STATE OF
THE GREAT LAKES
2003
-------
Environment Canada
and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ISBN 0-662-34798-6
EPA 905-R-03-004
Cat. No. En40-ll/35-2003E
The State of the Great Lakes 2003 carries the Canadian State of Environment
(SOE) reporting symbol, because this report satisfies the guidelines for the
Government of Canada's reporting program. The two purposes of SOE reports
are to 1) foster the use of science in policy- and decision-making and 2) to report
to Canadians on the condition of their environment. The State of the Great Lakes
2003 meets SOE reporting requirements by providing an easily understood
overview of the state of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem for the non-scientist;
examining the key trends in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem; providing a set of
environmental indicators; and discussing links among issues.
Photo credits:
Blue Heron, Don Breneman
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Rober De Jonge, courtesy Michigan Travel Bureau
Port Huron Mackinac Race, Michigan Travel Bureau
Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, Lake Michigan Federation
-------
STATE OF
THE GREAT LAKES
2003
by the Governments of
Canada
and
The United States of America
Prepared by
Environment Canada
and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
-------
S TAT El I,
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES v
PREFACE 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
2.0 MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES 6
3.0 LAKE AND RIVER ASSESSMENTS 8
St. Lawrence River. 9
Lake Ontario 12
Lake Erie 16
St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detoit River Ecosystem 20
Lake Huron 23
Lake Michigan 28
Lake Superior 33
4.0 ASSESSMENTS BASED ON INDICATORS 38
4.1 State Indicators-Part 1 39
State Indicator Reports-Assessments at a Glance 39
Summary of State Indicators-Part 1 40
Salmon and Trout 40
Walleye 41
Hexagenia (Mayfly) 43
Preyfish Populations 44
Lake Trout 46
Abundances of the Bethic Amphipod Diporeia (scud) 48
Benthic Diversity and Abundance-Aquatic Oliogchaete Communities 49
Phytoplankton Populations 49
Zooplankton Populations 51
Amphibian Diversity and Relative Abundance 51
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Relative Abundance 53
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar Communities 55
4.2 State Indicators-Part 2 56
Summary of State Indicator Reports-Part 2 56
Native Freshwater Mussels 56
Urban Density 57
Economic Prosperity 59
Area, Quality and Protection of Great Lakes Islands .60
4.3 Pressure Indicators-Part 1 62
Pressure Indicator Reports-Assessments at a Glance .62
Summary of Pressure Indicators-Part 1 .63
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey 64
111
-------
2003
Phosphoras Concentrations and Loadings 65
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 66
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals 68
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue 69
Air Quality 70
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes .71
Extent of Hardened Shoreline 72
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles 73
Acid Rain 74
Non-Native Species Introduced into the Great Lakes 75
4.4 Pressure Indicator Reports-Part 2 77
Summary of Pressure Indicator Reports-Part 2 77
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners 78
Toxic Chemicals Concentrations in Offshore Waters 78
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores 81
E.coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational Waters 82
Drinking Water Quality 83
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs 85
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations 86
Mass Transportation 88
Water Use 89
Energy Consumption .90
Solid Waste Generation 91
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter 92
4.5 Response Indicator Reports 94
Summary of Response Indicators 94
Citizen/Community Place-based Stewardship Activities 94
Brownfield Redevelopment 95
Sustainable Agriculture Practices 96
Green Planning Process 97
5.0 LOOKING FORWARD 99
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 101
IV
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. St. Lawrence River. 9
Figure 2. Non-native species in the Great Lakes relative to the St. Lawrence River. 10
Figure 3. Reduction of wetland area on Boucherville Island, 1976-1996 10
Figure 4. St. Lawrence Statistics 1.1
Figure 5. Lake Ontario Drainage Basin 12
Figure 6. PCB Concentrations in herring gull eggs, 1970-1999 13
Figure 7. Whitefish and scud (Diporeia) abundance before and after the introduction of zebra
mussels in Lake Ontario 1.3
Figure 8. Total PCB levels in coho salmon edible tissue from Credit River, Ontario 14
Figure 9. Mercury levels in coho salmon edible tissue from the Credit River, Ontario 14
Figure 10. Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) trends in Lake Ontario lake trout 14
Figure 11. Lake Ontario Statistics 15
Figure 12. Lake Erie Drainage Basin 16
Figure 13. Round Goby distribution and abundance from interagency bottom trawls in Lake Erie,
1996-2001 17
Figure 14. Lake Erie Statistics 19
Figure 15. St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River Ecosystem 20
Figure 16. Fall waterfowl days for Lake St. Clair compared to those recorded along the full
Canadian shore of the Southern Great Lakes 21
Figure 17. Lake St. Clair Statistics 22
Figure 18. Lake Huron Drainage Basin 23
Figure 19. Number of salmon and trout caught per 100 hours of angler effort 24
Figure 20. Portions of the Lake Huron watershed inaccessible due to natural barriers and
human-made barriers 24
Figure 21. PCBs in Lake Huron coho salmon compared to consumption advisories 25
Figure 22. Total PCBs in herring gull eggs, Lake Huron 25
Figure 23. Phosphorus concentrations in Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay 26
Figure 24. Composition of preyfish in Lake Huron, 1999 26
Figure 25. Lake Huron Statistics 27
Figure 26. Lake Michigan Drainage Basin 28
Figure 27. Imagery of the bottom of Lake Michigan 29
Figure 28. Densities of scud (Diporeia) in southern Lake Michigan 30
Figure 29. Inshore fishery harvest on Lake Michigan 30
Figure 30. Lake Michigan PCB mass balance. Lake Michigan PCB Inventory 31
Figure 31. Lake Michigan Statistics 32
Figure 32. Lake Superior Drainage Basin 33
Figure 33. Average phosphorus concentrations in Lake Superior 34
Figure 34. PCBs in herring gull eggs, Lake Superior, 1974-2000 34
Figure 35. Mercury in herring gull eggs, Lake Superior, 1973-2000 35
Figure 36. Commercial fishery harvest, 1970-2000 35
Figure 37. Forest fragmentation in the Lake Superior basin 35
Figure 38. Lake Superior Statistics 37
Figure 39. Total number of non-native trout and salmon stocked in the Great Lakes, 1966-1998 41
Figure 40. Recreational, commercial and tribal harvest of Walleye from the Great Lakes 42
-------
2003
Figure 41. Areas of recovery and non-recovery of mayflies (Hexagenia) in the Great Lakes 43
Figure 42. Preyfish population trends in the Great Lakes 45
Figure 43. Relative or absolute abundance of lake trout in the Great Lakes .46
Figure 44. Density (numbers/m2 x 103) of scud (Diporeia) in Lake Michigan in 1994-1995 and in 2000 47
Figure 45. Density (numbers/m2 x 103) of scud (Diporeia) in Lake Ontario in 1994, 1997, and 1998 48
Figure 46. Milbrink's Modified Environmental Index applied to benthic oligochaete
communities in the Great Lakes 49
Figure 47. Trends in phytoplankton biovolume (g/m3) and community composition in the Great
Lakes 1983-1999 50
Figure 48. Ratio of biomass of calanoid copepods to that of cladocerans and cyclopoid copepods
for the five Great Lakes 51
Figure 49. Annual proportion of stations on Marsh Monitoring Program routes at which eight
species of amphibians were commonly detected. Data are from 1995-2001 52
Figure 50. Comparison of mean annual water levels of the Great Lakes and trends in
amphibian annual relative occurrence 53
Figure 51. Annual population trends of declining and increasing marsh nesting and aerial
foraging bird species detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, 1995-2001 54
Figure 52. Protection Status 2000. Nearshore alvar acreage 55
Figure 53. Comparison of acreage protected. Nearshore alvars: Ontario and Michigan 55
Figure 54. Protection of high quality alvars 55
Figure 55. Numbers of freshwater mussel species found before and after the zebra mussel
invasion at 13 sites in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and the Niagara and Detroit Rivers and the
locations of the four known refuge sites 57
Figure 56. Population density in the U.S. and Canadian Lake Superior basin, 1990-1991 58
Figure 57. Percent change in population in the Ontario portion of the Lake Superior basin from
1991-1996 58
Figure 58. Unemployment rate in Michigan, Wisconsin, and the U.S. and Ontario Lake
Superior basin, 1975-2000 59
Figure 59. Distribution of Ontario's provincially rare species and vegetation communities
on islands in the Great Lakes .60
Figure 60. Total annual abundance of sea lamprey estimated during the spawning migration .64
Figure 61. Total phosphorus trends in the Great Lakes 1971-2002 66
Figure 62. Temporal trends in DDE in herring gull eggs from Toronto Harbour, 1974-2002 67
Figure 63. Changes in spatial patterns of DDE levels in herring gull eggs from the Annual
Monitor Colonies, 1999 and 2001 67
Figure 64. Nest Numbers (number of breeding pairs) of Double-crested Cormorants on
Lake Ontario, 1979-2002 67
Figure 65. Gas phase a-HCH (hexachlorocyclohexane) concentrations for all five Great Lakes 68
Figure 66. Annual total basinwide loadings for a-HCH, lindane, dieldrin and total PCBs 68
Figure 67. Results of a uniform fish advisory protocol applied to historical data (PCBs, coho
salmon) in the Great Lakes 69
Figure 68. Mean ice coverage, in percent, during the corresponding decade 71
Figure 69. Shoreline hardening in the Great Lakes compiled from 1979 data for the state
of Michigan and 1987-1989 data for the rest of the basin 72
Figure 70. Shoreline hardening by Lake compiled from 1979 data for the state of Michigan
and 1987-1989 data for the rest of the basin 73
Figure 71. Approximate nesting locations of bald eagles along the Great Lakes shorelines, 2000 .73
Figure 72. Average number of occupied territories per year by Lake 74
Figure 73. Patterns fo wet non-sea salt SO4and wet NO3 deposition for two five year periods
during the 1990s 74
VI
-------
Figure 74. Cumulative number of aquatic non-native species established in the Great Lakes basin
since the 1830s .76
Figure 75. Release mechanisms for aquatic non-native species established in the Great Lakes basin
since 1830 76
Figure 76. Regions of origin for aquatic non-native species established in the Great Lakes basin 76
Figure 77. PCB, mirex, and total DDT levels in Juvenille Spottail Shiners from five locations in
Lake Ontario 79
Figure 78. Spatial dieldrin patterns in the Great Lakes and annual mean concentrations for the
interconnecting channels from 1986 to 1998 80
Figure 79. Site Sediment Quality Index (SQI) based on lead, zinc, copper, cadmium and mercury 81
Figure 80. Proportion of U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes beaches with beach advisories and
closures for 1998 to 2001 bathing seasons 82
Figure 81. Status of Canadian Great Lakes beaches reported in terms of Beach Advisories versus
Provincial Standard Exceedances (for the 1999 to 2001 bathing seasons) 82
Figure 82. Locations of the public water systems (PWS) and the source from which the water is
drawn 83
Figure 83. Total PCB concentrations in Snapping Turtle eggs from selected sites and years 85
Figure 84. DDE concentrations in snapping turtle eggs from selected sites and years 85
Figure 85. Actual water levels for Lakes Huron and Michigan 87
Figure 86. Actual water levels for Lake Ontario 87
Figure 87. GO Transit System's ridership trends, 1965-1998, including total two-way rides,
weekday plus weekend, trips without passengers transferring from a bus-train or
train-bus connection 88
Figure 88. Percentage of transit use for 15 U.S. Transit Agencies in the Great Lakes basin from
1996-2000 88
Figure 89. Great Lakes water, other surface water, and groundwater use by category in the Great
Lakes basin from 1987 to 1993, and 1998 (without Hydroelectricity) 89
Figure 90. Daily average municipal water use by sector on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes
basin, 1983-1999 89
Figure 91. Average municipal per capita water use on the Canadian, 1983-1999, and U.S., 1985-
1995, sides of the Great Lakes basin 90
Figure 92. Total electric energy use (MWh) in the U.S. Lake Superior basin by sector, 1998 90
Figure 93. Average per capita solid waste generation and disposal from selected municipalities in
Ontario, Indiana and Minnesota, 1991-2001 91
Figure 94. Residential recycling tonnage in Ontario, 1992-2000 92
Figure 95. Great Lakes shoreline protection stability estimates for the American Otter. .93
Figure 96. Number of land trusts operating in the U.S. Great Lakes basin, 1930-2000 95
Figure 97. Acres protected by land trusts in the U.S. Great Lakes basin 95
Figure 98. Brownfield site in Detroit, Michigan, 1998 95
Figure 99. Ontario Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) Peer-reviewed (PR) Plans, 1995-August 2002 96
Vll
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Vlll
-------
Preface
The governments of Canada and the United States are committed to providing public access to
environmental information that is reported through the State of the Great Lakes reporting process. This
commitment is integral to the mission to protect ecosystem health. To participate effectively in managing
risks to ecosystem health, all Great Lakes stakeholders (e.g., federal, provincial, state and local governments;
non-governmental organizations; industry; academia; private citizens, tribes and First Nations) should have
access to accurate information of appropriate quality and detail.
The information in this report, State of the Great Lakes 2003, has been assembled from various sources with
the participation of many people throughout the Great Lakes basin. The data are based on indicator reports
and presentations from the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), held in Cleveland, Ohio,
October 16-18, 2002. The sources of the information are acknowledged within each section.
Implementing Indicators 2003-A Technical Report presents the full indicator reports as prepared by the
primary authors. It also contains detailed references to the data sources found throughout the State of the
Great Lakes 2003 report. The reader is encouraged to obtain the referenced literature or to converse with the
identified point of contact for details or additional information.
This approach of dual reports, one summary version and one with details and references to data sources, also
satisfies the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by Federal Agencies, OMB, 2002, (67 FR 8452). The guidelines were developed in response to U.S.
Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658, Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001.
-------
2003
Executive
Summary
This State of the Great Lakes 2003 report is the fifth
biennial report issued by the governments of
Canada and the United States (the Parties) pursuant
to the reporting requirements of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. In the State of the Great
Lakes 2001 report, the Parties presented information
based on a set of agreed-upon indicators from a
suite assembled by Great Lakes experts. The 2003
report builds on this format, providing more up to
date information.
The 2003 report assesses the environmental status of
each Great Lake, the St. Lawrence River, and the St.
Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River Ecosystem,
as well as provides assessments on 43 of
approximately 80 indicators proposed by the
Parties. These particular indicators were selected
because basinwide data or data available for a
portion of the basin were readily available. A full
description of the entire suite of Great Lakes
indicators can be found in the Selection of Indicators
for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4, at
http://www.binational.net.
The conclusion of this State of the Great Lakes 2003
report is that the status of the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem is mixed, based on Lake by Lake and
basinwide assessments of 43 indicators.
The positive signs of recovery leading to the
"mixed" conclusion include:
+ Lake trout stocks in Lake Superior have
remained self-sustaining.
+ Reproduction of lake trout in Lake Ontario
is now evident.
+ Bald eagles nesting and fledging along the
shoreline are recovering.
+ Persistent toxic substances are continuing to
decline.
+ Phosphorus targets have been met in all the
Lakes except Lake Erie.
The negative signs of degradation leading to the
"mixed" conclusion include:
- Phosphorus levels are increasing in Lake
Erie.
- Long range atmospheric transport is a
continuing source of contaminants to the
basin.
- Non-native species are a significant threat to
the ecosystem and continue to enter the
Great Lakes.
- Scud (Diporeia) are continuing to decline in
Lakes Ontario and Michigan.
- Type E Botulism outbreaks, resulting in the
deaths of fish and aquatic birds, are
continuing in Lake Erie.
- Native mussel species are being lost
throughout Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair as a
result of invasive zebra mussels.
- Land use changes in favor of urbanization
continue to threaten natural habitats in the
Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, St. Clair River-
Lake St. Clair-Detroit River and Lake Huron
ecosystems.
Because only a portion of the full suite of indicators
were used to draw the "mixed" conclusion, one
challenge for Great Lakes managers is to work
cooperatively toward monitoring, assessing and
reporting on all the indicators. Several binational
efforts are leading the way. The Lakewide
Management Plan (LaMP) teams are adapting the
basinwide indicators to the Lake basins. Lake by
Lake assessments of these adapted indicators are
providing valuable, detailed information needed to
assess the whole of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem,
but at a regional scale.
-------
The Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium, a
binational group of scientific and policy experts, is
designing a long-term program to monitor Great
Lakes coastal wetlands. This includes refining
coastal wetlands indicators, collecting all existing
wetland inventory data, organizing a monitoring
implementation team, and creating an accessible
coastal wetlands database.
Although the work of the Parties in indicator
development and reporting is ongoing, several
management challenges based on the indicators
reported at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) 2002 are clear:
^ First, land use decisions throughout
the basin are affecting chemical,
physical and biological aspects of the
ecosystem. What land use decisions
will sustain the ecosystem over the
long term, thereby contributing to
improved water and land quality?
^ Second, many factors, including the
spread of non-native species, degrade
plant and animal habitats. How can
essential habitats be protected and
restored to preserve the species and
unique and globally significant
character of the Great Lakes
ecosystem?
As the experts begin to sort and analyze the
indicator data that will contribute to SOLEC 2004,
the Great Lakes community is aware of emerging as
well as recurring environmental issues to contend
with over the next decades. The global demand for
accessible fresh water, the recognition that quality of
life requires a healthy ecosystem, and the needs of
two countries for competitive markets based on
Great Lakes resources, will all impact what the
indicators tell us. As such, SOLEC will undertake a
two part review of the Great Lakes indicators. The
first part will consider the process for selecting
and reviewing the indicators. The second part
will be a management review of the indicators and
their effectiveness in influencing management
decisions, including monitoring programs. The
review will consider recent reports such as the US
governments's GAO report on indicators.
The status of the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes ecosystem
is dependent on a binational response grounded in
science, cooperation, and tenacious adherence to the
goal of a sustainable ecosystem.
^ Third, climate change has the
potential to impact Great Lakes water
levels, habitats for biological diversity,
and human land uses such as
agriculture. What actions will be
needed to respond to potential climate
change impacts?
^Finally, the Great Lakes community
has been addressing toxic
contamination in water, fish,
sediments, air, and people for more
than 30 years, yet problems persist.
How will the economic and practical
issues of continued removal of toxic
contamination from our ecosystem be
addressed?
-------
2003
Section 1
Introduction
This State of the Great Lakes 2003 report represents
the gathering, analysis, and interpretation of data
about the Great Lakes ecosystem by many
organizations in both the United States and Canada.
The basis for the report is a suite of ecosystem
health indicators developed by participants in the
2002 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences
(SOLEC).
Hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and Environment Canada as
representatives of the Governments (Parties) in
response to the reporting requirements of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), SOLEC
conferences report on the status of the Great Lakes
ecosystem and the major factors impacting it.
Scientists and managers from federal, provincial,
state, tribal, and local governments, non-
governmental organizations, academic institutions,
and industry, contribute to a scientific analysis and
interpretation of data from a variety of sources, then
share this interpretation for the purpose of better
managing the resources of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The year following each conference, a
State of the Great Lakes report, based on information
presented and discussed at the conference and post-
conference comments, is prepared by the Parties.
Additional information about SOLEC and indicators
is available at http://www.binational.net.
The fifth in a series of reports beginning in 1995, the
State of the Lakes 2003 provides an assessment of
each of the five Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River,
the St. Clair River to Detroit River Ecosystem, and
assessments of 43 of approximately 80 basinwide
indicators. The Lake and connecting channel
assessments were the result of the work of the
Lakewide Management Plan teams. The 43
indicators were selected because data were available
for at least a portion of the basin. Comprehensive
indicator reports prepared for SOLEC 2002 are
found in the full technical report, Implementing
Indicators 2003 A Technical Report.
Streaming video of the presentations about the
indicators from SOLEC 2002 are available at: http://
www.epa.gov/glnpo.solec.2002/plenaries.html. A
full description of the entire suite of Great Lakes
indicators, including proposed indicators, can be
found in the Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem Health, Version 4, at http://
www.binational.net.
In addition to reporting on the status of each Lake,
the connecting channels, and the 43 indicators,
SOLEC 2002 placed special emphasis on biological
integrity, which is not specifically defined in the
GLWQA. A well attended pre-SOLEC workshop
used a definition of biological integrity from Dr.
James Karr, modified by Dr. Douglas Dodge:
"The capacity to support and maintain a
balanced, integrated and adaptive
biological system having the full range of
elements (the form) and process (the
function) expected in a region's natural
habitat."
A subset of the overall suite was proposed as a
candidate set of biological indicators.
At SOLEC 2002, Great Lakes indicators were also
proposed for assessing the state of agriculture, forest
land health, and groundwater. Societal response
indicators were proposed to assist in the assessment
of community contributions to ecosystem health.
These new indicators will be further refined and
screened against the SOLEC criteria for indicators
necessary, sufficient and feasible to convey a picture
of Great Lakes basin health.
-------
The conclusion of this State of the Great Lakes 2003
report is that the status of the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem is mixed, based on Lake by Lake and
basinwide assessments of 43 indicators.
The positive signs of recovery leading to the
"mixed" conclusion include:
+ Lake trout stocks in Lake Superior have
remained self-sustaining.
+ Reproduction of lake trout in Lake Ontario
is now evident.
+ Bald eagles nesting and fledging along the
shoreline are recovering.
+ Persistent toxic substances are continuing to
decline.
+ Phosphorus targets have been met in all the
Lakes except Lake Erie.
The negative signs of degradation leading to the
"mixed" conclusion include:
- Phosphorus levels are increasing in Lake
Erie.
- Long range atmospheric transport is a
continuing source of contaminants to the
basin.
- Non-native species are a significant threat to
the ecosystem and continue to enter the
Great Lakes.
- Scud (Diporeid) are continuing to decline in
Lakes Ontario and Michigan.
- Type E Botulism outbreaks, resulting in the
deaths of fish and aquatic birds, are
continuing in Lake Erie.
- Native mussel species are being lost
throughout Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair as a
result of invasive zebra mussels.
- Land use changes in favor of urbanization
continue to threaten natural habitats in the
Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, St. Clair River-Lake
St. Clair-Detroit River and Lake Huron
ecosystems.
Lake assessments of these adapted indicators are
providing valuable, detailed information needed to
assess the whole of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem,
but at a regional scale. The Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands Consortium, a binational group of
scientific and policy experts, is designing a long-
term program to monitor Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. This includes refining SOLEC coastal
wetlands indicators, collecting all existing inventory
data, organizing a monitoring implementation team,
and creating an accessible coastal wetlands
database. Progress is being made toward being able
to fully report on the status of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
The State of the Great Lakes 2003 report is a report to
managers and decision makers. The four sections
that follow succinctly update previous reports.
Section 2 offers a discussion of management
challenges resulting from the conclusion of the State
of the Lakes 2003 report. Section 3 details the Lake
and river assessments. Section 4 reports on each of
the 43 indicators by state, pressure, and societal
response category. Section 5 looks forward to the
future of SOLEC, indicators, and management
priorities.
One challenge for Great Lakes managers is to work
cooperatively toward monitoring, assessing and
reporting on the entire suite of indicators. Several
binational efforts are leading the way. The Lakewide
Management Plan (LaMP) teams are adapting the
basinwide indicators to the Lake basins. Lake by
5
-------
Section 2
Management Challenges
At a special session of SOLEC 2002, managers from
Great Lakes government and non-governmental
entities met to discuss the Lake and river basin
assessments and basinwide indicator reports.
Several management challenges based on the
assessments and reports were identified. The five
general areas of discussion were land use, habitat
degradation, climate change, toxic contamination,
and indicator development. A summary of these
challenges is presented below.
Land Use
Management Challenge: What land use decisions will
sustain the ecosystem over the long term, thereby
contributing to improvements in the quality of land and
water?
Current land use decisions throughout the basin are
affecting the chemical, physical and biological
aspects of the ecosystem. Each Lake and river
assessment presented at SOLEC 2002 cited the need
for improved land use decisions to counter the
detrimental effects of urban sprawl and increased
population growth (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
solec/2002/plenaries.html). One approach to
analyzing land use, the "ecological footprint," has
been applied to the Great Lakes basin by the
originators of the approach, Mathis Wackernagel
and William Rees (Our Ecological Footprint, 1996).
They estimate that an area equivalent to 50 percent
of the land mass of the United States is needed to
support the current lifestyle of Great Lakes basin
citizens. Managers are keenly aware of the
importance of using the most current information
when making land use decisions that may
contribute to either the sustenance or degradation of
the ecosystem.
Habitat Degradation
Management Challenge: How can essential habitats be
protected and restored to preserve the species and unique
and globally significant character of the Great Lakes
ecosystem?
Many factors, including the spread of non-native
species, degrade plant and animal habitats. For
example: mussel species are facing extinction due to
pressures from non-native zebra and quagga
mussels; hydrological alterations are impacting the
functioning of wetland habitats; and, poorly
planned development is degrading or destroying
essential habitats. Ecological protection and
restoration actions are needed to sustain these
essential Great Lakes habitats. Managers need
current data, research to determine appropriate
ecological protection and restoration tools and
technologies, monitoring programs to understand
species trends, and educational programs that
provide the public with a broad spectrum of actions.
Climate Change
Management Challenge: What research is needed to
respond to potential climate change impacts?
Climate change has the potential to impact Great
Lakes water levels, habitats for biological diversity,
and human land uses such as agriculture. In Ohio,
for example, a string of mild winters has
contributed to an infestation of slugs in corn and
soybean crops. Farmers may be faced with a return
to tillage plowing or the use of molluscicides to
control the infestation. Either choice would reverse
some of the most encouraging progress toward
controlling non-point source pollution. A
management challenge is the need to research
further the potential impacts of climate change on
the basin and to adapt to those changes as required.
Toxic Contamination
Management Challenge: How will we address the
economic and practical issues of the continued removal of
toxic contamination from our ecosystem?
-------
The Great Lakes community has been remediating
toxic contamination in water, fish, sediments, air,
and people for more than 30 years, yet problems
persist. Although loadings of contaminants to the
Lakes have been greatly reduced from their peak in
the 1970s, pathogens in the water at swimming
beaches, for example, are an continuing concern.
Controls on industrial emissions of contaminants
have been legislated and enforced, resulting in
reductions in levels of contaminants in the
environment. Non-point source runoff reductions
are significant, and optimal reductions are not yet
being achieved. The approach to dealing with
agricultural practices to reduce runoff of pesticides
and fertilizers may require a mix of approaches
including voluntary measures and incentives. A
management challenge is to economically and
practically continue to remove toxic contamination
and excess nutrients from the ecosystem.
Indicator Development
Management Challenge: What method for developing
indices will assist Great Lakes managers to better
interpret indicator information?
Given the large number of current and potential
indicators, it is difficult to sort and interpret
findings in a way that is expedient and productive
for managers. Managers and others prefer a few
scientifically sound indices, based on the suite of
indicators, so that they can make appropriate
management decisions, or can better interpret the
information presented in the State of the Great
Lakes reports. A management challenge is to find a
method for indexing groups of indicators in a way
that leads to more informed management decision
making.
-------
lifii JttfiW »r c*;
Section 3
Lake and River Assessments
This section of the State of the Lakes 2003 provides an
assessment of the St. Lawrence River, each of the
five Great Lakes, and the St. Clair River-Lake St.
Clair-Detroit River Ecosystem. The St. Lawrence
River assessment was conducted by a team from
Environment Canada. Data were collected,
reviewed and interpreted by the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission and Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP) teams for Lakes Ontario, Erie,
Michigan, and Superior. The Lake Huron Initiative
and Great Lakes Fishery Commission teams
assessed Lake Huron data. The St. Clair River-Lake
St. Clair-Detroit River assessment was completed by
the Lake St. Clair Comprehensive Management Plan
Advisory Committee. These status assessments
were based on reviews of all available recent
scientific data, reports, and the best professional
judgment of scientists and policy makers involved
in the Lake or river, along with the Great Lakes
basinwide indicator assessments found in Section 4.
Five broad ranking categories were used to
characterize the assessment:
Good. The state of the ecosystem component
is presently meeting ecosystem objectives or
otherwise is in acceptable condition.
Mixed, improving. The ecosystem
component displays both good and degraded
features, but overall, conditions are
improving toward an acceptable state.
Mixed. The state of the ecosystem component
has some features that are in good condition
and some features that are degraded, perhaps
differing between Lake basins.
Mixed, deteriorating. The ecosystem
component displays both good and degraded
features, but overall, conditions are
deteriorating from an acceptable state.
Poor. The ecosystem component is severely
negatively impacted and it does not display
even minimally acceptable conditions.
In addition to the assessment, this section includes a
summary narrative of the state, an identification of
the pressures on the system leading to the
assessment, future and emerging management
issues, and the physical statistics of the resource.
Additional information about the status of the Lakes
and rivers can be found at the following websites:
http://www.slv2000.gc.ca/
http://www.glc.org/stclair/heart/
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gl2000/lamps/
index.html
8
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
St. Lawrence River
Assessment
The state of the St. Lawrence River ecosystem
system is mixed.
Continuing problems include introductions of non-
native species and contaminants, in part from
municipal effluent. Many research initiatives are
underway to characterize this dynamic River
system better in order to understand both how it
functions and what controlling factors influence its
functioning. A more comprehensive assessment of
the state of this area can be found in the report
"Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence River".
Summary of the State of the St. Lawrence River
System
The St. Lawrence River flows to the Atlantic Ocean
and is the main outlet of the Great Lakes. It was one
of the first areas settled in North America. About 5
million people live along its shores in Quebec, and
in smaller communities along the New York and
Ontario sections of the River. The River is the
primary navigational access route for trade and
commerce in the Great Lakes basin. Ten thousand
registered vessels move nearly 100 million tons of
goods on these waters to inland ports every year,
although vessel traffic has declined in recent years.
As a result of both historical and present day human
activities, the River's natural ecosystems have been
negatively impacted.
For example, studies show that 80% of the wetlands
in the Montreal area have been lost since initial
settlement. Of the original shoreline ecosystems
between Cornwall, Ontario and Quebec City,
Quebec, more than 50% have been altered by
agriculture and urbanization. A significant portion
of the 63,000 hectares of the remaining wetlands is
located in Lake St. Pierre and Lake St. Francis. These
wetland areas continue to be impacted by water
level manipulation caused by the operation of the
St. Lawrence Seaway and dredging activities. In
addition, ballast water introductions of non-native
species to the River are continuing at a greater rate
than introductions to the Great Lakes, and these
introductions are expected to continue in the near
future.
Pressures on the System
The St. Lawrence River system is dynamic,
particularly in terms of water level changes. Water
level fluctuations are one determinant of wetland
structure. Healthy wetlands experience variations in
water levels, both in terms of frequency and
amplitude. These variations destroy encroaching
''.'-.i
O St. LfHrerce fJ«r (Mawu]
. . ,.-.-,
New
Brunswick
Figure 1. St. Lawrence River
Source: Environment Canada
-------
terrestrial plants, allow a variety of wetland plant
species to become established, and permit
reestablishment of plants from reserves of buried
seeds. However, modifications of the water regime
may alter the natural dynamic of the vegetation,
either by favoring the invasion of non-native species
(unusual amplitude of water levels) or by the
establishment of terrestrial plant vegetation
(stabilization of water levels).
In the Boucherville Islands near Montreal, low-lying
marshes have been transformed into higher and
drier marshes as a result of human activities. One
hypothesis for this transformation is related to the
dredging of Montreal Harbour. Dredging diverts
water to the ship channel and consistently lowers
the volume of water flowing through the marshes,
resulting in alteration of the original marsh. This
example demonstrates the impact of human
activities on the long-term sustainability of the
River's wetland ecosystems.
Increasingly, non-native species are becoming more
dominant in wetlands and in some terrestrial areas.
In the Boucherville Islands study site, the common
reed has increased in areas where low marshes have
been replaced by high marshes. This species was
very rare on the islands in 1980, but increased to 25
hectares of coverage by 1999. This trend continues in
Algae
St. Lawrence River
...III
Great Lakes
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Year of first report
Figure 2. Non-native species in the Great Lakes
relative to the St. Lawrence River.
Source: De Lafontaine, 2000
other wetland areas as well. Recent field surveys of
non-native plant species coverage showed that non-
native species made up 42-44% of the plant cover in
the area of the River near Montreal, but much lower
percentages (6-10%) were observed in estuarine
areas. Purple loosestrife is the most common non-
native species, but flowering-rush, reed canary
grass, and common reed are the most invasive.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
The introduction of non-native species to the St.
Aquatic Bed
Low Marsh
High Marsh
Shrub/Scrub
Forested Swamp
Exposed Sediment
Figure 3. Reduction of wetland area on Boucherville Island, 1976-1996.
Source: modified after Jean, M., G. Letourneau, C. Lavoie & F. Delisle. 2002
10
-------
Lawrence River system is an ongoing concern. For
vascular plants, the spread of common reed along
the St. Lawrence River and the possible appearance
of water chestnut from the Richelieu River will
require special attention. Because introductions
occur most frequently as a result of ballast water
discharges from ships, the large shipping centers of
Montreal and Quebec City are likely to provide the
most opportunities for non-native species
introductions relative to other areas of the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin.
Estrogenic chemicals entering the water are an
emerging issue in the St. Lawrence River system. In
recent years, estrogenic chemicals have been
identified in the effluent of municipal wastewater
treatment plants. Experimental studies have
determined that mussels exposed to estrogenic
substances in these plumes show an increase of the
female to male ratio.
There are insufficient data to determine long-term
effects of a variety of stresses impacting the St.
Lawrence River system. As a result, it is difficult to
predict the effects of non-native species, estrogenic
chemicals, and future stresses (such as climate
change) on the biodiversity of the River. To begin to
understand the impacts of stressors, long-term
monitoring activities were merged in 1999 to assess
the River's health. Specific studies are documenting
the River's water, riverbed, and biological
characteristics. The monitoring program will aid in
understanding how the ecosystems of the St.
Lawrence River function and will assist managers to
anticipate and interpret the impacts of continued
pressures on the system.
Elevation
Length
miles
kilometers
Mean Annual
Discharge
ft.3/s
m3/s
Land Drainage Area
sq.mi.
km2
Water Surface Area
sq.mi.
km2
Shoreline Length
Transient Time
hours (minimum)
Outlet
Kingston
246ft. 75m
Lake St. Francis
151 ft. 46m
Lake St. Louis
66ft. 20m
Montreal
18ft. 5.5m
599
964 a
44,965
12,600b
78,090
204,842c
6,593
17,077 d
North Shore
305 mi. 490 km
South Shore
280 mi. 450 km
100e
Gulf of St.
Lawrence
a Length of 964 km is from Kingston to Points-des-Monts
b The mean annual discharge of 12,600 m!/s is at Quebec City level
0 The land drainage area of 204,842 km! represents the freshwater
section in the Quebec Region (Cornwall to Orleans Island)
d Total water surface area from Cornwall to Pointe-des-Monts
a The transient time applies to Quebec and does not include New York
State and Ontario
Source: The River at a Glance, Environment Canada - Quebec Region
Figure 4. St. Lawrence Statistics
Source: The River at a Glance, Environment Canada, Quebec Region
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
Serge Villeneuve, Yves de Lafontaine, Christiane Hudon, Jean-Pierre
Amyot, David Marcogliese, Frar^ois Gagne, Christian Blaise, Patricia
Potvin, Fran9ois Boudreault
Presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio by Martin Jean, St.
Lawrence Centre, Environment Canada, Quebec Region. (October 2002)
To obtain a copy of "Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence River"
contact:
St. Lawrence Vision 2000 Coordination Office
1141 Route de L'Eglise
P.O. Box 10100
Sainte-Foy, Quebec
G1V 4H5
http://www.slv200.gc.ca/
11
-------
Lake Ontario
Assessment
The state of the Lake Ontario ecosystem is mixed.
Improvements include the decrease of nutrient
loadings entering the Lake; a measurable reduction
in contaminant levels; and the continued recovery of
bald eagle populations. On the other hand,
whitefish stocks are declining due to competition
from invasive non-native species; additional habitat
is being lost; and non-native species continue to
impact Lake ecosystems.
Summary of the State of Lake Ontario
More than eight million people live in the Lake
Ontario basin, concentrated in the northwest part of
the Canadian shoreline. This region, commonly
referred to as the "Golden Horseshoe", is highly
urbanized and industrialized. Outside of this area,
agriculture and forests dominate the land uses
within the watershed. There are nine Areas of
Concern (AOC) in the Lake Ontario basin (including
the Niagara River AOC).
Toxic contaminants, which were considered a major
stress a generation ago, have been reduced and the
ecosystem has responded favorably. As a result of
A
Ontario
Tl-, -.
New York
.....
Q Huml-un HpfDMT
O Metre. fDronto
Q P.ir- Hope
O
O
F .i*-"-rj-mlr rrrrJ
Pennsylvania
' ^
I
Bcraler
Figure 5. Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
Source: Environment Canada
12
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
actions taken by Canada and the U.S. to ban and
control contaminants, such as mercury and PCBs
entering the Great Lakes, levels of these
contaminants in the Lake Ontario ecosystem have
decreased significantly over the last 20 to 25 years.
Since the 1970s, there has been a significant
reduction in the levels of critical pollutants
measured in fish tissues. Populations of fish-eating
waterbirds in Lake Ontario have recovered and are
reproducing normally. Recent data have shown that
several other key indicator species such as bald
eagle (within the basin), otter, and mink are also
making a comeback.
Regardless of the remarkable recovery of the Lake in
terms of toxic contaminant reductions, much of the
watershed, tributaries and nearshore lands remain
degraded, particularly in the western basin, and
new concerns continue to emerge to further
complicate recovery efforts.
Pressures on the System
Prior to the arrival of zebra mussels, scud (Diporeia,
a small shrimp-like organism) was the dominant
bottom (benthic) organism in the Lake. Typically, a
few thousand of these organisms were present in a
square meter of Lake bottom, and they provided an
important source of food for many species of fish. A
decade after zebra mussels were introduced,
however, fewer than ten of these organisms per
square meter can be found in waters up to 200
meters deep. The result is less food to support lake
trout, whitefish and other native fish.
1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1
Year
Kingston D Toronto Hamilton
Figure 6. PCB Concentrations in herring gull
eggs, 1970-1999.
Source: Bishop et al. ,1992, Pettit et al., 1994, Pekarik et al., 1998 and
Introduction of Zebra Mussels
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Year
Whitefish
Diporeia
Figure 7. Whitefish and scud (Diporeia)
abundance before and after the introduction of
zebra mussels in Lake Ontario. CPUE = Catch
Per Unit Effort.
Source: Whitefish data courtesy of Jim Hoyle, Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources and Diporeia data courtesy of Ron Dermott,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Land use and population growth are putting
enormous stress on the ecosystems of the Lake
Ontario watershed. By 2020, it is projected that ten
million people will live in the Lake Ontario basin.
Most of the growth will be concentrated in the
Golden Horseshoe area, where low-density
development is replacing farmland and natural
habitats. In addition, the rural landscape is changing
with fewer and larger farms becoming more
common in some portions of the basin. In particular,
large feedlot operations concentrate hundreds to
thousands of animals (cattle, hogs) in a relatively
confined area, resulting in significant waste
management issues. The cumulative effect is the
removal of natural habitat, and a negative impact on
the flow and quality of surface water and
groundwater feeding local streams and wetlands.
Many parts of New York State's basin, however,
have seen significant increases in wetland and forest
habitat as abandoned farmland returns to more
natural conditions.
It is estimated that about 50% of Lake Ontario's
original wetlands have been lost. Along the
intensively urbanized coastline, the estimate is even
higher at 60 to 90%. Wetland losses are a result of
urban development, and human alterations such as
dyking, dredging, and other disturbances. Of the
remaining 80,000 acres of wetlands, 20% are fully
protected in parks and other significant wetland
D.V. Weseloh
-------
areas are protected by a variety of government
regulations and programs. There are numerous
activities underway throughout the basin by the
government and private partners to further protect
and restore habitat.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
While the levels of contaminants found in Lake
Ontario are declining, there are still inputs of
contaminants to the system. Recent studies indicate
that the most significant sources of critical
pollutants to Lake Ontario now come from outside
the basin through upstream sources and
atmospheric deposition.
Another emerging issue is Type E Botulism, recently
detected at a few locations along the Lake Ontario
shoreline. The role that non-native species, such as
zebra mussels, play in the movement of pathogens
1
: -
I E
'
tare, --an 1310 inn IBM man ISHI inti isiu IBM iw IBM 2001
Tiir
Figure 8. Total PCB levels in coho salmon edible
tissue from Credit River, Ontario.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources
:.J5
f: :
^ D.IS
a 0"a'
i D1E
n:r,
«J»
Itfci
ftti
Figure 9. Mercury levels in coho salmon edible
tissue from the Credit River, Ontario.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources
945
500
1978
Figure 10. Polybrominated diphenyl ether
(PBDE) trends in Lake Ontario lake trout.
Source: Mike Whittle, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
through the system is unknown; however, historic
conditions of the Lake will likely change as a result
of this movement.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a class
of bioaccumulative chemicals that have been widely
used over the last two decades as a flame retardant
in textiles, foams, plastics and electrical equipment.
Some PBDE compounds are highly mobile in the
environment and they are now found in fish,
wildlife and human tissues worldwide.
Environmental sampling in Lake Ontario has shown
that PBDE concentrations in fish and wildlife tissue
are increasing. A number of studies are underway to
evaluate the potential risk that some PBDE
compounds may pose to fish, wildlife and human
health.
Lake Ontario fish and wildlife habitat continues to
be lost. Losses can be attributed to three principal
factors: artificial Lake level management which
disturbs natural growth cycles; the modification or
destruction of habitats as part of urbanization and
other land uses changes; and the introduction of
non-native species which alter system functions.
Non-native species introductions continue to be a
major issue for Lake Ontario. Some recently
introduced non-native species, such as a fish called
the round goby and a zooplankton species called the
spiny water flea, may take advantage of the
unstable conditions in Lake Ontario and expand
their range rapidly. As new non-native species
continue to be introduced from ballast water from
overseas shipping, the potential for continued
14
-------
STATE OF
impacts of non-native species on Lake Ontario is
considerable.
The Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan
continues to work closely with the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission's Lake Ontario Committee in
identifying priority projects, investigations and the
development of appropriate aquatic habitat
ecosystem objectives and indicators.
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
Lake Ontario LaMP 2002 Biennial Report (2002)
Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario, Stage 1: Problem Definition
(1998)
Status and Trends of Fish and Wildlife Habitat on the Canadian Side of
Lake Ontario (2001)
LaMP presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio. (October 2002)
Elevation3
feet 243
meters 74
Length
miles 193
kilometers 311
Breadth
miles 53
kilometers 85
Average Depth a
feet 283
meters 86
Maximum Depth3
feet 802
meters 244
Volume a
cu.mi. 393
km3 1,640
Water Area
sq.mi. 7,340
km2 18,960
Land Drainage Area b
sq.mi. 24,720
km2 64,030
Total Area
sq.mi. 32,060
km2 82,990
Shoreline Length0
miles 712
kilometers 1,146
Retention Time
Years 6
Population: USA (1990)t 2,704,284
Population: Canada (1991) 5,446,611
Totals 8,150,895
Outlet St.
Lawrence
River
a measured at low water datum
b Lake Ontario includes the Niagara River including islands
' including islands
f 1990-1991 population census data were collected on different watershed
boundaries and are not directly comparable to previous years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
Figure 11. Lake Ontario Statistics
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
15
-------
Lake Erie
Assessment
The state of the Lake Erie ecosystem is mixed-
deteriorating.
This assessment is due to the continuing impacts of
non-native species, the reemergence of an area of
oxygen depletion in the Central Basin, excessive
nutrients in the system, and ongoing habitat
degradation. One observed improvement in the
system is the recovery of mayfly populations in the
Western Basin of Lake Erie.
Summary of the State of Lake Erie
With a population of over 11 million people, the
Lake Erie basin is the most densely populated and
intensely urbanized watershed of the Great Lakes. It
is also the most biologically productive because of
the variety of habitats. The Lake Erie basin includes
a Carolinian Zone that has been described as
Canada's most endangered major ecosystem. The
Carolinian Zone sustains at least 18 globally rare
vegetation community types; 36 globally rare
species; and 108 vulnerable, threatened and
endangered species. In addition to the Carolinian
Zone, the watershed has habitats that sustain 143
fish species, many of which contribute to a thriving
sport and commercial fishery. There are nine Areas
Arflg* of C0W*rrt
A
Michigan
O
<5*Wodior
©
Indiana
OhlO
Ontario
LeurtJen
NEW Yprk
1
InWmiticr*' Senior
Trfeutarf«
Figure 12. Lake Erie Drainage Basin
Source: Environment Canada
16
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
of Concern in the Lake Erie basin (not including the
St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River AOCs).
In the Western Basin of Lake Erie, increased
populations of mayflies (a bottom-dwelling species)
are providing forage for many fish species. Trout-
perch, another bottom dwelling species that was in
decline in the 1950s, seems to be making a
comeback. These changes suggest that the bottom
community may be starting to recover.
Although significant reductions in nutrient loadings
have been achieved, phosphorus concentrations in
Lake Erie appear to be increasing again and may be
linked to a zone of oxygen depletion in the Central
Basin.
1995
1996
1997
1998
0)
L.
0)
0.
0)
E
1999
2000
Figure 13. Round Goby distribution and abundance from interagency bottom trawls in Lake Erie,
1996-2001. Data are from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources
17
-------
ft?
,.';JPa:
2003
Pressures on the System
The greatest threats to biological integrity in Lake
Erie are non-native species, changing nutrient
dynamics, and land use alterations that affect the
quantity and quality of habitats.
Lake Erie is particularly vulnerable to the
introduction and establishment of aquatic non-
native species because of its basin shape, chemistry,
productivity, and a large human population.
Currently, at least 144 aquatic non-native species
have been recorded in the Lake Erie basin, including
34 fish species. The presence of these species has
resulted in changes in the behavior and productivity
of native species and in permanent alterations to
food webs. Two non-native zooplankton species,
Cercopagis pengoi and Daphnia lumholtzi, are now
established in the Western Basin near the Detroit
River inflow. Because Cercopagis is larger than native
zooplankton, it will likely affect both phytoplankton
and zooplankton populations, and it might even
compete with young-of-the-year fish for prey.
Aquatic non-native species are also affecting
contaminant movement, and potentially the health
of fish, wildlife and humans. Round gobies, for
example, have created a new pathway for
contaminant and energy transfer. In the past decade,
round gobies have spread throughout Lake Erie and
are now one of the most abundant fish species.
Round gobies live on rocky substrates and feed on a
variety of organisms ranging from plankton to zebra
mussels and other benthic invertebrates. They have
become a major prey item for many bottom
dwelling fish predators, including smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, walleye, and freshwater drum. The
round goby is quickly establishing its niche in the
Lake Erie ecosystem, but the extent that this species
is altering the food web and facilitating the
movement of contaminants is just beginning to be
understood.
The round goby is suspected of aiding the spread of
Type E Botulism in the ecosystem, although its exact
role is not clear. The disease is caused by a
bacterium called Clostridium botulinum. Birds such
as ducks, gulls, mergansers and loons are paralyzed
or die after exposure to a toxin produced by this
bacterium. A single event during August and
September of 2001, along the Ontario and New York
shoreline of Lake Erie, resulted in deaths of loons,
mergansers, round gobies, carp, catfish,
mudpuppies, freshwater drum and sturgeon.
Botulism episodes that have occurred over the past
four years have killed thousands of fish and birds.
Changes in nutrient concentrations and cycling in
the food web are also significantly stressing Lake
Erie. Blooms of the toxic blue-green algal species
Microcystis aemginosa, have been linked to the
feeding habits of the zebra mussel. Blooms were
formerly common in the nutrient-rich Western Basin
of Lake Erie before a phosphorus abatement
program was initiated in the early 1970s. It is
hypothesized that today, zebra mussels induce a
shift in algal abundance by ingesting all algae
except blue-green species such as Microcystis
aemginosa.
Land use conversion is reducing the availability of
good quality habitat for native plants and animals
and is altering nutrient dynamics. Recent
assessments of 15 Lake Erie habitat types and more
than 300 species for evidence of impairment showed
that all 15 habitats, including sand beaches and
dunes, aquatic habitats, wetlands, and islands, are
impaired on both sides of the border because of
historic or present land use alterations.
The Lake Erie water snake, for example, is a semi-
aquatic reptile dependent entirely on specialized
western Lake Erie island habitat. It has disappeared
from four islands it originally inhabited and has
significantly declined in population on other
islands. The decline is due to its habitat being
severely altered by development, wetland infilling,
quarry mining and marina construction, as well as
other human activities, including an extermination
program on one island. On a positive note, the Lake
Erie water snake returned to Green Island, Ohio in
2002.
The large double-crested Cormorant population
represents a success story in terms of ecosystem
rehabilitation, but this large population remains an
issue in Lake Erie. Cormorants physically displace
other colonial waterbirds, kill trees and vegetation
with their feces, and affect the ecological balance of
a site. Of particular concern are the island habitats
in Lake Erie. A national cormorant management
plan for the U.S. was developed to enhance the
18
-------
STATE OF
flexibility of natural resource agencies to deal with
impacts caused by the birds, as well as to ensure
healthy and viable bird populations.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
In the summer of 2002, a consortium of universities
and agencies from both Canada and the U.S. began
an intensive study to investigate the changing and
complex nutrient dynamics of the Lake. The
scientists are measuring biological and chemical
processes in order to improve our understanding of
the changes in Lake Erie. Stewardship programs
throughout the basin are targeting non-point
sources for remediation and promotion of natural
habitat restoration projects. Regulatory tools have
been introduced to improve agricultural
management practices. Many of these stewardship
projects integrate aquatic and terrestrial habitat
conservation practices and water quality
improvement on private lands.
Land use alterations continue to result in habitat
loss. It is critical that stewardship efforts are
sustained over time. Improved habitat protection
and restoration will increase the chances for
survival of species impacted by stressors in the
Lake.
Releases of species from aquaria, water gardens,
aquaculture, as well as baitfish, are also important
means for non-native species introductions to Lake
Erie. In 2000, a Bighead carp was sighted in the
Western Basin of Lake Erie. This filter feeder, if
established, would compete with native fishes for
plankton.
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
LaMP presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio (U.S. EPA Region 5).
(October 2002).
Degraded Wildlife Populations and Loss of Wildlife Habitat Report, 2001.
Elevation3
feet
meters
Length
miles
kilometers
Breadth
miles
kilometers
Average Deptha
feet
meters
Maximum Depth3
feet
meters
Volume a
cu.mi.
km3
Water Area
sq.mi.
km2
Land Drainage Area b
sq.mi.
km2
Total Area
sq.mi.
km2
Shoreline Lengthc
miles
kilometers
Retention Time
Years
Population: USA(1990)t
Population: Canada (1991)
Totals
Outlet
569
173
241
388
57
92
62
19
210
64
116
484
9,910
25,700
30,140
78,000
40,050
103,700
871
1,402
2.6
10,017,530
1,664,639
11,682,169
Niagara
River
Welland
Canal
a measured at low water datum
b Lake Erie includes the St. Clair- Detroit system including islands
° including islands
f 1990-1991 population census data were collected on different
watershed boundaries and are not directly comparable to previous years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
Figure 14. Lake Erie Statistics
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
19
-------
St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-
Detroit River Ecosystem
Assessment
The state of the St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-
Detroit River ecosystem is mixed.
Stressors to natural ecosystems persist, including
the impacts of land use, shoreline alteration, and
non-native species. On the other hand, there has
been a decrease in contaminant levels in water, and
an increase in habitat protection activities.
Summary of the State of the St. Clair River-Lake
St. Clair-Detroit River Ecosystem
The St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River
ecosystem is one of the most highly industrialized
areas in the Great Lakes basin. The cities of Port
S
Hutni
DcO-riC Erwcr
Rf.iiac Pr.rr
Ugl-rid
QttM/TflWB
.
Ontario
**
V.' -.I-, .
Figure 15. St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit
River Ecosystem
Source: Environment Canada
Huron and Detroit, Michigan, and Sarnia and
Windsor, Ontario, are major petrochemical and
manufacturing centers. Between these cities, the
shoreline consists of a mix of small communities,
cottages and recreational beaches. Inland, land use
is primarily agricultural. There are four Areas of
Concern in the St. Clair-Detroit River ecosystem.
Wetland areas exist in pockets throughout the
region. The largest is in the Walpole Island First
Nation Territory at the mouth of the St. Clair River.
Walpole Island also has remnant tall grass prairie
and oak savanna habitats. A smaller wetland
survives in Michigan at the north end of Lake St.
Clair.
Sport fishing in Lake St. Clair accounts for nearly
half the total Great Lakes sport fishing industry.
More than 1.5 million fish are taken annually from
the Lake. Overall, there was an increase on return
for angler effort in 2002 when compared to the 1970s
and 1980s. In 2002, 17% of anglers fished for
walleye, catching 14,000 fish. In the late 1970s and
1980s, the average catch of walleye was 85,000 fish
annually. In contrast in 2002, the fishery for yellow
perch increased significantly and represented 31%
of angler effort. The fishery in 2002 was similar to
the fishery observed in the 1940s.
In the Detroit River, specifically the Trenton
Channel, benthic communities are limited by
degraded sediment quality as indicated by the high
number of pollution tolerant worms and midges.
Although progress toward reducing contaminant
loading has been achieved in the system, some
historic contaminants such as mercury, arsenic,
dioxins, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), continue to
cycle through the sediments and the food web.
Mercury still exists in sediments in the St. Clair
River, and PCBs are widely distributed throughout
the sediments of the Detroit River.
Nutrient loadings from combined sewer overflows,
other municipal effluent sources, and rural land use
are also issues of concern in the St. Clair River-Lake
St. Clair-Detroit River ecosystem.
Pressures on the System
Non-native species, contaminants, quality of habitat,
and land use alterations continue to challenge the
20
-------
STATE
-------
2003
had been considerably reduced.
Dredging and shoreline hardening to facilitate
shipping or recreational boating and to protect
against flooding, including dyking associated with
residential areas, cottages, marinas and agriculture,
have significantly altered the hydrology of the St.
Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River system. The
modified hydrology changes the movement of
sediment within the system, and it can irreversibly
alter the location, extent, and diversity of habitats.
While contaminant levels in fish and wildlife have
been reduced from their peaks in the 1970s, elevated
levels of mercury and PCBs in fish continue to cause
restrictions in the consumption of fish caught in
Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River and the Detroit
River. These contaminants are also of concern in
some wildlife communities.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
Protection of refugia for native mussel species is
needed to prevent extirpation from nearshore and
connecting channel habitats.
Changes in the original St. Clair River-Lake St.
Clair-Detroit River ecosystem to accommodate
agricultural, municipal, industrial, commercial,
recreational and shipping activities, and the
introductions of non-native invasive species, have
resulted in altered hydrology; increased chemical,
sediment and nutrient loadings; and reductions in
habitat quality and native species distribution and
abundance. These changes have caused major
impairments in the local habitats and are affecting
the sustainability of the different components within
the ecosystem.
The implementation of activities to eliminate
chemical inputs, manage sediment and nutrient
inputs, reduce the effects of invasive non-native
species, prevent the introduction of new non-native
species, and manage for a more natural hydrology,
will improve the quality and quantity of habitats in
the St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River
ecosystem.
Elevation
feet
meters
Length
miles
kilometers
Mean Breadth
miles
kilometers
Mean Depth
feet
meters
Mean Annual
Discharge
ft.3/s
m3/s
Maximum Depth
(natural)
feet
meters
Watershed Area
sq.mi.
km2
Land Drainage Area
sq.mi.
km2
Water Surface Area
sq.mi.
km2
Shoreline Length
miles
kilometers
569
173
26
42
24
39
11
3.4
183,000'
5182s
21
6.5
460
1191
6,100b
15,799b
400c
1036C
62
100
a Inflow into Lake St. Clair
" Land areas include the total drainage area to the outlet of the upstream
lake
0 Water surface area does not include area of connecting channels
Source: Lake St. Clair: It's Current State and Future Prospects, Lake St. Clair
Network, United States Geological Survey
Figure 17. Lake St. Clair Statistics
Source: Lake St. Clair: Its Current State and Future Prospects, Lake
St. Clair Network, U.S. Geological Survey
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
LaMP presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio (U.S. EPA, :
5). (October 2002)
22
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Lake Huron
Assessment
The state of the Lake Huron ecosystem is mixed.
This rating is based upon the overall improvement
in the Lake in terms of specific fish communities,
contaminant loadings, and the status of the Areas of
Concern. However "hotspots" of contamination, the
status of a sustainable fishery, sea lamprey
predation, and other non-native species are still
major stresses to the ecosystem. Rapid changes in
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are of major
concern.
Summary of the State of Lake Huron
Lake Huron is the third largest by volume and has
the largest drainage area of the Great Lakes. Lake
Huron has not experienced the same decline in
water quality as some of the other Great Lakes,
mainly due to the relatively low population density
and industrialization within the watershed.
However, it is within easy commuting distance of
large population centers, and it has become a
recreational destination for millions of cottagers,
tourists and anglers. Cottage development and
other land uses are beginning to stress this Lake's
formerly large and undisturbed shoreline.
Lake Huron has over 30,000 islands, contributing to
its distinction of having the longest shoreline of any
lake in the world. The islands and nearshore areas
Nortli
. -r
Cih.'ini
Mot-Jem. C h- *
Ontario
firry!
Hwfendh
#
Michigan
of Ccreem
O 55-
O
O Sagirxw fliver.''Bcv
*P! -r
_ I Lite Hunw B*$i*l
Figure 18. Lake Huron Drainage Basin.
Source: Environment Canada
23
-------
Number of Fish Caught
20
15
10
5
o
^ ^
s
"^ +-^J
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 19. Number of salmon and trout caught
per 100 hours of angler effort.
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources
still support a high diversity of aquatic and riparian
species, yet non-native species continue to pose a
threat to native plant and animal populations.
The most densely populated areas of the basin are
the most degraded. Within the watershed there are
two Areas of Concern (AOCs), Saginaw Bay,
Michigan, and Spanish Harbour, Ontario. The
causes of impairment within the AOCs are being
addressed, and habitat, fish and wildlife
populations, and environmental quality are
recovering. In fact, Canada has recognized Spanish
Harbour as an "Area in Recovery" where all
remedial actions have been implemented and
improvements are occurring. Severn Sound was
delisted as an AOC in 2002 and the Collingwood
Harbour AOC was delisted in 1994. St. Clair River is
a binational AOC.
The health of fish communities is of particular
concern in the Lake Huron basin because of their
economic, recreational, and ecological importance.
Current stressors on fish communities include
continued habitat degradation, loss of food sources
due to non-native species, and contamination. In the
last few years, however, natural reproduction of
native lake trout has once again been documented at
several locations. Overall, the health of fish
communities in Lake Huron has improved since the
1960s, when fish health was at its poorest.
Although much of the Lake Huron shoreline
remains relatively undisturbed, in some areas
physical alterations are taking place, thus impacting
fish habitats. Resource extraction, water level
variation and localized urban activities are leading
to permanent habitat loss. Water level fluctuation
patterns are also altering the nearshore habitat.
Aquatic habitats in the main basin of Lake Huron
are in relatively good health. Many of the tributaries
in the system, however, are still severely stressed by
both development and point and non-point source
pollution. These stressors are resulting in changes to
tributary fish community composition. In addition,
relatively high trout and salmon catch rates and a
declining preyfish population may lead to an
unsustainable fishery for some species.
In Lake Huron, connectivity of wetland habitat is as
important to ecosystem health as total wetland area
because a scattering of wetlands compromises the
utility and value of the habitat. Structural barriers
between stream reaches are reducing connectivity
and blocking important fish habitat. Dams and
spillways are fragmenting stream systems, thereby
preventing fish from accessing upstream spawning
habitats.
Figure 20. Portions of the Lake Huron watershed
inaccessible due to natural barriers (yellow) and
human-made barriers (burgundy). Green areas
represent open access (no barriers).
Source: David Reid, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Mark
MacKay, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
24
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
2.5i
2_
Q.
a= 1.5-
m < n-
o
Q.
0.5-
0
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
1 I
I I II
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
Year A
One mea perweek Unlimited consumption
Figure 21. PCBs in Lake Huron coho salmon
compared to consumption advisories.
Source: Sandy Hellman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 19861988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 22. Total PCBs in herring gull eggs, Lake
Huron. The 1974-1979 values based on two sites,
Chantry and Double Islands; 1980-present
values include Saginaw Bay site.
Source: D.V. Weseloh, Environment Canada
Pressures on the System
In the early 1990s, there was wide recognition that
considerable ecosystem changes were occurring in
Lake Huron as a result of the introduction of non-
native species, such as zebra mussels. The loss of
important fish foods such as the invertebrate scud,
for example, may be related to the invasion of zebra
mussels. The mechanisms for the interaction
between zebra mussels and scud are uncertain, but
may include direct competition for food. As a result,
the loss of prey species requires fish communities to
respond by seeking other food sources in order to
avoid a population decline. Currently, more than
70% of the preyfish population consists of rainbow
smelt and alewives, both non-native species.
Zooplankton populations also play an important
role in the ecosystem integrity of the basin. Research
is underway to track zooplankton populations and
develop an indicator to help determine future
population trends.
Fish consumption advisories are one of the priority
issues in Lake Huron. Contaminants of concern, for
which there are localized fish consumption
advisories in different areas of Lake Huron, are
mercury, dioxins, toxaphene, PCBs, and chlordane.
Contaminant sources include historical sediment
contamination, air deposition, and non-point source
pollution. On a positive note, levels of some
contaminants, namely dichlorodiphenyl-
trichloroethane (DDT) and PCBs, have declined,
improving fish vitality. Studies have documented
that the level of contaminants in coho and chinook
salmon are on a downward trend. The lake trout
monitoring programs of both countries do not show
a direct correlation with contaminants in edible fish
tissue because analyses are based on the
contaminant load in the whole fish. However, recent
research indicates decreased concentrations of
contaminants in lake trout.
Herring gull eggs are used as an important indicator
to determine wildlife contaminant trends.
Contaminant levels in herring gull eggs are
improving in Lake Huron, but there are "hot spots"
in the basin, such as Saginaw Bay, where
concentrations are still relatively high.
Total phosphorus is an important indicator of
chemical integrity and a driver for eutrophication
effects on biota. Phosphorus levels have been
meeting Lake Huron Binational Partnership goals
for the main basin of Lake Huron. However,
concentrations are elevated in areas such as Saginaw
Bay, localized areas of Georgian Bay, and the North
Channel.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
The future functioning of the Lake Huron fishery is
dependent on a better understanding of the impacts
and controlling of non-native species. For example,
non-native species such as zebra and quagga
mussels and the spiny water flea, may divert much
of the primary and secondary production to
pathways that are unavailable to top predators.
Another example is that alewife predation by
salmonine predators could indirectly result in early
25
-------
s-f 0.04-r
"& 0.035-
^ 3> 0.03-
0 § 0.025-
"§ 5 °-°2'
0 £ 0.015-
JZ m
CL o 0.01-
0 0.005-
0 0 -
1
980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
Year
-|
ft
94
I
19£
6
19
98
20
^m Lake Huron Goal for Lake Huron
I I Saginaw Bay Goal for Saginaw Bay
DO
Figure 23. Phosphorus concentrations in Lake
Huron and Saginaw Bay.
Source: Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office
mortality syndrome. This is the result of high levels
of the enzyme thiaminase in alewife (and to a lesser
extent in smelt), which breaks down thiamine in
predators and leaves their eggs low in this essential
vitamin. Managers are challenged to understand the
changes brought about by non-native species and to
undertake actions that will control their impacts.
Fish habitat fragmentation is a significant issue in
the Lake Huron basin. Physical barriers such as
dams restrict or prevent sediment movement and
fish migration. The lack of sediment transported
downstream can impact the quality of habitat at the
river mouths. For lake sturgeon, walleye, chinook
salmon and other river spawning fish, stream
fragmentation reduces natural reproduction and
increases dependence on fish stocking. The
Other *poci#S 12%
Corngonirlr; 6%
Atawlh
R;imbD'A
smell
44 V,
Figure 24. Composition of preyfish in Lake
Huron, 1999. More than 70% of preyfish are non-
native species (alewife and smelt).
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
tributaries of Lake Huron hold a great, untapped
biological potential in terms of restoration of
spawning areas for native fish.
Six sites of natural reproduction of lake trout,
including two remnant populations, have been
documented on Lake Huron. The Parry Sound lake
trout population in Georgian Bay, one of the two
remnant stocks in the Lake, has been deemed
rehabilitated. Despite these limited successes with
lake trout rehabilitation, the non-native sea lamprey,
in combination with commercial and sportfishing
overharvests, continue to impede further
reproductive success. Lake Huron managers are
currently attempting to address exploitation
concerns to provide lake trout with the best chance
of rehabilitation lake-wide. Additionally, there is
uncertainty about the future of whitefish due to
declining scud populations, although the whitefish
population is currently maintaining itself at historic
high levels.
The Lake Huron environmental management,
monitoring, and research community is working
closely with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's
Lake Huron Technical Committee to develop
environmental objectives relating to fisheries
management. This relationship will benefit
environmental and fisheries managers by providing
increased coordination of ongoing efforts.
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
James Schardt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes
National Program Office and Janette Anderson, Environment Canada.
Presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio by Jim Bredin, Michigan
Office of the Great Lakes. (October 2002)
Fisheries presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio by David Reid,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (October 2002)
26
-------
STATE OF THE
Lake Huron Statistics
Elevation a
feet 577
meters 176
Length
miles 206
kilometers 332
Breadth
miles 183
kilometers 245
Average Depth a
feet 195
meters 59
Maximum Deptha
feet 750
meters 229
Volume a
cu.mi. 850
km3 3,540
Water Area
sq.mi. 23,000
km2 59,600
Land Drainage Area b
sq.mi. 51,700
km2 134,100
Total Area
sq.mi. 74,700
km2 193,700
Shoreline Length0
miles 3,827
kilometers 6,157
Retention Time
Years 22
Population: USA (1990)t 1,502,687
Population: Canada (1991) 1,191,467
Totals 2,694,154
Outlet St. Clair
River
a Measured at low water datum
" Land drainage area for Lake Huron includes St. Mary's River
° Including islands
f 1990-1991 population census data were collected on different watershed
boundaries and are not directly comparable to previous years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
Figure 25. Lake Huron Statistics
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
27
-------
Lake Michigan
Assessment
The state of the Lake Michigan ecosystem remains
mixed.
The mixed assessment is due to the continued loss
of wetland areas, limited protection of ecologically
sensitive areas, and reduction in scud (Diporeia)
populations. Community partnerships and the
efforts to control habitat alteration and non-native
species represent the progress that has been made to
restore this system.
Summary of the State of Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan is the second largest of the Great
Lakes by volume, has the world's largest area of
freshwater sand dunes, and contains 40% of the U.S.
Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Recreational and
industrial activities have had strong impact on both
the natural dynamics of the dunes and on dune and
wetland habitats.
According to the Lake Michigan Lakewide
Management Plan, wetland loss in the Lake
Michigan basin states is disproportionately greater
than the U.S. average. The status of the Lake bottom
is poorly understood. New technologies are
mapping the bottom of Lake Michigan and have
uncovered ancient lake trout reefs. These reefs are
Michigan
*'
Wisconsin
&MII B
-,-: I
* Qtlea/fcwie
River
o
Michigan
H*ftw
Grrnnd Calumet Aw
Illinois
Indiana
Figure 26. Lake Michigan Drainage Basin
Source: Environment Canada
28
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
- Bea»v*r island
Figure 27. Imagery of the bottom of Lake Michigan.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey and Marine Geology Program, Kristen Lee and Peter Barners
vital to numerous spawning species, as well as the
many life stages of many aquatic species.
Invasive non-native species continue to be a concern
for Lake Michigan. In 2002, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service found the non-native fish species,
the ruffe, in Lake Michigan for the first time. Other
non-native species, including zebra mussels, are
continuing to impact Lake Michigan's aquatic
ecosystems. In the spring of 2002, an electric barrier
on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal was
activated to slow the spread of the non-native goby
and to prevent Asian carp from entering Lake
Michigan. This system is being further refined to
improve its effectiveness.
Persistent toxic contaminants continue to be an
important issue in Lake Michigan. Work to produce
the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study is in its final
modeling phase. Screening-level models for
atrazine, mercury, and PCBs have been completed.
Additional, more comprehensive modeling results,
will be released in the near future.
Four rare species have shown a marked recovery in
the Lake Michigan watershed. Gray wolf, bald
eagle, Kirtland's warbler, and Piping plover have all
benefited from efforts to protect and restore habitat.
Pressures on the System
The Lake Michigan aquatic food web is showing
signs of serious stress. At the base of the food chain
is the invertebrate scud (Diporeia). Scud, due to its
high fat content, is a staple of the food chain. Recent
studies have shown a constant decline in scud
29
-------
1980
1993
2000
;
a 3
9 12 15
Density (No. m"x106)
vie, a 12 18
Density (No. m4x 10s)
0 3 8 9 1? 18
Density (No. m*x 10s)
Figure 28. Densities of scud (Diporeia) in southern Lake Michigan.
Source: Tom Nalepa, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
density in southern Lake Michigan. The decline is
thought to be due to zebra mussel competition with
native species for food. The result is reduced food to
sustain the natural functioning of the aquatic food
chain.
Beaches are closed to swimming when elevated
levels of pathogens, primarily E. coli, are detected.
Sources of contamination are related to poor land
use and agricultural practices, poor sewage
treatment, and concentrations of wildlife. The
National Health Protection Beach survey shows that
out of 170 Lake Michigan beaches responding, 97
closed at least once during the 2001 season, and 23
of those closed more than 10 times. The most
common cause of Lake Michigan beach closures was
contamination related to storm water runoff (148
occurrences), which represents 28% of total closures.
Other causes were related to wildlife, combined
sewer overflow, and boat discharges. In
approximately 15% of the closures, the exact cause
of the elevated levels of pathogens was unknown.
On several occasions, a combination of causes
contributed to a beach closing.
The most recent summary on the fishery of Lake
Michigan from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
shows that fish harvests, particularly commercial
harvests, have decreased. Findings also indicate that
1985 1987
Year
D Walleye
D Sport Yellow Perch
I Commercial Yellow Perch
IBass, Pike& Panfish
Figure 29. Inshore fishery harvest on Lake
Michigan.
Source: Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
30
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
the Lake Michigan sport fish harvest now exceeds
the commercial fish harvest. Trends indicate that,
except for lake whitefish, the commercial harvest is
not meeting expectations. This may be caused by a
number of interacting factors such as non-native
species, warmer winters with less ice cover, and
changing wind patterns affecting the availability of
food for juvenile fish.
Chicago Wilderness, a consortium of organizations,
has produced the "Biodiversity Recovery Plan",
which documents the state of the southern Lake
Michigan ecosystems and biodiversity, and which
recommends necessary actions identified to protect
and restore remnant natural areas. Implementation
has already begun with the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission's "Protecting Nature in your
Community: A Guidebook for Preserving and
Enhancing Biodiversity". The guidebook has
lakewide application for local governments.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
Action has been taken at a state level, notably
Wisconsin, to protect some categories of wetlands
currently left unprotected. The Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands Consortium has developed a common
coastal wetland classification system and is working
on a long-term monitoring program.
Another issue for the Lake Michigan community is
the relationship of the Lake basin with the Upper
Mississippi River system. A diversion channel in
Chicago links Lake Michigan to the Mississippi
River. This channel is an access point to and from
the Great Lakes for non-native species. Efforts are
underway to improve an electric barrier system at
this connection point to prevent incursion into and
out of Lake Michigan from the Mississippi River
System of non-native species such as the Asian carp.
Green Bay Tributary
Loading
220
Main Lake
Volatilization
3000
Green Bay
Volatilization
502
Green Bay
Gas Absorption
Atmospheric
Deposition
218
Green Bay
Export
38
Main Lake
Gas Absor
2243
Resuspension
1152
Settling
948
Export to
Lake Huron
< 1
Mam Lake
Tributary Loading
126
Sediment Burial
348
Lake Michigan PCB Inventory
Water Column = 690 kg
Active Sediment = 7071 Kg (0-3.3 cm interval)
Figure 30. Lake Michigan [PCB] mass balance.
Source: Glenn Warren, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office
31
-------
2003
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
Alan Arbogast, Michigan State University; Burr Fisher, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Craig Czarnecki, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; David
Clapp, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Judy Beck, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mark Mackay, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources; Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery Commission;
Martha Aviles-Quintero, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Mary
White, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Tom Gorenflo, CORA; Tom
Nalepa, National Oceanic Administration Association.
Presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio by Bob Kavetsky, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. (October 2002)
Elevationa
feet
meters
Length
miles
kilometers
Breadth
miles
kilometers
Average Depth a
feet
meters
Maximum Deptha
feet
meters
Volume a
cu.mi.
km3
Water Area
sq.mi.
km2
Land Drainage Area
sq.mi.
km2
Total Area
sq.mi.
km2
Shoreline Length b
miles
kilometers
Retention Time
Years
Population: USA (1990) t
Totals
Outlet
577
176
307
494
118
190
279
85
925
282
1,180
4,920
22,300
57,800
45,600
118,000
67,900
175,800
1,638
2,633
99
10,057,026
10,057,026
Strait of
Mackinac
a Measured at low water datum
b Including islands
f 1990-1991 population census data were collected on different watershed
boundaries and are not directly comparable to previous years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
Figure 31. Lake Michigan Statistics
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
32
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Lake Superior
Assessment
The state of the Lake Superior ecosystem remains
mixed.
Non-native species continue to be a problem; some
trends in contaminant loadings are showing
declines while others remain constant; and fisheries
recovery indicators are mixed. Emerging issues,
such as potential water exports and new chemical
contaminants, are further stresses on the system.
Summary of the State of Lake Superior
Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the
world by area and third largest by volume. The total
watershed area is 88,031 mi2 (228,000 km2) including
Lake Nipigon and two major diversions. Six percent
of the water supply to Lake Superior comes from
the Ogoki and Long Lac diversions in Canada.
These two hydroelectric diversions are significant to
the water levels of all the Great Lakes.
The Lake Superior basin is sparsely populated,
relative to the other Lakes. Data from Statistics
Canada show an overall population density of 1
person per square kilometer (includes land and
water) that was unchanged through the 1990s. By
comparison, the population density for the U.S. part
of the basin is 9 persons/km2. Despite the low
population density, human activities still impact the
5t- t(XP» Ewer
O it M*ys Rver
/\/ State Bonier
lamaUon* Banter
i
i Scry
ef
Grand
CAj'.j
Houston
Mkhigon
Ontario
igrr.
', Sou*
d
Figure 32. Lake Superior Drainage Basin
Source: Environment Canada
33
-------
system. There are eight Areas of Concern in the
Lake Superior basin, including the binational St.
Marys River AOC.
The watershed contains many globally rare
vegetation types, including arctic alpine
communities, sand dunes and pine barrens.
Fourteen species found in the Lake Superior
watershed are listed by Canada and the U.S. as
endangered. In addition, there are 400 species in the
basin listed by provincial or state jurisdictions as
endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Of
the 400 species, nearly 300 are plants.
Much of the Lake Superior shoreline is still forested.
The U.S. shoreline consists primarily of hardwoods
while the Canadian shoreline is a coniferous/
hardwood mixed forest. The original red and white
pine forests have been cut in the U.S., but Ontario
still retains 3,800 hectares of old growth red and
white pines.
Average concentrations of phosphorus in the open
waters of Lake Superior are at or below the expected
level of 5 micrograms per liter based on the
maximum allowable annual loadings of phosphorus
listed in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
This concentration has shown no marked increase or
decrease in the Lake over time.
25
=d
120
° 15
Q.
If)
S 5
0
1
|1 n il| mil 1 II
970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
1
2000
Figure 33. Average phosphorus concentrations
in Lake Superior. The horizontal line represents
the expected level of phosphorus (5 micrograms
per liter) based on phosphorus loads in the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Source: Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
!l
Granite Island
Agawa Rocks
lllllllllllliii.iii
1974 1976 19781980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 19982000
Year
Regression Line
Figure 34. PCBs in herring gull eggs, Lake
Superior, 1974-2000.
Source: D.V. Weseloh, Environment Canada
Other contaminants such as PCBs, are showing a
decline over a 25-year period, as measured in
herring gull eggs. In fact, a year-by-year analysis of
the concentrations of seven contaminants (PCBs,
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), dichlorodiphenyl-
dichloroethylene (DDE), heptachlorepoxide (HE),
2,3,7,8-dioxin, dieldrin and mirex) in herring gulls at
15 annually monitored Great Lakes sites showed a
78% decline. Granite Island (Lake Superior-Black
Bay) showed the greatest number of repeatedly
declining concentrations. During the 1970s and
1980s, mercury declined but the current trend is not
clear.
The Lake Superior commercial fishery has
undergone a shift. Lake whitefish is now the
dominant species harvested throughout the Lake.
Significant decreases have been observed in lake
herring, walleye, and yellow perch catches. Overall,
the size of the Lake's commercial fishery industry is
declining because of poor market conditions and
regulatory action on the part of management
agencies.
The numbers of wild lake trout are high in specific
management zones, but overall the numbers of lean
native lake trout are lower than historic values. The
growth rate of this species, moreover, continues to
decline, a trend that began in the 1970s. Also of note
is that sea lampreys kill more lake trout than the
sport and commercial fisheries combined.
Overall, the future of Lake Superior fish
communities is likely to improve. Currently, brook
trout, lake sturgeon and walleye populations are
34
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
0.6
0.4
O .S> 0.2
~ 0)
Granite Island
Agawa Rocks
JLfl
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 19931995 1997 19992000
Year
Figure 35. Mercury in herring gull eggs, Lake
Superior, 1973-2000.
Source: D.V. Weseloh, Environment Canada
beginning to rebound. There is a measurable
increase in lake trout abundance, and the whitefish
stocks are also stabilizing. However, habitat
degradation will continue to stress the fishery and
non-native species will always exert pressure on the
native fish communities.
Pressures on the System
Non-native species in Lake Superior continue to
influence the functioning of the ecosystem. In 2000,
Minnesota Sea Grant reported observations of 28
non-native species in Lake Superior: 17 fish, 5
aquatic invertebrates, and 6 aquatic plants. Most of
these were introduced after 1960. Eight species were
introduced intentionally. Lake Superior has the
highest percentage of non-native (20%) to native
species of all the Great Lakes.
Ship ballast is the primary source of unintentionally
introduced non-native species in Lake Superior. The
St. Louis River estuary seems to be an entry point
for many non-natives, because many non-native
species are first detected at this site. Some of the
non-native species, such as the sea lamprey and
zebra mussel, are found throughout the Lake, while
others such as the roundnose goby, tubenose goby,
ruffe and the threespine stickleback, are currently
only found in limited areas in the western sections
of the Lake. Non-native plant species of concern
include purple loosestrife, Eurasian water milfoil,
leafy spurge, garlic mustard, buckthorn, and
honeysuckle.
Anthropogenic alteration of terrestrial habitats is
another stress on the Lake Superior basin. Pressures
l»la
rtji
l .-..,....
:.
(OlLte
| bvin;
Figure 36. Commercial fishery harvest, 1970-
2000.
Source: Mark P. Ebener, Chippewa/Ottawa Resource Authority
from forestry practices and associated road
building, as well as from residential and recreational
development, are having an impact on the health of
Lake Superior's forests. Twenty-five percent of the
basin is considered fragmented.
Chemical contaminants are still a concern in Lake
Superior. At the species level, impacts can include
acute and chronic effects in the food web. For
example, effects on fish reproduction have been
High
Forest Fragmentation
Figure 37. Forest fragmentation in the Lake
Superior basin.
Source: University of Minnesota
35
-------
ft?
,.';JPa:
2003
observed in the effluent receiving waters of some
pulp and paper mills, and toxicity testing of both
industrial effluent and contaminated sediment has
shown effects on aquatic organisms. However, with
the implementation of well-treated effluent and
pulping liquor spill control measures, these effects
have been eliminated or minimized.
Fish consumption advisories illustrate the presence
of chemical contaminants in fish and demonstrate
the need to reduce contaminant levels in birds, fish,
waterfowl, and wildlife. Exposure to contaminants
may contribute to increased probabilities of cancer
and other physiological effects (e.g., developmental
problems such as learning disabilities, skin rashes,
chronic disease) in humans.
Future and Emerging Management Issues
In Lake Superior, the associated impacts from the
introduction of non-native species on the
environment are not well understood. It is
anticipated that non-native species will continue to
enter the Lake basin in the future.
There are concerns regarding certain chemicals
which may be entering the Lake Superior basin.
These products, including polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDE-flame retardants), Pharmaceuticals,
and others such as those used in personal care
products, are regulated by consumer and health
protection agencies. Their potential for adversely
affecting the Lake Superior ecosystem needs further
study.
The Lake Superior Binational Program is working
towards the designation of Lake Superior as a
demonstration area, where no point source
discharge of any toxic substance would be
permitted. A number of source indicators are being
used to track progress towards zero discharge. One
source indicator is household trash burning. In 1990,
thousands of small, inefficient incinerators were a
major source of dioxin emissions in the basin. Air
emission controls required by governments in the
1990s, in large part, have controlled this dioxin
source. However, burn barrels or backyard garbage
burning, produces dioxin that enters the
environment and can be deposited on agricultural
crops, posing human health risks through food
consumption. As air pollution control on
commercial incinerators improves, emissions from
burn barrels are expected to become the dominant
source of dioxin in the basin. The Binational
Program and the Binational Toxics Strategy have
projects underway to determine the best approach
to reduce burn barrel emissions.
Broader issues such as global warming have
implications for the health of the Lake Superior
ecosystem. Changes associated with climate change
could affect habitat composition and structure.
Climate change could alter habitat by increasing
water temperatures, and by lowering water levels
that would result in the exposure of previously
buried contaminants in sediments to the air and to
land-based organisms. The potential for large-scale
water export is also a concern in the Lake Superior
basin.
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
Ronald Rossman, Janet R. Keough, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Deb Swackhammer, University of Minnesota; Carri Lohse-Hanson, Judy
Crane, Patti King, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Melanie Neilson,
Scott Painter, Chip Weseloh, Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada; Tom
Crow, North Central Forest Experimentation Station; Bill Meades, Natural
Resources Canada; Jan Shultz, U.S. Forestry Service; Carl Richards,
Minnesota Sea Grant College Program; Kory Groetsch, Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission; Mark P. Dryer & Gary Czypinski, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fishery Resources Office; Douglas A. Jensen,
Minnesota Sea Grant Program.
Presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio by John Marsden,
Environment Canada. (October 2002)
Fisheries presentation at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio by Ken Cullis,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (October 2002)
36
-------
Lake Superior Statistics
Elevation
feet 600
meters 183
Length
miles 350
kilometers 563
Breadth
miles 160
kilometers 257
Average Deptha
feet 483
meters 147
Maximum Depth3
feet 1,332
meters 406
Volume a
cu.mi. 2,900
km3 12,100
Water Area
sq.mi. 31,700
km2 82,100
Land Drainage Area
sq.mi. 49,300
km2 127,700
Total Area
sq.mi. 81,000
km2 209,800
Shoreline Length b
miles 2,726
kilometers 4,385
Retention Time
Years 191
Population: USA (1990)t 425,548
Population: Canada (1991) 181,573
Totals 607,121
Outlet St. Marys
River
a Measured at low water datum
b Including islands
f 1990-1991 population census data were collected on different watershed
boundaries and are not directly comparable to previous years
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
Figure 38. Lake Superior Statistics
Source: The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book
37
-------
plilWM'4wjH i-t.':>
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
4.1 STATE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 1
STATE INDICATORS-ASSESSMENTS AT A GLANCE
cn
P4
O
H
U
i i
D
H
H
CD
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Abundances of the Benthic
Amphipod Diporeia
Benthic Diversity
and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Zooplankton Populations
Amphibian Diversity and
Abundance
Wetland Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Area, Quality and Protection
of Alvar Communities
39
-------
;2003
SrMMARV OF STATI-: INDICATORS-PART 1
The overall assessment for the State indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC
2000, but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still
valid, and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the
required data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new
monitoring programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing
may be needed before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Salmon and Trout
Waileye
Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Abundance of Benthic Amphipod Diporeia
Benthic Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Zooplankton Populations
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar
Communities
Assessment in 2000
No Report
Good
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
No Report
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Assessment in 2002
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, improving
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
Salmon and Trout
Indicator #8
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator shows trends in populations of
introduced trout and salmon species in the Great
Lakes basin. These non-native species have become
a prominent element in the Great Lakes ecosystem
and are an important component in Great Lakes
fisheries management.
State of the Ecosystem
Non-native trout and salmon species are stocked in
the Great Lakes ecosystem for two purposes: 1) to
exert a biological control over alewife and rainbow
smelt populations (both non-native species) and 2)
to develop a new recreational fishery after near
extirpation of the native lake trout by the invasive,
predatory sea lamprey. A dramatic increase in
stocking of non-native trout and salmon occurred in
the 1960s and 1970s. This is now augmented by
natural reproduction. It is estimated from stocking
data that about 745 million non-native trout and
salmon have been stocked in the Great Lakes basin
between 1966 and 1998.
Lake Michigan is the most heavily stocked Lake,
while Lake Erie has the lowest rates of stocking.
Since the late 1980s, the number of non-native trout
and salmon stocked in the Great Lakes has been
40
-------
STATIC
18
g 16
I 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0)
.Q
E
3
r\
7
AA
^V
^7
K
Year
Ontario-»-Erie * Huron-»-Michigan-n-Superior
Figure 39. Total number of non-native trout and salmon stocked in the Great Lakes, 1966-1998.
Source: Crawford, S.S., 2001
leveling off or slightly declining. This trend can be
explained by stocking limits implemented in 1993
by fish managers.
Future Pressures
Chinook salmon will probably continue to be the
most abundantly stocked salmon species in the
basin, since they are inexpensive to rear, feed
heavily on alewife, and are highly valued by
recreational fishers. They are, however, extremely
vulnerable to low alewife abundance. While
suppressing alewife populations, managers must
seek to avoid extreme "boom and bust" predator and
prey populations, a condition not conducive to
biological integrity.
Acknowledgments
Author: Melissa Greenwood, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview.
Stocking Data: Adapted from Crawford (2001). Primary source from the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission fish stocking database (1966-1998)
received from Mark Holey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 2000.
Walleye
Indicator #9
Note: This indicator has been split from the "Walleye
and Hexagenia" indicator
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
Walleye health is a useful indicator of ecosystem
health, particularly in moderately productive
(mesotrophic) areas of the Great Lakes. Trends in
walleye fishery yields generally reflect changes in
walleye health. As a top predator, walleye can
strongly influence overall fish community
composition and affect the stability and resiliency of
Great Lakes aquatic communities.
State of the Ecosystem
Improved mesotrophic habitats (i.e., western Lake
Erie, Bay of Quinte, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay) in
41
-------
w
Lake Superior
Year
Green Bay, Lake Michigan
u
£
0>
500
400
300
200
100
Year
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
Year
Lake Ontario
in
I
u
1
Year
Lake Michigan
Year
Lake Huron
Year
Lake Erie
Year
Bay of Quinte
Year
I Commercial n Recreational Tribal
Figure 40. Recreational, commercial and tribal harvest of Walleye from the Great Lakes. Fish
Community Goals and Objectives; Lake Huron: 700 metric tons; Lake Michigan: 100-200 metric tons;
Lake Erie: sustainable harvest in all basins.
Source: Fishery harvest data were obtained from Tom Stewart and Jim Hoyle (Lake Ontario-OMNR),Tom Eckhart and Steve Lapan (Lakes Ontario-
NYDEC), Karen Wright (Upper Lake tribal data-COTFMA), Dave Fielder (Lake Huron-MDNR), Lloyd Mohr (Lake Huron-OMNR), Terry Lychwyck
(Green Bay-WDNR), Bruce Morrison (Lake Erie-OMNR), Ken Cullis and Jeff Black (Lake Superior-OMNR), various annual OMNR and ODNR Lake
Erie fisheries reports, and the GLFC commercial fishery database
42
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
the 1980s, along with interagency fishery
management programs that increased adult
survival, led to a dramatic recovery of walleye in
many areas of the Great Lakes, especially in Lake
Erie. Declines after the mid-1990s were likely related
to shifts in environmental states (i.e., from
mesotrophic to more oligotrophic conditions, which
are less favorable to walleye), less frequent
production of strong hatches, changing fisheries,
and, perhaps in the case of Lake Erie, a population
naturally coming into balance with its prey base.
The effects of non-native species on the food web or
on walleye behavior (increased water clarity can
limit daytime feeding) may also have been a
contributing factor. Despite recent declines in
walleye yields, environmental conditions remain
improved relative to the 1970s.
Future Pressures
Natural, self-sustaining walleye populations require
adequate spawning and nursery habitats.
Degradation or loss of these habitats is the primary
concern for the future health of walleye populations
and can result from both human causes and natural
environmental variability. Global warming and its
subsequent effects on temperature and precipitation
in the Great Lakes basin may influence walleye
habitat and, therefore, become an increasingly
important determinant of walleye health. Non-
native species, such as zebra and quagga mussels,
ruffe, and round gobies continue to disrupt the
efficiency of energy transfer through the food web,
potentially affecting growth and survival of walleye
and other fishes.
Acknowledgments
Author: Roger Knight, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, OH.
Fishery harvest data were obtained from Tom Stewart and Jim Hoyle, Lake
Ontano-OMNR; Tom Eckhart and Steve Lapan, Lake Ontano-NYDEC;
Karen Wright, Upper Lakes tribal data-COTFMA; Dave Fielder, Lake
Huron-MDNR; Lloyd Mohr, Lake Huron-OMNR; Terry Lychwyck, Green
Bay-WDNR; Bruce Morrison Lake Ene-OMNR; Ken Cullis and Jeff Black,
Lake Superior-OMNR; various annual OMNR and ODNR Lake Erie
fisheries reports, and the GLFC commercial fishery data base. Fishery data
should not be used for purposes outside of this document without first
contacting the agencies that collected them.
Hexagenia (mayfly)
Indicator #9a
Note: This indicator has been split from the
"Walleye and Hexagenia" indicator
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
The distribution, abundance, biomass, and annual
production of the burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia) in
mesotrophic Great Lakes habitats is measured
directly and used as an indicator. Mayflies are
intolerant of pollution and are thus a good reflection
of water and lakebed sediment quality in
mesotrophic Great Lakes habitats, where it was
historically the dominant, large, benthic invertebrate
and an important item in the diets of many fish.
State of the Ecosystem
Surveys conducted in 2001 revealed full or nearly
full recovery of the population in western Lake Erie
and evidence of the beginnings of recovery of
mayflies in Green Bay. Mayflies are again found in
the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, and in most of
Lake St. Clair and portions of the upper Great Lakes
connecting channels. However, mayflies were
eliminated in polluted portions of the St. Marys and
Detroit Rivers by the mid-1980s, and recovery has
not yet been reported for some of these areas, nor
have mayflies recovered in Saginaw Bay.
The recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie is a
signal event, which shows clearly that properly
Recc
jm m- D Recc
^F^VL "Notl
Recovered Fully
Recovered Partially
' Recovered
Figure 41. Areas of recovery and non-recovery
of mayflies (Hexagenia) in the Great Lakes.
Source: Edsall,T.A., M.T., Gorman, O.T., and Schaeffer, U.S., 2002
43
-------
implemented pollution controls can bring about the
recovery of a major Great Lakes mesotrophic
ecosystem.
Future Pressures
Historic pollutants in lakebed sediments appear to
be a problem in some areas. Paved surface runoff,
spills of pollutants, and combined sewer overflows
also pose problems in some urban and industrial
areas. Phosphorus loadings still exceed guideline
levels in some portions of the Great Lakes,
especially Lake Erie, and loadings may increase as
the human population in the Great Lakes basin
grows.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Ann Arbor, MI.
Preyfish Populations
Indicator #17
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator directly measures the abundance and
diversity of preyfish populations, especially in
relation to the stability of predator species necessary
to maintain the biological integrity of each Lake. In
order to restore an ecologically balanced fish
community, a diversity of prey species must be
maintained at population levels matched to primary
production and predator demands.
State of the Ecosystem
Fish communities that we classify as preyfish
comprise species that prey on invertebrates such as
crustacean zooplankton and larger invertebrates
such as scud (Diporeia) and Mysis, as well as other
fish, for their entire life history.
Assessment for Lake Ontario: Mixed, deteriorating:
The non-native alewives, and to a lesser degree
rainbow smelt, dominate the preyfish population.
Alewives declined to a low population level in 2002.
Rainbow smelt were at record low levels in 2000-
2002, and a lack of large individuals indicated heavy
predation pressure. Slimy sculpin populations
declined coincident with the collapse of scud and
show no signs of returning to former levels of
abundance. No deepwater sculpins were caught in
2000-2001.
Assessment for Lake Erie: Mixed, deteriorating: The
preyfish communities in all three basins of Lake Erie
have shown declining trends. In the Eastern Basin,
rainbow smelt abundance has declined over the past
two decades. The Western and Central Basins have
also shown declines in abundance of young-of-the-
year white perch (spiny-rayed preyfish) and
rainbow smelt (soft-rayed preyfish), respectively.
Gizzard shad and alewife abundances have been
quite variable across the survey period.
Assessment for Lake Michigan: Mixed,
deteriorating: Bloater biomass has declined steadily
since 1990 due to a lack of recruitment and slow
growth. In recent years, alewife biomass has
remained at consistently lower levels than during
the 1970-1980s, driven in large part by predation
pressure. Rainbow smelt have declined and remain
at low levels, also possibly due to predation.
Sculpins, however, continue to contribute a
significant portion of the preyfish biomass.
Assessment for Lake Huron: Mixed, deteriorating:
The decline in bloater abundance over the past
decade or so has resulted in an increased proportion
of alewives in the preyfish community. Alewife
regained their position as the dominant preyfish
species in Lake Huron, largely as a result of a series
of strong year classes since 1998. Whitefish also
continue to decline from peak levels in the mid-
1990s.
Assessment for Lake Superior: Mixed, deteriorating:
Over the past 10-15 years, total biomass of preyfish
populations has declined. Since the early 1980s,
dynamics in the total biomass of preyfish has been
driven largely by variation in recruitment of young
lake herring. The rise and fall of total preyfish
biomass over the period from 1984-2001 reflects the
recovery of wild lake trout stocks and resumption of
commercial harvest of lake herring in Lake Superior.
Other species, notably sculpins, burbot, and
stickleback have also declined in abundance since
the recovery of wild lake trout populations.
Future Pressures
The influences of predation by salmon and trout on
preyfish populations appear to be common across
44
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Superior
Year
DLake Herring Rainbow Smelt
DLakeWhitefish Bloater
300
Huron
Year
Bloater Alewife
Rainbow Smelt DMisc.
Year
I Bloater DDeepwater Sculpin
I Smelt BAIwife
Year
D Spiny-rayed Soft-rayed BCIupeid
Figure 42. Preyfish population trends in the Great Lakes. The red lines indicate the general trend in
overall preyfish populations in each Lake. The measurement reported varies from Lake to Lake, as
shown on the vertical scale, and comparisons between Lakes may be misleading. Overall, trends over
time provide information on relative abundances.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, except Lake Erie, which is from surveys conducted by the Ohio Division of Wildlife
and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
45
-------
all Lakes. Additional pressures from zebra and
quagga mussels populations are apparent in Lakes
Ontario, Erie, and Michigan. "Bottom-up" effects on
the preyfishes have already been observed in Lake
Ontario following the zebra and quagga mussel-
linked collapse of scud (Diporeia), and they are likely
to become apparent in Lakes Michigan and Huron
as these non-native mussels expand their range and
scud populations decline.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Owen T. Gorman, U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science
Center, Lake Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WI. Contributors:
Robert O'Gorman and Randy W. Owens, U.S. Geological Survey Great
Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario Biological Station, Oswego NY; Jean
Adams, Charles Madenjian and Jeff Schaeffer, USGS Great Lakes Science
Center, Ann Arbor, ML; Mike Bur U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes
Science Center, Lake Erie Biological Station, Sandusky, OH; and Jeffrey
Tyson, Ohio Division of Wildlife Sandusky Fish Research Unit, Sandusky,
OH.
Lake Trout
Indicator #93
Note: This indicator has been split from the "Lake
Trout and Scud" indicator
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator tracks the status and trends in lake
trout populations, and it will be used to infer the
basic structure of the cold water predator
community and the general health of the ecosystem.
Lake trout were historically the principal predator
in the coldwater communities of the Great Lakes.
Self-sustaining, naturally reproducing populations
80
Lake Superior - U.S.
60-
40-
20-
Wild
Hatchery
30
Lake Huron
°20H
i 15-
o
il 5-
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Lake Superior - Canada
0
10
1975 1980
Lake Erie
1985 1990
Year
1995 2000
| 6-
» 4-
u.
2-
0
All Fish
Age 5+
Ages 1 -3
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
10
3
O
o) '5T
.* c
ra o
Lake Michigan
25
1986 1990
Lake Ontario
1994
Year
1998
c 15-
| 10-
1 5H
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Females
Males
Immature
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
Figure 43. Relative or absolute abundance of lake trout in the Great Lakes. The measurement reported
varies from Lake to Lake, as shown on the vertical scale, and comparisons between Lakes may be
misleading. Overall trends overtime provide information on relative abundances.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
46
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
that support target yields to fisheries is the goal of
the lake trout restoration program.
State of Ecosystem
Natural reproduction from large parental stocks of
wild fish is occurring throughout Lake Superior,
and populations occur both onshore and offshore.
Stocking in Lake Superior has been largely
discontinued. Sustained natural reproduction, albeit
at low levels, has also been occurring in Lake
Ontario since the early 1990s, and in isolated areas
of Lake Huron, but it has been largely absent
elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Parental stock sizes of
hatchery-reared fish are relatively high in Lake
Ontario, southern Lake Huron, and in a few areas of
Lake Michigan, but sea lamprey predation, human
fishing pressure, and low stocking densities have
limited population expansion elsewhere.
Future Pressures
Sea lamprey continue to limit population recovery,
particularly in northern Lake Huron. Fishing
pressures also continue to limit recovery. High
biomass of alewives and predators on lake trout
spawning reefs are thought to inhibit restoration
through egg and fry predation, although the
magnitude of this pressure is unclear. A diet
dominated by alewives may be limiting fry survival
(early mortality syndrome) through thiamine
deficiencies. The loss of scud and dramatic
reductions in the abundance of slimy sculpins is
reducing prey for young lake trout and may be
affecting survival.
Diporeia Density
1994 & 1995
Diporeia Density
2000
6 9 12 15
Density (No. nfxIO3
0 3^6£) 1^15
Density (No. nfx 103)
Figure 44. Density (numbers/m2 x 103) of scud (Diporeia) in Lake Michigan in 1994-1995 and in 2000.
Over the entire Lake, populations declined 68% over this time period.
Source: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
47
-------
Acknowledgments
Authors: Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Green Bay, WI;
James Markham, New York Department of Environmental Conservation;
Brian Lantry, U.S. Geological Survey, Oswego, NY; Aaron Woldt, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Alpena, MI; and James Bence, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.
Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod
Diporeia (Scud)
Indicator #93a
Note: This indicator has been split from the "Lake
Trout and Scud" indicators and has a new title
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator assesses the abundance of the bottom
dwelling invertebrate Diporeia (scud). This glacial-
marine relict is the most abundant benthic organism
in cold, offshore regions (depths greater than 30
meters) of each of the Lakes. Scud feeds on algal
material that has freshly settled to the bottom from
the water column (i.e. mostly diatoms), and in turn,
they are fed upon by many forage fish species. The
forage fish species then serve as prey for larger fish
such as trout and salmon.
State of the Ecosystem
Populations of scud are currently in a state of
dramatic decline in portions of Lakes Michigan,
Ontario, Huron, and eastern Lake Erie. Populations
appear to be stable in Lake Superior. In all the Lakes
except Superior, abundances have decreased in both
nearshore and offshore areas over the past 12 years,
and large areas are now completely devoid of this
organism. Areas where scud are known to be rare or
absent include the southern, southeastern and
northern portions of Lake Michigan at depths less
than 70 meters, almost all of Lake Ontario at depths
less than 70 meters, the entire southern end of Lake
Huron, and the Eastern Basin of Lake Erie. In other
areas of these Lakes, scud are still present, but
abundances are lower than those reported in the
1970s and 1980s. In all the Lakes, population
declines coincide with the introduction and rapid
spread of zebra and quagga mussels.
Future Pressures
As populations of zebra and quagga mussels
continue to expand, declines in scud may become
more extensive. In the open waters of Lake
10000
5000
Figure 45. Density (numbers/m2 x 103) of scud
(Diporeia) in Lake Ontario in 1994,1997, and
1998. The cross-hatched area in 1994 indicates
no samples taken.
Source: S.J. Lozano, Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Michigan, zebra mussels are most abundant at
depths of 30-50 meters, and scud are now absent
from areas as deep as 70 meters. Since quagga
mussels have recently been reported in Lake
Michigan and quagga mussels tend to occur deeper
than zebra mussels, the decline or complete loss of
scud will likely extend to depths greater than 70
meters.
Acknowledgments
Author: T. F. Nalepa, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, MI.
Contribution of Diporeia abundances in Lake Ontario from S. J. Lozano,
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, MI.
48
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Benthic Diversity and Abundance-
Aquatic Oligochaete Communities
Indicator #104
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses species diversity and
abundance of aquatic oligochaete (a type of worm)
communities in order to determine the trophic
status and relative health of benthic communities in
the Great Lakes. A measure of biological response to
organic enrichment of sediments is based on
Milbrink's 1983 Modified Environmental Index.
State of the Ecosystem
Use of Milbrink's index values to characterize
aquatic oligochaete communities provided one of
the earliest measures of habitat quality
improvements (e.g., western Lake Erie). This index
appears to be a reasonable measure of productivity
in waters of all the Great Lakes. Most index values
from sites in the Upper Lakes are relatively low and
fall into the oligotrophic category, whereas index
values from sites in known areas of higher
productivity (e.g., nearshore southeastern Lake
Michigan; Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron) exhibit higher
index values. Sites in Lake Erie, which exhibit the
highest index values, generally fall in the
mesotrophic to eutrophic range, while in Lake
Ontario nearshore sites are classified as
mesotrophic, and offshore sites are oligotrophic.
Future Pressures
This benthic index has been routinely applied to the
open waters of all the Great Lakes for only a few
years. Pollution prevention programs and natural
processes will continue to improve water and
substrate quality. Improvements in the measured
index, however, could be suppressed by impacts of
zebra and quagga mussels or by other unknown
entities.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Don W. Schloesser, U.S. Geological Survey, Ann Arbor, MI;
Richard P. Barbiero, Dyncorp I & ET, Inc., Chicago, IL, and Mary Beth
Giancarlo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Intern-Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Figure 46. Milbrink's Modified Environmental
Index applied to benthic oligochaete
communities in the Great Lakes. Data are from
1999, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Great Lakes National Program Office Biological
Open Water Surveillance Program of the
Laurentian Great Lakes 1999, January 2002.
Source: Barbiero, Richard P. and MarcTuchman, 2002
Phytoplankton Populations
Indicator #109
Assessment: Mixed
Note: This assessment is based on historical
conditions and expert opinion. Specific objectives or
criteria have not been determined.
Purpose
This indicator involves the direct measurement of
phytoplankton species composition and biomass in
the Great Lakes, and indirectly assesses the impact
of nutrient/contaminant enrichment and invasive
non-native predators on the microbial food web of
the Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
Records for Lake Erie indicate that substantial
reductions in summer phytoplankton populations
occurred in the early 1990s in the Western Basin. The
timing of this decline suggests the possible impact
of zebra mussels. In Lake Michigan, a significant
increase in the size of summer phytoplankton
(diatom) populations occurred during the 1990s,
most likely due to the effects of phosphorus
49
-------
0
Erie Western Basin
Superior
Michigan
8384858687888990919293949596979899 8384858687888990919293949596979899
Huron
afl UMa
Ontario
8384858687888990919293949596979899 8384858687888990919293949596979899
Erie Central Basin
Erie Eastern Basin
8384858687888990919293949596979899
8384858687888990919293949596979899 8384858687888990919293949596979899
Year
Other
Chrysophytes
Dinoflagellates
Chlorophytes
Cyanophytes
Diatoms
Cryptophytes
Figure 47. Trends in phytoplankton biovolume (g/m3) and community composition in the Great Lakes
1983-1999. Samples were collected from offshore, surface waters during August.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office
reductions on the silica mass balance in this Lake.
This suggests that diatom populations might be a
sensitive indicator of declining nutrient levels
(oligotrophication) in Lake Michigan. No trends are
apparent in summer phytoplankton populations in
Lakes Huron or Ontario, while only three years of
data exist for Lake Superior.
Future Pressures
The two most important potential future pressures
on the phytoplankton community are changes in
nutrient loadings and continued introductions and
expansions of non-native species. Increases in
phosphorus concentrations might result in increases
in phytoplankton biomass and in shifts in
phytoplankton community composition away from
diatoms and towards other taxa. Continued
expansion of zebra mussel populations might be
expected to result in reductions in overall
phytoplankton biomass, and perhaps also in a shift
in species composition.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp, A CSC company, Alexandria, VA,
and Marc L. Tuchman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
50
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Zooplankton Populations
Indicator #116
Note: This indicator report is from 2000. Assessment
has been reevaluated in 2003. Specific objectives or
criteria for assessment have not been determined.
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator directly measures changes in
community composition, mean individual size and
biomass of zooplankton populations in the Great
Lakes basin, and indirectly measures zooplankton
production as well as changes in food web
dynamics due to changes in vertebrate or
invertebrate predation.
State of the Ecosystem
The ratio of biomass of (calanoid copepods)/
(cladocerans + cyclopoid copepods) tends to
increase with decreasing nutrient enrichment.
Therefore high ratios are desirable. The average
value for the oligotrophic Lake Superior was at least
four times as high as that for any other Lake, while
Lakes Michigan and Huron and the Eastern Basin of
Lake Erie were also high. The Western Basin of Lake
S m
'I
° 0
& 8
o
+ C
ladocerans
0 .b. C
"Si
O
O n
4.
c 0
TO
TO
O
(9
SU
°.97 °.79 1.01 058
C
3
H ^ « 4_ 0^ 0^4
Ml HU E C W ON
ER
Figure 48. Ratio of biomass of calanoid
copepods to that of cladocerans and cyclopoid
copepods for the five Great Lakes. Lake Erie
(ER) is divided into Western, Central and Eastern
basins. (Data collected with 153 urn mesh net
tows to a depth of 100 meters of the bottom of
the water column, whichever was shallower.
Numbers indicate arithmetic averages.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National
Program Office, 1998
Erie and Lake Ontario were identically low, while
the Central Basin of Lake Erie had an intermediate
value.
Future Pressures
The most immediate potential threat to the
zooplankton communities of the Great Lakes is
posed by non-native species. A non-native
predatory cladoceran, spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes
cedarstroemii), has already been in the Lakes for over
ten years, and is suspected to have had a major
impact on zooplankton community structure. A
second non-native predatory cladoceran, Cercopagis
pengoi, was first noted in Lake Ontario in 1998, and
is expected to spread to the other Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp, A CSC company, Alexandria, VA,
Marc L. Tuchman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago IL, and Ora Johannsson, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
Amphibian Diversity and
Relative Abundance
Indicator #4504
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator assesses species composition and
relative abundance of calling frogs and toads in
Great Lakes marshes. This information helps to infer
wetland habitat health. Because frogs and toads are
relatively sedentary, have semi-permeable skin, and
breed within and adjacent to aquatic systems, they
are likely to be more sensitive to, and indicative of,
local sources of wetland contamination and
degradation than are most other wetland-dependent
vertebrates.
State of the Ecosystem
Since 1995, Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP)
volunteers have surveyed 474 routes across the
Great Lakes basin and collected amphibian
occurrence data. Trends in amphibian occurrence
were assessed for eight species commonly detected
on MMP routes. Statistically significant declines in
trends were detected for American Toad, Chorus
Frog, and Green Frog.
51
-------
X
o
c
o
o.
o
0.
65
60
55
50
45 '
40
35
30
25
0
Bullfrog
-1.9 (-3.8, 0.1) P = 0.069
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Wood Frog
0.6 (-1.2, 2.5) P=0.52
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Green Frog
-2.9 (-4.5,-1.3) P< 0.001
70 -
60 -
50 -
40
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Leopard Frog
-1.5 (-3.1, 0.2) P = 0.08
70
60
50
40
30-
1995 1996 1997 1998 19:
American Toad
-1.9 (-3.3,-0.05) P< 0.01
50
45-
40-
35-
30
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Chorus Frog
-3.5 (-5.3, -1.5) P< 0.001
50
40
30
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
Grey Treefrog
-0.2 (-2.0, 1.7) P = 0.84
70
60
50
40
30
20
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Spring Peeper
-0.01 (-1.8,1.5) P = 0.89
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 49. Annual proportion of stations on Marsh Monitoring Program routes at which eight species
of amphibians were commonly detected. Data are from 1995-2001.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Comparisons were made between trends in mean
annual water levels of the Great Lakes and trends in
amphibian annual station occurrence indices. Some
species' trends (Bullfrog, Green Frog, Spring Peeper)
appeared to correlate with average lake levels to
some degree, whereas others' trends (American
Toad, Chorus Frog) showed no apparent correlation
and instead declined steadily.
Future Pressures
Habitat loss and deterioration remain the
predominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian
populations. Many coastal and inland Great Lakes
wetlands are at the lowest elevations in watersheds
that support very intensive industrial, agricultural
and residential development.
Acknowledgments
Author: Steve Timmermans, Bird Studies Canada.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in
partnership with Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program
Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Program volunteers are
gratefully acknowledged.
52
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Bullfrog
x
0)
c
o
^p
JS
D
Q.
O
0.
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
90
85
80
75
70
65
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Green Frog
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Spring Peeper
142.4
142.2
142.0
141.8
141.6
141.4
142.4
142.2
142.0
141.8
141.6
141.4
142.4
142.2
142.0
141.8
141.6
141.4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
0)
s
re
re
S!
Figure 50. Comparison of mean annual water
levels of the Great Lakes (dashed line) and
trends in amphibian annual relative occurrence
(solid line). These frog populations track average
Lake levels to some degree.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity
and Relative Abundance
Indicator #4507
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
Assessments of wetland-dependent bird diversity
and abundance in the Great Lakes basin are used to
evaluate the health and function of coastal and
inland wetlands. Breeding birds are valuable
components of Great Lakes wetlands and rely on
physical, chemical and biological health of their
habitats. Information about abundance, distribution
and diversity of marsh birds provides needed
measures of their population trends and their
habitat associations.
State of the Ecosystem
Populations of several wetland-dependent birds are
believed to be at risk due to continuing loss and
degradation of their habitats. From 1995 through
2002, 53 species of birds that use marshes (wetlands
dominated by non-woody emergent plants) for
feeding, nesting or both were recorded by Marsh
Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers at 434
routes throughout the Great Lakes basin. Of those
species with significant basin-wide declines, Black
Tern, undifferentiated American Coot/Common
Moorhen, Marsh Wren, Pied-billed Grebe, Sora, and
Virginia Rail are particularly dependent on
availability of healthy wetlands. Statistically
significant basin-wide increases were observed for
Common Yellowthroat, Mallard, and Willow
Flycatcher.
The trends for some species (e.g., American Bittern,
Marsh Wren, Sora, and Virginia Rail) appeared to
correlate with average lake levels quite closely,
whereas other species (e.g., Black Tern, Pied-billed
Grebe) showed no apparent correlation with lake
levels at the basin-wide level. Differences in
habitats, regional population densities, timing of
survey visits, annual weather variability, and other
additional factors likely interplay with water levels
to explain variation in species-specific bird
populations.
53
-------
A)
American Bittern
-10.0 (-1.9, 0.1) P = 0.048
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1999 2000 2001
Marsh Wren
-3.1 (-5.7, -0.3) P < 0.05
6 -
X 5.5 -
0) 5
3.5 -
3
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Coot/Moorhen
-10.2 (-14.6,-5.6) P< 0.001
Q.
P ?1
1995 1996 1997 1998 19
Pied-billed Grebe
-15.9 (-21.1,-10.2) P< 0.001
I97 1998 1999 2000 2001
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
0.8 -
0.6
0.4-
Black Tern
-18.0 (-24.1,-12.9) P< 0.001
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Red-winged Blackbird
-3.0 (-4.9, -1.2) P < 0.01
I97 1998 1999 2000 2001
Sora
-13.0 (-19.7,-7.6) P< 0.001
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Virginia Rail
-5.0 (-8.4, -1.4)P<0.01
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
B)
Common Yellowthroat
4.0(1.2, 6.9) P< 0.01
4 -
3.5 -
3 -
2.5 -
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Mallard
10.4(3.8, 17.5) P< 0.01
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Willow Flycatcher
9.0(1.4, 17.3) P< 0.05
0.6
0.4 -
1995 1996 1997
1999 2000 2001
Barn Swallow
3.8 (-0.5, 8.3) P = 0.08
4.5 -
4 -
3.5 -
3 -
2.5 -
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 51. Annual population trends of declining (A) and increasing (B) marsh nesting and aerial
foraging bird species detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, 1995-2001.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Future Pressures
Future pressures on wetland-dependent birds will
likely include continuing loss and degradation of
important breeding habitats as a result of wetland
loss, water levels stabilization, sedimentation,
contamination, excessive nutrient inputs, and
invasion of non-native plants and animals.
Acknowledgments
Author: Steve Timmermans, Bird Studies Canada
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in
partnership with Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program
Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Program volunteers are
gratefully acknowledged.
54
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar
Communities
Indicator #8129 (alvar)
Note: This indicator report is from 2000.
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the status of one of the 12
special lakeshore communities identified within the
nearshore terrestrial area. Alvar communities are
naturally open habitats occurring on flat limestone
bedrock. Over 2/3 of known alvar occurrences
within the Great Lakes basin are close to the
shoreline.
State of the Ecosystem
More than 90% of the original extent of alvar
habitats has been destroyed or substantially
degraded. Emphasis is focused on protecting the
remaining 10%. Approximately 64% of the
remaining alvar area exists within Ontario, 16% in
New York State, 15% in Michigan, and smaller areas
in Ohio, Wisconsin and Quebec.
Less than 20% of the nearshore alvar acreage is
currently fully protected, while over 60% is at high
risk. Michigan has 66% of its nearshore alvar
acreage in the Fully Protected category, while
Ontario has only 7%. In part, this is a reflection of
the much larger total shoreline acreage in Ontario.
Each alvar community occurrence has been
assigned an "EO (Element Occurrence) rank" to
reflect its relative quality and condition. (EO ranks
summarize the quality and condition of each
individual alvar community at a site, based on
Limited 11.9%
Partly 9.1%
Fully 18.8%
At High Risk 60.2%
Figure 52. Protection Status 2000.
Nearshore alvar acreage.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Acres of Alvar
r
Ontario
At High Risk
EH Partly Protected
Michigan
CH Limited
Fully Protected
Figure 53. Comparison of acreage protected.
Nearshore alvars: Ontario and Michigan.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises.
standardized criteria for size, site condition, and
landscape content.) A and B-ranks are considered
viable, while C-ranks are marginal and D- ranks are
poor. Protection efforts to secure alvars have clearly
focused on the best quality sites. Recently, 10
securement projects have resulted in protection of at
least 5,289 acres of alvars across the Great Lakes
basin.
Future Pressures
Continuing pressures on alvars include habitat
fragmentation and loss; trails; off-road vehicles;
resource extraction uses such as quarrying or
logging; adjacent land uses such as residential
subdivisions; grazing or deer browsing; plant
collecting for bonsai or other hobbies; and invasion
by non-native plants.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON, and Heather
Potter, The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
wetlands, but it is vital in maintaining wetland diversity.
AB B
EO Rank
BC&C
Partly Protected
Fully Protected
Figure 54. Protection of high quality alvars.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
55
-------
2003
4.2 STATE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 2
SUMMARY OF STATE INDICATORS-PART 2
The overall assessment for the State indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC
2000, but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still
valid, and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the
required data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new
monitoring programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing
may be needed before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Native Freshwater Mussels
Urban Density
Economic Prosperity
Area, Quality and Protection of Great
Lakes Islands
Assessment in 2000
Mixed, deteriorating
Unable to Assess
Mixed
No Report
Assessment in 2002
Not Assessed
Mixed, deteriorating
(for Lake Superior basin)
Mixed (for Lake Superior
basin)
Not Assessed
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
Native Freshwater Mussels
Indicator #68
Note: Title has been changed from Native Unionid
Mussels
Assessment: Not Assessed
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to report on the
location and status of freshwater mussel (unionid)
populations and their habitats throughout the Great
Lakes system, with emphasis on endangered and
threatened species. The long-term goal for the
management of native mussels is for populations to
be stable and self-sustaining wherever possible
throughout their historical range in the Great Lakes,
including the connecting channels and tributaries.
State of the Ecosystem
The introduction of the zebra mussel to the Great
Lakes in the late 1980s has destroyed unionid
communities throughout the system. Unionids were
virtually extirpated from the offshore waters of
western Lake Erie by 1990 and Lake St. Clair by
1994, with similar declines in the connecting
channels and many nearshore habitats. There were
on average, 18 unionid species found in these areas
before the zebra mussel invasion. After the invasion,
60% of surveyed sites had 3 or fewer native species
left alive, 40% of sites had no native species left, and
the abundance of native mussels had declined by
90-95%.
Significant communities were, however, recently
discovered in several nearshore areas where zebra
mussel infestation rates are low. All of the refuge
sites discovered to date have two things in common:
they are very shallow (less than 1-2 meters deep),
and they have a high degree of connectivity to the
56
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Port Maitland
Lake St. Clair
Grosse Point, Ml
I
19911999
Detroit River
I
St. Clair -;
Delta Refuge!.
Puce, ON
19861994
Id
1930-821991
1982-831992-94
Nearshore Westernjll
Basin Refuge j
Metzger Marsh I
Refuge
Lake Erie SW Shore
0
1999 Sandusky Bay
2001
Eastern Shore
Lake St. Clair
19612001
1999
I
Thompson Bay Refuge
Presque Isle Bay
I
1990-921995
19601998
0 = no mussels
= 10 species
Figure 55. Numbers of freshwater mussel species found before and after the zebra mussel invasion at
13 sites in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and the Niagara and Detroit Rivers (no "before" data available for
4 sites), and the locations of the four known refuge sites (Thompson Bay, Metzger Marsh, Nearshore
Western Basin, and St. Clair Delta).
Source: Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., D.T. Zanatta, E.G. Masteller, H.L. Dunn, S.J. Nichols, P.J. Marangelo, and D.W. Schloesser, 2002.
Lake that ensures access to host fishes. These
features appear to combine with other factors to
discourage the settlement and survival of zebra
mussels.
Future Pressures
Zebra mussel expansion is the main threat facing
unionids in the Great Lakes drainage basin. Other
non-native species may also impact unionid
survival through the reduction or redistribution of
native fishes. Non-native fish species such as the
Eurasian ruffe and round goby can completely
displace native fish, thus causing the functional
extirpation of local unionid populations.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Janice L. Smith, Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research Branch,
National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON, and S. Jerrine Nichols,
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Ann Arbor, MI.
Urban Density
Indicator #7000
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating (for Lake
Superior basin)
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator assesses the human population
density in the Great Lakes basin, and it infers the
degree of inefficient land use and urban sprawl.
State of the Ecosystem
The average population density for the 16 U.S.
counties entirely or predominantly in the Lake
Superior basin was 20.1 persons/mi2 (7.76 persons/
km2) in 1990 and 20.4 persons/mi2 (7.88 persons/
km2) in 2000, compared to 70.3 persons/mi2 (27.1
57
-------
Cenus Subdivisions
Lake Superior Watershed
Population Density
0-1 persons/km2
1 -10
10-50
50 - 300
300-1000
> 1000
Algoma, Unorganized, North Part
Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part
100 Kilometers
Figure 56. Population density in the U.S. and Canadian Lake Superior basin, 1990-1991.
Source: U.S. Census TIGER 1990 census block group and Statistics Canada 1991 census enumeration area demographics; U.S. Geological
Survey and Natural Resources Canada watershed boundaries
Thunder Bay, Unorganized
Lake Superior V\fotershed Boundaries
Population Percent Change, 1991-1996
-34 to-15%
-15 to-5%
-5toO%
0 to +5%
+5 to+15%
I+15 to+24%
-.Lake Nipigon
,» ^~
JA -i
I
"t'-T^^k.-i^. Algoma, Unorganized, North Part
Thunder Bay ; -
S'&dbury, Unorganized, North Part
Lake Superior
' ((i'Sault Ste. Marie
100 Kilometers
Figure 57. Percent change in population in the Ontario portion of the Lake Superior basin from 1991-
1996.
Source: Statistics Canada 1996 Census subdivision profiles for Ontario and Natural Resources Canada watershed boundaries
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
persons/km2) in 1990 and 79.6 persons/mi2 (30.7
persons/km2) in 2000 for the U.S. as a whole. For the
31 participating Ontario census subdivisions that
are entirely or predominantly within the Lake
Superior basin, average overall population density
in 1991 and 1996 was 2.19 persons/km2 and 2.17
persons/km2, respectively. The greatest population
growth, in some cases 10 to 15%, generally occurred
in townships adjacent to the City of Thunder Bay,
which itself was essentially unchanged (-0.2%).
Future Pressures
Urban sprawl is increasingly becoming a problem in
rural parts of the Great Lakes basin near urban
centers, placing a strain on infrastructure and
consuming habitat in areas that tend to have
healthier environments overall than those that
remain in urban areas. This trend is expected to
continue. This will exacerbate other problems, such
as increased consumption of fossil fuels, longer
commute times from residential to work areas, and
fragmentation of habitat.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University, MI, and James G. Cantrill,
Communication and Performance Studies, Northern Michigan University,
MI.
Economic Prosperity
Indicator #7043
Assessment: Mixed (for Lake Superior basin)
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator assesses the unemployment rates
within the Great Lakes basin, and, when used in
association with other societal indicators, infers the
capacity for society in the Great Lakes region to
make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
0)
CD
E
o
E
0)
c
=> 4--
2--
j
-
_
J
_
1 1
L
-|
i
-
-
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
United States DMichigan
Minnesota BWisconsin
DU.S. Lake Superior Counties DOntaroL Superior Basn 1996
Figure 58. Unemployment rate in Michigan,
Wisconsin, and the U.S. and Ontario Lake
Superior basin, 1975-2000.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
example from 8.6% to 26.8% in 1985. In the 29
Ontario census subdivisions mostly within the Lake
Superior watershed, the 1996 unemployment rate
for the population 25 years and older was 9.1%. Of
areas with population greater than 200 in the labor
force, the range was from 2.3% to 31%. Clearly, the
goal of full employment (less than 5%
unemployment) was not met in either the Canadian
or the U.S. portions of the Lake Superior basin
during the years examined. Poverty rates for
individuals and children in the U.S. Lake Superior
basin in 1979, 1989, and 1999 ranged from 10.4% to
17.1%, while 12.8% of families in the Ontario Lake
Superior basin had incomes below the poverty level
in 1996.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University, MI, and James G. Cantrill,
Communication and Performance Studies Northern Michigan University,
MI.
State of the Ecosystem
From 1975 through 2000, the civilian unemployment
rate in the 16 U.S. Lake Superior basin counties
averaged about 2.0 points above the U.S. average,
and above the averages for their respective states,
except occasionally for Michigan. Unemployment
rates in individual counties ranged considerably, for
59
-------
Area, Quality, and Protection of
Great Lakes Islands
Indicator #8129 (islands)
Assessment: Not Assessed
Indicator is under development. Data are not
available
Purpose
This indicator assesses the status of one of the 12
special lakeshore communities identified within the
nearshore terrestrial area. The Great Lakes contain
the world's largest freshwater island system, which
are globally significant in terms of their biological
diversity.
State of the Ecosystem
By their very nature, islands are vulnerable and
sensitive to change. As water levels rise and fall,
islands are exposed to the forces of erosion and
accretion. Islands are exposed to weather events due
to their 360-degree exposure to the elements across
the open water. Marine islands may have been
isolated for perhaps thousands of years from the
mainland. Islands in the past rarely gained new
species, and their resident species often evolved into
endemics that may be different than mainland
varieties. This means that islands are especially
vulnerable to, among other things, the introduction
of non-native species.
Some islands are among the last remaining
wildlands on Earth. Islands could be considered as a
Element Occurrence
Ecological Site District
Figure 59. Distribution of Ontario's provincially rare species and vegetation communities on islands
in the Great Lakes.
Source: Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, March 2003
60
-------
single irreplaceable resource and protected as a
whole if the high value of this natural heritage is to
be maintained. For example, Michigan's Great Lakes
islands contain one-tenth of the state's threatened,
endangered, or rare species while representing only
one-hundredth of the land area. All of Michigan's
threatened, endangered, or rare coastal species
occur at least in part on its islands. The natural
features of particular importance are the colonial
waterbirds, neartic-neotropical migrant songbirds,
endemic plants, endangered species, fish spawning
and nursery use of associated shoals and reefs and
other aquatic habitat, marshes, alvars, coastal
barrier systems, sheltered embayments, nearshore
bedrock mosaic, and sand dunes.
Future Pressures
Islands are more sensitive to human influence than
the mainland. Island stressors include:
development, non-native species, shoreline
modification, marina development, agriculture and
forestry practices, recreational use, navigation and
shipping practices, wastewater discharge, mining
practices, drainage or diversion systems,
overpopulation of certain species such as deer and
cormorants, industrial discharge, development of
roads or utilities, and disruption of natural
disturbance regimes.
Acknowledgments
Author: Richard H. Greenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Leader and Liaison to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Contributors: Karen Vigmostad, Director, U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Islands
Project, East Lansing, MI; Dr. Judith Soule, Director, Michigan Natural
Features Inventory; and Susan Crispin, The Nature Conservancy.
61
-------
4.3 PRESSURE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 1
PRESSURE INDICATORS-ASSESSMENTS AT A GLANCE
cn
O
H
U
I I
D
en
en
w
POOR MIXED MIXED MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
Spawning Phase
Sea Lamprey
Phosphorus Concentrations
and Loadings
Contaminants in Colonial
Nesting Waterbirds
Atmospheric Deposition of
Toxic Chemicals
Contaminants in Edible
Fish Tissue
Air Quality
Ice Duration on the Great
Lakes
Extent of Hardened
Shoreline
Contaminants Affecting
Productivity of Bald Eagles
Acid Rain
Non-Native
Species Introduced I
into the Great Lakes
62
-------
Sl'MM.VRY OF PRKSSrRK INDICATORS-PART 1
The overall assessment for the Pressure indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC
2000, but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still
valid, and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the
required data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new
monitoring programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing
may be needed before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Spiiuning-PhiT-i'Soii kirnpix-x
Phosphorus Concentrations
and Loadings
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
Waterbirds
Atmospheric Deposition and Toxic
Chemicals
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Air Quality
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Contaminants Affecting
Productivity of Bald Eagles
Acid Rain
Non-native Species introduced into
the Great Lakes
Assessment in 2000
\1ivxl
Mixed
Good
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed
No Report
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, improving
\1ivxl
Poor
Assessement in 2002
\Iivxl, irnpn.n ing
Mixed
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating (with
respect to climate change)
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, improving
\Iivxl, irnpn.n ing
Poor
(,]<<][ represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
63
-------
I 4) =""
»:i
'2003
«i P ,., * V U »J
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey
Indicator #18
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator estimates the abundance of sea
lampreys in the Great Lakes. These invaders have a
direct impact on the structure of the fish community
and health of the aquatic ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
The first complete round of stream treatments with
the lampricide TFM, as early as 1960 in Lake
Superior, successfully suppressed sea lampreys to
less than 10% of their pre-control abundance in all of
the Great Lakes.
Lake Superior. During the past 20 years,
populations have fluctuated but remain at levels
less than 10% of peak abundance. Survival
objectives for lake trout continue to be met, but
recent increases in sea lamprey abundance pose a
real threat. Abundance estimates for sea lamprey for
2001 and 2002 show a continuation of the pattern of
increase. Wounding and mortality estimates on lake
trout have also increased in recent years. Stream
treatments were increased during 2001 in response
to the observed trends and the results of these
actions will not be observed until 2003.
Lake Michigan. Populations have shown a slow, but
continuing increasing trend. Increases in wounding
rates on lake trout suggest an increasing threat. This
continuing trend suggests sources of sea lampreys
in Lake Michigan itself rather than from Lake Huron
as previously believed. Stream treatments were
increased in 2001 and 2002, including treatment of
previously untreated lake and ponded areas.
Lake Huron. During the early 1980s, sea lamprey
populations increased in Lake Huron, particularly
in the north. Through the 1990s, Lake Huron
contained more sea lamprey than all the other Lakes
combined. Lake trout restoration activities in the
northern portion of the Lake during 1995 were
abandoned because so few lake trout were
surviving attacks by sea lamprey to survive to
maturity. An integrated control strategy, which
included targeted application of a new formulation
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0 -
Superior
(A
TJ
C
n
(A
(A
£
Q.
n
o>
(A
0)
(A
n
9-
O)
c
'c
n
Q.
(A
"o
0)
c
n
c
3
J2
500
400
300
200
100
0
500
400
300
200
100
0
Huron
Michigan
100
80
60
40
20
0
500
400
300
200
100
0
Erie*
Ontario
Year
Figure 60. Total annual abundance of sea
lamprey estimated during the spawning
migration. *Note the scale for Lake Erie is 1/5th
the scale size of the other Lakes.
Source: Gavin Christie and Jeffrey Slade, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Rodney McDonald, Department of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, and Katherine Mullett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
64
-------
STATE o v::
of bottom-release lampricide in the St. Marys River,
enhanced trapping of spawning animals, and
sterile-male release, was initiated in 1997. As
predicted, the sea lamprey populations were
observed to decline during 2001 and 2002
suggesting the strategy was successful. However,
the population shows considerable variation and the
full effect of the control program will not be
observed for 2-4 years.
Lake Erie: Sea lamprey abundance increased since
the mid-1990s to levels that threaten lake trout
restoration goals. An assessment during 1998
indicated that the sources of this increase were
several streams in which treatments had been
deferred due to low water flows or concerns for
non-target organisms. These critical streams were
treated during 1999 and 2000. The declines observed
in 2001 and 2002 in sea lamprey abundance and lake
trout wounding may be a preliminary indication of
success.
Lake Ontario: Abundance of spawning-phase sea
lampreys has continued to decline to low levels
through the 1990s. The abundance of sea lampreys
has remained stable during 2000-2001.
Future Pressures
The potential for sea lampreys to colonize new
locations has increased with improved water quality
and the removal of dams. Short lapses in control can
result in rapid increases of abundance. As fish
communities recover from the effects of lamprey
predation or overfishing, there is evidence that the
survival of parasitic sea lamprey might increase due
to increased prey availability. Better survival means
that the remaining sea lampreys will cause more
harm to the Great Lakes fish communities.
Acknowledgments
Author: Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, ML,
Jeffery Slade and Kasia Mullet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ludington
and Marquette, ML, and Rodney McDonald, Dept. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Indicator #111
Assessment: Mixed
Note: This assessment is based on attainment of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement targets.
Purpose
This indicator assesses total phosphorus levels in
the Great Lakes, and is used to support the
evaluation of trophic status and food web dynamics
in the Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
Strong efforts begun in the 1970s to reduce
phosphorus loadings have been successful in
maintaining or reducing nutrient concentrations in
the Lakes, although high concentrations still occur
locally in some embayments and harbors.
Phosphorus loads have decreased in part due to
changes in agricultural practices (e.g., conservation
tillage and integrated crop management), promotion
of phosphorus-free detergents, and improvements
made to sewage treatment plants and sewer
systems.
Average concentrations in the open waters of Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or
below expected levels. Concentrations in the three
basins of Lake Erie fluctuate from year to year and
frequently exceed target concentrations. In Lakes
Ontario and Huron, some offshore and nearshore
areas and embayments experience elevated levels
that can promote nuisance algae growths such as
the attached green alga, Cladophora.
Future Pressures
Even if current phosphorus controls are maintained,
additional loadings of phosphorus can be expected.
Increasing numbers of people living in the Great
Lakes basin will exert increasing demands on
existing sewage treatment facilities, likely
contributing to increases in phosphorus loads.
Acknowledgments
Author: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON.
65
-------
Huron
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 61. Total phosphorus trends in the Great Lakes 1971-2002 (Spring, Open Lake, Surface). Blank
indicates no sampling. Horizontal line on each graphic represents the phosphorus guideline as listed
in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for each Lake. Burgundy bar graphs represent
Environment Canada data. Blue bar graphs represent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data.
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
Waterbirds
Indicator #115
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the current chemical
concentrations and trends, as well as ecological and
physiological endpoints, in representative colonial
waterbirds (gulls, terns, cormorants and/or herons).
These features will be used to infer and measure the
impact of contaminants on the health (i.e., the
physiology and breeding characteristics) of the
waterbird populations.
State of the Ecosystem
Testing for spatial patterns has identified
contaminant "hot spots". The database shows that
most contaminants in gull eggs have declined a
minimum of 50% and many have declined more
than 90% since the program began in 1974. In 2002,
analysis of seven contaminants in Herring Gull eggs
from fifteen sites showed that, in more than 72% of
cases, contaminants levels were decreasing as fast or
faster than they had been in the past.
Spatially, in 2001, gull eggs from Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River continued to have the
highest levels of mirex. The highest dioxin (2,3,7,8-
TCDD) levels were found at Saginaw Bay (Lake
66
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Figure 62. Temporal trends in DDE in herring gull
eggs from Toronto Harbour, 1974-2002.
Source: Bishop et al., 1992; Pettit et al., 1994; Pekarik et al., 1998 and
Jermyn et al., 2003
o 20
c
| 15
1 10
1 5
Figure 64. Nest Numbers (number of breeding
pairs) of Double-crested Cormorants on Lake
Ontario, 1979-2002.
Source: Price and D.V. Weseloh, 1986; Havelka and D.V. Weseloh, 2003
Colonies (arranged west to east)
1899 D200l|
Figure 63. Changes in spatial patterns of PCB
1:1 levels in herring gull eggs from the Annual
Monitor Colonies, 1999 and 2001.
Source: Jermyn et al., 2003
Huron) followed by the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario-
Niagara River corridor. Sites on Lake Michigan had
the highest levels of dieldrin and heptachlor
epoxide. Eggs from Saginaw Bay and Lake
Michigan had the highest levels of
dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE).
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) was found in the highest
amounts at Saginaw Bay and the Niagara River.
Eggs from Saginaw Bay and the Detroit River-
western Lake Erie area had the highest levels of
PCBs.
Populations of most species have increased over the
past 25-30 years. Double-crested Cormorants, whose
population levels have increased more than 400-
fold, have been shown to still exhibit some eggshell
thinning.
Future Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all
sources of contaminants that reach the Great Lakes,
such as resuspension of sediments, as in western
Lake Erie, and atmospheric inputs, such as PCBs in
Lake Superior, as well as other sources, such as
underground seepage from landfill sites.
Acknowledgments
Authors: D.V. Chip Weseloh and Tania Havelka, Canadian Wildlife
Service, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Thanks to past and present staff at CWS-Ontario Region (Burlington and
Downsview), as well as staff at the CWS National Wildlife Research Centre
(Ottawa, ON) and wildlife biologists Ray Faber, Keith Grasman, Ralph
Morris, Jim Quinn and Brian Ratcliff for egg collections, preparation,
analysis and data management over the 28 years of this project.
67
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Chemicals
Indicator #117
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses annual average loadings of
priority toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the
Great Lakes and temporal trends in contaminant
concentrations.
State of the Ecosystem
The binational U.S.-Canada Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network (IADN) consists of five master
sampling sites, one near each of the Great Lakes,
and several satellite stations.
Concentrations of gas-phase total PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls) have generally
decreased over time at the rural master stations.
However, PCB concentrations at a satellite site in
downtown Chicago are an order of magnitude
higher than at the master stations.
Gas-phase a-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)
concentrations are decreasing at all sites. Generally,
this downward trend applies to other banned or
restricted pesticides measured by IADN.
Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in
precipitation have also decreased over time.
375-
350-
325-
300-
"E 275-
g 250-
c 225-
0
= 200-
HCH Concentr
si 1 a 3 a
50-
25-
0
S».
^ j
I|T
|
\
i
r£
Hf
fl
flnfe
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
t^
ml
1996
j
-A
mlrrterft'fl-^
iM fflU
1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
I^Lake Superior cziLake Michigan cziLake Erie
Lake Huron ^Lake Ontario All Sjte|
.~. 1800,
-g 1300-
-"' 800-
1" 300
ro -200
o
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
concentrations of chemicals no longer in use, such
as most of the organochlorine pesticides, may
decrease to undetectable levels.
Residual sources of PCBs remain in the
environment, and atmospheric deposition will still
be significant in the future. PAHs and metals
continue to be emitted, and concentrations of these
substances may not decrease or may decrease very
slowly. Currently released substances, including
mercury, other in-use pesticides, and dioxins and
furans, will also be present in the future.
Atmospheric deposition of chemicals of emerging
concern, such as brominated flame retardants, could
also become a future stressor on the Great Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Author: Melissa Hulling, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on behalf
of the IADN Steering Committee.
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Indicator # 4083
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the concentration of
persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals in
Great Lakes fish, and it is used to infer the potential
exposure of humans to PBT chemicals through
consumption of Great Lakes fish caught via sport
and subsistence fishing. This will be accomplished
using fish contaminant data and a standardized fish
advisory protocol. The approach is illustrated using
the Great Lakes protocol for PCBs as the
standardized fish advisory benchmark.
State of the Ecosystem
Since the 1970s, there have been declines in many
persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals in the
Great Lakes basin. However, PBT chemicals,
because of their ability to bioaccumulate and persist
in the environment, continue to be a significant
concern.
Fish consumption advisory programs are well
established in the Great Lakes. States, tribes, and the
Province of Ontario have extensive fish contaminant
monitoring programs, and issue advice to their
residents about how much fish and which fish are
PCBs in Lake Superior Coho Salmon
_ 2-
E
Q.
S: 1.5'
& 10
2
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
One meaTperweek Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Michigan Coho Salmon
2
I
S: 1.5
0.5
One me
2-
E
Q.
S: 1.5-
m 1n
g I.O
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
(A QJJ (~jb
IOne meal per month
In
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
Year *
al per week Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Huron Coho Salmon
Do not eal
One meal every two months
One meal per month
11 '
LI
#NI * <**
1
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
N k N V - - - p -X-
i Year »
One meal per week Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Erie Coho Salmon
2
E
Q.
e 1.5-
g 1.0
0.5'
0-°
One me
2-
E
Q.
S: 1.5-
-------
2003
safe to eat. Advice from these agencies to limit
consumption of fish results from levels of PCBs,
mercury, chlordane, dioxin, and toxaphene in the
fish tissues.
The accompanying figures illustrate the results of
applying a uniform fish advisory protocol to
historical data for PCBs in coho salmon fillets. The
resulting advisories do not necessarily reflect actual
advisories issued in each Lake basin.
Future Pressures
Organochlorine contaminants in fish in the Great
Lakes are generally decreasing. As these
contaminants decline, mercury will become a more
prominent contaminant of concern regarding the
edibility of fish. Contaminants, such as certain
brominated flame retardants, are increasing in the
environment and could be a concern in the future.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Sandy Hellman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, and Patricia McCann,
Minnesota Department of Health.
Air Quality
Indicator #4176
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses air quality in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, and it infers the potential impact of air
quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
There has been significant progress in reducing air
pollution in the Great Lakes basin. For most
substances of interest, both emissions and ambient
concentrations have decreased over the last ten
years or more. However, progress has not been
uniform and differences in weather from one year to
the next complicate analysis of ambient trends.
Ozone can be particularly elevated during hot
summers. Drought conditions result in more
fugitive dust emissions from roads and fields,
increasing the ambient levels of paniculate matter.
For this report, the pollutants can be divided into
urban (or local) and regional pollutants. References
to the U.S. or Canada refer to the respective portions
of the Great Lakes basin. Latest published air
quality data are for 2000. Urban pollutants include
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulphur dioxide (SO2), lead, total reduced sulfur
(TRS) and paniculate matter (PM). In the U.S., CO
ambient levels have decreased approximately 41%
from 1991 to 2000, and 61% from 1981 to 2000.
Emissions have declined by 4.1% in Ontario
between 1991 and 2000.
Average ambient NO2 concentrations in Ontario and
the U.S. have declined during the period from 1991
to 2000, but remain unchanged in the Lake
Michigan area. From 1991 to 2000, ambient
concentrations of SO2 in the U.S. decreased 37%.
Canadian ambient levels have remained relatively
constant since 1994. Canadian emissions decreased
45% overall from 1980 to 2000, but since 1995 have
remained relatively constant. U.S. and Canada lead
concentrations decreased 93% from 1981 to 2000 and
50% from 1991 to 2000. Ambient concentrations of
TRS are significantly lower than in the early 1990s
with a decrease of 33.3% during the period of 1991
to 2000.
Ambient concentrations of PM10 (diameter 10
microns or less) in the U.S. have decreased 19%
from 1991 to 2000. Canadian objectives have focused
on Total Suspended Paniculate matter (TSP). Both
PM10 and TSP affect locations relatively close to
pollutant sources. Ontario PM10 emissions
decreased from 1988 to 1992, but have shown no
significant trend since that time.
Regional pollutants include ozone, PM2.5 (diameter
2.5 microns or less), and air toxics. Ozone is a
problem pollutant over broad areas of the Great
Lakes region, except for the Lake Superior basin.
Consistently high levels are found in provincial
parks near Lakes Huron and Erie, and western
Michigan is impacted by transport across Lake
Michigan from Chicago. Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) emissions have decreased 16%
and NOx emissions have increased three percent
from 1991 to 2000. Human made VOC emissions
have decreased about 17% since 1991. NOx
emissions have remained fairly constant since 1995
with a slight increase in overall emissions since
1990. PM2.5 is a health concern because it can
penetrate deeply into the lungs, in contrast to larger
70
-------
STATE
particles. As PM2.5 monitoring has only begun quite
recently, there are not enough data to show a
national long-term trend in urban concentrations. In
Ontario, 93% of the sites experienced exceedences.
As of August 2002, Ontario had also introduced
PM2.5 into their Air Quality Index and Smog
Advisory Programs. In the U.S., there are not
enough years of data from the recently established
reference-method network to determine trends, but
it appears that there may be many areas that do not
attain the new U.S. standard.
The term "Air Toxics" includes a large number of
pollutants that have potential to harm human health
or cause adverse environmental and ecological
effects. Some of these are of local importance, near
to sources, while others may be transported over
long distances. Monitoring is difficult and
expensive, and it is usually limited in scope. Usually
such toxic air pollutants are present only at trace
levels. In both Canada and the U.S., efforts focus on
minimizing emissions and setting standards. Once
fully implemented, these standards will cut
emissions of toxic air pollutants by nearly 1.5
million tons per year from the 1990 levels.
Future Pressures
Continued population growth and associated urban
sprawl are threatening to counterbalance emission
reduction efforts. The changing climate may affect
the frequency of weather conditions conducive to
high ambient concentrations of many pollutants.
There is also increasing evidence of changes to the
atmosphere as a whole. Continuing health research
is focusing on a larger number of toxic chemicals,
and it is producing evidence that existing standards
should be lowered.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Bryan Tugwood, Environment Canada, Meteorological Services
of Canada, Downsview, ON; Todd Nettesheim, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL; and
Michael Rizzo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Division, Chicago, IL.
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Indicator #4858
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating (with
respect to climate change)
Purpose
This indicator assesses the ice duration, and thereby
the temperature and accompanying physical
changes to each Lake over time, in order to infer the
potential impact of climate change.
State of the Ecosystem
Observations of the Great Lakes data showed no
conclusive trends with respect to the date of freeze-
up or break-up. It was not possible to observe an
entire Lake during the winter season (at least before
satellite imagery), and therefore only regional
observations were made (inner bays and ports).
However, there were enough data collected from ice
charts to state that a decrease in the maximum ice
cover has occurred over the last thirty years.
The trend on each of the five Lakes shows that
during this 30 year period, the maximum amount of
ice forming each year has been decreasing. This can
be correlated to the average ice cover per season
observed for the same period. Between the 1970s
and 1990s there was a 10% decline in the maximum
ice cover on each Lake, as much as 18% in some
cases, with the greatest decline occurring during
the!990s.
Future Pressures
It appears that ice formation of the Great Lakes will
likely continue to decrease in total cover, based on
current predictions of global atmospheric warming.
Lake
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Ontario
Superior
1970-1979
94.5
71.3
50.2
39.8
74.5
1980-1989
90.8
71.7
45.6
29.7
73.9
1990-1999
77.3
61.3
32.4
28.1
62.0
Change from
1970s to 1990s
-17.2
-10.0
-17.8
-11.7
-12.6
Figure 68. Mean ice coverage, in percent, during
the corresponding decade.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
71
-------
Milder winters will have a drastic effect on ice cover
of the Lakes that will affect many aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems that rely on Lake ice for
protection and food acquisition. Effects from general
development, human habitation, hydroelectric
development and wastewater input will also affect
ice duration on the Great Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Author: Gregg Ferris, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON.
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Indicator #8131
Note: This indicator report is from 2000
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator assesses the extent of hardened
shoreline through construction of sheet piling, rip
rap, or other erosion control structures.
State of the Ecosystem
Shoreline hardening not only directly destroys
natural features, but also disrupts more subtle
biological communities that depend upon the
transport of shoreline sediment by lake currents.
Hardening also destroys inshore habitat for fish,
birds and other biota.
o
V)
a
9)
9)
a
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting
Channels
Entire Basin
I 0-15% Hardened
I 40-70% Hardened
n 15-40% Hardened
70-100% Hardened
Figure 69. Shoreline hardening in the Great
Lakes compiled from 1979 data for the state of
Michigan and 1987-1989 data for the rest of the
basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration
The St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara Rivers have a
higher percentage of their shorelines hardened than
anywhere else in the basin. Of the Lakes themselves,
Lake Erie has the highest percentage of its shoreline
hardened, and Lakes Huron and Superior have the
lowest.
Shoreline changes along 13.7 miles (22 kilometers)
of the Canadian side of the St. Clair River were
assessed from 1991-1999. An additional 3.4 miles
(5.5 kilometers) of the shoreline had become
hardened during this time. This rate of hardening is
not representative of the overall basin as the St.
Clair River is a narrow shipping channel with high
volumes of Great Lakes shipping traffic. Many
property owners are also hardening the shoreline to
reduce the impacts of erosion.
Future Pressures
Shoreline hardening can be considered a permanent
feature. Pressure will continue to harden additional
stretches of shoreline, especially during periods of
high Lake levels. The hardening of shoreline will
starve the down-current areas of sediment to
replenish that which eroded away, causing further
erosion and a further incentive for additional
hardening. Other ecological costs include further
degradation and loss of coastal wetlands and sand
dunes.
Acknowledgments
Authors: John Schneider, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL; Duane Heaton, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL, and Harold Leadlay, Environment Canada, Environmental
Emergencies Section, Downsview, ON.
72
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
I 70-100% Hardened 40-70% Hardened
Figure 70. Shoreline hardening by Lake
compiled from 1979 data for the state of
Michigan and 1987-1989 data for the rest of the
basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration
Contaminants Affecting Productivity
of Bald Eagles
Indicator #8135
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number of fledged
young, the number of developmental deformities
and the concentrations of persistent organic
pollutants and heavy metals in bald eagle eggs,
blood, and feathers. The data will be used to infer
the potential for harm to other wildlife and human
health through the consumption of contaminated
fish.
State of the Ecosystem
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals are
decreasing or stable, but still above No Observable
Adverse Effect Concentrations (NOAECs) for the
primary organic contaminants, DDE and PCBs. Bald
eagles are now distributed extensively along much
of the shoreline of the Great Lakes, but there are still
several reaches of Great Lakes shoreline where the
bald eagle has not recovered.
The number of active bald eagle territories has risen
in the Great Lakes basin. The recovery of
reproductive output at the population level has
followed similar patterns in each basin, but the
timing has differed between the various Lakes.
Established territories in most areas are now
producing one or more young per territory,
indicating that the population is healthy and
capable of increasing.
Future Pressures
High levels of persistent contaminants in bald
eagles continue to be a concern. Eagles are relatively
rare and contaminant effects on individuals can be
important to the well being of local populations. In
addition, relatively large areas of habitat are
necessary to support eagles, and continued
development pressures along the shorelines of the
Great Lakes constitute a concern. The interactions of
contaminant pressures and habitat limitations are
unknown at present.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ken Stromborg and David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Pamela Martin, Canadian Wildlife Service. Contributions by: Ted
Armstrong, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Lowell Tesky,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Cheryl Dykstra, Cleves, OH;
Peter Nye, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; William
Bowerman, Clemson University. John Netto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
assisted with computer support.
Figure 71. Approximate nesting locations of bald
eagles along the Great Lakes shorelines, 2000.
Source: W. Bowerman, Clemson University, Lake Superior LaMPs,
and for Lake Ontario, Peter Nye, and N.Y. Department of
Environmental Conservation
73
-------
2DD
1BO
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
|-»-Superior --Michigan -a-Huron -- Erie Ontario]
Figure 72. Average number of occupied
territories per year by Lake.
Source: Dave Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin,
Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
Acid Rain
Indicator #9000
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the sulphate levels in
precipitation and critical loadings of sulphate to the
Great Lakes basin. This indicator can be used to
infer the effectiveness of policies to reduce sulphur
and nitrogen oxide emissions to the atmosphere.
State of the Ecosystem
Much of the acidic deposition in North America falls
in the Great Lakes basin and surrounding areas.
However, the five Great Lakes are so large that
acidic deposition has little effect on them directly.
Impacts are mainly felt on vegetation and inland
lakes in acid-sensitive areas, such as the Canadian
Shield. Acid deposition is still a significant problem
in those areas.
The most common releases of SO2 in Canada are
from industrial processes such as non-ferrous
mining and metal smelting. In the United States,
electrical utilities constitute the largest emissions
source. The primary source of NOx emissions in both
countries is the combustion of fuels in motor
vehicles, with electric utilities and industrial sources
also contributing.
Figure 73. Patterns of wet non-sea salt SO4 and
wet NO3 deposition for two five-year periods
during the 1990s, (top left: SO4for 1990-1994;
top right: SO4for 1996-2000; bottom left: NO3 for
1990-1994; bottom right: NO3 for 1996-2000).
Source: Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement 2002 Progress Report
In 2000, total SO2 emissions in Canada were 2.5
million tons, which was about 20% below the
national cap of 3.2 million tons. Emissions in 2000
also represented a 45% reduction from 1980
emission levels. In 2001, all participating sources of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Acid
Rain Program achieved a total reduction in SO2
emissions of about 32% from 1990 levels, and 35%
from 1980 levels. Overall, a 38% reduction in SO2
emissions is projected in Canada and the United
States from 1980 to 2010. In the United States, the
reduction is mainly due to controls on electric
utilities, while in Canada, the reduction is mainly
due to controls on both the non-ferrous mining/
smelting sector and electric utilites that occur as part
of the Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy program.
Despite these efforts, rain is still too acidic
throughout most of the Great Lakes region, and if
SO2 emissions remain relatively constant after the
year 2000, as predicted, it is unlikely that sulfate
deposition will change in the coming decade.
74
-------
By 2000, Canadian NOx emissions were reduced by
more than 100,000 tons below the forecast level of
970,000 tons at power plants, major combustion
sources, and smelting operations. Canada is also
developing other programs to further reduce NOx
emissions. In the U.S., reductions in NOx emissions
have already surpassed the 2 million ton reduction
for stationary and mobile sources mandated by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Trends have
been predicted for NOx emission levels in Canada
and the United States through 2010. By 2010, U.S.
levels are expected to have decreased by
approximately 21% from 2000 levels. Canadian NOx
emissions have increased slightly since 1990, but are
expected to decrease to 1980 levels by 2010. These
small reductions are attributed to mobile sources.
Wet sulfate deposition in the eastern part of Canada
and the U.S. has decreased after the implementation
of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendment emission
reductions of SO2 in 1995. Wet nitrate deposition
changed little in the 1990s in response to minimal
change in nitrogen oxide emissions throughout the
decade.
Future Pressures
Pressures will continue to grow as the population
within and outside the basin increases, causing
increased demands on electrical utilities, resources
and an increased number of motor vehicles.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Dean S. Jeffries, National Water Research Institute, Environment
Canada, Burlington, ON; Robert Vet, Meteorological Service of Canada,
Environment Canada, Downsview, ON; and Todd Nettesheim, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL.
Non-Native Species Introduced into
the Great Lakes
Indicator #9002
Assessment: Poor
Purpose
This indicator reports introductions of aquatic
organisms not naturally occurring in the Great
Lakes, and it is used to assess the status of biotic
communities in the basin. This indicator will expand
to include terrestrial organisms in the future.
State of the Ecosystem
Since the 1830s, there have been 78 non-native
aquatic animal (fauna) species introduced into the
Great Lakes. Main entry mechanisms are associated
with the ship vector, migration through canals, and
accidental releases. In terms of aquatic plant species
(flora), in almost the same timeframe there have
been 84 species introduced into the Great Lakes
ecosystem, primarily in association with shipping
and cultivation.
Even with ballast exchange programs recently
implemented in Canada and the United States, new
non-native species associated with shipping
activities have been reported and identified. It is
essential that entry mechanisms be closely
monitored and effective safeguards introduced and
adjusted as necessary.
Future Pressures
Introductions of non-native species will continue
due to increases in global trade; new diversions of
water into the Great Lakes; aquaculture industries,
such as fish farming, live food, and garden ponds;
changes in water quality and temperature; and the
previous introduction of non-native species from
outside the basin.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Edward L. Mills, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell
University, Bridgeport, NY, and Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
75
-------
1930 1950 1970 1991
| Fauna -A-Flora]
Figure 74. Cumulative number of aquatic
non-native species established in the
Great Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Source: Mills et al., 1993, Ricciardi, 2001
1
I
I
Release Mechanisi
| Fauna D Flora
Figure 75. Release mechanisms for aquatic
non-native species established in the
Great Lakes basin since 1830.
Source: Mills et al., 1993, Ricciardi, 2001
Uj
__ L _ I _ -, _
Endemic Region
| Fauna D Flora |
Figure 76. Regions of origin for aquatic
non-native species established in the
Great Lakes basin.
Source: Mills et al., 1993, Ricciardi, 2001
76
-------
4.4 PRESSURE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 2
Sl'MMARY OF PRKSSrRK INDICATORS-PART 2
The overall assessment for the Pressure indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC
2000, but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still
valid, and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the
required data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new
monitoring programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing
may be needed before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year
Spottail Shiners
" ' r,': 1 liT.ri.-U 'I'V.i H i
Concetnrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores
E.coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in
Nearshore Recreational Waters
Drinking Water Quality
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle
Eggs
i i f. '' ! -i- V\. .'!' I' i .... -. . >l ; h '. 1 i ;, 'i'H.'-rr-
Mass Transporation
Water Use
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Generation
Population Monitoring and
Contaminants Affecting the
American Otter
Assessment in 2000
No Report
No Report
Mixed
Good
Mixed
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
No Report
No Report
Not Assessed
Assessement in 2002
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Good
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating (for
Lake Superior basin)
Mixed
Mixed
represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
77
-------
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year
Spottail Shiners
Indicator #114
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator assesses the levels of persistent
bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals in young-of-
the-year spottail shiners, and it will help to infer
local areas of elevated contaminant levels and
potential harm to fish-eating wildlife.
State of the Ecosystem
In each of the Great Lakes, PCB is the contaminant
most frequently exceeding the International Joint
Commission's Aquatic Life Guideline. Total
dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) is often
detected, and although the guideline has been
exceeded in the past, current concentrations are well
below the guideline. Mirex is detected and exceeds
the guideline only at Lake Ontario locations. Other
PBT chemicals are not frequently detected, and if
detected, are at concentrations well below the
guidelines.
In Lake Erie, the trends show higher concentrations
of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the early
years with a steady decline over time. After 1987,
PCB concentrations have remained near the
guideline of 100 ng/g. At Thunder Bay Beach the
highest concentration of PCBs was in 1978
(146ng/g). After 1978, PCB concentrations have
been less than lOOng/g. Total DDT concentrations at
almost all sites in Lake Erie have been well below
the guideline of 200 ng/g.
In Lake Huron, Collingwood Harbour had the
highest PCB concentrations when sampling
commenced in 1987 (206ng/g). Since then, PCB
concentrations have either exceeded or fallen just
below the guideline of 100 ng/g.
In Lake Superior, contaminant concentrations were
generally low in all years and at all locations. The
highest PCB concentrations in Lake Superior were
found at the Mission River in 1983 (139ng/g). All
other analytical results were less than the guideline.
Contaminant concentrations from five locations in
Lake Ontario were examined for trend analysis.
PCBs, total DDT and mirex are generally higher at
these (and other Lake Ontario) locations than
elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Overall, PCBs at all
locations tended to be higher in the early years,
ranging from 3 to 30 times the guideline. Mirex has
exceeded the guideline of 5ng/g intermittently at all
five locations. Since 1992, mirex has not been
detected at any of these locations. Total DDT
concentrations approached or exceeded the
guideline (200 ng/g) at all five locations in the 1970s
and on occasion in the 1980s. The typical
concentration of total DDT at all five locations is
currently near 50 ng/g.
Future Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all
sources of contaminants that enter the Great Lakes
ecosystem. New and emerging contaminants will
also pose a threat to young-of-the-year spottail
shiners.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Emily Awad and Alan Hayton, Sport Fish Contaminant
Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON.
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in
Offshore Waters
Indicator #118
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator reports the concentration of priority
toxic chemicals in offshore waters, and by
comparison to criteria for the protection for aquatic
life and human health, infers the potential for
impacts on the health of the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Many toxic chemicals are present in the Great Lakes.
As a result of various ecosystem health assessments,
a comparatively small number have been identified
as "critical pollutants".
Concentrations of organochlorines are still declining
78
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario
at Twelve Mile Creek
1500
1000
100
0
^
<&
*
Year
Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at
Twelve Mile Creek
U 20
| 10
^ 0
A
!> «#
Year
Total DDT Levels in Juvenile
Spottail Shiners from Lake Ontario
at Twelve Mile Creek
200
Q
Q
Year
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at the
Credit River
Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at the
Credit River
50
40
30
20
10
0
~fj.fi.
Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at the
Credit River
^400
? 300
200 -
100 |
0
Year
Year
Year
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at
Burlington Beach
1000
800
600
400
200.
Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at
Burlington Beach
t
O)
Year
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at
Bronte Creek
Figure 77. PCB, mirex, and total DDT levels in Juvenille Spottail
Shiners from five locations in Lake Ontario. The figures show
mean concentrations plus standard deviations of PCBs, total
DDT and mirex. When not detected, one half of the detection
limit was used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Year
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at
Number River
4000
Year
79
-------
Dieldrin Concentrations (ng/L)
<0.15
0.15-0.20
0.20 +
0.4
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
St. Lawrence River
Downstream,
St. Clair River
86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Downstream,
iagara River
86 88 90 92 94 96 98
86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Figure 78. Spatial dieldrin patterns in the Great Lakes (Spring 1997,1999, or 2000, Surface) and
annual mean concentrations for the interconnecting channels from 1986 to 1998. Units = ng/L.
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada
in the Great Lakes in response to management
efforts. An example of an organochlorine with more
widespread distribution is dieldrin, which is
observed at all open Lake stations and connecting
channels sites. Concentrations throughout the Great
Lakes have decreased by more than 50% between
1986 and 2000 and are still declining. However,
dieldrin exceeds New York State's water quality
criterion (0.0006 ng/L) for the protection of human
consumers of fish by a factor of 50-300 times.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), octachlorostyrene, and
mirex are present due to historical, localized
sources, and their occurrence in the environment is
isolated to specific locations in the Great Lakes
basin. Concentrations of all three in the Niagara
River have decreased by more than 50% between
1986 and 1998. However, both HCB and mirex
continue to exceed New York State's criteria of 0.03
ng/L and 0.001 ng/L respectively, for the protection
of human consumers of fish.
Most chlorobenzenes, chlorinated pesticides and
PCBs have decreased in concentration. For poly-
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some have
decreased, some have not changed and a few have
increased.
Future Pressures
Management efforts to control inputs of
organochlorines have resulted in decreasing
concentrations in the Great Lakes. Historical sources
for some, however, still appear to affect ambient
concentrations in the environment. Chemicals such
as endocrine disrupting chemicals, in-use pesticides,
and Pharmaceuticals are emerging issues.
Acknowledgments
Author: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON.
80
-------
Concentrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores
Indicator #119
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator assesses the concentrations of toxic
chemicals in sediments. This indicator will also be
used to infer the potential harm to aquatic
ecosystems by contaminated sediments, and to infer
the progress of various Great Lakes programs
toward virtual elimination of toxic chemicals in the
Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
A comprehensive sediment contaminant survey of
the open waters of the Great Lakes in 1997 was
initiated by Environment Canada. Data for 34
chemicals with guidelines were available for Lakes
Erie and Ontario. Generally, the Canadian federal
probable effect level (PEL) guideline was used when
available; otherwise the Ontario lowest effect level
(LEL) guideline was used. The sediment quality
index (SQI) ranged from fair in Lake Ontario to
excellent in eastern Lake Erie. Spatial trends in
sediment quality in Lakes Erie and Ontario reflected
overall trends for individual contaminant classes
such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The spatial representation of sediment
quality using the individual site SQI scores as well
as the area SQI scores represent the individual
spatial patterns in the 34 chemicals.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-GLNPO
used the SQI to evaluate data collected as part of the
investigation of contaminated sediments in
nearshore areas and rivers within the Areas of
Concern (AOCs). The SQI was applied to 5 priority
AOCs for which sediment data had been collected.
SQI scores for these AOCs are based on the results
of available chemical analysis for surficial sediment
concentrations only. Future sediment data collected
at these sites can be compared to these SQI scores to
determine trends in sediment contamination.
data on lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, and mercury
have been integrated. Open lake sediment data was
analyzed to identify trends in sediment
contamination at open lake index sites. In most
cases, the declines in concentrations from 1971 to
1997 are in the range of 40%-50%, but this value
varies from Lake to Lake.
SQI values
0-40 (Poor)
40 - 60 (Marginal)
60 - 80 (Fair)
80 - 95 (Good)
95 + (Excellent)
Figure 79. Site Sediment Quality Index (SQI)
based on lead, zinc, copper, cadmium and
mercury.
Source: Chris Marvin, Environment Canada, National Water Research
Institute (1997-2001 data for all Lakes except Michigan); and Ronald
Rossman, USEPA (1994-1996 data for Lake Michigan)
Future Pressures
Management efforts to control inputs of historical
contaminants have resulted in decreasing
contaminant concentrations in the Great Lakes
open-water sediments for the standard list of
chemicals. However, additional chemicals such as
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs),
polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs),
polychlorinated alkanes (PCAs), endocrine
disrupting chemicals, in-use pesticides, and
Pharmaceuticals represent emerging issues and
potential future stressors to the ecosystem.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Scott Painter and Chris Marvin, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON, and Scott Cieniawski, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, IL.
Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency integrated available data from
the open waters of each of the Great Lakes. To date,
81
-------
E.coh and Fecal Coliform Levels in
Nearshore Recreational Waters
Indicator #4081
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide and multiple sources are
not consistent
Purpose
This indicator assesses E. coli and fecal coliform
levels in nearshore recreational waters, which act as
surrogate indicators for other pathogen types, in
order to infer potential harm to human health
through body contact with nearshore recreational
waters.
State of the Ecosystem
For both the U.S. and Canada, as the frequency of
monitoring and reporting increases, more advisories
and closings are also observed. Both countries
experienced a doubling of beaches that had
advisories or closings for more than 10% of the
season in 2000. Further analysis of the data may
show seasonal and local trends in recreational
waters. If episodes of poor recreational water
quality can be associated with specific events, then
Proportion of U.S. Great Lake Beaches
with Beach Advisories for the
1998-2001 Bathing Seasons
Proportion of Canadian Great Lake Beaches
with Beach Advisories for the
1998-2001 Bathing Seasons
% Time with Beach Advisories
and Closures
0% Closed
n1%- 4% Closed
5%-9% Closed
>10% Closed
Number of Great Lakes Beaches
reported each year:
U.S. Canada
313-2001 -304
329-2000-293
316-1999-238
298-1998-218
Figure 80. Proportion of U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes beaches with beach advisories and closures
for 1998 to 2001 bathing seasons.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA Beach Watch Program, National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for Swimming, 1998- 2001, and Canadian
data obtained from Ontario Health Units along the Great Lakes
Canadian Great Lake Beaches
that Exceeded the Standard
Canadian Great Lake Beaches
with Beach Advisories
Figure 81. Status of Canadian Great Lakes beaches reported in terms of Beach Advisories versus
Provincial Standard Exceedances (for the 1999 to 2001 bathing seasons).
Source: Data obtained from Ontario Health Units along the Great Lakes
82
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
forecasting for episodes of poor water quality may
become more accurate. In the Great Lakes basin,
unless new contaminant sources are removed or
introduced, beaches tend to respond with similar
bacteria levels after events with similar precipitation
and meteorological conditions.
The method of issuing beach advisories is
sometimes imperfect. When bacterial counts are
above the standard, this information is not known
until one or two days later when the lab results
arrive. This process may leave a potentially
contaminated beach open, risking swimmers'
health, and may result in an advisory being issued
when the problem has likely passed. Methods are
needed to identify risk before exposure takes place.
An examination of historical geometric means may
provide a less subjective way of determining the
health risk category of beaches.
Conditions required to post Canadian beaches have
become more standardized as a result of the 1998
Beach Management Protocol, but the conditions
required to remove the postings remain variable. In
the U.S., all coastal states will adopt, by April 2004,
E. coli indicators for fresh water as a condition of the
BEACH Act grant.
Future Pressures
Additional point and non-point source pollution at
coastal areas due to population growth and
increased land use may result in additional beach
closings and advisories. Inability to develop a rapid
test protocol for E.coli is lending support to
advanced models to predict when to post beaches.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Christina Clark, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON;
David Rockwell and Martha Aviles-Quintero, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Intern-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL, and Holiday Wirick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Regional 5
Water Division.
Drinking Water Quality
Indicator #4175
Assessment: Good
Data from multiple sources are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator assesses the chemical and microbial
contaminant levels in drinking water. It also
assesses the potential for human exposure to
drinking water contaminants and the effectiveness
of policies and technologies to ensure safe drinking
water.
State of the Ecosystem
There are many facets of drinking water. This report
focuses on raw, treated and some distributed
samples of water from lake, river, and groundwater
sources.
This indicator assessment is based on ten
parameters. The chemical parameters are: atrazine,
nitrate and nitrite. The microbiological parameters
are: total coliform, Escherischia coli (E.coli), Giardia,
and Cryptosporidium. Turbidity and total organic
carbon/dissolved organic carbon (TOC/DOC) can
be used to indicate other potential health problems
such as microbial pathogens, or the presence of
organic matter in the water.
Figure 82. Locations of the public water systems
(PWS) and the source from which the water is
drawn.
Source: Mike Makdisi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Intern
83
-------
2003
The risk for human exposure to chemical
contaminants is minimal, based on atrazine data
from 104 Public Water Systems (PWSs), and nitrate
and nitrite data from 56 PWSs. Average and
maximum levels for all three chemicals rarely
exceeded the limits in treated drinking water, and
most facilities' source water had levels so low that
treatment was not needed to ensure compliance
with the set standards.
Based on data provided by 48 Water Treatment
Plants (WTPs), the trend for total coliform and E. coli
from 1999-2001 shows that higher coliform counts
are found in the Great Lakes surface waters and
rivers, with the highest counts occurring during the
spring, summer and early fall.
Total coliform by itself is not necessarily harmful,
but may indicate the presence of harmful bacteria
such as E. coli. The standard in both countries for E.
coli is zero. In both countries, low exceedence rates
for total coliform in treated water, compared to the
higher rates of coliform and E. coli found in source
waters, is indicative of the effective disinfection
processes used at WTPs within the Great Lakes
basin.
For Giardia and Cryptosporidium, there are no
proposed numerical guidelines at the moment for
Ontario. Giardia or Cryptosporidium are rarely found
in treated water, and no reports of Giardia or
Cryptosporidium were found in the few reported
samples that were tested from distributed water.
Turbidity levels for source water from the Great
Lakes from 1999-2001 are declining, and treatment
of source waters further reduces turbidity levels in
drinking water.
Based on 98 PWSs, TOC/DOC levels are usually
higher in inland lakes and rivers, regardless of the
season, with occasional elevated levels, scattered
throughout the year, found in the Great Lakes and
their connecting channels. Trends also indicate that
WTPs across the basin have relatively low TOC/
DOC levels after treatment.
Taste and odor are very important to the consumer,
but are also very difficult to measure quantitatively.
From 1999 to 2001, higher levels of Geosmin and 2-
MIB (chemicals indicative of taste and odor, which
are also associated with algae blooms) were
associated with warmer waters. These elevated
levels appeared in samples taken from the Great
Lakes surface water, even though these samples had
few taste and odor problems identified. In contrast
to Great Lakes surface water, elevated levels of
Geosmin and 2-MIB were found during other times
of the year in river water, and once in groundwater.
Overall, based primarily on samples before
distribution, there were infrequent problems with
taste and odor in drinking water from the Great
Lakes basin.
Future Pressures
Future pressures on drinking water quality in the
Great Lakes basin will include runoff from land use
and agricultural practices, point source pollution,
newly introduced chemicals, non-native species,
increases in algal presence and water temperatures,
byproducts of drinking water disinfection processes,
and problems associated with aging distribution
systems.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Mike Makdisi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Intern-
GLNPO, and Angelica Guillarte, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview,
ON.
Much thanks goes to Tom Murphy, Miguel Del Toral, Kimberly Harris, and
Sahba Rouhani from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Fred
Schultz from the Chicago Water Department for their input. Additional
thanks go to all the operators and managers from the water treatment
plants that helped to gather and submit data.
84
-------
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Indicator #4506
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator measures the concentrations of
persistent contaminants in the eggs of common
snapping turtles living in wetlands of the Great
Lakes basin in order to provide an indirect measure
of foodweb contamination and its effects on wetland
wildlife.
State of the Ecosystem
Contaminants in snapping turtle eggs show changes
over time and space. Snapping turtle eggs collected
at two Lake Ontario sites (Cootes Paradise and
Lynde Creek) had the highest concentrations of
polychlorinated dioxins and number of furans. Eggs
from Cranberry Marsh (Lake Ontario) and two Lake
Erie sites (Long Point and Rondeau Provincial Park)
had similar levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and organochlorines. Eggs from Akwesasne
(St. Lawrence River) contained the highest level of
PCBs. Levels of PCBs and dichlorodiphenyl-
dichloroethylene (DDE) increased significantly from
1984 to 1990-1991 in eggs from Cootes Paradise and
Lynde Creek, but levels of dioxins and furans
decreased significantly at Cootes Paradise during
this time. Eggs with the highest contaminant levels
also showed the poorest developmental success.
Rates of abnormal development of snapping turtle
eggs from 1986-1991 were highest at all four Lake
Ontario sites compared to other sites studied.
Lake
Reference site
Lake St. Clair
Erie
Ontario
Ontario
St. Lawrence River
Site
Algonquin Park
St. Clair N.W.A.'
Rondeau Provincial Park
Cootes Paradise
Lynde Creek
Akwesasne
1984
0.027
0.115
0.040
0.200
-
0.010
1989-1991
0.002
0.037
0.389
0.232
0.068
1998-1999
0.002
0.135
0.020 3
2001-2002
0.013
0.058
0.088
Figure 84. DDE concentrations in snapping turtle
eggs from selected sites and years.
Concentrations are ppm on a wet weight basis.
1K. Fernie, unpublished data; 2St. Clair National Wildlife Area; 3Mean
concentrations for Raquette and St. Regis sites in Akwesasne.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service contaminants database
Over a two-year period, the clutch size was smallest
at the St. Clair River Area of Concern (AOC) and
largest near Wheatley Harbour. Despite having the
largest clutches, hatching success was very poor
near the Wheatley Harbour AOC. The growth of
young turtles from near the Wheatley Harbour AOC
was suppressed and changes in growth were also
seen in juveniles from the St.Clair and Detroit River
AOCs. Fifteen percent of adult male turtles from one
AOC showed effects of being exposed to estrogenic-
mimicking contaminants.
Future Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all
sources of contaminants that reach the Great Lakes
wetlands.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kim Fernie, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON. Thanks to other past and present staff at CWS-Ontario
Region (Burlington and Downsview), as well as staff at the CWS National
Wildlife Research Centre (Hull, QC), the wildlife biologists not associated
with the CWS, and private landowners.
Lake
Reference site
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Erie
Erie
Ontario
Ontario
St. Lawrence River
Site
Algonquin Park
St. Clair N.W.A.2
Turkey Creek
Wheatley area
Rondeau Provincial Park
Cootes Paradise
Lynde Creek
Akwesasne
1984
0.187
1.095
1.093
1.315
0.869
1989-1991
0.018
0.617
3.575
1.430
3.946
1998-1999
0.020
2.956
6.3731
2001-20021
0.016
0.074
1.134
0.491
1.306
Figure 83. Total PCB concentrations in Snapping
Turtle eggs from selected sites and years.
Contaminants are ppm on a wet weight basis.
1K. Fernie, unpublished data; 2St. Clair National Wildlife Area; 3Mean
concentrations for Raquette and St. Regis sites in Akwesasne.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service contaminants database
85
-------
2003
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Indicator #4861
Assessment: Mixed
Data are available for water level fluctuations for all
Lakes. A comparison of wetland vegetation along
regulated Lake Ontario to vegetation along
unregulated Lakes Michigan and Huron provides
insight into the impacts of water level regulation.
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to assess the water
level trends that may significantly affect
components of wetland and nearshore terrestrial
ecosystems, and to infer the effect of water level
regulation on emergent wetland extent.
State of the Ecosystem
Quasi-periodic water level fluctuations occur on
average of about 160 years with sub-fluctuations of
approximately 33 years. Because Lake Superior is at
the upper end of the watershed, the fluctuations
there have less amplitude than in the other Lakes.
Lake Ontario showed these quasi-periodic
fluctuations but the amplitude has been eliminated
since the Lake level began to be regulated in 1959.
Seasonal water level fluctuations result in higher
summer water levels and lower winter levels.
Additionally, the often unstable summer water
levels ensure a varied hydrology for the diverse
plant species inhabiting coastal wetlands. Without
the seasonal variation, the wetland zone would be
much narrower and less diverse.
During periods of high water levels, there is a die-
off of vegetation that cannot tolerate long periods of
high water. At the same time, there is an expansion
of aquatic communities into the newly inundated
area. During periods of low water, woody plants
and emergents expand again to reclaim their former
area as aquatic communities establish themselves
further outward into the Lake. The long-term high-
low fluctuation puts natural stress on coastal
wetlands, but it is vital in maintaining wetland
diversity.
Future Pressures
At the moment there are no plans for large scale
water withdrawals, and agencies within the Great
Lakes basin are working on a process to regulate
new withdrawals. Nevertheless, withdrawals or
diversions of water from the Lakes still represent a
potential pressure on the ecosystem. Additional
regulation of high and low water levels will also
impact water levels. Global warming also has the
potential to greatly alter the water levels in the
Lakes.
The long-term high-low fluctuation puts natural
stress on coastal wetlands, but is vital in
maintaining wetland diversity. It is the mid-zone of
coastal wetlands that harbors the greatest
biodiveristy. Under more stable water levels, coastal
wetlands occupy narrower zones along the Lakes
and are considerably less diverse, as the more
dominant species, such as cattials, take over to the
detriment of those less able to compete under a
stable water regime. This is characteristic of many of
the coastal wetlands of Lake Ontario, where water
levels are regulated.
Acknowledgments
Author: Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Contributions from Douglas A. Wilcox, U.S. Geological Survey; Todd A.
Thompson, Indiana Geological Survey and Steve J. Baedke, James Madison
University
86
-------
£-* s4 I
177.5
Year
Figure 85. Actual water levels for Lakes Huron and Michigan. IGLD-lnternational Great Lakes Datum.
Zero for IGLD is Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Water level elevations in
the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River system are measured with reference to this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
76.0
75.5
75.0
74.5
74.0
73.5
Year
Figure 86. Actual water levels for Lake Ontario. IGLD-lnternational Great Lakes Datum. Zero for IGLD
is Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Water level elevations in the Great
Lakes/St. Lawrence River system are measured with reference to this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-------
Mass Transportation
Indicator #7012
Assessment: Mixed
Data from multile sources are not consistent
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to assess the
percentage of commuters using public
transportation, and to infer the stress to the Great
Lakes ecosystem caused by high resource utilization
and pollution from the use of private motor
vehicles.
State of the Ecosystem
Public transit ridership data for the years 1993-2000
were collected from 38 transit authorities in Ontario,
and data for the years 1996-2000 were collected from
15 transit agencies in the United States within the
Great Lakes basin.
The trend in Canadian cities is an increase in public
transit ridership in many established urban areas,
particularly in southern Ontario, and the converse
for rural areas in northern Ontario. The increase in
public transit ridership from 1993-2000 is evident in
| -»- Total GO System -D- Total GO Rail -*- Total GO Bus |
Figure 87. GO Transit System's ridership trends,
1965-1998, including total two-way rides,
weekday plus weekend, trips without
passengers transferring from a bus-train or
train-bus connection. Data are only from 1965-
1998 because the reporting system for trips
without transfers has been abandoned by the
transit system.
Source: GO Transit System, Toronto, Ontario
I
1
1
Buffalo
D Cleveland
Gary
DRochesU
Toledo
OChicago
r
CTA
Erie
Duluth
D Chicago
NIRCRC
Green
Detroi
Detroi
Bay
- SMART
-DDT
Milwaukee
Saginaw
Detroit -DTC
Figure 88. Percentage of transit use for 15 U.S.
Transit Agencies in the Great Lakes basin from
1996-2000. The dramatic decrease in Detroit-
DTC's % of transit use in 1998 is due to a service
area increase of approximately 15.5 times the
area reported in 1997. CTA = Chicago Transit
Authority, NIRCRC = Northeast Illinois Regional
Commuter Railroad Corporation, DTC = Detroit
Transit Authority.
Source: National Transit Database
the established urban areas of the cities of Toronto
and Hamilton and in developing suburban areas. In
addition, there is an increase in ridership for transit
agencies serving inter-regional areas, i.e., transit
agencies linking to other agencies. The increasing
trend in Canadian public transit ridership supports
a direct relationship between public transportation
and the degree of urban density.
Public transit ridership numbers in U.S. cities and
surrounding suburbs remained relatively constant
from 1996-2000. The majority of transit agencies
have not seen more than a 2% change in ridership
numbers, and less than 10% of the service area
population use public transportation. The four
agencies that showed the highest transit use
percentages are located in the four largest cities. Of
these agencies, the Chicago Transit Authority, which
serves the City of Chicago and surrounding
suburbs, had the largest percent of transit use.
Percentage of transit use is high where the
concentration of people is the highest.
88
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Future Pressures
The increasing rate of industrial development and
land use segregation in suburban areas will make
public transportation use more difficult. The
convenience afforded by private motor vehicles
seems to outweigh the benefits of public transit use,
depending on how well linkages are established
between and within transit systems.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Angelica Guillarte, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview,
ON, and Mary Beth Giancarlo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Intern-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Water Use
Indicator #7056
Assessment: Mixed
Data from mulitple sources are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator measures the per capita water use in
the Great Lakes basin and indirectly measures the
demand for water resources within the basin and
the amount of wastewater generated.
State of the Ecosystem
Per capita consumption (consumptive use) for
Canada and the U.S. appears to be equal.
Hydroelectric water use continues to be the largest
use of all the categories at approximately 95% for
each reported year. However, hydroelectric water
use is considered to be an "instream" use and does
not add to consumptive use.
From a sectoral analysis of municipal water use on
the Canadian side of the Great Lakes basin,
residential water use accounted for almost 50% of
the total municipal water use in 1999. During the
time from 1983-1999, the commercial sector showed
an increase in water use of 54.8%, residential water
use increased by 58.7% and industrial water use
increased by 42.4%. The rise in residential water use
can be attributed to an increase in municipal
populations, an increase in economic activity and
recent warmer summer temperatures.
The average per capita water use over all sectors
and municipalities has actually decreased by 15%
from 1983-1999 in Canadian municipalities of
E 30
20
10
PWS Domestic Irrigation Livestock IndustrialDFossil Fuel Thermoelectric Other
Figure 89. Great Lakes water, other surface
water, and groundwater use by category in the
Great Lakes basin from 1987 to 1993, and 1998
(without Hydroelectricity).The Province of
Ontario did not submit water use data for 1987.
PWS = Public Water Supply.
Source: Great Lakes Commission, Annual Report of the Great Lakes
Regional Water Use database repository. Adapted for SOLEC by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program
Office
Figure 90. Daily average municipal water use by
sector on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes
basin, 1983-1999.
Source: Municipal Water Use Database (MUD). Adapted for SOLEC by
Environment Canada
populations greater than 1000. This decrease in per
capita water use could be attributed to new
technological advances in water saving devices,
metering, and user pay systems. Per capita water
use in the United States has increased by
approximately 10% from 1985-1995 even though the
population served decreased in 1995. This increase
in per capita water use could be attributed to an
increase in public use or losses and possible water
89
-------
srson/day
DOC
0. "'
~E
- "
,
1 982 1 984 1 986
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
-»- Canada -=- United States |
Figure 91. Average municipal per capita water
use on the Canadian, 1983-1999, and U.S., 1985-
1995, sides of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Municipal Water Use Database (MUD), adapted for SOLEC by
Environment Canada, and the U.S. Geological Survey
transfer between states or regions. New York State,
when compared to other states, uses the largest
volume of water, which is due to high amounts of
hydroelectric water use.
Thermoelectric generation (fossil fuel and nuclear)
comprises over 50% of the total water (surface and
groundwater) used in the U.S. side of the Great
Lakes basin. Industrial and public water supply
make up approximately 40% of the water use, and
less than 10% of the water used is from self-supplied
domestic, irrigation, livestock, and other categories.
Future Pressures
As population and economic activity increase in the
Great Lakes basin, it is expected that an increased
demand for water will also continue. Water use and
demand in the Great Lakes will increase especially
for thermoelectric power, agriculture, and
residential uses. Growing communities in the U.S.,
near the basin border, may look to the Great Lakes
as a source of water in the future.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Melissa Greenwood, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview,
ON, and Mary Beth Giancarlo, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Intern-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago IL.
Energy Consumption
Indicator #7057
Assessment: Mixed, deteriorating (U.S.
section of Lake Superior only)
Data are not system-wide
Purpose
This indicator assesses the amount of energy
consumed in the Great Lakes basin per capita. This
indicator will also be used to infer the demand for
resource use, the creation of waste and pollution,
and stress on the ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Data extracted from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) 1998 "Retail Electricity Sales"
tables for the 29 utilities operating in the Lake
Superior basin can be used to calculate the
following total electricity use per sector: 3,105,032
Megawatts-hour (MWh) commercial, 13,395,707
MWh industrial, and 4,044,659 MWh residential.
Note that consumers may include households and
businesses and is not equivalent to per capita
energy use. Per capita total energy consumption
from all sources (coal, natural gas, petroleum,
electricity and other) is the desired measure for this
indicator, but it can be calculated only at the state
level from EIA energy use tables. Overall, energy
use per consumer is higher for the Lake Superior
"
-------
STATE
basin than for portions of Michigan, Minnesota, or
Wisconsin that are not in the basin, mainly because
industrial energy use is much higher. Commercial
energy use per consumer is lower in the basin than
in any of the three states, as is residential energy
use, except for Michigan, which is slightly less than
that for the basin.
The Energy Information Administration gathers
data on total energy consumption by sector and
over time. Electric energy consumption in Michigan
rose 21.8% between 1988 and 1998, mainly due to
increases in the commercial and residential sectors
since 1992.
Future Pressures
Canada's Energy Outlook 1996-2020 notes that "a
significant amount of excess generating capacity
exists in all regions of Canada" because demand has
not reached the level predicted when new power
plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Demand is
projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.3%
in Ontario and 1.0% in Canada overall between 1995
and 2020, compared to 2.6% annually from 1980 to
1995. From 2010-2020, Ontario will add 3,650
megawatts of new gas-fired and 3,300 megawatts of
clean coal-fired capacity. Several hydroelectric
plants will be redeveloped, but none appears to be
in the Lake Superior basin. Renewable resources are
projected to quadruple between 1995 and 2020, but
will contribute only 3% of total power generation.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University, MI, and James G. Cantrill,
Communication and Performance Studies
Northern Michigan University, MI.
Solid Waste Generation
Indicator ID #7060
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide and from multiple sources
are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator assesses the amount of solid waste
generated per capita in the Great Lakes basin. This
indicator can also be used to infer inefficiencies in
human economic activity and the potential adverse
impacts to human and ecosystem health.
State of the Ecosystem
Canada and the United States are working towards
improvements in waste management by developing
efficient strategies to reduce, prevent, reuse and
recycle waste.
Per capita solid waste generation (SWG) declined
approximately 45% from 1991 to 2001 in Ontario.
The decline in per capita solid waste generation in
the early 1990s can be attributed to the increased
access to municipal curbside recycling and backyard
and centralized composting programs in most
Ontario municipalities. The amount of municipal
solid waste generation disposed per capita
increased from 1994 to 2000 in Minnesota. The data
suggest that these trends are not significant despite
Tons/person
1.4
0.4
fr ' " * *
i A * *^""
^ A-
""O A _ ^*^~^.
1991 1 992 1 993 1 994 1 995 1 996 1 997 1 998 1 999 2000 2001
Year
| O Ontario MSW A Indiana Disposal Facilities * Minnesota MSWG |
Figure 93. Average per capita solid waste
generation and disposal (tons/person) from
selected municipalities in Ontario, Indiana and
Minnesota, 1991-2001. MSW = Municipal Solid
Waste; MSWG = Municipal Solid Waste
Generation.
Source: IDEM-lndiana Department of Environmental Management,
2000; MOEA-Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 2000,
Ontario data obtained from Statistics Canada, Environmental
Account and Statistics Division, and Demography Division
91
-------
2003
1992
1994
1996
1997 1998
Year
Figure 94. Residential recycling tonnage in
Ontario, 1992-2000.
Source: WDO-Ontario Waste Diversion Organization, 2000
growth in population over the same time period. In
Indiana, a 21% increase in the per capita quantity of
non-hazardous waste disposed was evident
between 1992 and 1998, but from 1998 to 2000, there
was a 9% decrease in the amount disposed. In New
York, the solid waste generation per capita average
from 1990 to 1998 increased by 20%. The reusable
tons in New York State increased to approximately
30% of the waste disposed. The calculated average
per capita municipal waste landfilled in Wisconsin
in 2001 was 1.85 tons. The counties with the larger
average values are those located closer to the Lake
Michigan.
Reuse and recycling are opportunities to reduce
solid waste levels. Recycling and waste diversion in
Ontario indicate that both the tonnage of municipal
solid waste diverted from disposal and the number
of households with access to recycling have
increased in recent years. There has been a 41%
increase in the amount of residential recycling from
1992-2000 in Ontario, accounting for the reduced per
capita solid waste generation displayed in recent
years in Ontario municipalities.
It is estimated that more residential solid waste is
being generated each year, but a greater proportion
is being recovered for recycling and reuse.
Future Pressures
The generation and management of solid waste
have important environmental, economic and social
impacts. The costs associated with the disposal of
such wastes will continue to be a problem. The
space or location for the development of new
landfill sites to dispose of wastes will continue to
cause debate as current landfills are reaching their
capacities. Alternate ways to dispose of wastes
generated is and will be a contentious issue. A
thriving economy will put pressure on the amount
of waste generated as more products and materials
are fabricated during an economic boom. The
generation of municipal solid waste contributes to
soil, water, and air pollution that will continue to be
a stress on ecosystem health.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Martha I. Aviles-Quintero, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Intern-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, and Melissa
Greenwood, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON.
Population Monitoring and
Contaminants Affecting the American
Otter
Indicator #8147
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide and from multiple sources
are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator measures the contaminant
concentrations found in American otter populations
within the Great Lakes basin. This indicator also
indirectly measures the health of Great Lakes
habitat, progress in Great Lakes ecosystem
management, and concentrations of contaminants
present in the Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
Data indicate primary areas of population
suppression still exist in southern Lake Huron
watersheds, lower Lake Michigan and most Lake
Erie watersheds. Recent data provided by the New
York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources suggest that otters are making a slow
recovery in western Lake Ontario. Most coastal
shoreline areas have more suppressed populations
than interior zones. Areas of otter population
suppression are directly related to human
population centers and to the resulting habitat loss
and elevated contaminant concentrations associated
with human activity.
92
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
Otter Population Stability
Stable
Non-Stable
> Almost Absent
Extirpated
600
1200 Kilometers
Figure 95. Great Lakes shoreline population stability estimates for the American Otter.
Source: Thomas C.J. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Future Pressures
American otters are a direct link to organic and
heavy metal concentrations in the food chain. The
otter is a more sedentary species and subsequently
accumulates contaminants from smaller areas.
Contaminants are a potential and existing problem
for many otter populations throughout the Great
Lakes basin. Contaminants in otters may cause a
decrease in population levels, morphological
abnormalities and a decline in fecundity. Changes in
the species population and range are also
representative of human habitat alterations.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas C.J. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of
Chippewa Indians, Odanah, WI.
93
-------
Ill I Sill:
2003
4.5 RESPONSE INDICATOR REPORTS
SUMMARY OF RKSPONSK INDICATORS
The overall assessment for the Response indicators is incomplete. Data presented in this section of the report
represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not basin-wide across
jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require further
development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC 2000, but
that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still valid,
and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the required
data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new monitoring
programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing may be
needed before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Citizen/Community Place - Based
Stewardship Activities
Brownfield Redevelopment
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Green Planning Process
Assessment in 2000
No Report
Mixed, improving
Mixed
No Report
Assessment in 2002
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
Citizen/Community Place-Based
Stewardship Activities
Indicator #3513
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Data are not system-wide and from multiple sources
are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number, vitality and
effectiveness of citizen and community stewardship
activities. Community activities that focus on local
landscapes/ecosystems provide a fertile context for
the growth of the stewardship ethic and the
establishment of a "sense of place".
State of the Ecosystem
Land trusts and conservancies are a particularly
relevant subset of all community-based groups that
engage in activities to promote sustainability within
the Great Lakes basin because of their direct focus
on land and habitat protection. Data from the Land
Trust Alliance's (LTA) National Land Trust Censuses
show that the number of land trusts operating at
least partly within the Great Lakes basin increased
from 3 in 1930 to 116 in 2000, with half of the
increase occurring since 1990. The total area
protected by land trusts in the basin more than
doubled between 1990 and 2000, rising from 177,077
to 397,784 acres. Nationally, protected land
increased from 1,908,547 acres to 6,479,672 acres,
according to LTA. The Nature Conservancy alone
had protected an additional 111,725 acres in the
Great Lakes basin.
In a survey of Canadian land trusts in 2000, 24 of 30
Ontario land trusts reported that they protected
8,569 acres. The survey excludes the Nature
Conservancy of Canada, which protected an
additional 82,700 acres in Ontario. Conservation
Ontario, an alliance of 38 Conservation Authorities
(CAs), 32 of which are in the Great Lakes basin,
reports that as of 2000, CAs owned and managed
352 conservation areas totaling 340,000 acres
94
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
E 40
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
1990 2000
Acknowledgments
Figure 96. Number of land trusts operating in the
U.S. Great Lakes basin, 1930-2000.
Source: Land Trust Alliance
S150-
g150
-
< 50 -
3,
n
I Jl n^
$&
Location in Great Lakes basin
[1990 D2 !.! |
J
Figure 97. Acres protected by land trusts in the
U.S. Great Lakes basin.
Source: Land Trust Alliance
(138,000 hectares). Although CAs are community
watershed-based partnerships, they often work
cooperatively with private land trusts.
Future Pressures
Continued development of land will be the primary
pressure for this indicator, and it will make land
trusts increasingly important for permanently
protecting natural habitat and "open space".
Community organizations such as watershed
councils and conservation groups will encourage
more sustainable management of public and private
lands and direct public attention to those areas of
critical habitat that need to be safeguarded to
prevent permanent loss.
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University; and James Cantrill,
Professor of Communication and Performance Studies at Northern
Michigan University. This report was prepared in consultation with Laurie
Payne, Lura Consulting, ON
Brownfield Redevelopment
Indicator #7006
Assessment: Mixed, improving
Data are not system-wide and from multiple sources
are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator assesses the area of redeveloped
brownfields, and evaluates over time the rate at
which society remediates degraded or abandoned
sites.
State of the Ecosystem
All Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec have
programs to promote remediation of brownfield
sites. Available information on the actual area of
remediated brownfields reveals that as of August
2002, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Quebec had remediated a total of
32,103 acres, of which approximately 4,600 acres
were remediated between 2000-2002. Also, among
the eight Great Lakes states and Quebec
approximately 24,000 brownfields sites have
participated in cleanup programs since the mid-
1990s, although the degree of "remediation" varies
Figure 98. Brownfield site in Detroit, Michigan,
1998.
Source: Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission
95
-------
2003
considerably among sites. Remediation includes the
utilization of exposure controls (i.e. engineering
controls such as capping a site with clean soil or
restricting groundwater use) that are designed to
limit the spread of, or human exposure to,
contaminants left in place. Such controls are major
factors in advancing brownfields redevelopment, a
criterion for eligibility under many brownfields
cleanup programs. Data indicate that the majority of
cleanups in the Great Lakes basin are occurring in
older urbanized areas, many of which are located on
the shoreline of the Great Lakes as well as inland.
Future Pressures
Poor land use planning, laws and policies that
encourage new development to occur on
undeveloped land, as opposed to urban
brownfields, is a significant and ongoing pressure
that can be expected to continue. Programs to
monitor, verify and enforce effectiveness of
exposure controls are in their infancy, and exposure
presents an ongoing pressure. Also, because some
Great Lakes states allow brownfields redevelopment
to proceed without first cleaning up unusable,
contaminated groundwater, some surface water
quality may continue to be at risk from brownfields
contamination despite a pronounced status of
"clean".
Acknowledgments
Authors: Victoria Pebbles, with assistance from Becky Lameka and Kevin
Yam, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Indicator #7028
Assessment: Not Assessed
Data from multiple sources are not consistent
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number of
Environmental and Conservation Farm Plans, and it
is used to infer environmentally friendly practices in
place.
State of the Ecosystem
Agriculture accounts for 35% of the land area of the
Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern
portion of the basin. In the past there were higher
mber of PR P
(in Thousand
Year
Figure 99. Ontario Environmental Farm Plans
(EFP) Peer-reviewed (PR) Plans, 1995-August
2002. The linear trend line indicates a steady
increase in the number of Peer Reviewed Plans
per year. EFP RP plans identify on-farm
environmental risks and develop action to
remediate risks.
Source: Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association and Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2002
amounts of conventional tillage, a lack of crop
rotation, and land management practices that were
not environmentally responsible. These practices
resulted in soil erosion and poor water quality.
Recently, increased cooperation with the farm
community in the basin regarding Great Lakes
water quality management programs has resulted in
a 38% reduction in U.S. erosion rates over the last
several decades. The overall reduced risk of water
mediated soil erosion on Canadian Great Lakes
cropland also shows a positive trend, resulting
primarily from shifts toward conservation tillage
and more environmentally responsible cropping
and land management practices. The adoption of
more environmentally responsible practices has
helped to replenish carbon in the soils back to 60%
of levels seen at the turn-of-the-20th Century. More
cooperative work is needed, especially for intensive
row crop or horticultural crop production and for
areas of vulnerable topography or soil.
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
(OMAF) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) provide conservation and planning advice,
technical assistance, and incentives to farm clients
and rural landowners, resulting in plans to conserve
96
-------
STATE or"
natural resources while achieving business
objectives. Other programs encouraging action
plans and the use of responsible technologies
include the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP),
in cooperation with the Ontario Farm
Environmental Coalition (OFEC). The Ontario
Nutrient Management Act, passed in June 2002 will
provide regulations for new and expanding large
livestock operations to address key water and
environmental protection objectives. The USDA's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides
technical, educational, and financial assistance to
landowners that install conservation systems, and
the Conservation Reserve Program allows
landowners to convert environmentally sensitive
acreage to vegetation cover. An Ontario program
(Greencover) with similar objectives to the
U.S. Quality Incentives program, is currently under
development.
Future Pressures
Increasing farm size and concentration of livestock
will change the face of agriculture in the basin.
Development pressure from the urban areas may
increase the conflict between rural and urban
landowners, including higher taxes, traffic
congestion, flooding, and pollution. Also, the
urbanization of productive farmland may lead to a
potential difficulty or inability to deal with future
social, economic, food security and environmental
problems.
Acknowledgements
Authors: Ruth Shaffer and Roger Nanney, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
NRCS; Peter Roberts and Jean Rudichuk, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture
and Food, Guelph, Ontario.
Green Planning Process
Indicator #7053
Assessment: Not Assessed
Data are not consistent, not long-term, and not
system-wide
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number of municipalities
with environmental and resource conservation
management plans in place, and it is 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.
State of the Ecosystem
An American Planning Association (APA) survey,
known as Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State of the
States, confirms that state planning reforms and
"smart growth" measures were priority state
concerns between 1999 and 2001. The APA divides
states into four categories reflecting the status of
smart growth planning reforms. Of the Great Lakes
states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are credited
with implementing moderate to substantial
statewide comprehensive planning reforms. New
York is the only Great Lakes state that is
strengthening local planning requirements or
improving regional or local planning reforms
already adopted. Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota
are actively pursuing their first major statewide
smart growth planning reforms. Ohio and Indiana
have not yet begun to pursue significant statewide
planning reforms.
The Province of Ontario is conducting a five-year
review of the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
on land use planning to "determine whether
Ontario's land use planning policies are consistent
with Smart Growth: the government's strategy for
promoting and managing growth in ways that
sustain a strong economy; build strong
communities; and promote a healthy environment".
The PPS's three major policy areas are (1) managing
change and promoting efficient, cost-effective
development and land-use patterns that stimulate
economic growth and protect the environment and
public health, (2) protecting resources for their
economic use and/or environmental benefits, and
(3) reducing the potential for public cost or risk to
Ontario's residents by directing development away
from areas where there is a risk to public health or
safety, or of property damage.
A positive trend in recent years is planning based on
regional-scale natural features, such as the Niagara
Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine in Ontario.
The 1985 Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) was the
first large-scale environmental land use plan in
Ontario, and it could be a model for future
environmentally sensitive land-use planning.
97
-------
2003
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, passed
in December 2001, and the subsequent Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan are also ecologically
based measures "established by the Ontario
Government to provide guidance and direction for
the 190,000 hectares of land and water within the
Moraine" north of Toronto.
Conservation Authorities (CAs), community-based
environmental protection and resource planning
agencies that function within watershed boundaries,
are another example of planning and resource
management based on ecosystem features. The 38
Ontario CAs today, manage watersheds that are
home to 90% of the provincial population.
The following are some examples of data obtained
from municipalities in parts of the U.S. Great Lakes
basin. Crawford County, Pennsylvania, has a
professional planning office and planning
commission but no countywide zoning. Its 2000
comprehensive plan reflects Pennsylvania's new
"Growing Greener" policy. The plan addresses a
variety of green features, such as developing
greenways and concentrating development near
existing services and in clusters to preserve open
space. In the rural western Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, the Western U.P. Planning and
Development Regional Commission recently
surveyed the 72 local units of government in its 6-
county region regarding basic planning and zoning
information. Of the 64 municipalities that
responded, only 29 have planning commissions, 20
have land use or comprehensive plans, and 44 have
zoning (49 counting the townships covered by the
Keweenaw County ordinance).
Future Pressures
Though new and expanded planning both in rural
and urban areas is encouraging, progress will likely
be limited by too little emphasis on implementation
of agreed-upon planning goals, lax enforcement, too
few human and financial resources, and too great a
willingness to make exemptions in the name of
development.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University; and James Cantrill,
Professor of Communication and Performance Studies at Northern
98
-------
STATIC
Section 5
Looking Forward
The development of Great Lakes indicators began in
1997, the result of the recognition by participants in
the 1994 and 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conferences (SOLEC) that a unified suite of
regularly monitored indicators was needed to
properly characterize the status of the ecosystem.
The participants also understood the significance of
the information derived from the indicators. Great
Lakes managers' decision making tools and
opportunities are greatly enhanced by scientific,
accurate and timely information based on
monitoring chemical, physical, and biological
parameters of the ecosystem. SOLEC 2002 and this
State of the Great Lakes 2003 report move the Great
Lakes community one step further toward a deeper
and more comprehensive grasp of both the suite of
indicators needed to monitor adequately and the
management responses that can be derived from the
subsequent findings.
The work of the Great Lakes community to enhance
the suite of indicators continues. More than 150
subject experts were involved in updating and
assessing the indicators for SOLEC 2002. As of the
conference, there were 80 accepted indicators in the
suite, 43 have been reported on, and approximately
45 additional indicators have been proposed and are
awaiting review.
Adjusting the suite of indicators to be able to report
succinctly on the status of ecosystem components is
challenging. Whole subject areas have yet to be
included in the suite of indicators. Human health
indicators, for example, are complex, and concerted
efforts by many agencies and organizations will be
required to correctly portray all concerns. Upland
ecosystems are beginning to be included in indicator
discussions, primarily because the indicator work
began with open water and nearshore ecosystems,
and efforts to include inland indicators have been
part of the evolution of the indicator suite.
Numerous agencies, organizations, sectors, and
individuals are involved in developing the suite of
indicators. It is correct and necessary to involve as
many people as possible in the varied tasks
associated with indicator development, monitoring,
analysis, and reporting. However, agreement on
what indicators to monitor, how to monitor them,
and the resulting data interpretation require
coordinated and continuous communication by
binational, multi-jurisdictional groups at local, lake
basin, and basinwide scales. Effective coordination
of priorities among multiple organizations is
difficult at best.
There are, however, positive steps being taken by
the Great Lakes community involved in the
development of a suite of indicators:
current indicator suite will be peer
reviewed by experts outside the Great Lakes
basin prior to SOLEC 2004. Experts will be
asked to determine how the process followed
since 1997 can be improved upon and what
improvements can be made to the suite based
on user needs and other factors.
second component of the Peer Review will
be a management review of the indicators
and their effectiveness in influencing
management decisions including monitoring
programs. The review will consider recent
reports such as the US government's GAO
report on indicators.
biological integrity indicators proposed at
SOLEC 2002 will be reviewed and vetted as
part of the peer review and the state of
biological integrity reported on at SOLEC
2004.
99
-------
2003
groundwater, agriculture, forestry and
climate indicators proposed at SOLEC 2002
will be reviewed as part of the peer review
and incorporated into the entire suite.
review of the scientific literature will help
define "physical integrity" and the indicators
needed to measure its health. Because the
number of indicators in the suite is growing,
indices will be developed to assist in indicator
assessment and interpretation.
^Indicator assessments are at present subjective
due to the lack of indicator endpoints. End
points will be developed through the
Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
programs and by specific subject matter
experts.
^Inland ecosystem indicators for rivers and
streams, upland ecosystems, and inland
ponds, wetlands and lakes will be
incorporated into the suite over time.
^Efforts will be made to consider Traditional
Ecological Knowledge in the reporting of
ecosystem health.
As the experts begin to gather and sort and analyze
the indicator data that will contribute to SOLEC
2004, the Great Lakes community is aware of
emerging as well as recurring environmental issues
to contend with over the next decades. The global
demand for accessible fresh water, the recognition
that quality of life requires a healthy ecosystem, and
the needs of two countries for competitive markets
based on Great Lakes resources, will all impact what
the indicators tell us. The status of the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the
Great Lakes ecosystem is dependent on a binational
response grounded in science, cooperation, and
tenacious adherence to the goal of a sustainable
ecosystem.
100
-------
STATE"
Section 6
Acknowledgments
The State of the Great Lakes 2003 preparation team included:
Environment Canada United States Environmental Protection Agency
Stacey Cherwaty, lead Paul Bertram, lead
Harvey Shear Paul Horvatin
Hal Leadlay Karen Rodriguez
Jennifer Etherington Christina Forst
Martha Aviles-Quintero
This report contains contributions from over 100 authors, contributors, reviewers and editors. Many of the
individuals participated in the preparation of one or more reports assembled in the document Implementing
Indicators, October 2002. Others provided advice, guidance or reviews. Their dedication, enthusiasm and
collaboration are gratefully acknowledged. Individual authors or contributors are recognized after their
respective report component.
Over 50 governmental and non-governmental sectors were represented by the contributions. We recognize
the participation of the following organizations. While we have tried to be thorough, any misrepresentation
or oversight is entirely unintentional, and we sincerely regret any omissions.
Federal
Environment Canada
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environmental Conservation Branch
Environmental Emergencies Section
Meteorological Service of Canada
National Water Research Institute
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources
Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Green Bay Fishery Resources Office
U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division
Great Lakes Science Center
Lake Ontario Biological Station
Lake Erie Biological Station
Lake Superior Biological Station
101
-------
2003
Provincial and State
Indiana Geological Survey
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Municipal
City of Chicago
Aboriginal
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa
Indians
Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management
Authority
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
Academic
Clemson University, SC
Cornell University, NY
Indiana University, IN
James Madison University, VA
Michigan State University, MI
Michigan Technological University, MI
Northern Michigan University, MI
Coalitions
Lake Superior Binational Program
U.S.- Canada Great Lakes Islands Project
Commissions
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
International Joint Commission
Environmental Non-Government Organizations
Bird Studies Canada
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
The Nature Conservancy
Industry
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Private Organizations
Bobolink Enterprises
DynCorp, A CSC company
Environmental Careers Organization
Private Citizens
102
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2003
103
-------
Canada
------- |