SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
                                 CONTAMINANTS
6256                           001R85001


















  •»
* —

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                           SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
                                              CONTAMINANTS
                                          OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
I
•                                             Atmospheric
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
*                             SURVEILLANCE ISSUE:            CONTAMINANTS
•                             OPERATIONAL COMPONENT;         ATMOSPHERIC
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                               WATERBODY:                     Lake Huron

-------
             to
             UJ
             r»
             to
             to
I
 '!
 »

™~








o
UJ
o_
s
<
00

UJ
CO
o
F
to
UJ
_l
CO
<
»— <
C£
$









•c
»— 1
o
UJ
s

o
z
r—«
o.
•r
«
to



^
^"
s
^•^
to
to
UJ
{_J
UJ
z




5*1-
zz
OUJ
•-« z
V— f"i
<£
a; s:
UJ O
0- 0
0
s:
UJ

to
c
M
«
OJ00 «.
00 C
J— *r-
"0 i-
•r- O XJ  *r-
" tt> X
en c « o
ac ro 4- ex
x> o a>
« J-r-
J3 OjC t.
O.r-73 0
JC >>r—
•0 S?JE
a> o u
U_ "JC 1C
C-P +•»
• •p-  ex
3 t. e a»
ox> ejc
r* *
" OJ r— JC
SC O O
•r- JO «3
1. 10 4->
»X> 4J CX
VI T— OJ O»
< «O E J=















S-
OJ
•p
rO




x-*^
w /^
* /
"i
-4
t^*
UJ -"%J
tal O
= =1
Q, ^Q^
oo a
o -n
•s- J
^ ^-U
5
«i

Ku- ~ '• »—
to! ra
O a.
o' -z.
\ t ^^

•


en
c
•r-
OJ
JD
IO
*p-
X»
OJ
E

c
o

CT»
•r-
XJ
c
o
CX
o>
x»
M
o
."xj
<*- <1»
•r- r—
0 0.
fl» 2
ex ts
to -o



•»

Q
1 -P
4J
to o
4-»m
c
OJXJ
E c
I*
fl»X>
00 GJ
XJ
•> C
J- OJ «
OJ CX-P
•P IO O
IO 3 T-
3S 00 CO
IO
(M
u/
g
XJ
fl t
#
u
OJ >>
"o^
00 O

t/1
UJ
1— I
Sg
1—
ZD
CO
1 — 1
a:
H-


•
OJ








C
M
* O
OJ CO
to • «o
o t. ex
»3I o
•r- CO "r— •>
Z 1 to JC OJ
JO OJ O C
* -P 10 «O
en «-r- +J x» o>
or o r- ex s- s.
3C O OJ O 3
"CO JO JC i— -P
JO 1 fS -JC O
CX IO -P • O 3
OJ C i.
• • E T- • -P
OJ OJ S- OJ 
U. CXJXJXJ
OJ C C T- >>
-JC « OJ X -P
3 CX 0--
O lOt— •> CX C
XO t- OJ 3
« OC O E
I. 4J r- J- E
O «JC O O
•> C O r— ',JC
X>0 S- >? 0 -
o cj. XJ o «e x •
r- JC -P OJ
" • O -P CX S.
W C ^- OJ OJ •<-
< SXJ E J= E



•i

Q
1 +"*
4->
to o
•Pco
C
OJ XJ
c g*
•r- ro «J
XJ 4->
OJ XJ O
OO OJT-
XJ C3
• C
S- QJ •
OJ CXJC
•P to to
ro 3 i-
3= 00 U.





t/>
OJ
>-



UJ
^
_J
Z
UJ
O-
0


•
CO
u.
0 H-
o
co uj
<. u.
LaJ U-
a: uj
*r




XJ
.{S
(/) ro
OJ C V>
XJ -P- r—
•p- S- ro
O O -P
•r- P— OJ
•Pjr E
W U
OJ XJ
CX « OJ
l/> 4->
OJ U O
CT- OJ
•i- -P i—
i_ ro O>
O E to
S J- «
O ro Q
O O
CXJO

•Pt-
r— ro «0
•r-
IO "to
•P W 3
•P E 0
0 ro -P
CXp- C
00 0 OJ





t/)
OJ
>-



UJ
c«:
o
1

«4- >
•r- O
Oja
OJ 
OJ O
.Ee°
XJX>
aj e
OO r3
"XJ
Q) XJ
4-' . .
rtf G,-
2. t~.





to
OJ
>-
z
ex:
UJ
CJ
o
0

u_
CD
>
<
UJ
Di
<


•
in











A
to
OJ
c
OJ
N
cz
CJ
JO
XJ
a>
4->
ro
c: to
•p- OJ
s- c
O OJ
s^>
U4->
to
««
XJ
1^4^
•p- ro
•— C
•p-
GJ i-
> 0
Or—
-Q <—
< 0













to
en
en
OJ
r_
*~-
3
C3





(A
OJ
>-




UJ
U.
>— 1
_J
0
_J
»— 1
"31


•
IO











X)
.3
to ro
•8 C
XJ -P-
•p- fc.
O 0
'•P JC
w o to
O) r-
CX « ro
t/) 4->
OJ O OJ
C «r- E
•p- +>
$. rO XJ
O E OJ
p- 0 4->
JC $- 0
O 10 OJ
O p-
CXJ OJ
«O 
5





to
OJ
ul
X
<
f-
z
>— 1
C£
UJ
1 —
<
2=


•
r---

££>
p—
^>
CX
r-
13
O





cn
•P-
IA
OJ
XJ

•P
O
QJ
*>~»
O

CX
c
«p-
X7
OJ .
•p-
«r-
•p-
o
s.
to
OJ
JO
£
ro
t -p
tn o
3-r-
00 CO

I "
E
«A g
•P4J
C -P
OJ O
ECO
•p-
XJXJ
OJ C
OO IO
«x>
fe-S
•P c
5S.





to
OJ




g
Se
UJ
to
UJ
C£.


•
CO



*
o
to
»— r
21

-------
I
I
I
I
I
•                            SURVEILLANCE ISSUE:           CONTAMINANTS
M                            OPERATIONAL COMPONENT:        ATMOSPHERIC
I
I
•                            UATERBODY:                    Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
™                             SURVEILLANCE ISSUE:           CONTAMINANTS
•                             OPERATIONAL COMPONENT:        ATMOSPHERIC
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 10

                            ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS
 BASIS FOR CONCERN


    The atmosphere has  long been recognized to be an Important component 1n

 the transport and deposition of materials to the ea    s surface.  In a

 natural ecosystem, 1t 1s Important that an equilibrium be maintained between

 natural emission and deposition such that there 1s no overall Increase in the

 atmospheric concentration of any chemical species on a global basis.  However,

 man-made emissions, concentrated in the highly Industrialized regions of the

 world, have resulted in situations where these emissions exceed naturaf

 emission, thus creating high depositions.  These emissions and depositions

 have created environmental Issues such as acid rain and the long range

 transport of toxic pollutants.


    One of the key strategies 1n the management of Great Lakes water resources

 is to reduce material Inputs to the Great Lakes.   Atmospheric inputs represent

 a significant and uncontrollable fraction of the total input.  The discovery

 of trace organics such as PCB's and toxaphene in the biota from remote Islands

 in Lake Superior have Identified organic contaminar I  :. ,m the atmosphere as a

 serious health hazard to the environment.


    To provide information on Great Lakes atmospheric deposition, Annex 11  of

 the 1978 Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality recommended that surveillance

 and monitoring activities be carried out on atmospheric  deposition.


    While the atmosphere is a known source of numerous contaminants,  the

 loading from the atmosphere,  both in absolute terms  and  relative to  other

 input sources,  has not been established.   In fact,  for many contaminants,  the

measurements are semi-qualitative at best.   Research is  required in  this area,

 especially with regard to analytical methodology,  s< ,iple collection

 procedures,  monitoring network design,  and atmosphere transport  mechanisms.
                                     /o-f

-------
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
     Indirect effects of atmospheric deposition may also be significant,

 especially the effects of add precipitation on the upper watersheds of those

 tributaries which drain Into Lake Ontario.  There 1s currently a great effort

 underway to study add precipitation from a continental perspective.  Acid

 percipitatlon, combined with the limited alkalinity of certain soils, can

 lower the pH of  lakes and ponds to the point where they are unable to support

 aquatic life.  Also, the add precipitation phenomenon has the potential to

 add  to the heavy metal loading in the tributaries.  Other possible effects,

 such as increased plant stress, are poorly understood   >(though much research

 1s now underway.


     Presently, a number of programs 1n both the United States and Canada

 address the issue of contamination from the atmosphere.  This chapter 1s based

 on two of these  programs, one conducted by the Canada Centre for Inland Waters

 (Canada Department of the Environment (DOE)) and the other by the Great Lakes

 National Programs Office (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).   This

 chapter recommends modifications aimed at achieving a practical,

 cost-effective plan.  The Task Force did not consider other atmospheric

 sampling programs and networks, which may be able to help  meet the

 requirements of this component of the Plan.


 PROJECT DESCRIPTION


 Objective and Scope


     1.    Provide qualitative information (presence/absence)  on organic  and

         metal  contaminants  in atmospheric deposition;  thus  identifying

         emerging problems  in  the Great  Lakes  Basin.


    2.    Provide annual  loading estimates of metals  to  Lake  Ontario.


Data  Usage


    1.    Provide  estimates of  annual  loadings  of meta.s  to Lake Ontario.


    2.    Provide  evidence of a  source of contaminant  loadings  to the  lake.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale

    The state of the art 1n the analysis of trace organics 1n atmospheric
precipitation 1s semi-qualitative at best.  Both Canada DOE and U.S. EPA are
conducting (experimenting) with their methods of collection.  The U.S. EPA
composites Its monthly bulk samples at 10 sites on a quarterly basis while
Canada DOE collects wet-only samples on a bi-weekly basis at two locations and
with on-s1te solvent extraction.  It 1s recommended that more funding be
allocated to this project so that reliable data car,    generated for use 1n
possible source Identification of contaminants.

    For trace metals, the approach taken by the two agencies Is to collect
wet-only and bulk samples from a network of land-based stations to measure the
composition of precipitation and to estimate, where possible, open lake
loading from rainfall measurements.  Measurement of wet-only deposition 1s
comparatively straight forward, while dry deposition measurements are still
very much a research effort.  The problem 1s further complicated by the
Inherent high degree of natural variation due to events and normal atmospheric
conditions across the vast expanse of the Great Lakes.  Recognizing that bulk
samples may not represent wet plus dry, total deposition estimates will be
augmented by dry deposition studies from the scientific communities.

    Present locations of samplers are given 1n Figure 1.  On the Canadian
side, the Kingston site has been phased out, but it is planned that a new
station be located in this region 1n the near future.  Existing Information
indicates only a single bulk sampler (in Fair Haven, New York) 1n the present
U.S. EPA program.   It is recommended that bulk samplers be established at each
of the four U.S. stations, as both wet and bulk deposition values are required
for loading estimates.

Monitoring Parameters and Frequency of Sample Collection

    Ide.illy,  collection and [immediate] analysis of precipitation samples
strictl -i on an event basis would provide the most reliable data.   Samples
collect
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
problem of definition of an "event"  with this  type  of  sampling.  Also,

logistics dictate that either samples  collected  In  this manner be composited,

or samples be collected on a less frequent basis to allow sufficient

precipitation to accumulate.


    It 1s, therefore, recommended that collection from both bulk and wet

samplers be conducted on a monthly basis for trace  metal  analysis to Include:

cadmium, copper, Iron, lead, nickel, and zinc.   Mercury and selenium, measured

in the open waters of the lake,  will not be measured •,> precipitation.  Both

of these metals require Immediate preservation.   In acd'tlon, mercury samples

must be collected in glass which would entail  Installation of a separate

sampler just for mercury.  As levels of mercury  found  in  the open lake are

routinely less than the detectable level (0.05 ug Hg/L),  mercury in

precipitation does not appear to be  an issue.


    Should additional parameter  Information be generated  at no extra cost,

that 1s a bonus.  However, as 1n the open lake work, it is imperative that

detection limits for the required parameters be  low enough that the data

generated does not merely consist of "less than's".


    Table 1 proposes, for each parameter,  the number of samples to be

collected, the analytical method, sample preservation, and holding time.

Analyses will also be considered for other parameters,  'li^se will be drawn

from several sources, including:


    1.   The list of chemicals developed by the  Human  Health Effects Committee

         and published in the "Proceedings of the Roundtable on the

         Surveillance and Monitoring Requirements for  Assessing Human Health

         Hazards Posed by Contaminants  in  the Great  Lakes  Ecosystem," held in

         March 1982.


    2.   Other chemicals  identified  by  the Human  Health Effects Committee, as

         published in their annual reports.
                                    /o-V

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
     3.    Chemicals Identified as the result of studies conducted under the

          auspices of the Niagara River Toxics Committee.


 The parameters for which analyses will be conducted will  be established later.


 Sampling Procedures


     Presently, the Canada DOE and the U.S.  EPA sampling protocols  have very

 little  1n common - samplers,  containers,  1n-f1eld  i   ,*?rvation  and

 measurements,  and frequency of collection are all  different.  If found to  be

 necessary (see Commentary,  below),  efforts  should  be directed at standardizing

 protocols.   Suggest co-location of  samplers at either Sault Ste. Marie or

 Niagara-on-the-Lake to  evaluate any biases  1n data.   Canada DOE  personnel

 visit the N1agara-on-the-Lake site  weekly,  so collector maintenance and sample

 collection  could be attended  to by  them.   Samples  could then be  split  and

 analyzed by both agencies.


 Sample  Custody Procedures


     This will  be dependent  on  method(s) chosen  for sample collection (to be

 determined).


     If  buckets  are  continued to be  used by  the  Canada agency,  the following

 sample  custody  procedures will be adhered to:


     1.    Pre-cleaned buckets (one for wet,  one  for bulk) and 2-l1tre LPE

          bottles will be sent to collectors for Installation at  the beginning

          of each month.


     2.    At the end of each month, samples will be directly transferred to the

          2 L bottles and mailed to the responsible personnel for splitting,

         preservation, and submission to the laboratory.


    Should polyethylene  bags be used, 1t must be decided whether these  are

sealed in the field and  mailed back, or transferred to the bottles  for  mailing.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
   I
   I
   I
   I
    Standardized procedures should be drawn up for the collectors specifying

handling of samples, specifically such issues as:  thawing of samples before

transferring to bottles (lid on, at room temperature, no obvious contaminating

sources in Immediate vicinity, etc.): what to do in case of spillage on

transferring; what to do if continuous precipitation throughout the time

designated to exchange buckets/bags; etc.


    Likewise, standardized pre-cleaning of buckets/bag?/bottles must be

determined.


Calibration Procedures and Preventative Maintenance


    Annual visits to all sites will be made to Inspect samplers and lubricate

and repair as required.  In addition, any unexpected malfunctioning of the

samplers will be attended to immediately.  Periods of breakdown/malfunctioning

will be recorded for reference.


SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND PRODUCTS


    Samples will be collected monthly and submitted for analysis.


    Loading estimates and Interpretation of data will be prepared  annually for

submission to the Lake Ontario Task Force.


PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY


    To be provided.


DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS


    The detection limits listed 1n Table 2 are the same ones  specified for the

open lake.   Analysis completed to date,  reporting the old detection limits,

consistently gave "less than"  data for many of the parameters in

precipitation.   This unnecessarily complicated loading calculations.

-------
I

I          DOCUMENTATION. DATA REDUCTION. DATA MANAGEMENT. AND REPORTING

•              To be provided.

            •DATA VALIDATION
  1
                To be provided.

            PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEMS AUDITS

                Agencies will carry out the following to ensure data compatibility:

•              1.   Carry out internal audit checks to ensure sample integrity.

9              2.   Participate in Data Quality Work Group interlaboratory studies.

•              3.   Co-locate precipitation collectors at one designated location
                     (Niagara-on-the-Lake or Sault Ste. Marie recommended) in the near
•                   future to exchange precipitation samples so as to evaluate any  biases
                     between the two agencies.

 I          CORRECTIVE ACTION

•              None

 I          PROJECT FISCAL INFORMATION

                To be supplied.

            DATA INTERPRETATION

                See above.

            REPORTS
I
I
I
I
               See  above.
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
   I
COMMENTARY


    As was stated earlier, atmospheric sampling for organic contaminants 1s

still very much 1n the realm of research.  Continued effort 1s required 1n the

development of a suitable protocol for sample collection, after which,  because

of volatilization flux and other associated problems, considerable research

must be directed toward Interpretation of the data obtained.  To reiterate,

more resources must be allocated to studying organic contaminants 1n

precipitation.


    Presently, the agencies Involved 1n the atmospheric program have different

sampling and analytical procedures.  Obviously, standardization of protocol

would give maximum assurance as to compatablHty of data produced.  However,

one must consider the objectives of the program - are such stringent measures

necessary?  Biases 1n data obtained by the two agencies would not affect

contaminant Identification.  Furthermore, loading calculations are such gross

estimates (monthly composites at four or five stations around the basin

extrapolated to give yearly loading estimates for the lake on each side of the

border) that minor biases could be discounted.  These factors must be taken

Into consideration when discussing protocol.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                                     TABLE 1

         PARTICULARS ABOUT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF PRECIPITATION SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Z1nc
NUMBER OF ANALYTICAL SAMPLE HOLDING
SAMPLES* METHOD^ PRESERVATION! .2 JIMEl
216
216
216
216
216
216
*216 bulk samples,  216  wet  samples.
ITO be determined by C.  H.  Chan and E. Klappenbach.  Whatever method  chosen
 must provide required  detection  limits (See Table 2.)
^Although standard  procedures call for metal samples to be preserved  at a  pH
 level of at least  1.6,  1t  1s assumed that the pH of precipitation 1n the
 Lake Ontario basin (~  4.0)  should be sufficiently acidic to stabHUze
 the samples during the month 1n  the field.
                                     TABLE 2

                DETECTION  LIMITS FOR METALS IN PRECCPIIATON SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Z1nc
DETECTION
LIMIT (ug/L) PRECISION AND ACCURACY
0.01 To be determined from method
chosen.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
                                         /o-9

-------
§
a
<
a.
UJ
w
a
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  1
  I
  I
   I
   I
    CQ
    E-
    w
    OQ
    H
    u:
                            n
 a     no
 O     O  60
 I  «) 4-> T»     C
 Cd M M-i-l C  O
 fn  cd C  »-i O  *->
 Cd t-3 -H .O 4-1  I/)
 60  I  r-l "O C  M
 cd  tt) N  O 0)  C
•H J3 3  O «J -rt
2:  4-> pa se
                                                                                                                                              v>
                                                            Page

-------
SURVEILLANCE ISSUE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
|                                           CONTAMINANTS
I
I                                       OPERATIONAL COMPONENT
™                                            Tributaries
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
*                            SURVEILLANCE  ISSUE:           CONTAMINANTS
•                            OPERATIONAL COMPONENT:        TRIBUTARIES
I
I
•                            WATERBODY;                    Lake  Huron
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
fc
t


































CO
r*"
1
^^
: 1
1 s


* *
Ul
— f
CO
CO
1— 1





































o
Ul
_l
OL
5J

CO
Ul
CO

P

CO
Ul
—1
s
»— 1
C£

^*










^£
1— 1
0
UJ
^g*
CJ
z
•— 1
si
5C
^
(/>






S
CO
CO
Ul
0
Ul
z





^H
zz
O Ul
H-l ?T
»— o

0:5-
Ul O
0- O
o

Ul
t-
oo
>-
OO
8
•t
c
M
«.
CU *9 **
CO C
•~T
«o *-
£°c-S
•> 0) •!-
"CO X
o> c •> o
3C ^3 t- CV
•o o o
* L. r""
.0 OJE 4-
0. r- 0 0
"0 X'S
O) O O
^-cSS
«t- CO Q.
3 j_ e co
O X> JC
p>v *
t- T- <0 J-
O XI 4-> O
*r~ i~~
• "i— .C
•o c o o
C^ •••• «Q 10
s. to p
"•O -P CX
W r— CU CU
< * E-c












S-
CU
.fj*
•O
a:







in
HI




Ul
C£
Ul
ac
D.
CO
o
2£-
r~*
<


•
•^

to
h-
2
z




O)
c
•r-
CJ
•°
«O
•r-
•o
flJ
E

O
0)
c
•r-
X>
C
01
ex
cu
"°
*>
•r-TJ
«*- O
•r~ r~*
0 CX
CU E
CX fO





E
,3

+JCQ
c

.e c
CU TJ
COO
•. c
S-  CLP
P  O
<0 3 f-
3: co eo
CU
C
o
•o
4-)
O
o> >>

CU C
CO O



CO
Ul
1— 1
gf
^
CO
1 — 1
OL
1-


•
CM
"^K



* E
C 0
M V)
• o cu

CO •> tO C> 3 W CU C
O J- Q. «+-> r- CU «4J 5>
«nc o i/>
Z 1 V) JC  «•»- PX»O >r- •— CU f— JO «i-r— JJ
•T™ t.3 ^^ f> g t J^ ^f^ CZ *^| ^1_> f* « .
a: o o o n c/>o ° "^ i/) u to aj

•O 1 *3 JZ O O. * Q> 4-> O  S-
' r->> O E U» * r— t- OE=O>
« J= ISCUXP I— O s~ JT>> r-O+J XJ
3CX O'-- JZJ-" O4-* JC 1- O CO.
O«h-«»CXC O (O C3 C W> O CU «8P O jQ W> 4-> C7)P flj
« c o r— '«o i. IB •» cu«a «r- «o 's_ CU wr" *^" r"
f > f"v ^3 Q rt3 X ' ** ^ O f~ CO t- •» ^ O CO
r-JC4->CJ «/>OC: (O4-> >O WQC ja
•> ». 
C. COCUC4-> XI CP
CU "O C *"" CU O C CU O
EC i-oaiECQ 'i- r-eO«OCO'3C7> CO CO(O
* C  r— CO CO *O
4->WW OlOPPr— -P 4Jc
« 3 -r- CXi— C »! 03 «O «0 'U
3 co u_ co o co r* i> C3 3: SB a.







W W W W W W
CU CO CO CU CO CU
>- >->->->->-
2:
Oi
Ul
O CO
paf LLJ
8 <
Ul UJ J—
i^ or u_ ui z a:
< O CD U- »-« O
-1 lo c j «: ^
py CY^ <^ f^ LtJ LJL|
UJ < UJ _1 1— CO
°~ • y ^ t^ ""• llj



• • • • • •
ro ^- LO vo r- co
u.
0 H- CO
o I—
to ui ^> •

-------
I
I
I
I
I
                               SURVEILLANCE ISSUE;           CONTAMINANTS
•                             OPERATIONAL COMPONENT:        TRIBUTARIES
I
I
•                             UATERBODY:                    Lake Erie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
•                             SURVEILLANCE  ISSUE:           CONTAMINANTS
•                             OPERATIONAL COMPONENT:        TRIBUTARIES
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
                                                              1984.09.21
                                   CHAPTER 8
                                TRIBUTARY WATER
BASIS FOR CONCERN

    Organic and metal contaminants are being Introduced Into the Great Lakes
In several ways, Including by way of tributaries.       taries to Lake Ontario
receive the wastewater from point sources Including large metropolitan areas,
a variety of Industries, as well as non-point source land runoff.
Contaminants originate both from present discharges and re-suspension of
bottom sediments which contain the residue from historic discharges.
Measurement of tributaries near the river mouth 1s a convenient and probably
the only accurate method of measuring the amount of contaminants actually
being discharged from a watershed into the lake.  If the levels of
contaminants entering Lake Ontario and the aquatic biota are to be controlled
or reduced, sources must be identified and, as technology permits, the
loadings quantified.

    This program element must be coordinated with the tributary contaminant
program for nutrients (Chapter 22) and, if appropriate, for the particular
areas of concern if the tributary discharges into at- <;  -a of concern.   Should
contaminants be identified 1n either the tributary waters entering the lake or
in the sediments carried and deposited near the tributary mouth, then
trackdown Into the upstream watershed is appropriate.   Trackdown 1s further
discussed in Chapter 6A, and would be used to pinpoint  sources which are
presently contributing to identified problems.

    While an accounting of upstream sources is  not as  important in determining
lake loadings as other factors,  it does take on significance if fish
populations are exposed in tributary waters to  chemical contaminants.   Fish
migrating upstream as part of their habitat or  to s wn could be affected by
upstream sources.   If this exposure is determined to be significant, then the
upstream sources need to be monitored and appropriate action taken for
abatement.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
    Studies have shown that much of the tributary loading of contaminants

occurs during discharge events.  These events may be characterized  as  the

annual spring snow melt and periodic significant rainfall.  Therefore, the

discharge events for each major lake tributary must be captured 1n  the

sampling program.  There win be great variability from tributary to tributary

as each 1s uniquely sensitive to various types of precipitation.  For  example,

the Niagara River will show much less short-term flow variability than a small

tributary which may actually become non-existent 1n the summer between major

rainfall episodes.  Details about event monitoring are    -ented  1n Chapter 22.


    Tributary loading 1s only one factor 1n the total loading picture  for

contaminants entering Lake Ontario.  Other loading factors discussed 1n other

chapters Include direct point source discharges (Chapter 6A), storm sewer

overflows (Chapter 68), and atmospheric Inputs (Chapter 10).  This  chapter

discusses only the waterborne contaminants from tributaries.  When  the

relative significance of various loading sources 1s realized, then  the

contributing factors should be weighted to assure that the most significant

Inputs receive the highest degree of monitoring.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION


    This project consists of defining a sampling program, Including flow

measurement and gauging stations and sampling points, *w,MiK will  measure the

contaminant Inputs from those tributaries to Lake Ontario which are believed

to carry a significant contaminant load.  Based upon stream size  and

previously determined actual and potential sources of pollution,  a  flow

measurement and sampling frequency program will be devised to provide  for

definition of event-related discharges (see also Chapter 22).   The  project

will also define the analytical and reporting procedures for the  analyses  done.


    The specific questions to be answered are:


    1.   Which tributaries, and to what extent, contri(i'te to the discharge of

         organic and metallic contaminants to Lake Ontario?


    2.   On which tributaries are remedial measures necessary to  reduce

         significant and unacceptable loads Into Lake Ontario?


                                  8-2

-------
I
   I
I
I
   I
I
I
I
   I
 I
 I
 I
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
  i
  i
    3.   What 1s the current level or baseline discharge of metallic and
         organic contaminants?  Over time, what Improvement 1s evident from
         control and remedial measures?

    4.   What new substances of concern are detected from the tributary water
         discharges entering Lake Ontario?

Objective and Scope

    The scope of this project 1s to establish an enhanced tributary sample and
analysis program for organic chemicals and metallic contaminants which are
Introduced to Lake Ontario from tributary discharges.  The specific objectives
are to quantify such loadings through flow measurements and contaminant
analysis.  Tributaries will be selected based upon analysis of previous
discharges, review of the annual hydrograph, and the Inclusion 1n their
watersheds of significant actual or suspected sources of contamination.

    The program will be structured to define the majority of loadings entering
the lake, based upon both the size of the tributary and a selected frequency
of analysis to Increase the sampling during significant discharge periods.

    The objective of the enhanced tributary monitoring program 1s to Increase
the precision of tributary loading estimates for Raj,,* significant tributaries
by the use of an Improved sample strategy.  A tlereo wr stratified approach
will be utilized, 1n which the frequency of sampling will be adjusted depending
on the stage of stream flow so that more frequent samples are taken as flow
Increases.  This will Increase the statistical reliability of the data, as 1t
has been determined that proportionately more contaminants are moved from the
tributary during Increases 1n flow, particularly major significant events such
as the annual spring runoff and Intense short-duration storms.  There will be
additional benefits, Including an Improved data base covering a variety of
hydrologlc and geographic areas and a better ability to quantify Input
loadings and plan future sampling schedules.

-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
Monitoring Network Design and Rationale

    All major Lake Ontario tributaries will be measured for organic and
metallic contaminants on a routine and/or an event-related basis.  Table l
lists the tributaries to be monitored and Includes their drainage area and
average discharge.  On the south shore of Lake Ontario 1n the United States,
there are dozens of minor tributaries which enter the lake from basically
rural and agricultural areas.  These tributaries are not significant 1n terms
of either flow or loading to the lake and are not pro;    1 for monitoring.
They would be expected to contain Input from non-point sources which may be
contaminated from agricultural runoff which would Include pesticides.
Selected monitoring of nearshore waters 1s proposed 1n Chapter 7A to Identify
whether these sources would have significance when compared to the major
tributaries selected.  Contaminants would also be detected and quantified
through the water Intake monitoring program (see Chapter 4).  The major
tributaries selected encompass the majority of urban areas and basin
population.

    Long-term stream gauging stations and sampling points will be established
on each selected tributary where this has not already been done.  Based upon
hydrograph flow analysis and previous sampling, a selection will be made of
stations and frequency which 1s expected to provide for the measurement of
between 80 and 90% of the contaminant loadings entering '<-n:e Ontario from Its
tributaries.  The Niagara River, the lake's largest tributary, 1s not
specifically considered 1n this program.  As a connecting channel waterway, 1t
1s subject to the development of a monitoring program specific to 1t, and as
the lake's most significant tributary, will most probably have a specific
monitoring program of greater scope frequency and duration than other less
significant tributary water bodies.  Therefore, because of Its special status,
1t 1s not Included 1n the average program design and rationale.

Monitoring Parameters and Frequency of Collection

    Table 2 Indicates the frequency of sampling for metallic and organic
contaminants.   The substances for which monitoring will  be considered will be
drawn from several sources, Including:

-------
I
  I
I
I
  (
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 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 Ecosystem," held 1n
         March 1982.

    2.   Other chemicals Identified by  the Human Health Effects Committee, as
         published In their annual reports.

    3.   Chemicals Identified as the result of studies conducted under the
         auspices of the Niagara River  Toxics Committee.

    4.   Chemicals Included 1n the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's
         Special Intensive Drinking Water Monitoring Program (Tables 3 and 4).

The chemical selection process will be  tempered by consideration of the
sources upstream 1n a particular tributary basin.

    For this chapter, the spring snow melt episode 1s defined as those
conditions during which stream flow rises at a significant rate because of
melting snow which may or may not be accompanied by rainfall.  This period
will usually last approximately four weeks in any year but may vary at time of
onset depending upon the particular winter condition.; from late February
through early April.   A rainfall episode 1s arbitrarily defined so that
approximately 8 to 10 runoff episodes per year will  be Included with the
spring runoff and routine monthly sampling program.   A review of rainfall
records Indicates that a rainfall of 0.4" 1n three hours or 0.5" in eight
hours will probably provide this level  of sampling.

Sampling Procedures

    The sampling procedures will be specified by the requirements  of the
sampling protocols  and quality assurance/quality control  procedures
established for the overall  control of  the Plan.   Generally,  samples will be
grab samples Integrated over depth taken at mid-channel  as respresentatlve of
general flow for concentration.   For minor tributaries,  consideration will be
                                  9-5

-------
I
f
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
t
 I
 f
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
given to automated sampling equipment from which samples can be collected and

mailed to appropriate laboratories by contracted personnel rather than

utilizing professional employees of the jurisdictions.


Sample Custody Procedures


    No special chain of custody arrangements are recommended, as the samples

are Intended for monitoring and surveillance purpose? 
-------
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
                  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

t—t
fv*
$











^
o
Ul
*5T

C3
Z
t—t
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  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—
1—4
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
>
"0*1=
to o



to
Ul
TRIBUTARI


•
CM



•i
C
M
«
01
U) «
o


•»
o
0
~o
L. O.
•ac b
•r- CO "p— *
Z 1 (0 jc Ol
jo c; u c
•> 4->  •"»- 4-> "O O
re OP- a. i- *.
ac o e> o 3
«CO JD JC f— 4J
JO 1 IS JC O
O-  Ol J- C' to
u. cx> x> -o
0> C C T- >»
•JC C3 01 X 4->
3 CX o-«-
t> fBt— ~ CXC
XO i- 01 3
« OO O E
*- <-> P- I- E
O -JC O O
• CO r-'4t>
«eoi- >,jc
•o o s.
o ex,x»
• • G> '
tO C-r-
< rs-a





g"
3
4->
CO O
4-> CO
C
o x>
E C
•p- *o nj
XJ 4->
Ol XJ O
tO 0)-r-
x> ca
• c
S- Q ' ' W
Ol C >JC
4-> W V>
*O — «P-
2S «^ U.








in
Ol
>-




Ul
g
z
UI
O.
o
\
-
• ^
CO
u.
0 h-
o
to ui
 *P*
EJC E












•*













i
«t
*fc





•o
.&
to to
01 c: to
"O 1— p—
T- i- 10
0 0 4->
organochlorine pesti
nated aromatics, chl
s, PCDD, selected me
•r- r—
• t. 0
to o c
CO r- Ol '
0 JC JC
ex, o ex


TJ
Ol 1
Ci P:
*^» ^^
IO IO
OP-
•r™
til shiners,
, attached f
•> algae
fu n v>
4-> tO 3
4_» p= O
0 W 4->
Q.I— C
to o o>








«A
O
>-




NEARSHORE


«*



o
to
•8
3
13
C
•r-
X>
O
jr
CO tO
Ol
"P—
tO J3
4-" «
»c ....
&
*,
•i- fti
«4- >
•r- O
0.0
Ol IO
CX
t/> 0)
«45
Ol
S-M-
<: o


,4S
CO O
3 *P-
toco
1 * n
, Sediments
1 and Bottom
" V-*
i- •
o;
UI
o
I
«...
)
to
<
Ul
s


in





A
to
Ol
c
0)
N
C
0!
list S chlorinated b
nated styrenes
•f"
Ol i-
> o
Or-
jajc
< o








o>
o>
fll
M*
r—
3
CD








to
Ol
>-




WILDLIFE

•
to





•o
«s
(/) IO
Ol C
XJ'r- .
•r- t_
O 0
organochlorine pesti
nated aromatics, chl
s, selected metals
• J- O
to o c
CO r- OJ
0 JC JC
a. o ex
to
•p
c
Ol
J:

XJ
01
CO
, Suspended
S-
Ol
4->
^5
3:








to
01
>-


ul
g
r™
Z
>— i
0'
<
S:

•
r~-
P
• fc
2
r-



&
•r»
to
Ol
XJ
4->
U
Ol
»•»
o
CX
c
•p-
TJ
Ol
•t—
«»-
TJ
R
to
tv
JD
-




RESEARCH

•
co


o
to

-------
 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












-------

-------

-------