1999 Lake Erie LaMP Status Report - US EPA...Lake Erie is exposed to greater stress due to urbani-zation and agricultural practices than any of the other Great Lakes. The lake receives

Printed in Canada

Des

ign:

Des

ign

Serv

ices

, U

pp

er T

ham

es R

iver

Con

serv

atio

n A

utho

rity

.

19 9 9

L A K E E R I E L a M P

STATUS REPORT

This report was compiled and written on behalf of the Lake ErieLaMP Work Group by Shannon Daher.

In the US:Rita Garner77 West Jackson Blvd.WU-16JChicago, IL 60604-3590Fax: (312) 886-7804e-mail: [email protected]

In CanadaMarlene O�Brien867 Lakeshore Rd.Burlington, ONL7R 4A6Fax: (905) 336-4906e-mail: Marlene.O�[email protected]

PrefaceIn 1993, the governments of Canada and the United States initiated the development of a Lakewide

Management Plan (LaMP) for Lake Erie. The goal of the LaMP is to restore and protect the beneficial uses ofLake Erie such as safe beaches, clean drinking water and healthy fish and wildlife populations.

The LaMP is currently in its first stage, problem definition. The four stages that will follow are:� development of an action agenda;

� selection of remedial and preventative actions;� implementation of actions; and

� monitoring of results.

We hope that you will find this Status Report informative and that it will provide you with an understandingof the current key issues for the Lake Erie basin. This report has been prepared to provide the reader with

the following information:� general knowledge about the Lake Erie basin;

� how and why the LaMP was initiated;� the current activities of the LaMP;

� future goals of the LaMP;� which beneficial uses are impaired, which are not and which ones require further evaluation; and

� a few of the key issues in the basin, which illustrate the complex nature of Lake Erie.

A major focus of the LaMP is ensuring that public interests are solicited and considered at every stage in theplan. For more information on how to become involved in the LaMP, please visit the LaMP website at

www.cciw.ca/glimr/lakes/erie or contact one of the LaMP�s Public Involvement Coordinators:

L A K E E R I E L a M P S T A T U S R E P O R T

11

Table of Contents

What is a LaMP? .......................................................................................... 3Characteristics of Lake Erie ........................................................................ 3Lake Erie Successes ...................................................................................... 4Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) .................................... 5LaMP Membership ...................................................................................... 6

Canada .................................................................................................... 6United States ........................................................................................... 6Binational Observers ................................................................................ 6

Organizational Structure of the LaMP ....................................................... 7Management Committee ......................................................................... 7Technical Work Group ............................................................................. 7

Public Involvement Subcommittee .............................................................. 8Lake Erie Binational Public Forum ............................................................. 8Lake Erie Network .................................................................................... 8General Public .......................................................................................... 8

Lake Erie Public Forum ............................................................................... 9Ecosystem Objectives Subcommittee ........................................................ 10Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment Subcommittee .............................11Sources and Loads Subcommittee ............................................................. 15Key Issues Affecting Lake Erie Today .......................................................18

Loss of Wetlands .................................................................................... 18Changes in Fish Population .....................................................................20Exotics ....................................................................................................20Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ............................................................ 22Phosphorus ............................................................................................ 23Human Health ........................................................................................24

Next Steps .................................................................................................. 26References .................................................................................................. 27Glossary ...................................................................................................... 27

Map 1: Lake Erie Drainage Basin .................................................................... 6

Table 1. Summary of Preliminary Beneficial Use Impairment Conclusions,Lake Erie LaMP, July, 1998 .............................................................. 13

Table 2. Contaminants identified for analysis of sources and loads by theLake Erie LaMP ................................................................................ 16

Appendix 1 - IJC Listing Criteria for Establishing Impairment (IJC, 1989) ..... 31Appendix 2 - List of Agencies Who Participated in the Development of the

Lake Erie LaMP Status Report .................................................32

2


What is a LaMP?Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) are manage-ment strategies being developed and implementedfor each of the Great Lakes. It is one of several pro-grams that Canada and the United States are com-mitted to through the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement (GLWQA).

The GLWQA calls for the LaMP to address persist-ent bioaccumulative1 toxic pollutants that persist inLake Erie. The Lake Erie ecosystem may not be fullyprotected or restored until other factors, such ashabitat loss and exotic species, are addressed. Tomore effectively address these factors, the Lake ErieLaMP utilizes an ecosystem approach. This approach,which crosses government jurisdictions, integrateswater quality and natural resource management forthe restoration of the environment and the protec-tion of humans, plants and animals. This approachshifts away from the traditional focus on localizedpollution management of separate components in iso-lation, and recognizes that each part of the systemaffects the other parts.

This LaMP provides a structure for coordinating thework of environmental and natural resource organi-zations that historically have not routinely workedtogether. This effort combines current research, com-munication and knowledge from public and privatesources. By pooling these resources, joint commit-ments for environmental improvements to Lake Erieare being made.

Goal of the Lake Erie LaMP:To restore and protect the beneficial uses of Lake Erie,such as safe beaches, clean drinking water and healthyfish and wildlife populations.

Characteristics of LakeErieLake Erie has several characteristics that make itunique from the other Great Lakes. By volume it isthe smallest of the Great Lakes, and next to smallestin surface area. As the shallowest of the Great Lakes,

1 Words highlighted with italics are described in the Glossary

it warms quickly in the spring and summer and freezesover in the winter.

Lake Erie is naturally divided into three basins. Thewestern basin is very shallow with an average depthof 7.4 metres (24 ft) and a maximum depth of only19 metres (62 ft). The central basin is quite uniformin depth, with the average depth being 18.3 metres(60 ft) and a maximum depth of 25 metres (82 ft).The eastern basin is the deepest of the three, with anaverage depth of 25 metres (82 ft) and a maximumdepth of 64 metres (210 ft).

Eighty percent of Lake Erie�s total inflow of watercomes from the upper Great Lakes through the St.Clair River and Lake St. Clair to the Detroit River,which discharges directly to Lake Erie. The remain-ing twenty percent comes from precipitation and thedirect tributaries (rivers and streams) in Michigan,Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Ontario locatedwithin the Lake Erie basin. The Niagara River andshipping canals serve as outlets for the lake, whichdrain into Lake Ontario.

About one-third of the total population of the GreatLakes basin reside within the Lake Erie watershed.In total, 11.6 million people live in the watershed,which includes seventeen metropolitan areas, eachwith more than 50,000 residents. The lake providesdrinking water for about eleven million of these in-habitants. The general trend over the past ten yearshas been a population decline on the US side of thebasin and notable growth on the Canadian side inurban areas near the major highway system (SOLEC�96 - Impacts of Changing Land Use, 1997).

Lake Erie is exposed to greater stress due to urbani-zation and agricultural practices than any of the otherGreat Lakes. The lake receives chemically enrichedrunoff and sediment from agricultural lands withinthe basin. As well, it surpasses all other Great Lakesin the amount of effluent (discharged waste water) itreceives from sewage treatment plants (Dolan, 1993).

Lake Erie is the Great Lake most subjected to sedi-ment loading. Long stretches of its shorelines aresubject to episodes of active erosion by storm wa-ters, particularly during times of high lake levels.The lake also receives sediment via the Detroit River,from Lake St. Clair. Topsoil erosion in the water-


3

Erosion on Lake Erie near Port Burwell

Lake Erie SuccessesDuring the 1960s, Lake Erie was coined the �dead�lake by the press. Government and private actionshave resulted in a number of successes in the LakeErie basin including: reduced loadings of toxic sub-stances, advances in wastewater and sewage treat-ment, improvements in oxygen levels in the lake anddeclines in bioaccumulative contaminants in fish tis-sue and in the eggs of fish-eating birds.

One of the biggest success stories for Lake Erie wasthe reduction in phosphorus entering the lake. Theexcessive phosphorus entering the lake during the1960s caused eutrophic conditions. Eutrophicationis characterized by high productivity. Eutrophicationcan be a wholly natural phenomenon or it can beaccelerated by an increase of nutrient loading to alake by human activity. In Lake Erie this was exem-plified by the rapid growth of certain algal constitu-ents. These algal blooms were so heavy they col-oured the water and depleted oxygen in some areasof the lake.

By the late 1960s, Canadian and American regula-tory agencies were in agreement that limiting phos-phorus loads to the lake was key in controlling ex-

Cladophora on a Stick

shed contributes sediment to Lake Erie via tributar-ies, particularly the Maumee River. The total sedi-ment (and dissolved nutrient) load profoundly in-fluences the ecology of the western basin.

Effects of Soil ErosionApproximately ten million tons of soil are erodedannually along Ohio�s section of the Lake Erieshoreline.

Some of the effects of this erosion are:

� On average, 1.32 million tons of sediment per yearare discharged to Lake Erie from the Maumee River,and this value is higher than any other tributarystream in the Great Lakes basin.

� Approximately 1 million cubic yards of sediment aredredged annually from the Toledo Harbor. The costof this dredging is over $3 million. (USACOE).

� Each ton of sediment adds 32 cents to Ohio�s watertreatment cost.

� Nutrients lost from soil that are eroded in the Ohiopart of the Lake Erie basin have an estimated annualvalue of about $50 million.

4


cessive algal growth and that a coordinated lakewideapproach was necessary to deal with the phospho-rus issue. Open lake phosphorus concentrationsdeclined due to the joint efforts. These controlsrepresented an unprecedented success in producingenvironmental results through binational cooperation.

Concern over the state of Lake Erie led to an in-crease in research into the causes of environmentaldegradation. As well, greater public awareness ofwater quality issues affecting the Great Lakes likelystems from concerns over Lake Erie.

Great Lakes WaterQuality Agreement(GLWQA)

As a reflection of the above concerns the govern-ments of Canada and the United States signed thebinational treaty, Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-ment (GLWQA), in 1972. Amendments were madeto the Agreement in 1978 and 1987. The 1987amendment mandated the development and imple-mentation of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs)and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for each of theGreat Lakes.

RAPs were established for localized areas that failedto meet one or more of the 14 beneficial uses (seepage 12) outlined in the GLWQA. These areas weredesignated as Areas of Concern (AOC). The goal of aLaMP is to restore and protect the 14 beneficial usesin open lake waters. The goals of RAPs and LaMPsare similar. Both programs share the following: anassessment record of impairments to beneficial uses,proposed remedial actions, a framework for imple-mentation, and resulting improvements in environ-mental conditions. RAPs and LaMPs serve as animportant step toward virtual elimination of persist-ent toxic substances and toward restoring and main-taining the chemical, physical and biological integ-rity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

History of the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement

�1909 - Boundary Waters Treaty - Created the Interna-tional Joint Commission, whose role was to solvedisputes over the use of the waters that crossed theinternational boundaries of the two countries.

�1972 - First Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement -Addressed overall pollution and water qualitydeterioration of all five lakes.

�1978 - Second Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement- Shifted focus from the control of nutrients toinclude the control of toxic substances.

�1987 - Amendments to the Great Lakes Water QualityAgreement - Emphasis was shifted to the ecosystemapproach to achieve the outlined goals of theGLWQA.

For more information on the GLWQA check out thewebsite available at: www.cciw.ca/glwqa/intro.html

It is important for the Lake Erie LaMP and the RAPs,as well as other interest groups around the basin, towork together and keep the lines of communicationopen in order to reduce duplication of work andavoid future conflicts. Given the past success of LakeErie RAPs in improving environmental conditions,it is likely that RAPs will be a key part of implement-ing the LaMP.

Lake Erie AOCsThe IJC has identified 12 specific geographic AOCs inthe Lake Erie basin. There are RAP Programs for all 12:Ashtabula River, Black River, Buffalo River, Clinton River,Cuyahoga River, Detroit River, Maumee River, PresqueIsle Bay, River Raisin, Rouge River, St. Clair River andWheatley Harbour.

To check out the progress of the various RAP programscheck the website at:www.cciw.ca/glimr/raps/intro.htmlwww.great-lakes.net/places/aoc/erieaoc.html

��

�

#S

#S#S

#S#S#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S#S

#1

#2

#3

#4#5#6

#7#9

#10

#12

Areas of Concern#1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8#9#10

Buffalo RiverPresque Isle BayAshtabula RiverCuyahoga RiverBlack RiverMaumee RiverRiver Raisin

Detroit RiverRouge River

Wheatley Harbour

INDIANA

ONTARIO

OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORKMICHIGAN

Lake ErieLake

St. Clair

Lake Erie BasinTributariesState BorderInternational Border

Legend

Lake Erie Drainage Basin1:2,500,000

Sarnia

Guelph

Kitchener-Waterloo

Port Dover

Buffalo

Erie

Ashtabula

Cleveland

AkronLorainToledo

Ann Arbor

Taylor

DetroitWindsor

Wheatley

Port Stanley

LondonPort Colborne

Clinton River##12 St. Clair River11

#8

#11

��

�� !�� "��!�#$��%��!��&��'��()��*�)��+

,��%��-��()�#��"��"�� #� �� '��#�� #�� '��.�� "��/�� '��/�� '��'��/� ��'��/�� +

,��&��)��"��!�� ()��"��'��+��$��'�� 0��"��$��+

�� !�"#�� $��$��

$�� $��% �&�� ' ��%�%�� (' )�$��*�� (' *��+*� ��

��%��,(' -�� (' ��%�%�� *�� .%��

��(' ��(�� ' ��!�%��.��%��(

�� ' ��)�$��/%��(' ��)�$��!�%��.��%��(' !�%��.��%��(' !�"#��)�$��

��' ��)�$��!�%��.��%��(' ��(' ��)�$��

��(' ��!��0� ��+�� ,(' �� $��(' �� *�� 1�� (�� ' �� 2��%��(

��'0��3��('2��*��

6


Organizational Structure of the LaMPIn order to effectively carry out all actions required of the Lake Erie LaMP, a tiered organizational structurewas implemented:

programmatic indicators to measure success, pre-pares LaMP documents, coordinates LaMP activi-ties with existing programs and oversees the pub-lic participation process. Currently two of thekey responsibilities of the Work Group are re-porting on LaMP progress and overseeing theactivities of four subcommittees: Public Involve-ment, Ecosystem Objectives, Beneficial Uses Im-pairment Assessment and Sources and Loads.Pages 7-16 describe the activities of the subcom-mittees.

� Management Committee:This committee, made up of senior managersfrom the federal, state and provincial governments,oversees the development of the Lake Erie LaMPand makes all final decisions. This group has thefollowing responsibilities: assigns and issuescharges for the technical Work Group, approvestime frames for action, approves recommenda-tions for short-term actions and long-term objec-tives and provides funding and support for theseactions. Members of this group have responsi-bilities within their jurisdictions for water qual-ity, fish and wildlife, agriculture, human healthand research.

This group is comprised of technical representa-tives from agencies supporting LaMP develop-ment within the basin. The group has the follow-ing tasks: identifies short-term actions and long-term objectives, establishes time frames and setspriorities for action, ensures implementation ofapproved actions, identifies environmental and

� Technical Work Group:


7

Public InvolvementSubcommitteeThe LaMP has the mandate of ensuring that publicopinion is solicited, considered, acknowledged andincorporated where appropriate throughout the proc-ess. To oversee and facilitate public input and com-munication and to incorporate public and stakeholderknowledge into the LaMP process, the Public Involve-ment Subcommittee of the Work Group was formed.A three-tiered approach is being utilized to effectivelyfacilitate public involvement within the basin.

This is an established formal body made up ofCanadian and American representatives from vari-ous geographic locations and interest groups.Initiated in 1995, the Forum meets three timesannually, in varying locations throughout the ba-sin. This group represents the most formal levelof public participation for the LaMP. The Forumhas been divided into different task groups, deal-ing with pertinent issues including: pollution pre-vention, sources and loads of pollutants, benefi-cial use impairments, ecosystem objectives, landuse, environmental justice, education and outreachand others of a more administrative nature. TheForum has a significant role in the LaMP process,

including: proactive involvement in goal settingand decision making, increasing stakeholder par-ticipation, and implementing, facilitating and/orparticipating in LaMP related activities at a locallevel where appropriate.

� Lake Erie Network:The level of involvement in this group varieswidely. Members of this network indicate theircommitment by: requesting LaMP documents, at-tending meetings or open houses or expressingan interest in becoming involved in the develop-ment and implementation of the LaMP. Somemembers wish to be involved on a continual ba-sis, while for others it is a one time occurrence.This group is provided with information and en-couraged to provide comments to the variousLaMP groups including the Work Group andManagement Committee.

� General Public:This group represents the population that is cur-rently uninvolved in or unaware of the work ofthe LaMP and therefore still needs to be targetedby the public outreach program of the LaMP. Inorder to seek this group�s input, information iscommunicated through mass media channels, ad-vertisements or direct mailings. Efforts to targetthis group will continue.

� Lake Erie Binational Public Forum:

Surfers - Check it Out

More information on the LaMP and related activi-ties is available on various websites:www.cciw.ca/glimr/lakes/erie(Lake Erie LaMP)www.cciw.ca/glimr/intro.html(Environment Canada - Great Lakes InformationManagement Resource)www.great-lakes.NET/(USEPA - Great Lakes Information Network)www.epa.ohio.gov/lamp/(Ohio EPA)www.hc-sc.gc.ca/(Health Canada)www.ijc.org/(International Joint Commission)www.epa.gov/bns/(Binational Toxics Strategy)

8


The Forum has three main roles and functions withinthe LaMP. The Forum shall:

1.Play a significant role in the LaMP process withreal involvement and proactive initiatives by:

· acting as partners with government and non-government agencies in goal-setting and decisionmaking;

· assisting the technical subcommittees in thedrafting of LaMP reports and reviewing WorkGroup documents before they go to the Manage-ment Committee for review;

· providing advice and input to the Work Groupand Management Committee in developing andimplementing the LaMP; and

· promoting the Forum�s visions and goals forLake Erie.

2. Increase stakeholder participation in the LaMPprocess by:

· representing a variety of interest groups andgeographic areas;

· identifying and involving stakeholders;· bringing personal experience and talents to the

process; and· taking information from the LaMP back to the

community in a form that can be understood bythe public.

3. Implement, facilitate and/or participate in Forumsponsored LaMP-related activities at the local levelwhere appropriate.

Lake Erie Public ForumThe Lake Erie Binational Public Forum is a self-gov-erned, self-directed, self-implementing group of LakeErie basin citizens focused on the development ofthe Lake Erie LaMP. The Forum defines their ownroles and functions within the LaMP process.

The Forum has composed a vision statement for theLake Erie basin:

�The Forum sees the future Lake Erie basin as aplace where diverse life forms exist in harmony,social and economic benefits at maximumsustainable levels co-exist, citizens and govern-ments are committed to binational cooperationand a philosophy of stewardship ensures aclean, safe environment.�

A mission statement has also been developed by theForum:

�The Lake Erie Forum is a cooperative bina-tional organization of diverse stakeholderswhose objective is to restore, protect and utilizeLake Erie waters to achieve maximum sustain-able social and economic benefits by promoting:

· ecosystem health, diversity and stewardship;· recognition and protection of unique environ-

mental areas, such as wetlands, wilderness andopen space;

· enhancement and maintenance of public accessto the lake and shoreline;

· the protection of indigenous species and theirhabitats;

· shoreline and lake uses which encourage ahealthy economy and environment and are inthe public interest; and

· meaningful opportunity for public participationin decisions that affect the lake.�

Forum members have expertise in a diverse range ofinterests and represent a number of sectors includ-ing: agriculture, business and industry, communityorganizations, education, environmental organiza-tions and interest groups, general public, labour, lo-cal government, recreation and tourism, public healthand sport and commercial fishing.


9

Ecosystem ObjectivesSubcommitteeAn ecosystem approach was adopted by the Lake ErieLaMP as outlined in the 1987 amendments to theGLWQA. The Ecosystem Objectives Subcommitteewas formed to develop the approach for the LaMP.This approach recognizes the dynamic interactionof the land, air and water within the Lake Erie system.Humans and our social, economic, technical andpolitical values are considered to be an integral partof the ecosystem. The ecosystem approach shiftsaway from the traditional focus on localized pollu-tion management and refocuses our attention on aholistic view of Lake Erie and its basin. Ecosystemobjectives to be developed by the subcommittee, incooperation with the Public Forum, will provide goalstatements for which future management actions willbe directed.

The public has been involved from the start in devel-oping a set of ecosystem objectives. In 1995, a se-ries of public workshops were held in Canada andthe United States as the initial step of gathering theopinions of the various interest groups. At theseworkshops participants discussed their ideas for theLake Erie ecosystem and developed lists of statementsdescribing their desired future condition of Lake Erie.

In October 1995 an �experts� workshop was held toconsult with the scientific community about what isknown and what is hypothesized about the currentstate of the Lake Erie ecosystem. Participants in-cluded representatives of government, non-govern-ment organizations, academia and the public. Ex-perts in the following areas included: fisheries andwildlife management, water quality management,aquatic ecology, human health and stewardship. Par-ticipants provided expectations of how ecosystemcomponents interact with one another and how the

ecosystem is influenced by both local and regionalenvironmental factors. Over 4,000 statements orexpectations about the Lake Erie ecosystem weredefined by the end of the workshop. These observa-tions were entered into a database. These includedstatements of the following nature: �beaches will beswimmable if fecal coliform counts are low�, or �thepotential for healthy walleye populations exist if thequantity and quality of spawning habitat is high�.This database and the results of the public workshopshave been the foundation for the process of devel-oping ecosystem objectives for Lake Erie.

In developing ecosystem objectives the competitiveuses within the Lake Erie ecosystem, such as indus-try, urban growth, agriculture or recreational uses,must be taken into consideration. Because of theirconflicting use requirements of the lake, a balance isnecessary to develop ecosystem objectives. Eachstakeholder group may not fully attain their specifictargets to support their activities in the basin. Toassist discussions about ecosystem objectives for LakeErie, a series of qualitative statements about compat-ible ecosystem conditions, referred to as an �ecosys-tem scenario,� is being developed. Each ecosystemscenario will describe conditions that could exist forthe major ecosystem components, water, land and air,in Lake Erie, given a specific set of assumptions.

For example, based upon a low level of land devel-opments and uses, specific stream and upland habi-tats may increase and consequently, certain fish andwildlife species have the potential to maintain healthypopulations.

A number of ecosystem scenarios will be developedbased on alternative, feasible goals for Lake Erie. Thesewill provide a qualitative interpretation of the ecosys-tem conditions that could result from implementingcertain management strategies to achieve the goals.

Four underlying assumptions have been recognizedthat need to be considered when developing ecosys-tem scenarios. If these assumptions are not consid-ered, then the ecosystem scenarios and subsequentecosystem objectives may not be realistic. The fourassumptions include, but are not limited to:

1. There are very few components of the LakeErie ecosystem that can be deliberately con-trolled through environmental management.Those we can control or influence include:nutrient loadings, fish management throughstocking and harvesting, habitat creation ordestruction and toxic contaminants.

10


2. The discharge of toxic substances in toxicamounts shall be prohibited.

3. A commercial and sport fishery will continueto exist on Lake Erie.

4. Zebra mussels and other exotic species arenow part of the Lake Erie ecosystem.

As an outcome of the �expert� workshop and thework of the subcommittee a computerized model,referred to as the Lake Erie Model, is being devel-oped. The model, which is not a conventional quan-titative model, utilizes a knowledge-based approachwhich combines narrative statements and numericaldata, allowing for uncertainty. As a representationof the Lake Erie ecosystem, this model takes intoaccount the factors that affect the lake and the pub-lic�s key values regarding Lake Erie (e.g. swimming,healthy environment). This representation has beentaken back to the �expert� workshop participants,to verify that it provides realistic expectations forthe Lake Erie ecosystem in order to utilize this infor-mation in the model. The model is being developedto enable the subcommittee to explore what LakeErie could look like under different managementstrategies. These explorations will result in the pro-duction of a set of ecosystem scenarios. These ecosys-tem scenarios do not represent any kind of pre-judg-ment or final decisions, but are intended to be un-derstandable options for consideration by agencies,stakeholders and the public.

Beneficial UseImpairment AssessmentSubcommitteeThe Beneficial Use Impairment Assessment Subcom-mittee (BUIASC) is charged with conducting an as-sessment of the 14 beneficial use impairments listedin the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Thisis an important step towards the identification ofactions for restoration and protection of Lake Erie.

The International Joint Commission (IJC) has de-veloped definitions known as listing criteria for eachimpairment. The 14 impairments are outlined onpage 11 and in Table 1 (pages 12-13), with the asso-ciated listing criteria outlined in Appendix 1.

Individual assessment reports are being written foreach of the 14 potentially impaired uses of Lake Erieand are being released as they are completed. Cur-rently available reports are shown in Table 1 with anasterisk�. Reports on Recreational Water QualityImpairment and Eutrophication or Undesirable Al-gae are expected to be available soon.

The scope of the assessment has been established asthe extent of current impairments in the open wa-ters of Lake Erie, nearshore areas, embayments, rivermouths and the lake effect zone of Lake Erie tribu-taries.

Where known, the causes and/or sources of the im-pairment are identified. The location of the causeor source of an impairment does not have to fallwithin the above-mentioned geographic boundariesto be considered within the LaMP evaluation process.

A summary of impairment conclusions to date havebeen reviewed and accepted by the Lake Erie LaMPWork Group, Management Committee and PublicForum and is provided in Table 1. In Table 1, whenan impaired beneficial use is noted in a particularbasin, it means that impairment is occurring some-where in that basin, not necessarily throughout theentire basin referenced. Details about the geographiclocations and extent of impairment, where known,can be found in the technical reports (available onrequest) that support this summary.

The majority of the impairment conclusions to datehave been based on listing criteria that refer to exist-ing standards as the benchmark against which im-

Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle


11

pairment is measured. With one exception, the as-sessments that remain to be completed have few orno existing criteria against which impairment can beevaluated. If any criteria do exist, they are usually inthe form of broad objectives that often do not havethe level of detail needed to draw impairment con-clusions. Consequently, the efforts of the BUIASChave been focused on developing more detailed as-sessment criteria to complete impairment evaluations.

Due to a lack of concrete assessment criteria, theBUIASC decided to assess, wherever possible, im-pairment of these �ecological uses� against: (1)out-of-system references, (2) historical conditions,(3) recent concerns, and (4) existing managementgoals and objectives. The relative weight placed onimpairment conclusions related to each of these as-sessment categories will vary. When there are con-flicts between management goals/objectives and ourecological understanding of Lake Erie, these conflictswill be noted and summarized.

With the exception of Added Costs to Agricultureand Industry Assessment, the following assessmentsutilize the above-mentioned approach. The subcom-mittee is currently completing the following assess-ments:

� Degraded Fish Populations - a revised reportbased on the results of three expert workshopsis expected to be available by June 1999, forreview by the BUIASC, the Work Group and thePublic Forum.

� Loss of Fish Habitat - final draft incorporatingreview comments by the BUIASC, the WorkGroup and the Public Forum is expected to beavailable by March 1999.

� Fish Tumours or Other Deformities - seconddraft of this report to address review commentsfrom the BUIASC, the Work Group and thePublic Forum is underway. The final report isexpected to be complete by April 1999.

� Bird or Animal Deformities or ReproductiveProblems - a workshop to finalize assessmentcriteria and set direction for completion of thisassessment was held in July 1998. The WorkGroup endorsed the assessment approach inOctober 1998. The draft report is underwayand is expected to be available for review byMay 1999.

� Degradation of Benthos - a preliminary draft ofthis assessment is expected to be available forreview by the BUIASC, the Work Group and thePublic Forum in June 1999.

� Degraded Wildlife Populations and Loss ofWildlife Habitat - a workshop to consolidatedata from all Lake Erie jurisdictions and to setthe direction for completion of the assessmentreport is planned for June 2000.

� Added Costs to Agriculture and Industry - apreliminary draft of this assessment is expectedto be available for review by the BUIASC, theWork Group and the Public Forum by July 1999.

12


Table 1. Summary of Preliminary Beneficial Use Impairment Conclusions, Lake Erie LaMP, July, 1998

Impairment Causes of Impairment Impairment Conclusions by Basin

West Basin Nearshore West Basin Open Water

Fish and Wildlife Fish- PCBs, mercury, PAHs*, Impaired for fish; Impaired for fish;Consumption lead, chlordane & dioxins Inconclusive** for wildlife Inconclusive for wildlifeRestrictions � Wildlife- PCBs, chlordane,

DDE, DDT & mirex

Tainting of Fish None Not Impairedand Wildlife Flavour �

Restrictions on PCBs, heavy metal Impaired Not ApplicableDredging Activities�

Eutrophication or Phosphorus levels Impaired in Maumee Bay and Not ImpairedUndesirable Algae lake effect zones of the Maumee

and Ottawa Rivers in Ohio.Potentially Impaired*** in lakeeffect zones of the Toussaint,Portage & Sandusky Rivers andTurtle & Muddy Creeks in Ohio.

Recreational Water Exceedances of E. coli Impaired InconclusiveQuality Impairment and/or fecal coliform

guidelines

Restrictions on None Not Impaired Not ApplicableDrinking WaterConsumption / Taste& Odour Problems

Degradation of Zebra and Quagga mussel Impaired in lake effect zones of Not ImpairedPhytoplankton/ grazing, species degradation certain tributariesZooplankton (phytoplankton), highPopulations � planktivory, species decline,

habitat loss/ degradation(zooplankton)

Degradation of Excessive Cladophora, Impaired InconclusiveAesthetics � point/ non-point source

stormwater runoff, floatinggarbage & debris, dead fish,excessive zebra mussels onshoreline areas.

� Technical document available upon request, or on the Internet at: chagrin.epa.ohio.gov/ohiolamp*PAHs are the basis for a human contact advisory in the Black River, Ohio Area of Concern, but are not the basis for a fish consumption advisory. Thisadvisory was issued by the Ohio Department of Health and means that it is not safe to go into the water in this area.


13

** Inconclusive - there are little or no data upon which to assess impairment and therefore it is unknown one way or the other whether theimpairment is occurring.

*** Potentially impaired- there are enough data to point to a problem, but not enough data to be absolutely conclusive.

Impairment Conclusions by Basin (continued)

Central Basin Nearshore Central Basin Open Waters East Basin Nearshore East Basin Open Waters

Impaired for fish; Impaired for fish; Impaired for fish; Impaired for fish;Inconclusive for wildlife Inconclusive for wildlife Impaired for wildlife Inconclusive for wildlife

Not Impaired Not Impaired

Impaired Not Applicable Impaired Not Applicable

Potentially Impaired in lake effect Not Impaired based Potentially Impaired Not Impairedzones of Old Woman Creek and on phosphorus and 1998-99 sampling resultsthe Vermillion, Rocky, Huron, chlorophylla. are expected to provideBlack, Chagrin and Cuyahoga Inconclusive based on data for conclusiveRivers in Ohio. Rondeau Bay dissolved oxygen levels. determination ofOntario. 1998-99 sampling results impairment in theare expected to provide data for nearshore and riverconclusive determination of mouths.impairment in the nearshore andriver mouths in Ontario.

Impaired Inconclusive Impaired Inconclusive

Not Impaired Not Applicable Not Impaired Not Applicable

Impaired in lake effect Unknown Impaired Impairedzones of certain tributaries. (no recent data)Unknown in nearshoreareas outside lake effectzone (no recent data)

Impaired No documentation of Inconclusive for Canadian No documentationimpairment waters; of impairment

Impaired for Lake ErieState Park Beach, New York

14


Sources and LoadsSubcommitteeThe Sources and Loads Subcommittee was chargedwith the following, in order to evaluate the sourcesand loads of pollutants in the basin:

1. Describe the status and trends in concentra-tions and loads of pollutants that are causing,or have the potential to cause, beneficial useimpairments in Lake Erie;

2. Identify the major pollutant sources and therelative contribution of those sources to thebeneficial use impairments;

3. Provide a scientific basis for sound manage-ment decisions for reducing, removing andeliminating the pollutants from the Lake Eriesystem; and

4. Identify gaps in the information to identify thesources and loadings, and make recommenda-tions for monitoring to fill in the gaps.

Currently, the following chemicals have been foundto cause impairments of beneficial uses in Lake Erie:DDT, PCBs, mercury, lead, dioxins/furans, PAHs,chlordane, Mirex and phosphorus. In addition to

these specific chemicals, E. coli and suspended sol-ids have also been found to be pollutants causingimpairments of beneficial uses in Lake Erie. Thesepollutants are the highest priority for analysis, andwill be discussed in detail in a technical pollutantreport on sources and loads, which is expected to bereleased for public review in December 1999.

On May 1st 1998, the Lake Erie LaMP ManagementCommittee designated two of these chemicals, PCBsand mercury, as critical pollutants for priority ac-tion, based on the number of fish advisories causedby these chemicals. As next steps, the Work Groupwill evaluate and recommend new management op-tions for these chemicals.

The Sources and Loads Subcommittee developed alist of pollutants, designated by a variety of agencyprograms, as being pollutants of concern through-out the Great Lakes basin (see Table 2). These chemi-cals include those listed above, as well as those chemi-cals with the potential to impair beneficial uses inLake Erie. This expanded list allows the Sourcesand Loads Subcommittee to begin evaluating infor-mation on all chemicals of concern to Lake Erie. Byevaluating data on all of these chemicals, strategiesto monitor and control problem causing chemicalscan eventually be developed.

The subcommittee will also identify potential sourcesof pollutants from the municipal, industrial and ag-ricultural sectors within the basin. To do this thesubcommittee will use generic descriptions of eachsector such as the size and location of municipal sew-age treatment plants, total emissions from the indus-trial sector and pesticide and fertilizer use from theagricultural sector. Ambient environmental data suchas water and sediment concentrations of pollutantswill be evaluated for their utility to track down oridentify potential locations of sources. The area cho-sen for source trackdown was the Lake Erie water-shed from the head of the St. Clair River at PointEdward to the outflow of Lake Erie into the NiagaraRiver.

The subcommittee decided to integrate existing elec-tronic data sources using a USEPA product calledBASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Pointand Non-point Sources). This product uses ArcView©

as its platform and includes tools for �data mining�and performing loading estimates for both pointsource and non-point source pollution. BASINS,which was available on a USEPA regional basis, wastransformed into a watershed-based product called

Water Sampling


15

LIMS (Lake Erie Information Management System).Information from the US federal databases, contain-ing sources and loadings information or ambient dataon a broad geographical basis, for the 53 potentialLaMP pollutants was extracted. This new informa-tion system allows the subcommittee to evaluate thedata�s ability to estimate loadings or identify sources.

Table 2. Contaminants identified for analysis of sources and loads by the Lake Erie LaMP(Contaminants indented are degradation products; those shown in italics have been identified as chemicals ofconcern by the Lake Erie LaMP or have been shown to impair beneficial uses of Lake Erie)

Contaminant(s) Common source(s)

Organochlorine insecticides and biocidesChlordane 1,3,4,7 Historical use on crops and for termite and fire ant

� Gamma chlordane control.� Alpha chlordane� Cis nonachlor� Trans nonachlor

DDT 1,2,3,4,5,7 Historical use on crops, microcontaminant in dicofol.� DDD� DDE

Dieldrin 1,3,4,5,7 Historical use on crops, termite and moth ant control.Toxaphene 2,3,4,5,7 Historical use on crops, topical insecticide.Mirex 2,3,4,5 Historical use for fire ant control and as flame

� Photomirex retardant.Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane Agricultural and topical insecticides.Beta-hexachlorocyclohexaneDelta-hexachlorocyclohexaneHexachlorocyclohexane

Industrial organochlorine compounds or byproductsPCB and congeners 1,2,3,4,5,7 Transformers, lubricants and hydraulic fluids.Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) 3,4,5 Combustion byproducts and contaminant in

pentachlorophenol wood preservative.

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons 3,4,7

AnthraceneChryseneBenz (a) anthraceneDinitropyrene Coal, oil, gas, and coking byproducts, wasteBenzo (a) pyrene incineration, wood and tobacco smoke, forest fires,Benzo (g,h,i) perylene automotive exhaust, tars and tar products.Benzo (b) fluoranthenePhenanthreneBenzo (k) fluorantheneFluoranthene

Point Source Water Pollution

}

16


Benzene and phenol compounds1,4 Dichlorobenzene 3,4 Mothballs, household deodorants, other biocides.Pentachlorobenzene 3,4 Chemical synthesis.1,2,3,4 Tetrachlorobenzene 2,4

1,2,3,5 Tetrachlorobenzene 3,4

Pentachlorophenol 3,4 Chloroalkali plants, wood preservatives.Hexachlorobenzene 3,4,7 By-product of chemical manufacturing, historical wood

preservative and fungicide.3,3 Dichlorobenzidine3,4 Plastic manufacturing, glues and adhesives, dyes and

pigments for printing inks.4,4� Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline) 3,4 Plastics, adhesives.

Trace metalsAlkyl lead 3,4,5 Leaded gasolines.Cadmium 3,4 Batteries, pigments, metal coatings, plastics, mining,

coal burning, metal alloys, rubber, dye, steel production.Copper 5 Batteries, pigments, metal coatings, plastics, mining,

coal burning, metal alloys, rubber, dye, steel produc-tion, plumbing, wiring.

Lead 5 Batteries, pigments, metal coatings, plastics, mining,coal burning, metal alloys, rubber, dye, steel produc-tion, solder.

Zinc 5 Batteries, pigments, metal coatings, plastics, mining,coal burning, metal alloys, rubber, dye, steel produc-tion, roofing.

Mercury 2,3,4,5 Batteries, air emissions, chloroalkali plants, paints.Tributyl tin 3,4 Antifouling paint.

Current-use herbicides 6

atrazine Agricultural use on corn and soybeans.cyanazine Agricultural use on corn and soybeans.Alachlor Agricultural use on corn and soybeans.metolachlor Agricultural use on corn and soybeans.

Other contaminantsTotal phosphorus Fertilizers and sewage.Nitrate-nitrogen Fertilizers and sewage.Fecal coliform bacteria Sewage and animal waste.Escherichia coli Sewage and animal waste.Suspended sediments Soil erosion.

1Lake Erie Chemicals of Concern identified by Lake Erie LaMP in 19942Great Lakes Initiative Bioaccumulative Chemical of Concern (BCC)3Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) tier 1 or tier 2 contaminant4Binational Toxics Strategy contaminant5Contaminant identified by the IJC or in Remedial Action Plans6USEPA7Canadian Toxic Substance Management Policy - Track 1

Contaminant(s) Common source(s)


17

Key Issues AffectingLake Erie Today

There are a number of key issues that are greatlyaffecting the Lake Erie ecosystem today, or are causefor concern within the basin. These include, but arenot limited to: loss of wetlands, changes in fishpopulations, presence of exotic species, PCBs, phos-phorus and effects of certain chemicals on humanhealth. These issues have been selected because oftheir significance which ranges from their ability tocause environmental damage, socio-economic im-pacts or potential health risks, their ability to affectthe economy and/or ecology of the basin and/or theyhave become topics of concern among citizens. Theseissues have been chosen prior to completion of theLake Erie LaMP�s assessment process and thereforeare not based solely on LaMP findings. The futuresignificance of some of these issues to the LaMP iscurrently unknown, however, based on our currentunderstanding it is assumed that they are of consid-erable importance and have seriously affected or willaffect the Lake Erie ecosystem.

Loss of WetlandsWetlands are defined as land that is saturated withwater long enough to promote wetland or aquaticprocesses as indicated by poorly drained soils,hydrophytic (water loving) vegetation and variouskinds of biological activity adapted to wet environ-ments (SOLEC �96 - Coastal Wetlands, 1997). Theyoccupy the transitional position between terrestrialand aquatic environments.

Wetlands may be classified as coastal or inland.Coastal wetlands differ from inland wetlands in thatthey are shaped by large lake processes such as waves,wind tides (seiches) and seasonal and long term fluc-tuations in waters levels. Water level fluctuationsprovide the means to rejuvenate wetland plant com-munities in coastal environments. For inlandwetlands the aging process (senescence) dominatesand wetlands evolve from open ponds to densely veg-etated marshes to dry land over time.

Coastal wetlands may contain many different wetlandtypes including: marshes, swamps, wet meadows andfens, shallow open water, bogs and flats. For LakeErie, marshes and wooded swamps are the most com-mon.

Long Point, OntarioThe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul-tural Organization (UNESCO) designated Long Point,Ontario, a Lake Erie wetland, as a World BiosphereReserve. Long Point was designated as an exampleof Great Lakes coastal habitat. It provides a uniqueblend of habitats - long uninterrupted beaches, un-disturbed sand dunes, grassy ridges, wet meadows,woodlands, marshes and ponds. The area is attrac-tive to a wide range of interests including: govern-ment, commercial, residential, agricultural, recrea-tional and scientific.

Wetlands are ecologically, economically and sociallyimportant to the overall health of the Lake Erie eco-system. They can sustain as much life as a tropicalrain forest. Wetlands provide habitat to a diversenumber of plants and animals, many of which arenot found elsewhere. The Pied-Billed Grebe andVirginia Rail, for example, are completely depend-ent on wetland habitats. For migratory birds, suchas ducks and geese, wetlands are the most importanthabitat in their migratory cycle as they provide food,resting places and seasonal habitat. The marshes ofLake Erie and Lake St. Clair form the most exten-sive area of high quality habitat for migratory water-fowl in Ontario south of James Bay. Wetland habi-tats make a significant contribution to sustaining aproductive fishery, preventing damage from erosionand flooding and aiding in the control of point sourceand non-point source pollution by serving as bio-logical filters. Wetlands also support many recrea-tional activities including hunting, fishing and bird-watching.

Over the years, human activity in the Lake Erie ba-sin has greatly diminished the amount of wetlands.Wetlands have been destroyed or degraded for thepurpose of land development, including agriculture,

18


new harbour facilities and urban expansion, as wellas by dredging for commercial and recreational wa-ter traffic. The impacts of human activities onwetland losses may be direct or indirect. Infilling ordredging of a wetland results in the loss of thewetland. One consequence is the loss of this habitatfor migratory birds. Of equal importance are indi-rect impacts such as the interruption of water or sedi-ment supply to wetlands by changing landuse anddrainage characteristics. The total effect of theseactions, which may have occurred some distance awayfrom the impacted wetlands, may be delayed andmake it more difficult to establish a cause and effectrelationship.

Presently, there are 31 coastal wetland areas on theCanadian side of the Lake Erie basin which coverabout 18,885 hectares (ha). On the US side of thebasin, 87 coastal wetlands remain with a total cover-age of 7,937 ha (SOLEC �96 - Coastal Wetlands,1997). Prior to urbanization in the basin, one wetlandarea between Vermillion, Ohio and the mouth of theDetroit River and extending up the valley of theMaumee River covered 122,000 ha. This was partof the Black Swamp, a vast wetland complex whichcovered an area about 400,000 ha. Only remnantsof this wetland remains today. Due to wetland pro-tection laws and because there are fewer areas leftwhich could be filled in, the rate at which wetlandshave been filled in has decreased over the last fewyears. However, total wetland area continues todecrease.

Another concern is the diminishing quality of theremaining wetlands. The remaining wetlands areunder tremendous strain. Disruptions in natural eco-logical processes such as water level variations orthe invasion of exotic species (including carp andpurple loosestrife) can cause wetlands to lose theirresiliency, complexity and connectivity and thereforetheir ability to support sensitive species. For exam-ple, when water levels are not allowed to fluctuate,wetlands can become dominated by a single tolerantplant species, such as the cattail. This loss of plantdiversity, through the total loss of wetlands and di-minished quality of the remaining wetlands, can causea chain reaction resulting in a decrease in animal di-versity by reducing the variety of food and habitatavailable.

One response to the disappearance of coastalwetlands has been to dike the wetlands that do re-main. Diking allows marsh managers to isolate thewetland, to some extent, from stresses such as carp

and excessive wave action, thereby supporting ahealthier wetland community. Diked wetlands alsoinclude water level control structures so that levelscan be managed to optimize development of the veg-etation types that support a wide diversity of wetlandwildlife, including many waterfowl species.

However, most conventional diking methods pro-hibit hydrological interchange, which is importantto nutrient cycling and food web dynamics in thelake, and hamper fish movement in and out of thecoastal wetland. For many fish species these are criti-cal spawning, nursery and foraging habitats fromwhich they are presently excluded. New approachesare being investigated to address concerns regardingthe utilization of these wetlands as valuable habitatsfor both fish and wildlife. A pilot project at MetzgerMarsh will evaluate these concerns (see sidebox).Diked wetlands and their value as fish and wildlifehabitat are currently being assessed by the BeneficialUse Impairment Subcommittee.

Metzger Marsh, OhioThe Metzger Marsh Restoration Project is a coopera-tive initiative between the Ohio Division of Wildlife,the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other partners.This project has been designed to integrate the ben-efits of diked wetlands (vegetation establishment andwildlife use) with the benefits of open wetlands (hy-drological interchange / fish access). The project con-sists largely of rebuilding 7,700 feet of coastalwetlands dike. Metzger Marsh previously was a se-verely degraded wetland consisting of a shallow tur-bid bay with less than 12.5 ha. of emergent vegeta-tion. Since the restoration of more than 375 ha. ofemergent marsh, it is now being heavily utilized bymigrating waterfowl and many other species ofwetland wildlife. In Spring 1999 the marsh will beopen to lake exchange and follow-up monitoring willshed some light on the issue of diking.


19

1930-1972 Grosseutrophication of Lake Erie.Changes in the WellandCanal allow lamprey and

alewife access to Lake Erie. Smelt arrive (1935) fromupstream. Decline of blue pike (later declared extinct),walleye and further decline of whitefish. Boom inyellow perch. Boom and decline of smelt. Colonizationby white perch.

1972-1986 GLWQA leads toreductions in phosphorusloads. Recovery in whitefishand walleye. Recovery incentral basin smelt stocks,

followed by decline under predation pressure of walleyeand trawl fishery. Perch decline from earlier peak to lowerplateau. White perch increase in presence of large wall-eye stock. Spiny water flea (Bythotrephes) found in 1984.

1986-Present Zebra musselsinvade and change foodweb. Lakewide reduction inyellow perch, reductions ineastern stocks of white

perch, freshwater drum and smelt. Forage fish reduc-tions and oscillations forecast effects on predator stocks.Walleye foraging behaviour constrained by water clarity,potentially limiting growth and ultimately production andpopulation fitness.

The questions raised, in light of all these recentchanges include: what is the current status of themajor species of Lake Erie and do each of the threebasins within Lake Erie need to be considered sepa-rately, what long term effects will exotic species haveon the fish community, where is the fish communitygoing and what will the fish community look like inthe future?

Five fish management agencies, provincial and state,share responsibilities for the Lake Erie fisheries andare coordinated by the Lake Erie Committee of theGreat Lakes Fishery Commission. All of these agen-cies are working in support of the LaMP as it relatesto the fishery.

ExoticsExotics are any species with origins outside of theLake Erie or Great Lakes basin. Many species presentin the Lake Erie basin are exotics that have becomeprevalent over the years and have not had a major

Changes in Fish PopulationsThe commercial fishery in Lake Erie is the most pros-perous of the Great Lakes fisheries. In Canada, LakeErie represents nearly two-thirds of the total GreatLakes harvest. In 1996, approximately 1288 tonnes(28 million pounds), with a landed value of about$31 million (CDN), was caught commercially in theCanadian waters of Lake Erie (OMNR, 1997). How-ever, these numbers represent a recent decline in thefishery. There is a very small commercial fishery onthe U.S. side of Lake Erie. Lake Erie is also acclaimedfor its sport fishery. Fishing for walleye, perch and anumber of other species, draws large numbers ofsport anglers to the basin each year.

There are three principal environmental conditionsin Lake Erie that determine which fish species maydominate, which ones may do well, which are capa-ble of survival and which ones are not capable ofsurvival. These conditions, in order of relative im-portance, are temperature, trophic status and habi-tat. Human activity in the basin has changed theseenvironmental characteristics. Man has affected thefish community directly through the long term com-mercial and sport fishery, as well as industrial usesof the lake which cause fish mortality. Indirectly manhas had an effect through the accidental or deliber-ate introduction of exotic species. There werechanges to all the above conditions in the lake priorto the 1900s. The trends due to these changes areoutlined below.

Pre-1900 Period of settle-ment with extensive logging,wetland draining/filling andland clearing. Valuable fish-eries for whitefish, walleye,

blue pike and sturgeon; but whitefish, sturgeon and laketrout decline before the end of the century. Consider-able change in fish habitat due to dams, agriculture andforestry. Construction of canals provide connections tothe Ohio and Hudson Rivers. Gizzard shad from the OhioRiver may have colonized Lake Erie. Introduction of carp.

1900-1930 Highest intensityfishery results in decline ofherring to minor status.Walleye increase. Beginning

of eutrophication (due to increased phosphorus loadingsto the lake).

20


disruptive impact on the ecosystem. However, thereare a few species of exotics that cause significant envi-ronmental, socio-economic or public health concerns.

In some cases, the severity and impact of certain ex-otic species are not widely understood. However,the introduction of exotics is of concern becausenatural mechanisms to keep their numbers in bal-ance, such as predation, parasites or pathogens, maynot exist. When population growth is not readilylimited by predators, habitat or food supplypopulations grow at exponential rates and dominatethe system, to the detriment of existing species. Thedomination of the new species will generally stabi-lize at some point but the ecosystem will have beenaltered.

There are many ways for exotic species to be intro-duced into new ecosystems. These include: inten-tional introductions, airborne particles, water usedfor food processing, the bait industry and the exoticpet and aquarium trades. In the Great Lakes, how-ever, the most significant way that exotics are intro-duced is probably through the ballast water on boardtransoceanic ships, which is pumped in and out ofholds of ships as required to provide weight and sta-bility. Organisms can live for periods of time in theballast hold and when the ballast water is emptiedinto the lake, the new organism is introduced. Thereare presently regulations and voluntary guidelinesin place to reduce the number of accidental intro-ductions made through this vector, however the suc-cess rate of these regulations is not adequate to pre-vent all potential introductions.

Within the Lake Erie basin a number of exotic spe-cies have recently been introduced which are caus-ing concern. The extent of damage done, or thatmay be done, by these species can be extensive. Thefollowing outlines some of the exotics of concern atthis time in the Lake Erie basin.

Dreissenid Mussels (zebra mussels and quaggamussels)Zebra mussels first entered the western basin of LakeErie in 1987 and have spread to all five of the GreatLakes. Quagga mussels were found in the easternbasin of Lake Erie in autumn of 1988. It took sev-eral years for the populations to expand and the ef-fects were not observed until 1990.

Dreissenids have great potential to spread and colo-nize new areas due to their high reproductive rateand broad habitat preference. Zebra mussels will

attach to most hard surfaces, including clam shellsand are responsible for nearly eliminating nativeclams from Lake Erie. Quagga mussels can live onsofter substrates as well as hard surfaces. On hardsubstrates they form dense colonies often severalshells thick - in a few instances counts of more thana million mussels per square metre have been re-corded. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has as-sessed the potential economic impact of dreissenids,for the Great Lakes region at about $5 billion (U.S.)over the next ten years. The financial burden is be-ing felt by American and Canadian factories, watersuppliers, power plants, ships and fisheries due tocolonization by dreissenids of heat exchangers, valvesand small diameter piping (Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Prevention and Control Act, 1996).

These mussels have also had an impact on the waterquality of Lake Erie. Due to their highly efficientability to filter suspended particles from the water,water clarity in Lake Erie has increased. While thismay sound positive, the drawbacks include the re-moval of phytoplankton and zooplankton that formthe base of the pelagic food chain. The net effect ofzebra mussels, and their relative the quagga mussel,has been to shift open water food chain dynamicsfrom the upper levels of the water column, where itis useful to walleye and perch, to the bottomsediments where whitefish, burbot, sturgeon andother benthic species feed. The majority of the shiftin energy has produced tremendous numbers of ze-

Zebra Mussels


21

bra mussels instead of fish. These changes in thefood supply will greatly affect the fish and wildlifecommunity within the Lake Erie basin.

In summary, several factors have been important inthe large and far reaching effects of dressenid mus-sels on the Lake Erie ecosystem: their extremely quickreproductive rate, high rate of dispersal, lack of ef-fective competitors or predator and the extensive areaof suitable habitat. The dreissenid invasion has hadimpacts on water quality (including the potential forresuspension of contaminants from sediment), wa-ter clarity and the flow of energy through the LakeErie food web.

Other Exotic Species of ConcernOther exotics of concern to the integrity of the LakeErie ecosystem include: round goby, spiny water flea(Bythotrephes), Phragmites, sea lamprey, Eurasianwatermilfoil, purple loosestrife and others. The im-pacts of some of these exotics (such as lamprey) areknown, however, the impact of more recent invad-ers is not as well known and is being investigated.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)PCBs are synthetic chemical compounds consistingof chlorine, carbon and hydrogen. They are rela-tively fire-resistant, very stable, do not conduct elec-tricity and have low volatility at normal tempera-tures, making them very desirable for a wide rangeof industrial and consumer usages. However, thesesame properties make them resistant to chemical andbiological breakdown through natural processes.

Commercial use of PCBs began in 1929. It was notuntil 1971 that the manufacturer recognized the prob-lems with the toxicity of the product and voluntarilyinitiated a program to phase out the usage. Legisla-tion prohibiting the production of PCBs came intoeffect in 1979, but by this time about 700,000 tonshad been produced. Due to their persistent andbioaccumulative nature they are still a concern atcertain locations in the Lake Erie basin. Monitoringindicates that PCBs continue to exist in the soils andsediment.

PCBs are a concern because they are soluble in anorganic medium and can be stored and concentratedin the fat tissue of organisms. PCBs are passed alongat higher and higher concentrations through the foodchain, from aquatic plants to plankton (phyto, zoo),fish, fish-eating birds and other animals and eventu-

Deformed Cormorant

ally to humans who consume these fish and animals.Most of the fish consumption advisories postedwithin the basin are due to the presence of PCBs.

Effects can occur at the molecular level (e.g. enzymes,vitamins), the cellular level (e.g. goiters) and physi-ological level (e.g. liver function). Effects include:deformities in fish-eating birds (including crossedbills, club feet, extra digits and eye and skeletal de-formities), reduced reproductive rates in bald eaglesand contamination in herring gull eggs and top preda-tor fish eggs.

Weight of evidence research indicates that humanpopulations continue to be exposed to PCBs andhealth consequences may be associated with theseexposures. Even though PCBs are declining in theenvironment, health concerns are still warranted. Themain route of human exposure to PCBs is throughthe ingestion of food. A small amount of exposureis through air (ambient and indoor) and even smalleramounts through drinking water, soil and house dust.People who consume large quantities of locally caughtfish, especially in areas where advisories have beenissued, are likely to be exposed to higher levels ofcertain contaminants, including PCBs (Toxic Chemi-cals Synopsis, 1991).

The concern around PCB and fish consumption stemsfrom people eating more than average amounts ofGreat Lakes fish and wildlife. Consumption of mostLake Erie fish is acceptable, within the guidelinespublished by various government agencies. Sub-populations at risk for higher than average exposuresinclude Aboriginal peoples, anglers and hunters andtheir families, and subsistence groups that consumelarge amounts of fish and game. Most guidelinesalso recommend that children and women of child-bearing age limit their intake of certain Great Lakesfish as a precautionary measure. The health effectsstated below are not believed to be caused by con-suming Great Lakes fish within the governmentguidelines.

22


Possible human health effects (Johnson et al.,1997)include:

1. Reproductive function may be disrupted by expo-sure to PCBs;

2. Neurobehavioural and developmental deficits oc-cur in newborns and continue through school-age children from in utero exposure to PCBs;

3. Other systemic effects, e.g., self-reported liver dis-ease and diabetes may be associated with elevatedserum levels of PCBs; and

4. Increased cancer risks are associated with PCBexposure, for example, liver and breast cancers.

To date the following preliminary beneficial use im-pairments have been identified in Lake Erie due toPCBs: the majority of fish consumption advisories,wildlife consumption advisories for snapping turtlesand waterfowl in New York State, a human contactadvisory in the Ottawa River in Ohio, bird or ani-mal deformities or reproduction problems particu-larly in mink, bald eagles, reptiles and amphibiansand restrictions on dredging activities.

Although PCB use has generally been banned ortightly regulated, PCBs still remain in industrial andcommercial use in certain circumstances, such astransformers. PCBs previously released into the en-vironment are located in landfills and sediments, andfurther dispersed in the air and water. Over half ofthe PCBs manufactured were disposed of - not nec-essarily destroyed - prior to the enactment of speci-fied regulations. As a result, large amounts of PCBshave been released into the environment. Conse-quently, pathways exist for PCB exposure and theyare still considered a threat to human health and theenvironment.

PhosphorusIn Lake Erie, phosphorus is primarily found in twodifferent forms. Soluble phosphorus is dissolved inthe water and can be absorbed by phytoplankton.Through photosynthesis it is incorporated into al-gae, the basis of the aquatic food chain. Phosphoruscan also be adsorbed or attached to small soil parti-cles within the water, which in turn slowly settle tothe bottom. The phosphorus attached to suspendedparticles also contributes to high levels of algaegrowth. The water is generally murky if it containshigh phosphorus levels, allowing little light penetra-tion. In this situation, phosphorus particles tend toend up tightly bound in the bottom sediments, andare only useful to leafy rooted plants, which can

directly absorb it. However, if the oxygen disap-pears from the layer of water just above the sedi-ment (a condition known as anoxia), phosphorus canbecome released from the sediment and again be-come soluble phosphorus.

Phosphorus is very important in the Lake Erie sys-tem because it is the nutrient that controls the amountand type of algae (or phytoplankton) that will growsuspended in the water. Less phosphorus results insmaller quantities of algae. Fewer algae of desirable,edible types result in a loss of food available to otheraquatic organisms in the food chain.

As stated earlier in the Lake Erie Successes section ofthis report, phosphorus became a concern during the1960s when excessively high levels were present.Steps taken to alleviate the high levels targeted thethree main sources: (1) sewage treatment plants werelimited to 1mg of phosphorus per litre of treatedwater released, (2) better agricultural practices wereundertaken in the basin to reduce the amount ofphosphorus found in the runoff, and (3) the deliber-ate use of phosphates in detergent and cleaning prod-ucts was restricted. In the 1978 amendments to theGLWQA, an annual target loading of 11,000 metrictonnes was set, with the confidence that this wouldalleviate the eutrophic conditions, the excessive al-gal growth and the associated oxygen depletion inthe central basin.

Phosphorus loads and levels have again become aconcern in Lake Erie. The issue with phosphorustoday is quite different than it was in the 1960s. Thecurrent issue relates to the lack of scientific under-standing around the utilization of phosphorus pres-ently in the Lake Erie system, and in particular therole that zebra mussels are playing in altering thephosphorus balance. When the annual target loadof 11,000 metric tonnes was set in 1978, the LakeErie system was very different than it is today. Ze-bra mussels, which have caused major alterations,were not yet present in the lake. The presence ofzebra mussels, along with other changes, have cre-ated uncertainty about how the Lake Erie food webis working, where food resources are being routedand if they are available to other components of thefood chain.

Lake St. Clair is an example of an ecosystem invadedby zebra mussels. If Lake Erie responds in a similarmanner, it is expected that over time there will betwo significant shifts in the aquatic community: (1)species moving away from the upper water layers


23

ability of smaller fish to eat and their need to avoidthe bright light.

Much of the above discussion has focused on thefishery in the open waters of the lake. It is also im-portant to consider other aspects of the lake wheninvestigating the changes due to the zebra musselinvasion and changing nutrient regimes. In somenearshore environments and tributaries there con-tinues to be concern over too much phosphorus. Anoverabundance of Cladophora continues to foulbeaches in some areas and many tributaries remainnutrient enriched. On the other hand, increasedwater clarity has increased other uses of the lake in-cluding the creation of a vibrant scuba diving indus-try as well as benefiting other recreational uses suchas swimming and other water sports.

Given the understanding that the Lake Erie ecosys-tem is complex, the following key questions need tobe answered: is there enough information availableto determine the pros and cons or risks and trade-offs of future management options and actions? It isthis uncertainty and lack of understanding that ledthe Management Committee to draw together agroup of �experts�, knowledgeable on both phos-phorus dynamics and the ecology of Lake Erie. The�experts� are attempting to determine how the sys-tem is presently working and how it may work inthe future.

Human HealthHuman health impacts in the Lake Erie basin are ofobvious interest to the citizens living there. For thisreason, it is necessary to clearly identify which hu-man health issues fall within the scope of the LaMP.

The GLWQA requires the LaMP to assess whether14 beneficial use impairments are occurring in LakeErie. The LaMP addresses human health issues that

Algae on a Beach

towards the bottom, and (2) an increasing composi-tion of species that prefer rooted vegetation. Suchchanges are expected in regions adjacent to rivermouths and possibly the western basin. Species whichcan adapt will thrive, as can be seen by smallmouthbass and freshwater drum that are thriving in areasrich in mussels. Other species will decline, as ob-served in the offshore decline of perch. Despite the60 percent reduction in phosphorus loading and themussel invasion, total fish population in the lake haslargely been maintained, although species composi-tion has changed. It is difficult to isolate the extentto which the present water quality in Lake Erie isdriven by zebra mussels, because many aspects of thewater quality are also consistent with reasonable ex-pectations of the phosphorus management strategyagreed to in the GLWQA.

Dr. Seuss Notes Cleanup of Lake Erie

Dr. Seuss, the author and illustrator of children�stales, in his 1971 book The Lorax has the titlecharacter commenting on the mythical Humming-Fish:

�So I�m sending them off.Oh, their future is dreary.They�ll walk on their fins and get woefullyweary.In search of some water that isn�t so meary.I hear things are just as bad in Lake Erie.�

In the 1991 reprint of the book (Random House,New York), the last line has been deleted!!

One of the major uncertainties is how the Lake Eriefishery is responding to the changes. The fisheryhas become very unpredictable, with its compositionchanging every year. While phosphorus is a majorstress, there are additional stresses on the fish com-munity besides phosphorus including: the introduc-tion of exotics including smelt, alewife and whiteperch, cold weather leading to poor reproductionand fish harvesting activities. Increased water clar-ity during low phosphorus periods, generally in thesummer, has had an impact on the fish community.Fishermen have noted that low turbidity in the sum-mer means that fish such as walleye are only foundin deep waters, as they are trying to avoid sunlight.These fish tend to move towards the oxygen-reduced,deeper waters of the central basin in order to strikea balance between oxygen levels, temperature, avail-

24


are related to these beneficial uses. Seven of thesebeneficial uses target human health, either directlyor indirectly. They are:

· Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption;· Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor;· Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or

taste and odour problems;· Beach closings;· Fish tumors or other deformities;· Bird or animal deformities or reproductive

problems; and· Degradation of aesthetics

The concerns about long-term effects of low-levelexposures to environmental contaminants in humanshighlights the importance of the well-documentedadverse effects already seen in other parts of the eco-system. Health Canada used a weight of evidenceapproach to assess the human health effects fromexposure to environmental contaminants. Althoughmost of these studies focus on the Great Lakes basinthey do not specifically address Lake Erie.

Human health effects resulting from exposure toenvironmental contaminants are well documented.These effects are not exclusive to Lake Erie, or eventhe Great Lakes basin, but can be seen globally. Re-productive studies have shown that chemical con-taminants (including PCBs) may cause adverse fetaland neonatal effects such as low birth weight andreduced gestational age. Developmental, behavioraland neurological effects, (e.g. early developmentaldeficits in motor function of newborns and infants),are among the more consistent findings.

Exposure to drinking water chlorination by-prod-ucts, such as trihalomethanes, through long-termconsumption of chlorinated surface water is associ-ated with an increased risk of bladder cancer and issuggestive of an increased risk of colon cancer (Reidelet al., 1997).

In Lake Erie certain microorganisms are measured,and serve as general indicators of recreational waterquality. These microorganisms may cause illness andconsequently bodily contacts should be avoided. Forexample, elevated levels of E. coli (or fecal coliformbacteria) are indicative of fecal contamination andthe possible presence of enteric (intestinal) patho-gens. E. coli and/or fecal coliforms are monitoredon a regular basis by various health agencies aroundthe basin and are included in the scope of the LaMP.Elevated levels of these microorganisms usually re-

sult in beach closings. However, there are many othermicroorganisms which are not monitored on a regu-lar basis. These include pathogens of a bacterial na-ture (e.g. Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas), or a viralnature (e.g. Hepatitis A, Norwalk virus) or other types(e.g. Cryptosporidium, Giardia).

In order to meet the GLWQA requirements and LakeErie basin human health concerns the Lake ErieLaMP is in the process of compiling and assessingrelevant human health studies and databases, spe-cific to Lake Erie. At the same time, human healthagencies at the federal, provincial, state and locallevels are being contacted and recruited to the LakeErie LaMP process in order to help develop a planfor human health issues in the LaMP.

Human Health WebsitesFor more information check out these web pages:

Health Canada:www.hc-sc.gc.caHC Great Lakes Health Effects Program:www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/bch/bioregional/glhep.htmU.S. EPA Great Lakes Human Health Page:www.epa.gov/glnpo/health.htmlATSDR Great Lakes Human Health Effects ResearchProgram:atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/grtlakes.html


25

Next StepsBy the year 2000 the LaMP intends to:

· Develop and adopt ecosystem objectives totarget specific goals; included in this exercise iscontinued support to the development of theLake Erie Model (see page 10), as well as valida-tion of the model by the scientific communityand through public consultation;

· Complete the beneficial use impairment assess-ments and, to the extent possible, determine thecauses of those impairments;

· Obtain additional information regarding jurisdic-tional databases on pollutant sources andloadings and use this information to recommendoptions;

· Identify additional Lake Erie critical pollutantsincluding potential sources and preliminary loadcalculations;

· Continue to support research investigating LakeErie food web issues and changes. This includes,but is not limited to, nutrient and contaminantcycling in the lake, changes to the structure,function and composition of the Lake Erie web,phosphorus loads and zebra mussels.

· Determine which human health issues areappropriate for the Lake Erie LaMP to address,recruit the appropriate personnel and develop atargeted plan to address the issues.

· Expand and implement the public involvementstrategy; and

· Complete a cumulative Problem Definitiondocument.

The members and agencies of the Lake Erie LaMPwill be developing and implementing action plansfocused on restoring beneficial uses and achievingecosystem objectives over the next three to five years.The LaMP process will continue to identify emerg-ing issues of concern and determine appropriate ac-tions. These actions will require a coordinated bina-tional response across agencies and jurisdictions.

26


Preventing and Controlling Soil Erosion and Sedimen-tation. Great Lakes Commission. April, 1994.

Sea Grant College Program, Cooperative ExtensionService, BULLETINS E-1866-70. Michigan StateUniversity, E. Lansing, 1985.

Thorp, S., R. Rivers, and V. Pebbles. State of theLakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Pa-per: Impacts of Changing Land Use. EnvironmentCanada and United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. October, 1997.

Glossary

algae:Simple rootless plants, collectively calledphytoplankton, that grow in sunlit waters in relativeproportion to the amounts of light and nutrientsavailable. They are food for fish and small aquaticanimals. (Glossary of Great Lakes Ecosystem Man-agement Terms - Excerpted from the 1992 EPA Re-port to Congress on the Great Lakes Ecosystem)

anoxia:Absence of oxygen necessary for sustaining most life.In aquatic ecosystems, this refers to the absence ofdissolved oxygen in water. (The Great Lakes - AnAtlas and Resource Book), generally through the de-composition of organic matter.

Area of Concern (AOC):A geographic area that fails to meet the General orSpecific Objective of the GLWQA where such failurehas caused or is likely to cause impairment of benefi-cial use or of the area�s ability to support aquaticlife. (Annex 2 - GLWQA)

benthos:Organisms living on the bottom of bodies of water(Demayo and Watt 1993). (The State of Canada�sEnvironment Infobase Website)

bioaccumulative:General term describing a process by which chemi-cal substances are ingested and retained by organ-isms, either from the environment directly or throughconsumption of food containing the chemicals (Gov-ernment of Canada 1991). (The State of Canada�sEnvironment Infobase Website)

References

Bolsenga, S.J., and C.E. Herdendorf. (ed) Lake Erieand Lake St. Clair Handbook. Wayne State Univer-sity Press. Detroit, 1993.

Dolan, David M. �Point Source Loading of Phos-phorus to Lake Erie�. J. Great Lakes Res. 19:212-223. 1993

Environment Canada and United States Environmen-tal Protection Agency. The Great Lakes: An Envi-ronmental Atlas and Resource Book. Third Edition.1995

Government of Canada. Toxic Chemicals in the GreatLakes and Associated Effects: Synopsis. Minister ofSupply and Services Canada, 1991.

International Joint Commission. Revised Great LakesWater Quality Agreement of 1987 as Amended byProtocol Signed November 18, 1987.

Johnson, B.L., H.E. Hicks, D.E. Jones, W. Cibulasand C.T. DeRosa. Public Health Implications of Per-sistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes and St.Lawrence Basins. U.S. Department of Health andHuman Service and Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry. Atlanta, Georgia. 1997

Maynard, L., and D. Wilcox. State of the Lakes Eco-system Conference 1996 Background Paper: CoastalWetlands. Environment Canada and United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, December, 1997.

Summary from Federal Wildlife Laws Handbook�NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PRE-VENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990� 16U.S.C. 4701-4751, November 29, 1990, as amended1991, 1992 and1996. Overview.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish andWildlife Branch. Lake Erie Fisheries Report 1996.Queen�s Printer for Ontario: 1-55p. March 24, 1997.

Reidel, D., N. Tremblay and E. Tompkins. (ed) Stateof Knowledge Report on Environmental Contami-nants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin.Great Lakes Health Effect Program, EnvironmentalHealth Division, Health Canada. 1997

Repko, Mary F. An Opportunity for Ohio State Leg-islators: Improving Great Lakes Water Quality by


27

Cladophora:A submerged filamentous green algae, which veryfew animals feed on directly, which has a very un-pleasant odour associated with it. (Natural Ecosys-tems - W.B. Clapman, Jr.)

coliform bacteria:Group of bacteria predominantly inhabiting the in-testinal tracts of humans and other warm-bloodedanimals, but also occasionally found elsewhere(Demayo and Watt 1993). The total coliform groupis commonly used as an indicator of the sanitaryquality of water, because ingestion of these bacteriain drinking water can result in diseases such ascholera. (The State of Canada�s EnvironmentInfobase Website)

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane):An insecticide which was commonly used after WorldWar II and is now banned in the US and Canada.DDT and its metabolites are toxic pollutants withlong-term persistence in soil and water. They con-centrate in the fat of wildlife and humans and maydisrupt the human body�s chemical system of hor-mones and enzymes. DDT caused eggshell thinningin a number of fish-eating birds and is associated withthe mortality of embryos and sterility in wildlife,especially birds. DDT still enters the Great Lakes,probably from a number of sources including air-borne transport from other countries, leakage fromdumps, and the illegal use of old stocks. (MinnesotaSea Grant Glossary Website)

dike:A structure, usually made of earth/rock, built to con-trol water levels. (Webster�s Dictionary)

dredging:A process used to clean, deepen or widen an area byremoving sand or mud, especially from a bodyof water. (Webster�s Dictionary)

E. coli:See coliform bacteria.

ecosystem:A biotic community and its abiotic environment,considered together as a unit. Ecosystems are char-acterized by a flow of energy that leads to trophicstructure and material cycling. (State of the GreatLakes 1997)

ecosystem approach:A comprehensive and holistic approach to under-standing and anticipating ecological change, assess-ing the full range of consequences, and developingappropriate responses. It recog nizes the complex-ity of ecosystems and the interconnections amongcomponent parts. Among other things, the ecosys-tem approach recognizes that humans are an inte-gral part of ecosystems and that human social andeconomic systems constantly interact with otherphysical and biological parts of the system. Withinthe context of sustainability, all interactions must beconsidered in an integrated fashion. (The State ofCanada�s Environment Infobase Website)

ecosystem objectives:A statement of goals for the future desired state ofan ecosystem, including the waters, watersheds, floraand fauna and the people living within the basin.(LaMP Progress Report - Draft - May 1997)

Environmental Justice:The fair treatment and meaningful involvement ofall people regardless of race, color, national origin,or income with respect to the development, imple-mentation, and enforcement of environmental laws,regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means thatno group of people, including racial, ethnic, or so-cioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportion-ate share of the negative environmental consequencesresulting from industrial, municipal, and commer-cial operations or the execution of federal, state, lo-cal, and tribal programs and policies. (USEPA)

erosion:The wearing away and transportation of soils, rocksand dissolved minerals from the land surface or alongshorelines by rainfall, running water or wave or cur-rent action. (The Great Lakes - An Atlas and Re-source Book)

eutrophication:The process of fertilization that causes high produc-tivity and biomass in an aquatic ecosystem.Eutrophication can be a natural process or it can bea cultural process accelerated by an increase of nu-trient loading to a lake by human activity. (State ofthe Great Lakes 1997)

exotic species:Species not native to an ecosystem and have beeneither intentionally introduced or have inadvertentlyinfiltrated the system. (The Great Lakes - An Atlasand Resource Book)

28


fecal coliform:See coliform bacteria.

food chain:A food relationship in an ecosystem in which energyand nutrients are transferred through a series of or-ganisms by each stage feeding on the preceding oneand providing food for the succeeding stage (adaptedfrom Demayo and Watt 1993). Each stage of a foodchain is known as a trophic level. The first trophiclevel consists of the green plants that can undertakephotosynthesis, thereby obtaining their energy fromthe sun. Members of a chain are interdependent sothat a disturbance to one species can disrupt the en-tire hierarchy. (The State of Canada�s EnvironmentInfobase Website)

food web:The complex feeding network occurring within andbetween food chains in an ecosystem, whereby mem-bers of one food chain may belong to one or moreother food chains. (The State of Canada�s Environ-ment Infobase Website)

forage fish:Fish that eat plankton as a mainstay of their diet andare consumed by other fish higher in the food chain.(State of the Great Lakes 1997)

human health:The state of complete physical, mental and socialwell-being and not merely the absence of disease orinfirmity. (World Health Organization)

lake effect zone:The area within the tributary where the water of thelake and the tributary aremixed. (LaMP ProgressReport - Draft - May 1997)

Lake Erie basin:Land area that delivers runoff water, sediment anddissolved substances to Lake Erie and its tributaries.(State of the Great Lakes 1997)

loads:Total mass of contaminants to a water body or to theland surface over a specified time (e.g., tonnes peryear of phosphorus) (adapted from Upper Great LakesConnecting Channels Study, Management Commit-tee 1988). (The State of Canada�s EnvironmentInfobase Website)

nearshore:This definition is somewhat ambiguous and differ-ent people define it in different ways. On land, thenearshore zone is that area which is affected by thelake - waves, wind, ice, currents, temperature andthe rising and falling of lake levels. In water, thenearshore zone consists of areas with water warmenough to support a community of warm water fishand other associated organisms. (State of the LakesEcosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper: In-tegration Paper 1997)

non-point source pollution:Sources of pollution in which wastes are not releasedat one specific identifiable point but from a numberof spread out points that are difficult to identify andcontrol, such as surface runoff from precipitation oratmospheric deposits. (State of the Great Lakes 1997)

PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons):A class of organic compounds formed through in-complete combustion and that have cancer-produc-ing properties. (State of the Great Lakes 1997)

pathogens:Disease causing agents such as bacteria, viruses orparasites. (The Great Lakes - An Atlas and ResourceBook)

phytoplankton:Collective noun for organisms that drift around inwater because they are not capable of swimmingagainst currents in the water (Arms 1990). (The Stateof Canada�s Environment Infobase Website)

point source pollution:A source of pollution that is distinct and identifiable(Environment Canada et al. 1988). Includes smoke-stacks and outfall pipes from industrial plants andmunicipal sewage treatment plants. (The State ofCanada�s Environment Infobase Website)

predation:The act of one animal or bird preying upon another.(Webster�s Dictionary)

productivity:The conversion of sunlight and nutrients into plantmaterial through photosynthesis, and the subsequentconversion of this plant material into animal mate-rial. (The Great Lakes - An Atlas and Resource Book)


29

scope of the LaMP:Includes the chemical, physical and biological influ-ences on the Lake Erie ecosystem, as well as man-agement practices. The scope of environmentalstressors to be addressed by the Lake Erie LaMP willbe determined by three methods: language in theGLWQA, other known stressors and a full assess-ment of the 14 beneficial use impairments. (LaMPProgress Report - Draft - May 1997)

stewardship:Management of natural resources that conserves themfor future generations,usually used to distinguishfrom short-term, utilitarian management objectives(Meffe et al. 1994). (The State of Canada�s Envi-ronment Infobase Website)

tributary:A river or stream flowing into a larger body of waterincluding other rivers, streams or lakes. (Webster�sDictionary)

trophic status:A measure of the biological productivity in a bodyof water. Aquatic ecosystems are characterized asoligotrophic (low productivity), mesotrophic (me-dium productivity) or eutrophic (high productivity).(The Great Lakes - An Atlas and Resource Book)

turbidity:Refers to waters that are cloudy or murky as a resultof suspended sediment. Water may become turbidas a result of soil erosion, from injections of efflu-ents containing particulate matter or through thechurning up of bottom sediments (e.g., via boat traf-fic in a body of water or by dredging activities). (TheState of Canada�s Environment Infobase Website)

watershed:Land area that delivers runoff water, sediment anddissolved substances to a major ake or river and itstributaries. (State of the Great Lakes 1997)

weight of evidence approach:This approach considers all high-quality scientificdata on adverse health effects, derived from studieson a range of wildlife species, from toxicological re-search on laboratory animals and epidemiologicalstudies. (Health Canada�s State of Knowledge Report)

zooplankton:Collective noun for organisms that drift around inwater because they are not capable of swimmingagainst currents in the water (Arms 1990). (TheState of Canada�s Environment Infobase Website).

30


IJC Listing Criteria

When contaminant levels in fish or wildlife populations exceed current standards, objec-tives or guidelines, or public health advisories are in effect for human consumption of fishand wildlife.

When ambient water quality standards, objectives, or guidelines for the anthropogenicsubstance(s) known to cause tainting are being exceeded or survey results have identifiedtainting of fish and wildlife flavor.

When fish or wildlife management programs have identified degraded fish or wildlifepopulations. In addition, this use will be considered impaired when relevant, field-validated, fish and wildlife bioassays with appropriate quality assurance/quality controlsconfirm significant toxicity from water column or sediment contaminants.

When the incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformities exceed rates at unimpactedcontrol sites or when survey data confirm the presence of neoplastic or preneoplastic livertumors in bullheads or suckers.

When wildlife survey data confirm the presence of deformities (e.g. cross-bill syndrome) orother reproductive problems (e.g. egg-shell thinning) in sentinel wildlife species.

When the benthic macroinvertebrate community structure significantly diverges fromunimpacted control sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. In addition,this use will be considered impaired when toxicity (as defined byrelevant, field-validatedbioassays with appropriate quality assurance/quality controls) of sediment associatedcontaminants at a site is significantly higher than controls.

When contaminants in sediments exceed standards, criteria, or guidelines such that thereare restrictions on dredging or disposal activities.

When there are persistent water quality problems (e.g. dissolved oxygen depletion ofbottom waters, nuisance algal blooms or accumulation, decreased water clarity, etc.)attributed to cultural eutrophication.

When treated drinking water supplies are impacted to the extent that: 1) densities ofdisease-causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemicals or radioac-tive substances exceed human health standards, objectives or guidelines; 2) taste and odorproblems are present; or 3) treatment needed to make raw water suitable for drinking isbeyond the standard treatment used in comparable portions of the Great Lakes which arenot degraded (i.e. settling, coagulation, disinfection).

When waters, which are commonly used for total-body contact or partial-body contactrecreation, exceed standards, objectives, or guidelines for such use.

When any substance in water produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural coloror turbidity, or unnatural odor (e.g. oil slick, surface scum).

When there are additional costs required to treat the water prior to use for agriculturalpurposes (i.e. including, but not limited to, livestock watering, irrigation and crop-spraying) or industrial purposes (i.e. intended for commercial or industrial applications andnoncontact food processing).

When phytoplankton or zooplankton community structure significantly diverges fromunimpacted control sites of comparable physical and chemical characteristics. In addition,this use will be considered impaired when relevant, field-validated, phytoplankton orzooplankton bioassays (e.g. Ceriodaphnia; algal fractionation bioassays) with appropriatequality assurance/quality controls confirm toxicity in ambient waters.

When fish or wildlife management goals have not been met as a result of loss of fish orwildlife habitat due to a perturbation in the physical, chemical or biologicalintegrity of the boundary waters, including wetlands.

Beneficial UseImpairment

Restrictions on Fish andWildlife Consumption

Tainting of Fish and WildlifeFlavor

Degraded Fish and WildlifePopulations

Fish Tumors and OtherDeformities

Bird or Animal Deformitiesor Reproductive Problems

Degradation of Benthos

Restrictions on DredgingActivities

Eutrophication orUndesirable Algae

Restrictions on DrinkingWater Consumption or Tasteand Odor Problems

Recreational Water QualityImpairment

Degradation of Aesthetics

Added Costs to Agricultureor Industry

Degradation of Phyto/Zooplankton Populations

Loss of Fish and WildlifeHabitat

Appendix 1 - IJC Listing Criteria for Establishing Impairment (IJC, 1989)


31

The following Lake Erie LaMP agency partnershave participated in the development and concurwith the publication of this document:

Canadian Agencies� Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada� Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans� Environment Canada� Federation of Conservation Authorities of Lake

Erie� Health Canada� Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs� Ontario Ministry of the Environment� Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

U.S. Agencies� Natural Resources Conservation Service/U.S.

Department of Agriculture� New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation� Ohio Department of Natural Resources� Ohio Environmental Protection Agency� Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection� U.S. Environmental Protection Agency� U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service� U.S. Geological Survey

Michigan Department of EnvironmentalQuality concurs with the followingreservation:The State of Michigan is generally supportive ofthis document, but has reservations, particularly inregard to the sections concerning phosphoruscontrol and fisheries. The State of Michigan willcontinue to aggressively pursue regulatory andvoluntary programs to control point and nonpointsources of pollution. These actions will improveenvironmental quality, protect and restore habitat,as well as decrease the loads of phosphorus toLake Erie. The State feels these actions are war-ranted for the protection of human health and theenvironment.

Appendix 2 - List of Agencies Who Participated in the Development of theLake Erie LaMP Status Report

32


Photo Credits

Profile of Lake ErieEnvironment Canada

Erosion on Lake Erie near Port BurwellEnvironment Canada

Cladophora on a StickEnvironment Canada

Map of Lake Erie with Areas of ConcernEnvironment Canada

Water SamplingEnvironment Canada

Point Source Water PollutionUpper Thames River Conservation Authority

Long Point, OntarioMichelle Fletcher, Upper Thames River ConservationAuthority

Metzger Marsh, OhioOhio Department of Natural Resources

Zebra MusselsUpper Thames River Conservation Authority

Deformed CormorantEnvironment Canada

Algae on a BeachDr. John Gannon, US Fish & Wildlife Service

The Maumee River in downtown ToledoMichael Saletra

Website addresses listed in glossary:

The State of Canada�s Environment Infobase Websitewww1.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/soerengp/query=*/doc/{t9301}?

Glossary of Great Lakes Ecosystem Management Termswww.epa.gov/glnpo/ecopage/docs/glossary.html

Minnesota Sea Grant - Glossary of the Great Lakeswww.d.umn.edu/seagr/gls.html

32

1999 Lake Erie LaMP Status Report - US EPA...Lake Erie is exposed to greater stress due to urbani-zation and agricultural practices than any of the other Great Lakes. The lake receives

Documents