State of the Great Lakes
2007
*^ *
&EPA
Canada
-------
Environment Canada
and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ISBN 978-0-662-47328-2
EPA 905-R-07-003
Cat No. Enl61-3/l-2007E-PDF
Front Cover Photo Credits:
Blue Heron, Don Breneman
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Robert de Jonge, courtesy of Michigan Travel Bureau
Port Huron Mackinac Race, Michigan Travel Bureau
Milwaukee Skyline, Visit Milwaukee
-------
State
of the
Great Lakes
2007
by the Governments of
Canada
and the
The United States of America
Prepared by
Environment Canada
and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
11
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Table of Contents
Preface 1
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Assessing Data Quality 10
3.0 Indicator Category Assessments and Management Challenges 12
Contamination 12
Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes - What the Experts are Saying 15
Biotic Communities 16
Invasive Species 18
Coastal Zones And Aquatic Habitats 20
Human Health 22
Land Use - Land Cover 24
Resource Utilization 27
Climate Change 28
4.0 What is Being Done to Improve Conditions 29
5.0 Indicator Reports and Assessments 32
Indicator #8 - Salmon and Trout 32
Indicator #9 - Walleye 39
Indicator #17 - Preyfish Populations 43
Indicator #18 - Sea Lamprey 50
Indicator #68 - Native Freshwater Mussels 55
Indicator #93 - Lake Trout 59
Indicator #104 - Benthos Diversity and Abundance - Aquatic Oligochaete Communities 63
Indicator #109 - Phytoplankton Populations 67
Indicator #111 - Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings 70
Indicator #114 - Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners 74
Indicator #115 - Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 81
Indicator #116 - Zooplankton Populations 87
Indicator #117 - Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals 91
Indicator #118 - Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters 97
Indicator #119 - Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores 103
Indicator #121 - Contaminants in Whole Fish 106
Indicator #122 - Hexagenia 115
Indicator #123 - Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp 120
Indicator #124 - External Anomaly Prevalence Index forNearshore Fish 124
Indicator #125 - Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes 128
Indicator #3514 - Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures 134
Indicator #4175 - Drinking Water Quality 137
Indicator #4177 - Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistant Chemicals 144
Indicator #4200 - Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures 150
Indicator #4201 - Contaminants in Sport Fish 161
Indicator #4202 - Air Quality 169
Indicator #4501 - Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health (progress report) 179
Indicator #4502 - Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health (progress report) 181
Indicator #4504 - Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance 185
Indicator #4506 - Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs 189
Indicator #4507 - Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance 193
Indicator #4510 - Coastal Wetland Area by Type 198
Indicator #4858 - Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes 202
Indicator #4861 - Effect of Water Level Fluctuations 206
Indicator #4862 - Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health 210
111
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Indicator #4863 - Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands (progress report) 215
Indicator #7000 - Urban Density 219
Indicator #7002 - Land Cover - Land Conversion 223
Indicator #7006 - Brownfields Redevelopment 228
Indicator #7028 - Sustainable Agricultural Practices 233
Indicator #7043 - Economic Prosperity 236
Indicator #7054 - Ground Surface Hardening (progress report) 239
Indicator #7056 - Water Withdrawals 241
Indicator #7057 - Energy Consumption 246
Indicator #7060 - Solid Waste Disposal 253
Indicator #7061 - Nutrient Management Plans 259
Indicator #7062 - Integrated Pest Management 262
Indicator #7064 - Vehicle Use 265
Indicator #7065 - Wastewater Treatment and Pollution (progress report) 269
Indicator #7100 - Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes 278
Indicator #7101 - Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity 283
Indicator #7102 - Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge 288
Indicator #7103 - Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal Communities 296
Indicator #8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Alvars 300
Indicator #8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Cobble Beaches 303
Indicator #8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Islands 307
Indicator #8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes (progress report). 313
Indicator #8131 - Extent of Hardened Shoreline 315
Indicator #8135 - Contaminants Affecting the Productivity of Bald Eagles 318
Indicator #8147 - Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter 321
Indicator #8164 - Biodiversity Conservation Sites 325
Indicator #8500 - Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity 329
Indicator #8501 - Forest Lands - Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems 337
Indicator #8503 - Forest Lands - Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources 341
Indicator #9000 - Acid Rain 347
Indicator #9002 - Non-native Species - Aquatic 353
Indicator #9002 - Non-native Species - Terrestrial 358
6.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations 363
7.0 Acknowledgments 368
IV
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Preface
The Governments of Canada and the United States are committed to providing public access to environmental information about
the Great Lakes basin ecosystem 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 2007, 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 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 1-3, 2006.
SOLEC and the subsequent reports provide independent, science-based reporting on the state of the health of the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem. Four objectives for the SOLEC process include:
To assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based on accepted indicators
To strengthen decision-making and environmental management concerning the Great Lakes
To inform local decision makers of Great Lakes environmental issues
To provide a forum for communication and networking amongst all the Great Lakes stakeholders
The role of SOLEC is to provide clear, compiled information to the Great Lakes community to enable environmental managers
to make better decisions. Although SOLEC is primarily a reporting venue rather than a management program, many SOLEC
participants are involved in decision-making processes throughout the Great Lakes basin.
The current information about Great Lakes ecosystem and human health is presented in several levels of detail, in both print and
electronic formats.
State of the Great Lakes 2007. This technical report contains the full indicator reports as prepared by the primary authors, the
indicator category assessments, and management challenges. It also contains detailed references to data sources.
State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights. This report highlights key information presented in the main report.
State of the Great Lakes Summary Series. These summaries provide information about a variety of indicators and issues such as:
the quality of drinking water, swimming at the beaches, eating Great Lakes fish, air quality, aquatic invasive species, amphibians,
birds, forests, coastal wetlands, the Great Lakes food web and special places such as islands, alvars and cobble beaches. In addition
there is a summary for each of the Great Lakes, plus the St. Clair-Detroit River ecosystem and the St. Lawrence River.
For more information about Great Lakes indicators and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, visit: www.binational.net
or www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec or www.on.ec.gc.ca/greatlakes.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
1.0 Introduction
This State of the Great Lakes 2007 report presents the compilation, scientific analysis and interpretation of data about the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem. It represents the combined efforts of many scientists and managers in the Great Lakes community
representing federal, Tribal/First Nations, state, provincial and municipal governments, non-government organizations, industry,
academia and private citizens.
The seventh in a series of reports beginning in 1995, the State of the Great Lakes 2007 provides an assessment of the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem components using a suite of ecosystem health indicators. The Great Lakes indicator suite has been developed, and
continues to be refined, by experts as part of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process.
The SOLEC process was established by the governments of Canada and the U.S. in response to requirements of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) for regular reporting on progress toward Agreement goals and objectives. Since the first
conference in 1994, SOLEC has evolved into a two-year cycle of data collection, assessment and reporting on conditions and the
major pressures in the Great Lakes basin. The year following each conference, a State of the Great Lakes report is prepared, based
on information presented and discussed at the conference and post-conference comments. Additional information about SOLEC
and the Great Lakes indicators is available at www.binational.net.
The State of the Great Lakes 2007 provides assessments of 61 of approximately 80 ecosystem indicators and overall assessments
of the categories into which the indicators are grouped: Contamination, Human Health, Biotic Communities, Invasive Species,
Coastal Zones and Aquatic Habitats, Resource Utilization, Land Use-Land Cover, and Climate Change. Within most of the main
categories are sub-categories to further delineate issues or geographic areas.
Authors of the indicator reports assessed the status of ecosystem components in relation to desired conditions or ecosystem
objectives, if available. Five status categories were used (coded by color in this report):
I I Good. The state of the ecosystem component is presently meeting ecosystem objectives or otherwise is in acceptable
condition.
I 1 Fair. The ecosystem component is currently exhibiting minimally acceptable conditions, but it is not meeting
' ' established ecosystem objectives, criteria, or other characteristics of fully acceptable conditions.
Poor. The ecosystem component is severely negatively impacted and it does not display even minimally acceptable
conditions.
Mixed. The ecosystem component displays both good and degraded features.
Not Assessed or Undetermined. Data are not available or are insufficient to assess the status of the ecosystem
component.
Four categories were also used to denote current trends of the ecosystem component (coded by symbol in this report):
Improving. Information provided shows the ecosystem component to be changing toward more acceptable conditions.
Unchanging. Information provided shows the ecosystem component to be neither getting better nor worse.
Deteriorating. Information provided shows the ecosystem component to be departing from acceptable conditions.
Undetermined. Data are not available to assess the ecosystem component over time, so no trend can be identified.
Each indicator report is supported by scientific information collected and assessed by Great Lakes experts from Canada and the
United States, along with a review of scientific papers and use of best professional judgment. For many indicators, ecosystem
objectives, endpoints, or benchmarks have not been established. For these indicators, complete assessments are difficult to
determine. Overall assessments and management challenges were also prepared for each category to the extent that indicator
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
information was available.
For 2007, the overall status of the Great Lakes ecosystem was assessed as mixed because some conditions or areas were good
while others were poor. The trends of Great Lakes ecosystem conditions varied: some conditions were improving and some were
worsening.
Some of the good features of the ecosystem leading to the mixed conclusion include:
Levels of most contaminants in herring gull eggs and predator fish continue to decrease.
Phosphorus targets have been met in Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior.
The Great Lakes are a good source for treated drinking water.
Sustainable forestry programs throughout the Great Lakes basin are helping environmentally friendly management
practices.
Lake trout stocks in Lake Superior have remained self-sustaining, and some natural reproduction of lake trout is occurring
in Lake Ontario and in Lake Huron.
Mayfly (Hexagenia) populations have partially recovered in western Lake Erie.
Some of the negative features of the ecosystem leading to the mixed conclusion include:
Concentrations of the flame retardant PBDEs are increasing in herring gull eggs.
Nuisance growth of the green alga Cladophora has reappeared along the shoreline in many places.
Phosphorus levels are still above guidelines in Lake Erie.
Non-native species (aquatic and terrestrial) are pervasive throughout the Great Lakes basin, and they continue to exert
impacts on native species and communities.
Populations ofDiporeia, the dominant, native, bottom-dwelling invertebrate, continue to decline in Lake Michigan, Lake
Huron, and Lake Ontario, and they may be extinct in Lake Erie.
Groundwater withdrawals for municipal water supplies and irrigation, and the increased proportion of impervious
surfaces in urban areas, have negatively impacted groundwater.
Long range atmospheric transport is a continuing source of PCBs and other contaminants to the Great Lakes basin, and
can be expected to be significant for decades.
Land use changes in favor of urbanization along the shoreline continue to threaten natural habitats in the Great Lakes
and St. Lawrence River ecosystems.
Some species of amphibians and wetland-dependent birds are showing declines in population numbers, in part due to
wetland habitat conditions.
A complete list of the Great Lakes indicators in the SOLEC suite is provided in the following table, which is organized by indicator
categories. Also included are the 2007 indicator assessments for the State of the Great Lakes 2007 indicator reports with previous
assessments from 2005, 2003, and 2001 where available.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2005 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2003 Assessment
2001 Assessment
CONTAMINATION
Nutrients
111
4860
7061
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels (Coastal
Wetlands)
Nutrient Management Plans
Open Lake: Mixed,
Undetermined
Nearshore: Poor,
Undetermined
N/A (2005 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
N/A
Mixed
N/A
Mixed
Toxics in Biota
114
115
121
124
4177
4201
4506
8135
8147
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail
Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Contaminants in Whole Fish
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for
Nearshore Fish
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to
Persistent Chemicals
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald
Eagles
Population Monitoring and Contaminants
Affecting the American Otter
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Poor, Unchanging
Not Assessed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
(2005 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Poor-Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, N/A
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed Improving
Mixed Improving
N/A
N/A (#101)
Mixed Improving
(#4083)
Mixed
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Good
Mixed Improving
(#4083)
Mixed
Mixed Improving
N/A
Toxics in Media
117
118
119
4175
4202
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore
Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment
Cores
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Acid Rain
Mixed, Improving
& Mixed,
Unchanging/
Improving
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving/
Undetermined
Good, Unchanging
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
(2005 report)
Mixed, Improving
& Mixed,
Unchanging
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Good, Unchanging
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Mixed
Mixed Improving
Mixed Improving
Good
Mixed (#41 76)
Mixed Improving
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Good
Mixed (#41 76)
Mixed
Sources and Loadings
117
4202
7065
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Air Quality
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
Acid Rain
Mixed, Improving
& Mixed,
Unchanging/
Improving
Mixed, Improving
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed, Improving
(2005 report)
Mixed, Improving
& Mixed,
Unchanging
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Mixed
Mixed (#41 76)
Mixed Improving
Mixed Improving
Mixed (#41 76)
Mixed
N/A = Not Assessed; Number in brackets indicates related indicator; Reports are currently unavailable for the indicators in italics.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2005 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2003 Assessment
2001 Assessment
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Fish
8
9
17
93
125
4502
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Mixed, Improving
Fair, Unchanging
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed,
Unchanging
Mixed, Improving
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed, Improving
Good, Unchanging
Mixed,
Deteriorating &
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
& Mixed,
Unchanging
Mixed,
Undetermined
N/A
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
N/A
Good
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Birds
115
4507
8135
8750
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald
Eagles
Breeding Bird Diversity and Abundance
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed, Improving
(2005 report)
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed, Improving
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed Improving
Good
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed Improving
Mammals
8147
Population Monitoring and Contaminants
Affecting the American Otter
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed
N/A
Amphibians
4504
7103
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and
Abundance
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal
Communities
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
(2005 report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Deteriorating
Invertebrates
68
104
116
122
123
4501
Native Freshwater Mussels
Benthos Diversity and Abundance - Aquatic
Oligochaete Communities
Zooplankon Populations
Hexagenia
Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod
Diporeia spp.
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community
Health
N/A
(2005 report)
Mixed,
Unchanging/
Deteriorating
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
(2005 Progress
Report)
N/A
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
N/A
(2003 report)
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
Progress Report
N/A
Mixed
N/A
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Plants
109
4862
8162
8500
Phytoplankton Populations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological
Diversity
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed
Mixed
N/A = Not Assessed; Number in brackets indicates related indicator; Reports are currently unavailable for the indicators in italics.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2005 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2003 Assessment
2001 Assessment
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (continued)
General
8114
8137
8161
8163
Habitat Fragmentation
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Threatened Species
Status and Protection of Special Places and
Species
INVASIVE SPECIES
Aquatic
18
9002
Sea Lamprey
Non-Native Species (Aquatic)
Good-Fair,
Improving
(2005 Report)
Poor, Deteriorating
Good-Fair,
Improving
Poor, Deteriorating
Mixed Improving
Poor
Mixed
Poor
Terrestrial
9002
Non-Native Species (Terrestrial)
N/A,
Undetermined
COASTAL ZONES
Nearshore Aquatic
6
4860
4861
4864
8131
8742
8746
Fish Habitat
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels (Coastal
Wetlands)
Effects of Water Level Fluctuations
Human Impact Measures (Coastal Wetlands)
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Artificial Coastal Structures
Mixed, N/A
(2003 Report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed, N/A
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2001 report)
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
(2001 report)
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Deteriorating
Coastal Wetlands
4501
4502
4504
4506
4507
4510
4511
4516
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
8742
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community
Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and
Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Coastal Wetland Restored Area by Type
Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Phosphorus and Nitrogen Levels
Effects of Water Level Fluctuations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Human Impact Measures
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
N/A
(2005 Progress
Report)
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed, N/A
(2003 Report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
N/A
Progress Report
N/A
Progress Report
N/A
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed, N/A
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed, N/A
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
(2001 report)
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Deteriorating
N/A = Not Assessed; Number in brackets indicates related indicator; Reports are currently unavailable for the indicators in italics.
6
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2005 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2003 Assessment
2001 Assessment
COASTAL ZONES (continued)
Terrestrial
4861
4864
8129
8129
8129
8129
8131
8732
8736
8737
8742
8749
Effects of Water Level Fluctuations
Human Impact Measures (Coastal Wetlands)
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Alvars
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Nearshore Land Use
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural
Land Cover
Nearshore Species Diversity and Stability
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Protected Nearshore Areas
Mixed, N/A
(2003 Report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2001 Report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2005 Report)
N/A
(2005 Progress
Report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed, N/A
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2001 report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed
Mixed
(2001 report)
Mixed
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
AQUATIC HABITATS
Open Lake
6
111
118
119
8131
8742
8746
Fish Habitat
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore
Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment
Cores
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Sediment Available for Coastal Nourishment
Artificial Coastal Structures
Open Lake: Mixed,
Undetermined
Nearshore: Poor,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving/
Undetermined
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed
Mixed Improving
Mixed Improving
Mixed
Deteriorating
(2001 Report)
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Deteriorating
Groundwater
7100
7101
7102
7103
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-
Induced Changes
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal
Communities
N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A
(2005 Report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A
N/A
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A = Not Assessed; Number in brackets indicates related indicator; Reports are currently unavailable for the indicators in italics.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2005 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2003 Assessment
2001 Assessment
HUMAN HEALTH
4175
4177
4779
4200
4201
4202
Drinking Water Quality
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to
Persistent Chemicals
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease
Incidence
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Air Quality
Good, Unchanging
N/A,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Good, Unchanging
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Mixed, Improving
Good
Mixed (#4081)
Mixed Improving
(#4083)
Mixed (#4 176)
Good
Mixed (#4081)
Mixed Improving
(#4083)
Mixed (#4 176)
LAND USE - LAND COVER
General
4863
7002
7101
8114
8132
8136
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Land Cover - Land Conversion
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Habitat Fragmentation
Nearshore Land Use
Extent and Quality of Nearshore Natural
Land Cover
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed,
Undetermined
N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Forest Lands
8500
8501
8502
8503
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological
Diversity
Forest Lands - Maintenance and Productive
Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
Maintenance of Forest Ecosystem Health
and Vitality
Forest Lands - Conservation & Maintenance
of Soil & Water Resources
Mixed,
Undetermined
N/A,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
Agricultural Lands
7028
7061
7062
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Nutrient Management Plans
Integrated Pest Management
N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mixed
Urban/Suburban Lands
7000
7006
7054
Urban Density
Brownfields Redevelopment
Ground Surface Hardening
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed, Improving
N/A
(2005 Progress
Report)
Mixed, N/A
Mixed, Improving
(2003 report)
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed Improving
Unable to Assess
Mixed Improving
N/A = Not Assessed; Number in brackets indicates related indicator; Reports are currently unavailable for the indicators in italics.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2005 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
2003 Assessment
2001 Assessment
LAND USE - LAND COVER (continued)
Protected Areas
8129
8129
8129
8129
8749
8163
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Alvars
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality, and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes
Protected Nearshore Areas
Status and Protection of Special Places and
Species
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2001 Report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2005 Report)
N/A
(2005 Progress
Report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2001 report)
Mixed,
Deteriorating
N/A
Progress Report
Mixed
(2001 report)
Mixed
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
3514
3516
7043
7056
7057
7060
7064
7065
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency
Measures
Household Storm water Recycling
Economic Prosperity
Water Withdrawals
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Disposal
Vehicle Use
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
N/A
(2003 Report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 Report)
Mixed,
Unchanging
(2005 Report)
Mixed, N/A
(2005 Report)
N/A,
Undetermined
Poor, Deteriorating
N/A
Progress Report
N/A
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Undetermined
(2003 report)
Mixed,
Unchanging
Mixed, N/A
Mixed
(2003 report)
N/A
Mixed (L. Superior
basin)
Mixed
Deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed
CLIMATE CHANGE
4858
9003
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great
Lakes
Climate Change: Effect on Crop Heat Units
Mixed,
Deteriorating
Mixed,
Deteriorating
(2003 report)
Mixed
Deteriorating
PROPOSED INDICATOR
8164
Biodiversity Conservation Sites
N/A,
Undetermined
N/A = Not Assessed; Number in brackets indicates related indicator; Reports are currently unavailable for the indicators in italics.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
2.0 Assessing Data Quality
Through both the biennial Conferences and the State of the Great Lakes reports (technical report, Highlights report, Summary
Series), SOLEC organizers seek to disseminate the highest quality information available to a wide variety of environmental
managers, policy officials, scientists and other interested public. The importance of the availability of reliable and useful data is
implicit in the SOLEC process.
To ensure that data and information made available to the public by federal agencies adhere to a basic standard of objectivity,
utility, and integrity, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget issued a set of Guidelines in 2002 (OMB 2002). Subsequently,
other U.S. federal agencies have issued their own guidelines for implementing the OMB policies. According to the Guidelines
issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 2002), information must be accurate, reliable, unbiased, useful
and uncompromised though corruption or falsification.
Other assessment factors (U.S. EPA 2003) that are typically taken into account when evaluating the quality and relevance of
scientific and technical information include:
Soundness - the extent to which the scientific and technical procedures, measures, methods or models employed to
generate the information are reasonable for, and consistent with, the intended application
Applicability and Utility - the extent to which the information is relevant for the intended use
Clarity and Completeness - the degree of clarity and completeness with which the data, assumptions, methods, quality
assurance, sponsoring organizations and analyses employed to generate the information are documented
Uncertainty and Variability - the extent to which the variability and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in the
information or in the procedures, measures, methods or models are evaluated and characterized
Evaluation and Review - the extent of independent verification, validation and peer review of the information or of the
procedures, measures, methods or models
Recognizing the need to more formally integrate concerns about data quality into the SOLEC process, SOLEC organizers
developed a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in 2004. The QAPP recognizes that SOLEC, as an entity, does not directly
measure any environmental or socioeconomic parameters. Existing data are contributed by cooperating federal, state and
provincial environmental and natural resource agencies, non-governmental environmental agencies or other organizations
engaged in Great Lakes monitoring. Additional data sources may include local governments, planning agencies, and the published
scientific literature. Therefore, SOLEC relies on the quality of datasets reported by others. Characteristics of datasets that would
be acceptable for indicator reporting include:
Data are documented, validated, or quality-assured by a recognized agency or organization.
Data are traceable to original sources.
The source of the data is a known, reliable and respected generator of data.
Geographic coverage and scale of data are appropriate to the Great Lakes basin.
Data obtained from sources within the United States are comparable with those from Canada.
Additional considerations include:
Gaps in data availability should be identified if datasets are unavailable for certain geographic regions and/or contain a
level of detail insufficient to be useful in the evaluation of a particular indicator.
Data should be evaluated for feasibility of being incorporated into indicator reports. Attention should be given to budgetary
constraints in acquiring data, type and format of data, time required to convert data to usable form, and the collection
frequency for particular types of data.
SOLEC relies on a distributed system of information in which the data reside with the original providers. Although data reported
through SOLEC are not centralized, clear links for accessibility of the data and/or the indicator authors are provided. The authors
hold the primary responsibility for ensuring that the data used are adequate for indicator reporting. Users of the indicator
information, however, are obliged to evaluate the usefulness and appropriateness of the data for their own application, and they
are encouraged to contact the authors with any concerns or questions.
10
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
The SOLEC indicator reporting process is intended to be open and collaborative. Indicator authors are generally subject matter
experts who are the primary generators of data, who have direct access to the data, or who are able to obtain relevant data from
one or more other sources and who can assess the quality of data for objectivity, usefulness and integrity. In some cases, authors
may serve as facilitators or leaders to coordinate a workgroup of experts who collectively contribute their data and information,
to arrange for data retrievals from agency or organization databases, or to review published scientific literature or conduct online
data searches from trusted sources, e.g., U.S. census data or the National Land Cover Dataset.
Several opportunities are provided for knowledgeable people to review and comment on the quality of the data and information
provided. These include:
Co-authors - Most of the indicator reports are prepared by more than one author, and data are often obtained from more
than one source. As the draft versions are prepared, the authors freely evaluate the data.
Comments from the Author(s) - The section in each indicator report called "Comments from the Author(s)" provides
an opportunity for the authors to describe any known limitations on the use or interpretation of the data that are being
presented.
Pre-SOLEC availability - The indicator reports are prepared before each Conference, and they are made available online
to SOLEC participants in advance. Participants are encouraged to provide comments and suggestions for improvements,
including any data quality issues.
During SOLEC discussions - The Conferences have been designed to encourage exchange of ideas and interpretations
among the participants. The indicator reports provide the framework for many of the discussions.
Post-SOLEC review period - Following the Conferences, interested agencies, organizations and other stakeholders are
encouraged to review and comment on the information and interpretations provided in the indicator reports.
Preparation of State of the Great Lakes products - Prior to finalizing the technical report, the Highlights report, and Summary
Series, any substantive comments on the indicator reports, including data quality issues, are referred back to the authors
for resolution with the report editors.
The primary record and documentation of the indicator reports and assessments are the State of the Great Lakes reports. The
technical report presents the full indicator reports as prepared by the primary authors. It also contains detailed references to the
data sources. A Highlights report is also produced which summarizes key information from the technical report. 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, 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.
Sources
Office of Management and Budget. 2002. Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity
of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, (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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity, of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/260R-02-008, 62pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Assessment Factors. A Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the
Quality of Scientific and Technical Information. EPA 100/B-03/001, 18pp.
11
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
3.0 Indicator Category Assessments and Management Challenges
CONTAMINATION
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: The transfer of natural and human-made substances from air, sediments, groundwater,
wastewater, and runoff from non-point sources is constantly changing the chemical composition
of the Great Lakes. Over the last 30 years, concentrations of some chemicals or chemical groups
have declined significantly. There is a marked reduction in the levels of toxic chemicals in air,
water, biota, and sediments. Many remaining problems are associated with local regions such as
Areas of Concern. However, concentrations of several other chemicals that have been recently
detected in Great Lakes have been identified as chemicals of emerging concern.
Levels of most contaminants in herring gull eggs continue to decrease in all the Great Lakes colonies monitored, although
concentration levels vary from good in Lake Superior, to mixed in Lake Michigan, Lake Erie and Lake Huron, to poor in Lake
Ontario. While the frequency of gross effects of contamination on wildlife has subsided, many subtle (mostly physiological and
genetic) effects that were not measured in earlier years of sampling remain in herring gulls. Concentrations of flame-retardant
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are increasing in herring gull eggs.
Concentrations of most organic contaminants in the offshore waters of the Great Lakes are low and are declining, indicating
progress in the reduction of persistent toxic chemicals. Indirect inputs of in-use organochlorine pesticides are most likely the
current source of entry to the Great Lakes. Continuing sources of entry of many organic contaminants to the Great Lakes include
indirect inputs such as atmospheric deposition, agricultural land runoff, and resuspension of contaminated sediments. Overall,
mercury concentrations in offshore waters are well below water quality guidelines. Mercury concentrations in waters near major
urban areas and harbors, however, exceed water quality criteria for protection of wildlife. The spatial distribution of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) reflects the major source from the burning of fossil fuels. Concentrations of PAHs are therefore
higher in the lower lakes, where usage is greater.
The status of atmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals is mixed and improving for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), banned
organochlorine pesticides, dioxins, and furans, but mixed and unchanging or slightly improving for PAHs and mercury across the
Great Lakes. For Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron, atmospheric inputs are the largest source of toxic chemicals due
to the large surface areas of these lakes. While atmospheric concentrations of some substances are very low at rural sites, they may
be much higher in some urban areas.
Juvenile spottail shiner, an important preyfish species in the Great Lakes, is a good indicator of nearshore contamination because the
species limits its distribution to localized, nearshore areas during its first year of life. Total dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
in juvenile spottail shiner has declined over the last 30 years but still exceeds GLWQA criteria at most locations. Concentrations
of PCBs in juvenile spottail shiner have decreased below the GLWQA guideline at many, but not all, sites in the Great Lakes.
The status of contaminants in lake trout, walleye and smelt as monitored annually in the open waters of each of the Great Lakes
is mixed and improving for PCBs, DDT, toxaphene, dieldrin, mirex, chlordane, and mercury. Concentrations of PBDEs and other
chemicals of emerging concern such as perflourinated chemicals, however, are increasing. Both the United States and Canada
continue to monitor for these chemicals in whole fish tissues and have over 30 years of data to support the status and trends
information.
Phosphorus concentrations in the Great Lakes were a major concern in the 1960s and 1970s, but private and government actions
have reduced phosphorus loadings, thus maintaining or reducing phosphorus concentrations in open waters. However, high
phosphorus concentrations are still measured in some embayments, harbors, and nearshore areas. Nuisance growth of the green
alga Cladophora has reappeared along the shoreline in many places and may be related, in part, to increased availability of
phosphorus.
12
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Management Challenges:
Presently, there are no standardized analytical monitoring methods and tissue residue guidelines for new contaminants
and chemicals of emerging concern, such as PBDEs.
PCBs from residual sources in the United States, Canada, and throughout the world enter the atmosphere and are
transported long distances. Therefore, atmospheric deposition of PCBs to the Great Lakes will still be significant at least
decades into the future.
Assessment of the capacity and operation of existing sewage treatment plants for phosphorus removal, in the context of
increasing human populations being served, is warranted.
Monitoring of tributary, point source, and urban and rural non-point source contributions of phosphorus will allow
tracking of various sources of phosphorus loadings.
Investigating the causes of Cladophora reappearances will aid in the reduction of its impacts on the ecosystem.
13
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
CONTAMINATION
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU E
Nutrients
111
7061
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings open lake
nearshore
Nutrient Management Plans
? * ?
? ? ? '
R ON
p ^
> ?
2005 Report
Toxics in Biota
114
115
121
124
4177
4201
4506
8135
8147
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Contaminants in Whole Fish
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the
American Otter
^^ r ^^
^^ ^^ ^^
-ป-ป-ป-
? ? ? 4
?
^^ ^^ ^^
* ^
* ^
ป ^
^
* -ป
-> 2005 Report
? 2003 Report
Toxics in Media
117
118
119
4175
4202
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals PCBs & others
PAHs & mercury
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Acid Rain
*
4 & *
? ? ? '
* & '
> ?
?
*
^ 2005 Report
Sources and Loadings
117
4202
7065
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals PCBs & others
PAHs & mercury
Air Quality
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
Acid Rain
->
4 & ^
*
Progress Report
^ 2005 Report
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
9
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
14
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes - What the Experts are Saying
In addition to the ecosystem information derived from indicators, six presentations on the theme of "Chemical Integrity
of the Great Lakes" were delivered at SOLEC 2006 by Great Lakes experts. The definition of Chemical Integrity proposed
by SOLEC is "the capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated and adaptive biological system having the
full range of elements and processes expected in a region's natural habitat." James R. Karr, 1991 (modified)
The presentations focused on the status of anthropogenic (man-made) contaminants and imbalances in naturally
occurring chemicals in the Great Lakes basin. The key points of each presentation are summarized here.
Anthropogenic Chemicals
Ron Hites, Indiana University: While concentrations of banned or regulated toxic substances such as PCBs and PAHs
have decreased over the past 30 years, the rate of decline has slowed considerably over the past decade. Virtual
elimination of most of these chemicals will not occur for another 10 to 30 years despite restrictions or bans on their
use. Further decreases in the environmental concentrations of PCBs, PAHs, and some pesticides may well depend on
emission reductions in cities.
Derek Muir, Environment Canada: Some 70,000 commercial and industrial compounds are now in use, and an estimated
1,000 new chemicals are introduced each year. Several chemical categories have been identified as chemicals of
emerging concern, including polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) and
carboxylates, chlorinated paraffins and naphthalenes, various pharmaceutical and personal care products, phenolics,
and approximately 20 currently used pesticides. PBDEs, siloxanes and musks are now widespread in the Great Lakes
environment. Implementation of a more systematic program for monitoring new persistent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes will require significant investments in instrumentation and researchers.
Joanne Parrot, Environment Canada: Some pharmaceuticals and personal care products appear to cause negative effects
in aquatic organisms at very low concentrations in laboratory experiments. Some municipal wastewater effluents within
the Great Lakes discharge concentrations of these products within these ranges. There is some evidence that fish and
turtles show developmental effects when exposed to municipal wastewater effluent in the laboratory. Whether these
effects appear in aquatic organisms including invertebrates, fish, frogs, and turtles, in environments downstream of
municipal wastewater effluent is not known, indicating the need for more research in this area.
Naturally-occurring Chemicals
Harvey Bootsma, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Changes in levels of nitrate, chloride and phosphorus in Great
Lakes waters are attributed to human activities, with potential effects on phytoplankton and bottom-dwelling algae.
Changes in lake chemistry, shown through variations in calcium, alkalinity, and even chlorophyll, are linked to the
biological activity of non-native species. Non-native species also appear to be altering nutrient cycling pathways in the
Great Lakes, by possibly intercepting nearshore nutrients before they can be exported offshore and transferring them
to the lake bottom.
Susan Watson, Environment Canada: The causes and occurrences of taste and odor impairments in surface waters are
widespread, erratic, and poorly characterized but are likely caused by volatile organic compounds produced by species
of plankton, benthic organisms, and decomposing organic materials. In recent years, there has been an increase in the
frequency and severity of nuisance algae such as Cladophora outbreaks in the Great Lakes, particularly in the lower
Great Lakes. Type E botulism outbreaks and resulting waterbird deaths continue to occur in Lake Michigan, Lake Erie
and Lake Ontario.
David Lam, Environment Canada: Models and supporting monitoring data are used to predict Great Lakes water
quality. A post-audit of historical models for Great Lakes water quality revealed the general success of setting target
phosphorus loads to reduce open water phosphorus concentrations.
15
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Despite improvements in levels of contaminants in the Great Lakes, many biological components
of the ecosystem are severely stressed. Populations of the native species near the base of the food
web, such as Diporeia and species of zooplankton, are in decline in some of the Great Lakes.
Native preyflsh populations have declined in all lakes except Lake Superior. Significant natural
reproduction of lake trout is occurring in Lake Huron and Lake Superior only. Walleye harvests
have improved but are still below fishery target levels. Lake sturgeon are locally extinct in many
tributaries and waters where they once spawned and flourished. Habitat loss and deterioration
remain the predominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian and wetland-dependent bird
populations.
The aquatic food web is severely impaired in all the Great Lakes with the exception of Lake Superior. Zooplankton populations
have declined dramatically in Lake Huron, and a similar decline is occurring in Lake Michigan. Populations of Diporeia, the
dominant native benthic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrate in offshore waters, continue to decline in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan,
and Lake Ontario, and they may be locally extinct in Lake Erie. The decline of Diporeia coincides with the introduction of
non-native zebra and quagga mussels. Both zooplankton and Diporeia are crucial food sources for many other species, so their
population size and health impact the entire system.
The current mix of native and non-native (stocked and naturalized) prey and predator fish species in the system has confounded the
natural balance within most of the Great Lakes. In all but Lake Superior, native preyfish populations have deteriorated. However,
the recent decline of non-native preyfish (alewife and smelt) abundance in all Great Lakes except Lake Superior could have positive
impacts on other preyfish populations. Preyfish populations are important for their role in supporting predator fish populations, so
the potential effects of these changes will be a significant factor to be considered in fisheries management decisions.
Despite basin-wide efforts to restore lake trout populations that include stocking, harvest limits, and sea lamprey management,
lake trout have not established self-sustaining populations in Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. In Lake Huron,
substantial and widespread natural reproduction of lake trout was observed starting in 2004 following the near collapse of alewife
populations. This change may have been due to the reduced predation on juvenile lake trout by adult alewives and the alleviation
of a trout vitamin deficiency problem caused by trout consuming alewives. In Lake Superior, lake trout stocks have recovered such
that hatchery-reared trout are no longer stocked.
Reductions in phosphorus loadings during the 1970s substantially improved spawning and nursery habitat for many fish species
in the Great Lakes. Walleye harvests have improved but are still below target levels. Lake sturgeon are now locally extinct in
many tributaries and waters where they once spawned and flourished, although some remnant lake sturgeon populations exist
throughout the Great Lakes. Spawning and rearing habitats have been destroyed, altered or access to them blocked. Habitat
restoration is required to help re-establish vigorous lake sturgeon populations.
From 1995 to 2005, the American toad, bullfrog, chorus frog, green frog, and northern leopard frog exhibited significantly declining
population trends while the spring peeper was the only amphibian species that exhibited a significantly increasing population
trend in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. For this same time period, 14 species of wetland-dependent birds exhibited significantly
declining population trends, while only six species exhibited significantly increasing population trends. The Great Lakes are now
facing a challenge from viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). This virus has affected at least 37 fish species and is associated with
fish kills in Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River.
Management Challenges:
Management actions to address the decline of Diporeia may be ineffective until the underlying causes of the declines are
identified.
The decline of Diporeia coincides with the spread of non-native zebra and quagga mussels. Cause and effect linkages
between non-native species in the Great Lakes and ecological impacts may be difficult to establish.
16
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Identification of remnant lake sturgeon spawning populations should assist the selection of priority restoration activities
to improve degraded lake sturgeon spawning and rearing habitats.
Protection of high-quality wetland habitats and adjacent upland areas will help support populations of wetland-dependent
birds and amphibians.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU
Ml
HU
ER
ON
Fish
8
9
17
93
125
4502
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
*
?
*
*
?^
*
?
^
^
?^
*
4
^
*
?^
*
+
^
?
4
4
^
^
*
Progress Report
Birds
115
4507
8135
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
*
?
*
^
*
^
*
^
*
^
-> 2005 Report
Mammals
8147 | Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
? 2003 Report
Amphibians
4504
7103
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
?
+
^
^
+
2005 Report
Invertebrates
68
104
116
122
123
4501
Native Freshwater Mussels
Benthos Diversity and Abundance -Aquatic Oligochaete Communities
Zooplankton Populations
Hexagenia
Abundance of the Benth Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
2005 Report
+
?
+
^
?
?
^
?
?
^
^
?
<
^
+
?
?
^
2005 Progress Report
Plants
109
4862
8500
Phytoplankton Populations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
? 2003 Report
^
4
?
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
17
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
INVASIVE SPECIES
Overall Assessment
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Activities associated with shipping are responsible for over one-third of the aquatic non-native
species introductions to the Great Lakes. Total numbers of non-native species introduced and
established in the Great Lakes have increased steadily since the 1830s. However, numbers of
ship-introduced aquatic species have increased exponentially during the same time period. High
population density, high-volume transport of goods, and the degradation of native ecosystems
have also made the Great Lakes region vulnerable to invasions from terrestrial non-native
species. Introduction of these species is one of the greatest threats to the biodiversity and natural
resources of this region, second only to habitat destruction.
There are currently 183 known aquatic and 124 known terrestrial non-native species that have become established in the Great
Lakes basin. Non-native species are pervasive throughout the Great Lakes basin, and they continue to exert impacts on native
species and communities. Approximately 10 percent of aquatic non-native species are considered invasive and have an adverse
effect, causing considerable ecological, social, and economic burdens.
Both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitats are adversely impacted by invasive species. The terrestrial non-native emerald ash
borer, for example, is a tree-killing beetle that has killed more than 15 million trees in the state of Michigan alone as of 2005.
The emerald ash borer probably arrived in the United States on solid wood packing material carried in cargo ships or airplanes
originating from its native Asia.
Introductions of non-native invasive species as a result of world trade and travel have increased steadily since the 1830s and will
continue to rise if prevention measures are not improved. The Great Lakes basin is particularly vulnerable to non-native invasive
species because it is a major pathway of trade and is an area that is already disturbed.
Management Challenges:
A better understanding of the entry routes of non-native invasive species would aid in their control and prevention.
Prevention and control require coordinated regulation and enforcement efforts to effectively limit the introduction of
non-native invasive species.
Prevention of unauthorized ballast water exchange by ships will eliminate one key pathway of non-native aquatic species
introductions to the Great Lakes.
The unauthorized release, transfer, and escape of introduced aquatic non-native species and private sector activities
related to aquaria, garden ponds, baitfish, and live food fish markets need to be considered.
18
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
INVASIVE SPECIES
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Direction)
Lake
su
Aquatic
18
9002
Sea Lamprey
Non-Native Species (Aquatic)
Ml
HU
-ป 2005
Terrestrial
9002
Non-Native Species (Terrestrial)
^
^
ER
ON
Report
ซ
^
?
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
19
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
COASTAL ZONES AND AQUATIC HABITATS
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Coastal habitats are degraded due to development, shoreline hardening and establishment of
local populations of non-native invasive species. Wetlands continue to be lost and degraded. In
addition to providing habitat and feeding areas for many species of birds, amphibians and fish,
wetlands also serve as a refuge for native mussels and fish that are threatened by non-native
invasive species.
The Great Lakes coastline is more than 17,000 kilometers (10,563 miles) long. Unique habitats include more than 30,000 islands,
over 950 kilometers (590 miles) of cobble beaches, and over 30,000 hectares (74,131 acres) of sand dunes. Each coastal zone
region is subject to a combination of human and natural stressors such as agriculture, residential development, point and non-point
sources of pollution, and weather patterns. The coastal zone is heavily stressed, with many of the basin's 42 million people living
along the shoreline.
Wetlands are essential for proper functioning of aquatic ecosystems. They provide a refuge for native fish and mussels from
non-native predators and competitors. The Great Lakes coastline includes more than 200,000 hectares (494,000 acres) of coastal
wetlands, less than half of the amount of wetland area that existed prior to European settlement of the basin. An inventory of
Great Lakes coastal wetlands in 2004 demonstrated that Lake Huron and Lake Michigan still have extensive wetlands, especially
barrier-protected wetlands. Reductions in wetland area are occurring, however, due to filling, conversion to urban, residential, and
agricultural uses, shoreline modification, water level regulation, non-native species invasions, and nutrient loading. Stressors, such
as these, may also impact the condition of remaining wetlands and can threaten their natural function.
Coastal wetland plant community health, which is indicative of overall coastal wetland health, varies across the Great Lakes basin.
In general, there is deterioration of native plant diversity in any wetlands as shoreline alterations may cause habitat degradation
and allow for easier invasion by non-native species.
Naturally fluctuating water levels are essential for maintaining the ecological health of Great Lakes shoreline ecosystems, especially
coastal wetlands. Wetland plants and biota have adapted to seasonal and long-term water level fluctuations, allowing wetlands
to be more extensive and more productive than they would be if water levels were stable. In 2000, Great Lakes water levels were
lower than the 140-year average water level measured from 1860-2000. Furthermore, many climate change models predict lower
water levels for the Great Lakes. Coastal wetlands that directly border the lakes and do not have barrier beaches may be able to
migrate toward the lakes in response to lower water levels. Inland and enclosed wetlands would likely dry up and become arable
or forested land.
Shoreline hardening, primarily associated with artificial structures that attempt to control erosion, can alter sediment transport
in coastal regions. When the balance of accretion and erosion of sediment carried along the shoreline by wave action and lake
currents is disrupted, the ecosystem functioning of coastal wetlands is impaired. The St. Clair, Detroit, and Niagara Rivers have
a higher percentage of their shorelines hardened than anywhere else in the basin. Of the five Great Lakes, Lake Erie has the
highest percentage of its shoreline artificially hardened, and Lake Huron and Lake Superior have the lowest percentages artificially
hardened. Groundwater is critical for maintaining Great Lakes aquatic habitats, plants and animals. Human activities such as
groundwater withdrawals for municipal water supplies and irrigation, and the increased proportion of impervious surfaces in
urban areas, have detrimentally impacted groundwater. On a larger scale, climate change could further contribute to reductions
in groundwater storage.
Management Challenges:
Despite improvements in research and monitoring of coastal zones, the basin lacks a comprehensive plan for long-term
monitoring of these areas. Long-term monitoring should be an important component of a comprehensive plan to maintain
the condition and integrity of the coastal zones and aquatic habitats.
An educated public is essential to ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Protection of groundwater recharge areas, conservation of water resources, informed land use planning, raising of public
awareness, and improved monitoring are essential actions for improving groundwater quality and quantity.
20
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
COASTAL ZONES and AQUATIC HABITATS
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU
COASTAL ZONES
ERION
Nearshore Aquatic
4861
8131
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
? 2003 Report
<- 2001 Report
Coastal Wetlands
4501
4502
4504
4506
4507
4510
4861
4862
4863
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Abundance of the Benth Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
2005 Progress Report
Progress Report
? + <-
? 4- 4-
+ <- <-
4
4
4
4
4
? 2003 Report
4^ 4^ 4
+
Progress Report
Terestrial
4861
8129
8129
8129
8129
8131
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Alvars
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Islands
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Sand Dunes
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
? 2003 Report
? 2001 Report
<- 2005 Report
?
2005 Progress Report
<- 2001 Report
AQUATIC HABITATS
Open Lake
111
118
119
8131
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings open lake
nearshore
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
? -> ?
? ? ?
* &
?
?
?
*
?
4- 2001 Report
Groundwater
7100
7101
7102
7103
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Base Flow Due to Groundwate Discharge
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
2005 Report
2005 Report
<-
2005 Report
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
01
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
HUMAN HEALTH
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Levels of PCBs in sportfish continue to decline, progress is being made to reduce air pollution,
beaches are better assessed and more frequently monitored for pathogens, and treated drinking
water quality continues to be assessed as good. Although concentrations of many organochlorine
chemicals in the Great Lakes have declined since the 1970s, sportfish consumption advisories
persist for all of the Great Lakes.
The quality of municipally-treated drinking water is considered good. The risk of human exposure to chemicals and/or
microbiological contaminants in treated drinking water is generally low. However, improving and protecting source water quality
(before treatment) is important to ensure good drinking water quality.
In 2005, 74 percent of monitored Great Lakes beaches in the United States and Canada remained open more than 95 percent of
the swimming season. Postings, advisories or closures were due to a variety of reasons, including the presence of E. coli bacteria,
poor water quality, algae abundance, or preemptive beach postings based on storm events and predictive models. Wildlife waste
on beaches can be more of a contributing factor towards bacterial contamination of water and beaches than previously thought.
Concentrations of organochlorine contaminants in Great Lakes sportfish are generally decreasing. However, in the United States,
PCBs drive consumption advisories of Great Lakes sportfish. In Ontario, most of the consumption advisories for Great Lakes
sportfish are driven by PCBs, mercury, and dioxins. Toxaphene also contributes to consumption advisories of sportfish from Lake
Superior and Lake Huron. Monitoring for other contaminants, such as PBDEs, has begun in some locations.
Overall, there has been significant progress in reducing air pollution in the Great Lakes basin. However, regional pollutants,
such as ground-level ozone and fine particulates, remain a concern, especially in the Detroit-Windsor-Ottawa corridor, the Lake
Michigan basin, and the Buffalo-Niagara area. Air quality will be further impacted by population growth and climate change.
Management Challenges:
Maintenance of high-quality source water will reduce costs associated with treating water, promote a healthier ecosystem,
and lessen potential contaminant exposure to humans.
Although the quality of treated drinking water remains good, care must be taken to maintain water treatment facilities.
One-fourth of monitored beaches still have beach postings or closures.
A decline in some contaminant concentrations has not eliminated the need for Great Lakes sportfish consumption
advisories.
Most urban and local air pollutant concentrations are decreasing. However, population growth may impact future air
pollution levels.
22
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
HUMAN HEALTH
ID#
4175
4177
4200
4201
4202
Indicator Name
Drinking Water Quality
Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Air Quality
2007 Assessment
(Status, Direction)
Lake
SU
Ml
HU
ER
ON
+
?
?
>
?
^
*?
*
?
^
?
^
->
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
^
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
9
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
23
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
LAND USE - LAND COVER
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: The Great Lakes basin encompasses an area of more than 765,000 square kilometers (295,000
square miles). How land is used impacts not only water quality of the Great Lakes, but also
biological productivity, biodiversity, and the economy.
Data from 1992 and 2002 indicate that forested land covered 61 percent of the Great Lakes basin and 70 percent of the land
immediately buffering surface waters, known as riparian zones. The greater the forest coverage in a riparian zone, the greater
the capacity for the watershed to maintain biodiversity, store water, regulate water temperatures, and limit excessive nutrient and
sediment loadings to the waterways. Urbanization, seasonal home construction, and increased recreational use are among the
general demands being placed on forest resources nationwide. Additional disturbances caused by lumber removal and forest fires
can also alter the structure of Great Lakes basin forests. However, the area of forested lands certified under sustainable forestry
programs has significantly increased in recent years, exemplifying continued commitment from forest industry professionals to
practices that help protect local ecosystem sustainability. Continued growth in these practices will lead to improved soil and water
resources and increased timber productivity in areas of implementation.
Under the pressure of rapid population growth in the Great Lakes region, urban development has undergone unprecedented growth.
Sprawl is increasing in rural and urban fringe areas of the Great Lakes basin, placing a strain on infrastructure and consuming
habitat in areas that tend to have healthier environments than those that remain in urban areas. This trend is expected to continue,
which will exacerbate other problems, such as longer commute times from residential to work areas, increased consumption of
fossil fuels, and fragmentation of habitat. For example, at current development rates in Ontario, residential building projects are
predicted to consume some 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) of the countryside, an area double the size of Toronto, by
2031. Also, vehicle gridlock could increase commuting times by 45 percent, and air quality could decline due to an estimated 40
percent increase in vehicle emissions.
In 2006, The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program and the Nature Conservancy of Canada Ontario Region released the
Binational Conservation Blueprint for the Great Lakes. The Blueprint identified 501 areas across the Great Lakes that are a
priority for biodiversity conservation. The Blueprint was developed by scientifically and systematically identifying native species,
natural communities, and aquatic system characteristics of the region, and determining the sites that need to be preserved to
ensure their long-term survival.
Management Challenges:
As the volume of data on land use and land conversion grows, stakeholder discussions will assist in identifying the
associated pressures and management implications.
Comprehensive land use planning that incorporates "green" features, such as cluster development and greenway areas,
will help to alleviate the pressure from development.
Managing forest lands in ways that protect the continuity of forest cover can allow for habitat protection and wildlife
species mobility, therefore maintaining natural biodiversity.
Policies that favor an economically viable forestry industry will motivate private and commercial landowners to maintain
land in forest cover versus conversion to alternative uses such as development.
24
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
LAND USE - LAND COVER
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU ER ON
General
4863
7002
7054
7101
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Land Cover - Land Conversion
Ground Surface Hardening
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Progress Report
? ? ? ? ?
2005 Progress Report
2005 Report
Forest Lands
8500
8501
8503
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
Forest Lands - Maintenance and Productive Capacity of Forest
Ecosystems
Forest Lands - Conservation & Maintenance of Soil & Water
Resources
?
?
? ? ? ? ?
Agricultural Lands
7028
7061
7062
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Nutrient Management Plans
Integrated Pest Management
2005 Report
2005 Report
2005 Report
Urban/Suburban Lands
7000
7006
7054
Urban Density
Brownfields Redevelopment
Ground Surface Hardening
?
*
2005 Progress Report
Protected Areas
8129
8129
8129
8129
8164
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Alvars
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Islands
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Sand Dunes
Biodiversity Conservation Sites
? 2001 Report
<- 2005 Report
?
2005 Progress Report
Proposed Indicator
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
25
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Although water withdrawals have decreased, overall energy consumption is increasing as
population and urban sprawl increase throughout the Great Lakes basin. Human population
growth will lead to an increase in the use of natural resources.
The population of the Great Lakes basin is approximately 42 million. Growth forecasts for the western end of Lake Ontario
(known as the Golden Horseshoe) predict that this portion of the Canadian population will grow by an additional 3.7 million people
by 2031. Population size, distribution, and density are contributing factors to resource use in the basin, although many trends have
not been adequately assessed. In general, resource use is connected to economic prosperity and consumptive behaviors.
Although the Great Lakes and their tributaries contain 20 percent of the world's supply of surface freshwater, less than one percent
of these waters is renewed annually through precipitation, run-off and infiltration. The net basin water supply is estimated to be
500 billion liters (132 billion gallons) per day. In 2000, water from the Great Lakes was used at a rate equal to approximately
35 percent of the available daily supply. The majority of water withdrawn is returned to the basin through discharge or run-off.
However, approximately seven percent is lost through evapo-transpiration or depleted by human activities. Due to the shutdown
of nuclear power facilities and improved water efficiency at thermal power plants, water use in Canada and the United States
has decreased since 1980. In the future, increased pressures on water resources are expected to come from population growth in
communities bordering the basin, and from climate change.
Population size, geography, climate, and trends in housing size and density all affect the amount of energy consumed in the basin.
Electricity generation was the largest energy-consuming sector in the Great Lakes basin due to the energy required to convert
fossil fuels to electricity. Population growth and urban sprawl in the basin have led to an increase in the number of vehicles on
roads, fuel consumption, and kilometers/miles traveled. Over a ten year period (1994-2004) fuel consumption increased by 17
percent in the U.S. states bordering the Great Lakes and by 24 percent in the province of Ontario. Kilometers/miles traveled within
the same areas increased 20 percent for the United States and 56 percent for Canada. The increase in registered vehicles continues
to outpace the increase in licensed drivers.
Management Challenges:
Increasing requests for water from communities bordering the basin where existing water supplies are scarce or of poor
quality will require careful evaluation.
Energy production and conservation need to be carefully managed to meet current and future energy consumption
demands.
Population growth and urban sprawl are expected to challenge the current and future transportation systems and
infrastructures in the Great Lakes basin.
26
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
ID#
3514
7043
7056
7057
7060
7064
7065
Indicator Name
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficency Measures
Economic Prosperity
Water Withdrawls
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Disposal
Vehicle Use
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU ER ON
2003 Report
? 2003 Report
+ 2005 Report
? 2005 Report
?
ซ
Progress Report
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
ซ-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
27
-------
CLIMATE CHANGE
Overall Assessment
A qualitative assessment of the indicator category Climate Change could not be supported for this report because
the indicators are incomplete at this time. Some observed effects in the Great Lakes region, however, have been
attributed to changes in climate. Winters are getting shorter; annual average temperatures are growing warmer;
extreme heat events are occurring more frequently; duration of lake ice cover is decreasing as air and water
temperatures are increasing; and heavy precipitation events, both rain and snow, are becoming more common.
Continued declines in the duration and extent of ice cover on the Great Lakes and possible declines in lake levels due to evaporation
during the winter are expected to occur in future years. If water levels decrease as predicted with increasing temperature, shipping
revenue may decrease and the need for dredging could increase. Northward migration of species naturally found south of the Great
Lakes region and invasions by warm water, non-native aquatic species will likely increase the stress on native species. A change
in the distribution of forest types and an increase in forest pests are expected. An increase in the frequency of winter run-off and
intense storms may deliver more non-point source pollutants to the lakes.
Management Challenges:
Increased modeling, monitoring, and analysis of the effects of climate change on Great Lakes ecosystems would aid in
related management decisions.
Increased public awareness of the causes of climate change may lead to more environmentally-friendly actions.
CLIMATE CHANGE
ID#
4858
Indicator Name
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SUlMllHU
4
ERlON
Status
Not
Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
28
-------
4.0 What is Being Done to Improve Conditions
In an effort to restore and preserve the Great Lakes, legislators, managers, scientists, educators and numerous others are
responding to environmental challenges with multifaceted solutions. The responses and actions referenced here are intended
to serve as examples of positive strides being taken in the Great Lakes basin to improve ecosystem conditions. Examples from
both Canada and the United States and from each of the Great Lakes are included. There are many more actions that could
have been recognized in this report. Each is an important part of our collective commitment to a clean and healthy Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Canada and the United States implement numerous actions across the basin at national, regional and local scales. For example, in
Ontario, the City of Toronto is addressing water pollution through the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan, a long-term
solution to reduce pollution from stormwater and combined sewer overflows.
Communities, states, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and local industry are working together to remediate contaminated
sediments in U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs) with funding provided through the U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act. Since inception of
the Act in 2002, sediment remediation has been completed at three U. S. AOC sites (Ruddiman
Creek and Ruddiman Pond in Michigan, Black
Lagoon in Michigan, and Newton Creek and
Hog Island Inlet in Wisconsin).
The Oswego River AOC on Lake Ontario was
delisted in 2006, the first removal of an AOC
designation in the United States. In Canada, two
AOCs have been delisted, both on Lake Huron
(Collingwood Harbour in 1994 and Severn
Sound in 2003). Delisting of an AOC occurs
when environmental monitoring has confirmed
that the remedial actions taken have restored
the beneficial uses in the area and that locally
derived goals and criteria have been met. Varrick Dam North, Oswego River
Photo Credit: U.S. EPA, GLNPO
Effective actions are oftenbased on collaborative
work. In 2005, The Nature Conservancy, the
State of Michigan and The Forestland Group (a limited partnership), collaborated in a sale
and purchase agreement that created the largest conservation project in Michigan's history.
This purchase will protect more than 110,000 hectares (271,000 acres) through a working
forest easement on 100,362 hectares (248,000 acres) and acquisition of 9,445 hectares
(23,338 acres) in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. By connecting approximately one
million hectares (2.5 million acres), the project curbs land fragmentation and incompatible
development by establishing buffers around
conservation sites such as the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Porcupine
Mountains Wilderness State Park.
Lake Superior communities have embraced a goal of zero discharge of critical
chemical pollutants by engaging in a number of actions to remove contaminants.
Efforts to reach this goal have included electronic and hazardous waste collection
events run by Earth Keepers, a faith-based environmental initiative, which is based
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. On Earth Day 2006, over 272 metric tons (300
U.S. tons) of household hazardous waste, primarily household electronics, were
collected and properly disposed or recycled. In Canada, through Ontario's mercury
Switch Out program, more than 11,500 mercury switches from scrap automobiles
Electronic Waste Collection were collected in 2005.
Photo Credit: Superior Watershed Partnership
EnviroPark, Collingwood
Photo Credit: Environment Canada
Wye Marsh, Severn Sound
Photo Credit: Environment Canada
29
-------
Water Sampling
Photo Credit: U.S. EPA, GLNPO
Research, monitoring and assessment efforts operating at various
geographic scales are the backbone of management actions and decisions
in the basin. Coordinated monitoring among Canadian and United
States federal, provincial, state, and university groups began in 2003 to
focus on monitoring physical, biological, and chemical parameters with
monitoring occurring on a five-year rotation of one Great Lake per year.
A binational Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory has been established
that currently provides information on 1,137 monitoring programs in
the basin. The International Joint Commission maintains a Great Lakes
- St. Lawrence Research Inventory of the many funded projects that help
increase our knowledge about the structure and function of the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Strategic planning occurs at basin-wide, lake-wide and local scales.
An example of strategic planning is the Canada-Ontario Agreement, a
federal-provincial agreement that supports the restoration, protection, and
conservation of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. To achieve the collective
goals and results, Canada and Ontario work closely with local and regional governments, industry, community and environmental
groups. In the United States, more than 140 different federal programs help fund and implement environmental restoration and
management activities in the basin. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and Federal
Task Force, Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Lakewide Management Plans, Binational Partnerships, and Remedial Action
Plans are other examples of strategic planning in the Great Lakes basin.
In many cases management and
conservation actions are based
on or supported by federal, state,
provincial, or local legislation. For
example, Ontario's Greenbelt Act
of 2005 enabled the creation of a
Greenbelt Plan to protect about
728,437 hectares (1.8 million acres)
of environmentally-sensitive and
agricultural land in the Golden
Horseshoe region from urban
development and sprawl. The
Plan includes and builds upon
approximately 324,000 hectares
(800,000 acres) of land within the
Niagara Escarpment Plan and the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan.
Proving that some legislation
effectively crosses national borders,
in December, 2005, the Great
Lakes Governors and Premiers
signed the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements at the Council of Great Lakes Governors Leadership Summit that will provide
unprecedented protection for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. The agreements detail how the states and provinces
will manage and protect the basin and provide a framework for each state and province to enact laws for its protection, once the
agreement is ratified.
Education and outreach about Great Lakes environmental issues are essential actions for fostering both a scientifically literate
30
Source: Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
public as well as informed decision-makers. The Lake Superior Invasive-Free Zone Project involves community groups in the
inventorying and control of non-native invasive terrestrial and emergent aquatic plants through education. The project combines
Canadian and United States programs at federal, state, provincial, municipal, and local levels and has the goal of eliminating
non-native plants within a designated 291 hectare (720 acre) area.
A shoreline stewardship manual developed for the southeast shore of Lake Huron and promoted through workshops and outreach
programs encourages sustainable practices to improve and maintain the quality of groundwater and surface water and the natural
landscape features that support them. The Lake Huron Stewardship Guide is a collaborative effort by the Huron County Planning
Department, the University of Guelph, the Huron Stewardship Council, the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, the Lake
Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation, and the Friends of the Bayfield River, and a high level of community engagement has been
instrumental in its success.
The Great Lakes Conservation Initiative of the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago aims to draw public attention to the value and
vulnerabilities of the Great Lakes. With collaboration by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Shedd Aquarium opened a new exhibit in 2006 which features many of the invasive species found in the Great Lakes. This exhibit
provides public audiences with the opportunity to see many of these live animals and plants, and is also highlighted in teacher
workshops.
As these examples show, there is much planning, information gathering, research and education occurring in the Great Lakes
basin. Much more remains to be done to meet the goals of the GLWQA, but progress is being made with the involvement of all
Great Lakes stakeholders.
31
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
5.0 Indicator Reports and Assessments
The following indicator reports have been arranged in numerical order using the indicator I.D. number in order to facilitate the
rapid location of any indicator report by the reader.
Salmon and Trout
Indicator #8
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: The number of stocked salmonines per year is decreasing due to improvements in suppressing
the abundance of the non-native preyflsh, alewife. Many of the introduced salmonines are also
reproducing successfully in the Great Lakes. The combined effect of a decrease in the number of
alewife, as well as the increased health and reproduction of the salmonine population is creating
improvement in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving, moving towards Good
Rationale: The number of stocked salmonines per year in Lake Superior is decreasing at a steady rate.
Populations of salmon, rainbow trout and brown trout are being stocked at suitable rates to restore
and manage indigenous fish species in Lake Superior. Lake trout are considered rehabilitated.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Slightly Improving
Rationale: The number of salmonines stocked each year in Lake Michigan is declining. One goal for Lake
Michigan is to establish self-sustaining lake trout populations. Currently, more salmon are stocked
than lake trout. This lake has the highest stocking rates of all the Great Lakes.
Lake Huron
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving
Rationale: The number of salmonines stocked each year in Lake Huron is declining, largely due to increased
natural reproduction, especially of Chinook salmon. This lake now has the third highest number of
stocked salmonines, suggesting an improved reproduction rate leading toward a greater balance in
the ecosystem. There are recent indications of more widespread natural production of juvenile lake
trout.
Lake Erie
Status: Good
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Lake Erie relies least on stocking of the Great Lakes. The objective for Lake Erie is to provide
sustainable harvests of valued fish including lake trout, rainbow trout, and other salmonids. Fisheries
restoration programs in Ontario and New York State have established regulations to conserve the
harvest and increase fish populations for the next five years.
32
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Lake Ontario now has the second largest stocking rate (after Lake Michigan). The number of
stocked salmonines has slightly declined in the last couple decades, but stocking numbers have
been fairly constant in the last three years. The main objective for Lake Ontario is to have a
diversity of naturally produced salmon and trout, with an abundance of rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon as the top predator. There is an abundance of rainbow trout and Chinook salmon, but the
salmon and trout are not naturally reproducing sufficiently to reduce the high numbers of stocked
fish each year.
Purpose
To assess trends in populations of introduced salmon and trout species
To infer trends in species diversity in the Great Lakes basin
To evaluate the resulting impact of introduced salmonines on native fish populations and the preyfish populations that
support them
Ecosystem Objective
In order to manage Great Lakes fisheries, a common fish community goal was developed by management agencies responsible for
the Great Lakes fishery. The goal is:
"To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings
of hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution offish, fishing opportunities and
associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and
income, and a healthy aquatic environment" (Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) 1997).
Fish Community Objectives (FCOs) for each lake
address introduced salmonines such as the Chinook
andcoho salmon, and the rainbow and brown trout (see
Table 1 for definitions of fish terms). The following
objectives are used to establish stocking and harvest
targets consistent with FCOs for restoration of native
salmonines such as lake trout, brook trout, and, in
Lake Ontario, Atlantic salmon:
Term
Salmonine
Salmonid
Pelagic
Definition
Refers to salmon and trout species
Refers to any species of fish with an adipose fin,
including trout, salmon, whitefish, graying, and cisco
Living in open water, especially where the water is
more than 20 m deep
Table 1. Glossary of various terms used in this report.
Lake Ontario (1999)
Establish a diversity of salmon and trout
with an abundant population of rainbow trout and the Chinook salmon as the top predator supported by a diverse preyfish
community with the alewife as an important species. Amounts of naturally produced (wild) salmon and trout, especially
rainbow trout that are consistent with fishery and watershed plans. Lake trout should be established as the top predator in
the offshore benthic community.
Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair (2003)
Manage the eastern basin to provide sustainable harvests of valued fish species, including lake trout, rainbow trout, and
other salmonids and non-salmonid species.
Lake Huron (1995)
Establish a diverse salmonine community that can sustain an annual harvest of 2.4 million kg with lake trout the dominant
species and stream-spawning species also having a prominent place.
Lake Michigan (1995)
Establish a diverse salmonine community capable of sustaining an annual harvest of 2.7 to 6.8 million kg (6 to 15 million
Ib), of which 20-25% is lake trout, and establish self-sustaining lake trout populations.
33
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Lake Superior (2003)
Manage populations of Pacific salmon, rainbow trout, and brown trout that are predominantly self-sustaining but may
be supplemented by stocking that is compatible with restoration and management goals established for indigenous fish
species. Achieve and maintain genetically diverse self-sustaining populations of lake trout that are similar to those found
in the lake prior to 1940, with lean lake trout being the dominant form in nearshore waters, siscowet lake trout the
dominant form in offshore waters, and humper lake trout a common form in eastern waters and around Isle Royale.
State of the Ecosystem
First introduced to the Great Lakes in the late 1870s, non-native salmonines have emerged as a prominent component of the Great
Lakes ecosystem and an important tool for Great Lakes fisheries management. Fish managers stock non-native salmonines to
suppress abundance of the non-native preyfish, alewife, thereby reducing alewife predation and competition with native fish, while
seeking to avoid large oscillations in salmonine-predator/alewife-prey ratios. In addition, non-native salmonines are stocked to
create recreational fishing opportunities with substantial economic benefit (Rand and Stewart 1998).
After decimation of the native top predator (lake trout) by the non-native, predaceous sea lamprey, stocking of non-native
salmonines increased dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s. Based on stocking data obtained from the GLFC, approximately 922
million non-native salmonines were stocked in the Great Lakes basin between 1966 and 2005. This estimate excludes the stocking
of the Atlantic salmon native to Lake Ontario. Non-native salmonines do reproduce in the Great Lakes. For example, many of the
Chinook salmon in Lake Huron are wild and not stocked. Since 2002, 74 million non-native salmonines have been stocked in the
Great Lakes, but the number of stocked salmonines has decreased 32% from 2002 to 2004.
Of non-native salmonines, Chinook salmon are the most heavily stocked, accounting for about 45% of all non-native salmonine
Year
Figure 1. Non-Native salmonine stocking by species in the Great Lakes, 1966-2004 excluding Atlantic salmon in
Lake Ontario and brook trout in all Great Lakes.
ER: Lake Erie, Ml: Lake Michigan; HU: Lake Huron; SU: Lake Superior; ON: Lake Ontario; SC: Lake St. Clair.
Source: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Fish Stocking Database (www.alfc.org/fishstockinal
34
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
25
S 20
o
Brown Trout
Rainbow Trout
Atlantic Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
v^***
Year
Figure 2. Total number of non-native salmonines stocked in the Great Lakes, 1966-2005 excluding Atlantic salmon in Lake
Ontario and brook trout in all Great Lakes.
Source: Great Lakes Fishery Commission Fish Stocking Database (www.alfc.org/fishstockinal
releases (Figure 1). Rainbow trout are the second highest non-native stocked species, accounting for 25% of all non-native salmonine
releases. Chinook salmon, which prey almost exclusively on alewife, are the least expensive of all non-native salmonines to rear.
thus making them the backbone of stocking programs in Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario (Bowlby and Daniels
2002). Like other salmonines, Chinook salmon are also stocked in order to provide an economically important sport fishery. While
Chinook salmon have the greatest prey demand of all non-native salmonines, an estimated 69,000 metric tons (76,000 tons) of
alewife in Lake Michigan alone are consumed annually by all salmonine predators (Kocik and Jones 1999).
Data are available for the total number of non-native salmonines stocked in each of the Great Lakes from 1966 to 2005 (Figure 2).
Lake Michigan is the most heavily stocked, with a maximum stocking level in 1998 greater than 16 million non-native salmonines.
In contrast, Lake Superior has had the lowest rates of stocking, with a maximum greater than 5 million non-native salmonines in
1991. Lake Huron and Lake Erie both display a similar overall downward trend in stocking, especially in recent years, and Lake
Ontario has a slightly declining trend in stocking.
The number of stocked salmonines per year in Lake Superior has been nearly steady since 1992. Populations of salmon, rainbow
trout and brown trout are being stocked at suitable rates to restore and manage indigenous fish species in Lake Superior. Stocking
rates have decreased in recent years suggesting successful reproduction rates and suitable conditions for an improvement towards
a balanced ecosystem in the near future.
The number of salmonines stocked each year in Lake Michigan is declining, although the stocking rates remain the highest of all
the Great Lakes. One goal for Lake Michigan is to establish self-sustaining lake trout populations. However, lake trout have not
yet re-established naturally reproducing populations. There are currently more salmon than lake trout being stocked.
35
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
One goal for Lake Huron is to restore lake trout as the dominant species. Its populations in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan were
decimated in the 1950s by over-fishing and predation by the non-native sea lamprey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The
number of lake trout in Lake Huron has increased in the last decade due to the decrease in the numbers of sea lamprey (Madenjian
and Desorcie 2004). This lake now has the third highest number of stocked salmonines, suggesting a low reproduction rate, but
an improvement in the balance of the ecosystem, since these stocking levels are decreasing.
Lake Erie has low rates of salmonine stocking, similar to those for Lake Superior. The objective for Lake Erie is to provide
sustainable harvests of valued fish, including lake trout, rainbow trout, and other salmonids. Fisheries restoration programs in
Ontario and New York State have established regulations to conserve the harvest and increase fish populations for the next five
years (Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan 2003). This program is well on its way since there have already been improvements
in the fish populations.
Lake Ontario currently has the second highest stocking rate, following Lake Michigan, but the annual rates have been generally
declining. This trend can be explained by stocking cuts implemented in 1993 by fisheries managers to lower prey consumption
by salmonine species by 50% over two years (Schaner et al. 2001). The main objective for Lake Ontario is to have a diversity of
naturally produced salmon and trout, with an abundance of rainbow trout, and the top predator to be Chinook salmon. Rainbow
trout are stocked at the second highest rate in Lake Ontario, following Chinook salmon. Therefore, part of the goal has been met
since the Chinook salmon are readily available as the top predator, and rainbow trout are abundant because of the high stocking
levels. However, the objective of having naturally producing salmon and trout has not been met. Salmon and trout are stocked not
only to create a balance in the ecosystem, but for a popular recreational activity. Sport fishing is a $3.1 billion annual business,
according to a recent industry study (Edgecomb, 2006).
Pressures
The introduction of non-native salmonines into the Great Lakes basin, beginning in the late 1870s, has placed pressures on
both the introduced species and the Great Lakes ecosystem. The effects of introduction on the non-native salmonine species
include changes in rate of survival, growth and development, dispersion and migration, reproduction, and alteration of life-history
characteristics (Crawford 2001).
The effects of non-native salmonine introductions on the Great Lakes ecosystem are numerous. Some of the effects on native
species are; 1) the risk of introducing and transferring pathogens and parasites (e.g., furunculosis, whirling disease, bacterial
kidney disease, and infectious pancreatic necrosis), 2) the possibility of local decimation or extinction of native preyfish populations
through predation, 3) competition between introduced and native species for food, stream position, and spawning habitat, and 4)
genetic alteration due to the creation of sterile hybrids (Crawford 2001). The introduction of non-native salmonines to the Great
Lakes basin is a significant departure from lake trout's historic dominance as key predator.
Most introduced salmonines are now reproducing successfully in portions of the basin, and they are considered naturalized
components of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Therefore, the question is no longer whether non-native salmonines should be
introduced, but rather how to determine the appropriate abundance of salmonine species in the lakes.
Within any natural system there are limits to the level of stocking that can be maintained. The limits to stocking are determined
by the balance between lower and higher trophic level populations (Kocik and Jones 1999). Rand and Stewart (1998) suggest that
predatory salmonines have the potential to create a situation where prey (alewife) is limiting and ultimately predator survival is
reduced. For example, during the 1990s, Chinook salmon in Lake Michigan suffered dramatic declines due to high mortality and
high prevalence of bacterial kidney disease when alewife were no longer as abundant in the preyfish community (Hansen and
Holey 2002). Salmonine predators could have been consuming as much as 53% of alewife biomass in Lake Michigan annually
(Brown et al. 1999). While suppressing alewife populations, managers seek to avoid extreme "boom and bust" predator and prey
populations, a condition not conducive to biological integrity. Currently managers seek to produce a predator/prey balance by
adhering to stocking ceilings based on assessment of forage species and naturally produced salmonines.
Because of its importance as a forage base for the salmonine sport fishery, alewife is no longer viewed as a nuisance by some
managers (Kocik and Jones 1999). However, alewife preys on the young of a variety of native fishes, including yellow perch and
lake trout, and it competes with native fishes for zooplankton. In addition, the enzyme thiaminase causes early mortality syndrome
in salmonines. Alewife contains high levels of thiaminase, possibly threatening lake trout rehabilitation in the lower four lakes
36
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
and Atlantic salmon restoration in Lake Ontario.
Management Implications
In Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario, many salmonine species are stocked to maintain an adequate population to
suppress non-native prey species (such as alewife) as well as to support recreational fisheries. Determining stocking levels that
will avoid oscillations in the forage base of the ecosystem is an ongoing challenge. Alewife populations, in terms of an adequate
forage base for introduced salmonines, are difficult to estimate because there is a delay before stocked salmon become significant
consumers of alewife. Meanwhile, alewife can suffer severe die-offs in particularly harsh winters.
Fisheries managers seek to improve their means of predicting appropriate stocking levels in the Great Lakes basin based on the
alewife population. Long-term data sets and models track the population of salmonines and species with which they interact.
However, more research is needed to determine the optimal number of non-native salmonines, to estimate abundance of naturally
produced salmonines, to assess the abundance of forage species, and to better understand the role of non-native salmonines and
non-native prey species in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Chinook salmon will likely continue to be the most abundantly stocked
salmonine species in Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario because they are inexpensive to rear, feed heavily on
alewife, and are highly valued by recreational fishers. Fisheries managers should continue to model, assess, and practice adaptive
management with the ultimate objective being to support fish community goals and objectives that GLFC lake committees
established for each of the Great Lakes.
Comments from the author(s)
This indicator should be reported frequently as salmonine stocking is a complex and dynamic management intervention in the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Tracie Greenberg, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Contributors:
Melissa Greenwood and Erin Clark, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON,
John M. Dettmers, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Senior Fishery Biologist, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sources
References Cited
Bowlby, J.N., and Daniels, M.E. 2002. Lake Ontario Pelagic Fish 2: Salmon and Trout. 2002 Annual Report.
www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/index.html. last accessed 14 May 2006.
Brown, E.H., Jr., Busiahn, T.R., Jones, M.L., and Argyle, R.L. 1999. Allocating Great Lakes Forage Bases in Response to Multiple
Demand. In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: a Binational Perspective, eds. W.W. Taylor and C.R Ferreri, pp.
355-394. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Crawford, S.S. 2001. Salmonine Introductions to the Laurentian Great Lakes: An Historical Review and Evaluation of Ecological
Effects. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, pp. 132-205.
Edgecomb, M. 2006. Critters that sport fish feed on are dwindling - Number of invasive species in lake is up. Rochester Democrat
and Chronicle. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article7AID-/20060620/NEWS01/606200332/1002/RSS01.
last accessed 20 June 2006.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries.
http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/jsp97.htm. last accessed 28 April 2006.
Hansen, M.J., and Holey, M.E. 2002. Ecological factors affecting the sustainability of Chinook and coho salmon populations in the
Great Lakes, especially Lake Michigan. In Sustaining North American salmon: Perspectives across regions and discipline, eds.
K.D. Lynch, M.L. Jones and W.W. Taylor, pp.155-179. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society Press.
37
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Kocik, J.F., and Jones, M.L. 1999. Pacific Salmonines in the Great Lakes Basin. In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management:
a Binational Perspective, eds. W.W. Taylor and C.P. Ferreri, pp. 455-489. East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University Press.
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan. 2003. Lake Erie LaMP Update 2003. Lakewide Management Plan.
http://www.binational.net/pdfs/erie/update2003-e.pdf. last accessed 10 May 2006.
Madenjian, C., and Desorcie, T. 2004. Lake Trout Rehabilitation in Lake Huron-2004 Progress Report on Coded-Wire Tag
Returns. Lake Huron Committee. Proceedings from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Huron Committee Meeting
Ypsilanti, Michigan, March 21, 2005.
Rand, PS., and Stewart, DJ. 1998. Prey fish exploitation, salmonine production, and pelagic food web efficiency in Lake Ontario.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55(2):318-327.
Schaner, T., Bowlby, J.N., Daniels, M., and Lantry, B.F. 2001. Lake Ontario Offshore Pelagic Fish Community. Lake Ontario Fish
Communities and Fisheries: 2000 Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Lake Trout Restoration Program, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/alpena/laketrout.htm, last
accessed 15 May 2006
Other Data Sources
Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 2001. Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the First Decade of
the New Millennium, http://www.glfc.org. last accessed 30 April 2006.
Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife, Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council. 1997. Alewife Die-Offs Expected on Indiana Shores.
http://www.great-lakes.org/5-05-97.html. last accessed 4 May 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
38
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Walleye
Indicator #9
Overall Assessment
Status: Fair
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: An exceptionally strong 2003 hatch has bolstered walleye abundance in nearly all of the Great
Lakes and should keep them at low to moderate levels for the next several years. Low reproductive
success post-2003 will not permit populations to increase in many areas. Fisheries harvests have
improved in recent years but remain below targets in nearly all areas.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed Since Last Report
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Recent harvest estimates were not available for this report. Through 2003, commercial yields were
below the historical average while tribal harvest was above average.
Lake Michigan
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Recreational harvest was below historical levels in 2004-2005. Tribal fishery yields were not
available but were well-above average in the four most recent years where data exist (2000-2003).
Green Bay stocks appear to be stable, perhaps improving. Fishery yields remain well below targets
of 100-200 metric tonnes (110-220 tons) per year.
Lake Huron
Status: Fair
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Fishery yields are at historically average levels but far below targets of 700 metric tonnes each
year (770 tons). Commercial harvest trends continue to decline while recreational harvest trends
are flat or perhaps improving. Reproductive success has greatly improved between 2003 and 2005
in Saginaw Bay and perhaps other parts of the lake, and is attributed to the decline of the alewife
population.
Lake Erie
Status: Fair
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: The fisheries objective of sustainable harvests lake wide has not been realized since the late-1990s
but has improved recently with contributions from the strong 2003 hatch. Commercial harvest
increased substantially in 2005 while recreational fisheries remained static due to size restrictions.
Harvest by both fisheries was expected to increase substantially in 2006. Below average reproductive
success in 2004 through 2005 will reduce adult abundance over the next few years, but the 2003
hatch should keep the population at low to moderate levels of abundance.
Lake Ontario
Status: Fair
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: After a decade long decline, walleye populations appear to have stabilized. Fishery yields are
roughly half of the average over the past 30 years. Recent hatches should keep the population at
current levels of abundance for the next several years.
39
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Purpose
To show status and trends in walleye populations in various Great Lakes habitats
To infer changes in walleye health
To infer ecosystem health, particularly in moderately productive (mesotrophic) areas of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
Protection, enhancement, and restoration of historically important, mesotrophic habitats that support natural stocks of walleye as
the top fish predator are necessary for stable, balanced, and productive elements of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Reductions in phosphorus loadings during the 1970s substantially improved spawning and nursery habitat for many fish species
in the Great Lakes. Improved mesotrophic habitats (i.e., western Lake Erie, Bay of Quinte, Saginaw Bay and Green Bay) in the
1980s, along with interagency fishery management programs that increased adult survival, led to a dramatic recovery of walleye
populations in many areas of the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Erie. High water levels also may have played a role in the
recovery in some lakes or bays.
Trends in annual assessments of fishery harvests generally track walleye population recovery in these areas, with peak harvests
occurring in the mid-1980s to early 1990s followed by declines from the mid-1990s through 2000, and increases in most areas after
2000 (Figure 1). Total yields were highest in Lake Erie (annual average of about 4,500 metric tonnes (5,000 tons), 1975 to 2005),
intermediate in Lakes Huron (average of 90 metric tonnes (100 tons)) and Ontario (average of 224 metric tonnes (247 tons)), and
lowest in Lakes Michigan (average of 14 metric tonnes (15 tons)) and Superior (average of 2 metric tonnes (2.2 tons)). Declines
after the mid-1990s were possibly related to shifts in environmental states (i.e., from mesotrophic to less favorable oligotrophic
conditions), variable reproductive success, influences from invasive species, and changing fisheries.
Recent improvements in abundance are due to a strong 2003 hatch across the Great Lakes Basin, presumably due to ideal weather
conditions. Reproductive success has remained very strong since 2003 in Saginaw Bay, and perhaps other parts of Lake Huron,
and is attributed to the decline of alewives in that lake during the same time period. In general, walleye yields peaked under ideal
environmental conditions and declined under less favorable (i.e., non-mesotrophic) conditions. Overall, environmental conditions
remain improved relative to the 1960s and early 1970s but concerns about food web disruption, pathogens (e.g., botulism, viruses),
noxious algae, and watershed management practices persist.
Pressures
Natural, self-sustaining walleye populations require adequate spawning and nursery habitats. In the Great Lakes, these habitats
exist in tributary streams and nearshore reefs, wetlands, and embayments, and they have been used by native walleye stocks for
thousands of years. Degradation or loss of these habitats is the primary concern for the health of walleye populations and can result
from both human causes, as well as from natural environmental variability. Increased human use of nearshore and watershed
environments continues to alter the natural hydrologic regime, affecting water quality (i.e., sediment loads) and rate of flow.
Environmental factors that affect precipitation patterns ultimately alter water levels, water temperature, water clarity and flow.
Thus, global warming and its subsequent effects on temperature and precipitation in the Great Lakes basin may become increasingly
important determinants of walleye health.
Non-native invasive species, like 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 through a reduced supply of
food. Recent experience in Lake Huron has elevated the concern over the predatory and competitive effects of the non-native
alewife population on walleye. In their absence, walleye reproductive success has surged, indicating that the deleterious effect
of alewife predation on larval walleye populations may have been much greater than previously realized. Alterations in the food
web can also affect environmental characteristics (like water clarity), which can in turn affect fish behavior and fishery yields.
Pathogens, like viral hemorrhagic septicemia and botulism, may also be affecting walleye populations in some areas of the Great
Lakes.
Management Implications
To improve the health of Great Lakes walleye populations, managers must enhance walleye reproduction, growth and survival
40
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
rates. Most walleye populations are dependent on natural reproduction, which is largely driven by uncontrollable environmental
events (i.e., spring weather patterns and alewife abundance). However, a lack of suitable spawning and nursery habitat is limiting
walleye reproduction in some areas due to human activities and can be remedied through such actions as dam removal, substrate
enhancement or improvements to watersheds to reduce siltation and restore natural flow conditions.
Lake Superior
Year
Lake Huron
Year
Lake Ontario
Lake Michigan
Year
Lake Erie
Year
Figure 1. Recreational, commercial, and tribal harvest of walleye from the Great Lakes.
Fish Community Goals and Objectives are: Lake Michigan, 100-200 metric tonnes; Lake Huron, 700 metric tonnes; Lake Erie,
sustainable harvest in all basins.
Source: Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
41
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Growth rates are dependent on weather (i.e., water temperatures), quality of the prey base, and walleye density, most of which are
not directly manageable. Survival rates can be altered through fishery harvest strategies, which are generally conservative across
all of the Great Lakes. Continued interactions between land managers and fisheries managers to protect and restore natural habitat
conditions in mesotrophic areas of the Great Lakes are essential for the long term health of walleye populations. Elimination of
additional introductions of non-native invasive species and control of existing non-native species, where possible, is also critical
to future health of the walleye population and other native species.
Comments from the author(s)
Fishery yields are appropriate indicators of walleye health but only in a general sense. Yield assessments are lacking for some
fisheries (recreational, commercial, or tribal) or in some years for all of the studied areas. Moreover, measurement units are not
standardized among fishery types (i.e., commercial fisheries are measured in pounds while recreational fisheries are typically
measured in numbers), which means additional conversions are necessary which reduce accuracy. Also, "zero" values are not
differentiated from "missing" data in the figures. Therefore, trends in yields across time (blocks of years) are probably better
indicators than absolute values within any year, assuming that any introduced bias is relatively constant over time. Given the
above, a 10-year reporting cycle on this indicator is recommended. Many agencies have developed, or are developing, population
estimates for many Great Lakes fishes. Walleye population estimates for selected areas (i.e., Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, Green Bay,
and Bay of Quinte) would probably be a better assessment of walleye population health in the Great Lakes than harvest estimates
across all lakes, and switching to them as they become available in all areas is recommended.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Roger Knight, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)
Sources
Fishery harvest data were obtained from the following sources:
Lake Superior: Ken Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), ken.cullis@mnr.gov.on.ca
Lake Superior/Michigan/Huron: Karen Wright, Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, kwright@sault.com
Lake Michigan: Kevin Kapuscinski, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Kevin.Kapuscinski@dnr.state.wi.us
Lake Huron: Lloyd Mohr, OMNR, lloyd.mohr@mnr.gov.on.ca
Lake Huron: David Fielder, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, fielderd@michigan.gov
Lake Erie: Roger Knight, ODNR, roger.knight@dnr.state.oh.us
Lake Ontario: Jim Hoyle, OMNR, jim.hoyle@mnr.gov.on.ca
Lake Ontario: Steve Lapan, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, srlapan@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Various annual Lake Erie fisheries reports from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission commercial fishery data base were used as data sources.
Fishery data should not be used for purposes outside of this document without first contacting the agencies that collected them.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
42
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Preyfish Populations
Indicator #17
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: With the exception of Lake Superior, the Great Lakes fish communities continue to shift away
from their natural state. In particular, food webs in the lower lakes are becoming more benthic as
a result of the expansion of dreissenid mussels. As a consequence, preyflsh populations dependent
on pelagic invertebrate production and their salmonid predators have declined and non-native
gobies are increasing owing to their ability to thrive in benthic food webs. Mitigation of these
changes is not likely due to our inability to manipulate food webs from the bottom-up.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Abundance of preyfish populations, dominated by native coregonids, fluctuates as a result of
recruitment variation and predation by recovered lake trout populations. Non-native rainbow smelt
remains as a principal component of prey fish assemblage. Round gobies are now present in western
Lake Superior and Eurasian ruffe continues to colonize inshore waters and embayments.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Non-native preyfish populations are at historic lows and densities of non-native round goby are low
and stable. However, the decline \nDiporeia and increasing colonization of dreissenids may signal
a shift in food web toward a benthic organization and further community change.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Non-native preyfish populations are at historic lows but densities and distribution of non-native
round goby are increasing. The decline in Diporeia and increasing colonization of dreissenids may
signal a shift in food web toward a benthic organization and further community change.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Preyfish populations are at historic lows while abundance and distribution of non-native round goby
is increasing. Ongoing dreissenid colonization is resulting in further benthification of food web.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Non-native preyfish populations are at historic lows while abundance and distribution of non-native
round goby is increasing. Ongoing dreissenid colonization is resulting in further benthification of
food web. Large areas of deep water are devoid offish much of the year.
Purpose
To assess the abundance and diversity of preyfish populations
To infer the stability of predator species necessary to maintain the biological integrity of each lake
43
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ecosystem Objective
The importance of preyfish populations to support healthy, productive populations of predator fishes is recognized in the Fish
Community Goals and Objectives (FCGOs) for each lake. For example, the Fish Community Objectives (FCOs) for Lake Michigan
specify that in order to restore an ecologically balanced fish community, a diversity of prey species at population levels matched
to primary production and predator demands must be maintained. This indicator also relates to the 1997 Strategic Great Lakes
Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal Statement for Great Lakes fisheries agencies.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
The preyfish assemblage forms important trophic links in the aquatic ecosystem and constitutes the majority of the fish production
in the Great Lakes. Preyfish populations in each of the lakes are currently monitored on an annual basis in order to quantify
the population dynamics of these important fish stocks leading to a better understanding of the processes that shape the fish
community and to identify those characteristics critical to each species. Populations of lake trout, Pacific salmon, and other
salmonids have been established as part of intensive programs designed to rehabilitate (or develop new) game fish populations and
commercial fisheries. These economically valuable predator species sustain increasingly demanding and highly valued fisheries,
and information on their status is crucial. In turn, these apex predators are sustained by preyfish populations. In addition, some
preyfishes, such as the bloater and the lake herring, which are native species, and the rainbow smelt, which is non-native, are also
directly important to the commercial fishing industry. Therefore, it is very important that the current status and estimated carrying
capacity of the preyfish populations be fully understood in order to fully address (1) lake trout restoration goals, (2) stocking
projections, (3) present levels of salmonid abundance and (4) commercial fishing interests.
The component of the Great Lakes fish communities that we classify as preyfish comprises species - including both pelagic
and benthic species - that prey on invertebrates for their entire life history. As adults, preyfish depend on diets of crustacean
zooplankton and macroinvertebrates Diporeia and Mysis. This convention also supports the recognition of particle-size distribution
theory and size-dependent ecological processes. Based on size-spectra theory, body size is an indicator of trophic level, and the
smaller, short-lived fish that constitute the planktivorous fish assemblage discussed here are a discernable trophic group of the
food web. At present, bloaters (Coregonus hoyi), lake herring (Coregonus artedf), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), alewife
(Alosa pseudoharengus), and deepwater sculpins (Myoxocephalus thompsonii), and to a lesser degree species like lake whitefish
(Coregonus clupeaformis), ninespine stickleback (Pungitiuspungitius), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and slimy sculpin
(Cottus cognatus) constitute the bulk of the preyfish communities (Figure 1).
The successful colonization of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario by non-native dreissenids, notably the
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorphd) in the early 1990s and more recently the quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis), has had a
significant impact on the trophic structure of those lakes by shunting pelagic planktonic production to mussels, an energetic dead
end in the food chain as few native fishes can eat the mussels. As a result of profound ongoing changes in trophic structure in four
Great Lakes, these ecosystems will continue to change, and likely in unpredictable ways.
In Lake Erie, the preyfish community is unique among the Great Lakes in that it is characterized by relatively high species
diversity. The preyfish community comprises primarily gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and alewife (grouped as clupeids);
emerald (Notropis atherinoides) and spottail (N. hudsonius) shiners, silver chubs (Hybopsis storeriand), trout-perch (Percopsis
omiscomaycus), round gobies and rainbow smelt (grouped as soft-rayed); age-0 yellow perch (Percaflavescens) and white perch
(Morone americand), and white bass (M. chrysops) (grouped as spiny-rayed).
State of Preyfish Populations
Lake Superior: Mixed, improving
Since 1994, biomass of the Lake Superior preyfish has declined compared to the peak years in 1986, 1990, and 1994, a period when
lake herring was the dominant preyfish species and wild lake trout populations were starting to recover. Since the early 1980s,
dynamics in preyfish biomass have been driven largely by variation in recruitment of age-1 lake herring. Strong year classes in
1984, 1988-1990, 1998, and most recently 2003 were largely responsible for peaks in lake herring biomass in 1986, 1990-1994,
1999, 2004-2005. Prior to 1984, the non-native rainbow smelt was the dominant preyfish, but fluctuating population levels and
recovery of native coregonids after 1984 resulted in reduced smelt biomass and rank among preyfish species. During 2002 to 2004,
rainbow smelt biomass declined to the lowest levels in the 27 years since 1978, though a moderate recovery occurred in 2005.
There is strong evidence that declines in rainbow smelt biomass are tied to increased predation by recovered lake trout populations.
44
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
n Lake Whitefish
n Bloater
Rainbow Smelt
n Lake Herring
Round Goby
n Trout Perch
n Stickleback
n Sculpin
n Bloater
Rainbow Smelt
n Alew if e
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
Year
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
Superior
Michigan
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
Year
Slimy Sculpin
a Deepw ater Sculpin
n Bloater
Rainbow Smelt
n Spiny-rayed
Soft-rayed
n Qupeids
19731976197919821985198819911994199720002003
Year
1987 1989 1991 1993
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Figure 1. Preyfish trends based on annual bottom trawl surveys.
All trawl surveys were performed by USGS - Great Lakes Science Center, except for Lake Erie, which was conducted by
the USGS, Ohio Division of Wildlife and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Lake Erie Forage Task Group), and Lake
Ontario, which was conducted jointly by USGS and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Sources: U.S. Geological Survey- Great Lakes Science Center, Ohio Division of Wildlife, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
45
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Biomass of bloater and lake whitefish has increased since the early 1980s, and biomass for both species has been less variable than
that of lake herring. Other preyfish species, notably sculpins, burbot, and ninespine stickleback have declined in abundance since
the recovery of wild lake trout populations in the mid-1980s. Thus, the current state of the Lake Superior preyfish community
appears to be largely the result of increased predation by recovered wild lake trout stocks and, to a lesser degree, the resumption
of human harvest of lake trout, lake herring, and lake whitefish.
Lake Huron: Mixed, deteriorating
The Lake Huron fish community changed dramatically from 2003 through 2006, primarily due to a 99% decline in alewife
numbers. Loss of alewife appears due to heavy salmonid predation that resulted from increased Chinook salmon abundance as a
result of wild reproduction. Alewife population decline was followed immediately by increased reproduction of other fish species;
record year classes of walleye and yellow perch were produced in Saginaw Bay, while in the main basin increased reproduction by
bloaters (chubs), rainbow smelt, and deepwater sculpins was observed. In 2004, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surveys captured
22 wild juvenile lake trout, more than had been captured in the 30 year history of those surveys. However, despite increased
reproduction by prey species, biomass remains low because newly recruited fish are still small. No species has taken the place of
alewife, and prey biomass has declined by over 65%. Salmon catch rates by anglers declined, as did average size and condition
of those fish. The situation is exacerbated by changes at lower trophic levels. The deepwater amphipod Diporeia has declined
throughout Lake Huron's main basin, and the zooplankton community has grown so sparse that it resembles the assemblage found
in Lake Superior. The reasons underlying these changes are not known, but the most widely held hypothesis is that zebra and
quagga mussels are shunting energy into pathways that are no longer available to fish.
Lake Michigan: Mixed, deteriorating
Bloater abundance in Lake Michigan fluctuated greatly from 1973 to 2005, as the population showed a strong recovery during
the 1980s but rapidly declined during the late 1990s. Bloater populations may have a cyclic pattern with a period of about 30
years. The substantial decline in alewife abundance during the 1970s and early 1980s has been attributed to increased predation
by salmon and trout. The Lake Michigan deepwater sculpin population exhibited a strong recovery during the 1970s and early
1980s, and this recovery has been attributed to the decline in alewife abundance. Alewives have been suspected of interfering with
reproduction of deepwater sculpins by feeding upon deepwater sculpin fry. Slimy sculpin abundance appeared to be primarily
regulated by predation from juvenile lake trout. Slimy sculpin is a favored prey of juvenile lake trout. Temporal trends in
abundance of rainbow smelt were difficult to interpret. Yellow perch year-class strength in 2005 was the highest on record dating
back to 1973. Thus, early signs of a recovery by the yellow perch population in the main basin of Lake Michigan were evident.
The first catch of round gobies in the annual lakewide survey occurred in 2003, and round goby abundance in the main basin of
the lake has remained low through 2005.
Lake Erie: Mixed, deteriorating
The preyfish community in all three basins of Lake Erie has shown a declining trend. In the eastern basin, rainbow smelt (part
of the soft-rayed group) have shown declines in abundance over the past two decades. The declines have been attributed to lack
of recruitment associated with expanding dreissenid colonization and reductions in productivity. The western and central basins
also have shown declines in preyfish abundance associated with declines in abundance of age-0 white perch and rainbow smelt,
although slight increases for white perch have been reported in the past couple years. The clupeid component of the preyfish
community is at the lowest level observed since 1998 and well below the mean biomass for 1987 to 2005. The biomass estimates
for western Lake Erie were based on data from bottom trawl catches, depth strata extrapolations (less than and greater than 6 m
(20 ft)), and trawl net measurements using acoustic mensuration gear.
Lake Ontario: Mixed, deteriorating
The non-native alewife, and to a lesser degree non-native rainbow smelt, dominate the preyfish community. Their populations
remain at levels well below those of the early 1980s. Rainbow smelt have an abbreviated age and size structure that suggests the
population is under heavy predation pressure. Abundance of the non-native round goby is increasing and round goby have the
potential to cause a decrease in native, bottom-dwelling preyfish populations such as slimy and deepwater sculpins, and trout-
perch. Deepwater sculpin populations have not been reported for the lake since 1972, though collected sporadically between 1996
and 2004. During 2005 and 2006, catches of deepwater sculpin increased and juveniles dominated the catches suggesting that the
long-depressed population was recovering. Deepwater ciscoes, however, have not been reported in the lake since 1983 and the
large area of the lake they once occupied is largely devoid offish for much of the year.
46
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pressures
The influences of predation by salmon and lake trout on preyfish populations appear to be common across all lakes. Additional
pressures from Dreissena, which are linked to the collapse ofDiporeia, are strong in all the Great Lakes except Lake Superior.
Bottom-up effects on the preyfish populations have already been observed in Lake Ontario, Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan,
suggesting that dynamics of preyfish populations in those lakes could be driven by bottom-up rather than top-down effects in
future years. Moreover, the effect of non-native zooplankters, Bythotrephes and Cercopagis, on preyfish populations, although
not fully understood at present, has the potential to increase bottom-up pressure.
Management Implications
Recognition of significant predation effects on preyfish populations has resulted in recent salmon stocking cutbacks in Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron and only minor increases in Lake Ontario. However, even with a reduced population, alewives have
exhibited the ability to produce strong year classes when climatic conditions are favorable such that the continued judicious use
of artificially propagated predators seems necessary to avoid domination by alewife. This is not an option in Lake Superior where
lake trout and salmon are almost entirely lake-produced. Potential bottom-up effects on preyfish would be difficult to mitigate
owing to our inability to effect change. This scenario only reinforces the need to avoid further introductions of non-native species
into the Great Lakes ecosystems.
Comments from the author(s)
It has been proposed that in order to restore an ecologically balanced fish community, a diversity of prey species at population levels
matched to primary production and predator demands must be maintained. However, the current mix of native and naturalized
prey and predator species, and the contributions of artificially propagated predator species into the system, confound any sense of
balance in lakes other than Lake Superior. The metrics of ecological balance as the consequence offish community structure are
best defined through food-web interactions. It is through understanding the exchanges of trophic supply and demand that the fish
community can be described quantitatively and ecological attributes such as balance can be better defined and the limits inherent
to the ecosystem realized.
Continued monitoring of the fish communities and regular assessments of food habits of predators and preyfish will be required
to quantify the food-web dynamics in the Great Lakes. This recommendation is especially supported by continued changes
that are occurring not only in the upper but also in the lower trophic levels. Recognized sampling limitations of traditional
capture techniques (bottom trawling) have prompted the application of acoustic techniques as another means to estimate absolute
abundance of preyfish in the Great Lakes. Though not an assessment panacea, hydro-acoustics have provided additional insights
and have demonstrated utility in the estimates of preyfish biomass.
Protecting or re-establishing rare or extirpated members of the once prominent native preyfish communities, most notably the
various members of the whitefish family (Coregonus spp.), should be a priority in all the Great Lakes, but especially so in Lake
Ontario where vast areas of the lake once occupied by extirpated deepwater ciscoes are devoid of fish for much of the year.
This recommendation should be reflected in future indicator reports. Lake Superior, whose preyfish assemblage is dominated by
indigenous species and retains a full complement of ciscoes, should be examined more closely to better understand the trophic
ecology of its more natural system.
With the continuous nature of changes that seems to characterize the preyfish populations, and the lower trophic levels on which
they depend, the appropriate frequency to review this indicator is on a 5-year basis.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Owen T. Gorman, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WI
Contributors:
Robert O'Gorman and Maureen Walsh, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario Biological
Station, Oswego, NY
Charles Madenjian and Jeff Schaeffer, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Mike Bur and Marty Stapanian, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Erie Biological Station, Sandusky, OH
Jeffrey Tyson, Ohio Division of Wildlife, Sandusky Fish Research Unit, Sandusky, OH
Steve LaPan, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Cape Vincent Fisheries Research Station, Cape
47
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Vincent, NY
Sources
Bur, M.T., Stapanian, M.A., Kocovsky, P.M., Edwards, W.H., and Jones, J.M. 2006. Surveillance and Status of Fish Stocks in
Western Lake Erie, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Erie Biological Station, 6100 Columbus
Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870, USA. Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeErieReport.pdf
Lantry, B.F., O'Gorman, R., Walsh, M.G., Casselman, J.M., Hoyle, J.A., Keir, M.J., and Lantry, J.R. Reappearance of Deepwater
Sculpin in Lake Ontario: Resurgence or Last Gasp of a Doomed Population? Journal of Great Lakes Research 33(l):34-45.
Lantry, B.F., O'Gorman, R. 2006. Evaluation of Offshore Stocking to Mitigate Piscivore Predation on Newly Stocked Lake Trout
in Lake Ontario. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lake Ontario Biological Station, 17 Lake St., Oswego, NY 13126.
Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005NYSDECLakeOntarioReport.pdf
Madenjian, C.P., Fahnenstiel, G.L., Johengen, T.H., Nalepa, T.F., Vanderploeg, H.A., Fleischer, G.W., Schneeberger, P.J., Benjamin,
D.M., Smith, E.B., Bence, J.R., Rutherford, E.S., Lavis, D.S., Robertson, D.M., Jude, D.J., and Ebener, M.A. 2002. Dynamics of
the Lake Michigan food web, 1970-2000. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:736-753.
Madenjian, C.P., Hook, T.O., Rutherford, E.S., Mason, D.M., Croley, T.E., II, Szalai, E.B., and Bence, J.R. 2005. Recruitment
variability of alewives in Lake Michigan. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134:218-230.
Madenjian, C.P., Hondorp, D.W, Desorcie, T.J., and Holuszko, J.D. 2005. Sculpin community dynamics in Lake Michigan. J. Gt.
Lakes Res. 31:267-276.
Madenjian, C.P., Bunnell, D.B., Desorcie, T.J., Holuszko, J.D., and Adams, J.V. 2006. Status and trends of preyfish populations in
Lake Michigan, 2005. U. S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeMichiganReport.pdf
Murray, C., Haas, R., Bur, M., Deller, J., Einhouse, D., Johnson, T., Markham, J., Rudstam, L., Thomas, M., Trometer, E., Tyson,
J., and Witzel, L. 2006. Report of the Forage Task Group to the Standing Technical Committee of the Lake Erie Committee. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. 38pp.
O'Gorman, R., Gorman, O., and Bunnel, D. 2006. Great Lakes Prey Fish Populations:
A Cross-Basin View of Status and Trends in 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Deepwater Science Group,
1451 Green Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
Available on line: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005GreatLakesPreyfishReport.pdf
O'Gorman, R., Walsh, M. G., Strang, T., Adams, J. V, Prindle, S.E., and Schaner, T. 2006. Status of alewife in the U.S. waters of
Lake Ontario, 2005. Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit and St. Lawrence River Unit to Great Lakes Fishery
Commission's Lake Ontario Committee. March 2006. Section 12, 4-14.
Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeOntarioPreyfishReport.pdf
Roseman, E.F., Schaeffer, J.S, French III, J.R.P., O'Brien, T.P., and Paul, C.S. 2006. Status and Trends of the Lake Huron Deepwater
Demersal Fish Community, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
Available online: http://wwwglsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeHuronDeepwaterReport.pdf
Schaeffer, J.S., O'Brien, T.P., Warner, D.M., and Roseman, E.F. 2006. Status and Trends of Pelagic Prey Fish in Lake Huron, 2005:
Results from a Lake-Wide Acoustic Survey. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd, Ann Arbor, MI
48105. Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeHuronPreyfishReport.pdf
Stockwell, J.D., Gorman, O.T., Yule, D.L., Evrard, L.M., and Cholwek, G.M. 2006. Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in
Lake Superior, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Superior Biological Station, 2800 Lake Shore Dr.
E., Ashland, WI 54806. Available online: http://wwwglsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeSuperiorPreyfishReport.pdf
48
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Strang, T., Maloy, A. and Lantry, B.F. 2006. Mid-lake assessment in the U.S. waters of Lake Ontario, 2005. Annual Report Bureau
of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit and St. Lawrence River Unit to Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Ontario Committee. March
2006. Section 12, 32-34. Available online: http://wwwglsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeOntarioPreyfishReport.pdf
Walsh, M. G., O'Gorman, R., Maloy, A.R, and Strang, T. 2006. Status of rainbow smelt in the U.S. waters of Lake Ontario, 2005.
Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit and St. Lawrence River Unit to Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake
Ontario Committee. March 2006. Section 12, 15-19.
Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeOntarioPreyfishReport.pdf
Walsh, M.G., O'Gorman, R., Lantry, B.F., Strang, T., and Maloy, A.R 2006. Status of sculpins and round goby in the U.S. waters
of Lake Ontario, 2005. Annual Report Bureau of Fisheries Lake Ontario Unit and St. Lawrence River Unit to Great Lakes Fishery
Commission's Lake Ontario Committee. March 2006. Section 12, 20-31.
Available online: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeOntarioPreyfishReport.pdf
Warner, D.M., Randall M. Claramunt, R.M., and Paul, C.S. 2006. Status of Pelagic Prey Fishes in Lake Michigan, 1992-2005.
Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Rd, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
Available online at: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2005LakeMichiganPreyfishReport.pdf
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
49
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Sea Lamprey
Indicator #18
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Good/Fair
Trend: Improving
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To estimate the abundance of sea lamprey as an indicator of the status of this invasive species
To infer the damage sea lamprey cause to the fish communities and aquatic ecosystems of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
The 1955 Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) "to formulate and implement
a comprehensive program for the purpose of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey populations in the Convention area"
(GLFC 1955). Under the Joint Strategic Plan for Great Lakes Fisheries, all fishery management agencies established Fish
Community Objectives (FCOs) for each of the lakes. These FCOs call for suppressing sea lamprey populations to levels that cause
only insignificant mortality offish in order to achieve objectives for lake trout and other members of the fish community (Horns
et al. 2003, Eshenroder et al. 1995, DesJardin et al. 1995, Ryan e-t al.
2003., Stewart et al. 1999).
The GLFC and fishery management agencies have agreed on target
abundance levels for sea lamprey populations that correspond to
the FCOs (Table 1). Targets were derived from available estimates
of the abundance of spawning-phase sea lampreys and from data
on wounding rates on lake trout. Suppressing sea lampreys to
abundances within the target range is predicted to result in tolerable
mortality on lake trout and other fish species.
Lake
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
FCO Sea Lamprey
Abundance Targets
35,000
58,000
74,000
3,000
29,000
Target Range (+/- 95%
Confidence Interval)
18,000
13,000
20,000
1,000
4,000
Table 1. Fish Community Objectives for sea lamprey
abundance targets.
Source: Great Lakes Fishery Commission
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Populations of the native top predator, lake trout, and other fishes
are negatively affected by mortality caused by sea lamprey. The first complete round of stream treatments with the lampricide
TFM, as early as 1960 in Lake Superior, successfully suppressed sea lamprey to less than 10% of their pre-control abundance
in all of the Great Lakes. Mark and recapture estimates of the abundance of sea lamprey migrating up rivers to spawn are used
as surrogates for the abundance of parasites feeding in the lakes during the previous year. Estimates of individual spawning
runs in trappable streams are used to estimate lake-wide abundance using a new regression model that relates run size to stream
characteristics (Mullett et al. 2003). Sea lamprey spend one year in the lake after metamorphosing, so this indicator has a two-year
lag in demonstrating the effects of control efforts.
Status of Sea Lamprey
Annual lake-wide estimates of sea lamprey abundance since 1980, with 95% confidence intervals, are presented in Figure 1. The
FCO targets and ranges also are included for each lake.
Lake Superior
During the past 20 years, populations have fluctuated but remain at levels less than 10% of peak abundance (Heinrich et al. 2003).
Abundances were within the FCO target range during the late 1980s and mid-1990s. Abundances have trended upward from a
50
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Superior
_ 500
i 400
3
o 300
~,
!ฃ 200
o>
c
1 100
a.
W 0
1
--
}\ Erie *
- / \ T T ~L
_ V^^*"*- V-i--j'*W^ In
+** -* -a an
980 1985 1990 1995 2000 M
o 60 -
Spawning Year i
ฃ 40 -
Michigan | 20
Q.
| 400-
1
o 300-
ฃ
ง 200-
1
s. 100-
4
0 -
--
T- S I
^^v^^A ,*v**^
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Spawning Year
Ontario
y*-, *-*. ^ r~*-~^*~*~*~"^ 50ฐ 3
^^^*-^--- ~^~*^- *>--
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 %
Spawning Year o 300
ฃ 20ฐ-
Huron |
ง. 100-
500 -i
V>
"ฐ 400-
re
tn
| 300-
ฃ200-
ฃ
100-
(fl <
TT "i
n -
/ \
/I V
\ ^4,
T~~ซ^'^^'^ ^~*^ _^rf'^^m A
t ฐ^
A 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
A A ป \ T T Spawning Year
/ 1 i4 ? VxA A
>-^ป
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Spawning Year
Figure 1. Total abundance of sea lampreys estimated during the spawning migration. Solid line and dashed line represent FCO
target abundance and ranges, respectively.
*Note: the scale for Lake Erie is 1/5 that of the other four Lakes.
Source: Great Lakes Fishery Commission
low during 1994 and have been above the target range from 1999 through 2003. These recent increases in abundance have raised
concern in all waters. Rates of sea lamprey markings on fish have shown the same pattern of increase. These increases appear to be
most dramatic in the Nipigon Bay and north-western portion of the lake and in the Whitefish Bay area in the south-eastern portion
of the lake. Survival objectives for lake trout continue to be met but lake trout populations could be threatened if these increases
continue. In response to this increased abundance of sea lampreys, stream treatments with lampricides were increased beginning
in 2001 through 2004. The effects of the increased treatments during 2001 may have contributed to the downward trend in the
2003 observation. The effects of additional stream treatments in 2002 and beyond will be observed in the spawning-run estimates
during 2004 and following years.
Lake Michigan
The population of sea lamprey has shown a continuing, slow trend upward since 1980 (Lavis et al. 2003). The population was at
or below the FCO target range until 2000. The marking rates on lake trout have shown the same upward trend past target levels
during the recent years. Increases in abundance during the 1990s had been attributed to the St. Marys River. The continuing trend
51
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
in recent years suggests sources of sea lamprey in Lake Michigan itself. Stream treatments were increased beginning in 2001
through 2004. This increase included treatment of newly discovered populations in lentic areas and treatment of the Manistique
River, a large system where the deterioration of a dam near the mouth allowed sea lamprey access to nursery habitat. The 2003
spawning-phase population estimate did not show any decrease as a result of the increased treatments during 2001.
Lake Huron
The first full round of stream treatments during the late 1960s suppressed sea lamprey populations to levels less than 10% of those
before control (Morse et al. 2003). During the early 1980s, abundance increased in Lake Huron, particularly the northern portion
of the lake, peaking in 1993. Through the 1990s there were more sea lampreys in Lake Huron than all the other lakes combined.
FCOs were not being achieved. The damage caused by this large population of parasites was so severe that the Lake Huron
Committee abandoned its lake trout restoration objective in the northern portion of the lake during 1995. The St. Marys River was
identified as the source of the increasing sea lamprey population. The size of this connecting channel made traditional treatment
with the lampricide TFM impractical. A new integrated control strategy, including targeted application of a new formulation of
a bottom-release lampricide, enhanced trapping of spawning animals, and sterile-male release, was initiated in 1997 (Schleen et
al. 2003). As predicted, the spawningphase abundance has been significantly lower since 2001 as a result of the completion of the
first full round of lampricide spot treatments during 1999. However, the population shows considerable variation and it increased
during 2003. Wounding rates and mortality estimates for lake trout have also declined during the last three years. The full effect
of the St. Marys River control program will not be observed for another 2 to 4 years (Adams et al. 2003). The GLFC has repeated
lampricide treatments in limited areas with high densities of larvae during 2003 and 2004. These additional treatments are aimed
at continuing the decline in sea lamprey in Lake Huron.
Lake Erie
Following the completion of the first full round of stream treatments in 1987, sea lamprey populations collapsed (Sullivan et
al. 2003). Marking rates on lake trout declined and lake trout survival increased to levels sufficient to meet the rehabilitation
objectives in the eastern basin. However, during the mid-1990s, sea lamprey abundance increased to levels that threatened the
lake trout restoration effort. A major assessment effort during 1998 indicated that the source of this increase was 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. Sea lamprey abundance was observed to decline to target levels in 2001 through 2003. Wounding
rates on lake trout have also declined.
Lake Ontario
Abundance of spawning-phase sea lamprey has shown a continuing declining trend since the early 1980s (Larson et al. 2003). The
abundance of sea lamprey has remained stable in the FCO target range during 2000-2003.
Pressures
Since parasitic-phase sea lamprey are at the top of the aquatic food chain and inflict high mortality on large piscivores, population
control is essential for healthy fish communities. Increasing abundance in Lake Erie demonstrates how short lapses in control can
result in rapid increases in abundance and that continued effective stream treatments are necessary to overcome the reproductive
potential of this invading species. The potential for sea lamprey to colonize new locations is increased with improved water quality
and removal of dams. For example, the loss of integrity of the dam on the Manistique River, and subsequent production from this
river, has contributed to the increase in sea lamprey abundance in Lake Michigan. Any areas newly infested with sea lamprey will
require some form of control to attain target abundance levels in the lakes.
As fish communities recover from the effects of sea lamprey predation or over-fishing, there is evidence that the survival of
parasitic sea lamprey may increase due to prey availability. Better survival means that there will be more residual sea lamprey to
cause harm. Significant additional control efforts, like those on the St. Marys River, may be necessary to maintain suppression.
The GLFC has a goal of reducing reliance on lampricides and increasing efforts to integrate other control techniques, such as
the sterile-male-release technique or the installation of barriers to stop the upstream migration of adults. Pheromones that affect
migration and mating have been discovered and offer exciting potential as new alternative controls. The use of alternative controls
is consistent with sound practices of integrated pest management, but can put additional pressures on the ecosystem such as
limiting the passage offish upstream of barriers. Care must be taken in applying new alternatives or in reducing lampricide use to
not allow sea lamprey abundance to increase.
52
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Management Implications
The GLFC has increased stream treatments and lampricide applications in response to increasing abundances during 2001 through
2004. The GLFC has targeted these additional treatments to maximize progress toward FCO targets. The GLFC continues to focus
on research and development of alternative control strategies. Computer models, driven by empirical data, are being used to best
allocate treatment resources, and research is being conducted to better understand and manage the variability in sea lamprey
populations.
Comments from the author(s)
Targeted increases in lampricide treatments are predicted to reduce sea lamprey abundance to acceptable levels. The effects of
increased treatments will be observed in this indicator two years after they occur. Discrepancies among estimates of different
life-history stages need to be resolved. Efforts to identify all sources of sea lamprey need to continue. In addition, research to
better understand lamprey/prey interactions, the population dynamics of sea lamprey that survive control actions, and refinement
of alternative control methods are all key to maintaining sea lamprey at tolerable levels.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sources
Adams, J.V., Bergstedt, R.A., Christie, G.C., Cuddy, D.W., Fodale, M.F., Heinrich, J.W., Jones, M.L., McDonald, R.B., Mullett,
K.M., and Young, R. J. 2003. Assessing assessment: can we detect the expected effects of the St. Marys River sea lamprey control
strategy? J. Great Lakes Res. 29 (1):717- 727.
DesJardine, R.L., Gorenflo, T.K., Payne, R.N., and Schrouder, J.D. 1995. Fish-community objectives for Lake Huron. Great Lakes
Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 95-1.
Eshenroder, R.L., Holey, M.E., Gorenflo, T.K., and Clark, R.D., Jr. 1995. Fish-community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great
Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 95-3.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 1955. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, Ann Arbor, MI.
Heinrich, J.W., Mullett, K.M, Hansen, M.J., Adams, J.V., Klar, G.T., Johnson, D.A., Christie, G.C., and Young, R.J. 2003. Sea
lamprey abundance and management in Lake Superior, 1957-1999. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (l):566-583.
Horns, W.H., Bronte, C.R., Busiahn, T.R., Ebener, M.P., Eshenroder, R.L., Greenfly, T., Kmiecik, N., Mattes, W., Peck, J.W.,
Petzold, M., and Schneider, D.R. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ.
03-01.
Larson, G.L., Christie, G.C., Johnson, D.A., Koonce, J.F., Mullett, K.M., and Sullivan, W.P. 2003. The history of sea lamprey
control in Lake Ontario and updated estimates of suppression targets. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (l):637-654.
Lavis, D.S., Hallett, A., Koon, E.M., and McAuley, T. 2003. History of and advances in barriers as an alternative method to
suppress sea lampreys in the Great Lakes. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (l):584-598.
Morse, T.J., Ebener, M.P., Koon, E.M., Morkert, S.B., Johnson, D.A., Cuddy, D.W., Weisser, J.W., Mullet, K.M., andGenovese, J.H.
2003. A case history of sea lamprey control in Lake Huron: 1979-1999. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (1):599-614.
Mullett, K M., Heinrich, J.W., Adams, J.V. Young, R. J., Henson, M.P., McDonald, R.B., and Fodale, M.F. 2003. Estimating
lakewide abundance of spawning-phase sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great Lakes: extrapolating from sampled
streams using regression models. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (l):240-253.
Ryan, PS., Knight, R., MacGregor, R., Towns, G., Hoopes, R., and Culligan, W. 2003. Fish-community goals and objectives for
Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 03-02.
53
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Schleen, L.P., Christie, G.C., Heinrich, J.W., Bergstedt, R.A., Young, R.J., Morse, T.J., Lavis, D.S., Bills, T.D., Johnson J., and
Ebener, M.P. 2003. In press. Development and implementation of an integrated program for control of sea lampreys in the St.
Marys River. J. Great Lakes Res. 29 (l):677-693.
Stewart, T.J., Lange, R.E., Orsatti, S.D., Schneider, C.P., Mathers, A., and Daniels M.E. 1999. Fish-community objectives for Lake
Ontario. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 99-1.
Sullivan, W.P., Christie, G.C., Cornelius, EC., Fodale, M.E, Johnson, D.A., Koonce, J.E, Larson, G.L., McDonald, R.B., Mullet,
K.M., Murray, C.K., and Ryan, PA. 2003. The sea lamprey in Lake Erie: a case history. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (l):615-637.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
54
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Native Freshwater Mussels
Indicator #68
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the location and status of freshwater mussel (unionid) populations and their habitats throughout the Great Lakes
system, with emphasis on endangered and threatened species
To use this information to direct research aimed at identifying the factors responsible for mussel survival in refuge
areas, which in turn will be used to predict the locations of other natural sanctuaries and guide their management for the
protection and restoration of Great Lakes mussels
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is the restoration of the richness, distribution, and abundance of mussels throughout the Great Lakes, which
would thereby reflect the general health of the basin ecosystems. The long-term goal is for mussel 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
Background
Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionacea) are of unique ecological value as natural biological filters, food for fish and wildlife, and
indicators of good water quality. In the United States, some species are commercially harvested for their shells and pearls. These
slow-growing, long-lived organisms can influence ecosystem function such as phytoplankton ecology, water quality, and nutrient
cycling. As our largest freshwater invertebrate, freshwater mussels may also constitute a significant proportion of the freshwater
invertebrate biomass where they occur. Because they are sensitive to toxic chemicals, mussels may serve as an early warning
system to alert us of water quality problems. They are also good indicators of environmental change due to their longevity and
sedentary nature. Since mussels are parasitic on fish during their larval stage, they depend on healthy fish communities for their
survival.
The richness, distribution, and abundance of mussels reflect the general health of the aquatic ecosystems. Because their shells
are attractive and easy to find, they were prized by amateur collectors and naturalists in the past. As a result, many museums
have extensive shell collections dating back 150 years or more that provide us with an invaluable "window to the past" that is not
available for other aquatic invertebrates.
Status of freshwater mussels
The abundance and number of species of freshwater mussels have severely declined across North America, particularly in the Great
Lakes. Nearly 72% of the 300 species in North America are vulnerable to extinction or already extinct. The decline of unionids has
been attributed to commercial exploitation, water quality degradation (pollution, siltation), habitat destruction (dams, dredging,
channelization) riparian and wetland alterations, changes in the distribution and/or abundance of host fishes, and competition with
non-native species. In the Great Lakes watershed, zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and, to a lesser extent, quagga mussels
(D. bugensis) have caused a severe decline in unionid populations. Zebra mussels attach to a mussel's shell, where they interfere
with activities such as feeding, respiration and locomotion - effectively robbing it of the energy reserves needed for survival and
reproduction. Native mussels are particularly sensitive to biofouling by zebra mussels and to food competition with both zebra
mussel and quagga mussels.
55
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Port Maitland
Lake St. Clair
Grosse Point, Ml
19911999
Detroit River
Niagara
River
n
] Puce, ON
9861994
St. Clair
Delta Refuge
hompson Bay Refuge
esque Isle Bay
Western Basin
Lake Erie
rn r-IBass Islands
0 = no mussels
= 10 species
1982-.
Nearshore Westerni
Basin Refuge
Metzger Marsh
Refuge
Lake Erie SW Shore
0
1999 Sandusky Bay
Figure 1. 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)
Many areas in the Great Lakes, such as Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, have lost over 99% of their native mussels of all species as
a result of the impacts of dreissenids. Although Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and their connecting channels historically supported a
rich mussel fauna of about 35 species, unionid mussels were slowly declining in some areas even before the zebra mussel invasion.
For example, densities in the western basin of Lake Erie decreased from 10 unionids/m2 in 1961 to 4/m2 in 1982, probably due to
poor water quality. In contrast, the impact of the zebra mussel was swift and severe. Unionids were virtually extirpated from the
offshore waters of western Lake Erie by 1990 and from Lake St. Clair by 1994, with similar declines in the connecting channels
and many nearshore habitats. The average number of unionid species found in these areas before the zebra mussel invasion was 18
(Figure 1). After the invasion, 60% of surveyed sites had 3 or fewer species remaining, 40% of sites had none left, and abundance
had declined by 90 to 95%.
It was feared that unionid mussels would be extirpated from Great Lakes waters by the zebra mussel. However, significant
communities were recently discovered in several nearshore areas where zebra mussel infestation rates are low (Figure 1).
These remnant unionid populations, found in isolated habitats such as river mouths and lake-connected wetlands, are at severe
risk. Reproduction is occurring at some of these sites, but not all. Further problems are associated with unionid species that were
in low numbers before the influx of the non-native dreissenids. A number of species that are listed as endangered or threatened in
the United States or Canada are found in some of these isolated populations in the Great Lakes and in associated tributaries. In the
United States, these include the clubshell (Pleurobema clava), fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma
torulosa rangiana), and white catspaw (Epioblasma obliquataperobliqua). In Canada, the northern riffleshell, rayed bean (Villosa
fabalis), wavyrayed lampmussel (Lampsilisfasciola), salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra),
round hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda), kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) and round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) are
listed as endangered.
56
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
All of the refuge sites discovered to date have two characteristics in common: they are very shallow (less than 1 to 2 m deep), and
they have a high degree of connectivity to the lake, which ensures access to host fishes. These features appear to combine with
other factors to discourage the settlement and survival of zebra mussels. Soft, silty substrates and high summer water temperatures
in Metzger Marsh, Thompson Bay and Crane Creek encourage unionids to burrow, which dislodges and suffocates attached zebra
mussels. Unionids living in firm, sandy substrates at the nearshore western basin site were nearly infestation-free. The few zebra
mussels found were less than 2 years old, suggesting that they may be voluntarily releasing from unionids due to harsh conditions
created by wave action, fluctuating water levels and ice scour. The St. Clair Delta site has both wave-washed sand flats and wetland
areas with soft, muddy sediments. It is thought that the numbers of zebra mussel veligers (planktonic larval stage) reaching the
area may vary from year to year, depending on wind and current direction and water levels.
Since the veligers require an average of 20-30 days to develop into the benthic stage, rivers and streams have limited colonization
potential and can provide natural refugia for unionids. However, regulated rivers, i.e., those with reservoirs, may not provide
refugia. Reservoirs with retention times greater than 20 to 30 days will allow veligers to develop and settle, after which the
impounded populations will seed downstream reaches on an annual basis. It is therefore vital to prevent the introduction of zebra
mussels into reservoirs.
Pressures
Zebra mussel expansion is the main threat facing unionids in the Great Lakes drainage basin. Zebra mussels are now found in all
of the Great Lakes and in many associated water bodies, including at least 260 inland lakes and river systems such as the Rideau
River in Ontario and in two reservoirs in the Thames River drainage in Ontario.
Other non-native species may also impact unionid survival through the reduction or redistribution of native fishes. Nonnative fish
species such as the Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) and round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) can completely displace
native fish, thus causing the functional extirpation of local unionid populations.
Continuing changes in land use (increasing urban sprawl, growth of factory farms, etc.), elevated use of herbicides to remove
aquatic vegetation from lakes for recreational purposes, climate change and the associated lowering of water levels, and many
other factors will continue to have an impact on unionid populations in the future.
Management Implications
The long-term goal is for unionid mussel populations to be stable and self-sustaining wherever possible throughout their historical
range in the Great Lakes, including the connecting channels and tributaries. The most urgent activity is to prevent the further
introduction of non-native species into the Great Lakes. A second critical activity is to prevent the further expansion of nonnative
species into the river systems and inland lakes of the region where they may seriously harm the remaining healthy populations of
unionids that could be used to re-inoculate the Great Lakes themselves in the future.
To ensure the survival of remaining unionids in the Great Lakes basin, and to foster the restoration of their populations to the
extent possible, the following actions are recommended:
All existing information on the status of freshwater mussels throughout the Great Lakes drainage basin should be
compiled and reviewed. A complete analysis of trends over space and time is needed to properly assess the current health
of the fauna.
To assist with the above exercise, and to guide future surveys, all data must be combined into a computerized, GIS-linked
database (similar to the 8000-record Ontario database managed by the National Water Research Institute), accessible to
all relevant jurisdictions.
Additional surveys are needed to fill data gaps, using standardized sampling designs and methods for optimum
comparability of data. The Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society has prepared a peer-reviewed, state-of-the-art
protocol that should be consulted for guidance (Strayer and Smith 2003). Populations of endangered and threatened
species should be specifically targeted.
The locations of all existing refugia, both within and outside of the influence of zebra mussels, should be documented,
and they must be protected by all possible means from future disturbance.
Research is needed to determine the mechanisms responsible for survival of unionids in the various refuge sites, and this
knowledge should be used to predict the locations of other refugia and to guide their management.
57
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
The environmental requirements of unionids need to be taken into account in wetland restoration projects.
All avenues for educating the public about the plight of unionids in the Great Lakes should be pursued, as well as legislation
for their protection. This includes ensuring that all species that should be listed are listed as quickly as possible.
The principles of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mussels (The National Native Mussel
Conservation Committee 1998) should be applied to the conservation and protection of the Great Lakes unionid fauna.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Janice L. Smith, Biologist, Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research Branch, National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON,
Janice.Smith@ec.gc.ca; and
S. Jerrine Nichols, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Ann Arbor, MI, s_jerrine_nichols@usgs.gov.
Sources
Bowers, R., and De Szalay, F. 2003. Effects of hydrology on unionids (Unionidae) and zebra mussels (Dreissenidae) in a Lake Erie
coastal wetland. American Midland Naturalist 151:286-300.
Martel, A.L., Pathy, D.A., Madill, J.B., Renaud, C.B., Dean, S.L., andKerr, S.J. 2001. Decline and regional extirpation of freshwater
mussels (Unionidae) in a small river system invaded by Dreissena polymorpha: the Rideau River, 1993-2000. Can. J. Zoo/.
79(12):2181-2191.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., Zanatta, D.T., Masteller, E.C., Dunn, H.L., Nichols, S.J., Marangelo, P.J., and Schloesser, D.W. 2002. Some
near shore areas in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair provide refuge for native freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from the impacts of
invading zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena). Presented at the 45th Conference on Great Lakes Research, June 2-6, 2002,
Winnipeg, MB, abstract on p. 87 of program.
Nichols, S.J., and Amberg, J. 1999. Co-existence of zebra mussels and freshwater unionids; population dynamics of Leptodea
fragilis in a coastal wetland infested with zebra mussels. Can. J. Zoo/. 77(3):423-432.
Nichols, S.J., and Wilcox, D.A. 1997. Burrowing saves Lake Erie clams. Nature 389:921.
Schloesser, D.W., Smithee, R.D., Longdon, G.D., and Kovalak, W.P. 1997. Zebra mussel induced mortality of unionids in firm
substrata of western Lake Erie and a habitat for survival. American Malacological Bulletin 14:67-74.
Strayer, D.L., and Smith, D.R. 2003. A guide to sampling freshwater mussel populations. American Fisheries Society, Monograph
8, Bethesda, MD. 103 pp.
The National Native Mussel Conservation Committee. 1998. National strategy for the conservation of native freshwater mussels.
/. Shellfish Res. 17(5):1419-1428.
Zanatta, D.T., Mackie, G.L., Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., and Woolnough, D.A. 2002. A refuge for native freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) from impacts of the non-native zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha) in Lake St. Clair. /. Great Lakes Res. 28(3):479-
489.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
58
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lake Trout
Indicator #93
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Factors used to determine status were the levels of natural reproduction observed, the survival of
hatchery-reared fish after stocking, the level of mortality on adults from sea-lamprey and fishing,
and the over all population trajectory. This limits harvest objectives in most lakes.
Lake by Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Natural reproduction is widespread and supports all populations. Most stocking has been
discontinued and fisheries are well managed. Sea lamprey mortality has been increasing.
Lake Michigan
Status: Poor
Trend: Declining
Rationale: Survival of adult fish is declining from increased sea lamprey mortality and no evidence of significant
natural reproduction. Fishing mortality is low.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Some natural reproduction is occurring but at low levels. Fishing and sea lamprey mortality has
declined since 2001. Parental stocks are increasing.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Sea lamprey mortality is high. A shift to a deepwater Lake Superior strain for stocking has appeared
to improved post-release survival.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Declining
Rationale: Post-release survival of stocked fish is declining and the level of natural reproduction is
decreasing.
Purpose
To track the status and trends in lake trout populations
To infer the basic structure of the cold water predator community and the general health of the ecosystem
Ecosystem Objective
Self-sustaining, naturally reproducing populations that support target yields to fisheries are the goal of the lake trout restoration
program. Target yields approximate historical levels of lake trout harvest or levels adjusted to accommodate stocked non-native
predators such as Pacific salmon. These targets are 1.8 million kg (4 million pounds) from Lake Superior, 1.1 million kg (2.5
million pounds) from Lake Michigan, 0.9 million kg (2.0 million pounds) from Lake Huron and 50 thousand kg (0.1 million
pounds) from Lake Erie. Lake Ontario has no specific yield objective but has a population objective of 0.5 to 1.0 million adult fish
that produce 100,000 yearling recruits annually through natural reproduction.
59
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Lake trout were historically the principal salmonine predator in the coldwater communities of the Great Lakes. By the late 1950s.
lake trout were extirpated throughout most of the Great Lakes, mostly from the combined effects of sea lamprey predation and over
fishing. Restoration efforts began in the early 1960s with chemical control of sea lamprey, controls on exploitation, and stocking
of hatchery-reared fish to rebuild populations. Full restoration will not be achieved until natural reproduction is established and
maintained to sustain lakewide populations. To date, only Lake Superior has that distinction.
Status of Lake Trout
Trends in the relative or absolute annual abundance of lake trout in each of the Great Lakes are displayed in Figure 1. Lake trout
abundance dramatically increased in all the Great Lakes after initiation of sea lamprey control, stocking, and harvest control.
Natural reproduction, from large parental stocks of wild fish, is occurring throughout Lake Superior, it supports both onshore
and offshore populations, and it may be approaching historical levels. Stocking there has been discontinued. Sustained natural
reproduction, albeit at low levels, has also been occurring in Lake Ontario since the early 1990s, and in some areas of Lake Huron.
but it has been largely absent elsewhere in the Great Lakes. In Lake Huron, substantial and widespread natural reproduction
was seen starting in 2004 following near collapse of the alewife population. Abundance of hatchery-reared adults was relatively
high in Lake Ontario from 1986 to 1998, but declined by more than 30% in 1999 due to reduced stocking and poor survival of
stocked yearlings since the early 1990s. Adult abundance again declined by 54% in 2006 likely due to ongoing poor recruitment
and mortality from sea lamprey predation. Parental stock sizes of hatchery-reared fish were relatively high in some areas of Lake
80
Lake Superior- U.S.
ID
il
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
Wild
Hatchery
30
1 25-
"5 20 -
o
ฐ 10-
Lake Huron
0
80
1970 1975
Lake Superior - Canada
1980 1985
Year
1990 1995 2000
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
10
1975 1980
Lake Erie
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
S.
2 -
0
All fish
Age 5+
Ages 1-3
3
O
0) in
ฃ c
ro o
10
1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
Lake Michigan
1990 1995 2000
1986 1990
Lake Ontario
1994
Year
1998
,2 6-
o E
E ~~
4 -
2 -
o
= 20-
O
C 15 H
o
ง1
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Huron and Lake Michigan, but sea lamprey predation, fishery extractions, and low stocking densities have limited population
expansion elsewhere.
Pressures
The numbers of sea lamprey continue to limit population recovery, particularly in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, and parasitic
adults are increasing basin-wide. Fishing pressures also continue to limit recovery. More stringent controls on fisheries are required
to increase survival of stocked fish. In northern Lake Michigan, parental stock sizes are low and young in age due to low stocking
densities, and substantial sea lamprey mortality. Hence, egg deposition is low in most historically important spawning areas.
Fishing mortality has been reduced in recent years, but it has been replaced by sea lamprey mortality. High biomass of alewives
and other predators on lake trout spawning reefs are thought to inhibit restoration through egg and fry predation, although the
magnitude of this pressure is unclear. Recent trends in Lake Huron suggest that alewife may need to reach very low abundances
to allow substantial natural reproduction of lake trout. A diet dominated by alewives may be limiting fry survival (early mortality
syndrome) through thiamine deficiencies. The loss of Diporeia and dramatic reductions in the abundance of slimy sculpins is
reducing prey for young lake trout and may be affecting survival. Current strains of lake trout stocked may not be appropriate for
offshore habitats, therefore limiting colonization potential.
Management Implications
Continued and enhanced sea lamprey control is required basin-wide to increase survival of lake trout to adulthood. New sea
lamprey control options, which include pheromone systems that increase trapping efficiency and disrupt reproduction, are being
researched and hold promise for improved control. Continued and enhanced control on exploitation is being improved through
population modeling in the upper Great Lakes but needs to be applied throughout the basin. Stocking densities need to be increased
in some areas, especially in Lake Michigan. The use of alternate strains of lake trout from Lake Superior could be candidates
for deep, offshore areas not colonized by traditional strains used for restoration. Introduction of such strains has been initiated in
Lake Erie and holds promise. Direct stocking of eggs, fry, and yearling on or near traditional spawning sites should be used where
possible to enhance colonization.
Comments from the author(s)
Reporting frequency should be every 5 years. Monitoring systems are in place, but in most lakes measures do not directly relate
to stated harvest objectives. Population objectives may need to be redefined as endpoints in units measured by the monitoring
activities.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), New Franken, WI
James Markham, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Brian Lantry, U.S. Geological Survey, Oswego, NY
Aaron Woldt, USFWS, Alpena, MI
James Bence, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Sources
Bence, J.R., and Ebener, M.P (eds.). 2002. Summary status of lake trout and lake whitefish populations in 1936 treaty-ceded
waters of Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan in 2000, with recommended yield and effort levels for 2001. Technical Fisheries
Committee, 1836 Treaty-Ceded Waters of Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan.
Bronte, C.R., Ebener, M.P, Schreiner, D.R., DeVault, D.S., Petzold, M.M., Jensen, D.A., Richards, C., and Lozano, S.J. 2003a. Fish
community change in Lake Superior, 1970-2000. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:1552-1574.
Bronte, C.R., Holey, M.E., Madenjian, C.P, Jonas, J.L., Claramunt, R.M., McKee, PC., Toneys, M.L., Ebener, M.P, Breidert, B.,
Fleischer, G.W., Hess, R., Martell Jr., A.W., and Olsen, E.J. 2007. Relative abundance, site fidelity, and survival of adult lake trout
in Lake Michigan from 1999-2001: implications for future restoration strategies. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 27:137-155.
Bronte, C.R., Jonas, J., Holey, M.E., Eshenroder, R.L., Toneys, M.L., McKee, P., Breidert, B., Claramunt, R.M., Ebener, M.P,
Krueger, C.C., Wright, G., and Hess, R. 2003c. Possible impediments to lake trout restoration in Lake Michigan. Lake Trout Task
Group report to the Lake Michigan Committee, Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
61
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Bronte, C.R., Schram, S.T., Selgeby, J.H., and Swanson, B.L. 2002. Reestablishing a spawning population of lake trout in Lake
Superior with fertilized eggs in artificial turf incubators. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 22:796- 805.
Cornelius, F.C., Muth, K.M., and Kenyon, R. 1995. Lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Erie: a case of history. J. Great Lakes Res.
21(l):65-82.
DesJardine, R.L., Gorenflo, T.K., Payne, R.N., and Schrouder, J.D. 1995. Fish community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great
Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 95-1. 38pp.
Elrod, J.H., O'Gorman, R., Schneider, C.P., Eckert, T.H., Schaner, T., Bowlby, J.N., and Schleen, L.P. 1995. Lake trout rehabilitation
in Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 21(1):83-107.
Eshenroder, R.L., Holey, M.E., Gorenflo, T.K., and Clark, R.D., Jr. 1995a. Fish community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great
Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 95-3. 56pp.
Eshenroder, R.L., Payne, N.R., Johnson, J.E., Bowen II, C.A., and Ebener, M.P. 1995b. Lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Huron. /.
Great Lakes Res. 21(1):108-127.
Hansen, M. J. 1999. Lake trout in the Great Lakes: basinwide stock collapse and binational restoration. In Great Lakes Fisheries
Policy and Management, eds. W.W. Taylor and C.P. Ferreri, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. pp. 417-454.
Hansen, M.J. (ed.). 1996. A lake trout restoration plan for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 34pp.
Holey, M.E., Rybicki, R.R., Eck, G.W., Brown,, E.H., Jr., Marsden, J.E., Lavis, D.S., Toneys, M.L., Trudeau, T.N., and Horrall,
R.M. 1995. Progress toward lake trout restoration in Lake Michigan. /. Great Lakes Res. 21(1):128-151.
Horns, W.H., Bronte, C.R., Busiahn, T.R., Ebener, M.P, Eshenroder, R.L., Gorenflo, T., Kmiecik, N., Mattes, W., Peck, J.W.,
Petzold, M., Schreiner, D.R. 2003. Fish community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 03-01.
78pp.
Johnson, J.E., He, J.X., Woldt, A.P, Ebener, M.P, and Mohr, L.C. 2004. Lessons in rehabilitation stocking and management
of lake trout in Lake Huron. In Propagated fish in resource management, eds.M.J. Nickum, P.M. Mazik, J.G. Nickum and D.D.
MacKinlay, pp.157-171., Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries Society, Symposium 44.
Lake Superior Lake Trout Technical Committee (LSLTTC). 1986. A lake trout restoration plan for Lake Superior. In Minutes of
the Lake Superior Committee (1986 annual minutes), Ann Arbour, MI, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, March 20, 1986.
Lake Trout Task Group. 1985. A Strategic Plan for the rehabilitation of lake trout in eastern Lake Erie. Lake Erie Committee.
Ann Arbor, MI.
Lantry, B.F., Eckert, T.H., O'Gorman, R., and Owens, R.W. 2003. Lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Ontario, 2002. In NYDEC
Annual Report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Ontario Committee, March, 2003.
Ryan, PA., Knight, R., MacGregor, R., Towns, G., Hoopes, R., and Culligan, W. 2003. Fish-community goals and objectives for
Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Publ. 03-02. 56pp.
Schneider, C.P, Schaner, T., Orsatti, S., Lary, S., andBusch, D. 1997. A Management Strategy for Lake Ontario Lake Trout. Report
to the Lake Ontario Committee, Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Wilberg, M. J., Hansen, M.J., and Bronte, C.R. 2003. Historic and modern density of wild lean lake trout in Michigan waters of
Lake Superior: implications for restoration goals. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 23:100-108.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
62
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Benthos Diversity and Abundance - Aquatic Oligochaete Communities
Indicator #104
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging/Deteriorating
Rationale: Some lakes or parts of lakes are good and unchanging, while other lakes or parts of lakes are fair
to poor and are either unchanging or may be deteriorating.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: All sites had index values that ranged from 0 to 0.5, indicating oligotrophic conditions.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging, Deteriorating
Rationale: Most sites had index values that ranged from 0 to 0.5, indicating oligotrophic conditions. The two
most southeastern, nearshore sites changed from oligotrophic status in 2000, mesotrophic status in
2001, mesotrophic/eutrophic status in 2002 through 2004, and back to mesotrophic in 2005. The
most eastern central, nearshore site changed from oligotrophic (2000 through 2004) to mesotrophic
(2005).
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Saginaw Bay remained mesotrophic throughout the six years. All other sites were oligotrophic.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging, Deteriorating
Rationale: Most sites were mesotrophic to eutrophic. Two western sites were oligotrophic to mesotrophic
due to reduced numbers of oligochaetes. Eutrophic sites in the eastern part of the lake exhibited
increasing index values.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Most sites were oligotrophic. The three most southern, nearshore sites varied from oligotrophic to
eutrophic on a year-to-year basis.
Purpose
To assess species diversity and abundance of aquatic oligochaete communities in order to determine the trophic status
and relative health of benthic communities in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
Benthic communities throughout the Great Lakes should retain species abundance and diversity typical for benthos in similar
unimpaired waters and substrates. A measure of biological response to organic enrichment of sediments is based on Milbrink's
(1983) Modified Environmental Index (MEI). This index was modified from Howmiller and Scott's (1977) Environmental Index.
This measure will have wide applicability for nearshore, profundal, riverine, and bay habitats of the Great Lakes. This indicator
supports Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (United States and Canada 1987).
63
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
State of the Ecosystem
Shortly after intensive urbanization and industrialization during the first half of the 20th century, pollution abatement programs
were initiated in the Great Lakes. Degraded waters and substrates, especially in shallow areas, began to slowly improve in quality.
By the early 1980s, abatement programs and natural biological processes changed habitats to the point where aquatic species that
were tolerant of heavy pollution began to be replaced by species that were intolerant of heavy pollution.
The 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 has been used to measure changing productivity in waters of North
America and Europe and, in general, appears to be a reasonable measure of productivity in waters of all the Great Lakes (Figure 1,
Figure 2). The index values from sites in the upper lakes continue to be very low (less than 0.6), indicating an oligotrophic status
for these areas. Index values from sites such as the nearshore areas of southeastern and east-central Lake Michigan and Saginaw
Bay in Lake Huron, which are known to have higher productivity, exhibited higher index values that indicate mesotrophic (0.6
tol.O) to eutrophic (greater than 1.0) conditions. Nearshore sites in southern Lake Ontario continued to be classified as mesotrophic
to eutrophic, while offshore sites were oligotrophic. Sites in Lake Erie exhibited the highest index values; nearly all of them fell
within the mesotrophic or eutrophic category (one site in western Lake Erie had low values characterized by low numbers of
oligochaetes). Over the last six years, a trend of increasing index values was observed for eastern Lake Erie.
Pressures
Future pressures that may change suitability of habitat for aquatic oligochaete communities remain unknown. Pollution abatement
programs and natural processes will assuredly continue to improve water and substrate quality. However, measurement of
improvements could be overshadowed by pressures such as zebra and quagga mussels, which were an unknown impact only
10 years ago. Other possible pressures include non-point source pollution, regional temperature and water level changes, and
discharges of contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, as well as other unforeseen sources.
Management Implications
Continued pollution abatement programs aimed at point source pollution will continue to reduce undesirable productivity and past
residual pollutants. As a result, substrate quality will improve. Whatever future ecosystem changes occur in the Great Lakes, it is
likely aquatic oligochaete communities will respond early to such changes.
Comments from the author(s)
Biological responses of aquatic oligochaete communities are excellent indicators of substrate quality, and when combined with
a temporal component, they allow for the determination of subtle changes in environmental quality, possibly decades before
single species indicators. However, it is only in the past several years that Milbrink's MEI has been applied to the open waters
of all the Great Lakes. Therefore, it is critical that routine monitoring of oligochaete communities in the Great Lakes continue.
Additionally, oligochaete taxonomy can be a specialized and time-consuming discipline, and the taxonomic classification of
species and their responses to organic pollution is continually being updated. As future work progresses, it is anticipated that
the ecological relevance of existing and new species comprising the index will increase. Modifications to this index must be
incorporated in future work, which includes the assignment of index values to several taxa that are currently not included in the
index, and the re-evaluation of index values for a few of the species that are included in the index. It should be noted that even
though the index only addresses responses to organic enrichment in sediments, it may be used with other indicators to assess the
effects of other sediment pollutants.
Acknowledgments
Authors/Contributors:
Kurt L. Schmude, Lake Superior Research Institute, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI
Don W. Schloesser, U.S. Geological Survey, Ann Arbor, MI
Richard P. Barbiero, Computer Sciences Corporation, Chicago, IL
Mary Beth Giancario, Great Lakes National Program Office (USEPA) Chicago, IL
Sources
U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Biological Open Water Surveillance Program of the
Laurentian Great Lakes (2000-2005), through cooperative agreement GL-96513791 with the University of Wisconsin-Superior.
64
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
0 2
_3
C
19
3 2
15
X 1'5
a>
T3
ฃ
19
a> 2
g1'5
I ,
,
19
* West Superior
Central Superior
East Superior
i
99 2000 20(
* Northern Michiga
Central Michigan
Southern Michiga
ซ !
99 2000 20
* Western Ontario
Eastern Ontario
*
1
4
99 2000 20(
Lake Superior
A /\ o
)1 2002 2003 2004 2005 20
Year
Lake Michigan
i
n
4
*
)1 2002 2003 2004 2005 20
Year
Lake Ontario
. .
t !
)1 2002 2003 2004 2005 20
Year
a> 2
_3
n
x 1'5
a>
T3
C
06 19
a> 2
_3
a>
T3
ฃ ,
'
06 19
06
Lake Huron
* Northern Huron
Central Huron
Southern Huron
XSaginaw Bay
XX x
X x \/
A ^
! ! I ! * t
39 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20
Year
Lake Erie
^Western Erie
Central Erie
Eastern Erie
i
til**
M *
1 ! :
39 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20
Year
06
06
Figure 1. Scatter plots of index values for Milbrink's (1983) Modified Environmental Index, applied to data from GLNPO's 2000-
2005 summer surveys.
Values ranging from 0-0.6 indicate oligotrophic conditions; values from 0.6-1.0 indicate mesotrophic conditions (shaded area);
values above 1.0 indicate eutrophic conditions. Index values for the taxa were taken from the literature (Milbrink 1983, Howmiller
and Scott 1977); immature specimens were not included in any calculations. Data points represent average of triplicate samples
taken at each sampling site.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000-2005
65
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Miles
0 50 100 150 200
IM
A
Figure 2. Map of the Great Lakes showing trophic status based on Milbrink's (1983) Modified Environmental Index using the
oligochaete worm community.
Data taken from 2005. Gray circles = oligotrophic; yellow squares = mesotrophic; red triangles = eutrophic
Howmiller, R.P., and Scott, M.A. 1977. An environmental index based on relative abundance of oligochaete species. /. Wat. Poll.
Cont. Fed. 49:809-815.
Milbrink, G. 1983. An improved environmental index based on the relative abundance of oligochaete species. Hydrobiologia.
102:89-97.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
66
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Phytoplankton Populations
Indicator #109
This indicator report was last updated in 2003.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed*
Trend: Undetermined
*This assessment is based on historical conditions and expert opinion. Specific objectives or criteria have not
been determined.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To directly assess phytoplankton species composition, biomass, and primary productivity in the Great Lakes
To indirectly assess the impact of nutrient and contaminant enrichment and invasive non-native predators on the microbial
food-web of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
Desired objectives are phytoplankton biomass size and structure indicative of oligotrophic conditions (i.e. a state of low biological
productivity, as is generally found in the cold open waters of large lakes) for Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan; and of
mesotrophic conditions for Lakes Erie and Ontario. In addition, algal biomass should be maintained below that of a nuisance
condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario, and in bays and in other areas wherever they occur. There are currently no guidelines in place
to define what criteria should be used to assess whether or not these desired states have been achieved.
State of the Ecosystem
This indicator assumes that phytoplankton populations respond in quantifiable ways to anthropogenic inputs of both nutrients and
contaminants, permitting inferences to be made about system perturbations through the assessment of phytoplankton community
size, structure and productivity.
Records for Lake Erie indicate that substantial reductions in summer phytoplankton populations occurred in the early 1990s
in the western basin (Figure 1). The timing of this decline suggests the possible impact of zebra mussels. In Lake Michigan, a
significant increase in the size of summer diatom populations occurred during the 1990s. This was most likely due to the effects
of phosphorus reductions on the silica mass balance in this lake, and it suggests that diatom populations might be a sensitive
indicator of oligotrophication in Lake Michigan. No trends are apparent in summer phytoplankton from Lakes Huron or Ontario,
while only three years of data exist for Lake Superior. Data on primary productivity are no longer being collected. No assessment
of "ecosystem health" is currently possible on the basis of phytoplankton community data, since reference criteria and endpoints
have yet to be developed.
It should be noted that these findings are at variance with those reported for SOLEC 2000. This is due to problems with historical
data comparability that were unrecognized during the previous reporting period. These problems continue to be worked on, and
as such, conclusions reported here should be regarded as somewhat provisional.
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 nutrients can be expected to result in increases in primary
productivity and possibly also in increases in phytoplankton biomass. In addition, increases in phosphorus concentrations might
result in shifts in phytoplankton community composition away from diatoms and towards other taxa. As seen in Lake Michigan,
reductions in phosphorus loading might be expected to have the opposite effect. 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,
67
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Erie Western Basin
o>
o
I
m
I
I
Superior
Michigan
83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99
0
Huron
Ontario
83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99
0
L
~
-
E
rie
C
;e
sntral
1
B
as
R
in
1
i
Er
aflE
ie Ea
si
ern
E
iasin
83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99
Other
Chrysophytes
Year
Dinoflagellates RR Cyanophytes RR Cryptophytes
Chlorophytes
Diatoms
Figure 1. 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
although these potential effects are not clearly understood. It is unclear what effects, if any, might be brought about by changes in
the zooplankton community.
Management Implications
The effects of increases in nutrient concentrations tend to become apparent in nearshore areas before offshore areas. The addition
of nearshore monitoring to the existing offshore monitoring program might therefore be advisable. Given the greater heterogeneity
of the nearshore environment, any such sampling program would need to be carefully thought out, and an adequate number of
sampling stations included to enable trends to be discerned.
Comments from the author(s)
A highly detailed record of phytoplankton biomass and community structure has accumulated, and continues to be generated.
through regular monitoring efforts. However, problems exist with internal comparability of this database. Efforts are currently
underway to rectify this situation, and it is essential that the database continue to be refined and improved.
In spite of the existence of this database, its interpretation remains problematic. While the use of phytoplankton data to assess
"ecosystem health" is conceptually attractive, there is currently no objective, quantitative mechanism for doing so. Reliance upon
literature values for nutrient tolerances or indicator status of individual species is not recommended, since the unusual physical
regime of the Great Lakes makes it likely that responses of individual species to their chemical environment in the Great Lakes
will vary in fundamental ways from those in other lakes. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the development of an objective.
quantifiable index specific to the Great Lakes to permit use of phytoplankton data in the assessment of "ecosystem health".
68
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp, A CSC company, Chicago, IL, rick.barbiero@dyncorp.com; and
Marc L. Tuchman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, tuchman.marc(<
epa.gov.
Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. Unpublished data. Chicago, IL.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2003
69
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Indicator #111
Overall Assessment
Status: Open Lake - Mixed; Nearshore - Poor
Trend: Open Lake - Undetermined; Nearshore - Undetermined
Rationale: Strong efforts that began in the 1970s to reduce phosphorus loadings have been successful in
maintaining or reducing nutrient concentrations in the Great Lakes, although high concentrations
still occur locally in some embayments, harbors and nearshore areas.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Open Lake - Good; Nearshore - Not Assessed
Trend: Open Lake - Undetermined; Nearshore - Undetermined
Rationale: Average phosphorus concentrations in the open waters are at or below expected levels.
Lake Michigan
Status: Open Lake - Good; Nearshore - Poor
Trend: Open Lake - Improving; Nearshore - Undetermined
Rationale: Average phosphorus concentrations in the open waters are at or below expected levels.
Concentrations may exceed guidelines in nearshore waters for at least part of the growing season.
Lake Huron
Status: Open Lake - Good; Nearshore - Poor
Trend: Open Lake - Undetermined; Nearshore - Undetermined
Rationale: Average phosphorus concentrations in the open waters are at or below expected levels. Most
offshore waters meet the desired guideline, but some nearshore areas and embayments experience
elevated levels which likely contribute to nuisance algae growths such as the attached green algae,
Cladophora, and toxic cyanophytes such as Microcystis.
Lake Erie
Status: Open Lake - Fair-Poor; Nearshore - Poor
Trend: Open Lake - Undetermined; Nearshore - Undetermined
Rationale: Phosphorus concentrations in the three basins of Lake Erie fluctuate from year to year and frequently
exceed target concentrations. Extensive lawns of Cladophora are common place over the nearshore
lakebed in parts of Eastern Lake Erie and are suggestive of phosphorus levels supportive of nuisance
levels of algal growth.
Lake Ontario
Status: Open Lake - Good; Nearshore - Poor
Trend: Open Lake - Improving; Nearshore - Undetermined
Rationale: Average phosphorus concentrations in the open lake are at or below expected levels. Most offshore
waters meet the desired guideline but some nearshore areas and embayments experience elevated
levels which likely contribute to nuisance algae growths such as the attached green algae, Cladophora
and toxic cyanophytes such as Microcystis.
Purpose
To assesses total phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes
To support the evaluation of trophic status and food web dynamics in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
The goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an oligotrophic state in Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan;
70
to
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lake
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie - Western
Basin
Erie - Central
Basin
Erie - Eastern
Basin
Ontario
Phosphorus
Guideline (ug/L)
5
5
7
15
10
10
10
Table 1: Phosphorus guidelines for the
Great Lakes.
Source: Phosphorus Management Strategies
Task Force, 1980
maintain algal biomass below that of a nuisance condition in Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario; and to eliminate algal nuisance growth in bays and in other areas wherever
they occur (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Annex 3, United
States and Canada 1987). Maximum annual phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes
that would allow achievement of these objectives are listed in the GLWQA. The
expected concentrations of total phosphorus in the open waters of the Great Lakes,
if the maximum annual loads are maintained, are listed in the following table:
State of the Ecosystem
Phosphorus is an essential element for all organisms and is often the limiting
factor for aquatic plant growth in the Great Lakes. Although phosphorus occurs
naturally, the historical problems caused by elevated levels have originated from
anthropogenic sources. Detergents, sewage treatment plant effluent, agricultural
runoff and industrial sources have historically introduced large amounts into the
Great Lakes.
Strong efforts that began in the 1970s to reduce phosphorus loadings have been
successful in maintaining or reducing nutrient concentrations in the Great Lakes,
although high concentrations still occur locally in some embayments, harbors and
nearshore areas. Annual phosphorus loadings 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 Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario are at or below
expected levels. Concentrations in the three basins of Lake Erie fluctuate from year to year (Figure 1) and frequently exceed
the target levels. In Lake Ontario and Lake Huron, most offshore waters meet the desired guideline, but some nearshore areas
and embayments experience elevated levels which likely contribute to nuisance algae growths such as the attached green algae,
Cladophora, and toxic cyanophytes such as Microcystis. For example, in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, control strategies at
municipal sewage plants have reduced loadings by two orders of magnitude since the early 1970s. In spite of these controls, mean
concentrations measured between May and October in the productive upper bay have remained between 30 and 35 ug/L in
recent years. This level of total phosphorus is indicative of a eutrophic environment. Typical of other zebra mussel-infested and
phosphorus-enriched bays in the Great Lakes, toxic cyanophytes such as Microcystis have increased in abundance in recent years
with blooms occurring in late August and early September.
Similarly, phosphorus concentrations may exceed the guidelines in nearshore waters for at least part of the growing season.
Waters near Lake Michigan's eastern shoreline, when sampled in June, 2004, had a median concentration of 9 ug/L. Summer
sampling at the same locations yielded a median concentration of 6 ug/L, but a number of sampling locations were at or above the
7 ug/L guideline. By comparison, the average open water concentration during the spring of 2004 was 3.7 ug/L. Cladophora
growth is a problem on much of this shoreline.
In parts of eastern Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, extensive lawns of Cladophora are commonplace and are suggestive of phosphorus
levels supportive of nuisance levels of algal growth (Higgins et al. 2005 and Wilson et al. 2006). Phosphorus levels in the nearshore
(Canadian shores) of eastern Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are periodically elevated above the basin guideline of 10 ug/L. However,
efforts to achieve integrated nearshore assessments of phosphorus levels or to relate phosphorus levels to growth of Cladophora
are difficult because of the highly dynamic nature of water quality in nearshore areas. Phosphorus concentrations in nearshore
areas tend to be highly variable over time and from point to point, at times on the scale of meters, due to influences of tributary
and other shore-based discharges, weather, biological activity and lake circulation.
Pressures
Even if current phosphorus controls are maintained, additional loadings can be expected. Increasing numbers of people living along
the Great Lakes will exert increasing demands on existing sewage treatment facilities. Even if current phosphorus concentration
discharge limits are maintained, increased populations may result in increased loads. Phosphorus management plans with target
loads need to be established for major municipalities. Recent research indicates that even weather and climate changes may be
71
-------
cn | Q.
o 03 03
03 Q. 03 00
CD f-t- -s 03
, M
o' M
y- o
ll
a.
CD o
cr cn
3
si sr
5'
&
P
03 CD ^- ซ> o
2 T> i ^5 S
y- CD 03
< C
03 "D
(D
"2. -"
m Cn
31
r-* I? 3
C 03 03 3
C/) CQ Q: "O
laf'I
03 Cn 03
T*P ,3 T
O ^ g
03 CD 5;
II ^
03 ^- =
=5^0
Q. 03 3
O
03 Q-
Q S- -
O =>
03 3
"- -a
~ ^ 03 03 -(
COCQ - S-JD
-f S "D
O M CD
CD
en
cn ^
8
CD
"0
O
m" 5 CD
03
? 5T
tn O 3=
C CD
o
C en
CD o m *-
<ฃ. CD Q SL CD
ff ฐ- 03 ><"-D
o' C/) 03
CD -%
c 3 ฎ
!ป ง S
51 S--2-
It!
3 < 3=
ง S *
5T cn g:
.- CQ .5-
S T> CD
S- CD CD
CD Q.
_ Q_
CD
3 ง
CD o
^ 0)
3 S
5=^^ O
C/) CD CD P
0) c
m03 w
3 y 03 O
L j -;
O CD
^ _, CD
CD Q- CT
& C 03
o' 2- cn
3 CD =j'
> Q- cn
CQ _ _
CD O O
3 3 -h
03 ,
^ CD
03 m
^~ D.
CO CD
03
$ i I ง
ง5-|-8
3 " CD 3-
ง c P- ง.
oT o m o'
~* <
^- Q_ ^ CD
I w3 S
o'-ง ง Z
= CD ^" 03
2; ง "aป i 5
ฐ >< Q- 03 CD
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
to track phosphorus loadings and to better understand the relative importance of various sources.
The surveillance of phosphorus concentrations in the Great Lakes is ongoing and the data are considered to be reliable. Enhanced
monitoring of nearshore and embayment sites, as well as tributary monitoring, may be accomplished with better coordination
with existing state and provincial environmental programs. Coordinated programs would be most effective if they are tied to
a framework such as a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) that recognizes the unique phosphorus-related sensitivities of the
nearshore areas and also provides the means to interrelate nearshore and offshore nutrient conditions and concerns. The recent
reappearance of Cladophora in some areas of the Great Lakes strengthens the importance of nearshore measurements.
The data needed to support loadings calculations have not been collected since 1991 in all lakes except Lake Erie, which has
loadings information up to 2002, and Lake Michigan with information for 1994 and 1995. Efforts to do so should be reinstated
for at least Lake Erie, and work is underway to accomplish this. For the other lakes, the loadings component of this indicator will
remain unreported, and changes in the different sources of phosphorus to these lakes may go undetected.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Alice Dove, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Glenn Warren, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
Additional contributions from: Scott Millard, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON and
Todd Howell, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON
Sources
Higgins, Scott N, Howell, E. Todd, Hecky, Robert E., Guildford, Stephanie J., and Smith, Ralph E. 2005. The Wall of Green: The
Status of Cladophora glomerata on the Northern Shores of Lake Erie's Eastern Basin, 1995-2002. J. Great Lakes Res. 31(4):547-
563.
Howell, E. Todd and Duncan Boyd, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force. 1980. Phosphorus Management for the Great Lakes. Final Report to the
International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, Windsor, ON.
125pp.
Richardson, V. Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Warren, G. Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wilson, Karen A., Howell, E. Todd, and Jackson, Donald A. 2006. Replacement of Zebra Mussels by Quagga Mussels in the
Canadian Nearshore of Lake Ontario: the Importance of Substrate, Round Goby Abundance, and Upwelling Frequency. /. Great
Lakes Res. 32(l):ll-28.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
73
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Indicator #114
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Although levels of PCBs in forage fish have decreased below the guideline at many sites around
the Great Lakes, PCB levels remain elevated. As well, DDT levels in forage fish have declined but
remain above the guideline at most of the tested Great Lakes locations.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: PCB concentrations in Lake Superior forage fish have declined over the period of record and are
currently below the guideline at all sample sites. DDT levels have declined to levels near the
guideline, except for Nipigon Bay, where the most current levels (1990) were elevated.
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: PCB levels in Lake Huron forage fish have remained static or declined over the period of record
and are currently at or below the guideline. DDT levels, however, remain elevated at Collingwood
Harbour.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: PCB levels in Lake Erie forage fish have declined to levels at or below the guideline. DDT levels
have also declined over the period of record but remain above the guideline.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: PCB levels in Lake Ontario forage fish have declined significantly over the period of record and
the most recent levels are at or below the guideline. At some sites, DDT levels in forage fish have
declined considerably. However, levels remain at or above the guideline at all sites. Levels of mirex
have also declined and have remained below the detection limit in recent years.
Purpose
To assess the levels of persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals in young-of-the-year spottail shiners
To infer local areas of elevated contaminant levels and potential harm to fish-eating wildlife
To monitor contaminant trends over time for the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
Concentrations of toxic contaminants in juvenile forage fish should not pose a risk to fish-eating wildlife. The Aquatic Life
Guidelines in Annex 1 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, United States and Canada 1987), the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Fish Flesh Criteria (Newell et al., 1987) for the protection of
piscivorous wildlife, and the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(CCME) 2001) are used as acceptable guidelines for this indicator. Contaminants monitored in forage fish and their respective
guidelines are listed in Table 1.
74
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
State of the Ecosystem
Contaminant levels in fish are important indicators of
contaminant levels in an aquatic ecosystem due to the
bioaccumulation of organochlorine chemicals in fish
tissue. Contaminants that are often undetectable in
water may be detected in juvenile fish. Juvenile spottail
shiner (Notropis hudsonius) was originally selected
by Suns and Rees (1978) as the principal biomonitor
for assessing trends in contaminant levels in local
or nearshore areas. It was chosen as the preferred
species because of its limited range in the first year
of life; undifferentiated feeding habits in early stages;
importance as a forage fish; and its presence throughout
the Great Lakes. The position it holds in the food chain
also creates an important link for contaminant transfer
to higher trophic levels. However, at some sites along
the Great Lakes, spottail shiners are not as abundant
as they once were, and therefore can be difficult to
collect. In this updated indicator report, bluntnose
minnow (Pimephales notatus) have been included in
the Lake Huron/Georgian Bay dataset.
Contaminant
PCBs
DDT, ODD, DDE
Chlordane
Dioxin/Furans
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC)
Mi rex
Octach lorostyren e
Tissue Residue Criteria
(ng/g)
100*
14* (formerly 200)
500
0.000713 (formerly 0.003)
330
100
below detection*
20
Table 1. Tissue Residue Criteria for various organochlorine chemicals
or chemical groups for the protection of wildlife consumers of aquatic
biota.
* IJC Aquatic Life Guideline for PCBs (IJC 1988); a Environment
Canada, 2000 (CCME 2001); * Environment Canada, 1997 (CCME
2001). All other values from NYSDEC Fish Flesh Criteria (Newell et
a/. 1987). Guidelines based on mammals and birds.
With the incorporation of the CCME guidelines, the total dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) tissue residue criterion is
exceeded at most locations. After total DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) is the contaminant most frequently exceeding the
guideline. Mirex was historically detected and exceeded the guideline at Lake Ontario locations. However, mirex concentrations
over the past 10 years have been below detection. Other contaminants listed in Table 1 are often not detected, or are present at
levels well below the guidelines.
Lake Erie
Trends of contaminants in spottail shiners were examined for four locations in Lake Erie: Big Creek, Thunder Bay Beach, Grand
River and Leamington (Figure 1). Overall, the trends show higher concentrations of PCBs in the early years (1970s) with a steady
decline over time. At Big Creek, PCB concentrations were elevated (greater than 300 ng/g) until 1986. Since 1986, concentrations
have remained near the guideline (100 ng/g). At the Grand River and Thunder Bay Beach locations, PCB concentrations exceeded
the guideline in the late 1970s, but have declined in recent years and are currently below the GLWQA guideline (100 ng/g). At
Leamington, PCB concentrations were considerably higher than at the other Lake Erie sites. Although they declined from 888 ng/g
in 1975 to 204 ng/g in 2001, the concentrations exceeded the guideline in all years except for a period in the early to mid-1990s. In
the most recent collection (2004), levels have declined to 136 ng/g, which only marginally exceeds the GLWQA guideline.
Total DDT concentrations at Lake Erie sites have also been declining. Concentrations of total DDT at Big Creek, Grand River and
Thunder Bay Beach have declined considerably to levels close to the guideline (14 ng/g). Maximum concentrations at these sites
were found in the 1970s and ranged from 38 ng/g at Thunder Bay Beach to 75 ng/g at Big Creek. At Leamington, however, total
DDT levels peaked at 183 ng/g in 1986. Since then, levels have declined, but they remain above the guideline.
Lake Huron
Trend data are available for two Lake Huron sites: Collingwood Harbour and Nottawasaga River (Figure 2). At Collingwood
Harbour, the highest PCB concentrations were found when sampling began in 1987 (206 ng/g). Since then, PCB concentrations
have remained near or just below the guideline. At the Nottawasaga River the highest concentration of PCBs was observed in 1977
(90 ng/g). Concentrations declined to less than the detection limit by 1987 and in 2002 were detected at very low levels.
Total DDT concentrations at Collingwood Harbour have remained near 40 ng/g since 1987. The guideline of 14 ng/g was exceeded
in all years. At the Nottawasaga River site, there has been a steady decline in total DDT levels since 1977 when concentrations
peaked at 106 ng/g. In 2002, levels were below the guideline.
75
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
Lake Erie at Big Creek from Lake Erie at Big Creek
?
CD
o
.1. i
li
1 In 1
li
-m ฑ i-i m &
i ii
?
3)
c.
Total DD"
Ul C
o c
I
I
r^n i1! T T f.
* ft^n^ 11!! hH TT
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998
Year Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
Lake Erie at the Grand River from Lake Erie at the Grand River
"3
c.
VI
CO
Q_
i n
5
3)
c
Q 1ฐฐ
Q
&
ฃ 50
fi
n M h INI n M n
1 976 1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997 2000 2003 1 976 1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997 2000 2003
Year Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
Lake Erie at Thunder Bay Beach from Lake Erie at Thunder Bay Beach
3i
c
(/)
CD
0 400
200
1 i
llfill _ n
-?
"5)
c
Q
ฐ 50
f\ i
n rTTTl nn 1*1 ii ii ii n n
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 19/8 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Year Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
Lake Erie at Leamington from Lake Erie at Leamington
5
a
tj
hi
il
ITS II II
K _L _i_
T T 1 1 i
III Hill. 1 1
_O)150
O)
c
1-
Q inn _
1
1
i
T 1 T T T T
Lnfl .U Ix Tpnn ii B
n ii il
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Year Year
Figure 1. PCB and total DDT levels in juvenile spottail shiners from four locations in Lake Erie.
The figures show mean concentration plus standard deviation. The red line indicates the wildlife protection guideline. When
not detected, one half of the detection limit was used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
76
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Mean PCB Leve s in Juvenile Spottail Shiners and Bluntnose Mean Total DDT Leve s in Juvenile Spottail Shiners and
Minnows* from Lake Huron at Collingwood Harbour Bluntnose Minnows* from Lake Huron at Collingwood Harbour
|200
a>
CO
o
Q.
100
ST 1 T i
Illll II
* 3
II
01
_ฃ_
1-
Q
Q
1 40
(\ T f] J, f, I T
FTftf (1 1
I MM MM
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Year Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
Lake Huron at the Nottawasaga River from Lake Huron at the Nottawasaga River
O)
c
to
00
o
Q.
1 1 i...
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989
Year
i
3
0) 80
c
Q
Q
S
ฃ 40
I
-tH
n
1992 1995 1998 2001 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
Year
Figure 2. PCB and total DDT levels in juvenile spottail shiners from two locations in Lake Huron. The figures show mean
concentration plus standard deviation. The red line indicates the wildlife protection guideline. When not detected, one half of
the detection limit was used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Lake Superior
Trend data were examined for four locations in Lake Superior: Mission River, Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay and Kam River (Figure
3). Recent data are not available for the first three locations.
Generally PCB concentrations were low in all years and at all locations. The highest PCB concentrations in Lake Superior were
found at the Mission River in 1983 (139 ng/g). All other analytical results were below the guideline (100 ng/g). The highest
concentrations of PCBs at the other three Lake Superior sites also occurred in 1983 and ranged from 51 ng/g at Nipigon Bay to 89
ng/g at Jackfish Bay.
At Mission River and Nipigon Bay, total DDT levels were high in the late 1970s but decreased below the guideline (14 ng/g) by the
mid-1980s. In 1990, the DDT level at Nipigon Bay was 66 ng/g, which is the highest concentration observed in juvenile fish from
any Lake Superior site to date. At Jackfish Bay and the Kam River, total DDT levels were below the guideline each year, except
for the Kam River in 1991 when levels rose to 37 ng/g.
Lake Ontario
Contaminant concentrations from five sites were examined for trends: Twelve Mile Creek, Burlington Beach, Bronte Creek.
Credit River and the Humber River (Figure 4). PCBs, total DDT and mirex were 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. The highest concentrations of PCBs were found at the Humber River in 1978 (2938 ng/g). In recent years
PCBs at the five sites generally have ranged from 100 ng/g to 200 ng/g.
77
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
5
"81
inn
V)
CD
0
CL
"5J
&
ซ 100 -
CO
O
o_
5
01
(/)
CQ
2
3i
"S
to
CD
0
CL
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Superior at Mission River
i
1 1 T
T
* I II
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Superior at Nipigon Bay
*_i
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Superior at Jackfish Bay
T
i
* 1 1 _ _
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Superior at Kam River
i^l i
i ii . i . i
979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997
Year
ut
"3)
c
1- ,n
Q
"(5
1
Q
^,60
Ol
^
1-
Q 40
I
Ut
"3)
c
Q
s
ฐ^0
-
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Superior at Mission River
JL
a^^
IT]
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Superior at Nipigon Bay
I
I n n n
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Superior at Jackfish Bay
n H n n n
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Superior at Kam River
n
979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997
Year
Figure 3. PCB and total DDT levels in juvenile spottail shiners from four locations in Lake Superior.
The figures show mean concentration plus standard deviation. The red line indicates the wildlife protection guideline. When
not detected, one half of the detection limit was used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
- 78
-------
TATE OF THE ORE AT LAKES
Hum
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners Mean Mirex Levels in Juveni e Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at Twelve Mile Creek from Lake Ontario at Twelve Mile Creek Lake Ontario at Twelve Mile Creek
1
m
iiiiiiilii liii i
1 975 1 978 1 981 1 984 1 987 1 990 1 993 1 996 1 999 2002
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at Burlington Beach
I
m
._i= :==_ =
1 977 1 981 1 985 1 989 1 993 1 997 2001
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at Bronte Creek
PCBs (ng/g)
' L
1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997 2000
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at the Credit River
__J500
c
O
0.
.i J ii ^
1 976 1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997
Year
Mean PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
i 1 Lake Ontario at the Humber River
PCBs (ng/g)
I
III i 1
111 ...I...
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995
Year
c
0
T , | I
Ittnllillf ytt (1 fi
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Ontario at Burlington Beach
Total DDT (ng/g
L
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Ontar o at Bronte Creek
I
0
ft n ft ft ft ft*ft ft
1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997 2000
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Ontario at the Credit River
Total DDT (ng/g)
0 ^
1
3
O>
c
H200
Q
o V
1
[
fifi ftrt fillri fifin nn
76 1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997
Year
Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners
from Lake Ontario at the Humber River
I
t
i
MliQ I1! n - - finrin
377 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995
Year
3
|2C
0
1
Mirex (ng/g)
ii i
975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Year
Mean Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at Burlington Beach
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001
Year
Mean Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at Bronte Creek
40
3
I
e
10
|
1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997 2000
Year
Mean Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at the Credit River
5
I 20
Mirex (ng/g)
i
1
|,i ii i, il, or
976 1 979 1 982 1 985 1 988 1 991 1 994 1 997
Year
Mean Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from
Lake Ontario at the Humber River
1
1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995
Year
Figure 4. PCB, mirex and total DDT levels in juvenile spottail shiners from five locations in Lake Ontario.
The figures show mean concentration plus standard deviation. The red line indicates the wildlife protection guideline for PCBs
and total DDT. For mirex, the red line indicates the detection limit (5ng/g). When not detected, one half of the detection limit was
used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
79
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Total DDT concentrations at all five locations have declined considerably since the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, at all of
these locations, levels in juvenile fish still exceed the guideline (14 ng/g). The maximum reported concentration was at the Humber
River in 1978 (443 ng/g). Currently, the typical concentration of total DDT at all five locations is approximately 50 ng/g. Mirex
has been detected intermittently at all five locations. The maximum concentration was 37 ng/g at the Credit River in 1987. Since
1993, mirex has been below the detection limit at all of these locations.
Lake Michigan
No spottail shiners were sampled from Lake Michigan.
Pressures
New and emerging contaminants, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), may apply new pressures on Great Lakes
water quality. However, analytical methods need to be developed and tissue residue guidelines need to be established for these
contaminants.
Management Implications
For those contaminants that exceed the wildlife protection guidelines, additional remediation efforts may be required. Continued
monitoring is essential to determine the status of contaminants in forage fish from the Great Lakes, and the initiation of additional
monitoring components (e.g., location, frequency, contaminants) would be helpful.
Comments from the author(s)
Organochlorine contaminants have declined in juvenile fish throughout the Great Lakes. However, regular monitoring should
continue for all of these areas to determine if levels are below wildlife protection guidelines. Analytical methods should be
improved to accommodate revised guidelines and to include additional contaminants such as dioxins and furans, dioxin-like
PCBs and PBDEs. For Lake Superior, the historical data do not include toxaphene concentrations. Since this contaminant is
responsible for some consumption restrictions on sport fish from this lake (Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE), 2005),
it is recommended that analysis of this contaminant be included in any future biomonitoring studies in Lake Superior.
Spottail shiners have been a useful indicator of contaminant levels in the past. However, this species is less abundant than it has
been. Due to the difficulties in collecting this species in all areas of the Great Lakes, consideration should be given to adopting
other forage fish species as indicators when spottail shiners are not available. This year, bluntnose minnows were used for one site
in Georgian Bay. This will improve temporal and spatial trend data and result in a more complete dataset for the Great Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Emily Awad, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON
Alan Hayton, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON
Contributor:
Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Sources
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment.
Newell, A.J., Johnson, D.W., and Allen, L.K. 1987. Niagara River biota contamination project: fish flesh criteria for piscivorous
wildlife. Technical Report 87-3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE), 2005. Guide to eating Ontario sport fish, 2005-06 edition. PIBs 590B12. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Etobicoke, ON.
Suns, K., and Rees, G. 1978. Organochlorine contaminant residues in young-of-the-year spottail shiners from Lakes Ontario, Erie,
and St. Clair. J. Great Lakes Res. 4:230-233.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
80
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Indicator #115
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Overall, most contaminants have declined substantially (greater than 90%) since first measured.
Spatially, some sites in 2 to 3 of the lakes were much more contaminated than others. Temporally,
more than 70% of all contaminant concentrations at all colonies (105 total) were currently declining
as fast or faster than they did in the past.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Improving
Rationale: For 6 contaminants that have been measured since the program started in 1974 (PCBs, DDE, HCB,
HE, mirex and dieldrin), the two herring gull egg monitoring sites in Lake Superior showed declines
of 93.9% to 99.8% between then and 2005. Both sites ranked among the lowest for concentrations of 7
major compounds (the above 6 contaminants + TCDD) among the 15 monitoring sites. The temporal
pattern at the two sites showed 71% of colony-contaminant comparisons declining as fast or faster
than previously.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: For 6 contaminants that have been measured since the program began, the two herring gull egg
monitoring sites showed declines of 91.8% to 99.1% between then and 2005. Eggs from one of the
Lake Michigan sites ranked as the 3rd most contaminated among the 15 monitoring sites. Eggs from
the other site ranked much lower (9th). The temporal pattern for the two sites showed 86% of the
colony-contaminant comparisons declining as fast or faster than previously.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Herring gull eggs from two of three monitoring sites in Lake Huron were relatively clean. The third
site, in Saginaw Bay, had the most contaminated gull eggs among all sites tested and reduced the
overall status of this indicator in Lake Huron. The three sites showed contaminant declines of 68.9%
to 99.7% in gull eggs in 2005. Two of three sites ranked among the lowest for concentrations for 7
major compounds among 15 sites. The temporal pattern at the three sites showed 86% of colony-
contaminant comparisons declining as fast or faster than previously.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Of the two monitoring sites in Lake Erie, the most easterly, at Port Colborne, had the cleanest gull
eggs of all 15 sites tested. Eggs from Middle Island, in the Western Basin, were considerably more
contaminated. The two sites showed contaminant declines of 80.2% to 99.3% in gull eggs in 2005.
Eggs from Middle Island were in the mid-range and those from Port Colborne were the lowest for
contaminants. The temporal pattern at the two sites showed 93% of colony-contaminant comparisons
declining as fast or faster than previously.
Lake Ontario
Status: Poor
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Eggs from the three Lake Ontario herring gull monitoring sites showed declines of 88.6% to
99.0% in 2005. The three sites ranked among the top 8 for concentrations of contaminants in gull
eggs. Temporally, 76% of colony-contaminant comparisons were declining as fast or faster than
previously.
81
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Purpose
To assess current chemical concentrations and trends
in representative colonial waterbirds (gulls, terns.
cormorants and/or herons) on the Great Lakes
To assess ecological and physiological endpoints
in representative colonial waterbirds (gulls, terns.
cormorants and/or herons) on the Great Lakes
To infer and measure the impact of contaminants
on the health, i.e. the physiology and breeding
characteristics, of the waterbird populations
Ecosystem Objective
One of the objectives of monitoring colonial waterbirds on
the Great Lakes is to track progress toward an environmental
condition in which there is no difference in contaminant levels
and related biological endpoints between birds on and off the
Great Lakes. Other objectives include determining temporal
and spatial trends in contaminant levels in colonial waterbirds
and detecting changes in their population levels on the Great
Lakes. This includes monitoring contaminant levels in
herring gull eggs to ensure that the levels continue to decline
and utilizing these data to promote continued reductions of
contaminants in the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
This indicator is important because colonial waterbirds are
one of the top aquatic food web predators in the Great Lakes
ecosystem and they are very visible and well-known to the
public. They bioaccumulate contaminants to the greatest
concentration of any trophic level organism and they breed
on all the Great Lakes. Thus, they are a very cost efficient
monitoring system and allow easy inter-lake comparisons. The
current Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program (HGEMP) is
the longest continuously running annual wildlife contaminants
monitoring program in the world (since 1974). It determines
concentrations of up to 20 organochlorines, 65 polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) congeners and 53 polychlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxin (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzo furan (PCDF)
congeners, as well as 16 brominated diphenyl ethers BDEs)
congeners (Braune et al. 2003).
? in
%
ncentration (ug/g,
1 O C.
0 ฐ
O
iHMMMnn.
1974 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
Year
Figure 1. Annual concentration of DDE in Herring Gull eggs,
Toronto Harbour, 1974-2005.
Source: Environment Canada, Herring Gull Monitoring Program
Q% remaining in 2005*
concentration measured in 1974* set to 100%
100%-
o, 75%-
c
1 50%-
^ 25%-
153
22.3
7.02
0.465
0.580
0.155
80.
PCB DDE Mirex Dieldrin HCB
HE
2378-
dioxin*
80% 97% 99% 98% 99% 97% 35%
* dioxin first measured in 1984 and last measured in 2003
Figure 2. Mean contaminant concentrations and percent
decline of 7 contaminants in Herring Gull eggs from year of
first analysis to present, Middle Island, Lake Erie.
Concentrations in ug/g wet weight except for dioxin inpg/g wet
weight.
Source: Environment Canada, Herring Gull Monitoring Program
The primary factors used to assess the status and trends of contaminants in herring gull eggs were: 1) the change in contaminant
concentrations in herring gull eggs between when they were first measured (usually 1974) and currently, in 2005 (Jermyn-Gee
et al. 2005; Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) unpublished); 2) the overall ranking of contaminant concentrations at the 15 Great
Lakes herring gull egg monitoring sites (Weseloh et al. 2006); and 3) the direction and relative slope of the change-point regression
line calculated for each compound at each site (Pekarik and Weseloh 1998, Weseloh et al. 2003, 2005; CWS unpublished).
Status of Contaminants in Colonial Waterbirds
The HGEMP has provided researchers and managers with a powerful tool (a 30-year database) to evaluate changes in contaminant
concentrations in Great Lakes wildlife (e.g., see Figure 1). The extreme longevity of the egg database makes it possible to calculate
temporal trends in contaminant concentrations in wildlife and to look for significant changes within those trends. The database
shows that most contaminants in gull eggs have declined 90% or more since the program began in 1974 (Figure 2). In 2005.
PCBs, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethene (DDE), heptachlor epoxide (HE), dieldrin, mirex and 2,3,7,8-
82
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
1. Granite I.
2. Agawa Rks.
3. Big Sister I.
4. Gull I.
5. Channel-Shelter I.
6. Double I.
7. Chantry I.
8. Fighting I.
9. Middle I.
10. Port Colborne
11. Niagara R.
Hamilton Hrbr.
Toronto Hrbr.
Snake I.
12
13
14
15. Strachan I.
15,
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD)
levels measured in eggs from the 15
Annual Monitoring Colonies (Figure
3) were analyzed for temporal trends
(total of 105 comparisons). Analysis
showed that in 83.8% of cases (88
of the 105), the contaminants were
decreasing as fast as or faster in recent
years than they had in the past. This
was interpreted as a positive sign. In
9.5% of cases (10/105), contaminants
were decreasing more slowly than
they had in the past (calculated from
Bishop et al. 1992, Pettit et ซ/.1994,
Pekarik et a/. 199 8 and Jermyn-
Gee et al. 2005, as per Pekarik and
Weseloh 1998). This is viewed as a
negative sign. PCBs showed the most
frequent reduction in their rates of
decline. The decline in contaminant
concentrations in gull eggs, however.
may not be due wholly to a decrease
in contaminants in the environment.
Changes in food web dynamics
may be playing a role in some of
these declines, that is, contaminant
exposure at some colonies may have
lessened because the birds are now feeding on lower trophic level prey.
The sole exception to these declining herring gull egg contaminant concentrations appears to be brominated diphenyl ethers
(BDEs). These compounds, which are used as fire retardants in plastics, furniture cushions, etc., increased dramatically in gull
eggs during 1981-2000 (Norstrom et al. 2002). Recent data showed a combined 3.9% decline for the 15 monitoring sites from 2000
to 2003 but a 25.3% increase from 2000 to 2005 (CWS, unpubl. data).
Figure 3. The distribution and locations of the 15 Herring Gull Annual Monitoring
Colonies.
Source: Environment Canada, Herring Gull Monitoring Program and Canadian Wildlife Service
Colony (west to east)
Figure 4. A comparison of PCS concentrations at all sites for 2003
and 2005.
Note the between-year differences as well as the variation among
sites.
Source: Environment Canada, Herring Gull Monitoring Program and Canadian
Wildlife Service
83
A comparison of concentrations of six contaminants
(PCBs, HCB, DDE, HE, dieldrin and mirex) at the 15 sites
in 2003 and 2005 (total of 90 comparisons) was made to
show the variability in a short-term (two year) assessment.
TCDD was last measured in 2003. Therefore, for this short-
term assessment, 2001 and 2003 data were used for an
additional 15 comparisons. Of the total 105 comparisons, 89
(84.8%) decreased; only 16 (15.2%) increased. TCDD and
PCBs were the most frequently increasing contaminants
(CWS unpublished data). This is illustrated for a single
contaminant, PCBs, in Figure 4. Annual fluctuations like
these, including both short-term increases and decreases.
are part of current contaminant patterns (Figures 1 and 4).
In terms of gross ecological effects of contaminants
on colonial waterbirds, e.g., eggshell thinning, failed
reproductive success and population declines, most species
appear to have recovered. Populations of most species
have increased over the past 25-30 years, e.g., see Figure
5 (Blokpoel and Tessier 1993-1998, Austen et al. 1996,
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
(/)
o
c
ra
ซ on -
0
^
u
r of nes
3 C
Numbe
n c
^nnnnnnfl
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
I
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Figure 5. Double-crested Cormorant nests (breeding pairs) on
Lake Ontario, 1979-2005.
Source: Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service
Scharf and Shugart 1998, Cuthbert et al. 2001, Weseloh
et al. 2002, Morris et al. 2003, Havelka and Weseloh in
review, Hebert et al. in press, CWS unpublished data).
Although the gross effects appear to have subsided (but
see Custer et al. 1999), there are many other subtle.
mostly physiological and genetic endpoints that are being
measured now that were not measured in earlier years (Fox
et al. 1988, Fox 1993, Grasman et al 1996, Yauk et al
2000). A recent and ongoing study, the Fish and Wildlife
Health Effects and Exposure Study, is assessing whether
there are fish and wildlife health effects in Canadian Areas
of Concern (AOCs) similar to those reported for the human
population (Environment Canada 2003). To date, the
following abnormalities have been found in herring gulls
in one or more Canadian AOCs on the lower Great Lakes:
a male-biased sex ratio in hatchlings, elevated levels of
embryonic mortality, indications of feminization in more
than 10% of adult males, a reduced or suppressed ability to
combat stress, an enlarged thyroid with reduced hormone
production and a suppressed immune system. Although
there is little question that herring gulls and colonial waterbirds on the Great Lakes are healthier now than they were 30 years ago.
these findings show that they are in a poorer state of health than are birds from clean reference sites in the Maritimes (Environment
Canada 2003).
Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all sources of contaminants which reach the Great Lakes. These include those sources
that are already well-known, e.g., point sources, re-suspension of sediments, and atmospheric inputs, as well as lesser known
ones such as underground leaks from landfill sites. There are also other, non-contaminant factors that regulate the stability of
populations, e.g., habitat modification (in the Detroit River), food availability (Lake Superior), interspecific competition at breeding
colonies (Lake Ontario) and predation (western Lake Erie). Many of these factors pose much more tangible threats to researchers'
ability to collect eggs from these colonies in the future.
Management Implications
Data from the HGEMP suggest that, for the most part, contaminant levels in wildlife are continuing to decline at a constant rate.
However, even at current contaminant levels, more physiological abnormalities in herring gulls occur at Great Lakes sites than
at cleaner, reference sites away from the Great Lakes basin. Also, with the noted increase in concentrations of polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), steps should be taken to identify and reduce sources of this compound to the Great Lakes. In short.
although almost all contaminants are decreasing and many biological impacts have lessened, we do not yet know the full health
implications of the subtle effects and of newly monitored contaminants.
Future Activities
The annual collection and analysis of herring gull eggs from 15 sites on both sides of the Great Lakes and the assessment of this
species' reproductive success is a permanent part of the CWS Great Lakes surveillance activities. Likewise, so is the regular
monitoring of population levels of most of the colonial waterbird species. The plan is to continue these procedures. Research on
improving and expanding the HGEMP is done on a more opportunistic, less predictable basis. A lake-by-lake intensive study of
possible biological impacts to herring gulls is currently underway in the lower lakes. Recently, ecological tracers (stable isotopes
and fatty acids) have been generated from archival eggs as part of the program, and they provide insights into how food webs in
the Great Lakes ecosystem are changing. This information broadens the utility of the program from just examining contaminants
to providing insights into ecosystem change. Ecological tracer data are also directly relevant to the interpretation of contaminant
monitoring data.
Comments from the author(s)
We have learned much about interpreting the herring gull egg contaminants data from associated research studies. However, much
of this work is conducted on an opportunistic basis, when funds are available. Several research activities should be incorporated
84
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
into routine monitoring, e.g., tracking of porphyria, vitamin A deficiencies, and evaluation of the avian immune system. Likewise,
more research should focus on new areas, e.g., the impact of endocrine disrupting substances, factors regulating chemically
induced genetic mutations and ecological tracers.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
D.V. Chip Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON
Tania Havelka, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON
Thanks to past and present staff at CWS-Ontario Region, including Glenn Barrett, Christine Bishop, Birgit Braune, Neil Burgess,
Rob Dobos, Pete Ewins, Craig Hebert, Kate Jermyn, Margie Koster, Brian McHattie, Pierre Mineau, Cynthia Pekarik, Karen
Pettit, Jamie Reid, Peter Ross, Dave Ryckman, John Struger and Stan Teeple as well as past and present staff at the CWS
National Wildlife Research Centre (Ottawa, ON), including Masresha Asrat, Glen Fox, Michael Gilbertson, Andrew Oilman,
Jim Learning, Rosalyn McNeil, Ross Norstrom, Laird Shutt, Mary Simon, Suzanne Trudeau, Bryan Wakeford, Kim Williams
and Henry Won and wildlife biologists Ray Faber, Keith Grasman, Ralph Morris, Jim Quinn and Brian Ratcliff for egg
collections, preparation, analysis and data management over the 30 years of this project. We are also grateful for the logistical
and graphical support of the Technical Operations Division and the Drafting Department at the Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario. Craig Hebert reviewed an earlier version of this report.
Sources
Austen, M. J., Blokpoel, H., and Tessier, G.D. 1996. Atlas of colonial waterbirds nesting on the Canadian Great Lakes, 1989-1991.
Part 4. Marsh-nesting terns on Lake Huron and the lower Great Lakes system in 1991. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario
Region, Technical Report No. 217. 75pp.
Bishop, C.A., Weseloh, D.V., Burgess, N.B., Norstrom, R.J., Turle, R., and Logan, K.A. 1992. An atlas of contaminants in eggs of
colonial fish-eating birds of the Great Lakes (1970-1988). Accounts by location and chemical. Volumes 1 & 2. Canadian Wildlife
Service (CWS), Ontario Region, Technical Report Nos. 152 and 153. 400 pp. and 300 pp.
Blokpoel, H., and Tessier, G.D. 1993-1998. Atlas of colonial waterbirds nesting on the Canadian Great Lakes, 1989-1991. Parts 1-3,
5. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario Region, Technical Report Nos. 181, 225, 259, 272. 93 pp, 153 pp, 74 pp, 36 pp.
Braune B.M., Hebert, C.E., Benedetti, L.S., and Malone, B.J. 2003. An Assessment of Canadian Wildlife Service Contaminant
Monitoring Programs. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Technical Report No. 400. Headquarters. Ottawa, ON. 76 pp.
Custer, T.W, Custer, C.M., Hines, R.K., Gutreuter, S., Stromborg, K.L., Allen, P.O., and Melancon, M.J. 1999. Organochlorine
contaminants and reproductive success of Double-crested Cormorants from Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA. Environ. Toxicol. &
Chem. 18:1209-1217.
Cuthbert, F.J., McKearnan, J., and Joshi, A.R. 2001. Distribution and abundance of colonial waterbirds in the U.S. Great Lakes,
1997 -1999. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.
Environment Canada. 2003. Fish and wildlife health effects in the Canadian Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Great Lakes Fact
Sheet. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario Region, Downsview, ON. Catalogue No. CW/66-223/2003E. ISBN 0-662-
34076-0.
Fox, G.A. 1993. What have biomarkers told us about the effects of contaminants on the health of fish-eating birds in the Great
Lakes? The theory and a literature review. /. Great Lakes Res. 19:722-736.
Fox, G.A., Kennedy, S.W., Norstrom, R. J., and Wigfield, D.C. 1988. Porphyria in herring gulls: a biochemical response to chemical
contamination in Great Lakes food chains. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 7:831-839.
Grasman, K.A., Fox, G.A., Scanlon, P.P., and Ludwig, J.P. 1996. Organochlorine associated immunosuppression in prefledging
Caspian terns and herring gulls from the Great Lakes: an ecoepidemiological study. Environmental Health Perspectives 104:829-
842.
85
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Havelka, T., and Weseloh, D.V. In review. Continued growth and expansion of the Double-crested Cormorant (Thalacrocorax
auritus) population on Lake Ontario, 1982-2002.
Hebert, C.E., Weseloh, D.V., Havelka, T., Pekarik, C., and Cuthbert, F. In press. Lake Erie colonial waterbirds: Trends in populations,
contaminant levels and diet. The State of Lake Erie. In Ecovision World Monograph Series, Aquatic Ecosystem Health and
Management Society, ed. M. Munawar.
Jermyn-Gee, K., Pekarik, C., Havelka, T., Barrett, G., and Weseloh, D.V. 2005. An atlas of contaminants in eggs of colonial fish-
eating birds of the Great Lakes (1998-2001). Accounts by location (Vol. I) & chemical (Vol. II). Technical Report No. 417. Canadian
Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario Region, Downsview, ON. Catalogue No. CW69-5/417E-MRC. ISBN - 0-662-37427-4.
Morris, R.D., Weseloh, D.V, and Shutt, J.L. 2003. Distribution and abundance of nesting pairs of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus)
on the North American Great Lakes. /. Great Lakes Res. 29:400-426.
Norstrom, R.J., Simon, M., Moisey, J., Wakeford, B., and Weseloh, D.V.C. 2002. Geographical distribution (2000) and temporal
trends (1981-2000) of brominated diphenyl ethers in Great Lakes Gull eggs. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 36:4783-4789.
Pekarik, C., and Weseloh, D.V. 1998. Organochlorine contaminants in Herring Gull eggs from the Great Lakes, 1974-1995: change
point regression analysis and short term regression. Environ. Monit. & Assess. 53:77-115.
Pekarik, C., Weseloh, D.V, Barrett, G.C., Simon, M., Bishop, C.A., and Pettit, K.E. 1998. An atlas of contaminants in the eggs of
fish-eating colonial birds of the Great Lakes (1993-1997). Accounts by location & chemical. Volumes I & 2. Canadian Wildlife
Service (CWS), Ontario Region, Technical Report Nos. 321 and 322. 245 pp. and 214 pp.
Pettit, K.E., Bishop, C.A., Weseloh, D.V, and Norstrom, R. J. 1994. An atlas of contaminants in eggs of colonial fish-eating birds
of the Great Lakes (1989-1992). Accounts by location & chemical. Volumes 1 & 2. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario
Region, Technical Report Nos. 194 and 195. 319 pp. and 300 pp.
Scharf, W.C., and Shugart, G.W. 1998. Distribution and abundance of gull, tern and cormorant nesting colonies of the U.S. Great
Lakes, 1989 and 1990. In A.S. Publication No. 1 eds. W.W. Bowerman and Roe, Sault Ste. Marie, MI: Gale Gleason Environmental
Institute, Lake Superior State University Press.
Weseloh, D.V.C, Pekarik, C., and de Solla, S.R. 2006. Spatial patterns and rankings of contaminant concentrations in herring gull
eggs from 15 sites in the Great Lakes and connecting channels, 1988-2002. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 113:265-284.
Weseloh, D.V, Joos, R., Pekarik, C., Farquhar, J., Shutt, L., Havelka, T., Mazzocchi, I., Barrett, G., McCollough, R., Miller, R.L.,
Mathers, A. 2003. Monitoring Lake Ontario's waterbirds: contaminants in Herring Gull eggs and population changes in the Lake's
nearly 1,000,000 colonial waterbirds. In State of Lake Ontario (SOLO) - Past, Present and Future, Aquatic Ecosystem Health &
Management (AEHM), Ecovision World Monograph Series, ed. Munawar, M. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, p.
597-631.
Weseloh, D.V.C., Pekarik, C., Havelka, T., Barrett, G., and Reid, J. 2002. Population trends and colony locations of double-crested
cormorants in the Canadian Great Lakes and immediately adjacent areas, 1990-2000: a manager's guide. /. Great Lakes Res.
28:125-144.
Yauk, C.L., Fox, G.A., McCarry, B.E., and Quinn, J.S. 2000. Induced minisatellite germline mutations in Herring Gulls (Larus
argentatus) living near steel mills. Mutation Research 452:211-218.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
86
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Zooplankton Populations
Indicator #116
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Changes in community structure are occurring in Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario
due to declines in cyclopoid copepods and cladocerans. Summer mean size has increased in these
lakes concurrent with the increase in the percent of calanoid copepods.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Stable summer zooplankton community is dominated by large calanoid copepods.
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined (changing)
Rationale: Total summer biomass has been declining since 2004 due to fewer Daphnia and cyclopoid
copepods. Summer mean size of zooplankton is increasing.
Lake Huron
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined (changing)
Rationale: Total summer biomass has declined dramatically since 2003 due to fewer Daphnia, bosminids, and
cyclopoid copepods. Summer mean size of zooplankton is increasing.
Lake Erie
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Variable biomass and composition of summer crustacean zooplankton community in each basin.
Most diverse zooplankton community in the Great Lakes. Very low biomass in Western basin in
August, 2001.
Lake Ontario
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined (changing)
Rationale: Lowest percentage of calanoid copepods of all Great Lakes. Total summer biomass has declined since
2004 due to a decline in cyclopoid copepods. Summer mean size of zooplankton is increasing.
Purpose
To directly measure changes in community composition, mean individual size and biomass of zooplankton populations
in the Great Lakes basin
To indirectly measure zooplankton production
To infer changes in food-web dynamics due to changes in vertebrate or invertebrate predation, system productivity, the
type and intensity of predation, and the energy transfer within a system
Ecosystem Objective
Ultimately, analysis of this indicator should provide information on the biological integrity of the Great Lakes and lead to the
support of a healthy and diverse fishery. Suggested metrics include zooplankton mean length, the ratio of calanoid copepod
abundance to that of cyclopoid copepods plus cladocerans, and zooplankton biomass. However, the relationships between these
objectives and the suggested metrics have not been fully worked out, and no specific criteria have yet been identified for these
metrics.
87
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Planktivorous fish often feed size selectively, removing larger cladocerans and copepods. High densities of planktivores result in
a reduction of the mean size of zooplankton in a community. A mean individual size of 0.8 mm has been suggested as "optimal"
for zooplankton communities sampled with a 153 ja,m mesh net, indicating a balance between planktivorous and piscivorous fish
(Mills et al. 1987). Declines in mean size of crustacean zooplankton between spring and late summer may indicate increased
predation by young fish or the presence of a greater proportion of immature zooplankton. Interpretation of deviations from this
average size objective, and the universality of this objective remain unclear at this time. In particular, questions regarding its
applicability to systems impacted by predaceous cladocereans and dreissenids as well as planktivorous fish have been raised.
Gannon and Stemberger (1978) found that cladocerans and cyclopoid copepods are more abundant in nutrient enriched waters of
the Great Lakes, while calanoid copepods dominate oligotrophic communities. They reported that areas of the Great Lakes where
the density of calanoid copepods comprises over 50% of the summer crustacean zooplankton community (or the ratio calanoids/
(cyclopoids + cladocerans) is greater than 1) could be classified as oligotrophic. As with individual mean size though, clear
objectives have not presently been defined.
State of the Ecosystem
Summer biomass of crustacean zooplankton
communities in the offshore waters of Lake
Superior has remained at a relatively low but
stable level for the past seven years (Figure 1).
The plankton community is dominated by large
calanoid copepods (Leptodiaptomus sicilis and
Limnocalanus macrurus) that are characteristic
of oligotrophic, cold water ecosystems. Biomass
is generally higher in the nutrient enriched lower
lakes with more annual variation produced by
seasonal increases in cladocerans, primarily
daphnids and bosminids. Since 2003 the
biomass of cladocerans and cyclopoid copepods
in Lake Huron has declined dramatically. Data
from 2005 suggest that a similar decline may
now be occurring in Lake Michigan. Cyclopoid
abundance has also begun to decline in Lake
Ontario. Mechanisms for these declines are
not known at this time, but they may be related
to changes in nutrient levels, phytoplankton
composition, exotic species interactions, or fish
predation pressure.
The proportion of calanoid copepods in Lake
Superior has remained fairly stable at 70%.
indicating oligotrophic conditions (Figure 2).
Summer zooplankton communities in Lake
Michigan and Lake Huron have shown an
increasing proportion of calanoid copepods in
recent years, suggesting an improved trophic
state. Lake Ontario has the lowest proportion
of calanoids, followed closely by the nutrient
enriched western basin of Lake Erie. Values for
the central and eastern basins of Lake Erie are
at intermediate levels and exhibit considerable
annual variation.
Historical comparisons of this metric are
difficult to make because most historical data
70,000
60,000 -
Daphnia
d Other Cladocerans
Adult Cyclopoids
Adult Calanoids
Bosminids
d Immature Cyclopoids
d Immature Calanoids
Daphnia
d Other Cladocerans
Adult Cyclopoids
Adult Calanoids
Bosminids
Immature Cyclopoids
d Immature Calanoids
Figure 1. Average composition of crustacean zooplankton biomass at Great
Lakes offshore stations sampled in August of each year.
Samples were collected with 153um mesh net tows to a depth of 100 m or the
bottom of the water column, whichever was shallower.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Figure 2. Average percentage of calanoid copepods (by abundance)
in crustacean zooplankton communities from Great Lakes offshore
stations sampled in August of each year.
Samples were collected with 153um mesh net tows to a depth of 100
m or the bottom of the water column, whichever was shallower. Line at
50% level is the suggested criterion for oligotrophic lakes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
on zooplankton populations in the Great Lakes seem
to have been generated using shallow (20 m) tows.
Calanoid copepods tend to be deep living organisms.
Therefore, the use of data generated from shallow
tows would tend to contribute a strong bias to this
metric. This problem is largely avoided in Lake Erie.
particularly in the western and central basins, where
most sites are shallower than 20 m. Comparisons in
those two basins have shown a statistically significant
increase in the ratio calanoids/(cladocerans +
cyclopoids) between 1970 and 1983-1987, with this
increase sustained throughout the 1990s. A similar
increase was seen in the eastern basin, although some
of the data used to calculate the ratio were generated
from shallow tows and are therefore subject to doubt.
Mean length of crustacean zooplankton in the offshore
waters of the Great Lakes is generally greater in the
spring than during the summer (Figure 3). In the
spring, mean zooplankton size in all of the Great
Lakes is near the suggested level of 0.8 mm. Mean
length in Lake Superior declines during the summer
due to the production of immature copepodids, but
it is still above the criterion. Summer mean lengths
in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan remain high and
have begun to show an increase in recent years. In
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, the mean length of
zooplankton declines considerably in the summer.
Whether this decline is due to predation pressure or to
the increased abundance of bosminids (0.4 mm mean
length) and immature cyclopoids (0.65 mm mean
length) is unknown.
Historical data from the eastern basin of Lake
Erie, from 1985 to 1998, indicate a fair amount of
interannual variability in zooplankton mean length.
with values from offshore sites ranging from about 0.5
to 0.85 mm (Figure 4). As noted above, interpretation
of these data is currently problematic.
Pressures
The zooplankton community might be expected to
respond to changes in nutrient and phytoplankton
concentrations in the lakes, although the potential
magnitude of such "bottom up" effects is not well
understood. The most immediate potential threat to
the zooplankton communities of the Great Lakes is
posed by invasive species. The continued proliferation
of dreissenid populations can be expected to impact
zooplankton communities through the alteration of
the structure and abundance of the phytoplankton
community, upon which many zooplankton depend for food. Predation from the exotic cladocerans Bythotrephes longimanus and
Cercopagis pengoi may also have an impact on zooplankton abundance and community composition. Bythotrephes has been in
the Great Lakes for approximately twenty years and is suspected to have had a major impact on zooplankton community structure.
Figure 3. Average individual mean lengths of crustacean zooplankton
in the Great Lakes in May and August.
Length estimates were generated from data collected with 153um
mesh net tows to a depth of 100 m or the bottom of the water column,
whichever was shallower. Values are the indicate arithmetic averages
of all sites sampled. Line at 0.8 mm is the suggested criterion for
balanced fish community.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
89
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Cercopagis pengoi was first noted in Lake Ontario in
1998 and has now spread to the other lakes, although
in much lower densities. Continuing changes in
predation pressure from planktivorous fish may also
impact the system
Management Implications
Continued monitoring of the offshore zooplankton
communities of the Great Lakes is critical, particularly
considering the current expansion of the range of the
non-native cladoceran Cercopagis and the probability
of future invasive non-native zooplankton and fish
species.
Comments from the author(s)
Currently the most critical need is for the development
of quantitative, objective criteria that can be applied
to the zooplankton indicator. The applicability of
current metrics to the Great Lakes is largely unknown.
as are the limits that would correspond to acceptable
ecosystem health.
The implementation of a long-term monitoring
program on the Canadian side is also desirable to
expand both the spatial and the temporal coverage
currently provided by American efforts. Since the
interpretation of various indices is dependent to a larg'
these two programs, both with regard to sampling dates
recommended.
ฃ
ฃ
0)
c
10
0)
o
S
c
_re
a.
o
o
N
1.00
0.80
0.60-
0.40
0.20
. Eastern Lake Erie
Objective (Mills et al. 1987)
0.00
1984
1986
1988
1990 1992
Year
1994
1996
1998
Figure 4. Trend in Jun27-Sep30 mean zooplankton length.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation data (circles)
collected with 153|jm mesh net, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(Canada) data (diamonds) converted from 64|jm to 153|jm mesh
equivalent. Open symbols = offshore, solid symbols = nearshore
(<12m). 1985-1988 are means +/-1 S.E.
Source: Johannsson et al. (1999)
e extent upon the sampling methods employed, coordination between
and locations, and especially with regard to methods, would be highly
Acknowledgments
Authors and Contributors:
Mary Balcer, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI, mbalcer@uwsuper.edu
Richard P. Barbiero, Computer Sciences Corporation, Chicago, IL, Chicago, IL
Marc L. Tuchman, Great Lakes National Program Office (USEPA), Chicago, IL
Ora Johannsson, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, Ontario Canada
Sources
Gannon, J.E. and Stemberger, R.S. 1978. Zooplankton (Especially Crustaceans and Rotifers) as Indicators of Water Quality, Trans.
Amer. Micros. Soc. 97, 16-35.
Johannsson, O.E., Dumitru, C., and Graham, D.M. 1999. Examination of zooplankton mean length for use in an index of fish
community structure and application in Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 25:179-186.
Mills, E.L., Green, D.M., and Schiavone, A. 1987. Use of zooplankton size to assess the community structure of fish populations
in freshwater lakes. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 7:369-378.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, Biological Open Water Surveillance
Program of the Laurentian Great Lakes, unpublished data (2000-2005), produced through cooperative agreement GL-96513791
with the University of Wisconsin-Superior.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
90
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Indicator #117
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving (for PCBs, banned organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans) / Unchanging or
slightly improving (for PAHs and mercury)
Rationale: Mixed since different chemical groups have different trends over time; levels in cities can be
much higher than in rural areas.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments were not completed for this report.
Levels of persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals in air tend to be lower over Lake Superior and Lake
Huron than over the other three Great Lakes (which are more impacted by human activity), but their surface area
is larger, resulting in a greater importance of atmospheric inputs.
While concentrations of some of these substances are very low at rural sites, they may be much higher in "hotspots"
such as urban areas. Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario have greater inputs from urban areas. The
Lake Erie station tends to have higher levels than the other remote master stations, most likely since it is located
closer to an urban area (Buffalo, NY) than the other master stations. It may also receive some influence from the
East Coast of the U.S.
In general for PBT chemicals, atmospheric inputs dominate for Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan
due to their large surface areas (Strachan and Eisenreich 1991; Kreis 2005). Connecting channel inputs dominate
for Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, which have smaller surface areas.
Purpose
To estimate the annual average loadings of PBT chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes
To determine trends over time in contaminant concentrations
To infer potential impacts of toxic chemicals from atmospheric deposition on human health and the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem
To track the progress of various Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes
Tracking atmospheric inputs is important since the air is a primary pathway by which PBTs reach the Great Lakes. Once PBTs
reach the Great Lakes, they can bioaccumulate in fish and other wildlife and cause fish consumption advisories.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, United States and Canada 1987) and the Binational Toxics Strategy
(Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997) both state the virtual elimination of toxic substances
in the Great Lakes as an objective. Additionally, GLWQA General Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be free from
materials entering the water as a result of human activity that will produce conditions that are toxic to human, animal, or aquatic
life.
State of the Ecosystem
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) consists of five master sampling sites, one near each of the Great Lakes,
and several satellite stations. This joint United States-Canada project has been in operation since 1990. Since that time, thousands
of measurements of the concentrations of PCBs, pesticides, PAHs and trace metals have been made at these sites. Concentrations
are measured in the atmospheric gas and particle phases and in precipitation. Spatial and temporal trends in these concentrations
and atmospheric loadings to the Great Lakes can be examined. Data from other networks are used here to supplement the IADN
data for mercury, dioxins and furans.
91
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
500
450
400
350 -
300
5. 250
200
150
100
X
\
X
zx
Year
Figure 1. Annual Average Gas Phase Concentrations of Total PCBs
(PCB Suite).
Source: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) Steering Committee,
unpublished, 2006
1200
1000
800 -
PCBs
Concentrations of gas-phase PCBs (2PCB) have
generally decreased over time at the master stations
(Figure 1, Sun et al. 2007). 2PCB is a suite of congeners
that make up most of the PCB mass and that represent
the full range of PCBs. Some increases are seen during
the late 1990s for Lake Michigan and Lake Erie and
during 2000-2001 for Lake Superior. These increases
remain unexplained, although there is some evidence of
connections with atmospheric circulation phenomena
such as El Nino (Ma et al. 2004a). Levels decreased
again by 2002. It is assumed that PCB concentrations
will continue to decrease slowly. PCBs in precipitation
samples at the rural master stations are nearing levels
of detection.
The Lake Erie site consistently shows relatively elevated
2PCB concentrations compared to the other master
stations. Back-trajectory analyses have shown that this
is due to possible influences from upstate New York and
the East Coast (Hafner and Hites 2003). Figure 2 shows
that 2PCB concentrations at urban satellite stations in
Chicago and Cleveland are about fifteen and ten times
higher, respectively, than at the remote master stations at
Eagle Harbor (Lake Superior) and Sleeping Bear Dunes
(Lake Michigan).
Pesticides
In general, concentrations of banned or restricted
pesticides measured by the IADN (such as
hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) and DDT) are
decreasing over time in air and precipitation (Sun et al.
2006a; Sun et al. 2006b). Concentrations of chlordane
are about ten times higher at the urban stations than at
the more remote master stations, most likely due to the
use of chlordane as a termiticide in buildings. Dieldrin
levels show a similar increase in urban locales. This
pesticide was also used as a termiticide until 1987.
after all other uses were banned in 1974. Current-
use pesticide endosulfan shows mixed trends, with
significant decreases at some sites in some phases, but
no trends at other sites. Concentrations of endosulfan were generally higher in the summer, following application of this current-
use pesticide (Sun et al. 2006b).
PAHs
In general, concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) can be roughly correlated with human population, with
highest levels in Chicago and Cleveland, followed by the semi-urban site at Sturgeon Point, and lower concentrations at the other
remote master stations. In general, PAH concentrations in Chicago and Cleveland are about ten to one hundred times higher than
at the master stations.
Concentrations of PAHs in the particle and gas phases are decreasing at Chicago, with half-lives ranging from 3 to 10 years in the
vapor phase and 5 to 15 years in the particle phase. At the other sites, most gas phase PAH concentrations showed significant, but
slow long-term decreasing trends (greater than 15 years). For most PAHs, decreases on particles and in precipitation were only
found at Chicago (Sun et al. 2006c, Sun et al 2006d).
BOO
400 -
200 -
m-i
rm
Superior Michigan Huron
Erie
Ontario Chicago Cleveland
Figure 2. Gas Phase PCB concentrations for rural sites versus
urban areas.
Source: IADN Steering Committee, unpublished, 2006
92
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
rvcnvtOCo/^CDOiQ
An example of a PAH is benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), which
is produced by the incomplete combustion of almost
any fuel and is a probable human carcinogen. Figure 3
shows the annual average particle-phase concentrations
of BaP.
Dioxins and Furans
Concentrations of dioxins and furans have decreased
over time (Figure 4) with the largest declines in areas
with the highest historical concentrations (unpublished
data, T. Dann, Environment Canada 2006).
Mercury
Data from the Canadian Atmospheric Mercury Network
(CAMNet) for the IADN stations at Egbert, Point Petre,
and Burnt Island show decreases in total gaseous
mercury (TGM) concentrations between 1995 and 2004.
with more of the decrease occurring in the 2000-2004
time period (Figure 5). Median TGM concentrations
decreased by 7 to 19% from 2000 to 2004 for those
stations (Temme et al. 2006).
Data from the Mercury Deposition Network show that concentrations of mercury in precipitation are decreasing for much of the
Year
Figure 3. Annual Average Particulate Concentrations of
Benzo(a)pyrene.
Source: IADN Steering Committee, unpublished, 2006
1995
1997
1999 2001
Windsor
2003
2005
Figure 4. Concentrations of dioxins and furans expressed as
TEQ (Toxic Equivalent) in fg/m3 in Windsor, Ontario.
Source: Environment Canada National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS)
network, unpublished, 2006
j diff. Median (-)
diff. Median (+) - Median 2000 Median 2004|
Station/Category
Figure 5. Trends from 2000 to 2004 for median concentrations
of total gaseous mercury (ng/m3) at CAMNet stations.
Source: Temme el al. (2006)
U.S., but there is no visible trend for the stations in the upper Midwest (Gay et al. 2006).
PBDE
Total PBDE concentrations during 2003-2004 were in the single pg/m3 range for the rural master stations and in the 50 to 100
pg/m3 range for the urban stations (Venier 2006). This is lower than total PCB levels, which are generally in the 10s to 100s of
pg/m3 range. A meta-analysis of PBDE concentrations in various environmental compartments and biota worldwide revealed
exponentially increasing concentrations with doubling times of about 4 to 6 years and higher levels in North America than in
Europe (Hites 2004). U.S. manufacturers of penta- and octa-PBDEs phased out production in 2004, but deca-PBDEs are still being
produced. Future data will confirm whether levels of PBDEs increase or decrease in the air of the Great Lakes.
93
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Loadings
An atmospheric loading is the amount of a pollutant entering a lake from the air, which equals wet deposition (rain) plus dry
deposition (falling particles) plus gas absorption into the water minus volatilization out of the water. Absorption minus volatilization
equals net gas exchange, which is the most significant part of the loadings for many semi-volatile PBT pollutants. For many banned
or restricted substances that IADN monitors, net atmospheric inputs to the lake are headed toward equilibrium; that is, the amount
going into the lake equals the amount volatilizing out. Current-use pesticides, such as y-HCH (lindane) and endosulfan, as well as
PAHs and trace metals, still have net deposition from the atmosphere to the Lakes.
A report on the atmospheric loadings of these compounds to the Great Lakes for data through 2004 is available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/iadn.html. To receive a hardcopy, please contact one of the agencies listed at the
end of this report.
Pressures
Atmospheric deposition of toxic compounds to the Great Lakes is likely to continue into the future. The amount of compounds no
longer in use, such as most of the organochlorine pesticides, may decrease to undetectable levels, especially if they are phased out
in developing countries, as is being called for by international agreements.
Residual sources of PCBs remain in the U.S. and throughout the world; therefore, atmospheric deposition will still be significant
at least decades into the future. PAHs and metals continue to be emitted and therefore concentrations of these substances may not
decrease or will decrease very slowly depending on further pollution reduction efforts or regulatory requirements. Even though
emissions from many sources of mercury and dioxin have been reduced over the past decade, both pollutants are still seen at
elevated levels in the environment. This problem will continue unless the emissions of mercury and dioxin are reduced further.
Atmospheric deposition of chemicals of emerging concern, such as brominated flame retardants and other compounds that may
currently be under the radar, could also serve as a future stressor on the Great Lakes. Efforts are being made to screen for other
chemicals of potential concern, with the intent of adding such chemicals to Great Lakes monitoring programs given available
methods and sufficient resources.
Management Implications
In terms of in-use agricultural chemicals, such as lindane, further restrictions on the use of these compounds may be warranted.
Transport of lindane to the Great Lakes following planting of lindane-treated canola seeds in the Canadian prairies has been
demonstrated through models (Ma et al. 2004b). On 1 January 2005, Canada withdrew registration of lindane for agricultural pest
control. Use of lindane in the U.S. will end in 2009 (Federal Register 2006).
Controls on the emissions of combustion systems, such as those in factories and motor vehicles, could decrease inputs of PAHs to
the Great Lakes atmosphere.
Although concentrations of PCBs continue to decline slowly, somewhat of a "leveling-off' trend seems to be occurring in air,
fish, and other biota as shown by various long-term monitoring programs. Remaining sources of PCBs, such as contaminated
sediments, sewage sludge, and in-use electrical equipment, may need to be addressed more systematically through efforts like
the Canada-US. Binational Toxics Strategy and national regulatory programs in order to see more significant declines. Many
such sources are located in urban areas, which is reflected by the higher levels of PCBs measured in Chicago and Cleveland by
IADN, and by other researchers in other areas (Wethington and Hornbuckle 2005; Totten et al. 2001). Research to investigate the
significance of these remaining sources is underway. This is important since fish consumption advisories for PCBs exist for all
five Great Lakes.
Progress has been made in reducing emissions of dioxins and furans, particularly through regulatory controls on incinerators.
Residential garbage burning (burn barrels) is now the largest current source of dioxins and furans (Environment Canada and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Basin and nationwide efforts are underway to eliminate emissions from burn barrels.
Regulations on coal-fired electric power plants, the largest remaining source of anthropogenic mercury air emissions, will help to
decrease loadings of mercury to the Great Lakes.
94
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pollution prevention activities, technology-based pollution controls, screening of in-use and new chemicals, and chemical
substitution (for pesticides, household, and industrial chemicals) can aid in reducing the amounts of toxic chemicals deposited to
the Great Lakes. Efforts to achieve reductions in use and emissions of toxic substances worldwide through international assistance
and negotiations should also be supported, since PBTs used in other countries can reach the Great Lakes through long-range
transport.
Continued long-term monitoring of the atmosphere is necessary in order to measure progress brought about by toxic reduction
efforts. Environment Canada and U.S. EPA are currently adding dioxins and PBDEs to the IADN as funding allows. Mercury
monitoring at Canadian stations is being conducted through the CAMNet. Additional urban monitoring is needed to better
characterize atmospheric deposition to the Great Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Author:
This report was prepared on behalf of the IADN Steering Committee by Melissa Hulting, IADN Program Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office.
Contributors:
Thanks to Tom Dann of Environment Canada's National Air Pollution Surveillance Network for dioxin and furan information,
David Gay of the Mercury Deposition Network for mercury in precipitation information, and Ron Hites and Marta Venier of
Indiana University for PBDE data.
IADN Contacts:
IADN Principal Investigator, Environment Canada, Science and Technology Branch, 4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario,
M3H 5T4
Pierrette Blanchard, pierrette.blanchard@ec.gc.ca
IADN Program Manager, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard (G-17J), Chicago, IL, 60604
Melissa Hulting, hulting.melissa@epa.gov
Link to IADN data: http://www.msc.ec. gc.ca/iadn/data/form/form_e.html
Sources
Environment Canada and U S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Canada - United States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination
of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes, http://binational.net/bns/strategy_en.pdf.
Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 2002 Annual
Progress Report, http://binational.net/bns/2002/index.html. last accessed 11.03.05.
Federal Register. 2006. Lindane Cancellation Order, 13 December 2006, Volume 71, Number 239, pp. 74905-74907. Online at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2006/December/Dav-13/p21101.htm.
Gay, D., Prestbo, E., Brunette, B., Sweet, C. 2006. Wet Deposition of Mercury in the U.S. and Canada, 1996-2004:
Results from the NADP Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). Workshop: What do we know about mercury deposition in the
upper Midwest? February 22, 2006. Rosemont, IL.
Hafner, W.D., and Hites, R.A. 2003. Potential Sources of Pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs to the Atmosphere of the Great Lakes.
Environmental Science and Technology 37(17):3764-3773.
Hites, R.A. 2004. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in the Environment and in People: A Meta-Analysis of Concentrations.
Environmental Science and Technology 38(4):945-956.
Kreis, R. 2005. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project: PCB Results. October 28, 2005. Grosse He, MI. Online at:
http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/LMMBP/
95
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ma, J., Hung, H., and Blanchard, P. 2004a. How Do Climate Fluctuations Affect Persistent Organic Pollutant Distribution in North
America? Evidence from a Decade of Air Monitoring. Environmental Science and Technology 38(9):2538-2543
Ma, J., Daggupaty, S., Harner, T., Blanchard, P., and Waite, D. 2004b. Impacts of Lindane Usage in the Canadian Prairies on the
Great Lakes Ecosystem: 2. Modeled Fluxes and Loadings to the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology 38(4):984-
990.
Strachan, W. M. J.; Eisenreich, S. J. 1990. Mass Balance Accounting of Chemicals in the Great Lakes. In Long Range Transport
of Pesticides, ed. D. A. Kurtz, pp. 291-301. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.
Sun, P., Basu, I., Blanchard, P., Brice, K. A., Kites, R. A. 2007. Temporal and Spatial Trends of Atmospheric Polychlorinated
Biphenyl Concentrations near the Great Lakes Environmental Science and Technology 41(4): 1131-1136.
Sun, P., Backus, S., Blanchard, P., Hites, R.A. 2006a. Temporal and Spatial Trends of Organochlorine Pesticides in Great Lakes
Precipitation. Environmental Science and Technology 40(7): 2135 -2141.
Sun, P., Blanchard, P., Brice, K.A., Hites, R.A. 2006b. Atmospheric Organochlorine Pesticide Concentrations near the Great
Lakes: Temporal and Spatial Trends. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(21): 6587-6593.
Sun, P., Backus, S., Blanchard, P., Hites, R.A. 2006c. Annual Variation of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Precipitation Collected near the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology
40(3): 696-701.
Sun, P., Blanchard, P., Brice, K.A. and Hites, R.A. 2006d. Trends in Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in the
Great Lakes Atmosphere. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(20): 6221-6227 .
Temme, C., Blanchard P., Steffen, A., Banic, C., Beauchamp, S., Poissant, L., Tordon, R., Wiens B. and Dastoor, A. 2006. Long-
Term Trends of Total Gaseous Mercury Concentrations from Selected CAMNet Sites (1995-2005). Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy Stakeholders Forum. May 17, 2006. Toronto, Ontario.
Totten, L.A., Brunciak, PA., Gigliotti, C.L., Dachs, J., Glenn, T.R., IV, Nelson, E.D., and Eisenreich, S. J. 2001. Dynamic Air-Water
Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Environmental Science and Technology
35(19):3834-3840.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Venier, M., Hoh, E., and Hites, R.A. 2006. Atmospheric Brominated Flame Retardants and Dioxins in the Great Lakes. 49th
Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research. May 25, 2006. University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Wethington, D.M., III, and Hornbuckle, K.C. 2005. Milwaukee, WI as a Source of Atmospheric PCBs to Lake Michigan.
Environmental Science and Technology 39(l):57-63.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
96
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Indicator #118
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Data for this indicator are not available system-wide for all chemicals.
Concentrations of most organic compounds are low and are declining in the open waters of the
Great Lakes, indicating progress in the reduction of persistent toxic substances. Insufficient data
are available at this time to make a robust determination of the recent trend in concentrations
of all compounds.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Thirteen of a possible 21 organochlorine pesticide compounds (OCs) were detected in Lake Superior
and their concentrations were generally very low. Mercury concentrations were very low offshore
with higher concentrations near Thunder Bay and Duluth. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) are present throughout Lake Superior at extremely low concentrations.
Lake Michigan
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Concentrations of PCBs and organochlorine pesticides have either decreased slightly or remained
constant since the mid-1990s. Total mercury concentrations in 2005 were below water quality
criterion for protection of wildlife. Atrazine concentrations in the open lake waters were well below
drinking water criteria.
Lake Huron
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: In 2004, 16 of a possible 21 organochlorine compounds were detected in Lake Huron, but only
11 were commonly found, including hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH), lindane, dieldrin, and y-
chlordane. The concentrations were generally low, reflecting historical or diffuse sources. Mercury
and PAH concentrations in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay are low.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: In 2004, 15 of a possible 21 organochlorine compounds were detected in Lake Erie, including a-
HCH, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), lindane and dieldrin. Concentrations of most compounds were
highest in the shallow western basin and much lower in the central and eastern basins. Mercury
concentrations in 2005 were the highest of the Great Lakes and reflected a decreasing concentration
from west to east. PAH concentrations and distributions reflected urban source areas and upstream
sources within the St. Clair River - Detroit River corridor.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Seventeen of a possible 21 organochlorine pesticides were detected in Lake Ontario waters in 2005.
Dieldrin, lindane, and a-HCH were routinely found. Mercury concentrations in Lake Ontario
were low in the offshore areas and higher in the nearshore, but only samples taken from Hamilton
Harbour exceeded the criteria of 1.3 ng/L. PAH distribution and concentrations reflected urban
source areas.
97
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Purpose
To assess the concentration of priority toxic chemicals in offshore waters
To infer the potential for impacts on the health of the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem by comparison to criteria for the
protection of aquatic life and human health
To infer progress toward virtual elimination of toxic substances from the Great Lakes basin
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a result of human activity that will produce conditions that
are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Article III(d), United States and
Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Many toxic chemicals are present in the Great Lakes and it is impractical to summarize the spatial and temporal trends of them
all within a few pages. For more information on spatial and temporal trends in toxic contaminants in offshore waters, the reader
is referred to Marvin et al. (2004), Kannan et al. (2006), and Trends in Great Lakes Sediments and Surface Waters in Chapter 8 of
the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 2006 Progress report.
Surveys conducted between 1992 and 2000 (Marvin et al. 2004) and during 2004-2005 (Environment Canada Great Lakes
Surveillance Program, unpublished data) on Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario showed that concentrations
of most organic compounds are low (i.e., below the most stringent water quality guidelines) and declining in the open waters of
the Great Lakes.
The decline in the concentration of banned organochlorine pesticides has leveled off since the mid-1980s and current rates of
decline are slow. Dieldrin, a-HCH, lindane (y-HCH), and heptachlor epoxide were the only OC pesticide compounds routinely
detected in Lake Superior, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario (Marvin et al. 2004). The in-use herbicides atrazine and metolachlor
were ubiquitous (Marvin et al. 2004). Generally, organochlorine pesticide concentrations exhibit a north to south gradient from
lowest to highest (Lake Superior less than Lake Huron, Lake Huron less than Lake Ontario, Lake Ontario less than Lake Erie). An
example of the spatial distribution of dieldrin using 2004-2005 data is provided in Figure 1.
Dieldrin (ng/L)
.0.00-0.10
00.10-0.15
0.15-0.20
0.20 +
Many organic compounds (such as PCBs, HCB.
octachlorostyrene (OCS), and DDT) show a spatial
pattern that indicates higher concentrations near
historical, localized sources. Concentrations in
offshore waters are lower than nearshore, and
concentrations in the upper Great Lakes are lower
than the lower Great Lakes. Reductions are largely
due to the ban of PCBs and the subsequent control of
point sources.
Exceptions to this pattern do exist. For example.
compounds that are primarily distributed by
atmospheric deposition rather than point sources.
such as lindane and chlordane, are found at higher
concentrations in the north. However, distributions
and concentrations of most substances reflect
sources from agricultural land use practices (i.e..
higher concentrations in the lower Great Lakes
where agriculture dominates). Direct discharges of
currently-used pesticides have greatly diminished
so that indirect discharge is the more likely current
source. Indirect discharges include atmospheric deposition, agricultural land runoff, leaching of discarded stocks, and resuspension
of contaminated sediments (Kannan et al. 2006).
Currently-emitted compounds, such as PAHs, which are released during fossil fuel combustion, also show spatial patterns that are
98
i&ji-^^
Figure 1. Great Lakes 2004/05 Open Lake, Spring Cruise,
Concentrations of Dieldrin (ng/L).
Lake Ontario data for western half of the lake only.
Source: Environment Canada's Great Lakes Water Quality Surveillance Program,
Burlington, Ontario
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
indicative of sources. Concentrations of PAHs are therefore higher in the lower lakes, where usage is greater. The lighter PAHs are
also ubiquitous in the upper Great Lakes, but their concentrations are much lower. Concentrations of the heavier PAHs, which are
not as subject to atmospheric transport due to their partitioning to particles, are highest in the lower Great Lakes, where human
populations are greater.
Mercury concentrations overall are very low, and concentrations in the open lake areas are currently below the U.S. EPA Great
Lakes Initiative (GLI) water quality criterion of 1.3 ng/L (U.S. EPA 2006). However, higher concentrations are observed in the
western basin of Lake Erie in particular, and in some harbors and major urban areas as well (e.g., Detroit, Hamilton, Duluth/
Superior Harbor, Rochester, Chicago; Figure 2). Some samples from these urban areas exceed the GLI water quality criterion for
protection of wildlife.
Little or no information is currently available for
some compounds, such as dioxins, in offshore waters.
Concentrations of these compounds are extremely low
and difficult to detect in lake water samples. It may
be more appropriate to measure them in fish and/or
sediment samples. Information about compounds
of new and emerging concern is being assessed and
information should be available for a future SOLEC
update.
Lake Superior
Thirteen of a possible 21 organochlorines (OCs) were
detected in Lake Superior and their concentrations
were generally very low. Their presence is most likely
due to atmospheric deposition because the traditional
sources (row-crop agriculture and urban land uses) are
low in this basin. For example, concentrations of the
insecticide dieldrin (Figure 1) reflect its usage in the
agricultural communities of the southern Great Lakes
basin and are low in Lake Superior (2005: open lake
average of 0.11 ng/L). In contrast, concentrations of
lindane (Figure 3), which was previously used in North
American agriculture, reflect greater atmospheric
deposition in the north (2005: open lake average of
0.31 ng/L).
Mercury concentrations in Lake Superior were very
low offshore (2005 open lake average 0.41 ng/L), with
higher concentrations near Thunder Bay and Duluth.
With the exception of one station near Duluth, all
samples met the GLI water quality criterion for
protection of wildlife of 1.3 ng/L.
PAHs are present throughout the Lake at extremely
low concentrations. Concentrations were many orders
of magnitude below Ontario Water Quality Guidelines
(Rutherford et al. 1999). For example, the open lake
average concentration of phenanthrene (Figure 4) was
0.03 ng/L, and the Ontario Guideline is 30 ng/L.
Figure 2. Great Lakes 2003-2005 Open Lake, Spring Cruise,
Concentrations of Total Mercury (ng/L).
Source: Environment Canada's Great Lakes Water Quality Surveillance Program,
Burlington, Ontario and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, Illinois
Lindane (ng/L)
n 0.00 -0.10
oO.10-0.15
0.15 -0.20
0.20 -0.30
0.30 +
1
Figure 3. Great Lakes 2004/05 Open Lake, Spring Cruise,
Concentrations of Lindane (ng/L).
Lake Ontario data for western half of the lake only.
Source: Environment Canada's Great Lakes Water Quality Surveillance Program,
Burlington, Ontario
Lake Michigan
Preliminary data from 2004 indicate that concentrations of PCBs and organochlorine pesticides have either decreased slightly or
remained constant since the mid-1990s, following a decrease in the 1970s through the early 1990s. Total mercury concentrations
99
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Phenanthrene (ng/L)
0.0-0.5
0 0.5- 1.0
0 1.0-1.5
1.5-2.0
2.0 +
Figure 4. Great Lakes 2004/05 Open Lake, Spring Cruise,
Concentrations of Phenanthrene (ng/L).
Source: Environment Canada's Great Lakes Water Quality Surveillance Program,
Burlington, Ontario
in 2005 were all below the GLI water quality criterion
for protection of wildlife of 1.3 ng/L. Atrazine
concentrations in the open lake waters were consistent
across Lake Michigan stations with an average
concentration ranging from 33 to 48 ng/L between
1994 and 2000; this is more than 50 times below the
maximum concentration allowed for drinking water
(Kannan et al 2006).
Lake Huron
In 2004, 16 of a possible 21 organochlorine pesticides
were detected in Lake Huron, but only 11 were
commonly found. Commonly found OCs included
a-HCH, lindane, dieldrin, and y-chlordane. The
concentrations were generally low, reflecting
historical or diffuse sources. For example, average
concentrations of dieldrin in 2004 were 0.08 ng/L in
Lake Huron and 0.07 ng/L in Georgian Bay. These
concentrations were lower than those found in the
other Great Lakes and are well below the Ontario Water Quality Objective of 1.0 ng/L.
Mercury concentrations in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay were low (2005 open lake average: Lake Huron 0.58 ng/L, Georgian
Bay 0.33 ng/L). The concentrations at all open lake stations were below the GLI water quality criterion for protection of wildlife
of 1.3 ng/L (Figure 2), and only one nearshore station in Georgian Bay exceeded this level.
PAH concentrations in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay are very low. Of the 20 and 19 PAH compounds found in Lake Huron and
Georgian Bay, respectively, five were detected only within the North Channel (dibenzo(a,h)antracene, perylene, benzo(a)pyrene.
anthracene, and 2-chloronaphthalene). The open lake average concentration of phenanthrene (Figure 4) was 0.08 ng/L in Lake
Huron and 0.13 ng/L in Georgian Bay, well below the Ontario guideline of 30 ng/L.
Lake Erie
Environment Canada's Great Lakes Surveillance Program detected 15 of a possible 21 organochlorine compounds in Lake Erie.
Ten of these were commonly found, including a-HCH, HCB, lindane and dieldrin. Concentrations of most compounds were
highest in the shallow western basin and much lower in the central and eastern basins. An exception is lindane, which showed
similar concentrations in all three basins. Almost all Canadian sources of lindane to the Great Lakes are from the Canadian
prairies (Ma et al. 2003). Similar results were found in 1998 by Marvin et al. (2004). Between 1998 and 2004, average lakewide
lindane concentrations fell (2004: 0.16 ng/L; 1998: 0.32 ng/L) indicating a possible downward trend. Key contributors of HCB and
OCS were identified in the St. Clair River (Marvin et al. 2004).
The intensively-farmed agricultural and urban lands draining into Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair are a major contributor of pesticides
and other contaminants to the Great Lakes. In these watersheds, approximately 75% of the land use is agriculture and about 40%
of the Great Lakes population resides here. Pesticides were detected in every tributary monitored between 1996 and 1998
(Kannan et al. 2006). Some tributaries contained as many as 18 different pesticides; among the highest counts for any watershed
monitored in North America.
Mercury concentrations in 2005 in Lake Erie were the highest of the Great Lakes and reflected a decreasing concentration from
west to east (average concentrations 2.53 ng/L in the western basin, 0.52 ng/L in the central basin, and 0.49 ng/L in the eastern
basin). Higher concentrations (above 3.0 ng/L) were found near the mouths of the Detroit and Maumee rivers. Concentrations at
all stations in the western basin, as well as some stations in the central and eastern basins, exceeded the GLI mercury criterion of
1.3 ng/L.
PAH concentrations and distributions reflected urban source areas on Lake Erie and upstream sources within the St. Clair River
- Detroit River corridor. The highest concentrations of most PAHs were found in the western basin, and near the mouth of the
Detroit River in particular. For example the phenanthrene concentration (Figure 4) at the mouth of the Detroit River was 2.5 ng/L.
100
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
whereas the overall Lake average was 0.59 ng/L, an almost 5-fold difference.
Lake Ontario
Seventeen of a possible 21 OC pesticides were detected in Lake Ontario waters in 2005. Dieldrin, lindane, and a-HCH were
routinely found. Probable sources of these compounds include a combination of historical watershed uses, upstream loadings
(e.g. the Niagara River) and atmospheric deposition. Concentrations of many parameters were intermediate compared to the upper
Great Lakes (which generally had lower concentrations) and Lake Erie (which generally had higher concentrations, especially in
the western basin). Within Lake Ontario, spatial trends were reflective of localized (predominantly urban) sources.
Mercury concentrations in Lake Ontario were low in the offshore areas (average 0.48 ng/L) and higher in the nearshore (average
0.80 ng/L). Spatial trends were reflective of localized sources (e.g. higher values in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario, and Rochester
and Oswego, New York), but only samples taken from Hamilton Harbour exceeded the GLI objective of 1.3 ng/L for mercury.
PAH distribution and concentrations reflect urban source areas on Lake Ontario (e.g., Rochester, NY, Niagara River, and
Hamilton, Ontario). All offshore concentrations were below Ontario Water Quality Guidelines.
Management Implications
Management efforts to control inputs of organochlorine pesticides have resulted in decreasing concentrations in the Great Lakes.
Historical sources for some compounds, however, still appear to affect ambient concentrations in the environment. Further
reductions in the input of OC pesticides are dependent, in part, on controlling indirect inputs such as atmospheric deposition and
surface runoff. Monitoring programs should increase measurement of the major in-use pesticides, of which currently only half
are monitored. The additive and synergetic effects of pesticide mixtures should be examined more closely, since existing water
quality criteria have been developed for individual pesticides only (Kannan et al. 2006).
Beginning in 1986, Environment Canada has conducted toxic contaminant monitoring in the shared waters of the Great Lakes.
Recently, Environment Canada has developed new measurement techniques and has invested in an ultra-clean laboratory in order
to more accurately measure these trace concentrations of pollutants in the surface waters of the Great Lakes. The data presented
here represent the results of this new methodology. Data are available for all of the shared waters, although only partial coverage
of Lake Ontario has been analyzed to date. The analyte list includes PCBs (as congeners), organochlorines, PAHs, trace metals
including mercury, as well as a limited number of in-use pesticides and other compounds of emerging concern.
In 2003, U.S. EPA initiated a monitoring program for toxic contaminants in offshore waters. EPA's spatial coverage is more
limited than the Canadian program, focusing mainly on Lake Michigan, but the analyte list is more comprehensive and includes
PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, toxaphene, dioxins/furans, PBDEs, selected PAHs, mercury, and perfluorinated compounds.
Information from the U.S. EPA is currently available for Lake Michigan for many organic compounds. Different measurement
and analytical techniques are used, but good agreement with Canadian information is achieved for some parameters. Future
efforts will need to focus on comparisons of the analytical methodologies used and the results obtained.
Efforts need to be maintained to identify and track the remaining sources and explore opportunities to accelerate their elimination
(e.g., The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy). Targeted monitoring to identify and track down local sources of LaMP critical
pollutants is being conducted in many Great Lakes tributaries. However, an expansion of the track-down program should be
considered to include those chemicals whose distribution suggests localized influences.
Chemicals such as endocrine disrupting chemicals, in-use pesticides, and pharmaceuticals are emerging issues. The agencies'
environmental researchers are working with the monitoring groups to include compounds of emerging concern in Great Lakes
surveillance cruises. For example, in-use pesticides and a suite of pharmaceuticals are being measured in each of the Great Lakes
between 2005 and 2007.
Comments from the author(s)
Lake Ontario 2005 data for PAHs and OC pesticides reflect sampling conducted in the western half of the lake only.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Jennifer Vincent, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
101
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Alice Dove, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Melissa Hulting, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL
Sources
Data
Data for Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are from Environment Canada, Great Lakes Water Quality
Monitoring and Surveillance Program.
Data for Lake Michigan are from U.S. EPA, Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program (Principal
Investigators: Dr. Matt Simcik, University of Minnesota and Dr. Jeff Jeremiason, Gustavus Adolphus College).
References Cited
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. 2006 Annual Progress Report. Environment Canada and US Environmental Protection
Agency.
Kannan, K, J. Ridal, J. Struger. 2006. Pesticides in the Great Lakes. In Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Great Lakes ed. R.
Hites, pp.151-199. Germany: Springer.
Ma, J., S.M. Daggupaty, T. Harner, and Y.F. Li, 2003. Impacts of lindane usage in the Canadian prairies to the Great Lakes
ecosystem - Part 1: coupled atmospheric transport model and modeled concentrations in air and soil. Environmental Science and
Technology 37:3774-3781.
Marvin, C., S. Painter, D. Williams, V. Richardson, R. Rossmann, P. Van Hoof. 2004. Spatial and temporal trends in surface water
and sediment contamination in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Environmental Pollution. 129(2004): 131-144.
Rutherford, G., D. J. Spry, W. Scheider, and J. Ralston, 1999. Provincial Water Quality Standards. Standards Development Branch
and Program Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. 31 pp.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1978. Ottawa and Washington.
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Office of Water Science and Technology. 24pp.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
102
-------
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Indicator #119
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving/Undetermined
Rationale: There have been significant declines over the past three decades in concentrations of many
contaminants including PCBs, DDT, lead, and mercury. Knowledge is lacking regarding the
occurrence of many new contaminants including brominated flame retardants and fluorinated
surfactants.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a mixed status and an improving/undetermined trend, indicating that assessments
were not made on an individual lake basis.
Purpose
To infer potential harm to aquatic ecosystems from contaminated sediments by comparing contaminant concentrations
to available sediment quality guidelines
To infer progress towards virtual elimination of toxic substances in the Great Lakes by assessing surficial sediment
contamination and contaminant concentration profiles in sediment cores from open lake and, where appropriate, Areas
of Concern index stations
To determine the occurrence, distribution, and fate of new chemicals in Great Lakes sediments
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes should be free from materials entering the water as a result of human activity that will produce conditions that are
toxic or harmful to human health, animal, or aquatic life (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), Article III(d), United
States and Canada 1987). The GLWQA and the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic
substances to the Great Lakes as an objective.
State of the Ecosystem
Sediment Quality Index
A sediment quality index (SQI) has been developed
that incorporates three elements: scope - the
percent of variables that did not meet guidelines;
frequency - the percent of failed tests relative to
the total number of tests in a group of sites; and
amplitude - the magnitude by which the failed
variables exceeded guidelines. A full explanation
of the SQI derivation process and a possible
classification scheme based on the SQI score (0 to
100, poor to excellent) is provided in Grapentine et
al. (2002). Generally, the Canadian federal probable
effect level (PEL) guideline (Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment (CCME) 2001) was
used if available. Otherwise, the Ontario lowest
effect level (LEL) guideline was used (Persaud
et al. 1992). Application of the SQI to Lake Erie
and Lake Ontario was reported in Marvin et al.
(2004). The SQI ranged from fair in Lake Ontario
to excellent in eastern Lake Erie. Spatial trends in
sediment quality in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario
reflected overall trends for individual contaminant classes such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
SQI PEL
00-39 (Poor)
40-59 (Marginal)
60 - 79 (Fair)
80 - 94 (Good)
. 95-100 (Excellent)
Figure 1. Site Sediment Quality Index (SQI) based on lead, zinc, copper,
cadmium and mercury.
Source: Chris Marvin, Environment Canada (1997-2001 data for all lakes except for Lake
Michigan); Ronald Rossmann, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994-1996 data for
Lake Michigan)
103
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Sediment Quality Index - Based on Probable Effect Levels
00-25 Poor Quality
25-50
50-75
75-100 Good Quality
(PEL)
gr>ปซ < r^-cr v i'
i . /*"^* *: ^
/ ***
Figure 2. Sediment Quality Index (SQI) for the Lake Erie-Lake
St. Clair drainages. More detailed information on contaminants
in sediments in the Lake Erie-Lake St. Clair drainages has been
reported by the USGS (2000).
Source: Dan Button, U.S. Geological Survey
Tienton Channel
PCBs ฃig/g) HHCD (pg/g)
Figure 3. Distribution of HBCD and PCBs in suspended sediments
in the Detroit River.
Source: Marvin etal. (2006)
Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency integrated available data from the open
waters of each of the Great Lakes. To date, data on lead.
zinc, copper, cadmium, and mercury have been integrated.
The site-by-site SQI results for Great Lakes sediments
based on these metals are illustrated in Figure 1. The
general trend in sediment quality across the Great Lakes
basin for the five metals is generally indicative of trends
for a wide range of persistent toxic substances. Areas of
Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Lake Michigan show the
poorest sediment quality as a result of historical urban and
industrial activities.
Application of the SQI has been expanded to include
contaminants in streambed and riverine sediments for
whole-watershed assessments. The SQI map for the Lake
Erie - Lake St. Clair drainages is shown in Figure 2.
Poorest sediment quality is primarily associated with Areas
of Concern where existing multi-stakeholder programs
(e.g., Remedial Action Plans) are in place to address
environmental impairments related to toxic chemicals.
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 brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and
current-use pesticides may represent emerging issues and
potential future stressors to the ecosystem.
The distribution of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)
in Detroit River suspended sediments is shown in Figure
3. This compound is the primary flame retardant used in
polystyrene foams, and is the third-most heavily produced
BFR. Elevated levels of HBCD were associated with
heavily urbanized/industrialized areas of the watershed.
The HBCD distribution differs from PCBs, which are
primarily associated with areas of contaminated sediment
resulting from historical industrial activities including steel
manufacturing and chlor-alkali production. These results
corroborate observations made globally, which indicate that
large urban centers act as diffuse sources of chemicals that
are heavily used to support our modern societal lifestyle.
The temporal trend in the Niagara River of another class of
BFRs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), is shown
in Figure 4. Prior to 1988, PBDEs were generally detected
at low (parts per billion) concentrations, but showed a trend
toward increasing concentrations over the period 1980 to
1988. After 1988, PBDE concentrations in the Niagara
River showed a more rapidly increasing trend. PBDE
concentrations in suspended sediments of the Niagara River
104
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Year
Figure 4. Temporal trend in PBDEs in Niagara River suspended
sediments.
Source: Marvin etal. (2006)
are comparable to, or lower than, concentrations in
sediments in other industrialized/urbanized areas
of the world. The Niagara River watershed does not
appear to be a significant source of PBDEs to Lake
Ontario, and concentrations appear to be indicative
of general contamination from a combination of
local, regional, and continental sources.
Management Implications
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy needs
to be maintained to identify and track the remaining
sources of contamination and to explore opportunities
to accelerate their elimination. In addition targeted
monitoring to identify and track down local sources
of pollution should be considered for those chemicals
whose distribution in the ambient environment
suggests local or sub-regional sources. Ongoing
monitoring programs in the Great Lakes connecting
channels (e.g., Detroit River, Niagara River) provide
invaluable information on the success of binational
management actions to reduce or eliminate
discharges of toxic substances to the Great Lakes.
These programs also provide important insights into pathways of new chemicals entering the Great Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Chris Marvin, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Sources
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999, (updated 2001). Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Grapentine, L., Marvin, C., and Painter, S. 2002. Development and evaluation of a sediment quality index for the Great Lakes and
associated Areas of Concern. Human and Ecological Risk Assess. 8(7):1549-1567.
Marvin, C., Grapentine, L., and Painter, S. 2004. Application of a sediment quality index to the lower Laurentian Great Lakes.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 91:1-16.
Marvin, C., Tomy, G.T., Alaee, M., and Maclnnis, G. 2006. Distribution of hexabromocyclododecane in Detroit River suspended
sediments. Chemosphere. 64:268-275.
Persaud, D., Jaagumagi, R., and Hayton, A. 1992. Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in
Ontario. Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. June 1992.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Areal distribution and concentrations of contaminants of concern in surficial streambed
and lakebed sediments, Lake Erie - Lake St. Clair drainages, 1990-97. Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4200.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
105
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Contaminants in Whole Fish
Indicator #121
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Since the late 1970s, concentrations of historically regulated contaminants such as PCBs, DDT
and mercury have generally declined in most monitored fish species. The concentrations of other
contaminants, currently regulated and unregulated, have demonstrated either slowing declines
or, in some cases, increases in selected fish communities. The changes are often lake-specific and
relate both to the characteristics of the substances involved and the biological composition of the
fish community.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
PCB and DDT levels are measured in lake trout and walleye while only smelt samples have recent mercury trend
data available.
Lake Superior
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Concentrations of total PCBs show little change, total DDT shows fluctuating concentrations, while
mercury concentrations continue to decline. Total PCB concentrations remain above GLWQA
criteria while total DDT and mercury remain below. Contaminants in Lake Superior are typically
atmospherically-derived. The dynamics of Lake Superior allow for the retention of contaminants
much longer than in any other Great Lake.
Lake Michigan
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Concentrations of total PCBs and total DDT are declining. Total PCB levels remain above GLWQA
criteria and total DDT levels remains below. Food web changes are critical to Lake Michigan
contaminant concentrations, as indicated by the failure of the alewife population in the 1980s and
the presence of the round goby. Aquatic invasive species such as Asian carp are also of major
concern to Lake Michigan due to the connection of Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the danger
the carp pose to the food web.
Lake Huron
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Both total PCBs and DDT show general declines in concentrations while mercury displays a flux
in concentration. Total PCB concentrations remain above GLWQA criteria while total DDT and
mercury remain below. Contaminant loading to Saginaw Bay continues to be reflected in fish tissue
contaminant levels.
Lake Erie
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Total PCBs and DDT concentrations show apattern of annual increases linked to changes in invasive
species populations, such as zebra and quagga mussels. Aquatic invasive species are of major
concern to Lake Erie because the pathways and fate of persistent toxic substances will be altered,
resulting in differing accumulation patterns, particularly near the top of the food chain. Mercury
concentrations are the highest ever recorded in Lake Erie. Total PCB concentrations remain above
GLWQA criteria while total DDT and mercury remain below.
106
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Lake Ontario
Status: Fair
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Both total PCBs and DDT concentrations show a pattern of decline while mercury concentrations
show little change. Total PCB concentrations remain above GLWQA criteria while total DDT and
mercury remain below. Historic point sources of mirex and OCS in Lake Ontario have resulted in
the highest concentration of these contaminants than in any of the other Great Lakes. The presence
of contaminants of emerging concern, such as PBDEs and PFOS, continues to raise alarm in Lake
Ontario, due to their continuing increases in concentration over time.
Purpose
To describe temporal and spatial trends of bioavailable contaminants in representative open water fish species from
throughout the Great Lakes
To infer the effectiveness of remedial actions related to the management of critical pollutants
To identify the nature and severity of emerging problems
Ecosystem Objective
Great Lakes waters should be free of toxic substances that are harmful to fish and wildlife populations and the consumers of this
biota. Data on status and trends of contaminant conditions, using fish as biological indicators, support the requirements of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, United States and Canada 1987) Annexes 1 (Specific Objectives), 2 (Remedial
Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans), 11 (Surveillance and Monitoring), and 12 (Persistent Toxic Substances).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Long-term (greater than 25 yrs), basin-wide monitoring programs that measure whole body concentrations of contaminants in
top predator fish (lake trout and/or walleye) and in forage fish (smelt) are conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) through the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, and Environment
Canada, through the Fish Contaminants Surveillance Program, to determine the effects of contaminant concentrations on wildlife
and to monitor trends. Environment Canada reports annually on contaminant burdens in similarly aged lake trout (4+ - 6+ year
range), walleye (Lake Erie), and in smelt. GLNPO annually monitors contaminant burdens in similarly sized lake trout (600-700
mm total length) and walleye (Lake Erie, 400-500 mm total length) from alternating locations by year in each lake. Details
of the program can be found at, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html. Differences between the U.S. and Canadian
programs, including collection site differences and varying
species collections, inhibit the direct comparison of results
from the two programs.
In 2006, Environment Canada assumed responsibilities for the
Fish Contaminant Surveillance Program from the Department
of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO). All data included in this
indicator report were produced by DFO.
Chemical Concentrations in Whole Great Lakes Fish
Since the late 1970s, concentrations of historically regulated
contaminants such as PCBs, DDT and mercury have generally
declined in most monitored fish species. The concentration
of other contaminants, currently regulated and unregulated.
have demonstrated either slowing declines or, in some cases.
increases in selected fish communities. The changes are
often lake-specific and relate both to the characteristics of the
substances involved and the biological composition of the fish
community.
The GLWQA, first signed in 1972, renewed in 1978, and
amended in 1987, expresses the commitment of Canada and
Figure 1. Total PCB in Even Year whole EPA Lake Trout
composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1972 - 2002 |jg/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. *Fish collected between
1972 and 1982 were collected at even year sites only. Walleye
= 450-550 mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
107
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
the United States to restore and maintain the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
When applicable, contaminant concentrations are compared to
GLWQA criteria.
Total PCBs
Total PCB concentrations in Great Lakes top predator fish
have continuously declined since their phase-out in the
1970s. However, rapid declines are no longer observed and
concentrations in fish remain above the U.S. EPA wildlife
protection value of 0.16 ppm and the GLWQA criteria of 0.1
ppm. Concentrations remain high in top predator fish due to the
continued release of uncontrolled sources and their persistent
and bioaccumulative nature.
Figure 3. Total PCBs in 4 to 6 year old individual whole
Environment Canada Lake Trout, collected 1977 through
2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Superior
--Michigan
-- Huron
Figure 5. Total DDT in Even Year whole EPA Lake Trout
composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1972 - 2000. ug/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. *Fish collected
between 1972 and 1982 were collected at even year sites
only. Walleye = 450-550 mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 2. Total PCBs in Odd Year whole EPA Lake Trout
composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1991 - 2003 ug/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples. Lake Trout = 600-
700 mm size range. Walleye = 450-550 mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 4. Total PCBs in composite Environment Canada
rainbow smelt, collected 1977 through 2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Total DDT
Total DDT concentrations in Great Lakes top predator fish have
continuously declined since the chemical was banned in 1972.
However, large declines are no longer observed. Rather, very
small annual percent declines are seen, indicating near steady
state conditions. It is important to note that the concentrations
of this contaminant remain below the GLWQA criteria of 1.0
ppm. There is no U.S. EPA wildlife protection value for total
DDT because the PCB value is more protective.
Mercury
Concentrations of mercury are similar across all fish in all lakes.
It is assumed that concentrations of mercury in top predator fish
are atmospherically driven. It is important to note that current
concentrations in GLNPO top predator fish in all lakes remain
108
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Figure 6. Total DDT in Odd Year whole EPA Lake Trout
composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1991 - 2001. |jg/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples. Lake Trout = 600-
700 mm size range. Walleye = 450-550 mm size range
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 8. Total DDT in composite Environment Canada
rainbow smelt, collected 1977 through 2005, ug/g wet
weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Figure 10. Mercury in 4 to 6 year old individual whole
Environment Canada Lake Trout, collected 1977 through
2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Figure 7. Total DDT in 4 to 6 year old individual whole
Environment Canada Lake Trout, collected 1977 through
2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Superior
Michigan Huron
Lake
Figure 9. Mercury in whole EPA Lake Trout composites
(Walleye in Lake Erie), 1999 - 2003, ug/g wet weight +/- 95%
C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. Walleye = 450-550
mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 11. Mercury in composite Environment Canada
rainbow smelt, collected 1977 through 2005, ug/g wet
weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
109
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
above the GLWQA criteria of 0.5 ppm and that Canadian smelt have never been observed to be above the GLWQA criteria.
Total Chlordane
Concentrations of total chlordane have consistently declined in whole top predator fish since the U.S. EPA banned it in 1988. Total
chlordane is composed of cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane, with trans-nonachlor being the
most prevalent of the compounds. While trans-nonachlor was one of the five components of the technical chlordane mixture, it is
the least metabolized and predominates within the food web (Carlson and Swackhamer 2006).
Figure 12. Total Chlordane in Even Year whole EPA Lake
Trout composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1972 - 2002 |jg/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. *Fish collected between
1972 and 1982 were collected at even year sites only. Walleye
= 450-550 mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Year
Figure 13. Total Chlordane in Odd Year whole EPA Lake
Trout composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1991 - 2003 ug/g
wet weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. Walleye = 450-550 mm
size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Year
Figure 14. Total Chlordane in 4 to 6 year old individual whole
Environment Canada Lake Trout, collected 1977 through
2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Year
Figure 15. Total Chlordane in composite Environment Canada
rainbow smelt, collected 1977 through 2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
110
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Mirex
Concentrations of mirex are highest in Lake Ontario top predator fish due to its continued release from uncontrolled historic
sources near the Niagara River.
Figure 16. Mirex in Even Year Lake Ontario whole EPA Lake
Trout composites, 1972 - 2002 ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I.,
composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. *Fish collected
between 1972 and 1982 were collected at even year sites
only. Walleye = 450 -550 mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 17. Mirex in Odd Year Lake Ontario whole EPA Lake
Trout composites , 1991 -2003 ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I.,
composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. Walleye = 450-550 mm
size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 18. Mirex in 4 to 6 year old individual whole
Environment Canada Lake Trout, collected 1977 through
2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Figure 19. Mirex in composite Environment Canada rainbow
smelt, collected 1977 through 2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Dieldrin
Concentrations of dieldrin in lake trout appear to be declining in all Great Lakes and are lowest in Lake Superior and highest in
Lake Michigan. Concentrations in Lake Erie walleye were lower than those in lake trout from the other Great Lakes. Aldrin is
readily converted to dieldrin in the environment. For this reason, these two closely related compounds (aldrin and dieldrin) are
considered together by regulatory bodies.
Ill
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
*>*>*> N"
Figure 20. Dieldrin in Even Year whole EPA Lake Trout
composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1972 - 2002 |jg/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. *Fish collected
between 1972 and 1982 were collected at even year sites
only. Walleye = 450-550 mm size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 21. Dieldrin in Odd Year whole EPA Lake Trout
composites (Walleye in Lake Erie), 1991 - 2003 ug/g wet
weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples.
Lake Trout = 600-700 mm size range. Walleye = 450-550 mm
size range.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 22. Dieldrin in 4 to 6 year old individual whole
Environment Canada Lake Trout, collected 1977 through
2005, ug/g wet weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Figure 23. Dieldrin in composite Environment Canada
rainbow smelt, collected 1977 through 2005, ug/g wet
weight.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Toxaphene
Decreases in toxaphene concentrations have been observed throughout the Great Lakes in all media following its ban in the mid-
1980s. However, concentrations have remained the highest in Lake Superior due to its longer retention time, cold temperatures.
and slow sedimentation rate. It is assumed that concentrations of toxaphene in top predator fish are atmospherically driven (Hites
2006).
PBDEs
Both U.S. EPA and Environment Canada analyze for polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE) in whole top predator fish.
Retrospective analyses of archived samples have demonstrated the continuing increase in concentrations of PBDEs and are
confirmed by present day concentrations in top predator fish. It is important to note that the concentration of most other persistent
organic pollutants in top predator fish have declined, while PBDEs continue to increase.
112
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Other Contaminants of Emerging Interest
One of the most widely used brominated flame retardants (BFR) is
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Based on its use pattern as an additive
BFR, it has the potential to migrate into the environment from its application
site. Recent studies have confirmed that HBCD isomers do bioaccumulate in
aquatic ecosystems and do biomagnify as they move up the food chain. Recent
studies by Tomy et al. (2004) confirmed the food web biomagnification of
HBCD isomers in Lake Ontario (Table 1).
Perfluoroctanesulfonate (PFOS) has also been detected in fish throughout the
Great Lakes and has also demonstrated the capacity for biomagnification in
food webs. PFOS is used in surfactants such as water repellent coatings (e.g.,
Scotchguard ) and fire suppressing foams. It has been identified in whole
lake trout samples from all the Great Lakes at concentrations from 3 to 139
retrospective analyses of archived lake trout samples from Lake Ontario have
weight, whole fish) from 1980 to 2001 (Martin et al. 2004).
Species
Lake Trout
Sculpin
Smelt
Ale wife
Mysis
Diporeia
Plankton
HBCD ( + isomers)
(ng/g wet wtiS.E.)
1.68ฑ
0.45 ฑ
0.27 ฑ
0.13 ฑ
0.07 ฑ
0.08 ฑ
0.02 ฑ
0.67
0.10
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Table 1. Lake Ontario food
bioaccumulation of HBCD isomers.
Source: Tomy et al. (2004)
web
ng/g wet weight (Stock et al. 2003). In addition,
identified a 4.25-fold increase (43 to 180 ng/g wet
Pressures
Current
The impact of invasive nuisance species on toxic chemical cycling in the Great Lakes is still being investigated. The number of
non-native invertebrates and fish species proliferating in the Great Lakes basin continues to increase, and they continue to spread
more widely. Changes imposed on the native fish communities by non-native species will subsequently alter ecosystem energy
flows. As a consequence, the pathways and fate of persistent toxic substances will be altered, resulting in different accumulation
patterns, particularly at the top of the food web. Each of the Great Lakes is currently experiencing changes in the structure of the
aquatic community, hence there may be periods of increases in contaminant burdens of some fish species.
A recently published, 15-year retrospective Great Lakes study showed that lake trout embryos and sac fry are very sensitive to
toxicity associated with maternal exposures to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and structurally related chemicals
(Cook et al. 2003). The increase in contaminant load of TCDD may be responsible for declining lake trout populations in Lake
Ontario. The models used in this study can be used in the other Great Lakes.
Future
Additional stressors in the future will include climate change, with the potential for regional warming to change the availability of
Great Lakes critical habitats, change the productivity of some biological communities, accelerate the movement of contaminants
from abiotic sources into the biological communities, and effect the composition of biological communities. Associated changes
in the concentration of contaminants in the water, critical habitat availability and reproductive success of native and non-native
species are also factors that will influence trends in the quantity of toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Management Implications
Much of the current, basin-wide, persistent toxic substance data that is reported focuses on legacy chemicals whose use has been
previously restricted through various forms of legislation. There are also a variety of other potentially harmful contaminants at
various locations throughout the Great Lakes that are reported in literature. A comprehensive, basin-wide assessment program is
needed to monitor the presence and concentrations of these recently identified compounds in the Great Lakes basin. The existence
of long-term specimen archives (greater than 25 years) in both Canada and the United States could allow retrospective analyses
of the samples to determine if concentrations of recently detected contaminants are changing. Further control legislation might be
needed for the management of specific chemicals.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Elizabeth Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Cameron MacEachen, Environment Canada,
D. Michael Whittle, Emeritus, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
Michael J. Keir, Environment Canada, and
J. Fraser Gorrie, Bio-Software Environmental Data.
113
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Sources
Carlson, D.L., and Swackhamer D.L. 2006. Results from the U.S. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program and Effects of Lake
Processes on Contaminant Concentrations. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 32(2):370 - 385.
Cook, P.M., Robbins, J.A., Endicott, D.D., Lodge, K.B., Guiney, P.D., Walker, M.K, Zabel, E.W., and Peterson, R.E. 2003. Effects
of Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor-Mediated Early Life Stage Toxicity on Lake Trout Populations in Lake Ontario during the 20th
Century. Environ. Sci. 7fec/zซo/.37(17):3878-3884.
Hites R.A, (ed). 2006. Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Great Lakes. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Martin, J.W., Whittle, D.M., Muir, D.C.G., and Mabury, S.A. 2004. Perfluoroalkyl Contaminants in the Lake Ontario Food Web.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 38(20):5379-5385.
Stock, N.L., Bonin J., Whittle, D.M., Muir, D.C.G., and Mabury, S.A. 2003. Perfluoronated Acids in the Great Lakes. SETAC
Europe 13th Annual Meeting, Hamburg, Germany.
Tomy, G.T., Budakowski, W., HalldorsonT., Whittle, D.M., Keir, M., Marvin, C., Maclnnis, G., and Alaee, M. 2004. Biomagnification
of a and y-Hexabomocyclododecane in a Lake Ontario Food Web. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:2298-2303.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
114
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Hexagenia
Indicator # 122
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: There is a lack of time-series data and historical information. To date, only one area (western
Lake Erie) has exhibited any substantial recovery of Hexagenia despite anecdotal reports of
recovery for many areas in the Great Lakes during the mid- to early 1990s. After an absence of
50 years, emerging Hexagenia were observed in the open waters of western Lake Erie in 1992.
Studies confirmed the return of nymphs to sediments between 1995 and 2005. At that time,
the annual average density of nymphs was approximately 300 nymphs/m2, a density similar to
known historical abundances of nymphs in the basin. The return of this taxon may be entering
the final stage of its recovery (stable annual abundances). However, large decreases in density
(1997 to 1998 and 2001 to 2002) and poor young-of-year recruitment into the population (3
of 6 years) indicate that 'restoration' of nymphs has not been totally successful. The cause(s)
for population decreases and failed recruitment is not known, but it is suspected to be related
to residual pollution. Effects of residual pollution will likely decrease as pollution-abatement
programs continue.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Poor
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Lack of time-series and historical information. Baseline (2001) information on the abundance of
Hexagenia has been obtained for Duluth Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Lake Michigan
Status: Poor
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Lack of time-series and historical studies. There have been no scientific conformations of anecdotal
reports of Hexagenia except for sporadic accounts of adults near the Fox River, Green Bay,
Wisconsin. The absence of Hexagenia in Green Bay, Wisconsin was confirmed in 2001.
Lake Huron
Status: Poor
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Lack of time-series and historical information. There have been no scientific conformations of
anecdotal reports of Hexagenia adults. The absence of Hexagenia in Saginaw Bay was confirmed
in 2001.
Lake Erie
Status: Western Lake Erie - Good; SW-shore of Central Lake Erie - Mixed
Trend: Western Lake Erie - Improving; SW-shore of Central Lake Erie - Deteriorating
Rationale: To date, western Lake Erie is the only place where Hexagenia have been documented to be
recovering in the Great Lakes. Initial signs of recovery of Hexagenia (i.e., appearance and increasing
distribution of adults) along the south shore of central Lake Erie occurred 1997-2000. However,
since that time, reports have decreased and intensive lake sampling (2001-2004) has not been able
to confirm Hexagenia recovery.
Lake Ontario
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Lack of baseline studies and historical information. There have been no scientific conformations of
anecdotal reports of mayflies near the Bay of Quinte, Ontario.
115
-------
Purpose
To assess the distribution and abundance of burrowing mayflies (Hexagenia) in the Great Lakes
To establish a quantitative goal for the restoration of Hexagenia nymphs in mesotrophic waters of the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
Historical mesotrophic habitats should be restored and maintained as balanced, stable, and productive elements of the Great Lakes
ecosystem with Hexagenia as the key benthic invertebrate organism in the food chain (paraphrased from Edwards and Ryder.
eds. 1990). In addition, this indicator supports Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (United States and Canada
1987).
State of the Ecosystem
In the early 20th century, mesotrophic ecosystems in the Great Lakes had unique faunal communities that included commercially
valuable fishes and associated benthic invertebrates. The primary invertebrate taxon associated with mesotrophic habitats was
Hexagenia. Hexagenia was chosen by the scientific community to be a mesotrophic indicator because it is important to fishes, is
relatively long lived, lives in sediments where pollution often accumulates, and is relatively sensitive to habitat changes brought
on by urban and industrial pollution associated with changes as mesotrophic systems deteriorate to eutrophic systems (Schloesser
and Hiltunen 1984; Schloesser 1988; Reynoldson et al. 1989). For example, Hexagenia, was very abundant and important to yellow
perch and walleye in the 1930s and 1940s. Then in the mid-1950s, Hexagenia was eliminated by low oxygen and resulting anoxic
conditions created by urban and industrial pollution, and growth of yellow perch declined (Beeton 1969; Burns 1985).
Initiation of pollution-abatement programs in the 1970s improved water and sediment quality in Hexagenia habitat throughout the
Great Lakes, but the recovery of Hexagenia populations has been elusive (Krieger et al. 1996; Schloesser et al. 2000). Then in the
early 1990s, soon after the invasion of exotic dreissenid mussels, anecdotal reports occurred of adult Hexagenia (winged dun and
spinner) in many bays and interconnecting rivers of the Great Lakes after absences of 30 to 60 years (Figure 1).
The first sign of the potential recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie began with an anecdotal report of adult mayflies in
open waters of the basin by scientists on the research vessel CCGS Limnos (Krieger et al. 1996; Madenjian et al. 1998; Schloesser
et al. 2000). Nymphs were confirmed in sediments at very low densities (ca. 9 nymphs/m2) in 1993, and intensive studies began
in 1995 (Krieger et al. 1996; Schloesser, unpublished data; Figure 2). Densities of nymphs increased between 1995 and 1997 and
then decreased between 1997 and 1998. This pattern of increasing densities followed by a large decrease occurred again between
2001 and 2002. A population study of Hexagenia revealed that sharp declines in densities were partly attributable to failed
young-of-year (YOY) recruitment (Bridgeman et al. 2005; Figure 3). No YOY nymphs were found in 1997, which corresponded
to the largest observed decline in Hexagenia density
during the last decade. A similar decline occurred
between 2001 and 2002 when few YOY nymphs
were produced. However, a slight increase occurred
between 2002 and 2003 even though relatively few
YOY nymphs were recruited into the population,
indicating that some other factor(s) contributed to
density fluctuations observed in western Lake Erie in
the 1990s and 2000s.
Anecdotal reports of winged Hexagenia mayflies
in the 1990s also included the south shore of Lake
Michigan (near Chicago, IL); the Fox River near
Green Bay (Lake Michigan); Saginaw Bay near
Standish, MI (Lake Huron); the south shore of central
Lake Erie near Sandusky, OH; Presque Isle, PA
(eastern Lake Erie); and the northern shore in the Bay
of Quinte near Picton, ON (Lake Ontario). To date,
only the possible recovery of Hexagenia along the
south shore of central Lake Erie has been investigated
(Krieger et al. 2007). An initial recovery of nymphs
occurred along the south shore between 1997 and
2000. However, intensive scientific surveys between
2001 and 2004 indicate that a sustained recovery of
Hexagenia along the shore of south central Lake Erie
has not occurred.
Figure 1. Typical life-cycle of a burrowing mayfly such as Hexagenia
found in the Great Lakes.
Source: Drawn by Martha Thierry, courtesy of the Detroit Free Press
116
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Figure 2. Densities (number/m2) ol Hexagenia obtained in three
studies (colored markers) in western Lake Erie 1995-2005. Line
of abundance fit by eye.
Source: Unpublished data, D. Schloesser
1200 -i
1997
1998
1999 2000
Year
2001
2002
Figure 3. Recruitment of young-of-year Hexagenia in western
Lake Erie 1997-2002
Source: Schloesser and Nalepa (2001); Bridgeman etal. (2005)
Pressures
Hexagenia are extirpated at moderate levels of pollution and may even show a graded response to the degree of pollution (Edsall
et al. 1991, Schloesser et al. 1991). High Hexagenia abundance is strongly indicative of adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in
overlying waters and uncontaminated surficial sediments. Probable causative agents of impaired Hexagenia populations include
excess nutrients, oil, heavy metals, and various other pollutants in surficial sediments.
A portion of the general public has developed a negative perception of en masse swarms of adult Hexagenia because they can
disrupt recreational use of shorelines, and this perception has been incorporated into management goals for the recovery of
Hexagenia in western Lake Erie (see Management Implications below). Such perceptions may create pressures for management
to implement actions that manage lake systems below the natural carrying capacity of Hexagenia in mesotrophic waters of the
Great Lakes.
Management Implications
Management entities in both Europe and North America desire some level of abundance of burrowing mayflies, such as Hexagenia,
in mesotrophic habitats (Fremling and Johnson 1990, Bij de Vaate et al. 1992, Ohio Lake Erie Commission 1998). Recoveries of
burrowing mayflies, such as Hexagenia spp., in rivers in Europe and North America and now in western Lake Erie clearly show
how properly implemented pollution controls can bring about the recovery of large mesotrophic ecosystems. With recovery.
Hexagenia in the Great Lakes will probably reclaim its functional status as a major trophic link between detrital energy pools and
economically valuable fishes such as yellow perch and walleye.
The recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie reminds us of an outstanding feature associated with using Hexagenia as an
indicator of ecosystem health - the massive swarms of winged adults that are typical of healthy, productive Hexagenia populations.
These swarms are highly visible to the public who use them to judge success of pollution-abatement programs by seeing a 'real'
species that signifies the return of a 'real' habitat to a desirable condition in the Great Lakes. This public perception has influenced
target values set by management for the recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie (i.e., imperiled and good above excellent.
Figure 4). However, values above excellent are based on societies' perception of excessive en masse emergences of winged
Hexagenia which affect electrical power generation, vehicle traffic, and outdoor activities. These values may not represent the best
scientific information for the historic, natural carrying capacity of Hexagenia in mesotrophic waters. For example, the target value
of excellent is based on historical densities, a desire to return the system to an earlier, more 'pristine' condition and to provide prey
for valuable fishes. Yet, there is no scientific information that indicates densities of nymphs above 'excellent' would be in conflict
with historical data, previous system conditions, and prey availability to fishes.
Comments from the author(s)
In the early 20th century, Hexagenia were believed to be abundant in all mesotrophic waters of the Great Lakes including Green Bay
117
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
(Lake Michigan), Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron).
Lake St. Clair, western Lake Erie, Bay of Quinte
(Lake Ontario), and portions of interconnecting
rivers and harbors. Thirty years of pollution-
abatement programs may have allowed
Hexagenia to return to other areas of the Great
Lakes besides western Lake Erie as evidenced
by anecdotal sightings of winged mayflies in the
1990s. However, anecdotal reports have slowed
and only one scientific study (Krieger et al. 2007)
has been performed to confirm anecdotal reports.
and that study in central Lake Erie could not
verify any Hexagenia recovery.
ฃ 100-
400-
300-
200-
Imperiled
Excellent
1995 1996 1997
1998 1999 2000
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 4. Densities (number/m2) of Hexagenia, three-year running average
of densities, and subjective target-reference values of desired abundance
(i.e., poor, fair, good, etc.) in western Lake Erie.
Source: Based on - Ohio Lake Erie Commission (2004)
The only sustained recovery of Hexagenia in the
Great Lakes (i.e., western Lake Erie) should be
monitored for another 4 to 6 years to determine
annual variability and the carrying capacity of
this taxon in mesotrophic waters. If scientifically
measured, the recovery will provide management agencies with a quantitative endpoint of Hexagenia density, which can be
used to measure recovery to a mesotrophic state in waters throughout the Great Lakes. In addition, a scientifically determined
carrying capacity of Hexagenia may also be useful as a benthic indicator for remediation of contaminated sediments and as a
guide for acceptable levels for food for valuable percid communities. Contaminant levels in sediments that meet USEPA and
OMOE guidelines (i.e., "clean dredged sediment") and IJC criterion for oil and hydrocarbons (i.e., "sediment not polluted") will
not impair Hexagenia populations. There will be a graded response to concentrations of metals and oil in sediment exceeding
these guidelines for clean sediment. Reductions in phosphorus levels in formerly eutrophic habitats are likely to be accompanied
by colonization of Hexagenia, if surficial sediments are otherwise uncontaminated. Since Hexagenia can be one of the largest
and most abundant prey for percid fishes such as yellow perch and young walleye, the reestablishment of Hexagenia in nearshore
waters of Great Lakes should be encouraged.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Don W. Schloesser, USGS, Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, dschloesser@usgs.gov
Sources
Beeton, A.M. 1969. Changes in the environment and biota of the Great Lakes. Pages 150-187 in Eutrophication: causes.
consequences, correctives. Proceedings of a Symposium. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Bij de Vaate, A., Klink, A., and Oosterbroek, F., 1992. The mayfly, Ephoron virgo (Olivier), back in the Dutch Parts of the rivers
Rhine and Meuse. Hydrobiological Bulletin 25:237-240.
Bridgeman, T.B., Schloesser, D.W., and Krause, A.E. 2005. Recruitment of Hexagenia mayfly nymphs in western Lake Erie linked
to environmental variability. Ecological Applications 16(2):0000-0000.
Burns, N.M. 1985. Erie: The Lake That Survived. Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, Totowa, Illinois. 320 pp.
Dermott, R. personal communication. Canadian Center for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
Edsall, T.A., Manny, B.A., Schloesser, D.W., Nichols, S.J., and Frank, A.M. 1991. Production of Hexagenia limbata nymphs in
contaminated sediments in the upper Great Lakes connecting channels. Hydrobiologia 219:353-361.
Edsall, T.A., Gorman, O.T., and Evrard, L.M. 2004. Burrowing mayflies as indicators of ecosystem health: status of populations
in two western Lake Superior embayments. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 7(4):507-513.
Edsall, T.A., Bur, M., Gorman, O.T., and Schaeffer, J.S. 2005. Burrowing mayflies as indicators of ecosystem health: status of
populations in western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 8(2):107-116.
118
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Edwards, C. J. and Ryder, R.A., eds. 1990. Biological Surrogates of Mesotrophic Ecosystem Health in the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Report to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. ISBN 1-895085-09-8. International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
81pp.
Fremling, C.R. and Johnson, D.K. 1990. Recurrence ofHexagenia mayflies demonstrates improved water quality in Pool 2 and
Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River, 243-248. -In: Mayflies and stoneflies. Campbell, I. (ed.). Kluwer Academic Publication.
Kolar, C.S., Hudson,P.L., and Savino, J.F. 1997. Conditions for the return and simulation of the recovery of burrowing mayflies in
western Lake Erie. Ecological Applications 7:665-676.
Krieger, K. personal communication. Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio.
Krieger, K.A., Bur, M.T., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Barton, D.R., and Schloesser, D.W. 2007. Distribution and abundance of burrowing
mayflies (Hesagenia spp.) in Lake Erie, 1997-2005. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33 (Supplement l):20-33.
Krieger, K. A., Schloesser, D.W., Manny, B.A., Trisler, C.E., Heady, S.E., Ciborowski, J.J.H., and Muth, K.M. 1996. Recovery of
burrowing mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae: Hexagenia) in western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:254-
263.
Madenjian, C.P., Schloesser, D.W., and Krieger, K.A. 1998: Population models of burrowing mayfly recolonization in western
Lake Erie. Ecological Applications 8(4): 1206-1212.
Ohio Lake Erie Commission. 1998. State of Ohio 1998: State of the Lake Report. Ohio Lake Erie Commission, Toledo, Ohio. 88
pp. (Available from Ohio Lake Erie Commission, One Maritime Plaza, 4th Floor, Toledo, Ohio 43604-1866, USA).
Ohio Lake Erie Commission. 2004. State of the Lake Report 2004; Lake Erie Quality Index. Ohio Lake Erie Commission, Toledo,
Ohio. 79 pp. (Available from Ohio Lake Erie Commission, One Maritime Plaza, 4th Floor, Toledo, Ohio 43604-1866, USA).
Reynoldson, T.B., Schloesser, D.W., and Manny, B. A. 1989. Development of a benthic invertebrate objective for mesotrophic Great
Lakes waters. Journal of Great Lakes Research 15:669-686.
Schloesser, D.W., Edsall, T.A., Manny, B.A., and Nichols, S.J. 1991. Distribution of Hexagenia nymphs and visible oil in sediments
of the upper Great Lakes connecting channels. Hydrobiologia 219: 345-352.
Schloesser, D.W. and Hiltunen, J.K. 1984. Life cycle of the mayfly Hexagenia limbata in the st. Marys River between Lake
Superior and Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 10:435-439.
Schloesser, D.W. 1988. Zonation of mayfly nymphs and caddisfly larvae in the St. Marys River. Journal of Great Lakes Research
14:227-233.
Schloesser, D.W., Krieger, K.A., Ciborowski, J.J.H., and Corkum, L.D. 2000. Recolonization and possible recovery of burrowing
mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae: Hexagenia spp.) in Lake Erie of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Aquatic
Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 8:125-141.
Schloesser, D.W and Nalepa, T.F. 2001. Changing abundance ofHexagenia mayfly nymphs in western Lake Erie of the Laurentian
Great Lakes: impediments to assessment of lake recovery? International Review Hydrobiologia 86(1):87-103.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed
November 18, 1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
119
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Indicator #123
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Abundances of the benthic amphipod Diporeia spp. continue to decline in Lake Michigan, Lake
Huron, and Lake Ontario. While it is presently gone or rare in shallow waters in each of these
lakes, it is also declining in deeper, offshore waters. The decline in the latter regions is temporally
linked to the expansion and increase of quagga mussels. Studies on trends in Lake Superior are
conflicting, but the general opinion of researchers is that declines are not occurring. Diporeia are
currently gone or very rare in Lake Erie.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Data sets are conflicting on current trends of Diporeia populations in Lake Superior. One long-term
monitoring program shows that Diporeia abundances are declining in offshore areas (greater than 90
m), but abundances in nearshore areas (less than 65 m) remain unchanged. Other long and short-term
sampling programs show no overall trend in either offshore or nearshore areas.
Lake Michigan
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Diporeia abundances continue to decline in Lake Michigan. A recent lakewide survey (in 2005)
indicated abundances were lower by 84% compared to abundances found in 2000. Diporeia are now
completely gone from depths less than 80 m over most of the lake, and abundances are in the state of
decline at depths greater than 80 m.
Lake Huron
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Diporeia abundances continue to decline in Lake Huron. The most recent lakewide survey in the
main basin (in 2003) indicated abundances were lower by 57% compared to abundances found in
2000. Diporeia are now completely gone from depths less than 60 m except in the northeastern end
and continue to decline at depths greater than 60 m. Annual monitoring at 11 sites indicated that, in
2005, Diporeia were gone from five sites and abundances were lower compared to 2004 at the other
six sites. Because of insufficient data, trends for Georgian Bay and the North Channel are not known.
However, limited temporal and spatial data from the southern end of Georgian Bay showed that
Diporeia have been declining since 2000 and are now completely gone at depths less than 93 m.
Lake Erie
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Because of shallow, warm waters, Diporeia are naturally not present in the western and central basins.
Diporeia declined in the eastern basin beginning in the early 1990s and have not been found since
1998.
Lake Ontario
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Based on several limited surveys in 2005, Diporeia continue to decline in Lake Ontario. In one survey
of 11 sites, Diporeia declined at two sites and increased slightly at two sites compared to 2004. It was
not found at six sites in both years. In another survey of 14 sites, Diporeia declined at sites less than
140 m, but increased slightly at sites greater than 190 m. It was not found at sites less than 90 m over
most of the lake.
120
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Purpose
To provide a measure of the biological integrity of the offshore regions of the Great Lakes by assessing the abundance of
the benthic macroinvertebrate Diporeia
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem goal is to maintain a healthy, stable population of Diporeia in offshore regions of the main basins of the Great
Lakes, and to maintain at least a presence in nearshore regions.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
This glacial-marine relic was once the most abundant benthic organism in cold, offshore regions (greater than 30 m (98 ft)) of each
of the lakes. It was present, but less abundant in nearshore regions of the open lake basins, but naturally absent from shallow, warm
bays, basins, and river mouths. Diporeia occurs in the upper few centimeters of bottom sediment and feeds on algal material that
freshly settles to the bottom from the water column (i.e., mostly diatoms). In turn, it is fed upon by most species of Great Lakes
fish; in particular by many forage fish species, which themselves serve as prey for the larger piscivores such as trout and salmon.
For example, sculpin feed almost exclusively upon Diporeia, and sculpin are fed upon by lake trout. Also, lake whitefish, an
important commercial species, feeds heavily on Diporeia. Thus, Diporeia was an important pathway by which energy was cycled
through the ecosystem, and a key component in the food web of offshore regions. The importance of this organism is recognized
in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Supplement to Annex 1 - Specific Objectives (United States and Canada 1987).
On a broad scale, abundances are directly related to the amount of food settling to the bottom, and population trends reflect the
overall productivity of the ecosystem. Abundances can also vary somewhat relative to shifts in predation pressure from changing
fish populations. In nearshore regions, this species is sensitive to local sources of pollution.
Status of Diporeia
Diporeia populations are currently in a state of dramatic decline in Lake Michigan (Figure 1), Lake Ontario (Figure 2), and
1994/95
2000
2005
Density (No. m2x103)
Density (No. m2x103)
Density (No. m2x103)
Figure 1. Distribution and abundance (number per square meter) of the amphipod D/pore/aspp. in Lake Michigan
in 1994-1995, 2000, and 2005.
Small crosses indicate location of sampling stations.
Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
121
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Amphipod Diporeia
1995
Lake Huron, and they are completely
gone or very rare in Lake Erie. Results
are conflicting for Lake Superior. One
data set shows a trend of declining
abundances in offshore waters, but other
data sets show no trend. In all the lakes
except Lake Superior, abundances
have decreased progressively from
shallow to deeper areas. Initial declines
were first observed in all lake areas
within two to three years of when
zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)
or quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis)
first became established. These two
species were introduced into the Great
Lakes in the late 1980s via the ballast
water of ocean-going ships. Reasons
for the negative response of Diporeia
to these mussel species are not entirely
clear. One hypothesis is that dreissenid
mussels are out-competing Diporeia
for available food. That is, large mussel
populations filter food material before it
reaches the bottom, thereby decreasing
amounts available to Diporeia.
However, evidence suggests that the
reason for the decline is more complex
than a simple decline in food because
Diporeia have completely disappeared
from areas where food is still settling
to the bottom and where there are no local populations of mussels. Also, individual Diporeia show no signs of starvation before
or during population declines. Further, Diporeia and Dreissena apparently coexist in some lakes outside of the Great Lakes (i.e..
Finger Lakes in New York).
Pressures
As populations of dreissenid mussels continue to expand, it may be expected that declines in Diporeia will become more extensive.
In the open waters of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario, zebra mussels are most abundant at depths less than 50 m
(164 ft), and Diporeia are now gone or rare from lake areas as deep as 90 m (295 ft). Recently, quagga mussel populations have
increased dramatically in each of these lakes and are occurring at deeper depths than zebra mussels. The decline of Diporeia at
depths greater than 90 m can be attributed to the expansion of quagga mussels to these depths.
Management Implications
The continuing decline of Diporeia has strong implications to the Great Lakes food web. As noted, many fish species rely on
Diporeia as a major prey item, and the loss of Diporeia will likely have an impact on these species. Responses may include
changes in diet, movement to areas with more food, or a reduction in weight or energy content. Implications to populations include
changes in distribution, abundance, growth, recruitment, and condition. Recent evidence suggests that fish are already being
affected. For instance, growth and condition of an important commercial species, lake whitefish, has declined significantly in areas
where Diporeia abundances are low in Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario. Also, studies show that other species such
as alewife, slimy sculpin, and bloater have been affected. Management agencies must know the extent and implications of these
changes when assessing the current state and future trends of the fishery. Any proposed rehabilitation of native fish species, such as
the re-introduction of deepwater ciscoes in Lake Ontario, requires knowledge that adequate food, especially Diporeia, is present.
Comments from the author(s)
Because of the rapid rate at which Diporeia populations are declining and their significance to the food web, agencies committed
Figure 2. Distribution and abundance (number per square meter) of the amphipod
Diporeia spp. in Lake Ontario in 1995, 2003, and 2005.
Small crosses indicate a site where no sample was taken.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
122
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
to documenting trends should report data in a timely manner. The population decline has a defined natural pattern, and studies of
food web impacts should be spatially well coordinated. Also, studies to define the cause of the negative response of Diporeia to
Dreissena should continue and build upon existing information. With an understanding of exactly why Diporeia populations are
declining, we may better predict what additional areas of the lakes are at risk. Also, by better understanding the cause, we may
better assess the potential for population recovery if and when dreissenid populations stabilize or decline.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
T.F. Nalepa, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor,
MI
R. Dermott, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, ON
The authors thank the Great Lakes National Program Office, EPA for providing some data used in this report.
Sources
Dermott, R. 2001. Sudden disappearance of the amphipod Diporeia from eastern Lake Ontario, 1993-1995. /. Great Lakes Res.
27:423-433.
Dermott, R., and Kerec, D. 1997. Changes in the deepwater benthos of eastern Lake Erie since the invasion of Dreissena: 1979-
1993. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54:922-930.
Hondorp, D.W., Pothoven, S.A., and Brandt, S.B. 2005. Influence of Diporeia density on the diet composition, relative abundance,
and energy density of planktivorous fishes in southeast Lake Michigan. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134:588-601.
Lozano, S.J., Scharold, J.V., and Nalepa, T.F. 2001. Recent declines in benthic macroinvertebrate densities in Lake Ontario. Can.
J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:518-529.
Mohr, L.C. and Nalepa, T.F. 2005. Proceedings of a workshop on the dynamics of lake whitefish (Coregonis clupeaformis) and
the amphipod Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. 66.
Nalepa, T.F., Rockwell, D.C., and Schloesser, D.W. 2006. Disappearance of Diporeia spp. in the Great Lakes: workshop
summary, discussion, and recommendations. NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-136, Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI.
Nalepa, T.F., Fanslow, D.L., Foley, A.J., III, Lang, G.A., Eadie, B.J., and Quigley, M.A. 2006. Continued disappearance of the
benthic amphipod Diporeia spp. in Lake Michigan: is there evidence for food limitation? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63: 872-890.
Nalepa, T. F., Fanslow, D. L., Pothoven, S. A., Foley, A. J. Ill, and Lang, G. A. 2007. Long-term trends in benthic macroinvertebrate
populations in Lake Huron over the past four decades. /. Great Lakes Res. 33: 421-436.
Owens, R.W., and Dittman, D.E. 2003. Shifts in the diets of slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis) in Lake Ontario following the collapse of the burrowing amphipod Diporeia. Aquat. Ecosys. Health Manag. 6:311-
323.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
123
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish
Indicator #124
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Poor
Unchanging
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan were unstudied for this indicator and were categorized with a not
assessed status and an undetermined trend.
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Poor
Unchanging
Lake Ontario
Status: Poor
Trend: Unchanging
Purpose
To assess select external anomalies in nearshore fish
To identify nearshore areas that have populations of benthic fish exposed to contaminated sediments
To help assess the recovery of Areas of Concern (AOCs) following remedial activities
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to help restoration and protection of beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or in open Great Lakes waters, including
beneficial use (iv) Fish tumors or other deformities (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), Annex 2). This indicator
also supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
The presence of contaminated sediments at AOCs has been correlated with an increased incidence of external and internal
anomalies in benthic fish species (brown bullhead and white suckers) that may be associated with specific groups of chemicals.
Elevated incidence of liver tumors (histopathologically verified pre-neoplastic or neoplastic growths) were frequently identified
during the past two decades. These elevated frequencies of liver tumors have been shown to be useful indicators of beneficial
use impairment of Great Lakes aquatic habitat. External raised growths (histopathologically verified tumors on the body and
lips), such as lip papillomas, have also been useful indicators. Raised growths may not have a single etiology, but they have been
produced experimentally by direct application of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) carcinogens to brown bullhead skin.
Field and laboratory studies have correlated verified liver and external raised growths with chemical contaminants found in
sediments at some AOCs in Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario and Lake Huron. Other external anomalies may also be used
to assess beneficial use impairment. The external anomaly prevalence index (EAPI) will provide a tool for following trends in fish
population health that can be used by resource managers and community-based monitoring programs.
The EAPI has been developed for mature (greater than three years of age) fish as a marker of both contaminant exposure and of
internal pathology. Brown bullhead has been used to develop the index. It is the most frequently used benthic indicator species in
the southern Great Lakes and has been recommended by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as a key indicator species (IJC
1989). The most common external anomalies found in brown bullhead in Lake Erie over the last twenty years are: 1) abnormal
barbels (BA); 2) focal discoloration (FD); and 3) raised growths (RG) - on the body and lips (Figure 1). Initial statistical analysis
of sediments and external anomalies at different locations indicates that variations in the chemical mixtures (total, priority and
carcinogenic PAHs; DDT metabolites; organochlorine chemicals (OC); and total metals) show a statistically significant relation
with a differing prevalence of individual external anomalies (raised growths and barbell abnormalities). Age and external anomalies
indicate a positive correlation (Figure 2). Impairment determinations should be based on age comparisons of the prevalence of
external anomalies at contaminated sites with the prevalence at "reference" (least impacted) sites (Figure 3). Preliminary data
indicate that if the prevalence of raised growths on the body and lip combined is greater than 5%, barbell abnormalities greater
124
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
than 10% and focal discoloration (melanistic alterations) greater than 5% in brown bullhead, the population should be considered
impaired.
LE 5%
FD 20%
RG-L 15%
Eye 11%
RG-B 7%
Fin 3% Gill 2%
Figure 1. External anomalies on brown bullhead
collected from Lake Erie from the 1980s through
2000.
BA-barbel abnormalities, RG-raised growth (body
and lip), FD-focal discoloration, LE-lesion (total
ca. 2400 fish).
Source: Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, Ml
6&7 YR
3YR
Sites
Figure 2. Age of brown bullhead at Lake Erie sites from 1986-87 and 1998-
2000 collections in relation to combined external anomalies.
Age groups; age 3, ages 4&5, ages 6&7.
Source: S.B. Smith, unpublished data
Surveys conducted in 1999 and 2000 in the
Detroit, Ottawa, Black, Cuyahoga, Ashtabula.
Buffalo, and Niagara Rivers and at Old Woman
Creek in Lake Erie demonstrated that external
raised growths are positively associated with
both PAH metabolites in bile and in PAH
concentrations in sediment. The association
with PAH metabolites in bile (Figure 4) is
stronger than that with total PAH concentrations
in sediments (Figure 5). Bile metabolite
concentrations may be a better estimate of
potential exposure of PAHs to individual fish
than concentrations in sediments. The EAPI
indicates the impacts from the exposure to
individual fish from the PAHs as well as other
compounds in the mixtures of compounds that
may be present in sediments. Barbel deformities
(Figure 5) also showed a positive correlation
with total PAH levels in sediment. In addition to
the locations listed above, the Huron River and
Presque Isle Bay sites all showed a statistically
significant correlation between external raised
growths and concentration of heavy metals in
sediment (Figure 6).
30
20
10
3 4&5 6&7
Age Groups
Figure 3. External anomalies (Melanoma. Raised Growth on body and
lips, and Barbell abnormalities) in relation to sites classified for sediment
contaminants and BB morphology from all collections in the 1980s and
1990s.
Source: S. B. Smith, unpublished data
125
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
tfl
1
c
"5 50
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
index that could be used as an indicator of ecosystem health. The establishment of a single data base to house all lake wide-data
for each Great Lake is necessary to enable managers and decision makers to gain an understanding of the health of individual fish
(e.g. brown bullhead) and their populations. Unless this takes place, understanding of health conditions at AOCs compared to the
least impacted (reference) sites will remain unknown and the delisting process will not advance.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Stephen B. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources, Reston, VA
Paul C. Baumann, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources, Columbus, OH
*Scott Brown, Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON
*Dedicated to our friend and collogue Scott Brown, whose untimely passing has saddened all who knew him.
Sources
U.S. Policy Committee. 2001. Restoring United States Great Lakes Areas of Concern, Delisting Principles and Guidelines.
Distributed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago. 8pp. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html (current July
2007)
International Joint Commission (IJC). 1989. Guidance on characterization of toxic substances problems in areas of concern in the
Great Lakes Basin. Report of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, ON.
Smith, S.B., Reader, D.R.P., Baumann, PC., Nelson, S.R., Adams, J.A., Smith, K.A., Powers, M.M., Hudson, PL., Rosolofson,
A.J., Rowan, M., Peterson, D., Blazer, V.S., Hickey, J.T., and Karwowski, K. 2003. Lake Erie Ecological Investigation; Summary
of findings: Part 1; Sediments, Invertebrate communities, and Fish Communities: Part 2; Indicators, anomalies, Histopathology,
and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Geological Survey, Mimeo.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
127
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
Indicator #125
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: There are remnant populations in each basin of the Great Lakes, but few of these populations
are large. Much progress has been made in recent years learning about population status in
many tributaries. Confirmed observations and captures of lake sturgeon are increasing in all
lakes. Stocking is contributing to increased abundance in some areas. There remains a need
for information on some remnant spawning populations. Little is known about the juvenile life
stage. In many areas habitat restoration is needed because spawning and rearing habitat has
been destroyed or altered, or access to it has been blocked.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving or Undetermined
Rationale: Lake sturgeon abundance shows an increasing trend in a few remnant populations and where
stocked in the Ontonagon and St. Louis rivers. Lake sturgeon currently reproduce in at least 10 of
21 known historic spawning tributaries.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving and Undetermined
Rationale: Remnant populations persist in at least nine tributaries having unimpeded connections to Lake
Michigan. Successful reproduction has been documented in seven rivers, and abundance has
increased in a few in recent years. Active rehabilitation has been initiated through rearing assistance
in one remnant population, and reintroductions have been initiated in three rivers.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving and Undetermined
Rationale: Current lake sturgeon spawning activity is limited to five tributaries, four in Georgian Bay and the
North Channel and one in Saginaw Bay. Abundant stocks of mixed sizes are consistently captured
in the North Channel, Georgian Bay, southern Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay.
Lake Erie
Status: Poor
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Current lake sturgeon spawning activity is unknown except for three spawning areas identified in
the Detroit and St. Clair Rivers. The western basin of Lake Erie, the Detroit River East of Fighting
Island, the North Channel of the St. Clair River and Anchor Bay in Lake St. Clair appear to be
nursery areas for juveniles. In the central and eastern basins lake sturgeon are scarcer.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Lakewide incidental catches since 1995 indicate a possible improvement in their status. Spawning
occurs in the Niagara River, Trent River, and possibly the Black River. There are sizeable populations
within the St. Lawrence River system. Stocking for restoration began in 1995 in New York.
128
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Purpose
To assess the presence and abundance of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways and
tributaries
To infer the health and status of the nearshore benthivore fish community that does, could or should include lake
sturgeon
Ecosystem Objective
Conserve, enhance or rehabilitate self-sustaining populations of lake sturgeon where the species historically occurred and at a level
that will permit all state, provincial and federal delistings of classifications that derive from degraded or impaired populations, e.g..
threatened, endangered or at risk species. Lake sturgeon is identified as an important species in the Fish Community Goals and
Objectives for each of the Great Lakes. Lake Superior has a lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan, and many of the Great Lakes States
have lake sturgeon recovery or rehabilitation plans which call for increasing numbers of lake sturgeon beyond current levels.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) were historically abundant in the Great Lakes with spawning populations using many of
the major tributaries, connecting waters, and shoal areas across the basin. Prior to European settlement of the region, they were a
dominant component of the nearshore benthivore fish community, with populations estimated in the millions in each of the Great
Lakes (Baldwin et al. 1979). In the mid- to late 1800s, they contributed significantly as a commercial species ranking among the
five most abundant species in the commercial catch
(Baldwin et al. 1979, Figure 1).
The decline of lake sturgeon populations in the Great
Lakes was rapid and commensurate with habitat
destruction, degraded water quality, and intensive
fishing associated with settlement and development
of the region. Sturgeon were initially considered a
nuisance species of little value by European settlers.
but by the mid-1800s, their value as a commercial
species began to be recognized and a lucrative fishery
developed. In less than 50 years, their abundance had
declined sharply, and since 1900, they have remained
a highly depleted species of little consequence to the
commercial fishery. Sturgeon is now extirpated from
many tributaries and waters where they once spawned
and flourished (Figures 2 and 3). They are considered
rare, endangered, threatened, or of watch or special
concern status by the various Great Lakes fisheries
management agencies. Their harvest is currently
prohibited or highly regulated in most waters of the
Great Lakes.
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
Figure 1. Historic lake sturgeon harvest from each of the Great
Lakes.
Source: Baldwin etal. 1979
Status of Lake Sturgeon
Efforts continue by many agencies and organizations to gather information on remnant spawning populations in the Great Lakes.
Most sturgeon populations continue to sustain themselves at a small fraction of their historical abundance. In many systems.
access to spawning habitat has been blocked, and other habitats have been altered. However, there are remnant populations in each
basin of the Great Lakes, and some of these populations are large in number (tens of thousands offish, Figure 3). Genetic analysis
has shown that Great Lakes populations are regionally structured and show significant diversity within and among lakes.
Lake Superior
The fish community of Lake Superior remains relatively intact in comparison to the other Great Lakes (Bronte et al. 2003).
Historic and current information indicate that at least 21 Lake Superior tributaries supported spawning lake sturgeon populations
(Harkness and Dymond 1961; Auer 2003; Holey et al. 2000). Lake sturgeon currently reproduce in at least 10 of these tributaries.
Sturgeon populations in Lake Superior continue to sustain themselves at a small fraction of their historical abundance.
129
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
^^^^^^m Kilometers
0 62.5 125 250 375 50C
Legend
o historic distribution
Great Lakes Shoreline
Figure 2. Historic distribution of lake sturgeon.
Source: Zollweg etal. 2003
i Kilometers
0 75 150 300 450
Legend
population status
extirpated
large
remnant
unknown/mixed
reintroduced
Great Lakes
Shoreline
Figure 3. Current distribution of lake sturgeon.
Source: Zollweg etal. 2003
Current populations in Lake
Superior are reduced from
historic levels and none meet
all rehabilitation targets. The
number of lake sturgeon in
annual spawning runs has
been estimated over a multi-
year period to range from 200
to 375 adults in the Sturgeon
River, (Hay-Chmielewski and
Whelan 1997; Holey et al.
2000), 200 to 350 adults in the
Bad River in 1997 and 1998
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)) and 140 adults in the
Kaministiquia River (Holey et
al. 2000). Estimates of lakewide
abundance are available from
the period during or after
targeted commercial harvests
in the 1880s. Using data from
Baldwin et al. (1979), Hay-
Chmielewski and Whelan
(1997) estimated that historic
lake sturgeon abundance in
Lake Superior was 870,000
individuals of all ages. If the
Rehabilitation Plan targets of
1,500 adults were met in all
21 tributaries, the minimum
lakewide abundance of adult
fish would be 31,500.
Radio telemetry studies suggest
that a river resident population
of lake sturgeon inhabits the
Kaministiquia River (Friday 2004). The Pic River also has the potential to support a river
resident population. Juvenile lake sturgeon index surveys conducted by the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission and USFWS in Wisconsin waters show a gradually increasing
trend in catch per unit effort from 1994 through 2002 (Table 1). Since 2001, sturgeon spawning
surveys have been conducted for the first time in eight tributaries. Genetic analysis has shown
that lake sturgeon populations in Lake Superior are significantly different from those in the
other Great Lakes. Currently, there is no commercial harvest of lake sturgeon allowed in Lake
Superior. Regulation of recreational and subsistence/home use harvest in Lake Superior varies
by agency.
Lake Michigan
Sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan continue to sustain themselves at a small fraction of
their historical abundance. An optimistic estimate of the lakewide adult abundance is less
than 5,000 fish, well below 1% of the most conservative estimates of historic abundance (Hay-
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Month
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
CPE
0.333333
1
0.714286
1.142857
1.769231
2.5
2,25
4.5
5.5
Table 1. Trends in juvenile
lake sturgeon CPE during
June in Lake Superior near
the mouth of the Bad River.
130
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Chmielewski and Whelan 1997). Remnant populations currently are known to spawn in waters of at least nine tributaries having
unimpeded connections to Lake Michigan (Schneeberger et al. 2005). Two rivers, the Menominee and Peshtigo, appear to support
annual spawning runs of 200 or more adults, and five rivers, the Manistee, Muskegon, Grand, Fox and Oconto, appear to support
annual spawning runs of between 25 and 75 adults. Successful reproduction has been documented in all seven of these rivers,
and age 0 juveniles can be captured regularly in several of these rivers. Although actual recruitment levels remain unknown,
abundance in some of these rivers appears to be increasing in recent years. Two other rivers, the Manistique and Kalamazoo,
appear to have annual spawning runs of less than 20 fish, and reproductive success remains unknown. Lake sturgeon have been
observed during spawning times in a few other Lake Michigan tributaries such as the St. Joseph and Millecoquins, and near some
shoal areas where sturgeon are thought to have spawned historically. It is not known if spawning occurs regularly in these systems,
however, and their status is uncertain.
Lake Huron
Lake sturgeon populations continue to be well below historical levels. Spawning has been identified in the Garden, Mississaugi
and Spanish rivers in the North Channel, in the Nottawasaga River in Georgian Bay and in the Rifle River in Saginaw Bay. Adult
spawning populations for each of these river systems are estimated to be in the 10s and are well below rehabilitation targets (Hay-
Chmielewski and Whelan 1997; Holey et al. 2000). Research in the Saginaw River Watershed in 2005 - 2007 indicated that lake
sturgeon are no longer spawning in that watershed. Barriers on Michigan tributaries to Lake Huron continue to limit successful
rehabilitation. Stocks of lake sturgeon in Lake Huron are monitored primarily through the volunteer efforts of commercial fishers
cooperating with the various resource management agencies. To date the combined efforts of researchers in U.S. and Canadian
waters has resulted in over 6,600 sturgeon tagged in Saginaw Bay, southern Lake Huron, Georgian Bay and the North Channel,
with relatively large stocks of mixed sizes being captured at each of these general locations. Tag recoveries and telemetry studies
indicate that lake sturgeon are moving within and between jurisdictional boundaries and between lake basins, supporting the need
for more cooperative management between the states and between the U.S. and Canada. The Saginaw River watershed and the
St. Mary's River systems are being assessed for spawning. Both projects are ongoing and will continue through 2008. Similar
research is being planned for the Thunder and Rifle Rivers in Michigan.
Lake Erie
Lake sturgeon populations continue to be well below historical levels. Spawning has been identified at two locations in the
St. Clair River and at one location in the Detroit River (Manny and Kennedy 2002). Tag recovery data and telemetry research
indicate that a robust lake sturgeon stock (greater than 45,000 fish) reside in the North Channel of the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair (Thomas and Haas 2002). The North Channel of the St. Clair River, Anchor Bay in Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River (East
of Fighting Island), and the western basin of Lake Erie have been identified as nursery areas as indicated by consistent catches in
commercial and survey fishing gears. In the central and eastern basins of Lake Erie, lake sturgeon are scarcer with only occasional
catches of sub-adult or adult lake sturgeon in commercial fishing nets and none in research nets. A botulism-related die off in 2001
and 2002, and declines in sightings by anglers and others near Buffalo indicate a possible decline in population abundance of lake
sturgeon in Lake Erie. Survey work conducted in 2005 and 2006 indicated that no lake sturgeon spawning is taking place in the
Maumee River (OH). Research efforts will continue to focus on identifying new spawning locations, genetic difference between
stocks, habitat requirements, and migration patterns.
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario has lake sturgeon spawning activity documented in two major tributaries (Niagara River and Trent River) and
suspected in at least one more (Black River) on an infrequent basis. There is no targeted assessment of lake sturgeon in Lake
Ontario, but incidental catches in research nets have occurred since 1997 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2004) and 1995
(Eckert 2004), indicating a possible improvement in population status. Age analysis of lake sturgeon captured in the lower Niagara
River indicates successful reproduction in the mid-1990s. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation initiated
a stocking program in 1995 to recover lake sturgeon populations. Lake sturgeon has been stocked in the St. Lawrence River and
some of its tributaries, inland lakes in New York, and the Genesee River. There are sizeable populations within the St. Lawrence
River system, most notably Lac St. Pierre and the Des Prairies and St. Maurice Rivers. However, access is inhibited for many of
the historical spawning grounds in tributaries by small dams and within the St. Lawrence River by the Moses-Saunders Dam.
Pressures
Low numbers or lack offish (where extirpated) is itself a significant impediment to recovery in many spawning areas. Barriers
that prevent lake sturgeon from moving into tributaries to spawn are a major problem. Predation on eggs and newly hatched lake
sturgeon by non-native predators may also be a problem. The genetic structure of remaining populations is being studied by
131
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
university researchers and fishery managers, and this information will be used to guide future management decisions. With the
collapse of the Caspian Sea sturgeon populations, black market demand for sturgeon caviar could put tremendous pressure on
Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations. An additional concern for lake sturgeon in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario is the presence of
high densities of round gobies and the spread of Botulism Type E, which produced a die-off of lake sturgeon in Lake Erie in 2001
and 2002. Botulism may also have been the cause of similar mortalities observed in Lake Ontario in 2003 and in Green Bay of
Lake Michigan.
Management Implications
Lake sturgeon is an important native species that is listed in the Fish Community Goals and Objectives for all of the Great Lakes.
Many of the Great Lakes states and provinces either have or are developing lake sturgeon management plans promoting the need
to inventory, protect and restore the species to greater levels of abundance.
While overexploitation removed millions of adult fish, habitat degradation and alteration eliminated traditional spawning grounds.
Current work is underway by state, federal, tribal, provincial and private groups to document active spawning sites, assess habitat
condition and availability of good habitat, and determine the genetics of remnant Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations.
Several meetings and workshops have been held focusing on identifying the research and assessment needs to further rehabilitation
of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes (Holey et al. 2000, Zollweg et al. 2003, Quinlan et al. 2005,) and a significant amount of
research and assessment directed towards these needs has occurred in the last 10 years. Among these is the research to better define
the genetic structuring of Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations, and genetics-based rehabilitation plans are being developed to
help guide reintroduction and rehabilitation efforts being implemented across the Great Lakes. Research into new fish passage
technologies that will allow safe upstream and downstream passage around barriers to migration also have been underway for
several years. Many groups are continuing to work to identify current lake sturgeon spawning locations in the Great Lakes, and
studies are being initiated to identify habitat preferences for juvenile lake sturgeon (ages 0 to 2).
Comments from the author(s)
Research and development is needed to determine ways for lake sturgeon to pass man-made barriers on rivers. In addition, there
are significant, legal, logistical, and financial hurdles to overcome in order to restore degraded spawning habitats in connecting
waterways and tributaries to the Great Lakes. More monitoring is needed to determine the current status of Great Lakes lake
sturgeon populations, particularly the juvenile life stage. Cooperative efforts between law enforcement and fishery managers are
required as world pressure on sturgeon stocks will result in the need to protect large adult lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Betsy Trometer and Emily Zollweg, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office,
Amherst, NY 14228
Robert Elliott, USFWS, Green Bay Fishery Resources Office, New Franken, WI 54229
Henry Quinlan, USFWS, Ashland Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, WI 54806
James Boase, USFWS, Alpena Fishery Resources Office, Alpena, MI, 49707
Sources
Auer, N.A. (ed.). 2003. A lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fishery Commission Misc. Publ.
2003-02.
Baldwin, N.S., Saalfeld, R.W., Ross, M.A., and Buettner, HJ. 1979. Commercial fish production in the Great Lakes 1867-1977.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission Technical Report 3.
Bronte, C.R., Ebener, M.P., Schreiner, D.R., DeVault, D.S., Petzold, M.M., Jensen, D.A., Richards, C., and Lozano, S.J. 2003. Fish
community changes in Lake Superior, 1970-2000. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:1552-1574.
Eckert, T.H. 2004. Summary of 1976-2003 Warm Water Assessment. In New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Lake Ontario Annual Report 2003. Bureau of Fisheries, Lake Ontario Unit and St. Lawrence River Unit. Cape
Vincent and Watertown, NY.
132
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Friday, M. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Upper Great Lakes Management Unit-Lake Superior, 435 James St.
South, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7E 6S8, personal communication)
Harkness, W. J., and Dymond, J.R. 1961. The lake sturgeon: The history of its fishery and problems of conservation. Ontario Dept.
of Lands and Forests, Fish and Wildl. Branch. 120 pp.
Hay-Chmielewski, E.M., and Whelan, G.E. 1997. Lake sturgeon rehabilitation strategy. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources Fisheries Division: Special Report Number 18, Ann Arbor, MI.
Holey, M.E., Baker, E.A., Thuemler, T.F., and Elliott, R.F. 2000. Research and assessment needs to restore Lake Sturgeon in the
Great Lakes: results of a workshop sponsored by the Great Lakes Fishery Trust. Lansing, MI.
Manny, B.A., and Kennedy, G.W. 2002. Known lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) spawning habitat in the channel between
Lakes Huron and Erie in the Laurentian Great Lakes. /. Applied Ichthyology 18:486-490.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2004. Lake Ontario Fish Communities and Fisheries: 2003 Annual Report of the Lake
Ontario Management Unit. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Picton, ON.
Quinlan, H., Elliott, R., Zollweg, E., Bryson, D. Boase, J., and Weisser, J. 2005. Proceedings of the second Great Lakes lake
sturgeon coordination meeting, November 9-10, 2004. Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
Schneeberger, P. J. Elliott, R.F., Jonas, J.L. and Hart, S. 2005. Benthivores. In The state of Lake Michigan in 2000. eds. M.E. Holey
and T.N Trudeau. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 05-01, pp. 25-32.
Thomas, M.V., and Haas, R.C. 2002. Abundance, age structure, and spatial distribution of lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, in
the St. Clair system. J. Applied Ichthyology 18: 495-501.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ashland Fishery Resource Office, USFWS, 2800 Lake Shore Drive, Ashland, Wisconsin, 54806,
unpublished data.
Zollweg, E.G., Elliott, R.F., Hill, T.D., Quinlan, H.R., Trometer, E., and Weisser, J.W. (eds.). 2003. Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon
Coordination Meeting. In Proceedings of the December 11-12, 2002 Workshop, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
133
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures
Indicator #3514
This indicator report was last updated in 2003.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the institutionalized response of the commercial/industrial sector to pressures imposed on the ecosystem as a
result of production processes and service delivery
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of eco-efficiency is to deliver competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and increase quality
of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the lifecycle, to a level at least in line
with the earth's estimated carrying capacity (WBCSD 1996). In quantitative terms, the goal is to increase the ratio of the value of
output(s) produced by a firm to the sum of the environmental pressures generated by the firm (OECD et al. 1998).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
This indicator report for eco-efficiency is based upon the public documents produced by the 24 largest employers in the basin
which report eco-efficiency measures and implement eco-efficiency strategies. The 24 largest employers were selected as industry
leaders and as a proxy for assessing commercial/industrial eco-efficiency measures. This indicator should not be considered a
comprehensive evaluation of all the activities of the commercial/industrial sector, particularly small-scale organizations, though it
is presumed that many other industrial/commercial organizations are implementing and reporting on similar strategies.
Efforts to track eco-efficiency in the Great Lakes basin and in North America are still in the infancy stage. This is the first
assessment of its kind in the Great Lakes region. It includes 24 of the largest private employers, from a variety of sectors, operating
in the basin. Participation in eco-efficiency was tabulated from publicly available environmental reporting data from 10 Canadian
companies and 14 American companies based in (or with major operations in) the Great Lakes basin.
Tracking of eco-efficiency indicators is based on the notion that what is measured is what gets done. The evaluation of this indicator
is conducted by recording presence/absence of reporting related to performance in seven eco-efficiency reporting categories (net
sales, quantity of goods produced, material consumption, energy consumption, water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions,
emissions of ozone depleting substances (World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 2002)). In addition, the
evaluation includes an enumeration of specific initiatives that are targeted toward one or more of the elements of eco-efficiency
success (material intensity, energy intensity, toxic dispersion, recyclability and product durability (WBCSD 2002)).
State of Eco-Efficiency
Of the 24 companies surveyed, 10 reported publicly (available online or through customer service inquiry) on at least some measures
of eco-efficiency. Energy consumption and, to some extent, material consumption were the most commonly reported measures. Of
the 10 firms that reported on some elements of eco-efficiency, three reported on all seven measures. Of the 24 companies surveyed,
19 (or 79%) reported on implementation of specific eco-efficiency related initiatives. Two companies reported activities related
to all five success areas. Reported initiatives were most commonly targeted toward improved recycling and improved energy
efficiency.
Overall, companies in the manufacturing sector tended to provide more public information on environmental performance than the
retail or financial sectors. At the same time, nearly all firms expressed a commitment to reducing the environmental impact of their
134
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
10 -
0>
0 6
a
UJ 5
ฃ A
E
3
o -
H
Energy Consumption Materials Water Consumption GHG Emissions Ozone depleting
Consumption emissions
Eco-Efficiency Measure (based on WBCSD measures)
Figure 1. Number of the 24 largest employers in the Great Lakes basin
that publicly report eco-efficiency measures.
GHG=green house gas
Source: WBCSD = World Business Council for Sustainable Development
operations. A select number of companies, such
as Steelcase Inc. and General Motors in the U.S.
and Nortel Networks in Canada, have shown
strong leadership in comprehensive, easily
accessed, public reporting on environmental
performance. Others, such as Haworth Inc. and
Quad/Graphics, have shown distinct creativity
and innovation in implementing measures to
reduce their environmental impact. The concept
of eco-efficiency was defined in 1990 but was
not widely accepted until several years later.
Sp ecific data on commercial/ industrial measures
are only just being implemented, therefore it
is not yet possible to determine trends in eco-
efficiency reporting. In general, firms appear
to be working to improve the efficiency of their
goods and service delivery. This is an important
trend as it indicates the growing ability of
firms to increase the quantity/number of goods
and services produced for the same or a lesser
quantity of resources per unit of output.
While one or more eco-efficiency measures are
often included in environmental reporting, only a
few firms recognize the complete eco-efficiency
concept. Many firms recognize the need for more
environmentally sensitive delivery of goods and
services; however, the implementation of more
environmentally efficient processes appears
narrow in scope. These observations indicate
that more could be done toward more sustainable
goods and services delivery.
Pressures
Eco-efficiency per unit of production will
undoubtedly increase over time, given the
economic, environmental and public relations
incentives for doing so. However, as Great Lakes
populations and economies grow, quantity of
goods and services produced will likely increase.
If production increases by a greater margin than
eco-efficiency improvements, then the overall
commercial / industrial environmental impact
will continue to rise. Absolute reductions in the
sum of environmental pressures are necessary
to deliver goods and services within the earth's
carrying capacity.
Management Implications
The potential for improving the environmental and economic efficiency of goods and services delivery is unlimited. To meet the
ecosystem objective, more firms in the commercial / industrial sector need to recognize the value of eco-efficiency and need to
monitor and reduce the environmental impacts of production.
Material intensity Energy intensity Toxic dispersion Recyclability
Sucess Criteria (as defined by WBCSD)
Productdurability
Figure 2. Number of the 24 largest employers in the Great Lakes basin
that publicly report initiatives related to eco-efficiency success criteria.
Source: WBCSD = World Business Council for Sustainable Development
135
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Comments from the author
By repeating this evaluation at a regular interval (i.e. every 2 or 4 years), trends in industrial / commercial eco-efficiency can be
determined. The sustainability of goods and service delivery in the Great Lakes basin can only be determined if social justice
measures are also included in commercial/industrial sector assessments. The difficulty in assessing the impacts of social justice
issues precludes them from being included in this report, however, such social welfare impacts should be included in future
indicator assessment.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Laurie Payne, LURA Consulting, Oakville, ON.
Contributors:
Christina Forst, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office; and
Dale Phenicie & George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries.
Tom Van Camp and Nicolas Dion of Industry Canada provided several data resources.
Many of the firms surveyed in this report also contributed environmental reports and other corporate information. Chambers of
commerce in many states and provinces around the Great Lakes provided employment data.
Sources
InfoUSAฎ, Omaha, NE. Largest Employers Database. 2001. www.acinet.org. employers.database@infoUSA.com.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy Committee, Environment Directorate.
1998. Eco-Efficiency: Environment Ministerial Steering Group Report. Paris, France.
Report on Business Magazine. 2002. The TOP 1000 2002: 50 Largest Employers. http://toplOOO.robmagazine.com. last accessed
July 1, 2002.
Stratos: Strategies to Sustainability in collaboration with Alan Willis and Associates and Sustainability. 2001. Stepping Forward:
Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Canada.
Vrooman Environmental Inc. and Legwork Environmental Inc. for Industry Canada. 2001. The Status of Eco-Efficiency and
Indicator Development in Canadian Industry. A Report on Industry Perceptions and Practices.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2000. Eco-efficiency: creating more value with less impact.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2000. Measuring eco-efficiency: A guide to reporting company
performance.
World Business Council on Sustainable Developmentl996. Eco-efficient Leadership for Improved Economic and Environmental
Performance. Geneva, Switzerland.
National Round Table on Environment and Economy, Ottawa. 1999. Measuring eco-efficiency in business:
feasibility of a core set of indicators.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2003
136
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Drinking Water Quality
Indicator #4175
Overall Assessment
Status: Good
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Based on the information provided in the annual Consumer Confidence/Water Quality Reports
and the Ontario annual reports from the Drinking Water Systems, the overall quality of the
finished drinking water in the Great Lakes basin can be considered good. Because very few
violations of federally, provincially, or state regulated Maximum Contaminant Levels, Maximum
Acceptable Concentrations, or treatment techniques occurred, the Water Treatment Plants are,
in fact, employing successful treatment techniques. The potential risk of human exposure to the
noted chemical and/or microbiological continents, and any associated health effect, is generally
low.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a not assessed status and an undetermined trend, indicating that assessments
were not made on an individual lake basis.
Purpose
To evaluate the chemical and microbial contaminant levels in source water and in treated water
To assess the potential for human exposure to drinking water contaminants and the effectiveness of policies and
technologies to ensure safe drinking water
Ecosystem Objective
The ultimate goal of this indicator is to ensure that all drinking water provided to the residents of the Great Lakes basin is protected
at its source and treated in such a way that it is safe to drink without reservations. As such, the treated water should be free from
harmful chemical and microbiological contaminants. This indicator supports Great Lakes Quality Agreement Annexes 1, 2, 12,
and 16 (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
The information provided by the United States for this report focuses mainly on finished, or treated, drinking water. This format
was chosen as the focus for U S. reporting in order to adapt to the recommendations of the Environmental Public Health Indicators
Project (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2006). Additionally, the U.S. is in the process of establishing an inclusive
national drinking water database which will include raw (source) water data, thus providing an extensive array of information
to all Water Treatment Plants (WTPs), Drinking Water Systems (DWSs), researchers, and the general public. The information
provided by Canada focuses on both finished and raw water.
In the U.S., the Safe-Drinking Water Act Reauthorization of 1996 requires all drinking water utilities to provide yearly water
quality information to their consumers. To satisfy this obligation, U.S. WTPs produce an annual Consumer Confidence/Water
Quality Report (CC/WQR). These reports provide information regarding source water type (i.e., lake, river or groundwater), the
availability of a source water assessment and a brief summary of the DWS's susceptibility to potential sources of contamination, the
water treatment process, contaminants detected in the finished water, any violations that occurred, and other relevant information.
For this indicator report the CC/WQRs were collected from 59 WTPs (Figure 1) for the operational year 2004 (2005 when available).
Furthermore, the U.S.-based Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) was also used as a means to verify information
presented in the reports and to provide any other relevant information when CC/WQRs were not available.
The data used for the Canadian component of the report were provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)
and included results from two program areas. Data collected as part of the Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) were
provided for the period 2003-2004. DWSP is a voluntary partnership program with municipalities that monitors drinking water
quality. Ontario's Drinking Water Systems Regulation (O. Reg. 170/03), made under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, requires
137
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Legend
City Depts or WTPs
Canada WTPs
Figure 1. Location of municipalities served by the 59 U.S. and 74 Canadian Drinking Water Systems whose data
were analyzed for this indicator report.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada
that the owner of a DWS prepare an annual report on the operation of the system and the quality of its water. DWSs must provide
OMOE with their drinking water quality data. Data from January to June 2004, collected as part of this regulatory framework
from 74 DWSs (Figure 1), were also provided for analysis.
There are several sources of drinking water within the Great Lakes basin which include the Great Lakes themselves, smaller lakes
and reservoirs, rivers, streams, ponds, and groundwater (i.e., springs and wells). These systems are vulnerable to contamination
from several sources (chemical, biological, and radioactive). Substances that may be present in the source water include microbial
contaminants (e.g., viruses and bacteria), inorganic contaminants (e.g., salts andmetals), pesticides and herbicides, organic chemical
contaminants (including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals), and radioactive contaminants. After collection, the raw water
undergoes a detailed treatment process prior to being sent to the distribution system where it is then dispersed to consumer taps.
The treatment process involves several basic steps, which are often varied and repeated depending on the condition of the source
water. Raw water can affect the finished water that is consumed. Good quality raw water is an important part of a multi-barrier
approach to assuring the safety and quality of drinking water.
Status of Drinking Water in the Great Lakes Basin
Ten drinking water parameters were chosen to provide the best assessment of drinking water quality in the Great Lakes basin.
They include several chemical parameters, microbiological parameters, and other indicators of potential health hazards. These
parameters are regulated by an established standard, which when exceeded, has the potential to have serious affects on human
health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines this regulated standard as the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL), or the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. The Ontario drinking water standards are
138
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
described by the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC), which is established for parameters that, when present above a
certain concentration, have known or suspected health effects, and the Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration (IMAC),
which is established for parameters either when there is insufficient toxicological data to establish a MAC with reasonable certainty,
or when it is not feasible, for practical reasons, to establish a MAC at the desired level.
Chemical Contaminants
The chemical contaminants of concern include atrazine, nitrate, and nitrite. Exposure to these contaminants above the regulated
standards has the potential to negatively affect human health.
Atrazine: This widely used, organic herbicide can enter source water though agricultural runoff and wastewater from manufacturing
facilities. Consumption of drinking water that contains atrazine in excess of the regulated standard for extended periods of time
can potentially lead to health complications. The U.S. EPA has set the MCL for atrazine at 3 ppb and the Ontario drinking water
standards specify the IMAC to be 5 ppb, which is the lowest level at which WTPs/DWSs could reasonably be required to remove
this contaminant given the present technology and resources.
In the U.S., atrazine was infrequently detected in finished water supplies, and it was only found in finished water originating from
Lake Erie, rivers, and small lakes and reservoirs. When detected, it was found at levels that did not exceed the MCL. Violations
of monitoring requirements were reported for two WTPs for failure to monitor atrazine and other contaminants; one between
February and June 2004 and the other during July 2004. As indicated by the annual CC/WQRs, there is a low risk of human
exposure to atrazine from drinking water.
In Ontario, data from the 2003-2004 DWSP indicated that 22% of the water samples collected had a trace amount of atrazine
present. However, the highest level detected was only 0.59 ppb (about one order of magnitude less than the IMAC), which was
identified from a raw water source located within an agricultural watershed.
Nitrogen: Nitrogen is a naturally occurring nutrient that is also used in many agricultural applications. However, in natural waters
most nitrogenous material tends to be converted into nitrates, which when ingested at levels exceeding the MCL or MAC, can
cause serious health effects, particularly to infants. The U.S. EPA has set the MCL for nitrate at 10 ppm and nitrite at 1 ppm, and
the province of Ontario has set the MAC for nitrate at 10 ppm and nitrite at 1 ppm.
In the U.S., nitrate was detected in over 70% of the finished water supplies which originated from WTPs using all sources of water
except Lake Huron in 2004 or 2005. However, it was never found at levels that exceeded the MCL. Therefore, while there is some
risk of exposure to nitrate, it is not likely to lead to serious health complications.
In Ontario, over 90% of the water samples contained nitrates. However, the highest level detected was 9.11 ppm, from a ground
water sample. There is a risk of exposure to nitrates, especially in agricultural areas, but it is not likely to cause health complications
because detected levels never exceeded the Ontario contamination standard.
In the U.S., nitrite was rarely detected in finished water supplies. It was only found in finished water for WTPs which use rivers,
small lakes or reservoirs as source water. As such, there is only a small potential for human exposure to nitrite from drinking
water. No MCL or monitoring regulation violations were reported for nitrites.
Over 50% of the water samples contained a measurable amount of nitrite according to the Ontario drinking water system reports.
However, the highest value for this contaminant only reached 0.365 ppm, which is lower than both the Ontario MAC and the
highest value detected in the previous year (0.434 ppm).
Microbiological Parameters
The microbiological parameters evaluated include total coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli), Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. These
microbial contaminants are included as indicators of water quality and as an indication of the presence of hazardous and possibly
fatal pathogens in the water.
Total Coliform: Coliforms are a broad class of bacteria that are ubiquitous in the environment and in the feces of humans and
animals. The U.S. EPA has set an MCL for total coliform at 5% of the total monthly samples, but for water systems that collect
fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample per month can be positive for total coliforms. Canada has set a
139
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
MAC of zero colony forming units (cfu) for DWSs. Both Canada and the U.S. require additional analysis of positive total coliform
samples to determine if specific types of coliform, such as fecal coliform or E. coli, are present.
Escherichia coli (E. coli): E. coli is a type of thermo-tolerant (fecal) coliform bacteria that is generally found in the intestines and
fecal waste of all animals, including humans. This type of bacteria commonly enters source water through contaminated runoff,
which is often the result of precipitation. Detection of E. coli in water strongly indicates recent contamination by sewage or animal
waste, which may contain many types of disease-causing organisms. It is mandatory for all WTPs to inform consumers if E. coli
is present in their drinking and/or recreational water (U.S. waters only).
In the U.S., the presence of total coliform was detected in finished water from WTPs using all source water types, except Lake
Superior. It was repeatedly detected in finished water from WTPs using Lake Michigan, groundwater, rivers, and small lakes
and reservoirs as source water. Between July 2004 and October 2005, there were four violations with regard to total coliform
levels exceeding the MCL. Repeat samples were collected at the same location as the positive total coliform bacteria sample and
at nearby locations to determine if the original positive sample indicated a localized water problem or a sampling or testing error.
However, samples from two of these WTPs tested positive for either fecal coliform or E. coli. Additionally, violations of monitoring
requirements of U.S. EPA's Total Coliform Rule (TCR) were reported in one WTP for not collecting enough repeat samples after
coliform bacteria were detected in the monthly routine samples. Although there is a potential for exposure to total coliform, it
is not likely to be a human health hazard in itself. However, the presence of coliform bacteria, especially at levels exceeding the
MCL, indicates the possibility that microbial pathogens may be present, and this can be hazardous to human health.
In Ontario, total coliform was detected in many of the raw water samples, but only a few treated water samples contained this
contaminant. E. coli was identified in small amounts in raw water samples which originated mostly from small lakes and rivers.
However, the presence of E. coli was not identified in finished water, indicating that the treatment facilities were working adequately
to remove both of these microbiological parameters.
Giardia and Cryptosporidium: These parasites exist in water, and when ingested, may cause gastrointestinal illness in humans.
The U.S. treated water standards, which control the presence of these microorganisms in the treated water, dictate that 99% of
Cryptosporidium should be physically removed by filtration. In addition, Giardia must be 99.9% removed or inactivated by
filtration and disinfection. These regulations are confirmed by the levels of post-treatment turbidity and disinfectant residual
levels. Ontario has also adopted removal/inactivation regulations for Giardia and Cryptosporidium, but there are no data to report
at this time.
In the U.S., neither Giardia nor Cryptosporidium were detected in finished water supplies from any of the WTPs. However,
several of the CC/WQRs discussed the presence of these microorganisms in the source waters (Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake
Michigan, Lake Ontario, small lakes/reservoirs). The presence of these organisms in raw water, but not in finished water, indicates
that current treatment techniques are effective at removing these parasites from drinking water. Nevertheless, implementing
measures to prevent or reduce microbial contamination from source waters should remain a priority. Even a well-operated WTP
cannot ensure that drinking water will be completely free of Cryptosporidium. Furthermore, very low levels of Cryptosporidium
may be of concern for severely immuno-compromised people, because exposure can compound their illness.
The annual CC/WQRs indicate that there is a potential for consumers to be exposed to the aforementioned microbiological
contaminants. However, total coliform was the most common microbiological contaminant detected. Furthermore, there were
very few if any confirmed detections of the more serious contaminants including, E. coli, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium, in the
finished water from U.S. WTPs. As a result, it is not likely that consumption of drinking water containing these contaminants will
lead to any serious health complications.
Treatment Technique Parameters
The treatment technique parameters evaluated include turbidity, total organic carbon (TOC) in the U.S., and dissolved organic
carbon (DOC) in Canada. These parameters do not pose a direct danger to human health, but they often indicate other health
hazards.
Turbidity: Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water and can be used to indicate water quality and filtration efficiency.
Higher turbidity levels, which can inhibit the effectiveness of the disinfection/filtration process and/or provide a medium for
microbial growth, are associated with higher levels of disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses, parasites and some
140
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
bacteria. A significant relationship has been demonstrated between increased turbidity and the number of Giardia cysts and
Cryptosporidium oocysts breaking through filters. U.S. EPA's surface water treatment rules require WTPs using surface water, or
ground water under the direct influence of surface water, to disinfect and filter their water. In the U.S., turbidity levels must not
exceed 5 Nephelolometric Turbidity Units (NTU) at any time. WTPs that filter must ensure that the turbidity go no higher than 1
NTU and must not exceed 0.3 NTU in 95% of daily samples in any month. Ontario has set the aesthetic objective for turbidity at
5.0 NTU, at which point turbidity becomes visible to the naked eye.
In the U.S., turbidity data are difficult to assess due to the different requirements and regulations for WTPs depending on the
source water and treatment technique used. However, there were no MCL or monitoring regulations violations reported from
January 2004 to October 2005.
In Ontario, the 2003-2004 DWSP report indicated that 78 raw water samples, many of which originated from Lake St. Clair and
the Detroit River, exceeded the aesthetic objective. One treated water sample exceeded the aesthetic objective with a turbidity
level of 11.1 NTU.
Total Organic Carbon: Although the presence of total organic carbon (TOC) in water does not directly imply a health hazard, the
organic carbon can react with chemical disinfectants to form harmful byproducts. WTPs remove TOC from the water by using
treatment techniques such as enhanced coagulation or enhanced softening. Conventional WTPs with excess TOC in the raw water
are required to remove a certain percentage of the TOC depending upon the TOC amount and the alkalinity level of the raw water.
The U.S. EPA does not have an MCL for TOC.
In the U.S., TOC was detected in finished water from WTPs using all source water types, except Lake Superior. However, TOC
data were difficult to assess due to the varying formats of CC/WQRs and the way data were presented. As such, it was difficult to
quantitatively evaluate and compare the TOC levels reported by each WTP. Violations of monitoring requirements and/or failure
to report the results were reported for one WTP from July to September 2005.
Dissolved Organic Carbon: Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) can indicate the potential for water deterioration during storage and
distribution. Acting as a growth nutrient, increased levels of carbon can aid in the proliferation of biofilm, i.e., microbial cells that
attach to the surface of pipes and multiply to form a layer of film or slime which can harbor and protect coliform bacteria from
disinfectants. High DOC levels can also indicate the potential for problems from the formation of chlorination by-products. The
use of coagulant treatment or high pressure membrane treatment can be used to reduce DOC. The aesthetic objective for DOC
in Ontario's drinking water is 5 ppm.
In Ontario, there were 110 DOC violations identified from raw water samples, 11.4 ppm being the highest level. However, no
treated water sample contained DOC levels exceeding the aesthetic objective. Most of the high DOC results came from raw water
originating from small rivers and lakes.
Taste and Odor: While taste and odor do not necessarily reflect any health hazards, these water characteristics affect consumer
perceptions of drinking water quality.
In the U.S., there were no reports of offensive taste or odors associated with the finished drinking water as indicated by the 2005
CC/WQRs.
In Ontario, there has been an increase in the number of reports associated with offensive taste and odor over the past several years.
However, specific data are unavailable, and it is difficult to quantitatively evaluate and compare results. Many drinking-water
systems have now installed granular activated carbon filters to decrease the effect and intensity of these taste and odor events,
which are due, in part, to the increased occurrences of blue-green algae in the Great Lakes (OMOE 2004).
Summary
Based on the information provided in the annual CC/WQRs and the Ontario annual reports from the DWSs, the overall quality of
the finished drinking water can be considered good. However, over the past several years there has been an increase in the quantity
of contaminants found in raw source water in the Great Lakes basin. The overall potential risk of human exposure to the noted
chemical and/or microbiological contaminants, and any associated health effects, is generally low, because very few violations of
federally, provincially, or state regulated MCLs, MACs, or treatment techniques occurred. This indicates that the WTPs/DWSs
141
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
are employing successful treatment techniques.
Pressures
The greatest pressure to the quality of drinking water within the Great Lakes basin would be degraded runoff. Several causes for a
reduction in quality would include the increasing rate of industrial development on or near water bodies, low-density urban sprawl,
and agriculture (both crop and livestock operations). Point source pollution, from wastewater treatment plants for example, can
also contribute to the contamination of raw water supplies and can be considered an important pressure. Additionally, there is
an emerging set of pressures derived from newly introduced chemicals and chemicals of emerging concern (i.e., pharmaceuticals
and personal care products, endocrine disrupters, antibiotics and antibacterial agents). Invasive species might also affect water
quality, but to what extent is still unknown.
Management Implications
A more standardized, updated approach to monitoring contaminants and reporting data for drinking water needs to be established.
Even though U.S. EPA has established an extensive list of contaminants and their MCLs, newer parameters of concern might not
be listed due to available resources or technology. Additionally, state monitoring requirements may differ, requiring only a portion
of this list to be monitored. Standardized monitoring and reporting would make trend analysis easier, and thus provide a more
effective assessment of the potential health hazards associated with drinking water.
Furthermore, a more extensive monitoring program must be implemented in order to successfully correlate drinking water quality
with the status of the Great Lakes basin. Although the CC/WQRs provide useful information regarding the quality of finished
drinking water, they merely depict the efficiency of the WTP rather than the overall quality of the region. Additionally, by solely
focusing on treated water, WTPs that rely on several types of source water will not provide accurate data with regard to contaminant
origin. Therefore, in order to properly assess the state of the ecosystem, source water data would need to be reviewed.
Comments from the author(s)
A concern for future efforts would be the adherence of a consistent guideline for identifying usable data while also providing
adequate geographical coverage. In the U.S., data from DWSs serving a population of 50,000 or great was used, while data from
all DWSs in Ontario serving a population of 10,000 or greater was analyzed. Furthermore, focusing on this criterion for DWSs
only provides a fragmented view of the drinking water patterns in the Great Lakes basin. By sporadically including additional
DWSs to expand the geographical coverage area, biased results may be introduced.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Jeffrey C. May, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, on assignment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago,
IL
Tracie Greenberg, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Sources
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. Environmental Public Health Indicators Project.
www.cdc.gov/nceh/indicators/default.htm. last accessed 29 May 2007.
Guillarte, A., and Makdisi, M. 2003. Implementing Indicators 2003, A Technical Report. Environmental Canada and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. http://binational.net/sogl2003/sogl03_tech_eng.pdf
Fellowes, D. Personal Communication. Ontario 2003/2004 Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) Data, Environmental
Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Environmental Sciences and Standards Division, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2006. (revised from 2003). Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking
Water: standards, objectives, and guidelines. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
OMOE. 2004. Drinking Water Surveillance Program Summary Report.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/dwsp/0002/index.htm. last accessed 25 August 2006.
142
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Consumer Confidence Reports
Akron Public Utilities Bureau - Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2005
Alpena Water Treatment Plant - 2005 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report
Aqua Ohio, Inc. PWS - 2005 Water Quality Report
Aqua Ohio - Mentor - 2005 Water Quality Report
Buffalo Water Authority - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
City of Ann Arbor Water Utilities - 2005 Annual Report on Drinking Water
City of Battle Creek Public Works - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
City of Cleveland Division of Water - 2006 Water Quality Report
City of Duluth Public Works and Utilities Department - 2005 Guide to Drinking Water Quality
City of Evanston - 2005 Water Quality Report
City of Kalamazoo - 2005 Water Quality Report
City of Kenosha Water Utility - 2005 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report
City of Marquette Water Filtration Plant - 2005 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report
City of Muskegon Water Filtration Plant - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
City of Oshkosh - Drinking Water Quality Report 2005
City of Rochester - Water Quality Report 2005
City of Syracuse Department of Water - Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2005
City of Toledo Water Treatment Plant - 2005 Drinking Water Quality Report
City of Warren - 2005 Water Quality Report
City of Waukegan - 2006 Water Quality Report
City of Wyoming - 2005 Water Quality Report
Department of Utilities Appleton Water Treatment Facility - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report to our Community
Detroit Water & Sewer Department - 2005 Water Quality Report
Elmira Water Board - Annual Drinking Water Quality Report 2005
Elyria Water Department - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
Erie County Water Authority - 2005 Water Quality Report
Erie Water Works (EWW) - Water Quality Report for Year 2005
Fort Wayne City Utilities - 2006 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report
Grand Rapids Water System - Water Quality Report 2005
Green Bay Water Utility - 2006 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report
Indiana-American Water Company, Inc. (Northwest Operations) - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
Lansing Board of Water & Light - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
Michael C. O'Laughlin Municipal Water Plant - Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for 2005
Milwaukee Water Works - 2005 Water Quality Report
Mohawk Valley Water Authority - 2005 Water Quality Report
Monroe County Water Authority (MCWA) - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
Onondaga County Water Authority (OCWA) - 2005 Consumer Confidence Report & Annual Water Supply Statement
Port Huron Water Treatment Plant - 2005 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report
Saginaw Water Treatment Plant - Drinking Water Quality Report for 2005
South Bend Water Works - Water Quality Report 2005
The City of Chicago - Water 2005 Quality Report
Waterford Township - 2005 Annual Water Quality Report
Waukesha Water Utility - 2005 Consumer Confidence Report
Waukesha Water Utility - 2006 Consumer Confidence Report
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
143
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Indicator #4177
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: At present, no routine Great Lakes human biomonitoring programs exist to monitor biological
markers of human exposure to persistent chemicals. Individual epidemiological studies have
been conducted or are ongoing in the Great Lakes to monitor specific populations. For this
reason, the overall status and trends are both undetermined.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake assessments can not be determined for this indicator. Instead, a list of ongoing research funded
by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), through its Great Lakes Human Health Effects
Research Program, is provided according to the institution conducting the research.
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: No studies funded by ATSDR are currently being conducted by any institution in the Lake Superior
basin. However, basin-wide studies do incorporate Lake Superior information.
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Health Effects ofPCB Exposure from Contaminated Fish (Susan L. Schantz, Ph.D., University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign);
Organo-chlorides and Sex Steroids in two Michigan Cohorts (Janet Osuch, M.D., Michigan State
University);
A Pilot Program to Educate Vulnerable Populations about Fish Advisories in Upper Peninsula of
Michigan (Rick Haverkate, M.P.H., Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc.)
Lake Huron
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: No studies funded by ATSDR are currently being conducted by any institution in the Lake Huron
basin. However, basin-wide studies do incorporate Lake Huron information.
Lake Erie
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: No studies funded by ATSDR are currently being conducted by any institution in the Lake Erie
basin. However, basin-wide studies do incorporate Lake Erie information.
Lake Ontario
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Neuropsychological and Thyroid Effects ofPDBEs (Edward Fitzgerald, Ph.D., State University of
New York at Albany);
PCB Congener and Metabolite Patterns in Adult Mohawks: Biomarkers of Exposure and Individual
Toxicokinetics (Anthony DeCaprio, Ph.D., State University of New York at Albany);
Neurobehavioral Effects of Environmental Toxics - Oswego Children s Study: Prenatal PCB
Exposure and Cognitive Development (Paul Stewart, Ph.D., State University of New York at
Oswego)
144
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Purpose
To assess the levels of persistent toxic substances such as methyl mercury, PCBs, and DDEs in the human tissue of
citizens of the Great Lakes basin
To infer the efficacy of policies and technology to reduce these persistent bioaccumulating toxic chemicals in the Great
Lakes ecosystem
Ecosystem Objective
Citizens of the Great Lakes basin should be safe from exposure to harmful bioaccumulating toxic chemicals found in the
environment. Data on the status and trends of these chemicals should be gathered to help understand how human health is affected
by multimedia exposure and the interactive effects of toxic substances. Collection of such data supports the requirement of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 1 (Specific Objectives), Annex 12 (Persistent Toxic Substances), and Annex 17
(Research and Development) (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Women and Infant Child Study
Data presented for this indicator are solely based upon one
biomonitoring study that Wisconsin Department of Public
Health (WiDPH) conducted in the basin (Anderson 2004).
However, information on previous biomonitoring studies
has been collected and is highlighted as a way to support
the results of the WiDPH study and to illustrate previous
and other ongoing efforts.
In the study conducted by WiDPH, the level of
bioaccumulating toxic chemicals was analyzed in women
of childbearing age 18 to 45 years of age. Hair and blood
samples were collected from women who visited one of six
participating Women Infant and Child (WIC) clinics located
along Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Levels of mercury
were measured in hair samples, and mercury, PCBs, and
DDEs were measured in blood serum. Awareness of fish
consumption advisories was assessed through a survey.
There was greater awareness offish consumption advisories
in households in which someone fished compared to those
in which no one did (Figure 1), and there was greater
awareness of advisories from individuals with at least a
high school education compared to those with only some
high school or less education (Figure 2). More women in the
36 to 45 age category were aware of advisories than those
of other ages, but there was less than 50% awareness in all
age classes (Figure 3). More Asian women were aware of
advisories that those of other races, and Hispanic women
were least aware of the advisories (Figure 4).
Sixty-five hair samples were analyzed for mercury levels.
The average mercury concentration in hair from fish-eating
women was greater than that from non-fish eaters, ranging
from 128% increase in women who ate few fish meals to
443% increase in those who ate several meals of sport-
caught fish (Table 1).
Five samples of blood were drawn and analyzed for PCBs.
DDEs and mercury levels. Although the small sample
S 0.4 -
s
QJ
o 0.3
Fishing in Household
Figure 1. Percent of responders to the survey who are (red) or
are not (yellow) aware offish consumption advisories and who do
(yes) or do not (no) have someone in the household who fishes.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Elementary Some HS HS Grad Coll/Tsch
Education
Figure 2. Percent of responders to the survey who are (red) or
are not (yellow) aware of fish consumption advisories according
to level of education.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
145
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
26-35 36-45
Age Category
Whits Black
Nat Am Hispanic Mull Other
Race
Figure 3. Percent of responders to the survey who are (red) or Figure 4. Percent of responders to the survey who are (red) or
are not (yellow) aware of fish consumption advisories according are not (yellow) aware of fish consumption advisories according
to age group. to race.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
precludes definitive findings.
the woman consuming the most
fish (at least 1 sport-caught fish
meal per week) had the highest
concentration of DDE and the
only positive finding of PCB
in her serum. The woman
consuming the fewest fish per
year (6 to 18 fish meals) had the
lowest concentration of DDE in
her serum, and no PCBs were
detected (Table 2).
Fish meals /
3 months
Sport-caught (Y/N)
0
1-9 (N)
1-9 (Y)
10+ (N)
10+ (Y)
Min
(Mg/g)
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.09
Ave
(Mg/g)
0.07
0.16
0.30
0.33
0.38
Max
(Mg/g)
0.24
0.59
0.99
1.23
1.53
Number of
Respondents
14
28
7
7
9
Ave no. fish
meals
0
2.3
2.4
12.8
8.11
Table 1. Concentration of mercury in hair samples from women who consumed sport-caught
or not sport-caught fish during the previous three months.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Effects on Aboriginals of the
Great Lakes (EAGLE) Project
A similar study was conducted by a partnership
between the Assembly of First Nations, Health
Canada and First Nations in the Great Lakes
basin between 1990 and 2000 to examine
the effects of contaminants on the health
of the Great Lakes Aboriginal population
(Davies and Phil 2001). The Contaminants
in Human Tissues Program (CHT), a major
component of the EAGLE Project, identified
three main goals: to determine the levels of
environmental contaminants in the tissues of
First Nations people in the Great Lakes basin;
to correlate these levels with freshwater fish
and wild game consumption; and, to provide
information and advice to First Nations people
on the levels of environmental contaminants
found in their tissues.
Person
ID
1
2
3
4
5
Fish Meals
Commercial = 1/week
Sport Caught = none
Commercial = 5/month
Sport Caught = 30/year
Commercial =<6/Year
Sport Caught = 6-12/Year
Commercial = 1/week
Sport Caught = 1/week
Commercial = 4/month
Sport Caught = 2/month
PCB
(Mg/i)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
DDE
(Mg/i)
0.34
0.40
0.25
1.20
0.49
Mercury
(M9/i)
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Table 2. Number of fish meals consumed and concentration of PCBs, DDE
and mercury in blood serum of 5 women who participated in the WIC study.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
146
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
The EAGLE project also analyzed hair samples for levels of mercury and blood serum for levels of PCBs and DDEs. A survey was
also used to identify frequency offish and wildlife consumption. However, the EAGLE project analyzed both male and female
voluntary participants from 26 First Nations in the Great Lakes basin. The participants were volunteers, not selected on a random
basis, and the project did not specifically target only fish eaters.
Key findings of the study included:
Males consumed more fish than females and carried greater contaminant levels.
No significant relationship was found between total fish or wild game consumption and the contaminant levels in the
body.
Levels of mercury in hair from First Nations people in the Canadian portion of the Great Lakes basin suggest the levels
have decreased since 1970.
PCBs and DDE were the most frequently appearing contaminants in the serum samples.
Increased age of participants correlated with increased contaminant concentrations.
Mean levels of PCBs reported in the EAGLE CHT Program were lower than or within the similar range of PCBs in
fish-eaters in other Canadian health studies (Great Lakes, Lake Michigan, and St. Lawrence).
Most people have levels of contaminants that were within Health Canada's guidelines for PCBs in serum and mercury
in hair.
Levels of DDE were similar to levels found in other Canadian health studies.
There was little difference between serum levels of DDE in male and female participants.
ATSDR-sponsored Studies
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established
the Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program through legislative mandate in September 1992 to "assess the adverse
effects of water pollutants in the Great Lakes system on the health of persons in the Great Lakes States" (ATSDR 2006a). This
program assesses critical pollutants of concern, identifies vulnerable and sensitive populations, prioritizes areas of research, and
funds research projects. Results from several recent Great Lakes biomonitoring research projects are summarized here.
Data collected from 1980 to 1995 from Great Lakes sport fish eaters showed a decline in serum PCB levels from a mean of 24
ppb in 1980 to 12 ppb in 1995. This decline was associated with an 83% decrease in the number offish meals consumed (Tee et
al. 2003).
A large number of infants (2716) born between 1986 and 1991 to participants of the New York State Angler Cohort Study were
studied with respect to duration of maternal consumption of contaminated fish and potential effects on gestational age and birth
size. The data indicated no significant correlations between gestational age or birth size in these infants and their mother's lifetime
consumption of fish. The researchers noted that biological determinants such as parity, and placental infarction and maternal
smoking were significant determinants of birth size (Buck et al. 2003).
The relationship between prenatal exposure to PCBs and methylmercury and performance on the McCarthy Scales of Children's
Abilities was assessed in 212 children. Negative associations between prenatal exposure to methylmercury and McCarthy
performance were found in subjects with higher levels of prenatal PCB exposure at 38 months. However, no relationship between
PCBs and methylmercury and McCarthy performance was observed when the children were reassessed at 54 months. These
results partially replicated the findings of others and suggest that functional recovery may occur. The researchers concluded that
the interaction between PCBs and methylmercury can not be considered conclusive until it has been replicated in subsequent
investigations (Steward et al. 2003b).
Response inhibition in preschool children exposed parentally to PCBs may be due to incomplete development of their nervous
system. One hundred and eighty-nine children in the Oswego study were tested using a continuous performance test. The researchers
measured the splenium of the corpus callosum, a pathway in the brain implicated in the regulation of response inhibition, in these
children by magnetic resonance imaging. The results indicated the smaller the splenium, the larger the association between
PCBs and the increased number of errors the children made on the continuous performance test. The researchers suggest if the
association between PCBs and response inhibition is indeed causal, then children with suboptimal development of the splenium
may be particularly vulnerable to these effects (Stewart et al. 2003a).
147
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Long term consumption offish, even at low levels, contributes significantly to body burden levels (Bloom et al. 2005).
American Indians were assessed for their exposure to PCBs via fish consumption by analysis of blood samples and the
Caffeine Breath Test (CBT). Serum levels of PCB congers #153, #170 and #180 were significantly correlated with CBT
values. CBT values may be a marker for early biological effects of exposure to PCBs (Fitzgerald et al. 2005).
Maternal exposure via fish consumption to DDE and PCBs indicated that only DDE was associated with reduced birth
weight in infants (Weisskopf et al. 2005).
The association between maternal fish consumption and the risk of major birth defects among infants was assessed in the
New York State Angler Cohort Study. The results indicated mothers who consumed 2 or more fish meals per month had
a significantly elevated risk for male children being born with a birth defect (males: Odds Ratio = 3.01, in comparison to
female children: Odds Ratio = 0.73, Mendola et al. 2005).
Pressures
Contaminants of emerging concern, such as certain brominated flame-retardants, are increasing in the environment and may have
negative health impacts. According to a recent study conducted by Environment Canada, worldwide exposure to polybrominated
diphenyl ethers (PBDEs, penta) is highest in North America with lesser amounts in Europe and Asia. Food consumption is a
significant vector for PBDE exposure in addition to other sources. The survey analyzed PBDE concentration in human milk by
region in Canada in 1992 and in 2002 and showed a tenfold increase in concentration in Ontario (Ryan 2004).
The health effects of contaminants such as endocrine disrupters are somewhat understood. However, there is little known about
the synergistic or additive effects of bioaccumulating toxic chemicals. Additional information about toxicity and interactions of a
larger suite of chemicals, with special attention paid to how bioaccumulating toxic chemicals work in concert, is needed to better
assess threats to human health from contaminants in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. ATSDR has developed 5 categories of
interaction profiles for toxic substances, including volatile organic compounds, metals, pesticides, and persistent contaminants
found in breast milk and fish (ATSDR 2006b).
Management Implications
There have been many small-scale studies regarding human biomarkers and bioaccumulating toxic chemicals. However, to this
date, there have been no large-scale or basin-wide studies that can provide a larger picture of the issues facing the citizens of the
basin. It is important that those in management positions in federal, state, provincial, and tribal governments and universities foster
cooperation and collaboration to identify gaps in existing biomonitoring data and to implement larger, basin-wide monitoring
efforts. A Great Lakes environmental health tracking program, similar to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) Environmental
Health Tracking Program, should be established by key Great Lakes partners.
Comments from the author(s)
A region-specific biomonitoring program, similar to the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
project could provide needed biomonitoring information and fill in data gaps.
It is important that additional studies assessing the levels of bioaccumulative toxic chemicals through biomarkers be conducted on
a much larger scale throughout the basin. In order to build on the WIC study, a question about fish consumption from restaurants
would be important to be included in future surveys. Because all states have WIC clinics, or something similar, the WiDPH
monitoring tool could be implemented basin-wide.
In the future, ATSDR's Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program plans to continue to provide research findings
to public health officials to improve their ability to assess and evaluate chemical exposure in vulnerable populations. ATSDR
also plans to focus on research priorities of children's health, endocrine disrupters, mixtures, surveillance, and identification
of biomarkers that reflect exposure, effect, and susceptibility. In addition, the program will use established cohorts to monitor
changes in body burdens of persistent toxic substances and in specified health outcomes, and to develop and evaluate new health
promotion strategies and risk communication tools.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Elizabeth Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
Jacqueline Fisher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
148
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Henry A. Anderson, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Dyan Steenport, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Kate Cave, Environment Canada
Heraline E. Hicks, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
Sources
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2006a. Human Health Effects Research Program November 1994.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/grtlakes/historical-background.html last accessed 29 May 2007.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2006b. Interaction Profiles for Toxic Substances.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/ last accessed 21 August 2007.
Anderson, H. 2004. SOLEC Health Indicator Refinement and Implementation Progress Report. Wisconsin Department of Health
and Family Services. March, 22, 2004.
Bloom M.S., Vena, J.E., Swanson, M.K., Moysich, K.B., and Olsen, J.R. 2005. Profiles of ortho-polychlorinatedbiphenyl congeners,
dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene, hexachlorobenzene, and mirex among male Lake Ontario sport fish consumers: the New York
state angler cohort study. Environ. Res. 97(2):177-193.
Buck, G.M., Grace, P.T., Fitzgerald, E.F., Vena, J.E., Weiner, J.M., Swanson, M., and Msall, M.E. 2003. Maternal fish consumption
and infant birth size and gestation: New York state angler cohort study. Environ. Health 2:7-15.
Davies, K., and Phil, D. 2001. EAGLE Project: Contaminants in human tissue. Health Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Fitzgerald, E.F., Hwang, S.A., Lambert, G., Gomez, M., and Tarbell, A. 2005. PCB exposure and in vivo CYP1A2 activity among
Native Americans. Environ. Health Perspect. 113(3):l-6.
Mendola, P., Robinson, L.K., Buck, G.M., Druschel, C.M., Fitzgerald, E.F., Sever, L.E., and Vena, J.E. 2005. Birth defects associated
with maternal sport fish consumption: potential effect modification by sex of offspring. Environ. Res. 97:133-140.
Ryan, JJ. 2004. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) in Human Milk; Occurrence Worldwide. Prepared for the 2004 BFR
(Brominated Flame Retardants) conference. Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Toronto, ON.
Stewart P.W., Fitzgerald, S., Rehiman, J., Gump, B., Lonky, E., Darvill, T.J., Pagano, J., and Hauser, P. 2003a. Prenatal PCB
exposure, the corpus callosum, and response inhibition. Environ. Health Perspective 111:1670-1677.
Stewart, P.W., Reihman, J., Lonky, E.I., Daravill, T. J., and Pagano, J. 2003b. Cognitive development in preschool children parentally
exposed to PCBs and MeHg. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 25:11-22.
Tee, P.G., Sweeney, A.M., Symanski, E., Gardiner, J.C., Gasior, D.M., and Schantz, S. 2003. A longitudinal examination of factors
related to changes in serum polychlorinated biphenyl levels. Environ. Health Perspect. 111(5):720-707.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Weisskopf, M.G., Anderson, H.A., Hanrahan, L.P., Kanarek, M.S., Falk, C.M., Steenport, D.M., Draheim, L.A., and the Great
Lakes Consortium. 2005. Maternal exposure to Great Lakes sport-caught fish and dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethylene, but not
polychlorinated biphenyls is associated with reduced birth weight. Environ. Res. 97:149-162.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
149
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Indicator #4200
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined (due to the vast increase in reported U.S. beaches and excised Canadian beaches
not directly on a Great Lake)
Rationale: The 2004-2005 Great Lakes data included significantly more U.S. beaches reporting and fewer
Canadian beaches than in previous years. Some beaches not directly on a Great Lake were
included in the Canadian dataset prior to 2004, but they were excised from the 2004-2005 data.
Therefore, analysis of trends may be uncertain. The percentage of beaches open the entire season
remained nearly constant in the U.S. (72% average) during the period 1998-2005 and in Canada
(76% average) from 1998-2003. During 2004-2005, however, only 36% of the Canadian beaches
were reported to have no postings. The percentage of beaches posted more than 10% of the season
averaged 13% in the U.S. and 52% in Canada during 2004-2005. Differences in the percentage
of open and posted beaches between the U.S. and Canada may reflect differing posting criteria.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Undetermined (due to vast increase in number of U.S. reported beaches)
Rationale: During 2004 and 2005, 90% or more of Lake Superior beaches were open more than 95% of the
time in the U.S. In Canada, during 2005, 5 of 9 beaches (56%) were open more than 95% of the
time.
Lake Michigan
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined (due to vast increase in number of reported beaches)
Rationale: During 2001-2005, on average, 77% of Lake Michigan beaches were open more than 95% of the
time. Increased monitoring has resulted in approximately twice as many postings since 2000.
Lake Huron
Status: U.S.-Good Canada-Fair
Trend: U.S.-Unchanging Canada - Undetermined
Rationale: During 2004-2005, on average, 96% of U.S. beaches and 27% of Canadian beaches in Lake Huron
were open more than 95% of the beach season. More than 50% of Canadian beaches were posted
for more than 10% of the season.
Lake Erie
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: During 2004-2005, on average, 67% of U.S. beaches and 41% of Canadian beaches in Lake Erie
were open more than 95% of the beach season. 22% of U.S. beaches and 42% of Canadian beaches
were posted for more than 10% of the season.
Lake Ontario
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: During 2004-2005, on average, 74% of U.S. beaches and 38% of Canadian beaches in Lake Ontario
were open more than 95% of the beach season. 24% of U.S. beaches and 52% of Canadian beaches
were posted for more than 10% of the season.
Purpose
To assess the number of health-related swimming posting (advisories or closings) days for recreational areas (beaches)
on the Great Lakes
150
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ecosystem Objective
Waters used for recreational activities involving body contact should be substantially free from pathogens that may harm human
health, including bacteria, parasites, and viruses. As the surrogate indicator, E. coli levels should not exceed national, state or
provincial standards set for recreational waters. This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 13 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
A health-related posting day is one that is based upon elevated levels of E. coli, or other indicator organisms, as reported by
county (U.S.), Public Health Units (Ontario), or municipal health departments in the Great Lakes basin. E. coli and other indicator
organisms are measured in order to infer potential harm to human health through body contact with nearshore recreational waters
because they act as indicators for the potential presence of pathogens.
The Ontario provincial standard is 100 E. coli colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL, based on the geometric mean of a minimum
of one sample per week from each of at least 5 sampling sites per beach (Ontario Ministry of Health 1998). It is recommended by
the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that beaches of 1000 meters of length or greater require one sampling site per
200 meters. In some cases local Health Units in Ontario have implemented a more frequent sampling procedure than is outlined
by the provincial government. When E. coli levels exceed the limit, the beach is posted as unsafe for the health of bathers. Each
beach in Ontario has a different swimming season length, although the average season begins in early June and continues until
the first weekend in September. The difference in the swimming season length may skew the final result of the percent of beaches
posted throughout the season.
The bacteria criteria recommendations for E. coli from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) are a single sample
maximum value of 235 cfu per 100 ml. For Enterococci, another indicator bacterium, the U.S. EPA recommended criterion is
a single sample maximum value of 61 bacteria per 100 ml (U.S. EPA 1986). When levels of these indicator organisms exceed
water quality standards, swimming at beaches is prohibited or advisories are issued to inform beachgoers that swimming may be
unsafe.
The 2004-2005 Great Lakes data included significantly more U.S. beaches reporting and fewer Canadian beaches than in previous
years. In the U.S., the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) amended the Clean Water Act in
2000 and required states and tribes that have coastal recreation waters, including the Great Lakes, to adopt new or revised water
quality standards by April 10, 2004, for pathogens and pathogen indicators. The Act also authorizes U.S. EPA to award grants
to states or local governments to develop and implement beach monitoring and notification programs, which now enables Great
Lakes beach managers to regularly monitor beach water quality and advise bathers of potential risks to human health when water
quality standards for bacteria are exceeded.
During an analysis of the Canadian beach dataset for 2004-2005, the authors realized that some of the reported beaches were
within Public Health Units that bordered the Great Lakes but were not Great Lakes beaches, per se. Those beaches remain part
of the Canadian datasets prior to 2004, but they were excised from the 2004-2005 data. Therefore, the applicability of trends in
beach advisories prior to 2004 to just Great Lakes beaches is uncertain.
Status of Great Lakes Beach Advisories. Postings and Closures
The percentage of Great Lakes beaches open the entire season remained nearly constant in the U.S. during the period 1998-2005
(72% average), although the number of reporting beaches more than doubled between 2002 and 2004 (Figure 1). In Canada, the
percentage of beaches open the entire season was similar to that in the U.S. from 1998-2003 (76% average), but during 2004-2005,
only 36% of the Canadian beaches were reported to have no postings. Significantly fewer Canadian beaches were reported for the
period 2004-2005 than for previous years because several non-Great Lakes beaches were included in the previous datasets (see
Background above).
The percentage of beaches posted more than 10% of the beach season averaged 13% in the U.S. and 52% in Canada during 2004-
2005. In the two reporting years prior to 2004, 12% of U.S. beaches and 24% of Canadian beaches were posted more than 10% of
the season. Differences in the percentage of posted beaches between the U.S. and Canada might be due to the differing posting
criteria (see Background above). Differences in the Canadian data between the periods 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 may be linked
151
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Proportion of U.S. Great Lakes Beaches with Beach Advisories for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
Number of Great
Lakes Beaches
reported each year:
2005
2004
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
892 beaches
787 beaches
371 beaches
297 beaches
326 beaches
313 beaches
296 beaches
Proportion of Canadian Great Lakes Beaches with Beach Postings for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
Number of Great
Lakes Beaches
reported each year:
2005-194
2004- 161
2003 - 270
2002 - 272
2001 - 304
2000 - 293
1999-238
1998-218
"NRDC data source
Figure 1. Proportion of Great Lakes beaches with postings in the United States and Canada for the 1998-2005 bathing
seasons.
Source: U.S. data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office and the National Resource Defense Council for 2003;
Canadian data compiled by Environment Canada from Ontario Health Units
152
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
to the latter reduced dataset, but that has not been confirmed.
The U.S. Great Lakes Strategy 2002 envisions that all Great Lakes beaches will be swimmable and sets a goal that by 2010, 90%
of monitored, high priority Great Lakes beaches will meet bacteria standards more than 95% of the swimming season (U.S. EPA
2006). To help meet this goal, U. S. EPA will build local capacity for monitoring, assessment and information dissemination to help
beach managers and public health officials comply with the National Beach Guidance (U.S. EPA 2002a) at 95% of high priority
coastal beaches.
A new version of the Guideline for Canadian Recreational Water Quality (Health Canada 1999) is expected soon, focusing on
implementing measures to reduce the risk of contamination (Robertson 2006). Beach surveys, barriers, and preventive measures
due to certain weather conditions are some of the actions that will be taken to improve beach quality for the Canadian Great
Lakes.
A brief assessment of the current status of beach postings for each Great Lake follows:
Lake Superior
During 2004 and 2005, 90% or more of Lake Superior beaches (green and blue - Figure 2a) were open more than 95% of the time
in the U. S. This meets the key objective of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 goal. In Canada, during 2005, 5 of 9 beaches were open
more than 95% of the time (green and blue - Figure 2b).
Lake Michigan
Since 2000, on average, 77% of Lake Michigan beaches were open more than 95% of the time (green and blue - Figure 3).
Increased monitoring has resulted in approximately twice as many postings since 2000 (yellow and red - Figure 3). While the key
objective of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 has not been met, several groups are collaborating to identify and remediate sources
of beach contamination in Lake Michigan.
Lake Huron
Since 1998, on average, 94% of U.S. Lake Huron beaches were open more than 95% of the beach season. This meets the key
objective of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 goal (except in 2002). However, in Ontario, an average of 27% of Lake Huron beaches
were open more than 95% during the 2004-2005 beach seasons (green and blue - Figures 4a and 4b).
Lake Erie
From 1998 to 2005, on average, 75% of U.S. Lake Erie beaches were open more than 95% of the beach season. The key objective of
the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 has not been met, but efforts to identify sources of contamination are being conducted at Lake Erie
beaches. During 2004-2005, in Ontario, an average of 41% of Lake Erie beaches were open more than 95% of the beach seasons
(green and blue - Figures 5a and 5b).
Lake Ontario
From 1998 to 2005, on average, 84% of U.S. Lake Ontario beaches were open more than 95% of the beach season. The key
objective of the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 has not been met. During 2004-2005, in Ontario, an average of 38% of Lake Ontario
beaches were open more than 95% of the beach season (green and blue - Figures 6a and 6b).
Pressures
Current pressures
Due to the nature of the laboratory analysis, each set of beach water samples requires an average of one to two days before the
results are communicated to the beach manager. Therefore, there exists a lag time in posting beaches and in the lifting of any
restrictions from the beach when safe levels are again reached. The delay in developing a rapid test protocol for E. coli, as well
as the costs, training, and collection times associated with rapid methods, is lending support to the use of predictive models to
estimate when bacterial levels may exceed water quality standards.
Unless contaminant sources are removed or new sources introduced, Great Lakes beach sample results generally contain similar
bacteria levels after events with similar meteorological conditions (primarily wind direction and the volume and duration of
rainfall). If episodes of poor recreational water quality can be associated with specific events (such as meteorological events of a
certain threshold), then forecasting for episodes of elevated bacterial counts may become more accurate.
153
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
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 postings, particularly during wet weather conditions.
There may be new indicators and new detection methods available through current research efforts occurring binationally in both
public and private sectors and academia. Although currently a concern in recreational waters, viruses and parasites are difficult
to isolate and quantify, and feasible measurement techniques have yet to be developed. Comparisons of the frequency of beach
postings have typically been limited due to the use of different water quality criteria in different localities. In the U.S., all coastal
states (including those along the Great Lakes) have criteria as protective as U.S. EPA's recommended bacteriological criteria
(use of E. coli or Enterococci indicators) applied to their coastal waters. Conditions required to post Ontario beaches as unsafe
have become more standardized due to the 1998 Beach Management Protocol, but the conditions required to remove the postings
remain variable.
Management Implications
Recreational waters may become contaminated with animal and human feces from sources and conditions such as combined sewer
overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), malfunctioning septic systems, and poor livestock management practices.
These potentially harmful inputs can become further emphasized in certain areas after heavy rains. States, provinces, and
municipalities are continuing to identify point and non-point sources of pollution at their beaches to determine why beach areas
are impaired. As some sources of contamination are identified, improved remediation measures can be taken to reduce the number
of postings at beaches.
Continued BEACH Act funding for beach monitoring and notification programs should be encouraged. Grants have been issued
to pilot beach sanitary surveys at 60 Great Lakes beaches for identification of beach water contamination sources. Provision of
funding for remediation of sources of beach water contaminants and development of predictive models should be considered.
In Canada, a partnership between Environment Canada (Ontario Region) and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care have created the Seasonal Water Monitoring and Reporting System (SWMRS). This web-based application will provide
local Health Units with a tool to manage beach sampling data, as well as link to the meteorological data archives of Environment
Canada. The result will be a system that potentially can have some predictive modeling capability, as well as improving the
interface for public use. The system, once running, will help identify areas of chronic beach postings and, as a result, will aid in
improved targeting of programs to address the sources of bacterial contamination.
Many municipalities are in the process of developing long-term control plans that will result in the selection of CSO controls to
meet water quality standards. For example, the City of Toronto has an advanced Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan,
which could serve as a model to other urban areas. Information on this initiative can be obtained at:
httD://www.citv.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/wws/wwfmmD/index.htm.
Creating wetlands around rivers or areas that are wet weather sources of pollution may help lower the levels of bacteria that cause
beaches to be posted. The wetland area may reduce high bacterial levels that are typical after storm events by detaining and
treating water in surface areas rather than releasing the bacteria-rich waters into the local lakes and recreational areas. Studies
by the Lake Michigan Ecological Research Station show that wetlands could lower bacterial levels at state park beaches, but more
work is needed (Mitchell 2002).
Comments from the author(s)
Variability in the data from year to year may reflect changing seasonal weather conditions, the process of monitoring, and variations
in reporting, and may not be solely attributable to actual increases or decreases in levels of microbial contaminants. At this time,
most of the beaches in the Great Lakes basin are monitored and have quality public notification programs in place. In addition,
state beach managers are submitting their beach monitoring and advisory/closure data to the U.S. EPA annually. The state of
Michigan has an online site http://www.michigan.gOV/deq/l. 1607.7-135-3313_3686_3730-CI.OO.html where beach monitoring
data are posted by Michigan beach managers.
To ensure accurate and timely posting of Great Lakes beaches, methods must be developed to deliver quicker results that focus not
just on indicator organism levels but on water quality in general. This issue is being addressed. The BEACH Act requires U.S.
154
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
EPA to initiate studies for developing appropriate and effective indicators that will improve detection in a timely manner in coastal
recreation waters. In connection with this requirement, the U.S. EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are
conducting the National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water study at various coastal
freshwater and marine beaches across the country to evaluate new rapid and specific indicators of recreational water quality and
to determine their relationships to health effects.
Until new indicators are available, predictive models and/or the experience of knowledgeable environmental or public health officers
(who regularly collect the samples) can be used on both sides of the border. Each method takes a variety of factors into account,
such as amount of rainfall, cloud coverage, wind (direction and speed), current, point and non-point source pollution inputs, and
the presence of wildlife, to predict whether indicator organism levels will likely exceed established limits in recreational waters.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Tracie Greenberg, Environment Canada, Ontario Region, Burlington, Ontario
David Rockwell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois
Holiday Wirick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Water Division, Chicago, Illinois
Sources
Canadian beach data were obtained from Ontario Health Units along the Great Lakes.
U.S. beach data were obtained from U.S. EPA PRAWN database. PRAWN (Program Tracking database for Advisories, Water
Quality Standards, and Nutrients) meets requirements listed in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act 2000, that required EPA to collect, store, and display a list of monitored waters, beach program monitoring and
notification information, and pollution occurrence data.
Health Canada. 1999. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality, 1992. http://www.hc-sc. gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/
bch_pubs/recreational_water.htm. last accessed 12 July 2002. [Editor's note: If link is inoperative, the document can also be
found at, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/guide_water-1992-guide_eau_e.html.]
Mitchell, D. 2002. E. coli testing may have outlived usefulness. The Times Online.
http://www.thetimesonline.com/index.pl/articlesubpc?id=23927743. last accessed 17 July 2002.
Ontario Ministry of Health, Algoma Health Unit. 1998. Beach management protocol - safe water program, http://www.ahu.
on.ca/health_info/enviro_health/enviro_water/enviro_water_BeachManagement%20Protocol.htm. last accessed 12 July 2002.
[Editor's note: If link is inoperative, the document can also be found at,
http://www.torontobeach.ca/reports/Ontario%20Beach%20Management%20Protocol.pdf.]
Robertson, J. 2006. Evolution of the Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality. In Proceedings from Great Lakes
Beaches Symposium. June 19, 2006, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria -1986.
www.epa.gov/OST/beaches. last accessed 14 March 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002a. National beach guidance and required performance criteria for grants.
www.epa.gov/OST/beaches. last accessed 14 March 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002b. National health protection survey of beaches for swimming (1998 to
2001). http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches. last accessed 14 March 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Great Lakes Strategy 2002 - A Plan for the New Millennium.
http://epa.gov/greatlakes/gls/index.html. last accessed 29 May 2007.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington, http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
155
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Proportion of Lake Superior Beaches with Beach Postings for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
Lake Superior - Canada
n o%
1 -4%
n 5-or=10%
Number of Lake
Superior Beaches
reported each year
2005-
2004-
2003-
2002-
2001 -
2000-
1999
9 Beaches
0 Beaches
0 Beaches
0 Beaches
0 Beaches
4 Beaches
- 4 Beaches
Figure 2. Proportion of Great Lakes beaches with postings for Lake Superior.
Source: U.S. data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office and the National Resource Defense Council for 2003;
Canadian data compiled by Environment Canada from Ontario Health Units
156
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Proportion of Lake Michigan Beaches
with Beach Postings for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
dO% posting
1 % - 4% posting
Cl5%-9% posting
D>10% posting
Number of Lake
Michigan Beaches
reported each year:
2005'
2004'
2002'
2001
2000'
1999-
1998-
445 beaches
428 beaches
204 beaches
157 beaches
177 beaches
173 beaches
158 beaches
Figure 3. Proportion of Great Lakes beaches with postings for Lake Michigan.
Source: U.S. data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office and the National Resource Defense Council for 2003.
157
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Proportion of Lake Huron Beaches
with Beach Postings for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
Lake Huron - Canada
0% posting
1%- 4% posting
d 5% - 9% posting
>10% posting
Number of Lake
Huron Beaches
reported each year:
2005
2004
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
137 beaches
93 beaches
43 beaches
28 beaches
36 beaches
34 beaches
30 beaches
0% posting
1-4% posting
D 5-<10% posting
>or=10% posting
Number of Lake
Huron Beaches
reported each year:
2005-
2004-
2003-
2002-
2001 -
2000-
1999
58 Beaches
- 45 Beaches
- 74 Beaches
- 75 Beaches
55 Beaches
44 Beaches
-41 Beaches
Figure 4. Proportion of Great Lakes beaches with postings for Lake Huron.
Source: U.S. data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office and the National Resource Defense Council for 2003;
Canadian data compiled by Environment Canada from Ontario Health Units
158
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Proportion of Lake Erie Beaches
with Beach Advisories for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
Lake Erie - Canada
n 0% closed
1 % - 4% closed
D 5% - 9% closed
>10% closed
Number of Lake
Erie Beaches
reported each year:
2005-
2004-
2002-
2001 -
2000-
1999-
1998-
85 beaches
69 beaches
79 beaches
71 beaches
75 beaches
74 beaches
78 beaches
0% postings
1 - 4% postings
D 5-<10% postings
> or = 10% postings
Number of Lake Erie
Beaches reported
each year:
2005- 57 Beaches
2004 - 49 Beaches
2003 - 76 Beaches
2002 - 77 Beaches
2001 - 64 Beaches
2000 - 60 Beaches
1999 - 26 Beaches
Figure 5. Proportion of Great Lakes beaches with postings for Lake Erie.
Source: U.S. data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office and the National Resource Defense Council for 2003;
Canadian data compiled by Environment Canada from Ontario Health Units
159
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Proportion of Lake Ontario Beaches
with Beach Postings for the 1998-2005 Bathing Seasons
Lake Ontario - Canada
n 0% posting
1 % - 4% posting
d 5% - 9% posting
>10% posting
Number of Lake
Ontario Beaches
reported each year:
2005.
2004.
2002.
2001
2000.
1999-
1998-
19 beaches
19 beaches
21 beaches
21 beaches
19 beaches
13 beaches
13 beaches
D 0% posting
1 - 4% posting
D 5 - <10% posting
> or = 10% posting
Number of Lake
Ontario Beaches
reported each year:
2005-
2004-
2003-
2002-
2001 -
2000-
1999
75 Beaches
72 Beaches
90 Beaches
90 Beaches
67 Beaches
69 Beaches
- 61 Beaches
Figure 6. Proportion of Great Lakes beaches with postings for Lake Ontario.
Source: U.S. data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office and the National Resource Defense Council for
2003; Canadian data compiled by Environment Canada from Ontario Health Units
160
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Indicator #4201
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Concentrations of organochlorine contaminants in Great Lakes sportflsh are generally decreasing.
However, in the U.S., PCBs still drive advisories for limiting consumption of Great Lakes sportflsh. In
Ontario, most of the consumption advisories are driven by PCBs, mercury, and dioxins. Toxaphene
also contributes to Ontario consumption advisories for sportfish from Lake Superior and Lake
Huron.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Contaminant concentrations in sportfish from both GLNPO and OMOE programs determine the advised maximum
frequency offish-eating meals. OMOE calculates and issues its own advice, while GLNPO compares contaminant
concentrations of collected samples (3 composites offishpersite) to the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish
Consumption Advisory categories (see State of the Ecosystem, Program History below). U.S. data for contaminants
in sportfish cannot be used for statistical trend analysis and are not intended as public advice for consumption.
Individual states and tribes issue consumption advice. Trend discussions in the lake-by-lake assessments below are
based on OMOE data.
Lake Superior
Status:
Trend:
Rationale:
Mixed
Improving
PCB concentrations in Lake Superior lake trout have declined considerably over the period of record.
In the late 1970s, PCB concentrations exceeded the current OMOE "do not eat" consumption limit
(see figure 2). Since 1990, concentrations have generally fluctuated between 0.153 ppm and 0.610
ppm, which would permit the consumption of 2 to 4 meals per month. PCB concentrations in GLNPO
sportfish fillets currently fall into the one meal per month consumption advisory (see figure 1).
Mercury levels in walleye from Lake Superior have ranged from 0.62 ppm to 0.30 ppm between 1973
and 2002, and, with the exception of a maximum level reached in 1989 (0.84 ppm), have declined
over the last few decades. In the last 5 years of the period of record, levels of mercury in walleye have
been around 0.30 ppm, permitting the consumption of 4 meals per month for the sensitive population.
Mercury concentrations in lake trout permit the consumption of 8 meals per month (see figure 4).
These mercury levels are similar to those found in fish from other Ontario lakes and rivers. Mercury
concentrations in GLNPO sportfish fillets range between the one meal per week and 2 meals per week
consumption advisories (see figure 3).
Toxaphene concentrations have historically been high in fish from Lake Superior due to atmospheric
deposition. In lake trout, concentrations have ranged from 0.810 ppm to 0.214 ppm between 1984
and 2003 (see figure 5). In 1993, levels of toxaphene in lake trout exceeded 1 ppm. The most current
concentrations, however, do not result in any fish consumption advisories. No toxaphene or DDT
protocols exist to compare with concentrations found in GLNPO sportfish (see figure 8).
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: GLNPO data for PCB concentrations in sportfish from Lake Michigan can be used to discern general
trends due to multiple collection sites. These data display a general decline in PCB concentrations in
coho and Chinook salmon fillets. No OMOE samples were collected from Lake Michigan. Current
concentrations range between the one meal per week and the one meal per month consumption advice
categories (see figure 1).
Mercury concentrations in GLNPO sportfish fillets range between the one meal per week and one meal
per month consumption advice categories (see figure 3).
161
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
All GLNPO sportfish fillets fall into the unlimited consumption category of the draft chlordane
addendum to the protocol (see figure 7).
No toxaphene or DDT protocols exist to compare with concentrations found in GLNPO sportfish (see
figure 8).
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: PCB levels in Lake Huron lake trout declined substantially between 1976 and 2004. In 1976,
concentrations exceeded 4 ppm, well above the "do not eat" consumption limit of 1.22 ppm for the
general population. Current PCB concentrations in lake trout slightly exceed 0.153 ppm, allowing for the
safe consumption of a maximum of 4 meals per month. Current GLNPO data for PCB concentrations
in sportfish hover around the one meal per week consumption advice category (see figure 1).
Mercury levels in walleye from Lake Huron have ranged from 0.48 ppm to 0.16 ppm between 1976 and
2004. With the exception of a maximum level reached in 1984 (0.59 ppm), there has been a general
decline over the last few decades. During the last decade, levels of mercury have remained below the
first level of consumption restriction (0.26 ppm) for the sensitive population (see figure 4). Mercury
concentrations in GLNPO sportfish fillets fall into the one meal per week category (see figure 3).
All GLNPO sportfish fillets fall into the unlimited consumption category of the draft chlordane
addendum to the protocol (see figure 7).
No toxaphene or DDT protocols exist to compare with concentrations found in GLNPO sportfish (see
figure 8).
Lake Erie
Status:
Trend:
Mixed
Improving
Rationale: Trend data are sparse for Lake Erie as lake trout are less abundant in this lake. PCB levels in lake trout
declined between 1984 and 2003, but current concentrations restrict consumption to 2 meals per month
for the general population. The sensitive population is advised not to consume these fish (see figure 2).
Current GLNPO data for PCB concentrations in sportfish fall into the one meal per week consumption
advice category (see figure 1).
Mercury levels in walleye have declined considerably over the period of record, from 0.76 ppm in
1970 to 0.18 ppm in 2004. Over the past two decades, levels of mercury have remained between 0.10
and 0.20 ppm, and they do not restrict consumption of walleye or lake trout (see figure 4). Mercury
concentrations in GLNPO sportfish fall into the two meals per week category.
All GLNPO sportfish fillets fall into the unlimited consumption category of the draft chlordane
addendum to the protocol (see figure 7).
No toxaphene or DDT protocols exist to compare with concentrations found in GLNPO sportfish (see
figure 8).
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Historically, the highest concentrations of PCBs in sportfish have been found in Lake Ontario. From the
late 1970s to 1999, PCBs in lake trout from Lake Ontario were at or near the "do not eat" consumption
limit. Substantially lower concentrations have been found in the most recent samples in 2002 and
2004, and the current levels would permit consumption of 2 meals per month. Current GLNPO data for
PCB concentrations in sportfish fall into the one meal per week category (see figure 1).
Annual mean mercury levels in walleye have fluctuated between 0.32 ppm and 0.11 ppm between
1975 and 2005, although there has been no major decline observed. Over the past 3 years, mercury
concentrations have remained below the first level of consumption restriction for the sensitive
population (see figure 4). Mercury concentrations in GLNPO sport fish fall into the one meal per week
category (see figure 3).
162
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
High levels of mirex have been found in fish from Lake Ontario, and it has historically been a source
of fish consumption restrictions. Levels of mirex in lake trout from Lake Ontario have declined
significantly from 0.302 ppm to 0.036 ppm between 1978 and 2004, with a maximum of 0.387 ppm in
1985. The current concentration of mirex no longer restricts consumption of lake trout (see figure 6).
Photomirex is a breakdown product of mirex, which also bioaccumulates in fish and has historically
caused consumption restrictions in some Lake Ontario species. Levels in lake trout have declined from
0.044 to 0.015 ppm between 1994 and 2004 (see figure 6).
All GLNPO sportfish fillets fall into the unlimited consumption category of the draft chlordane
addendum to the protocol (see figure 7).
No toxaphene or DDT protocols exist to compare with concentrations found in GLNPO sportfish (see
figure 8).
Purpose
To assess potential human exposure to persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) contaminants through consumption of
popular sport species
To assess the levels of PBT contaminants in Great Lakes sport fish
To identify trends over time of PBT contaminants in Great Lakes sport fish or in fish consumption advisories
In addition to an indicator of human health, contaminants in fish are an important indicator of contaminant levels in an aquatic
ecosystem because of the bioaccumulation of organochlorine chemicals in their tissues. Contaminants that are often undetectable
in water can be detected in fish.
Ecosystem Objective
Great Lakes sport fish should be safe to eat and concentrations of toxic contaminants in sport fish should not pose a risk to human
health. Unlimited consumption of all Great Lakes sport fish should be available to all citizens of the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Program History
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (United
States and Canada 1987) requires Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) to define ".. .the threat to human health posed by critical
pollutants... including their contribution to the impairment of
beneficial uses." Both the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes
Sport Fish Consumption Advisory (Great Lakes Sport Fish
Advisory Task Force 1993) and the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport
Fish (OMOE 2005) are used to assess the status of the ecosystem by
comparing contaminant concentrations in fish to levels that invoke
consumption advice. Contaminants upon which consumption
advisories are based in Canada and the U.S. include PCBs, dioxin,
mercury, toxaphene, chlordane and mirex (Table 1).
Lake
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie
Ontario
Contaminants that Fish Advisories are
based on in Canada and the United States
Dioxin, PCBs, toxaphene, mercury, chlordane
Dioxin, PCBs, toxaphene, mercury, chlordane
PCBs, mercury, dioxin, chlordane
PCBs, dioxin, mercury
PCBs, dioxin, mercury, mirex, toxaphene
Table 1. Contaminants on which the fish advisories are
based on by lake for Canada and the United States.
Source: Compiled by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Both the United States and Canada (Ontario) collect and analyze
sport fish to determine contaminant concentrations, to relate those concentrations to health protection values and to develop
consumption advice to protect human health. The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (U S. EPA Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO)) and the Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)) have been
monitoring contaminant levels in Great Lakes fish for over three decades.
To demonstrate trends in organic contaminant levels, average-size, 60cm (23.6 inches) lake trout were chosen by OMOE as the
representative fish species due to their presence in all of the Great Lakes, their potential for exploitation by anglers and their high
accumulation rates for organic contaminants. To demonstrate trends in mercury levels, average-size, 45cm (17.7 inches) walleye
were chosen by OMOE due to high mercury accumulation rates. Health Canada sets Tolerable Daily Intakes (TDI) for certain
contaminants of concern, including PCBs, mercury, dioxins (including dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs), mirex, photomirex,
163
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
toxaphene and chlordane. TDIs are defined as the quantity of a chemical that
can be consumed on a daily basis, for a lifetime, with reasonable assurance
that one's health will not be threatened, and they are used in the calculation of
sport fish consumption limits which are listed in the Guide to Eating Ontario
Sport Fish (Table 2, OMOE 2005).
In alternating years in the U.S., either coho salmon or Chinook salmon are
captured and fillets are analyzed for a suite of persistent, bioaccumulative
toxic (PBT) chemicals. The GLNPO program was not designed to determine
trends in levels of contaminants in sport fish. Rather, the GLNPO program
can compare yearly mean concentration levels to a set standard, the Protocol
for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory (Table 3,
Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force 1993). The Protocol for PCBs
is used as a standardized fish advisory benchmark for this indicator, and
Advised meals per month
Sensitive*
8
4
Do not eat
Do not eat
Do not eat
General
8
4
2
1
Do not eat
Concentration of
PCBs (ppm)
< 0.153
0.153-0.305
0.305-0.610
0.610-1.22
>1.22
Table 2. Consumption limits used for the Guide
to Eating Ontario Sport Fish (based on Health
Canada TDIs).
* Women of childbearing age and children
under 15
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2005)
Consumption Advice
Groups
Sensitive* and General
Unrestricted Consumption
2 meals/ week
1 meal/ week
1 meal/ month
6 meals/ year
Do not eat
Concentration
of PCBs (ppm)
0-0.05
NA
0.06-0.2
0.21-1.0
1.1-1.9
>1.9
Concentration
of Mercury
(ppm)**
0 <= 0.05
> 0.05 <= 0.11
>0.11<=0.22
> .22 <= 0.95
NA
>0.95
Concentration
of Chlordane
(ppm)***
0-0.15
NA
0.16-0.65
0.66-2.82
2.83-5.62
>5.62
it is applied to historical GLNPO data
to track trends in fish consumption
advice. Individual Great Lakes states
and tribes issue specific consumption
advice for how much fish and which
fish are safe to eat for a wide variety
of contaminants. Due to gaps and
variability in GLNPO salmon fillet
data, statistically significant trends are
difficult to discern.
Table 3. Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory.
*Women of childbearing age and children under 15
**Draft Protocol for Mercury-based Fish Consumption Advice
***Discussion Paper for Chlordane HPV
Source: Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force (1993)
Advice for the Protocol for a Uniform
Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption
Advisory was calculated for sensitive
populations based on a weight of
evidence of non-cancer developmental
effects. The general population is
advised to follow the same advice
based on potential cancer risk. Health
Canada does not consider PCBs (especially environmental levels) to be carcinogens. Therefore, non-cancer endpoints were used
to calculate the Tolerable Daily Intakes (TDI) for PCBs. This TDI was applied more-or-less equally to both sensitive and general
populations. For mercury, Health Canada and U.S. states assign separate TDIs or RfDs (references doses) for the general and
sensitive populations.
Other important differences between the GLNPO and OMOE programs include composited fish analysis versus individual fish
analysis, skin-on versus skin-off fillets, and whole fillet analysis versus dorsal plug analysis, respectively. For this reason, only
general comparisons between GLNPO and OMOE data should be made.
Contaminants in Great Lakes Sport Fish
Since the 1970s, there have been declines in the levels of many PBT chemicals in the Great Lakes basin due to bans on the use
and/or production of harmful substances and restrictions on emissions. However, because of their ability to bioaccumulate and
persist in the environment, PBT chemicals continue to be a significant concern. Historically, PCBs have been the contaminant that
most frequently limited the consumption of Great Lakes sport fish. In some areas, dioxins, toxaphene (Lake Superior) or mirex/
photomirex (Lake Ontario) have been the consumption-limiting contaminant. Recently Health Canada has revised downward
its TDIs for PCBs and dioxins, which has increased the frequency of consumption restrictions caused by PCBs and dioxins and
decreased relative frequency for toxaphene and mirex/photomirex.
The following figures illustrate the relationships between contaminant concentrations in sportfish and the resultant fish consumption
164
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
advisories. Data and advisories are presented for: PCBs in Chinook salmon (2003) and lake trout (2005-2006) by lake (Figure
1 and Figure 2); mercury in Chinook salmon (2003) and lake trout (2004-2006) by lake (Figure 3 and Figure 4); toxaphene in
lake trout from Lake Superior over time (Figure 5); mirex and phtomirex in lake trout from Lake Ontario over time (Figure 6);
chlordane in Chinook salmon (2000) by lake (Figure 7); and DDT and toxaphene in coho salmon or Chinook salmon (2000) by
lake (Figure 8).
, . 0.25-
E
Q.
tfi V-'*3
CD
O
Q.
, | 1 .21 - 1.0 ppm -
O
w
0)
0.
o
LJ_
1.9 ppm
,_
1 JL s 1 ^
j-^^Q) 0} U- 0>
s "|T|_~ง""pl 1 n Jj^"
3"Sซ|ฃ Is ฐฃ
Lake Lake Lake Michigan Lake Lake
Superior Ontario Huron Erie
1 meal / month
6 meals /year
do not eat
.06 - .2 ppm
one meal /
week
05 ppm
unlimited
consumption
Figure 1. ZPCBs in GLNPO Chinook salmon fillet composites
(2003) compared to the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes
Sport Fish Consumption Advisory.
Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing
age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 2006
> 0.305 pp
Don not eat
0.153-0.305 ppm
4 meals/month
< 0.153 ppm
8 meals/month
Lake Huron Lake Superior
Figure 2. ZPCBs in OMOE individual 60 cm lake trout compared
to the Ontario Sport Fish Consumption Guidelines.
Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing
age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006
0.25-
ฃ 0.20-
Q.
Q. 0.15-
^ 0.10-
1
1
a:
a:
p=-|
1 0
| H
^1
a: |
|
>.95 ppm -Do Not Eat
>.22 ppm - .95 ppm
>.11 - .22 ppm
1 meal/week
.05- .11 ppm
2 meals /week
.05 ppm
unlimited
Lake Lake Lake Mich gan Lake Lake
Superior Ontario Huran Erie
Figure 3. Mercury in GLNPO Chinook salmon fillet composites
(2003) compared to the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes
Sport Fish Consumption Advisory.
Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing
age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 2006
0.6
0.5
"g~ 0.4-
Q.
Q. 0.3
ฃo,
0.1-
0-
n 2004 n 2005 2006
1 i n 1
Lake Ontario Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Superior
> .52 ppm
Do Not Eat
.26 ppm - .52 ppm
4 meals/ month
< .26 ppm
8 meals/ month
Figure 4. Hg in OMOE individual 60 cm lake trout compared
to the Ontario Sport Fish Consumption Guidelines. Advisory
limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing age and
children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006
Pressures
Organochlorine contaminant levels in fish in the Great Lakes are generally decreasing. As these contaminants continue to decline.
mercury will become a more important contaminant of concern in Great Lakes fish.
Concentrations of PBT contaminants such as PCBs have declined in lake trout throughout the Great Lakes basin. However.
concentrations still exceed current consumption limits. Regular monitoring must continue in the Great Lakes basin to maintain
trend data. In many areas of the Great Lakes, dioxins (including dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs) are now the consumption-
limiting contaminant and need to be monitored more frequently. The focus should also turn to PBT contaminants of emerging
concern, such as brominated flame retardants, before their concentrations in sport fish reach levels that may affect human health.
In the U.S., state and tribal governments provide information to consumers regarding consumption of sport-caught fish. Neither
the guidance nor advice of a state or tribal government is regulatory. However, some states use the federal commercial fish
guidelines for the acceptable level of contaminants when giving advice for eating sport-caught fish. Consumption advice offered
165
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
1*1.0-
Q.
n
-So.8
0)
ง 0.6
.C
X
,2 0.2
I
,
Nil
> 0.469 ppm
Do Not Eat
D.235- 0.469 ppm
4 meals / month
< 0.235ppm
8 meals / month
COCOCOCOCOCOCDCncncnCT) CT)CT)CT)CT)CT)OOOOOO
Year
Figure 5. Toxaphene in OMOE individual 60 cm lake trout from
Lake Superior compared to the Ontario Sport Fish Consumption
Guidelines.
Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing
age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006
0.151
Q. 0.12
0.09-
c
ro
0.06-
0.03-
O
0.00
> 5.62 ppm - Do Not Eat
2.82 ppm - 5.62 ppm - 6 meals/ year
.66 ppm - 2.82 ppm -1 meal/ month
.16 ppm - .65 ppm -1 meal /week
E ฃ
<.15 ppm
unlimited
consumption
1TF
Lake Michigan
Lake
Huron
Lake
Erie
Figure 7. Total chlordane in GLNPO Chinook salmon fillet
composites (2000) compared to the Protocol for a Uniform
Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory-Draft Chlordane
Addendum.
Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing
age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 2006
,-* 0.5-r
E
ii ฐ-4-
O 0.3-
^
fa 0.2-
O
ซ 0.1-
o
0-
Mi rex D
Illlll
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
COOCXI-^-CDCOOCN
h-COCOCOCOCOO)O)
OiOiOiOiOiOiOiOi
Photomirex
Mil ex:
< 0.082 ppm - 8 meals / month
0.082 - 0.164 ppm - 4 meals / month
>0.164ppm - Do not eat
Photomirex:
< 0.015 ppm - 8 meals / month
0.015- 0.031 ppm -4 meals /month
>0.031 ppm - Do not eat
11 In Mill Inl i
ii mini r in in
-3- CD CO O CXI -3-
oi Oi Oi o o o
Oi Oi Oi O O O
Year
B
O
-M
Figure 6. Mirex and photomirex in OMOE individual 60 cm
lake trout compared to the Ontario Sport Fish Consumption
Guidelines.
Advisory limits for sensitive populations (women of child-bearing
age and children under 15 years of age) are used in graph.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006
^^*- 0.45~i '
| 0.40-
Q 0.35-
C 0.30-
o
S 0.25-
ra
^ 0.20-
m O-15"
0)
^ 0.10-
O 0.05-
0.00-
c
rli
rH ง
i
Q)
CD
Q_
CD
S
1
1
Q
Q
Lake Erie - Lake Lake M
Trout Run Michigan - Thorr
River Trail Creek Cre
c
CD
Q.
CD
[2
i
Q
CD
1
Q_
CD
1
ง
c
CD
-ง.
CD
O
I
Q
CD
c
Q)
Q.
CD
s
chigan - Lake Lake Lake
pson Michigan - Michigan - Huron -
ek Kewaunee Grand River Swan River
River
Figure 8. Total DDT and toxaphene in 2000 GLNPO sport fish
composites - No Consumption Advice.
Coho salmon fillets in Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, and
Chinook salmon fillets in Lake Huron.
Source: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 2006
by most agencies is based on human health risk. This approach
involves interpretation of studies on health effects from exposure to contaminants. Each state or tribe is responsible for developing
fish consumption advisories for protecting the public from pollutants in fish and tailoring this advice to meet the health needs of
its citizens. As a result, the advice from different states and tribal programs is sometimes somewhat different for the same lake
and species within that lake.
Additional information about the toxicity of a larger suite of chemicals is needed. The health effects of multiple contaminants.
including endocrine disrupters, also need to be addressed.
Management Implications
Health risk communication is a crucial component to the protection and promotion of human health in the Great Lakes. Enhanced
partnerships between states and tribes involved in the issuing offish consumption advice and U.S. EPA headquarters will improve
U.S. commercial and non-commercial fish advisory coordination. In Canada, acceptable partnerships exist between the federal
and provincial agencies responsible for providing fish consumption advice to the public.
At present, PCBs and chlordane are the only PBT chemicals that have uniform fish advisory protocols across the U.S. Great Lakes
basin, but an advisory for mercury is being drafted. There is a need to establish additional uniform PBT advisories in order to limit
166
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
confusion of the public that results from issuing varying advisories for the same species of sport fish across the basin.
In order to best protect human health, increased monitoring and reduction of PBT chemicals need to be made a priority. In
particular, monitoring of contaminant levels in environmental media and biomonitoring of human tissues need to be addressed,
as well as assessments of frequency and type of fish consumed. This is of particular concern in sensitive populations because
contaminant levels in some fish are higher than in others. In addition, improved understanding of the potential negative health
effects from exposure to PBT chemicals is needed.
In March, 2004, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration and the U. S. EPA jointly released a consumer advisory on methylmercury
in fish. The joint advisory advises women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to
avoid eating some types offish and to eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. While this is a step forward toward uniform
advice regarding safe fish consumption, the national advisory is not consistent with some Great Lakes state's advisories. Cooperation
among national, state, and tribal governments to develop and distribute the same message regarding safe fish consumption needs
to continue. Health Canada has had a similar advisory since 1999.
Comments from the author(s)
Support is needed for the states from GLNPO and U.S. EPA headquarters to help facilitate a meeting to review risk assessment
protocols.
Historical long term fish contaminant monitoring data sets, which were assembled by several jurisdictions for different purposes,
need to be more effectively utilized. Relationships between the data sets need to be evaluated to allow for comparison and
combined use of existing data from the various sampling programs. These data could be used in expanding this indicator to other
contaminants and species and for supplementing the data used in this illustration.
Coordination of future monitoring would greatly assist the comparison offish contaminants data among federal, provincial, state
and tribal jurisdictions.
Agreement is needed on U.S. fish advisory health benchmarks for the contaminants that cause fish advisories in the Great Lakes.
Suggested starting points are: The Great Lakes Protocol for PCBs and Chlordane and U.S. EPA's reference dose for mercury.
Ontario remains consistent with Health Canada's TDIs throughout the province.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Elizabeth Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
Jackie Fisher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office
Emily Awad, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON
Alan Hayton, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON
Sources
Elizabeth Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, murphy.elizabeth@epa.gov.
De Vault, D.S. and Weishaar, J.A. 1983. Contaminant analysis of 1981 fall run coho salmon. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-83-001.
De Vault, D.S. and Weishaar, J.A. 1984. Contaminant analysis of 1982 fall run coho salmon. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905/3-85-004.
De Vault, D.S., Weishaar, J.A., Clark, J.M., and Lavhis, G. 1988. Contaminants and trends in fall run coho salmon. J. Great Lakes
Res. 14:23-33.
Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force. 1993. Protocol for a uniform Great Lakes sport fish consumption advisory.
http://fn.cfs.purdue.edu/anglingindiana/HealthRisks/TaskForce.pdf. last accessed July 22, 2005.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2005. Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish 2005-2006.
167
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/guide/index.htm. last accessed July 19, 2006.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington, http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Consumption Advice, Joint Federal Advisory for Mercury in Fish.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisory.html. last accessed May 24, 2004.
Data
Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, Great Lakes National Program Office;
Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment;
Minnesota DNR salmon fillet data for Lake Superior.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
168
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Air Quality
Indicator #4202
Disclaimer
The Air Quality indicator report was drafted in the fall of 2006 using data that were available at that time. Since then, a number
of Canadian and U.S. governmental reports have been released with more up-to-date information. These reports include the
United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement: 2006 Progress Report and the Government of Canada Five-year Progress Report:
Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. The information and data presented in these reports (and others) will
be incorporated into the 2009 Air Quality indicator report.
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Mixed
Improving
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments were not prepared for this report.
Purpose
To monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem
To infer the potential impact of air quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin
Ecosystem Objective
Air should be safe to breathe. Air quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be protected in areas where it is relatively good
and improved in areas where it is degraded. This is consistent with ecosystem objectives being adopted by certain lakewide
management plans, including Lake Superior, in fulfillment of Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA).
This indicator also supports Annexes 1, 13, and 15.
State of the Ecosystem
Overall, there has been significant progress in improving air quality in the Great Lakes basin. For several 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 and fine particulate matter can
be particularly elevated during hot summers, and the trends are not consistent with those for related pollutants. Drought conditions
result in more fugitive dust emissions from roads and fields, which may further contribute to the ambient levels of particulate
matter.
In general, there has been significant progress with urban or local pollutants over the past decade or more, though somewhat less
in recent years, with a few remaining problem districts. Ground-level ozone and fine particles remain a concern in the Great Lakes
region, especially in the Detroit-Windsor region and extending northward to Sault St. Marie and eastward to Ottawa, the Lake
Michigan basin, and the Buffalo-Niagara area. These pollutants continue to exceed the respective air quality criteria and standards
at a number of monitoring locations in Southern Ontario and in the lower Great Lakes region in the U.S.
For the purposes of this discussion, the pollutants can be divided into urban (or local) and regional pollutants. For regional
pollutants, transport is a significant issue, from hundreds of kilometers to the scale of the globe. Formation from other pollutants,
both natural and man-made, can also be important. Unless otherwise stated, references to the U.S. or Canada in this discussion
refer to nationwide averages.
Urban/Local Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Ambient Concentrations: In the U.S., CO levels for 2004 were the lowest recorded in the past 25 years. Ambient concentrations
have decreased approximately 71% nationally from 1980 to 2004 and 42% nationally from 1993 to 2002. There are currently no
nonattainment areas (areas where air quality standards are not met) in the U.S. for CO. In general, CO levels have decreased at the
169
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
same rate in the Great Lakes region as the nation as a whole.
In Ontario, the composite average of the one-hour maximum CO concentration decreased by 82% from 1971 to 2004, while the
composite average of the eight-hour maximum concentration decreased 87%. Since 1995, average CO concentrations have only
decreased 16%. Ontario has not experienced an exceedence of the 1-hour and 8-hour criteria since 1991.
Emissions: In the U.S., nationwide emissions of CO have decreased 33% from 1990 to 2002, the most recent year for which
aggregate National Emissions Inventory (NEI) estimates are available. The reductions in CO emissions are almost entirely due
to decreased emissions from on-road mobile sources, which have occurred despite yearly increases in vehicle miles traveled. In
general, CO emissions have decreased at the same rate in the Great Lakes region as the nation as a whole.
In Canada, anthropogenic emissions (not including open sources such as forest fires) have decreased nationally by about 22%
between 1990 and 2002, with a 29% decline in Ontario over the same time period. These declines are mainly the result of more
stringent transportation emission standards.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Ambient Concentrations: In Ontario, ambient NO2 concentrations have decreased 31% from 1975 to 2004. Over the last decade
(1995 to 2004), average NO2 concentrations declined 13%. The Ontario 1-hour and 24-hour air quality criterion for NO2 were not
exceeded at any of Ontario's monitoring stations in 2004.
In the U.S., the annual mean concentrations decreased 37% from 1980 to 2004. NO2 levels in the Great Lakes region decreased
at a slightly higher pace during this time period. An analysis of urban versus rural monitoring sites indicates that the declining
trend seen nationwide and in the Great Lakes region can mostly be attributable to decreasing concentrations of NO2 in urban areas
(similar results can be found in Ontario). There are currently no NO2 nonattainment areas in the U.S.
Emissions: In Canada, anthropogenic emissions of NOx (not including open sources such as forest fires) stayed essentially
unchanged with a slight increase of 5% between 1990 and 2002. However, emissions have decreased by about 11% in Ontario over
the same time period. These declines are mainly the result of more stringent transportation emission standards.
In the U.S., emissions of NOx decreased by about 18% from 1990 to 2002. The downward trend can be attributed to emissions
reductions at electric utilities and on-road mobile sources. Although nationwide NOx emissions have decreased, emissions from
some source categories have increased including non-road engines. In general, NOx emissions have decreased at a slightly greater
rate in the Great Lakes region as compared to the nation as a whole.
For more information on oxides of nitrogen, refer to the Great Lakes Indicator Report #9000 Acid Rain.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Ambient Concentrations: In the U.S., annual mean concentrations of SO2 decreased 54% from 1983 to 2002. From 1993 to 2002,
annual mean concentrations of SO2 in the U.S. decreased 39%. The Great Lakes region experienced reducing trends on par with
the national averages. Since the State of the Great Lakes 2005 report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
approved the redesignation of Lake County, Indiana, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio, to attainment areas. There are currently no
nonattainment areas for SO2 in the Great Lakes region.
In Ontario, the average ambient SO2 concentrations improved 86% from 1971 to 2004, with a 17% improvement since 1995.
Ontario did not experience any violations of the one-hour SO2 criterion (250 ppb), 24-hour criterion (100 ppb), or the annual
criterion (20 ppb) in 2004.
Emissions: In the U.S., national SO2 emissions were reduced 33% from 1990 to 2002 mostly in response to regulations imposing
cuts on coal-burning power plants. SO2 emissions in the Great Lakes region have decreased at a much greater rate than the national
trend over this time period.
Canadian emissions decreased 29% nationwide from 1990 to 2002, but have remained relatively constant since 1995. Even
with increasing economic activity, emissions remain about 29% below the target national emission cap. From 1990 to 2002, the
emissions of SO2 in Ontario decreased 47%. These reductions mostly were the result of the Eastern Canada Acid Rain Program
170
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
which primarily targeted major non-ferrous smelters and fossil fuel-burning power plants in the seven eastern-most provinces.
For more information on sulfur dioxide, refer to the Great Lakes Indicator Report #9000 Acid Rain.
Lead
Ambient Concentrations: U.S. concentrations of lead decreased 97% from 1980 to 2004 with most of the reductions occurring
during the 1980s and early 1990s. Lead levels in the Great Lakes region decreased at nearly the same rate as the national trend
over this time. There are no nonattainment areas for lead in the Great Lakes region.
Based on historical data, lead concentrations at urban monitoring stations in Ontario have decreased over 95%.
Emissions: National lead emissions in the U.S. decreased 98% from 1980 to 1999 mostly as a result of regulatory efforts to reduce
the content of lead in gasoline. The declines since 1990 have been from metals processing and waste management industries.
Similar improvements in Canada have followed with the usage of unleaded gasoline.
Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS)
Ambient Concentrations: This family of compounds is of concern in Canada due to odor problems in some communities, normally
near industrial or pulp mill sources. There is no apparent trend in the annual average concentrations of TRS in Ontario from 1990
to 2003. There are still periods above the ambient criteria near a few centers.
Emissions: Hydrogen sulfide accounts for more than half of total reduced sulfur emissions. There is no requirement to report TRS
emissions in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). However, there has been a requirement to report hydrogen sulfide
emissions since 2000. Hydrogen sulfide emissions have increased about 47% from 2000 to 2003.
PM10
Ambient Concentrations: PM10 is the fraction of particles in the atmosphere with a diameter of 10 microns or smaller. Annual
average PM10 concentrations in the U S. have decreased 28% from 1990 to 2004. Annual average concentrations in the Great Lakes
region have decreased at nearly the same rate as the national trend over this time. The national 24-hour PM10 concentration was
31% lower than the 1990 level. 24-hour average concentrations in the Great Lakes region have decreased at nearly the same rate as
the national trend over this time. There are currently no nonattainment areas in the Great Lakes region. Since the State of the Great
Lakes 2003 report, the U.S. EPA approved the redesignation of 2 areas in Cook County, Illinois, to attainment areas.
Canada does not have an ambient target for PM10. However, Ontario has an interim standard of 50 jo,g/m3 over a 24-hour sampling
period to guide decision-making.
Emissions: In the U.S., national direct source man-made emissions decreased 29% from 1990 to 2002. The fuel combustion
source category experienced the largest absolute decrease in emissions (422,000 tons and 35%), while the on-road vehicle sector
experienced the largest relative decrease (183,000 tons and 47%). The Great Lakes region experienced reducing trends on par with
the national averages.
In Canada, anthropogenic emissions (not including open sources such as road dust) have decreased nationally by about 15%
between 1990 and 2002.
Air Toxics
This term captures a large number of pollutants that, based on the toxicity and likelihood for exposure, have the potential to harm
human health (e.g. cancer causing) or 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 usually limited in
scope because such toxics are usually present only at trace levels. Recent efforts in Canada and the U.S. have focused on better
characterization of ambient levels and minimizing emissions. In the U.S., the Clean Air Act targets a 75% reduction in cancer
"incidence" and a "substantial" reduction in non-cancer risks. The Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) program
sets emissions standards on industrial sources to reduce emissions of air toxics. Once fully implemented, these standards will cut
emissions of toxic air pollutants by nearly 1.36 million tonnes per year from 1990 levels.
171
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
In February 2006, U.S. EPA released the results of its national assessment of air toxics (NATA) using 1999 emissions. The purpose
of the national-scale assessment is to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source types and locations which are of greatest
potential concern in terms of contributing to population risk. From a national perspective, benzene is the most significant air toxic
for which cancer risk could be estimated, contributing 25% of the average individual cancer risk identified in this assessment.
Based on U.S. EPA's national emissions inventory, the key sources for benzene are on-road (49%) and non-road mobile sources
(19%), and open burning, prescribed fires and wildfires (14%). U.S. EPA projects that on-road and non-road mobile source benzene
emissions will decrease by about 60% between 1999 and 2020, as a result of motor vehicle standards, fuel controls, standards for
non-road engines and equipment, and motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.
Of the 40 air toxics showing the potential for respiratory effects, acrolein is the most significant, contributing 91% of the nationwide
average non-cancer hazard identified in this assessment. Note that the health information and exposure data for acrolein include
much more uncertainty than those for benzene. Based on the national emissions inventory, the key sources for acrolein are open
burning, prescribed fires and wildfires (61%), on-road (14%) and non-road (11%) mobile sources. The apparent dominance of
acrolein as a non-cancer "risk driver" in both the 1996 and 1999 national-scale assessment has led to efforts to develop an effective
monitoring test method for this pollutant. U.S. EPA projects acrolein emissions from on-road sources will be reduced by 53%
between 1996 and 2020 as a result of existing motor vehicle standards and fuel controls.
The assessment estimates that most people have a lifetime cancer risk between 1 and 25 in a million from air toxics. This means
that out of one million people, between 1 and 25 people have increased likelihood of contracting cancer as a result of breathing air
toxics from outdoor sources, if they were exposed to 1999 levels over the course of their lifetime. The assessment estimates that
most urban locations have air toxics lifetime cancer risk greater than 25 in a million. Risk in transportation corridors and some
other locations are greater than 50 in a million. In contrast, one out of every three Americans (330,000 in a million) will contract
cancer during a lifetime, when all causes (including exposure to air toxics) are taken into account. Based on these results, the risk
of contracting cancer is increased less than 1% due to inhalation of air toxics from outdoor sources.
In Canada, key toxics such as benzene, mercury, dioxins, and furans are the subject of ratified and proposed new standards, and
voluntary reduction efforts.
Ambient Concentrations: A National Air Toxics Trend Site (NATTS) network was launched in the U.S. in 2003 to detect trends
in high-risk air toxics such as benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, and chromium. There are four NATTS monitoring
sites in the Great Lakes region including Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, Rochester, NY and Mayville, WI. Some ambient trends have
also been found from existing monitoring networks. Average annual urban concentrations of benzene have decreased 60% in the
U.S. from 1994 to 2004.
Manganese compounds are hazardous air pollutants of special concern in the Great Lakes region. They are emitted by iron and steel
production plants, power plants, coke ovens, and many smaller metal processing facilities. Exposures to elevated concentrations
of manganese are harmful to human health and have been associated with subtle neurological effects, such as slowed eye-hand
coordination. The most recent NATA results identify manganese compounds as the largest contributor to neurological non-
cancer health risk in the U.S. Modeled estimates of ambient manganese compounds in all 3222 U.S. counties show that among
the 50 counties with the highest concentrations nation-wide, 20 are located in U.S. EPA's Region 5. The median average annual
manganese concentration at 21 trend sites showed a 14.7% decline between 2000 and 2004. Additional years of data will be needed
to confirm this apparent trend.
In Ontario, average annual urban concentrations of benzene, toluene, and xylene have decreased about 45%, 38%, and 50%
respectively from 1995 to 2004.
Emissions: The Great Lakes Toxics Inventory is an ongoing initiative of the regulatory agencies in the eight Great Lakes states
and the Province of Ontario. Emissions inventories have been developed for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002, but different
approaches were used to develop these inventories making trend analysis difficult.
In Canada, emissions are also being tracked through the NPRI. The NPRI includes information on some of the substances listed
by the Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET) program. Significant voluntary reductions in toxic emissions have
been reported through the ARET program.
172
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
In the U.S., emissions are also being tracked through the NEI and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). NEI data indicate that
national U.S. air toxic emissions have dropped approximately 42% between 1990 and 2002, though emission estimates are subject
to modification and the trends are different for different compounds. The 1999 NEI also showed that Region 5 had the highest
manganese emissions of all U.S. EPA Regions, contributing 36.6% of all manganese compounds emitted nation-wide.
The TRI, which began in 1988, contains information on releases of nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories from industries.
including manufacturing, metal and coal mining, electric utilities, and commercial hazardous waste treatment, among others.
Although the TRI has expanded and changed over the years, it is still possible to ascertain trends over time for core sets of toxics.
The total reported air emissions of the TRI 1988 Core Chemicals (299 chemicals) in the eight Great Lakes states have decreased
by about 78% from 1988 to 2004. According to the TRI, manganese emissions from point sources declined between 1988 and
2003 both nationally (26.2%) and in U.S. EPA Region 5 (36.7%). Year-to-year variability in manganese emissions is high, however.
and recent emissions data (1996-2003) suggest a weaker trend: emissions dropped 7.6% and 12.4% nation-wide and in Region 5.
respectively.
Regional Pollutants
Ground-Level Ozone (O3)
Ozone is almost entirely a secondary pollutant, which forms from reactions of precursors (VOCs - volatile organic compounds
and NOx - nitrogen oxides) in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ozone is a problem pollutant over broad areas of the Great Lakes
region. Local onshore circulations around the Great Lakes can exacerbate the problem, as pollutants can remain trapped for days
below a maritime/marine inversion, which forms when a layer of warm air moves to lie over colder marine air, thus trapping
the colder air. Consistently high levels are found in provincial parks near Lake Huron and Lake Erie, and western Michigan is
impacted by transport across Lake Michigan from Chicago.
Ambient Concentrations: In 2004.
ozone levels in the U.S. showed
continued improvement. National
assessments find some uneven
improvement in peak levels, but with
indications that average levels may be
increasing on a global scale. Ozone
levels are still decreasing nationwide.
but the rate of decrease for 8-hour
ozone levels has slowed since 1990.
The Great Lakes region (including
portions of U.S. EPA's Regions 2.
3 and 5) has experienced smaller
decreases than nationwide averages
(Figure 1). Many of the improvements
in ozone concentrations during these
times have been a result of local
emission reductions in urban areas.
0.16
.2 0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04.
0.02
0.00
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
National
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Year
Source: EPA's Air Quality System.
Figure 1. Trends in Fourth Highest Daily Maximum 8-hour ozone concentration (ppm)
by U.S. EPA Region 1980-2004.
Source: Figure 004-4. Ambient ozone concentrations, 1980-2004, by EPA region; 2007 Report on the
Environment (ROE) Technical Document, http://www.epa.gov/indicators/. last accessed September 5, 2006
To address the regional transport of
ozone and ozone-forming pollutants
in the eastern half of the country.
the U.S. EPA developed a program
to reduce regional NOx emissions
called the NOx State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Call in 2002. An analysis
of 2002-2004 ozone data show that the NOx SIP Call achieved an additional 4% reduction in seasonal 8-hour ozone concentrations.
It is important to note that weather conditions in 2004 were not conducive to ozone formation, and that ozone levels in 2005 and
2006 could be higher than in 2004 depending on weather conditions. The NOx SIP Call also appears to have caused a gradual
decline in 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations (Figure 2).
173
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Since the State of the Great Lakes 2005 indicator
report, the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in
the U.S. and all 6 nonattainment areas in the Great
Lakes basin were reclassified. Now there are 28
areas covering 70 counties in the Great Lakes
basin designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard (Chicago-Gary-Lake Co, IL-IN
metropolitan (or metro) area; South Bend/Elkhart.
IN; LaPorte County, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; Detroit-
Ann Arbor metro area, MI; Flint metro area, MI;
Grand Rapids metro area, MI; Muskegon County.
MI; Allegan County, MI; Huron County, MI;
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek metro area, MI; Lansing-
East Lansing metro area, MI; Benton Harbor area.
MI; Benzie County, MI; Cass County, MI; Mason
County, MI; Jamestown, NY; Buffalo-Niagara
Falls metro area, NY; Rochester metro area, NY;
Jefferson County, NY; Toledo metro area, OH;
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain metro area, OH; Erie.
PA; Milwaukee-Racine metro area, WI; Sheboygan
County, WI; Manitowoc County, WI; Kewaunee
County, WI; and Door County, WI).
In Ontario, ozone concentrations continued to
exceed Ontario's Ambient Air Quality Criterion
(AAQC). In 2004, 28 of the 37 ambient Air Quality
Index (AQI) monitoring stations in Ontario recorded
exceedences of the 1-hour ozone AAQC on at least
one occasion. Although the ozone levels continue
to exceed Ontario's AAQC, the 1-hour maximum
ozone concentrations recorded in Ontario have, on
average, decreased by 13% from 1980 to 2004.
Over the past 10 years (1995 to 2004), the annual
composite means of one-hour ozone maximum
concentrations have decreased by about 4%.
In fact, the year 2004 recorded the lowest one-
hour ozone maximum (84 ppb) over the last
25 years. This is partly related to the lack of
weather conditions conducive to formation of
ground-level ozone in 2004, but it also indicates
that many of the efforts to curb emissions and
improve the air quality in Ontario are working.
However, Ontario has experienced an overall
increasing trend in seasonal mean ozone
concentrations over the same 25-year period.
The summer and winter seasonal ozone means
have increased by approximately 25% and 44%.
respectively (Figure 3). Similar increases in the
background concentrations of ozone have been
found in other parts of North America.
In Ontario, ozone data from 2002-2004
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Midwest
Note: Ozone concentrations are in parts per billion (ppb)
Figure 2. Rural Seasonal Average 8-hour Maximum Ozone
Concentrations by Geographic Region, 1997-2004.
Source: Sidebar "Ozone Reduction in Rural Areas Shows Regional Improvements" on
page 20 of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005a. Evaluating Ozone
Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOx Budget Trading Program,
2004. EPA454-K-05-001. http://www.epa.aov/airtrends/2005/ozonenbp/. last accessed
Septembers, 2006
40
35
30
3"
Q.
& 25
c
g
5 20
Year
Figure 3. Trend of Ozone Seasonal Means at Sites Across Ontario, 1980-
2004.
Source: Figure 2.5 of Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Air Quality in Ontario 2004 Report.
Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2006. . ISBN 1710-8128 or 0-7794-9921-2.
http://www.airaualitvontario.com/press/publications.cfm. last accessed September 6, 2006
174
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
indicated that all but one monitoring site (Thunder Bay) in Ontario exceeded the Canada-Wide Standard (CWS) of 65 ppb based
on the 4th highest ozone eight-hour daily maximum averaged over three years. The 4th highest eight-hour daily maximum ozone
concentrations have increased from 1995 to 2004 throughout Ontario, with the exception of Windsor, London, and Ottawa. The
highest percent increases occurred in the urban areas near the shore of Lake Ontario.
Emissions: In the U.S., VOC emissions from anthropogenic sources decreased 32% from 1990 to 2002. The rate of reduction in
the Great Lakes basin was slightly less than the national average. In 2002, VOC emissions from biogenic sources were estimated to
determine the relative contribution of natural versus anthropogenic sources. It was estimated that biogenic emissions contributed
approximately 71% of all VOC emissions in the country. NOx emissions in the U.S. have also decreased 18% from 1990 to 2002.
In Ontario, anthropogenic VOC emissions have decreased about 27% from 1990 to 2002. The reductions are mostly attributable
to the transportation and petroleum refining sectors. VOC emissions in all of Canada have decreased 22% over the same time
period. Canadian NOx emissions have remained essentially unchanged with a slight increase of about 5% between 1990 and 2002.
Emissions have decreased by about 11% in Ontario, however, over the same time period.
This fraction of particulate matter (diameter of 2.5 microns or less) is a health concern because it can penetrate deeply into the
lung, in contrast to larger particles. PM2 s is primarily a secondary pollutant produced from both natural and man-made precursors
(SO2, NOX, VOC and ammonia).
Ambient Concentrations: In Canada, a CWS for PM2S of 30 jo,g/m3 was established in June 2000. Achievement of the standard
is based on the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentiles of the daily, 24-hour (midnight to midnight) average concentrations.
As continuous PM2 s monitoring has only begun quite recently, there are not enough data to show any national long-term trends.
In Ontario, fine particulate matter data from 2004 indicate that many areas in Ontario recorded 98th percentile daily averages of
PM2S above 30 (ig/m3 (Figure 4).
In Ontario, during summer
episodes, PM2S mainly consists
of sulfate particles.
In the U.S., annual average PM2S
concentrations in 2004 were
the lowest since nationwide
monitoring began in 1999. The
trend is based on measurements
collected at 707 monitoring
stations that have sufficient
data to assess trends over that
period. Concentrations in 2004
represent an 11% decrease since
1999. The Great Lakes region
has experienced a slightly greater
decline than the national average.
In 2004, the average 24-hour
PM2 s concentration was also 11%
lower than the average 1999 level.
24-hour PM2S concentrations in
the Great Lakes region decreased
at nearly the same rate as the
national trend over this time.
Despite some uncertainties, the
reductions in PM2 s concentrations in the Great Lakes region appear to be largely a result of emission reduction at sources that
contribute to the formation of carbon-containing particles (Figure 5). Direct emissions of carbon-containing particles include
motor vehicles and fuel combustion.
PM25 Levels at Selected Sites Across Ontario,
98th Percentile PM Daily
Figure 4.
Average, 2004.
Source: Figure 3.4 of Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Air Quality in Ontario 2004 Report. Queen's Printer for
Ontario, 2006.. ISBN 1710-8128 or 0-7794-9921-2. http://www.airaualitvontario.com/press/publications.cfm. last
accessed September 6, 2006
175
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
There are three areas in the Great Lakes region that are designated nonattainment
for the PM2 s standard (Chicago-Gary-Lake Co, IL-IN metropolitan area; Detroit-
Ann Arbor, MI metro area; and the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH metro area).
Emissions: In the U.S., direct emissions from anthropogenic sources decreased
27% nationally between 1990 and 2002. However, this decreasing trend does not
account for the formation of secondary particles. The largest absolute reduction
in PM2 s emissions was seen in the fuel combustion source category (347,000 tons
and 38%), while the largest relative reduction in PM2 s emissions was in the on-
road vehicle category (175,000 tons and 54%).
In Canada, emissions (not including open sources such as road dust, construction
operations, and forest fires) have decreased nationally by about 14% between 1990
and 2002.
Pressures
Continued economic growth, population growth, and associated urban sprawl
are threatening to offset emission reductions achieved by policies currently in
place, through both increased energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. 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 both
broadening the number of toxics and producing evidence that existing standards
should be lowered.
Management Implications
Major pollution reduction efforts continue in both the U.S. and Canada. In
Canada, new ambient standards for particulate matter and ozone have been
endorsed, with a 2010 achievement date. This will involve updates at the federal
level and at the provincial level (the Clean Air Action Plan, and Ontario's Industry
Emissions Reduction Plan). Toxics are also addressed at both levels. The Canadian
Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was recently amended.
Industrial Midwest
16.
14
fT 12
ฃ
O)
^ 10
c
o
~ 8 .
re
4-*
c
g 6.
c
o
" 4 .
2
0
1ฃ
119 PM2.5 Monitoring Sites
2.5 1^ปs^>^^^
-9%
Sulfate _5%
^ ป^_
"* ^.^^
~ *
PM2 5 Remainder -17%
(mostly carbon)
Nitrate^ t -4%
Crustal
99 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
Figure 5. Trends of PM2 5 and its chemical
constituents in the Industrial Midwest of the
U.S., 1999-2003.
Source: Figure 16 of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004a. The Particle Pollution
Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and
Emissions through 2003. EPA 454-R-04-002.
http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd04/pm.html.
last accessed September 5, 2006
In the U.S., new, more protective ambient air standards have been promulgated
for ozone and particulate matter. MACT standards continue to be promulgated
for sources of toxic air pollution. U.S. EPA has also begun looking at the risk remaining after emissions reductions for industrial
sources take effect.
At the international level, Canada and the U.S. signed the Ozone Annex to the Air Quality Agreement in December 2000. The
Ozone Annex commits both countries to reduce emissions of NOx and VOCs, the precursor pollutants to ground-level ozone.
a major component of smog. This will help both countries attain their ozone air quality goals to protect human health and the
environment. Canada estimates that total NOx reduction in the Canadian transboundary region will be between 35% and 39% of
the 1990 levels by 2010. Under the Clean Air Action Plan, Ontario is also committed to reducing provincial emission of NOx and
VOCs by 45% of 1990 levels by 2015, with interim targets of 25% by 2005.
The U.S. estimates that the total NOx reductions in the U.S. transboundary region will be 36% year-round by 2010 and 43% during
the ozone season. Canada and the U.S. have also undertaken cooperative modeling, monitoring, and data analysis and developed
a work plan to address transboundary PM issues. PM2 s networks will continue to develop in both countries to determine ambient
levels, trends, and consequent reduction measures. Review of standards or objectives will continue to consider new information.
Efforts to reduce toxic pollutants will also continue under North America Free Trade Agreement and through United Nations-
Economic Commission for Europe protocols. The U.S. is continuing its deployment of a national air toxics monitoring network.
176
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Acknowledgments
Author:
Todd Nettesheim, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Reviewers:
Diane Sullivan, Brenda Koekkoek, Ken Smith, John Ayres, Clarisse Kayisire, Carmen Bigras, Philip Blagden, and Jay Barclay,
Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec
Hong (Holly) Lin and Fred Conway, Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Downsview, Ontario
Melynda Bitzos and Yvonne Hall, Ministry of the Environment, Ontario, Canada
Kate McKerlie, Environment Canada, National Air Strategies Division, Ottawa, Ontario.
Sources
Canada-United States Air Quality Committee, Subcommittee on Scientific Cooperation, in support of Canada-United States Air
Quality Agreement. 2004. Canada-United States Transboundary Particulate Matter Science Assessment. En56-203/2004E. ISBN:
0-662-38678-7. http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/can_us/canus_links_e.cfm. last accessed September 5, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2006a. Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC) Emission Summaries, July 2006.
http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/cac/Emissionsl990-2015/emissionsl990-2015_e.cfm. last accessed September 6, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2006b. 2002 National Pollutant Release Inventory Data, http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfm.
last accessed September 6, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2006c. National Air Pollution Surveillance Network, http://www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca/napsstations/main.aspx.
last accessed September 6, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2005. Border Air Quality Strategy: Great Lakes Basin Airshed Management Framework Pilot Project.
En4-48/2005E. ISBN: 0-662-40522-6. http://www.ee.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/caol/canus/great_lakes/index_e.cfm. last accessed
September 5. 2006; and http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/pilotproject.html. last accessed September 5, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2003a. Clean air in Canada: 2003 progress report on particulate matter and ozone. ISBN 0-662-34514-2.
http://www.ee.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/CAOL/air/PM_resp_03/toc_e.html. last accessed September 6, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2003b. Cleaner air through cooperation: Canada - United States progress under the Air Quality Agreement
2003. ISBN 0-662-34082-5. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/brochure/brochure.htm. last accessed April 17, 2004.
Environment Canada. 2003c. Environmental signals: Canada's national environmental indicator series 2003.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/default.cfm. last accessed September 5, 2006.
Environment Canada. 2003d. Environment Canada Performance Report: for the period ending March 31, 2003. David Anderson,
Minister of the Environment, http://www.ee. gc.ca/dpr/EC_DPR_March_31_2003_EN-Oct6.pdf. last accessed June 17, 2004.
Great Lakes Commission. 2002 Inventory of Toxic Air Emissions: Point, Area and Mobile Sources.
http://www.glc.org/air/inventory/2002/. last accessed September 5, 2006.
NARSTO. 2000. An assessment of tropospheric ozone: a North American perspective. http://www.cgenv.com/Narsto/, last
accessed June 30, 2004.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2006. Air Quality in Ontario 2004 Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario. ISBN
1710-8128 or 0-7794-9921-2. http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/publications.cfm. last accessed September 6, 2006.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2006b. Rationale for the Development of Ontario Air Standards for Lead and Lead
Compounds, June 2006. Standards Development Branch.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/AIR/airquality/standards.htmtfcontaminants. last accessed September 6, 2006.
177
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2006c. Rationale for the Development of Ontario Air Standards for Total Reduced
Sulphur, June 2006. Standards Development Branch.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/AIR/airquality/standards.htmtfcontaminants. last accessed September 6, 2006.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2005. Transboundary Air Pollution in Ontario. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/publications.cfm. last accessed September 6, 2006.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2004. Air Quality in Ontario 2003 Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/publications.cfm. last accessed September 6, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006a. 2007 Report on the Environment (ROE) Technical Document.
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/. last accessed September 5, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006b. Air Emission Trends - Continued Progress Through 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/. last accessed September 6, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006c. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1999: Estimated Emissions,
Concentrations and Risk, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/natal999/index.html. last accessed September 5, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006d. Green book: non-attainment areas for criteria pollutants. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. last accessed September 6, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006e. Toxics Release Inventory Program, http://www.epa.gov/tri/. last
accessed June 24, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006f. 2002 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. last accessed September 6, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005a. Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States:
Focus on the NOx Budget Trading Program, 2004. EPA454-K-05-001. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2005/ozonenbp/. last accessed
September 5, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005b. Border Air Quality Strategy: United States-Canada Emissions Cap and
Trading Feasibility Study. EPA 430-R-05-005. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/pilotproject.html. last accessed September 5,
2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004a. The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality
and Emissions through 2003. EPA 454-R-04-002. http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd04/pm.html. last accessed September 5,
2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004b. United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement: 2004 Progress Report.
EPA 430-R-04-007. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/index.html. last accessed September 5, 2006; and
http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/can_us/canus_links_e.cfm. last accessed September 5, 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
178
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Indicator #4501
This indicator was last updated in 2005.
Note: This is a progress report towards implementation of this indicator, and it has not yet been put into practice. The following
evaluation was constructed using input from investigators collecting invertebrate community composition data from Great Lakes
coastal wetlands over the last several years. Neither experimental design nor statistical rigor has been used to specifically
address the status and trends of invertebrate communities of coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes.
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Lake-by-lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To directly measure specific components of invertebrate community composition
To infer the chemical, physical and biological integrity and range of degradation of Great Lakes coastal wetlands
State of the Ecosystem
Development of this indicator is still in progress. Thus, the state of the ecosystem could not be determined using the wetland
invertebrate community health indicator during the last 2 years.
Teams of Canadian and American researchers from several research groups (e.g. the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium,
the Great Lakes Environmental Indicators project investigators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Regional
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) group of researchers, and others) sampled large numbers of Great
Lakes wetlands during the last two years. They have reported an array of invertebrate communities in Great Lakes wetlands in
presentations at international meetings, reports, and peer-reviewed journals.
In 2002 the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium conducted extensive surveys of wetland invertebrates of the 4 lower Great
Lakes. These data are not entirely analyzed to date. However, the Consortium-adopted Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI, Uzarski et
al. 2004) was applied in wetlands of northern Lake Ontario. The results can be obtained from Environment Canada (Environment
Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 2004).
Uzarski et al. (2004) collected invertebrate data from 22 wetlands in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron during 1997 through 2001.
They determined that wetland invertebrate communities of northern Lakes Michigan and Huron generally produced the highest
IBI scores. IBI scores were primarily based on richness and abundance of Odonata, Crustacea plus Mollusca taxa richness, total
genera richness, relative abundance Gastropoda, relative abundance Sphaeriidae, Ephemeroptera plus Trichoptera taxa richness,
relative abundance Crustacea plus Mollusca, relative abundance Isopoda, Evenness, Shannon Diversity Index, and Simpson Index.
Wetlands near Escanaba and Cedarville, Michigan, scored lower than most in the area. A single wetland near the mouth of the Pine
River in Mackinac County, MI, consistently scored low, also. In general, all wetlands of Saginaw Bay scored lower than those of
northern Lakes Michigan and Huron. However, impacts are more diluted near the outer bay and IBI scores reflect this. Wetlands
near Quanicassee and Almeda Beach, MI, consistently scored lower than other Saginaw Bay sites.
Burton and Uzarski (unpublished) also studied drowned river mouth wetlands of eastern Lake Michigan quite extensively since
1998. Invertebrate communities of these systems show linear relationship with latitude. However, this relationship also reflects
anthropogenic disturbance. Based on the metrics used (Odonata richness and abundance, Crustacea plus Mollusca richness, ratal
genera richness, relative abundance Isopoda, Shannon Index, Simpson Index, Evenness, and relative abundance Ephemeroptera),
the sites studied were placed in increasing community health in the order Kalamazoo, Pigeon, Muskegon, White, Pentwater, Pere
Marquette, Manistee, Lincoln, and Betsie. The most impacted systems of eastern Lake Michigan are located along southern edge
179
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
and impacts decrease to the north.
Wilcox et al. (2002) attempted to develop wetland IBIs for the upper Great Lakes using microinvertebrates. While they found
attributes that showed promise during a single year, they concluded that natural water level changes were likely to alter communities
and invalidate metrics. They found that Siskiwit Bay, Bark Bay, and Port Wing had the greatest overall taxa richness with large
catches of cladocerans. They ranked microinvertebrate communities of Fish Creek and Hog Island lower than the other four
western Lake Superior sites. Their work in eastern Lake Michigan testing potential metrics placed the sites studied in decreasing
community health in the order Lincoln River, Betsie River, Arcadia Lake/Little Manistee River, Pentwater River, and Pere
Marquette River. This order was primarily based on the median number of taxa, the median Cladocera genera richness, and also
a macroinvertebrate metric (number of adult Trichoptera species).
Pressures
Physical alteration and eutrophication of wetland ecosystems continue to be a threat to invertebrates of Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Both can promote establishment of non-native vegetation, and physical alteration can destroy plant communities altogether while
changing the natural hydrology to the system. Invertebrate community composition is directly related to vegetation type and
densities; changing either of these components will negatively impact the invertebrate communities.
Comments from the author(s)
Progress on indicator development has been substantial, and implementation of basin-wide sampling to indicate state of the
ecosystem should be possible before SOLEC 2006. [Editor's Note: An updated and implemented version of this indicator was
not available by SOLEC 2006].
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Donald G. Uzarski, Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University, Lake Michigan Center, 740 W. Shoreline Dr.,
Muskegon, MI, 49441; and
Thomas M. Burton, Departments of Zoology and Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824.
Sources
Environment Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 2004. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring
Project: year 2 technical report. Downsview, ON. ECB-OR.
Uzarski, D.G., Burton, T.M., and Genet, J.A. 2004. Validation and performance of an invertebrate index of biotic integrity for
Lakes Huron and Michigan fringing wetlands during a period of lake level decline. Aquat. Ecosystem Health & Manage. 7(2):269-
288.
Wilcox, D.A., Meeker, J.E., Hudson, PL., Armitage, B.J., Black, M.G., and Uzarski, D.G. 2002. Hydrologic variability and the
application of index of biotic integrity metrics to wetlands: a Great Lakes evaluation. Wetlands 22(3):588-615
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
180
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Indicator #4502
Note: This is a progress report towards implementation of this indicator, and it has not yet been put into practice. The following
evaluation was constructed using input from investigators collecting fish community composition data from Great Lakes coastal
wetlands over the last several years. Neither experimental design nor statistical rigor has been used to specifically address the
status and trends offish communities of coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes.
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not prepared for this report.
Purpose
To assess the fish community composition
To infer suitability of habitat and water quality for Great Lakes coastal wetland fish communities
State of the Ecosystem
Development of this indicator is still in progress. Fish indices of biological integrity have been proposed for selected parts of the
ecosystem, e.g., Lake Erie river mouths (Thoma 1999) and Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario coastal wetlands (Uzarski et al. 2005),
and coordinated basinwide sampling has recently been completed by several groups. Thus, progress on indicator development has
been substantial, and assessment of data derived from sampling conducted between 2002 and 2005 to indicate the state of the
ecosystem should be possible before the next SOLEC.
Teams of Canadian and American researchers from several research groups (e.g., the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
of the Great Lakes Commission (GLCWC); the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Star Grant-funded Great Lakes
Environmental Indicators group in Duluth, MN (GLEI); a group of Great Lakes Fishery Commission researchers led by Patricia
Chow-Fraser of McMaster University (GLFC); the U.S. EPA Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program group
of researchers led by Tom Simon; and others) have sampled large numbers of Great Lakes wetlands during the last 5 years using
comparable methods. They have reported on an array offish communities in Great Lakes wetlands in presentations at international
meetings and in reports. These data are now beginning to appear in refereed journals as individual studies (Uzarski et al. 2005,
Seilheimer and Chow- Fraser 2006). Work is also underway to integrate the datasets for true basinwide assessment (e.g., Brazner
et al. 2007, Bhagat et al. in press).
The composition of fish communities is related to plant community type within wetlands and, within plant community type,
is related to the amount of certain types of anthropogenic disturbance (Uzarski et al. 2005, Wei et al. 2004, Seilheimer and
Chow-Fraser 2006, Johnson et al. 2006), especially water quality as affected by urban and agricultural development (Seilheimer
and Chow-Fraser 2006, Bhagat 2005, Bhagat et al. in press). Uzarski et al. (2005) found no relationship between wetland fish
composition and a specific Great Lake, suggesting that fish communities of any single Great Lake were no more impacted than
those from any other Great Lake. However, of the 61 wetlands sampled in 2002 from all five lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario
tended to have more wetlands containing cattail communities (a plant community type that correlates with nutrient enrichment),
and the fish communities found in cattails tended to have lower richness and diversity than fish communities found in other
vegetation types. In contrast, Thoma (1999) and Johnson et al. (2006) were unable to find coastal wetlands on the U.S. side of Lake
Erie that experienced minimal anthropogenic disturbances. Wetlands found in northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron tended to
have relatively high quality coastal wetland fish communities. The seven wetlands sampled in Lake Superior contained relatively
unique vegetation types, so fish communities of these wetlands were not directly compared with those of wetlands of other lakes.
When the fish communities of reference wetlands are compared across the entire Great Lakes, the most similar sites come from the
same ecological province rather than from any single Great Lake or specific wetland types. Data from several GLEI project studies
indicate that the characteristic groups offish species in reference wetlands from each ecological province tend to have similar water
181
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
temperature and aquatic productivity preferences. It appears that when a wetland becomes affected by human development, the
fish community changes to that typical of a warmer, richer, more southerly wetland. This finding may help researchers anticipate
the likely effects of regional climate change on the fish communities of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Brazner et al. (2007) looked
at how 8 different candidate fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) components varied by lake, wetland type, ecological province and
anthropogenic stress at 80 wetlands across the entire U.S. Great Lakes. Overall, each of these 4 features explained approximately
equal amounts of variation in those components.
John Brazner and co-workers from the U.S. EPA Laboratory in Duluth, MN, sampled fishes of Green Bay (Lake Michigan)
wetlands in 1990, 1991, 1995, 2002, and 2003. They sampled three lower bay and one middle bay wetland in 2002 and 2003. Their
data suggested that these sites were improving in water clarity and plant cover, and that they supported a greater diversity of
both macrophyte and fish species, especially more centrarchid species, than they had in previous years. They also noted that the
2002, and especially 2003, year classes of yellow perch were very large. Brazner's observations suggest that the lower Green Bay
wetlands are improving slowly and the middle bay site seems to be remaining relatively stable in moderately good condition (J.
Brazner, personal observation). The most turbid wetlands in the lower bay were characterized by mostly warm-water, turbidity-
tolerant species such as gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), white bass (Morone chrysops), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus
grunniens), common shiners (Luxilus cornutus), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Meanwhile the least turbid wetlands in
the upper bay were characterized by several centrarchid species, golden shiner (Notemigonus chrysoleucas), logperch (Percina
caprodes), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and northern pike (Esox lucius). Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) was
the only important centrarchid in the lower bay in 1991, while in 1995, bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfishes (L. macrochirus and
L. gibbosus) had become much more prevalent, and a few largemouth bass (M. salmoides) were also present. There were more
banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanous) in 1995 and 2003 compared with 1991, and white perch (Morone americana) were very
abundant in 1995 as this non-native species became dominant in the bay. The upper bay wetlands were in relatively good condition
based on the fish and macrophyte communities that were observed. Although mean fish species richness was significantly lower in
developed wetlands across the whole bay, differences between less developed and more developed wetlands were most pronounced
in the upper bay where the highest quality wetlands in Green Bay are found (Brazner 1997).
Round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus) were introduced to the St. Clair River in 1990 (Jude and Pappas 1992), and they have
since spread to all of the Great Lakes. Jude studied them in many tributaries of the Lake Huron-St. Clair River-Lake Erie corridor
and found that both round and tubenose gobies (Proterorhinus marmoratus) were very abundant at river mouths and had colonized
far upstream. They were also found at the mouth of Old Woman Creek in Lake Erie, but not within the wetland proper. Jude and
Janssen's work in Green Bay wetlands showed that round gobies had not invaded three of the five sites sampled, but a few were
found in lower Green Bay along the sandy and rocky shoreline west of Little Tail Point.
Uzarski and Burton (unpublished) consistently collected a few round gobies from a fringing wetland near Escanaba, MI, where
cobbles were present. In the Muskegon River-Muskegon Lake wetland complex on the eastern shoreline, round gobies are abundant
in the heavily rip-rapped harbor entrance to Lake Michigan, and they have just begun to enter the river/wetland complex on the
east side of Muskegon Lake (Cooper et al. 2007; D. Jude, personal observations). Based on intensive fish sampling prior to 2003 at
more than 60 sites spanning all of the Great Lakes, round gobies have not been sampled in large numbers at any wetland or been a
dominant member of any wetland fish community (Jude et al. 2005). Round gobies were collected at 11 of 80 wetlands sampled by
the GLEI project (Johnson et al. unpublished data). Lapointe (2005) assessed fish-habitat associations in the shallow (less than 3 m)
Canadian waters of the Detroit River in 2004 and 2005 using boat-mounted electrofishing and boat seining techniques. The round
goby avoided complex macrophytes in all seasons at upper, mid-, and downstream segments of the Detroit River. However, in
2006, beach seining surveys at shoreline sites in Canadian waters of Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and western Lake Erie, both
tubenose and round gobies were collected in areas with aquatic vegetation (Corkum, Univ. of Windsor, unpublished data). It seems
likely that wetlands may be a refuge for native fishes, at least with respect to the influence of round gobies (Jude et al. 2005).
There is little information on the habitat preferences of the tubenose goby within the Great Lakes with the exception of studies
on the Detroit River (Lapointe 2005), Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River (Jude and DeBoe 1996, Pronin et al. 1997, Leslie et
al. 2002). Within the Great Lakes, tubenose goby that were studied at a limited number of sites along the St. Clair River and on
the south shore of Lake St. Clair occurred in turbid water associated with rooted submersed vegetation (Vallisneria americana,
Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton richardsonii and Chara sp.;Leslie et al. 2002). Few specimens were found on sandy
substrates devoid of vegetation, supporting similar findings by Jude and DeBoe (1996). Leslie et al. (2002) collected tubenose goby
in water with no or slow flow on clay or alluvium substrates, where turbidity varies and where rooted vegetation was sparse, patchy
or abundant. Lapointe (2005) found that the association between tubenose goby and aquatic macrophytes differed seasonally
182
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
in the Detroit River. For example, tubenose goby was strongly negatively associated with complex macrophytes in the spring
and summer, but positively associated with complex macrophytes in the fall (Lapointe 2005). Because tubenose goby shared
habitats with fishes representing most ecoethological guilds, Leslie et al. (2002) suggested that the tubenose goby would expand
its geographic range within the Great Lakes.
Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) have never been found in high densities in coastal wetlands anywhere in the Great Lakes. In their
investigation of the distribution and potential impact of ruffe on the fish community of a Lake Superior coastal wetland, Brazner et
al. (1998) concluded that coastal wetlands in western Lake Superior provide a refuge for native fishes from competition with ruffe.
The mudflat-preferring ruffe actually avoids wetland habitats due to foraging inefficiency in dense vegetation that characterizes
healthy coastal wetland habitats. This suggests that further degradation of coastal wetlands or heavily vegetated littoral habitats
could lead to increased dominance of ruffe in shallow water habitats elsewhere in the Great Lakes.
There are a number of carp introductions that have the potential for substantial impact on Great Lakes fish communities, including
coastal wetlands. Goldfish (Carassius auratus) are common in some shallow habitats, and they occurred along with common
carp young-of-the-year in many of the wetlands sampled along Green Bay. In addition, there are several other carp species, e.g.,
grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) and silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
that escaped aquaculture operations and are now in the Illinois River and migrating toward the Great Lakes through the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. The black carp (Mylopharygodon piceus) has also probably been released, but it has not been recorded
near the Great Lakes yet. Most of these species attain large sizes. Some are planktivorous, but also eat phytoplankton, snails, and
mussels, while the grass carp eats vegetation. These species represent yet another substantial threat to food webs in wetlands and
nearshore habitats with macrophytes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2002).
In 2003, Jude and Janssen (unpublished data) determined that bluntnose minnows (Pimephales notatus) and johnny darters
(Etheostoma nigrum) were almost absent from lower Green Bay wetland sites, but they comprised 22% and 6%, respectively, of
upper bay catches. In addition, other species, usually associated with plants and/or clearer water, such as rock bass, sand shiners
(Notropis stramineus) and golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucus), were also present in upper bay samples, but not in lower bay
samples. In 2003, Jude and Janssen found that there were no alewife (Alosapseudoharengus) or gizzard shad in upper Green Bay
site catches, but in lower bay wetland sites, they composed 2.7% and 34%, respectively, of the catches by number.
Jude and Pappas (1992) found that fish assemblage structure in Cootes Paradise, a highly degraded wetland area in Lake Ontario,
was very different from other less degraded wetlands analyzed. They used ordination analyses to detect fish-community changes
associated with degradation.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Donald G. Uzarski, Annis Water Resources Institute, Grand Valley State University, Muskegon, MI
Thomas M. Burton, Departments of Zoology and Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
John Brazner, US Environmental Protection Agency, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
David Jude, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Jan J.H. Ciborowski, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON
Sources
Bhagat, Y. 2005. Fish indicators of anthropogenic stress at Great Lakes coastal margins: multimetric and multivariate approaches.
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Windsor. 120 p.
Bhagat, Y., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Johnson, L.B., Uzarski, D.G., Burton, T.M., Timmermans, S.T.A., and Cooper, M.J. In press.
Testing a fish index of biotic integrity for responses to different disturbance regimes on Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Journal of
Great Lakes Research.
Brazner, J. C. 1997. Regional, habitat, and human development influences on coastal wetland and beach fish assemblages in Green
Bay, Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 23(1):36-51.
Brazner, J.C., Tanner, D.K., Jensen, D.A., and Lemke, A. 1998. Relative abundance and distribution of ruffe (Gymnocephalus
cernuus) in a Lake Superior coastal wetland fish assemblage. /. Great Lakes Res. 24(2):293-303.
183
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Brazner, J.C., Danz, N.P., Niemi, G.J., Regal, R.R., Trebitz, A.S., Howe, R.W., Hanowski, J.M., Johnson, L.B., Ciborowski, J.J.H.,
Johnston, C.A., Reavie, E.D., Brady, V. J., and Sgro, G.V. 2007. Evaluating geographic, geomorphic and human influences on Great
Lakes wetland indicators: multi-assemblage variance partitioning. Ecological Indicators 7:610-635.
Cooper, M.J., Ruetz, C.R. Ill, Uzarski, D.G., and Burton, T.M. 2007. Distribution of round gobies (Neogobius melanostromus) in
Lake Michigan drowned river mouth lakes and wetlands: do coastal wetlands provide refugia for native species? /. Great Lakes
Res. 33(2):303-313.
Johnson, L.B., Olker, J., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Host, G.E., Breneman, D., Brady, V., Brazner, J., and Danz, N. 2006. Identifying
Response of Fish Communities in Great Lakes Coastal Regions to Land Use and Local Scale Impacts. Bull. N. Am. Benthol. Soc.
[also in prep for submission to /. Great Lakes Research}
Jude, D. J. and DeBoe, S.F. 1996. Possible impact of gobies and other introduced species on habitat restoration efforts. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 53:136-141.
Jude, D. J., and Pappas, J. 1992. Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. /. Great Lakes Res. 18(4):651-672.
Jude, D. J., Reider, R.H., and Smith, G. 1992. Establishment of Gobiidae in the Great Lakes basin. Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:416-
421.
Jude, D. J., Albert, D., Uzarski, D.G., and Brazner, J. 2005. Lake Michigan's coastal wetlands: Distribution, biological components
with emphasis on fish and threats. In The State of Lake Michigan: Ecology, Health and Management. Ecovision World Monograph
Series, eds. M. Munawar and T. Edsall Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society, pp. 439-477
Lapointe, N.W.R. 2005. Fish-habitat associations in shallow Canadian waters of the Detroit River. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Windsor, Windsor, Ontario.
Leslie, J.K., Timmins, C. A., and Bonnell, R.G. 2002. Postembryonic development of the tubenose goby Proterorhinus marmoratus
Pallas (Gobiidae) in the St. Clair River/Lake system, Ontario. Arch. Hydrobiol. 154:341-352.
Pronin, N.M., Fleischer, G.W., Baldanova, D.R., and Pronin, S.V. 1997. Parasites of the recently established round goby (Neogobius
melanostomis) and tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus) (Cottidae) from the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan,
U.S.A. FoliaParasitol. 44-1-6.
Seilheimer, T.S. and Chow-Fraser, P. 2006. Development and use of the Wetland Fish Index to assess the quality of coastal
wetlands in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Submitted to Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63:354-366.
Thoma. R.F. 1999. Biological monitoring and an index of biotic integrity for Lake Erie's nearshore waters. In Assessing the
sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities ed. T.P. Simon. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp.
417-461.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Asian Carp, Key to Identification. Pamphlet. LaCross Fishery Resources Office, Onalaska,
WI. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/lacrossefisheries/reports/asian carp kev.pdf
Uzarski, D.G., Burton, T.M., Cooper, M.J., Ingram, J., and Timmermans, S. 2005. Fish Habitat Use Within and Across Wetland
Classes in Coastal Wetlands of the Five Great Lakes: Development of a Fish Based Index of Biotic Integrity. Journal of Great
Lakes Research 31(1):171-187.
Wei, A., Chow-Fraser, P. and Albert, D. 2004. Influence of shoreline features on fish distribution in the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61:1113-1123.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
184
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Coastal Wetland Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Indicator #4504
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species across the Great Lakes basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend
tendencies. Five species exhibited significantly negative species population trends while only one
species exhibited a significantly positive species population trend.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan
Status: Poor
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Most species in this lake basin exhibited negative population trend tendencies. However, of the only
two significant species population trends, one was positive and one was negative.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend tendencies.
However, four out of eight species exhibited significantly negative population trends. There were
no significantly positive species population trends.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend tendencies. Two
focal species (bullfrog and northern leopard frog) exhibited significant population trend declines.
Only one species exhibited a significantly positive population trend.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend tendencies. Two
species exhibited significantly increasing population trends, while only one species showed a
significant declining species population trend.
Purpose
To directly measure species composition and relative occurrence of frogs and toads
To indirectly measure the condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to factors that influence the health of this
ecologically important component of wetland biotic communities
Ecosystem Objective
The overall objective is to restore and maintain diverse and self-sustaining populations of Great Lakes coastal wetland amphibian
communities. Breeding populations of amphibian species across their historical range should be sufficient to maintain populations
of each species and overall species diversity. This indicator supports the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, specifically
regarding maintenance of fish and wildlife populations, elimination of bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems, and
preservation offish and wildlife habitat (United States and Canada 1987).
185
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Numerous amphibian species occur in the Great Lakes basin and many of these are associated
with wetlands during part of their life cycle. Because frogs and toads are relatively sedentary
and have semi-permeable skin, they are likely to be more sensitive to, and indicative of, local
sources of wetland contamination and degradation than are most other vertebrates. Assessing
species composition and relative abundance of calling frogs and toads in Great Lakes wetlands
can therefore help to infer wetland habitat quality.
Geographically extensive and long-term monitoring of calling amphibians is possible through
the enthusiasm, skill and coordination of volunteer participants trained in the application of
standardized monitoring protocols. Information about abundance, distribution and diversity of
amphibians provides data for calculating trends in population indices as well as investigating
habitat associations, which can contribute to effective long-term conservation strategies.
Status of Amphibians
Since 1995, Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers have collected amphibian data at
548 discrete routes across the Great Lakes basin. An annual summary of amphibian routes
monitored is provided in Table 1.
Thirteen amphibian species were recorded during the 1995 to 2005 period (Table 2). Spring
peeper was the most frequently detected species and was commonly recorded in full chorus (Call
Level Code 3) when it was encountered. Green frog was
detected in more than half of the survey stations and was
most often recorded at Call Level Code 1 (calling individuals
could be discretely counted). Grey treefrog, American toad
and northern leopard frog were also common, being recorded
in approximately one-third or more of all survey stations.
Grey treefrog was recorded with the second highest average
calling code (1.8), indicating that MMP observers usually
heard several individuals calling simultaneously at each
survey station. Chorus frog, bullfrog and wood frog were
detected in approximately one-quarter of survey stations,
while the remaining five species were detected in less than
3% of survey stations.
Trends in amphibian occurrence were assessed for eight
species commonly detected on MMP routes (Figure 1). For
each species, the annual proportion of stations where that
species was present within a route was calculated to derive
annual indices of occurrence. The overall temporal trend
in occurrence for each species was assessed by combining
route-level trends in station occurrence. Statistically
significant declining trends were detected for American
toad, bullfrog, chorus frog, green frog and northern leopard
frog. Only spring peeper exhibited a statistically significant
increasing population trend.
Year Number of
Routes
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
115
177
208
168
163
158
166
156
156
146
177
Table 1. Number of routes
surveyed for amphibians
within the Great Lakes
basin, from 1995 to 2005.
Source: Marsh Monitoring
Program
. Percent Station-Years Average
Present 1 Calling Code
Spring Peeper
Green Frog
Grey Treefrog
American Toad
Northern Leopard Frog
Chorus Frog
Bullfrog
Wood Frog
Fowler's Toad
Pickerel Frog
Cope's Grey Treefrog
Mink Frog
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
1 MMP survey stations monitored
as individual samples
69.3
54.3
39.2
36.9
31.1
26.5
25.8
18.0
2.4
2.4
1.6
1.2
0.6
for multiple years
2.5
1.3
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.5
considered
Table 2. Frequency of occurrence (Percent Station-Years
Present) and average Call Level Code for amphibian species
detected at MMP survey stations within the Great Lakes basin,
from 1995 through 2005.
Average calling codes are based on the three level call code
standard for all MMP amphibian surveys; Code 1 = little overlap
among calls, numbers of individuals can be determined, Code
2 = some overlap, numbers can be estimated, Code 3 = much
overlap of calls, too numerous to be estimated.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
These data will serve as baseline data with which to compare
future survey results. Anecdotal and research evidence
suggests that wide variations in occurrence of many
amphibian species at a given site is a natural and ongoing phenomenon. Additional years of data will help distinguish whether the
patterns observed (i.e., decline in American toad, bullfrog, chorus frog, green frog and northern leopard frog population indices)
indicate significant long-term trends or simply natural variation in population sizes inhabiting marsh habitats. Bullfrog, for
186
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
X
0)
60
55-
50
45
40-
35-
30
American Toad
-0.8 (-1.6,-0.1) P< 0.05
60
55-
50
45
40-
35-
30
Bullfrog
-1.5 (-2.4, 0.6) P< 0.01
Chorus Frog
-1.2 (-2.2,-0.2) P< 0.05
65
55
45
35
25
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
90
85-
80-
75-
70-
65-
60-
55-
50
Green Frog
-1.2 (-2.0, -0.5) P< 0.01
75
70
65-
60-
55
50-
45
Grey Treefrog
0.5 (-0.5, 1.5)P = 0.30
Northern Leopard Frog
-1.3 (-2.2, -0.5) P< 0.01
75
65-
55
45-
35
25
Q.
O
0.
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
85
80-
75-
70-
65-
60-
55-
50-
45
Spring Peeper
1.5(0.6, 2.4) P< 0.001
40
Wood Frog
0.1 (-0.8, 1.0)P = 0.92
35-
30-
25-
20
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Figure 1. Trends (percent annual change) in station occurrence (population index) of eight amphibian species commonly
detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, from 1995 to 2005.
Values in parentheses are upper and lower 95% confidence limits, respectively, for trend values given.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
example, did not experience a significant population index trend from 1995 to 2004 (Crewe et al. 2006; Archer et al. 2006) but with
the addition of 2005 data, its population index declined significantly. Further data are thus required to conclude whether Great
Lakes wetlands are successfully sustaining these amphibian populations. MMP amphibian data are being evaluated to determine
how information from their community composition can be used to gain a better understanding of Great Lakes coastal wetland
condition in response to various human induced stressors.
Pressures
Habitat loss and deterioration remain the predominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian populations. Many coastal and inland Great
Lakes wetlands are located along watersheds that experience very intensive industrial, agricultural and residential development.
Therefore, these wetlands are under continued stress as increased pollution from anthropogenic runoff is washed down watersheds
into these sensitive habitats. Combined with other impacts such as water level stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant and
nutrient inputs, climate change and invasion of exotic species, Great Lakes wetlands will likely continue to be degraded and as
such, should continue to be monitored.
Management Implications
Because of the sensitivity of amphibians to their surrounding environment and the growing international concern about amphibian
population status, amphibians in the Great Lakes basin and elsewhere will continue to be monitored. Wherever possible, efforts
should be made to maintain high quality wetland habitat as well as associated upland areas adjacent to coastal wetlands. There
is also a need to address other impacts that are detrimental to wetland health such as inputs of toxic chemicals, nutrients and
sediments. Restoration programs are underway for many degraded wetland areas through the work of local citizens, organizations
and governments. Although significant progress has been made in this area, more work remains for many wetland areas that have
187
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
yet to receive restoration efforts.
Comments from the author(s)
Effective monitoring of Great Lakes amphibians requires accumulation of many years of data, using a standardized protocol, over
a large geographic expanse. A reporting frequency for SOLEC of five years would be appropriate because amphibian populations
naturally fluctuate through time, and a five-year timeframe would be sufficient to indicate noteworthy changes in population
indices. More rigorous studies will relate trends in species occurrence or relative abundance to environmental factors. Reporting
will be improved with establishment of a network of survey routes that accurately represent the full spectrum of marsh habitat in
the Great Lakes basin.
Most MMP amphibian survey routes have been georeferenced to the survey station level. Volunteer recruitment has also improved
significantly since the last status reporting period. Four additional important tasks are in progress: 1) develop the SOLEC wetland
amphibian indicator as an index for evaluating coastal wetland health; 2) improve the program's capacity to monitor and report
on status of wetland-specific Beneficial Use Impairments among Great Lakes Areas of Concern; 3) develop and improve the
program's capacity to train volunteer participants to identify and survey amphibians following standard MMP protocols, and; 4)
develop the capacity to incorporate a regional MMP coordinator network component into the MMP to improve regional and local
delivery of the program throughout the Great Lakes basin. Also, further work is required to determine the relationship between
calling codes used to record amphibian occurrence and survey count estimates.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Steve Timmermans Bird Studies Canada
Ryan Archer, Bird Studies Canada
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in partnership with Environment Canada and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Program
volunteers are gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Anonymous. 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program training kit and instructions for
surveying marsh birds, amphibians, and their habitats. Revised in 2003 by Bird Studies Canada. 41pp.
Archer, R.W., T.L. Crewe, and S.T.A. Timmermans. 2006. The Marsh Monitoring Program
annual report, 1995-2004: annual indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian occurrence in the Great Lakes basin.
Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 35pp.
Crewe, T.L, Timmermans, S.T.A., and Jones, K.E. 2006. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995 to 2004: A Decade of Marsh
Monitoring in the Great Lakes Region. Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada. 28pp.
http://www.bsc-eoc.org/mmplOyrpt.html
Timmermans, S.T.A. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for implementing the Marsh
Monitoring Program across the Great Lakes basin. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes
National Program Office Assistance I.D. #GL2002-145. 31pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A., S.S. Badzinski, and K.E. Jones. 2004. The Marsh Monitoring
Program annual report, 1995-2002: annual indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian occurrence in the Great Lakes
basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 48pp.
Weeber, R.C., and M. Valliantos (eds.). 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995-
1999: Monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird inhabitants. Published by Bird Studies Canada in
cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 47pp.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
188
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Indicator #4506
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Contaminants at Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) exceeded concentrations at reference
sites. Dioxin equivalents and DDE concentrations in eggs exceeded the Canadian Environmental
Quality Guidelines, and sum PCBs from some sites exceeded partial restriction guidelines for
consumption.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Contaminant levels in snapping turtle eggs from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron were not as-
sessed, and their trend was undetermined due to insufficient data.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Contaminants at AOCs exceeded concentrations at reference sites. Dioxin equivalents and DDE
concentrations in eggs exceeded the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, and sum PCBs
from some sites exceeded partial restriction guidelines for consumption.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Contaminants at AOCs exceeded concentrations at reference sites. Dioxin equivalents and DDE
concentrations in eggs exceeded the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, and sum PCBs
from some sites exceeded partial restriction guidelines for consumption.
Purpose
To assess the accumulation of organochlorine chemicals and mercury in snapping turtle eggs
To assess contaminant trends and physiological and ecological endpoints in snapping turtles
To obtain a better understanding of the impact of contaminants on the physiological and ecological health of the individual
turtles and wetland communities
Ecosystem Objective
Snapping turtle populations in Great Lakes coastal wetlands and at contaminated sites should not exhibit significant differences in
concentrations of organo chlorine chemicals, mercury, and other chemicals, compared to turtles at clean (inland) reference site(s).
This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2, 11 and 12 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Snapping turtles inhabit (coastal) wetlands in the Great Lakes basin, particularly the lower Great Lakes. While other Great Lakes
wildlife species may be more sensitive to contaminants than snapping turtles, there are few other species that are as long-lived,
as common year-round, inhabit such a wide variety of habitats, and yet are limited in their movement among wetlands. Snapping
turtles are also at the top in the aquatic food web and bioaccumulate contaminants. Plasma and egg tissues offer a nondestructive
method to monitor recent exposure to chemicals as well as an opportunity for long-term contaminant and health monitoring. Since
they inhabit coastal wetlands throughout the lower Great Lakes basin, they allow for multi-site comparisons on a temporal and
spatial basis. Consequently, snapping turtles are a very useful biological indicator species of local wetland contaminant trends and
the effects of these contaminants on wetland communities throughout the lower Great Lakes basin.
189
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Status of Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
For more than 20 years, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) has periodically collected snapping turtle eggs and examined the
species' reproductive success in relation to contaminant levels on a research basis. More recently, from 2001 to 2005, CWS has
examined the health of snapping turtles relative to contaminant exposure in Canadian Areas of Concern (AOCs) of the lower Great
Lakes basin. American researchers have also recently used snapping turtles as indicators of contaminant exposure (Dabrowska
et al. 2006).
The work by the CWS has shown that contaminants in snapping turtle eggs differ over time and among sites in the Great Lakes
basin, with significant differences observed between contaminated and reference sites (Bishop et al. 1996, 1998). Snapping turtle
eggs collected at two Lake Ontario sites (Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek) had the greatest concentrations of polychlorinated
dioxins and number of furans (Bishop et al. 1996, 1998). Eggs from Cranberry Marsh (Lake Ontario) and two Lake Erie sites
(Long Point and Rondeau Provincial Park) had similar levels of PCBs and organochlorines among the study sites (Bishop et al.
1996; 1998). Eggs from Akwesasne (St. Lawrence River) contained the greatest level of PCBs tested (Bishop et al. 1998). From
1984 to 1990/1991, levels of PCBs and DDE increased significantly in eggs from Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek, and levels of
dioxins and furans decreased significantly at Cootes Paradise (Struger et al. 1993; Bishop et al. 1996).
Eggs with the greatest contaminant levels also showed the poorest developmental success (Bishop et al. 1991, 1998). Rates of
abnormal development of snapping turtle eggs from 1986 to 1991 were highest at all four Lake Ontario sites compared to other
sites studied (Bishop et al. 1998).
Lake Erie and connecting channels
From 2001 to 2003, CWS collected snapping turtle eggs at or near three Canadian Lake Erie or connecting channels AOCs: Detroit
River, St. Clair River, and Wheatley Harbour, as well as two reference sites. Mean sum PCBs ranged from 0.02 ug/g at Algonquin
Provincial Park (a reference site) to 0.93 ug/g at Detroit River. Sum PCB levels were highest at Detroit River (Turkey Creek).
followed by Wheatley Harbour, then St. Clair National
Wildlife Area (near the St. Clair River AOC) and
lastly, Algonquin Provincial Park (Figure 1). Dioxin
equivalents of sum PCBs in eggs from the Detroit
River, Wheatley Harbour, and St. Clair River AOCs,
and DDE levels in eggs from the Wheatley Harbour
and the Detroit River AOCs exceeded the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines. Sum PCBs in eggs
from the Detroit River and Wheatley Harbour AOCs
exceeded partial restriction guidelines for consumption
(de Solla and Fernie 2004).
An American study in 1997 funded by the Great Lakes
Protection Fund found that sum PCBs in snapping turtle
tissues and eggs appeared to be higher in the American
AOCs in Ohio, where concentrations ranged from 0.18
to 3.68 ug/g. Concentrations were highest in turtles
from the Ottawa River AOC, followed by the Maumee
River AOC, Ashtabula River AOC, and the Black
River within the Maumee River AOC (Dabrowska et
al. 2006). The reference sites used near the American
AOCs may have higher contaminant exposure than the
Canadian reference sites.
Lake Ontario and connecting channels
From 2002 to 2003, CWS collected snapping turtle eggs
at or near seven Lake Ontario and connecting channel
AOCs: Hamilton Harbour (2 sites), Niagara River (ON).
St. Lawrence River (ON), and Toronto, as well as two
reference sites. Mean sum PCB levels ranged from 0.02
CO
GO
O
Q_
'CD
E
^
CO
CD
.O)
Location
Figure 1. Sum PCB concentrations in snapping turtle eggs from
various Canadian locations throughout the lower Great Lakes basin,
2001 through 2003.
Means ฑ standard errors are presented.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service
190
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
ug/g at Algonquin Park (the reference site) to 1.76 ug/g at Hamilton Harbour (Grindstone Creek). Sum PCB levels were highest
at Hamilton Harbour (Grindstone Creek), followed by the second site at Hamilton Harbour (Cootes Paradise), then Niagara River
(Lyons Creek) (Figure 1). There is evidence that PCB levels in snapping turtle eggs have been declining at the inland reference site
of Algonquin Park (from 1981 to 2003) and at the heavily contaminated Hamilton Harbour AOC (from 1984 to 2003). Long term
trends at the St. Lawrence River AOC are difficult to determine due to the high degree of variability of contaminant sources in the
area. PCB levels have been reported as high as 738 jo,g/g at Turtle Creek, Akwesasne (de Solla et al. 2001).
Flame retardants (PBDEs) are one of the chemicals of emerging concern because they are bioaccumulative and may potentially
affect wildlife and human health. Sum PBDE concentrations varied, but they were an order of magnitude lower than sum PCBs in
snapping turtle eggs collected from the seven AOCs (2001 to 2003). Sum PBDE levels were lowest at Algonquin Park (6.1 ng/g),
where airborne deposition is likely the main contaminant source, and greatest at the Hamilton Harbour (Cootes Paradise: 67.6
ng/g) and Toronto (Humber River: 107.0 ng/g) AOCs. This is indicative of urban areas likely being the main source of PBDEs.
Pressures
Future pressures for this indictor include all sources of toxic contaminants that currently have elevated concentrations (e.g., PCBs
and dioxins), as well as contaminants whose concentrations are expected to increase in Great Lakes wetlands (e.g., PBDEs).
Non-bioaccumulative compounds in which there are chronic exposures (e.g., PAHs) also pose a potential threat. Snapping turtle
populations face additional pressures from harvesting of adult turtles, road-side killings during the nesting season in June, and
habitat destruction.
Management Implications
The contaminants measured are persistent and bioaccumulative. Diet is the primary source of exposure to contaminants for
snapping turtles, and thus levels of contaminants in turtle tissue or eggs reflect contamination that is available throughout the
aquatic food web. Although commercial collection of snapping turtles has ceased, collection for private consumption persists.
Therefore, consumption restrictions are required at selected AOCs. Currently, only eggs are routinely sampled for contaminants,
but body burdens of females could be estimated using egg burdens, and thus used for determining if consumption guidelines
are needed. At some AOCs (i.e., Niagara River (Lyons Creek), and Hamilton Harbour), there are localized sediment sources of
contaminants that may be rehabilitated through dredging or capping. Mitigation of contaminant sources should eventually reduce
contaminant burdens in snapping turtles.
Comments from the author(s)
Contaminant status of snapping turtles should be monitored on a regular basis across the Great Lakes basin where appropriate.
Once the usefulness of the indicator is confirmed, a complementary U.S. program is required to interpret basin-wide trends. This
species offers an excellent opportunity to monitor contaminant concentrations in coastal wetland populations. Newly emerging
contaminants also need to be examined in a long-term monitoring program. As with all long-term monitoring programs, and for
any indicator species used to monitor persistent bioaccumulative contaminants, standardization of contaminant data is necessary
for examining temporal and spatial trends or combining data from different sources.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Shane de Solla, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON, Shane.deSolla@ec.gc.ca
Kim Fernie, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON, kim.fernie@ec.gc.ca
Special thanks to Drs. Robert Letcher, Shugang Chu, and Ken Drouillard for chemical analyses, particularly of the PBDEs.
Thanks also go to other past and present C WS staff (Burlington, Downsview, National Wildlife Research Centre), the wildlife
biologists not associated with the CWS, and private landowners.
Sources
Bishop, C.A., Brooks, R.J., Carey, J.H., Ng, P., Norstrom, R.J., and Lean, D.R.S. 1991. The case for a cause-effect linkage between
environmental contamination and development in eggs of the common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra s. serpentina) from Ontario,
Canada. /. Toxic. Environ. Health 33:521-547.
Bishop, C.A., Ng, P., Norstrom, R.J., Brooks, R.J., and Pettit, K.E. 1996. Temporal and geographic variation of organochlorine
residues in eggs of the common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina) (1981-1991) and comparisons to trends in the
191
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
herring gull (Larus argentatus) in the Great Lakes basin in Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:512-524.
Bishop, C.A.,Ng, P., Pettit, K.E., Kennedy, S.W., Stegeman, JJ.,Norstrom, R. J., andBrooks, RJ. 1998. Environmental contamination
and developmental abnormalities in eggs and hatchlings of the common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentind) from
the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin (1989-1991). Environ. Pollut. 101:143-156.
Dabrowska, S., Fisher, W., Estenik, J., Kidekhel, R., and Stromberg, P. 2006. Polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations, congener
profiles, and ratios in the fat tissue, eggs, and plasma of snapping turtles (Chelydra s. serpentind) from the Ohio basin of Lake Erie,
USA. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 51:270-286.
de Solla, S.R., Bishop, C.A., Lickers, H., and Jock, K. 2001. Organochlorine pesticide, PCB, dibenzodioxin and furan concentrations
in common snapping turtle eggs (Chelydra serpentina serpentind) in Akwesasne, Mohawk Territory, Ontario, Canada. Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol 40:410-417
de Solla, S.R. and Fernie, KJ. 2004. Characterization of contaminants in snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentind) from Canadian
Lake Erie Areas of Concern: St. Clair, Detroit River, and Wheatley Harbour. Environ Pollut. 132:101-112
Struger, J., Elliott, J.E., Bishop, C.A., Obbard, M.E., Norstrom, R.J., Weseloh, D.V., Simon, M., andNg, P. 1993. Environmental
contaminants in eggs of the common Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina serpentind) from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
Basin of Ontario, Canada (1981, 1984). J Great Lakes Res. 19:681-694.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
192
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Indicator #4507
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species across the Great Lakes basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend
tendencies. Significantly negative population trends occurred for 14 species, while only six species
exhibited significantly positive population trends.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend tendencies. Despite
an equal number of significantly positive and negative trends among species, certain focal species
did not occur at a level sufficient for trend analysis, or were absent from monitoring stations.
Lake Huron
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Most species in this lake basin exhibited a negative population trend. Eight significantly negative
species population trends occurred, while there were no significantly positive species population
trends.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend tendencies.
Significantly negative population trends occurred for seven species, while only three species
exhibited significantly positive population trends.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Species in this lake basin exhibited both positive and negative population trend tendencies.
Significantly negative population trends occurred for six species, while only two species exhibited
significantly positive population trends.
Purpose
To assess wetland bird species composition and relative abundance
To infer condition of coastal wetland habitat as it relates to factors that influence the biological condition of this ecologically
and culturally important component of wetland communities
Ecosystem Objective
The overall objective is to restore and maintain diverse and self-sustaining populations of Great Lakes coastal wetland bird
communities. Breeding populations of bird species across their historical range should be sufficient to maintain populations
of each species and overall species diversity. This indicator supports the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, specifically
193
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
regarding maintenance of fish and wildlife populations, elimination of bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems, and
preservation offish and wildlife habitat (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Assessments of wetland-dependent bird diversity and abundance in the Great Lakes are used to evaluate health and function of
coastal and inland wetlands. Breeding birds are valuable components of Great Lakes wetlands and rely on the physical, chemical
and biological condition of their habitats, particularly during breeding. Presence and abundance of breeding individuals therefore
provide a valuable source of information about wetland status and population trends. Because several wetland-dependent birds are
listed as species at risk due to the loss and degradation of their habitats, the combination of long-term monitoring data and analysis
of habitat characteristics can help to assess how well Great Lakes coastal wetlands are able to provide habitat for these sensitive
species as well as other birds and wetland-dependent wildlife.
Geographically extensive and long-term monitoring of wetland-dependent birds is possible through the enthusiasm, skill and
coordination of volunteerparticipants trained in the application of standardized monitoring protocols. Information about abundance,
distribution and diversity of marsh birds provides data for calculating trends in population indices as well as investigating habitat
associations which can contribute to effective, long-term conservation strategies.
Status of Wetland-Dependent Birds
Since 1995, Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers have collected bird data at 508
discrete routes across the Great Lakes basin. An annual summary of bird routes monitored is
provided in Table 1.
From 1995 through 2005, MMP volunteers recorded 56 bird species that use marshes (wetlands
dominated by non-woody emergent plants) for feeding, nesting or both throughout the Great Lakes
basin. Red-winged blackbird was the most commonly recorded non-aerial foraging bird species
observed by MMP participants, followed by swamp sparrow, marsh wren and yellow warbler.
Among birds that nest exclusively in marsh habitats, the most commonly recorded species was
marsh wren, followed by Virginia rail, common moorhen, pied-billed grebe, American coot and
sora. Among bird species that typically forage in the air above marshes, tree swallow and barn
swallow were the two most commonly recorded bird species.
With eleven years of data collected across the Great Lakes basin, the MMP is becoming an
established and recognized long-term marsh bird population monitoring program. Bird species
occurrence, abundance, activity and detectability vary naturally among years and within seasons.
Population indices and trends (i.e., average annual percent change in population index) are
presented for several bird species recorded at Great Lakes MMP routes, from 1995 through 2005
(Figure 1). Species with significant basin-wide declines were American coot (not shown), black
tern, blue-winged teal (not shown), common grackle (not shown), common moorhen (not shown),
least bittern, undifferentiated common moorhen/American coot (calls of these two species are
difficult to distinguish from one another), northern harrier (not shown), pied-billed grebe, red-
winged blackbird, sora, tree swallow and Virginia rail (Figure 1). Statistically significant basin-
wide population increases were observed for common yellowthroat, mallard, northern rough-winged swallow (not shown), purple
martin (not shown), trumpeter swan (not shown), willow flycatcher (not shown) and yellow warbler (not shown). American bittern
and marsh wren populations did not show a significant trend in abundance indices from 1995 through 2005 (Figure 1). Declines in
population indices of species that use wetlands almost exclusively for breeding such as least bittern, black tern, common moorhen,
American coot, sora, pied-billed grebe and Virginia rail, combined with an increase in some wetland edge and generalist species
(e.g., common yellowthroat, willow flycatcher and mallard) suggest changes in wetland habitat conditions may be occurring.
Difference in habitats, regional population densities, timing of survey visits, annual weather variability and other factors likely
interplay with water levels to explain variation in wetland-dependent bird populations. American bittern, for example, showed a
significant declining population index from 1995 to 2004 (Crewe et al. 2006; Archer et al. 2006) but recently its population index
has rebounded. As such, further years of data will hopefully help explain natural population variation from significant population
trends.
Year Number of
Routes
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
145
177
175
151
154
153
146
170
131
118
183
Table! Number of routes
surveyed for marsh birds
within the Great Lakes
basin, from 1995 to 2005.
Source: Marsh Monitoring
Program
194
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
X
0
C
o
3
Q.
O
Q.
American Bittern
-5.0 (-10.6, 1.1)P = 0.10
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
o.o-
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0-I
10.0-.
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-I
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
o.o-
Black Tern
-12.4 (-16.1,-8.7) P< 0.0001
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Least Bittern
-10.7 (-15.1,-6.0) P< 0.0001
6.0
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Moorhen/Coot
-4.8 (-7.2, -2.3) P < 0.001
3.5-
3.0-
2.5-
2.0-
1.5-
1.0-
0.5-
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Sora
-4.7 (-8.3, -1.0) P = 0.01
30.0
25.0-
20.0-
15.0-
10.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
Common Yellowthroat
1.5(0.0, 3.0) P = 0.05
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Mallard
5.4 (2.2, 8.8) P < 0.001
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Marsh Wren
.1,-0.2P = 0.07
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Pied-billed Grebe
-6.9 (-10.3,-3.4) P< 0.001
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Red-winged Blackbird
-1.6 (-2.6,-0.6) P< 0.01
28.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Tree Swallow
-5.7 (-7.8, -3.7) P < 0.0001
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Virginia Rail
-2.3 (-4.3, -0.3) P = 0.02
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Figure 1. Trends (percent annual change) in relative abundance (population index) of marsh nesting and aerial foraging bird
species detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, from 1995 to 2005.
Values in parentheses are upper and lower 95% confidence limits, respectively, for trend values given.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Pressures
Future pressures on wetland-dependent birds will likely include continuing loss and degradation of important breeding habitats
through wetland loss, water level stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant and nutrient inputs and invasion of non-native plants
and animals.
Management Implications
Wherever possible, efforts should be made to maintain high quality wetland habitat and adjacent upland areas. There is also a need
to address other impacts that are detrimental to wetland health such as water level stabilization, invasive species, and inputs of
195
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
toxic chemicals, nutrients and sediments. Restoration programs are underway for many degraded wetland areas through the work
of local citizens, organizations and governments. Although significant progress has been made, considerably more conservation
and restoration work is needed to ensure maintenance of healthy and functional wetland habitats throughout the Great Lakes
basin.
Comments from the author(s)
MMP wetland monitoring activities will continue across the Great Lakes basin. Continued monitoring of at least 100 routes
through 2006 is projected to provide good resolution for most of the wetland-dependent birds recorded by MMP volunteers.
Recruitment and retention of program participants will therefore continue to be a high priority. Priority should also be placed on
establishing regional goals and acceptable thresholds for species-specific abundance indices and species community compositions.
Assessments to determine relationships among survey indices, bird population parameters and critical environmental parameters
are also needed.
Previous studies have ascertained marsh bird habitat associations using MMP bird and habitat data. As more data are accumulated,
these studies should be periodically updated in order to provide a better understanding of the relationships between wetland bird
species and habitat. Most MMP bird survey routes have been georeferenced to the level of individual survey stations. Volunteer
recruitment has also improved significantly since the last status reporting period. Five additional important tasks are in progress:
1) develop the SOLEC wetland bird indicator as an index for evaluating coastal wetland health; 2) improve the program's capacity
to monitor and report on status of wetland specific Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) among Great Lakes Areas of Concern
(AOCs); 3) improve and revise MMP bird survey protocols to coincide with continentally-accepted marsh bird monitoring survey
standards; 4) develop and improve the program's capacity to train volunteer participants to identify and survey marsh birds
following standard MMP protocols, and; 5) develop the capacity to incorporate a regional MMP coordinator network component
into the MMP to improve regional and local delivery of the program throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Although more frequent updates are possible, reporting trends in marsh bird population indices every five or six years is most
appropriate for this indicator. A variety of efforts are underway to enhance reporting breadth and efficiency.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Steve Timmermans Bird Studies Canada
Ryan Archer, Bird Studies Canada
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in partnership with Environment Canada and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring
Program volunteers are gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Anonymous. 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program training kit and instructions for surveying marsh birds, amphibians, and their
habitats. Revised in 2003 by Bird Studies Canada. 41pp.
Archer, R.W., Crewe, T.L., and Timmermans, S.T.A. 2006. The Marsh Monitoring Program annual report, 1995-2004: annual
indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian occurrence in the Great Lakes basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies
Canada. 35pp.
Crewe, T.L,, Timmermans, S.T.A., and Jones, K.E. 2006. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995 to 2004: A Decade of Marsh
Monitoring in the Great Lakes Region. Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada. 28pp.
httD://www.bsc-eoc.org/mmplOvrpt.html
Timmermans, S.T.A. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for implementing the Marsh Monitoring Program across the Great
Lakes basin. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office. Assistance
I.D. #GL2002-145. 31pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A., Badzinski, S.S., and Jones, K.E. 2004. The Marsh Monitoring Program annual report, 1995-2002: annual
indices and trends in bird abundance and amphibian occurrence in the Great Lakes basin. Unpublished report by Bird Studies
196
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Canada. 48pp.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Weeber, R.C., and Valliantos, M. (eds.). 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995-1999: Monitoring Great Lakes wetlands
and their amphibian and bird inhabitants. Published by Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 47pp.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
197
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Coastal Wetland Area by Type
Indicator #4510
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Mixed
Deteriorating
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a not assessed status and an undetermined trend, indicating that assessments
were not made on an individual lake basis.
Purpose
To assess the periodic changes in area (particularly losses) of coastal wetland types, taking into account natural lake level
variations
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain total areal extent of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, ensuring adequate representation of coastal wetland types across their
historical range (Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Annexes 2 and 13, United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
The status of this indicator has not been updated since the State of the Great Lakes 2005 report. Future updates to the status of this
indicator will require the repeated collection and analysis of remotely sensed information. Currently, technologies and methods
are being assessed for an ability to estimate wetland extent. Next steps, including determination of funding and resource needs, as
well as pilot investigations, must occur before an indicator status update can be made. The timeline for this is not yet determined.
However, once a methodology is established, it will be applicable for long-term monitoring for this indicator, which is imperative
for an improved understanding of wetland functional responses and adaptive management. The 2005 assessment of this indicator
follows.
Wetlands continue to be lost and degraded, yet the ability to track and determine the extent and rate of this loss in a standardized
way is not yet feasible.
In an effort to estimate the extent of coastal wetlands in the basin, the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium (GLCWC)
coordinated completion of a binational coastal wetland database. The project involved building from existing Canadian and U.S.
coastal wetland databases (Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2003; Herdendorf et al. 1981a-f) and
incorporating additional auxiliary federal, provincial and state data to create a more complete, digital Geographic Information
System (GIS) vector database. All coastal wetlands in the database were classified using a Great Lakes hydrogeomorphic coastal
wetland classification system (Albert et al. 2005). The project was completed in 2004. The GIS database provides the first spatially
explicit seamless binational summary of coastal wetland distribution in the Great Lakes system. Coastal wetlands totaling 216,743
ha (535,582 acres) have been identified within the Great Lakes and connecting rivers up to Cornwall, ON (Figure 1). However,
due to existing data limitations, estimates of coastal wetland extent, particularly for the upper Great Lakes are acknowledged to
be incomplete.
Despite significant loss of coastal wetland habitat in some regions of the Great Lakes, the lakes and connecting rivers still support
a diversity of wetland types. Barrier protected coastal wetlands are a prominent feature in the upper Great Lakes, accounting for
over 60,000 ha (150,000 acres) of the identified coastal wetland area in Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan (Figure
2). Lake Erie supports 22,000 ha (54,500 acres) of coastal wetland, with protected embayment wetlands accounting for over one
third of the total area (Figure 2). In Lake Ontario, barrier protected and drowned rivermouth coastal wetlands account for 19,000
ha (47,000 acres), approximately three quarters of the total coastal wetland area.
Connecting rivers within the Great Lakes system also support a diverse and significant quantity of wetlands (Figure 3). The St.
Clair River delta occurs where the St. Clair River outlets into Lake St. Clair, and it is the most prominent single wetland feature
accounting for over 13,000 ha (32, 000 acres). The Upper St. Lawrence River also supports a large area of wetland habitats that
are typically numerous small embayment and drowned rivermouth wetlands associated with the Thousand Island region and St.
Lawrence River shoreline.
198
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Lake/River
Lake Superior
St. Marys River
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
St. Glair River
Lake St. Glair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Niagara River
Lake Ontario
Upper St. Lawrence River
Total
Area (ha)
26,626
10,790
61,461
44,516
13,642
2,217
592
25,127
196
22,925
8,454
216,545
Figure 1. Great Lakes coastal wetland distribution and total area by lake and river.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Barrier Protected
DOpen Embayment
n Protected Embayment
d Drowned River-Mouth
n Delta
Superior Huron Michigan St. Clair Erie
LAKE
Ontario
Figure 2. Coastal wetland area by geomorphic type within
lakes of the Great Lakes system.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
13,146
5,500
5,000 -
V 4,500 -
IS 4,000 -
o 3,500-
E. 3,000 -
< 2,500-
2 2,000 -
1,500-
1,000 -
I
Barrier Protected
dOpen Embayment
D Delta
an
itr
St. Marys St. Clair Detroit Niagara Upper St.
Lawrence
CONNECTING RIVER
Figure 3. Coastal wetland area by geomorphic type within
connecting rivers of the Great Lakes system.
Source: Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
199
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pressures
There are many stressors which have and continue to contribute to the loss and degradation of coastal wetland area. These include:
filling, dredging and draining for conversion to other uses such as urban, agricultural, marina, and cottage development; shoreline
modification; water level regulation; sediment and nutrient loading from watersheds; adjacent land use; invasive species, particularly
non-native species; and climate variability and change. The natural dynamics of wetlands must be considered in addressing coastal
wetland stressors. Global climate variability and change have the potential to amplify the dynamics by reducing water levels in the
system in addition to changing seasonal storm intensity and frequency, water level fluctuations and temperature.
Management Implications
Many of the pressures result from direct human actions, and thus, with proper consideration of the impacts, can be reduced.
Several organizations have designed and implemented programs to help reduce the trend toward wetland loss and degradation.
Because of growing concerns around water quality and supply, which are key Great Lakes conservation issues, and the role of
wetlands in flood attenuation, nutrient cycling and sediment trapping, wetland changes will continue to be monitored closely.
Providing accurate useable information to decision-makers from government to private landowners is critical to successful
stewardship of the wetland resource.
Comments from the author(s)
Development of improved, accessible, and affordable remote sensing technologies and information, along with concurrent
monitoring of other Great Lakes indicators, will aid in implementation and continued monitoring and reporting of this indicator.
The GLCWC database represents an important step in establishing a baseline for monitoring and reporting on Great Lakes
coastal wetlands including extent and other indicators. Affordable and accurate remote sensing methodologies are required to
complete the baseline and begin monitoring change in wetland area by type in the future. Other GLCWC-guided research efforts
are underway to assess the use of various remote sensing technologies in addressing this current limitation. Preliminary results
from these efforts indicate the potential of using radar imagery and methods of hybrid change detection for monitoring changes
in wetland type and conversion.
The difficult decisions on how to address human-induced stressors causing wetlands loss have been considered for some time.
Several organizations and programs continue to work to reverse the trend, though much work remains. A better understanding
of wetland functions, through additional research and implementation of biological monitoring within coastal wetlands, will help
ensure that wetland quality is maintained in addition to areal extent. An educated public is critical to ensuring that wise decisions
about the stewardship of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem are made.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Joel Ingram, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Lesley Dunn, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Krista Holmes, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada
Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension
Contributors: Greg Grabas and Nancy Patterson, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada; Laura Simonson, Water
Resources Discipline, U.S. Geological Survey; Brian Potter, Conservation and Planning Section-Lands and Waters Branch,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Tom Rayburn, Great Lakes Commission, Laura Bourgeau-Chavez, General Dynamics
Advanced Information Systems.
Sources
Albert, D.A., Wilcox, D.A., Ingram, J.W., and Thompson, T.A. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic classification for Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res 31(1):129-146.
Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003. The Ontario Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Atlas: a
summary of information (1983 -1997). Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Ontario Region, Environment Canada; Conservation and
Planning Section-Lands and Waters Branch, and Natural Heritage Information Center, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
200
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981a. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 1: Overview. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-vl.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981b. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 2: Lake Ontario. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v2.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981c. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 3: Lake Erie. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v3.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981d. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 4: Lake Huron. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v4.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981e. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 5: Lake Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v5.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981f. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 6: Lake Superior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/02-v6.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
201
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Indicator #4858
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating (with respect to climate change)
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments were not prepared for this report.
Purpose
To assess 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
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator is used as a potential assessment of climate change, particularly within the Great Lakes basin. Changes in water and
air temperatures will influence ice development on the Lakes and, in turn, affect coastal wetlands, nearshore aquatic environments,
and inland environments.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Air temperatures over a lake are one of the few factors that control the formation of ice on that surface. Colder winter temperatures
increase the rate of heat released by the lake, thereby increasing the freezing rate of the water. Milder winter temperatures have
a similar controlling effect, only the rate of heat released is slowed and the ice forms more slowly. Globally, some inland lakes
appear to be freezing up at later dates, and breaking-up earlier, than the historical average, based on a study of 150 years of data
(Magnuson et al. 2000). These trends add to the evidence that the earth has been in a period of global warming for at least the last
150 years.
The freezing and thawing of lakes is a very important aspect to many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Many fish species rely on
the ice to give their eggs protection against predators during the late part of the ice season. Nearshore ice has the ability to change
the shoreline as it can encroach upon the land during winter freeze-up times. Even inland systems are affected by the amount of ice
that forms, especially within the Great Lakes basin. Less ice on the Great Lakes allows for more water to evaporate and be spread
across the basin in the form of snow. This can have an affect on the foraging animals (such as deer) that need to dig through snow
during the winter in order to obtain food.
Status of Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Observations of the Great Lakes data showed no real conclusive trends with respect to the date of freeze-up or break-up. A reason
for this could be that due to the sheer size of the Great Lakes, it wasn't possible to observe the whole 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 make a statement concerning the overall ice cover during the season. There appears to be
a decrease in the maximum ice cover per season over the last thirty years (Figure 1).
The trends on each of the five Great Lakes show that during
this time span the maximum amount of ice forming each
year has been decreasing, which correlated to the average ice
cover per season observed for the same time duration (Table
1). Between the 1970s and the 1990s there was at least a 10%
decline in the maximum ice cover on each lake, nearly 18%
in some cases, with the greatest decline occurring during
the 1990s. Since a complete freeze-up did not occur on all
the Great Lakes, a series of inland lakes (known to freeze
every winter) in Ontario were examined to see if there was
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
Table 1. Mean ice coverage, in percent, during the corresponding
decade.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
202
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Lake Superior
100
90-
80
70
60 -
50-
40 -
30 -
20
10-
0
18
d
Ice Season
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Ice Season
Lake Huron
Ice Season
Lake Ontario
Ice Season
Ice Season
200
Figure 1. Trends of maximum ice cover and the corresponding date on the Great Lakes, 1972-2000.
The red line represents the percentage of maximum ice cover and the blue line represents the date of maximum ice
cover.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
any similarity to the results in the previous studies. Data from Lake Nipissing and Lake Ramsey were plotted (Figure 2) based on
the complete freeze-over date (ice-on date) and the break-up date (ice-off date). The freeze-up date for Lake Nipissing appears to
have the same trend as the other global inland lakes: freezing over later in the year. Lake Ramsey however, seems to be freezing
over earlier in the season. The ice-off date for both however, appear to be increasing, or occurring at later dates in the year. These
results contradict what is said to be occurring with other such lakes in the northern hemisphere (see Magnuson et al. 2000).
The satellite data used in this analysis can be supplemented by on-the-ground citizen-collected data. The IceWatch program of
Environment Canada's Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network and Nature Canada have citizen scientists collecting ice-
on and ice-off dates of lakes throughout the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes basin. These volunteers use the same criteria for
ice-on and ice-off as does the satellite data, although the volunteers only collect data for the portion of the lake that is visible from
a single vantage point on the shore. The IceWatch program began in 2000 as a continuation of a program run by the Meteorological
Service of Canada. Data from this program date back to the 1850s. An analysis of data from this database and the Canadian
203
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Ice-on Dates
Ice-off Dates
140
135
315
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Ice Season
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
Ice Season
1970 1980 1990 2000
Nipissing
Ramsey
Nipissing
Linear (Nipissing)
Ramsey
Linear (Ramsey)
Figure 2. Ice-on and ice-off dates for Lake Nipissing (red line) and Lake Ramsey (blue line).
Data were smoothed using a 5-year moving average.
Source: Climate and Atmospheric Research and Environment Canada
Ice Database (Canadian Ice Services/Meteorological
Service of Canada) showed that ice break-up dates
were occurring approximately one day earlier every
seven years between 1950 and 2004 for 341 lakes
across Canada (Putter et al. 2006). The data from
IceWatch are not as comprehensive as the satellite-
collected data, but they do show some trends in the
Great Lakes basin. From two sites with almost 100
years of data, Lake Nipissing is shown to be thawing
later in the season (Figure 3). IceWatch data from near
Lake Ramsay indicate that lakes have been freezing
later over the past thirty years.
Pressures
Based on the results of Figure 1 and Table 1, it seems
that ice formation on the Great Lakes should continue
to decrease in total cover if the predictions on global
atmospheric warming are true. Milder winters will
have a drastic effect on how much of the lakes are
covered in ice, which in turn, will have an effect on
many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that rely on
lake ice for protection and food acquisition.
- Ice Off Date Ice Off Trend Line
140
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Figure 3. Ice-off dates and trend line from 1900-2000 on Lake
Nipising.
Source: Ecological and Monitoring Assessment Network (EMAN)
Management Implications
Only a small number of data sets were collected and analyzed for this study, so this report is not conclusive. To reach a level of
significance that would be considered acceptable, more data on lake ice formation would have to be gathered. While the data for
the Great Lakes is easily obtained from 1972 through the present, smaller inland lakes, which may be affected by climate change
at a faster rate, should be examined. As much historical information as is available should be obtained. This data could come
from IceWatch observers and the IceWatch database from throughout the Great Lakes basin. The more data that are received will
increase the statistical significance of the results.
Comments from the author(s)
Increased winter and summer air temperatures appear to be the greatest influence on ice formation. Currently there are global
204
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
protocols, which are being introduced in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
It would be convenient for the results to be reported every four to five years (at least for the Great Lakes), and quite possibly a
shorter time span for any new inland lake information. It may also be feasible to subdivide the Great Lakes into bays and inlets,
etc., in order to get an understanding of what is occurring in nearshore environments.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Gregg Ferris, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON.
Updated by:
Heather Andrachuk, Environment Canada, Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN); Heather.Andrachuk@
ec.gc.ca.
All data analyzed and charts created by the author.
Sources
Putter, M., Buckland, B., Kilvert, E., and Andrachuk, H. 2006. Earlier break-up dates of lake ice: an indicator of climate change
in Canada, submitted to Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
Magnuson, J.J., Robertson, D.M., Benson, B.J., Wynne, R.H., Livingston, D.M., Arai, T., Assel, R.A., Barry, R.G., Carad, V.,
Kuusisto, E., Granin, N.G., Prowse, T.D., Stewart, K.M., and Vuglinski, V.S. 2000. Historical trends in lake and river ice covering
the Northern Hemisphere. Science 289(9): 1743-1746.
Ice charts obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Canadian Ice Service (CIS).
Data for Lake Nipissing and Lake Ramsey obtained from Walter Skinner, Climate and Atmospheric Research, Environment
Canada-Ontario Region.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
205
-------
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Indicator #4861
This indicator report was last updated in 2002.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report, but 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
To examine the historic water levels in all the Great Lakes, and compare these levels and their effects on wetlands with
post-regulated levels in Lakes Superior and Ontario, where water levels have been regulated since about 1914 and 1959.
respectively
To examine water level fluctuation effects on wetland vegetation communities over time as well as aiding in the interpretation
of estimates of coastal wetland area, especially in those Great Lakes for which water levels are not regulated
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to maintain the diverse array of Great Lakes coastal wetlands by allowing, as closely as is possible, the
natural seasonal and long-term fluctuations of Great Lakes water levels.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Naturally fluctuating water levels are known to be essential for maintaining the ecological health of Great Lakes shoreline
ecosystems, especially coastal wetlands. Thus, comparing the hydrology of the Lakes serves as an indicator of degradation caused
by the artificial alteration of the naturally
fluctuating hydrological cycle.
Great Lakes shoreline ecosystems are dependent
upon natural disturbance processes, such as
water level fluctuations, if they are to function
as dynamic systems. Naturally fluctuating water
levels create ever-changing conditions along
the Great Lakes shoreline, and the biological
communities that populate these coastal
wetlands have responded to these dynamic
changes with rich and diverse assemblages of
species.
Status of Great Lakes Water Level Fluctuations
Water levels in the Great Lakes have been
measured since 1860, but 140 years is a
relatively short period of time when assessing
the hydrological history of the Lakes. Sediment
investigations conducted by Baedke and
Thompson (2000) on the Lake Michigan-
.' ..,.,, Figure 1. Sediment investigations on the Lake Michigan-Huron system
Huron system indicate quasi-periodic lake indicate quasi-periodic lake level fluctuations.
level fluctuations (Figure 1), both in period and Source; Na(iona| Qceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1992 and updates)
181.0
180.5
180.0
179.5
ฃ 179.0
ง 178.5
"5 178.0
j> 177.5
uj
177.0
176.5
176.0
175.5
175.0
- Measu
:
| I j
i IJI/V/
Ul :
f V
;
\: _ \
ed upper limit
I lower limit
(ซ
N\
J V
rJ\
v i
i
A' {
1 . 1
JrJV
J
7
7
7
A i
3 1
A 5
J 3P
tits
/
178
I
ฃ
x (r
H
w
\
I
*
/
i?
V
16(
in
/
/
-ft/
ft /
"w
f
\
"iN
1
\
year fluctuations
.
^r
^
s^
/\
i f\
T
\
\
A
\
\
-
_
-
592
590
588 m
586 |
584 f
582 -3
580
578
576
574
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Calendar year before 1 950
I I I I AD I BC I I I I I I
1950 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
206
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
amplitude, on an average of about
160 years, but ranging from 120
to 200 years. Within this 160-year
period, there also appear to be sub-
fluctuations of approximately 33
years. Therefore, to assess water
level fluctuations, it is necessary to
consider long-term data. Because
Lake Superior is at the upper end
of the watershed, the fluctuations
have less amplitude than the other
lakes. Lake Ontario (Figure 2).
at the lower end of the watershed.
more clearly shows these quasi-
periodic fluctuations and the almost
complete elimination of the high
and low levels since the lake level
began to be regulated in 1959, and
more rigorously since 1976. For
example, the 1986 high level that
was observed in the other lakes
was eliminated from Lake Ontario.
The level in Lake Ontario after
1959 contrasts with that of the Lake
Michigan- Huron system (Figure 3).
which shows the more characteristic
high and low water levels.
The significance of seasonal and
long-term water level fluctuations
on coastal wetlands is perhaps best
explained in terms of the vegetation.
which, in addition to its own diverse
composition, provides the substrate.
food, cover, and habitat for many
other species dependent on coastal
wetlands.
Year
Figure 2. 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 above water level at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1992 and updates)
177.5
177.0
176.5
176.0
175.5
Year
Figure 3. 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 above water level at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1992 and updates)
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. Even very short-term fluctuations resulting from changes in
wind direction and barometric pressure can substantially alter the area inundated, and thus, alter the coastal wetland community.
Long-term water level fluctuations, of course, have an impact over a longer period of time. During periods of high water, there is a
die-off of shrubs, cattails, and other woody or emergent species that cannot tolerate long periods of increased depth of inundation.
At the same time, there is an expansion of aquatic communities, notably submergents, into the newly inundated area. As the water
levels recede, seeds buried in the sediments germinate and vegetate this newly exposed zone, while the aquatic communities
recede out-ward back into the lake. 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 is vital in maintaining wetland diversity. It is the mid-zone of coastal wetlands that harbors the
greatest biodiversity. Under more stable water levels, coastal wetlands occupy narrower zones along the lakes and are considerably
207
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
less diverse, as the more dominant species, such as cattails, 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.
Pressures
Future pressures on the ecosystem include additional withdrawals or diversions of water from the Lakes, or additional regulation
of the high and low water levels. These potential future pressures will require direct human intervention to implement, and thus,
with proper consideration of the impacts, can be prevented. The more insidious impact could be caused by global climate change.
The quasi-periodic fluctuations of water levels are the result of climatic effects, and global warming has the potential to greatly
alter the water levels in the Lakes.
Management Implications
The Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board is undertaking a comprehensive 5-year study (2000-2005) for the International
Joint Commission (IJC) to assess the current criteria used for regulating water levels on Lake Ontario and in the St. Lawrence
River.
The overall goals of Environment/Wetlands Working Group of the IJC study are (1) to ensure that all types of native habitats
(floodplain, forested and shrubby swamps, wet meadows, shallow and deep marshes, submerged vegetation, mud flats, open water,
and fast flowing water) and shoreline features (barrier beaches, sand bars/dunes, gravel/cobble shores, and islands) are represented
in an abundance that allows for the maintenance of ecosystem resilience and integrity over all seasons, and (2) to maintain
hydraulic and spatial connectivity of habitats to ensure that fauna have access, temporally and spatially, to a sufficient surface of
all the types of habitats they need to complete their life cycles.
The environment/wetlands component of the IJC study provides a major opportunity to improve the understanding of past water
regulation impacts on coastal wetlands. The new knowledge will be used to develop and recommend water level regulation criteria
with the specific objective of maintaining coastal wetland diversity and health. Also, continued monitoring of water levels in all
of the Great Lakes is vital to understanding coastal wetland dynamics and the ability to assess wetland health on a large scale.
Fluctuations in water levels are the driving force behind coastal wetland biodiversity and overall wetland health. Their effects
on wetland ecosystems must be recognized and monitored throughout the Great Lakes basin in both regulated and unregulated
lakes.
Comments from the author(s)
Human-induced global climate change could be a major cause of lowered water levels in the Lakes in future years. Further study
is needed on the impacts of water level fluctuations on other nearshore terrestrial communities. Also, an educated public is critical
to ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem are made, and better platforms to getting
understandable information to the public are needed.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Programs Office, Chicago, IL.
Much of the information and discussion presented in this summary is based on work conducted by the following:
Douglas A. Wilcox, Ph.D. (U. S. Geological Survey / Biological Resources Division); Todd A. Thompson, Ph.D. (Indiana Geological
Survey); Steve J. Baedke, Ph.D. (James Madison University).
Sources
Baedke, S.J., and Thompson, T.A. 2000. A 4,700-year record of lake level and isostasy for Lake Michigan. /. Great Lakes Res.
26(4):416-426.
International Joint Commission. Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, ON and Detroit, MI.
International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board, Technical Working Group on Environment/Wetlands.
http://www.ijc.org.
Maynard, L., and Wilcox, D. 1997. Coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background
208
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Paper. Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1992 (and updates). Great Lakes water levels, 1860-1990. National
Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.
Last Updated
SOLEC 2002
[Editor's note: A condensed version of this report was published in the State of the Great Lakes 2003.]
209
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Indicator #4862
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Mixed
Undetermined
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Degradation around major urban areas
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: High quality wetlands in north part of lake
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Plowing, raking, and mowing on Saginaw Bay wetlands during low water causing degradation.
Northern wetlands are high quality.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Generally poor on U.S. shore with some restoration at Metzger Marsh OH. Presque Isle, PA and
Long Point, ON have high quality wetlands.
Lake Ontario
Status: Poor
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Degraded by nutrient loading and water level control. Some scattered Canadian wetlands of higher
quality.
Purpose
To assess the level of native vegetative diversity and cover for use as a surrogate measure of quality of coastal wetlands
which are impacted by coastal manipulation or input of sediments
Ecosystem Objective
Coastal wetlands throughout the Great Lakes basin should be dominated by native vegetation, with low numbers of invasive
plant species that have low levels of coverage. This indicator supports the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin and beneficial uses dependent on healthy wetlands (United States and Canada
1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
To understand the condition of the plant community in coastal wetlands, it is necessary to understand the natural differences that
occur in the plant communities across the Great Lakes basin. The characteristic size and plant diversity of coastal wetlands vary
by wetland type, lake, and latitude, due to differences in geomorphic and climatic conditions. Major factors will be described
below.
210
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lake
The water chemistry and shoreline characteristics of each Great Lake differ, with Lake Superior being the most distinct
due to its low alkalinity and prevalence of bedrock shoreline. Nutrient levels also increase in the lake basins further to the
east, that is, in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and in the upper St. Lawrence River.
Geomorphic wetland type
There are several different types of wetlands based on the geomorphology of the shoreline where the wetland forms. Each
landform has its characteristic sediment, bottom profile, accumulation of organic material, and exposure to wave activity.
These differences result in differences in plant zonation and breadth, as well as species composition. All coastal wetlands
contain different zones (swamp, meadow, emergent, submergent), some of which may be typically absent in certain
geomorphic wetland types. All Great Lakes wetlands have recently been classified and mapped (see
http://glc.org/wetlands/inventory.html).
Latitude
Latitudinal differences in temperature result in floristic differences between the southern and northern Great Lakes.
Probably more important is the increased agricultural activity along the shoreline of the southern Great Lakes, resulting
in increased sedimentation and non-native species introductions.
There are characteristics of coastal wetlands that make usage of plants as indicators difficult in certain conditions. Among
these are:
Water level fluctuation
Great Lakes water levels fluctuate greatly from year to year. Either an increase or decrease in water level can result in
changes in numbers of species or overall species composition in the entire wetland or in specific zones. Such a change
makes it difficult to monitor change over time. Changes are great in two zones: the wet meadow, where grasses and sedges
may disappear in high water or new annuals may appear in low water, and in shallow emergent or submergent zones,
where submergent and floating plants may disappear when water levels drop rapidly.
Lake-wide alterations
For the southern lakes, most wetlands have been dramatically altered by both intensive agriculture and urban development
of the shoreline. For Lake Ontario, water level control has resulted in major changes to the flora. For both of these cases,
it is difficult to identify base-line, high quality wetlands for comparison to degraded wetlands.
There are several hundred species of plant that occur within coastal wetlands. To evaluate the status of a wetland using plants as
indicators, several different plant metrics have been suggested. Several of these are discussed briefly here.
Native plant diversity
The number of native plant species in a wetland is considered by many as a useful indicator of wetland health. The
overall diversity of a site tends to decrease from south to north. Different hydrogeomorphic wetland types support vastly
different levels of native plant diversity, complicating the use of this metric.
Non-native species
Non-native species are considered signs of wetland degradation, typically responding to increased sediment, nutrients,
physical disturbance, and seed source. The amount of non-native species coverage appears to be a more effective measure
of degradation than the number of non-native species, except in the most heavily degraded sites.
Submergent species
Submergent plants respond to high levels of sediment, nutrient enrichment, and turbidity. Some specific plant species
have been identified that respond more so to each of these changes. Floating species, such as Lemna spp., are similarly
responsive to nutrient enrichment. While submergent species are valuable indicators whose response to changing
environmental conditions is well documented, they also respond dramatically to natural fluctuations in the water level,
making them less dependable as indicators in the Great Lakes than in other wetland settings.
211
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Nutrient-responsive species
Several species from all plant zones are known to respond to nutrient enrichment. Cattails (Typha spp.) are the best known
responders.
Salt tolerance
Many species are not tolerant to salt, which is introduced along major coastal highways. Narrow-leaved cattails are
known to be very tolerant to high salt levels.
Floristic Quality Index (FQI)
Many of the states and provinces along the Great Lakes have developed indices based on the "conservatism" of all
plants growing there. A species is considered conservative if it only grows in a specific, high quality environment. FQI
has proved effective for comparing similar wetland sites. However, FQI of a given wetland can change dramatically in
response to a water level change, limiting its usefulness in monitoring the condition of a given wetland from year to
year without development of careful sampling protocols. Another problem associated with FQIs is that the conservatism
values for a given plant vary between states and provinces.
Status of Wetland Plant Community Health
The state of the wetland plant community is quite variable, ranging from good to poor across the Great Lakes basin. The wetlands
in individual lake basins are often similar in their characteristics because of water level controls and lake-wide near-shore
management practices. There is evidence that the plant component in some wetlands is deteriorating in response to extremely low
water levels in some of the Great Lakes, but this deterioration is not seen in all wetlands within these lakes. In general, there is slow
deterioration in many wetlands as shoreline alterations introduce non-native species. However, the turbidity of the southern Great
Lakes has reduced with expansion of zebra mussels, resulting in improved submergent plant diversity in many wetlands.
Trends in wetland health based on plants have not been well established. In the southern Great Lakes (Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and
the Upper St. Lawrence River), almost all wetlands are degraded by either water level control, nutrient enrichment, sedimentation,
or a combination of these factors. Probably the strongest demonstration of this is the prevalence of broad zones of cat-tails,
reduced submergent diversity and coverage, and prevalence of non-native plants, including reed (Phragmites australis], reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus], Eurasian
milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatuni), and frog bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae). In the remaining Great Lakes (Lake St. Clair, Lake
Huron, Lake Michigan, Georgian Bay, Lake Superior, and their connecting rivers), intact, diverse wetlands can be found for
most geomorphic wetland types. However, low water conditions have resulted in the almost explosive expansion of reed in many
wetlands, especially in Lake St. Clair and southern Lake Huron, including Saginaw Bay. As water levels rise, the response of reed
should be monitored.
One of the disturbing trends is the expansion of frog bit, a floating plant that forms dense mats capable of eliminating submergent
plants, from the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario westward into Lake Erie. This expansion will probably continue into all or
many of the remaining Great Lakes.
Studies in the northern Great Lakes have demonstrated that non-native species like reed, reed canary grass, and purple loosestrife
have become established throughout the Great Lakes, but that the abundance of these species is low, often restricted to only local
disturbances such as docks and boat channels. It appears that undisturbed marshes are not easily colonized by these species.
However, as these species become locally established, seeds or fragments of plants may be able to establish themselves when water
level changes create appropriate sediment conditions.
Pressures
There are several pressures that lead to degradation of coastal wetlands.
Agriculture
Agriculture degrades wetlands in several ways, including nutrient enrichment from fertilizers, increased sediments from erosion,
increased rapid runoff from drainage ditches, introduction of agricultural non-native species (reed canary grass), destruction of
inland wet meadow zone by plowing and diking, and addition of herbicides. In the southern lakes, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay,
agricultural sediments have resulted in highly turbid waters which support few or no submergent plants.
212
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Urban development
Urban development degrades wetlands by hardening shoreline, filling wetland, adding a broad diversity of chemical pollutants,
increasing stream runoff, adding sediments, and increased nutrient loading from sewage treatment plants. In most urban settings,
almost complete wetland loss has occurred along the shoreline.
Residential shoreline development
Along many coastal wetlands, residential development has altered wetlands by nutrient enrichment from fertilizers and septic
systems, shoreline alterations for docks and boat slips, filling, and shoreline hardening. Although less intensive than either
agriculture or urban development, local physical alteration often results in the introduction of non-native species. Shoreline
hardening can completely eliminate wetland vegetation.
Mechanical alteration of shoreline
Mechanical alteration takes a diversity of forms, including diking, ditching, dredging, filling, and shoreline hardening. With all of
these alterations, non-native species are introduced by construction equipment or in introduced sediments. Changes in shoreline
gradients and sediment conditions are often adequate to allow non-native species to become established.
Introduction of non-native species
Non-native species are introduced in many ways. Some were purposefully introduced as agricultural crops or ornamentals,
later colonizing in native landscapes. Others came in as weeds in agricultural seed. Increased sediment and nutrient enrichment
allow many of the worst aquatic weeds to out-compete native species. Most of the worst non-native species are either prolific
seed producers or reproduce from fragments of root or rhizome. Non-native animals have also been responsible for increased
degradation of coastal wetlands. One of the worst invasive species has been Asian carp, who's mating and feeding result in loss of
submergent vegetation in shallow marsh waters.
Management Implications
While plants are currently being evaluated as indicators of specific types of degradation, there are limited examples of the effects
of changing management on plant composition. Restoration efforts at Cootes Paradise, Oshawa Second, and Metzger Marsh
have recently evaluated a number of restoration approaches to restore submergent and emergent marsh vegetation, including
carp elimination, hydrologic restoration, sediment control, and plant introduction. The effect of agriculture and urban sediments
may be reduced by incorporating buffer strips along streams and drains. Nutrient enrichment could be reduced by more effective
fertilizer application, thereby reducing algal blooms. However, even slight levels of nutrient enrichment cause dramatic increases
in submergent plant coverage. For most urban areas it may prove impossible to reduce nutrient loads adequately to restore native
aquatic vegetation. Mechanical disturbance of coastal sediments appears to be one of the primary vectors for introduction of
non-native species. Thorough cleaning of equipment to eliminate seed source and monitoring following disturbances might reduce
new introductions of non-native plants.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension.
Contributor:
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Sources
Albert, D.A., and Mine, L.D. 2001. Abiotic and floristic characterization of Laurentian Great Lakes' coastal wetlands. Stuttgart,
Germany. Verh. Internal. Verein. Limnol. 27:3413-3419.
Albert, D.A., Wilcox, D.A., Ingram, J.W., and Thompson, T.A. 2006. Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res 31(1):129-146..
Environment Canada and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 2004. Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring
Project: Year 2 Technical Report. Environment Canada, Downsview, ON: ECB-OR.
Herdendorf, C.E. 1988. Classification of geological features in Great Lakes nearshore and coastal areas. Protecting Great Lakes
213
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Nearshore and Coastal Diversity Project. International Joint Commission and The Nature Conservancy, Windsor, ON.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hakanson, L., Jude, D.J., and Sly, P.G. 1992. A review of the physical and chemical components of the Great
Lakes: a basis for classification and inventory of aquatic habitats. In The development of an aquatic habitat classification system
for lakes eds. W.-D. N. Busch and P. G. Sly, pp. 109-160. Ann Arbor, MI: CRC Press.
Herdendorf, C.E., Hartley, S.M., and Barnes, M.D. (eds.). 1981a. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands
within the United States, Vol. 1: Overview. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS- 81/02-vl.
Jaworski, E., Raphael, C.N., Mansfield, P.J., and Williamson, B.B. 1979. Impact of Great Lakes water level fluctuations on coastal
wetlands. U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Water Resources and Technology, Contract Report 14-0001-7163, from Institute
of Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 351pp.
Keough J.R., Thompson, T.A., Guntenspergen, G.R., and Wilcox, D.A. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic factors and ecosystem responses
in coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands 19:821-834.
Mine, L.D. 1997. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: An overview of abiotic factors affecting their distribution, form, and species
composition. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Mine, L.D., and Albert, D.A. 1998. Great Lakes coastal wetlands: abiotic and floristic characterization. Michigan Natural
Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Wilcox, D.A., and Whillans, T.H. 1999. Techniques for restoration of disturbed coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes. Wetlands
19:835-857.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
214
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Indicator # 4863
Note: This is a progress report towards implementation of this indicator.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Fully Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: The status and trends are currently under investigation and proposed for additional investigation
for the full basin. Although other results exist for Canada, "Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal
Wetlands" results are currently unavailable for Canada.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a not assessed status and an undetermined trend, indicating that assessments
were not made on an individual lake basis. The status and trends are currently under investigation in each lake
basin.
Purpose
To assess the basin-wide presence, location, and/or spatial extent of land cover in close proximity to coastal wetlands
To infer the condition of coastal wetlands as a function of adjacent land cover
Ecosystem Objective
Restore and maintain the ecological (i.e., hydrologic and biogeochemical) functions of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Presence,
wetland-proximity, and/or spatial extent of land cover should be such that the hydrologic and biogeochemical functions of wetlands
continue.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
The state of the Great Lakes Ecosystem (i.e., the sum of ecological functions for the full Great Lakes basin) is currently under
investigation and proposed for additional investigation (Lopez et al. 2006). Differences in the regional status of "Habitat Adjacent
to Coastal Wetlands" can be determined using the existing data (see Pressures), but the results are preliminary and observations
are not conclusive. Nor can the regional trends be extrapolated to determine the state of the ecosystem as a whole.
Relevant coastal areas in the Great Lakes Basin have been mapped to assess the presence and proximity of general land cover in
the vicinity of wetlands using satellite remote-sensing data and geographic information systems (GIS), providing a broad scale
measure of land cover in the context of habitat suitability and habitat vulnerability for a variety of plant and animal species. For
example, upland grassland and/or upland forest areas adjacent to wetlands may be important areas for forage, cover, or reproduction
for organisms. Depending upon the particular physiological and sociobiological requirements of the different organisms, the
wetland-adjacent land cover extent (e.g., the width or total area of the upland area around the wetland) may be used to describe
the potential for suitable habitat or the vulnerability of these areas of habitat to loss or degradation. Although other related Great
Lakes indicators are described or proposed to include Canadian data at a broad scale (Lopez et al. 2006), basin-wide "Land Cover
Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands" results are currently unavailable for Canada.
Status of Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Percent forest adjacent to wetlands
The amount of forest land cover on the periphery of wetlands may indicate the amount of upland wooded habitat for organisms that
may travel relatively short distances to and from nearby forested areas and wetland areas for breeding, water, forage, or shelter.
Also, the affects of runoff on wetlands from nearby areas (e.g., nearby agricultural land) may be ameliorated by biogeochemical
processes that occur in the forests on the periphery of the wetland. For example, forest vegetation may contribute to the uptake,
accumulation, and transformation of chemical constituents in runoff. Broad-scale approaches to assessing percentage of forest
directly adjacent to wetlands may be calculated by summing the total area of forest land cover directly adjacent to wetland regions
in a reporting unit (e.g., an Ecoregion, a watershed, or a state) and dividing by wetland total area in the reporting unit. This
215
-------
calculation ignores those upland areas of forest
outside of the adjacent "buffer zone" for wetlands
within each reporting unit. Other buffer distances
may be appropriate for other habitat analyses,
depending on the type of organism. For runoff
analyses, the chemical constituent(s), flow
dynamics, soil conditions, position of wetland in
the landscape, and other landscape characteristics
should be carefully considered. Coastal wetland
areas may be generally assessed by calculating
forest wetland-adjacency in specifically targeted
coastal wetlands of interest, by targeting narrow
coastal areas such as areas within 1 km (0.62 miles)
of the lake shoreline (Figure 1), or by targeting all
wetlands in a specific inland and coastal region of
the historical lake plain (Figure 2).
Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands
The amount of grassland on the periphery of
wetlands may indicate the amount of upland
herbaceous plant habitat for organisms that might
travel relatively short distances to and from nearby
upland grassland and wetland areas for breeding,
water, forage, or shelter. As with forested areas,
the affect of runoff on wetlands from areas nearby
(e.g., agricultural) land may be ameliorated by
biogeochemical processes that occur in herbaceous
areas that are on the periphery of the wetland.
For example, herbaceous vegetation stabilizes
soils and may reduce erosional soil loss to nearby
wetlands and other surface water bodies. As with
forest calculations, broad-scale approaches to
assessing percentage of grassland directly adjacent
to wetlands may be calculated by summing
the total area of grassland directly adjacent to
wetland regions in a reporting unit. Other buffer
distances may be more appropriate for habitat
analyses, depending on the type of organism. For
runoff analyses, the chemical constituent^), flow
dynamics, soil conditions, position of wetland in
the landscape, and other landscape characteristics
should be carefully considered. Coastal wetland
areas may be generally assessed by calculating
grassland wetland-adjacency in specifically
targeted coastal wetlands of interest; by targeting
narrow coastal areas such as areas within 1 km of
the lake shoreline (Figure 3), or by targeting all
wetlands in a specific inland and coastal region of
the historical lake plain (Figure 4).
Standard Deviation
Classes describe the distribution of percentage
of forest or percentage of grassland adjacent to
wetlands (among reporting units) relative to the
1-2 - -1 Sid Dev.
-1-0 Std. Dซv.
Mean
0 - 1 Std. Dev.
|l - I Std, Dev.
12-3 Std. Dev.
| j 3 Sid, Dev.
Nut Av
GLB Landscape Metrics
1 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent forest
adjacent to wetlands
0 100 200
KJI
Kilometers
Figure 1. Percent forest adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), measured within 1 km of shoreline; data
are reported as standard deviations from the mean.
Source: Lopez et a/. 2006
-2 --IStd D.V-
-1-0 Std. Dev.
Mean
O - 1 Std. Dev.
1 - 2 Std. Dav.
2 3 Std. Dev.
> 3 Std. Dev.
Not Available
GLB landscape Metrics
5 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent torest
adjacent to wetlands
0 100 200
Figure 2. Percent forest adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), measured within 5 km of shoreline; data
are reported as standard deviations from the mean.
Source: Lopez etal. 2006
216
-------
mean value for the metric distribution. Class
breaks are generated by successively described by
standard deviations from the mean value for the
metric. A two-color ramp (red to blue) emphasizes
values (above to below) the mean value for a
metric, and is a useful method for visualizing
spatial variability of a metric.
Pressures
Although several causal relationships have been
postulated for changes in "Land Cover Adjacent
to Coastal Wetlands" for the Great Lakes basin
(Lopez et al. 2006), it is undetermined as to
the relative contribution of the various factors.
However, some preliminary regional trends exist.
For example, in the 1 km coastal region of southern
Lake Superior there is a relatively high percent of
forest adjacent to coastal wetlands, and in the 1 km
coastal region of western Lake Michigan there is a
relatively low percent of forest adjacent to coastal
wetlands. Differences in percent forest between
these two coastal zones generally track with respect
to percent of agricultural land cover or urban
land cover, as measured with similar techniques.
These results are preliminary and observations are
not conclusive. Similar phenomena are currently
under investigation and proposed for additional
regional and full-basin investigation.
Management Implications
Because critical forest and grassland habitat areas
on the periphery of coastal wetlands may influence
the presence and fitness of localized and migratory
organisms in the Great Lakes, natural resource
managers may use these data to determine the
ranking of their areas of interest, such as areas
where they are responsible for coastal wetland
resources, among other areas in the Great Lakes.
It is important for managers to understand that
results for their areas of interest are reported among
a distribution for the entire Great Lakes basin and
that caution should be used when interpreting the
results at finer scales.
Comments from the author(s)
To conduct such measures at a broad scale, the
relationships between wetland-adjacent land cover
and the functions of coastal wetlands need to be
verified. This measure will need to be validated
fully with thorough field sampling data and
sufficient a priori knowledge of such endpoints
and the mechanisms of impact. The development
of indicators (e.g., a regression model using
adjacent vegetation characteristics and wetland
y
-2 - -1 Sid. D=v.
-1 - 0 Sid. Dev,
MMM
0 - 1 Std. [:-:,
1 - 2 Std. Dev,
2 - 3 Std. Dev.
> 3 Std, Dev.
Nat AwdiUUIe
GIB Landscape Metrics
1 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent grassland
adjacent to wetlands
200
0 100 2W
Kilcrre'ers
Figure 3. Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), measured within 1 km of shoreline; data
are reported as standard deviations from the mean.
Source: Lopez et al. 2006
2 - -1 Std. D*v.
-i - 0 Std. Dซv.
0 - 1 Std. Dew,
* - 2 Sttt Daw.
2 - 3 Std, Dev.
> 3 Std. D*v
Not Available
GLB landscape Metrics
5 km of Shoreline
Standard Deviation
Percent grassland
adjacent to wetlands
Figure 4. Percent grassland adjacent to wetlands, among 8-digit USGS
Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), measured within 5 km of shoreline; data
are reported as standard deviations from the mean.
Source: Lopez etal. 2006
217
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
hydroperiod) is an important goal, and requires uniform measurement of field parameters across a vast geographic region to
determine accurate information to calibrate such models.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Ricardo D. Lopez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences
Division, Landscape Ecology Branch, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Sources
Lopez, R.D., Heggem, D.T., Schneider, J.P., Van Remortel, R., Evanson, E., Bice, L.A., Ebert, D.W., Lyon, J.G., and Maichle, R.W.
2006. The Great Lakes Basin Landscape Ecology Metric Browser (v2.0). EPA/600/C-05/011. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Compact Disk and Online at
http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-sci/glb_browser/GLB_Landscape_Ecology _Metric_Browser.htm.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
218
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Urban Density
Indicator #7000
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Insufficient data and analyses were available to determine if increases in urban populations and
land area reflected sustainable development.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments were not prepared for this report.
Purpose
To assess the urban human population density in the Great Lakes basin
To infer the degree of land use efficiency for urban communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem
Ecosystem Objective
Socio-economic viability and sustainable development are the generally acceptable goals for urban growth in the Great Lakes
basin. Socio-economic viability indicates that development should be sufficiently profitable and social benefits are maintained
over the long term. Sustainable development requires that we plan our cities to grow in a way so that they will be environmentally
sensitive, and not compromise the environment for future generations. Thus, by increasing the densities in urban areas while
maintaining low densities in rural and fringe areas, the amount of land consumed by urban sprawl will be reduced.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Urban density is defined as the number of people per square kilometer of land for urban use in a municipal or township boundary.
Lower urban densities are indicative of urban sprawl; that is, low-density development beyond the edge of service and employment,
which separates residential areas from commercial, educational, and recreational areas thus requiring automobiles for transportation
(Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)1998; TCRP 2003; Neill et al. 2003). Urban sprawl has many detrimental effects
on the environment. The process consumes large quantities of land, multiplies the required horizontal infrastructure (roads and
pipes) needs, and increases the use of personal vehicles while the feasibility of alternate transportation declines. When there is
an increased dependency on personal vehicles, an increased demand for roads and highways follows, which in turn, promotes
segregated land uses, large parking lots, and urban sprawl. These implications result in the increased consumption of many
non-renewable resources, the creation of impervious surfaces and damaged natural habitats, and the production of many harmful
emissions. Segregated land use also lowers the quality of life as the average time spent traveling increases and the sense of
community, derived from public interaction, diminishes. For this assessment, the population data used were derived from the
1990-2000 U.S. census and the 1996 and 2001 Canadian censuses.
This indicator offers information on the presence, location, and predominance of human-built land cover and infers the intensity of
human activity in the urban area. It may provide information about how such land cover types affect the ecological characteristics
and functions of ecosystems, as demonstrated by the use of remote-sensing data and field observations.
Status of Urban Density
Within the Great Lakes basin there are 10 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) in Ontario and 24 Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs) in the United States. In Canada, a CMA is defined as an area consisting of one or more adjacent municipalities situated
around a major urban core with a population of at least 100,000. In the United States, an MSA must have at least one urbanized
area of 50,000 or more inhabitants and at least one urban cluster of at least a population of 10,000 but less than 50,000. The urban
population growth in the Great Lakes basin shows consistent patterns in both the United States and Canada. The population in
both countries has been increasing over the past five to ten years. According to the 2001 Statistics Canada report, between 1996
and 2001, the population of the Great Lakes basin CMAs grew from 7,041,985 to 7,597,260, an increase of 555,275 or 7.9% in five
years. The 2000 U.S. census reports that from 1990 to 2000 the population contained in the MSAs of the Great Lakes basin grew
from 26,069,654 to 28,048,813, an increase of 1,979,159 or 7.6% in 10 years.
219
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
In the Great Lakes basin, while there has been an increase in population, there has also been an increase in the average population
densities of the CMAs and MSAs. However, using the CMA or MSA as urban delineation has two major limitations. First, CMAs
and MSAs contain substantial rural land areas and by themselves result in over-estimation of the land area occupied by a city or
town. Second, these area delineations are based on a population density threshold and hence provide information on residential
distribution and not necessarily on other urban land categories such as commercial or recreational land. If within the CMAs and
MSAs the amount of land being developed is escalating at a greater rate than the population growth rate, the average amount of
developed land per person is increasing. For example, "In the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) during the 1960s, the average amount
of developed land per person was a modest 0.019 hectares (0.047 acres). By 2001 that amount tripled to 0.058 hectares per person
(0.143 acres)" (Gilbert e-t al. 2001).
Population densities illustrate the development patterns of an area. If an urban area has a low population density this indicates that
the city has taken on a pattern of urban sprawl and segregated land uses. This conclusion can be made as there is a greater amount
of land per person. However, it is important to not only look at the overall urban density of an area, but also the urban dispersion.
For example, a CMA or MSA with a relatively low density could have different dispersion characteristics than another CMA or
MSA with the same density. One CMA or MSA could have the distribution of people centered around an urban core, while another
could have a generally consistent sparse dispersion across the entire area and both would have the same average density. Therefore.
to properly evaluate the growth pattern of an area, it is necessary to examine not only urban density but also urban dispersion.
While density is a readily understandable measure, it is challenging to quantify because of the difficulty in estimating true urban
extent in a consistent and unbiased way. The political geographic extents of MSAs and CMAs give approximate indications of
relative city size. However, they tend to contain substantial areas of rural land use. Recently, satellite remote sensing data has been
used to map land use of Canadian cities as part of a program to develop an integrated urban database, the Canadian Urban Land
Use Survey (CUrLUS). In southern Ontario, a total of 11 cities have been mapped (using Landsat data acquired in the 1999 to 2002
timeframe) and their densities estimated using population statistics from the 2001 Canadian census (Figure 1). Population density
tends to correlate positively with the city size. Bigger cities with higher population pressure have higher population density and
more efficient land use. Comparing the population
densities of 11 cities (or CMAs) in southern Ontario.
derived from remote sensing mapping and 2001
census (Zhang and Guindon 2005), the Greater
Toronto Area (GTA) has a higher population density
(2848 people /km2, 7376 people/mile2) than other
smaller cities.
The growth characteristics of five large Canadian
cities have also been studied for the period from 1986
to 2000. Preliminary analyses (Figure 2) indicate the
areal extents of these communities have grown at a
faster rate than their populations and thus that sprawl
continues to be a major problem.
A comparison of the ten CMAs and MSAs with the
highest densities to the ten CMAs and MSAs with
the lowest densities in the Great Lakes basin shows
there is a large range between the higher densities
and lower densities. Three of the ten lowest density
areas have experienced a population decline while
the others have experienced very little population
growth over the time period examined. The areas with population declines and areas of little growth are generally occurring in
northern parts of Ontario and eastern New York State. Both of these areas have had relatively high unemployment rates (between
8% and 12%) which could be linked to the slow growth and decreasing populations.
Overall, the growing urban areas in the Great Lakes basin seem to be increasing their geographical area at a faster rate than their
population. This trend has many detrimental effects as outlined previously, namely urban sprawl and its implications. Such
trends may continue to threaten the Great Lakes basin ecosystem unless this pattern is reversed. However, there is a need for more
3000
J_ 2800-
|T 2600-
^ 2400-
c
.0 2200-
13
= 2000-
o
Q- 1800-
c
TO
^ 1600-
1400-
.a
..-'
I g *....-"
J ..j
h e
f
1Q5 1Q6
a Toronto (GTA)
Hamilton
London
d Kitchener
e St. Catharines-Niagara
f Windsor
Oshawa
h Barrie
i Kingston
Guelph
I Peterborough
Urban Population
Figure 1. Population densities of cities with population more than
100,000 in southern Ontario of the Great Lakes watershed for 2001.
Source: Y. Zhang and B. Guindon, private communication
220
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
^
1
2
CD
Q.
3
'5
m
<0
5
150n
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
1(
aซ"
Torog^ (GTA)
Windsor
St.Catharines
Hamilton-'
Lonrfon
/
_.
y'"
Urban Growth 1986-2000
)0 110 120 130 140 150
Urban Population Growth (%)
Figure 2. Growth characterization of 5 urban areas in the period
of 1986-2001.
Source: Y. Zhang and B. Guindon, private communication
definitive information about relying on relatively fine-scale
urban delineation data as it pertains to broad-scale trends
for the Great Lakes region.
Pressures
Under the pressure of rapid population growth in the Great
Lakes region, mostly in the metropolitan cities, urban
development has been undergoing unprecedented growth.
For instance, the urban built-up area of the GTA has doubled
since 1960s. Sprawl is increasingly becoming a problem
in rural and urban fringe areas of the Great Lakes basin.
placing a strain on infrastructure and consuming habitat
in areas that tend to have healthier environments than
those that remain in urban areas. This trend is expected
to continue, which will exacerbate other problems, such
as increased consumption of fossil fuels, longer commute
times from residential to work areas, and fragmentation
of habitat. For example, at current rates in Ontario.
residential building projects will consume some 1,000 km2
(386 mile2) of the province's countryside, an area double
the size of Metro Toronto, by 2031. Also, gridlock could
add 45% to commuting times, and air quality could suffer
due to a 40% increase in vehicle emissions (Loten 2004).
The pressure urban sprawl exerts on the ecosystem has not
yet been fully understood. It may be years before all of the
implications have been realized.
Management Implications
Urban density impacts can be more thoroughly explored and explained if they are linked to the functions of ecosystems (e.g., as it
relates to surface water quality). For this reason, interpretation of this indicator is correlated with many other Great Lakes indicators
and their patterns across the Great Lakes. Urban density's effects on ecosystem functions should be linked to the ecological
endpoint of interest, and this interpretation may vary as a result of the specificity of land cover type and the contemporaneous
nature of the data. Thus, more detailed land cover data are required.
To conduct such measures at a broad scale, the relationships between land cover and ecosystem functions need to be verified. This
measure will need to be validated fully with thorough field-sampling data and sufficient a priori knowledge of such endpoints
and the mechanisms of impact (if applicable). The development of indicators (e.g., a regression model) is an important goal, and
requires uniform measurement of field parameters across a vast geographic region to determine accurate information to calibrate
such models.
The governments of the United States and Canada have both been making efforts to ease the strain caused by pressures of urban
sprawl by proposing policies and creating strategies. Although this is the starting point in implementing a feasible plan to deal with
the environmental and social pressures of urban sprawl, it does not suffice. Policies are not effective until they are put into practice.
and, in the meantime, our cities continue to grow at unsustainable rates. In order to mitigate the pressures of urban sprawl, a
complete set of policies, zoning bylaws and redevelopment incentives must be developed, reviewed and implemented. As noted
in the Urban Density indicator report from 2000, policies that encourage infill and brownfields redevelopment within urbanized
areas will reduce sprawl. Compact development could save 20% in infrastructure costs (Loten 2004). Comprehensive land use
planning that incorporates transit, while respecting adjacent natural areas, will help alleviate the pressure from development.
For sustainable urban development, we should understand fully the potential negative impacts of urban high density development.
High urban density indicates intensified human activity in the urban area, which could produce potential threats to the quality of
the urban environment. Therefore, the urbanization strategies should be based on the concept of sustainable development with a
balance of the costs and benefits.
221
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Comments from the author(s)
A thorough field-sampling protocol, properly validated geographic information, and other remote-sensing-based data could lead
to successful development of urban density as an indicator of ecosystem function and ecological vulnerability in the Great Lakes
basin. This indicator could be applied to select sites, but would be most effective if used at a regional or basin-wide scale. Displaying
U.S. and Canadian census population density on a GIS-produced map will allow increasing sprawl to be documented over time in
the Great Lakes basin on a variety of scales. For example, the maps included with the 2003 Urban Density report show the entire
Lake Superior basin and a closer view of the southwestern part of the basin.
To best quantify the indicator for the whole Great Lakes watershed, a watershed-wide consistent urban built-up database is
needed.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Bert Guindon, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON
Ric Lopez, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV
Lindsay Silk, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON
Ying Zhang, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON
Sources
Bradof, K. Groundwater Education in Michigan (GEM) Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan Technological
University, MI, and James G. Cantrill, Communication and Performance Studies, Northern Michigan University, MI.
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach. 2000. Baseline Sustainability Data for the Lake Superior Basin: Final
Report to the Developing Sustainability Committee, Lake Superior Binational Program, November 2000. Michigan Technological
University, Houghton, MI. http://emmap.mtu.edu/gem/community/planning/lsb.html.
Gilbert, R., Bourne, L.S., and Gertler, M.S. 2001. The State ofGTA in 2000. A report for the Greater Toronto Services Board.
Metropole Consultants, Toronto, ON.
Loten, A. 2004. Sprawl plan our 'last chance:' Caplan. Toronto Star, July 29, 2004.
Neill, K.E., Bonser, S.P., and Pelley, J. 2003. Sprawl Hurts Us All! A guide to the costs of sprawl development and how to create
livable communities in Ontario. Sierra Club of Canada, Toronto, ON.
Statistics Canada. 2001. Community Profiles and 1996 census subdivision area profiles.
http://wwwl2.statcan.ca/english/profil01/PlaceSearchForml.cfm.
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), 1989: The cost of Sprawl-Revisited, Transportation Research Board, TCRP report
39, p40.
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), 2002: Cost of Sprawl-2000. Transportation Research Board, TCRP report 74,
p84.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Tables
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByRelationshipServlet?_ts=109848346281. [Editor's note: If link to data is
inoperative, navigate to "Data Sets" via American FactFinder at, http://factfinder.census.gOV//
Y. Zhang and B. Guindon, 2005. Using satellite remote sensing to survey transportation-related urban Sustainability. Part I:
Methodology for indicator quantification. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinfor-motion, 8(3):149-
164.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
222
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Land Cover - Land Conversion
Indicator #7002
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Low-intensity development increased 33.5%, road area increased 7.5%, and forest decreased
2.3% from 1992 to 2001. Agriculture lost 210,000 ha (520,000 acres) of land to development.
Approximately 50% of forest losses were due to management and 50% to development.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Lowest conversion rate of non-developed land to developed and highest conversion rate of non-
forest to forest. Of the 4.2 million ha (10.4 million acre) watershed area on the U.S. side, 1,676 ha
(4141 acres) of wetland, 2,641 ha (15,422 acres) of agricultural land, and 14,300 ha (35,336 acres)
of forest land were developed between 1992 and 2001.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Intermediate to high rate of land development conversions. Of the 1.2 million ha (3.0 million acre)
watershed, 9,724 ha (24,028 acres) of wetland, 78,537 ha (193,624 acres) of agricultural land, and
57,529 ha (142,157 acres) of forest land were developed between 1992 and 2001.
Lake Huron
Status: Fair
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Second lowest rate of conversion of land to developed. Of the 4.1 million ha (10.1 million acre)
watershed area on the U.S. side, 4,314 ha (10,660 acres) of wetland, 17,881 ha (44,185 acres) of
agricultural land, and 17,730 ha (43,812 acres) of forest land were developed between 1992 and
2001.
Lake Erie
Status: Poor
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Highest conversion rate of non-developed to developed area. Of the 5.0 million ha (12.4 million
acre) watershed area on the U.S. side, 3,352 ha (8,283 acres) of wetland, 52,502 ha (129,735 acres)
of agricultural land, and 27,869 ha (68,866 acres) of forest land were developed between 1992 and
2001.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Intermediate to high conversion rate of non-developed to developed land use coupled with the
lowest rates of wetland development. Of the 3.4 million ha (8.4 million acre) watershed area on the
U.S. side, 458 ha (1,132 acres) of wetland, 24,883 ha (61,487 acres) of agricultural land, and 20,670
ha (51,076 acres) of forest land were developed between 1992 and 2001.
Purpose
To document the proportion of land in the Great Lakes basin under major land use classes
To assess the changes in land use over time
To infer the potential impact of existing land cover and land conversion patterns on basin ecosystem health
223
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted land use
goal. This indicator supports Annex 13 of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (United States and Canada
1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Binational land use data from the early 1990s were
developed by Bert Guindon (Natural Resources Canada).
Imagery data from the North American Landscape
Characterization and the Canada Centre for Remote
Sensing archive were combined and processed into land
cover using Composite Land Processing System software.
This data set divides the basin into four major land use
classes: water, forest, urban, and agriculture and grasses.
Later, finer-resolution satellite imagery allowed an
analysis to be conducted in greater detail with a larger
number of land use categories. For instance, the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources has compiled Landsat TM
(Thematic Mapper) data, classifying the Canadian Great
Lakes basin into 28 land use classes.
On the U.S. side of the basin, the Natural Resources
Research Institute (NRRI) of the University of Minnesota
- Duluth has developed a 25-category classification
scheme (Table 1) based on 1992 National Land Cover Data
(NLCD) from the U.S. Geological Survey supplemented
by 1992 WISCLAND, 1992 GAP, 1996 C-CAP and raw
Landsat TM data to increase resolution in wetland
classes (Walter etal. 2006). The 1992 Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Reference
(TIGER) data were also used to add roads on to the
map. Within the U.S. basin, the NRRI found the
following:
Between two nominal time periods (1992 and 2001).
the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes watershed has
undergone substantial change in many key land
use/land cover (LU/LC) categories (Figure 1). Of
the total change that occurred (798,755 ha, 2.5%
of watershed area), salient transition categories
included a 33.5% increase in area of low-intensity
development, a 7.5% increase in road area, and a
decrease of forest area by over 2.3%, the largest
LU/LC category and area of change within the
watershed. More than half of the forest losses
involved transitions into early successional
vegetation (ESV), and hence, will likely remain in
forest production of some sort. However, nearly
as much forest area was, for all practical purposes.
permanently converted to developed land. Likewise.
agriculture lost over 50,000 more hectares (125,000
(1) Low Intensity Residential
(1) High Intensity Residential
(1) Commercial/Industrial
(1) Roads (Tiger 1992)
(3) Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
(1) Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
(6) Urban/Recreational Grasses
(2) Pasture/Hay
(2) Row Crops
(2) Small Grains
(3, 6) Grasslands/Herbaceous
(2, 6) Orchards/Vineyards/Other
(4) Deciduous Forest
(4) Evergreen Forest
(4) Mixed Forest
(3, 6) Transitional
(3,6) Shrubland
(5) Open Water
(5) Unconsolidated Shore
(5) Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
(5) Lowland Grasses
(5) Lowland Scrub/Shrub
(5) Lowland Conifers
(5) Lowland Mixed Forest
(5) Lowland Hardwoods
1 Developed
2 Agriculture
3 Early Successional Vegetation
4 Forest
5 Wetland
6 Miscellaneous Vegetation
Table 1. Classification scheme used to analyze LU/LC change in
the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Original 25 classes are listed in the left column and aggregated LU/
LC categories are listed in the right column. Numbers in parentheses
indicate aggregated class membership. Miscellaneous vegetation
class was generated (code 6) to represent land that was vegetated,
but not mature forest or annual row crop.
Source: Wolter et a/. 2006
W Water TRANS Transit oral Vegetation GR GrassLandjH&rbaeeous
LDFV Low Intensity Developed HWD Hardwood Forest PAST PasluteriHay
HDEV High Intensity Developed CON Coniferous Foresl RO'/J Row Crops
ROAD Tiger Roads MIX Mixed Forest EG Small Grab
BARE Barefiock/Sand/aay BR Shrubland URG Urtanfiecreal anal Grass
ORY OuarryStrip Mlnc&rav*! Pit GRCH OrchirdMrwyard/Olrwr EM EmergenbHtrbacicus
0)
ฃ
100
ซ 50-
0 -
(fl
ฃ
1-
US UnconsoldBled STiore
LG Lowiand Grasses
LB Lowbnd Shfii
LCOJ Lowtand COM Forest
LMIX Lovrtond MU Forest
33.5
17.5
19.6 1
| 14.7
362 5
UL ฑ
^0 | || 45
-2.5 -2.0
-2.7
3.8
0.6 23.4 0.4 |
-5.1 -3.3
-1.4 -1.3 -1.1
-2.0
-2.6
~> MINI e~\ ^m f_^ Cjc^ ?
Q Q O ^ O "^ T O Q^ ^ r
-i i a: CD H o ฐ-
LULC Types
) CO Qjj LU => -
-i ~" 5
Figure 1. LU/LC type changes for the U.S. Great Lakes basin by area
and percent change since 1992 (numbers above and below bars).
Source: Wolter et a/. 2006
224
-------
acres) of land to development than forestland, much
of which involved transitions into urban/suburban
sprawl (Figure 2). Approximately 210,068 ha (81%) of
agricultural lands were converted to development, and
16.3% of that occurred within 10 km of the Great Lakes
shoreline.
LU/LC transitions between 1992 and 2001 within
near-shore zones of the Great Lakes (0-1, 1-5, 5-10
km) largely paralleled those of the overall watershed.
While the same transition categories dominated, their
proportions varied by buffered distance from the lakes.
Within the 0-1 km zone from the Great Lakes shoreline,
conversions of forest to both ESV (9,087 ha, 5.0% of
total category change (TCC)) and developed land (8,657
ha, 5.6% of TCC) were the largest transitions, followed
by conversion of 3,935 ha (1.9% of TCC) of agricultural
land to developed. For the 1-5 km zone inland from the
shore, forest to developed conversion was the largest of
the three transitions (17,049 ha, 11.0% of TCC), followed
by agricultural to developed (14,279 ha, 6.8% of TCC)
and forest to ESV (13,116 ha, 7.3% of TCC). Within
the 5-10 km zone from shoreline, transition category
dominance was most similar to the trend for the whole
watershed, with 16,113 ha (7.7% of TCC) of agriculture
converted to developed, 14,516 ha (8.0% of TCC) of
forest converted to ESV, and 14,390 ha (9.3% of TCC) of
forestland being developed by 2001. When all buffers
from shoreline out to 10 km are combined, the forest to
developed transition category was the largest (40,099 ha,
25.9% of TCC), followed by forest to ESV (36,726 ha,
20.3% of TCC), and agricultural to developed (34,328
ha, 16.3% of TCC).
Contrary to previous decadal estimates showing an
increasing forest area trend from the early 1980s to
the early 1990s, due to agricultural abandonment and
transitions of forest land away from active management,
there was an overall decrease (-2.3%) in forest area
between 1992 and 2001. Explanation of this trend is
largely unclear. However, increased forest harvesting
practices in parts of the region coupled with forest
clearing for new developments may be overshadowing
gains from the agricultural sources observed in previous decades.
When analyzed on a lake-by-lake basis (Figure 3, Table 2), Lake Michigan's watershed naturally has shown the greatest area of
change from 1992 to 2001 (286,587 ha, -2.5%), because its watershed is entirely within the U.S., and hence, the largest analyzed.
Lake Michigan's watershed leads in all LU/LC transition categories but two: 1) miscellaneous vegetation to flooded and 2) ESV
to forest (Figure 3). When normalized by area, however, Lake Michigan's proportion of LU/LC change is intermediate when
compared to the other Great Lakes watersheds on the U.S. side of the boarder. Although Lake St. Clair is not a Great Lake, and
the U.S. part of its watershed is largely metropolitan (see Figure 2), Lake St. Clair's watershed shows the highest rates of change
into development from wetland, ESV, agriculture, and forest sources (Figure 4).
Of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie's watershed shows the greatest proportion of land conversion to development (87,077 ha, 1.74%), while
225
Figure 2. LU/LC change in the lower Green Bay basin of Lake
Michigan (A) and the area surrounding Detroit, Ml (B).
Source: Wolter et al. 2006
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
200 I
180 -
ซ 160 -
5 140-
o
ฃ 120
ti-
O
uj 100 -
TS
re ฐu
in
0 60-
40
20 -
o -J
D Superior
Michigan
D Huron
. DSt. Clai
Erie
D Ontario
D U.S. To
r
tal
J1J,.
,o6 o6
ซฃ>* Q1^ <3^
o-"^ ซ^ <^ ->
V^
Jn.
O6
V
^
1
r
o6 e
0ฐ^ฐ ซS
2?" <&
0Q,. ^
/vv
^
I
ZQ
oox >ox ,cP <#
*^V ^* x^V'^/^'/x1"
LULC Transition Category
Figure 3. Lake-by-lake LU/LC transitions for the U.S. portion of
the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Wolter et al. 2006
Figure 4. Lake-by-lake LU/LC transitions for the U.S. portion
of the Great Lakes basin as a percent of respective watershed
area.
Source: Wolter et al. 2006
Total watershed area
Non-dev. to developed
% of watershed
Erie
4994413
87077
1.74
Huron
4114697
42857
1.04
Michigan
11702442
155936
1.33
Ontario
3428229
46507
1.36
Superior
4226924
20351
0.48
St. Clair
564825
16112
2.85
Erie/
StClair
5559238
103189
1.86
Table 2. Total area (ha) and proportion of watershed converted from non-developed to
developed LU/LC from 1992 to 2001 for each of the Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair.
Source: Wolter et al. 2006
Lake Superior's watershed had
the lowest proportion (20,351.
0.48%, Table 2). For example,
Lake Erie's watershed had
the highest proportion of
agricultural land conversion to
development. However, Lake
Ontario's watershed showed
the greatest proportion of forest
conversion to development
(Figure 4). Lake Superior's
watershed reflects a high proportion of lands under forest management in that it has both the highest proportion of forest conversion
to ESV and vice-versa. Lastly, Lake Huron's watershed had the highest proportion of wetlands being converted to development.
followed closely by watersheds for Lake Michigan and Lake Erie (Figure 4).
Management Implications
As the volume of data on land use and land conversion grows, stakeholder discussions will assist in identifying the associated
pressures and management implications.
Comments from the author(s)
Land classification data must be standardized. The resolution should be fine enough to be useful at lake watershed and sub-
watershed levels. LU/LC classification updates need to be completed in a timely manner to facilitate effective remedial action if
necessary.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Peter Wolter, Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sources
Data courtesy of:
Bert Guindon (Natural Resources Canada)
226
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lawrence Watkins (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources)
Peter Wolter (Natural Resources Research Institute at the University of Minnesota - Duluth)
Forest Inventory and Analysis statewide data sets downloaded from USDA Forest Service website and processed by the author to
extract data relevant to Great Lakes basin.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Wolter, P.T., Johnston, C.A., and Neimi, GJ. 2006. Land use land cover change in the U.S. Great Lakes basin 1992 to 2001. J.
Great Lakes Res. 32: 607-628.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
227
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Brownfields Redevelopment
Indicator #7006
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Rationale: Data from multiple sources are not consistent. Inventories of existing brownflelds are not available
in Ontario, so it is difficult to determine a trend for the redevelopment of brownfields. Since more
sites are being redeveloped and/or are being planned, there is some trend of an improvement in
the Great Lakes basin, but it is not based on a quantitative assessment.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
The data were not assessed on an individual lake basin scale.
Purpose
To assess the area of redeveloped brownfields
To evaluate over time the rate at which society remediates and reuses former developed sites that have been degraded or
abandoned
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of brownfields redevelopment is to remove threats of contamination associated with these properties and to bring them
back into productive use. Remediation and redevelopment of brownfields results in two types of ecosystem improvements:
Reduction or elimination of environmental risks from contamination associated with these properties
Reductions in pressure for open space conversion as previously developed properties are reused
State of the Ecosystem
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion, redevelopment or reuse
is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. In 1999, 21,178 brownfields sites were identified in the United
States, which was equivalent to approximately 33,010 hectares (81,568 acres) of land (The United States Conference of Mayors
2000). Although similar research does not exist for Canada, and no inventory exists for either contaminated or brownfields sites in
Ontario, it is estimated that approximately 50,000 to 100,000 brownfields sites may exist in Canada (Globe 2006).
All eight Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec have programs to promote remediation or clean-up and redevelopment of
brownfields sites. Several of the brownfields clean-up programs have been in place since the mid- to late 1980s, but establishment
of more comprehensive brownfields programs that focus on remediation and redevelopment has occurred during the 1990s. Today,
each of the Great Lakes states has a voluntary clean-up or environmental response program and there are over 5,000 municipalities
with some type of brownfields program in the U S. (Globe 2006). These clean-up programs offer a range of risk-based, site-specific
background and health clean-up standards that are applied based on the specifics of the contaminated property and its intended
reuse.
In Quebec, the Revi-Sols program was established in 1998 and is aimed at assessing and cleaning urban contaminated sites for the
purpose of reuse. Through this program, it was possible to collect some data on the number of contaminated sites in Quebec as
it was compulsory for the land owner to report this information to complete the application for financing. Based on this program,
more than 7,000 sites are included in this inventory.
To encourage redevelopment, Ontario's environmental legislation provides general protection from environmental orders for
historic contamination to municipalities, creditors and others. Ontario Regulation 153/04, which came into effect on October 1,
2004, details the requirements that property owners must meet in order to file a record of site condition. Two technical documents
are referenced by this regulation, one providing applicable site condition standards, the other providing laboratory analytical
protocols for the analysis of soil, sediment and ground water. A Brownfields Environmental Site Registry offers property owners
the opportunity to complete an online record of site condition, and this information is then publicly accessible. This registry is
currently voluntary. As of October 2005, property owners are required to file a record of site condition before a property's use is
228
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
changed from an industrial or commercial use to a more sensitive use, such as residential. A record of site condition ensures that
a property meets regulated site-assessment and clean-up standards that are appropriate for the new use (Ontario Ministry of the
Environment 2006).
The 2003 enactment of the New York State Brownfield Law has resulted in increased interest by private developers and
municipalities in the redevelopment of contaminated properties.
Efforts to track brownfields redevelopment are uneven among Great Lakes states and provinces. Not all jurisdictions track
brownfields activities, and methods vary where tracking does take place. States, provinces and municipalities track the amount of
funding assistance provided as well as the number of sites that have been redeveloped. They also track the number of applications
that have been received for brownfields redevelopment funding. These are indicators of the level of brownfields redevelopment
activity in general, but they do not necessarily reflect land renewal efforts (i.e., area of land redeveloped), the desired measure
for this indicator. Compiling state and provincial data to report a brownfields figure that represents the collective eight states
and two provinces is challenging. Several issues are prominent. First, state and provincial clean-up data reflect different types of
clean-ups, not all of which are "brownfields" (e.g., some include leaking underground storage tanks and others do not). Second,
some jurisdictions have more than one program, and not necessarily all relevant programs engage in such tracking. Third, program
figures do not include clean-ups that have not been part of a state or provincial clean-up program (e.g., local or private clean-ups).
Several states and provinces do track area of brownfields remediated, although no Great Lakes state or province tracks area of
brownfields redeveloped.
Information on area of
brownfields remediated from
Illinois, Minnesota, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quebec
and Ontario indicate that, as
of August, 2002, a total of
13,413 hectares (33,143 acres)
had been remediated (Table
1). Available data from eight
Great Lakes states, Quebecand
Ontario indicate that almost
27,000 brownfields sites have
participated in brownfields
clean-up programs since
the mid-1990s, although the
degree of remediation varies
considerably. In Ontario,
brownfields redevelopment is
planned for 108 hectares (267
acres) of land between 2006
and2008 forthe municipalities
that participated in this
assessment.
State/Province
Wl
PA
OH
Ml
IN
MN
IL
NY
ON
QC
Total
Acres
remediated
1,220
13,229
4,204
not tracked
104
7,047
6,412
55
235
741
33,247
Hectares
remediated
494
5354
1701
not tracked
42
2852
2595
22
95
300
13,455
Time frame
2004-2006
2000-2006
1994-2006
2006
1998-2002
1990-2001
2000-2002
2002-2005
1998-2002
Sites
remediated
18,000
1,097
156
5,539t
32*
462
899
16
13
309
26,523
Time frame
1994-2005
1996-2002
1996-2002
1995-2002
2006
1998-2002
1990-2001
2000-2002
2002-2005
1998-2005
Table 1. Summary of acres remediated and number of sites remediated in the Great Lakes
basin states and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, 1990 - 2006.
tReflects number of sites that have been subject to a baseline environmental assessment, but
not necessarily remediation
Total reflects number of sites that have been remediated and/or have received closure with the
use of Environmental Restrictive Covenants.
Source: Various state, municipal and provincial brownfields coordinators and city planners
Remediation is a necessary precursor to redevelopment. Remediation is often used interchangeably with "clean-up," though
brownfields remediation does not always involve removing or treating contaminants. Many remediation strategies utilize either
engineering or institutional controls (also known as exposure controls) or adaptive reuse techniques that are designed to limit
the spread of, or human exposure to, contaminants left in place. In many cases, the cost of treatment or removal of contaminants
would prohibit reuse of land. All Great Lakes states and provinces allow some contaminants to remain on site as long as the risks
of being exposed to those contaminants are eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. Capping a site with clean soil or restricting
the use of groundwater are examples of these "exposure controls" and their use has been a major factor in advancing brownfields
redevelopment. Several jurisdictions keep track of the number and location of sites with exposure controls, but monitoring the
effectiveness of such controls occurs in only three out of the ten jurisdictions.
229
-------
Redevelopment is a criterion for eligibility under many state brownfields clean-up programs. Though there are inconsistent and
inadequate data on area of brownfields remediated and/or redeveloped, available data indicate that both brownfields clean-up and
redevelopment efforts have risen dramatically in the mid-1990s and steadily since 2000. The increase is due to risk-based clean-up
standards and the widespread use of state liability relief mechanisms that allow private parties to redevelop, buy or sell properties
without being liable for contamination they did not cause. Canadian law does not provide liability exemptions for new owners such
as those in the U.S. Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Globe 2006). Environmental liability is a
major barrier to successful brownfields redevelopment in Canada. Current owners do not want to sell brownfields sites for fear of
liability issues in the future, purchasers of land do not want to buy sites without some level of protection and municipalities assume
liability when they become site owners (City of Hamilton Planning and Development Department 2007). The Ontario Ministry
of Finance has proposed changes under Bill 130 (Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006) which would allow brownfields
to be advertised as "free" of any provincial crown liens if a municipality assumes ownership of a property with a failed tax sale.
Also, under certain circumstances, this new policy will allow for the removal of crown liens on brownfields properties at tax sale.
If passed, this change in legislation would reduce some of the issues related to civil and regulatory liabilities. One recommendation
is that once a property owner has met regulatory standards in the cleanup phase that they are not forced to meet stricter standards
in the future.
In 2005, the Government of Canada allocated
$150 million for brownfields remediation. Other
initiatives include the Sustainable Technologies
Canada Funding, and the Federal Contaminated
Sites Action Plan. Also, more financial tools for
brownfields redevelopment are available though
a Community Improvement Plan (CIP), which
allows municipalities to encourage brownfields
redevelopment by offering financial incentives. Other
grants and loans can be provided to supplement the
CIP including an exemption or a reduction in the cost
of fees associated with permits, parkland dedications
and zoning amendments. Tax incentives can also be
provided by municipalities to encourage the cleanup
of contaminated sites (Ontario Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, 2006).
Data also indicate that the majority of clean-ups in
the Great Lakes states and provinces are occurring
in older urbanized areas, many of which are located
on the shoreline of the Great Lakes and in the basin.
Based on the available information, the state of
brownfields redevelopment is mixed and improving.
Pressures
Laws and policies that encourage new development
to occur on undeveloped land instead of on urban
brownfields are significant and on-going pressures
against brownfield development can be expected to
continue. Programs to monitor, verify and enforce
effectiveness of exposure controls are in their
infancy, and the potential for human exposure
to contaminants may inhibit the redevelopment
of brownfields. Several Great Lakes states allow
brownfields redevelopment to proceed without
cleaning up contaminated groundwater as long as
no one is going to use or come into contact with
that water. However, where migrating groundwater
Figure 1. Redeveloped brownfields site, Spencer Creek, Hamilton,
Ontario.
Source: City of Hamilton
230
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
plumes ultimately interface with surface waters, some surface water quality may continue to be at risk from brownfields
contamination even where brownfields have been remediated.
Management Implications
Programs to monitor and enforce exposure controls need to be fully developed and implemented. More research is needed to
determine the relationship between groundwater supplies and Great Lakes surface waters and their tributaries. Because brownfields
redevelopment results in both reduction or elimination of environmental risks from past contamination and reduction in pressure
for open space land conversion, data should be collected that will enable an evaluation of each of these activities. For every hectare
(2.5 acres) developed in a brownfields project, it can save an estimated minimum of 4.5 hectares (11 acres) of land from being
developed in an outlying area (National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy 2003).
Ontario is expected to add 3.7 million more people to its population in the next 25 years with most of the growth occurring in the
Greater Golden Horseshoe (western end of Lake Ontario) (Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal 2006). Brownfields
redevelopment needs to be a part of the planning and development reform in order to address the issue of urban sprawl.
Funding and liability issues are obstacles for brownfields redevelopment and can hinder progress.
Comments from the author(s)
Great Lakes states and provinces have begun to track brownfields remediation and or redevelopment, but the data are generally
inconsistent or not available in ways that are helpful to assess progress toward meeting the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Though some jurisdictions have begun to implement web-based searchable applications for users to query the status
of brownfields sites, the data gathered are not necessary consistent, which presents challenges for assessing progress in the entire
basin. States and provinces should develop common tracking methods and work with local jurisdictions incorporating local data
to online databases that can be searched by: 1) area remediated; 2) mass of contamination removed or treated (i.e., not requiring
an exposure control); 3) type of treatment; 4) geographic location; 5) level of urbanization; and 6) type of reuse (i.e., commercial,
residential, open, none, etc.). A recent development in the province of Ontario is the designation of a Provincial Brownfields
Coordinator who will coordinate provincial brownfields activities and provide a single point of access on brownfields in Ontario.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Victoria Pebbles, Senior Project Manager, Transportation and Sustainable Development, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor,
MI. vpebbles@glc.org, www.glc.org.
Updated by:
Stacey Cherwaty-Pergentile, A/Science Liaison Officer, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON. Stacey.Cherwaty@ec.gc.ca
Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy, Great Lakes Ecosystem Extension Specialist, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, Chicago, IL. Hinchey.
Elizabeth@epa.gov
Contributors: Personal communication with Great Lakes State Brownfields/Voluntary Cleanup Program Managers:
David E. Hess, Director, Land Recycling Program, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Andrew Savagian, Outreach Specialist, Remediation and Redevelopment (RR) Program, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Ron Smedley, Brownfield Redevelopment Coordinator, Michigan DEQ Remediation and Redevelopment
Gerald Stahnke, Project Leader, Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Unit, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Susan Tynes Harrington, Indiana Brownfields Program, Indiana Finance Authority
Amy Yersavich, Manager, Voluntary Action Program, Ohio EPA
Personal communication with Provincial as well as Canadian municipalities within the Great Lakes basin including:
City of Barrie, Nancy Farrer, Policy Planner
City of Cornwall, Ken Bedford, Senior Planner
City of Hamilton, Carolynn Reid, Brownfields Coordinator
City of Mississauga, Jeff Smylie, Environmental Engineer
City of Kingston, Joseph Davis, Manager, Brownfields and Initiatives
City of Kitchener, Terry Boutilier, Brownfields Coordinator
231
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
City of London, Terry Grawey, Planning Division
City of Thunder Bay, Katherine Dugmore, Manager of Planning Division
City of Toronto, Glenn Walker, Economic Development Officer
City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO)
Province of Quebec, Michel Beaulieu
Sources
References Cited
City of Hamilton Planning and Development Department, 2007. Brownfields Redevelopment versus Greenfield Development,
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/AFlFEA4C-333C-440D-9E12-1738401841F5/0/PTPBrownneldvsGreenneldDevelopment.pdf.
last accessed 30 May 2007.
Globe 2006. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C., 27( 7):254-259.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2006. Financial Tools for Brownfields Redevelopment, Available online at:
www.brownfields.ontario.ca.
Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal, 2006. Places to Grow: Better Choices, Bright Futures - Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006. Ontario's Brownfields Legislation Promotes Stronger, Healthier Communities -News
Release, www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/2005/062201.htm. last accessed 11 October 2006.
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 2003. Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future. A National
Brownfields Redevelopment Strategy for Canada., ISBN 1-894737-05-9, http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/Publications/HTML/SOD_
Brownfields-Strategy_E.htm. last accessed 11 October 2006. [Editor's note: This publication is now available at,
http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications/brownfield-redevelopment-strategy/Brownfield-Redevelopment-Strategy-eng.htm.]
The United States Conference of Mayors, 2000. A National Report on Brownfields Redevelopment - Volume 3. Feb. 2000, pp.12.
Other Selected Resources
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Report on Brownfields Redevelopment 2006. What has been Achieved, What Remains
to be done, http://www.amo.on.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Eventsl&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=65396.
last accessed 11 October 2006.
Delcan, Golder Associates Ltd., and McCarthy - Tetrault. (1997) Urban Brownfields: Case Studies for Sustainable Economic
Development. The Canadian Example. Canada Mortgage and Housing, p. 1.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2006a. Brownfields Redevelopment in Small Urban and Rural Municipalities.
Available online at: www.brownfields.ontario.ca [Editor's note: A PDF of the document is also available at,
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=151L]
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2006b Brownfields Ontario www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_l_
3305_l.html. last accessed 11 October 2006. [Editor's note: If the link is inoperative, the Brownfields Ontario page can also be
found at, http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page220.aspx.]
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs andHousing, 2006c. Remarks from Honourable JohnGerretsen, Association of Municipalities
of Ontario Annual Conference, August 15, 2006. www.mah.gov.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_l_27611_l.html, last accessed 11 October
2006.
Stakeholders Urge Government to Limit Brownfields Liability, 2006. http://www.willmsshier.com/newsletters.asp?id=30. last
accessed 11 October 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
232
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Indicator #7028
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the number of environmental and conservation farm plans and environmentally friendly practices in place such
as: integrated pest management to reduce the potential adverse impacts of pesticides; conservation tillage and other soil
preservation practices to reduce energy consumption and sustain natural resources and to prevent ground and surface
water contamination
Ecosystem Objective
The goal is to create a healthy and productive land base that sustains food and fiber, maintains functioning watersheds and natural
systems, enhances the environment and improves the rural landscape. The sound use and management of soil, water, air, plant, and
animal resources is needed to prevent degradation of agricultural resources. The process integrates natural resource, economic,
and social considerations to meet private and public needs. This indicator supports Annex 2, 3, 12 and 13 of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Agriculture accounts for approximately 35% of the land area of the Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern portion of the
basin. In years past, excessive tillage and intensive crop rotations led to soil erosion and the resulting sedimentation of major
tributaries. Inadequate land management practices contributed to approximately 57 metric tons of soil eroded annually by the
1980s. Ontario estimated its costs of soil erosion and nutrient/pesticide losses at $68 million (CA) annually. In the United States,
agriculture is a major user of pesticides, with an annual use of 24,000 metric tons. These practices lead to a decline of soil organic
matter. Since the late 1980s, there has been increasing participation by Great Lakes basin farmers in various soil and water quality
management programs. Today's conservation systems have reduced the rates of U.S. soil erosion by 38% in the last few decades.
The adoption of more environmentally responsible practices has helped to replenish carbon in the soils back to 60% of turn-of-
the-century levels.
Both the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provide conservation planning advice, technical assistance and incentives to
farm clients and rural landowners. Clients develop and implement conservation plans to protect, conserve, and enhance natural
resources that harmonize productivity, business objectives and the environment. Successful implementation of conservation
planning depends largely upon the voluntary participation of clients. Figure 1 shows the number of acres of cropland in the U.S.
portion of the Great Lakes basin that are covered under a conservation plan.
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) encourages farmers to develop action plans and adopt environmentally responsible
managementpractices and technologies. Since 1993, the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC), OMAFRA, and the Ontario
Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) have cooperated to deliver EFP workshops. The Canadian federal government,
through various programs over the years, has provided funding for EFP. As can be seen from Figure 2, the number of EFP incentive
claims rose dramatically from 1997 through 2004, particularly for the categories of soil management, water wells, and storage of
agricultural wastes. As part of Ontario's Clean Water Strategy, the Nutrient Management Act (June 2002) is setting province-wide
standards to address the effects of agricultural practices on the environment, particularly as they relate to land-applied materials
containing nutrients. USDA's voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides technical, educational, and financial
233
-------
assistance to landowners that
install conservation systems.
The Conservation Reserve
Program allows landowners
to convert environmentally
sensitive acreage to vegetative
cover. States may add funds
to target critical areas under
the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program. The
Wetlands Reserve Program is
a voluntary program to restore
wetlands.
Pressures
The trend towards 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. This can
include pressures of higher
taxes, traffic congestion,
flooding, nuisance complaints
(odors) and pollution. By urbanizing farmland, we may
limit future options to deal with social, economic, food
security and environmental problems.
Management Implications
In June of 2002, the Canadian government announced a
multibillion dollar Agricultural Policy Framework (APF).
It is a national plan to strengthen Canada's agricultural
sector, with a goal for Canada to be a world leader in food
safety and quality, and in environmentally responsible
production and innovation, while improving business
risk management and fostering renewal. As part of the
APF, the Canadian government is making a $100 million
commitment over a 5-year period to help Canadian
farmers increase implementation of EFPs. The estimated
commitment to Ontario for the environment is $67.66
million while the province is committing $42.72 million.
These funds are available to Ontario's farmers since the
federal government has signed a contribution agreement
with the OFEC in the spring of 2005. This is expected
in the fall of 2004. Currently Ontario's Environmental
Farm Plan workbook has been revised for new APF
farm planning initiatives launched in the spring of 2005.
Ontario Farm Plan workshops are being delivered starting
in the spring of 2005 under the new APF initiative.
In the spring of 2004, OMAFRA released the Best
Management Practices (BMP) book Buffer Strips. This
Total Acres Planned
I I 0 - 5.0CO Acres
I 1 5.000 15.OOO Acres
! I 15,000-25,000 A
1H 35,000 - 50,000 Ac
Figure 1. Acres of cropland in U.S portion of the basin covered under a conservation plan,
2003.
Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
o
B^.-**"* 2763
j^^^^^ 2488
^^*^2338
^^2097
f JB
.' ซ*'*" 2021
/*' ^ป*'*-'
/ ^^X'lsoe 1191
x^^.-i=^l^-*^.
rrn ^* ^ln *-S'.*'-'~-5'87 .-*^ *
133 18ฐ
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
--Soil Management -ป-StreamDitich/Floodplain
Management
--Water We I Is -"Storage of Petroleum
Products
'Storage of Agricultural -Pesticide Storage/Handling
Wastes
Figure 2. EFP: Cumulative Numberof Incentive Claims by Worksheet
(Issues).
Six of 23 worksheets/issues are represented here - these six
worksheets represent 70% of all EFP incentive claims. Three
worksheets (Soil, Water and Storage of Agricultural Wastes)
represent significant environmental actions taken by farmers.
Source: Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
234
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
book assists farmers to establish healthy riparian zones and address livestock grazing systems near water - two important areas
for improvements in water quality and fish habitat. Pesticide use surveys, conducted every 5 years since 1983, were conducted in
2003. Results were released in June 2004.
The U.S. Clean Water Action Plan of 1998 calls for USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to cooperate
further on soil erosion control, wetland restoration, and reduction of pollution from farm animal operations. National goals are to
install 2 million miles of buffers along riparian corridors by 2002 and increase wetlands by 100,000 acres annually by 2005. Under
the 1999 U.S. EPA/USDA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operation (AFO), all AFOs will have comprehensive
nutrient management plans implemented by 2009. The Conservation Security Program was launched in 2004, and it provides
financial incentives and rewards for producers who meet the highest standards of conservation and environmental management
on their operations.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Peter Roberts, Water Management Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Guelph,
Ontario Canada, peter.roberts@ontario.ca;
Ruth Shaffer, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), ruth.shaffer@
mi.usda.gov; and
Roger Nanney, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), roger.
nanney@in.usda.gov.
Sources
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. 2004. Environmental Farm Plan Database.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
235
-------
Economic Prosperity
Indicator #7043
This indicator report was last updated in 2003.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed (for Lake Superior Basin)
Trend: Not Assessed
Note: Data are not system-wide.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the unemployment rates within the Great Lakes basin
To infer the capacity for society in the Great Lakes region to make decisions that will benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem
(when used in association with other Great Lakes indicators)
Ecosystem Objective
Human economic prosperity is a goal of all governments. Full employment (i.e. unemployment below 5% in western societies) is
a goal for all economies.
State of the Ecosystem
This information is presented to supplement the report on Economic Prosperity in SOLEC 2000 Implementing Indicators (Draft
for Review, November 2000). In 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and 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 Michigan (Figure 1). For example, the unemployment rate in the four Lake Superior basin counties in Minnesota
was consistently higher than for Minnesota overall, 2.7 points on average but nearly double the Minnesota rate of 6.0% in 1985.
Unemployment rates in individual counties ranged considerably, from 8.6% to 26.8% in 1985, for example.
In the 29 Ontario census subdivisions mostly within
the Lake Superior watershed, the 1996 unemployment
rate for the population 15 years and over was 11.5%. For
the population 25 years and older, the unemployment
rate was 9.1%. By location the rates ranged from 0%
to 100%; the extremes, which occur in adjacent First
Nations communities, appear to be the result of small
populations and the 20% census sample. The most
populated areas, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.
had unemployment rates for persons 25 years and
older of 9.4% and 8.6%, respectively. Of areas with
population greater than 200 in the labour force, the
range was from 2.3% in Terrace Bay Township to
31.0% in Beardmore Township. 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.
Comments from the author(s)
As noted in the State of the Great Lakes 2001
report for this indicator, unemployment may not be
sufficient as a sole measure. Other information that
1975
1980
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
United States nMichigan
Minnesota ^Wisconsin
U.S. Lake Superior Counties nOntario L. Superior Basin 1996
Figure 1. Unemployment rate in the U.S. (national), Michigan,
Wisconsin, and the U.S. portion and Ontario portion of the Lake
Superior basin, 1975-2000.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
236
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
is readily available from the U.S. Census Bureau and
Statistics Canada includes poverty statistics for the
overall population, children under age 18, families.
and persons age 65 and older. Two examples of trends
in those measures are shown in Figures 2 and 3. For
persons of all ages within the U.S. Lake Superior
basin for whom poverty status was established, 10.4%
were below the poverty level in 1979. That figure had
risen to 14.5% in 1989, a rate of increase higher than
the states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and
the U.S. overall over the same period. 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.
Poverty rates in all areas were lower in 1999, but the U.S.
Lake Superior basin (and Ontario portion of the basin
in 1996) was higher than any of the three states. The
1979 poverty rate for counties within the Lake Superior
basin ranged from a low of 4.4% in Lake County.
Minnesota, to a high of 17.0% in Houghton County.
Michigan. In 1989 and 1999, those same counties again
were the extremes. Similarly, among children under age
18, poverty rates in the Great Lakes basin portions of
the three states in 1979, 1989, and 1999 exceeded the
rates of Minnesota and Wisconsin as a whole, though
they remained below the U.S. rate. In a region where
one-tenth to one-sixth of the population lives in poverty.
environmental sustainability is likely to be perceived by
many as less important than economic development.
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.
Sources
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach.
2000. Baseline Sustainability Data for the Lake Superior
Basin: Final Report to the Developing Sustainability
Committee, Lake Superior Binational Program.
November 2000. Unpublished report, Michigan
Technological University, Houghton, MI.
httD://emmaD.mtu.edu/gem/communitv/Dlanning/lsb.html.
c
o >
O fl)
0. >
QJ >
B 1
ป ซ
16.0
ซ 14.0
m
12.0
10.0
8.0 --
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Individuals Individuals Individuals
1979 1989 1999
Year
Families
1996
USA
D Michigan
Minnesota
D Wisconsin
D U.S. L. Superior Basin
Ontario L. Superior Basin
Figure 2. Individuals below poverty level in the U.S. (national),
Michigan, Wisconsin, and the U.S. Great Lakes basin counties,
1979-1999, and families below poverty level in Ontario Great Lakes
basin subdivisions, 1996.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
T5 20.0
1999
USA
D Michigan
Minnesota
D Wisconsin
D Lake Superior Basin
Figure 3. Children under age 18 below the poverty level, 1979-
1999, U.S. (national), Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and U.S.
portion of the Lake Superior basin.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Statistics Canada. 1996. Beyond 20/20 Census Subdivision Area Profiles for the Ontario Lake Superior Basin.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. Population by poverty status in 1999 for counties: 2000.
httD://www.census.gov/hhes/www/Dovertv/DovertvOO/DODDvstatOO.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. State & County Quick Facts 2000. Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics.
237
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
http://censtats.census.gov/data/MI/04026.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. USA Counties 1998 CD-ROM (includes unemployment data from Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2003
[Editor s Note: Links to sources were updated for this publication when possible.]
238
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ground Surface Hardening
Indicator #7054
Note: This is a progress report towards implementing this indicator. It was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
The available information is incomplete or outdated.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To indicate the degree to which development is affecting natural water drainage and percolation processes, thus causing
erosion and other effects through high water levels during storm events and reducing natural groundwater regeneration
processes
To measure the impacts of land development on aquatic systems
Ecosystem Objectives
A goal for the ecosystem is sustainable development. This would entail minimizing the quantities of impervious surface by using
alternatives for replacement and future development.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Ground surface hardening, or imperviousness, is the sum of area of roads, parking lots, sidewalks, rooftops and other impermeable
surfaces of the urban landscape and is a useful indicator with which to measure the impacts of land development on aquatic
ecosystems (Center for Watershed Protection 1994).
Information on ground surface hardening in the Great Lakes basin is currently in the development stage. Different organizations
are working towards developing effective systems of analyzing the status of this indicator. The use of technology such as Landsat
imagery and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications are being utilized in efforts to evaluate the current state. The
instruments on the Landsat satellites have acquired millions of images. These images form a unique resource for applications in
agriculture, geology, forestry, regional planning, education, mapping, and global change research. This type of information will
help illustrate the land use qualities of the Great Lakes basin.
Many avenues were explored in attempts to obtain information for this indicator. Within Ontario, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation Authorities and municipalities of different sizes were contacted for a random survey to see what
information was available. Each organization had very little available information on impervious surfaces.
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is in the process of implementing a project called Southern Ontario Land Resource
Information System (SOLRIS). SOLRIS is a mapping program designed to accurately measure the nature and extent of Southern
Ontario's natural resources and will be used to track changes to the natural, rural and urban landscape (Mussakowski 2004).
SOLRIS integrates existing base resource information and advanced GIS and remote sensing techniques to derive a comprehensive
land cover database. SOLRIS is attempting to complete the assembly of all layers into comprehensive land cover/use mapping by
2006 and will continue to upgrade on 5 or 10 year intervals.
Recently, Christopher Elvidge of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center
in Boulder, Colorado, along with colleagues from several universities and agencies produced the first national map and inventory
of impervious surface areas (ISA) in the United States. The new map is important, because impervious surface areas affect
the environment. The qualities of impervious materials that make them ideal for construction also create urban heat islands by
reducing heat transfer from the Earth's surface to the atmosphere. The replacement of heavily vegetated areas by ISA also reduces
239
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere (Elvidge 2004).
Pressures
Growth patterns in North America can be generalized, with few exceptions, as urban sprawl. As our cities continue to grow
out-wards there is a growing dependency on personal transportation. This creates a demand for more roads, parking lots and
driveways. Impervious surfaces collect and accumulate pollutants deposited from the atmosphere, leaked from vehicles or derived
from other sources. Imperviousness represents the imprint of land development on the landscape (Center for Watershed Protection
1994).
A long-term, adverse impact to water quality could occur as a result of the continued and likely increase of non-point source
pollution discharge to stormwater runoff from roads, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces introduced into the area to
accommodate visitor use. If parking lots, roads, and other impervious surfaces are established where none currently exist, then
vehicle-related pollutants and refuse may accumulate. This impact could be mitigated to a negligible level through the use of
permeable surfaces and vegetated or natural filters or traps for filtering stormwater runoff (National Park Service 2001).
Management Implications
Ground surface hardening is an important indicator in the Great Lakes basin that needs to be explored further. The information
available for this indicator is incomplete, or outdated. With current technological advancements there are emerging methods of
monitoring impervious surfaces, and hopefully within 5 years the data required for this report will be complete. Ground surface
hardening has many detrimental effects on the environment; thus, it is essential to monitor and seek alternatives.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Lindsay Silk, Environment Canada, Downsview,Ontario.
Sources
Center for Watershed Protection. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3):100-111.
Elvidge, C. 2004. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Mussakowski, R. 2004. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
National Park Service. 2001. Merced Wild and Scenic River: Comprehensive Management Plan.
http://www.cwp.org/SPSP/TOC.htm.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
240
-------
Water Withdrawals
Indicator #7056
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Unchanging
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To use the rate of water withdrawal to help evaluate the sustainability of human activity in the Great Lakes basin
Ecosystem Objective
The first objective is to protect the basin's water resources from long-term depletion. Although the volume of the Great Lakes
is vast, less than one percent of their waters are renewed annually through precipitation, run-off and infiltration. Most water
withdrawn is returned to the watershed, but water can be lost due to evapotranspiration, incorporation into manufactured goods.
or diversion to other drainage basins. In this sense, the waters of the Great Lakes can be considered a non-renewable resource.
The second objective is to minimize the ecological impacts stemming from water withdrawals. The act of withdrawing water
can shift the flow regime, which in turn can affect the health of aquatic ecosystems. Water that is returned to the basin after
human use can also introduce contaminants, thermal
pollution or invasive species into the watershed. The
process of withdrawing, treating and transporting water
Public
Supply
13.2%
Thermoelectric
71.6%
Domestic
1-0% Irrigation
0.8%
Livestock
0.3%
Industrial
10%
Figure 1. Water Withdrawals in the Great Lakes basin, by category
as percentage of total, 2000.
Source: Great Lakes Commission (2004)
also requires energy.
State of the Ecosystem
Water was withdrawn from the Great Lakes basin at a rate
of 174 billion liters per day in 2000 (46,046 million gallons
per day (MGD)), with almost two-thirds withdrawn in the
U.S. side 117,260 million liters per day (MLD) (30,977
MGD) and the remaining one-third in Canada 57,046
MLD (15,070 MGD). Self-supplying thermoelectric and
industrial users withdrew over 80% of the total. Public
water systems, which are the municipal systems that
supply households, commercial users and other facilities.
comprised 13% of withdrawals. The rural sector, which
includes both domestic and agricultural users, withdrew
2%, with the remaining 3% used for environmental.
recreation, navigation and quality control purposes.
Hydroelectric use, which is considered "in-stream use"
because water is not actually removed from its source.
accounted for additional withdrawals at a rate of 3,028
billion liters per day 799,987 MGD (Figure 1) (Great
Lakes Commission (GLC) 2004).
Withdrawal rates in the late 1990s were below their historical peaks and do not appear to be increasing at present. On the U. S. side.
withdrawals have dropped by more than 20% since 1980, following rapid increases from the 1950s onwards (USGS 1950-2000)1.
Canadian withdrawals continued rising until the mid-1990s, but have decreased by roughly 30% since then (Harris and Tate
1999)2. In both countries, the recent declines have been caused by the shutdown of nuclear power facilities, advances in water
241
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
efficiency in the industrial sector, and growing public awareness on resource conservation. Part of the decrease, however, may be
attributed to improvements in data collection methods over time (USGS 1985). Refer to Figures 2, 3 and 4.
40,000 -
35,000 -
Ss
ง 30,000 -
1
2 25,000 -
ro
g 20,000 -
=
O 15,000 -
S 10,000 -
5,000 -
1
ilu
LI
Ll
,Lr
1
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1998 1999 2000
Year
Public Supply n Domestic Irrigation Livestock Industrial Thermoelec
r c n Other
Figure 2. Great Lakes basin water withdrawals by category, 1989-
1993 and 1998-2000.
Source: Great Lakes Commission, 1991-2004
The majority of waters withdrawn are returned to the
basin through run-off and discharge. Approximately 5% is
made unavailable, however, through evapotranspiration or
incorporation into manufactured products. This quantity, referred
to as "consumptive use," represents the volume of water that is
depleted due to human activity. It is argued that consumptive
use, rather than total water withdrawals, provides a more suitable
indicator on the sustainability of human water use in the region.
Basin-wide consumptive use was estimated at 11,985 MLD
(3,166 MGD) in 2000. Although there is no consensus on an
optimal rate of consumptive use, a loss of this magnitude does
not appear to be placing significant pressure on water resources.
The long-term Net Basin Supply of water (sum of precipitation
and run-off, minus natural evapotranspiration), which represents
the maximum volume that can be consumed without permanently
reducing the availability of water, and equals the volume of water
discharged from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence River, is
estimated to be 500,723 MLD (132,277 MGD) (estimate is for
1990-1999 period, Environment Canada 2004). It should be
noted, however, that focusing on these basin-wide figures can
obscure pressures at the local watershed level.
40000 -i
38000 -
36000 -
CD
1 34000
g, 32000
30000 -
28000 -
26000 -
24000
1950
1960
1970 1980
Year
1990
2000
-USGS
-GLC
Figure 3. U.S. basin water withdrawals, 1950-2000.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (1950-2000), Great Lakes Commission
(GLC)
co
1
_g
"co
D)
30000 -i
25000 -
20000 -
15000 -
1 10000 -
5000 -
0
1970 1975
1980
1985
Year
1990 1995 2000
-Gaia
-GLC
Figure 4. Canadian basin water withdrawals, 1972-2000.
Source: Gaia Economic Research Associates (1999) (based on data from
Environment Canada and Statistics Canada), Great Lakes Commission
(GLC)
Moreover, calculating consumptive use is a major challenge
because of the difficulty in tracking the movement of water
through the hydrologic cycle. Consumptive use is currently
inferred by multiplying withdrawals against various coefficients.
depending on use type. For instance, it is assumed that thermoelectric users consume as little as 1% of withdrawals, compared to a
loss rate of 70-90% for irrigation (GLC 2003). There are inconsistencies in the coefficients used by the various states and provinces.
Estimating techniques were even more rudimentary in the past, making it problematic to discuss historical consumptive use
trends. Due to these data quality concerns, it may not yet be appropriate to consider consumptive use as a water use indicator.
242
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Water removals from diversions, by contrast, are monitored more closely, a result of the political attention that prompted the region's
governors and premiers to sign the Great Lakes Charter in 1985. The Charter and its Annexes require basin-wide notification and
consultation for water exports, while advocating that new diversions be offset by a commensurate return of water to the basin.
The two outbound diversions approved since 1985 have accommodated this goal by diverting water in from external basins. The
outbound diversions already in operation by 1985, most notably the Chicago diversion, were not directly affected by the Charter,
but these losses are more than offset by inbound diversions located in northwestern Ontario. Thus, there is currently no net loss
of water due to diversions.
There is growing concern over the depletion of groundwater resources, which cannot be replenished following withdrawal with the
same ease as surface water bodies. Groundwater was withdrawn at a rate of 5,833 MLD (1,541 MGD) in 2000, making up 3% of
total water withdrawals (GLC 2004). This rate may not have a major effect on the basin as a whole, but high-volume withdrawals
have outstripped natural recharge rates in some locations. Rapid groundwater withdrawals in the Chicago-Milwaukee region
during the late 1970s produced cones of depression in that local aquifer (Visocky 1997). However, the difficulty in mapping the
boundaries of groundwater supplies makes unclear whether the current groundwater withdrawal rate is sustainable.
Pressures
The Great Lakes Charter, and its domestic legal corollaries in the U.S. and Canada, was instituted in response to concerns over
large-scale water exports to markets such as the arid southwestern U.S. There does not appear to be significant momentum for
such long distance shipments due to legal and regulatory barriers, as well as technical difficulties and prohibitive costs. In the
immediate future, the greatest pressure will come from communities bordering the basin, where existing water supplies are scarce
or of poor quality. These localities might look to the Great Lakes as a source of water. Two border-basin diversions have been
approved under the Charter and have not resulted in net losses of water to the basin. This outcome, however, was achieved through
negotiation and was not proscribed by treaty or law.
As for withdrawals within the basin, there is no clear trend in forecasting regional water use. Reducing withdrawals, or at least
mitigating further increases, will be the key to lessening consumptive use. Public water systems currently account for the bulk of
consumptive use, comprising one-third of the total, and withdrawals in this category have been increasing in recent years despite
the decline in total withdrawals. Higher water prices have been widely advocated in order to reduce water demand. Observers
have noted that European per-capita water use is only half the North American level, while prices in the former are twice as
high. However, economists have found that both residential and industrial water demand in the U.S. and Canada are relatively
insensitive to price changes (Renzetti 1999, Burke et al. 2001)3. The over-consumption of water in North America may be more a
product of lifestyle and lax attitudes. Higher prices may still be crucial for providing public water systems with capital for repairs;
this can prevent water losses by fixing system leaks, for example. But reducing the underlying demand may require other strategies
in addition to price increases, such as public education on resource conservation and promotion of water-saving technologies.
Assessing the availability of water in the basin will be complicated by factors outside local or human control. Variations in climate
and precipitation have produced long-term fluctuations in surface water levels in the past. Global climate change could cause
similar impacts; research suggests that water levels may be permanently lower in the future as a result. Differential movement of
the Earth's crust, a phenomenon known as isostatic rebound, may exacerbate these effects at a local level. The crust is rising at a
faster rate in the northern and eastern portions of the basin, shifting water to the south and west. These crustal movements will not
change the total volume of water in the basin, but may affect the availability of water in certain areas.
Comments from the author(s)
Water withdrawal data is already being compiled on a systemic basis. However, improvements can be made in collecting more
accurate numbers. Reporting agencies in many jurisdictions do not have, or do not exercise, the statutory authority to collect data
directly from water users, relying instead on voluntary reporting, estimates, and models. Progress is also necessary in establishing
uniform and defensible measures of consumptive use, which is the component of water withdrawals that most clearly signals the
sustainability of current water demand. Mapping the point sources of water withdrawals could help identify local watersheds that
may be facing significant pressures. In many jurisdictions, water permit or registration programs can provide suitable geographic
data. However, only in a few states (Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio) are withdrawal data available per registered facility.
Permit or registration data, moreover, has limited utility in locating users that are not required to register or obtain permits,
such as the rural sector, or facilities with a withdrawal capacity below the statutory threshold (100,000 gallons per day in most
jurisdictions.) Refer to Figures 5 and 6.
243
-------
i Withdrawal Capacities exceeding 100 Million Litres per Day
Water Withdrawal locations
WlUrWKHdriwaK pซr RtgiiMud Facility
Millions at Gallon* [i- Day 1MGDI
0 000000 - 25 000000
* 25000001-50000000
50.000001-100000(00
100000001-250000000
250X100091 - 750000000
ISO 240 310
Figure 5. Permitted waterwithdrawal capacities in the Ontario
portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Figure 6. Map of Reported Water Withdrawals at Permitted or
Registered Locations in Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
Source: IL Department of Natural Resources, MN Department of Natural Resources,
OH Department of Natural Resources, IN Department of Natural Resources
Further research into the ecological impact of water withdrawals should also be a priority. There is evidence that discharge from
industrial and thermoelectric plants, while returning water to the basin, alters the thermal and chemical integrity of the lakes.
The release of water at a higher than normal temperature has been cited as facilitating the establishment of non-native species
(Mills et al. 1993). The changes to the flow regime of water, through hydroelectric dams, internal diversions and canals, and other
withdrawal mechanisms, may be impairing the health of aquatic ecosystems. Reductions in groundwater discharge, meanwhile,
may have negative impacts on Great Lakes surface water quality. Energy is also required for the process of withdrawing, treating
and transporting water. These preliminary findings oblige a better understanding of how the very act of withdrawing water,
regardless of whether the water is ultimately returned to the basin, can affect the larger ecosystem.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Mervyn Han, Environmental Careers Organization, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office.
Rebecca Lameka (Great Lakes Commission), Thomas Crane (Great Lakes Commission), Wendy Leger (Environment Canada),
and Fabien Lengelle (International Joint Commission) assisted in obtaining data for this report. Steven Renzetti (Brock University)
and Michel Villeneuve (Environment Canada) assisted in explaining water consumption economics.
Site-specific water withdrawal data courtesy of James Casey (Illinois Department of Natural Resources), Sean Hunt (Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources), Paul Spahr (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) and Ralph Spaeth (Indiana Department of
Natural Resources). Ontario water permit map courtesy of Danielle Dumoulin (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
Sources
Burke, D., Leigh, L., and Sexton, V. 2001. Municipal water pricing, 1991-1999. Environment Canada, Environmental Economics
Branch.
Environment Canada. 2004. Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Regulation Office.
Gaia Economic Research Associates. 1999. Water demands in the Canadian section of the Great Lakes basin 1972-2021. Great
Lakes Commission (GLC). 2004. Great Lakes regional water use database, http://www.glc.org/wateruse/database/search.html.
244
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Great Lakes Commission (GLC). 2003. Toward a water resources management decision support system for the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River basin: status of data and information on water resources, water use, and related ecological impacts. Chapter.3,
pp.58-62. http://www.glc.org/wateruse/wrmdss/finalreport.html.
Gaia Economic Research Associates. 1999. Water demands in the Canadian section of the Great Lakes basin 1972-2021.
Great Lakes Commission (GLC). 2004. Great Lakes regional water use database, http://www.glc.org/wateruse/database/search.
html.
Harris, J., and Tate, D. 1999. Water demands in the Canadian section of the Great Lakes basin, 1972-2021. Gaia Economic
Research Associates (GERA) Report, Ottawa, ON.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., and Secor, C.L. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and
anthropogenic introductions./. Great Lakes Res. 19(l):l-54.
Renzetti, S. 1999. Municipal water supply and sewage treatment: costs, prices and distortions. The Canadian Journal ofEconomics.
32(3):688-704.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1950-2000. Estimated Water Use in the United States: circulars published at 5-year intervals
since 1950. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1985. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1985. 68pp.
Visocky, A.P. 1997. Water-level trends and pumpage in the deep bedrock aquifers in the Chicago region, 1991-1995. Illinois State
Water Survey Circular 182. Cited in International Joint Commission. 2000. Protection of the waters of the Great Lakes: final
report to the governments of Canada and the United States. Chapter.6, pp 20-26.
http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/finalreport.html.
Endnotes
1 USGS estimates show water withdrawals in the U.S. Great Lakes watershed increasing from 95,691 MLD (25,279 MGD) in 1955
to a peak in the 136-148,000 MLD (36-39,000 MGD) range during the 1970 to 80 period, but dropping to the 117-121,000 MLD
(31-32,000 MGD) range from 1985 to 1995. GLC reported U.S. water withdrawals in the 121-129,000 MLD (32-34,000 MGD)
range for 1989 to 1993, and around 114,000 MLD (30,000 MGD) since 1998, with 117,261 MLD (30,977 MGD) in 2000.
2 Historical Canadian data from Gaia Economic Research Associates (GERA) report, and are based on data from Statistics
Canada and Environment Canada. GERA reported that Canadian water withdrawals increased from 30,798 MLD (8,136 MGD) in
1972 to 80,690 MLD (21,316 MGD) in 1996. GLC reported Canadian withdrawals of 79-91,000 MLD (21-24,000 MGD) in 1989 to
1993, around 64,000 MLD (17,000 MGD) for 1998 and 1999, and 57,046 MLD (15,070 MGD) in 2000.
3 Econometric studies of both residential and industrial water demand consistently display relatively small price elasticities.
Literature review on water pricing economics can be found in Renzetti (1999). However, the relationship between water demand
and price structure is complex. The introduction of volumetric pricing (metering), as opposed to flat block pricing (unlimited use),
is indeed associated with lower water use, perhaps because households become more aware of their water withdrawal rate (Burke
et al. 2001).
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
245
-------
Energy Consumption
Indicator #7057
This indicator report was last updated in 2003.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assesses the energy consumed in the Great Lakes
basin per capita
To infer the demand for resource use, the creation of
waste and pollution, and stress on the ecosystem
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal in the
Great Lakes basin. Resource conservation minimizing the
unnecessary use of resources is an endpoint for ecosystem
integrity and sustainable development. This indicator
supports Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Energy use per capita and total consumption by the
commercial, residential, transportation, industrial, and
electricity sectors in the Great Lakes basin can be calculated
using data extracted from the Comprehensive Energy Use
Database (Natural Resources Canada), and the State Energy
Data 2000 Consumption tables (U.S. EIA2000). Table 1 lists
populations and total consumption in the Ontario and U.S.
basins, with the U.S. basin broken down by states. For this
report, the U.S. side of the basin is defined as the portions of
the eight Great Lakes states within the basin boundary (which
totals 214 counties either completely or partially within the
basin boundary). The Ontario basin is defined by eight sub-
basin watersheds. The most recent data available are from
2002 for Ontario and 2000 for the U.S. The largest change
between 2000 and 2002 energy consumption by sector in
Ontario was a 4.4% increase in the commercial sector (all
other sectors changed by less than 2% in either direction).
In Ontario, the per capita energy consumption increased by
2% between 1999 and 2000. In the U.S. basin, per capita
consumption decreased by an average of 0.875% from 1999
to 2000. Five states showed decreases in per capita energy
consumption, while three states had increases (Figure 1).
Electrical energy consumption per capita was fairly similar
on both sides of the basin in 2000 (Figure 2). Over the last four
160 -n
140 -
' 120 -
100 -
' 80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
x
State/Province
Figure 1. Total energy consumption per capita 1999-2000. 1
MWh = 1000kWh.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada
(2000)
State/Province
Figure 2. Electric energy consumption per capita 2000. 1 MWh
= 1000kWh.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada
(2000)
246
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
decades, consumption trends in the U.S. basin have been
fairly steady, although per capita consumption increased in
each state from 1990 to 2000 (Figure 3). Interestingly, New
York and Ohio consumed less per capita in 2000 than in
1970. Looking at the trends in Ontario from 1970 to 2000,
the per capita energy consumption has stayed relatively
consistent, with the exception of an increase seen in 1980.
The per capita energy consumption figures for Ontario
do not include the electricity generation sector due to an
absence of data for this sector up until 1978. It is important
to note that the quality of data processing and validation
has improved over the last four decades and therefore the
data quality may be questionable for the 1970s.
Total secondary energy consumption by the five sectors on
the Canadian side of the basin in 2002 was 930,400,000
Megawatt-hours (MWh) (Table 1). Secondary energy
is the energy used by the final consumer. It includes
energy used to heat and cool homes and workplaces.
and to operate appliances, vehicles and factories. It does
not include intermediate uses of energy for transporting
energy to market or transforming one energy form to
another, this is primary energy. Accounting for 33% of the
total secondary energy consumed in the Canadian basin.
electricity generation was the largest end user of
all the sectors. The other four sectors account
for the remaining energy consumption as
follows: industrial, 22%; transportation, 20%;
residential, 15%; and commercial, 12% (Table
2). Note that due to rounding, these figures do
not add up to 100. There was a 0.5% increase
in total energy consumption by all sectors in
Ontario between 2000 and 2002.
160
140
' 120
thou
o
s 60
|40
20
0
State/Province
01970 01980 B1990 2000
Figure 3. Total per capita energy consumption 1970-2000. 1
MWh = 1000 kWh.
Other energy sources include geothermal, wind, photo-voltaic
and solar energy. The Ontario data do not include the electricity
generation sector due to an absence of data for this sector until
1978.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada
(2000)
State/Province
Ontario (2002 data)
U.S. Basin Total (2000 data)
Illinois (IL)
Indiana (IN)
Michigan (Ml)
Minnesota (MN)
New York (NY)
Ohio (OH)
Pennsylvania (PA)
Wisconsin (Wl)
Total energy consumption by
State/Province within the Great
Lakes basin (MWh)
930,400,000
3,364,000,000
669,400,000
304,900,000
998,500,000
36,600,000
309,600,000
614,000,000
43,700,000
387,300,000
Population within the
Great Lakes basin*
9,912,707
31,912,867
6,025,752
1,845,344
9,955,795
334,444
4,506,223
5,325,696
389,210
3,530,403
* The U.S. side of the basin is defined as the portions of the 8 Great Lakes states within the basin boundary
(which totals 21 4 counties either completely or partially within the basin boundary).
Total secondary energy consumption by the
five sectors on the U.S. side of the basin in
2000 was 3,364,000,000 MWh (Table 1). As
in the Canadian basin, electricity generation
was the largest consuming sector in the U.S.
basin, using 28% of the total secondary
energy in the U.S. side of basin. The U.S.
industrial sector consumed only slightly less
energy, 27% of the total. The remaining three
U.S. sectors account for 44% of the total, as
follows: transportation, 21%; residential.
14%; and commercial, 9% (Table 2). Note that
due to rounding, these percentages do not add
up to 100. Figure 4 shows the total energy
consumption by sector for both the Ontario and U.S. sides of the Great Lakes basin in 2000.
The commercial sector includes all activities related to trade, finance, real estate services, public administration, education.
commercial services (including tourism), government and institutional living and is the smallest energy consumer of all the sectors
in both Canada and the U.S. (Table 2). Of the total secondary energy use by this sector in the Ontario basin, 57% of the energy
consumed was supplied by fossil fuel (natural gas, 50%; and petroleum, 7%) and 43% was supplied by electricity. In Ontario, this
Table 1. Energy consumption and population within the Great Lakes basin, by
state for the year 2000 (U.S.) and 2002 (Ontario).
The U.S. basin population was calculated from population estimates by counties
(either completely or partially within the basin) from the 2000 U.S. Census
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Ontario basin populations were determined using
sub-basin populations provided by Statistics Canada.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration and Natural Resources Canada
247
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
State/Province
Residential D Industrial
Commercial D Transportation
Electricity
Generation
State/Province
Figure 6,. Secondary energy consumption within the Great Fi9ure 5- Commercial sector energy consumption by source,
Lakes basin by sector. 2000.
Note: all data are from 2000, although 2002 data from Ontario Wood and coal were minor sources in this sector.
are diSCUSSed in the report. Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada (2000) Canada (2000)
sector had the largest increase in total energy consumption.
4.4%, between 2000 and 2002. By source, on the U.S. side of the basin, 61% was supplied by fossil fuel (natural gas, 53%; and
petroleum, 8%) and 39% was supplied by electricity. On both sides of the basin, the commercial sector had the highest proportion
of electricity use of any sector. Figure 5 shows energy consumption by source for the commercial sector for the Canadian and the
U.S. basins in 2000.
The residential sector includes four major types of dwellings: single detached homes, single attached homes, apartments and
mobile homes, and excludes all institutional living facilities. Fossil fuels (natural gas, petroleum, and coal) are the dominant
energy source for residential energy requirements in the Great Lakes basin. Of the total secondary energy use by the residential
sector in the Ontario basin in 2002 (Table 2), the source for 67% of the energy consumed was supplied by fossil fuel (natural gas.
61%; and petroleum, 6%), 30% by electricity and 3% by wood (Figure 6).
There was a 0.3% increase in total energy consumption by the Ontario residential sector between 2000 and 2002. On the U.S.
side of the basin, fossil fuels are the leading source of energy accounting for 75% of the total residential sector consumption.
Natural gas and petroleum are both consumed by this sector, but it is important to note that this sector has the highest natural gas
consumption of all five sectors. The remaining energy sources were electricity, 22% and wood, 3% (Figure 6).
The transportation sector includes activities related to
the transport of passengers and freight by road, rail.
marine and air. Off-road vehicles, such as snowmobiles
and lawn mowers, and noncommercial aviation are
included in the total transportation numbers. On
both sides of the basin, 100% of the total secondary
energy consumed by the transportation sector (Table
2) was supplied by fossil fuel, specifically petroleum.
Motor gasoline was the dominant form of petroleum
consumed, making up 67% of the Ontario basin total
and 70% of the U.S. basin total. This was followed by
diesel fuel, 27% in Ontario and 21% in the U.S., and
aviation fuel, 6% in Ontario and 9% in the U.S. Figure
Sector
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Electricity Generation
U.S. Basin Total Energy
Consumption - 2000*
478,200,000
314,300,000
903,900,000
714,000,000
953,600,000
Canadian Basin Total Energy
Consumption - 2002
127,410,000
107,800,000
206,410,000
184,950,000
303,830,000
* Note: 2000 is the most recent data available on a consistent basis for the U.S. More recent data is
available for some energy sources from the EIA, but survey and data compilation methods may
vary.
Table 2. Total Secondary Energy Consumption in the Great Lakes
basin, in Megawatt-hours (MWh).
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration and Natural Resources Canada
248
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
= 120
E
State/Province
DWood D Electricity Petroleum D Natural Gas
State/Province
I Motor Gasoline Diesel Fuel D Aviation Fuel
Figure 6. Residential sector energy consumption by source, Figure 7. Transportation sector energy consumption by source,
2000. 2000.
Coal, geothermal, and solar energy were minor sources in this Natural gas and electricity were very minor energy sources in
sector. this sector.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada
Canada (2000) (2000)
7 shows energy consumption by source for the Canadian and
U.S. transportation sector in 2000, which had a decrease
of 1.7% in total energy consumption on the Canadian side
between 2000 and 2002.
The industrial sector includes all manufacturing industries.
metal and non-metal mining, upstream oil and gas, forestry
and construction, and on the U.S. side of the basin also
accounts for agriculture, fisheries and non-utility power
producers. On the Canadian side, in 2000, 71% of the energy
consumed by this sector was supplied by fossil fuel (natural
gas, 35%; petroleum, 20%; and coal, 16%), 19% was supplied
by electricity, and the remaining 10% was supplied by wood.
Between 2000 and 2002, consumption by industry in Ontario
decreased by 1.8%. In addition to these energy sources, steam
was a minor contributor to the total energy consumption.
For the same sector, on the U.S. side of the basin, fossil fuels
were the dominant energy source contributing 79% of the
total energy (natural gas, 31%; coal, 24 %; and petroleum.
24%). The remaining sources were electricity, at 15%, and
wood/wood waste, at 7%. Figure 8 shows energy consumption
by source for the industrial sector on both the Canadian
and U.S. sides of the basin in 2000. It is important to note
that the numbers given for the Ontario industrial sector are
likely underestimations of the total energy consumption on
the Canadian side of the basin. Numbers were estimated
using the population of the Canadian side of the basin as a
State/Province
Coal n Wood n Electricity Petroleum Natural Gas
Figure 8. Industrial sector energy consumption by source,
2000.
Hydroelectric power was a minor source in this sector. U.S. data
for wood include wood waste.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada
(2000)
249
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
proportion of the total population of Ontario, this results in an estimation of 87% of total industrial energy use in Ontario being
contained within the basin. However, Statistics Canada estimates that as much as 95% of industry in Ontario is contained within
the basin. Estimating by population was done to remain consistent with the data provided for the U.S. side of the basin.
The last, and the largest consuming sector in both the Canadian and the U.S. basins, is the electricity generation sector. Of the
total secondary energy use in the Ontario basin (Table 2), 67% of the energy consumed by this sector was supplied by nuclear
energy, 26% was supplied by fossil fuel (coal, natural gas and petroleum), and 7% was supplied by hydroelectric energy. There
was an increase in total energy use of 1.9% between 2000 and 2002 in Ontario. It is important to note that the Great Lakes basin
contains the majority of Canada's nuclear capacity. Of the total secondary energy use by this sector in the U.S. basin (Table 2).
70% was supplied by the following types of fossil fuel: coal (66%), natural gas (2%), and petroleum (2%). The other two major
sources, nuclear and hydroelectric energy, provided 27% and 3% respectively. This sector consumed 75% of the coal used in the
entire U.S. basin. Figure 9 shows energy consumption by source for the electricity generation sector for the Canadian and U.S.
sides of the basin in 2000.
The overall trends in energy consumption by sector were
quite similar on both sides of the basin. Ranked from
highest to lowest energy consumption, the pattern for the
sectors was the same for the U.S. and Canadian basins
(Table 2). Analyses of the sources of energy within each
sector and trends in resources consumption also indicate
very similar trends.
Pressures
In 2001, Canada was ranked as the fifth largest energy
producer and the eighth largest energy consuming nation
in the world. Comparatively, the United States is ranked
as "the world's largest energy producer, consumer, and
net importer" (U.S. EIA 2004). The factors responsible
for the high energy consumption rates in Canada and the
U.S. can also be attributed to the Great Lakes basin. These
include a high standard of living, a cold climate, long travel
distances, and a large industrial sector. The combustion of
fossil fuels, the dominant source of energy for most sectors
in the basin, releases greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide into the air contributing to smog.
climate change, and acid rain.
State/Province
n Hydroelectric
Power
n Nucl
sar Power
n
Coal
n
Petroleum
n
N
atural Gas
Figure 9. Electricity generation sector energy consumption by
source, 2000.
Wood and wood waste were very minor energy sources in this
sector.
Source: Energy Information Administration (2000) and Natural Resources Canada
(2000)
Canada's Energy Outlook 1996 through 2020 fhttp://www.
nrcan.gc.ca/es/ceo/toc-96E.html) 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 percent in Ontario and 1.0 percent in Canada overall between 1995 and 2020. From 2010 to 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. Renewable resources are projected to quadruple between 1995 and 2020, but will contribute only 3 percent of total
power generation.
The pressures the U.S. currently faces will continue into the future, as the U.S. works to renew its aging energy infrastructure
and develop renewable energy sources. Over the next two decades, U.S. oil consumption is estimated to grow by 33%, and natural
gas consumption will increase by more than 50%. Electricity demand is forecast to increase by 45% nationwide (National Energy
Policy 2001). Natural gas demand currently outstrips domestic production in the U.S. with imports (largely from Canada) filling
the gap. 40% of the total U.S. nuclear output is generated within five states, including three within the Great Lakes basin (Illinois.
Pennsylvania, and New York) (U.S. EIA 2004). Innovation and creative problem solving will be needed to work towards balancing
250
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
economic growth and energy consumption in the Great Lakes basin in the future.
Management Implications
Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency has implemented several programs that focus on energy efficiency and
conservation within the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. Many of these programs work to provide
consumers and businesses with useful and practical information regarding energy saving methods for buildings, automobiles,
and homes. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy recently launched an educational
website (http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/). which provides homes and businesses with ways to improve efficiency, tap into
renewable and green energy supplies, and reduce energy costs. In July 2004, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
were awarded $46.99 million to weatherize low income homes, which is expected to save energy and cost (EERE 2004). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Energy Star program, a government/industry partnership initiated in 1992, also promotes energy
efficiency through product certification. In 2002, Americans saved more than $7 billion in energy costs through Energy Star, while
consuming less power and preventing greenhouse gas emissions (U.S. EPA 2003). In addition to these programs, the Climate
Change Plan for Canada challenges all Canadians to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one metric ton, approximately 20%
of the per capita production on average each year. The "One-Tonne Challenge" offers a number of ways to reduce the greenhouse
gas emissions that contribute to climate change and in doing so will also reduce total energy consumption.
Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are available in Canada, but constitute only a fraction of the total energy
consumed. Research continues to develop these as alternate sources of energy, as well as developing more efficient ways of burning
energy. In the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 6% of the total 2002 energy consumption
came from renewable energy sources (biomass, 47%; hydroelectric, 45%; geothermal, 5%; wind, 2%; and solar, 1%). The U.S. has
invested almost a billion dollars, over three years, for renewable energy technologies (Garman 2004). Wind energy, cited as one
of the fastest growing renewable sources worldwide, is a promising source for the Great Lakes region. The U.S. Department of
Energy, its laboratories, and state programs are working to advance research and development of renewable energy technologies.
Comments from the author(s)
Ontario data are available through Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. Databases include the total energy
consumption for the residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, agriculture and electricity generation sectors by energy
source and end use. Population numbers for the Great Lakes basin, provided by Statistics Canada, were used to calculate the
energy consumption numbers within the Ontario side of the basin. This approach for the residential sector should provide a
reasonable measure of household consumption. For the commercial, transportation and especially industrial sectors, it may be a
variable estimation of the total consumption in the basin. The data are provided on a nation-wide or province-wide basis. Therefore
it provides a great challenge to disaggregate it by any other methods to provide a more precise representation of the Great Lakes
basin total energy consumption.
Energy consumption, price, and expenditure data are available for the United States (from 1960 to 2000) through the Energy
Information Administration (EIA). The EIA is updating the State Energy Data 2000 series to 2001 by August 2004. There may be
minor discrepancies in how the sectors were defined in the U. S. and Canada, which may need further investigation (such as tourism
in the U.S. commercial sector, and upstream oil and gas in the U.S. industrial sector). Actual differences in consumption rates
may be difficult to distinguish from minor differences between the U.S. and Canada in how data were collected and aggregated.
Hydroelectric energy was not included in the industrial sector analysis, but might be considered in future analyses. In New York
state, almost as much energy came from hydroelectric energy as from wood. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania also had small amounts
of hydropower consumption.
In the U.S. the current analysis of the total basin consumption is based on statewide per capita energy consumption, multiplied by
the basin population. The ideal estimate of this indicator would be to calculate the per capita consumption within the basin, and
would require energy consumption data at the county level or by local utility reporting areas. Such data may be quite difficult to
obtain, especially when electricity consumption per person is reported by utility service area. The statewide per capita consumption
may be different than the actual per capita consumption within the basin, especially for the states with only small areas within the
basin (Minnesota and Pennsylvania). The proportion of urban to rural/agricultural land in the basin is likely to influence per capita
consumption within the basin. Census data are available at the county and even the block level, and may in the future be combined
with the U.S. basin boundary using GIS to refine the basin population estimate.
Additionally, the per capita consumption data for the U.S. in Figures 1, 2, and 3 are based on slightly different energy consumption
251
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
totals than the data in Tables 1 and 2. The next update of this indicator should examine whether it is worthwhile to include the
minor sources in the sector analysis on both sides of the basin or to exclude them from the per capita figures.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Susan Arndt, Environment Canada, Ontario Region, Burlington, ON;
Christine McConaghy, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL; and
Leena Gawri, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Canada and U.S. Country Analysis Briefs. 2005. Energy Information Administration.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html. last accessed October 4, 2005.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Network News. 2004. DOE Awards $94.8 Million to Weatherize Homes in 20
States. U.S. Department of Energy, http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=7438. last accessed October 4,
2005.
Environment Canada. 2003. Environmental Signals, Canada's National Environmental Indicator Series 2003, Energy Consumption.
pp 56-59. http://www.ee.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/default.cfm.
Garman, D.K. 2004. Administration's views on the role that renewable energy technologies can play in sustainable electricity
generation. United States Senate, Testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/rareplants.cfm.
National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). 2001. Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf.
Natural Resources Canada. 2002. Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada 1990-2000.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/publications.cfm.
Natural Resources Canada. Comprehensive Energy Use Database.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/comprehensive_tables/.
Statistics Canada. 2000. Human Activity and the Environment 2000. [CDRom].
U.S. Census Bureau and Texas State Data Center. 2000. U.S. 2000 decennial census data. Department of Rural Sociology,
Texas A&M University, http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/indiana.pdf and http://www.txsdc.tamu.edu/txdata/
apport/hist_a.php.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004. State energy data 2000 consumption tables, http://www.eia.doe.gov.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. ENERGY STAR - The power to protect the environment through energy
efficiency. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/energy_star_report_aug_2003.pdf.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
[Editor's Note: Links to sources were updated for this publication when possible.]
252
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Solid Waste Disposal*
Indicator #7060
^Proposed name change from Solid Waste Generation
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: This year the indicator report focuses only on disposal data in the U.S. instead of generation or
recycling data. Disposal data were the most consistently collected by the counties/states in the
United States. Generation and recycling data were available for Ontario. Over time, a change in
disposal tonnages can be used as an indicator for solid waste in the Great Lakes. However, more
consistent and comparable data would improve the value of this indicator.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Sufficient data were unavailable to make assessments on an individual lake basin scale at this time.
Purpose
To assess the amount of solid waste disposed of in the Great Lakes basin
To infer inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e., wasted resources) and the potential adverse impacts to human
and ecosystem health
Ecosystem Objective
Solid waste provides a measure of the inefficiency of human land-based activities and the degree to which resources are wasted. In
order to promote sustainable development, the amount of solid waste disposed of in the basin needs to be assessed and ultimately
reduced. Because a portion of the waste disposed of in the basin is generated outside of basin counties, efforts to reduce waste
generation or increase recycling need to occur regionally. Reducing volumes of solid waste via source reduction or recycling is
indicative of a more efficient industrial ecology and a more conserving society. This indicator supports Annex 12 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Canada and the United States are working towards improvements in waste management by developing strategies to prevent waste
generation and to reuse and recycle more of the generated waste. The data available to support this indicator are limited in some
areas of the basin and not consistent from area to area. For example, while most states in the basin track the amount of waste
disposed of in a landfill or incinerator located within a county, they may define the wastes differently. Some track all non-hazardous
waste disposed of and some only track municipal solid waste. Because the wastes disposed of in each county in the basin were
not necessarily generated by the county residents, per capita estimates are not meaningful to individual counties. Not all of the
U.S. counties provide generation and recycling rates information. Canada provides estimates of waste generation rate for each
of its provinces for residential, industrial/commercial, and construction and demolition sources. The summary statistics report
for Canada also provided disposal data. The disposal data, however, included wastes that were disposed of outside the province,
some of which is captured in the U.S. county disposal data. For this reason, generation and diversion estimates were used only for
Ontario, and disposal data were used for the U.S. counties. Types of waste included in the disposal data are identified below.
Statistics for the generation of waste in Ontario were gathered from the Annual Statistics 2005 report (Statistics Canada 2005).
More than 11 million metric tons (12 million tons) of waste were generated in Ontario in 2000 and slightly more than 12 million
metric tons (13 million tons) were generated in 2002. These figures include residential wastes, commercial/industrial wastes,
and construction and demolition wastes. Diversion information was also provided in the report and can be seen in Figure 1.
In 2000, 20.8% of the residential waste generated was diverted to recycling, and in 2002 that figure increased to 21.6%. The
industrial/commercial recycling rate was 22.7% in 2000 and 20.2% in 2002. Finally, the construction and demolition recycling
rate was 11.6% in 2000 and 12.5% in 2002. Ontario has a goal to divert 60% of its waste from landfill by 2008.
Minnesota Great Lakes basin counties provided data on the amounts of waste disposed of in the county as well as an estimate
253
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
25%
Figure 1. Ontario Waste Diversion Rates.
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue number 16-201XIE, Human Activity and the
Environment. Annual Statistics 2005^ Featured Article: Solid Waste in Canada
Aitkin Carlton Cook
Itasca Pine St.Louis Lake Totals
Basin Countv
Figure 2. Minnesota Basin County Disposal
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Score Report, 2003 and 2004
of the amount of waste buried by residents (on their own
property). Data are provided in Figure 2. In 2003, 113,000 metric tons (125,000 tons) of waste were disposed of or buried in the 7
basin counties in Minnesota. In 2004, there was a 5% increase to 120,000 metric tons (132,000 tons) disposed of or buried. Each
county showed an increase in waste disposed. These figures only include municipal solid waste (not construction and demolition
debris or other industrial wastes).
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management's data regarding amounts disposed of at permitted facilities were used
to determine the total amount disposed of in each Indiana Great Lakes basin county. The data are illustrated in Figure 3. The
disposal in 2004 was approximately 9% greater than in 2003. The 15 basin counties disposed of 2,240,000 metric tons (2,469,000
tons) of waste in 2004 and 2,018,000 metric tons (2,225,000 tons) in 2005. About 15% was generated outside of the counties where
the disposal occurred in 2004. The data include municipal solid waste, construction and demolition wastes, and some industrial
byproduct waste.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land, reported the amounts disposed of in permitted landfills in the two
Great Lakes basin counties. Data were compiled for 2004 and 2003 and are shown in Figure 4. There was less than a 2% change
in total materials disposed. In 2004, 1,647,000 metric tons (1,815,000 tons) were disposed of, slightly greater than the 1,618,000
2,500,000 -
2,000,000 -
13
8
O^ 1,500,000-
in
5
W 1,000,000-
o
1-
500,000 -
o -
2003 B2004
I,
ll 1
-o < ^ -^ '5 CD i
< ฃ LLJ ^ Ol
- 1
co
County
Figure 3. Indiana Basin County Disposal
Source: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Permitted Solid
Waste Facility Report
Figure 4. Illinois Basin County Disposal
Source: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2004 Landfill Capacity Report
254
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
metric tons (1,784,000 tons) disposed of in 2003. The data include municipal solid waste, construction and demolition waste, and
some industrial waste.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality reports on total waste disposed of in Michigan landfills in volume (cubic
yards). General conversion factors to translate volume to mass (cubic yards to tons) could not be used because the waste totals
include a variety of waste sources (municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, and some industrial byproducts). Data
for the 83 Great Lakes basin counties were compiled and are presented in Figure 5. There was less than a 1% difference between
the total volume (cubic yards) disposed of in
2004 and 2005 in these counties. The total
for 2005 was slightly smaller. For both years.
approximately 49 million cubic meters (64
million cubic yards) were disposed of in the
83 counties in the Great Lakes Basin.
The New York Department of Environmental
Conservation provided municipal solid waste
disposal data for facilities located in the 32
Great Lakes basin counties for the years 2004
and 2002. The data are presented in Figure
6. There was an approximate 5% increase in
waste disposed. The total waste disposed of
was 7,124,000 metric tons (7,853,000 tons) in
2004 and 6,653,000 metric tons (7,334,000
tons) in 2002. These data include municipal
solid waste only. More than 65% of the state's
waste is managed in the basin counties.
CO
o
.Q
2004 data "2005 data
1
1
1 -- 1
jrTnj^i^cc.XmQjc-onjccDcgnj
ฃ) C b 0! CD 13 Og'-OkฑฑO(Dpm'F
.0) CD ra CO ;= o >5j.<3-t;ฃ5.co
< Q-CQ
5
01
c
2002 "2004
8,000,000 -
6,000,000 -
4,000,000 -
ll 1
1 _i_ __ ri Jill rarl 1 -
>' o)' (0 ' cr' cn'-o Vx'cVc'^VwVcVjoVraVwV'-'njVc'nj'wVai'co' _i
1
55
Basin County
Figure 6. New York Basin County Disposal
Source: New York State Department of Conservation Capacity data for Landfills and
Waste to Energy Facilities
Crawford
Erie
Potter Total tons
County
Figure 7. Pennsylvania Basin County Disposal
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Landfill
Disposal Data
7. For 2004, 256,000 metric tons (282,000 tons) were
disposed of in the three basin counties. There was a 25% decrease in waste disposed of in the counties in 2005 to 190,000 metric
tons (209, 000 tons).
255
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
collects data on the amount disposed of in each
facility located in the Great Lakes basin counties.
Data were compiled for the 26 basin counties and are
presented in Figure 8. In 2005, 6,952,000 metric tons
(7,663,000 tons) of waste were disposed of, within 1
% of the total disposed of in 2004. Totals include a
wide variety of wastes such as municipal solid waste.
sludges, and foundry sand.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency collects
data for waste disposed of in landfills and incinerators.
The data for the 36 Great Lakes basin counties was
compiled for 2003 and 2004 and are presented in
Figure 9. There was an approximate 5% increase
in waste disposed. More than 60% of these wastes
disposed of in the counties came from outside the
counties. The data include municipal solid waste.
some industrial wastes, and tires. Construction and
demolition debris is not included. In 2004, the 36 basin
counties disposed of 7,976,000 metric tons (8,792,000
tons) and in 2003 7,561,000 metric tons (8,335,000
tons) were disposed.
Pressures
The generation and management of solid waste raise
important environmental, economic and social issues
for North Americans. Waste disposal costs billions of
dollars and the entire waste management process uses
energy and contributes to land, water, and air pollution.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA)
has developed tools and information linking waste
management practices to climate change impacts.
Waste prevention and recycling reduce greenhouse
gases associated with these activities by reducing
methane emissions, saving energy, and increasing
forest carbon sequestration. Waste prevention and
recycling save energy when compared to disposal of
materials.
2004 tons 2005 tons
8,000,000 -
7,000,000 -
6,000,000 -
tf) 5,000,000 -
O
I 4,000,000 -
3,000,000 -
2,000,000 -
1,000,000 -
o -
< ^ m < 3 o DZZ
ง1*
LL ^
J
_ h L i L,
LLJO2LULU'Cajcซ
OJ C "5 N ^OO';=OCJ3OT5 ฑ O^"= tB
<ซ
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
recycling rate by 2008. The 2003 study indicated that paper, yard and food waste, and packaging represent large portions of
the waste stream. The U.S. EPA is concentrating its efforts on these materials and is working with stakeholders to determine
activities that may support increased recovery of those materials. The U.S. government is also working to promote strategies
that support recycling programs in general, including Pay-As-You-Throw (generators pay per unit of waste rather than a flat fee);
innovative contracting mechanisms such as resource management (includes incentives for increased recycling); and supporting
demonstration projects and research on various end markets and collection strategies for waste materials. The Great Lakes states
and Ontario are also working to increase recycling rates and provide support for local jurisdictions. Each state with counties in
the Great Lakes basin provides financial and technical support for local recycling programs. Many provide significant market
development support as well.
Canada and the U.S. both support integrated solutions to the waste issue and look for innovative approaches that involve the public
and private sectors. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), also known as Product Stewardship is one approach that involves
manufacturers of products. EPR efforts have focused on many products, including electronics, carpets, paints, thermostats, etc.
Ontario's Waste Diversion Act was passed in 2002 and it created Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), a permanent, non-crown
corporation. The act gave WDO the mandate to develop, implement and operate waste diversion programs to reduce, reuse or
recycle waste.
The City of Toronto has set ambitious waste diversion goals and reported a 40% diversion rate in 2005. The development of
a green bin system (allowing residents to separate out the organic fraction of the waste stream from traditional recyclables) is
credited for the high diversion rate achieved.
Improved and consistent data collection would help to better inform decision makers regarding effectiveness of programs as well
as determining where to target efforts.
Comments from the author(s)
During the process of collecting data for this indicator, it was found that U.S. states and Ontario compile and report on solid
waste information in different formats. Future work to organize a standardized method of collecting, reporting and accessing
data for both the Canadian and U.S. portions of the Great Lakes basin will aid in the future reporting of this indicator and in the
interpretation of the data and trends. More consistent data may also support strategic planning.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Susan Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region 5, Chicago, IL
Julie Gevrenov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region 5, Chicago, IL
Christopher Newman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region 5, Chicago, IL
Sources
References Cited
U.S. EPA. 2003. Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2003 facts and figures. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
Statistics Canada. 2005. Human Activity and the Environment. Annual Statistics 2005. Featured Article: Solid Waste in Canada.
Catalogue number 16-201XIE.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Other Resources
Illinois waste disposal data for the two basin counties were compiled from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau
of Land's 2004 Landfill Capacity report found on their web site at: http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/2004/index.
html. The two Great Lakes Basin counties are located in Illinois EPA's Region 2.
Indiana waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's
257
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
permitted solid waste facility reports found at http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/land/sw/index.html.
Michigan waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's
Annual Report on Solid Waste Landfills. Data from the 2005 and 2004 studies were compiled. The author accessed the data via
the Border Center's WasteWatcher web site (http://www.bordercenter.org/wastewatcher/mi-waste.cfm) to more easily search for
the appropriate county-level data.
Minnesota municipal solid waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the 2004 and 2003 SCORE data available
on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's web site at: http://www.moea.state.mn.us/lc/score04.cfm. The SCORE report is
a report to the Legislature. The main components of this report are to identify and target source reduction, recycling, waste
management and waste generation collected from all 87 counties in Minnesota.
New York municipal solid waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's capacity data for landfills and for "waste to energy" facilities available on their website at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23723.html.
Ohio waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 and 2004
facility data reports which are available on their web site at: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/pages/general.html.
Pennsylvania waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management's disposal data located on their web site at:
httD://www.depweb.state.Da.us/landrecwaste/cwD/view.asp?a=1238&O=464453&landrecwasteNavH.
Wisconsin municipal solid waste disposal data for the basin counties were compiled from the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Waste Management's Landfill Tonnage Report found on their website at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
258
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Nutrient Management Plans
Indicator # 7061
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To determine the number of Nutrient Management Plans
To infer environmentally friendly practices that help to prevent ground and surface water contamination
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The objective is sound use and
management of soil, water, air, plants and animal resources to prevent degradation of the environment. Nutrient Management
Planning guides the amount, form, placement and timing of applications of nutrients for uptake by crops as part of an environmental
farm plan.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track changes in agricultural practices that can
lead to protection of water quality, the sustainable future of agriculture and rural development, and better ecological integrity in
the basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable and has less potential to adversely
impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. As more farmers embrace environmental planning over time, agriculture will become more
sustainable through nonpolluting, energy efficient technology and best management practices for efficient and high quality food
production.
Status of Nutrient Management Plans
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) identify the need for best nutrient management practices. Over the past 5 years
farmers, municipalities and governments and their agencies have made significant progress. Ontario Nutrient Management
Planning software (NMAN) is available to farmers and consultants wishing to develop or assist with the development of nutrient
management plans.
In 2002 Ontario passed the Nutrient Management Act (NM Act) to establish province-wide standards to ensure that all land-applied
materials will be managed in a sustainable manner resulting in environmental and water quality protection. The NM Act requires
standardization, reporting and updating of nutrient management plans through a nutrient management plan registry. To promote a
greater degree of consistency in by-law development, Ontario developed a model nutrient management by-law for municipalities.
Prior to the NM Act, municipalities enforced each nutrient management by-law by inspections performed by employees of the
municipality or others under authority of the municipality.
In the United States, the two types of plans dealing with agriculture nutrient management are the Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plans (CNMPs) and the proposed Permit Nutrient Plans (PNP) under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(U S. EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Individual states also have additional
nutrientmanagementprograms. An agreement between U.S. EPAandU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Clean Water
Action plan called for a Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. Under this strategy, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service has leadership for the development of technical standards for CNMPs. Funds from the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program can be used to develop CNMPs. The total number of nutrient management plans developed annually
for the U.S. portion of the basin is shown in Figure 1. This includes nutrient management plans for both livestock and non-livestock
259
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Nutrient Management Applied
ZZI 0-1,500 Acres
__] 1,500-5,000 Acres
5,000-10,000 Acres
1 10,000-25,000 Acres
Figure 1. Annual U.S. Nutrient Management Systems total number of nutrient
management plans developed annually for the U.S. portion of the basin, 2003.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Performance
and Results Measurement System
producing farms. The CNMPs are tracked
on an annual basis due to the rapid changes
in farming operations. This does not allow
for an estimate of the total number of
CNMPs. U.S. EPA will be tracking PNP
as part of the Status's NPDES program.
Figure 2 shows the number of Nutrient
Management Plans by Ontario county for
the years 1998 through 2002, and Figure
3 shows cumulative acreage of Nutrient
Management Plans for the Ontario
portion of the basin. The Ontario Nutrient
Management Act is moving farmers
toward the legal requirement of having a
nutrient management plan in place. Prior
to 2002 the need for a plan was voluntary
and governed by municipal by-laws. The
introduction of the Act presently requires
new, expanding, and existing large farms
to have a nutrient management plan. This
has brought the expectation, which is
reflected in Figure 2, that there will be on-
going needs to have nutrient management
plans in place.
Having completed a NMP provides assurance farmers are considering the environmental implications of their management
decisions. The more plans in place the better. In the future there may be a way to grade plans by impacts on the ecosystem. The
first year in which this information is collected will serve as the base line year.
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
143,938
102,928
66,617
32,606
5,710
1998
1999
2000
Year
2001
2002
I Cumulative Acreage by Year
Counties
D Bruce
Elgin
n Huron
n Lambton
Middlesex
D Oxford
a Perth
n Dundas
Lennox & Addington
Niagara
D Northumberland
n Peterborough
Prescott
Figure 2. Nutrient Management Plans by Ontario county,
1998-2002.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Figure 3. Cumulative acreage of Nutrient Management Plans
for selected Ontario Counties in the basin.
Over 75% NMP acreages found in Huron, Perth, Oxford and
Middlesex Counties.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
260
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pressures
As livestock operations consolidate in number and increase in size in the basin, planning efforts will need to keep pace with changes
in water and air quality standards and technology. Consultations regarding the provincial and U.S. standards and regulations will
continue into the near future.
Comments from the author(s)
The new Nutrient Management Act authorizes the establishment and phasing in of province-wide standards for the management
of materials containing nutrients and sets out requirements and responsibilities for farmers, municipalities and others in the
business of managing nutrients. It is anticipated that the regulations under this act will establish a computerized NMP registry; a
tool that will track nutrient management plans put into place. This tool could form a part of the future "evaluation tool box" for
nutrient management plans in place in Ontario. The phasing in requirements of province-wide standards for nutrient management
planning in Ontario and the eventual adoption over time of more sustainable farm practices should allow for ecosystem recovery
with time.
The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service has formed a team to revise its Nutrient management Policy. The final
policy was issued in the Federal Register in 1999. In December 2000, USDA published its Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Planning Technical Guidance (CNMP Guidance) to identify management activities and conservation practices that will minimize
the adverse impacts of animal feeding operations on water quality. The CNMP Guidance is a technical guidance document and
does not establish regulatory requirements for local, tribal, State, or Federal programs. PNPs are complementary to and leverage
the technical expertise of USDA with its CNMP Guidance. U.S. EPA is proposing that Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,
covered by the effluent guideline, develop and implement a PNP There is an increased availability of technical assistance for U.S.
farmers via Technical Service Providers, who can provide assistance directly to producers and receive payment from them with
funds from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Peter Roberts, Water Management Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Guelph,
Ontario Canada, peter.roberts@ontario.ca;
Ruth Shaffer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov; and
Roger Nanney, Resource Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
261
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Integrated Pest Management
Indicator # 7062
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices and the effects IPM has had toward preventing
surface and groundwater contamination in the Great Lakes basin by measuring the acres of agricultural pest management
applied to agricultural crops to reduce adverse impacts on plant growth, crop production and environmental resources
Ecosystem Objective
A goal for agriculture is to become more sustainable through the adoption of more non-polluting, energy efficient technologies
and best management practices for efficient and high quality food production. The sound use and management of soil, water, air,
plant, and animal resources is needed to prevent degradation of agricultural resources. The process integrates natural resource,
economic, and social considerations to meet private and public needs. This indicator supports Article VI (e) - Pollution from
Agriculture, as well as Annex 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Pest Management is controlling organisms that cause damage or annoyance. Integratedpest management is utilizing environmentally
sensitive prevention, avoidance, monitoring and suppression strategies to manage weeds, insects, diseases, animals and other
organisms (including invasive and non-invasive species) that directly or indirectly cause damage or annoyance. Environmental
risks of pest management must be evaluated for all resource concerns identified in the conservation planning process, including the
negative impacts of pesticides in ground and surface water, on humans, and non-target plants and animals. The pest management
component of an environmental conservation farm plan must be designed to minimize negative impacts of pest control on all
identified resource concerns.
Agriculture accounts for approximately 35% of the land area of the Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern portion of the
basin. Although field crops such as corn and soybeans comprise the most crop acreage, the basin also supports a wide diversity of
specialty crops. The mild climate created by the Great Lakes allows for production of a variety of vegetable and fruit crops. These
include tomatoes (for both the fresh and canning markets), cucumbers, onions and pumpkins. Orchard and tender fruit crops such
as cherries, peaches and apples are economically important commodities in the region, along with grape production for juice or
wine. The farmers growing these agricultural commodities are major users of pesticides.
Research has found that reliance on pesticides in agriculture is significant and that it would be impossible to abandon their use
in the short term. Most consumers want to be able to purchase inexpensive yet wholesome food. Currently, other than organic
production, there is no replacement system readily available at a reasonable price for consumers, and at a lesser cost to farmers,
that can be brought to market without pesticides. Other research has shown that pesticide use continues to decline as measured
by total active ingredient, with broad-spectrum pest control products being replaced by more target specific technology, and with
lowered amounts of active ingredient used per acre. Reasons for these declines are cited as changing acreages of crops, adoption
of integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative pest control strategies such as border sprays for migratory pests, mating
disruption, alternative row spraying and pest monitoring.
With continued application of pesticides in the Great Lakes basin, non-point source pollution of nearshore wetlands and the
effects on fish and wildlife still remains a concern. Unlike point sources of contamination, such as at the outlet of an effluent pipe,
262
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
nonpoint sources are more difficult to define. An estimated 21 million kg of pesticides are used annually on agricultural crops in
the Canadian and American Great Lakes watershed (GAO 1993). Herbicides account for about 75% of this usage. These pesticides
are frequently transported via sediment, ground or surface water flow from agricultural land into the aquatic ecosystem. With
mounting concerns and evidence of the effects of certain pesticides on wildlife and human health, it is crucial that we determine the
occurrence and fate of agricultural pesticides in sediments.
and in aquatic and terrestrial life found in the Great
Lakes basin. Atrazine and metolachlor were measured
in precipitation at nine sites in the Canadian Great Lakes
basin in 1995 (OMOE 1995). Both were detected regularly
at all nine sites monitored. The detection of some pesticides
at sites where they were not used provides evidence of
atmospheric transport of pesticides.
Cultural controls (such as crop rotation and sanitation
of infested crop residues), biological controls, and plant
selection and breeding for resistant crop cultivars have
always been an integral part of agricultural IPM. Such
practices were very important and widely used prior to
the advent of synthetic organic pesticides. Indeed, many
of these practices are still used today as components of
pest management programs. However, the great success
of modern pesticides has resulted in their use as the
dominant pest control practice for the past several decades.
especially since the 1950s. Newer pesticides are generally
more water soluble, less strongly adsorbed to particulate
matter, and less persistent in both the terrestrial and aquatic
environments than the older contaminants, but they have
still been found in precipitation at many sites.
Status of Integrated Pest Management
The Ontario Pesticides Education Program (OPEP)
provides farmers with training and certification through
a pesticide safety course. Figure 1 shows survey results
for 5800 farmers who took pesticide certification courses
over a three-year period (2001 to 2004). Three sustainable
practices (alter spray practices/manage drift from spray.
mix/load equipment in order to protect surface and/or
groundwater, and follow label precautions) and the
farmers' responses are shown. Results suggest that in 2004
more farmers "do or plan to do now" these three practices
after being educated about their respective benefits. These
practices have significant value for reducing the likelihood
of impairing rural surface and groundwater quality. Figure
2 shows the acres of pest management practice applied to
cropland in the U.S. Great Lakes basin for 2003.
1 do this now/would do
anyway
1 plan to do this now
Don't plan to do
this/No comment
1 do this now/would do
anyway
1 plan to do this now
Don't plan to do
1 do this now/would do
anyway
1 plan to do this now
Don't plan to do
this/No comment
Follow Label Precaution/Safety
Percentage of participants
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
T
n 2003 - 04
2002 - 03
2001-02
After Spray Practices/Manage Drift
Percentage of partic pants
) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
n
n
n 2003 - 04
2002 - 03
2001 - 02
Mix/Load Equipment Protect Surface/Ground Water
Percentage of partic pants
) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
n 2003 - 04
2002-03
2001 - 02
Figure 1. Ontario selected grower pesticide safety training course
evaluation results from 2001-2004.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(OMOE) and the University of Guelph
Pressures
Pest management practices may be compromised by changing land use and development pressures (including higher taxes); flooding
or seasonal drought; and lack of long-term financial incentives for adoption of environmentally friendly practices. In order for
integratedpestmanagementto be successful, pestmanagersmust shift from practices focusing on purchased inputs (using commercial
sources of soil nutrients (i.e. fertilizers) rather than manure) and broad-spectrum pesticides to those using targeted pesticides and
knowledge about ecological processes. Future pest management will be more knowledge intensive and focus on more than the
use of pesticides. Federal, provincial and state agencies, university Cooperative Extension programs, and grower organizations
are important sources for pest management information and dissemination. Although governmental agencies are more likely
263
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Pesticide Management Applied
I 0 - 1,500 Acres
ZZ1 1,500 - 5,000 Acres
5,000-10,000 Acres
" 10.000 - 17.500 A
Figure 2. Annual U.S. Pesticide Management Systems Planned for 2003.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
Performance and Results Measurement System
to conduct the underlying research, there is
significant need for private independent pest
management consultants to provide technical
assistance to the farmer.
Management Implications
All phases of agricultural pest management.
from research to field implementation, are
evolving from their current product based
orientation to one that is based on ecological
principles and processes. Such pest
management practices will rely more on an
understanding of the biological interactions
that occur within every crop environment
and the knowledge of how to manage the
cropping systems to the detriment of pests.
The optimum results would include fewer
purchased inputs (and therefore a more
sustainable agriculture), as well as fewer
of the human and environmental hazards
posed by the broad-spectrum pesticides so
widely used today. Although pesticides will
continue to be a component of pest management, the following are significant obstacles to the continued use of broad-spectrum
pesticides: pest resistance to pesticides; fewer new pesticides; pesticide- induced pest problems; lack of effective pesticides; and
human and environmental health concerns.
Based upon these issues facing pesticide use, it is necessary to start planning now in order to be less reliant on broad-spectrum
pesticides in the future. Society is requiring that agriculture become more environmentally responsible through such things as the
adoption of Integrated Pest Management. This will require effective evaluations of existing policies and implementing programs
for areas such as Integrated Pest Management. To reflect these demands there is a need to further develop this indicator. The
following types of future activities could assist with this process:
Indicate and track future adoption trends of IPM best management practices;
Analyze rural water quality data for levels of pesticide residues;
Evaluate the success of the Ontario Pesticide Training Course, such as adding and evaluating survey questions regarding
IPM principles and practices to course evaluation materials; and
Evaluate the number of farmers and vendors who attended, were certified, or who failed the Ontario Pesticides Education
Program.
Note: Grower pesticide certification is mandatory in Ontario and in all Great Lakes States, and it applies to individual farmers as
well as custom applicators.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Peter Roberts, Water Quality Management Specialist, Resources Management, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs (OMAFRA), Guelph, Ontario Canada, peter.roberts@ontario.ca;
Ruth Shaffer United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov; and
Roger Nanney, Resource Conservationist, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Sources
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1993. Pesticides Issues concerning pesticides used in the Great Lakes watershed. GAO/RCED-
93-128. Washington, DC. 44pp.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 1995. Water monitoring 1995. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
264
-------
Vehicle Use
Indicator # 7064
Overall Assessment
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Population growth and urban sprawl in the Great Lakes Basin have led to an increase in the
number of vehicles on roads, fuel consumption, and kilometers spent on the road by residents.
Vehicle use is a driver of fossil fuel consumption, deteriorating road safety, and ecological impacts
such as climate change and pollution.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments were not prepared for this report.
Purpose
To assess the amount and trends in vehicle use in the Great Lakes basin
To infer the societal response to the ecosystem stresses caused by vehicle use
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. An alternative objective is to reduce stress
on the environmental integrity of the Great Lakes region caused
by vehicle use.
State of the Ecosystem
A suite of indicators monitoring vehicle use, including the
number of licensed registered vehicles and fuel consumption.
is measured by governments in Canada and the United States to
capture trends linked to fossil fuel consumption, road safety, and
ecological impacts such as climate change and pollution. Figure
1 shows the estimated total distance traveled by vehicles on
roads in Ontario during 1993-2005 and the number of licensed
vehicles registered in Ontario (excluding trailers) for the same
period. The number of licensed vehicles registered in Ontario
rose from 6,329,052 in 1993 to 7,843,014 in 2005. Of greater
significance is the estimated 125,102 million vehicle kilometers
traveled (VKT) in Ontario in 2005, up 66% from 1993. The
greatest increase in VKT occurred between 1999 and 2000
(an increase of 33%) followed by a 2% decrease in 2001. It is
possible that recent record high prices for crude oil, which began
climbing in late 2002, may be responsible for a slightly curbed
VKT increase rate, and this may continue to affect VKT in the
future. From these data, however, it is still evident that drivers in
Ontario are increasingly spending more time on the road.
Figure 2 shows the estimated trends in registered vehicles.
licensed drivers, and vehicle kilometers traveled in the Great
Lakes states from 1994 to 2004. The number of registered
vehicles increased approximately 11% during this time period.
while the number of licensed drivers only increased 8%. These
increasing trends are somewhat lower than national averages in
ซ
o
73
ง
o
ซ
tt
o
J2
o
-- Number of registered vehicles in Ontario
-*- Estimated Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (in millions)
^g^*^^*^*
~"~ * /
" /
^_< - ซ-~~~v
ซ ซ *
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
o o o o o hj ฃ
1 1 1 1 I I I
o o o
Estimated vehicle kilometers travelled
(in millions)
Figure 1. Number of Licensed Vehicles and Vehicle
Kilometres Travelled in Ontario.
Source: Statistics Canada Canadian Vehicle Survey.
1 Number of registered vehicles
and licensed drivers
Registered Vehicles + Licensed drivers -*-VMT
. ' ' ' "
>
+ + + + + + + + H
. * *" _
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20
Year
2000000
1750000
1500000
,1250000
1000000
750000
500000
250000
0
34
VKT (millions of vehicle-km)
Figure 2. Number of Registered Vehicles, Licensed Drivers
and Vehicle Kilometers Traveled in Great Lakes States.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Office of Highway Policy Information. Highway Statistics Publications.
265
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
the U.S., which showed increases of 20% and 13%, respectively. Just as in Ontario, VKT increased at a greater rate than the
number of registered vehicles or licensed drivers. VKT increased in the Great Lakes States approximately 20% from 1994 to
2004, as compared to a 24% national U.S. increase. In 2004, U.S. residents in the Great Lakes States were driving about 7% more
kilometers per vehicle than in 1994.
In Canada, the amount of energy used by the transportation sector between 1990 and 2004 increased 31%, from 1877.9 petajoules to
2465.1 petajoules. As a result, energy-related greenhouse gases (GHG) rose by 31%, from 135.0 megatonnes to 176.4 megatonnes.
In that same time period, the number of vehicles rose 6% faster than the number of people (Government of Canada 2005).
In Ontario, sale of motor gasoline increased by
approximately 23% between 1994 and 2004 (Figure 3), on
par with the national average. Gasoline sales rose from
more than 12 billion liters to more than 15 billion liters
between 1990 and 2003, and diesel fuel sales in Ontario
alone doubled during the same period, from more than 2
billion to almost 5 billion liters. This trend is driven by a
rise in number of vehicles on Ontario highways, increased
power of automobile engines, and the growing popularity
of sports utility vehicles and large-engine cars (Menard
2005).
In the Great Lakes states, fuel (gasoline and gasohol)
consumption for vehicles increased by 17% on average
from 1994 to 2004 (Figure 3), as compared to a 24%
increase nationally in the U.S. Use of ethanol blended
fuels (gasohol) in the Great Lakes states increased 160%
over this time period to comprise approximately 39% of
fuel consumption in the Great Lakes states.
-ON
IN -*-MI
-NY
OH PA Wl
125%
110%
100%
1994 1995 1996 1997
1998 1999 2000
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004
Figure 3. Fuel Consumption as a Percentage of 1994 Levels*
The data increase is based on initial 1994 Consumption Levels
which differ across the areas studied.
Sources: Statistics Canada's Energy Statistics Handbook (2006) and U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Office of Highway
Policy Information. Highway Statistics Publications.
Over the last decade, consumers have shown a strong
preference for high-performance vehicles. Since 1999, the
production of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) has dominated
the automotive industry, surpassing the output of both
minivans and pickup trucks nation-wide. For the period of January to September 2004, SUVs accounted for 18% of total light-duty
vehicle manufacturing, which includes passenger cars, vans, minivans, pickup trucks and SUVs in Canada (Magnusson 2005).
In the Great Lakes states, the registrations of private and commercially owned trucks, which include personal passenger vans.
passenger minivans, and sport-utility vehicles, have increased approximately 50% from 1994 to 2004. Private and commercially
owned trucks now comprise about 37% of all registered vehicles in the Great Lakes states.
Pressures
Suburban development has become the predominant form of growth in the Great Lakes basin. The "mixed" assessment for the
Air Quality indicator (#4202) can be directly linked to the increase in traffic congestion. As a major driver of ecological stress.
vehicles are the single largest Canadian source of the smog-causing GHG emissions. These emissions include nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as well as carbon monoxide (CO), all which contribute contaminants to air and
water systems (Ministry of Environment 2005). Such pollutants have been connected to respiratory problems and premature
death. There is strong evidence that atmospheric deposition is a source of pollutants in storm water runoff and that this runoff
reaches streams, rivers and other aquatic resources (International Joint Commission 2004). Congestion caused by automobiles
and vehicle-related development also degrades the livability of urban environments by contributing noise, pollution, and fatalities.
Positive trends in road use may also lead to further fragmentation of natural areas in the basin.
Management Implications
There is a need to reduce the volume and congestion of traffic in the Great Lakes basin. While progress has been made through
less polluting fuels, emission reduction technologies, and economic tools such as the tax incentives that encourage the purchase of
fuel-efficient vehicles (e.g., the American Tax for Fuel Conservation and the Canadian ecoAUTO Rebate Program), issues of urban
266
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
sprawl must also be managed. Recent studies by the U.S. EPA found that infill development and re-development of older suburbs
could reduce VKT per capita by 39% to 52%, depending on the metropolitan area studied (Chiotti 2004). The success of current
strategies will assist managers and municipalities to protect natural areas, conserve valuable resources (such as agriculture and
fossil fuels), ensure the stability of ecosystem services, and prevent pollution. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada is committed to
reducing its GHG emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2010, even though the government may consider new targets.
Over the next 25 years, the number of people living in Ontario is expected to grow by approximately 3.8 million, the majority of
which are expected to reside in the Great Lakes basin. In the Golden Horseshoe Area alone, forecasts predict that the population
of this area will to grow by 3.7 million, from 2001 to 2031.
Improving urban transportation is the first investment priority. However, there is an acknowledgment that improving population
growth forecasts, intensifying land use, revitalizing urban spaces, diversifying employment opportunities, curbing sprawl,
protecting rural areas, and improving infrastructure are all part of the solution. Urban development strategies must be supported
by positive policy and financial frameworks that allow municipalities to remain profitable, while creating affordable housing and
encouraging higher density growth in the right locations. Further research, investment and action are needed in these areas.
Comments from the author(s)
For the purposes of this indicator, the total number of registered vehicles in Ontario excludes trailers, which are technically
registered as vehicles in the province.
Canadian Vehicle Kilometers Traveled (VKT) data are based on a voluntary vehicle-based survey conducted by Transport Canada.
The measure of vehicle-kilometers traveled does not take into account occupancy rates, which affect the sustainability of travel.
The records of state agencies that administer state taxes on motor fuel are the underlying source for most of the U.S. data presented
in this report. Over the last several years, there have been numerous changes in state fuel tax laws and procedures that have
resulted in improved fuel tax compliance, especially for diesel fuel. The improved compliance has resulted in increased fuel
volumes being reported by the states to Federal Highway Administration.
United States VKT data are derived from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). The HPMS is a combination
of sample data on the condition, use, performance and physical characteristics of facilities functionally classified as arterials and
collectors (except rural minor collectors) and system-level data for all public roads within each state.
Although data about VKT, registered vehicles, and fuel consumption was only available up to 2003 and 2004, the authors feel
this indicator should be updated in future to examine potential shifts in vehicle-use behaviors based on the recent rise in gasoline
prices.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Katherine Balpataky, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Leif Maitland, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Todd Nettesheim, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
Sources
References Cited
Chiotti, Q. 2004. Toronto's Environment: A Discussion on Urban Sprawl and Atmospheric Impacts. Pollution Probe.
http://www.pollutionprobe.org/Reports/torontosenvironment.pdf. Last viewed May 18, 2007.
Government of Canada. 2005. Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators 2005. Environment Canada, Statistics Canada,
Health Canada.
International Joint Commission. 2004. IJC Air Quality Report. http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID1544.pdf. last viewed
28 August 2006.
Magnusson, E. 2005. Sport Utility Vehicles: Driving Change. Statistics Canada. Manufacturing, Construction and Energy
Division. No. 11-621-MIF2005020. 2005. http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/n-621-MIE/n-621-MIE2005020.htm. last
267
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
accessed 18 May 2007.
Menard, M. 2005. Canada, a Big Energy Consumer: A Regional Perspective, Manufacturing, Construction and Energy Division.
Statistics Canada. Manufacturing, Construction and Energy Division.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/ll-621-MIE/ll-621-MIE2005023.htm. last viewed 18 May 2007.
Ministry of the Environment. 2005. Drive Clean Reduced Harmful Emissions.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/news/2005/111801fs.htm. last viewed 28 August 2006.
Other Resources
Ontario data for Vehicle Miles Travelled was obtained from the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario's Ontario Road Safety Annual
Reports. Original source of VKT data Statistics Canada, Canadian Vehicle Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 53-223-XIE,
2000 to 2005.
Davis, William B., Levine, Mark D. and Train, Kenneth. 1993. Feebates: Estimated Impacts on Vehicle Fuel Economy, Fuel
Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and Consumer Surplus, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California.
Ministry of Finance. Ontario Selected Characteristics of Ontario Population, Each Year, 2006-2031. 2006.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/economy/demographics/projections/2007/demog07t8.html. last viewed 18 May 2007.
Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Ontario. Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe Area. 2006. http://www.pir.gov.on.ca.
last viewed 28 August 2006.
National Research Council. 1992. Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Can We Go? Committee on Fuel Economy of Automobiles
and Light Trucks. The National Academic Press.
Natural Resources Canada. Energy Efficiency Trends in Canada, 1990 to 2003. June 2005.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Publications/statistics/trends06/chapter6.cfm?attr=0. last viewed 18 May 2007.
Statistics Canada, Canadian Vehicle Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 53-223-XIE, 2000 to 2003.
Statistics Canada, Road motor vehicles, fuel sales, CANSIM Table 405-0002. http://www40.statcan.ca/101/cst01/trade37b.htm.
last viewed 25 May 2007.
Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada's Energy Statistics Handbook. 2006.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/57-601-XIE/57-601-XIE2006001.pdf
Transport Canada. Integration Technologies for Sustainable Urban Goods Movement. 2004.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/Report/UrbanGoods/Report.htm. last viewed 28 August 2006.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Highway Policy Information. Highway Statistics
Publications, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/hsspubs.htm
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
268
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
Indicator # 7065
Note: This is a progress report towards implementation of this indicator.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Data to support this indicator have not been summarized according to quality control standards.
Compilation of a comprehensive report on wastewater treatment and pollution in the Great
Lakes will require a substantial amount of additional time and effort.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Data summarization is incomplete and unavailable for analysis and assessment on an individual lake basin scale
at this time.
Purpose
To measure the proportion of the population served by municipal sewage treatment facilities
To evaluate the level of municipal treatment provided
To measure the percent of collected wastewater that is treated
To assess the loadings of phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia and solids (and organic chemicals
and metals, when possible) released by wastewater treatment plants into the water courses of the Great Lakes basin
Ecosystem Objective
The quality of wastewater treatment determines the potential adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health as a result of the
loadings of pollutants discharged into the Great Lakes basin. The main objectives for assessing and reporting this indicator are
to foster (1) reductions in the pressures induced on the ecosystem by insufficient wastewater treatment networks and procedures,
and (2) the progression of wastewater treatment towards sustainable levels. Adequate maintenance of facilities and operational
procedures are required to meet the objectives. This indicator supports Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annexes 1, 2, 3, 11
and 12 (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Wastewater refers to the contents of sewage systems drawing liquid wastes from a variety of sources, including municipalities,
institutions, industry and stormwater discharges. After treatment, wastewater is released as effluent into receiving waters such as
lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and estuaries.
Wastewater contains a large number of potentially harmful pollutants, both biological and chemical. Wastewater systems are
designed to collect and remove many of the pollutants using various levels of treatment, ranging from simple to very sophisticated.
Effluents released from wastewater systems can still contain pollutants of concern, since even advanced treatment systems do not
necessarily remove all pathogens and chemicals.
The following constituents, although not necessarily routinely monitored, are mostly associated with human waste and are present
in all sewage effluent to some degree:
biodegradable oxygen-consuming organic matter (measured as biochemical oxygen demand or BOD)
suspended solids (measured as total suspended solids or TSS)
nutrients, such as phosphorus (usually measured as total phosphorus) and nitrogen-based compounds (nitrate, nitrite,
ammonia, and ammonium, which are measured either separately or in combination as total nitrogen)
microorganisms (which are usually measured in terms of the quantity of representative groups of bacteria, such as fecal
coliforms or fecal streptococci, found in human wastes)
sulphides
assorted heavy metals
269
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
trace amounts of other toxins and chemicals of emerging concern that have yet to be consistently monitored for in
wastewater effluents
Municipal wastewater effluent is one of the largest sources of pollution, by volume, discharged to surface water bodies in Canada
(CCME 2006). Reducing the discharge of pollution through wastewater effluent requires a number of interventions ranging from
source control to end of pipe measures.
The concentration and type of effluent released into a receiving body of water depends heavily on the type of sewage treatment
used. As a result, information regarding the level of wastewater treatment is integral in assessments of potential impacts on water
quality. In both the United States and Canada, the main levels of wastewater treatment used include primary, secondary, and
advanced or tertiary.
In the U.S., pretreatment of industrial wastewater may be required to reduce levels of contaminants and to remove large debris
before the waters are released to municipal treatment systems for regular treatment. U.S. federal regulations require that Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) pretreatment programs include the development of local pretreatment limits for industrial
pollutants that could potentially interfere with municipal treatment facility operations or contaminate sewage sludge. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) can authorize the states to implement their own pretreatment programs as well. Of
the eight states that are part of the Great Lakes basin, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin currently hold an approved State
Pretreatment Program (U.S. EPA 2006b).
Inprimary wastewater treatment, solids are removed from raw sewage primarily through processes involving sedimentation. This
process typically removes about 25% to 35% of solids and related organic matter (U.S. EPA 2000).
Secondary wastewater treatment includes an additional biological component in which oxygen-demanding organic materials are
removed through bacterial synthesis enhanced with oxygen injections. About 85% of organic matter in sewage is removed through
this process, after which the excess bacteria are removed (U.S. EPA 1998). Effluent can then be disinfected with chlorine prior
to discharge to kill potentially harmful bacteria. Subsequent dechlorination is also often required to remove excess chlorine that
may be harmful to aquatic life.
Advanced, or tertiary, levels of treatment often occur as well and are capable of producing high-quality water. Tertiary treatment
can include the removal of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, and essentially all suspended and organic matter from
wastewater through combinations of physical and chemical processes. Additional pollutants can also be removed when processes
are tailored to those purposes.
Levels of Treatment in the U.S. and Canada
In the U.S., secondary treatment effluent standards are established by the U.S. EPA and have technology-based requirements for
all direct discharging facilities. These standards are expressed as a minimum level of effluent quality in terms of biochemical
oxygen demand measurements over a five-day interval (BODS), total suspended solids (TSS) and pH. Secondary treatment of
municipal wastewater is the minimum acceptable level of treatment according to U.S. federal law unless special considerations
dictate otherwise (U.S. EPA 2000).
Data on the level of treatment utilized in the U S. are available from the Clean Water Needs Survey (C WNS). This cooperative effort
between the U.S. EPA and the states resulted in the creation and maintenance of a database with technical and cost information
on the 16,000 POTWs in the nation. According to the results of the 2000 CWNS, the total population served by POTWs in U.S.
counties fully or partially within the Great Lakes basin was 17,400,897. Of this number, 0.7% received treatment from facilities that
do not discharge directly into Great Lakes waterways and dispose of wastes by other means, 14.1% received secondary treatment,
and 85.3% received treatment that was greater than secondary, making advanced treatment the type used most extensively (Figure
1). These values do not include a possible additional 12,730 people who were reportedly served by facilities in New York for which
watershed locations are unknown within the CWNS database.
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) in Ontario also use primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment types. The processes are
very similar, if not the same as those used in the U.S., but Canadian regulatory emphasis is placed on individual effluent quality
guidelines as opposed to mandating that a specific treatment type be utilized across a province.
270
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
A complete distribution of population served according to
level of treatment is not available at this time for the Great
Lakes basin portion of Ontario. However, a distribution
of the population served by each treatment type for all of
Canada is available (Figure 2), and it may serve as a very
general estimate of levels of treatment to be found in the
Canadian portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Tertiary or advanced treatment is the most common type
of sewage treatment across the entire Great Lakes basin.
as inferred from the distribution data in both Figures 1
and 2. This indicates the potential for high effluent water
quality, but that can only be verified through analysis of
regulatory and monitoring programs.
Condition of Wastewater Effluent in Canada and the U.S.:
Regulation. Monitoring, and Reporting
Canada
Canada sets specific limits for each individual WWTP.
regardless of the type of treatment used. Effluent
guidelines for wastewater from federal facilities are to be
equal to or more stringent than the established standards
or requirements of any federal or provincial regulatory
agency (Environment Canada 2004). The guidelines
indicate the degree of treatment and the effluent quality
applicable to the wastewater discharged from the specific
WWTP. Use of the federal guidelines is intended to
promote a consistent wastewater approach towards the
cleanup and prevention of water pollution and ensure
that the best control technologies practicable are used
(Environment Canada 2004).
Table 1 lists the pollutant effluent limits specified for
all federally approved WWTPs in Ontario. In general.
compliance with the numerical limits should be based on
24 hour composite samples (Environment Canada 2004).
In Ontario, wastewater treatment and effluents are
monitored through a Municipal Water Use Database
(MUD) by Environment Canada. This database
uses a survey for all municipalities to report on
wastewater treatment techniques. Unfortunately.
the last complete survey is from 1999 and the data
are not sufficient for use in this report. A current
municipal water use survey is expected for release
in 2007 and would be useful to examine treatment
results within Canada.
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. These permits regulate wastewater discharges from POTWs
by setting effluent limits, monitoring, and reporting requirements, and they can lead to enforcement actions when excessive
violations occur. The U.S. EPA can authorize the states to implement all or part of the NPDES program, and all U.S. states in the
Great Lakes region are currently approved to do so, provided they meet minimum federal requirements (U.S. EPA 2006b). This
distribution of implementation power can create difficulties, however, when specific assessments are attempted across regions
spanning several states.
Large-scale, national assessments of wastewater treatment have been completed in the past using BOD and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels as indicators of water quality. Since DO levels are proven to be related to BOD output from wastewater discharges
(increased BOD loadings lead to greater depletion of oxygen and therefore lower DO levels in the water) historical DO records
can be a useful indicator of water quality responses to wastewater loadings. According to a national assessment of wastewater
treatment completed in 2000, the U.S. Great Lakes basin had a statistically significant improvement in worst-case DO levels after
implementation of the Clean Water Act (U.S. EPA 2000). The study's design estimates also showed that the national discharge of
BODS in POTW effluent decreased by about 45%, despite a significant increase of 35% in the population served and the influent
loadings. This improving general trend supported assumptions made in the 1996 CWNS Report to Congress that the efficiency of
BOD removal would increase due to the growing proportion of POTWs using advanced treatment processes across the nation.
Unfortunately, comprehensive studies such as the examples listed above have not been conducted for pollutants other than BODs,
and none have been completed to an in-depth level for the Great Lakes region. However, an extensive investigation of the Permit
Compliance System (PCS) database is one way an evaluation of wastewater treatment could be accomplished. This national
information management system tracks NPDES data, including permit issuance, limits, self-monitoring, and compliance. The
PCS database can provide the information necessary to calculate the loadings of specific chemicals present in wastewater effluent
from POTWs in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin, providing the relevant permits exist.
Attempted Experimental Protocol for Calculating Pollutant Loadings from Wastewater Treatment Plants to the Great Lakes
The calculation of pollutant loadings from wastewater treatment plants was attempted for both the U.S. and Canadian portions of
the Great Lakes basin during the compilation of this report. Although an extensive amount of data are available and have been
retrieved, their summarization to an appropriate level of quality control is substantially difficult and is not complete at this time.
The protocol followed thus far is outlined below.
United States
A list of all the municipal wastewater treatment facilities located within the U. S. Great Lakes basin, and their permitted pollutants,
was compiled from the PCS database. A determination was made of the most consistently permitted contaminants, and effluent
data for 2000 and 2005 were then retrieved for all facilities that monitored for those parameters. These pollutant parameters
were referenced by various common names in the database, which complicated extraction of concise data. The resulting large
quantity of data could not feasibly be summarized, however, due to internal inconsistencies that included differences in units of
measurement, varying monitoring time frames, extreme outliers, and apparent data entry mistakes.
To decrease the amount of data requiring analysis, several specific facilities throughout the basin were chosen to serve as
representative case studies for which total loadings estimates would be calculated. These facilities were chosen according to
location within the basin (to ensure that all states and each Great Lake were represented) and by the greatest average level of
effluent flow (because high flow facilities could potentially have the greatest environmental impact). Additionally, these flow
values could be used to calculate loadings in the frequent cases where pollutant measurements were reported as a concentration
as opposed to quantity. Fifteen facilities were selected for analysis, and corresponding effluent measurements for basic pollutants
were extracted from the PCS database. Calculation of pollutant loadings, their percent change and the number of violations from
2000 to 2005 were attempted, but data quality issues undermine confidence in the calculated values.
Although total effluent loadings were difficult to calculate with confidence, government-generated historical records of effluent limit
violations can provide some insight into the performance of U.S. Great Lakes wastewater treatment facilities. The Enforcement
and Compliance History Online (ECHO) is a publicly accessible data system funded by U.S. EPA. It was used to obtain violation
information by quarter over a three-year time span for the group of 15 U.S. facilities previously selected for loadings calculations.
The resulting compliance data are presented in Figure 3 according to each pollutant for which violations of permitted effluent
levels occurred during the 12 possible quarters under investigation from 2003-2006. Both basic violations of effluent limits and
"significant" levels of non-compliance with permitted effluent limits are displayed. Chloride, fecal coliform, and solids violations
272
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
were the most common, with
copper, cyanide, and mercury
having higher numbers of
violations as well. Chloride.
copper, mercury, and solids
violations showed the most
"significant" non-compliance
with permitted levels.
Canada
In Ontario, wastewater treatment
plants must report on the
operation of the system and
the quality of the wastewater
treatment procedures on an
annual basis to satisfy the
requirements of the Ontario
Ministry of Environment and
the Certificate of Approval.
Each report fulfills the reporting
requirements established in
section 10(6) of the Certificate of
Approval made under the Ontario
Water Resources Act (R.S.O.
1990, c. O.40). As a result of
these requirements, effluent limit
violations for BOD, phosphorus.
and suspended solids should be
available for future analysis. Data
are too extensive to summarize
at this time to a sufficient level of
quality control.
insignificant non-compliance with effluent limits "general limit violations
12
to
o
^ *-v 10
> to 8
_c W
I *
ป 5! 6
|o
re - 4
(ง1
2-H
n
o
o
00
_g
si
O
_g
si
O
si
<ป!ฃ
U- O
O
a)
o_
o_
o
O
'c
s,
o
o
q
111
O
Q
I
Q.
a)
en
p
O
SI
Q.
W
O
Q_
.2
>2
3
O
W
Pollutant
Figure 3. Total number of quarters with reported effluent limit violations by pollutant for
selected U.S. facilities.
Data were compiled from 15 different facilities according to the total number of quarters that
were in non-compliance of at least one pollutant effluent limit permit during 2003-2006.
* = combination of violations for 5-day BOD listed as total % removal and total
** = combination of violations for fecal coliform listed as general and analytical method "M-FC
broth, 44.5C" totals
*** = combination of violations for cyanide listed as A and CN totals
**** = combination of violations for total nitrogen listed as N and as NH3
***** = combination of violations for solids listed as total settleable, total dissolved, total
suspended, and suspended % removal
Source: U.S. EPA (2006a), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, http://www.epa.gov/echo/index.html
Since results from the Municipal
Water Use Database were not
available at this time, 10 Canadian
municipalities in the Great Lakes
basin provided effluent data for analysis. Municipalities were randomly chosen based on their proximity to the Great Lakes and
their population of over 10,000. Most of the chosen municipalities had one to three WWTPs in their jurisdiction, with a total of
22 Canadian treatment plants being examined for this indicator report. The WWTPs assessed were an even mixture of primary.
secondary and tertiary treatment plants. Data from 2005 annual reports for each WWTP were used to analyze wastewater
treatment procedures and associated effluent quality, with special focus on BOD, phosphorus, suspended solids and E. coli.
These parameters are regulated by most WWTPs, and current targets exist to minimize environmental and health impacts. For
example, Ontario WWTPs have a target of 50% for the removal of BOD, but levels must not exceed 20 mg/L in a 5 day span. The
target for the removal of suspended solids is 70%, with a limit of 25 mg/L in a 24 hour sample period. Wastewater effluent limits
for phosphorus in Ontario have been set at 1.0 mg/L. The E. coli concentration limit for WWTPs is generally <200 E. coli counts
per 100 mL.
Out of the 22 Ontario WWTPs examined in 2005, levels of BOD, suspended solids, andฃ. coli concentrations collectively exceeded
Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval limits 6 times. BOD levels were above the limit 3 times; total suspended
solids exceeded the limits once, and E. coli concentrations exceeded the limit twice. Phosphorous levels did not exceed the limit
for any WWTP in Ontario in 2005. There were 6 odor complaints from WWTPs throughout 2005, and these were from a primary
treatment plant.
273
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pressures
There are numerous challenges to providing adequate levels of wastewater treatment in the Great Lakes basin. These include:
facility aging, disrepair and outdatedness; population growth that stresses the capabilities of existing plants and requires the need
for more facilities; new and emerging contaminants that are more complex and prolific than in the past; and new development that
is located away from urban areas and served by decentralized systems (such as septic systems) that are much harder to regulate and
monitor. The escalating costs associated with addressing these challenges continue to be a problem for both U.S. and Canadian
municipalities (U.S. EPA 2004, Government of Canada 2002).
Management Implications
Despite demonstrated significant progress in wastewater treatment across the basin, nutrient enrichment, sediment contamination,
heavy metals, and toxic organic chemicals still pose threats to the environment and human health. To maintain progress on these
issues, and to ensure that current achievements in water pollution control are not overwhelmed by the demands of future urban
population growth, governments should continually invest in wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements. In addition,
investments are needed to control or mitigate polluted urban runoff and untreated municipal stormwater, which have emerged as
prime contributors to local water quality problems throughout the basin (Environment Canada 2004).
In Canada, municipal wastewater effluent (M WWE) is currently managed through a variety of policies, by-laws and legislation
at the federal, provincial/territorial and municipal levels (CCME 2006). This current variety of policies unfortunately creates
confusion and complex situations for regulators, system owners and operators. As a result, the Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment (CCME) has established a Development Committee to develop a Canada-wide Strategy for the management
of MWWE by fall 2007. An integral part of the strategy's development will be to consult with a wide variety of stakeholders
to ensure that management strategies for MWWE incorporate their interests, expertise and vision. The strategy will address a
number of governance and technical issues, resulting in a harmonized management approach (CCME 2006).
WWTPs are challenged to keep up with demands created by urban development. The governments of Canada and Ontario
and municipal authorities, working under the auspices of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem (COA), have been developing and evaluating new stormwater control technologies and sewage treatment techniques to
resolve water quality problems (Environment Canada 2004). Under COA, Canada and Ontario will continue to build on this work,
implementing efficient and cost effective projects to reduce the environmental damage of a rapidly expanding urban population
(Environment Canada 2004).
The presence of chemicals of emerging concern in wastewater effluent is another developing issue. Current U.S. and Ontario
permit requirements are based on state or provincial water quality laws that are developed according to pollutants anticipated
to exist in the community. This means the existence of new potentially toxic substances can be overlooked. For example,
even in areas with a high degree of municipal wastewater treatment, pollutants such as endocrine-disrupting substances can
inadvertently pass through wastewater treatment systems and into the environment. These substances are known to mimic
naturally occurring hormones and may have an impact on the growth, reproduction, and development of many species of wildlife.
Additional monitoring for these pollutants and corresponding protection and regulation measures are advised.
The methodologies used in previous U.S. national assessments of wastewater treatment could potentially be used to estimate
loadings trends and performance measures for additional pollutants in the Great Lakes. The QA/QC safeguards included in
such methods could lead to useful analyses of watershed-based point source controls. Substantial resources in terms of time and
funding would need to be allocated in order to accomplish this task.
Comments from the author(s)
A number of challenges and barriers to the full implementation of this indicator report were encountered during its preparation.
Included were:
Population estimates
The actual proportion of the entire population receiving municipal wastewater treatment is difficult to calculate. Several different
population estimates exist for the region, but in the U.S. they were compiled by county, and therefore represent a skewed total for
the population that actually resides within the boundaries of the Great Lakes watershed. GIS analysis of census data needs to be
completed in order to obtain a more accurate estimate of the Great Lakes population.
274
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Data availability
In Canada, only one year was assessed due to lack of available data. In future years, data from the Environment Canada Municipal
Water Use Database would be useful to use. The database is currently only updated to 1999, which unfortunately was not useful
for this report. The newest survey will be out within the next year and the data should be examined in future assessments for this
indicator.
Loadings calculations
Several problems exist in the calculation of effluent loadings. For example, actual effluent flow is not consistently monitored in the
U.S. Although influent levels are obtainable for every facility, effluent levels might not be comparable, since a substantial volume
may be removed during treatment processes. Because effluent flow data are necessary to calculate loadings from concentration
values of pollutants, precise estimates of total loadings to Great Lakes waters may be next to impossible to obtain on a large scale
without actual effluent flow data.
Consistancy in implementation of analysis
Consistent guidelines and practices for the analysis of wastewater treatment in both the U.S. and Canada would be helpful. In
the U.S., data were compiled from several different databases, with population information derived from a separate source than
effluent monitoring reports. In Ontario, data from 10 randomly chosen municipalities serving a population of 10,000 or greater
were used for analysis, while in the U.S., wastewater treatment facilities were chosen for "case studies." These approaches for
analysis of wastewater treatment might provide a fragmented, and perhaps biased, view of the treatment patterns in the Great
Lakes basin.
Consistancy in monitoring and reporting
To successfully correlate wastewater treatment quality with the environmental status of the Great Lakes basin, a more organized
monitoring program must be implemented. Although wastewater treatment plants provide useful monitoring information, they
only report the quality of the effluent at that specific municipality, rather than the overall quality of the Great Lakes. Additionally,
differences in monitoring requirements between Canada and the U.S. make assessments of the quality of wastewater treatment
difficult on a basin-wide scale. Implementation of a more standardized, updated approach to monitoring contaminants in effluent
and a standardized reporting format and inclusive database, accessible to all municipalities, researchers, and the general public,
should be established for binational use. This would make trend analysis easier, and thus provide a more effective assessment of
the potential health hazards associated with wastewater treatment for the Great Lakes as a whole.
Automated data processing
Considering all the difficulties encountered while attempting to adequately summarize the vast amount of U.S. effluent monitoring
data contained in the PCS database, a logical solution would be an application that could automate accurate calculations. Such
an application previously existed that was capable of producing effluent data mass loadings reports from the PCS database, and
annual NPDES Great Lakes Enforcement reports were once compiled. However, the application used to calculate loadings was
discontinued due to the modernization of the PCS system that is currently underway, and resources have not yet been available
to extend the overhaul to this tool. Incorporating this component into the current modernization could take years due to various
logistical problems, including the inherent quality assurance issues (personal communication with James Coleman 2006). Despite
these problems, the reinstatement of such a tool would solve the data summarization needs presented in this indicator report
and could lead to an effective, comprehensive, and time-efficient analysis of pollutant loadings to the Great Lakes from U.S.
wastewater treatment plants.
Further development of this indicator
The ultimate development of this progress report into a reportable Great Lakes indicator is necessary and would be possible in the
near future if:
Increased manpower and time could be dedicated to indicator development,
Revisions were made to the proposed indicator that included a decreased scope, more realistic reporting metrics, and a
less-strenuous reporting frequency,
The data retrieval process were streamlined with appropriate quality controls, and
A workgroup was created of members that held specific expertise regarding wastewater systems, treatment plant analytical
methods, municipal infrastructure, permitting, and who had knowledge of and access to the relevant databases.
275
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Note:
Since the preparation of this progress report, an assessment of municipal sewage treatment and discharges into the Great Lakes
basin was compiled by Sierra Legal Defence Fund. The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card (2006) analyzes 20 Great Lakes cities
and graded them on a variety of parameters relating to their sewage management systems. The full report is available to download
online at, http://www.sierralegal.org/reports/great.lakes.sewage.report.nov.2006b.pdf.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) grantee on appointment to U.S. EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL
Tracie Greenberg, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
Contributors:
James Coleman, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Water Division, Water Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance Branch
Paul Bertram, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Sreedevi Yedavalli, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Water Division, NPDES Support and Technical Assistance Branch
Sources
References Cited
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2006. Municipal Wastewater Effluent.
http://www.ccme.ca/initiatives/water.html?category_id= 81. last accessed 7 September 2006.
Environment Canada. 2004. Guidelines for Effluent Quality and Wastewater Treatment at Federal Establishments.
http://www.ee.gc.ca/etad/default.asp?lang=En&n=023194F5-l#general. last accessed 5 September 2006.
Government of Canada. 2002. Municipal Water Issues in Canada.
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp333-e.htmtfTREATING. last accessed 14 September 2006.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Wastewater Primer. Office of Water. EPA 833-K-98-001, Washington,
DC. http://www.epa. gov/owm/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment
in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA-832-R-00-008, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004. Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems, Office of Water
and Office of Wastewater Management. EPA 832-R-04-001, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006a "Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO)." Compliance
and Enforcement. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, http://www.epa.gov/echo/index.html. last accessed 27
September 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006b "NPDES Permit Program Basics." National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Office of Wastewater Management, http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm. last accessed 25 July
2006.
Data and Other Sources
2000 Clean Watershed Needs Survey. Data supplied in 2006 by William Tansey, U.S. EPA, and was compiled for the Great Lakes
basin by Tetra Tech, Inc.
City of Hamilton. 2006. Woodward Wastewater Treatment Plant Report 2005 Annual Report. Woodward Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Hamilton, Ontario.
City of Toronto. 2006. Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant 2005 Summary. Toronto, Ontario.
276
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
City of Toronto. 2006. Highland Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 2005 Summary. Toronto, Ontario.
City of Toronto. 2006. Number Wastewater Treatment Plant 2005 Summary. Toronto, Ontario.
City of Sault Ste Marie. 2006. East End Water Pollution Control Plant 2005 Annual Report. Sault Ste Marie, Ontario.
City of Sault Ste Marie. 2006. West End Water Pollution Control Plant 2005 Annual Report. Sault Ste Marie, Ontario.
City of Windsor. 2006. Little River Water Pollution Control Plant 2005 Annual Report. Windsor, Ontario.
City of Windsor. 2006. Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant 2005 Annual Report. Windsor, Ontario.
County of Prince Edward. 2006. Picton Water Pollution Control Plant - Monitoring and Compliance Report 2005. The corporation
of the country of Prince Edward, Belleville, Ontario.
County of Prince Edward. 2006. Wellington Water Pollution Control Plant - Monitoring and Compliance Report 2005. The
corporation of the country of Prince Edward, Belleville, Ontario.
Environment Canada. 2001. The State of Municipal Wastewater Effluents in Canada.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/soer/MWWE.pdf. last accessed 31 August 2006.
Halton Region. 2006. Acton WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Skyway WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Georgetown WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Milton WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Mid-Halton WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Oakville South East WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
Halton Region. 2006. Oakville South West WWTP Performance Report, 2005. Regional Municipality of Halton, Halton, Ontario.
PCS data supplied by James Coleman, Information Management Specialist, U. S. EPA, Region 5 Water Division, Water Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Branch.
Peel Region. 2006. Clarkson Compliance Report 2005. Mississauga, Ontario.
Peel Region. 2006. Lakeview Compliance Report 2005. Mississauga, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Corbett Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005. Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Duffin Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005. Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Newcastle Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005. Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Port Darlington Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005. Town of Whitby, Ontario.
Region of Durham. 2006. Harmony Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data 2005. Town of Whitby, Ontario.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). "Compliance and Enforcement Water Data Systems." Data, Planning and
Results. July 03, 2006. Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/index.html. last accessed 27 September 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
277
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Indicator #7100
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Note: This indicator report uses data from the Grand River watershed only and may not be representative of
groundwater conditions throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To measure groundwater quality as determined by the natural chemistry of the bedrock and overburden deposits, as well
as any changes in quality due to anthropogenic activities
To address groundwater quality impairments, whether they are natural or human induced in order to ensure a safe and
clean supply of groundwater for human consumption and ecosystem functioning
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective for this indicator is to ensure that groundwater quality remains at or approaches natural conditions.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Natural groundwater quality issues and human induced changes in groundwater quality both have the potential to affect our ability
to use groundwater safely. Some constituents found naturally in groundwater renders some groundwater reserves inappropriate
for certain uses. Growing urban populations, along with historical and present industrial and agricultural activity, have caused
significant harm to groundwater quality, thereby obstructing the use of the resource and damaging the environment. Understanding
natural groundwater quality provides a baseline from which to compare, while monitoring anthropogenic changes can allow
identification of temporal trends and assess any improvements or further degradation in quality.
Natural Groundwater Quality
The Grand River watershed can generally be divided into three distinct geological areas; the northern till plain, the central region
of moraines with complex sequences of glacial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits, and the southern clay plain. These
surficial overburden deposits are underlain by fractured carbonate rock (predominantly dolostone). The groundwater resources
of the watershed include regional-scale unconfmed and confined overburden and bedrock aquifers as well as discontinuous local-
scale deposits which contain sufficient groundwater to meet smaller users' needs. In some areas of the watershed (e.g. Whitemans
Creek basin) the presence of high permeability sands at ground surface and or a high water table leads to unconfmed aquifers
which are highly susceptible to degradation from surface contaminant sources.
The natural quality of groundwater in the watershed for the most part is very good. The groundwater chemistry in both the
overburden and bedrock aquifers is generally high in dissolved inorganic constituents (predominantly calcium, magnesium,
sodium, chloride and sulphate). Measurements of total dissolved solids (TDS) suggest relatively "hard" water throughout the
watershed. For example, City of Guelph production wells yield water with hardness measured from 249 mg/1 to 579 mg/1, which
far exceeds the aesthetic Ontario Drinking Water Objective of 80 mg/1 to 100 mg/1. Elevated concentrations of trace metals (iron
and manganese) have also been identified as ambient quality issues with the groundwater resource.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate water quality problems observed in bedrock and overburden wells, respectively. These figures are based
on a qualitative assessment of well water at the time of drilling as noted on the Ontario Ministry of Environment's water well
record form. The majority of these wells were installed for domestic or livestock uses. Overall, between 1940 and 2000, less than
1% (approximately 1131 wells) of all the wells drilled in the watershed reported having a water quality problem. Of the wells
278
-------
Anton-lit Walซ QUBlty Issues
Silly
A Sulphi.
Gas
Geclogc Unto
DUNDEE
ONONOAGA - AMHERSraURS
i.V:.. 'V
OHBKANY
BASS ISLANDS- Bemie
SAUNA
QUELPH
LOCKPQRT - AMABEL
CLINTON - CATARACT GROUP
Hj MAN-.TOUUN
OUEENSTON
Kilometres
Ambient Water Quality Issues
Salty
A Sulphur
Mineral
Gas
Generalized Surticial Geology
^B Bedrock
Clay
Gravel
Organic
Sand
Sandy Till
H Silty Till
Water
10 0 10 20 .,
Kilometres
Figure 1. Bedrock wells with natural quality issues in the Grand Figure 2. Overburden wells with natural quality issues in the
River watershed. Grand River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
exhibiting a natural groundwater problem about 90% were bedrock wells while the other 10% were completed in the overburden.
The most frequently noted quality problem associated with bedrock wells was high sulphur content (76% of bedrock wells with
quality problems). This is not surprising, as sulphur is easy to detect due to its distinctive and objectionable odor. Generally, three
bedrock formations commonly intersected within the watershed contain most of the sulphur wells: the Guelph Formation, the
Salina Formation, and the Onondaga-Amherstburg Formation. The Salina Formation forms the shallow bedrock under the west
side of the watershed while the Guelph underlies the east side of the watershed.
Additional quality concerns noted in the water well records include high mineral content and salt. About 20% of the reported
quality concerns in bedrock wells were high mineral content while 4% reported salty water. Similar concerns were noted in
overburden wells where reported problems were sulphur (42%), mineral (34%), and salt (23%).
Human Induced Changes to Groundwater Quality
Changes to the quality of groundwater from anthropogenic activities associated with urban sprawl, agriculture and industrial
operations have been noted throughout the watershed. Urban areas within the Grand River watershed have been experiencing
considerable growth over the past few decades. The groundwater quality issues associated with human activity in the watershed
include: chloride, industrial chemicals (e.g. trichloroethylene (TCE)), and agricultural impacts (nitrate, bacteria, and pesticides).
These contaminants vary in their extent from very local impact (e.g. bacteria) to widespread impact (e.g. chloride). Industrial
contaminants tend to be point sources, which generally require very little concentration to impact significant groundwater
resources.
279
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Chloride
Increasing chloride concentrations in groundwater have
been observed in most municipal wells in the urban portions
of the watershed. This increase has been attributed to winter
de-icing of roads with sodium chloride (salt). Detailed
studies carried out by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
have illustrated the impact of road salting associated with
increased urban development to groundwater captured by
two municipal well fields. Figure 3 shows the temporal
changes in chloride concentration for the two well fields
investigated in this study. Wells A, B, and C, are from the
first well field while wells D and E are from the second
well field. In 1967 land use within the capture zone of
the first field was 51% rural and 49% urban, while in the
second well field capture zone the land use was 94% rural
and 6% urban. By 1998, the area within the first well field
capture zone had been completely converted to urban land
while in the second well field capture zone 60% of the land
remained rural.
Wells
--A
--B
-*-C
le-D
--E
1960
1970
1980
Year
1990
2000
Figure 3. Chloride levels in selected groundwater wells in the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Red indicates wells from one area/well field. Green indicates wells
from a different area/well field.
Source: Stanley Consulting (1998)
Although wells from both well fields show increased chloride levels, wells A, B, and C in the heavily urbanized capture zone show
a greater increase in chloride concentrations than do wells D and E in the predominantly rural capture zone. For example, well
B showed a change in chloride concentration from 16.8 mg/L in 1960, to 260 mg/L in 1996, where as well D showed a change
from 3 mg/1 in 1966, to 60 mg/1 in 1996. This indicates that chloride levels in groundwater can be linked to urban growth and its
associated land uses (i.e. denser road network). The Ontario Drinking Water Objective for chloride had been established at 250
mg/L, although this guideline is predominantly for aesthetic reasons, the issue of increasing chloride levels should be addressed.
Industrial Contaminants
Groundwater resources in both the overburden and bedrock deposits within the Grand River watershed have been impacted by
contamination of aqueous and non-aqueous contaminants which have entered the groundwater as a result of industrial spills or
discharges, landfill leachates, leaky storage containers, and poor disposal practices. A significant number of these chemicals are
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Contamination by VOCs such as TCE, have impacted municipal groundwater supplies in
several communities in the watershed. For example, by the year 1998, five of the City of Guelph's 24 wells were taken out of service
due to low-level VOC contamination. These wells have a combined capacity of 10,000 to 12,000 mVday and represent about 15% of
the City's permitted water-taking capacity. As a second example, contamination of both a shallow aquifer and a deeper municipal
aquifer with a variety of industrial chemicals (including toluene, chlorobenzene, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T) emanating from a chemical plant
in the Region of Waterloo led to the removal of municipal wells from the water system in the town of Elmira.
Agricultural and Rural Impacts
Groundwater quality in agricultural areas is affected by activities such as pesticide application, fertilizer and manure applications
on fields, storage and disposal of animal wastes and the improper disposal and spills of chemicals. The groundwater contaminants
from these activities can be divided into three main groups: nitrate, bacteria and pesticides. For example, the application of
excessive quantities of nutrients to agricultural land may impact the quality of the groundwater. Excess nitrogen applied to the
soil to sustain crop production is converted to nitrate with infiltrating water and hence transported to the water table. Seventy-six
percent of the total land area in the Grand River watershed is used for agricultural purposes and thus potential and historical
contamination of the groundwater due to these activities is a concern.
Land use and nitrate levels measured in surface water from two sub-watersheds, the Eramosa River and Whitemans Creek, are
used to illustrate the effects of agricultural activities on groundwater quality and the quality of surface water.
In the Whitemans Creek sub-watershed, approximately 78% of the land classified as groundwater recharge area is covered with
agricultural uses, and only 20% is forested. In the Eramosa subwatershed about 60% of the significant recharge land is used for
agricultural purposes with approximately 34% of the land being covered with forest (Figure 4). Both of these tributary streams
are considered predominantly groundwater-fed streams, meaning that the majority of flow within them is received directly from
280
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Eramosa River
Sub-Basin
Whitemans Creek
Eramosa River
B
Figure 4. Land cover on moraine systems and areas that facilitate high to very high groundwater recharge of
the Whitemans Creek and Eramosa River sub-watersheds: (a) Spatial distribution and (b) Percent distribution
of classified land use.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
groundwater discharge.
Average annual concentrations of nitrate measured
in the Eramosa River and Whitemans Creek from
1997 to 2003 are shown in Figure 5. Average annual
concentration of nitrate measured in Whitemans Creek
between 1997 and 2003 were 2.5 to 8 times higher
than those measured in the Eramosa River. The higher
nitrate levels measured in Whitemans Creek illustrate
the linkage between increased agricultural activity
and groundwater contamination and its impact on
surface water quality. In addition to the agricultural
practices in the Whitemans Creek subwatershed, the
observed nitrate concentrations may also be linked
to rural communities with a high density of septic
systems that leach nutrients to the subsurface.
Manure spreading on fields, runoff from waste disposal
sites, and septic systems may all provide a source of
bacteria to groundwater. Bacterial contamination
in wells in agricultural areas is common; however.
this is often due to poor well construction allowing
surface water to enter the well and not indicative of
widespread aquifer contamination. Shallow wells are
particularly vulnerable to bacterial contamination.
G)
_ง
ฃ
O
^
ra
*j
ฃ
0)
O
ฃ
O
o
ra
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
I Eramosa D Whitemans
Figure 5. Average annual concentrations of nitrate measured in the
Eramosa River and Whitemans Creek from 1997 to 2003. (Also shown
on the bar graphs is the standard error of measurement.)
Source: Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (2003)
Pressures
The population within the Grand River watershed is expected to increase by over 300,000 people in the next 20 years. The urban
sprawl and industrial development associated with this population growth, if not managed appropriately, will increase the chance
for contamination of groundwater resources. Intensification of agriculture will lead to increased potential for pollution caused
by nutrients, pathogens and pesticides to enter the groundwater supply and eventually surface water resources. While largely
unknown at this time, the effects of climate change may lead to decreased groundwater resources, which may concentrate existing
contaminant sources.
281
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Management Implications
Protecting groundwater resources generally requires multifaceted strategies including regulation, land use planning, water
resources management, voluntary adoption of best management practices and public education. Programs to reduce the amount of
road salt used for de-icing will lead to reductions in chloride contamination in groundwater. For example, the Regional of Waterloo
(the largest urban community in the watershed) in cooperation with road maintenance departments has been able to decrease the
amount of road salt applied to Regional roads by 27% in just one winter season.
Comments from the author(s)
While there is a large quantity of groundwater quality data available for the various aquifers in the watershed, this data has
not been consolidated and evaluated in a comprehensive or systematic way. Work is needed to bring together this data and
incorporate ongoing groundwater monitoring programs. An assessment of the groundwater quality across Ontario is currently
being undertaken through sampling and analysis of groundwater from the provincial groundwater-monitoring network (PGMN)
wells (includes monitoring stations in the Grand River watershed). Numerous watershed municipalities also have had ongoing
monitoring programs, which examine the quality of groundwater as a source of drinking water in place for a number of years.
Integrating this data along with data contained in various site investigations will allow for a more comprehensive picture of
groundwater quality in the watershed.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Alan Sawyer, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Jeff Pitcher, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON; and
Pat Lapcevic, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Alan Sawyer's position was partially funded through a grant from Environment Canada's Science Horizons internship program.
The assistance of Samuel Bellamy of the Grand River Conservation Authority, as well as Harvey Shear, Nancy Stadler-Salt and
Andrew Piggott of Environment Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Braun Consulting Engineers, Gartner Lee Limited, and Jagger Hims Limited Consulting Engineers. 1999. City of Guelph Water
System Study Resource Evaluation Summary. Report prepared for the City of Guelph.
Crowe, A. S., Schaefer, K.A., Kohut, A., Shikaze, S.G.,andPtacek, C.J. 2003. Groundwater quality. Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Linking Water Science to Policy Workshop Series. Report No. 2, 52pp. Holysh,
S., Pitcher, J., and Boyd, D. 2001. Grand River regional groundwater study. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge,
ON, 78pp+ appendices.
Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network. 2003. Grand River Conservation Authority Water Quality Stations. Region
of Waterloo. Official Municipal Website, http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca.
Stanley Consulting. 1998. Chloride Impact Assessment Parkway and Strasburg Creek Well Fields Final Report. Prepared for the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Whiffin, R.B., and Rush, R.J. 1989. Development and demonstration of an integrated approach to aquifer remediation at an
organic chemical plant. In Proceedings of the FOCUS Conference on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues, October 17-19, 1989,
Kitchener, ON, Canada, pp. 273-288.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
282
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Indicator #7101
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Note: This indicator report uses data from the Grand River watershed only and may not be representative of
groundwater conditions throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To measure water use and intensity and land use and intensity
To infer the potential impact of land and water use on the quantity and quality of groundwater resources as well as
evaluate groundwater supply and demand
To track the main influences on groundwater quantity and quality such as land and water use to ensure sustainable high
quality groundwater supplies
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective for this indicator is to ensure that land and water use does not negatively impact groundwater supplies/
resources.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Land use and intensity has the potential to affect both groundwater quality and quantity. Similarly, water use and intensity (i.e.
demand) can impact the sustainability of groundwater supplies. In addition, groundwater use and intensity can impact streams and
creeks, which depend on groundwater for base flows to sustain aquatic plant and animal communities.
Land use and intensity
The Grand River watershed can generally be divided into three distinct geological areas; the northern till plain, central moraines
with complex sequences of glacial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits, and the southern clay plain. These surficial
overburden deposits are underlain by fractured carbonate rock (predominantly dolostone). The groundwater resources of the
watershed include regional-scale unconfined and confined overburden and bedrock aquifers as well as discontinuous local-scale
deposits which contain sufficient groundwater to meet smaller users' needs. In some areas of the watershed (e.g. Whiteman's Creek
basin) the presence of high permeability sands at ground surface and/or a high water table leads to unconfined aquifers which are
highly susceptible to contamination from surface contaminant sources.
Agricultural and rural land uses predominate in the Grand River watershed. Approximately 76% of the watershed land area is used
for agriculture (Figure 1). Urban development covers about 5% of the watershed area while forests cover about 17%. The largest
urban centres, including Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph, are located in the central portion of the watershed and are
situated on or in close proximity to many of the complex moraine systems that stretch across the watershed (Figure 1). The moraines
and associated glacial outwash area in the watershed form a complex system of sand and gravel layers separated by less permeable
till layers. Together with the sand plain in the southwest portion of the watershed these units provide significant groundwater
resources. The majority of the groundwater recharge in the watershed is concentrated in a land area that covers approximately 38%
of the watershed. Figure 2 illustrates the land cover associated with those areas that have high recharge potential.
Land use on these moraines and significant recharge areas can have major influence on both groundwater quantity and quality
(Figure 2). Intensive cropping practices with repeated manure and fertilizer applications have the potential to impact groundwater
283
-------
Generalized Land Cover
HI Water
Wetland
| Forest
Pits/Alvar
Urban
Agricullure
Kilometres
Q Urban and
Developed^
5%
Other
(e.g. golf courses)
Open Water and
Wetland
2%
Agricultural
76%
Figure 1. Land cover in the Grand River watershed:
(a) Spatial distri-bution and (b) Percent distribution of
classified land use.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Generalized Land Cover
^| Water
U Wetland
Forest
Pits/Alvar
Urban
Agriculture
Kilometres
B
Other
e.g. golf courses^
1%
Open Water and /
Wetland -/
2%
Agricultural
67%
Figure 2. Land cover on moraine systems and areas that
facilitate high or very high groundwater recharge of the
Grand River watershed: (a) Spatial distribution and (b)
Percent distribution of classified land use.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
quality while urban development can interrupt groundwater
recharge and impact groundwater quantity. About 67% of the
significant recharge areas are in agricultural production while 23% and 8% of the recharge areas are covered with forests and
urban development respectively. Since the moraine systems and recharge areas in the Grand River watershed provide important
ecological, sociological and economical services to the watershed, they are important watershed features that must be maintained
to ensure sustainable groundwater supplies.
Land use directly influences the ability of precipitation to recharge shallow aquifers. Urban development such as the paving of
roads and building of structures intercepts precipitation and facilitates the movement of water off the land in surface runoff,
which subsequently reduces groundwater recharge of shallow aquifers. A significant portion (62%) of the urban area in the
284
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Grand River watershed tends to be concentrated in the highly
sensitive groundwater recharge areas (Figure 3). Development
is continuing in these sensitive areas. For example, of the total
kilometers of new roads built between 2000 and 2004 in the
Region of Waterloo, about half of them were situated in the
more sensitive areas.
Land uses that protect groundwater recharge such as some
agricultural land use and forested areas need to be protected
to ensure groundwater recharge. About 34% and 51% of the
watershed's agricultural and forested land cover is located in the
significant recharge areas. Strategic development is needed to
protect these recharge areas to protect groundwater recharging
function in the watershed.
Urban and Agricultural Forested Open Water Other (ie Golf
Developed and Wetland Courses)
Land Use Type
Figure 3. Percentage of land use type in significant
recharge areas in the Grand River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Groundwater use and intensity
Groundwater in the Grand River watershed is used for a range of
activities including domestic, municipal, public, agricultural, and industrial/commercial supplies. It is estimated that approximately
80% of the 875,000 watershed residents use groundwater as their primary source of potable water.
Between 1940 and 2003, over 37,000 wells were constructed in the Grand River watershed. Approximately 79% of these wells
(or 29,683 wells) are, or were, used for domestic water supplies (Figure 4). However, this represents only 3% of the total annual
groundwater takings in the watershed (Figure 5). The largest users of groundwater in the watershed are municipalities (30%) who
use the water to provide potable water to their residents. Industries, commercial developments, aggregate washing, dewatering and
remediation also withdraw significant amounts of groundwater (43%, combined). Aquaculture is a significant user of groundwater
at approximately 13% of the total annual groundwater takings in the watershed.
Industrial/
Commercial
4%
Irrigation
1%
Municipal/Public
Supply -,
Agricultural /
13%
Domestic
79%
Miscellaneous
3%
Figure 4. Distribution of groundwater wells by primary Figures. Percentage of total annual groundwater takings
use in the Grand River watershed. in the Grand River watershed from designated uses.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment Water Well Database (2003) Source: Modified from Bellamy and Boyd (2004)
Even though total annual groundwater withdrawals identify municipal takings as the most significant use of groundwater, seasonal
demands in selected areas can be significant. Irrigation becomes the second largest use of water in July in the Grand River
watershed. Approximately 60% of all irrigation is done with groundwater. Therefore, this seasonal demand can have a significant
impact on local groundwater fed streams and the aquatic life that inhabits them. Although the irrigated land in the Grand River
watershed is less than 1% of the total land area, increasing trends in irrigation (Figure 6) places added stress on these local
groundwater-dependant ecosystems.
Climatic factors and population growth can also impact the demand for groundwater resources. The number of new wells
285
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
drilled since 1980 grew steadily until 1989 (Figure 7). The
number of new wells drilled peaked between 1987 and 1989.
which coincides with a period of lower flow in the river. The
average annual river flows illustrated in Figure 7 represents
conditions where average, below average and above average
streamflow were measured. The 1987 to 1989 period had below
average streamflow suggesting it was dryer than normal and
that watershed residents were searching for new groundwater
supplies. The same occurrence is illustrated again in 1998-1999.
The cumulative impact of both climate effects and increased
population growth (Figure 8) likely contributes to greater
demand for groundwater supplies.
Pressures
Urbanization and associated development on sensitive
watershed landscapes that facilitate groundwater recharge is
a significant threat to groundwater resources in the
Grand River watershed. Eliminating this important
watershed function will directly impact the quantity
of groundwater supplies for watershed residents.
Therefore, it is essential that municipalities and
watershed residents protect the moraine systems and
significant recharge areas to ensure future groundwater
supplies.
Population growth with continued urban development
and agricultural intensification are the biggest threats
to groundwater supplies in the Grand River watershed.
It is estimated that the population of the watershed
will increase by approximately 300,000 people in the
next 20 years (Figure 8). The biggest single users of
groundwater are municipalities for municipal drinking
water supplies, although industrial users, including
aggregate and dewatering operations, use a significant
amount of groundwater. Municipalities, watershed
residents and industries will need to increase their
efforts in water conservation as well as continue to
seek out new or alternate supplies.
- 1.0% ~
Year
Figure 6. Changes in amount of irrigated land in the
Grand River watershed (percentage of total watershed
area irrigated).
Source: Statistics Canada data for 1986, 1991, and 1996
Number of Wells Drilled
Percent Average Annual River Flow
Figure 7. Number of new wells drilled each year (bars). Annual
average stream flow (as a percentage on long term average)
in the Grand River watershed illustrating below average, and
average climatic conditions (green line).
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment Water Well Database (2003)
Climate influence on groundwater resources in the Grand River
watershed cannot be underestimated. It is evident that during times
with below average precipitation, there is increased demand for
groundwater resources for both the natural environment and human
uses. In addition, climate change will likely redistribute precipitation
patterns throughout the year, which will likely impact groundwater
resources in the watershed.
Management Implications
Land use and development has a direct effect on groundwater
quantity and quality. Therefore, land use planning must consider
watershed functions such as groundwater recharge when directing
future growth. Municipal growth strategies should direct growth
and development away from sensitive watershed landscapes such as
those areas that facilitate groundwater recharge. Efforts in recent
1971
2021
Figure 8. Estimated population in the Grand River
watershed including future projections (burgundy
bar).
Source: Dorfman (1997) and Grand River Conservation Authority
(2003)
286
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
years have focused on delineating wellhead protection zones, assessing the threats and understanding the regional hydrogeology.
Through the planning process, municipalities such as the Region of Waterloo, City of Guelph and the County of Wellington have
recognized the importance of protecting recharge to maintain groundwater resources and have been taking steps to protect this
watershed function. These initiatives include limiting the amount of impervious cover in sensitive areas and capturing precipitation
with rooftop collection systems. By permitting development that facilitates groundwater recharge or redirecting development to
landscapes that are not as sensitive, important watershed functions can be protected to ensure future groundwater supplies.
Water conservation measures should be actively promoted and adopted in all sectors of society. Urban communities must actively
reduce consumption while rural communities require management plans to strategically irrigate using high efficiency methods
and appropriate timing.
Comments from the author(s)
Understanding the impact of water use on the groundwater resources in the watershed will require understanding the availability
of water to allow sustainable human use while still maintaining healthy ecosystems. Assessing groundwater availability and use at
appropriate scales is an important aspect of water balance calculations in the watershed. In other words, assessing water and land
use at the larger watershed scale masks more local issues such as the impact of extensive irrigation.
Consistent and improved monitoring and data collection are required to accurately estimate groundwater demand as well as
determine long-term trends in land use. For example, linking groundwater permits to actual well log identification numbers will
assist with understanding the spatial distribution of groundwater takings. Furthermore, groundwater permit holders should be
required to report actual water use as opposed to permitted use. This will help estimate actual water use and therefore the true
impact on the groundwater system.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Alan Sawyer, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Jeff Pitcher Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON; and
Pat Lapcevic, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Alan Sawyer's position was partially funded through a grant from Environment Canada's Science Horizons internship program.
The assistance of Samuel Bellamy of the Grand River Conservation Authority, as well as Harvey Shear, Nancy Stadler-Salt and
Andrew Piggott of Environment Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Bellamy, S., and Boyd, D. 2004. Water use in the Grand River watershed. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Dorfman, M.L., and Planner Inc. 1997. Grand River Watershed Profile. Prepared for the Grand River Conservation Authority.
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2003. Watershed Report. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Holysh, S., Pitcher, J., and Boyd, D. 2001. Grand River Regional Groundwater Study. Grand River Conservation Authority,
Cambridge, ON.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2003. Water Well Information System Database. Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON.
Region of Waterloo. Official Municipal Website, http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca.
Statistics Canada. Census of Agriculture. 1986, 1991, 1996. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
287
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge
Indicator #7102
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: It is estimated that human activities have detrimentally impacted groundwater discharge on at
least a local scale in some areas of the Great Lakes basin and that discharge is not significantly
impaired in other areas.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a not assessed status and an undetermined trend, indicating that assessments
were not made on an individual lake basis.
Purpose
To measure the contribution of base flow due to groundwater discharge to total stream flow
To detect the impacts of anthropogenic factors on the quantity of the groundwater resource
Ecosystem Objective
Base flow due to the discharge of groundwater to the rivers and inland lakes and wetlands of the Great Lakes basin is a significant
and often major component of stream flow, particularly during low flow periods. Base flow frequently satisfies flow, level, and
temperature requirements for aquatic species and habitat. Water supplies and the capacity of surface water to assimilate wastewater
discharge are also dependent on base flow. Base flow due to groundwater discharge is therefore critical to the maintenance of water
quantity and quality and the integrity of aquatic species and habitat.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
A significant portion of precipitation over the inland areas of the Great Lakes basin returns to the atmosphere by evapo-transpiration.
Water that does not return to the atmosphere either flows across the ground surface or infiltrates into the subsurface and recharges
groundwater. Some of this water is subsequently removed by consumptive uses such as irrigation and water bottling. Water that
flows across the ground surface discharges into surface water features (rivers, lakes, and wetlands) and then flows toward and
eventually into the Great Lakes. The component of stream flow due to runoff from the ground surface is rapidly varying and
transient, and results in the peak discharges of a stream.
Water that infiltrates into the subsurface and recharges groundwater also results in flow toward the Great Lakes. Most recharged
groundwater flows at relatively shallow depths at local scales and discharges into adjacent surface water features. However,
groundwater also flows at greater depths at regional scales and discharges either directly into the Great Lakes or into distant
surface water features. The quantities of groundwater flowing at these greater depths can be significant locally but are generally
believed to be modest relative to the quantities flowing at shallower depths. Groundwater discharge to surface water features in
response to precipitation is greatly delayed relative to surface runoff. The stream flow resulting from groundwater discharge is,
therefore, more uniform.
Base flow is the less variable and more persistent component of total stream flow. In the Great Lakes region, groundwater discharge
is often the dominant component of base flow. However, various human and natural factors also contribute to base flow. Flow
regulation, the storage and delayed release of water using dams and reservoirs, creates a stream flow signature that is similar to that
of groundwater discharge. Lakes and wetlands also moderate stream flow, transforming rapidly varying surface runoff into more
slowly varying flow that approximates the dynamics of groundwater discharge. It is important to note that these varying sources
of base flow affect surface water quality, particularly with regard to temperature. All groundwater discharge contributes to base
flow but not all base flow is the result of groundwater discharge.
Status of Base Flow
Base flow is frequently determined using a mathematical process known as hydrograph separation. This process uses stream flow
288
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
monitoring information as input and partitions the observed
flow into rapidly and slowly varying components, i.e., surface
runoff and base flow, respectively. The stream flow data that
are used in these analyses are collected across the Great
Lakes basin using networks of stream flow gauges that are
operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
and Environment Canada. Neff et al. (2005) summarize the
calculation and interpretation of base flow for 3,936 gauges
in Ontario and the Great Lakes states using six methods of
hydrograph separation and length-of-record stream flow
monitoring information for the periods ending on December
31, 2000 and September 30, 2001, respectively. The results
reported by Neff et al. (2005) are the basis for the majority
of this report. Results corresponding to the United Kingdom
Institute of Hydrology (UKIH) method of hydrograph
separation (Piggott et al. 2005) are referenced throughout
this report in order to maintain consistency with the previous
report for this indicator. However, results calculated using
the five other methods are considered to be equally probable
outcomes. Figure 1 illustrates the daily stream flow monitoring
information and the results of hydrograph separation for
the Nith River at New Hamburg, Ontario, for January 1 to
December 31, 1993. The rapidly varying response of stream
flow to precipitation and snow melt are in contrast to the more
slowly varying base flow.
10001
0.1 L
j_
1993/01/01 1993/04/01 1993/07/01 1993/10/01 1993/12/31
Date
Figure 1. Hydrograph of observed total stream flow (black) and
calculated base flow (red) for the Nith River at New Hamburg
during 1993.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
40ฐN
Application of hydrograph separation to daily stream
flow monitoring information results in lengthy
time series of output. Various measures are used to
summarize this output. For example, base flow index
is a simple, physical measure of the contribution of
base flow to stream flow that is appropriate for use in
regional scale studies. Base flow index is defined as the
average rate of base flow relative to the average rate
of total stream flow, is unitless, and varies from zero
to one where increasing values indicate an increasing
contribution of base flow to stream flow. The value of
base flow index for the data shown in Figure 1 is 0.28.
which implies that 28% of the observed flow is estimated
to be base flow. Neff et al. (2005) used a selection of
960 gauges in Ontario and the Great Lakes states to
interpret base flow. Figure 2 indicates the distribution
of the values of base flow index calculated for the
selection of gauges relative to the gauged and ungauged
portions of the Great Lakes basin. The variability
of base flow within the basin is apparent. However.
further processing of the information is required to
differentiate the component of base flow that is due to
groundwater discharge and the component that is due
to delayed flow through lakes and wetlands upstream
of the gauges. An approach to the differentiation of
base flow calculated using hydrograph separation into
these two components is summarized in the following paragraphs of this report. Variations in the density of the stream flow gauges
and discontinuities in the coverage of monitoring are also apparent in Figure 2 and may have significant implications relative to
73ฐW
94ฐW
Base Flow Index
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure 2. Distribution of the calculated values of base flow index
relative to the gauged (light grey) and ungauged (dark grey) portions
of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
289
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
the interpretation of base flow.
The values of base flow index calculated for the selection of gauges
using hydrograph separation are plotted relative to the extents of
surface water upstream of each of the gauges in Figure 3. The extents
of surface water are defined as the area of lakes and wetlands upstream
of the gauges relative to the total area upstream of the gauges. While
there is considerable scatter among the values, the expected tendency
for larger values of base flow index to be associated with larger extents
of surface water is confirmed. Neff et al. (2005) modeled base flow
index as a function of surficial geology and the spatial extent of surface
water. Surficial geology is assumed to be responsible for differences
in groundwater discharge and is classified into coarse and fine textured
sediments, till, shallow bedrock, and organic deposits.
The modeling process estimates a value of base flow index for each of
the geological classifications, calculates the weighted averages of these
values for each of the gauges based on the extents of the classifications
upstream of the gauges, and then modifies the weighted averages as a
function of the extent of surface water upstream of the gauges. A non-
linear regression algorithm was used to determine the values of base flow
index for the geological classifications and the parameter in the surface
water modifier that correspond to the best match between the values of
base flow index calculated using hydrograph separation and the values
predicted using the model. The process was repeated for each of the six
methods of hydrograph separation.
m
0.2 -
0.0
0.001 0.01 0.1
Extent of Surface Water
Figure 3. Comparison of the calculated values of
base flow index to the corresponding extents of
surface water.
The step plot (red) indicates the averages of the
values of base flow index within the four intervals of
the extent of surface water.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Extrapolation of base flow index from gauged to ungauged watersheds was performed using the results of the modeling process.
The ungauged watersheds consist of 67 tertiary
watersheds in Ontario and 102 eight-digit hydrologic
unit code (HUC) watersheds in the Great Lakes
states. The extents of surface water for the ungauged
watersheds are shown in Figure 4 where the ranges of
values used in the legend match those used to average
the values of base flow index shown in Figure 3. A
component of base flow due to delayed flow through
lakes and wetlands appears to be likely over extensive
portions of the Great Lakes basin. The distribution
of the classifications of geology is shown in Figure 5.
Organic and fine textured sediments are not
differentiated in this rendering of the classifications
because both classifications have estimated values
of base flow index due to groundwater discharge in
the range of 0.0 to 0.1. However, organic deposits are
of very limited extent and represent, on average, less
than 2% of the area of the ungauged watersheds. The
spatial variation of base flow index shown in Figure 5
resembles the variation shown in Figure 2. However.
it is important to note that the information shown in
Figure 2 includes the influence of delayed flow through
lakes and wetlands upstream of the gauges while this
influence has been removed, or at least reduced, in the
40ฐN
94ฐW
73ฐW
Extent of Surface Water
0.001 0.01
0.1
1
information shown in Figure 5.
Figure 4. Distribution of the extents of surface water for the ungauged
watersheds.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
290
-------
Figure 6 indicates the values of the geological component
of base flow index for the ungauged watersheds obtained
by calculating the weighted averages of the values for the
geological classifications that occur in the watersheds.
This map therefore represents an estimate of the length-
of-record contribution of base flow due to groundwater
discharge to total stream flow that is consistent and
seamless across the Great Lakes basin. The pie charts
indicate the range of values of the geological component
of base flow index for the six methods of hydrograph
separation averaged over the sub-basins of the Great
Lakes. Averaging the six values for each of the sub-basins
yields contributions of base flow due to groundwater
discharge of approximately 60% for Lake Huron, Lake
Michigan, and Lake Superior and 50% for Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario. There is frequently greater variability of
this contribution within the sub-basins than among the
sub-basins as the result of variability of geology that is
more uniformly averaged at the scale of the sub-basins.
Mapping the geological component of base flow index,
which is assumed to be due to groundwater discharge,
across the Great Lakes basin in a consistent and
seamless manner is an important accomplishment in the
development of this indicator. Additional information
is, however, required to determine the extent to which
human activities have impaired groundwater discharge.
There are various alternatives for the generation of
this information. For example, the values of base flow
index calculated for the selection of stream flow gauges
using hydrograph separation can be compared to the
corresponding modeled values. If a calculated value is
less than a modeled value, and if the difference is not
related to the limitations of the modeling process, then
base flow is less than expected based on physiographic
factors and it is possible that discharge has been impacted
by human activities. Similarly, if a calculated value is
greater than a modeled value, then it is possible that the
increased base flow is the result of human activities such
as flow regulation and wastewater discharge. Time series
of base flow can also be used to assess these impacts. The
previous report for this indicator illustrated the detection
of temporal change in base flow using data for watersheds
with approximately natural stream flow and with
extensive flow regulation and urbanization. However,
no attempt has yet been made to systematically assess
change at the scale of the Great Lakes basin. Change in
base flow over time may be subtle and difficult to quantify
(e.g., variations in the relation of base flow to climate) and
may be continuous (e.g., a uniform increase in base flow
due to aging water supply infrastructure and increasing
conveyance losses) or discrete (e.g., an abrupt reduction
in base flow due to a new consumptive water use). Change
may also be the result of cumulative impacts due to a
51ฐN
40ฐN
73ฐW
Geological Classification
Organic Till Bedrock Coarse
(0.00) (0.33) (0.59) (0.82)
and Fine
(0.10)
Figure 5. Distribution of the geological classifications.
The classifications are shaded using the estimated values of the
geological component of base flow index shown in parentheses.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Lake Superior
(0.47 - 0.70) "
51ฐN
Lake Huron
(0.47 - 0.70)
Lake Onatrio
(0.38 - 0.60)
Lake Michigan
(0.51 - 0.68)
94 ฐW
Lake Erie
(0.35-0.56)
m
Base Flow Index
Figure 6. Distribution of the estimated values of the geological
component of base flow index for the ungauged watersheds.
The pie charts indicate the estimated values of the geological
component of base flow index for the Great Lakes sub-basins
corresponding to the six methods of hydrograph separation. The
charts are shaded using the six values of base flow index and the
numbers in parentheses are the range of the values.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
291
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
range of historical and ongoing human activities, and
may be more pronounced and readily detected at local
scales than at the scales that are typical of continuous
stream flow monitoring.
Figure 7 is an alternative view of the data for the Grand
River at Gait, Ontario, that was previously used to
illustrate the impact of flow regulation on base flow.
The cumulative depth of base flow calculated annually
as the total volume of flow at the location of the gauge
during each year divided by the area that is upstream
of the gauge, is plotted relative to cumulative total
flow. Base flow index is, by definition, the slope of the
accumulation of base flow relative to the accumulation
of total flow. The change in slope and increase in base
flow index from a value of 0.45 prior to the construction
of the reservoirs that are located upstream of the gauge
to 0.57 following the construction of the reservoirs
clearly indicates the impact of active flow regulation
to mitigate low and high flow conditions. Calculating
and interpreting diagnostic plots such as Figure 7 for
hundreds to thousands of stream flow gauges in the
Great Lakes basin will be a large and time consuming.
but perhaps ultimately necessary, task.
Improving the spatial resolution of the current estimates
of base flow due to groundwater discharge would be
beneficial in some settings. For example, localized
groundwater discharge has important implications
in terms of aquatic habitat and it is unlikely that this
discharge can be predicted using the current regional
estimates of base flow. The extrapolation of base flow
information from gauged to ungauged watersheds
described by Neff e-t al. (2005) is
based on a classification and therefore
reduced resolution representation of the
Quaternary geology of the basin. Figure 8
compares this classification to the full
resolution of the available 1:1,000,000
scale (Ontario Geological Survey (OGS)
1997) and 1:50,000 scale (OGS 2003)
mapping of the geology of the gauged
portion of the Grand River watershed
in southern Ontario. Interpretation of
base flow in terms of these more detailed
descriptions of geology, where feasible
relative to the network of stream flow
gauges, may result in an improved
estimate of the spatial distribution
of groundwater discharge for input
into functions such as aquatic habitat
management.
15
_o
LL
0)
re
CO
0)
J2
2
E
O
10
CO
O
200
10 20
Cumulative Total Flow (m)
30
'o
re
a.
re
O
Figure 7. Cumulative base flow as a function of cumulative total flow
for the Grand River at Gait prior to (red), during (green), and following
(blue) the construction of the reservoirs that are located upstream of
the stream flow gauge.
The step plot indicates the cumulative storage capacity of the reservoirs
where the construction of the largest four reservoirs is labeled. The
dashed red and blue lines indicate uniform accumulation of flow based
on data prior to and following, respectively, the construction of the
reservoirs.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Estimation of base flow using low flow
Figure 8. Geology of the gauged portion of the Grand River watershed based on
the classification (A) and full resolution (B) of the 1:1,000,000 scale Quaternary
geology mapping and the full resolution of the 1:50,000 scale Quaternary geology
mapping (C) where random colors are used to differentiate the various geological
classifications and units.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
292
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
observations, single "spot" measurements of stream flow under assumed base
flow conditions, is another means of improving the spatial resolution of the
current prediction of groundwater discharge. Figure 9 illustrates a series of
low flow observations performed within the watershed of Duffins Creek above
Pickering, Ontario, where the observations are standardized using continuous
monitoring information and the drainage areas for the observations following
the procedure described by Gebert et al. (2005) and then classified into 3-
quantile groupings of high, intermediate, and low values. The standardized
values of low flow illustrate the spatially variable pattern of groundwater
discharge that results from the interaction between surficial geology, the
complex three-dimensional hydrostratigraphy, topography, and surface water
features. Areas of potentially high groundwater discharge may have particularly
important implications in terms of aquatic habitat for cold water fish species
such as brook trout.
Finally, reconciling estimates of base flow generated using differing methods
of hydrograph separation, perhaps by interpreting the information in a
relative rather than absolute manner, will improve the certainty and therefore
performance of base flow as an indicator of groundwater discharge. It may also
be possible to assess the source of this uncertainty using chemical and isotopic
data in combination with the methods of hydrograph separation if adequate
data are available at the scale of the gauged watersheds. Figure 10 compares
the values of base flow index calculated for the selection of 960 stream flow
gauges in Ontario and the Great Lake states using the PART (Rutledge 1998)
and UKIH methods of hydrograph separation. The majority of the values
calculated using the PART method are greater than the values calculated using
the UKIH method and there is considerable scatter in the differences among
the two methods. The average of the differences between the two sets of values
is 0.15 and is significant when measured relative to the differences in the
estimates of base flow index for the sub-basins of the Great Lakes, which is on
the order of 0.1.
Figure 9. Distribution of the standardized
values of low flow within the watershed of
Duffins Creek above Pickering.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological
Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources
1.0
0.6
ซ
a
O 0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Base Flow Index (UKIH)
1.0
Figure 10. Comparison of the values of base flow
index calculated using the PART method of hydrograph
separation to the values calculated using the UKIH
method.
Source: Environment Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey
Pressures
The discharge of groundwater to surface water features is the end-
point of the process of groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge.
Human activities impact groundwater discharge by modifying
the components of this process where the time, scale, and to some
extent the severity, of these impacts is a function of hydrogeological
factors and the proximity of surface water features. Increasing the
extent of impervious surfaces during residential and commercial
development and installation of drainage to increase agricultural
productivity are examples of activities that may reduce groundwater
recharge and ultimately groundwater discharge. Withdrawals of
groundwater as a water supply and during dewatering (pumping
groundwater to lower the water table during construction, mining.
etc.) remove groundwater from the flow regime and may also reduce
groundwater discharge. Groundwater discharge may be impacted by
activities such as the channelization of water courses that restrict the
motion of groundwater across the groundwater and surface water
interface. Human activities also have the capacity to intentionally.
or unintentionally, increase groundwater discharge. Induced storm
water infiltration, conveyance losses within municipal water and
wastewater systems, and closure of local water supplies derived from
groundwater are examples of factors that may increase groundwater
293
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
discharge. Climate variability and change may compound the implications of human activities relative to groundwater recharge,
flow, and discharge.
Management Implications
Groundwater has important societal and ecological functions across the Great Lakes basin. Groundwater is typically a high quality
water supply that is used by a significant portion of the population, particularly in rural areas where it is often the only available
source of water. Groundwater discharge to rivers, lakes, and wetlands is also critical to aquatic species and habitat and to in-stream
water quantity and quality. These functions are concurrent and occasionally conflicting. Pressures such as urban development
and water use, in combination with the potential for climate impacts and further contamination of the resource, may increase the
frequency and severity of these conflicts. In the absence of systematic accounting of groundwater supplies, use, and dependencies,
it is the ecological function of groundwater that is most likely to be compromised.
Managing the water quality of the Great Lakes requires an understanding of water quantity and quality within the inland portion
of the basin, and this understanding requires recognition of the relative contributions of surface runoff and groundwater discharge
to stream flow. The results described in this report indicate the significant contribution of groundwater discharge to flow within
the tributaries of the Great Lakes. The extent of this contribution has tangible management implications. There is considerable
variability in groundwater recharge, flow, and discharge that must be reflected in the land and water management practices that
are applied across the basin. The dynamics of groundwater flow and transport are different than those of surface water flow.
Groundwater discharge responds more slowly to climate and maintains stream flow during periods of reduced water availability,
but this capacity is known to be both variable and finite. Contaminants that are transported by groundwater may be in contact
with geologic materials for years, decades, and perhaps even centuries or millennia. As a result, there may be considerable
opportunity for attenuation of contamination prior to discharge. However, the lengthy residence times of groundwater flow also
limit opportunities for the removal of contaminants, in general, and non-point source contaminants, in particular.
Comments from the author(s)
The indicated status and trend are estimates that the authors consider to be a broadly held opinion of water resource specialists
within the Great Lakes basin. Further research and analysis is required to confirm these estimates and to determine conditions on
a lake by lake basis.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Andrew Piggott, Environment Canada
BrianNeff, U.S. Geological Survey
Marc Hinton, Geological Survey of Canada.
Contributors: Lori Fuller, U.S. Geological Survey
Jim Nicholas, U.S. Geological Survey.
Sources
Base flow information cited in the report is a product of the study, Groundwater and the Great Lakes: A Coordinated Binational
Basin-wide Assessment in Support of Annex 2001 Decision Making, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with
Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute and the Great Lakes Protection Fund. Data are published in Neff et al.
(2005), cited below.
Citations
Gebert, W.A., Lange, M.J., Considine, E.J.,and Kennedy, J.L., 2005. Use of streamflow data to estimate baseflow/ground-water
recharge for Wisconsin: /. of the American Water Resources Association.
Neff, B.P., Day, S.M., Piggott, A.R., Fuller, L.M., 2005, Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2005-5217, pp. 23.
Ontario Geological Survey (OGS), 1997, Quaternary geology, seamless coverage of the province of Ontario: Ontario Geological
Survey, ERLIS Data Set 14.
294
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
OGS, 2003, Surficial geology of southern Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release Data 128.
Piggott, A.R., Moin, S., and Southam, C., 2005, A revised approach to the UKIH method for the calculation of baseflow:
Hydrological Sciences J., 50: 911-920.
Rutledge, A.T., 1998. Computer programs for describing the recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean
ground-water recharge and discharge form stream/low data - update: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 98-4148, 43 p.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
295
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal Communities
Indicator #7103
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Note: This indicator report uses data from the Grand River watershed only and may not be representative of
groundwater conditions throughout the Great Lakes basin. Additionally, there is insufficient biological and
physical hydrological data for most of the streams in the Grand River watershed to report on many of the selected
species reliant on groundwater discharge; hence this discussion focuses on brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as
an indicator of groundwater discharge.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To measure the abundance and diversity as well as presence or absence of native invertebrates, fish, plant and wildlife
(including cool-water adapted frogs and salamanders) communities that are dependent on groundwater discharges to
aquatic habitat
To identify and understand any deterioration of water quality for animals and humans, as well as changes in the productive
capacity of flora and fauna dependant on groundwater resources
To use biological communities to assess locations of groundwater intrusions
To infer certain chemical and physical properties of groundwater, including changes in patterns of seasonal flow
Ecosystem Objective
The goal for this indicator is to ensure that plant and animal communities function at or near maximum potential and that
populations are not significantly compromised due to anthropogenic factors.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
The integrity of larger water bodies can be linked to biological, chemical and physical integrity of the smaller watercourses that
feed them. Many of these small watercourses are fed by groundwater. As a result, groundwater discharge to surface waters becomes
cumulatively important when considering the quality of water entering the Great Lakes. The identification of groundwater fed
streams and rivers will provide useful information for the development of watershed management plans that seek to protect these
sensitive watercourses.
Human activities can change the hydrological processes in a watershed resulting in changes to recharge rates of aquifers and
discharges rates to streams and wetlands. This indicator should serve to identify organisms at risk because of human activities and
can be used to quantify trends in communities over time.
Status of Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities in the Grand River Watershed
The surficial geology of the Grand River watershed is generally divided into three distinct regions; the northern till plain, central
moraines with large sand and gravel deposits, and the southern clay plain (Figure 1). These surficial overburden deposits are
underlain by thick sequences of fractured carbonate rock (predominantly dolostone).
The Grand River and its tributaries form a stream network housing approximately 11,329 km of stream habitat. The Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources (OMNR) has classified many of Ontario's streams based on habitat type. While many streams and rivers in
the Grand River watershed remain unclassified, the MNR database currently available through the Natural Resources and Values
Information System (NRVIS) has documented and classified about 22% of the watershed's streams (Figure 2). Approximately
19% of the classified streams are cold-water habitat and therefore dependent on groundwater discharge. An additional 16% of the
296
-------
Generalized Geologic Units
Hi Bedrock
Clay
Gravel
Organic
Sand
Sandy Till
Hi Sllty Till
M Water
Stream Classification
Not Classified
Colctwater
Potential Coldwater
Warrnwater Sporlfish
Warmwater Baitfish
High Recharge Area
Figure 1. Surficial geology of the Grand River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Figure 2. Streams of the Grand River watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
classified streams are considered potential cold-water habitat. The remaining 65% of classified streams are warm-water habitat.
A map of potential groundwater discharge areas was created for the Grand River watershed by examining the relationship between
the water table and ground surface (Figure 3). This map indicates areas in the watershed where water well records indicate that the
water table could potentially be higher than the ground surface. In areas where this is the case, there is a strong tendency toward
discharge of groundwater to land, creating cold-water habitats. Groundwater discharge appears to be geologically controlled
with most potential discharge areas noted associated with the sands and gravels in the central moraine areas and little discharge
in the northern till plain and southern clay plain. The map suggests that some of the unclassified streams in Figure 2 may be
potential cold-water streams, particularly in the central portion of the watershed where geological conditions are favorable to
groundwater discharge. Brook trout is a freshwater fish species native to eastern Canada. The survival and success of brook trout
is closely tied to cold groundwater discharges in streams used for spawning. Specifically, brook trout require inputs of cold, clean
water to successfully reproduce. As a result, nests or redds are usually located in substrate where groundwater is upwelling into
surface water. A significant spawning population of adult brook trout generally indicates a constant source of cool, good quality
groundwater.
Locations of observed brook trout redds are shown on Figure 3. The data shown are a compilation of several surveys carried out
on selected streams in 1988 and 1989. Additional data from several sporadic surveys carried out in the 1990s are also included.
These redds may represent single or multiple nests from brook trout spawning activity. The results of these surveys illustrate that
there are significant high quality habitats in several of the subwatersheds in the basin.
Cedar Creek is a tributary of the Nith River in the central portion of the watershed. It has been described as containing some of the
best brook trout habitat in the watershed. Salmonid spawning surveys for brook trout were carried out over similar stretches of the
creek in 1989 and 2003 (Figure 4). In 1989 a total redd count of 53 (over 4.2 km (2.6 miles)) was surveyed while in 2003 the total
297
-------
redd count was 59 (over 5.4 km (3.4 miles)). In both surveys,
many of the redds counted were multiple redds meaning
several fish had spawned at the same locations. Redd
densities in 1989 and 2003 were 12.6 redds/km (20.3 redds/
mile) and 10.9 redds/km (17.5 redds/mile) respectively. From
Figure 4 it appears that in 2003 brook trout were actively
spawning in Cedar Creek in mainly the same locations as
in 1989. While redd density in Cedar Creek has decreased
slightly, the similar survey results suggest that groundwater
discharge has remained fairly constant and reductions in
discharge have not significantly affected aquatic habitat.
Pressures
The removal of groundwater from the subsurface through
pumping at wells reduces the amount of groundwater
discharging into surface waterbodies. Increasing impervious
surfaces reduces the amount of water that can infiltrate
into the ground and also ultimately reduces groundwater
discharge into surface water bodies. Additionally, reducing
the depth to the water table from ground surface will
decrease the geological protection afforded groundwater
supplies and may increase the temperature of groundwater.
Higher temperatures can reduce the moderating effect
groundwater provides to aquatic stream habitat. At local
scales the creation of surface water bodies through mining
or excavation of aggregate or rock may change groundwater
flow patterns, which in turn might decrease groundwater
discharge to sensitive habitats.
In the Grand River watershed, groundwater is used by about
80% of the watershed's residents as their primary water
supply. Additionally, numerous industrial and agricultural
users also use groundwater for their operations. Growing
urban communities will put pressure on the resource
and if not managed properly will lead to decreases in
groundwater discharge to streams. Development in
some areas can also lead to decreased areas available
for precipitation to percolate through the ground and
recharge groundwater supplies.
Management Implications
Ensuring that an adequate supply of cold groundwater
continues to discharge into streams requires protecting
groundwater recharge areas and ensuring that
groundwater withdrawals are undertaken at sustainable
rates. Additionally, an adequate supply of groundwater
for habitat purposes does not only refer to the quantity of
discharge but also to the chemical quality, temperature
and spatial location of that discharge. As a result,
protecting groundwater resources is complicated and
generally requires multi-faceted strategies including
regulation, voluntary adoption of best management
practices and public education.
o Spawning Location
Potential Hnghl (X Waler Tabte
Above Ground Surface (mattes)
| 20.
j 19 - 20
18-19
17-18
16-17
15-16
| 14-15
13-M
i 12 13
11-12
10-11
9-10
9
Kilometres
Figure 3. Map of potential discharge areas in the Grand River
watershed.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
Figure 4. Results of brook trout spawning surveys carried out in the
Cedar Creek subwatershed in 1989 and 2003.
Source: Grand River Conservation Authority
298
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Comments from the author(s)
This report has focused on only one species dependent on groundwater discharge for its habitat. The presence or absence of other
species should be investigated through systematic field studies.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Alan Sawyer, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON;
Jeff Pitcher, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON; and
Pat Lapcevic, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON.
Alan Sawyer's position was partially funded through a grant from Environment Canada's Science Horizons internship program.
The assistance of Samuel Bellamy and Warren Yerex of the Grand River Conservation Authority, as well as Harvey Shear, Nancy
Stadler-Salt and Andrew Piggott of Environment Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Grand River Conservation Authority. 2003. Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Spawning Survey - Cedar Creek.
Grillmayer, R.A., and Baldwin, RJ. 1990. Salmonid spawning surveys of selected streams in the Grand River watershed 1988-
1989. Environmental Services Group, Grand River Conservation Authority.
Holysh, S., Pitcher, J., and Boyd, D. 2001. Grand River Regional Groundwater Study. Grand River Conservation Authority,
Cambridge, ON. 78pp. + figures and appendices.
Scott, W.B., and Grossman, E.J. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, pp. 208-213. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
299
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Alvars
Indicator #8129 (Alvars)
This indicator report was last updated in 2000.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the status of Great Lakes alvars (including changes in area and quality), one of the 12 special lakeshore
communities identified within the nearshore terrestrial area
To infer the success of management activities
To focus future conservation efforts toward the most ecologically significant alvar habitats in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is the preservation of the area and quality of Great Lakes alvars, individually and as an ecologically important
system, for the maintenance of biodiversity and the protection of rare species. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Alvar communities are naturally open habitats occurring on flat limestone bedrock. They have a distinctive set of plant species
and vegetative associations, and include many species of plants, molluscs, and invertebrates that are rare elsewhere in the basin.
All 15 types of alvars and associated habitats are globally imperiled or rare.
A four-year study of Great Lakes alvars completed in 1998 (the International Alvar Conservation Initiative (IACI)) evaluated
conservation targets for alvar communities, and concluded that essentially all of the existing viable occurrences should be
maintained, since all types are below the minimum threshold of 30-60 viable examples. As well as conserving these ecologically
distinct communities, this target would protect populations of dozens of globally significant and disjunct species. A few species,
such as lakeside daisy (Hymenoxis herbacea) and the beetle Chlaeniusp. purpuricollis, have nearly all of their global occurrences
within Great Lakes alvar sites.
Status of Great Lakes Alvars
Alvar habitats have likely always been sparsely distributed, but more than 90% of their original extent has been destroyed or
substantially degraded by agriculture and other human uses. Approximately 64% of the remaining alvar area occurs within
Ontario, with about 16% in New York State, 15% in Michigan, 4% in Ohio, and smaller areas in Wisconsin and Quebec. Data
from the IACI and state/provincial alvar studies were screened and updated to identify viable community occurrences. Just over
two-thirds of known Great Lakes alvars occur close to the shoreline, with all or a substantial portion of their area within one
kilometer of the shore.
Typically, several different community types occur within each
alvar site. Among the 15 community types documented, six types
show a strong association (over 80% of their area) with nearshore
settings. Four types have less than half of their occurrences in
nearshore settings.
The current status of all nearshore alvar communities was evaluated
by considering current land ownership and the type and severity of
No. of alvar sites
No. of community occurences
Alvar area (ha)
Total in Basin
82
204
1 1 ,523
Nearshore
52
138
8,097
Table 1. Number of alvar sites/communities found
nearshore and total in the basin.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
300
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
threats to their integrity. As shown in Figure 1, less than one-fifth of the nearshore alvar area is currently fully protected, while over
three-fifths are at high risk. The degree of protection for nearshore alvar communities varies considerably among jurisdictions. For
example, Michigan has 66% of its nearshore alvar area in the Fully Protected category, while Ontario has only 7%. In part, this is
a reflection of the much larger total shoreline area in Ontario, as shown in Figure 2. (Other states have too few nearshore sites to
allow comparison).
Limited 11.9%
Partly 9.1%
Fully 18.8%
At High Risk 60.2%
Figure 1. Protection status of nearshore alvar area (2000).
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Acres of Alvar
iooo -
i
Ontario
, 1
Michigan
n At High Risk D Limited
EEI Partly Protected EEI Fully Protected
Figure 2. Comparison of the protection status of nearshore
alvars (in acres) for Ontario and Michigan.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Each location of an alvar community or rare species has been documented as an "element occurrence" or EO. Each alvar community
occurrence has been assigned an EO rank" to reflect its relative quality and condition ("A" for excellent to "D" for poor). A and
B-ranks are considered viable, while C-ranks are marginal and a D ranked occurrence is not expected to survive even with
appropriate management efforts. As shown in Figure 3, protection efforts to secure alvars have clearly focused on the best quality
sites.
Documentation of the extent and quality of alvars through
the IACI has been a major step forward, and has stimulated
much greater public awareness and conservation activity
for these habitats. Over the past two years, a total of 10
securement projects have resulted in protection of at least
2140.6 ha of alvars across the Great Lakes basin, with 1353.5
ha of that within the nearshore area. Most of the secured
nearshore area is through land acquisition, but 22.7 ha on
Pelee Island (ON) are through a conservation easement, and
0.6 ha on Kelleys Island (OH) are through state dedication of
a nature reserve. These projects have increased the area of
protected alvar dramatically in a short time.
AB
BC&C
EO Rank
Partly Protected
Fully Protected
Figure 3. Protection of high quality alvars.
EO Rank = Element Occurrence (A is excellent, B is good and
C is marginal).
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Pressures
Nearshore alvar communities are most frequently threatened
by habitat fragmentation and loss, trails and off-road vehicles.
resource extraction uses such as quarrying or logging, and
adjacent land uses such as residential subdivisions. Less
frequent threats include grazing or deer browsing, plant
collecting for bonsai or other hobbies, and invasion by non-native plants such as European buckthorn and dog-strangling vine.
Comments from the author(s)
Because of the large number of significant alvar communities at risk, particularly in Ontario, their status should be closely watched
to ensure that they are not lost. Major binational projects hold great promise for further progress, since alvars are a Great Lakes
301
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
resource, but most of the unprotected area is within Ontario. Projects could be usefully modeled after the 1999 Manitoulin Island
(ON) acquisition of 6,880 ha through a cooperative project of The Nature Conservancy of Canada, The Nature Conservancy,
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON; and
Heather Potter, The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Brownell, V.R., and Riley, J.L. 2000. The alvars of Ontario: significant alvar natural areas in the Ontario Great Lakes Region.
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto, ON.
Cusick, A.W. 1998. Alvar landforms and plant communities in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH.
Oilman, B. 1998. Alvars of New York: A Site Summary Report. Finger Lakes Community College, Canandaigua, NY.
Lee, Y.M., Scrimger, L.J., Albert, D.A., Penskar, M.R., Comer, P.J., and Cuthrell, D.A. 1998. Alvars of Michigan. Michigan
Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Reid, R. 2000. Great Lakes alvar update, July 2000. Prepared for the International Alvar Conservation Initiative Working Group.
Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON.
Reschke, C., Reid, R., Jones, J., Feeney, T., and Potter, H. 1999. Conserving Great Lakes alvars: final technical report of the
International Alvar Conservation Initiative. The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
Last Updated
SOLEC 2000
[Editor's note: A condensed version of this report was published in the State of the Great Lakes 2001.]
302
-------
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Cobble Beaches
Indicator #8129 (Cobble Beaches)
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the status of cobble beaches, one of the 12 special shoreline communities identified within the nearshore
terrestrial area
To assess the changes in area and quality of Great Lakes cobble beaches
To infer the success of management activities
To focus future conservation efforts toward the most ecologically significant cobble beach habitats in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is the preservation of the area and quality of Great Lakes cobble beaches, individually and as an ecologically
important system, for the maintenance of biodiversity and the protection of rare species. This indicator supports Annex 2 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Cobble beaches are shaped by wave and ice erosion. They are home to a variety of plant species, several of which are threatened
or endangered provincially/statewide, globally, or both making them one of the most biodiverse terrestrial communities along the
Great Lakes shoreline. Cobble beaches serve as seasonal spawning and migration areas for fish as well as nesting areas for the
piping plover, a species listed in the U.S. as endangered.
Status of Cobble Beaches
Cobble beaches have always been a part of the Great Lakes shoreline. The number and area of these beaches, however, is decreasing
due to shoreline development. In fact, cobble shorelines are becoming so scarce that they are considered globally rare.
Lake Superior has the most cobble shoreline of
all the Great Lakes with 958 km (595 miles) of
cobble beaches (Figure 1); 541 km (336 miles) on
the Canadian side and 417 km (259 miles) on the
U.S. side. This constitutes 20% of the whole Lake
Superior shoreline (11.3% on the Canadian side and
8.7% on the U.S. side).
Lake Huron has the 2nd most cobble shoreline
with approximately 483 km (300 miles) of cobble
shoreline; 330 km (205 miles) on the Canadian side
and 153 km (95 miles) on the U.S. side. Most of
the cobble beaches are found along the shoreline
of Georgian Bay (Figure 2). This constitutes
approximately 9% of the whole Lake Huron
shoreline (6.1% on the Canadian side and 2.8% on
the U.S. side).
Figure 1. Cobble beaches along Lake Superior's shoreline (red = cobble
beach locations).
Source: Lake Superior Binational Program, Lake Superior LaMP 2000, Environment
Canada, and Dennis Albert
303
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Approximately 164 km (102 miles)
of the Lake Michigan shoreline is
cobble, representing 6.1% of its
shoreline. Most of these beaches are
located at the northern end of the lake
in the state of Michigan (Figure 3).
Lake Ontario has very little cobble
shoreline of about 35 km (22 miles).
representing only 3% of its shoreline
(Figure 4).
Lake Erie has the smallest amount
of cobble shoreline of all the Great
Lakes with only 26 km of cobble
shore. This small area represents
approximately 1.9% of the lake's
shoreline (Figure 5).
C"
While the cobble beaches themselves
are scarce, they do have a wide variety
of vegetation associated with them.
and they serve as home to plants that
are endemic to the Great Lakes shoreline. Lake Superior's large
cobble shoreline provides for several rare plant species (Table
1) some of which include the Lake Huron tansy and redroot. It
is also home to the endangered heart-leaved plantain, which is
protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act.
Lake Michigan and Lake Huron's cobble shorelines are home to
Houghton's goldenrod and the dwarf lake iris, both of which are
endemic to the Great Lakes shoreline (Table 2, Table 3). Some
other rare species on the Lake Michigan shoreline include the
Lake Huron tansy and beauty sedge (Table 2).
Figure 2. Cobble beaches along Lake Huron's
shoreline (red = cobble beach locations).
Source: Environment Canada
Figure 3. Cobble beaches
along Lake Michigan's shoreline
(red = cobble beach locations).
Source: Albert (1994a), Humphrys et al.
(1958)
Lake Superior
Common Name
Bulrush sedge
Great northern aster
Northern reedgrass
Purple clematis
Northern grass of Parnassus
Mountain goldenrod
Narrow-leafed reedgrass
Downy oat-grass
Pale Indian paintbrush
Butterwort
Pearlwort
Calypso orchid
Lake Huron tansy
Redroot
Heart-leaved plantain
Scientific Name
Carex scirpoidea
Aster modestus
Calamagmstis lacustris
Clematis occidentalis
Pamassia palustris
Solidago decumbens
Calamagmstis stricta
Trisetum spicatum
Castilleja septentrionalis
Pinguicula vulgaris
Sagina nodosa
Calypsa bulbosa
Tanacetum humnense
Lachnanthes caroliana
Plantago cordata
Figure 4. Cobble beaches along Lake Ontario's shoreline
(red = cobble beach locations).
Source: International Joint Commission (IJC) and Christian J. Stewart
Table 1. Rare plant species on Lake Superior's cobble
shoreline.
Source: Lake Superior LaMP (2000)
Figure 5. Cobble beaches along Lake Erie's shoreline (red = cobble
beach locations).
Source: Environment Canada
304
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lake Michigan
Common Name
Dwarf lake iris
Houghton's goldenrod
Slender cliff-brake
Lake Huron tansy
Beauty sedge
Richardson's sedge
Scientific Name
Iris lacustris
Solidago houghtonii
Cryptogramma stelleri
Tanacetum huronense
Carex concinna
Carex richardsonii
Table 2. Rare plant species along Lake Michigan's
cobble shoreline.
Source: Dennis Albert
Lake Huron
Common Name
Dwarf lake iris
Houghton's goldenrod
Scientific Name
Iris lacustris
Solidago houghtonii
Table 3. Rare plant species along Lake Huron's
cobble shoreline.
Source: Environment Canada
Not many studies have been conducted on the cobble shorelines of
Lake Ontario and Lake Erie because these areas are so small. The
report author was unable to find any information about the vegetation
that grows there.
Pressures
Cobble beaches are most frequently threatened and lost by shoreline
development. Homes built along the shorelines of the Great Lakes
cause the number of cobble beaches to become limited. Along with
the development of homes also comes increased human activity along
the shoreline resulting in damage to rare plants in the surrounding
area and ultimately a loss of terrestrial biodiversity on the cobble
beaches.
Comments from the author(s)
Not much research has been conducted on cobble beach communities;
therefore, no baseline data have been set. A closer look into the
percentage of cobble beaches that already have homes on them or
are slated for development would yield a more accurate direction
in which the beaches are headed. Also, a look at the percentage of
these beaches that are in protected areas would provide valuable
information. Projects similar to Dennis Albert's Bedrock Shoreline Surveys of the Keweenaw Peninsula and Drummond Island in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula (1994) for the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, as well as the International Joint Commission's
Classification of Shore Units Coastal Working Group: Lake Ontario and Upper St. Lawrence River (2002), would be very useful
in determining exactly where the remaining cobble beaches are located and what is growing and living within them.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Jacqueline Adams, Environmental Careers Organization, on appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office.
Sources
Albert, D. 1994a. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working map and classification.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Albert, D., Comer, P., Cuthrell, D., Penskar, M., Rabe, M., and Reschke, C. 1994b. Bedrock shoreline surveys of the Keweenaw
Peninsula and Drummond Island in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.
Albert, D.A., Comer, P.J., Corner, R.A., Cuthrell, D., Penskar, M., and Rabe, M. 1995. Bedrock shoreline survey of the Niagaran
escarpment in Michigan's Upper Peninsula: Mackinac County to Delta County. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing,
MI.
Environment Canada. 1994a. Environmental Sensitivity Atlas for Lake Erie (including the Wetland Canal) and the Niagara
River shorelines. Environment Canada, Ontario Region, United States Coast Guard, and the United States National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Environment Canada. 1994b. Environmental Sensitivity Atlas for Lake Huron's Canadian shoreline (including Georgian Bay).
Environment Canada, Ontario Region.
Humphrys, C.R., Horner, R.N., and Rogers, J.H. 1958. Shoretype Bulletin Nos. 1-29. Michigan State University Department of
Resource Development, East Lansing, MI.
International Joint Commission (IJC) 2002. Classification of shore units. Coastal working group. Lake Ontario and Upper St.
Lawrence River. Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
305
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Lake Superior Binational Program. 2000. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2000. Environment Canada and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
Michigan's Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). Rare Plant Reference Guide. Michigan State University Extension.
http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/rareplants.cfm. last accessed October 5, 2005.
Stewart, C. J. 2003. A revised geomorphic, shore protection and nearshore classification of the Canadian and United States
shorelines of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Christian J. Stewart Consulting, British Columbia, Canada.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
306
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Extent, Condition and Conservation Management of Great Lakes Islands
Indicator #8129 (Islands)
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: This project established baseline information that will be used to assess future trends. Results
reflect detailed analyses from Canadian islands and preliminary results from U.S. islands.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Detailed analysis for Canada only.
Lake Michigan
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Detailed analysis not completed.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Detailed analysis for Canada only.
Lake Erie
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Detailed analysis for Canada only.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Detailed analysis for Canada only.
Purpose
To assess the status of Great Lakes islands, one of the 12 special lakeshore communities identified within the nearshore
terrestrial area
To assess changes in area and quality of Great Lakes islands individually, within lake units, and as an ecologically
important system
To assess amount and suitability of island habitat for focal species and communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem
To infer success of management activities
To focus future conservation efforts toward the most ecologically significant island habitats in the Great Lakes that face
threats and are not adequately protected
Ecosystem Objective
The long-term objective is to ensure conservation, protection, and preservation of islands of the Great Lakes, including their
unique landforms, plants, animals, cultural history, and globally important biological diversity.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
This project created the first detailed binational map and database of Great Lakes islands1 (Figure 1). This effort includes
identification of 31,407 island polygons2 with a total coastline of 15,623 km (9,708 miles). The islands range in size from no bigger
than a large boulder to the world's largest freshwater island, Manitoulin. They often form chains of islands known as archipelagos.
Though this is not well known, the Great Lakes contain the world's largest freshwater island system, and the islands are globally
significant in terms of their biological diversity. Despite this, the state of our knowledge about islands as a collection is very
limited.
1 We define island as any land mass, natural or artificial, within the Great Lakes and connecting channels that is surrounded by an aquatic environment.
2 Island polygons are based on remote mapping information and small islands in close proximity may be mapped as a single unit. As a result, 31,407 is a
conservative estimate. Additionally, the shape and number of islands can change depending on water levels.
307
-------
Framework for the
Binational Conservation
of Great Lakes Islands
Lakes and Connecting
Channels
MINN
Figure ^. The first combined map of Canadian and United States islands of the Great Lakes.
Source: Vigmostad, K.E., F. Cuthbert, D. Ewert, D. Kraus, M. Seymour, and L. Wires. 2007. Great Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements and Threats. Final
Report to the Great Lakes National Program Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Islands are vulnerable and sensitive to change. Islands are exposed to forces of erosion and accretion as water levels rise and
fall, and to weather events due to their 360-degree exposure to coastal processes. Although very few subspecies, species, or
communities are restricted to Great Lakes islands, some endemic (found exclusively in one ecoregion) or limited-range (found
primarily in one ecoregion, but extends to one or two other ecoregions) species and communities occur disproportionately on
islands. Due to their isolation, many offshore islands have assemblages of plants and animals that do not occur on the mainland as
well as unique predator-prey relationships and low densities of herbivores.
Some Great Lakes islands represent the most remote wilderness areas in the Great Lakes ecoregion. These islands are a remarkable
suite of islands and protect those with the most irreplaceable resources. Islands must be considered as a single irreplaceable resource
and protected in their entirety if the high value of this natural heritage is to be maintained. Their value is enhanced when islands are
protected in the context of the whole. Islands play a particularly important role in the "storehouse" of Great Lakes coastal biodiversity.
For example, in Ontario, over 320 provincially rare species, including 27 globally rare species, occur on islands. In 1999 Soule
reported that the state of Michigan's 600 Great Lakes islands contain one-eleventh 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 on Great Lakes islands are colonial waterbirds,
nearctic-neotropical migrant songbirds, endemic plants, arctic disjuncts, 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. New research indicates that nearshore island areas in the Ontario waters of Lake Huron account
308
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
for 58 percent of the fish spawning and
nursery habitat in this Lake and thus are
critically important to the Great Lakes
fishery. Many of Ontario's provincially
rare species and vegetation communities
can be found on islands in the Great
Lakes.
Methods
Table 1 provides a summary of the number
of islands and island groups (complexes)
within each coastal environment in
Ontario, including the mean and range
for the biodiversity and threat score.
These scores provide a summary of
relative biodiversity significance and
relative threats for islands in each
coastal environment. Islands and island
complexes were assigned scores based
on three categories: 1) biodiversity
values, 2) potential threats, and 3)
existing conservation progress. The
criteria from Ewert et al (2004) were
modified and used as a basis to build
an enhanced scoring method that could
use an automatic approach to assess the
biodiversity of islands in the Ontario
portion of the Great Lakes. Biodiversity
criteria used included criteria for
biological diversity, physical diversity,
size and distinctiveness. The analysis
of threats considered direct potential
threats (e.g., boat launches, anchorages,
residences, cottages, building density,
invasive species, pits, quarries, and
lighthouses). Indirect potential threats
included distance to mining claims, road
density, and percent of island occupied
by cropland. Conservation progress was
also assessed for each island and island
complex. Spatial data on parks and
protected areas, Areas of Natural and
Scientific Interest, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources evaluated wetlands, lands owned by the Nature Conservancy of Canada
and other organizations and agencies for conservation purposes, and islands recognized as top-scoring aquatic and terrestrial
sites from the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Biodiversity were compiled as part of this project. Parks, protected areas,
conservation lands, and existing recognition of biodiversity values were assigned into four categories to reflect the general type
of associated conservation. Existing conservation progress scores did not directly contribute to biodiversity or threat scores, but
the proportion of these conservation lands on each island and island complex were assessed to provide further insight into island
values and identify potential conservation gaps and needs.
Summary of Islands by Lake
Lake Superior
A total (Canada and U.S.) of 2,591 island polygons was identified. St. Marys River has 630 island polygons. Canadian islands
in Lake Superior have the lowest threats score in the basin. A high proportion of these islands are within protected areas and
Coastal
Environment*
Georgian Bay 1
Georgian Bay 2
Georgian Bay 3
Georgian Bay 4
Georgian Bay 5
Georgian Bay 6
Lake Erie 1
Lake Erie 2
Lake Erie 3
Lake Erie 4
Lake Erie 5
Lake Erie 6
Lake Erie 7
Lake Erie 8
Lake Huron 1
Lake Huron 2
Lake Huron 3
Lake Ontario 1
Lake Ontario 2
Lake Ontario 3
Lake Ontario 4
Lake Ontario 5
Lake Superior 1
Lake Superior 2
Lake Superiors
Lake Superior 4
Lake Superiors
St. Clair 1
St. Clair 2
St. Clair 3
St. Clair 4
St. Clair 5
St. Lawrence 1
No. Individual
Islands
3992
17615
38
36
290
225
0
15
2
66
2
1461
21
17
887
31
8
0
9
34
74
603
167
1228
495
77
246
21
234
53
1
41
337
No. Islands/
Complexes
595
848
22
18
90
119
0
15
2
13
2
30
18
4
173
19
5
0
7
13
32
171
117
459
160
28
45
11
25
11
1
14
111
Biodiversity Score
Mean
85.2
90.2
93.9
95.8
103.6
92.8
0
151.7
92.5
198.9
90.5
203.4
88.4
144.5
103.4
85.0
127.0
0
108.6
127.0
131.5
114.1
84.6
81.2
71.7
97.2
93.6
119.7
162.2
160.3
116
162.1
92.4
Range
0-345
0-290
57-244
47-195
39-300
46-401
0
87-388
91-94
154-340
87-94
81-333
57-143
96-164
39-490
57-137
114-145
0
90-148
86-190
83-231
44-302
39-290
37-288
40-195
57-253
49-275
84-187
92-336
102-239
116
79-231
44-211
Threat Score
Mean
1.3
11.8
8.2
5.7
4.0
9.7
0
11.2
1.0
4.8
2.0
9.7
7.7
2.3
8.2
3.4
2.8
0
2.3
7.0
3.3
3.7
2.2
2.0
2.4
3.3
8.8
22.1
9.2
6.0
2
11.5
19.5
Range
0-65
0-52
1-46
1-33
1-44
1-581
0
1-88
1
1-32
1-3
1-41
1-42
1-6
1-179
1-22
1-4
0
1-5
1-27
1-22
1-143
1-25
1-40
1-28
1-26
1-138
1-46
1-68
1-36
2
1-36
1-81
Table 1. Biodiversity and Threat Scores for Great Lakes Islands (Canada only), by
coastal environment.
* Islands were grouped according to their Great Lakes coastal environment (Owens
1979). Coastal environments are based on relief, geology, fetch, wave exposure,
ice conditions, and availability and transport of sediment. This report splits some
larger islands (e.g., Manitoulin) into different zones to reflect distinctive coastal
characteristics. The Great Lakes shoreline on the Canadian side was divided
into 33 coastal environments. A similar method will be used to designate coastal
environments for the U.S. islands.
Source: Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ontario Region
309
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
conservation lands. Overall condition is good. These islands include a high number of disjunct (separated geographically) plant
species.
Lake Huron
A total (Canada and U.S.) of 23,719 island polygons (including Georgian Bay) was identified. These islands tend to be more
threatened in the south compared to the north. A large number of protected areas and conservation lands occur in the northern
region. Southern regions are more developed and under increasing pressures from development. These islands include a high
number of globally rare species and vegetation communities.
Lake Michigan
A total (U.S.) of 329 island polygons was identified.
Lake Erie
A total (Canada and U.S.) of 1,724 island polygons was identified. Other nearby island polygons include those in Lake St. Clair/St.
Clair River (339), Detroit River (61) and Niagara River (36). These islands include a mix of protected areas and private islands.
Islands in the western Lake Erie basin have some of the highest biodiversity values of all Great Lakes islands.
Lake Ontario
A total (Canada and U.S.) of 2,591 island polygons (including upper St. Lawrence River) was identified. Many of these islands have
high threat index scores and long histories of recreational use (Table 1). One of the highest building point counts occurs for these
islands. Few areas have been protected.
Pressures
By their very nature, islands are more sensitive to human influence than the mainland and need special protection to conserve their
natural values. Proposals to develop islands are increasing. This is occurring before we have sufficient scientific information about
sustainable use to evaluate, prioritize, and make appropriate natural resource decisions on islands. Island stressors include habitat
loss and fragmentation, invasive species, toxic substances, overharvest, and global climate change.
Management Implications
Based on the results of assessments of island values, biological significance, categorization, and ranking, the Binational Collaborative
for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands will soon recommend management strategies on Great Lakes islands to preserve the
unique ecological features that make islands so important. The Framework for Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
will be completed in 2008. In addition, based on a threat assessment, the Collaborative will recommend management strategies to
reduce the pressures on a set of Priority Island Conservation Areas (PICAs)those island areas with high biodiversity values that
face threats and are not yet adequately protected and thus should be the focus of conservation efforts.
Comments from the authors
The Great Lakes islands provide a unique opportunity to protect a resource of global importance because many islands still
remain intact. The first gathering of Great Lakes island experts was in 1996 and led to publication of the first evaluation of
island conservation value (Vigmostad 1999). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team (GLBET)
provided leadership to coordinate and improve the protection and management of the islands of the Great Lakes. The GLBET
island initiative includes the coordination and compilation of island geospatial data and information, developing standardized
survey/monitoring protocols, holding an island workshop in the fall of 2002 to incorporate input from partners for addressing the
Great Lakes Island indicator needs, and completion of a Great Lakes Island Conservation Strategic Plan.
A subset of the GLBET formed the binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands. Recently, the Collaborative
received a habitat grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to
develop a framework for the binational conservation of Great Lakes islands. With this funding, the team developed:
An island biodiversity assessment and ranking system (based on a subset of biodiversity parameters) that will provide a
foundation to prioritize island conservation
A freshwater island classification system
A suite of indicators that can be monitored to assess change, threats, and progress towards conservation of Great Lakes
islands biodiversity
310
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
To date, the Collaborative has proposed ten state, five pressure, and two response indicators. The island indicators are still being
evaluated and are not final, but will be reported on in future years. The Collaborative is currently drafting the Framework for the
Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands, which is expected to be released in 2008.
The information conveyed by a science-based suite of island indicators will help to focus attention and management efforts to best
conserve these unique and globally significant Great Lakes resources.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands:
Francesca Cuthbert, Professor, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
David Ewert, Director of Conservation Science, Great Lakes Program, Nature Conservancy, Lansing, MI
Dan Kraus, Manager of Conservation Science, Ontario Region of Nature Conservancy of Canada, Guelph, ON
Megan M. Seymour, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team Island Committee
Chair, Ecological Services Field Office, Reynoldsburg, OH
Karen E. Vigmostad, Director, Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario
Linda R. Wires, Research Associate, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul,
MN
Sources
Susan Crispin, Director, Montana Natural Heritage Program, 1515 East Sixth Ave., Helena, MT 59620-1800. Ph: 406-444-3019,
scrispin@mt.gov
David Ewert, Director of Conservation Science, Great Lakes Program, The Nature Conservancy, 101 East Grand River, Lansing,
MI 48906. Ph: 517-316-2256, dewert@tnc.org
Bonnie Henson, Natural Heritage Information Centre, 300 Water Street, 2nd Floor, North Tower
P.O. Box 7000, Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5, Ph: 705-755-2167, bonnie.henson@ontario.ca.
Dan Kraus, Manager of Conservation Science, Ontario Region of Nature Conservancy of Canada, RR#5, 5420 Highway 6 North,
Guelph, ONN1H 6J2, Ph: 519-826-0068 x228, daniel.kraus@natureconservancy.ca
Bruce Manny and Greg Kennedy, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105-
2807. Ph: 734-214-7213, bruce_manny@usgs.gov or gregory_kennedy@usgs.gov
Jan Slaats, GIS Manager, Central U.S. Region, The Nature Conservancy, 1101 West River
Parkway, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55415-1291. Ph: 612-331-0709, jslaats@tnc.org
Judy Soule, Director, U.S. Network Partnerships, Nature Serve, 1101 Wilson Boulevard. Arlington, VA 22209. Ph: 703-908-1828,
judy_soule@natureserve.org
Karen E. Vigmostad, Director, Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission, 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor,
Windsor, ONN9A 6T3. Ph: 519-257-6715, vigmostadk@windsor.ijc.org
Gary White, GIS and Conservation Data Coordinator, Ontario Region of Nature Conservancy of Canada, RR#5, 5420 Highway 6
North, Guelph, ONN1H 6J2, Ph: 519-826-0068 x247, gary.white@natureconservancy.ca.
References Cited
Ewert, D.N., M. DePhilip, D. Kraus, M. Harkness, and A. Froehlich. 2004. Biological ranking criteria for conservation of islands
in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Program,
Chicago, Illinois. 32 p. & app.
Owens, E.H. 1979. The Canadian Great Lakes: Coastal Environments and the Cleanup of Oil Spills. John A. Leslie and Associates.
For Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service. Economic and Technical Review Report EPS 3-EC-79-2.
311
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Soule, J.R. 1999. Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lake islands: Knowledge, threats, protection. In State of the Great Lakes
islands, pp. 11-26. K. Vigmostad, K. (editor). Proceedings from the 1996 U.S.-Canada Great Lakes islands workshop. Department
of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Vigmostad, K.E., F. Cuthbert, D. Ewert, D. Kraus, M. Seymour, and L. Wires. 2007. Great Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements
and Threats. Final Report to the Great Lakes National Program Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Vigmostad, K. (editor). 1999. State of the Great Lakes islands. Proceedings from the 1996 U.S.-Canada Great Lakes islands
workshop. Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Additional Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team island website:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/greatlakes/gli.htm
Future Great Lakes Islands Collaborative website (in early stages of development): www.greatlakesislands.org
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
312
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes
Indicator #8129 (Sand Dunes)
Note: This is a progress report towards implementing this indicator. It was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this progress report.
Purpose
To assess the extent and quality of Great Lakes sand dunes, one of the 12 special lakeshore communities identified within
the nearshore terrestrial area
Ecosystem Objective
Maintain total area, extent and quality of Great Lakes sand dunes, ensuring adequate representation of sand dune types across
their historical range.
State of the Ecosystem
Sand dunes continue to be lost and degraded, yet the ability to track and determine the extent and rate of this loss in terms of both
area and quality in a standardized way is not yet feasible.
Great Lakes sand dunes comprise the world's largest collection of freshwater dunes. They are home to endemic, rare, endangered,
and threatened species. Sand dunes can be found along the coasts of all the Great Lakes. Lake Michigan, however, has the greatest
number of sand dunes with a total of 111,291 hectares, followed by Ontario with 8,910 hectares, Indiana with 6,070 hectares, New
York with 4,850 hectares, and Wisconsin with 425 hectares. This information is not complete. No comprehensive map of Great
Lakes sand dunes exists - although some work has taken place in Ontario for each lake basin.
Degree of protection varies considerably among jurisdictions so it is difficult to assess the overall loss or status of sand dunes,
because although information about the quality of individual sand dunes is locally available, this information has not been col-
lected across the entire basin. Nevertheless, conversations with local managers and environmentalists indicate a continued loss of
sand dunes to development, sand mining, recreational trampling, and non-indigenous invasive species. The Lake Ontario Dunes
Coalition, Michigan Dunes Alliance, and the Save the Dunes Council in Indiana are making some progress in both protecting and
restoring sand dunes in their respective regions.
Pressures
Threats to sand dunes are numerous. Non-indigenous invasive species such as baby's breath (Gypsophilapaniculata) and spotted
knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) tend to spread rapidly if not controlled. Habitat destruction, however, is the greatest threat. In
addition to sand mining, shoreline condominium and second home development level the dunes. Recreational use by pedestrians
and off road vehicle use destroys vegetation, thereby causing dune erosion.
Management Implications
Many actions have been taken to protect Great Lakes sand dunes. For example, in Eastern Lake Ontario boardwalks and dune
walkovers have been constructed to provide public access to beaches without compromising dune ecology. Native beach grasses
have been planted to retard erosion. On the eastern shores of Lake Michigan, invasive plants have been systematically removed by
dune stewards. Michigan has legislation in place to control or reduce sand mining impacts.
In order to protect sand dunes there is a need for improved communication between government agencies and stakeholders with
regard to sand dune management. Public education would help alleviate stress to dunes cause by recreational trampling. Stronger
313
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
legislation could limit some damaging activities. Local government creativity in managing dune areas through creative zoning
would improve the protection of sensitive and irreplaceable areas.
Comments from the Author(s)
A group of sand dune managers and scientists is organizing a conference for all persons involved in Great Lakes sand dune
ecosystem ecology, management, research and education efforts. The purposes of the conference will be to compile information
about sand dunes and sand dune research and management and to form the Great Lakes Sand Dunes Coalition. This group could
work actively to collect available data about Great Lakes sand dunes and begin collaborative actions to protect them.
Acknowledgments
Author: Lindsay Silk, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Sources
Bonanno, S. 1998. The Nature Conservancy.
Byrne, M.L. 2004. Personal communication.
Cabala, T. 2004. Personal communication.
Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. State of the Great Lakes 1997.
Lewis, J. 1975. Michigan Geological Survey Division Circular(#ll). http://www.geo.msu.edu/geo333/sand.html, last accessed
April 6, 2004.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3311_4114_4235,00.html,
last accessed April 6, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. Protecting and Restoring Great Lakes Sand Dunes, http://www.epa.
gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/dec02/sand_dunes.html, last accessed March 29, 2004.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
[Editor's Note: Updated links were not available for this publication]
314
-------
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Indicator #8131
This indicator report was last updated in 2000.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Deteriorating
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the extent (in kilometers) of hardened shoreline along the Great Lakes through construction of sheet piling, rip
rap, or other erosion control structures
Ecosystem Objective
Shoreline conditions should be healthy enough to support aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life, including the rarest
species.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Anthropogenic hardening of the shorelines not only directly destroys natural features and biological communities, it also has
a more subtle but still devastating impact. Many of the biological communities along the Great Lakes are dependent upon the
transport of shoreline sediment by lake currents. Altering the transport of sediment disrupts the balance of accretion and erosion of
materials carried along the shoreline by wave action and lake currents. The resulting loss of sediment replenishment can intensify
the effects of erosion, causing ecological and economic impacts. Erosion of sand spits and other barriers allows increased exposure
of the shoreline and loss of coastal wetlands. Dune formations can be lost or reduced due to lack of adequate nourishment of new
sand to replace sand that is carried away. Increased erosion also causes property damage to shoreline properties.
Status of Hardened Shorelines in the Great Lakes
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Medium Resolution Digital Shorelines dataset
was compiled between 1988 and 1992. It contains data
on both the Canadian and U.S. shorelines, using aerial
photography from 1979 for the state of Michigan and from
1987-1989 for the rest of the basin.
From this dataset, shoreline hardening has been categorized
for each Lake and connecting channel (Table 1). Figure 1
indicates the percentages of shorelines in each of these
categories. 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 (Figure 2). In 1999, Environment
Canada assessed change in the extent of shoreline hardening
along about 22 kilometers (13.7 miles) of the Canadian
shoreline of the St. Clair River from 1991-1992 to 1999.
Over the eight-year period, an additional 5.5 kilometers
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting
Channels
Entire Basin
0-15% Hardened n 15-40% Hardened
40-70% Hardened 70-100% Hardened
Figure 1. 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 and Atmospheric
Administration
315
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Lake / Connecting
Channel
Lake Superior
St. Marys River
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
St. Clair River
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Niagara River
Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence Seaway
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting Channels
Entire Basin
70-100%
Hardened
3.1
2.9
1.5
8.6
69.3
11.3
47.2
20.4
44.3
10.2
12.6
5.7
15.4
7.6
40 - 70%
Hardened
1.1
1.6
1.0
2.9
24.9
25.8
22.6
11.3
8.8
6.3
9.3
2.8
11.5
4.6
15-40%
Hardened
3.0
7.5
4.5
30.3
2.1
11.8
8.0
16.9
16.7
18.6
17.2
10.6
14.0
11.3
0 - 15%
Hardened
89.4
81.3
91.6
57.5
3.6
50.7
22.2
49.1
29.3
57.2
54.7
78.3
54.4
73.5
Non-structural
Modifications
0.03
1.6
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.5
Unclassified
3.4
5.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.9
7.7
6.2
2.0
4.4
2.5
Total
Shoreline
(km)
5,080
707
6,366
2,713
100
629
244
1,608
184
1,772
2,571
17,539
4,436
21,974
Table 1. Percentages of shorelines in each category of hardened shoreline.
The St. Clair, Detroit and Niagara Rivers have a higher percentage of their shorelines hardened than anywhere
else in the basin. Lake Erie has the highest percentage of its shoreline hardened, and Lakes Huron and Superior
have the lowest.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
70-100% Hardened n 40-70% Hardened
(32%) of the shoreline had been hardened. This is clearly not
representative of the overall basin, as the St. Clair River is a
narrow shipping channel with high volumes of Great Lakes
traffic. This area also has experienced significant development
along its shorelines, and many property owners are hardening
the shoreline to reduce the impacts of erosion.
Pressures
Shoreline hardening is generally not reversible, so once a section
of shoreline has been hardened it can be considered a permanent
feature. As such, the current state of shoreline hardening likely
represents the best condition that can be expected in the future.
Additional stretches of shoreline will continue to be hardened.
especially during periods of high lake levels. This additional
hardening in turn will starve the down current areas of sediment
to replenish that which eroded away, causing further erosion
and further incentive for additional hardening. Thus, a cycle of
shoreline hardening can progress along the shoreline. The future
pressures on the ecosystem resulting from existing hardening
will almost certainly continue, and additional hardening is
likely in the future. The uncertainly is whether the rate can
be reduced and ultimately halted. In addition to the economic
costs, the ecological costs are of concern, particularly the percent further lost or degradation of coastal wetlands and sand dunes.
Management Implications
Shoreline hardening can be controversial, even litigious, when one property owner hardens a stretch of shoreline that may increase
erosion of an adjacent property. The ecological impacts are not only difficult to quantify as a monetary equivalent, but difficult
to perceive without an understanding of sediment transport along the lakeshores. The importance of the ecological process of
sediment transport needs to be better understood as an incentive to reduce new shoreline hardening. An educated public is
critical to ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, and better platforms for getting
understandable information to the public is needed.
Figure 2. Shoreline hardened by lake compiled from 1979
data for the state of Michigan and 1987-1989 for the rest of
the basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
316
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Comments from the author(s)
It is possible that current aerial photography of the shoreline will be interpreted to show more recently hardened shorelines.
Once more recent data provides information on hardened areas, updates may only be necessary basin-wide every 10 years, with
monitoring of high-risk areas every 5 years.
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.
Sources
The National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Medium resolution digital
shoreline, 1988-1992. In Great Lakes Electronic Environmental Sensitivity Atlas, Environment Canada, Environmental Protection
Branch, Downsview, ON.
Last Updated
SOLEC 2000
[Editor's note: A condensed version of this report was published in the State of the Great Lakes 2001.]
317
-------
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Indicator #8135
This indicator report was last updated in 2005.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Improving
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the number of territorial pairs.
success rate of nesting attempts, and number of
fledged young per territorial pair as well as the
number of developmental deformities in young
bald eagles
To measure concentrations of persistent
organic pollutants and selected heavy metals
in unhatched bald eagle eggs and in nestling
blood and feathers
To infer the potential for harm to other wildlife
caused by eating contaminated prey items
Ecosystem Objectives
This indicator supports annexes 2, 12, and 17 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
As the top avian predator in the nearshore and tributary
areas of the Great Lakes, the bald eagle integrates
contaminant stresses, food availability, and the
availability of relatively undeveloped habitat areas over
most portions of the Great Lakes shoreline. It serves as an
indicator of both habitat quantity and quality.
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals are decreasing
or stable but still above No Observable Adverse Effect
Concentrations (NOAECs) for the primary organic
contaminants, dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethene (DDE)
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Bald eagles are
now distributed extensively along the shoreline of the
Great Lakes (Figure 1). The number of active bald eagle
territories has increased markedly from the depths of the
population decline caused by DDE (Figure 2). Similarly.
the percentage of nests producing one or more fledglings
(Figure 3) and the number of young produced per territory
(Figure 4) have risen. The recovery of reproductive output
at the population level has followed similar patterns in each
of the lakes, but the timing has differed between the various
lakes. Lake Superior recovered first, followed by Erie and
MINNESOTA ' .-*"];
.-'.' PENNSYLVANIA
Figure 1. Approximate nesting locations of bald eagles (in red)
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
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
"C3
Year
-Superior o Michigan^^ Huron-"-Erie A Ontario
Figure 2. Average number of occupied bald eagle territories per
year by lake.
Source: David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin, Canadian
Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
318
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
ฃ BO-
S' 70
& 60
"S
5. 50
o 40
"5 30
S. 10
_,_!
-
r
J
Superior Michigan Huron
1962-1966
D 1967-1 971
r\
Erie
D 1972-1 976 D 1982-1 986
D 1977-1 981 D 1987-1 991
Ontario
D1992-1996
D 1997-2001
Figure 3. Average percentage of occupied territories fledging
at least one young.
Source: David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin, Canadian
Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
1.6
1.4
a 1.2
f 1.0-
"5 0.8
| 0.6
3
Z 0.4
0.2
0
[
!
fl
-
m
^
-
n
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
1962-1966 D1972-1976
D1967-1971 D1977-1981
D1982-1986 D1992-1996
D 1 987-1 991 D 1 997-2001
Figure 4. Average number of young fledged per occupied
territory per year.
Source: David Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin, Canadian
Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Huron, and most recently, Lake Michigan. An active territory has been reported from Lake Ontario. Established territories in most
areas are now producing one or more young per territory indicating that the population is healthy and capable of growing. Eleven
developmental deformities have been reported in bald eagles within the Great Lakes watershed; five of these were from territories
potentially influenced by the Great Lakes.
Pressures
High levels of persistent contaminants in bald eagles continue to be a concern for two reasons. Eagles are relatively rare and
contaminant effects on individuals can be important to the well-being of local populations. In addition, relatively large habitat
units 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. There are still several large
portions of the Great Lakes shoreline, particularly around Lake Ontario, where the bald eagle has not recovered to its pre-DDE
status despite what appears to be adequate habitat in many areas.
Management Implications
The data on reproductive rates in the shoreline populations of Great Lakes bald eagles imply that widespread effects of persistent
organic pollutants have decreased. However, there are still gaps in this pattern of reproductive recovery that should be explored
and appropriate corrective actions taken. In addition, information on the genetic structure of these shoreline populations is still
lacking. It is possible that further monitoring will reveal that these populations are being maintained from surplus production from
inland sources rather than from the productivity of the shoreline birds themselves. Continued expansion of these populations into
previously unoccupied areas is encouraging and might indicate several things; there is still suitably undeveloped habitat available.
or bald eagles are adapting to increasing alteration of the available habitat.
Comments from the author(s)
Monitoring the health and contaminant status of Great Lakes bald eagles should continue across the Great Lakes basin. Even
though the worst effects of persistent bioaccumulative pollutants seem to have passed, the bald eagle is a prominent indicator
species that integrates effects that operate at a variety of levels within the ecosystem. Symbols such as the bald eagle are valuable
for communicating with the public.
Many agencies continue to accomplish the work of reproductive monitoring that results in compatible data for basin-wide
assessment. However, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Ohio Department of Natural Resources programs
are diminished as the result of budgetary constraints, while the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources programs will continue for the near
future.
319
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
In the very near future, when the bald eagle is removed from the list of threatened species in the United States, existing monitoring
efforts may be severely curtailed. Without the required field monitoring data, overall assessments of indicators like the bald eagle
will be impossible. Part of the problem with a lessened emphasis on wildlife monitoring by governmental agencies is the failure
of initiatives such as the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process to identify and designate programs that are
essential in order to ensure that data continuity is maintained.
Two particular needs for additional data also exist. There is no basin-wide effort directed toward assessing habitat suitability of
shoreline areas for bald eagles. Further, it is not known to what degree the shoreline populations depend on recruiting surplus young
from healthy inland populations to maintain the current rate of expansion or whether shoreline populations are self-sustaining.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Ken Stromborg, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service;
David Best, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service;
Pamela Martin, Canadian Wildlife Service; and
William Bowerman, Clemson University.
Additional data contributed 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; Michael Hoff,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. John Netto, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assisted with computer support.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2005
320
-------
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Indicator #8147
This indicator report was last updated in 2002.
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Not Assessed
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To directly measure the contaminant concentrations found in American otter populations within the Great Lakes basin
To indirectly measure the health of Great Lakes habitat, progress in Great Lakes ecosystem management, and/or
concentrations of contaminants present in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem Objective
As a society we have a moral responsibility to sustain healthy populations of American otter in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence
basin. American otter populations in the upper Great Lakes should be maintained, and restored as sustainable populations in all
Great Lakes coastal zones, lower Lake Michigan, western Lake Ontario, and Lake Erie watersheds and shorelines. Great Lakes
shoreline and watershed populations of American otter should have an annual mean production of >2 young/adult female; and
concentrations of heavy metal and organic contaminants in otter tissue samples should be less than the No Observable Adverse
Effect Level found in tissue sample from mink. The importance of the American otter as a biosentinel is related to International
Joint Commission Desired Outcomes 6: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and 7: Virtual Elimination of Inputs of
Persistent Toxic Chemicals.
State of the Ecosystem
A review of State and Provincial otter
population data indicates that primary
areas of population suppression still exist in
southern Lake Huron watersheds, lower Lake
Michigan and most Lake Erie watersheds.
Data provided from New York Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC)
and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(OMNR) suggest that otter are almost absent
in western Lake Ontario (Figure 1). Most
coastal shoreline areas have more suppressed
populations than interior zones.
Areas of otter population suppression
are directly related to human population
centers and subsequent habitat loss, and
also to elevated contaminant concentrations
associated with human activity. Little
statistically-viable population data exist
for the Great Lakes populations, and all
suggested population levels illustrated
were determined from coarse population
assessment methods.
Stable
^ Non-stable
Almost Absent
Extirpated
Figure 1. 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
321
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Pressures
American otters are a direct link to organic and heavy metal concentrations in the food chain. It is a relatively sedentary species
and subsequently synthesizes contaminants from smaller areas than wider-ranging organisms, e.g. bald eagle. Contaminants are
a potential and existing problem for many otter populations throughout the Great Lakes. Globally, indications of contaminant
problems in otter have been noted by decreased population levels, morphological abnormalities (i.e. decreased baculum length)
and decline in fecundity. Changes in the species population and range are also representative of anthropogenic riverine and
lacustrine habitat alterations.
Management Implications
Michigan and Wisconsin have indicated a need for an independent survey using aerial survey methods to index otter populations
in their respective jurisdictions. Minnesota has already started aerial population surveys for otter. Subsequently, some presence-
absence data may be available for Great Lakes watersheds and coastal populations in the near future. In addition, if the surveys
are conducted frequently, the trend data may become useful. There was agreement among resource managers on the merits of
aerial survey methods to index otter populations, although these methods are only appropriate in areas with adequate snow
cover. NYDEC, OMNR, federal jurisdictions and Tribes on Great Lakes coasts indicated strong needs for future assessments
of contaminants in American otter. Funding, other than from sportsmen, is needed by all jurisdictions to assess habitats and
contaminant levels, and to conduct aerial surveys.
Comments from the author(s)
All state and provincial jurisdictions use different population assessment methods, making comparisons difficult. Most jurisdictions
use survey methods to determine populations on state or provincial-wide scales. Most coarse population assessment methods were
developed to assure that trapping was not limiting populations and that otter were simply surviving and reproducing in their
jurisdiction. There was little work done on finer spatial scales using otter as an indicator of ecosystem heath.
In summary, all state and provincial jurisdictions only marginally index Great Lakes watershed populations by presence-absence
surveys, track surveys, observations, trapper surveys, population models, aerial surveys, and trapper registration data.
Michigan has the most useful spatial data that could index the largest extent of Great Lakes coastal populations due to their
registration requirements. Michigan registers trapped otter to an accuracy of 1 square mile. However, other population measures
of otter health, such as reproductive rates, age and morphological measures, are not tied to spatial data in any jurisdiction, but are
pooled together for entire jurisdictions. If carcasses are collected for necropsy, the samples are usually too small to accurately define
health of Great Lakes coastal otter verses interior populations. Subsequently, there is a large need to encourage and fund resource
management agencies to streamline data for targeted population and contaminant research on Great Lakes otter populations,
especially in coastal zones.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Thomas CJ. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Odanah, WI.
Sources
Bishop, P., Gotie, R., Penrod, B., and Wedge, L. 1999. Current status of river otter management in New York. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Otter management team, Delmar, New York.
Bluett, R.D. 2000. Personal Communication. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield, IL.
Bluett, R.D., Anderson, E.A., Hubert, G.F., Kruse, G.W, and Lauzon, S.E. 1999. Reintroduction and status of the river otter (Lutra
canadensis) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 92(1 and 2):69-78.
Brunstrom, B., Lund, B., Bergman, A., Asplund, L., Athanassiadis, I., Athanasiadou, M., Jensen, S., and Orberg, J. 2001.
Reproductive toxicity in mink (Mustela vison) chronically exposed to environmentally relevant polychlorinated biphenyl
concentrations. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20:2318-2327.
Chapman, J.A., and Pursley, D. (eds.). Worldwide furbearers conference proceedings. Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Inc.
Frostburg, MD, pp.1752-1780.
322
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Dawson, N. 2000. Personal Communication. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Region. Thunder Bay, ON.
Dwyer, C.R 2000a. Personal Communication. Ohio Division of Wildlife, Oak Harbor, OH.
Dwyer, C.P. 2000b. Population assessment and distribution of river otters following their reintroduction into Ohio. Crane Creek
Wildlife Experiment Station, Ohio Division of Wildlife, Oak Harbor, OH.
Foley, F.E., Jackling, S.J., Sloan, R.J., and Brown, M.K. 1988. Organochlorine and mercury residues in wild mink and otter:
comparison with fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:363-374.
Friedrich, P.D. 2000. Personal Communication. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. East Lansing, MI.
Halbrook, R.S., Jenkins, J.H., Bush, P.B., and Seabolt, N.D. 1981. Selected environmental contaminants in river otters (Lutra
canadensis) of Georgia and their relationship to the possible decline of otters in North America. In Proc. Worldwide Furbearer
Cong., pp. 1752- 1762, Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Inc.
Hammill, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Crystal Falls, MI.
Henny, C.J., Blus, L.J., Gregory, S.V., and Stafford, CJ. 1981. PCBs and organochorine pesticides in wild mink and river otters
from Oregon. In Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Cong., pp. 1763-1780.
Hochstein, J., Bursian, S., and Aulerich, R. 1998. Effects of dietary exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in adult
female mink (Mustela vison). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 35:348-353.
Johnson, S. 2000. Personal Communication. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Bloomington, IN.
Johnson, S.A., and Berkley, K.A. 1999. Restoring river otters in Indiana. Wildlife Society Bull. 27(2):419-427.
Johnson, S.A., and Madej, R.F. 1994. Reintroduction of the river otter in Indiana - a feasibility study. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Bloomington, IN.
Kannan, K., Blankenship, A., Jones, P., and Giesy, J. 2000. Toxicity reference values for the toxic effects of polychlorinated
biphenyls to aquatic mammals. Human Ecological Risk Assessment 6:181-201.
Kautz, M. 2000. Personal Communication. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Delmar, NY.
Leonards, P., de Vries, T., Minnaard, W., Stuijfzand, S., de Voogt, P., Cofino, W., van Straalen, N., and van Hattum, B. 1995.
Assessment of experimental data on PCB induced reproduction inhibition in mink, based on an isomer- and congenerspecific
approach using 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxintoxic equivalency. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:639-652.
Mason, C. 1989. Water pollution and otter distribution: a review. Lutra 32:97-131.
Mason, C., and Macdonald, S. 1993. Impact of organochlorine pesticide residues and PCBs on otters (Lutra lutra): a study from
western Britain. Sci. Total Environ. 138:127-145.
Mayack, D.T. 2000. Personal Communication. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Gloversville, NY.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000a. Distribution of otter harvest by section 1998-99. East Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000b. River otter reproductive and harvest data 1995-1999. East Lansing, MI.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998-99. Furbearer harvest by county and region. Albany, NY.
323
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ohio Division of Wildlife. 1999-2000. Watersheds with river otter observations. Oak harbor, OH.
Olson, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Furbearer Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, WI.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Ontario furbearer population ranks through trapper questionnaires by Wildlife
Assessment Unit. Thunder Bay, ON.
Roos, A., Greyerz, E., Olsson, M., and Sandegren, F. 2001. The otter (Lutra lutra) in Sweden? Population trends in relation to
3DDT and total PCB concentrations during 1968-99. Environ. Pollut. 111:457-469.
Route, W.T., and Peterson, R.O.1988. Distribution and abundance of river otter in Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. Resource
Management Report MWR-10. National Park Service, Omaha, NE.
Sheffy, T.B., and St. Amant, J.R. 1982. Mercury burdens in furbearers in Wisconsin. /. Wildlife Manage. 46:1117-1120.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000a. Distribution of otter harvest by management unit 1998-99. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000b. Otter population model statewide 1982-2005. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979-1998. Summary of otter reproductive information. Madison, WI.
Wren, C. 1991. Cause-effect linkages between chemicals and populations of mink (Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) in
the Great Lakes basin. /. ToxicolEnviron. Health 33:549-585.
Last Updated
SOLEC 2002
[Editor's note: A condensed version of this report was published in the State of the Great Lakes 2003.]
324
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Biodiversity Conservation Sites
Indicator #8164
Note: This is an indicator in development that was proposed for SOLEC 2006.
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Information on Biodiversity Conservation sites is limited at this time making the status and trend
of this indicator difficult to assess.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments are not available at this time.
Purpose
To assess and monitor the biodiversity of the Great Lakes watershed
Ecosystem Objective
The ultimate goal of this indicator is to generate and implement a distinct conservation goal for each target species, natural
community type and aquatic system type within the Great Lakes basin. Through establishing the long-term survival of viable
populations, the current level of biodiversity within the region can be maintained or even increased. This indicator supports Great
Lakes Quality Agreement Annexes 1, 2 and 11 (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Background
In 1997, the Great Lakes Program of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) launched an initiative to identify high priority biodiversity
conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. Working with experts from a variety of agencies, organizations, and other public and
private entities throughout the region, a collection of conservation targets was identified. These targets, which represented the full
range of biological diversity within the region, consisted of globally rare plant and animal species, naturally occurring community
types within the ecoregion, and all aquatic system types found in the Great Lakes watershed.
In order to ensure the long-term survival of these conservation targets, two specific questions were asked: how many populations
or examples of each target are necessary to ensure its long-term survival in the Great Lakes ecoregion, and how should these
populations or examples be distributed in order to capture the target's genetic and ecological variability across the Great Lakes
ecoregion? Using this information, which is still limited because these questions have not been satisfactorily answered in the field
of conservation biology, a customized working hypothesis, i.e., conservation goal, was generated for each individual conservation
target. Additionally, to effectively and efficiently achieve these conservation goals, specific portfolio sites were identified. These
sites, many of which contain more than one individual target, support the most viable examples of each target, thus aiding in the
preservation of the overall biodiversity within the Great Lakes region.
With support from TNC, the Nature Conservancy of Canada has undertaken a similar initiative, identifying additional targets,
goals, and conservation sites within Ontario. However, as the commencement of this project occurred some time after its U.S.
counterpart, there is a wide discrepancy in the information that is currently available.
Status of Biodiversity Conservation Sites in the Great Lakes Basin
Within the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes region, 208 species (51 plant species, 77 animal species and 80 bird species) were
identified. Of these, 18 plant species and 28 animal species can be considered endemic (found only in the Great Lakes region)
or limited (range is primarily in the Great Lakes ecoregion, but also extends into one or two other ecoregions). Furthermore, 24
animals and 14 plants found within the basin are recognized as globally imperiled. Additionally, 274 distinct natural community
types are located throughout the ecoregion: 71 of which are endemic or largely limited to the Great Lakes, while 45 are globally
imperiled. The Great Lakes watershed also contains 231 aquatic system types, all of which are inextricably connected to the
region, and thus do not occur outside this geographical area.
325
-------
A total of 501 individual portfolio sites have been designated throughout the Great Lakes region: 280 of which reside fully within
the U.S., 213 are located entirely in Canada, while the remaining 8 sites cross international borders (The Nature Conservancy
and The Nature Conservancy of Canada 2006a). The number of conservation priority sites found in the US is not distributed
equally among the Great Lake states, since over half are completely or partially located within the state of Michigan. New York
State contains the second greatest number of sites with 56; Wisconsin, 29; Ohio, 25; and Minnesota, 20. Furthermore, 9 sites are
located within the state of Illinois, 7 sites in Indiana, while only 2 sites are found in the state of Pennsylvania (11 sites cross state
borders, while one international and one U.S. site cross more than one border). The sizes of the selected portfolio sites have a wide
distribution, ranging from approximately 24 to 61,000 hectares (60 to 1,500,000 acres); with three-fourths of the sites having areas
which are less than 8,000 hectares (20,000 acres).
m-
Figure 1. Map of Biodiversity Conservation Sites within the Great Lakes Region.
htta://www.nature.ora/wherewework/northamerica/areatlakes/files/tnc great lakes web.adf
The currently established conservation sites provide enough viable examples to fully meet the conservation goals for 20% of the
128 species and 274 community types described within the Great Lakes conservation vision. Additionally, under the existing
Conservation Blueprint (The Nature Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy of Canada 2006b), 80% of the aquatic systems are
sufficiently represented in order to meet their conservation goals. However, these figures might not present an accurate depiction
of the current state of the biodiversity within the region. Due to a lack of available data for several species, communities, and
aquatic systems, a generalized conservation goal, e.g. "all viable examples" was established for these targets. As such, even
though the conservation goals may have been met, there might not be an adequate number of examples to ensure the long-term
326
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
survival of these targets.
In order to sustain the current level of biodiversity, i.e., number of targets that have met their conservation goals, attention to the
health and overall integrity of the conservation sites must be maintained. While approximately 60% of these sites are irreplaceable,
these places represent the only opportunity to protect certain species, natural communities, aquatic systems, or assemblages of
these targets within the Great Lakes region. Only 5% of all U.S. sites are actually fully protected. Furthermore, 79% of the
Great Lakes sites require conservation attention within the next ten years, while more than one-third of the sites need immediate
attention in order to protect conservation targets. These conservation actions range from changes in policies affecting land use,
i.e. specific land protection measures (conservation easements or changes in ownership), to the modification of the management
practices currently used.
Pressures
In the U.S., information was obtained from 224 sites regarding pressures associated with the plants, animals, and community
targets within the Great Lakes basin. From these data, four main threats emerged. The top threat to biodiversity sites throughout
the region is currently development, i.e., urban, residential, second home, and road, because development is affecting approximately
two-thirds of the sites in the form of degradation, fragmentation, or even the complete loss of these critical habitats. The second
significant threat, affecting the integrity of more than half the sites, is the impact exerted by invasive species, which includes
non-indigenous species such as purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, garlic mustard, buckthorn, zebra mussels, and exotic fishes,
as well as high-impact, invasive, native species such as deer. Affecting almost half of the U.S. sites, hydrology alteration, the third
most common threat to native biodiversity, includes threats due to dams, diversions, dikes, groundwater withdrawals, and other
changes to the natural flow regime. Finally, recreation (boating, camping, biking, hiking, etc.) is a major threat that affects over
40% of the sites.
Management Implications
A continuous effort to obtain pertinent information is essential in order to maintain the most scientifically-based conservation goals
and strategies for each target species, community and aquatic system type within the Great Lakes basin. Additional inventories
are also needed in many areas to further assess the location, distribution and viability of individual targets, especially those
that are more common throughout the region. Furthermore, even though current monitoring efforts and conservation actions
are being implemented throughout the watershed, they are generally site-specific or locally concentrated. A greater emphasis
on a regional-wide approach must be undertaken if the long-term survival of these metapopulations (populations of the same
species that are distinct, but that can interact) is to be ensured. This expanded perspective would also assist in establishing
region-wide communications, thus enabling a more rapid and greater distribution of information. However, the establishment
of basin-wide management practices is greatly hindered by the numerous governments represented throughout this region, (two
federal governments, 100 tribal authorities, one province, and eight states (each with multiple agencies), 13 regional and 18
county municipalities in Ontario, 192 counties in the US and thousands of local governments) and the array of land-use policies
developed by each administration. Without additional land protection measures, it will be difficult to preserve the current sites
and implement restoration efforts in order to meet the conservation goals for the individual conservation targets.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Jeffrey C. May, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GLNPO Intern.
Contributor:
Mary Harkness, The Nature Conservancy.
Sources
The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Ecoregional Planning Team. 1999. Great Lakes Ecoregional Plan: A First Iteration. The
Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Program, Chicago, IL, USA. 85pp.
The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Ecoregional Planning Team. 1999. Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes
Region: A Second Iteration. The Nature Conservancy, Great Lakes Program, Chicago, IL, USA. 12 pp.
The Nature Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy of Canada. 2006a. Binational Conservation Blueprint for the Great Lakes
Map. TNC Great Lakes Program, Chicago, and TNC Ontario Region, Port Rowan Blueprint map.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/tnc_great_lakes_web.pdf
327
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
The Nature Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy of Canada. 2006b. Binational Conservation Blueprint for the Great Lakes.
TNC Great Lakes Program, Chicago, and TNC Ontario Region, Port Rowan. 16pp.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/greatlakes/files/gl_blueprint_brochure_05.pdf
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
328
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
Indicator #8500
Note: This indicator includes four components that correspond to Montreal Process Criterion #1, Indicators 1, 2, 3, and 5.
Indicator #8500 Components:
Component (1) - Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area
Component (2) - Extent of area by forest type and by age-class or successional stage
Component (3) - Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories
Component (4) - Extent of forest land conversion, parcelization, and fragmentation (still under development for future
analysis; data not presented in this report)
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: There is a moderate distribution of forest types in the Great Lakes basin by age-class and serai
stage. Additional analysis is required by forestry professionals.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a Not Assessed status and an Undetermined trend, since data by individual lake
basin were not available for the U.S. at this time.
Purpose
To describe the extent, composition and structure of Great Lakes basin forests
To address the capacity of forests to perform the hydrologic functions and host the organisms and processes that are
essential to protecting the biological diversity, physical integrity and water quality of the watershed
Ecosystem Objective
To have a forest composition and structure that most efficiently conserves the natural biological diversity of the region
State of the Ecosystem
Component (1): Extent of area by forest type relative
to total forest area
Forests cover over half (61%), of the land in the Great
Lakes basin. The U.S. portion of the basin has forest
coverage on 54% of its land, while the Canadian
portion has coverage on 73% of its land.
In the U.S. portion of the basin, maple-beech-birch
is the most extensive forest type, representing 7.8
million hectares (19.3 million acres), or 39% of total
U.S. forest area in the basin. Aspen-birch forests
constitute the 2nd largest forest type, covering 19% of
the U.S. total. Complete data are available in Table 1
and are visually represented in Figure 1.
The entire Canadian portion of the basin is dominated
by mixed forest, representing 39% of the total Canadian
forest area, followed by hardwoods, covering 23% of
the total Canadian forest area analyzed from satellite
data (Table 2A). The most extensive provincial forest
type is the upland mixed conifer, representing 23%
Forest Type
White-Red-Jack Pine
Spruce-Fir
Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
Oak-Pine
Oak-Hickory
Oak-Gum-Cypress
Elm-Ash-Co ttonwood
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Nonstocked
Totals
Area (ha)
1,791,671
2,866,777
4,305
72,675
1,988,126
50,589
1,692,069
7,828,700
3,821,272
88,443
20,204,626
% of Total
Forest Area
8.87%
14.19%
0.02%
0.36%
9.84%
0.25%
8.37%
38.75%
18.91%
0.44%
Protected
Area (ha)
168,737
263,216
0
4,178
129,431
9,730
45,564
692,600
252,443
4,677
1,570,576
% Protected
9.42%
9.18%
0.00%
5.75%
6.51%
19.23%
2.69%
8.85%
6.61%
5.29%
7.77%
Table 1. Total forest area and protected area by forest type in U.S.
Great Lakes basin counties
Non-stocked = timberland less than 10% stocked with live trees
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002
Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
329
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Nonstocked East White-Red-Jack Pine
0.44%
Aspen-Birch
18.91%
Maple-Beech-Birch
38.75%
8.87%
Spruce-Fir
14.19%
Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
0.02%
f- Oak-Pine
0.36%
LOak-Hickory
9.84%
Oak-Gum-Cypress
0.25%
Elm-Ash-Co ttonwood
8.37%
Tolerant Hardwoods
13.93%
White Birch
13.73%
Red & White P\ne /
5.90%
Poplar
10.25%
Jack Pine/
6.15%
Mixed Conifer Lowland
9.03%
A
/\Jv1ixed Conifer Upland
22.90%
Mixed wood
18.10%
Figure 1. Proportion of forested area by forest type in U.S.
Great Lakes basin
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National
Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
of the forested area available for analysis, followed
by the mixedwoods, tolerant hardwoods, white birch.
and poplars (Table 2B, Figure 2).
Implications for the health of Great Lakes forests and
the basin ecosystem are difficult to establish. There
is no consensus on how much land in the basin should
be forested, or on how much land should be covered
by each forest type. Generally speaking, maintenance
of the variety of forest types is important in species
preservation, and long-term changes in forest type
proportions are indicative of changes in forest
biodiversity patterns (OMNR 2002).
Comparisons to historical forest cover, although of
limited utility in developing landscape goals, can
illustrate the range of variation experienced within
the basin since the time of European settlement. (See
supplemental section entitled "Historical Range of
Variation in the Great Lakes Forests of Minnesota.
Wisconsin and Michigan" in Indicator #8500, Canada
and United States (2005) for more information).
Analysis of similar historical forest cover data for the
entire Great Lakes basin over the past several years
would be useful in establishing current trends to help
assess potential changes to ecosystem function and
community diversity.
Component (2): Extent of area by forest type and by
age-class or successional stage
In the U.S. portion of the basin, the 41 to 60 and 61
to 80 year age-classes are dominant and together
represent about 41% of total forest area. Forests 40
years of age and under make up a further 30%, while
those in the 100-plus year age-classes constitute 7%
of total forest area. Table 3 contains complete U.S.
Figure 2. Proportion of forested area by provincial forest type in
AOU* portion of Canadian Great Lakes basin
* The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of
the total land area analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes
basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section
A) Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Satellite Classes
Forest - Sparse
Forest - Hardwood
Forest - Mixed
Forest - Softwood
Swamp - Treed
Fen - Treed
Bog - Treed
Disturbed Forest - cuts
Disturbed Forest - burns
Disturbed Forest - regenerating
Totals
Area (ha)
2,053,869
3,468,513
5,750,313
2,407,729
49,933
30,197
436,083
578,450
97,545
35,987
14,908,617
% of Total
Forest Area
13.78%
23.27%
38.57%
16.15%
0.33%
0.20%
2.93%
3.88%
0.65%
0.24%
Protected
Area (ha)
245,118
361,147
649,342
268,753
1,413
3,726
28,128
8,973
18,628
381
1,585,608
%
Protected
11.93%
10.41%
11.29%
11.16%
2.83%
12.34%
6.45%
1 .55%
19.10%
1 .06%
10.64%
B) AOU* Portion of Ontario
Provincial Forest Type
White Birch
Mixed Conifer Lowland
Mixed Conifer Upland
Mixed wood
Jack Pine
Poplar
Red & White Pine
Tolerant Hardwoods
Totals
Area (ha)
1,593,114
1,048,126
2,657,086
2,099,760
714,165
1,189,573
685,124
1,616,502
11,603,450
% of Total
Forest Area
13.73%
9.03%
22.90%
18.10%
6.15%
10.25%
5.90%
13.93%
Protected
Area (ha)
175,261
60,192
239,194
194,682
54,991
75,538
105,682
108,993
1,014,533
%
Protected
11.00%
5.74%
9.00%
9.27%
7.70%
6.35%
15.43%
6.74%
8.74%
Table 2. Total forest area and protected area by forest type in, A)
Canadian Great Lakes basin, B) AOU* portion of Ontario
* The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the
total land area analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section
330
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Forest Type
White-Red-Jack Pine
Spruce-Fir
Loblolly-Shortleaf
Pine
Oak-Pine
Oak-Hickory
Oak-Gum-Cypress
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Nonstocked
Total
Age Class (in years)
0-20
13.86%
8.84%
0.00%
7.08%
9.43%
4.47%
14.03%
9.25%
25.40%
63.98%
13.29%
21-40
27.04%
18.55%
47.96%
14.58%
10.13%
36.37%
24.29%
12.38%
19.91%
16.73%
16.85%
41-60
25.41 %
21.84%
0.00%
47.30%
18.14%
19.84%
23.21%
21.96%
26.15%
2.97%
22.77%
61-80
11.63%
17.96%
52.04%
18.29%
21.49%
8.75%
15.95%
20.87%
16.64%
1.71%
18.37%
81-100
7.47%
9.57%
0.00%
3.02%
14.14%
4.08%
8.58%
12.31%
3.85%
0.00%
9.65%
100+
4.32%
10.23%
0.00%
6.49%
10.06%
0.00%
6.17%
8.75%
1.36%
1.14%
7.02%
Mixed
2.40%
0.33%
0.00%
3.18%
11.38%
5.73%
5.21%
6.21%
0.45%
0.00%
4.33%
not
measured
7.87%
12.69%
0.00%
0.07%
5.22%
20.76%
2.56%
8.27%
6.25%
13.47%
7.72%
Table 3. Age-class distribution as a percentage of area within forest type for U.S. Great Lakes
basin counties
Non-stocked = timberland less than 10% stocked with live trees
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA)
Assessment Database
60%
50%
data for age-class distribution
as a percentage of U.S. forested
area within each forest type.
Because forests are dynamic
and different tree species have
different growth patterns, age
distribution varies by forest
type. In the U.S. portion of
the basin, aspen-birch forests
tend to be younger, being
more concentrated than other
forest types in age classes
under 40 years, while the
Oak-Pine forests are more
concentrated in the 41 to 60
and 61 to 80 year age classes.
comparatively. Spruce-fir and
Oak-Hickory forests have a
general distribution centered
around 41 to 80 years, but they
also have the highest amount of
oldest trees, representing about
10% each of total U.S. forest
area in the 100-plus year age
class (Figure 3).
These age-class data can serve
as a coarse surrogate for the
vegetative structure (height
and diameter) of a forest, and
they can be combined with data
from other indicators to provide
insight on forest sustainability
US data on the extent of
forest area by successional or
serai stage are not available.
Although certain tree species
can be associated with the
various successional stages.
a standard and quantifiable
protocol for identifying
successional stage has not yet
been developed. It is expected.
however, that in the absence of
disturbance, the area covered
by early-successional forest
types, such as aspen-birch, is likely to decline as forests convert to late-successional types, such as maple-beech-birch.
Canadian forest data for this component are available by serai (successional) stage. Ontario's forests have a distribution leaning
towards mature stages, representing about 50% of the total forest area analyzed. Forests in the immature stage make up the next
largest group with 20% of the total, followed by those in late successional with 14%. Every Canadian forest type distribution
follows this general trend except for jack pine. Complete available data for Ontario can be viewed in Table 4 and are visually
0)
Q.
tfl
S2
o
LL
.E 40%
o
0)
05
(0
4-1
C
0)
ฃ
0)
Q.
30%
20%
10%
-ป- White-Red-Jack Pine
* Spruce-Fir
Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine
-*- Oak-Pine
-*- Oak-Hickory
-- Oak-Gum-Cypress
-i- Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
- Maple-Beech-Birch
-"- Aspen-Birch
0-20
21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100
Age Class (in years)
100+
Figure 3. Age-class distribution as a percentage of forested area within forest type for U.S.
Great Lakes basin counties
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA)
Assessment Database
331
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
represented in Figure 4.
Although the implications of this age-class
and serai stage data for forest and basin health
overall are unclear, some conclusions can be
made. In general, water quality is most affected
during the early successional stages after a
disturbance to forest habitats. Nutrient levels
in streams can increase during these times until
the surrounding forest is able to mature (Swank
2000). The trend towards mature forests in
Canada would therefore mean that area of the
Great Lakes basin has improved water quality.
Alternately, forests with balanced forest type
distributions and diverse successional stages
are generally considered more sustainable.
(USDA Forest Service and Northeast Forest
Resource Planners Association 2003). The
combined effect on ecosystem health resulting
from the balance of these opposing forces
would need to be determined.
Provincial Forest Type
White Birch
Mixed Conifer Lowland
Mixed Conifer Upland
Mixedwood
Jack Pine
Poplar
Red & White Pine
Tolerant Hardwoods
Totals
Serai Stage
Presapling
3.49%
13.81%
5.91%
4.60%
8.60%
6.60%
4.94%
1 .23%
6.00%
Sapling
4.52%
9.31%
13.12%
7.92%
31 .96%
10.45%
3.77%
0.87%
10.14%
Immature
15.55%
13.38%
22.51%
26.06%
29.24%
18.97%
23.28%
6.40%
20.12%
Mature
63.58%
47.00%
42.11%
51.03%
27.51%
52.55%
62.95%
60.13%
49.84%
Late
Successional
12.87%
16.50%
16.36%
10.39%
2.69%
11.43%
5.06%
31.37%
13.91%
Table 4. Serai stage distribution as a percentage of area within provincial
forest type in AOU* portion of Canadian Great Lakes Basin
* The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of the total
land area analyzed in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section
Component (3): Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories
In the U.S. basin, 7.8% of forested land is in a protected area category. Among major forest types, 8.9% of maple-beech-birch.
6.6% of aspen-birch and 9.2% of spruce-fir forests are considered to have protected status. The oak-gum-cypress category has the
highest protection rate, with 19.2% of its forest area protected from harvest. Please refer to Table 1 for complete U.S. data.
In the entire Canadian portion of the basin, 10.6% of forest area, or 1.6 million hectares (4.0 million acres), are protected (Table
2A). For the region of Ontario that has available forest type data, protection rates range from 15.4% for red and white pine and
11% for white birch, to 6.4% for
poplar and 5.7% for mixed conifer
lowland forests (Table 2B).
It is difficult to assess the
implications of the extent of
protected forest area, since
there is no consensus on what
the actual proportion should be.
National forest protection rates are
estimated to be 8.4% in Canada
(WWF 1999) and 14% in the U.S.
(USDA Forest Service 2004).
Despite the fact that updated trend
data for protected status are not
available at this time for the Great
Lakes basin, earlier analyses have
shown a recent general increase in
protected areas (indicator report
#8500 in Canada and the United
States 2005).
As for the range of variation
in protection rates by forest
types, protected areas should be
-ป-White Birch
_,_ Mixed Conifer
Lowland
Mixed Conifer
Upland
-*- Mixed wood
-*-Jack Pine
--Poplar
-t-Red& White Pine
, Tolerant
Hardwoods
Presapling Sapling Immature
Serai Stage
Mature Late
Successional
Figure 4. Serai stage distribution as a percentage of forested area within provincial forest
type in AOU* portion of Canadian Great Lakes Basin
* The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area represents 72% of total land area analyzed
in Ontario's portion of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section
332
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
representative of the diversity in forest composition within a larger area. However, defining what constitutes this "larger area" is
problematic. Policymakers often have a different jurisdiction than the Great Lakes basin in mind when deciding where to locate
protected areas. Also, the tree species and forest types found on an individual plot of protected land can change over time due to
successional processes.
Differences among the U.S., Canadian, and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) definitions of protected
areas should also be noted. The IUCN standard contains six categories of protected areas - strict nature reserves/wilderness areas,
national parks, natural monuments, habitat/species management areas, protected landscapes/seascapes, and managed resource
protection areas. The U.S. defines protected areas as forests "reserved from harvest by law or administrative regulation," including
designated Federal Wilderness areas, National Parks and Lakeshores, and state designated areas (Smith 2004). Ontario defines
protected areas as national parks, conservation reserves, and its six classes of provincial parks - wilderness, natural environment,
waterway, nature reserve, historical and recreational (OMNR 2002). There is substantial overlap among the specific U.S., Ontario
and IUCN definitions, and a more consistent classification system would ensure proper accounting of protected areas.
Common to the U.S., Ontario and IUCN definitions is that they only include forests in the public domain. However, there are
privately-owned forests similarly reserved from harvest by land trusts, conservation easements and other initiatives. Inclusion of
these forests under this indicator would provide a more complete definition of protected forest areas.
Moreover, there is debate on how protected status relates to forest sustainability, water quality, and ecosystem health. In many
cases, protected status was bestowed onto forests for their scenic or recreational value, which may not contribute significantly to
conservation or watershed management goals. On the other hand, forests available for harvest, whether controlled by the national
forest system, state or local governments, tribal governments, industry or private landowners, can be managed with the stated
purpose of conserving forest and basin health through the implementation of Best Management Practices and certification under
sustainable forestry programs. (For more information, refer to Indicator #8503, Forest Lands - Conservation and Maintenance of
Soil and Water Resources).
Component (4): Extent of forest land conversion, parcelization. and fragmentation
This component is still under development, as consensus has not been reached on definitions of forest fragmentation metrics and
which ones are therefore suitable for reporting. The proposed structure is split into the forces that drive fragmentation, (land
conversion and parcelization) and a series of forest spatial pattern descriptions based on (as yet to be agreed upon) fragmentation
metrics.
Conversion of forest land to other land-use classes is considered to be a major cause of fragmentation. Proposed metrics to describe
this include the percent of forest lands converted to and from developed, agricultural, and pasture land uses. Both Canadian and
U.S. data are available and can be obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Natural Resources Inventory, respectively.
Parcelization of forest lands into smaller privately owned tracks of land can lead to a disruption of continuous ecosystems and
habitats and, therefore, increased fragmentation. A proposed metric is the average size of land holdings. Canada does not have
available data for this metric, while the U.S. data should be available through the USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and
Analysis Program and the National Woodland Owner Survey.
Data for various fragmentation metrics exists for both Canada and the U.S., but the way these metrics are viewed is drastically
different. According to sources that have compiled U.S. data, fragmentation, ". . . is viewed as a property of the landscape that
contains forest... [as opposed to] a property of the forest itself." (Riitters et. al 2002). Ontario data is compiled according the latter
view of fragmentation and exist for the following metrics: area, patch density and size, edge, shape, diversity and interspersion,
and core area. U.S. data exist for patchiness, perforation, connectivity, edge, and interior or core forest, and they are available
from the USDA Forest Service. They are also being compiled by U.S. EPA. Substantial discussion is still required to refine these
metrics before reporting and analysis of this component can continue on a basin-wide scale.
Pressures
Urbanization, seasonal home construction and increased recreational use (driven in part by the desire of an aging and more affluent
population to spend time near natural settings) are among the general demands being placed on forest resources nationwide.
333
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Additional disturbances caused by lumber removal and forest fires can also alter the structure of Great Lakes basin forests.
Management Implications
Increased communication and agreement regarding the definitions and reporting methods for forest type, successional stage,
protected area category and fragmentation metrics between the United States and Canada would facilitate more effective basin-
wide analyses.
Reporting of U.S. forest data according to watershed as opposed to county would enable analysis by individual lake basin, therefore
increasing the data's value in relation to specific water quality and biodiversity objectives.
Canadian data by forest type and serai stage for the entire Great Lakes basin in Ontario, as opposed to just the Area of the
Undertaking (AOU, see definition below in "Comments" section), would allow for a more complete analysis. This can only
be accomplished if managers decide to extend forest planning inventories into the private lands in the southern regions of the
province.
Managing forest lands in ways that protect the continuity of forest cover can allow for habitat protection and wildlife species
mobility, therefore maintaining natural biodiversity.
Comments from the author(s)
Stakeholder discussion will be critical for identifying pressures and management implications, particularly those on a localized
basis, that are specific to Great Lakes basin forests. These discussions will add to longstanding debates on strategies for sustainable
forest management.
There are significant discrepancies within and between Canadian and U.S. data that made the analysis of data across the entire
Great Lakes basin difficult. The most pervasive problems are related to the time frame, frequency and location of forest inventories
and differences in metric definitions.
Canadian Great Lakes data for provincial forest type and serai stage are only available in areas of Ontario where Forest Resources
Planning Inventories occur. This region is commonly referred to as the Area of the Undertaking (AOU) and only represents about
72% of Ontario's total Great Lakes basin land area. The remainder of Ontario's forests can only be analyzed using satellite data,
which is meant for general land use/land cover analysis and does not have a fine enough resolution to allow for more detailed
investigation.
Forest inventory time frames for the U.S. also have an effect on data consistency. Although the 2002 Resource Planning Act
assessment was used as the data source for the U.S. portion of this report, it actually draws data from a compilation of numerous
state inventory years as follows: Illinois (1998), Indiana (1998), Michigan (1993), Minnesota (1990), New York (1993), Ohio
(1993), Pennsylvania (1989), and Wisconsin (1996). A
re-analysis of U.S. Great Lakes basin forests with data
from the same time frame would be useful.
Also, the U.S. data provided for this report was compiled
by county and not by watershed, so the area of land
analyzed is not necessarily completely within the Great
Lakes basin and all related values are therefore skewed.
This factor also made it impossible to represent the data
by individual lake basin. Additional GIS analysis of the
raw inventory data would be required to provide forest
data by watershed.
Definition of forest type differs between the U.S. and
Canada as well. In the U.S., forest cover type is defined
according to the predominant tree species and is divided
into the nine major groups represented in this report.
The Canadian provincial forest type classifications (for
Provicial Forest Type
White Birch
Upland Conifers
Lowland Conifers
Mixedwood
Jack Pine
Poplar
White and Red Pine
Tolerant Hardwoods
Description
predominantly white birch stands
predominantly spruce and mixed jack pine/spruce
stands on upland sites
predominantly black spruce stands on low, poorly
drained sites
mixed stands made up mostly of spruce, jack pine,
fir, poplar and white birch
predominantly jack pine stands
predominantly poplar stands
all red and white pine mixedwood stands
predominantly hardwoods such as maple and oak,
found mostly in the Great Lakes forest region
Table 5. Description of Canadian provincial forest types
Source: Forest Resources of Ontario 2001: State of the Forest Report, Appendix 1,
p. 41,(OMNR2002)
334
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
which data were available for this report), however, are based on a combination of ecological factors including dominant tree
species, understory vegetation, soil, and associated tree species (OMNR 2002). The definitions of each provincial forest type
are available in Table 5. Standardization of forest type definitions between the U.S. and Ontario would be necessary for analysis
across the entire Great Lakes basin.
As previously mentioned earlier in this report, the forest fragmentation component of this indicator needs additional refining
before it can be included for analysis.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) grantee on appointment to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), zuccarino-crowe.chiara@epa.gov
Mervyn Han, Environmental Careers Organization, on appointment to U.S. EPA, GLNPO.
Support in the preparation of this report was given by the members of the SOLEC Forest Land Criteria and Indicators Working
Group. The following members aided in the development of SOLEC Forest Lands indicators, collection, reporting and analysis of
data, and the review and editing of the text of this report:
Constance Carpenter, Sustainable Forests Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Larry Watkins, Forest Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Evaluations and Standards Section, Forest
Management Branch
Eric Wharton, USDA Forest Service
T. Bently Wigley, NCASI
Additional Contributors:
Mike Gardner (Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College), Dain Maddox (USDA Forest Service), Ann McCammon
Soltis (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission), Wil McWilliams (USDA Forest Service), Bill Meades (Canadian Forest
Service), Greg Nowacki (USDA Forest Service), Teague Prichard (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Karen Rodriguez
(U.S. EPA, GLNPO), Steve Schlobohm (USDA Forest Service), and Chris Walsh (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
Sources
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2003. Defining Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: Criteria and Indicators, 2003.
http://www.ccfm.org/current/ccitf_e.php
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for the Northern United States.
Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03
http://www.na.fs. fed.us/sustainability/pubs/sus_assess/03/toc.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for
Ontario, http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on.ca/publications.cfmtfreports
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat
7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and several common NRVIS coverages such
as watersheds, lakes and rivers etc. Data supplied by Larry Watkins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Smith, WB. 2004. United States 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests, Data Report: Criterion 2, Maintenance of Productive
Capacity of Forest Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. FS-766A.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/Indicator%2010/indicators%2010_14.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. FS-766.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2000. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. Washington DC: USDA Forest Service. FS-687.
http://www.fs.fed.us/Dl/rDa/rDaasses.Ddf
335
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
USDA Forest Service and Northeastern Forest Resource Planners Association. 2003. Base Indicators of Forest Sustainability:
Metrics and Data Sources for State and Regional Monitoring. Durham, NH: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry.
USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database.
http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/tools-data/mapping-tools/.
Data supplied by Eric Wharton, Forest Inventory and Analysis, USDA Forest Service, NE Research Station. July, 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
336
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Forest Lands - Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
Indicator # 8501
Note: This indicator includes three components and corresponds to Montreal Process Criterion 2, Indicators 10, 11, and 13.
Indicator #8501 Components:
Component (1) - Area of forest land and area of forest land available for timber production
Component (2) - Total merchantable volume of growing stock on forest lands available for timber production
Component (3) - Annual removal of wood products compared to net growth, or the volume determined to be sustainable
(proposedfor future analysis; data not presented in this report)
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Additional discussion amongst forestry experts is needed for an assessment determination.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Each lake was categorized with a Not Assessed status and an Undetermined trend, since data by individual lake
basin were not available for the U.S. at this time.
Purpose
To determine the capacity of Great Lakes forests to produce wood products
To allow for future assessments of changes in productivity over time, which can be representative of social and economic
trends affecting management decisions and can also be related to ecosystem health
Ecosystem Objective
To maximize the productive capacity of Great Lakes forests while
maintaining the health and sustainability of the ecosystem
State of the Ecosystem
Component (1): Area of forest land and area of forest land available
for timber production
The total area of forest land analyzed in the Great Lakes basin for
this report was 35,113,242 hectares (86 million acres). Of this area,
about 89% (or a total of 31,194,790 hectares (77 million acres)) can
be considered as available for timber production, as calculated
from U.S. timber land estimates and Canadian productive forests
not restricted from harvesting. In the U.S. portion of the basin, the
proportion of land available for timber production was about 91%,
while 86% of the entire Canadian forested portion of the basin was
available. For just the managed portion of Ontario's forests, 91%
was available for timber production. Complete U.S. data broken
down by state and Canadian data broken down by lake basin can
be viewed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
The amount of forest land available for timber production is directly
related to the productive capacity of forests for harvestable goods.
This proportion is affected by different types of management
activities, which provides an indication of the balance between
the need for wood products with the need to satisfy assorted
environmental concerns aimed at conservation of biological
diversity.
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
Total Area of
Forest land
(ha)
29,322
198,351
7,802,663
3,345,320
4,775,982
742,161
223,904
3,086,921
20,204,626
Area of Forest
Land Available
for Timber
Production* (ha)
5,634
182,287
7,533,587
2,818,676
3,928,686
668,190
210,992
3,033,084
18,381,137
% Available
for Timber
Production*
19.21%
91 .90%
96.55%
84.26%
82.26%
90.03%
94.23%
98.26%
90.97%
Table 1. Area of forest land available for timber
production* in relationship to total area of forest land in
U.S. Great Lakes basin counties.
* Area designated as timber land is used as a proxy
for this value and may include inaccessible areas.
The presented data should therefore be considered
an over-estimation of the net area available for timber
production.
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National
Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
337
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Component (2): Total merchantable volume of growing stock on forest
lands available for timber production
In the analyzed area of Great Lakes basin forests that were available for
timber production, 78% of the total wood volume was merchantable. This
percentage of growing stock included 92% for the U.S. portion of the basin
and 61% for Ontario's managed forests in the Canadian part of the basin.
Complete U.S. data broken down by state and Canadian data broken down
by lake basin can be viewed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
If the values of net merchantable volume are compared to the total area of
forest land available for timber production, a rough estimate of the forests'
productive capacity can be obtained. Calculations show the per-unit-area
productivity of U.S. Great Lakes forests at 92.7 mVha and of Canadian
Great Lakes forests at 90.2 mVha.
Changes in productivity values can be indicative of the ecosystem's health
and vigor, as a lowered ratio of merchantable volume to available timber
land can suggest reduced growth and ability of trees to absorb nutrients,
water and solar energy and increased disease and tree mortality. Further
assessment of productive capacity would require additional historical data
and analysis by forestry experts.
Component (3): Annual removal of wood products compared to net growth.
or the volume determined to be sustainable
The growth to removal ratio is often used as a course surrogate for the
concept of sustainable production in the U.S. Although exact data for this
measure have not been compiled for this report, nationwide U.S. studies
have shown that timber growth has exceeded removals for several decades,
and Ontario's wood removals on managed timber land is supposedly done
within sustainable limits by definition of the forestry practices enacted in
those areas.
A) Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Lake
Basin
Superior
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Totals
Total Area
of Forest
Land (ha)
7,061,238
6,162,419
322,317
1 ,362,643
14,908,617
Net area of
Forest Land
Available
for Timber
Production (ha)
6,006,356
5,343,401
291,107
1,172,788
12,813,653
% Available
for Timber
Production
85.06%
86.71%
90.32%
86.07%
85.95%
B) AOU* Portion of Ontario
Lake
Basin
Huron
Ontario
Superior
Totals
Total Area
of AOU 's
Forest Land
(ha)
4,710,406
665,100
6,227,943
11,603,450
Net area of
AOU Forest
Land Available
for Timber
Production (ha)
4,227,743
611,268
5,749,905
10,588,917
% Available
for Timber
Production
89.75%
91.91%
92.32%
91.26%
Table 2. Area of forest land available for timber
production in relationship to total area of forest
land in, A) Canadian Great Lakes basin, and B)
the AOU* portion of Ontario.
* The Area of the Undertaking (AOU) land area
represents 72% of Ontario's total Great Lakes
basin land area and 78% of its total forest area.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest
Standards and Evaluation Section
Pressures
Fluctuating marketplace demands for wood
products and increased pressures to reserve
forest lands for recreation, conservation of
biodiversity and wildlife habitat can affect
the volume of timber available for harvest.
Disease and disturbance from fires or other
events can also affect productivity capacity.
Management Implications
Timber productivity can be increased
through the use of timber plantations and
sustainable management of forests available
for timber production.
Continued discussion of the meaning
of sustainability and how it is affected
by wood product removal is crucial to
the effectiveness of future management
decisions.
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
Total Live
Volume* (m3)
on Forest
Lands Available
for Timber
Production
518,577
22,162,859
829,796,679
219,781,880
383,181,677
73,836,032
25,840,363
294,891,458
1,850,009,525
Net Merchantable
Volume (m3) of
Timber Products
(Growing Stock*)
500,423
18,342,594
754,964,965
199,559,859
365,098,413
71,466,897
24,880,573
269,125,981
1,703,939,705
Volume
(m3) of Non-
merchantable
Timber
Products
18,154
3,820,265
74,826,151
20,222,021
18,083,264
2,369,136
959,790
25,765,478
146,064,258
% Growing
Stock* (of Total
Vol. Available
for Timber
Production)
96.50%
82.76%
90.98%
90.80%
95.28%
96.79%
96.29%
91.26%
92.10%
Table 3. Total volume of growing stock* in U.S. Great Lakes basin counties.
* Calculations do not take inaccessibility or inoperability of timber land into account,
so resulting values are skewed high
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource
Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database
338
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Comments from the author(s)
It can be difficult to analyze forest areas
and growing stocks for a set moment in
time, because inventory time frames can
vary. U.S. 2002 Resource Planning Act
(RPA) data are compiled from a range
of different years (1989 through 1998 for
Great Lakes states) depending on when
the most recent state inventories were
conducted. This issue should diminish as
the U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory
and Analysis Program (FIA) switches to
an annualized survey cycle, and future
analyses should therefore incorporate
these data.
Lake
Basin
Huron
Ontario
Superior
Totals
Total Volume
(m3) on Forest
Lands Available
for Timber
Production
667,854,390
114,963,698
787,640,995
1,570,459,083
Net Merchantable
Volume (m3) of
Timber Products
(Growing Stock)
421,077,634
72,717,983
461,410,679
955,206,296
Volume (m3) of
Non-merchantable
Timber Products
246,776,756
42,245,715
326,230,315
615,252,787
% Growing
Stock (of Total
Vol. Available
for Timber
Production)
63.05%
63.25%
58.58%
60.82%
Table 4. Total volume of growing stock in Canadian Great Lakes basin*.
* Data only available for Ontario's managed forests (AOU portion of Ontario)
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section
Although Canadian data are available by watershed, U S. forest data are compiled by county for this report, so the area of U.S. land
analyzed is not necessarily completely within the Great Lakes basin. Corresponding data may be skewed. This factor makes it
difficult to represent the data by individual lake basin. Additional GIS analysis of the U.S. raw inventory data would be required
to provide forest data by watershed.
Area of timber land in the U.S. is used as a proxy for the net area of land available for timber production in U.S. data calculations,
but timber land area may include currently inaccessible and inoperable areas or areas where landowners do not have timber
production as an ownership objective, and is therefore an overestimation of the net area available for timber production and
associated merchantable wood volumes.
Canadian data for growing stock are only available for Ontario's managed forests where Forest Resources Planning Inventories
occur. This area is commonly referred to as the Area of the Undertaking (AOU), and only represents 72% of Ontario's total Great
Lakes basin land area and 78% of its total forest area. Analysis of the rest of the Canadian part of the basin is restricted to satellite
data capabilities.
Data for annual removal of wood products as compared to net growth are available for Canada and a few of the U.S. Great
Lakes states, but were not prepared for the Great Lakes basin at the time of this report. This information should be compiled for
future analyses when available, and is an important ratio to monitor over time to ensure that wood harvesting is not reducing the
total volume of trees on timber land at larger spatial scales. Unfortunately, this value does not add much insight to the detailed
ecological attributes of sustainability, and must be analyzed with additional biological components to achieve this indicator's
ecosystem objective.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) grantee on appointment to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), zuccarino-crowe.chiara@epa.gov.
Support in the preparation of this report was given by the members of the SOLEC Forest Land Criteria and Indicators Working
Group. The following members aided in the development of SOLEC Forest Lands indicators, collection, reporting and analysis of
data, and the review and editing of the text of this report:
Constance Carpenter, Sustainable Forests Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Larry Watkins, Forest Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Evaluations and Standards Section, Forest
Management Branch
Eric Wharton, USDA Forest Service
T. Bently Wigley, NCASI
339
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Additional Contributors:
Mike Gardner, Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College; Dain Maddox, USDA Forest Service; Ann McCammon
Soltis, Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission; Wil McWilliams, USDA Forest Service; Bill Meades, Canadian Forest
Service; Greg Nowacki, USDA Forest Service; Teague Prichard, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Karen Rodriguez,
U.S. EPA, GLNPO; Steve Schlobohm, USDA Forest Service; and Chris Walsh, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Sources
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2003. Defining Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: Criteria and Indicators,
2003. http://www.ccfm.org/current/ccitf_e.php
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for the Northern United States.
Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/pubs/sus_assess/03/toc.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for
Ontario, http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on.ca/publications.cfmtfreports
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat
7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and several common NRVIS coverages such
as watersheds, lakes and rivers etc. Data supplied by Larry Watkins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Smith, WB. 2004. United States 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests, Data Report: Criterion 2, Maintenance of Productive
Capacity of Forest Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. FS-766A.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/Indicator%2010/indicators%2010_14.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. FS-766.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2000. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. Washington DC: USDA Forest Service. FS-687.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/rpaasses.pdf
USDA Forest Service and Northeastern Forest Resource Planners Association. 2003. Base Indicators of Forest Sustainability:
Metrics and Data Sources for State and Regional Monitoring. Durham, NH: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry.
USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, 2002 Resource Planning Act (RPA) Assessment Database.
http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/4801/tools-data/mapping-tools/. Data supplied by Eric Wharton, Forest Inventory and Analysis, USDA Forest
Service, NE Research Station. July, 2006.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
340
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Forest Lands - Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources
Indicator #8503
Note: This indicator includes two components and corresponds to Montreal Process Criterion 4, Indicator 19.
Indicator #8503 Components:
Component (1) - Percent of forested land within riparian zones by watershed and percent of forested land within watershed
by Lake basin
Component (2) - Change in area of forest lands certified under sustainable forestry programs in Great Lakes states and
Ontario
Overall Assessment
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Trend information is not available for forested areas at this time. Data for the area of certified
forest lands can not be analyzed according to Great Lakes Basin boundaries at this time, but the
overall area of certified lands is increasing across the region.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Good
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: A large proportion of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested. Certification data do
not exist specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Over half of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested. Certification data do not exist
specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Huron
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Over half of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested. Certification data do not exist
specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Erie
Status: Poor
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Only a small portion of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested. Certification data do
not exist specific to this individual lake basin.
Lake Ontario
Status: Mixed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Over half of the basin's riparian zones and watersheds are forested. Certification data do not exist
specific to this individual lake basin.
Purpose
To describe the extent to which Great Lakes basin forests aid in the conservation of the basin's soil resources and protection
of water quality
To describe the level of participation by Great Lakes states and Ontario in sustainable forestry certification programs
341
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Ecosystem Objective
Improved soil and water quality within the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Component (1): Percent of forested land within riparian zones by watershed and percent of forested land within watershed by
Lake basin
Forests cover about 61% of the total
land and 70% of the riparian zones
(defined as the 30 meter buffer around
all surface waters) within the Great
Lakes basin. The U.S. portion of
the basin (including the upper St.
Lawrence River watersheds) has forest
coverage on 61% of its riparian zones
(as of 1992), and the Canadian portion
of the basin (excluding the upper St.
Lawrence River watersheds) has
forest coverage on 76% of its riparian
zones (as of 2002) (Table 1). Lake
Superior has the best coverage overall.
with forested lands covering 96% of
its riparian zones. Lake Michigan
(62%), Lake Huron (74%) and Lake
Ontario (61%) all have at least half of
their total riparian zones covered with
forests, while Lake Erie has only 30%
coverage. The percentages of forested riparian
zones by watershed are visually represented in
Figure 1 and are summarized by Lake Basin
in Figure 2. In each major lake basin and the
upper St. Lawrence River watersheds, a slightly
greater percentage of forested land existed
within riparian zones than was observed
within the overall watershed (Figure 2).
Basin
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence River
Totals
U.S. (1992)
% Forested
(Entire Watershed)
87.73%
51.54%
55.07%
22.90%
52.15%
84.10%
53.13%*
% Forested
(Riparian Areas)
88.44%
61.90%
54.28%
36.24%
63.25%
87.03%
60.43%*
Ontario (2002)
% Forested
(Entire Watershed)
98.60%
74.65%
14.30%
49.99%
73.05%**
% Forested
(Riparian Areas)
98.05%
77.04%
19.95%
59.28%
75.67%**
Table 1. Percent of Land Forested within U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes Watersheds
and Riparian Zones by Lake Basin.
* = Including Upper St. Lawrence, ** = Not including Upper St. Lawrence
Sources: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information Management and
Analysis and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section Lake basin
boundaries refined by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
While good water quality is generally
associated with heavily forested or undisturbed
watersheds, (USDA 2004) the existence of a
forested buffer near surface water features
can also protect soil and water resources
despite the land use class present in the rest
of the watershed (Carpenter et. al 2003). As
the percentage of forest coverage within a
riparian zones increases, the amount of runoff
and erosion (and therefore nutrient loadings.
non-point source pollution and sedimentation)
decreases, and the capacity of the ecosystem to
store water increases. Studies show that heavy
forest cover is capable of reducing total runoff
by as much as 26% as compared to treeless
areas with equivalent land-use conditions
(Sedell et. al 2000) and that riparian forests
can reduce nutrient and sediment loadings by
30 to 90% (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Kilometers
0
Miles
% forested land
within riparian zones'
by watershed
Q^ 15-<25%
Q^ 25 - <40%
Q^ 40 - <60%
Q^ 60 - <75%
Q^ 75 - <85%
CD >85%
1888$ St. Lawrence
Figure 1. Percent Forested Land within Riparian Zones by Watershed in the
Great Lakes Basin.
Area is technically part of the St. Lawrence River drainage, but included in the
Great Lakes basin by definition in the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
Sources: USDA Forest Service, North eastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information Management
and Analysis and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section.
Lake basin boundaries refined by U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
342
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
2004).
Biodiversity of aquatic species is further maintained in
riparian areas with increased forest coverage by an increase
in the amount of large woody debris (which affects stream
configuration, regulation of organic matter and sediment
storage, and aquatic habitat availability) and decreased water
temperatures (Eubanks et. al 2002). A study completed in
Pennsylvania in 1985 claimed that complete commercial
clear cutting of a riparian zone allowed a 10ฐC (18ฐF) rise
in stream water temperatures, but the retention of a forested
buffer strip only allowed an increase of about 1ฐC (1.8ฐF)
(Binkley and MacDonald 1994). This regulation of water
temperatures can be critical to the maintenance of assorted
cold-water fish populations, e.g., trout.
The lack of consensus on the desired percentage of forested
land in the basin or riparian zone (and the desired size of
the riparian zone itself) makes it difficult to determine the
specific implications of the presented data. Comparisons to
historical forest cover in riparian zones and manipulative
experiments would be useful for trend establishment.
DWithin Entire Watershed
IWithin Riparian Zones
100%
Lake
Superior
Lake
Michigan
Lake Huron Lake Erie
Basin
Lake Ontario St. Lawrence
River
Figure 2. Percent of Land Forested within Great Lakes
Watersheds and Riparian Zones by Lake Basin.
* = Upper St. Lawrence data only available for U.S.
Sources: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry,
Information Management and Analysis and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Forest Standards and Evaluation Section. Lake basin boundaries refined by U.S.
EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Component (2): Change in area of forest lands certified under sustainable forestry programs in Great Lakes states and Ontario
Sustainable forestry management programs are designed to ensure timber can be grown and harvested in ways that protect the
local ecosystem. Participation is often voluntary, but once certification is gained, compliance with management protocols is
required. Data from three different certification programs were analyzed for this report. Their numbers are not additive, because
one area of land can be certified under more than one program at a time.
The area of forest lands certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFIฎ) program increased by 855% from 2003 to 2005
across the Great Lakes region (Figure 3). Forest landowners who only elect to enroll in the program, but not go through the
formal certification process, often choose to follow the forest management protocols, but are not required to do so until they seek
certification. It is therefore possible that a much greater amount of forest lands are being managed according to these sustainable
practices than are represented by the given data.
Certification in two other sustainable forestry programs also
grew in the U.S. Great Lakes states over the past few years.
The acres of forest lands certified by the American Tree Farm
System (ATFS) rose by 47% between 2004 and 2005 (Figure
4). The ATFS is a voluntary certification program for non-
industrial, private landowners, and its mission is "to promote
the growing of renewable forest resources on private lands
while protecting environmental benefits and increasing public
understanding of all benefits of productive forestry" (American
Forest Foundation 2004). The Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) is an international body that accredits certification
organizations and guarantees their authenticity. Acres of forest
lands certified under this organization grew by 50% between
2005 and 2006 (Figure 4).
This increase in the area of certified forest lands under all
three programs can be interpreted as a greater commitment
to sustainable forest management amongst forest industry
professionals. The assumption is that continued growth in
30,000,000
25,000,000
a
f 20,000,000 -
O 15,000,000
(A
P
O 10,000,000
5,000,000 -
2003
2005
Figure 3. Forest Lands Certified Under SFI in the Great
Lakes region (U.S. States and province of Ontario), 2003-
2005.
Source: Sustainable Forestry Initiative
343
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
sustainable management practices will lead to improved soil
and water resources in the areas where they are implemented.
Pressures
Component (1)
The same pressures exerted on all forest resources also apply
here. Development of forest lands to other land use classes
(such as developed, agricultural, or pasture) decreases the
amount of forest area across watersheds and in riparian zones.
Urbanization and seasonal home construction can specifically
impact riparian areas since they are among the most desirable
development locations.
Component (2)
Participation in sustainable forestry programs can be affected
by marketplace popularity. Political climate, status of the
economy, and public opinion can all influence forest managers
decisions to gain certification.
Acres Certified
4,000,000 -
i
-ป-ATFS -B-FSC
13,756,754
_^
""9,168,586
ป-.
2,841,587
2004
^4,169,434
*
2005
Year
1
2006
Figure 4. Forest Lands Certified Under ATFS and FSC in the
Great Lakes States (U.S. only).
Sources: American Tree Farm System (ATFS) Program Statistics and Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC)
Management Implications
Component (1)
Development of policy directed towards protecting forested lands within riparian zones would help maintain forested buffers near
surface waters, thereby leading to a possible improvement of local ecosystem health regardless of the land use classification in the
rest of the watershed.
Component (2)
Increased reporting of certification data by watershed would make corresponding analyses easier. Greater participation in
sustainable forestry certification programs would ensure that all timberland is managed in a sustainable manner.
Comments from the author(s)
Component (1)
For the purposes of this report, riparian zone was defined as 30 meters (98 ft) on each side of a surface water feature. Research
shows that a forested buffer of this size achieves the widest range of water quality objectives, (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.
2004), and is the standard value used in USGS Forestry Service, Northeastern Area. Other sources quote different amounts of
forested buffer needed near surface water features to achieve the highest level of soil and water resources protection, ranging
anywhere from 8 to 150 meters (26 to 492 feet) from the water's edge (Illinois Department of Natural Resources et al. 2000.
Indiana Department of Natural Resources 2006, Ohio Department of Natural Resources 2006). The ideal riparian zone size can
be affected by a variety of factors such as stream, vegetation and soil type, geomorphology, slope of land, and season (Eubanks
et. al. 2002).
The resolution of the US landcover dataset used in this analysis was coarse enough to cause slight inaccuracies, but the data were
determined as suitable for summarization at the watershed scale.
Additional research of existing literature would be helpful in further quantifying the effects of riparian forests on erosion, run-off.
water temperatures, and nutrient and pollutant storage. Although specific studies have been done on these topics, the differences
in metrics and sample locations complicate comparisons for the Great Lakes basin.
Component (2)
In subsequent analyses, data should be collected for the percent of forested riparian zones that lie within areas also certified
in sustainable forestry programs. Presently, certification data cannot be analyzed by watershed or riparian area, and they are
therefore less useful for any analyses other than assessment of changing trends in the programs' utilization.
Expanding this component to include rates of compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) would provide valuable
information for additional analyses. While certification in sustainable forestry programs often includes the implementation of
344
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
BMPs, not all forest lands managed according to BMPs are also certified. Forestry BMPs have been developed in all Great Lakes
states and provinces, so obtaining the relevant audit data would provide a greater and more detailed information base relating to
the conservation of forest, soil and water resources.
Many BMPs are directed at reducing non-point source pollution, and some states even have monitoring data relating to issues such
as water quality. For example, Wisconsin's Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality report stated that, when BMPs
were correctly applied to areas where they were needed, 96% of the monitored area showed no adverse impact on water quality
(Breunig et al. 2003). It is generally accepted that this trend exists in other states as well. For although individual states' BMPs
may differ, studies have shown that their correct implementation results in effective protection of water quality overall.
Acknowledgments
Author:
Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) grantee on appointment to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA), Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), zuccarino-crowe.chiara@epa.gov
Support in the preparation of this report was given by the members of the SOLEC Forest Land Criteria and Indicators Working
Group. The following members aided in the development of SOLEC Forest Lands indicators, collection, reporting and analysis of
data, and the review and editing of the text of this report:
Constance Carpenter, Sustainable Forests Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Larry Watkins, Forest Analyst, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Evaluations and Standards Section, Forest
Management Branch
Rebecca L. Whitney, GIS Specialist, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Jason Metnick, Manager, SFI Label and Licensing, Sustainable Forestry Board
Sherri Wormstead, Sustainability Specialist, USDA Forestry Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
John Schneider, Ecologist and GIS Specialist, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Karen Rodriguez, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Additional Contributors:
Mike Gardner (Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland College); Dain Maddox (USDA Forest Service), Ann McCammon
Soltis (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission), Wil McWilliams (USDA Forest Service), Bill Meades (Canadian Forest
Service), Greg Nowacki (USDA Forest Service), Teague Prichard (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources), Steve Schlobohm
(USDA Forest Service), Chris Walsh (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), and Eric Wharton (USDA Forest Service).
Sources
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 2004. Riparian Forest Buffers, Linking Land and Water. Chesapeake Bay Program, Forestry
Workgroup, and USDA Forest Service.
American Forest Foundation. 2004. American Tree Farm System, http://www.treefarmsystem.org/ (accessed August 15, 2006).
American Tree Farm System (ATFS) Program Statistics. January 2005. Data provided by Emily Chan, American Forest Foundation,
by e-mail on 11-4-2005, and reported via personal communication with Sherri Wormstead, USDA Forest Service.
Binkley, D. and MacDonald, L. 1994. Forests as non-point sources of pollution, and effectiveness of best management practices.
NCASI Technical bulletin No 672.
http://www.warnercnr.colostate.edu/frws/people/faculty/macdonald/publications/ForestsasNonpointSourcesofPollution.pdf
Breunig, B., Gasser, D., and Holland, K. 2003. Wisconsin's Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality, The 2002
Statewide BMP Monitoring Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. PUB-FR-252-2003.
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/forestry/Usesof/bmp/2002MonitoringReport.pdf
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights for the Northern United States.
Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainabilitv/Dubs/sus assess/03/toc.pdf
345
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Eubanks, C.E. and Meadows, D. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. San Dimas,
CA: USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. FS-683. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide/
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2005 Data originally obtained from Will Price, The Pinchot Institute, and verified and
edited from FSC database on-line (http://www.fscus.org/certified_companies/) by Sherri Wormstead, USDA Forest Service,
swormstead@fs.fed.us. 2006 Data obtained from FSC Website on July 2nd, 2006 by Sherri Wormstead, USDA Forest Service.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, University of Illinois, and Illinois Forestry
Development Council. 2000. Forestry Best Management Practices for Illinois, 71 pp. http ://www. siu. edu/%7eilbmp/ (accessed
August 10, 2006).
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Forestry BMP's. Division of Forestry, http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/ (accessed
August 10, 2006).
NCASI and UGA Warnell School of Forest Resources. Forestry BMPs. http://www.forestrybmp.net/ (accessed August 10,
2006).
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Best Management Practices for Logging Operations, Fact Sheet. Division of
Forestry, Columbus, OH. http://www.dnr.ohio.gov/forestry/landowner/pdf/BMPlogging.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Ontario, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on.ca/publications.cfmtfreports
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forest Standards and Evaluation Section. Landsat Data based on Landcover 2002 (Landsat
7) classified imagery, Inventory data based on Forest Resources Planning Inventories, and several common NRVIS coverages such
as watersheds, lakes and rivers etc. Data supplied by Larry Watkins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Sedell, J., Sharpe, M., Dravnieks Apple, D., Copenhagen, M. and Furniss, M.. 2000. Water and the Forest Service. Washington,
DC: USDA Forest Service, Policy Analysis. FS-660. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/water.pdf
Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Data supplied via personal communication with Jason Metnick, SFI Label and Licensing,
Sustainable Forestry Board, June 30, August 1 and 15, 2006.
Stednick, J.D. 2000. Effects of Vegetation Management on Water Quality: Timber Management. In Drinking Water from Forests
and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature, ed. G.E. Dissmeyer, pp.103-119. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service,
Southern Research Station. SRS-39.
USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. FS-766.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Information Management and Analysis. 2005 (Riparian).
2006 (Forest land by Watershed). Riparian Area Land Cover Types based on the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset, (USGS 1999).
http://landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.php. Data supplied by Rebecca Whitney, USDA Forest Service.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
346
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Acid Rain
Indicator #9000
Disclaimer
The Acid Rain indicator report was drafted in the fall of 2004 using data that was available at that time. This version of the indica-
tor report includes only minor modifications to the text. Since 2004, a number of Canadian and U.S. governmental reports have
been released with more up-to-date information. These reports include the United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement: 2006
Progress Report and the Government of Canada Five-year Progress Report: Canada-Wide Standards for Particulate Matter and
Ozone. The information and data presented in these reports (and others) will be incorporated into the 2009 Acid Rain indicator
report.
Overall Assessment
Status:
Trend:
Mixed
Improving
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Separate lake assessments were not included in the last update of this report.
Purpose
To assess the sulfate and nitrate levels in precipitation
To assess the exceedance of critical loads of sulfate to the Great Lakes basin
To infer the efficacy of policies to reduce sulfur and nitrogen acidic compounds released into the atmosphere
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports both the Acid Rain Annex and the Ozone Annex of the 1991 Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement (Air
Quality Agreement), which was established to address the transboundary flow of air pollution between the two countries. With
respect to acid rain, the Air Quality Agreement sets specific sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduction targets and
establishes a forum for acid rain related scientific and technical cooperation. This indicator supports Annexes 1 and 15 of the
1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This indicator also supports The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000,
Canada's principle domestic policy tool for managing acid rain, http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/1998_acid_rain_strategy_e.pdf.
the long-term goal of which is "to meet the environmental threshold of critical loads for acid deposition across Canada", i.e., to
ensure that no areas of Canada are receiving levels of acid deposition above which damage may occur.
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Acid rain, or "acidic deposition", is caused when two common air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx),
are released into the atmosphere, react and mix with atmospheric moisture and return to the earth as acidic rain, snow, fog or
particulate matter. These pollutants can be carried over long distances by prevailing winds, creating acidic precipitation far from
the original source of the emissions. Environmental damage typically occurs where local soils and/or bedrock do not effectively
neutralize the acid.
Lakes and rivers have been acidified by acid rain, directly or indirectly causing the disappearance of invertebrates, many fish
species, waterbirds and plants. Not all lakes exposed to acid rain become acidified, however. Lakes located in terrain that is rich
in calcium carbonate (e.g. on limestone bedrock) are able to neutralize acidic deposition. Much of the acidic precipitation in North
America falls in areas around and including the Great Lakes basin. Northern Lakes Huron, Superior and Michigan, their tributar-
ies and associated small inland lakes are located on the geological feature known as the Canadian Shield. The Shield is primarily
composed of granitic bedrock and glacially derived soils that cannot easily neutralize acid, thereby resulting in the acidification
of many small lakes (particularly in northern Ontario and the northeastern United States). 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.
A report published by the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation demonstrated that acid deposition is still a significant problem
and has had a greater environmental impact than previously thought (Driscol et al. 2001). For example, acid deposition has altered
347
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
soils in the northeastern U.S. through the accelerated leaching of base cations, the accumulation of nitrogen and sulfur, and an
increase in concentrations of aluminum in soil waters. Acid deposition has also contributed to the decline of red spruce trees and
sugar maple trees in the eastern U.S. Similar observations have been made in eastern Canada (Ontario and eastward) and are
reported in the 2004 Canadian Acid Deposition Science Assessment (Environment Canada 2005). The assessment confirms that
although levels of acid deposition have declined in eastern Canada over the last two decades, approximately 21% of the mapped
area currently receives levels of acid rain in excess of what the region can handle, and 75% of the area is at potential risk of damage
should all nitrogen deposition become acidifying, i.e. aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems become nitrogen saturated.
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides Emissions Reductions
Sulfur Dioxide emissions come from a variety of sources. The most common releases of SO2 in Canada are industrial processes
such as non-ferrous mining and metal smelting. In the United States, electric utilities constitute the largest emissions source
(Figure 1), while in Canada the largest emission source is from industry. 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 2).
A
Transportation Other
4%
Industrial Sources
53%
Electric Utilities
25%
Fuel Combustion
18%
B
Transportation
7%
Fuel Combustion
Under The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000, Canada is committed to reducing acid deposition in its south-eastern
region to levels below those that cause harm to ecosystems - a level commonly called the "critical load" - while keeping other areas
of the country (where acid rain effects have not been observed) clean. In 2000, total SO2 emissions in Canada were 2.4 million
tonnes, which is about 23% below the national cap of 3.2 million tonnes reiterated under Annex 1 (the Acid Rain Annex) of the Air
Quality Agreement. Emissions in 2000 also represent a greater than 50% reduction from 1980 emission levels (1980 emissions were
approximately 4.6 million tonnes). The seven easternmostprovinces' approximately 1.6 million tonnes of SO2 emissions in 2000 were
almost 30% below the cap
of 2.3 million tonnes/year.
set by the former Eastern
Canada Acid Rain
Program. Reductions of
SO2 are mainly attrib-
uted to reductions from
the non-ferrous mining
and smelting sector and
electric utilities as part of
the 1985 Eastern Canada
Acid Rain Program that
was completed in 1994.
Further SO2 reductions are
being achieved through
the implementation of The
Canada-Wide Acid Rain
Strategy for Post-2000.
In 2002, all participat-
ing sources of the U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency's (U.S. EPA) Acid
Rain Program (Phase
I & II) achieved a total
reduction in SO2 emis-
sions of about 35% from
1990 levels, and 41% from
1980 levels. The Acid
Rain Program now affects
approximately 3,000
fossil-fuel power plant
units. These units reduced
their SO, emissions to
Figure 1. Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions in Canada (A) and the U.S. (B), 1999.
Source: Figure 4 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/proasreas/usca/docs/airus02.pdf and Environment Canada 1999 National Pollutant Release
Inventory Data and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999 National Emissions Inventory Documentation and Data
Electric Utilities
12%
Transportation
56%
Fuel Combustion
19%
Industrial Source
11%
Transportation
55%
Bectric Utilities
23%
Fuel Combustion
17%
Industrial Sources
4%
Figure 2. Sources of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions in Canada (A) and the U.S. (B), 1999.
Source: Figure 6 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http://www.epa.aov/airmarkets/proasregs/usca/docs/airus02.pdfand Environment Canada 1999 Pollutant Release Inventory
Data and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999 National Emissions Inventory Documentation and Data
348
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
10.19 million tons in 2002, about 4% lower than 2001 emissions. Full implementation of the program in 2010 will result in a
permanent national emissions cap of 8.95 million tons, representing about a 50% reduction from 1980 levels.
By 2000, Canadian NOx emissions were reduced by more than 100,000 tonnes below the forecast level of 970,000 tonnes
(established by the Acid Rain Annex) at power plants, major combustion sources, and smelting operations. In the U.S., reductions
in NOx emissions have significantly surpassed the 2 million ton reduction for stationary and mobile sources mandated by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. Under the Acid Rain Program alone, NOx emissions for all the affected sources in 2002 were 4.5
million tons, about 33% lower than emissions from the sources in 1990. Overall, NOx emissions decreased by about 12% in the
U.S. from 1993 to 2002. NOx emissions have remained relatively constant in Canada since 1990, but they are projected to decrease
considerably in both countries by 2010.
For additional information on SO2 and NOx emission reductions, including sources outside the Acid Rain Program, refer to indica-
tor report #4202 Air Quality.
Figure 3 compares wet sulfate deposition and wet nitrate deposition (kilograms per hectare per year or kg/ha/yr) over North
America between two separate year periods, 1990-1994 and 1996-2000. Focusing on eastern North America where both sulfate
and wet nitrate deposition continue to be highest, a considerable difference can be observed in wet sulphate levels between the
1990-1994 and 1996-2000 average periods. For example, the large area that received 25 to 30 kg/ha/yr of sulfate wet deposition in
the 1990-1994 period had almost disappeared in the 1996-2000 period. This significant reduction in wet sulphate deposition can be
directly attributed to reduced SO2 emission reductions in both countries from the 1990s. However, SO2 emissions have remained
relatively constant since the year 2000. It is therefore unlikely that sulfate deposition will change considerably in the coming
decade. Sulfate deposition models predict that even by 2020, following the achievement of commitments under the Canada-US
Air Quality Agreement and The Canada-wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post 2000, critical loads for aquatic ecosystems in eastern
Canada will continue to be exceeded over a large area.
A somewhat different story occurs for nitrate wet deposition with reductions being more modest between the two periods than for
sulphate. In the case of wet nitrate deposition, the highest deposition occurs around the lower Great Lakes.
Pressures
As the human population within and outside the basin continues to grow, there will be increasing demands on electrical utility
companies and natural resources and increasing numbers of motor vehicles. Considering this, reducing nitrogen deposition is
becoming more and more important, as its contribution to acidification may soon outweigh the benefits gained from reductions in
sulfur dioxide emissions.
Management Implications
The effects of acid rain can be seen far from the source of SO2 and NOx generation, so the governments of Canada and the
United States are working together to reduce acid emissions. The 1991 Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement addresses
transboundary pollution. To date, this agreement has focused on acidifying pollutants and significant steps have been made in the
reduction of SO2 emissions. However, further progress in the reduction of acidifying pollutants, including NOx, is required.
In December 2000, Canada and the United States signed Annex III (the Ozone Annex) to the Air Quality Agreement. The Ozone
Annex committed Canada and the U S. to aggressive emission reduction measures to reduce emissions of NOx and volatile organic
compounds. (For more information on ozone, refer to indicator report #4202 Air Quality).
The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 provides a framework for further actions, such as establishing new SO2 emis-
sion reduction targets in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In fulfillment of The Strategy, each of these provinces
has announced a 50% reduction from its existing emissions cap. Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are committed to
achieving their caps by 2010, while Ontario committed to meet its new cap by 2015.
Since the State of the Great Lakes 2003 Acid Rain indicator report, there has been increasing interest in both the public and private
sector in a multi-pollutant approach to reducing air pollution. On March 10, 2005, the U.S. EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), a rule that will achieve the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade. Through a cap-and-trade
approach, CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. When fully
implemented, CAIR is expected to reduce SO emissions in these states by 73% and NO emissions by 61% from 2003 levels.
349
-------
f .f I Five-Year Mean nssSO/Wet Deposition (1990-1994)
1 Ofi^C. \ = T^I:is*= !
Five-Year Mean nssSO/Wet Deposition (1996-2000)
kg/ha/yr
Five-Year Mean NOj' Wet Deposition (1990-1994)
Five-Year Mean NOj' Wei Deposition (1996-2000)
Figure 3. Five-year mean patterns of wet non-sea-salt-sulfate (nssS042-) and wet nitrate deposition for the periods 1990-
1994 and 1996-2000.
Source: Figures 9 through 12 of Canada - United States Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/usca/docs/airus02.pdf. and Jeffries et al. 2003
Comments from the author(s)
While North American SO2 emissions and sulfate deposition levels in the Great Lakes basin have declined over the past 10 to 15
years, rain is still too acidic throughout most of the Great Lakes region, and many acidified lakes do not show recovery (increase
in water pH or alkalinity). Empirical evidence suggests that there are a number of factors acting to delay or limit the recovery
response, e.g. increasing importance of nitrogen-based acidification, soil depletion of base cations, mobilization of stored sulfur.
climatic influences, etc. Further work is needed to quantify the additional reduction in deposition needed to overcome these
limitations and to accurately predict the recovery rate.
350
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Todd Nettesheim, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL
Dean S. Jeffries, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON;
Robert Vet and Silvina Carou, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON;
Amelia Atkin and Kerri Timoffee, Environment Canada, Gatineau, QC.
Sources
References Cited
Canada - United States Air Quality Committee. 2002. United States - Canada Air Quality Agreement: 2002 Progress Report.
http://www.epa. gov/airmarkets/progsregs/usca/docs/airus02.pdf. last accessed June 17, 2004.
Driscoll, C.T., Lawrence, G.B., Bulger, A.J., Butler, T.J., Cronan, C.S., Eagar, C., Lambert, K.F., Likens, G.E., Stoddard, J.L., and
Weathers, K.C. 2001. Acid Rain Revisited: advances in scientific understanding since the passage of the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. Hubbard Brook Research Foundation. Science LinksTM Publication Vol.1, no.l.
Environment Canada. 2005. 2004 Canadian Acid Deposition Science Assessment: Summary of Key Results.
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/acid/acid_e.html. last accessed November 20, 2007.
Environment Canada. 2001. 1999 Pollutant Release Inventory Data, http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_preinfo_e.cfm#dbase.
Jeffries, D.S., Clair, T.A., Couture, S., Dillon, P.J., Dupont, J., Keller, W, McNicol, O.K., Turner, M.A., Vet, R., and Weeber, R.
2003. Assessing the recovery of lakes in southeastern Canada from the effects of acidic deposition. Ambio. 32(3):176-182.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003a. 1999 National Emissions Inventory Documentation and Data.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html.
Other Sources
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2004. 2002 Annual progress Report on the Canada-Wide Acid Rain
Strategy for Post-2000. ISBN 0-622-67819-2. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/2002_ar_annual_rpt_e.pdf. last accessed June 21,
2004.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2002. 2001 Annual Progress Report on the Canada-Wide Acid Rain
Strategy for Post-2000. ISBN 0-662-66963-0. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/acid_rain_e.pdf. last accessed July 16, 2004.
Environment Canada. 2004. 2002 National Pollutant Release Inventory Data.
http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm#highlights. last accessed June 29, 2004.
Environment Canada. 2003a. 2001 National Pollutant Release Inventory: National Overview.
http://www.ee.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_dat_rep_e.cfm#annual2001. last accessed June 29, 2004.
Environment Canada. 2003b. Cleaner Air through Cooperation: Canada - United States Progress under the Air Quality Agreement
2003. ISBN 0-662-34082-5. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/usca/cooperation.html. last accessed June 17, 2004.
Environment Canada. 2003c. Environmental Signals: Canada's National Environmental Indicator Series 2003.
http://www.ee.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicator_series/default.cfm#pic. last accessed June 29, 2004.
Environment Canada. National Atmospheric Chemistry Database and Analysis Facility. Meteorological Service of Canada,
Downsview, ON.
Moran, M. 2005. Current and proposed emission controls: how will acid deposition be affected? In: 2004 Canadian Acid Deposition
Science Assessment. Environment Canada, Ottawa.
351
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
National Atmospheric Deposition Program. A Cooperative Research Support Program of the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations (NRSP-3) Federal and State Agencies and Non-Governmental Research Organizations, http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2004. Air Quality in Ontario 2002 Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/techdocs/4521e01.pdf. last accessed June 28, 2004.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2003. Air Quality in Ontario 2001 Report. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/air/AirOuality/2001.htm. last accessed June 17, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003b. Clean Air Markets Programs. In Acid Rain Program: 2002 Progress
Report. EPA-430-R-03-011. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/arp02.html. last accessed July 16, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003c. EPA's Draft Report on the Environment: Technical Document. EPA-
600-R-03-050. [Editor's note: The final version of this report is available at h ttp://www. epa.gov/indicators/.]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003d. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-454/K-03-001. http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd02/2002_airtrends_fmal.pdf.
last accessed June 17, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003e. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report: 2003 Special
Studies Edition. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-454/R-03-005. http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/.
last accessed June 17, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. Procedures for developing base year and future year mass and modeling
inventories for the heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel (HDD) rulemaking. EPA420-R-00-020.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/hd2007/r00020.pdf. last accessed September 29, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Clean Air Interstate Rule, http://www.epa.gov/cair/. last accessed June 8,
2004.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
[Editor's Note: A complete revision of this report has not been completed since 2005. For more information, please refer to the
disclaimer at the beginning of this report.]
352
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Non-native Species - Aquatic
Indicator #9002
Overall Assessment
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Non-indigenous species (NIS) continue to be discovered in the Great Lakes. Negative impacts of
established invaders persist and new negative impacts are becoming evident.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Lake Superior
Status: Fair
Trend: Unchanging
Rationale: Lake Superior is the site of most ballast water discharge in the Great Lakes, but it supports relatively
few NIS. This is due at least in part to less hospitable environmental conditions.
Lake Michigan
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Established invaders continue to exert negative impacts on native species. Diporeia populations are
declining.
Lake Huron
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Established invaders continue to exert negative impacts on native species. Diporeia populations are
declining.
Lake Erie
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Established invaders continue to exert negative impacts on native species. A possible link exists
between waterfowl deaths due to botulism and established NIS (i.e., round goby and dreissenid
mussels).
Lake Ontario
Status: Poor
Trend: Deteriorating
Rationale: Native Diporeia populations are declining in association with quagga mussel expansion. Condition
and growth of lake whitefish, whose primary food source is Diporeia, are declining. A possible
link exists between waterfowl deaths due to botulism and established NIS (i.e., round goby and
dreissenid mussels).
Purpose
To assess the presence, number and distribution of non-indigenous species (NIS) in the Laurentian Great Lakes
To aid in the assessment of the status of biotic communities, because non-indigenous species can alter both the structure
and function of ecosystems
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of the U.S. and Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is, in part, to restore and maintain the biological integrity of
the waters of the Great Lakes ecosystem (United States and Canada 1987). Minimally, extinctions and unauthorized introductions
must be prevented to maintain biological integrity.
353
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
State of the Ecosystem
Background
Nearly 10% of NIS introduced to the Great Lakes have
had significant impacts on ecosystem health, a percentage
consistent with findings in the United Kingdom (Williamson
andBrown 1986) and in the Hudson River of North America
(Mills et al. 1997). In the Great Lakes, transoceanic ships
are the primary invasion vector. Other vectors, such as
canals and private sector activities, however, are also
utilized by NIS with potential to harm biological integrity.
Status of NIS
Human activities associated with transoceanic shipping are
responsible for over one-third of NIS introductions to the
Great Lakes (Figure 1). Total numbers of NIS introduced
and established in the Great Lakes have increased steadily
since the 1830s (Figure 2a). The numbers of ship-introduced
NIS, however, has increased exponentially during the same
time period (Figure 2b). Release of contaminated ballast
water by transoceanic ships has been implicated in over
70% of faunal NIS introductions to the Great Lakes since the
opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 (Grigorovich et
al. 2003).
During the 1980s, the importance of ship ballast water as
a vector for NIS introductions was recognized, finally
prompting ballast management measures in the Great
Lakes. In the wake of Eurasian ruffe and zebra mussel
introductions, Canada introduced voluntary ballast exchange
guidelines in 1989 for ships declaring "ballast on board"
(BOB) following transoceanic voyages, as recommended by
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International
Joint Commission. In 1990, the United States Congress
passed the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act, producing the Great Lakes' first ballast
exchange and management regulations in May of 1993. The
National Invasive Species Act (NISA) followed in 1996, but
this act expired in 2002. A stronger version of NISA entitled
the Nonindigneous Aquatic Invasive Species Act has been
drafted and awaits Congressional reauthorization.
Contrary to expectations, the reported invasion rate has
increased following initiation of voluntary guidelines in
1989 and mandated regulations in 1993 (Grigorovich et
al. 2003, Holeck et al. 2004). However, more than 90% of
transoceanic ships that entered the Great Lakes during the
1990s declared "no ballast on board" (NOBOB, Colautti et
al. 2003; Grigorovich et al. 2003; Holeck et al. 2004, Figure
3) and were not required to exchange ballast, although their
tanks contained residual sediments and water that would be
discharged in the Great Lakes.
Recent studies suggest that the Great Lakes may vary in
Ballast Accidental Unknown Cultivation Canal Deliberate Solid Aquarium Natural Railroads
water release release release ballast release means and
highways
Primary mechanism
Figure 1. Release mechanisms for aquatic nonindigenous (NIS)
established in the Great Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Source: Mills et al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich etal. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
1830s 1850s 1870s 1890s 1910s 1930s 1950s 1970s 1990s
Decade
O 0
1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Year
Figure 2. Cumulative number of aquatic nonindigenous (NIS)
established in the Great Lakes basin since the 1830s attributed
to (a) all vectors and (b) only the ship vector.
Source: Mills etal. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich etal. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
354
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
1 finn
ซ 160ฐ
+j
'to
c 140.0.
s_
+j
ซ1 Onn
tf)
W
0)
> -i nnn
O
'c
HS onn
Upbound transoce
N) -t^ O> C
^ O O O C
3 O O O C
||[[[[[
BOB
NOBOB
[[[(Lit
111
Ilhliii.
.[[[:
[
1 959 1 964 1 969 1 974 1 979 1 984 1 989 1 994 1 999 2004
Year
Figure 3. Numbers of upbound transoceanic vessels entering the Great
Lakes from 1959 to 2002.
Source: Colautti etal. 2003; Grigorovich etal. 2003; Holeck etal. 2004
vulnerability to invasion in space and time. Lake
Superior receives a disproportionate number of
discharges by both BOB and NOBOB ships, yet
it has sustained surprisingly few initial invasions
(Figure 4). Conversely, the waters connecting
Lake Huron and Lake Erie are an invasion
'hotspot' despite receiving disproportionately
few ballast discharges (Grigorovich et al. 2003).
Ricciardi (2001) suggests that some invaders
(such as Dreissena spp.) may facilitate the
introduction of coevolved species such as round
goby and the amphipod Echinogammarus.
Other vectors, including canals and the private
sector, continue to deliver NIS to the Great
Lakes and may increase in relative importance
in the future. Silver and bighead carp escapees
from southern U.S. fish farms have been sighted
below an electric dispersal barrier in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, which connects the
Mississippi River and Lake Michigan. The
prototype barrier was activated in April 2002 to
block the transmigration of species between the
Mississippi River system and the Great Lakes basin. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (partnered by the State of
Illinois) completed construction of a second, permanent
barrier in 2005.
Second only to shipping, unauthorized release, transfer.
and escape have introduced NIS into the Great Lakes.
Of particular concern are private sector activities
related to aquaria, garden ponds, baitfish, and live food
fish markets. For example, nearly a million Asian carp.
including bighead and black carp, are sold annually at
fish markets within the Great Lakes basin. Until recently.
most of these fish were sold live. All eight Great Lakes
states and the province of Ontario now have some
restriction on the sale of live Asian carp. Enforcement of
many private transactions, however, remains a challenge.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing
several Asian carp as nuisance species under the Lacey
Act, which would prohibit interstate transport. Finally.
there are currently numerous shortcomings in legal
safeguards relating to commerce in exotic live fish as identified by Alexander (2003) in Great Lakes and Mississippi River states.
Quebec, and Ontario. These include: express and de facto exemptions for the aquarium pet trade; de facto exemptions for the live
food fish trade; inability to proactively enforce import bans; lack of inspections at aquaculture facilities; allowing aquaculture in
public waters; inadequate triploidy (sterilization) requirements; failure to regulate species of concern, e.g., Asian carp; regulation
through "dirty lists" only, e.g., banning known nuisance species; and failure to regulate transportation.
Pressures
NIS have invaded the Great Lakes basin from regions around the globe (Figure 5), and increasing world trade and travel will
elevate the risk that additional species (Table 1) will continue to gain access to the Great Lakes. Existing connections between the
Great Lakes watershed and systems outside the watershed, such as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and growth of industries
such as aquaculture, live food markets, and aquarium retail stores will also increase the risk that NIS will be introduced.
Unknown/ Multiple Ontario
Widespread
Erie
Huron Michigan Superior
Lake/Basin of first discovery
Figure 4. Lake of first discovery for NIS established in the Great
Lakes basin since the 1830s.
Discoveries in connecting waters between Lakes Huron, Erie and
Ontario were assigned to the downstream lake.
Source: Grigorovich et al. 2003
355
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
Changes in water quality, global climate
change, and previous NIS introductions also
may make the Great Lakes more hospitable
for the arrival of new invaders. Evidence
indicates that newly invading species may
benefit from the presence of previously
established invaders. That is, the presence of
one NIS may facilitate the establishment of
another (Ricciardi 2001). For example, round
goby and Echinogammarus have benefited
from previously established zebra and quagga
mussels. In effect, dreissenids have set the stage
to increase the number of successful invasions.
particularly those of co-evolved species in the
Ponto-Caspian assemblage.
Donor region
Figure 5. Regions of origin for aquatic NIS established in the Great Lakes
basin since the 1830s.
Source: Mills etal. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Grigorovich etal. 2003; Ricciardi 2006
Management Implications
Researchers are seeking to better understand
links between vectors and donor regions, the
receptivity of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and
the biology of new invaders in order to make
recommendations to reduce the risk of future invasion. To protect the biological integrity of the Great Lakes, it is essential to
closely monitor routes of entry for NIS, to introduce effective safeguards, and to quickly adjust safeguards as needed. The rate of
invasion may increase if positive interactions involving established NIS or native species facilitate entry of new NIS. Ricciardi
(2001) suggested that such a scenario of "invasional meltdown" is occurring in the Great Lakes, although Simberloff (2006)
cautioned that most of these cases have not been proven.
To be effective in preventing new invasions, management strategies must focus on linkages between NIS, vectors, and donor and
receiving regions. Without measures that effectively eliminate or minimize the role of ship-borne and other emerging vectors, we
can expect the number of NIS in the Great Lakes to continue to rise, with an associated loss of native biodiversity and an increase
in unpredicted ecological disruptions.
Comments from the author(s)
Lake-by-lake assessments should include Lake St. Clair and connecting channels (Detroit River, St. Clair River). Species first
discovered in these waters were assigned to Lake Erie for the purposes of this report.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Edward L. Mills, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Bridgeport, NY
Kristen T. Holeck, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Bridgeport, NY
Hugh Maclsaac, Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada
Sources
Alexander, A. 2003. Legal tools and gaps relating to commerce in exotic live fish: phase 1 report to the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission by the Environmental Law and Policy Center. Environmental Law and Policy Center, Chicago, IL.
Colautti, R.I., Niimi, A.]., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Mills, E.L., Holeck, K.T., and Maclsaac, H. J. 2003. Spatial and temporal analysis
of transoceanic shipping vectors to the Great Lakes. In Invasion Species: Vectors and Management Strategies, eds. G.M. Ruiz and
J.T. Carlton, pp. 227-246. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Grigorovich, LA., Colautti, R.I., Mills, E.L., Holeck, K.T., Ballert, A.G., and Maclsaac, HJ. 2003. Ballast-mediated animal
introductions in the Laurentian Great Lakes: retrospective and prospective analyses. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:740-756.
Holeck, K.T., Mills, E.L., Maclsaac, H.J., Dochoda, M.R., Colautti, R.I., and Ricciardi, A. 2004. Bridging troubled waters:
356
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
understanding links between biological
invasions, transoceanic shipping, and
other entry vectors in the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Bioscience 54:919-929.
Kolar, C.S., and Lodge, D.M. 2002.
Ecological predictions and risk assessment
for alien fishes in North America. Science
298:1233-1236.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., and
Secor, C.L. 1993. Exotic species in the
Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises
and anthropogenic introductions. J. Great
Lakes Res. 19(l):l-54.
Mills, E.L., Scheuerell, M.D., Carlton,
J.T., and Strayer, D.L. 1997. Biological
invasions in the Hudson River. NYS
Museum Circular No. 57. Albany, NY.
Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions
among aquatic invaders: is an "invasional
meltdown" occurring in the Great Lakes?
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:2513-2525.
Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasions
in the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation
to changes in vector activity. Diversity and
Distributions 12: 425-433.
Ricciardi, A., and Rasmussen, J.B. 1998.
Predicting the identity and impact of future
biological invaders: a priority for aquatic
resource management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 55:1759-1765.
Rixon, C.A.M., Duggan, I.C., Bergeron,
N.M.N., Ricciardi, A., and Maclsaac,
HJ. 2005. Invasion risks posed by the
aquarium trade and live fish markets on
the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodiversity
and Conservation 14:1365-1381.
Simberloff, D. 2006. Invasional meltdown
6 years later: important phenomenon,
unfortunate metaphor, or both? Ecology
Letters 9:912-919.
Species Reference
Fishes
Aphanius boyeri
Benthophilus stellatus
Clupeonella caspia (cultriventris)
Hypophthalmichthys (Aristichthys) nobilis
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
Neogobius fluviatilis
Perca fluviatilis
Phoxinus phoxinus
Tanichthys albonubes
Kolar and Lodge 2002
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Kolar and Lodge 2002
Stokstad 2003; Rixon et al. 2004
Stokstad 2003
Rixon et al. 2004
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Kolar and Lodge 2002
Kolar and Lodge 2002
Kolar and Lodge 2002
Rixon et al. 2004
Cladocerans
Daphnia cristata
Bosmina obtusirostris
Cornigerius maeoticus maeoticus
Podonevadne trigona ovum
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Cope pods
Heterocope appendiculata
Heterocope caspia
Calanipeda aquae-dulcis
Cyclops kolensis
Ectinosoma abrau
Paraleptastacus spinicaudata triseta
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Amphipods
Corophium curvispinum
Corophium sowinskyi
Dikerogammarus haemobaphes
Dikerogammarus villosus
Echinogammarus warpachowskyi
Obesogammarus crassus
Pontogammarus aralensis
Pontogammarus obesus
Pontogammarus robustoides
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Grigorovich et al. 2003
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Grigorovich et al. 2003
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Grigorovich et al. 2003
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Grigorovich et al. 2003
Mysids
Hemimysis anomala
Limnomysis benedeni
Paramysis intermedia
Paramysis lacustris
Paramysis ullskyi
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Grigorovich et al. 2003
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Bivalves
Hypanys (Monodacna) colorata |Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Polychaetes
Hypania invalida |Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998
Plants
Egeria densa
Hygrophila polysperma
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Rixon et al. 2004
Rixon et al. 2004
Rixon et al. 2004
Table 1. Nonindigenous species predicted to have a high-risk
the Great Lakes.
Source: Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998; Kolar and Lodge 2002; Grigorovich etal.
Rixon etal. 2005
of introduction to
2003; Stokstad 2003;
Stokstad, E. 2003. Can well-timed jolts keep out unwanted exotic fish? Science 301:157-158.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Williamson, M.H., and Brown, K.C. 1986. The analysis and modeling of British invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Series B. 314:505-522.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
357
-------
Non-native Species - Terrestrial
Indicator #9002
Overall Assessment
Status: Not Assessed
Trend: Undetermined
Rationale: Terrestrial non-indigenous species are pervasive in the Great Lakes Basin. Although not
all introductions have an adverse effect on native habitats, those that do pose a considerable
ecological, social, and economic burden. Historically, the Great Lakes basin has proven to be
particularly vulnerable to non-indigenous species, mainly due to population, industrialization,
and the high volume of transboundary movement of goods and people. Data are disorganized,
inhibiting an adequate assessment of the status, trends, and impacts of non-indigenous species in
the region.
Lake-by-Lake Assessment
Individual lake basin assessments were not prepared for this report due to lack of monitoring data.
Purpose
To evaluate the presence, number, and impact of terrestrial non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes basin
To assess the biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystems
Ecosystem Objective
The ultimate goal of this indicator is to limit, or prevent, the unauthorized introduction of non-indigenous species, and to minimize
their adverse affect in the Great Lakes basin. Such actions would assist in accomplishing one of the major objectives of U.S. and
Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which is to restore and maintain the biological integrity of the waters of the Great
Lakes ecosystem (United States and Canada 1987).
State of the Ecosystem
Globalization, i.e., the movement of people and goods, has led to a dramatic increase in the number of terrestrial non-indigenous
species (NIS) that are transported from one country to another. As a result of its high population density and high-volume
transportation of goods, the Great Lakes basin is very susceptible to the introduction of such invaders. Figure 1 depicts this
steady increase in the number of terrestrial
NIS introduced into the Great Lakes basin and
the rate at which this has occurred, beginning
in the 1900s. In addition, the degradation.
fragmentation, and loss of native ecosystems
have also made this region more vulnerable
to these invaders, enabling them to become
invasive (non-indigenous species or strains
thatbecome established in native communities
or wild areas and replace native species). The
introduction of NIS is considered to be one
of the greatest threats to the biodiversity and
natural resources of this region, second only
to habitat destruction.
Monitoring of NIS is largely locally based.
as a region-wide standard has yet to be
established. The data that are generated come
from a variety of agencies and organizations
throughout the region, and they are difficult to
use to assess the overall presence and impact
-Total Species -*-Total Insect Total Vascular plant Total Bird * Total Plant disease
120
100
80
ra
O)
6
"6
60
o
.Q
40
20
1900
1920
1940
1960
Year
1980
2000
2020
Figure 1. A timeline of terrestrial introduction in the Great Lakes Basin by
taxonomic group.
Source: World Wildlife Fund-Canada's Exotic Species Database, and the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
358
-------
TATE OF THE L^REAT LAKES
Hum
these species are having on the region. Information provided by the World Wildlife Fund of Canada (Haber 2003) indicates
that there are 157 non-native terrestrial species located within the Great Lakes basin, including: 95 vascular plants, 11 insects, 6
plant diseases, 4 mammals, 2 birds, 2 animal diseases, 1 reptile, and 1 amphibian. Meanwhile, the Invasive Plant Association of
Wisconsin (2003) has identified 66 non-native plants within the state, while over 100 plants have been introduced into the Chicago
region (Chicago Botanic Garden 2007). Even though these figures are greater then the one provided by WWF-Canada, they do not
compare to the over 900 non-native plants that have been identified within the state of Michigan by the Michigan Invasive Plant
Council (2005).
The impact NIS have on the areas in which they are introduced
can vary greatly, ranging from little or no affect to dramatically
altering the native ecological community. Figure 2 shows the
degree to which each taxonomic group has had an impact on
the ecoregion. The WWF of Canada has listed 29 species, 19 of
which are vascular plants, as having a "severe impact" on native
biodiversity. These species, which were generally introduced
for medicinal or ornamental purposes, have become problematic
because they are well adapted to a broad range of habitats, have
no native predators, and are often able to reproduce at a rapid
rate. Common buckthorn, garlic mustard, honeysuckle, purple
loosestrife, and reed canary grass are several examples of highly
invasive plant species. The Asian longhorn beetle, Dutch elm
disease, emerald ash borer, leafy spurge, and the West Nile virus
are other terrestrial invaders that have had a significant impact
in the Great Lakes basin.
M
HI
'O
11
Q.
W
60
50
40
30
20
10
Unknown Slight Moderate
Impact
Severe
Figure 2. Estimated impact of 116 known terrestrial NIS in
the Great Lakes Basin.
Source: World Wildlife Fund-Canada's Exotic Species Database
One type of terrestrial non-native species that is causing some
concern is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Although
GMOs are typically cultivated for human uses and benefits.
the problem arises when pollen is moved from its intended site
(often by wind or pollinator species) and transfers genetically-engineered traits, such as herbicide resistance and pest resistance.
to wild plants. This outward gene flow into natural habitats has the potential to significantly alter ecosystems and create scenarios
that would pose enormous dilemmas for farmers. Both Canada and the U.S. are major producers of GMOs. Although GMO crops
are monitored for outward gene flow, no centralized database currently exists that describes the number of GMO species or the
land area covered by GMOs in the Great Lakes basin.
There are currently numerous policies, laws and regulations within the Great Lakes basin that address NIS. However, similar to
NIS monitoring data, they originate from state, provincial and federal administrations and thus have similar obstacles associated
with them. Strict enforcement of these laws, in addition to continuous region-wide mitigation, eradication and management of
NIS, is needed in order to maintain the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes basin.
Pressures
The growing transboundary movement of goods and people has heightened the need to prevent and manage terrestrial NIS. Most
invasive species introductions can be linked to the intended or unintended consequences of economic activities (Perrings et al.
2002). For this reason, the Great Lakes basin has been, and will continue to be, a hot bed of introductions unless preventive
measures are enforced. The growth in population, threats, recreation and tourism all contribute to the number of NIS affecting the
region. Additionally, factors such as the increase in development and human activity, previous introductions and climate change
have elevated the levels of vulnerability. Because this issue has social, ecological, and economic dimensions, it can be assumed
that the pressure of NIS will persist unless it is addressed on all three fronts.
Management Implications
Since the early 1800s, biological invasions have compromised the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes basin. Despite an
elevated awareness of the issue and efforts to prevent and manage NIS in the Great Lakes, the area remains highly vulnerable to
both intentional and non-intentional introductions. Political and social motivation to address this issue is driven not only by the
effects on the structure and function of regional ecosystems, but also by the cumulative economic impact of invaders, i.e., threats
359
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
to food supplies and human health.
Managers of terrestrial NIS in the Great Lakes basin recognize that successful management strategies must involve collaboration
across federal, provincial and state governments, in addition to non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, improved
integration, coordination and development of inventories, mapping, and mitigation of terrestrial invasive species would improve
future strategies and enable the examination of trends in terrestrial NIS at a basin-wide scale.
In the U.S., many organizations and activities have emerged in recent years to address invasive species issues. Their activities
are numerous, but focus on four major areas: prevention (according to the National Invasive Species Council Management Plan
(NISC 2001), the first line of defense against invasive species is to prevent them from becoming established); early detection
and rapid response programs (which work in coordination with state and local efforts "to eradicate or contain invasive species
before they became too widespread and control becomes technically and/or financially impossible"); ranking systems (which
are designed to assess the relative threat posed by each invasive species in order to prioritize policy, management and education
efforts); and regional or state plant councils (which include the NISC, Midwest Invasive Plant Network, Indiana Invasive Plant
Species Assessment Working Group, Michigan Invasive Plant Council, Minnesota Invasive Species Advisory Council, Ohio
Invasive Plants Council, Wisconsin Council on Invasive Species, and the Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin). Bi-nationally,
the Invasive Species Council is also entering discussions with Environment Canada on the development of a North American
approach to invasive alien species.
Environment Canada plays a coordinating role on the issue of non-native species working closely with other federal departments
and agencies as well as provincial and territorial governments and stakeholders. Mirroring the U.S. NISC's objectives, Canada's
Invasive Alien Species Strategy (Environment Canada 2004) prioritizes prevention, early detection, rapid response, and effective
managementthroughlegislationand regulation, science, risk analysis, education and public awareness, and international cooperation.
In 2005, the Canadian federal budget contained the first line item ever to target invasive species directly, for $85 million. Much of
this funding was earmarked for battling the emerald ash borer and another forest pest, the Asian longhorn beetle, both which have
infected hardwood trees in the basin.
Examples of ongoing Canadian multi-level responses within the basin include: the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of
Guelph-led Ontario Invasive Plant Information System (OIPIS), which was developed as a tool in the assessment, detection and
prevention of invasive alien plants in Ontario; the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' and Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources' Invading Species Awareness Program; and the Environment Canada-led Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence
program, in partnership with Lake Saint-Pierre ZIP Committee, Societe d'amenagement de la baie Lavalliere, and Laval University,
which utilizes community-based monitoring to track temporal and spatial trends in invasive plant species
Although current monitoring programs in the basin are fragmented, collaborative efforts are being developed to determine future
monitoring priorities. This information will be applied to risk analysis, predictive science, modeling, improved technology for
prevention and management of NIS, legislation and regulations, education and outreach and international co-operation.
Comments from the authors
In 2000, the World Wildlife Fund of Canada amassed information about 150 known NIS in Canada in a centralized database,
based on books, journal articles, websites, and consultation with experts. The data also include information on NIS present in the
U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin. Currently, there is no central monitoring site for terrestrial NIS in the basin. The authors of
the chapter acknowledge that a lack of centralized data was a limitation of the project. The information contained in this indicator
is based on the WWF-Canada database and has been updated with several more recent insect invaders present in the Great Lakes
basin.
Acknowledgments
Authors:
Katherine Balpataky, Environment Canada - Ontario Region, Burlington, ON
Jeffrey C. May, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education associate on assignment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago, IL
Contributors:
Erich Haber, National Botanical Services, Ottawa, ON
360
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Ole Hendrickson, Environment Canada, Biodiversity Convention Office, Gatineau, QC
Alexis Morgan, WWF-Canada, Toronto, ON
Shaun Wallace, Plant Pest Surveillance Unit, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Nepean, ON
Sources
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Plant Health Division. 2004. Proposed Action Plan for Invasive Alien Terrestrial Plants and
Plant Pests Phase 1, http://www.cbin.ee. gc.ca/primers/ias_plants.cfm?lang=e, last viewed 28 August 2006. [Editor's note: If link
is inoperative, final Action Plan is available at. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/invenv/strate.shtml.]
Chicago Botanic Garden. 2007. Invasive Plants in the Chicago Region.
http://www.chicagobotanic.org/research/conservation/invasive/chicago/index.php. last viewed 24 May 2007.
Environment Canada (Biodiversity Convention Office). 2004 An Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada. 2004.
http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/primers/ias.cfm. last viewed 28 August 2006.
Food and Agricultural Organization. 2001. The state of food and agriculture 2001. Rome, Italy.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9800e/x9800el4.htm.
Dauphina, G., Zientaraa, S., Zellerb, H., and Murgue, B. 2004. West Nile: worldwide current situation in animals and humans.
Comp. Immun. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 27:343-355.
Haack, Robert A. 2001. Intercepted Scolytidae (Coleoptera) at U.S. ports of entry: 1985-2000. Integrated Pest Management
Reviews 6:253-282.
Haber, Erich. (2003). Technical supplement to the Chapter "Invasive Species Expenditure."
: Report No. 1 - 2003. May 2003 by World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Canada
Invasive Plant Association of Wisconsin. 2003. Working List of
of Wisconsin - March 2003. http://www.ipaw.org/list/index.htm last accessed 12 June 2007.
the Invasive
Plants
International Joint Commission (IJC) 2004. Then and Now: Aquatic Alien Invasive Species, http://www.ijc.org/rel/pdf/
ThenandNow_e.pdf last reviewed 12 June 2007. [Editor's note: If link is operative, document can also be found at,
http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID1562.pdf]
Lavoie, C. Jean, M., Delisle, F., and Letourneau, G. 2003. Exotic plant species of the St. Lawrence River wetlands: a spatial and
historical analysis. Journal of Biogeography. 30:537-549.
Leung, B., Finnoff, D., Shogren, J.F., and Lodge, D. 2005. Managing invasive species: Rules of thumb for rapid assessment.
Ecological Economics. 55:24-36.
National Invasive Species Council (NISC). 2001. National Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge.
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/council/nmptoc.shtml. last accessed September 2007.
Natural Resources Canada. 2006. Our Forests Under Threat. http://www.cfl.scf.rncan.gc.ca/CFL-LFC/publications/activites/
menace_e.html, last accessed 28 August 2006.
Maclsaac, H.J., Grigorovich, LA., and Ricciardi, A. Reassessment of species invasions concepts: the Great Lakes Basin as a
model. Biological Invasions. 3: 405-416, 2001.
Michigan Invasive Plant Council. 2005. The Michigan Plant Invasiveness Assessment System.
http://forestry.msu.edu/mipc/bodyPages/toolbod.htm. last viewed 24 May 2007.
Mills, E.L., Leach, J.H., Carlton, J.T., and Secor, C.L. 1994. Exotic species and the integrity of the Great Lakes. Bioscience.
44:666-676.
361
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Mills, E.L., Holeck,, K.T., and Chrisman, J.R. 1999. The role of canals in the spread of non-indigenous species in North America.
In: Claudi, R. and Leach, J. (Eds.). Non-indigenous Organisms in North America: Their Biology and Impact, CRC Press LCL,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 345-377.
Midwest Natural Resources Group. 2006. Action Plan for Addressing Terrestrial Invasive Species Within the Great Lakes Basin.
http://www.mnrg.gov. last viewed 28 August 2006.
Perrings, C., Williamson, M., Barbier, E., Delfino, D., Dalmazzone, S., Shogren, J., Simmons, P., and Watkinson, A. 2002.
Biological invasion risks and the public good: An economic perspective. Conservation Ecology 6(1), 1. Available at:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/issl/artl.
Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion of the Laurentian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Diversity and
Distributions 12:425-433.
United States and Canada. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,
1987. Ottawa and Washington.
Wilkins, P. and Del Piero, F. 2004.. West Nile virus: lessons from the 21st century.
Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 14(1):2-14.
Last Updated
State of the Great Lakes 2007
362
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
6.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Agencies and Organizations
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAMNet Canadian Atmospheric Mercury Network
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CDC Center for Disease Control (U.S.)
CIS Canada Ice Service
CORA Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
CWS Canadian Wildlife Service
DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
EC Environment Canada
ECO Environmental Careers Organization
EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (U. S. Department of Energy)
El A Energy Information Administration (U.S.)
EMAN Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GERA Gaia Economic Research Associates
GLBET Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team (USFWS)
GLC Great Lakes Commission
GLCWC Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office (U.S. EPA)
HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System (U.S.)
IJC International Joint Commission
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources
NAPS National Air Pollution Surveillance (EC)
NHEERL National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (U.S. EPA)
NISC National Invasive Species Council
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCan Natural Resources Canada
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)
NRRI Natural Resources Research Institute (University of Minnesota - Duluth)
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources
ODW Ohio Division of Wildlife
OFEC Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition
OGS Ontario Geological Survey
OIPIS Ontario Invasive Plant Information System
OMAF Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (now OMAFRA, see below)
OMAFRA Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
OMOE Ontario Ministry of Environment
OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
OSCIA Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
ORISE Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
PDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (U.S.)
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UKIH United Kingdom Institute of Hydrology
USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
363
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
USFWS
USFS
USGS
WBCSD
WDNR
WDO
WiDPH
WWF
Units of Measure
C
cm
F
fg
ft
ha
Ibs
kg
km
kt
kWh
m
mg
mg/kg
mg/1
ml
mm
MWh
ng
ng/g
ng/1
Pg
pg/m3
pH
ppb
ppm
ton
tonne
(ig/m3
jam
Chemicals
2,4-D
2,4,5 -T
BaP
BDE
BFR
CO
DDT
ODD
DDE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Waste Diversion Organization (Ontario)
Wisconsin Department of Public Health
World Wildlife Fund (Canada)
Celsius
centimeter, 10 2 meters
Fahrenheit
femptogram, 10 1S gram
feet (English system)
hectare, 10,000 square meters, 2.47 acres
pounds (English system)
kilogram, 1000 grams, 2.2 pounds
kilometer, 0.62 miles
English kiloton: 2*106 pounds; metric kilotonne: 106 kg, 2.2*106 pounds
kilowatt-hour
meter
milligram, 103 gram
milligram per kilogram, part per million
milligram per liter
milliliter, 103 liter
millimeter, 10 3 meter
megawatt-hour
nanogram, 10 9 gram
nanogram per gram, part per billion
nanogram per liter
picogram, 10 12 gram
picogram per cubic meter
per Hydrogen (a unit of acidity)
part per billion
part per million
English ton, 2000 Ib
metric tonne, 1000 kg, 2200 Ib
microgram, 10 6 gram
microgram per gram, part per million
microgram per liter
microgram per cubic meter
micrometer, micron, 10 6 meter
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5 -trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
Benzo[a]pyrene
Brominated diphenyl ethers
Brominated flame retardants
Carbon monoxide
l,l,l-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane or dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane
1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane
l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(chlorophenyl) ethylene or dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethene
364
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
HBCD Hexabromocyclododecane
HCB Hexachlorobenzene
a-HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane
y-HCH Lindane
HE Heptachlor epoxide
Hg Mercury
MeHg Methylmercury
NAPH Naphthalene
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrogen oxides
O3 Ozone
OC Organochlorine
OCS Octachlorostyrene
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ether
PCA Polychlorinated alkanes
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-/?-dioxin
PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzo furan
PCN Polychlorinated naphthalenes
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS Perfluorooctanyl sulfonate
PM[0 Atmospheric particulate matter of diameter 10 microns or smaller
PM2 s Atmospheric particulate matter of diameter 2.5 microns or smaller
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SPCB Suite of PCB congeners that include most of PCB mass in the environment
TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-/?-dioxin
TCE Trichloroethylene
TDS Total dissolved solids
TGM Total gaseous mercury
TOC Total organic carbon
TRS Total reduced sulfur
VOC Volatile organic compound
Other
AAQC Ambient Air Quality Criterion (Ontario)
AFO Animal Feeding Operation
AOC Area of Concern
AOU Area of the Undertaking
APF Agricultural Policy Framework (Canada)
AQI Air Quality Index
ARET Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics program (Canada)
ATFS American Tree Farm System
BA Abnormal Barbels
BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (U.S. Act of 2000)
BKD Bacterial Kidney Disease
BMP Best Management Practices
BOB Ballast On Board
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BUI Beneficial Use Impairments
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CBT Caffeine Breath Test
365
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
C-CAP Coastal Change and Analysis Program
CC/WQR Consumer Confidence/Water Quality Report
CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CPU Colony Forming Units
CHT Contaminants in Human Tissue program (part of EAGLE)
CMA Census Metropolitan Area (Canada)
CNMP Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (U.S.)
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CUE Catch per Unit of Effort
CUrLUS Canadian Urban Land Use Survey
CWS Canada-wide Standard (air quality)
DWS Drinking Water System (Canada)
EAGLE Effects on Aboriginals of the Great Lakes program (Canada)
DWSP Drinking Water Surveillance Program (Canada)
EAPI External Anomaly Prevalence Index
EFP Environmental Farm Plan (Ontario)
EMS Early Mortality Syndrome
EO Element Occurrence
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
ESV Early Successional Vegetation
FCGO Fish Community Goals and Objectives
FCO Fish Community Objectives
FD Focal Discoloration
FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis (USDA Forest Service)
FQI Floristic Quality Index
GAP Gap Analysis Program (land cover assessment)
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIS Geographic Information System
GLEI Great Lakes Environmental Indicators
GLI Great Lakes Initiative (U.S. EPA)
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
GMO Genetically Modified Organisms
HGEMP Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
IACI International Alvar Conservation Initiative
IADN Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
IGLD International Great Lakes Datum (water level)
IMAC Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ISA Impervious Surface Area
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
LE Lesion
LEL Lowest Effect Level
LU/LC Land use/Land cover
MAC Maximum Acceptable Concentration
MACT Maximum Available Control Technology
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MEI Modified Environmental Index
MGD Million Gallons per Day (3785.4 m3 per day)
MLD Million Liters per Day (1000 m3 per day)
MMP Marsh Monitoring Program
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area (U.S.)
MSWG Municipal Solid Waste Generation
366
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
NAFTA North America Free Trade Agreement
NATTS National Air Toxics Trend Site (U.S. network)
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment (U.S.)
NEEAR National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational [Water Study]
NEI National Emissions Inventory (U.S.)
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (CDC)
NM Act Nutrient Management Act
NMAN Nutrient Management Planning software (Ontario)
NIS Nonindigenous species
NISA National Invasive Species Act
NLCD National Land Cover Data
NMP Nutrient Management Plan (Ontario)
NOAEC No Observable Adverse Effect Concentrations
NOAEL No Observable Adverse Effect Level
NOBOB No Ballast On Board
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (U.S.)
NPRI National Pollutant Release Inventory (Canada)
NRVIS Natural Resources and Values Information System (OMNR)
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
ODWQS Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard
OPEP Ontario Pesticides Education Program
PBT Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (chemical)
PEL Probable Effect Level
PICA Priority Island Conservation Areas
PNP Permit Nutrient Plans (U. S.)
PGMN Provincial Groundwater-Monitoring Network (Ontario)
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RfD References Dose
RPA Resource Planning Act
RG Raised Growths
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System (U.S.)
SFIฎ Sustainable Forestry Initiative
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SOLRIS Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System
SPP. or spp. Species
SQI Sediment Quality Index
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SUV Sport Utility Vehicle
SWMRS Seasonal Water Monitoring and Reporting System (Canada)
TCC Total Category Change
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TDI Tolerable Daily Intake
TEQ Toxic Equivalent
TIGER Topological Integrated Geographic Encoding and Reference (U.S. Census Bureau)
TM Thematic Mapper
TRI Toxics Release Inventory (U.S.)
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
VKT Vehicle Kilometers Traveled
WIC Women Infant and Child (Wisconsin health clinics)
WISCLAND Wisconsin Initiative for Statewide Cooperation on Landscape Analysis and Data
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Waster Water Treatment Plant
YOY Young-of-year
367
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
7.0 Acknowledgments
The State of the Great Lakes 2007 preparation team included:
Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, lead
Stacey Cherwaty-Pergentile
Katherine Balpataky
Rick Czepita
Tracie Greenberg
Leif Maitland
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, lead
Chiara Zuccarino-Crowe
Jackie Adams
Karen Rodriguez
Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy
Jeffrey May
Paul Horvatin
This report contains contributions from dozens of authors and contributors to the indicator reports and the assessments, and
their work is sincerely appreciated. Their voluntary time and effort to collect, assess and report on conditions of the Great Lakes
ecosystem components reflects their dedication and professional cooperation. Individual authors and contributors are recognized
at the end of their respective report component.
Many governmental and non-governmental sectors were represented by authors and contributors. 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
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Environment Canada
Air Quality Research Branch
Biodiversity Convention Office
Canadian Wildlife Service
Centre St. Laurent
Climate and Atmospheric Research Directorate
Environmental Conservation Branch
Ecosystem Health Division
Environmental Protection Branch
Integrated Programs Division
Toxic Prevention Division
Meteorological Service of Canada
National Air Strategies Division
National Indicators and Assessment Office
National Water Research Institute
Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research Branch
Ontario Region
Great Lakes Environmental Office
Regional Science Advisor's Office
Quebec Region - Environmental Conservation Branch
Industry Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant
National Park Service
Natural Resources Canada
Geological Survey of Canada
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
368
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Office of Research and Development
Region 2
Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alpena Fishery Resources Office
Ashland Fishery Resources Office
East Lansing Ecological Services Office
Green Bay Ecological Services Office
Green Bay Fishery Resources Office
Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office
Marquette Biological Station
Reynoldsburg Ohio Ecological Services Office
U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division
Great Lakes Science Center
Lake Erie Biological Station
Lake Ontario Biological Station
Lake Superior Biological Station
Water Resources Discipline
Provincial and State
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indiana Geological Survey
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch
Forest Management Branch
Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program
Standards Development Branch
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Quebec
Direction des ecosystems aquatiques
Ministere de la Securite publique du Quebec
Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
Division of Public Health
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife
Regional and Municipal
City of Chicago
City of St. Catherines
City of Toronto
Grand River Conservation Authority
Northeast-Midwest Institute
369
-------
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 2007
Aboriginal
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
Academic
Brock University, ON
Cornell University, NY
Clemson University, SC
Grand Valley State University, MI
Indiana University, IN
James Madison University, VA
Michigan State University, MI
Michigan Technical University, MI
Northern Michigan University, MI
Northland College, WI
University of Michigan, MI
University of Minnesota - Duluth, MN
University of Minnesota- St. Paul, MN
University of Windsor, ON
University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI
University of Wisconsin-Superior, WI
Coalitions
Binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators
Commissions
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
International Joint Commission
Environmental Non-Government Organizations
Bird Studies Canada
Great Lakes Forest Alliance
Great Lakes United
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy (Canada)
World Wildlife Fund-Canada
Industry
American Forests and Paper Association
Council of Great Lakes Industries
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Private Organizations
Bio-Software Environmental Data
Bobolink Enterprises
DynCorp, A CSC Company
Environmental Careers Organization
LURA Consulting
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
Stream Benders
Private Citizens
370
------- |