United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA-905/3-85-003
August 1985
vvEPA
Limnology and
Phytoplankton Structure
In Nearshore Areas of
Lake Ontario: 1981
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
-------
EPA-905-3-85-003
August 1985
Limnology and Phytoplankton Structure
i n
Nearshore Areas of Lake Ontario
1981
Paul E. Bertram, Editor
with reports by
Davi d C. RockwelI
Marvi n F. PaImer
Great Lakes National Program Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
and
Joseph C. Makarewicz
Department of Biological Sciences
State University of New York at Brockport
for
Great Lakes National Program Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, library
-------
Di set aimer
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
nr>w*3 J2.U
-------
Foreword
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency was established in Region V, Chicago
to focus attention on the significant and complex natural resource
represented by the Great Lakes.
GLNPO implements a multi-media environmental management program drawing
on a wide range of expertise represented by universities, private firms,
State, Federal, and Canadian Governmental Agencies and the International
Joint Commission. The goal of the GLNPO program is to develop programs,
practices and technology necessary for a better understanding of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum
extent practicable the discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes
system. The Office also coordinates U.S. actions in fulfillment of
the Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on Great
Lakes Water Quality of 1978.
i i i
-------
CONTENTS
I. Lake Ontario 1981 Limnological Survey: Niagara, Rochester,
Oswego Areas. By David C. Rockwell and Marvin F. Palmer,
USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office 1
Table of Contents 2
Introduction. 7
Methods and Materials 8
Results 35
Di scussion 88
Literature Cited 93
II. Phytoplankton Composition, Abundance and Distribution:
Oswego River and Harbor, and Niagara River Plume. By
Joseph C. Makarewicz, State University of New York at
Brockport 97
Table of Contents 98
Introduction 99
Methods and Mater i a I s 103
Results 105
D i scu ss i on 113
Cone lusions 117
Li terature Ci ted 120
III. Appendix A: Microfiche of Lake Ontario 1981 Nearshore Survey Data
IV
-------
Lake Ontario 1981 Limnology Survey:
Niagara, Rochester, Oswego
Areas
by
Davi d C. RockweI I
Marvi n F. Pa Imer
for
Great Lakes National Program Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, I I Iinois 60605
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 5
INTRODUCTION
Objectives of Surveillance Program 7
Authority for Study .7
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Survey Plan 8
Vesse I 21
Study Area and Station Selection 21
Depth Selection 22
Samp ling Procedures 23
Ana lyti ca I Methods 25
Aesthetics 25
Water Temperature 25
Air Temperature 26
Wind Speed and Direction. 26
Wave Height 26
Turbidity 26
Seech i Di sc Depth 26
pH 27
Ch I or i de 27
Su I fate 27
Speci fie Conductance 28
Total Alkalinity (as CaC03) 28
Total Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium 29
Trace Meta Is 29
Pheno Is 29
D! sso I ved Oxygen 30
Solub le Reactive Phosphorus 30
Total Phosphorus and Total Dissolved Phosphorus 30
Tota I Organ ic Carbon 31
Filtered Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 31
Total Ammonia Nitrogen 31
Tota I K je I dah I Ni trogen 31
Disso I ved Reactive Silica 32
Ch lorophy I I-a and Pheophyti n 32
Data Analysis Approach
The Data Base 32
Segmentat ion 33
RESULTS
Therma I Structure 35
Turbidity and Secchi Disc Distribution 57
Niagara River Plume 57
Rochester Embayment 57
Oswego Harbor 58
-------
Table of Contents (con't)
pH Distr i buttons 58
Niagara River Plume 58
Rochester Embayment 59
Oswego Harbor 59
Chloride, Sulfate, and Conductivity Distributions 60
Niagara River Plume 60
Rochester Embayment 61
Oswego Harbor 62
At ka I i n i ty Di str i but ions 62
Niagara River PIume 62
Rochester Embayment 63
Oswego Harbor .63
Calcium Magnesium and Sodium Distributions ...63
Niagara River PI ume 64
Rochester Embayment 64
Oswego Harbor. 65
Trace Meta Is Di str i but ions 66
Phenol Di str i but ions. 66
Ni agara River PI ume 67
Rochester Embayment 67
Oswego Harbor. .67
Di ssol ved Oxygen Di str i but ions 67
Ni agara River PI ume 68
Rochester Embayment 68
Oswego Harbor 70
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Distributions 70
Ni agara River PI ume 71
Rochester Embayment 71
Oswego Harbor 73
Total Phosphorus and Total Dissolved Phosphorus Distributions 73
Ni agara Ri ver PI ume.....' 74
Rochester Embayment 74
Oswego Harbor 75
Ammonia - Nitrogen Distributions 75
Ni agara Ri ver PI ume 76
Rochester Embayment 76
Oswego Harbor 76
Nitrite and Nitrate Nitrogen Distributions 77
Niagara River PI ume 77
Rochester Embayment 77
Oswego Harbor 78
Kjeldahl Nitrogen - Particulate Nitrogen Distributions 78
Niagara River PI ume 79
Rochester Embayment 79
Oswego Harbor 79
-------
Table of Contents (con't)
Dissolved Reactive Silica Distributions 80
Niagara River Plume. 80
Rochester Embayment. 81
Oswego Harbor. 81
Ch lorophyl l-a and Pheophytin Distributions 82
Niagara River PI ume. 82
Rochester Embayment 83
Oswego Harbor ...85
Parameters Exceeding Criteria and Objectives ...86
Other ResuIts 88
DI SCUSS ION 88
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS 92
LITERATURE CITED 93
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1. Latitude - Longitude Locations for Each Water Quality Monitoring Site.
Niagara River Plume 13
Rochester Embayment 14
Oswego Harbor .....15
2. Ana lytica I Schedule 16
3. 1981 Field Program Sampling Dates.
Niagara River Plume 18
Rochester Embayment 19
Oswego Harbor 20
4. Station Segmentation for Each Study Area 34
5. Niagara River Plume Nearshore Study - Source Area 36
6. Niagara River Plume Nearshore Study - Mixing Area 38
7. Niagara River Plume Nearshore Study - Lake Area 40
8. Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study - Source Area 42
9. Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study - Mixing and Nearshore Area 44
10. Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study - Lake Area 46
11. Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study - Source Area 48
12. Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study - Inner Harbor Mixing Area 50
13. Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study - Outer Harbor Mixing Area 52
14. Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study - Lake Area 54
15. Percent Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen: Range and Sample Station
Where Lowest Observation Was Found 69
16. Average Ratios of (Pheophytin-a)/(ChlorophyIl-a + Pheophytin-a) 84
17. Parameters Exceeding the Annex 1 Specific Objectives of the 1978 Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement 87
18. Parameters Exceeding the NYDEC Human Health Effects
Gui dance Criteria 87
19. Parameters Exceeding the NYDEC Aquatic Effects
Gu i dance Cr i ter i a 87
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Lake Ontario with locations of the Niagara River Mouth
and the cities of Rochester and Oswego 9
2. Water quality monitoring sites at the Niagara River
p I ume area 10
3. Water quality monitoring sites at the Rochester Embayment Area
with inset of sites near the Genessee River 11
4. Water quality monitoring sites at the Oswego Harbor area 12
5. Flow chart illustrating sample processing on USEPA's
R/V Roger Simons 24
6. Water temperatures in the Rochester Embayment area, April 29-
May 4, 1981, with the location of the thermal bar 56
7. Concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus in the Rochester
Embayment area, April 29-May 4, 1981, in relation to the thermal
bar 72
-------
INTRODUCTI ON
OBJECTIVES OF SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
Monitoring and surveillance of the water quality of the Great Lakes and of
connecting waterways are vital if we are to determine the most practical means
for protecting these irreplaceable freshwater supplies from physical, chemical,
and bacteriological health hazards. In 1975, the International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Water Quality Board designed a long-term monitoring plan for the
Great Lakes Basin that provided for a nine year cycle of intensive studies on
each lake. Monitored during the intensive study of 1981-1982 were nearshore
areas of Lake Ontario where impaired water quality had been previously reported.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires the determination of specific
objectives based on "statistically valid sampling data." This surveillance
program was designed to provide statistically valid data for the support of
federal, state and local remedial programs. These data can further be used to
provide a statistical basis for the design of additional suveys for obtaining
information about the prevention, reduction and eventual control of pollution
in the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes.
The surveillance program for the Lake Ontario nearshore was designed with
two objectives in mind:
1. To determine the status of the harbor and nearshore waters in 1981 to
compare with the standards, criteria and objectives for the protection
of raw water supplies and aquatic life in Lake Ontario.
2. To provide a data set which would characterize the water and sediment
chemistry and phytopIankton of these environments.
AUTHORITY FOR STUDY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972 by Public Law
92-500, Section 108(a), authorized the USEPA to enter into agreements and
to carry out projects to control and eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes
Basin. Section 104(f) of the law provides the authority to conduct research,
technical development, and studies with respect to the quality of the waters
7
-------
of the Great Lakes. Section 104(h) grants authority to develop and to demon-
strate new or improved methods for the prevention, removal, reduction and
elimination of pollution in the lakes. The Boundary Water Treaty between
the United States of America and Canada in Annex 2, paragraph 10, of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires both countries to monitor the
extent of eutrophication in the Great Lakes system and to develop measures
to control phosphorus and other nutrients. Article V(f) requires consideration
of measures for the abatement and control of pollution from dredging activities.
The Agreement, signed in 1972, was reaffirmed in 1978.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The methods that were employed are described in detail in Rockwell et_ a_[_. (1980)
A brief overview of these methods follows:
SURVEY PLAN
During 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) undertook four
surveys of the Niagara River Plume, Rochester Embayment and Oswego Harbor,
and nearshore waters during the periods April 22-May 5, July 21-August 5,
August 18-September 2, and September 23-October 5. The water quality
monitoring sites are displayed in Figures 1-4. The latitude and longitude
coordinates for the sites are given in Table 1. The analytical schedule
is presented in Table 2. Most stations were visited three times each
survey (Table 3).
Sediment surveys were done during the third survey in the Genessee River,
(Rochester, New York area), Plum Creek (Oswego, New York area), and at
Eighteen Mile Creek in Olcott, New York (east of the Niagara River).
The results of these surveys are reported in Kizlauskas et_ ajk (1984).
8
-------
Lake Ontario
Toronto
Oswego
Hamilton
Niagara
River
Rochester
Figure 1. Lake Ontario with locations of the Niagara River mouth and the
Cities of Rochester and Oswego.
-------
09
08
07
LAKE ONTARIO
06
12
16
05
11
15
14
18
19
•
1981
Niagara on the Lake
Water Quality Monitoring Sites
NIAGARA RIVER PLUME
Youngstown
Lake Stations
Mixing Area Stations
Source Station
KILOMETER
2 4
MILE
1 2
3 4
Figure 2. Water quality monitoring sites at the Niagara River Plume area.
10
-------
62
64
59
LAKE ONTARIO
58
53
55
54
52
51
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
ROCHESTER HARBOR
NEW YORK
Lake Stations
Mixing and Nearshore
Area Stations
Source Stations
INSERT
LAKE ONTARIO
29
26
•
25
•
18
•
17
•
12
09
•
06
•
03
•
02
13
14
10
07
Salmon
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Rochester Embayment
O
Figure "5. Water quality monitoring sites at the Rochester Embayment Area.
The inset shows the location of stations near the Genesee River.
11
-------
Lake Ontario
19
•
17
•
• Lake Stations
Outer Harbor Stations
Inner Harbor Stations
Source Station
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
OSWEGO HARBOR
Figure 4. Water quality monitoring sites at the Oswego Harbor area.
12
-------
Table 1
Stati
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
IAG
on No.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Station Locati
Lati
43°
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
itude
15'
16
16
17
19
21
23
24
25
17
19
21
17
19
20
21
17
18
19
16
17
17
45"
15
55
45
15
07
20
20
15
50
18
12
45
05
15
40
20
30
40
45
15
45
ons: Niagara
Long
79°
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
78
79
79
78
River Plume
itude
04'
04
04
05
05
06
07
08
04
04
04
03
03
02
01
00
02
00
58
02
00
58
15"
24
40
00
33
15
40
00
30
15
00
45
15
25
27
00
42
42
45
24
15
18
Approx.
Depth (m)
4
7
5
1
1
15
.5
.3
.1
11
91
00
10
120
6
7
6
6
6
.7
15
45
.6
13
64
36
.1
12
41
.1
.7
11
Comments a
M,PI ,Spec.
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
M,PD
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PD
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
a See below for explanation of comment codes
13
-------
'Table 1 con't
Station No.
ROCH 01
ROCH 02
ROCH 03
ROCH 04
ROCH 05
ROCH 06
ROCH 07
ROCH 08
ROCH 09
ROCH 10
ROCH 11
ROCH 12
ROCH 13
ROCH 14
ROCH 15
ROCH 16
ROCH 17
ROCH 18
ROCH 19
ROCH 20
ROCH 21
ROCH 24
ROCH 25
ROCH 26
ROCH 27
ROCH 28
ROCH 29
ROCH 51
ROCH 52
ROCH 53
ROCH 54
ROCH 55
ROCH 56
ROCH 57
ROCH 58
ROCH 59
ROCH 60
ROCH 61
ROCH 62
ROCH 63
ROCH 64
ROCH 70
Latitude
43°
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
19'
22
22
19
16
22
19
17
22
19
17
22
19
16
16
19
22
22
19
16
14
19
22
22
19
17
22
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
15
16
17
16
16
17
00"
00
00
00
45
00
00
30
00
00
16
00
00
54
35
00
00
00
00
00
40
00
00
00
00
47
00
42
10
54
44
42
48
00
22
53
54
27
12
20
55
15
Longitude
76°
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
50'
50
59
59
59
06
06
06
13
13
13
22
22
22
26
26
26
31
31
31
31
36
36
40
40
40
40
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
38
10
00"
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
40
41
00
51
38
56
45
26
00
14
18
25
07
07
54
Approx.
Depth
5.5
42
85
36
4.5
106
39
5.5
121
41
6.7
151
45
7.3
5.5
61
167
110
49
23
3.6
27
73
60
10
4.5
30
5.5
5.5
15
8.5
5.0
7.3
7.3
12
18
4.5
9.4
15
3.6
6.7
4.5
Comments a
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,P I ,spec.
PI
PI
PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
PD
PI
PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
M,P I ,spec
M,PI
PI
M,PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
PI
M,PI
M,PI ,spec.
a See below for explanation of comment codes
14
-------
Table 1 con't
Station Locations: Oswego Harbor
Station No.
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
OSW
03
04
05
07
09
11
12A°
13A
17
19
22A
23
28
29
37
Latitude
43°
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
27'
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
28
29
28
28
27
28
27
40"
03
08
24
34
39
52
37
40
10
24
41
57
22
43
Longitude
76°
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
30'
30
30
30
31
31
31
32
31
31
29
30
31
31
31
42"
50
31
56
08
00
35
17
58
07
51
13
06
24
42
Approx.
Depth (m)
6.
7.
2.
8.
8.
7.
6.
4.
1
4
6
7
2
2
6
4
5
5
14
1.
6.
7.
9.
7.
5
7
6
7
6
Comments a
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
,P I ,spec,
,PI
,PI
,PI
,PI
,PI
,PI
,PI
,PD
,PD
,P I ,spec
,PI
,PI
,PI
,PI ,spec.
£_ See below for explanation of comment codes
M - Metals, see Table 2 for parameters
PI - Integrated phytopIankton
PD - Discrete phytopIankton
Spec - Phenol, organic
Samples for chlorophyll were taken from the same Niskins as the phytoplankton
sample. These followed the phytoplankton sampling pattern of integrated
and discrete samples.
Integrated phytoplankton samples were obtained by combining equal amounts of
1,5,10,15, and 20 meter samples. When the water depth was less than 20 meters,
the B-2 sample replaced the lowest obtainable depth.
Discrete phytoplankton samples were collected at 1,5,10,15,20,25,30,40,75,100,
150,6-2 meter depths.
15
-------
Table 2
Analytical Col lection Schedule
Measurements Stations
Water Temperature
Wind Speed & Direction
Seech i
Wave height
Aesthetics
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Specific Conductivity
Alkalinity
Total Phosphorus
Total Dissolved
Phosphorus
Soluble Reactive
Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
NC>2 + NC>3 Nitrogen
Dissolved Reactive
Si 1 ica as Si 1 icon
Chloride
Sulfate
Ca 1 c i urn
Magnesi urn
Sod i urn
Tota 1 1 ron
Total Lead
Total Mercury
Tota 1 Copper
Total Zinc
Total Nickel
All
Al 1
All
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
All
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
M
M
M
M
M
M
Runs
Al 1
All
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
A! 1
First
All
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
First
First
First
First
First
First
First
First
First
First
Depths
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
All
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
1 m.
Survey Remarks
All Vertical profile re-
quired if depth was
10 meters or greater.
Al I
Al
Al
Al
Al
Al Profile required if
thermocline existed
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
All
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Al 1
Third
Third
Third
Third
Third
Third
16
-------
Table 2 con't Analytical Schedule
Measurements Stations Runs Depths Cruise Remarks
Total Cadmium M All 1m. Third
Total Chromium M First 1m. Third
Phenol Spec. All All All
Phytoplankton PI,PD First 20 m. Integrated or
discrete
Chlorophy l-a
Pheophytl n
PI,PD
PI,PD
Al 1
Al 1
20 m.
20 m.
Integrated
Integrated
M - See Table 1 for sites
PI - Integrated phytoplankton
PD - Discrete phytoplankton
Spec - See Table 1 for sites
17
-------
Table 3
Stations
NIAG 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
F
4/22
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rst !
4/23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
survey
4/24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
4/25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
8/02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3econ<
8/03
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
j Survey
8/04 8/05
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8/30
X
X
X
X
X
X
Third Survey
8/31 9/1 9/2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fourth Survey
10/8 10/9 10/10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
-------
Table 3 con't 1981 Rochester Embavment Field Proaram Samolina Dates
Stat i on
ROCH 01
01A
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62'
63
64
70
Firs-
4/29
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1- b
30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
jrve
5/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
4
X
X
7/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
sect
22
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3nd
23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sui
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~ve
25
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
26
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
27
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
28
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
29
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
X
8/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Th
19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ird
70
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sur
71
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-vei
??
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
73
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
74
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
75
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
76
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
9/73
X
•ou"
74
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i-h :
75
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3ur\
7(S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
tey
77
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?R
79
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10/1
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 3 Con't
Ta bIe 3 con ' t
1981 Oswego Harbor Area Field Program Sampling Dates
Station
OSW 03
04
05
07
09
11
12A
13A
17
19
22A
23
28
29
37
First
Survey
4/27 4/28
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Second
Survey
7/30 7/31
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8/01
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Third
Survey
8/27 8/28
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8/29
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F
c
10/02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ourth
urvey
10/03
W
E
A
T
H
E
R
D
A
Y
10/04
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10/05
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20
-------
VESSEL
In the nearshore surveys the R/V Roger Simons was used. The R/V Simons
was built in Duluth, Minnesota by the Marine Iron and Ship-Building
Company in 1939 as a lighthouse tender. The vessel is of the WAGL type,
122' overall length; 27' beam; 7' maximum draft displacement; full load
342 tons; hull material, steel; twin screw, 460 SHP diesel propulsion.
STUDY AREAS AND STATION SELECTION
The locations of the stations in the nearshore area were selected from
recommendations by the Lake Ontario Work Group for the Surveillance Sub-
committee of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (1979) under the direct!or
of the International Joint Commission. The nearshore studies focused
on the Niagara River Plume, the Rochester Embayment and the Oswego Harbor
area. These studies included stations at the mouths of the Niagara River,
Genessee River, and Oswego River. All stations in Lake Ontario were within
10 ki lometers of the shore except in the Rochester Embayment where some
stations were 15 kilometers from shore.
The sampling grids of stations included: 22 stations in the Niagara River
Plume positioned in a grid of approximately one station per 2 square
kilometers, 42 stations in the Rochester Embayment positioned in two
grids of approximately one station per 0.75 square kilometer in the
vicinity of the Genessee River, and of approximately 1 station per 7.5
square kilometers in the remainder of the Rochester Embayment; and 15
stations in the Oswego Harbor positioned in a grid of approximately one
station per 0.25 square kilometer.
21
-------
The sampling grids were arranged such that the river mouth stations radiated
outward like the spokes of a wheel. This pattern was used in the Niagara
River Plume and the Genessee River mixing area. Outside of the Genessee River
mixing area, the Rochester Embayment station grid was basically rectangular
with three transects roughly parallel to the shore. The distances from shore
were approximately 1/2 km, 2 km, and 5 km respectively for each transect.
Distance between stations along a transect varied from 3 km to 6 km. Station
patterns in the Oswego Harbor were constrained by the breakwater walls, but
were similar to the network used by GLERL in 1972 (Bell 1978). A string
of stations was placed in the river, inner harbor, and outer harbor
approximatey perpendicular to shore. Other stations were located roughly
along two semi-circles about 1 km and 2 km from the center of the inner
harbor to accomodate the complex harbor geometry and breakwater walls.
DEPTH SELECTION
Chemi stry
Each station was sampled when possible, at 1,5,10, and 20 meters below
the surface and at 2 meters above the bottom (B-2). Additional samples
were taken from thermally stratified stations at mid thermocline, 1 meter
above the upper knee and 1 meter below the lower knee of the metalimn ion.
Any of the fixed depths that were within 3 meters of the thermocline depths
were deleted.
Biology
Phytoplankton samples were obtained by integrating equal amounts of water
from 1,5,10,15, and 20 meters below the surface. If the water column was
less than 20 meters, the B-2 sample replaced an appropriate depth. Discrete
phytoplankton samples at 1,5,10,15,20,25,30,40,75,100,150,8-2 meters below
22
-------
the surface were obtained at selected locations (see Table 1). Samples for
ch lorophyI l-a were taken from the same Niskin as the phytoplankton sample.
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The analytical schedule for the parameters measured during the lake surveys
in 1981 is displayed in Table 2. A 12 bottle Rosette sampler system (General
Oceanics Model 1015-12-8) was used to collect water samples. This system
consisted of an electrobathythermograph (EBT) Guideline Model 8705 attached
to an eleven bottle array, an A-frame, 300 meters of muIti-conductor cable,
and a 5HP variable speed winch.
Temperature and depth were recorded on an xy plotter (Hewlett Packard model
7046A) as the Rosette was lowered to the bottom. Water samples were collected
by closing the Niskin bottles as the Rosette was raised to the surface.
After the samples were brought on board, they were distributed to the sample
storage bottles while the Niskin bottles remained in the Rosette.
Water samples were processed as illustrated in Figure 5. Each Niskin sampling
bottle was emptied into the sample storage bottles normally within one minute,
and never more than 10 minutes, after collection. All chemistry sample
bottles were rinsed once with sample before filling. New polyethylene con-
tainers (PEC), one gallon or two and one half gallons, were used to hold
the samples for the on-board analyses and preparations. A duplicate tem-
perature measurement was made on the sample in the surface Niskin bottle
or the phytoplankton sample storage bottle to check the EBT thermistor
reading.
Dissolved nutrient samples were prepared by vacuum filtration of an aliquot
from the PEC for onboard analyses within an hour of sample collection. Most
samples were filtered within 30 minutes of collection. A 47 mm diameter,
0.45 urn pore size eellulose acetate membrane filter held in a polycarbonate
23
-------
Raw Water From 8-Liter Niskin Bottle
—> 960 ml polyethylene bottle (water temperature)
—> 300 ml BOD bottle (dissolved oxygen) [Winkler at bottom]
—> 125 ml polyethylene with 1 ml/L cone. H2S04 (for TKN and Total P)
1—> 125 ml polyethylene with 5 ml/L 8N nitric acid (for Na,Ca,Mg)
One gallon polyethylene cubitainer
M
-Pi
—> 100 ml (pH)
—> 100 ml (total alkinity, titration)
—> 500 ml (specific conductivity)
—> 100 ml (turbidity) [onboard and in situ - via transmissometer]
—> 20 ml (ammonia nitrogen, chloride and sulfate)
—> Filter Sartorius 0.45um membrane
Filtrate 100 ml (dissolved nutrients - nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen,
dissolved reactive silica, and soluble reactive
phosphorus, total dissolved phosphorus)
—> Filter 100 ml Gelman type AE (glass fiber)
Filters - chlorophyI I-a and pheophytin
Composite sample or integrated sample (surface to 20 meter depth or B-2, whichever is smaller)
—> Filter 100 ml Gelman type AE (glass fiber) previously
fired at 500°C
Filter - acidify, desiccate, freeze for Particulate Organic
Carbon
1—> Filter 100 ml Gelman type AE (glass fiber)
Filters - ChlorophyIl-a and pheophytin
Raw Water
E> 960 ml polyethylene bottle with 10 ml Lugol's solution for phytop lankton sample
> 125 ml polyethylene bottle with 1 ml/L con. H2S04 (TKN)
> 125 ml polyethylene (total P)
Sub-surface sample (one liter) for trace metals collected with an all-plastic sampler as vessel came on station.
Figure 5
Flow Chart Illustrating Sample Processing on USEPA's R/V Roger Simons Research Vessel
-------
filter holder (Millipore XX II 04710) with a polypropylene filter flask
was prewashed with 100 to 200 ml of demineraIized water or sample water.
New 125 ml polyethylene sample bottles with liner less closures were rinsed
once with filtered sample prior to filling.
A 10 ml aliquot was removed for immediate analysis of dissolved orthophosphate
and dissolved silica, after which the remainder was preserved with 1 ml/I
concentrated sulfuric acid, and subsequently analyzed for total dissolved
phosphorus.
Trace metals, alkaline earth metals (Mg,Ca), and alkali metals (Na,K)
were collected at master stations (Table 1) and analyzed at the Central
Regional Laboratory, EPA, Chicago.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Aesthetics
Reports of any unusual visual conditions that existed at any station were made.
Conditions such as floating algae, detritus, dead fish, oil, unusual water
color, or other abnormal conditions were recorded in the field observations.
Water Temperature
The vertical profiles of water temperature from surface to bottom were de-
termined at each station with a Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) with
a 1.4 second time constant and recorded by the EBT. The RTD was assembled in
a thin walled stainless steel tube which isolated it from contact with the
water.
Temperatures recorded by the EBT were verified by use of a mercury thermometer
(ASTM No. 90C). The thermometer shaft was immersed in the full Niskin bottle
from the surface or in a 960 ml plastic bottle filled with water from the
surface Niskin bottle. Readings were estimated to the nearest 0.1°C within
one minute of sampling.
25
-------
Air Temperature
Air temperature was determined by use of a dial scale bimetallic helix
thermometer such as a Weston Model 4200. The thermometer was allowed to
stabilize in the shade in an open area of the deck prior to recording
the temperature to the nearest 0.5°C.
Wind Speed and Direction
Wind speed and direction readings from a permanently mounted Danforth
Marine type wind direction and speed indicator were recorded to the
nearest 1° {to the right of true north) with the vessel stopped. Wind
direction was estimated to be accurate to ^H0°. The reading of wind
speed was estimated to the nearest nautical mile per hour.
Wave Height
Average wave height (valley to crest vertical distance) was estimated to the
nearest 0.5 feet at each station by the senior crew member on the bridge
and recorded to the nearest 0.1 meter. Wave direction was recorded as
coinciding with wind direction.
Turbi dity
Turbidity was measured with a Turner Nephelometer within 2 hours of sample
collection. The turbidimeter was calibrated daily before analysis using
a standard within the anticipated range of turbidity. Some turbidity
samples were heated to 25°C to avoid condensation on the sample cuvet.
Readings from 0 to 1 were recorded to the nearest 0.01 NTU. Readings
in the 1 to 40 range were recorded to the nearest 0.1 NTU.
Seechi Disc Depth
Secchi disc depth was estimated to the nearest 0.5 meters at each station by
use of a non-standard 30 cm, all-white, disc.
26
-------
pH
Analyses for pH were made by electrometric measurement within 15 minutes of
sample collection. Readings were recorded to the nearest 0.01 pH unit from
an Orion model 701 pH meter equipped with an automatic temperature com-
pensation probe. A combination glass membrane with a silver/silver chloride
internal electrode element was used. The pH meters were standardized
against two buffers, pH 7.0 and 9.0 (each prepared from Fisher Scientific
concentrates), chosen to bracket the pH of Great Lakes water.
Chloride
A Technicon AutoAnalyzer System II was used with Technicon's Industrial
Method No. 99-70W adjusted to a working range of 0 to 30 mg Cl/l. In
this method, chloride ion displaces mercury from mercuric thiocyanate
forming un-ionized soluble mercuric chloride. The released thiocyanate
reacts with ferric ion to form intensely colored ferric thiocyanate which
is determined photometrically. Raw water samples were stored non-refrigerated
in 125 ml or 250 ml polyethylene bottles with plastic closures. Seven
standards with 5 mg/l spread between adjacent concentrations were included
with each group of samples. A regression technique was used to define
the three constants of a quadratic equation used for reduction of chart
readings to concentrations (Alder and Roessler 1962).
SuI fate
Samples were analyzed for sulfate with a Technicon AutoAnalyzer using
Technicon's Industrial Method 118-71W with 1 ml/min sample and diluent
pump tubes to give a 0-30 mg/l range. In this procedure the sample was
first passed through a cation-exchange column to remove interfering
cations. It was then mixed with an equimolar solution of BaCl2 and
27
-------
methyl thymol blue (MTB) . Sulfate reacts with Ba reducing the amount of
Ba aval (able to react with MTB. The free MTB was then measured photo-
metrical ly. Raw water samples, stored un-refr igerated in 125 ml or
250 ml polyethylene bottles with plastic closures were analyzed within 90
days of sample collection. Seven standards with 5 mg/l spread between
adjacent concentrations were run with each group of samples. A regression
technique was used to define the four constants of a cubic equation used
for reduction of chart readings to concentration (Alder and Rossler 1962).
Specific Conductance
Specific conductance was determined within 2 hours of sample collection using
a Barnstead model PM70CB conductivity bridge and a conductivity cell (YSI
3401 or YSI 3403). An immersion heater connected to a proportional electronic
temperature controller with thermister sensor was used to heat the sample
in a 250 ml polypropylene beaker to 25.0°C. The temperature was monitored
with a mercury thermometer (ASTM 90C) with 0.1°C divisions. Rapid stirring
was accomplished with an immersion glass paddle attached to a small electric
motor. When the specific conductivity of a sample differed by more than
10% + 1 umhos/cm from the previous sample, a fresh aliquot was taken for the
determination to minimize carry over from sample to sample. The apparatus
was standardized daily against a solution of 0.15 gram KCL/I (Lind et al. 1959).
Total Alkalinity as
Total alkalinity was determined within 2 hours of sample collection by titration
of a 100 ml aliquot to pH 4.5 with 0.02 _N H2S04. The pH controller/meter (Cole
Farmer model 5997 with combination electrode) was standardized daily with pH
buffers 4.0 and 7.0 (each prepared from Fisher Scientific concentrates). The
acid was standardized against a solution of 0.2012 gram
28
-------
Total Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium
Discrete samples for these metals were taken at all depths. All metals were
determined by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (ICAP).
The samples were preserved immediately upon collection with 5 ml/I concentrated
nitric aci d.
Trace Metals
Samples for total trace metals were collected with an all plastic sampler and
immediately transferred to pre-cleaned and "predosed" 1-liter bottles. The
"dose" was 10 ml of 1+1 (volrvol) redistilled nitric acid and reagent water.
The samples were analyzed by atomic absorption using a graphite furnace and
an automatic sampler.
The pre-cleaning protocol followed recommendations in Patterson and Settle (1976).
Modifications to this method involved use of unheated NH03 to clean polyethylene
bottles (Petrie 1980).
The all plastic sampler consisted of a 1-liter plastic polyethylene bottle attached
to the end of a 1 inch interior diameter PVC pipe. Coupled to the PVC pipe was
a lid which attached to the plastic bottle. The lid had a large hole in it
contiguous with the hollow pipe. Holes in the PVC pipe just above the coupling
allowed water to enter the PVC pipe and flow into the bottle through the
perforated lid.
Phenols
Phenolic substances were determined using an autoanalyzer implementation of
the direct 4AAP method following manual distillation, EPA 600/4-79-020 Method
420.
29
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen was measured in water samples from the B-2 depth at each
station by the azide modification of the Winkler test (EPA 1979) immediately
after sample collection. The aliquot for dissolved oxygen was obtained by
inserting to the bottom of a 300 ml glass BOD bottle an 8 to 10 inch length
of Tygon tubing that was connected to the outlet plug of the Niskin bottle.
Flow was regulated by the outlet plug so as to minimize turbulence and
admixture of the sample and air. Two to three bottle volumes were allowed
to flow through the bottle.
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus
Filtered samples were analyzed for soluble reactive phosphorus using a Technicon
AutoAnalyzer System II and a stannous chloride reduced phosphomoIybdenum
complex measured photometrically at a wave length of 660 urn (Technicon
Industrial Method No. 155-71W). Analyses were performed within 2 hours
of sample collection.
Total Phosphorus and Total Dissolved Phosphorus
The various forms of phosphorus were converted to orthophosphate by an
adaptation of the acid persulfate digestion method (Ga I es _ejt_ aj_. 1966).
Samples were transferred to acid washed digestion tubes and covered within
24 hours after collection. The digestion reagent was adjusted to produce
2 gm/l ammonium persulfate and 3 mg/l sulfuric acid in the final digestion
solution. Screw-cap tubes containing the sample and digestion solution
were heated in a forced air oven for 1/2 hour at 150°C. After cooling,
the resulting orthophosphate was determined by the Technicon AutoAnalyzer
System II and Technicon's Industrial Method 155-71W (Murphy and Riley 1962).
30
-------
Total Organic Carbon
Samples were preserved with 1 ml/I concentrated suIfuric acid and stored
in 125 ml polyethylene screw cap bottles unti I analysis. Approximately 10 ml
of acidified sample was purged with 60 to 70 cc/min of prepurified nitrogen
through a capillary tube for 5 minutes to remove inorganic carbon. A 50
ul sample was then injected into a Beckman Total Organic Carbon Analyzer
Model 915B (EPA 1979).
Filtered Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen
A Technicon AutoAnalyzer was used with Technicon's Industrial Method No. 158-71W
on filtered samples (Armstrong et_ jaj_. 1967, EPA 1979). In this procedure nitrate
is reduced to nitrite in a copper cadmium column, which is then reacted with
suIfaniI amide and N-1-napthylethylenediamine dihydrochloride to form a reddish
purple azo dye. Nitrate and nitrite analyses were performed within 2 hours of
collecti on.
Total Ammonia Nitrogen
Total ammonia nitrogen analyses were performed with a Technicon AutoAnalyzer
System II using a modification of Technicon's Industrial Method 154-71W/
Tentative. The ammonia determinations were performed onboard within 8
hours of sample collection. Samples were maintained at 4°C until analyzed.
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
Total KJeldahl nitrogen samples were preserved for no longer than 90 days
by the addition of 0.4 ml of 310 ml H2S04/I to each 125 ml. Preservative
was added to samples within 30 minutes of sample collection. Analyses
were made by an "ultramicro semi automated" method (Jirka, et a I. 1976)
in which a 10 ml sample was digested with a solution of I<2S04 and HgO in
a block digester at 370°C. After cooling and dilution with water, the
sample neutralization and ammonia determination (Berthelot Reaction) were
accomplished on a Technicon AutoAnalyzer System II.
31
-------
Dissolved Reactive Silica
A Technicon AutoAnalyzer System II was used with Technicon's Industrial
Method No. 186-72W/Tentative to determine dissolved reactive silica.
This method is based on the chemical reduction of si Iico-molybdate in
acid solution to "molybdenum blue" by ascorbic acid. Oxalic acid was
added to eliminate interference from phosphorus. Analyses were performed
on the filtered sample within 2 hours of sampling. The results were
reported as silicon.
ChlorophyI I-a and Pheophytin
Water samples for chlorophyll analysis (100 ml to 500 ml) were taken at a I I
stations from the surface sample and were filtered at <7 psi vacuum along
with 1 to 2 mI of MgCOj suspension (10 gm/1) usually within 30 minutes of
sample collection. In some instances filtration was delayed for as long
as 2 hours. The filters (Gelman type AE) were retained in a capped glass
tube containing 10 ml of 90% spectrograde acetone at - 10°C in the dark
for up to 30 days prior to completion of the analysis. The tubes were
placed in an ultrasonic bath for at least 20 minutes and then allowed to
steep for at least 24 hours prior to fIuorometric analysis using an Aminco
dual monochromator spectrofluorometer (Strickland and Parsons 1972).
DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH
The Data Base
The water quality data base was entered into the storage and retrieval system
(STORET) of the EPA and contains approximately 39000 observations from 3300
samples encompassing 47 water quality parameters at 80 locations. The agency
code is 1115GLSB and the station numbers are listed in Table 1 for Niagara,
Rochester and Oswego. Appendix A contains a microfiche of the data base.
32
-------
Segmentation
In order to reflect the regional differences in water quality and to facilitate
the presentation of findings, each study area was sub-divided into a source
area (river), a mixing area (harbor), and a nearshore area (adjacent to the
open waters of Lake Ontario).
The water quality of the rivers was greatly different from that of the lake,
and the combined average values of measurements without the separation of
these water sources would be misleading. This segmentation has been viewed
as a convenient, efficient, understandable and objective way of analyzing
and presenting a large volume of data (Upper Lakes Reference Group IJC 1976).
In order to determine which stations belonged within each segment, a cluster
analysis of the conductivity data was performed using PROC CLUSTER of the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS 1982). This procedure uses a hierarchical
clustering technique, Ward's method (Milligan 1980), that organizes the data
so that one cluster of data may be entirely contained within another cluster.
Any other kind of overlap between clusters is disallowed. In the clustering
procedure, each observation begins as a cluster by itself, after which like
clusters are merged. The "distance" between two clusters is the sum of squares
between the two clusters. New levels of clusters are generated by mimimizing
the within-cluster sum of squares all over positions that can be obtained
by merging two clusters from the previous level of clusters.
The Cubic Clustering Criteria (CCC) as defined (SAS 1982) was used for deter-
mining the "correct" number of clusters. Although values of the CCC that are
greater than 2 or 3 indicate good clustering, we chose to ignore values that
were less than 2.751, thus opting for a more conservative clustering of the
data. The segments selected for each area are presented in Table 4, and
displayed in Figures 2-4.
33
-------
Table 4 Station Segmentation For Each Study Area
Niagara Plume Stations
Lake Area 6,7,8,9,12,15,16,19
Mixing Area 2,3,4,5,10,11,13,14,17,18,20,21,22
Source Area 1
Rochester Embayment
Lake Area 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,10,12,13,16,17,18,19,20,24,
25,26,29
Mixing & Nearshore Area 1A,5,8,11,14,15,27,28,51,52,53,54,55,
57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,70
Source Area 21,56
Oswego Harbor
Lake Area 12A,13A,17,19,29
Outer Harbor Area 9,11,22A,23
Inner Harbor Area 4,5,7,28,37
Source Area 3
34
-------
RESULTS
Average values for selected parameters based on the cluster analysis for
each area and survey are presented in Tables 5-14. Results are reported
separately for the epi I i inn ion, meta limn ion, and hypo limn ion data from the
stratified period. These layers were determined by inspection of the
temperature profiles within each area segment using the stations involved.
The average of a I I samples from an area are reported under the category
"All." Surface samples from the 1 meter depth are reported as "Surface."
THERMAL STRUCTURE
Thermal conditions in Lake Ontario during the Apr!I-May survey reflected
several different early spring conditions. The water temperatures were the
coldest in Niagara River Plume area reflecting ice out conditions in the
Niagara River (Tables 5-7). The Rochester Embayment had a well developed
thermal bar, while Oswego Harbor was entirely within the thermal bar.
In the Niagara River Plume study area, all water temperatures were below
4°C, but no inverse thermal stratification was observed. In the Rochester
Embayment, a thermal bar was located between the outer station transect
and the middle transect (Figure 6). In the mixing area of the Genessee
River at Rochester New York, and in the Oswego Harbor area, all water
temperatures were above 4°C but no thermal stratification was found.
By the second survey, a thermocline had developed between the 5 and 10 meter
depths in the lake areas. Surface water temperatures were above 20°C in most
areas. During the third survey the thermocline was between the 8 and 16
meter depths. The mixing and nearshore areas were no longer completely
stratified, the water mass being primarily from the epilimn ion. During
the fourth survey, the thermocline was between the 25 and 33 meter depths.
Only the lake areas in the Niagara River Plume and the Rochester Embayment
remained completely stratified during the fourth survey.
35
-------
NIAGARA RIVER PLUME - NEARSHORE STUDY
SOURCE AREA
NIAGARA STATION (01)
Table 5
Depths
Temp .
P
Total
(uq/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(ug/l)
Si 1 ica
Diss. React! ve
(ug Si 1 icon/ 1 )
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Chloride
Total
(mg/l)
Su 1 fate
Total
(mg/l)
Survey 1 Apri 1 22-25 1981
All
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
1.2+0.1(11)
1.2+0.2( 3)
Same As A 1 1
19. 5+2. 1C 6)
20.4+5.7( 2)
5.4+0. 5( 7)
5.2+0.6( 2)
2.3+0.6( 6)
1.1 ( 1)
24+ 3( 8)
24+1K 2)
0.28+0. OK 9)
0.26+0. OK 2)
16.1+0.1(11)
16.0+0.3( 3)
23.3+0.2(11)
23.3+0.3( 3)
Survey 2
August 2-5 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
22.8+0.0(12)
22.8+0. 1( 3)
Same As A 1 1
11.3+0.3(12)
11.2+0.8( 3)
5.9+0.6(12)
5.5+0.7( 3)
2.5+0.1(12)
2.3+0.2( 3)
110+ 1(12)
110+ 3( 3)
0.11+0.00(12)
0.11+0. OK 3)
18.1+0.3(12)
18.1+0.8( 3)
24.7+0.2( 4)
24.3 ( 1)
Survey 3
August 30-Sept 2 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
21.9+0.1(12)
21.9+0.2( 4)
Same As A 1 1
9.0+0.9(11)
9.5+2.2( 4)
4.7+0.2( 9)
5.0+0.0( 3)
3.3+0.5(6)
3.5+1.5(2)
79+ 8(12)
80+15( 4)
0.08+0.00(12)
0.08+0. OK 4)
18. 0+0. K 6)
17.9+0.2( 2)
24.4+2.3( 3)
25.8 ( 1)
Survey 4
October 8-10 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
13.1+0.0( 6)
13. 1+0. K 3)
Same As A I 1
31.6+6.0( 6)
29.0+6.6( 3)
6.3+0.5( 6)
5.9+0.3( 3)
2.9+0.6(6)
3.1+1.0(3)
132+ 5( 6)
132+ 7( 3)
0.11+0.00( 5)
0.11+0.00( 2)
18. 4+0. K 6)
18.4+0.2( 3)
25.8+0.3( 2)
26.1 ( 1)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of samples). "Depths" refers to water layers
sampled: "Ail" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes
upper 20 meters; "20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epiIimnion;
"META" includes the metalimnion; "HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 5 Con't
Niagara River Plume - Nearshore Study
Source Area
Niagara Station (01)
Depths
Chloro-
phy 1 l-a
(ug/l)
TKN
(mg N/l)
NH3,
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
A 1 ka 1 i n i ty
Total
(mg CaCOVI
PH
(SU)
Turbi di ty
NTU
Seech i
Disk
(m)
Survey 1 Apr! I 22-25 1981
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
4.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
34.0+1.9(10)
37.5+8.5( 2)
262+1(11)
262+ 1( 3)
Same as A 1 1
84.2+0.6(11)
85.7+1.3( 3)
8.16+0.1K 11)
8.41+0.4K 3)
4.5+0.3(11)
4.3+0.5( 3)
1.4+0.1(2)
Survey 2 August 2-5 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
1.0+0.2(2)
1.0+0.2(2)
19.0+2.5(12)
18.7+5.3( 3)
Same as A
284+1(12)
284+1 ( 3)
1
93.8+0.1(12)
93.7+0.3( 3)
8.54+0.02( 12)
8.50+0.07( 3)
1.4+0.0(12)
1.3+0.0( 3)
3.8+0.2(3)
Survey 3 August 30-Sept 2 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
2.1+0.1(4)
2.1+0.1(4)
0.40+0.09(4)
0.25+0.02(2)
12.5+3.3(12)
11.5+6.2C 4)
287+0(12)
287+0( 4)
Same as A 1 1
94.8+0.2(12)
94.8+0.2( 4)
8.44+0.03( 12)
8.43+0.06( 4)
1.4+0.0(12)
1.4+O.K 4)
3.4+0.2(3)
Survey 4 October 8-10 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
0.23+0.2(3)
0.23+0.2(3)
0.32+0.04(4)
0.31+0.05(3)
24.5+1.6( 6)
24.3+2.3( 3)
295+1 ( 6)
294+1 ( 3)
Same as A I I
96.1+0.2( 6)
96.2+0.3( 3)
8.26+0.02( 6)
8.26+0.03( 3)
7.9+1.5( 6)
7.6+2.K 3)
0.8+0.2(3)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo Iimnion.
-------
Table 6
Niagara River Plume - Nearshore Study
Mixing Area
Niagara Stations (02,03,04,05,10,11,13,14,17,18,20,21,22)
Depths
Temp.
P
Total
(ug/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(ug/l)
S i 1 i ca
Diss.
Reactive
(ug Si 1 icon/ 1 )
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Chloride
Total
(mg/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mg/l)
Survey 1
ApriI 22-25 1981
Al 1
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
2.0+0.1(80)
1.9+0.2(36)
18.6+0.5(82)
19.0+0.7(37)
5.5+0.2(85)
5.3+0.2(37)
Same as A
1.7+0.1(77)
1.8+0.1(34)
I
48+2(85)
46+3(38)
0.29+0.00(85)
0.29+0.01(38)
17.5+0.3(82)
17.6+0.4(37)
24.5+0.1(82)
24.6+0.2(37)
Survey 2
August 2-5 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
22.1+0.1(92)
22.5+0.1(40)
21.2+0.1(90)
17.9+0.6( 2)
18.1+1.6(92)
16.2+0.8(40)
18.1+1.7(90)
17.1+O.K 2)
6.4+0.3(92)
6.1+0.4(40)
6.4+0.3(90)
6.5+0.3( 2)
2.8+0.2(89)
3.0+0.5(39)
2.7+0.2(87)
3.2+1.8C 2)
117+4(84)
109+2(37)
117+4(84)
No data
0.11+0.01(84)
0.11+0.00(37)
0.11+0.01(84)
No data
25.3+3.4(88)
20.3+0.5(39)
25.4+3.5(86)
21.3+1.5(2 )
24.7+0.2(29)
24.6+0.4(14)
24.7+ .3(27)
No data
U-J
00
Survey 3
August 30-Sept 3 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
21.1+0.2(90)
21.4+0.4(38)
Same as A I I
12.6+0.6(87)
12.2+1.0(37)
5.0+0.4(63)
4.5+0.3(28)
3.3+0.2(25)
3.4+0.3(11)
67+4(80)
68+5(35)
0.09+0.00(83)
0.09+0.00(36)
20.8+0.3(63)
19.8+0.4(26)
26.1+0.7(30)
25.2+1.1(13)
Survey 4
October 8-10 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
12.5+0.0(77)
12.6+0.1(40)
Same as A 1 1
23.8+2.9(77)
21.0+1.3(40)
5.1+0.3(73)
5.3+0.4(37)
2.3+0.3(73)
2.6+0.5(38)
122+2(77)
122+3(40)
0.13+0.00(77)
0.13+0.00(40)
21.1+0.3(77)
20.5+0.4(40)
27.4+0.3(25)
27.2+0.4(13
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled:
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metalimn ion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ton.
-------
Table 6 Con't
Niagara River Plume - Nearshore Study
Mixing Area
Niagara Stations (02,03,04,05,10,11,13,14,17,18,20,21,22)
Depths
Chloro-
phyl 1 -a
(ug/1)
TKN
(mg N/l )
"NH3. "
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
unions/cm
at 25°C
Alkalinity
total
(mg CaCOjj/l )
pH
CSUL
Turbidity
NTU
Secchi
Disk
Cm).
Survey 1 April 22-25 1981
All
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
3.8+0.1(24)
ra. 8+0. 1(24)
No data
SAME AS ALL
1
39.4+2.0
41.3+3.9
80
36
272+1
270+2
88
39
85.5+0.4
85.4+0.6
88
39
8.09+0.01(88'
•ffros+o.orp?
3.5+0.1
3.6+0.1
r87T
39)
1.7+0.1(32)
Al
Survey 2 August 2-5 1981
Surface
EPI
MET
FA
YPO
3.6+0.3
3.6+0.3
30
30
No data
27.8+4.8
24.3+2.0
28.4+4.9
83
38
81
4". 5+3". 5 2
292+1(92-
290+1 40
292+1(90
"3TO+4T2"
93.4+0.1
93.4+0.2
93.4+0.1
93.5+0.5
92
40
90
2
8.54+0.01
8.56+0.01
8.54+0.01
8.35+0.01
92
40
90
2
1.8+0.1
1.7+0.1
1.8+0.1
[2 . 3+0 . 0
92
40
90
2
3.2+0.l{39[
Ul
Survey 3
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
3.7+0.4 34
3.7+0.4(34)
S/
0.49+0.07
ro. 45+0. 09
[ME AT'ALL
48
13.8+1.3
14.0+2.4
August 30-Sept 2 1981
r77
33
295+1
291+1
93
39
92.5+0.3(93]
93.5+0.3(39'
8.42+0.01
8.45+0.02
93
39
1.4+0.0
1.3+0.0
92
39
r 3. 7+0. l[39l
Survey 4 October 8-10 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
2.0+0.1
2.0+0.1
34)
S/
0.22+0.01(52
FO. 21+0. 01(38)
[ME AS ALL
32.8+7.8(75)
35.5+11.4(39)
305+1
303+2
77
40
93.4+1.1
94.8+0.3
77
40
8.26+0.01
8.27+0.01
//
40
4.6+0.7
4.8+0.5
77
40
1.9+0.2[S9[
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled:
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Niagara River Plume - Nearshore Study
Lake Area
Niagara Station (06,07,08,09,12,15,16,19)
Table 7
Depths
Temp.
(°C) 1
P
Total
(ug/11
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/1)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(ug/1)
Sil ica
Diss.
Reactive
(ug Silicon/1)
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/U
Chloride
Total
(mg/1 )
Sulfate
Total
(mg/1 )
Survey
All
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
3.0+0.0(^114]
2.9+0.1
f279"+0.~0"
3.0+0.1
22
91
23
14.5+1.4
11.9+0.5
11.6+0.2
25.7+6.5
1 April 22-25 1981
'111)
22
88
231
6.1+0.2C1H]
6.0+0.4
6.0+0.2
6.7+0.6
21
87
22
3.2+0.1
3.1+0.3
3.1+0.2
3.5+0.3
(90)
19
/2
18
152+4(112^
146+8
151+4
155+8
22)_
' 89
23'
0.32+0.00(112)
0.32+0.01
0.32+0.00
0.32+0.01
22
89
231
25.0+0.2(107]
24.6+0.6
25.0+6.2
25.0+0.8
21
8b
' 22*
27.9+0.5(107)
27.0+0.5(21
28.1+0.6
27.3+0.9
>8b
22
Survey
All " "
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO'
13.7+0.9(64
21.5+0.3
20.6+0.3
13.3+0.4
5.2+0.4
13
31
8
2b
2 August 2-5 1981
16.9+1.8(64
18.5+1.4
17.9+0.8
27. 7+13. S
i-2-:i+o:ff{
13
31
8
25
6.4+0.3
6.0+0.4
6.1+0.2
6.2+0.3
6. §+0.7
59
12
28
8
23
2.9+0.2
1.9+0.3
2.2+0.2^
2.4+0.4
J.f+0.5
62
12
29
8
2b
149+16
97+ 7
115+14
79+11
62
12
30 '
8
" '2iT+35"L24j
0.19+0.01
0.14+O.Olj
0.15+O.OK
0.17+0.02
0.24+0.0?
64
13
U— i
31
8
2b'
23.4+0.5
21.3+0.8
21.9+0.6
25.7+1.4
24.5+0.8
,
r!2.
29
/'
23,
25.3+0.3
24.8+0.4
25.2+0.3
26.1+0.6
25. 0+0. £
3/
8
19
4
14
All
Surface
EPT
META "
HYPO
Survey 3 August 30-Sept 2 1981
12.6+0.9(55]
21.2+0.2(11]
20. 3+0. 2 (221
T2.6+0.3
4.9+0.2
11
22
10.9+0.7
13.6+1.4
12.7+1.1
'774+O.T
b3
11
22
to
T0.7+r:2[21
5.2+0.3
4.9+0.3
4.9+O.S
"4T2+OT5"
5.9+0.6^
43
1U
I/
8
18
3.0+0.4
2.1+0.2
2.6+0.3
2.7+0.4
2b
/
14
6
'477+271" 5
197+28(49
68+ 8
75+ 6
134+19
10
2U
1U
359+52 19
0.23+0.02
b2
0.09+0. 00 (11
0.11+0.01
0.27+CT.Of
0.35+0.01
22,
Hf-%-4
191
24.7+0.7
18.9+0.4
22.0+1.2
2eT.i+o.?
26.7+0.1
2U
4
8
4
«)
30.1+0.5(10
27.4+0.1/ 2
28.9+0.9( 4
JO. 7+0. 0( V
31.0+0.1L 4,
Survey 4 October 8-10 1981
All
Surface
EPI "
META "
HYPO
8.8+0.5
12.3+0.2
Tf.T+OTf
8.7+0.3
5.0+0.1
50)
111
22
8
2U
16.8+2.0
12.9+0.5
"12T2+O.T
§.9+0.6
bU
11
22
8
24.6+4.5(^20
7.4+0.5
4.5+0.3
478+0.3"
6.1+0.7
0.6+0.8
49
11
22
/
2U
4.0+0.5
1.7+0.3
2.1+6.1
3.5+0.9
4/
11
22
8
6.6+0.7^17
249+23
97+ 4
106+ 4~
278+31
395+32
50)
. )
22[
' 8
2U
0.28+0.01
0.17+0.00
0.18+0. dO
bU
l-2-—t
"
0.34+0.01 8
0.36+0.01(20
25.8+0.1(
25.1+0.3
25.3+0.1
26^.0+0.1(
bU
hj-j-<
11
22
§-i
;
U— — i
26.4+0.1(20)
29.3+0.1(30*
29.1+0.2f 7
29.1+0.1(14
29.5+0.2( 4^
29.4+0.1(12
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled:
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo!imnion.
-------
Table 7 Con't
Niagara River Plume - Nearshore Study
Lake Area
Niagara Stations (06,07,08,09,12,15,16,19)
Depths
Chi orophyl 1 -a
Lug/i i
TKN
(mg N/l)
NH3,
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
Alkal inity
Total
(mg CaCO-}/! )
PH
(SU)
Turbdity
NTU
Secchi
Disk
(m)
Survey 1 April 22-25 1981
AlT~ "
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
2.5+0.2
2.5+0.2J
2.5+0.2
21
20
.21
No Data
8.7+1.7(90).
13.8+8.3f
,9.7+2.1
4.9+,0.9
17
72
18
323+1
321+2
322+1
326+1
112
21
89
( 23
93.6+0.2
93.2+0.5
r93.4+0.2
112
21,
89'
94.3+0.4( 23]
L8. 11+0. 01
8.11+0.02
8.11+0.01
8.11+0.02
112
21
89
23)
3.8+1.21
4.5+3.4
4.1+1.5
109
21
88'
2.4+0.6^ 211
5.2+0.4(23)
Survey 2
August 2-5 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPfr
3.2+0.4
3.7+0.3
3. 7+0. 3
12i
Mgr
iol
0.8+0.1{ 2)
No Data
25.8+2.7
17.6+3.9
7J.~8T3";ff
39.8+8.6
55
11
27
6
24.3+4.9(22)
314+2"
295+3
299+2
321+2
330+0
64)
^13r
>3lj
A
25)
94.1+0.3(64
93.4+1.0
92.8+0.5
93.6+0.4
95.9+0.4"
13
31
Q
2b
8.27+0.04
8.51+0.09
8.51+0.04
8.22+0.01
8.00+0.02
64
13
31
o
2b
1.7+0. it 63)|
1.9+0.2
1.9+0.1
1.8+0.1
1.5+0.1
13
31,
8
24'
2.7+0.2(13)
Survey 3
August 30-Sept 2 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META" ' "
HYPO
3.7+0.4
3.7+0.4
3.7+0.4
11
11
11
0.48+0.64(27;
0.39+0.07
0.46+0.06
0.'57+bV6"7
9)
13'
41
0.48+0.07(101
5.7+1.1
12.5+3.5
9.2+2.1
3.9+2.4
3.0+1.2
40
8
16
7
17)
317+2
295+2
[301+2
"323+T
331+1
bb
11
22
11
22
93.9+0.4
92.4+0.6
91.4+0.5
93.3+0.4
96.8+0.3
551
11)
JL-L-
52i
8.11+0.04
bb
8.47+0.05(^11]
8.40+0.04
7.96+0.02
22
11
7.90+0.01(22
1.4+0. If 54 j
l.l+0.l(_ 11J
1.2+0.01
1.0+0.1
1.8+0.2
22
11
21
4.1+0.1(11)
Survey 4 October 8-10 1981
'ATT
Surface
E~PI
META
HYPO
1.5+0.3
1.5+0.3
1.5+0.3
g
9
Q
0.22+0.01(361.
0.22+0.02
(L 23+0. 021
0.22+0. Of
0.22+0.02
11
18
5
13
5.4+0.4
'T.5+O
8.0+0.4
50
ill
22
4.0+0.5( 8
3.2+0.5(20]
330+1
321+1
322+f
331+1
337+1
50
11
22
o
20
93.8+0.3
91.2+0.2
91.4+0.1
94.5+0.3
96.2+0.2
bO
11
22
8
20
8.06+0.03
8.27+0.03
[5F
11
18.25+0.02(22,
7.98+0.03
7.90+0.02
8,
(20)
1.6+0.3
0.9+0.1
0.9+0.1
0.8+0.1
2.7+0.7
bO
11
22
8
[ 20
4.9+0.1(111
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metal imnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 8
Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study
Source Area
Rochester Stations (21,56)
Depths
Temp
(°C )
P
Total
(ug/1)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/1)
P
Solub le
Reactive
(ug/1)
Si lica
Diss. Reactive
(ug Si 1 icon/1)
N02+N03
Total
(mg/l)
Ch lor i de
Total
(mg/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mq/l)
Survey 1 April 29-May 4 1981
Al 1
Surface
40M-Bottom
11.4+0.7(4)
11.8+0.8(3)
10 (1)
43.2+ 8.9(3)
46.9+14.2(2)
35.9 (1)
9.6+2.7(4)
9.5+3.8(3)
9.7 (1)
4.8+ 2.6(4)
4.7+ 3.6(3)
5.0 (1)
605+374(4)
648+526(3)
475 (1)
0.38+0.04(4)
0.39+0.06(3)
0.36 (1)
32.2+3.9(3)
35.2+4.2(2)
26 (1)
45.1(14.1(3)
48.1+23.8(2)
39 (1)
Survey 2
July 21-30 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
21.5 0.6(9)
21.7+0.5(6)
Same as A I 1
26.9+ 4.5(10)
31.1+ 5.6( 7)
8.7+1.6(10)
8.8+2.2(7)
5.1+ 2.6( 10)
5.9+ 4.1(7)
183+ 79(8)
214+104(6)
0.14+ .04(10)
0.17+0.05(7)
28.4+1.4(10)
29.6+1.9(7)
34.9+2.0(4)
36.0+2.5(3)
Survey 3 August 18-26 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
21.2+0.2(8)
21.1+0.4(5)
Same as A I 1
50.9+ 9.0(8)
60.4+12.3(5)
15.6+4.3(5)
14.0+3.2(3)
12.0+ 7.0(5)
14.0+11.8(3)
439+163(8)
528+255(5)
0.20+0.06(8)
0.21+0.09(5)
30.7+7.3(2)
38 . 1 ( 1 )
29.7 (1)
Survey 4
September 30-Oct 1 1981
A) 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
14.1+0.4(9)
14.1+0.5(6)
Same as A 1 I
76.0+15.9(9)
57.4+19.3(6)
23.1+4.5(9)
16.7+4.8(6)
19.8+ 4.6(8)
13.0+ 4.8(5)
445+274(3)
445+274(3)
0.56+0.09(8)
0.45+0.12(5)
53.0+8.6(9)
43.1+8.3(6)
61.4+7.0(7)
53.0+10.0(4)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metalimn ion;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 8 Con't
Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study
Source Area
Rochester Stations (21,56)
Depths
Ch lorophy ) l-a
( ug/ I )
TKN
(mg N/l)
NH3,
Total
(uq N/l)
Conduct! vi ty
umohs/cm
at 25°C
Alkalinity
Total
(mg CaCOyi
PH
(SU)
Turbi dity
NTU
Seech i
Disk
(m)
Survey 1
Apri I 29-May 4 1981
All
Surface
4 M- Bottom
5.1+2.3(2)
5.1+2.3(2)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
144+ 90(4)
141+128(3)
155 (1)
411+27(4)
421+36(3)
380 (1)
97.8+1.5(4)
99.0+1.2(3)
94 (1)
8.21+0.10(4)
8.24+0.13(3)
8.14 (1)
13.1+4.3(4)
12.9+6.1(3)
13.5 (1)
0.3 (1)
Survey 2
July 21-30 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
5.7+0.5(5)
5.7+0.5(5)
Same as A 1 1
0.43+ .14(3)
0.43+ .14(3)
39.2+11.3(10)
28. 2+12. 6( 7)
342+20(9)
357+28(6)
87.6+0.9(9)
88.3+1.2(6)
8.40+0.03(9)
8.39+ .04(6)
3.8+0.9(9)
4.6+1.2(6)
1.6+0.2(6)
Survey 5
August 18-26 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
12.7+1.7(5)
12.7+1.7(5)
Same as A 1 1
0.55+0.09(4)
0.57+0.13(3)
27.9+12.4(5)
10.8+ 8.0(3)
465+45(8)
507+64(5)
101.8+3.9(8)
105.2+5.5(5)
8.33+0.10(8)
8.34+0.15(5)
5.0+0.9(8)
5.6+1.2(5)
1.1+0.2(5)
Survey 4
September 23-Oct 1 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
6.1+2.7(4)
6.1+2.1(4)
Same as A 1 1
0.55+0.08(7)
0.53+0.08(6)
138.6+33.7(8)
97.6+40.7(5)
500+50(9)
434+52(6)
117.9+6.6(9)
108.5+7.0(6)
8.14+0.04(9)
8.19+0.05(6)
16.9+4.4(9)
12.0+4.6(6)
1.2+0.2(6)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"Ail" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study Area
Mixing and Nearshore Area
Rochester Stations (01 A,5,8,11,14,15,27,28,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,70)
Table 9
Depths
Temp
(°C )
P
Total
(uq/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(uq/l )
P
Soluble
React! ve
(uq/l )
Si 1 ica
Di ss. Reactive
(ug Si 1 i con/ 1 )
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Ch lor i de
Total
(mq/l)
Su 1 fate
Total
(mg/l)
Survey 1 April 29-May 4 1981
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
7.8+0.2( 44)
8.1+0.4( 21)
7.8+0.2( 44)
5.6+O.K 4)
16.3+0.8( 43)
17.8+1.6( 21)
16.4+0.8( 43)
14.6+O.K 4)
6.2+O.K 44)
6.3+0.2( 21)
6.2+O.K 44)
6.2+O.K 4)
1.4+O.K 40)
1.6+0.2( 19)
1.4+O.K 40)
1.8+0.5( 4)
65+13( 44)
83+26 ( 21)
66+13( 44)
56+ 3( 4)
0.28+0.003( 44)
0.28+0.01 ( 21)
0.28+0.003( 44)
0.29+ .00 ( 4)
23.4+0.7( 41)
22.8+0.4( 19)
23.4+0.7( 41)
22.2+0.6( 4)
28.5+0.5( 40)
28.9+0.8( 19)
28.5+0.5( 40)
27.4+0.7( 4)
Survey 2 July 21-30 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
18.3+0.4( 158)
20.6+0.3( 68)
21.3+0.1(110)
12.9+0.6( 38)
5.3+0.2( 10)
20.0+0.8(155)
22.1+1.6( 67)
22.1+1.1(107)
15.8+0.7( 38)
13.7+1.2( 10)
7.3+0.5(155)
8.2+0.9( 67)
8.0+0.7(108)
5.5+0.3( 37)
6.7+0.8( 10)
2.6+0.2(142)
2.5+0.3( 60)
2.6+0.2( 96)
2.4+0.3( 37)
3.3+0.8( 9)
107+ 6( 139)
96+10( 59)
88+ 7( 96)
126+ 9( 34)
235+16( 9)
0.13+0.01 (149)
0.10+0.01 ( 62)
0.09+0.004(103)
0.19+0.02 ( 37)
0.34+0.01 ( 9)
26.2+0.2( 149)
26.3+0.4( 63)
26.1+0.3(101)
26. 1+0. K 38)
28.2+1.7C 10)
30.3+0.6( 52)
30.1+1.0( 22)
30.3+0.6( 51)
31.0 ( 1)
Survey 3 August 18-26 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
20.4 0.2(144)
21. 3+0. K 62)
Same as Al I
19.8+0.9(113)
19.2+1.0( 50)
9.6+0.7( 94)
8.9+0.8( 43)
2.7+0.3(101)
2.4+0.5( 46)
94+ 4(132)
93+ 7( 59)
0.10+0.005( 124)
0.09+0.01 ( 55)
24.2+0.3( 46)
23.9+0.3( 19)
29.2+0.4( 47)
28.7+0.6( 19)
Survey 4 September 23-Oct 1 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
14.7+0.1(134)
14. 7+0. K 66)
Same as Al 1
28.3+1.6( 133)
27.6+2.0( 66)
8.6+0.6(133)
8.8+1.K 66)
3.9+0.3(119)
3.6+0.3( 59)
168+14(123)
160+2K 60)
0.15+0.01 (128)
0.15+0.01 ( 63)
26.5+0.6(125)
26.2+0.9( 61)
30.0+0.9( 45)
29.4+1.2( 21)
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metalimn ton;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 9 Con't
Rochester Embayment Nearshore Study Area
Mixing and Nearshore Area
Rochester Stations (01A,5,8,11,14,15,27,28,51,52,53,54,55,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,70)
Depths
Ch lorophy I I -a
(ug/l)
TKN
(mq N/l)
NH3,
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
A 1 ka I i n i ty
Total
(mg CaCOy 1)
pH
(SU)
Turbi dity
NTU
Seech i
Disk
(m)
Survey 1 Apr! 1 29-Ma^
Al 1
Surface
0-20M
10M-Bottom
4.7+0.1(17)
4.7+0.1(17)
4.7+0.1(17)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
21.5+6.2( 40)
25.6+7.5( 19)
21.5+6.2( 40)
3.8 ( 2)
316+3( 44)
316+3( 21)
316+3( 44)
307+ H 4)
91.7+0.2( 43)
91.7+0.3( 21)
91.7+0.2( 43)
91.3+0.6( 4)
/ 4 1981
8.33+0.03( 43)
8.33+0.03( 21)
8.33+0.03( 43)
8.32+0.02( 4)
2.5+0.5( 43)
3.1+0.9( 21)
2.5+0.5( 43)
1.2+O.K 4)
3.2+0.3(18)
Survey 2
July 21-30 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
5.0+0.4(41)
5.0+0.8(41)
5.2+0.4(37)
3.9+0.7( 3)
3.6 ( 1)
0.40+0.02(35)
0.41+0.03(18)
0.39+0.02(34)
No Data
0.85 ( 1)
28.1+1.7(146)
26.5+2.7( 63)
28.6+2.1(104)
27.9+3.3( 34)
23.4+6.3( 8)
315+K 158)
315+3( 68)
312+2(110)
320+ H 38)
330+K 10)
89.1+0.4(158)
88.1+0.5( 68)
87.5+0.4(110)
91.4+0.6( 38)
98.1+0.8( 10)
8.27+0.02(158)
8.34+0.02( 68)
8.35+0.02(110)
8.09+0.02( 38)
7. 96+0. OK 10)
2.1+0.1(158)
2.2+0.2( 68)
2.2+0.1(110)
1.8+O.K 38)
1.9+0.2( 10)
2.4+0.1(61)
Survey 3
August 18-26 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
5.2+0.3(58)
5.3+0.3(57)
Same as A I 1
0.43+0.03(52)
0.40+0.03(43)
16.4+1.3( 86)
14.3+1.6( 38)
307+1(143)
306+2 ( 62)
89.3+0.3(143)
88.6+0.5( 62)
8.37+0.02(143)
8.44+0.04( 62)
1.8+0.1(143)
1.8+O.K 62)
2.7+0.1(62)
Survey 4
September 23-Oct 1 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
5.1+0.2(59)
5.1+0.2(59)
Same as A 1 1
0.33+0.01(84)
0.33+0.01(62)
15.8+2.1(125)
14.4+2.6( 62)
321+3(134)
319+4( 66)
92.1+0.4(134)
91.7+0.5( 66)
8.31+0.01(134)
8. 32+0. OK 66)
2.5+0.3(134)
2.4+0.4( 66)
3.0+0.1(63)
Results are reported as mean + Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; 0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-8ottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metaIimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Table 10
Rochester Embayment Nearshore Area
Lake Area
Rochester Stations (01,02,03,04,06,07,09,10,12,13,16,17,18,19,20,24,25,26,29)
Depths
Temp
CO
P
Total
(ug/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Solub le
Reactive
(ug/l)
Si 1 ica
Diss. Reactive
(ug Si 1 icon/ 1 )
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Chloride
Total
(mq/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mg/l)
Survey 1 A
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
4.2+O.H 56)
4.3+0.3( 19)
4.6+0.2( 25)
3.9+O.K 31)
13.8+0.3( 55)
14.3+0.7( 19)
14.3+0.6( 25)
13. 5+0. H 30)
7.7+0.2( 55)
7.7+0.3( 18)
7.5+0.2( 24)
7.9+0.2( 31)
3.9+0.2( 50)
3.8+0.4( 17)
3.4+0.4( 23)
4.4+0.3( 27)
Dri 1 29-May 4 1981
124+ 6{ 55)
121 + 1K 19)
109+10( 25)
137+ 5( 30)
0.31+0.003( 55)
0.31+0.004( 19)
0.31+0.004( 25)
0.32+0.003( 30)
25.1+0.2 ( 55)
25.1+0.3 ( 19)
24.7+0.3 ( 25)
25.4+0.1 ( 30)
29.3+0.2 (55)
29.0+0.2 (19)
28.9+0.2 (25)
29.7+0.4 (30)
Survey 2 July 21-30 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
12.9+0.5(253)
20.9+0.2( 53)
21. 0+0. H 103)
12.8+0.3( 53)
4.5+O.H 97)
16.1+2.0(252)
25.1+9.21 53)
20.1+4.7(103)
16.2+0.2( 53)
11.8+0.4( 96)
6.3+0.2(249)
5.6+0.2{ 51)
5.6+0.2( 100)
5.1+0.2( 53)
7.6+0.3( 96)
3.9+0.3(211)
2.0+0.35 44)
2.1+0.4( 86)
2.6+0.3{ 45)
6.7+0.6{ 80)
129+ 8(241)
49+ 7( 51)
46+ 4( 98)
78+ 8( 51)
245+12( 92)
0.19+0.01 (245)
0.07+0.01 ( 52)
0.06+0.01 (100)
0.16+0.01 ( 51)
0.34+0.01 ( 94)
26.0+0.1 (228)
25.8+0.1 ( 50)
25.7+0.1 ( 96)
26.0+0.1 ( 49)
26.3+0.1 ( 83)
28.6+0.2 (93)
27.4+0.5 (19)
27.7+0.3 (41)
28.6+0.5 (19)
29.7+0.5 (33)
Survey 3 August 18-26 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
12.8+0.5(263)
21. 1+0. H 55)
20.6+0.1(109)
12.8+0.2( 52)
4.4+0.1(102)
20.3+2.2(209)
26.3+5.5( 47)
21.7+3.K 90)
14.5+2.8( 39)
21.5+4.2( 80)
7.9+0.6(186)
10.3+2.51 41)
8.8+1.4( 79)
6.4+0.6( 38)
7.6+0.6( 69)
3.9+0.4(220)
1.5+0.2( 46)
1.5+O.K 89)
3.1+0.3( 45)
6.5+1.0( 86)
151+ 8(253)
61+ 3( 53)
63+ 3(106)
100+ 7( 50)
272+13{ 97)
0.23+0.01 (251)
0.08+0.003( 52)
0.09+0.004(103)
0.26+0.01 ( 50)
0.36+0.004( 98)
25.4+0.2 ( 87)
24.1+0.4 ( 18)
24.3+0.3 ( 36)
25.8+0.4 ( 18)
26.3+0.5 ( 33)
30.6+0.4 (87)
29.4+0.7 (18)
29.7+0.4 (36)
30.5+0.6 (18)
31.7+0.9 (33)
-pi
CFi
Survey 4 September 30-Oct 1 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
11.2+0.3(215)
14. 7+0. 1( 53)
14.2+0.1(142)
8.9+0.3( 16)
4.4+O.K 57)
18.2+1.1(209)
20.1+1.4( 52)
17.7+0.4(140)
14.2+1.9( 15)
20.5+0.4( 54)
8.7+0.4(209)
8.3+0.9( 52)
7.4+0.4(140)
7.7+1.21 15)
12.1+1.0( 54)
4.7+0.3(198)
3.3+0.3( 50)
3.3+0.3(132)
5.6+1. 1( 12)
8.2+0.7( 54)
164+ 9(208)
97+ 3( 51)
102+ 3(136)
190+14( 16)
308+22{ 56)
0.21+0.01 (204)
0.15+ .004( 51)
0.16+ .003(136)
0.29+ .01 ( 16)
0.34+ .01 ( 52)
25.5+0.1 (173)
24.9+0.1 ( 42)
25.1+0.04(115)
25.9+0.1 ( 12)
26.4+0.03( 46)
27.6+0.04(82)
27.4+0.1 (19)
27.4+0.04(51)
27.7+0.1 ( 7)
28.0+0.1 (24)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Rochester Embayment Nearshore Area
Lake Area
Rochester Stations (01,02,03,04,06,07,09,10,12,13,16,17,18,19,20,24,25,26,29)
Table 10 Con't
Depths
Ch lorophy I l-a
(ug/l)
TKN
(mg N/l)
NH3
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
A I ka 1 i n i ty
Total
(mq CaCOVD
PH
(SU)
Turbidity
NTU
Seech i
Disk
(m)
Survey 1 A
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
3.1+0.3(19)
3.1+0.3( 18)
3.1+0.3(18)
2.5 ( 1)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
4.8+0.4(54)
4.6+0.6(18)
4.7+0.6(24)
4.8+0.6(30)
3r i 1 29-May 4 1981
323+ 1( 56)
323+ 2( 19)
321+ 2( 25)
324+ 1( 31)
93.0+0.2( 56)
92.8+0.3( 19)
92.6+0.3( 25)
93.3+0.2( 31)
8.20+0.02(56)
8.18+0.05(19)
8.21+0.04(25)
8.19+0.01(31)
2.6+1.5( 55)
5.3+4.3( 19)
4.3+3.3( 25)
1.2+0.2( 30)
6.2+0.4(19)
Survey 2 July 21-30 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
2.9+0.2(35)
2.9+0.2(35)
3.0+0.2(34)
1.2 ( 1)
0.31+0.02(83)
0.36+0.05(20)
0.35+0.02(37)
0.34+0.03(17)
0.26+0.03(28)
24.0+1.7(246)
15.9+1.4( 51)
20.3+1.7(100)
59.1+4.0( 52)
8.5+1.3( 94)
316+ 1(253)
304+ 1( 53)
304+0.4(103)
318+ 1C 53)
328+0. 3( 97)
92.0+0.4(253)
86.2+0.4( 53)
85.9+0.2(103)
92.0+0.5( 53)
98.5+0.5( 97)
8.19+0.01(253)
8.43+0.02( 53)
8.43+0.02(103)
8.13+0.02( 53)
7. 97+0. OK 97)
1.5+0.03(253)
1.7+0.05( 53)
1.7+0.04(103)
1.6+0.1 ( 53)
1.2+0.1 ( 97)
2.9+0.1(54)
Survey 3 August 18-26 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
5.4+1.1(51)
5.4+1.1(51)
5.4+1.1(51)
0.43+0.03(73)
0.49+0.04(42)
0.46+0.03(47)
0.41+0.04( 8)
0.35+0.05(18)
14.1+1.1(191)
12.7+1.5( 41)
17.6+1.3( 80)
23.4+3.0( 38)
5.5+1.3( 73)
315+ 1(263)
301+ 1( 55)
302+0.3(109)
320+0. 5 ( 52)
327+0.2(102)
90.2+0.7(263)
86.8+1.5( 55)
86.6+1.1(109)
90.9+1.7( 52)
93.6+1.2(102)
8.14+0.02(263)
8. 52+0. OK 55)
8.44+0.01(109)
7. 96+0. OK 52)
7.92+0.01(102)
1.4+0.1 (263)
1.6+0.2 ( 55)
1.5+0.1 (109)
1.1+0.03( 52)
1.4+0.1 (102)
3.2+0.1(57)
Survey 4 September 23-Oct 1 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
4.6+0.2(52)
4.6+0.2(52)
4.6+0.2(52)
0.28+0.02(91)
0.34+0.03(50)
0.31+0.03(71)
0.16+0.03( 5)
0.16+0.02(15)
11.0+2.5(209)
13.5+3.6( 51)
15.6+3.7(138)
3.6+0.5( 15)
1.6+0.2( 56)
318+1.0(214)
312+0. 3( 53)
313+0. 3( 141)
325+0. 0( 16)
330+0. 4( 57)
92.8+0.2(214)
90.9+O.K 53)
91.2+0.1(141)
94.4+0.2( 16)
96.1+0.2( 57)
8.14+0.01(214)
8. 30+0. OK 53)
8.26+0.01(141)
7. 97+0. OK 16)
7. 91+0. OK 57)
1.1+0.1 (214)
1.0+0.05( 53)
1.0+0.03(141)
0.9+0.1 ( 16)
1.4+0.2 ( 57)
4.5+0.1(54)
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Table 11
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Source Area
Oswego Station (03)
Depths
Temp .
(°C )
P
Total
(ug/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(uq/l)
Si 1 i ca
Diss. React i ve
(ug Si 1 icon/I)
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Ch lor i de
Total
(mq/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mq/l)
Survey 1 A
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
11.0+0.2( 4)
11.2+0.2( 2)
Same as A I I
66. 0+11. 9( 4)
67. 5+11. 5( 2)
19.7+3.0( 4)
16.3+3.9( 2)
5.3+1.K 3)
3.0 (1)
3ri I 27-28 1981
85+18( 3)
92+27 ( 2)
0.36+0. OK 3)
0.36+0. OK 2)
208.0+10.7(4)
218.6+21.4(2)
68.8+0.1(4)
68.6+ 0(2)
Survey 2 July 30-August 1 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
19.8+0.9( 6)
21.5+0.9( 3)
Same as A I I
69. 7+9. K 6)
86.3+4.6( 3)
23.2+3.2( 6)
26.2+4.8( 3)
11.0+1.7( 6)
12.1+2.2( 3)
535+125(4)
725+145(2)
0.22+0.02( 6)
0.23+0.03( 3)
50+ 0(4)
50+ 0(2)
50+ 0(2)
50 (1)
00
Survey 3 August 27-29 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
22.2+0.3( 6)
22.3+0.4( 3)
Same as A I I
86.2+1.9( 6)
86.3+3.3( 3)
18.8+1.7( 5)
19.3+2.6( 3)
11.4+0.7( 4)
11.5+1.5( 2)
221+20( 6)
211+33( 3)
0.11+0.00( 6)
0.10+0.00( 3)
191+ 9(2)
200 (1)
71.3+1.1(2)
72.4+ (1)
Survey 4 October 2-5 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
12.6+0.2( 6)
12.5+0.3( 3)
Same as A 1 1
88.8+2.3( 6)
87.7+3.8( 3)
41. 4+2. K 6)
39.3+1.2( 3)
21.6+5.7( 6)
20.7+8.6( 3)
648+117(6)
540+235(3)
0.50+0. OK 6)
0.50+0.02( 3)
189.5+14.6(6)
188.3+24.1(3)
65.9+1.2(2)
64.7 (1)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 11 Con't
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Area
Source Area
Oswego Station (03)
Depths
Chloro-
phy I I -a
(ug/l)
TKN
(mq N/l)
NH3
Total
(uq N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
Alkalinity
Total
(mg CaCOVD
PH
(SU)
Turbidity
NTU
Seech i
Disk
(m)
Survey 1 Apri I 27-28 1981
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
10.4+0.3(2)
10.4+0.3(2)
Same as Al 1
No Data
188.5+8.7(4)
186.0+9.0(2)
931+8.7(4)
931+ 15(2)
103.2+1.4(4)
102.5+2.5(2)
8.31+0.05(4)
8.26+0.10(2)
5.4+0.1(4)
5.5+0.2(2)
1.0+0,5(2)
Survey 2 July 30-Auqust 1 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
9.5+2.8(2)
9.5+2.8(2)
Same as A I I
0.73+0.15(4)
0.76+0.21(3)
60.5+6.5(6)
60.7+ 5(3)
781+ 85(6)
926+ 69(3)
91.2+0.4(6)
90.8+0.7(3)
8.05+0.04(6)
8.06+0.06(3)
4.2+0.6(6)
5.0+0.7(3)
0.8+0.2(3)
Survey 3 August 27-29 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
21.2+1.5(3)
21.2+1.5(3)
Same as A 1 I
1.1 +0.2(2)
1.1 +0.2(2)
83.4+7.1(4)
72.5+7.5(2)
1080+ 53(6)
1074+ 71(3)
94.8+0.7(6)
94.3+0.7(3)
8.15+0.03(6)
8.19+0.04(3)
4.5+0.2(6)
4.6+0.3(3)
1.0+0.0(3)
Survey 4
October 2-5 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
11.9+0.1(2)
11.9+0.1(2)
Same as A I I
0.74+0.05(4)
0.72+0.07(3)
104.0+2.0(6)
103.7+3.2(3)
930+ 40(6)
938+ 78(3)
103.1+1.1(6)
102.5+1.9(3)
8.08+0.02(6)
8.08+0.04(3)
4.6+0.2(6)
4.7+0.5(3)
1.2+0.2(3)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths" "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo Iimnion.
-------
Table 12
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Inner Harbor Mixing Area
Oswego Stations (04,05,07',28,37)
Depths
Temp.
P
Total
(uq/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(ug/l)
Si 1 i ca
Diss. Reactive
(uq Si 1 icon/I )
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Ch lor i de
Total
(mq/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mq/l)
Survey 1 Apr
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
10.7+0.2( 17)
10.8+0.2( 10)
Same as A I I
60.4+3.9(17)
55.6+5.6( 10)
16.7+1.6(19)
17.7+2.6(11)
4.6+0.4(11)
5.1+0.5( 7)
1 27-28 1981
89+ 7(15)
84+ 9( 9)
0.37+0.03(15)
0.39+0.06( 9)
163.3+10.9(18)
155.6+16.6(11)
57.1+2.8(17)
55.4+3.8(11)
Survey 2 Juh
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
19.8+0.3(27)
20.8+0.3H 15)
Same as A 1 1
50.8+4.5(27)
62.7+6.3(15)
15.3+1.4(27)
17.5+1.9(15)
5.8+0.7(27)
6.5+1.0(15)
/ 30-Auqust 1 1981
322+54 ( 16)
413+83( 9)
0.17+0.01(25)
0.17+0.02(14)
45.1+ 1.4(23)
45.0+ 2.0(13)
44.6+2.7( 9)
43.6+3.9( 5)
Survey 3 August 27-29 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
21.5+0.1(30)
21.7+0.1(18)
Same as A I 1
47.1+2.9(29)
47.1+3.6(18)
15.9+2.2(28)
15.6+2.6( 17)
7.9+1.4(24)
5.0+0.8(14)
155+11(25)
142+11(16)
0.10+0.00(29)
0.09+0.00(18)
71.3+ 7.8(10)
72. 1+10. 2( 6)
40.5+2.4(10)
38.6+2.5( 6)
Survey 4 October 2-5 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
13.0 0.1(27)
13.1+0.2(15)
Same as A I I
64.2+3.7(27)
56.7+4.4(15)
28.8+1.7(27)
25.8 2.4(15)
16.6+2.6(27)
14.6+3.2(15)
501+41(27)
412+54( 15)
0.37+0.02(27)
0.34+0.03(15)
126.8+11.1(27)
111.4+13.3(15)
59.5+4.3( 9)
52.6+6.2( 5)
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Table 12 Con't
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Inner Harbor Mixing Area
Oswego Stations (04,05,07,28,37)
Depths
Chloro-
phyl 1 -a
(ug/1)
TKN
(mg N/l)
NH3
Total
Lug N/IL
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
Alkalinity
Total
(mq CaC03/l )
PH
(SU)
Turbidity
NTU
Secchi
Disk
(m)
Survey 1
April 27-28 1981
All
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
9.8+0.3( 8]
9.8+0.3( 8)
Same as All
No Data
211.0+31.8
215.8+49.5
I/,
10
771+34(19)
7T3~+5T(llY
102.0+0.4(19
Tor.T+o.TClT]
8.19+0.04(19]
8.15+0.07 [iij
5.0+0.3(19
4.6+0.4tllj
1.35+0.2(10)
Al
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
13.1+1.4
13.1+1.4
Survey 2
[W
10
Same as All
0.59+0.05
0.57+0.05
July 30-August 1 1981
T7T
14
22.2+ 2.8(27
21.8+ 3.7(15
611+44(27,
722+64(15;
91.0+0.2(27)
90.8+0.3|l5J_
8.27+0.03(27)^
8.30+0.04tl5L
3.2+0.2 27
3.7+0.3(15)
1.5 +0.1(15)
Ul
Survey 3
All
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
13.0+1.2(15
13.0+1.2Q5J
Same as All
0.70+0. 11<
0.70+0.11
August 27-29 1981
8)
8
45.7+ 6.5(15)
30.3+ 4.1(10);
592+361
618+49
.30)
18
90.4+0.4
[ 90.2+0.5
30
is;
8.28+0.03)
r8. 32+0. 05
30
18
2.6+0.1(30)
2.4+0.1(18)
1.6 +0.1(15)
Survey 4
October 2-5 1981
All
Surface
EPI
META
IHYPO
9. 0+0. 8(10]
9.0+0.8(10]
Same as All
0.61+0.03
0.58+0.031
20)
14)
149.5+41.9(27)
189. 2+74. 8[15[
731+40(27)
647+50(15)
99. 2+0. 7 (271
97.9+1.0[l5[
8.12+0.021
8.16+0.03
27
15
10.9+5.1(26);
9.4+6.2[l5[
1.9 +0.2(15)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 13
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Outer Harbor Mixing Area
Oswego Stations (09,11,22A,23)
Depths
Temp.
(°C)
P
Total
(ug/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(ug/l)
Si 1 i ca
Diss. Reactive
(ug Si 1 icon/I)
N02+N03
Total
(mq N/l)
Ch 1 or i de
Total
(mq/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mg/l)
Survey 1 Apri 1 27-28 1981
Al 1
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
9.1+0.2(15)
9.1+0.3( 8)
Same as A 1 1
33.2+3.3(14)
30.9+5.K 8)
15.3+2.3(12)
12.9+2.4( 7)
3.2+0.7( 7)
2.8+0.8( 4)
43+ 9(15)
42+16( 8)
0.30+0.01(15)
0.30+0.02( 8)
75.0+11.2(14)
69. 6+18. 7( 8)
40.5+2.2(14)
39.3+3.6( 8)
Survey 2 July 30-August 1 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
18.2+0.3(23)
19.0+0.3(12)
Same as A 1 1
24.8+2.1(23)
28.9+3.3(12)
8.0+0.6(23)
8.4+0.9(12)
3.1+0.6(22)
3.6+1.2(12)
141+14(15)
136+16( 8)
0.12+0.01(22)
0.11+0.01(12)
38.7+ 1.9(21)
41.8+ 2.5(11)
34.6+2.7( 8)
39.1+4.6( 4)
Survey 3 August 27-29 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
20.5+0.2(21)
20.8+O.K 12)
Same as A I 1
19.6+2.3(19)
23.1+3.6(11)
7.2+1.2(20)
8.1+1.9(11)
2.5+0.3(14)
2.7+0.4( 8)
82+ 4(19)
80+ 6(11)
0.08+0.01(21)
0.08+0.01(12)
44.0+ 4.7( 7)
51.4+ 5.5( 4)
35.8+3.5( 7)
39.8+5.5( 4)
Survey 4 October 2-5 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
13.3+0.1(21)
13.3+0.1(12)
Same as A I I
35.5+3.5(21)
27.0+2.6(12)
14.2+1.8(21)
9.7+1.5(12)
5.8+1.2(21)
4.1+0.7(12)
320+58(20)
238+69(12)
0.23+0.02(21)
0.19+0.02(12)
64.9+ 7.8(21)
46.4+ 6.5(12)
38.6+3.3( 7)
33.9+1. 7( 4)
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metalimn ion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Table 13 Con't
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Outer Harbor Mixing Area
Oswego Stations (09,11,22A,23)
Dejiths
Chloro-
phyll -a
(ug/i)
TKN
(mg N/ll.
NH3
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
Alkal inity
Total
(mg CaCO^/l )
PH
(SU)
Turbidity
NTU
Seech i
Disk
H
Survey 1 A
All
Surface
0-'?OM
20'M-B'offom"
7.0+0.5( 8
rTro+o.Trs!
Same as ATl
No Data
100.9+27.3
93.8+43.6
15,
8'
506+40
479+70
Ib
8
jril 27-28 1981
98.0+0.4T
97.5+0.6
Ib
«
8.17+0.05(15
8.24+0.02( 8
3.0+0.2(15
2.9+0.3( 8
2.1+0.2( 8]
Survey 2
ATI
Surface
FPT
WETA"™ "
HYPO
9.6+1.6( 8
9.6+1.60 8
Same as ATT
0.44+0.04
0.40+0.04
13
9
9.9+ 1.0
10.2+"T;4"
July 30-August 1 1981
TJ
12
385+18
399+30
23
12
89.7+0.2(
89.8+0.3
23
12!
8.44+0.03
8.47+0.05
23
12
2.2+0.1
2.2+0.2
23
12
2.3+0.1(121
Survey 3 August 27-29 1981
All
Surface
EPf
META"""
HYPO
12.4+1.8(12
T2T4+i78TiT
Same as Afl
0.54+0.03
OTST+OTOS
6
6
39.9+24.5(10^
••55.T+"4r.T("6"F
363+10(21)
"38?+14.'l(T2j'
87.6+0.3
87.2+0.3
21
12
8.47+0.04
8.51+0.^5
rnr
12
1.5+0.1
1.5+0.1
TlT
12)
2.4+0.2(12)
Survey 4 October 2-5 1981
ATI
Surface
TEPI
MJETA" """
HYPO ~
7.1+0.3(10
7.i+o.3~Qo
Same as All
0.46+0.02
fr.45+0.03
17
12
31.1+ 4.6(21]
20.8+ 3.7(12;
469+30(21 j
395+24(12'
93.3+0.7( 2
91.8+0.602!
8.18+0.04
8.20+0.05
21
12
2.0+0.21
Lf.6+0.2
21
3.3+0.3(12)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epilimnion; "META" includes the metalimnion;
"HYPO" includes the hypolimnion.
-------
Table 14
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Lake Area
Oswego Stations ( 12A, 13A-, 17,19,29)
Depths
Temp.
P
Total
(uq/l)
P
T. Dissolved
(ug/l)
P
Soluble
Reactive
(ug/l)
S i 1 i ca
Diss. Reactive
(ug Si 1 icon/I )
N02+N03
Total
(mg N/l)
Chloride
Total
(mg/l)
Sulfate
Total
(mg/l)
Survey 1
Apri I 27-28 1981
Al I
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
9.0+0.4(18)
9.2+0.5( 9)
Same as A I I
18.7+1.7(20)
17.9+1.3(10)
10.2+1.3(20)
8.4+0.8(10)
1.2+0.2C 4)
1.0+0.4C 2)
14+ 2(20)
14+ 3(10)
0.28+0.02(20)
0.28+0.03(10)
31.5+2.1(20)
31.6+3.4(10)
28.3+0.7(20)
27.7+1.1(10)
Survey 2
July 30-August 1 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
17.4+0.3(45)
18.8+0.3(16)
18.7+0.2(26)
15.6+0.4(19)
17.2+0.5(45)
18.6+1.0(16)
18.2+0.7(26)
15.8+0.5(19)
6.0+0.2(45)
6.6+0.4(16)
6.1+0.1(26)
5.9+0.4(19)
3.1+0.5(44)
2.6+0.3(15)
3.5+0.9(25)
2.6+0.3(19)
114+11(33)
77+ 8(11)
90+14(17)
140+15(16)
0.13+0.01(43)
0.10+0.01(15)
0.10+0.01(24)
0.16+0.01(19)
30.6+0.5(44)
30.3+1.1(16)
30.1+0.8(25)
31.4+0.6(19)
29.8+0.2(15)
29.8+0.3( 5)
29.8+0.3( 6)
29.7+0.2( 9)
Survey 3
August 27-29 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
19.3+0.4(42)
20.6+0.1(15)
20.4+0.1(32)
15.8+0.8(10)
12.3+0.7(40)
14.5+0.9(15)
13.1+0.7(31)
9.3+1.6( 9)
5.9+0.5(42)
6.3+0.8(15)
5.8+0.5(32)
6.4+1.6(10)
4.6+0.7(30)
4.3+1.0(11)
5.0+0.9(24)
3.3+0.5( 6)
76+ 4(38)
69+ 3(14)
69+ 2(30)
105+13( 8)
0.10+0.01(42)
0.07+0.004(15)
0.07+0.00(32)
0.20+0.03(10)
27.5+0.5(14)
28.1+0.9( 5)
28.0+0.6(10)
26.4+0.2( 4)
29.7+1.2(14)
30.1+2.3( 5)
30.1+1.7(10)
28.7+0.4( 4)
Survey 4
October 2-5 1981
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
13.4+0.1(27)
13.5+0.1(11)
Same as A 1 I
19.1+0.6(26)
18.7+1.0(11)
5.8+0.3(27)
5.3+0.3(11)
7.2+3.8(26)
1.9+0.4(11)
281+68(25)
255+104(11)
0.15+0.00(26)
0.15+0.00(11)
29.0+1.1(27)
26.9+0.6(11)
30.2+0.3( 8)
29.7+0. 1C 3)
Results are reported as mean +_ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metalimn ion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
Table 14 Con't
Oswego Harbor Nearshore Study
Lake Area
Oswego Stations (12A,13A,17,19,29)
Depths
Chloro-
phyl I -a
(ug/l)
TKN
(mg N/l)
NH3
Total
(ug N/l)
Conductivity
umohs/cm
at 25°C
A Ika I in ity
Total
(mg CaCOVD
PH
(SU)
Turbi dity
NTU
Seech i
Disk
(m)
Survey 1 April 27-28 1981
Al 1
Surface
0-20M
20M-Bottom
5.6+0.3(11)
5.3+0.2( 10)
Same as A 1 1
No Data
31.7+12.6(18)
36.3+23.8(10)
325+1(20)
325+1(10)
95.4+0.8(20)
96.3+0.3(10)
8.21+0.04(20)
8.24+0.02(10)
2.4+0.3(20)
2.6+0.4(10)
2.2+0.4(10)
Survey 2 July 30-Auqust 1 1981
Al 1
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
6.9+0.9( 12)
6.9+0.9( 12)
6.9+0.9( 12)
0.38+0.02(23)
0.38+0.03( 13)
0.38+0.03( 17)
0.36+0.02( 6)
14.1+ 2.1(44)
12.0+ 4.0( 16)
14.6+ 3.5(26)
13.4+ 1.4(18)
328+2(45)
323+3(16)
322+2(26)
337+4(19)
90.4+0.3(45)
89.6+0.3( 16)
89.8+0.3(26)
91.1+0.5(19)
8.39+0.02(45)
8.51+0.03(16)
8.49+0.02(26)
8.25+0.02(19)
1.8+0.1(45)
2.0+0.1(16)
1.9+0.1(26)
1.7+0.0(19)
2.7+0.2(15)
un
Ui
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
Survey 3 August 27-29 1981
6.8+0.6(15)
6.7+0.6(14)
6.8+0.6( 15)
0.40+0.04( 9)
0.40+0.04( 9)
0.40+0.04( 9)
11.6+ 1.3(14)
9.8+ 1.4( 5)
10.0+ 0.8(12)
20.8+ 4.2( 2)
323+3(42)
330+6(15)
325+3(32)
318+1(10)
88.2+0.3(42)
87.5+0.2(15)
87.5+0.1(32)
90.5+0.5(10)
8.42+0.03(42)
8.53+0.03(15)
8.52+0.02(32)
8.09+0.03(10)
1.2+0.1(42)
1.3+0.1(15)
1.2+0.1(32)
1.1+0.1(10)
3.4+O.K 15)
Al I
Surface
EPI
META
HYPO
Survey 4 October 2-5 1981
6.1+0.5(10)
6.1+0.5(10)
Same as A I I
0.41+0.02( 19)
0.39+0.02(11)
12.4+ 1.3(27)
12.4+ 2.0( 11)
329+4(27)
321+2(11)
90.6+0.2(27)
90.4+0.2(11)
8.26+0.02(27)
8.26+0.02(11)
1.7+0.3(27)
2.0+0.8(11)
3.7+0.2(11)
Results are reported as mean _+ Standard Error (Number of Samples). "Depths" refers to water layers sampled;
"All" includes all samples from the area; "Surface" includes 1 meter depths; "0-20M" includes upper 20 meters;
"20M-Bottom" includes all depths below 20 meters; "EPI" includes the epi limn ion; "META" includes the metalimn ion;
"HYPO" includes the hypo limn ion.
-------
62
64
59
LAKE ONTARIO
53
54
52
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
ROCHESTER HARBOR
NEW YORK
KitomHin
12345 E
• Lake Stations
^ Mixing and Nearshore
Area Stations
^ Source Stations
INSERT
LAKE ONTARIO
Salmon
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Rochester Embayment
Figure 6. Water temperatures in the Rochester Embayment area, April 29-
May 4, 1981. The dashed line corresponds to the location of
the thermal bar (4 °C).
56
-------
TURBIDITY AND SECCHI DISC DISTRIBUTION
Secchi Disc measurements are made to readily characterize the clarity of the
water. Water transparency as measured by the Secchi Disc technique usually
follows an inverse relationship to the annual cycle of chlorophyll concentrations
(Ladewski and Stoermer 1973). The inverse relationship between Secchi Disc
depth and chlorophyIl-a concentrations (Carlson 1977, Chapra and Dobson 1981)
has been developed by using the Beer-Lambert law for light extinction on water
and the Secchi Disc depth corresponding to the level at which 90% of the surface
light intensity has been dissipated by suspended particulate matter. One
influence that interferes with this relationship is the resuspension of
bottom sediments. Thus in the nearshore and mixing zones, Secchi Disc
measurements can not be used for trophic status evaluation.
Turbidity in water is caused by the presence of suspended matter, such as
clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, plankton, and other
microscopic organisms. Thus increased turbidity measurements should be correlated
with decreased Secchi Disc measurements.
Niagara River Plume
The Secchi Disc readings averaged 2.4 m, 2.6 m, and 4.2 m in the river, mixing
area, and lake area respectively for the four surveys. Turbidity readings
ranged from 1.4 to 7.9 NTU, 1.4 to 4.6 NTU, and 1.4 to 3.8 NTU in the
river, mixing area and lake area respectively for the four surveys. The
higher levels were found in the first and fourth surveys.
Rochester Embayment
The Secchi Disc readings averaged 1.0 m, 2.8 m, and 4.2 m in the source, mixing
and nearshore area and lake area respectively. Turbidity readings ranged from
3.8 to 16.9 NTU, 1.8 to 2.5 NTU, 1.1 to 2.6 NTU in the source area, nearshore
and mixing area, and the lake area respectively for the four surveys. The
higher levels primarily occurred in the first survey.
57
-------
Oswego Harbor
The Secchi Disc reading averaged 1.0 m, 1.6 m, 2.5 m, and 3.0 m, in the Oswego
River, inner harbor, outer harbor, and lake area respectively. Turbidity
readings ranged from 4.2 to 5.4 NTU, 2.6 to 10.9 NTUS, 1.5 to 3.0 NTU,
and 1.2 to 2.4 NTU in the river, inner harbor, outer harbor, and lake
area respectively. The higher levels primarily occurred in the first
survey.
pH DISTRIBUTIONS
pH is measured to characterize the physical environment in which the biota
were found. In general, the pH vertical distribution is determined by biological
utilization and liberation of C02. "In lakes where the bicarbonate alkalinity
is high and the trophogenic zone is productive, the consequent high production
of C02 in the hypo limn ion causes a relatively small lowering of the pH of
the we I I-buffered water" (Hutchinson 1957). A part of the production of COo
in the hypolimnion results from the oxidation of settled phytoplankton
particulate matter from the epilimnion. A small part of the decrease of pH
that is found in the hypolimnion may also be caused by release of silicic
acid from diatom frustule dissolution (Marmorino et al. 1980). Seasonal
cycles in pH reflect the photosynthesis and respiration of the plankton,
which in turn influence the amount of C02 in the water (Wetzel 1975).
Niagara River Plume
The pH of the Niagara River varied within a narrow range from the first
surveys levels of 8.16+0.11 SU to the second survey levels of 8.54+0.02 SU.
Thereafter, pH values decreased. These levels were similar to those found
in the Eastern Basin of Lake Erie (GLNPO-unpublished data). The fluctuations
of pH in the river were similar to that of Lake Erie with August levels
increasing 0.5 pH units above spring conditions, and fall levels decreasing
about 0.25 pH units from its highest value (Table 5).
58
-------
The pH in the mixing area varied in similar manner to that of the river. The
first survey levels were 8.09+0.01 SU, and they increased to 8.54jK).01 SU by
the second survey. Thereafter, levels decreased to 8.26+0.02 SU (Table 6).
These changes in pH reflect only a small fraction of change in the relative
proportion of inorganic carbon species in solution.
The pH in the surface waters and epilimnion of the lake area had a similar seasona
cycle as described for the river. The hypolimnetic water showed a decline in
pH over the first three surveys from 8.1 HO.01 to 7.90+^0.02 SU (Table 7).
Rochester Embayment
The pH of the source area varied within a narrow range from 8.2V+0.10 (first
survey) to 8.40+0.04 SU (second survey), and declined thereafter to 8.14 SU
(fourth survey, Table 8).
The pH of the mixing and nearshore areas was essentially constant, varying from
8.33 to 8.44 SU in the surface waters (Table 9). The pH of the hypolimnetic
waters decreased from 8.32 to 7.76 SU between the first and second surveys.
Thereafter the mixing and nearshore areas were homogeneous (Table 9). The
lake area near Rochester had the same seasonal and vertical pH pattens as
the Niagara River Plume lake area.
Oswego Harbor
The pH of the Oswego River varied within a narrow range between 8.05 and 8.31
SU. The seasonal progress as described for the Niagara River was not evident
in the Oswego River (Table 11).
The pH of the inner harbor varied within a narrow range of 8.12 to 8.28 SU
(Table 12). Outside the inner harbor, pH varied from 8.17 to 8.47 and 8.21
to 8.53 SU for the outer harbor mixing area and the lake area respectively
(Tables 13-14).
59
-------
CHLORIDE, SULFATE AND CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTIONS
These parameters are measured to determine the boundaries of different water
masses. The distribution of the conservative tracers, chloride and sulfate,
did not show seasonal variations at lake sites. These variables should be
unaffected by either temperature or the biota (Hutchinson 1957, WetzeI 1975).
The area I distributions for conductivity, sulfate, and chloride were con-
sidered a result of two factors: (1) input of high or low conductivity
water from the major streams or runoff effects from the tributaries, and
(2) mixing of these waters with Lake Ontario water in the nearshore zone.
Niagara River Plume
The lower conductivity of the Niagara River can be used as a tracer for that
water mass. The Niagara River water dominated the segment east of the river
mouth in all the surveys of the 1981 season. The mixing zone values of
conductivity, chloride, and sulfate were more similar to those of the
Niagara River mouth station than to those found in the station group which
characterized the lake (Tables 5-7).
Although surface water samples from the mixing zone and from the lake stations
were noticeably influenced by the Niagara River water, hypolimnetic waters
reflected conductivity, chloride, and sulfate values similar to the spring
values from the lake. This suggests that Niagara River water moved eastward
but was confined to the epi limnetic layer. Niagara River water has been pre-
viously observed to move eastward and counterclockwise in Lake Ontario
(USDI & NYSDH 1968, Robertson and Scavia 1984). LANDSAT photography (Mace
1983) also showed that the Niagara River waters mixed with lake surface
waters primari ly east of the Niagara River mouth.
60
-------
The observed seasonal minimum in conductivity occurred during the second
survey in the epilimn ion distributions in the lake area. It was probably
due to the reduction in carbonate ions from calcium carbonate precipitation.
The precipitation of calcium carbonate crystals in the surface waters can
be seen in the satelite photograph imagery of Lake Ontario in August 18,
1981 (Mace 1983) and has been observed by others (Robertson and Scavia
1984). This phenomenon has been observed also in Lakes Michigan (Rockwell
et al. 1980) and Huron (Moll et al. 1984).
Rochester Embayment
The two principal sources of water to the Rochester Embayment are the Genesee
River and the littoral drift of waters from the Niagara River. Of these two
sources, the Niagara River is predominant since its flow is about 100 times
greater than the Genesee River flow (USGS 1983). Although the Genesee River
enters the Embayment directly and contains higher conductivity than the
surrounding lake waters, its influence on the mixing zone was not appreciable
in any survey (Table 5). Cluster analysis grouped the river mouth station
(ROCH 56) and the Irondeqoit mouth station (ROCH 21) together. LANDSAT
photography for August 18, 1981, also showed the limited area I extent of
the Genesee River influence (Mace 1983).
During the first survey and the fourth survey the concentration patterns
of the conservative substances were almost isochemical at the lake stations.
Vertical concentration differences between the epilimnion and the hypolimnion
were less in the Rochester area than in the Niagara River area. This re-
flected the lessening influence of the Niagara River on the lake surface
water as the river water mixed with lake water and drifted eastward.
61
-------
Oswego Harbor
The Oswego River had approximately 0.1 of the flow of the Genesee River
(US6S 1983) and was directed within a harbor breakwall. The observed patterns
of conductivity, chloride, and sulfate concentrations were reflective of the
Oswego River water movements (Tables 7-10). The influence of the Oswego
River on the harbor area was primarily eastward from the inner harbor area.
This pattern was also observed by Bell (1978). River water containing higher
conductivity appeared to sink into the hypolimnion and mix with lake water
to the north and east of the inner harbor. Cluster analysis grouped the
Oswego stations into four areas that reflected the influence of the river
on those areas.
Oswego River water contained chloride and sulfate at concentrations up to 10
times that of the water at the nearshore stations (Table 11). These levels
were also an order of magnitude greater than those measured at the mouth
of the Niagara and Genesee Rivers.
ALKALINITY DISTRIBUTIONS
Alkalinity is measured to determine the physical environment in which the biota
are found. The term alkalinity is used to express the total quantity of base
in equilibrium with carbonate or bicarbonate that can be determined by titration
with a strong acid (Hutchinson 1957). Alkalinity has often been considered
to exert a considerable influence on algae (Hynes 1970), determining in part
the genera and species. Since it is a measure of the buffering capacity,
decreases in alkalinity in a well buffered system could imply a significantly
increased loading of acid.
Niagara River Plume
The Niagara River alkalinity ranged between 84 and 96 mg/l during the four
surveys. For comparison, alkalinity levels found in Eastern Lake Erie are
in the range 95-100 mg/l (GLNPO, unpublished data).
62
-------
The alkalinity levels of the remainder of the study area were fairly uniform
with most values in the low to mid-nineties (92 to 94 mg/l).
Rochester Embayment
In Rochester source areas, alkalinity ranged between 88 and 118 mg/l during
the four surveys.
The alkalinity levels of the remainder of the embayment were fairly uniform
with values in the high eighties (89 mg/l) and low nineties (93 mg/l).
Oswego Harbor
The Oswego River alkalinity ranged between 91 and 103 mg/l during the four
surveys. The inner harbor alkalinity level was similar and ranged from
98 to 102 mg/l.
The outer harbor alkalinity and the lake area alkalinity were fairly uniform
and ranged from the high eighties (87 mg/l) to the high nineties (97.9 mg/l).
CALCIUM, MAGNESIUM AND SODIUM DISTRIBUTIONS
Concentrations of the alkali and alkaline earth compounds depend on the
geology of the basins drained. Limited area I surveillance of these compounds
u^s done to characterize their concentrations during the August survey.
Calcium found in water supplies leaches from deposites of limestone, dolomite,
gypsum and gypsiferous shale. Calcium, sodium, and magnesium are common
elements in the earth's crust, and they rank fifth, sixth, and eighth in the
order of abundance respectively. These elements appear to be biologically
conservative, by which it is meant that biological processes do not alter
their concentrations in water very much over the year.
63
-------
Changes in calcium concentration have been noted due to precipitation of
calcium carbonate from the epilimnion and resolubi I ization in the hypolimnion
during the stratified period (Mace 1983, Robertson and Scavia 1984).
Niagara River Plume
At the Niagara River site, calcium, magnesium, and sodium were measured in
August at 37.8, 8.06, and 9.06 mg/1 respectively.
The lower concentrations of calcium and magnesium in the mixing area were
statistically different from those at the river site. Calcium, magnesium
and sodium mean concentrations +_ standard error, and low-high values were
36.8+0.3, (35.7-37.9) mg Ca/l, 7.88_+0.05 (7.69-8.07) mg Mg/I, and 9.09+0.24
(8.36-10.8) mg Na/l, respectively.
In the lake area, the lower concentrations of calcium and magnesium were
also statistically different from those at the river site. Lake area
mean levels for these elements were lower than the mixing area, but
the differences were not statistically significant at the 95% confidence
level. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium mean concentrations _+ standard
error, and low-high values were 36.HO.2 (35.1-36.6) mg Ca/l, 7.72+0.06
(7.52-7.86) mg Mg/l, and 9.67jK>.35 (8.73-11.2) mg Na/l.
Rochester Embayment
No source stations were monitored for calcium, magnesium, and sodium in
the August survey.
The mixing area and nearshore zone contained data from 12 locations.
Calcium, magnesium and sodium mean concentrations +_ standard error, and
64
-------
low-high values were 38.0+0.9 (35.3-46.8) mg Ca/l, 8.02+0.15 (7.57-9.38)
mgMg/l, and 13.7V+1.41 (10.7-27.9) mg Na/l respectively. Station 57,
immediately adjacent to the Genesee River mouth, had the highest observed
values. These values were all statistically different from the rest of
the mixing zone.
The open lake contained data from 13 locations. The mean concentrations were
lower for all parameters, but not statistically different from those of the mixing
zone. Calcium, magnesium, and sodium mean concentrations _+ standard error, and
low-high values were 37.3^0.4 (35.7-40.6) mg Ca/l, 7.88+0.12 (7.57-9.25) mg Mg/l ,
and 11.71+0.18 (10.7-13.0) mg Na/l respectively.
Oswego Harbor
The Oswego River contained 68.0 mg Ca/l, 9.48 mg Mg/l and 60.8 mg Na/l
during the August survey. In the Inner Harbor area, water samples from
stations 4, 28 and 5 contained 45.4, 51.0 and 13.1 mg Ca/l respectively;
8.25, 8.55 and 1.95 mg Mg/l respectively; and 22.2, 31.2, and 10.5 mg Na/l
respectively. The data from station 5 were anomolous, not only in comparison
to other Inner Harbor data, but also in comparison to those from all other
Oswego Harbor stations. The cause for these atypical results is not known.
The concentrations of Ca and Mg in the Inner Harbor area were significantly
different from those of the Oswego River. The calcium, magnesium, and
sodium mean concentrations _+ standard error and low-high values were
43.8+_2.0 (38.6-48.0) mg Ca/l, 7.98^0.03 (7.92-8.05) mg Mg/l, and 22.60^2.73
(15.1-27.9) mg Na/l respectively.
The lake area contained the lowest observed mean concentrations in the Oswego
Harbor area. The differences in concentrations between the lake and outer
harbor study area were all statistically significant. Calcium, magnesium,
and sodium mean concentrations +_ standard error and low-high values were
35.1+0.6 (33.6-48.0) mg Ca/l, 7.52^0.09 (7.36-7.86) mg Mg/l and 11.88+0.39
(10.6-12.9) mg Na/l respectively.
65
-------
TRACE METALS DISTRIBUTIONS
Trace metals concentrations can vary considerably in a short time period due
to sediment resuspension, storm runoff, and turbulent mixing in shallow
nearshore areas. To minimize these storm-related effects of particulates
on total trace metals concentrations, epilimnetic water samples from the
August survey were selected for analysis. The late summer water masses
were stratified and stormy episodes were less frequent during this season.
In addition, atmospheric sources contribute to the trace metal contamination
of the lake from both dry loading (Sievering et al. 1984) and precipitation
(Klappenbach 1985). To detect violations for pollutants with significant
atmospheric contributions, the late summer period was chosen because the
highest concentrations of metals would be expected in the epilimnion.
The results of the trace metal analyses were compared with the IJC specific
objectives for total trace metals. In only a few samples was the concen-
tration of a heavy metal greater than the objective. Additional discussion
may be found in the section "Parameters Exceeding Criteria and Objectives"
below. Complete results may be found in Appendix A, Microfiche of Data.
PHENOL DISTRIBUTIONS
Phenol and phenolic compounds are associated with taste and odor problems
in drinking water and tainting problems in edible aquatic organisms. The
1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (IJC 1978) provided a 1 ug/l criterion.
"Quality Criteria for Water 1976" (EPA 1976) states a criterion of 1 ug/l for
domestic water supply and for protection against fish flesh tainting.
McKee and Wolf (1963), as cited by EPA (1976), concluded that phenol in a
concentration of 1 ug/l would not interfere with domestic water supplies,
and 200 ug/l would not interfere with fish and aquatic life.
66
-------
Niagara River Plume
No analysis for phenol was done.
Rochester Embayment
Analysis for phenol was completed on a total of 21 samples collected at
stations 5, 56, and 70. Phenolic compounds were detected at each station.
The phenol concentration in six samples were below the level of detection
of 4 ug/I, and the maximum concentration was 22 ug/l.
Oswego Harbor
Analysis for phenol was completed on two samples collected at station 3. No
phenolic compounds were detected.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DISTRIBUTIONS
Oxygen is moderately soluble in water, but the solubility decreases in a non-
linear manner with increasing temperature. If the dissolved oxygen con-
centrations at depth are not very far from saturation, equilibrium at
prevailing temperatures and altitudinal pressure is established relatively
quickly, usually in a matter of a few days for shallow lakes. Equilibrium
might not be achieved before thermal-stratification is established in very
deep lakes (Wetzel 1975). The intensity of oxidative processes that occur
in the hypolimnion of stratified lakes is determined in part by the amount
of organic matter settling out of the photic zone. As a result, the dissolved
oxygen concentration in the hypolimnion becomes more reduced as the stratified
season progresses. In the photic zone, where biotic effects may be expected,
considerable deviation from saturation may occur. The presence of super-
saturation is presumably attributable to photosynthesis. High organic
production is correlated with increases in the range of observed surface
oxygen concentrations (Hutchinson 1957).
67
-------
The vertical distribution of dissolved oxygen concentrations has been used
to identify the trophic status of a lake. A pattern of increasing dissolved
oxygen concentration below the thermocline (orthograde pattern) is charac-
teristic of an unproductive or oligotrophic lake. A pattern of decreasing
dissolved oxygen concentration below the thermocline (clinograde pattern)
is characteristic of a productive (eutrophic) lake (Wetzel 1975).
During surveys 1,2, and 4 dissolved oxygen was measured only at the B-2
sample depth. During survey 3 dissolved oxygen was measured at all sample
depths. This survey occurred during late August when maximum oxygen de-
pletion was anticipated due to the summer stratification. The results from
each study area during each survey are presented in Table 15. Dissolved
oxygen levels were not seriously depleted at any time during the survey.
Except for one observation at 61$ saturation, all values were above 12%
saturation.
Niagara River Plume
In the lake study area, the dissolved oxygen concentrations generally in-
creased with increasing depth, except for the bottom water sample. The
observed decrease in D.O. near the sediments may have been due to bacterial
respiration associated with the decomposition of sedimented organic matter.
In the mixing study area, D.O. concentrations generally decreased with
increasing depth. In the source area, D.O. increased with depth.
Rochester Embayment
In the lake area, the pattern of D.O. concentrations with depth was simi lar
to that in the Niagara Plume, lake study area. A mixture of decreasing and
increasing D.O. concentrations were observed with increasing depth at the
mixing and nearshore stations. At approximately 2/3 of the stations, de-
creasing D.O. concentrations were observed with increasing depth. At the
source area stations, the vertical pattern of D.O. concentrations was variable,
68
-------
Table 15. Percent
Stat i on
Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen: Range and Sample
Where Lowest Observation Was Found
Niagara River Plume
Sub Area
Lake Area
Mi xi ng Area
Source
Survey 1
89-108
Station 7
83-111
Station 17
101-106
Station 1
Survey 2
83-95
Station 9
92-117
Station 5
106-106
Station 1
Survey 3
74-109
Station 15
87-126
Station 11
99-112
Station 1
Survey 4
80-94
Station 9
94-102
Stat i on 11
101-102
Station 1
Rochester Embayment
Lake Area
Mixing and
Nearshore Area
Sources
98-111
Station 9
110-118
Station 8&14
100-104
Station 56
61-105
Station 29
79-114
Station 60
91-114
Station 56
78-124
Station 20
78-124
Station 14
91-108
Station 56
80-104
Station 3
91-103
Station 61
87-99
Station 56
Oswego Harbor
Lake Area
Outer Harbor Area
Inner Harbor Area
Source
100-117
Station 13A
90-103
Station 22A
91-102
Station 37
100-106
Station 3
93-113
Station 19
96-118
Station 22A
96-132
Station 5
89-97
Station 3
77-111
Station 19
73-105
Station 7
93-105
Station 7
80-95
Station 3
75-98
Station 17
92-98
Station 37
92-98
Station 37
91-94
Station 3
69
-------
Oswego Harbor
The D.O. concentrations at a I I stations except 13A decreased with increasing
depth.
SOLUBLE REACTIVE PHOSPHORUS (SRP) DISTRIBUTIONS
Inorganic orthophosphate comprises most of the soluble reactive phosphorus
that is measured by routine laboratory techniques, and orthophosphate has
been considered the limiting nutrient for algal growth in most of the Great
Lakes (Beeton 1969). For those waters in which phosphorus is the limiting
nutrient, increases in orthophosphate loading to the water can result in
greatly increased growths of algae. Inputs of soluble nutrients to the
nearshore areas of lakes often cause increased biological activity at these
sites in spring and summer (Shiomi and Chawla 1970).
The relationship between SRP concentrations in water and phytoplankton pro-
duction, however, may be complex. Dobson et a I. (1974) suggest that phosphorus
is the major limiting factor for summer phytoplankton production in Lake
Ontario because high algal demand for SRP in the photic zone results in
very low phosphorus concentrations. Many algal species are able to store
phosphorus when it is present in non-limiting concentrations, thereby
creating the appearance of phosphorus-limited conditions (Schelske 1979).
Also, algal species vary in their requirements for minimum and maximum
phosphorus concentrations (Wetzel 1975).
During stratified conditions in open lake waters, the photosynthetic
activity of algae in the epilimnion typically causes depletion of SRP,
while respiratory and catabolic activities of bacteria and other biota
in the hypolimnion cause the release of SRP.
70
-------
Niagara River Plume Area
SRP levels in the river were nearly constant throughout the survey periods,
ranging from 2.3+0.6 ug P/l in April during ice out conditions to 3.3+0.5 ug P/l
in August (Table 5). SRP levels in the mixing area were also uniform through-
out the survey periods, ranging from 1.7+0.1 ug P/l to 3.4+_0.3 ug P/l (Table 6).
SRP levels in the surface waters of the lake area ranged from 3.1+0.3 ug P/l
in the spring to 1.7_+0.3 ug P/l in October (Table 7). These levels were an
order of magnitude above SRP levels found in Lakes Huron and Michigan (Lesht
and Rockwell 1985). Hypolimnetic SRP values, 4.7jf_2.1 ug P/l in August to
6.6+0.7 ug P/l in October, were two to four times higher than the epilimn ion
values.
Rochester Embayment Area
SRP levels in the source areas (Genesee River and Irondequoit Bay) varied
from 4.8 to 19.8 ug P/l during the survey periods (Table 8). The mixing
and nearshore area SRP levels were fairly constant and ranged between 1.4
and 3.9 ug P/l with the higher levels occurring during the same survey in
which the high levels were found in the source area. SRP levels in the surface
waters of the lake area ranged from 1.5 to 3.8 ug P/l and reflected a seasonal
depletion during the July and August survey (Table 10). Elevated SRP values
were found in the hypolimnion with values two to four times higher than the
epiIimn ion I eve Is.
SRP levels had a distinct area I pattern in the Embayment during the first survey.
Lower levels (<3.5 ug P/l) were found inside the thermal bar and higher levels
(>5 ug P/l) were found outside the thermal bar (Figure 7). The formation of the
thermal bar typically promotes higher biological production, and therefore
reduced SRP concentrations, in the nearshore area (Rogers and Sato 1970).
71
-------
62
64
59
LAKE ONTARIO
53
54
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
ROCHESTER HARBOR
NEW YORK
Lake Stations
Mixing and Nearshore
Area Stations
Source Stations
INSERT
LAKE ONTARIO
1981 Water Quality Monitoring Sites
Rochester Embayment
Figure 7. Concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus (ug/liter) in
the Rochester Embayment area, April 29-May 4, 1981. The dashed
line corresponds to the location of the thermal bar (4.°C).
72
-------
Oswego Harbor
SRP levels in the Oswego River increased by a factor of four during the survey
periods, ranging from 5.3 to 21.6 ug P/l (Table 11). SRP levels within the
inner harbor showed almost the same Increase and ranged from 4.6 to 16.6 ug P/l
(Table 12). SRP levels outside the inner harbor in the plume area of the
Oswego River were fairly stable (3.2 to 2.5 ug P/l) in surveys 1 through
3 respectively (Table 13). SRP levels in the fourth survey increased to
5.8_+1.2 ug P/l and reflected the highest measured input levels from the
the Oswego River. SRP levels in the surface waters of the lake area ranged
from 1.2 to 4.3 ug P/l. Vertical SRP differences were not found in this
study area because insufficient water depth prevented the formation of
a permanent hypo limnetic water layer.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND TOTAL DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS DISTRIBUTIONS
Total phosphorus (TP) is monitored in limnology programs in response to
anthropogenic loadings of phosphorus to the lakes. Total dissolved
phosphorus (TOP) is measured to permit determination of the particulate
fraction of phosphorus and to estimate the bioavai lable fraction of total
phosphorus. The seasonal cycle and area I distributions of total phosphorus
are closely tied to phytoplankton biomass and productivity (Paerl et al. 1975).
Usually, nutrient uptake by phytoplankton occurs primarily in the epilimnion,
followed by settling of the particulate matter into the hypo limn ion.
73
-------
Niagara River Plume
During surveys 1 and 4, higher levels of total phosphorus were observed in
the river (19.5+2.1 and 31.6+6.0 ug P/l respectively) than during surveys
2 and 3 (11.3+0.3 and 9.0+0.9 ug P/l respectively). Survey 1 occurred
during ice out conditions, and survey 4 occurred during a stormy period.
Area I surface patterns were irregular, but TP levels generally decreased
away from the Niagara River mouth during surveys 1 and 4. The opposite
pattern was observed during surveys 2 and 3 (Tables 5-7). TP levels in
the mixing area tended to be more like those found in the river during
surveys 1 and 4 and more like the lake area during surveys 2 and 3.
Total dissolved phosphorus levels in the Niagara River Plume area were
similar during the four surveys and at most depths. Concentrations
varied between 4 and 7 ug P/l. Only one observation was outside this
range (Survey 4, hypoliminon, 10.6+_0.8 ug P/l).
Rochester Embayment
The source areas had TP levels two to three times the levels found in the
lake, the mixing and nearshore areas (Table 8-10). Area! distribution
patterns were irregular in the Embayment except during the first survey
when the offshore stations outside the thermal bar were found to have
TOP concentrations above 8 ug P/l and stations inside the thermal bar
were found to have TOP concentrations below 8 ug P/l.
Total phosphorus concentrations in the lake area epilimnion were greater
than 17.7j+0.4 ug P/l during the stratified period (maximum 21.7+3.1 ug P/l).
The mixing and nearshore TP concentrations were similar to those of the lake
area except during survey 4 when the nearshore TP was 10 ug P/l higher.
Overall, the mixing and nearshore mean TP concentrations averaged about
21 ug P/l, and were 3 to 4 ug P/l higher than those of the lake areas.
74
-------
Total dissolved phosphorus concentrations ranged between 5.6 and 10.3 ug P/l
in the surface waters of the Embayment. Source water TOP concentrations
were between 8.8 and 16.7 ug P/l.
Oswego Harbor
TP and TOP levels were highest in the Oswego Harbor area of the three nearshore
areas surveyed. The Oswego River TP and TOP levels were the highest of the four
study areas in the Oswego Harbor. They did not fluctuate as the spring and
fall TP and TOP levels observed in the Niagara and Genesee Rivers (Table 11).
Inner harbor TP and TOP concentrations were statistically different from
the outer harbor concentrations. Inner harbor TP levels were not lower
than 47.1 ug P/l. Outer harbor TP concentrations were not higher than
35.5 ug P/l.
The lake area to the west of the harbor had TP levels between 12.3 and 19.1
ug P/l during the four surveys. The outer harbor study area showed total
phosphorus levels elevated from 7 ug P/l to 16 ug P/l compared to the levels
in the lake area (Tables 13-14).
AMMONIA - NITROGEN DISTRIBUTION
Ammonia is measured together with TKN to determine the particulate fraction
of organic nitrogen. It can be used to track the impact of municipal waste
discharges. The nutrient dynamics of ammonia tend to fall between those of
orthophosphorus and nitrate (Fogg 1975). Although ammonia is not a limiting
nutrient, it is a highly available form of nitrogen for algal uptake
(Eppley et al. 1969). As a result, ammonia generally remains at a constant
low level (less than 10 ug/l) when it originates from aquatic animal
excretion (zooplankton and fish excretion). Discharge from municipal
sewage treatment plants into the river system can result in concentrations
greater than 100 ug N/l.
75
-------
Niagara River Plume
Ammonia levels in the lake were fairly uniform by layer with all samples
averaging between 5.4 and 8.7 ug N/l in the first, third, and fourth surveys.
Ammonia levels increased between the first and second surveys to an average
of 25.8 ug N/l for all samples (Table 7). These high levels decreased by
the third survey when nitrite-nitrate nitrogen was also depleted. Ammonia
levels around 3 ug N/l are typical of open lake ammonia levels in oligotrophic
lakes (Lesht and Rockwell 1985).
Ammonia levels in the Niagara river ranged between 12.5 ug N/l and 34.0 ug N/l.
Rochester Embayment
Mean ammonia levels in the lake area were low during the first survey (4.8
ug N/l) and ranged between 11.0 and 24.0 ug N/l during the last three surveys.
Ammonia levels in the source area ranged between 27.9 and 144 ug N/l. These
concentrations imply a smaller loading to the Genesee River than to the Niagara
River since its mean flow (2869 ft3/Sec) is about 0.01 that of the Niagara
River (239,000 ftVsec).
Oswego Harbor
Average ammonia levels in the lake area were fairly constant after the first
survey and ranged between 11.6 and 14.1 ug N/l for all samples. The first
survey had higher mean ammonia levels. These levels were probably associated
with the increasing water temperature inside the thermal bar.
The highest ammonia concentrations were found in the Oswego River. The
concentrations ranged from 60 to 188 ug N/l. Since the Oswego River had
a mean flow (245 ftVSec) that was about 0.001 that of the Niagara River,
the ammonia loading to the Oswego River was less than that to the Genesee
and the Niagara Rivers.
76
-------
NITRITE AND NITRATE NITROGEN DISTRIBUTIONS
Nitrite and nitrate nitrogen are soluble inorganic forms of nitrogen, and
they are readily available to plants. They are the principal nitrogen source
for algal growth. In unpolluted fresh water, most of the inorganic oxidized
N occurs as nitrate. Nitrite concentrations are generally much lower. As
an analytical convenience, therefore, the total concentration of N from the
two forms is determined and reported. Seasonal and area I changes of nitrate-
nitrogen concentrations are expected since summer phytoplankton growth reduces
surface nitrogen concentrations, while concentrations in the hypolimnion in-
crease from the accumulation of decaying material (Wetzel 1975). Nitrate
depletion in the epilimnion may occur with increasing degrees of eutrophication
(Schelske and Roth 1973).
Niagara River Plume
The area I pattern observed was for higher nitrite and nitrate concentrations
to be found in the surface waters of the lake, and for lower concentrations
to be found near the river and along the eastern shoreline. Spring surface
levels in the lake area were the highest observed (0.32 mg N/I). Maximum
seasonal depletion of njtrite and nitrate in the surface waters was 69% in
the river and mixing areas, and 61% in the lake (Table 5-7). These comparisons
are made with results from the first survey representing the "base-line" levels.
Rochester Embayment
Nitrite and nitrate concentrations fluctuated in the study area day-to-day
and station-to-station as much as 0.05 mg N/I (typical levels varied from
0.2 to 0.3 mg N/1) such that area I patterns are difficult to characterize.
During the thermal bar period, however, the mixing and nearshore areas
had lower nitrite and nitrate concentrations than were found in the
open waters. The highest level was observed during the fourth survey in
the source area (0.45 mg N/I). The maximum level observed in the surface
77
-------
waters of the Embayment was 0.31 mg N/l in the spring survey. The maximum
seasonal depletion observed in the surface waters was 62% in the source area,
68$ in the mixing and nearshore area, and 81$ in the lake area (Tables 8-11)
when compared with the "baseline" levels represented by the first survey.
Oswego Harbor
A decrease in surface nitrite and nitrate concentrations was observed from the
river to the lake area. At the Oswego River station the highest nitrite and
nitrate level was 0.50 mg N/l. An increase in nitrite and nitrate concen-
trations of 0.39 mg N/l in the river was observed between the third and
fourth surveys (Table 11). Maximum seasonal depletions were observed to be
70% (river), 11% (inner harbor), 74$ (outer harbor) and 75$ (lake area) when
compared with the "base-line" levels represented by the first survey.
KJELDAHL NITROGEN - PARTICIPATE NITROGEN DISTRIBUTIONS
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is the sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia. Primary
production (algal photosynthesis) is the major process that converts dissolved
nutrient pools into particulate pools (Wetzel 1975). The processes that
affect particulates, such as settling, advection, grazing, metabolism, and
dissolution, affect TKN. The vertical distribution of TKN is affected by
these processes to various degrees. Early seasonal increases of TKN
throughout the water column reflect the conversion of dissolved nutrients
into particulate organic forms by phytoplankton. Concentrations of TKN
will decrease throughout the water column when cellular metabolism
breaks down organic N at a rate faster than it is being fixed. Bacterial
metabolism of extra cellular products may be a major contributing factor
(Hellebust 1974).
78
-------
Niagara River Plume
Organic nitrogen represented at least 94% of the TKN in the river and at least
86% of the TKN in the mixing zone of the river during surveys 3 and 4
(Table 6 and 7).
The vertical distribution of organic nitrogen in the lake area indicated
a higher percentage of particulate matter in the lower layer. Organic
nitrogen in the epilimn ion represented at least 65% of the TKN, and in
the hypolimnion it was at least 86$ of the TKN.
Rochester Embayment
No TKN data are available for the first survey. In the source area, organic
nitrogen represented 75$ of the TKN during survey 4 (Table 8) and greater
than 92$ in surveys 2 and 3. In the Embayment, organic nitrogen repre-
sented at least 93$ of the TKN during the last three surveys (Table 9).
In the open lake, the hypolimnion organic nitrogen represented at least
97$ of the TKN, while the epilimnion organic nitrogen represented at least
94$ of the TKN (Table 10).
Oswego Harbor
In the Oswego River, organic nitrogen represented at least 86$ of the TKN
during the last three surveys (Table 11). In the inner harbor, organic
nitrogen represented at least 76$ of the TKN during the last survey and
at least 94$ of the TKN during surveys 2 and 3 (Table 12).
79
-------
In the outer harbor, organic nitrogen represented at least 90% of the TKN
during all surveys (Table 13). In the lake, organic nitrogen represented
at least 94$ of the TKN during all surveys (Table 14).
The largest TKN values observed in all Oswego areas occurred during the third
survey when the lowest concentrations of soluble reactive phosphorus and
were observed. This relationship would be expected as the dissolved nutrients
were converted into particulate organic forms.
DISSOLVED REACTIVE SILICA DISTRIBUTIONS
Limnological programs monitor dissolved reactive silica (DRS) because it is a
major nutrient for diatoms. Depletion of silica occurs with increasing eutro-
phication (Schelske and Stoermer 1971). An annual cycle of vertical profiles
of dissolved reactive silica has been observed in Lake Ontario (Shiomi and
Chawla 1970). Vertical distributions involve an increase in hypolimnetic
DRS that is attributed to intense silica utilization by diatoms and silico-
flagellates in the epilimnion, followed by their sinking into the hypolirnnion
(Schelske and Stoermer 1971). During the present study, the spring surface
concentrations were much lower in Lake Ontario than those observed in Lake
Michigan (Schelske and Stoermer 1971, Rockwell et a I. 1980) and Lake Huron
(MoI I et al. 1985).
Niagara River Plume
DRS in the Niagara River ranged from 24 ug Si/I during the first survey to
132 ug Si/I during the fourth survey, thereby reflecting the silica-depleted
waters of Lake Erie (Table 5). The nearshore mixing zone also had relatively
80
-------
low levels of silica during the first survey, thereby demonstrating the
influence of the Niagara River Plume (Table 6). Seasonal depletion of
silica could not be seen, except in the lake area where the influence
of the Niagara River plume was more limited. In comparing the first
survey with the third survey, the maximum depletion observed was 53$.
The DRS in the hypolimnion increased from 155 ug Si/I during the first
survey to 395 ug Si/I by the fourth survey. This was the highest con-
centration observed during the stratified period in this study (Table 7).
Rochester Embayment
The concentration of DRS in the surface waters of the source area was 648
ug Si/I during the first survey, while the DRS level in the mixing and near-
shore zone was 83 ug Si/I (Tables 8-9). The DRS concentration in the lake area
during this survey was 121 ug Si/I (Table 10).
The vertical distribution of DRS in the Embayment was most pronounced in the
lake area where a maximum depletion of 64% was observed in the epilimn ion,
when results from the second survey were compared with "base-line" conditions
represented by the first survey.
Oswego Harbor
The mean DRS concentrations in the Oswego River were similar to the mean DRS
concentrations in the Genesee River (Table 11). Generally, the DRS con-
centration decreased with increasing distance from the river mouth.
Isothermal conditions occurred in the lake area of the Oswego Harbor during
survey 4. The mixing of the hypolimnion waters with the epilimn ion layer
resulted in the highest lake surface DRS concentrations (255+104 ug Si/I)
found during the study (Table 14).
81
-------
CHLOROPHYLL-A AND PHEOPHYTIN DISTRIBUTIONS
The distribution of chlorophyI I-a and pheophytin is closely tied to phyto-
plankton concentration. Because of the relationships between nutrients and
chlorophyI I-a, chlorophyll distributions have been thoroughly analyzed on
both temporal and spatial scales. A typical annual cycle of surface chloro-
phyll-a values has been observed throughout the Great Lakes: a spring bloom
of phytoplankton follows the annual minimum values during the winter, and
relatively low surface chlorophyI I-a levels during midsummer are followed
by a small fall algal bloom (Glooschenko and Moore 1973, Fee 1976, Munawar
and Burns 1976, Vollenweider et al. 1974). The area I distribution of
chlorophyll is often used as an indication of high algal growth areas
due to nutrient loading (Holland and Beeton 1972, Robertson et al. 1971).
Because pheophytin is a degradation product of chlorophyll, the ratio of
pheophytin to the sum of chlorophyIl-a plus pheophytin pigments may
indicate the general physiological health of the phytoplankton. Lower
percentages indicate active healthy populations while higher percentages
imply declining or stressed populations.
Niagara River Plume
The Niagara River had lower levels of chlorophyIl-a than the rest of the Niagara
River Plume area ranging from 0.23 to 4 ug/l with a average value of 1.8 ug/l
over the four surveys (Table 5). The mixing zone had levels of chlorophyIl-a
ranging between 2.0 and 3.8 ug/l with an average value of 3.3 ug/l over the
four surveys (Table 6). The lake area had levels of chlorophyIl-a ranging
between 1.5 and 3.7 ug/l with an average value of 2.7 ug/l over the four
surveys (Table 7).
82
-------
On an annual basis, the levels of chlorophyIl-a in the Niagara River might
be expected to be lower than Lake Ontario levels since Eastern Basin Lake
Erie annual levels in 1980 were below 2.5 ug/l (Herdendorf 1983) and the
attenuation of phytoplankton by waterfalls and within a fast flowing river
has been observed on many rivers (Hynes 1970). However, the first survey
showed that the Niagara River had higher levels of chlorophyIl-a that
dominated the nearshore zone.
The ratio of pheophytin to total pigments increased with each successive
cruise at all study areas (Table 16). The Niagara River had both the
lowest and highest ratios observed: 0.130 during survey 1 and 0.909 during
survey 4. Except during survey 1, the Niagara River exhibited higher ratios
than the mixing or lake study areas. The ratios observed during survey 4
in the mixing and lake areas (0.499 and 0.462 respectively) were consistent
with the elevated ratio in the Niagara River, and they were greater than
the ratios observed at any other Lake Ontario study area.
Rochester Embayment
The source area had higher levels of chlorophyIl-a than the rest of the Embay-
»
ment areas. These values ranged from 5.1 to 12.7 ug/l with a mean level of
7.4 ug/l (Table 8). The mixing and nearshore area had levels of chlorophyIl-a
ranging between 4.7 and 5.2 ug/l with a mean level of 5.0 ug/l (Table 9). The
lake area had levels of chlorophyIl-a ranging between 2.9 and 5.4 ug/l with
a mean level of 4 ug/l (Table 10). The higher level of chlorophyIl-a in the
source area was consistant with the higher levels of nutrients there
compared to the rest of the Embayment.
The ratio of pheophytin to total pigments at all study areas in the Rochester
Embayment was lowest during survey 2 (0.072 - 0.129) and highest during survey
83
-------
Table 16: Average ratio of (pheophytin-a)/(chlorophyI!-a + pheophytin-a)
in surface water from Lake Ontario, 1981
Niagara River Plume
Survey
1
2
3
4
Source Area
0.130
0.487
0.475
0.909
Mi xing Area
0.160
0.290
0.318
0.499
Lake Area
0.169
0.191
0.327
0.462
Rochester Embayment
Survey
1
2
3
4
Source Area
0.215
0.129
0.270
0.234
Mixing Area
0.145
0.072
0.304
0.235
Lake Area
0.166
0.105
0.339
0.207
Oswego Harbor
Survey
1
2
3
4
Source Area
0.256
0.163
0.453
0.217
Inner Harbor
Area
0.325
0.164
0.374
0.235
Outer Harbor
Area
0.263
0.157
0.310
0.187
Lake Area
0.142
0.161
0.376
0.158
-------
3 (0.270 - 0.339, Table 16). Except during survey 3, the pheophytin ratio in
the source area was equal to or greater than that from the mixing or lake areas.
Within each survey, however, the difference between the ratios from the individual
study areas was never greater than 0.069. Although the chlorophylI-a concen-
trations were also highest during survey 3 at all stations, the greater proportion
of pheophytin in the algal pigments implied that the phytoplankton were stressed,
perhaps by nutrient limitations. Lower concentrations of chlorophyIl-a were
observed during survey 4, but the reduced proportion of pheophytin indicated
the presence of non-scenescent algal populations.
Oswego Harbor
The Oswego River had higher levels of chlorophyIl-a than the rest of the harbor
area. These values ranged from 9.5 to 21.2 ug/l with a mean level of 13.2 ug/l
(Table 11). The inner harbor mixing area had chlorophyll-a values ranging from
9.0 to 13.1 ug/l with a mean level of 11.2 ug/l (Table 12). The outer harbor
mixing area had chlorophyll-a values ranging from 7.0 to 12.4 ug/l with a
mean level of 9.0 ug/l (Table 13). The lake area had chlorophyll-a values
ranging from 5.6 to 6.9 ug/l with a mean level of 6.4 ug/l (Table 14). The
river area had higher levels of nutrients than the rest of the harbor, con-
sistent with a higher biomass as measured by chlorophyll-a.
The ratio of pheophytin to total pigments in the Oswego Harbor area was
generally lowest during survey 2 (0.157-0.164) and greatest during survey 3
(0.310-0.453) at all study areas (Table 16). During survey 1, the pheophytin
ratio was lowest at the lake study area, and during survey 4, the ratios
at the lake and outer harbor areas were lower than those at the river and
inner harbor areas. These ratios suggest that the phytoplankton were of
similar physiological condition at all study areas during the summer months,
but that the phytoplankton within the influence of the Oswego River were
somewhat stressed during surveys 1 and 4 relative to the lake study area.
85
-------
PARAMETERS EXCEEDING CRITERIA AND OBJECTIVES
Three sets of criteria were used to evaluate the chemical parameters of water
qua I ity.
They were: 1) Specific objectives from Annex 1 of the 1978 Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United
States of America, which are designed to protect raw
(untreated) waters for public water supplies and to
protect aquatic life living in these waters.
2) Guidance criteria for "A" waters of Human Effects New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC 1984) and,
3) Aquatic Criteria - New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC 1984).
The parameters which exceeded each of these guidelines are listed in
Tables 17-19.
86
-------
Table 17. Parameters Exceeding Annex 1 Specific Objectives of the 1978 Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement
Parameter
Cadmi urn
PH
Cadmi urn
Location
Rochester
03,04,10,11
24,29,51,57
60
Niagara 01
Oswego 09
Percentage of
samples at
site exceeding
guide I i nes
100$
2%
100$
Proportion of
Number of stations within
samples per study area exceeding
station site guidelines
1 9/43
41 1/22
1 1/15
Table 18.
Parameter
A I urn i num
A I urn inum
Parameters Exceeding the NYDEC
Location
Rochester 57
Oswego 03
Percentage of
samples at site
exceed! ng
gu idel i nes
100$
100$
Effects Guidance Criteria
Proportion of
Number of stations within
samples per study area
station site exceeding guidelines
1 1/43
1 1/15
Table 19. Parameters Exceeding the NYDEC Aquatic Effects Guidance Criteria
Pa rameter Locat i on
Percentage of
samples at site
exceed i ng
gu ideIi nes
Proportion of
Number of stations within
sample per study area
station site exceeding guidelines
Si Iver
Rochester 57
100
1/43
These few exceedances appear to be minor. However, the trace metals
were analyzed for only one run of the third survey.
87
-------
OTHER RESULTS
Other data not specifically discussed in the text are available in Appendix A,
Microfiche of Data. Air Temperature, Wind Speed, Wave Height and Wave
Direction are given by location and survey. Limited data on TOC is also
presented.
DISCUSSION
The dynamic nature of the turbulent nearshore zone and the interaction with
major tributaries requires a dense station network and high frequency sampling
over a large areal extent to produce interpretable chemical and biological
concentration contours. Except for the thermal bar period within the Rochester
Embayment, the results of this study were severely condensed by cluster
analysis to produce interpretable results.
The nutrient impact of three major United States tributaries to Lake Ontario
was assessed. In each area, nutrient enrichment of the lake was found.
Generally, the areal extent of the impact was relatively small and restricted
to the mixing and nearshore areas within the areas monitored. During the
first and fourth surveys, the Niagara River heavily influenced the mixing
and nearshore areas of the Niagara River Plume study area.
The Rochester Embayment lake stations and the comparable areas of the
Lake Ontario Surveillance network conducted by Environment Canada (Zones
12 and 13, Kwiatkowski 1982) showed the same seasonal patterns for total phos-
phorus with numerical agreement within 20%. Although the GLNPO survey results
were higher during all surveys, the spring survey conducted by Environment
Canada (4-27 to 5-1) which overlapped the GLNPO survey (4-29 to 5-4) had
statistically the same total phosphorus concentrations (13.1-13.5 ug P/l)
88
-------
when compared to the GLNPO total phosphorus concentrations (14.3+0.7 ug P/I).
Kwiatkowski (1982) showed that the nutrient levels in the three nearshore areas
had decreased in total phosphorus as much as 10 to 19 ug P/l since 1974,
suggesting improved trophic conditions along the entire U.S. shoreline.
Maximum epilimnion DRS levels reported by Robertson and Scavia (1984)
suggest that the spring diatom bloom had occurred prior to the first survey
in late April. The open lake areas had surface DRS levels between 14 and
146.0 ug Si/I during April with a marked east to west increase in DRS con-
centrations occurring between Oswego and the Rochester Embayment. Shiomi
and Chawla (1970) also showed a general east to west increase in nutrient con-
centrati ons.
Large variations in ammonia concentrations within the Niagara River (12.5 to
34 ug N/l), Genesee River (27.9 to 144 ug N/I) and Oswego River (60 to 188
ug N/l) suggest some municipal waste treatment plant and/or storm water
overflow impacts. For example, ammonia levels in the Detroit River upstream
from the Detroit municipal sewerage treatment plant outfall ranged from 6 to 7
ug N/l (GLNPO unpublished data). Downstream from the Detroit municipal sewage
treatment plant outfall, the ammonia levels ranged from 27 to 176 ug N/l
(GLNPO unpublished data). These downstream levels do not represent complete
mixing in the Detroit River, whereas in the Niagara River the ammonia levels
are presumably representative of the entire flow due to mixing at Niagara
Falls. A 1 ug N/l increase in ammonia concentrations in the Niagara River
would represent an additional load of about 1/2 metric ton ammonia per day.
89
-------
During September, the greatest rainfall in the Syracuse and Rochester area
occurred on September 21 and 22. This was just prior to the survey periods
in the Rochester area. Measurable rainfall occurred at the Rochester National
Weather Service Office on seven of the eleven days during the survey. Elevated
total and soluble reactive phosphorus levels in the Genesee and Oswego Rivers
during the fourth survey may be due to the runoff effects in the Rochester
and Oswego areas.
In addition to elevated TP, SRP values were elevated during the third survey
in the Genesee and Oswego Rivers, and during the second survey in the Oswego
River. The continued presence of higher levels of TP and SRP in the source
areas of the Rochester Embayment and the Oswego Harbor together with the
high ammonia levels suggest adverse municipal plant impacts in the rivers.
Trace metal contamination in the water column was relatively minor. However,
due to the occurrence of cadmium exceedances at 2\% of the Rochester sites,
additional investigations are suggested. Additional surveillance could
consider potential sources, the area I extent and seasonal variation of
the cadmium exceedances. Silver and aluminum were the only other metals
which exceeded guidance criteria. Cadmium and silver exceedances were
also reported by the NYDEC (Litten 1984).
High concentrations of chloride and sulfate, and elevated specific conductance
were found in the Oswego River. Evidence suggests that loading was not
intermittent since the biota were dominated by halophilic (salt loving)
phytoplankton species within the Oswego Harbor and mouth of the Oswego
River (Makarewicz, this report). A material handling facility was located
near the river mouth with bulk storage facilities adjacent to the river
bank. Road salt (NaCI) was stored unprotected in an open pile, and
muriate of potash (KCI) had also been stored in this area (Oswego Port
90
-------
Authority 1984). Seepage from this site could be a cause for the high
levels of chloride, sulfate, and conductivity. Alternatively, downstream
transport of water from Onondaga Lake, whose conductivity has been measured
as 3000-6000 umhos/ cm (Litten 1984), may have influenced the conservative
parameters at the mouth of the Oswego River.
91
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank Dr. Thomas Fontaine for the computational support (the SAS
programs); Dr. Paul Bertram for his helpful limnology advice; Sarah Pavlovic
and Dr's Norman Andresen, Simon Litten, Joseph Makarewicz, and Claire Schelske
for their careful review of this manuscript; and Gaynell Whatley for her
dedicated secretarial work in typing and in making modifications to this
report.
92
-------
Literature Cited
Alder and Roessler. 1962. Introduction to Probability and Statistics.
W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.
Armstrong, F.A.J., C.R. Sterns and J.D.H. Strickland. 1967. The measurement
of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the Technicon
Auto Analyzer and associated equipment. Deep Sea Res. 14:381-389.
Bell, G.L. 1978. Characteristics of the Oswego River plume and its influence
on the nearshore environment. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL-GLERL 22.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Beeton, A.M. 1969. Changes in the environment and biota of the Great Lakes.
In A.M. Beeton and W.T. Edmondson (eds). Eutrophication: Causes, Con-
sequences, Correctives. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr.
22:361-368.
Chapra, S.C. and H.F.H. Dobson. 1981. Quantification of the lake trophic
typologies of Naumann (surface quality) and Thienemann (oxygen) with
special references to the Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 7(2):182-
193.
Dobson, H.F.H., M. Gilbertson, and P.G. Sly. 1974. A summary and comparison
of nutrients and related water quality in Lakes Erie, Ontario, Huron
and Superior. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:731-738.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water.
Wash i ngton.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. USEPA Report No. EPA 600/4-79-020. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Eppley, R.W., J.N. Rogers and J.J. McCarthy. 1969. Half-saturation con-
stants for uptake of nitrate and ammonia by marine phytoplankton.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 14:912-920.
Fee, E.J. 1976. The vertical and seasonal distribution of chloropyll in
lakes of the experimental Lakes Area, Northwestern Ontario: Implications
for priamry production estimates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:767-783.
Fogg, G.E. 1975. Algal Cultures and Phytoplankton Ecology. 2nd ed. Univ. of
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Gales, M., Jr., E. Julian and R. Kroner. 1966. Method for quantitative de-
termination of total phosphorus in water. J. Amer. Wat. Works Assoc.
53(10):1363.
Glooschenko, W.A. and J.E. Moore. 1973. Surface distribution of chlorophyll
and primary production in Lake Huron. Tech. Report No. 406. Fish. Res.
Bd. Can.
93
-------
Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1979. Great Lakes International Surveillance
Plan. Great Lakes Water Quality Board. Part B Section IV. International
Joint Commission. 113.
Hellebust, J.A. 1974. Extracellular Products. In W.D. Steward (ed), Algal
Physiology and Biochemistry. Univ. California, pp 838-863.
Herdendorf, C.E. 1983. Lake Erie Water Quality 1970-1982: A Management
Assessment. CLEAR Technical Report No. 279, Ohio State University,
Columbus.
Holland, R.E. and A.M. Beeton. 1972. Significance to eutrophication of
spatial differences in nutrients and diatoms in Lake Michigan. Limnol .
Oceanogr. 17:88-96.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. A Treatise on Limnology. Vol. 1. John Wiley
and Sons. New York.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto
Press.
International Joint Commission. 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978. Agreement, with annexes and terms of references, between the
United States of America and Canada.
Jirka, A., M. Carter, D. May and F. Fuller. 1976. Ultramicro semi-automated
method for the simultaneous determination of total Kjeldahl nitrogen
in wastewaters. Env. Sci. Tech. 10:1038.
Kizlauskas, A.G., D.C. Rockwell and R.E. Claff. 1984. Great Lakes National
Program Office Harbor Sediment Program Lake Ontario 1981: Rochester,
New York, Oswego, New York, Olcott, New York. USEPA Report No. EPA 905/
4-84-002, Great Lakes National Program Office. Chicago.
Klappenbach, E. 1985. 1982 and 1983 Atmospheric Loadings for Lake Ontario.
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Manuscript in preparation.
Kwiatkowski, R.E. 1982. Trends in Lake Ontario surveillance parameters
1974-1980. J. Great Lakes Res. 8(4):648-659.
Ladewski, T.B. and E.F. Stoermer. 1973. Water transparency in southern
Lake Michigan in 1971 and 1972. Proc. 16th Conf. Great Lakes Res.,
Int'l Assoc. Great Lakes Res. 791-807.
Lesht, B.M. and D.C. Rockwell. 1985. State of the Middle Great Lakes: Results
of the 1983 Water Quality Survey of Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan.
Argonne National Laboratory Topical Report.
Lind, John E., Jr., R.M. Fuoss and J.J. Zwolonik. 1959. Calibration of
conductance cells at 25° with aqueous solutions of potassium chloride.
J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 18:1557-1559.
Litten, S. 1984. Research Scientist, Bureau of Water Research, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation. Personnel Communication.
Mace, T. 1983. LANDSAT MSS Classification of Nearshore Water Quality in
Lake Ontario. August 18, 1981. USEPA Report No. TS-AMD-82695. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
94
-------
Marmorino, G.O., S.C. Danos and J.S. Maki. 1980. Temperature fine structure
of Lake Michigan hypo limn ion. Limno. Oceanogr. 25(4):680-699.
McKee, J.E. and H.W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. State Water Quality
Control Board, Sacramento. CA. Pub. 3-A.
Milligan, G.W. 1980. An examination of the effect of six types of error
perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika. 45:325-342.
Moll R.A., R. Rossmann, D.C. Rockwell, and W.Y.B. Chang. 1985. Lake Huron
Intensive Survey, 1980. Special Report No. 110, Great Lakes Research
Divison, U. of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Munawar, M. and W.M. Burns. 1976. Relationships of phytoplankton biomass
with soluble nutrients, primary production, and chlorophyll _a_ in Lake
Erie/ 1970. J.Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33:601-611.
Murphy, J. and J.P. Ri ley. 1962. A modified single solution method for the
determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 27:30.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 1984. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria. Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance
Series 1984.
Oswego Port Authority. 1984. Personnel Communication.
Paer I, H.W., R.D. Thomson and C.R. Goldman. 1975. The ecological signi-
ficance of detritus formation during a diatom bloom in Lake Tahoe,
California-Nevada. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 19:826-834.
Patterson C. and D. Settle. 1976. The Reduction of Orders of Magnitude
Errors in Lead Analyses of Biological Materials and Natural Waters by
Evaluating and Controlling the Extent and Sources of Industrial Lead
Contamination Introduced During Sample Collecting, Handling and Analysis.
National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 422, 7th IMR Symposium.
October 7-11, 1974. Gaithersburg MD.
Petrie L., 1980. Central Regional Laboratory USEPA, Region V. Personnel
Communication.
Robertson, A., C.F. Powers and J.Rose. 1971. Distribution of chlorophyll
and its relation to particulate organic matter in the offshore waters
of Lake Michigan. Proc. 14th Conf. Great lakes Res., Int'l. Assoc.
Great Lakes Res. 90-101.
Robertson, A. and D. Scavia. 1984. North American Great Lakes. In F.B.
Taubs (ed), Lakes and Reservoirs. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Amsterdam.
Rockwell, D.C., D.S. DeVault, M.F. Palmer, C.V. Marion and R.J. Bowden.
1980. Lake Michigan Intensive Survey 1976-1977. USEPA Report No.
EPA-905/4-80-003-A. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago.
Rogers, G.K. and G.K. Sato. 1970. Factors affecting the progress of the thermal
bar of spring in Lake Ontario. Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Intl.
Assoc. Great Lakes Res. 942-950.
95
-------
SAS Institute. 1982. Users Guide Statistics. Gary, North Carolina.
Schelske, C.L. 1979. Role of phosphorus in Great Lakes eutrophication:
is there a controversy? J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 36(3):286-288.
Schelske, C.L. and J.C. Roth. 1973. Limnology survey of Lakes Michigan,
Superior, Huron and Erie. Great Lakes Research Division Pub No. 17.
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Schelske, C.L. and E.F. Stoermer. 1971. Eutrophication, silica depletion
and predicted changes in algal quality in Lake Michigan. Science 173:
423-424.
Shiomi, M.T. and V.K. Chawla. 1970. Nutrients in Lake Ontario, Proc. 13th
Conf. Great Lakes Res., Intl. Assoc. Great Lakes Res. 715-732.
Sievering, H., D.A. Dolske, V. Jensen and R.L. Huges. 1984. An experimental
study of lake loading by aerosol transport and dry deposition in the Lake
Erie Basin. USEPA Report No. EPA-905/9-84-001. Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago.
Sridharan, N. and G.F. Lee. 1977. Algal Nutrient Availability and Limitation
in Lake Ontario During IFYGL. USEPA Report No. EPA-600/3-77-046a. Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA
Duluth MN.
Strickland, J.D.H. and T.R. Parsons. 1972. A practical Handbook of Seawater
Analysis. Fish Res. Board Canada Bulletin No. 167.
United States Department of the Interior and New York State Department of
Health. 1968. Water Pollution Problems and Improvement Needs, Lake Ontario
and St. Lawrence River Basins. USDOI Federal Water Pollution Control Admini-
stration, Chicago, and NYDOH, Division of Pure Waters, Albany. 125p.
United States Geological Survey. 1983. Water Resources Data for New York.
Upper Lakes Reference Group. 1976. The Waters of Lake Huron and Lake Superior.
Vol. 1 Summary and Recommendations. International Joint Commission.
Windsor, Ontario.
Vol lenweider, R.A., M. Munawar and P. Stadelmann. 1974. A comparative review
of phytoplankton and primary production in the Laurentian Great Lakes.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:731-762.
Wetzel, R.G. 1975. Limnology. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.
96
-------
PhytopIankton Composition, Abundance and Distribution:
Oswego River and Harbor and Niagara River Plume
by
Joseph C. Makarewicz
Department of Biological Sciences
State University of New York at Brockport
Brockport, New York 14420
August 1984
Project Officer
David C. Devault
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
United Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois 6060f
97
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables 99
List of Figures 101
INTRODUCTI ON 102
METHODS AND MATERIALS 103
RESULTS 105
Oswego River and Harbor 105
Niagara River Plume 112
DISCUSSION 113
Oswewgo Harbor 113
Eutrophic Species 113
Decrease in Aster i one I la and Tabel I aria 113
Increases in Blue-green Algae 114
Ha Iophi lie Species 115
CONCLUS IONS 117
LITERATURE CI TED 120
TABLES 1 - 23 122ff
FIGURES 1 -5 144ff
APPEND ICES 149
Appendix 1. Species List - Oswego River 150
Appendix 2. Species List - Niagara River 160
Appendix 3. Biovolume Summary by Cruise and Station 165
Appendix 4. Abundance Summary by Cruise and Station 169
98
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1. Number of taxa and genera observed in each algal division o, grouping,
Oswego River and Harbor.
2. Mean phytoplankton density as cells/ml in the Oswego River, Harbor
Entrance and nearshore region of Lake Ontario during summer 1981.
3. Relative abundance of major phytoplankton divisions in the Oswego
River, Harbor Entrance and nearshore region of Lake Ontario during
summer 1981.
4. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyclotella cryptica.
5. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Fragi Maria crotonensis.
6. Distributin and abundance (cells/ml) of Stephanodiscus tenuis,
j^. tenui s v. 1 and j^. tenuis v. 2.
7. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyc1oteI I a menegh i n i ana.
8. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Fragi laria capucina.
9. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cryptomonas erosa.
10. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Rhodomonas minuta vs.
nannoplanktica.
11. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Coelastrum microporum.
12. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Scenedesmus spft
13. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Dictyosphaerium pulchelI urn.
14. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Monoraphidium contortum.
15. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Anacystis marina.
99
-------
16. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Osc iI Iator i a 11mnet i ca.
17. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Anacystis montana f. minor.
18. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of CoccochI or is penlocystis.
19. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyclotella atomus Hust.
Stephanodiscus subtiI Is Van Goor and Skeletonema potamos (Weber)
Ha i se.
20. Number of taxa and genera observed in each algal division or grouping,
Niagara River.
21. Relative abundance of major phytoplankton divisions in the Niagara
River Plume.
22. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyclotella atomus.
23. Distribution of halophytic plankton near Oswego, N.Y.
100
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Lake Ontario showing the Oswego and Niagara phytoplankton sampling sites.
2. Phytoplankton sampling stations at Oswego, New York.
3. Phytoplankton sampling stations near the Niagara River.
4. Isopleths of phytoplankton abundance (x10^ cells/ml), Niagara River
PIume.
5. Chloride concentration in the Oswego River and Harbor and nearshore
of Lake Ontario.
101
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Oswego River drainage, 5,121 square miles, is the largest
drainage area of the eastern part of Lake Ontario and is the second
largest watershed In New York State. The drainage Includes a variety of
aquatic environments Including seven of the Finger Lakes, One Ida Lake,
Cross Lake and Onondaga Lake, among other smaller bodies of water. The
Oswego River itself Is only 24 miles long, originating at Three Rivers
from a confluence of the Oneida River and Seneca River. Within the entire
river system, there are approximately 7,000 miles of streams Including 106
miles of barge canal. Flow In the Oswego River Is regulated by a series
of seven locks and dams, three of which are located in the town of Oswego
(Jackson, Nemerow and Rand 1964).
The present project deals with a limited area of Lake Ontario and the
Oswego River and Harbor at Oswego, New York (Figs. 1 and 2). This region
lies within an area of Lake Ontario which has been extensively modified by
factors which affect phytopiankton occurrence and abundance. Nutrients,
chlorinated pesticides and PCB's flush into Lake Ontario via the Oswego
River from domestic, agricultural and industrial sources In the extensive
watershed. Several qualitatively different local sources are present, and
the effects of these sources on phytopIankton composition and abundance
are of interest because adjacent regions of the Lake are utilized for
recreational purposes. In addition, one set of data from the Niagara
River Plume Is reported on here. This project was initiated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Progam Office
(GLNPO), to document the water quality of the Oswego River/Harbor and
nearby Inshore region of Lake Ontario.
102
-------
The primary objectives of the project, which is part of a more
comprehensive investigation, are the following:
1. To determine the composition and abundance of the phytoplankton
flora for comparison with past conditions to the extent that they are
known, and to provide firm documentation for comparison with future
studies; and *
2, To determine if there are patterns of occurrence for specific
phytoplankton populations which may reflect the effect of specific
sources.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
PhytopIankton samples were collected during three Oswego River
cruises (July 31-August 1; August 30-September 2; October 8-10, 1981) and
one Niagara River cruise (April 28-30, 1981) by GLNPO personnel (Fig. 1).
An 8-liter PVC Niskin bottle mounted on a General Oceanics Rossette
sampler with a guideline eIectrobathythermograph (EBT) was used.
One-Iiter composite phytopIankton samples were obtained by compositing
equal aliquots from samples collected at depths of 1 and 2 m above the
bottom and at as many 5-meter Intervals (5,10,15,20 m) as allowed by total
water depth.
PhytopIankton samples were immediately preserved with 10 ml of Lugols
solution. Up to two years later, 5-6% formaldehyde was added to each
sample. The settling chamber procedure (Utermohl 1958) was used to
identify (except for diatoms) and enumerate phytoplankton at a
magnification of 500x. A second Identification and enumeration of diatoms
at 1250x was performed after the organic portion was concentrated and
oxidized with 30$ H20?J HN03 and K2Cr20,7 !€PA/CRL Method #610201403). The
103
-------
cleaned diatom concentrate was air dried on a #1 cover slip and mounted on
a slide (75x25mm) with HYRAX™ mounting medium. All Identifications
and counts were done by Bionetics, Inc.
The cell volume of each species was computed by applying average
dimensions from each sampling station and date to the geometrical shapes
that most closely resembled the species form, such as sphere, cylinder,
4
prolate spheroid, etc. At least 10 specimens of each species were
measured for the cell volume calculation. When fewer than 10 specimens
were present, those present were measured as they occurred. For most
organisms, the measurements were taken from the outside walI to outside
wall. With lorlcated forms, the protoplast was measured, while the
Individual cells of filaments and colonial forms were measured.
Raw counts were converted to number/ml by GLNPO personnel.
Abundances and dimensions of each species were entered Into a Prime 750
computer using the INFO (Henco Software, Inc., 100 Fifth Avenue, Waltham,
Mass.) data management system. Biovolumes (urn /mL) were calculated
and placed into summaries for each sampling station containing density
(cells/mL), blovolume (jum /ml) and relative abundance of species. In
addition, each division was summarized by station. Summary Information is
stored on magnetic tape and is available for further analysis.
104
-------
RESULTS
Overall Abundance of Major Algal Groups
Species lists and summary tables of abundance and biovolume by
station and cruise are In the appendices 1-4. Original data sets are
available from the Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.
Oswego River and Harbor (Fig. 2)
Sampling stations were located in several different habitats
Including the Oswego River, the Oswego Harbor, a transient area between
the Harbor and Lake Ontario (Harbor Entrance) and the nearshore of Lake
Ontario. To facilitate analysis, the area has been divided by habitat
type; that Is, divided into Lake stations (Stations 12,13,17,19,22,23 and
29), Harbor Entrance stations (Stations 9 and 11) and Harbor stations
(Stations 3,4,5,7,28 and 37). River station 3 is included with the Harbor
stations.
The Oswego River, Harbor and nearshore Lake Ontario phytoplankton
assemblage was composed of 469 alga taxa representing 115 genera from nine
divisions: BacI11arlophyta, Chloromonadophyta, Chlorophyta, Chrysophyta,
Cryptophyta, Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta, Pyrrhophyta and Xanthophyta. The
Chlorophyta possessed the largest number of taxa (191), while the second
largest number were observed for the BaciI Iarlophyta (163) (Table 1). The
average density and biovolume was 53,340 cells/mL (range: 12,627 to
131,776) and 3.3mm /I (range: 0.67 to 13.2), respectively, for the
entire study area.
From late July until mid-October, absolute abundance decreased
slightly In the harbor, river and harbor entrance and decreased
dramatically in the nearshore of Lake Ontario (Table 2). Harbor/River
abundances were generally higher than lake densities. Highest overalI
I05
-------
densities were attained by the blue-green algae (81%), with greens,
diatoms and cryptophytes secondarily abundant. All other algae accounted
for only 2% of the total abundance (Table 3a). This pattern did not
change between the lake, harbor entrance or harbor/river stations or with
time. However, a different pattern emerged when relative abundance based
on blovolume was considered. Diatoms attained the highest blovolume
(37.0$) with cryptophytes and greens of secondary Importance. Blue-greens
represented only 4.5% of total blovolume of phytoplankton (Table 3b).
Regional and Seasonal Trends In the Abundance of Abundant Taxa
BacIIlariophyta
Cyclotella crypt lea Relmann, Lew In and Gull lard (Table 4)
This species was originally described from a brackish-water habitat
(Reimann s± al. 1963). In Lake Michigan, most records of its occurrence
come from harbors and inshore areas subject to elevated chloride level
(Stoermer and Yang 1969). At Oswego, It was found In higher numbers in
the harbor/river area relative to the lake stations in July, August and
October. In July, this species was the dominant diatom (37$ of total
abundance), with a maximum density of 3050 cells/mL at Station 3 at the
mouth of the Oswego River. In August, C. crypt lea was also abundant at
Station 22. This station Is within a 1/4 mile of the shore.
Frag II aria crotonensls Kitton (Table 5)
This species is one of the most commonly reported plankton diatoms.
It is present in all the Great Lakes and can tolerate a wide range of
ecological conditions (Stoermer and Tuchman 1979). Densities were lowest
in late July with a trend toward higher abundance from August to October.
Densities appeared to be slightly higher In the nearshore of the lake than
In the harbor or river.
106
-------
StephanodIscus tenuis Hust. (Table 6)
This species has been reported as dominant in collections from Lake
Ontario (Nalewajko 1966). It was the second most abundant diatom (24%)
during Cruise 2 and the dominant in Cruise 3 (21$ of total diatoms). S.
tenuis was observed in all samples but obviously was much more prevalent
within the harbor and river, with the exception of lake Station 22.
Abundances were greater in late August than in July or October. IL tenuis
Is apparently tolerant of fairly high levels of total dissolved solids
(Stoermer and Ladewski 1976).
Cyclotella meneghinlana Kutz.(Table 7)
This species is widely distributed In both fresh and brackish waters
(Stoermer and Ladewski 1976). General distribution records suggest that
it is strongly halophflic, and some evidence indicates that it requires
elevated TDS levels to successfully complete its life cycle (Stoermer and
Ladewski 1976). Except for Station 22, the station within a 1/4 mile of
the shore, abundances were lower at the lake stations than harbor and
river stations. However, this species was dominant at the river and
harbor stations (\1% of the total diatom abundance) In October.
FragfI aria capucina Desm. (Table 8)
High population densities of F. capucina are usually associated with
eutrophfc or disturbed conditions in the Great Lakes (Stoermer and
Ladewski 1976). It has been noted as being abundant in Lake Ontario by
some investigators (Nalewajko 1966; Relnwand 1969). In 1972-73, it was
abundant at scattered nearshore stations in Lake Ontario (Stoermer £± .aL*.
1975). MIchalski (1968) Indicated that it is more abundant In the Bay of
Quinte than in Lake Ontario proper.
Abundance in the Oswego study area was low In July and August
compared to October. In October, £*. capucina reached densities of 1000
107
-------
cells/mL at the harbor and river stations. This species represented 13$
of the total diatom abundance In October.
Cyclotella atomus Hust. (Table 22)
Most reports of this species are from polluted harbors and nearshore
localities (Stoermer and Ladewski 1976). It was occasionally the dominant
diatom during this study; e.g., Stations 4 and 7 (Cruise 3) and Station 3
(Cruise 4). At other times, It was abundant (Stations 3,5 and 22; Cruise
3) but, In general, was not present In large numbers.
Cryptophyta
Cryptomonas erosa Ehr.(Table 9)
This member of the genus Is widely distributed in the Great Lakes
(Stoermer et al. 1975), usually in low numbers. According to
Huber-PestaIozzI (1968), it is a eurytopic organism, occurring both In
ollgotrophic lakes and often, in abundance, in eutrophic and slightly
saline habitats. Munawar and Nauwerck (1971) found it during all seasons
in Lake Ontario during 1970, with greatest abundances in the spring and
fall. Stoermer et al. (1975) observed large populations (100-250
cells/mL) at nearshore stations on the southern shore at the eastern part
of the lake In June. Similar densities were observed In this study area
in late July and October. In July, this species accounted for 63$ of the
Cryptophyta biovolume and 30.1$ of the total algal blovolume.
Rhodomonas minuta v. nannopIanktlca Skuja (Table 10)
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has been monitoring
phytoplankton In the outflow of Lake Ontario at Brockville in the St.
Lawrence River since 1967. Rhodomonas and Cryptomonas species contributed
only 5$ of the total phytoplankton biomass in the late 1960's but had
Increased to over 30$ by 1978 (Nicholls 1980). In 1981 at Oswego,
108
-------
abundances averaged 253 cells/ml ranging to a maximum of 1219 cells/ml at
Station 29 In October. Abundances appeared to Increase In October with
this species, accounting for 42.8$ of the total abundance (cells/ml) of
Cryptophyta.
Chlorophyta
The four taxa listed below represented 29.7? of the total abundance
(cells/ml) of green algae. The other 70.3? was comprised of 187 taxa,
none of which comprised more than 25? of total abundance for a given
sampling date and station.
Coelastrum microporum Nag. (Table 11)
Stoermer et al. (1975) reported this species as being widely
distributed in the Great Lakes, but that it only reached appreciable
abundance In eutrophic lakes. It has been reported from Irondequoit Bay,
Lake Ontario (TressIer et al. 1953) and as a spring dominant In the open
lake by Munawar and Nauwerck (1971). Stoermer s± .al*. (1975) reported it
as "quite abundant" (100-300 cells/mL) in the eastern half of Lake Ontario
during August 1972.
In this study, abundances reaching 2130 cells/mL were observed In the
nearshore lake station. Its density appeared to be higher In late August
and October at the lake stations.
Scenedesmus spp. (Table 12)
Most species of Scenedesmus reported from the Great Lakes prefer
eutrophic waters (Stoermer et al. 1975). Abundance was generally higher
in the harbor and river stations than In the lake stations In this study.
DIctyosphaerlum pulchellum Wood (Table 13)
This species is sometimes a conspicuous component of the plankton in
acid bog lakes (Prescott 1973). At Oswego, abundance was higher In July
109
-------
and Isolated to the harbor and river areas. In August, It was again
observed only In the harbor and river, except for Station 22. By October,
It had essentially disappeared.
Monoraphldlum contortum (Thuret) Kom,-Legn. (Table 14)
This species was observed In both the harbor and river environments
and the nearshore of Lake Ontario. A maximum density of 949 cells/ml was
observed In late August at Station 3 In Oswego River.
Cyanophyta
Anacystis marina Dr. and Dally (Table 15)
A± marina is widely distributed as plankton In fresh, brackish, and
sometimes marine waters. It Is rarely reported, probably because It Is
easily overlooked (Humm and Wicks 1980). Cells range In size from 0.5-2.0
pm In diameter.
This was the dominant plankton within the study area representing 75%
of the total algal abundance (cells/mL) but only approximately \% of the
total algal blovolume. Densities as high as 95,107 cells/mL were
observed. In general, densities were higher in the harbor/river
environment.
Apparently, there are no other reports of this species In Lake
Ontario reaching the abundance observed in this study. Stoermer et aI.
(1975) observed Anacystis cyanea and Anacystis Incerta. However, combined
abundance never exceeded 1500 cells/mL. Since A. cyanea ranges in size
from 3-7um, it is unlikely that the species have been confused. A.
incerta was observed In the present study, but it did not predominate.
Oscillatoria I imnetlca Lemm.(Table 16)
Stoermer et aI. (1975) reported this species as the most common
member of the genus in the 1972-73 collections. According to
110
-------
Huber-Pestalozzi (1938), It Is a common euplanktonlc form which often
occurs In polluted waters. Munawar and Nauwerck (1971) recorded It as
being an abundant form In the fall plankton of Lake Ontario.
Relatively large populations of this species were noted In our
collection (1.8$ of the total algal abundance). Density was considerably
higher In the river and harbor stations than in the lake stations in late
August. The exception was Station 22 In the lake where abundance was
noticeably higher than at other lake stations.
Anacystls tnontana 1. minor Dr. and Daily (Table 17)
According to Humm and Wicks (1980), A. montana is planktonic and
possesses a worldwide distribution in freshwater and also in brackish
water habitats. At Oswego, abundance was high (1.8% of the total algal
density) with a bimodal temporal distribution. In late August, it was
essentially absent from the area, while In late July and October, It was
present In the harbor, river and lake habitats.
Coccochlorls penlocystis Kiitz- (Table 18)
According to Hutnm and Wicks (1980), most reports of this species are
from freshwater, but occassionally It Is reported from marine habitats.
It has a world-wide distribution. At Oswego, it was found throughout the
study area with no obvious distributional pattern. It accounted for 1.856
of the total algal density for the study period.
Pyrrhophyta
Dinoflagellate density was generally low (range: 8-131 cells/mL).
However, because of their large size, relative biomass was high for the
study period (12.3/8). Dinof I agel lates were more prevalent In late July
than In August or September with Cerat I utn h fr undine I I af Per I d I n I urn
aclculIferum and Perldinlum cinctum dominating at various stations with no
111
-------
obvious distributional pattern within the study area.
NIAGARA RIVER PLUME (FIG. 3)
The Niagara River Plume phytoplankton assemblage comprised 220 taxa
within 68 genera from seven divisions: Bad I lariophyta, Chlorophyta,
Chrysophyta, Cryptophyta, Cyanophyta, Pyrrhophyta and Euglenophyta. The
BacIIlarlophyta possessed 109 taxa, while the second largest number of
taxa (46) were observed In the Chlorophyta (Table 20). The average
density and blovolume was 59,587 cells/ml (range: 4910 to 180,290) and
1.2mm /I (range: 0.42 to 2.3), respectively.
Abundance was higher within the plume than outside the plume In this
study (Fig. 4). In the spring of 1972, the phytoplankton blomass of the
Niagara River Plume was reported lower than that of Lake Ontario (Great
Lakes Laboratory 1976). This lower blomass was attributed to higher
turbidity of the Niagara River. One major difference between the studies
was In methodology. In the present study, samples from 1,5,10,15 and 20m
(when possible) were composited and enumerated. In the 1972 study,
samples were from 1m only.
Highest overall densities were attained by blue-green algae (96/8)
with Anacystis marina being the dominant species. Greens (1.1?), diatoms
(1.2$) and cryptophytes (0.4$) were of less importance on a cells/ml basis
(Table 21). With blovolume, a different pattern emerged. The diatoms
were most abundant (54.9$) with the Pyrrhophyta accounting for 29.1$ of
the total biovolume (Table 21). During the spring of 1972, the Great
Lakes Laboratory (1976) reported that diatoms accounted for over 50$ of
the biomass, with the Pyrrhophyta and Cryptophyta being the next two major
categories.
Dominant species within the plume were Stephanodiscus hantzschii.
112
-------
Stephanodiscus tenuis> and Anacystls marina on a cells/ml basis.
Stephanodiscus nlagarae, TabelI art a fenestratar Cryptomonas erosa.and
Per i d i n I urn aclculiferum were most prevalent In the plume based on
blovolume. Munawar and Munawar (1976), working on Lake Erie, reported
that species of Rhodomonasr Cryptomonas,. Stephanodiscus tenuls, S.
nlagarae . and Peridlnlum aclculIferum were predominant In the eastern basin
during the spring and fall.
DISCUSSION
OSWEGO HARBOR
PhytopIankton assemblages observed in both the Oswego Harbor and
River and nearshore of Lake Ontario were represented by many species which
are widely recognized as associated with eutrophic and often halophillc
environments. Diatoms (blovolume) and blue-greens (abundance) were the
dominant groups of the phytopIankton assemblage.
Eutrophic Species
Oswego Harbor and the mouth of the Oswego River, in comparison to
nearshore waters of Lake Ontario, were characterized by higher
phytopIankton community abundance and more eutrophic species throughout
most of the sampled periods. The following known eutrophic species were
present in substantially higher abundance than in the nearshore region:
Stephanodiscus tenuisr Frag 11 aria capuclnaf Cryptomonas erosa and
Scenedesmus spp
Decreases In Asterlonella and Tabellarla
Few historical studies of the phytopIankton of the Oswego River and
Harbor apparently exist. Tress Ier and Austin (1940) sampled 11 stations
1 13
-------
In and outside the harbor at Oswego and at a station three miles off the
mouth of the Oswego River In July of 1939. Methodology Is not described
for enumeration. Blue-green (3.1 cells/ml) and green algae (17 cells/mL)
were scarce while diatom abundance averaged 148 cells/mL with Aster lone 11 a
(104 cells/mL) and label I aria (86.5 cells/mL) being dominant at the lake
station. At the river station, forms of Navlcula became more Important
but did not supersede label I aria. Nalewajko (1966) also reported
Aster Ione I la formosa as being dominant In nearshore waters off Gibraltar
Point in 1964-65.
In this study, abundance of Aster Ione I la plus label I aria never
exceeded 5 cells/mL In late July or 20 cells/mL in late August. Only in
October did abundance of these genera reach densities observed In July of
1939. Nicholls (1980) also reports that since 1967, label I aria spp. have
become less abundant in the outflow of Lake Ontario at Brockville on the
St. Lawrence River. The composition of the outflow is a "blend" of
nearshore and offshore lake water. A decrease in abundance of the
historically prevalent diatoms Asterlonella and label I aria is suggested.
Increases In Blue-green Algae
Blue-green algae were reported as scarce in the Oswego Harbor area In
1939 by Tressler and Austin (1940). With the standard analytical
techniques of that period, It is unlikely that they would be able to
collect and perhaps see Anacystis marina (0.5-2.0;jm diameter) or probably
any of the other species of Anacystis observed In this study. Thus It is
extremely difficult to conclude without question that blue-green algae are
more prevalent now than 40 years ago.
The overwhelming dominance of Anacystis marina in our lake, harbor
and river samples is unique. Stoermer et al. (1975), Nalewajko
14
-------
(1966,1967) and Munawar and Nauwerck (1971), usfng comparable
methodologies In their major studies of the near and offshore water of
Lake Ontario, did not report this species. The other species of Anacystis
previously observed fn the lake were noted In this study. Why this
species was not reported in earlier studies is not known. Because of Its
small size, It may simply not have been counted. Traditionally, these
small objects have been relegated to the bacteria. More research is
suggested elucidating the nature of the organisms.
Very large differences in the phytoplankton of nearshore Lake Ontario
and the open lake are now known. Some of the inshore-offshore differences
can be related to the effects of the thermal bar which develops within a
distance of 1-10 km from shore during spring and early summer. However,
after thermal stratification has developed, the nearshore environment is
affected by other phenomena such as coastal jets and upwelllng. NIcholls
(1980) suggested that the blue-green algae are restricted to late fall
with the common genera being Aphanizomenon, 6omphosphaerlar Microcystls.
and Anabaena In the open water. By contrast, In the nearshore area during
this study, blue-greens were the most abundant algal division throughout
the period of the study with Anacystis,. OscIIlatoria,and Coccochlorls
being dominant.
Halophillc Species
NIcholls (1980) has discussed the arrival of new species to the
phytoplankton of the Great Lakes. It fs not clear whether these species
are really recent Invaders or if they have been long-time residents and
have been overlooked in earlier studies because of their scarcity and
often restricted and localized distribution. Most of the apparent new
arrivals show definite halophlllc tendencies in their known distribution
115
-------
in other parts of the world. In inshore and harbor areas, the increase In
concentration of conservative elements, such as Cl~, has conceivably
created an environment more suitable for growth of halophilic species
(Chaw I a 1971). With the discharge of sea water ballast In Lake Ontario by
ocean-going ships, the opportunity for introduction of new species Is
great. Nicholls (1980) noted the following as new halophtIic diatom
species: Cyclotella atomus, Stephanodlscus
subtfI Is, SkeIetonema subsalsumf SkeIetonema potamos, Thalasslora
fIuvI at 11i sf and Thaiasslora pseudonana.
One of the more striking aspects of this study Is the abundance of
halophilic species within the Oswego River and Harbor (Table 23). During
the sampling period, large piles of de-icing salt were observed stored on
the waterfront of the Oswego River (Devault 1984). The central region of
New York State, essentially the drainage basin of the Oswego River,
commonly utilizes de-icing salt during the winter to remove Ice and snow.
However, the major chloride loading to the Oswego River and Lake Ontario
Is a chlor-alkall plant on Onondaga Lake (Effler et al. 1985). Outflow
from Onondaga Lake eventually reaches the Oswego River. Chloride
concentrations are high especially at river stations (Fig. 5).
In this study, CyclotelI a atomusf Stephanodlscus subtiI is and
SkeIetonema potamos were fairly abundant representing 10.8? of the mean
total diatom abundance at the harbor and river stations. Maximum cell
densities reached approximately 1300 cells/mL (Table 19). In late August
the above halophilic species accounted for 14.2? of the total diatom
abundance in the study area.
Cyclotella atomusf which Fs the prevalent species of the group found
at Oswego, is known from several rivers and lakes In Germany, Java,
The validity of this taxonomic concept is questionable. Consistency
between labs has not been shown (Andresen,1985).
116
-------
Sumatra, South Africa and coastal Scandinavian waters with salinities
ranging up to 30$ (Nicholls 1980). Sreenivasa and Nalewajko (1975) first
reported It in samples from northeast Lake Ontario In 1965. More recent
reports from Lakes Erie and Ontario have been made by Stoermer (1978),
Stoermer and Kreis (1978) and Nicholls and Carney (1979).
Stephanodiscus subtil is is known from several rivers In Holland, from
weakly saline waters near Stockholm and from the North Sea (Nicholls
1980). Stoermer _e± al. (1975) recorded ^. subtil is from Lake Ontario for
the first time from collections made in 1972. Skeletonema potatnos has
been grown in cultures over the full range of salinity from freshwater to
saltwater.
In addition, the following known brackish, marine, and In general,
halophilic species were observed: Cyclotella cryptlcaf Cyclotella
meneghinlanar Anacystts marina, Anacystis tnontana ±M. minor, and
Coccochlorls penlocystls.
Station 22 (Fig. 2) was within 1/4 mile of the shore east of Oswego
Harbor. Abundances of halophilic diatoms (e.g. £*. crypt lea, jk tenuis
and C. meneghiniana) and dominant species were similar to those of the
harbor rather than the nearshore of Lake Ontario. At present, we know of
no sewage outfall or stream draining Into the lake at this station. It is
probable that the outflow of the Oswego River hugs the shore I ine.
CONCLUSIONS
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR
From the analysis of the phytoplanktonic distribution and abundance,
the following conclusions are supported:
1. Blue-green algae were the dominant group on a cells/mL basis;
2. Diatoms were dominant on a biomass basis;
117
-------
3. Anacystfs marina was by far the dominant species, although it
has not been reported in previous studies of the plankton of
the lake;
4. Halophilic species dominated the diatom assemblage of Oswego
Harbor and mouth of the Oswego River; and
5. Cryptomonads appeared to be increasing in number and
Asterione I la and label I aria were decreasing.
6. The water mass at Station 22 was not representative of a
nearshore station. The phytoplankton assemblage indicated
that harbor water was either moving or being trapped
along the shore I ine.
NIAGARA RIVER PLUME (FIG. 3)
From the analysis of the phytoplankton component, the following
conclusions are supported:
1. Blue-green algae were the dominant group on a cells/ml
comparison;
2. Diatoms were dominant with dinoflagellates of secondary
Importance on a blovolume basis;
3. Anacystis marina was the dominant species (cells/mL) and has not
been reported in prior studies;
4. A plume of water from the Niagara River and Lake Erie entered
Lake Ontario and was reflected by the phytoplankton
assemblage. Phytoplankton species within the plume were
similar to dominants from the eastern Lake Erie basin; and
5. Biomass within the plume was higher than that in adjacent
Lake Ontario water. This is the opposite of what was
found In 1972 by Great Lakes Laboratory (Great Lakes
-------
Laboratory 1976>.
119
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Andresen, N. 1985. Personal Communication. Blonetlcs Corporation, 20
Research Drive, Hampton, Virginia.
Chawla, V.K. 1971. Changes In the water chemistry of Lakes Erie and
Ontario. In; R.A. Sweeney (ed.). Proceedings of the Conference on
Changes In the Chemistry of Lakes Erie and Ontario. Bull. Buffalo Soc.
Nat. Scl. 25(2): 31-66.
Devault, D. 1984. Personal Communication. Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.
Effler, S.W., S.P.Devan and P.W. Rodgers. In Press. Chloride loading
to Lake Ontario from Onondaga Lake, N.Y. J. Great Lakes Res.
Great Lakes Laboratory, 1976. State University College (SUC) at
Buffalo. An Investigation of the nearshore region of Lake Ontario
IFYGL. EPA-600/3-76-115.
Huber-PestalozzI, G. 1938. Die BInnengewasser Band 16. Das
PhytopIankton des Susswassers. Tell 1. Blaualgen. Bakterlen. Pilze.
Stuttgart. E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlug. 342 p.
Huber-Pestalozzi, G. 1968. Die Binnengerwasser Band 16. Das
PhytopIankton des Susswassers. Tell 3. Cryptophyceae,
Chloromonadophyceae, DInophyceae. Stuttgart. E. Schwelzerbert'sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung. 322 p.
Humm, H.J. and S.R. Wicks. 1980. Introduction and Guide to the Marine
Blue-green Algae. John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 194 p.
Mlchalskl, M.F. 1968. PhytopIankton levels In Canadian nearshore
waters of the lower Great Lakes. Proc. 11th Conf. Great Lakes Res., pp.
85-95.
Munawar, M. and I.F. Munawar. 1976. A lakewlde study of phytopIankton
biomass and Its species composition In Lake Erie, ApriI-December 1970.
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33: 581-600.
Munawar, M. and A. Nauwerck. 1971. The composition and horizontal
distribution of phytoplankton In Lake Ontario during the year 1970.
Proc. 14th Conf. Great Lakes Res., pp. 69-77.
Nalewajko, C. 1966. Composition of phytoplankton in surface waters of
Lake Ontario. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 23: 1715-1725.
Nalewajko, C. 1967. Phytoplankton distribution In Lake Ontario. Proc.
10th Conf. on Great Lakes Res. 10: 63-69.
NIcholls, K.H. and E.C. Carney. 1979. The taxonomy of Bay of Qutnte
phytoplankton and the relative Importance of common and rare taxa. Can.
J. Bot. 57: 1591-1608.
120
-------
Nicholls, K.H. 1980. Recent changes In the phytoplankton of Lakes Erie
and Ontario. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Scl. 25(4): 41-88.
Prescott, G.W. 1973. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area. Wm. C.
Brown Company. Dubuque, Iowa. 977 p.
Relmann, B.E.F., J.M. Lewln and R.R.L. Gull lard. 1963. Cyclotella
crypt lea, a new brackish water diatom species. Phycologia. 3(2):
76-84.
Relnwand, J.F. 1969. Planktonic diatoms of Lake Ontario. Limnological
Survey of Lake Ontario, 1964. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Tech. Rep. No.
14: 19-26.
Sreenivasa, M.R. and C. Nalewajko. 1975. Phytoplankton biomass and
species composition in northeastern Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res.
1: 151-161.
Stoermer, E.F. 1978. Phytoplankton assemblages as indicators of water
quality In the Laurentlan Great Lakes. Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc. 97:
2-16.
Stoermer, E.F., M.M. Bowman, J.C. Kingston and A.L. Schaedel. 1975.
Phytoplankton composition and abundance In Lake Ontario during IFYGL.
EPA-660/3-75-004. 373 p.
Stoermer, E.F. and R.G. Kreis, Jr. 1978. Prelimlnary check-l1st of
diatoms (BaciIlariophyta) from the Laurentian Great Lakes. J. Great
Lakes. Res. 4: 149-169.
Stoermer, E.F. and T.B. Ladewski. 1976. Apparent optimal temperatures
for the occurrence of some common phytoplankton species in southern Lake
Michigan. Great Lakes Res. Div., Univ. Michigan. Publ. 18. 49 p.
Stoermer, E.F. and M.L. Tuchman. 1979. Phytoplankton assemblages of
the nearshore zone of southern Lake Michigan. EPA-905/3-79-001. 89 p.
Stoermer, E.F. and J.J. Yang. 1969. Plankton diatom assemblages in
Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Res. Div., Univ. Michigan. Spec. Rep. No.
47. 268 p.
Tressler, W.L. and T.S. Austin. 1940. A Iimnological survey of some
bays and lakes of the Lake Ontario watershed. 29th Ann. Rep. New York
Conserv. Dept. (Suppl.): 188-210.
Tressler, W.L., T.S. Austin and E. Orban. 1953. Seasonal variation of
some llmnological factors In Irondequoit Bay, N.Y. Amer. Midi. Natur.
49: 878-903.
Utermohl, H. 1958. Zur vervolIkommnung der quantltativen
phytoplankton-methodik. M.H. Int. Ver. Limnol. 9. 38 p.
121
-------
TABLE 1. Number of taxa and genera observed In each algal
division or grouping, Oswego River and Harbor.
Chlorophyta
BacI 1 larlophyta
Cyanophyta
Cryptophyta
Chrysophyta
Pyrrophyta
Colorless f lagel lates
Euglenophyta
Unidentified
Chloromonadophyta
Xanthophyta
Taxa
191
163
29
29
27
14
6
5
3
1
1
Genera
48
27
12
3
13
4
3
3
-
1
1
TOTAL 457 117
122
-------
TABLE 2. Mean phytoplankton density as cells/ml in the Oswego River, Harbor
Entrance and nearshore region of Lake Ontario during summer 1981. Values In
parentheses are number of stations sampled.
Cruise
7/30 to
Lake
Harbor Entrance
Harbor/River
73,
60,
80,
298
624
924
2
8/1
(2)
(2)
(4)
Cruise 3
8/30 to 9/2
30,
61,
81,
076
909
387
(12)
(2)
(6)
Cruise 4
10/8 to 10/10
35,
49,
70,
056
128
766
(5)
(1)
(6)
Stations 3,4,5,7,28 and 37 are in the Harbor/River area. Stations 9 and
11 are at the mouth or passageway through the breakwater. All other stations
are lake samples (Fig. 2).
123
-------
Table 3. Relative abundance of major phytoplankton divisions In the Oswego
River, Harbor Entrance and nearshore region of Lake Ontario during summer
1981. (3a) Values are percent of total cells/liter. (3b) Values are
percent of total blovolume/mL.
3a
CHL BAC CRY CYA PYR Other
CRUISE 2
Lake 2.11 0.47 0.74 95.78 0.01 0.89
Harbor Entrance 2.97 0.87 1.17 93.99 0.01 0.99
Harbor/River 9.68 5.10 0.91 83.48 0.03 0.80
CRUISE 3
Lake 7.24 4.12 3.36 80.55 0.01 4.73
Harbor Entrance 4.57 1.37 1.59 88.84 2.70 0.94
Harbor/River 6.48 5.65 1.06 84.83 0.13 1.84
CRUISE 4
Lake 6.11 3.57 4.16 84.26 0.01 1.89
Harbor Entrance 4.20 4.60 1.83 87.99 0.03 1.36
Harbor/River 5.04 4.96 0.73 87.60 0.01 1.67
MEAN 5.38 3.41 1.72 87.48 0.32 1.69
3b
CRUISE 2
Lake 12.62 2.99 77.09 2.15 3.70 1.45
Harbor Entrance 10.40 6.34 78.41 2.95 0.54 1.36
Harbor/River 40.39 25.55 25.56 2.16 1.95 4.39
CRUISE 3
Lake 20.71 26.67 6.85 15.06 28.74 1.97
Harbor Entrance 47.97 18.93 8.04 4.01 17.95 3.10
Harbor/River 17.60 43.62 2.63 6.18 27.64 2.33
CRUISE 4
Lake 14.50 63.44 10.35 1.40 9.89 0.42
Harbor Entrance 23.94 56.72 12.66 4.95 0.28 1.45
Harbor/River 5.44 88.27 3.82 1.18 0.70 0.59
MEAN 21.51 36.95 25.05 4.45 10.15 1.89
124
-------
TABLE 4. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyclotella cryptlca.
NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 3050 852 248
4 1843 690 137
5 2811 465 301
7 1401 834 162
28 NS 286 274
37 NS 109 211
Harbor Entrance
9 160 125 NS
11 14 NS 130
Lake
12 69 72 NS
13 183 17 NS
17 NS 27 14
19 NS 17 8
22 NS 356 56
23 NS NS 26
29 NS 121 9
125
-------
TABLE 5. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Frag 111 aria
crotonensls. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 0.0 5.5 54
4 2.8 156 85
5 0.0 58 105
7 2.5 19 129
28 NS 146 94
37 NS 209 114
Harbor Entrance
9 51 414 NS
11 6.0 NS 62
Lake
12 0.0 64 NS
13 4.7 234 NS
17 NS 241 226
19 NS 145 119
22 NS 170 215
23 NS NS 257
29 NS 113 293
126
-------
TABLE 6. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Stephanodlscus tennis ,
t tenuls v. 1 and S. tenuls v. 2.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 790 875 521
4 691 1035 533
5 556 1123 870
7 458 1538 303
28 NS 695 756
37 NS 346 262
Harbor Entrance
9 199 323 NS
11 128 NS 309
Lake
12 76 287 NS
13 124 151 NS
17 NS 201 91
19 NS 75 55
22 NS 2204 204
23 NS NS 150
29 NS 261 138
-------
TABLE 7. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyclotella meneghtnlana.
NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 356 662 539
4 21 334 790
5 334 310 712
7 195 249 368
28 NS 168 953
37 NS 69 331
Harbor Entrance
9 29 49 NS
11 12 NS 328
Lake
12 3.1 37 NS
13 16 13 NS
17 NS 51 20
19 NS 6.8 25
22 NS 140 250
23 NS NS 131
29 NS 77 65
128
-------
TABLE 8. Distribution and abundance (cells/mL) of Frag II aria
capuclna. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 13 5.5 359
4 28 16 610
5 0 0 536
7 0 9.7 426
28 NS 40 1010
37 NS 23 356
Harbor Entrance
9 38 36 NS
11 2.3 NS 200
Lake
12 0 64 NS
13 0.9 6 NS
17 NS 29 38
19 NS 19 119
22 NS 0 260
23 NS NS 302
29 NS 13 98
I 29
-------
TABLE 9. Distribution and abundance (cells/mL) of Cryptomonas erosa.
NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 155 16 33
4 106 25 123
5 61 16 66
7 220 25 74
28 NS 16 131
37 NS 33 0
Harbor Entrance
9 311 0 NS
11 368 16 41
Lake
12 180 41 NS
13 294 57 NS
17 NS 33 123
19 NS 33 90
22 NS 25 139
23 NS NS 196
29 NS 41 106
130
-------
TABLE 10. DlstrFbutlon and abundance (cells/ml) of Rhodomonas mlnuta
v. nannopIanktlca. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 131 16 221
4 82 229 164
5 491 139 139
7 115 82 327
28 NS 220 138
37 NS 205 82
Harbor Entrance
9 82 49 NS
11 74 90 466
Lake
12 49 74 NS
13 57 205 NS
17 NS 172 728
19 NS 213 417
22 NS 245 826
23 NS NS 590
29 NS 254 1219
131
-------
TABLE 11. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Coelastrum
mlcroporum. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 0 74 98
4 491 286 123
5 675 622 0
7 662 90 237
28 NS 0 556
37 NS 115 196
Harbor Entrance
9 131 0 NS
11 0 761 605
Lake
12 262 229 NS
13 33 1464 NS
17 NS 589 33
19 NS 204 262
22 NS 965 262
23 NS NS 2130
29 NS 196 1325
132
-------
TABLE 12. Distribution and abundance (cells/mL) of Scenedesmus spp
NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 1448 56 393
4 826 49 409
5 1287 270 736
7 548 638 196
28 NS 515 311
37 NS 180 417
Harbor Entrance
9 196 131 NS
11 221 139 155
Lake
12 33 33 NS
13 74 98 NS
17 NS 66 164
19 NS 57 164
22 NS 442 139
23 NS NS 33
29 NS 204 41
133
-------
TABLE 13. Distribution and abundance (cells/mL) of Dlctyosphaerlum
pulchellum. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 515 393 0
4 745 695 33
5 2037 515 0
7 278 622 0
28 NS 0 0
37 NS 0 0
Harbor Entrance
9 0 344 NS
11 0 25 33
Lake
12 0 0 NS
13 0 0 NS
17 NS 0 0
19 NS 0 180
22 NS 131 0
23 NS NS 196
29 NS 0 0
134
-------
TABLE 14. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Monoraphldlum
contortum. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 221 949 172
4 164 352 164
5 258 393 188
7 180 515 164
28 NS 229 164
37 NS 139 123
Harbor Entrance
9 589 33 NS
11 552 82 41
Lake
12 482 57 NS
13 581 49 NS
17 NS 25 16
19 NS 0 25
22 NS 262 98
23 NS NS 0
29 NS 57 49
135
-------
TABLE 15. Distribution and abundance (cells/mL) of Anacystls marina.
NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 60,517 97,291 49,832
4 55,436 48,196 55,166
5 72,208 62,628 52,082
7 51,124 60,541 47,443
28 NS 42,624 95,107
37 NS 28,831 37,306
Harbor Entrance
9 41,839 25,591 NS
11 55,506 73,909 38,182
Lake
12 77,771 19,414 NS
13 53,742 23,726 NS
17 NS 26,205 20,265
19 NS 17,254 28,209
22 NS 39,826 23,456
23 NS NS 29,755
29 NS 24,462 28,896
136
-------
TABLE 16. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Osc111atorI a
IImnetlca. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 534 7543 581
4 245 6848 687
5 835 4483 164
7 442 8950 712
28 NS 3043 1293
37 NS 262 188
Harbor Entrance
9 0 679 NS
11 491 1064 180
Lake
12 0 98 NS
13 254 245 NS
17 NS 393 0
19 NS 0 205
22 NS 4794 0
23 NS NS 5.7
29 NS 1350 0
137
-------
TABLE 17. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Anacystls montana
f. nylnor. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 4991 0 646
4 2888 0 4042
5 1289 0 1178
7 1129 0 1252
28 NS 0 1546
37 NS 0 834
Harbor Entrance
9 1170 0 NS
11 3240 0 1317
Lake
12 802 0 NS
13 1473 409 NS
17 NS 0 990
19 NS 0 614
22 NS 0 344
23 NS NS 4868
29 NS 0 1113
38
-------
TABLE 18. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of CoccochI or t s
peniocystts. NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 205 319 74
4 2127 311 622
5 221 352 155
7 1513 417 1162
28 NS 1325 2012
57 NS 728 147
Harbor Entrance
9 3019 687 NS
11 6504 1121 131
Lake
12 3902 417 NS
13 2029 769 NS
17 NS 589 57
19 NS 188 33
22 NS 2225 90
23 NS NS 540
29 NS 581 376
139
-------
TABLE 19. Distribution and abundance (cells/ml) of Cyclotella atomus
Must. Stephanodlscus subtil Is Van Goor and SkeIetonema potamos (Weber)
Halse. NS = No Sample. Values In parentheses represent the percent of the
total abundance of diatoms at each station.
Station #
Harbor/River
3
4
5
7
28
37
Harbor Entrance
9
11
Lake
12
13
17
19
22
23
29
Cruise 2
356 (6.3$)
253 (1.8%)
329 (6.9%)
134 (6.0*)
NS
NS
x = 6.8*
22 (3.0*)
28 (3.8*)
16 (3.3*)
15 (6.8*)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Cruise 3
740
776
638
1331
522
290
(11.
(13.
(13.
(22.
(18.
(16.
8*)
5*)
6*)
0*)
x = 16.05*
188 (11.0*)
NS
137 (13.9*)
107 (13.2*)
147 (12.0*)
48 (11.6*)
1323 (19.8*)
NS
213 (14.2*)
Cruise 4
468 (14.0*)
121 (3.5*)
324 (8.1*)
115 (6.5*)
283 (5.2*)
297 (11.7*)
x = 8.2*
NS
329 (14.3*)
NS
NS
40 (5.0*)
16 (4.8*)
69 (1.9*)
70 (4.5*)
32 (2.7*)
140
-------
TABLE 20. Number of taxa and genera observed in each algal
division or grouping, Niagara River.
Chlorophyta
Baci 1 lariophyta
Cyanophyta
Cryptophyta
Chrysophyta
Pyrrhophyta
Co 1 or 1 ess f 1 age 1 1 ates
Euglenophyta
Unidentified
Taxa
46
109
6
25
16
7
8
2
1
TOTAL 220
Genera
20
21
3
5
10
3
4
2
-
68
TABLE 21. Relative abundance of major phytoplankton divisions in the
Niagara River Plume. Values are percent of total cells/mL or biovolume/mL.
CHL BAG CYA CRY PYR Other
Mean (cells) 1.1$ 1.2$ 96% 0.4% 0.06% 1.2%
Mean (biovolume) 3.3$ 54.9$ 1.4$ 7.5$ 29.1$ 3.8$
-------
TABLE 22. Distribution and abundance (cells/mL) of Cyclotella atomus.
NS = No Sample.
Cruise 2 Cruise 3 Cruise 4
Station #
Harbor/River
3 186 628 370
4 107 754 88
5 153 538 236
7 130 1093 108
28 NS 387 237
37 NS 165 219
Harbor Entrance
9 9.4 122 NS
11 6.9 NS 245
Lake
12 16 106 NS
13 4.1 61 NS
17 NS 79 20
19 NS 17 19
22 NS 827 49
23 NS NS 51
29 NS 159 12
142
-------
TABLE 23. Distribution of halophytic plankton near Oswego, N.Y. Values represent the mean+S.E.
CRUISE 2 CRUISE 3 CRUISE 4
Harbor
Plume
Lake
Halophytes
(eel Is/mL)
63611908
(n=4)
7094+1905
(n=2)
4219+356
(n=2)
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
654+59
403±39
326+2.6
Halophytes
(eel Is/mL)
21301536
(n=6)
2547+1059
(n=2)
815+160
(n=5)
Conductivity
(>jmhos/cm)
668186
370+17
329±4.4
Halophytes Conductivity
(eel Is/mL) (umhos/mL)
32511674
(n=6)
2893+1169
(n=3)
11381212
(n=3)
746148
469+12
327+3. 1
-------
Lake Ontario
Toronto
Oswego
Hamilton
Niagara
River
Rochester
Figure 1
Lake Ontario showing the Oswego and Niagara phytoplankton
samp I Ing sites.
-------
19
Lake Ontario
1981 Phytoplankton Monitoring Sites
Oswego Harbor, NY
Figure 2 Phytoplankton sampling stations at Oswego, New York.
-------
.09
• 08
07
1981
Phyloplankton Monitoring Sites
Niagara River Plume
Lake Ontario
16
• 06
.12
.15
19
05
14
18
New York
Kilometer
2 3 6
Mile
1234
Figure 3 PhytopIankton sampling stations near the Niagara River.
146
-------
1981
Phyloplankton Monitoring Sites
Niagara River Plume
Lake Ontario
New York
Niagara on
the Lake
Youngstown
Kilometer
2 3
Canada
Mile
1234
Figure 4
Isopleths of phytoplankton abundance (xlO cells/ml),
Niagara River Plume.
147
-------
D)
LLJ
Q
DC
O
_l
I
O
O)
£
LJJ
Q
oc
O
200 i
160-
120-
80 -
40
0
300-,
200.
O 100
0
D
1 Meter
7 Meters
3 4 5 7 9 11 12A 23 28 36
STATIONS — 5 OCTOBER 1981
RIVER
Figure 5
4 5 7 9 11 12A23 28 36
STATIONS - 27 APRIL 1981
Chloride concentration In the Oswego River and Harbor and
nearshore of Lake Ontario.
148
-------
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX 1
Species List - Oswego River 150
APPENDIX 2
Species List - Niagara River 16°
APPENDIX 3
Btovolume Summary by Cruise and Station 165
APPENDIX 4
Abundance Summary by Cruise and Station 169
149
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
Achnanthes
c1 evei
coarctata v, elliptica
conspicua
exigua v«
hauck iana
1 anceo 1ata v
1inear is
1 inear is fo»
minut issima
constrieta
dubia
curt a
f» subsalsa
sp*
Actinocyc1 us normanii
Amphipleura rut Hans?
Amphora calumet-ica
Amphora ova I is
Amphora perpusi 11 a
Amphora sab iniana
Amphora submontane?
Asterione)1 a formosa
Ca lone is baciMum
Cocconeis dimi nuta
Cocconeis discu'ius
Cocconeis pedicuius
Cocconeis placenta!a
Cocconeis placentula v, euglypta
Cocconeis placentula v» Hneata
Coscinodiscus lacustris
Cyclotella atomus
comensis
comensis v» 1
comta
crypti ca
crypt i ca?
meneghiniana
Cyclotel1 a oce! 1ata
Cyclotella pseudoste11igera
sp*
ste11igera
Cyclotel1 a
Cyclotel1 a
Cyclotel 1 a
Cyclotel1 a
Cyclotella
Cyclotella
Cyciotella
Cyclotel1 a
Cymbella cistula
Cymbe11 a minuta
Cymbe11 a
Cyrnbe I I a
CymbeI 1 a
Di atoma
prostrata
prostrata
sp.
tenue
auerswa tdi i
Diatoma tenue v. elongatum
Diploneis oculata
Eunotia sp.
Frag if aria brevistriata
Fragilaria capucina
Fragi)aria capucina v. mesolepta
Fragilaria construens
1-50
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLAIMKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
FragiSari a construens v
FragiI aria crotonensis
pinnata
sp.
vaucher i ae
d ichotomum
o 1 i vaceum
parvu. 1 urn
sp»
at tenuaturn
venter
Frag iIaria
Frag i1 aria
Frag i1ar i a
Gomphonema
Goniphonema
Gomphonema
Gomphonema
Gyrosigma
angust issima
subsp. subarctica
v. subsa1sa
v» veneta
Gyrosigma exit is ?
Gyrosigma sciotense
Gyrosigma spencerii
Melosira distans
Melosira granu. lata
Melosira granulata v.
Me ]osira italics
Me 1osira i ta1i ca
Melosira varians
Navi cu. 1 a ang 1 i ca
Navi cula ang1ica
Navicula capitata
Navicuia cryptocepha1 a
Navicula cryptocepha1 a
Navicula frugal is?
Navicula gastrurn v. signata
Navicula gregaria
Navicula heufleri v, leptocephala
Navicula lanceolata
Navicula meniscu. 1 us v, ups.a liens is
Navicula omissa?
Navicuia pupu1 a v. mutata
Navicuta pygmaea
Navicula radiosa v. tenella
Navicula reinhardtii
Navicula salinarum Vi
Navicula seminulum
Navicula sp»
Navicula subhamulata
Navicula submuralis
Navicula tripunctata
Navicula tripunctata
Navicula viridu. la
Navicula vulpina
Neidium iridis v ampliatum
intermed ia
senizonemoides
Ni tzschia
Nitzschia
Nitzschia
Nitzschia
Nitzschia
151
acicularioides
acicu1aris
agnewi i?
amph ibia
angustata v. acuta
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Nitzschia
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschi a
Nitzschia
bacata
capi te11ata
c)osterium
conf in is
Nitzschia dissipata
Nitzschia fonticola
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschi a
Nitzschia
Ni tzschi a
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschi a
Ni tzschia
Nitzschia
Ni tzschi a
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschi a
Ni tzschia
Ni tzschi a
Ni tzschi a
f rustu. 1 um
frustulum ?
Nitzschia gander-she i mi ens is
Nitzschia graciIiformis
grac i1 is
impressa
intermed i a
Nitzschia Kuetzingiana?
Nitzschia tacuum?
Iauenburg iana
pa) ea
pa lea v, deb iI is
pum iI a
pur a
recta
romana
rostel1ata
soci abi1 is
sp,
sp. #04
spicu1um
sub Iinear is
Rhoiocosphenia curvata
Skeletonema potamos
Skeletonema sp* #01
Skeletonema sp*
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanod iscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus tenuis v. #01
Stephanodiscus tenuis v. #02
SurirelI a ovata
Surirella ovata v, salina
Synedra acus
Synedra amphicephala v. austrica
152
#02
a 1pinus
binder-anus
b inderanus
hantzschi i
mi nutus
niagarae
sp,
sp, #03
sp, #04
subt i1 is
subtiI is?
tenuis
tenuis v
tenuis v
v, oestrupi i
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
03WECO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
CHLOROMONADOPHYTA
CHLOROPHYTA
Synedra de1icatissima
Synedra de 1 icat issirna
Synedra fi'liformis
Synedra filiformis v.
Synedra mini ECU la
Synedra parasitica
Synedra parasitica
Synedra radians
Synedra ulna
Tabellaria fenestrata
Tabellaria f loccu. 1 osa
Tha1assiosira weissflogii
Tha1assiosira weissflogii?
Vacuolaria sp.
v, angustissima
exiI is
v» subconstricta
f al catus?
sp,
sp.
sp,
#02
Actinastrum hantzschii
AnKistrodesmus fa) catus
Ank istrodesmus
Ank i strodesrnus
Ank istrodesmus
Ank i strodesmus
Ankyra judayi
Carter!a cord iformis
Carter!a cord!formis?
Carter!a sp.
Carteria sp. -ovoid
Carter!a sp. -sphere
Ch1amydocapsa planktonica
ChIamydocapsa sp.
Chiamydomonas giobosa
Ch)amydomonas gIobosa?
Ch1amydomonas macrop1astida
Ch1amydomonas securis?
Ch \ amydornonas sp*
ChIamydomonas sp» - ovoid
Ch1amydomonas sp« - sphere
ChIamydomonas upsaliensis?
Ch1 ore t1 a sp»
ChIorococca11ean - oval
Ch1orococca11ean - sphere
Ciosteriopsis iongissima?
Closteriopsis sp.
Oosterium aciculare
Closterium gracile
Closterium sp.
Coelastrum cambricum
Coelastrum microporum
Coelastrum sp.
Coelastrum sphaericum
153
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1931
TAXON
CHLOROPHYTA
Cruc igeni a
Crucigeni a
Cosmarium botrytis?
Cosmarium sp
Cosmarium subcostatum
Cosmarium tinctum v tumidum
Crucigenia irregular-is
Crucigenia quadrata
Crucigenia rectangularis
Crucigenia sp. 1
tetrapedi a
truncata
Di ctyosphaerium ehrenberg i anum
Dietyosphaerium infusionum
Dictyosphaerium pulchellum
Echinosphaerel I a limnetica
Eiakatothrix gelatinosa
Elakatothrix viridis
Eudorina elegans
Eudorina sp.
Franceia droescheri
France ia ova 1 is
Gloedactinium limneticum
Golenkinia radiata
Golenkinia radiata v. brevispina
Gonatozygon pilosum
Conium sp.
Green coccoid
Green coccoid #04
Green coccoid - acicular
Green coccoid - bacilliform
Green coccoid - bicells
Green coccoid - cylindrical
Green coccoid - fusiform
Green coccoid - fusiform bicells
Green coccoid - oocystis-tike bice
Green coccoid - ova)
Green coccoid - ovoid
Green coccoid - sphere
Green coccoid - sphere (large)
Green flagellate - ovoid
Kirchner ie1!a
Kirchnerie11 a
Kirchnerie11 a
Kirchner ie11 a
Kirchnerie11 a
Lagerheimia
Lagerheimia
Lagerheimia genevensis
Lagerheimia longiseta
Lagerheimia quadriseta
Lagerheimia subsalsa
contorta
con torta '
1unaris
sp.
sp. ?
ci 1iata
ci tri formis
154
-------
DIVISION
CHLOROPHYTA
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
Lagerheimia wrat is ) au/iensis
Lobomonas sp.
Mesostigma sp»
Micractinium pusillum
Micract inium sp, ttl
Mi eratinium sp.
Monoraphidium Braunii
Monoraphidium Braunii?
Monoraphidium contorturn
Monoraphidium irregulars
Monoraphidium minutum
Monoraphidium pusillum
Monoraphidium saxatile
Monoraphidium setiformae
Monoraphidium setiformae?
Monoraphidium sp.
Monoraphidium tortile
Mougeotia sp.
Nephrocytium limneticum
Oedogonium sp.
Oocystis sp*
Oocystis sp. tti
Oocystis borgei
Oocystis crassa
Oocystis lacustris
Oocystis marsonii
Oocystis parva
Oocyst is pusiI 1 a
Oocystis submarina
Pandorina morum
Pandorina morum?
Paradoxia multiseta
Pediastrum boryanum
Pediastrum duplex
Pediastrum duplex
Pediastrum simplex
Pediastrum simplex v. duodenarium
Pediastrum sp.
Pediastrum tetras
Pediastrum tetras v. tetradon
Phacotus sp.
Phythelios sp. -oval
PlanKtonema sp.
Pteromonas angulosa
Pteromonas
Pteromonas
Quadrigula
Quadrigula
Scenedesmus
c1athratum
angulosa?
sp.
closteriodes
sp.
acuminatus
Scenedesmus acuminatus
e1ongatus
155
-------
DIVISION
CHLOROPHYTA
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
acurninatus v> tortuosus
acutus
acutus f. costuiatus
acutus v. alternans
anomalus ?
arcuatus
armatus
armatus v*
b icaudatus
bi caudatus
brev ispina
dent iculatus
denticulatus v
dent i cu i atus v
d ispar
ecornis
ecornis v, disciformis
intermedius
intermedius v.
in termedius v.
intermedius v.
opo i iens is
pecsensis
quadri cauda
bicaudatus
v» brevicaudatus
caudatus
'l inear is
acaudatus
ba1atonicus
b i caudatus
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
v. longspina
v» maximus
v. quadrispina
securi formis
serratus
sp»
spinosus
spinosus?
Schroederia setigera
Sphaerocystis schroeteri
Staurastrum contortum
Staurastrum cuspidatum
Staurastrum lacustre
Staurastrum megacanthum
Staurastrum paradoxum
Staurastrum paradoxum v. parvum
Staurastrum sp«
Tetraedron akinete
caudatum
caudaturn v» tongispinum
mini mum
muti cum
regu1 are
regu. tare v* incus
sp,
tr igonum
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
Tetraedron
156
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTQISI STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AMD HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
CHLOROPHYTA
CHRYSOPHYTA
COLORLESS FLAGELLATES
CRYPTOPHYTA
Tetraedron victoriae v. ?
Tetrastrum g1abrum
Tetrastrum heteracanthum
Te tr as t rum st aurogen i ae f orme
Treubaria crassispina
Treubaria setigera
Treubaria triappendicuiata
Chrojnu 1 ina sp.
Chrysococcus sp.?
Chrysophycean cyst
Codonosiga botrytis
Codonosigopsis sp.
Dinobryon - cyst
Dinobryon bavaricum
Dinobryon diver-gens
Dinobryon sociale
Dinobryon sociale v. americanum
Dinobryon utriculus v, tabellariae
Haptophyte sp.
Kephyrion sp.
Kephyrion sp. #1 -Pseudokephyrion entzii
Kephyrion sp. #2
Mallomonas majorensis
sp.
sp.
sp. - ovoid
sp. - sphere
Pseudokephyrion millerense
Pseudotetraedron neglee turn
Pseudotetraedron sp,?
Unidentified coccoid - ovoid
Unidentified coccoid - sphere
Unidentified coccoids
Unidentified loricate - sphere
Ma 11omonas
Ochromonas
Ochromonas
Ochromonas
Bicoeca campanulata
Bicoeca petiolata
Bicoeca social is
Colorless flagellates
Salpingoeca amphorae
Salpingoeca gracilis
Chroomonas
Chroomonas
Chroomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
a cut a
caudata
norstedtii
- cyst
brevis
caudata
erosa
157
-------
DIVISION
CRYPTOPHYTA
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
CYANOPHYTA
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Cryptomonas
Rhodomonas 1
Rhodomonas )
Rhodomonas m
erosa v. reflexa
erosa?
lobata
lobata?
lucens
marssoni i
marssoni i v«?
obovata
ovata
ovata?
phaseolus
phaseolus?
p} atyuris
pyrenoid i f era
ref1exa
rostrat i formis
sp,
tenuis
tetrapyreniodiosa
acustris
ens
inuta v« nannop1anKtica
Agmenellum quadruplicaturn
Anabaena flos-aquae
Anabaena spt
Anabaena spiroides
Anabaena spiroides?
Anacystis cyanea
Anacystis incerta
Anacystis marina
Anacystis montana
Anacystis montana v. major
Anacystis montana v. minor
Anacystis thermal is
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae
Aphanizomenon flos-aquae?
Coccochloris peniocystis
Coe1osphaerium dubium
Coe1osphaerium naegelianum
Cyanophycean filament
Gloeothece ruprestris
Gloeothece ruprestris?
Gomphosphaeria 1acustris
fieri smoped i a glauca
Merismopedia tenuissima
Osci 1 1 a tor-ia limnetica
Osci11 a tori a sp,
Osci1tatori a subbrevis
Oscillatoria tenuis
158
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTQN STUDY
OSWEGO RIVER AND HARBOR STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
CYANOPHYTA
EUGLENOPHYTA
PYRROPHYTA
UNIDENTIFIED FLAGELLATES
XANTHOPHYTA
Oscillator!a tenuis v. terg 1st ina
Rhaphicliopsis medi terranea
EugI ena sp f
Phacus sp.
Trache1omonas sp.
Trache)omonas sp. -ovoid
Trache1omonas sp.-sphere
Amphidinium sp.
Ceratiurn hirundine I 1 a
Gymnodinium ordinatum?
Gymnodinium sp.
G ymnod i n iurn sp. #1
Gymnodinium sp» #3
Gymnodinium sp. #5
Peridinium •- cyst
Peridinium acicutiferum
Peridinium cineturn
Peridinium inconspicuum
Peridinium polonicum
Peridinium sp.
Peridinium viguieri
Unident i f ied
Unident i f ied
Unident i f ied
f1 age)late
f 1 age'l late
f1agel1 ate
#01
- ovoid
- spherical
Ch1orobotrys regular is
159
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
NIAGARA RIVER STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Achnanthes clevei
Achnanthes minutissima
Actinocyclus normanii f. subsalsa
Amphora perpusilla
Asterionella formosa
Cocconeis pediculus
Cocconeis placentula v* 1ineata
Cyclotella antiqua?
atomus
comensis
comta
Cyclotella meneghiniana
Cyclote))a michiganiana
pseudoste)1igera
sp,
ste1 1 igera
Cyclotel1 a
Cyclotella
Cyclotel1 a
Cyclotel1 a
Cyclote))a
Cyclotel 1 a
Cymbe1 la affinis
Cymbe1 1 a minuta
Cymbe))a sp,
Diatoma tenue
Biatoma tenue v, elonga turn
Fragilaria capucina
capucina v, mesolepta
construens v<
crotonensis
pinnata
sp,
vaucheriae
d ichotomum
o1i vaceoides
o)ivaceum
Frag i1 aria
Fragilaria construens v, pumila
Frag i1ari a
Frag i)ari a
Frag i1ari a
Frag i1ari a
Gomphonema
Gomphonema
Gomphonema
Gomphonema parvuium
Gomphonema sp,
Gomphonema tenellum
Gyrosigma sciotense
Plelosira distans
Melosira granutata
Me)osira is)andica
Meiosira italica subsp(
Navi cu1 a atomus
Navicula capitata v, hurgarica
Navicula cryptocepha1 a v, veneta
Navicula decussis
Navicula gregaria
P\iavicu)a lanceolata
Navicula la tens?
Navicu) a meniscu.) us v, upsa liens is
Navi cut a pupu'la
Navicula radiosa v, tenet)a
Navicula seminu. Sum
subarct i ca
160
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTQPLANKTQN STUDY
NIAGARA RIVER STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
Navicu. la sp.
Navicula splendicula
Navicula viriduiia v* avenacea
Navicu. t a vulpina
Nitzschia aci cul ar ioides
Nitzschia acicularis
Nitzschia acicularis?
Nitzschia angustata
Nitzschia angustata v. acuta
Nitzschia capiteNata
Nitzschia dissipata
Nitzschia graci M f ormis
Nitzschia graci t is
Nitzschia graci 1 is?
Nitzschia hungarica
Nitzschia impressa
Nitzschia intermedia
Nitzschia 1 auenburg iana
Nitzschia pa lea
Nitzschia palea v, debilis
Nitzschia pumiia?
Nitzschia recta
Nitzschia romana
Nitzschia sociabilis
Nitzschia sp.
Nitzschia spiculoides
Nitzschia spiculum
Nitzschia tryblionella
Nitzschia valdestrita
Pinrmlaria brebissonii
Rhoiocospheni a cur vat a
SKeletonema sp»
Stephanodiscus alpinus
Stephanod iscus
Stephanodiscus
Stephanodiscus minutus
Stephanodiscus niagarae
Stephanodiscus sp.
Stephanodiscus sp* #03
Stephanodiscus sp* #04
Stephanodiscus sp» -auxospore
Stephanod iscus subtil is
Stephanodiscus tenuis
Surirella angusta
Surirella birostrata
Surire 1 } a ova I is
Sur ire 1 1 a ovata
Surirella ovata v» salina
Synedra de 1 icat issima v* angust issima
Synedra filiformis
v. debilis
v. di mi nut a
b inderanus
hantzschi i
161
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
NIAGARA RIVER STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
BACILLARIOPHYTA
CHLOROPHYTA
Synedra filiformis v. exit is
Synedra ostenfeldii
Synedra parasitica v, subconstrieta
Synedra ulna v. chaseana
Synedra ulna v» danica
Synedra ulna v. subaequalis
Tabellaria fenestrata
Tabellaria fenestrata v. geniculata
Tabe11ar i a f1occu1osa
Ankistrodesmus
Ankistrodesmus
Ankistrodesmus
Ankistrodesmus
Ank istrodesmus
Ch1amydocapsa sp,
Chiamydomonas g1obosa
Ch1amydomonas
Ch1amydomonas
Ch1amydomonas
Chiamydomonas sp* - sphere
Coelastrum microporum
Cosmarium sp.
Crucigenia quadrata
Dictyosphaerium pulchellum
Elakatothrix gelatinosa
fa)catus
faIcatus?
ge1i factum
sp, #02
sp.?
globosa?
sp.
sp, - ovoid
#04
- bacilli form
- biceiIs
- fusiform
- ova 1
- ovoid
- sphere
- sphere (1arge)
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green coccoid
Green flagellate - ovoid
Micractinium sp. #i
Honoraphidium contortum
Mougeotia sp,
Oedogonium sp. #01
Oocystis borgei
Oocyst is pusi11 a
Pediastrum boryanum
Scenedesmus dent icu. 1 atus
ecorn is
intermed ius
intermedius v, balatonicus
opoliensis
quadricauda
sp
spinosus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
Scenedesmus
162
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLANKTON STUDY
NIAGARA RIVFR STATIONS - 1931
TAXON
CHLOROPHYTA
CHRYSOPHYTA
COLORLESS FLAGELLATES
CRYPTOPHYTA
Selenastrum minutum
Tetraedron minimum
Tetrastrum heteracanthum
Tetrastrum lacustris
Tetr-a strum staurogeni ae forme
Treubaria setigera
Bi trichi a o II u 1 a
ChrysolyKos skujae
Dinobryon cylindricum
divergens
sertu'laria
social e
sociale v, americanum
sp*
Dinobryon
Dinobryon
Dinobryon
Dinobryon
Haptopnyte
Kephyrion spirale
Ma 1 I omonas sp*
Ochromonas pinguis
Ochromonas sp*
Ochromonas sp . - ovoid
Pseudokephyr ion I a turn
Pseudotetraedron neglectum
Synura sp*
Bicoeca
Bicoeca
Bicoeca
Bicoeca
sp*
sp.
sp*
sp.
»01
#02
#03
Colorless flagellates
Salpingoeca amphorae
Sphaeroeca sp*
Stylotheca aurea
Chi Iomonas sp*
Chroomonas acuta
Chroomonas norstedtii
Cryptomonas - cyst
Cryptomonas caudata
Cryptomonas curvata
Cryptomonas erosa
Cryptomonas erosa v» reflexa
Cryptomonas marssonii
Cryptomonas marssonii v«?
Cryptomonas ovata
Cryptomonas parapyrenoidifera
Cryptomonas phaseolus
Cryptomonas pusitla
Cryptomonas pyrenoidifera
Cryptomonas reflexa
Cryptomonas rostratiformis
163
-------
DIVISION
SPECIES LIST
LAKE ONTARIO PHYTOPLAWKTON STUDY
NIAGARA RIVER STATIONS - 1981
TAXON
CRYPTOPHYTA
CYANOPHYTA
EUGLENOPHYTA
PYRROPHYTA
UNIDENTIFIED FLAGELLATES
Cryptomonas sp.
Cryptomonas sp. #3
Cryptomonas tetrapyreniodiosa
Rhodomonas lacustris
Rhodomonas lens
Rhodomonas minuta
Rhodomonas minuta v. nannoplanktica
Sennia parvula
Anacystis incerta
Anacystis marina
Coccochloris peniocystis
Qscillatoria limnetica
Qscillatoria limnetica?
Oscillatoria tenuis
Colacium sp.?
Euglena sp.
Amphidinium sp.
Gymnodinium helveticum
Gymnodinium sp. #1
Gymnodinium sp. #2
Per id iniurn - cyst
Peridinium aciculiferum
Per id iniurn sp.
Un ident i fied
Unident i f ied
Unident i f ied
flagellate #01
f1 age 11 ate - ovoid
flagellate - spherical
164
-------
LflKE ONTRRIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981: CRUISE 1 (flPRIL 27 - £8)
SUMMORY (TOTOL) OF PHYTOPLONKTQN BIOVOLUME [(CUBIC UM/ML) X 1000 ] BY DIVISION flND BY STflTION
BRC=BRCILLORIOPHYTO; CAT=CHLQROMONQDOPHYTfl; COL=CQI_ORLESS FLflGELLPTES; CYfi=CYflNOPHYTR
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLRGELLfiTES; EUG=EUGLENOPHYTBj CHL=CHLOROPHYTO; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTO
CRY=CRYPTOPHYT«; XfiN=XONOPHYTO; CHR=CHRYSQPHYTO
STfiTION
NI 03
NI 04
MI 06
NI 07
NI 08
NI 09
NI 10
NI 13
NI 14
NI 15
NI 16
NI 17
NI 18
NI 19
NI 20
NI 21
NI ££
NI 01
NI 02
NI 05
DEPTH
(M)
INTE8
INTEG
SURFOCE
SURFflCE
INTEG
SURFACE
1
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
1
1
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
I NT EG
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
BRC
594.91
961.30
669. 31
327. 76
384. 85
307. 11
618.61
545.56
9E9. 34
668. 14
373. 62
333. 1 1
1, 153.95
827. 85
851.28
578.91,
1, 113.27
860. 30
833. 55
598. 98
CHL
51. 82
38. 66
25. 97
9.36
10.37
21.05
38. 38
17.28
£7. 84
17. 97
12. 85
19.60
60.89
49.54
31. 19
35.50
108. 14
96.09
103. 13
30. 28
CYfl
9.90
10. 15
10. 83
3.71
1.09
2.52
25. 33
22.28
20.06
1.91
1.52
6.62
30.69
18.20
53. S5
31.34
22.62
27.44
24.34
20.56
CHR
24. 37
15.06
10. 05
0. 27
0.22
0. 34
18.53
60.88
21.62
1. 15
0. 13
15. 48
29.80
5.35
18.56
1£. 37
26.96
14.46
17.21
4.60
COL
1.46
1.65
0.33
-0.00
0. 10
0.08
2.00
5.33
3.73
0. 14
0.01
6.44
e. 00
1. 00
4. 78
3.56
4.29
4. 13
6E. 15
9.87
CRY
1S4. 94
50. 85
103.25
33.03
5S.58
48. 15
97. 44
159.66
130. 58
63.69
35. 18
67.49
63.41
131.68
33.96
107.40
76.77
199.E0
179.20
91.00
EUG
1.85
-0. 00
-0. 00
0.46
0. 60
-0.00
0. 64
-0.00
-0.00
1.46
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
23.51
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
PYR
912.82
643.51
247. 68
40.77
84.93
88.08
427. 99
540. 21
383. 08
44.78
90.39
367. 90
567. 55
223.51
104.22
469. 04
170.84
525.51
1,045.66
193.50
UNI
£6. 7£
£1.63
15.33
9.35
9.06
8.67
23.96
£2.68
£4. 16
14.20
11.29
18.08
36.39
48.55
21.36
26.54
23.88
60. 4£
39.07
52. £6
XRN
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
COT
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
TOTOL
1,748.79
1,742.81
1,082. 75
4£4. 73
543.81
476. 00
1,£5£.B8
1,373.88
1,540.42
813.45
524. 98
834. 73
1,944.70
1,305.68
1, 118.60
1,£9E. 18
1,546. 78
1,787.55
2,304.31
1,001.05
-------
LflKE ONTARIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981: CRUISE 2 (JULY 3» - flUGUST 1)
SUMMflRY (TOTOL) OF PHYTOPLRNKTON BIOVOLUME E (CUBIC UM/ML) X 1000 3 BY DIVISION RND BY STOTION
BftC=BOCILL.fiRIOPHYTO; COT=CHLOROMOIMODOPHYTR; CQL=COLORLESS FLOBELLfiTES; CYR=CYfiNOPHYTO
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLfifSELLRTES; EUB=EUGLENOPHYTfl; CHL=CHLOROPHYTft; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTR
CRY^CRYPTOC'HYTR; XflN^XONOPHYTPl; CHR=CHRYSQPHYTR
STATION
OS 03
OS 04
OS 05
OS 07
OS 09
OS 11
OS IS
OS 13
DEPTH
(M)
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTES
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
BfiC
991. 35
547. 91
747. 14
450. 76
134.81
69.99
32. 87
73.20
CHL
1,072. 96
6S4. 76
1, 734. 06
894. 91
£18.63
117. 43
276.58
170.56
CYfi
67. 02
58. 10
65. 39
40. 41
S3. 37
71.93
30. 33
45.70
CHR
5.93
e. 22
10.35
4. 04
4. 80
5. 07
11. 45
14. 14
COL
1.05
0. 82
1.00
2. 13
0.27
1. 10
-0. 00
-8. 00
CRY
5&0. 45
340.61
1, 360. 13
477. 09
1, 085. 32
1,448.74
1,248.41
1,482.96
EUG
111. 40
-0.00
S44.29
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
PYR
1. £3
E 1 . 93
10S. £3
83.06
17. 54
-0.00
80.49
50.54
UNI
19. 14
22.42
33.67
7.66
19.32
13.29
14. 38
11.40
XRN
4. 39
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
CRT
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
TOTOL
2,834.92
1, &18. 78
4,598.25
1,960. 08
1,504.06
1,727. 55
1,694.51
1,848.50
-------
LRKE ONTfiRIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981: CRUISE 3 (flUGUST 30 - SEPTEMBER 2)
SUMMARY (TOTOL) OF PHYTOPLONKTON BIOVOLUME C
-------
O\
oo
LflKE ONTftRIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981: CRUISE 4 (OCTOBER 8 - 10)
SUMMRRY (TOTRL) OF PHYTOPLONKTON BIOVOLUME C (CUBIC DM/ML) X 1000 3 BY DIVISION OND BY STOTION
BfiC=BflCILLORIOPHYTO; CRT=CHLOROMONODOPHYTOj COL=COLORLESS FLOSELLfiTEB; CYfi=CYRNOPHYTO
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLOBELLOTES; EUB=EUBLENOPHYTR; CHL=CHLOROPHYTfl; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTR
CRY=CRYPTOPHYTfl; XRN=XRNOPHYTR; CHR=CHRYSOPHYTH
STRTION DEPTH
OS 03
OS 04
OS 05
OS 07
OS 11
OS 17
OS 19
os sen
OS £3
OS £8
OS £9
OS 37
(M)
INTEB
INTEB
SURFflCE
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
BflC
1, 883.89
9, 869.59
6, 383. 55
£, 161.38
!,£££» £9
906.71
1,619. £4
6, 174.05
3, 065. 40
18096.66
1,599.85
1,947.89
CHL
891. 7E
344. 04
418.48
33£. 59
515.97
106.93
804. 61
181.80
645.31
585. 55
1, 916. 65
199.61
CYO
22. 55
134.08
138. 01
59. 48
106. 76
16.98
68.07
IE. 60
175.97
89. 90
£7.68
14.99
CHR
3. 31
8.51
17. £9
13.89
4. 18
4. 48
7. 13
3.38
8.95
16. 47
6.34
1. 94
COL
1. 10
£.00
£. 13
0. 93
0.99
0.55
0.34
0. 18
1.81
4.41
0. 8£
1.38
CRY
91. 35
303.55
£88. 59
£63. 39
£78. 87
377. 58
£3£. £3
479. 43
548. 78
425. £0
541.46
111.65
EUB
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-«. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
5.55
-0. 00
-e>. 00
PYR
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
see. 03
6. 03
7£5. 18
8. 19
768.51
147. £3
4.51
439. 38
46. 91
UNI
£3.63
27.38
40. £4
18. 79
86.04
10.31
6. 13
10. 15
18. 56
£6. £5
17. 07
14. 94
XfiN
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-13. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
CflT
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
TOTOL
£, £57.54
10,689. 16
7, 8BB. 88
3,071.88
£, 155. 13
8, 148. 67
£, 133.95
7, 6S9. 44
4, 6135. 35
13, 194.51
4, 549.85
£, 338. 64
-------
LfiKE ONTRRIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981s CRUISE 1 (RPRIL £7 - £8)
SUMMRRY (TQTRL) OF PHYTOPLONKTON CELLS PER ML BY DIVISION RND BY STOTION
BOC=BflCILLARIOPHYTfl; CRT=CHLOROMONftDOPHYTP; COL=COLORLESS FLHGELLRTES; CYO=CYRNOPHYTH
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLRGELLOTES: EUG=EUGLENOPHYTfl; CHL=CHLOROPHYTR; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTR
CRY=CRYPTOPHYTfl; XON=XflNOPHYTft; CHR=CHRYSOPHYTfl
ON
\O
STfiTIDN DEPTH
(M)
MI 03
NI 04
NI 06
NI 07
NI 08
NI 09
NI 10
NI 13
NI 14
NI 15
NI 16
NI 17
MI 18
NI 19
NI 50
NI SI
MI as
NI 01
NI 0c'
NI 05
INTEQ
INTEB
SURFACE
SURFfiCE
INTEB
SURFfiCE
1
INTEB
INTEG
INTEB
1
1
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEG
INTEB
BRC
380, 52
90S. 09
GB7. 30
312.50
356. 68
314. 14
944. 96
564. 63
793. 40
458. IS
354.30
484. 36
850. 99
1, 016. 10
1 , 358. 0S
875.61
1, 194.61
1,080.09
883.73
7SB. 07
CHL
1, 178. 11
844. 31
431.98
S30. 70
£S£. 54
364. 90
840. 61
679. 06
924. 48
334.63
197. 17
549. 80
843. 68
60S. 16
687. £3
621. 78
957. El
1,014.49
1, 063.56
711. 77
CYfi
34, 115. 81
35, 5S0.
33, 113.
4,03£.
4, 058.
4,555.
91, 934.
79, 358.
73, 353.
4, 700.
4, 360.
£2,84S.
110,569.
SB, 081.
177, 40£.
114,864.
83,555.
73,475.
89, 396.
75,717.
94
04
54
7£
3£
76
IS
09
13
60
05
60
33
£3
75
11
80
55
47
CHR
134.99
141. 14
108.01
15.54
13.09
14. 73
165.67
458. 14
139.08
68.72
7. 36
119.45
139.09
153.81
106.34
139.09
196.35
98. 16
13£.7c:
89. 99
COL
67.49
49.09
9. 8S
-0.00
S. 45
1. 64
73.64
98. 17
40.90
4.09
0. 8£
83. 46
65. 45
£1. £8
81.81
£4. 54
57. £7
57.27
441. 79
£4.54
CRY
331.34
£08. 6E
358. 35
91. 63
136. 63
119. 44
337.51
359. 97
343. 60
157. 88
109. 64
S43. 81
£78. 16
30S. 7£
98. 17
139.07
147. £6
417. £4
343.61
188. 17
EUB
IS. £7
-0.00
-0.00
0.8S
0. 83
—0. 00
6. 14
-0.00
-0. 00
0. 8S
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
8. 18
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0. 013
~0.0tf
PYR
79. 77
55.22
39.28
9. 8£
9. 01
15. 55
36.82
57. E7
32. 72
12. £7
11.46
31.09
57.37
£6. 18
16.36
49.09
£4.54
40.91
81.81
£4.54
UNI
509. £9
447.93
358. 34
£09. 44
177.53
S63. 44
589.05
597.23
654. 50
£59. 35
S09. 44
359. 97
75£. 68
766. 50
539. 96
441.78
6£1.77
1, 1S0.83
801. 76
1,096.29
XflN
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
COT
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
36,
38,
34,
4,
4,
5,
94,
82,
76,
5,
5,
£*,
113,
30,
180,
117,
86,
77,
93,
78,
TDTHL
809. 59
S49. 34
106. IE
90S. 99
977. 47
649. 16
939. 16
172.58
£81.77
996.01
£50. 79
713.99
556. 93
930.08
£90. 16
163.89
754. IS
304.79
135.49
580. 84
-------
LRKE ONTftRIQ INTENSIVE STUDY - 19B1: CRUISE 2 (JULY 30 - RUGUST)
SUMMfiRY (TOTflL) OF PHYTOPLflNKTON CELLS PER ML BY DIVISION RND BY STPTION
PflC=BflCILLfiRIOPHYTP; CPT=CHLOROMONPDOPHYTft; COL=COLORLESS FLRBELLflTES; CYfl=CYRNOPHYTR
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLRGELLRTES; EUG=EUGLENOPHYTR; CHL=CHLOROPHYTfi; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTfi
CRY=CRYPTOPHYTfi; XRN=XfiNOPHYTfi; CHR=CHRYSOPHYTfi
STRTION
OS 03
OS 04
OS 05
OS 07
OS 09
OS 11
OS 12
OS 13
DEPTH
(M)
INTEG
INTEG
INTE6
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
BflC
5, 659. 17
3, 313.36
4,798.74
2, 7E4. 3S
670. 89
380. 44
£53. 60
44£. £7
CHL
8,501.36
7,537.55
9, 350. £5
5,957.85
1,457.27
2, 147.57
1,522. 72
1,565. 60
CYft
70, 096. 95
63, 519. £1
78, 55£. £7
58,054. 14
46,551. 31
67, 409. 39
82, 736. 98
57, 669. 64
CHR
57.27
130.89
85.89
278. 16
98. 17
208.62
409. 06
335. 43
COL
£4. 54
49.09
49.09
57.27
8. IB
49.09
-0. 00
-0. 00
CRY
539.96
458. 15
1,313.09
638. 12
646. 32
773. 13
417.25
66£.69
EUG
16.36
-0.00
110.44
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
PYR
8. 18
16.36
61.35
£4.54
8. 13
-0. 00
24.54
24. 54
UNI
368. 16
548. 14
429.52
351.79
384. 5£
454.06
335.43
196.35
XRN
16.36
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
CRT
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
85,
75,
94,
68,
49,
71,
B5,
60,
TOTfiL
288.31
57£. 75
750. 64
086. 19
884. 84
4££. 30
699. 58
896. 52
-------
LRKE ONTARIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981: CRUISE 3 (RUGUST 30 - SEPTEMBER)
SUMMflRY (TOTRL) OF PHYTOPLRNKTON CELLS PER ML BY DIVISION RND BY STOTION
BflC=BflCILLORIOPHYTfl; CRT=CHLOROMONRDOPHYTR; COL=COLORLESS FLRBELLRTESj CYH=CYRNOPHYTfi
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLHBELLRTES; EUB=EUBLENQPHYTR; CHL=CHLOROPHYTR; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTfi
CRY=CRYPTOPHYTR; XftN=XRNOPHYTR; CHR=CHRYSOPHYT«
STOTION
OS 03
OS 04
OS 05
OS 07
OS 09
OS 11
OS 12R
OS 13
DS 17
OS 17
OS 17
OS 17B
OS 19
OS 19
OS 19
OS 19B
OS S£
os £8
os £9
OS 37
DEPTH
(M)
INTEG
INTEG
INTEB
INTEG
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
INTEG
INTEB
BOTTOM
SURFRCE
INTEB
INTEG
BOTTOM
INTEG
INTEB
INTEB
INTEB
BfiC
6, 348.
5,760.
4,729.
£,061.
1,693.
-0.
989.
828.
1, 327.
940.
957.
400.
417.
£86.
465.
1£2.
6,731.
2,961.
1, 497.
1.74E.
68
82
19
14
71
00
£S
19
25
27
£4
85
02
34
39
73
95
65
56
£1
CHL
8, 181.46
5, 974.36
5,539.73
6,973.28
£, 339. 86
3,315.42
£, a06. 96
3, 070. 00
2, 1880. 88
2, 627. 22
1,795.54
952. 85
1, 589. 17
1, 393.65
1,869. 15
609. 07
5, 645. 09
£,815. 35
2, 473. 76
2, 164.54
CYR
114,782.
60, 353.
71, 929.
84, ££5.
£7,734.
82, 262.
£1,958.
£7, 186.
3£, 356.
17,425.
18,096.
16,501.
19,258.
18,555.
£5, 108.
10,831.
55,517.
50, 854.
£7, 906.
32, 119.
95
09
55
97
45
48
48
30
83
55
92
59
68
08
£6
98
97
66
25
60
CHR
65.45
515.42
188. 16
319.06
351.79
638. 13
343. 62
769. 03
368. 15
39£. 70
310.89
65.45
589. 05
621.77
613.58
£86. 34
597.23
376. 33
515. 4£
163.62
COL
40.90
212.71
-0. 00
81. 81
32.72
16.36
16. 36
-0.00
16.36
16.36
65.45
3S.73
8. 18
16.36
-0.00
16. 36
57.27
49.09
1 30. 90
32.72
CRY
703. 58
801.77
899. 93
1,047.20
859. 0£
1, 104.46
924.48
1 , 055. 37
1,489.00
1,276. £8
924.47
351.79
1 , 34 1 . 7 1
1,006.31
736.31
319.06
1,£59.91
1, 014. 48
1,456. £7
719.94
EUB
-0.00
a. is
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
PYR
73.63
163. 6S
130.90
106.36
3£. 78
3E.7S
16.36
65.46
73.63
40. 90
£4.54
8. IB
16. 36
16.36
S. IB
a. ia
£4. 54
130.90
40. 90
40.98
UNI
1,576.98
1, 161.74
1 , 325. 37
1,513.53
1,497. 17
1,906.23
752. 68
973. 57
1, 194.46
981.76
859. 03
449.97
998. 1£
90S. 1£
809. 95
425. 43
1, 750. 79
998. IE
793. 58
343.61
XRN
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
CRT
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
8. 18
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
TOTBL
131,775.63
74,951.71
84, 742. 83
100,328.35
34,541.44
89, £75. 80
£7, 008. £0
33,939. 9£
38, 806. 56
23,701.04
23, 034. 08
18,763.41
£4,218.29
22, 803. 99
£9,610.82
12,627.33
71,584.75
59, £00. 58
34,814.64
37,327. 14
-------
LflKE ONTfiRIO INTENSIVE STUDY - 1981: CRUISE 4 (OCTOBER 8 - 10)
SUMMRRY (TOTfiL) OF PHYTOPLflNKTON CELLS PER ML BY DIVISION flND BY STflTION
BflC=BfiCILLfiRIOPHYTfij CAT=CHLOROMONODOPHYTOi COL=COLORLESS FLflGELLOTES; CYfi=CYRNOPHYTO
UNI=UNIDENDTIFIED FLOGELLfiTESj EUG=EUGLENOPHYTfi; CHL=CHLOROPHYTO; PYR=PYRRHOPHYTfi
CRY=CRYPTQPHYTR; XftN=XflNOPHYTO; CHR=CHRYSOPHYT«
STRTION
OS 03
OS 04
OS 05
OS 07
OS 11
OS 17
OS 19
OS £20
OS 23
OS 28
OS 29
OS 37
DEPTH
(M)
INTEG
INTE6
SURFRCE
INTEG
INTEE
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
INTEG
INTEB
INTEG
INTEG
BBC
3, £80. 43
3, 493. 01
3, 983. 45
2,356. 14
£, £57. 89
817.96
752. 64
2,012.71
1,487.88
5, 390. 76
1, 177.94
2, 536. 49
CHL
2, 586. 26
4, 164. 16
4, 729. 78
2,741.66
£,061.69
876. 4£
1 , 636. £5
1,350.93
3,972. 14
5,352.44
2, 872. 64
1,826. 43
CYO
52,319.09
63,461.95
61,629.36
51,754.59
43,229.73
£1,770.31
3£, 155. 38
£4,061.05
36,619.27
102,797.42
33,084.99
39,981. 77
CHR
81.81
171.61
196. 35
908. 1 1
57.26
98. IB
212.71
73.63
736. 31
1,799.87
204. 53
57.27
COL
3E.73
106.36
57.27
57.27
£4.54
16. 36
a. is
a. is
57. £7
£37. 25
24.54
65.45
CRY
409. 06
572. 67
409. 05
711,74
899. 93
1,423.54
932.67
1,513.54
1,358.08
646. 31
£, 069. 86
335.43
EUG
-0.00
-0.00
16.36
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
8. 18
-0.00
-0.00
PYR
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
B. IB
16.36
16.36
8. 18
16.36
16. 36
B. IB
32.72
16.36
UNI
5£3. 60
744.49
458. 15
556. 3£
580. 87
359. 97
179.99
£53. 6£
523. 60
670. 86
490. 87
343. 62
XRN
-0.00
-0. 00
-0. 00
—0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
CRT
-0. 00
-0.00
-0. 00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
59,
7£,
71,
59,
49,
25,
35,
29,
44,
116,
39,
45,
TOTRL
£32. 98
714. 45
479.77
094.01
128. £7
379. 10
8B£. 94
290. 02
770. 91
911. £7
95B. 09
162. 8S
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/3-85-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Limnology and Phytoplankton Structure
In Nearshore Areas of Lake Ontario
1981
5. REPORT DATE
August 1985
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
5GL
7. AUTHOR(S)
David C. Rockwell, Marvin F. Palmer
and Joseph C. Makarewicz
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Foundation of State
University of New York
College of Brockport
Brockport, New York 14420
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
ROO5772-01
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street, Room 958
Chicago, Illinois 60605
13. TYPE Of REPORT AND PER
Limnology 1981-198^4
IODCOVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Great Lakes National Program
Office-USEPA, Region V
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Paul E. Bertram
Editor
16. ABSTRACT . .
During 1981, the U.S. EPA undertook 4 limnological surveys of nearshore waters
of Lake Ontario, including the Niagara River Plume, the Rochester Embayment and
Oswego Harbor. Water samples from 81 locations were analyzed for 22 physical
and chemical parameters. Cluster analyses were used to identify station groupings
as Lake, mixing or nearshore, and river source areas. Spatial and temporal
differences in the data are discussed.
Phytoplankton samples were collected during 3 surveys of the Oswego Harbor and
1 survey of the Niagara River plume area. Species identifications, enumerations
and biovolumes are reported. The spatial and temporal differences in phytoplankton
community structure in the Oswego Harbor are discussed.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Limnology
Lake Ontario
Nutrients
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Silica
Phytoplankton
Oswego Harbor
Niagara River
Rochester Embayment
Water Quality
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available
through the National Information Service
(NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
180
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |