CLEAR TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 295
Effects of Toxic Substances on
Growth, Mortality and Pathology
of Larval Fishes in the River Raisin,
Michigan
E nvironmental Protection Agency
Large Lakes Laboratory
Grosse lie, Michigan
T!f OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR LAKE ERIE AREA RESEARCH
COLUMBUS, OHIO
Prepared by
Laura A. Fay
Mary Gessner
Paul C. Stromberg
John 1-Jageman
and
Prepared for:
August 1985

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
. . .
Author Page No .
. . . . . . . . I I I I • S I S •
List of Figures
. . S S S
. . . I S I I • S • • • S •
Acknowl edgments
I I S • •
I S • I I S I I S I I S I I
Executive Summary
Introduction
Background . . . . . . . .
Program Objectives
Study Objectives .
Site Description . . . . .
Basin Description
H y d r o 1 o g y . . . . . . . . . . . .
Industrial Contaminants . .
Contaminant Sources
Methods . I • • • . • . . . . . . .
Field Methods
Sampling Plan
Flow Calibration . . .
Laboratory Methods
Larval Fish Sorting .
Larval Fish Identi fi cation
Identification Problems
Pathology . . . . . . •
Chemical • •
Extraction Procedures .
Clean—up . . . . .
Analysis and Quantification
Data Analysis . . . . . . . .
Results • , • •
Distribution/Abundance . . .
Growth Rates
Gizzard Shad
Emerald Shiner
Mortality Rates
Pathology . . . . . . .
Laboratory Exposure -Fathead
Body Burdens . . . . . . . .
Discussion
Distribution/Abundance
Growth Rates . . . .
Mortality Rates . .
Pathology . . . . .
Body Burden
Gizzard Shad .
Emerald Shiner
• . • • Gessner

•
• I I I S I I I
• . . I I S I I
• I I I I I •
Ha ge man

I I S I • I •
• . . • Hageman
• I I I • I • •
•
• • ..Stromberg
• • • • Gessner
• I I I S • I I
: : : : : :
Fay
• . • • • • Fay
• . • . • • Fay
I I I • • I • •
: : : : : :
• . . Stromberg
Minnows. .
Gessner & Lemon
Fay
• I I •
• I I •
• . I • I
• I • • I
• • I • •
• I I • • I
• I I I I I
Gessner &
• I I I I
Fay
• I I
• S I
• I S
Lemon
• S •
•

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No .
References Cited • • • • • •
Tables . . . . . . . . . . , • • • • • • • • • • •
Figures . . . • • • • • • • •
Appendix A — Larval Fish Collected for Body Burden
Ana1ys s . . . . . . . . . . . . . • •
Appendix B - Field Tow Calibration Data
Appendix C — Growth and Mortality Rate Program
Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page no .
1. Larval Fish Species List for the River Raisin
1983 and 1984.
2. Abundance of Larval Fish Collected in the
River Raisin, 1983
3. Abundance of Larval Fish Collected in the
River Raisin, 1984
4. Distribution of Larval Fish Collected in the
River Raisin, 1983.
5. Distribution of Larval Fish Collected in the
Raisin River, 1984.
6. Ranking of Species Abundance determined in the
River Raisin 1983/1984 study compared to Jude’s
1982 study.
7. Estimated numbers of Fish Larvae entrained from
February 13, 1982 through February 12, 1983 at
Monroe Power Plant (Data taken from Jude et al
1982).
8. Gizzard Shad Simple Growth Rates , River Raisin
1983/ 1984.
9 Emerald Shiner Simple Growth Rates, River Raisin
1983/ 1984.
10. Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients, River Raisin
1983
11. Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients, River Raisin
1984.
12. Ranking of 1983 Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients.
13. Ranking of 1984 Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients
14. River Raisin 1983 Larval Fish Mortality Coefficients.
15. River Raisin 1984 Larval Fish Mortality Coefficients.
16. Macroscopically Observed Deformities in Larval
Fish from the River Raisin during 1983.
17. Larval Fish by Species and Station Evaluated
Pathologically.

-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page No .
18. Lesions In Gizzard Shad from Raisin River, 1983.
19. Gizzard Shad Larvae by Size and Station Indicating
Lesions.
20. Hi stopathologi cal Lesions in Gizzard Shad From the
Control Station (#7).
21. Histopathological Lesions in Fathead Minnows.
22. Gizzard Shad Larval Fish Density of the River
Raisin, 1983.
23. Review of Lake Erie Gizzard Shad Larval Density,
Peak Abundance.
24. River Raisin Qualitative Sediment Survey (Data
supplied by Michigan Department of Natural
Resources).
25. Gizzard Shad Larval Fish Density of the River
Raisin, 1983 (< 5 mm).
26. Review of Growth Rates.
27. Comparison of Histopathologic Lesions in Larval
Gizzard Shad at Station 4 and the Control
Station (7).

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No .
1. River Raisin Larval Fish Sampling Stations 1983
and 1984.
2a. Aerial View of Station 1 and 2,River Raisin.
2b. Aerial View of Station 2 and 3,River Raisin.
2c. Aerial View of Station 4 ,River Raisin.
2d. Aerial View of Station 5,River Raisin.
2e. Aerial View of Station 4,5 and 6,River Raisin.
3. Ri ver Ral Si ri Drainage Basin (Taken from Michigan
Water Resources Commission,1965).
4. Raisin River 11 Year Average Daily Flow (CFS)
12 KM Upstream from Lake Erie (USGS data).
5. Peak Flows in the RI ver Rai si fl at Monroe Since
1938 (Data from the USGS gage 04176500).
6. Lake Erie Level at Gage 3087 (NOAA data).
7. Larval Fish Density
Calculation Procedure.
8.
Gizzard
Shad
1983 Simple Growth Rates.
9.
Gizzard
Shad
1984 Simple Growth Rates.
10.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
1,
1983.
11.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
2,
1983.
12.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
3,
1983.
13.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
4,
1983.
14.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
5,
1983.
15.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
6,
1983.
16.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
7,
1983.
17.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
1,
1984.
18.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates. Station
2,
1984.
19.
Gizzard
Shad
Simple Growth Rates, Station
3,
1984

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
20. Gizzard Shad Simple Growth Rates, Station 4, 1984.
Page No .
21.
Emerald
Shiner
1983 Simple Growth Rates.
22.
Emerald
Shiner
1984 Simple Growth Rates.
23.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
1,
1983.
24.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
2,
1983
25.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
3,
1983
26.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
4,
1983.
27.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
5,
1983.
28.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
6,
1983
29.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
7,
1983.
30.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
1,
1984.
31.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
2,
1984.
32.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
3,
1984.
33.
Emerald
Shiner
Simple Growth Rates, Station
4,
1984.
34. Gizzard Shad 1983 Instantaneous Growth Rate
Coefficients by Station.
35. Gizzard Shad 1984 Instantaneous Growth Rate
Coefficients by Station.
36. Emerald Shiner 1983 Instantaneous Growth Rate
Coefficients by Station.
37. Emerald Shiner 1984 Instantaneous Growth Rate
Coefficients.

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report would like to express their
appreciation to the following personnel involved in some aspect
of this project completion:
Julieanne Barth
Cranbrook Institute of Science
Shaio Cheng—Mu
Doug Frantz
Gerald M. Gerber
John Hageman
Sue Lemon
Kevin McGunagle
Todd Parfitt
Ken Rygwelski
Andrea Wilson
Special thanks are awarded to David Jude for verifying
larval fish vouchers specimens, discussions regarding growth rate
methodology and for reviewing the data.
The authors would also like to thank NOAA for the use of
their storage facility at Monroe, Michigan and to the crew of the
R/Y Bluewater for laboratory access.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the financial support
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency — Large
Lakes Research Station (Grosse Ile) and the Environmental
Research Laboratory (Duluth).

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Gizzard shad were the most predominant larval fish collected
during the 1983/1984 River Raisin study. Although the
number of larval fish collected during 1984 was almost
101000 greater than in 1983 the relative abundance of
gizzard shad remained stable over the two year period (72%).
2. The relative abundance of the remaining species varied over
the 2 year study as a result of temporal differences in the
initiations of the field programs. The 1983 field program
began on May 30th and ended on September 12th, while the
1984 program was initiated on April 2 and lasted until
July 19. Many of the sport fish and early spring spawners
(white suckers) were caught as a result of the early Spring
sampling program.
3. The major storm event of February 14, 1984 had no apparent
negative effect on the fish spawning habitat based on the
increased numbers of larval fish captured during 1984.
4. Simple growth rates (dl/dt) for gizzard shad were the
highest at station 3 (adjacent to the Monroe Sewage Treat-
ment plant); Gizzard shad growth rates at the remaining
stations were substantially lower (0.25 — 0.78 inn/day).
Possi bly thi s increased rate can be simply
explained by an increased availability of food (i.e.
plankton).
5. There is a discrepancy between results obtained for growth
when comparing the simple growth rates and the growth rate
coefficients for both gizzard shad and emerald shiners. The
reason for this disparity has not been resolved.
6. Clearly, the instantaneous mortality rates are much higher
during 1984 (stations 1 through 4). The reasoning for the
increased mortality may be explained by something routine
like weather, water temperature, lake level, food
availability, or any one of the numerous variables
accounting for natural mortality or by something more
unorthodox like introduced chemicals or toxic contamina-
tion. Food availability (phytoplankton and
zooplankton) and contamination level data for the two years
should be compared.
7. Real lesions compatable with acute toxicity were observed
in organs in contact with the environment as well as
for the intestine and the kidney.
8. Lesions appeared to affect primarily gizzard shad in all
size classes.
9. Gizzard shad from all collection stations had lesions.

-------
10. Real lesions compatable with acute toxicity were observed
in gizzard shad and alewife from the control station.
11. Observed lesions were identical in quality, distribution,
and range of severity to those found in gizzard shad from
the river stations. These lesions most likely indicate
similar, adverse environmental conditions at both the
riverine and lake control station.
12. The attempt to reproduce lesions, experimentally, in fat-
head minnows was not successful. However, differences in
metabolism between species, bioavailability of toxic
substances and duration of action might account for such
failure and does not mean toxicants were absent.
13. It is possible that a serious health problem exists for
gizzard shad in Lake Erie, based on the number of lesions
observed in gizzard shad at the control station.

-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Future growth rate studies involving gizzard shad should
utilize data limited to the largest larvae captured each
sampling period due to the ability of gizzard shad to
spawn over wide temporal ranges. This ability results
in a continual influx of newly hatched larvae skewing
the growth rate downwards (Gordon 1982).
2. Comparisons should be initiated for the 2 year database to
define the probable cause for both the Increased density
observed in 1984 and for the increased mortality rates.
3. Additional fish submitted for histopathological evaluation
should be between 20 mm and 50 mm. Fish smaller than this
are not sufficiently differentiated to allow complete
analysis of tissues. Fish larger than 50 mm create
technical problems resulting in poor specimen quality.
4. Consider an investigation of spontaneous lesions in gizzard
shad from multiple Lake Erie localities. Correlate observed
lesions with water chemi stry data and toxicologic analysis
of whole gizzard shad.

-------
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Although the role of marine estuaries as spawning and
nursery areas for economically important fish populations has
been the subject of considerable research during the last 20
years, investigation of the role of ri Yen ne habi tats in the
Great Lakes has long been neglected. Half of the approximately
175 fish species occurring in the Great Lakes basin are believed
to be dependent on riverine habitats as spawning, nursery, or
adult concentration areas. Approximately 50 of these species are
currently important commercial, recreational, or forage
species. Few of the species residing in the Great Lakes
themselves, as opposed to those restricted largely to
tributaries, are thought to be independent of niverine, coastal
wetlands, or coastal shallows as spawning and nursery areas
(Trautman, 1981; Hubbs and Lagler, 1964; Van Meter and Trautman,
1970). The riverine areas of Lake Erie have long been recognized
as major breeding grounds for many species of fishes. These
areas have tradi ti onally exhi bi ted greater species diversity and
numbers of fishes, especially larval fishes, than the remainder
of the lake (WI ckli ff, 1931; White et al . , 1975; Cooper et al .,
1981a, b, C,; Mizera, et al ., 1981).
The cultural stresses placed on rivers mouth areas are quite
intense. Since they are located at the mouths of tributaries,
they are subject to inputs of toxic substances from agricultural,
industrial, and municipal sources. Alterations in the flow of
tributary water into the nearshore area by agricultural and storm
water runoff can significantly affect the characteri sti Cs of the
mixing zone ecosystem. The Lake Erie Basin is the most densely
populated and heavily industrialized within the Great Lakes Basin
and therefore the most seriously impacted.
In 1981, the International Joint Commission’s Water Quality
Board identified 39 “Areas of Concern” within the Great Lakes
Basin. The River Raisin was identified as an area “exhibiting
signficant environmental degradation and impairment of beneficial
uses.” This designation of the River Raisin was based on:
— a substantial number of violations of water quality
objecti yes
— sediments highly polluted by heavy metals, and
— high concentrations of PCB’s and industrial and
agri cul tural organic chemicals in fi sh.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
In the spring of 1983, the U. S. Environmental Protection

-------
Agency’s Large Lakes Research Station at Grosse lie, Michigan,
selected the River Raisin as a site to address the issue of
transport, exposure and effects of contaminants In the
tributaries and nearshore areas of the Great Lakes. The primary
objective of the study was to develop a predictive capability
whereby effects of con tami nants could be esti mated, given their
loadings, transport and fate characteristics. Secondary
objectives of the study were: 1) to investigate the longevity
and Importance of in—place pollutants, 2) to provide input to
surveillance databases, and 3) to develop a protocol for
assessing ecological effects of toxic substances.
In order to address these objectives, an integrated analysis
and modeling framework was developed which included: 1)
exposure modeling (via fate and transport), 2) food chain
modeling (in the form of bioaccunulation/biocoflCefltratiOfl) and
3) toxicity modeling (based on correlations between chemical
concentrations and bioassay results). The field and laboratory
research, which was desi gried to provide input into model
development and calibration included analysis of selected
chemical residues in water, sediment and biota and measurement of
toxic effects on various components of the ecosystem.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
As part of the biological effects work, we undertook a study
to investigate the effects of toxic substances on growth,
survival and pathology of larval fishes. The primary objectives
of this work were:
— to identify species of larval fish present in the
River, and determine spatio—ternporal differences in
density and species composition of the ichthyoplankton
of the River;
— determine the spatio—temporal dose patterns of toxic
substances in fish larvae;
— determine spatiotemporal differences in instantaneous
growth and mortality rates of the most abundant species
of fish larvae and relate those to exposure and dose
patterns; and
— determine the incidence of pathol ogi c 1 esi ons in the
most abundant species.
Inasmuch as excessive concentrations of toxic substances are
a major problem in the waters, sediments, and biota of the Great
Lakes, they are particularly so in rivers due to source proximity
and lack of open lake dilution. Moreover, the coincidence of
high ambient environmental concentrations of toxic substances
with the early life history stages of many fish species (some of
considerable economic importance) represents a potential hazard

-------
to the growth, survival, and health of those stages and
ultimately to recruitment and maintenance of adult populations.
Thi s is parti cularly true In view of the rapid growth, cell
proliferation, and cell differentiation which occurs during egg,
larval, and juvenile stages. An initial approach to field
determi nati on of the biological effects of toxi c substances on
larval fishes in polluted riverine ecosystems Is to determine
spatlo-temporal exposure (i.e. concentrations In water and food
organisms) and dose patterns (i.e. residues in larval fish ) and
attempt to relate these to instantaneous growth and mortality
rates of larval fishes of different species present at various
points along environmental and toxicity gradients In the river
system.
SITE DESCRIPTION
To accomplish our objective, seven (7) sampling stations
were established, five (5) in the River and two (2) in the
nearshore areas of western Lake Erie (Figure 1). Station
descriptions for the two sampling seasons are described below.
Raisin River Station Locations (1983)
1. 300 meters downstream of the RI 50 dam, midstream, 100 meters
upstream of the northwest tip of Sterling Island.
Average depth during the study was 2 meters. (Figure 2a).
2. Approximately 50 meters downstream of the River Front
Marina, at the electrical substation. Approximately
200 meters upstream of the RI 75 overpass. Average depth
during the study was 3 meters. (Figures 2a and 2b).
3. Midstream, even with the mouth of a cove slightly down-
stream of the Monroe wastewater treatment plant.
Approximately 340 meters downstream of the RI 75
overpass. Average depth during the study was 4 meters.
(Figure 2b).
4. Midstream, downstream of the ship turning basin, near the
Port of Monroe Terminal building. Hear buoy #11. Average
depth during the study was 8 meters. (Figures 2c and 2e).
5. Midstream at the Monroe power plant intake canal. Average
depth during the study was 8 meters.(Figures 2d and 2e).
6. In the Raisin River mouth’s outermost region. Approximately
150 meters outbound of buoys #9 and #10 and 225 meters
from the mouth. Average depth was 8 meters. (Figure 2e).
7. 200 meters beyond cans #7 and #8 in the shipping canal.
Average depth was 9 meters.

-------
River Raisin Station Locations (1984)
In 1984, longitudinal, oblique tows were taken at:
replicate A at 0.3 of river width, replicate B at 0.5 river
width, and replicate C at 0.7 of river width. The transects
consistently covered approximately the same distances in each 6
minute tow.
Station 1 - Tow started at the downstream tip of Sterling
Island and ended in the vicinity of the
upstream tip of the same island. Average
water depth was 2 meters.
Station 2 — Tow started at a lighted, white garage on
the south s de of the river near the
downstream edge of the boat slips and
and ended in the vicinity of the
electrical substation on the south side
of the river across from the Riverfront
Marina. Average water depth was 3 meters.
Station 3 — Tow started under the overhead high tension
wires between the turning basin and the
Monroe wastewater treatment plant and ended
approximately 50 meters downstream of the 1—75
bridge over the river. Average water depth was
4 meters.
Station 4 — Tow started at the ship mooring post
on the south side of the river and ended in
the vicinity of buoy #11. Average water
depth was 8 meters.
Station 5 — Tow started at a cove across from the
Monroe Power Plant and ended in the vi ci ni ty
of wood posts protruding from water on north
side of river. Average water depth was 8
meters.
The station pattern during both years of study is
comparable, the only di fference being that in 1983 circular tows
were made and hence the station location was more resricted than
in 1984 when a range was sampled.

-------
BASIN DESCRIPTION
The River Raisin drains an area of 1,070 square miles (2,771
square km) and di scharges into the western basin of Lake Erie at
Monroe, Michigan (Figure 3). A portion of Michigan’s
southeastern lower peninsula and the northeastern portion of
Fulton County, Ohio lie within the boundaries of the basin. The
drainage basin narrows down to a 2.5 mile (4 km—wide) strip for
the last 15 miles (24 km) of the river. The area consists of
clay till reworked by glacial lake water and veneered by
lacustrine sands, silts, and clays. Two—thirds of Monroe County
is covered by a layer of this glacial drift that is less than 50
feet (15 m) in thickness. The underlying bedrock is mostly
carbonate in composition (Mozola, 1970).
HYDROLOGY
Monroe County is essentially flat terrain. There is a
gentle slope southeastward from a maximum elevation of 730 feet
(223 m) in the northwest corner to 572 feet (114 in) at Lake
Erie. This gradual decline of only 158 feet (48 m) in nearly 26
miles (42 km) explains the low velocities of streams located in
the county (Mozola, 1970).
Runoff in the drainage basin i s Si gnfi cant due to the clay
till. The runoff during rain events creates rapid stream
fluctuations and very turbid waters. Relative to other areas in
Michiagn, erosion in the River Raisin basin is considered to be
high. The U. S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 8.3 to
10.8 tonnes of topsoil per hectare per year are lost (Michigan
DNR, 1979). The Li. S. Department of the Interior (1967) reported
that the average annual precipitation for the drainage basin area
is 31.52 inches (80.1 cm). Of this amount, approximately one—
third runs off through the river system.
Much of the area adjacent to the River Raisin is prone to
flooding. A large portion of the eastern fringe of the city of
Monroe was once marshland. Over the last thirty years,
approximately 8O of the marshlands have been filled in for
industrial and recreational uses. The river banks and
surrounding areas at the mouth of the River Raisin are man-made
(Monroe County Drain Commission, 1984).
The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a stream flow
guage (Station #04176500) in the River Raisin near Monroe. It is
located in Monroe County, 1.3 km downstream from the bridge on
the Ida Maybe Road, at latitude 41 57’ 38” and longitude 83 31’
52”. The drainage area above this point in the river is 1,042
square miles (2,699 square km). The average discharge for the
period of record 1937—1981 was 709 cubic ft/sec (19.9 cubic
m/sec). The maximum and minimum discharge for the period of
record was 14,500 cubic ft/sec (407.3 cubic m/sec) and 2 cubic
ft/sec (0.06 cubic m/sec), respectively (U.S.Geological Survey,

-------
1982). River flows for an 11—year period are displayed in Figure
4. Peak flow frequencies for the period of record since 1938 are
presented in Figure 5.
The City of Monroe maintains a stream flow guage in the
River Raisin at Dam #1 (second low head dam relative to the river
mouth). This guage Is located in the City of Monroe
approximately 152 m downstream from Maple Avenue (Petty, 1984).
Daily readings are recorded by the Monroe Waste Treatment Plant
(WWTP).
The lake level is monitored hourly by a National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) guage located
near the study area. Water stage readings for Gage 3087 in the
turning basin (station 4) are presented in Figure 6 (January 1,
1975 to March 31, 1983).
The port of Monroe is served by a dredged shipping canal
15,800 feet (4.8 kin) long, 300 feet (91.2 m) wide and 21 feet
(6.4 in) deep from Lake Erie to the mouth of the River Raisin.
From the river mouth to the turning basin, there is a dredged
channel 8,100 feet (2.5 kin) long and 200 feet (60.8 m) wide
(Michigan DNR, 1979).
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Most of the River Raisin is in areas of agricultural
production. Over 70% of Lenawee and Monroe Counties is farmland.
Urban development of the basin is centered around three
cities: Monroe, Adrian, and Tecumseh. Monroe, at the river
mouth is the most populous and industrialized city in the
basin. Much of the industry is associated with automobile
manufacturing in nearby Detroit. Additional industries in the
area are primary metals, fabrication of metal products, machinery
and transportation equipment, manufacture of paper products,
chemicals, furniture, food processing and dairy related
industries (Michigan DNR, 1979).
Several paper product companies are located on the River
Raisin within the study area. Consolidated Packaging
Corporation, South and North Plant closed on February 1978 and
July 1975, respectively, produced corrugated and solid fiber
containers. Time Container Company, a paper products industry,
is located upstream of the study site near the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad. Union Camp Corporation on the north shore of the
River Raisin produces corrugated paper board and containers. The
effluents from the primary treatment facilities of both Time
Container and Union Camp are sent to the Monroe WWTP for
secondary treatment (Michigan Department of Public Health and the
Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1969).
The Detroit Edison Monroe electric generating plant, located

-------
near the mouth of the River Raisin, Is the largest coal —burning
plant in the United States. Up to 85 cubic rn/sec of river/lake
water is pumped for cooling purposes. During spring runoff, the
River Raisin makes up more than 95% of the cooling water.
However, during low flow in the summer, the river makes up less
than 5%, the balance of water coming from Lake Erie. Water
enters the cooling system through a 100—meter long intake canal
that Is located about 650 meters upstream from the river mouth.
The water passes through a condenser and is then released into a
350—meter long, concrete conduit where water velocities are
approxi mately 1 rn/sec at full operati on. The water is then
discharged through a rock—walled 175-meter wide canal. Plum
Creek joins the discharge canal, but contri butes less than 1% of
the volumetric flow to Lake Erie. The average annual river
discharge is equivalent to 20% of the total cooling water demand
— the rest is drawn from Lake Erie (Cole. 1978).In essence almost
all the river water is funnelled through the power plant.
The Monroe Metropolitan Pollution Control Facility is an
acti Va ted sludge treatment plant with a design capacity of 24 MGO
(90,800 cubic mid). The plant receives raw wastewater from the
City of Monroe and the Frenchtown and Monroe townships.
Industrial di schargers contri bute approxi inately 70% of the daily
flow (Horvath 1985). The treated effluent is discharged into the
RI ver Raisin. Under severe runoff condi ti ons, high flows in the
collection system exceed plant capacity. During this time,
untreated wastewater is pumped directly into the river from the
flood pumping station.
The Ford Motor Company Stamping Plant at Monroe draws its
process and cooling water from Lake Erie. The water is treated
with chlorine, lime and ferric sulfate prior to being used
(Boerson. 1984). Waste cooling and process waters and sanitary
wastewaters are treated by the company. The combined wastewaters
are discharged to a polishing lagoon, with overflow discharged to
the River Raisin (Horvath 1985).
CONTAMINANT SOURCES
Both toxic contaminant reserves in sediments and current
toxic industrial, muninci pal and landfill effluent loadings to
the River Raisin were considered as potential sources of toxins
in the Monroe Harbor study.
Copper, chromium, and zinc were analyzed during this study
because of the relatively high concentrations of these materials
found in sediments in the River Raisin and because of the toxic
nature of these metals to cladocerans and other freshwater
invertebrates. Relatively high levels of toxic heavy metals in
the navigation channel have been reported in the literature. The
U.S. Environemtnal Protection Agency (1975) recommended that the
contaminated dredged sediments from the navigation channel should
not be disposed in the open lake. Analysis of contaminants,

-------
revealed high levels of copper (1450 mg/kg), zinc (970 mg/kg),
and chromium (530 mg/kg). Based on atomic absorption
spectroscopy (AAS) by Cranbrook Institute of Science and neutron
activation analysis by the University of Michigan’s Phoenix
Memorial Laboratory (Jones, 1983), concentrations of these metals
were relatively high when compared to mean sediment levels in
southern Lake Huron. Concentrations of some other metals were
also found to be relatively high in these studies, but their
toxicity at the current levels to freshwater biota was negligible
or unknown.
In addition to reserves of metals in the sediment, there is
an existing potential for heavy metal discharge from primary
metal production, plating, and metal machining industries in the
Monroe Harbor area.
Pol ychi on nated bi phenyl s (PCB ‘s) were included in the study
of Monroe Harbor because high levels of PCB’s in fish were found
in the area. In 1971, the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources collected fish in the River Raisin and found up to 6.45
mg/kg of Aroclor 1254 in northern pike (wet weight) and up to
3.08 mg/kg of Aroclor 1254 in carp (wet weight). The results of
a 1979 survey included a single carp with 77.2 mg/kg of total PCB
(Bunby et al, 1983)
PCB’s have been linked to industrial activity that use the
persi stant compounds in lubni cants and coolants for electri cal
equipment. PCB’s have also been found to be a by-product in
paper recycling plants. These industrial uses and processes
exist (or existed) in the River Raisin study area; therefore, it
is possible that the sediment and fish contamination observed
originated from local industrial activity.

-------
METHODS
FIELD METHODS
Sampling Plan
Larval fish samples were collected at night (45 minutes
after sunset) twice weekly, towing a .75 meter diameter conical
oceanographic plankton net of .571 millimeter mesh behind an
outboard motor—powered boat travelling at 4—5 knots. Flow rates
(i .e. volume of water sampled) were measured via a center mounted
General Oceanic Model MKII flowmeter. From 30 May to 12
September 1983, 7 stations in the lower Raisin River and adjacent
Lake Erie were sampled using 4 minute circular, oblique tows.
Raisin River water temperature data was obtained from the Monroe
Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Detroit Edison Monroe Power
Plant. From 2 April to 19 July 1984, stations 1—5 in the lower
Raisin River were sampled. In an attempt to insure parity among
replicates by sampling “new” water during each tow, and to
increase the number of species that could potentially be
statistically analyzed, tow times were increased to 6 mintues and
were made travelling upstream longitudinally at .3, .5, .7 of the
width of the river. While returning downstream to begin the next
replicate, special effort was made to travel around the pending
transects. Refer to Figures 1 and 2 for the locations of the
1983 and 1984 stations. In 1984, Raisin River surface water
temperature was measured at each station with a VWR Scientific
thermometer.
In both years, three replicate samples were collected from
each station. In the field, replicates “A” and “B” were
preserved with a 5 percent volume of 37 percent buffered
formaldehyde solution, and replicate “C” was preserved with a 100
percent volume of Dietrick’s fixative for future pathologic
analysis. Dietrick’s fixative was made using the following
reci pe:
30 parts distilled water
15 parts 95 percent ethyl alcohol
5 parts 37 percent buffered formaldehyde solution
1 part concentrated, glacial acetic acid
When larvae were determined to be sufficiently abundant,
additional weekly samples were collected for body burden
assessment. A single 10 minute tow was made at each body burden
station, but was not chemically preserved. The target species
of Gizzard shad ( Dorosorna cepedianum ) and Emerald shiner
( Notropis atherinoides ) were each:
1. Separated from the rest of the raw sample
2. Patted dry
3. Frozen whole for pick—up by Cranbrook Institute

-------
Refer to Appendix A for a list of fish larvae provided for body
burden analysis. Additionally, 3 - 4 liter amber bottles were
filled with 1 liter the surface water from each body burden
station (4, 5, 7, in 1983; 4, 5 in 1984) using the following
procedure for pick—up and analysis by Cranbrook Institute:
1. Ri n se bottle wi th sta ti on water; Di sca rd ri n se
2. Submerge bottle and fill to I liter
3. Add 100 ml methylene chloride to bottle
4. Cap and shake vigorously for 3 minutes
Water samples were not collected on nights when larval abundance
was too low for body burden analysis.
Flow Calibration
Before the first larvae sampling date, once each month, and
after the completion of the sampling season, the flowmeter was
calibrated by towing the meter on the net frame (without the net)
for a known distance (500 meters) for 10 repetitions (Appendix
B).
In order to sample all levels of the water column, our
oblique tows were adjusted to conform with water depth, as
determined with a weighted depth chain.
LABORATORY METHODS
Larval Fish Sorting
1. Record the sample date and station from the
raw sample bottle and enter, along with sorters
initials and date sorted, into the sample log book
2. Pour entire raw sample into a sand sieve (USGS #40).
3. Rinse with low pressure tap water using tygon hose
to remove fine sedi ments from the raw sample.
4. Remove an aliquot (approximately 1 cubic cm)
and dilute it with tap water into enamel
or pyrex pan.
5. Place pan in sorting chamber, under a lamp, or
other well lit area and search for larvae.
6. If larvae are found, label a tag with the
station number and date, and insert it into a vial
containing 70 percent Ethanol . Conti flue searching
until all larvae in the pan have been found and
removed.

-------
7. Repeat with additional aliquots until raw sample
is finished.
8. Dispose of extraneous zooplankton, invertebrates,
detritus, etc.
9. Rinse seive thoroughly.
10. Store larval sample in appropriate box for later
I den ti fi ca ti on.
Larval Fish Identification
Using a Bausch and Lomb stereo dissecting microscope with a
polarized stage, rheostatic light source, and magnification range
of 6x to lOOx, larval fish were identified to species (when
possible), developmental stage noted (as defined by Snyder,
1976), and total length measured to the nearest 0.5 mm . Gross
morphology was examined for pathological defects using the
criteria of Drummond(undated) The following taxonomic keys,
relevant papers, and the CLEAR larval fish archive collection
were utilized to facilitate identification.
1. Auer, N.A. (ed.) 1982. Identification of larval
fishes of the Great Lakes basin with emphasis on
the Lake Michigan drainage. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. Special
Publication 82—3:744 p.
2. Drummond, R. A. Guidelines and terminology for using
fish behavior checklist. Environmental Laboratory—
Duluth, Minnesota 55804. Unpublished. 6 p.
3. Hogue, J. J., R. Wallus, and L. K. Kory. 1976.
Preliminary guide to the identification of larval
fishes in the Tennessee River. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Div. of Forestry, Fisheries, and
Wildlife Dept., Norris, TN. 67 p.
4. Nelson, D. Working key to the larval fishes discovered
near the west shore of Lake Erie. Michigan State
University, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Unpublished. 12 p.
5. Norden, C. R. Key to larval fishes from Lake Erie.
University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.
Unpublished. 4 p.
6. Olney, J. E., G. C. Grant, F. E. Schultz, C. L. Cooper,
and J. Hagernan. 1983. Pterygiophore—
Interdigitation Patterns in larvae of four Morone
species. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 1983, No. 4:
52 5—53 1.

-------
7. Siefert, D. E. 1976. Terminologies for intervals of
larval fish development. Pages 41—60 in
Borrman (ed.); Great Lakes Fish Egg anrLarvae
Identification. Li. S. Dept. of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., FWS/
OBS—76/23.
Upon completion of the identification of a sample, the final
columns of the sample log were filled with date of
identification, identifiers initials, and number of the sample’s
vials. All fully processed samples were preserved with 70
percent ethanol and stored in the CLEAR biological archive.
Additionally, one voucher specimen of each species encountered at
each developmental stage (1—IY) observed were archived in the
CLEAR reference collection.
identi fication Problems
As noted above, all larvae encountered were identified to
species when possible, but several closely related species among
families are difficult or impossible to positively identify while
in the early larval stages. Problem families were treated in the
following manner:
CLUPEIDAE
Alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ) and Gizzard shad
( Dorosoma cepedianum ) are separated only by
meticulous measurements and/or muscle segment
(myomere) counts. Gi zzard shad overwhel mi ngly
dominated our catch, thus whenever damaged
CLUPEIDAE were encountered, they were expressed
as Gizzard shad. Sped mens in good condition
were always keyed to proper species.
CATOSTOMI DAE
CYPRINIDAE
Poor specimen condition occasionally called for an
individual to be expressed as “Unidentified
Catostomidae” or “Unidentified Cyprinid”. Carp/
Goldfish were expressed as carp due to the
difficulty of separating wild caught specimens
of these species made worse by their propensity
to hybridize with each other (Crunkilton, 1977,
personal communication)
CYPRIN 0 0 0NTIDAE
Fundulus spp. are poorly represented in the
literature, thus no attempt was made to assign

-------
our wild caught, Fundulus specimen to species.
PERCICHTHYIDAE
Morone spp. cannot be separated using morphological
features until anal ray pterygiophores become
evident at approximately 13 mm, thus Morone
spp. less than 13 mm are usually expressed as
Morone spp. and those over 13 mm In good -
condition were separated to White perch ( Morone
americana ) or White bass ( Morone chrysops) .
CENTRARCU IDAE
Lepornis spp. are virtually impossible to separate
while in their early life stages due to similar
morphology and widespread hybridization, thus
almost always were expressed as Lepomis sp.
Pomoxis spp. are also difficult, but attempts
were made when possible to separate the two
species using Seifert (1969), otherwise were
expressed as Pomoxis sp.
PERCIDAE
There were occasionally darters, Etheostoma spp.
that could not be assigned to species.
Pathology
Fish preserved in Dietrichs fixative were delivered to a
certified histology technician. These fish were dehydrated and
embedded in paraffin blocks. Smaller larvae (4—10 mm) were
embedded at a density of five fish per block. Larger fish (12—25
mm) were embedded one per block. Fish were oriented so that
longitudinal, mid-line sections, cut at 5u could be produced.
Sections were mounted on glass slides and stained with
hematoxylin and eosin. The following tissues were examined for
histologic lesions: skin, oral epi thel i urn, bronchial epi thel i urn,
gills, thymus, brain, spinal cord, eye, otolith organ, thyroid,
i nterrenal organ (adrenal ), pancreatic islets, heart, skeletal
muscle, excretory kidney, urinary bladder, head kidney
(hemopoietic organ), liver, exocrine pancreas, stomach,
intestine, peritoneal fat, air bladder, cartilage and bone.
A list of observed lesions from each fish examined was kept
and a table of lesion frequencies was generated. This data was
analyzed and compared to a table of lesions generated from
similar fi sh larvae from the control collecti Ofl site.
Several larval fish that had observed spinal deformities or
tumored growths were sent directly to the pathologist for

-------
observation before they were prepared for histological analysis.
CHEMICAL METHODS
Extraction Procedures
Details of the extracti on procedures used for the biological
samples may be found in Rathbun (1985), for the water samples In
Smith et al. (1985) and for the sediment samples in Filkins et
a]. (1 5T Brief descriptions are given below.
Biological sample tissue (approxi mately 20 g) was mixed with
anhydrous sodium sulfate and Soxhiet extracted for 48 hous with a
1:1 mixture of n—hexane and dichloromethane. When less than 20 g
of tissue was available, the total sample was extracted.
Composite larval fish samples ranged in weight from approximately
5 g to 47 g. The extract was partitioned into n—hexane and its
volume reduced to 10.0 ml over a steam bath. A one ml sample
was air dried in a tared aluminum weighing dish for lipid
determination.
Water samples were liquid—liquid extracted with
dichioromethane (10 parts water to 1 part 0CM) in clean 4 1 amber
glass solvent bottles. The extract was partitioned into
n —hexane, dried through a sodi urn sul fate column and its vol ume
reduced to 2.0 ml on a steam bath.
Sediment samples (about 20 g) were mixed with anhydrous
sodium sulfate and Soxhiet extracted for 48 hous with a 1:1
mixture of acetone and n—hexane. The extract was paritioned into
n—hexane and its volume reduced to 10.0 ml on a steam bath.
Clean-Up
All extracts were cleaned of lipids and other interferring
compounds with Florisil. Details are provided in Smith et al.
(1985). Briefly, columns were packed with 20 grams of FT rT il ;
rinsed with 50 ml n—hexane; 1 ml of extract was injected onto the
column followed by 250 ml of 4% 0CM in n—hexane. The solvent
volume was reduced over a steam bath to less than 10 ml, and to
1.0 ml under a stream of dry N2 gas. The extract was sealed in a
glass ampule until analysis.
Analysis and Quanitation
The analytical procedures used in this study are described
in great detail in Smith et a]. (1985). Briefly, samples were
analyzed on a VARIAN Mode’E3700 gas chromatograph equipped with a
63N1 electron capture detector. The chromatographic column was a
50 m fused silica column (0.2 mm i .d. ) coated with SE—54
(Hewlett—Packard). Sample vol uine was 4.5 ul and the carrier gas
was hydrogen.

-------
DATA ANALYSIS
Seven calculation steps were performed on the
ichthyoplankton database obtained from the 1983—1984 Raisin River
Study.
Step 1: Calculate larval fish density (#/1000 cu meter)
for all samples (A, B, and C) for each station
and sampling period. See Figure 7 for density
calculation procedure.
Step 2: Average A, B, and C density replicates by species,
size, station, and sampling period.
Step 3: Sum each species total density by station on an
individual sampling period basis and over the
total season.
Step 4: Calculate the average length (mm) of each
species by station and sampling period.
Step 5: Calculate the date when each species population
length (IL) by station equals 5, 10, 15, 20, 25,
30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, and 70 mm.
Step 6: Calculate the instantaneous growth rate
coefficient (G) for each species at each
station.
Step 7: Calculate mortality (Z) for each species at each
station.
Instantaneous Growth Rate Coefficients were calculated for
all fish that appeared for a sufficient period of time during the
sampling season to acquire a rate (i.e. n > 3). The
instantaneous growth rate equation utilized was
Lt = Lto e G Ct-to) where:
L(to) = Initial length
Gt = Growth rate
t = time final
to = time zero
Lt = Length at final time
Length (Lo) and Growth (G) were determined by regression
techniques using time (t) for x and length (L) for y. This

-------
procedure is outlined by Hackney and Webb (1978) in the
Proceedings of the National Workshop on Entrainment and
Impi ngement.
Mortality was calculated using the equation
Nt = N(to) e —z(t — to) where:
N(to) = Numbers of larval fish at an initial time
Z = Mortality rate
t = time final
to = time zero
Nt = Number of larval fish at final time
Further information on the development and use of this equation
can be seen in Hackney and Webb (1978).

-------
RESULTS
DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE
The predominant species of larval fish found during the 1983
—1984 EPA survey are reported in Tables 2(1983) and 3 (1984). A
total of 15,849 larval fish were collected from May 30th to
September 12th, 1983. A substantially larger population (25,583)
was collected from April 2, to July 19,1984. A feasible
explanation for the increased larval fish catch is the improved
sampling design utilized in 1984. The most abundant fish
captured during both field seasons was the gizzard shad (11,410
in 1983 and 18,853 in 1984). The major portion of the 1984
larval fish Increase (9734) is accounted for by gizzard shad,
however gizzard shad represented approximately 72 Z of the
entire larval fish population collected during each field season.
The predominance of the remaining species varied slightly
between the two field years with the largest shift found in the
white bass population (13th in 1983 and 3rd in 1984). This is
explained by the spawning season of white bass which extends from
late April to June. Remember that the field season in 1983 did
not begin until May 30th.
Analysis of the distribution of larval fish resulted in some
conflicting results between the two years. For example, the top
ten most predominant fish were generally collected at each
station in 1983 except for freshwater drum and yellow perch.
Freshwater drum larvae were not collected from either station 1,2
or 3 in 1983 and yellow perch were not observed at either station
2 or 3. However both species were represented at all stations
during the 1984 field season (Tables 4 and 5). Once again this
might be explained by our improved sampling design in 1984.
Jude et al . 1983, studied the Monroe Power Plant from
February of 1982 thru February of 1983 to assess the entrainment
and impingement of fish larvae. The abundance of each species
collected during the study has been ranked and compared to the
two separate field seasons of the present study (Table 6). The
major differences in species predominance are as follows:
Alewife not found by Jude
White Bass not found by Jude
Brook silverisde not found by Jude
Rock Bass not found by Jude
Burbot not found by OSU
Largemouth Bass not found by OSU
Northern Hogsucker not found by OSU
Estimated abundance of the predominant species and relative
percentages were calculated for Jude’s 1982 study (Table 7). As

-------
observed in the current study gizzard shad were the most abundant
(4.08 and 10 ) for a total of 86.8 Z of the fish population.
This percentage slightly exceeds the percentage calculated by OSU
(73Z).
GROWTH RATES
Two different calculations were performed to assess the
growth rate of pre and post larval fish from the River Raisin
study area. The first method involved the simple ratio of
differences in length (dl in mm) to differences in time (dt in
days). The second calculation (instantaneous growth rate
coefficient) involved the use of linear differential equation
Lt= Lto e G(t—o). Each of the methods employed in these
calculations are described previously in this report.
The 1983/1984 data for simple growth rates (dl/dt) is shown
in Table 4 for gizzard shad. Values for the two years range
from 0.27 to 0.98 mm/day. A summary of the 1983—1984 rates can
be seen in Figure 8 and 9, respectively. mdi vi dual plots of
simple growth rates by station can be seen in Figures 10—20.
Simple growth rates were also calculated for emerald shiners
at all stations in both 1983 and 1984 (Table 9). Summary plots
of the 1983 and 1984 rates can be seen in Figures 21 and 22
respecti vely . The individual plots of the simple growth rates
by station can be seen in Figures 23—33.
The instantaneous growth rate coefficients for Gizzard shad
and Emerald shiners are presented in Tables 10 and 11 and Figures
34-37..Growth is represented by the variable 11 and ranges from
0.016 to 0.125. The 1983 rates for both gizzard shad and emerald
shiners are summarized in Table 12. Each station was ranked
giving the lowest ranking (r=1) to the station with the highest
instantaneous growth rate coefficient and highest ranking to the
station with the lowest instantaneous growth rate coefficient
(r=7). The rankings for both species were combined and then re—
ranked. The initial rankings for both species were similiar for
all stations except station 2. Station 2 gizzard shad exhibited
the lowest instantaneous growth rate while station 2 emerald
shiners exhibited the highest instantaneous growth. This
discrepancy will be discussed later in this report. The 1984
rates for gizzard shad emerald shiners are ranked in Table 12,
similiar to the method previously described. However,the 1984
data did not exhibit the discrepancy of the station 2 data in
1983.
MORTALITY RATES
Mortality rates were calculated according to the equation
proposed by Hackney and Webb (1978) and outlined in the
methods section. The mortality equation involves the use of the

-------
initial and final density of larval fish resulting in the
determination of Z, the mortality rate. The mortality rates for
1983 and 1984 are presented in Tables 14 and 15 respectively. Z
should be positive under normal circumstances, indicating
decreasing larval fish density thru time. Several of the species
reported have negative estimates of the variable Z, indicating
increasing larval fish density. The initial larval fish
population size (No) in these cases is always small (<10 fish per
1000 cubic meters). These values should not be considered in
further discussion. Values based on data from species when the
initial population densities (No) are sufficiently large have
mortality rates (Z) which range from 0.011 to 0.200 (Tables 14
and 15).
PATHOLOGY
Stati on 4 fi sh were sel ected for hi stopathol ogi cal anal ysi s
because it had been selected by the USEPA as a master station and
therefore would have a corresponding weekly database of organics
and metals. Gizzard shad were selected from station 4 because of
their high density and frequency. Fish were selected from each
sampling period beginning on June 16. A list of samples taken for
pathological analyses is included in Appendix C. In addition to
station 4 gizzard shad, 15 samples were sent to the pathologist
because of observed spinal defects or possible internal tumors
(Table 16) Gizzard shad from every station on August 8 were
analyzed due to tumors observed on August 4 and 8. Finally, at
least one specimen from every species found at station 4 was
analyzed.
The results of the first group of fish revealed that the
smaller fish (i.e. <15 mm) were too difficult to interpret. The
second set of samples were selected so that the size exceeded the
15 mm limitation.
A total of 104 blocks of fish collected from six stations
between June and September 1983, were evaluated for
histopathologic lesions. Twelve different species of fish were
submitted but only gizzard shad were numerous enough for
significant analysis (Table 17). The majority of fish were
collected from stations 4 and 5. The quality of fixation of the
specimens was generally good with autolysis impeding
histopathologic interpretation in only a few cases. The quality
of the prepared slides was excellent. Twenty three organs and
tissues were present with sufficient frequency to permit
si gni fi cant analysis.
A total of 64 fishes were received for histopathologic
diagnosis from the control station (#7). There were 39 gizzard
shad, 4 alewife, and 3 yellow perch collected from the control
lake station to be compared to gizzard shad in the riverine
stations (1—6). In addition, 18 fathead minnows were submitted
which were exposed to potentially toxic substances from station

-------
4. The technical quality of these specimens was fair to good.
While consistent evaluation of 24 tissues was possible, fixation
of tissues was clearly less satisfactory that the previous lot of
fish. Many tissues had autolyzed or were distorted due to the
fact that the samples were shipped to OSU in formaldehyde and
then transferred to Dietrich’s. On the whole, however, a
significant number of specimens of good quality permitted
adequate interpretation of lesions with suffi ci ent consi stency to
validate the results.
Lesions were consistently observed only in gizzard shad from
the river stations. Basically, lesions consisted of acute
epithelial necrosis characterized by picnosis, coagulation and
separation of cells from the basement membrane and often
accompanied by sloughing into the lumen of the organ. These
changes ranged from mild to severe and from a focal to diffuse
distribution. Acute epithelial necrosis was observed with a high
frequency in the olfactory organ (94.6%), lateral line organs
(94.4%), the oropharyngeal epithelium (96.2%), esophagus (91.5%),
gills (91.5%), renal tubules (94.3%) and intestine (70.4%) (Table
18).
Two of the most severely affected, important organs were the
gills and kidney. Gill tissue was present in 47 of the 77 (61%)
gizzard shad. Besides frank necrosis of branchial epithelium, a
high percentage (80.8%) of gizzard shad had separation and
ballooning in the gill tissue interpreted to be branchial
edema. Seventy two percent of gizzard shad had gill parasites.
The most common paratsites were the protozoans Ichthyophirius sp.
and Trichodina sp. In addition, agents compatable with
Epistylus , monogenetic trematodes and glochidia of fresh water
mussels were occasionally observed. In all cases, the branchial
epithelial changes associated with these agents were localized.
The kidney was evaluated in 53 of the 77 (69%) gizzard shad. In
addition to acute tubular epithelial necrosis observed in 94.3%
of gizzard shad kidneys, there was a significant number of
kidneys (32.1%) with hyaline droplet degeneration. The lesion
was manifest as one to several circular, eosinophilic inclusions
in the cytoplasm of renal tubular epi theli um.
Sample sizes of the other species of fish were not large
enough to provide signficant interpretation. However, carp,
logperch, catfish, yellow perch and walleye had no lesions. The
spottail and emerald shiners, troutperch and Morone sp. were too
small for significant analysis. One freshwater drum was normal
and one had a questionable lesion in the olfactory organ and
intestine. The single specimen of alewife had lesions similar to
those in gizzard shad.
Table 19 compares the distribution of affected gizzard shad
(exhibiting histopathological lesions) among four different size
groups and five collection stations. Although the majority of
fish were collected from stations 4 and 5, fish from all stations
had lesions. Fish in all size classes had significant

-------
histopathological lesions. The relatively low percentage of fish
less than 20 mm long exhibiting lesions is an artefact. Many
fish in this size class were too small or not sufficiently
differentiated to permit pathological evaluation.
Several specimens were submitted with severe spinal
curvature but no hi stologi cal basis for this lesion was
observed. In addition, several fish specimens were submitted
with grossly evident tumors. Histological evaluation revealed
these to be non—neoplatic, microsporidian cysts, probably of the
genus Glugea .
A large number of fish from the control station had lesions
(Table 20). Acute coagulation necrosis of epithelial cells was
observed in 11 of 12 olfactory organs, 1 of 28 otolith organs, 10
of 11 lateral line organs, 37 of 40 oropharynxs, 31 of 38
esophaguses, 41 of 43 gills and 15 of 16 intestines. Acute renal
tubular epithelial necrosis was observed in 35 of 42 fish.
Hyaline droplet degeneration occured in the kidneys of 16 of 42
fish. Thymic lymphoid necrosis occured in 2 of 29 fish. Gill
parasites were observed on 10 of 43 (23.3%) of these fish. All
gizzard shad evaluated had lesions. The most consistent lesion
was epithelial necrosis in the gills and kidney, observed in 35
of 35 fish. Four of four alewives had gill and kidney lesions
similar to gizzard shad but less severe. Three alewives had
necrosis of the oropharyngeal epithelium. Only one yellow perch
had lesions. Mild necrosis was observed in the olfactory and
lateral line organs as well as the oropharynx and gills.
A total of 18 fathead minnows were evaluated for
histopathologic lesions. Twenty—three tissues were examined but
no lesions or abnormalities were noted. The three different
groups of fish could not be distinguished in any way by
microscopic evaluation (Table 21).

-------
DISCUSSION
DISTRIBUTION/ABUNDANCE
Average density for 1983 gizzard shad larval fish ranged
from a low at station 2 (49.6 fish/1000 cubic meters) to a
maximum at station 7 (828.2 fish /1000 cubic meters) (Table
22). Miller (1960) reported that gizzard shad were abundant
throughout the western basin of Lake Erie particularly In
protected bays and at the mouths of tributaries. Gizzard shad
are particularly attracted by warm water flowing from industrial
plants and able to withstand temperatures up to 35 C. River
Raisin should be an ideal location for gizzard shad due to the
heat introduced from the once—thru cooling power plant located
at the mouth of the river.
Suprisingly, the densities found in the River Raisin and the
surrounding portion of the western basin are low compared with
densities of peak abundance reported in the literature for Lake
Erie. Literature values of gizzard shad peak abundance (Table
23) for the Maumee River were recorded at 16,349 fish /1000 cubic
meters (Snyder, 1978). The peak abundance of larval gizzard shad
was recorded at station 6 at 5,596 fish /1000 cubic meters (Table
YY) or approximately 35 Z of peak density at the Maumee.
Literature values for the open lake area surrounding Davis Besse
fluctuated greatly (1104 — 10,369 fish 1000 cubic meters) over a
3 year period. Data from Sandusky Bay (3812/1000 cubic meters)
seems to be more in the range of the values reported for the open
lake area near Monroe and at the mouth of the RI ver Rai sin
(Snyder, 1978).
Data provided by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources based on a qualitative sediment survey undertaken in
field year indicates that station 4 and 5 both represent poorer
sediment quality due to the presence of oil or oil odors (Table
24). This is incongruous with the larval fish density data
reported for these stations. Average densities for fish < 5 mm
(indicating they were hatched within the immediate area) indicate
that station 4 and 5 contribute 10.9% and 15.2%, respectively of
the system’s larval gizzard shad. Stations 1—3 contribute less
than 10% combined (Table 25). By far, stations 6 and 7 produce
the major portion (31.9% and 30.7%) of the population.
A spring rain event on February 14, 1984 resulted in the
river stage level rising 6.2 feet above the previous day
(577.20). Although the river level had subsided by February 16th
to 578.3 feet (+1.1 feet) it took over one week for the river to
return to the level prior to the rain storm. The river level was
accentuated during this storm due to large chunks of ice blocking
the river mouth. It was believed that this event would have
disrupted much of the spawning habitat but it appears to have had
no negative effect.

-------
GROWTH RATES
Gizzard Shad
Simple Growth rate data for gizzard shad data collected by
Carlander (1970) demonstrate that throughout their distribution,
shad exhibit a higher growth rate in Lake Erie (1.0 mm/day) than
elsewhere. These rates are presented in Table 26 (Carlander,197 0
and Bodola,1955). Growth data from the recent River Raisin study
and surrounding lake area ranged from 0.25 to 2.20 mm/day (Table
8). The highest growth rates (0.94 — 2.20 mm/day) occurred at
station 3 , adjacent to the Monroe sewage treatment plant.
Growth rates from the remaining stations are substantially lower
(0.25 — 0.78 mm/day).
Growth rates following yolk sac absorption is dependent on
food abundance and availability, ability of the larvae to capture
food and water temperature (Gordon, 1982). Gizzard shad larvae
are planktivores, switching from zooplankton to phytoplankton
after the first few weeks (Miller 1 1960). Possibly the
differences in simple growth rates between stations can be
explained by the analysis of the distribution and abundance of
plankton.
The growth rate coefficient data presents a different
picture than that of the simple growth rates (Tables 12 and
13). The fastest gizzard shad growth rates predi cted from growth
rate coefficient data Occurred at station 1 during both 1983 and
1984. The second most productive station was station 3 in 1983
and station 2 in 1984. The discrepancy obtained from utilizing
the results of the two different growth rate techniques has not
been resolved to date.
Part of the problem with utilizing the Hackney and Webb
(1978) equation to calculate growth rate coefficients is that
gizzard shad are wide temporal spawners and that the presence of
newly hatched larvae over several months biases the actual growth
rate. In the future, calculations for wide temporal spawners
might be calculated by simply using data limited to the largest
larvae captured as suggested by Gordon, 1982. The differences in
rate coefficients that she obtained when using the entire
popul a ti on (0.028) was lower than that obtained when data for
only the largest larvae was utilized (0.034).
The growth rate coefficients found by Gordon (1982) found
for 1978 - 1980 gizzard shad at Davis Besse (0.028 — 0.034) are
within the range of those found for the River Raisin 1983 — 1984
study (0.017 — 0.090).
Emerald Shiners
Simple growth rates (dl/dt) calculated for emerald shiners
(Table 9) ranged from 0.19 to 1.06 mm/day with the highest value
occurring at station 3 in 1984. Similiar data presented in

-------
Carlander (1970) indicates growth for emerald shiner larvae was
5.6 mm/week or 0.8 mm/day, slightly higher than the average
simple growth rate calculated for 1983 — 1984 (0.48 (mm/day).
Growth coefficient data again indicates different results when
compared to simple growth rate results. The 1983 coefficient
data shows that station 2 has the fastest growth and station 5
the slowest. The results for 1984 indicate a wider range of
growth rate coefficients (-.009 to 0.142) with station 4 having
the highest rate and station 3 the lowest. -
Once again the discrepancy between the two methods may be
explained by the wide temporal spawning range. The number of
days over which 5 mm larvae were collected is used to demonstrate
the seasonal range for spawning. Length of the spawning season
in days for 1983 gizzard shad and emerald shiners is as follows:
STATION SPECIES
Gizzard Shad Emerald Shiner
1 35 22
2 14 45
3 39 31
4 49 43
5 56 42
6 46 25
7 73 6
The number of potential spawning days ranges from 6 to 73.
This variability results in an irregular flux of newly hatched
larvae masking the actual growth rate results.
MORTALITY RATES
Gizzard Shad
Data resulting from instantaneous mortality calculations is
more difficult to interpret thatn the growth data. Z, the
esti mated mortali ty coeffi ci ent should be positive under normal
circumstances. In many cases (32 ) of the data points for both
1983 and 1984, many of these data points exist for species when
the ml tial population size (No) is sma1l (i.e. < 10 fi sh/1000
cubic meters). One case of negative mortality (an increase in
population size through time) occurred for gizzard shad at
station 3, 1983, with an initial population density of 45.5 fish
per 1000 cubic meters. This data will be deleted from further
discussion due to a lack of suffi ci ent densi ty.
The 1983/1984 mortality results for all species are
presented in Tables 14 and 15 respectively. Mortality data for
gizzard shad are as follows:

-------
YEAR STATION Z
83 1 .018
2 .001
3 —.010
4 .043
5 .044
6
7
84 1 .073
2 .082
3 .049
4 .049
Mortality rate coefficients ranged from —.010 to .082. As
with the instantaneous growth rates, station 2 mortality rates
were the most inconsistent between the 2 years ranging from a low
mortality (.001) in 1983 to the highest mortality rate observed
in 1984 (.082). Station 2 growth data demonstrated the lowest
growth (.017) in 1983 and the highest in 1984. In summary, 1983
station 2 data had the lowest growth rate and also the lowest
mortality. In 1984, when the growth rate was high, mortality was
also high. StatIon 1 gizzard shad mortality data also presented
a dichotomy between the two field years due to the large increase
in mortality during 1984.
Little is written in the literature about the calculation of
larval fish instantaneous mortality data. Hackney and Webb
(1978) present only one example of intstantaneous mortality for
larval crappie in which Z = 0.1067. This represents higher
mortalities than those observed during this study. Hackney and
Webb were also dealing with much more dense fish populations
(i.e. No = 7.6 x 10 ) which exceeds any of the population sizes
encountered in the Raisin.
In general, mortality rates are much higher for the 1984
field season and unless data can be correlated on a yearly and a
station basis for food availability, toxic contamination it will
be difficult to interpret the significance of these results.
PATHOLOGY
Although the preliminary analysis did not include any fish
from the control station the hi stologi cal al terati oris observed
were determined to be real and in most individuals, severe. The
lesions of acute epithelial necrosis in tissues in contact with
environmental water (sensory organs,oropharynx,proximal esophagus
and gills)are compatable with acute toxicity due to direct
action of an environmental contaminant. Similar lesions in the
intestine and excretory kidney are compatable with concentrations
of a toxic substance at sites of absorption, metabolism and/or
excretion. There was no observable evidence of carcinogenic ty.

-------
Probably the most significant lesions were those observed in
the gills and kidney. Significant necrosis in these tissues may
impair gas exchange,electrolyte concentration,nitrogen metabolism
and osmotic regulation, which might adversely affect
performance. Hyaline droplet degeneration in renal tubular
epithelium is often correlated with excessive proteinuria. The
extent, frequency and severity of these lesions in the gizzard
shad might reasonably be expected to have a negative effect on
the exposed local fish population. In addition, if gizzard shad
retain any toxic substances, predation by piscivorous fish, birds
and mammals might cause accumulation and potentially cause
lesions at higher trophic levels.
The histological changes observed in the control station
gizzard shad are interpretted to be real and significant
pathological lesions. The lesions were characteristic of acute
coagulation necrosis and ranged in severity from mild to
severe. These lesions are almost identical to those found in the
river shad, and while not diagnostic, are compatable with toxic
etiology. The tissue distribution of lesions is strikingly
similiar to that observed in the gizzard shad from the river
stations. As observed in the river shad, the tissue pattern is
consistent with an environmental toxicant which is concentrated
or transported in the intestine and kidney. Although the numbers
of alewife and yellow perch are too few to draw conclusions, it
appears that alewife were simuliarily but less severly affected
than gizzard shad. Likewise, the data suggests that yellow perch
seem more resistant.
The finding of fish with lesions similiar to those from the
river and the control station was unexpected (Table 27). There
are several possible explanations. One explanation is that the
fish move between the two localities and that the two samples
represent a single fish subpopulatjon. An argument against this
hypothesi S may be found in the histologic observations of the two
groups of shad. Gill parasites were observed on 34 of 47 (72.3%)
of the river shad. However, only 10 of 36 (27.8 Z) shad from
the control lake station had gill parasi tes. Thi s seems to be a
large difference and suggests that the samples are drawn from
either separate shad subpopulatjons or that exchange between the
two localities is very slow. A second explanation for the
pathologic changes in the control shad is that the control shad
station is contaminated with similiar toxicants to those in the
river system. Comparison of water chemistry data from the two
localities not only will be helpful in answering this question
but may also suggest which substance(s) may be involved. A third
explanation is that the lesions might be caused by an unaccounted
for variable common to both localities but unrelated to pollution
(i.e. viral disease). In the authors opinion, the most likely
explanation is contamination of the control station. If thi s is
correct, it might indicate that a serious health problem exists
for gizzard shad and perhaps alewife over a wide range of
environments in Lake Erie.

-------
Failure to observe lesions in the experimentally exposed
fathead minnows might be explained by any of several
hypotheses. It is possible that the fathead minnows are either
more tolerant or resistant to the exposed toxic material than the
naturally exposed fish (gizzard shad). Alternatively, there may
have been an insufficient level of toxic material In the
experimental system or low bioavailability of material which was
present. It is also possible that there was insufficient time
for lesion development.

-------
REFERENCES CITED
Boersen,G. 1984. Report of an industrial wastewater
survey conducted at Ford Motor COmpany, Monroe Stamping
Plant, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 15 p.
Bodola, A. 1955. The Life History of the Gizzard Shad,
Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSeur), in western Lake Erie.
Ph.D. Dissertation , The Ohio State University, 130 p.
Burby,B.G., Barnes, M.D., and Herdendorf,C.E., 1983.
Organochiorine contaminant concentrations and uptake
rates in fishes in Lake Erie tributary mouths.
The Ohio State Uni versi ty, Center for Lake Erie Area
Research, Columbus, CLEAR Tech. Rep. No. 241. 185 p.
Carlander, K. D. 1970. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery
Biology. Volume 1. Life History Date of Freshwater
Fishes of the United States and Canada, Exclusive of the
Percjformes. The Iowa State University Press, 752 p.
Cole,R.A. 1978. Entrainment at a once—through
cooling system on western Lake Erie. Institute of Water
Research and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife —Michigan
State University. EPA—600/3-78—070. pp. 1—10.
Cooper, C.L., Bartholomew,W.C., Herdendorf,C.E., Reutter,
J.M., and Snyder,F.L., 1981a. Lirnnetic larval fish
of the Mauniee and Sandusky river estuaries.
J. Great Lakes Res. 7(1): 51—54.
Cooper, C.L., Heniken,M.R., and Herdendorf,C.E., 1981b.,,
Limnetic larval fish of the Ohio waters of western Lake
Erie, 1975—1976. J. Great Lakes Res. 7(1):62—64.
Cooper, C. L., Mizera, J. J., and Herdendorf, C. E. 1981c.
Distribution, abundance and entrainment studies of larval
fishes in the western and central basins of Lake Erie.
The Ohio State University, Center for Lake Erie Area
Research, Columbus, CLEAR Tech. Rep. No. 222, 149 p.
CrunkiltonR, 1977. Personal Communication.
Filkins,J.C., Mullin,M.D .,, Richardson,W.L., Smi th,VE.,
Rathbun,J.E,, Rood, S.G., Rygwelski,K.R.an Kipp,T. ,1985.
A report on the surficial and vertical distribution of
pol ychi on nated bi phenyl s in the sedi ments of the lower
River Raisin , Monroe Harbor,Michigan—1983 and 1984.
Report to the USEPA LArge Lakes Research Station, Grosse
lie, Michigan.
Gordon, 1. C. 1982. Instantaneous Growth Rates, Spatial
and Temporal Distributions of Abundant Larval Fish in the
Western Basin of Lake Erie at Locust Point, Ohio. M.S.

-------
Thesis, The Ohio State Unvierslty, 51 p.
Hackney,P.A., and Webb,J.C., 1978. A method for
Determing growth and mortality rates of icthyoplankton.
Pages 115 — 124 in L.D. Jensen (ed.) , Fourth National
Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications
Melville, N.Y.
Horvath,F., 1985. Monroe Harbor Report. SW—WQS—
CLP—3-27—002. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Unpublished Report, 9 pg.
Hubbs,C.L. and Lagler,K.F ., 1964. Fishes of the Great
Lakes region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor. 213 p.
Jones, J.D., 1983. Personal communication. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Jude,D.J., Mansfield,p .J ., and Perrone,M.,Jr.1983.
Impingement and entrainment of fish and effectiveness
of the fish return system at the Monroe Power Plant,
Western Lake Erie, 1982—1983. Special Report No. 101
Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Mi
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality
Division, Biology Section. 1979. River Quality in the
River Raisin basin. pp. 3—4.
Michigan Department of Public Health and the Michigan
Water Resources Commission. 1969. The River Raisin basin.
p. 74
Miller, R. R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the Gizzard
Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes. Fishery
Bulletin 173, Volume 60, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mizera,J .J., Cooper,C.L., and Herdendorf,C.E., 1981.
Ljmnetjc larval fish in the nearshore zone of the western
basin of Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 7(1):62—64.
Monroe county Drain Commission. 1984. Environmental
Assessment— Monroe Metropolitan area. pp. 1-6.
Mozola,A.J., 1970. Geology for environmental planning
in Monroe County, Michigan— report investigation 13.
Geological Survey Division, Department of Natural Resources.
pp. 1—8.
Petty,S.M.,, 1984. Personal communication. City of Monroe
Smith,V.E., Rathbun,J.E., Rood.,S.G., Rygwelski,K.R.,

-------
Rathbun, J. 1985.
Richardson, W.L., and Dolan, D.M., 1985. Distribution
of Contaminants of Monroe Harbor (River Raisin),
Michigan and Adjacent Lake Erie. USEPA, Large Lakes
Research Station, 154 p.
Snyder, 0. E. 1976. Terminologies for intervals of
larval fish development. pp. 41—60 In J. Borrrnan (ed.),
Great Lakes Fish egg and larvae Identification. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Widlife Service,
Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS—76/23.
Snyder, F. L. 1978. Ichthyoplankton studies in the Maumee
and Sandusky River Estuaries of Lake Erie. The Ohio State
University, Center for Lake Erie Area Research, Columbus,
CLEAR Tech. Rep. No. 92, 140 p.
Tin, H. T. and Jude, 0. J. 1983. Distribution and Growth
of Larval Rainbow Smelt in Eastern Lake Michigan, 1978—
1981. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112:517—524.
Trautman,M.B., 1981. The fishes of Ohio. The Ohio
State University Press, Columbus. 782 p.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 1967.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Monroe,
Michigan. Report on the degree of pollution of bottom
sediments. 1975 Harbor Sediment Sampling program, April 9,
1975. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Great Lakes Surveillance Branch, Chicago, 9 p.
U. S. Geological Survey. 1982. Water resources data —
Michigan water year 1981. Water Data Report MI—Si—i,
435 p.
Van Meter,H.D., and Trautman,M.B., 1970. An annotated
list of the fishes of Lake Erie amd its tributary
waters exclusive of the Detroit River.
Ohio J. Sd . 70:65—78.
Wickliff. ,E.L., 1931. Fishery research by the -Ohio
Department of Conservation. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 61:199—207.
White, A.M., Trautman,M.B., Foell,E.J., Kelty,M.P.,
and Gaby,R., 1975. Water quality baseline assessment
for the Cleveland area — Lake Erie. Vol. II. The
fishes of the Cleveland metropolitan area Including
the Lake Erie shoreline. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency , EPA—905/9—75—O01. 181 p.

-------
TABLES

-------
Table 1
Larval Fish Species for the
1983 —1984
River Raisin
SPECIES # CODE
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
201
202
203
204
COMMON NAME
carp
goldfish
shiner or minnow
spottail shiner
emerald shiner
central stoneroller
bluntnose minnow
golden shiner
creek chub
silverjaw minnow
whi te sucker
lake chubsucker
quillback carpsucker
uni denti fled
sucker
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Cyprinus carpio
Carassius auratus
Cypri ni d
Notropis hudsonius
Notropi s atheri noi des
Campostoma anomalum
Pimephales notatus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Semotilus atromaculatus
Ericymba buccata
Catostomus commersoni
Erimyzon sucetta
Carpiodes cyrpinus
Catostornus sp.
301
302
401
402
403
404
405
501
601
602
603
701
702
703
704
705
706
al ewi fe
gizzard shad
channel catfish
stonecat madtom
yellow bullhead
tadpole madtom
unidentified catfish
trout—perch
wh.bass or wh.perch
white bass
whi te perch
green sunfi sh
unidentified sunfish
white crappie
rock bass
wh. or bi. crappie
bluegill
Alosa pseudoharengus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Ictalurus punctatus
Notorus flavus
Ictalurus natalis
Notorus gyrinus
Ictalurus sp
Percopsi S
omi scomaycus
Morone sp.
Morone chrysops
Morone americana
Lempomi s cyanel 1 us
Lepomis sp.
Pomoxis annularis
Ambl opi I tes
rupestri 5
Pomoxi $ sp.
Lepomis macrochirus

-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SPECIES # CODE
801
802
803
804
805
806
901
1001
1101
1201
1301
1401
1501
1901
COMMON NAME
yellow perch
logperch
sauger
wall eye
johnny darter
perch or darter
freshwater drum
rainbow smelt
brook silverside
killifish or topminnow
northern pike
Brook stickleback
lake whitefish
Unidentified
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Perca flavescens
Perci na caprodes
Sti zostedion canadense
Stizostedion v.
vi treum
Etheostoma nigrun
Perci dae
Api odi notus grunni ens
Osmerus mordax
Labidesthes sicculus
Fundulus sp.
Esox lucius
Culaea inconstans
Coregonus ci upeaformi s
Unidentified

-------
TABLE 2
Abundance of Larval Fish Collected in the River Raisin, 1983
Total # Larvae % of Total
Collected, 1983 Collected, 1983
1 Gizzard shad 11,440 72.1
2 Emerald shiner 919 5.8
3 Carp 814 5.1
4 Morone sp. 701 4.4
5 Freshwater drum 512 3.3
6 Spottail shiner 345 2.2
7 Channel catfish 245 1.5
8 Yellow perch 215 1.4
9 Lepomis spp. 114 0.7
10 Unidentified Cyprinid 99 0.6
11 Alewife 63 0.4
12 Walleye 67 0.4
13 White bass 49 0.3
14 Logperch 44 0.28
15 Brook silverside 49 0.27
16 Rock bass 29 0.18
17 Rainbow smelt 25 0.17
18 White sucker 16 0.101
19 Trout—perch 16 0.100
20 Bluntnose minnow 14 0.088
21 Pomoxis sp. 12 0.080
22 Tadpole madtom 9 0.057
23 White crappie 8 0.050
24 Sauger 7 0.040
25 Stonecat madtorn 6 0.040
26 Johnny darter 4 0.020
27 Unidentified 5 0.020
28 Unidentified percid 2 0.020
29 Silverjaw minnow 3 0.019
30 Quillback carpsucker 2 0.013
31 Golden shiner 2 0.013
32 Green sunfish 2 0.010
33 White perch 2 0.010
34 Goldfish 1 0.006
35 Central stoneroller 1 0.006
36 Lake chubsucker 1 0.006
37 Creek chub 1 0.006
38 Unidentified catostomid 1 0.006
39 Yellow bullhead 1 0.006
40 Ictalurus sp. 1 0.006
41 Bluegill 1 0.006
42 Unidentified Fundulus 1 0.005
TOTAL
15,849
99. 834

-------
TABLE 3
Abundance of Larval Fish Collected in the River Raisin, 1984
Total # Larvae % of Total
Collected, 1984 Collected 1984
1 Gizzard shad 18,853 73.7
2 Carp 1,849 7.3
3 White bass 976 3.8
4 Morone sp. 952 3.7
5 Channel catfish 907 3.5
6 Freshwater drum 532 2.1
7 Lepomis sp. 457 1.8
8 Emerald shiner 365 1.4
9 Spottail shiner 225 0.9
10 Rainbow smelt 124 0.5
11 White sucker 83 0.3
12 Yellow perch 44 0.17
13 Walleye 40 0.16
14 Trout—perch 39 0.15
15 Logperch 29 0.11
16 Tadpole madtom 25 0.10
17 Pomoxis sp. 12 0.047
18 White crappie 10 0.039
19 Rock bass 10 0.039
20 Stonecat madtom 9 0.035
21 Lake chubsucker 8 0.031
22 Alewife 8 0.031
23 White perch 5 0.0195
24 Johnny darter 5 0.0195
25 Unidentified 5 0.0195
26 Northern pike 4 0.0156
27 Green sunfish 2 0.0078
28 Unidentified cyrpinid 1 0.0039
29 Bluntnose minnow 1 0.0039
30 Brook stickleback 1 0.0039
31 Lake whitefish 1 0.0039
32 Yellow bullhead 1 0.0039
TOTAL
25, 583
100. 0 134

-------
TABLE 4
Distribution of Larval Fish Collected in the River Raisin, 1983
Station #
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gizzard shad
Emerald shiner
Carp
Morone sp.
Freshwater drum
Spottail shiner
Channel catfi sh
Yellow perch
Lepomis sp.
Unident. cyprinid
Al ewi fe
Wall eye
White bass
Logperch
Brook silverside
Rock bass
Rainbow smelt
White sucker
Trout-perch
Bluntnose minnow
Pomoxjs sp.
Tadpole madtom
White crappie
Sauger
Stonecat madtom
Johnny darter
Unidentified
Unident. Percid
Silverjaw minnow
Quiliback carpsucker
Golden shiner
Green sunfi sh
Whi te perch
Gol dfi sh
Cent. stoneroller
Lake chubsucker
Creek chub
Unident. catostomid
Yellow bullhead
Ictalurus sp.
91 uegi 11
Unident. Fundulus
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x
x x
x
x x x
x x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

-------
TABLE 5
Distribution of Larval Fish Collected in the River Raisin, 1984
Station #
1 2 3 4
1 Gizzard shad x x x x
2 Carp x x x x
3 White bass x x x x
4 Morone sp. x x x x
5 Channel catfish x x x x
6 Freshwater drum x x x
7 Lepomis spp. x x x x
8 Emerald shiner x x x x
9 Spottail shiner x x x x
10 Rainbow smelt x x x x
11 White sucker x x x x
12 Yellow perch x x x x
13 Walleye x x x x
14 Trout—perch x x x
15 Logperch x x x
16 Tadpole madtom x x x
17 Pomoxis sp. x x
18 White crappie x x x
19 Rock bass x x
20 Stonecat madtom x x x
21 Lake chubsucker x x x
22 Alewife x x x x
23 Whi te perch X
24 Johnny darter x x x
25 Unidentified x x x x
26 Northern pike x x
27 Green sunfish x
28 Undentified cyprinid x
29 Bluntnose minnow x
30 Brook stickleback X
31 Lake whi tefi sh
32 Yellow bullhead x

-------
TABLE 6
Ranking of Species Abundance Determinined in the River Raisin
1983 Study Compared to Jude’s 1982 Study
Jude osu osu
1982 1983 1984
SPECIES
Gizzard shad 1 1 1
Emerald shiner 7 2 8
Carp 5 3 3
Morone Sp. 3 4 4
Freshwater drum 2 5 6
Spottail shiner 9 6 9
Channel catfish ii 7 5
Yellow perch 4 8 12
Lepomis 17 9 7
Cyrpinid (unid) 12 10 28
Alewife NF 11 22
Walleye 15 12 13
White bass NF 13 3
Logperch 18 14 15
Brook silverside NE 15 NE
Rock bass NF 16 19
Rainbow smelt 8 17 10
White sucker 16 18 11
Trout—perch 14 19 14
Bluntriose minnow 23 20 29
Pomoxis Sp. 20 21 17
Tadpole madtom 24 22 16
Damaged larvae 6 NF HF
Quiliback carpsucker 10 30 HF
Burbot 13 HF HF
Largemouth bass 19 NE HF
Lake whitefish 21 NE 31
Northern hogsucker 22 NE HF

-------
TABLE 7
Estimated Numbers of Fish Larvae Entrained from
February 13, 1982 through February 12, 1983
at the Monroe Power Plant
(Data Taken from Jude, et al., 1983)
Total Impinged % of Total
0
4.08 x 10 86.8
8
1.58 x 10 3.4
8
1.56 x 10 3.3
8
1.28 x 10 2.7
7
8.0 x 10 1.7
7
3.8 x 10 0.8
7
2.3 x 10 0.5
7
1.1 x 10 0.2
6
5.0 x 10 0.1
6
4.9 x 10 0.1
6
4.1 x 10 0.09
6
2.8 x 10 0.06
3
2.8 x 10 0.06
6
2.4 x 10 0.05
6
2.1 x 10 0.04
6
1.2 x 10 0.03
5
9.2 x 10 0.02
5
6.0 x 10 0.01
5
6.0 x 10 0.01
5
5.8 x 10 0.01
5
1.9 x 10 0.004
3
1.2 x 10 0.003
99.987
Species
Gizzard shad
Freshwater drum
White bass and White perch
Yellow perch
Common carp
Damaged larvae
Emerald shiner
Rainbow smelt
Spottail shiner
Quiliback carpsucker
Channel catfi sh
Uni denti fled Cypri ni d
Burbot
Trout—perch
Wal 1 eye
Whi te sucker
Lempomis spp.
Logperch
Largernouth bass
Pomoxis spp.
Unidentified Coregonid
Northern hogsucker
TOTAL

-------
TABLE 8
Gizzard Shad Simple Growth Rates
River Raisin 1983/1984
Data Taken from Printout — Step 4
Species Station Year Initial Final Initial Final dl (mm)
Day Day Size Size ai (day)
(mm) (mm)
Gizzard 1 1983a 199 220 40.5 49.2 0.41
shad b 202 244 31.2 48.2 0.40
c 192 237 14.7 35.3 0.46
d 171 181 4.0 6.5 0.25
2 1983a 160 209 3.5 41.6 0.78
b 171 227 3.5 40.4 0.66
c 174 230 4.3 33.5 0.52
3 1983a 160 195 3.5 38.0 0.98
b 164 209 3.9 47.4 0.97
c 167 216 3.8 49.9 0.94
4 1983a 160 223 3.0 45.3 0.67
b 209 251 12.3 41.7 0.70
5 1983a 150 234 6.7 37.3 0.36
b 160 227 6.8 31.5 0.37
c 171 230 6.0 27.2 0.36
d 188 241 10.1 30.0 0.38
e 209 216 13.9 16.4 0.36
6 1983a 150 227 8.0 32.9 0.32
b 167 234 8.9 30.8 0.33
c 174 230 9.7 28.3 0.33
d 160 181 4.0 9.7 0.27
e 199 213 11.7 16.9 0.37
7 1983a 164 216 7.8 24.9 0.33
b 167 227 7.5 26.0 0.31
c 171 213 5.2 19.8 0.35
d 195 220 11.4 20.4 0.36
e 199 234 6.8 17.8 0.32

-------
TABLES’ (Continued)
Gizzard Shad Simple Growth Rates
Data taken from Printout — Step 4
Species Station Year Initial Final Initial Final dl (mm)
Day Day Si ze Si ze i ( iy)
(mm) (mm)
Gizzard 1 1984a 145 201 3.3 43.4 0.72
shad b 159 194 3.1 29.0 0.74
c 163 191 3.3 23.2 0.71
d 166 180 3.3 9.9 0.47
e 170 184 3.3 11.2 0.56
2 1984a 163 187 3.5 21.6 0.75
b 166 184 3.4 16.1 0.70
c 173 198 7.6 24.6 0.68
d 170 194 3.4 19.8 0.68
3 1984a 170 176 3.8 16.4 2.10
b 180 187 8.6 23.7 2.20
c 184 194 13.4 32.8 1.90
d 170 191 3.8 18.4 0.70
e 163 198 3.4 25.8 0.64
f 159 187 3.2 23.7 0.73
4 1984a 149 201 3.3 35.4 0.62
b 156 180 3.2 18.1 0.62
c 166 198 3.9 22.6 0.58
d 170 194 3 .9 15.2 0.47
e 170 198 3.9 22.6 0.68

-------
TABLE
Emerald Shiner Simple Growth Rates,
River Raisin 1983/1984
2 1983a 171
b 195
mi tial
Size
(mm)
Fl nal
Si ze
(mm)
dl (mm)
•a•t caiy)
Species Station Year initial Final
Day Day
Erneral d
shi ner
Emerald
shi ner
1
1983a
b
c
d
e
171
192
171
192
174
230
234
216
241
223
5.9
6.0
5.9
6.0
6.0
31.3
14.0
31.0
33.8
30.8
0.43
0.19
0.56
0.57
0.51
241
255
6.0
6.5
34.3
36.0
0.40
0.49
3
1983a
b
c
d
160
171
174
227
230
209
251
255
6.5
7.5
5.5
11.1
39.9
22.9
38.4
34.9
0.48
0.41
0.43
0.85
4
1983a
b
c
d
e
167
171
171
206
209
202
241
192
244
227
5.0
5.0
5.0
11.8
7.8
23.1
31.8
11.0
25.2
13.5
0.52
0.38
0.29
0.35
0.32
5
1983a
b
181
164
230
241
14.0
4.0
26.0
20.5
0.24
0.21
6
1983a
b
c
185
181
206
195
216
230
17.3
5.5
11.0
19.4
20.2
19.0
0.21
0.42
0.33
7
1983a
b
c
185
202
206
195
251
230
13.4
13.3
13.0
19.0
32.7
23.0
0.56
0.40
0.42
1
1984a
b
c
166
163
184
198
187
191
5.5
7.0
8.2
25.8
16.5
12.5
0.63
0.40
0.61
2
1984a
b
176
170
198
194
13.5
5.5
29.0
23.3
0.70
0.74
3
1984a
166
201
3.8
40.9
1.06
4
1984a
163
180
5.5
14.4
0.52

-------
TABLE -10
Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients,
River Raisin 1983
Species Code:
Lo:
Li:
Lo :L1:
Convergence:
For species identi
Length at initial
Growth rate coeffi
Correlation
Yes or No
ty see Table 1
time fish observed
ci ent = Slope of Growth
STATION #
SPECIES CODE
Lo
Li
Correlation
Lo Li
CONVERGENCE
1
1
1
1
105
301
302
1101
3.5
55.7
4.3
30.7
0.037
0.032
0.051
0.022
—.9919
—.9074
—.9923
—.9399
yes
yes
yes
yes
2
2
105
302
2.7
15.5
0.048
0.017
—.9926
—.9826
yes
yes
3
3
3
3
105
301
302
1101
3.0
52.0
5.4
29.0
0.036
-0.006
0.036
0.016
-.9892
—.8354
—.9920
-.8943
yes
yes
yes
yes
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
101
103
105
302
702
802
901
8.6
3.0
10.1
10.0
2.8
11.9
10.0
0.017
0.023
0.023
0.024
0.031
0.053
0.047
—.9620
—.9735
—.9551
-.9724
—.9787
-.7970
-.9306
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.
105
302
702
801
802
901
1001
9.2
10.8
0.5
7.0
4.1
12.9
18.6
0.016
0.019
0.092
0.037
0.023
0.038
0.013
—.9324
—.9488
—.9961
—.9209
—.9850
—.8923
—.9081
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
6
6
105
302
13.8
23.4
0.022
0.017
—.7701
—.8542
yes
yes
7
7
105
302
12.1
14.1
0.021
0.025
—.8939
—.9401
yes
yes

-------
TABLE :i i
Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients,
River Raisin 1984
STATION #
SPECIES CODE
Lo Li CORRELATION
Lo : Li
CONVERGENCE
1
101
3.7
0.035
—.9520
yes
1
104
193.0
-0.328
—.9962
yes
1
105
0.34
0.125
—.9970
yes
1
302
1.45
0.090
—.9974
yes
1
401
8.80
0.205
—.9819
yes
1
402
15.40
0.026
-.7528
yes
1
404
0.53
0.031
-.8789
yes
1
601
1.13
0.116
-.9918
yes
1
602
11.77
0.047
—.9673
yes
1
702
56.15
—0.08
—.9729
yes
1
804
10.0
-0.022
-.4472
yes
2
101
1.35
0.069
—.9741
yes
2
104
1.27
0.057
—.9903
yes
2
105
3.69
0.081
—.9808
yes
2
302
2.76
0.059
—.9942
yes
2
401
6.34
0.225
-.9914
yes
2
601
9.56
0.066
-.8813
yes
2
602
11.99
0.072
—.9960
yes
2
702
1.08
0.079
-.9913
yes
2
805
5.00
0.046
—.9486
yes
3
101
0.87
0.077
—.9853
yes
3
104
5.92
-1.776
—.0000
yes
3
105
20.34
—0.009
—.1995
yes
3
201
12.34
0.020
—.7646
yes
3
302
4.4
0.057
—.9870
yes
3
401
48.6
-0.394
—.9900
yes
3
404
5.0
0.101
-.0000
yes
3
601
4.3
0.032
—.9225
yes
3
602
12.5
0.031
—.9765
yes
3
702
0.04
0.220
—.9987
yes
3
704
22.34
—0.055
—.8771
yes
3
801
5.89
0.055
—.9722
yes
3
802
23.20
—0.021
—.6406
yes
3
901
20.45
—0.055
—.5986
yes

-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
4 101 10.93 0.039 —.9804 yes
4 105 16.57 0.142 —.9683 yes
4 302 6.84 0.056 —.9735 yes
4 601 3.12 0.064 —.9824 yes
4 602 16.25 0.031 —.8666 yes
4 603 14.47 0.051 —.8942 .yes
4 702 15.35 —.131 —.6710 yes
4 801 2.03 0.062 —.9927 yes
4 802 11.68 0.007 -.9004 yes
4 901 4.75 0.098 —.9752 yes
4 1001 33.62 —.176 —.7241 yes

-------
TABLE 12
Ranking of 1983 Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients
Growth
Species Station Li Rank Mortality
Gizzard Shad
(302) 1 0.051 1 3
2 0.017 7 4
3 0.036 2 5
4 0.024 4 2
5 0.019 5 1
6 0.017 7
7 0.025 3
Emerald Shiner
(105) 1 0.037 2
2 0.048 1
3 0.036 3
4 0.023 4
5 0.016 7
6 0.022 5
7 0.021 6
Re Rank
Combination 1 3 1 = highest
GS+ES 2 8 3
3 5 2
4 8 3
5 12 7 = lowest
6 12 7 = lowest
7 9 5

-------
TABLE 13
Ranking of 1984 Larval Fish Growth Rate Coefficients
Species Station Li Rank Mortality
Gizzard Shad
(302) 1 0.090 1 2
2 0.059 2 1
3 0.057 3 4
4 0.056 4 4
5
Emerald Shiner
(105) 1 0.125 2
2 0.081 3
3 —0.009 4
4 0.142 1
Re Rank
Combination
GS + ES 1 3 1 = highest
2 5 3
3 7 4 = lowest
4 5 3
5

-------
TABLE 14
River Raisin 1983 Larval Fish
(Taken from Step 7)
Mortal i ty
Station
N0:Z
Convergence
Species
Code
Estimate
No
Estimate
Z
1
105
301
302
1101
4.63
4.74
40.65
1.38
—
—
.039
.138
.018
.007
2
105
302
1.73
10.36
—
.048
.001
3
105
301
302
1101
10.04
1.16
45.54
5.00
—
—
—
.007
.027
.010
.049
4
5
6
0.9905
0.6805
0.9314
0.9028
yes
yes
yes
yes
0.9924
0.9568
yes
yes
0.9673
0.9435
0.9657
0.6882
yes
yes
yes
yes
101
103
105
302
102
802
901
1072.56
292.97
33.46
269.04
239.41
3.31
5.28
.102
.068
.032
.043
.075
.063
.032
0.9909
0.9872
0.9376
0.9052
0.9966
0.5106
0.7824
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
105
302
702
801
802
901
1001
32.80
1916.35
2.66
16.47
98.72
73.10
1.54
—
-
.024
.044
.035
.012
.060
.207
.006
0.9606
0.9740
0.9935
0.7682
0.9887
0.9614
0.8795
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
105
601
602
702
801
802
804
901
1001
53.80
821.00
2.91
11.84
18.25
6.71
6.84
6.32
2.36
-
—
—
.037
.094
.054
.106
.013
.018
.130
.350
.430
—
0.9352
0.9666
0.1043
0.8770
0.7798
0.9837
0.9700
0.9867
0.9499
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

-------
7
TABLE 14 (Continued)
301
302
601
602
702
802
901
1001
4.07
6355.70
48.01
7.27
0.62
5.73
12.15
1.40
—
—
—
.043
.072
.110
.062
.191
.018
.076
.006
0.6613
0.9868
0.9669
0.7963
0.9826
0.8740
0.8800
0.7384
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
No: Initial density over day by station and species
Z: Estimated mortality rate

-------
TABLE 15
River Raisin
1984 Larval Fish Mortality Coefficients
(Taken from Step 7)
No: Initial density over day by station and species
Species
No
Z Correlation
No:Z
Convergence
Station
Code
1
2
3
4
105
302
404
601
602
.26
737
6.29
18.1
62.1
—
.128
0.073
0.027
0.058
0.096
0.9972
0.6541
0.6507
0.6574
0.9639
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
104
105
302
602
2717
7.8
2182
36.2
0.184
0.005
0.081
0.023
0.9997
0.9638
0.9202
0.9167
yes
yes
yes
yes
104
105
201
302
601
602
801
802
7.23
18.3
10.2
987
7.1
18.15
3.97
1.18
—
—
—
—
—
.022
.005
0.104
0.049
0.108
0.007
0.052
0.004
0.9559
0.411
0.451
0.769
0.9931
0.9713
0.541
0.7746
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
101
302
901
107
2709
198
0.078
0.049
0.074
0.6676
0.7023
0.5414
yes
yes
Z: Estimated mortality rate

-------
Macroscopi
Date Station
Jul-4 4-A
Jun—16 4—C
Jul—21 4—C
Aug-8 3—A
Jun—23 5—C
Jul—4 5—A
Jul —4 5—C
Aug—4 2—A
Jun-20 4-C
TABLE 16
cally Observed Deformities in Larval Fish
from the Ri ver Rai si n dun ng 1983
Name Age Length Deformity
(mm)
Gizzard shad III 19.0 irregular spine
curvature
Yellow perch II I 12.5 spinal
deformi ty
Gizzard shad IV 36.0 abnormal growth
mass on stomach
Gizzard shad IV 54.0 stomach tumor
Gizzard shad II 11.5— 6 specimens
15.0 with severe
spine curvature
Gizzard shad III 17.0 severe spine
defect
Gizzard shad III 15.5— many with spine
22.0 curvatures
Rock bass II 7.0 tumor near tail
Gizzard shad II 15.0 2 specimens
with severe
spine curvature
Gizzard shad II 14.0 spinal
deforoii ty
Jul —7
4-C

-------
TABLE 17
Larval Fish By Species and Station Evaluated Pathologically
Species Station
1 2 3
Gizzard shad
Yellow perch
Spottail shiner
Emerald shiner
Carp
Logperch
Trout-perch
Channel Catfi sh
Al ewi fe
Freshwater drum
Wal 1 eye
Morone sp.
2 — 3 48 24
— — — 4 4
— — — 1 —
— — — 1 —
— — — 2 —
— — — 1 —
— — — — 1
- — — 2 —
— — — 1 —
— — — 2 2
— - - - 3
- - - - 3
77
8
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
3
3
4 5
Total
Total = 104

-------
TABLE 18
Lesions in Gizzard Shad from River Raisin,1983
Ti ssue
Eye
Brai n
Spinal Cord
01 factory Organ
Otolith Organ
Lat. Line Organ
Oropha rynx
Esophagus
(anteri or)
Gill $
Gill s
Gill s
Heart
Stomach
Intestine
Li ver
Pancreas
Excretory Kidney
Excretory Kidney
Hemo. Kidney
Spi een
Swim Bladder
Thy mu s
Ski n
Skeletal Muscle
Cartilage
Bone
Edema
Epi thel I al
Parasj tes
Tubular epithelial
necrosi S
Hyaline droplet
degenera ti on
No. Affected
0/50
0/59
0/53
35/3 7
3/46
34/3 6
50/52
43 / 47
38/47
43/47
34/47
0/42
0/47
38/54
0/53
0/51
50/53
17/53
0/50
0/26
0/54
0/41
0/60
0/71
0/64
0/45
Z Affected
0.0
0.0
0.0
94.6
6.5
94.4
96.2
91.5
80.8
91.5
72.3
0.0
0.0
70.4
0.0
0.0
94.3
32.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lesion
Epi thel I al
Epi thel i al
Epi thel I al
Epi thel i al
Epi thelial
necrosi S
necrosi S
necrosi S
necrosi $
necrosi S
necrosi s
Epithelial necrosis

-------
TABLE 19
Gizzard Shad Larvae By Size and Station Indicating Lesions.
Collection Fish Length
Station < 20 mm 21-30 mm 31—40 mm > 41 mm
C A C A C A C A
1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
3 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0
4 14 1 13 13 14 13 7 7
5 14 5 3 3 7 7 0 0
Total 28 6 18 18 21 20 10 8
C No. fish collected A = No. fish with lesions

-------
TABLE 20
Histopathological Lesions in Gizzard Shad
from Control Station (#7)
Ti ssue
Lesion
No. Affected
Z Affected
Eye
Brain
Spinal cord
Olfactory organ
Otolith organ
Lat. Line organ
Oropha rynx
E s op ha g u S
Gill s
Gill s
Heart
Stomach
Intestine
Li ver
Pancreas
Excretory kidney
Excretory kidney
Hemo. kidney
Spi een
Swim Bladder
Thyrnus
Ski n
Muscle
Cartilage
Bone
Epi thel i al
Epi thel i al
Epi thel I al
Epi thel i al
Epi thel I al
Epi thel I al
Parasi tes
Epi thelial
necrosi S
necrosi S
necrosi S
necrosi s
necrosi S
necrosi S
0/23
0/34
0/32
10/11
1/24
9/10
33/3 4
3 1/34
3 6/36
10/3 6
0/30
0/30
15/16
0/36
0/27
3 5/35
13/38
0/34
0/13
0/25
2/28
0/37
0/37
0/38
0/26
0.0
0.0
0.0
90.9
3.6
90.0
97.1
91.2
100.0
27.8
0.0
0.0
93.8
0.0
0.0
100.0
34.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
necrosi s
Tubular epithelial
necrosi S
Hyaline droplet
degenera ti on
Lymphoid necrosis

-------
TABLE 21
Lesions In Fathead Minnows
STA 4 STA 12 STA 12 No.
H20 + sed H20 + sed H20 + sed Affected Affected
(n=6) (n=6) (n=6) (n=18)
Eye 0/2 0/4 0/4 0/10 0
Brain 0/5 0/6 0/6 0/17 0
Spinal cord 0/5 0/5 0/5 0/15 0
Olfactory org 0/4 0/3 0/5 0/12 0
Otolith org. 0/1 0/1. 0/2 0/4 0
Lat. Line org 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0
Oropharynx 0/5 0/5 0/6 0/16 0
Esophagus oio 0 ,1 0/0 0 ,1 o
Gills 0/6 0/6 0/5 0/17 0
Heart 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0
Stomach 0/1 0/1 0/0 0/2 0
Intestine 0/4 0/6 0/6 0/16 0
Liver 0/6 0/6 0/6 0/18 0
Pancreas 0/2 0/4 0/6 0/12 0
Ex. Kidney 0/5 0/6 0/6 0/17 0
Hemo. Kidney 0/5 0/6 0/6 0/17 0
Spleen 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/1 0
Swim Bladder 0/3 0/6 0/4 0/13 0
Thynius 0/2 0/2 0/0 0/2 0
Skin 0/6 0/6 0/6 0/18 0
Skeletal Mus. 0/6 0/6 0/6 0/18 0
Cartilage 0/6 0/6 0/6 0/18 0
Bone 0/6 0/6 0/6 0/18 0

-------
TABLE 22
Gizzard Shad Larval Fish Density of the River Raisin, 1983
All Sizes
Station
1
Species
Gizzard
Shad
280.0
2
160
255
199
9.5
414.7
3
160
255
199
8.7
844.4
4
160
255
195
10.2
662.6
5
150
255
202
8.5
4723.0
6
150
251
202
7.5
5595.7
7
164 -
251
188
8.5
2101.8
Date of
First
Capture
Date of
Last
Capture
Period
of Peak
Abundance
Minimum
Mean
Density
#/1000 m
Maximum
Mean
Density
#/1000 m
Average
of
Density
Means
171
244
199
9.2
74.0
49.6
129.4
119.1
406.4
781.7
828.2
2388.4
Relative
Abundance
3.1
2.1
5.4
5.0
17.0
32.7
34.7
100

-------
TABLE 23
Lake Erie Gizzard Shad
Larval Density
Peak Abundance
Date
June 8,78
May 31,79
June 6,80
June 3,76
May 31,76
June 4,77
June 19,78
Location
Davi s—Besse
Davi s—Besse
Davi s—Besse
Maumee River
Sandusky River
Western Basin
Central Basin
Density
#/1000 m
1104.4
2004.4
10369.3
16348.9
3811.7
8000.0
1070.0
Gordon, 1982
Gordon, 1982
Gordon, 1982
Snyder, 1978
Snyder, 1978
Cooper et al,1981c
Cooper et al,1981c
Study

-------
TABLE 24
Raisin River Qualitative Sediment Survey
(Data Supplied by Michigan Department of Natural Resources)
STATION TRANSECT SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION
1 1 No description
2 7 Hard rocky bottom along the central
portion Fine gravel/sand along
north shore.Silt along south shore.
3 10 Hard rocky bottom along south shore.
Silt sand and gravel along central
and north portion.
4 43 Silt dark gray color,slightly oily
odor,some detritus,rocky along the
north shore.
5 48 Black silt,oily, some detritus,
sandy silt along north shore.
6 50 Silt,gray-brown,some detritus,
no unusual odor
7 NS Not sampled

-------
TABLE 25
Gizzard Shad Larval Fish Density of the River Raisin. 1983
< 5 mm
Stati on
1
Species
Gi zzard
Shad
Date of
Date of
Date of
No. of
Minimum
Maximum
Avge of
First
Last
of Peak
Spawning
Density
Density
Density
Relative
Capture
Capture
Abundance
Days
#/1000 m
#/1000 m
Means
Abundance
171
206
174
35
9.2
101.4
38.0
5.3
2
160
174
160
14
10.3
16.5
12.5
1.7
3
160
199
199
39
8.4
51.4
31.2
4.3
4
160
209
174
49
10.2
285.2
78.2
10.9
5
150
206
174
56
7.8
590.1
109.7
15.2
6
160
206
202
46
18.0
543.3
230.1
31.9
7
164
237
206
73
10.7
1140.7
221.3
30.7
721.0
100%

-------
TABLE 26
Review of Growth Rates
SPECIES
Gizzard Shad
Gizzard Shad
Gizzard Shad
Gizzard Shad
Yellow Perch
Yellow Perch
Emerald Shiner
Emerald Shiner
Smel t
Smel t
SIZE RANGE
6.2 — 29.0mm
36 — 185 mm
4.0-49.2 mm
pro larvae
post larvae
4- 40.9
5.3 — 15.7mm
5.3 — 4 1. lmm
GROWTH RATE
0.034 (I)
l.01mm/day
0.99mm/day
. 2 5—2.2mm/day
0.018 (I)
0.038 (I)
0.80mm/day
l9—.85mm/day
0.35mm/day
O.39mm/day
LOCATION
L.Eri e
L.Erle
I. Erie
I. Erie
L.Eri e
L . En e
L.Eri e
L.Erie
L.Mj chi gan
L.MIchl gan
AUTHOR
Gordon
Bodol a
Carlander
Fay
Gordon
Gordon
Carl an de r
Fa y
Tin
Ti n

-------
TABLE 27
Histopatho ogic Lesions in Larval Gizzard Shad
Excretory
ki dney
Excre tory
ki dney
intestine
Gill
Tubular epithelial
necrosi s
Hyaline droplet
degenerati on
Epithelial necrosis
Parasi tes
Lesion
Epithelial necrosis
Ti ssue
Olfactory organ
Lateral line
Oropharynx
Esophagus (ant)
Sill s
% Affected
STA4 STA7
95 92
94 90
96 97
92 91
92 100
94 83
32 34
70
72
93
28

-------
FIGURES

-------
JOIN 1$
SNI,I I.M IN
5 HIO STATE UNIVERSIfl?
/ LARVAL FISH STUDY
RIVER RAISIN 1983
7 P
MUNKflI
,//i/ ‘7
S r \1I I I. iii
- j
if
-
- 13
- - — —
WEST END OF LAKE ERIE
•7.
1846 / -, I/f )) 6th ed., Dec 24/17

-------
Aerial Vie i of Station 1 and 2, River aisin.
Figure 2a.
Figure 2b. Aerial View of Station
2and3,RiverRaisin.

-------
Figure 2c. Aerial View of Station 4, River Raisin.
- v
— )_ _ _- :1•
Figure 2d.
Aerial View of
Station 5, River Raisin.

-------
• -. . • . ;. . .. ;.
• . .‘; . . . . ;.. . .
F I. . .. . .. . 1’ •‘ . . .,. • . . .
I - , ..; . . - - - ..
Figure 2e. Aerial View of Stations 4,5 and 6,River Raisin.

-------
I
is.. ,’.. .a.
•e.tI •1 •t•
F-% r’ -r4- .
4
i .e. . .,,q
SSS ? iuS• .at(. .* •,eI. Sues •U 5e
sm’. s •iv s •as,s
.• S• 5 ,U . I •. .4s•.
fd
••
/
tilt /
/
..._‘,t_.•’_ - - -
Figure 3. River Raisin drainage basin. (Taken from Michi9an Water Resources Comnjission,1965).

-------
5000.
11-Yr. Average F1 s (197O - ))
JAN
GflGtt O’1176500
RIVER RAISIN
NCRR MONROE.
tl0 00.
3000.
2000.
1000.
0.
1(0 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL hUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
“IC ’ - ’.
Figure 4.
Raisin River 11-year averaqe daily flow (cfs) 12 km upstream from Lake Erie (USGS data).

-------
GAGES 0417650
Flqure 5
PEAK FLOWS IN THOUSANDS OF CFS
Peak flows In the River Raisin at Monroe since 1938.
(Data from the U.S.G.S.)
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
‘I ,
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14

-------
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
AR
574
573
572
571
U
A
I
E
p
S
I
A
G
E
F
E
E
T
570
569
568
567
Figure 6. Lake Erie level at gage 3087.
Data Is from NOAA.

-------
— cIO(JJ U’ L IQj
d 1 c
O 44
ac or 1000
‘ or fM \JOtQrfl€.
x 2G,B73
( . 3)
SQr’npk .
) Vo) e
rn
I—ocAor >( O gi-c e r umbQ-
er
/ I \ ‘ o(r.\
(
d .75r
Figure 7. Larval Fish Density Calculation Procedure.

-------
1.0
0.8 :
.
0.6
0.4
S
S
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
STATIOU #
Figure 8. 1983 Growth Rates — Gizzard Shad (Taken from Step 4).

-------
1.0
0.8
0.6
S
•
• • S
4
0.4
S
•
0.2
0.0
2 3 rATIoN# 4 5 6 7
Figure 9. 1984 Growth Rates - Gizzard Shad (data taken from computer Step 4).

-------
‘F
27, 19E -
M TION 1 SPEC!ES 3O2 - -
PLLLLVEAVG34DAY {r4D A .11 085, B .2 0eS ETC . ___________ ______________-
-——4 4 + 4 4 4 4 $ + + 4 —— 4 4 4 +
____ 17C. 135 i c c I°5 2CC ____ 2 52i)_____ !2r. -- — P’. _____ -
QAY
Figure 10. GIzzard Shad Sunp e Growth Rates Station 1, 1933.

-------
• •.
FVLI AUC U’% JrJ V UF.T UT IAI1UN t. uu
5T. T1Oh 2 SPEC1E5=3O2
PLOT OF avt .n y LfCENfls A 1 OeS. B 2 OBS. FTC.
W DNEZDAT,wARCH Z7, 19 —
———+ + + ————— + +————— 4 + 4 4 + 4 + + + 4———•——+ 4 + 4 4
_16O _3 5 370 12L__L9IJ! _1 ) 9Co •fl _________
-1 -1- ,— Gzar4-Shad -41i pIe
DLY
11 •nn’

-------
-_____ — ____ - ____— AvERlcELE cT rv —D.1 yey T T1 nnr PEcTEs tt o Tq r WEtNE DAT7iU RCIrZTT3 91.
STAT1OP 3 SPECIES=302
____________ __ JLGT_OF_A’QC3*CAY L3 A I OILS, B 2 _ BBS, ETC. —-
A
0
— ——1 f “———f 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 4 4 4 + 4 4 4 4 ———— + 4”
1c o 1 5 11j..... 75 I j J9p_, 5 ?CO Q5 240 245  O 25 .
Figure 12. Gizzard Shad SImp e Growth Rates Stailon 3, 1983. DAY

-------
t..,. t__•__ i_ ;_._. : —s ..
• Z’
- - -
A
z i*l jfl?rrSPEt it ‘ cUDEc- I fl iCHtVPItSDATyhA RCIITZ7rtvn—t
• ‘C k tηl ‘ • ‘ i L
!2_t_/_en i PLOT_PF_AVη3 tOAV -1_OBS ,_U_•_V Des. ETC. 4&tt c r a —
‘i’ • •’ “,‘:- 2 • — . -
I a — ‘ S S
— I a ai ’ , , ” . ••j I
I ‘ . — : t - • : : —
; i , . ____
2 — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
- t —
———4 4 + 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 + 4 4 $ + + 4 4 $ -
i69j4J?J15_1fl_W 1!O 195 _ 2 _ OQ q5 210 2LS 22 _ 1? __ 2 j _ 24Q 245 2S3 2 ‘1 -
DAY
Figure 13. Gizzard Shad Simple Growth Aates 1 Station 4, 1983.
AZ
‘ S
I
4 ’
r
- S
40
4 , .
iS
to
10
A
S
A
5-
A
A

-------
t.;. : i . YERitE’tEftGTH vs’vn—tl-JrrAnoN 1. SPECflSηCODE 1 jnq —34Epflflpnj—KftRclrt1. 196r— -
4 — ‘ I ‘ •1 — • t l i 1 5TAfICri . SPECttS=3O2 , I a J’ Ό’
1 4c t 1. ‘M t 1 Ά4 ( , ’k’s ‘“t J \1 wre t , 4 - \I .— th + r ‘ r - ’itt , ‘ ‘ “ ‘ ‘ “/r
t ..J ‘? r’ — PLOT ‘W *VC3’OAY - “f ECEUDz DOS, 6 2’UBS . ETC, ‘ .t ” r .4 & - 4’ t I 4 . . —
. M ’j: 1 . • • : : “1 ’
‘k 5 , η :
Ό eo . — I —
‘ i I €dr I c
ItI I I : I —
. ;: t,v2:;i ?_ :t :2 .I : . 1 A dT5j?: ;. i i ‘;. ; •
4 η 1 c’ 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ t ., , a_ —
so . . : 1
I ‘ Ά t I • 1

;sn i ss 160 165 11Q 115 I S O i 5 190 195 200 2)5 210 215 220 225 23) 2?5 24C 245253 2S5 2 2tS 2lt i
DAY
Figure 14. Gizzard Shad Simple urowtn nates, station b . s as.

-------
,‘T ’.,.,.’t ) a. r f *V TRaur J .ERGTIIV5 DAY’r3TATTUFU(5FECT&S CUtJU• . .; 7’T5ISb UE0t 1E5UATT1iA1l%IFiZ1 (.19b
Ill.” - i’t \4,iη ‘ STA 1 10Nc4 5P C1ES’ 302 ‘ * - r’ff I t”I ’O’a i i
c, flAy ’ a itEf1Q 4 ?sA Q6t ,f5caZ D85 fJCr / ‘ r1’ ’ j ”+ t ’ ’ ’
. •
4 . 1 . . — ’ ar a’ ,4—’;- _ 2,. 1 ‘I. ’ ,
& . ;j . t• ’ ;! ‘. :Pil ‘ at: LC_a .‘.liv. 4 £
I- , , ,
- p ..
.4 . - • c
• 1
:: ‘A :.
‘.4. 4.•
• I — — I .
1 •
• ,. I.
f t _A “ ni’•t 441 ‘ a I I 1’T t..’I t V t •4 1 ‘ a t
1 L.. ,r1 b ‘ . ?r p ’ ‘ I ‘‘ ‘ a JIt’ t rr * I 4% P .,,
c ‘ ‘ £ $ I r r ‘a-: “a, e ‘ ‘
• • -4 —_ 4 -V t •, V . — •-•• ,••Z .’ • 4 • —
4 4. t I l_ c t. t_’aII $
•‘..I C ’ ’_’.”’ < -n I$ ‘ , . — . A’ . i i
Ji1• .’ ..- • .‘—‘ .—b .. , • ‘• •
S
I ’ — ’ —
I . • ‘•.• ‘ - , •,. ,• . • •
• 1 . ‘ t’ .11 , _ — • 4 ‘ -• . . —
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ •‘•.,, — . -fI,... •
— . 4 1 • 4 4. I . 4 1 , -
t f .C • 14 :IAc c ; ;t : ’: 1 k I c ’ kcA.’.wf- • f :v t b . , ,.:• : .. :i 1 r ; ; •
.j • .S j., s ,,t 1 9 1 i 1’c’ ’ ‘ p 9 i ui ,, ηn r ‘ a ‘1’ ’ ‘ •l- • .. — 14- , c ’ s . 1 —— •• ‘ It •
— f . 43%.4I”i _,‘η 4 ik,.., 1± .,t j 4 ? “ 1 -4 jj,, r5D.rA..j,,,’4 4 44 ‘a• ,‘ SI, , j- , ,, 44 1 % ,L 1
‘a
C p
I I
“_‘_I ‘ —
4 1 4.
I
- p.
4 I I
• I
1
— I. -4———
I___ —••-_•——_—...—.4_——-_._ —
— -

b

t t ‘r ’ ’o” P4 1tti: 4,j ,)r r - ‘ . 4
H H aHH :t
30
2.5
C)
5
C t I
———4 + + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + + + + + + 4 4 +
— . 150 LSS....J60 1a5 170 115 lEG 1F5 190 US N 235 240 24C t
DAY - ‘
Figure 15. ,Gizzard SWad Simple Growth Rates, Station 6, 1983.

-------
I —
jflAVCffZ I. J’i i
———._ •—+—+ —4—————— —+ —— — — — — 4——— .——— 4 4—,— I—. ———————..
162 ____JJ IEL. J12_______ _____21)fl.22222e ____ ___________
1gure ]b. G1iz rd Shad S inp1e Growth Rates, StatIon 7, 1983.
OLY
0 —
AVttC jt LtM J?I V UAT bY 1 IIUN ( η1t LUUt
SIATJCN 7 SP€C ES 3O2
PLDL0E A!’GMPAY LEGEUC A’—’ZQBS. 2f36S. (IC.

-------
40
F
A
-
25
P
A
20
— 1 o_
5
04
—4 4 4 4 4 4. + 4 i———-.———t + + + 4. 4. 4-.
__Jl0, 13 _J 1 Q ___ ]t - I C _._ _a10 2Q _____ _____ 0 2 _ 260 74
t n T
A CRAGE LII .CTH VS OAT .y TATI0I C SPECIES CC0E - O WE01 ESD IJGUST 2e. 1’ e
SIAIIUN.1 5I’ECIES 02
riot CF AVG3’OAT LEGfl r: I CI S, 2 OhS, ETC. -. - - - —.
— --- _ t.. / - - — - -
A
b
Figure 17. GIzzard Shad SImp e Growth Rates, StatIon 1, 1984.

-------
A A h A / 4/
- -- - - AVERACE U G1H VS HAY Y S1ATI ,’ PLCIES CLOE - -— c:M wE0P ESUAY. AU SJ 28 1
S1 1IUu 2 SPLCjE! O
ILOI F AVGY LECIt : 1 [ 15 , L 1185, ETC. - -
- __: - - -- - - - - - —-- - - - -
‘I.
- - - - -- -
_ ::ii i.. i i :i::::::i_
_ _1 .a — ——— ---— — ——-—— —____ —
0 -
F
12 — - _____
_ _ ±1T..II1.
10.0
1.5
• ______________ ____________ ________________ _________________________________
- ---- •- -- - -_ _ -______ _______- -__—___
+ + 4 4 + + + + 4 4 4
_________ 12 13C 13 _l4Q_U -
0 Y
FIgure 18 . Gizzard Shad Siniple rowtb Rates, Station 2. L9B4

-------
‘s0
A
20
15
——
£
A
*
AVIRACE LEI.GTH VS VA LY 1 TATIIIII C SPECiES Ctt)E o: o wEo ESU* , AUtIU T 2t, 19b
S IIUPl 3 SI’ECIE =3O2
P1,01 η AVC3vCAY LEGEP 0: a. (t S, b 2 085, Tc ,__ -
h
———4 4 4 4 4 $ 4 4 $ 4 4 4
__________ ______ 1 5 U _ _ 1 q_....J&5 19P ______I -—
DAY
I —
1lgure—19-----6fuar Shad—51nip1e-6rowtIr1 etesrStat1en—3 -4984 -—--—- — _________—— --

-------
36
33
30
27
24
Pt
E 21
A
o 18
F
A
V
G
VERACE LENG1H VS DAY BY SIATION SPECiES CODE
STATIUN 4 SPE(1ES 302
PLOT OF AVG3*OAY LEGEND; A • 1 085, B - 2 085. EIC.
22:55 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1. 199
A
-A-
—
(s
‘A
31 A A A A ’ -
0’
———4 4 4——————— + 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 $ ———————4 4 ———————4
— 130 - .135 140 145 150 155 —— 160 -- _165 - 170 175 1 . 1 5 - 390 - 95 200 2
DAY
Figure 20. GIzzard Shad Simp’e Growth Rates, Statlo 4, 1984.
15
12
--
(ki
A
A
- -

-------
.
S
. S
.
.
. S
• S S
S
S
• S
V
S S
I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S’TATION #
Figure 21. 1983 Emerald Shiner Simple Growth Rates (data taken from computer Step 4).

-------
S
.8
.
S
.6
.4
.2
1 2 3 rAT1ON# 4
Figure 22. 1984 Emerald Shiner Simple Growth Rates (data taken from computer Step 4).

-------
— -- VFRACELENG1U Y5 C4UUT S1ATIfl:1 CSPECtESCC - 1 ; W D (SDAY. r.AF Ch-2?;
SIAIIfP1 SPEC1ES 1O!’
FLDT OF AYC ’DAY LFGEIW A • 1 015, B • 2 OCT, ( IC. —
.
i
0 2 A
V21’ - -_____
18 — -
.:
12
>7
1•
6 __• 4
16L... 171 177 183 1 195 2C1 207 213 219 225 233 237 243 249
. - DAY
FIgure 23. Emer& d Shiner Simjile Growth Rates,Statlon 1, 1903. -

-------
TV 1E1 CT rV YST £T rprrs p EC1ETCo r
STATIUN— PECIES 1O
pLflLflfAyQ Y Lg In: £ • t • ,
FTr..
]5-: 4 6---H E ClIE SD AYT PfAR CW27 1’583
64
———4—+— 4 4— 4 4— 4-. —..- ——.. 4 4 4-4 I— .
— 111__1111 3.1e9____I95..___3 _;l _ I9_. 23j_ • 2 J__ 2 .3
DAY
S2 +
c1rn .-
flatp c Stiitthn 1Q

-------
AVtH bEL NUTWV VAT WU I JJ ONCSPEC1ESCOD
STATIQP 3 PECIES=1O
PEflY flF AVC $fl Y • Icr.FFJfl! — 1 flPS. 8 2 08S. EIC
15 ;q 14EDut5DAy(A cIr2?1 4 )e5—
.—————+ 4 4 4 + 4 4 +—————4 + 4 4 $ + —— - .4
16O...16 13 1flIfl2 ..1 IV 1°5 Z ! __ 2.P5 L) 1_ 2 ?4! 2 2 t
DAY
Figure 25. Emerald Shiner Simple Growth Rates, Staign 3. 1983.

-------
• AVEF LGE LEl C1IVV! r:Y !Y TATIOI C P CIE5 CflDE 4U WEPrIESDAY,i’aKCH T1
STATIrP 4 PECIE5=jL 5
- - L T_PE• VC AV I&c -E :pL B 2 Ce!, FTC._
-—- •- • -•I- - ---•• ------ --—--—-. --—-.”- --•“—---.--•-“ -- S.---. - . . - - -—-- ----T -
32.5 I
11111± _
5.04
——4—————— - + — +-——————, ——————-4—4—+— + —4—4—4— + —4—.— I.
1f S A11 117 - 1F’3 18 i?5 201 2G7 _____ _____ 2 5 231 237 243
• • DAY
FIgure 26. Emerald Shiner S mp e Growth Rate Statloti 4,1983 . • — -

-------
36 4
33 4
30
AVERL6E LEl CTh VS DAyBY STAT1O,Ur-!PEc E5 CCD — I ; 46 WtDIESDAYT PIARC1r27
STA11CK 5 SPEC1 SaI05
LPLJ3F B .PE S
F
•;- ••
- 6 1
‘ 3 1
‘ I
-
.
T: 7ti: iit;i:
. -. ,i ‘ r ’’ ‘_ • .
r —
p & ..- 1 - I . - * -
I,. L — t .5- n, qy
i:. :’;
.
, I ‘ I
1% .
=
;.

- - - :‘ -.
0 • -
+ + $4 + 4 + 4 + —— —+ 4——-
- 162 168 174 -193 192 ‘ 198 2C4 230 216•• 222 228 234 240 . ‘ 246 ;
— S 2’ — I ‘‘, 1- •‘ . -
s — I t DAY
4 - - S t * 5 5* •‘•.‘ * “I•’_l.
F1 ura 7. . 1 [ mθral4 Shiner Simple Gr 1th ’Rat s, Sta 1Qh 5p’:L9 3. -r Y ’
27
j ’A y - •
a
•• -.
• _• _ _•I I•I ) S
2 ’ *
• •9t
- , -‘• ,? ‘It’ 2 1 2 ..I
• . I- , - C — s_ - . -,. - _L •
•,. . , -‘ -

-------
- AVEAIEt CTH V YBr TATWN PEC1ESCL!DE 4C14ttNESOATi-hAECIr7 . i’185
.1- . .• - STAIhJN —6 . S C1ES —1O5 •,. - . . -‘
• • —‘•_ • • ,,. . I ••••zj ‘I • I’ —.
-• - ±_I PLDtDF AVG3*DAY ctEGEUDz A-a 1 (lBS. B • 2 flR . TC.- . •-
.•
• 1.
S
- - - -. - . £ —— __________
.1’ •• -, • • - • ,• • - • .1 . •- •1 • -. • ..- , L • ;• •, ;• .• - .• -
A / II I’S* —
.‘, —
H--

- -,- •
b
- J ‘ t:

—
Figure 28. E nera1d Shiner Simple rowth Rates 1 Station 6. 1983. DAY
22.5-
ii .-
20.3
- 1:
I —
A
+ + + +
1BO 19) 195 200 205 21 Z . 220 __ ?33 235

-------
• . . vrin LtM 1H v —U4I br ,ATTuNrsPEcTEs—Cot t fl - : 46-RtDfltSDA’ . hAU 1,
.•• • .z.. -
I
PLflTflF AVC34DAY IIGEUD A fDeS.8 ;2 0BS..E1C. ’ • . -:
• : — - I /
• i & — ( . ‘
25 .oI:: :u1 ..Y: • : - • : • • •
— - —l :‘ - : ; ‘ r * — , : ——
0 20.0.! :-. •‘ •.• •. . •
G 2 *7 I C
io.o - • ‘. . •- ..
- . - -• - •• •
5.01
‘
1BD tas 190 195 2QD 205 210 215 220 2&5_ 230 235 240 245 —
- . . . • -: • - 0Ay
Ftgure 29. Emerald Shinnr Simple I rc wth W te , Station ? 1’ R4
.. - • .v • ••. • •% . I
, i_ —. •. — I 3

-------
4
- A
_____z-it1
I
— - A’ EqAc LEI.Clh V j y py ΆTt 11C’I C SP C1ES ccn— , fl,j 5 Ay;AuGusT2t I9r
S1A1IQN.1 SFCC1E5105 -
fLCT. OVG3 tM __.L t, r — .
A
•
- I
17.5 1
- - -.
15.0
—
- ___e __ _ - • -
• 12.5 + - —
10.0
751
- ••
:
> <
- •
p
•,
•

• -
.
• I, • -
.
- , •.
•
•:•
-•
.•
•
‘
5.0$ —
• i...l ...... ....+ + + 4 + + 4 ””• 4”— ——4 4 + 4 4 “‘“ -
1 f )2 164 166 1 8 I7 .J32 11 .176 Ll _ J 0 182 184 I6 188 190 192 19t 196 193
DAY
Figure_30 Emerald_Shiner_Simnie_Growth_Rates._Station_I._ 984- • _______________________ ——

-------
27 .
25.0 I
22.5
AVERAGELE,GTI S”OAYeY TATI {t PEC1E5CCOE a: co WEOr1ESOAY AUGIJSr 28.19B5
S A1IOP4—2 ScEC2E —1O I
.J E 3’!.( AT LEGEND A1fl S, s2IThS 1 ETC.______________________
A
A
A
1.5 - -
+ 4 4 $ 4———+-——+ + + $ +
- - _J L I1A_ 11 _. 1 Q 2 . .18JI —. - 19’J - 19
lAY
F .Emera1d5hlnerS1mp eGrOwthRdteS.St tiOfl?.i984. - - -
H
E
-J
I
t

-------
AVERAGELENG1H VSDAY BY TAT1’fl SPECIESCI DE DQi1EOhESQAT,&UCU5T 19L 5 343
S1A11ON 3 SIECIESa1O?,
pJ.OiUFAVG3 flfl _ G !p; 4 1 bs B E ETC __________ _____
- ----r-- — - _______ ___
36 j ( )
— 1--—-— - - --- ------ -:
— —- — -——-——-—— - -————— -
214 .- -
— I
— --—I - -
249 -
Fl
I

12j
9+
- - - A A
—:
.L3 __ . 1 5 — - 1 O J 5 - l lc - Ipu 1 _. 19O -
D Y
FIgure 32. t p! !2wth_Rates, Station 3, 1 —

-------
-.
!TATION 5PEC E ’CIJDE
. D OThEDNESDAY.AUGIJST28.1985 3L’
SIAIUJN4 SP C S,1O5
— PJJIJ_OF_AYc3 p y L GU LAP LQP Ic,...___________________________
.
‘O.
— J L__
— 18
• • • A
• • • — - —_______ --
— 5_+ —
II I
F I
A 44
1i
p 13
A
V
C
9+
I
-- _—— -- - - — —.— - ——•- --————__
5+ -
——,_ +_ +— ,— 4—+— 4— i— + —4—f—i— 4 -
I6 167__AbS... . 111 •__173 11_ . 177 179 1b1 . -__.I 3 1 ___ .1U1 - .191 1’3
- DAY
Ffgure 33. Emera’d Shther Simple Growth Rates, Station 4, 1984,
10
-- -—-•-- A’ —-—.- - ----- - -- -

-------
S
1
Figure 34.
2
3
4
5
6
ATION #
Gizzard Shad 1983 Instantaneous Growth Rate Coefficients
.05
.04
S
.03
.02
S
.01
7

-------
.09
:08
.07
.06
.05
U,
C)
.— .
.03
0
5 -
.02
.01
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 35. Gizzard Shad 1984 Instantaneous Growth Rate Coefficients.
. ._
I

-------
05
N.v
I I I 1 1 I
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
& ATION #
1983 Instantaneous Growth Rate Coefficients - Emerald Shiners.
I .
.03
.02
.01 -
Figure 36.

-------
2 3 4 5
STATION #
Figure 37. Emerald Shiner 1984 Instantaneous Growth Rate Coefficients by Station.
1.4
1.3
1.2
.8
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
1

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
1983
APPENDIX A
Larval Fish Body Burden Samples Collected
14 July
Station 4
Station 5
— Gizzard shad
— Gizzard shad
1984
Station
Station
Station
Station
Stati on
- Emerald
- Emerald
- Emerald
Station 5 - Gizzard
Station 7 — Gizzard
Emerald
Station 5 — Gizzard
Emerald
Station 7 — Gizzard
Emeral d
shi ner
shi ner
shi ner
shad*
shad*,
shi ner
shad,
shi ner
shad,
shi ner
21 June
28 June
Station 4
Station 5
Station 4
Station 5
— Gizzard shad
— Gizzard shad
- Gizzard shad
— Gizzard shad
4 — Gizzard shad*
5 — Gizzard shad*
4
5
7
21 July
28 July
4 August
18 August
1 September
8 September
Station 5 — Emerald shiner
Station 7 — Gizzard shad
Station 4 — Gizzard shad*
* Body burden samples analyzed by Cranbrook Institute

-------
APPENDIX B

-------
APPENDIX B
Raisin River 1983 Flowmeter Calibration
DATE REPLICATES REVOLUTIONS DISTANCE REV/METER
5—30—83 1 17988 500 m
2 17724 500 m
3 18787 500 m
4 18886 500 m
5 18828 500 m
6 18581 500 in
7 18293 500 m
8 18283 500 in
9 18045 500 m
10 17522 500 m
X 18293 500 in 36.6
7—07-83 1 21184 500.m
2 18621 500.m
3 19855 500 m
4 18623 500.m
5 20667 500 m
6 18962 500 m
7 19996 500 in
8 18239 500 in
9 19631 500 m
10 18545 500 in
X 19432 500 in 38.9
8-04-83 1 18273 500 in
2 17542 500 in
3 17315 500 m
4 16682 500 in
5 17558 500 in
6 17439 500 in
7 17595 500 in
8 16811 500 in
9 16560 500 in
10 9422 500 in
X 17308 500 in 34.6
9-08-83 1 18886 500 in
2 18813 500 m
3 16501 500 in
4 5070 500 in
5 15996 500 in
6 17740 500 m
7 18378 500 in
8 17707 500 m
9 18402 500 m
10 18248 500 in
X 17852 500 in 35.7
OVERALL 18225 500 in 36.4

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
Documentation for Project 1
I. Brief interpretation of this program
(1) Lines 1—7 are the job control statements IJCL )
In these lines we input two data files: RAISIN83.XFRO and RAISIN3B.XFRO
then we rename them as PETER and CHOKE respectively.
(2) Lines 11-73 are for the step of input and proof data .
(a) Purpose : In these lines we want to input the data sets and transform
all lengths into standard lengths 0, 5, 10, ..., or 70 m. Also we
cal cul ate
the difference of final flow and initial flow for our density calculation.
(b) Procedures :
I *Lj 11—39 —— We form the SAS data set JJ1 by using PETER as the input data
file and drop some useless variables from the input data file. Note that we
compute the difference of final flow and initial flow at line 21 and convert the
lengths into the standard integer lengths 0, 5, 10, ..., or 70 mm. denoted by
SYMBOL, at line 24. e.g. all lengths in the interval 2.6—7.5 are denoted by
SYMBOL = 5 and so on. As to these lines 25-39 we assign to each standard length
SYMBOL from 5 to 70 a corresponding notation SIZE from A to N and ‘*‘ for
otherwise lengths.
* jfl 40—42 -— We convert all missing data (values) in the variables DIFFLOW
and F into the SAS standard form ‘.. Then we define the obtained new data set
as Ji.
*Lfnes 43—73 —— We repeat the same procedures as we did in lines 11—42 for the
input data file ‘CHOKE’ and denote the obtained new data set as J2.
(c) Some variable notations :
DAY = Julian day
PD = Period of station (e.g. in station 3—A we
mean station = 3 and PD = A)
SP = Species codes
ST = Larval Stage (1—4)
L = Length (cm)
INFLOW = Initial flow (revolutions)
OUTFLOW = Final flow (revolutions)
DIFFLOW = OUTFLOW - INFLOW
F = Ave per stage = Frequency
(3) Lines 79—95 are for step 1.

-------
PAGE 2
(a) Purpose : In these lines we perform the procedures of data
reduction for data sets Ji and J2 and obtain a new data set COMBI which is
going to be used to compute larval density.
(b) Procedures :
t Lines 79—86 —— We perform data reduction and merge related data sets
together.
*Ljnes 87—95 ——We compute the larval density and obtain a new data set
COMB.
(c) Some variable notations :
SV = sample volume (m3)
FACTOR = 1000 m3/Sample volume (m3)1
DENS = Density/100 0m3 = Factor x Ave. per stage
TOTAL Ave. per stage = variable F.
(4) Lines 102-116 are for step 2.
(a) Purpose : We average replicates A, B and C densities in these lines
by station, species code and size, then we plot the density vs Julian day.
(b) Procedures :
* Lines 102-104 -- We average A, B and C density to form a new data set
TEMP2.
* jfl 105 —— We delete those data with SP = 0.
*Lines 115—116 -— We plot the density vs. Julian day.

-------
PAGE 3
(c) Some variable notations :
DENS = The density obtained by DAY STATION PD SP and
SIZE.
MOEN = The mean density obtained over PD by STATION DAY
SP SIZE.
(5) Lines 123—144 are for step 3A.
(a) Purpose : We want to average A, B and C density by station and
species code.
(b) Procedures :
*Lines 123—126 —- We perform data reduction to obtain a new data set TEMP3.
*Ljnes 127-131 —- We calculate A, B and C density separately by station and
species code.
*Ljnes 132—134 —— We average A, B and C density to obtain a new data set
TEMP5.
*Lines 143-144 -- We plot average A, B and C density vs Julian day.
(c) Some variable notations :
1011 = Total frequency by DAY STATION PD and SP
DENI = Density by DAY STATION PD and SP
AVG1 = Average density by DAY STATION and SP
(6) Lines 151—175 are for step 38.
(a) Purpose : We want to calculate the total seasonal density by
station and species code.
(b) Procedures :
*Llnes 155—159 —— We calculate the density for each Julian day.
160—162 —— We average A, B and C density for each Julian day to
obtain a new data set TEMP7.
*Ljnes 163—165 —— We obtain total seasonal density by summing up all Julian

-------
PAGE 4
days’ density.
*ljnes 174—175 —— We plot total seasonal density vs station.
(c) Some variable notations :
TOT3 = Total frequency by DAY STATION SP and PD.
DEN4 = Density by DAY STATION SP and PD
AVG7 = Mean density over PD by DAY STATION and SP.
TOT4 = Season total density by STATION and SP.
(7) Lines 181—191 are for Step 4.
(a) Purpose : We calculate average length by STATION SP.
(b) Procedures :
*Lines 181-183 —— We average all sizes of larval fish by DAY STATION SP
and ST (stage). These results, denoted by AVG, form the new data set
COUNT.
*Lines 184-186 -— We average A, B and C density by DAY STATION and SP.
*ljnes 190-191 -— We plot average length vs Julian day by station and
species code.
(c) Some variable notations :
AVG = Mean length over SIZE by DAY STATION PD and SP.
AVG 3 = Mean length over SIZE and PD by DAY STATION and
SP.
(8) Lines 198-219 are for Step 5.
(a) Purpose : We calculate the date when total length of the
population is 5, 10, 15,... to 70 mm.
(b) Procedures :
*Lines 198-200 —— We sum the frequencies by STATION SP SYMBOL for every

-------
PAGE 5
Julian day, denoted as 1, and form the data set Clii.
*Ljnes 201—203 -- We sum total seasonal frequencies by STATION SP SYMBOL,
denoted as TI, and form the data set CH2.
*Ljnes 204-207 -— We calculate the relative frequency for each Julian day
by STATION SP and SYMBOL, denoted as AVERAGE.
*Lines 208—210 —— We calculate the mean Julian day by using the relative
frequency (AVERAGE), denoted as IL, and form the data set CH4.
*Ljnes 218—219 —- We plot the SYMBOL vs TI (mean Julian day) by STATION
SP.
(c) Some variable notations :
I = Frequency by DAY STATION SP and SYMBOL.
TT = Total frequency over DAY by STATION SP SYMBOL.
Prob = Relative frequency (i.e. TITT) by STATION SP
SYMBOL
(9) Lines 226-238 are for Step 6.
(a) Purpose : We use the non—linear regression method to estimate the
slope of growth for specified STATION and SP.
(b) Procedures :
*Ljne 226 —— Suppose that we want to estimate the slope of Growth for
STATION = 1 and SP = 302. i.e. We specify STATION = 1 and SP = 302.
* jfl 5 229—235 -- We use the MARQUARDT method as our tool for the
non-linear regression. This method represents a compromise between the
linearization (or Taylor series) method and the steepest descent method
and appears to combine the best features of both while avoiding their most
serious limitations. It is good in that it almost always converges and
does not “slow down” as the steepest descent method often does.
*Line 237 —- We plot SYMBOL vs TI.

-------
PAGE 6
(c) Some variable notations :
10 = Initial Length.
11 = Slope of growth.
YHAT = V = Estimated length
YRESID = V - V = Residual for V
*We note that SYMBOL = LO*EXP(L1*(TL_150)) at line 232 means L=1.eG(t—to)
as it appears in Hackney and Webb’s paper where hatching date to = 150.
(d) How to find the estimated slope of growth for Station A Species B? We
first replace 1 by A and 302 by B at line 226. Then we examine whether
150 (lines 232—234) is a suitable initial value (Julian day) if it is not,
replace all 150 in lines 232—234 by a suitable initial value. Initial
values can be determined by presence of larval fish in earlier plots.
(e) If we want to obtain the results for more combinations of stations and
species simultaneously, we can copy whole lines 226-238 repeatedly as many
as desired stations and species and then follow Step (d) to make suitable
modifications for stations, species and(or) initial (Julian) day.
(10) Lines 244—263 are for Step 7.
(a) Purpose : We use a non—linear regression method to estimate the
mortality for specified STATION and SP.
(b) Procedures :
*Line 245 -— We specify STATION = 1 and SP = 105.
*Ljnes 254-260 - — We use the MARQUARDT method as the tool for analyzing
non—linear regression.
*Line 262 -— We plot TI vs IL.
(c) Some variable notations :
NO = Initial (frequency) number over DAY by STATION SP
SYMBOL.
Z = Mortality rate.

-------
PAGE 7
(d) How to find the mortality rate for station A species B? First, we
replace 1 by A and 105 by B at line 245. Next, we examine whether 173 is
a suitable initial Julian day. If it is not, replace all 173 in lines
257-260 by a suitable initial value, determined by initial presence of
larval fish in previous plots.
(e) Use the same steps as (9)(e) we can obtain results for more
combinations of stations and species simultaneously.
*Note that TI = N0*EXP(_Z*(TL_173)) means this formula Nt= Nto e—Z(t—to)
which appears in Hackney and Webb’s paper
ir. How to use this program .
(a) We can use this program to obtain the results for separate steps or
some combination of steps. The basic procedures for establishing a
desired subprogram are as follows:
(i) Use CHENPJ1 on IRCC93.
(ii) Lines 1—73 must be included in any subprogram(s).
(iii) Keep those lines for corresponding steps desired in the subprogram
and delete the rest of lines.
(iv) Substitute suitable station, species or initial values when
subprogram contains Step 6 or Step 7. Therefore the diagram for above
procedures is:
lines lines for examine ST.SP
1-73 + corresponding initial values if =
subprogram
steps steps 6 or 7
is concerned
(b) Some examples :
(i) Suppose we want to get the results of Step 3. The subprogram should
contain lines 1-73 and 123—175 (lines for Step 3) only, so we delete the other
lines from main program and then run this subprogram.
(ii) Suppose we want to get the results of Step 4 and Step 6 simultaneously
and consider station Al species Bi and station A2 species B2 instead of station
1 species 302 in Step 6. In order to obtain the subprogram we first keep lines
1—73 and lines 181—191 (for Step 4) and lines 226—238 (for Step 6) then delete
other lines, since we consider 2 combinations of station and species (A1,Bl),
(A2,82), we need to copy lines 2 6—238 once. Suppose these latter lines are
renumbered as 239—251 (Note that these lines 239—251 are not the original lines
239-251 in our main program). Now, we replace 1 by Al an 02 by Bi at line 226

-------
PAGE 8
and examine the initial values for lines 232-234 to see whether the value 150 is
suitable; replace 1 by A2 and 302 by B2 at line 239 and again examine the value
150 in lines 245—247. After doing these, we finally obtain our subprogram which
includes lines 1—73 and 181—191 and 226—238 and the new lines 239—251.
(c) Remark :
If we choose different initial values for the same station and species in
Step 6 and Step 7, the estimated values may be different but the estimated
growth rate and mortality rate are still the same. i.e. the estimated values
depend on the choice of the Initial values (it’s not important since we consider
their corresponding confidence intervals) while the estimated growth rate and
mortality rate do not depend on the choice of the initial values. However if we
can choose a good initial value, the iteration times will be reduced.

-------