LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR LAKE ONTARIO
STAGE I: PROBLEM DEFINITION
LAKE ONTARIO*
DU LAC ONTARIO
MAY 1998
1*1
Environment
Canada
Environnement
Canada
Ontario
Ministry ol the Environment
New York Slate
Department ol
Environmental
Conservation
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Purpose 1
1.2 Physical and Environmental Features of the Lake Ontario Basin 2
1.3 Demographics and Economy of the Basin 7
1.4 The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan and Progression to the LaMP 9
1.5 Scope of the LaMP 10
1.6 Human Health and the Lake Ontario LaMP 11
1.7 Developing LaMP Ecosystem Goals and Objectives 16
1.8 Management Structure 17
Chapter 2 Public Involvement 19
2.1 Introduction 19
2.2 A Look Back...l988-1995 19
2.3 A Public Involvement Strategy for the Lake Ontario LaMP 21
2.4 Next Steps 23
Chapter 3 Problem Identification 25
3.1 Introduction 25
3.2 Identifying Lakewide Problems and Critical Pollutants 26
3.3 Lakewide Beneficial Use Impairments 27
3.4 Insufficient Information for Lakewide Assessment but Impaired in
Areas of Concern 38
3.5 Localized Impairments in Areas of Concern and Other Nearshore Areas 40
3.6 Unimpaired Beneficial Uses 48
3.7 Pollutants to Be Addressed Through the LaMP 48
3.8 Sources and Loadings of Critical Pollutants 50
3.9 Summary 63
Chapter 4 Progress To Date 65
4.1 Introduction 65
4.2 Progress Under The LOTMP 65
4.3 Progress Under Initiatives Outside the Scope of the LOTMP 77
4.4 Progress In Improving Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Populations 81
4.5 Environmental Trends in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem 84
Chapter 5 Future Agenda for the LaMP 93
5.1 Introduction 93
5.2 Ongoing and Future Binational Activities 94
5.3 Ongoing and Future Activities in the U.S 94
5.4 Ongoing and Future Activities in Canada 98
5.5 Binational LaMP Workplan 101
5.6 Summary 101
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendices
A Glossary
B History of Lake Ontario Priority Contaminants
C Lake Ontario Letter of Intent
D Information Contacts: LaMP Management Team, RAP Contacts, and LaMP Document
Repositories
E Lake Ontario Sportfish Advisories
F Updated LOTMP Commitment Table
G References
H Public Involvement Process for Development of Stage 1 Lake Ontario LaMP
List of Tables
1-1 Basin Land Use (%) 8
1-2 Shoreline Land Use (%) 8
3-1 Summary of Lake Ontario Lakewide Beneficial Use Impairments and
Related Critical Pollutants and Other Factors 28
3-2 Summary of Beneficial Use Impairments in Six Lake Ontario Areas of Concern (AOC) and
Other Nearshore Areas 41
3-3 Preliminary Estimates of Lake Ontario Critical Pollutant Loadings Information 51
3-4 Estimates of Atmospheric, Point, and Non-point Source Contaminant Loadings Entering
Lake Ontario via Tributaries (Kg/yr) 53
3-5 Preliminary Estimate of Lakewide Critical Pollutants Entering Lake Ontario via
Direct Discharges in the U.S. (1989-1995) 55
3-6 Preliminary Estimate of Lakewide Critical Pollutants Entering Lake Ontario via
Direct Discharges in Canada (1989-1995) 56
4-1 Status of RAP Development 77
5 Binational Workplan for the Lake Ontario LaMP 102
List of Figures
1-1 Lake Ontario Drainage Basin 3
1-2 Sedimentation Basins in Lake Ontario 4
1-3 Lake Ontario LaMP Management Structure jg
3-1 Point Sources Directly Discharging to Lake Ontario 54
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
List of Figures (continued)
3-2 Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for PCBs (1990-1995) 58
3-3 Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for Total DDT (1990-1995) 59
3-4 Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for Mirex (1990-1995) 60
3-5 Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for Dieldrin (1989-1995) 62
4-1 Caged Mussel Tissue Concentrations (n= 1)
Niagara River, 1993-1995; Bloody Run Creek 68
4-2 Caged Mussel Tissue Concentrations (mean ± SD, N=3)
Niagara River, 1985-1995; Pettit Flume 68
4-3 Lake Ontario Habitat Restoration Projects 81
4-4 OCS Concentrations on Suspended Solids at Niagara-on-the-Lake, 1989-1995
(sampling begun 1989) 86
4-5 HCBD Concentrations on Suspended Solids at Niagara-on-the-Lake, 1986-1995 86
4-6 Mirex Concentrations on Suspended Solids at Niagara-on-the-Lake, 1986-1995 87
4-7 PCB Concentrations in Spottail Shiners at Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake 87
4-8 Dioxin analyses of sediment from the mouth of the Niagara River, taken at
various depths below the lake bottom, show that levels of this contaminant
decreased significantly between 1960 and 1980 88
4-9 Total PCB congener analyses of sediments from the mouth of the Niagara River,
taken at various depths below the lake bottom, show that levels of this contaminant
decreased significantly between 1960 and 1980 88
4-10 DDE in Herring Gull Eggs 90
4-11 PCBs in Herring Gull Eggs 90
Lake Ontario LaMP HI
May 1998
-------
ACRONYMS
AOC Area of Concern
ARCS Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
ARET Accelerate Reduction/El im i nation of Toxics
BCC Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern
CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act
COA Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWS Canadian Wildlife Service
DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada)
EEM Environmental Effects Monitoring
EC Environment Canada
GIS Geographic Information System
GLIMR Great Lakes Information Management Resource
GLIN Great Lakes Information Network
GLRC Great Lakes Research Consortium
GLWCAP (Canada's) Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
GLWQG Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
IJC International Joint Commission
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
LOTMP Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
MISA Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement
MNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRTMP Niagara River Toxic Management Plan
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OLMC Onondaga Lake Management Conference
OMAFRA Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PISCES Passive In-Situ Chemical Extraction Samplers
PPA Performance Partnership Agreement
PSL Priority Substances List
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
TSDF Transfer, Storage and Disposal Facility
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USF&WS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Note: Please refer to the glossary in Appendix A for definitions of technical terms. For your convenience
each term appearing in the glossary is italicized the first time it is used in the text.
iv
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• DU LAC (XTAH10
Introduction
In 1987, the governments of Canada and the United States made a
commitment, as part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), to develop a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) for each of
the five Great Lakes. According to the 1987 Agreement, "LaMPs shall
embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring
and protecting beneficial uses in ... open lake waters", including
consultation with the public.
This Stage 1 LaMP (the "problem definition" document) for Lake Ontario
has been developed by Region II of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), Environment Canada (EC), the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (the Four Parties), in consultation
with the public. Stages 2 through 4 of the Lake Ontario LaMP (the
schedule for load reduction activities, selection of remedial measures, and
results as documented by monitoring) will be developed, with public input,
over the next several years. Although this document serves as the Stage
1 document, it includes information from Stages 2-4 where available (i.e.,
some remedial measures have been or are being implemented and
monitoring programs have indicated improvements).
Background
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan and Progression
to the LaMP
In response to an identified toxics problem in the Niagara River and Lake
Ontario, a Niagara River Declaration of Intent was signed on February 4,
1987, by the Four Parties. This document required that a Lake Ontario
Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) be developed. The main purpose of
the LOTMP was to define the toxics problem in Lake Ontario and to
develop and implement a plan to eliminate the problem through both
individual and joint agency actions. The Four Parties developed a draft
Toxics Management Plan which was presented for public review in 1988.
The completed LOTMP was published in 1989. Updates of the LOTMP
were completed in 1991 and in 1993.
The LOTMP identified 11 priority toxic chemicals in the lake and
provided information regarding ongoing load reduction efforts. The
LOTMP has been the primary binational toxic substances reduction
planning effort for Lake Ontario. As such, it serves as a foundation for the
development of the Lake Ontario LaMP. In May of 1996, the Four Parties
signed a Letter of Intent agreeing that the LaMP should provide the
binational framework for environmental protection efforts in Lake Ontario.
Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan Goals:
• Drinking water and fish
that are safe for human
consumption.
• Natural reproduction,
within the ecosystem, of
the most sensitive native
species, such as bald
eagle, osprey, mink, and
river otter.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Four Parties have reviewed and incorporated all relevant LOTMP
commitments into this Stage 1 Plan.
Scope of the LaMP
The Lake Ontario LaMP focuses on resolving:
• Lakewide beneficial use impairments as defined in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (Annex 2) and described in Chapter 3 of this
LaMP;
• Critical pollutants contributing to, or likely to contribute to, these
impairments despite past application of regulatory controls, due to their
toxicity, persistence in the environment, and/or their ability to
accumulate in organisms; and
• Physical and biological problems caused by human activities.
The LaMP will address sources of lakewide critical pollutants, which are
those substances responsible for beneficial use impairments in the open
lake waters of both countries, as well as those substances that exceed
criteria and are, therefore, likely to impair such uses, which require
binational actions for resolution. The Plan will be coordinated with
Remedial Action Plans within the Lake Ontario drainage basin and other
localized efforts which are best suited to address issues of local concern.
In addition, the Plan will utilize linkages to other natural resource
management activities, such as the development of Lake Ontario fish
community objectives by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the
Lake Ontario Committee of fisheries managers. The LaMP will address
impairments found in open waters of the lake and nearshore areas, without
duplicating the efforts of localized remedial action plans. Tributaries,
including the Niagara River, are treated as inputs to the lake. The St.
Lawrence River is treated as an output from the lake.
Remedial Action Plans were
also required by the GLWQA.
These plans address
localized environmental
problems within an Area of
Concern (AOC). AOCsare
specific geographic areas
where significant pollution
problems have been
identified as impairing
beneficial uses such as
swimming, eating fish, or
drinking water.
In addition to the Lake Ontario LaMP, there are a number of other
environmental planning efforts upstream and downstream of the Lake
Ontario basin. Plans are being implemented for the Niagara River,
including Remedial Action Plans in both Canada and the U.S., and a
binational Toxics Management Plan. The major sources of pollutants
within the downstream St. Lawrence River are being addressed through
three ongoing planning efforts: Canadian and U.S. Remedial Action Plans
for the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall and Massena, respectively and a
St. Lawrence River Action Plan for the section of the river located in the
Province of Quebec.
v!
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LaMP Ecosystem Goals and Objectives
Ecosystem Goals for Lake Ontario:
4 The Lake Ontario Ecosystem should be maintained and as
necessary restored or enhanced to support self-reproducing
diverse biological communities.
^ The presence of contaminants shall not limit the uses offish,
wildlife, and waters of the Lake Ontario basin by humans and
shall not cause adverse health effects in plants and animals.
4 We as a society shall recognize our capacity to cause great
changes in the ecosystem and we shall conduct our activities
with responsible stewardship for the Lake Ontario basin.
The earlier LOTMP developed broad ecosystem goals for Lake Ontario
which have been incorporated in the LaMP process. The LaMP will
expand on these goals by developing more detailed ecosystem objectives
and ecosystem health indicators to be used to measure progress in
restoring Lake Ontario. A preliminary effort resulted in the following five
objectives which will serve as a starting point for a more comprehensive
effort to include broader public, private, and governmental input.
• Aquatic Communities (benthic and pelagic): the waters of Lake
Ontario shall support diverse and healthy reproducing and self-
sustaining communities in dynamic equilibrium, with an emphasis on
native species.
• Wildlife: the perpetuation of a healthy, diverse, and self-sustaining
wildlife community that utilizes the lake for habitat and/or food shall be
ensured by attaining and sustaining the waters, coastal wetlands, and
upland habitats of the Lake Ontario basin in sufficient quality and
quantity.
• Human Health: the waters, plants, and animals of Lake Ontario shall
be free from contaminants and organisms resulting from human
activities at levels that affect human health or aesthetic factors such as
tainting, odor, and turbidity.
• Habitat: Lake Ontario offshore and nearshore zones and surrounding
tributary, wetland, and upland habitats shall be of sufficient quality and
quantity to support ecosystem objectives for the health, productivity,
and distribution of plants and animals in and adjacent to Lake Ontario.
• Stewardship: Human activities and decisions shall embrace environ-
mental ethics and a commitment to responsible stewardship.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998 Vfl
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Management Structure
The Four Parties have the responsibility for developing the Lake Ontario
LaMP and have approved a LaMP management structure that consists of
a Coordination Committee, a Management Committee, a Lake Ontario
Workgroup, and a Lakewide Advisory Network (see figure below). There
are other agencies that have an interest in the LaMP, such as natural
resource and human health agencies, and their involvement on specific
issues is an important component of LaMP decision-making.
Responsibility for ensuring this participation lies with the Management
Committee.
COORDINATION COMMITTEE
- Provides strategic direction
- Resolve* significant Issues, If required
- Ensures accountability to the public
Membership:
• United States • Ontario
• Canada • New York State
LAKEWIDE ADVISORY NETWORK N
provides options for Involvement In N
the LaMP process:
- Partnership* and Bailn Team* to
promote connections between local
actions and the LaMP
- LaMP documents and Information
accessible by mailing lists and the
Internet
- Blnatlonal forums that will examine
key Issue* and decisions
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
- Provides overall program management
- Ensures progress In meeting the LaMP
schedule, effective public Involvement,
and participation by other agencies as
necessary
Membership:
• Ontario
• New York State
WORKGROUP
• Carrie* out day to day activities
necessary to achieve LaMP goals
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
- Plans, conducts, and evaluates
public Involvement activities for
the LaMP
TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEES
• As needed to provide scientific and
technical Input
Lake Ontario LaMP Management Structure
vlll
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Involvement in the Development of
the LaMP
The public involvement program for the LaMP aims to fully support
efforts to create and strengthen partnerships with citizens and
organizations taking restoration and protection actions in the Lake Ontario
basin. Historically, the public involvement process has included the
following elements:
• Holding open Coordination Committee meetings
• Conducting public workshops
• Improving connections with the Remedial Action Plans
• Collecting information and conducting evaluations
• Developing information and education materials
As the Lake Ontario process evolved, the Four Parties asked Lake Ontario
stakeholders for guidance on enhancing the public involvement program.
As a result, the agencies have adopted a strategy for a Lakewide Advisory
Network.
Lakewide Advisory Network:
I Establish partnerships to promote an understanding of the
connections between local watershed activities and their
impacts on Lake Ontario, to encourage action to conserve
and protect the lake, and to provide input to the LaMP
process.
4 Maintain a mailing connection to keep people informed and
solicit interest in the LaMP.
4 Provide opportunities for binational discussions between
representatives from the partnerships and other stakeholders
on key issues or other major decisions.
Public Involvement Goals:
• Increase public
understanding and
awareness of Lake Ontario
planning efforts.
• Provide various
opportunities for
meaningful public
consultation in developing
and implementing Lake
Ontario management
plans.
• Promote Individual and
corporate, governmental
and non-governmental
environmental stewardship
actions.
• Build partnerships across
the various programs and
initiatives that
are working to preserve
and protect Lake Ontario.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
ix
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Problem Definition
Significant changes have occurred in the Lake Ontario ecosystem over the
last century due to the effects of toxic pollution and habitat loss resulting
from the rapid development of the Lake Ontario basin. The extent of these
changes was fully realized in the 1960s and 1970s, when Lake Ontario
colonial waterbirds experienced nearly total reproductive failures due to
high levels of toxic contaminants in the food chain. In 1972, Canada and
the United States took actions to ban and control contaminants entering the
Great Lakes, and, in 1987, renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement with the goal to restore the overall health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Today, as a result of these actions, levels of toxic
contaminants in the Lake Ontario ecosystem have decreased significantly,
and colonial waterbird populations have overcome most of the recognized
contaminant-induced impacts of 25 years ago (i.e., their eggshells show
normal thickness, they are reproducing normally, and most population
levels are stable or increasing). However, bioaccumulative toxics persist
in sediment, water, and biota at levels of concern for some fish species,
such as lake trout and salmon, and for higher order predators, such as bald
eagles, snapping turtles, mink and otters, and humans. Also, the more
subtle chemically-induced effects are being investigated. Studies on Lake
Ontario and the Great Lakes are being undertaken to identify the effects
of persistent toxic chemicals on wildlife. These will be reported on in
future LaMP documents.
The GLWQA provides fourteen indicators of beneficial use impairments
(identified in the text box below) to help assess the impact of toxic
chemicals and other factors on the Great Lakes ecosystem. These
indicators provide a systematic way to identify pollutant impacts on the
entire ecosystem, ranging from phytoplankton to birds of prey and
mammals, including humans.
As defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, "impairment of beneficial use(s)" is a
change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes System sufficient to
cause any of the following:
1. Restrictions on fish and-wildlife consumption
2. Tainting offish and wildlife flavor
3. Degradation offish and wildlife populations
4. Fish tumors or other deformities
5. Bird or animal deformities or reproductive
problems
6. Degradation of benthos
7. Restrictions on dredging activities
8. Eutrophication or undesirable algae
9. Restrictions on drinking water
consumption, or taste and odor problems
10. Closing of beaches
11. Degradation of aesthetics
12. Added costs to agriculture or industry
13. Degradation of phytoplankton and
zooplankton populations
14. Loss offish and wildlife habitat
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The GLWQA defines critical pollutants as "substances that persist at
levels that, singly or in synergistic or additive combination, are causing,
or are likely to cause, impairment of beneficial uses despite past
application of regulatory controls due to their:
1. presence in open lake waters;
2. ability to cause or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement
objectives through their recognized threat to human health and
aquatic life; or
3. ability to bioaccumulate".
In preparing this binational problem assessment (see summary table on the
next page), Canada and the United States first independently evaluated 13
of the Lake Ontario beneficial use impairments for those geographic areas
within their jurisdictions (Rang et al, 1992; USEPA and NYSDEC,
1994). The agencies proceeded to integrate their separate evaluations into
this binational assessment of the status of beneficial use impairments in
Lake Ontario. The fourteenth beneficial use impairment, loss offish and
wildlife habitat, was evaluated using Lake Ontario habitat reports
compiled by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) as part
of the LaMP evaluation process (Busch et al, 1993) and others (Whillans
et al., 1992). The LaMP recognizes the importance of appropriate
linkages to other natural resource management initiatives such as fishery
management plans, lake-level management, wetlands protection,
watershed management plans, and control strategies for exotic species.
This report does not provide a complete analysis of the biological and
physical problems facing the lake because the ecosystem objectives and
indicators needed to evaluate these problems are still being developed and
will be reported on as part of the Stage 2 reporting for the LaMP (see
Binational LaMP Workplan). The LaMP will provide an assessment of the
physical and biological problems after these objectives and indicators have
been completed. Recognizing that the development of ecosystem
objectives may require a considerable amount of time, the LaMP will
move forward with the development of a critical pollutants reduction
strategy rather than wait until all physical and biological problems have
been defined.
The Four Parties have identified the lakewide beneficial use impairments
of Lake Ontario:
• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
• Degradation of wildlife populations
• Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
• Loss offish and wildlife habitat
There is direct and indirect evidence that PCBs, DDT and its metabolites,
mirex, and dioxins/furans are impairing beneficial uses in Lake Ontario.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998 xl
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of Lake Ontario
Lakewide Beneficial Use
Impairments and Related
Critical Pollutants and Other
Factors.
iMkewtdelmpturtnents
Restrictions on Fish and
Wildlife Consumption
Degradation of Wildlife
Populations
Bird or Animal Deformities or
Reproductive Problems
Loss of Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
ImpaaedSpecies
Trout, Salmon, Channel
catfish, American eel, Carp,
White sucker
Walleye, Smallmouth Bass'
All waterfowl*
Snapping Turtles'*
Bald Eaglec
Mink & Otter6
Bald Eagle'
Mink & Otter*
A wide range of native fish and
wildlife species
LaXnrtite Critical
FatUttana 4 filter Factors
PCBs, Dioxins, Mirex
Mercury*
PCBs, DDT, Mirex"
PCBs"
PCBs, Dioxin, DDT
PCBs
PCBs, Dioxin, DDT
PCBs
Lake Level Management
Exotic Species
Physical Loss, Modification,
and Destruction of Habitat
• Canadian advisories only.
b U.S. Advisories only.
° Indirect evidence only (based on fish tissue levels).
Notes:Dieldrin, although listed as a LaMP critical pollutant, is not associated with an impairment of
beneficial use.
"DDT' includes all DDT metabolites; "Dioxin" refers to all dioxins/furans.
It is also important that the Lake Ontario LaMP consider toxic substances
that are likely to impair beneficial uses. In this case, there may be no
direct evidence that a substance contributes to use impairments, but there
is indirect evidence if a chemical exceeds U.S. or Canadian standards,
criteria, or guidelines. A review of recent fish tissue contaminant
concentrations identified mercury as a lakewide contaminant of concern
because mercury concentrations in larger smallmouth bass and walleye are
likely to exceed Ontario's 0.5 parts per million (ppm) guideline for fish
consumption throughout the lake. Although there are no U.S. or Canadian
consumption advisories for smallmouth bass and walleye on a lakewide
basis, the data are sufficient to identify mercury as a critical pollutant as
part of the LaMP pollutant reduction strategy. Additional sampling may
be required to fully characterize contaminant concentrations in some
species that are not regularly sampled throughout the lake. As with
mercury, dieldrin is not linked to a lakewide impairment but dieldrin
concentrations exceed the most stringent criteria for both water and fish
tissue. Given the lakewide nature of these exceedences of the most
stringent criteria, dieldrin is also included in the list of LaMP critical
pollutants.
xil
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Lakewide Critical Pollutants that will be the focus of LaMP source
reduction activities are:
PCBs
DDT and its metabolites
mirex
dioxins/furans
mercury
dieldrin
These critical pollutants are of concern because they are persistent
(remaining in the water, sediment, and biota for long periods of time) and
bioaccumulative (accumulate in aquatic organisms to levels that are
harmful to human health). It is the intent of the Four Parties to prevent the
development of additional lakewide use impairments that may be caused
by other persistent, bioaccumulative toxics entering the lake. Therefore,
the LaMP will include actions that will address these critical pollutants
and the broader class of chemicals known as persistent, bioaccumulative
toxics.
The Four Parties agree that loss offish and wildlife habitat is a lakewide
impairment caused by artificial lake level management; the introduction
of exotic species; and the physical loss, modification, and destruction of
habitat, such as deforestation and the damming of tributaries.
Local use impairments are also identified in this document. However,
these impairments are best addressed on a local level through the
development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans and other
local management efforts.
Through the LaMP, the Four Parties seek to restore the lakewide beneficial
uses of the lake by reducing the input of critical pollutants and persistent,
bioaccumulative toxics to the lake, and by addressing the biological and
physical factors discussed above. The Four Parties will also improve the
database on sources and loadings of critical pollutants and other factors
causing these impairments. The critical pollutants identified above are
familiar to most citizens involved in Lake Ontario protection efforts, as
they have been the subject of ongoing management, reduction, and
prevention activities for many years. Despite these activities, levels of
these critical pollutants remain a concern due to historic releases and
practices contaminating sediments and soils, that are now being leached
into Lake Ontario waters slowly; long-range atmospheric transport from
distant sources; and inputs from other Great Lakes. Hence, restoring
these impairments is an ongoing challenge.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998 xiii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Four Parties plan to prioritize source reduction efforts to address the
most significant contributors of critical pollutants. Based on the limited
loadings data available, it appears that a significant load of critical
pollutants to the lake originates outside the Lake Ontario basin. The
upstream Great Lakes basin contributes the majority of the estimated
loadings of PCBs (440 kg/yr), DDT and its metabolites (96 kg/yr), and
dieldrin (43 kg/yr). Attention must also be focused on the Niagara River,
since most of the mirex entering Lake Ontario originates in the Niagara
River basin (1.8 kg/yr), and it also contributes to the load of other critical
pollutants to the lake. Atmospheric deposition is a source of critical
pollutants and appears to be the largest known source of dioxins/furans,
contributing approximately 5 grams per year. The LaMP will also seek to
address the inputs of critical pollutants from water discharges within the
Lake Ontario basin, including point source discharges directly to the lake
and point and non-point source discharges to the tributaries to the lake.
Progress to Date
The Four Parties have implemented programs and undertaken activities,
both regulatory and voluntary, that have resulted in measurable
improvements lakewide. Other actions have led to small incremental gains
in localized areas. Remedial Action Plan projects are reducing pollutants,
cleaning up the environment, and restoring habitat in Areas of Concern
(AOC). Activities are also ongoing to protect and promote human health
in the basin. Joint federal/state and federal/provincial programs to reduce
sources of pollutants to the lake have been ongoing under the LOTMP and
other initiatives. Environmental progress is evident in the reduced levels
of contamination in lake biota and other ecological improvements.
Highlights of this progress follow.
Binational Activities
The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP): Significant
progress has been made towards achieving the 50 percent reduction of 10
priority toxics in the Niagara River. The 1996 NRTMP Progress Report
outlines actions and results achieved by the Four Parties, including the
following:
• As of 1995, the number of Ontario point sources directly discharging to
the Niagara River had been reduced to 16. The data show that the daily
loadings of 18 priority toxics had been reduced by 99 percent.
• In New York State, an 80 percent reduction in 121 organic and in-
organic priority pollutants from significant point sources was realized
between 1981 and 1986. Between 1986 and 1994, another 25 percent
reduction was reported.
„. Late Ontario LaMP
*'v May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• In the U.S., 26 hazardous waste sites were identified as having the
greatest potential for toxic pollutant loadings to the Niagara River.
Accelerated remediation schedules were established for these sites. To
date, remedial construction has been completed at 8 of these sites, and
remedial activities are underway at 10 sites.
• Under Canadian and U.S. programs, contaminated sediments in several
tributaries to the Niagara River have been cleaned up.
Development of Mass Balance Models: Mass balance models were
developed that relate loadings of toxic contaminants to the lake to levels
in water, sediment, and fish. These models provide an initial technical
basis for determining load reduction targets, estimating how long it will
take to meet these targets, and planning for additional measures necessary
to achieve load reduction goals.
Development of Draft Ecosystem Objectives: The development of draft
ecosystem objectives for wildlife, habitat, aquatic communities, human
health, and environmental stewardship has provided direction and a basis
for establishing targets, or ecosystem indicators, as a means to check on
the effectiveness of remedial activities.
Activities in the United States
• New York State has banned the use of DDT, mirex, and dieldrin.
Allowable uses of mercury have also been severely restricted.
Production of PCBs and their use in the manufacture of new equipment
is no longer allowed. Older equipment and transformers containing
PCBs are being systematically removed from service and properly
disposed.
• In 1993, USEPA conducted pollution prevention inspections at seven
industrial facilities in the Lake Ontario basin. As a result of these
inspections, pollution prevention measures were implemented that
eliminated about 43 percent (213,000 Ibs.) of toxic chemical pollutants.
• The LOTMP identified seven inactive hazardous waste sites in the Lake
Ontario basin where remedial actions had not been completed.
Remedial actions at four of these seven sites have now been completed.
Two of the remaining sites are under remedial construction and the
other site is in design.
• USEPA, in partnership with Erie County, New York, has established a
"Clean Sweep" program to help farmers in the Lake Ontario basin
dispose of unwanted and/or banned pesticides in an environmentally
safe manner. To date, the program has been implemented in 15
counties, and over 120,000 pounds (gross) of agricultural hazardous or
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998 xv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
toxic products have been collected and properly disposed, including
DDTs, dioxin-contaminated pesticides, chlordane, arsenic, lead, and
mercury.
• USEPA and NYSDEC are conducting a "Source Trackdown" project in
order to facilitate the identification and remediation of contaminant
sources to the lake. This information will be used to confirm unknown
sources, determine the effectiveness of remediation activities, and plan
follow-up sampling activities.
Activities in Canada
• Ongoing and new activities to reduce critical pollutant loadings to Lake
Ontario from Ontario sources are undertaken within the framework of
the Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem (COA). The list of critical pollutants identified in this
document has been deliberately included in the COA to support further
reductions in releases of the critical pollutants, along with reductions in
the releases of these and other chemicals under the Niagara River
Toxics Management Plan. The COA Tier I substances, which include
the LaMP critical pollutants, are targeted for zero discharge to Ontario
waters.
• Since 1993, Ontario has promulgated Clean Water Regulations under its
MISA (Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement) program for
nine industrial sectors: organic chemicals, iron and steel, pulp and
paper, petroleum refineries, metal casting, metal mining, inorganic
chemicals, industrial minerals, and electric power generation. The goal
for the 34 regulated plants located within the basin is the use of best
available treatment technologies to substantially reduce pollutant
loadings. Compliance with the MISA regulations will achieve more
than a 70 percent reduction in the release of toxic pollutants to the
waters of Lake Ontario by 1998. The virtual elimination of releases of
persistent toxic substances, such as dioxins, is one benefit of this
activity.
• Ontario has banned the use of several of the Lake Ontario critical
pollutants (DDT, dieldrin, and mirex) and, in cooperation with
Environment Canada, recently confirmed that no legal use is taking
place in Ontario. Long-standing restrictions on the use of PCBs to
closed systems has prevented any deliberate releases to the ecosystem-
accidental releases are a possibility, which is why the decommissioning
and destruction of PCBs are being accelerated in Ontario.
• The national program, Accelerate Reduction/Elimination of Toxics
(ARET) calls for the voluntary reduction of 101 substances from either
direct or indirect industrial discharges to air, land, and water The goal
is a 90 percent reduction of persistent btoaccumulative toxic emissions
Lake Ontario LaMP
xvl May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and a 50 percent reduction of other toxic substance emissions by the
year 2000. Under the ARET challenge, a total of 287 organizations
across Canada have responded, over 100 of which are located in
Ontario. Together, these facilities have committed to voluntary
reductions in emissions of toxic substances of nearly 17,500 metric
tonnes nationally (as of year-end 1995).
• The Ontario Environmental Coalition, in cooperation with Ontario
Farmers, is developing Environmental Farm Plans (EFPs) to assess
environmental concerns. EFPs will continue to receive $5.6 million
through the year 2000 from the Agricultural Adaptation Council, with
technical support provided by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Approximately 10,000 farmers have
voluntarily attended farm plan workshops, and 5,186 approved
integrated action plans and implementation strategies are in place to
improve pest management and control erosion and agricultural runoff
from farms.
• Over the past five years, the partnership of OMAFRA and the Crop
Protection Institute, MOE, and AgCare has instituted an Agricultural
Pesticides Container Collection Program. One million containers have
been collected over the last two years.
Areas of Concern
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) development and implementation continues
in the Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour, Toronto Harbour, Port Hope, Bay
of Quinte, Oswego, Rochester Embayment, and Eighteenmile Creek Areas
of Concern. In addition to RAPs, other local environmental planning
efforts are underway that will contribute to a reduction in Lake Ontario
critical pollutants.
Improving Fish and Wildlife Populations
Many habitat restoration and protection projects are underway in the Lake
Ontario basin. For example:
• In the U.S., the New York State Open Space Conservation plan provides
a statewide process to identify and acquire undeveloped habitats. The
Ecological Protection and Restoration Program of USEPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office provides funding for a variety of habitat
restoration projects in Lake Ontario, including: barrier beach and
wetlands habitat restoration on the lake's shoreline; creation of wildlife
nesting habitat and exotic vegetation control at Deer Creek Marsh
Wildlife Management Area; and protection and restoration of Sandy
Pond Peninsula. In 1995, the non-profit New York River Otter Project
began the process of introducing nearly 300 river otters to the Lake
Ontario basin.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998 xvli
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• In Canada, EC's Cleanup Fund is currently supporting, in conjunction
with its many partners, more than 30 habitat rehabilitation projects in
the Lake Ontario watershed. By March of 1996, 45 km of riparian and
40 hectares of wetland habitats had been rehabilitated as a result of
project activities supported by the Fund and its partnerships.
Rehabilitation of an additional 1 8 km of riparian habitat and 409
hectares of wetlands is in progress. Canada's Great Lakes Wetlands
Conservation Action Plan is a five year plan that focuses on the
conservation of coastal wetlands along the lower Great Lakes. Priority
areas for protection and rehabilitation have been identified along the
Lake Ontario shoreline.
Environmental Trends in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem
Due in part to the programs and initiatives described above, environmental
progress has been documented in Lake Ontario, both in the reduction of
levels of contaminants found in the organisms, water quality, and
sediments within the lake, as well as in the population numbers and
reproductive success of various species found in the Lake Ontario basin.
• The input of toxic chemicals associated with suspended sediment from
the Niagara River has declined, most significantly between 1960 and
1990.
• Numbers offish-eating gulls and cormorants have increased dramatical-
ly in the last 20 years. PCB levels in herring gull eggs decreased by an
order of magnitude from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s; dieldrin
levels decreased by 80 to 90 percent.
• New York's bald eagle population is estimated to be growing at an
annual rate of between 15 to 30 percent since 1988.
• Overall, the fish community has experienced a dramatic reduction in
contaminant levels for PCBs and mirex since the mid-1970s, and a
slower rate of decline since the mid-1980s. Levels of mercury in fish
from eastern Lake Ontario do not show a statistically significant trend.
LaMP Agenda
Based on the impaired beneficial uses of Lake Ontario and the critical
pollutants and biological/physical factors contributing to these
impairments, the Four Parties have proposed an agenda of ongoing and
future activities that will continue efforts to move towards the restoration
of beneficial uses of the lake and achieve virtual elimination of critical
pollutants. The Four Parties recognize that there are many groups,
organizations, and agencies implementing activities to improve and protect
the Lake Ontario basin. The LaMP process provides an opportunity to
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
develop better connections with these various activities and build on the
successes already achieved.
Examples of proposed future binational activities include:
• The U.S. and Canada will continue to work with their Great Lakes
stakeholders to implement the "Canada-United States Strategy for the
Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes
Basin" to pursue the goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic
substances in the basin.
• The U.S. and Canada will continue to support the Integrated
Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), a binational network of 19
stations in the U.S. and Canada established and operated for the purpose
of monitoring the atmospheric deposition of toxic substances to the
Great Lakes.
Examples of proposed future activities in the U.S. include:
• Implementation of the USEPA/NYSDEC Performance Partnership
Agreement, which sets out mutual understandings of New York State
and USEPA regarding environmental projects to be pursued. The two
principles upon which the Agreement is based are maintaining the
efficiency and effectiveness of existing programs in the state and taking
additional action, as necessary, to solve particular problems in particular
places through "Community-Based Environmental Protection." The
Lake Ontario basin has been identified as one of the priority
community-based environmental initiatives for USEPA and NYSDEC.
• In February 1998, NYSDEC completed the adoption process and began
to implement the regulations, policies, and procedures contained within
the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (GLWQG) (further described
in Chapter 4). The implementation of the GLWQG will result in
consistent state water pollution control programs throughout the U.S.
Great Lake States and will lead to substantial reductions in the loading
of LaMP critical pollutants and other pollutants.
• USEPA and NYSDEC will conduct additional trackdown studies in
order to pinpoint significant sources of critical pollutants in tributaries
to the lake, and will form a trackdown workgroup to identify immediate
remedial activities.
• In 1996, the citizens of New York passed a $1.75 billion Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act. Approximately $125 million has been
targeted for Clean Water projects in the Great Lakes basin. Funding
will support point source, non-point source, and pollution prevention
initiatives, as well as activities to restore aquatic habitat and preserve
open space.
Lake Ontario LaMP ~~ "
May 1998 xfx
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Examples of proposed ongoing and future activities in Canada include:
• EC and MOE will continue to implement COA. The ultimate goal of
COA is to achieve the virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative
substances from the Great Lakes basin ecosystem by implementing
strategies consistent with zero discharge.
• Under MOE's Clean Water Regulations, developed under MISA,
effluent limits for 10 sectors will be in force by 1998. These include 34
industrial plants in the Lake Ontario basin.
• EC's Cleanup Fund will continue to provide funding and technical
support to a wide range of contaminated sediment, urban stormwater,
and agricultural projects aimed at controlling sources of pollution to
Lake Ontario, as well as habitat restoration and enhancement projects.
• Canada and Ontario initiated a Lake Ontario Tributary Priority Pollutant
Monitoring Study beginning in the spring of 1997, in order to provide
recommendations for targeted actions within watersheds identified as
significant sources of priority pollutants.
Binational LaMP Workplan
The 1987 GLWQA specifies that, when the problems in the lake have been
identified and the Stage 1 LaMP has been completed, a Stage 2 LaMP be
prepared which sets out a schedule for load reduction activities. The Four
Parties propose to develop the technical information necessary to focus the
actions undertaken through the LaMP and provide the foundation for the
Stage 2 LaMP.
The Stage 2 LaMP will identify the additional actions that will be
necessary to restore the beneficial uses of Lake Ontario. The Four Parties
will, however, initiate additional LaMP actions prior to the completion of
the Stage 2 document if these actions are identified as necessary to achieve
LaMP goals.
The following table identifies the activities that the Four Parties propose
to undertake binationally (either jointly or in a complementary fashion) to
move towards the completion of the draft Stage 2, and to continue to build
partnerships and provide information about the LaMP process. It is the
goal of the Four Parties to develop the technical information in draft form
within two years. Preparation of the Stage 2 LaMP will then commence,
incorporating public input on the draft technical information. It is the goal
of the Four Parties to produce a draft Stage 2 document for public review
by fall of the year 2000.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Binational Workplan for the Lake Ontario LaMP
Artivity
Priorities
{SpHnft 2060, «J»les* tttbenviie speeifwd)
Reducing inputs of
critical and other
pollutants
Continue existing
programs to reduce
loadings of critical
pollutants
Evaluate effectiveness ol
existing programs
Support implementation
of Binational Great
Lakes Toxics Strategy
a) Table and map identifying likely point and non-point
sources of critical pollutants; the data collection will
focus on sources in the basin but will also include
upstream sources entering via the Niagara river; major
atmospheric sources from out of the basin may also be
included
b) Forecast reductions in loadings as a result of existing
activities
Update pollutant
oadings and
contaminant levels
and instigate new
control programs to
address identified
sources and
oadings
Jndertake source
trackdown to identify
sources
Jpdate tributary loading
Jpdate sewage
reatment plant loading
Enhance existing mass
>alance models
facilitate cooperative
akewide monitoring
a) Prioritized listing of point, non-point, and basin sources
contributing loadings of critical pollutants to include
significant sources on each side of the lake
b) Updated table 3-3 and 3-4 for LaMP
c) Updated tables 3-5 and 3-6 for LaMP
d) First cut mass balance model to describe major fluxes
of critical pollutants into and out of Lake Ontario
(Spring 1999)
:) Binational priorities listing for monitoring needs
(Spring 1999)
0 Workplan for cooperative monitoring
efine LaMP List
f Critical
ollutants
eview new data as
ecessary
Determination of any additional critical pollutants (in
onsultation with health and resource agencies)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
xxl
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Activity
Updating/reassessing
beneficial use
assessments in open
lake waters
Managing biological
and physical factors
)eveloping
ecosystem objectives
and indicators
3-year objectives
Refine beneficial
use impairment
assessment
Continue habitat
protection and
restoration activities
Jpdate ecosystem
objectives and
determine
monitoring
ndicators
)evelop objectives
or restoration of
>eneficial uses
Priorities
Further assess lake wide
beneficial uses:
Priorities:
1) Chemical impacts on
benthos
2) Chemical and other
factors influencing
phytoplankton and
zooplankton
populations
3) Updates on status of
colonial waterbirds,
bald eagles, mink, and
otter
4) Updates of all
beneficial use
impairments as
necessary, where data
available on impacts
of physical and
biological factors
impacting beneficial
uses
Summarize
underway/proposed
actions for nearshore by
fall 1998
Review work completed
to date by technical
subcommittees; in
conjunction with
partners, determine next
steps
Set restoration
objectives, determine
necessary loading
eduction schedules,
levelop monitoring
mechanisms
Deliverable*
{Spring 2000,, un l*ss otfcerw&e spec Jttcd)
a) Updated benthos impairment section for Stage 2 LaMP
b) Binational beneficial use assessment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton populations using information from
the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Bioindex project, MOE's intake monitoring, USEPA's
Lake Guardian research program, and the U.S.
Bioindex project carried out by the NYSDEC, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, and Cornell University
c) Binational update on status, using relevant, readily
available data, addressing chemical and nonchemical
factors
d) A series of prioritized updates to be prepared using
relevant data on beneficial use impairment indicators,
with management recommendations; may not include
update on all 14 indicators for the Stage 2 LaMP
Map and table identifying nearshore underway and
proposed (to year 2000) actions to protect or restore
physical habitat
Binational workplan for ecosystem objectives
development including role of public consultation, priority
objectives for pelagic, benthic, and wildlife communities
Spring 1999); begin implementation of Workplan
Delisting objectives for the LaMP for each of 3 beneficial
uses impaired by chemicals as basis for loading reduction
schedules, for public consultation in 1999
xxH
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Activity
Facilitating public
involvement - three
tiered Lakewide
Advisory Network
Reporting
3-year objectives
Establish Basin
Teams and
partnerships
Maintain
information
connection
lold binational
,ake Ontario
brums at
significant stages in
le LaMP process
'reduce annual
tatus reports
roduce draft Stage
report
Priorities
Identify and meet with
partners
'rovide updated
information via the Lake
Ontario LaMP Web page
and mailings
Convene binational Lake
Ontario forums, as
necessary, with
jarticipants from Basin
'earns, partners, and
other interested
stakeholders
'roduce Year 1 Annual
Report
) Assess existing
programs
) Update sources and
loadings
) Present revised
objectives and
indicators
) Present draft load
reduction schedules
Deliverable*
{Spring 2000, unless otherwise specified)
a) Agreements with Basin Teams and partners to
cooperate in sharing information, encouraging actions
to preserve and protect the lake and watershed, and
providing public input to the LaMP process (Spring
1999)
b) Meetings with groups on issues of concern as
necessary
a) Up to date Lake Ontario LaMP homepage
>) Occasional mailings for informational updates and
gathering public input
iinational forum meeting likely in 1999
A short annual report highlighting progress to be released
t joint Lake Ontario LaMP and NRTMP annual meeting
Draft Stage 2 will be available for public review in the fall
f2000
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
xxiii
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
• DU IAC ONTARIO
In 1987, the governments of Canada and the United States made a
commitment, as part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), to develop a Lakewide Management Plan for each of the five
Great Lakes. The purpose of a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) is to
identify the actions necessary to restore and protect the lake. There are a
number of important principles that guide the development of LaMPs.
According to the 1987 Agreement, "LaMPs shall embody a systematic and
comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial
uses in ... open lake waters", including consultation with the public.
LaMPs will also provide an important step towards the virtual elimination
of persistent toxic substances and the restoration of "physical, chemical,
and biological integrity" (IJC, 1987) of the lakes. Through a LaMP,
efforts will be coordinated among governmental agencies to reduce
amounts of contaminants entering the lake and address causes of lakewide
environmental problems. Plans are being developed in four stages:
problem definition (Stage 1), schedule for load reduction activities (Stage
2), selection of remedial measures (Stage 3), and successful results as
documented by monitoring (Stage 4).
This Stage 1 LaMP for Lake Ontario has been developed by Region II of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Environment
Canada (EC), the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) (the Four Parties) in consultation with the public. It identifies the
progress seen to date in the lake as a result of actions already implemented
and proposes future actions that the Four Parties can take, individually or
jointly, to address identified problems.
One of the challenges of the LaMP is to understand the state of Lake
Ontario as it exists today and how it may change in the near future and
over the long term. Concentrations of toxic substances in water, sediment,
fish, and wildlife respond at different rates to changes in loadings and
changes in biological or physical conditions. Programs in place today
which have already reduced critical pollutant loadings may not have an
impact on environmental levels for decades, particularly in fish and
wildlife. This time lag must be considered when evaluating data which
were often collected several years before being reported and which reflect
loadings which occurred many more years before data collection.
Organisms accumulate chemicals or metals that have been in the
ecosystem for long periods of time, either in sediment or in organisms
which are lower on the food chain. Estimating if current programs will
eventually resolve some of these ecosystem issues and over what time
frame is an important step in understanding what additional measures are
necessary to accelerate the cleanup of Lake Ontario.
1.1 Background
and Purpose
The 1987 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement calls for
achieving common water
quality objectives, improved
pollution control throughout
the basin, and continued
monitoring. It focuses on
restoring and maintaining
"the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the
waters of the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem...the
interacting components of air,
land, and water and living
organisms Including man
within the drainage basin of
the St Lawrence River."
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Plan will build on existing programs that are being implemented in
the Lake Ontario basin to manage toxic substances. Additional
information beyond that which is required for Stage 1 has been included
where available (i.e., some remedial measures have been or are being
implemented and monitoring programs have indicated improvements).
The Four Parties will continue to develop Stages 2 through 4 with public
input over the next several years.
This report has taken a number of years to produce. As part of this
process, the Four Parties agreed that the cut-off date for adding new
information would be November 1996. It is therefore recognized that, in
some cases, the background information requires updating. In other cases,
new information needs to be reviewed and assessed relative to the
conclusions expressed in this report. The binational workplan
acknowledges this need and presents a schedule for updating the current
data base.
1.2 Physical
and Environ-
mental
Features of
the Lake
Ontario
Basin
Lake Ontario is the last of the chain of Great Lakes that straddle the
Canada/United States border. Its shoreline is bordered by the Province of
Ontario on the Canadian side and New York State on the U.S. side (see
Figure I-I). Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes, with a
surface area of 18,960 km2 (7,340 square miles), but it has the highest
ratio of watershed area to lake surface area. It is relatively deep, with an
average depth of 86 meters (283 feet) and a maximum depth of 244 meters
(802 feet), second only to Lake Superior. Approximately 80 percent of the
water flowing into Lake Ontario comes from Lake Erie through the
Niagara River (USEPA et al, 1987). The remaining flow comes from
Lake Ontario basin tributaries (14%) and precipitation (7%). About 93
percent of the water in Lake Ontario flows out to the St. Lawrence River;
the remaining 7 percent leaves through evaporation. Since Lake Ontario
is the downstream Great Lake, it is impacted by human activities
occurring throughout the Lake Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie
basins.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
25 SO mles
1 Hamilton Harbour
Buffalo River
3 Niagara River
4 Eiglteenmile Creek
5 Metro Toronto
6 Rochester Embayment
7 Port Hope
8 BayofQulrte
9 Oswego River
Figure 1-1. Lake Ontario Drainage Basin
Climate
The climate of the entire Great Lakes basin is characterized as humid and
temperate (USEPA el al., 1987). The position and size of each lake,
together with the effects of outside air masses, further influence climate.
Each lake acts as a heat sink, absorbing heat when the air is warm and
releasing it when the air is cold. This results in more moderate
temperatures at nearshore areas than other locations at the same latitude.
The influence of external air masses varies seasonally. In the summer, the
Lake Ontario basin is influenced mainly by warm humid air from the Gulf
of Mexico, whereas in winter the weather is influenced more by Arctic and
Pacific air masses.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
Physical Characteristics and Lake Processes
There are two main sedimentary basins within Lake Ontario: 1) the
Kingston Basin, which is a shallow basin located northeast of Duck-
Galloo Island; and 2) a deeper main basin that covers the rest of the lake
(see Figure 1-2). Within the main basin there are three deep sub-basins:
the Rochester, Mississauga, and Niagara Basins. These basins are
bordered by a shallow inshore zone that extends along the perimeter of the
main basin.
Lake Ontario has a seasonally dependent pattern of both horizontal and
vertical thermal stratification. In the spring, nearshore water warms more
quickly than the deep offshore waters. The density of water varies with
temperature, resulting in little mixing between these waters. The lake
becomes stratified vertically between the nearshore and the offshore zones
(except in the Kingston Basin which is shallow throughout). This thermal
stratification lasts until around the middle of June when offshore waters
warm and mixing occurs between offshore and nearshore waters. For the
rest of the summer, there is horizontal stratification between the warm
surface waters (epilimnion) and cool deeper waters (hypolimnion). The
depth of the thermocline varies between sub-basins. Summer water
temperatures are generally warmer in the southwest end of the lake and
cooler in the northwest end. Mixing of the waters in the epilimnion and
the hypolimnion begins during September, when the surface waters have
cooled, and continues until isothermal conditions occur. During the winter
months, inshore areas freeze (including Kingston Basin) but deep waters
remain open.
Figure 1-2. Sedimentation Basins in Lake Ontario (Thomas, 1983).
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
The prevailing west-northwest winds combined with the eastward flow of
water from the Niagara River are the most important influences on lake
circulation resulting in a counter-clockwise motion (Sly, 1990).
Circulation of water generally occurs along the eastern shore and within
sub-basins of the main lake. There is very little net flow along the north
inshore zone.
Circulation patterns, sedimentation rates, and thermal stratification
influence the effects of human activities on the lake. Although water
retention time in the lake is estimated to be about seven years, based on
inflow and outflow rates it may take much longer for substances such as
toxic chemicals to leave the lake (Sly, 1991). Contaminants may bind to
sediments on the lake floor, be covered over, and remain indefinitely.
Alternatively, contaminants may be resuspended to the water column or
ingested by benthic organisms and be introduced to the food chain. In the
summer when the lake is stratified, only water from the epilimnion flows
out into the St. Lawrence River, but during the winter months when the
water is thoroughly mixed, water from the deeper parts of the lake reaches
the St. Lawrence. MacKay (1989) suggests that, for some persistent
toxics, the lake will actually cleanse itself quicker than reported by Sly.
The trophic status of the lake has been influenced by human activities.
Prior to European settlement, Lake Ontario was oligotrophic. In the 1960s
and 1970s, excess nutrients in the form of phosphorus (from household
detergents, for example) caused excess algae growth. The trophic status
of the main basin changed from oligotrophic to mesotrophic, and many
nearshore areas became eutrophic. Phosphorus controls were
implemented in the 1970s and have been successful in reducing the
amount of nutrients entering the lake. Phosphorus levels, which were over
20 ug/L in the 1970s have dropped to less than 10 ug/L since 1986
(Neilson et al, 1994) indicating that the lake is returning to its original
oligotrophic condition. The filtering action of zebra and quagga mussels
are also thought to have had a role in improving the trophic status of the
lake.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic communities of Lake Ontario are indicative of the trophic
status of the lake. Benthic communities in the Kingston and main basins
are dominated by the aquatic crustacean, Diporeia, a species characteristic
of oligotrophic conditions. Benthic communities in most nearshore areas
are now totally dominated by zebra and quagga mussels, although
oligochaete worms dominate this community in some nearshore areas,
reflecting the eutrophic status of these areas. Zooplankton communities
are dominated by side-swimmers, and water fleas (cladocerans and
cyclopoid copepods). Diatoms and green algae are the most common
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
Charter Fishing
(Michigan Sea Grant)
types of phytoplankton. Mysis, a form of freshwater shrimp, is a very
important part of the pelagic food web.
The fish communities of Lake Ontario have changed significantly since the
1700s when Europeans first settled along the shores of Lake Ontario.
These changes have resulted primarily from human activities including
destruction of habitat, overharvesting, the introduction of exotic species,
and increased nutrients. Historically, as an oligotrophic lake, Lake
Ontario's top predators were lake trout, Atlantic salmon, and burbot. The
main forage species were lake herring, lake whitefish, and deepwater
sculpin. As early as the 1830s, concerns existed about the decline in
Atlantic salmon populations, and this species had
disappeared by the late 1800s. Lake trout and burbot
populations were almost eliminated in the 1940s. By the
1950s, natural populations of lake trout and deepwater
sculpin no longer existed in Lake Ontario.
In addition to severe declines in a number of fish
populations, other fish community changes have
occurred, resulting from the introduction (both accidental
and intentional) of exotic species. Over the past 100
years, exotic forage fish such as alewives, rainbow smelt,
and white perch became established and filled open
ecological niches. Government stocking programs have
also influenced the fish communities of the lake.
Stocking of lake trout began as early as the 1890s, but it was not until the
1970s that effective sea lamprey control and expanded stocking programs
for several salmonid species resulted in the development of a significant
sport fishery for salmon and trout in Lake Ontario and many of its
tributaries.
Presently, chinook salmon, coho salmon, and brown trout populations are
maintained primarily through stocking programs; very limited natural
reproduction of these species has been documented in a few tributary
systems. Stocking programs for lake trout and Atlantic salmon are
directed at rehabilitation of these two native species. While the Atlantic
salmon program is still at an early stage, there are encouraging signs of
natural reproduction by lake trout in recent years. Rainbow trout have
been very successful in establishing wild populations in a large number of
tributaries, particularly on the north shore. Rainbow trout are also stocked
into the lake in areas where natural reproduction of this species contributes
little to the sport fishery.
In the early 1990s, concerns were raised about the long term stability and
sustainability of the openwater fish community. Populations of alewife
and smelt have declined due to the lower productivity of the lake and the
increased stocking of trout and salmon that feed on these species.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1994, U.S. and Canadian natural resource management
agencies reduced stocking rates in recognition of these changing predator-
prey relationships in the lake.
Over the past two decades, there have been dramatic improvements in the
status of formerly depleted stocks of native species. Beginning in the late
1970s, walleye and lake whitefish populations began to recover in eastern
Lake Ontario; populations of these species have now reached historically
high levels in the eastern end of the lake. In the 1990s, fisheries
assessment programs have documented increasing numbers of lake
herring, lake sturgeon, and burbot. In 1996, assessment gear captured
several specimens of deepwater sculpin, a native prey species, no longer
thought to exist in the lake.
Alewife declines in recent years are believed to be an important factor in
the resurgence of native species. Predation and competition by alewife on
the juvenile life stages of native species had formerly suppressed their
recovery. As a consequence of zebra and quagga mussel invasion, benthic
pathways will become more important in the aquatic food web, which
should favor benthic and deepwater fish species such as lake trout, burbot,
lake sturgeon, and sculpin.
In light of the many changes occurring in the Lake Ontario ecosystem over
the last decade, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and
NYSDEC have initiated a review of the fisheries management direction
for the lake, involving fisheries professionals and stakeholders. The draft
Fish Community Objectives will be available for formal review in the
spring of 1998.
The present day demographics of Lake Ontario are a result of the
historical patterns of settlement which were closely tied to the physical
and environmental features of the basin. Native people have lived along
the shores of the Great Lakes for over 10,000 years. They fished the
waters, grew crops on the land, and used the rivers for
transportation. Europeans first settled along the shores of r
Lake Ontario in the 1700s. Cities and towns sprung up
near tributaries because of the abundant water supply and
transportation opportunities. The mixed hardwood
forests provided a rich resource. Logging became a
major activity, both for the valuable timber and to clear
the land for agriculture. The Lake Ontario basin has an
ideal climate and soil types for agriculture. Some areas,
such as the Niagara region, are highly specialized in the
growing of fruit and vegetable crops.
1.3 Demo-
graphics and
Economy of
the Basin
Lumber camp, c. 1900
(Douglas County Historical Society)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
7
-------
INTRODUCTION
Hamilton, Ontario
Table 1-1.
Basin Land Use (%)
Table 1-2.
Shoreline Land Use (%)
Shipping is a major activity on the lake and
has led to the growth of manufacturing and
population increases in port communities.
Major steel mills, that rely on shipping, were
established at Hamilton. In the 1900s, the
chemical industry was established near
Niagara Falls due to the abundant supply of
hydroelectric power generated by the Falls.
Commercial Fishing yields in Lake Ontario were never as high as more
productive lakes such as Lake Erie. Ontario does, however, currently
support a Canadian commercial fishery for lake whitefish, American eel,
yellow perch, and bullheads that was worth $1.5 million (CDN) in 1996
(Hoyles and Harvey, 1997). The U.S. commercial fishery for Lake Ontario
was valued at $68,000 (US) in 1995 (Cluett, 1995). The recreational
fishery is based primarily on salmon and trout species in the open lake and
tributaries, walleye in the eastern lake, and smaller numbers of perch,
smallmouth bass, and panfish species in embayments. The economic value
of recreational fishing to local communities is estimated to range from
$ 100 million to over $200 million per year (USEPAet ai, 1987; Kerrand
LeTendre, 1991).
The Lake Ontario basin, its major sub-basins, and communities are shown
in Figure 1-1 (see page 3). At the present time, over 5.4 million people
live on the Canadian side of the basin (Statistics Canada, 1994). The
northwestern part of the shoreline is a highly urbanized and industrialized
area referred to as the "Golden Horseshoe". This area extends from
Coburg in the east, around the western end of Lake Ontario to St.
Catharines and Niagara Falls. The U.S. side of the lake is not as heavily
populated, with approximately 2.2 million residents (NYSDED, 1991).
There are, however, concentrated areas of urbanization at Rochester,
Syracuse, Oswego, and Watertown, New York.
Land use in the basin and along the shoreline is presented in Tables 1-1
and 1-2, respectively. Forested areas are mainly in the northernmost and
southernmost areas of the watershed. Nearer to the lake, forest habitat is
highly fragmented.
Agriculture Residential: ::;,rpr#i! : flitter
Canada
U.S.
Total
49 6
33 8
39 7
42 3
53 6
49 5
Canada
U.S.
:#&aertfaif:i Kecrfationat
25 15
40 12
Agricultural Commercial Other
30 18 12
33 87
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
Rural and urban land use activities in the watershed influence the
environmental health of Lake Ontario. Herbicides, pesticides, and excess
nutrients from agricultural runoff are types of non-point source
contaminants. Sources of pollution from urban areas include storm water
runoff from paved streets, effluent from sewage treatment plants, and
combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
In response to an identified toxics problem in the Niagara River and Lake
Ontario, a Niagara River Declaration of Intent was signed on February 4,
1987, by the Four Parties. This document included a commitment to
develop a Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP). The main
purpose of the LOTMP was to define the toxics problem in Lake Ontario
and to develop and implement a plan to eliminate the problem through
both individual and joint agency actions. The Four Parties developed a
draft Toxics Management Plan which was presented for public review in
1988. The completed LOTMP was published in 1989 (LOTMP, 1989).
Updates of the LOTMP were completed in 1991 (LOTMP, 1991) and in
1993 (LOTMP, 1993).
1.4 The Lake
Ontario
Toxics
Management
Plan and
Progression
to the LaMP
Goals of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan:
4 Drinking water and fish that are safe for unlimited human
consumption
4 Natural reproduction, within the ecosystem, of the most
sensitive native species, such as bald eagle, osprey, mink, and
river otter
To achieve the goals, four objectives were developed:
• Reductions in Toxic Inputs Driven by Existing and Developing
Programs
• Further Reductions in Toxic Inputs Driven by Special Efforts in
Geographic Areas of Concern
• Further Reductions in Toxic Inputs Driven by Lakewide Analyses of
Pollutant Fate
• Zero Discharge
Lako Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
The LOTMP identified 11 priority toxic chemicals in the lake (see
Appendix B) and provided information regarding ongoing load reduction
efforts. This program has been the primary binational toxic substances
reduction planning effort for Lake Ontario. As such, it serves as a
foundation for the development of the Lake Ontario LaMP, which
incorporates an "ecosystem approach" through the assessment of
"beneficial uses". In May of 1996, the Four Parties signed a Letter of
Intent (see Appendix C) agreeing that the LaMP should provide the
binational framework for environmental protection efforts in Lake Ontario.
The Four Parties have reviewed and incorporated all relevant LOTMP
commitments into this Stage 1 Plan.
1.5 Scope of the
LaMP
Remedial Action Plans were
also required by the GLWQA.
These plans address localized
environmental problems
within an Area of Concern
(AOC). AOCs are specific
geographic areas where
significant pollution problems
have been identified as
impairing beneficial uses
such as swimming, eating
fish, or drinking water. (See
Figure 1-1).
The Lake Ontario LaMP focuses on resolving:
• Lakewide beneficial use impairments as defined in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (Annex 2) and described in Chapter 3 of this
LaMP;
• Critical pollutants contributing to, or likely to contribute to, these
impairments despite past application of regulatory controls, due to their
toxicity, persistence in the environment, and/or their ability to
accumulate in organisms; and
• Physical and biological problems caused by human activities.
The LaMP will address sources of lakewide critical pollutants, which are
those substances responsible, either singly or in synergistic or additive
combination, for beneficial use impairments in the open lake waters of
both countries, as well as those substances that exceed criteria and are,
therefore, likely to impair such uses, which require binational actions for
resolution. This Plan will be coordinated with Remedial Action Plans
within the Lake Ontario drainage basin and other localized efforts which
are best suited to address issues of local concern. In addition, this Plan
will utilize linkages to other natural resource management activities, such
as the development of Lake Ontario fish community objectives by the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the Lake Ontario Committee of
fisheries managers. The LaMP will address impairments found in open
waters of the lake and nearshore areas, without duplicating the efforts of
localized remedial action plans. Tributaries, including the Niagara River,
are treated as inputs to the lake. The St. Lawrence River is treated as an
output from the lake.
10
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report does not provide a complete analysis of the biological and
physical problems facing the lake because the ecosystem objectives and
indicators needed to evaluate these problems are still being developed and
will be reported on as part of the Stage 2 reporting for the LaMP (see
Binational LaMP Workplan). The LaMP will provide an assessment of the
physical and biological problems after these objectives and indicators have
been completed. Recognizing that the development of ecosystem
objectives may require a considerable amount of time, the LaMP will
move forward with the development of a critical pollutants reduction
strategy rather than wait until all physical and biological problems have
been defined.
In addition to the Lake Ontario LaMP, there are a number of other
environmental planning efforts upstream and downstream of the Lake
Ontario basin. Plans are being implemented for the Niagara River,
including Remedial Action Plans in both Canada and the U.S. and a
binational Toxics Management Plan. The major sources of pollutants
within the downstream St. Lawrence River are being addressed through
three ongoing planning efforts: Canadian and U.S. Remedial Action Plans
for the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall and Massena, respectively, and a
St. Lawrence River Action Plan for the section of the river located in the
Province of Quebec.
The Lake Ontario LaMP is concerned with human health issues related to
water quality. Other human health issues, such as air pollutants, infectious
diseases, and pesticide residues on food are not addressed as part of the
LaMP and are under the jurisdiction of other programs. Three of the
LaMP's impairment indicators are directly related to human health issues:
Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption, Fish and Wildlife
Consumption, and Beach Closings. Of these three, only fish and wildlife
consumption advisories have been identified as a lakewide problem.
Localized beach closings due to occasional high bacteria levels are a
problem in some areas and are being addressed by several Remedial
Action Plans. While some taste and odor problems have been observed,
there are no restrictions on drinking water consumption. The LaMP will
work with U.S. and Canadian health agencies to assure that health issues
are being adequately addressed.
1.6.1 Potential Human Health Impacts
Potential environmental pathways of human exposure to Great Lakes
pollutants include inhalation of air, ingestion of water, foodstuffs, or
contaminated soil, and dermal contact with water or airborne particulates.
Multimedia analyses indicate that the majority (80 to 90%) of human
exposures to chlorinated organic compounds and mercury comes from the
1.6 Human
Health and
the Lake
Ontario
LaMP
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
food pathway, a lesser amount (5 to 10%) from air, and minute amounts
(less than 1%) from water (Birmingham et al, 1989; Newhook, 1988;
Fitzgerald etal, 1995).
Most of the available data on human exposure to toxic substances in the
Great Lakes comes from the analyses of contaminant levels in drinking
water and sport fish. The consumption of contaminated sport fish and
wildlife can significantly increase human exposure to Lake Ontario critical
pollutants. The risks associated with fish consumption are greatly reduced
if people follow consumption advisories. Those who are unaware of or do
not follow these advisories are at greatest risk. Investigators have
demonstrated that blood serum levels of these contaminants are
significantly increased in consumers of contaminated Great Lakes sport
fish as compared to non-fisheaters (Humphrey, 1983a,b; Kearney et al.,
1995; Health Canada, 1997; Fitzgerald et al., 1995).
Even though residents of the Great Lakes basin are exposed to toxic
substances from many sources originating within and outside the region,
the main routes of human exposure to contaminants from the waters of the
Great Lakes are ingestion of fish and, to a lesser extent, ingestion of
drinking water (DFO and Health and Welfare Canada, 1991). Also,
several investigators have shown that exposure from fish far outweighs
atmospheric, terrestrial, or water column sources (Swain, 1991;
Humphrey, 1983b; Fitzgerald et al., 1995). These patterns may vary for
populations living in the vicinity of industrialized areas.
Several epidemiologic investigations have been conducted on the
association between water pollutants in the Great Lakes and the health of
people in the Great Lakes basin. These studies have demonstrated
increased tissue levels of toxic substances in these populations that may be
associated with or potentially result in reproductive, developmental,
behavioral, neurologic, endocrinologic, and immunologic effects
(Fitzgerald et al., 1995).
Some studies have reported subtle effects in children of mothers who
consumed large amounts of Great Lakes fish. At birth, some of the
children most highly exposed to the mixture of contaminants present in the
fish were slightly smaller, showed slightly delayed neuromuscular
development during infancy, and had a reduced ability to deal with
stressful situations. A small percentage of such children showed slightly
delayed or reduced intellectual development during their school years.
Recent epidemiologic and laboratory studies complement and continue to
build upon the scientific data gathered over the last two decades that
document health consequences associated with exposures to persistent
toxic substances. The findings of elevated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
levels in human populations, together with findings of developmental
deficits and neurologic problems in children whose mothers ate PCB-
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
contaminated fish, have significant health implications. Additional
research is necessary to better understand the human health impacts that
persistent toxic substances may have on sensitive populations (Johnson et
ai, draft 1997).
Endocrine disruption has emerged as a major issue in regulatory
toxicology with significant human health implications. While human
health effects due to endocrine disruption remain controversial, some
pesticides and certain industrial chemicals, as well as some naturally
occurring substances have been shown to mimic the action of estrogen in
tissue cultures and laboratory animal studies. Laboratory and animal
studies reveal that fetuses and infants are especially susceptible to
bioaccumulating and endocrine disrupting chemicals because exposure
occurs during critical periods of early tissue and organ development and
growth.
UMPHttiSan Htalth Related Ittutt
Research on potential human health effects
(neurological, endocrinological,
reproductive, and other effects)
Fish & Wildlife Consumption Advisories
Beach Closings
Drinking Water Quality
Radionuclides
Microbial Pathogens
! Wterttift I fiftdmorelnfWHHWten?
Section 1.6.1
Section 3.3. 1
Section 3.S.5
Section 3.5.4
Section 1.6.4
Section 3.S.5
1.6.2 Wildlife as a Sentinel for Human Health
The health offish and wildlife provides a good indication of the overall
condition of an ecosystem. The dramatic reproductive failure of
cormorants on Lake Ontario due to DDT in the 1960s provided a clear
indication that something was wrong. Since that time, contaminant
reduction programs have succeeded in banning and controlling many toxic
substances and, as a result, environmental levels have declined and the
cormorants and other sensitive species are reproducing normally. This
indicates that the potential risks to human populations posed by persistent
environmental contaminants have also declined.
Ongoing fish and wildlife populations can provide an important tool to
identify any currently unrecognized contaminant risks that may develop
in the future. Given that the metabolisms and diets offish and wildlife are
very different from humans and that these species are exposed to much
higher contaminant levels than the general human population, caution
must be used when interpreting the significance of fish and wildlife
problems for human populations. For example, tumors in fish may reflect
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
13
-------
INTRODUCTION
high levels of contaminants in sediment or may be the result of natural
causes such as viruses or genetic factors. Nonetheless, Canadian and U.S.
health agencies [Health Canada and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR)] have concluded that the weight of evidence
based on the findings of wildlife biologists, toxicologists, and
epidemiologists clearly indicates that populations continue to be exposed
to PCBs and other chemical contaminants and that significant health
consequences are associated with these exposures (Johnson et al, draft
1997; Health Canada, 1997).
IjiMPWiWiifrliidialtoTJorPDlenttal .
HtaMt CaftetrM
Fish Tumors
Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations
Degraded Benthic Communities
Degraded Phytoplankton & Zooplankton
Populations
Bird and Animal Deformities and
Reproduction Problems
Where
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.6.4 Other Key Human Health Issues
Potential health risks posed by levels of radionuclides and bacteria in Lake
Ontario were also considered by the LaMP.
Radionuclides
There is ongoing debate as to whether anthropogenic concentrations of
radionuclides in Lake Ontario water should be regarded as a significant
human health issue. Current concentrations of radionuclides in water are
below existing standards and criteria. Natural sources of radiation
contribute on average more than 98 percent of the human radiation dose.
Artificial sources, such as nuclear power and medical facilities, add to the
radiation levels.
Long term low level exposure to ionizing radiation has been associated
with the development of leukemia and other cancers. Effects other than
cancer, such as neurological, developmental, and immunological damage,
have been observed only at high doses of radiation, and are generally
assumed to be threshold effects. It has been suggested that radiation
weakens the immune system, and that exposure even at low levels may
lower one's resistance to infectious diseases, as there is a depression in the
white blood cell count at high levels of radiation exposure. However,
there is no clear mechanism linking low level radiation exposure with
obvious immune system damage.
Recreational Water
Local beach closings along some of the more populated shorelines due to
elevated levels of E. coli (or fecal coliform bacteria) are indicative of fecal
contamination and the possible presence of enteric (intestinal) pathogens
which can pose a potential health risk. Microbiological water quality
indicators are used as surrogates for the presence of pathogenic organisms
that may cause illness. In Lake Ontario, a number of local beach closings
occur due to microbial contaminants, primarily along the more populated
shorelines. Exceedence of microbial standards and criteria typically
occurs following a storm event when the treatment capacity of some
sewage treatment plants can be exceeded. Given the localized nature of
beach closings and their absence along much of the Lake Ontario
shoreline, they are not considered a lakewide problem. The frequency of
beach closings is expected to decrease as sewage treatment plants continue
to improve and upgrade their systems. It should be noted that beaches
may also be closed due to other factors such as storm events, excessive
turbidity, or lack of funding.
Lake Ontario LaMP 1S
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.7 Developing
LaMP
Ecosystem
Goals and
Objectives
Drinking Water
Newly recognized concerns related to drinking water include microbes
resistant to drinking water disinfection, especially encysted forms of
protozoan parasites such as Cryptosporidium and toxic by-products of
drinking water disinfection such as trihalomethanes. These issues have not
been identified as a significant concern for residents of the Lake Ontario
basin. Although Cryptosporidium has not been identified as a significant
concern, those supplies without full treatment are potential candidates for
outbreaks of cryptosporidiasis (Health Canada, 1997).
Ecosystem Goals for Lake Ontario:
4 The Lake Ontario Ecosystem should be maintained and as
necessary restored or enhanced to support self-reproducing
diverse biological communities.
4 The presence of contaminants shall not limit the uses offish,
wildlife, and waters of the Lake Ontario basin by humans and
shall not cause adverse health effects in plants and animals.
4 We as a society shall recognize our capacity to cause great
changes in the ecosystem and we shall conduct our activities
with responsible stewardship for the Lake Ontario basin.
The earlier LOTMP developed broad ecosystem goals for Lake Ontario
which have been incorporated in the LaMP process. The LaMP will
expand on these goals by developing more detailed ecosystem objectives
and ecosystem health indicators to be used to measure progress in restoring
Lake Ontario. A preliminary effort resulted in the following five
objectives which will serve as a starting point for a more comprehensive
effort to include broader public, private, and governmental input.
• Aquatic Communities (benthic and pelagic): the waters of Lake
Ontario shall support diverse and healthy reproducing and self-
sustaining communities in dynamic equilibrium, with an emphasis on
native species.
• Wildlife: the perpetuation of a healthy, diverse, and self-sustaining
wildlife community that utilizes the lake for habitat and/or food shall be
ensured by attaining and sustaining the waters, coastal wetlands, and
upland habitats of the Lake Ontario basin in sufficient quality and
quantity.
• Human Health: the waters, plants, and animals of Lake Ontario shall
be free from contaminants and organisms resulting from human
activities at levels that affect human health or aesthetic factors such as
tainting, odor, and turbidity.
16
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
INTRODUCTION
• Habitat: Lake Ontario offshore and nearshore zones and surrounding
tributary, wetland, and upland habitats shall be of sufficient quality and
quantity to support ecosystem objectives for the health, productivity,
and distribution of plants and animals in and adjacent to Lake Ontario.
• Stewardship: Human activities and decisions shall embrace environ-
mental ethics and a commitment to responsible stewardship.
Ecosystem objectives need to consider the ecological possibilities and
constraints within the lake. Although there is general agreement that the
reduction of bioaccumulative contaminants entering the lake should be a
priority, consensus may be lacking for many natural resource issues. An
individual's point of view regarding the best or most appropriate use of a
natural resource is often based on value judgements. For example, some
anglers would like to see naturally sustaining populations of native fish,
such as lake trout and Atlantic salmon, established as Lake Ontario's top
level predator fish. Other anglers advocate stocking of non-native fish,
such as Coho salmon and rainbow trout, to promote sport fishing. These
will be difficult decisions. The sharing of viewpoints, learning more about
these complex issues, and a willingness to work together to develop
solutions that "make sense" will be critical in developing objectives that
have broad public, private, and governmental support.
The Four Parties have the responsibility for developing the Lake Ontario
LaMP and have approved a LaMP management structure that consists of
a Coordination Committee, a Management Committee, a Lake Ontario
Workgroup, and a Lakewide Advisory Network (see Figure 1-3 below).
There are other agencies that have an interest in the LaMP, such as natural
resource and human health agencies, and their involvement on specific
issues is an important component of LaMP decision-making.
Responsibility for ensuring this participation lies with the Management
Committee.
1.8 Management
Structure
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
17
-------
INTRODUCTION
x
X
."\
COORDINATION COMMITTEE
- Provides strategic direction
Resolves significant Issues, If required
- Ensures accountability to the public
• Membership:
• United States • Ontario
• Canada • New York State
/ LAKEWIDE ADVISORY NETWORK \
. provides options for Involvement In \
, the LaMP process: \
. - Partnerships and Basin Teams to *
I promote connections between local '
I actions and the LaMP '
\ - LaMP documents and Information '
\ accessible by mailing lists and the I
\ Internet /
\ - Blnatlonal forums that will examine /
\ key Issues and decisions
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
• Provides overall program management
- Ensures progress In meeting the LaMP
schedule, effective public Involvement,
and participation by other agencies as
necessary
• Membership:
•United States • Ontario
•Canada • New York State
\
\
\
\
\
WORKGROUP
- Carries out day to day activities
necessary to achieve LaMP goals
- Membership:
• United States • Ontario
• Canada • New York State
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
Plans, conducts, and evaluates
public Involvement activities for
the LaMP
TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEES
- As needed to provide scientific and
technical Input
Figure 1-3. Lake Ontario LaMP Management Structure
18
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
CHAPTER 2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Four Parties are committed to an active public involvement program.
Public involvement has been sought throughout the development and
implementation of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP)
and through the transition to the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan
(LaMP). In the late 1980s, a Public Involvement Committee, composed
of agency public involvement and communications staff, was created to
plan, conduct, and evaluate public involvement activities.
Public Involvement Goals:
^ Increase public understanding and awareness of Lake
Ontario planning efforts.
^ Provide various opportunities for meaningful public
consultation in developing and implementing Lake Ontario
management plans.
I Promote individual and corporate, governmental and non-
governmental environmental stewardship actions.
I Build partnerships across the various programs and
initiatives that are working to preserve and protect Lake
Ontario.
2.1 Introduction
During the transition from the LOTMP to the LaMP, public involvement
activities focused on keeping Lake Ontario stakeholders informed through
informational updates, meetings, and other outreach efforts. The public
involvement activities for the Lake Ontario LaMP aim to fully support
efforts to create and strengthen partnerships and provide various
opportunities for people to become informed about and involved in the
LaMP process. It will take all of us working together to restore and
protect this Great Lake.
Historically, the public involvement process for the LOTMP, including the
shift to the LaMP, has included the following elements:
• Holding open Coordination Committee meetings
• Conducting public workshops
• Improving connections with the Remedial Action Plans
• Collecting information and conducting evaluations
• Developing information and education materials
2.2 A Look Back
...1988-1995
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
19
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Each of these elements supports the overall Lake Ontario public
involvement goals. By implementing a variety of activities, the agencies
have provided opportunities for the many people concerned with the Lake
Ontario basin to learn about and be involved in the planning process. For
example:
Open Coordination Committee meetings have provided forums for
updating people about key issues and progress and providing opportunities
to meet agency decision makers. The agencies evaluated the effectiveness
and usefulness of these meetings. After considering public comments, the
agencies adjusted the meeting format to better meet both agency and
stakeholder expectations.
Public workshops have provided an opportunity to
discuss and receive comments and suggestions from
stakeholders using facilitated small group discussions.
Communications with the Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) committees have strengthened the relationships
between the LaMP and Lake Ontario RAPs. These
meetings and conversations have provided the
opportunity for LaMP and RAP staff and stakeholders to
become familiar with each other's programs.
Lake Ontario Modeling Workshop, Buffalo, NY
(New York Sea Grant Program at SUNY Buffalo)
Collecting information about the needs and expecta-
tions of people involved in Lake Ontario efforts is an
ongoing and necessary process. For example, a 1993 Questionnaire
resulted in the development of a Lakewide Advisory Network; feedback
from a 1996 Questionnaire was used to develop the framework for
obtaining public input on the draft of this document.
Informational materials, such as fact sheets and pamphlets, have been
produced in an effort to inform and encourage people to learn about the
Lake Ontario ecosystem, take action to conserve and protect Lake Ontario,
and participate in Lake Ontario public involvement opportunities.
As the Lake Ontario process evolved, the agencies asked Lake Ontario
stakeholders for guidance on enhancing the public involvement program,
to be more effective in increasing awareness of the LaMP; provide
various opportunities for public consultation; promote environmental
stewardship actions; and build partnerships in the Lake Ontario basin.
20
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
As a result of public consultation, the agencies adopted a strategy for
establishing a three-tiered Lakewide Advisory Network. The three levels
of the network were specifically designed to ensure that anyone interested
in or concerned about Lake Ontario has the opportunity to become
informed about and involved in the Lake Ontario LaMP process and
actions to improve and protect the Lake Ontario basin. A closer look at
the three-tiered network follows:
Lake Ontario Partnerships
There are many groups, agencies, committees, organizations, associations,
and businesses planning or implementing water quality and habitat
improvement initiatives, programs, and projects within the Lake Ontario
basin. Considering this, it seemed inefficient to create a committee
specifically for the Lake Ontario LaMP. The Four Parties, as advised by
various stakeholder groups, realized it would be more valuable to focus on
building connections between local and regional initiatives within the
basin. Coordinated approaches to solving water quality and habitat issues
within the basin will maximize the benefit to local areas as well as result
in an improved Lake Ontario ecosystem. Some examples are:
• The important connections between the Lake Ontario RAPs and the
Lake Ontario LaMP. Each RAP's individual strategy for local
remediation/restoration provides key information about the Area of
Concern (AOC) that is fundamental to a comprehensive Lake Ontario
LaMP. For example, by identifying sources of critical pollutants in
each AOC, the RAPs provide information that will be useful in
developing the contaminant reduction strategy under the LaMP. RAPs
and LaMPs must work in concert with each other since the LaMP
cannot be fully developed or implemented without considering details
about specific areas in the basin and the remediation/restoration of
AOCs relies upon how the LaMP will address lakewide environmental
problems.
• Regional groups or alliances in the Lake Ontario basin (e.g., the Finger
Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance and the Lake
Ontario Conservation Authorities Alliance) have great potential for
coordinating and implementing actions to solve local watershed
concerns. An important connection that cannot be ignored is that by
taking action to solve local watershed concerns, these groups/alliances
provide an essential link to water quality improvements in Lake
Ontario.
2.3 A Public
Involvement
Strategy for
the Lake
Ontario
LaMP
Public Involvement Strategy:
• Establish partnerships to
promote an understanding
of the connections
between local watershed
activities and their impacts
on Lake Ontario, to
encourage action to
conserve and protect the
lake, and to provide input
to the LaMP process.
• Maintain a mailing network
to keep people informed
and solicit interest In the
LaMP.
• Provide opportunities for
binational discussions
between representatives
from the partnerships and
other stakeholders on
LaMP development and
implementation.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
21
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The agencies are moving forward with efforts to identify, establish, and
strengthen partnerships with those taking action in the basin. Although the
goal is the same, it is important to realize that the U.S. and Canada will
follow slightly different approaches: New York will be encouraging local
and regional involvement in Basin Partnership Teams and Canada will
focus efforts on developing several key partnerships with existing entities.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), is working to establish Basin Teams in a portion of the New
York State Lake Ontario basin. Essentially, NYSDEC is aiming to create
a network of partners at the regional and local levels. These Basin Teams
would foster cooperation and facilitate discussions among existing groups
such as Remedial Action Committees, County Water Quality Coordinating
Committees, Regional Planning Councils, the Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario
Watershed Protection Alliance, citizen-based watershed groups,
municipalities, businesses, and tribal governments to conserve, improve,
and protect the Lake Ontario basin. There are a variety of ways Basin
Teams could establish this cooperative approach for water quality and
habitat improvements. For example, local and regional partners can enter
into written agreements that define how planning and implementation could
be integrated. Other opportunities for collaboration include: planning joint
conferences/workshops/events, convening meetings/ discussions, and
disseminating information updates. Through these efforts the Basin Teams
could: provide useful information about sub-watersheds; promote
connections between local actions and Lake Ontario ("Act Locally...Think
Lake Ontario"); and increase involvement in and support of the Lake
Ontario LaMP and other programs that manage and conserve New York's
water resources.
Environment Canada (EC) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) will work with existing organizations involved in managing and
protecting Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario partners include the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust (which addresses the Lake Ontario waterfront from
Burlington to Trenton); Remedial Action Plans in Hamilton, Toronto, Port
Hope, and Bay of Quinte; Conservation Authorities (responsible for
managing watersheds that drain into Lake Ontario); municipalities; First
Nations; and other interest groups.
Lake Ontario Information Connection
Information about the Lake Ontario LaMP and public involvement
opportunities will be made available in a variety of ways. For example, the
Lake Ontario LaMP mailing list includes approximately 1,000 names of
U.S. and Canadian citizens and organizations who are interested in the
LaMP. To ensure efficient distribution, the mailing list is continually
updated. In addition to mailing information, the agencies will maintain a
22 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
home page on the Worldwide Web, accessible from either the Great Lakes
Information Network (www.epa.gov/glnpo/Iakeont) or the Canadian Great
Lakes Information Management Resource (www.cciw.ca/glimr/lakes/
Ontario).
Lake Ontario Forums
At significant stages in the development of the LaMP, the Management
Committee will convene a binational meeting of Basin Team represen-
tatives and other stakeholders to provide input on major decisions. Rather
than a formal committee, this "Forum" will provide an opportunity for
binational discussions and sharing of information as required by each
stage in the LaMP process.
Efforts are now underway to build the Lakewide Advisory Network. The ^»** N6XT oTGpS
agencies are working to establish and strengthen partnerships within the
Lake Ontario basin and build awareness of the connections between the
LaMP and local initiatives within the basin. Activities that the agencies
plan to undertake to further develop the Lakewide Advisory Network are
included in the Binational Workplan for the LaMP (see Chapter 5). For
example:
• Identifying and recognizing Lake Ontario partners and basin teams
• Developing and distributing information materials
• Conducting meetings and/or workshops
• Improving connections to other Lake Ontario initiatives
• Making information accessible on the Internet
Lake Ontario LaMP 23
May 1998
-------
CHAPTER 3
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• ou LAC ONTARIO"
Significant changes have occurred in the Lake Ontario ecosystem over the
last century due to the effects of toxic pollution and habitat loss resulting
from the rapid development of the Lake Ontario basin. The extent of these
changes was fully realized in the 1960s and 1970s, when Lake Ontario
colonial waterbirds experienced nearly total reproductive failures due to
high levels of toxic contaminants in the food chain. In 1972, Canada and
the United States took actions to ban and control contaminants enteringthe
Great Lakes, and, in 1987, renewed the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) with the goal to
restore the overall health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Today, as a result of these actions, levels of toxic
contaminants in the Lake Ontario ecosystem have
decreased significantly, and colonial waterbird
populations have overcome most of the recognized
contaminant-induced impacts of 25 years ago (i.e., their
eggshells show normal thickness, they are reproducing
normally, and most population levels are stable or
increasing). However, bioaccumulative toxics persist in
sediment, water, and biota at levels of concern for some
fish species, such as lake trout and salmon, and for higher
order predators, such as bald eagles, snapping turtles,
mink and otters, and humans.
This chapter summarizes lakewide impairments of beneficial uses in Lake
Ontario caused by chemical pollutants and other factors. These
impairments are those beneficial uses of the Great Lakes which cannot
presently be realized, as laid out in the GLWQA. The same process is
being used to identify problems within the other Great Lakes and in Areas
of Concern (AOC). Given the rapid environmental changes that have
occurred over the last 20 years, emphasis was placed on using the most
recent information to identify current problems facing the Lake Ontario
ecosystem. Sources and loadings of critical pollutants, as well as other
3.1 Introduction
Snapping Turtle
(National Park Service, Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore)
As defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, "impairment of beneficial use(s)" is a
change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes System sufficient to
cause any of the following:
1. Restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption
2. Tainting offish and wildlife flavor
3. Degradation offish and wildlife
populations
4. Fish tumors or other deformities
5. Bird or animal deformities or reproductive
problems
6. Degradation of benthos
7. Restrictions on dredging activities
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
8. Eutrophication or undesirable algae
9. Restrictions on drinking water
consumption, or taste and odor problems
10. Closing of beaches
11. Degradation of aesthetics
12. Added costs to agriculture or industry
13. Degradation of phytoplankton and
zooplankton populations
14. Loss offish and wildlife habitat
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.2 Identifying
Lakewide
Problems
and Critical
Pollutants
factors responsible for the identified problems, are summarized in this
chapter as well. Local impairments found in Lake Ontario AOCs and
other nearshore areas are also discussed.
The GLWQA provides fourteen indicators of beneficial use impairments
(identified in the text box on page 25) to help assess the impact of toxic
chemicals and other factors on the Great Lakes ecosystem. These
indicators provide a systematic way to identify pollutant impacts on the
entire ecosystem, ranging from phytoplankton to birds of prey and
mammals, including humans.
The LaMP process uses a broad range of ecological factors, in addition to
regulatory standards, to identify critical pollutants. The GLWQA defines
critical pollutants as "substances that persist at levels that, singly or in
synergistic or additive combination, are causing, or are likely to cause,
impairment of beneficial uses despite past application of regulatory
controls due to their:
1. presence in open lake waters;
2. ability to cause or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement
objectives through their recognized threat to human health and
aquatic life or;
3. ability to bioaccumulate".
In preparing this binational problem assessment, Canada and the United
States first independently evaluated 13 of the Lake Ontario beneficial use
impairments for those geographic areas within their jurisdictions (Rang et
al., 1992; USEPA and NYSDEC, 1994). The agencies proceeded to
integrate their separate evaluations into this binational assessment of the
status of beneficial use impairments in Lake Ontario. The fourteenth
beneficial use impairment, loss offish and wildlife habitat, was evaluated
using Lake Ontario habitat reports compiled by the United States Fish &
Wildlife Service (USF&WS) as part of the LaMP evaluation process
(Busch et al, 1993) and others (Whillans et al., 1992). The LaMP
recognizes the importance of appropriate linkages to other natural resource
management initiatives such as fishery management plans, lake-level
management, wetlands protection, watershed management plans, and
control strategies for exotic species.
The beneficial use impairment assessment identifies the lakewide use
impairments in Lake Ontario and the toxic substances contributing to these
impairments (i.e., those substances for which we have "direct" evidence
that they are impairing beneficial uses). It is also important for the Lake
Ontario LaMP to consider toxic substances which are likely to impair
beneficial uses (i.e., there is "indirect" evidence that these chemicals are
impairing beneficial uses if they exceed the most stringent U.S. or
Canadian standard, criteria, or guideline). The Four Parties reviewed
26
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
recent fish tissue contaminant concentrations and found mercury
concentrations in smallmouth bass and walleye to exceed Ontario's 0.5
parts per million (ppm) guideline for fish consumption throughout the
lake. Mercury is responsible for local impairments in Canada. In addition,
dieldrin was also found to exceed the most stringent water quality and fish
tissue criteria lakewide. Although mercury and dieldrin are not causing
lakewide impairments of beneficial uses, these contaminants will be
included as LaMP critical pollutants given the lakewide nature of these
criteria exceedences.
The following is a summary of the technical basis for the beneficial use
impairment assessment and the identification of the chemical, physical,
and biological factors contributing to these impairments. A general list of
references is provided as Appendix G. Detailed references for information
sources are provided in the individual United States and Canadian
assessment reports that were used for this evaluation. In the development
of the LaMP, the lakewide impairment status (impaired, degraded,
insufficient information, or unimpaired) was determined after
consideration of the Ecosystem Goals for Lake Ontario (section 1.7) and
the preliminary ecosystem objectives. This report does not provide a
complete analysis of the biological and physical problems facing the lake
because the ecosystem objectives and indicators needed to evaluate these
problems are still being developed.
Based on the assessment, four lakewide beneficial use impairments exist
that require binational actions:
• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
• Degradation of wildlife populations
• Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
• Loss offish and wildlife habitat
These impairments are also used to identify critical pollutants and
biological/physical stressors. PCBs, DDT, dioxins, and mirex are the
critical pollutants associated with one or more of these lakewide
impairments (Table 3-1). Loss offish and wildlife habitat is due primarily
to physical and biological factors rather than toxic contaminants. All Lake
Ontario AOCs, except the Port Hope AOC, also list these four
impairments as local concerns. The LaMP process will be coordinated
with the development of Remedial Action Plans in these local areas to
ensure the development of effective strategies for lakewide critical
pollutants and other lakewide issues. Through the LaMP process, other
existing programs that address these issues will also be supported and
coordinated.
3.3 Lakewide
Beneficial
Use
Impairments
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
27
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Table 3-1.
Summary of Lake Ontario
Lakewide Beneficial Use
Impairments and Related
Critical Pollutants and
Other Factors.
&ttitfwiiieltttpttirtneni$
Restrictions on Fish and
Wildlife Consumption
Degradation of Wildlife
Populations
Bird or Animal Deformities or
Reproductive Problems
Loss of Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
littp0tW^Spfd«s
Trout, Salmon, Channel
catfish, American eel, Carp,
White sucker
Walleye, Smallmouth Bass'
All waterfowlb
Snapping Turtles'1
Bald Eagle'
Mink & Otter1
Bald Eagle'
Mink & Otter4
A wide range of native fish and
wildlife species
lakewt4e:Cfttic«f
Pfftftttaitti & Other Factors
PCBs, Dioxins, Mirex
Mercury*
PCBs, DDT, Mirex"
PCBs"
PCBs, Dioxin, DDT
PCBs
PCBs, Dioxin, DDT
PCBs
Lake Level Management
Exotic Species
Physical Loss, Modification,
and Destruction of Habitat
' Canadian advisories only.
k U.S. Advisories only.
* Indirect evidence only (based on fish tissue levels).
Notes: Dieldrin, although listed as a LaMP critical pollutant, is not associated with an impairment
of beneficial use.
"DDT' includes all DDT metabolites; "Dioxin" refers to all dioxins/furans.
3.3.1 Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption
The Four Parties have agreed that fish and wildlife consumption advisories
due to PCBs, dioxins and furans, and mirex are lakewide beneficial use
impairments. Most human exposure to many persistent and bioaccumu-
lative contaminants is through eating fish and other aquatic organisms,
which far outweighs contaminant exposures related to drinking water, air,
or other terrestrial sources. Consumption advisories are developed to help
protect people from the potential health impacts associated with long term
consumption of contaminated fish and wildlife.
Fish Consumption Advisories
In general, consumption advisories are based on contaminant levels in
different species and ages of fish. Both Ontario and New York fish
consumption advisories account for the fact that contaminant levels are
generally higher in older, larger fish. There are some differences in the
fish tissue monitoring processes of the two governments; for example,
New York State analyzes entire fillets which include belly-flap and skin
(catfish, bullhead, and eels are exceptions since skin is removed before
analysis) and Ontario analyzes muscle fillets. These two types of fish
samples are not directly comparable. Muscle fillets have lower fat content.
Since organochlorine chemicals, such as PCBs and DDT, tend to
28
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
concentrate in fatty tissue, muscle fillet samples will generally show lower
levels of these contaminants than the levels found in the fattier fillets.
Both jurisdictions agree that PCBs, dioxin, DDT, and mirex are
responsible for this lakewide impaired beneficial use and require
binational actions. Although not responsible for consumption advisories
on a lakewide basis, mercury concentrations in larger smallmouth bass and
walleye are likely to exceed Ontario's 0.5 ppm criteria for human
consumption and will therefore be considered a critical pollutant.
In Ontario, a Sports Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program is administered
by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR). New York State operates a statewide fish
tissue monitoring program. USEPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office coordinates a fish tissue monitoring effort as part of a long term
contaminant trends monitoring project. Fish tissue samples are also
collected by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as
part of its long term contaminant trends monitoring program.
In Ontario, sportfish advisories are published every two years in the Guide
to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, which includes tables for the Great Lakes.
Appendix E provides a detailed breakdown of Lake Ontario advisories as
reported in the 1997-98 Guide. Advisories were reported for 19 species:
salmon (chinook, coho), trout (rainbow, brown, lake), white bass, yellow
and white perch, whitefish, rainbow smelt, freshwater drum, channel
catfish, white and redhorse suckers, brown bullhead, American eel, black
crappie, gizzard shad, and carp. The contaminants responsible for
advisories are PCBs (50%), dioxins and furans (1%), and mirex (27%).
The regular evaluation of commercial catches by DFO's fish inspection
program has led to some restrictions on the commercial harvest of carp,
large walleye, and channel catfish.
The New York State Department of Health issues annual fish consumption
advisories for New York State waters which include specific and general
advisories for Lake Ontario. NYSDEC collects and analyzes fish for
contaminants. "Eat none" advisories are in place for Lake Ontario
American eel, channel catfish, carp, lake trout, rainbow trout, chinook
salmon, coho salmon over 21 inches, brown trout over 20 inches, and
white perch (west of Point Breeze). "Eat no more than one meal per
month" advisories are in effect for Lake Ontario white sucker, coho
salmon less than 21 inches, brown trout less than 20 inches, and white
perch (east of Point Breeze). "Eat no more than one meal per week"
advisories are in effect for many Lake Ontario fish species not listed
above. In addition, an "Eat none" advisory, which applies to all Lake
Ontario fish, is in effect for all women of childbearing age and children
under the age of 15. This stringent advisory is designed to protect these
sensitive human populations from any increased exposure to toxic
contaminants.
Lake Ontario LaMP • 29
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
In addition to these lakewide consumption advisories caused by organic
contaminants, it is worth noting that a considerable number of local
advisories exist in Canadian waters due to mercury. Appendix E provides
a detailed breakdown of mercury advisories. Mercury advisories were
reported for nine species offish, including walleye, in fourteen locations.
Walleye is an important recreational fishery in the eastern end of Lake
Ontario. Fish consumption advisories are periodically reconsidered if new
information suggests that more restrictive advisories are necessary to fully
protect human health or if contaminant levels have dropped below
guidelines.
Wildlife Consumption Advisories
Diving ducks, such as mergansers, feed on fish and other aquatic
organisms and, as a result, tend to be the most heavily contaminated
waterfowl. New York has a statewide advisory recommending that
mergansers not be eaten and that the consumption of other types of
waterfowl be limited to no more than two meals per month. The New
York State Health Department also advises that wild waterfowl skin and
fat should be removed before cooking and that stuffing be discarded. The
contaminants of concern for Lake Ontario mergansers in New York are
PCBs, DDT, and mirex.
Snapping turtles are another example of a high level predator that is near
the top of the food chain. Over their relatively long life span, snapping
turtles can accumulate significant levels of persistent toxic substances in
their fatty tissues. New York's statewide advisory recommends that
women of childbearing age, and children under the age of 15, "eat no"
snapping turtles, and recommends that others who choose to consume
snapping turtles should reduce their exposure by trimm ing away all fat and
discarding the fat, liver, and eggs prior to cooking the meat or preparing
the soup. This advisory is based on PCBs, as the primary contaminants of
concern. Studies conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service of
Environment Canada have shown contaminant levels in ducks and turtles
to be below guidelines. There are no consumption advisories for wildlife
species in the Canadian portion of the Lake Ontario basin.
3.3.2 Degradation of Wildlife Populations and Bird or
Animal Deformities or Reproduction Problems
The Four Parties have agreed that wildlife consumption advisories and
population and reproduction impairments are lakewide impairments
caused by PCBs, dioxin equivalents, and DDT. Wildlife used in the
evaluation of this beneficial use indicator include mink, otter, bald eagles,
colonial water birds, and a variety of fish species. These species were
chosen because of historical, documented problems associated with
contaminants or other non-chemical stressors. These species are useful
indicators of environmental conditions because of their high level of risk
30 ~ Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
due to being at or near the top of the food chain or requiring special habitat
in order to reproduce successfully.
There is indirect evidence that bald eagle, mink, and otter populations
remain degraded along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Levels of PCBs,
dioxins, and DDT and its metabolites in the food chain are thought to be
important factors that are limiting the recoveries of these wildlife
populations. There is no indication that current levels of contaminants in
the open waters are degrading fish populations. The two impairments,
degradation of fish and wildlife populations and bird or animal
reproduction problems, are addressed together in this section since past
declines in some wildlife populations are directly related to contaminant-
related reproduction problems.
Bald Eagles
Bald eagle populations began to decline in the early 1900s due to hunting
and loss of habitat. In the decades following the introduction of DDT in
1946, contaminant-induced eggshell thinning lowered reproductive
success throughout North America, including the Lake Ontario basin.
During the 1980s, after DDT and other pesticides were banned, a few
successful bald eagle nesting territories were re-established in the Lake
Ontario basin. By 1995, bald eagles had recovered to the point that they
were moved from the U.S. endangered species list to the threatened
species list. There are at least six successful bald eagle nesting territories
in the Lake Ontario basin that have fledged more than sixty eaglets since
1980 (Nye, 1979,1992). Although there are no nesting territories located
close to the Lake Ontario shore, it is expected that bald eagles will
reoccupy historical shoreline nesting territories as their population
steadily expands, provided appropriate nesting habitat is available. In
1992, a survey of the entire Lake Ontario shoreline (both Canadian and
U.S. sides) for suitable breeding habitat for bald eagles was conducted by
Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources, and U.S.
bald eagle experts. This information will be available in future LaMP
documents.
There is indirect evidence that bald eagle reproduction in the Lake Ontario
basin is impacted by persistent toxic contaminants. Studies of bald eagles
nesting on other Great Lakes shorelines suggest that levels of PCBs,
dioxins, and DDT in the Lake Ontario food web may cause lowered
reproductive success, increased eaglet deformities, and early adult
mortality (Best, 1992; Bowerman et al, 1991). This could be a concern
as shoreline nesting territories become re-established and the eagles feed
on contaminated fish during the nesting and breeding season.
Bald eagle and young at nest
(Don Simonelli
Michigan Travel Bureau)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
31
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Colonial Waterbirds
Colonial waterbirds have a long history of being used as indicators of
contaminant effects on Lake Ontario and throughout the Great Lakes
(Gilbertson, 1974; Mineau et al, 1984). More than 25 years ago,
Gilbertson (1974, 1975) and Postupalsky (1978) found highly elevated
contaminant levels in eggs, severe eggshell thinning, elevated embryonic
mortality, high rates of deformities, declining population levels, and total
reproductive failure among several species of colonial waterbirds on Lake
Ontario. Although many of these conditions have improved substantially,
[e.g., concentrations of PCBs, dieldrin, total DDT, mirex, mercury, and
dioxins have declined significantly in herring gull eggs and, to a lesser
extent, in cormorants and Common and Caspian Terns (Weseloh et al,
1979,1989; Ewins and Weseloh, 1994; Bishop era/., 1992; Pettite/o/.,
1994), eggshell thickness has returned to normal (Price and Weseloh,
1986; Ewins and Weseloh, 1994), and population levels have increased
(Price and Weseloh, 1986; Blokpoel and Tessier, 1996)], the current
status of some of these conditions is unknown and some new issues have
arisen (physiological biomarkers, endocrine disruption, genetic
deformities) in birds as well as in other classes of wildlife. These issues
will be the subject of future studies, the results of which will be considered
by the LaMP.
Mink & Otter
As with the bald eagle, there is indirect evidence that suggests
reproduction of Lake Ontario mink in nearshore areas is affected by
persistent toxic contaminants. Laboratory studies corroborate that levels
of PCBs and dioxin-like contaminants in the food chain may limit the
natural recovery of both mink and otter populations.
Settlement, trapping, and habitat losses during the eighteenth century are
believed to have contributed to major population declines for both species.
Prior to these changes, the river oner had one of the largest geographic
ranges of any North American mammal and was found in all major U.S.
and Canadian waterways.
In the 1960s, reproductive failures of ranch mink that had been fed Great
Lakes fish led to the discovery that mink are extremely sensitive to PCBs
(Hartsough, 1965; Aulerich and Ringer, 1977). Laboratory experiments
have shown that a diet offish, with PCB or other dioxin-like contaminant
levels comparable to those found in some Lake Ontario fish, can
completely inhibit mink reproduction. However, the fact that mink are
highly opportunistic and may rely on muskrat, rabbits, and mice for the
bulk of their diet in some locales makes it difficult to estimate the impact
that environmental contaminants are having on the populations of this
species. Otters, on the other hand, rely almost exclusively on fish for their
32 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
diet, but there is little information on the sensitivity and exposure of otters
to PCBs and other contaminants.
Information on mink and otter population trends and reproductive rates is
extremely limited, which makes it difficult to evaluate their status.
Currently, harvest statistics from trappers is the only indicator of
population trends. This is a poor indicator as it is influenced by weather,
fur prices, disease, and other factors that are not related to health and
population status. Field studies of mink and otter populations are
extremely labor intensive and not always successful given the secretive
nature of these animals. Investigators often need to rely on secondary
indicators of presence in an area, such as tracks and scat.
Fish Populations
The loss of several fish species and reductions in native f
fish populations between the early 1800s and the 1960s •
are attributed primarily to overfishing, loss of habitat, and
the impact of exotic species, such as the sea lamprey and
alewife. The loss of some species, such as the blue pike,
an important predator, has permanently altered the Lake
Ontario ecosystem. The contribution of persistent toxic
contaminants to the loss of certain fisheries is unclear
because fish populations were already severely degraded
by the time that significant levels of contaminants began
to be released to the environment. Current levels of
contaminants in Lake Ontario do not appear to have a
measurable impact on fish reproduction as fish culture
facilities obtain eggs from Lake Ontario salmon and trout
to support stocking programs. Successful culture of these species in the
hatchery environment suggests that they are capable of natural
reproduction in the wild. However, a sustained population of lake trout
has been difficult to re-establish naturally. This is due to excessive
predation by alewife on lake trout eggs and fry; degradation of spawning
habitats; unsuitable genetic backgrounds of some stocked fish; excessive
harvest; and potential sub-lethal impacts of toxic substances. A possible
vitamin deficiency problem impacting lake trout and salmon, due to their
reliance on alewife as their principal prey, is also a factor inhibiting the
natural reproduction of these fish. With declining nutrient levels and
decreasing alewife populations, record numbers of naturally reproduced
lake trout yearlings were observed in 1995.
Although current levels of toxic contaminants, such as dioxin, are now
generally acknowledged to be below toxic levels for lake trout fry, some
research suggests that Lake Ontario dioxin concentrations in water and
sediment during the 1940s and 1950s may have been sufficiently high to
prevent lake trout reproduction. Research is ongoing to recognize and
Fishing from shore
(USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
33
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
better understand any potential synergistic or additive effects of
contaminants on current fish populations.
Populations of walleye, lake whitefish, and burbot are continuing to
increase, and there are now several year classes of lake herring. More
recently, there have been increasing reports of native fish catches that were
thought to be extinct or severely depleted (e.g., deep water sculpin, lake
sturgeon, and stickleback). This information suggests that the ecological
stage is set for significant recovery of native Lake Ontario fish species
barring any major unforeseen changes in the food web.
3.3.3 Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The Four Parties agree that loss offish and wildlife habitat is a lakewide
impairment caused by artificial lake level management, the introduction
of exotic species, and physical loss, modification, or destruction, such as
deforestation and damming of tributaries. Binational evaluations are
underway to evaluate potential options to mitigate these impacts. An
evaluation of recent (1980-1990) habitat conditions did not identify
persistent toxic substances as a significant cause of lakewide habitat loss
or degradation.
Artificial Lake-Level Management
There is considerable evidence that the management of lake levels has
inadvertently reduced the area, quality, and functioning of some Lake
Ontario nearshore wetlands. Nearshore wetlands are important to the
ecology of the lake because they provide habitat necessary for many
species of fish and wildlife to successfully live and reproduce. These
wetlands may be unique or of limited quantity in the number and types
(diversity) of plants and soil benthic type (i.e., rocks, sand, or silt).
Without wetlands of suitable quality and quantity, many species of fish
and wildlife would be at risk. There is also significant concern among the
citizens living along the shoreline of Lake Ontario that lake level
management is causing increased erosion and property loss. High lake
levels are associated with accelerated rates of erosion and property loss in
areas susceptible to lake-induced erosion.
Lake level management was first recommended to limit flooding and
erosion in the Lake Ontario basin and to prevent flooding of major
metropolitan areas along the St. Lawrence River, such as Montreal. Lake
Ontario level and St. Lawrence River flow regulations are also used to
benefit commercial navigation and hydropower production. The
International Joint Commission (IJC) was established in 1909 by the
Boundary Waters Treaty to serve as an impartial group with jurisdiction
over boundary water uses. The IJC consists of three U.S. members
appointed by the President of the United States and three Canadian
members appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. Plans to artificially
34 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
manage Lake Ontario water levels began in 1952 when the IJC issued an
Order of Approval to construct hydropower facilities in the international
reach of the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New
York. The hydropower facilities were completed in 1960. The IJC
amended its order in 1956 to include regulation criteria designed to reduce
the range of lake levels and to protect riparian and other interests
downstream in the Province of Quebec. This amended order also
established the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control to
ensure compliance with provisions of the Orders. The St. Lawrence Board
consists often members chosen by the IJC for their technical expertise.
Lake levels are currently regulated by Plan 1958-D. This plan sets
maximum and minimum flow limitations which change week to week to
provide adequate hydropower production and, at the same time, maximize
depths for navigation and provide protection against flooding in the St.
Lawrence River. Authorization may be requested by the Board to deviate
from Plan 1958-D when supplies are greater or less than those upon which
the plan was developed. During the development of this plan,
environmental and recreational factors were not considered. As
recommended by the IJC's Levels Reference Study Board, the St.
Lawrence Board has been investigating the possibility of changing the
current plan and/or procedures to better address environmental and
recreational concerns.
Several environmental issues have been identified in studies completed by
the Levels Reference Study Board in 1993. As a result of lake level
management, Lake Ontario wetlands are no longer experiencing the same
range of periodic high and low water levels. This reduction in range has
resulted in some wetlands becoming a monoculture of cattails — a greatly
reduced biodiversity of nearshore areas. In addition, the current four foot
range in fluctuation for Lake Ontario is too narrow to preclude cattail
overpopulation by modifying the timing of water level highs and lows
from their natural cycle. This can have a devastating effect on wetlands,
often resulting in too little water for fish and wildlife reproduction
purposes, but has provided benefits to recreational and commercial
boating.
Further studies, which will take a number of years to complete, are
underway to identify possible ways to improve the lake level management
scheme, to be more sensitive to environmental needs, as well as public
health and economic needs. Regulation of lake levels is difficult because
changes in precipitation rates and winter ice cover are unpredictable and
limit our ability to manage water levels. Shoreline erosion is a natural
occurence caused by the energy present in water at the shoreline. The
nature of erosion that may occur is related to the soil type and elevation,
wind, current, and water level at the time. Where the energy in the water
can be absorbed, erosion will be slow, but where the makeup of the
shoreline is unstable, the effects of erosion take place more quickly.
Lake Ontario LaMP " 35
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Who controls and manages
exotic species?
- Great Lakes Fishery
Commission
• United States & Canadian
Coast Guards
- Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources
• Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans
• New York State Department
of Environmental
Conservation
• U.S. Federal Aquatic
Nuisance Species Task
Force
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
- U.S. Sea Grant
Erosion of certain areas of Lake Ontario's shoreline is a natural process
that will inevitably occur.
Exotic Species
It is difficult to assess the interactions between newly introduced exotic
species, naturalized exotic species, and native species. This evaluation is
further complicated by other chemical and physical changes that are taking
place in the basin. It is clear, however, that exotic species are having a
significant impact on the Lake Ontario ecosystem.
The Lake Ontario ecosystem has endured several waves of invasions of
exotic species. Some of these species, such as the sea lamprey, have
clearly had a negative impact on native species. In fact, sea lamprey
predation on lake trout is recognized as one factor that contributed to the
demise of that species. The United States-Canadian Great Lakes Fishery
Commission was established primarily to control the sea lamprey.
Through its efforts, the observed rate of lake trout woundings or
mortalities by sea lamprey is now sufficiently low to allow achievement
of other fishery management objectives. Currently, with the continuation
of control efforts, the sea lamprey is not considered a major limiting
factor for the recovery of native fish.
Unlike the sea lamprey, other exotic species have become important
components of the Lake Ontario food chain. These species include smelt
and alewife, which are now the dominant forage fish. More recently
invading exotic species that have potentially significant adverse impacts
on the ecosystem include zebra mussels, ruffe, round goby, blueback
herring, and the spiny water flea. Although the ruffe, round goby, and
blueback herring are now present in the Great Lakes basin, they have not
yet reached Lake Ontario. The potential for the round goby and blueback
herring to reach Lake Ontario in the near future is considered to be fairly
high.
Zebra and quagga mussels have altered the Lake Ontario ecosystem by
redirecting nutrients flowing through the system from the pelagic to the
benthic food web. This shunting of energy to the benthic food web can
reduce productivity in the open lake. Although these changes may
resemble natural historical conditions, they are having a negative impact
on the naturalized open lake forage fish (alewife and smelt) and predators
that are dependent upon those species as a food source. Zebra mussels
appear to increase the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals into food chains
and decrease macroinvertebrate prey of whitefish and slimy sculpin. They
also negatively impact beach use, and they appear responsible for declines
in native clam populations. In addition, there are increased maintenance
costs associated with keeping drinking water and cooling water intakes
free of these mussels. Zebra mussels do have some positive effects,
including improved water clarity; the development of mussel shell bottoms
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
favorable to certain macroinvertebrates; increases in native benthic forage
fish; and increased survival in young native lake trout, lake whitefish, and
potentially lake herring.
It is exceedingly difficult and costly to control exotic species after they
have been introduced to an ecosystem, so control programs have
concentrated on preventing new introductions and inhibiting the spread of
existing species. An important component of these control programs is the
regulation that requires ocean-going ships to exchange their ballast water
at sea before entering the St. Lawrence Seaway. This requirement seeks
to ensure that any exotic species present in the ballast water will not be
released into the Great Lakes. It is believed that zebra mussels, the round
goby, and the ruffe were all introduced to the Lakes in this way.
The United States and Canadian Coast Guards are working to limit the
introduction of non-indigenous species through transoceanic shipping. In
addition to the ballast water exchange requirement, chemical treatment
measures may be necessary to deal with any organisms that may be left in
the tanks after ballast water exchange.
Physical Loss or Destruction of Habitat
The early colonists began to alter the seasonal flows of Lake Ontario
tributaries by clearing land. As the land was cleared, water temperatures
began to rise, siltation increased, and aquatic vegetation (which provides
cover for young fish) was lost. Further, the damming of Lake Ontario
tributaries and streams impeded migration of salmon and other native
species to their spawning and nursery grounds. The combined impacts of
all these factors were devastating to nearshore, tributary, and wetland
habitats.
Wetlands provide vital habitat to many species of Lake Ontario's wildlife.
It has been estimated that about 50 percent of Lake Ontario's original
wetlands throughout the watershed has been lost. Along the intensively
urbanized coastlines, 60 to 90 percent of wetlands has been lost. These
losses are a result of the multiple effects associated with urban
development and human alterations, such as drain ing wetlands to establish
agricultural land, marina construction, dyking, dredging, and disturbances
by public utilities. Natural processes, such as erosion, water level
fluctuations, succession, storms, and accretion, contribute to the loss of
wetlands as well.
Currently, approximately 80,000 acres of Lake Ontario's wetlands remain.
The largest expanses are located in the eastern portion, along the coastline
of Presqui'ile Bay's Provincial Park in Ontario and in Mexico Bay in New
York. The pressures of urban and agricultural development continue to
threaten wetlands as the public wishes to locate along the lakeshore, have
larger marinas in river mouths, achieve more efficient storm water removal
Wetland being filled
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
37
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.4 Insufficient
Information
for
Lakewide
Assessment
but
Impaired in
Areas of
Concern
from streets and properties, or till marginal wetlands in the watershed
during dry years. Major government initiatives, including education and
regulatory controls, have done much to reduce or prevent the loss of
wetlands. More than 20 percent of Lake Ontario's wetlands are fully
protected (parks) while additional areas are subject to a variety of
municipal, state/provincial, or federal rules, regulations, acts, or programs.
Stemming continued losses of wetlands requires action at the most
efficient level of organization, and opportunities to protect, restore, or
replace these valuable habitats need to be explored.
3.4.1 Degradation of Benthos
The term "benthos" refers to the wide range of organisms that live in direct
contact with the lake bottom sediments. Benthic organisms are an
important food source for fish and other aquatic organisms. As the benthic
community is in direct contact with the sediment, it can be a major route
for transfer of contaminants to higher trophic levels. All of the Lake
Ontario AOCs, which generally have higher levels of sediment
contamination than the open water areas, have either listed degraded
benthic communities as an impaired use or are in the process of evaluating
this issue.
There is currently insufficient information on the nature of macrobenthic
communities throughout the lake, including the open water basins, to make
a determination on the status of this impairment. This impairment will be
evaluated through the LaMP process once sufficient information has been
collected and analyzed. A recent investigation collected detailed
information on macrobenthic communities from more than 40 locations
throughout the lake. This information is currently being evaluated and a
follow-up investigation is in progress. In addition to identifying potential
impacts of toxic chemicals on benthic communities, information will be
collected on the relative extent and density of zebra mussels. Zebra
mussels have the potential to degrade native populations of benthic
organisms lakewide and warrant special consideration.
Changes within the benthic community are related to the dramatic changes
in nutrient levels and fish community structure that occurred between the
1950s and the present. These impacts may have overshadowed any past
or present lakewide impacts from toxic contaminants. Although sediment
contamination, both organic and inorganic, throughout Lake Ontario has
been well documented, not enough is known about the role of physical
habitat, predation, or nutrient levels on benthic community structures and
populations to isolate the effects of sediment contamination on these
organisms.
38
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Quantitative surveys of Lake Ontario benthic communities did not begin
until the 1960s (with the exception of one survey in 1922)(Nalepa, 1991).
Generally Lake Ontario's open water benthic communities are dominated
by small crustaceans (Diporeia spp.) and worms (Stylodrillus
heringianus). Healthy populations of these organisms are considered to
be indicators of good environmental quality since they require cold, well
oxygenated waters and are pollution intolerant. Diporeia spp. is an
effective bioaccumulator of organic contaminants and an important food
source for Lake Ontario slimy sculpin, smelt, and alewives. Studies of
Diporeia tissue contaminants show levels of PCBs, DDE, and
hexachlorobenzene at much higher levels than the surrounding sediment
concentrations; bioaccumulation factors for PCBs were found to range
from nine to nineteen in western Lake Ontario. No studies have been
specifically designed to assess the long term sub-lethal effects of
contaminant levels on benthic communities.
3.4.2 Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
Populations
Phytoplankton are microscopic forms of aquatic plants, including algae
and diatoms, and are at the base of the aquatic food chain. Zooplankton
are small aquatic animals that feed on phytoplankton or other Zooplankton.
Zooplankton are an important food for plankton-eating fish, such as
alewife and smelt.
The potential effects of toxic substances on the health and reproduction of
phytoplankton and zooplankton are not well understood. Declining
phosphorus levels, changes in fish populations, and exotic species may
have obscured any impacts that contaminants might have had on these
populations. No lakewide studies of plankton were conducted before the
loss of major fisheries in the 1920s, the onset of lakewide eutrophication
in the 1 940s, and toxic pollution in the 1 950s (Christie and Thomas, 1981;
Stoermer et al, 1975). The first detailed studies of Lake Ontario
phytoplankton and zooplankton were conducted in the 1970s; however,
these studies were primarily concerned with defining plankton species
distributions and productivity and were not designed to evaluate potential
contaminant impacts. More research is required to determine if
contaminants are having a negative impact on phytoplankton and
zooplankton in Lake Ontario.
Recent studies suggest that Lake Ontario phytoplankton community
structures are shifting in response to lakewide phosphorus reduction
programs and zebra mussel invasion, and total biomass is decreasing for
the same reason (Wolin et al, 1991 and Makarewicz, 1993). The
zooplankton community has changed since the early 1970s, in response to
grazing by exotic species (alewife), and the mid- July to mid-October
biomass declined by approximately 50 percent in response to both
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
decreasing phytoplankton biomass and intense grazing by plankton-eating
fishes.
Monitoring efforts in the U.S. and Canada are developing a better
understanding of Lake Ontario phytoplankton and zooplankton
populations. A comprehensive offshore biomonitoring program (Bioindex
project) has been conducted by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, from 1981 to the present at a mid-lake station, and from 1981 to
1995 at an eastern basin station. The U.S. Lake Ontario Bioindex
program, a cooperative research program carried out by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Cornell University, and
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, has monitored 35 stations throughout the
lake since 1995. In addition, USEPA's Lake Guardian research vessel has
monitored eight stations since 1986. MOE has conducted a monitoring
program of phytoplankton and related trophic and chemical parameters at
six municipal water treatment plant intakes in Lake Ontario since the late
1960s. Phytoplankton composition (to genus) and biomass data are
available on a weekly basis and chemical data have been available since
1976. These programs have collected seasonal data on physical and
chemical parameters as well as a comprehensive set of data on
phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass, species composition, and
production. The analysis of these data will consider contaminants as just
one of a suite of factors that impact on the impairment of this beneficial
use. A detailed report on the findings of these studies will be summarized
in future LaMP documents.
3.5 Localized
Impairments
in Areas of
Concern and
Other
Nearshore
Areas
In addition to lakewide impairments, a number of other problems are
found in some localized nearshore areas and embayments. This is not
surprising as industrial and municipal contamination can become
concentrated at the mouths of rivers or harbors. The IJC has identified
seven specific geographic AOCs on Lake Ontario (see page 3 for a map of
these sites). Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) serve as the primary
mechanism for addressing these localized contaminant problems and other
issues unrelated to lakewide impairments. Additional nearshore problems
beyond the specific AOCs are being addressed through a variety of other
environmental management programs. Table 3 -2 summarizes the status of
these beneficial use impairments. A list of contacts for specific RAPs is
provided in Appendix D for those who would like to obtain more detailed
information on the status of impairments in AOCs and actions underway
to address these problems.
40
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
!
I
Table 3-2. Summary of Beneficial Use Impairments in Six Lake Ontario Areas of Concern (AOC) and Other Nearshore Areas. Another AOC,
the Eighteenmile Creek in the U.S., is in the process of completing its beneficial use impairment assessment.
Indicators a£ Beneficial tlse iifiptlrraeflfe
1 . Restrictions on Fish & Wildlife
Consumption
2. Tainting of Fish & Wildlife Flavor
3. Degradation of Fish or Wildlife
Populations
4. Fish Tumors or Other Deformities
5. Bird or Animal Deformities or
Reproductive Problems
6. Degradation of Benthos
7. Restrictions on Dredging Activities
8. Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae
9-A. Restrictions on Drinking Water
Consumption
9-B. Drinking Water Taste & Odor
Problems
10. Beach Closings
11. Degradation of Aesthetics
12. Added Costs to Agriculture or
Industry
1 3 . Degradation of Phytoplankton &
Zooplankton Populations
14. Loss of Fish & Wildlife Habitat
l*fcewi*t
Stein*
X
X
X
?
?
X
Rscrmtcr
Embayneat
X
?
X
?
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
Out-ego
Hirbor
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
Bwnilicm ;
Harbour
X
X
X
?
X
X
X
R
X
?
X
Mttra.
Twsnto
X
X
?
7
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
fort
Hope
X
Bayrf
{gunfe
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
tMfctr Ntinhore Are» :
X
Several locations on north
shore
Several small bays and
harbours
Tributary mouths, harbors,
and embayments
X
X - impairment identified
? insufficient information R - beneficial use restored
O
00
I—
m
o
m
T]
o
>
6
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.5.1 Fish Tumors
Fish tumors are more common in some species of nearshore fish, such as
brown bullheads and white suckers, than others; however, it is very
difficult to determine what the natural tumor incidence rate is for a
particular location (Hayes et aL, 1990). Relatively high levels of tumors
can be found in fish from both clean and polluted water bodies. For
example, skin and liver tumors have been documented in fish taken from
relatively pristine drinking water reservoirs in New York and
Pennsylvania, where no elevated levels of carcinogens [such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] have been detected in sediments or water
(Bowser et al, 1991). This fact complicates the process of selecting a
control or background site to which the incidence of fish tumors in a
contaminated area can be compared. Viruses, genetic differences, and
naturally occurring carcinogens, in addition to chemical contaminants, are
thought to have a role in fish tumor development.
The presence of tumors in Lake Ontario fish was first noted in the early
1900s before persistent toxic contaminants became a problem in the lake.
Liver tumors were first identified in wild fish in the 1960s. However, a
temporal correlation between any change in the incidence offish tumors
and the onset of the severe environmental contamination problems of the
1960s cannot be firmly established because the first detailed studies offish
tumors in Lake Ontario were not conducted until the 1970s.
A 1996 collection of spawning walleye in the Salmon River, a tributary of
the Bay of Quinte, found that the frequency of liver tumors increased with
the age of the fish and was more prevalent (87.5%) in female walleye
greater than 14 years of age. The frequency-age relationship is
comparable to previous walleye collections in the St. Lawrence River.
The tumors are non-invasive and it is possible that the tumors are a
naturally occurring phenomenon in old walleye. However, before any
interpretation of probable cause can be made, it will be necessary to
determine the rates of liver tumors in similarly aged walleye from other
more pristine habitats.
Contaminant-related fish tumors would be expected to be most prominent
in Lake Ontario AOCs where there are generally higher contaminant levels
than in open water areas. To date, Hamilton Harbour is the only Lake
Ontario AOC which lists this impairment. The Oswego Harbor AOC
recently completed a fish tumor study that found no impairment. The
Metro Toronto, Bay of Quinte, and Eighteenmile Creek AOCs have each
indicated that additional information is necessary to fully evaluate the
status of this impairment As there are few reports of tumors in open water
fish, fish tumors are not considered to be a lakewide impairment. The
lakewide status of this impairment will need to be periodically evaluated
as new information is developed on the incidence of tumors in open water
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
fish as well as the role of contaminants and other factors involved in fish
tumor development.
3.5.2 Restrictions on Dredging Activities
Localized areas of sediments with elevated levels of persistent toxic
contaminants are found in some Lake Ontario harbors and river mouths.
Periodic dredging of these sediments is necessary to maintain shipping and
small craft channels. This beneficial use impairment is not considered to
be a lakewide impairment because dredging restrictions do not pertain
directly to open water areas; however, this impairment is a concern in a
number of localized nearshore areas and AOCs.
Criteria that are used to assess dredging activities are not
based on whether or not dredging should take place, but
rather the mode of dredged material disposal. There are
five main ways to dispose of dredged sediments. Clean,
uncontaminated sediments can either be placed on
beaches or reused along shorel ines as fill. The other three
methods of disposal, offshore, upland, and confined, are
based on the degree of contamination of the sediments.
The most highly contaminated sediments require confined
disposal in special contaminated sediment facilities. Less
contaminated sediments can be stored in landfills or
disposed in deep offshore waters. Dredging
The Canadian Department of Public Works maintains the register for
Canadian dredging data. The register records location of dredging, volume
of sediments dredged, disposal methods, and chemical analysis data.
Information on dredging activities was registered from 1975 until a few
years ago when navigational dredging activities declined in the region.
From 1980 to 1985, PCBs exceeded the "marginally polluted level" at
Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa, Whitby, and Point Traverse. Dredging was
undertaken from 1985 to 1991 at Grimsby, Whitby, Trenton, Kingston,
and four times in Oshawa. Based on Ontario's sediment quality guidelines
(1992), PCBs exceeded the "severely polluted level" at Oshawa in 1985,
the "slightly polluted level" in 1986, and the "marginally polluted level"
in 1991. In 1991, the dredged material was disposed in a closed harbor
disposal cell. The Hamilton Harbour, Metro Toronto, Port Hope, and Bay
of Quinte AOCs all identify dredging restrictions as an impairment. In
addition to organic pollutants, sediment concentrations of heavy metals
and conventional parameters, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and oil and
grease, have also been identified as a concern in a number of nearshore
areas.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
43
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
In the United States, the Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) oversees and
approves dredging projects in coordination with USEPA. There are
currently no restrictions on dredging or dredged material disposal activities
in the U.S. waters of Lake Ontario due to contaminated sediments.
Sediment dredged from major Lake Ontario harbors meets USEPA and
USAGE guidelines for open water disposal. No dredging restrictions were
identified by the RAPs for Rochester Embayment or Oswego Harbor. The
only U.S. dredging restriction applies to the type of dredging methods that
can be used on the Genesee River. In response to local concerns regarding
excessive turbidity levels, dredging techniques that cause excessive
turbidity in the river are not allowed. Critical pollutants are not a cause of
these limitations.
In February 1998, USEPA and USAGE finalized the Inland Testing
Manual, which lays out stringent testing protocols for dredged material
disposal in inland waters. Over the next 12 to 18 months, USEPA and
USAGE will work with their partners to develop a regional manual to
implement the national testing protocol in the New York State portions of
Lakes Ontario and Erie. The status of this beneficial use could change if
future dredging projects encounter sediments that exceed these new, more
stringent testing requirements.
3.5.3 Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae
Eutrophication is a process in lakes that is characterized by an overload of
nutrients. It is often accompanied by algal blooms, low oxygen
concentrations, and changes in food web composition and dynamics. In
Lake Ontario, persistent eutrophication and undesirable algae are no
longer causes of lakewide problems. The elimination of eutrophication
problems in Lake Ontario during the 1950s and 1960s is largely due to the
success of the binational phosphorus reduction programs and
improvements in wastewater treatment plants throughout the entire Great
Lakes basin. In the summer of 1993, the average Lake Ontario total
phosphorus level was 9.7 ug/L, near the GLWQA objective of 10 ug/L for
open lake spring conditions (IJG, 1980 and Thomas et al, 1980).
In the 1950s and 1960s, algal blooms and fish die-offs occurred throughout
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, raising concerns about the environmental
impacts of excessively high phosphorus levels. In an attempt to remedy
this problem, the GLWQA set a target load of 7,000 metric tonnes of
phosphorus per year. To measure the success of the reduction programs,
additional targets were set: phosphorus concentration (10 ug/L),
chlorophyll a (2.6 ug/L), and water clarity (5.3 m in open waters).
In response to the phosphorus control programs, open lake phosphorus
concentrations declined from a peak of about 25 ug/L in 1971 to the
10 ug/L guideline in 1985. By 1991, Lake Ontario phosphorus levels were
well below the guideline. In addition, since the early 1980s, water clarity
44 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
has increased by 20 percent, photosynthesis has declined approximately
18 percent, and late summer zooplankton production has declined by
50 percent. All of these are positive changes reflecting an overall shift of
the lake back towards its original condition of low nutrient levels.
Although significant progress has been made in reducing eutrophication
problems in nearshore areas, this is still a concern in local areas. Each of
the Lake Ontario AOCs, with the exception of Port Hope, has identified
eutrophication as a local impairment. In New York State, Braddock Bay,
Irondequoit Bay, Sodus Bay, East Bay, Port Bay, Little Sodus Bay,
Chaumont Bay, and Mud Bay are showing signs of eutrophication.
Nutrients from agricultural runoff and on-site waste disposal systems
(septic systems) are the most frequently identified sources of the problem.
County level environmental planning efforts are providing the lead on
controlling these localized eutrophication problems in the U.S.
In conclusion, it appears that eutrophication is no longer a problem in
offshore waters. This is largely due to the success of the binational
phosphorus reduction programs and improvements in wastewater treatment
plants throughout the entire Great Lakes basin. Although substantial
improvements have been made in the nearshore areas, eutrophication may
still be a significant issue in some local areas.
3.5.4 Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption, or
Taste and Odor Problems
Regular monitoring of the quality of water supplies drawn from Lake
Ontario shows that water quality meets or exceeds public health standards
for drinking supplies. Open lake surveillance monitoring conducted as
part of Canadian and United States research efforts also confirms the high
quality of Lake Ontario water.
The largest category of consumer complaints about drinking water,
worldwide, is taste and odor problems (AWWA, 1987). Changes in the
taste of drinking water may indicate possible contamination of the raw
water supply, treatment inadequacies, or contamination of the distribution
system. Although there are standards for some parameters that may cause
taste and odor problems, such as phenolic compounds, there is
considerable variation among consumers as to what is acceptable.
Aesthetically acceptable drinking water supplies should not have an
offensive taste or smell.
Although there are no drinking water restrictions on the use of Lake
Ontario water, some nearshore areas, such as Rochester and the Bay of
Quinte, report occasional taste and odor problems. Lake Ontario water
suppliers most commonly receive consumer complaints regarding an
"earthy" or "musty" taste and odors. Studies conducted by Lake Ontario
water suppliers have shown that these problems are related to naturally
Lake Ontario LaMP ~
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Windsurfers enjoying the beach
occurring chemicals, such as geosmin (trans, trans-1,1O-dimethyl-9-
decalol) and methylisoborneol (MIB), produced by decaying blue-green
algae and bacteria. Using chlorine to clear water supply intakes of zebra
mussels may also stimulate the production of these taste and odor-causing
chemicals. Geosmin and MIB can cause taste and odor problems for
sensitive individuals at levels as low as one part per trillion (ppt), well
below the detection limits of the analytical equipment currently available
to water authorities (2 to 3 ppt). Once identified, taste and odor problems
can be eliminated at water treatment plants by the use of powdered
activated carbon or potassium permangenate.
Taste and odor problems are more common during algal blooms.
Additionally, storm events precipitate these problems by breaking up mats
of the green algae Cladophora from their rocky substrate in nearshore
areas. Floating mats of Cladophora located in warm shallow water are
ideal habitats for blue-green algae and bacteria growth. The presence of
these floating mats contributes to taste and odor problems. Localized
eutrophication problems in some nearshore areas may also contribute to
taste and odor problems.
In summary, taste and odor problems are considered to be a locally
impaired beneficial use in some areas. The causes, however, are poorly
understood. Naturally occurring algae, eutrophic conditions, and zebra
mussel controls may all be important contributing factors.
3.5.5 Beach Closings
Beach closings are restricted largely to shorelines near major metropolitan
centers or the mouths of streams and rivers. These closings follow storm
events when bacteria-rich surface water runoff is flushed into nearshore
areas via streams, rivers, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). In some
instances beaches may be closed based on the potential for high bacteria
levels to develop following storm and rain events. Beaches are also closed
for aesthetic reasons, such as the presence of algal blooms, dead fish, or
garbage. Given the localized nature of beach closings and their absence
along much of the Lake Ontario shoreline, they are not a
considered lakewide problem.
In Ontario, beaches are closed when bacterial (E. coli)
levels exceed 100 organisms/ lOOmL. During recent years
(1995 to 1997) beach closings have continued in heavily
urbanized areas in the western part of the basin due to
storm events, but are less frequent in the central and
eastern regions. Examples of ongoing problems include
the beaches of the Bay of Quinte, Toronto, Burlington,
Hamilton, Niagara, Pt. Dalhouse, and St. Catherines.
Upgrading stormwater controls through the installation
46
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
of collection tanks so stormwater from CSOs can be treated in Toronto and
Hamilton should reduce beach closings in these areas.
The only U.S. beach with recent closings is Ontario Beach within the
Rochester AOC. These closings have been posted due to rain events,
storm runoff, excessive algae, waves greater than four feet, or visibility
less than one-half meter. Ontario Beach is routinely closed as a precaution
during storm and rain events because these conditions have the potential
to cause high bacteria levels along the beach shore. Ontario Beach
summer fecal coliform levels have been well below the state's action level
of 200 fecal coliforms/lOOmL. The implementation of a combined sewer
overflow abatement program resulted in significant decreases in fecal
coliform levels in the Genesee River and adjacent shoreline areas. Actions
are also underway to address stormwater problems that impact other areas
of the Rochester Embayment.
3.5.6 Degradation of Aesthetics
There are currently no aesthetic problems in the open waters of Lake
Ontario. This is attributed to the elimination of widespread eutrophication
problems and the restoration of water clarity. However, some Lake
Ontario AOCs have identified this impairment. Evaluating aesthetic
problems is subjective, often based on individual value judgments.
Localized aesthetic problems along Lake Ontario shorelines include algal
blooms, dead fish, debris, odor, silty water, improper disposal of boat
sewage wastes, and litter problems at parks and scenic highway stops.
On the U.S. side, the Rochester AOC lists silt, odors related to alewife
dieoffs, and decaying algae as aesthetic problems. A recent water quality
survey conducted at the Oswego Harbor AOC indicates that this beneficial
use is not impaired.
On the Canadian side, the Metro Toronto RAP lists debris and litter,
turbidity in the vicinity of tributary mouths and landfilling operations, and
weed growth along shorelines as aesthetic problems. In addition, the
Royal Commission for Toronto's Waterfront noted the continued loss of
Toronto area historical buildings and landscapes and the lack of adequate
public access to the lake as aesthetic concerns. The Bay of Quinte RAP
identified algal blooms as the primary cause of aesthetic concerns. Major
causes of aesthetic impairment in Hamilton Harbour include oil sheens,
objectionable turbidity, floating scum, debris, putrid matter, and reduced
water clarity in shallow areas.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.6 Unimpaired
Beneficial
Uses
3.7 Pollutants
to be
Addressed
Through the
LaMP
3.5.7 Added Costs to Agriculture or Industry
This is not a lakewide impairment as Lake Ontario waters do not require
any additional treatment costs prior to agricultural or industrial use. The
Rochester Embayment AOC is the only Lake Ontario AOC to identify this
impairment, based on the additional maintenance costs associated with the
physical removal of zebra mussels from water intake pipes.
Many industries and municipalities adjacent to Lake Ontario are
experiencing zebra mussel infestation in their water intakes. The main
treatment for this problem is to use various chlorine compounds, together
with other chemicals such as calcium permangenate, to kill the mussels -
an ongoing maintenance cost.
Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor
The contamination of surface waters by certain types of organic
contaminants, such as the class of chemicals known as phenols, can taint
fish and wildlife flavor. During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, levels of
phenols near the mouth of the Niagara River often exceeded standards
designed to prevent tainting offish and wildlife flavor. Since that time,
improvements in wastewater treatment systems have dramatically reduced
the amounts of these substances being discharged to surface waters.
Today, levels of phenols are well below levels of concern.
There are no existing reports that indicate tainting of fish and wildlife
flavor is a concern for the open waters of Lake Ontario. Neither is this
potential impairment identified as a problem in any nearshore areas of the
lake. Evaluating this type of impairment is difficult given the very
subjective nature of taste. Studies have shown that fish consumers cannot
consistently detect the difference between tainted and non-tainted fish.
The length of time and preservation methods used before cooking fish can
also contribute to taste problems.
As discussed in the previous section, there is direct and indirect evidence
that PCBs, DDT and its metabolites, mirex, and dioxins/furans are
impairing beneficial uses in Lake Ontario.1'2
48
'Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide have been removed from the list
of critical pollutants since the April 1997 draft based on new information
summarized in Appendix B.
2Dieldrin, although it exceeds criteria on a lakewide basis, is no longer
believed to be the cause of bald eagle reproduction problems, as explained in
Appendix B.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
It is also important for the Lake Ontario LaMP to consider toxic
substances that are likely to impair beneficial uses. In this case, there is
no direct evidence that a substance contributes to use impairments, but
there is indirect evidence if a chemical exceeds U.S. or Canadian
standards, criteria, or guidelines. A review of recent fish tissue
contaminant concentrations identified mercury as a lakewide contaminant
of concern because mercury concentrations in larger smallmouth bass and
walleye are likely to exceed Ontario's 0.5 parts per million guideline for
fish consumption throughout the lake. Although there are no U.S. or
Canadian consumption advisories for eating smallmouth bass and walleye
on a lakewide basis, the data are sufficient to identify mercury as a critical
pollutant as part of the LaMP pollutant reduction strategy. As with
mercury, dieldrin is not linked to a lakewide impairment but dieldrin
concentrations exceed the most stringent criteria for both water and fish
tissue. Given the lakewide nature of these exceedences of the most
stringent criteria, dieldrin is also included in the list of LaMP critical
pollutants.
Previous LOTMP reports had also identified three other contaminants as
exceeding standards and criteria: octachlorostyrene (OCS), chlordane, and
hexachlorobenzene (HCB). A review of current information showed that
none of these contaminants persist as a lakewide issue. OCS, chlordane,
and HCB are well below applicable water quality criteria, as described in
Appendix B.
The critical pollutants that have been identified as impairing uses in Lake
Ontario are persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances: they remain in
the water, sediment, and biota for long periods of time and they
accumulate in aquatic organisms to levels that are harmful to human
health. It is the intent of the Four Parties to prevent the development of
additional lakewide use impairments that may be caused by other
persistent, bioaccumulative toxics entering the lake. Therefore, the LaMP
will identify actions that will address the critical pollutants identified
above as well as the broader class of chemicals known as persistent,
bioaccumulative toxics.
Lake Ontario lakewide critical pollutants all resist natural breakdown
processes and can bioaccumulate in living organisms. Given these
properties, these contaminants will persist in the environment long after
most sources of these contaminants have been eliminated or controlled.
Improvements in laboratory analytical techniques now allow us to detect
most of these contaminants at extremely low levels in air, water, soil, and
biota samples.
Strategies to reduce or eliminate critical pollutant inputs need to be based
on an understanding of how and where these chemicals were used or are
produced and disposed so that their sources can be located and controlled.
We also need to understand the various physical and chemical pathways
Lakewide Critical Pollutants
are bioaccumulative and
persistent toxic substances
that an known or suspected
to be responsible for lakewide
impairments of beneficial
uses: PCBs, DDT & Its
metabolites, mirex, dioxlns/
furans, mercury, and dieldrin.
These substances will be the
focus of the Lake Ontario
LaMP source reduction
activities.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
49
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
by which these contaminants move through the ecosystem to be able to
determine the appropriate control strategy and to predict the time needed
to restore impairments. The following discussion provides a brief
overview of the six lakewide critical pollutants and some preliminary
contaminant loadings information.
This preliminary attempt to develop estimates of critical pollutants
entering the lake identified a number of data gaps. Examples of the types
of data gaps to be considered as part of future LaMP efforts include: 1)
insufficient data to estimate critical pol lutant loadings for many tributaries;
2) limited data on atmospheric loadings of critical pollutants throughout
the basin; and 3) the amount of critical pollutants being effectively
removed from the system due to burial in the deep basins of the lake.
3.8 Sources and
Loadings of
Critical
Pollutants
3.8.1 Sources of Critical Pollutant Loadings Information
It is extremely difficult to estimate critical pollutant loadings entering
Lake Ontario via rivers, precipitation, sewage treatment plants, waste sites,
agricultural areas, and other sources. The levels of contaminants entering
the lake from these sources are constantly changing in response to many
known and unknown factors. As a result, loadings data are often limited
and rely on numerous assumptions. Although quantitative loadings
information may be difficult to obtain, qualitative indicators provided by
the environmental monitoring of water, sediment, and aquatic organisms
can often provide sufficient information to identify those contaminant
sources that need to be controlled. Improving the database on sources and
loadings of critical pollutants is a high priority, as is determining effective
ways to virtually eliminate these critical pollutants from Lake Ontario.
Table 3-3 presents four major categories of critical pollutant loadings
estimates based on the best data currently available:
1. loadings from sources outside the Lake Ontario basin;
2. loadings from sources inside the Lake Ontario basin;
3. atmospheric loadings; and
4. releases from Lake Ontario to the St. Lawrence River and
volatilization to the atmosphere.
These are very preliminary estimates and are subject to significant changes
as monitoring and loading calculation techniques improve. The data are
drawn from a number of information sources and monitoring programs
which often use different criteria, methods, and loading calculation
methods. These estimates indicate that the volume of some contaminants
leaving the lake, such as PCBs and DDT, may be greater than the amount
coming in. One explanation for this may be that contaminants are slowly
being released from sediments already present in the Lake Ontario system.
50
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
3
I
I
Table 3-3. Preliminary Estimates of Lake Ontario Critical Pollutant Loadings Information
PCBs
Toed DDT
Mirex
Dieldrin
Dioxins
Loadings from Sources Outside the Lake
Ontario Basin
(Kg/yr)
Other Great
Lakes
302
96
ND
43
ND
Niagara River
Basin
138
ND
1.8
ND
ND
Total
440
96
1.8
43
ND
Loadings from Water Discharges within the
Lake Ontario Basin
(Kg/yr)
Point and Non-
point via
Tributaries
97
16
0.9
5
NQ
Direct Point
Source
Discharges
U.S.
0.02
1,5
?/ND
4.3
?/ND
Can.
?/ND
?/ND
?/ND
?/ND
?/ND
Total
97
17.5
0.9
9.3
?/ND
Atmospheric
Loadings
(Kg/yr)
64
16
ND
13
0.005
Amounts Leaving Lake Ontario
(Kg/yr)
viaSt
Lawrence
River
411
1.8
0.7
43
?
Volatilization to
Atmosphere
440
141
?
320
p
Total
851
143
0.7
363
?
Net
Change
(Kg/yr)
-250
•13.5
2.0
-297.7
p
? - no information available ND - not detected/not measurable NQ - present but not quantified
NOTE: Loading estimates for mercury could not be completed in time for this report but will be addressed in future LaMP reports.
Data Sources!
Other Great Lakes
Joint Evaluation ofUpstream-Downstream Niagara River Monitoring Data, 1992-93, Prepared by Data Interpretation Group, River Monitoring Committee, January 1995.
(Loadings measured at the head of the Niagara River at Fort Erie)
Niagara River Basin
Joint Evaluation of Upslream-Downstream Niagara River Monitoring Data, 1992-93, Prepared by Data Interpretation Group, River Monitoring Committee, January 1995.
(Difference between loadings measured at Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the Lake).
Atmospheric
Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes, An Update, Eisenreich, SJ. & W.MJ. Strachan, Workshop
proceedings, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, January 31 - February 2,1992. June 1992. (deposition and volatilization of PCBs, DDT, mirex, dieldrin)
Atmospheric Deposition of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes: A review of data through 1994. HoflF etal., 1996, Atmospheric Environment Vol. 30, No. 20 pp 3305-3527.
Contaminant Loads leaving via St Lawrence River
Concentrations and loadings of trace organic compounds measured in the St. Lawrence River Headwaters at Wolfe Island 1989-1993.
Prepared by J. Biberhofer, Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation Branch, Ontario Region, Ecosystem Health Division, Report No: EHD\ECB-OR\95-03\I, August
1994.
73
O
CD
r-
m
a
m
o
>
o
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
CSS Linutos
(Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute,
Technical Operations)
One of the challenges of the LaMP is to understand the state of Lake
Ontario as it exists today and how it may change in the near future and
over the long term. Concentrations of toxic substances in water, sediment,
fish, and wildlife respond at different rates to changes in loadings and
changes in biological or physical conditions. Programs in place today
which have already reduced critical pollutant loadings may not have an
impact on environmental levels for decades, particularly in fish and
wildlife. This time lag must be considered when evaluating data which
were often collected several years before being reported and which reflect
loadings which occurred many more years before data collection.
Organisms accumulate chemicals or metals that have been in the
ecosystem for long periods of time, either in sediment or in organisms
which are lower on the food chain. Estimating if current programs will
eventually resolve some of these ecosystem issues and over what time
frame is an important step in understanding what additional measures are
necessary to accelerate the cleanup of Lake Ontario.
Long term water quality monitoring programs are
conducted by Environment Canada at Fort Erie and
Niagara-on-the-Lake (at both ends of the Niagara River),
and at Wolfe Island at the head of the St. Lawrence River.
These programs use similar sampling and analytical
methods. The data provide a good estimate of the critical
pollutant loadings that originate from upstream Great
Lakes basins, those that originate in the Niagara River
basin, and the volume of critical pollutants that leaves
Lake Ontario via the St. Lawrence River.
Estimates of atmospheric loadings of critical pollutants to
Lake Ontario were developed by the International
Atmospheric Deposition Network. Estimates for the
amounts of critical pollutants volatilizing to the
atmosphere were also provided. Volatilization may be a significant
process by which critical pollutants are leaving the Lake Ontario system.
Estimating atmospheric deposition is difficult, and these estimates contain
a significant degree of uncertainty.
For the purposes of this report, the amounts of critical pollutants entering
Lake Ontario via all Lake Ontario basin tributaries were based on
representative point and non-point sources within each tributary's
watershed. The 22 tributaries with the highest flow rates were included in
this review (see Table 3-4). Quantitative and qualitative monitoring
techniques, as well as biological monitoring results, were used to estimate
loadings or the relative presence or absence of critical pollutants within
each tributary watershed.
52
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Table 3-4. Estimates of Atmospheric, Point, and Non-point Source Contaminant Loadings
Entering Lake Ontario via Tributaries (Kg/yr)
SpHr«5
% <'
Burlington Canal
Credit River
Don River
Duflins Creek
Humber River
Moira River
Napanee River
Oakville Creek
Salmon River
Trent River
Twelve Mile Creek
Welland Ship Canal
Atmospheric
Niagara River &
upstream
Great Lakes
Black River
Eighteenmile Creek
Genesee River
Irondequoit Creek
Johnson Creek
Northrup Creek
Oak Orchard Creek
Oswego River
Sandy Creek
Wine Creek
Country
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada & US
Canada & US
US
US
US
US
US
us
us
us
us
us
PCBs
1.5
?
ND(5)
Dioxjiti
Futan*
fcW
¥(10)
P
¥(10)
?
p
p
¥(7)
?
?
¥ (7,10)
Y(7)
¥(7)
p
ND* (9)
¥(7)
¥(5)
Y(5)
¥(5)
¥(6)
p
¥(5)
¥(5)
P
p
Dieldrjn
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The location of point sources (Figure 3-1) and loadings information
(Tables 3-5 and 3-6) are presented for those that discharge directly to the
lake. Point sources that discharge to tributaries are included in tributary
loading estimates. Jurisdictional differences confound these point source
loadings estimates. New York State requires dischargers whose waste-
water is known or suspected to contain significant levels of critical
pollutants (principally sewage treatment plants) to monitor for those
contaminants. There is no current data on Ontario point sources as no
Ontario industrial point source discharged the critical pollutants in
sufficient quantities to require regulation under MISA. Information on
CSOs, stormwater, and other non-point sources may be included in future
assessments.
To get copies of the TRI, call
the Pollution Prevention Unit
at NYSDEC, Sitansu Ghosh
(518-457-2553). To get copies
of the NPRI, contact the NPRI
office in EC's Ontario Region
at 416-739-5890 or access it
on the internet at
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri.
html.)
Information on releases to the environment of critical pollutants and other
contaminants is available to the public in publications developed and
released on a regular basis by governmental agencies. For sources in the
U.S., the annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) summarizes on an annual
basis the emissions of approximately 650 pollutants from facilities
nationwide. For sources in Canada, the National Pollutant Release
Inventory (NPRI) provides information on the onsite releases to air, water,
and land; on transfers offsite in waste; and on the three R's (recover,
reuse, and recycle) of 176 substances. The NPRI is the only legislated
nationwide publicly accessible inventory of pollutant releases and transfers
in Canada. iff
W1
Dosaronio WPCP
Graham Cmek WPCP (Newcailje)
Port Darlington WPCP
Harmony Creek 1A2 Combined Effluei
Belleville WPCP
Tmnton WPCP
S»ckeW Hartwr STP
Brighton Lagoon
Atan
Oiwego E»t STP
OMvgo wm STP p'
'
-" Duffln Cmek WPCP (York-Dumem)
Highland Creek WPCP (Scarborough)
Toronto
1 Main WPCP fTa
"number WPCP (Ettbfcak*)
, ' UkBvxM WPCP South-Peel System
• ClarUon WPCP SoultvPeel Sy«l«m
• O«k^»e South Ellt WPCP ^Hmulmnt STP
OekvKI. South Wml WPCP • -|
• Will
OnUnoSTP.
Mk(.Hillon WPCP
Skyway
Hamilton
'ilion Ilirtar STP
'lyogare-On-The-Lake Lagoon
Port Vaster WPCP
Port MKuiw WPCP
Bakar Roar) WPCP l^-y^
Webster WPCF
Rochester
54
Figure 3-1. Point Sources Directly Discharging to Lake Ontario
[STP - Sewage Treatment Plant; WPCF- Water Pollution Control Facility; WPCP - Water Pollution Control Plant]
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Table 3-5. Preliminary Estimate of Lakewide Critical Pollutants Entering Lake Ontario via
Direct Discharges in the U.S. (1989-1995).
Point Swrctai
'' '! ' ' '
, % • ; '
Alcan
Newfane STP
NW Quad STP
Ontario STP
Oswego East STP
Oswego West STP
Sackctts Harbor STP
Sodus Point WPCF
Van Lare STP
Webster WPCF
Wilson Harbor STP
Country
^
US
US
us
us
us
us
us
us
us
us
us
Bwcharge
flow
. {JQOGra3
j»r#ft#
32.2
5.6
62
2.3
11
15.1
0.02
0.02
401
28.0
0.01
PCS*
s
CKtfM
0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
?
?
ND
ND
?
Total
00T
Wr)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.5
9
9
ND
ND
9
Dfoxini/
FWIWW*
«W
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
9
9
ND
9
jpieJ&ln
<*fcfctf
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
9
4.3
ND
9
.Mir«*
<«&&*)
9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
9
9
ND
9
WPCF= Water Pollution Control Facility
STP= Sewage Treatment Plant
* = dioxin/furan loadings reported in grams per year
? = No information available
ND= Not detected
Data Sources: New York State SPDES program
Litten,NYSDEC1996
Note:
Note:
Estimates are based on standard monitoring performed by the POTW operators as well as non-standard research methods
used by NYSDEC investigators that can detect lower levels of contaminants than standard methodologies. As a result,
contaminants reported to be "not detected" by standard analytical methods might be "detected" if non-standard research
methods are used. Therefore, the details of a specific POTW's operation, now rate, and the analytical methods used need
to be carefully considered before the significance of a reported "non-detect" can be completely understood.
This table only includes the more significant wastewatcr point source dischargers. Discharges related to power generation
plants and small dischargers are not included in this table. A more complete review of these dischargers will be performed
as part of future LaMP activities.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
55
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Table 3-6. Preliminary Estimate of Lakewide Critical Pollutants Entering Lake Ontario via
Direct Discharges in Canada (1989-1995).
Point Sourcts
Baker Road WPCP (Grimsby)
Bath WPCP
Belleville WPCP
Biggar Lagoon
Brighton Lagoon
Clarkson WPCP (Mississauga)
CobourgWPCPNol
Cobourg WPCP No 2
Corbett Creek WPCP (Oshawa)
Deseronto WPCP
Duffins Creek WPCP (Pickering)
Graham Creek WPCP (Newcastle)
Harmony Creek 1&2 (Oshawa)
Highland Creek WPCP (Scarborough)
Humber WPCP (Etobicoke)
Kingston Twp WPCP
Lakeview WPCP (Mississauga)
Main WPCP (Toronto)
Mid-Halton WPCP
Niagara-On-The-Lake Lagoon
Oakville South East WPCP
Oakville South West WPCP
Petro Canada Ltd (Oakville)
Petro Canada Ltd (Mississauga)
Picton WPCP
Port Dalhousie WPCP
Port Darlington WPCP
Port Hope WPCP
Port Wellcr WPCP
Skyway WPCP (Burlington)
Trenton WPCP
Wellington WPCP
Country
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
Discharge
Flow
{MX»**
p*r«ty}
14.7
1.2
30.5
1.1
2.6
99.6
9.9
5.8
34.9
1.4
237.6
2.04
52.8
160.2
337.7
22.1
268.4
680.1
11.4
4.02
72.4
33.1
?
9.5
3.7
72.3
8.3
5.5
49.3
76.5
12.4
0.5
PCBs
CKtfM
ND
?
7
?
7
ND
?
?
7
•?
ND
7
?
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
ND
7
?
7
7
7
?
?
?
7
7
?
Total
DDT
(K#ytf
ND
7
?
?
7
ND
7
?
?
?
ND
?
?
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
ND
7
7
?
7
?
7
7
7
7
7
7
Owxins/
F«raw*
irttf
ND
o
7
7
7
ND
?
7
?
?
ND
Q
?
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
ND
7
9
ND
?
7
?
7
7
7
7
?
DieWrto
(Ksftr)
ND
?
7
7
7
ND
?
7
7
7
ND
?
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
ND
ND
?
7
?
7
7
?
7
?
7
7
Mirex
ND
?
?
7
7
ND
7
?
7
?
ND
7
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
?
ND
ND
7
7
?
?
7
7
7
?
7
7
? ?
WPCP= Water Pollution Control Plant Data Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
STP= Sewage Treatment Plant
* = dioxin/furan loadings reported in grams per year
? - No information available
ND= Not detected
Note: This table only includes the more significant wastewater point source dischargers. Discharges related to power generation
plants and small dischargers are not included in this table. A more complete review of these dischargers will be performed
as part of future LaMP activities.
56
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.8.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were manufactured between 1929 and
1977. PCBs were considered an important industrial safety product for
conditions where high heat or powerful electric currents posed explosive
and fire hazards. For example, PCB oil-filled electric switches eliminated
electric sparking problems that could trigger explosions at petroleum
refineries. PCB oils were used in electrical transformers as a non-
flammable electrical insulating fluid. PCBs were also used as industrial
lubricating oils to replace earlier types of hydraulic oils that could more
easily catch fire under conditions of high pressure and temperature.
The production of PCBs was halted following the discovery that PCBs
released into the environment were bioaccumulating to levels of concern
in a wide range of organisms. The hazards posed by PCBs were
discovered in the 1960s when ranch mink, that had been fed a diet of Great
Lakes fish, experienced reproductive failures. The investigations that
followed determined that Great Lakes fish were contaminated with PCBs
at levels that warranted human fish consumption advisories. Since that
time, production of PCBs in North America has been banned, and the use
of PCBs is being systematically eliminated. In Canada, old electrical
transformers and other equipment that contain PCBs are being stockpiled
until they can be safely destroyed. In the U.S., old transformers and
equipment containing PCBs must be properly disposed within one year.
Levels of PCBs in the environment have decreased in response to the
banning and phasing out of the various uses of PCBs. PCBs are identified
as a LaMP critical pollutant because levels of PCBs in Lake Ontario fish
and wildlife continue to exceed human health standards and because PCB
levels in the Lake Ontario food chain may pose health and reproduction
problems for bald eagles, mink, and otter.
The majority of these estimated PCB loadings to Lake Ontario originate
outside the Lake Ontario basin (see Figure 3-2). The upstream Great
Lakes basins contribute the largest amount (302 kg/yr), followed by the
Niagara River basin (13 8 kg/yr). Within the Lake Ontario basin, point and
non-point sources contribute approximately 100 kg/yr, 80 percent of which
enters the Lake via streams and rivers. Atmospheric loadings contribute
64 kg/yr directly to the lake surface. Some of the tributary loadings are no
doubt due to atmospheric deposition within the watershed. When the loss
of PCBs from the Lake basin via volatilization (440 kg/yr) and the St.
Lawrence River (411 kg/yr) is considered, the total amount of PCBs within
Lake Ontario appears to be decreasing at a rate of 250 kg/yr, only to be
transferred downstream, downwind, or buried in the bottom sediments.
Lake Ontario LaMP 57
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Graphic Scale for
Loading iisumitcs
<1
5(1
ZOO
400
Toronto
^Pio
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The upper Great Lakes are the largest source of DDT and its metabolites
to the Lake Ontario basin (96 kg/yr) (see Figure 3-3). Atmospheric
deposition and sources within the Lake Ontario basin contribute
approximately 33.5 kg/yr combined. Much of the tributary loadings likely
consist of atmospheric fallout in the watershed given the banning of these
materials from use in the watershed. The Niagara River Basin does not
appear to be a significant source of DDT. Approximately 143 kg/yr of
DDT leave Lake Ontario via volatilization to the atmosphere (141 kg/yr)
and the St. Lawrence River (2 kg/yr), for a net loss from Lake Ontario of
approximately 13 kg/yr.
3.8.4 Mirex (Dochlorano)
The discovery of elevated levels of mirex in Lake Ontario fish during the
1960s triggered lakewide fish consumption advisories. Investigations
determined that most of the mirex originated from a chemical production
facility on the Niagara River. Use and production of mirex, also known
as dechlorane, are now banned in North America. Mirex is identified as
a LaMP critical pollutant because levels in some Lake Ontario fish
continue to exceed human health standards; a number offish consumption
advisories exist. Although mirex is most widely known for its use as a
pesticide, approximately 75 percent of the mirex produced was used as a
flame retardant in a variety of industrial, manufacturing, and military
Gnpfaic Sole to
Loading Firirnitrf
(Kg/ye«r)
20
50
100
Toronto
Burknguxi C«n«l W.land Ship Cenel .
/\ —I*
^*V__^.
Hamilton
Niagara River
A other upstream sources
Rochester
Key
-^ Non-Detecl
•» Detected
0 Estimated Loadings
km 5 0
SO km
Figure 3-3. Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for Total DDT (1990-1995).
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
59
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
applications. Available sales records suggest that more than 50,000
pounds of mirex were used for industrial and manufacturing flame
retardant purposes in the Lake Ontario basin. More than 75,000 pounds
of mirex were used as a flame retardant in other Great Lakes basins.
Most of the mirex entering Lake Ontario originates in the Niagara River
basin (1.8 kg/yr) and an additional 0.9 kg/yr enters via the Oswego River
(Figure 3-4). Approximately 0.7 kg/yr of mirex leaves Lake Ontario via
the St. Lawrence River. No reliable estimates of atmospheric deposition
or volatilization are available at this time.
3.8.5 Dioxins and Furans
Graphic Scale ioc
| Aiwiino Pf
(Kg/yeir)
• <1
• 1
Duffm Creak
Toronto
Don River /
Number Rivef^Tj
Oakvilo Ci
Dioxins and furans are a group of unwanted chemical by-products that are
created by a variety of chemical and combustion processes. Laboratory
studies have shown some wildlife species to be extremely sensitive to the
toxic effects of these contaminants. The potential impacts of the very low
levels of these contaminants found in Lake Ontario fish, wildlife, and
humans are poorly understood. Therefore, health standards for these
ff
Btock River
Sandy Creek
\ Niagara River
\ iotrwupstrMm sources
Hamilton
u
Key
-4- Non-Deted
' • .' Detected
^ Estimated Loadings
kmS 0
SO ton
Figure 3-4. Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for Mirex (1990-1995).
60
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
contaminants have been set very low. Steps have been taken to control
and limit those processes that produce high levels of dioxins and furans,
resulting in a significant decrease in environmental levels of these
chemicals over the last two decades. Some of the processes that can
produce dioxins and furans include the use of internal combustion engines,
incinerators, and a variety of other chemical processes, which are part of
our modern way of life and may be difficult to eliminate altogether. Forest
fires and wood burning stoves also produce low levels of dioxins and
furans.
Dioxins and furans are identified as LaMP critical pollutants because
levels of these contaminants exceed human health standards in some Lake
Ontario fish and because these chemicals may limit the full recovery of the
Lake Ontario bald eagle, mink, and otter populations by reducing the
overall fitness and reproductive health of these species.
Dioxins and furans exist at very low levels in the environment and, as a
result, are difficult and costly to detect and accurately quantify. The
Niagara River upstream-downstream program monitors exclusively for
2,3,7,8 TCDD (dioxin) and 2,3,7,8 TCDF (furan), the most toxic forms of
these compounds; none have been detected. Despite this analytical
limitation, data from other media (mussels, spottail shiners, and sediment
cores) indicate that there are several sources of both dioxins and furans in
the Niagara River and that the River is a source of these pollutants to Lake
Ontario. Atmospheric deposition appears to be the largest known source
of dioxins/furans, contributing approximately 5 grams per year. Dioxins
and furans have been detected in a number of Lake Ontario tributaries
using qualitative water and biological sampling methods. No reliable
estimates are available for the volume of dioxins/furans that may be
leaving the lake via volatilization to the atmosphere.
3.8.6 Mercury
Mercury is a naturally occurring metal, which is found in small amounts
in most soils and rocks. Although mercury is best known for its use in
thermometers and medical and dental products, it is also used in batteries
and in the production of various synthetic materials such as urethane foam.
Historically, mercury was added to paints as an anti-mildew agent. Some
uses of mercury have now been banned. Loading estimates for mercury
could not be completed in time for this report since it was identified as a
critical pollutant late in the Stage 1 development process, but it will be
included and addressed in future LaMP reports.
Lake Ontario LaMP 61
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
3.8.7 Dieldrin
Dieldrin is a formerly used pesticide that is now banned from use in the
Lake Ontario basin and throughout North America. Aldrin, another
formerly used pesticide, transforms into dieldrin through natural
breakdown processes. Dieldrin is identified as a LaMP critical pollutant
because dieldrin concentrations in water and fish tissue exceed the U.S.
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI) criteria throughout the lake.
The GLI criterion for water is 0.0000065 parts per billion and Lake
Ontario water averages 0.17 parts per billion. The corresponding GLI fish
tissue criterion is 0.0025 parts per million. Most Lake Ontario fish clearly
exceed this criterion as dieldrin is detectable at concentrations ranging
from approximately 0.005 to 0.030 parts per million. Although the GLI
criteria are being exceeded, dieldrin concentrations in the environment
have been steadily declining. Between 1985 and 1995, dieldrin
concentrations in the lake have declined from 0.35 to 0.17 parts per billion
based on information collected through Niagara River and Wolfe Island
monitoring programs.
Gtlphic Scale for
(Kg/year)
• 20
• 30
Kingstonj^tfy
J%£?/
ndy Creek
Niagara River
A other upebeam »o»jrc*s
Toronto
Burtngton Carol Wound Ship Canal
Key
-(- Non-Delect
0 Detected
^ Estimated Loadings
Figure 3-5. Summary of Non-point Source Loadings Information for Dieldrin (1989-1995).
62
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The upper Great Lakes are the largest source of dieldrin to the Lake
Ontario basin (43 kg/yr). Atmospheric deposition and point and non-point
sources within the Lake Ontario basin are approximately equal (13 kg/yr
and 9 kg/yr) (see Figure 3-5). Estimates for the rate of loss of dieldrin in
Lake Ontario due to volatilization (320 kg/yr) and the St. Lawrence River
(43 kg/yr) suggest that the volume of dieldrin in the lake is decreasing at
a rate of 298 kg/yr.
In this chapter, the Four Parties have identified the lakewide and local 3.9 Summary
beneficial use impairments of Lake Ontario. The four lakewide beneficial
use impairments have been identified as:
• Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
• Degradation of wildlife populations
• Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems
• Loss offish and wildlife habitat
The lakewide critical pollutants that have been identified as impairing or
likely to impair these beneficial uses include PCBs, DDT and its
metabolites, dioxins/furans, mirex, mercury, and dieldrin. Exotic species,
lake level management, and the physical loss, modification, and
destruction of habitat have been identified as the biological and physical
factors contributing to lakewide use impairments.
The Four Parties plan to prioritize source reduction efforts to address the
most significant contributors of critical pollutants to Lake Ontario. Based
on the limited loadings data available, it appears that a significant load of
critical pollutants to the lake originates outside the Lake Ontario basin.
The upstream Great Lakes basin contributes the majority of the estimated
loadings of PCBs (440 kg/yr), DDT and its metabolites (96 kg/yr), and
dieldrin (43 kg/yr). Attention must also be focused on the Niagara River,
since most of the mirex entering Lake Ontario originates in the Niagara
River basin (1.8 kg/yr) and it also contributes to the load of other critical
pollutants into the lake. Atmospheric deposition is a source of critical
pollutants and appears to be the largest known source of dioxins/furans,
contributing approximately 5 grams per year.
The LaMP will also seek to address the inputs of critical pollutants from
water discharges within the Lake Ontario basin, including point sources
discharged directly to the lake and point and non-point discharges into
tributaries to the lake.
Lake Ontario LaMP 63
May 1998
-------
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The local use impairments identified in this chapter are best addressed on
a local level through the development and implementation of Remedial
Action Plans and other local management efforts. Through the LaMP, the
Four Parties seek to restore the lakewide beneficial uses of the lake by
reducing the input of critical pollutants and persistent, bioaccumulative
toxics to the lake and by addressing the biological and physical factors
identified above. The Four Parties will also work to improve the database
on sources and loadings of critical pollutants and other factors causing
these impairments.
64 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
CHAPTER 4
PROGRESS TO DATE
• DULACONTMUO
The Four Parties have implemented programs and undertaken activities,
both regulatory and voluntary, that have resulted in measurable
improvements lakewide. Other actions have led to small incremental gains
in localized areas. Remedial Action Plan (RAP) projects are reducing
pollutants, cleaning up the environment, and restoring habitat in Areas of
Concern (AOC). Joint federal/state and federal/provincial programs to
reduce sources of pollutants to the lake have been ongoing under the Lake
Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP). There is a renewed
commitment, in the 1996 Letter of Intent signed by the Four Parties (see
Appendix C) and in this Plan, to those LOTMP programs that have been
working to restore the beneficial uses of the lake.
This chapter provides a summary of the progress, both programmatic and
environmental, that has been made to date in Lake Ontario. In both the
U.S. and Canada, there has been progress in fulfilling commitments that
were made in the LOTMP, as well as in initiatives undertaken outside the
scope of the LOTMP. Environmental progress is evident in the reduced
levels of contaminants in lake biota and other ecological improvements.
4.1 Introduction
Environmental progress is
evident In the reduced levels
of contaminants in lake biota
and other ecological
improvements.
The LOTMP has focused specifically on the reduction of persistent toxic
contaminant loadings to the lake. Commitments were made by the Four
Parties in 1989,1991, and 1993, and include both existing and developing
programs. Highlights of achievements under these programs are described
below. A detailed table specifying LOTMP commitments and their status
is provided in Appendix F.
Binational Activities
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan
The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP) was initiated in
1987 as a binational process designed to achieve significant reductions of
toxic pollutants in the Niagara River. Eighteen priority toxics were
identified and 10 (including Lake Ontario LaMP critical pollutants dioxin,
mercury, mirex, and PCBs) were selected for 50 percent reduction because
these were deemed to have Niagara River sources. The 1996 NRTMP
progress report indicates that the Four Parties have made significant
progress towards achieving the commitments made in the 1987 Niagara
River Declaration of Intent. Remedial actions at sources have
substantially reduced inputs of chemical pollutants to the Niagara River.
A Letter of Support was signed by the Four Parties on December 3,1996,
to continue the commitment to the Declaration of Intent and to further
actions to reduce loadings of toxic chemicals to the Niagara River.
4.2 Progress
Under The
LOTMP
NRTMP Letter of Support -
The Four Parties reaffirmed
their commitment and set a
new goal of reducing toxic
chemicals in the river In order
to achieve water quality that
protects human health,
aquatic life, and wildlife.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
65
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Point Sources — Under the Canadian portion of the NRTMP, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) monitored the effectiveness of
control actions at 21 Canadian point sources between 1986 and 1995. As
of 1995, the number of Ontario point sources directly discharging to the
Niagara River had been reduced to 16. The data show that the daily
loadings of 18 priority toxics have been reduced by 99 percent over that
period of time. None of the 10 chemicals targeted for 50 percent reduction
were detected at any of the 15 facilities sampled in 1995.
Under the U.S. plan, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) monitored the 29 most significant U.S. point
sources of toxic pollutants to the river. Twenty-six of these dischargers
are still operating. Between 1981/1982 and 1985/1986, NYSDEC reported
an 80 percent reduction in 121 organic and inorganic priority pollutants
from these significant point sources. Between 1985/1986 and 1993/1994,
another 25 percent reduction was reported. The NYSDEC monitoring
program does not specifically track the 10 chemicals of concern, although
most of them are included in the suite of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) priority pollutants reported.
Based on information available in 1987, the U.S. identified the Falls Street
Tunnel as the largest of any of its point sources of toxic pollutants. The
Tunnel was once a major unlined industrial sewer cut into the bedrock
under the City of Niagara Falls. By the mid-1980s, it only received
overflows of wastewater from the sewers of a Niagara Falls industrial area
and contaminated groundwater from major waste sites that infiltrated
through cracks in the bedrock. Unlike flows from other point sources,
flows from the Falls Street Tunnel entered the Niagara River untreated.
In 1993, USEPA and NYSDEC required the City of Niagara Falls to treat
the contaminated water flowing in the Falls Street Tunnel during dry
weather at the Niagara Falls treatment plant. Information gathered by the
U.S. shows that wastewater treatment has reduced loadings to the river of
mercury by 70 percent, tetrachloroethylene by 85 percent, and four other
priority toxic chemicals by almost 100 percent. The Tunnel's wet weather
flow is intermittent and, in 1994, averaged about 3 million gallons on
overflow days. Monitoring by the City of Niagara Falls continues to better
characterize the Tunnel's wet weather loads of toxic chemicals.
Non-Point Sources — Given the limited available information on non-
point sources, the U.S. has proceeded with its actions based on the
conclusions of the NRTMP that hazardous waste sites and contaminated
sediments are the most significant non-point sources of toxic chemicals to
the river.
Under their non-point source plan, USEPA and NYSDEC surveyed their
hazardous waste sites and identified 26 sites believed to have the greatest
potential for toxic pollutant loadings to the Niagara River. Accelerated
66 i-afce Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
remediation schedules were established for these sites. To date, remedial
construction has been completed at 8 of these sites, and remedial activities
are underway at 10 sites. The remaining sites are under design or study.
Based on various simplifying assumptions that are still being tested,
USEPA estimates that remediations to date have reduced loadings to the
river by at least 25 percent. USEPA also estimates that remedial activities
to be completed by 1998 will reduce the loadings to the river by 90
percent. Remedial measures designed to minimize or eliminate offsite
loadings of contaminants include removal and/or containment of
contaminated soils and groundwaters, and treatment of contaminated
groundwaters. All of the sites will be remediated by the year 2000.
Under the Canadian non-point source plan, MOE surveyed its landfills in
a 1981 -1984 study. Five municipal landfills were identified as having the
potential to contribute contaminants to the river. Later studies conducted
by MOE, in 1991 and 1993, showed that these landfills had minimal
impact on the river.
Under Canadian and U.S. programs, contaminated sediments in several
tributaries to the Niagara River have been cleaned up. Using innovative
dredging techniques, 10,500 m3 (13,800 yds3) of sediments contaminated
with heavy metals, oil, and grease were removed from the Welland River.
Adjacent wetlands are being restored. About 6,000 m3 (8,000 yds3) of
contaminated sediments were removed from Gill Creek and 22,000 m3
(29,000 yds3) of contaminated sediments were removed from Bloody Run
Creek. Pettit Creek Cove was restored to a wetlands after 18,000 m3
(23,500 yds3) of contaminated sediments were removed.
The progress made at the hazardous waste sites and in tributary cleanups
appears to be reflected in a preliminary analysis of biomonitoring data
recently collected by MOE. Data were from caged mussels placed at the
mouth of Bloody Run Creek and in the Pettit Flume. Bloody Run Creek
was historically contaminated with dioxin from the Occidental Chemical
Hyde Park site. As shown in Figure 4-1, the concentrations of dioxin in
caged mussels in 1994 and 1995 are less than half those found in 1993,
suggesting that remedial actions may have considerably reduced the
bioavailability of pollutants to the Niagara River from this area. The
preliminary data in Figure 4-2 also show that concentrations of several
chlorobenzenes in caged mussels at Pettit Flume were considerably lower
in 1995 than those found in previous years, suggesting the positive effects
of remedial activities undertaken to date at Occidental Chemical Durez in
North Tonawanda.
Lake Ontario LaMP ' JJ7
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
300-
1
S
nil
ro » KV-
£ SJ S!
T4CDD P5CDD H6CDD H7CDD O8CDD
Figure 4-1. Caged Mussel Tissue Concentrations (n=l)
Niagara River, 1993-1995; Bloody Run Creek
MWNMDMKOM
Hexachlorobenzene Pentachlorobenzen* 1 ,2,3,4 Tetrachlorobflnzne
Figure 4-2. Caged Mussel Tissue Concentrations (mean±SD, N=
Niagara River, 1985-1995; Pettit Flume
68
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Mass Balance Models
Mass balance models were developed that relate loadings of toxic
contaminants to the lake to levels in water, sediment, and fish. These
models provide an initial technical basis for determining load reduction
targets, estimating how long it will take to meet these targets, and planning
for additional measures necessary to achieve load reduction goals.
Draft Ecosystem Objectives
Draft ecosystem objectives were developed for wildlife, habitat, aquatic
communities, human health, and stewardship. These have provided a basis
for establishing targets, or ecosystem indicators, as a means to check on
the effectiveness of remedial activities.
Setting Priorities for Toxic Chemicals
Toxic chemicals were categorized by comparing Lake Ontario ambient
data (fish tissue, water column, and sediment) to U.S. and Canadian
standards, criteria, and guidelines. This system is used to determine either
that a toxic chemical warrants corrective action on a priority basis, or that
it can be controlled more routinely through the implementation of existing
and developing programs that apply to the control of all toxics.
United States Activities
Point Sources
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes USEPA and approved states to
administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program, which is the basic regulatory mechanism for controlling the
discharge of pollutants from point sources to surface waters of the United
States. The NPDES program was delegated to NYSDEC on October 28,
1975, and is referred to as the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES). New York's SPDES program regulates wastewater
discharges to surface and ground waters, ensuring that all major industrial
permits in New York's Lake Ontario basin include the best available
technologies that are economically achievable for toxic pollutants, and all
major publicly owned treatment works meet the requirements of secondary
treatment or advanced treatment necessary to achieve water quality
requirements. Permits have been revised to include more stringent limits
as required to meet ambient water quality standards. In the New York
portion of the Great Lakes basin, there is widespread compliance with
SPDES permits. Through the SPDES program, NYSDEC also operates a
data management system, compliance monitoring program, operator
technical assistance program, enforcement program, and inspection
program, as well as responds to citizen complaints and third party legal
actions. USEPA and NYSDEC have established formal enforcement
Lake Ontario LaMP "~
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
processes to identify instances of significant non-compliance, and
NYSDEC's enforcement program addresses all NYSDEC permit program
violations of the approximate 1,620 universe of significant permitted
dischargers in New York State. NYSDEC and USEPA conduct annual
inspections at major facilities in the state. NYSDEC regularly updates
permit development and enforcement data in the Permit Compliance
System (PCS) national data base.
To achieve the LOTMP goal of 100 percent compliance with Final
Effluent Limits, the Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy identified seven
faci lities with significant pollution violations in 1994. Follow-up activities
returned three of these facilities to compliance; the remaining four are
engaged in formal enforcement actions that will lead to the correction of
their problems. All of the 39 major municipal dischargers are now in
compliance with Final Effluent Limits (FEL) or have judicially
enforceable schedules to meet FELs.
Pollution Prevention
New York State has banned the use of DDT, mirex, and dieldrin.
Allowable uses of mercury have also been severely restricted. Production
of PCBs and their use in the manufacture of new equipment are no longer
allowed. Older equipment and transformers containing PCBs are being
systematically removed from service and properly disposed.
In 1993, USEPA conducted pollution prevention inspections at seven
industrial facilities in the Lake Ontario basin. These facilities included
manufacturers of electrical insulators, treated wood products, and metal
cans. As a result of the inspections, pollution prevention measures were
implemented that eliminated about 43 percent (213,000 Ibs.) of toxic
chemical pollutants.
USEPA's 33/50Program, which was completed in 1996, targeted 17 toxic
chemicals for reduction through voluntary partnerships with industries
throughout the U.S. The program's goals were to reduce releases of the
targeted chemicals by 33 percent, from 1988 to 1992, and by SO percent
by 1995. In New York State alone, 230 facilities participated in this
program. 1994 data show a reduction of 49.8 million pounds of toxic
chemicals (from a 1988 baseline of 72.9 million Ibs.). Although still under
review, these data demonstrate that the 50 percent goal has already been
exceeded in New York.
Non-Point Sources
New York State's solid waste program promotes integrated waste
management using the following priorities: 1) waste reduction;
2) recycling and reuse; 3) waste to energy; and 4) landfilling. New
regulations require specific measures to be taken to safeguard public
70 ~~ Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
health and the environment through monitoring, investigation, and the use
of state of the art technologies. Solid waste facilities are required to
demonstrate that recycling options have been explored. Programs within
the Lake Ontario basin are working to achieve a 50 percent waste
reduction/recycling target from 1989 levels, close the 55 environmentally
unsound landfills, and close approximately 300 municipal, institutional,
and private waste incinerators. All of these activities will contribute to
achieving an overall reduction of emissions and releases of a wide variety
of contaminants - goals of the LOTMP.
New York State completed a registration program that compiles infor-
mation on the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of bulk storage
facilities. USEPA completed a user friendly data base and hotline which
makes information on chemical spills more widely available to the public.
Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are
managed under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) through a permit process. Active waste facilities are required to
meet minimum safety standards in the construction of facilities, treatment
equipment, and storage tanks. Facility operators are also required to
identify existing on-site contamination problems and to develop corrective
action programs to address these problems. These facilities are also
required to certify that waste minimization is an important component of
the facility's operation. Forty-six hazardous waste management facilities
operate in the Lake Ontario drainage basin on the U.S. side. Since 1988,
eight of the nine hazardous waste land disposal sites have been or are in
the process of being closed (e.g., these sites no longer accept hazardous
waste). One facility (Chem Waste Management) currently operates an
active land disposal facility and is in regulatory compliance. Thirty-five
storage and treatment facilities are all in regulatory compliance, and 80
percent of these facilities are in the process of being closed. Two
incinerator facilities are in regulatory compliance.
The LOTMP identified seven inactive hazardous waste sites in the Lake
Ontario basin, under the federal Superfund program, where remedial
actions had not been completed. Remedial actions at four of these seven
sites have now been completed. Two of the remaining sites are under
remedial construction and the other site is in design.
USEPA, in partnership with Erie County (New York), has established a
"Clean Sweep" program to help farmers in the Lake Ontario basin dispose
of unwanted and/or banned pesticides in an environmentally safe manner.
Starting with a pilot program in Erie County, the Clean Sweep program
has spread to 14 other New York State counties, and more are expected to
be added. To date, over 120,000 pounds (gross) of agricultural hazardous
or toxic products have been collected and properly disposed, including
DDTs, dioxin-contaminated pesticides, chlordane, arsenic, lead, and
mercury.
Clean Sweep
(Pesticide Collection)
Monroe County, New York
(Monroe County
Cooperative Extension)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
71
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
USEPA funded Genesee, Livingston, Orleans, and Wyoming Counties to
hold two Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events in April 1996.
The purpose of these events was two-fold: 1) to recycle or safely dispose
of household hazardous waste; and 2) to educate the public about
managing existing hazardous materials to reduce waste in the future. A
total of 510 citizens participated in this event, and the following materials
were collected: 3,717 pounds of pesticides, 86 pounds of dioxin-
contaminated pesticides, 32,000 gallons of various hazardous materials,
and other waste materials such as tires and lead acid batteries. Some
materials were incinerated or landfilled, but as much as possible was
recycled.
In January of 1990, USEPA approved NYSDEC's Non-point Source
(NFS) Management Program, which makes recommendations for reducing
the most significant sources of NPS pollution in waters of New York State.
Since that time, USEPA has provided $19.17 million to NYSDEC for
implementation of this program, including funding for local
implementation efforts. Funding provided by USEPA is supplemented by
New York State's Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). The EPF is a
dedicated environmental fund that can be used to finance non-point source
water pollution abatement and control projects. Six of the seven separate
programs under the EPF provide funding to eligible recipients in the Lake
Ontario watershed:
• Non-point Source Implementation Grants Program (non agriculture)
whose eligible recipients are municipalities or entities designated to act
on their behalf;
• Agricultural Non-point Source Abatement and Control Grants Program
whose eligible recipients are County Soil and Water Conservation
Districts;
• Title 3 and Title 5 Solid Waste Program whose chief goal is the funding
of the proper closure of municipally-owned solid waste landfills;
• Open Space Program for the purchase of sites and easements that are
listed in the State Open Space Conservation Plan;
• Agricultural Open Space Program for projects that implement approved
local agricultural protection plans; and
• Title 11 - Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for the funding of
planning and construction of projects including waterfront
revital ization, public access, natural resource protection including water
quality improvement, and water dependent uses and activities. Eligible
recipients are cities, towns, and villages located along coastal areas of
the state and certain inland waterways.
72 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
A number of other programs support the implementation of non-point
source control projects in the Lake Ontario watershed including:
• Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, USEPA provides grants to NYSDEC
to help capitalize the CWSRF, enabling NYSDEC to provide loan
assistance for non-point source projects. To be eligible for CWSRF
financing, a project must be publicly-owned and the primary purpose of
the project must be water quality protection.
• Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996
In November 1996, New York voters approved the expenditure of $ 1.75
billion for the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act. A portion of these
funds will be used to construct non-point source projects. Projects
located within specific geographic areas and identified as a need in
water quality management plans (including the Lake Ontario LaMP)
will receive a higher priority for funding.
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
This program is derived from the 1996 Federal Farm Bill. It is designed
to provide grants to farmers for eligible conservation practices including
those whose primary purpose is water quality protection.
• Conservation Reserve Program
Like the EQIP Program, this is a new program derived from the 1996
Federal Farm Bill. It is designed to provide grants to fanners, land
owners, and producers for eligible conservation practices including
those whose primary purpose is water quality protection and wildlife
management.
• Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program
This program was created by the City of Syracuse. The primary
emphasis is to ensure the long-term protection of the water supply
source for the people served by this water system. The funding takes
the form of "whole farm planning" and covers a multitude of point and
non-point source pollution abatement projects within the Skaneateles
Lake Watershed.
• Clean Vessel Assistance Program
With funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish &
Wildlife Service, NYSDEC assists local marina operators to install
pump-out facilities. Approximately $2 million in grants has been
provided to date to fund these activities.
Lake Ontario LaMP 73
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Canadian Activities
Activities conducted by Canadian federal and provincial agencies have
focused on addressing the sources, fate, and impacts of persistent toxic
substances. These activities have, in large measure, addressed the
commitments under the LOTMP. The LOTMP list of priority pollutants
was derived based on these individual or binational activities (see
Appendix B). This list, along with the chemicals identified in the Niagara
River Toxics Management Plan, the Lake Superior Binational Program,
and the International Joint Commission's list of 11 priority chemicals
subsequently provided the basis for Canada's and Ontario's Tier I
substance list. Tier I substances are targeted for virtual elimination in the
1994 Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem (COA). COA has adopted the philosophy of zero discharge for
local or direct sources, and the agency activities under COA (described
more fully in section 4.3 and Chapter 5) have targeted the chemicals PCBs,
mirex, dieldrin, DDT, dioxins, and mercury, which are also critical
pollutants of the Lake Ontario LaMP.
Point Sources
Since 1993, Ontario has promulgated Clean Water Regulations under its
MISA (Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement) program for nine
industrial sectors: organic chemicals, iron and steel, pulp and paper,
petroleum refineries, metal casting, metal mining, inorganic chemicals,
industrial minerals, and electric power generation. Initiated in 1988, these
regulations predate the LaMP, but recognize the LOTMP goals and
objectives in that the MISA goal is to ensure necessary treatment or
technology is applied to direct discharges to eliminate toxicity or local
impacts and achieve the virtual elimination of persistent toxic and
bioaccumulative substances. The regulations provide for reductions of
toxic contaminants that are discharged to Ontario's waterways and
stipulate that these discharges must not be acutely lethal to fish or water
fleas. The goal for the 34 regulated plants located within the basin is the
use of best available treatment technologies to substantially reduce
pollutant loadings. Compliance with the MISA regulations will achieve
more than a 70 percent reduction in the release of toxic pollutants to the
waters of Lake Ontario by 1998. The virtual elimination of releases of
persistent toxic substances, such as dioxins, is one benefit of this activity.
New federal pulp and paper regulations, effective in 1992, apply to eight
pulp and paper mills in the Lake Ontario basin, five in the St.
Catharines/Thorold area and three in the Bay of Quinte. These regulations
prevent the formation of highly toxic dioxins and furans and also set
stringent controls on acute toxicity.
74 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Pollution Prevention
Canada and Ontario have established a number of voluntary partnerships
with industrial and commercial associations, communities, municipalities,
and member companies to prevent toxic chemical discharges to the Great
Lakes. These partnerships use a variety of instruments, such as
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and the Pollution Prevention
Pledge Program (P4). Voluntary projects under these programs are
designed to target reductions in the use, generation, and release of toxic
substances, such as chlorinated solvents, volatile organic carbons, and
PCBs.
Substantial progress has occurred as a result of pollution prevention
projects. The Auto Parts Manufacturers, Chemical Producers, and Metal
Finishers reported a reduction of over 16,000 metric tonnes of toxic
substances and wastes, province-wide, by the end of 1995. An additional
reduction of 21,000 metric tonnes has been reported by facilities involved
in the P4 program. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Association has
reported reducing/eliminating over 800 metric tonnes of PCBs from plants
located in the Lake Ontario basin.
The national program, Accelerate Reduction/Elimination of Toxics
(ARET) also focuses on voluntary reductions of emissions; 101
substances are targeted for reduction from either direct or indirect
industrial discharges to air, land, and water. The goal is a 90 percent
reduction of persistent bioaccumulative toxic emissions and a 50 percent
reduction of other toxic substance emissions by the year 2000. Under the
ARET challenge, a total of 287 organizations across Canada have
responded, over 100 of which are located in Ontario. Together, these
facilities have committed to voluntary reductions in emissions of toxic
substances of nearly 17,500 metric tonnes nationally (as of year-end 1995).
By tying this voluntary program to the national Pollutant Release
Inventory, which requires an annual reporting of 187 chemicals, the
amounts of chemicals reduced will be tracked.
Non-Point Sources
MOE, in conjunction with municipalities, has imple-
mented measures designed to improve water quality and
restore degraded areas. To abate sewer overflows and
storm water discharges, combined sewer overflow (CSO)
storage facilities have been constructed and sewage
treatment plant operations have been changed to reduce
CSO by-passes. MOE financially supported a number of
abatement projects in communities in the Lake Ontario
basin. These projects will significantly reduce beach
pollution, control algae problems, and enhance nearshore
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
75
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
aquatic ecosystems that have been stressed by contaminants from
combined sewer overflows and stormwater. MOE has also developed
several guidance documents and procedures to assist communities in the
development of stormwater management/CSO control measures and the
preparation of sub-watershed management plans.
Farmers in Ontario are developing and implementing Environmental Farm
Plans (EFPs) with up to $5.6 million in support through the year 2000
from the Agriculture Adaptation Council. A number of agricultural
organizations, such as Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association,
Ontario Federation of Agriculture, AgCare, and the Christian Farmers
Federation, are lending support. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) will continue to provide technical
support to the EFP initiative. Approximately 10,000 farmers have
voluntarily attended farm plan workshops, and 5,186 approved integrated
action plans and implementation strategies are in place to improve pest
management and control erosion and agricultural runoff from farms.
Over the past five years, the partnership of OMAFRA and the Crop
Protection Institute, MOE, and AgCare has instituted an Agricultural
Pesticides Container Collection Program. One million containers have
been collected over the past two years. These containers are then recycled
into agricultural products, such as 475,000 fence posts in 1996. By
diverting containers from landfill sites, this program reduces the potential
for environmental impacts from the residual pesticides in the container.
The number of containers collected is expected to decrease in forthcoming
years because more efficient pesticide use results in the generation of
fewer containers. Ontario has banned the use of several of the Lake
Ontario critical pollutants (DDT, dieldrin, and mirex) and, in cooperation
with Environment Canada (EC), recently confirmed that no legal use is
taking place in Ontario. Long-standing restrictions on the use of PCBs to
closed systems have prevented any deliberate releases to the ecosystem;
accidental releases are a possibility, which is why the decommissioning
and destruction of PCBs are being accelerated in Ontario.
Remedial Action Plans in Areas of Concern
Remedial Action Plan development and implementation continues in the
Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour, Toronto Harbour, Port Hope, Bay of
Quinte, Oswego, Rochester Embayment, and Eighteenmile Creek Areas
of Concern. Table 4-1 outlines the status of RAP development for all
Lake Ontario Areas of Concern. RAPs are developed and implemented in
three phases:
1) problem definition,
2) recommended actions and implementation plan, and
3) monitoring to confirm restoration of beneficial uses.
76 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Canadian
Remedial Action Plans
Niagara River
United States
Remedial Action Plans
Hamilton Harbour
Metro Toronto
Port Hope
Bay of Quinte
Canada
U.S.
Oswego River
Rochester Embayment
Eighteenmile Creek
Sg&WigKi*!;:;;;
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
;:!;S:S!iJ5«;i3;s:
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xS:StagC:3S::
Table 4-1.
Status of RAP
Development
* Hamilton Harbour's Stage 2 includes an implementation annex.
In addition to RAPs, other local environmental planning efforts are
underway that will contribute to a reduction in Lake Ontario critical
pollutants. These efforts include a wide range of pollution prevention
programs. For example, the Onondaga Lake Management Conference
(OLMC), in the Syracuse area, is developing a comprehensive restoration,
conservation, and management plan to coordinate a wide range of state,
federal, and local efforts aimed at improving the environmental quality of
Onondaga Lake. Although this plan is primarily focused on conventional
pollutants common to most municipal sewage systems, the plan also
identifies waste sites that contain Lake Ontario critical pollutants, such as
PCBs. The OLMC makes specific action recommendations to ensure that
contaminants at these waste sites, which include Lake Ontario critical
pollutants, will be fully addressed.
Lake Ontario Specific Initiatives
United States Activities
USEPA and NYSDEC are conducting a "Source Trackdown" project in
order to facilitate the identification and remediation of contaminant
sources to the lake. "Trackdown" involves the use of qualitative tools
(Passive In-Situ Chemical Extraction Samplers, or "PISCES") for organic
sampling in order to find tributaries that have the highest concentrations
of PCBs. Once these tributaries are identified, the PISCES are moved
upstream to trackdown the source of the contamination. The findings of
the initial sampling are provided in NYSDEC's April 1996 report entitled
"Trackdown of Chemical Contaminants to Lake Ontario from New York
State Tributaries". USEPA and NYSDEC are forming a federal/state
workgroup to use the findings of this report to focus source reduction
efforts on the most contaminated sub-basins throughout Lake Ontario, as
well as to confirm unknown sources, determine the effectiveness of
remediation activities, and plan follow-up sampling activities. NYSDEC
has conducted similar sampling efforts in the Niagara River. Additionally,
4.3 Progress
Under
Initiatives
Outside the
Scope of the
LOTMP
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
77
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
NYSDEC developed and maintains a Great Lakes Sediment Inventory to
identify hot spots of contaminated sediments and to prioritize remediation
efforts.
USEPA and NYSDEC have implemented a long-term plan to improve
modeling capabilities, with a small but steady outlay of funds, to increase
confidence in the use of models over time and obtain results that can be
practically applied. The Great Lakes Research Consortium (GLRC) has
been funded to determine the steps necessary to enhance existing models
for Lake Ontario. These agencies expect to be able to implement a set of
improvements each year and hope to obtain matching funds from
interested parties. USEPA and NYSDEC will consult with Canadian
scientists/modelers in the development of this program. The agencies
expect to make incremental improvements over an approximate 10 year
time period. The program will be evaluated annually and necessary
modifications will be made.
Canadian Activities
EC has completed the demonstration of a number of contaminated
sediment removal and treatment technologies from around the world.
Many of these technologies have been used in completing full-scale
sediment removal and cleanup along Toronto's waterfront (47,000 m3) and
others have been demonstrated in Hamilton Harbour.
EC has also been working closely with municipalities and MOE to
demonstrate cost effective solutions to control urban drainage and CSOs,
as well as optimize sewage treatment plants. In Hamilton, the installation
of two CSO settling tanks has resulted in the opening of beaches at the
revitalized Pier 4 Park and the new Harbourfront Park. Throughout Lake
Ontario communities, the Cleanup Fund and MOE are working with
municipalities and research agencies to retrofit stormwater ponds for
improving water quality. Pollution Control Plans that identify sources of
urban drainage pollution and recommendations for their control have also
been undertaken at St. Catharines, Toronto, Hamilton-Wentworth,
Scarborough, Kingston, and Belleville. In addition, two Metro Toronto
waterfront improvement planning projects have been completed.
A preliminary Historical Land Use Inventory was prepared for the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust's Lake Ontario Greenway which extends
from Burlington to Trenton along the north shore of Lake Ontario. This
inventory consists of locations of past and current land uses that could
have caused contamination of structures, soils, groundwater, and/or
surface water.
78 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Great Lakes-wide or State/Province-wide Initiatives
United States Activities
The Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (GLWQG) represents a major
United States-specific effort to reduce the loadings of persistent
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) to the Great Lakes basin
and establish consistency among the water pollution control programs of
the U.S. Great Lakes States. The final GLWQG is the result of the 1990
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, which required USEPA to develop and
publish the GLWQG. The eight Great Lakes States have completed the
adoption process and are beginning to implement the regulations, policies,
and procedures contained in the Guidance. More details on the effects of
New York's implementation of the Guidance are provided in Chapter 5.
Over the last five years, USEPA has published hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) emission standards for many industries. These Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards will require about 80
percent HAP emission controls from chemical, refining, coke-ovens,
chromplating, degreasing, dry-cleaning, and other industries. These
standards also require sources to control fugitive emissions and are
expected to reduce the air emission loading substantially. NYSDEC is
currently planning to modify its air toxics program to meet the MACT
program.
A workgroup of the eight Great Lakes States and three USEPA Regions
was formed in 1992 to develop an Enforcement Strategy to ensure
consistent enforcement for persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy was issued on September 17,1993,
and was implemented beginning October 1, 1993. Since that time, the
number of critical pollutant violations has been reduced by 30 percent, and
point source loadings for these pollutants have also diminished.
Canadian Activities
In Canada, the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement is a shared federal-provincial responsibility. The COA was
signed in 1994 and follows federal/provincial agreements which have been
in place since 1971.
Lake Ontario LaMP 79
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
The Second Progress Report under the 1994 Agreement was released in
the fall of 1997 and focuses on the progress achieved toward the reduction
of substances of concern by Canada, Ontario, and their partners, since the
publication of the First Progress Report in September 1995:
• Forty-six percent of the high level liquid PCBs in Ontario have been
decommissioned (i.e., placed in storage) from a baseline of 10,650
metric tonnes. Thirty percent of the high level PCB wastes in Ontario
have been destroyed from a baseline of 18,600 metric tonnes. Twenty
percent of the stored low level PCB wastes have been destroyed from
a baseline of 98,000 metric tonnes.
• Total releases of seven Tier I substances targeted for 90 percent
reduction have been estimated at 22 metric tonnes per year. Some
reductions have occurred with respect to alkyl-lead (85%),
octachlorostyrene (18%), dioxins and furans (66%), and B(a)P (20%).
Reductions have occurred in the release of four of the eight Tier II
substances: cadmium(20%), l,4-dichlorobenzene(40%),PAH(30%),
and pentachlorophenol (5%).
• COA Target Achieved: Based on a comprehensive review, no legal
commercial use or availability within Ontario's commercial sectors of
the five priority substances (aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, toxaphene,
and mirex) have been confirmed.
• Some success has been achieved in attaining industry commitments and
implementation of pollution prevention programs province-wide.
Reductions reported through MOUs include:
- 1,600 metric tonnes volatile organic compounds;
— 1,500 metric tonnes hydrocarbons;
-- 660 metric tonnes wastewater treatment sludges;
— 450 metric tonnes metal working fluids; and
— 330 metric tonnes paints/paint sludges.
In 1996, two new guidelines were introduced in Ontario which will
contribute to Canada's overall load reduction effort in the Lake Ontario
basin. An Incineration Guideline includes stringent emission limits for
new municipal incinerators. The new guideline is based on emission
levels that are protective of the environment and human health and
requires the best currently available technology. This requirement is
equivalent to the limits imposed in other jurisdictions. Guidelines for Use
at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (Decommissioning Guidelines) have
replaced existing guidelines and provide clearer direction and information
on approaches to managing and restoring contaminated sites.
80 La/re Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Many habitat restoration and protection projects are underway in the Lake
Ontario basin (Figure 4-3). The following information provides some
highlights of the projects supported, in part, by federal, provincial, and
state agencies as well as various county, conservation authority,
municipal, and private organizations.
Over the last two decades, governmental regulations protecting lake-
connected wetlands, shorelines, and littoral zones have significantly
reduced the rate of loss of these valuable habitats. Since the loss of
significant wetland and shoreline habitats has been curtailed, more
attention is now being given to identifying the opportunities to restore and
replace degraded or lost habitats.
United States Activities
Several New York State habitat restoration and protection projects are
being conducted through the cooperative efforts of county, city, local, and
private organizations as well as state and federal agencies. The New York
4.4 Progress In
Improving
Fish and
Wildlife
Habitat and
Populations
Lake Ontario Habitat
Restoration Projects
Bay of Qumte
8 Habitat Restoration
Toronto Area
17 Habitat Restoration Projects
Hamilton Harbour \J)j/
6 Habitat Restoration Projects"*
Eastern Lake Ontario Shorelii
Deer CrMk Marsh Wildlife Mgrnl
Like Ontario Barrier Beach Res
Sandy Pond Peninsula Protection Proj
1 Qsnawa Second Marsh
Salmon River
Atlantic Salmon Restoration Project
Management Restoration
Atlantic Salmon Restoration Project Montezuma Wetlands
Genesee River Greenway
Hamilton
Figure 4-3. Lake Ontario Habitat Restoration Projects [Many local restoration projects are in
progress or proposed in the Lake Ontario basin which are not highlighted in this figure.]
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
81
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
State Open Space Conservation Plan provides a statewide process to
identify and acquire undeveloped habitats. The state works in partnership
with local governments, non-profit conservation organizations, and private
landowners to establish and achieve land conservation goals. Funding for
the program is provided by the state's Environmental Protection Fund and,
where possible, leveraged by federal and other sources of funding.
Ongoing habitat acquisition programs include: Salmon River Corridor,
Northern Montezuma Wetlands, Genessee Greenway, and Eastern Lake
Ontario shoreline.
The Ecological Protection and Restoration Program of USEPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office provides funding for a variety of Great
Lakes habitat restoration projects. For Lake Ontario, projects include:
wetland creation in the Lower Genessee River/Irondequoit Bay; barrier
beach and wetlands habitat restoration on the Lake's shoreline; barrier
beach restoration and stabilization; public education; creation of wildlife
nesting habitat and exotic vegetation control at Deer Creek Marsh Wildlife
Management Area; and protection and restoration of Sandy Pond
Peninsula.
Wildlife population rehabilitation occurs primarily indirectly through
habitat creation and restoration projects. However, direct efforts are
currently underway to assist the recovery of river otter populations in the
Lake Ontario basin. In 1995, the non-profit New York River Otter Project
began the process of introducing nearly 300 river otters to the Lake
Ontario basin.
Canadian Activities
EC's Cleanup Fund is currently supporting, in conjunction with its many
partners, more than 30 habitat rehabilitation projects in the Lake Ontario
watershed. These projects, primarily in Toronto, Hamilton, and the Bay
of Quinte, include creating various nesting and loafing areas for birds such
as eagles, ospreys, and terns; enhancing fish spawning habitats;
improving littoral and deep water habitats; improving fish access;
rehabilitating and creating riparian habitat; and placing structural fish
habitat in the form of shoals, reefs, brush bundles, and log cribs. Other
projects focus on coastal wetland rehabilitation and reforestation activities
on flood plains and stream banks. A total of 76 projects has been initiated
in the Lake Ontario basin since 1990. The Cleanup Fund's support of
these projects is over $16 million, with additional partners contributing
$33 million.
In the Lake Ontario basin, by March of 1996, 45 km of riparian and 40
hectares (ha) of wetland habitats had been rehabilitated as a result of
project activities supported by the Cleanup Fund and its partners.
82 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Rehabilitation of an additional 18 km of riparian habitat
and 409 ha of wetlands is in progress. Further,
approximately 80 km of riparian habitat has been
protected through activities associated with the
rehabilitation projects.
Throughout Lake Ontario, initiatives are underway that
will benefit other rehabilitation projects such as
techniques for the control of carp, nesting platforms, re-
establishing tall grass prairie, erosion control using bio-
engineering techniques, and techniques to prevent
wildlife from consuming newly planted vegetation.
Canada's Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action
Plan (GLWCAP) is a five year plan that focuses on the conservation of
coastal wetlands along the lower Great Lakes. A priority acquisition list
for coastal wetland sites has been developed (Great Lakes Wetlands
Conservation Action Plan, 1995a). Of the 15 sites identified, 10 are on
Lake Ontario; several of these are marsh complexes rather than single
discrete sites. Specific actions and priority areas for protection and
rehabilitation have also been identified, including 5 along the western
Lake Ontario shoreline between the Niagara River and Hamilton, 17 along
the northern shore, and the remainder in eastern Lake Ontario (Great
Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan, 1995b). GLWCAP is being
implemented through a cooperative partnership between governments and
non-governmental organizations in Canada. So far, nearly 900 hectares of
wetlands have been protected at priority Lake Ontario sites.
The Waterfront Regeneration Trust, a Crown Corporation, was created by
a provincial act of the Legislature and received royal assent in 1992.
Working with a steering committee consisting of representatives of
waterfront municipalities, conservation authorities, provincial and federal
ministries, and community groups, the Trust prepared and published the
Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy in 1995. The strategy describes the
actions needed to regenerate the waterfront from Burlington Bay to
Trenton by protecting and restoring ecological health, and developing
community and economic vitality. Between 1993 and 1995, the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust conducted a natural heritage study,
identifying significant natural areas and corridors along the north shore of
Lake Ontario. This natural heritage system has been mapped on GIS and
a database of associated sources of information has been tagged to each
area ("A Natural Heritage Strategy for the Lake Ontario Greenway"). The
Trust has also conducted an analysis of coastal processes along the north
shore ("Shore Management Opportunities for the Lake Ontario
Greenway").
Re-establishing aquatic vegetation at Bluffers Park,
Toronto, Ontario
(Metro Toronto Region Conservation Authority)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
B3
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
4.5 Environ-
mental
Trends in
the Lake
Ontario
Ecosystem
Binational Activities
Fish population restoration activities are managed jointly by the natural
resource agencies with jurisdiction for Lake Ontario. These include the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF&WS), and the NYSDEC. A binational process to develop Fish
Community Objectives is underway, led by MNR and NYSDEC, and
including public consultation. This process will produce long term
directions for management actions such as fish stocking and habitat
protection. The development of Fish Community Objectives by the Lake
Ontario Committee will take into consideration a variety of interests
including commercial and recreational fisheries, stocking policies, and
food web dynamics. The rehabilitation of lake trout is guided by the Joint
Plan for Rehabilitation of Lake Ontario Lake Trout (Schneider el al.,
1995). Some progress has been achieved. By 1994, natural production of
lake trout in the Kingston Basin had been documented for several years
(Rawson et al., 1994). The survival rate of adult lake trout in 1994 and
1995 exceeded the rehabilitation target of 60 percent per year. In addition,
mortality induced by sea lamprey wounding has been reduced.
Efforts to restore partial self-sustainability of Atlantic salmon populations
have been limited due to the damming, deforestation, and stream
modification of tributaries used for spawning, as well as competition with
rainbow trout.
There has been a dramatic recovery of lake whitefish and walleye
populations in the east end of the lake. More active management could
contribute to the further recovery of these native species.
Due in part to the programs and initiatives described above, environmental
progress has been documented in Lake Ontario, both in the reductions of
levels of contaminants found in the organisms, water quality, and
sediments within the lake and in the population numbers and reproductive
success of various species found in the Lake Ontario basin. The following
sections will provide a summary of trends for the lake, based on
monitoring offish and lower trophic species, water quality, and sediment
during the last 20 to 25 years.
Trends in the Niagara River
The agencies' efforts to reduce point and non-point sources of toxic
chemicals, combined with other widespread efforts, such as pollution
prevention programs, may account for the overall reductions in toxic
chemical levels that the Four Parties have observed in water, fish, and
sediment data.
84
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
The Upstream/Downstream water sampling program operated by EC
shows substantial decreases in the concentrations of several chemicals
(e.g., octachlorostyrene, hexachlorobutadiene,andmirex). These data can
be used as indicators of progress in reducing the concentrations of
chemical pollutants in the river (Figures 4-4,4-5, and 4-6). The data show
decreases, not only in overall concentrations, but also in the number and
magnitude of the "spikes".
Spottail shiner (fish) monitoring data show that PCB concentrations have
decreased substantially from the 1970s to the 1980s, although the
decreases appear to have slowed or reversed in the latter half of the 1980s
(Figure 4-7). The reasons for the recent trends are being investigated.
Sediment cores collected from the bottom of Lake Ontario at the mouth of
the Niagara River tell the history of chemical inputs from the river to the
lake, because many toxic pollutants are transported through the water
attached to suspended sediments that eventually settle to the lake bottom.
Analyses of core sample segments can show the concentrations of
chemicals on deposits from different time frames. The results presented
in Figures 4-8 and 4-9 show that the input of toxic chemicals associated
with suspended sediment from the river has declined, most significantly
between 1960 and 1990. The results were similar for all priority toxic
chemicals. Figure 4-9 also shows a column entitled "MOE's LEL (Lowest
Effect Level)", that indicates the level at which a toxic contaminant can be
expected to begin to affect some benthic organisms. The surface
concentrations of all priority chemicals, except PCBs, in these core
samples are now less than these toxic levels.
Fish-Eating Birds
Over the last 20-25 years, perhaps the most dramatic examples of the
effects of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes have been associated with
fish-eating birds.
The fish-eating bird community in Lake Ontario is
dominated by two species: gulls and cormorants. While
the numbers of birds within these species have increased
dramatically in the last 20 years, other species have
remained relatively stable. Reproductive failures of
cormorants from severe eggshell thinning, during the
1960s and 1970s, are associated with high levels of DDE
in the cormorant diet. Cormorant numbers began to
recover in the 1970s, coinciding with bans on the use of
DDT products. The cormorant population exploded in
the 1980s. In recent years, the rate of increase in the
cormorant population has slowed, perhaps in response to
declining food supplies, habitat competition, and
Herring Gull
(National Park Service, Indiana Dunes
National Lakcshore)
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
85
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
1SI6 I 1M7 11988 I 1SB9 I 1930 I 1391 I 1»32 I 1993 1 1994 I 1995
Year
Figure 4-4. OCS Concentrations on Suspended Solids at
Niagara-on-the-Lake, 1989-1995 (sampling begun 1989)
Ifl'S i 1M7 HtBi llSit M930 11*91 I 1992 11393
Year
Figure 4-5. HCBD Concentrations on Suspended Solids at
Niagara-on-the-Lake, 1986-1995
1934 I 1935
86
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
19&C I 1987 H9II I 1SB9 I 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I 1993
Year
Figure 4-6. Mirex Concentrations on Suspended Solids at
Niagara-on-the-Lake, 1986-1995
1994 I 1991
1975 1977 1979 1981
1983 1345
Year
1887
1989 19»1
Figure 4-7. PCB Concentrations in Spottail Shiners at
Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
87
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
Sediment core profile in Lake Ontario >t Niagara River
Rcctnt oo-oz
deposits""-"2
02:04
04:06
06:08
08:10
Depth of
Core 10:12
Sample
(cm) 12:14
14:16
16:18
18:20
20:25
25:30
Historical
deposits 30:43
r
1
I
1
1
1
•
•
•1
•M
—
—
200
400
600
pe/£
Concentration
800
Dioxin
(2,3,7,8, TCDD)
19SII
1970
1960
1000
1200
Figure 4-8. Dioxin analyses of sediments from the mouth of the Niagara River, taken
at various depths below the lake bottom, show that levels of this
contaminant decreased significantly between 1960 and 1980.
MOE III.
30:43
Total PCB in Sediment Core from the Niagara River Depositional An
September IS, 1W5
Time Frame
1990
1980
1970
I960
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Figure 4-9. Total PCB congener analyses of sediments from the mouth of the Niagara
River, taken at various depths below the lake bottom, show that levels of
this contaminant decreased significantly between 1960 and 1980.
Although PCBs have decreased significantly, current levels continue to
exceed Ontario Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) lower effect level
sediment quality guideline.
88 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
predation. In a similar pattern, the low reproductive success rate of
herring gulls in the 1960s and 1970s shifted to a full recovery, with no
signs of contaminants, by the early 1980s.
The direct correlation of load reduction activities and ecosystem
improvements, such as reduced contaminants in herring gull eggs, is
further illustrated in Figures 4-10 and 4-11. PCB levels in herring gull
eggs decreased by an order of magnitude from the mid-1970s to the late
1980s; dieldrin levels decreased by 80 percent and some Lake Ontario
colonies have shown reductions of more than 90 percent. Dioxin (2,3,7,8
TCDD) levels declined dramatically until 1982. The rate of decline in
dioxin levels has been much slower since 1982, and this contaminant is
still an issue for Lake Ontario. Levels of dieldrin in herring gull eggs have
declined. For example, dieldrin concentrations in herring gull colonies in
the eastern part of the lake declined from 0.36 ug/g in 1982 to 0.12 ug/g
in 1992.
Populations of bald eagles, once plentiful in the Great Lakes basin, also
suffered as a result of toxic contaminants in the ecosystem. With efforts
to reduce contaminant levels and provide nesting platforms, the return of
the bald eagle to the Lake Ontario shore is anticipated. In 1993, 20 bald
eagle breeding territories were confirmed inNew York State. Six breeding
territories are located in the Lake Ontario basin and one breeding territory
is within 8 kilometres of the shore. New York's bald eagle population is
estimated to be growing at an annual rate of between 15 and 30 percent
since 1988 (Nye, 1992).
Fish
Information on contaminant levels in Great Lakes fish provides a
comprehensive picture of trends overtime and spatial patterns in fish from
different trophic levels. Open lake and nearshore fish monitoring
programs have been conducted since 1975. These programs collect sport
and forage fish to determine contaminant concentrations in the fish
community at various trophic levels and to provide information for the
setting of consumption advisories.
Concentrations of PCBs, DDE, and mirex in lake trout and smelt tend to
be higher in the western basin of Lake Ontario than the eastern basin. This
reflects the magnitude of contaminant inputs from the upper lakes and the
Niagara River and the industrialized nature of the western end of the lake.
Spottail shiner results have also shown mirex at consistently elevated
levels in the Niagara River and the Credit River.
Overall, the fish community has experienced a dramatic reduction in
contaminant levels since the mid-1970s and a slower rate of decline since
Lake Ontario LaMP 89
May 1998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
L
-
•a
i
— ^-i
1,1. .
It
0U*«f rt «L. / W7. TrtB/ rt .1, /»« .
/^//farf •/-/£ in Herring Gull Eggs
1
pt^ntt^nt^t^nttt
I
1
M n n
/»«, r«w el it, 7f
Figure 4-11. PCBs in Herring Gull Eggs
Lake Ontario LaMP
May f 998
-------
PROGRESS TO DATE
the mid-1980s. This trend is best illustrated by lake trout, smelt, and
spottail shiners for PCBs, DDT, and dieldrin (Suns et a/., 1985, 1991a,b;
MOE unpublished data). In the case of mirex, the downward trend
continued until the early 1990s and has since leveled off. Considerable
fluctuations have been observed in dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) levels with no
discemable trend. The most recent collections still indicate that PCB
levels in lake trout and smelt often exceed the GLWQA Objective of 0.1
ppm (whole fish), and spottail shiners often exceed the guideline of
lOOng/g for the protection of fish-eating birds and mammals. Recent
changes in Lake Ontario's food web may result in increases or decreases
in contaminant levels in some fish. This can result if fish such as lake
trout or salmon become dependent on or switch to a different food source
that is more or less contaminated than their previous diet. Potential
changes in Lake Ontario's food web and the resulting effect on
contaminant levels in fish need to be closely monitored.
Bottom Sediments/Water Quality
The determination of trends in bottom sediment and water quality is
difficult given the wide range of variability encountered among sampling
events. Differences in water and sediment sampling locations from year
to year account for much of the variation in the results. Water movement
patterns vary greatly and also influence results on a much smaller time
scale.
Bottom sediments do reflect water quality conditions and sediment core
samples that can be dated provide one means to establish trends over many
decades. Based on a 1995 sediment coring project, levels of persistent
toxic substances in Lake Ontario sediments have steadily decreased since
the 1970s at most locations that were sampled. Of particular interest are
the data from the Niagara River that show that concentrations of most
persistent toxic contaminants in sediments have decreased significantly
over time (Figure 4-9). PCBs, however, continue to be found at elevated
levels (exceeding New York and Ontario criteria and objectives) in the
uppermost portion of the sediment cores, which reflects the most recent
inputs.
The 10 year data-set from the Niagara River Upstream/Downstream
ambient water monitoring program is the most complete water quality
sampling effort in the Great Lakes basin and has provided weekly data on
contaminant levels flowing into the lake from the river, including
contributions from the upper Great Lakes. Preliminary statistical analyses
have been carried out by EC on the 18 priority toxic chemicals by
comparing 1994 data with 1986 data. The initial results show that, with
the exception of a few chemicals in the suspended sediment phase, most
of the chemicals have been considerably reduced in concentration since
1986.
L»k» Ontario L»MP 91
May 1998
-------
CHAPTER 5 FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
• DU1ACONTAIIO
The primary goal of this management plan for Lake Ontario is to reduce g <• Introduction
the chemical, physical, and biological factors that are directly or indirectly
contributing to use impairments on a lakewide basis. As described in
Chapter 3, the Four Parties have identified the lakewide beneficial use
impairments of Lake Ontario as:
• Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption
• Degradation of Wildlife Populations
• Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive Problems
• Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The toxic chemicals that directly or indirectly contribute to these
impairments include PCBs, DDT, dioxin, mirex, mercury, and dieldrin.
These chemicals are persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances; they
remain in the water, sediment, and biota for long periods of time and they
accumulate in aquatic organisms to levels that are harmful to human
health. It is the intent of the Four Parties to prevent the development of
additional lakewide use impairments that may be caused by other
persistent, bioaccumulative toxics entering the lake. The biological and
physical factors contributing to the identified use impairments include lake
level management; exotic species; and the physical loss, modification, and
destruction of habitat. As such, the Four Parties seek to restore the
beneficial uses of the lake by reducing the input of critical pollutants and
persistent, bioaccumulative toxics to the lake, and by addressing the
biological and physical factors causing lakewide impairments.
The successful control of atmospheric transport and deposition of critical
pollutants will require actions both inside and outside the Lake Ontario
basin. Sources of atmospheric releases of critical pollutants within the
Lake Ontario basin will be targeted by the LaMP as part of its pollutant
reduction strategy. However, significant sources of critical pollutants may
also be found to originate outside the basin. The LaMP will raise issues
related to out of basin sources to the attention of other environmental
initiatives such as the U.S. Clean Air Act, the Canada-Ontario Agreement
Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), the 1997 Binational
Strategy, and the 1997 North American Regional Action Plan,
This chapter provides a description of the actions that the Four Parties
propose to implement, both individually and jointly, in support of the
LaMP. The Four Parties recognize that there are many groups,
organizations, and agencies implementing activities to improve and
protect the Lake Ontario basin. The LaMP process provides the
opportunity to develop better connections with these various activities and
build on the successes already achieved.
Lake Ontario LaMP 93
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
5.2 Ongoing and
Future
Binational
Activities
Binational Virtual Elimination Strategy
The U.S. and Canada have developed a binational strategy entitled
"Canada-United States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent
Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Basin". This binationa! strategy sets
forth a collaborative process by which Environment Canada (EC) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in consultation
with other Great Lakes stakeholders, will work towards the goal of virtual
elimination of persistent toxic substances and a means to track progress in
the reduction of loadings to the basin. An implementation framework is
currently being prepared with stakeholder input.
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN)
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) is a binational
network of 19 stations in the U.S. and Canada established and operated for
the purpose of monitoring the atmospheric deposition of toxic substances
to the Great Lakes. IADN has been in operation since 1990, providing the
data used by the U.S. and Canadian governments to report loadings of
toxics to the Great Lakes biennially as called for in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The Four Parties will continue to support
these efforts in order to learn more about significant sources of airborne
pollutants into the Great Lakes.
5.3 Ongoing and
Future
Activities in
the U.S.
USEPA/New York State Performance Partnership
Agreement
On November 26, 1996, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and USEPA entered into a
cooperative partnership to protect and enhance the water resources of New
York State for the benefit of its citizens.
While NYSDEC and USEPA have always worked cooperatively to protect
New York's water resources, this new Agreement, under the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System, provided an opportunity
for the state and USEPA to jointly establish priorities, direction, and
accountability for water resource management in New York. The
Agreement includes mutual understandings of the state and USEPA
regarding environmental projects to be pursued as well as the lead
agencies responsible for the successful implementation of these projects.
94
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
The Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) is built on two principles:
• Maintaining the efficiency and effectiveness of existing programs in the
state.
• Taking more action, beyond these ongoing programs, as necessary to
solve particular problems in particular places - through "Community-
Based Environmental Protection".
The Agreement contains an environmental and programmatic self-
assessment, individual strategies for each of the existing programs and for
all identified community-based environmental protection efforts, agreed
upon indicators of success, fiscal accountability, public involvement
procedures, and a process for reporting success.
Through the Agreement, USEPA and NYSDEC continue their
commitment to implement the existing regulatory programs, described in
Chapter 4, in order to reduce the load of critical pollutants to the lake from
point and non-point sources. The Agreement then lays out commitments
specific to the Lake Ontario Community-Based Environmental Protection
Initiative. A number of these community-based activities are described
below.
The 199771998 PPA was entered into by USEPA, NYSDEC, and the New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). This PPA was expanded
in scope to include programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act that are
under the purview ofNYSDOH. Further information and details regarding
the commitments laid out in the PPA can be obtained by viewing
USEPA's Worldwide Web Site at www.epa.gov\regional\pps\docs.htm.
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
In February 1998, NYSDEC completed the adoption process and began to
implement the regulations, policies, and procedures contained within the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (GLWQG) (further described in
Chapter 4). The implementation of the GLWQG will result in consistent
state water pollution control programs throughout the U.S. Great Lake
States and will lead to substantial reductions in the loading of LaMP
critical pollutants and other pollutants.
The GLWQG will play a major role in addressing all of the lakewide
impairments identified in this document. The following illustrates how
the implementation of the GLWQG by the eight Great Lakes States will
significantly address these concerns.
Lake Ontario LaMP 95
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
i Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption: The GLWQG
requires that the eight Great Lakes States adopt human health criteria
based on the consumption of aquatic life, which will result in the
eventual elimination of restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption by
humans. The GLWQG includes numeric human health criteria for 16
pollutants, and methodologies to derive cancer and non-cancer human
health criteria for additional pollutants.
i Degradation of Wildlife Populations and Bird or Animal
Deformities or Reproductive Problems: The GLWQG requires that
the eight Great Lakes States adopt wildlife criteria, which, once
achieved, will result in the eventual elimination of degraded wildlife
populations and bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems.
The GLWQG includes numeric criteria to protect wildlife from four
pollutants (PCBs, DDT and its metabolites, dioxin, and mercury) and
a methodology to derive criteria for additional bioaccumulative
chemicals of concern (BCCs) discharged to the Great Lakes system.
i Targeting the Pollutants of Concern, which are Bioaccumulative
and Persistent: The GLWQG focuses on the reduction of 22 known
chemicals of concern, including PCBs, dieldrin, DDT and its
metabolites, and dioxin. In addition to requiring the adoption of
numeric water quality criteria for BCCs and other pollutants, as well as
the detailed methodologies to develop criteria for additional pollutants,
the GLWQG also includes implementation procedures that will result
in loading reductions of BCCs to the Great Lakes basin. These include
requirements for the development of more consistent, enforceable water
quality-based effluent limits in discharge permits (including
requirements for pollution minimization plans to track down and
eliminate sources of BCCs); the development and implementation of
total maximum daily loads for pollutants that can be allowed to reach
the Great Lakes and their tributaries from all sources; and
antidegradation policies and procedures which further restrict new or
increased discharges of BCCs.
The Majority of the Loadings of these Pollutants are from other
Great Lakes: Since the GLWQG will be implemented in all eight
Great Lakes States, the loadings of the identified pollutants of concern
will be significantly reduced throughout the entire Great Lakes basin.
Therefore, the major source of the loadings of the pollutants of concern
to Lake Ontario will be substantially reduced.
96 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
Clean Sweep Projects
USEPA is continuing its commitment to reduce inputs of agricultural
pesticides into Lake Ontario, by funding the County of Erie to expand its
Clean Sweep project throughout the Lake Ontario basin. Erie County will
use the strategies that were successful in previous Clean Sweep projects
to solicit new participating counties and will provide local project
management teams with the guidance and technical expertise necessary for
successful implementation of this program.
Source Trackdown
USEPA andNYSDEC will conduct additional trackdown studies in order
to pinpoint significant sources of critical pollutants in tributaries to the
lake. USEPA and NYSDEC will form a trackdown workgroup to identify
immediate remedial activities and future monitoring activities for sources
of persistent, bioaccumulative toxics to the lake.
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
In 1996, the citizens of New York passed a $1.75 billion Clean
Water/Clean Air Bond Act. Over the next five to ten years, the Bond Act
will fund capital projects that will result in the protection of and
improvements to the environment. Approximately $125 million has been
targeted for Clean Water projects in the Great Lakes basin, including $25
million specifically intended to implement NYSDEC's Great Lakes
Program, which includes Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and LaMPs.
Funding will support point source, non-point source, and pollution
prevention initiatives, as well as activities to restore aquatic habitat and
preserve open space.
Hazardous Waste Site Report
NYSDEC will use the findings of a July 1995 report, entitled "Preliminary
Review ofNew York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in the
Lake Ontario Basin", as a first step in identifying which sites contribute
significant amounts of critical pollutants to the lake. Where possible,
NYSDEC will accelerate schedules for cleaning up these sites. NYSDEC
will complete its sources and loadings report for Lake Ontario,
documenting the existing knowledge of U.S. sources and loadings of
contaminants to the lake.
Fish Advisory Project
USEPA and NYSDEC will continue to implement outreach programs in
the Lake Ontario basin to more effectively communicate the risk of
consuming contaminated fish. This project involves translating public
Lake Ontario LaMP 97
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
outreach pamphlets and brochures into different languages and training
citizens to effectively communicate risk in various languages.
Niagara Falls Public Information Office
USEPA will continue to support the Niagara Falls Public Information
Office in order to provide the public with easily accessible information on
activities in Lake Ontario.
5.4 Ongoing and
Future
Activities in
Canada
Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA)
COA is the primary mechanism for addressing Canadian commitments
under the GLWQA. This Agreement was signed by the federal and
provincial governments in July 1994. COA sets out a six year plan of
action that establishes priorities, targets, and schedules for environmental
issues of concern and provides a framework for strategic coordination of
environmental responsibilities in the Great Lakes basin and efforts to
fulfill Canada's obligations to the GLWQA. COA focuses on results in
three main areas: restoration of degraded areas; prevention and control
of pollution; and conservation and protection of human and ecosystem
health.
COA identifies more than 55 programs and targets to ensure that progress
towards the three objectives over the six-year term of the Agreement is
measurable. Examples of key targets under Objective 2 - prevent and
control pollution - are shown below. The ultimate goal of COA is to
achieve the virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative substances
from the Great Lakes basin ecosystem by implementing strategies
consistent with zero discharge.
• Decommission 90 percent of the high-level PCBs in use; destroy 50
percent of the high level PCBs now in storage; and accelerate the
destruction of stored low-level PCB waste.
• Achieve a 90 percent reduction in the use, generation, and release of
seven toxic substances by the year 2000 (benzo(a)pyrene, hexachloro-
benzene, alkyl lead, mercury, octachlorostyrene, dioxins, and furans).
• Collaborate with, and provide support for, voluntary programs by
industry and others to reduce the use, release, or generation of Tier II
substances, and establish specific timelines and targets for achieving
their virtual elimination.
90
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
As part of COA, Canada and Ontario will continue to develop essential
information on the fate and effects of selected toxic pollutants from
industrial, urban, and agricultural sources and to identify and quantify
toxic chemical inputs from the atmosphere. Canada and Ontario are also
conducting a coordinated evaluation of registered and scheduled pesticides
through a multi-agency Pesticides Review Committee established under
COA.
Under the revised Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA),
Environment and Health Canada may be able to request pollution
prevention and virtual elimination plans from high priority sources of
identified substances. The LaMP critical pollutants are thus candidates for
mandatory elimination plans from major sources.
Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA)
Under MOE's Clean Water Regulations, developed under MISA, effluent
limits for 10 sectors will be in force by 1998. These include 34 industrial
plants in the Lake Ontario basin.
• Petroleum Refining and Pulp and Paper sector regulations were enacted
in September and November 1993 and both came into force on January
1, 1996, controlling 11 Lake Ontario basin sources.
• Metal Mining, Industrial Minerals, and Metal Casting sector regulations
were enacted in August 1994; all came into force in August 1997,
controlling 9 Lake Ontario basin sources.
• Organic Chemical Manufacturing and Inorganic Chemical sector
regulations were enacted in February 1995; these regulations came into
force in February 1998, controlling 7 Lake Ontario basin sources.
• Iron and Steel Manufacturing and Electric Power Generation
regulations were enacted in April 1995; these regulations came into
force in April 1998, controlling 8 Lake Ontario basin sources.
Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics (ARET)
Under ARET, voluntary activities and commitments by sources of
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative substances are publicly reported on
a multi-media basis. Industries and municipalities alike are encouraged
by the governments to use ARET to publicly commit to pollutant
reductions beyond compliance. The 1995 update of Canada's National
Pollutant Release Inventory was released in winter 1997.
Lake Ontario LaMP 99
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
Tributary Priority Pollutant Monitoring Study
Canada and Ontario initiated a Lake Ontario Tributary Priority Pollutant
Monitoring Study beginning in the spring of 1997. The objectives of the
collaborative study are to:
• Identify those tributary discharges along the Canadian shore of Lake
Ontario that contribute significant loadings of Priority Pollutants
(including all LaMP critical pollutants).
• Establish the range of concentrations of priority pollutants present in the
most significant tributaries.
• Where feasible, use the concentration data in conjunction with federal
and federal/provincial flow data to estimate the mean annual mass
discharge of priority pollutants for those Lake Ontario tributaries that
have been selected for monitoring.
• Provide the degree of certainty associated with estimates of the mean
concentration and mass discharges.
• Provide recommendations for targeted action within watersheds
identified as significant sources of priority pollutants, such as source
trackdown and load reduction activities.
Cleanup Fund
Environment Canada's (EC's) Cleanup Fund (in place until the year 2000)
will continue to provide funding and technical support to a wide range of
contaminated sediment, urban storm water, and agricultural projects aimed
at controlling sources of pollution to Lake Ontario, both in RAPs and other
areas. The Fund will also support a wide range of habitat restoration and
enhancement projects in the Lake Ontario basin.
Site Remediation Activities
Contaminated site remediation activities will continue at "orphan sites"
(those sites which have been abandoned by their owners and the owners
cannot be located). EC has provided funding for the cleanup of these
orphan sites in the past under the National Contaminated Sites
Remediation Program. This was a 5 year program that expired in March
of 1995. The sites remediated under this program include: Chemical
Waste Management Ltd. PCB Spill Site, Smithville; National Hard
Chrome Site, North York; and Deloro Mine Site, Deloro.
100 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
Outreach Programs
EC will conduct outreach programs for PCB owners in the Toronto area
and other Lake Ontario communities. EC will conduct a residential
pesticide reduction project in the Toronto area and training and
workshops to reduce the use of pesticides by Lake Ontario municipalities.
Outreach will continue to the fanning community to reduce the impact of
rural land use practices. The MOE-MNR Guide to Eating Ontario Sport
Fish provides health related advice to the public.
The 1987 GLWQA specifies that, when the problems in the lake have been
identified and the Stage 1 LaMP has been completed, a Stage 2 LaMP be
prepared which sets out a schedule for toad reduction activities. The Four
Parties propose to develop the technical information necessary to focus the
actions undertaken through the LaMP and provide the foundation for the
Stage 2 LaMP. Table 5 identifies the activities that the Four Parties
propose to undertake binationally (either jointly or in a complementary
fashion) to move towards the completion of the draft Stage 2, and to
continue to build partnerships and provide information about the LaMP
process. It is the goal of the Four Parties to develop the technical
information in draft form within two years. Preparation of the Stage 2
LaMP will then commence, incorporating public input on the draft
technical information. It is the goal of the Four Parties to produce a draft
Stage 2 document for public review by fall of the year 2000.
5.5 Binational
LaMP
Workplan
In Chapter 3, the impaired beneficial uses of Lake Ontario and the critical
pollutants and biological/physical factors contributing to these
impairments were identified.
In this chapter, the Four Parties have identified the ongoing and future
activities that will continue efforts to move towards the restoration of
beneficial uses of the lake and achieve virtual elimination of critical
pollutants. The Four Parties have also proposed joint or complementary
actions that will, within two years, provide the technical basis for the
Stage 2 LaMP. It is the goal of the Four Parties to produce a draft Stage
2 LaMP for public review by fall of the year 2000.
The Stage 2 LaMP will identify the additional actions that will be
necessary to restore the beneficial uses of Lake Ontario. The Four Parties
will, however, initiate additional LaMP actions prior to the completion of
the Stage 2 document if these actions are identified as necessary to achieve
LaMP goals.
5.6
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
101
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
Table 5. Binational Workplan for the Lake Ontario LaMP
Activity
Reducing inputs of
critical and other
pollutants
3-year objectives
Continue existing
programs to reduce
loadings of critical
pollutants
Update pollutant
loadings and
contaminant levels
and instigate new
control programs to
address identified
sources and
loadings
Refine LaMP List
of Critical
Pollutants
Priorities
Evaluate effectiveness of
existing programs
Support implementation
of Binational Great
Lakes Toxics Strategy
Undertake source
trackdown to identify
sources
Update tributary loading
Update sewage treatment
)lant loading
Enhance existing mass
>alance models
Facilitate cooperative
akewide monitoring
Review new data as
necessary
Deliverable*
{Spring 2000, unless otherwise specified)
a) Table and map identifying likely point and non-point
sources of critical pollutants; the data collection will
focus on sources in the basin but will also include
upstream sources entering via the Niagara river; major
atmospheric sources from out of the basin may also be
included
t>) Forecast reductions in loadings as a result of existing
activities
a) Prioritized listing of point, non-point, and basin sources
contributing loadings of critical pollutants to include
significant sources on each side of the lake
b) Updated table 3-3 and 3-4 for LaMP
c) Updated tables 3-5 and 3-6 for LaMP
d) First cut mass balance model to describe major fluxes
of critical pollutants into and out of Lake Ontario
(Spring 1999)
e) Binational priorities listing for monitoring needs
(Spring 1999)
f) Workplan for cooperative monitoring
Determination of any additional critical pollutants (in
consultation with health and resource agencies)
102
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
.
(Spring 3000, »nl*$s ottwrM** »p«giM)
Updating/reassessing
beneficial use
assessments in open
lake waters
Refine beneficial
use impairment
assessment
Further assess lakewide
beneficial uses:
Priorities:
1) Chemical impacts on
benthos
2) Chemical and other
factors influencing
phytoplankton and
zooplankton
populations
3) Updates on status of
colonial waterbirds,
bald eagles, mink, and
oner
4) Updates of all
beneficial use
impairments as
necessary, where data
available on impacts
of physical and
biological factors
impacting beneficial
uses
a) Updated benthos impairment section for Stage 2 LaMP
b) Binational beneficial use assessment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton populations using information from
the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Bioindex project, MOE's intake monitoring, USEPA's
Lake Guardian research program, and the U.S.
Bioindex project carried out by the NYSDEC, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, and Cornell University
c) Binational update on status, using relevant, readily
available data, addressing chemical and nonchemical
factors
d) A series of prioritized updates to be prepared using
relevant data on beneficial use impairment indicators,
with management recommendations; may not include
update on all 14 indicators for the Stage 2 LaMP
Managing biological
and physical factors
Continue habitat
protection and
restoration activities
Summarize
underway/proposed
actions for nearshore by
fall 1998
Map and table identifying nearshore underway and
proposed (to year 2000) actions to protect or restore
physical habitat
Developing
ecosystem objectives
and indicators
Update ecosystem
objectives and
determine
monitoring
indicators
Review work completed
to date by technical
subcommittees; in
conjunction with
partners, determine next
steps
Binational workplan for ecosystem objectives
development including role of public consultation, priority
objectives for pelagic, benthic, and wildlife communities
(Spring 1999); begin implementation of Workplan
Develop objectives
for restoration of
beneficial uses
Set restoration
objectives, determine
necessary loading
reduction schedules,
develop monitoring
mechanisms
Delisting objectives for the LaMP for each of 3 beneficial
uses impaired by chemicals as basis for loading reduction
schedules, for public consultation in 1999
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
103
-------
FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE LaMP
A*UVity
Facilitating public
involvement - three
tiered Lakewide
Advisory Network
Reporting
3*y**f*W*ctlv«$
Establish Basin
Teams and
partnerships
Maintain
information
connection
Mold binational
Lake Ontario
forums at
significant stages in
the LaMP process
Produce annual
status reports
Produce draft Stage
2 report
Priorities
Identify and meet with
partners
Provide updated
information via the Lake
Ontario LaMP Web page
and mailings
Convene binational Lake
Ontario forums, as
necessary, with
participants from Basin
Teams, partners, and
other interested
stakeholders
Produce Year 1 Annual
Report
1) Assess existing
programs
2) Update sources and
loadings
3) Present revised
objectives and
indicators
4) Present draft load
reduction schedules
PeBvErables
-------
Appendix A
•DUIACONTMIO
GLOSSARY
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix A
33/50 Program: A pollution prevention program sponsored by USEPA in voluntary partnerships with
industry. The program's goals are to reduce targeted chemicals by 33 percent by 1992 and 50 percent b>
1995.
Anthropogenic: Effects or processes that are derived from human activities, as opposed to natural effects
or processes that occur in the environment without human influence.
Benthic: Pertaining to plants and animals that live on the bottom of aquatic environments.
Bioaccumulation: The accumulation by organisms of contaminants through ingestion or contact with skin
or respiratory tissue.
Btoaccnmnlative Chemical of Concern (BCC) (Bioaccumulative Toxics): Any chemical that has the
potential to cause adverse effects which upon entering the surface waters, by itself or as its toxic
transformation products, accumulates in aquatic organisms by a human health bioaccumulation factor greater
than 1000, after considering metabolism and other physiochemical properties that might enhance or inhibit
bioaccumulation, in accordance with the methodology in Appendix B of Part 132 - Water Quality Guidance
for the Great Lakes System. Source: Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO): A pipe that, during storms, discharges untreated wastewater from a
sewer system that carries both sanitary wastewater and storm water. The overflow occurs because the system
does not have the capacity to transport and treat the increased flow caused by storm water runoff.
Deforestation: The clearing of wooded areas.
Degradation: A term used in the indicators of beneficial use impairments defined by the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement to indicate an environmental condition or state that is considered to be unacceptable or
less than the condition that would exist in a healthy ecosystem. In the development of the LaMP the
condition was determined after consideration of the Ecosystem Goals for Lake Ontario (Section 1.7) and the
preliminary ecosystem objectives.
Diatoms: A class of planktonic one-celled algae with skeletons of silica.
Ecosystem: An ecological community and its environment functioning as a unit in nature.
Eatrophk: Relatively high amounts of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) in the water column. Although
eutrophic conditions occur naturally in the late stages of many lakes, rapid increases in nutrients due to
human activities can destabilize aquatic food webs because plants and aquatic organisms cannot adjust to
rapid changes in nutrient levels.
Final Effluent Limits: The amount of a pollutant allowed to be discharged by a U.S. industry' or
municipality.
Food Web: A network of interconnected food chains and feeding interactions among organisms.
Isothermal: Marked by equality of temperature.
U** Ontario LatfP A-J
May f Ml
-------
Appendix A
•OULAC ONTARIO
Littoral: Relating to or existing on a shore.
Macroinvertebrates: Small organisms that do not have spinal columns; may filter bottom sediments and
water for food.
Mesotrophic: Refers to a lake with relatively moderate amounts of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) in
its surface water.
Metric Tonne: Unit of weight used in Canada equal to 1,000 kilograms or 2,246 pounds. Equivalent to
1.102 U.S. tons.
Non-point Source: An indirect discharge, not from a pipe or other specific source.
Oligotropbic: Relatively low amounts of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) in the water column. Lake
Ontario's original nutrient levels can best be described as oligotrophic.
Pelagic: Related to or living in the open lake, rather than waters adjacent to the land.
Persistent Toxic Substance (Persistent Toxic Chemical): Any toxic substance with a half-life, i.e., the time
required for the concentration of a substance to diminish to one-half of its original value, in any medium —
water, air, sediment, soil, or biota — of greater than eight weeks, as well as those toxic substances that
bioaccumulate in the tissue of living organisms. Source: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978,
expanded by the IJC's Sixth Biennial Report of Great Lakes Water Quality.
Phytoplankton: Microscopic forms of aquatic plants.
Publicly-owned Treatment Works (POTW): A system that treats (which can include recycling and
reclamation) municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. Large facilities are generally owned
and operated by local governments.
Riparian: Habitat occurring along the bank of a waterway.
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP): A system that treats (which can include recycling and reclamation)
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. Large facilities are generally owned and operated
by local governments.
Thermal Stratification (Thermocline): Differential rates of seasonal heating and cooling of shallow and
deep waters result in the development of two horizontal layers of water having very different water
temperatures. The depth where this abrupt temperature change occurs is known as the thermocline.
Toxic Substance: Any substance which can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions, or physical deformities in any organism or its
offspring, or which can become poisonous after concentration in the food chain or in combination with other
substances. Source: 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Volatilization: Evaporation.
A-4 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix A
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream, river, estuary, or other water body; same as drainage
area.
Water Quality Standards: In the U.S., a designated use of a water body (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) and
the numerical or other criteria to protect that use.
Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF): A system that treats (which can include recycling and
reclamation) municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. Large facilities are generally owned
and operated by local governments.
Water Pollution Control Plant (VVPCP): A system that treats (which can include recycling and
reclamation) municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. Large facilities are generally owned
and operated by local governments.
Zooplankton: Microscopic animals that move passively in aquatic ecosystems.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
• OU LAC ONTARIO
HISTORY OF
LAKE ONTARIO PRIORITY CONTAMINANTS
Lake Ontario LaMP B-1
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
Table B-l.
History of Lake Ontario Priority Contaminants
Mm
PCBi
DOT* Metabolites
Dtomaand Funm
Diddna
OctacWorortyrent
Hcxacplofoeiemctie
Mercury
Ckkrtnc
b»
Ah»M.
Hj jama UJLI\| Lr fatajidnf FcmvitV
Tool
PfUrtyTafestalM*
LOTMP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
II
rriarftjrTnkstami
LOTMT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
-
-
9
rrafmttf •> fct tecMrt to
UMT
X
X'
X1
X1
x!
-
-
X'
-
•
-
-
6
Found to impair beneficial met on a lafccwidt baus
:Utciy to IBB** beneficial iocs due to ncccdances of cnttri*
HISTORY
Priority Toxics in the 1989 Lake Ontario Toxic Management Plan
To implement a chemical-by-chemical approach to control toxics in the lake, the Lake Ontario Toxics
Committee developed a comprehensive system to categorize toxic chemicals and established a \tork group
(Lake Ontario Categorization Work Group) to take a preliminary cut at categorizing the chemicals. There
are two major groups of chemicals: those for which acceptable ambient data are available (Category 1X and
those chemicals for which ambient data are not available (Category 2). Ambient data were available for 42
chemicals. Of these 42, 7 chemicals exceeded enforceable water quality or fish tissue standards, or both,
and 4 chemicals exceeded more stringent, but unenforceable, criteria or guidelines in the water column, fish
tissue, or both. These " 11 Priority Toxics", as shown in the above table, became the focus of the LOTMP.
Although water quality/fish tissue numbers may be referred to «s • standard, objective, criteria, or
guideline, the term criteria is used in this discussion to represent any of these terms.
May IMS
-------
Appendix B
il ""
• DU1AC ONJAHKJ
Priority Toxics in the 1991 LOTMP Update
The 1991 LOTMP Update removed iron and aluminum from the 1989 list for two reasons:
1. Iron and aluminum may not be reliable indicators of toxicity. No single number is ideal because of
the variety of forms of these metals that may be present in ambient waters; and
2. It is difficult to determine whether loadings of these metals originate from natural or human sources.
LaMP Critical Pollutants/Lakewide Contaminants of Concern
Subsequent to the 1991 LOTMP Update, the Categorization Work Group was charged with updating the
categorization of chemicals. Based on data from this analysis, as well as more recent data, three chemicals
were removed from the list (octachlorostyrene, hexachlorobenzene, and chlordane). The reasons for these
changes are summarized below:
Octachlorostyrene (OCS)
• OCS was identified as a LOTMP priority contaminant based on lake trout samples collected in 1988,1989,
and 1990. Other lake trout data sets for the same years showed fish tissue levels to be below the lowest
Four Party criterion. Data sets for chinook salmon, coho salmon, brown trout, white sucker, and
smallmouth bass were also below the lowest criterion. U.S. and Canadian fish monitoring experts for
Lake Ontario do not regard OCS as a significant problem in Lake Ontario.
• There are no water quality criteria for OCS. The Niagara River Upstream-Downstream Monitoring
Program measured mean levels of OCS on suspended solids of 0.004 ng/L (equivalent water
concentration) in 1992-1993. Preliminary results of dated sediment cores collected in Lake Ontario in
1995 indicate that OCS is not detected in recent stratum.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
• Levels of HCB in fish tissue are one to two orders of magnitude below the most stringent Four Party
criterion of 0.22 ppm for the protection of piscivorous fish.
• HCB was identified in the 1989 LOTMP report as exceeding water quality criteria due to a typographical
error which presented the most stringent criterion (i.e., USEPA guidance value) as 0.072 ng/L instead of
the correct value of 0.72 ng/L. As stated in the first report, the 90 percent upper confidence level for
lakewide concentrations of 0.1 ng/L were well below the 0.72 ng/L criterion.
• HCB has not been detected in Lake Ontario waters at concentrations above the most stringent Four Party
water quality criterion. Lakewide sampling programs found mean levels of HCB in Lake Ontario to be
approximately one order of magnitude lower than the most stringent water quality criterion of 0.75 ng/L
or the new Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) water quality criterion of 0.45 ng/L. HCB has not been identified
as exceeding water quality standards by the Niagara River Upstream-Downstream Monitoring Program.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
•DUIAC ONTARIO^
Chlordane
• Chlordane was identified in the 1989 LOTMP as exceeding the 0.037 ppm fish criterion for protection of
human health. This was based on 1985 samples of 5 to 10 year old lake trout taken from Stony Island in
the eastern basin that had levels of total chlordane ranging from 0.2 to 0.61 ppm. Sampling results of 5
to 8 year old lake trout in 1987 found chlordane levels to be below the criterion, except for one of the older
lake trout. Criteria exceedances have not been observed in any fish species since 1987.
• Chlordane has not been detected in Lake Ontario waters at concentrations above the most stringent Four
Party criterion. Lakewide sampling in 1986 and 1988 found total chlordane concentrations of
approximately 0.05 ng/L, which are below the most stringent water quality number of 0.25 ng/L and the
most stringent criterion of 0.5 ng/L for the protection of human health. Sampling in 1990 indicates
chlordane levels are less than 0.11 ng/L, and chlordane has not been identified as exceeding water quality
standards by the Niagara River Upstream-Downstream Program.
Revisions to Critical Pollutants List as Proposed in April 1997 Draft Stage I LaMP
The following is a summary of changes made to the Critical Pollutants List subsequent to the public comment
period, and the reasons for these changes:
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide
• Heptachlor and its breakdown product heptachlor epoxide were proposed in earlier drafts of this document
as critical pollutants due to the presence of heptachlor epoxide in open waters lakewide at concentrations
above the most stringent water quality standard (0.1 ng/L). Data from 1986,1988, and 1990 showed the
average concentrations varied between 0.1 and 0.3 ng/L. 1993 concentrations which were evaluated after
the April 1997 draft were approximately 0.03 ng/L, well below the 0.1 ng/L criteria. Steady declines of
these contaminants are attributed to product bans in the U.S. and Canada. Heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide were not included on the current list of critical pollutants based on this new information. These
contaminants will continue to be monitored as part of a variety of ongoing environmental monitoring
programs.
Dieldrin
• Dieldrin had been proposed as a critical pollutant in earlier drafts of this document based on studies that
suggested that dieldrin could limit the recovery of bald eagle populations due to its potential to poison
adult eagles. Comments received during the public comment period questioned if current levels of dieldrin
in the environment posed a hazard and if dieldrin warranted the same level of concern as PCBs, dioxins,
and the other critical pollutants. Bald eagle experts agreed that, although dieldrin had been a concern in
the 1970s and early 1980s, it is no longer considered to be a significant concern for eagle populations.
• Dieldrin was used extensively as a seed treatment and a soil insecticide for vegetables and lawns in
Ontario until the early 1970s (Frank et al., 1975) when restrictions on use came into effect (Agriculture
Canada, 1976b). Historically, dieldrin was used extensively and, because of its high toxicity, caused
numerous mortalities in wildlife.
Lake Ontario LaMP B-5
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
sf"™""
• DUIAC ONTA«IO~
• Currently, there are no data to support the hypothesis that environmental levels of dieldrin are affecting
the health of Lake Ontario herring gull populations. Levels of dieldrin in herring gull eggs collected from
several breeding colonies on Lake Ontario since 1974 never approached the 1.0 ppm effect level
(Environment Canada, 1997). Initially, egg concentrations were in the 0.5 ppm range and have since
declined to approximately 0.1 ppm or less at the two monitoring sites on Lake Ontario in 1996.
• A bald eagle egg which was not going to hatch was collected in the Lake Ontario basin in 1995 from a nest
approximately 10 kilometers from the lake shore. This egg was found to have dieldrin concentrations of
0.13 ppm, well below the 1.0 ppm threshold effects level. While herring gull eggs analyzed from Lake
Ontario are well below the 1.0 ppm threshold value, bald eagles, which are higher on the food chain, may
produce eggs with higher concentrations of dieldrin. This would be possible in the future if they breed
on the Lake Ontario shoreline where their diet would contain more contaminated fish than at more inland
locations.
• Dieldrin remains on the LaMP list of critical pollutants because its concentration in water and fish tissue
exceeds the U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI) criteria throughout the lake. The GLI criterion
for water is 0.006 parts per billion and Lake Ontario water averages 0.6 parts per billion. The
corresponding GLI fish tissue criterion is 0.0025 parts per million. Most Lake Ontario fish clearly exceed
this criterion as dieldrin is detectable at concentrations ranging from approximately 0.005 to 0.030 parts
per million.
Mercury
• Mercury was not proposed to be a Critical Pollutant in earlier drafts of this document, since estimates of
the water quality concentrations, based on fish tissue observations, indicated that lake levels were below
that of the GLI water quality criterion of 3.3 ng/L. As noted in the draft document, the Four Parties
agreed to continue their assessment based on recent environmental data. The Four Parties reviewed recent
fish tissue contaminant concentrations and found mercury concentrations in smallmouth bass and walleye
to exceed Ontario's 0.5 ppm guideline for fish consumption throughout the lake. Therefore, although
mercury is not causing lakewide impairments of beneficial uses, this contaminant will be included as a
LaMP critical pollutant given the lakewide nature of these criteria exceedences. More details regarding
this analysis is provided at the end of this Appendix.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
CONSIDERATION OF RECENT U.S. GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
INITIATIVE CRITERIA
As indicated above, reviews of existing information had suggested that OCS, HCB, chlordane, and mercury
were no longer a concern in the open waters of Lake Ontario. To confirm this position, a second review was
performed which considered the new, generally much lower, water quality criteria contained in the U.S.
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (Table B-2). The results of this second review continued to support
removing three of these chemicals from the list of lakewide contaminants of concern. The following
provides a brief summary of the results of this second evaluation.
Table B-2.
GLI Human Health WQC and Fish Flesh Values Used
Substance - ' --
Chlordane
Dieldrin
HCB
Mercury
OCS
€&JWQC{«g/L)
0.00025*
0.0000006
0.00045*
0.0033**
0.000054***
Ftefc
-------
• OU LAC ONTAIIO
Findings/Conclusions
The most current information indicates that lakewide concentrations of chlordane, HCB, and OCS do not
exceed the applicable GLIWQC or GLI-derived fish flesh values on a lakewide basis. Chlordane, HCB, and
OCS concentrations are approximately one order of magnitude below the applicable GLIWQC. Mean fish
tissue concentrations of OCS, chlordane, and HCB (normalized to 3.1% lipid concentration) are, with the
exception of one data set, well below the GLI-derived values for these contaminants.
Although there are no reliable water quality data for mercury, mercury levels in fish tissue provide a
qualitative indication that water column mercury levels are also below the GLIWQC. An assessment of
mercury in fish tissue found no exceedences of the GLI fish flesh criteria for "open water" fish such as lake
trout and salmon. However, mercury is problematic with some near shore species such as smallmouth bass
and walleye exceeding Ontario's 0.5 ppm criterion. Other nearshore species also exceed the lower (0.37
ppm) GLI criterion. Dieldrin was found to exceed both water quality and fish flesh criteria throughout the
lake.
Based upon the results of this evaluation, OCS, chlordane, and HCB are not considered to be exceeding
GLIWQC on a lakewide basis. Mercury and dieldrin are considered to be exceeding GLIWQC and are,
accordingly, considered LaMP Critical Pollutants.
Future Actions
It is recommended that future evaluations be used to compare Lake Ontario surface water quality and fish
tissue data to all of the GLI BCC WQC and associated fish tissue values in order to identify any, as yet
unrecognized, contaminant problems that should be considered for special priority actions on a lakewide
basis.
B-8 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
• DO LAC ONTAIIO^
MERCURY ANALYSIS
Comparison of Ontario and New York data for mercury in fish was conducted using as a basis the following
rules:
• Use only mercury data for fish collections from 1990 through the present time for all species, except
walleye. For walleye, data from 1987 through the present time was used due to the similarity of the data
between locations and over time, and to obtain an adequate data base for evaluation;
• Use only data from Lake Ontario, Bay of Quinte, and the lower Niagara River;
• A classification of mercury as a lakewide chemical of concern may be made when a species offish exceeds
either 500 ng/g or 1000 ng/g mercury in edible tissues at nearly all sites sampled on both sides of the lake;
• A classification of mercury as a regional chemical of concern may be made when a species offish exceeds
either SOO ng/g or 1000 ng/g mercury in a given area of the lake; and
• No classification of a species as either a lakewide or regional chemical of concern will be made where the
data: (1) demonstrate that mercury concentrations for a fish species at all locations are below 500 ng/g,
(2) are inconsistent for either the entire lake or regions of the lake, or (3) are lacking from both sides of
the lake.
Data Available
~ The entire shoreline of Lake Ontario is represented, plus the lower Niagara River and Bay of Quinte.
-- Ontario mercury data from 1990 through 1995 for 21 species of fish representing 19 locations (in some
instances, data from several locations may be combined for evaluation due to the regional proximity of
the locations). In addition, for walleye, mercury data for the period from 1987 through the present is
used to better represent the species throughout the lake.
— New York mercury data from 1993 through 1996 for 28 species offish representing seven locations.
Conclusions
~ None of the species contain mercury at concentrations sufficient to be considered either a lakewide or
regional chemical of concern when a mercury criterion of 1000 ng/g is used.
-- When a mercury criterion of 500 ng/g is used, mercury is a lakewide chemical of concern for
smallmouth bass and walleye only. Smallmouth bass greater than about 380 mm and walleye greater
than about 550 mm are likely to contain mercury concentrations greater than 500 ng/g.
— When a mercury criterion of 500 ng/g is used, mercury is a regional chemical of concern for largemouth
bass (south shore), northern pike (eastern lake), channel catfish (Bay of Quinte and Oswego), and
freshwater drum (south shore and lower Niagara River). Some of the largest fish of each species listed
contain mercury concentrations greater than 500 ng/g. Specific comments on the data base for each
species follows:
Lake Ontario LaMP B-9
May 1998
-------
Appendix B
• DU LAC ONTMIO
• Largemouth bass - there were little recent data for the species from Ontario waters of Lake Ontario;
the species is adequately represented on the south shore.
• Northern pike - Sufficient data were available for all Ontario waters of the lake but, in New York
waters, only the eastern lake is represented. The Ontario data suggest elevated mercury
concentrations are limited to large fish in the eastern end of the lake for this species.
• Channel catfish - There is limited representation by this species on both the north and south shores
of the lake. For large individuals of this species, only the Bay of Quinte and Oswego can be indicated
as having mercury concentrations in excess of 500 ng/g.
• Freshwater drum - The New York waters are adequately represented in the data base but the only
Ontario waters represented by this species are the lower Niagara River and Bay of Quinte.
• Inconsistent data were available for white perch and white sucker so they were not classified;
however, occasional detection of mercury at concentrations greater than 500 ng/g were found in large
fish as reported by Canadian authorities. Similar findings were not reported by New York.
• All other fish species examined contained mercury concentrations which were below 500 ng/g.
Health Advisory Criteria
~ Health advisories issued by New York or Ontario have differing criteria for determining the advice to
be issued to the public. The criteria and the corresponding advice is summarized below. The advice
may be tailored to represent regions of a waterbody and to reflect size-mercury concentration
relationships for a species offish.
Mercury
Concentration
(Mg/g)
<0.5
0.5 to 1.0
1.0 to 1.5
>1.5
Health Advisory
New York
One meal per week
One meal per week
One meal per month; women of
childbearing age and children
under 15 years should not consume
fish
Eat none
Ontario
Eight meals per month
One meal per week
Two meals per month for all
populations
Eat none
— New York considers a health advisory based on mercury concentrations in fish to be an impairment of
water usage when the mercury concentration exceeds 1.0 /^g/g. Ontario considers a health advisory
based on mercury concentrations in fish to be an impairment of water usage when the mercury
concentration exceeds 0.5 /^g/g.
Authors: Lawrence C. Skinner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Alan
Hayton, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, September 10,1997.
B-10
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix C
• DU LAC ONTARIO
LAKE ONTARIO LETTER OF INTENT
Lake Ontario LaMP C-f
April 1998
-------
Appendix C
• DU LAC ONTAIIO"
Lake Ontario MAY 22 J996
Progression of Toxics Management Plan! to Lakewide Management Plan
Letter of Intent
In 1987, the Niagara River Declaration of Intent (DOI) committed the Four Parties (Environment
Canada, U.S.,Environraemal Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservition) to develop Toxics Management Plans for the Niagara River and
Lake Ontario: The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) was developed in 1989 and was updated
in 1991 and 1993.
The goal of the LOTMP is a lake that provides drinking water and fish that are safe for unlimited
consumption and allows natural reproduction of the most sensitive native species. The LOTMP reduces toxic
inputs to the Lake through the implementation of new and exiting programs and the development of basin-wide
pollution prevention strategies. The LOTMP has been the primary toxic substances reduction planning effort for
Lake Ontario.
The 1987 amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committed the federal governments
of the United States and Canada to develop Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) for each of the five Great
Lakes. The LaMP will provide a comprehensive ecosystem approach to restore beneficial uses by reducing levels
of critical pollutants that cause lakewide problems. Critical pollutants are substances that singly or in
combination pose a threat to human health or aquatic life due tb their toxichy, persistence in the environment
and/or their ability to accumulate in organisms.
The Four Parties agree that one program (the LaMP) should be developed which provides an overall
framework for our efforts. The LOTMP has been the primary toxic substances reduction planning effort for Lake
Ontario. As such, h serves as a foundation for the development of the Lake Ontario LaMP. In order to assure
that the LaMP documents reflect the intent of the LOTMP, the!Four Panics have agreed to review and
incorporate an relevant commitments from the LOTMP. Documentation of the progress that has been achieved
towards these goals will be provided in the first LaMP document.
The LaMP process provides a mechanism to continue to deliver the LOTMP committed to in the 1987
DOL Theat(acned Lake Ontario LaMP Workplan establishes ^onrmhments and milestones for the development
of the LaMP.jivithin the constraints of available resources.
/
JonftMais JemneFo^^BglonaT/Cdministtato/
Rbffonal Darector General US Eriviro^tal PrweaionAgycy
Ontario: Region Region II j
Environment Canada
(Commissioner Sheila WiUps. Assistant Deputy Minister
New Yof£ State Department of Operation* Division
Environmental Conservation Ontario Ministry of Environment ft Energy
Lake Ontario LaMP c'3
April 1998
-------
APPENDIX D
* OU LAC ONTABIO
INFORMATION CONTACTS
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
D-1
-------
APPENDIX D
LaMP Management Team
Lake Ontario Coordination Committee:
Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region II
John Mills, Regional Director General, Ontario Region, EC
Jim Merritt, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations Division, MOE
John Cahill, Acting Commissioner, NYSDEC
Lake Ontario Management Committee;
Mario Del Vicario, Chief, Community and Ecosystems Protection Branch, USEPA Region II1
Simon Llewellyn, Director, Environmental Conservation Branch, EC
Brian Ward, Director, Eastern Region Operations Division, MOE
Gerald Mikol, Region 9 Regional Director, NYSDEC Region 9
Workgroup;
Barbara E. Spinweber
Freshwater Protection Section
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection
USEPA Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
phone: (212)637-3848
fax: (212)637-3889
email: spinweber.barbara@epamail.epa.gov
Janette Anderson
EC
Canada Center for Inland Waters
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
phone: (905)336-6277
fax: (90S)336-6272
email: janette.anderson@cciw.ca
Richard Draper, Chief
Great Lakes and Estuary Section
Division of Water
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3508
phone: (518)457-1158
fax: (518)485-7786
email: richard.draper@dec.mailnet.state.ny.us
Ian Smith2
MOE
Program Development Branch
40 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
phone: (416)714-7996
fax: (416)314-3924
email: smithia@ene.gov.on.ca
1 USEPA was represented by Kevin Bricke, Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection until
July 9,1997.
2 MOE was represented by Henri Selles until January 1997, and represented by Fred Fleischer starting December 1997.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
D-3
-------
DU LAC ONTARIO
APPENDIX D
LaMP Document Repositories
United States Repositories
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Office
Carborundum Center
345 Third Street, Suite 530
Niagara Falls, New York 14303
(716)285-8842
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Offices
NYSDEC - Region 6
317 Washington Street
Watertown, New York 13601
(315)785-2239
NYSDEC - Region 8
6274 East Avon-Lima Road
Avon, New York 14414
(716)226-2466
University Libraries
SUNY Brockport
Drake Library
Brockport, New York 14220
Science and Engineering Library
Capen Hall
SUNY Center Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14214
Penfield Library
SUNY Oswego
Oswego, New York 13126
Not-For-Profit Agencies
Atlantic States Legal Foundation Inc.
656 West Onondaga Street
Syracuse, New York 13204
(315)475-1170
NYSDEC - Region 7
615 Erie Blvd. West
Syracuse, New York 13204-2400
(315)428-4497
NYSEC - Region 9
270 Michigan Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202
(716)851-7000
Collection Division Office
Butlers Library
SUNY Buffalo
1300 Elmwood Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14222
Archives Moon Library
SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry
Syracuse, New York 13210
D-4
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX D
• OUUCONTUIO
Canadian Repositories
Environment Canada
Library Services Section
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
(905) 336-4982
Ontario Ministry of the Environment Offices
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Public Affairs and Communications Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario M4V IPS
MOE Regional Office
Central Region
7 Overlea Boulevard
Toronto, Ontario M4H 1A8
MOE Regional Office
West Central Region
119 King Street West
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z9
International Joint Commission Offices
International Joint Commission
100 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
Municipal Government
Regional Municipality of Niagara
P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, Ontario L2V 4T7
University Libraries
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L6
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Intergovernmental Relations Office
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
MOE Regional Office
Eastern Region
133 Dalton Avenue
Kingston, Ontario K7L 4X6
International Joint Commission
100 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5M1
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
0-5
-------
APPENDIX D
• DU IAC QNTi
Remedial Action Plan Contacts
Hamilton Harbour RAP
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
867 Lakeshore Road
P.O. Box 5050
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
(905)336-6279
Metro Toronto RAP
Environment Canada,
Environmental Conservation Branch
4905 Dufferin Ave.
Downsview, Ontario M4T 1M2
(416)739-5836
Port Hope RAP (Inactive at this time)
Environment Canada,
Environmental Conservation Branch
4905 Dufferin Ave.
Downsview, Ontario M4T 1M2
(416)739-5836
BayofQuinteRAP
Environment Canada,
Environmental Conservation Branch
4905 Dufferin Ave.
Downsview, Ontario M4T 1M2
(416)739-4369
Eighteenmile Creek RAP
RAP Coordinator
New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
270 Michigan Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14203-2999
(716)851-7000
Rochester Embayment RAP
RAP Coordinator
Monroe County Dept. Of Health
P.O. Box 92832
111 West Fall Rd., Rm 962
Rochester, New York 14692-8932
(716)274-8442
Oswego River Harbor RAP
RAP Coordinator
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Division of Water,
Bureau of Watershed Management
Great Lakes and Estuaries Section
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-3508
(518)457-9603
D-6
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX D
• DO UC ONTAftK
Remedial Action Plan References
United States
Eighteenmile Creek
Eighteenmile Creek Remedial Action Plan, prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation in cooperation with the Eighteenmile Creek Remedial Action Committee, NYSDEC, 50 Wolf
Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508.
Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan, Stage 1. 1993. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508, and the Monroe County Department of
Planning and Development, PO Box 92832, 111 Westfall Rd., Rochester New York, 14692-8932. August
1993.
Rochester Embavment
Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan, Stage 2. 1997. Prepared by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508 and the Monroe County
Department of Health, PO Box 92832,111 Westfall Rd., Rochester, New York, 14692-8932. January 1997.
Niagara River
Niagara River Remedial Action Plan. 1994. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
September 1994, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508.
Oswcgo River
Oswego River Remedial Action Plan, Stage 1. 1990. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, February 1990, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508.
Oswego River Remedial Action Plan, Stage 2. 1991. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, June 1991, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508.
Oswego River Remedial Action Plan Update. 1996. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, December 1996, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-3508.
Lake Ontario LaMP D-7
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX D
iriBBRiBf
• DU LAC ONTAHIO™
Canada
Niagara River
Niagara River Stage 1 Report: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definitions. October 1993.
Report of the Niagara River Secretariat Relative to the Status of Commitments under the Niagara River
Declaration of Intent, Environment Canada, USEPA, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. June 16, 1994.
Stage 1 Update: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. March 1995.
Stage 2 Report: The Cleanup Connection. June 1995.
Stage 2 Report Summary: The Cleanup Connection. April 1995.
Hamilton Harbour
Stage 1 Report: Remedial Action Plan for Harbour Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition.
March 1989.
The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for Harbour - Stage 2A. July 1991.
Final Stage 2 Report (to COA RAP Steering Committee) and Implementation Annex. November 1992.
Second Edition of the Stage 1 Report "Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition". October 1992.
Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour - 1995 Update to the HHRAP Stage 2 Report "Contaminated
Sediment in Hamilton Harbour". December 1995.
Metro Toronto and Region
Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. 1988. (Executive Summary available in English
and French)
Strategies for Restoring our Waters. 1991. (Also available in French)
Clean Waters, Clear Choices: Recommendations for Action. 1994. (Summary available in English and
French)
Port Hone
Port Hope Harbour Remedial Action Plan Stage 1: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition.
January 1990.
0-8 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX D
• DU IAC ONTARIO
Bay of Quinte
Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan "Time to Decide" - A Discussion Paper. September 1989.
The Public Advisory Committee Report, 1990. April 1990.
Stage 1, Environmental Setting and Problem Definition. July 1990.
Stage 2, Time to Act. September 1993.
1992 Project Quinte Annual Report. Monitoring Report No. 4. March 1994.
Bay of Quinte RAP Spring 1994 Newsletter - special issue on Tcxic Contaminants. August 1994.
Technical Report No. 10. Feasibility of Re-establishing Aquatic Macrophytes in the Bay of Quinte.
(To be completed).
Bay of Quinte RAP Fall 1994 Newsletter - special issue on Wetlands.
Technical Report No. 17. MIS A - BATEA Assessment for the Bay of Quinte. February 1995
Technical Report No. 18. 1994 Aquatic Macrophyte Survey (pending approval to release).
1993 Project Quinte Annual Report. Monitoring Report No. 5. March 1995.
QRAP - IAC Annual Report on Implementation Progress. Report No. 1. June 1995.
Bay of Quinte RAP Newsletter "RAP on the BAY". Spring 1995.
Provincial response to Stage 2 Report. July 1995.
Federal response to Stage 2 Report. August 1995.
1994 Project Quinte Annual Report - Monitoring Report No. 6. March 1996.
Quinte RAP Fall 1995 Newsletter.
Quinte RAP Spring 1996 Newsletter -1995 Bay of Quinte Highlights.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix E
LAKE ONTARIO SPORTFISH ADVISORIES
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix E
• DU LAC ONTARIO
United States Lake Ontario Fish Consumption Advisories, 1996-1997
The following recommendations are based on contaminant levels in fish. To minimize potential adverse
health impacts, the New York State Department of Health recommends:
• Eat no more than one meal (one-half pound) per week offish.
• Women of childbearing age, infants, and children under the age of 15 should not eat any fish.
• In addition to these general recommendations, more stringent advisories exist for the following species
and locations:
Table £-1.
• location • • ;
Including Niagara River below
Niagara Falls (see Niagara
River for additional advice)
West of Point Breeze
East of Point Breeze
Sp££l£9
American eel, channel catfish,
carp, lake trout, Chinook
salmon, rainbow trout, coho
salmon over 2 1 ", and brown
trout over 20"
White sucker, smaller coho
salmon and brown trout
White Perch
White Perch
Recommendation*
Eat none
Eat no more than one meal per
month
Eat none
Eat no more than one meal per
month
Ch«»lcsJ{*} flfCoftttrtt
PCB, Minex, Dioxin
PCB, Mirex, Dioxin
PCB, Mirex, Dioxin
PCB, Mirex, Dioxin
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
E-3
-------
Appendix E
• DU LAC ONTARIO
Contaminants Causing Sport Fish Consumption Advisories
in Canadian Waters of Lake Ontario, 1997-1998
Consumption recommendations for sport fish from the Canadian waters of Lake Ontario are given in the
1997-1998 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish published by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and
Ministry of Natural Resources. Fish consumption advisory tables are provided in blocks or regions for the
lake. Consumption advice is specific to the location where the fish is caught, the species offish, and the size
offish.
The following table summarizes the principal contaminant of concern which is responsible for causing the
consumption restrictions. Blocks refer to the 1997-1998 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish.
E~* Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
DU LAC ONTARIO
Appendix E
Table E-2.
Ontario Sportfish Consumption Advisories, 1997-1998
Block
la. Upper Niagara River
1 b. Lower Niagara River
2. Western Lake Ontario
Species
Rainbow Trout
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Perch
White Bass
Rock Bass
Brown Bullhead
Carp
Freshwater Drum
White Sucker
Redhorse Sucker
Rainbow Smelt
Chinook
Rainbow Trout
Lake Trout
Smallmouth Bass
Yellow Perch
White Perch
White Bass
Rock Bass
Brown Bullhead
Carp
Channel Catfish
Freshwater Drum
White Sucker
Redhorse Sucker
American Eel
Rainbow Smelt
Chinook
Coho
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
Walleye
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Yellow Perch
White Perch
White Bass
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Freshwater Drum
Carp
Rainbow Smelt
Contaminant
.
.
Mercury
-
.
PCBs
.
.
PCBs
.
-
Mercury
PCBs
Mirex
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs
PCBs
.
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
.
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs/mirex
PCBs
Mirex/PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
.
Mercury
.
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs
PCBs
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
E-5
-------
DUIAC ONTMIO
Appendix E
Block
3. Hamilton Harbour
4. Toronto Offshore
4a. Toronto Waterfront
5. Credit River
6. Northwestern Lake Ontario
6a. Frenchman Bay
6b. Whitby Harbour
Specie*
Brown Trout
Yellow Perch
White Perch
White Bass
Black Crappie
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Freshwater Drum
Carp
White Sucker
Rainbow Smelt
Chinook
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
Yellow Perch
Carp
White Sucker
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
Northern Pike
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Perch
White Perch
Rock Bass
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Brown Bullhead
Carp
White Sucker
Rainbow Smelt
Chinook
Coho
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Chinook
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
Walleye
Smaflmouth Bass
White Bass
Brown Bullhead
Rainbow Smelt
Gizzard Shad
Northern Pike
Yellow Perch
Brown Bullhead
Carp
Northern Pike
Brown Bullhead
White Sucker
ContRfflfnanf
PCBs/mirex
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs/mirex
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mirex/PCBs
PCBs/mirex
PCBs
PCBs/mirex/dioxins
.
PCBs
-
PCBs/mirex
PCBs
.
Mercury
.
PCBs
Mercury
-
.
Mirex
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
Mirex/PCBs
Mirex
Mirex
Mirex
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs/mirex
Dioxins
Mercury
Mercury
PCBs
.
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
w
PCBs
PCBs
Mercury
E-6
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
Appendix E
• DUIACONTMIO
Block
Species
Contaminant
7. Ganaraska River
Chinook
Coho
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
PCBs/mirex
Mirex/PCBs
Mirex
PCBs/mirex
PCBs
8. Northeastern Lake Ontario
Chinook
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
Smallmouth Bass
Rock Bass
Walleye
American Eel
Mirex/PCBs
Mirex
PCBs/mirex
Mirex/PCBs
Mercury
Mercury
PCBs
9. Upper Bay of Quinte
Walleye
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Perch
White Perch
Pumpkinseed
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Freshwater Drum
White Sucker
American Eel
Mercury
PCBs
10. Middle Bay of Quinte
Walleye
Northern Pike
Yellow Perch
White Perch
Pumpkinseed
Brown Bullhead
White Sucker
American Eel
Gizzard Shad
PCBs
PCBs
11. Lower Bay of Quinte/
Eastern Lake Ontario
Chinook
Brown Trout
Lake Trout
Walleye
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Yellow Perch
White Perch
Rock Bass
Whitefish
Freshwater Drum
White Sucker
American Eel
PCBs
Mirex
PCBs/mirex
Mercury/mirex
Mercury
Mercury
PCBs
Dioxins
PCBs
PCBs/mirex
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
E-7
-------
Appendix E
• DUUCONTA1IO
Table E-3.
Ontario Sport Fish Consumption Advisories Caused by Mercury, 1985-1995
Am
Upper Niagara River
Lower Niagara River
Western Lake Ontario
Toronto Waterfront
Hamilton Harbour
Northwestern Lake Ontario
Frenchman Bay
Whitby Harbour
Northeastern Lake Ontario
Upper Bay of Quinte
Lower Bay of Quinte/
Eastern Lake Ontario
Sp*ci«*
Smallmouth Bass
Redhorse Sucker
Freshwater Drum
Yellow Perch
Smallmouth Bass
Walleye
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Rock Bass
Freshwater Drum
Walleye
Smallmouth Bass
Northern Pike
Brown Bullhead
Smallmouth Bass
Walleye
Walleye
American Eel
Walleye
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Location
Strawberry Island
Fort Erie
Fort Erie
Queenston/Fort George
Queenston-Whirlpool
Niagara Bar
Niagara Bar
Toronto Islands
Ontario Place
Pickering NGS
Rouge Marsh
Block
Gravelly Bay
Block
Block
Block
Nearshore, North Channel
Block
V«ar
1994
1985
1985*
1995
1985*
1994
1994
1990
1992
1985**
1989
1993
1986
1993
1995
1987
1995
1993**
1994
1989
1993
* No longer an advisory restriction due to mercury, due to updated results.
* * Advisory restriction now based on PCBs, due to lowering of guideline.
E-8
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX F
• OU LAC ONTARIO
UPDATED LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS
MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMITMENT TABLE
The Lake Ontario Toxic Management Plans (1989,1991,1993) set out individual and joint agency
commitments to implement activities to reduce sources of toxic substances to Lake Ontario. This table
provides an update on the status (as of November 1996) of the commitments set out in the 1993
LOTMP and indicates commitments which are completed and those that will be carried over into the
LaMP.
Lake Ontario LaMP F-1
May 1998
-------
Planned Actions Driven by Existing and Developing Programs
o
8I
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER 1996
IA ACTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
CARRIED
OVER INTO
l.O LAMP
1 A 1 . Direct Industrial Discharges
IA la. Complete the process of ensuring that all major permits in the Lake Ontario basin include Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) limitations for toxic
pollutants and also include more stringent water quality-based limits as required to meet ambient water quality standards.
i. Issue revised SPDES permit
for Harrison Radiator
ii. Issue revised SPDES
permit for Crucible Materials
Corporation - Specialty Metals
Division.
iii. Re-issue, as they expire.
SPUES permits for all major
dischargers
Final Permit
FDF Variance Decision and
Final Permit
Final Permits
NYSDEC
USEPA/
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
Completed; routine
monitoring
Completed; routine
monitoring
Ongoing
Final revised SPDES permit approved 1/28/94; all required
reports approved
SPDES permit renewed 8/1/93
Each permit is issued for five years. Under NYSDEC's
Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy, most permits are re-
issued without substantive review and without change.
NYSDEC uses a prioritization system to address necessary
substantive changes (e.g., new BAT limits, new water
quality-based limits, etc.) through permit modification.
YES
YES
YES
lAlb. Seek 100% compliance with Final Effluent Limits on the part of major permittees in the Lake Ontario basin.
i. Return significant non-
compliers to compliance or
take formal enforcement
action
Improved compliance
NYSDEC/
USEPA
Ongoing
The Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy for FY94 indicated
18 critical pollutant violations. Seven of these were
evaluated as significant Follow-up activities resulted in 3
returning to compliance and 4 involved formal enforcement
actions. The City of Auburn is now under order to upgrade
treatment facilities by May 1997. The 3 other facilities
involved cadmium or zinc violations which have since been
addressed.
YES
IA2 Indirect Industrial Discharge
1 A2a. In areas of the basin where USEPA is the control authority for the pretreatment program, ensure that Significant Industrial Users (SlUs) comply with categorical pretreatment
limits.
D
X
-------
ii
ACTION
i. Issue Administrative Orders
against SlUs that have failed
to provide USEPA with the
required demonstration of
compliance
ii. Initiate follow up
enforcement actions, as
appropriate
OUTPUT
Follow-up enforcement
actions, as appropriate
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
USEPA
USEPA
DEADLINE
Completed
Ongoing
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER 1996
SIUs conduct continuous monitoring and report to USEPA
on a semi-annual basis. Enforcement actions are taken as
appropriate. No SIUs are in non-compliance at this time.
None required
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
1 Alb. In areas of the basin covered by local approved pretreatment programs, audit or inspect each program at least once every 2 years to determine effectiveness. There are 14
approved programs in the basin.
i. Audit or inspect each
approved local pretreatment
program at least once every 2
years
ii. Transmit deficiency letters
or take enforcement actions, as
necessary
14 audits or inspections
Letters and enforcement as
necessary
USEPA/
NYSDEC
USEPA/
NYSDEC
Every 2 years
Continuous
On a statewide basis, at least 80% of pretreatment programs
are audited or inspected each year.
USEPA, NYSDEC and Onondaga County negotiations
regarding the 1991 judicial complaint related to County
pretreatment violations are continuing. Resolution of this
issue is expected before the end of 1997.
YES
YES
1A3. Municipal Discharges
IA3a. In accordance with the National Municipal Policy all municipal discharges were to be in compliance with the Final Effluent Limits (FEL) by 7/1/88, or have judicially enforceable
schedules to meet FEL. Thirty-three of the 39 major municipal discharges in the basin currently meet FEL, leaving 6 as requiring judicially enforceable orders. Of the 6 remaining
facilities, 4 already have signed judicial orders and the remaining 2 are expected to.
i. Canastota: Construction
of new waste water treatment
facility
ii. Fulton: Upgrade of
existing wastewater treatment
facility
Hi. Seneca Falls: Upgrade
existing wastewater treatment
facilities
Enforceable Municipal
Compliance Plan
Enforceable Municipal
Compliance Plan
Enforceable Municipal
Compliance Plan
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
Completed
Completed
Completed
Facility under construction. Judicial Order issued. Final
compliance extended to 10/2/89. Achieved FEL on May 1,
1989.
Facility is being upgraded. Judicial Order issued. Final
compliance extended to 3/31/90. Achieved FEL on March
31, 1990.
Facility is being upgraded. Judicial Order issued. Final
compliance extended to 10/1/89.
YES
YES
YES
•o
•o
m
z
o
X
•n
-------
II
QD &
i
ACTION
w. Wetzel Road: Correction
of dry weather overflows of
raw sewage within collection
system
v. Syracuse Metro:
Elimination of dry weather
overflows of raw sewage
within collection system
vi. Leroy: Upgrade of
existing waste facilities
IA3b. Re-issue, as they
expire, SPDES permits for all
major municipal discharges
OUTPUT
Enforceable Municipal
Compliance Plan
Enforceable Municipal
Compliance Plan
Enforceable Municipal
Compliance Plan
Re-issued Permits
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
Completed
7/1/88
Completed
Upon permit
expiration
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER 1996
Judicial Order issued. Oak Orchard diversion to be
completed by 6/1/89 with other final corrective work by
1/1/90 All work completed; achieved FEL on January 19,
1990.
The draft municipal compliance plan and draft
environmental impact statement was submitted to NYSDEC
on 1/1 1/96 as required by Judicial Consent Order. NYSDEC
is reviewing these documents for completeness under
SEQRA.
Facility will be upgraded. Judicial Order issued and Final
Compliance extended to 1/1/91. Achieved FEL.
Permits are issued for five year periods. When a permit is
received for renewal it is revised to include FEL based upon
either secondary treatment or water quality-based limits.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
IA4. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facilities
lA4a. Seek 100% compliance with permit conditions or interim status requirements.
i. Ensure generator
compliance with requirements
for minimization of waste
generation
USEPA/
NYSDEC
Ongoing
Currently, the nine identified land disposal facilities (LDFs)
in the basin are in regulatory compliance.
YES
IA4b. Final permit decisions on existing incinerator facilities
i. Issue operating permit to
Seneca Army Depot
Final permit
USEPA/
NYSDEC
The facility applied for a permit in 1993. The permit
included permitting of an incinerator and corrective action. It
has been determined that there is no need for an incinerator
due to base closure; therefore the permit application is
currently on hold. Remediation of the site will be complete
by Superfund.
YES
D
X
-n
-------
ACTION
i. Eastman Kodak
OUTPUT
Final permit
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
USEPA/
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER 1996
Hazardous waste management activities at the facility consist
of a rotary kiln and multiple hearth incinerators, 26 federally
regulated storage areas, and 4 waste container storage areas.
NYSDEC is scheduled to public notice a draft Part 373
permit in the spring of 1997. The hazardous waste treatment
and storage activities covered by the permit include storage
of hazardous waste in tanks and containers and treatment of
hazardous waste via incineration. The permit will also
include a corrective action module.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
• H1I/OV1NM MOHO3 10 NTH
m
z
g
x
•n
I*
*ST
-------
II
So
I
IA4c. Make final permit decisions on all existing Storage and Treatment facilities in the basin.
i. Issue final permit Final pen
decision for all listed determini
facilities
USEPARCRAI.D.fl Status*
NYD000631994 C
NYD000691162 C
NYD000818781 P
NYD001317072 C
NYD010779569 C
NYDO 13277454 PX
NYD0021 16192 C
NYD002231355 C
NYD002207744 C
NYD002207751 C
NYD002209013 C
NYD002210920 C
NYD002211324 P
NYD002215226 C
NYD002215234 C
NYD0022 15341 C
NYD002220804 P
NYD002225878 C
NYD002227973 C
NYD002230092 C
* P-Permitting
PX-Permitting Process
C-Closing
NiDB-Not in data base
nit USEPA/NYSDEC
ition
Facility
University of Rochester
Cheeseborough Ponds
Brooks Ave. Tank Farm RGEC
Carrier Air Conditioning
Auburn Plastics Inc.
Solvents and Petroleum Services,
Inc.
Van de Mark Chemical Co., Inc. '
Prestolite Motor Division
Bausch & Lomb Frame Center
Bausch & Lomb Optics Center
Southco, Inc. :
Garlock Inc. Div. of Colt Ind.
Xerox
CMC Delco Products
GMC Rochester Products Div. -
Lexington Ave.
Stuart-Oliver-Holz, Inc.
Olin Corp.
Residual Fuel Storage Tank
Construction Materials Product
Division
Cambridge Filter Corp.
Storage
treatme
facilitie
listed b
and
nt
sare
clow
USEPA RCRA I.D. # Status * Facility
NYD002233997 C
NYD002234763 C
NYD002231272 C
NYD006977086 C
NY4572024624 C
NY0214020281 PX
NYD043815158 P
NYD057770209 P
NYD059385120 C
NYD980593487 C
NYD980593024 C
NYD980593204 C
NYD075806836 C
NYD079703120 C
NYD095577342 C
Camden Wire Co., Inc.
Hampshire Chemical
General Electric Co., Auburn Plant
Roth Bros. Smelting Corp.
Bell Test Center
Fort Drum - Dept of the Army
AKZO Chemical America
N.E. Environmental SVCS
Martin Marietta
Lowville Pesticide Storage Site
Camden Wire Co., Inc.
GMC Harrison Red. Div. Wastewater Trt.
McKesson Envirosystems
Garlock Inc., Div. of Colt Industries
Industrial Oil Tank & Line Cleaning
O
X
-------
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
1996 STATUS
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
IAS. Inactive Hazardous Waste sites
IA5a. Cleanup of the Seven Existing National Priorities List (NPL) Sites
i. Cleanup of the Byron Barrel
and Drum site
ii. Cleanup of the Clothier
Disposal Site (Ox Creek)
Hi. Cleanup of FMC
Corporation Site
iv. Cleanup of the Fulton
Terminals Site
v. Cleanup of the Pollution
Abatement Services Site
(Wine Creek)
vi. Cleanup of the Sinclair
Refinery Site
RI/FS
RD
RI/FS
RD
RA
RI/FS
RD
RA
ROD
RD
PRPs
RI/FS
RD(Landfill) RA
ROD
RD
RA
USEPA
USEPA/
NYSDEC
USEPA
USEPA
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
Report: 9/96
Completed
Report: 3/3 1/90
9/30/91
3/31/93
1/93
Report: 3/3 1/89
1/93
9/93
Report: 12/31/88
12/91
12/93
12/91
3/94
12/94
Record of Decision was signed in 9/89, which calls for the
removal of contaminated soil, soil "flushing", and
pumping/treating of groundwater. Remedial Design in
progress.
Remedial Action completed 9/92. Contaminated soils and
drums of toxic chemicals were removed from the site.
Groundwater pumping and treating was conducted. A clean
soil and grass cover was placed over the site.
Record of Decision completed 3/93. Selected remedy
includes containing contaminated soils on site, pumping and
treating contaminated groundwater, restoration of
surrounding wetlands, and fencing to restrict access to the
site. RD/RA to be completed by 8/96.
Interim remedial activities include fencing the site, and
removing tanks of toxic chemicals and contaminated soils.
Final remedial actions wilt include pumping and treating
contaminated groundwater, and "vacuuming" contaminants
out of contaminated soils on-site. Remedial Design was
completed in 5/95. Remedial Action began in 5/95.
Remedial activities completed to date include demolition of
old buildings, removal of drums of toxic chemicals, pumping
and treating of contaminated groundwater, installation of a
slurry wall to contain groundwater on site, and capping the
site. Supplemental Remedial Design work addressed
contaminants detected in groundwater outside of the existing
containment system. Supplemental RI/FS completed 12/93.
RA action complete. PRPs performing O&M.
Site divided into two components: landfill and refinery.
Remedial activities included removal of drums of
contaminants and Genesee River bank stabilization. RD
completed 9/94. RA completed 6/95.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
TJ
•o
m
Z
D
X
-n
-------
:S
sr
I
ACTION
vii. Cleanup of the Volney
Landfill Site
lASb. Evaluate additional
sites for inclusion on the NPL
lASc. Inventory all existing or
potential hazardous waste sites
in drainage basin areas to Lake
Ontario
OUTPUT
RD
NPL Update
Inventory Update
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
USEPA
USEPA/
NYSDEC
USEPA/
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
12/31/93
Ongoing Activity
Ongoing Activity
1996 STATUS
Negotiations in progress with PRPs to perform treatability
study and RD. Remedial activities conducted to date include
capping and fencing the site, and installing a leachate
collection system. Surrounding private water supplies are
being monitored for contamination (no site contaminants
detected to date).
USEPA and NYSDEC are currently investigating inactive
hazardous waste sites in the Lake Ontario Basin for possible
inclusion on the NPL.
An inventory called 'Preliminary Review of New York State
Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in the Lake Ontario
Basin" was produced by NYSDEC in 7/95. The inventory
ranks 50 Lake Ontario sites according to their potential for
contaminating the lake, and gives a brief summary of
remediation progress at each site. The inventory will be
updated periodically in the future.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
This activity is
ongoing; no
new sites were
added to the
NPL from the
Lake Ontario
Basin.
YES
IA6. Combined Sewer Overflows
IA6a, Plan and construct CSO abatement facilities to address CSO-related water quality violations
i. Construct abatement
facilities: Monroe County-
Frank Van tare STP
ii. Develop CSO abatement
plan for Onondaga County-
Syracuse Metro
Completion of Construction/
Compliance
CSO/Abatement Plan
Monroe County
Onondaga
County,
NYSDEC
6/94
1/92
The following schedule for completion of interim segments
is included in construction grant documents:
Dewey-Eastman: 6/90
State-Mt. Hope: 1 1/92
Ml. Hope-Rosedale: 6/93
Transfer & Diversion Interceptors: 4/93
Lexington North: 3/94
Seneca Norton II: 6/94
The Dewey-Eastman segment was completed on schedule.
The remaining work is continuing on schedule.
Onondaga County, NYSDEC and USEPA are in the process
of negotiating an MCP which will include a CSO Abatement
Plan. The MCP is expected to be ready for public notice in
8/96.
YES
YES
D
X
Tl
-------
ACTION
IA6b. At renewal of SPDES
permits, incorporate water
quality based effluent limits
into permits where CSOs are
causing use impairments in the
receiving waters
OUTPUT
Re-issued Permits
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
As permits expire
1996 STATUS
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
1A7. Storrmvater Discharges
IA7a. Pursue increased regulation of stormwater discharges in accordance with the schedule in the Water Quality Act of 1987 for industrial and large municipal stormwater systems
i. Issue application
regulations
ii. Submit permit applications
Hi. Issue permits
iv. Achieve compliance with
permit limitations
Regulations
Applications
Stormwater permits
Compliance
USEPA
Prospective
permittees
NYSDEC
Permittees
2/89
2/90
2/91
2/94
Proposed regulations were issued in 12/88. Regulations
issued in 1 1/90 established NPDES permit application
requirements for stormwater associated with industrial
activity.
Permittees are submitting applications under the draft
regulations pending publication of final regulations; the
deadline for permit issuance will be established in the final
regulations.
NYSDEC has finalized two general permits for industrial
stormwater. Industries with SPDES permits already
incorporate stormwater requirements.
Status under review.
Completed
YES
YES
YES
IA7b. Pursue increased regulation of stormwater discharges for Small Municipal Stormwater Systems
i.. Submit permit applications
ii. Achieve compliance with
permit limitations
Applications
Compliance
Prospective
permittees
Permittees
2/92
2196
This effort remains on schedule.
This effort remains on schedule.
YES
YES
AS. Other Non-point Sources
TJ
-a
m
z
a
x
-n
-------
B
a
ACTION
IA8a. Identify waters that will
not meet water quality
standards due to non-point
source pollution
IA8b. Prepare non-point
source management program
IA8c. Implement State non-
point source program
IA8d. Administration of the
Pesticide Control Program
OUTPUT
Non-point Source Assessment
Report pursuant to Sec. 3 1 9(a)
of the Clean Water Act
State Non-point Source
Management Program
pursuant to Sec. 3 19(b) of
Clean Water Act
Implementation actions
Pesticide registration;
commercial pesticide
applicator certification
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC, with
other agencies as
appropriate
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
3/89
6/89
Schedule to be
developed pursuant
toSec.319(b)of
the Clean Water
Act
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
Assessment Report was updated in 1991 using a process
outlined in NPS Management Program. Result of process
was a doubling of the no. of segments on the Priority Water
Problem (PWP) list The PWP, now referred to as the PWL
(Priority Waters List), was updated in 1996. The list now
contains 1,426 watcrbody segments. For 1,328 (93%) of
these segments, non-point sources are the primary cause of
the water quality impairment
Will provide overview of State non-point source and four
year strategic plan. USEPA approved the NYSDEC program
on 1/4/90. NY now in the fourth year of implementation of
NPS Management Program; grants received from USEPA
have been used to fund staff, cooperative agreements (with
SCS, State Soil and Water Conservation Committee,
Cornell) and demonstration projects.
Plan will target impacted waters on a watershed-by-
watershed basis or address non-point source on a statewide
basis; specific actions and annual implementation milestones
will be identified. The NYSDEC grant application for
Section 319 implementation funds was approved on 3/1/90.
The program fund is being used and projects are currently
being implemented.
Pesticides are registered and permits are required for the
distribution, sale, purchase, possession, or use of "restricted
use" products; all commercial applicators must be certified.
The Cooperative Extension Service also provides technical
information and advice to farmers on pesticide use.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
IA9. Air Toxics
IA9a. Determine impact of air
sources on Lake Ontario
IA9b. Control air toxics
Develop comprehensive
emission inventories
Ambient air monitoring in
vicinity of Great Lakes
Operate air toxics program in
NYS
NYSDEC
USEPA
GLNPO
NYSDEC
USEPA
In progress
In progress
Operating
NYSDEC revision of Air Guide-1 was completed 11/89.
USEPA technical and section 105 support to NYSDEC is
ongoing.
Ongoing Program
YES
YES
D
X
•n
-------
ACTION
IA9c. Define how
atmospheric concentrations
enter Lakes
OUTPUT
Refine transport equations to
better handle dry deposition
and flux of atmospheric
contaminants into Great Lakes
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
GLNPO
DEADLINE
In progress
1996 STATUS
Work ongoing in conjunction with the Lake Michigan Mass
Balance Study and the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network. The developed models will be applicable to all the
Great Lakes.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
IA10. Oil and Hazardous Material Spills
lAlOa. Implement oil bulk
storage regulations
lAlOb. Maintain spill
inventory data base
lAlOc. Implement hazardous
substance bulk storage
regulations
lAlOd. Implement Section
3 13 of SARA
Registration, testing, and
inspection of oil storage
facilities
Identification of accidental
spill dates and locations
Registration of hazardous
material storage facilities
Reporting of toxic chemical
releases in a publicly
accessible data base
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
USEPA
Ongoing
Ongoing
7/89
6/89
The registration program compiles information on
installation, maintenance and monitoring of bulk storage
facilities. The registration was completed on 7/1S/89.
The database came on line in 4/90. Subscription information
is available to the public and government agencies via an
USEPA hotline. USEPA has plans to also make the database
available through terminals installed in selected libraries in
the region.
YES
YES
Completed
Completed
IA1 1 . Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
lAlla. Identify all active
Iredging locations and open
water dredged material
disposal areas
lAllb. Adopt appropriate
acceptable levels for identified
contaminants of concern in
Lake Ontario sediments
proposed for open water
isposal
lAllc. Develop testing
protocol to be implemented in
JSACE permit application
reviews
Map of Disposal Areas
List of contaminants and
criteria for use in guidelines
Guidelines for standardized
permit review
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
(USAGE)
USACE/USEPA
USACE/USEPA
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Most areas identified; update as needed.
USACE/USEPA to establish workgroup to meet this and
subsequent commitments. The workgroup will include
representatives from USAGE, USEPA, NYSDEC and will
include other experts, as appropriate.
Permit applications to USAGE are joint applications to
USACE/NYSDEC.
YES
YES
YES
X
-n
-------
9
§•
I
ACTION
lAlld. Investigate existing
conditions in and surrounding
open water disposal sites
JAlle. Determine the
suitability of continued use of
the existing disposal sites in
view of existing contaminant
loading and increase in bottom
elevations.
lAllf. Identify operational
procedures that will minimize
adverse effects (e.g. capping)
lAllg. Identify areas ('hot
spots") from which dredged
material is unsuitable for open
lake disposal
lAllh. Investigate alternative
disposal methods, including
contained upland or lake sites
lAlli. Develop decision
framework for evaluation of
alternative disposal methods
OUTPUT
Development and completion
of special studies, surveys.
Development and completion
of special studies, surveys
Identification of existing and
potential measures. An
interagency workgroup will
incorporate information from
study projects in assessment of
operational procedures
Maps
Identification of alternatives to
open lake disposal
Decision-making framework
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
USACE/USEPA
USACE/USEPA
USACE/USEPA/
NYSDEC
USAGE
USACE/USEPA
USACE/USEPA/
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
Studies to evaluate existing conditions could be
accomplished as part of study projects currently planned, or
to be developed.
Studies to evaluate existing conditions could be
accomplished as part of study projects currently planned, or
to be developed.
NYSDEC in process of initiating dredging program
development
Dependent on IA1 Ib.
Some 'hot spots" have been delineated. Complete coverage
is dependent on final adoption of the "list of contaminants"
(see IA1 Ib above). The complete inventory is expected to
be available in 6/90.
Study projects planned or to be developed will provide
additional information for review.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
IA12. Solid Waste
lA12a. Implement Part 360 of Title 6, NYCRR, in the Lake Ontario basin
i. Reduce by 8 to 1 0% the
tonnage of the solid waste
stream
Reduction in weight and
volume of solid waste stream
NYSDEC
12/97
This effort is ongoing.
YES
o
X
-------
I
§
ACTION
ii. Reduce and recycle 50%
of the solid waste generated in
the Lake Ontario basin
iii. Install additional
capacity in the operating
waste-to-energy facilities to
enable such facilities to handle
the portion of the current
waste stream that cannot be
reduced, reused or recycled.
iv. Reduce number of
environmentally unsound
landfills operating in the basin
v. Phase out incineration
where feasible
OUTPUT
Reduction/
recycling up to 50% of current
waste stream. This initiative
includes the 8 to 10%
reduction described in i
Additional waste to-energy
facilities capacity
Closure of approximately 55
inadequate landfills that were
in operation as of 6/87.
Remaining landfills and new
landfills shall be permitted in
accordance with Part 360 and
have liner systems and
leachate accountability.
Closure of 322 municipal,
institutional, and private
incinerators. This applies to
facilities using combustion
with little or no energy
recovery, as opposed to full-
scale waste-to-energy systems
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
Local
communities/
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
12/97
12/97
12/97
12/97
1996 STATUS
This effort is ongoing. Current statewide reduction is
estimated at 10%.
This effort is ongoing. The Onondaga County facility is in
operation.
This effort is essentially complete. There are currently 19
operating landfills in the Lake Ontario basin; 18 are under
permit
USEPA is scheduled to issue its own incinerator regulations
during the last quarter 1990. NYSDEC has decided to delay
issuing its own incinerator regulations until USEPA's are
published. This delay is not expected to affect the 1997
deadline.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
IA13. Sludge Disposal
IA13a. Continue present
program activities in regard to
wastewater treatment plant
sludge.
Sample POTW sludges for
identification of corrective
measures for releases of
hazardous waste
USEPA/
NYSDEC
Continuing
An annual sludge sampling program has been underway
since 1983 and is ongoing. Appropriate enforcement actions
are taken as necessary. No known cases of non-compliance
at this time.
YES
D
X
-------
II
if
i
ACTION
IA13b. Review Part 360 solid
waste regulations pertaining to
sludge disposal activities
following promulgation of
federal regulation 40 CFR Part
503
OUTPUT
Incorporate federal regulation
into state regulation
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
NYSDEC is hoping
to issue draft Part
360 regulations for
sludge management
in the fall of 1993.
1996 STATUS
The final 40 CFR 503 regulations were published 2/19/93.
NYSDEC will review these regulations and determine the
appropriate criteria for Part 360.
IA14. Ambient Water Monitoring
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
IA14a. Conduct ambient water quality monitoring (intensive basin study) in selected basins
i. Study of Basin 01 (Lake
Erie- Niagara River)
ii. Study of Basin 04 (Lake
Ontario tributaries)
iii. Basin OS (Genesee River)
iv. Study of Basin 07
(Seneca-Oneida-Oswego
Rivers)
v. Study of Basin 08 (Black
River)
Report on Basin Study
will provide data on the
Niagara River input to Lake
Ontario
Report on Basin Study
Report on Basin Study
Report on Basin Study
Report on Basin Study
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
12/89
12/91
12/9!
12/91
12/91
Basin studied under NYSDEC's Rotating Intensive Basin
Studies (RIBS) program in 1987-1988 and 1993-94.
NYSDEC has also used a device called "PISCES" to study
sources of toxic chemicals into the Niagara River basin
(results in 4/96 report "Trackdown of Chemical
Contaminants to the Niagara River from Buffalo,
Tonawanda, and North Tonawanda").
NYSDEC has used a device called "PISCES" to study Lake
Ontario tributaries (results in 4/96 report "Trackdown of
Chemical Contaminants to Lake Ontario from New York
State Tributaries"). Study of dioxin -contaminated sediments
in 18-mile Creek in 1989-92 (results in 6/94 report)
Basin studied under RIBS program in 1989-1990. Multi-
disciplinary study of the lower Genesee River conducted in
1992 and 1993 (results in 8/95 report). The study included
fish tissue sampling, fish population studies, sediment and
water sampling, macroinvertebrate study, and sediment
Basin studied under RIBS program in 1989-1990. Oswego
Harbor water quality was studied in 1994.
Basin studied under RIBS program in 1991-1992.
IA14b. Fish Contaminant Surveillance
YES - follow up
sampling
planned.
YES
YES
YES
oi
TJ
TJ
m
z
D
X
-------
I
§
ll
-» to
ii
ACTION
IA14bi. Collect selected fish
specimens for examination for
contaminant concentration
OUTPUT
Report on toxic substances in
fish. For contaminant trend
surveillance
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
3/90
1996 STATUS
Collect selected fish specimens for examination for
contaminant concentration. Dioxin in Cayuga Creek fish
(below Love Canal, NY) studied (results in 8/93 report).
Spottail shiners collected and analyzed for toxic contaminant
levels (results in 8/94 report). Fish health in Oswego Harbor
studied in 1993 and 1994 (results in 4/95 report).
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
IA15. Stream Classification
lAlSa. Reclassification of the
waters of the Genesee River
Sub-Basin
lAlSb. Reclassification of the
water of the Lake Ontario
(proper) Sub-Basin
IA15c. Reclassification of the
Seneca-Oneida-Oswego River
Sub-Basin
LAlSd. Reclassification of the
Black River Sub-Basin
Amended stream
classifications. Stream
classifications are published in
Title 6, Chapter X of the New
York codes, Rules and
Regulations (NYCRR)
Amended stream
classifications
Amended stream
classifications
Amended stream
classifications
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
1989
1990
1990
1990
Completed.
Completed.
To be completed in 1991.
To be completed in 1991.
IA16. Potable Water - In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1986, all public water supply systems are to be in compliance with regulated drinking water
contaminants
lA16a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
i. Basic monitoring for all
13 CPWs
Compliance
Purveyors/
NYSDOH
Ongoing
Monitoring is required for certain microbiological, inorganic,
organic and radiological contaminants.
g
x
-------
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
1996 STATUS
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
lA16b. Organic Contaminants
i. Begin monitoring for 8
regulated VOCs and up to SI
unregulated organics at:
Brockport Village, Monroe
County Water Authority,
Metropolitan Water Board,
and Oswego City
ii. Begin monitoring for 8
regulated VOCs and up to SI
unregulated organics at:
Albion Village, Ontario Town
Water District, and
Williamson Water District
iii. Begin monitoring for 8
regulated VOCs and up to 51
unregulated organics at:
Lyndonville Village, Sodus
Village, Sodus Point Village,
Wolcott Village, Sackets
Harbor Village, and Chaumont
Village
Monitoring Results
Monitoring Results
Monitoring Results
Purveyors/
NYSDOH
Purveyors/
NYSDOH
Purveyors/
NYSDOH
12/31/88
12/31/89
12/31/91
CPWs serving greater than 10,000 persons must complete
monitoring by 12/88. Monitoring completed; no violations;
resamplein 1991.
CPWs serving populations between 3,300 and 10,000 must
complete monitoring by 12/31/89. Albion Village
monitoring complete; no violations; resample in 1992.
Ontario Town monitoring complete; no violations; resample
in 1992.
Williamson monitoring complete; one violation found for
methylene-chloride. Tests are ongoing to determine if lab
contamination of samples was responsible for the violation.
Follow up testing will be needed.
CPWs serving less than 3,300 persons must complete
monitoring by 12/31/91. Sodus Village monitoring
complete; no violations; resample in 1992.
Sodus Point monitoring complete; no violations; resample in
1992.
Wolcott Village monitoring complete; no violations;
resample in 1992.
Chaumont Village monitoring complete; results available
9/90.
Lyndonville monitoring complete in 6/90; available 12/90.
IAI6c. Additional Drinking Water Standards
i. Review and revise
existing drinking water
standards, as necessary
Revised Drinking Water
Standards
USEPA
continuous
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 establish
a new charter for the nation's public water systems, states,
and USEPA in protecting the safety of drinking water. The
amendments include new prevention approaches, improved
consumer information, changes to improve the regulatory
program, and funding for state and local water systems.
USEPA is currently implementing the amendments.
YES
IA17. New Initiatives
D
X
-------
ACTION
IA17a. Implement Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance
IAl7b. Implement New York
State's Clean Air/Clean Water
Bond Act
OUTPUT
Revisions to New York State
rules and regulations, and
guidance documents
addressing water quality
standards, point source permit
development, and anti-
degradation.
Capital construction projects
in the Great Lakes basin
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
DEADLINE
3/97
N/A
1996 STATUS
Draft revisions will be public noticed by 4/97.
Bond Act approved by voters.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
IB. Actions In Canada
IB1. INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES (direct discharges to the lake and its tributaries).
IB la. The Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) Program is a regulatory program designed to virtually eliminate persistent toxic contaminants from industrial sources
entering Ontario's waterways. MISA was developed by MOE in consultation with industries, interest groups, and the general public. Monitoring regulations for each industrial sector were
submitted for public review prior to their promulgation. Subsequently, Clean Water Regulations for nine major industrial sectors have been promulgated. The regulations establish daily
and monthly loading limits or concentration limits for a long range of parameters. In addition, all effluent discharges are required to be non-lethal to rainbow trout and water fleas (Daphnia
magna) when measured by a standard test. An added feature of the regulations is a requirement for each regulated plant to prepare a summary report on activities carried out under the
regulations for the previous calendar year and to make this report available to the public upon request. All industries discharging to lakes and tributaries are required to operate treatment
facilities under a Certificate of Approval (CofA) of Control Order (CO). The regulations provide for significant reductions of conventional and toxic substances and make a significant
contribution to the reduction and elimination of substances on the Ministry's primary and secondary lists of Candidate Substances for Bans, Phase-outs, and Reductions. They are also a key
component in a number of RAPs in terms of reducing contaminant loadings in Areas of Concern.
i. Organic Chemicals:
Celanese Canada Ltd.,
Millhaven
Dupont Canada Ltd., Kingston
GE Plastics Canada Ltd.,
Cobourg
Goodyear, Bowmanville
Rohm and Haas, West Hill
Clean Water Regulation for
Organic Chemical Industries.
MOE
Public Notice '88
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1993-94
- Clean Water Regulation promulgated 1995.
- Effluent limits will be in effect in 2/98.
YES
•o
-o
m
z
g
x
-------
§•
I
ACTION
ii. Iron and Steel:
Dofasco, Hamilton
Stelco, Hamilton
LASCO, Whitby
Atlas Specialty Steels
Hi. Paper & Pulp Mills:
Beaver Wood Fibre, Thorold
Domtar Fine Paper, St.
Catherines
Domtar Containerboard
Division, Trenton
Kimberley-Clark of Can. Ltd.,
St Catherines
Strathcona Paper Co.,
Napanee
QUNO Paper Co., Thorold
Thorold Specialty Papers Inc.
Sonoco, Trenton
iv. Petroleum Refineries:
Petro Canada Products Ltd.,
Mississauga
Petro Canada, Oakville
v. Metal Casting:
Chrysler Canada, Etobicoke
vi. Metal Mining &
Refining:
Cameco (3 sites: Port Hope,
Port Granby & Welcome)
OUTPUT
Clean Water Regulations for
Iron and Steel Industries.
Clean Water Regulation for
Pulp and Paper Mills
Clean Water Regulation for
Petroleum Refineries.
Clean Water Regulation for
Metal Casting Industries.
Clean Water Regulation for
Metal Mining and Refining
Industries.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
MOE
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1994-95
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1993
Public Notice '87
Monitoring Reg.
'88
Compliance Reg.
1993
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1991-92
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1993-94
1996 STATUS
- Clean Water Regulation promulgated in 4/95.
- Effluent limits will be in effect in 4/98.
- Stelco initiated coal injection in 1995, reducing coal use by
25%.
- Dofasco is replacing a blast furnace which will reduce
mercury releases
- A Strategic Options process is underway to address
benzene and PAHs.
- Clean Water Regulation in force since 1/1/96.
- All Lake Ontario mills were in compliance.
- Clean Water Regulation in force since 2/96.
- Plant is zero discharge - closed loop system.
- Clean Water Regulations promulgated 8/94.
• Effluent limits will be in effect by 8/97.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
m
z
o
X
3
«0
-------
5"
ACTION
vii. Inorganic Chemicals:
UCAR Inc., Welland
viii. Electric Power
Generatine Stations:
Ontario Hydro (Lakeview,
Pickering A and B, and
Darlington and Lennox TGS)
ix. Industrial Minerals
Essoroc Inc., Picton
Lafarge Inc., Bath
St. Mary's Cement,
Bowmanville
St. Mary's Cement, St. Mary's
St Lawrence Cement,
Mississauga
OUTPUT
Clean Water Regulation for
Inorganic Chemicals
Industries.
Clean Water Regulation for
Electric Power Generating
Stations.
Clean Water Regulation for
Industrial Minerals Industries.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1993-94
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
'89
Compliance Reg.
1993-94
Public Notice '89
Monitoring Reg.
•91
Compliance Reg.
•94
1996 STATUS
- Clean Water Regulation promulgated 2/95.
- Effluent limits will be in effect 2/98.
- Clean Water Regulation promulgated in 4/95.
- Effluent limits in effect 4/98.
- Clean Water Regulation promulgated in 1994.
- Effluent limits in effect 8/97.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
IB 1 b. Federal Regulations of Direct Discharges
Pulp and Paper Regulations
Wood Preservation Codes of
Practice
National Pollutant Release
Inventory
Regulation under section 34 of
CEPA for 8 pulp and paper
mills in Lake Ontario basin.
Codes of practices for wood
preserving operations using
creosote, penta-chlorophenol,
and chromate-copper-arsenate.
Required annual reporting of
emissions to land, air, and
water from a list of 187
chemicals.
EC
EC and MOE
EC
Early notice given
1990.
Public notice 1991.
May 1992 Reg.
promulgated.
Compliance Reg.
12/92
4/88
Section 16 of
CEPA promulgated
3/93. Industries
must report releases
for 1993 by 6/1/94.
- All regulations in effect
- Ongoing audit visits by EC and MOE staff. Environment
Canada is presently developing strategic options for the
Wood Preservation sector.
- On schedule.
- 1994 submissions by companies have been received.
YES
YES
YES
IB2. INDIRECT DISCHARGES AND SEWER USE
•o
m
z
O
X
Tl
-------
if
c
I
ACTION
a. Sewer-Use Control Program
b. Updated Model Sewer
Use By-law and identified
emerging needs
c. Revision of Municipal
Act (MA)
d. Enhanced Sewer Charge
System (ESCS) for use by
municipalities.
OUTPUT
Enforcement of local sewer
use by-laws and addressing of
contaminants based on
municipal concerns/priorities.
Inclusion of revisions based
on municipal application and
experience with 1988 Model
Sewer Use By-law.
More effective implementation
of sewer use programs and by-
laws by municipalities through
the inclusion of clearer powers
in new MA.
The ESCS will be offered for
municipal adoption on a
voluntary basis to promote
pollution prevention by
charging for any loading of
any parameter.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Municipalities
AMO.MEA,
MOE, All
interested
municipalities.
MOE/MMAH,
Municipalities
MOE/MMAH,
Municipalities
DEADLINE
1997
1997
1996 STATUS
- Voluntary implementation of sewer use options such as
pollution prevention, best management plans, Model Sewer
Use By-law, and cost recovery options.
- Program under development in 96/97 with fmalization in
1997.
- Summarization of revisions/additions and incorporation
into new Model Sewer Use By-law.
- Program under development in 96/97 with fmalization in
1997.
- MOE requested by municipalities to include clearer powers
in the new MA to enhance the ability of municipal sewer use
staff in the sewer use implementation.
- Scheduling of MA revisions will determine implementation
date of new MA and timing when options can be used.
- Under development in late 1996.
- Municipal review and potential pilot.
- MOE review with respect to MA and OWRA prior to
approval of ESCS for municipal usage.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
IB3. MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
a. Regulation
Effluent limits for CBOD,
TSS, and P for all STPs.
MOE, owners of
STPs
- Regulation under development for Ministerial
consideration.
YES
k omiNO nvi no •
D
X
-------
i
i
ACTION
b. Policy on Disinfection,
Toxicity, and Phosphorus
c. Performance self assessment
requirements
d. Optimization of Sewage
Treatment Plants
e. Harmonization with
Environment Canada's actions
to address chlorinated
effluents.
OUTPUT
Updating and confirmation of
policies for STP operation.
Indication of need for
optimization based on
performance of process units
in a STP.
Increased efficiency of STP
operations to meet limits and
maximize hydraulic capacity.
Matching of Federal
requirements with Provincial
regulations and/or guidelines
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
Operators of STPs
Owners and
operators of STPs
EC; MOE
DEADLINE
1996/97
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
- Policies to be confirmed to address rationale for new
policies based on impact on the environment and financial
impacts to achieve the policies.
- To be confirmed and developed in 1996/97.
- Could be part of STP regulation.
- Under review.
- Status of package to be determined.
STB of MOE currently reviewing and implementing
optimization in conjunction with Water Environment
Association of Ontario (WEAO),
Ongoing consultation with Environment Canada staff.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
IB4. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
IB4a. Plan and construct CSO Abatement Facilities
i. Implement a
comprehensive
implementation plan to
improve water quality in the
St. Catharines area receiving
waters.
ii. Implement CSO and STP
abatement alternatives to
reduce CSO and STP
bypasses in the regional
municipality of Hamilton-
Wentworth
Improved water quality in St.
Catharines by reducing CSO
and STP bypasses.
Improved water quality in
Hamilton by sizing CSO
storage facilities to reduce
CSO bypass and incorporate a
process known as "Step Feed
Control" to reduce STP
bypasses by 90%.
City of St.
Catharines;
City of Thorold;
Regional
Municipality of
Niagara;
MOE
Regional
Municipality of
Hamilton-
Wentworth; MOE
Completed
Completed
- Construction of CSO control facilities in the Port Dalhousie
and Geneva Street areas is complete.
- MOE supported construction with approximately $1.2 M
jobs; Ontario Capital Fund grant.
- Construction of CSO control facilities in the James St. and
Waterfront Park areas is complete.
- MOE supported construction of these first two tanks with
approximately S2.2 M jobs; Ontario Capital Fund grant.
- The construction of a third tank is underway.
- STP plan report to be completed.
YES
YES
a
x
•n
-------
ACTION
m. Develop, install, and
evaluate a computerized
system for reducing the
number and volume of CSOs.
iv. Construct CSO storage
facility, regional municipality
of Hamilton- Wentworth.
v. Implement a
comprehensive plan to
improve water quality in the
Kingston area receiving
waters.
vi. A study of water quality
in Don River, Humbcr River,
and Mimico Creek to provide
base line data to guide future
studies.
vii. Develop CSO and STP
abatement alternatives for
Humber STP sewer drainage
area.
viii. Develop CSO and STP
abatement alternatives for the
Main STP sewer drainage
area.
OUTPUT
Improved water quality in
Cootes Paradise by reducing
CSO bypasses.
Improved water quality by
building a 72,000 m' CSO
storage facility to reduce
overflow to one event per year
for a 2,000 acre drainage area.
Improved water quality and
reduced number of beach
postings by reducing CSO
and STP bypass; improved
stormwater quality.
Humber River Water Quality
Management Plan.
Don River Water Quality
Management Plan.
Improved water quality and
reduced number of beach
closings by abating bypasses
at Humber STP.
Improved water quality and
reduced number of beach
closings by abating bypasses
at Main STP.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Regional
Municipality of
Hamilton-
Wentworth;
MOE
Regional
Municipality of
Hamilton-
Wentworth;
MOE
City of Kingston;
MOE
Metro Toronto;
Area
Municipalities;
MOE (Toronto
Area Watershed
Management
Strategy
(TAWMS)
Metro Toronto;
MOE
Metro Toronto;
MOE
DEADLINE
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
1996 STATUS
- Phase I is complete.
- Phase II is underway.
- MOE is supporting project with $0.22 M Beach
Improvement Program grant.
- Facility is preforming as designed.
- In-line CSO control tanks have been constructed.
- MOE supported construction with approximately S0.2 M
jobs; Ontario Capital Fund grant
- Emery Creek stormwater management pond Environmental
Study Report being prepared with $0.05 M Waterfront Water
Quality Improvement Program grant.
- Design of Black Creek (Rockcliffe) CSO Detention Tank
and Keele St.
- Trunk Relief Sewer underway.
MOE supporting design preparation with approx. $0.2 M
Beach Improvement Program grant.
- The Main STP EA is ongoing.
- MOE supporting EA preparation with approx. $0.4 M
Beach Improvement Program grant.
- High rate treatment project evaluated the processes at
bench scale.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
D
X
-------
I
§
ACTION
ix. Construct stormwatcr and
CSO storage tanks (2,250m3
and 8,000m') at Toronto
Eastern Beaches.
OUTPUT
Improved water quality and
reduced number of beach
closings by constructing
retention tanks for CSO and
stormwater runoff.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
City of Toronto;
MOE
DEADLINE
Completed
1996 STATUS
- MOE supported construction of first tank with approx. S0.4
M Beach Improvement Program grant.
- Monitoring has confirmed the effectiveness of the first
tank.
-Tank concept reconfirmed in the City of Toronto's Sewer
System Master Plan.
- Construction of the second tank is completed.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
IB4b. Combined Sewer Overflows - New Initiatives.
Develop a phased, cost-
effective implementation
program for CSO and
stormwater pollution control
in the City of Toronto.
Develop a Provincial CSO
control procedure.
Sewer System Master Plan
that improves water quality
and reduces beach closings in
the City of Toronto.
Procedure F-5-5
Determination of Treatment
Requirements for Municipal
and Private Combined and
Partially Separated Sewer
Systems.
City of Toronto;
MOE
MOE
Completed
12/93
- The City is implementing the Sewer System Master Plan.
- The first phase of the plan included the construction of the
second tank in the Eastern Beaches mentioned above.
- The city is proceeding with the second phase which calls
for the construction of a deep tunnel along the Western
Beaches.
- Draft Procedure was posted on the electronic registry
established under the Environmental Bill of Rights in 1996
for public review.
- Document is being revised accordingly and will be
finalized in 1996.
YES
YES
IBS. STORMWATER DISCHARGES
a. Prepare Master Drainage
Plans (MDP) that include
stormwater quality controls.
b. Prepare stormwater
management plan.
Master Drainage Plans (MDP)
Stormwater Management Plan
Municipalities
Developers
Ongoing
Ongoing
- Ontario announced three documents to assist in
Subwatershed and Watershed Planning in developing areas
in 1993.
- MDP replaced by Subwatershed and Watershed Planning.
- Stormwater Management Plans are being developed
according to Stormwater Management Practices Planning
and Design manual that was completed in 1994.
YES
YES
•o
-o
m
g
x
-------
ACTION
c. Include stormwater
management controls during
construction of new
development
d. Implement a
comprehensive
implementation plan to
improve water quality in the
St. Catharines receiving
waters.
e. Implement a comprehensive
implementation plan to
improve water quality in the
Kingston area receiving
waters.
f. TAWMS (Toronto Area
Watershed Management
Strategy)
A study of water quality (Don
River, Humber River, and
Mimico Creek) to provide
base line data to guide future
studies.
g. Develop state-of-the-art
stormwater quality control
measures.
h. Guide municipalities and
developers to best stormwater
quality control practices.
i. Guide industrial direct
discharges to prepare a
Stormwater Control Plan to
meet Stormwater Control Plan.
OUTPUT
Stormwater Management
Control Programs
Improved water quality by
reducing CSO and STP bypass
as a result of a phased
implementation plan.
Improved water quality by
reducing CSO and STP bypass
and improve stormwater
quality as a result of phased
implementation plan.
Humber River Water Quality
Management Plan.
Don River Water Quality
Management Plan
Stormwater Quality Best
Management Practices review
document to assist
municipalities
Stormwater Management
Practices Planning and Design
Manual to guide
municipalities to control
stormwater.
MISA Guidelines for
conducting a Stormwater
Control Study.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Developers
City of St.
Catharines; City
ofThorold;
Regional
Municipality of
Niagara;
MOE
City of Kingston;
MOE
Metro Toronto;
MOE
MOE
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
1993
1996 STATUS
-See Table IB4a.
-See Table IB4a.
- Plan of STP expansion and use of polymer addition to
enhance nutrient removal plan but no biological treatment.
- See Table IB4a.
- Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices manual
completed in 1991.
- Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design
manual completed in 1994.
• "Windows" based version of SWMP manual prepared and
distributed.
- Draft document prepared.
- Document is being finalized.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
D
X
•n
-------
ACTION
j. Municipalities prepare
subwatershed plans that
include stormwater quality
controls.
OUTPUT
Subwatershed Plans
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Municipalities
IB6. OTHER NON-POINT SOURCES
a. Environmental Farm Plans
Program
b. Pesticide Management
c. Candidate Substances List
for Bans, Phase-outs, or
Reductions
Integrated farm management
plans prepared and reviewed
by farmers.
1) Classification of pesticides,
education, and licensing of
applicators
2) 50% reduction in pesticide-
use under Food Systems
2002.
Developed a list of hazardous,
persistent substances that
should be given priority for
banning, phasing-out, or
use/release reduction.
Agricultural
Adaptation
Council; AAFC;
OMAFRA
MOE
OMAFRA
MOE
DEADLINE
Voluntary
Ongoing
Ongoing
2002
Completed
1996 STATUS
- Ontario has announced three documents to assist in
Watershed and Subwatershed Planning in developing areas.
- Approximately SO Subwatershed Plans are currently being
developed or completed across the province.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
- Up to 7500 farmers have voluntarily completed
Environmental Farm Plans and received incentives ($1500)
for positive environmental changes identified in their EFP
Action Plan by 1996.
- MOE is currently revising the pesticide applicator licensing
system to harmonize with recently developed national
guidelines.
- Food Systems 2002 goal of 50% reduction of pesticides is
proceeding on schedule.
- Field staff are delivering/developing Integrated Pest
Management information for the industry.
- A revised multimedia version of the Candidate Substances
for Bans or Phase-outs report was released in 10/93 and five
pesticides were banned: aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane,
chlordecone (a breakdown product of mirex) and endrin.
- Lake Ontario Critical Pollutants are on the primary list.
YES
YES
YES
m
D
X
T]
sr
o
-------
•I
i
ACTION
d. Pesticide Container
Management
OUTPUT
Reduced potential for leaching
from landfill sites by
providing collection and
recycling of agricultural and
commercial pesticide
containers.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Ontario Pesticide
Container
Management
Committee which
has
representatives
from Industry,
Municipalities,
Farm Groups,
OMAF.and
MOE.
DEADLINE
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
- Program expanded to 175 collection sites in 1996.
- Plastic containers recycled into agricultural products such
as fence posts. Pesticide residue test on the plastic resin and
dislodgability tests on the plastic products are being
conducted.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
IB7. AIR TOXICS
a. Development of a
comprehensive model to
estimate deposition on Eastern
North America
b. Monitoring Atmospheric
Deposition at six monitoring
stations for 1ADN
Quantify amounts (loadings)
of toxics being deposited to
Great Lakes and small remote
lakes
Ontario integrated into the
Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network (IADN)
Cooperative
project between
MOE, Germany,
and EC (AES).
MOE, EC
Completed
Ongoing
- A working model for mercury deposition, in place in 1991,
was used to identify data and model development needs.
- A new mercury chemistry module has been developed and
it is currently being put into the full model.
- An updated mercury emission inventory for the United
States has been obtained but has not as yet been adapted for
use in model simulations.
- A research institute in Germany is developing the necessary
input data to run the mercury model for Europe.
- Due to a lack of resources at MOE much of the current
work is being done by the research institute in Germany.
- The most recent loadings for 11 organochlorine (OC)
substances, five metals, and 4 PAHs have been summarized
in a multi-author paper.
- A large buoy equipped with sensors and computer
equipment was placed mid-lake south of Toronto to measure
the exchange of pesticides and OCS between the atmosphere
and the Great Lakes.
- Findings are similar to previous estimates. However, it is
now recognized that the Great Lakes can be a source of some
toxic chemicals in some seasons.
YES
D
X
-------
ACTION
c. Hamilton Air Quality
Initiative
d. Development of a
comprehensive annual
emissions inventory for SO2,
NO,, VOC, CO, and
p articulate
e. Develop an air toxics
emissions inventory around
the Great Lakes (based on
stationary source information
compiled in the 1992 survey).
Air toxics from area sources
will also be estimated.
OUTPUT
Determination of sources,
estimation of impacts on
environment and human health
in Hamilton-Wentworth, user
friendly health write ups and
short and long term
recommendations for
improvements in air quality in
Hamilton- Wentworth
Identification of point sources
of air pollutants and
estimation of their emissions
around the Great Lakes
Improved determination of
point sources of air pollutants
around the Great Lakes
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE; EC;
Hamilton;
McMaster
University;
Stakeholders
MOE; EC
MOE; EC
DEADLINE
1993
1996 STATUS
- Hamilton Initiative is currently being implemented to
include not only health implications of air emissions but also
environmental impacts.
- Initiative involves multi-stakeholders in the integration of
all available data into a GIS display, determining the relative
importance of sources including transportation, developing a
"user friendly" health review, polling attitudes of local
citizens to air quality including economic valuation of
improvements and actions to improve air quality. An
educational component is also being developed with the
Lung Association and the Boards of Education.
- Ongoing.
- To be completed.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
IBS POLLUTION PREVENTION
• BUtfUVIMVJ MCMUX) M NVU11
m
z
o
X
-------
II
sl
I
ACTION
a. MOE promotes and
encourages pollution
prevention through a variety
of instruments to target
facilities discharging to the
Great Lakes, including:
- voluntary partnerships
delivered through
Memorandum of
Understanding and other
voluntary arrangements. The
Ministry has established 6
MOUs to date (e.g. Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers
Association) and 8 other
partnerships involving a
number of sectors
- voluntary partnerships
delivered through the
Pollution Prevention Pledge
Program (P4). About 200
facilities are registered in the
P, program.
- provision of tools, education
and training to foster the
implementation of pollution
prevention
- demonstrating Ministry
leadership by incorporating
pollution prevention principles
in various MOE and
government programs and
policies
OUTPUT
Reduction at the source of
toxic substances/wastes
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE; EC;
Industry;
Municipalities;
Institutions;
Associations
DEADLINE
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
- Progress is being made towards eliminating the use of 65
targeted substances in the motor vehicle manufacturers
sector which has many of its largest plants in Oakville,
Toronto, and Oshawa. Of particular interest is the progress
made to reduce or eliminate PCBs. MVMA reports a
reduction of 889 tons of PCBs through various pollution
prevention projects including:
- destruction of PCBs at GM Canada, St. Catharines
engine/foundry plant using PCB destruction technology
developed by "Eco-Logic" - 800+ tons to be destroyed.
- removal of some 10.5 tons of PCB containing electrical
equipment from manufacturing areas at plants in St.
Catharines and Oshawa.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
IB9 RAPs
• aurovvm NOUTO w MTU n
O
X
•n
-------
ACTION
a. Develop RAP for Hamilton
Harbour
b. Develop RAP for Metro
Toronto Waterfront
OUTPUT
RAP
RAP
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE; EC
MOE; EC
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
Major causes of use impairments include point and non-point
source pollution, contaminated sediment, combined sewer
overflows, and shoreline and land use development. The
RAP Stage 2 Recommended Plan was formally submitted to
the governments in 2/93. Formal provincial and federal
responses were issued in 1 1/94. The complete Stage 2
document including the implementation annex, which was
completed in 7/95, was transmitted to the HC by the
governments in 9/95. Estimated costs for implementing the
RAP are in the order of $800-900 M, with the majority of
costs falling upon municipalities for combined sewer
overflow control and sewage treatment upgrading.
About $128 M has been spent on water quality and habitat
improvements over the past five years; of which $76 M has
been by Stelco and Dofasco.
Polluted stormwater runoff from urban and rural sources,
overflows of combined sewage, and sewage treatment plant
discharges are all major concerns. The RAP Stage 2
Recommended Plan was completed in 5/94. The provincial
response was transmitted to the Public Advisory Committee
(PAC) in 7/96. The City of Toronto has built two detention
tanks to capture stormwater and combined sewer overflows
during storm events. The captured water is then processed
by the sewage treatment plant after the storm flow recedes.
The tanks, which cost $12.8 M, have resulted in fewer beach
closures. A major concern of the PAC continues to be
implementation of the RAP recommendations and the
organizational restructuring of the Metro Toronto and
Region RAP process to facilitate this objective. A
memorandum of understanding is being negotiated between
MOE, EC, Metro Toronto, and Region Conservation
Authority and the Waterfront Trust, with the latter taking the
leadership of RAP implementation.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
g
x
•n
I
§
i!
-*»
-------
II
o
sr
ACTION
c. Develop RAP for Port Hope
d. Develop RAP for Bay of
Quinte.
OUTPUT
RAP
RAP
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE; EC
MOE; EC
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
Due to radionuclide content of the harbor sediment as a
result of past waste management practices in the refining and
processing of uranium and radium during the 1930s and 40s,
the sediment has been classified as low-level historic
radioactive waste. This has caused a cessation to
maintenance dredging in the harbor. The Stage 2 process for
this Area of Concern is dependent on the siting process for
the establishment of a low-level radioactive waste site in
Ontario. A host volunteer community is being sought in the
siting process, and assessment work is ongoing at 3 sites.
Diffuse agricultural inputs, contaminated sediment, sewage
treatment plants, industrial discharges, and urban runoff are
among the pollution sources contributing to use
impairments. The Bay of Quinte Stage 2 Recommended
Plan was submitted to the governments in 9/93. The PAC
received the formal provincial response in 7/95, and the
formal federal response in 8/95. The complete Stage 2
Report with the Implementation Annex is scheduled to be
transmitted to the IJC in winter 1996. An aggressive land-
owner contact program is addressing agricultural sources,
and STP optimization is proceeding. To provide innovative
"market-driven" solutions to achieve and maintain the
recommended Bay of Quinte RAP phosphorus loading
capacity, a study to assess the feasibility and opportunities
for permit trading was initiated in 1996. The study includes a
review of point to non-point source trading, an optimization
model to identify potential trades, and a consideration of
jurisdictions! and program management needs. The action is
needed to sustain environmental quality, allow innovative
economic development to proceed, and provide cost-
effective options for municipalities.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
IB10 SPILLS
D
X
-n
-------
ACTION
Investigate environmental
damage by each spill to:
evaluate adequacy of clean-up;
and enforce legislated
responsibilities imposed on
dischargers
OUTPUT
Ensures reporting to
government of
spills and cleanup of spilled
materials.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
- Annual reports ongoing.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
IB11.DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
a. Identify all active
dredging locations and open
water dredged material
disposal areas
b. Develop MOE sediment
quality objectives and dredged
soil disposal guidelines to take
into consideration biological
effects
c. Identify areas where
dredged sediment is unsuitable
for open Lake disposal (hot
spots) and areas where levels
exceed the Lowest Effect
Limit (LEL).
d. Investigate alternative
disposal methods, including
confined or land disposal
Maps of disposal areas
Guidelines to be applied to
dredging projects
Maps of hot spots
Identification of alternatives to
open lake disposal
MOE
MOE
MOE; EC
MOE
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
IB12. WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Obtain site specific data to
assess hazard it poses to
lumans and the environment
Site specific report
MOE
Ongoing
- Activities are ongoing.
- Maps are available for each region.
- Information also available from Public Works Canada.
- Sediment Quality Objectives, containing dredged material
disposal guidelines, released 6/92 by Minister.
- MOE also has 3-volume handbook (2/91) for dredging and
dredged material in Ontario.
- RAP teams identify and compile tables or maps of
contaminated sites in the AOCs. EC and MOE compile
information on contaminated sediments outside of AOCs.
EC assists in GIS mapping for AOCs where contaminated
sediment is a priority.
- Various demonstration projects.
YES
YES
YES
YES
- No landfill sites with problems have been identified to date
in the Lake Ontario basin.
- Each landfill site is handled on a case-by-case basis should
problems be discovered.
YES
IB13. SOLID WASTE
O
X
-n
i
-------
ACTION
a. Review Ontario Regulation
347
b. Product Stewardship
OUTPUT
Streamline requirements; gear
site approvals requirements to
risk; harmonize definitions of
hazardous waste with the
federal definitions
Propose to expand number of
wastes to be included in
Selected Waste Depots and
streamline requirements under
regulatory reform project.
Propose to introduce a
voluntary "manufacturer
controlled network" provision
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
- Consulted on proposals as part of Regulatory Reform
project from 7/31 to 10/15/96. Proposals suggest
streamlining administrative and approvals processes.
Revised regulation will be drafted in 1997.
- Consulted on proposals as part of Regulatory Reform
project from 7/31 to 10/15/96. Revised regulation will be
drafted in 1997.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
IB14. SLUDGE DISPOSAL
a. Monitor IS parameters (11
of which are metals) in sludge
that is to be disposed of on
agricultural land
b. Monitor hazardous
contaminants in sludge
generated from municipal
facilities as part of the MISA
program
c. Determine if sludge
complies with standards for
organic contaminants for
sludge used on agricultural
lands
Ensure that sludge is safe for
applying to agricultural land
Review adequacy of standards
for safety of sludge.
To better ensure that sludge is
safe for applying to
agricultural land
MOE
MOE; OMAFRA;
MOH (through
sludge utilization
committee)
MOE; OMAFRA;
MOH
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
- Formerly 2 guidelines on sewage sludge and other wastes.
Consolidated into one guideline (Guidelines for the
Utilization of Biosolids and Other Wastes on Agricultural
Land, 3/96) with sampling and analytical protocols added.
YES
YES
YES
IBIS. AMBIENT WATER MONITORING
IBlSa. Conduct Ongoing Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
NOUflO » NW II j
m
z
D
X
-------
§
&
ACTION
i. Provincial Water Quality
Monitoring Network
ii. Great Lakes Nearshore
Monitoring
iii. Great Lakes Intake
Monitoring
OUTPUT
Monitor water quality at
approx. 300 stream stations
and loadings at 17 major
tributaries to the Great Lakes
for nutrients, inorganics,
organics, pesticides, and
bacteria
a. On a lake-by-lake rotation,
systematically monitor
nearshore long-term water
quality, sediments, and biota
in areas outside the Areas of
Concern
Regular data from 1 8 intakes
for nutrients and algae
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
- Data and interpretation available on request to
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch. Network
reviewed annually.
- Data and interpretation available on request to
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch. Annual
planning and surveys coordinated with Environment Canada.
- Provides indication of nearshore trophic status with a good
historical record.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
IBI5b. Conduct Ongoing Monitoring of Biota
i. Fish Contaminant
Monitoring Program
ii Juvenile Fish Contaminants
Surveillance
iii. Nearshore
Phytoplankton Monitoring
iv. Long Term Sensing Sites
Annual publication "Guide to
Eating Ontario Sport Fish" to
ensure safety of public eating
sport fish.
Data summaries provided to
the IJC biannually. Journal
paper on Lake Ontario
currently under preparation.
Part of Nearshore Great Lakes
Program. Data summaries
provided to agencies upon
request
Interpretive Report
MOE/MNR
MOE
MOE
MOE
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
- Monitoring continues at a growing number of sites
annually.
- 1995/96 "Guide to Eating Ontario Sports Fish" produced.
- "Present status and temporal trends of organochlorine
contaminants in young of the year spottail shiners from Lake
Ontario" was published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Science.
- Sampling occurs annually at S water treatment plant intakes
in the Lake Ontario basin.
- Monitor 12 long-term sites for PCBs, organochlorine
pesticides, chlorophenols, chlorobenzenes.
- Sampling on Lake Ontario/ Niagara River conducted last in
1994; biota studies related to benthic communities.
YES
YES
YES
YES
IBlSc. Conduct Site-specific Studies
o
X
-------
ACTION
i. Toronto Waterfront:
Assessing contaminants
associated with suspended
participates
iv. Metro Toronto
Waterfront trace contaminant
inputs from CSOs and storm
sewers, STPs, and 6
Tributaries.
OUTPUT
Interpretive Report
Interpretive Report of
contaminant inputs from
municipal and tributary
sources.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
DEADLINE
Completed
Completed
1996 STATUS
- Data and interpretation available on request to
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch.
.-Final Report: "Dry weather Discharge to the Metropolitan
Toronto Waterfront 4/93."
-Final Report: "Wet Weather Discharges to the Metropolitan
Toronto Waterfront 1/92."
-Draft Report: "Wet Weather Discharges to the Metropolitan
Toronto Waterfront, 1/93."
-Report "Tributary Discharges to Metropolitan Toronto
Waterfront" is in progress.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
IB16. DRINKING WATER SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
a. Monitor all drinking
water supplies in Lake Ontario
basin
b. Review existing Drinking
Water Standards and revise as
necessary
DWSP monitors 18 locations
which use Lake Ontario as a
drinking water source and
serve a combined population
of 4.13 M. Samples gathered
from raw, treated, and
distribution sites are analyzed.
At each location 190
parameters are analyzed,
including pesticides,
trihalomethanes, volatiles,
chlorinated organics, dioxin,
and rurans from 2-12 times
per year. Notification is sent
immediately if any parameter
exceeds a health guideline.
Stringent water quality
standards objectives including
health, aesthetic, and
operational guidelines. The
health guideline for
trihalomethanes (THMs) was
lowered to 100 ug/L in 6/96.
MOE
MOE; EC
Ongoing
Ongoing
- Increased number of parameters studied from 160 to 190.
- Bowmanville was added to the sites to be monitored in
1995.
- A group of disinfection by-products, haloacetic acids, were
added in 1995.
- A survey of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was
initiated in 1995.
- Reports for 1993-1995 drinking water quality data, for
individual treatment facilities, will be available from the
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch in 12/95.
- Ontario's Drinking Water Objectives numbers were revised
in 1990.
- The revised publication is expected to be available 9/94.
YES
YES
IB 17. NEW INITIATIVES
O
X
Tl
-------
ACTION
a. Canada-Ontario Agreement
Respecting the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem (COA)
In 7/96, COA was signed by
both Ontario and the federal
government The agreement
called for the coordinated
action to restore, protect and
conserve the Great Lakes
ecosystem in three areas or
streams:
1 . restore degraded areas
2. prevent and control
pollution
3. conserve human and
ecosystem health.
b. Incineration Guidelines
OUTPUT
Progress on specific targets
within each area or stream
Guideline A-7 - Combustion
and Air Pollution Control
Requirements for New
Municipal Waste Incinerators.
The guideline provides
rigorous emission limits for
new municipal waste
incinerators. The new
emission limits are for
participate, hydrogen chloride,
sulphur dioxide, lead,
cadmium, and mercury.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE;EC;MNR;
OMAFRA;
industrial and
municipal
associations;
DFO; Health
Canada;
Agriculture
Canada
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
Completed
1996 STATUS
- First progress Report under the 1994 Canada -Ontario
Agreement was released in the fall of 1995. Key highlights
with respect to reductions of toxic substances under COA
Stream 2 include:
- approx. 35% or 3600 tons of Ontario's high-level liquid
PCBs (10,500 tons) have been decommissioned and placed
in storage as of 1994.
- a small amount (240 tons or 1.3%) of Ontario's high-level
PCB wastes (18,600 tons) in storage was destroyed at
Smithville, ON.
- approx. 17,000 tons of low-level PCB liquids or 15% of
Ontario's total low-level PCBs (1 15,000 tons) have been
destroyed. The remainder consists of 98,000 tons of PCB
waste including 90,000 tons of contaminated soil.
- Total annual releases in Ontario of seven Tier 1 substances
(alkyl lead, benzo(a)pvrene> hexachlorobenzene, mercury,
octachlorostyrene, 2,3,7,8 - TCDD and TCDF) are estimated
to be about 23,000 kg. Dioxin/furan releases are less than
1% of the total.
- A COA report is in progress on the objective to confirm
zero discharge of five priority pesticides in Ontario.
- PCB destruction and decommissioning progress in 1995 is
being compiled and reviewed.
- Updating of progress towards the goal to achieve a 90%
reduction is being tracked through voluntary partnerships
such as pollution prevention (p4 MOUs), ARET, and SOP.
Guidelines were released in 1/96.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
D
X
•n
-------
ACTION
c. Decommissioning
Guidelines (Guidelines for Use
as Contaminated Sites in
Ontario)
d. Landfill Standards
e. Standards Development
f. PCB Tracking Technology
OUTPUT
The guideline provides advice
and information to property
owners and consultants to use
when assessing the
environmental condition of a
property, when determining
whether or not a restoration is
required, and in determining
the kind of restoration needed
to allow continued use or
reuse of the site.
Comprehensive new landfill
standards are needed to ensure
new or expanded landfills are
fully protective of the
environment, and to bring
additional clarity and certainty
to the landfill approval
process.
Development of
environmental quality
standards to protect human
health and the ecosystem.
International partnership to
develop an innovative
computer model for predicting
groundwater flow and
contaminant migration at
Smithville Industrial Park
PCB storage site.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
MOE
MOE
MOE; University
of Waterloo;
McMaster
University; EC;
USEPA
DEADLINE
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
1996 STATUS
Released in 6/96 replacing the Ministry's Guidelines for the
Decommissioning and Clean-up of Sites in Ontario (2/89)
and the Interim Guidelines For the Assessment and
Management of Petroleum Contaminated Sites in Ontario
(8/93).
The public comment period on proposed standards was from
6/1 7 to 9/696. The review of public comments and
preparation of final standards is underway.
Key elements of the proposed standards include
requirements for siting, design, operation, monitoring,
protecting ground and surface waters, and controlling landfill
gas.
The proposal for a 3-year standard setting plan was posted
on the Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Registry
on 10/1096 for a 60 day comment period.
The Ministry has developed a comprehensive set of
standards in the last 20 years, including:
Provincial Water Quality Guidelines, Provincial Sediment
Quality Guidelines, Ontario Drinking Water Objectives, Air
Standards, Biota Guidelines, Ontario Typical Range (for
soils, vegetation, snow), Soil and Ground Water Criteria for
Use at Contaminated Sites, Compost Guidelines and Sewage
Sludge Guidelines.
MOE signed an agreement on 5/10/96 with the University of
Waterloo. The University will head an international
partnership team. The model could be used at other
contaminated sites with similar geological characteristics.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
D
X
-------
ST
ACTION
Accelerated Reduction /
Elimination of Toxics (ARET)
Priority Substances List
The Environmental Choice
Program
Pest Control Products Act
OUTPUT
Voluntary reductions of
emissions of 101 targeted
substances to air, land, and
water of both direct and
indirect discharging industry
and businesses. The goal is
90% reduction of persistent
bioaccumulative toxic
substance emissions and a
50% reduction of other toxic
substances emissions by the
year 2000. By tying this
voluntary program to the
National Pollutant Release
Inventory the amounts of
chemicals reduced will be
tracked.
44 substances are required to
undergo scientific risk
assessments.
Identification of products that
are less harmful to the
environment than other similar
products on the market by the
Ecologo.
Requires all pest control
products used or imported into
Canada to be registered and
carry labeling as prescribed in
the Regulation.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
EC
EC
EC
EC
DEADLINE
1996 STATUS
- On Schedule.
- To date 10,000 tons of toxic substances have been reduced
or are targeted for reduction by the 170 responding
companies.
24 of the 44 substances were determined to be toxic and
control options to reduce exposure are being evaluated under
the Strategic Options Process. A second Priority Substance
List (PSL2) of the 25 substances was published in 12/95.
Established program where manufacturers apply to be
Environmental Choice products. Their products are
evaluated against criteria and receive a license to use the
Ecologo symbol. Hundreds of products have been licensed
with the logo.
Ongoing
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
YES
YES
YES
o
X
•n
ll
8
-------
II
I
ACTION
New Substance Notification
Regulation
OUTPUT
Improved control over
hazardous chemical use in
Canada. Prior to introducing
new substances in Canada
CEPA requires importers and
manufacturers to submit data
for the government to assess.
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
EC
DEADLINE
1996 STATUS
The "Domestic Substances List" and "Non-domestic
Substances List" were published in 1/91.
CARRIED
OVER INTO
LO LAMP
YES
• ounce*
6
D
X
•n
-------
Planned Actions Driven by Special Efforts
in Geographic Areas of Concern
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
CARRIED OVER INTO
LOLAMP
HA. DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PLANS TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS IN IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONCERN
IIA1. Implement the U.S.-
Canada Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan (NRTMP)
See NRTMP
Reports
Four Agencies
Ongoing
On 12/3/96 the Four Parties signed a
tetter of support recommitting
themselves to the goals set out in the
Declaration of Intent
YES
IIB. DEVELOP REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS TO ADDRESS IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN
IIB1. Develop RAP for
Eighteenmile Creek
IIB2. Develop RAP for
Rochester Embayment
HB3. Develop RAP for
Oswego River
HB4. Develop RAP for Bay of
Quinte
HB5. Develop RAP for Port
Hope
IIB6. Develop RAP for
Toronto Waterfront
RAP
RAP
RAP
RAP
RAP
RAP
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
MOE; EC
MOE; EC
MOE; EC
1993
1991
1991
3rd qtr. 1989
NYSDEC plans to complete Stage 1
development of RAP in 1994.
Stage 1 RAP completed in 1/93.
Currently under review.
Stage 2 and annual RAP update
completed.
Stage 1 report "Environmental
Conditions and Problem Definition"
submitted to IJC, fourth quarter
1990. Remedial options are
currently under assessment by
agencies and the public. Stage 2
report completed and scheduled for
submission to the government of
Canada and Ontario, 9/93.
Implementation of many
recommendations ongoing.
Completion of Stage 2 dependent
upon time table for findings of
federal task force for low level
radioactive waste.
Stage 2 report completed.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
TJ
TJ
m
z
D
X
-------
II
fl
c
i
ACTION
IIB7. Develop RAP for
Hamilton Harbour
OUTPUT
RAP
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE; EC
DEADLINE
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
Hamilton Stage 2 report submitted to
governments 2/93. Bay Area
Implementation Team and Bay Area
Restoration Council established.
Over 75% of recommendations
currently being acted upon.
CARRIED OVER INTO
LOLAMP
YES
D
X
-------
Planned Actions Associated with Zero Discharge
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
CARRIED OVER INTO LO
LAMP
VIIA. Zero Discharge Commitments in the United States
VIIA1. Implement
direct/indirect industrial
and municipal discharge
limitations
VIIA2. Review all Best
Professional Judgement
(BPI) guidelines and revise
as requited by evolving
technology on a five-year
cycle.
VIIA3. Implement projects
under NYSDEC's Pollution
Prevention Unit
VIIA4. Finalize and
implement the Great Lakes
Water Quality Guidance
VILAS. Implement testing
program for commercial
pesticide active
Revised BPJ
guidelines within
five-year interval
- Report on
development of
regulations for
pollution
prevention.
- Report on industry
conferences.
- Anti-degradation.
- Consistent water
quality standards
and point source
control procedures
for Great Lakes
states.
Testing of 600
chemicals
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC/
USEPA
USEPA
See items I A 1,1 A2, and
IA3
1/94
Ongoing
3/97
Ongoing to a 1998
deadline
NYSDEC expects to have its
rulemaking package out for public
review by 4/97 and hopes to adopt
those rules by the fall of 1997.
Implementation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance.
This will result in consistent state
water pollution control programs
through the U.S. Great Lakes
States.
YES
YES
YES
YES
TJ
m
g
x
-------
O
I
ACTION
VIIA6. Conduct multi-
media P2/WM inspections,
report findings
VIIA7. Development of
Toxics Reduction Strategy
VIIA8. Report on 33/50
voluntary initiative
OUTPUT
P2/WM options for
facilities
discharging priority
toxics
Identify, assess and
reduce toxic inputs.
Reduce releases and
off-site transfers of
target chemicals
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
USEPA/
NYSDEC
USEPA
USEPA
DEADLINE
9/93
Ongoing
7/94
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
In 1993, USEPA conducted
pollution prevention inspections
of 7 industrial facilities in the
Lake Ontario basin. The facilities
included manufacturers of
electrical insulators, treated wood
products, metal cans, cardboard
food cartons, etc. Of the 491,000
Ibs. of pollutants that were
emitted by these facilities
(estimated through permits and
waste reports) pollution
prevention measures
(implemented as a result of
inspections) resulted in the
elimination of an estimated
212,800 Ibs. (43%) of these
pollutants.
The Four Parties (USEPA, EC,
MOE, NYSDEC) will be
determining the steps necessary to
further identify, assess, and reduce
toxic inputs to Lake Ontario.
USEPA 's 33/50 program targeted
17 toxic chemicals for reduction
through voluntary partnerships
with industries throughout the
U.S. Starting from a 1988
baseline, the program's goals were
to reduce releases of the targeted
chemicals by 33% in 1992 and by
50% in 1995. In New York, 230
facilities participated. From a
1988 baseline of 72.9 million Ibs.
of toxic chemicals released, the
most recent data available (1994)
show a reduction of 49.8 million
Ibs. Final tallies are still being
calculated but the 1994 data
demonstrate that the 50% goal has
already been achieved.
CARRIED OVER INTO LO
LAMP
Completed
YES
Completed
0
X
-------
ACTION
OUTPUT
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
DEADLINE
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
CARRIED OVER INTO LO
LAMP
VIIIB. Zero Discharge Commitments in Canada
V1HB1. Implement the
Municipal Industrial
Strategy for abatement
(MISA) Program for:
i-Direct Industrial and
Municipal Discharges
ii-Indirect Discharges
V1I1B2. Bam and Phase-
out Report
VniB3. Bans and Phase-
out Report
VII1B4. Implement
projects under the
Comprehensive Waste
Management Funding
Program:
-Municipal Rs Program
-Industrial Rs Program
-Household Hazardous
Waste Program
VIIIBS. Implement
pesticides management
components of "Food
System 2002"
•Ontario Pesticides
Education Program
-Research-Integrated Pest
Management
Effluent Limit
Regulations for 9
industrial sectors
and the municipal
sector; Effluent
Limit Regulation for
industrial discharges
to municipal
systems
Report on Candidate
Substances list for
Bans and Phase-outs
Public consultation
on selection of
substances for bans
and phase-outs
50% reduction in
pesticides use
Fanner education
programs
Solicited research
program
MOE
MOE
MOE/EC
MOE
Ontario Ministry
of Agriculture
and food(OMAF)
MOE/OMAF
MOE/OMAF
See items IB1 and IB2
Completed revision in
preparation; scheduled
for 6/93
Ongoing
2002
Ongoing
Ongoing
Revised revision under discussion
with OMAF.
Ontario involved in Federal area
program (multi-stakeholder
consultation).
The Comprehensive Waste
Management Funding Program is
being reviewed as part of the
overall plan for waste
management in Ontario. The 3 Rs
are: reduction, reuse, and
recycling. Disposal programs
assist municipalities in planning
and construction of landfills and
remediation of existing problems.
Over 1 1,500 farmers attended
education courses. MOE agreed
training will be mandatory by
1991 . At least 425 courses for 1 1-
12,000 farmers are planned for
1990/91. A total of $2.1 million
of S3 .9 million in research funds
are allocated and projects are
underway.
See Tables IB 1 and IB2
Delay expected in releasing
revised report due to OMAF
concern for pesticides.
Blue box programs now extend
to over 3 million households in
the Province collecting over
440,000 t/year. Over 680,000
composters have been supplied
to homes in partnership with
municipalities. The Province
has diverted 25% of its waste
from landfills (1987 to 1992)
and plans to divert 50% by year
2000.
D
X
-------
II
ff
g"
I
ACTION
VIIIB6. Fund and conduct
research programs and
technology development
OUTPUT
Industrial process
change to reduce
loadings
Innovative
technology to
enhance reduction,
recycling, recovery
and reuse of waste
materials
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
MOE
DEADLINE
Ongoing
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
MOE distributes $1.5 to 2 million
annually to university and
contract researchers for issues
related to the aquatic
environment, the atmosphere,
waste management, pollution
prevention, waste reduction, and a
variety of other issues such as
pesticide control.
CARRIED OVER INTO LO
LAMP
MOE is conducting and
supporting varied research
relating to toxics in Lake
Ontario, including
-eliminating contaminants from
the aquatic atmospheric and
terrestrial environments through
improved industrial agricultural
and municipal waste treatment
and pollution prevention
measures.
-developing sophisticated
procedures and equipment to
analyze and identify the sources
distribution and fate as well as
the environmental and human
health significance of hazardous
materials in the environment
g
x
•n
-------
ACTION
VIIIB7. Implementation of
the Canadian
Environmental Protection
Act
OUTPUT
A new regulatory
framework
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Environment
Canada
DEADLINE
To be established
STATUS AS OF NOVEMBER
1996
Implementation of a CEPA will
include:
The development of a
comprehensive regulatory scheme
to control toxic substances at each
stage of the life cycle from
development and manufacture
through transport, distribution,
use, and storage and to their
ultimate disposal as waste.
The creation of a "living" list of
priority substances subject to
ongoing assessment for health and
environmental impacts and
control actions including
regulatory restrictions.
The imposition of a requirement
on industry to supply the data
necessary to allow for evaluation
and assessment before materials
are permitted to enter Canada.
CARRIED OVER INTO LO
LAMP
Implementation of a Canadian
Environmental Protection Act
will include: authority to control
introduction into Canadian
commerce of substances new to
Canada; authority to obtain
information on and require
testing of both new substances
and substances already existing
in Canadian commerce;
provision to control all aspects
of the life cycle of toxic
substances from their
development, manufacture or
importation, transport,
distribution, storage, and use,
their release into the
environment at various phases of
their life cycle, and their
ultimate disposal as waste;
provision to create guidelines,
codes, and regulations for
environmentally sound practices
as well as objectives to set
desirable environmental quality
levels. This activity is ongoing.
g
x
Tl
if
•* oi
If
-------
APPENDIX G
REFERENCES
Lake Ontario LaMP G~1
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• DU LAC ONTAMO
References Used To Develop This Document—Organized by Major Topic
General Background
Cluett, S. 1995. Summary of the Reported 1995 Commercial Fish Harvest in New York Waters of Lake
Ontario. NYSDEC Lake Ontario Annual Report. 1995. Cape Vincent, New York 13618.
Flint, R.W. and R.J.J. Stevens. 1989. Lake Ontario a Great Lake in Transition. Great Lakes Monograph No.
2. Great Lakes Program, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York and Water Quality Branch,
Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. March 1989.
Hoyles and Harvey. 1997. Commercial Fisheries, Part II, Resource Use. 1996 Annual Report. Lake Ontario
Fisheries Unit. OMNR.
IJC. 1987. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, International Joint Commission, United
States and Canada, November 18,1987.
IJC. 1991. Review and evaluation of the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan Program 1991. Great Lakes
Water Quality Board, Report to the International Joint Commission. June 1991. ISBN 1-895085-25-X.
Kerr, S.J. and G. LeTendre. 1991. The state of the Lake Ontario fish community in 1989. Special
Publication No. 91-3, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
November 1991,38pp.
LOTMP. 1989. Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, A report by the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee,
Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. February 1989.
LOTMP. 1991. Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, 1991 Update. A report by the Lake Ontario
Secretariat, Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. September 1991.
LOTMP. 1993. Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, 1993 Update. A report by the Lake Ontario
Secretariat, Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ontario Ministry of Energy
and the Environment, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. November 1993.
Mackay, D. 1989. Modeling the Long-Term Behavior of an Organic Contaminant in a Large Lake:
Application to PCBs in Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 15(2):283-297. International
Association of Great Lakes Research.
NYSDED. 1991. Summary Population Characteristics for New York Areas. Prepared by New York State
Department of Economic Development, State Data Center, March 6,1991.
Rang, S., J. Holmes, S. Slota, D. Byrant, E. Nieboer, and H. Regier. 1992. The impairment of beneficial
uses in Lake Ontario. Final report submitted to the Great Lakes Environment Office, Environment
Canada. Contract Number KA401-0-0700/01-XSE. February 28,1992.
Lake Ontario LaMP ~
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Secor, C.L., E.L. Mills, J. Harshbarger, H.T. Kuntz, W.H. Gutenmann, D.J. Lisk. 1993. Bioaccumulation of
toxicants, element and nutrient composition, and soft tissue histology of zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorphd) from New York State waters. Chemosphere. Vol. 8, No. 8 pp. 1559-1575.
Sly, P.O. 1990. The Effects of Land Use and Cultural Development on the Lake Ontario Ecosystem since
1750. Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science, Suite 404, One Nicholas St., Ottawa, Ontario, KIN 7B7.
Sly, P.G. 1991. The Effects of Land Use and Cultural Development of the Lake Ontario Ecosystem since
1750. Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science, Suite 404, One Nicholas St., Ottawa, Ontario, KIN 7B7.
Statistics Canada. 1994. Human Activity and the Environment. National Accounting and Environment
Division.
USEPA, Environment Canada, Brock University, and Northwestern University. 1987. The Great Lakes:
An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book.
USEPA and NYSDEC. 1994. Lakewide Impacts of Critical Pollutants on United States Boundary Water
of Lake Ontario. A report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Water Management
Division, Niagara Frontier Programs Office, 26 Federal Plaza, NY, NY 10278 and New York State Dept.
of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Great Lakes Section, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New
York 12233-3508. June 1994.
Fish & Wildlife Consumption Advisories
Armstrong, R.W. and R.J. Sloan. 1980. Trends in Levels of Several Known Chemical Contaminants in Fish
from New York State Waters. June 30, 1980.
Cain, B.W. 1982. Nationwide residues of organochlorine compounds in wings of adult mallards and black
ducks, 1979-1980. Pestic. Monit. J. 15:128-134.
Connelly, N.A. and B.A. Knuth. 1993. Great Lakes fish consumption advisories: Angler response to
advisories and evaluation of communication techniques. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department
of Natural Resources, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Fernow Hall, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
DOH. 1993. 1993-1994 Health Advisories, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, 1993-1994, Center for
Environmental Health, 2 University Place, Albany, New York 12203-3399. April 1993.
Foley, R.E. and G.R. Batcheller. 1988. Organochlorine Contaminants in Common Goldeneye Wintering on
the Niagara River. Journal of Wildlife Management, 52(3):441-445.
Foley, R.E. 1992. Organochlorine Residues in New York Waterfowl Harvested by Hunters in 1983-1984.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 21:37-48.
Heath, R.G. and S.A. Hill. 1974. Nationwide organochlorine and mercury residues in wings of adult mallards
and black ducks during the 1969-70 hunting season. Pestic. Monit. J. 7:153-164.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• DO LAC ONTARIO
Kim. H., K.S. Kim, J.S. Kim, and W. Stone. 1985. Levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, DDE, and mirex in
waterfowl collected in New York State, 1981-1982. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:13-18.
Kim, K., M. Pastel, J.S. Kim, and W. Stone. 1984. Levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, DDE, and mirex in
waterfowl collected in New York State, 1979-1980. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13:373-381.
Knuth, B.A. and C.M. Velicer. 1990. Receiver-centered risk communication for sportfisheries: Lessons from
New York Licensed Anglers. Paper presented at: American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting,
Pittsburgh, PA. August 1990. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
Olafsson, P.G., A.M. Bryan, B. Bush, and W. Stone. 1983. Snapping Turtles - A biological screen for PCB's.
Chemosphere. 12( 11,12): 1525-1532.
Prouty, R.M. and C.M. Bunck. 1986. Organochlorine residues in adult mallard and black duck wings.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 6:49-57.
Ryan, J.J., B.P.-Y. Lau, J.A. Hardy, W. Stone, P. O'Keefe, and J.F. Gierty. 1986.2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin and related dioxins and furans in snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) tissues from the upper
St. Lawrence River. Chemosphere. 15(5):537-548.
Skinner, L.C. 1990a. "Lake Ontario Contaminant Trends". NYSDEC Bureau of Environmental Protection,
interoffice memo. May 10,1990.
Skinner, L.C. 1990b. "Dioxin in Lake Ontario Fish". NYSDEC Department of Environmental Protection,
interoffice memo. September 7, 1990.
Skinner, L.C. 1991. "Lake Ontario Contaminants-1991 Spring Collections". NYSDEC Bureau of
Environmental Protection, interoffice memo. October 4, 1991. 10pp.
Skinner, L.C. 1992. "Lake Ontario-Contaminants in Fish". NYSDEC Bureau of Environmental Protection,
interoffice memo. October 26, 1992.
Skinner, L.C. 1993. "FDA Analytical Results". NYSDEC Bureau of Environmental Protection, interoffice
memo. June 10, 1993.
Skinner, L.C. and R.W. Bauer 1989. Lake Ontario Contaminant Trend Analysis. NYSDEC. 3/17/89.
Skinner, L.C. and R.W. Bauer. 1992. "Near shore Contaminants in Young Fish From New York's Great
Lakes Basin". NYSDEC, Bureau of Environmental Protection, interoffice memo. July 22, 1992.
Skinner, L.C. and R.W. Bauer. 1993. NYSDEC Protocol: Special Fish Collections from the Great Lakes
Basin for Chemical Analyses. 2/26/93.
Skinner, L.C. and E.G. Horn. 1985. Policy on Chemical Contaminants in Fish: New York State, NYSDEC.
Lake Ontario LaMP 6-5
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Skinner, L.C. and S.J. Jackling, 1989. Chemical contaminants in young of the year fish from New York's
Great Lakes Basin: 1984 through 1987. Tech. Rep. 89-1 (BEP). Division of Fish and Wildlife, NYSDEC,
Albany, 43 pp.
Sloan, R. 1987. Toxic Substances in Fish and Wildlife: Analyses sine* May 1, 1982. NYSDEC Bureau of
Environmental Protection, Albany, 182 pp., 5/1/87.
Stone, W., E. Kiviat, and S.A. Butkas. 1980. Toxicants in Snapping Turtles, New York Fish and Game
Journal. Vol. 27, No. 1.
Swift, B.L., R.E. Foley, and G.R. Batcheller, 1993. Organochlorines in Common Goldeneyes Wintering in
New York, Wild. Soc. Bull. 21:52-56.
Suns, K., G. Crawford, D. Russell, and R. Clement 1985. Temporal trends and spatial distribution of
organochlorinc and mercury residues in Great Lakes spottail shiners (1975-1983). Ontario Ministry of
the Environment. Rexdale, 24 p.
Suns, K., G. Hitchin. and D. Toner. 199 la. Spatial and temporal trends of organochlorinc contaminants in
spottail shiners (Notropis husonius) from the Great Lakes and their connecting channels (1975-1988),
Water Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Rexdale, 97 p.
Suns, K., G. Hitchin, and E. Adamek. 1991b. Present Status and Temporal Trends of Organochlorine
Contaminants in Young-of the-Year Spottail Shiners (Notropis husonius) from Lake Ontario. Can. J.
Fish. Aq. Sc. 48:1568-1573.
Suns, K. and G. Hitchin. 1992. Species-specific Differences in Organochlorine Accumulation in Young-of
the-Year Spottail Shiner, Emerald Shiners, and Yellow Perch. J. Great Lakes Res. 18(2):280-285.
Suns, K..G. Hitchin, and D. Toner. 1993. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Organochlorine Contaminants
in Spottail Shiners from Selected Sites in the Great Lakes (1975-1990). J. Great Lakes Res. 19(4):703-
714.
USEPA. 1992. National Study ofChcmical Residues in Fish, Vol. 1 & 2. Office of Science and Technology,
Standards and Applied Science Division, EPA 823-R-92-008a. September 1992.
Vena, J.E. 1992. Risk perception, reproductive health risk and consumption of contaminated fish in a cohort
of New York State anglers. Year I progress report of the New York State Angler Cohort Study, February
14, 1992. Department of Social and Prcvcntative Medicine, School of Medicine, 270 Farber Hill,
University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, 14214.
White, D.H. 1979. Nationwide residues of Organochlorine compounds in wings of adult mallards and black
ducks, 1976-77. Pestic. Monit. J. 13:12-16.
White. D.H. and R.G. Heath. 1976. Nationwide residues of organochlorines in wings of adult mallards and
black ducks, 1972-73. Pestic. Monit. J. 9:176-185.
L*** Ontario L»MP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Tainting of Fish & Wildlife Flavor
DEC. 1991, Water Quality Regulations: Surface Water and Ground water Classifications and Standards, New
York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-705, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
DEC and MCDPD. 1993. Rochester Embayment, Remedial Action Plan, Stage 1, August 1993. New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and Monroe County Department of Planning and
Development.
Heil, T.P. and R.C. Lindsay. 1990. Environmental and industrial factors relating to flavor tainting offish in
the upper Wisconsin River. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, B25{4): 527-552.
Jardine, C.G. and A.B. Bowman. 1990. Spanish River Remedial Action Plan, Fish Tainting Evaluation,
Spanish Harbour Remedial Action Plan. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Northeastern Region,
Technical Report SR-90-01, 15 pp.
Degraded Fish Populations
Christie, WJ. 1972. Lake Ontario: effects of exploitation, introductions and eutrophication on the salmon id
community. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 29:913-929.
Christie, W.J. 1973. A review of the changes in fish species composition of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission Technical Report No. 23, 65 pp.
DEC. 1993a. 1993 Annual Report, Report of the Lake Ontario Committee to the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, G. LeTendre [ed.]. Division of Fish and Wildlife, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York 12233.208 pp.
DEC. 1993b. New York State, Ontario Revises Lake Ontario fish stocking plans. News release, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, April 7,1993. NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New
York 12233-1020.
Edsall, T.A, C.L. Brown. G.W. Kennedy, J.R.P. French. 1992. Surficial substrates and bathymetry of five
historical lake trout spawning reefs in near-shore waters of the Great Lakes. Technical report 58, Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, 2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209. Ann Arbor. MI 48105-1563. October
1992.
Eshenroder, R.L., T.P. Poe, and C.H. Oliver. 1984. Strategies for rehabilitation of lake trout in the Great
Lakes: Proceedings of a conference on lake trout research, August 1983. Technical report No. 40. Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor Michigan.
GLFC. 1993. 1993 Annual report, Bureau of Fisheries, Lake Ontario Unit to the Lake Ontario Committee
and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. April 1993. Prepared by Bureau of Fisheries, Lake Ontario
Unit and NYSDEC Region 6-9 Fisheries Management Units and Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources -
Lake Ontario Unit.
L»k* Ontario L*UP
Mmy1999
-------
APPENDIX G
GLFC. 1994. 1994 Annual report. Bureau of Fisheries, Report of the Lake Ontario Committee to the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. June I 1994. GLFC Annual Meeting. Agenda Item #9.
Guincy, P., E. Zabcl, R. Peterson, P. Cook, J. Cassclman, J. Fitzsimons, H. Simonin. 1993. Abstract:
Assessment of Lake Ontario lake trout for 2,3,7,8-tctrachlorodibcnzo-p-dioxin equivalents (TEQs)-
induccdsac fry mortality in 1991. In Proceedings: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
14th Annual Meeting. Houston. Texas. November 1993.
IJC. 1987. The 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Appendix B, Great Lakes Surveillance, Vol. 1,
[eds.] D.E. Ratke and G, McRae. Great Lakes Water Quality Board report to the International Joint
Commission.
IJC. 1990. Proceedings of the Roundtable on Contaminant-caused reproductive problems in salmonids.
Executive Summary, [eds.] M. Gilbertson and M. Mac. Windsor, Ontario, September 24 and 25, 1990.
ISBN 1-895085-41-1.
Kcrr. SJ and G. LcTcndrc. 1991. The state of the Lake Ontario fish community in 1989. Special Publication
No. 91-3. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor Ml 48105. November 1991.
38pp.
Krucgcr. C.C. Personal communication. Department ofNatural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853.
Krucger. C.C., D.L. Perkins, E.L. Mills, and J.E. Marsden. 1994. Alewife predation of lake trout fry in Lake
Ontario: role of exotic species in preventing native species restoration. Submitted to: Rehabilitation of
Lake Trout in the Great Lakes: A critical assessment. J. Great Lakes Res., Internal. Assoc. Great Lakes
Res. Version. 1/28/94.
Langc, R. and P. Smith. 1993. Signs of Change in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem. Fact sheet developed by
Great Lakes Fishery Section, New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the Lake
Ontario Fisheries Unit. Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources. Distributed by NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road,
Albany, New York 12233.
Langc, R. Personal communication. Great Lakes Fisheries Head, Bureau of Fisheries, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New
York 12233.
Mac, M. 1990. Lake trout egg quality in Lakes Michigan and Ontario. In Proceedings of the Roundtable on
Contaminant-caused reproductive problems in salmonids. Executive Summary, [eds.] M. Gilbertson and
M. Mac. Windsor, Ontario, September 24 and 25, 1990. ISBN 1-895085-41-1.
Mac, J.M. and C.C. Edsall. 1991. Environmental Contaminants and the reproductive success of lake trout
in the Great Lakes: an epidemiological approach. J. of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 33:375-
394.
Marsden, J.E.. C.C. Kruegcr. and C.P. Schneider. 1988. Evidence of natural reproduction by stocked lake
trout in Lake Ontario. J. Great lakes Res. !4(l):3-8.
~" ~"~ Uk* Ontario UATP
-------
APPENDIX G
Marsden, J.E. and C.C. Krueger. 1991. Spawn ing of hatchery origin lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and
diver observations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 48:2377-2384.
Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources. 1990. Lake Ontario Fisheries Unit, 1989annual report. Lake Ontario
Committee Annual Meeting (Minutes). March 28-29, 1990. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, p. 441-
591.
Perkins, D.L. and C.C. Krueger. 1992. Dynamics of lake trout reproduction: distribution and density of eggs
and fry on cobble substrate. Final report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, August 28, 1992.
Department ofNatural resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
Schaner, T., C.P. Schneider, T.H. Eckert, J.H. Elrod, R. O'Gorman, and R.W. Owens. 1993. Lake trout
rehabilitation in Lake Ontario, 1992. 1993 Lake Ontario Committee Report, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Lake Ontario Committee Meeting, March 23-24, 1993. Niagara Falls, NY.
Schneider, C.P., D.P. Kolenosky, and D.B. Goldthwaite. 1983. A joint plan for the rehabilitation of lake trout
in Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Lake Ontario Committee, Special Publication, 50
pp.
Schneider, C.P., T. Schaner, J.E. Marsden, and W.D. Busch. 1990. Draft Lake Ontario Lake Trout
Rehabilitation Plan. Lake Trout Technical Committee. Lake Ontario Committee. Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission.
Schneider, C.P., T.H. Eckert, J.H. Elrod, R. O'Gorman, and R.W. Owens. 1995. Lake Trout Rehabilitation
in Ontario, 1995. In 1995 Annual Report to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, NYSDEC. Lake
Ontario Unit.
Simonin H., J. Skea, H. Dean, and J. Symula. 1990. Summary of Reproductive studies of Lake Ontario
salmonids. In Proceedings of the Roundtable on Contaminant-caused reproductive problems in
salmonids. Executive Summary, [eds.] M. Gilbertson and M. Mac. Windsor, Ontario, September 24 and
25, 1990. ISBN 1-895085-41-1.
Walker. M.K., J.M. Spitsbergen, J.R. Olson, and R.E. Peterson. 1991.23.7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) toxicity during early life stage development of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 48:875-883.
Fbh Tomors
Baumann, P.C., W.D. Smith, and M. Ribick. 1982. Hepatic tumor rates and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon levels in two populations of brown bullheads (Icialurus nebulasus). In Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Physical and Biological Chemistry, [eds.] M. Cooke, AJ. Dennis and G.L.
Fisher, pp 93-102. Columbus Ohio: Battellc Press.
Bowser, P.R., MJ. Wolfe, J. Reimer, and B.S. Shane. 1991. Epizootic papillomas in brown bullheads
(Jctaiunu nebulosus) from Silver Stream Reservoir, New York. Dis. Aquat. Org. 11:117-127.
G-9
-------
• OU UC ONTARIO
APPENDIX G
Black, J.J., P.P. Dymerski, and W.F. Zapisek. 1980. Fish tumor pathology and aromatic hydrocarbon
pollution in a Great Lakes estuary. In: Afgan, B.K.. and D. Mackay [eds.]. Hydrocarbons and halogenated
hydrocarbons in the environment, pp. 559-565.
Black, J.J. 1983. Field and laboratory studies of environmental carcinogenesis in Niagara River Fish. J.
Great Lakes Res. 9(2):326-334.
Black, J.J., H. Fox, P. Black, and F. Block. 1985. Carcinogenic effects of river sediment extracts in fish and
mice. In: R.L. Joley et al. [eds.] Water Chlorination: Chemistry, environmental impacts and health
effects. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Vol. 1:55-81.
Cairns, V.W. and J.D. Fitzsimons. 1988. The occurrence of epidermal papillomas and liver neoplasia in
white suckers (Catostomus commersoni) from Lake Ontario. Abstract in: Niimi, A.J. and K.R. [eds.]
Proceedings of the fourteenth annual aquatic toxicity workshop: Nov. 2-4,1987.
Government of Canada. 1991. Toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and associated effects. Vol. II - Effects.
Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health and Welfare Canada, March 1991.
Hayes, M.A., I.R. Smith, T.H. Rushmore, T.L. Crane, C. Thorn, T.E. Kocal, and H.W. Ferguson. 1990.
Pathogenesis of skin and liver neoplasms in white suckers from industrially polluted areas in Lake
Ontario. The Science of the Total Environment, 94:105-123.
Harshbarger, J.C. and J.B. Clark. 1990. Epizootiology of neoplasms in bony fish of North America. Science
of the Total Environment 94:1-32.
Hickey, J.T., R.O. Bennett, and C. Merckel. 1990. Biological indicators of environmental contaminants in
the Niagara River: Histological evaluation of tissues from brown bullheads at the Love Canal-102nd
Street Dump Site compared to Black Creek, reference site. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York
Field Office, 100 Grange Place, Room 202, Cortland, New York 13045.
LeTendre, G. 1993.1993 Lake Ontario Committee Report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1992.
Lake Ontario Program Summary, Lake Ontario Fisheries Unit, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Cape Vincent, New York, 13618.
Mix, M.C. 1985. Cancerous diseases in aquatic animals and their association with environmental pollutants:
a critical review of the literature. Final report for the American Petroleum Institute. 239 p.
Rice, C. 1990. Preliminary Investigations of "tumors" in brown bullheads from Lake Ontelaunee, Ontelaunee
and Maiden Creek Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special
Report 90-1. State College, PA.
Smith, I.R., K.W. Baker, M.A. Hayes, and H.W. Ferguson. 1989. Ultrastructure of malpighian and
inflammatory cells in epidermal papillomas of white suckers (Catostomus commersoni). Dis. of Aquatic
Organisms 6:17-26.
Smith, I.R. and B.A. Zajdlik. 1987. Regression and development of epidermal papillomas affecting white
suckers (Catostomus commersoni), from Lake Ontario, Canada. Journal of Fish Diseases 10:487-494.
-------
APPENDIX G
• DU LAC ONTARIO
Sonstegard, R.A. 1977. Environmental carcinogenesis studies in fishes of the Great Lakes of North America.
Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 298:261-232.
Spitsbergen, J. M. Personal communication. Dept. of Avian and Aquatic Animal Medicine, College of
Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14853.
Wolfe, M. 1986. Pathology Report, Salvelinus namaycush, Charity Shoal, Lake Ontario, September 9-10,
1986. Cornell University, Dept. of Avian and Aquatic Animal Medicine.
Bird and Animal Reproduction Problems and Deformities
Addison, E.M., G.A. Fox, and M. Gilbertson. 1991. Summary, In: Proceedings of the Expert Consultation
Meeting on Mink and Otter, Windsor, Ontario, March 5 and 6,1991. International Joint Commission,
ISBN 1-895085-32-2.
Anderson, D.W. and J.J. Hickey. 1972. Eggshell changes in certain North American birds, Proc. Int.
Ornithol. Congr. (15):514-540.
Aulerich, R.J. and R. Ringer. 1977. Current Status of PCB Toxicity in Mink and Effect on Their
Reproduction. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. (6):279-292.
Best, D. 1992. Reproductive impairment of bald eagles along the Great Lakes shorelines of Michigan and
Ohio, and association with contaminant residues in addled eggs. In: Proceedings of the third expert
consultation meeting on bald eagles in the Great Lakes Basin, International Joint Commission, Windsor
Ontario, February 25 to 26, 1992.
Bishop, C.A., D. Weseloh, N.M. Burgess, J. Struger, R.J. Norstrom, R. Turle, and K.A. Logan. 1992. An
Atlas of Contaminants in Eggs of Fish-eating Colonial Birds of the Great Lakes (1970-1988) Vols 1 and
2. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series Nos. 152 and 153. Ontario Region.
Blokpoel, H. and D.V. Weseloh. 1982. Status of colonial waterbird nesting on Little Gal loo Island, Lake
Ontario. Kingbird. Summer 1982. pp. 149-157.
Blokpoel, H. and G.D. Tessier. 1988. The ring-billed gull in Ontario: a review of a new problem species.
Can. Wild. Serv. Prog. Notes No. 87.
Blokpoel, H. and G.D. Tessier. 1996. Distribution and abundance of colonial waterbirds nesting on Lake
Ontario, 1976 to 1987. Can J. Fish. Aquatic Sci.
Bowerman, W., D. Best, T. Kubiak, S. Postupalsky, J. Giesy, and D. Tillit. 1991. Bald eagle reproductive
impairment around the Great Lakes: association with organochlorine contamination, In: Cause and Effect
Linkages II Symposium Abstracts, Michigan Audubon Society, September 27-28,1991. Traverse City,
Michigan.
Broley, C.L. 1952. Eagle Man, Pelligrine and Cudahy, New York, NY. 210 pp.
Lake Ontario LaMP Q-11
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Courtney, P.A. and H. Blokpel. 1983. Distribution and numbers of common terns on the lower Great Lakes
during 1900-1980: A review. Colonial Waterbirds 6:107-120.
Custer, T.W., R.M. Erwin, and C. Stafford. 1983. Organochlorine residues in common tem eggs from nine
Atlantic coast colonies. 1980. Colonial Waterbirds 6:197-204.
DEC. 1993. Draft Niagara River Remedial Action Plan, Volume I, March 1993, Albany, New York.
Edwards, M. 1970. (43). Uninhabited island in Lake Ontario. Audubon Field Notes 24:767-768.
Eisler, R. 1985. Selenium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish Wild.
Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.5). 57pp.
Eisler, R. 1986. Chromium hazards to fish wildlife and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish Wild.
Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(1.6). 60 pp.
Eisler, R. 1987. Mercury hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 85(1.10). 90 pp.
Ewins, P.J. and D.V. Weseloh. 1994. Effects on Productivity of Shooting of Double-crested Comorants on
Pigeon Island, Lake Ontario, in 1993. J. Great Lakes Res. 20(4):761-767.
Fimreite, N. 1971. Effects of dietary methy Imercury on ring-necked pheasants. Canadian Wildlife Service,
Occasional Papers No. 9.
Foley, R.E., S.J. Jackling, R.J. Sloan, and M.K. Brown. 1988. Organochlorine and mercury residues in wild
mink and otter: comparison with fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:376-374.
Folcy, R.E., T. Martin, and G. Caputo. 1991. Mink and Otter in New York State: Contaminants and
preliminary population studies, In: Proceedings of the Expert Consultation Meeting on Mink and Otter,
Windsor, Ontario, March 5 and 6,1991.12 pp. International Joint Commission, ISBN 1-895085-32-2.
Fox, G.A. 1976. Eggshell quality: its ecological and physiological significance in a DDE-contaminated
common tern population. Wilson Bull. 88:459-477.
Fox, G.A., D.V. Weseloh, T.J. Kubiak, T.C. Erdman. 1991. Reproductive outcomes in colonial fish-eating
birds: A biomarkcr for developmental toxicants in Great Lakes food chains, J. Great lakes Res
17(2): 153-157, Internal. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., 1991.
Gilbertson, M. 1974. Pollutants in breeding herring gulls in the lower Great Lakes. Can. Field Naturalist
(88):273-280.
Gilbertson, M. 1975. A Great Lakes tragedy. Nature Canada 4:22-25.
Gilbertson, M. 1983. Etiology of chick-edema disease in herring gulls in the lower Great Lakes
Chemosphere 12:357-370.
Lafc* Ontario L»MP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Gilbertson, M and R. Hale. 1974. Early embryonic mortality in a colony of herring gulls in Lake Ontario.
Can. Field Naturalist 88:354-356.
Gilbertson, M., R.D. Morris, and R.A. Hunter. 1976. Abnormal chicks and PCB residue levels in eggs of
colonial waterbirds on the lower Great Lakes (1971-1975). Auk 93:434-442.
Government of Canada. 1991. Toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and associated effects, Vols. 1 and 2,
Environment Canada, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Health and Welfare Canada Cat. No. En 37-
95/1990-1E, ISBN 0-662-18317-7, March 1991.
Hall, E. and K. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. Ronald Press Co., New York. 1083 pp.
Harper, L.H. and J.E. Fontaine. 1991. Conservation and Management of St. Lawrence River/Lake Ontario
common terns (Sterna hirundo), 1991 Final report, St. Lawrence University, Dept. of Biology, Canton,
New York 13617.
Hartsough, G. 1965. Great Lakes Fish Now Suspect as Mink Food. American Fur Breeder. 38:25.
Heaton, S.N., R.J. Auerlich and S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillit, J.A. Render, and T.J. Kubiak. 1989.
Reproductive effects in mink fed carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. Presented at Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Tenth Annual Meeting, Toronto 1989.
IJC. 1992. Preamble. In: Proceedings of the third expert consultation on bald eagles in the Great Lakes basin.
[ed.] M. Gilbertson., February 25 to 26,1992. ISBN 1-895085-42-X.
Karwowski, K. Personal communication. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services, New York Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, New York, 13045.
Karwowski, K. 1992. Draft biomonitoring report and assessment of environmental contaminants in breeding
common terns (Sterna hirundo) of the St. Lawrence River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York
Field Office, 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, New York 13045.
Kirk, R.J. 1971. Fish meal, higher cereal levels perform well. U.S. Fur Rancher 50:4-6.
Kurita, H., J.P. Ludwig, and M.E. Ludwig. 1987. Results of the 1987 Michigan Colonial Waterbird Project
on Caspian Terns and Double-crested Cormorants: Egg Incubation and Field Studies of Colony
Productivity, Embyrologic Mortality and Deformities. Ecological Research Associates, Inc., Bay City,
MI, report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Linscombe, G., N. Kinler, and R. Aulerich. 1982. Mink. In: J. Chapman and G. Feldhamer [eds.], Wild
Mammals of North America: Biology, management and economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore, pp. 629-643.
Mayack, D. Personal communication. Conservation Biologist, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Hale Creek
Field Station, New York State Department of Environmental Protection.
Lain Ontario UtMP G-13
M»y1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Miller. R.L. Personal communication. Wildlife Resources Center, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Dclmar, New York 12054-9767.
Miller. R L 1992. Little Galloo Island - Field Visit, 1992. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. September 10, 1992. Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar. New York 12054-9767.
Miller. R.L. 1993. Field Visit to Little Galloo Island, Lake Ontario. New York, September 17, 1993. Field
report. Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, New York 12054-9767.
Mineau P., G.A. Fox, R.J. Norstrom, D.V. Weseloh. D.J. Hallett, and J.A. Ellenton. 19*4. Using the herring
gull to monitor levels and effects of organochlorine contamination in the Canadian Great Lakes. In:
Toxic Contaminants in the Great Lakes, [cds.] J.O. Nriagu and M.S. Simmons, pp. 425-452. New York:
Wiley.
Moore, F.R. 1976. The dynamics of seasonal distribution of Great Lakes herring gulls. Bird Banding 47:
141-159.
Morris. R.D.. I.R Kirkham. and J.W. Chardine. 1980. Management of a declining common tern colony.
Journal of Wildlife Management 44:241-245.
New York Department of State. 1991. Designated Habitat: Braddock Bay and Salmon Creek, Significant
Coastal Fish and Wildlife Program. Albany.
Nye, P. 1979. Present and historic activity of bald eagles in New York, Study No. II., Project No. E-l-3, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Endangered Species Unit, Delmar, NY 12504.
Nye, P. 1992. Status, problems, and prognosis for New York State bald eagles. In: Proceedings of the third
expert consultation meeting on bald eagles in the Great Lakes Basin, [eds.] M. Gilbertson and M. Mac.
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario February 25 to 26. 1992. ISBN I-S95085-42-X.
Pcttitl. K,, C.A. Bishop, D.V. Weseloh, and R.J. Norstrom. 1994. An Atlas of Contamination in Eggs of
Fish-eating Colonial Birds of the Great Lakes (1989-1992). Volume I. Technical Report Series No.
193. Canadian Wildlife Service. Ontario.
Platonow, N.S. and L.H. Karstad. 1973. Dietary effects of polychlorinated biphcny Is on mink. Can. J. Comp.
Med. 37:391-400.
Price, I.M. and D.V. Weseloh. 1986. Increased numbers and productivity of double-crested cormorants,
Phalacrocorax auritus, on Lake Ontario. Can Field Nat. 100:474-482.
Postupalsky. S. 1978. Toxic Chemicals and cormorant populations in the Great Lakes. Canadian Wildlife
Service Wildlife Toxicology Division Manuscript Report. No. 40.
Quilliam, H.R. 1973. The History of the Birds of Kingston, Ontario. 2nd Ed., Kingston Field Naturalists.
Kingston, Ontario.
Sealander, J. 1943. Notes on some parasites of the mink in southern Michigan. J. Parisitol. 29:361-362.
5*3~~ LateOMwfoLaMP
-------
APPENDIX G
Schiavonc. A. and D. Faulknharn. 1993. Double-crested cormorant task force report. New York Slate
Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 6, April 1993.
Shugart G.W. and W.C. Scharf. 1983. Common terns in the northern Great Lakes: Current status and
populations trends. J Field Ornithol. 54:160-169.
Sileo, L., L. Karstad, R. Frank, M.V.H. Holdrinet, E. Addison, and H.E. Braun. 1977. Organochlorine
poisoning of Ring Billed Gulls in southern Ontario. J. Wild). Dis. 13:313-321.
Stein. R., K. Bogenriedcr and R. Cull. 1991. Status of Common Terns on the Buffalo and Upper Niagara
River. 1990. Final Report, FY 1990-1991. Buffalo State College, January 31,1991.
Stein, R.C., M.S. Rajczak, and R. Cull. 1992. Status of Common Terns on the Buffalo and Upper Niagara
River. April 1991 to August 1991. Final Report, FY 1991-1992. State University College. Buffalo, NY.
Switzer. B., V. Lewin, and E.H. Wolfe. 1973. DDE and reproductive success in some Alberta Common
Terns. Can. J. Zool. 51:1081-1086.
Toweill, D. 1974. Winter food habits of river otters in western Oregon. J. Wild). Manage. 38(1): 107-111.
Toweill, D.E. and J.E. Tabor. 1982. River oner. In J. Champman and G. Feldhammer [eds.]. Wild Mammals
of North America. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, pp. 688-703.
Wescloh, D.V.. A. Bath, J. Robinson, and E. Addison. 1992. Lakes Erie and Ontario habitat surveys. In:
Proceedings of the third expert consultation meeting on bald eagles in the Great Lakes Basin,
International Joint Commission, Windsor Ontario, February 25 to 26. 1992.
Weseloh, D.V., C.A. Bishop, RJ. Norstrom. and G.A. Fox. 1991. Monitoring levels and effects of
contaminants in herring gull eggs on the Great Lakes, 1974-1990, In: Cause-Effect Linkages II
Symposium Abstracts, September 27-28, 1991. Grand Traverse Resort Traverse City, Michigan.
Michigan Audubon Society.
Weseloh. D.. T.W. Custer, and B.M. Braunc. 1989. Organochlorine Contaminants in Eggs of Common
Terns from the Canadian Great Lakes, 1981. Environmental Pollution. 59:141-160.
Weseloh, D., P. Mincau, and D J. Hal lett. 1979. Organochlorine Contaminants and Trends in Reproduction
in Great Lakes Herring Gulls, 1974-1978. Trans. 44th NA. Wildlife Natural Resources Conference.
543-557 pp.
Weseloh, D.V. Personal communication. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Burlington,
Ontario.
Weseloh, D.V. and J. Casselman. 1992. Calculated fish consumption by double-crested cormorants in
Eastern Lake Ontario. Unpublished manuscript. 15 p.
La** Ontario LaW 6-15
atoyfMt
-------
APPENDIX G
• OU LAC ONTARIO*
Human Health
Birmingham, B., A. Oilman, D. Grant, J. Salminen, M. Boddington, B. Thorpe, I. Wile, P. Tote, and V.
Armstrong. 1989. PCDD/PCDF multimedia exposure analysis for the Canadian population: detailed
exposure estimation. Chemosphere 19(l-6):637-642.
DFO and Health and Welfare Canada. 1991. Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes and Associated Effects.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Health and Welfare Canada. March 1991.
Fitzgerald, E.F., S. Hwang, K.A. Brix, B. Bush, J. Quinn, and K. Cook. 1995. Exposure to PCBs from
hazardous waste among Mohawk women and infants at Akwesasne. Report for the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.
Health Canada, Great Lakes Health Effects Program. 1995. Great Lakes Water and Your Health -A
Summary of the Great Lakes Basin Cancer Risk Assessment: A Case-Control Study of Cancers of the
Bladder, Colon and Rectum. December, 1995.
Health Canada. 1997. State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in
the Great Lakes Basin. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Ottawa.
Humphrey, H.E.B. 1983a. Population studies of PCBs in Michigan residents. In: PCBs: Human and
Environmental Hazards. D'ltri, P.M. and Kamrin, M.A., eds. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor
Science Populations; 299-310. (Cited in Kreiss, K. 1985. Studies on populations exposed to
polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Health Perspect 60:193-199).
Humphrey, H.E.B. 1983b. Evaluation of Humans Exposed to Water-borne Chemicals in the Great Lakes.
Final Report to the Environmental Protection Agency (Cooperative Agreement CR-807192). Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Department of Public Health, Center for Environmental Health Sciences.
Jacobson, J.L., H.E.B. Humphrey, S.W. Jacobson, S.L. Schantz, M.D. Mullin, and R. Welch. 1989.
Determinants of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), and
dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) levels in the sera of young children. Amer J. Publ Health
79:1401-1404.
Jacobson, J.L., H.E. Hicks, D.E. Jones, W. Cibulas, and C.T. DeRosa. 1997 (Draft). Public Health
Implications of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basin, Atlanta,
Georgia. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.
Kearney, J., DC Cole, and D. Haines. 1995. Report on the Great Lakes Angler Pilot Exposure Assessment
Study. Great Lakes Health Effects Program. Env. Health Directorate, Health Canada (Draft).
Newhook, R.C. 1988. Polybrominated biphenyls: multimedia exposure analysis. Contract report to the
Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Canada.
G-16 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• DUIACONTAMO
Swain, W.R. 1991. Effects of organochlorine chemicals on the reproductive outcome of humans who
consumed contaminated Great Lakes fish: an epidemiological consideration. J Toxicol Environ Health
33(4):587-639.
Benthic Organisms
Adamstone, F. B. 1924. The distribution and economic importance of the bottom fauna of Lake Nipigon
with an appendix on the bottom of Lake Ontario. Univ. of Toronto Stud. Biol. Ser. 25: 34-100.
Cook, D.G. and M.G. Johnson. 1974. Benthic macroinvertebrates of the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes. J.
of Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:763-782.
Flint, R.W. and R.J.J. Stevens. 1989. Lake Ontario a Great Lake in Transition. Great Lakes Monograph No.
2, Great Lakes Program, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York and Water Quality Branch,
Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, March 1989.
Fox, M.E., J.H. Carey, and B.G. Oliver. 1983. Compartmental distribution of organochlorine contaminants
in the Niagara River and the western basin of Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 9:287-294.
Keilty, T.J., D.S. White, and P.F. Landrum. 1988. Sublethal responses to endrin in sediment by Stylodriltts
heringianus (Lumbriculidae). Aquat. Toxicol. 12:227-250.
Kinney, W.L. 1972. The macrobenthos of Lake Ontario. Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res. (Inter. Assoc.
Great Lakes Res.):53-79.
Landrum, P.F. 1988. Toxikinetics of organic xenobiotics in the amphipod, Pontoporeia hoyi: role of
physiological and environmental variables. Aquat. Toxicol. 12:245-271.
Magnuson, J.J., A.M. Forbes, and R.J. Hall. 1976. An assessment of the environmental effects of dredged
material disposal in Lake Superior, Final Report, Vol. 3. Duluth-Keweenaw study areas. Mar. Stud.
Cent., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 172 p.
Mozley, S.C. 1990. Review of Lake Ontario benthic studies. In N.A. Thomas and W.J. Christie [ed.] Status
of the biota of Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fishery Commission and International Joint Commission.
Spec. Publ. No. 88-2.
Nalepa, T.F. 1991. Status and Trends of the Lake Ontario macrobenthos, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, Volume 48, No. 8, pp. 1558-1567.
Nalepa, T.F. and P.F. Landrum. 1988. Benthic Invertebrates and contaminant levels in the Great Lakes:
effects, fates, and role in cycling, p. 77-102. In M.S. Evans [ed] Toxic contaminants and ecosystem
health: a Great Lakes focus. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Nalepa, T.F. and N.A. Thomas. 1976. Distribution of macrobenthic species in Lake Ontario in relation to
sources of pollution and sediment parameters. J. Great Lakes Res. 2:150-163.
Lake Ontario LaMP G-17
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Plumb. R.M. and C.N. Mcrckcl. 1980. Characterization of Dredged Material Disposal Areas in the Great
Lakes Greal Lakes Laboratory. State University College of Buffalo, New York 14222, Grant No.
R8050050IO. Project Officer, M. Mullin. Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, Large Lakes
Research Station. Grossc Ik. Michigan 48138.
Whittle, D.M. and J.D Fit/simmons. 1983. The influence of the Niagara River on contaminant body burdens
of Lake Ontario biota. J. Great Lakes Res. 9:295-302.
Pbyloplankton A Zooplanklon
Christie. W.J.. and N.A. Thomas. 1981. Biology, pg. 327-340. In: EJ. Aubert and T.L. Richards (adds.)
IFYGL - The International Field Year for the Great Lakes. NOAA. Great Lake Environ. Res. Lab., Ann
Arbor.
DEC. 1993. Draft Niagara River Remedial Action Plan. Vol I. March 1993. NYSDEC. Div. of Water. 50
Wolf Road. Albany. NY 12233.
EPA. 1985. Limnology and Phytoplankton Structure in Nearshorc Areas of lake Ontario: 1981, [ed.] Paul
Bertram. EPA-905/3-85-003. August 1985. GLNPO, 536 South Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605.
Flint, R. W. and RJ J. Stevens. 1989. Lake Ontario: A Great Lake in Transition, Great Lakes Monograph No.
2. Greal Lakes Program. State University of New York at Buffalo.
Gannon. J.E. 1980. Changes in Zooplankton Populations in Lakes Erie and Ontario, Proceedings of the
Conference on Changes in the Biota of Lakes Erie and Ontario, Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences,
March 10 A Nth. 1980.
GLFC. 1992. Status of the Lake Ontario Offshore Pelagic Fish Community and Related Ecosystem in 1992.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, internal report, Kingston, Ontario.
Gotham, IJ. and G-Yuil Rhec. 1982. Effect of a hexachlorobipheny! and pentachlorophenol on growth and
photosynthesis of phytoplankton. J. Great Lakes Res. 8(2) 326-327.
Hiile, C.L., G.D. Vcith, G.F. Lee, and W.C. Boyle. 1975. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario
ecosystem (IFYGL). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-660/3-75-022. 28 p.
Johannsson. O.. R. Dermott, R. Feldcamp, and J. Moore. 1985. Lake Ontario Long Term Biological
Monitoring Program. 1981. 1982 data base. Can. Data Rep«. Aquat. Sci., No. 552.
Johannuon, O. £.. E.L. Mills, and R. OXjorman. 1991. Changes in the nearshore and offshore zooplankton
communities in Lake Ontario: 1981*1988. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
Makarewtcz, J.C. 1993. Phytoplankton as indicators of environmental health. Verb. Internal. Verein. Limnol.
25:363-366.
Q.1 f Late Ontario LaafJ>
-------
APPENDIX G
Mayfield, C.I. and M. Munawar. 1983. Prelim inary study of the effects on contaminants from sediments on
algal membranes. J. Great Lakes Res. 9(2):3I4-316.
Mazumder, A., D.R. Lean, and W.D. Taylor. 1992. Dominance of small filter feeding zooplankton in the
Lake Ontario foodweb. J. Great Lakes Res.l8(3):4S6-466.
Munawar M., A. Mudroch, I.F. Munawar, and R.I. Thomas. 1983. The impact of sediment associated
contaminants from the Niagara River on various size assemblages of phytoplankton. J. Great Lakes Res.
9(2):303-313.
Munawar M., P.T.S. Wong, and G.Y. Rhee. 1988. The Effects of Contaminants on Algae: An Overview, pp
113-123 In: Schmidtke, N. W. {ed.] Toxic Contaminants in Large Lakes, Vol. 1: Chronic Effects of toxic
Contaminants in Large Lakes, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml.
Nalepa, T. F. 1991. Status and trends of Lake Ontario macrobenthos. Can. J. Fish. And Aquat. Sc. 48:1558-
1567.
Neilson, M., S. L'ltalien, V. Glumac, and D. Williams. August 1994. Nutrients: Trends and System
Response. SOLEC Working Paper presented at State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. EPA
905-R-95-015. Chicago, 111: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
NYSDEC. 1996. Lake Ontario Sediment Survey, 1995 Sediment Coring Results. Division of Water. Bureau
of Watershed Assessment and Research, 50 Wolf Road, Rm 305. Albany. NY 122233-3502.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1994.
Ecosystem Watch; Status of the Lake Ontario Ecosystem.
Rawson, M., J. Bowlby, and T. Schnaner. 1994. Pelagic Piscivores. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
1994 Annual Report.
Sicko-Goad, S. and E.F. Strocmcr. 1988. Effects of Toxicants on Phytoplankton with Special Reference to
the Laurcntian Great Lakes, pp. 19-51. In: Evans, M.S. [ed.] Toxic Contaminants and Ecosystem Health:
A Great Lakes Focus. In: the Wiley Series in Advances in Environmental Science and Technology, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.. New York. NY.
Stoermer. E,F., M.M. Bowman, J.C. Kingston, and A.L. Schoedel. 1975. Phytoplankton composition and
abundance in Lake Ontario during IFGYL. Ecol. Res. Series, EPA-660A75-004, Corval lis Oregon, 3 73 p.
Tresster, W.L. and T.S. Austin. 1940. A Limnological Study of Some Bays and Lakes of the Lake Ontario
Watershed, in: A Biological Survey of the Lake Ontario Watershed, State of New York Conservation
Department, Biological Survey (1939), No. XVI, Chapter VIII. pp. 187-210.
Whittle, D. M., and JJ). Fitzsimmons. 1983. The influence of the Niagara River on contaminant burdens in
Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res.9:295-302.
Wolin. J., E. Stoermer. and C. Schelske. 1991. Recent Changes in Lake Ontario 1981-87: Micro fossil
evidence of phosphorus reduction, J. of Great Lakes Research, 17:229-241.
U*r» Ontario HUPG49
Mtyf9M
-------
APPENDIX G
•OULACOMT«IO>
Eutrophication Problems
Bertram, P. Personal communication, Unpublished USEPA 1993 Lake Ontario open lake water quality
monitoring results. USEPA, GLNPO.
Bertram, P. [ed.]. D.C. Rockwell, M.F. Palmer, and, J.C. Makarewicz. 1985. Limnology and Phytoplankton
Structure in Nearshore Areas of Lake Ontario, 1981. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Programs Office, Chicago, Illinois, EPA-905/3-85-003, 172 pp.
DEC. 1 992. New York State Water Quality 1 992, submitted pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean
Water Act. Prepared by Quality Evaluation Section, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division
of Water, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY
12233, August 1992.
Glumac, V. Personal communication. Environment Canada data for Lake Ontario yearly average spring total
phosphorus levels, 1 97 1 - 1992, Great Lakes Studies Division, EQB, Inland Waters Directorate -Ontario,
Canada.
GLFC. 1992. Status of the Lake Ontario offshore pelagic fish community and related ecosystem in 1992,
prepared by the Lake Ontario Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, July 1992.
GLWQB. 1989. 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, Report to the International Joint Commission.
Prepared by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board.
Gray, I.M. 1987. Difference between nearshore and offshore phytoplankton communities in Lake Ontario.
Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 44:2155-2163.
IJC. 1980. Phosphorus Management for the Great Lakes. Final Report of the Phosphorus Management
Strategies Task Force to the IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science Advisory
Board. July 1980. 129p.
Longabucco, P. 1989. Phosphorus reductions in the Great Lakes. NYSDEC Water Bulletin. August 1989,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, 50 Wolf Road Albany'
NY 12233. '
Makarewicz, J.C., T.W. Lewis, and R.K. Williams. 1991. Nutrient loadings of streams entering Sodus Bay
and Port Bay, N.Y., 1 April, 1990 to 30 June, 1991. Prepared for the Wayne County Soil and Water
Conservation District, 8340 Ridge Road, Sodus, NY., September 1991.
NYS. 1991. New York State phosphorus reduction plan for the Great Lakes, final report 1989-1990
Prepared by the New York State Great Lakes Phosphorus Reduction Task Force. February 1991 .
Painter, D.S. and G. Kamaitis. 1 985. Reduction in Cladophora biomass and tissue phosphorus concentration
in Lake Ontano, 1972-1983. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44:2212-2215.
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v 48, no. 8, pp. 1 529-1538.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• ou LAC ONI and
Sly, P.O. 1990. The Effects of Land Use and Cultural Development on the Lake Ontario Ecosystem since
1750. Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science, Suite 404, One Nicholas St., Ottawa, Ontario, KlN7b7
Stevens, R.J.J. and M.A.Neilson. 1987. Response of Lake Ontario to reductions in phosphorus load, 1967-
82, Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 44:2059-2068.
Wolin, J., E. Stoermer and C. Schelske. 1991. Recent Changes in Lake Ontario 1981-87: Microfossil
evidence of phosphorus reduction, J. of Great Lakes Research, 17:229-241.
Beach Closures
DEC. 1992. New York State Water Quality 1992. Submitted pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act, Quality Evaluation Section, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division of Water, NYSDEC,
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY, 12233.
DEC and MCDPD. 1993. Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan, August 1993. Monroe County
Department of Planning and Development, 47 South Fitzhugh Street. Rochester, NY 14614.
Gwozdek, R.G. 1993. Personal Correspondence, 1993 Coliform Sampling Reports for Porter Beach, Olcott
Beach, Somerset Beach and Wilson Beach. Niagara County Health Department, Environmental Health
Division, Main P.O. Box 428, 10th & East Falls St., Niagara Falls, NY 14302.
Makarewicz, J.C. and T.W. Lewis. 1989. Limnological studies of Sodus Bay and its tributaries. Prepared
for the Wayne County Soil and Water Conservation District, 8340 Ridge Road, Sodus, NY. January
1989.
Makarewicz, J.C. and T.W. Lewis. 1990. Chemical Analysis and nutrient loading of streams entering Sodus
Bay, NY. Prepared for the Wayne County Soil and Water Conservation District, 8340 Ridge Road,
Sodus, NY. May 1990.
Monroe County Health Department. 1977 -1991. Annual Monroe County beach coliform sampling reports.
Mullarney, M. H. 1993. Personal Correspondence, Coliform Sampling Results for Southwick Beach and
Westcott Beach State Park, 1991, 1992, and 1993. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation. Thousand Islands Region, P.O. Box 247, Keewaydin State Park, Alexandria Bay,
New York 13607.
Stoner, S. 1992. Coliform standards - Bathing beaches, internal memorandum, NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road,
Albany NY 12233-3508
Dredging Restrictions
Aqua Tech Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1990. Sediment analyses: Rochester Harbor, Irondequoit Bay,
New York. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo.
Lake Ontario LaMP G-21
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• OULACONTAUK)^
Busch, W.D.N., M. Lazeration, M. Smith, and M. Scharf. 1993. 1992 Inventory of Lake Ontario Aquatic
Habitat Information. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office,
Amherst, New York. January 1993.
COE. 1987. The Analyses of Sediments from Oswego Harbor, Contract #DACW49-87-D-0002, Technical
Report #10175-02, June 1987. Prepared for: T.P. Associates International Inc., Harpster, Ohio and COE
Buffalo District Office, Water Quality Section.
COE. 1993. Seminar Notebook for Dredged Material Assessment and Management Seminar, Ann Arbor
Michigan, Section A, Presentation by Joe Wilson, HQ, USACE, Legal and Institutional Considerations
for Federal (CE) Dredging Projects, 10 pp.
COE/EPA. 1992. Evaluating environmental effects of dredged material management alternatives - A
technical framework. EPA 842-B-92-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
DEC/MCDPD. 1993. Rochester Embayment Remedial Action Plan, Stage I, Executive Summary, August
1993. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Monroe County Department
of Planning and Development. 47 South Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, NY 14614.
EPA/COE. 1993. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Inland and Near Coastal Waters
- Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual) (Draft), May 1993.
EPA. 1984. Great Lakes National Program Office Harbor Sediment Program, Lake Ontario 1981. EPA-
905/4-84-002, prepared by: A.G. Kizlauskas, D.C. Rockwell, and R.E. Claff, 536 South Clark Street, Rm
958, Chicago Illinois 60643.
IJC. 1982. Guidelines and Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging Projects, Report to the Water
Quality Programs Committee of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, January 1982. 363 pp.
Plumb, R.M. and C.N. Merckel. 1980. Characterization of Dredged Material Disposal Areas in the Great
Lakes. Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College of Buffalo, New York 14222. Grant No.
R805005010, Project Officer, M. Mullin, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, Large Lakes
Research Station, Grosse He, Michigan 48138.
Drinking Water Restrictions & Taste and Odor Problems
AWWA. 1987. Identification and treatment of taste and odors in drinking water. American Water Works
Association Research Foundation. American Water Works Foundation, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver,
CO. 80235 ISBN 0-89867-392-5.
Boxberger, T. 1993. Personal Correspondence. 1990, 1991, and 1992 drinking water quality monitoring
results for the villages of Chaumont and Sacketts Harbor. District Director, District Office, New York
State Department of Health, 317 Washington St., Watertown, N.Y. 13601.
G-22 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• OVUCONTAIK>~
Brownlee, B.G, D.S. Painter, and R.J. Boone, 1984, Identification of taste and odor compounds from
Western Lake Ontario, Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada, 19:111-118.
Clancy, J. Personal communication. Director of Water Quality, Erie County Water Authority, Buffalo, NY.
DEC. 1993. Draft Niagara River Remedial Action Plan, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water, March 1993. 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233-3501.
Dickinson, W. 1993. Personal Correspondence. 1993 Quarterly drinking water monitoring reports for the
villages of Albion and Lyndonville, Orleans County Health Department, 14012 Route 31, Albion, NY
14411.
Doran, J. 1993. Treatment Manager, Metropolitan Water Board, Personal communication.
Gerber, N.N. and H.A. Lechevalier. 1965. Geosmin, an earthy-smelling substance isolated from
actinomycetes. Applied Microbiology. 13:935.
Izaguirre, G., C.J. Hwang, and S.W. Krasner. 1983. Investigations into the source of 2-methylisoborneol in
Lake Ferris, California. Proc. AWWA WQTC, Norfolk, Va.
Metropolitan Water Board. 1992.1992 Lake Ontario Monitoring Program. Onondaga County, Metropolitan
Water Board, December 1992, prepared by Obrien & Gere Engineers, Inc., 5000 Brittonfield Parkway,
Syracuse, NY 13221.
Nugent, J. Personal Communication, Chemist, Monroe County Water Board.
Safferman, R.S. et al. 1967. Earthy-smelling substance from a blue-green algae. Envir. Sci. & Technol.
1:429.
Tabachek, J.L. and M. Yurkowski. 1976. Isolation and identification of blue-green algae producing muddy
odor metabolites, geosmin, and 2-methylisoborneol, in saline lakes in Manitoba. Jour, of Fish. Res.
Board Can. 33:25.
Habitat & Wetlands Issues
Busch, D.N., M. Lazaration, M. Smith, and M. Scharf. 1993. Inventory of Lake Ontario Aquatic Habitat
Information. USF&WS, Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources Office, Amherst New York, January
J993.
Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan. 1995a. Great Lakes Wetlands Land Securement
Workshop. Final Report.
Great Lakes Wetlands Conservation Action Plan. 1995b. Priority Rehabilitation and Creation Sites for the
Lower Great Lakes Including a Selected Site Registry for Coastal Wetlands of the Lower Great Lakes.
Environment Canada, Ontario Region and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. 182 pp.
Lake Ontario LaMP G-23
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
•DUUCONTAXIO
Hough Woodland Naylor Dance. 1995. Restoring Natural Habitats. Waterfront Regeneration Trust,
Ontario.
Luste, T. And M. Paley. 1996. A Guide to Great Lakes Shoreline Approvals in Ontario. Waterfront
Regeneration Trust, Ontario.
Waterfront Regeneration Trust. 1995. Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy. Waterfront Regeneration Trust,
Ontario.
Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Natural Heritage Workgroup. 1995. A Natural Heritage Strategy for the
Lake Ontario Greenway. Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ontario.
Waterfront Regeneration Trust. Shoreline Management Workgroup. 1996. Shore Management
Opportunities for the Lake Ontario Greenway. Waterfront Regeneration Trust, Ontario.
Whillans, T.H., R.C. Smardon, and D. Busch. 1992. Status of Lake Ontario Wetlands, a working paper
published by the Great Lakes Research Consortium, 24 Bray Hall, SUNY College of Environmental
Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210.
Contaminant Sources & Loadings
Agriculture Canada. 1976b. Trade Memorandum T-l-11. Regulatory status of Aldrin. Production and
Marketing Branch, Plant Products Division, Ottawa, Ontario, Kl A OC5. June 16, 1976.
Biberhofer, J. August 1994. Concentrations and loadings of trace organic compounds measured in the St.
Lawrence River Headwaters at Wolfe Island 1989-1993. Prepared by Environment Canada,
Environmental Conservation Brach, Ontario Region, Ecosystem Health Division, Report No: EHDVECB-
OR\95-03\I.
Canviro Consultants. 1988. Thirty-seven Municipal Water Pollution Control Plants Pilot Monitoring Study.
Report submitted to Water Resources Branch, Ministry of Environment, Ontario.
D'Andrea, M. and R. Anderton. 1996. "Assessment of Tributary Discharges along the Metropolitan Toronto
Waterfront", unpublished report to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy.
Data Interpretation Group, River Monitoring Committee. January 1995. Joint Evaluation of Upstream-
Downstream Niagara River Monitoring Data, 1992-93. (Loadings measured at the head of the Niagara
River at Fort Erie).
Dolan, D. 1996. Pers. Comm. International Joint Commission.
Eisenreich, S.J. & W.M.J. Strachan. June 1992. Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to
the Great Lakes, An Update. Workshop proceedings, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington,
Ontario. January 31 - February 2, 1992.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
• DU UK ON1AKIO
Environment Canada, 1997. Contaminants in herring gull eggs from the Great Lakes: 25 years of monitoring
levels and effects. Great Lakes Fact Sheet. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
ISBN 0-662-25529-1.
Estabrooks, F.D., S. Litten, and B. Anderson. 1994. An Investigation of the Dioxin-furan Concentrations
in the Sediments of Eighteenmile Creek and Erie Canal Near Lockport, New York. June 1994. New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
EWOG. 1992. "Interim Report of the EWOG on Ecosystem Objectives and their Environmental Indicators
for Lake Ontario".
Fox, M.E., R.M. Kahn, and P.A. Thiessen. 1996. Loadings of PCBs and PAHs from Hamilton Harbour to
Lake Ontario. Water Quality Res. J. of Canada, V. 31, No. 3, pp. 593-608.
Frank, R., M. Van Hove Holdrinet, and W.A. Rapley. 1975. Residues of organochlorine compounds and
mercury in birds eggs from the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 3(2):
205-218.
Haile, C.L., G. D. Veith, G. F. Lee, and W. C. Boyle. 1975. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario
Ecosystem(IFYGL). United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-660/3-75-022.
Hoff et al. 1996. Atmospheric Deposition of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes: A review of data through
1994. Atmospheric Environment Vol. 30, No. 20. pp. 3305-3527.
International Joint Commission. 1985. 1985 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Great Lakes Water
Quality Board.
Johannsen, O. E., E.L. Mills, and R. O'Gorman. 1991. Changes in the nearshore and offshore zooplankton
communities in Lake Ontario. 1981-88. Can. J. Fish, and Aquat. Sc. 48:1546-1557.
Kerr, S. J. and G.C. LeTendre. 1991. The State of the Lake Ontario Fish Community in 1989. Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission. Special Publication 91-3.
Litten, S. 1996. Trackdown of chemical contaminants to Lake Ontario from New York State Tributaries.
Bureau of Watershed Assessment and Research, Division of Water, NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
N.Y. 12233-3502, April 11,1996.
Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) Clean Water Regulation 760-93; Sample Results
Data Store, 1994. Ministry of Environment and Energy, Ontario.
Poulton, D.J. 1990. Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan. 1988 Toxic Contaminants Survey Report prep.
for the Bay of Quinte RAP Coordinating Committee. Ontario. Sept. 1990. 88 pp + appendices.
Thomas, N.A., A. Robertson and W.C. Sonzogni. "Review of Control Objectives: New Target Loads and
Input Controls." Proceedings of the IJC/Cornell University Conference on Phosphorus Management
Strategies for Lakes. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Mi. 1980, pp. 61-90.
Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX G
Thomas. R.L. 1983. Lake Ontario Sediments as indicators of the Niagara River as a primary source of
contaminants. J. Of Great Lakes Research. 9(2):118-134.
G'26 Lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
1^.^11
APPENDIX H
• DU LAC ONTARIO
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STAGE I
LAKE ONTARIO LaMP
lake Ontario LaMP
May 1998
-------
APPENDIX H
One of the goals of the Public Involvement program of the Lake Ontario LaMP is to "provide opportunities
for meaningful public consultation in developing and implementing Lake Ontario management plans". As
part of this commitment, the agencies conducted a number of activities to inform interested panics about the
Lake Ontario Draft Stage 1: Problem Definition report and gather comments on the document.
Open Houses/Public Meetings
To highlight the availability of the Draft Stage I for review/comment and to provide information to people
interested in the LaMP, open houses and informal public meetings were held in the Lake Ontario basin in
the spring of 1997. Four open houses were held in various locations in Ontario, Canada and six informal
public meetings were held in various locations in New York State. Generally, open house attendees and
public meeting participants were seeking more information about the Lake Ontario LaMP process,
clarification of where issues of concern fit into the process, and an explanation of how people can have input
to and become involved in the plans to restore and protect the Lake Ontario ecosystem.
Distribution of the Draft
Copies of the Draft Stage 1 document were distributed at the open houses and informal public meetings, and
mailed to people on the Lake Ontario mailing lists and to those who had requested a copy. The draft was
also made available on the Lake Ontario LaMP website. Accompanying the draft document was a piece
titled Topics For Your Consideration which contained questions to help gather comments, suggestions,
and/or concerns about key aspects of the Draft Stage 1 document.
Public Comments
The following provides a general overview of the kinds of comments the agencies received either in writing
or during the open houses or informal public meetings:
Generally, public comments indicated that the document was well-written, easy to understand, covered a
range of complex issues in an understandable fashion, and made good use of lists, tables, and figures. There
appeared to be some need for clarification of terms and an expanded glossary that would include acronyms.
Specific comments about Chapter 1 (Introduction) indicated that the chapter was sufficient and applauded
the inclusion of information about various local programs and statistics. There were, however, a number of
suggestions for information that, if included, would improve the chapter.
Regarding the concept of Basin Teams and Partnerships outlined in Chapter 2, comments were generally
focused on the need to better explain the Basin Team/Partnership approaches. A key suggestion urged the
agencies to develop a succinct blueprint of how the Basin Teams/Partnerships will be constructed. Other
comments reiterated the need to clarify the connections between RAPs, LaMPs, and other watershed
management initiatives. In response to a question about how the agencies could work with
groups/organizations, comments emphasized the need for coordinating and communicating information using
existing groups or through local channels and contacts. Creating more committees was not seen as a
favorable approach.
The majority of the comments indicated agreement with the lakewide problems as defined in the Draft Stage
1 document. There were some concerns that lake levels management was not adequately addressed and that
there was a lack of information about human health issues. Other lakewide issues that were seen as needing
LaAw Ontario LaMP """"S3
M«/f9M
-------
APPENDIX H
further attention included: atmospheric deposition, non-point sources of contaminants, erosion, mercury,
and funding issue*
Regarding the Future Agenda as described in the Draft Stage 1. comments indicated that the Future Agenda
wa» definite!) a step in the right direction. However, most reviewers thought that the Agenda should include
more details, schedules, and action items. There was also general concern about the length of time it will
lake to fully develop and implement the LaMP; things need to proceed quickly. Most responses indicated
agreement with the overall direction that the four agencies described in the LaMP Agenda. Again, there
Merc a variety of suggestions about ways to improve the LaMP process while moving it in the same
direction
A Summary of Comments and Responses
There were some significant changes made to the document as a result of the public review period.
Examples of these include the addition of Mercury to the list of critical pollutants, additional information
on human health effects, and the revision of the Workplan to make it more detailed and action-oriented.
A detailed outline, called a Summary of Comments and Responses on the Lake Ontario LaMP. has been
prepared so that those who provided comments can see how the agencies used their input as the Stage 1 was
finalized The Summary explains what changes were made to the LaMP document as a result of the
comment, or if no change was made to the document, why a change was not appropriate.
While the Summary of Comments and Responses is not a part of this report, copies have been sent to those
who made specific comments to the agencies. A copy may be obtained on our websites at
www.cciw.ca/flimr/UkesVontaHo/ (in Canada), at www.epm-jovVjInpoMakcoBt (in the United Stales) or
by contacting:
In Canada: In the United States:
Marlene O'Brien Mama Gadoua
Environment Canada New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(905)336-4552 (518)485-8735
Fax: (905) 336-4906 F*x: (518)485-7786
E-mail: marlenc.o'bncn(2)ec.gc.ca E-mail: mmama.gadoua/2'gw.dec.state.ny.us
MayfMf
------- |