-------
I
I
Winter 1984/85
I. 1. Final design of the sampling program.
I
Spring 1985
1. Beginning of the sampling program with the spring snow melt.
_ Summer 1985
1. Continuance of sampling program on selected rainfall events.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
I
I
I
It 1s the responsibility of New York and Ontario to Insure that the
t necessary samples are collected and that the laboratory analyses are run
satisfactorily. Each jurisdiction will be responsible for the mobilization
§and equipment of the field forces necessary to undertake the sampling or for
the contract of local agencies or responsible parties to undertake specific
tributary monitoring.
I
I
t
I
i
i
DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
To be determined upon completion of the overall quality .assurance/quality
control requirements for the Plan.
DOCUMENTATION. DATA REDUCTION. DATA MANAGEMENT. AND REPORTING
I
To be determined upon completion of the overall quality assurance/quality
control requirements for the Plan.
DATA VALIDATION
To be determined upon completion of the overall quality assurance/quality
control requirements for the Plan.
-------
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
f
I
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS
To be determined upon completion of the overall quality assurance/quality
control requirements for the Plan.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
Follow up will be to a great extent governed by the significance of the
findings. Exceedance of established standards and cr ^r1a requires further
Investigation as to source, frequency, duration, risk, etc. The Task Force
report should go to appropriate Jur1sd1ct1onal authorities and to the
Individual water suppliers to determine proper follow up actions.
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
To Implement this part of the program will be a very costly undertaking.
The base sampling recommended would result 1n approximately 60 samples for
each of 23 tributaries or a total of 1,380 samples. The estimated cost for
sample collection and priority pollutant or organic chemical analysis 1s
approximately $1,800 per sample. Therefore, the sampling program, absent any
additional requirements for quality assurance/quality control field blanks and
replicates, would cost approximately $2.5 million. Therefore, careful
consideration should be given as to whether the frequency of analysis and the
hydrograph events that would trigger sample collection and analysis should be
followed at the-same frequency as that recommended for nutrient sampling
analysis.
It would be recommended that this program continue for two years in
duration and be re-evaluated for either reduced sampling frequency related to
specific Identified significant events or be returned to routine interval
sampling. It 1s unknown at this point whether the tributary loadings of
organic chemicals will vary proportionately the way that tributary loadings of
nutrients have been demonstrated.
-------
1
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATA INTERPRETATION
The primary responsibility for data Interpretation rests with the
principal Investigator. The overall Interpretation and presentation will be
subject to review by the chapter or program coordinator and the Data Quality
Work Group.
Those data which do not assist the project objectives should be
Identified; they may be subject to discard 1n furth-- "uns. Those data which
raise questions not asked should be Identified; they sviy lead to project
redefinition.
REPORTS
Preliminary draft reports, consisting of raw data, preliminary evaluation,
tentative conclusions and tentative recommendations should be available for
peer review and project coordinator review six months after the last annual
sample 1s taken.
Final reports to the quality established 1n the work plan should be
available one year after the last annual sample 1s taken.
COMMENTARY
Currently, New York does once monthly routine grab samples April to
November with analysis for phosphorus and nitrogen. Special periodic sampling
1s done for Petals and organic toxic pollutants in the Genesee, Oswego, Black,
and Niagara Rivers. Ontario 1s currently conducting an enhanced tributary
monitoring program which provides for Increased frequency of sampling on an
event-related basis. This program could provide the foundation for proposed
surveillance of toxic organic and metal pollutants.
This program should be closely coordinated with the nutrient sampling
procedures in Chapter 22. For economy of manpower particularly, the field
sampling programs should be coincidental.
g-9
-------
I
I
t
1
I
i
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
The Ontario enhanced Drinking Water Monitoring Program should be evaluated
carefully before final design of this element 1n this Plan 1s undertaken. The
choice of sampling frequency and the definition of events will markedly
influence effort and cost.
This program 1s designed to look for contribution of metallic and toxic
organic pollutants from tributaries to Lake Ontario. Because of the number of
tributaries selected, and the proposed frequency of sampling, the cost is very
high. It may be prudent to carefully select two to t streams as a
beginning program, run as designed for one year, evaluate the results, and
then decide whether the data justify extension to the other selected streams.
This will allow judgement as to the usefulness of the data and possibly an
opportunity to streamline field collection procedures.
-------
3
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
t
f
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
TRIBUTARIES TO LAKE ONTARIO WHICH SHOULD BE MONITORED
FOR NETALS AND ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
TRIBUTARY
New York
Niagara River
Genesee River
Oswego River
Black River
Eighteen Mile Creek
Salmon River
LOCATION
OF GAUGING
STATION
(DISTANCE ABOVE
MOUTH, km)
9.8
1.3
5.6
a
WATERSHED AREA
ABOVE GAUGE (km*)
6.335
12,950
5.000
740
AVERAGE
DISCHARGE
(m«/S)
b
77.4
181.4
111.3
unmeasured
Ontario
Twelve M1ke Creek
Trent River
Wei land Canal
Molra River
Salmon River
Napanee River
Credit River
Humber River
Don River
Oakvllle Creek
Rouge River
Duffin Creek
Spencer Creek
Etoblcoke Creek
Highland Creek
Oshawa Creek
Wei land River
-
12.600
-
2.620
891
777
829
887
316
,'43
J29
249
233
204
99
138
195
162
84.5
33.2
12.5
11.0
8.1
8.4
4.2
3.5
3.6
3.2
2.5
2.1
1.3
1.3
aNo gauging station.
bTo be provided.
r
-------
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
t
1
I
1
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
ISI
i
-r5
!i5
U)
ee
§
i
tip
s w *.
O
~
58"
t-*
g.fe«
5 41
r-cuiia
Of
£*>,;»
3fc fe°-S x
so. trf" C,
Cf.
o
-
1
«
-^- !
t. a.
r- O. >,
- in tnu
. 0 (U E C 0) C >, u
S«r-r-«3jC-Ol-,<> M.S.
Q.o.«ui-3£-Oi-«i
«.6gl->. «-^4Jl/> «
i
a
8
^
ts
B
5
o
o
ui ui u
--r-
<^43CX3 Wl *J fi. C) O 4) -r-
«ocr«*oi.«l>-eL(u«'
r-x^vw^-x^utmuio ec
o. « « s. a * a) 3E «.O3cx«
V « r H- B *«» X «><- £!«&.
* a. ii>eaivv «
»e*« «oS(->4-i3jc:Sa>oa>o
r- O.M- Ml?) CJCLH-MU.OIVIl.XiSl. r-XZ
r- O iu
n
ot)(U
1-«J1
5it.-r-
4JVO O
) VI 0>4< -r-
a> ai o *-
i. C S IB i-
e 4J
t. M
S-U
u.^£.
CL . 0)
E *J t-
Sea.
W 4) E
> «
r- 0) 1/1
r-
a. a;
6 S
wit.
«<>-
CVJQ.O
-
^^-tt^
-P 0>4->
«o E--C
r- r- 0) S
3 «»>.
c
<0 4->
o *
&8
E *
!!
g,
*3 u
l«
o
jc
0- *J
UIO
T- c
-
* O
C
$
!>
JE
fe
-^ s.
u>S
3«
.*
ft 01
-
»- o
c
4J
01 1-
SIIO
LOL
5 =
4->
41 C
ul ft)
o >
2 I. !
JC
» *J
C
«* >
41
a
S!
X
7
s
o.
£
« t.
«
t.V
. 43 4,
i..-
o^
3 T- n
fc.
**
ai
u
I
e
t
41
"CL
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3
PARAMETERS FOR MATER SAMPLES
GENERAL CHEMISTRY (LABORATORY)
Hardness
PH
Turbidity
Total Sol Ids
Nitrite
Sodium
Alkalinity
Colour
Conductivity
Fluoride
Nitrate
Chloride
GENERAL CHEMISTRY (FIELD)
Chlorine Residual Free & Total
BACTERIOLOGICAL
Total Collform ' 1 Coll form
Standard Plant Count
METAL SCAN
Copper
Zinc
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Magnesium
Vanadium
Beryllium
Tin
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1-D1ch1oroethylene
1,1-Dlchloroethane
1,1 ,l-Tr1chloroethane
Carbon TetrachloMde
1,2-01chloropropane
01ch1orobromomethane
1,1.,2-Trlchloroe thane
Tetrach 1 oroethyl ene
Ethyl benzene
Bromoform
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3- 01 ch 1 or obenz ene
01 bromoe thane
Methyl ene Chloride
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Aluminum
Calcium
Barium
Strontium
Uranium
Trans-1,2-D1ch1oroethylene
Chloroform
1,2-01chloroethane
Benzene
THchl oroethyl ene
Toluene
Chlorodlbromomethane
Chi or obenz ene
M- and P-Xylene
0-xyl»r>»
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
1,2 L<; till orobenzene
Stymie
PCB/ORGANOCHLORINE SCAN & PESTICIDES
PCB
Heptachlor
Ml rex
8-BHC
a-Chlordane
OP DDT
PP DDT
Heptach 1 oroepoxl de
Endrln
Thiodan II
Methoxychlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrln
a-BHC
Y-BHC (Llndane)
Y-Chlordane
PP ODD
PP DDE
Dleldrln
Thiodan I
Thiodan Sulphate
Toxaphene
CHLORO AROMATICS
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,3,5-Trlchlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trich 1 orotol uene
*-2,6-TH chlorotoluene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachl or obenz ene
Hexa,:>loroethane
1,2,4-Tri chl orobenzene
2,3,6-Trlchlorotoluene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachl orobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetrachl orobenzene
Octachlorostyrene
-------
I
TABLE 4
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
CHLOROPHENOLS
2,4,6-Trlchlorophenol 2,4,5-THchlorophenol
2,3,4-Trlchlorophenol 2,3,5,6-Tetrachloi
2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol
SPECIFIC PESTICIDES
ft 2,3,4-Trlchlorophenol 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Carbaryl D1«.ih,on
m Methyl Parathlon Para.--.1on
2,4-D 2,4,5 TP
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
f
CONTAMINANTS
Point Sources
P
I
1 OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
I
I
t
I
1
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
WATERBODY: Lake Huron
fl OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: POINT SOURCES
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: POINT SOURCES
HATERBODY; Lake Erie
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: POINT SOURCES
I
I
WATERBODY: Lake Ontario
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.17
CHAPTER 6A
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
BASIS FOR CONCERN
Point source discharges directly to Lake Ontario, and to streams tributary
to the lake, may contain metallic and organic c ulnants (toxic pollutants)
at levels which could adversely affect aquatic 1U\, In Lake Ontario. While
periodic surveys have Identified substances of concern and substances of
potential concern, comprehensive surveillance needs to be done to establish
the Impacts of these discharges of metals and organlcs upon aquatic life in
Lake Ontario.
This program element for municipal and Industrial point source discharges
1s designed to Identify the sources for substances of concern 1n Lake Ontario,
by tracking the substances back through areas of concern, tributary mouths,
and upstream to Inland dischargers, 1f necessary. Point sources to be
Included are those known or suspected to be discharging substances of concern
that affect aquatic life 1n the lake, or substances of potential concern that
could affect aquatic life. Of particular Interest are pollutants which can
bloaccumulate 1n fish tissue. There 1s additions roncern for exposure of
migrating fish populations to toxic discharges directly, whether 1n the lake,
or 1n bays, harbors, or tributaries. Selection of candidate substances for
monitoring will, 1n large part, be Influenced by what problems are Identified
1n the lake, particularly for aquatic life.
Host point source discharges to Lake Ontario are from municipal or other
local governmental jurisdictions and are characterized as sewage. However,
there are Industries connected to many of these discharges. Municipal systems
are usually not required by the jurisdictions to be sampled frequently for
other than conventional sewage parameters. A broader scan of possible
chemical contaminants 1s required, 1n order to detect discharges of substances
of concern or potential concern Into Lake Ontario.
/
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Direct Industrial dischargers are also an Important aspect of the
program. Industries should be monitored for substances of concern or
potential concern, as well as being screened by blotestlng methods for acute
and chronic toxldty of their effluents. Industrial discharge limitations may
not contain controls or testing requirements for substances known or suspected
to be present. Historical data need to be examined, Industrial sources
characterized, and decisions made regarding which candidates are considered
significant and warrant further effluent testing.
For both municipal and Industrial discharges, an Intensive program on a
few carefully selected significant sources will provide more usable data than
a sample or two on all the dischargers.
Municipalities with significant Industrial contributions to their
municipal systems should be covered by a sewer use by-law or ordinance to
control Inputs of contaminants that would be diluted without effective
treatment, or could adversely affect the sewer system or subsequent
treatment. Additional controls are often Imposed on Industries to assist the
sewage treatment plant to meet effluent limits Imposed by governments. Direct
Industrial dischargers will (should) have effluent limitations Imposed on
conventional and toxic pollutants. However, these limits may not cover known
substances of concern, or testing requirements may nr> Address all present or
suspected contaminants.
There 1s concern that possible sources of metallic and organic pollutants
are not adequately monitored and tested to assure compliance with effluent
limits, nor monitored frequently enough to determine loadings, and not
monitored with sufficient sensitivity to detect problems or substances of
concern or potential concern.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed program 1s designed to monitor dir ct dischargers to Lake
Ontario, and selected discharges to tributaries which have, or may have, a
direct effect on Lake Ontario. The questions to be addressed are:
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Which point sources are significant contributors of metallic and
organic contaminants to Lake Ontario?
2. Which point sources should be selected for Increased aqd Intensive
monitoring, as they may be significant dischargers of metallic and
organic contaminants and substances of concern or substances of
potential concern?
3. What sampling frequency and what parame are appropriate to
characterize effluent quality and quantity.
Objective and Scope
The objectives are:
1. To determine compliance with the 1978 Agreement objectives for
metallic and organic contaminants 1n Lake Ontario ambient water
outside mixing zones.
2. To Identify and quantify significant municipal and Industrial
discharges of metallic and organic contaminants to Lake Ontario from
point sources. To determine, 1f practical, or to estimate with some
probability, loadings of contaminants fr^n significant point sources.
3. To establish a consistent point source monitoring strategy for all
point source discharges to, or directly affecting, Lake Ontario.
Point-to-point variability will require Individually designed
programs.
4. To establish consistent quality assurance/quality control
requirements for all sample collection and analytical measurement
procedures, 1n order to allow comparability of data and compilation
of loadings.
-------
I
I
The scope 1s:
1. To sample significant direct discharges to Lake Ontario, or to
harbors or tributaries to the lake, where such discharges affect Lake
I
I
1
I
I
Ontario. These are defined as:
A. All public sewage treatment plants discharging to Lake Ontario
or Into a tributary, where the dlscha is near the tributary
mouth.
B. All Industrial waste treatment plants with a surface discharge
to Lake Ontario or Into a tributary to the lake, where the
discharge 1s near the tributary mouth.
C. Storm water discharges from Industrial or other areas with
significant expected contamination with substances of concern.
2. To establish a frequency of sampling.
3. To eliminate from further monitoring those discharges where further
consideration 1s decided not to be needed. To assist 1n this
decision making, consideration will be giver, u using the fact sheet
1n Table 1.
fl A 11st of all municipal and Industrial discharges 1n the Lake Ontario Basin 1s
given 1n Appendix A.
P Data Usage
P Data will be utilized by the jurisdictions:
1. To characterize effluents.
2. To determine the effects of metallic and organic contaminants on Lake
Ontario from significant point sources. To determine, as practical,
loadings to Lake Ontario.
-------
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. To evaluate compliance with the 1978 Agreement objectives and with
effluent limitations.
4. To determine needs for new or stricter effluent controls.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
Significant point sources of metallic and oric pollutants will be
selected for periodic Intensive survey, above anc /~nd routine discharge
monitoring required by regulatory programs. Selection will be based upon
evaluation of previous studies, magnitude or significance of the source, and
known or suspected discharge of toxic pollutants.
In addition to effluent chemical characterization, toxicHy screening to
evaluate acute toxic effects should be done. Discharge of an acutely toxic
effluent 1s prohibited 1n both the U.S. and Canada. Chronic toxic effects on
Lake Ontario aquatic life will be evaluated as part of the fisheries and
aquatic organism program (see Chapters 11, 12, and 16).
This element should be limited to major discharges directly and
significantly Influencing the lake.
Monitoring Parameters and The Frequency of Sampie collection
The parameters selected must be specific to each direct Industrial
discharger or to contributory Industry 1n a municipal discharge. Generally,
heavy metals and organic chemicals will be Investigated. A few carefully
selected discharges should be followed over time 1n an Intensive sampling
program.
Single samples of many sources will not be sufficient to meet the study
objectives. However, a single effluent priority pollutant scan should be
performed periodically on all significant discha-ges, to assist 1n
establishing what v:o look for 1n more detail and to assist 1n refining
sampling and analytical techniques.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A 11st of parameters will be developed for each major discharge. In
addition to developing a scheme to monitor for substances of known concern,
consideration will also be given to substances of potential concern. Such
substances will be drawn from several sources, Including:
1. The 11st of chemicals developed by the Human Health Effects Committee
and published 1n the "Proceedings of the Roundtable on the
Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements f Assessing Human Health
Hazards Posed by Contaminants 1n the Great -.ORC.S Ecosystem," held 1n
March 1982.
2. Other chemicals Identified by the Human Health Effects Committee, as
published 1n their annual reports.
Sampling Procedures
Sampling procedures will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control
requirements established for the overall Plan. Flow-proportioned composite
samples are generally required.
Sample Custody Procedures
No special chain of custody Is recommended, as these are surveillance and
not enforcement samples. Custody procedures will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall Plan.
Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance
Calibration procedures and preventive maintenance will Incorporate the
quality assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall
Plan.
64-6
-------
I
I
_
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
Fall /Winter/Soring 1984/1985
1. Review available studies and literature to establish current state of
knowledge. Evaluate current control programs of jurisdictions.
Determine what needs to be known that Isn't known now.
2. Prepare monitoring plan.
Summer 1985
1. Conduct effluent sampling scans on selected sources.
Fall 1985
1. Evaluate results of summer survey.
| Winter 1985/1986
1. Refine and revise program as necessary.
Soring 1986
g 1. Conduct point source monitoring program on selected discharges.
I
The jurisdictions should carry out this sampling, 1n order to assure field
quality and laboratory compliance with established protocols. Dischargers
should not do this work, due to quality control concerns.
B DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
| Data quality requirements and assessments will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall Plan.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
I
-------
I
I
DOCUMENTATION. DATA REDUCTION. DATA MANAGEMENT. AND REPORTING
These will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control requirements
established for the overall Plan.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATA VALIDATION
Data validation will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control
requirements established for the overall Plan.
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS
Performance and systems audits will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall Plan.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
Excursions from established effluent limitations should he reported to the
jurisdictions for follow-up. Contaminants not 1n the permit1., discovered at
significant levels, should also be presented to the jurisdictions for possible
limitation 1n revised or future effluent discharge limitations.
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
Project f1sca-l Information will be determined later.
DATA INTERPRETATION
Interpretation should be done by the principal Investigators under the
supervision of the project coordinator.
REPORTS
A preliminary report of raw data and tentative conclusions should be
available six months after the last annual plan sample 1s collected. A final
report to the standard established by the Task Force should be available one
year after collection of the last annual sample.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMMENTARY
Considerable comment has been raised as to the reliability with which a
study of this type can be conducted, with the accuracy of the measurements to
be made, with the usefulness of the data that would be gathered, and
particularly, with reliability of any effluent loadings that might be
calculated. The difficulties experienced by the Niagara River Toxics
Committee with data of this type should be particularly Instructive.
Other comments upon which suggestions should «e made for refinement of
this portion of the Plan are:
1. The 1978 Agreement contains the fundamental reasons for providing
point source data. These relate to such Issues as water quality
management, areas of concern, and transboundary movement. The
meanings of the words "exceedence" and "compliance" are critical.
What 1s regarded as "compliance" 1n one jurisdiction may be regarded
as a violation 1n the other and vice versa. Standardization of the
specific meanings of exceedence and compliance 1s highly desirable.
Included 1n this would be standardization of:
(a) Analytical techniques
(b) Parameters reported
(c) Method of flow measurement
(d) Loadings on a consistent "net" or "gross" basis
(e) The basis for-the agency requirement.
2. Currently used methods of flow measurement provide accuracy to
approximately ±10%. Small errors are also associated with analytical
techniques and somewhat larger errors are associated with sampling
techniques. Loading data supplied could be associated with
cumulative errors approaching +20X or greater. All these should be
taken Into consideration when evaluating "compliance".
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Total basin loadings are often calculated by adding up Individual
calculated loadings. Many parameters (e.g. BOD, ammonia, ether
solubles, TKN) do not accumulate because of natural stabilization or
degradation by such properties as volatility, oxidation, or reduction
or bacterial action. Loading totals by this method are probably
almost meaningless. In addition, 1f a large number of sources being
reported are remote from the lake, reported loadings may never reach
4. The way 1n which data are reported needs careful thought. The
program may not provide for accurate calculation of the effect of a
contaminant on the ecosystem. Reporting only concentrations leaves
the reviewer with no Idea of significance. The statistical design
should be developed so that clear choices can be made on sampling
frequency and detection limits so that effluents can be reliably
estimated.
5. The mechanisms by which a particular chemical 1s removed from the
water column must be considered, as well as the chemical
transformations which may occur 1n the environment, before a valid
cost-effective sampling program may be defined. The selection of
surrogate parameters to represent classes of -mica Is must be
considered as a means to minimize analysis costs.
-------
I
I
I
!
I
l
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
/
LONG-TEH» KON1TOHING FACT SiiKBT
POINT SOUKCE DISCHARGES
i General Facility Doscript ion
Point Source Type: Industrial
Municipal
Facility Name:
Facility Location:
%
Industrial Category (where Appl icable).:
>
Type of Discharge: Process Waste Water
Treated Proceus Waste
Water
Non-Contact Cooling
Water
._ Cooling Water
Storm Runoff
Combined/Storm Sewei
Other
Boiler Slowdown
Sanitary Waste Water
Treated Sanitary
Waste Water
Leachato
Other
Discharge Flow Rates:
Indicate individual fio* rates for each
discharge.
Type of Intake:
City Water
Surface Water
(Indicate rivor, lake, etc..)
Groundwater.
Intake Flow Rates: Indicate individual flow rate for each intake
-------
I
Sol f Monitor i^iR Program Dcscr iptj_oa
I a) Sampling and Analysis
Sampling Points Parameters Monitored Frequency Sample Type
(Description)
I
I
I
I
b) Reporting Requirements
I
s
I
I '
.II Agency Monitoring Program Description
a) Sampling and Analysis
Sampling Points Parameters Monitored frequency Sample Type
(Description)
w
I
I
I
I
b) Reporting Requirements
«
I
I.
i'
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
Combined Sewer Overflows
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
I
I
WATERBODY: Lake Huron
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WATERBODY: Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
" SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Ontario
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I1
I
,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.17
CHAPTER 6B
STORM WATER DISCHARGES AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS3
BASIS FOR CONCERN
In metropolitan areas, storm water and san1A ; sewage often are both
carried by combined sewage systems. During wet >, . sr, storm water from
significant rainfalls may cause overflow Including sanitary sewage from the
combined sewage system. These overflows may or may not contain significant
quantities of metallic and organic contaminants, depending upon the timing and
duration of the overflow, the characteristics of the sewage, and the character
of the drainage area. In addition to combined sewer systems, discharges from
separate storm water systems serving Industrial, commercial, residential, and
suburban areas are also often highly polluted. The discharges contain
fertilizers and pesticides from lawn care, atmospheric deposition materials,
and oils and heavy metals washed from roadways, parking lots, and gasoline
service stations. Many of the studies have shown that these overflows and
discharges may cause environmental problems by exceeding water quality
objectives, by creating nuisance conditions, or by transporting persistent
organic compounds Into surface waters.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Surveillance Plan for combined sewer overflows and storm
water discharges to Lake Ontario Is designed to answer the following questions:
1. Where do significant overflows of combined sewage and discharges of
storm water occur? What are their frequency, volume, and duration?
What type of precipitation or runoff events cause the overflows and
discharges?
a. See Chapter 21 for consideration of conventional sewage pollutants and
nutrients 1n storm water discharges and combined sewer overflows.
-------
I
I
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2. What organic and metallic contaminants are discharged from storm and
combined sewers to Lake Ontario? What 1s necessary to quantify
discharged contaminants?
3. What 1s the significance of the various contaminants, and at what
levels do they become Important to the ecosystem and to water usage?
4. Is corrective action necessary to prevent * discharge of metallic
and organic contaminants to Lake Ontario t*-:-.,, , storm and combined
sewers?
Objective and Scope
The objectives are:
1. To determine compliance with the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement for ambient water outside mixing zones. This element would
be Implemented 1f and when monitoring of areas of concern or the
nearshore area showed non-attainment of the Agreement objectives
associated with precipitation and runoff events and traceable to
storm water overflows.
2. To establish the frequency, duration, quantity, and constituents of
significant combined storm sewer overflows and storm water discharges
to Lake Ontario. The application of various available models to
estimate with some probability, loadings of contaminants and their
effect on the lake during various weather simulations will be
evaluated.
The scope 1s:
1. To assemble and review available literature, data, and mathematical
models to evaluate the present state of knowledge about combined
sewer overflows and storm water discharges, and how they affect the
receiving waters. The plan for this element could stop at this point
1f sufficient Information 1s available.
-------
I
I
I
i
\
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
B
I
2. To devise a sampling program for significant combined sewer overflows
and storm water discharges, 1n order to address questions not
satisfactorily answered by current literature and previous studies,
or that are needed to evaluate the various models which might be used.
3. To sample selected combined sewer overflows and storm water
discharges during wet weather and significant precipitation events.
Wet weather encompasses spring snow mel* 'M accompanying rainfall.
Significant precipitation events Include c-s of >1.2 cm (0.5
Inches) per hour, or >3.7 cm (1.5 Inches) 1n 24 hours.
Data Usage
Project data will be utilized by the jurisdictions:
1. As Input Into mathematical models, to predict runoff events and their
effects.
2. To determine which storm and combined sewers, and to what extent,
cause significant Input of metallic and organic contaminants to Lake
Ontario.
3. To evaluate whether and to what extent ccoined sewer overflows and
storm water discharges cause exceedence of the Agreement objectives
1n ambient water.
4. To determine whether combined sewer overflows or storm water
discharges contribute to environmental degradation 1n Identified
areas of concern or 1n other nearshore areas of Lake Ontario.
5. To consider which combined sewer overflows or storm water discharges
require corrective abatement action.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
Storm and combined sewers 1n metropolitan areas which contain significant
Industrial contributions will be selected for periodic monitoring during the
spring wet weather period, 1f appropriate, and during precipitation events
which cause discharge and overflow conditions. The most significant
discharges are expected to occur at Rochester, Hamilton, Burlington,
M1ss1ssauga, and Toronto. Considerable Information ady exists, and local
authorities will be consulted 1n the design of the pr^ dm, 1n order to obtain
Information concerning the frequency, duration, and cause of storm water
discharges and combined sewer overflows and for assistance 1n selection of the
most significant discharge and overflow points for sampling. Existing data
will be assembled and evaluated, and models run, 1f desirable, to assist 1n
determining the scope, Intensity, and duration of the project 1n each area.
Monitoring Parameters and Frequency of Sample Collection
The program to be designed for each municipal or Industrial area should
reflect the contributing types of Industries that are expected to be Involved
1n a discharge or overflow event. This requires dty-by-clty designs on local
situations. The frequency of collection will also be dependent on local
circumstances, as causes will vary from system to sy^t^,,
Parameters will be determined on a site-specific basis, depending on the
Industries or the type of land use tributary to the overflow point. Review of
previous study work will be used to establish a 11st of expected significant
substances for each area. Generally, parameters will Include heavy metals and
a priority pollutant scan. The selection of parameters for monitoring will be
tempered by consideration of the nature of the sources 1n the drainage area
served by the sewers. Consideration will also be given to the 11st of
chemicals developed by the Human Health Effects Committee and published 1n the
"Proceedings of the Roundtable on the Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements
for Assessing Human Health Hazards Posed by Contamlru its 1n the Great Lakes
Ecosystem", held 1n 1982; and to other chemicals Identified by that Committee,
as published 1n their annual reports.
-------
I
I
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Details on analytical protocols and field procedures will Incorporate the
quality assurance/quality control requirements as established for the overall
Plan.
Sampling Procedures
Sampling procedures will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control
requirements established for the overall Plan. r trally, a series of samples
will be taken over the course of an overflow or dU« hdrge event, 1n order to
allow for a flow composite as well as for discrete time-related samples.
Sampling Custody Procedures
No special chain of custody 1s recommended, as these are surveillance and
not enforcement samples. Custody procedures will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements as established for the overall Plan.
Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance
Calibration procedures and preventive maintenance will Incorporate the
quality assurance/quality control requirements as established for the overall
Plan.
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
Fall 1984
1. Review literature, previous studies, and available mathematical
models, to establish state of current knowledge and refine proposed
plan.
2. Evaluate current control programs and practices of jurisdictions.
3. Evaluate the significance of storm water overflows and determine the
extent of effort justified for the program.
-------
I
I
I
Winter 1984/85
| 1. Run and test the available mathematical models for the major
communities or Industrial areas.
I
2. Devise mobilization plans for responding to discharge and overflow
events.
Spring/Summer 1985
1. Mobilize and respond to combined sewer overflow and storm water
| discharge events at selected locations under defined conditions, 1n
order to test workability of plans and the applicability of the
models.
Fall 1985 and Winter 1985/86
I
ll 1. Design program 1n detail.
2. Consult with municipalities and select final sampling points.
3. Determine frequency and define events which trigger overflow or
discharge sampling.
I
I
I
f
I
I
4. Select parameters to be monitored at each overflow or discharge.
Soring and Summer 1986
1. Implement Plan and respond to selected events.
Fall/Winter 1986/87
1. Evaluate results and restructure program 1f necessary. Continue for
second year, and prepare final evaluation and report.
-------
I
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
i
The program should be carried out by the jurisdictions 1n consultation
with, and assisted by, local municipalities.
i i
DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
Data quality requirements and assessments wP1 Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements as establ. ,:' for the overall Plan.
DOCUMENTATION. DATA REDUCTION. DATA MANAGEMENT. AND REPORTING
These will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control requirements
established for the overall Plan.
DATA VALIDATION
Data validation will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control
requirements established for the overall Plan.
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS
Performance and systems audits will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall Plan.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
Upon evaluation of results, recommendations should be prepared for local
municipalities or, 1n the case of major violations of water quality standards,
enforcement action Initiated. These would Indicate the scope and significance
of the problem and Identify those overflows which require abatement actions or
the need for Improved management priorities by the community.
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
The cost of this element of the Plan cannot be determined until the number
of sites for monitoring 1s selected, the frequency of sampling and flow
estimation 1s determined, and the duration of the program 1s established.
DATA INTERPRETATION
The primary responsibility for data Interpretation w'11 rest with the
principal Investigators, with overview from the chapter coordinator. Reports
should address the questions raised above 1n the Project Description.
REPORTS
Preliminary reports of raw data and tentative conclusions should be
provided for peer review six months after the last sample 1n the annual plan
has been collected. Final reports to the standard established by the Task
Force should be completed 12 months after the final sample 1n the annual plan
has been collected.
COMMENTARY
Studies of varying Intensity, duration, and complexity have been made by
various jurisdictions on storm water discharges and combined sewer overflows.
Most of these have focused on conventional pollutants. These studies should
be evaluated to assist 1n the development and design of a recommended
program. Additionally, Industrial contributions to the system and their
characterization must be considered.
Some modelling has also been done which has been shown to have a
reasonable conformity with actual measurements.
Evaluation of past studies and models should focus on their objectives,
for compatibility with the needs of this Surveillance Plan, and their results,
1n order to determine which questions may already have been adequately
addressed and what future work would be most necessary and valuable.
-------
I
1
I
I
a
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
I
f
i
I
i
Priorities need to be established, as this Plan 1s competing for resources
with other Interests. For the current proposal, given past focus on
conventional pollutants. Industrialized areas and Industries which discharge
metals and organic substances have the most significance. The following
sequence 1s 1n the order of decreasing unit loadings and Increasing volumetric
loadings: (1) combined sewer overflows with significant tributary Industry,
(2) combined sewers 1n urban areas, (3) storm sewers 1n Industrial/urban
areas, and (4) suburban storm sewers. This 1s i; most likely priority
ranking from which to select a few carefully chc,^ areas for further field
study. Computer models should be used to confirm or further refine the
program emphasis.
As (1f) the project proceeds to field work, there must be standardization
of sampling frequency during events to be monitored. Flow measurement
(estimation) 1s essential 1f loading estimates are to be attempted.
Concentrations will vary significantly over time; this will require frequent
samples, particularly early 1n a precipitation/runoff event.
Decisions will have to be made on the extension or applicability of data
from one geographic area to another, 1f this 1s possible. Since this element
would be very labor Intensive, and could not be done for a large number of
sources 1n any given year, review of past data sr^:-J Include evaluations or
comparabilities of different areas and whether or not generalizations could be
made.
The keys to further detailed study design He 1n three areas: evaluation
of past studies and their applicability to current needs, a limited number of
studies at a few carefully selected sites specifically geared to gather data
on metallic and organic pollutants, and the output of computer models.
Further discussions on study design should be deferred until these steps are
complete.
0
-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
CONTAMINANTS
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
f
I OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
Open Lake
I
t
t
I
1
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
9 SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
» OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: OPEN LAKE
I
f
_ WATERBODY: Lake Huron
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
f
I
8
CO
to
0
Ul
_,-- i
ex.
CO
Ul
CO
CD
*"
to
Ul
tt
fv*
$
^
o
Ul
*5T
C3
Z
tt
i
fy
3^
^
^
s
CO
to
Ul
0
Ul
ZL
<: i
O Ul
»-« z
1 O
o: s:
as
o
Ul
1-
to
^
to
8
c
M
k
CU "O *
CO ^C
"O S-
i- Q "O
Z CtJ
« cu 'x
o> c o
a: «c s- ex
a o cu
J-c-
XI OJC S-
O. r O O
Jg* ^^ )
O X JC
CO O U
«»- O W
»- T- a» J-
o T> ** o
r- f
« -I JC
o c o o
O «r- JQ lt>
1. 18 -P
..-a 4J ex
M r CO CU
< «0 EJC
i.
QJ
4-*
18
3:
w
a*
Ul
o;
Ul
a.
CO
0
g
<
r~
CO
1
.
0)
c
r-
o
JO
8
r-
TJJ
E
O
O)
c
*r
TJ
C
CU
ex
*
A
o
<*- CU
'0*0.
0 E
ex
Qj ^O
E c
»- <3
o
CO >
'ej'c
co o
ul
I-H
^
^
CO
o;
H-
v
CO
^^
« E
C O
M M
*> O 0)
O O T> "O TJ
CO > «>O
«3C o w »O r3 O O 4-> X> CU O O
O> "i- 4->"OO «- jC O
3c o cu o rj to o ° *o wow cu
"CQjOjCi +J CU TD JC O CU r- TO
JQI4 jcu ex a> ww -M o. « ro o
CL<0+>»O3 10 «-> O RI t/>4-> S.
cu c i. cu o o "i c to o o cu ex
»»E*»-"*J C'r-CU W_O 'r- ET'r-E
Cf CU L* Cf M *r~ 4^ r^ *P ^ ^* C *r~ 4^ f~
U. C TJ "O -O 1.0SO 1 O CU i- n3 T3 i-
cucci->> OEM * r-i. o g cu
JC f3 CU X -P i O r JC>> i O+J "O
3CX O«^ .«=!- ,. U4-> JC S_ O (U
o « t ex c uicso c w Uftscu T-
XOJ-O3 O O T-O 08 O r- «t-
"OC2O E CXSO ** > "O C "O d> r-
O «JC O O O-P OjO W -P O>-P CU
« C O r * ex
"COT- >>JC OCU) CX r E O C to M
SO$->CO« -r-f WCU - i- r-
d. "O O *O X ' * t- O JC CU S * t- O CU
i JC <4-> O WOC «O-P >O WOC JQ
CU | 4J*
CU 1 WO E Wo
O) E 3 >r" *r~ 3 «r-
E taiatoca *o to CQ
O Ui CU
1 -P -r- 1 » CO 1 .
+*««*- E E
WO W «/)O T3 Wo
+->ca s- -o -p -p cu -P 4->
C CUCUC-P "O c-P
Q)"O CJC CUO C CUO
EC I-OCUECO cu ECO
r- 10 1*3 jc id its ** ex »r-
OTJO -Pr-CUCM 3 CUE
tOCUf- r «3 "3 CO OS D> CO COlO
t3 CO T- O>
. C C3 « M ""O CU > »«T3
t- CU * 4-^ M 3 S« CU &- S>- CU
O H3 -P ! ' C . -P -PC
US 3 -r- CXr C ftS ;> 3 18 «S CU
rzcou. to o cu ss Q. o 3s ex
M M M M M M
CU CJ CU CU CO CU
>- >- >->->- >-
a:
Ul
C3 V
0 <
Ul Ul H-
i^ a: U- ui z 3:
<: o cr u. -« o
CO (/> J C£ 5
z o; < o ui ui
Ul < Ul _J t CO
O- . Ul Gl t-t to
Of Ul 13 > «
-------
I
I
1
I
I
1
f
I
f
I
I
I
I
f
I
1
I
I
I
3.2 AREAS OF EFFECT - OPEN LAKE
3.2.1 INTRODUCTION
The open lake or large ship component of any surveillance plan 1s often
the most controversial. This 1s because It is the most highly visible
component of surveillance, both from a physical presence and from a cost
perspective. Indeed, this component often is regarded as the surveillance
program and expectations are typically greater than it is possible to
deliver. For this reason it must be made very clear that the objectives of
this component are achievable and what the expected output will be.
OBJECTIVES
Objectives applicable to all surveillance activities have been abstracted
from Annex 11 of the 1978 GLWQA and presented earlier. Within this framework
and within the confines of the specific issues particular to Lake Huron
outlined in Chapter 1 the specific objectives of open lake surveillance are to:
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1. Determine the ambient levels of nutrients, major Ions, contaminants
and selected components of the aquatic biota In the waters of Lake
Huron to establish and maintain a data set that will permit the
determination of baseline conditions and the evaluation of long-term
trends 1n the open lake.
f
2. Monitor these same variables so that violations of water quality
objectives can be determined.
3. Assist 1n the detection of any new or emerging problems which may
affect the quality of the Lake Huron ecosystem.
3.2.2 RATIONALE & DESIGN - GENERAL
In establishing the reality of long-term trends In water quality,
measurement of physical, chemical, and biological variables Is mandatory.
This, because chemistry and physics are often causative factors, particularly
in degradation of ecosystems by man-induced changes. Yet it is the biological
expression of these by increased algal growth, occurrence of nuisance
blue-green algae, loss of sport fish, contamination of commercial fisheries
that effects the value of Lake Huron to our society.
To determine the significance of changes in the conditions of Lake Huron
two major components of variability have to be considered which, because of
the size of this lake, are a particular problem. First, spatial variation,
from extremes between Saginaw Bay and Georgian Bay which require clear
resolution, particularly to determine areas which may be either deteriorating
or Improving.
Second temporal variation, which occurs on a wide range of scales from
hourly, daily, seasonally, annually and perhaps longer cycles, each having
different patterns. For the purposes of surveillance the primary interest is
in longer time scales of rates of change which requires quantitative annual
estimates of lake conditions with known levels of precision. To do this a
strategy is needed employing a consistent annual marker of conditions that is
comparable from year to year, but also an estimate of the annual noise around
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
1
I
I
I
that marker. It cannot be over emphasized that the value of a surveillance
record of this type comes from Its longevity and that trends may often not be
seen until 10, 20 or 50 years of data have been obtained sufficient to damp
out the year-to-year variations that naturally occur, and furthermore, that
annual data points be maintained to understand the year-to-year variations.
Results from the previous surveys on Lake Huron (Stevens, 1983;
Kwiatkowskl, 1982; Moll and Rockwell 1982) have sh ^ that the chemical
conditions In the lake have changed 1n the last 10 years but that previous
'*
measurement programs have often not been of sufficient frequency to
statistically validate these changes over that time period. To correct this
inadequacy, a continuous annual open lake surveillance program of two cruises,
one conducted in the spring which will represent unstratified conditions and
open water maximum values for the chemical variables. The summer survey will
be conducted during the period of stratification when the vertical differences
in phytoplankton distribution are greatest.
These two surveys are considered the minimum to provide a valid annual
marker of lake conditions, representing two references in the annual cycle of
the lake when the biology of the planktonic community is clearly different
because of physical differences in lake structure. In addition to the two
annual reference points, i.e. spring unstratified and summer stratified, an
estimate of temporal variation on a shorter scale can be obtained from the
intake sampling program which provides weekly data. This will ensure the
validity of the between year temporal comparability of the two annual cruises.
Another result from the 1980 intensive surveillance was that different
changes were observed in different portions of Lake Huron, Georgian Bay and
the North Channel. Thus all areas must be sampled to describe all the changes
that occur. It was also discovered that variable station patterns made
inter-year comparisons difficult and less valid. THEREFORE, THE STATION
PATTERN ADOPTED MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL FUTURE SURVEILLANCE CRUISES. The
recommended station pattern consists of 95 stations (Figure 2, Table 10) and
is regarded as sufficient to adequately characterize the variability of the
lake and to satisfy the practical considerations of the surveillance cruises.
This station pattern applies only to the nutrient and major ion portions of
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
f
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
1
I
I
I
TABLE 10
SANPLINS LOCATIONS IN LAKE HUMM. 6EM6IAN BAY AND
THE NORTH CHANNEL
STATION NUMBER
Lak« Huron
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
20
23
27
29
30
33
34
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
47
48
SO
52
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
76
77
79
82
83
LATITUDE N.
43* 05" 24"
43' 15' 24"
43" 19' 32"
43* 32' 54"
43" 20' 32"
43' 34' 01"
* 43' 37' 59"
43* 45' 18"
43* 57' 29"
43" 53' 28"
43* 45' 14"
43* 56' 34"
44* 06' 02"
44" 13' 01"
44* 20' 01"
44» IT 50"
44* 2T 29"
44* 28' 09"
44* 30' 00"
44* 38' 26"
45* 02' 08"
44* 44' 26"
44* 39' 26"
44* 53' 52"
45* 04' 59"
45* 13' 19"
45* 00' 51"
45* 00' 55"
45* 15' 21"
45* 16' 39"
45» 32' 06"
45* 39' 06"
45» 3T 01"
45' 23' 32"
45' 3T 13"
45» 52' 04"
45' 46' 00"
45* 54' 00"
45* 45' 03"
45» 40' 34"
45» 42' 14"
45* 48' 30"
45* 50' 48"
45' 5T 50"
45* 5T 06"
46* 02' 28"
46» 04' 43"
46* 08' 10"
46- 13' 58"
46* IT 18"
45- 59' 00"
45» 58' 07"
46' 07' 24"
45- 56' 20"
46- 00' 01"
LONGITUDE H.
82* 23' 33"
82* 02' 17"
8T 47* 17"
81 44' 38"
82* 30' 22"
82' 29' 05"
82* 13' 06"
81 46' 56"
81 47' 10"
82" 03' 26"
82» 34' 08"
82* 40' 02"
82» 52' 02"
83* 05' 00"
83" 17' 57"
82' 30' 14"
8T 49' 57"
81 * 26' 54"
82' 49' 57"
83* 14' 00"
83" 22' 42"
82» 03' 39"
81 » 22' 35"
8T 26' 13"
8T 32' 19"
8T 49' 15"
82' 00' 29"
82« 4T 08"
83* 20' 51"
82' 27' 02"
82' 02' 48"
82* 39' 06"
83* 24' 54"
83« 39' 10"
84" 05' 00"
83* 16' 00"
83» 01 ' 43"
83* 3T 07"
83' 54' 58"
84* IT 12"
84» 30' 37"
84* 45' 36"
84* 34' 00"
84* 17' 42"
83* 54' 00"
83' 5T 11"
84" OT 42"
83* 40' 15"
83* 44' 44"
83« 2T 12"
83« 26' 17"
83' IT 57"
82* 53' 09"
82» 45' 30"
8?- 32' 48"
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10 - cont'd.
STATION NUMBER
Lake Huron - cont'd.
84
87
88
89
95 )
96 )
97 )
98 ) Saginaw Bay
99 )
100 )
101 )
Georgian Bay
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
11
12
15
16
17
19
21
24
26
27
29
31
33
35
36
39
42
LATITUDE N.
46
46
46
45
44
44
44
43
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
05'
03'
03'
55'
12'
07'
06'
58'
54'
49'
49'
42'
43'
38'
47'
44'
57'
52'
55'
55'
10'
2V
14'
03'
2V
40'
49'
5V
34'
14'
22'
3V
42'
52'
54'
31
36
23
00
46
36
58
34
30
27
18
56
34
43
48
16
15
19
10
12
00
12
40
59
50
45
56
53
59
20
13
39
36
27
50
n
n
11
"
u
11
u
"
n
n
u
..
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
"
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
LONGITUDE W.
82
82
81
82
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
80
80
80
80
80
80
79
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
80
80
80
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
33'
10'
59'
09'
22'
10'
3V
34'
44',
49'
37'
5V
36'
09'
14'
26'
08'
57'
36'
52'
17'
29 .
52'
15'
IV
50'
53'
59'
05'
26'
35'
40'
37'
15'
35'
26
42
45
45
13
20
46
30
28
03
28
26
49
53
33
08
03
58
16
30
53
03
24
12
16
21
53
53
06
30
06
12
15
30
42
n
n
n
.n
il
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
H
n
n
H
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
H
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the plan, the contaminants portion will be conducted at the 24 stations shown
in Figure 3. Parameters to be measured for eutrophication, conservative
materials transport and contaminants are listed in Tables 11 and 12.
The rationale for parameter selection is outlined below:
Nutrients and Conservative Material Transport
Annex 1 lists objectives for total dissolved so(ids (IDS), pH, dissolved
oxygen, total ammonia and fluoride. Total dissolved solids is calculated
according to the formula:
TDS
S.C. 25 x 0.65 (+ 0.01)
where S.C. _5 is the specific conductance corrected to 25°C. Again,
worst-case conditions being in the spring, specific conductance will be
measured at the full range of stations, at all depths on the spring cruise.
Fluoride and total ammonia will be sampled only at selected stations to assess
compliance.
As the dissolved oxygen only reaches a minimum during summer months due to
restricted epilimnion-hypolimnion exchange, comp'.i'_irf: monitoring will be
conducted during the summer cruise. pH will be measured at all stations.
Certain parameters will be monitored to aid in interpretation of results.
Included in this will be alkalinity, to provide a gross estimate of primary
productivity, and soluble reactive silica, as it is the principal frustule
(cell wall) constituent of diatoms and is found at limiting concentrations in
the summer. Dissolved oxygen levels will be measured at selected stations
throughout the cruises, and at all depths where stratification has commenced. ,
Alkalinity and soluble reactive silica will be measured in conjunction with
the biological parameters at multiple depths. Al^o, to assess
biologically-induced epilimnetic decalcification, thought responsible fdr
reduced phosphorus levels through co-precipitation, filtered calcium and total
phosphorus will be measured.
-------
-------
1
1
^p
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
TABLE 12
PARAMETERS TO BE MEASURED ON SPRING AND SUMMER CRUISES
AT TWO OR THREE DEPTHS FOR CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT ISSUES
PARAMETER
Trace metals: Filtered
Arsenic & Total
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Organic compounds
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT and metabolites
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Toxaphene
PCBs
-
COMMENTS
(.45y) - for compliant !-'ith objectives
outlined
in Annex 1 ( >.! concentration);
selected static is
--filtered concentrations for spatial
monitoring; selected stations
- contaminants issue
- for compliance with objectives
outlined in Annex 1; selected
- contaminants issue
37
'
stations
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All major Ions, particularly chloride, are conservative elements 1n the
lake system and they are used to calibrate both models and mass balance
equations and to distinguish water masses. Therefore, on the spring cruise,
major 1on samples will be collected at all stations.
Secchl disk will also be done at all stations and cruises during daylight
hours to provide Input for the assessment of the Secchl disk-chlorophyll
relationship.
Total partlculate nitrogen and particulate organic carbon are two
parameters which aid in the interpretation of biomass. These parameters will
be sampled at the full range of stations using a 0-20 M integrator.
The other nutrient parameters of total P, total filtered P, soluble
reactive P and filtered nitrate + nitrite will be sampled at all stations on
both cruises to ensure the primary nutrients trends in all areas of the lake
are maintained.
Contaminants
Trace Metals
The objectives outlined in the Agreement are In terms of total, unfiltered
concentrations except for mercury. Total concentrations, however, do not
adequately reflect anthropogenic loadings as they are affected by increased
partlculate loadings attributable to sediment resuspension and runoff. Metal
concentrations can vary by orders of magnitude over short periods of time due
to the Influence of resuspended lake bottom sediments, river-transported
particulates, shoreline runoff and bluff erosion. Such variation would
invalidate data comparison even within the same cruise. Furthermore, inshore
versus offshore comparisons would be biased by particulate concentrations and
biological processes (such as assimilation and regeneration). Therefore, both
total and filtered metal samples will be collected at selected stations
(Figure 3).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
High flow conditions associated with spring runoff result in worst-case
conditions while during summer both the settling out of resuspended sediments
and biological activity could temporarily deplete metal concentrations.
Furthermore, when the lake is Isothermal (and relatively isochemical),
sampling can be restricted to the surface (1 metre) and one other depth.
Therefore, all spatial and compliance monitoring will be conducted at two
depths during Spring conditions.
Trace Organics
Due to a paucity of data on trace organics in the waters of Lake Huron,
the first priority is to establish lakewide baseline conditions. Various
sampling techniques are being tested and once these have been evaluated,
lakewide monitoring can be carried out at selected sites for determining
trends of organics in water. Spring surface sampling is again assumed optimal
due both to the isothermal conditions and reduced biological activity.
However, knowledge of temporal and spatial trends is required to confirm the
optimum sampling strategy. Therefore, multiple-depth sampling at a limited
number of stations may be conducted Initially.
-------
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: OPEN LAKE
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WATERBODY: Lake Erie
V\ I'Z
-------
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: OPEN LAKE
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
WATERBODY: Lake Ontario
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.24
CHAPTER 7
CONTAMINANTS - OPEN LAKE WATER
BASIS FOR CONCERN
The term "contaminant" 1s meant to encompass both organic and Inorganic
substances which can, either directly or through the oaccumulatlve process
of the food chain, potentially cause adverse effects oi; reproduction, growth,
or general health, Including a shift 1n community structure.
The discovery, 1n 1970, of mercury contamination of fish and bottom
sediments 1n Lake St. Clalr and the western arm of Lake Erie prompted
nationwide re-evaluation of programs for monitoring harmful or potentially
harmful elements and compounds 1n the environment.
An example that effectively demonstrates the widespread Impact that small
amounts of these compounds can have on the environment 1s that of mlrex
contamination 1n Lake Ontario. Mlrex was used basically as an Insecticide
against the fire ant 1n the southern United States. It was manufactured and
later packaged at a chemical plant 1n Niagara Falls, New York. Over a period
of approximately 15 years, 1t has been estimated that a total of 2,000 pounds
of mlrex was lost from the plant and ultimately made Its way Into Lake
Ontario. As a result, the sediments of Lake Ontario became highly
contaminated with mlrex. Several species of fish from various locations 1n
the lake were designated as unfit for human consumption because of mlrex
levels exceeding the human health protection guideline of 0.1 ug/g. It 1s
difficult to believe that a lake as large as Lake Ontario could be susceptible
to the effects of a contaminant which was Introduced at a rate no greater than
that from a leaky tap 1n one's bathtub.
Many of these contaminants have subsequently been banned or otherwise
regulated under toxic substances legislation 1n both countries (e.g.
Environmental Contaminants Act - Canada; Toxic Substances Control Act - United
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
States). In addition, the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
established objectives for both persistent and non-persistent toxic substances
(Annex 1).
It 1s, however, not merely our charge to monitor for compliance with these
objectives. Ambient water quality monitoring for contaminants 1s considered a
necessary part of the Plan 1n order to help establish the movements of
contaminants 1n the ecosystem and their potential for bioaccumulation.
Further, as the ability to detect trace levels of cont r'nants 1n the water
column Improves, an open lake contaminant program may s-.*~vt to reduce the time
lag 1n detecting an emerging problem.
The Agreement also specifies that monitoring be established to assess both
spatial and temporal trends of these substances (Annex 12). And, as research
1n the field of antagon1st1c/synerg1st1c effects continues, 1t 1s Important
that we be "one step ahead of the game" 1n having established baseline
conditions and trends.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Objective and Scope
1. To assess compliance with the objectives outl1i?d 1n the 1978 Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Annex 1).
2. To establish baseline conditions of both organic and trace metal
substances 1n the open waters of Lake Ontario.
3. To Identify trends, both spatial and temporal, of contaminant levels
1n the open lake, thereby Identifying potential problems (Annex 12).
4. To provide data for assistance 1n the development and verification of
mathematical models (Annex 11).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Data Usage
Compliance with the objectives outlined 1n the 1978 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement for metals and organic substances 1n water will be assessed.
For the first few years baseline data for organic contaminants 1n water
will be collected. The optimum sampling strategy with respect to time and
frequency of sampling will be assessed and recommendations made for a
surveillance plan that will provide trend Informati
Historical trace metal data on the open lake consists mainly of "less than
detection' values. Although the existing detection limits allow for
determination of compliance. Improved detection limits are necessary to
fulfill the requirements of Annex 12, namely spatial and temporal trend
analysis. The required detection limits are presented 1n Table 1. When
sufficient "analyzable* data have been collected, trends will be reported and
a review of this program will be conducted.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
Toxic contaminants, referred to as both persistent and non-persistent
toxic substances 1n the Agreement, Include trace metals and trace organic
compounds. Objectives for these compounds 1n water tire given 1n Annex 1.
Hence, for the protection of aquatic life, compliance monitoring must be
conducted for the substances listed 1n Table 2. Furthermore, Annex 12
specifies that monitoring of persistent toxic chemicals be established to
assess both spatial and temporal trends and to assist 1n the development of
mathematical models.
While Annex 1 of the Agreement provides specific objectives for a variety
of organic and Inorganic persistent toxic substances (Table 4), the Niagara
River Toxics Committee (1) and the Human Health Effects Committee (2), through
recent Initiatives, have compiled lists of compound" for which ambient water
quality monitoring should be conducted; a summary of the lists 1s presented 1n
7-3
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5. Other sources of chemicals for which monitoring may be desirable are
the 1983 Appendix E report (3) and the annual reports of the Human Health
Effects Committee.
The objectives outlined for trace metals are 1n terms of total, unflltered
concentrations (except mercury which 1s total, filtered concentration). Total
concentrations, however, do not adequately reflect anthropogenic loadings as
they are affected by Increased partlculate loadings attributable to sediment
resuspenslon and runoff. Rossmann (4) found that tota* metal concentrations
can vary by orders of magnitude over short periods of lime due to the
Influence of resuspended bottom sediments, river-transported partlculates,
shoreline runoff, and bluff erosion. Such variation would Invalidate data
comparison even within the same cruise. Furthermore, Inshore versus offshore
comparisons would be biased by partlculate concentrations and biological
processes (such as assimilation and regeneration). Therefore, filtered
samples) will be collected for spatial trend monitoring and trend 1n time, and
totals for objective compliance.
1 High flow conditions associated with spring runoff result 1n worst-case
conditions while, during summer, both the settling out of resuspended
sediments and biological activity could temporarily deplete metal
concentrations. Thus, all lakewlde compliance monitoring will be conducted
during spring conditions. Also, when the lake 1s isothermal (and assumed
1sochem1cal), sampling can be restricted to the surface (1 metre) depth (5)
whereas, 1n summer, stratification necessitates multiple-depth sampling.
Therefore, all spatial and compliance monitoring of the open lake will be
conducted at the 1 m depth during spring conditions.
Due to a paucity of data on trace organics 1n the waters of Lake Ontario.
the first priority 1s to establish lakewlde baseline conditions. An Initial
effort, directed primarily at organochlorlne pesticides, chlorobenzenes, and
PCB's, was carried out in October 1983 at 15 selected stations on large-volume
whole water samples, manually extracted with dichloromethane. A
continuous-flow automatic sampler/extractor 1s currently being developed,
-------
i
(
scheduled for testing 1n 1984-85. Once operational, continued lakewlde
monitoring can be carried out using this new method at selected sites for
determining trends of organlcs 1n water.
Note that whenever a new method for collection and analysis of samples has
been developed, duplication of effort (I.e. both old and new method) will be
done until comparability of the two procedures has been developed.
Spring surface sampling 1s again assumed optimal due both to the
Isothermal conditions. However, a knowledge of temporal and spatial trends 1s
required to confirm the optimum sampling strategy. Therefore,, multiple-depth,
monthly sampling at a limited number of stations will be conducted Initially.
Since the 11st of compounds 1n Tables 4 and 5 1s so extensive and,
consequently, costly to measure, only a few of the easily detectable
compounds, for which standard analytical methods exist, can be examined 1n
this fashion. Due to the high cost of trace organic analysis, perhaps the
research community should study this problem and recommend to the Task Force
the optimum sampling depth(s) and t1me(s).
The stations to be monitored for trace metals and trace organlcs are
depicted 1n Figures 1-4. The station locations and grid cells (see Chapter
25) are given 1n Table 3. Additional stations may be added, 1n order to meet
the program and Information requirements of other chapters of this Plan, and
1n order to develop the desired ecosystem perspective. See especially the
programs described 1n Chapter 15 (Contaminants 1n F1sh), Chapter 24
(Biological Community Welfare), and Chapter 25 (Physical Habitat).
Monitoring Parameters and Frequency of Sample Collection
The parameters to be measured 1n the open lake are listed 1n Table 4.
Trace metals will be measured on both spring cruises only at the 1 m depth;
trace organlcs will be similarly monitored for compliance, plus multiple depth
sampling (one sample from each of ep1!1mn1on, metal1mn1on, and hypol1mn1on,
where applicable) on a monthly basis (April to November) at selected stations
to determine both the optimum sampling strategy and any temporal trends.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5 lists additional parameters for which surveillance and monitoring
should be considered; other sources of candidate parameters were Identified
above. Any decision regarding the Inclusion of these parameters, as wellas
the frequency of sample collection, will be made at a later date.
Table 6 proposes, for each parameter, the number of samples to be
collected, the sample matrix, the analytical method, sample preservation, and
holding time.
Sampling and Analytical Procedures
Specific sample collection and analysis procedures and protocols will be
specified at a later date. The procedures and protocols will be based on
present Jur1sd1ct1onal practices; however, the suitability of these procedures
to provide the Information required, can only be determined after the program
and Information requirements for this component of the Plan have been more
fully developed.
Sample Custody Procedures
Not applicable.
Calibration Procedures and Preventatlve Maintenance
To be developed.
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
See Table 7.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
Responsibilities will be assigned for sampling operations, sampling
quality control, laboratory analysis, laboratory quality control, data
processing activities, data processing quality control, data quality review,
7-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
performance auditing, systems auditing, overall quality assurance, and overall
project coordination. Project personnel will be Identified at a later date.
DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
See Table 8.
Although the detection limits for metals are surf*e1ent to address
compliance, they do not allow for spatial and/or tercpjra1 trend analysis. The
detection limits needed to fulfill the requirements of Annex 12 (ug/L) are
given 1n Table 1.
DOCUMENTATION. DATA MANAGEMENT. AND REPORTING
Documentation
Any changes 1n station location, sampling, and/or analytical methodology
will be documented 1n the cruise report. Computer printouts from trace metal
analyses will be stored 1n the data management vault. Original gas
chromatograph scans will be kept for future verification and, 1f necessary,
relnterpretatlon.
Data Management and Reporting
Once all the analyses for a particular cruise have been completed, and the
quality control results approved, the chemist 1n charge will Interpret the gas
chromatograph scans and the results will be sent to the project leader.
Likewise, once accepted by the chemist 1n charge, the trace metal results will
be sent to the project leader. The project leader 1s responsible for
Investigating any suspect data and having 1t flagged or deleted as deemed
appropriate. The data will then be entered Into the main computer for public
access.
7-7
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATA VALIDATION
The project leader will be given the results of all quality assurance
analyses (blanks, duplicates, % recoveries of spikes) associated with each
data set.
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS
All analytical methods are to be documented and « uated by the Data
Quality Work Group for compatablHty with other methods 1a use. Quality
control will consist of both Inter- and Intralaboratory programs. The
Inter-laboratory program will consist of participation 1n interlaboratory round
robins, blind audit samples, and the use of standard reference materials.
Intralaboratory quality control will Incorporate checks for consistency 6f
data across samples (I.e. filtered/total, etc.) and between parameters,
spikes, standards, and replicates.
1. Reagent blanks and reagent blanks spiked at various levels of
concentration are to be run before samples to check analytical
Instrument. Also a complete calibration curve 1s to be run before
and after samples.
2. Standard addition samples are to be run Irrrany and as required,
depending on the system, to determine matrix Interference effects and
recovery.
3. Calibration standards (drift control) are to be run every 20th sample.
4. One sample 1s to be analyzed 10 or more times to determine precision.
In addition, duplicate analyses will be performed on every 20th trace
metal sample. Field blanks will be submitted to check for bottle
contamination.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CORRECTIVE ACTION
None.
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
Survey Costs
All sampling will be conducted during the schedu - utrophlcatlon cruises
(Chapter 17) or piggy-backed onto research cruises. Therefore, survey costs
are negligible.
Laboratory Services
Trace metals $ 2.5K
Trace organlcs $ 9.7K
Toxaphene $22.4K
Total $34.5K
DATA INTERPRETATION
See Data Usage, above.
REPORTS
A report summarizing trends, objective compliance, and providing
Information regarding the spatial distribution of contaminants 1n water
throughout the lake will be made available to the Lake Ontario Task Force for
Inclusion 1n the report to the Water Quality Board of the International Joint
Commission.
COMMENTARY
The historical data base for trace metals reflects the wide variety of
analytical procedures used over the years (filtered, non-filtered, extracted,
totals) and contains results for a broad spectrum of elements. Unfortunately,
7-?
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
most of the data have been reported as "less than detection limit", it 1s the
aim of the current plan to establish a reliable collection of baseline data
(for a restricted number of parameters) which, after a few years, can provide
trend Information for the detection of emerging problems.
Up until the present, trace organic analysis of lake water has been more
1n the realm of research sampling techniques, sample storage, etc. It Is
hoped that within the next few years baseline data can be established upon
which a more extensive-program can be built.
REFERENCES
1. Report of the Niagara River Toxics Committee, to be published late 1984.
2. "Proceedings of the Roundtable on the Surveillance and Monitoring
Requirements for Assessing Human Health Hazards Posed by Contaminants in
the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem," held March 17-18, 1982 at East Lansing,
Michigan. Committee on the Assessment of Human Health Effects of Great
Lakes Water Quality, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario,
November 1982.
3. An Inventory of Chemical Substances Identified in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem," 6-volume report to the Great Lakes Water quality Board,
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, December 31, 1983.
4. Rossmann, R. Grant proposal to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
#DRDA 80-1487-P1, 1980.
5. Neilson, M. A. IWO Publication Scientific Series No. 133. 1983.
-------
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I'1
I1
I
I
i
i
I
o
H
*->
Oj
O
,c
4->
PH
c
H
(H
PH
V)
>
i-t
rt
4->
0)
e
iH
rt
4->
O
tf)
§
H
ti
P
(94
C
H
H
O
e
0)
o
I
u
I
H
b.
Page ?-
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
i
>
!
j
I
I
I
C
o
in
I*
/-*\
5
p<
0
I
PU
V)
0)
e
0)
o
I
O
O
O
+J
o
H
M
01
bo
H
tu
Page ~?~/Z
-------
tx>
H
r<
P.
to
o
+J
o
S
H
rH
I
O
4-1
g
o
o
#
bo
O
rt -
f-t W
** §
rt
fj
(1)
t-C
> -
f\
a) x
o o
C (X
o o
H T)
rt 6
4->
CO rH
E
-------
-a
c
rt
c
2
B
M -H
P t-l
C «J
0) p
C O
H B
S s
O r-(
5 §
S B
ff I
O iH
4)
o
2
0)
0 -8
t>0 U
C -H
O
P
H
G
O
tU
fn
O
&
(U
Vi
8
to
o
,0
o
4->
O)
rt
V
FH
fX
V
o
0)
10
o
cd
4)
to
I
s,
<
O
E
Page 7V?
-------
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
f
t
I
i
i
t
i
I
I
i
i
I
TABLE 1
REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS FOR TRACE METAL ANALYSIS
(M9/L)
METAL
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Z1nc
SMALLEST
REPORTABLE
DETECTION INCREMENT BACKGROUND
LIMIT DESIRED LEVEL
0.01 0.01-0.09
0.1 1.0
0.1 35.0
0.1 0.2 -1.0
0.01 0.01-1.0
0.05 1.0
0.01 <0.1
0.05 <1.0
TABLE 2
SUBSTANCES FOR WHICH COMPLIANCE MONITORING IS REQUIRED
j
A1dr1n/D1eldr1n Cadmium
Endrln Lead
Llndane Zinc
Toxaphene Copper
Chlordane Mercury
Heptachlor Selenium*
Methoxychlor Iron
Dlbutyl phthalate Nickel
DDT & metabolites Radioactivity
Heptachlor epoxlde
Mi rex
01 ( 2-ethyl hexyl ) phthalate
*Selerrum, toxic at high concentrations, has an antagonistic effect on
toxic ty and bloaccumulatlon of toxic metals, particularly Hg, As, Cu, Pb,
and dl.
Thus, 1t was added to the 11st of metals for analysis.
-------
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i
i
i
i
i
TABLE 3
STATION LOCATIONS FOR OPEN LAKE CONTAMINANTS
STATION NUMBER
1
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
12
17
21
22
29
31
33
35
37
41
44
55
57
63
66
71
76
78
81
85
86
90
97
GRID CELL8
802
703
803
703
604
604
604
505
604
805
806
806
507
410
608
708
710
512
413
716
815
518
719-819
721
424
322
320
506
805
320
424
LATITUDE N.
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
44
44
43
43
44
43
o
e
o
o
e
o
e
e
o
o
o
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
o
e
o
e
o
e
e
e
e
e
e
18'
20'
16'
25'
32'
37'
35'
40'
30'
13'
18'
17'
49'
53'
35'
21'
23'
43'
52'
26'
16'
43'
20'
28'
57'
05'
01'
45'
15'
08'
57'
48
24
06
30
48
24
12
06
12
30
00
48
48
12
48
36
30
00
54
36
30
54
00
36
00
00
00
00
18
11
42
*
N
If
N
H
II
i
N
N
*
*
H
H
N
H
N
N
H
N
H
N
f
n
it
a
H
H
H
LONGITUDE W.
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
78
78
77
77
77
77
76
76
76
76
76
79
79
76
76
O
e
e
e
e
o
0
e
o
e
e
e
e
e
o
e
e
e
e
e
o
e
e
o
o
e
o
e
o
e
e
45'
39'
37'
39'
29.'
27'
23'
16'
21'
16'
07'
00'
52'
27'
48*
23'
22'
or
54'
26'
35'
01'
50'
31'
10'
24'
40'
05'
IT
49'
07'
06"
54"
12"
30"
18"
12"
42"
00"
12"
18"
12"
18"
12"
36"
06"
12"
12"
36"
30"
18"
30"
00"
24"
36"
30"
24"
18"
00"
42"
30"
18"
aThe grid cells are depicted on Figure 1n Chapter 25.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
f
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
OPEN LAKE PARAMETERS TO BE MEASURED
ORGANIC SUBSTANCES
TRACE METALS8
RADIONUCLIOES
AldMn
D1eldr1n
Chlordane, a and Y
p,p'-ODT
o.p'-OOT
p,p'-TDE
p.p'-DDE
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Llndane
Methoxychlor
M1rex
Toxaphene
01butyl phthaiate
01(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
PCB
Cadrolurn
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Z1nc
»H
aBoth total and filtered concentrations.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
TABLE 5
ADDITIONAL CHEMICALS FOR WHICH OPEN LAKE MONITORING
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
ORGANIC SUBSTANCES
Benzene Dloctylphthalate
Benzo (B) fluoranthene Endosulphan
Benzo (K) fluoranthene Ethylbenzene
Benzo (J) fluoranthene Fluoranihene
Benz (A) anthracene Hexach oenzene
Benz (A) pyrene Hexach K :tntad1ene
Broffloform Hexachlorcethane
Carbon tetrachlorlde Methylene chloride
Chlorodlbromomethane Pentachlorophenol
Chloroform Phenol
Chloronaphthalene Pyrene
Chrysene Styrene
2,4-D TCDD
p.p-DDD 2,4,5-T
Dlbenz (a,h) anthracene Tetrachloroethene
2,3-d1chlorobutad1ene TMchloroethylene
1,2-d1chloroethane 2,4,5-trlchlorophenol
1,2-d1chloroethylene
INORGANIC SUBSTANCES
Antimony Cyanide
Beryl1um Silver
Chromium
7-/Z
-------
1
I
1
(
I
,
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
TABLE 6
PARTICULARS ABOUT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF OPEN LAKE WATER SAMPLES
NUMBER OF ANALYTICAL SAMPLE HOLDING
PARAMETER SAMPLES METHOD PRESERVATION TIME
Aldrln 110 AMM* cool, 4°C extracted
Immediately
Chlordane (a,y)
01e1dr1n
p.p'-DOT
o,p'-ODT
p,p'-TOE
p.p'-OOE
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Llndane
Methoxychlor
Ml rex
Toxaphene
01 butyl phthalate
01(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
PCB
Cadmium 80
Copper "
Iron "
Lead "
N
''
*
2 mL cHN03 6 months
(Ultrex)/I1tre
N N
N
t N
Mercury " 1 mL ^504, 1 month
1 mL 5%
K2Cr207/100 mL
Nickel * " 2 mL cHNOa 6 months
(Ultrex)/I1tre
Selenium " " cool, 4°C 6 months
Zinc " 2 mL cHN03 6 months
(Ultrex)/I1tre
AMM* - Analytical Methods Manual (1978) Inland Waters Directorate, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada .
I
-------
I
t
I
1
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
UJ
o
fc
UJ
=5
«JT
o
Q.
en
fe
UJ
o
CO
UJ
i
o;
Q.
03
UJ
o
>-
1 ' 1
V V xl
s
0)
O O>
IB C
83 fct
S
0
O)
c
1
5
42 «
c o
ie c
O>«5
fe^:
o.
9) E
O O
«l O
c o
f- "r-
o-£
4J O)
i- S.
g°
es
fe4*
O.M-
e o
7-20
-------
1
1
1
1
1
I 1
CO
Is
$
O
gp
I oo g
s 5
ICC Ul
f &
" "
»
^^
- «
>:
P t;
t
«f
s
t
5-
o
1
1
|
w
i
i
i
i
o
or,
e
^f
|
o
CO
1 1
u
Ul
s
U»r-
r- _I3R 0
CO OP UJ Ul
u' < S or
_ r- U) -
_J or or co
< oo ui
ZZCL.?f.a
> Ul -
or
£<
o o>
"-" 3
»
^ **-^
0
u.t 1
pc
u> £
Oi-i
__l
u;x
_J -!
a. or.
Ife
co s:
PTk
Wl
3
_I-J^._JW_J 0>_J
^ 2>^>o ^^ 3 <.
O> O> E CT O> O>
33jo ^'S3^3
OOOct^-O .O
r-r-Or-Or-Or-
.
eaiG>o^oe>ie/d
&«&« LO a« &«&«&«
u>vooe\j«cooi^-
ro i o CM co co i
>
n n --^ n ^ ii N n
O .r ...
»> > 01 >»
CO V. ...
oo«^o*_ooo
o en
O OO i O if) O > i O
O O Oo OOi OOoOr
fc ^
4-> s = = = = = = = = = = = = = r 4J s =.-__.
O IQ ~ " " "
X S
* s_
X 03 »
> 0. 15 X
8 O> V- .C O)
^- O 43 £Z 01
1- $. r- jc ;= 4->
O» . OO^tt»O->><«
CC» 1 UlUlp- OCJ=r f=
(0>i-OOpO J=fO>>> O> i 53 E >> 3
£?*l?c?7c?5SSgSx4^T 5& S-ss
%°1s;-o.-o.-o.-o.-feolol^452!S^~-&aJ ^Sg^^-glg
5gSioc:c:£*S2*aE^SS £ 33i:5*S*K
r-*/
c.
o
l«.
+J
0
4^
0)
TJ
0)
-5
0*
1
o>
£
+J
M
>>
*0>
>
4J
U
«
*t_
Ol
«
OJ
IM
^
(^
rtt
M/
ri
ITS
IS>
0)
5
S.
£
s-
n)
Ol
p"
+3
1
Ol
N
W)
O>
"o.
Vt
0)
«
c
a
3
+J
g^
1
1
O)
o
(A
r-
4-
(/> -r-
SI
1 r-
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
Nearshore
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: NEARSHORE
I
t
WATERBODY; Lake Huron
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
o
UJ
_J
D.
CO
Ul
CO
p.
to
Ul
_J
1
f^
t^
^
£ <
1 s
« 3E
- 1
Ul *~ Z
J Z i_
S 8 si
K~ ST
/i ">
Ul
*
CO
CO
t 1
e*
CO
CO
Ul
o
Ul
z
^r-
z z
O Ul
i i Z
C O
XJ O flj
J_r-
.0 OJC I.
ft. r- 0 O
JC ^r
0 XJZ
0» O 0
U. «JC tO
c -P 43
«»- CX
M r OJ OJ
< «0 E -E
S.
+^
fCS
2:
C/)
o
>-
Ul
f>*
Ul
a.
CO
o
£
<
O '
Ul
r-
r
l/> tO
>- ! r
col ro
c| a.
C7>
C
O
°
T-
XJ
E
o
o>
c
^
c
ex
-S
o
r-XJ
4- a>
73 'ex
t
t -P
M o
C
OJ XJ
t= g
XJ
OXJ
t/> CJ
XJ
c
j-
c
0
XJ
P
o
o ^>
»"" r"~
o c
CO O
a
1 *
§>
1-
OD
t i
J
«
CO
> c:
C . O
M v>
« O O>
0* Q XJ XJ « X>
CO > "U Q> 3 ) ni r-
O 4- Q. -4-> r 0> K-P &
X O to IO O C W Id T-
r- CO "r > OJCtOC Q> OIC tO
Z 1 to jC C) XJT-t «i N XJ «r . 4Jiara OO-PXJ JCE 3 4->JC O
2COOO3 l/)O O *O MOM O
jQin jro ex«a> MM -P ex **io o
O.«O-P>O3 to -P O 13 M 4-> $_
c c: >> OEM " i J- OE> r O 4-» XJ
3 cx o - jr J- o -p jc i- o aj
o «of ex c oioa o M ORJOJ i-
XOt-OJ>3 O O !-&/ <»%} O r «4-
OOO E CXJO M-> XJ CXJOJ v
J 4-> » (. E IO <1) Q. 1- O 4-> O> 10 fll «/) O
o «jc o o cn-P Oja M -p o>-P >JC OCM CX r C O C tO M
SO S- X O « 'r-r M<0 «r- t-r
Ck.XJO«OX' S-O JC O MOC J3
«CXi. CO r OJ Or CO r OJ
MC»i-CJOj'»- CJ JC JC *-«t- JQjC O JC JC O
E 3 **" *r~ "^ *r-
E lOIOCOCO XJ CO CQ
O Or 4-> OJ -P 4->
C OJQJC-P XJ C4->
OJXJ CJC OJO C OJO
EC 1-OOJECQ OJ ECO
r"* IO 10 JC 10 IO **" CX *r~
XJ4J M+JDJXJXJ M XJXJ
OJ XJ O *P r OJ C M 3 OJ C
coa»T- r ic 10 co 10 cn co coia
XJ CQ *r- O)
C IO t/> "XJ OJ « mXJ
S-OJ*> PM3S-CJ S- S-OJ
OJ Q.JC -PEO OJTJ, OJ OJXJ
P M 0 0 10 -P ^ i_ , - +-> -PC
IO 3 »r- CXr C "tl * 3 IO IO OJ
scou. co o a> r< o,, CD 3: 3cx
M M M M M M
a> aj oj a> QJ oj
>- >- >->->- >-
Ul
^ a
0 <
Ul Ul »
i 1 f\*
i/) v, la:
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.3 AREAS OF EFFECT - NEARSHORE
*.i*
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION
While the previous section addresses the open water portion of-the lake,
the largest portion in terms of area and volume, it is the nearshore which is
the most heterogeneous both spatially and temporally. The littoral region
while representing the smallest area in most lakes is the most biologically
productive and processes most materials. The nearshore in most cases receives
point source and non-point source material before the open water and,
therefore, is impacted sooner and more directly. And lastly, it is the most
visible visited portion of the lake.
The nearshore has, therefore, been given spec idt consideration and various
components of the biological community are proposed for study in the first
year to integrate and identify changes in condition of the nearshore region.
From these results the most appropriate biomonitoring tools, if any, will be
chosen for continuous surveillance
3.3.2 ATTACHED ALGAE
OBJECTIVES
1. To monitor the distribution and abundan e, and contaminant burdens of
the major attached filamentous algae in Lake Huron.
2. To evaluate these data as evidence of nearshore phosphorus enrichment
and contaminants loadings.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. To establish a data base for comparison of future change.
RATIONALE
There Is a well defined sequential occurrence of attached filamentous
algae 1n nearshore Lake Huron related to increasing phosphorus enrichment and
general degradation in water quality. A first sign of phosphorus enrichment
is a general increase in the distribution of Ulotn- -, followed in order of
increasing perturbation by fringing Cladophora. subr- rged Cladophora. and
finally problem growths of submerged Cladophora (although Bangia is not
strictly limited by phosphorus availability in Lake Huron, its occurrence is
still a clear sign of advanced degradation in water quality). Because these
algae are all highly conspicuous, synoptic evaluations of nearshore trophic
status can be carried out rapidly and at low cost. Significantly, the Thirty
Thousand Islands of eastern Georgian Bay are the greatest concentration of
islands and potential Cladophora habitat in the world. It is expected that
Georgian Bay will suffer excessive environmental degradation from the growth
of Cladophora unless existing phosphorus levels are maintained indefinitely
(i.e. <0.005 mg/L total P).
Investigations by MOE have shown that attached filamentous algae
concentrate (103-105X) a variety of organic and inorganic
contaminants. The algae aquire almost all of their contaminant load from the
surrounding water through mechanisms of adsorption and absorption (both active
and passive) while fine particulate material which can not be washed from the
filaments accounts for the rest. This means that contaminant levels in
filamentous algae are implicit of recent water quality.
DESIGN
Water. Temperature and wave height will be recorded at all shoreline
sites.
Substrate. Substrate characteristics will be recorded at all shoreline
sites.
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
Biota.
Eutrophicatlon. Growth characteristics of the major attached filamentous
algae will be recorded at shoreline sites throughout Lake Huron in
mid-June and mid-August. The distribution of Ulothrix in remote areas
will be monitored from a light aircraft in mid-July. All surveys will be
carried out annually.
Contaminants. Biomass for contaminants analysis will be collected (about
**
lOOg wet wt. per replicate for all tests) from exposed and permanent
substrates at shoreline sites throughout Lake Huron (i.e. areas of
concern, tributaries, and above eutrophication.sites). Surveys will be
carried out in mid-June and mid-August annually. All samples will be
rinsed in ambient water, squeezed dry, wrapped in absorbant paper,
transported on ice to the lab, dried to a constant weight (at 50°C),
powdered and stored in the dark until analysis.
DATA QUALITY
Appropriate timing and site selection is imperative. Field staff must be
knowledgeable of basic filamentous algal ecology and field identification
techniques.
It is recommended that one agency lab analyse all samples (Table 15) for a
given group of parameters (e.g. inorganics). This will ensure greater
consistency in the reported data. It will not, of course, reduce the need for
satisfactory quality control and quality assurance procedures within each lab.
DATA OUTPUT
As a minimum, there will be an annual statement made regarding the changes
observed with respect to the distribution and quas :ity of the algae observed.
In addition, annual changes in the contaminant burdens of the algae will
be documented and interpreted.
-------
I
1
1
1
TABLE 15
ATTACHED FILAMENTOUS ALGAE SAMPLING DETAILS -
EUTROPH ICATI ON /CONTAMINANTS
MEDIA TESTS SITES DEPTH FREQUENCY
1
1
I
|
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Filamentous
Algae
Eutrophication Species
ID, % cover, Survey Shoreline Mid-June and Mid
health/colour, filament August annually.
length,
upper. lower
depth, photographic
record.
Others.
water
temperature, wave
height, substrate
characteristics.
Ulothrix
areas ,
graphic
Contaminants Organic s
As,Cd,Co
Hg,Ni,Se
Others .
in renote Air Shoreline Mid-July
a photo- survey annually.
record
. Total PCBs Survey Shoreline Mid-June to Mid-
August annually.
,Cr,Cu,Fe,Pb,
,Zn,N,P
Loss on ignition.
£1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HOE and Michigan DNR.
3.3.3 CAGED CLAMS
OBJECTIVES
1. To monitor contaminants 1n Introduced clams (Elliptic complanatus) In
Lake Huron.
2. To evaluate these data as evidence of nearshore contaminants
loadings.
3. To establish a data base for comparison of future change.
RATIONALE
Investigations by MOE and the Great Lakes Institute have shown that
introduced caged clams are a viable tool for detecting trace contaminants in
aquatic systems. Importantly, the ability to plar,^ '<->nd remove) clams at
specific locations effectively defines their geographical range and period of
exposure. Clams may also be placed in locations where resident biomonitors
are precluded (because of habitat considerations, for example). In addition,
clams are abundant, Inexpensive to obtain and easily handled.
DESIGN
Biota. Caged clams will be introduced annually at nearshore sites
throughout Lake Huron (i.e. areas of concern, tributaries, remote sites).
Clams will be collected from a healthy population containing low background
levels of the contaminants of interest and transported to the study sites in
lake water. Clams will be measured and weighed, placed in galvanized metal or
plastic cages (5-10 clams/cage) and then anchored (on bottom or suspended) at
the desired station, the choice of either bottom or suspended must be
consistent throughout the program - usually at approximately 2 m depth with a
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
submerged marker. Studies have shown that organlcs such as PCBs can
accumulate to detectable levels 1n as little as 2-4 days but that metals may
take considerably longer. Recent studies have utilized exposure periods of
three weeks, as this 1s more than adequate for bioaccumulation to occur and
still allows the use of multiple exposures during the field season 1f
significant temporal variability in contaminants loadings is suspected.
Alternatively, clams can be left in for the whole field season, provided that
the cages are checked and cleaned at regular inte) , r (three weeks) to remove
aufwuchs. For this program, a minimum of one month exposure is recommended
for accumulation of metals. After retrieval, clams will be rinsed, measured,
weighed and then shucked. The soft tissues will then be rinsed in lake water,
wrapped in Hexane-rinsed aluminum foil (organics analysis) or in plastic bags
(inorganics) and frozen on dry ice for later analysis. Samples will be stored
at -20°C before analysis (Table 16). Tissue from one clam (about 7 cm shell
length) 1s sufficient for one replicate analysis.
DATA QUALITY
It is recommended that one agency lab analyse all samples for a given
group of parameters (e.g. pesticides, etc.). This will ensure greater
consistency in the reported data. It will not, of co.j-se, reduce the need for
satisfactory quality control and quality assurance procedures within each lab.
DATA OUTPUT
As a minimum, annual changes in the contaminant burdens of clams will be
documented and interpreted.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
MOE and Michigan DNR.
-------
I
I
I
9
I
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 16
CAGED CLAMS SAMPLING DETAILS - CONTAMINANTS
MEDIA
TESTS
SITES
DEPTH
FREQUENCY
Clams
Organics. PCBs (total), Survey
Organochlorine pesticides*,
Chlorinated aromatics*
As,Cu,Hg,2n
Others. Percent lipid
2 m 3 week exposure
mid to late summer
annually
Aldrin, Dieldrin, BHC (alpha, beta, gamma), Chlordane (alpha, gamma
chlordane, cis & trans nonachlor, oxychlordane), DDT, ODD, DDE, (op'pp1)
for each, Endrin, Endosulphan (alpha, beta), Heptachlor, Heptachlor
epoxide, Hexachlorobenzene, Mirex.
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (TCB), 1,2,4-TCB, 1,3,5-TCB,
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene (TeCB), 1 ,2,3,5-TeCB, 1 ,2,4,5-TeCB,
Pentachlorobenzene, Hexachlorobenzene, Hexachloroethane,
Hexachlorobutadiene, Octachlorostyrene, 2,3,6-Trichlorotoluene (TCT),
2,4,5-TCT, 2,6A-TCT.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; NEARSHORE
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 NEARSHORE SURVEILLANCE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The nearshore area is an Important component c: '-<* Lake Erie ecosystem.
It Is the principal source of water for municipal ana industrial uses, 1t 1s
used .extensively for recreational purposes, and 1t provides habitat and food
foe various Hfe-history-Stages of.many Invertebrates and vertebrates
species. Unfortunately, these areas are usually the first impacted by point
and diffuse sources of pollution.
Objectives
In general, the nearshore surveillance subcomponent is designed to meet
the objectives of Annex 11 of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
through Identification and measurement of physical, chemical and biological
parameters 1n the water and sediments of inshore areas of Lake Erie.
Specifically, historic information and ongoing data collection are required to
(a) determine the degree of use impairment, (b) provide baseline data against
which future changes TTJ the environment can be measured, (c) provide
trend-in-time results and interpretation, (d) evaluate sediment quality and
.(e) identify and measure contaminants in fish tissue for consumptive
advisories.
Rationale
As surveillance of the entire nearshore zone of Lake Erie is neither
feasible nor practical under current levels of funding, it is necessary to
concentrate surveillance efforts on those projects that will yield required
information at jrnnlmum expense. We suggest that surveillance of the following
components will meet the foregoing objectives: (a) areas of concern, (b)
water intakes, (c) tributaries and point source loading, (d) beaches, (e)
Cladophora.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2 AREAS OF CONCERN
The Great Lakes Water Quality Board has Identified five Class "A" (Raisin
R., Maumee R., Black R.. Cuyahoga R., Ashtabula R.) and one Class "B"
(Wheatley Harbour) areas of concern located directly on Lake Erie's
shoreline. Since 1974 all but the Raisin River have been reported annually to
the ijC as areas with some type of environmental and/or human health concern.
It is proposed that the Class "A" areas of concern and lake waters
"*
adjacent to these areas be included in nearshore surveillance.. Since each
area of concern differs in physical features, hydrology, and pollution
problems, 1t is difficult to design a standard model for routine monitoring.
A more pragmatic approach is to suggest a basic structure around which
specific components can be designed to meet the surveillance requirements of
each area. Basically, identification and quantification of important metals
and organic contaminants could be made from an examination of several
components of the system.
Based on the information collected by the Lake Erie Task Force the
following recommendations are made:
1. The Historica" Data Base available for e&cfc 01 the areas of concern
be reviewed !:- -ore any further field work vj, initiated.
A review of w..t is already known about the area is an important
first st?p in » specific design. Surveillance effort can then be
concentrated ca priority contaminants and pollution problems. Trends
can be detentr~ed and responses to remedial measures ascertained.
Chemical inventory information for the drainage area can also be used
to concentrate- effort on potential pollution problems.
2. The following system components need to be thoroughly evaluated in
order to cbta'n a comprehensive data base which characterizes each
region in ten-5 of impaired usage.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mater
A knowledge pf the hydrology of the problem area is a prerequisite to the
design of sampling strategy. Location of sampling stations, sampling
frequency and parameters should be selected in consideration of the
requirements. of Annex 11,-birt also in relation to historical data and existing
monitoring of research programs. As far as possible stations should be
site-selected to concentrate effort and to-maintai? f "Suable long-term data
series. Lake stations located adjacent to areas of , -;ern are required to
measure the impact on offshore waters.
Sample frequency should be designed to accommodate hydrological and
seasonal variability and remedial measures implementation. Further
considerations are adequate statistical evaluation and interpretation of the
data.
Parameters should be selected to provide an evaluation of eutrophication
and toxic substances in the nearshore area.
Basic parameters to be considered:
pH, conductivity, Secchi disc transparency nspended solids,
temperature (profile), dissolved oxygen (profile), total phosphorus,
nitrate nitrogen, ammonia.
selected metals (total mercury, total lead)
Sediments
Many pollutants of concern settle out of the water column and accumulate
in sediments. Whereas ^termination of trace amounts of contaminants in water
is often difficult and sometimes inaccurate, it if easier to measure
concentrations of tiese substances in sediments. Cores from undisturbed
sediments also provide a history of contaminant loading to the system.
-------
I
Factors to be considered 1n location of sediment stations are historical
data, hydrology, runoff, municipal and Industrial outfalls, and dredged and
depos1t1onal areas.
Frequency of sampling will be determined, to some extent, by the rate of
sediment accumulation. Once every three years may be adequate.
Parameters to be considered:
grain size, loss on Ignition, COD, oil and grease
metals - total mercury, total lead, total iron, total cadmium
organlcs - PCBs, DDT metabolites, aldrin/dieldrin, PAHs, phenol,
toxaphene
broad scan for priority pollutants
Biota
The importance of biota as indicators of ecosyrtor., quality in the Great
Lakes has been established. Several components of tne biological system have
been used 1n surveillance: bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton, zoobenthos,
fishes and fish eating birds. Sampling problems and "natural" variability of
population abundance in space and time affect the usefulness of each of these
components. The best candidates for inshore monitoring are the zoobenthos and
fishes.
Zoobenthos. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are sedentary they reflect
environmental conditions at specific locations. The environment may be
reflected in the bentnic community 1n two ways - (a) species composition,
abundance and diversity, and (b) body burdens of contaminants.
Because invertebrates are important food for fishes, information on
contaminant burdens is useful. Research projects (Eadie et al. 1982, Chapman
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
et al. 1979) have linked the flow of PAHs and heavy metals from sediments to
fish through ollgochaetes and chironomlds.
The factors which Influence the selection of sites for sediment sampling
should also be considered in the invertebrate sampling plan. Some sites may
._-J>e .sannTied for both components. , It may.be opportune to also sample dredged
areas as these are recolonlzed quickly by invertebrates. Sampling frequency
should-te influenced by information on life histor^-- of the>predominant-'-:
Invertebrate species. Spring and fall sampling for ,; consecutive years may
.be adequate. .The use of caged .clams Has recently become a popular . .
.. surveillance tool. Where appropriate, the use of caged clams should be
considered as a useful adjunct to a comprehensive plan.
Parameters to be considered:
metals and organlcs as listed under sediments
Fish. Sampling of fish for body burdens should include (a) species that
live in- or adjacent ta areas of concern (b) species that are taken in local
fisheries (if present). The young-of-the-year spottail shiner program may be
part of this component.
Late summer and fall collections are preferable.
Parameters:
percent "llpid, tainting, tumors, lesions, etc. - metals - total
mercury, total lead.- organics - PCB, DDT, locally used pesticides -
broad organic scan (industrial chemicals)
Bioassay
The measurement cr contaminant stress on ecosystem functions of bacteria,
phytoplankton anc iccplankton is a component of the Monroe Harbour/Raisin
River Research Project. For example, inhibition of photosynthesis and
bacterial uptake in Monroe Harbour water is being studied using offshore water
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
as a control. Although this is an experimental research project we suggest
that the routine bloassay of photosynthesis Inhibition could be a useful
adjunct to the surveillance program. The scientist working in this area with
the Monroe Harbour Research Project could provide advice on a suitable design.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: NEARSHORE
I
I
I UATERBODY; Lake Ontario
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
}
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.26
CHAPTER 7A
NEARSHORE WATER
BASIS FOR CONCERN
The term contaminant encompasses both organic ar-u Inorganic substances
which can either directly or through the b1oaccumu> m process of the food
chain potentially cause adverse effects to the reproduction, growth, or
general health of aquatic organisms, Including a shift in community structure;
and to human health, through consumption of water and fish.
Over the years, Lake Ontario waters have been found to contain a number of
Inorganic and organic substances, most prominently heavy metals, industrial
organic chemicals, and pesticides. Their presence has prompted concern among
responsible health and environmental officials. Some of these substances
bioaccumulate in the flesh of living organisms, particularly sport and game
fish. This has resulted 1n widespread fisheries advisories and warnings not
to consume (or to limit the consumption of) the flesh of potentially
contaminated fish.
The substances of concern originate from many -*.<- ts. These include
discharges into the lake, discharges to tributary streams which ultimately
reach the lake, atmospheric deposition, release from contaminated sediments,
and leakage from disposal sites. Both direct discharges and discharges via
tributaries Impact the lake ecosystem at or near the shoreline. Point source
monitoring programs (Chapter 6A) and tributary water programs (Chapter 8) are
part of this Plan to catalogue and quantify the discharges as they reach the
lake. It is also necessary to deal with the fate and distribution of the
substances within the nearshore area of the lake, as this area is biologically
more sensitive and productive than open lake waters, and fish and other
organisms may be exposed to chemical contaminants iring sensitive life stages.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It will ultimately be necessary to model nearshore lake dynamics 1n order
to understand the transport of pollutants 1n nearshore waters. There are
Indications from previous studies that, particularly 1n the spring, a thermal
bar and predominant currents effectively channel pollutants along the south
shore of the lake 1n a west-to-east direction from the Niagara River towards
the St. Lawrence River and, along the north shore 1n an east-to-west
direction. At other times of the year, lake processes such as stratification
and seasonal mixing, as well as the effects of s1gn1f*:ant storms, will
complicate the mixing and distribution of wastes frcr ? nearshore Into the
total lake system. The concern of this portion of the ;;in 1s to provide
continuity by doing lake sampling between areas which will be considered 1n
other parts of the Plan.
Monitoring of direct municipal and Industrial point source discharges 1s
covered 1n Chapter 6A. Areas of concern will be studied on a regular basis to
document contaminant problems and to monitor the progress of remedial
activities; monitoring programs are described 1n Chapters 26 through 35.
Tributary waters will be monitored on an Increased frequency to document loads
entering the lake from significant stream water bodies; programs are described
1n Chapter 8. There 1s a cross link between tributaries and areas of concern
because each major cause of upstream pollutant loads has resulted 1n an area
of concern being Identified at the tributary mouth.
The questions which need to be considered for tlm chapter Include the
transition or gradient of pollutants 1n the nearshore area away from the
tributaries and away from the areas of concern to a point where mixing has
essentially provided a homogeneous distribution of the pollutant load. Other
elements of the overall monitoring programs, such as the open lake section
(Chapter 7) and the monitoring of water supply Intakes (Chapter 4), would
adequately document the further fate and distribution of these pollutants.
The water supply Intakes could provide the major source of nearshore data.
Many substances of concern or potential concern hive been Identified
through the Agreement, through the Human Health Effects Committee, and through
the Niagara River Toxics Committee. The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
-------
-------
I
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
I
i
l
Agreement established objectives for persistent and non-persistent toxic
substances and specifies that monitoring 1s to be established to assess both
spatial and temporal trends of such substances. There 1s also a concern to
assure the existence of a statistically reliable and properly documented data
baseline so that an agreed starting point exists with which to compare future
results and from which to assess possible trends.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This element of the Plan 1s to provide for the es: GMshment of monitoring
stations which will be used to assess the fate and distribution of pollutants
In the nearshore waters. This nearshore area 1s not rigidly defined and may
be approached from a number of considerations. These Include a fixed distance
out from the shoreline, a distance to which a specific depth contour 1s
reached, a distance at which homogeneous conditions are reached, or a distance
offshore to the thermocllne when stratification occurs.
The questions to be answered by this portion of the Plan Include:
1. What waters of Lake Ontario shall be designated as falling within the
nearshore area?
2. What are the concentrations of pollutants 1-, r, drshore waters and at
water supply Intakes away from point source discharges, areas of
concern, and major tributaries?
3. Are there temporal and spatial variations of pollutants at transects
1n nearshore waters, and at water supply Intakes?
4. Are there major embayments or other areas of the lake where current
patterns would tend to concentrate and deposit pollutants,
particularly those attached to suspended sediments?
5. Is there a statistical difference, considering presence, absence, and
concentration of pollutants, between nearshore and open lake water?
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Objective and Scope
1. To assess compliance with the objectives outlined 1n Annex 1 of the
1978 Agreement.
2. To establish pollutant concentration baseline conditions for both
organic and trace metal substances 1n the nearshore waters and
sediments of Lake Ontario.
3. To Identify trends, both spatial and temporal, ,>; contaminant levels
in nearshore waters.
4. To Identify potential problem areas away from known tributaries,
areas of concern, or point source discharges.
5. Provide data to assist 1n the Interpretation, development, or
verification of mathematical models on the fate and distribution of
pollutants 1n Lake Ontario.
Data Usage
Compliance with the Agreement objectives for metals aN organic substances
In water will be assessed. Existing data and reports >''' be evaluated to
determine compatibility with the requirements of this ' ian.
Baseline data as needed will be collected for an unspecified time period
1n order to reliably establish baseline conditions. The Initial phase of the
program may span two to five years and should lead not only to definition of
the baseline but also to determinations on the timing, frequency, and
distribution of sampling.
In moving away from Identifiable pollutant sources, concentrations of
parameters and chemicals of concern may drop below lev Is currently detectable
by present analytical methodology. Presence or absence of pollutants at a
specified level of detection can assist Interpretation as to whether Agreement
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
objectives are being met. "Less than" values will not help to determine
whether the objectives and scope of the project to Identify pollutants present
are being met. Therefore, 1t will be necessary to consider either different
laboratory methodologies than those currently available 1n some Instances
(detection limits to parts per trillion), or to contain the study 1n
transition areas of higher pollutant concentrations for which positive results
can be documented. B1omon1tor1ng can take advantage of bloconcentratlon
factors 1n detecting presence of pollutants which ca'iot otherwise be detected
1n water.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
The program design, by definition, presents certain difficulties, as 1t
must capture events or circumstances which are dynamic and, 1n some cases,
seasonally dependent. Some general facts are established concerning long
shore transport of pollutants 1n Lake Ontario and possible areas of mixing and
deposition. However, such phenomena 1n such areas are not yet sufficiently
defined with certainty so that a fixed program can not yet be confidently
recommended. Some adjustments will have to be made dynamically year to year,
depending upon the circumstances and conditions within the lake.
Certain areas can be defined as starting points for the major elements of
the program. These have been previously noted as sig 'Meant tributaries,
areas of concern, and point source discharges. Additionally, by studying
current patterns* suspected areas of deposition of suspended sediments can be
Identified. From these beginnings, transects can be fixed east and west of
those areas potentially Impacted by point source discharges and by tributary
Inflows, in order to assess lake water entering or leaving those areas. From
these points, a plume could be tracked aerially to provide, by visual
observation, the location of additional sampling points, or, a fixed interval
could be established at which samples could be taken. This Interval should
coincide with other lake stations which have been used in previous programs,
or a variable interval and distance could be establl hed depending upon speed
and direction of the current and the seasonal circumstances of the lake.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
Final decisions should be reached In consultation with the coordinators of
other chapters, 1n order to make sampling points for this component of the
Plan coincident, 1f possible, with those for such programs as the nearshore
eutrophlcatlon study and the water supply Intake study.
Other considerations Include the timing of sample collection 1n relation
to significant Inputs to the water of Lake Ontario. High variability may be
expected because of the dynamic nature of discharges a-1 tributaries, and
because of such climatic conditions as spring snow mt *»* major storms.
Inputs which can affect nearshore waters Include the re: ^.pension of bottom
sediments, river-transported partkulates, shoreline runoffs, and. bluff
erosion. This variability can provide short-lived phenomena that will make
data comparability extremely difficult from point to point even over the
course of a single sampling run. In terms of year-to-year comparability of
data, the problems are obvious, as these natural forces can provide variations
that would obviate any analysis of trends over time.
Beyond selection of appropriate sampling transects and sampling points,
and because of the high variability and dynamic situation of nearshore waters,
careful documentation of events which may Influence observed results must be
made. This could Include aerial overflights to show the location of visible
plumes, current measurements before and at the time of sampling, analysis of
wind records to understand the movement of surface curr
-------
I
I
I
1
t
I
I
f
I
I
i
i
i
§
i
i
i
i
i
i
The highest expected contributions to the lake are during spring snow melt
conditions, at times of maximum runoff, and at times along the shore when the
thermal bar will hold such pollutants 1n the nearshore waters. The Intensity
of the program should be weighted toward the springtime to gather data to
assist 1n determining contaminant loadings and distribution, and 1n
determining compliance with the objectives 1n nearshore waters. Summer
sampling can document conditions where previously discharged suspended
materials may become settling or settled sediments r:d there 1s major
biological activity within the nearshore waters. . sampling may detect
higher concentrations due to storm-Induced resuspens. , and redistribution of
previously discharged contaminants.
There are scant data available on trace organic contaminants 1n Lake
Ontario waters. A statistically reliable baseline 1s essential for further
project definition and against which to compute and evaluate trends over
time. Due to the low levels at which these materials are expected to occur,
sampling and extraction of samples presents a particular difficulty, as large
volume samples are required. If proven successful and reliable, a continuous
flow automatic sampler/extractor, presently being developed by Environment
Canada, should be utilized 1n this part of the Plan (see Chapter 7).
Initially, the spring Isothermal condition should be selected as the time for
sample collection, because this 1s the time of maximum contaminant loading.
B1omon1tor1ng should be considered as having acvantages for detecting
substances that could missed by periodic sampling and b1omagn1f1cat1on for
quantities undetectable 1n water. The organisms also Integrate pollutants
over time. B1omon1tor1ng would also document effects on lake aquatic
organisms. See Chapters 11, 12, and 36 for further development of this
concept.
Monitoring Parameters and Frequency of Sample Collection
The parameters to be measured Include those 1n ' bles 1 and 2.
Consideration will also be given to other substances of potential concern.
These will be drawn from several sources, Including:
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
1. The 11st of chemicals developed by the Human Health Effects Committee
and published 1n the "Proceedings of the Roundtable on the
Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements for Assessing Human Health
Hazards Posed by Contaminants 1n the Great Lakes Ecosystems," held 1n
March 1982.
2. Other chemicals Identified by the Human Health Effects Committee, as
published 1n their annual reports.
3. The 11st of chemicals developed under the auy c,i of the Niagara
River Toxics Committee.
Sampling should be conducted 1n the spring of the year to coincide with
the maximum tributary loading from snow melt, Isothermal conditions wlthfn the
lake, and the presence of the thermal bar. Samples will Include a number of
runs at tines and locations to be determined during this period, which covers
two to thrje months. As a minimum, three sampling runs are recommended to
coincide with the major factors mentioned above. These will capture the
effect on the nearshore waters of the annual maximum loading conditions from
the tributaries, will sample at Isothermal and hopefully 1sochem1cal
conditions of mixing within the lake, and will establish the nearshore
transport mechanisms during the major long shore current conditions which
prevail during the set to the thermal bar.
The analytical methodology, the sample preservation, holding time; and
sampling protocols shall be specified by the quality assurance and quality
control procedures established for the overall Plan.
Sampling Procedures
The samples will be collected along transects and at stations 1n the lake
from shipboard and onshore at water supply Intakes. If developed and
available, the continuous flow automatic sampler/extra tor will be utilized.
Otherwise, large-volume samples must be taken and extracted. The actual
protocols and methodologies will be as determined by the quality assurance and
quality control procedures established for the overall Plan.
-7.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
t
Jj
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample Custody Procedures
No special custody procedures are recommended, as these samples are being
taken for monitoring and surveillance and not for enforcement purposes. This
can be re-evaluated, based upon the quality assurance and quality control
procedures developed for the overall Plan.
Calibration Procedures and Preventatlve Maintenance
When the final equipment and methodologies are r t -.ad, the procedures
can be specified. Additional procedures may be Imposed by the quality
assurance and quality control requirements to be developed for the overall
Plan.
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
ff Winter 1984/Spring 1985
1. Assemble data and review previous surveys and reports.
Summer 1985
1. Select and evaluate a few significant tran .,, ,.nd sampling points,
2. Prepare preliminary program design.
Winter 1985/86
1. Complete final design of program. Prepare comprehensive survey
strategy for each selected station/transect.
2. Coordinate sampling schedule with other elements of program.
Spring 1986
1. Conduct Initial program during spring Isothi "mal lake period.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
The jurisdictions should carry out the design of this element of the Plan
and the collection of all samples under the guidance of the chapter
coordinator. It will be necessary to provide for both boat-based collection
of the samples, and 1t 1s desirable that the schedule be arranged to coincide
with the open lake work so that dual purposes could be served by using the
same boat at the same time to conduct more than one e^ment of this Plan.
DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
Data quality requirements and assessments will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall Plan.
DOCUMENTATION. DATA REDUCTION. DATA MANAGEMENT. AND REPORTING
These will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control requirements
established for the overall Plan.
DATA VALIDATION
Data validation will Incorporate the quality assurance/quality control
requirements established for the overall Plan.
PERFORMANCE AND .SYSTEMS AUDITS
Performance and systems audits will Incorporate the quality
assurance/quality control requirements established for the overall Plan.
CORRECTIVE ACTION
The program 1s designed to take samples in waters away from major Impacts,
1n order to look at mass transport of pollutants and ' -neral water quality.
Therefore, findings will not be specifically relatable to any particular
discharge or situation that could result 1n abatement and corrective action.
This element of the Plan is more designed to provide Integrated overall lake
data than 1t 1s to pinpoint sources of pollution.
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
I
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
Three samples are recommended for each station, as previously described.
However, the number of stations to be selected 1n the final project, based on
the rationale, 1s presently undetermined; this will require further
consideration and discussion. Analyses for all of the metallic and organic
pollutants Identified 1s approximately $1,800 per sample, and collection and
analysis would place the sampling cost at $5,400 per station per year absent
any requirements for quality assurance/quality con+ ' replicate samples or
field blanks. As an order of magnitude, 50 station the base program
would provide for a base project cost of $270,000.
DATA INTERPRETATION
The data should be evaluated to answer the specific questions posed above
under Project Description. Interpretation should be done by the principal
Investigators under the supervision of the project coordinator.
REPORTS
A preliminary report containing the raw data and tentative conclusions
should be available six months after the last sample of the annual program 1s
taken. A final report to the standards established 'ie Task Force
reporting should be available 12 months after takl- ie last sample.
COMMENTARY
Presently, Ontario does boat-based sampling for open lake and nearshore
considerations. This project describes a more Intensive program to provide
statistically reliable data, to support Interpretation of more areawlde
phenomena, to provide baseline data for trend analysis, and to provide
Information that could be used in modelling efforts related to transport
mechanisms and mass distribution of various pollutants. New York does not
presently have a vessel operational on Lake Ontario md does not expect one
until spring 1986.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
t
I
Serious concerns about the work proposed 1n this Chapter have been raised
by both U.S. and Ontario commentors. The whole basis has been challenged as
too complex, too extensive, too expensive, unworkable, too ambitious, not
satisfying the objectives, too variable, more research than surveillance, and
uncorrelatable for data analysis. Problems cited were Inability to work with
historical phosphorus data, let alone dozens or hundreds of parameters,
frequent current reversals and upwelUngs, need for continuous or dally data
to sort out variables, Inability to track plumes, fixed transects which do not
necessarily bracket a moving problem, and data point ability.
One reasonable compromise could be to make the raw water supply Intakes
the entire nearshore sampling network, and meld the nearshore off-boat
sampling Into the open lake program. This offers advantages of having
fixed-base near-shore stations of known (or determinate) characteristics, and
placing the whole-lake program on an equivalent basis for design of the
sampling program, probably directed by the needs of modellers and researchers.
Due to the seriousness of the comments and problems, further discussion 1s
needed; 1t should be drawn also from others 1n the peer review process.
?A'-/.
-------
I
I
I
f
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
PARAMETERS F0« WATER SAMPLES
GENERAL CHEMISTRY (LABORATORY)
Hardness
pH
Turbidity
Total Solids
Nitrite
Sodium
Alkalinity
Colour
Conductivity
Fluoride
Nitrate
Chloride
GENERAL CHEMISTRY (FIELD)
Chlorine Residual Free 4 Total
BACTERIOLOGICAL
Total Coll form
Standard Plant Count
Hform
METAL SCAN
Copper
Zinc
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Magnesium
Vanadium
Beryl 1ium
Tin
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1 -01 ch 1 or oethyl ene
1,1-Wchloroe thane
1,1,1 -Trlchloroethane
Carbon Tetr a chloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
Dichl orobromometJiane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Te trach 1 oroe thy! ene
Ethyl benzene
Bromoform
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3-D1chlorobenzene
01 bromoe thane
Methyl ene Chloride
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Aluminum
Calcium
Barium
Strontium
Uranium
Trans-1,2-01 chloroethyl ene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
Chi orodibromomethane
Chlo'-obenzene
M- ' lene
0 .- -
1,--- -.hiorobenzene
1, i --.". Jil orobenzene
PCB/ORGANOCHLORINE SCAN S PESTICIDES
PCB
Heptachlor
Mi rex
8-BHC
a-Chlordane
OP DDT
PP DDT
Heptachl oroepoxi de
Endrin
Thiodan II
Methoxychlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Aldrin
a-BHC
Y-8HC (Llndane)
Y-Chlordane
PP ODD
PP DOE
DleldHn
Thiodan I
Thiodan Sulphate
Toxaphene
CHLORO AROMATICS
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
a-2,6-Trichloro toluene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
He xachl oroe thane
1,2,4-Tri chl orobenzene
2,3,6-Trichlorotoluene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachl orobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetrach1orobenzene
Octachlorostyrene
-------
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
TABLE 2
CHLOROPHENOLS
2,4,6-TMchlorophenol 2,4,5-TMchlorophenol
2,3,4-TMchlorophenol 2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol Pentachlorophenol
SPECIFIC PESTICIDES
Carbaryl 01?
Methyl Parathlon Pare ,/*
2,4-0 2,4,5-iP
'>. ' 7 V
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
CONTAMINANTS
I OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
Water Intakes
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: WATER INTAKES
WATERBODY: Lake Huron
-------
A
&
I
li
h
li
h
li
00
Ul
8
Ul
rs
co
co
o
Ul
_J
(X
Jgr
<^
CO
UI
ca
o
-
CO
Ul
_J
3
t-I
cr:
<
>
K- 1
r^
5
s
o
2:
» 1
_J
ex.
g!
<:
CO
^^_
>-
S
*>^
CO
CO
UI
o
UI
z
1
-
CO
o
A
M
\
ojoa
CO
r-
"O
r- Q
35
i
« CJ
o> c
3: re
XJ
> J-
.0 0
0. r-
JC
» O
OJ
*
c
r-
S-
XJ OJ
C XJ
OJ r-
X
« o
J- ex
O OJ
r
JC S-
U 0
>>»
XJC
o o
-
O)
c
r-
OJ
JD
TO
r-
XJ
OJ
E
c
o
O)
c
m
C
M
»
CJ
CO «
o
«rc
r- CQ *
=Z 1 Vi
JZ 0
« 4-»
C7> >»-
re o i
re o
ca ^i
^3 i r;
o. a -P
o
« E
OJ CJ
Q
Q
O
i. 0-
o
r~~ **
jc: GJ
o cr
«o ra
P XJ 0
C. J- t.
O O =3
JC r- +->
JC O
03
C i_
i- ~-M
S- 01 en
U. ".C re H- U. c XJ XJ XJ
c
»-
3 4-
0 XJ
r
iT£
0 X>
» «t
XJ C
0 v-
J_
«-o
to i
< re
i-
5
re
3;
t/>
OJ
Ul
C£
UI
a:
Q.
CO
O
s:
r-
OJ i-
P O
r i
r- JC
O O
jQ rO
«O -P
P Q.
OJ OJ
E JC
XJ
c
OJ
Q.
OJ
XJ
*
o
r-XJ
«4_ O
r r
O CL
OJ E
o. re
CO W
t
E
0
1 #
to o
pea
c
OJXJ
E c
r ^5
XJ
OJXJ
CO OJ
XJ
« c
S- OJ to
OJ D.-P
p to o
re 3 T-
SCO CQ
to
OJ
c
o
XJ
/Tl
$
o
*.. ^-
OJ ^>
'GJ'C
CO 0
co
Ul
t 1
C£
>
O X +J
O "^
* C-C
I- CJ 3
« OC O E
*- 4-> r S- E=
O -.C 0 0
> C
"CO i-
XJ C-> i-
o a. TJ
- o
to c -r-
< 2: XT
«k
E
0
1 -p
i %
4-*
to o
P CO
C
CJ XJ
E C
i- ra n
XJ -P
OJ XJ O
CO OJ T-
XJc=
> c
1. OJ
o o.^:
P IO VI
«5 = i-
3 coij.
to
OJ
>-
Ul
^
>J=
>? 0 «
O
t/>
XJ -r- i
r- $- re
0 0 -P
r- r OJ
P J= E
i/> O
OJ X>
ex « a>
to -p
OJ 0 0
c: i- oj
r- -Pi
J_ « CJ
O g to
r O
JC S- «
o re o
0 Q
C XJ 0
re QJ ex,
cn-P
t. re «
o c to
r- §
" J- 0
to o c
CO t CJ
0 J= J=
o_ o cx
XJ
OJ 1
CT> E
re re
Or-
r
_ ti_
«*7*~
w
t. XJ
OJ OJ
C J=
r- 0 QJ
jc re «
to 4-> a>
P r-
i re re
r
re « «/>
P V> 3
p E o
o re -P
O-r- C
CO O CJ
to
QJ
>-
Ul
c±r
o
re
CO
c±:
<
Ul
2:
^i-
o
to
OJ
XJ
=J
r~~
0
c
r-
XJ
^M
Z3
O
JC
(/) tO
o
r
W JD
4-i r»
(|
»f
«*-
r- O
OJD
ai re
ex
V>
«c> C,
-^ *j
co en
! "
^
»/5 O
4>
r- ^ ^
dl c
ECU
r
XJ-0
OJ C
co re
«"^J
Q>
Cu '->
to
OJ
>-
:z
c«;
UI
«_>
z:
o
o
u.
C )
u
c
=£
10
ft
to
OJ
c
QJ
M
C
OJ
.0
XJ
G)
P
re
E VI
'r- OJ
i- C
O OJ
r V.
J= >>
'J-P
v>
o
v;^
r- re
i C
*r
CJ i-
> 0
Or-
J3 r-
< 0
w
Cn
CD
OJ
^
-.«
to
OJ
>-
Ul
u.
1 t
_I
o
_J
h i
^;
^° X
XJ
QJ
«-P
v> re
OJ C
X) -r- .
r- $_
O O
r- r
P JC
w>ow
CJ i
ex > re
to -P
OJ O OJ
c-r- E
r- -P
s_ re XJ
O E OJ
r O -P
JC S- O
o re a>
0 r
C XJ OJ
re at v>
Dl+->
's- re >
o c to
i r-"
" S_ O
WOC
CQ r QJ
0 J= JC
ex. o Q.
w
p
c
OJ
E
5
CJ
CO
XJ
OJ
XJ
c
a>
ex
w
zs
CO
A
i-
OJ
p
S
.3
W
QJ
>~
CO
Ul
$£
2
i
z
> i
cc
Ul
r-
<
S
r-.
^
^r
{£)
r
ex.
h-
_r>
o
c
e>
i
w
CJ
XJ
4->
O
OJ
'O
o
ex
c
r-
XJ
OJ
r-
H-
r-
O
OJ
ex
w
OJ
JO
0
\
i 5
W o
3-r-
coca
i »
*
to§
P4->
C -P
OJ O
ECO
r
XJXJ
OJ C
co re
«XJ
i- -
"T"
O
cf.
<
Ul
^
UI
o:
»
CO
0
CO
1 1
2:
-------
1
I
1
1
1
i
1
1
3.6 OUTPUTS
3.6.1 WATER INTAKES
OBJECTIVES
The major objective of this component of the Lake Huron Surveillance Plan
is to monitor seasonal and long-term trends in tror indicators and
conservative parameters and contaminants at a site -ntative of the
' i
outflow of Lake Huron, in order to calculate annual loading estimates. These
data can also be used to detect the presence of new chemicals in the Lake
Huron ecosystem.
RATIONALE
A site which already exists at the Lambton water treatment plant seems
ideally suited to monitor end-of-lake condition- >.n Lake Huron. The use of
1
*
1
1
I
M
I
1
1
municipal intakes as a sampling source permits frequent year-round collections
from a fixed site (without interference of weather) at a very reasonable
cost. Because of location and high sampling frequency the data generated
this program can also be used in mass balance calculations and as an
invaluable seasonal control for the extensive but »nt open lake
surveillance program.
DESIGN
The design will be similar to other Great Lakes stations such as those
the Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers,
Water. Water for chemical analyses will be collected as a grab sample
the plant weekly, year-round, except for contaminants, which will be
continuously composited and analyzed weekly (Table ?8).
Biota. Phytop sankton will be collected as a grab sample at the plant
weekly, year-round ((able 28).
Cf'l
from
on
at
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 28
WATER INTAKE SAMPLING DESIGN - EUTROPHICATION
MEDIA
TESTS
SITES
DEPTH
FREQUENCY
Water
Biota
Phytoplankton
Chloride, conductivity, 1
chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b_,
corrected chTorophyll a,
ammonia (filtered), m'Trate-
nitrite (filtered), Kjeldahl
nitrogen (unfiltered),
phosphate (filtered reactive),
phosphorus (filtered total),
phosphorus (unfiltered total),
silicate (filtered reactive)
Species, biomass
Grab
Weekly year-round
Grab
Weekly year-round
WATER INTAKE SAMPLING DESIGN - CONTAMINANTS
MEDIA
PARAMETERS
Water
and
Suspended
Sediments
Organics. PCBs, total
organochlorine pesticides - aldrin, dieldrin, BHC
(alpha, beta, gamma), chlordane~(alpha, gamma), DP
(o,p), ) DDT (p,p), ODD, DDE, endrin, endosulfan
(alpha, beta), heptacfrTor, he!"ptachlor~epoxtde,
^xachlorobenzene, mi rex, toxaphene.
chlorinated benzenes -T,2,3-TCB, 1,2.4-TCB,
1,2,3,4-TCB, 1,2,3,5-TCB. 1 ,2,4,5-TCB, HCB,
pentachlorobenzene, octachlorostyrene.
chlorinated phenols - '2,4,5-TCP;, "2.4,6-TCP, PCP.
dioxin - 2.3,7,3-TCDD.
Inorganics As, Cd, Pb, Hg
c
-------
I
Suspended Solids. These samples will be collected weekly, year-round.
DATA QUALITY
I Data quality will be assured by having the proponents of this study take
part in the overall data quality control program outlined in Chapter 4.
DATA OUTPUT
I
Annual loading estimates for the variables measured will be provided to
the IOC.
In addition, comments on trends will be made ,in,,jdlly, and other changes
such as seasonal variation and species changes will be made when detected but
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
I
certainly at 5 year intervals.
I
Ontario MOE, Environment Canada (IWD Ontario Region), and Michigan DNR.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: WATER INTAKES
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Erie
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2-3 WATER INTAKES
Water supply intakes can provide water samr from the inshore zone on a
year-round basis. As some intake programs hav in effect for rcany years,
the historical data are useful as background inform*, ion, trend analysis and
model verification.
Objective
The Water Intake surveillance program for J.ake Erie is designed to provide
data for use in evaluating the trophic status of the nearshore region. In
addition, identification and concentration of contaminants will be ronitored
providing a continuous record of select metals and organics in the nearshore.
Rationale <
The Lake Erie network of Water Intake syst .'ides a specially and
economically valuable means of monitoring the r >]iore region. Select
Intakes located in the western, central and eastern basins will provide
valuable information of seasonal cycles of nutrients and contaminant in the
nearshore region as well as providing the data base necessary for long-term
trend analysis. Due to; the extreme variability encountered in the nearshore
zone, analysis of the results fro*.i previous nearshore programs employing
conventional sampling schemes have demonstrated the need for a continuous
sample collection- The Water Intake network provides an economical means of
sampling several fixed neershore locations on a frequent basis.
Current Program
Eleven Water I,r.akes on Lake Erie (listed below) have been monitored in
the past.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ohio - Oregon. Sandusky, Cleveland-Crown, O.W.S. Mentor, Ashtabula
Pennsylvania - Erie
Ontario - Union, Blenheim, Elgin, Dunnville, Bertie Twp.
Data from the Bertie Township intake are available from September 1978;
data from the other intakes are available fro* >nuary 1976.
Parameters and sampling frequency varied among ua-..ties. The Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) monitors the following parameters on a
weekly basis:
Phosphorus - total, soluble reactive
Nitrogen - free ammonia, total Kjeldahl, nitrite, nitrate
Reactive silicon
Chloride
Conductivity
Chlorophyll a. Chlorophyll li
Phytoplankton biomass
The Ohio-EPA Water Intake Monitoring Prograr ' nitored only "finished"
water since 1974. Consequently, the current pri. is inadequate for routine
monitoring of the nearshore region. In general, ,..;e parameters currently
monitored are adequate for both nutrient and contaminant data bases, however,
"raw water" samples must be analyzed.
The current Ontario Water Wor'^s Intake Monitoring Program seems to be
adequate to provide the necessary data base for seasonal and long-term
trends. Programs -a" Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York have as yet not bjen
examined by the Task Force.
Recommendation
The numerous w^tar intake facilities surrounding Lake Erie provide a
potential source of valuable data. In the past this data base has not been
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
extensively utilized particularly by the United States jurisdictions. Due to
problems such as inaccessability of data, quality control, incomplete data
sets and lack of any priority to utilize this source of data, little is
actually known about the potential of water intake systems as a surveillance
tool.
Since the south shore of Lake Erie, and to a 1~ -er extent the north
shore, is well represented with water intake systt '*: could provide a
valuable mechanism for routine surveillance of the "ore region (exclusive
of the rivers and harbors). A well designed and implemented program to
collect and analyse samples routinely collected at select water intake systems
around the lake would provide the information necessary to monitor this
heavily utilized region and develop a data base 'or trend analysis.
The Task Force recommends:
1. The current data base for each of the Water Intake Systems in Lake
Erie be evaluated as to:
Parameters Monitored
Listing of all parameters
Period of record for each pare
Monitoring schedule
Quality of Current Data Base
Methods employed
Detection limits
Past quality assurance programs
Qualify Assurance Program (in place)
Field collection
Analytical methods
;-ta reporting procedures
Data analysis
2. Based on the quality of the current data base and studies conducted
on water intake data bases by Richards (1983), Rush and Cooper (1983)
-------
and Nichols (1980) determine if the data bases available are adequate
for ions term trend analysis.
3. Using the water intake facilities and parameters listed below,
develop a sampling program which will provide adequate data bases to
be used for long-term trend analysis. In particular this program
needs to determine if samples taken within the individual treatment
facilities represent the water quality at intake site located in
the nearshore zone.
j
Sample Locations
Jurisdiction: Michigan
*Monroe
Enrico Fermi
Ohio
*Toledo
Oregon
Port Clinton
Put-in-Bay
Kelleys Island
*Sandusky
Huron
Vermilion
Elyria
Lorain
Avon Lake
Cleveland -
Crown
Cleveland -
Baldwin
Cleveland -
Nottingham
Mentor
Painesville
-------
I
I
Madison
*Ashtabula
Conneaut
Pennsylvania
*Erie
New York
*Dunkirk
^Buffalo
Ontario
*Kingsville (Union)
*Blenheim
*Port Stanley
I *Dunnville
I *Treatment plants considered as primary locations for sample collection.
I
Parameters
Principal Ions
Conductivity
m Chloride
Nutrients
| Total Phosphorus
Nitrate Plus Nitrite
Corrected Chlorophyll a
Contaminants
HeA?.l's) (site specific)
Orc;2".ic(s) (site specific)
I In addition, parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen,
I
turbidity and iron are routinely measured for plant operation
-------
I
purposes providing supplementary data.
4. Samples collected at the Water Intake facilities around the lake
should be analyzed by one United States and one Canadian laboratory
using comparable methodologies. Both laboratories should comply to
the Quality Assurance Program outlined by the Task Force.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References
-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAINNANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: WATER INTAKES
WATERBODY: *-ake Ontario
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
CONTAMINANTS
I
I OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Areas of Concern
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
I OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: AREAS OF CONCERN
I
I
I WATERBODY: Lake Huron
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
»^P
ll
ll
li
li
LU
IT)
0
LU
_I
(X
I
to
LU
CO
0
f-
to
LU
, f
CO
2
c;
$
^<
» i
o
LU
s:
13
^S*
I
_J
gT"
i^
to
e<
to
to
LiJ
o
LU
z.
^h-
y *^
O Ul
»-H Z
1 O
<
cj T-
» 0) X
o> c « o
DC to i. CL
"O O Q}
> J- r-
JD OJC S-
O. r- O O
-C >»
* O X JC
OJ ^ 0 0
«i- o w >
i- T- CJ S-
O XJ 4-> O
i r
« «r JC
X) C O O
0 -r JD «0
i. fO 4»}
«XJ 4J Q.
(/) r d (U
^C f0 E *E
S-
QJ
to
3i
to
a>
Ul
Ul
a.
to
o
s
1
oo
H-
2
^
CD
C
G>
-°
ft?
r-
TD
(U
E
c
o
c
r"
X)
c
0)
a.
OJ
X)
o
IT O
4->CQ
E
E *"*
^* ^j
X3
C/) CU
XJ
* E
i- OJ tO
P W 0
«=>!-
SE OO CQ
to
C
o
XJ
p
U
t^ ^*
O f*
to o
to
Ul
1 1
^
1
t~l
»--i
,"
CV!
o
E
c o
Nl «/>
* Q
tO > «O
«DCO tO«O O C 10«O .._
r- CQ "r- - OJEtOC O) OC w
Z 1 IO jz: O XJ *r- r -r N XJ -r . Q>
"ProrJ OO+JXJ -f_ ^H. . \
^~ C) , Q ^_ t t % r C J % f~ TT
scooor) «/>o o XJ «/>oi/> O XI JC
^* flj 4^ » ^j) 3 f/j 4_> ^j jy jyj I i »
o E i. o "1 O "i- Q) E -i E
<1) CJ S- C' W T- -P e 4- ' S- C !-!-> c
1 1 y^ T3 XJ XJ ^__ > OE«/> r S- OEO
no. O "^ JC *- * '-PJCJ-O <1>.
<_)nJr-»CLC O (O a 10 O fO O) T-
x CD ^~ o ~^ o f"^ «f~ ^ o g -- «|
"OCO E CXJO ««-> X) EXJ-P >J= OCW O. r E OEIO «A
XJOS-XO- »- r (/»O tOOC JD
"O-PO.S- COr-O OJ Or- COp- (4-"' fl> 1 -P
(-!». tO I
P >*- E E
c/) O 1/1 ". O XJ i/) o
P CO S- XJ "T-* 4^ G) 4-> 4^
E CJ CJ E P XJ c ^ *
CJ XJ E _f CJ d° E CJ O
EC -r-OOECQ CJ ECO
*r*» CO f3 JC 10 CJ *^" f^ 4^.
XJ ^* C/) 4^ O XJ XJ to XJ XJ
CJXJO 4-> r CJ C l/> 3 CJC
COO-r- r «3 **XJ CJ ft r.XJ
S-CJ« 4->t03S-CJ J- l-_ j^ *|_) P ^5 Qjt -T r"~ QJ 0^ "C3
^~^ t/l lA ^D fT3 "'"^ "^ "4^ "fr^ Ctr
(O 3 i- D-i C J «O to «O VI VI I/I
- >- >. ^ >- >-
ee:
Li-f
^ u7
o ^
0 <
Ul LU H-
v^ c£ U. LU 'Z. 3C
<: o o u. t-i o
_J DC -1 C^
oo f _J G; ^
z a: <. o LU LU
ui <; ui i \ to
D- . Ul CC »- *C LU
o 2: "£ 3: 3: e*:
*
ro rf in «D r~ co
u.
OH- JA
O >~
tO UJ ^D
< U- CU 0
Ul U. r CO
pr^ Ul H^5 *~^
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 AREAS OF EFFECT - "AREAS OF CONCERN"
3.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The International Joint Commission has identified a number of areas in the
Great Lakes where a Water Quality Agreement objective, a jurisdictional
standard criteria or guideline has been exceeded as "Areas of Concern". These
have been designated as Class "A" where significant eivi .al degradation
has occurred and where impairment of beneficial uses is « istrated as severe
and Class "8" areas which exhibit environmental degracLatiuH and impaired use.
The distinction between the two is, however, subjective and requires
clarification.
In the Lake Huron basin there is one Class "A* area of concern and three
Class "B" areas (Figure 5). As these are areas of clear environmental impact
particular emphasis has been laid upon them and specific intensive monitoring
programs designed to quantify conditions and trends.
-------
v>
(/>
a
o
O
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
3.4.2 SA6INAW BAY AND RIVER (CLASS "A")
INTRODUCTION
The Saginaw River System and Saginaw Bay have been designated as a Class
"A" Area of Concern by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. While the Bay has
responded favorably to point source phosphorus control efforts, there is still
a problem with agricultural runoff in the Basin. "s nonpoint source input
not only contributes phosphorus to the Bay, but spended solids, organic
matter and pathogenic organisms as well. The sedimenis in the Saginaw River
and its tributaries are contaminated with chlorinated organics. Fish
consumption bans are in effect for most of the major rivers in this watershed,
and a fish consumption advisory exists for Saginaw Bay.
SAGINAW RIVER SYSTEM
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the nutrient contribution and the proportion of nonpoint
contribution from each of the major tributaries of the Saginaw River.
2. To determine the levels of the toxic co: its listed in Annex 1,
Part I of the Agreement in water, sedinrr ,nd resident sport fish in
each of these tributaries.
RATIONALE
Efforts are currently underway to estimate the reduction in nonpoint
source loading from the various sub-basins of the Saginaw River. Monitoring
is required to determine which of these sub-basins should be concentrated on
for reduction efforts and to establish a baseline against which future,
post-control loading estimates can be compared.
Saginaw River water, sediment and resident sport fish have been
contaminated with chlorinated organics. Monitoring of these media is
necessary to identify which tributaries of the Saginaw are contributing which
organics. / a
-------
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
TABLE 18
POINT SOURCES IN SAGINAW RIVER BASIN TO BE SURVEYED
FACILITY
NPDES NO.
RECEIVING WATER
Municipal
Alma STP1
Bay City STP1
Bridgeport Twp WTP2
Buena Vista Twp WTP2
Essexville WTP2
Flint WTP1
Flushing WTP1
Frankemuth WTP2
Genesee County Dist. No. 21
Genesee County Dist. No. 32
Howell STP3
Lapeer STP1
Midland WTP1
Mount Pleasant STP1
Owosso wtp1
Saginaw DPW1
Saginaw Twp Sewer Dist1
St. Louis STP1
West Bay County Regional1
West Branch3
Zilwaukee Regional2
Gladwyn
Industrial
Dow Chemical1
Michigan Sugar Co.1
Michigan Sugar Co.2
G.M.C. Chevrolet - Bay City
MI0020265
MI0022284
MI0022446
KI0022497
MI0022918
MI0022926
MI0020281
MI0022942
MI0022977
MI0022993
MI0021113
MI0020460
MI0023582
MI0023655
MI0023752
MI0025577
MI0023973
MI0021555
MI0042439
MI0020095
MI0023981
MI0000858
MI0002224
MI0002267
Pine River
>qinaw River
s River
..ujinaw River
Saginaw River
Flint River
Flint River
Cass River
Flint River
Shiawassee River
Marion Drain
S.Br. Flint River
Tittabawassee River
Chippewa River
Shiawassee River
Saginaw River
Tittabawassee River
Pine River
Saginaw River
Rifle River
Saginaw River
Tittabawassee River
TR to Saginaw River
Cass River
Saginaw River
dischargers to be surveyed in 1984.
2Dischargers to be surveyed in 1985.
aDischargers to be surveyed in 1986.
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
I
i
i
DETAILS
Point Source
The municipalities and industries in Table 18 will undergo point source
surveys according to the schedule shown. Reported phosphorus loadings will be
summed for point sources and subtracted from tribu^ry loading estimates to
obtain nonpoint source load estimates for phosphc
Reported loadings of organics will be compared to tributary loading
estimates for organics and the major sources will be identified.
Water
The six major tributaries to the Saginaw River, as well as the Saginaw
River itself will be sampled at the sites in Table 19 on a monthly basis and
during storm events (as defined by East Central Michigan Planning and
Development Region) for the parameters listed in Table 20.
Sediments
Sediment samples at sites listed in Table 19 )e collected every third
year beginning in 1986. Analysis will be conduce for the metals and
organics specified in Annex 1, Part I of the Agreement.
Biomonitoring
Spottail shiners, caged clams, sports fish and filamentous algae, where
possible, in each of the tributaries listed in Table 19 will be collected
annually and analyzed for the organics listed in Annex 1, plus PCB,
hexachlorobenzene, PB8, PCDD/PCDF, pentachlorophenols. After data evaluation
the most suitable media will be selected for Ion term monitoring.
7/
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
TABLE 19
SAMPLING SITES ON MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
IN THE SAGINAW RIVER BASIN
Tributary
Shiawassee
Chlpewa
Pine
Tittabawassee
Cass
Flint
Saginaw
Site
Fergus
Mt. Pie
Midland
Midland
Frankenmuth
Fosters
SB0054 (see Saginaw Bay Plan)
TABLE 20
TRIBUTARY PARAMETERS
SAGINAW RIVER SYSTEM
Parameters
Phosphorus, total unfiltered
Phosphorus, filtered reactive
Solids, total filterable
Nitrate plus nitrite, filtered
Metals1
Organics
r
monthly plus storm events*
1See Saginaw Bay Element (total only).
2Saginaw River only, see Saginaw Bay Element.
*Storm events as defined in East Central Michigan Planning and Development
Region Report, 1984.
7-?
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
t
i
I
i
Data Reporting
The results of all physical and chemical measurements of effluents,
tributaries, sediment and fish will be stored in the U.S. EPA's data storage
and retrieval system, STORET.
Data Interpretation
Estimated point source loadings will be compa. J:h tributary loadings
to calculate the nonpoint source contribution by river sub-basin. These
estimates will be compared with estimates from nonpoint source modelling work
ongoing in the Saginaw Basin. Major contributors of organic contaminants will
be identified and future surveillance will be planned on the basis of these
results. The status of the Saginaw River system as an Area of Concern will be
evaluated on a yearly basis.
Responsible Agencies
Michigan DNR and EPA.
SAGINAW BAY
OBJECTIVE
To determine ambient conditions in Saginaw Bay water, sediment and biota
with respect to eutrophication and contaminants.
RATIONALE
The Bay has shown significant improvement in its eutrophication problems.
However, there is some indication that the biota in the Bay are still in a
state of transition. The recommended objective f^r a total phosphorus
concentration of 15 ug/L has not been met.
73
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contaminant levels in Saginaw Bay water, fish and sediment have not shown
a similar improvement. Of particular concern are the high level of
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the sediment and sport fish. This element of the
plan was designed to monitor the continued progress of the Bay's trophic state
as well as assess ambient conditions of organic contaminant in all media.
Data resulting from this work will be used to analyze trends in both
eutrophication and toxic substances.
DETAILS
'*»
Point Source
The Michigan Sugar Company at Sebawaing on Saginaw Bay will undergo a
point source survey. Reported phosphorus loadings will be compared with
estimated nonpoint source loadings to the southwest corner of Saginaw Bay.
Water
Seven or eight cruises will be conducted annually, from April through
November. Parameters and station locations appear on Figure 6 and Tables 21
and 22.
Sediment
Sediment core samples will be taken at least once every 5 years for
stations 22, 27, 29, 35 and 54. This sediment will be analyzed for the
parameters in Table 23 at 1 cm intervals for the 1st 10 cm and on a bulk basis
thereafter.
Fish
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and walleye v -rtizostedion vitreum vitreum)
should be sampleo and analyzed for PCBs and other bioaccumulating contaminants
(Table 24) due to their importance in the commercial and sport fishing
industry. Outer bay station 52 and inner bay station 7 represent the extremes
at either end of the PCB gradient found in Saginaw Bay yellow perch
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ai
S
O
LU
CO
Q
1
t
I
I
1
t
1
t
1
1
1
DC
0
2»
1-
at
H
O
_i
D_
2
<
CO
tO
j->.
cr>
>-
<
CQ
<
ZL
0
<
CO
z
-= o
5 c
^ "I
o
»-
0
c
1 p
<
CO
o
Z
|
«I
a.
> ^
<
CO
UJ
i^
<
f-
Z
* »
cc
UJ
<
^«.
>
-------
1
1
1
1
V
1
f
1
1
1
^V
t
1
t
TABLE 21
SAGINAW BAY STATION LOCATIONS
STATION
1
SB00041
SB0007
SB0008
SB0022
SB0026*1
SB0027
SB00291
SB0032
SB0034*
SB0035
SB0038
1
SB0049
SB0050
SB00511
SB0052
SB0054
SB0056*
SB0060*
COORDINATES
N. Latitude
44 06 30
43 41 05
43 40 00
43 49 25
43 45 40
43 49 10
43 54 50
43 54 35
43 53 00
43 58 45
43 58 10
44 12 40
44 10 20
44 07 25
44 04 10
43 36 45
43 43 45
43 58 55
W. Longitude
83 31 45
83 50 35
83 48 25
83 48 40
83 31 35
83 37 10
83 44 50
83 31 40
83 23 35
83 34 40
83 24 55
83 22 40
83 17 30
83 10 15
83 04 50
83 51 25
83 37 40
83 30 00
1m
X
X
* x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DEPTHS
5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m Bot.-lm
X y X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
XXX X
XXX X
XXX X
x /. ; x
X
X
X
t
I
I
I
1 Selected stations for fluoride, metals and organics
*
If these stations are too shallow to be reached by the main lake sampling
vessel, they will be sampled by a small boat which will meet the large
vessel for sample exchange.
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
t
i
i
t
i
i
i
t
i
TABLE 22
PARAMETERS FOR SA6INAU BAY WATER
PARAMETER WHERE MEASURED
Depth Temperature In situ
Oxygen, dissolved In situ
Specific Conductivity In situ
Chloride, filtered In lab
Sulfate, filtered In lab
Calcium, filtered In lab
Magnesium, filtered In lab
Potassium, filtered In lab
Sodium, filtered In lab
Fluoride, filtered (selected stations only) in lab
Trace Metals (filtered and total, selected stations oniy. two cruises only)
Arsenic In lab
Cadmium ' In lab
Chromium In lab
Copper . In lab
Iron In lab
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
21 nc
Organic compounds (total water, selected stations
Aldrln
DleldMn
Chlordane
DDT and metabolites
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxlde
Llndane
Hethoxychlor
Toxaphene
PCBs
PH
Alkalinity, total
Secchl Disc, depth
Chlorophyll a.
Carbon, Partlculate Organic
Solids, unflltered total
Sol Ids, total suspended
Silicate, filtered reactive
Silica, amorphous
Ammonia, filtered
Nitrate and nitrite, filtered
Nitrogen, unflltered Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, total partlculate
Phosphate, filtered reactive
Phosphorus, filtered total
Phosphorus, unflltered total
Phosphorus, NaOH extractable
Phytoplankton, species counts & blomass estimates
Zooplankton. species counts & blomass estimates
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
only, two cruises only)
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In situ
On Ship
In situ
In lab
In lab
In Tab
In lab
On Ship
In lab
On Ship
On Ship
In lab
In lab
On Ship
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
In lab
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 23
PARAMETERS FOR SAGINAW BAY BOTTOM SEDIMENT
AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AT SELECTED SITES
% Clay
% Silt
% Sand
Mean Grain Size
Porosity
Organic Carbon
Total Phosphorus,,.
Total Nitrogen
Total Amorphous Silica
PCB
PBB
Hexachlorobenzene
PCDD/PCDF
TABLE 24
PARAMETERS FOR SAGINAW BAY FISH
Weight
Length
Age
Sex
% Lipid
Species
Total PCB
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Total PBB
Hexachlorobenzene
PCDD/PCDF
Toxaphene
Chlorophenols
DDT & metabolites
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Hendricks-Mathews and Dolan, 1984) with inner bay fish containing higher
concentrations of residues. Gill nets should be used at each station, with
only one sampling period required, annually, preferably in the late summer.
Intakes
Threshold odor data will be obtained for the two intakes indicated on
Figure 6 (Saginaw-Midland and Bay City). Daily r . igs made on the raw water
supply (after chlorination) will be used.
Data Reporting
The results of all physical and chemical measurements will be stored in
the U.S. EPA's storage and retrieval system, STORET. Biological data will be
retained at the U.S. EPA's Large Lakes Research Station.
Data Interpretation
The total phosphorus, nitrate-nitrite, chlorophyll a, and threshold odor
data for the water column will be compared to data from 1974-1980. Trends in
these parameters or the lack of trend will be reported. Similarly, data on
phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish and sediments wil. ^ compared to previous
studies and to Agreement objectives where possible The status of Saginaw Bay
as an area of concern will be evaluated annually.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
EPA (LLRL).
3.4.3 PENETANG & STURGEON BAYS (CLASS "B")
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of phosphorus loadings on the trophic status of
the Penetanguishene to Waubaushene area by monitoring ambient conditions in
water, sediment and biota (Table 25).
79
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
U)
CM
UJ
CO
h
^y
CJ
i <
CO
LU
O
O
z
1
Q.
2C
<2
CO
CO
>-
i^
CO
z
o
UJ
C3
Di
CO
1
C3
0
a:
i
o
1
a
2
i
CD
r
UJ
z
UJ
o.
>_
o
32
UJ
B
iii
ULJ
£
31
K
^
UJ
a
CO
UJ
I
14
CO
CO
r
CO
^«_
^^
I i
Q
UJ
s.
o
o
t/) !-
&i 9*~
CO CO
co a.
CO
O CO
3 S-*
^_) «4-»
>>CO j_
co T- re
> CO
co en >>
c
CO-i- JZ
O S- O
c 3 re
O T3 CO
O
CO
X
OJ
f^,
V
*~ ^
o to
« n CO 3T3
^'-^ t- S>. CO
4-?i co o s-
r- (« -P J= QJ
> -P > i CX-P-
i- O *~» CO T- to i CO
P «p "O 4^ T" O 'r** 3*
O *"* V) QJ *r~ C *** M "i-
3 "e3 "O 5- 3 ^"* C *P
TD >>T- C -P 3 O
C -P i QJ T- > «
O * O CL C C- *""* CO
OCi/>t/) | QJQJtO^.
i- 3 o en > 3
» « V) +3 O T- $>. TD
c" re *"* R3 &. 4^ O Q)
P ^^ "O r~ &. *P O ^^^ ^_.
cxr co re -P <- re ex cu
gj ^3 -P -P -- C Q)(/)-P
"O O O C Sw O f
^ QJ 4-> r- JT -r-
jr ~o S- .«.^ re QJ »
OQJOr X3T3S- "
OS-OreOJr QJ- QJ
i 4J
CO-P o co T-J r re re
r re I-P 4-> S* 4-> 0
(^ «l r» ~O ( n « -P r-~
^_ ^_*« r ^) t| ^"^ *r
3 >> S- "O Q) "O l/>
4-> QJ JZ QJ QJ -P QJ
ex -P
t.
p
03
*
t/j)
S-
CO
a>
l
*4
c^
QJ
CO
CO
o
c
o
'
E
o
CO
ex
o
h-
-)C
4c
5
0
p
A
^ -*
o
> "_J
IO fB
3 0 «
S- -i- C
O r 0
ex !/) s_
W fO
o to o
^r 3
ex o o
* ex c
re i- re
p o en
o E s_
h- re o
t/>
c
CO
E
r
o
CO
to
^
re
CO
CO
r~
4
>,
QJ
QJ
CO
U
C
o
E
o
0
CX
O
r-
4c
4c
en
O
*r-
XI
A
to
CO
1
o
QJ
ex
CO
to
o
e~
43
re c
4-> QJ
O CO
r
CQ
a
o
(/) »,_
_j^ ^^
QJ QJ
QJ ex
*c,
O CO
2 J-
4->«f-
QJ -r- re
> QJ
co en >,
c;
CO T- --
o
c .
0 -\,
rf"*i
CO
X
CM
1--.
to
to
re
o
r
J3
^
t/)
QJ
r
O
QJ
ex
CO
c
o
40
y/
c
re
r
ex
,°,
>^
j=
Q-
a
o
tO -r-
J^ t-
CO CO
co ex
* CO
O QJ
4-^ 4
bo s.
QJ T- re
> QJ
co en >,
c
COv- jc
O 4- <->
c 3 re
o -a QJ
r~~~
3
«3
DC
t
Q)
ja*
r-.
to
to
re
o
i
i*\
^
to
OJ
O
QJ
ex
CO
c
o
4->
C
re
ex
o
o
M
CO
$_
re
CO
QJ
>r_
«i
>,
CO
CO
CO
o
c
o
ps
^.
o
p_
vo
f
to
to
re
§
r-
J3
to
CO
o
CO
ex
CO
*
4t
j^c
to
CO
>J
^:
ex
8
o
(0
s
c
CO
o
to
v
en
CO
4->
C
re
s-
re
to
CO
o
ct
re
4J
to
3
O
s-
r
O
to
re
o
CO
4->
4-*
o
r '
re
CO
O
Q
t/1 |
P 03
r- ^
(/) «<-*
3
r O
re
c ex.
o j
i- CO
ff~ |*
"o S5
< c
»
QJ
4-> t.
C
QJ >>
Is
XI C
E 0
QJ QJ
en
"0 3
re 4->
CO CO
^ S
£ °
o v>
QJ QJ
C 4->
r- »r
E f>
y.
QJ r
4-> re
QJ C
o o
r
CO 4J
° '-5
o ^
h- re
$
,_*
c
0
**>
(ft
CQ
c
0
CO
en
3
CO
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RATIONALE
Previous Investigations by MOE Indicated significant enrichment in
Penetang and Midland Bays. Phosphorus removal is on line at sewage treatment
plants at Penetanguishene, Midland and Port McNicholl. Midland has recently
completed an expansion of plant facilities. A new plant has recently been
constructed to serve Victoria Harbour and will discharge to Sturgeon Bay, a
shallow area which already has extensive macroph beds. A new plant has
been proposed for Penetanguishene; this plant wou r ,so discharge to Penetang
Bay, but downstream from the old plant.
DESIGN
Water. Water for chemical analyses will be collected as composite samples
through twice the Secchi depth at seven sites (and at additional sites when
necessary) once every two weeks throughout the ice-free period annually.
Sediment. The top 3 cm of sediment will be collected at a
yet-to-be-determined number of sites in each embayment once every five years
and analysed for major nutrients.
Biota. Phytoplankton and zooplankton sampl:- ./'": be collected at seven
sites (and at additional sites when necessary) cm-~c every two weeks throughout
the ice-free period annually. Phytoplankton samples will be collected as
composites through twice the Secchi depth, while zooplankton samples will be
collected as vertical hauls from 1m off bottom to surface. Benthos will be
collected from the top 10 cm of sediment at a yet-to-be-determined number of
sites (three replicates per site) in each embayment once every five years.
Macrophytes will be collected in Sturgeon Bay at 16 previously sampled
locations.
DATA QUALITY
All samples will be analysed at MOE laboratories according to standard
methods.
SV
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATA OUTPUT
An annual assessment and report of the status of the area of concern and
recommendations as to future activities. IJC/MOE/Oournal publications.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
MOE
3.4.4 SPANISH RIVER MOUTH (CLASS "B")
OBJECTIVES
To determine the impact of pulp mill waste discharge from the Eddy Forest
Company on the Spanish River mouth water, sediment and biota (Table 26).
RATIONALE
Following an investigation by MOE in 1980, it was apparent that fish
tainting still existed in the Spanish River mouth area. Eddy Forest Company,
a pulp and paper mill situated twenty four miles upstream, is the major source
of contamination to the river and its mouth. A u, rol Order issued in 1978
required the company to reduce organic waste loadir.g, eliminate toxic waste
and odor-producing contaminants and to reduce loadings of suspended solids.
The company is expected to comply with the Control Order requirements by the
end of 1983.
DESIGN
Mater. Water for chemical analyses (excluding chlorophyll a) will be
collected at three sites as surface samples on five consecutive days once
during high flow (spring) and once during low flc (summer) annually.
Sediment. The top 3 cm of sediment will be collected at nineteen sites
once every five years and analysed for organic and inorganic contaminants.
-------
I
I
DATA QUALITY
All samples will be analysed at HOE laboratories according to standard
; methods.
: DATA OUTPUT
i_ IJC/MOE/Journal publications.
i
I
i
I
I
.v .
!
i
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
I OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: AREAS OF CONCERN
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2 AREAS OF CONCERN
The Great Lakes Water Quality Board has identified five Class "A" (Raisin
R., Haumee R., Black R.. Cuyahoga R.. Ashtabula R.) and one Class "B"
(Wheatley Harbour) areas of concern located directly on Lake Erie's
shoreline. Since 1974- all but the Raisin Riv? Hve been reported annually to
the IJC as areas with some type of environment- a d/or human health concern.
It 1s proposed that the Class HA" areas of concern and lake waters
adjacent to these areas be included in nearshore surveillance. Since each
area of concern differs in physical features, hydrology, and pollution
problems, it is difficult to design a standard model for routine monitoring.
A more pragmatic approach is to suggest a basic structure around which
specific components can be designed to meet the surveillance requirements of
each area. Basically, Identification and quantification of important metals
and organic contaminants could be made from an examination of several
components of the system.
Based on the information collected by the Lake Erie Task Force the
following recommendations are made:
1. The Historical Data Base available for each of the areas of concern
be reviewed before any further field work is initiated.
A review of what is already known about the area is an important
first step in a specific design. Surveillance effort can then be
concentrated on priority contaminants and pollution problems. Trends
can be determined and responses to remedial measures ascertained.
Chemical inventory information for the drainage area can also be used
to concentrate effort on potential po"'ution problems.
* 2." The following system components need to be thoroughly evaluated in
order to eotaln a comprehensive data base which characterizes each
region in terns of impaired usage.
-------
Water
Ji
A knowledge of the hydrology of the problem area is a prerequisite to the
design of sampling strategy. Location of sampling stations, sampling
frequency and parameters should be selected in consideration of the
_ ce.qui- r;~aents. of 'Annex la ; but also in relation to historical data and existing
monitoring of research programs. As far as possible stations should be
-~site-~s elected- to concentrate- effort and to mainta -aluable long-term data
series. Lake stations located adjacent to areas o; osicern are required to
measure the impact on offshore waters!
Sample frequency should be designed to accommodate hydrological and
seasonal variability and remedial measures implementation. Further
considerations are adequate statistical evaluation and interpretation of the
data .
Parameters should be selected to provide an evaluation of eutrophication
and toxic substances in the nearshore area.
Basic parameters to be consic^red:
pH, conductivity, Secchi disc transparency, suspended solids,
temperature (profile), dissolved oxygen (profile), total phosphorus,
nitrate nitrogen, ammonia.
selected metals (total rrercury, total lead)
Sediments
Many pollutants of concern settle out of the water column and accumulate
in sediments. Whereas determination of trace amounts of contaminants in water
is often difficult and sometimes inaccurate, it i easier to measure
concentrations of -nese substances in sediments. Cores from undisturbed
sediments also proviae a history of contaminant loading to the system.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Factors to be considered 1n location of sediment stations are historical
data, hydrology, runoff, municipal and industrial outfalls, and dredged and
depositional areas.
Frequency of sampling will be determined, to some extent, by the rate of
sed:nent accumulation. Once every three years may be adequate.
Parameters to be considered:
grain size, loss on Ignition! COD, oil and &;ease
metals - total mercury, total lead, total iron, total cadmium
organics - PCBs, DDT metabolites, aldrin/dieldrin, PAHs, phenol,
toxaphene
broad scan for priority pollutants
Biota
The importance of biota as indicators of ecosystem quality in the Great
Lakes has been established. Several components of tV Mological system have
been used in surveillcncst bacte-ia, phytoplankton, zooplankton, zoobenthos,
fishes and fish eatinc birds. Sapling problems and "natural" variability of
population abundance- rn space and time affect the usefulness of each of these
components. The best candidates for inshore monitoring are the zoobenthos and
fishes.
Zoobenthos. Because benthic nacroinvertebrates are sedentary they reflect
environmental conditions at specific locations. The environment may be
reflected in the benthic community in two ways - (a) species composition,
abundance and diversity, and (b) body burdens of contaminants.
Because invertebrates are important food for fishes, information on
contaminant burdens is useful, research projects (Eadie et al. 1982, Chapman
-------
ik
A
A
et al. 1979) have linked the flow of PAHs and heavy metals from sediments to
fish through ollgochaetes and chtronomids.
The factors which Influence the selection of sites for sediment sampling
should also be considered In the Invertebrate sampling plan. Some sites may
be sampled fofr.both, components-, It may be opportune to also sample dredged
areas as these are recolonlzed qalckly by Invertebrates. Sampling frequency
should be Influenced by information on life hlsto^s of the predominant
Invertebrate species. Spring and fall sampling ft- :» consecutive years may
be. adequate. The use of caged claras has recently become a popular
surveillance tool. Where appropriate, the use of caged clams should be
considered as a useful adjunct to a comprehensive plan.
Parameters to be considered:
metals and organics as listed under sediments
f , .
F1sh. Sampling of fish for body burdens should Include (a) species that
live in or adjacent to areas of concern (b) species that are taken in local
fisheries (if present). The ycang-of-the-year spottail shiner program may be
part of this component.
Late summer and fall collections are prefercb*:?.
Parameters:
percent lipid, tainting, tumors, lesions, etc. - metals - total
mercury, total lead - organics - PCB, DDT, locally used pesticides -
broad organic scan (industrial chemicals)
Bioassay
The measurement sf ccntarr riant stress on ecosystem functions of bacteria,
phytoplankton ar?c zrscp'anktor, is a component of the Monroe Harbour/Raisin
River Research Project. For example, inhibition of photosynthesis and
bacterial uptake in Monroe He-bour water is being studied using offshore water
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
as a control. Although this is an experimental research project we suggest
that the routine bioassay of photosynthesis Inhibition could be a useful
adjunct to the surveillance program. The scientist working 1n this area with
the Monroe Harbour Research Project could provide advice on a suitable design,
-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: AREAS OF CONCERN
HATERBODY; Lake Ontario
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Presented below are the Water Quality Board's guidelines for areas of
concern, as presented In an appendix to the Board's 1983 annual report. Using
these guidelines, through consideration of available technical Information,
and through application of Its professional Judgement to help Identify where
the most severe problems exist, the Water Quality Board Identified and
reported on 18 Class "A" and 21 Class "B" areas of concern 1n Its 1981
report. One Class "A" and six Class "B" areas of concern are located 1n the
Lake Ontario Basin; a second Class "A" area (the Niagara River) Impacts Lake
Ontario. These areas of concern are listed In Table
Each area of concern or potential area of concern on Lake Ontario 1s
unique. The amount of environmental Information available for each 1s
different, and the status of the jurisdictions1 response, 1n the form of
remedial measures, 1s also different. Therefore, the surveillance and
monitoring program for each area must be tailored appropriately.
In-pi ace pollutants deserve special attention for the design of both the
surveillance and monitoring program and the remedial measures. For
surveillance and monitoring, the Lake Ontario Task Force has adopted the
philosophy espoused by the Dredging Subcommittee of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board. That philosophy Is summarized at the end of this chapter.
Section 7 of this Plan describes a detailed sur»e*i tnce and monitoring
plan for each area of concern or potential area of concern on Lake Ontario:
1. Niagara River Mouth, New York and Ontario (Chapter 27).
2. Hamilton Harbour, Ontario (Chapter 28).
3. Toronto Waterfront, Ontario (Chapter 29).
4. Port Hope, Ontario (Chapter 30).
5. Bay of Qulnte, Ontario (Chapter 31).
6. Oswego River and Harbor, New York (Chapter 32)
7. Rochester Embayment, New York (Chapter 33)
8. Eighteen Mile Creek, New York (Chapter 34)
9. Emerging Areas of Concern (Chapter 35).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Lake Ontario Task Force considers the plan for each area of concern or
potential area of concern to be that which 1s necessary and sufficient to meet
the goals and purposes stated above.
GUIDELINES FOR AREAS OF CONCERN
Definition
An area of concern Is Identified when an Agreement objective or a
jurlsdlctlonal standard, criterion, or guideline has been exceeded.
Procedure
To Identify, evaluate, and classify each area of concern from a technical
perspective, all available environmental data - fish, sediment, and water -
are used to provide as complete a description as possible. The 1978 Agreement
objectives, along with jurlsdlctlonal standards, criteria, and guidelines,
provide the basis for review and evaluation of these data. To the extent
possible, the Board has established the human and environmental significance
of the observed ecosystem quality. The Board has also established a
cause-effect relationship between observed environmental conditions and the
sources of environmental Insult. This leads to a description of regulatory
and remedial measures which have been Implemented in response to the degraded
environmental conditions 1n each area of concern.
Detailed Information about present and proposed remedial programs 1s then
evaluated, In order to decide whether environmental problems can be solved and
beneficial uses restored.
Description of Concern
In order to provide as complete a description and evaluation of all
potential areas of concern, the following have been considered to the extent
necessary and possible:
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. Compilation of surveillance and monitoring data for fish and other
biota, sediment, water column, and air, 1n order to develop a
description of present and historical conditions.
2. Comparison of these data with Agreement objectives and jurisdictional
values 1n order to establish and substantiate duration and extent of
any violations. Values for sediment and fish are given 1n Tables 2
and 3, respectively. Agreement objectives and jurisdictional values
for water are too extensive to tabulate here, ,ut are referred to
when appropriate In the various chapters of this Plan.
3. Discussion of potential and observed environmental and human health
effects and uses affected.
4. Information about biological community structure, e.g. types,
relative abundance, and absolute abundance of benthos and fish.
Consideration of how the community structure reflects and 1s a
consequence of observed ecosystem quality and anthropogenic Inputs.
Discussion about the direction In which the community structure might
shift, and why, as a consequence of changes 1n ecosystem quality and
1n loadings.
5. Causes of violations. Specific point source dischargers and/or
nonpolnt Inputs (Including land runoff and the atmosphere) are named
along with the loadings of substances for which violations are
observed. If a violation 1s the result, 1n whole or 1n part, of a
natural phenomenon, this 1s noted.
6. Remedial or corrective measures. Controls presently 1n place are
described. These are evaluated to determine their present ability to
control the release of a particular substance, the correctabUHy of
the problem, any modifications or additional measures required, and
the probable cost. Observed and/or projected changes in ecosystem
quality are described.
-------
I
Consideration of the above Information provides a common basis for
selecting and evaluating areas of concern. This approach also establishes a
* comparable depth and breadth to the data base required to substantiate a
I concern.
i
Evaluation of Environmental Information
Through consideration of the above Information, Water Quality Board
I has prioritized areas of concern Into two classes:
1. A Class "A" designation Is assigned to those areas exhibiting
significant environmental degradation, where Impairment of beneficial
uses Is severe.
2. A Class "B" deslngatlon 1s assigned to those areas exhibiting
I
environmental degradation, where uses may be Impaired.
| The Board employed a set of guidelines to evaluate, from a technical
perspective, available Information for each area of concern, 1n order to
prioritize that concern. The Initial questions asked were:
1. Are one or more Agreement objectives or j4
-------
I
I A positive response to most of these questions would suggest a Class "A"
or a Class "B" classification. A negative response would suggest that no
further evaluation 1s required at the present time.
To further rank the relative severity of a problem, additional questions
" were considered:
I 7. Is a use Impacted? Which one or ones?
| 8. Is the violation related to current discharge or historic
accumulation?
9. Are there any transboundary Implications?
If the responses were positive, then a Class "A" classification would be
suggested.
Evaluation of Remedial Program Information
In Its 1982 report, the Water Quality Board evaluated specific Information
about present and proposed remedial programs, 1n order to decide whether
environmental problems could be solved and beneficial uses restored. The
Board considered:
_ 1. The nature of the environmental problem.
2. The nature of the remedial programs 1n place or planned.
3. The schedule to Initiate or complete these programs.
4. Factors which would preclude timely and satisfactory resolution of
the problem and restoration of uses, Including costs, technical
I
considerations, and further definition of the issue.
5. Expected date by which the problems would be resolved and uses
restored.
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Insufficient Information has been received or 1s available 1n order
| to make a reasonable judgement as to whether control measures are
adequate, or to decide when such measures may be required.
In Its 1982 and 1983 reports, the Water Quality Board presented
Information describing the environmental quality, discharges, and remedial
measures for each Class "A" area of concern. This information was an update
and expansion from the material presented In an appendix to the Board's 1981
I
I
Based on Its evaluation, the Board reached one of the following
conclusions for each area of concern:
1. Remedial measures currently In operation will resolve the Identified
environmental problems and restore beneficial uses over the near term
(5 to 10 years).
2. Remedial measures currently 1n operation °11 not resolve the
Identified problems and restore uses over -,-; ,iear term:
A. However, additional programs and measures have been Imposed, and
these will be adequate and timely.
B. Additional programs and measures have been Imposed, and
environmental problems will eventually be resolved and uses
restored. However, there 1s a long lag time between completion
and operation of the remedial measures and the response of the
environmental system.
C. Even though all reasonable remedial measures have been or are
being taken, It 1s doubtful whether the environmental problems
will be completely resolved and uses ; 2--red.
D. There are apparently no firm programs additionally planned that
will resolve problems and restore uses.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
report. Also in that 1981 report, the Board provided an evaluation of present
and proposed remedial programs, and conclusions about whether and when
environmental problems will be solved and beneficial uses restored.
Information about Class "B" areas of concern was also given in the Board's
1981 report. The Board is presently updating this Information and will
provide an assessment of each Class "B" area of concern. The environmental
description and the assessment will be presented to t*e Commission in 1984.
IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
For many of the areas of concern, the problem is sediment contaminated as
a result of either historic or present discharges. The associated questions
include: What are the environmental consequences of either moving the
sediment or leaving it in place? If the contaminated sediment must be moved,
then how? How should the dredged material be disposed of? How are
alternatives assessed? What surveillance and monitoring must be considered in
association with answering these questions?
The Dredging Subcommittee prepared a report entitled, "Guidelines and
Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging Projects," published in
January 1982. The Subcommittee concluded that, since each location is unique,
a site-specific approach and evaluation is required 1,1 o^der to address the
issue of 1n-p1ace pollutants. The evaluation is based on the principle of
non-degradation. The Subcommittee developed general guidelines based on this
principle which are to be followed 1n the review of each geographic area.
The Lake Ontario Task Force has adopted this philosophy in the development
of surveillance and monitoring programs associated with 1n-place pollutants in
areas of concern.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
CLASS "A" AND CLASS "B" AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN
CLASS "A
NAN
CLASS "B"
Niagara River, New York and Ontario
Hamilton Harbour, Ontario
Eighteen Mile Creek, New York
Rochester Embayment, New York
Oswego River, New York
Tc u> Waterfront, Ontario
Pos ^o.ie, Ontario
Bay c: Qulnte, Ontario
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2
GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF GREAT LAKES SEDIMENTS*
(Concentrations 1n mg/kg dry weight)
Volatile Solids
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
011 and Grease
Lead
Z1nc
Mercury
Polychlorlnated Blphenyl
Ammonia
Cyanide
Phosphorus
Iron
Nickel
Manganese
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Barium
Copper
NONPOILUTED
<50,000
<40,000
<1 ,000
<1 ,000
<40
<90
<1
<1
<75
<0.10
<420
<17,000
<20
<300
<3
-
<25
<20
<25
U. S. E P Ab
MODERATELY
POLLUTED
50,000-80,000
40,000-80,000
1,000- 2,
1,000- 2.i'«
40- 60
90- 200
-
1- 10
75- 200
0.10- 0.25
420- 650
17,000-25,000
20- 50
300- 500
3- 8
-
25- 75
20- 60
25- 50
HEAVILY
POLLUTED
>80,000
>80,000
>2,000
>2,000
>60
>200
>1
>10
>200
>0.25
>650
>25,000
>50
>500
>8
>6
>75
>60
>50
ONTARIO0
M 0 E
60,000
50,000
2,000
1,500
50
100
0.3
0.05
100
0.1
1,000
10,000
25
-
8
1
25
-
25
aThe Intended use of these guidelines 1s to help determine whether dredged material
can be disposed of 1n the open waters of the Great Laker Mscusslon of their
applicability and limitations 1s found 1n the report cf ;h» Dredging Subcommittee,
"Guidelines and Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes hedging Projects", 1982. The
Subcommittee report also summarizes the average concentration of various constituents
1n surfldal sediments 1n Lake Ontario, as well as average natural or pre-colon1al
concentrations from deposltlonal zones.
bThe U.S. EPA guidelines are from the report, "Guidelines for Pollutlonal
Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Chicago, Illinois, 1977.
cThe Ontario guidelines are from the report, "Evaluating the Impact of Marine
Construction Activities on Water Resources," Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Toronto, 1976 and Addendum 1978.
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
V
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
TABLE 3
LIMITATIONS ON CONTAMINANTS IN FISH
(Concentrations 1n mg/kg wet weight)
AGREEMENT U.S. FDA
PARAMETER OBJECTIVE VALUE
(Edible portion) (Edible portion)*
Aldr1n/Dleldr1n 0.3d 0.3f
DDT and Metabolites 1.0c'e 5.09
d f
Endrln 0.3 3T
Heptachlor/Heptachlor
d f
epoxlde 0.3 0.3T
Llndane 0.3
c
M1rex Substantially 0.1
Absent
Polychlorlnated
Blphenyls O.lc'e 2.09
Kepone - 0.3
Mercury 0.5c'e l.O9
Toxaphene - 5.0
2,3,7,8-TCDO
(D1ox1n) - 0.00005h
Dlquat - 0.1
2,4-D - [.*.1
S1maz1ne - 1?'
Glyphosate - 0.15
aplllet with skin but without scales.
bplllet without skin.
c Whole fish.
dpor the protection of human consumers of fish.
epor the protection of fish-consuming birds.
fActlon level. Has not had a public review via a formal notice
Register.
STolerance. A final limit which has had public review.
^Guidance. Without legal standing.
Note: The Information 1n this table has been updated from that
Water Quality Board to designate areas of concern. U.S.
"The Pesticide Chemical News Guide," December 1, 1983.
Food Chemical News, Inc., Washington, D.C.
' i .
^'" "
CANADA HEALTH
PROTECTION GUIDELINE
(Edible portion)*)
_
5.0
-
-
_
_
o.r
2.0C
-
0.5
-
0.00002
_
-
_
1n the Federal
which was used by the
pesticide values from
Published monthly by
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
I CONTAMINANTS
I
I OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
* Fish
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: FISH
,
WATERBODY; Lake Huron
-------
to
\BLE 1
CONTAMINANT
P
Ul
13
to
CO
t-4
1
1
M
c
M
O
Ul
0.
i
to
Ul
CO
P
to
Ul
3
l-l
Of
cT
5
<
»-i
o
Ul
s:
t3
z
»-l
Q.
§
to
>-
g
^
to
to
Ul
to
Ul
z
RATIONAL
M FOMENT
Ul O
0- 0
0
s:
£
to
>?
to
i
Ol *0
CO
*Q
p-O
««
n «1>
*i
> »_
ja o
O. r
o
,*
u. >
c
"«p-
3 4-
OXJ
« Ol
i. «r-
O X>
* «
o c
O T-
«XJ
tO r
< «0
s-
4^
ff*
§
in
Ol
u
ATMOSPHERI
to
r>
A
C
*""
t*
«,.
Htes, methoxychl or,
hi or, heptachlor epo
o u
JQ It)
« 4->
P CX
Ol 01
-
en
c
r
Ol
03
10
r*
XJ
o>
E
§
O>
P"
o
C
Oi
CX
8
£xj
<*- Ol
r- r
U Q.
Ol E
Cxro
CO to
M
E
5
53
££
o>-o
E C
r- IO
o
WO
co^
.* c
oi S.S
\y £L 4-1
-P in O
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.4 RATIONALE & DESIGH - OPEN WATER FISHERY
Environmental contaminants are a major factor influencing the health and
well-being of the Great Lakes fisheries. Since the early 1970s, these
persistent, bioavailable and toxic substances have denied full utilization of
the fisheries of Lake's Ontario. Erie. St. Clair, K^on and Michigan. Direct
effects on the fishery are two fold: contaminants may accumulate in fish
flesh to levels which are hazardous to human health; in addition they may
cause acute and chronic effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The outcome of a
contaminated fishery is a loss of livelihood for fishermen, a loss of revenue
to the Great Lakes economy and in some cases, a significant impact on the
lifestyles of native and fishing communities.
Less obvious are the direct effects on the fish themselves. Many of the
chemicals identified in Great Lakes fish are known to induce physiological,
pathological, biochemical and behavioural anoral es under laboratory
conditions and It is reasonable to assume that similar responses may occur in
the Great Lakes.
-------
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The open lake surveillance program is designed to address both of these
issues. Traditionally, emphasis has been placed on monitoring organic and
inorganic contaminant levels in squatic biota to identify geographical and
temporal trends in contaminants; new chemicals which may impact on the fishery
or on human health; chemical sources and the effectiveness of contaminant
regulations. Contaminant monitoring at several trophic levels also
contributes to an understanding of contaminant dynamics within the ecosystem.
Surveillance programs have not developed suitaL - -thods for monitoring
the direct adverse effects of contaminants on biota. Many of the procedures
used to measure these effects are in the development stage and some of the
specific, sensitive tests which are available to mammalian toxicologists have
not been applied to aquatic organisms. However, there are some health
indicators which may have applicability to the Lake Huron fishery (such as
abnormal skeletal development in response to toxaphene exposure, reproductive
impairment in some lake trout stocks and tumour monitoring in nearshore
species). Clearly there is a need to encourage research on effects monitoring
at the individual, population and community levels and to incorporate suitable
procedures into the surveillance program as they become available.
OBJECTIVES
1. To monitor contaminant levels in top predators (lake trout, walleye),
forage fish (smelt), benthos and plankton.
2. To establish temporal and spatial trends of contaminant levels in
these organisms.
3. To develop data describing contaminant dynamics between the different
trophic levels.
4. To identify new contamirants in Lake Hur~n biota.
5. To collect archival tissue for retrospective analyses.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
6. To evaluate the effectiveness of remedial programs in controlling the
sources and distribution of toxic substances.
7. To make a preliminary assessment of the effects of contaminants on
fish and fish populations.
RATIONALE
The Lake Huron open lake fish contaminants pro^r-i. is part of the IOC fish
contaminants monitoring program undertaken by Canadian and United States
agencies to determine the contaminant status of Great Lakes fish. Results
from the 1979-1980 intensive surveillance year indicate that Lake Huron top
predators are intermediate between the low contaminant burdens found 1n Lake
Superior fish and the higher concentrations found in fish from the lower
lakes. Comparisons with previous years indicate a decline in DDT
concentrations in some lake species but an increasing trend in PCBs.
Similarly the United States fisheries agencies reported an increase in mercury
concentrations in open lake fish from 1968 to 1980.
These data, plus recent information that toxaphene and dioxin have been
found in Lake Huron fish suggest that the open lake fish surveillance program
should continue to monitor the traditional organochU ines and inorganics and
that agencies should develop analytical capability for non-routine contaminant
analyses.
DESIGN DETAILS
Sampling Locations;
There are 10 sampling locations (four United States and six Canadian)
identified in Lake Huron for open lake fish contaminants monitoring (Figure
4). Two additional sites have been added to the ''nited States program. One
site is located in the northwest arm of the lake to monitor the effects of
contaminant inputs from Lake Michigan and the St. Marys River. The second
site has been added in southern Lake Huron in the vicinity of Port Sanilac to
complement similar stations on the Canadian side.
-------
I
I
I
I
1
c
r
U
-------
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
A minimum of two United States and two Canadian sites will be sampled each
year and these sites will be repeated for two consecutive years. Site
selection will be determined by the two agencies based on the results of the
1980 intensive year and subsequent surveillance data. The sites will be
located at offshore fishing grounds. Where such grounds do not exist or are
undependable, sites may be located closer to shore but removed from the direct
influence of tributaries and at depths consistent with open water populations
of fish.
Species Sampled;
Two fish species will be sampled at each site. Smelt will be the chosen
representative of a planktivorous species and lake trout as the preferred top
predator. Where lake trout are not available, splake, other salmonids or
walleye may be substituted.
It has been suggested that the surveillance program consider the utility
of monitoring contaminant levels in zooplankton (mysids), bottom invertebrates
(Pontoporeia) and surface net plankton (>153y) to determine regional
differences in contaminant levels and biomagnification in the food chain.
These data are particularly useful for assessing the effectiveness of remedial
measures. Whenever possible, these additional s.5e--iv?t- should be collected at
each site.
Number of Organisms Sampled:
The United States and Canada originally adopted different sample sizes and
compositing methods for their open lake fish surveillace programs. Canada
collected 50 fish over a large size range at each site and analyzed each fish
individually. The United States collected 60 fish from three size ranges and
prepared four, five-fish composites for each size range. In order to make the
two programs compatible and maintain consistency within each program, Canadian
agencies should continue to analyze 50 individual fish. The United States
will collect 20 fish from three year classes (four, six, and eight years and
over) and prepare four, five-fish composites for each year class. Both
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contaminants Monitored:
The routine organic and Inorganic contaminants are described 1n Table 14.
In addition, a small number of fish samples will be analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCOD,
^
I
agencies will collect 60 smelt from three size groups and prepare four,
f1ve-f1sh composites for each size range. At least 100 grams (wet weight) of
Mysls, Pontoporela and net plankton are required from each site for organic or
inorganic contaminant analyses.
Time of Year Sampled;
All organisms will be collected between Augui id November to maintain
consistency with past fish sampling programs and ic uincide with periods of
" «
maximum Hpid accumulation.
toxaphene, chlorinated phenols, chlorinated benzenes, dibenzofurans, and
chlorinated styrenes.
DATA QUALITY
Quality assurance will be maintained in the program through at least 10
per cent internal check samples and participatios r "snterlaboratory round
robins.
DATA OUTPUT
Results of the Lake Huron open lake fish contaminants program will be
available through:
1. Computer storage (DFO in Canada and STORET in the United States).
2. Direct reporting of problem areas to res 'onsible jurisdictions.
3. Publication in IOC reports, agency reports and conferences.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 14
CONTAMINANTS MONITORED
ROUTINE CONTAMINANTS MONITORED
NON-ROUTINE CONTAMINANTS*
PCB
Ml rex
p,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDO
p,p'-DDT
o.p'-DDT
ZDDT
Dleldrin
Chlordane
% Lipid
Hg
As
Se
Cu
In
N1
Cr
Cd
Pb
Toxaphe-.-
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
phenols
benzenes
Dibenzofurans
Chlorinated
styrenes
* Only a small number of samples from select locations will be analyzed for
these chemicals. Future analysis will be determined by results of the
preliminary findings.
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOMMENDED RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Whole lake fish samples will be obtained by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service in United States waters and by the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources in Ontario. Chemical analyses will be conducted by the EPA
Central Regional Laboratory and in Canada by the Provincial Pesticides
Laboratory (OHAF) and CCIW (DOE).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: FISH
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Erie
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.4 BIOCONTAMINANTS MONITORING PROGRAM
Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Goal
To detect (determine) enviroraiental trends of certain substances that due
to their proven deleterious effects on the ecosyst^ rre listed in Annex 1 of
the 1978 Hater Quality Agreement (Water Quality Obj as).
* *-
Subgoal
a) To provide original (empirical) data that may be of use in
understanding the pathways and mechanisms by which contaminant
residues become distributed within the ecosystem, and
b) To provide an archive of material (tissue) that may be used for
determining the presence of chemicals not currently a part of
existing surveillance and monitoring assessment (emerging problems).
Rationale
The regulation of certain persistent toxic ch^cuals, either through
restricted use, discharge or outright ban is an undeniable statement by the
respective jurisdictions as to their level of concern regarding such
chemicals. As such, e. segment of Annex 11 of the 1978 water Quality Agreement
encourages the Parties to establish programs that will permit assessment of
the effectiveness of regulation or need for additional remedial measures. One
such method that has been employed within the Great Lakes basin (and, indeed,
throughout the world) for making water quality assessments, is the use of
biota as a surrogate for water quality. Surrogates are especially effective
tools for toxic substances that have chemical prcjArties causing them to
bioconcentrate (bloecciiir.ulate) in the tissue of animals (or plants) at
concentrations thsz greatly exceed their water borne concentrations. This is
advantageous, as it is often the case that water borne concentrations of many
pollutants are so low as to prohibit their cost-effective determination.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I /
Whole Lake Program
Since 1977, the United States and Canada have participated in a program to
collect and analyze fish from the open waters of the Great Lakes. While there
has been some departure from the original protocol, smelt and lake trout have
been routinely collected from all five Great Lakes during this period (walleye
are substituted for lake trout in Lake Erie). This activity should be
considered an essential component of the surveill- , and monitoring program
for all the Great Lakes and continued without chan:,< ,; rough at least 1986.
The detailed rationale for open lake fish contaminant monitoring appears
within GLISP and the files of the Fish Contaminant Work Group and is repeated
briefly in this text for continuity.
Specific Rationale
The integrity of the whole lake ecosystem is a result of the integration
of its individual component parts (chemical, physical, biological and
societal). An evaluation of the general health of the system necessitates an
awareness and undertanding of all contributing ecological factors. Toxic and
contaminating substances are known to have a detrimental effect on the Great
Lakes system. A fish contaminant surveillance program conducted in the open
waters of the lake provides a significant contril^ivui to both the knowledge
and understanding of the whole lake environmental o^-ility and man's impact on
the entire system. Hirex contamination of Lake Ontario is a vivid reminder of
this fact.
The overall whole lake water quality program emphasizes long-term trends
of lake conditions, the relative condition of the lakes to each other,
protection of fisn shocks, transboundary movement of contaminants, the impact
of nearshore regu'atcry controls on the whole lake, and evaluation of
non-point source {particularly atmospheric) contaminants. Since many
contaminants accumu'-tea by fish are concentrated in tissues other than the
edible portions, tr.e coen lake contaminant in fish program samples whole fish
as an indicator of the levels and trends of a broad spectrum of toxic
contaminants as a reflection of environmental conditions and the potential
effects on the fish and fishery resources.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Design Details
1. F1sh sampling sites. A minimum of four stations are sampled per
Great Lake (two Canadian and two United States; except Lake Michigan
- with three United States stations), plus two stations in Lake St.
Clair, one Canadian, one United States). Thus, the total minimum
program consists of-21 sampling locations »'nine Canadian, 12-United
States). Stations are located at offshoi 'shing grounds, or where
such grounds do not exist or are not depenua,»e, stations are located
closer to shore but remote from tributaries or other, potential
sources of contaminants and at depths consistent with open water
populations of fish.
2. Species sampled. Two species are sampled per station. Smelt are
collected at all stations as a representative planktivorous species
available in all the lakes. Because of their general availability
now and in the future, lake trout is the predator species of choice
at each station. However, where lake trout are not available (as in
Lake St. Clair and western Lake Erie) walleye are collected as the
alternate species for lake trout.
3. Number of fish sampled. A major emphasi: :f the program is the
detection of contaminant trends with time. In order to reliably
detect approximately a 20% change from current levels by analysis of
variance with =0.05 and =0.20, a minimum of 25 fish within a limited
size ranee are required. However, in order to provide the most
meaningful and useful data, three size ranges of each fish species
should be sampled. Therefore, 60 fish (20 per size range) per
species per station should be collected. Analysis of covariance will
be employed to provide similar statistical efficiency in detecting
temporal changes. In order to reduce analytical costs, the fish will
be compcs1~sd using five fish of similar .ize per sample. Thus, 24
composite samples representing 60 individual fish of each of two
species will be obtained from each station (120 fish total).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Frequency and time of year sampled. All fish are collected annually
during the fall (September-November) of the year. The selection of
fall is based upon considerations of ease of sampling and
comparability of incorporation of past programs. If, after continual
review and evaluation of the program, the Task Forces find that
annual sampling is not required to meet the program objectives,
consideration will be given to biannual or less frequent sampling.
5. Minimum Ancillary Data (sample documentation,
t<
Collection Site:
1. Lake
2. Station number
3. Latitude and longitude
4. Date of collection
5. Collector (crew or vessel)
Fish and Analytical:
1. Species
2. Mean and range of length and weight (metric) in each
composite sample
3. Age
4. Fin clips, if present
5. Date of homogenization
6. Tissue portion analyzed (whole fish, fillet, dressed,
etc.)
Contaminants monitored - (Lipid content determined on all
samples)
a) All samples:
Crganics
DDT and metabolites
Aldrin/Dieldrin
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PCBs
M1rex (Lake Ontario only)
Chlordane (a, -y, oxy)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Toxaphene
Metals
A
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Chromium
Mercury
Zinc
b) Selected samples will be scanned for organics using best
available methods. These scans should include but not
necessarily be limited to:
Er.arin
Llr.dane
Methcxychlor
Dichlorobenzenes
Trichlorober.zene
(HC3D) Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
p-Sromoanisole
Chlorinated Napthalene
Metnylnapthalene
Chlorinated Terphenyls
Trichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tet.-achlorophensl
Tetrachloroethy'ene
Chlorinated Styrenes
(Octa Poly)
8 Hexachlorbbutaciene
p-BHC (Benzene Hexachloride)
(BHC l,2,3,4,5,S-Hexachlorocyclohenance) .
Polybrominated Biphenyls
Polynuclear Arcsjatic Hydrocarbons . .
This list of contaminants monitored will change with time as current
problem contaminants are reduced a^d new contaminants discovered. Appendix E
(1983) presides a list of other k~own or potential contaminants that will be
given consideration for routine, specific analysis on all samples if
methodolocv permits and the analysis is appropriate. . .
6. Esta quality assurance. A program of approximately 50% quality
cssurance will be maintained within the program. This will consist
cf routine and frequent {daily in most cases) use of intralaboratory
c'.eck samples, spike recr/eries, confirmatory analyses, and
inter!aboratory check samples.
7. Single archive. A representative sample f-:^ each station will be
;-eserved for future reference. The sarrple will consist of a
J-oniogenare cf aliquots of samples representing the 25 largest lake
trout or walleye collected at each station.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; FISH
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Ontario
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1984.09.12
CHAPTER 11
FISH
BASIS FOR CONCERN
The levels of contaminants 1n fish are studied i'
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984. the number reported in Lake Ontario fish exceeded 300. However, the
effects of the vast majority of these contaminants on the Lake Ontario
resource, at the concentrations observed, have not been adequately addressed.
To further complicate the Issue, the accumulative, synerglstlc, and additive
Impacts, either positive or negative (sometimes one chemical will negate the
effects of another) from two or more contaminants at low levels of
concentrations are not known.
The Introduction to Chapter 7 provides an accoun " the consequences of
introducing a contaminant Into the Lake Ontario ecos; / the accumulation
of mi rex in fish. Fish provide an undesirable source of mirex and the other
contaminants for creatures who eat them, such as other fish, aquatic
scavengers (I.e. crayfish), amphibians, reptiles, birds (Chapter 13), and
mammals (Chapter 14), such as man (Chapter 3). Therefore, contaminant levels
in fish are of critical concern not only to fish, but to practically all users
of Lake Ontario's aquatic resources.
Annex 1 of the 1978 Agreement establishes objectives for both persistent
and non-persistent toxicants, and Annex 12 specifies that monitoring be
established for those toxicants, in order to identify spatial and temporal
trends. Thus, the study of fish 1s an integral component of this Plan.
In order to most effectively study fish in the ?.;£..,em, one needs to
first understand the life histories of the important v.dividual fish species
and also how these histories relate to either localized, regional, or lakewide
fish communities in Lake Ontario. This includes:
1. Migratory habits. Do the fish stay in a limited (local) area
throughout their life cycle, stay within a single basin of the lake
(regional), or do they wander lakewide and beyond?
2. Feeding habits. Where do fish start feeding in the food chain? Are
they plankton feeders, a predator or prey species, or both?
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. What are their spawning habits? Do they stay within the lake? Are
they anadromous and move Into streams to lay their eggs like salmon?
Are they catadromous and move out to sea to spawn like the American
eel?
The answers to these questions are available. This Information 1s Important
for determining what, how, and when fish species should be sampled and
analyzed for an effective ecosystem contaminant monitoring program.
The contaminants to be monitored and 1n which ' pedes 1s also a major
consideration. However, scientists have considerable prior experience 1n
monitoring contaminants 1n Lake Ontario fish and, thus, have the scientific
basis upon which to develop practical long-term fish monitoring programs for a
number of contaminants now under surveillance with the goal of determining
compliance or non-compllance with the Agreement objectives. However, there
are many other emerging or known, but unstudied, contaminants in the lake.
This chapter describes a mechanism for general monitoring of fish stocks to
address both chemicals of known concern as well as previously unstudied and/or
new chemical compounds as they are identified in fish. Of necessity, the
emphasis 1s on those compounds of known impact on the aquatic ecosystem and
for which a historical data base exists. However, the chapter also describes
a monitoring program for other chemicals known to be present, as well as a
program to identify previously undetected or new cJiftr.-.c^'is.
It is suggested that the fish sampling and storage operations for this
chapter also Include those needs for the entire Lake Ontario surveillance
program. Some species of fish that do not "school" are only available in
adequate numbers and size at certain times of the year, usually at spawning
time and location. A standard policy of collecting additional fish for
emergency needs if time, funding, and storage space is available, should
alleviate the common problem of inadequate fish samples, particularly when a
new crisis arises.
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
An extensive data base exists for a limited number of chemicals 1n fish.
This data base was initiated with the analyses of DDT in the 1960's (5),
mercury from 1969-71, and PCB in the early 1970's (2). The discovery of mirex
(1) and 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dloxin) (4) has caused expansion of the data base.
Other organochlorine pesticides have also been routinely monitored. Table 1
presents a summary of recent data for selected chemicals and fish species.
This surveillance program was designed to address c*m contaminants, but
it also incorporates a means to examine new chemical compounds through
expansion of a standard protocol to fit local, regional, or lakewide fisheries
contaminant issues. Chemicals for which surveillance and monitoring will be
considered will be drawn from several sources, for example, the list developed
by the Human Health Effects Committee (6) and the report of the Niagara River
Toxics Committee (7). These contaminants, as well as radionuclides, should be
considered when finalizing the surveillance and monitoring targets 1n this
element of the Plan.
There has been considerable cooperation and some coordination by the
agencies most deeply involved in identifying the contaminant levels in Lake
Ontario fish related to human health issues. Those agencies are the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, the New Ycr- i-^artment of Health,
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontan < Ministry of the
Environment, the Ontario Ministry of Labour, the Canada Department of National
Health and Welfare, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Numerous academic
and private laboratories and others have also been involved.
To meet the objectives of the program described in this chapter, the
chemical analyses will be performed on whole fish, as opposed to fillets
(Chapter 3), for which the principal objective is to address human health
concerns. This will necessitate a somewhat different sample storage and
preparation procedure for the programs described in this chapter, as compared
with those described in Chapter 3.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The fish monitoring program described 1n this chapter must be conducted 1n
conjunction with the program described in Chapter 3. In addition, the program
must be coordinated with other components of the Plan, especially for
consideration of the physical habitat (Chapter 25) and structure of the
biological community (Chapter 24), in order to provide the desired ecosystem
perspective. It will also help to reduce duplication and to cut costs and
effort.
Certain other observations and options must a? ? recognized, in order
to put the overall issue of fish contaminant survei i '.^r.ce, as it relates to
the health of the aquatic ecosystem, Into proper international perspective.
These are:
1. The fish sampling and laboratory procedures employed by the Lake
Ontario jurisdictions are often different. Each has years of good
data that, under current procedures, might not blend easily into one
common lakewide surveillance program.
2. At this time (1984), there 1s considerable merit in continuing the
current approaches to fish stock surveillance. Practically and
politically, the agencies involved could not make an abrupt change in
their programs.
3. There is considerable blending of data among agencies that could
become-more effective through formalization under this Plan.
4. Quality control of all data is a paramount "must" throughout this
element of the Plan.
5. The ultimate program, developed through practical experience, will
select the best components (procedures/system) from ongoing
surveillance programs, with the goal to finalize a permanent lakewide
surveillance and monitoring program by 19C~S.
//'
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Objective and Scope
The objectives are:
1. To measure the concentration, species distribution, and geographic
distribution of contaminants known to be present 1n Lake Ontario fish,
2. To Identify the presence and geographic distribution of new or
previously unidentified contaminants.
3. To study the long-term changes 1n the concentration of contaminants
in Lake Ontario's fish.
4. To determine 1f Agreement objectives and jurlsdictional criteria,
standards, and permit requirements are being met by point source
dischargers and to evaluate the effectiveness of waste treatment
control.
5. To identify new point sources of known contaminants.
6. To provide samples for achiving, for the retroactive analysis of
fish for contaminants Identified at a future £*+*>
7. To provide fish specimen needs for all compon^ts of the Plan.
This project provides a generalized outline of a flexible study protocol
which can be implemented for one or several fish species for local to lakewide
fish populations. The determining factor for the scope of work is the
perceived magnitude of the potential chemical contaminant problem. This
sampling and analysis regime may be modified by the input of new data; thus,
an iterative process is established to address the specific dynamic nature of
a perceived problem. The scope of this element of the Plan includes
consideration of the following factors.
/, -6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Surveillance Area
The surveillance (sampling) area Includes all of Lake Ontario and its
tributaries up to the first barrier which is impassable to fish, except the
Niagara River, which is included in the Surveillance Plan for the Niagara
River. Samples may also be collected above the fish barrier to help identify
suspected upstream sources of contaminants. Sampling sites are selected for
areas with known sources of contaminants, known maj -r fishing areas
(commercial and recreational), and where sampling ~s for other elements or
chapters of this Plan are established in order to ue..,» op a practical
ecosystem surveillance plan. Sampling sites will also be Identified in each
of the three basins (eastern, central, and western) of Lake Ontario, as well
as at nearshore sites and such other sites as spawning areas, as necessary to
meet sampling needs. Emphasis will be placed on lake and tributary sampling
sites, to help ensure adequate samples with minimum effort and cost. Figure 1
provides locations of fish sampling sites on the standard Lake Ontario
Commercial Fisheries grid map.
Species
Table 2 lists the fish species to be analyzed. The list includes not only
species normally used for human consumption but also such non-food species as
alewife and spottail shiners. See also Appendix "-,.
In order to monitor annual changes in contaminant levels in a localized
area, as well as to detect new contaminants in that area, short-lived fish
species with a limited home range have been included in the monitoring
program. The spottail shiner is one such indicator species. Reference (3)
details the use of these fish by Ontario.
Alewife and smelt are the major forage species for salmon and trout, as
well as for several other predator species. The contaminant levels in alewife
and smelt determine, to a large degree, the bioacc nulative levels in the
salmon and trout. Undoubtedly, the levels of contaminants in the plankton and
invertebrates, as well as in the fry of other fishes that alewife and smelt
feed on, determine, to a large degree, the contaminant levels in smelt and
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
f
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
alewife. What the Impact 1s from contaminants on the health of Invertebrates,
plankton, alewife, and smelt 1s not known, but there has to be some Impact on
part or all of the fish communities. At least until those relationships can
be evaluated, 1t will be Important to continue to monitor all trophic levels
of fish species as well as their food supply.
Sample Size
The number of fish required for an adequate samp' cor a similar size of
each species may vary from 3 to 30. Generally, a 20 sh sample for each
size range, 1n order to produce five fish-composite samples from each sample
site, will be adequate.
Cooperation and Coordination
To develop and Implement a single long-term surveillance plan for Lake
Ontario will require close consideration and cooperation among all Involved
agencies and with the other components of this Plan. The collection of the
right fish species at the right time and 1n the right place must mesh with
other ecosystem sampling needs, such as sediment, water, plankton, and other
Invertebrates. The Lake Ontario Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission offers a proven unit to develop the fish sampling segment of this
Plan. Similarly, the Work Groups and Task Forces o; s , .nternational Joint
Commission's Water Quality Board could provide such ? .onduit for the
analytical and aquatic ecosystem health components of the Plan.
Flexibility
To maintain a successful surveillance program for Lake Ontario, this Plan
must be flexible so that experience will allow revision and updating.
Data Usage
The data will be used to meet the objectives staled above. The data will
also be used to help determine fish health status (Chapter 16) and identify
possible research needs, particularly in relation to specific contaminants at
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
i
specific sites that may be causing tumors, and specific contaminants that
might Impact successful spawning and threaten species perpetuation through
natural spawning.
Fisheries management agencies have been mandated responsibility to protect
and enhance the fish stocks and habitat under their jurisdiction. Until those
agencies have adequate data that show the impact of contaminants on the health
of fish populations, they will not be able to make accurate determinations as
to what levels, 1f any, fish can contain without ., i'*> to their health. Such
information will also be Important in revising Agrees tint objectives and
jurisdictional standards and criteria.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
The monitoring network design and rationale described in Chapter 3 is
generally applicable to this chapter.
Only conceptual descriptions are provided. Detailed requirements for this
component of the Plan will be developed which will outline step-by-step
procedures for fish sampling, processing, data recording, transport, and
storage of the specimens; laboratory preparation for specimen analysis and
quality control; and data management (i.e. recording, evaluation, computerized
storage, custody, and reporting). These requiremer,;.. «ill be compared with
the monitoring programs presently 1n place in the jurisdictions in the Lake
Ontario Basin, in order to determine the extent to which they can be met by
these present jurisdictional programs.
The detailed program, when developed, will also identify specific chemical
parameters and monitoring frequency.
Most of the current Lake Ontario surveillance and monitoring programs have
developed from agencies' responses to human health crises which have resulted
when contaminants have been found at above-accepta le levels in certain Lake
Ontario food fish. The experience gained has been invaluable in developing
o
-------
I
m sampling, storage, and laboratory (analysis) protocols, but there is still
much to be learned and perfected before the monitoring system(s) becomes
standardized on a lakewide basis.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THIS COMPONENT
Other considerations pertinent to the development of this component of the
Plan are Identical to those described in Chapter 3, please refer.
I
I
REFERENCES
1. Kaiser, K.L.E. 1974. Mi rex: an unrecognized contaminant of fishes from
Lake Ontario. Science 185:523-525.
I 2. Spagnoli, 0. 0., and L. C. Skinner. 1977. PCB's in fish from selected
waters of New York State. Pest. Monit. J. 11(2):69-87.
3. "Biomonitorlng Spottail Shiners," Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Toronto, 1983.
»4. O'Keefe, P., C. Meyer, 0. Milker, B. Jelus-Tyror, K. Dillon, R. Donnelly,
E. Horn, and R. Sloan. 1983. Analysis of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
£ dioxin in Great Lakes fish. Chemosphere 12(3) :;2 - u.2.
5. Burdick, G. 1964.
I
6. "Proceedings of the Roundtable on the Surveillance and Monitoring
Requirements for Assessing Human Health Hazards Posed by Contaminants in
the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem," Held March 17-18, 1982 at East Lansing,
I Michigan. Committee on the Assessment of Human Health Effects of Great
Lakes Water Quality, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario,
_ November 1982.
7. Report of the Niagara River Toxics Committee, to be released in late 1984,
I
//-/c
I
-------
I
I
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RECENT DATA FOR SELECTED CHEMICALS
. IN SELECTED FISH SPECIES FROM LAKE ONTARIO
(To be provided)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
ff TABLE 2
I
FISH SPECIES FOR WHICH CHEMICAL ANALYSES
WILL BE CONDUCTED
(To be provided)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I //-/;:
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
.
o
N
'f\
*t
"1
>
r>
^
\;
£
p*.
<>
5
rs
>
%..
i.
$
c/)
0)
4J
t
(/)
C
0
r-
4->
U
r;
t/>
T3
l»_ a)
O CD
Z
co
C I/)
o
u
C5
1 1
U.
\
'
1 '
t
*
f
f
i
f
1
(
1 , .
i:
r
li '
i
r i
* I
&
I* *
₯1
(
[
[
1,
'
~ ~ f
1
i
0
* ^u
i r*
-|-
1 zW
1 i flk
!ii -
< ^*
_j
*"
M-H 1,^1 -
vs\. »
8r^K*«
* nf '
*vX-
J
^
^
ft
(1
>
1
M.-M
L,
V
1 A^'"i ^
** * i ^
\j*" ' i f *
i * * ' i » 1
\. i
1 i
j * i
* ' ^ **
Z-^^ "
2 N *
W> N%t >*N
1 " "! *
§ ^i
^s*
N ;
N I1
5 l
- -
<0 *M*
N -t
>
j
m
>
~ , . . ;.
t ^
ovv i
> >.N,
U '
CL *rWl
', *
N
10
. _ __
\ < «
I * '
&'> '
4 v-*
, " ''co"'1'"
'/ io *
w
A-M
'. ^ "1
V.'1 «
r
v~
- J^V^ '
'S"'^^\i''»
r Vl
*~" "" V^
- ''\
lO
1
JT-. r-t
*1"""
m PI rr ^ -i
"g
iug
u IU
'il
*
1 M*-.
i N
^
\ V
v, r
N
' N
^f
S
J*
o
01
*
;_. ._
0>
" S >
f i
'?'^
r *-
,5
'5
. ^
. . '*" .
i **
V
^
V *
^
ft
(M
(5(
Ct i *
3^
O i ^
^ ^
l*
-
O
'' V
o>
- o
o t
^2 'CO
ft Ij JC
K 1^
^ '
Q 7
r-1
-- -=- <-? "
"
10
N
n
o
in
CD
o
in
o
in
(0
1 o
* *>
8
]6
>vT
O*J
t-q
z«
O T
* /i
_-i»'i_. ___ _
,, -W.7 ^"
_. . '«
>
1
^
10 !
_, CM I
V/i (0
CM '
i
CM
CO
O
CD
CO
(0
to
io
in
to
»
10
IO
n
CM
ID
~
(f
0
"f.
_
- - -
5
^
to
jC
n
N
»
^"
~ /
N /
~ ^|
N t-
****!
^ j
2 '
fv_
!
1
|
O
N \
1
CD
O
O
10
O
N-
o
N
t
O
N
|»1
O
r-
;-^s
_j f-
£ E
< i-
o o
z
3
ec
_ m
-» - - -T** ~ - '
'
'
t *l
'{' '~f*
' \. -S I
t /
,' f
-' L
-»
~ i
V"
IU
CO '-1
^ ^.
s2
- -i
2 '
CO '.
S .-.T.- ee
r>"^J JkJP
co /W^«3||fc}')
X ^^^^^
/ ' o
*' g
1^
if
o
K
^
-------
I
I
I
I
1
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
Wildlife
-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: WILDLIFE
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
WATERBODY; Lake Huron
i
i
I
ft
i
i
i
i
i
-------
p
B
A
ft
*
ft;
i
ft
ft
I
I
ft
I
1
I
i
LU
to
CO
o
LU
CO
LU
CO
to
LU
C3
tr
CO
CO
LU
O
LU
Z Z
O LU
>-« Z
r-0
Ul O
0. O
O
to
o
o
LU
C
M
CO « «O
O t-ex.
rn o
«B
0> C
M to
OLJ C M
X> «i- i
r- S- »«
O O «->
C
O> O-
-> «.c o o cn+J
r- J_
o o
'£» j=
CM O» O <0
r- O) C «r- E
5- C -r- +J
08
§>
O
o
JS
LU
C£
LU
0
0.10
_C -^ OJ <1) 'r-
O J= JT
O. u CX
o
O)
C J=
- O Q)
"
SH-
< O
M O
rav-
co CQ
t >
M O
JP-t>
C 4->
O
ECO
0
r- to '*0 CO <3
r-
"C3
CO
O>
0>
C> O..C
3 >r-
CLr C
«W 0)
o>
8
X)
£
o
O C
CO O
CJ
M
O)
CQ
LU
to
8
u_
o
Cl
2
Lu
O h-
o
CO LU
<
LU
M
+J
C
X3
0)
O>
n.
M
3
CO
coca
i »
M§
P+i
. C »->
tt) O
ECO
r-
O T3
O) C
co
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
3.5 AREAS OF EFFECT - WILDLIFE
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION
The surveillance plan outlined to this point addresses the lake and its
aquatic biota as the focus of impact. While valid, this does not, however,
entirely summarize impacts and conditions within Lake Huron and its basin.
Effects on wildlife are equally of concern within the basin and the vector of
impact may not solely be the lake and its tributaries. Wildlife population
migrations and feeding patterns are not restricted to watershed boundaries.
However, the condition of these populations does reflect overall quality of
the environment.
3.5.2 HERRING GULL EGGS
.OBJECTIVES
To determine contaminant levels in gull eggs and provide biological data
as a measure of long-term trends of contaminants burdens and their effects on
the gull population of the Lake Huron ecosystem.
RATIONALE
The Herring Gull has proven to be an extremely reliable and effective
monitor species for the evaluation of water quality trends and the
identification of emerging problems (as specified in Annex 11). Trend data
are available annually since 1974 and emerging problems are often first noted
-------
I
I
in this top-of-the-food web predator where contaminants accumulate to a
I greater degree than in most other biota (e.g. dioxin was first found in the
Great Lakes in gull eggs).
| DESIGN
To sample and analyze,.individually, eggs of Hearing Gulls for persistent
toxic substances and to search for biological eff; of these compounds in
§gull populations.
-.,.
flr a) Sampling locations are noted on Figure 8.
_ b) Sampling will consist of one visitation (April/May) for collection of
10 eggs for contaminant analysis, and 2-3 visits for
biological/population parameters.
c) The following parameters have been selected for analysis: Hg, Pb,
PCS, DDT and metabolites, HCB, dieldrin, mirex, chlordane, toxaphene,
heptachlor epoxide, chlorinated benzenes, a- and 13-BHD, PCDD,
chlorinated styrene, endrin and lindane.
I
I
I
I
Data Quality - the responsible agency w^ ,_sre that adequate
quality control is built into the program
| Reporting - all data will be reported within 18 months of collection
in the form of an interpretive report.
Archive samples will be retained in the tissue bank for possible
future analyses.
RESPONSIBILITY
Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service where appropriate.
-------
I
I
I
I
LAKE
HURON 7
Pumpkin Point
Double Island
Manitoba Reef
Castle Rock
Nottawasaga Island
Black River Island
Chantry Island
Little Charity Island
9. Channel/Shelter Island
FIGURE §
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; WILDLIFE
I
I
I WATERBODY: Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Herring _£tfn Eggs
Since 1974, ~ne Canadian Wildlife Service ias analyzed herring gull eggs
collected from two nesting colonies in Uke Erie. Eggs from the Pt. Colborne
Lighthouse vicirr~y ana Middle Island hc/e bee: re1 "inely analyzed for DDE,
DDT, Dielcrin, KCB, r;,-.rex and PCEs. Th:s activity should be considered an
essential componenT cr ~w-e surveillance =nd rccritoring program for al"' the
Great Lak^s and continue without change throug' at least 1986, -
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: WILDLIFE
WATERBODY: Lake Ontario
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.27
CHAPTER 13
AVIAN POPULATIONS
BASIS FOR CONCERN
In the early 1970's, reproductive success of hernng gull colonies on Lake
Ontario was essentially zero. Failure of eggs to was attributed to the
very high levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons accumi; by this species.
Herring gulls were reproducing normally in most other lakes, which had lower
levels of contamination. Only Lake Michigan appeared to have problems of
similar magnitude.
Levels of PCB in Lake Ontario herring gulls in the early 1970's were in
the order of 200-300 mg/kg fresh weight, which is 0.25% of the lipid weight.
Other species of fish-eating birds in Lake Ontario were also affected.
For example, common terns were found with a high incidence of congenital
abnormalities (crossed bills), and cormorants disappeared from the lake,
presumably because of the sensitivity of this species to egg shell thinning
from DDE contamination.
The herring gull was thought to have the highe,. 'evels of contaminants
because it is the only species of fish-eating bird which did not migrate.
Recent information has shown that herring gulls from the ice-covered Great
Lakes move south to Lakes Erie and Ontario for a few months in the winter, but
that breeding adult birds in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie remain on their lakes
year round. Recruitment to these lower lake populations was also found to be
low.
Monitoring of chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in gull eggs began in
1968 because of reproductive failure, and formally Kecame part of the Water
Quality Agreement Surveillance Program in 1973. At that time, 10 eggs from
each of two colonidi in each of the five Great Lakes were analyzed, and
reproductive success monitored on all colonies. The program has continued
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
unbroken since that time, and this decade worth of data constitutes the
largest set of historical Information on contaminants in Lake Ontario.
Reproductive success Improved dramatically 1n the period from 1973 to
1975, and has remained normal since that time. Trends of levels of all
contaminants were down, with a half-life 1n the order of two to three years
until approximately 1980, when levels ceased to change. In the last two
years, there has been a slight Increase, which may be ^ue to random
oscillations, or which may signal a real increase in «minant flux to Lake
Ontario.
The value of the herring gull egg as a monitoring tool was shown for the
recently discovered 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination problem in the Great Lakes.
Analysis of pooled samples showed conclusively that Lake Ontario was the most
contaminated lake, and analysis of archived samples from the Canadian Wildlife
Service National Specimen Bank showed a decreasing trend from the early 1970's
exactly paralleling that of the other contaminants.
Preliminary models using the herring gull data have successfully predicted
chemical contaminant concentrations in alewives and rainbow smelt, common food
items of the gull. The gull has been an effective contaminant trend
monitoring tool and predictor of future contaminant levels through use of
observed depuration rates. In addition, the program >* atively inexpensive
and easy to conduct, thus adding to the desirability .;.- .maintaining the
program.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Objectives and Scope
1. To monitor trends in chemical contaminant concentrations found in
Lake Ontario herring gulls.
2. To identify the presence of "new" chemical compounds in the Lake
Ontario drairdge.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. To assess the health and well being of herring gull populations on
Lake Ontario as an Indicator for other f1sh-eat1ng bird species
occurring on the lake.
Data Usage
The data may be used to direct future monitoring efforts in other species
of aquatic fauna, as well as to provide a basis for Instituting contaminant
control measures at their source(s). The informatl > also useful for
providing public information on progress of contamit ontrol.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
The herring gull's catholic eating habits, particularly its preference for
consuming fish, make it a prime study candidate for examining chemical
contaminants in the Lake Ontario ecosystem. It is well known that the major
source of chemical contaminants from water-borne sources for predators and
scavengers is through consumption of fish. The long history of chemical
contaminant data on the species (since 1968) adds to the desirability for
continued surveillance. This project provides for surveillance of herring
gulls from selected locations on an annual basis for specific chemical
compounds.
The sampling strategy involves collection of 10 hiring gull egg samples
from two colonies on Lake Ontario (Mugg's Island and Snake Island - See Figure
1) during April/May of each year for chemical analyses. Following egg
collection, the relative success of gull colony reproduction is examined on
each colony through measurements of egg clutch size (at time of initial
visit), mortality or morbidity during and following hatching, the rate and
types of abnormalities observed, and rate of fledgling production. The latter
measurements are made in future visits to one colony (Snake Island) in late
spring/early summer of each year.
Monitoring Variables
The variables measured during gull colony site visits are outlined in the
monitoring network design above. Chemical surveillance on herring gull eggs
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
includes analyses for the compounds given 1n Table 1 on an individual egg
basis from Mugg's Island and Snake Island. A detailed statistical analysis of
existing data is being carried out, and the sampling design may be modified in
1985 to maximize Information obtained and minimize cost. This may be achieved
by analyses of pooled samples of ten or more eggs per colony, taken on one
sampling date.
For pooled samples from each colony, determine the concentrations of the
compound complexes given in Table 2. Other special 1 :hemical analyses may
be conducted through use of GC/MS or other technique:. ,
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sampling Procedures
Random selection of egg samples from each colony 1s required. No more
than one egg from each clutch 1s removed. Samples are chilled and later
frozen to prevent sample deterioration.
Sample Custody
At each site, collection and data records must < Intalned. Samples are
Individually packaged to prevent breakage 1n shipment «c are labelled to
Include sampling data, sample location, collector's name, and .Identifying
number. Continuity of evidence forms should accompany all samples from the
point of collection to the laboratory and document any change 1n custody
during that period. Standard laboratory operating procedures require
maintenance of sample logging to document receipt and handling of all samples
received.
Calibration Procedures and Preventatlve Maintenance
To be provided.
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
See Table 3.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
Environment Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service) and U.S. F1sh and Wildlife
Service, where appropriate.
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
All costs for the project outlined are summarizei 1n Table 4.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR INDIVIDUAL EGGS FROM
MUGGS ISLAND AND SNAKE ISLAND
CHEMICAL
RECOMMENDED
DETECTION LIMITS
(pg/kg)
SMALLEST
REPORTABLE
INCREMENT DESIRED
(vg/kg)
PCB
BHC Isomers
M1rex
Photo-mi rex
DDT and metabolites
particularly p.p'-DDE
Heptachlor epoxide
Oxychlordane
Dieldrin
Tetra chlorobenzenes
Penta chlorobenzenes
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercury
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
50
50
10
10
TABLE 2
CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR POOLED E'_>f
FROM EACH HERRING GULL COl 0'
CHEMICAL GROUP
RECOMMENDED
DETECTION LIMITS
SMALLEST
REPORTABLE
INCREMENT DESIRED
Chlorinated dioxins
Total organic chlorine
Total organic bromine
Chlorophenols
Chlorostyrenes
5 ng/kg for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
/3-6
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 i
o
i i
c
C'
12
>
< M
3
1;
c
CO
C
C
o
0
1 I
to
1 1
rC
1 ^
^
O
1 *
CO
03
4J
^V o
r-l
j;
"O
|£
CO
^B \ \/ \
^1 3
^i
^i
(U
_j
di
CO
(=3
1
o
§
i
B
0
I
§
SH
U
JD
1-3
1
pj
P-.
1
**x^
^
H
M
>
M
H
r-
l-« »-
r-l
M
r-l r-l
r-l r-<
C
U
0)
1-1
y,j
o &
U C
1-1
a 4J
P r-
CJ M C
a ai o
M r-t 01
W 60 d. r.
S 60 6
C J-J CO tl TO T3
O W 01 M C
T< a-j tn rH ca
4-1 tf, X Cd OJ
O I-" P JJ tf
O «) CO T3 «r4 01
r-l > C -M W tf
r-l -r< W > O \ >
O *J -rj O. r-l
u o r-i *a E to
3 W C 0 C
eu >o u M u «
r-t O MH
D- M E a
E o. o) 4J
a a> jc 19
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS
TASK COST($)
Sample collection and transport 400
Reproductive status data collection 1,600
Sample preparation and chemical analyses
Individual eggs 6,500
Composite samples 5,000
Data analyses and reporting 1,200
Soedmen banking (20 years) 1.200
TOTAL 15,900
/ * - >~
-------
vl
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.27
CHAPTER 14
MAMMALIAN POPULATIONS
BASIS FOR CONCERN
Chemical contaminants 1n water affect not only f^sh and other aquatic life
contained therein, they may also affect consumers .
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
were available on Impacts to mink, they noted dietary mercury levels of 2.0
mg/kg methyl mercury were lethal to river otter.
The contaminant levels reported to cause reproductive and growth
Impairment 1n mink are particularly pertinent to Lake Ontario. Residue levels
of Aroclor 1254 1n standard fillets from coho and Chinook salmon caught from
the Salmon River averaged, respectively, 9.31 and 6.98 mg/kg 1n 1975 and 7.50
and 4.15 mg/kg 1n 1979 (Spagnoll and Skinner, 1977; NYSDEC, 1981). Further
declines 1n PCB are Indicated for salmon collected 1r '"82; however,
contaminant levels remain above those thought to aff? , ^k. Chemical
analyses of 1983 fish collections, Including salmon and alewlves, are underway.
Reproductive failure of ranch mink fed a 30X diet of Lake Michigan coho
salmon (containing PCB and other chemicals) has been reported by Platnow and
Karstad (1973) and Aulerlch et al. (1973). In Initial studies by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation of mink 1n the Lake Ontario
watershed, collection of mink within a limited distance of the lake has been
almost Impossible, although historically mink were common (R. Foley, personal
communication).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project 1s an outgrowth of projects current", , erway by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation <*
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Data Usage
The findings from Initial studies being conducted by the above mentioned
agencies will be used to assess whether the objectives can be met and. if so,
to describe to what extent. Future efforts, 1f they are undertaken, are
dependent upon this Initial work.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
The potential Impairment of wild mink reproduction and growth as outlined
above 1s the major thrust of this protocol. Certain characteristics of mink
cause them to be particularly suitable for examination. As a predator and
scavenger,
1. M1nk maintain a relatively high position in the food web.
2. Mink have a relatively limited home range.
3. M1nk consume fish and shellfish as parts of their normal diet. Thus,
specimens taken near the Lake Ontario shoreline or major tributaries
are likely to have been exposed to elevated chemical contaminant
levels which originated from Lake Ontario.
However, due to mink sensitivity to certain chemical pollutants, population
impairment along,the Lake Ontario shoreline and major tributaries may already
have occurred. This is suggested since New York's collections in 1982 and
1983 within five miles of Lake Ontario produced only two animals. Thus,
current collections may reflect only animals originating from upland sites.
Due to personnel limitations, the most productive use of agency personnel
time is based on use and coordination of trapper collections of wild mink.
This may be supplemented by use of professional time to augment collection
efforts where trapper pressure is low. Collections should be made within the
township bordering Lake Ontario or any major tributaries where migrating fish
are present. Mink specimens should be females of similar age, preferably
adults; it is recognized that this may be the most difficult group to
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
collect. Suggested sample sizes for each jurisdiction are dependent upon
results of preliminary studies currently underway. Sampling frequency 1s to
be determined, although annual collections are the most frequent that could be
anticipated.
Skinned carcasses will be sent to the analytical laboratories. Care must
be taken by the trapper to avoid surface contamination of the carcass.
Therefore, trappers are requested to skin their animals over aluminum foil,
then wrap the samples 1n clean aluminum foil and att' 4 labels with collection
date, location of collection (Including distance fror> lake), and their
name. Trappers would then freeze the samples and call personnel 1n charge of
collections to pick up the sample.
Female mink were selected since reproductive effects are most apparent for
that sex when exposed to Aroclor 1254. Sperm motliity 1n males 1s apparently
unaffected by PCB concentrations up to 30 mg/kg 1n the diet (Aulerlch and
Ringer, 1977; Aulerlch et al.. 1973).
Monitoring Variables
The following variables should be Included on collection records at the
time of sample collection:
Date of collection
Location of .collection (include mapped location)
Sample identification
Species and sex
Trapper identification and address
Date of sample pick up
Person picking up sample
Condition of sample
All samples should be aged and ages recorded on the collection sheets. Each
individual sample should have its reproductive status determined and recorded,
Including number of corpora lutea and number of placental scars.
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chemical analyses should be conducted on several organs Including brain,
liver, rear leg muscle, and combined fat from mesenteries and renal
structures. Table 1 lists the chemicals to be analyzed for, along with
respective detection limits.
Additional chemical parameters for which analyses will be considered will
be drawn from several sources, Including:
1. The 11st of chemicals developed by the Hum?' : 1th Effects Committee
and published 1n the "Proceedings of the Roundtable on the
Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements for Assessing Human Health
Hazards Posed by Contaminants 1n the Great Lakes Ecosystem," held 1n
March 1982.
2. Other chemicals Identified by the Human Health Effects Committee, as
published 1n their annual reports.
3. Chemicals Identified as the result of studies conducted under the
auspices of the Niagara River Toxics Committee.
Analytical Methodologies
Sample analyses will be conducted by standardized techniques which have
received peer review and have been published.
Sampling Procedures
Mink collection is by trapper harvest, and supplemented by collections by
wildlife agency staff. Special handling by trappers and the records required
are both described above. Specific samples for chemical analysis shall be
prepared by or under the direction of the project coordinator.
Sample Custody Procedures
All samples must be accompanied by sample collection record forms and
continuity of evidence from the time of sample pick up to delivery at the
laboratory. Laboratories are required to maintain records for sample logging,
storage, security, and handling during chemical analyses.
/ <-/- -f
-------
I
Calibration Procedures and Preventatlve Maintenance
I To be supplied.
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
See Table 2.
i
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
|
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Environment
Canada (Canadian Wildlife Service), as appropriate.
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
All costs for the project are summarized 1n Table 3.
REFERENCES
1. Armstrong, R.W., and R.J. Sloan, 1980. Trends 1n levels of several known
I
i
chemical contaminants 1n fish from New York State waters. Tech. Rept.
80-2, Bureau of Environmental Protection, New York State Dept. of
Environmental Protection, New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, NY. 77 pp.
2. Aulerlch, R.J., and R.K. Ringer, 1977. Current status of PCB toxlclty to
mink, and effect on their reproduction. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxlcol.,
Vol. 6, pp. 279-292.
3. Aulerlch, R.J., R.K. Ringer, and S. Iwamoto, 1973. Reproductive failure
and mortality 1n mink fed on Great Lakes fish. J. Reprod. Fert., Suppl.,
i
_ Vol. 19, pp. 365-376.
i
i
i
-------
I
I
i
l
I
l
l
l
l
I
l
l
I
l
l
I
i
i
i
4. Henny, C.J., L.J. Bous, S.V. Gregory, and C.J. Stafford, 1980. PCB's and
organochlorlne pesticides 1n wild mink and river otters from Oregon, pp.
1763-1780. In.: Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings, J.A. Chapman
and 0. Pursley (Eds.), Frostburg, Maryland.
5. Jensen, S., J.E. Klhlstrom, J. Olsson, C. Lundberg, and J. Orberg, 1977.
Effects of PCB and DOT on mink (Hustela vlson) during the reproductive
season. Amblo, Vol. 6, pp. 239.
6. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 1981. Toxic
substances 1n fish and wildlife: 1979 and 1980 annual reports. Vol. 4,
No. 1, Tech. Rept. 81-1 (BEP), New York State Oept. of Environmental
Conservation, Division of F1sh and Wildlife, Albany, NY. 138 pp.
7. O'Connor, D.J., and S.W. Nielsen, 1980. Environmental survey of
methylmercury levels 1n wild mink (Hustela vlson) and otter (Lutra
canadensis) from the northeastern United States and experimental pathology
of methylmercur1al1sm 1n the otter, pp. 1728-1745. in: Worldwide
Furbearer Conference Proceedings, J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley (Eds.),
Frostburg, Maryland.
8. O'Shea, T.J., T.E. Kaiser, 6.R. Asklns, and J./, t Lunan, 1980.
Polychlorinated blphenyls 1n a wild mink popular:^., pp. 1746-1751. In:
Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings, J.A. Chapman and 0. Pursley
(Eds.), Fros.tburg, Maryland.
9. Platnow, N.S., and L.H. Karstad, 1973. Dietary effects of polychlorlnated
biphenyls on mink. Can. J. Comp. Med., Vol. 37, pp. 391-400.
-------
I
1
1
1
t
1
P
1
I
1
^m
I
1
I
V
1
1
-
I
I
1
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR MINK AND
DETECTION
SUGGESTED DETECTION
CHEMICAL LIMIT
Mercury
Cadmium
Lead
PCS (by Aroclor)
Mi rex
Photo-mi rex
DDT & metabolites
Chlordane (c1s + trans)
D1eldr1n/Aldr1n
BHC Isomers
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Oxychlordane
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
TASK
Sample 'collection and transport
(yg/kg)
10
10
10
20
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
COSTS
Sample preparation and data collection
Chemical analyses
Metals
Organks
Data analyses and reporting
TOTAL
LIMITS
SMALLEST
REPORTABLE
INCREMENT DESIRED
(tig/kg)
COST ($)
$ 2. OK
4. OK
4. OK
12. OK
3.6K
$25. 6K
-------
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
4J
e.
0)
CO
00
5
X
^^
^
0)
c
|M
>,
5
1
1
V
u
1 ,-'
«l
1 i
.£
oj
ts
i -:
.*
f
A.
~
s.' '
c
.
u
u
O
- (
'
!
i
1
i
i
I
^J
1 C
w «r. c c
= c. c
^ £ ' i c -
^ 1
1
1 N
* A
01
i i
§JD
S
>- e. c - L-. -r
j ' 3 * cj o E
« ^ 0 M «S
~ K CO < X
.- - " -1 05
r-
-- I
>^
M
>
M
B
«c <4-< r c is c/
C c. y c o:
C 0 IB X
C 4J l-> o ,-i
" >-i Q, JJ 4 CO
" o « a c
U O. O -3 V «
0) ^ .H
-' a. E en
iH £ 0) 4J
8 5 6 S
-------
1
I
I
I
I
* SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
CONTAMINANTS
i
I
» OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
Acute Toxicity
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: ACUTE TOXICITY
1
I
M UATERBODY: Lake Huron
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
II OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: ACUTE TOXICITY
I
I
II VIATERBODY; Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS
| OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; ACUTE TOXICITY
I
I
P VIATERBODY; Lake Ontario
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
1984.09.27
CHAPTER 15
ACUTE TOXICITY
BASIS FOR CONCERN
Many human activities produce waste products that 'en added to water,
may be deleterious to water usage. Certain wastes, $»:.,. i; pesticides,
chlorine, and o1l-fract1onat1on products, can produce lethality to aquatic
life when added to water 1n small quantities.
Surrounding Lake Ontario, major Inputs of municipal and Industrial wastes
occur on the Niagara River; Hamilton Harbour, Toronto, Port Hope, and the Bay
of Quinte, Ontario; and Rochester, Oswego Harbor, and Eighteen Mile Creek, New
York. The Niagara River Inputs are the subject of a separate surveillance
plan and will not be addressed here.
One basic goal of the 1978 Agreement and the several governments 1s that
effluents to Lake Ontario waters will not contain quantities of chemical
compounds in toxic amounts. In addition, persistent accumulative chemical
compounds should not be present in quantities which *'.''< «~iuse violation of
human health and environmental standards for consumpti« of fish.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is designed to ascertain the toxlcity of individual effluents
to waters of Lake Ontario, with particular emphasis on effluents with a high
potential for causing lethality to sensitive indicator organisms.
Objectives
1. To determine the toxidty of selected individual effluents to waters
of Lake Ontario.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
2. To assure that toxic or deleterious substances are not present in
quantities which would cause Impairment of the water for usage by
aquatic life.
3. Where effluent b1omon1tor1ng 1s Imposed by permit authorities,
provide quality assurance checks on permittee's b1omon1tor1ng.
Data Usage
The data will allow attention to be directed by regu.diary agencies to the
reduction of toxldty of effluents, where appropriate.
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
The effluents monitored should have a significant probability for
containing toxldty, or be of significant complexity that an evaluation by
chemical analyses alone will not adequately assess the potential Impacts on
aquatic organisms. The selections are necessary on a case-by-case basis;
however, certain classes of effluents are prime candidates for toxicity
testing. These are:
1. Chemical production industries.
2. Fossil fuel processing facilities.
3. Chlorine discharges.
4. Metals production industries.
Monitoring Variables and Frequency of Sample Collection
Monitoring is directed at toxic limits of an effluent; thus, measurements
are of lethal concentrations or effect concentrations (as percent effluent)
which affects a given percentage of the test population (usually SOX), and
given as an LC5Q or EC5Q, respectively. Tests would be performed on
representative test organisms such as fathead minnow ( imephales promelas).
rainbow trout (Salmo qairdnerl) and/or the water flea (Daphnia magna).
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If effluent toxicity testing 1s a requirement 1n a permit, then only
quality assurance testing 1s required; thus, frequency of testing would be
reduced. Where no effluent toxldty testing 1s required 1n permits, frequency
of sampling will be dependent upon the results obtained. Frequency of
monitoring 1s also affected by the place where the testing occurs. If on-s1te
testing 1s conducted, a maximum of three effluents can be examined per month.
However, if testing 1s to be conducted in a laboratory, based on grab sampling
or 24-hour composite sampling of the effluent, then * 'arger number of
effluents can be examined by the same personnel. Th ition of testing 1s
dependent upon the purpose for examination, generally:
1. Laboratory testing - quality assurance or screening of effluent
toxicity.
2. On-s1te testing - definitive toxicity testing.
Sampling Procedures
Procedures for effluent toxicity testing are provided in the report
entitled, "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxldty of Effluents to Aquatic
Organisms" (1), or equivalent methodology should be used.
Sample Custody
Sample custody from point of collection through testing and reporting of
results should be maintained, since the results have the potential for use in
legal proceedings as well as for modification of discharge permits.
Calibration Procedures and Preventative Maintenance
These activities are provided in Reference (1).
SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS
Scheduling is dependent upon the results obtained at a given site. If
on-site testing is conducted, a maximum of three sites may be examined per
7-5-3
-------
I
I
month. If laboratory testing 1s conducted, as many as four or five sites may
be examined per week for equivalent personnel time expenditure.
DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
i
Reference (1) provides the procedures necessary to assure data quality.
| Documentation. Data Reduction. Data Management, and Reporting
Reference (1) provides guidance for these operations. It 1s essential
that full documentation be obtained both on the laboratory forms necessary to
characterize the sample and test results, and 1n any final reports generated
for each site tested.
DATA VALIDATION
Methods are provided in Reference (1).
PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS
f Methods are provided 1n Reference (1).
PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
Estimated costs are dependent upon the purpose and methods used.
Approximate costs are provided in Table 1 for one on-site test and four
laboratory tests.
DATA INTERPRETATION
p To be developed.
| REPORTS
I Fully written reports are necessary for each site examined for the purpose
of definitive testing. However, for quality assurance and screening purposes,
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
less formal reports may be required, provided all Information gathered will be
reported with Interpretation to appropriate personnel and the discharger.
COMMENTARY
Effluent b1omon1tor1ng will be incorporated 1n limited numbers of
discharge permits Issued to New York State discharges in the near future. New
York currently conducts effluent bioassays for toxic*'"/ screening purposes and
has the capability for on-site definitive toxldty t> j (I.e. equipment)
but lacks personnel and funding to conduct this effort, in addition, a
quality assurance program must be devised to assure discharger's testing
methods are appropriate, documentation 1s completed, and test results are
reliable.
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency have conducted on-s1te toxicity testing at selected sites within the
Lake Ontario basin. However, current and planned efforts are unknown.
REFERENCE
1. "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxidty of Effluents to Aquatic
Organisms," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ''"Mngton, D.C.,
January 1978. Environmental Monitoring Series, Retort No. EPA
600/4-78-012.
-------
TABLE 1
APPROXIMATE COSTS FOR ACUTE TOXICITY TESTING
1
1
1
1
1
ONE
COST TYPE ON-SITE
TEST ($000)
Personnel 2.4
Travel ">
Supplies 0,
Equipment - (amortized over 8 years) 0.3
TOTAL 4.5
FOUR
LABORATORY
TESTS ($000)
2.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
3.2
Note: Indirect costs and fringe benefits are not Included,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
CONTAMINANTS
Sublethal Effects
I
I
| OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS .
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: SUBLETHAL EFFECTS
I
I
M WATERBODY: Lake Huron
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE: CONTAMINANTS .
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT; SUBLETHAL EFFECTS
I
I
WATERBODY: Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE; CONTAMINANTS
OPERATIONAL COMPONENT: SUBLETHAL EFFECTS
I
I
WATERBODY: Lake Ontario
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1984.09.27
CHAPTER 16
SUBLETHAL EFFECTS
BASIS FOR CONCERN
Mammalian and aquatic toxicology data indicate t^t many of the organic
and inorganic contaminants present in the Great Lake ^system have the
potential to impact adversely on all trophic levels. oratory toxicological
data indicate that the effects include inducement of tumours, papillomas, fin
erosion, and skeletal deformities; impairment of reproduction; or interference
with a number of biological processes.
The total number of hazardous or potentially hazardous chemicals is
uncertain. In its 1982 annual report, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board
identified 381 chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin. The Human Health Effects
Committee reported that 292 of these 381 chemicals had insufficient biological
or human health effects data to assess their potential hazard. An increasing
number of previously unidentified chemicals, metabolic by-products, and
isomers of previously identified substances can be added to this list. In its
1983 report, "An Inventory of Chemical Substances Identified in the Great
Lakes Ecosystem," the Water Quality Board reported _;K .-63 chemicals have now
been identified in the ecosystem.
Field studies have reported several observations of impairment, but a
direct cause-and-effect relationship between chemical contaminants and
biological response has not necessarily been demonstrated. For example, in
the early years of the coho program, Black and co-workers found goiter-like
tumours that were not cancerous. In recent years, the "tumours in fish" issue
has come up again. There is a definite need to monitor such situations to
find out if, in fact, such problems are being caused by contaminants.
There is also reason to believe that some declir, s in fish species, such
as spottail shiners (which suffered major population decreases in the late
1950's and the 1960's), were caused at least partially from contaminants. As
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
levels of certain contaminants (DOT, PCB, mlrex) decreased in recent years.
the spottall shiner population has Increased. But, several other adverse
habitat problems such as eutrophication have also been reduced due to better
control of phosphorus. Any one of such factors or a combination of
environmental (habitat) factors may have caused fish health problems.
Burdick and co-workers were the first to show (in 1958) that high levels
of DDT and metabolites prevented successful hatching e/d/or survival of lake
trout fry from New York's Lake George, a historic SOL ? Adirondack strain
lake trout eggs for state hatchery needs. During the si..,^ period, successful,
natural lake trout reproduction also stopped in that lake. When the source of
DDT was shut off, the levels dropped dramatically and by the late 1970's Lake
George once again provided viable lake trout eggs.
Because of the numerous contaminants known to accumulate in the
long-lived, high-fat-content lake trout, there were (and still are to some
degree) similar concerns over Lake Ontario lake trout capabilities to spawn
successfully. Very successful hatching and rearing of lake trout from Lake
Ontario eggs in 1982 and 1983 (Schneider, et al.) Indicates contaminants are
not now a major limiting factor in attaining self-sustaining lake trout stocks
from naturally spawned fish from the lake. If contaminant levels continue to
decrease in Lake Ontario fish, earlier serious concerns over the Impact of
contaminants on fish health may be reduced in import- Continued good
monitoring of various fish stocks throughout the lake 1,1 be necessary, if
accurate correlations are to be made between contaminant levels and the health
of individual fish species as well as local and lakewide fish communities.
As noted above, laboratory studies have demonstrated causative effects on
biological processes, but there have been few unequivocable field observations
to support the laboratory studies. This reflects the critical absence of
systematic bio-effects and ecosystem health monitoring programs. The need for
such causative information is critical, for instance, for the management of
the fishery resource. Impairment of any one component ~f the food web as a
result of chemical contamination (whether it be a redut;ion in the spawning
success of a particular fish species or a change in the food base), can have
an impact on individual fish species as well as local and lakewide fish
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fl
II
y
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
communities. But there has been no concerted, systematic effort to address
fish health contaminant-related issues. Systematic bioeffects and ecosystem
health monitoring programs will not only Indicate the present status of
ecosystem health, but will also provide an early warning of adverse
contaminant effects at all trophic levels.
There are both immediate and long-term needs for an ecosystem monitoring
program. The immediate requirement is to identify eating laboratory and
field programs that may contribute information. Ult 1y, the long-range
objective is to develop a comprehensive effects monito,Ing program which will
assess ecosystem health at the individual, population, and community levels
and be sensitive enough to detect contaminant effects before they emerge as
crisis issues.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Objectives and Scope
The objective 1s to integrate laboratory and field studies which measure
contaminant levels and detect morphological and physiological anomalies at
several trophic levels in the Great Lakes ecosystem. This will require:
1. Development and application of a suitable -r, , jf diagnostic
techniques which are sensitive to low leve"^ */f contaminants,
selective to single chemicals (or classes of chemicals), and relevant
to individual or population survival.
2. Field testing of laboratory techniques, which have been successfully
used in the laboratory or in other species, but have not yet been
applied to wild populations.
3. Field observations of stressed populations, when combined with
chemical exposure and residue data, can be -,ed to suggest causative
agents. However, in many studies, these correlations are the only
indicators of contaminant involvement. There is a need to establish
protocols for laboratory studies which can confirm the relationship
between field observations and chemical exposure.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The ultimate objective, then, is to provide data for the assessment of
potential sub-lethal effects on the health of fish and other aquatic organisms,
Direction for these activities should originate from the reports and
recommendations of the International Joint Commission's Toxic Substances
Committee, Aquatic Ecosystem Objectives Committee, Human Health Effects
Committee, and the Surveillance Work Group, as well as from the scientific and
research community in both Canada and the United Statp
Current Activities
A wide range of responses, from biochemical to morphological, can be used
to measure sublethal effects. The following examples of current activities
are illustrative:
1. Clinical methods for the diagnosis of contaminant effects on fish:
a. Mixed function oxidase (MFO) activity of Great Lakes fish.
b. Erythrocyte 6-amino levulinic acid dehydratase activity in
lead-exposed fish.
c. Bone composition and skeletal anomalies of fish exposed to
organochlorine compounds.
2. Surveys of the occurrence of pathological a nor,,.. Mes in fish,
including epidermal papillomas, gonadal and liver tumors, and thyroid
hyperplasia.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
To date, fish health issues have been considered on an individual basis,
i.e. lake trout spawning vs. contaminant concerns, tumours in coho salmon.
Some health concerns should be studied from a holistic approach that includes
the basic habitats (sediments, water column, vegetatio and the entire food
chain from micro-organisms through the top predator species. This would
provide a good snapshot in time to document present conditions (habitat
quality) as a base to monitor against.
I
-------
I
I PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION
The estimated annual cost is $104,000. A breakdown is given in Table 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATA INTERPRETATION
Interpretation of such data should be done by a select group that includes
both research and management staff.
I
-------
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COST FOR SUB-LETHAL EFFECT§
COST
ITEM OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
Sample Collection $5,000
Tumour Monitoring 1,500
Histology Contract 3,000
Contaminant Bioassays 6,000
Skeletal Anomalies 5,500
Enzyme Assays 4,000
Dioxin Effects 10,000
Report Preparation 500
Salary (2 PY) 60.000
TOTALS $95,500
j_j
STUDIES
($)
CAPITAL
$1 ,000
2,000
500
5,000
$8,500
-------
-------
-------