North America

main categories A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H / I / J / K / L / M / N

LAKE SUPERIOR

A view from the lakeside hill at Duluth
Photo.
Photo: A. Kurata

A. LOCATION

  • Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, USA; and Ontario, Canada.
  • 46:5-48:0N, 84:0-92:5W; 183 m above sea level.
top

B. DESCRIPTION

Lake Superior is the second largest lake in the world next to the Caspian Sea, and has more surface area than any other freshwater lake. Its surface area (82,367 km2) is larger than the State of Maine. The lake was formed approximately 14,000 years ago by the retreat of continental ice-sheet together with the other Great Lakes. It is surrounded by hills and cliffs which offer the most spectacular landscape of any of the Great Lakes. The largest island, Isle Royale, is a United States National Park. The Apostle Islands of Wisconsin are now a National Lakeshore, with beautiful scenery and geological features. The long, hooked arm of the beautiful Keweenaw Peninsula is also a National Lakeshore of Michigan. The lake water flows out to L. Huron through the St. Mary's River from the eastern end.

There are no large cities along the Canadian northern shore of this lake except for Thunder Bay, Ontario. Twin cities, Duluth and Superior, are situated at the western end of the lake. A large amount of ore and grain is loaded for transport abroad in the harbors of these cities. The 1,900 km journey from Duluth, Minnesota, to Kingston, Ontario, is the longest inland water transportation route in the world. The lake water is still oligotrophic and transparency at the centre of the lake is generally around 9m.

top

C. PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS (1, 2, 3)

Surface area [km2] 82,367
Volume [km3] 12,221
Maximum depth [m] 406
Mean depth [m] 148
Water level Regulated
Normal range of annual water level fluctuation [m] 0.3 *
Length of shoreline [km] 4,768
Residence time [yr] 191
Catchment area [km2] 124,838

* During the period of recorded history (130 yrs) the lake has fluctuated ±2m.

top

D. PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES

D1 GEOGRAPHICAL (Q, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9)

  • Bathymetric map: Fig. NAM-04-01.
  • Names of main islands: Royale (544 km2) and Grand (36.4 km2).
  • Number of outflowing rivers and channels (name): 1 (St. Mary's R.).

D2 CLIMATIC (Q, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

  • Climatic data at Marquette, 1943-1980
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann.
Mean temp. [deg C] -8.3 -7.9 -3.3 3.7 9.6 15.2 18.8 18.0 14.0 8.4 0.8 -0.5 5.3
Precipitation [mm] 52 43 52 62 74 87 77 71 89 70 72 58 808
  • Number of hours of bright sunshine: 2,104 hr yr-1.
  • Solar radiation: 31.22 MJ m-2 day-1.

    Fig. NAM-04-01
    Bathymetric map (Q).
  • Water temperature [deg C] Marquette, 1937-1969
Depth[m] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0 0 1 1 2 4 7 12 12 9 6 3
  • Freezing period:
    November-April. Ice formation in Lake Superior begins in November; however, it never freezes shore to shore. The ice normally begins to break up in April but may not be completely melted until May.
  • Mixing type:
    Dimictic.
  • Notes on water mixing and thermocline formation
    Thermocline generally develops January-March and July-September. Mixing efficiency to lake bottom is fairy low due to great depth. Thermal cycle is similar throughout the lake but with variations resulting from differences in latitude and depth. While the water temperature in the lake is nearly homothermous from November to late May, slight inverse stratification often occurs in middle winter. Thermal stratification in Lake Superior begins to occur in early or middle July.
top

E. LAKE WATER QUALITY (Q, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 30)

E1 TRANSPARENCY [m]

Nearshore, 1973*: 8.5 (0.5-15). Back Bay: 2.3. * Summer and fall.

    Fig. NAM-04-02
    Areal distribution of Secchi disc readings in nearshore waters.

E2 pH

Surface water Spring 1974: 7.4-8.0. Fall 1974: 7.6-7.9. 1975: 7.6-7.8.

    Fig. NAM-04-03
    pH of surface water, 1969.

E3 SS

Suspended solids were virtually absent in Lake Superior waters, except in the harbor areas. The lower transparency in Black Bay and Batchawana Bay was attributed to the natural re-suspension of bottom sediments by wave action and the low transparency in Thunder Bay and Nipigon Bay was to urban and industrial sources of suspended solids.

E4 DO [mg l-1]

    Surface water
    Spring 1974: - (10.1-13.2).
    Fall 1974: - (8.5-10.9). 1975: 12.4±0.6 (11.2-13.2).

    Fig. NAM-04-04
    DO [% saturation] in bottom water, 1971.

E6 CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION [micro g l-1]

Nearshore: 0.8 (2<)*.
Embayment areas: (0.4-3.8).
* Rarely exceeded.


    Fig. NAM-04-05
    Mean concentrations of chlorophyll-a [micro g l-1], 1970-1971.

E7 NITROGEN CONCENTRATION: Fig. NAM-04-06.


    Fig. NAM-04-06
    Mean concentrations of inorganic-N [micro g l-1] at 5 m depth, 1971.

E8 PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION

  • Total-P: Fig. NAM-04-07.

    Fig. NAM-04-07
    Mean concentrations of total-P [micro g l-1] at 5 m depth, 1971.

E9 CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION [mg l-1]

1963: 1.9.
1974: 0.9-1.4.
1975: 1.1-2.3.

top

F. BIOLOGICAL FEATURES (Q, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 30, 41, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)

F1 FLORA

  • Emerged macrophytes Scirpus acutus,
    S. americanus, Sparganium sp., Phragmites sp., Eleocharis sp.
  • Submerged macrophytes:
    Nitella flexilis, Chara globularis, Isoetes riparia.
  • Phytoplankton
    Cyclotella comensis, C. comita, C. glomerata, Coelastrum reticulatum, Tabellaria fenestrata, Asterionella formosa.

F2 FAUNA

  • Zooplankton
    Protozoa (Difflugia globulosa, Codonella sp.), Cladocera (Bosmina longispina, Daphnia retrocurva), Rotifera (Polyarthra vulgaris, Notholca longispira), Copepoda (Diaptomus ashlandi, Limnocalanus macrurus).
  • Benthos
    Amphipoda (Pontopooreia affinis), Oligochaeta (Limnodrilus sp., Tubifex sp., Stylodrilus sp.), Mollusca (Pisidium sp.).
  • Fish
    Alosa pseudoharengus, Oncorhynchus kisutch, O. tschawytscha, Perca flavescens, Osmerus sp., Stizostedion vitreum, Salvelinus namayucush, Coregonus clupeaformis.
  • Supplementary notes on the biota
    Phytoplankton assemblages originally dominated by diatoms have been altered dramatically, first from oligotrophic diatoms to more eutrophic diatoms and more recently, from diatom dominated assemblages to phytoplankton assemblages with increasing proportions of blue-green and green algae has occurred (Conway et al., 1977; Schelske et al., 1976; Stoermer et al., 1974; Schelske and Stoermer, 1971). Phytoplankton growth is phosphorus limited and increased inputs of this nutrient have stimulated growth of diatoms to the extent that, in summer, silica becomes the limiting nutrient. The result is that the phytoplankton assemblages are shifting from diatoms to physiological forms of phytoplankton which do not require silica (Schelske and Stoermer, 1972).

F3 PRIMARY PRODUCTION RATE

  • Carbon fixation rates [mg C m-3 day-1] 1973
    Open water: 0.37±O.18.
    Bays: 0.59±0.14.
  • Photosynthetic assimilation ratios [mp C hr-1 mg chl-a]
    Open water: 0.82±0.45.

    Fig. NAM-04-08
    Chlorophyll a [micro g l-1], primary productivity [micro g C l-1 hr-1], total phosphorus [micro g PO4-P l-1] and Secchi disc transparency [m] in the Great Lakes.

F4 BIOMASS: Fig. NAM-04-09.


    Fig. NAM-04-09
    Nearshore phytoplankton standing crop, 1974.

F5 FISHERY PRODUCTS

Annual fish catch [metric tons] 1977: 4,184.

top

G. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (Q, 3, 5, 10, 11, 16-22, 27)

G1 LAND USE IN THE CATCHMENT AREA

Area [km2] [%]
Natural landscape
Woody vegetation 117,970 95.0
Herbaceous vegetation 4,963 4.0
Agricultural land 1,740 1.0
Residential area 165 1.0
Total 124,838 100.0
  • Main types of woody vegetation
    Aspen-birch forest, beech-maple forest, spruce-fir forest, pine forest.
  • Main types of herbaceous vegetation:
    Pteridium aquilinum.
  • Main kinds of crops: Hay and potato.
  • Levels of fertilizer application on crop fields:
    Light.
  • Trends of change in land use
    No significant changes in the last 20 years.

G2 INDUSTRIES IN THE CATCHMENT AREA AND THE LAKE (U.S. only)

Gross productper year[mill.$] No. ofpersonsengaged No. ofestablish-ments Main productsor majorindustries
Primary industry
Agriculture 32.40 10,900 7,194 Livestock, hay, forest products
Fisheries 2.06 173 N.A. Lake herring
Others 2,321.55 6,660 203 Paper products
Secondary industry
Manufacturing 982.50 25,485 N.A. Machinery, paper products, printing, publishing
Mining 624.73 17,044 N.A.
Others 254.40 125,488 N.A.

Numbers of domestic animals in the catchment area Cattle 26,000, sheep 5,200, swine 2,800, poultry 68,500.

G3 POPULATION IN THE CATCHMENT AREA (U.S. only) 1970

Population Major cities
Population density [km-2] (population)
Total 533.500 4.3 Duluth, Marquette, Superior
top

H. LAKE UTILIZATION (Q)

H1 LAKE UTILIZATION

Source of water, fisheries, tourism, recreation (swimming, yachting, sport- fishing) and navigation.

H2 THE LAKE AS WATER RESOURCE* 1975

Use rate [m3 day-1]
Domestic 150,000
Irrigation 8,700
Industrial 1,080,000
Power plant 2,110,000
Others
Mining 830,000

* U.S. only.

top

I. DETERIORATION OF LAKE ENVIRONMENTS AND HAZARDS

I1 ENHANCED SILTATION (Q)

  • Extent of damage:
    Not serious.
  • Supplementary notes
    Local siltation in Duluth/Superior harbor and in Thunder Bay from mining. High water levels (1987) have led to increased siltation in some shoreline areas due to shore erosion. Presently, the problem is not serious, because the area is very lightly farmed and there is little open area; however, it could become serious if not controlled.

I2 TOXIC CONTAMINATION

Present status (Q): Detected but not serious. Past trends of decrease of contaminants in various fish [ppm (wet wt.) basis](25).

Names ofcontaminants Fish* Degree of decrease [ppm]
DDT Lake trout* 1.2 (1977)→<0.4 (1982)
PCB Lake trout 1.8 (1980)→0.4 (1982)
Dieldrin Lake trout 0.5

* Salvelinus namaycush muscle samples tested.


    Fig. NAM-04-10
    Total DDT residues in Lake Superior lake trout.

    Fig. NAM-04-11
    Total PCB residues in Lake Superior lake trout.

    Fig. NAM-04-12
    Dieldrin residues in Lake Superior lake trout.

    Fig. NAM-04-13
    Mercury residues in Lake Superior lake trout.
  • Distribution of contaminants in the lake sediments
    [ppb (dry wt.) basis] (26, 27)
Names ofcontaminants Range Average
DDT <1.0-3.0 < 0.71
PCB <5-10 < 3.3
Dieldrin - <0.25
Hg <50-500 -
Pb <50,000,100,000-150,000 -
  • Distribution of contaminants in the lake sediments
    [ppm (dry wt.) basis](Q) 1973
Locations No. Content in dry sediments (ng g-1)*1
p,p'-DDE HEOD*2 PCB
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
All basins 216 1.1 1.9 0.25 0.18 4.8 5.5
Non-depositional zone 189 0.4 0.6 <0.25 - 3.9 2.1
Duluth sub-basin 27 1.9 1.6 <0.25 - 8.6 13.7
Chefswet sub-basin 27 0.7 0.8 <0.25 - 3.3 1.3
Apostle sub-basin 13 0.6 0.7 0.25 0.19 5.0 2.2
Thunder Bay Trough 17 2.7 5.5 0.27 0.17 5.5 2.9
Isle Royale sub-basin 50 0.8 0.7 0.25 0.15 4.5 2.2
Thunder Bay 5 1.2 1.3 0.26 0.13 5.7 3.6
Marathon basin 6 0.7 0.3 0.32 0.18 6.4 7.3
Keweenaw basin 4 0.8 0.7 <0.25 - 3.1 1.3
Caribou sub-basin 49 0.8 1.0 0.27 0.28 3.7 1.6
Whitefish sub-basin 18 0.9 1.2 0.28 0.16 4.4 3.0

*1 For purposes of calculating the Mean and SD, trace amounts (0.25-0.50 ng/g) of DDE and HEOD were assigned 0.4 ng/g and non-detectable amounts (<0.25 ng/g) assigned 0.1 ng/g, and for PCB trace amounts (2.5-5.0 ng/g) were assigned 4.0 ng/g and non-detectable amounts (<2.5 ng/g) assigned 1.0 ng/g.
*2 HEOD: Dieldrin.


    Fig. NAM-04-14
    (38) PCB concentrations in surface sediments (3 cm).
  • Food safety standards or tolerance limits for toxic contaminant residue (Q)
    Regulatory limitations are set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Canada Dept. of National Health and Welfare and are advisories only with regard to human consumption of fish. The U.S. standards are: PCB 2 mg kg-1 DDT 5 mg kg-1, Dieldrin 3 mg kg-1 and mercury 1 mg kg-1 (Federal limit) and 0.5 mg kg-1 (State limit).
Restrict consumption Important* Do not eat
Lake Superior (applies to Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota waters) Lake Trout up to 30" Lake Trout over 30"

* Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, and children age 1 and under should not eat the fish listed in any of the categories listed above.

  • Environmental quality standards for contaminants in the lake (Q)
    IJC 1978 Agreement objectives are "no-effect levels, for the protection of aquatic life, human consumers of fish, or fish-consuming aquatic birds." Objectives have been recommended for approximately 40 organic and inorganic chemicals, including persistent toxic substances, nonpersistent toxic substances, physical materials, microbiological and radiological contaminants. Examples of specific objectives include: Dieldrin, less than 0.001 micro g l-1 in water and less than 0.3 mg kg-1 in edible portions of fish; DDT and metabolites, less than 0.003 micro g l-1 in water and 1.0 mg kg-1 in fish ; PCB should not exceed 0.1 mg kg-1 in fish, while the mercury content of filtered water should be less than 0.2 micro g l-1 and 0.5 mg kg-1 in fish flesh.
  • Supplementary notes (Q, 37)
    Critical pollutants in the Great Lakes ecosystem include: PCB, 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD, mirex, 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF, hexachlorobenzene, benzo-a-pyrene, dieldrin, alkylated lead, DDT and metabolites, toxaphene, and mercury. The worst problems associated with contaminated sediments occurs in bays, harbor mouths and connecting channels. For example, the sediments in some of the drainage ditches emptying into Waukegan Harbor near Chicago contain as much as 500,000 mg/kg PCB. Heavy urban and industrial development and use of connecting channels as a transportation corridor have contributed to the degradation of the water quality of the St. Mary's River connecting Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.
    Past experience with persistent toxic chemicals such as PCB, DDT, mercury, dieldrin and mirex show that once they are introduced into an aquatic ecosystem, they are extremely difficult to remove, especially in sediments which become a source for their remobilization into the water column. Therefore, the emphasis of regulatory officials has been directed toward preventing their release and the development of effective and efficient responses to identified problems.
    Both the United States and Canada monitor atmospheric deposition for a range of organic chemicals and heavy metals of concern to the Great Lakes Ecosystem. An estimated 20% to 25% of the pollutants into the Great Lakes come from atmospheric fallout. The latest data relative to the total deposition of airborne trace metals and organics are attached. No effective countermeasures have been implemented to date.

Total deposition of airborne trace substances to Lake Superior [metric tons year-1](28).

Metal Total deposition
Zn 8,210
Pb 1,230
Cu 821
Cd 82
Ni 328
Fe 8,210
Al 14,000
Mn 1,640
Substance Total deposition
Total PCB 9.8
Total DDT .58
alfa-BHC 3.3
ganmma-BHC 15.9
Dieldrin .54
HCB 1.7
p,p'-methoxychlor 8.3
apfa-endosulfan 7.9
beta-endosulfan 8.0
Total PAH 163
Anthracene 4.8
Phenanthrene 4.8
Pyrene 8.3
Benzo (a) anthracene 4.1
Perylene 4.8
Benzo (a) pyrene 7.9
DBP 16
DEHP 16
Total organic carbon 200,000

Other hazards include the input of toxic inorganic and organic chemicals from municipal point sources, combined sewer overflows, rural and urban nonpoint sources and leachates from municipal and hazardous waste landfill disposal sites. Problems from these sources are most apparent in highly industrialized harbors and embayments and nearby areas. The IJC areas of concern include locales where environmental degradation and impairment of beneficial uses is severe and those where some environmental degradation is obvious and where uses may be impaired. The Lake Superior areas of concern are attached.


    Fig. NAM-04-15
    Areas of concern in Lake Superior.

I3 EUTROPHICATION

  • Nuisance caused by eutrophication (Q) Others:
    Not a significant problem except in urban areas, bays and river mouth.

I4 ACIDIFICATION

  • Extent of damage (Q):
    No information.
  • Kinds of damage (Q)
    Evidence of damage to Lake Superior from acidic deposition is not discernable at this time.
  • Supplementary notes (Q)
    Data relating the amount of airborne acid deposition and stream effect are highly variable depending on the total stream alkalinity. For very soft water streams in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (i.e., alkalinity less than 10mg l-1 as CaCO3), pH decreases of 1 to 2 units (from stream pH values of 7 or 8 to 6 or 7) have been observed in the headwaters area. To date, no studies have demonstrated detectable ecosystem trends which can be totally ascribed to acidification. The effects of increased acidic deposition, especially over terrestrial watershed with little alkaline character, may be more discernable.

Mean monthly value of pH (Washington Creek, Isle Royale National Park, 1967- 1980)(58).

Month
O F M M J J A S
7.28 7.47 7.41 7.20 7.33 7.57 7.38 7.19

Because of its size, Lake Superior possesses a large buffering capacity and apparently is able to neutralize the airborne acid deposition it receives. Consequently, Lake Superior doesn't appear to be directly affected. This is not true for many of the streams and tributaries and smaller lakes that surround and feed Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes.

top

J. WASTEWATER TREATMENTS

J1 GENERATION OF POLLUTANTS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA

c) Limited pollution with wastewater treatment. d) Measurable pollution with limited wastewater treatment. Situation differs locally.

J2 APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANT LOADS

  • Summary of total phosphorus loads (27) 1976
P [metric tons yr-1]
Sources Canada U.S. Total [%]
Direct municipal sewage treatment plants 29 39 68 [2]
Tributary municipal sewage treatment 38 162 200 [5]
Plants
Direct industrial 102 0 102 [2]
Tributary industrial 0 33 33 [ <1]
Urban nonpoint direct 16 16 [ <1]
Tributary diffuse 1,453 769 2,222 [53]
(Tributary total) (1,491) (964) (2,455)
Sub-total 1,638 1,003 2.641 [63]
Atmospheric - - 1,566 [37]
Load from upstream lake - - -
Total 4.207 [100]
Shoreline erosion(not included in total) 0 3,781 3,781

J3 SANITARY FACILITIES AND SEWERAGE (Q)

  • Municipal wastewater treatment systems (data for Michigan only)
    No. of tertiary treatment systems: 3.
    No. of secondary treatment systems: 38.
    No. of primary treatment systems: 9.
top

K. IMPROVEMENT WORKS IN THE LAKE (Q)

None.

top

L. DEVELOPMENT PLANS (Q)

On the southern shore of Lake Superior, some limited development planning has occurred with respect to increased recreational use (second homes, tourism) by the states' Sea Grant Programs and the Coastal Management Program of NOAA. The Coastal Management Program has been especially concerned since 1982 with high water levels.

top

M. LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES FOR UPGRADING LAKE ENVIRONMENTS (Q)

M1 NATIONAL AND LOCAL LAWS CONCERNED

  • Names of the laws (the year of legislation)
    1. Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1899 and 1909 (33 USC 401 et seq.)
    2. Flood Control Acts of 1917, 1936 and 1944
    3. Safe Drinking Water Act
    4. State legislation implementing and augmenting federal laws
    5. Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water) Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) and Amendments of 1977 and 1987 (33 USC 125 et seq.)
    6. Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 between United State and Canada
    7. 1972 and 1978 United States-Canada Agreements on Great Lakes Water Quality
    8. Canada Shipping Act (Section XX)
    9. Canada Navigable Water Protection Act
    10. Canada Waters Act
    11. Canada Environmental Contaminants Act
    12. Canada Fisheries Act (Section XXXIII)
    13. Canada Pesticide Registration Act
    14. Ontario Water Resources Act (1982)
    15. Ontario Environmental Protection Act (amended 1983)
    16. Ontario Pesticide Act (1974 as amended)
  • Responsible authorities
    1. Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army
    2. Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army
    3. State Agencies for Environment and Natural Resources
    4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    6. International Joint Commission
    7. International Joint Commission
    8. Canadian Ministry of Transport
    9. Canadian Ministry of Transport
    10. Environment Canada
    11. Environment Canada
    12. Environment Canada
    13. Environment Canada and Agriculture Canada
    14. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
    15. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
    16. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
  • Main items of control
    1. Discharges, dredging and filling
    2. Flood control
    3. Drinking water-including standards
    4. The entire range of water related problems
    5. Water pollution
    6. Quality of Great Lakes water relative to nutrients
    7. Quality of Great Lakes water relative to toxic chemicals
    8. All contaminants
    9. All contaminants l0) Nutrients
    10. Toxic organic and inorganic chemicals
    11. Substances injurious to fish
    12. Pesticides
    13. All contaminants
    14. All contaminants
    15. Pesticides, herbicides and slimicides
  • Supplementary notes
    Other U.S. laws which indirectly relate to preserving the water quality of the Great Lakes include the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts (RCRA), the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended 1987 (CERCLA or Superfund).

M2 INSTITUTIONAL MEASURES

  1. Great Lakes Fishery Commission (International) was established in 1960 to formulate, coordinate and implement fisheries research programs related to the Great Lakes; MI.
  2. International Joint Commission (International) was established in 1909 to investigate pollution in the boundary waters of the United States and Canada; Windsor, Ontario.
  3. United States Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1972 to protect the nation's atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic environments and enforce legislation enacted to protect them; Chicago, IL.
  4. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (U.S., Federal) is concerned with all aspects of water resources as they relate to present and future needs of navigation, flood control, power, water supply, irrigation, beach erosion, dredging and recreational activities; Chicago, IL.
  5. The United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (U.S., Federal) is concerned with maintaining viable and expanding fisheries in the Great Lakes. In this regard, it conducts a broad research program on parasite (lamprey) control, effects of exploitation on the Great Lakes Fishery and establishing the relationship between limnological conditions and the general biology of commercial fish species.
  6. The United States Public Health Service (U.S., Federal) is concerned with monitoring food and water supplies as they relate to human health. One of their primary functions is to develop and maintain an inventory of the sources and nature of pollutants entering each lake relative to the population and industry of the region; Washington, DC.
  7. U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S., Federal) is concerned with developing programs and research to minimize nonpoint pollution from agriculture (pesticides, nutrients, and erosion) as it relates to protecting the water quality of the Great Lakes.
  8. U.S. Department of Commerce (U.S., Federal) has Great Lakes research and monitoring programs administered under its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
  9. U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S., Federal) under its U.S. Geological Survey, sponsors research and education programs through the State Water Resources Institute program.
  10. Great Lakes Commission (an interstate Compact Commission) was established in 1955 by the eight states bordering the Great Lakes to provide communication, coordination and advocacy on Lakes issues. The Commission deals with environmental quality, resources management, transportation and economic development; Ann Arbor, MI.
  11. The State Departments of Natural Resources (U.S., State). Each state in the United States has a Department of Natural Resources or equivalent department which is responsible for monitoring the state's natural resources and enforcing legislation enacted to protect them.
  12. The State Departments of Public Health (U.S., State). Each state in the United States has a Department of Public Health or equivalent department, which is responsible for monitoring food and water supplies as they relate to human health.
  13. Environment Canada (Canada, Federal). Primary concerns are related to the protection of the atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic environments; Toronto, Ontario.
  14. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada, Federal). Primary function is to protect the water quality of freshwater and marine environments as fish habitats; Burlington, Ontario.
  15. Health and Welfare Canada (Canada, Federal). Primary function is to monitor food (fish) taken from the Great Lakes as it relates to human health; Ottawa, Ontario.
  16. Agriculture Canada (Canada, Federal) is responsible for developing programs and research to minimize nonpoint pollution from agriculture (pesticides, nutrients and erosion) as it relates to protecting the water quality of the Great Lakes; Ottawa, Ontario.
  17. Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Canada, Provincial). Primary function is to monitor food (fish) taken from the Great Lakes as it relates to human health; Toronto, Ontario.
  18. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Canada, Provincial) is responsible for monitoring the water quality of lakes, streams, groundwater and drinking water and to enforce abatement activities around industrial and municipal facilities; Toronto, Ontario.
  19. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Canada, Provincial). Primary function is to protect the environmental quality of forests and lakes as related to fisheries and wildlife habitat; Toronto, Ontario.

M3 RESEARCH INSTITUTES ENGAGED IN THE LAKE ENVIRONMENT STUDIES

  1. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Emphasis: monitoring and research.
  2. Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario; Emphasis: fish toxicity studies as related to Lake Superior.
  3. Great Lakes Institute, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada; Emphasis: Great Lakes monitoring and research.
  4. Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Emphasis: monitoring and research.
  5. University of Minnesota Limnological Research Centre, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota; Emphasis: monitoring and research.
  • Supplementary notes
    Private organizations concerned with the well-being of the Great Lakes.
    1. Centre for the Great Lakes, Chicago, IL
    2. Great Lakes Tomorrow, Toronto, Ontario
    3. Great Lakes United, Buffalo, NY
    4. Operation Clean Niagara, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
    5. Pollution Probe, Toronto, Ontario

N. SOURCES OF DATA

Questionnaire filled by Prof. F. M. D'Itri, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University based on the following sources.

  1. Hough, J. L. (1958) Geology of the Great Lakes. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
  2. Pincus, H. J. (1962) Great Lakes Basin. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D. C.
  3. Great Lakes Basin Commission Public Information Office (1974) Great Lakes Basin Framework Study. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  4. Great Lakes Fishery Commission (1980) Annual Report. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  5. Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (1978) Commercial Fish Production in the Great Lakes 1868-1977. Technical Report 3. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, National Climatic Data Centre. Department of Commerce. Ashville, North Carolina.
  7. Solar Energy Research Institute. Solar Energy Information Data Book, Insolation Data Manual. Golden, Colorado.
  8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data.
  9. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, International Joint Commission, United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office (1973) Great Lakes Water Quality Annual Report to the International Joint Commission. Windsor, Ontario.
  10. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office (1980) Great Lakes Water Quality, 7th Annual Report. Windsor, Ontario.
  11. International Joint Commission (1978) Inventory of Land Use and Land Use Practices, 1, Canadian Great Lakes Basin Summary.
  12. Great Lakes Research Division, Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan (1972) Phytoplankton and Physical-Chemical Conditions in Selected Rivers and the Coastal Zone of Lake Michigan, 1972. Publication No.19. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  13. Sommers, L. M. (1982) Fish in Lake Michigan. Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  14. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Limnological Condition in Southern Lake Huron, 1974 and 1975.
  15. Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering, Federal Council for Science and Technology, Argonne National Laboratory (1975) Proceedings of the Second Federal Conference on the Great Lakes.
  16. Weathesen, G. L. (1983) Ontario Mineral Score, 1982. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Video Census Series No.2.
  17. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office (1978) Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes system. Windsor, Ontario.
  18. International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board (1981) Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses, Annex F: Consumptive Water Uses.
  19. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Statistics Section (1982) Agricultural Statistics for Ontario, 1981.
  20. Ontario Ministry of Treasury and Economics. Ontario Statistics, 1982.
  21. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries Branch. Employment and Investment in the Commercial Fishery, 1982 and Commercial Fish Industry.
  22. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office (1980) Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin from Land Use Activities.
  23. Beeton, A. M. (1962) Light Penetration in the Great Lakes. Pub. No.9, Great Lakes Res. Div., Inst. Sci. and Tech., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 68-79.
  24. Conway, H. L., Parker, J. I. Yaguchi E. M. & Mellinger D. L. (1977) Biological utilization and regeneration of silicon in Lake Michigan. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 537-544.
  25. D'Itri, F.M. (1987) Contaminants in selected fishes from the Upper Great Lakes. Proceedings of World Conference on Large Lakes-Mackinac '86, W. W. Schmidtke, Editor, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI. In press.
  26. Frank, R., Thomas, R. L., Braun, H. E. Gross, D. L. & Davies, T. T. (1981) Organochlorine insecticides and PCB in surficial sediments of Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Research 7: 42 -50.
  27. IJC. (1978) Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System. International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG), Final Report, International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office, 100 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3, Canada.
  28. IJC. (1980) A Perspective on the Problem of Hazardous Substances in the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, Annual Report, International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office, 100 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3, Canada.
  29. IJC. (1985) Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Water Quality Board.
  30. Kinkead, J. D. & Chatterjee, R. M. (1974) A Limnological Survey of Nearshore Waters of Lake Superior. Proc. 17th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Int'l Assoc. Great Lakes Res., pp. 549-573.
  31. Schelske, G. L. (1977) Trophic status and nutrient loading for Lake Michigan. In: North American Project-A Study of U.S. Water Bodies: A Report for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Great Lakes Res. Div., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 499-536.
  32. Schelske, G. L. & Roth, O.C. (1973) Limnological survey of Lakes Michigan, Superior, Huron and Erie. Great Lakes Res. Div., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Pub. 17.
  33. Schelske, C. L. & Stoermer E. F. (1971) Eutrophication, sillica depletion and predicted changes in algal quality in Lake Michigan. Science 173: 423-424.
  34. Schelske, C. L. & Stoermer, E. F. (1972) Phosphorus, silica and eutrophication of Lake Michigan. In: G. E. Likens (Ed.), Nutrients and Eutrophication. Special Symposium Vol. 1, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS, pp. 157-171.
  35. Schelske, C. L., Stoermer, E. F. Gannon, J. E. & Simmons, M. S. (1976) Biological, chemical and physical relationships in the Straits of Mackinac. Ecol. Res. Series, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, Rep. No. EPA-600/3.76-095, 266 pp.
  36. Stoermer, E. F., Bowman, M. M. Kingston, J. C. & Schaedel, A. L. (1974) Phytoplankton composition and abundance during IFYGL. Great Lakes Res. Div., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Spec. Rep. No. 53, 373 pp.
  37. Villeneuve, D. C. (1986) Proceeding of Governor's Conference on Illinois' Great Lake-Lake Michigan. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, DOC No. RE-IS/86/03. Springfield, IL, pp. 23-25.
  38. Frank, R., Thomas, R. S., Braun, H. E., Raspher, J. & Dawson, R. (1980) Organochlorine insecticides and PCB in surficial sediments of Lake Superior (1973) J. Great Lakes Research, 6: 113-120.
top

TOP of the WLD

Search

INDEX

MAP

Contact us

Address:

1091 Oroshimo-cho Kusatsu-shi, Shiga 525-0001 Japan

Telephone:

+81-77-568-4567

Fax:

+81-77-568-4568

e-mail

info@ilec.or.jp