820R91100
Draft
Second Report to Congress on Great Lakes
Water Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection \gency
March 1991
-------
DRAFT March 1991
This report was prepared pursuant to Sections 118(c)(6) and 118(f) of the Clean Water Act, which
state:
118(c)(6) Comprehensive Report — Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Ad-
ministrator shall submit to Congress a comprehensive report which —
(A) describes the achievements in the preceding fiscal year in implementing the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978 and shows by categories (including judicial enforcement, re-
search, State cooperative efforts, and general administration) the amounts expended on Great
Lakes water quality initiatives in such preceding fiscal year;
(B) describes the progress made in such preceding fiscal year in implementing the system of sur-
veillance of the water quality in the Great Lakes System, including the monitoring of
groundwater and sediment, with particular reference to toxic pollutants;
(C) describes the long-term prospects for improving the condition of the Great Lakes; and
(D) provides a comprehensive assessment of the planned efforts to be pursued in the succeeding
fiscal year for implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, which assess-
ment shall —
(i) show by categories (including judicial enforcement, research, State cooperative efforts, and
general administration) the amount anticipated to be expended on Great Lakes water quality initia-
tives in the fiscal year to which the assessment relates; and
(ii) include a report of current programs administered by other Federal agencies which make avail-
able resources to the Great Lakes water quality management efforts.
118(f) Intel-agency Cooperation. — The head of each department, agency, or other instrumentality
of the Federal Government which is engaged in, is concerned with, or has authority over programs
relating to research, monitoring, and planning to maintain, enhance, preserve, or rehabilitate the en-
vironmental quality and natural resources of the Great Lakes, including the Chief of Engineers of
the Army, the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, shall submit an annual report to the Administrator with respect to the ac-
tivities of that agency or office affecting compliance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Foreword
Over the past two decades, the United States and Canada have taken giant steps toward restoring
the Great Lakes. The two nations have achieved a world-class success in abating nutrient-related
algae problems in Lake Erie. They have likewise dramatically helped native fish species by controlling
sea lampreys, a parasitic eel-like invader that by the 1950s had devastated lake trout. Levels of many
targeted contaminants have declined drastically in fish and wildlife, resulting in clear improvements in
the health of many species. This success has been obtained by use restrictidns on targeted contaminants
and by huge public and private investments in pollution treatment and abatement. The U.S. alone has
invested over $8 billion since 1971 in municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the Great Lakes
watershed. The eight Great Lakes Governors have signed a historic charter to protect their vital
ecosystem and have begun to endow a trust fund to help finance the elimination of toxic substances
from the lakes. EPA and State hazardous waste programs are pursuing major cleanups around the Great
Lakes.
We should not allow this heartening progress to make us complacent. The health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem remains a matter of concern. Unacceptable levels pf persistent toxic substances continue to
show up in the tissues of fish and wildlife. These substances are associated with a number of health
problems in fish and wildlife, including tumors and impaired reproduction. Humans who ingest these
substances through fish consumption face increased risk of cancer. Moreover, there is some disturbing
evidence that children of mothers who have eaten Great Lakes fish may suffer developmental decre-
ments.
Two additional concerns are loss of fish and wildlife habitat and introduction of exotic (non-native)
species. Wetlands provide vital ecological functions, giving food and shelter to fish and wildlife, yet it
has been estimated that since 1800 about two-thirds of Great Lakes wetlands have been lost. There are
development pressures on the remainder. Another critical habitat is nearshore bottom sediment that
in many locations has been poisoned by past or continuing loadings of toxicants. One recent exotic
intruder to the Great Lakes, likely via the ballast water of a transoceanic vessel, is the zebra mussel. A
prolific breeder, this mollusc may cause catastrophic ecological effects. It devours microscopic plants
at the foundation of the food web and may create a food shortage, ultimately threatening top predators
like walleye, salmon, and lake trout. In time, the zebra mussel is likely to spread across North America
as it has across Europe; it has already been spotted in the Hudson River.
To go beyond past successes and solve current problems, we need to conceive of new ways to protect
an ecosystem. States, EPA, and other Federal agencies are now joined in creating such a holistic
approach to environmental protection for the Great Lakes. Our broad agenda is to prevent, abate, and
remediate toxic pollution; and to inventory, protect, and restore damaged habitat and native species.
To accomplish this agenda efficiently, we will set priorities based on comparative assessment of risks to
the ecosystem. Pollution prevention will be a preferred means to reduce risks; we want to work with
industries to cut their toxic emissions voluntarily, sharply, rapidly. At the same time, we will better
integrate our enforcement of environmental laws to address the overall pollution problem at a facility.
We will aggressively inform the public about environmental issues, out of the related convictions that
it is their right to know and that an informed public is the ultimate guardian of the health of the Great
Lakes. Local stakeholders are integral to successful solutions; we will invite both citizens and industries
to participate in planning the restoration of Great Lakes toxic hotspots. We will select appropriate
measures from our suite of air, water, and waste programs to fit the needs of these areas. We will judge
r i Llnr?nme"tal Section Agency
GLNPO L.br.- •/ Collection (PUfj)
77 West J-ck'^n Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 6-J604-3590
-------
DRAFT March 1991
our progress in tangible, ecological terms, as in the health of sensitive fish and wildlife species. In all
this, we will take the utmost advantage of opportunities for cooperative actions' with Canada.
The two nations will know that they have succeeded when their citizens can safely eat Great Lakes
fish and wildlife in unlimited quantities and when a vulnerable species like the bald eagle, the proud
national symbol of the United States, can thrive in its traditional domain along the shores of the Great
Lakes.
In environmental affairs, as in our championing of democracy, human rights, and a market economy,
the United States is an example for much of the world. The world is at an historic crossroads with respect
to the environment, as environmental concerns sweep the globe. Many nations will look to the successes
of our shared stewardship of the Great Lakes for encouragement in restoring their own natural
resources. As I look ahead into the 1990s, I feel confident that the United States and Canada will
continue to reverse many decades of environmental abuse to the Great Lakes. It is our responsibility,
both to our own and to future generations.
William K. Reilly
u
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Preface
s is the second report by the EPA on United States progress in implementing the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement with Canada and, more broadly, on Great Lakes environmental trends
and programs. This report addresses Fiscal Year (FY) 1989 and 1990 accomplishments and FY 1991
plans, estimated expenditures relating to these years, and long-term prospects for improving the
condition of the Great Lakes system. Except where noted otherwise, it is written as of the start of Federal
FY 1991 (October 1,1990).
In order to provide a broad view of Federal programs pertaining to Great Lakes water quality, this
report draws on information provided by five other Federal agencies: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Table of Contents
Foreword i
Preface iii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
The Great Lakes 1
Economy in Historical Perspective 4
Some Ecological Impacts of Development 6
Chapter 2: Great Lakes Environmental Problems 9
Introduction 9
Persistent Toxic Substances 9
Effects on Wildlife 10
Substances 12
Sources 13
Degraded Habitat 15
Wetlands 15
Contaminated Bottom Sediments 17
Exotic Species 19
Sea Lamprey 21
Alewife 21
Zebra Mussels 22
River Ruffe 23
Bythotrephes (Spiny water fleas) 23
Nutrients 23
Chapter 3: The Great Lakes Program 27
Chapter 4: The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 29
Background 29
Areas of Concern and Remedial Action Plans 30
Environmental Problems in Areas of Concern 30
Remedial Action Plans 30
Progress of RAPs 31
Lakewide Management Plans 34
Niagara River Load Reductions 34
Lake Ontario 35
Lake Michigan 35
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Nutrient Over-Enrichment 36
United States Phosphorus Reduction Plan Progress •.. ,.... 36
Conservation Tillage Practices in the Great Lakes 37
Ambient Water Quality 39
Outlook 39
ChapterS:SelectedEPAPrograms 69
Water Programs 69
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ".' 69
Municipal Wastewater Treatment 71
Nonpoint Source Pollution Program 72
The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative 72
Wetlands Protection 73
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program 74
Assessments of Contaminated Sediments 74
Hazard Evaluations 75
Technology Evaluations 75
Public Communication 75
The Superfund Program 75
Superfund Sites in the Great Lakes Basin 75
Superfund Activities in Great Lakes Area of Concern 78
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program (Subtitle C) 81
RCRA Activities in the Great Lakes Basin 82
Air Programs 84
Airborne Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Region 85
Chapter 6: Reports from Other Federal Agencies 87
Army Corps of Engineers 87
FY 1989 Accomplishments 87
FY 1990 Accomplishments 88
FY 1991 Plans 89
U.S. Coast Guard 89
Spills of Hazardous Substances 90
Spill Programs 90
1989 Accomplishments 90
1990 Plans 90
Exotic Species 91
1989 Accomplishments 91
Fish and Wildlife Service 91
Fisheries 91
FY 1989 Accomplishments 91
FY 1990 Accomplishments 92
FY 1991 Plans 92
Wildlife and Refuges 92
FY 1989 Accomplishments 92
VI
-------
DRAFT March 1991
FY1990 Accomplishments - 92
FY 1991 Plans .:..... .'.'.' 92
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 92
FY 1989 Accomplishments 92
FY 1990 Accomplishments 93
' 'FY 1991 Plans 93
Enforcement ...-.- 93
Public Affairs 93
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 93
Ecosystem Dynamics 94
Persistent Toxic Substances 94
FY 1989 Accomplishments 94
FY 1990 Accomplishments 95
FY 1991 Plans 95
Ecological Processes 95
FY 1989 Accomplishments 95
FY 1990 Accomplishments 95
FY 1991 Plans 95
Benthic Populations 95
FY 1990 Accomplishments 95
FY 1991 Plans %
Soil Conservation Service %
FY 1989 Accomplishments 96
FY 1990 Accomplishments 97
Chapter 7: Ecosystem Surveillance 99
Surveillance 99
Overview 99
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 100
Green Bay Mass Balance Study 100
New EPA Research Vessel 101
System-Wide Surveillance 102
Expenditures 105
Superfund 105
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems 106
Other Programs 108
References 109
Chapter 2 109
Glossary 113
-------
DRAFT Man* 1991
Figures
1-1. The Great Lakes Basin 1
1-2. Depth ProGle of the Great lakes and Summary of Their Physical Features 2
2-1. The Food Web 10
2-2. Contaminants in Herring Gulls' Eggs on Sister Island (Green Bay), Wisconsin 11
2-3. Annual Trends in Pesticides and PCBs in Lake Michigan Bloater Chubs 11
2-4. Great Lakes Sites with High Contaminant Levels 14
2-5. Combined Sewer Overflows along the Detroit River 16
2-6. Releases of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes 18
2-7. Routes of Releases of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes 18
2-8. Industrial Releases of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes 18
2-9. Presettlement Extent of the Black Swamp in Northwestern Ohio 21
2-10. Timing of the Introduction of Exotic Species into the Great Lakes 22
2-11. Entry Routes of Exotic Species 23
2-12. Types of Exotic Species Introduced Since 1800. 23
2-13. Phosphorous Concentrations in the Great Lakes 25
4-1. Great Lakes Areas of Concern 31
4-2. Cropland in the Great Lakes Basin 37
4-3. Conservation Tillage in the Great Lakes Basin 38
5-1. Major NPDES Dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin. 69
5-2. Dredge and Fill Permit Applications 73
5-3. CERCLA Sites in Great Lakes Basin Counties 77
5-4. Final and Proposed NPL Sites in Great Lakes Basin Counties 79
5-5. Large Quantity Generators 81
5-6. Small and Very Small Quantity Generators 82
5-7. Treatment and Storage Facilities 83
5-8. Land Disposal Facilities 83
5-9. Compliance Evaluation Inspections in FY1989 84
6-1. Great Lakes Spills from 1980 to September 1989 90
7-1. Green Bay/Fox River Study Area 101
viu
-------
DRAFT March 1991
7-2. Annual Average Corrected Oxygen Depletion Rate, Re, for Central Basin of Lake Erie.. 102
7-3. Fish Contaminants Monitoring Program Results 103
8-1. Total Superfund Expenditures in Great Lakes Counties in FYs 1987 through 1989 105
8-2. Construction Grant Awards in the Great Lakes Basin 106
Tables
2-1. Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories 13
2-2. Health Risks of Fish Consumption vs. Other Risks 14
2-3 Characteristics of Key Great Lakes Pollutants 15
4-1. Summary of Beneficial Use Impairments Identified by the Jurisdictions in their Areas of
Concern 32
4-2. Submittals of U.S. Remedial Action Plans to the International Joint Commission 41
4-3. Selected Highlights of Progress in Areas of Concern 43
5-1. Number of NPDES Dischargers by Lake Basin 70
5-2. Categorization of Major NPDES Dischargers by Lake Basin 70
5-3. Great Lakes Basin Major NPDES Permit Compliance Status as of January 1990 71
5-4. Candidate Superfund Sites vs. NPL Sites for Selected Great Lakes Basin Counties 78
5-5. Great Lakes Superfund Activities in FYs 1989 and 1990 80
8-1. FY 1989 Federal Expenditures on Great Lakes Water Quality 107
8-2. FY 1990 Federal Expenditures on Great Lakes Water Quality 107
8-3. FY 1991 Estimated Federal Expenditures on Great Lakes Water Quality 108
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Introduction 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
r •"'o help place Great Lakes en-
M vironmental issues in context,
this chapter discusses some aspects of
the physical features of the Great
Lakes, of economic development
within the region over the past three
centuries, and of ecological outcomes
associated with this development.
The Great Lakes
By many measures, the five Great
Lakes are freshwater seas. Formed by
the melting and retreat of mile-thick
glaciers 10 to 12 thousand years ago,
the Great Lakes water system repre-
sents about 18 percent of the world's
surface freshwater and 95 percent of
the surface freshwater of the United
States. If poured over the continental
United States, the 6 quadrillion gal-
lons of the Great Lakes would im-
merse the "lower 48" States to a
depth of almost 10 feet. The breadth
of the lakes, between eastern and
western extremes, is 800 miles. The
Great Lakes and their connecting
channels have 7,437 miles of shoreline
within eight States and the Canadian
Province of Ontario. Their surface
area is 96,394 square miles, an area
about that of the State of Oregon.
Their 201,000 square mile watershed
holds nearly 80,000 small lakes—one-
third within the United States—that
would collectively cover an area larger
than Lake Erie.
By virtue of their size, the Great
Lakes have pronounced effects upon
the climate of their region. Heat
stored in the surface waters of the
lakes during the summer warms ad-
jacent land in the fall and winter. As a
result, areas of Michigan, southern
Ontario, and western New York have
warmer winters than some other parts
of North America at similar latitudes.
LEOtND
• UHorlMraAM
• bat.xU.000
Figure 1-1. The Great Lakes Basin.
-------
2 Chapter 1
DRAFT March 1991
However, these same areas receive
heavy snowfalls as prevailing winds
from the west pick up moisture over
the lakes. In the spring and summer,
the lakes are slow to warm, cooling
nearshore land.
forested; only 3 percent is used for
agriculture. Due to its huge volume,
Lake Superior has the longest water
retention time of any of the Great
Lakes—191 years. Superior's outlet is
the St. Marys River that flows south-
tributaries. Over 100 rivers flow into
Lake Michigan. Just nine of these
have' an average flow of over 1,000
cubic feet per second (cfs). The four
largest—the Fox, St. Joseph, Grand
(Michigan), and Menominee—have
sxH
Late/
Feature
Avenge depth
(feet)
Volume
(cubic miles)
AreaiWater
(*q. mi.)
Land Drainage
Are* (sq. mi.)
Total Area
(so, mi.)
Shoreline
Length (mites)
Superior
483
2,800
31,700
49,300
81,000
2,726
Michigan
270
1,180
22,300
45,600
67,900
1,638
Huron
195
850
23,000
51,700
74,700
3,827
Erie
62
116
9,910
30,140
40,050
871
Ontario
283
393
7,340
24,720
32,060
712
KBM
Dtp*
fltodmunDqli
1SBI*
Figure 1-2. Depth Profile of the Great Lakes and Summary of their Physical Features.
As would be expected across such a
large geographical area, the physical
characteristics of the Great Lakes
watershed are varied. In the north,
the land is heavily forested, particular-
ly by conifers. The soil is generally
thin and acidic, covering a hard, an-
cient bedrock called the Laurentian
Shield. The climate is cold. Principal
industries are timber, mining, and
hydroelectric power. In the south,
soils are deeper and fertile, rocks
sedimentary and nutrient rich,
temperatures warmer, the density of
human population greater. Vast wet-
lands and deciduous forests have
generally been replaced by agricul-
tural, industrial, and residential uses.
By surface area, Lake Superior is
the largest freshwater lake in the
world. It is the second largest in terms
of water volume, trailing only the im-
mensely deep Lake Baikal in the
Soviet Union. Superior holds just
over one-half of the water in the
Great Lakes system. It is the coldest
and deepest of the lakes. About 90
percent of the Superior watershed is
easterly into Lake Huron.
Lake Michigan is the only Great
Lake that lies wholly within the
United States. It is the second largest
in terms of water volume, holding
about 21 percent of the water in the
Great Lakes system. With the excep-
tion of Wisconsin's Fox River Valley,
the northern part of Lake Michigan's
watershed is sparsely populated. The
southern end of the lake is ringed by
lakefront cities, including Milwaukee,
Chicago, and Gary. Lake Michigan's
watershed holds the largest surround-
ing human population of all of the
Great Lakes—about 14 million. Lake
Michigan's water retention time is 99
years, the second longest of the lakes.
Water from Lake Michigan primarily
flows out through the Straits of Mack-
inac into Lake Huron. A much
smaller outflow is artificially diverted
into the Mississippi River system via
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Like Lake Superior, Lake Michigan
does not have a major inflow of water
from another lake via a connecting
river. Its watershed has many small
flows of around 4,000 cfs. To put
these flows into some perspective, the
natural flow over Niagara Falls
averages about 200,000 cfs.
Lake Huron is the second largest of
the Great Lakes in terms of surface
area, slightly larger than Lake
Michigan in this regard. Lake Huron
receives both the outflow of Lake Su-
perior and a net outflow from Lake
Michigan through the Straits of Mack-
inac. Lake Huron holds about 16 per-
cent of the water of the Great Lakes.
About two-thirds of Huron's water-
shed is forested; another quarter is
devoted to agriculture, particularly
around Saginaw Bay. Lake Huron's
water retention time is 22 years. The
lake's outlet is the St. Clair River that
flows into Lake St. Clair, a shallow
lake (average depth 11 feet) northeast
of Detroit.
Lake Erie is the smallest of the
Great Lakes in water volume, with an
average depth of just 62 feet. Lake
Erie has three distinct basins that are
defined by water depth and separated
by underwater ridges. The western
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Introduction 3
basin is shallow, with an average
depth of 24 feet; its waters are well
mixed. The central basin is deeper; its
waters stratify by temperature, and its
narrow bottom layer is vulnerable to
oxygen depletion. The eastern basin is
the deepest of the three. Its bottom
layer is thicker ,than that of the central
basin, making it much less vulnerable
to oxygen depletion. Lake Erie has
the shortest water retention time, just
2.6 years, making it the lake most
responsive to both environmental
abuse and cleanup.
Lake Erie is the southernmost of
the Great Lakes. Its waters are the
warmest in summer and the most
productive in a biological sense, sup-
porting healthy fisheries. Because of
its shallowness, Erie is the lake most
affected by air temperature. As a
result, Lake Erie regularly has 95 per-
cent ice cover in the winter in contrast
to the deeper Lake Ontario that has
an average cover of only 15 percent.
Lake Erie's watershed is the most
agricultural, the most urban, and the
least forested of the lake basins;
about two-thirds of it is used for farm-
ing. Erie has the highest rate of
sedimentation of the five lakes, receiv-
ing soil panicles from the rich
farmlands of its watershed. Of the
lakes, Erie also has the highest sur-
rounding human population density.
Erie's western basin receives water
from the upper lakes via the Detroit
River and from the Maumee River
that joins the lake near Toledo. The
Niagara River that flows north into
Lake Ontario is Erie's primary outlet.
Lake Ontario is the smallest of the
lakes in surface area, but contains
more than three times the water
volume of Lake Erie. About one-
quarter of the Lake Ontario water-
shed is used for agriculture; dairy and
cattle farms are the most prevalent
types. The Canadian population
within Lake Ontario's watershed is
about twice that of the United States
and it has significantly increased
through the 1970s and 1980s, whereas
the United States population has
been stable. Canada's largest in-
dustrial region lies along the western
and northwestern shores of Lake On-
tario, including Toronto, a city of
three million. In the southern portion
of the Lake Ontario watershed, New
York State cities include Buffalo,
Niagara Falls, Rochester, and
Syracuse.
The dominant source of water into
Lake Ontario is the Niagara River
flowing from Lake Erie. The Niagara
provides about three-quarters of the
estimated net inflow to the lake.
Water from the Niagara River circu-
lates rapidly; any contaminant borne
by the Niagara is well distributed
around the lake in one or two years. A
much smaller inflow is artificially
diverted into Lake Ontario via
Canada's Welland Canal that
provides a navigable connection to
Erie. Stretches of the Niagara River
are industrialized, principally on the
U.S. side. Lake Ontario is about 325
feet lower in elevation than Lake
Erie, causing the Niagara River to cas-
cade spectacularly at the famous
Niagara Falls. Lake Ontario's water
retention time is six years. Its outlet is
the St. Lawrence River that has an an-
nual outflow to the Gulf of St.
Lawrence that is less than one percent
of the water volume of the Great
Lakes.
This relatively small outflow is an im-
portant characteristic of the Great
Lakes. The lakes are a nearly closed
system. Persistent pollutants intro-
duced into the lakes, especially into
Superior and Michigan with their long
water retention times, are primarily
removed by evaporation, burial, or in-
duction into the aquatic food chain.
The system does not flush con-
taminants quickly. This attribute
makes the Great Lakes ecosystem sen-
sitive to environmental stresses.
Another important characteristic of
the Great Lakes is their clarity.
Before intense European settlement
of the region began around 1800, the
Great Lakes contained little phos-
phorus, were rich in oxygen, and, with
the exception of western Lake Erie
and shallow bays, were very clear
(oligotrophic or poorly nourished).
One reason for these phenomena was
that the lakes' shorelines were for the
most part rimmed by forests and wet-
lands, providing little nutrient runoff
to stimulate the production of micro-
scopic plants (i.e., phytoplankton,
such as algae). While phytoplankton
are a necessary, primary building
block of the Great Lakes food web,
over-enrichment and excessive algal
growth cloud water and, by their
decay, deplete oxygen. Today, most of
Superior and Huron remain
oligotrophic, as do parts of the north-
ern basin of Lake Michigan.
The most biologically productive
waters are those of shallow embay- ' ;
ments, such as Green Bay, Saginaw
Bay, and western Lake Erie that are
fed, respectively, by the Fox, Saginaw,
and Maumee Rivers and that have
warmer waters than the open lakes.
Green Bay was so named by early set-
tlers because of the hue imparted by
its phytoplankton.
Before 1800, there were also about
150 native fish species in the Great
Lakes. Nearshore species included
smallmouth and largemouth bass,
muskellunge, northern pike, and chan-
nel catfish. Lake herring, blue pike,
lake whitefish, grayling, walleye,
sauger, freshwater drum, lake trout,
white bass, and sturgeon inhabited
deeper waters. Sturgeon lived to 150
years, reaching 9 feet in length and
400 pounds, whereas lake trout lived
to 75 years.
The species mix varied between
lakes. A large population of Atlantic
salmon was confined to Lake Ontario.
The deep eastern basin of Lake Erie
supported lake trout, whereas the
shallower and warmer western basin
did not. Lake Erie sustained the most
inshore species, whereas cold Supe-
rior was the least productive. Supe-
rior, however, provided the best
habitat for the whitefish that were so
plentiful a fisherman could dip a net
and catch hundreds in a day. Atlantic
salmon, whitefish, and lake trout were
top predators among fish. These deli-
cious-tasting species were a staple of
the diet of local Native Americans.
The composition of fish populations
in the Great Lakes is very different
today. Fish are generally smaller than
two centuries ago, and many non-na-
tive fish have been introduced, so that
there are now about 190 species.
Among the reasons for changes in fish
populations are alterations to the
aquatic food web; deliberate introduc-
tion of sport-fish, notably Pacific sal-
mon; inadvertent introduction of
non-native species, such as alewife,
carp, smelt, and sea lamprey; habitat
loss or disruption; over-fishing; and
the effects of pollutants on fish
reproduction.
Grayling are now extinct in the
Great Lakes. By 1900, Atlantic sal-
mon were gone from Lake Ontario.
Blue pike disappeared from Lake
Erie, and thus from the world, in the
1950s. Lake trout, sturgeon, and lake
-------
4 Chapter I
DRAFT March 1991
herring survive in decreased numbers.
Even in relatively pristine Superior,
hatchery-reared lake trout must be
stocked to bolster the population.
Populations of some native species,
such as walleye and white bass, are
more robust, and the whitefish
populations in Superiqr^nd parts of
Michigan and Huron are sufficient to
support commercial fishing. Stocked,
non-native Pacific salmon—coho and
chinook—are the most abundant top
predators in the open lakes, except in
western Lake Erie, where the top
predator is walleye.
The Great Lakes region also sus-
tains a rich diversity of birds and other
wildlife. Following the Atlantic and
Mississippi ftyways, an estimated three
million waterfowl migrate through the
Great Lakes each year, using the
lakes for food and shelter. During
their spring and fall migrations, up to
25,000 raptors (birds of prey) can be
observed each day from Whitefish
Point in eastern Lake Superior. The
lakes are home to multitudes of terns,
herons, gulls, egrets, and cormorants.
Native animals include moose, deer,
fox, wolves, and the fur-bearing mam-
mals—mink, muskrats, and beaver—
that fueled the early development of
the region by European settlers.
Economy in
Historical
Perspective
During the past 300 years, various
industries have boomed in the Great
Lakes region. Fur trapping, especially
of beavers, thrived from the last half
of the 17th century until the early
19th century. As trapping depleted
Great Lakes beaver populations, the
fur trade expanded over much of the
continent, to California, Oregon, and
the Arctic Ocean. Even after trapping
had moved far westward, the Great
Lakes remained vital to the industry
as a transportation system. The Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence River
provided a 2,200 mile waterway to the
Atlantic coast whence furs were
shipped to customers in Europe.
Many early settlements on the Great
Lakes were fur-trading posts, among
them Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay,
and Duluth.
About the time the beaver industry
ended because of the scarcity of
beavers and the whims of fashion,
early settlers to the Great Lakes
region began a massive harvest of
trees. There were three principal
types of forests surrounding the lakes.
In the north, on the Laurentian Shield
above Superior and reaching down to
the eastern shore of Huron, were
spruce and fir. The second forest of
birch, hemlock, and pines ranged
from south of Lake Superior, to
northern Michigan, to the north shore
of Lake Erie, and encircled Lake On-
tario. South of this region were
hardwoods: ash, oak, maple, and dog-
wood. The first deforestation was by
local settlers clearing land for agricul-
ture and building homes and barns.
Commercial logging began in the
1830s, after the opening of the Erie
Canal provided access to eastern
markets. The logging began in
Michigan and soon extended to Min-
nesota and Wisconsin. Loggers cut
the softwoods first, chiefly white pine,
often hundreds of years old and more
than 100 feet high. Softwood timber
framed homes and ships. Hardwoods
made barrels and furniture.
The heyday of Great Lakes lumber-
ing was 1850 to 1900. During the
1890s, there were 100 sawmills ad-
jacent to the Saginaw River; by ton-
nage shipped, Saginaw was the largest
port on the Great Lakes. Tugboats
pulled enormous floating trains of
trees from Canada to the Saginaw
mills. Around Muskegon Lake, near
Lake Michigan, there were 50 saw-
mills in 1900.
The Great Lakes lumber industry
ran out of trees early in the 20th cen-
tury. The soils of the North Woods
and the Laurentian Shield are general-
ly not conducive to farming. With the
passage of time, forests have now
returned to much of their former
domain in the northern half of the
Great Lakes region, though the trees
are much younger and smaller than
their predecessors. Today, these
woods are harvested for paper. The
paper-making industry, begun in the
1860s, remains important in both the
United States and Canada. In 1982,
the forest industry of Michigan, Min-
nesota, and Wisconsin employed
about 0,000 people with sales of
S15 biluon. An additional 80,000 per-
sons were employed in forest recrea-
tion.
The mining industry grew concur-
rently with the lumber industry and
remains important. In 1845, rich iron
ore was found in the Marquette . .
Range of Michigan's upper peninsula.
Further iron ranges were later dis-
covered near Lake Superior—the
Cuyuna, Mesabi, and Vermillion Ran-
ges in Minnesota, the Menominee
Range in Michigan's upper peninsula,
and the Gogebic Range on the Wis-
consin and Michigan border. In 1855,
completion of the Sault Canal opened
Superior to shipping and permitted
mining of these ranges.
Iron ore from the mineral-rich Lake
Superior watershed subsequently
helped to make the Great Lakes a
center of iron-making, steel-making,
and heavy manufacturing. The Great
Lakes provided an efficient waterway
for ore to be shipped to lakeside
cities, like Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland,
Gary, Sault-Sainte Marie, and Hamil-
ton. Another key ingredient for steel-
making, limestone, was quarried near
the northeast shore of Michigan's
lower peninsula. Coal from Illinois,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania fired in-
dustrial hearths.
Oil became another significant in-
dustry. The world's first oil well was
tapped in the northwestern Pennsyl-
vania town of Titusville in 1859. Oil
was later found north-east of Lake St.
Clair around Petrolia and London,
Ontario. Cleveland, Ohio, already an
industrial bub in part owing to being
the terminus of a canal that linked the
Great Lakes to the Ohio River, be-
came the nation's oil refining center.
In 1863, a 23-year old bookkeeper,
John D. Rockefeller, invested $4000
in a Cleveland oil refinery. By 1880,
his Standard Oil Company refined 95
percent of the nation's oil. Ten years
later, Cleveland had a population of
260,000.
Owing to the easy confluence of iron
ore, limestone, coal, oil, and water
transportation, the Great Lakes
region became an industrial heartland
of both the United States and
Canada. Detroit's population soared
by almost 400 percent between 1890
to 1920 as Ford Motor Company
began mass production of
automobiles. The Ford, Chrysler, and
General Motors corporations were
producing eight million cars and
trucks a year by 1950. Much of their
U. S. production was near the Great
Lakes in cities such as Kenosha and
Milwaukee (Wisconsin); Chicago (Il-
linois); Indianapolis, South Bend, and
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Introduction 5
Fort Wayne (Indiana); Columbus,
Dayton, Akron, and Cleveland
(Ohio); Kalamazoo, Lansing, Flint,
Pontiac, and Dearborn (Michigan);
and Buffalo (New York). Their
Canadian production was also ad-
jacent to the Great Lakes in Oshawa,
Kitchener, Oakville, and Windsor.
Industries associated with the
automobile business, such as tobl'and
die, machining, aluminum, and rub-
ber, were drawn to the area. By the
1920s, Akron, where Benjamin
Goodrich had opened a rubber fac-
tory in 1871, was processing almost
half the world's rubber. Proximity to
the steel industry helped to attract
agricultural equipment and appliance
manufacturers. Proximity to industrial
and agricultural customers helped to
attract chemical manufacturers.
During the 1970s and early 1980s,
foreign competition and rising energy
costs caused red-ink and job losses in
Great Lakes heavy industry, especially
in the United States. By that time,
foreign economies devastated by the
Second World War had developed
into strong competitors to Detroit's
automobile manufacturers. The
demand for fuel efficient cars made
lighter materials, like plastics and
aluminum, desirable alternatives to
steel. During the 1970s, Detroit lost
20 percent of its residents. About one
million manufacturing jobs were
eliminated in the early 1980s in just
five Great Lakes States. Yet heavy in-
dustries, such as mining, steel, and
auto-making, have adjusted, reducing
production to meet demand and in-
vesting in new facilities. Today,
manufacturing remains the largest
single sector in the economy of most
Great Lakes States, although the steel
industry in particular will face increas-
ing competition from higher strength,
lighter weight composite materials.
Mining and manufacturing are
likewise major elements in the
economy of the Province of Ontario.
The Sudbury area produces the
largest quantity of nickel in the world.
Ontario is a major producer of gold,
silver, platinum, uranium, zinc, iron,
copper, salt, and gypsum. The
Province produces nearly 50 percent
of Canada's manufactured goods.
Manufacturing is the largest com-
ponent of Ontario's economy.
Agriculture is another productive
element of the Great Lakes economy.
During the 19th century, cheap land
. with ample top soil, flat terrain
amenable to mechanization, horse-
drawn harvesting machines, and rail-
roads that brought crops to distant
markets combined to achieve extraor-
dinary agricultural productivity in the
American Midwest. After 1914, com-
bustion engines supplanted horses in
powering farm machinery. Since 1950,
farm yields have soared further,
owing to advances in biology,
chemistry, and engineering. Breeding
of plants has provided varieties with
higher yields. Fertilizers, especially
nitrogen, have raised soil productivity,
and pesticides have abated crop losses
to weeds, fungi, and insects. Farm
machines have become vastly more ef-
fective.
As a result of these improvements,
agricultural output within the U. S.
Great Lakes watershed has increased
over the last 40 years, though farm
acreage has actually shrunk by one-
third. Cropland accounts for 18 per-
cent of the lands in the U. S. counties
of the Great Lakes watershed,
predominantly in the south. Major
cropland areas include east-central
Wisconsin, the Saginaw Bay water-
shed, and northwest Ohio. The largest
crop is com (42 percent of farm
acreage), followed by soybeans (24
percent), and small grains, especially
wheat (17 percent). Dairy products,
fruits, vegetables, and tobacco are
other important crops. Wisconsin
ranks first among States in milk out-
put; Michigan leads the nation in
production of blueberries, tart cher-
ries, and navy beans.
Convenient waterways have abetted
the economic successes of the region.
The Erie Canal was completed in
1825, connecting Buffalo to the Hud-
son River at Albany. (Rebuilt, it still
operates today as the New York State
Barge Canal.) About the same time,
Canada constructed the Lachine
Canal to bypass rapids on the St.
Lawrence and the first Wetland Canal
between Ontario and Erie to bypass
Niagara Falls. The 27-mile long Wei-
land has been enlarged a number of
times. Its locks are now 30 feet deep
and 859 feet long.
These dimensions set size limits on
transoceanic vessels that enter the
Great Lakes. There are about 300
"lakers" that ply the Great Lakes.
Long and narrow, they tend to be 650
to 730 feet long with a maximum
width of 75 feet and a cargo capacity
of 20,000 tons. The.most recent lock" '
at Sault-Sainte Marie, completed in
1969, permits larger ships on the
upper lakes. About 25 vessels, up to
1,100 feet in length, with a capacity of
60,000 tons, traverse the lakes west of
Buffalo.
The five parallel locks at Sault-
Sainte Marie, connecting Superior
and Huron, are among the busiest in
the world. In 1990,5,000 vessels carry-
ing 90 million tons of cargo (including
50 million tons of iron ore) passed
through these locks. Many of these
vessels are headed to or from the port
of Duluth/Superior, which ranked
14th in the United States by tonnage
shipped in 1987. Among its products,
Duluth ships low-sulfur coal from the
American west. Thunder Bay, On-
tario is the port of embarkation for
about one-half of Canada's total grain
production.
The St. Lawrence Seaway connects
Lake Ontario to Montreal and
provides the final link in a 2,200 mile
commercial waterway between
Duluth and Montreal. Completed in
1959, the Seaway is 27 feet deep, as
are the shipping channels that cut
through the St. Marys, St. Clair, and
Detroit Rivers, and through shallow
Lake St. Clair. This inland waterway is
navigable by about three-quarters of
the world's saltwater fleet. In 1986,40
million tons of cargo passed through
the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The waters of the Great Lakes con-
fer other economic benefits, as well.
They provide abundant drinking
water to millions. Industries use water
as an ingredient (as in the beer for
which Milwaukee is famous) and as a
coolant for manufacturing processes.
Some rivers are harnessed to generate
electricity; up to one-half of the
natural flow of the Niagara River is
diverted for electrical generation.
Another connecting channel, the St.
Marys River, is also harnessed for
electricity.
Another large element of the Great
Lakes economy is recreation, includ-
ing sight-seeing, fishing, boating,
camping, hiking, and lodging. In 1987,
Michigan had more registered boat
owners than any other State. The
Great Lakes sustain both sport and
commercial fisheries, although recrea-
tional fishing is the more important of
the two today. As the value of recrea-
-------
6 Chapter 1
DRAFT March 1991
tional fishing has increased in com-
parison with commercial fisheries,
some jurisdictions have established
policies that favor sport fishing. The
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
has estimated that five million sport
fisherman on the Great Lakes spent
$2 billion in 1985; during the same
year, the value of the commercial fish
catch was just $41 million. The years
of the largest recorded commercial
fish harvests were 1889 and 1899. By
weight, the commercial yield in recent
years has been about two-thirds of
these peak years, yet the value is
small, since the size and species har-
vested are less desirable. The
economic potential of Great Lakes
fisheries is much higher than their
recent value.
At the onset of the 20th century, the
human population of the Great Lakes
watershed was just over ten million.
According to 1986 census data, the
region has 35 million residents—27.5
million U. S. citizens, 7.5 million
Canadians. The Lake Superior and
Lake Huron basins are sparsely in-
habited. The south and southwestern
shorelines of Lake Michigan, the
Canadian shore of Lake Ontario, and
the U.S. side of Lake Erie are far
more heavily populated. Among the
inhabitants of the Great Lakes region
are Indian Tribes. Five Indian reserva-
tions within the United States touch
upon the shores of the Great Lakes;
fourteen do so on the Canadian side.
Some Ecological
Impacts of
Development
Intense development of the Great
Lakes region has wrought vast chan-
ges to the ecosystem, many per-
manent. Humans have altered
habitat, introduced exotic (non-na-
tive) species, and cast a wide range of
contaminants into the lakes. Some ef-
fects have been dramatic. Through
discharge of raw sewage into the
lakes, cities infected their water sup-
plies and citizens with typhoid and
cholera during the 19th and early 20th
centuries. By the mid-1950s, non-na-
tive sea lampreys (small, parasitic eel-
like fish) decimated lake trout to the
extent that commercial catches in
Lakes Huron and Michigan fell to one
percent of the yield twenty years
before. By the 1960s, the over-enrich-
ment of Lake Erie was infamous;
mats of algae fouled beaches and
water intakes. In 1967, millions of
another exotic fish, alewife, a four to
six-inch long member of the herring
family, washed up on the Lake
Michigan shore, victims of cold
weather and starvation. Overpopula-
. tion related to the decline of alewife
predators like lake trout helped cause
the massive die-off. In 1969, a stretch
of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland
was so laden with oil products, chemi-
cals, and debris that it caught fire.
During the 1970s, researchers began
to note tragic birth defects, probably
caused by persistent toxic chemicals,
in birds like double-crested cor-
morants, bom with grotesquely
crossed beaks.
Yet the Great Lakes ecosystem has
been pervasively changed in other,
less dramatic fashions. The decline of
beavers meant fewer beaver dams.
These had impeded tributaries and
helped to create wetlands. In their ab-
sence, river flows increased, faster
rivers captured and carried more silt,
burying the spawning grounds of fish.
The reaping of forests had profound
ecological consequences. Forests were
cleared, exposing soil to drying by
direct sunlight and to erosion by wind
and water, increasing the silting of
rivers. Loggers floated trees down
tributaries, gouging soil from river
banks to cover gravel bottoms where
fish spawned and fed. Debris from
sawmills heaped upon spawning
grounds and, through decay, depleted
oxygen from the water. Forests had
provided shade along tributaries. In
their absence, the temperature of
streams increased, further modifying
the habitat of fish.
Agriculture also increased soil
erosion. Erosion of soil from tilled
fields is imperceptible, yet inexorable.
It has been estimated that by 1910 be-
tween a quarter to a half of the deep
original topsoil of the great Missouri
and Mississippi river drainage basins
had been washed away, largely be-
cause of profligate agricultural hus-
bandry. Since 1950, eroding soil
panicles and rainfall runoff have car-
ried agricultural chemicals—pes-
ticides and fertilizers. The
over-enrichment of Lake Erie in the
1960s was partly the result of in-
creased nutrient use by farmers.
The growth of human population
around the Great Lakes: has imposed .
further ecological change. Roads and
sidewalks, roofs and parking lots dis-
tort natural infiltration of rainwater
into the ground. Rain that would
otherwise seep into the soil is caught
by drainage systems and discharged to
streams. As a result, tributaries be-
come much more variable in their
flow and less hospitable to fish.
The Great Lakes have been vastly al-
tered for shipping and flood control.
River mouths, critical habitat for fish
and wildlife, have especially attracted
development. Hundreds of them have
been dredged and surrounded by
breakwaters. Dredging and the wash
from ship propellers injure organisms
in bottom sediments upon which fish
feed. Canals and ships have intro-
duced non-native species. Unchecked
by natural predators, some of these
have wreaked profound damage to na-
tive species. One canal has notably
diverted pollution from the Great
Lakes. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, completed in 1900, reversed
the flow of the Chicago River, flush-
ing Chicago's wastewater into the Il-
linois River and protecting Lake
Michigan at a price of tapping its
water volume.
Wetlands and sand dunes are other
habitats that humans have profoundly
modified. Wetlands have vital ecologi-
cal functions—acting as buffers
against floods and erosion, and serv-
ing as nursery, resting, and breeding
habitat for fish and wildlife. It is
thought that wetlands once con-
stituted 60% of southwest Ontario
and 30% of Michigan. Perhaps two
thirds of Great Lakes region wetlands
have been drained or filled since
1800, including the huge Black
Swamp of northwest Ohio, almost en-
tirely converted to rich farmland.
Before parks were established to
preserve the remainder, a vast array
of sand dunes at the base of Lake
Michigan, home to a rich diversity of
wildlife, were mined for glass produc-
tion and to fill railway beds. Cheap
lakefront land and a large nearby
labor force in Chicago also made the
dunes attractive to heavy industry.
Standard Oil Company (now Amoco)
established a refinery in Whiting, In-
diana in 1889; Inland Steel Company
opened in East Chicago in 1901; and
Gary took its name from the chair-
man of United States Steel when
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Introduction 7
America's first billion dollar corpora-
tion opened a huge works there in
1906. Bethlehem, National, and LTV
steel companies followed. Today,
northwestern Indiana is an American
Ruhr valley of metal, oil, and
petrochemical facilities. In places,
large amounts
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 9
Chapter 2
Great Lakes Environmental Problems
Introduction
This chapter discusses four broad
problems facing the Great Lakes
ecosystem: unacceptable levels of per-
sistent toxic substances in fish and fish-
eating birds; impaired and lost
habitat, including bottom sediments
and wetlands; damage to native fish
populations from exotic (non-native)
species; and excess nutrients.
Persistent Toxic
Substances
Except in a few nearsbore areas, and
then usually on an intermittent basis,
persistent toxic substances do not
pose a drinking water problem for
humans. Concentrations of con-
taminants in the water column are ex-
tremely low, in pan due to their
dilution in the vastness of the lakes.
Also, many troublesome pollutants do
not remain permanently in the water
column, but are adsorbed into the
food web or bottom sediments. Open
lake concentrations of contaminants
are measured in parts per million or
even parts per trillion. A part per tril-
lion is represented by a teaspoon in
13 billion gallons of water. A human
would have to drink two or three mil-
lion gallons of water to be exposed to
a quantity of contaminants equivalent
to that ingested by eating a single,
good-sized lake trout (1).
Low levels of contaminants in water
concentrate in the tissues of predators
through the phenomena of bioac-
cumulation and biomagnification
through the food web. The base or
start of the food web involves the
utilization of sunlight and mineral
nutrients by microscopic plants—
called phytoplankton—for nourish-
ment. Microscopic animals, known as
zooplankton, feed on such vegetation
and are in turn eaten by fish. Another
source of food for some small fish are
tiny sediment-dwelling insects and
crustaceans. Higher predators, fish
and birds, consume smaller fish. A
simplified view of the Great Lakes
food web is shown by Figure 2-1. One
Contamination of Fish and Wildlife
Trie Great Lakes food web is contaminated by persistent toxic substances,
leading to unacceptably high levels of these in the tissues of certain fish and
wildlife. Levels of some contaminants in organisms are much lower than in
the early 1970s due to use restrictions and major investments In pollution
treatment and abatement, but continue to Justify the issuance of public
health advisories regarding fish consumption. Consumption of some fish
present risks to human health, though the degree of risk Is contingent on
the species and location of fish, the amount consumed, the method of
cleaning and cooking, and the gender and age of the consumer, among
other factors. Fish contamination detracts from the potential value of sport
and commercial fisheries. Contaminants have been associated with
reproductive and other health problems in Great Lakes fish and wildlife,
though with the sharp decline of targeted pollutants many species seem to
be recovering. Problems persist for fish and wildlife in certain locations,
particularly in harbors and rivers with highly contaminated sediments and
for predators high in the food web like lake trout, mink, herring gulls, and
bald eagles.
* The Problems
• Unacceptable levels of persist-
ent toxic substances in Great
Lakes fish and wildlife
* Degraded and lost habitat, in-
cluding poisoned bottom sedi-
ments and lost and threatened
wetlands
• Damage to native fish popula-
tions from exotic species
• Excess nutrients
simplification in this view is that it
does not show the many different
species of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and benthic animals.
Phytoplankton and zooplankton,
continually bathed in contaminants,
and benthic organisms living in con-
taminated sediments, adsorb and
bioaccumulate small quantities of per-
sistent toxic substances. As higher or-
ganisms in the food web graze on
large quantities of plants and other or-
ganisms, they accumulate higher
quantities of contaminants. The in-
creasing concentration of con-
taminants in higher levels of the food
web is known as biomagnification.
Fish and birds living in or around
Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario
tend to have the highest contaminant
levels in the Great Lakes area,
markedly above those of the other
three lakes. The relatively low levels in
Lake Erie biota are a bit surprising,
since that lake has a high surrounding
population and is known to receive
high loadings of toxic substances from
the Detroit River. Scientists offer two
possible explanations; Erie's relatively
high sedimentation may adsorb and
remove toxic substances from the
water column, making them less avail-
able to the food web, and/or; Erie's
-------
10 Chapter 2
DRAFT March 1991
Figure 2-1. The Food Web.
Source: Colborn et al., 1990.
abundance of phytoplankton may
result in a lower contaminant con-
centration at the bottom of the food
web than in Lakes Michigan and On-
tario, resulting in lower concentra-
tions higher up the web.
There have been striking declines in
levels of some targeted substances
over the last two decades. Figures 2-2
and 2-3 show declines in two substan-
ces, PCBs and the pesticide DDT, in
Lake Michigan herring gulls and
bloater chubs.
Despite these marked declines,
levels of contaminants remain high.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
monitors contaminants in freshwater
fish across the United States. As
shown in Figure 2-4, the Service
reports contaminant levels in Great
Lakes fish as among the highest in the
nation. State public health authorities
issue fish consumption advisories for
some species in each lake and in
various rivers and bays. These tend to
be based on risks from PCBs, mer-
cury, and the pesticide chlordane. A
summary of advisories issued for 1990
is presented in Table 2-1.
EPA has no formal role in setting
sport fish consumption advisories.
However, the Agency shares respon-
sibilities with States, under the Clean
Water Act, to protect the quality of
surface waters through establishment
of State Water Quality Standards and
the regulation of water dischargers
under the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES).
State standards are sometimes
governed by the risks posed by human
consumption of fish that bear bioac-
cumulative pollutants. In September
1989, EPA's Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards released a
guidance manual on "Assessing
Human Health Risks from Chemical-
ly Contaminated Fish and Shellfish."
This document provides the Agency's
recommended procedures for assess-
ing risks related to the consumption
offish.
Effects on Wildlife
Over the last few decades, re-
searchers have observed population
declines and health problems among
many Great Lakes fish and wildlife
species that have seemed to be as-
sociated with exposure to various per-
sistent toxic substances. Effects have
usually been most pronounced at the
top of the food web and across
generations, as expressed in birth
defects. With the reduction of many
targeted pollutants in the food web,
the populations of species generally
seem to be improving. The bald eagle,
a top predator, began to decline in
population across the nation during
the 1940s. Since EPA banned and
restricted the persistent pesticides
DDT and dieldrin in the 1970s, im-
proved bald eagle reproductive suc-
cess has led to a recovery in the
national population. However, bald
eagles have not recovered so vigorous-
ly along the shores of the Great Lakes
(9). Researchers have noted that
eagles do not reproduce as successful-
Lake Ontario Food
Web
Biomagnification
Persistent toxic substan-
ces concentrate up the
food web. Top predators,
like herring gulls and lake
trout, can accumulate PCB
levels that are, respective-
ly, 51,000 and 5.600 times
greater than those found in
plankton. Within Lake On-
tario, the average con-
centration of total PCBs is
almost three million times
greater than the average
open-lake water con-
centration.
HwrlngguHcgg*
Lake trout
Srrwlt
Seulpln
Seue
Shrimp
PwnHon
Concentration* (ug/g wM weighty
Source: Environment Canada, 1990 (2).
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 11
ly along the lakes as they do further in-
land. Great Lakes fish appear to pro-
vide too toxic a diet for bald eagles to
raise viable young.
During the 1970s, herring gulls
around the Great Lakes were also
found to have reproductive problems
(13). Changss'in behavior were a con-
tributing factor—herring gulls
neglected their nests, leading to low
hatching success. Populations have in-
creased coincident with the decline of
food web contamination with PCBs
and pesticides.
Also during the 1970s, scientists ob-
served deformities in various bird
species, such as double crested cor-
morants, common terns, Caspian
terns, ring-billed terns, and herring
gulls (14). Birds were found with
crossed bills, jaw defects, malformed
feet and joints. Although the in-
cidence of these deformities have
declined in conjunction with con-
taminant levels, such problems
remain in relatively contaminated
areas. Mink have proved extremely
sensitive to a diet of Great Lakes fish.
In the mid 1960s, mink breeders
found that their animals were ex-
periencing high mortality rates and al-
most complete reproductive failure.
The ranch animals were being fed
coho salmon from Lake Michigan
tributaries. Laboratory toxicology ex-
periments found that mink are highly
susceptible to such contaminants as
PCBs and dioxins. As with bald
eagles, it is thought that wild mink
populations are higher inland than
along the shores of the Great Lakes.
Great Lakes contaminants may also
have contributed to a sharp decline in
the population of beluga whales in the
St. Lawrence estuary. The whales are
burdened by many contaminants, in-
cluding mirex, a persistent toxic sub-
stance known to be present in Lake
Ontario. Though beluga do not enter
the Great Lakes, they eat Atlantic
eels that migrate from Lake Ontario
and that are suspected to contain
mirex.
Another suspected impact of persist-
ent toxic substances on fish has been
noted in bottom-dwelling or -feeding
fish such as bullheads and suckers.
These fish have been found to suffer
a high incidence of dermal and liver
tumors at a number of Great Lakes
locations (16). The causes of these
tumors are difficult to determine be-
. . Why monitor gull eggs?
Fish-eating birds like the herring gull are near the top of the food web. Only
top predators such as the bald eagle, which eats gulls and other foods,
builds up higher concentrations of contaminants. Fish are about 3/4 of the
diet of herring gulls but they also ingest mammals, insects, birds and bird
eggs, amphibians, earthworms and crayfish as well as garbage. Herring
gulls remain on the Great Lakes year around rather than migrating far away.
Thus, they are good indicators of localized levels of contamination. Herring
gulls nest in established colonies, making it easy to collect egg samples
regularly from the same colony. By collecting eggs, the birds do not have
to be killed to be sampled. The gulls usually lay more eggs to replace ones
lost early in the nesting season, so this kind of sampling doesn't threaten
their populations (Environment Canada, 1990).
Figure 2-2. Contaminants in Herring Gull Eggs on Sister Island
(Green Bay) Wisconsin. (Concentrations are in ppb.)
Source: Environment Canada, 1990 (5)
8970717273747578788082848888
Figure 2-3. Annual Trends in Pesticides and PCBs in
Lake Michigan Bloater Chubs. (Analyses of whole
fish —concentrations are in /ug/g wet weight)
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center-Great
Lakes (6).
-------
12 Chapter 2
DRAFT March 1991
Human Health Effects
A person who eats Great Lakes fish ingests potentially carcinogenic substances. As to whether eating these fish is
"safe0 is a matter of personal judgment for an informed individual.
Fish of different species, locations, and size carry different burdens of potential carcinogens; those that bear the
largest burdens tend to be large, bottom-dwelling, high in the food web, and high In fat content. Modern risk
assessment methods generally assume the probability of cancer is proportional to dose, so that there Is zero
probability at zero dosage. Because, risk is based On cumulative exposure, high consumption of "low risk" fish can
actually pose greater risk than less consumption of "high risk* fish.
There is value in informing the public about which fish species tend to carry the highest burdens of contaminants.
This is the approach usually followed by State health authorities in issuing fish advisories. Another valuable way to
communicate risk is to compare the risks of sport fish consumption to other risks. One study, using fish from 1981,
concluded that breathing urban air and drinking polluted urban groundwater pose cancer risks as high as those for
consuming Lake Michigan sport fish (3). Another study has contrasted consumption of four species of Lake Michigan
fish, based on samples collected in 1984 and analyzed for four potential carcinogens, with cancer risks from ingestion
of some other foods and exposure to natural radiationand urban air pollution, and with the chance of death by various
accidents and occupations (4). These comparisons are provided at Table 2-2.
Some clarifications should be made about estimates of risk. First, risk assessments have substantial uncertainty in
that they are usually based on estimates of carcinogenic potency obtained by tests on animals; actual human effects
are likely to be different. Second, assessments produce a range of risk; the practice of health authorities is to use the
high end of the range, Third, some methods of cleaning and cooking fish can lowerthe dose of potential carcinogens.
Fourth, not all potential carcinogens may have been detected, which would cause an assessment to underestimate
actual risk. And fifth, risk assessments tend to be based on estimates of cancer incidence and do not consider other
harmful health effects.
This last point is important, since some research over the last decade indicates non-cancer, transgenerational effects
associated with contaminants found in Great Lakes fish tissues. A series of studies of human health effects from
eating Lake Michigan fish containing RGBs began in 1980 (7). The studies have focused on children whose mothers
had regularly eaten Lake Michigan fish, examining them at birth, seven months, and four years of age. The studies
concluded that infants whose mothers consumed Lake Michigan fish showed lower birth weights, smaller head
circumference, and slower responsiveness than Infants whose mothers had not consumed such fish. Young children
whose mothers ate Lake Michigan fish had poorer short-term memory. The deficits noted were small in magnitude,
and were not evident outside the testing situation. There was no indication that the long-term memory of young
children was affected. Since short-term memory is important in the acquisition of reading and arithmetic skills,
however, the deficits may augur later impacts on academic performance. One implication of these studies is that a
woman's lifetime exposure to PCBs may adversely affect her children. Eliminating exposure during pregnancy or
lactation may not prevent adverse affects.
Because of the Lake Michigan study and other research, public health authorities consider children and women who
anticipate bearing children to be the most vulnerable consumers of Great Lakes fish. Fish advisories recommend
that these populations avoid eating the fish species cited In Table 2-1.
cause of the broad suite of substances
to which these fish are exposed. How-
ever, the incidence of tumors is strong-
ly correlated with polluted conditions,
especially with the pres* ce of
potyaromatic hydrocar: a (PAH)
contamination in bottom sediments
(17). Several PAH compounds are
known or suspected carcinogens. Al-
though little is known about the sig-
nificance of tumors on either the
health of fish or on the health of
humans who might eat these fish,
visible abnormalities reduce the com-
mercial and recreational value of fish.
While scientists have noted associa-
tions between contaminants and im-
paired fish and wildlife health, they
have thus far only established one
cause-and-effect relationship. This is
between DDE (a decay product of
DDT) and eggshell thinning in some
bird species. DDE accumulated in
female birds is responsible for inhibit-
ing enzymes that are responsible for
incorporating calcium carbonate into
eggshells. DDE has made shells of
double-crested cormorants and black-
crowned night heron too fragile for in-
cubation.
Substances
EPA has established water quality
criteria for about 130 substances that
are known or suspected to be harmful
to humans, fish, or wildlife. Criteria
numerically define maximum allow-
able concentrations of a contaminant
in water and serve as a basis for the
development of enforceable State
Water Quality Standards.
EPA and States have identified a set
of pollutants deemed especially in-
jurious to the Great Lakes ecosystem
and present at unacceptable levels. A
summary of priority pollutants,
reviewing their effects, sources, and
methods of prevention, is provided in
Table 2-3. All are thought to biomag-
nify up the food web. Several are the
most toxic members of groups of re-
lated chemicals.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 13
Table 2-1. Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories.
Location
(State.)
Lake Superior
Michigan _ ,
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Lake Michigan
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Lake Huron
Michigan
Lake Erie
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Lake Ontario
New York
Lake St. Clalr
Michigan
Saginaw Bay
Michigan
Detroit River
Michigan
St. Mary'e River
Michigan
Green Bay
Michigan
Wisconsin
Niagara River
New York
Pollutant of Concern
(State)
RGBs (Ml)
PCBsfMI, IUWI)
chlordanepq
PCBsfMI)
PCBs (MI,NY,OH, and PA)
chlordane (PA)
PCBs, mlrex, and dtoxins (NY)
PCBs, and mercury (Ml)
PCBt(MI)
PCBsanddtoxinfMI)
mercury (Ml)
PCBs (Ml)
Restriction*
Recommended*
UK* Trout 20'-30'
Lake Trout 20--23' . ,
Coho Salmon over 26*
Chinook Salmon 21X321
Brown Trout over 23*
Brown Trout up to 2V
Lain Trout
Rainbow Trout
Carp, While Perch, smaller Coho Sal-
mon, Rainbow Trout, and Brown Trout
Walleye over 18*. WhHe Bass over
13', Smallmouth Bass over 18', WhHe
Perch over 161, Carp over 22*, Rock
Bass over 8', Largemouth Bass over
14', Bluegill over 8', Freshwater Drum
over 14', Carpsuckerover 18', Brown
Bullhead over 14', Norther Pine over
221
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Freshwater Drum over 14*
Walleye over 19*
SplakeuptolB*
DO NOT EAT
Lake Trout over 30*
Lake Trout over 23*
Chinook Salmon over 32*
Brown Trout over 22"
Carp (any size)
Catfish (any size)
Brown Trout over 21 '
Carp (any size)
Catfish (any size)
American eel, Catfish, Lake Trout,
Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon over
21 ', Rainbow Trout over 25", Brown
Trout over 20'
MusMe (any size)
Sturgeon (any size)
Catfish (any size)
Carp (any size)
Catfish (any size)
Carp (any size)
Rainbow Trout over 22*. Chinook over
25', Brown Trout over 12*. Splake
over 16', Northern Pike over 28', Wall-
eye over 2CT, White Bass, Carp
It is recommended that no fish taken
between Hyde Park Lake Dam and
the nver mouth be consumed
* Nursing mother, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, female children of any age, and male children
age 15 or under should not eat these fish. All other persons should limit their consumption to one meal per week and follow
preparation and cooking recommendations.
Preparation and cooking recommendations: Sport fish can be prepared and cooked in ways which will reduce con-
taminants in the edible portion. These techniques include removal of the skin and fatty tissue associated with the belly lateral
line and dorsal area of large fish and cooking baking, broiling on a rack, or barbecuing so that fatty oil can drip away from
the finished meal.
Sources
Persistent toxic substances reach the
Great Lakes from a broad range of
human activities. Some sources are
readily visible such as discharges from
sewage systems and industry, and
spills from ships and shore. Other
sources are much less obvious:
transport and deposition of con-
taminants through the atmosphere,
movement of contaminants through
groundwater, and urban and agricul-
tural runoff. Even substances that are
-------
14 Chapter 2
DRAFT March 1991
Table 2-2. Health Risks of Fish Consumption vs. Other Risks
Source: Clark, et al., 1987 (11).
Avoidable Risks
1/4 Ib. mixed Lake Michigan Fish, per
year
1/4 Ib. mixed Lake Michigan fish, per
week
2 oz. peanut butter, per week
1/4 Ib. charcoal broiled steak, per week
1/2 gal. whole milk, per week
Unavoidable Risks
Natural background radiation
Air pollution (PAHs, average U.S. cities)
Lifetime Chance of death from various
causes
Motor Vehicle Accidents
All Home Accidents
Falls
Fire
Electrocution
Cancer Risk
1.1x10-4 (11 in 100,000)
5.8x10-3 (58 in 10,000)
8.0x1 0-5 (80 in 1,000,000)
1.1x10-5 (11 in 1,000,000)
1.0x10-4 (10 in 100,000)
Cancer Risk
1.4x1 0-3 (14 in 10,000)
1.0x1 0-3 (10 in 10,000)
Mortality Risk
1.7x1 0-2 (17 in 1,000)
8.8x1 0-3 (88 in 10,000)
4.3x1 0-3 (43 in 10,000)
2.0x10-3 (20 in 10,000)
3.7x1 0-4 (37 in 100,000)
The increased lifetime cancer risk
to a person who consumes just four
ounces of Great Lakes sport fish
per year over their lifetime is about
the same increase as eating four
ounces of charcoal broiled steak
every week. This means that the
increased cancer risk from con-
suming Great Lakes fish is 100 to
500 times that of consuming the
same quantity of charcoal broiled
steak.
Great Lakes Fish Contamination in National
Perspective
In its National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service regularly samples native freshwater fish at 112 sites in the U.S.,
including Alaska and Hawaii. Twelve of the sites are in the Great Lakes. The
graph below, using the latest available data (1984), shows that Great Lakes
fish are often among the most contaminated in the nation for various
parameters. As the graph indicates, for instance, one half of the sites where
fish are most contaminated for PCBs lie within the Great Lakes.
Number of Great Lakes Sites in Top Ten
Figure 2-4. Great Lakes Sites with High Contaminant Levels
Source: Schmitt et al., 1990, Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990 (12).
no longer produced continue to reach
the Great Lakes, albeit in smaller
quantities, by incineration, runoff, or
volatilization of terrestrial contamina-
tion.
Many older urban areas have com-
bined sewer and stormwater systems
that deliver rain runoff as well as in-
dustrial and household effluents to
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. During rainstorms, water
flow often exceeds the capacity of the
drainage system, leading to releases of
untreated wastewater to the Great
Lakes system. Figure 2-5 shows the
locations of 75 Canadian and U.S.
overflow points that discharge directly
to the Detroit River. Another 170 out-
falls annually release an estimated 7.8
billion gallons of untreated water to
the Rouge River, which in turn
empties into the Detroit River. Over-
flows from Detroit and Windsor
sewer systems represent a major con-
tinuing source of pollution to the
Great Lakes.
Accidental spills can be a significant,
temporary source of toxic substances.
The U.S. Coast Guard recorded
5,003 spills of oil or toxic substances
into the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes over a near ten year period
(January 1980 through September
1989). About 80 percent of these
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 15
Table 2-3. Characteristics of Key Great Lakes Pollutants.
Pollutant
Nutrient*
Phosphorous
Toxic Pollutant*
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs)
DDT and metabolites
Dieldrin
Toxaphene
2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodiben-
zofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Mirex
Mercury
Alkylated lead
Benzo(a)pyrene (BAP)
Hexachlorobenzene
Effect*
eutrophieation, oxygen depletion,
algal blooms
btoaccumulativa in fish, wildlife
and human*. Suspected car-
cinogens.
Btoaccumulattve in fish, wildlife,
and humans. Reproductive Impair-
ments in wildlife. Suspected
human carcinogen.
Same as DOT
Bnaccumulative
Bioaccumulatlve in fish, wildlife,
and humans. Suspected human
carcinogen
Bioaccumulative In fish, wildlife,
and humans. Suspected human
carcinogen.
Bioaccumulatlve In fish and
wildlife. Can cause and brain
damage and birth defects.
Bioaccumulative in Ash, wildlife,
and humans, can cause anemia,
fatigue, and Irreversible brain
damage In humans; especially in
children.
bioaccumulatlve
Bioaccumulative In fish, wildlife,
and humans. May produce sMn
rash, nausea, and headache.
Suspected carcinogen.
Source*
Agricultural application.
Combined Sewer Overflows,
Publicly-owned treatment worKs
Historical use /accumulations In soil and
sediment,
Accidental releases from transformers and
capacitors, Volatilization from landfills
Historical use/accumulations in soil and
sediment,Continued use in upwind areas
Historical use/accumulations in soil and
sediment
Historical use/accumulations In soil and
sediment
Landfill leachate, Manufacturing
byproduct of chlorophenols,Bleached
Kraft paper mill process,
By-product of daethal production,
Municipal waste incinerators,
Historical use/accumulations in soil and
sediment
By-product of PCB formation,
Municipal waste Incinerators,
Emissions from certain manufacturing
processes (e.g., pulp and paper
Historical manufacture and use/accumula-
tions in soil and sediment
Historical use of chkx-alkali,
Accumulations in sediment near old In-
dustrial discharges,
Coal combustion emissions
Many types of combustion sources,
Coke/lron/steel production
Historical use/accumulations In sediment,
By-product of chlor-alkali and chlorinated
aliphattcs manufacture, By-product of pes-
ticides In current use (e.g., pen-
tachkxonKrobenzene)
Prevention
Reduction In Fertilizer Application Rates,Materials
Substitution In detergents where bans have not yet
already been Implemented
Banned except by special permit since 1979
Research and development needed to identify sub-
stitutes
Current use is banned in the U.S., Product substitu-
tion In areas outside U.S. where DOT Is still used
Current use is restricted
Current use is restricted
Process changes to eliminate dloxln production
(e.g., substitute H2O2 for CI2, control OS to CI2
ratios in bleaching to reduce PCDDs and PCDf »)
Research and development needed to Identify sub-
stitutes
Current use is restricted
Process modification to use non-mercury catalysts
and raw materials
Product substitution (unleaded gasoline)
Improved BAP recovery during coking operations
Product substitution
spills came from land facilities such as
oil storage tanks and pipelines; the
balance came from ships. Most were
oil spills, and small in volume. How-
ever, there have been oil spills up to a
million gallons and toxic substance
spills up to two hundred thousand gal-
lons.
Transport of contaminants by
groundwater is known to be a prob-
lem in some places, notably along the
Niagara River, owing to the coin-
cidence of certain geological features
and leaking adjacent landfills. Rain
runoff from farms and urban areas
brings with it pesticides and surface
contamination.
Since the late 1970s, scientists have
been aware of the potential of the at-
mosphere as a pollution pathway.
Studies on Isle Royale, a relatively iso-
lated island in Lake Superior,
revealed levels of PCBs, DDT, and
toxaphene in the waters of its lakes.
Researchers theorized that such pollu-
tion could only have been the result of
deposition from the air. Since
toxaphene was principally used to con-
trol insects on cotton crops in the
south, and not generally used near the
Great Lakes, there was an implication
that some of the contaminants had
been transported a great distance
through the atmosphere. Other
recent research has concluded that air
transport and deposition is the
primary pathway for mercury, given
off by coal-burning power plants and
garbage incinerators, to reach remote
lakes in northern Minnesota.
Degraded Habitat
Wetlands
Wetlands are a vital component of
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Wetlands
constitute the link between the
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. As
a result, they are biologically rich, serv-
ing as habitat for a diversity of aquatic
and terrestrial species, as well as some
species that are unique to wetlands.
Coastal wetlands serve important
functions including filtering wastes;
-------
16 Chapter!
DRAFT March 1991
Hatchery Fish
. L
Lake Superior Fish
II
Lake Huron Fish
Lake Michigan Fish
Non-Polar Fraction
Polar Fraction
GC/MS Scans of
Hatchery vs. Great
Lakes Lake Trout
Great Lakes fish and wildlife are
exposed to a wide variety of sub-
stances. This is clearly illustrated
in this figure which contrasts
GC/MS . (gas chromatog-
raphy/mass spectroscopy) read-
ings of chemical compounds
detected in the tissues of
hatchery fish with fish from
several of the lakes. Fish raised in
the protected environment of a
hatchery registered only eight
compounds in their tissues. A
total of 476 different compounds
were found in the tissues of fish
taken from the lakes. More than
half of these compounds are
believed to be man-made.
Another interesting finding from
these analyses is that many com-
pounds are unique to the fish of
one lake, suggesting that many
contaminants are local problems
and are not spread through the
entire system either through the
atmosphere or by water currents.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1991.
Figure 2-5. Combined Sewer Overflows along the Detroit River.
Source: UGLCC, 1988
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 17
The Toxics Releases Inventory (TRI)
Some evidence of the magnitude of contaminants used, released, and transferred by industry is reported to the public
by large U.S. manufacturing firms. Since 1987, these firms have reported annual releases or transfers of over 300
toxic substances under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. EPA compiles this information
into a database called the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). As shown In Figure 2-6, during 1988, firms In the counties
of the Great Lakes watershed reported that they released or transferred over 1 million pounds of toxic substances.
Relatively little of this was directly released to surface water, though more indirectly reaches the Great Lakes by, for
instance, atmospheric deposition. Many of these substances do not bio magnify jn the food web. The distribution
of releases and transfers is shown in Figure 2-7. Figure 2-8 shows releases and transfers by Industrial groups.
The TRI does not directly indicate the amounts of toxicants to which humans or the environment are exposed, nor
does it directly measure the risks that these substances pose to either. TRI data does not necessarily indicate
regulatory violations, in part because manufacturers report transfers off site to authorized disposal facilities. Not all
toxic substances are included under TRt, nor are all sources of their release to the environment; the TRI does not, for
example, include releases from small manufacturing firms and from non-manufacturing firms.
serving as nursery, resting, feeding
and breeding locations for birds, fish
and mammals; and acting as buffers
against floods and erosion. Natural
fluctuations in Great Lakes water
levels help to maintain and rejuvenate
coastal marshes by keeping plant life
at an early successional stage and by
releasing nutrients from sediments
and decaying vegetation (20).
Wetlands are essential to a number
of fish species. They provide protec-
tion from waves and predators and
offer water temperatures warmer
than that in nearshore lake waters.
Their high biological productivity
provides an abundant food supply
(21).
Wetlands are used as habitat by
waterfowl for nesting, roosts and shel-
ter. Submerged plants support a
diverse ecology including bacteria,
phytoplankton, zooplankton. Larval
and juvenile fish may be eaten by
waterfowl. Geese graze on the upper
parts of wetlands, while both emer-
gent and submergent plants are con-
sumed by ducks (23).
What is a wetland?
A wetland is a marsh, swamp,
bog or fen, an area where the
water table is above the land sur-
face for at least a part of the year,
although most vegetation rises
above the surface of the water.
Due primarily to human activities,
much of the wetlands of the Great
Lakes watershed have been lost. Be-
tween 1800 and 1982, more than 60
percent of the wetlands in southern
Ontario were lost. In southwestern
Ontario, more than 90 percent have
been converted to other uses (24).
Similar losses occurred in the U.S.
portion of the basin. According to an
inventory compiled by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in the mid-1970s
(25), Minnesota had the most remain-
ing Great Lakes wetlands (IS to 25
percent of its land area). Michigan
and Wisconsin had between 5 and 15
percent wetlands. The other Great
Lakes States had less than 5 percent
wetlands. The vast (1,500 square
mile) Black Swamp of northwest Ohio
(shown in Figure 2-9) was almost en-
tirely converted to farmland by the
1920s (26).
Contaminated Bottom
Sediments
The threat posed by contaminated
sediments first came to light when it
was discovered that the concentra-
tions of chlorinated organics (like
DDT and PCB) in fish throughout
the Great Lakes did not decrease as
rapidly as expected when these chemi-
cals were banned. Scientists soon dis-
covered that contaminated bottom
sediments were the likely culprit.
More recently, bottom-dwelling fish
from the Buffalo River in New York
and the Black River in Ohio have
been found with grotesque tumors,
providing graphic evidence of environ-
mental insult. Again, contaminated
bottom sediments were implicated.
This kind of evidence showed that
contaminated sediments could, on
their own, present a serious threat to
the environment even when point
sources were already under control
and water quality criteria were not
being exceeded. It is now widely ac-
cepted that contamination of sedi-
ments by a variety of pollutants poses
a substantial environmental threat.
When the IJC compiled information
on the 42 Great Lakes Areas of Con-
cern, it found that 41 of the 42 (98
percent) had contaminated sediment
problems. All 26 of the Areas of Con-
cern that are wholly or partly within
the United States have contaminated
sediment problems.
Sediment contamination differs
from water contamination in two im-
portant ways.
• Contaminated sediments often
respond much more slowly to
cleanup efforts than does overly-
ing water. Contaminants lodged
in bottom sediments can persist
for decades.
• Much more so than for con-
taminants in water, differences in
the physical and chemical proper-
ties of sediments have
pronounced effects on the de-
gree of hazard posed by a con-
taminated sediment. This makes
it much more difficult to
-------
18 Chapter 2
DRAFT March 1991
To be Replaced with Correct Figure.
Figure 2-6. Releases of Toxic Substances in Great Lakes
Counties.
Source: TRI, 1988
Figure 2-7. Routes of Releases of Toxic Substances in the
Great Lakes.
Source: TRI, 1988
PRIMARY METALS
TON&ftiffitt
"
IND.COMM MACHINERY
MISC MANU
LEATHER
URNITURE
SOURCE: TRI, 1988
O 100 200 300 400 600 BOO 700
Million* ol Pound«/Ye«r
Figure 2-8. Industrial Releases of Toxic Substances in the
Great Lakes.
Source: TRI, 1988
Water
Injection
WWTP
Fugitive Air
Stack Mr
Land
Other Off-Site
\
2=j
2=|
i=|
|
i ,
|
»
Million* of Pound* per Year
— Determine whether a sedi-
• • ment is "contaminated,"
— derive sediment criteria, and
- predict the effects of
remedial actions.
Contaminated sediments pose a
variety of problems for the Great
Lakes ecosystem, including physical,
chemical, biological, human health,
and economic impacts.
Even uncontaminated sediments
can have adverse impacts on benthic
organisms, either by smothering them
or simply being of the wrong particle
size to suit their habitat needs. Par-
ticle size of sediments also affects the
suitability of the bottom for spawning
by fish. Resuspended bottom sedi-
ments can cause a number of impacts
to water column organisms. Because
impacts on organisms at any trophic
level affect those further up the food
web, these impacts are felt
throughout the ecosystem.
Chemical contamination of the sedi-
ments can be toxic to benthic or-
ganisms, either killing them or
impairing their normal functioning.
The chemicals causing these impacts
are often pesticides, organic com-
pounds, or heavy metals. However,
more mundane problems such as am-
monia tenacity and dissolved oxygen
depletion can be just as lethal.
Even if organisms are not killed out-
right, their ability to function in a heal-
thy way can be impaired. Sublethal
effects include mutagenic effects such
as the tumors found in bottom fish in
the Black River, Ohio and the Buffalo
River, New York. Other possible im-
pacts include reproductive impair-
ments, reductions in growth rate,
increased susceptibility to disease or
predation, and impairment of feeding
ability. Genetic alterations may lead
to cellular level alterations that are
passed on to offspring (mutagenicity)
or create developmental abnor-
malities (teratogenicity).
Effects which are attributable to
sediment contaminants (27) have
been found in benthic invertebrates,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic
community structure, fish, and mam-
mals.
Contaminated sediments increase
the costs of navigational dredging, be-
cause they require special precautions
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 19
Atmospheric Deposition of Contaminants
The upper bar chart shows the estimated relative importance (as a percent-
age) of atmospheric deposition, tributary inflow, and direct municipal and
industrial discharges. The lower graph shows the estimated total annual
loadings of RGBs to each of the lakes (in kg of PCBs) from each of these
sources. Note that estimates of direct municipal and industrial loadings were
only available for Lakes Superior and Huron. Atmospheric deposition is most
significant in Lake Superior (90%) and decreases steadily in importance as
one proceeds downstream in the system. This is due, in part, to differences
in the relative surface areas of the lakes, which is reflected in decreases in the
absolute loadings (lower graph). The other cause is that the tributary inputs,
which include the inflows from the upstream lakes, increase steadily
downstream.
100
superior Huron MI
iicnigan
eneununo
3.0.4
Q Atmospheric
9 Tributaries
HI Direct Municipa
EH Direct Industrial
0.0
Sup«nor Huron
Estimated Loadings of PCBs to the Great Lakes.
Source: Strachan and Eisenreich, 1988 (19).
in dredging and disposal. In a number
of instances (Indiana Harborrlnr
diana; Ashtabula River, Ohio;
Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin;
Menominee River, Michigan), naviga-
tional dredging has been delayed for
many years because of concerns over
disposal of dredged sediments.
Reduced dredging increases transpor-
tation costs because industries must
find alternative transportation
methods or reduce the loading of
ships and barges to raise their drafts.
Exotic Species
Since 1800, human activity has been
responsible for the introduction of
numerous non-native species to the
Great Lakes. Some introductions
have been intentional, such as the
Pacific salmon, but unintentional in-
troductions, such as the sea lamprey,
alewife, zebra mussel, carp, and smelt,
have had profoundly adverse effects
on native species populations.
Exotic species affect native popula-
tions in various ways: through direct
competition for food resources;
through displacement of species from
physical environments; through direct
attack on native populations; and
through alteration of the chemical or
physical environment.
Figure 2-10 indicates that the intro-
duction of exotic species has been ac-
celerating phenomenon (29). Of all
species introduced to the Great Lakes
system since 1810, fully 45 percent of
these have appeared in just the last 30
years. This can most likely be at-
tributed to increases in international
shipping traffic in Great Lakes waters.
Humans have often provided the
means for non-native organisms to
find their way into the Great Lakes.
In the 19th century, canals bypassed
natural barriers into the lakes. When
the Welland Canal was completed,
species that had been barred form the
upper lakes by Niagara Falls found
their way in for the first time.
Humans have also spanned barriers
Lost, Degraded, and Threatened Wetlands
Wetlands provide vital ecological functions, providing shelter and food for fish and wildlife, yet it has been estimated
that since 1800 about two-thirds of the wetlands that were In the Great Lakes watershed have been lost. Nutrient-rich
wetlands have been converted to productive farmland. Wetlands near the mouths of rivers, particularly valuable for
fish and wildlife, have been converted to harbors and urban centers. The present rate of habitat destruction is much
less than in prior eras, but development continues to pressure remaining wetlands.
-------
20 Chapter 2
DRAFT March 1991
Contaminated Bottom Sediments
Bottom sediments of many harbors and rivers are poisoned by past or continuing loadings of persistent toxic
substances. Many contaminants do not remain in the water column, but attach themselves to particles and fall to the
bottom. Depending on physical conditions, contaminants lodged in bottom sediments are stirred-up by storms and
passing ships or buried by further sedimentation. Contaminated sediments are of ecological concern because: they
are associated with 'dermal and liver tumors in bottom-dwelling or feeding fish; they serve as a reservoir of
contaminants that recycle into the food web through resuspenston or uptake by benthic organisms; and they injure
sensitive bottom-dwelling insects such as mayfly which are a staple of native species such as lake trout In various
locations, sediment contamination has delayed navigational dredging, because of concerns about the means of their
removal and disposal.
The Release of Contaminants from Bottom Sediments
Physical, chemical, and biological factors affect the quantity and rate of transfer of sediment-bound pollutants to the
ovenying water column.
Physical force* involve mechanical movements of the sediments. Human activities such as dredging, boat traffic,
and offshore dumping resuspend bottom sediments. Natural forces like waves and currents caused by storms or
floods can have similar effects. Finally, burrowing and feeding activity by inhabitants of the bottom waters also
resuspend sediments.
Chemical properties of both contaminants and sediments determine how tightly bound the contaminants are to the
sediments. The binding force is strongly affected by sediment particle size. Fine sediments tend to have a greater
binding capacity for contaminants. Scientists have found that the presence of some substances, such as organic
carbon and sulfldes. have a strong affect on the binding of many contaminants.
A typical volume of bottom sediments contains a high percentage of water (20 to 80 percent). This water, called
interstitial water, can contain high concentrations of dissolved forms of the contaminants that are bound to the actual
sediment particles. Contaminants are slowly diffused from the interstitial water Into the overlying water. During a
resuspension event, like a storm, the contaminated interstitial water can be released rapidly to the overlying water,
affecting both the water column and any organisms present Concentration of contaminants in interstitial water have
been shown to be correlated to effects on benthic organisms rather than contaminant concentrations In the whole
sediment. The boundary between sediments and water is Indistinct; one cannot took at either water quality or sediment
quality without considering the effects on the other.
A highly active benthic biological community can disturb sediment through burrowing and feeding activities. In
addition, this reworking of the sediments can retard the burial of historical deposfts by cycling deeper, more
contaminated sediments back up to the surface. Finally, predation of benthic organisms transfers pollutants up the
food web through the process of bioaccumulatfon
LAXt tXIt
Sediment Contamination In the Detroit River as Reflected by Impacts on Benthic Macrolnvertebrate Communities.
Source: UGLCC, 1988.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 21
0 10 20 Ml
0 10 20 30 Km
Location Mtp - Black Swamp
Figure 2-9. Presettlement Extent of the Black Swamp in
Northwestern Ohio.
Source: Colbom et al (1990) from Forsyth (i960). (22)
separating the Great Lakes from
freshwater bodies on other con-
tinents. The ballast water of ocean-
going ships is often carried from its
origin in a distant port This ballast
water can carry organisms on the long
journey.
Some introductions of species have
been intentional. Pacific (chinook and
cono) salmon have been introduced
to the lakes and are regularly stocked
to provide an additional top predator
to balance the food web, as well as to
enhance sport fishing. The salmon
provide alternatives to the now greatly
diminished lake trout populations.
The relative frequency of the routes
by which exotic species enter the
Great Lakes are shown in Figure
2-11. Of 121 species believed to have
entered the lakes since 1810, more
than half were conveyed by ships,
mainly through ballast water (30).
During the 1987 navigation season,
577 ocean-going ships entered the
Great Lakes. In recent years, it is es-
timated that one to two hundred
ocean vessels entered carrying no
cargo. Since large vessels are designed
to operate best with a full load, the
operators of vessels often will often
on ballast water to stabilize the ships
when they travel with little or no
cargo. This ballast water is often
taken on in the port of origin before
the vessel reaches the open sea. As
the water is taken in, organisms in the
water are taken in as well. When one
of these ships reaches the Great
Lakes, it may be necessary to dis-
charge most or all of the ballast water
to accommodate the 26 foot maxi-
mum draft of the navigation channels.
This discharge of water can release ex-
otic species. Organisms that can sur-
vive in ballast tanks are frequently
very adaptable and aggressive; when
they are transferred to an ecosystem
in which they have few natural
predators, they can proliferate and
severely affect the existing balance be-
tween native species.
The problem of transfer of exotic
species through ballast water can be
essentially prevented by requiring
ocean vessels to exchange their ballast
water at sea before entering the Great
Lakes. Open ocean organisms are un-
likely to survive in the Great Lakes.
Inspection of ships' logs and sampling
of ballast water salinity help to ensure
thai the required exchange has been
done.
Since the early 1800s, the estimated
number of fish species has increased
from about 150 to almost 190.
Numerous other non-fish species
have also been introduced. Figure
2-12 shows the different types of or-
ganisms that are known to have been
introduced since 1800 (32).
Sea Lamprey
The sea lamprey was one of the first
exotic species in the Great Lakes to
have pronounced adverse effects on
native populations. Sea lamprey were
present in Lake Ontario by the early
1900s, but were kept from the other
lakes by Niagara Falls. With the open-
ing of the Welland Canal in the 1930s,
they spread rapidly through the other
four lakes. Sea lamprey are parasitic,
eel-like fish that attach themselves to
larger fish and live off of their bodily
fluids, often killing the host fish.
The primary targets of the lampreys
were large, predator fish, especially
lake trout As a result, trout popula-
tions in the upper lakes were reduced
such that commercial catches in the
1950s were only one percent of those
20 years earlier.
Sea lamprey populations began to
come under control when chemical
control of sea lamprey populations
began in 1961. Currently, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service maintains an
extensive program for controlling sea
lamprey which entails the application
of lampricides to tributary waters
where spawn.
Alewife
The alewife is a four- to six-inch
long member of the herring family.
Alewife populations had been present
in the lakes for some time before
1967, when decline of lake trout
populations, and the subsequent ex-
plosion of alewife populations, led to
massive die-offs of the alewife in Lake
Michigan.
Alewife were native to northeastern
U.S. waters and entered the Great
Lakes, presumably through the Erie
Canal, in the mid 1800s.
-------
22 Chapter 2
DRAFT March 1991
Some Notable Exotic Species in the. Great Lakes
Alewife
4* to 6* member of the herring family.. Alewife populations exploded with
decline of the lake trout. A massive alewrte die-off fouled shorelines around
Lake Michigan in 19^7.
Sea Lamprey
Small, parasitic eel-like fish which bypassed Niagara Falls through the
Welland Canal in the 1930s. Attacked large native fish in the upper lakes
such as lake trout, decimating populations
Zebra Mussel
Thumbnail sized clam-like mollusc introduced from European fresh waters.
Forms dense colonies on hard surfaces including water intakes and ships.
May upset ecology through consumption of organisms at base of food
chain.
f?/Ver Ruffe
Small fish from northern Europe. Competes with yellow perch and feeds
on whitefish eggs, reducing population of both.
Bythotrephes
Tiny, pianktonic predator introduced from Eurasia May compete with
smaller fish for food
Zebra Mussels
Zebra mussels are small (up to 2 in-
ches) clam-like organisms which live
attached to hard surfaces in shallow
lake waters. In the early stages of
their life cycle, the mussel larvae are
free-floating, swimming organisms
that are carried with lake currents for
some time before finding a suitable
hard surface to which to attach them-
selves and mature into the more
familiar mussel form. The mobility of
the young mussel larvae accounts for
the rapid spread of the mussels
throughout the lakes. Once attached,
the mussel roots itself to the surface
by means of root-like byssal fibers,
making removal of the organisms a
difficult task.
In June 1988, the first discovery of a
zebra mussel in the Great Lakes sys-
tem was made in Lake St. Clair. Since
then, zebra mussels have been found
in numerous locations, from Duluth
and Milwaukee to the entrance of the
St. Lawrence River. If the trend con-
tinues, it is expected that the species
will occupy most of its suitable living
environments within the lakes over
the next several years.
Potential ecological and economic
zebra mussel impacts on the ecosys-
tem are numerous. The mussels com-
pete with other organisms for living
space and food, and can alter the
physical environment, changing the
conditions necessary for feeding and
reproduction of other species. The
mussels also have economic impacts
— entering the intakes of municipal
water supplies, power plant cooling
systems, and industrial water supplies
and attaching themselves, thereby
slowing or stopping the flow of water.
They also affect shipping and fishing
industries by encrusting vessels and in-
creasing drag or by infiltrating and
clogging ships' cooling systems.
There is concern over the possible
impact of mussels on fish populations.
Mussels feed on phytoplankton.
Canadian researchers have observed
a two-fold increase in water clarity in
the western basin of Lake Erie since
the introduction of zebra mussels to
that area. Phytoplankton are the foun-
dation of the Great Lakes food web;
reductions in phytoplankton could cre-
ate a food shortage for phytoplankton
grazers, ultimately threatening top
predator fish species. Lake Erie wall-
eye populations could be affected
(33).
Zebra mussels also threaten the
preferred spawning sites of fish such
as lake trout and walleye. Both types
of fish prefer shallow, rocky shoal
areas for spawning. This type of en-
vironment is precisely that favored by
zebra mussels for colonization. This
10 15 20 25 30 35
percentage of species
45
Figure 2-10. Timing of the Introduction of Exotic Species into
the Great Lakes.
Source: Mills and Leach, unpublished (31).
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 23
70 /
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Canals Accidental Deliberate
Entry Route
Ships
Figure 2-11. Entry Routes of Exotic Species
Source: Mills and Leach, unpublished data. (33)
direct competition for space may
threaten lake trout restoration (36).
Recreational beaches can be fouled
by the odor of decaying zebra mussels
and bathers on some beaches have
taken to wearing foot protection to
avoid cuts and abrasions from mats of
zebra mussels in shallow waters.
River Ruffe
The river ruffe is a small fish intro-
duced from northern European rivers
and lakes. Within the Great Lakes, a
growing population has been ob-
served in and around Duluth harbor.
The ruffe directly competes with fish
such as yellow perch for resources
and feeds preferentially on the eggs of
whitefish. In Russian lakes infested
with river ruffe, whitefish production
Aquatic Plants
25%
Freshwater Jellyfish 3%
Flatworms 1%
Bryozoans 3%
Disease Pathogens
4%
Oligochaetes
9%
Zooplankton
O A>
Molluscs
8%
Figure 2-12. Types of Exotic Species Introduced since 1800.
Source: Mills and Leach, Unpublished data. (34)
has been observed to decrease by 50
percent (37). This holds clear implica-
tions for whitefish populations and
the associated fishing industries.
Bythotrephes (Spiny
waterfleas)
One of the most recent invaders to
the Great Lakes system is the tiny
planktonic cladoceran, Bythotrephes
cederstroemii or the spiny water flea.
Bythotrephes is a predator, feeding
on organisms at the base of the food
chain. It is believed that it arrived in
the ballast water of a ship, originating
from Eurasian freshwaters (38).
It is not yet understood whether
bythotrephes will have definite effects
on Great Lakes ecology. The concern
over this species arises from its place
as a predator in the food chain and its
unpalatability to some fish.
Bythotrephes feeds on the water flea,
which is an important food source to
young fish and helps to contribute to
water clarity by grazing on smaller
plankton. However, some evidence
has recently shown that ale wife may
consume bythotrephes (39), which
would provide a constraint on its
population growth.
Nutrients
By the late 1960s, various areas of
the Great Lakes were exhibiting
eutrophic conditions, marked by thick
algal blooms, unpleasant odor from
and taste to the water,and depletion
of dissolved oxygen from the water
due to the decay of algae following
their seasonal die-off. These condi-
tions were most pronounced in Lake
Erie which as the warmest and biologi-
cally productive lake was most suscep-
tible to nuisance levels of algae. Lake
Erie was also vulnerable because it
surpasses other lakes in receipt of ef-
fluent form sewage treatment plants
and of sediment from the rich
farmland in its watershed. Both ef-
fluent and sediment brought
nutrients, notably phosphorous, that
altered the chemistry of the lake and,
as a result, its populations of algae.
To a lesser degree, eutrophic condi-
tions were also evident in Lake On-
tario and in shallow, naturally
productive embayments like Saginaw
Bay, Green Bay, and the Bay of
Quinte.
-------
24 Chapter!
DRAFT March 1991
Lake Trout and the Sea Lamprey
One of the most dramatic illustrations of the effects of exotic species was the
decimation of lake trout populations following the passage of sea lamprey
into the upper Great Lakes. Sea lamprey are parasitic boneless fish which
attach themselves to large fish, drawing on the bodily fluids of the host for
nourishment.
t '
The figure below shows the effects on lake trout populations at Stannard Rock
in Lake Superior offshore of Marquette, Michigan. Data on numbers of sea
lamprey wounds per population of lake trout and the relative populations of
lake trout for the years 1959 through 1979 are shown below (Curtis, 1990).
Data are for lake trout 63.5 to 73.4 cm in length.
A lampricide program was launched in 1961 and the resulting growth of lake
trout populations can be seen clearly in the graph along with the rapid drop
in the number of lamprey wounds. Increases in the lake trout population lag
behind lamprey controls as the population takes time to rebound. Populations
of both lake trout and lamprey seem to be stabilizing in the late 1970s. This
stability is artificial. Without continued control of lamprey populations and
stocking to bolster numbers of lake trout, the balance could be expected to
tilt against the lake trout once again.
Lake trout % of trout
abundance (CPE) with wounds
2.0,47
1.8
1.6
T
H 1-4
5"
s 1.0
A
N
D 0.6
8 0.4
0.2
0.0
0.8
Legend:
I Relative abundance of lake
' trout expressed in CPE
(catch per effort)
~~\ Percentage of lake trout
with lea lamprey
wounds
1964
1875 ISJ77 197S
YEAR
Lamprey Effects on Lake Superior Trout.
Source: Curtis, 1990 (40).
Damage to native fish ,•
populations from
exotic species
The introductions, deliberate and
unintended, of exotic (non-na-
tive) species have profoundly
damaged the populations of
desirable native species. The sea
lamprey, a* parasitic, eel-like fish,
entered the upper takes via the
Wetland Canal in the 1930s;
within twenty years it decimated
lake trout populations that to this
day are not self-sustaining,
though a program of lampricide
application has reduced the sea
lamprey population. A major
recent invader, likely via the bal-
last water of an ocean vessel is
the zebra mussel. A prolific
breeder, this motlusc forms
dense colonies on hard surfaces
like water intake pipes, imposing
immediate economic costs.
Ecological effects of the zebra
mussel are as yet unknown, but
potentially catastrophic. The
zebra devours microscopic
plants at the foundation of the
food web and may create a food
shortage for other phytoplankton
eaters, ultimately threatening top
predators like walleye, salmon,
and lake trout
Over the last two decades, the U.S.
and Canada have generally improved
water quality across the Great Lakes
by reducing phosphorous levels, Lake
Erie's improvement, in particular, has
been visible and dramatic. Scientists
determined that lowering phos-
phorous concentrations would have
the greatest limiting effect on algal
productivity. The U.S. and Canada
Excess nutrients
In some shallow waters that receive agricultural runoff of fertilizers and/or in areas having a high surrounding
population, like Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Saglnaw Bay, and Green Bay, water is over-enriched with nutrients,
particularly phosphorus. The situation is much improved sincethe late 1960s, when Lake Erie was infamously clogged
by foul-smelling mats of algae that depleted dissolved oxygen from bottom waters by its seasonal die-off and decay.
Nevertheless, the bottom waters of central Lake Erie continue to suffer periods of oxygen depletion. Phosphorus
concentrations in the water column of Lake Erie are approaching those predicted to achieve desired water quality,
though this success is partly attributable to several recent years of below average rainfall. Conservation tillage and
otherfarming practices that reduce runoff remain important to achieving desired concentrations of phosphorus. Zebra
mussels are expected to reduce algae and, indirectly, phosphorous concentrations, though the full impact of this
exotic species on lake productivity is as yet unknown.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Environmental Problems 25
Lake Superior
target level - 5 ug/l
40,
35
30.
25.
20.
15.
10
5
Lake Huron
6B TO 72 74 76 78 BO as 84 SB
Year
35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
10.
5.
•-target'
68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84
Year
40
35.
30.
25.
20
15.
10
5
0
Lake Michigan
• • -target level - 7 ug/l
78 77 78 76 80 8'1 82 & 84 85 86 87
Year
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
basin t
Tnsrara central tosimargw tmra
70
72 74 78 7880 82 64 86
Year
68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Figure 2-13. Phosphorus Concentrations in the Great Lakes.
Source: (42)
passed laws limiting phosphorous con-
tent in household detergents and con-
structed more effective municipal
sewage treatment plants, cutting their
phosphorous discharges. As a result,
open-lake phosphorous concentra-
tions have declined. As seen in Figure
2-13, phosphorous concentrations in
Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron
continue to be well below levels scien-
tists regard as the highest the allow
desirable biological conditions. Phos-
phorous concentrations in Lakes On-
tario and Erie have markedly declined
so they are close to their targets.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Great Lakes Program 27
Chapter 3
The Great Lakes Program
NOTE TO REVIEWER: The
next draft to this report will in-
sert a short chapter on the Great
Lakes Program, including:
• Model approach to ecosystem
protection
• Risk based priorities
• Pollution Prevention as
preferred means to reduce risk
• Multi-media focus and enforce-
ment
• Public communication
• Prevent, abate, remediate toxic
pollution
• Industrial toxics strategy
• Great Lakes Water Quality In-
itiative
• New stormwater rule
• National Sediment Strategy,
ARCS study
• New Clean Air Act
• Hazardous waste programs
• Natural Resource Damage
• Inventory, protect, restore
habitat and native species
• Reduce nutrients
• Measure success in environmen-
tal terms
• Green Bay study
• New research vessel
• Atmospheric deposition network
for toxicants
• Geographical focus of these
remedial approaches under the
Agreement
27
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 29
Chapter 4
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
i chapter discusses FY 1989
JL and 1990 achievements and FY
1991 plans under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. It focuses
on the three major approaches under
the Agreement for improving Great
Lakes water quality: Remedial Action
Plans, Lakewide Management Plans,
and the Phosphorus Load Reduction
Plan.
Background
The United States and Canada have
a long history of cooperation on issues
pertaining to their joint stewardship
of the Great Lakes. In 1905, the two
nations created an International
Waterways Commission to advise
them about Great Lakes water levels
and flows. Created under the Bound-
ary Waters Treaty of 1909, the Inter-
national Joint Commission (LFC)
superseded this commission and con-
tinues to function today.
The 1IC has six members, three ap-
pointed by each nation. It has limited
authority to approve diversions,
obstructions, and uses of Great Lakes
waters that affect water flow or levels
on the other side of the international
boundary. A major activity of the LJC
has been to advise the two federal
governments about Great Lakes
water issues and to conduct studies at
the request of the governments. Since
1972, the IJC has had the additional
function of reviewing progress of the
two nations under their Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. The IJC
has two advisory boards to assist it.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Board, comprised of members from
federal, state, and provincial environ-
mental agencies, promotes coordina-
tion of programs and the sharing of
environmental information. The
Science Advisory Board consists of
government and academic experts
who advise the IJC concerning scien-
tific findings and needs. Many of the
committees and work groups of these
boards convene at the LFC's Great
Lakes Regional Office in Windsor,
Ontario.
Widespread public concern over the
health of the Great Lakes led the
United States and Canada to sign the
first Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in 1972. The primary
thrust of the first Agreement was to
reduce excessive levels of nutrients in
the Great Lakes that were causing
nuisance levels of aquatic plant life,
particularly undesirable algae. By the
late 1960s, mats of algae floating on
Lake Erie caused changes to the com-
position of aquatic species, clogged
water intakes, created taste and odor
problems with municipal water sup-
plies, and degraded boating and fish-
ing. When algae died following their
seasonal life cycle, their decay caused
the depletion of dissolved oxygen in
bottom waters, creating "dead zones"
that could not support aquatic or-
ganisms. Therefore, the primary in-
tent of the first Agreement was to
control the key nutrient phosphorus
in order to limit excessive plant life.
The Agreement also called for coor-
dinated international environmental
research and surveillance of Great
Lakes conditions.
In 1978, the two nations signed a
new Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. By that time, there had
been clear progress in reducing phos-
phorus loadings to the Great Lakes.
There was also a growing appreciation
of a subtler risk to fish, wildlife, and
human health—persistent toxic sub-
stances. Certain species of fish in
many locations through the Great
Lakes had been found to contain un-
safe levels of persistent toxic substan-
ces, such as PCBs, mercury,
chlordane, and mirex. The second
Agreement added commitments to
prohibit the discharge of toxic substan-
ces in toxic amounts into the Great
Lakes, virtually eliminate all persistent
29
toxic substances, and restore the
chemical, physical, and biological in-
tegrity of the waters of the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem. In 1983, the
two nations added provisions under
which they pledged to develop phos-
phorus reduction plans to reduce ex-
cessive plant life in areas of the Great
Lakes.
In November 1987, the nations
revised the Agreement again. Under
this revision, they committed to
preparing and executing ecosystem
cleanup plans for Areas of Concern
(in essence toxic "hot spots" in certain
harbors or nearshore areas) and for
whole-lake problems associated with
certain critical pollutants. The two
types of cleanup plans were called
Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide
Management Plans, respectively. The
Agreement stated that these plans
would be submitted to the IJC for
review and comment at various
stages. The 1987 revision also added
some management commitments.
The two nations formally agreed to
meet twice a year to coordinate their
respective work plans and to evaluate
progress. They also agreed to report
to the LJC on a biennial basis concern-
ing the progress of certain activities.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement sets forth a joint agenda
for international stewardship of the
Great Lakes ecosystem. To carry out
this agenda, Canada and the United
States each control pollution and
protect natural resources under their
respective national, state, and local
laws. Implementation of the Agree-
ment relies on the full range of
United States environmental
programs. Most United States en-
vironmental legislation is ad-
ministered by the EPA and States in
partnership. In addition, five other
Federal agencies play important roles
in protecting the Great Lakes. These
are the U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the
-------
30 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, and the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
EPA is the lead Federal agency for
carrying out the terms of the Agree-
ment EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office coordinates within
the Agency and with appropriate
Federal, State, Tribal, and internation-
al agencies to implement the Agree-
ment. The Program Office also
administers a system-wide surveil-
lance network to monitor the water
quality of the Great Lakes, with em-
phasis on the monitoring of toxic pol-
lutants. In addition, it serves as liaison
with and provides information to the
IJC and to EPA's Canadian counter-
part, Environment Canada. The Pro-
gram Office conducts studies
pertaining to the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem, demonstrates cleanup tech-
nologies and methods, works with
States to develop cleanup plans, and
develops this comprehensive report
on Federal programs and the long-
term prospects for improving the con-
dition of the Great Lakes.
Areas of Concern
and Remedial
Action Plans
Since 1973, the LTC's Great Lakes
Water Quality Board has identified
geographic problem areas in the
Great Lakes. Over time, the number
of areas has increased or decreased as
more environmental data have be-
come available, environmental condi-
tions have changed, and definitions of
impairments have evolved. In 1976,
the Water Quality Board identified 47
"problem areas." In 1981, the Board
identified 39 Areas of Concern (toxic
hot spots), grouping them into two
classifications according to their
severity of impairment, with 18 Areas
of Concern "significantly degraded"
and 21 others "exhibiting degrada-
tion." Of the 18 significantly degraded
areas, 13 were wholly in the United
States; 4 were shared by the two na-
tions; and 1 was in Canada. In 1985,
the United States added three more
Areas of Concern: the Kalamazoo
River in the Lake Michigan basin and
Torch Lake and Deer Lake/Carp
River in the Lake Superior basin.
Of the 42 current Areas of Concern,
25 are located wholly within the
United States, 12 are completely in
Canada and 5 are shared. Figure 4-1
shows the locations of all 42 Areas of
Concern. Currently, the United States
is studying the designation of addition-
al areas, including Presque Isle, Pen-
nsylvania, and Trail Creek, Indiana.
Although the United States has con-
tinued to designate Areas of Concern
for more than a decade, it should be
noted that there have been great en-
vironmental improvements in these
areas as a result of pollution abate-
ment. Improved water quality in areas
such as the Cuyahoga, Black, and Ash-
tabula Rivers in Ohio and the Buffalo
River in New York have allowed fish
to return, though contaminants
remain in those areas, causing the fish
to develop tumors or other abnor-
malities and to be unsafe for human
consumption.
Environmental
Problems in Areas of
Concern
The United States and Canada
designated Areas of Concern on the
basis of a variety of impairments, in-
cluding:
• Populations
- Degradation of fish and
wildlife populations
- Degradation of benthic (bot-
tom dwelling) macroinver-
tebrate populations
- Degradation of
phytoplankton or
zooplankton
- Undesirable
algae/eutrophication
• Reproduction Problems in Fish
and Wildlife
- Bird or animal deformities
or reproductive problems
- Fish tumors or other de-
formities
• Human Health
- Restrictions on fish, wildlife,
and drinking water con-
sumption due to contamina-
tion • '-...
— Beach closings due to bac-
terial contamination
• Restrictions on Human Use
- Tainting of fish and wildlife
flavor
- Taste and odor in drinking
water
— Restrictions on dredging
and disposal
- Added costs for agriculture
or industry
- Degradation of aesthetics
(water color, clarity, or odor)
• Loss of Fish and Wildlife
Habitat.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of
the impairments in each Area of Con-
cern identified by States and by the
Province of Ontario.
A problem common to all United
States Areas of Concern is the
presence of sediments contaminated
by toxic substances. EPA is conduct-
ing a major study of contaminated
sediments in the Great Lakes and of
methods for addressing them (see
Chapter 5). Even though the problem
of contaminated sediments is com-
mon, solutions are likely to be varied
and site-specific, depending on the na-
ture of the contamination, whether
the source of the contaminant loading
has been stopped, and the degree of
risk posed by the sediments to the
ecosystem.
Other common problems within
Areas of Concern include fish with
readily identifiable tumors or
neoplasms and human health ad-
visories for consumption of fish. As of
1987, there were advisories regarding
consumption of fish within 26 of the
30 United States Areas of Concern.
In addition, 12 United States Areas of
Concern were known to contain fish
with identified health problems, such
as tumors or neoplasms.
Remedial Action Plans
In 1985, the Great Lakes States and
the Province of Ontario agreed to
develop and implement Remedial Ac-
tion Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Con-
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 31
ICOEND
>
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 33
Michigan; New York has submitted
three and Wisconsin has submitted
two. Many other RAPs are under
development, although several are
delayed pending resolution of legal is-
sues related to enforcement actions.
Table 4-2 summarizes RAP submis-
sion status. Table 4-3 summarizes ac-
tivities in United States Areas of
Concern during FYs 1989 -1991:
(Tables 4-2 and 4-3 can be found at
the end of this chapter.)
Some successes of the RAP process
to date:
• Public participation
"stakeholder" groups are strong-
ly involved in many RAPs. These
groups have molded the goals of
RAPs and strengthened the
sense of local "ownership" of
both problems and their solu-
tions.
• Stakeholder participation has
helped to increase the awareness
of the public at large concerning
environmental problems.
• The development of some RAPs
has brought together nearby
municipalities in addressing com-
mon regional problems (e.g.,
Green Bay, Rouge, and Maumee
RAPs).
• The RAPs developed to date rep-
resent an impressive assemblage
of information on environmental
problems and solutions. They
serve to inform the public, to
guide government actions, and to
justify investments in Great
Lakes restoration (e.g., the Coun-
cil of Great Lakes Governors
launched a $100 million Great
Lakes protection fund in 1988).
• RAPs have called upon a broad
range of environmental
programs. For instance, they rely
on nonpoint source measures
(Saginaw, Green Bay, Mil-
waukee, Maumee), industrial
pretreatment programs (Rouge
and Grand Calumet),
groundwater protection
(Niagara), better sewage treat-
ment, and wetlands restoration
(Green Bay), among other
measures.
• The Water Quality Board has
developed a framework for defin-
ing impairments to the Great
Lakes. This can be useful to
RAP developers in defining the
nature of the problems they face.
Some of the lessons that have been
learned from the Remedial Action
Plan process are:
• The development of an effective
RAP can be complex and
protracted. Once much pertinent
environmental data is included,
some RAP documents have be-
come lengthy; the Rouge River
RAP consisted of seven separate
volumes. Sometimes there is ex-
tensive existing information
about an Area of Concern upon
which the RAP may draw (e.g.,
the Niagara, Detroit, St. Marys,
and St. Clair Rivers and Green
Bay). In other cases, the develop-
ment effort must include exten-
sive analysis of water,
groundwater, fish tissue, and sedi-
ment samples (e.g., Cuyahoga
and Maumee Rivers).
• The RAP development process
can be greatly facilitated through
studies carried out by potentially
responsible panics pursuant to
enforcement actions (e.g., Ash-
tabula, Niagara, and St.
Lawrence Rivers).
• In some Areas of Concern,
ecosystem restoration may take
20 years or more from the onset
of cleanup actions. This has im-
plications for maintaining public
commitment.
• Some RAP development efforts
encounter a host of questions
about the extent and causes of
ecosystem impairments. Estab-
lishing "causality" between
known sources of pollution and
impaired fish and wildlife may
sometimes entail years of study.
• There is often no need to await
completion of a RAP before
taking effective remedial actions
in relation to known pollution
sources. Though the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement
envisioned a sequential process
of problem definition, solution
definition, and-solution im- •
plementation, in practice, EPA
and States often take cleanup
steps and develop RAPs simul-
taneously.
• A difference between the RAP
process and the customary prac-
tice of environmental programs
• is the emphasis on defining the
full extent and causes of environ-
mental damage in a given area.
This approach assures that
problems are better understood
and provides a historical record
against which progress can be
measured. Thus, the first stage
RAP (problem definition) is very
important.
• RAPs were originally intended to
be water quality management
plans. Partially owing to public
participation, they have some-
times become broader in scope
to address problems such as
habitat loss, loss of native fish or
wildlife, and public access to
waterfronts. This evolution is
consistent with the Agreement's
objectives of ecosystem restora-
tion and the restoration of im-
paired uses of the Great Lakes.
• Governments and stakeholders
must set reasonable expectations
for the RAP process. Given that
Areas of Concern often have
multiple impairments from multi-
ple sources, that restoration will
sometimes be a lengthy process,
and that extensive studies may be
needed to document impairment
status or to prove causalities be-
tween pollutant loads and ef-
fects, it will often not be possible
to quickly develop a "perfect
plan" to restore the ecosystem of
an Area of Concern. However,
falling short of a perfect plan is
not "failure," rather it is partial
success. Success in RAP develop-
ment should be measured in
terms of planning reasonable
steps toward ecosystem restora-
tion. The ultimate success of the
RAP process is not developing
plans, but restoring the Great
Lakes.
-------
34 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
> Through 1989, the Water
Quality Board of the IIC had
reviewed the first eight United
States RAPs. In the Board's
view, the first stages (problem
definition) were not fully com-
plete in seven of the eight cases.
The IJC considered* the Green
Bay and the Rouge River plans
to be the strongest.
The RAP process will often be
iterative and incremental. The
first generation of the Rouge
River RAP, for instance, is a su-
perb achievement, resulting from
exemplary involvement by many
communities and public par-
ticipation. It addresses the most
immediate problems of the Area
of Concern—overflows from
combined sewers and bacteria
problems. According to the IJC's
Water Quality Board, the Rouge
RAP's problem definition con-
cerning toxic substances has not
yet been linked to ecosystem
health. In the future, the Rouge
River RAP will be updated to ad-
dress the problem of toxic sub-
stances.
Major government investments
will be required to restore some
Areas of Concern. Large sewage
system and treatment facility im-
provements are underway or will
be needed in many Areas of Con-
cern (e.g., Maumee, Rouge, and
Detroit Rivers and Milwaukee).
1 It is often unclear at present how
to address the pervasive problem
of contaminated freshwater sedi-
ments in rivers and harbors (e.g.,
Green Bay). EPA is developing a
national sediment policy that will
provide recommendations on ap-
proaches.
1 Cleanups of contaminated sedi-
ments will vary due to site-
specific conditions. A number of
different options including in-
place containment, removal and
disposal, and treatment and in-
cineration are being used in dif-
ferent parts of one site
depending upon the degree of
contamination (Waukegan Har-
bor).
• Frequently, progress can be
made through reduction of pol-
lutant loadings from regulated
facilities. The importance of
municipal and industrial dis-
chargers to Great Lakes water
bodies was underscored by
EP A's major study of the upper
Great Lakes connecting channels
completed in 1988. The study
found that point sources
provided the largest loadings of
most contaminants to the St.
Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit
Rivers. Firms and municipalities
can reduce their loadings by
adoption of new ways of prevent-
ing pollution, including industrial
process changes and pollution
abatement technologies.
• Some communities adjacent to
Areas of Concern have citizens
with a strong grounding in en-
vironmental knowledge that has
helped their stakeholder groups
to make especially valuable con-
tributions (e.g., Duluth, Green
Bay, Rouge and Milwaukee).
Lakewide
Management
Plans
The second major restoration ap-
proach under the Agreement is the
development of Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans (LAMPs) for critical pol-
lutants in order to address whole-lake
problems that extend beyond in-
dividual Areas of Concern. As with
RAPs, LAMPs are intended to follow
a comprehensive ecosystem approach,
drawing on the full range of Federal,
State, and local environmental
programs, as needed. One of the
statutory foundations of the LAMP
concept is the Clean Water Act, which
provides for more stringent, water
quality-based limits on dischargers
when technology-based limits are not
sufficient to attain water quality stand-
ards. By estimating loadings of pol-
lutants, EPA and States have grounds
to set more stringent discharge limits
when the assimilative capacity of a
lake for a pollutant is exceeded.
EPA and States are giving priority
to developing LAMPs for Lakes On-
tario and Michigan. Accumulations of
persistent toxic substances in the tis-. .
sues of fish and wildlife are highest in
these lakes. Since the Niagara River is
the dominant source of water to Lake
Ontario, reduction of toxic substance
loadings to the Niagara River is an im-
portant element of whole lake im-
provements.
Niagara River Load
Reductions
During FY 1989 and 1990, EPA
and the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), and counterpart agen-
cies in Canada (Environment Canada
and Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
ment) continued their emphasis on
the reduction of toxic chemicals in the
Niagara River. This continues a series
of activities that followed the first dis-
covery of toxicants in Love Canal in
1978, including the binational Niagara
River Study completed in 1985, the
1987 signing of a binational "Declara-
tion of Intent" to cut in half 1987
levels of point and nonpoint loadings
of priority toxic chemicals to the
Niagara River by 19% and numerous
investigations and cleanups of hazard-
ous waste sites. The sustained effort
on the Niagara Frontier represents
the most complex environmental
cleanup effort undertaken by the
United States to improve water
quality and environmental conditions
within a geographic region.
In cooperation with NYSDEC, EPA
completed identification of the haz-
ardous waste sites that are believed to
provide the largest loadings of toxic
chemicals to the Niagara River from
the United States side. EPA and NYS-
DEC also developed a plan to com-
plete cleanup of the top 20 sites by
19%. Niagara River water quality
monitoring data indicate that non-
point source loadings of target pol-
lutants are much greater than those
from water dischargers. Reaching the
19% target will be partly contingent
on negotiation with potentially respon-
sible parties and the outcome of fur-
ther hazardous waste site
investigations. EPA and NYSDEC
have committed to report regularly on
progress in cleaning up these hazard-
ous waste sites.
EPA, NYSDEC, and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment are also
working to reduce point source load-
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 35
ings to the Niagara River. Niagara
River monitoring indicates that al-
though point sources contribute
smaller loads of priority pollutants
than nonpoint sources, they are still a
significant source of other toxic chemi-
cals. EPA and NYSDEC estimate
that United States point source load-
ings of toxic substances have already
declined by about 80 percent from
1982 through 1987. To achieve the
1996 commitment, U.S. point sources
will need to cut their remaining load-
ings by an additional SO percent.
Lake Ontario
As part of their Declaration of In-
tent in 1987, EPA, NYSDEC, and
counterpart agencies in Canada
agreed to develop a "Lake Ontario
Toxics Management Plan." The first
generation of this plan was adopted in
February 1989. The goal of the plan is
a lake that provides drinking water
and fish that are safe for unlimited
human consumption and allows
natural reproduction of the most sen-
sitive native species, such as bald
eagles, ospreys, mink, and otters.
Under the plan, the four agencies
have compared concentrations of
toxic substances in fish and in the
Lake Ontario water column with
water quality standards for the protec-
tion of fish and human health. No ex-
ceedences were found for drinking
water standards; however, fish tissue
concentrations exceeded human
health protection levels for such sub-
stances as dioxin, PCBs, chlordane,
mirex, mercury, dieldrin, DDT and its
metabolites, octachlorostyrene, and
hexachlorobenzene. DDT and its me-
tabolites, hexachlorobenzene, and
dieldrin were also found in the water
column at levels above EPA guidance
values for the protection of human
health from fish consumption.
The plan uses four objectives as the
means of eliminating these exceeden-
ces. First, it relies on reduction of
toxic inputs by regulation of industrial
and municipal dischargers. Second, it
calls for obtaining further reductions
through special focus on the three
New York, and Province of Ontario,
and two shared Areas of Concern in
the basin. Third, future reductions
will be obtained based on lakewide
analyses of pollutant fate to provide
grounds for water quality-based
regulations. Fourth, the plan calls for
zero discharge of toxic substances into
. Lake Ontario.
During FY 1989, the four agencies
completed initial characterization of
problem Lake Ontario toxics. Dif-
ferences in chemical-specific stand-
ards for toxics were identified and
commitments made for their resolu-
tion. Most significantly, Ontario Minis-
try of the Environment and
Environment Canada committed to
work with Health and welfare Canada
to develop Canada's first water
quality criteria for the protection of
human health from consumption of
contaminants in fish. During FY
1990, work continued on a model of
steady-state exposure and bioac-
cumulation for toxic chemicals in
Lake Ontario, including development
of a time-response model of exposure
and bioaccumulation of toxic substan-
ces. FY 1991 activities will include a
comprehensive estimation of loadings
from groundwater, air, and sediment
to test the bioaccumulation model.
During FY 1990, a binational team
from EPA, NYSDEC, the New York
State Department of Health, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and counterpart
Canadian agencies developed ecosys-
tem health objectives for Lake On-
tario. The team will develop
measurable ecosystem indicators
during FY 1991 for nearshore and
open-lake water quality (trophic con-
dition), human health, wildlife health,
and habitat.
Lake Michigan
The Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant
Reduction Strategy was developed in
1986 as a joint effort of EPA and the
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
and Wisconsin, to define the relation-
ship between toxicant loading rates
and Lake Michigan toxicant
problems, and to implement
remedies. The Strategy has a two-
phase approach. Phase 1 consists of a
series of efforts to quantify and con-
trol major toxicant sources to Lake
Michigan. Phase 2 involves lakewide
pollutant load reductions to address
any toxicant water quality problems
that have not been corrected under
Phase 1.
Some highlights of progress under
the Strategy include:
• Water Quality Standards
•.. — Illinois adopted water • .
quality standards for toxic
substances in 1989 and has
submitted draft antidegrada-
tion procedures to EPA.
- EPA approved Michigan's
antidegradation procedures
in 1987. The State has been
implementing its procedures
for establishing numerical ef-
fluent limitations since 1985.
- Indiana adopted numerical
standards for toxic substan-
ces in 1990 and will be
developing antidegradation
procedures during 1991.
— Wisconsin adopted com-
prehensive water quality
standards and antidegrada-
tion rules in 1988.
• States have developed lists of
waters impaired by toxic substan-
ces and are developing control
strategies for these.
• In 1985, EPA vetoed 11 major
NPDES permits for pulp and
paper mills in Wisconsin, trigger-
ing a lengthy process of
regulatory revisions by Wisconsin
that culminated in the State's
adoption of comprehensive toxic
water quality standards and an-
tidegradation rules.
• EPA and States identified 11
toxicants as pollutants of concern
and have emphasized water
quality-based NPDES permitting
to control toxic substances.
• EPA began biomonitoring of
major facilities on Lake Michigan
and its tributaries that were
suspected of discharging
toxicants. When toxicity has been
detected, NPDES permits have
been modified or reissued with
appropriate limits to address
whole-effluent toxicity.
• EPA and the State of Wisconsin
are conducting a study of Green
Bay to model the fate of several
toxic pollutants in order to in-
crease EPA's capability to model
the fate of toxic substances in a
large water body.
-------
36 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
Nutrient
Over-Enrichment
By the 1960s, the prevalence of
eutrophic conditions (and associated
problems, including nuisance levels of
algal growth, unpleasant odor and
taste in water supplies, and oxygen
depletion in open lake waters), par-
ticularly near the shores of the lower
Great Lakes, provoked wide public
concern and was a major factor lead-
ing the United States and Canada to
affirm the first Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement in 1972. Loadings
of phosphorus were the primary cause
of eutrophic conditions. Since then,
the two nations have taken a number
of measures that have reduced phos-
phorus concentrations to near the
desired levels in the open waters of
the lakes. Principal among these
measures have been construction and
improvement of municipal was-
tewater treatment plants and State
laws limiting the content of phos-
phorus in laundry detergents. EPA
has estimated that, in 1972, phos-
phorus loadings to Lake Erie from
United States municipal dischargers
amounted to about 14,000 tons;
whereas, similar loadings were es-
timated to be only 2,400 tons in 1986.
All Great Lakes States now have, or
plan to institute during 1990, a phos-
phorus limit of 0.5 percent in laundry
detergents sold within the Great
Lakes basin. Canada's detergent phos-
phorus limit is 2.2 percent.
EPA considers that additional reduc-
tions in phosphorus loadings are
necessary to achieve desired water
quality in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario,
Saginaw Bay, Green Bay, and various
nearshore problem areas. In 1983, the
United States and Canada agreed to
develop and implement "Phosphorus
Load Reduction Plans" to further
reduce annual phosphorus loadings
by 2,650 tons to the two lower lakes
and Saginaw Bay (2,000 tons for Lake
Erie, 430 tons for Lake Ontario, and
220 tons for Saginaw Bay). These tar-
get reductions were calculated from a
baseline estimate of phosphorus load-
ings during 1982. They represented
about a 15-percent reduction in Lake
Erie phosphorus loadings and a 6-per-
cent reduction in Lake Ontario load-
ings. Under the United States
Phosphorus Load Reduction Plan,
target open lake phosphorus con-
centration levels are 15 parts per bil-
lion (ppb) in the western basin of
Lake Erie and in Saginaw Bay and 10
ppb in the deeper waters of Lake On-
tario and the central and eastern
basins of Lake Erie.
Agricultural runoff is a major
source of phosphorus and agricultural
chemical loadings to the Great Lakes.
Nonpoint (including agricultural)
loadings of phosphorus during 1986
have been estimated to have been
about three times the level of
municipal and industrial discharges.
Implementation of the United States
Phosphorus Load Reduction Plan,
launched in 1986 and to continue
through 1990, relies on programs
aimed at increasing the use of best
management practices in agricultural
areas, including increased adoption of
conservation tillage practices, better
management of livestock waste and
better management of fertilizers.
Nonpoint loadings of phosphorus to
Lake Erie are thought to be the
largest of such loadings to any of the
lakes. On the United States side of
Lake Erie, the greatest loadings are
from the many tributaries that receive
nonpoint runoff from the intensely
cultivated farmlands west of
Cleveland. The Phosphorus Load
Reduction Plan relies on States and
U.S. Department of Agriculture sup-
port to local Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Districts, especially in Ohio. The
Ohio strategy seeks to increase conser-
vation tillage and improve fertilizer
management on about one million
acres, thereby reducing phosphorus
loading to Lake Erie by an estimated
1,230 metric tons per year.
Lake Erie was the first of the lakes
to show eutrophic conditions, because
it is the shallowest, the warmest, the
most productive, and because it has
the highest rate of sedimentation. Its
drainage basin contains intense
agricultural and urban uses. About
one-third of the United States Great
Lakes population lives within Erie's
drainage area, and Erie surpasses
other lakes in receipt of effluent from
sewage treatment plants.
United States
Phosphorus Reduction
Plan Progress
The United States Great Lakes
Phosphorus Task Force, including
members from EPA, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (i.e.r Soil Conserr .
vatibri Service, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Ser-
vice, and Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice), and agricultural and
environmental agencies in Indiana,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pen-
nsylvania, has evaluated plan im-
plementation through 1988. Methods
of estimating phosphorus reductions
vary by State: In most cases, estimates
of agricultural nonpoint source load-
ings are derived from estimates of
conservation tillage adoption, fer-
tilizer and animal waste management
practices, and structural improve-
ments (e.g., drainage systems and fer-
tilizer storage facilities). Progress is
measured in terms of reductions from
estimated 1982 loadings.
Michigan estimates that it has
achieved about 78 percent of its load
reduction target for Saginaw Bay. In-
diana estimates that it has exceeded
its target reduction for Lake Erie.
Lake Erie, however, requires substan-
tial further reductions in phosphorus
loadings from the agricultural sector
in both Michigan and Ohio. Ohio es-
timates that its farmers have reduced
phosphorus loadings by 198 metric
tons; however, an additional 1,032
tons in reductions are still sought
from Ohio's agricultural sector by
1990 under the Phosphorus Load
Reduction Plan. At the present rate,
this goal will not be met for Lake
Erie. Including progress to date by all
five States affecting Lake Erie, overall
reductions in phosphorus loads to the
lake are estimated to be 24 percent of
the way to the 1990 goal.
Regarding Lake Ontario, New York
State estimates its reductions to date
represent 46 percent of the 1990 goal.
Although progress under the Phos-
phorus Load Reduction Plan has
been slow in Lakes Erie and Ontario,
States also noted a significant reduc-
tion in phosphorus from regulated
water dischargers. They estimate that,
in relation to 1982 baseline loadings,
municipal dischargers in 1987
reduced phosphorus discharge to
Lake Erie by 502 tons and to Lake
Ontario by 216 tons. These estimated
reductions tend to offset some of the
slow progress implementing the
United States Phosphorus Load
Reduction Plan. Based on estimated
progress through 1988, an additional
reduction of 1,411 tons is needed
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 37
niCENTAGE 01 TOTAI CIOHAND
IN CONSEIVATION THUG?
n ••"
40
40 ID
GIEAT IAKFS BASIN SUMMAIY
MEAN: 11.t %
MAX : (7.1 %
Figure 4-2. Cropland in the Great Lakes Basin.
Source: (43)
under the Plan to achieve 1990 tar-
gets. Estimated reductions from
water dischargers represent about
one-half of this environmental goal.
Conservation Tillage
Practices in the Great
Lakes
In relation to conventional tillage,
conservation tillage reduces runoff of
surface water and reduces soil erosion
by water and wind. There are four
main types of conservation tillage
practices: no till, mulch till, ridge till,
and strip till. These tillage practices
differ in the degree of soil distur-
bance. No till practices are regarded
as the most effective in preventing
erosion, because they eliminate
mechanical cultivation altogether.
The other conservation practices are
known collectively as "reduced till."
The tillage system selected by the
farmer depends on physical cir-
cumstances, including soil type; crops;
availability of equipment; and his/her
understanding of the benefits of con-
servation tillage.
Although these estimates are inex-
act, estimates of farm acreage using
conservation tillage practices is an im-
portant basis for evaluating progress
under the United States Phosphorus
Load Reduction Plan. From 1987
through 1989, EPA's Great Lakes Na-
tional Program Office helped sponsor
comprehensive visual surveys by the
Soil Conservation Service of conserva-
tion tillage in counties in Ohio, In-
diana, and Michigan that drain to
Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. These
surveys essentially confirmed earlier
Soil and Water Conservation District
best professional judgment estimates
regarding no till prevalence, but indi-
cated that other conservation tillage
practices have not been adopted as
much as previously estimated. Several
universities are developing remote,
satellite monitoring of tillage practices
that may help to obtain more precise
estimates in the future. Differing es-
timation methods over time and
around the Great Lakes basin tend to
make district-by-district comparisons
and historical trend analysis
problematic.
While recognizing that estimation
techniques are not uniform and may
have various degrees of precision, the
Program Office has analyzed a com-
prehensive body of conservation til-
lage data in order to present an
overall picture of basin agricultural
practices. The discussion that follows
relies on 1988 data from the Conser-
vation Technology Information Cen-
ter, located in West Lafayette,
Indiana. The Center compiles agricul-
tural and tillage data provided by the
Soil Conservation Service on a county
level nationwide. It is part of the Na-
tional Association of Conservation
Districts.
Cropland accounts for 18 percent of
the total area of counties lying fully or
partly within the Great Lakes basin
(Figure 4-2). The major cropland
areas of the basin are northwest Ohio,
central Wisconsin, and adjacent to the
Saginaw River and Bay. Corn is the
-------
38 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
mCENTAGE 01 TOTAI ClOHAND
IN CONSEtVAT ION Till ACE
71 - 40
40 iD
GIEAT LAKFS BASIN SUWIAIY
Figure 4-3. Conservation Tillage in the Great Lakes Basin.
Source: (44).
largest crop (42 percent), followed by
soybeans (24 percent), and small
grains, especially wheat (17 percent).
About 30 to 50 percent of the corn
and soybean acreage in the Great
Lakes basin are in a com/soybean
rotation. Major corn-growing areas
are located in east-central and south-
east Michigan, northwest Ohio, and
central Wisconsin.
The practice of conventional tillage
is much more common in the Great
Lakes basin than is conservation til-
lage, which is used on 21.6 percent of
cropland (Figure 4-3). Mulch till is the
most frequently used method of con-
servation tillage, accounting for 68
percent of all conservation tillage
acres. No till practices are used on 24
percent of conservation tillage acres.
Farmers who grow corn use conserva-
tion tillage more than those who grow
other crops. Conservation tillage is
used for about 38 percent of the corn,
21 percent of the soybean, and 16 per-
cent of the small grain crops.
Generally, it appears that, for each
of the major crops, conservation til-
lage practices are lowest in areas of
greatest production. For instance, in
corn production areas, conservation
tillage practices are most prevalent in
northwest Indiana, central Wisconsin,
and central Michigan. LaPorte and
Porter Counties in northwest Indiana
have the two highest rates of conserva-
tion tillage, averaging about 92 per-
cent in acres producing corn.
However, the top 11 counties having
the highest proportion of cropland
devoted to com, all in northwest
Ohio, have relatively low rates of con-
servation tillage, averaging about 23.7
percent.
Varying rates of conservation tillage
are partly attributable to differences
in soil types. Some soils with clay con-
tent cannot support conservation til-
lage practices, since the soil becomes
too tight to permit drainage, thereby
drowning seed or denying sufficient
moisture to near surface soil. During
the early 1980s, the Program Office
helped to support demonstrations of
conservation tillage in the Black
Creek, Indiana, watershed in the
Maumee River basin. One outcome
of these studies was to show that high
farm yields were obtainable under
conservation tillage in certain high
Conservation Tillage
Conservation tillage can reduce
runoff of surface water and
reduces soil erosion by water and
wind. These factors aid in the
retention of fertilizers in the soil
and help limit the migration of fer-
tilizers and agricultural chemicals
into surface waters. There are
several different types of conser-
vation tillage practices which dif-
fer in the degree of soil
disturbance created. The system
selected by the farmer depends
on physical circumstances; in-
cluding soil type, crops, and the
availability of the necessary
equipment
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 39
clay soils, given sufficient drainage sys-
tems. Construction of such systems
(e.g., parallel tile outlet terraces) is ex-
pensive, however, and the drainage
systems require the availability of out-
let streams. Although Figure 4-3 does
not adjust for soil types, it is useful for
displaying the absolute rates of conser-
vation tillage'among counties.
Ambient Water Quality
Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Supe-
rior continue to remain well below
their water quality objectives for phos-
phorus concentrations (see Figure
2-13). The State of Michigan's 1990
Water Quality Report indicates that a
drinking water intake facility on
Saginaw Bay has not found taste or
odor problems since 1980, whereas
this same facility had 56 days of such
problems in 1974. Michigan also
reports that phosphorus concentra-
tions in the Saginaw River have fallen
73 percent since 1970.
During the period 1971 to 1986,
Lake Ontario exhibited an average an-
nual rate of decline in phosphorus
concentrations of about 1 ppb, from
about 25 to 9.9 ppb. Ontario is the
only lake to exhibit a statistically sig-
nificant decline in phosphorus con-
centrations between 1983 and 1986.
Data from 1987 show a small, but
statistically significant increase to 10.3
ppb. This may be partly attributable
to an estimated 52 percent increase in
phosphorus loadings from the
Niagara River in 1986 over the
average estimated loadings during
1981 through 1985. Increased
Niagara River flows were a reason for
the higher 1986 loadings estimate.
Spring surveys from 1988 and 1989
found average concentrations of 9.9
and 10.2 ppb, respectively.
During 1978 through 1985, the
average phosphorus concentration of
Erie's central basin was about 15 ppb.
In 1986 and 1987, the annual average
phosphorus concentration in this
basin declined to about 10 ppb.
Preliminary analysis of data from the
EPA spring 1988 and 1989 surveys
shows ambient concentrations
beneath the 10 ppb target level for
phosphorus. (Spring surveys are best
for detecting long-term trends in lake
health since the waters are relatively
well-mixed during this season.)
Preliminary results from the same
surveys show average concentrations
for the eastern basin to be beneath
. the 10 ppb target as they were on
average for all surveys in 1987, in con-
trast to the period 1978 through 1986,
when annual average ambient phos-
phorus fluctuated around 12 ppb.
Phosphorus concentrations in the
eastern basin have been consistently
lower than those of the central and
western basins.
During the 1970s, Erie's western
basin had annual average concentra-
tions of phosphorus ranging between
45 to 35 ppb. By 1982 to 1986, the
average concentration had declined to
about 32 to 24 ppb. The 1988 spring
survey found concentrations in the
western basin of Erie at 15.1 ppb for
total phosphorus, very near the 15
ppb target. However, the annual
average of all 1988 western basin sur-
veys will likely be higher than the
average of the spring survey once
summer and fall results are included.
While oxygen depletion remains a
problem in Lake Erie, the gross
monthly oxygen depletion rates for
the central basin of Lake Erie
declined by about one third from
1986 to 1988.
Outlook
Phosphorus concentrations in Lakes
Erie and Ontario have improved
slightly during 1983 through 1988 to
near-target levels, although concentra-
tions in the western basin of Lake
Erie remain above the target. Given
variance in the monitoring data and
small apparent declines in phos-
phorus, only the decline in Lake On-
tario between 1983 and 1986 is
statistically significant.
Phosphorus loadings are particularly
affected by weather and by agricul-
tural land use. Weather conditions
seem to have played an important
part in reducing phosphorus loadings
and have in particular improved Lake
Erie water quality by helping to com-
pensate for low conservation tillage
adoption. Without improved agricul-
tural land use, it is likely that Lake
Erie phosphorus concentrations will
rise in the event of increased
rainstorm activity and associated
higher tributary flow.
Best management practices are im-
portant for protection of long-term
farm yield as well as for Great Lakes
water quality, especially in Lake Erie
and Saginaw Bay. The rate of adop-
tion of best management practices
must improve, particularly in .
northwest Ohio. Although estimates
of conservation tillage acreage are not
precise and local conditions, including
soil types, are variable, it appears that
the rate of adoption of conservation
tillage practices has been disappoint-
ing.
Other land use practices are also im-
portant in reducing phosphorus load-
ings. Programs that improve fertilizer
management, protect or restore wet-
lands, pay farmers not to farm highly
erodible land, establish vegetative fil-
ter-strips along stream and ditch
banks, and reduce direct access to
streams by livestock, are among prac-
tices that help prevent phosphorus
loadings.
Though less significant than agricul-
tural runoff, surface water runoff
from the urban environment is a
major source of nutrients and con-
taminants. Many urban communities
do not have separate sanitary and
storm sewers. High rainfall can ex-
ceed the capacity of a community's
wastewater treatment system, result-
ing in overflows or bypasses of the
treatment processes and direct dis-
charge of untreated sewage to the
Great Lakes. The Agency is pursuing
various measures to address these im-
pacts of urban drainage through im-
provements in stormwater retention,
sewer separation, sewer rehabilitation,
and improved wastewater treatment
system practices. EPA and the States
establish compliance schedules for
municipal dischargers in order to
reduce untreated loadings from this
source.
There is a time lag between decreas-
ing lake water phosphorus concentra-
tions and improvements in dissolved
oxygen levels. EPA estimates that
reduction of most of Lake Erie's
zones of oxygen depletion will take up
to 5 years beyond the attainment of
the desired ambient water column
phosphorus objective. Furthermore, it
should be emphasized that water
quality objectives are only estimates
of the chemical conditions necessary
for a healthy lake ecosystem. EPA will
continue monitoring oxygen deple-
tion, algal bodies, and other indicators
of lake health to evaluate whether the
ambient phosphorus targets are effec-
tive or if further reductions in phos-
phorus concentrations will be needed.
-------
40 Chapter 4 DRAFT March 1991
Over the past 15 years, the United
States and Canada have made very " . .
significant improvements in reducing
Great Lakes phosphorus concentra-
tions. Improved Lake Erie walleye
fishery and the reduction of nuisance
levels of algae are striking evidence of
water quality improvement. Govern-
ment programs for the* lower lakes
have provided transferable lessons for - -
other parts of the country that suffer
similar environmental problems, in-
cluding Chesapeake Bay and other
near-coastal waters. However, addi-
tional progress in reducing phos-
phorus loads to the lower lakes and
Saginaw and Green Bays is needed.
Better agricultural land use practices
offer the promise for further environ-
mental improvement, and are also es-
sential to maintaining high farm
productivity in the long-term.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 43
0)
u
c
o
O
CO
CO
CO
I
0>
o
o
w
o>
s
O)
if
•o
0)
s
Q>
0)
(/>
CO
4
0)
B
ff!
§>
(0
55
S
6
2 §
T3 -o
O c
II
I
O o
2 2
11
l
I
mill
ilf^iif
®£S»"^o02
88 = :; |«»
8°- €l«|
€ii.-£8^8i
IsiSif&i
a a a. TJ « a>-o w
S « 8.1
5i«l|H*
81 ° 8 |li|
is^sss § i
i|l««||
tr e c» a z> 5 5
li
-------
44 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
£
•o
I
8
a
I
o
o ,j
C
O
O
O
0)
O
O
O
£
2
c
(A
O)
O
o
*2
O)
S
o>
if
S
«
"5
O
2
UJ .a
s
8
=
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 45
•O
0)
c
o
O
o
O
-------
46 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
-
Ss
.
Z £
a
. '5 CM
1
I
8
o
O
<0
(0
£
<
c
A
o o
§5§
a
•5
I
.2*
o>
o>
(A
CO
4
0)
2
^2
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 47
£ Z S TJ 6
;f el ss
I
o>
g-D
if
o
Q.
CO
o_
O
O
I
o
o
•5
w
c
(0
O)
o
o
(0
£
O)
O)
75
0)
o
w
CO
o
13
ff
".S
4;
S*.
= " t:
S eg "5
.-5 " g
8 c < *
c a a. o
« -oUJ I
3 S-dS
""S §"-
ail«
s|-s*
S"1 8*
fl | a »
1^
s |E
os as
v' -^
j?i
e W
sl
15.
II
O 3
'gf
|lf
! = i
= 1 ?
wj|
4. O. o
S..iS
2 § i
c -S
i =
O £
2&
1s,
«»g
s.^?
^°«
•a
OI
Is
OT D
- « * S « _ o
Pilll!
frl
S-S
-^S 5 2 E o
.2 3 * w « _ s
o - - S «
-------
48 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
CM
0)
c
i
8
0)
o
c
o
o
in
(0
o>
3
I
CO
^. O> t£ C
o £ § £
IsIS
mis
51
2
O)
2
Q.
>
o>
ts
0)
o>
(A
CM
88
*k C
C^ """
-5 i
> ^ o 2 « S c
_• 1 «f E ~ * "5 o
§ c &1 S fc^lf
« •
a|
O *O
o ^
B«
^
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 49
•o
0)
3
I
s
0)
O
o
U
M
CO
CO
£
o>
§
B
.5?
O)
If
s
.-D "DOS
ll!§Hi
C ~ 0) C O =•
8 S £ 5 ! £ I
? gl|2 « ?
•n » 5 «
Hi I
i s-o
^ C BJ 0>
a S S S a * 1
Illisil
-------
SO Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
&
s
" .
^2 CO
O o>
fi
P
a T3
H
E o.
8
s^
I
o
o
O
(0
£
<
_c
0)
o>
2
Q.
o>
O)
o
0)
0)
(/>
e
I
So
«3
&S
2*
a
o
I
" 8
So
1?
CM
.2 «
J
8 o
a.
3
ii
TJ 5 O
Hj
O Tl
•0°
w v/ v
»§§.
_o « •>
lg*J
c= 05
il
S S c a.
£.§
§|al|^
C raj __ <8
O 5 j ^ S
lisggs^
l^*B--i
^ -l|^cg
^flll^
«*i»iS*.«
IlllltlSi
|"§Sc^?Q^
« ?S ?«
5 S « .£ c
of « ^o<:
3-i2il&
!f*eiii!t
»-ii?*«
i>l|? = | lS;giir»
^iiiilihi
$ CB S S ^ £ TJ S ^
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Gnat Lakes Water Quality Agreement 51
•o
0)
o
c
O
O
w
(0
0)
55
JO
2
m
O>
2
Q.
O)
O)
0)
0)
(A
f
5.1
I
8
S £
i ijiliitimiii
S .£~^«C..ttS««3_ft<*
« »- S "O « »
SllllllliSil!!
-------
52 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
•ill!*«
S °C §-t o 0
!i!!!!
3 fc € *
•o
0)
£ 3
££
fcg
I5
fl
Is
2 =
ti
i «
"55 ex
&
1 o s ~ 8 o •
l-s^ I g^J
1 ° « S « ° »
i C O) | Clf
i- o S "D * o _
iUillf
ii^ins
i c 3 « c 3
'1115*!
||s.|||
85 o t> 0 -2
T3 2 €8 O T3
O
O
(0
n
o>
~ £
Q.
O
O)
O)
z
•o
0)
w
.2
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 53
o ..
0)
c
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
CO
0)
CA
CO
2
O)
o
o
(0
£
.5*
o>
>>£
li
1
il
§1
2 M
•5 o> i-
it; E!S
iiftiiiia
0)
CO
0)
2
ff
-------
54 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
3
I
8
o>
o
o
o
CO
1
c
w
O)
I
o
g>
at
z
CO O
It
« „
I
SI
ii
o '"5
u
0)
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 55
•a
0)
3
C
IS
o
u
Q)
O
C
o
O
(0
CO
0
0)
(0
0)
O)
s
a.
o
O)
Z
O)
if
o>
2
Q)
5
CM
•o
«0
-if I
is
IB -*
cr S
i|
52
Si"
-------
56 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
0)
c
o
o
o
(A
flj
S £
D>
S
Q.
"5
I
O)
Z
O)
z
i
o
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 57
•O
O
C
0)
O
C
O
O
(0
s
<0
CO
£
O)
o
o
1
O)
E
o>
I
(0
q>
3
.2
O C
62
ii
o> •»
2 =
ffl
So
2$° -•£
1
O
01
3f
II
m
ll
§ §
SI
*&
2§
cc o
—*• w
I I
o
1
f
75
O
c
o
' V
It
s& §•
i*!w«!
siiUi!
jiti**!
2|l^i-;
:|t||!i
:8^1 IE]
i^i
**ll
|fl!
i^>?.
2 I 11 I
«EWai
111!!
E S ^ o £
I 82 8 s
i i SS
-------
58 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
S^"5I |S
Si* 8.1*
S5 § 5 «
o> <
I!
8*188
gS §
a £•=
E R o
•o
0)
c
8
0)
O
O
o
o
(0
11
•o S
«
£2
w « =
D)
o
O
i
O)
c
O)
z
75
0)
0)
(0
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 59
CD
c
o
It
O>
!
ts
0>
V
3
7
O
U
o
o
U
w
s
c
(0
O)
8
a
•5
1
a>
o>
•a
Q>
Q>
CO
3
Q)
ii
§ 3
IS
is
(8 ••-
CL c
E« .
8 as
^~ a. «
2 i
CO
ia
£ .
u> S
St. "5
£0,
"I'I?
CD
fi
EC "D CC "o
II ll
C» Q
32
If
o?
i «
O ^
E^S
81?:
1&I
lli>
»S5
2ll§Ii°
i«S5§§?
l!§Si&i
S 0.5
\Jf g J-
§"£ an T3 S
O> c S C
stii3! i
B8£iSsIl
-------
60 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
a
a>
s
.
"IS
o <
s!
—
O
S*
•§•=
C o>
si
So
CO >.
I!
°-3
fl
St 81
« .S g ^
« £ 5 o>
.9 .2
•o
0)
o
o
0)
o
o
o
CO
TO
CO
«0
o>
o
o
tn
O)
Z
O)
13
0)
0)
(0
CO
4
0)
3
ff
8,* £2
PS?
C Q-S = 4S
e « 5 «
i E a -5
-
T3 0
§i
S S ° S
2 a.-' £
I]
II
1 8
, o
o>
S^£
^ 3 O»
3 o =6 .-e c L
1 S 8 * • E. ^ .
i&vf2i«P i
•«2SSS««|
iifii^n
iilli^ill
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
62 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
•
-o -a »j
-
18.8s
l§
i^?2
•5 = = j
§
8
o
o
•5
to
c
CO
tg
O 0.
0.
•5
o>
O)
z
T3
i
0)
0)
to
CJ
4
0)
2
2* *» . 2»
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 63
^^
1
o
u
0)
0
o
o
".s
c
to
a.
o
1
O)
O)
if
•a
Q)
Q)
(A
ff
5 l&
- « m
§ frl
• fi - '5.
13
S
»&
o
O)
"5 s I
ȣ o
£1
-------
64 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
^'^1
1
c
o
o
§
O
o
CO
ra
2
c
(0
§
o>
2
CL
O
I
O)
CD
•D
0)
o>
CO
•i S
llfli
~. sf
«
o- c
en *2 "O
O) £ ®
M;
s
I!ills8s
•§ = « 5 -o ^ S
1-2-l^f |«|
•a « £ § -0-5.S ^
6 1 ffi I § '5 I «
-------
DRAFT March 1991
The Great lakes Water Quality Agreement 65
s
s
Q>
O
O
O
(0
(0
CO
ty
i2
I
8
I
.
§
E
O)
2
a
i
.O)
0)
0)
I
0>
B
•o .c „- « ic j.
I « I'll i
8 il^ §
• § 1, £ •>
-------
66 Chapter 4
DRAFT March 1991
J2I*t«
= = •; s-= s
s =s -I « ^ ^
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 69
Chapter 5
Selected EPA Programs
In addition to pursuing Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement-
specific activities like Remedial Ac-
tion Plans, EPA and the States more
broadly pursue a wide range of
programs that have the effect of
preserving or enhancing the environ-
mental quality and natural resources
of the Great Lakes. This chapter dis-
cusses selected EPA and State en-
vironmental activities and related
achievements pertaining to the Great
Lakes during FY 1989 and FY 1990,
as well as activities planned for FY
1991. When available, specific
measures of achievements are
provided.
In general, States carry out many
elements of Federal environmental
legislation in partnership with EPA or
other Federal agencies. States also
enact their own environmental
programs, creating jurisdictional diver-
sity. Discussion of the complete range
of State and Federal programs that,
to various degrees, pertain to the
Great Lakes would be prohibitively
lengthy. For this reason, the chapter is
a selected, rather than an absolutely
comprehensive, discussion of U.S. en-
vironmental programs.
Water Programs
The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System
Under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, known as the Clean
Water Act (CWA), the discharge of
pollutants into the surface waters of
the United States through point sour-
ces is prohibited unless a permit is is-
sued by EPA or a State under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES). EPA has
Figure 5-1. Major NPDES Dischargers in Great Lakes Basin.
Source: USEPA, 19_
69
-------
70 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
Table 5-1. Number of NPDES Dischargers by Lake Basin.
Source: USEPA, Permit Compliance System, July 1990 (#). ' '
Basin
LErle
L Huron
L Michigan
L Ontario
L Superior
Total
Majors
189
39
190
146
22
586
Minors*
1,185
261
1,179
284
134
3,043
Total
1,374
300
1,369
430
156
3,629
•The term Minors represents only those minor dischargers listed in PCS.
delegated NPDES permit approval
authority to each of the eight Great
Lakes States.
NPDES permits set limits on the
quantity and concentration of certain
contaminants that are discharged, the
treatment that effluent (wastewater)
must receive prior to discharge, and a
deadline to attain that level of treat-
ment. There are two primary types of
dischargers: municipal wastewater
treatment facilities and industrial
facilities. Dischargers are further clas-
sified as majors and minors. Majors in-
clude municipal sewage treatment
plants with discharges greater than
one million gallons per day and those
industrial dischargers that have the
most significant potential for polluting
receiving waters, according to an EPA
ranking scheme. Minors are all other
permitted dischargers. The "major"
designation is a basis for setting
priorities regarding permit processing
and enforcement.
As of July 1990, there were 586
major NPDES dischargers in the
Great Lakes basin and 3,019 minor
dischargers. Figure 5-1 shows the dis-
tribution of the major dischargers.
From this figure, it can be seen that
the heaviest concentrations of major
United States dischargers are located
on Lakes Erie, Ontario, and Michigan
and on three international connecting
channels, the St. Clair, Detroit, and
Niagara Rivers. Table 5-1 shows the
number of NPDES dischargers by
Lake basin. Table 5-2 breaks down
major dischargers by facility types
(municipal, industrial, and Federal).
An NPDES permit may require a
facility to monitor its effluent on a
daily, weekly, or monthly basis and to
report results. NPDES permits have a
maximum duration of five years.
When a permit expires, a discharger
must apply for a new permit that sets
more restrictive limits based on advan-
ces in treatment technology. The
CWA prohibits, except under certain
situations, "backsliding" in the reissue
or modification of NPDES permits
through limitations less stringent than
those in a previous permit.
There are two general principles
that govern the setting of NPDES
limits. One is that dischargers meet
technology-based standards. These
are minimum standards of perfor-
mance that are set according to in-
dustrial category, (e.g., paper mills,
steel mills, or chemical manufac-
turers), without regard to the quality
Table 5-2. Categorization of Major NPDES Dischargers by
Lake Basin.
Source: USEPA, Permit Compliance System, July 1990 (#).
Basin
LErie
L Huron
L Michigan
L Ontario
L Superior
Municipal
106
21
91
85
11
Industrial
82
18
99
61
11
Federal
1
0
0
0
0
Total
189
39
190
146
22
of the receiving waters. EPA develops
these limits based on engineering and
economic judgments as to the most ef-
ficient treatment technologies. The
second principle is that more stringent
limits be imposed to protect water
quality wherever technology-based
limits are not sufficient to do this.
States establish water quality stand-
ards that designate intended uses of
their waters, such as fishing and swim-
ming, and set chemical and biological
conditions necessary to sustain these
uses. To assist States with establishing
water quality standards, EPA
prepares criteria to define the maxi-
mum amounts of a pollutant that are
safe for human health and aquatic life
based on the latest scientific informa-
tion.
Where technology-based limits are
not sufficient to achieve a designated
use, more stringent limits must be set.
A "total maximum daily load" of a pol-
lutant must be calculated, based on
the capacity of the water body to as-
similate the pollutant. Where total
loadings exceed the maximum as-
similative load, the assimilative
capacity must be allocated among dis-
chargers. The 1987 revision to the
CWA requires that States identify
water bodies not achieving water
quality standards because of toxic pol-
lutants. In 1989, States completed
control strategies for restoring these
waters within three years.
After an NPDES permit is issued,
EPA and the States monitor the
discharger's compliance with permit
conditions and take enforcement ac-
tion when appropriate. Permit viola-
tions are usually detected through
self-monitoring reports by the permit-
tee or by State inspections. In the
event of violations, the States or EPA
can take administrative or judicial ac-
tion depending on the severity of the
violation and the past record of the
discharger. Administrative penalties
can be assessed at $10,000 per day of
violation, up to $125,000. Civil actions
can assess up to $25,000 per day of
violation. Criminal actions can assess
$25,000 per day for the first violation
or $50,000 per day for a second viola-
tion owing to negligence. A discharger
who knowingly endangers the environ-
ment through a permit violation is
subject to a fine of $250,000 per in-
dividual or $1,000,000 per firm. Table
5-3 shows the status of NPDES com-
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 71
pliance in the Great Lakes basin as of
January 1990.
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment
The 1972 CWA greatly increased
Federal funding to publicly owned
treatment works (municipal dis-
chargers). During subsequent amend-
ments to the Act, the State role has
increased steadily. Pursuant to the
1987 reauthorization of the CWA,
States are encouraged to set aside
funds for revolving loans to com-
munities in need of sewage treatment
systems. The State funds "revolve" in
the sense that municipalities repay
loans with interest, allowing the recapi-
talized fund to make further loans.
Over the period 1989 to 1994, EPA is
providing money to help capitalize
revolving funds.
The CWA originally established a
deadline for all municipal dischargers
to achieve secondary treatment by
July 1977. Primary wastewater treat-
ment entails removal of most
materials that float or settle and
results in about a 30 percent reduc-
tion in biochemical oxygen demand.
Secondary treatment involves con-
sumption of organic components of
the wastewater by bacteria. It results
in about a 90 percent reduction in
oxygen-demanding substances and
suspended solids. Advanced, or ter-
tiary, treatment is additional process-
ing of secondary treatment effluents.
For a variety of reasons, including in-
flation in construction costs, the 1977
deadline for secondary treatment was
met by only about 37 percent of
United States municipalities. By June
1983, the percentage of United States
facilities that employed secondary
treatment reached 69 percent.
Improvements to U.S. wastewater
treatment facilities have significantly
improved Great Lakes water quality.
The number of people in Michigan,
for instance, served by a municipal
sewage system increased from
900,000 in 1967 to 6,500,000 in 1986,
through a total investment of $2.5 bil-
lion by EPA and SI billion by the
State. By April 1990,98 percent of
municipal dischargers in Michigan
used at least secondary treatment.
One measure of the success of this in-
vestment is that phosphorus con-
centrations in the Detroit River have
declined by 89 percent since 1972.
Table 5r3. Great Lakes Basin Major .NPDES Permits
Compliance Status as of January 1990.
Source: USEPA, Permit Compliance System, July 1990 (#).
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Total
Major
Municipals*
None in basin
16/21 (76%)
79/92 (86%)
5/5 (100%)
80/95 (84%)
43/66 (65%)
0/3 (0%)
30/32 (94%)
253/314 (81%)
Major
Industrials*
6/7 (86%)
16/21 (76%)
95/101 (94%)
4/4 (100%)
61/64 (95%)
46/52 (88%)
0/2 (0%)
25/30 (83%)
253/281 (90%)
Federal Facilities*
None in basin
None in basin
None in basin
None in basin
0/1 (0%)
None in basin
None in basin
None in basin
0/1 (0%)
•Numbers represent the total of facilities in compliance/total number of facilities
and (percent of facilities in compliance).
The United States has invested a
total of over $8 billion in sewage sys-
tem improvements in the Great Lakes
basin since 1972. EPA has funded
about $4.9 billion of this infrastruc-
ture investment. About $2.7 billion of
the Federal expenditures went for
municipal wastewater treatment in
the Lake Erie basin and $1.4 billion
was spent on improvements in the
Lake Ontario basin.
While municipal sewage systems
primarily receive household was-
tewaters from toilets, showers, and
sinks, in many towns, industrial
facilities are also connected to
municipal systems. For example,
20,000 industrial firms discharge to
municipal systems in the State of
Michigan alone. Many industrial firms
deliver effluent that contains toxic sub-
stances to the municipal system.
Municipal treatment plants are usual-
ly not able to adequately treat these
substances, and they are released to
the Great Lakes ecosystem or they
contaminate the sludge that is a
byproduct of the treatment process.
Some toxic substances also reduce the
effectiveness of treatment processes
for conventional pollutants.
The Clean Water Act provides for
controls on industrial dischargers to
municipal systems through pretreat-
ment requirements. Of the 314 major
municipal dischargers within the
Great Lakes basin, over 65 percent
are required to implement industrial
pretreatment programs. The
provisions of these programs are in-
corporated into NPDES permits. Less
than five percent of these facilities do
not yet have approved programs.
EPA, or a State that has been
delegated pretreatment program over-
sight, inspects municipal wastewater
treatment facilities on an annual basis
and conducts a comprehensive audit
of the pretreatment program at a
facility every five years. New York
State, for example, has 33 pretreat-
ment programs in effect within the
Great Lakes basin. The State con-
ducted 14 pretreatment comprehen-
sive audits and 24 compliance
inspections during FY 1989 in the
basin. In addition, EPA and/or New
York took enforcement actions
against four municipal systems in the
basin for failing to implement their
pretreatment programs adequately.
the City of Dunkirk, the City of
Watertown, the Niagara County
Sewer District (No. 1), and Onondaga
County.
Particularly in many older urban
areas, stormwater runoff and sanitary
flows are delivered to municipal treat-
ment facilities through common (com-
bined) sewers. During rainstorms, the
flow of water to a treatment facility ex-
ceeds its capacity, leading to releases
of untreated wastewater to receiving
waters. The significance of combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) varies
around the Great Lakes basin.
Michigan regards CSOs as a major
source of impairment to 317 miles of
its rivers, making this the second lead-
-------
72 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
ing source of impairments in the
State. Michigan estimates that 170
CSO outfalls routinely release an an-
nual volume of 7.8 billion gallons into
the Rouge River, which flows through
Detroit. On the other hand, Wiscon-
sin does not consider CSOs to have a
major impact on any of Us streams, al-
though it estimates that CSOs have a
moderate or minor impact on 20
miles of its Great Lakes shoreline.
This relatively small impact is in part
the result of a longstanding commit-
ment by Wisconsin to separate its
sanitary and storm sewers. Milwaukee
has the largest sewerage project in
Wisconsin. Between 1972 and 1988,
about $309 million in Federal funds
and $200 million in State funds have
been invested in this project. The
State estimates that another $500 mil-
lion will be required to complete the
project by 1992. The project entails
upgrades for two treatment plants
and CSO abatement, including con-
struction of 17 miles of deep tunnels
to store untreated wastewater col-
lected during heavy rains so it can be
treated later during dry weather when
the treatment facilities have adequate
capacity.
EPA treats CSO outfalls as point
sources that must meet NPDES per-
mit requirements. This allows EPA or
the States to establish compliance
schedules with municipalities to ade-
quately treat or to eliminate their
CSO discharges. The cost of reaching
compliance varies. Michigan estimates
that the total cost of all improvements
for CSOs that discharge into the
Rouge River to be $1 billion and for
those that discharge into the Detroit
River to be $2.6 billion.
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution
does not originate at a specific point
or discharge and has no outfall struc-
ture to which the input to a receiving
water body can be attributed. Non-
point source loads enter surface
waters through atmospheric deposi-
tion or runoff, and by their very na-
ture are difficult to identify or
quantify.
The magnitude of NPS pollution
varies among the geographical areas
of the Great Lakes Basin, depending
largely on land use practices, soil
types, and topography. Nonpoint
source pollution in the Great Lakes
Basin can be separated into five
major source categories: agriculture
activities, silviculture practices, mini-
ng, construction projects, and urban
development. Sediments and
nutrients are the most serious NPS
pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin.
Other NPS pollutants of concern in-
clude: salts, pesticides and herbicides,
metals, bacteria, sulfates, and those
that create biochemical oxygen
demand.
Under Section 319 of the CWA, the
States have primary responsibility for
developing, implementing, and enforc-
ing nonpoint source controls. The
States are responsible for assessing
their nonpoint source pollution
problems and developing manage-
ment programs that will be effective
in restoring and maintaining water
quality. EPA is responsible for pro-
gram oversight, and for providing
technical and financial assistance to
the States.
Responsibilities of other Federal
agencies, particularly the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA), also
have important implications for the
control of agricultural and siMcultural
nonpoint sources. In particular,
provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985, including those relating to the
Conservation Reserve Program,
Swampbuster, Sodbuster, and Conser-
vation Compliance, were established
to influence the land management
practices that contribute to the con-
trol of NPS pollution.
Section 319 first mandates a com-
prehensive assessment to document
where nonpoint sources are causing
water quality degradation or threaten
water quality. The initial State Assess-
ment Reports (SARs) were based on
existing information. In order to get
Federal financial assistance, States
had to develop EPA-approved NPS
management plans establishing a four-
year framework to address identified
water quality problems. By the sum-
mer of 1990, all Great Lakes States'
NPS management plans had received
EPA approval.
In developing their management
plans and SARs, EPA required the
Great Lakes States to provide
linkages between Phosphorus Reduc-
tion Plans and Remedial Action Plans
for Areas of Concern. This informa-
tion confirmed that phosphorus reduc-
tion goals could be achieved in the
Upper Great Lakes through existing. ..
programs and that plans would need
to be developed for Lake Erie,
Saginaw Bay, and Lake Ontario.
For FY 1990, over six million dollars
(Federal and match) were committed
to the Great Lakes Basin for NPS ac-
tivities under Section 319. Most of the
funds were directed toward nutrient
and sediment control, and, generally,
projects address the agriculture, mini-
ng, construction, and urban runoff
categories. For example, the Soil Con-
servation Service of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Soil
Conservation Districts in the Lake
Huron Basin are working together to
introduce Best Management Prac-
tices (BMPs) for the control and
reduction of sediments and phos-
phorus into the South Branch of the
Kawkawlin River from current agricul-
tural practices.
The Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments of
1990 include a new Section 6217, en-
titled Protecting Coastal Waters,
which requires each coastal State (in-
cluding Great Lakes States) with an
approved coastal zone management
program to develop coastal nonpoint
pollution programs. State coastal
zone management programs must
now contain enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement the require-
ments of coastal nonpoint pollution
programs. EPA is currently working
with the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration to develop
guidance for the States to assist with
their nonpoint pollution programs.
Federal guidance is expected to be is-
sued in mid-1991.
The Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative
During FY 1989, EPA and the
Great Lakes States began an impor-
tant project to further protect Great
Lakes water quality. In view of the
unique features of the Great Lakes
system, EPA and States believe that
site-specific criteria are necessary to
protect Great Lakes aquatic biota and
wildlife, and human health — primari-
ly from fish consumption risks — on a
long-term basis. The "Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative" will develop
EPA guidance to States regarding
water quality criteria for the Great
Lakes, a Great Lakes antidegradation
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 73
policy, implementation procedures,
and pollution prevention measures.
EPA is responsible for developing na-
tional water quality criteria that
numerically define maximum allow-
able concentrations of certain pol-
lutants in surface waters across the
Nation. Thes&criteria are used by
States as a basis for State water
quality standards and their resulting
water quality-based regulation under
the NPDES program. In view of the
unique features of the Great Lakes
system, EPA and States believe that
in some cases, criteria specific for the
Great Lakes are necessary to protect
aquatic biota and wildlife, and human
health — primarily from fish con-
sumption risks — on a long-term
basis.
Water quality guidance developed
under the initiative will represent an
interim accomplishment. Over the
long term, EPA and the States will
seek to minimize loadings of toxic sub-
stances, particularly persistent, bioac-
cumulative pollutants, with a goal of
virtual elimination. Technology-based
regulatory requirements will supple-
ment water quality requirements to
prevent pollution.
The Great Lakes Water Quality In-
itiative will fulfill a number of impor-
tant purposes. It will help ensure that
Great Lakes environmental needs are
incorporated into the water quality
programs of Great Lakes States,
thereby providing a sound scientific
basis for enhanced water quality-
based protection of the Great Lakes
by the United States under the CWA.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Initia-
tive will improve the overall consisten-
cy among the water quality standards
of the Great Lakes States. It will help
define water quality objectives for fu-
ture Lakewide Management Plans.
Finally, the guidance will provide a
basis, consistent with EPA's
regulatory posture, for the setting of
revised "specific objectives" under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment with Canada. To this end,
Canadian regulatory observers have
been invited to attend meetings of the
initiative work groups.
Representatives from environmen-
tal-groups,-academta, business associa-
tions, and municipalities will provide
comments during the development
process. A public record is being
developed and public hearings will be
held once findings and recommenda-
tions are reached. Proposed guidance
will be available for public review and
comment in the Federal Register.
In FY 1991, the initiative will con-
tinue the development of acute and
chronic aquatic life criteria, human
health criteria, wildlife criteria, and
other work pertaining to anti-degrada-
tion, pollution prevention, and im-
plementation. EPA envisions that the
Great Lakes water quality guidance
will be completed in time to be incor-
porated into the next triennial State
water quality standard review process
(1991 to 1993).
Wetlands Protection
Wetlands are marshes, swamps,
bogs, and fens, which are areas where
the water table is above the land sur-
Figure 5-2. Dredge and Fill Permit Applications.
-------
74 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
face for at least pan of the year, al-
though most vegetation rises above
the surface of the water. When open
water is present, it tends to be less
than seven feet deep and slow
moving. Coastal wetlands have vital
ecological functions: filtering wastes;
serving as nursery, resting, and breed-
ing locations for birds, fish, and mam-
mals; and acting as buffers against
floods and erosion. Wetlands also
serve as a critical element in the
habitat and survival of many aquatic
species. They are in effect "farmlands
for the aquatic environment," since
they provide great amounts of food
for these species. Thus, wetlands in-
directly serve as an important source
of food for people, who consume the
fish, shellfish, and waterfowl that wet-
lands sustain.
Approximately two-thirds of the
original Great Lakes basin wetlands
have been drained or filled since
1800. The vast (1,500 square mile)
Black Swamp of northwest Ohio was
almost entirely converted to farmland
by the early 20th century. It is thought
that wetlands once constituted 60 per-
cent of southwest Ontario and 30 per-
cent of the land area of Michigan.
The Fish and Wildlife Service inven-
toried the nation's wetlands in the
mid-1970s. This inventory categorized
Minnesota as the Great Lakes State
with the highest percentage of remain-
ing wetlands, which constitute be-
tween IS to 25 percent of its land
area. By the same survey, Michigan
and Wisconsin had between 5 and 15
percent wetlands; the other Great
Lakes States had less than 5 percent
wetlands.
The principle Federal regulatory
program concerning wetlands is joint-
ly administered by the Army Corps of
Engineers and EPA in partnership
with State and local governments, pur-
suant to Section 404 of the CWA.
This section establishes a permit pro-
gram to regulate the discharge of
dredged or fill materials into the
waters of the United States, including
most wetlands. Figure 5-2 shows the
distribution of Section 404 dredge
and fill permit applications in the
Great Lakes basin. The Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service have important ad-
visory roles in the permit review
process. It should be noted that the
Section 404 program does not provide
comprehensive wetlands protection.
Some activities that can damage wet-
lands, such as drainage and
groundwater pumping, are beyond
the scope of this program. However,
EPA and States have designated wet-
lands that border directly on the
Great Lakes as "priority" wetlands for
- protection under the 404 program
(with the present exception of New
York, which is in the process of revis-
ing its designation of priority wet-
lands).
In addition, EPA and States identify
certain wetlands prior to permit
reviews under an Advance Identifica-
tion (ADID) program. ADID entails
collecting data in areas that have espe-
cially high resource value or are under
development pressure. The program
identifies wetland areas of the highest
ecological value and informs land-
owners of the likelihood of permit is-
suance or denial. During FY 1989,
EPA and States completed ADID
projects for Northwest Indiana/Grand
Calumet River and southeast Wiscon-
sin. During FY 1990, EPA and States
revised an ADID study of Lake Coun-
ty, Illinois; continue a wetlands study
of Oswego County, New York; and in-
itiated an ADID study of Green Bay,
Wisconsin.
Assessment and
Remediation of
Contaminated
Sediments
(ARCS) Program
During FY 1989, EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office con-
tinued its sponsorship of a major ef-
fort, the Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sedi-
ments (ARCS) study, to assess Great
Lakes sediments that are con-
taminated by toxic pollutants and to
develop technologies and methods for
restoring such sediments. Five areas
within the Great Lakes basin are
receiving priority consideration in this
study: Ashtabula River (Ohio), Buf-
falo River (New York), Grand
Calumet River (Indiana), Saginaw
Bay (Michigan), and Sheboygan Har-
bor (Wisconsin).
The Program Office is joined in this
endeavor by experts from various orr
gahizations, including the Army Corps
of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice; EPA Headquarters and Regions
II and V; EPA's Environmental Re-
search Laboratories in Duluth, Min-
nesota and Athens, Georgia; EPA's
Large Lakes Research Station in
Grosse He, Michigan; the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources;
the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation; the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Great Lakes En-
vironmental Research Laboratory in
Ann Arbor, Michigan; and the U.S.
Bureau of Mines.
All 30 United States Areas of Con-
cern are suspected to have con-
taminated sediments problems.
Developing scientific grounds for plan-
ning remedial measures for these sedi-
ments will be critical to the
development of successful RAPs. The
five areas receiving attention under
the ARCS study are all designated
Areas of Concern, and will have
developed RAPs by the end of FY
1991.
Assessments of
Contaminated
Sediments
During FY 1989, the ARCS study
sponsored sampling of surface sedi-
ments in Indiana Harbor/Grand
Calumet River, Indiana, and in the
Buffalo River, New York. Preliminary
data from Indiana Harbor indicates
acute toxicity to the test organisms.
The sediments are among the most
toxic ever sampled in the Great
Lakes. Because the samples are from
the surface of the sediments, the im-
plication is that the contamination is
continuing from sources in the area.
In the Grand Calumet River, the sur-
face sediments were also found to be
extremely toxic. ARCS sponsored
sediment probings in the Grand
Calumet River found that con-
taminated sediment deposits were 12
to 17 feet deep in many places. In the
southern reaches of Indiana Harbor,
carry indications are that sediments
are up to 50 feet deep. Ten surficial
sediment samples were taken in the
Buffalo River. Preliminary laboratory
results indicate that toxicity levels
were lower than in Indiana Harbor.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 75
. During FY 1990, the ARCS study
continued site assessments. In Novem-
ber 1989, surficial sediment samples
were taken in Saginaw Bay to analyze
for chemistry, biological toricity, and
benthic community structure. In the
Grand Calumet, Saginaw, and Buf-
falo Rivers, ARCS took take cores to
conduct chemical analysis and
microtox® (tenacity) evaluations at
various depths and to assess the quan-
tity of contaminated sediment
present. Chemical analyses of samples
from the Grand Calumet River, In-
diana Harbor, and the Buffalo River
continued. The Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice surveyed fish (bullheads) for
tumors and abnormalities in Saginaw,
the Grand Calumet River, and Buf-
falo River. The Service also studied
the transfer of contaminants in sedi-
ment to fish in these three locations.
In addition, ARCS used Superfund
activities in Ashtabula River to obtain
samples and chemical analyses, both
surficial and with depth. ARCS con-
ducted bioassays and benthic com-
munity structure analyses on
Ashtabula sediment collected by the
potentially responsible parties at this
Superfund site. Sheboygan Harbor
also contains a Superfund site, allow-
ing the ARCS study to make use of
Superfund bioassays and chemistry
analyses.
Hazard Evaluations
During FY 1990, the ARCS study
continued assessment and modeling
to assess and predict human and
ecological health impacts of cleanup
options. ARCS completed evalua-
tions, initiated in FY 1989, of the
hazards under the "no action" alterna-
tive at each of the five priority loca-
tions. At two of the five sites, Buffalo
River and Saginaw Bay, ARCS also
began comprehensive hazard evalua-
tions to describe the risks under
various remedial alternatives. ARCS
started a synthesis of all site-specific
information on hazard evaluation,
gathered during FYs 1989 and 1990,
into a numerical ranking system for
Great Lakes sediments to assist in
identifying and addressing areas with
the most severe problems.
At Buffalo River and Saginaw Bay,
ARCS conducted week-long con-
taminant sampling surveys to analyze
sources and fates of contaminants.
Many industrial firms along the Buf-
falo River have closed since the 1970s
or directed their discharges to
. municipal treatment facilities; thus,
the Buffalo River analysis will likely
prove less complex than that of
Saginaw Bay, which contains more
current sources of pollutants and a
much larger drainage basin. ARCS
also used sediment investigations as-
sociated with a regulatory enforce-
ment action in Black River, Ohio
where PAH-contaminated sediments
are being dredged by a local steel com-
pany, to learn about the recovery rate
of benthic organisms after sediment
cleanup.
Technology Evaluations
In FY 1990, ARCS conducted eight
to ten different small-scale (i.e., a few
kilograms of sediment) laboratory
tests of treatment technologies on
sediments collected at the five priority
sites. These tests will provide prelimi-
nary feasibility and design data for en-
suing field demonstrations. Types of
treatment technologies to be
evaluated in laboratory tests include
solidification/stabilization, extraction,
chemical treatment, and biological
treatment. Also, ARCS will sponsor a
workshop on biological treatment of
sediments contaminated by FCBs,
PAHs, and metals.
Public Communication
The ARCS study will continue to
make current information available to
the public. Among the public out-
reach activities for FY 1990 is the
development of slide-show/video
presentations and sponsorship of
public meetings to inform residents
living near the priority areas about the
ongoing field work, research activities,
and results obtained from the ARCS
study.
The Superfund
Program
Superfund Sites in the
Great Lakes Basin
Figure 5-3 shows the distribution of
all candidate Superfund waste sites by
county in the Great Lakes basin. The
distribution of a subset of Figure 5-3
sites—final and proposed Great
Lakes NPL sites—is displayed in Fig-
ure 5-4. (The counties displayed on
these maps are those that are wholly
or partly located within the Great
Lakes basin. A geographic area larger '
than that of the Great Lakes basin is
used, since information from the
Agency's Superfund data base can
best be extracted by county.) Figures
5-3 and 5-4 provide an approximation
of the universe of Superfund sites of
potential significance to the Great
Lakes. It should be noted that the
potential impact of different sites
upbfl the Great Lakes varies enor-
mously.
As can be seen in Figure 5-3, as of
January 1990, within the Great Lakes
counties there was a total of 4,109
waste sites that the Superfund pro-
gram either has assessed or will assess
in the future. The 4,109 sites include
candidate sites for which preliminary
assessments, site investigations, and
RI/FSs are not completed; sites that
have been investigated and that do
not qualify for Superfund cleanup;
and a small subset that do qualify for
cleanup (NPL sites). Of the total of
4,109 sites, there are 3,935 non-NPL
sites, 140 NPL sites, and 23 proposed
for the NPL. Thus, the NPL presently
includes about four percent of the
candidate sites in the Great Lakes
basin. The distribution by county of
these NPL sites can be seen in Figure
5-4.
On a nationwide basis, there are
about 1,200 final and proposed NPL
sites from more than 33,000 can-
didate sites. With 163 final and
proposed NPL sites, the Great Lakes
basin counties, representing about 5.4
percent of the continental United
States land area, hold about 13.5 per-
cent of the Nation's Superfund sites.
This disproportionate share of NPL
sites is a result of the Great Lake
basin's industrial heritage.
As shown in Table 5-4, the distribu-
tion of candidate Superfund sites ap-
pears to correlate closely with
concentrations of population, al-
though the distribution of final and
proposed NPL sites does not seem to
follow population concentrations as
closely. The table shows the top
twelve counties in terms of number of
candidate sites. Counties containing
the major cities of Chicago, Buffalo,
Detroit, and Cleveland have the most
candidate sites. However, the distribu-
tion of NPL sites does not follow
population concentrations as closely.
For example, the counties containing
Detroit and Cleveland do not have
-------
76 Chapters •_ DRAFT March 1991
The Super/fund Program .. *• \
The Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 authorized the Superfund program. CERCLA was
enacted to (1) institute a comprehensive national program to identify and clean up the most threatening hazardous
waste sites, (2) make1 responsible parties pay for cleanups whenever possible, and (3) set up a trust fund, popularly
known as Superfund and endowed by taxes on oil and chemical industries, for the twin purposes of performing
cleanups in cases where responsible parties cannot be held accountable and for responding to emergency situations
involving hazardous substances. SARA increased the trust fund from $1.6 billion to $8.5 bilKon. It should be noted
that certain industrial sectors have degrees of exemption from CERCLA, including pulp and paper mills (seepage
lagoons) and petroleum refining facilities.
Under CERCLA, EPA and States may clean up sites where hazardous wastes from abandoned or otherwise inactive
waste sites endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. Whenever possible, EPA requires Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) to clean up hazardous waste sites that they have contaminated. PRPs are one or more
individuals or companies, including owners, operators, transporters, or generators of waste, potentially responsible
for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. All work done by PRPs is closely monitored
by EPA or the States.
EPA and the States may themselves act to cleanup hazardous sites when responsible companies or individuals do
not do so. Cleanup costs are paid by Superfund, with a contribution of 10 percent by the State for cleanups of privately
owned sites and 50 percent for those that are publicly owned. EPA can later sue to recover its costs from responsible
parties.
Once a potential hazardous waste site is identified, EPA or a State carries out a multi-step assessment procedure to
determine the risk to public health, welfare and the environment, and what cleanup actions are appropriate. The first
step is to perform a preliminary assessment of the size and potential hazards of a site. If the preliminary assessment
suggests that the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment, the site is inspected. EPA uses a Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) to score and compare sites. Factors that are considered under the MRS include the type,
quantities, and toxicity of the wastes; the number of people potentially exposed; the likely pathways of exposure; and
the importance and vulnerability of the underlying supply of groundwater.
After sites have been assessed, the Agency places the most significant ones on its National Priorities List (NPL) as
targets for Superfund cleanup. The NPL is updated at least once a year. Once a site is placed on the NPL, EPA
conducts a remedial Investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). The remedial Investigation is a long-term study entailing
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses in order to develop precise data on the types and quantities of wastes,
soil types, water drainage patterns, and resulting human and environmental risks. Based on the results of the remedial
investigation, the feasibility study evaluates the alternatives for remediating the site contamination, also considering
relative efficacy and cost of remedial alternatives. EPA chooses the most appropriate alternative as a remedy for the
site and issues a Record of Decision (ROD} to set forth its selection. The public has an opportunity to comment on
the Record of Decision.
The final step is site remediation. Cleanup actions are aimed at a permanent remedy and may include such measures
as taking wastes to another site for safe disposal; "capping" the original site with waterproof clay; installing drains,
liners, or grout "curtains" to prevent groundwater contamination; providing alternate sources of drinking water; or
relocating residents.
At any time during this process, EPA may conduct short-term removal actions If a site is found to present an imminent
hazard, such as its potential for fire or its contamination of drinking water. Removal actions do not require that the
site already be designated on the NPL Removal actions include installing fences to isolate the site and actual removal
of the wastes for safe disposal.
In mid-1989, EPA issued an assessment of the nationwide Superfund program during its first nine years. This
assessment noted that EPA and the States had, to that date, identified over 30,000 sites as candidates for Superfund
cleanup, of which over 27,000 had been subjected to preliminary field review and classification. About 16,000 sites
had been evaluated as not qualifying for the NPL, The NPL included nearly 1,200 sites, with 250 financed to start
cleanup. At present funding levels, EPA could begin cleanup at about 40 sites per year and potentially responsible
parties could begin cleanup at about 50 additional sites per year. The Agency expects to add NPL sites at a rate of
about 75 to 100 per year. The average cost per site is about $25 million and is expected to grow as more complex
sites move into the cleanup phase.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 77
To be replaced with correct figure.
Figure 5-3. CERCLA Sites in Great Lakes Basin Counties.
Source: USEPA, 199_.
any NPL sites, whereas several rela-
tively less populated counties nave far
more NPL sites: Kent County
(Michigan) has ten NPL sites (the
most of any Great Lakes county) and
adjacent Muskegon County has nine
NPL sites.
The significance of the distribution
of NPL sites across the Great Lakes
basin would seem to be that, to date,
the Superfund program has been rela-
tively more important in addressing
waste sites lying outside the major,
lakefront United States cities in the
Great Lakes basin. This is a general
pattern and is the result of greater
human health risks outside of these
lakefront cities. The ranking of Super-
fund sites depends on the specific
characteristics of each site. Waste
sites in lakefront cities have been
proposed for the NPL when their
risks warrant.
Most present NPL sites were deter-
mined under the HRS as it was
originally defined under CERCLA's
1980 authorizing legislation. Under
this legislation, the Agency's site as-
sessment process, resulting NPL
designations, and remedial plans have
tended not to consider risks as-
sociated with transport of con-
taminated groundwater into surface
water, such as the Great Lakes; food
chain risks to wildlife and humans;
release of contaminants from surface-
water sediments; and cumulative ef-
fects of loadings from multiple sites.
There are good reasons why these fac-
tors have not been considered in
many cases. Each of these factors is
usually difficult to assess, entails exten-
sive study, and studies of them would
provide results with substantial uncer-
tainty. Given the imperative to reduce
risk and make timely environmental
progress, the Agency has set practical
bounds in site assessments and rank-
ings. In general, it has given primacy
to readily quantifiable human risks
over those substantially more difficult
to assess.
Under the current HRS and its
proposed revisions, one major factor
in assessing the hazards of a waste site
is the reliance of a local population on
groundwater for its drinking water.
Large lakefront cities, like Buffalo,
Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, ob-
tain drinking water from the Great
Lakes rather than from groundwater.
Therefore, sites in these counties have
tended to not score as high under the
HRS formula as sites in counties
where more of the population relies
on groundwater for drinking water.
In the future, major lakefront urban
areas may be given greater priority for
Superfund cleanups. Under the Su-
perfund legislation of 1986, EPA was
required to revise the HRS to include
consideration of food-chain risks.
EPA proposed revisions to the HRS
in 1988, including assessment of risks
associated with the aquatic food
chain. If adopted, these revisions may
give higher priority to lakefront urban
waste sites in the Great Lakes basin.
Table 5-5 summarizes Superfund ac-
tivities in the Great Lakes basin
during FY 1989. Activities are broken
-------
78 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
down by types of activities (e.g., in-
spections, negotiations, removals).
Superfund Activities in
Great Lakes Area of
Concern
A considerable number of Super-
fund cleanup activities are in progress
or are planned in the Great Lakes
basin. Eight Areas of Concern that
contain NFL sites include:
Niagara River, New York
Love Canal
The passage of the initial Superfund
legislation was, in part, inspired by the
notoriety of a site called Love Canal,
near the Niagara River. The following
cleanup measures have been taken at
the Love Canal site:
• The landfill itself has been
covered with an impermeable
liner.
• A leachate collection system has
been operating since 1979.
• Pursuant to an October 1987
ROD regarding dioxin-con-
taminated sediments in sewers
and creeks near Love Canal, the
contaminated sediments have
been excavated from the Black
and Bergholtz creeks, sewers
have been cleaned, and all
residuals will be incinerated.
• A habitability study has been con-
ducted to determine if the Emer-
gency Declaration Area
surrounding Love Canal is
suitable for habitation. The study
found that four areas are
suitable for residential use, and
three areas are suitable for com-
mercial or industrial use.
• Pursuant to an ROD, a cap will
be constructed over solidified
and stabilized contaminated soils
for the 93rd Street School por-
tion of the site.
Of the remaining waste sites es-
timated to contribute the greatest
amount of toxicants to the Niagara
River from the United States, four of
the top eight are on the NPL, These
four are:
Niagara County Refuse Disposal
Site
EPA issued an Administrative Con-
sent Order on March 30,1989, that
requires the responsible panics to un-
dertake an extensive remedial inves-
tigation and feasibility study. Pending
issuance of an ROD, EPA's target
- date for start of cleanup activities is
late 1994.
Hyde Park Landfill
The initial consent decree against
Occidental Chemical Corporation
(OCC) was filed in 1981 and
amended with respect to the remedy
in 1986. Since then EPA, New York
State, and OCC have agreed that
OCC will clean up the site under
EPA/State oversight. An Enforce-
ment Decision Document has been
signed and an RI/FS performed. The
following actions were started or ac-
complished during FY 1990:
• Construction of an on-site
leachate storage and treatment
system was completed
• Incineration of the non-aqueous
phase liquids at OCC's Niagara
Falls facility began
• Installation of source control ex-
traction wells began
• Construction of containment col-
. lection systems was completed.
102nd Street Landfill
The initial lawsuit against OCC and
Olin Corporation was filed in 1979. A
Consent Decree was filed by EPA,
New York State, Olin Corporation,
and OCC in 1984. Olin Corporation
and OCC completed a remedial inves-
tigation and feasibility study. EPA is-
sued a Record of Decision in
September 1990. EPA's target date to
start cleanup actions is late 1992.
S-Area Landfill
A Settlement Agreement (for on-
site remedial action and off-site study)
between EPA, New York State,
OCC, and the City of Niagara Falls
was reached in 1984. Since then, an in-
vestigation and design study has been
completed. An amended Settlement
Agreement was filed in September
1990 for an expanded on-site remedy,
an off-site remedy, and a new water
treatment plant for the City of
Niagara Falls. Remedial construction
began in late 1990.
Dupont Necco Park
This waste site, considered to be an
important source to the Niagara
River, is not on the NPL, but is the
target of joint Superfund/Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
Table 5-4. Candidate Superfund Sites vs. NPL Sites for
Selected Great Lakes Basin Counties.
Source: USEPA, CERCUS, January 1990 (#).
County (Largest City)
Cook (Chicago)
Erie (Buffalo)
Wayne (Detroit)
Niagara (Niagara Falls)
Cuyahoga (Cleveland)
Lake (Gary)
Erie (Erie)
a Joseph (South Bend)
Muskegon (Muskegon)
Monroe (Rochester)
Oakland (Troy)
Kent (Grand Rapids)
State
Illinois
New York
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Indiana
Michigan
New York
Michigan
Michigan
Number
of
Candidate
Site*
306
150
147
141
133
131
113
91
84
73
71
62
Number of
NPL Sites
1
1
0
5
0
5
2
3
9
0
5
10
Ratio of NPL
Site* To
Candidate
Site* (%)
0.3
0.7
0
3.5
0
3.8
1.8
3.3
10.7
0
7.0
16.1
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 79
To be replaced with correct figure.
Figure 5-4. Final and Proposed NPL Sites in Great Lakes Basin Counties.
Source: USEPA, 199_
(RCRA) enforcement. EPA and New
York State issued an Administrative
Order to Dupont under RCRA in
1988 and under CERCLA in 1989.
An RI/FS will begin in 1991, and an
ROD is planned for early 1992.
Waukegan Harbor, Illinois
Sediments in the harbor and nearby
"North Ditch" are grossly con-
taminated by PCBs. Discovered in
1976, this is the largest known reser-
voir of PCBs in the Great Lakes.
From about 1961 to 1972, the Out-
board Marine Corporation (OMC), a
maker of outboard motors for boats,
used a hydraulic fluid containing
PCBs in die-casting processes. EPA
estimates that there are more than
700,000 pounds of PCBs on the
property of Outboard Marine Cor-
poration and about 300,000 pounds in
Waukegan Harbor. Past loadings of
PCBs to Lake Michigan from this site
are estimated to be in the hundreds of
thousands of pounds.
Under the terms of the Superfund
cleanup to be carried out by OMC,
cleanup actions are scheduled
through late 1993. Actions will in-
clude dredging the harbor in areas
having PCB concentrations in excess
of SO parts per million, constructing
three containment cells for less con-
taminated soil and sediment, and
using extraction technology to remove
PCBs from soil and sediment. Ex-
tracted PCBs will be taken off-site for
destruction by incineration. More
than 99 percent of the mass of PCBs
in the harbor will be removed and
either destroyed or confined on-site.
St Lawrence River, New York
Industrial sources in Massena, New
York, have contributed large loadings
of PCBs to the St. Lawrence River,
which have transboundary effects. It
is estimated that 23,000 cubic yards of
sediments adjacent to General
Motor's plant are heavily con-
taminated with PCBs, which were
used at the facility during the late
1960s to mid-1970s in die-casting.
During FY1990, EPA proposed a
remedial action to include dredging of
contaminated sediments of the St
Lawrence and Raquette Rivers and
preventing the transport of con-
taminants via groundwater from the
site. Cleanup is planned to begin
during 1991. At the onset of FY 1990,
EPA also issued Superfund Ad-
ministrative Orders to the Aluminum
Company of America and the
Reynolds Metal Company to perform
remedial investigations, designs, and
cleanups of PCB-contaminated sedi-
ments in the St. Lawrence River sys-
tem. These three Superfund actions
are part of a focused effort by EPA,
New York State, and the St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe to restore the St.
Lawrence River. Because of con-
tamination, the Mohawks have had to
cut back on eating fish and waterfowl,
which have traditionally been impor-
tant parts of their diet.
Ashtabula River, Ohio
The upper two miles of this river
contain sediments heavily con-
taminated by PCBs, toxic metals, and
other toxic substances that primarily
-------
80 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
came from past industrial discharges
to Fields Brook, which empties into
the Ashtabula River. Parts of the Ash-
tabula River have not been dredged
since 1962, resulting in impeded
navigation. Fields Brook, including ad-
jacent properties, is a Superfund NPL
site. During FY 1989, EPA issued an
Administrative Order for Fields
Brook that potentially responsible par-
ties conduct a "Downgradient Con-
tamination Investigation" of the
Ashtabula River and Harbor. Results
of the river sampling were expected in
June 1990. This investigation will pro-
vide information to help determine
whether the Ashtabula River itself
should be a Superfund site. Thus far,
6 of 19 potentially responsible panics
for the Fields Brook site have agreed
to undertake the design of a sediment
cleanup plan. The remaining 13 par-
ties have yet to comply with the Ad-
ministrative Orders. The selected
remedy for Fields Brook entails ther-
mal treatment of the sediment con-
taminated with the most mobile
organic pollutants, and the solidifica-
tion and burial of the remainder.
Kalamazoo River, Michigan
The 28-mile stretch of river from
the city of Kalamazoo to Lake
Michigan has sediments heavily con-
taminated with PCBs. EPA proposed
an Allied Paper Incorporated site for
the Superfund NPL during FY 1989.
The Kalamazoo River NPL site has
seven sub-sites. All have PCB con-
taminants in sediments. EPA began
an RI/FS of this site during FY 1990.
Sheboygan River and Harbor,
Wisconsin
The harbor and lower 12-mile
stretch of the river contain con-
taminated sediments, most notably
containing PCBs. In 1985, the lower
Sheboygan River and Harbor were
designated as a Superfund site. A
major source of PCB contamination
was identified as a site owned by
Tecumseh Products Incorporated. As
a PRP, Tecumseh conducted an
RI/FS that continued during FY
1989. During FY 1990, EPA studied
specific remedial alternatives. In
order to evaluate the potential of
remedial technologies, EPA, the State
of Wisconsin, and the PRP have
removed 2,000 cubic yards of sedi-
ments to test various treatments in-
cluding biodegradation. This study is
scheduled for completion in the sum-
mer of 1991. EPA plans to issue an
ROD in late 1992.' Remedial actions
are expected to begin in mid-1993.
Saginaw River and Bay,
Michigan
This Area of Concern is large and its
.environmental problems are complex.
The bay itself is 51 miles long and be-
tween 13 and 26 miles wide. Its
drainage basin contains about 15 per-
cent of Michigan's total land area.
Three-quarters of the hydraulic input
to the bay comes from the Saginaw
River, which itself has four major
tributaries. The sediments of the bay
contain various persistent toxicants, in-
cluding metals and PCBs. No con-
sumption of bottom-feeding fish (carp
and catfish) is advised. Fish-eating
bird populations have had reproduc-
tive failures and birth defects.
As of mid-1988, Michigan indicated
that there were 189 waste sites within
the Saginaw Bay basin, including 13
that were on the Superfund NPL.
About one-fourth of these sites have
documented impacts on surface
water. Their impact on groundwater
and its loading to surface waters is
generally not well understood. One
NPL site of known significance is the
Shiawassee River site. Michigan is
now conducting a remedial investiga-
tion of this site, which contains sedi-
ments contaminated with PCBs.
Torch Lake, Michigan
For more than 100 years, this lake
within the Keweenaw Peninsula
received copper mine tailings and
other wastes that now fill more than
20 percent of its original volume.
Torch Lake is a NPL site. A Super-
fund RI/FS is in progress.
Other Sites
The Superfund program is likely to
have an important restorative impact
on other Areas of Concern, as well.
During FY 1990, EPA started a
remedial investigation of a Fort
Howard Paper NPL site that is of
potential importance to the Green
Bay Area of Concern. EPA also plans
to complete a remedial investigation
of a St. Louis River, Minnesota, NPL
site which includes river sediments
contaminated by PAHs. During FY
1989, EPA began a removal action at
the Cannelton Industries NPL site in
Saulte St. Marie, Michigan; this site is
adjacent to the St. Marys River Area
of Concern. There are four NPL sites
in Gary, Indiana of potential
relevance to the Grand Calumet
River/Indiana Harbor Area of Con-
cern. Remedial investigations were
completed on three of these sites
during FY 1989. The River Raisin
Table 5-5. Great Lakes Superfund Activities in FYs 1989 and
1990.
Source: USEPA, 199 .
Activity
Conduct Initial Inspections
Begin RI/FS Studies
Complete RI/FS Studies
Begin Negotiations with PRPs
Begin Remedial Designs
Begin Remedial Actions
Begin Removal Activities
Complete Removal Activities
NPL Deletion
Begin Non-NPL Site Removal
Complete Non-NPL Site Removal
Number of Actions*
FY1989
30
11
16
11
13
3
4
6
1
17
6
FY 1990 (Planned)
-
8
19
17
20
7
2
-
-
3
2
•These figures do not include Superfund activities in New York or Pennsylvania.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 81
Area of Concern in southeastern
Michigan has adjacent landfills that
are suspected sources of con-
taminated groundwater and land
runoff of PCBs and heavy metals.
Some of these may become NPL sites
after assessments are completed.
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Program
(Subtitle C)
RCRA, first passed in 1976 and
amended in 1980 and 1984, estab-
lished a shared EPA and State pro-
gram (under Subtitle C) to regulate
newly generated municipal and in-
dustrial solid waste disposal and
(under Subtitle I) certain under-
ground storage tanks. Whereas the
mission of Superfund is to clean up
past uncontrolled hazardous wastes,
RCRA sets guidelines for current and
future hazardous waste management
from generation through ultimate dis-
posal ("cradle-to-grave"), so as even-
tually to preclude the need for a
Superfund program. Hazardous
waste is defined as solid waste that
meets one of four conditions: it is ig-
nitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic.
Subtitle C regulations define re-
quirements that businesses and
governments must follow in their
management of hazardous waste
from generation through transporta-
tion and ultimate treatment, storage,
and disposal. Generators must obtain
an EPA identification number for
each site at which hazardous waste is
created. In practice, most hazardous
waste is treated or disposed of at its
site of generation. If a generator
transports hazardous waste, however,
the generator must verify its receipt at
its intended destination and notify
EPA if the waste does not arrive.
Treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must obtain a permit to en-
sure that they meet RCRA standards
for waste management. There are
four classes of facilities: storage and' '
treatment, land disposal, under-
ground injection, and incinerators.
Treatment facilities alter the charac-
ter or composition of hazardous
waste. Storage facilities hold waste,
pending treatment or disposal. Land
disposal sites include landfills, surface
impoundments, application to land,
and underground injection. Under-
ground injection wells are shafts into
the earth into which hazardous wastes
are deposited under pressure and are
the most common method of land dis-
posal. RCRA requirements for land
disposal facilities include banning un-
derground injection near a drinking
water well; structural requirements
for landfills and surface impound-
ments; cleanup of hazardous waste
releases; and location standards that
set hydrogeologic conditions for dis-
posal facility siting. RCRA regulations
also require treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to prepare for the
eventual closure of their facilities.
To ensure that governments and
businesses comply with RCRA regula-
To be replaced with correct figure.
Figure 5-5. Large Quantity Generators.
-------
82 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
tions, program personnel inspect
facilities and take enforcement
measures when necessary. All treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities
are inspected at least once every two
years. Hazardous waste facilities
owned by governments are inspected
on an annual basis. Facilities are also
inspected when EPA or a State has
basis for believing that a permit viola-
tion has taken place. During inspec-
tions, program personnel review
groundwater monitoring records and
obtain waste samples. In the event of
noncompliance, EPA or the State
takes enforcement actions that may
result in civil and criminal penalties,
orders to correct the permit violation,
fines, or imprisonment.
RCRA Activities in the
Great Lakes Basin
This section summarizes some ac-
tivities of the RCRA program in the
Great Lakes basin. RCRA activities
and sites were selected based on their
location within counties that are whol-
ly or partly located within the Great
Lakes basin. A geographic area larger
than that of the basin is used, since in-
formation from the Agency's per-
tinent data base can best be extracted
by county.
Figure 5-5 shows the distribution of
14,107 large quantity generators in
the counties of the Great Lakes basin.
Cook County, Illinois, has the highest
number of generators. Other counties
with high concentrations include
Wayne County, Michigan, and two ad-
jacent counties, Macomb and Oak-
land, and the counties containing
Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo,
Rochester, and Syracuse, New York.
Figure 5-6 illustrates the distribution
of over 16,443 small and very small
quantity generators. Many of the
same counties that have high con-
centrations of large generators have
high concentrations of smaller ones.
Additional notable concentrations are
the counties containing Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; Duluth, Minnesota;
Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Toledo,
Ohio.
Figure 5-7 presents the distribution
of 463 treatment and storage facilities .
in Great Lakes basin counties. Their
distribution seems to follow the
population distribution. Cook County,
Illinois (Chicago) has the greatest
number of storage and treatment
facilities. Wayne County, Michigan
(Detroit) and Cuyahoga County,
Ohio (Cleveland) have the next
highest concentrations.
Figure 5-8 shows the distribution of
173 land disposal facilities in Great
Lakes basin counties. The highest con-
centrations of land disposal facilities
are in Lake County, Indiana (which
contains the Grand Calumet River
Area of Concern) and Wayne County,
Michigan (which has two Areas of
Concern, the Rouge and Detroit
Rivers). Other counties with large
concentrations of disposal facilities
are Cook County, Illinois; Cuyahoga
County, Ohio; and Niagara County,
New York.
During FY 1989, EPA and the
States conducted 1,651 RCRA inspec-
tions in the Great Lakes basin coun-
To be replaced with correct figure.
Figure 5-6. Small and Very Small Quantity Generators.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 83
Figure 5-7. Treatment and Storage Facilities.
Figure 5-8. Land Disposal Facilities.
-------
84 Chapter 5
DRAFT March 1991
To be replaced with correct figure.
Figure 5-9. Compliance Evaluation Inspections in FY1989.
ties. Counties with the highest con-
centration of facilities — Cook,
Wayne, and Cuyahoga counties—
also had the highest concentration of
inspections. Figure 5-9 shows the dis-
tribution of compliance evaluation in-
spections.
Beginning in FY 1990 and continu-
ing into FY 1991, EPA, Illinois, and
.ndiana plan a RCRA enforcement
project dedicated to a specific
geographic region — southeast
Chicago and Lake and Porter Coun-
ties in northwest Indiana. This initia-
tive will include inspections at
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, and increased inspections of
generators. Where violations of per-
mits are found, State/Federal enforce-
ment actions will be taken.
The RCRA program can have sub-
stantial impact on improving Great
Lakes water quality. New York State
and EPA are using RCRA authorities
to ensure that responsible companies
clean up four of the top eight waste
sites that release contaminants into
the Niagara River. These four sites in-
clude the site that is the source of the
largest estimated loadings, the Oc-
cidental Chemical Corporation's Buf-
falo Avenue Plant (corrective
measure completion target date is
December 1996); the CECOS Inter-
national Incorporated hazardous
waste disposal facility (corrective
measure completion target date is
December 1996); the Bell Aerospace
Textron plant (corrective measure
completion target date is December
1996); and the BTL Specialty Resins
Corporation, owned by Occidental
Chemical Corporation (corrective
measure completion target date is
December 19%).
Air Programs
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has
set National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for six air pollutants that
are common nationwide—ozone,
carbon monoxide, total suspended
particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead, and
nitrogen dioxide. States monitor am-
bient atmospheric concentrations of
these criteria pollutants. Where air
quality standards are not met, States
develop plans to attain them. Mobile
sources, such as automobiles,
produce the majority of air pollution
emissions. EPA and the States limit
emissions from mobile sources by set-
ting design requirements for car
manufacturers and by periodic inspec-
tions of vehicle emissions. EPA and
the States reduce emissions from
major stationary sources, such as
utilities and industrial facilities, by issu-
ing permits that limit emissions of the
six criteria pollutants by requiring best
demonstrated control systems. EPA
also regulates certain "hazardous air
pollutants," including asbestos, beryl-
lium, mercury, and vinyl chloride. In
1989, revisions to the Clean Air Act
were proposed that provided
strengthened measures for reducing
emissions of toxic substances by re-
quiring permittees to use more effec-
tive control technologies.
Some States have established
programs expressly aimed at limiting
airborne toxic substances. New York
State, for example, has set acceptable
ambient levels (AALs) for ap-
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Selected EPA Programs 85
proximatety 200 toxic chemicals. The
State models potential emissions of
these substances from new or
modified air point sources to deter-
mine whether AALs would be ex-
ceeded. If any would be exceeded, the
new or modified facility must reduce
its potential emissions so that is com-
plies with the AAL. Regulation is
usually based, in effect, on indirect
modeling of environmental conditions
rather than on direct measures of am-
bient air concentrations of toxic sub-
stances because atmospheric
concentrations are very low and dif-
ficult to measure. However, New
York State augments its modeling by
operating monitoring sites for certain
toxic air pollutants, including monitor-
ing for methylene chloride in
Rochester and dioxin near the
Niagara River. In FY 1989, New
York issued about 600 air permits in
its 30 Great Lakes basin counties.
Airborne Toxic
Substances in the
Great Lakes Region
During the last several years, EPA
and the States have conducted studies
concerning airborne toxic substances
in the Great Lakes region. One of
these studies estimated cancer risks at-
tributable to the inhalation of air pol-
lution in southeast Chicago.
Southeast Chicago has both intense in-
dustrial activity and a high population
density. The study estimated the emis-
sions of 30 substances that are con-
sidered potentially carcinogenic.
Based on these emissions, the study
estimated that airborne potential car-
cinogens were likely to induce 77 addi-
tional cases of cancer over 70 years in
a human population of 393,000. For
the persons living within the study
area, inhalation of the study's air pol-
lutants increased the likelihood of can-
cer during their lifetimes by two
chances in 10,000. Major sources of
potentially cancer-causing air pol-
lutants were steel mills (37 percent);
other industries (18 percent); motor
vehicles (16 percent); consumer sour-
ces, such as home heating, dry clean-
ing, and auto refueling (8 percent);
and background pollutants (21 per-
cent).
During FYs 1988 and 1989, EPA's
Great Lakes National Program Office
sponsored two studies that inven-
toried air emissions and modeled at-
mospheric contaminant transport in
. both the. Detroit/Windsor and
southern Lake Michigan areas. The
States of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois,
and Wisconsin joined EPA in conduct-
ing these studies.
The southern Lake Michigan study,
covering 21 counties, addressed a
total of 58 substances known to be
deposited atmospherically into Lake
Michigan or known to pose a car-
cinogenic or other human health risk.
Three different sources of informa-
tion were used to estimate emissions
around southern Lake Michigan. The
primary source was a 1985 Agency na-
tional estimation of emissions of the
six criteria pollutants from known
emission points based on the type of
emitting technology. "Calculation fac-
tors" were applied to these emissions
to derive estimates concerning the
study's pollutants. The estimation
method was augmented by data on
facilities obtained under permit
programs and by emission informa-
tion reported by large firms for 1987
under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (i.e.,
Title III of the Superfund Amend-
ments).
One result of this study is that there
are few emissions near southern Lake
Michigan of such critical Great Lakes
persistent toxic substances as dioxins,
furans, and PCBs. This result should
be viewed from several perspectives,
however. First, the study obtained es-
timates of emissions in counties imme-
diately adjacent to the lakes. Sources
outside the study area may be sig-
nificant. Second, substances like
PCBs are known to volatilize off the
earth's surface. Estimation of this
type of PCB uptake into the atmos-
phere was beyond the scope of study.
Third, facility and pollutant-specific
emission information, if available, is
inherently preferable to indirect es-
timation methods.
The Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network (IADN) (see
Chapter 7) that the United States and
Canada have agreed to establish
around the Great Lakes will provide
more direct information on the atmos-
pheric loadings of certain toxic sub-
stances to the Great Lakes than
estimates obtained from emissions in-
ventories and modeling. IADN results
will also allow assessment of the ef-
ficacy of predictive deposition models.
Due to the difficulty of monitoring
the deposition of some substances,
however, emissions inventories and
modeling will continue to be an effi-
cient way of estimating atmospheric
loadings of a wide range of toxic sub-
stances to the Great Lakes.
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Reports from Other Federal Agencies 87
Chapter 6
Reports from Other Federal Agencies
This chapter presents FY 1989
and 1990 accomplishments and
FY 1991 plans pertaining to the
Great Lakes as reported by five
federal agencies: the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Coast Guard, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, and the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice.
Army Corps of
Engineers
The Corps is responsible for several
programs related to Great Lakes
water quality, including maintenance
of navigation channels and harbors,
civil works programs, construction
projects, and identification and
cleanup of hazardous and toxic
materials.
Under the Rivers and Harbors and
Flood Control Acts, the Corps is re-
quired to maintain adequate depths
for navigation in authorized harbors
and river channels of the Great
Lakes. Periodic dredging of bottom
sediments is necessary to maintain
authorized depths of the navigation
channels. In conducting these naviga-
tion dredging projects, the Corps has
dredged approximately four million
cubic yards of sediments per year
from Great Lakes projects in recent
years (1986-1988). Because ap-
proximately half of this volume is con-
taminated and unsuitable for open
water disposal, confined disposal
facilities have been constructed by the
Corps for disposal of these sediments.
Also among the Corps' programs
with the greatest potential effect on
Great Lakes water quality is the
Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
program, requiring the permitting of
dredge and fill activities in nearshore
areas. In addition, the Corps is respon-
sible for specific construction projects
authorized by Congress or under con-
tinuing authorities. These projects are
in various stages of planning, design,
construction, operations and main-
tenance, for flood damage reduction,
shoreline protection, and navigation.
Through the Defense Environmen-
tal Restoration Program (DERP), the
Corps is responsible for the identifica-
tion and cleanup of hazardous and
toxic materials at formerly used
defense sites (FUDS).
The Corps also provides engineering
and/or construction support to the
USEPA for four additional environ-
mental programs that potentially af-
fect Great Lakes water quality. These
are: the construction grants program
for wastewater treatment facilities;
the Superfund program; the Great
Lakes National Program Office's As-
sessment and Remediation of Con-
taminated Sediments (ARCS) study,
and the EPA Region 5 enforcement
initiative.
Finally, the Corps assists in planning,
development and implementation of
remedial action plans (RAPs) for
States, and supports the International
Joint Commission (LTC) by participat-
ing on boards and committees such as
International St. Lawrence River
Board of Control, the International
Niagara Board of Control, the Great
Lakes Levels Reference Study Board,
the International Lake Superior
Board of Control, the Sediment Sub-
committee to the LFC Water Quality
Board, and the UC Council of Great
Lakes Research Managers.
FY 1989 Accomplishments
• Administration of the regulatory
permitting program and enforce-
ment for construction in
navigable waters under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act and for the discharge of
dredged and fill material into
87
U.S. waters within the Great
Lakes basin under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. Permit ap-
plications were reviewed in
cooperation with Federal and
State agencies, public comments
were reviewed, environmental im-
pacts were assessed, and mitiga-
tion requirements were
determined.
• The Corps analyzed bottom sedi-
ments at 19 navigational projects
in the Great Lakes: Ashtabula
Harbor, Cleveland Harbor and
West Harbor in Ohio; Manisti-
que Harbor, Saginaw River,
Rouge River, St. Clair River,
Keweenaw Waterway and Lake
St. Clair in Michigan; Buffalo
Harbor and Olcott Harbor in
New York; Chicago River and
Waukegan Harbor in Illinois;
Erie Harbor in Pennsylvania; In-
diana Harbor in Indiana; Mil-
waukee Harbor, Sheboygan
Harbor and Green Bay in Wis-
consin; and Duluth/Superior Har-
bor in Minnesota-Wisconsin.
Sediment analyses included physical,
chemical, and biological testing. The
results of sediment testing conducted
by the Corps represents the largest
data base of its kind on the Great
Lakes. Results have been made avail-
able to Federal and State agencies,
and have been widely used for RAP
development. Sediment analyses are
applicable to a wide range of Great
Lakes water quality issues, including
bench-top investigations on the
feasibility of advanced treatment tech-
nologies for contaminated sediments
at Indiana Harbor, studies of the
microbiological degradation of P AHs
in sediments, and comparative
analysis of sediment bioassays.
-------
88 Chapter 6
DRAFT March 1991
• Navigational dredging and con-
fined disposal removed nearly
two million cubic yards of pol-
luted sediments from the Great
Lakes. Navigation projects where
polluted sediments were
removed and disposed of in a
confined disposal'facility in FY
1989 included: Calumet River
and Harbor in Illinois; Cleveland
Harbor and Toledo Harbor in
Ohio; Monroe Harbor, Rouge
River, Saginaw River and
Keweenaw Waterway in
Michigan; Milwaukee Harbor
and Green Bay Harbor in Wis-
consin; and Duluth/Superior Har-
bor in Minnesota-Wisconsin.
• A new confined disposal facility
(CDF) was completed at Clinton
River, Michigan.
• Corps personnel participated in
the development of RAPs for
several Areas of Concern, includ-
ing Ashtabula, Buffalo,
Cleveland, Grand Calumet
River/Indiana Harbor, and Mil-
waukee. In some Areas of Con-
cern, Corps research and/or
confined disposal facilities have
been integral to RAF implemen-
tation.
FY 1990 Accomplishments
• Continuing administration of the
dredge and fill permit program.
Permit applications were
reviewed in cooperation with
Federal and State agencies,
public comments were reviewed,
environmental impacts were as-
sessed and mitigation require-
ments determined.
Approximately 6,500 permits
were issued and 343 enforce-
ment actions were taken by
Corps districts within the Great
Lakes basin during FY 1990.
• Sampling and analysis of bottom
sediments from 19 Great Lakes
navigation projects to determine
disposal means. Sediment inves-
tigations were completed for:
Waukegan Harbor in Illinois;
Cleveland Harbor, Conneaut
Harbor, Rocky River, and San-
dusky Harbor in Ohio; Black
River, Grand Traverse Bay Har-
bor, Manisjique Harbor, On-
tonagon Harbor, and Saginaw
River in Michigan; Ashland Har-
bor, Bayfield Harbor, Cor-
nucopia Harbor, LaPointe
Harbor, Manitowoc Harbor, and
Milwaukee Harbor in Wisconsin;
Duluth-Superior Harbor in Min-
nesota/Wisconsin, Oswego Har-
bor, and Rochester Harbor in
New York.
• Navigational dredging of ap-
proximately 4.1 million cubic
yards of bottom sediments. Ap-
proximately 2 million cubic yards
were determined to be un-
suitable for open-water disposal
and placed in existing CDFs.
Such navigational dredging
projects included: Buffalo Har-
bor in New York; Cleveland Har-
bor, Huron Harbor, Lorain
Harbor, and Toledo Harbor in
Ohio; Detroit River, Holland
Harbor, Keweenaw Waterway,
Monroe Harbor, Saginaw River,
and St. Clair River in Michigan;
Duluth-Superior Harbor in Min-
nesota/Wisconsin; Green Bay
Harbor, and Milwaukee Harbor
in Wisconsin. Activities as-
sociated with this dredging and
disposal include CDF operation,
maintenance, and water quality
monitoring.
• Monitoring studies of con-
taminant loss and biomonitoring
at the Saginaw CDF, and field
studies of PCB bioaccumulation
and volatilization at the Chicago
CDF.
• Initiation of construction of the
Maumee Bay Shoreline erosion
and Beach Restoration and
Reno Beach/Howard Farms
Flood control projects in Ohio.
• Participation in the Onondaga
Lake management conference
and representation on the Onon-
daga Lake technical advisory
committee.
• Initiation of construction of two
major flood damage reduction
projects. The Chicagoland Un-
derflow Plan and the Little
Calumet River Flood Protection
. .and Recreation'Project. The
Chicagoland Underflow Plan is
the reservoir portion of
Chicago's Tunnel and Reservoir
project (TARP). The overall
TARP project will reduce the
backflow of stormwater and
sewage from Chicago area rivers
into Lake Michigan. Construc-
tion was also initiated on the Lit-
tle Calumet River Hood
Protection and Recreation
Project in northwest Indiana.
This project includes significant
wetland mitigation and enhance-
ment and will provide a major
recreational corridor along the
river.
• Underground storage tanks and
transformers were removed from
a site near Sault St. Marie,
Michigan under the DERP
FUDS program. Remedial Inves-
tigations and Feasibility Studies
(RI/FS) are ongoing at this and
other sites.
• Water level impacts on wetlands
of the St. Marys River were
evaluated in support of the IJC
Levels of Reference Study.
• Design and construction over-
sight support were provided to
the EPA Superfund project at
the Sinclair Oil Site in Wellsville,
New York.
• Technical review of a sediment
sampling plan for the Fields
Brook/Ashtabula River Super-
fund site in Ashtabula Ohio.
• Technical review of remediation
designs conducted for the OMC
Superfund cleanup at
Waukegan, Illinois.
• Support provided to the EPA
Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO) for the Assess-
ment and Remediation of Con-
taminated Sediments (ARCS)
program. Corps participation in-
cluded providing technical sup-
port, bench-scale testing of
treatment technologies, develop-
ment of plans for pilot scale
demonstrations, development of
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Reports from Other Federal Agencies 89
procedures for estimating con-
taminant losses, development of "
concept plans for full-scale
remediation, and participation in
five ARCS work groups.
• Provided support to the State of
Wisconsin in the development of
management alternatives for con-
taminated sediments.
• Studied wetland mitigation, res-
toration projects, and environ-
mental management of CDFs for
the State of Michigan.
• Assisted in the development and
implementation of RAPs at a
number of the Areas of Concern
(AOCs) of the Great Lakes.
• Initiated a study of the move-
ment of dredged material placed
in Sandusky Bay, Ohio on Lake
Erie under the Corps Dredging
Research Program.
FY1991 Plans
• Corps administration of the
CWA Section 404 and Section 10
(dredge and fill) permit
programs will continue.
• The EPA/Corps task group on
404(b)(l) implementation will
meet to develop regional
guidance on dredged material
testing and decision-making.
• Routine sampling and testing of
bottom sediment will be con-
ducted at the following naviga-
tion projects: Arcadia Harbor,
Au Sable Harbor, Caseville Har-
bor, Detroit River, Holland Har-
bor, Lexington Harbor,
Ludington Harbor, Manistee
Harbor, Manistique Harbor,
Port Sanilac Harbor, St. Clair
River in Michigan; Waukegan
Harbor in Illinois; Burns Water-
way Harbor, and Michigan City
Harbor in Indiana, Dunkirk Har-
bor, in New York, Erie Harbor
in Pennsylvania; Fairport Har-
bor, Huron Harbor, Port Clinton
Harbor, and West Harbor in
Ohio; and Sheboygan Harbor in
Wisconsin.
• Maintenance dredging of pol-
luted sediments and confined dis-
posal is planned for the following
sites: Bolles Harbor, Clinton
River, Detroit River, Lake St.
Clair, Rouge River, and Saginaw
River in Michigan; Buffalo Har-
bor in New York; Cleveland Har-
bor, Huron Harbor, Lorain
Harbor, and Toledo Harbor in
Ohio; Duluth-Superior Harbor
in Minnesota/Wisconsin; Green
Bay Harbor and Manitowoc Har-
bor in Wisconsin.
• Construction of new CDFs, of-
floading facilities, of major
modifications or expansions to ex-
isting confined disposal facilities
are planned at: Erie Harbor in
Pennsylvania; Duluth-Superior
Harbor in Minnesota/Wisconsin;
Green Bay Harbor and Sturgeon
Bay in Wisconsin, St. Josephs
Harbor in Michigan; and Toledo
Harbor in Ohio.
• Routine maintenance and water
quality monitoring will be per-
formed at other CDFs.
• Major construction starts are
planned for small boat harbors in
Buffalo, New York, and in Little
Calumet River, Indiana; and for
the Chicagoland Illinois Under-
flow Plan flood damage reduc-
tion projects.
• The Corps will continue activities
to identify and remediate hazard-
ous and toxic wastes at former
defense sites. An initial analysis
of a sampling of barrels from
over 1400 barrels of unclassified
material dumped into Lake Supe-
rior over 30 years ago will be
completed.
• The Corps will continue its sup-
port to the LTC through participa-
tion on IJC boards and
committees during FY 91.
• Support to the Construction
Grants and Superfund programs
will continue in FY 91.
• Support to the ARCS program
will continue with the execution
of pilot scale demonstrations of
sediment remediation tech-
• • nologies. . , ..
• The Corps will provide support
in a GLNPO project to remove
contaminated sediments from
the Buffalo River.
• The Corps will participate in a
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as-
sessment of the management
"and restoration needs of Great
Lakes fisheries resources.
• The Corps will conclude its plan-
ning assistance to the State of
Wisconsin in the development of
management alternatives for con-
taminated sediments.
• The Corps will fund a study of
the wetlands restoration at the
Point Mouilee CDF in Michigan
under the Wetlands Research
Program.
• The Corps will serve on the IJC
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force to develop a research and
technology development pro-
gram aimed at controlling the
zebra mussels in and around
public facilities.
U.S. Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard has respon-
sibilities under the Port and Tanker
Safety Act, the Clean Water Act and
other statutes that focus on the active
reduction of the potential for pollu-
tion, and ensuring that effective
countermeasures and cleanup opera-
tions are conducted for accidental dis-
charges as the Federal On-Scene
Coordinator. The Coast Guard also
enforces sewage discharge regulations
onboard vessels in conjunction with
other types of inspections such as
boating safety and law enforcement
boardings. Finally, the Coast Guard
plays a role under the Fisheries Con-
servation and Management Act in
mitigating pollution as it affects
natural resources.
Two important issues in the Great
Lakes with which the Coast Guard is
involved are accidental spills of haz-
ardous substances and the introduc-
tion of exotic species through ballast
water discharges.
-------
90 Chapter 6
DRAFT March 1991
Spills of Hazardous
Substances
Because a large amount of vessel
traffic in the Great Lakes carries ship-
ments of hazardous materials, ac-
cidental spills of hazardqus substances
from vessels are potentially important
sources of contamination to the Great
Lakes. Shipments of hazardous
materials and petroleum amount to 6
million metric tons in 1987 and 4.2
million metric tons in 1988. In that
same year, shipments of oil were 1.8
million tons, chemicals were 1.1 mil-
lion tons, and gasoline, 0.6 million
tons. (The tankers that carry such
cargo vary in size; for perspective, the
largest tend to be about 15 percent
the size of the Exxon Valdez.
Land-based sources are also a
threat. A large oil or chemical spill
from either source could cause both
economic and long-term environmen-
tal damage, injuring fish, waterfowl,
plankton, and habitat.
The U.S. Coast Guard reports that
over the period from 1980 to late
1989 there were 5,003 known spills of
oil or toxic substances into the U.S.
waters of the Great Lakes (Figure
6-1). During the calendar year 1989,
there were 262 verified pollution inci-
dents in U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes. Most of these spills consisted
of oil, and most were small in volume.
However, there have also been oil
spills of up to a million gallons and
toxicant spills of up to 200,000 gal-
lons. Approximately 80 percent of
these larger spills were from land-
based facilities such as oil storage
tanks and pipelines; the remainder
came from vessels.
Spill Programs
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and
Dability Act (CERCLA) requires a
National Oil and Hazardous Substan-
ces Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) and Regional Contingency
Plans (RCPs) to coordinate Federal
and local responses to oil and hazard-
ous material spills. The U.S. Coast
Guard is principally responsible for ad-
dressing spills in the Great Lakes as
the Federal On-Scene Coordinator.
The On-Scene Coordinator is respon-
sible for monitoring the cleanup and
for actually conducting it when the
responsible party does not do so. The
Coast Guard operates nine marine
safety units on the Great Lakes to per-
form pollution response and investiga-
tion functions.
EPA also has a role in spill preven-
tion, related to non-transportation
spills. Pursuant to the Clean Water
Act, EPA issues non-transportation
related oil pollution prevention regula-
tions for onshore and offshore
facilities. These regulations require
facilities that might discharge oil to
navigable waters to prepare a Spill
Prevention Control and Counter-
measure (SPCC) Plan; EPA inspects
these facilities for compliance.
1989 Accomplishments
In April 1989, the Coast Guard
promulgated regulations to imple-
ment Annex V of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pol-
lution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).
These regulations prohibit the dis-
charge of garbage into the navigable
waters of the United States, and apply
to all vessels, including recreational
boats. These regulations were
amended in May 1990 to require
maintenance of waste management
plans and display of MARPOL Annex
V placards on all oceangoing vessels
greater than 26 feet in length. This
amendment is to ensure that all per-
sons on board are aware of the gar-
bage pollution laws and penalties and
to promote proper disposal.
The U.S.-Canada Joint Marine Pol-
lution Contingency Plan (JCP) was
amended to include provisions for pe-
riodic meetings and exercises of the
Joint Response Team and On-Scene
Coordinator organizations. A bina-
tional exercise,of the JCP took place
at St. Catherine's, Ontario in
February 1989.
1990 Plans
EPA plans to perform 85 SPCC in-
spections in the Great Lakes water-
shed.
Partially as a result of the 1989
Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, the
Coast Guard is reviewing all oil and
hazardous substances contingency
plans, including those for the Great
Lakes. The review will consider
preparedness to respond to the most
catastrophic potential incidents given
shipping patterns and cargos.
The Canadian and U.S. Coast
Guards agreed to compare regula-
tions that implement pollution preven-
tion standards for onshore and
offshore facilities. They also agreed
DETROIT
TOLEDO
MILWAUKEE
CLEVELAND
NIAGARA RIVER
CHICAGO
DULUTH
SAULT STE. MARIE
GRAND HAVEN-MUSKEGON
US SENATE OGM SUBCOMMITTEE
from data on US Great Lakes waters
provided by US Coast Guard, April, 1990
623
Figure 6-1. Great Lakes Spills from 1980 to September 1989.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Reports from Other Federal Agencies 91
that oil and hazardous substance spills
coming from such facilities will be dis-
cussed at their 1990 annual meeting.
The Canadian and U.S. Coast
Guards also agreed to study the
potential problem of non-toxic cargo
residues, now considered garbage
under MARPOL Annex V. Repre-
sentation will be made to the LFC re-
questing information regarding trie
scope of this potential problem.
Exotic Species
As many as 577 ocean-going vessels
entered the Great Lakes during the
navigation season of 1987 alone.
Recent years show that hundreds of
these vessels enter carrying ballast
water when their cargo holds are
empty, since the added ballast weight
enables them to draw an optimum
depth for safe and efficient passage.
Often, the vessels are weighted by mil-
lions of gallons of ballast water.
Sometimes, fish and other or-
ganisms are inadvertently taken
aboard vessels with ballast water
when it is pumped from a river, har-
bor, or the open ocean. When the bal-
last is discharged (in order to take on
new cargo, for instance), they can be
transferred to a new waterbody. Or-
ganisms that can survive in ballast
tanks are frequently very adaptable
and aggressive; when they are trans-
ferred to an ecosystem in which they
have few natural predators, they can
proliferate and severely affect the ex-
isting balance between species.
As recently as 1988, the introduc-
tion of foreign species by discharges
of ballast water into the waters of the
United States first began receiving na-
tional attention, with the discovery of
the presence of the zebra mussel. This
species is a major fouling pest species
that can locate in mass quantities on
and in pipes, screens, conduits, boat
bottoms, floats, buoys, rocks, sub-
merged objects, and native animals
and plants. It also consumes vast
quantities of planktonic organisms
that are critical to the native species'
food supply. Originally native to areas
of Russia, the zebra mussel is a hardy
species with no known predator in
North America. Other plant and
animal species have also been intro-
duced to the Great Lakes with affects
on the ecological balance of natural
. communities, as well.
The problem can be essentially
prevented by requiring ocean vessels
to exchange their ballast water at sea
before entering the Great Lakes,
since open ocean organisms are un-
likely to survive in the Great Lakes.
Inspection of ship records and sam-
pling of ballast water salinity help to
ensure that the required exchange has
been conducted.
1989 Accomplishments
In 1989, the U.S. Coast Guard col-
laborate with the Canadian Coast
Guard to establish voluntary
guidelines to protect the Great Lakes
from further introduction of exotic
species. Under these guidelines, which
were introduced in May 1989, ships
scheduled to enter the Great Lakes
system are advised to exchange their
ballast water beyond the continental
shelf, or if this is not possible, in the
Gulf of St. Lawrence. These
guidelines were distributed by the In-
ternational Maritime Organization to
its 133 member governments and or-
ganizations. The St. Lawrence Seaway
Authority is monitoring compliance
with the guidelines, and the Canadian
Coast Guard plans to evaluate the
continued effectiveness of the
guideline, with the help of the U.S.
Coast Guard as necessary.
Fish and Wildlife
Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) collects and interprets diverse
information on fish and wildlife
species, populations and habitats to as-
sist resource managers in making
decisions about the protection and res-
toration of the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem. The Service's responsibilities
generally fall into a number of func-
tional areas: refuges and wildlife,
fisheries, law enforcement, fish and
wildlife enhancement, and public af-
fairs. Major activities include: permit
review; land acquisition and habitat
management; management of
migratory birds, anadromous1 fish,
and endangered species; and research
on causes and effects of habitat
change and chemical contaminants.
As part of the permit review process,
FWS will review Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission hydroelectric
projects, dredge and fill permits,
Farm Bill habitat easements and wet-
land restorations.
FWS also manages the National
Fishery Center-Great Lakes; five Na-
tional Fish Hatcheries in support of
the Great Lakes lake trout restoration
effort; and several National Wildlife
Refuges, including the Iroquois and
Montezuma in New York, the Erie in
Pennsylvania, the Ottawa in Ohio,
and the Seney and Shiawassee in
Michigan. In addition, FWS conducts
surveys of wetlands to support the Na-
tional Wetlands Inventory Program.
FWS is responsible for maintaining
the fish and wildlife resources in the
United States and for providing
public access to those resources. Ac-
complishments in FY 1989 and FY
1990 are discussed in terms of func-
tional areas. The Service continued its
base program activities in FY 1990.
Any significant new activity in FY
1990 is noted. Reduced activities in
FY 1990 include: flood damage res-
toration at Ottawa and Shiawassee
Refuges, surveillance and monitoring,
and research.
Listed by topical area, highlighted
FY 1989 and FY 1990 accomplish-
ments and FY 1991 plans are as fol-
lows:
Fisheries
The Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS) National Fishery Research
Center (NFRC)-Great Lakes in Ann
Arbor, Michigan focuses on aquatic
resources. Loss or degradation of fish
habitats in the Great Lakes basin is a
major concern. Generally, FWS re-
search addresses specific needs of the
Service, but also responds to the
needs of other Federal agencies, In-
dian tribes, States and international
groups such as the International Joint
Commission and the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission.
FY 1989 Accomplishments
• Stocked approximately 6.4 mil-
lion lake trout into the five Great
Lakes. This native species serves
as a biological indicator of water
quality because of its need for
1 Fish that spend their adult life in the sea but swim up rivers to reproduce.
-------
92 Chapter 6
DRAFT March 1991
clean water and its long life span
(up to 40 years).
• An offshore stocking vessel (the
M/V Togue) was used to stock
fish over traditional offshore
spawning reefs to enhance fish
survival. • •
• Provided fish to support inves-
tigations by universities and
government laboratories.
• Continued monitoring bloater
chubs from Lake Michigan for
DDT congeners and dieldrin,
PCBs and chlordane.
• PA'S is responsible for the
United States sea lamprey con-
trol program. The Service ap-
plied lampricides to 31 Great
Lakes tributaries. Parasitic and
spawning adult populations, lar-
val populations, and non-target
organism populations were also
evaluated. Operational fishery re-
search was conducted on alter-
nate control techniques,
registration of lampricides, and
special problems encountered by
field crews.
• Fishery assistance biologists con-
tinued to study exotic aquatic or-
ganisms that appear in the Great
Lakes.
FY1990 Accomplishments
• Continued the lake trout stock-
ing program. More than two mil-
lion lake trout were stocked
offshore to increase the
likelihood of their survival.
• Applied lampricides to 28 Great
Lakes tributaries.
FY 1991 Plans
• Continue the lake trout stocking
programs.
• Apply lampricides to 39 Great
Lakes streams.
• Continued monitoring bloater
chubs from Lake Michigan for
DDT congeners and dieldrin,
PCBs and chlordane.
• Conducted PCB and chlordane
congener analysis on archived
fish samples to better interpret
contaminant trends in Lake
Michigan bloater chubs.
• Developed an interactive com-
puter program that uses the
structure of an organic molecule
to predict acute toxicity to
aquatic life. The system is being
used to estimate toxicity of
chemicals before initiating bioas-
says.
• Increase activities with State offi-
cials and tribal leaders for the as-
sessment of fish populations.
Wildlife and Refuges
FY 1989 Accomplishments
• Increased wetland acreage in the
Montezuma National Wildlife
Refuge and provided a link with
New York State Refuge as part
of the North American Water-
fowl Management Plan, a
cooperative effort among the
Fish and Wildlife Service and
U.S. Forest Service to preserve
waterfowl habitats.
• Under the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan,
conducted a waterfowl breeding
survey and developed a water-
fowl management plan for the
Fort Drum Military Base.
• Funded three studies that as-
sessed the impacts of con-
taminants on Great Lakes
wildlife. The first study, the St.
Lawrence River Contaminants
Study, collected samples of water
and bird eggs to analyze for
levels of PAHs. The other
studies, conducted in coopera-
tion with Patuxent Wildlife Re-
search Center, studied the levels
of contaminants in two Great
Lakes migratory birds: the
double-crested cormorant and
black-crowned night heron.
• Collected samples of water, sedi-
ment, and biota in the national
refuges for analysis of chemical
contamination. In FY 1989,
samples were collected in the
. Apostle'Islands National
Lakeshore, Grassy Island-Wyan-
dotte National Wildlife Refuge,
Michigan Islands National
Wildlife Refuge, Iroquois
Refuge, and Montezuma
Refuge.
• Substantial pump, levee, and
dike restorations were made at
the Ottawa and Shiawassee
Refuges to repair flood damage.
FY 1990 Accomplishments
• Restoration of eight separate
wetlands totalling 109 acres in
the counties adjacent to Lake
Erie.
• Restoration of an additional 308
acres of wetlands in the Great
Lakes area.
FY 1991 Plans
• Continuation of introduction of
common terns at Ottawa Refuge.
• Continuation of funding restora-
tion of wetlands on private lands.
• Monitoring of bald eagles and
black ducks on Lake Erie.
Fish and Wildlife
Enhancement
FY 1989 Accomplishments
• Several Fish and Wildlife Service
laboratories and offices par-
ticipated in the LJC Water Levels
References Study, looking at wet-
land changes during low water-
level years and high water-level
years from 1979 to 1988 and the
resulting ecosystem effects.
Among the sites examined by the
Service were Lake Superior
(Kakagon Slough, WI), Lake
Michigan (Cecil Bay Marsh, MI),
Lake Huron (Fish Point, MI),
Lake St. Clair (Dickinson Island,
MI), and the St. Lawrence River,
Sage Creek, and Campbell mar-
shes, New York.
• Began working with EPA to in-
clude the development of water
quality criteria for wildlife as part
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Reports from Other Federal Agencies 93
of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative.
• Prepared natural resource
damage surveys for two Super-
fund sites (General Motors
Central Foundry located along
the Saint Lawrence River and
Hooker Chemical located along
the Niagara River) and reviewed
a report on fish tumors at the
102nd Street Dump Site on the
Niagara River.
• Supported EPA's ARCS study
by conducting surveys of fish
(bullheads) and sediments in
Saginaw, Grand Calumet, and
Buffalo River for tumors and ab-
normalities. The sediment col-
lected will be used to study
bioaccumulation of chemicals in
fish collected at these three loca-
tions.
• Continued Great Lakes fish sur-
veillance programs.
• In New York State, participated
in the relicensing effort for 23
hydroelectric projects, recom-
mending changes in operation or
shutdown of three projects and
minimum flow requirements at
six plants, because the projects
were causing adverse effects on
fish populations. Approximately
26 projects were reviewed by the
East Lansing Field Office.
• Also in New York State,
reviewed about 300 dredge and
fill permits, requesting modifica-
tions to approximately 100
projects to reduce habitat im-
pacts and recommending denial
of 10 projects due to unaccep-
table impacts.
• Under the conservation
provisions of the Farm Bill, the
Service obtained easements on
about 700 acres of valuable
wildlife habitat, transfers of ap-
proximately 500 acres of wet-
lands, and a wetland restoration
project on a former muck farm
in New York. In the East Lans-
ing Field Office, conservation
easements were staked for 36
proposals, and no restorations
were approved. Twenty-one res-
torations under the Conservation
Reserve Program were in-
spected—all are filled with water,
and wildlife have been observed
on most.
• Conducted endangered species
consultations under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act on
about 30 projects in New York.
• Began an ongoing effort with the
U.S. Forest Service to reduce
beaver pond destruction and to
develop small forest ponds to im-
prove black duck breeding
habitat.
• Supported the development and
review of RAPs for Sheboygan,
Marinette, Milwaukee, Oswego,
the Niagara River, the St.
Lawrence River, Duluth-Supe-
rior Harbor, and Saginaw River
and Bay.
FY1990 Accomplishments
• The major new emphasis was on
the Great Lakes Initiative, Phase
II. This phase details specific
resource needs of FWS for a ten-
year period beginning in FY 92
for the functional areas of law en-
forcement, enhancement,
fisheries, research, refuges,
Federal aid, and public affairs.
• Worked with EPA on a special
wetlands inventory study of wet-
lands in the Green Bay water-
shed. The information will be
available to planning and
regulatory agencies to assist
them in making decisions on per-
mit issuance, zoning, etc.
• Worked with the University of
Minnesota on a pre-assessment
of natural resource damages for
Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
• Began a natural resources
damage assessment for Saginaw
Bay.
• Reports on the contaminant sur-
veys of Seney National Wildlife
Refuge, Wyandotte National
Wildlife Refuge, and Michigan Is-
lands National Wildlife Refuge
were completed. Studies of con-
• • taminants in Great Lakes, water-
fowl, bald eagles, colonial water
birds, mink, and otter continued.
FY 1991 Plans
• Identification of lands along and
within ten miles of the U.S. Lake
Erie shoreline have potential for
wildlife habitat, public recreation
areas, environmental education
areas, and sites for preservation
of unique natural, historical, and
scenic features.
• Continue involvement with four
Ohio RAPs and the Advanced
Identification of Disposal Areas
in northwest Ohio.
• Begin natural resource damage
assessment for Indiana Harbor
and Canal/Grand Calumet River
and promote the RAP process
for Indiana Harbor.
• Complete preliminary Lake Erie
shoreline study with recommen-
dation for a comprehensive study.
Enforcement
During FY 1990, FWS planned an
enforcement initiative against illegal
taking of lake trout.
Public Affairs
The Fish and Wildlife Service plans
to develop a volunteer wetland watch
program. In addition, the Service
plans to initiate a public relations pro-
gram to inform the agricultural com-
munity and the general public of the
fish and wildlife benefits to be derived
from the Farm Bill.
National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
The National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration's Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory
(GLERL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan
carries out a significant research pro-
gram on Great Lakes issues including
ecosystem dynamics, persistent toxic
substances, ecological processes, and
benthic populations.
-------
94 Chapter 6
DRAFT March 1991
Ecosystem Dynamics
Much research on Great Lakes
ecosystem dynamics and physical
processes is undertaken by the
GLERL. It conducts integrated, inter-
disciplinary research in support of
resource management and environ-
mental services in coastal and es-
tuarine waters, with special emphasis
on the Great Lakes.
GLERL's research program in-
cludes both basic and applied studies
and combines experimental, theoreti-
cal, and empirical approaches. Field,
analytical, and laboratory investiga-
tions are performed to improve under-
standing and prediction of
environmental interdependencies be-
tween atmosphere, land, water, and
sediments. The Laboratory places spe-
cial emphasis on a systems approach
to environmental problems and the
development of environmental service
tools. Assistance is provided to
resource managers and others who
want to apply the Laboratory's find-
ings.
Persistent Toxic Substances
GLERL continues to work with
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and various Canadian agencies to im-
prove understanding of the processes
that control the distribution, cycling,
and fate of organic contaminants,
their toxicology, and the kinetics of
transfer. A major focus is the associa-
tion of toxic organics with suspended
and deposited sediments. The adsorp-
tion of organic contaminants onto
sediment panicles, followed by set-
tling and eventual burial, commonly
controls the residence time and con-
centration of these compounds in the
water column. Understanding the in-
teractions between different types of
suspended matter and dissolved or-
ganic contaminants is critical to
modeling the behavior of such con-
taminants in the environment.
Resuspension of bottom sediments in
the Great Lakes is a primary process
that introduces nutrients and con-
taminants into the water. Direct ex-
changes between bottom sediments
and overlying water are also impor-
tant processes, but are poorly under-
stood.
The Laboratory uses radiotracers to
identify and model sediment transport
processes, due to their relative ease of
measurement and dating. Radiotracer
measurements in sediment material
are used to discriminate between
resuspended and fresh materials and
to study horizontal sediment
transport and the movement of sedi-
ments into ultimate depositional
zones, the seasonal resuspension of
sediments and geochemical changes
to sediments over time.
GLERL has collected and analyzed
sediment cores from all of the Great
Lakes over the past IS years and has
deployed sediment traps to obtain
samples of suspended sediments from
the water column. Sediment traps
have been deployed for 10 years,
primarily in Lake Michigan and to a
lesser extent in Lakes Superior and
Huron. Extensive resuspension of
sediments has been found in all three
lakes, especially during winter
months. Data are being integrated
with data obtained by Canada in
Lakes Erie and Ontario that will per-
mit a comprehensive view of Great
Lakes sediment resuspension.
GLERL's various sediment projects
provide understanding that can be ap-
plied in the development of mass
balance models and Remedial Action
and Lakewide Management Plans.
Better understanding of the physics,
toxicology, and availability of Great
Lakes sediments can be used to help
define the assimilative capacity of the
lakes for certain pollutants, the
hazards that the reservoir of con-
taminated sediments pose to aquatic
life, and the effects of alternative ways
of dealing with sediments. The effects
of possible contaminated sediment
remediation measures are poorly un-
derstood and are one of the fun-
damental unresolved issues to
long-term restoration of the Great
Lakes.
FY1989 Accomplishments
During FY 1989, some of GLERUs
projects in the area of toxic organics
addressed:
• The sediment resuspension
process, using radiotracers to
identify fundamental sediment
transport processes;
• The physics of the bottom 25
meters of the Lake Michigan
water column, with focus on bot-
tom currents and resuspension
of sediments;
• The toxicology and bioavailability
. .of contaminated Great Lakes •
sediments; and
• Case studies on the long-term
costs of environmental damage.
• The Laboratory developed a 28-
day mortality bioassay using a
benthic organism to assess the
presence of toxic organic com-
pounds.
• It tested a gamma scan system to
measure the porosity of sedi-
ments in a nondestructive man-
ner; and
• Studied the development of
tolerances to toxic substances by
exposing benthic worms collected
from offshore sites in Lake
Michigan near Grand Haven and
Benton Harbor to sediments col-
lected from these two sites. The
Benton Harbor sediments were
toxic to the organisms from
Grand Haven, whereas the same
type of organisms from Benton
Harbor were unaffected by
Grand Haven sediments. These
results indicated, but seldom
demonstrated, that organisms
collected off Benton Harbor
have developed tolerance to the
generally higher concentrations
of contaminants found in their
habitat.
GLERL conducted three projects
that contribute to the major interagen-
cy study of Green Bay. These were
partly funded by EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office:
• A project that addressed water
volume movement through the
bay and between the bay and
Lake Michigan;
• A project that addressed the
food web of fish in Green Bay so
as to understand the relative im-
portance of the various food and
water pathways of PCB ac-
cumulation by fish; and
• A project that measured the
relationship between current
velocity and sediment resuspen-
sion in Green Bay.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Reports from Other Federal Agencies 95
FY1990 Accomplishments
In FY 1990, GLERL activities in-
cluded:
• Completed the initial examina-
tions of major variables that
could affect the bioavailability of
sediment associated toxicants to
the food chain; - -
• Measured the water volume ex-
change between the upper and
lower parts of Green Bay,
• Quantified the seasonal flux of
resuspended sediments and es-
timated particulate and POC set-
tling velocities within Green Bay.
FY 1991 Plans
During FY 1991, some of GLERL's
projects will address analysis of trap
samples for organic carbon and
PCBs; development of empirical sedi-
ment resuspension models for Green
Bay; and the completion and submis-
sion of the Green Bay Mass Balance
Study to EPA.
Ecological Processes
In addition to physical processes,
GLERL research focuses on ecologi-
cal processes and mechanisms. In
general, knowledge of many ecosys-
tem processes is at an early stage.
Food web processes have a dominant
influence on the transfer of energy
and contaminants throughout the
ecosystem, yet predictive and simula-
tion models of these processes are
rudimentary. The Laboratory con-
ducts research on both pelagic (i.e.,
water column) and benthic ecosystem
dynamics to advance understanding
of the flow of materials and energy
within the food web.
FY 1989 Accomplishments
In FY 1989, research in the area of
ecological processes included:
• A project on the effects of con-
taminants on the fisheries and
water quality of Lake St. Clair.
Lake St. Clair food web models,
developed in previous years, indi-
cate that the benthic food chain
is twice as important to fish
productivity as the pelagic graz-
ing food chain and that four
times more carbon is available
for aquatic food chains from ex-
ternal particulate sources as
from aquatic vegetation and
algae.
• A study of the interactions be-
tween phosphorus,
phytoplankton, and bacteria in
Lake Michigan to help develop a
better understanding of the
seasonal succession of algae.
• A project that studied at the feed-
ing dynamics of zooplankton to
better understand the seasonal
succession of plankton.
• A project addressing benthic
ecology and sediment
nutrient/energy transformations.
Benthic invertebrates feed on
material settled from the water
column and are in turn con-
sumed by most species of Great
Lakes fish.
FY 1990 Accomplishments
In FY 1990, some of the research
projects conducted by the Laboratory
included:
• Analysis of two non-indigenous
species to the Great Lakes
ecosystem: the zebra mussel and
the spiny water flea;
• A study in which the GLERL
sampled phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and benthic popula-
tions in Saginaw Bay to deter-
mined the impact of the zebra
mussel on the lower food web;
• A study of the seasonal oxygen
consumption, nitrogen (am-
monia) excretion of zebra mus-
sels collected from Lake St. Clair,
• A study, using aquaria and fish
holding tanks to demonstrate the
development of aversion con-
ditioning in perch to attacking
the spiny water flea;
• GLERL began analyzing the
results of in situ feeding experi-
ments performed over the past
two years on the selectivity and
predation rates of the spiny
water flea on zooplankton in
Great Lakes, and determine the
effect of the spiny water flea on
• • the food web structure; and
• The GLERL began observing
ecosystem components to
demonstrate the variability in
time and space and to improve
predictions of food web dynamics
that support the Great Lakes sal-
monid fishery.
FY 1991 Plans
During FY 1991, GLERL will con-
tinue many studies initiated in FY
1990, including the identification of
causes of ecosystem variability and
continued seasonal research on
oxygen consumption, nitrogen excre-
tion, and lipid content in zebra mus-
sels of Lake St. Clair and Saginaw
Bay. New projects initiated in FY
1991 include the examination of
toxicokinetics and bioaccumulation
analysis of organic contaminants in
the zebra mussel and the examination
of nutrient changes in zebra mussels
and the development of eutrophica-
tion models.
Benthic Populations
A third area of research by GLERL
is long-term trends in benthic popula-
tions and the relation of these to
water quality. Benthic communities
are excellent indicators of trophic
trends in the Great Lakes. Because of
their limited mobility and relatively
long life (compared to plankton), ben-
thic fauna form stable communities
that reflect the effects of environmen-
tal conditions over long periods of
time.
FY 1990 Accomplishments
In FY 1990, the Laboratory.
• Identified benthic organisms col-
lected from Saginaw Bay during
1989. Identification of the or-
ganisms collected showed a two-
fold increase in pollution-tolerant
worms since the early 1970s
which may be evidence of a
degraded habitat since that time.
• Collected additional benthic
samples from inside and outside
fish enclosures placed in Lake Su-
perior during FY 1986.
• Completed a study of long-term
trends in mussel abundance over
-------
96 Chapter 6
DRAFT March 1991
the past three decades in western
Lake Erie.
• Assembled and began to use of a
PC-based microscope/digitizer
system that allows for rapid and
reliable completion of body
length measurements needed to
estimate the energy budget in
Great Lakes amphipods.
FY1991 Plans
During FY 1991, GLERL's projects
include a determination of whether
nutrient sufficient cells are preferred
as food by copepods over nutrient
deficient cells at high algae concentra-
tions. In addition, the Laboratory
plans to observe feeding mechanisms
of tethered copepods to make
generalizations about appendage use
patterns and sensory clues.
Soil Conservation
Service
The Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) provides techni-
cal and financial assistance to land
users, including farmers, ranchers,
and foresters, and other government
agencies on a variety of natural
resource issues. The Service con-
tributes to conserving the Nation's
soil, water, plant, and animal resour-
ces by informing land users of best
management practices and resource
management systems that control
erosion, protect the quality of surface
water, and reduce the contamination
of groundwater by agricultural chemi-
cals.
Through its nationwide network of
conservation specialists, the SCS
provides assistance on topics such as
pesticide and nutrient management,
reduced tillage practices, fish and
wildlife habitat development, soil map-
ping and interpretation, and water-
shed protection. It also conducts
natural resource inventories and main-
tains extensive data on soil erosion,
land use and cover, conservation prac-
tices, and land treatment needs. To as-
sist land users in protecting natural
resources, the USDA (through the
SCS and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service) also ad-
ministers cost-sharing programs to
pay land users for following certain
conservation practices, protecting wet-
lands, and improving water quality.
The Soil Conservation Service is work-
ing with States in their development
of Nonpoint Source Management
Plans pursuant to Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act.
Seven major Department of Agricul-
ture prpjects-with SCS participation
are currently underway or planned in
the Great Lakes basin. Five of these
are Water Quality Special Projects
(WQSP): Cattaraugus Creek in New
York; LaGrange County Lake Enhan-
cement Program in Indiana; Vermil-
lion River and the West Branch of the
Black River, Ohio; and the Clam
River, Michigan. The reduction of ex-
cess nutrients (phosphorus and
nitrogen) and sediment from agricul-
tural production activities are com-
mon goals of these projects.
In the Saline Valley Rural Clean
Water Project, the emphasis is on
reducing the amount of phosphorus
entering Lake Erie from southeastern
Michigan. Final evaluation of the
project, including an analysis of prac-
tices to reduce phosphorus in runoff,
is underway.
The Department of Agriculture is
also conducting two demonstration
projects in the Basin. The East River
Watershed project in Wisconsin is par-
tially located in the Green Bay Area
of Concern and seeks to demonstrate
crop management systems that
reduce the level of nitrogen, phos-
phorus, and pesticides required to
produce acceptable crop yields.
Preventing excessive loadings to sur-
face and ground water and enhancing
farm income levels are goals of the
project. The Saginaw Bay project in
Michigan will not only focus on
nutrients and sediment but will also
seek to implement Integrated Pest
Management practices to prevent
groundwater contamination.
A hydrologic unit project related to
Sycamore Creek (Michigan) is using
fertilizer, pesticide, and crop manage-
ment techniques to reduce agricul-
tural pesticides and sediment from
entering surface waters. Another
"hydro" project, in the Wolf Creek
watershed, is working to protect Lake
Adrian from sediment, phosphorus,
and pesticides.
FY 1989 Accomplishments
During FY 1989, the SCS con-
tributed to Great Lakes RAP and
LAMP development in a variety of
ways. Service staff contributed to the
RAP development process in Ohio
(Maumee and Cuyahoga Rivers),
Minnesota (St. Louis River), Wiscon-
sin (Menominee River and Green
Bay), New York (Rochester Embay-
ment, Oswegcf River, St. Lawrence
River, and Buffalo River), and
Michigan (multiple sites). The Service
assigned one staff person to EPA's
Great Lakes National Program Office
and another to the IJC's Regional Of-
fice in Canada to work on Great
Lakes environmental issues. SCS per-
sonnel also evaluated progress under
the Great Lakes Phosphorus Load
Reduction Plan (see Chapter 6).
Additional FY 1989 Soil Conserva-
tion Service accomplishments in-
cluded:
• Completed transect tillage sur-
veys in the Saginaw Bay and
Lake Erie watersheds
• Developed conservation plans
for 250,000 acres of highly
erodible lands in Wisconsin
• Designed and installed 68 animal
waste management systems in
Wisconsin
• Completed the first phase of a
direct drainage study of Lake On-
tario
• Completed inventories of In-
diana wetlands within the Great
Lakes basin and in 13 Michigan
counties
• Completed a stream bank
erosion survey for the Au Sable
River, Michigan
• Contributed to a Saginaw Bay
drainage project to assess the ef-
fects of crop production on sur-
face water and groundwater
• Participated in the Lost Creek
Experimental Watershed Project
in Ohio with Defiance Soil and
Water Conservation District and
Heidelberg College, which as-
sessed the movement of pes-
ticides, nutrients, and sediments
-------
DRAFT March 1991 Reports from Other Federal Agencies 97
• Worked with Ottawa County,
Ohio, to measure effects of til- . - . . .
lage practices on water quality.
FY1990 Accomplishments
During FY 1990, the SCS continued
to emphasize water quality benefits in
all program delivery elements. AH in-
itiatives begun in FY 1989 continued
into FY1990. The Service assigned
one staff person to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources
NFS unit for two years to assist in the
prioritization of NFS impacted water-
sheds. Significant accomplishments in-
clude the development of standards
and specifications for nutrient and
pest management, and revision of the
standard and specification for waste
utilization.
Additional FY 1990 Soil Conserva-
tion Service accomplishments in-
cluded:
• Completed wetland inventories
in five Michigan counties
• Initiated a new River Basin
Study for the Menominee River
Basin in the Western Upper
Peninsula of Michigan and
Northeastern Wisconsin
• Initiated a streambank erosion in-
ventory on the Rifle River in
north-central Michigan
• Initiated implementation of the
South Branch Kawkawlin River
Watershed Work Plan
• Prepared a watershed work plan
for Mud Creek in Barry County,
a highly intensified agricultural
area with identified sediment and
nutrient loadings
• Participated in the preparation
and implementation of four non-
point source watershed
demonstration projects.
97
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Ecosystem Surveillance 99
Chapter 7
Ecosystem Surveillance
This chapter discusses U.S. surveil-
lance of the Great Lakes system,
including three EPA initiatives on per-
sistent toxic substances:
• Establishment of a binational In-
tegrated Air Deposition Network
(IADN) that will monitor air-
borne deposition of trace or-
ganics on a routine basis
• A multi-agency study of the sour-
ces and fates of several persistent
toxic substances in Green Bay
• Conversion and outfitting of a
new ship to establish a capability
to monitor trace organics in open
lake waters on a routine basis.
The chapter also discusses ac-
complishments and plans relating to
system-wide surveillance programs, in-
cluding chemical and biological open
lake limnology, fish monitoring
programs, and the Great Lakes At-
mospheric Deposition (GLAD) net-
work.
Surveillance
Overview
Pursuant to Section 118(cXl)(b) of
the Clean Water Act, the United
States is jointly implementing with
Canada a network to monitor the
water quality of the Great Lakes.
Many surveillance activities are based
on the Great Lakes International Sur-
veillance Plan (GLISP) that the
United States and Canada developed
together and which helps to coor-
dinate their surveillance activities.
GLISP was last revised in 1986, draw-
ing upon academic and agency exper-
tise in both nations. GLISP provides
recommended parameters, methods,
locations, and frequencies—in effect,
"best scientific grounds"—for coor-
dinated binational surveillance of the
Great Lakes system. It focuses on five
general areas: eutrophication, toxic
contaminants, microbiology,
radionuclides, and biological com-
munity and habitat status.
The goals of surveillance activities
are to evaluate the efficacy of existing
control requirements, to evaluate
water quality trends and identify
emerging problems, and to support
Remedial Action and Lakewide
Management Plans. Attainment of
these goals requires measurement of
loadings to the lakes, evaluation of
schedules for load reductions con-
tained within remedial plans, evalua-
tion of human exposure to
contaminants, and the development
of ecosystem health indicators.
At present, GLISP is primarily con-
cerned with open lake, chemical and
biological limnology. It does not ad-
dress surveillance of Lake Superior or
the upper connecting channels (i.e.,
St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit
Rivers), nor does it address field
methods in a comprehensive, detailed
manner. The United States and
Canada surveyed Lake Superior inten-
sively in 1983. Between 1984 and
1987, they also conducted a major
joint study of the upper connecting
channels that was released in March
1989. Canada conducted a survey of
Lake Superior in spring 1989 for
nutrients, chlorophyll, and major ions
and is also planning spring and sum-
mer cruises for 1990 and 1991.
EPA's surveillance activities,
coupled with those of States, address
most elements contained in GLISP.
The programs do not address every
parameter in all media and at the
same sampling frequency sought in
GLISP. Both nations fulfill GLISP
under fiscal and technological con-
straints, giving priority to parameters
of most concern.
There are three primary elements to
EPA Great Lakes National Program
Office's surveillance efforts: open lake
99
surveys of ambient water quality,
monitoring of toxicant levels in fish tis-
sues; and monitoring of atmospheric
deposition. The Program Office has
conducted open lake spring and sum-
mer surveys of ambient water quality
in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie
since 1983, and in Lake Ontario since
1986. Prior to these routine surveys,
each of the lakes was surveyed inten-
sively in turn. EPA does not survey
Superior because it does not exhibit
eutrophic conditions. The current pro-
gram includes nutrients (phosphorus,
nitrogen, silica), conservative ions,
alkalinity (alkali and alkaline earth me-
tals), biological structure
(phytoplankton and zooplankton),
chlorophyll a, and physical
parameters. Surveys measure condi-
tions and trends in the open waters of
the lakes (generally defined as those
greater than 30 feet deep). These
waters best indicate long-term trends,
because they are less influenced by
local discharges of pollutants than
shallower, nearshore waters. The
productivity measures obtained under
the open lake program enable EPA to
assess the response of the lakes to
nutrient control measures and trends
in algal and plankton populations.
Since 1977, the Great Lakes Nation-
al Program Office, State, and other
Federal agencies have monitored
toxic organics in the Great Lakes
through analyses of chemical residues
in fish tissues. Fish are excellent in-
dicators of water quality and ecosys-
tem health because they tend to
accumulate many persistent toxic sub-
stances, whereas open water con-
centrations of toxic organics are
generally so low that it is difficult to
monitor them directly on a routine
basis.
With lake-to-lake variations in num-
ber of collection sites and periodicity,
States collect adult resident fish and
spot-tail shiners from harbors and
tributaries on a 5-to- 10-year cycle and
-------
100 Chapter?
DRAFT March 1991
open lake salmon as part of a game
fish-monitoring program. The Fish
and Wildlife Service also collects open
lake whole-fish samples of lake trout
(walleye on Lake Erie) and smelt on a
biennial basis. States conduct addition-
al fish-monitoring programs that are
directed towards protecting human
health by issuance offish consump-
tion health advisories.
The third primary element of the
Great Lakes National Program
Office's surveillance activities, also a
joint Federal/State endeavor, is the
monitoring of atmospheric deposi-
tion. The United States operates 20
stations across the Great Lakes basin
as its share of the binational GLAD
network. Some States also operate air
deposition monitoring programs over
and above the GLAD network.
GLAD presently addresses nutrients
and metals, including lead, cadmium,
nitrate/nitrite, and phosphorus,
among about 35 parameters.
In addition, States and the U.S.
Geological Survey monitor Great
Lakes tributaries for pollutants on an
ongoing basis, since tributaries are
major conveyors of pollutants from
both nonpoint and point sources.
Integrated
Atmospheric
Deposition Network
Since the late 1970s, the Great
i^kes scientific community has been
aware of the potential significance of
the atmosphere as a pollution path-
way. Studies of Isle Royale, a relative-
ly isolated island in Lake Superior,
revealed levels of PCBs, toxaphene,
and other persistent toxic substances
in its lakes. Researchers theorized
that such pollutants could only have
been the result of deposition from the
air.
Since the Isle Royale findings,
EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office has promoted ways of assessing
the absolute and relative magnitude
of atmospheric loadings of toxic sub-
stances. The Program Office sup-
ported conferences in 1980,1986, and
1987 to assess the state of knowledge
of the airborne deposition problem,
and developed a strategy in 1987 to
monitor these substances. In recogni-
tion of the potential importance of air
deposition to the Great Lakes, the
United States and Canada agreed in
1987 to establish an Integrated At-
mospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) to monitor both wet and dry
atmospheric loadings of toxic substan-
ces to the Great Lakes.
It should be noted that the con-
centrations of toxic organics in
precipitation are very minute and,
. therefore, difficult to collect and
analyze. Scientists are developing
methods to do this routinely and it is
likely that the feasibility of monitoring
atmospheric deposition will differ
from parameter to parameter. The
United States and Canada are
pioneers in this area, since routine
monitoring of atmospheric deposition
of trace organics is not conducted
anywhere else. The Program Office
implemented its first master station
and two satellite stations for monitor-
ing airborne PCBs and dieldrin in fall
1988. These are located in the vicinity
of Green Bay, Wisconsin. The two na-
tions plan to build on the experience
gained from the Green Bay station
and an initial Canadian site on Lake
Ontario in order to design a basin-
wide network.
During FY1989, the United States
and Canada coordinated various
management, parameter, siting, and
methods issues pertaining to estab-
lishment of a network to monitor air-
borne deposition of persistent toxic
substances. During FY 1990, the two
nations plan to continue establishing
one IADN master station on each of
the Great Lakes. The United States
will establish a master station on Lake
Superior to augment the one already
functioning on Lake Michigan, while
Canada will establish one on Lake
Huron to complement the station al-
ready on Lake Ontario. Because the
Lake Superior site has the lowest
background levels of toxicants, it will
be used to resolve detection methods.
Data will be freely shared by each na-
tion, and the United States will be
able to co-locate equipment at the On-
tario site. The two nations will
develop siting criteria regarding the
master stations. Once binational siting
criteria are developed, the Great
Lakes National Program Office will
also look to co-locate existing GLAD
sites with IADN satellite stations to
consolidate their administration.
In FY 1991, the Great Lakes Na-
tional Program Office plans to estab-
lish a station on Lake Erie and, in FY
1992, will relocate the present station
on Lake Michigan. Also in FY 1992,
the Program Office wiH begia to estab-
lish six satellite stations, one on each
international lake and two on Lake
Michigan, while Canada will begin to
establish five satellite stations. In FY
1994, based on data obtained to that
point, the two nations will consider
the need for establishing up to 11 ad-
ditional satellite stations.
Green Bay Mass
Balance Study
This special study, begun in FY
1987 and to continue through FY
1991, will help EPA develop an under-
standing of the sources, pathways, and
fates of certain pollutants (i.e., cad-
mium, lead, PCBs, and the pesticide
dieldrin) within a large waterbody
(see Figure 7-1). By determining load-
ings and fates of pollutants, a mass
balance study can provide the basis
for more stringent regulation of water
dischargers under Clean Water Act
provisions for water quality-based
regulation.
Another objective of the Green Bay
study is to determine the feasibility of
a "mass balance" analysis on one of
the Great Lakes. Therefore, the
Green Bay study is an important
precursor to the surveillance aspects
of Lakewide Management Plans. The
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources and EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office are the
major sponsors of the study, with
aspects supported by EPA's Environ-
mental Research Laboratory-Duluth,
Minnesota, and its Large Lakes Re-
search Station at Grosse He,
Michigan; the Great Lakes Environ-
mental Research Laboratory and Wis-
consin Sea Grant of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion; the U.S. Geological Survey; the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources; the U.S. Coast Guard; the
Illinois State Water Survey, and a
number of universities.
Numerous Green Bay Study ac-
tivities were undertaken during FY
1989. The EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office's research vessel, the
Roger Simons, conducted a field sam-
pling shakedown cruise on Green Bay
in October 1988, and thereafter, con-
ducted five sampling cruises in May,
June, July, September, and October
1989. A winter survey was conducted
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Ecosystem Surveillance 101
Figure 7-1. Green Bay/Fox River Study Area.
from a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter
in February 1989. Another winter sur-
vey and spring survey are planned in
FY1990. In cooperation with the Wis-
consin Department of Natural
Resources and the U.S. Geological
Survey, tributary monitoring was per-
formed on all important tributaries to
Green Bay. Wisconsin also collected
fish samples. A master and two
routine monitoring stations collected
air deposition samples. Other studies
underway include water/land/air
vapor flux of contaminants,
groundwater loadings, and sediment
contamination.
The study has refined laboratory
methods for handling a large number
of samples that must be analyzed for
trace organics (i.e., PCB and
dieldrin). Detection of these trace con-
taminants in the water column re-
quires the sampling of large volumes
of water. Previously, such analyses
were, in essence, small-scale research
activities. However, the Green Bay
study has developed methods that can
be employed on a more routine basis.
The study team is beginning to ob-
tain the results of laboratory analyses
on initial samples. Preliminary PCB
data from the 1988 cruise indicate, as
expected, a gradient in total PCBs,
with higher concentrations in the Fox
River and southern Green Bay sam-
pling stations. Preliminary results for
PCBs in plankton samples show a
similar trend, with higher concentra-
tions in the Fox River and southern
Green Bay, and a two- to three-fold
decrease in northern Green Bay.
These data will be used in developing
models of contaminant transport and
levels in fish. Dieldrin results do not
follow the PCB trend. The highest
dieldrin concentrations in plankton
occur near the Door Peninsula and
may reflect the historic use of dieldrin
in the agricultural practices of that
region; concentrations there are
higher than those in both the north-
ern and southern portions of the Bay.
In FY 1990, field sampling will con-
clude with a spring cruise. Thereafter,
the study team will complete the
analysis of samples, compile data, and
calibrate existing models. A study
report will be prepared in FY 1991.
New EPA
Research Vessel
Early in FY 1989, EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office con-
cluded negotiations with the U.S.
Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration for pur-
chase of a vessel that will be con-
vened into a replacement research
vessel for open lake water quality
monitoring. This vessel was needed
because of the age (now over 50 years
old) and size of the current ship, and
to expand the capability for routine
monitoring of persistent toxic substan-
ces in open lake waters. The larger re-
placement vessel will have
considerably more space for analytic
facilities that will prepare samples for
later analysis in land-based
laboratories. The shipyard conversion
of the replacement vessel is scheduled
for completion in fell 1990. The on-
board suite of laboratory equipment
will be installed after the vessel's ar-
rival in the Great Lakes.
-------
102 Chapter 7
DRAFT March 1991
System-Wide
Surveillance
During FY 1989, planned spring sur-
veys for Lakes Erie, Huron, and On-
tario were prevented due to vessel
breakdown. The Great Lakes Nation-
al Program Office accomplished all
summer open lake water quality sam-
pling that was planned for Lakes Erie,
Huron, Michigan, and Ontario.
During the summer survey in Lake
Erie, EPA sampled for 33 parameters
at 20 sites. In Lake Huron, EPA
sampled for 33 parameters at 20 loca-
tions. EPA sampled for 33
parameters at 11 Lake Michigan sites
and for 33 parameters at 8 Lake On-
tario sites. Both spring and summer
cruises are planned during 1990.
The Program Office has sponsored
studies to examine whether water
from certain municipal drinking water
intakes is representative of open lake
waters of Lakes Michigan and On-
tario and could be used in selected
areas in lieu of sampling by ship.
Results indicate that the composition
of samples collected from intake pipes
is generally similar to that of samples
collected from offshore waters.
Storms and other weather events can
affect near-shore water quality, requir-
ing careful analysis of data before
they can be used reliably. Further
evaluation of the study results is
planned for FY 1990.
Through an agreement with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pro-
gram Office supports an annual
monitoring program for dissolved
oxygen in Lake Erie. Dissolved
oxygen is measured from June
through September at 10 stations in
the central basin of Lake Erie. Figure
7-2 shows the trend in the annual
average fully adjusted oxygen deple-
tion rate for the central basin of Lake
Erie. The adjusted oxygen depletion
rates for 1988 and 1989 were the
lowest reported since 1970. In 1989,
the bottom waters did not become
anoxic until mid-September, an en-
couraging sign that phosphorus load
reductions may be achieving their
desired effect. In several previous
years, anoxic conditions developed
about mid-August. This monitoring
program will continue in 1991 in
order to collect data to further
evaluate long-term responses of
5.0 Z
4.5.-
4.0.
Q e
3.0 .
R
C 2.5.
2.0.
1.5.
1.0.
0.5.
0.0.=
• ••••'.
/
/
/
_
^
4
zjj
—
^g
/-
^
/-
^
-•
•
-
-•
^
fv (^ f<$ f* ?o if f& /y eu si BZ tw &* Od 8t> o/^ oct tjy
Year
Figure 7-2. Annual Average Corrected Oxygen Depletion Rate,
Re for Central Basin of Lake Erie.
(mg O2/L/month).
Source: USEPAGLNPO, 19_.
central basin water quality to reduc-
tions in nutrient enrichment
EPA, States, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service continued fish surveil-
lance programs during FY 1989 and
this activity is planned to continue
during FY 1990. One Lake Michigan
site was sampled for 14 organic
parameters in lake trout and smelt,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service
sampled Chinook salmon at eight sites
for 21 organic parameters. On Lake
Erie, the United States sampled smelt
and walleye at one site for 11
parameters and rainbow trout at
three sites for 21 organic parameters.
On Lake Huron, the United States
sampled lake trout and smelt at one
site for 7 parameters and Chinook sal-
mon at two sites for 21 organic
parameters. On Lake Ontario, the
United States sampled lake trout and
smelt at one site for 11 parameters
and Chinook salmon at three sites for
11 parameters. Figure 7-3 shows
some of the results of this monitoring
program. The figure depicts average
concentrations of PCBs and DDT in
Lake Michigan lake trout, chubs,
coho, and smelt.
The Great Lakes States and EPA
continued their joint support of a
basin-wide 20-station air deposition
network during FY 1989 and this ac-
tivity is planned to continue during
FY 1990. The sampling stations
monitor nutrients, metals, and acidity
in precipitation, including lead, cad-
mium, nitrate/nitrite, mercury, and
phosphorus, among about 35
parameters. States operate the sam-
pling stations, and provide samples to
EPA on a weekly basis, provided suffi-
cient precipitation occurred.
The States and the U.S. Geological
Survey conduct tributary monitoring.
The EPA Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office's activities have centered
on development of sampling
strategies to obtain data adequate for
estimating chemical loadings to the
Great Lakes, and on dissemination of
these strategies to States. During FY
1989, research carried out under Pro-
gram Office grants led to the develop-
ment of enhanced (high-flow)
strategies for seven Great Lakes
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Ecosystem Surveillance 103
Chubs/Coho/Smett
10 1
DDT
Lake Trout
rao
•18
-16
-14
-12
10
-8
8
4
-2
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
Year
Chubs/Coho/Smeh
Lake Trout
PCBs
Year
Legend
Chubs
— Coho
— Smelts
Lake Trout
Figure 7-3. Fish Contaminants Monitoring Program Results.(Concentrations are in mg/kg)
Source: USEPA, GLNPO, 19
-------
104 Chapter 7 DRAFT March 1991
tributaries in Michigan. In addition,
Heidelberg College, Ohio, has " . . . ....
developed event-responsiveness
ratings for all major Great Lakes
tributaries that will help EPA, States,
and Canada to assess which
tributaries require the most monitor-
ing. During FY1990, ^he Program Of-
fice will contribute to international
workshops, sponsored by the Interna- • •
tional Joint Commission, to discuss
technical strategies for implementing
enhanced monitoring programs.
With a few exceptions, present
tributary monitoring data are only
marginally adequate for calculating
loads for conventional pollutants and
they are inadequate for calculating
loadings of toxic contaminants. Es-
timates of loads for these parameters
will require the development of in-
novative sampling technologies. One
attempt at such innovation is a pilot
monitoring station that the New York
Department of Environmental Con-
servation is developing for use on the
Buffalo River.
The U.S. Geological Survey main-
tains sampling stations on most major
Great Lakes tributaries. In FY 1990,
as part of the Green Bay Mass
Balance Study, the Survey will con-
duct tributary sampling that will help
to develop sampling methods for
trace contaminants. This activity will
also address methods and instrumen-
tation for monitoring tributaries at or
near their mouths, which is necessary
for estimating tributary loadings of
trace contaminants.
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Expenditures 105
Chapter 8
During FYs 1989 and 1990,
Federal expenditures on behalf
of Great Lakes water quality were in
excess of $150 million each year. This
total represents estimates of expendi-
tures by a number of major programs.
The largest two Federal outlays are
for the cleanup of abandoned hazard-
ous waste sites by the Superfund pro-
gram and for the construction of
municipal wastewater treatment sys-
tem improvements.
Before discussing expenditures,
several general observations should
be made. First, although some ap-
Expenditures
propriations (e.g., EPA's Large Lakes
Research Station and Great Lakes
National Program Office) are specifi-
cally earmarked for the Great Lakes,
many programs are broader in scope
and their funding is administered on a
State-wide basis. For these, it is often
difficult to distinguish what portion of
their expenditures were for activities
within the Great Lakes basin. Second,
reported expenditures are usually
comprised both of actual obligations
through the time at which the infor-
mation was developed and of an-
ticipated obligations during the
remainder of that fiscal year. Third,
expenditures of two-year ap-
propriated funds will sometimes be in-
curred during the second year. The
net effect of these factors is to intro-
duce some uncertainty into the expen-
ditures estimates.
Superfund
Figure 8-1 shows expenditures by
the Superfund in the counties of the
Great Lakes basin over three fiscal
years (1987-1989). These counties are
wholly or partly located within the
Great Lakes basin. A geographic area
larger than the actual watershed of
MtCENTACE Of TOTAI CIOHANO
IN CONS (I VAT ION TIM ACE
MEAT IAKFS KASIN SUMMIT
MEAN: 11. t%
MAX : 17.1 %
Figure 8-1. Total Superfund Expenditures in Great Lakes Counties in FYs 1987 through 1989.
Source: USEPA, 199_
105
-------
106 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
the Great Lakes is used, since infor-
mation from the Agency's Superfund
data base can best be extracted by
county.
Over this three year period, the Su-
perfund program spent over $210 mil-
lion in the counties of the Great
Lakes. These costs are government
outlays only and do not include costs
incurred by Potentially Responsible
Parties. Thus, total cleanup expendi-
tures for Superfund sites are actually
greater than the expenditures shown
in Figure 8-1. It should also be noted
that Agency acts to recover costs from
potentially responsible parties, so that
the Superfund will be reimbursed for
some of these outlays.
Over this three year period, the four
counties with the highest Superfund
expenditures were Lapeer County,
Michigan; Niagara County, New
York; Ashtabula County, Ohio; and
Erie County, New York/The prin-
cipal sites in these counties were the
Metamora Landfill in Lapeer; Love
Canal in Niagara; New Lyme Landfill
and Fields Brook in Ashtabula; and
Wide Beach" Development in Erie.
Municipal
Wastewater
Treatment
Systems
Figure 8-2 shows Federal outlays for
the construction of improved
municipal wastewater treatment sys-
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT AWARDS. BY FISCAL YEAR
CUMULATIVE FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT AWARDS
IN THE GREAT LAKES BASW, BY LAKE BASIN
Figure 8-2. Construction Grant Awards in the Great Lakes Basin.
Source: USEPA. 199 .
-------
DRAFT March 1991
Expenditures 107
Table 8-1. FY 1989 Federal Expenditures on Great Lakes Water Quality,
($ in Thousands)
Federal Agency
EPA
Great Lakes National Program
Office
NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Great Lakes Environmental Re-
search Laboratory
Sea Grant (1)
Coastal Zone Management (2)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Army Corps of Engineers
TOTAL
Judicial
Enfofc0m*frt
1,387
1,387
Research
4,374
3,930
45
2,151
72
12,478
Surveillance
4,106
1,323
769
3,288
8,486
Remedial
Programs
3,110
eoo
469
7,969
582
16,254
27,915
General
Administration
2,001
5,400'
527
741
4,338
State
Cooperative
Efforts
387
1 BOB
4,974
2,689
5,400
60
387
Other
435
7,088
10
12,360
21,061
20,954
Total
10,039
9,874
16,603
76,945
terns in the Great Lakes basin be-
tween 1972 and 1989. During this
period, EPA provided about $4.8 bil-
lion for wastewater treatment plants
around the Great Lakes. Over one
half of this investment has been made
for plants in Lake Erie's watershed.
The second greatest Federal invest-
ment has been made in Lake
Ontario's watershed.
Expenditures for the wastewater
treatment system for the largest U.S.
metropolitan area within the Great
Lakes watershed are not included,
since Chicago's treatment system dis-
charges into the Mississippi River
Table 8-2. FY 1990 Federal Expenditures on Great Lakes Water Quality.
Federal Aqency
EPA
Great Lakes National Program
Office
NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Great Lake* Environmental
Research Laboratory
Sea Giant (1)
Coastal Zone Management (2)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fisn and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Army Corps of Engineers
TOTAL
Judicial
Enforcement
60
1,390
1,450
Research
1,908
4,400
3,930
1,678
50
11,964
Surveillance
5,651
1,668
1,485
2,931
11,735
Remedial
Programs
3,741
600
4.689
7,620
615
26,371
38,347
General
Administration
2,562
5,593
548
835
9,234
State
Cooperative
Efforts
490
1,906
5.000
2.689
5,593
318
•490
Other
387
11,308
10
9.924
31,060
18,921
Total
12,831
9,846
14,597
92,141
-------
108 Chapters
DRAFT March 1991
Table 8-3. FY 1991 Estimated Federal Expenditures on Great Lakes Water Quality.
Federal Agency
EPA
GiMt Lake* National Fragrant
Office
Large Lakn DsMarcn Station
NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERC
ADMINISTRATION
Qmat LaKe* Environmental
Research Labontoiy
Sea Grant (1)
Coastal Zon* Managemwit (2)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Soil Consefvation Service
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Aimy Corp* of Engineen
TOTAL
Judicial
Enforcement
•
Research
'
Surveillance
Remedial
Pro£nvrts
General
Adnii nwtrstton
State
Cooperative
Efforts
Other
Total
drainage system. It should be noted
that State and local governments also
contributed greatly to the funding of
municipal treatment systems. The
total investment by Federal, State,
and local governments in municipal
treatment systems around the Great
Lakes basin between 1972 and 1989 is
about $8 billion.
Other Programs
Tables 8-1 through 8-3 show
Federal expenditures on the Great
Lakes by selected organizations and
programs for FYs 1989 and 1990, and
planned expenditures for FY 1991.
dean Water Act Sections
118(c)(6)(A) and (D) specify that this
report characterize the nature of
Federal expenditures by at least four
categories: judicial enforcement; re-
search; general administration; and
State cooperative efforts. To further
clarify the uses of the expenditures,
four additional categories have been
added for this report: remedial
programs; surveillance; wastewater
treatment facilities; and other expendi-
tures. For the purposes of this report,
several operational definitions were
made. "Judicial enforcement" expen-
ditures are those relating to litigation
to obtain compliance with environ-
mental regulations. "General Ad-
ministration" refers to staff salaries,
travel, and administrative expenses.
"State Cooperative Efforts" are
defined as grants to State environmen-
tal agencies either expressly for
development of Remedial Action
Plans or more broadly for water
quality programs. This is a narrow
definition in that it excludes, as two ex-
amples, EPA's funding towards the
Green Bay study, jointly sponsored by
the Agency and by the State of Wis-
consin, and ARCS sediment assess-
ments in five Areas of Concern. Both
of these studies develop information
pertinent to the development of cer-
tain Remedial Action Plans and ex-
penditures for them are included
under the categories of "Surveillance"
and "Remedial" activities, respective-
ly. Water grants are on a whole-State
basis, beyond the basin. Air/Waste
funding is not included.
-------
DRAFT March 1991 109
References
Chapter 2
1 One-risk assessment study has compared drinking drinking untreated water from the relatively pol-
luted Niagara Raiver with consumption of Lake Michigan fish (caught in 1980-81). The study
found that annual consumption of 15 kilograms of Lake Trout over a lifetime provided 1000 times
greater risk than drinking 2 liters of untreated Niagara River water every day. Data from Bro,
K.M., Sonzogni, W.C., and M.E. Hanson, Relative Cancer Risks of Chemical Contaminants in the
Great Lakes, Rnvironmental Management Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 495-505, Springer-Verlag New York,
Inc., 1987
2 Environment Canada, Contaminants in Herring Gulls from the Great Lakes, SOE Fact Sheet No. 90-
2, Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, 1990.
3 Bro et al, 1987.
4 Clark, J.M., Fink, L., and D. DeVault, A New Approach for the Establishment of Fish Consumption
Advisories, J. Great Lakes Res. 13(3):367-374, International Association for Great Lakes Re-
search, 1987.
5 Environment Canada, 1990.
6 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center - Great Lakes
7 Fein, G. J. Jacobsen, S. Jacobsen, H.E.B. Humphrey, and P. Schwartz - REFERENCE NOT COM-
PLETE.
8 Ibid.
9 Stalmaster, M., The Bald Eagle, Universe Books, New York, 1987.
10 1990 305b reports for Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin.
11 Clark et al., 1987.
12 Schmitt, C J., Zajicek, J.L., and P.H. Peterman, National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program:
Residues of Organochlorine Chemicals in U.S. Freshwater Fish, 1976-1984, Arch. Environ. Con-
tarn. ToxJcol. 19:748-781,1990; Schmitt, C J., and W.G. Brumbaugh, National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program: Concentrations of Arsenic, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, and Zinc
in U.S. Freshwater Fish, 1976-1984, Arch. Environ. Cnntam. Tnxicnl 19:731-747,1990.
13 Conservation Foundation Report plus others - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
14 U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and Environment Canada monitoring data.
15 Conservation Foundation plus others - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
16 Baumann, P.C., Smith, W.D., and M.Ribick, Hepatic Tumor Rates and Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbon Levels in Two Populations of Brown Bullheads (Ictalurus nebulosus), in Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Physical and Biological Chemistry, ed. M.Cooke, A J. Dennis, and
G.L.Fisher, pp. 93-102, Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, 1982.
17 Baumann et al. 1982; Black, J J., Field and Laboratory Studies of Environmental Carcinogenesis in
Niagara River Fish. J. Great Lakes Res, 9(2);3^-334, International Association for Great Lakes
Research, 1983.
18 USFWS - NEED COMPLETE REFERENCE.
109
-------
110 References DRAFT March 1991
19 Strachan, W.MJ., and S J. Eisenreich, Mass Balancing of Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes: The
Role of Atmospheric Deposition, Appendix I from The Workshop on Estimation of Atmospheric
Loadings of Toxic Chemicals to the Great Lakes Basin, International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario, May, 1988.
20 Stephenson, T.D., Fish Reproductive Utilization of Coastal Marshes of Lake Ontario Near Toron-
to, J. Great I^akes Res. 16(1):71-81, International Association for Great Lakes Research, 1990.
21 Ibid.
22 Source for Black Swamp Figure - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
23 Crowder, A A., and J.M. Bristow, Report: The Future of Waterfowl Habitats in the Canadian
Lower Great Lakes Wetlands, J. Great Lakes Res. 14(1):115-127, International Association for
Great Lakes Research, 1988.
24 Snell, E A., Wetland Distribution and Conversion in Southern Ontario, Canada Land Use Monitor-
ing Program, Inland Waters Directorate, Canada Department of the Environment, Working
Paper No. 48, December, 1987.
25 USFWS Report on Wetland losses from mid-1970s - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
26 Forsyth, J.L., The Black Swamp, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of the Geological
Survey, 1960, in The Ecolofy of the Coastal Marshes of Lake Erie: A Community Profile, Biological
Report 85(7.9), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1987.
27 Fitchko, J., Literature Review of the Effects of Persistent Toxic Substances on Great Lakes Biota.
International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario, December, 1986.
28 NOAA unpublished data - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
29 Mills, E. and J. Leach, unpublished data on exotic species. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1991
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 O'Neill, C.R. and D.B. MacNeill, 1989, Dreissena Polymorpha: an Unwelcome New Great Lakes In-
vader, New York Sea Grant, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet, Cor-
nell University, New York, November, 1989.
36 Ibid.
37 Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Fact Sheet on the Transport and Control of Exotic Biota Intro-
duced into the Great Lakes through Ships Ballast Water, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 21,1988.
38 Sprules, W.G., H.P. Riessen, and E.H. Jin, 1990. Dynamics of the Bythotrephes Invasion of the St.
Lawrence Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research, J. Great Lakes Res. 16(3):346-351, In-
ternational Association for Great Lakes Research, 1990.
39 Keilty, T J., 1990. Evidence for Alewife Predation of the European Cladoceran Bythotrephes
Cederstroemii in Northern Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 16(2):330-333, International As-
sociation for Great Lakes Research, 1990.
40 Curtis, G.L., 1990. Recovery of an Offshore Lake Trout (Salvelinus Namaycush) Population in East-
ern Lake Superior. J. Great Lakes Res. 16(2):279-287, International Association for Great Lakes
Research, 1990.
41 MDNR, State of Michigan 1990 Water Quality Report, Michigan Department of Natural Resour-
ces, Lansing, Michigan, 1990.
-------
DRAFT March 1991 111
42 Source for Phosphorous Concentration Graphs. - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
43 Source for Cropland area Map-REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
44 Source for Tillage Map - REFERENCE NOT COMPLETE.
-------
-------
DRAFT March 1991 113
Glossary
Acute Toxicity: The ability of a substance to cause poisonous effects resulting in severe biological harm or death soon after a single exposure
or dose. (See: dhronic toxicity, toxicity.)
Advisory: A non-regulatory document that communicates risk information.
Agricultural Pollution: The liquid and solid wastes from farming; agricultural runoff and leaching 9f pesticides and fertilizers; erosion and
dust from plowing; animal manure and carcasses; crop residues, and debris.
Airborne Particulars: Total suspended paniculate matter found in the atmosphere as solid particles or liquid droplets. Chemical composition
of particulates varies widely, depending on location and time of year. Airborne participates include: windblown dust, emissions from
industrial processes, smoke from the burning of wood and coal, and the exhaust of motor vehicles.
Air Contaminant: Any paniculate matter, gas, or combination thereof, other than water vapor or natural air. (See: air pollutant.)
Air Pollutant: Any substance in air which could, if in high enough concentration, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material. Pollutants
include almost any natural or artificial composition of matter capable of being airborne. They may be in the form of solid particles, liquid
•droplets, or in combinations of these forms. Generally, they fall into two main categories: (1) those emitted directly from identifiable sources
and (2) those produced in the air by interaction between two or more primary pollutants, or by reaction with normal atmospheric constituents,
with or without photoactivation. Excl usivc of pollen, fog, and dust, which are of natural origin, about 100 contaminants have been identified
and fall into the following categories: solids, sulfur compounds, volatile organic chemicals, nitrogen compounds, oxygen compounds, halogen
compounds, radioactive compounds, and odors.
Algae: Simple rootless plants that grow in sunlit waters in relative proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. They can affect water
quality adversely by lowering the dissolved oxygen in the water. They are food for fish and small aquatic animals.
Anadromous fish: Fish that spend their adulthood in the sea, but swim up rivers to spawn.
Anoxia: The absence of oxygen necessary for sustaining most life. In aquatic ecosystems this refers to the absence of dissolved oxygen in water.
Anti-Degradation Clause: Part of federal airquality and waterquality requirements prohibiting deterioration where pollution levels are above
the legal limit.
Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or group of formations, containing usable amounts of groundwater that can supply wells and
springs.
Areas of Concern: A geographic area that fails to meet the General or Specific Objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement where
such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life.
Atmosphere: [an] (the) The whole mass of air surrounding the earth, composed largely of oxygen and nitrogen.
Atmospheric Deposition: Pollution from the atmosphere associated with dry deposition in the form of dust, wet deposition in the form of
rain and snow, or as a result of vapor exchanges.
B
Bacteria: (Singular bacterium) Microscopic living organisms which can aid in pollution control by consuming or breaking down organic matter
in sewage, or by similarly acting on oil spills or other water pollutants. Bacteria in soil, water or air can also cause human, animal and plant
health problems.
Benthic Organism (Benthos): A form of aquatic plant or animal life that is found on or near the bottom of a stream, lake or ocean.
Btoaccnmulative: Substances that increase in concentration in living organisms (that are very slowly metabolized or excreted) as they breathe
contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food. (See: biological magnification.)
Bioassay: Using living organisms to measure the effect of a substance, factor, or condition by comparing before-and-after data. Term is often
used to mean cancer bioassays.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The amount of dissolved oxygen required for the bacterial decomposition of organic waste in water.
Biodegradable: The ability to break down or decompose rapidly under natural conditions and processes.
Biological Magnification: Refers to the process whereby certain substances become ever more concentrated in tissues or internal organs as
they move up the food chain. (See: bioaccumulative.)
Biomass: All of the living material in a given area; often refers to vegetation. Also called "biota".
Biomonitoring: The use of organisms to test the acute toxicity of substances in effluent discharges as well as the chronic toxicity of low-level
pollutants in the ambient aquatic environment.
Biota: (See: biomass.)
113
-------
114 Glossary DRAFT March 1991
Bog: A type of wetland that accumulates appreciable peat deposits. Bogs depend primarily on precipitation for their water source, are usually
acidic and rich in plant residue with a conspicuous mat of living green moss. • '• ' • • . .
Buffer Strips: Strips of grass or other erosion-resisting vegetation between or below cultivated strips or fields.
By-product: Material, other than the principal product, that is generated as a consequence of an industrial process.
c
Cadmium (Cd): A heavydetal element that accumulates in the environment.
Cap: A layer of clay, or other highly impermeable material installed over the top of a closed landfill to prevent entry of rainwater and minimize
production of leachate.
Carcinogen: Cancer-causing chemicals, substances, or radiation.
Carcinogenic: Cancer-producing.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: These include a class of persistent, broad-spectrum insecticides, that linger in the environment and accumulate
in the food chain. Among them are DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachor, chlordane, lindane, endrin, mircx, hexachloride, and toxaphene. Other
examples include TCE, used as an industrial solvent.
Chronic Toxicity: The capacity of a substance to cause poisonous effects in an organism after long-term exposure. (See: acute toxicity.)
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance that could affect humans and/or the environment.
Coastal Zone: Lands and waters adjacent to the coast that exert an influence on the uses of the sea and its ecology, or inversely, whose uses
and ecology are affected by the sea.
Combined Sewers: A sewer system that carries both sewage and storm-water runoff. Normally, its entire flow goes to a waste treatment plant,
but during a heavy storm, the storm water volume may be so great as to cause overflows. When this happens untreated mixtures of storm
water and sewage may flow into receiving waters. Storm-water runoff may also cany toxic chemicals from industrial areas or streets into the
sewer system.
Combustion: Burning, or rapid oxidation, accompanied by release of energy in the form of heat and light. A basic cause of air pollution.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter that has an adverse effect on air, water, or soil.
Conventional Pollutants: Statutority listed pollutants which are understood well by scientists. These may be in the form of organic waste,
sediment, acid, bacteria and viruses, nutrients, oil and grease, or heat.
Criteria: Descriptive factors taken into account by EPA in setting standards for various pollutants. These factors are used to determine limits
of concentration levels in permits. When issued by EPA, the criteria provide guidance to States on how to develop their standards.
D
DDT: The first chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide (chemical name-Dichloto-Diphsdyl-Trichloromethane). It has a half-life of 15 years and
can collect in fatty tissues of certain animals. EPA banned registration and interstate sale for virtually all but emergency uses in the United
States in 1972 because of its persistence in the environment and accumulation in the food chain. DDT and its metabolites, DDD and DDE,
have been found to be carcinogenic to mice. DDT, DDD, DDE, and the other persistent organochlorine pesticides are primarily responsible
for the great decrease in the reproductive capabilities and consequently in the population of fish-eating birds, such as the bald eagle, brown
pelican, and osprey. DDT has also been shown to decrease the populations of numerous other species of water birds, raptors, and passerines
significantly.
Designated Uses: Those water uses identified in state water quality standards which must be achieved and maintained as required under the
Clean Water Act. Uses can include cold water fisheries, public water supply, agriculture, etc.
Dieldrin: The pesticide aldrin degrades to dieldrin, which is very persistent in the environment. Both pesticides are carcinogens, are acutely
toxic to aquatic organisms, and are bioconcentrated by aquatic organisms. Dieldrin is one of the most persistent of the chlorinated hydro
carbons. Both pesticides, and especially dieldrin, have been associated with large-scale bird and mammal kills in treated areas.
Dloxin: Any of a family of compounds known chemically as dibenzo-p-dioxins.Dioxin(TCDD) is a particularly hazardous group of 75 chemicals
of the chlorinated dioxin family. 2,3,7,8-TCDD or 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin is a particularly dangerous member of this group.
Tests on laboratory animals indicate that it is one of the more toxic man-made chemicals known.
Direct Discharger A municipal or industrial facility which introduces pollution through a defined conveyance or system; a point source.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The oxygen freely available in water. Dissolved oxygen is vital to fish and other aquatic life and for the prevention
of odors. Traditionally, the level of dissolved oxygen has been accepted as the single most important indicator of a water body's ability to
support desirable aquatic life. Secondary and advanced waste treatment are generally designed to protect DO in waste-receiving waters.
Drainage Basin: A water body and the land area drained by it.
Dredging: Removal of mud from the bottom of water bodies using a scooping machine. This disturbs the ecosystem and causes silting that
can kill aquatic life. Dredging of contaminated muds can expose aquatic life to heavy metals and other toxics. Dredging activities may be
subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
-------
DRAFT March 1991 US
E . . . . ...---
Ecosystem: The interacting system of a biological community and its non-living environmental surroundings.
Ecosystem Objectives: Environmental objectives that specify the nature of the Great Lakes in their desired state in terms of living organisms,
their population characteristics, and condition of individual organisms.
Effluent: Wastewater—treated or untreated—that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged intp surface waters.
Effluent Limitations: Restrictions established by a State or EPA on quantities, rates, and concentrations in wastewater discharges.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of commercial or industrial facilities;
from residential chimneys; and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft exhausts. • •
Emission Inventory: A listing, by source, of the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere of a community. It is used to establish
emission standards.
Enrichment: The addition of nutrients ( e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon compounds) from sewage effluent or agricultural runoff to surface
water. This process greatly increases the growth potential for algae and aquatic plants.
EpUimnion: The warm, upper layer of water in a lake that occurs with summer stratification.
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally from weather or runoff but can be intensified by land
use practices related to farming, residential or industrial development, mining, or timber-cutting.
Estuary: Regions of interaction between rivers and near shore oceans where tidal action and river flow create a mixing of fresh and saltwater.
Such areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes, and lagoons. These brackish water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life,
birds, and wildlife. (See: wetlands.)
Eutrophication: The process of fertilization that causes high productivity and biomass in an aquatic ecosystem. Eutrophication can be a natural
process or it can be a cultural process accelerated by an increase of nutrient loading to a lake by human activity.
Exotic Species: Species that are not native to the Great Lakes and have been intentionally introduced or have inadvertently infiltrated the
system. Exotics may prey upon native species compete with them for food or habitat.
Fen: A type of wetland that accumulates peat deposits. Fens are less acidic than bogs, deriving most of their water from groundwater rich in
calcium and magnesium. (See: wetlands.)
Fertilizer: Materials such as nitrogen and phosphorus that provide nutrients for plants. Commercially sold fertilizers may contain other
chemicals or may be in the form of processed sewage sludge.
Food Chain: A sequence of organisms, each of which uses the next, lower member of the sequence as a food source.
G
Game Fish: Fish species caught for sport, such as trout, salmon, or bass.
Ground Water The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth's surface, usually in aquifers, which is often used for supplying wells and
springs. Because ground water is a major source of drinking water there is growing concern over areas where leaching agricultural or industrial
pollutants or substances from leaking underground storage tanks are contaminating ground water.
H
Habitat: The place where a population (e.g., human, animal, plant, micro-organism) lives and its surroundings, both living and non-living.
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Air pollutants which are not covered by ambient air quality standards but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act,
may reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to irreversible illness or death. Such pollutants include asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
benzene, coke oven emissions, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.
Hazard Ranking System: The principle screening tool used by EPA to evaluate risks to public health and the environment associated with
abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS calculates a score based on the potential of hazardous substances spreading
from the site through the air, surface water, or ground water and on other factors such as nearby population. This score is the primary factor
in deciding if the site should be on the National Priorities List and, if so, what ranking it should have compared to other sites on the list.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society that can pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health and/or the environment when
improperly managed. Possesses at least one of four characteristics (ignitability, corroswity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears on special EPA
lists.
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights, e.g., mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, and lead. They can damage living
things at low concentrations and tend to accumulate in the food chain.
Heptachlon Hcptachlorand its active metabolite, heptachlorepoxide, are very persistent in the environment, resisting chemical and biological
breakdown into harmless substances. These pollutants are liver carcinogens when administered orally to rats. Heptachlor is toxic at low
concentrations in some aquatic invertebrate and fish species, and shows a strong tendency to bioaccumulate. It can concentrate at levels
thousands of times greater than those in the surrounding water in a variety of aquatic organisms.
-------
116 Glossary DRAFT March 1991
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB): A very persistent environmental pollutant that bioaccumulates. HCB is readily sorbed onto sediment particles,
although desorpt ion does occur, producing continuous, low-level concentrations of HCB in the surrounding environment. Hexachloroben- .
zene is carcinogenic in mice, rats, and hamsters, and produces adverse effects in humans upon exposure.
HypoUmnion: The cold, dense, lower layer of water in a lake that occurs with summer stratification.
Indicator: In biology, an prganism, species, or community whose characteristics show the presence of specific environmental conditions.
Injection Well: A well into which fluids are injected for purposes such as waste disposal, improving the recovery of crude oil, or solution
mining.
International Joint Commission (UC): Established by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. A binational Commission with responsibility for
decisions regarding obstruction or diversion of United States/Canadian boundary waters and to which other questions or matters of
difference can be referred for examination and report. The Commission also has powers to resolve differences arising over the common
frontier. In 1972 the Commission was given responsibility for assisting and monitoring the two governments' implementation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Irrigation: Techniq ue for applying waste or wastewater to land areas to supply the water and nutrient needs of plants.
Loading: The quantity of a substance entering a water body.
Landfills: 1. Sanitary landfills are land disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes at which the waste is spread in layers, compacted to the
smallest practical volume, and cover material applied at the end of each operating day. 2. Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are selected and designed to minimize the chance of release of hazardous substances into the environment.
Leachate: A liquid that results from water collecting contaminants as it trickles through wastes, agricultural pesticides or fertilizers. Leaching
may occur in farming areas, feedlots, and landfills, and may result in hazardous substances entering surface water, groundwater, or soil.
Lead (Pb): A heavy metal that is hazardous to health if breathed or swallowed. Its use in gasoline, paints, and plumbing compounds has been
sharply restricted or eliminated by Federal laws and regulations. (See: heavy metals.)
Leaded Gasoline: Gasoline to which lead has been added to raise the octane level.
Limnology: The study of the physical, chemical, meteorological, and biological aspects of fresh water.
M
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not accumulate appreciable peat deposits and is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Marshes may be
either fresh or saltwater and tidal or non-tidal. (See: wetlands.)
Mass Balance Approach: An approach to evaluating the sources, transport, and fate of contaminants entering a water system as well as their
effects on water quality. In a mass balance budget, the amounts of a contaminant entering the system less the quantities stored, transformed,
or degraded must equal the amount leaving the system. If inputs exceed outputs, pollutants are accumulating and contaminant levels are
rising. Once a mass balance budget has been established for a pollutant of concern, the long-term effects on water quality can be simulated
by mathematical modeling.
Mesotropbic: See Trophic Status.
Metabolite: Any substance produced in or by biological processes and derived from a pesticide.
Mercury: A heavy metal that can accumulate in the fatty tissue of animals and fish. It can be highly toxic and cause poisoning in humans.
Minx: Mirex, a fire retardant and pest control agent, was at one time produced in the Lake Ontario basin. Mirex bioaccumulates in a variety
of organisms, but its effects are poorly known. There is evidence that mirex is very persistent in bird tissue.
Modeling: A theory or a mathematical or physical representation of a system that accounts for all or some of its known properties. Models
are often used to test the effect of changes of system components on the overall performance of the system.
Monitoring: A scientifically designed system of continuing standardized measurements and observations and the evaluation thereof.
Mulch: A layer of material (wood chips, straw, leaves, etc.) placed around plants to hold moisture, prevent weed growth, protect the plants
and hold the soil.
N
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): The national program for controlling direct discharges from point sources of
pollutants (e.g., municipal sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities) into waters of the United States.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible
long-term remedial action under Superfund. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial action. The list
is based primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking System. EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a year.
Nitrate: A compound containing nitrogen which can exist in the atmosphere or as a dissolved gas in water and which can have harmful effects
on humans and animals.
-------
DRAFT March 1991 117
Nitrite: 1. An intermediate in the process of nitrification. 2. Nitrous oxide salts used in food preservation.
Non-Point Source: Pollution sources which are' diffuse and do not have a single point of origin or are not introduced into a receiving stream
from a specific outlet. The pollutants are generally carried off land by storm water runoff. The commonly used categories for non-point
sources are: agriculture, forestry, urban, mining, construction, dams and channels, land disposal, and saltwater intrusion.
Nutrient; Any substance assimilated by living things that promotes growth. The term is generally applied to nitrogen and phosphorous in
wastewater, but is also applied to other essential trace elements.
o
OUgotrophlc Lakes: Gear lakes with low nutrient supplies. They contain little organic matter and have a high dissolved-oxygen level.
Open Lake: Those waters in a lake unaffected by physical and chemical processes originating or resultihgfrom the adjacent land mass. Physical,
chemical, and biological phenomena resemble oceanographic conditions in open lake waters.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Animal or plant-produced substances containing mainly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Organic Matter: Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating from domestic or industrial sources.
Organism: Any living thing.
Pathogen: A disease-causing agent such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites.
PCBs: A group of toxic, persistent chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyis) used in such applications as in electrical transformers and capacitors
(for insulating) and in gas pipeline systems (as a lubricant). Further sale of new use was banned by law in 1979.
Permit: An authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by EPA or a state agency to implement the requirements of an
environmental regulation; e.g., a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant or to operate a facility that may generate harmful emissions.
Persistence: Refers to the length of a time a compound, once introduced into the environment, stays there. A compound may persist for less
than a second or indefinitely.
Persistent Pesticides: Pesticides that do not break down chemically or break down very slowly and that remain in the environment after a
growing season.
Pesticide: Substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Also, any substance or
mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. Pesticides can accumulate in the food chain and/or
contaminate the environment if misused.
Phosphorus: An essential chemical food element that can contribute to the eutrophication of lakes and other water bodies.
Photosynthesis: A process occurring in the cells of green plants and some microorganisms in which solar energy is transformed into stored
chemical energy.
Phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton community comprised of tiny plants, e.g., algae, diatoms.
Plankton: Tiny plants and animals that live in water.
Point Source: A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged or emitted. Also, any single identifiable source of
pollution, e.g., a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack.
Pollutant: Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Any individual or company—including owners, operators, transporters, or generators—potentially
responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at a Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through
administrative and legal actions, to clean up hazardous waste sites they have contaminated.
Prevention: Measures taken to minimize the release of wastes to the environment.
Primary Waste Treatment: First steps in wastewater treatment; screens and sedimentation tanks are used to remove most materials that float
or will settle. Primary treatment results in the removal of about 30 percent of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand from domestic
sewage.
R
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs): Environmental plans aimed at restoring all beneficial uses to Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Research: Development, interpretation, and demonstration of advanced scientific knowledge for the resolution of issues. It does not include
monitoring and surveillance of water or air quality.
Resuspension (of Sediment): The remixing of sediment particles and pollutants back into the water by storms, currents, organisms, and
human activities such as dredging.
Risk Assessment: The qualitative and quantitative evaluation performed in an effort to define the risk posed to human health and/or the
environment by the presence or potential presence and/or use of specific pollutants.
Retention Time: The time it takes for the volume of water in a lake to exit through its outlet, i.e., Total volume/outlet flow = Retention time,
used to estimate how long a contaminant would persist in a waterbody once introduced.
-------
118 Glossary DRAFT March 1991
Risk Management: The process of evaluating alternative regulatory and non-regulatory responses to risk and selecting among them. The
selection process necessarily requires the consideration of legal, economic, and social factors. • • ' • •
Run-Off: That part of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or other surface-water. It can carry
pollutants from the air and land into the receiving waters.
Secondary Waste Treatment: The second step in most waste treatment systems in which bacteria consume the organic parts of the waste. It
is accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria, and oxygen in trickling filters or in the activated sludge process. This treatment removes
floating and settleable solids and about 90 percent of the oxygen-demanding substances and suspended solids. Disinfection is the final stage
of secondary treatment. (See: primary, tertiary treatment.)
Sediments: Soil, sand, and minerals washed from land into water usually after rain. Excess sediments pile up in reservoirs, rivers, and harbors,
destroying fish-nesting areas and holes of water animals, and clouding the water so that sunlight does not reach aquatic plants. Careless
farming, mining, and building activities will expose sediment materials, allowing them to be washed off the land after rainfalls.
Sewer A channel or conduit that carries wastewater and stormwater runoff from the source to a treatment plant or receiving stream. Sanitary
sewers carry household, industrial, and commercial waste. Storm sewers carry runoff from rain or snow. Combined sewers are used for both
purposes.
Site Inspection: The collection of information from a Superfund site to determine the extent and severity of hazards posed by the site. It
follows and is more extensive than a preliminary assessment. The purpose is to gather information necessary to score the site, using the
Hazard Ranking System, and to determine if the site presents an immediate threat that requires prompt removal action.
Stagnation: Lack of motion in a mass of air or water, tending to trap pollutants.
Standards: Prescriptive norms which govern action and actual limits on the amount of pollutants or emissions produced. EPA, under most
of its responsibilities, establishes minimum standards. States are allowed to be stricter.
Stratification (or Layering): The tendency in deep lakes for distinct layers of water to form as a result of vertical change in temperature and
therefore in the density of water.
Snperfund: The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA and SARA that carries out the EPA solid waste emergency
and long-term removal remedial activities. These activities include establishing a National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on
the list, determining their priority level on the list, and conducting and/or supervising cleanup and other remedial actions.
Surveillance: Specific observations and measurements relative to control or management.
Suspended Solids: Small particles of solid pollutants that float on the surface of, or are suspended in sewage or other liquids.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated by woody vegetation and that does not accumulate appreciable peat deposits. Swamps may be
fresh or saltwater and tidal or non-tidal. (See: Wetlands.)
Synergism: The cooperative interaction of two or more chemicals or phenomena producing a greater total effect than the sum of their
individual effects.
T
Technology-Based Standards: Effluent limitations applicable to direct and indirect sources which are developed on a category-by-category
basis using statutory factors, not including water-quality effects.
Terracing: Diking, built along the contour of sloping agricultural land, that holds runoff and sediment to reduce erosion.
Tertiary Waste Treatment: Advanced cleaning of wastewater that goes beyond the secondary or biological stage. It removes nutrients such
as phosphorous and nitrogen and most biological oxygen demand and suspended solids.
Toxapbene: A chlorinated organic pesticide that is persistent in the natural environment. Toxaphenc has induced liver cancer in mice and
thyroid tumors in rats. Transport through the soil, water, and air can occur relatively easily. It has a relatively high degree of toxicity in aquatic
organisms and has resulted in fish kills and adverse effects on fish development and reproduction. Bird kills due to toxaphene have been
reported.
Toxic: Poisonous to living organisms.
Toxic Substance: A substance which can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or
reproductive malfunctions, or physical deformities in any organism or its offspring, or which can become poisonous after concentration in
the food chain or in combinations with other substances.
Toxicant* A poisonous agent that kills or injures animal or plant life.
Toxicity: The degree of danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life. (See: acute, chronic toxicity.)
Trophic Status: A measure of the biological productivity in a body of water. Aquatic ecosystems are characterized as oligotrophic (low
productivity), mesotrophic (medium productivity) or eutrophic (high productivity).
-------
DRAFT March 1991 119
. . u .... .... ,...--•
Underground Injection Control (UIC): The program under the Safe Drinking Water Act that regulates the use of wells to pump fluids into
the ground.
Underground Storage Tank; A tank located all or partially underground that is designed to hold gasoline or other petroleum products or
chemical solutions.
Volatile: Description of any substance that evaporates readily.
w
Waste Load Allocation: The maximum load of pollutants each discharger of waste is allowed to release into a particular waterway. Discharge
limits are usually required for each specific water quality criterion being, or expected to be, violated.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility containing a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other processes by which pollutants are removed from
water.
Water Quality Criteria: Maximum allowable concentrations of pollutants to protect uses of a water body (e.g., drinking, swimming, farming,
fish production, or industrial processes).
Water Quality Standards: State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for water bodies. The standards are developed considering
the use of the water body and the water quality criteria which must be met to protect the designated use or uses.
Wetlands: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and subsequently is characterized by a prevalence of vegetation that
is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include: swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries.
X,Y,Z
Zooplankton: Minute aquatic animals eaten by fish.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |