NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

The latest news and information about NOAA research in and around the Great Lakes


Leave a comment

NOAA GLERL Director Deborah Lee Accepts 2022 ASCE President’s Medal

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently awarded NOAA GLERL Director Deborah Lee the 2022 ASCE President’s Medal for “her leadership of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute to provide for the technical, educational, and professional needs of its members, and to serve the public in the use, conservation, and protection of natural resources, and enhancement of human well-being.” Lee personally accepted the award at the ASCE Annual Business meeting in Anaheim, CA.

Left: Deborah Lee shakes hands with ASCE past president Dennis D. Truax.
Right: Lee stands with Dennis D. Truax and Thomas W. Smith while holding her award.

Deborah Lee accepts her award at the ASCE Annual Business meeting in October, 2022. Photo credit: Jason Dixson Photography

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) represents more than 150,000 members of the civil engineering profession in 177 countries. Founded in 1852, ASCE is the nation’s oldest engineering society. Lee served as the 2021 President of the ASCE’s Environmental & Water Resources Institute (EWRI), a technical source for environmental and water-related issues. During her time as EWRI President, Lee oversaw a number of initiatives related to sustainable water resources management, including career development, overseeing a number of technical and member services councils, and environmental issues. 

Congratulations, Director Lee!


Leave a comment

Lessons from Lake Huron: A look back at NOAA GLERL’s 2022 fieldwork for the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative

Every summer, NOAA GLERL scientists travel far and wide across the Great Lakes region to study the biological, chemical, and physical properties of these amazing lakes. A portion of this fieldwork contributes to a larger project called the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative – or CSMI – which helps us take a deeper dive into studying a different Great Lake each year. Instituted under the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, CSMI is a multi-agency, international effort to coordinate science and monitoring activities in one of the five Great Lakes each year to generate data and information for environmental management agencies.

MODIS satellite image of Lake Huron on May 18, 2021. Credit: NOAA Great Lakes CoastWatch Node.

Each Great Lake gets a “CSMI year” once every five years, and 2022 was Lake Huron’s turn to shine. Sitting right at the center of the Great Lakes region, Lake Huron is shared by the state of Michigan and the Canadian province of Ontario. It’s the second largest of the Great Lakes and ranks as the fourth largest lake in the world by surface area. Lake Huron provides economically and culturally important services, including a productive fishery, a source of clean drinking water, and natural beauty that supports a significant tourism industry. It’s also home to Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the first ever NOAA National Marine Sanctuary to be established in the Great Lakes.

GLERL’s fieldwork for this year’s Lake Huron CSMI efforts focused on benthic and spatial surveys in Thunder Bay and Saginaw Bay. Here’s a look back at some of the highlights!

GLERL scientists Ashley Elgin and Rachel Orzechowski rinse down sediments collected by a Ponar grab.

NOAA GLERL has been conducting benthic (lake bottom) research in the Great Lakes since 1980, during which time we have built an unparalleled record of the arrival and expansion of invasive zebra and quagga mussels. CSMI provides the perfect opportunity to expand on this knowledge. Surveying the lake bottom allows us to track the population dynamics of these mussels, follow their impacts on native species, and also monitor for any new invasive benthic species. 
GLERL scientist Paul Glyshaw collects Ponar samples onboard the Fisheries and Oceans Canada/Canadian Coast Guard vessel Limnos for mussel length-weight analysis.

In June, July, and August of this year, GLERL conducted surveys that will allow us to update the status of invasive dreissenid mussels and other benthos of Lake Huron. As an exciting bonus, our benthic surveys in Saginaw Bay and Thunder Bay even received dive support from Thunder Bay NMS to supplement the samples collected with Ponar grabs.

Thunder Bay NMS divers Stephanie Gandulla and John Bright support GLERL’s benthic survey on board the R/V 5503.
The large metal claw used for a Ponar grab is no match for a mussel-covered rock like this, which is why we need NOAA’s Thunder Bay NMS Divers to support the benthic survey.

In the truly collaborative fashion that CSMI is known for, GLERL scientists maximized time on these cruises by collecting samples for several federal and university collaborators in addition to conducting our mussel survey.  For example, mussels and sediments went to the U.S. Geological Survey for mercury analysis, and researchers from the University of Michigan will be looking for mussel environmental DNA in water samples.

This sediment sample from Saginaw Bay has many benthic inverts present, including dreissenid mussels, chironomids, water mites, amphipods, and a snail. 
Paul Glyshaw collects and filters Lake Huron water onboard the Fisheries and Oceans Canada/Canadian Coast Guard vessel Limnos to measure carbon content. This helps us address potential impacts of climate change on the lake, including acidification, changes to production, and altered biogeochemical processes.

Plus, GLERL also teamed up with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and the Canadian Coast Guard in a whole lake-benthic survey, during which GLERL assessed mussel body condition, mussel reproduction, inorganic carbon measures, and collected water for eDNA across the lake. In true CSMI spirit, DFO stepped up and supported the benthic survey when the EPA R/V Lake Guardian became unavailable. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada/Canadian Coast Guard vessel Limnos pulls into Port Huron for the Lake Huron Benthic survey.

In addition to surveying what’s happening on the lake floor, GLERL also conducted an intensive spatial survey through CSMI to study Lake Huron’s food web in the area between Thunder Bay and Saginaw Bay. With a special focus on studying the interactions between larval fish and plankton, one of the key instruments used was GLERL’s Plankton Survey System (PSS). This high-tech piece of equipment is a towed multi-sensor platform capable of measuring turbidity, chlorophyll a, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), conductivity, temperature, and zooplankton spatial distributions.

GLERL scientists use the PSS on Lake Michigan in the mid 2000s.

The plots below show a nearshore to offshore view of Lake Huron’s biological data measured by the PSS, like water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and chlorophyll, and plankton distribution. Check out more PSS plots from this spatial survey here.

While the PSS instrument was collecting data below the waves, lots of mayflies were catching a ride on this research cruise!

Now that the fieldwork is complete, the next step for GLERL’s CSMI work is to process our samples and analyze our data to continue building our knowledge of Lake Huron. Stay tuned in 2023, when CSMI heads east to study Lake Ontario!

For more CSMI information, data, and findings, visit greatlakescsmi.org. Plus, check out this related CSMI project in which GLERL and CIGLR developed an Experimental Biophysical Modeling Forecast System for Lakes Michigan and Huron.


Leave a comment

New under-ice observing capabilities could lead to new discoveries in the Great Lakes

During the dog days of summer here in the Great Lakes, scientists at NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) are already thinking about the ice that will form on the lakes this winter.

This year, NOAA GLERL and a team of federal, university, and industry partners are conducting test deployments of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) in Lake Michigan, with the ultimate goal of using it under lake ice during winter to collect ecological and water quality data. Observations of winter ecology are difficult to obtain compared to observations in the ice-free season, when most fieldwork takes place – which makes this hunt for winter data especially important. 

In the world of Great Lakes research, the start of winter traditionally signals the end of fieldwork for the year. Buoys come out of the water, and research vessels – which aren’t designed for use in ice-covered waters – are docked for the season. Scientists get to work analyzing new data from the previous field season and tuning up field equipment for a fresh start in the spring. This break leads to a several-month gap in most of GLERL’s field data, but this project aims to fill that gap using the high-tech SAAB Sabertooth AUV. 

Video by Great Lakes Outreach Media.

One underwater robot, many important jobs

One of the AUV’s main tasks will be to collect water quality data, benthic (lake bottom) data, and fish and zooplankton observations. These observations will be collected using an acoustic imaging system, and will contribute to our understanding of important wintertime ecological processes in the Great Lakes. While summer is widely considered to be the peak time of year for biological productivity, biological processes still occur during the winter and are understudied in the Great Lakes. NOAA GLERL’s winter observations may even lead to unexpected discoveries, as new GLERL data suggest that some Great Lakes biological processes may actually accelerate during the winter months. Ice cover is seen as a key variable in the regulation of biological processes in the lakes during winter. Enhancing our understanding of these processes is particularly important as climate change may have implications for the extent, thickness, and duration of seasonal ice cover. 

The Saab Sabertooth is an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) that NOAA GLERL will operate under ice during winter in the Great Lakes.

The AUV also will characterize winter distributions of prey fish using a multi-frequency echosounder. Spawning in prey fish species like bloater also take place during winter, in turn affecting predator stocks (like lake trout) that help underpin a 7 billion-dollar annual Great Lakes fishery. Additionally, the AUV will contribute valuable data on the distribution of invasive mussels to NOAA GLERL’s 25-year ecological monitoring program. The AUV will map the locations of invasive mussel reefs on the lake floor using sonar technology and high-resolution imagery.

World-class technology in the Great Lakes

The SAAB Sabertooth AUV is no average piece of fieldwork equipment; it’s among the most advanced and complex underwater vehicles in the world. Navigation is one of the biggest challenges AUVs face, since GPS signals are unavailable underwater. This AUV contains an Inertial Navigation System, which keeps track of the vehicle’s movements with extreme precision. Based on its known deployment location, the vehicle uses this navigation system to calculate its exact location throughout its mission with minimal error. When within range, acoustic beacons anchored nearby in the lake are also used to confirm the AUV’s location.

In addition to the AUV itself, this effort also includes the development of a fully integrated docking station that allows the vehicle to recharge its battery and transfer the data it’s collected during its winter excursion. The vehicle’s ability to safely dock, charge its battery, and transmit data to scientists is a critical component in its ability to function under ice without human help.

Preparing this AUV for deployment is no small task. Requiring multiple computers and a whole team of people, the initial calibration of the vehicle takes at least a full day.

The large size of the AUV provides ample space, flotation, and electrical resources for simultaneously carrying a large suite of sensors that make multitasking a breeze for this high-tech vehicle. The various sensors work together to ensure the vehicle stays upright, avoids collisions with boats, and doesn’t accidentally hit the bottom of the lake. Plus, robust propellers allow the AUV to make precise turns and hover at a fixed depth, making it much easier to maneuver than its torpedo-shaped cousins.

When it’s not in the Great Lakes helping NOAA with environmental research, this vehicle can usually be found performing tunnel inspections at hydroelectric power facilities around the world – including locations like California, South Korea, and Turkey. The AUV’s ability to navigate through these tunnels allows them to be inspected without being drained, saving considerable time and money. Just as it navigates through these enclosed tunnels, this impressive underwater robot will soon be navigating its way under Great Lakes ice cover.

NOAA GLERL’s partners on this project include Hibbard Inshore, the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research (CIGLR), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).


Leave a comment

Forecasting maximum Great Lakes ice cover in 2022

The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) has posted its annual experimental Great Lakes maximum ice cover projection for the winter of 2021-2022. The most recent experimental forecast, updated on January 13th, predicts a maximum Great Lakes ice cover of 48.7% – slightly lower than the average annual maximum ice cover (AMIC) of 54.5% since 1973.

View looking out onto open water of lake Huron with ice chunks swirling in the lake. A wooden dock is seen in the foreground and the shoreline with trees and houses is in the distance.
Icy Lake Huron shoreline in Tawas City, MI in January, 2022. Photo credit: Angela Predhomme

Every year at the start of winter, GLERL’s ice climatologist Dr. Jia Wang uses a statistical regression model based on global teleconnections (air circulation patterns) to create GLERL’s seasonal ice forecast.

Each lake gets its own prediction.

In addition to forecasting maximum ice cover for the entire Great Lakes basin, GLERL’s experimental ice forecast also predicts ice cover lake-by-lake. The predicted maximum seasonal ice cover for each lake is as follows:

  • Lake Superior = 52.3% (long-term average AMIC is 62.3%)
  • Lake Michigan = 37.9% (long-term average AMIC is 41.4%)
  • Lake Huron = 51.1% (long-term average AMIC is 65.0%)
  • Lake Erie = 70.7% (long-term average AMIC is 81.9%)
  • Lake Ontario = 12.9% (long-term average AMIC is 31.4%)

Although ice cover is only around 15% right now, there’s still plenty of winter left for further freezing. Historically, much of the major freezing of the Great Lakes happens in February.

Color-coded map of the Great Lakes showing water temperature in blue colors and ice cover in gray and black colors. The map shows prominent ice cover in several large bays across the lakes.
Great Lakes ice cover as of January 18, 2022

What do global air patterns have to do with Great Lakes ice?

Our research has shown that the interannual variability of Great Lakes ice cover is heavily influenced by four large-scale climate patterns referred to as teleconnections: the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). These projected teleconnection pattern indices are produced by other agencies such as NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. These teleconnection patterns impact Great Lakes regional climate and ice cover by influencing the location of the westerly jet stream over North America. The position of the jet stream largely dictates the origin of the air masses (e.g. North Pacific or the Arctic) that will reach the Great Lakes region as weather systems move across the continent. The temperature and moisture content of these air masses play a key role in determining ice cover.

2022 ice forecast compared to previous years

Graph showing Great Lakes annual maximum ice coverage from 1973 to 2021, with a teal circle representing each year. An outline of a teal circle represents the 2022 prediction of 48.7% ice cover.

According to Wang, if the cycles of annual variability are removed, a decadal trend becomes visible, showing that overall ice cover has gone down by five percent max ice cover per decade based on 1973-2020 data. The 2022 maximum ice cover prediction of 48.7% is about 5.8% lower than the long-term average of 54.5%. 

On average, the Great Lakes annual maximum ice cover is decreasing by about a half percent per year, or 5% per decade. Below is a table of the percentage decrease for each lake. With the exception of Lake Huron, these trends are all considered statistically significant, meaning we are 95% certain that the trend is not due to random chance.

This chart shows the percent decrease per year and per decade of annual maximum Great Lakes ice cover.
This chart shows the percent decrease per year and per decade of annual maximum Great Lakes ice cover.

NOAA GLERL continues to refine this experimental ice forecast model and conduct further research to continually improve it. Learn more about our Great Lakes ice research, current conditions, forecasting and more on our Ice Cover homepage.


Leave a comment

NOAA Wave Glider Camaro Gathers Key Data During 25-Day Cruise in Lake Superior


The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and Michigan Technological University (MTU) Great Lakes Research Center recently teamed up on the deployment of a wave glider in Lake Superior. The chemical and biological data collected will help researchers understand more about the Lake Superior foodweb and also be used to validate satellite information.

Autonomous wave glider that was recently deployed into Lake Superior by the MTU Great Lakes Research Center. Credit: Sarah Atkinson/Michigan Tech

Information gathered by autonomous vehicles, such as the wave glider, helps fine-tune satellite algorithms (instructions that tell a satellite how to interpret what it’s seeing). Satellites are a great tool for observing the lakes, as they provide a broader view than that from the ground. Researchers create Great Lakes-specific algorithms because those used in the ocean often do not work well in the lakes. The data collected by the wave glider will help validate the algorithms and allow researchers to understand more about the lakes, such as primary productivity (See MTU’s blog post for more.)

A team of researchers from MTU deployed the wave glider on August 30, 2021 and it spent 25 days surveying the lake and collecting data. The plan is to make the data public through the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) so that information can be used in many ways including model development.

Path of the wave glider deployed on August 30th, 2021 and recovered on September 22, 2021 off the eastern coast of the Keweenaw Peninsula, near Bete Grise.

“It is a privilege for the Great Lakes Research Center to collaborate with NOAA GLERL on the wave glider experiment in Lake Superior, a first of its kind,” said Andrew Barnard, director of Michigan Tech’s Great Lakes Research Center. “This project continues to build a strong partnership between our organizations to push the boundaries of autonomy and sensing technologies. These new technologies in the Great Lakes support a better understanding of the physical processes in the lakes and will directly result in improved management insight for policy makers.”

Steve Ruberg of NOAA GLERL is thrilled with the MTU partnership as it expands our ability to collect data throughout the lakes. “Uncrewed vehicles give us the persistent large spatial observational capability to get in situ observations that will allow us to validate Great Lakes remote sensing.”

Left to right: Michigan Tech R/V Agassiz Jamey Anderson, assistant director of marine operations, Michigan Tech Great Lakes Research Center; Tim Havens, incoming director of the Great Lakes Research Center (January 2022) and John Lenters, associate research scientist at the Great Lakes Research Center ready the wave glider for deployment. Credit: Sarah Atkinson/Michigan Tech

This research project is a part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI). Federal and state agencies, tribal groups, non-governmental organizations and academic researchers from the United States and Canada team up yearly to assess conditions in one of the five Great Lakes. The survey focuses on a series of research areas that are tailored to the unique challenges and data needs associated with each lake.


Leave a comment

From safe drinking water to sustainable fisheries, NOAA GLERL’s Experimental Lake Erie Hypoxia Forecast is even more useful than anticipated

Four years ago, NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research (CIGLR) began providing an Experimental Lake Erie Hypoxia Forecast Model to warn stakeholders of low-oxygen upwelling events that can cause water quality problems for over 2 million residents of northern Ohio. Now in its fifth year, this forecast model has turned out to serve additional purposes that NOAA’s scientists hadn’t even considered – including maintaining sustainable fisheries and solving a smelly mystery!

Water intake crib off the coast of Lake Erie in Cleveland, Ohio. By forecasting potential hypoxic upwelling events that could impact water quality, NOAA GLERL’s Experimental Hypoxia Forecast Model helps drinking water plant managers be prepared to adjust their treatment processes as needed.

Providing critical warnings to keep drinking water safe

Hypoxia – a state of low oxygen – occurs in the deep waters of Lake Erie’s central basin in July through September of most years. Low-oxygen water is an unfavorable habitat for fish, and may kill bottom-dwelling organisms that provide food for fish. While the hypoxic water generally stays near the lake floor, changes in wind and water currents can create upwelling events, in which this zone of low oxygen is brought to the surface along the coast.

Once it creeps into shallower parts of the lake, hypoxic water can upset drinking water treatment processes at water intakes along the shoreline. Hypoxic upwelling events cause rapid changes in water quality variables such as temperature, pH, dissolved organic matter, iron, and manganese. To maintain the quality of treated water, plant managers must adjust treatment in response to these changes. NOAA GLERL’s Experimental Hypoxia Forecast Model provides several days of advance notice that water quality is changing, so that drinking water plant managers can be prepared to adjust their treatment processes as needed.

This infographic from NOAA GLERL describes how hypoxia occurs in large bodies of water like the Great Lakes.

Plot twist: Benefiting more than just our water supply

NOAA GLERL’s Experimental Lake Erie Hypoxia Forecast has proven to be incredibly successful in its original goal – but our scientists were surprised to learn that its usefulness didn’t stop there. Recent stakeholder interviews conducted by CIGLR Stakeholder Engagement Specialist Devin Gill revealed that, in addition to helping manage the drinking water treatment process, the forecast has also become an unexpectedly vital tool for managing Lake Erie’s fisheries. 

One agency that makes use of the experimental hypoxia forecast is the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Ohio DNR is responsible for generating population estimates for Lake Erie’s yellow perch and walleye – estimates that ultimately help determine official catch limits to maintain the lake’s sustainable fisheries. 

“Large aggregations of fish may seek refuge at the edges of the hypoxic zone,” says Ann Marie Gorman, a fisheries biologist with the Ohio DNR’s Fairport Harbor Fisheries Research Station. “Our office tracks the location of the lake’s cold bottom water using the NOAA GLERL Hypoxia Forecast Model, and we may modify the timing of some of our surveys to minimize the potential impact of hypoxia on the results. Overall, the NOAA GLERL Hypoxia Forecast Model has become an integral tool for our survey planning.”

Understanding fish behaviors in response to hypoxia is important to conducting accurate population surveys of Lake Erie’s fish species. The ability of NOAA GLERL’s hypoxia forecast to warn fisheries managers of potential survey bias from these hypoxic events helps to save time, money, and energy that may have otherwise been used to conduct unsuccessful trawling surveys in hypoxic zones.

NOAA GLERL’s Experimental Hypoxia Forecast Model helps to guide the planning of trawling surveys like this one conducted by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Consulting the forecast helps the Ohio DNR to minimize the potential impact of hypoxia on survey results, which are used to set catch limits that keep Lake Erie’s fisheries sustainable. Photo credit: Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Richard Kraus, a supervisory research fish biologist with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Great Lakes Science Center Field Station in Ohio, also uses the experimental hypoxia forecast for his work with Lake Erie’s fisheries. Kraus explains that in Lake Erie, several cold-water fish species rely on finding refuge in colder, deeper waters of the lake – waters that are not impacted by warmer summer air temperatures. However, the presence of hypoxic zones in these deeper waters can impact how much refuge is available for these fish. As hypoxia reduces refuge habitats for cold-water species, chronic effects on growth and reproduction may develop, and in severe circumstances fish kills sometimes occur. The NOAA GLERL Hypoxia Forecast Model is instrumental in predicting where these potential ecosystem impacts could occur, in turn helping fisheries managers determine sustainable catch limits for each fish species in question.

The experimental forecast was also found to be useful to commercial and recreational fishers, who use the forecast to gauge the distribution of yellow perch in relation to hypoxic zones. Fishers can utilize the forecast on a daily basis to determine where to launch their boats, and where to search for aggregations of fish, depending on the hypoxia forecast for that day.

Plus, it’s not just routine fisheries management and recreation that the Experimental Hypoxia Forecast helps improve. In early September, it helped solve the mystery of a strange, foul smell coming from Lake Erie near Cleveland, Ohio, and fish kills associated with it. These phenomena resulted in many public inquiries regarding suspected gas leaks or pollutant spills. Thanks to the forecast, public officials knew that an upwelling of hypoxic water had recently occurred, likely carrying sulfur and nitrogen compounds that caused the stench, and were able to quickly eliminate other possible causes.

Half a decade in the making

Since it began in 2017, this NOAA project has grown into much more than just a computer model. The Experimental Lake Erie Hypoxia Forecast model was developed as a five-year project (2017-2021) with funding from NOAA’s Coastal Hypoxia Research Program, and is an extension of the Lake Erie Operational Forecasting System at NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services. Co-led by NOAA GLERL research scientists Drs. Mark Rowe and Craig Stow, and CIGLR’s Dr. Casey Godwin, project scientists provide an email update to public water systems, fisheries managers, and other stakeholders ahead of likely hypoxic events that contains links to the experimental forecast website and other useful NOAA webpages.

Map from the NOAA GLERL Experimental Lake Erie Hypoxia Forecast Model showing predicted change in Lake Erie temperature (top) and dissolved oxygen (bottom) during a three-day hypoxic upwelling event from August 31 to September 2, 2021.

Partners on this project include Ohio public water systems (including the cities of Cleveland and Avon Lake), NOAA’s National Ocean Service, and the Great Lakes Observing System. Special thanks to Devin Gill from the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research for contributing stakeholder interview findings for this article.


Leave a comment

New wave buoy will provide data to support wave and flood forecasting on Lake Champlain

The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and partners recently deployed a buoy in Lake Champlain that will measure the lake’s wave heights to assess the accuracy of a new experimental model for the lake. This is part of a five-year NOAA GLERL project that will improve public safety on Lake Champlain by contributing to flood preparedness and response around the shores of the lake. Wave conditions are critical to public safety both for recreational and commercial activities on the lake – such as for boats, harbors, and beaches – but also for predicting coastal flood impacts at the shoreline where waves can run up and significantly impact infrastructure.

Left: Newly deployed NOAA buoy in Lake Champlain. Credit: University of Vermont FEMC staff. Top right: NOAA GLERL partners at the University of Vermont’s Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative (FEMC) deployed the buoy on Lake Champlain in May 2021. Credit: University of Vermont FEMC staff. Bottom right: Sunset on Lake Champlain. Credit: Dan Titze, CIGLR.

The project is a major collaborative effort by bi-national, federal, and university partners of NOAA GLERL. Partners at the University of Vermont’s Forest Ecosystem Monitoring Cooperative (FEMC) deployed the seasonal buoy in May, and the Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) at the University of San Diego Scripps Institute of Oceanography receives the data, manages its quality control, and posts it to NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) website. Researchers at the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research (CIGLR) are currently leading the development of a wave model for Lake Champlain, which is providing experimental forecasts on the GLERL website.

The buoy is located in the middle of the lake near Schuyler Reef, where it will remain until late fall, and is collecting wave height observations that will be used to validate NOAA’s WAVEWATCH III model for Lake Champlain. The experimental model’s output data will be compared to the buoy’s observed data, which will help scientists assess how well the model performs.

Location of the new NOAA Lake Champlain wave buoy, depicted by a yellow diamond. Map credit: NOAA National Data Buoy Center.

The buoy’s environmental data can be found on the CDIP website, and on the buoy’s page on the NOAA NDBC website. The buoy and the experimental wave model will be a helpful new tool for the region’s National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Burlington, Vermont, which provides lake forecasts including wave data to mariners in the region.

In addition to regional weather forecasters and local mariners, this buoy’s data will also be useful to emergency managers in the counties and cities around Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River, as well as the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction which will transition the WAVEWATCH III model to operations.

This project is funded by the International Joint Commission’s Lake Champlain-Richelieu River (LCRR) Study Board. The International Joint Commission (IJC) is a bi-national organization established by the governments of the United States and Canada under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. It oversees activities affecting the extensive waters and waterways along the Canada–United States border. The IJC’s LCRR Study Board was created in 2016 to undertake a study of the causes, impacts, risks, and potential solutions to flooding in the LCRR basin.


Leave a comment

Looking back: The ups and downs of Great Lakes ice cover in 2021

Ice formations cover a pier on the Lake Michigan shoreline in Holland, MI. February 27, 2021. Credit: Clarice Farina.

It’s no secret that the Great Lakes had a wild ride in terms of ice cover this past winter. From a slow start that led to near-record low ice cover in January, to the sudden widespread freeze just a few weeks later, here’s a look back at how ice cover on the lakes has fluctuated during the 2020-2021 ice season.

As we highlighted in our last blog post on historic ice data, January 2021 had the second-lowest overall Great Lakes ice cover on record since 1973 (with the very lowest being January 2002). For all five individual lakes, January 2021 was in the top five lowest ice-cover Januarys since 1973.

This graph shows average Great Lakes ice cover for the month of January every year from 1973 to 2021, organized by lowest ice cover (far left) to highest ice cover (far right). Credit: NOAA GLERL.

Starting out at 10.65% on February 1st, ice cover rose dramatically over the next three weeks with the region’s extreme cold weather. Growing quickly and steadily, total Great Lakes ice cover finally topped out at 45.84% on February 19th. But with air temperatures warming back up shortly afterwards, this spike was short-lived. Within a week it was back down to around 20% and continued to taper off, falling below 1% on April 3rd and reaching 0.1% on April 20.

This graph shows Great Lakes ice cover in 2021 (black line) compared to the historical average ice cover from 1973-2020 (red line). Credit: NOAA GLERL.

This Winter vs. The Long-Term Average

While all five lakes were far below their January average, each one did something a little different during February, when compared to its 1973-2020 average. The following graphs show this winter’s ice cover (black line) vs. the 1973-2020 average (red line) for each lake.⁣

Lake Erie ice cover jumped dramatically up to 81% in the second week of February, well above its average seasonal peak of around 65%. It stayed above 75% for about two weeks until falling back down below its average at the beginning of March.


Lake Michigan ice cover increased steadily throughout February, with its highest percentage being 33% on February 18th — only briefly staying above its average for that time period. It dropped off quickly the following week, then decreased gradually throughout March.

Lake Superior spent about a week in mid-February above its average ice cover for those days, peaking at about 51% on February 19th. Similar to Lake Michigan, it only stayed above its average for a short interval before rapidly falling back down under 20%.

Lake Ontario ice cover took a while to ramp up, staying below 10% until mid-February. It reached maximum ice cover on February 18th, topping out at about 21% – slightly higher than its average for that day.


Lake Huron was the only lake that did not reach above-average ice cover for the entire winter. Its peak ice cover was 48% on February 20th, which was about the same as its average for that time of year.

Melting into Spring

Throughout March, ice cover on all five lakes continued to decrease steadily, with the exception of a spike in ice cover around the second week of the month likely due to fluctuations in air temperature. For Lakes Erie and Ontario, this short-lived jump was enough to get them back up near their average early March ice cover for a few days. 

As for the timing of each lake’s peak 2021 ice cover compared with the average, Lakes Erie, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario all peaked later than their average, while Lake Superior is the only one that peaked earlier than its average.

Ice covers the Lake Huron shoreline in Oscoda, MI on February 15, 2021. Credit: G. Farina, NOAA GLERL.

This winter’s maximum seasonal ice cover of 45.8% is just 7.5% less than the long-term average of 53.3%. While it’s below the average, it’s still more than double the 2020 seasonal maximum of 19.5% ice cover, but is just over half the 2019 seasonal maximum of 80.9%. With so much year-to-year variability, forecasting ice cover each year can be incredibly difficult. NOAA GLERL’s experimental ice forecast, updated in mid-February, predicted Great Lakes ice cover in 2021 to peak at 38% – not too far off from what it really was. NOAA GLERL continues to analyze both current and historical data to refine the ice forecast model, working to actively improve our experimental Great Lakes ice forecast each year.

This graph shows annual maximum ice cover on the Great Lakes each year from 1973 to 2021. Credit: NOAA GLERL.

For more on NOAA GLERL’s Great Lakes ice cover research and forecasting, visit our ice homepage here: https://go.usa.gov/xsRnM⁣

⁣Plus, access these graphs plus more Great Lakes CoastWatch graphs & data here: https://go.usa.gov/xsRnt⁣

Flat, jagged pieces of ice float in Lake Huron near Oscoda, MI on February 15, 2021. Credit: G. Farina, NOAA GLERL.


2 Comments

Five decades of Great Lakes ice cover data – and where to find it

Understanding the major effects of ice on the Great Lakes is crucial. Ice cover impacts a range of societal benefits provided by the lakes, from hydropower generation to commercial shipping to the fishing industry. The amount of ice cover varies from year to year, as well as how long it remains on the lakes. With almost five full decades of ice data to look at, GLERL scientists are observing long-term changes in ice cover as a result of climate change. Studying, monitoring, and predicting ice coverage on the Great Lakes plays an important role in determining climate patterns, lake water levels, water movement patterns, water temperature structure, and spring plankton blooms.

Maximum ice cover on the Great Lakes every year from 1973 to 2018. Credit: NOAA GLERL.

NOAA GLERL has been exploring the relationships between ice cover, lake thermal structure, and regional climate for over 30 years through the use of historical model simulations and observations of ice cover, surface water temperature, and other variables. Weekly ice cover imaging products produced by the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) started in 1973. Beginning in 1989, the U.S. National Ice Center (NIC) produced Great Lakes ice cover charts that combined both Canadian and U.S. satellite imagery. Today, these products are downloaded and processed at GLERL by our CoastWatch program, a nationwide NOAA program within which GLERL functions as the Great Lakes regional node. In this capacity, GLERL uses near real-time satellite data to produce and deliver products that support environmental decision-making and ongoing research. While the Great Lakes CoastWatch Program is a great resource for near real-time ice cover data, historical data is just as important – and that’s where GLERL’s Great Lakes Ice Cover Database comes in. Originally archived by GLERL through the National Snow & Ice Data Center, the Great Lakes Ice Cover Database houses data that dates back to 1973 and continues to be updated daily during the ice season every year.

Ice caves on Lake Michigan’s Glen Haven beach in 2005. Credit: National Parks Service.

Even though the CIS and NIC are the ones who actually collect Great Lakes ice cover data, GLERL plays the important role of re-processing this ice data into more accessible file formats, making it readily usable to anyone who needs it. Agencies and organizations that have used ice cover data from GLERL in the past include the NASA Earth Observatory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and National Geographic. Types of data requested might include historic minimum and maximum ice coverage for certain regions or lakes, or dates of the first and last ice cover in a region from year to year. This information can be helpful for managers in industries like energy production and commercial shipping.

This graph shows annual maximum ice coverage on the Great Lakes every year from 1973 to 2020. The red dashed line marks the long-term average maximum ice cover of 53.3%. Credit: NOAA GLERL.

GLERL scientists can also use this historic ice cover data to analyze how current ice cover conditions compare with previous years. For example, here’s how the ice cover during January 2021 stacks up against data for past Januarys:

  • Lake Michigan and the five-lake average had their second lowest January ice cover (with January 2002 being the first lowest).
  • The other lakes are all in the top five lowest ice cover for the month of January.
  • Six out of ten of the Januarys with the lowest ice cover have occurred during the last decade for the five-lake average (though 2014 was fourth highest January ice cover).
This graph shows average Great Lakes ice cover for the month of January every year from 1973 to 2021, organized by lowest ice cover (far left) to highest ice cover (far right). Credit: NOAA GLERL.

GLERL is also working to make this data more user-friendly for anyone looking to utilize it. This recent paper from GLERL and the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research (CIGLR) describes the scientists’ efforts to standardize two existing formats of historic ice cover data. The authors explain that “technology has improved and the needs of users have evolved, so Great Lakes ice cover datasets have been upgraded several times in both spatial and temporal resolutions.” The paper documents the steps the authors took to reprocess the data in order to make it more consistent and accessible, which ultimately makes it easier for users to study long-term trends.

Timeline of ice chart evolution and frequency, from the research paper described above (Yang et al 2020). Credit: Ting-Yi Yang, Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research.

Whether you’re looking for decades of Great Lakes ice data or just a few days, GLERL’s got you covered! Looking for more Great Lakes ice cover information? Visit our ice cover homepage here.

MODIS satellite image of ice cover on the Great Lakes, March 16, 2014. Credit: NOAA Great Lakes CoastWatch.


1 Comment

New science with historic data: 15 years of Great Lakes environmental data archived in NOAA data repository

With a network of experimental buoys that are constantly recording new data every few minutes, the amount of data the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) has collected in the past 15 years is massive – and prepping it all to be archived in an official data repository is no small task. This year, thanks to the hard work of GLERL’s data managers and engineers, the Great Lakes environmental data collected by NOAA GLERL’s real-time buoys has been archived with NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) data repository. NCEI hosts and provides public access to one of the most significant archives of oceanic, atmospheric and geophysical data in the world.

A NOAA GLERL Real-Time Coastal Observation Network (ReCON) buoy in Lake Michigan.

An ever-growing collection of Great Lakes data

This real-time Great Lakes observational data archived in NCEI has been collected over time by sensors on coastal buoys as part of GLERL’s Real-Time Coastal Observation Network (ReCON). Each of ReCON’s 16 buoy stations collects meteorological data and provides sub-surface measurements of chemical, biological, and physical parameters (things like wave height, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, and water temperature). Totaling an impressive 2,055 data files, this data spans 15 years – from the inception of the first ReCON station in 2004 through the end of the 2019 field season. The data collected by GLERL’s ReCON buoys in the past 15 years are unique and valuable, and now that they are properly processed and easily accessible in the NCEI archive, they can be used in a variety of ways.

Using historic data to improve scientific models

While the near real-time info that our experimental ReCON buoys provide is great for helping you decide whether to hit the water for a day of boating or fishing, their usefulness doesn’t stop there. This Great Lakes ReCON data – both old and new – is incredibly useful to state and federal resource managers, educators, and researchers. For example, scientists can use the historic datasets to test the accuracy of their models, a process known as ‘hindcasting.’ When using archived data for hindcasting, researchers enter data for past events into their model to see how well the model’s output matches the known results. One cool example of hindcasting is the animation below that shows the Lake Superior wind and wave conditions that led to the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975.

Animation created with hindcasting that shows significant wave height and wind field, final voyage of the Edmund Fitzgerald, Nov 9-11, 1975.

As for the fact that ReCON data is collected in near real-time, these convenient same-day measurements can help determine whether or not a hypoxic (low oxygen) event will occur, detect nutrients contributing to harmful algal blooms, and even provide crucial data to the NOAA National Weather Service for coastal forecasting.

Water intake crib off the coast of Lake Erie in Cleveland, Ohio. Real-time data collected by NOAA GLERL’s ReCON buoys can help warn water intake managers of potential hypoxic events, which can affect drinking water quality.

Putting our data to the test

NOAA GLERL data manager Lacey Mason and marine engineer Ron Muzzi are in charge of preparing and submitting the data to NOAA’s NCEI data repository. Preparing the data to be archived involves performing quality assurance checks to ensure that it meets the Integrated Ocean Observing System’s (IOOS) standards set specifically for real-time oceanographic data. All of the data undergoes multiple quality tests before being archived, and each data point is flagged to indicate its reliability – whether it passed all tests, is suspect, or failed one or more tests.

In addition to being available on NOAA GLERL’s website and now the NOAA NCEI data repository, GLERL’s real-time buoy data can also be found on NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center website. The NCEI archive is fully updated with all of GLERL’s real-time data through 2019, and GLERL will continue to add new data to the archive on a yearly basis. The archived data can be accessed from the link here: https://doi.org/10.25921/jvks-b587.