Northnmost part of the lake rom Front Mackinac

Photo: A. Kurata  


Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin, USA.
41:0'-46:8'N, 84:4'-87:4'W; 176.7 m above sea level.


Lake Michigan is the third largest of North America's Great Lakes, and is the only one entirely within the United States, while Canada shares sovereignty over the other four lakes. The lake is therefore the largest freshwater lake in the United States. It extends about 520 km from north to south, and measures about 100 km in its maximum width, with long stretches of scenic shoreline, beaches, bays and inlets. The lake water flows out to L. Huron through Mackinac Straights.
Since the middle of the last century, urbanization and industrialization have progressed rapidly along the lake's southern shore, which is now one of the most highly industrialized areas in the United States. The lake water along the southern coast has been seriously eutrophicated since the early 1970's. To counter this trend, a number of laws have been legislated and wastewater treatment plants constructed. The use of synthetic detergents containing phosphorus was thereby prohibited in the lake's watershed. The wastewater, that had once entered the lake, was diverted to the Mississippi River. As the result, the quality of the lake water is now recovering gradually.


    Surface area [km2] 58,016
    Volume [km3] 4,871
    Maximum depth [m] 281
    Mean depth [m] 84
    Water level Unregulated
    Normal range of annual water
    level fluctuation [m]* 0.3
    Length of shoreline [km] 2,656
    Residence time [yr] 99.1
    Catchment area [km2] 117,845
* During the period of recorded history (130 yrs) the lake level has fluctuated òÔ m.


D1 GEOGRAPHICAL (Q, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Bathymetric map: Fig. NAM-03-01. Names of main islands Beaver (200 km2), Washington (55 km2), North Manitou (48 km2), South Manitou (21 km2), Garden (17 km2), South Fox (14 km2), High (13 km2) and Hog (9 km2). Number of outflowing rivers and channels (name) 2 (Straits of Mackinac and Chicago Diversion).
D2 CLIMATIC (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) Climatic data at Muskegon, 1943-1980 Mean temp. [deg C]
    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann.
    -4.8 -4.4 0.2 7.2 13.2 18.4 21.1 20.4 16.3 10.6 3.9 -1.8 8.3
Precipitation [mm]
    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann.
    60 43 64 79 69 69 61 77 79 67 75 67 808
Number of hours of bright sunshine: 2,406 hr yr-1. Solar radiation: 35.30 MJ m-2 day-1.

    Fig. NAM-03-01
    Bathymetric map (Q).

Water temperature [deg C](Q) 1937-1969

    Depth[m] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    S* 0 0 1 3 5 10 16 21 17 12 7 4
    * Surface.

    Fig. NAM-03-02
    Seasonal change in water temperature (northern part), 1976 (Q).

Freezing period: December or January-middle March. Mixing type: Dimictic. Notes on water mixing and thermocline formation Thermocline generally develops during January-March and July-November. Supplementary notes 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 of ten occurs in middle winter. Thermal stratification of Lake Michigan begins in early to middle June. In the lower latitudes of Lake Michigan, the ice forms in December or January and lasts until middle March. In the northern latitudes, ice formation may begin about 30 days earlier. In either case, the lake never freezes shore to shore.

E. LAKE WATER QUALITY (Q, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)


    Fig. NAM-03-03
    Seasonal variation in Secchi depth [m] in 1976 (Bartone and Schleske, 1982).

Supplementary notes The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)(1984) found that secchi depth transparency ranged from 0.4 to 9.8 m with increasing transparency from south to north, excluding Green Bay. Northern locations generally averaged 2 to 4 times greater transparency than southern lake locations.
E2 pH: Fig. NAM-03-04.

    Fig. NAM-03-04
    pH profiles in the northern part, 1976 (Q).

E3 SS [mg l-1] 1976

    Depth[m]  Average
    1 1-9
    * 1-9 * 1 off the bottom.
Municipal loadings [kg day-1]
    Basin 1978 1981
    Indiana 39,491 19,335
    Michigan 36,490 20,522
    Wisconsin 46,662 21,354
E4 DO [mg l-1] Lake wide survey, 1964: 8.0-10.5.

    Fig. NAM-03-05
    Distribution of DO in surface water, 1964 (Beeton and Moffet, 1964).

E5 COD [mg l-1] Determined by K2CrO4 method. Illinois, 1969-1973: 6.5 (2-16). Indiana Harbor, 1969-1973: 9.1 (2-21). Milwaukee, 1969-1973: 8.2 (5-40).
E6 CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATION [micro g l-1] Inshore, 1970-1971: 1.1-10.3. Offshore, 1970-1971: 0.6-3.7. Mean of all stations, 1974-1975: 1.34.

    Fig. NAM-03-06
    Average concentration of organic nitrogen [micro g l-1](Robertson and Powers, 1968). Upper number: in the upper 20 m. Lower number: below a depth of 20 m.

E8 PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION PO4-P [micro g l-1] Open waters, 1964: 5-20.

    Fig. NAM-03-07
    Distribution of PO4-P [micro g l-1] in surface water (Beeton and Moffet, 1964).

E9 CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION [mg l-1] Inshore, 1962-1965: 7.1. Offshore, 1962-1965: 6.5. Southern end, 1962-1965: 8.0. Nearshore and Offshore, 1984: 8.3 (7.6-9.1).

    Fig. NAM-03-08
    Seasonal and spatial distribution of chloride. 1980 (Moll and Brahce, 1986). Means and standard errors are plotted.

E10 PAST TRENDS Loading of total dissolved solids to all of the Great Lakes, with the exception of Lake Superior. has increased significantly over the past 50 years. This has resulted in increased concentration of nutrients, chlorides, sulphates and numerous other ions and compounds in Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario.


F1 FLORA (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15) Emerged macrophytes Scirpus acutus, S. americanus, Sparganium sp., Phragmites sp., Eleocharis sp. Floating macrophytes: No dominant species. Submerged macrophytes Nitella flexilis, Chara globularis, Isoetes riparia. Phytoplankton Cyclotella comensis, C. comita, C. glomerata, Coelastrum reticulatum, Tabellaria fenestrata, Asterionella formosa.
F2 FAUNA (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15) Zooplankton Protozoa (Difflugia globulosa), Cladocera (Bosmina longispina, Daphnia retrocurva),Rotifera (Polyarthra vulgaris, Notholca longispira), Copepoda (Diaptomus ashlandi, Limnocalanus macrurus). Benthos Amphipoda (Pontoporeia affinis), Oligochaeta (Limnodrilus sp., Tubifex sp., Stylodrilus sp.) Mollusca (Pisidium sp.). Fish Alosa pseudoharengus, Cyprinus carpio, Oncorhynchus kisutch, O. tschawytscha, Perca flavescens, Osmerus sp., Salvelinus namaycush, Coregonus chupeaformis.
F3 PRIMARY PRODUCTION RATE (Q) Carbon-fixation rate [mg C m-3 day-1]: 2.40 òÂ0.82. Photosynthetic assimilation ratio [mg C hr-1 mg (Chl-a)-1]: 0.74.

    Fig. NAM-03-09
    Chlorophyll a [mg l-1], primary productivity [mg C l-1 hr-1], total phosphorus [mg PO4-P l-1] and Secchi disc transparency [m] in the Great Lakes (Schelske, 1974).

F4 BIOMASS: Fig. NAM-03-10 (Q).

    Fig. NAM-03-10
    Seasonal and spatial distribution of chlorophyll, 1980 (Mohr and Brahce, 1986). Means and standard errors are plotted.

F5 FISHERY PRODUCTS (Q) Annual fish catch [metric tons] 1980: 11,432.
F7 NOTES ON THE REMARKABLE CHANGES OF BIOTA IN THE LAKE IN RECENT YEARS The phytoplankton of Lake Michigan were originally dominated by oligotrophic diatoms. With increased nutrient loading to the lake, the more eutrophic species of diatoms became more prevalent. Recently, an additional shift has occurred from diatoms to phytoplankton assemblages with increasing proportions of both green and blue-green algae. These shifts are most evident in eutrophic areas of Green Bay and localized areas at the southern shore (16). Major upheaval has occurred during the past 40 years. By 1946, sea lamprey has invaded all the Great Lakes and decimated the native fish populations. The decline of native fish populations created conditions favorable for the explosive increase of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) which, in turn, greatly reduced the populations of yellow perch (Perca flavescens), cisco (Coregonus sp.) and lake herring (Coregonus artedii). Salmon species were introduced in 1964 and have effectively utilized the alewife as a food source. This has served to both reduce the alewife population and create a vital sport-fishing industry. The predominance of alewife also resulted in a shift toward smaller size zooplankton as the larger species were selectively harvested (Wells, L., 1969: U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Fish. Bull., 60: 343-369).


    Area [km2] [%]
    Natural landscape
    Woody vegetation 58,645 49.8
    Herbaceous vegetation 27,515 23.3
    Agricultural land 27,595 23.4
    Residential area 4,090 3.5
    Total 117,845 100.0
Supplementary notes The land use patterns within the Lake Michigan watershed are somewhat equally divided between nonagricultural areas such as forest, scrub, swamps and bogs in the upper peninsula of Michigan and agricultural areas supporting dairying, livestock, grain and fruit crops in the Wisconsin and Michigan lower peninsula watershed. A small (about 2%) portion of the watershed, especially in the Green Bay, Wisconsin and Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary-Michigan City strip along lower Lake Michigan, is heavily urbanized and industrialized. Main types of woody vegetation Aspen-birch forest, maple-beech forest, oak-hickory forest, spruce-fir forest, pine forest. Main types of herbaceous vegetation Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), along with farm crops such as maize, dry beans, sugar beets, barley, mixed grains, greenhouse and nursery products, hay, oats, potatoes, wheat, various fruits, flax seed. Main kinds of crops: Silage, hay, oats, fruits, vegetables, maize. Levels of fertilizer application on crop fields: Heavy-moderate. Trends of change in land use In the past several decades, there has been an increase in the number and size of urban centres in the lower quarter of the lake, and shoreline recreational use has increased everywhere.
    Gross product No.of No. of  Main products
    per year persons establish- or major
    [mill.$] engaged ments industries
    Primary industry
    Agriculture 2,869.42 118,350 110,215
    Fisheries N.A. N.A. N.A.
    Others N.A. N.A. N.A.
    Secondary industry
    Manufacturing 27,599.80 1,808,395 N.A.
    Mining 286.00 8,392 N.A.
    Others N.A. 3,436,022 N.A.
1) Grains, dairy products, forest products, vegetables, hay, silage. 2) Machinery, metal fabrication, primary metal industries, electrical machinery. 3) Sand, gravel, crushed stones, cement, petroleum. Numbers of domestic animals in the catchment area Cattle 328,100, sheep 38,000, swine 410,000, poultry 2,750,000.
    Population Major cities
    Population density [km-2] (population)
    Total 13,517,000 114.7 Chicago* (3,063,000),
    Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, Green Bay.
    * Not all the city area is included in the drainage basin.


H1 LAKE UTILIZATION Source of water, navigation, tourism, recreation (swimming, sport-fishing and yachting) and fisheries.
    Use rate [m3 sec-1]
    Domestic 77.4
    Irrigation 5.4
    Industrial 290.7
    Power plant 472.0
    Mining 6.5
    Livestock 2.0
    * U.S. only.


Il ENHANCED SILTATION Extent of damage: Not serious. Supplementary notes The siltation is only serious at its confluence (i.e., about 0.6 km) with rivers draining agricultural areas. Presently, the problem is not serious overall; however, it could become a serious problem if not controlled. As of 1987, Lake Michigan was at a record high level, leading to greatly increased shoreline erosion and temporary shoreline siltation.
I2 TOXIC CONTAMINATION Present status: Detected but not serious. Generalized distribution of contaminants in the lake sediments [ppb (dry wt.) basis]
    Names of Range Average
    DDT <10-40 < 12
    PCB <2-20 <10
    Dieldrin <0.1-1.0 < 0.25
    Hg <50-500 < -
    Pb <50,000, 100,000-150,000 -
Distribution of contaminants in the lake sediments [ppm (dry wt.) basis]
    Concentrations in sediments
    Parts of Lake Parameters*  X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7
    Whole Lake Mean 286 0.25 0.37 0.67 1.29 279 9.7
    SD 0.43 0.88 1.03 1.90 15.7
    Non-Depositional Mean 194 0.17 0.19 0.50 0.86 193 6.3
    Zones SD 0.38 0.55 0.83 1.50 8.1
    Depositional Mean 92 0.41 0.73 1.05 2.19 86 17.3
    Basins SD 0.49 1.26 1.29 2.29 23.9
    Algoma Basin Mean 40 0.36 0.53 0.56 1.45 37 10.1
    SD 0.36 0.93 0.62 1.33 10.6
    Fox Basin Mean 4 0.21 0.05 2.70 2.96 4 73.5
    SD 0.21 1.08 1.17 78.9
    Grand Haven Basin Mean 9 0.52 1.47 1.18 3.17 8 17.1
    SD 0.71 2.05 1.90 4.40 23.1
    Milwaukee Basin Mean 6 0.38 0.56 2.52 3.46 6 29.2
    SD 0.31 1.25 2.06 2.42 23.1
    Sarian Basin Mean 2 0.06 1.33 0.58 1.97 2 7.9
    SD 0.06 1.80 0.74 2.48 2.0
    Southern Basin Mean 19 0.36 1.04 0.92 2.32 17 17.1
    SD 0.47 1.61 1.17 2.64 11.1
    Traverse Basin Mean 2 0.46 0.28 0.05 0.79 2 2.5
    SD 0.26 0.32 0.58
    Waukegan Mean 10 0.77 0.66 1.95 3.38 10 19.5
    SD 0.80 0.72 1.18 1.69 13.2
    X1: Sample numbers. X2: Dieldrin. X3: Chlordane. X4: Heptachlor Epoxide. X5: Total Cyclodienes. X6: Sample numbers. X7: PCB. * For purposes of calculating the mean and SD, trace amounts of HEOD were assigned 0.1 ng g-1, Heptachlor Epoxide 0.3 ng g-1, Chlordane 0.5 ng g-1, and PCB 2.5 ng g-1, and for non-detectable levels 0.01 ng g-1 for HEOD, 0.05 ng g-1 for Heptachlor Epoxide and Chlordane, and 1.0 ng g-1 for PCB.
Past trends of decrease of contaminants in fish muscles [ppm (wet wt.) basis]: Fig. NAM-03-11, 12, 13 and 14.

    Fig. NAM-03-11
    Past trend of total DDT residues in Lake Michigan fish (D'Itri, 1987). Lake Trout: Salvelinus namaycush. Bloater Chub: Coregonus chupeaformis.

    Fig. NAM-03-12
    Past trend of total PCB residues in Lake Michigan fish (D'Itri, 1987).

    Fig. NAM-03-13
    Past trend of dieldrin residues in Lake Michigan fish (D'Itri, 1987).

    Fig. NAM-03-14
    Past trend of mercury residues in Lake Michigan fish (D'Itri, 1987). Yellow perch: Perca flavescens.

    Fig. NAM-03-15
    (25) PCB concentrations in surface sediments.

Environmental quality standards for contaminants in the lake 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, non-persistent toxic substances, physical materials, microbiological and radiological contaminants. Examples of specific objectives include: Dieldrin, less than 0.001 micro g-1 in water and less than 0.3 micro g-1 in edible portions of fish. DDT and metabolites, less than 0.003 micro g-1 in water and 1.0 micro g-1 in fish. PCB should not exceed 0.1 micro g-1 in fish while the mercury content of filtered water should be less than 0.2 micro g-1 and 0.5 micro g-1 in fish flesh. * IJC: International Joint Commission. Supplementary notes 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 micro g-1 PCB (Villeneue, 1986). 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. Food safety standards or tolerance limits for toxic contaminant residue 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 0.3 [mg kg-1] and mercury 1 [mg kg-1] (Federal limit) and 0.5 [mg kg-1] (State limit).

    Restrict consumption Do not eat
    Lake Michigan1 (applies to Lake Trout 20-23", Lake Trout over 23",
    Michigan, Illinois, Indiana Coho Salmon over 26", Chinook over 32",
    and Wisconsin waters) Chinook Salmon 21-32", Brown Trout over 23",
    and Brown Trout up to Carp and Catfish
    Green Bay*1 (Wisconsin Splake up to 16" Rainbow Trout over
    waters South of Marinette/ 22", Chinook over
    Menominee) 25", Brown Trout over
    12", Brook Trout over
    15", Splake over 16",
    Northern Pike over
    28", Walleye over
    20", White Bass and
    *1 Also applies to tributaries into which migratory species enter. *2 Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, and children age I and under should not eat the fish listed in any of the categories listed above.
I4 ACIDIFICATION Extent of damage No information. Evidence of damage to Lake Michigan from acidic deposition is not discernible at this time. Supplementary notes 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 10 mg/l as CaCO3), pH decreases of 1-2 units (from stream pH values of 7-8 to 6-7) 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 discernible. Because of its size, Lake Michigan possesses a large buffering capacity and apparently is able to neutralize the airborne acid deposition it receives. Consequently, Lake Michigan 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 Michigan and the other Great Lakes. 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. No effective countermeasures have been implemented to date. Total deposition of airborne trace metals to Lake Michigan [metric tons yr-1]
    Metal Total deposition
    Zn *
    Pb 1,730
    Cu 575
    Cd 58
    Ni 575
    Fe *
    Al 28,800
    Mn 1,150
    * Estimate not possible from available data.
Total deposition of airborne trace organic substances to Lake Michigan [metric tons yr-1]
    Substance Total deposition
    Total PCB 6.9
    Total DDT .40
    alfa BHC 2.3
    -BHC 11.2
    Dieldrin .38
    HCB 1.2
    p, p'-methoxychlor 5.9
    alfa endosulfan 5.6
    -endosulfan 5.6
    Total PAH 114
    Anthracene 3.4
    Phenanthrene 3.4
    Pyrene 5.9
    Benzo(a)anthracene 2.9
    Perylene 3.3
    Benzo(a)pyrene 5.6
    DBP 11
    DEHP 11
    Total organic carbon 1.4x1.0E+5
I5 OTHER HAZARDS Other hazards included 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.

    Fig. NAM-03-16
    Areas of concern in Lake Michigan. 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.


    c) Limited pollution with wastewater treatment. d) Measurable pollution with limited wastewater treatment. f) Others.
J2 APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANT LOADS Summary of total phosphorus loads to the Great Lakes 1976 (IJC, 1978)
    P [metric tons yr-1]
    Source Canada U.S. Total [%]
    Direct municipal sewage - 1,040 1,040 16
    treatment plants
    Tributary municipal sewage - 1.458 1,458 23
    treatment plants
    Direct industrial - 32 32 <1
    Tributary industrial - 247 247 4
    Urban nonpoint direct - * *
    Tributary diffuse - 1,891 1,891 30
    (Tributary total) - (3,596) (3,596)
    Sub-total - 4,668 4,668 74
    Atmospheric - - 1,682 26
    Load from upstream lake - - -
    Total 6,350 100
    Shoreline erosion - 3,711 3.711
    (not included in total)
J3 SANITARY FACILITIES AND SEWERAGE* Percentage of municipal population in the catchment area provided with adequate sanitary facilities (on-site treatment systems) and public sewerage: 71%. Municipal wastewater treatment systems No. of tertiary treatment systems: 7. No. of secondary treatment systems: 66. No. of primary treatment systems: 2. * Data for Michigan only.


K1 RESTORATION Green Bay Nutrient Mass Balance Study as basis for remedial action plan. St. Louis River-IJC area of concern for remedial action plan.


Generally, 3 areas of development planning have been or are significant: 1) the planning that has occurred for the conversion of most of the small commercial port facilities to recreational facilities beginning about 1980, 2) the county by county planning for recreational second home development along and near the lake front beginning about 1960, and 3) the recent planning that has occurred with the high water levels (1987). The urban areas are at risk and will be fortifying their water fronts. The state's Sea Grant Programs and the Coastal Management Program of NOAA have had primary responsibility.


Names of the laws (the year of legislation)
  1. Rivers and Harbors Acts (1899 and 1909)
  2. Flood Control Acts (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 (1972, amendments 1977 and 1987) Responsible authorities
  6. Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army
  7. Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army
  8. State Agencies for Environment and Natural Resources
  9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Main items of control
  11. Discharges, dredging and filling
  12. Flood control
  13. Drinking water-including standards
  14. The entire range of water related problems
  15. Water pollution 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).
  1. Great Lakes Fishery Commission (International); established in 1960 to formulate, coordinate and implement fisheries research programs related to the Great Lakes; Ann Arbor, MI.
  2. International Joint Commission (International); established in 1909 to investigate pollution in the boundary waters of the United States and Canada; Windsor, Ontario.
  3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; established in 1972 to protect the nation's atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic environments and enforce legislation enacted to protect them; Chicago, IL.
  4. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S., Federal); 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 U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (Federal); 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 U.S. Public Health Service (Federal); 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 resources and nature of pollutants entering each lake relative to the population and industry of the region; Washington, DC.
  7. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Federal); 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 (Federal); Great Lakes research and monitoring programs administered under its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
  9. U.S. Department of the Interior (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); 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 (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 (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.
  1. Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan
  2. University of Minnesota Limnological Research Centre, University of Minnesota Supplementary notes Private organizations concerned with the well-being of the Great Lakes.
  3. Centre for the Great Lakes, Chicago, IL
  4. Great Lakes Tomorrow, Toronto, Ontario
  5. Great Lakes United, Buffalo, NY
  6. Operation Clean Niagara, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
  7. Pollution Probe, Toronto, Ontario


  1. Questionnaire filled by Prof. F. M. D'Itri, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University based on the following sources.
  2. Hough, J. L. (1958) Geology of the Great Lakes. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
  3. Pincus, H. J. (1962) Great Lakes Basin. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D. C.
  4. Great Lakes Basin Commission Public Information Office (1974) Great Lakes Basin Frame. work Study. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  5. Great Lakes Fishery Commission (1980) Annual Report. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  6. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Commercial Fish Production in the Great Lakes, 1867-1977, Technical Report 3. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, National Climatic Data Centre. Department of Commerce, Asheville, North Carolina.
  8. Solar Energy Research Institute. Solar Energy Information Data Book, Insolation Data Manual. Golden, Colorado.
  9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. Local Climatological Data.
  10. 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.
  11. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office (1980) Great Lakes Water Quality, 7th Annual Report. Windsor, Ontario.
  12. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Limnological Conditions in Southern Lake Huron, 1974 and 1975. Publication No. EPA-600/3-80-074. Duluth, Minnesota.
  13. Great Lakes Research Division, Institute of Science and Technology, University of Michigan (1973) Limnological Survey of Lakes Michigan, Superior, Huron and Erie. Publication No. 17. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  14. 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. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  15. Sommers, G. L. (1982) Fish in Lake Michigan. Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  16. 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.
  17. Schelske, C. L., Feldt, L. E. & Simmons, M. S. (1980) Phytoplankton and Physical. Chemical Conditions in Selected Rivers and the Coastal Zone of Lake Michigan, 1972. Great Lakes Res. Div. Publ. 19.
  18. Weathesen, G. L. (1983) Ontario Mineral Score, 1982. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Video Census Series No. 2.
  19. International Joint Commission, United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office (1978) Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System. Windsor, Ontario.
  20. International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses Study Board (1981) Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses, Annex F: Consumptive Water Uses.
  21. International Joint Commission (1978) Inventory of Land Use and Land Use Practices. 1, Canadian Great Lakes Basin Summary.
  22. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Statistics Section (1982) Agricultural Statistics for Ontario, 1981.
  23. Ontario Ministry of Treasury and Economics. Ontario Statistics, 1982.
  24. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries Branch. Employment and Investment in the Commercial Fishery, 1982 and Commercial Fish Industry.
  25. Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin from Land Use Activities, 1980. International Joint Commission; United States and Canada Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
  26. Allan, R. J. (1986) The Role of Particulate Matter in the Fate of Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems. Inland Waters Directorate, National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters. Scientific Series No. 142, p. 60.