State of the Great Lakes 2007_highlights

State of the Great Lakes 2007

INSIDEAssessing Status and Trends of the

Great Lakes Ecosystem

Indicator Category Assessments andManagement Challenges:

• Contamination

• Human Health

• Biotic Communities

• Invasive Species

• Coastal Zones and AquaticHabitats

• Resource Utilization

• Land Use-Land Cover

• Climate Change

What is Being Done to ImproveConditions

State of the Lakes EcosystemConference

Assessing Status and Trends of the Great LakesEcosystem

In 2006, the overall status of the Great Lakesecosystem was assessed as mixed because someconditions or areas were good while others werepoor. The trends of Great Lakes ecosystem conditionsvaried: some conditions were improving and somewere worsening.

Since 1998, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency and Environment Canada have coordinateda biennial assessment of the ecological health ofthe Great Lakes ecosystem using a consistent set ofenvironmental and human health indicators. This assessment is in accordance with theGreat Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Each indicator report is supported byscientific information collected and assessed by Great Lakes experts from Canada and theUnited States, along with a review of scientific papers and use of best professionaljudgment.

Indicators are organized into nine categories: Contamination, Human Health, BioticCommunities, Invasive Species, Coastal Zones, Aquatic Habitats, Resource Utilization,Land Use-Land Cover, and Climate Change. Overall assessments and managementchallenges were prepared for each category to the extent that indicator information wasavailable. This State of the Great Lakes 2007 Highlights report is derived from a moredetailed State of the Great Lakes 2007 report. The 2007 Highlights report also includesinformation on “What is Being Done to Improve Conditions,” which outlines someexamples of actions taken by the Great Lakes community in response to environmentalconditions.

Photo credit: Paul Best

Overall Status

This Highlights report is based onenvironmental indicator reports thatwere prepared for the State of theLakes Ecosystem Conference(SOLEC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,1-3 November 2006. Many expertson various components of the GreatLakes basin ecosystem contributedto the process. Data sources andcontact information for eachindicator are included in thetechnical report, State of the GreatLakes 2007.

ISBN 978-0-662-46106-7Cat. No. En161-3/2007EEPA 905-R-07-002

Front Cover Photo Credits:Blue Heron, Don BrenemanSleeping Bear Dunes, Robert de Jonge, courtesy of Michigan TravelBureauPort Huron Mackinac Race, Michigan Travel BureauMilwaukee Skyline, Visit Milwaukee

10% Post Consumer Waste. Acid Free.

1

Highlights

Authors of the indicator reports assessed the status of ecosystemcomponents in relation to desired conditions or ecosystemobjectives, if available. Five status categories were used (coded bycolor in this Highlights report):

GOOD. The state of the ecosystem component ispresently meeting ecosystem objectives or otherwiseis in acceptable condition.

FAIR. The ecosystem component is currentlyexhibiting minimally acceptable conditions, but it isnot meeting established ecosystem objectives, criteria,or other characteristics of fully acceptable conditions.

POOR. The ecosystem component is severelynegatively impacted and it does not display evenminimally acceptable conditions.

MIXED. The ecosystem component displays bothgood and degraded features.

UNDETERMINED. Data are not available or areinsufficient to assess the status of the ecosystemcomponent.

Four categories were also used to denote current trends of theecosystem component (coded by shape in this Highlightsreport):

IMPROVING. Information provided shows theecosystem component to be changing toward moreacceptable conditions.

UNCHANGING. Information provided shows theecosystem component to be neither getting better norworse.

DETERIORATING. Information provided shows theecosystem component to be departing fromacceptable conditions.

UNDETERMINED. Data are not available to assessthe ecosystem component over time, so no trend canbe identified.

Indicator Category Assessments andManagement ChallengesCONTAMINATION

The transfer of natural andhuman-made substancesfrom air, sediments,groundwater, wastewater,and runoff from non-pointsources is constantlychanging the chemicalcomposition of the GreatLakes. Over the last 30years, 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 areassociated with local regions such as Areas of Concern. However,concentrations of several other chemicals that have been recentlydetected in Great Lakes have been identified as chemicals ofemerging concern.

Levels of mostcontaminants in herringgull eggs continue todecrease in all the GreatLakes colonies monitored,although concentrationlevels vary from good inLake Superior, to mixed inLake Michigan, Lake Erieand Lake Huron, to poorin Lake Ontario. While thefrequency of gross effects of contamination on wildlife hassubsided, many subtle (mostly physiological and genetic) effectsthat were not measured in earlier years of sampling remain inherring gulls. Concentrations of flame-retardant polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are increasing in herring gull eggs.

Concentrations of most organic contaminants in the offshorewaters of the Great Lakes are low and are declining, indicatingprogress in the reduction of persistent toxic chemicals. Indirectinputs of in-use organochlorine pesticides are most likely thecurrent source of entry to the Great Lakes. Continuing sourcesof entry of many organic contaminants to the Great Lakesinclude indirect inputs such as atmospheric deposition,agricultural land runoff, and resuspension of contaminatedsediments. Overall, mercury concentrations in offshore watersare well below water quality guidelines. Mercury concentrationsin waters near major urban areas and harbors, however, exceedwater quality criteria for protection of wildlife. The spatialdistribution 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.

For many indicators, ecosystem objectives, endpoints,or benchmarks have not been established.

For these indicators, complete assessments aredifficult to determine.

Contamination

Contaminants in Waterbirds

2

The status of atmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals ismixed and improving for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),banned organochlorine pesticides, dioxins, and furans, butmixed and unchanging or slightly improving for PAHs andmercury across the Great Lakes. For Lake Superior, LakeMichigan, and Lake Huron, atmospheric inputs are the largestsource of toxic chemicals due to the large surface areas of theselakes. While atmospheric concentrations of some substances are very low at rural sites, they may be much higher in someurban areas.

Juvenile spottail shiner, an important preyfish species in theGreat Lakes, is a good indicator of nearshore contamination

because the species limits its distribution to localized, nearshoreareas during its first year of life. Total dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-ethane (DDT) in juvenile spottail shiner has declined over thelast 30 years but still exceeds GLWQA criteria at most locations.Concentrations of PCBs in juvenile spottail shiner havedecreased below the GLWQA guideline at many, but not all, sitesin the Great Lakes.

The status of contaminantsin lake trout, walleye andsmelt as monitoredannually in the open watersof each of the Great Lakesis mixed and improving forPCBs, DDT, toxaphene,dieldrin, mirex, chlordane,and mercury.

Concentrations of PBDEs and other chemicals of emergingconcern such as perflourinated chemicals, however, areincreasing. Both the United States and Canada continue tomonitor for these chemicals in whole fish tissues and have over30 years of data to support the status and trends information.

Phosphorus concentrations in the Great Lakes were a majorconcern in the 1960s and 1970s, but private and government

actions have reducedphosphorus loadings,thus maintaining orreducing phosphorusconcentrations inopen waters.However, highphosphorusconcentrations arestill measured insome embayments,

harbors, and nearshore areas. Nuisance growth of the green algaCladophora has reappeared along the shoreline in many placesand may be related, in part, to increased availability ofphosphorus.

Management Challenges:• Presently, there are no standardized analytical monitoring

methods and tissue residue guidelines for new contaminantsand chemicals of emerging concern, such as PBDEs.

• PCBs from residual sources in the United States, Canada,and throughout the world enter the atmosphere and aretransported long distances. Therefore, atmosphericdeposition of PCBs to the Great Lakes will still be significantat least decades into the future.

• Assessment of the capacity and operation of existing sewagetreatment plants for phosphorus removal, in the context ofincreasing human populations being served, is warranted.


Gas Phase PCB Concentrations in Airfor Rural and Urban Areas

Mean Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail ShinersLake Erie at Leamington

Source: State of the Great Lakes 2007 report


Cladophora Bloom

Photo credit: Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council

Juvenile Spottail Shiner

Photo credit: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

Concentrations of Total Mercury (ng/L)


3

• Monitoring of tributary, point source, and urban and ruralnon-point source contributions of phosphorus will allowtracking of various sources of phosphorus loadings.

• Investigating the causes of Cladophora reappearances willaid in the reduction of its impacts on the ecosystem.

Highlights

In addition to the ecosystem information derived fromindicators, six presentations on the theme of “ChemicalIntegrity of the Great Lakes” were delivered at SOLEC 2006by Great Lakes experts. The definition of Chemical Integrityproposed by SOLEC is “the capacity to support and maintaina balanced, integrated and adaptive biological system havingthe full range of elements and processes expected in a region’snatural 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 pointsof each presentation are summarized here.

Anthropogenic ChemicalsRon Hites, Indiana University: While concentrations ofbanned or regulated toxic substances such as PCBs andPAHs have decreased over the past 30 years, the rate ofdecline has slowed considerably over the past decade.Virtual elimination of most of these chemicals will notoccur for another 10 to 30 years despite restrictions or banson their use. Further decreases in the environmentalconcentrations of PCBs, PAHs, and some pesticides maywell depend on emission reductions in cities.

Derek Muir, Environment Canada: Some 70,000commercial and industrial compounds are now in use, andan estimated 1,000 new chemicals are introduced each year.Several chemical categories have been identified aschemicals of emerging concern, including polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (flame retardants), perfluorooctanylsulfonate (PFOS) and carboxylates, chlorinated paraffinsand naphthalenes, various pharmaceutical and personalcare products, phenolics, and approximately 20 currently-used pesticides. PBDEs, siloxanes and musks are nowwidespread in the Great Lakes environment.Implementation of a more systematic program formonitoring new persistent toxic substances in the GreatLakes will require significant investments ininstrumentation and researchers.

Joanne Parrot, Environment Canada: Somepharmaceuticals and personal care products appear tocause negative effects in aquatic organisms at very lowconcentrations in laboratory experiments. Some municipalwastewater effluents within the Great Lakes dischargeconcentrations of these products within these ranges. Thereis some evidence that fish and turtles show developmental

effects when exposed to municipal wastewater effluent inthe laboratory. Whether these effects appear in aquaticorganisms including invertebrates, fish, frogs, and turtles, inenvironments downstream of municipal wastewatereffluent is not known, indicating the need for more researchin this area.

Naturally-occurring ChemicalsHarvey Bootsma, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:Changes in levels of nitrate, chloride and phosphorus inGreat Lakes waters are attributed to human activities, withpotential effects on phytoplankton and bottom-dwellingalgae. Changes in lake chemistry, shown through variationsin calcium, alkalinity, and even chlorophyll, are linked tothe biological activity of non-native species. Non-nativespecies also appear to be altering nutrient cycling pathwaysin the Great Lakes, by possibly intercepting nearshorenutrients before they can be exported offshore andtransferring them to the lake bottom.

Susan Watson, Environment Canada: The causes andoccurrences of taste and odor impairments in surfacewaters are widespread, erratic, and poorly characterized butare likely caused by volatile organic compounds producedby species of plankton, benthic organisms, anddecomposing organic materials. In recent years, there hasbeen an increase in the frequency and severity of nuisancealgae such as Cladophora outbreaks in the Great Lakes,particularly in the lower Great Lakes. Type E botulismoutbreaks and resulting waterbird deaths continue to occurin Lake Michigan, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

David Lam, Environment Canada: Models and supportingmonitoring data are used to predict Great Lakes waterquality. A post-audit of historical models for Great Lakeswater quality revealed the general success of setting targetphosphorus loads to reduce open water phosphorusconcentrations.

Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes-What the Experts are Saying

4

HUMAN HEALTH

Levels of PCBs in sportfishcontinue to decline,progress is being made toreduce air pollution,beaches are better assessedand more frequentlymonitored for pathogens,and treated drinking waterquality continues to beassessed as good. Althoughconcentrations of many

organochlorine chemicals in the Great Lakes have declined since the1970s, sportfish consumption advisories persist for all of the GreatLakes.

The quality ofmunicipally-treateddrinking water isconsidered good. The riskof human exposure tochemicals and/ormicrobiologicalcontaminants in treateddrinking water is generallylow. However, improvingand protecting sourcewater quality (beforetreatment) is important toensure good drinkingwater quality.

In 2005, 74 percent ofmonitored Great Lakesbeaches in the UnitedStates and Canadaremained open more than95 percent of theswimming season.Postings, advisories orclosures were due to avariety of reasons,

including the presence of E. colibacteria, poor water quality, algaeabundance, or preemptive beachpostings based on storm eventsand predictive models. Wildlifewaste on beaches can be more of acontributing factor towardsbacterial contamination of waterand beaches than previouslythought.

Concentrations of organochlorinecontaminants in Great Lakessportfish are generally decreasing.However, in the United States, PCBsdrive consumption advisories ofGreat Lakes sportfish. In Ontario,most of the consumption advisoriesfor Great Lakes sportfish are drivenby PCBs, mercury, and dioxins.Toxaphene also contributes toconsumption advisories of sportfish

from Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Monitoring for othercontaminants, such as PBDEs, has begun in some locations.


Beach Postings and Closures for 2005Great Lakes Swimming Season


Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfishfor PCB Concentrations in Lake Trout


Photo credit: Environment Canada


Application of a Uniform FishConsumption Advisory for PCB

Concentrations in Chinook Salmon, 2003


GOOD FAIR POOR MIXED UNDETERMINED

Beaches

Drinking Water

Human Health


5

Overall, there has been significant progress in reducing airpollution in the Great Lakes basin. However, regional pollutants,such as ground-level ozone and fine particulates, remain aconcern, especially in the Detroit-Windsor-Ottawa corridor, theLake Michigan basin, and the Buffalo-Niagara area. Air qualitywill be further impacted by population growth and climatechange.

Management Challenges:• Maintenance of high-quality source water will reduce costs

associated with treating water, promote a healthierecosystem, and lessen potential contaminant exposure tohumans.

• Although the qualityof treated drinkingwater remains good,care must be taken tomaintain watertreatment facilities.

• One-fourth ofmonitored beachesstill have beachpostings or closures.

• A decline in somecontaminant concentrations has not eliminated the need forGreat Lakes sportfish consumption advisories.

• Most urban and local air pollutant concentrations aredecreasing. However, population growth may impact futureair pollution levels.

BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Despite improvements inlevels of contaminants inthe Great Lakes, manybiological components ofthe ecosystem are severelystressed. Populations of thenative species near the baseof the food web, such asDiporeia and species ofzooplankton, are in declinein some of the Great Lakes.

Native preyfish populations have declined in all lakes except LakeSuperior. Significant natural reproduction of lake trout is occurringin Lake Huron and Lake Superior only. Walleye harvests haveimproved but are still below fishery target levels. Lake sturgeon arelocally extinct in many tributaries and waters where they oncespawned and flourished. Habitat loss and deterioration remain thepredominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian and wetland-dependent bird populations.

The aquatic food web isseverely impaired in all theGreat Lakes with theexception of LakeSuperior. Zooplanktonpopulations have declineddramatically in LakeHuron, and a similardecline is occurring inLake Michigan.Populations of Diporeia,

the dominant native benthic(bottom-dwelling)invertebrate in offshore waters,continue to decline in LakeHuron, Lake Michigan, andLake Ontario, and they may belocally extinct in Lake Erie.The decline of Diporeiacoincides with theintroduction of non-native

zebra and quagga mussels. Both zooplankton and Diporeia arecrucial food sources for many other species, so their populationsize and health impact the entire system.

The current mix of nativeand non-native (stockedand naturalized) prey andpredator fish species in thesystem has confounded thenatural balance withinmost of the Great Lakes. Inall but Lake Superior,native preyfish populationshave deteriorated.However, the recent decline

of non-native preyfish (alewife and smelt) abundance in all GreatLakes except Lake Superior could have positive impacts on otherpreyfish populations. Preyfish populations are important for theirrole in supporting predator fish populations, so the potentialeffects of these changes will be a significant factor to be consideredin fisheries management decisions.

Highlights

Diporeia Density


Photo credit: National Oceanographic andAtmospheric Administration

Diporeia

Biotic Communities

Diporeia

Preyfish

Photo credit: City of Toronto

IMPROVING UNCHANGING DETERIORATING UNDETERMINED

Despite basin-wide efforts to restore lake trout populations thatinclude stocking, harvest limits, and sea lamprey management,lake trout have not established self-sustaining populations inLake Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. In Lake Huron,

substantial and widespreadnatural reproduction of laketrout was observed starting in2004 following the nearcollapse of alewife populations.This change may have been dueto the reduced predation onjuvenile lake trout by adultalewives and the alleviation of atrout vitamin deficiency

problem caused by trout consuming alewives. In Lake Superior,lake trout stocks have recovered such that hatchery-reared troutare no longer stocked.

Reductions in phosphorus loadings during the 1970ssubstantially improvedspawning and nursery habitatfor many fish species in theGreat Lakes. Walleye harvestshave improved but are stillbelow target levels. Lakesturgeon are now locally extinctin many tributaries and waterswhere they once spawned andflourished, although someremnant lake sturgeonpopulations exist throughoutthe Great Lakes. Spawning andrearing habitats have beendestroyed, altered or access tothem blocked. Habitatrestoration is required to helpre-establish vigorous lakesturgeon populations.

From 1995 to 2005, theAmerican toad, bullfrog,chorus frog, green frog,and northern leopard frogexhibited significantlydeclining populationtrends while the springpeeper was the onlyamphibian species thatexhibited a significantlyincreasing population

trend in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. For this same time period,14 species of wetland-dependent birds exhibited significantlydeclining population trends, while only six species exhibitedsignificantly increasing population trends.

The Great Lakes are now facing a challenge from viralhemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). This virus has affected at least37 fish species and is associated with fish kills in Lake Huron,Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St. LawrenceRiver.

Management Challenges:• Management actions to address the decline of Diporeia may

be ineffective until the underlying causes of the declines areidentified.

• The decline of Diporeia coincides with the spread of non-native zebra and quagga mussels. Cause and effect linkagesbetween non-native species in the Great Lakes andecological impacts may be difficult to establish.

• Identification of remnant lake sturgeon spawningpopulations should assist the selection of priorityrestoration activities to improve degraded lake sturgeonspawning and rearinghabitats.

• Protection of high-quality wetlandhabitats and adjacentupland areas will helpsupport populations ofwetland-dependentbirds and amphibians.

INVASIVE SPECIES

Activities associated withshipping are responsible forover one-third of theaquatic non-native speciesintroductions to the GreatLakes. Total numbers ofnon-native speciesintroduced and establishedin the Great Lakes haveincreased steadily since the1830s. However, numbers

of ship-introduced aquatic species have increased exponentially

6


Trends of Amphibian Species from 1995–2005

Northern Leopard Frog

Photo credit: Lang Elliot, NatureSound Studio

Amphibians

Invasive Species

Alewife

Photo credit: (c) Shedd Aquarium/www.fishphotos.org

Walleye

Photo credit: Ohio Sea Grant

Lake Sturgeon

Photo credit: (c) Shedd Aquarium/www.fishphotos.org



7

during the same time period. High population density, high-volume transport of goods, and the degradation of nativeecosystems have also made the Great Lakes region vulnerable toinvasions from terrestrial non-native species. Introduction of thesespecies is one of the greatest threats to the biodiversity and naturalresources of this region, second only to habitat destruction.

There are currently 183known aquatic and 124known terrestrial non-native species that havebecome established in theGreat Lakes basin. Non-native species arepervasive throughout theGreat Lakes basin, andthey continue to exertimpacts 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 adverselyimpacted by invasive species. The terrestrial non-native emeraldash borer, for example, is a tree-killing beetle that has killed

more than 15 million treesin the state of Michiganalone as of 2005. Theemerald ash borer probablyarrived in the United Stateson solid wood packingmaterial carried in cargoships or airplanesoriginating from its native

Asia.

Introductions of non-native invasive species as a result of worldtrade and travel have increased steadily since the 1830s and willcontinue to rise if prevention measures are not improved. TheGreat Lakes basin is particularly vulnerable to non-nativeinvasive species because it is a major pathway of trade and is anarea 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 andenforcement efforts to effectively limit the introduction ofnon-native invasive species.

• Prevention of unauthorized ballast water exchange by shipswill eliminate one key pathway of non-native aquatic speciesintroductions to the Great Lakes.

• The unauthorized release, transfer, and escape of introducedaquatic non-native species and private sector activitiesrelated to aquaria, gardenponds, baitfish, and livefood fish markets need to beconsidered.

Highlights

Emerald Ash Borer

Photo credit: Dave Cappaert, Michigan StateUniversity

Release Mechanisms for AquaticNon-native Species Established in the

Great Lakes Basin Since the 1830s


Invasive Species Control

Photo credit: P. Charlebois, Illinois NaturalHistory Survey/Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant

Aquatic Non-native Species

Purple Loosestrife

Photo credit: Michigan Sea Grant

Zebra Mussels

Photo credit: Environment Canada,Technical Operations

Level of Impact of Non-native Terrestrial Specieson the Great Lakes Ecosystem



8

COASTAL ZONES AND AQUATIC HABITATS

Coastal habitats aredegraded due todevelopment, shorelinehardening andestablishment of localpopulations of non-nativeinvasive species. Wetlandscontinue to be lost anddegraded. In addition toproviding habitat andfeeding areas for many

species of birds, amphibians and fish, wetlands also serve as arefuge for native mussels and fish that are threatened by non-nativeinvasive species.

The Great Lakes coastline is more than 17,000 kilometers(10,563 miles) long. Unique habitats include more than 30,000islands, over 950 kilometers (590 miles) of cobble beaches, andover 30,000 hectares (74,131 acres) of sand dunes. Each coastalzone region is subject to a combination of human and naturalstressors such as agriculture, residential development, point andnon-point sources of pollution, and weather patterns. Thecoastal zone is heavily stressed, with many of the basin’s 42million people living along the shoreline.

Wetlands are essential forproper functioning ofaquatic ecosystems. Theyprovide a refuge for nativefish and mussels from non-native predators andcompetitors. The GreatLakes coastline includesmore than 200,000 hectares(494,000 acres) of coastal

wetlands, less than half of the amount of wetland area thatexisted prior to European settlement of the basin. An inventoryof Great Lakes coastal wetlands in 2004 demonstrated that LakeHuron and Lake Michigan still have extensive wetlands,

especially barrier-protected wetlands. Reductions in wetland areaare occurring, however, due to filling, conversion to urban,residential, and agricultural uses, shoreline modification, waterlevel regulation, non-native species invasions, and nutrientloading. Stressors, such as these, may also impact the conditionof remaining wetlands and can threaten their natural function.

Coastal wetland plantcommunity health, whichis indicative of overallcoastal wetland health,varies across the GreatLakes basin. In general,there is deterioration ofnative plant diversity inmany wetlands asshoreline alterations maycause habitat degradation

and allow for easier invasion by non-native species.

Naturally fluctuating water levels are essential for maintainingthe ecological health of Great Lakes shoreline ecosystems,especially coastal wetlands. Wetland plants and biota haveadapted to seasonal and long-term water level fluctuations,allowing wetlands to be more extensive and more productivethan they would be if water levels were stable. In 2000, GreatLakes water levels were lower than the 140-year average waterlevel measured from 1860-2000. Furthermore, many climatechange models predict lower water levels for the Great Lakes.Coastal wetlands that directly border the lakes and do not havebarrier beaches may be able to migrate toward the lakes inresponse to lower water levels. Inland and enclosed wetlandswould likely dry up and become arable or forested land.

Shoreline hardening,primarily associated withartificial structures thatattempt to control erosion,can alter sedimenttransport in coastalregions. When the balanceof accretion and erosion ofsediment carried along the

shoreline by wave actionand lake currents isdisrupted, the ecosystemfunctioning of coastalwetlands is impaired. TheSt. Clair, Detroit, andNiagara Rivers have ahigher percentage of theirshorelines hardened thananywhere else in the basin.


Lake Huron Shore Erosion


Coastal Wetland Area by Typewithin the Lakes of the Great Lakes System


Shoreline Hardening


Wetland Plant Health

Coastal Wetlands

Photo Credit: Ted Cline

Coastal Zones and Aquatic Habitats


9

Of the five Great Lakes, Lake Erie has the highest percentage ofits shoreline artificially hardened, and Lake Huron and LakeSuperior have the lowest percentages artificially hardened.

Groundwater is critical for maintaining Great Lakes aquatichabitats, plants and animals. Human activities such asgroundwater withdrawals for municipal water supplies andirrigation, and the increased proportion of impervious surfacesin urban areas, have detrimentally impacted groundwater. On alarger scale, climate change could further contribute toreductions 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 monitoringshould be an important component of a comprehensiveplan to maintain the condition and integrity of the coastalzones and aquatic habitats.

• An educated public is essential to ensuring wise decisionsabout the stewardship of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

• Protection of groundwater recharge areas, conservation ofwater resources, informed land use planning, raising ofpublic awareness, and improved monitoring are essentialactions for improving groundwater quality and quantity.

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Although waterwithdrawals havedecreased, overall energyconsumption is increasingas population and urbansprawl increase throughoutthe Great Lakes basin.Human population growthwill lead to an increase inthe use of natural resources.

The population of the Great Lakes basin is approximately 42million. Growth forecasts for the western end of Lake Ontario(known as the Golden Horseshoe) predict that this portion ofthe Canadian population will grow by an additional 3.7 millionpeople by 2031. Population size, distribution, and density arecontributing factors to resource use in the basin, although manytrends have not been adequately assessed. In general, resourceuse is connected to economic prosperity and consumptivebehaviors.

Although the Great Lakes and their tributaries contain 20percent of the world's supply of surface freshwater, less than onepercent of these waters is renewed annually through

precipitation, run-off andinfiltration. The net basinwater supply is estimatedto be 500 billion liters (132billion gallons) per day. In2000, water from the GreatLakes was used at a rateequal to approximately 35percent of the availabledaily supply. The majority

of water withdrawn is returned to the basin through dischargeor run-off. However, approximately seven percent is lost throughevapo-transpiration or depleted by human activities. Due to theshutdown of nuclear power facilities and improved waterefficiency at thermal power plants, water use in Canada and theUnited States has decreased since 1980. In the future, increasedpressures on water resources are expected to come frompopulation growth in communities bordering the basin, andfrom climate change.

Population size, geography, climate, and trends in housing sizeand density all affect the amount of energy consumed in thebasin. Electricity generation was the largest energy-consumingsector in the Great Lakes basin due to the energy required toconvert fossil fuels to electricity.

Highlights

Hydroelectric Plant


Water Withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin,by Sector Category as a Percentage of Total, 2000


Total Secondary Energy Consumption in theGreat Lakes Basin, in Megawatt-hours (MWh)

SectorU.S. Basin Total Energy

Consumption - 2000Canadian Basin Total Energy

Consumption - 2002

Residential 478,200,000 127,410,000Commercial 314,300,000 107,800,000Industrial 903,900,000 206,410,000Transportation 714,000,000 184,950,000Electricity Generation 953,600,000 303,830,000


Resource Utilization


10

Population growth andurban sprawl in the basinhave led to an increase inthe number of vehicles onroads, fuel consumption,and kilometers/milestraveled. Over a ten yearperiod (1994-2004) fuelconsumption increased by17 percent in the U.S. statesbordering the Great Lakes

and by 24 percent in theprovince of Ontario. Kilometers/miles traveled within the sameareas increased 20 percent for the United States and 56 percentfor Canada. The increase in registered vehicles continues tooutpace the increase in licensed drivers.

Management Challenges:• Increasing requests for water from communities bordering

the basin where existing water supplies are scarce or of poorquality will require careful evaluation.

• Energy production and conservation need to be carefullymanaged to meet current and future energy consumptiondemands.

• Population growth and urban sprawl are expected tochallenge the current and future transportation systems andinfrastructures in the Great Lakes basin.

LAND USE-LAND COVER

The Great Lakes basinencompasses an area ofmore than 765,000 squarekilometers (295,000 squaremiles). How land is usedimpacts not only waterquality of the Great Lakes,but also biologicalproductivity, biodiversity,and the economy.

Data from 1992 and 2002 indicate that forested land covered 61percent of the Great Lakes basin and 70 percent of the landimmediately buffering surface waters, known as riparian zones.The greater the forest coverage in a riparian zone, the greater thecapacity for the watershed to maintain biodiversity, store water,regulate water temperatures, and limit excessive nutrient andsediment loadings to the waterways. Urbanization, seasonalhome construction, and increased recreational use are amongthe general demands being placed on forest resourcesnationwide. Additional disturbances caused by lumber removaland forest fires can also alter the structure of Great Lakes basinforests. However, the area of forested lands certified undersustainable forestry programs has significantly increased inrecent years, exemplifying continued commitment from forestindustry professionals to practices that help protect localecosystem sustainability. Continued growth in these practiceswill lead to improved soil and water resources and increasedtimber productivity in areas of implementation.

Under the pressure of rapid population growth in the GreatLakes region, urban development has undergone unprecedentedgrowth. Sprawl is increasing in rural and urban fringe areas ofthe Great Lakes basin,placing a strain oninfrastructure andconsuming habitat inareas that tend to havehealthier environmentsthan those that remain inurban areas. This trend isexpected to continue,which will exacerbateother problems, such aslonger commute times


Percent Forested Land Within Riparian Zonesby Watershed in the Great Lakes Basin


Urban Development

Photo Credit: Lynn Betts, courtesy of the NaturalResources Conservation Service

Land Use-Land Cover

Fuel Consumption in Ontarioand Great Lakes States


Fuel Consumption

Photo credit: Microsoft Office Clipart


11

from residential to work areas, increased consumption of fossilfuels, and fragmentation of habitat. For example, at currentdevelopment rates in Ontario, residential building projects arepredicted to consume some 1,000 square kilometers (386 squaremiles) of the countryside, an area double the size of Toronto, by2031. Also, vehicle gridlock could increase commuting times by45 percent, and air quality could decline due to an estimated 40percent increase in vehicle emissions.

In 2006, The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program and theNature Conservancy of Canada Ontario Region released theBinational Conservation Blueprint for the Great Lakes. TheBlueprint identified 501 areas across the Great Lakes that are apriority for biodiversity conservation. The Blueprint wasdeveloped by scientifically and systematically identifying nativespecies, natural communities, and aquatic system characteristicsof the region, and determining the sites that need to bepreserved 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 theassociated 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 offorest cover can allow for habitat protection and wildlifespecies mobility, therefore maintaining natural biodiversity.

• Policies that favor an economically viable forestry industrywill motivate private and commercial landowners tomaintain land in forest cover versus conversion toalternative uses such as development.

CLIMATE CHANGE

A qualitative assessment ofthe indicator categoryClimate Change could notbe supported for this reportbecause the indicators areincomplete at this time.Some observed effects in theGreat Lakes region, however,have been attributed tochanges in climate. Wintersare getting shorter; annual

average temperatures aregrowing warmer; extreme heat events are occurring morefrequently; duration of lake ice cover is decreasing as air and watertemperatures are increasing; and heavy precipitation events, bothrain and snow, are becoming more common.

Continued declines in the duration and extent of ice cover onthe Great Lakes and possible declines in lake levels due to

evaporation during thewinter are expected tooccur in future years. Ifwater levels decrease aspredicted with increasingtemperature, shippingrevenue may decrease andthe need for dredgingcould increase. Northwardmigration of speciesnaturally found south of

the Great Lakes region andinvasions by warm water, non-native aquatic species will likelyincrease the stress on native species. A change in the distributionof forest types and an increase in forest pests are expected. Anincrease in the frequency of winter run-off and intense stormsmay 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 inrelated management decisions.

• Increased public awareness of the causes of climate changemay lead to more environmentally-friendly actions.

Highlights

Ice Cover


Photo credit: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center,MODIS Rapid Response

Ice Cover on Great Lakes



Low Water Levels

12

What is Being Done to ImproveConditions

In an effort to restore and preserve the Great Lakes, legislators,managers, scientists, educators and numerous others are respondingto environmental challenges with multifaceted solutions. Theresponses and actions referenced here are intended to serve asexamples of positive strides being taken in the Great Lakes basin toimprove ecosystem conditions. Examples from both Canada andthe United States and from each of the Great Lakes are included.There are many more actions that could have been recognized inthis report. Each is an important part of our collective commitmentto a clean and healthy Great Lakes ecosystem.

Canada and the United States implement numerous actionsacross the basin at national, regional and local scales. Forexample, in Ontario, the City of Toronto is addressing waterpollution through the Wet Weather Flow Management MasterPlan, a long-term solution to reduce pollution from stormwaterand combined sewer overflows.

Communities, states, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyand local industry are working together to remediatecontaminated sediments in U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs) withfunding provided through the U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act. Sinceinception of the Act in 2002, sediment remediation has beencompleted at three U.S. AOC sites (Ruddiman Creek andRuddiman Pond in Michigan, Black Lagoon in Michigan, andNewton 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. InCanada, 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 hasconfirmed that the remedial actions taken have restored thebeneficial uses in the area and that locally derived goals andcriteria have been met.

Effective actions are often basedon collaborative work. In 2005,The Nature Conservancy, theState of Michigan and The

Forestland Group (a limited partnership), collaborated in a saleand purchase agreement that created the largest conservationproject in Michigan’s history. This purchase will protect morethan 110,000 hectares (271,000 acres) through a working foresteasement on 100,362 hectares (248,000 acres) and acquisition of9,445 hectares (23,338 acres) in the Upper Peninsula ofMichigan. By connecting approximately one million hectares(2.5 million acres), the project curbs land fragmentation andincompatible development by establishing buffers aroundconservation sites such as the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshoreand Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park.

Lake Superiorcommunities haveembraced a goal of zerodischarge of criticalchemical pollutants byengaging in a number ofactions to removecontaminants. Efforts toreach this goal haveincluded electronic andhazardous waste collectionevents run by Earth

Keepers, a faith-based environmental initiative, which is based inthe Upper Peninsula of Michigan. On Earth Day 2006, over 272metric tons (300 U.S. tons) of household hazardous waste,primarily household electronics, were collected and properlydisposed or recycled. In Canada, through Ontario’s mercurySwitch Out program, more than 11,500 mercury switches fromscrap automobiles were collected in 2005.

Research, monitoringand assessment effortsoperating at variousgeographic scales are thebackbone ofmanagement actions anddecisions in the basin.Coordinated monitoring among Canadian andUnited States federal,provincial, state, anduniversity groups beganin 2003 to focus on

monitoring physical, biological, and chemical parameters withmonitoring occurring on a five-year rotation of one Great Lakeper year. A binational Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory hasbeen established that currently provides information on 1,137monitoring programs in the basin. The International JointCommission maintains a Great Lakes – St. Lawrence ResearchInventory of the many funded projects that help increase ourknowledge about the structure and function of the Great Lakesecosystem.

Strategic planning occurs at basin-wide, lake-wide and localscales. An example of strategic planning is the Canada-OntarioAgreement, a federal-provincial agreement that supports the


Water Sampling

Photo credit: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGreat Lakes National Program Office

Varrick Dam North,Oswego River

Photo credit: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Great Lakes NationalProgram Office

Wye Marsh, Severn Sound


EnviroPark, Collingwood


Electronic Waste Collection

Photo credit: Superior Watershed Partnership

restoration, protection, and conservation of the Great Lakesbasin ecosystem. To achieve the collective goals and results,Canada and Ontario work closely with local and regionalgovernments, industry, community and environmental groups.In the United States, more than 140 different federal programshelp fund and implement environmental restoration andmanagement activities in the basin. The Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement, Great Lakes Regional Collaboration andFederal Task Force, Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy,Lakewide Management Plans, Binational Partnerships, andRemedial Action Plans are other examples of strategic planningin the Great Lakes basin.

In many cases management and conservation actions are basedon or supported by federal, state, provincial, or local legislation.For example, Ontario’s Greenbelt Act of 2005 enabled thecreation of a Greenbelt Plan to protect about 728,437 hectares(1.8 million acres) of environmentally-sensitive and agriculturalland in the Golden Horseshoe region from urban developmentand sprawl. The Plan includes and builds upon approximately324,000 hectares (800,000 acres) of land within the NiagaraEscarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine ConservationPlan.

Proving that some legislation effectively crosses nationalborders, in December, 2005, the Great Lakes Governors andPremiers signed the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements at theCouncil of Great Lakes Governors Leadership Summit that willprovide unprecedented protection for the Great Lakes–St.Lawrence River basin. The agreements detail how the states andprovinces will manage and protect the basin and provide aframework for each state and province to enact laws for itsprotection, once the agreement is ratified.

Education and outreach about Great Lakes environmentalissues are essential actions for fostering both a scientifically-

literate public as well as informed decision-makers. The LakeSuperior Invasive-Free Zone Project involves community groupsin the inventorying and control of non-native invasive terrestrialand emergent aquatic plants through education. The projectcombines Canadian and United States programs at federal, state,provincial, municipal, and local levels and has the goal ofeliminating non-native plants within a designated 291 hectare(720 acre) area.

A shoreline stewardship manual developed for the southeastshore of Lake Huron and promoted through workshops andoutreach programs encourages sustainable practices to improveand maintain the quality of groundwater and surface water andthe natural landscape features that support them. The LakeHuron Stewardship Guide is a collaborative effort by the HuronCounty Planning Department, the University of Guelph, theHuron Stewardship Council, the Ausable Bayfield ConservationAuthority, the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation, andthe Friends of the Bayfield River, and a high level of communityengagement has been instrumental in its success.

The Great Lakes Conservation Initiative of the Shedd Aquariumin Chicago aims to draw public attention to the value andvulnerabilities of the Great Lakes. With collaboration by Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, theShedd Aquarium opened a new exhibit in 2006 which featuresmany of the invasive species found in the Great Lakes. Thisexhibit provides public audiences with the opportunity to seemany of these live animals and plants, and is also highlighted inteacher workshops.

As these examples show, there is much planning, informationgathering, research and education occurring in the Great Lakesbasin. Much more remains to be done to meet the goals of theGLWQA, but progress is being made with the involvement of allGreat Lakes stakeholders.

13

Highlights

Source: Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Ontario’s Greenbelt Plan 2005

State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference

The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hostedby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and EnvironmentCanada every two years in response to the reporting requirementsof the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

The conferences and reports provide independent, science-basedreporting on the state of the health of the Great Lakes basinecosystem. Four objectives for the SOLEC process include:

• To assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based onaccepted indicators

• To strengthen decision-making and environmentalmanagement concerning the Great Lakes

• To inform local decision makers of Great Lakesenvironmental issues

• To provide a forum for communication and networkingamongst all the Great Lakes stakeholders

The role of SOLEC is to provide clear, compiled information tothe Great Lakes community to enable environmental managers tomake better decisions. Although SOLEC is primarily a reportingvenue rather than a management program, many SOLECparticipants are involved in decision-making processes throughoutthe Great Lakes basin.

For more information about Great Lakes indicators and the Stateof the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, visit:

www.binational.netwww.epa.gov/glnpo/solec

www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec

by the Governments of

Canadaand

The United States of America

Prepared by

Environment Canadaand the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

State of theGreat Lakes

2007Highlights


Documents

State of the Great Lakes 2007_highlights