Quality
agreement addresses transboundary air pollution. To date, work on this agreement has focussed on acid rain
and significant steps have been made in the reduction of SO2 and NO^ emissions.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The two measures proposed for this indicator are, 1) Levels of pH in precipitation in the Great Lakes basin,
and 2) the area within the Great Lakes basin in exceedance of critical loadings of sulphate to aquatic systems,
measured as wet sulphate residual deposition over critical load (kg/ha/yr). From data collected to support
this indicator, potential stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem due to acid rain, and the efficacy of policies to
reduce sulphur and nitrogen acidic compounds can be evaluated.
Figure 32 illustrates the trends in SO2 emission
levels in Canada and the United States from 1980
and predicted to 2010. U.S. levels will have
decreased by approximately one-third by 2000
and 40% by 2010 and Canadian levels dropped
54% from 1980 to 1994. Emissions for the next
ten years are predicted to remain at approximately
current levels. Unfortunately, despite these efforts
rain is still acidic throughout most of the region.
Figure 33 compares wet sulphate deposition over
eastern North America between two five-year
periods, 1980-84 and 1991-95 in kilograms per
hectare per year. Deposition has decreased during
the period corresponding to the decrease in SO2
emissions. If SO2 emissions level out at current
values as predicted, it is unlikely that sulphate
deposition will change in the coming decade. The
predicted sulphate deposition exceedences of
critical loads for 2010 in Canada is seen in Figure 34.
30-
25-
Emissions
ions short tons)
-> -> CO
O Ol O
1
~ 5-
0-
\BJ
"~~~~-^ ~^^
' *\ H -^
><>^^SJ "J~~~J
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
- 25
20
o ol
Emissions
Ilions tonnes)
E
- 5
- 0
Year
- Total * U.S. A Canada
Emissions after 1995 are estimates
Canadian emissions data are preliminary
Figure 32. Past and Predicted Sulphur Dioxide
Emissions in Canada, the U.S. and Combined.
Source: Governments of Canada and the U.S., 1998.
1980-84 five-year mean
wet sulphate deposition for
eastern North America
on!', s-ilphnrn dftfiosrtlon far
, Vr^:-'" i-^**1 narttm Narth America
^-
Figure 33. Comparison of Wet Sulphate Deposition in Eastern North America from 1980-84 (average) and
1995.
Source: Governments of Canada and the U.S., 1998.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
- .
---^
_*< I . I
Figure 34. Predicted 2010 Sulphate Deposition
Exceedances of Critical Loads.
Source: Governments of Canada and the U.S., 1998.
900-1
Sudbury, Ontario
Some of the greatest improvements in environmental health as a result of decreased sulphate emissions
has been seen in Sudbury, Ontario. This region is known for heavy industry and historically high SO2
emissions. The seven thousand lakes found in the heavily forested region are underlain by granite
bedrock making acidification a
serious problem. Some of the most
well documented fishery losses in
Canada resulting from acid rain are
in the Sudbury area. Since 1980
widespread improvements have been
recorded in the biological and
chemical health of the lakes in the
Sudbury area. Fish populations have
rebounded as have fish-eating birds
such as loons. The rebound of the
aquatic ecosystems in the area are
largely due to dramatic reductions in
local smelter emissions (Figure 37).
SO2 emissions from the two largest
producers of smelter emissions, Inco
and Falconbridge, have been re-
duced by 75% and 56% respectively.
LU
3
in
cap
alconbridge SO2 cap
Inco (Copper Cliff) n Falconbridge (Sudbury)
Figure 35. Major Industrial Sources of Sulphur Dioxide in the
Sudbury Region, Ontario, Canada.
Source: Environment Canada, 1999
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
3.2 LAKE UPDATES
Information presented in the indicators will help us determine the state of major ecosystem components of
the Lakes. As has already been mentioned, the information is incomplete at this time, the gaps are too big to
make a thorough assessment of the health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. To help give a more com-
plete picture of the state of the Lakes, the following sections present additional information on some of the
recent changes within each lake.
It should be noted that there are changes in stresses happening in the lakes that are translating into shifts in
the aquatic community (especially prey species). This will sometimes create an opportunity for a return to
native species and possibly even the communities-of-old and other times will cause the replacement of native
species with non-native species.
The nearshore zone of the Lakes will become even more important in the future as an area that release
nutrients, providing nutrients to the entire lake ecosystem. Newly built marinas, rip-rap shorelines, and
other land use changes are having impacts on the nearshore environment. With these rapidly increasing
human-induced pressures, it is important that lake managers recognize the importance of this area and
continue working towards protecting and improving nearshore habitat.
For sources of information on each of the lake updates, please see page 89.
3.2.1 Lake Superior
Exotic Species
No significant Eurasian ruffe range expansion has been observed since 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reports that infestation has moved slightly eastward to the Firesteel River (approximately 50
miles west of Houghton). This invasive fish was first discovered in 1986 in the Duluth-Superior
Harbor when 66 specimens were collected. By 1991, the infestation had grown to an estimated 2
million and by 1996 grew to an estimated 6 million fish (based on bottom trawl samples). In Lake
Superior, ruffe are also found along the North Shore to Two Harbors, at Taconite Harbor and in
Thunder Bay, Ontario. No inland lakes within the Great Lakes basin are infested. While impacts
of ruffe on fisheries have been difficult to quantify, recent research indicates that yellow perch
growth is significantly reduced in the presence of ruffe and there is more diet overlap than earlier
reported. Ruffe may also impact lake herring and other fall spawning fishes causing a new source of
overwintering mortality.
Zebra mussels are found at nine locations on Lake Superior with the most significant infestations
found in Duluth-Superior Harbor and Chequamagon Bay. First found in 1989, this small invasive
clam has remained relatively in low numbers in the Duluth-Superior Harbor until fall 1998 when
the infestation grew and expanded. Last fall, densities at some locations ranged from 2,000-6,000
per square metre. With overwintering survival at >75%, adults in the summer of 1999 are
reproducing - resulting in higher colonization with greater impacts expected on raw water users and
recreation.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The round goby was first found in the Duluth-Superior Harbor in July 1995. To date, the
infestation remains in the lower harbor where populations are growing and expanding rapidly. No
other confirmed sighting have been reported in Lake Superior, its tributaries or inland lakes within
the Basin. Like the other Great Lakes, it is expected that they will displace native fishes such as
mottled sculpin and out compete others for food and habitat. A current density of round gobies are
918 per hectare, while in some areas of the Great Lakes densities are over 100 per square metre.
The infestation is expected to continue to grow and expand.
Spiny waterflea was first found in Lake Superior in 1987 likely discharged from the ballast water of
ships travelling from the other Great Lakes. It has since spread to 29 inland lakes in the Great Lakes
basin. Spiny waterflea can cause subtle effects on Great Lakes fisheries by competing with small fish
for food (plankton). Spiny waterflea populations generally "bloom" in late summer when water
temperatures warm, however, in 1999 there have been few reports of them collecting on fishing
lines, downrigger cables and commercial fishing equipment. They are usually found in the western
arm of Lake Superior, the Apostle Islands, and eastern Lake Superior, including Batchawana Bay.
Rusty crayfish were found in the Duluth-Superior Harbor in June 1999. This is the first time that
they have been found in the western basin of Lake Superior, likely released as live bait by non-
resident anglers or from the ballast water of ships. They are a very aggressive species that can
displace native crayfish populations. While their impacts will be site specific, they can literally clear
cut an area of aquatic vegetation reduce food and habitat for other species (including fish nursery
habitat), allow for increased shoreline erosion and sediment resuspension, and can feed on the eggs
of native fishes. The other known infestation of rusty crayfish in Minnesota waters of Lake Superior
is in the Pigeon River.
Species Recovery
Lake sturgeon - The trend is for a slight increase in population, but these numbers are still much
below historic levels. There are completed rehabilitation plans and active rehabilitation programs
planned for this species.
Walleye - There are also completed rehabilitation plans for this species. Walleye numbers are stable
or increasing in U.S. waters (the stocks are fully or nearly recovered).
Lake herring are recovering, but have not fully recovered as yet. There has been low natural
reproduction over the last seven years, although the lake herring in the system are getting larger and
stronger. The biomass numbers have been increasing even though the total abundance has
decreased slightly.
Lake trout are now considered a naturally reproducing population and there has been very little
stocking since 1997.
3.2.2 Lake Michigan
Exotic Species
Round gobies have invaded Green Bay. They were first observed in the harbor at Escanaba, MI,
several years ago and have recently been sampled in Sturgeon Bay, WI.
Zebra mussels have recently moved upstream in the Fox River and are now established in Lake
Winnebago in Wisconsin.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Species Recovery
Yellow perch in southern Lake Michigan appear to have spawned successfully in 1998. While this is good
news in terms of reversing a seven-year trend of poor recruitment, the 1998 year class is relatively small
compared to the large year classes of the 1980s that produced the large harvest in the late 1980s to early
1990s. A multi-agency research group is conducting extensive lakewide investigations to determine factors
limiting perch recruitment.
Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS), the poor egg survival related to low egg thiamine levels, continues to
plague about 25% of female lake trout in Lake Michigan. Research into the cause of the low thiamine levels
in lake trout eggs can now be explored.
Successful reproduction of lake sturgeon in three tributaries to Green Bay was documented by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Eggs or fry were collected from below the first dam on the Fox, Peshtigo, and
Menominee Rivers. Sonic tags have been implanted into adult lake sturgeon, to track and determine their
distribution and habitat use.
Fish Community Dynamics
Management agencies on Lake Michigan recently reduced stocking numbers for chinook salmon by 20%
lakewide to counter the poor survival of the stocked salmon. Survival and sustainability of chinook salmon
decreased as a result of the die-off from bacterial kidney disease in the mid to late 1980s. Natural
reproduction of chinook salmon in tributaries in state of Michigan streams account for as much as 30-50%
of the salmon lakewide.
Alewife stocks have not rebounded as dramatically as expected following the reduction in chinook salmon
during the 1980s. Several very strong year classes were produced in the 1990s, but have failed to increase
adult numbers substantially in subsequent years, due primarily to the continued heavy predation rates from
the stocked trout and salmon.
Diporeia Population Decline
Populations of the bottom-dwelling organism, Diporeia, have declined dramatically in southern Lake
Michigan in recent years. These organisms are usually plentiful in the top of the sediments, and they are an
important food for some fish. Research conducted by the Great Lakes Research Laboratory, NOAA, has
shown at some locations that the abundance of Diporeia declined from 10,000 per square metre in 1980 to
less than 100 per square metre in 1993. By 1997, there were completely absent from a site near St. Joseph,
Michigan. It is thought that an interaction with zebra mussels is the likely cause of the decline. Large
concentrations of zebra mussels in southern Lake Michigan may be filtering out diatoms, and thereby
depriving Diporeia of food. The impact of lower Dipoeria abundance on the survival of juvenile fish in Lake
Michigan has yet to be measured, but it will likely lead to significant alterations in the fish community.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance
As part of the enhanced Lake Michigan Mass Balance study, eleven tributaries were monitored for
concentrations of total mercury in 1994 and 1995. Based on the measured concentrations and stream flow,
the annual average loading of mercury from each tributary to Lake Michigan was calculated (figure 36).
Loadings from the Fox River (93 kg/yr) contributed 50% of the total mercury loadings from all the
tributaries (186 kg/yr). The estimated loading of mercury from the atmosphere (1048 kg/yr), however, was
over 5 times greater than that from all the tributaries combined.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Individual Tributary
Loadings (kg/yr)
Fox - 93
Grand - 25
St. Joseph - 20
Kalama2oo - 17
Menominee - 12
Grand Calumet - 7
Manistique - 4
Muskegon - 3
Milwaukee - 2
Pere Marquette - 2
Sheboygan - 1
Figure 36. Individual Tributary Loadings of Mercury to Lake Michigan
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
3.2.3 Lake Huron
Sea Lamprey Control
Lake managers will have control over this exotic species beginning this summer. The lamprey control
structures in the St. Marys River will allow for effective control over lamprey entering Lake Huron.
Treatment programs finished as recently as July, 1999 in Canada. It is hoped that these measures will
encourage population growth of key predator and native species within the Lake that have been held
stagnant due to lamprey predation.
Lake Trout Reproducing in Parry Sound
The lake trout fishery in the Parry Sound area of Lake Huron is now considered recovered and self-
sustaining and is no longer being stocked. It has only been through the coordinated efforts of the public and
government agencies that this was possible. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the rest of the Lake where
lake trout are being excessively overharvested in most open lake areas.
The Lake Huron Initiative
During SOLEC 96, conference participants recommended a number of efforts to address environmental
issues in the Great Lakes basin. Two key recommendations directly affect Lake Huron!
The public needs a summary of information on the Lake Huron ecosystem to prioritize actions and
effect change; and
In the absence of a Lake Huron LaMP, initiate a "Lake Huron Alliance" of researchers,
implementors, community groups and other interested parties.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
In June of 1998 the Lake Huron Conference was held in response to the identification of these needs. A
binational gathering of government, industry, and local community initiated a much needed discussion on
the issues and efforts required to ensure a sustainable Lake Huron watershed. A Steering Committee for the
Lake Huron Initiative was identified and the decision to hold a binational Lake Huron Initiative Conference
in the winter of 2000 was made. This conference will develop a framework for the Lake Huron Initiative.
SOLEC background reports from 1994 and 1996, as well as State of the Great Lakes Reports from 1995
and 1997, have provided the Lake Huron Initiative Steering Committee with valuable information on the
status and historic trends of issues and stresses relevant to Lake Huron.
3.2.4 Lake Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment Status
With one-third of the population of the Great Lakes basin residing in the Lake Erie watershed, the Lake is
exposed to greater stress due to urbanization and agricultural intensity than any of the other Great Lakes.
Despite success in controlling nutrient loadings and the resulting algal blooms, the Lake ecosystem is still
subject to many other stresses. The 1999 Lake Erie LaMP Status Report outlines a summary of the status of
the evaluated beneficial use impairments of Lake Erie as of June 1998 (Table 4).
Table 4. Lake Erie Beneficial Use Impairments.
Impairment
Causes of Impairment
Impairment
Conclusions*
Fish and wildlife consumption
restriction
Restrictions on dredging activities
Fish: PCBs, mercury, PAHs. Lead, chlordane & dioxins
Wildlife: PCBs, chlordane, DDE, DDT & mirex
PCBs, heavy metals
Eutrophication of undesireable algae Phosphorus levels
Fish: Impaired
Wildlife:
Inconclusive
Impaired
Impaired
Recreational water quality impairment Exceedances of E. coli and/or fecal coliform guidelines Impaired
Degradation of
phytoplankton/zooplankton
populations
Degradation of aesthetics
Zebra and Quagga mussel grazing, species degradation
(phytoplankton), high planktivory, species decline, habitat Impaired
loss/degradation (zooplankton)
Excessive Cladophora, point/non-point source stormwater
runoff, floating garbage & debris, dead fish, excessive Impaired
zebra mussels on shoreline areas
* An assessment of "Impaired" indicates the beneficial use is impaired somewhere in Lake Erie, not necessarily the entire
lake (Source: Lake Erie Status Report, 1999).
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Eastern Lake Erie
Throughout the 1990s, this area of Lake Erie experienced rapid changes in open water productivity. Open
lake waters are considered less productive based on increased water clarity, decreased zooplankton
production and overall decreased fishery harvests in over the last decade. Walleye are the most prominent
eastern basin predator that has declined in abundance since the 1980s. New exotic species are emerging, and
they can significantly alter energy flow in the Lake food web. Prominent among these new invaders are the
quagga mussel and round goby. Amid these invasions, there has been an apparent recovery of the nearshore
benthic community including increased mayfly abundance. Abundance of some benthic predators, such as
smallmouth bass, may expand from these changes.
Western Lake Erie
Exotic species
While the round goby reached its highest abundance in the central basin of Lake Erie, the western basin is
still experiencing exponential growth in this exotic species. Ecological impacts stemming from this growth
range from the positive impact of gobies utilizing zebra mussels as food and subsequently the gobies
themselves providing food for other fish species. On the negative side, there is a concern that the gobies are
feeding on zebra mussels which may be heavily contaminated, resulting in certain toxic chemicals entering
into the food web. Further, the goby is emerging as a new predator on the eggs and young of small mouth
bass.
Return of Blue-Green Algae
Following the success of phosphorus abatement programs in the 1970s and subsequent disappearance of
unwanted algal blooms, it appears that some species of blue-green algae may be returning to parts of Lake
Erie. Microcystis aeruginosa is capable of producing toxins that can harm the Lake's ecosystem and humans.
Algal blooms that occurred in 1995 and 1998 were significantly smaller than those in the 1970s, although
they were still unanticipated considering the 60% reduction in phosphorus inputs to the lake. It is thought
that zebra mussels are concentrating phosphorus on the bottom of the Lake, thus allowing for the increased
growth of Microcystis. The increased clarity of the water (also partially due to zebra mussels) allows light to
penetrate to the bottom of the Lake and initiate an algal bloom.
Walleye Feeding Behaviour
Walleye populations appear stable in the Western basin with moderate abundance levels reported. They
may have modified their feeding behaviour in response to increased water clarity as they seem to be feeding
more at night. This makes the species less vulnerable to fishing during the day and could lead to an overall
decrease in fishing pressure or possibly an increase in night fishing. Preliminary observations suggest that
the former may be true.
Yellow Perch
There is evidence that the yellow perch may be recovering from low levels caused by reproductive failure in
the late 1980s and early 1990s. There were good hatches reported in 1994 and 1996, poor hatches in 1995
and 1997 and preliminary data suggest a moderate hatch in 1998. It is hoped that when the young from the
1996 hatch reach reproductive age, yellow perch abundance will show even an greater increase.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Return of the Burrowing Mayfly
The return of the burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia) in the Western basin of Lake Erie is a positive indication of
improved water quality in the lake. Burrowing mayflies are large aquatic insects that spend most of their
two year lives in their larval form, living in shallow bottom sediments of lakes. Once numbering hundreds
of individuals per square metre, populations decreased dramatically in the 1950s due to deteriorating water
quality. Throughout most of the next three decades burrowing mayflies were virtually absent from their
former Great Lakes habitat. Over the past five years U.S. and Canadian biologists have seen a dramatic
resurgence of the mayfly in Lake Erie with numbers almost as high as they were in the early 20th century.
This is good news for the entire Lake ecosystem as the mayfly is an important link in the food chain and
their burrowing action resuspends nutrients necessary for plant growth. The indicator "Walleye and
Hexagenia" addresses the abundance, biomass and annual production of both walleye and burrowing mayfly
populations in historical, warm-coolwater, mesotrophic habitats of the Great Lakes (Appendix 1).
3.2.5 Lake Ontario
Beneficial Use Impairment Status
In May of 1998, the Lake Ontario LaMP identified the beneficial use impairments that exist lakewide in
Lake Ontario, and the chemical, physical, and biological causes of these impairments (Table 5).
Table 5. Lake Ontario Lakewide Beneficial Use Impairments.
Lakewide Beneficial Use Impairments
Lakewide Critical Pollutants and Other Factors causing
Impairments
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
Degradation of wildlife populations
Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
PCBs, dioxins, mirex, mercury, DDT
PCBs, dioxin, DDT
PCBs, dioxin, DDT
Lake level management, exotic species, physical loss,
modification and destruction of habitat
Source: Lake Ontario LaMP, 1999
Signs of Improvement
Improvements in the Lake Ontario ecosystem resulting from the cooperation of the LaMP, RAPs, and many
other programs can be seen throughout the lake ecosystem. For example, herring gull populations are fully
recovered from DDT and PCB induced reproductive problems. The bald eagle is also showing signs of
recovery as nesting territories have steadily grown from two nests in 1984 to eight nests in 1999. Fisheries
are also showing positive signs with evidence of naturally reproducing lake trout emerging, as well as the
gradual return of lake sturgeon, lake herring and deep water sculpin.
However, there are still areas that require improvement. Contaminant levels continue to impair beneficial
uses, and existing problems of exotic species and habitat loss continue.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
©
Diporeia Decline
Populations of benthic organisms in Lake Ontario have declined significantly since the 1960s creating major
concern for Canadian and U.S. researchers. The invasion of quagga and zebra mussels to the Lake has
resulted in major changes to native benthic species. One of the most significant is seen in population
changes of Diporeia - a small shrimp-like organism. Historically, this species has made up more than 50%
of the benthic population in Lake Ontario with numbers into the thousands per square metre. Today, less
than 10 Diporeia individuals can be found per square metre, possibly an indication of the impact of quagga
and zebra mussels. The Indicator "Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi)" addresses the status and trends in
Diporeia populations throughout the Great Lakes basin (Appendix 1).
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Biodiversity
Investment Areas
Biodiversity Investment Areas (BIAs) are a concept intended to recognize the importance
of protecting the rich biological diversity of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the many
kinds of habitat needed to support that diversity. The concept is also intended to
provide a locally based recognition and support for areas of key biological importance,
whether relatively undisturbed, or degraded. Such areas play a key role in maintaining
the integrity of the ecosystem and its long term viability. The idea is not that some areas
can be written off as not being important, but that some areas are of such importance
that special efforts are needed to ensure preservation.
Historically, much effort has been devoted to stopping and cleaning up pollution in the most degraded areas
of the system. Although this important work is still underway, there is a pressing need to address the
protection of biological resources through protection of habitat and preventing degradation of key areas.
An example of the impact of habitat loss on biodiversity was the loss of all lake trout populations that
reproduced in Great Lakes tributaries. Those genetic resources are gone from the earth. However, the Great
Lakes ecosystem still contains rich reservoirs of native species and genetic variation developed over vast
periods of time as native species adapted to the dynamic climate and other conditions in the ecosystem.
Protection of that diversity is an important aspect of maintaining ecosystem integrity.
Biodiversity Investment Areas are broad coastal areas that contain clusters of exceptional biodiversity values.
They highlight sections of Great Lakes shoreline that sustain rare and diverse plant and animal communities,
and landscape features of special quality. Protecting the ecological richness of these areas is an essential facet
of maintaining the integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
The Great Lakes basin is one of the most productive economic systems in the world, fully dependent on
invaluable natural resources and fragile ecological relationships. The Lakes and their watersheds are rich in
aquatic life, sand beaches and sand dunes, forests, wetlands, lakeplain prairies, oak savannas, bedrock and
cobble beaches, specialized limestone habitats called alvars, more than 30,000 islands, productive wetlands
and offshore fish habitat. Over 130 globally rare communities and species unique to the basin are found
here. The integrity of the ecosystem is in part dependent on the health of all the life and supporting habitat.
As such, it is important to protect and restore biodiversity and the landscape associated with it.
The Biodiversity Investment Area concept was introduced in the SOLEC 96 background paper, Land by the
Lakes, as a construct to assess the health of the combination of special lakeshore communities such as sand
dunes and bedrock shores that are in the same general locale. Land by the Lakes detailed the status of
nearshore terrestrial ecosystems, the stressors affecting its health, and the stewardship activities counteracting
those stressors. The conclusion was that nearshore terrestrial ecosystems are degrading throughout the Great
Lakes.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
This conclusion served to focus attention on BIAs, areas that are of unusual biological significance and in
need of protection from human impacts, as well as on areas that may have been altered from their original
state, yet retain remnant natural areas and ecological values of exceptional significance. The phrase
"biodiversity investment areas' was coined as a positive reminder that actions to protect biodiversity are an
investment in the future of the region.
Most BIAs cover relatively undisturbed high
quality areas, but even those areas include
degraded sub-areas. In some cases, such as
southwestern Lake Michigan, high priority
resources exist in an area that is heavily degraded.
In both cases restoration of high priority sub-areas
may be important on their own merit, or to
connect or buffer existing high quality remnants.
In all cases, the challenge is to provide for the
long term sustainability of all components of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Twenty nearshore terrestrial biodiversity
investment areas were identified for SOLEC 96. The identification of these areas does not mean there are
no other outstanding areas of biodiversity in the basin. Numerous other high quality, but smaller, areas
exist. However, nearshore terrestrial BIAs present key opportunities to create large, protected areas that will
preserve ecological integrity and, ultimately, help protect the health of the Great Lakes themselves.
Because most BIAs are in relatively good ecological condition, they are often by-passed by agencies allocating
resources in favor of places needing extensive remediation. If few resources are put into protecting areas that
are relatively intact, they will very soon suffer from the same stresses as those places which are heavily
damaged.
The stresses to BIAs are already severe and include the chemical and biological pollutant stressors mentioned
above. Today, however, the major stress to ecological communities and biodiversity along the nearshore is
development. Second homes, marinas, commercial and industrial development destroy habitat and, as a
consequence, biodiversity.
For SOLEC 98, an expanded look at nearshore terrestrial BIAs further characterized their features and
values, threats to biodiversity, protection measures in place, and key protection and restoration needs. An
attempt was made to assess their ecological health. Attention to these areas should result in an increase in
on-the-ground protection and restoration activities.
Identifying nearshore terrestrial BIAs for SOLEC 96, resulted in expansion of the idea for coastal wetlands
and nearshore aquatic areas for SOLEC 98. The approach to identifying coastal wetland BIAs differed
considerably. Stopping short of labeling areas as BIAs, coastal reaches (eco-reaches) that support significant
wetland types that are ecologically distinctive and that are known to be exceptionally important habitat for a
large number of fish and bird species were delineated. Additional work is needed to create a GIS-based
inventory of all coastal wetlands and to develop a consistent terminology for classifying and describing
coastal wetland types.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
A start was made in identifying Great Lakes aquatic biodiversity investment areas (ABIAs) for SOLEC 98.
The working definition for ABIA used in this study differs slightly from the terrestrial definition. Aquatic
biodiversity investment areas are specific locations or areas within a larger ecosystem that are especially
productive, support exceptionally high biodiversity and/or species found somewhere else, and contribute
significantly to the integrity of the whole ecosystem. This definition encompasses consideration of centers of
high levels of natural, self-sustaining productivity and ecological integrity of ecosystems as envisaged in the
successive versions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The designation of Biodiversity Investment Area has great potential. The BIA concept is a vision of the
healthy areas of the Great Lakes basin which contrasts with our images of polluted landscapes. BIAs are rich
with examples of healthy plants and animals living in functioning ecosystems. They are the pieces of the
puzzle needed to make good and protective land use decisions. They are our historic and ecological
repositories for future exploration. They are our outdoor classrooms, complete with learning adventures.
SOLEC 96 and 98 introduced the Biodiversity Investment Area concept in order to focus attention on
natural resources which distinguish the Great Lakes as one of the world's most unique ecosystems. The
concept is not fully developed, nor have BIA designations been clarified basin-wide. The following steps are
needed to refine the process for BIA designation and to introduce the results to the people of the Great
Lakes.
1. The process of identifying potential BIAs needs a general over-arching classification system in which
the different classes of BIAs can be interlocked and nested. This is essential in order for the
governments, their non-governmental partners, and the International Joint Commission to set
priorities for securement.
2. The three BIA approaches need to be merged into a single set of coastal BIAs
3. Aquatic BIAs identified for SOLEC 98 need further refinement with input from additional resource
managers. A consistent wetlands classification system is needed in order to understand their
complexity, measure their health and incorporate them into the BIA scheme.
4. All BIAs are in need of locally-based assessments to identify the most important biological
communities and species, physical features and sites, key processes supporting biodiversity, key
stressors affecting biodiversity, and conditions needed to protect ecosystem integrity.
5. Ways to implement the BIA concept through actions by LaMPs, Federal, state/provincial, local
government bodies, the IJC etc. need to be examined.
6. Prior to SOLEC 2000, a workshop for resource managers and interested parties to work through the
above recommendations would validate and lend credence to the BIA concept.
The BIA concept includes the potential of stimulating
local people and organizations to become invested in
and identify with the biodiversity of their area and the
habitat that supports it. Increased awareness can
provide a powerful incentive to support protection
and restoration of local ecosystems. While no formal
process such as that for RAPs or LaMPs is envisioned,
highly visible assessment of the areas and
identification of needed actions can provide
substantial incentive for locally supported protection.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Biodiversity Investment Areas are the benchmarks against which we measure progress towards ecosystem
health. Together, maps of the richest and most degraded areas of the basin direct us to act. We must
protect the ecological integrity of the basin's resources and restore that which we have damaged back to
health.
For further information on the BIA concept please see the following reports,
Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
Coastal Wetland Ecosystems, Identification of "Eco-Reaches" of Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands that
have high biodiversity value
Aquatic Ecosystems - Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas in the Great Lakes Basin: Identification
and Validation
These reports are available for viewing or downloading from the SOLEC web sites:
www.cciw.ca/solec/ or www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/98/
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Cone I usions
and Challenges
Based on the 19 indicators and other information presented in this report we can say
that:
Exotic Species: Exotic species continue to stress the ecosystem. Although much
work has already been done on the control of sea lamprey, these programs will likely
be on-going for many years to come. The complete impact of zebra mussels is
unknown we do know that they have caused the decline of the diversity and
density of native clam populations at certain sites and that they are impacting the
food web and the cycling of contaminants within the food web. The round goby is
yet another non-native species to become established in the Lakes, and could pose a
threat to the integrity of the biological community in the Great Lakes.
Nutrients: Phosphorus concentrations in the Lakes in most cases are at or below the proposed
targets, however, strict loading targets must be adhered to as the human population in the basin
increases.
Atmosphere: The atmosphere is an important route for the input of toxic contaminants to the Great
Lakes system some of which originate from outside the Great Lakes basin. Of the
organochlorine insecticides discussed in this report, the concentrations of lindane and 6-endosulfan
in precipitation have increased in recent years at the sampling sites.
Atmosphere: Acid rain continues to be a problem in the basin mainly to the areas on the
Canadian shield. Although decreases of 30% and 54% of sulphur dioxide have been seen in recent
years in the U.S. and Canada respectively, rain is still acidic throughout most of the region and is
likely to remain that way over the coming decade.
Biodiversity and Bird Populations: The peregrine falcon is an endangered species that appears to be
making a comeback, in 1997 there were over 120 pairs in the basin. The population of the giant
Canada goose, once thought to have been extinct, has exploded and is now considered a nuisance
species in the basin. The double-crested cormorant is another species that was near extinction a few
decades ago but has now increased by 300 times to over 38,000 pairs.
Biodiversity and Wetlands: Populations of wetland-nesting bird species, such as the Black Tern and
American Bittern, are declining. The exact reasons are not known, but habitat loss in coastal
wetlands could be a cause.
Coastal Wetlands: While the total coastal wetland area is decreasing within the Great Lakes basin,
there have been some successful wetland restoration efforts. Effective restoration must take into
consideration the quality and type of the original wetland. It may take several years for the wetland
to become established and to function as it did previously.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Coastal Wetlands: The quality of coastal wetlands is being impacted by altered sediment loads
caused mainly by human activities. In a study of sediment loadings to Canadian coastal wetlands
around Lake St. Clair (1990-1996) it was found that loadings for all years were high relative to rates
for other Great Lakes wetland watersheds. This is in part due to the intensive agriculture that takes
place in the St. Clair watersheds.
Terrestrial: The health of the nearshore terrestrial environment continues to degrade - with stressors
of human settlement, industry and even recreation.
Land Use: The agriculture community has recognized the impact they make on the environment
and is adopting farming practices that are economically viable, environmentally sound and socially
responsible. Since 1993 there have been 7,892 Environmental Farm Plans approved in Ontario
these are plans to identify and remediate environmental areas of concern on the farms.
Stewardship: There are many other examples of successful stewardship and restoration in the basin
and the Remedial Action Plans for the Great Lakes Areas of Concern continue to be developed and
implemented.
Human Health: Human health is affected by the state of the surrounding environment with many
sub-populations at greater potential risk due to various contaminants, including infants and elderly
people, sportfishers, pregnant women, and tribal peoples. Fish consumption advisories still exist in
all the Great Lakes due to various contaminants in the fish. The air quality in the basin causes
health threats to susceptible populations Canadian data show a correlation between an increase in
ground level ozone and an increase in the number of daily hospital admissions due to respiratory
conditions. However, concentrations of many contaminants in human tissue (such as blood, breast
milk, hair, urine and fatty tissue) have declined over the past few decades. There is also the issue of
microbial contamination beaches may be closed in the basin due to elevated levels of bacteria. In
1996, 6 out of 50 sampled public beaches on the Canadian side of Lake Erie had median values of
E. coli above the Ontario guideline.
Additionally, there are changes in stresses and the effects of combined stresses in the lakes that are translating
into shifts in the aquatic community (especially prey species). This will sometimes create an opportunity for
a return to native species and possibly communities-of-old and other times will cause replacement of native
species with non-native species.
The State of the Great Lakes reporting in the near future will need to continue to improve its reporting on
the Lakes in terms of ecosystem integrity, especially the health of its living resources, including humans.
The challenge will be to develop and report on indicators that provide reliable measures of ecological health
including the many ecological communities that constitute the living resources of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem. The major long term question is whether the communities are in an adequate state of health,
supported by environmental conditions that will sustain them on a permanent basis. By maintaining a focus
on these aspects, State of the Great Lakes reporting can contribute to attaining ecological integrity.
The suite of indicators discussed in this report can be used by the governments of Canada and the U.S. not
only as a basis for reporting on progress, but also as a focus for monitoring and research. Several challenges
lie ahead to achieve these objectives, including:
Reviewing, refining and completing the proposed indicator list;
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
e-
Gaining acceptance of the list by federal, state, and provincial partners with the potential to monitor
these indicators;
Nesting local and lake-wide indicators within basin-wide indicators;
Building appropriate monitoring and reporting activities into Great Lakes programs at the federal,
provincial, state, Tribes / First Nations, and industry levels, including agencies that have not
traditionally provided monitoring data;
Reporting on selected indicators at SOLEC 2000 in a format that will meet the needs of many
parties. As we are able to provide more detailed information, more audiences can be served
including the general public, local decision makers and the scientific and engineering community.
In addition, the Biodiversity Investment Areas, a concept first presented in 1996 at the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference, need to be refined through additional research and monitoring where appropriate.
The designation of Biodiversity Investment Area has great potential including the potential of
stimulating local people and organizations to become invested in and identify with the biodiversity of their
area and the habitat that supports it. The BIA concept is a vision of the healthy areas of the Great Lakes
basin which contrasts with our images of polluted landscapes. BIAs are our historic and ecological
repositories for future exploration. The real challenge will be to secure local commitment to protect these
areas, in whatever form that protection may take.
The following overall qualitative assessment can be provided: The state of the Great Lakes in 1999 has not
changed significantly from the state reported on in 1997. With respect to herring gull eggs, analyses show
that most contaminants at most sites are continuing to decline at a rate similar to that over the last decade or
two. The Parties also note that the emergence of the round goby as yet another non-native species to
become established in the Lakes, could pose a threat to the integrity of the biological community in the
Great Lakes.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
APPENDIX 1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE
INDICATORS LIST
Note: The numbers following the indicator name are a means of identifying the indicator in the electronic database.
Open and Nearshore Waters Indicators
State Indicators
Aquatic Habitat (Indicator #0006)
This indicator will assess the quality and amount of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and it will be used
to infer progress in rehabilitating degraded habitat and associated aquatic communities.
Salmon and Trout (Indicator #0008)
This indicator will show trends in populations of introduced trout and salmon populations, and it will be used to
evaluate the potential impacts on native trout and salmon populations and the preyfish populations that support
them.
Walleye and Hexagenia (Indicator #0009)
This indicator will show the status and trends in walleye and Hexagenia populations, and it will be used to infer the
basic structure of warm-coolwater predator and prey communities, the health of percid populations, and the health
of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Preyfish Populations (Indicator #0017)
This indicator will assess the abundance and diversity of preyfish populations, and it will be used to infer the
stability of predator species necessary to maintain the biological integrity of each lake.
Native Unionid Mussels (Indicator #0068)
This indicator will assess the population status of native Unionid populations, and it will be used to infer the impact
of the invading Dreissenid mussel on the Unionid mussel.
Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia hoyi) (Indicator #0093)
This indicator will show the status and trends in lake trout and D. hoyi populations, and it will be used to infer the
basic structure of coldwater predator and prey communities and the general health of the ecosystem.
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish (Indicator #0101)
This indicator will assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumors (DELT index) in
nearshore fish, and it will be used to infer areas of degraded habitat within the Great Lakes.
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #0104)
This indicator will assess species diversity and abundance in the aquatic oligochaete community, and it will be used
to infer the relative health of the benthic community.
Phytoplankton Populations (Indicator #0109)
This indicator will assess the species and size composition of phytoplankton populations in the Great Lakes, and it
will be used to infer the impact of nutrient enrichment, contamination and invasive exotic predators on the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Zooplankton Populations (Indicator #0116)
This indicator will assess characteristics of the zooplankton community, and it will be used over time to infer
changes in vertebrate or invertebrate predation, system productivity, energy transfer within the Great Lakes, or other
food web dynamics.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Pressure Indicators
Sea Lamprey (Indicator #0018)
This indicator will estimate sea lamprey abundance and assess their impact on other fish populations in the Great
Lakes.
Fish Entrainment (Indicator #0072)
This indicator will reflect the water withdrawal rates at once-through cooling systems at steam-electric and pumped-
storage power plants in the Great Lakes and connecting channels, and it will be used to estimate site-specific
entrainment mortality of fishes and an annual, aggregated, basin-wide estimate.
Phosphorus Concentrations (Indicator #0111)
This indicator will assess the total phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes, and it will be used to support the evaluation
of trophic status and food web dynamics in the Great Lakes.
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (Indicator #0113)
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in fish, and it will be used to infer the potential harm to
human health through consumption of contaminated fish.
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (Indicator #0114)
This indicator will assess the levels of PBT chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners, and it will be used to
infer local areas of elevated contaminant levels and potential harm to fish-eating wildlife.
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (Indicator #0115)
This indicator will assess chemical concentration levels in a representative colonial waterbird, and it will be used to
infer the impact of these contaminants on colonial waterbird physiology and population characteristics.
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (Indicator #0117)
This indicator will estimate the annual average loadings of priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great
Lakes, and it will be used to infer potential impacts of toxic chemicals from atmospheric deposition on the Great
Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as to infer the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination
of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters (Indicator #0118)
This indicator will assess the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore waters, and it will be used to infer
the potential impacts of toxic chemicals on the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem, as well as to infer the progress of
various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores (Indicator #0119)
This indicator will assess the concentrations of IJC priority toxic chemicals in sediments, and it will be used to infer
potential harm to aquatic ecosystems by contaminated sediments, as well as to infer the progress of various Great
Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Contaminant Exchanges between Media: Air to Water and Water to Sediment (Indicator #0120)
This indicator will estimate the loadings of IJC priority pollutants to the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer the
potential harm these contaminants pose to human, animal and aquatic life within the Great Lakes, as well as to infer
the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes.
Coastal Wetland Indicators
State Indicators
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (Indicator #4501)
This indicator will assess the diversity of the invertebrate community, especially aquatic insects, and it will be used
to infer habitat suitability and biological integrity of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
e-
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (Indicator #4502)
This indicator will assess the fish community diversity, and it will be used to infer habitat suitability for Great Lakes
coastal wetland fish communities.
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumours (DELT) in Coastal Wetland Fish (Indicator #4503)
This indicator will assess the combination of deformities, eroded fins, lesions and tumors (DELT index) in coastal
wetlands, and it will be used to infer ecosystem health of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #4504)
This indicator will assess the species composition and relative abundance of frogs and toads, and it will be used to
infer the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the health of this ecologically important component of
wetland communities.
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #4507)
This indicator will assess the wetland bird species composition and relative abundance, and it will be used to infer
the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to the health of this ecologically and culturally important
component of wetland communities.
Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator #4510)
This indicator will assess the periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal wetland types, taking into
account natural variations.
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type (Indicator #4511)
This indicator will assess the amount of restored wetland area, and it will be used to infer the success of conservation
and rehabilitation efforts.
Presence, Abundance and Expansion of Invasive Plants (Indicator #4513)
This indicator will assess the decline of vegetative diversity associated with an increase in the presence, abundance,
and expansion of invasive plants, and it will be used as a surrogate measure of the quality of coastal wetlands which
are impacted by coastal manipulation or input of sediments.
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #7055)
This indicator will provide an index of the quality of adjoining upland habitat which can have a major effect on
wetland biota, many of which require upland habitat for part of their life cycle.
Pressure Indicators
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (Indicator #4506)
This indicator will assess the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs, and it
may be used to infer the extent of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in food webs of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands.
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4516)
This indicator will assess the sediment load to coastal wetlands and its potential impact on wetland health.
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4860)
This indicator will assess the amount of nitrate and total phosphorus flowing into Great Lakes coastal wetlands, and
it will be used to infer the human influence on nutrient levels in the wetlands.
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861)
This indicator will assess the lake level trends that may significantly affect components of wetland and nearshore
terrestrial ecosystems, and it will be used to infer the effect of water level regulation on emergent wetland extent.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
e-
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators (within 1 kilometer of shore)
State Indicators
Indicators related to habitats:
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover (Indicator #8136)
This indicator will assess the amount of natural land cover that falls within 1 km of the shoreline, and it will be used
to infer the potential impact of artificial coastal structures, including primary and secondary home development, on
the extent and quality of nearshore terrestrial ecosystems in the Great Lakes.
Indicators related to health and stability of ecological communities/species:
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities (Indicator #8129)
This indicator will assess the changes in area and quality of the twelve special lakeshore communities, and it will be
used to infer the success of management activities associated with the protection of some of the most ecologically
significant habitats in the Great Lakes terrestrial nearshore.
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability (Indicator #8137)
This indicator will assess the composition and abundance of plant and wildlife species over time within the
nearshore area, and it will be used to infer adverse effects on the nearshore terrestrial ecosystem due to stresses such
as climate change and/or increasing land use intensity.
Pressure Indicators
Indicators related to physical stressors:
Water Level Fluctuations (Indicator #4861) - this is also a Coastal Wetland indicator
This indicator will assess the lake level trends that may significantly affect components of wetland and nearshore
terrestrial ecosystems, and it will be used to infer the effect of water level regulation on emergent wetland extent.
Extent of Hardened Shoreline (Indicator #8131)
This indicator will assess the amount of shoreline habitat altered by the construction of shore protection, and it will
be used to infer the potential harm to aquatic life in the nearshore as a result of conditions (e.g., shoreline erosion)
created by habitat alteration.
Nearshore Land Use Intensity (Indicator #8132)
This indicator will assess the types and extent of major land uses within 1 km from shore, and it will be used to
identify real or potential impacts of land use on significant natural features or processes, particularly on the twelve
special lakeshore communities.
Artificial Coastal Structures (Indicator #8146)
This indicator will assess the number of artificial coastal structures on the Great Lakes, and it will be used to infer
potential harm to coastal habitat by disruption of sand transport.
Indicators related to biological stressors:
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species (Indicator #8134)
This indicator will assess the type and abundance of plant and wildlife problem species in landscapes bordering the
Great Lakes, and it will be used to identify the potential for disruption of nearshore ecological processes and
communities.
Indicators related to chemical stressors:
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles (Indicator #8135)
This indicator will assess the number of fledged young, number of developmental deformities, and the
concentrations of organic and heavy metal contamination 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 Great Lakes 1999
-------
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (Indicator #8147)
This indicator will assess the contaminant concentrations found in American otter populations within the Great
Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the presence and severity of contaminants in the aquatic food web of the
Great Lakes.
Human Activities (Response) Indicators
Community / Species Plans (Indicator #8139)
This indicator will assess the number of plans that are needed, developed, and implemented to protect, maintain or
restore high quality, natural nearshore communities and federally listed endangered, threatened, and vulnerable
species. This indicator will be used to infer the degree of human stewardship toward these communities and species.
Shoreline Management Under Integrated Management Plans (Indicator #8141)
This indicator will assess the amount of Great Lakes shoreline managed under an integrated management plan, and
it will be used to infer the degree of stewardship of shoreline processes and habitat.
Nearshore Protected Areas (Indicator #8149)
This indicator will assess the kilometers/miles of shoreline in six classes of protective status. This information will
be used to infer the preservation and restoration of habitat and biodiversity, the protection of adjacent nearshore
waters from physical disturbance and undesirable inputs (nutrients and toxics), and the preservation of essential
habitat links in the migration (lifecycle) of birds and butterflies.
Land Use Indicators
State Indicators
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #8150)
This indicator will assess the status of breeding bird populations and communities, and it will be used to infer the
health of breeding bird habitat in the Great Lakes basin.
Threatened Species (Indicator #8161)
This indicator will assess the number, extent and viability of threatened species, which are key components of
biodiversity in the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the integrity of ecological processes and systems
(e.g., sand accretion, hydrologic regime) within Great Lakes habitats.
Pressure Indicators
Urban Density (Indicator #7000)
This indicator will assess the human population density in the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the
degree of inefficient land use and urban sprawl for communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Land Conversion (Indicator #7002)
This indicator will assess the changes in land use within the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used to infer the
potential impact of land conversion on Great Lakes ecosystem health.
Mass Transportation (Indicator #7012)
This indicator will assess the percentage of commuters using public transportation, and it will be used to infer the
stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem caused by the use of the private motor vehicle and its resulting high resource
utilization and pollution creation.
Habitat Fragmentation (Indicator #8114)
This indicator will assess the amount and distribution of natural habitat remaining within Great Lakes ecoregions,
and it will be used to infer the effect of human land uses such as housing, agriculture, flood control, and recreation
on habitat needed to support fish and wildlife species.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Stream Flow and Sediment Discharge (Indicator #8142)
This indicator will assess the amount of water and suspended sediment entering the Great Lakes through major
tributaries and connecting channels, and it will be used to estimate the amount of sediment available for transport
to nourish coastal ecosystems.
Human Activities (Response) Indicators
Brownfield Redevelopment (Indicator #7006)
This indicator will assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and it will be used over time to evaluate the rate at
which society rehabilitates and reuses former developed land sites that have been degraded by poor use.
Use of Sustainable Agriculture Practices (Indicator #7028)
This indicator will assess the number of Environmental and Conservation farm plans, and it will be used to infer
environmentally friendly practices in place, such as integrated pest management to reduce the unnecessary use of
pesticides, zero tillage and other soil preservation practices to reduce energy consumption, and prevention of ground
and surface water contamination.
Green Planning Process (Indicator #7053)
This indicator will assess the number of municipalities with environmental and resource conservation management
plans in place, and it will be used to infer the extent to which municipalities utilize environmental standards to
guide their management decisions with respect to land planning, resource conservation, and natural area
preservation.
Water Consumption (Indicator #7056)
This indicator will assess the amount of water used in the Great Lakes basin per capita, and it will be used to infer
the amount of wastewater generated and the demand for resources to pump and treat water.
Energy Consumption (Indicator #7057)
This indicator will assess the amount of energy consumed in the Great Lakes basin per capita, and it will be used to
infer the demand for resource use, the creation of waste and pollution, and stress on the ecosystem.
Wastewater Pollution (Indicator #7059)
This indicator will assess the loadings of wastewater pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin, and it will be
used to infer inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to
human and ecosystem health.
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator #7060)
This indicator will assess the amount of solid waste generated per capita in the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used
to infer inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to
human and ecosystem health.
Human Health Indicators
State Indicators
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence (Indicator #4179)
This indicator will assess geographical and temporal patterns in disease incidences in the Great Lakes basin
population, and it will also be used to identify areas where further investigation of the exposure and effects of
environmental pollutants on human health is needed.
Pressure Indicators
Indicators of Exposure
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters (Indicator #4081)
This indicator will assess fecal coliform contaminant levels in nearshore recreational waters, acting as a surrogate
indicator for other pathogen types, and it will be used to infer potential harm to human health through body
contact with nearshore recreational waters.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue (Indicator #4083)
This indicator will assess the concentration of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic (PBT) chemicals in Great Lakes
fish, and it will be used to infer the potential exposure of humans to PBT chemicals through consumption of Great
Lakes fish caught via sport and subsistence fishing.
Chemical Contaminant Intake From Air, Water Soil and Food (Indicator #4088)
This indicator will estimate the daily intake of PBT chemicals from all sources, and it will be used to evaluate the
potential harm to human health and the efficacy of policies and technology intended to reduce PBT chemicals.
Drinking Water Quality (Indicator #4175)
This indicator will assess the chemical and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water, and it will be used to
evaluate the potential for human exposure to drinking water contaminants and the efficacy of policies and
technologies to ensure safe drinking water.
Air Quality (Indicator #4176)
This indicator will monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem, and it will be used to infer the potential
impact of air quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue (Indicator #4177)
This indicator will assess the concentration of PBT chemicals in human tissues, and it will be used to infer the
efficacy of policies and technology to reduce PBT chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Radionuclides (Indicator #4178)
This indicator will assess the concentrations of artificial radionuclides in cow's milk, surface water, drinking water,
and air, and it will be used to estimate the potential for human exposure to artificial radionuclides.
Societal Indicators
State Indicators
Aesthetics (Indicator #7042)
This indicator will assess the amount of waste and decay around human activities in the Great Lakes basin, and it
will be used to infer the degree to which human activities are conducted in an efficient and ordered fashion
consistent with ecosystem harmony and integrity.
Economic Prosperity (Indicator #7043)
This indicator will assess the unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin, and it will be used in association
with other Societal indicators to infer the capacity for society in the Great Lakes region to make decisions that will
benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Human Activities (Response) Indicators
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator #3509) - unreviewed
This indicator assesses the organizational capacities required of local coalitions to act as full partners in ecosystem
management initiatives. It includes the enumeration of public-private partnerships relating to the pursuit of
sustainable ecosystems through environmental management, staff, and annual budgets.
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships (Indicator #3510) - unreviewed
This indicator assesses the diversity of membership and expertise included in partnerships. Horizontal integration is
a description of the diversity of partnerships required to address local issues, and vertical integration is the
description of federal and state/provincial involvement in place-based initiatives as full partners.
Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across Landscapes (Indicator #3511) - unreviewed
This indicator describes the extent to which federal, state/provincial, and regional governments and agencies have
endorsed and adopted ecosystem management guiding principles in place-based resource management programs.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes (Indicator #3512) - unreviewed
This indicator describes the extent to which federal, state/provincial, and regional governments and agencies have
endorsed and adopted sustainability guiding principles in place-based resource management programs.
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities (Indicator #3513) - unreviewed
Community activities that focus on local landscapes/ecosystems provide a fertile context for the growth of the
stewardship ethic and the establishment of a "a sense of place." This indicator, or suite of indicators, will reflect the
number, vitality and effectiveness of citizen and community stewardship activities.
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs (Indicator #8140)
This indicator will assess the amount of dollars spent annually on Great Lakes programs, and it will be used to infer
the responsiveness of Great Lakes programs through annual funding focused on research, monitoring, restoration,
and protection of Great Lakes ecosystems by federal and state/provincial agencies and non-governmental
organizations.
Unbounded Indicators
State Indicators
Atmospheric Visibility (Indicator #9001)
This indicator will assess the percentage of daylight hours with reduced visibility per year, and it will be used to infer
the efficacy of policies and technologies developed to improve visibility in the Great Lakes basin.
Pressure Indicators
Acid Rain (Indicator #9000)
This indicator will assess the pH levels in precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to the Great Lakes basin,
and it will be used to infer the efficacy of policies to reduce sulphur and nitrogen acidic compounds released to the
atmosphere.
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms (Indicator #4519)
This indicator will assess the number of "extreme storms" each year, and it will be used to infer the potential impact
on ecological components of the Great Lakes of increased numbers of severe storms due to climate change.
Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands (Indicator #4857)
This indicator will assess the change over time in first emergence dates of water lilies in coastal wetlands as a sentinel
of climate change affecting the Great Lakes.
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes (Indicator #4858)
This indicator will assess the temperature and accompanying physical changes to each lake over time, and it will be
used to infer potential impact of climate change on wetlands.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
APPENDIX 2 How RELAVANT ARE THE INDICATORS?
The list of indicators was developed according to the categories of open and nearshore waters, coastal
wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, human health, land use, societal and unbounded. These groupings are
convenient for reporting, but they represent only one of many ways to organize information about the Great
Lakes. Depending on the user's perspective, other groupings will be more convenient or will provide insight
to aspects of the Great Lakes that differ from the SOLEC groupings.
Each of the proposed indicators has been evaluated by the SOLEC Indicators Group for relevance to several
other organizational categories, and the results are displayed in the attached table. The categories include;
Indicator Type. Based on the State-Pressure-Human Activity model, each indicator has been
assigned to the appropriate category. Measurements of contaminants in an environmental
compartment are considered a pressure on the ecosystem rather than a measurement of a state
condition. There are currently 28 State, 37 Pressure and 15 Human Activity indicators proposed.
Environmental Compartments. This category sorts the indicators by media, i.e., air (6), water (14),
land (14), sediments (4), biota (21), fish (13), and humans (14). Fish have been separated from
biota as a special case.
Issues. Environmental management decisions often reflect an attempt to address an issue rather than
a medium or geographic location. Specific issues that the indicators support include toxic
contaminants (29), nutrients (12), exotic species (8), habitat (28), climate change (4), and
stewardship (11).
GLWQA Annexes. Several of the annexes of the GLWQA include monitoring and reporting
requirements. The proposed indicators currently address 10 of the 17 annexes. Annex 11
(Monitoring) is supported if an indicator supports any of the other annexes, and Annex 2 (LaMPs
and RAPs) is supported if the indicators address any of the Beneficial Use Impairments.
GLWQA Beneficial Use Impairments. Under Annex 2 of the GLWQA, 14 Beneficial Use
Impairments are listed for consideration by Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action
Plans. The indicators address to some extent 11 of the 14 listed use impairments.
IJC Desired Outcomes. The IJC listed nine Desired Outcomes in its report Indicators to Evalutate
Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1996). The indicators address to some
extent all nine Desired Outcomes. The many indicators with relevance to the outcomes of
Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and Physical Environment Integrity (including
habitat) reflect SOLEC's emphasis on the biotic components of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Great Lakes Fish Community Objectives. A series of fish community objectives have been released
or are being developed for each of the Great Lakes with the support of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission. Some SOLEC indicators specifically reflect the state of fish communities, and others
address related habitat issues.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
While the indicators are intended to meet the criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible for SOLEC
reporting, no attempt has been made to evaluate the adequacy of the subset of indicators that are relevant to
any of the alternate organizing categories from the perspective of other users. For example, LaMPs and
RAPs are expected to require a greater level of detail and geographic specificity to assess Beneficial Use
Impairments than will be provided by the proposed indicators. Suggestions and comments on the
relevance of the indicators to these or other alternate categories are encouraged.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
ID#
6
8
9
17
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4513
4516
4519
4857
4858
4860
4861
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7042
7043
7053
7055
7056
7057
7059
7060
8114
8129
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8140
8141
8142
8146
8147
8149
8150
8161
9000
9001
80
Indicator name
Aquatic Habitat
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants In Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediments Cores
Contaminant Exchange Between Air to Water & Water to Sediment
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of ecosystem management principles across landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Global Warming: 1st Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Mass Transportation
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Wastewater Pollutant Loading
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Streamflow
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Nearshore Protected Areas
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
COUNT
Indicator
Type
0)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
28
£
1
£
0.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
37
c
3
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
Environmental
Compartments
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
D
j
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Sediments
X
X
X
X
4
«
m
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
.n
w
iZ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
(/)
c
3
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Issues
t/i
«
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
29
Nutrients
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Exotics
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
28
Climate Change
X
X
X
X
4
Stewardship
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
SOLEC
Groups
Open Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
22
Nearshore Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
ID#
6
8
9
17
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4513
4516
4519
4857
4858
4860
4861
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7042
7043
7053
7055
7056
7057
7059
7060
8114
8129
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8140
8141
8142
8146
8147
8149
8150
8161
9000
9001
80
Indicator name
Aquatic Habitat
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants In Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediments Cores
Contaminant Exchange Between Air to Water & Water to Sediment
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of ecosystem management principles across landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Global Warming: 1st Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Mass Transportation
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Wastewater Pollutant Loading
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Streamflow
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Nearshore Protected Areas
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
COUNT
SOLEC Groupings
(con'd)
Coastal Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
Nearshore Terrestrial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
Land Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Human Health
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Societal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Unbounded
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
GLWQA Annex
1 Spec Objctvs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
2 LaMPs RAPs BUIs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
39
3 Phosphorus
X
X
X
3
4 Oil -Vessels
0
5 Wastes - Vessels
0
6 Shipping/ Pollution
0
Ul
_c
1^
0
8 Facilities
0
9 Contingency Plan
0
10 Hazard. Poll. List
0
11 Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
60
12 Pers. Toxic Subs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
19
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
ID#
6
8
9
17
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4513
4516
4519
4857
4858
4860
4861
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7042
7043
7053
7055
7056
7057
7059
7060
8114
8129
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8140
8141
8142
8146
8147
8149
8150
8161
9000
9001
80
Indicator name
Aquatic Habitat
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants In Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediments Cores
Contaminant Exchange Between Air to Water & Water to Sediment
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of ecosystem management principles across landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Global Warming: 1st Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Mass Transportation
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Wastewater Pollutant Loading
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Streamflow
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Nearshore Protected Areas
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
COUNT
GLWQA Annex
(con'd)
13 Non-point Sources
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
14 Contam. Sed's
X
1
15 Atmos. Dep.
X
X
X
X
4
16 Groundwater
X
1
17 Res. &Devel.
X
IJC Desired Outcomes
1 Fishability
X
I
X | I
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
X
2
2 Swimmability
X
1
3 Drinkability
X
1
4 Healthy Humans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
5 Economic Viability
X
X
X
X
4
6 Bio. Integ. & Divers.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
7 Virt. Elim. PTS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
8 Excess Phos.
X
X
X
3
9 Physical Env. Integ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
26
GLFC Obj.
Ontario
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
0)
^
111
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9
1
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
i
IE
u
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
ID#
6
8
9
17
18
68
72
93
101
104
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
4081
4083
4088
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4501
4502
4503
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4513
4516
4519
4857
4858
4860
4861
7000
7002
7006
7012
7028
7042
7043
7053
7055
7056
7057
7059
7060
8114
8129
8131
8132
8134
8135
8136
8137
8139
8140
8141
8142
8146
8147
8149
8150
8161
9000
9001
80
Indicator name
Aquatic Habitat
Salmon and Trout
Walleye and Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Sea Lamprey
Native Unionid Mussels
Fish Entrainment
Lake Trout and Scud (Diaporeia hoyi)
Deformities, Erosion, Lesions and Tumors in Nearshore Fish
Benthos Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Contaminants in Recreational Fish
Contaminants In Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Zooplankton Populations
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediments Cores
Contaminant Exchange Between Air to Water & Water to Sediment
Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
Integration of ecosystem management principles across landscapes
Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Fecal Pollution Levels of Nearshore Recreational Waters
Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
Chemical Contaminant Intake from Air, Water, Soil and Food
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
Radionuclides
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) in Fish
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Gain in Restored Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Presence, Abundance & Expansion of Invasive Plants
Sediment Flowing Into Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
Global Warming: 1st Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Nitrates and Total Phosphorus Into Coastal Wetlands
Water Level Fluctuations
Urban Density
Land Conversion
Brownfield Redevelopment
Mass Transportation
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Aesthetics
Economic Prosperity
Green Planning Process
Habitat Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Water Consumption
Energy Consumption
Wastewater Pollutant Loading
Solid Waste Generation
Habitat Fragmentation
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use Intensity
Nearshore Plant and Wildlife Problem Species
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Community / Species Plans
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Shoreline Managed Under Integrated Management Plans
Streamflow
Artificial Coastal Structures
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Nearshore Protected Areas
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Threatened Species
Acid Rain
Atmospheric Visibility: Prevention of Significant Deterioration
COUNT
GLFC
Obj.
Superior
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
Beneficial Use Impairments
1 F&W Consumption
X
X
2
2 Tainting
0
3 F&W Pop's
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
4 Tumors
X
1
5 Deformities/Reprod
X
X
X
X
4
1
1
(£>
X
X
X
X
4
Ul
0
8 Eutrophication
X
X
X
3
9 Drinking Water
X
1
10 Beach Closings
X
1
11 Aesthetics
X
1
12 Ag./lndust. Costs
0
1 3 Phyto-/Zoo-plankton
X
X
2
14 F&W Habitat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
Totals
16
16
16
17
14
9
8
18
10
11
11
15
19
9
14
9
10
8
8
12
4
4
4
4
4
12
19
8
15
8
10
9
5
10
10
10
9
9
10
9
9
10
12
6
5
6
8
9
6
6
4
3
6
7
3
2
11
5
5
8
5
3
9
10
11
10
14
10
9
7
5
7
17
8
14
5
7
15
10
5
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Nearshore and Open Waters Indicators
Bertram, P. and N. Stadler-Salt (eds). 1999. Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health. Version 3. A
Background paper for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998, Buffalo, New York. Burlington, Ontario:
Environment Canada and Chicago, Illinois: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Canada/United States. 1998. Air Quality Agreement, 1998 Progress Report.
Edsall, T.A. and M.N. Charlton. 1997. Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes. Background paper for the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference 1996, Windsor, Ontario.
Environmental Defence Fund. 1999. "Chemical Profile for Alpha-Lindane (CAS Number 319-84-6)". [http://
www.scorecard.org/chemical-...mary.tcl?edf_substance_id=319-84-6] (July 6, 1999).
Gillis, P.L. and G.L. Mackie. 1994. Impact of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, on populations of Unionidae
(Bivalvia) in Lake St. Clair. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1260-1271.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1999. "Sea Lamprey: A Great Lakes Invader", [http://www.glfc.org.lampcon.htm] (June
22, 1999).
Great Lakes Science Center. 1996. "Coexistence of Zebra Mussels and Native Clams in a Lake Erie Coastal Wetland". Fact
Sheet 96-8. [http://www.glsc.gov/science/communication/factsheets/fact96x8.htm] (June 24, 1999).
International Joint Commission, United States and Canada. 1989. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended by
Protocol signed November 18. 1987.
Pekarik C., D.V. Weseloh, G.C. Barrett, M. Simon, C.A. Bishop, K.E. Pettit. 1998. An Atlas of Contaminants in the Eggs
of Fish-Eating Colonial Waterbirds of the Great Lakes (1993-1997). Volume I. Accounts by Location. Technical
Report Series No.321. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region.
Pekarik C., D.V. Weseloh, G.C. Barrett, M. Simon, C.A. Bishop, K.E. Pettit. 1998. An atlas of Contaminants in the Eggs
of Fish-Eating Colonial Waterbirds of the Great Lakes (1993-1997). Volume II. Accounts by Chemical.
Technical Report Series No.322. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region.
Reynoldson, T.B. and K.E. Day. 1998. Biological Guidelines for the Assessment of Sediment Quality in the Laurentian
Great Lakes. National Water Research Institute Contribution No. 98-232.
Ricciardi, A., F.G. Whoriskey, and J.B. Rasmussen. 1995. Predicting the intensity and impact of Dreissena infestation on
native unionid bivalves from Dreissena field density. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 1449-
1461.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. 1999. "Benthic Invertebrates".
Benthic Invertebrate Monitoring Program, [http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/indicator/benthic/paper.htm]
(May 20, 1999).
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1995. "Pesticides in the Atmosphere, Fact Sheet FS-152-95". [http://
water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/atmos] (July 7, 1999).
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. 1998. "Sea Lamprey: Petromyzon marinus". [http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/
Publications/Fish/sealamprey.html] (June 22, 1999).
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Coastal Wetlands Indicators
Bowen, K.L. and W.L. Simser. 1998. Water Chemistry Changes to Cootes Paradise Marsh 1973 to 1997. Royal Botanical
Gardens.
Chow-Fraser, P. and L. Lukasik. 1997. "Community Participation in the Restoration of a Great Lakes Coastal Wetland".
Community Volunteer Planting Program, Ecowise. [http://www.mcmaster.ca/ecowise/comm/cvpp.htm] (June 17,
1999).
Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service et al. 1997. Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan. First
Progress Report. Downsview, Ontario: Environment Canada, and Toronto, Ontario: The Nature Conservancy of
Canada.
Jurik, T.W., S.C. Wang, and A.G. van der Valk. 1994. Effects of sediment load on seedling emergence from wetland seed
banks. Wetlands 14:159-165.
Maynard, L. and D. Wilcox. 1997. Coastal Wetlands. Background paper for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
1996, Windsor, Ontario. Burlington, Ontario: Environment Canada and Chicago, Illinois: United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Thorne, J. 1999. "Hamilton Harbour's Marsh Bird and Amphibian Communities". In RAP Office Update, Newsletter of
the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Office. Issue 15, April 1999.
Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
Reid, R. and K. Holland. 1997. The Land by the Lakes: Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems. Background paper for the State
of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996, Windsor, Ontario. Burlington, Ontario: Environment Canada and
Chicago, Illinois: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Reid, R., K. Rodriguez and A. Mysz. 1999. Biodiversity Investment Areas - Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems. Version 3. A
Background paper for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998, Buffalo, New York. Burlington, Ontario:
Environment Canada and Chicago, Illinois: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Land Use Indicators
Armstrong, T. 1997. "Peregrine Falcons in Ontario - Continuing to climb the road to recovery". In Peregrine Falcon
Newsletter 4, Fall 1997: 2-3. [http://www.cciw.ca/glimr/data/peregrine-falcon/intro.html] (June 9, 1999).
Environment Canada. 1999a. "News Release: COSEWIC Updates List - status of six species, including Peregrine Falcon,
improves". [http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/csemdc_n_e.htm] (June 9, 1999).
Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 1999a. "Canada Goose Giant ("Resident") Population: Population
over-abundant and increasing!" [http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/canbird/goose/cgrx.htm] (June 14, 1999).
Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 1999b. "Over-abundant Giant ("Resident") Canada Geese". Too Many
Giant Canada Geese, [http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/canbird/goose/resident.htm] (June 14, 1999).
McCracken, J. 1997. "Troubled Waters: What is Happening to Marsh Bird Populations?" Bird Studies Canada, [http://
www.bsc-eoc.org/bterns.html] (June 8, 1999).
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B. G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey
Results and Analysis. Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
The Peregrine Fund. 1998. "The Peregrine Fund applauds proposed delisting of peregrine falcon", [http://
www.peregrinefund.org/delist2.html] (June 9, 1999).
Thorp, S., R. Rivers, and V. Pebbles. 1997. Impacts of Changing Land Use. Background paper for the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference 1996, Windsor, Ontario. Burlington, Ontario: Environment Canada and Chicago, Illinois:
United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. "Status of Peregrine Falcon Recovery 1997 - Number of known pairs in
each state [map]", [http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/status.gif] (June 9, 1999).
Weseloh, D.V. and B. Collier. 1995. "The Rise of the Double-crested Cormorant on the Great Lakes: Winning the war
against contaminants". Environment Canada Fact Sheet, [http://www.cciw.ca/glimr/data/cormorant-fact-sheet/
intro.html] (July 14, 1999).
Human Health Indicators
Burnette, R.T., R. Dales, D. Krewski, R. Vincent, J. Dann, and R. Brook. 1995. Associations between Ambient Particulate
Sulphate and Admissions to Ontario Hospitals for Cardiac and Respiratory Diseases. American Journal of
Epidemiology 142(1): 15-22.
Burnette, R.T., R. Dales, M.E. Raizenne, D. Krewski, P.W. Summers, G.R. Roberts, M. Raad-Young, T. Dann, and J.
Brook. 1994. Effects of low ambient levels of ozone and sulphates on the frequency of respiratory admissions to
Ontario hospitals. Environmental Research 65: 172-194.
Craan, A.G. and D. Haines. 1998. Twenty-Five Years of Surveillance for Contaminants in Human Breast Milk. Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (35): 702-710.
Federation for Clean Air Progress. 1999. "FCAP in the News: Top 10 Clean Air Success Stories show Air Quality
Improvements around the Nation". [http://www.cleanairprogress.org/scripts/InNews.cfm] (July 8, 1999).
Government of Ontario. 1999. Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish 1999-2000. Queen's Printer for Ontario: Toronto,
Ontario.
Johnson, B.L. et al. 1999. Public Health Implications of Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Johnson, B.L. et al. 1998. Public Health Implications of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Basins. Journal of Great Lakes Research 24(2): 698-722.
Riedel, D., N. Trembley, and E. Tompkins (eds.). 1997. State of Knowledge on Environmental Contaminants and Human
Health in the Great Lakes Basin. Health Canada, Great Lakes Health Effects Program.
Societal Indicators
Bertram, P. and N. Stadler-Salt (eds). 1999. Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health. Version 3. A
Background paper for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998, Buffalo, New York. Burlington, Ontario:
Environment Canada and Chicago, Illinois: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Unbounded Indicators
Environment Canada. 1999c. Acid Rain, [http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain] (June 25, 1999).
State of the Great Lakes 1999
-------
Lake Superior
Ebener, Mark. 1999. Personal Communication. COTFMA. July 16, 1999.
Jude, David. 1999. Personal Communication. University of Michigan. August 19, 1999.
Jensen, Doug. 1999. Personal Communication. Minnesota Sea Grant. August 24, 1999.
Lake Michigan
Keeler, Gerald. 1999. Personal Communication. University of Michigan. August 3, 1999.
Warren, Glen. 1999. Personal Communication. U.S. EPA Great Lakes Program Office. August 1999.
Lake Huron
Johnson, Jim. 1999. Personal Communication. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. July 16, 1999.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. "Lake Huron Initiative Analysis of Use Impairments/Critical
Pollutants and Fish and Wildlfe Habitat/Biodiversity", [http://www.deq.state.mi.us/ogl/huron/background.html]
(May 25, 1999).
Lake Erie
Daher, S. 1999. Lake Erie LaMP Status Report 1999. Lake Erie LaMP Work Group.
Einhouse, D. 1999. Personal Communication. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. July 16,
1999.
Knight, R. 1999. Personal Communication. Ohio Division of Wildlife. July 16, 1999.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. State of the Great Lakes 1998 Annual Report. Lansing, MI.
Lake Ontario
Environment Canada, Government of Ontario, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. 1999. LaMP Update '99. Lake Ontario LaMP.
Suggestions for Further Reading
International Joint Commission. 1996. Indicators to Evaluate Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Great Lakes 1999
------- |