Great Lakes Echo (http://greatlakesecho.org/tag/Water-quality/page/19/)
This tag is further segmented with tags for pharmaceuticals, plastics, sewage, algae
Michigan trout preserves, Wisconsin shipwreck sites, Ohio wildlife areas, Indiana dunes, Minnesota fish sanctuaries are part of the Great Lakes listings in a national inventory of marine protected areas.
Now you can get real time reports of water temperature, flows, levels and quality of rivers, lakes and groundwater.
The United States Geological Survey is providing that information by combining mapping and Internet technology.
To contribute to the discussion about the ship-source pollution section of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, post your thoughts below. If you want the U.S. and Canadian governments to consider your input, send it to the official website. Requirements for the Parties under the current GLWQA related to ship-source and shipping-related discharges and emissions are specified in separate Annexes:
Annex 4 — Requirements for Oil and Hazardous substances discharges
Annex 5 — Garbage, Sewage and Cargo Residues
Annex 6 — The potential for discharge of Aquatic Invasive Species from ballast water is mentioned, as well as the requirement to review and report on pollution from shipping sources, consult with the IJC, and study any potential pollution problem from ships identified by the Parties
Annex 8 — sets out requirements for Onshore and Offshore Oil Handling Facilities but specifically exclude vessels
Annex 9 — sets out requirement for a joint contingency plan in response to oil spills
1. Ship Air Emissions
The current GLWQA deals with the following ship-source discharges that could have negative effects upon the water quality of the Great Lakes: Annex 4 for Oil and Hazardous Pollution Substances; Annex 5 for Sewage and Garbage (Ship Generated Garbage and Cargo Residues); and Annex 6 for Invasive species in Ballast Water. Both Canada and the United States have compatible regulations for the discharges that are identified in the current GLWQA that are based on International Conventions.
To contribute to the discussion about the climate change section of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, post your thoughts below. If you want the U.S. and Canadian governments to consider your input, send it to the official website. Currently, the GLWQA does not address the impacts of climate change. During the GLWQA Review period, there was general agreement that the GLWQA should be revised to specifically address pressing threats to the Great Lakes, including the impacts of climate change. Recommendations included the need to understand and predict future climate changes in the Great Lakes system, including an assessment of potential impacts and vulnerabilities.
To contribute to the discussion about the toxic substances section of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, post your thoughts below. If you want the U.S. and Canadian governments to consider your input, send it to the official website. Both Canada and the United States recognize that improperly managed chemicals pose unacceptable risks to health and the environment in their jurisdictions. Both countries are committed to managing chemicals effectively and to reducing risks from chemicals to acceptable levels. While certain persistent toxic substances (PTS) have been significantly reduced in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem over the past 30 years, they continue to be present at levels above those considered safe for humans and wildlife, warranting fish consumption advisories in all five lakes and connecting channels.
To contribute to the discussion about the nutrients section of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, post your thoughts below. If you want the U.S. and Canadian governments to consider your input, send it to the official website. In Lake Erie, the re-occurrence of wide spread algae blooms has been observed in recent years. In Lakes Michigan, Huron and Ontario the algae problem is limited to the nearshore zones. Algae are not generally a problem in Lake Superior.
Great Lakes environmental junkies know the big names credited with major policy decisions that affect the basin. But who are the people behind the names that keep the Great Lakes gears grinding?
We enlisted the help of some of our sources to highlight “Five Great Lakes Policy Players You Don’t Know.”
More than a decade ago, Maplewood, Minn., officials began creating rain gardens whenever they rebuilt streets.
The shallow basins collect rainwater that washes pollutants into lakes and streams.
(WI) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – Pumping Waukesha’s treated wastewater to Underwood Creek in Wauwatosa would not degrade the stream or spur algae growth, according to a study released Wednesday. With the finding, Waukesha officials say, the city clears a hurdle in its long-running quest to tap Lake Michigan water to replace the city’s radium-tainted groundwater. Using Underwood Creek would allow the city to satisfy a requirement in a Great Lakes protection compact that the city return nearly all diverted water back to the lake. More
(ON) The Hamilton Spectator – A new $4.6-million, state-of-the-art research facility at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters will be used to try to better understand the environmental consequences of everyday chemicals and contaminants. Scientists at the Aquatic Life Research Facility, which opened yesterday, will look at the downstream implications of consumer products such as dyes and cosmetics on fish and aquatic life. More