DOCSLIB.ORG

Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes 1996

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper NEARSHORE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES Thomas A. Edsall Great Lakes Science Center National Biological Service Ann Arbor, Michigan U.S.A. Murray N. Charlton Aquatic Ecosystem Research Branch National Water Research Institute Burlington, Ontario Canada December 1997 ISBN 0-662-26031 EPA 905-R-97-015a Cat. No. En40-11/35-1-1997E ii SOLEC 96 - Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................. 1 2.0 The Nearshore Waters as a Significant Natural Element of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem ....................................................................... 1 2.1 A Definition of Nearshore Waters ............................................ 1 2.2 Areas and Volumes of the Nearshore Waters ................................... 11 3.0 The Nearshore Waters as an Element of the Surface-Water Continuum ..................... 13 4.0 The Nearshore Waters as Fish and Wildlife Habitat .................................... 13 5.0 Human Use of the Nearshore Waters ............................................... 14 6.0 Stressors Operating in the Nearshore Waters ......................................... 15 6.1 Definition of Stressor .................................................... 15 6.2 Power Production ....................................................... 15 6.2.1 Thermal-electric ................................................ 16 6.2.2 Hydropower ................................................... 17 6.3 Marine Transportation and Recreational Boating ................................ 19 6.3.1 Vessel Passage Effects ........................................... 19 6.3.2 Level and Flow Regulation ........................................ 20 6.3.3 Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Material ........................... 21 6.4 Shoreline Modification ................................................... 24 6.5 Sand and Gravel Mining .................................................. 24 6.6 Pollution .............................................................. 25 6.6.1 Discharges and Spills ............................................ 25 6.6.2 Agricultural Runoff .............................................. 26 6.7 Extraction of Renewable Resources ......................................... 27 6.8 Exotic Species ......................................................... 28 7.0 Status and Trends ............................................................. 32 7.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat ................................................. 32 7.1.1 Fish Habitat Features of the Nearshore ............................... 33 7.1.1.1 Depth ................................................ 33 7.1.1.2 Temperature ........................................... 33 7.1.1.3 Vegetation ............................................. 33 7.1.1.4 Substrate .............................................. 34 7.1.2 The Significance of Water-level Fluctuations ........................... 35 7.1.3 Types of Nearshore Habitats ....................................... 36 7.1.3.1 Wetlands .............................................. 36 7.1.3.2 Embayments ........................................... 37 7.1.3.3 Connecting Channels ..................................... 37 7.1.3.4 Tributaries ............................................. 38 7.1.3.5 Exposed Coastline and Offshore Shoals ....................... 38 7.1.4 Problems and Issues ............................................. 38 7.1.4.1 Shoreline Modification .................................... 38 7.1.4.2 Water-quality Degradation ................................. 39 SOLEC 96 - Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes iii 7.1.5 Fish Habitat Policy and Current Initiatives ............................ 39 7.1.5.1 Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada) Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat .......................................... 39 7.1.5.2 Current Initiatives ....................................... 42 7.1.5.3 New Initiatives for Improving Management .................... 43 7.1.5.4 Restoration Examples .................................... 44 7.1.6 Nutrient Enrichment and Algae ..................................... 45 7.1.7 Nearshore Nutrients ............................................. 45 7.1.8 Persistant Toxic Contaminants in Water, Sediment, and Biota .............. 58 7.1.8.1 Status ................................................ 58 7.2 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................... 61 7.2.1 Zooplankton ................................................... 61 7.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates ............................................. 63 7.2.2.1 Nearshore Benthic Communities of the Great Lakes .............. 66 7.2.3 Fish ......................................................... 69 7.2.4 Birds ......................................................... 79 7.2.4.1 The Importance of the Nearshore Aquatic Zone for Wildlife on the Canadian Great Lakes .................................... 79 7.2.5 Mammals ..................................................... 85 8.0 Human Health ................................................................ 85 8.1 Infectious Organisms as Health Hazards ...................................... 85 8.2 Beach Closures ......................................................... 88 8.3 Drinking Water ........................................................ 93 8.4 Fish Consumption Advisories .............................................. 97 9.0 Emerging Challenges .......................................................... 110 9.1 Sewage Treatment ..................................................... 110 9.2 Aquaculture .......................................................... 110 10.0 Summary and Conclusions .................................................... 111 11.0 Acknowledgments ........................................................... 111 12.0 Glossary .................................................................. 112 13.0 References ................................................................ 112 14.0 Additional Reading List ....................................................... 136 15.0 List of Tables and Figures ..................................................... 137 Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Mentioned in This Report ........................................................................ 140 iv SOLEC 96 - Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes Notice To Readers This Background Paper is part of a series of Backgournd Papers that are intended to provide a concise overview of the status of the nearshore conditions in the Great Lakes. The information they present has been selected as representative of the much greater volume of data. They therefore do not present all research or monitoring information available. The Papers were prepared with input from many individuals representing diverse sectors of society. The Papers provided the basis for discussions at SOLEC ‘96. Participants were encouraged to provide specific information and references for use in preparing the final post-conference versions of the Papers. Together with the information provided by SOLEC discussants, the Papers will be incorporated into the 1997 State of the Great Lakes report, which provides key information required by managers to make better environmental decisions. SOLEC 96 - Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes v vi SOLEC 96 - Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes Nearshore Waters of the Great Lakes 1.0 Introduction In October 1994, the governments of the United States and Canada convened the first State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC ’94). The conference was designed to further the purpose of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada, which aims to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Background papers prepared for the conference and discussions that occurred at SOLEC ’94 are summarized in a document prepared by the U.S. and Canadian governments titled “State of the Great Lakes 1995” (EC and EPA 1995). A second, follow-up conference (SOLEC ’96) scheduled for fall 1996 is designed to focus more intensively on the status of the Great Lakes coastal ecosystem, which includes the coastal shorelands, coastal wetlands, and coastal or nearshore waters. A major objective of SOLEC ’96 is to examine the effects of human activity—and particularly land-use practices—on the coastal ecosystem. The present paper is designed to provide background information that will facilitate discussion of the status of the nearshore waters element of Great Lakes coastal ecosystems. 2.0 The Nearshore Waters as a Significant Natural Element of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem The Great Lakes basin ecosystem covers about 760,000 km2 (USEPA and GC 1995), spans 9o of latitude and 19o of longitude, and lies halfway between the equator and the North Pole in a lowland corridor that extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean (Figure 1). The Great Lakes, which are the most prominent feature of this system, have a combined surface area of about 244,000 km2, a volume of 22,700 km3, and are the largest single collection of fresh water on the surface of the earth, excluding the polar ice caps (TNC 1994). The Great Lakes basin ecosystem has been divided into major elements by TNC (1994), Dodge and Kavetsky (1995), and Edsall (1996). These elements basically include open lake (including nearshore and offshore waters);
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nipigon Bay Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010
    Nipigon Bay Area of Concern Status of Beneficial Use Impairments September 2010 Nipigon Bay is in the most northerly area of Lake Superior. The Area of Concern takes in a large portion of Nipigon Bay and the Nipigon River, the largest tributary to Lake Superior, and the communities of Red Rock and Nipigon. There are Ontario Power Generation dams on the Nipigon River for the generation of hydroelectricity. The area supports a variety of wetlands and bird populations, including one of four known pelican colonies in Ontario. The watershed forests on both sides of the Nipigon River have been allocated for forest harvesting. Environmental concerns in the Nipigon Bay Area of Concern are related to water level and flow fluctuations in Lake Nipigon and the Nipigon River from the generation of hydroelectricity. These fluctuations affect stream bank stability, sediment load and fish and wildlife habitat. Other concerns include the accumulation of wood fibre, bark and other organic material from past log drives, and effluent discharges from a linerboard mill (which closed in 2006) and the municipal sewage treatment plants in Nipigon and Red Rock. PARTNERSHIPS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Nipigon Bay was designated an Area of Concern in 1987 under the Canada–United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Areas of Concern are sites on the Great Lakes system where environmental quality is significantly degraded and beneficial uses are impaired. Currently, there are 9 such designated areas on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes, 25 in the United States, and 5 that are shared by both countries. In each Area of Concern, government, community and industry partners are undertaking a coordinated effort to restore environmental quality and beneficial uses through a remedial action plan.
    [Show full text]
  • More Than Just a Lake! TOPIC Great Lake Drainage Basins AUDIENCE Grades 1-6; 10-30 Students
    More Than Just a Lake! TOPIC Great Lake drainage basins AUDIENCE Grades 1-6; 10-30 students SETTING By creating a map of the rivers flowing into your Great Lake, Large, open indoor space is learn how rivers form a watershed. required GOAL To understand the concept of a drainage basin or watershed, and how that concept relates to the BACKGROUND around the lake as gravity pulls water local Great Lake watershed. All lakes and rivers have a set area to the lowest point. Water draining of land that water drains into them to the lowest common point is the OBJECTIVES • Students will understand the from, called the “watershed” or simplest definition of a watershed. defining role that rivers have “drainage basin.” Drainage basins are in watershed activity important environmentally because 2. Introduction to the model • Students will be able to state whether they live inside or whatever happens within the basin of watershed outside the drainage basin of the lake can happen to the lake itself. Students gather around the “shore” their Great Lake Toxic substances spilled or placed of the lake. Explain that the blue • Older students will be able to identify the river drainage on the land or in watershed rivers yarn represents rivers. With younger basin in which they live can end up in the lake. See the Great students, demonstrate how one river Lakes Watershed Fact Sheets for ad- might look on the map as it flows MATERIALS ditional information about your local into your Great Lake. • Large floor map of your Great Lake (or an outline on the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • N Shore L. Superior: Geology, Scenery
    THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”).
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List US Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens)
    Petition to List U.S. Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 14, 2018 NOTICE OF PETITION Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 14, 2018: Gary Frazer, USFWS Assistant Director, [email protected] Charles Traxler, Assistant Regional Director, Region 3, [email protected] Georgia Parham, Endangered Species, Region 3, [email protected] Mike Oetker, Deputy Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Allan Brown, Assistant Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Deborah Rocque, Deputy Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Noreen Walsh, Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the United States as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, the Center requests that the USFWS define and list distinct population segments of lake sturgeon in the U.S. as threatened or endangered. Lake sturgeon populations in Minnesota, Lake Superior, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas-White River and lower Mississippi River may warrant endangered status. Lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan and the upper Mississippi River basin may warrant threatened status. Lake sturgeon in the central and eastern Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin) seem to be part of a larger population that is more widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • Rivers at Risk: the Status of Environmental Flows in Canada
    Rivers at Risk: The Status of Environmental Flows in Canada Prepared by: Becky Swainson, MA Research Consultant Prepared for: WWF-Canada Freshwater Program Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions of the river advocates and professionals from across Canada who lent their time and insights to this assessment. Also, special thanks to Brian Richter, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, David Schindler, Tom Le Quesne and Allan Locke for their thoughtful reviews. i Rivers at Risk Acronyms BC British Columbia CBM Coalbed methane CEMA Cumulative Effects Management Association COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CRI Canadian Rivers Institute DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EBF Ecosystem base flow IBA Important Bird Area IFN Instream flow needs IJC International Joint Commission IPP Independent Power Producer GRCA Grand River Conservation Authority LWR Low Water Response MOE Ministry of Environment (Ontario) MNR Ministry of Natural Resources (Ontario) MRBB Mackenzie River Basin Board MW Megawatt NB New Brunswick NGO Non-governmental organization NWT Northwest Territories P2FC Phase 2 Framework Committee PTTW Permit to Take Water QC Quebec RAP Remedial Action Plan SSRB South Saskatchewan River Basin UNESCO United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization US United States WCO Water Conservation Objectives ii Rivers at Risk Contents Rivers at Risk: The Status of Environmental Flows in Canada CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Rivers at Risk
    Canada’s Rivers at Risk Environmental Flows and Canada’s Freshwater Future Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Canada’s River’s at Risk WWF-Canada acknowledges the valuable Cover page Rivers contributions of the river scientists, advocates, Large photo © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada Skeena © Mike Ambach / WWF-Canada and managers from across Canada who lent Dam © Ontario Power Generation Mackenzie © Tessa Macintosh / WWF-Canada their time and insights to this report. Special Sunset © Becky Swainson Fraser © Michel Roggo / WWF-Canon 2 Summary thanks to Becky Swainson for synthesizing vast Irrigation © Photodisc Athabasca © Jiri Rezac / WWF-UK volumes of information into the technical study Parliament © Jupiter Images Nipigon © Gord Ellis on which Canada’s Rivers at Risk is based, and Dry earth © Photodisc Grand © GRCA photo by Carl Hiebert 4 Introduction Ottawa © Alex Indigo to Brian Richter, Oliver Brandes, Tim Morris, Table of contents South Saskatchewan © Rob Huntley David Schindler, Tom Le Quesne and Allan Locke © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada for their thoughtful reviews. WWF-Canada also St. Lawrence © Dave Finger wishes to acknowledge Sarah Weber of Lightning Summary Saint John © Gilbert Van Ryckevorsel / WWF-Canada 6 Environmental Flows: Threats and Impacts © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada Editorial and the staff at Mystique Creative for Conclusion their work on the final product. Introduction © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada © Greg Stott / WWF-Canada Finally, WWF-Canada gratefully acknowledges Back cover 8 Skeena River John McCutcheon for his long-standing commit- Environmental Flows © Garth Lenz / WWF-Canada ment to freshwater protection in Canada. We also Large photo © Frank Parhizgar / WWF-Canada thank the Pat and John McCutcheon Charitable Dam © Patricia Buckley / WWF-Canada 10 Mackenzie River Foundation and Ted Hogarth for providing financial Irrigation © Patricia Buckley / WWF-Canada support to this project.
    [Show full text]
  • LAND by the LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems
    State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper THE LAND BY THE LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems Ron Reid Bobolink Enterprises Washago, Ontario Canada Karen Holland U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. October 1997 ISBN 0-662-26033-3 EPA 905-R-97-015c Cat. No. En40-11/35-3-1997E ii The Land by the Lakes—SOLEC 96 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................. v 1. Overview of the Land by the Lakes .................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................ 1 1.2 Report Structure ......................................................... 2 1.3 Conclusion ............................................................. 2 1.4 Key Observations ........................................................ 3 1.5 Moving Forward ......................................................... 5 2. The Ecoregional Context .......................................................... 6 2.1 Why Consider Ecoregional Context? .......................................... 6 2.2 Classification Systems for Great Lakes Ecoregions ............................... 7 3. Where Land and Water Meet ....................................................... 9 3.1 Changing Shapes and Structures ............................................. 9 3.1.1 Crustal Tilting ................................................. 10 3.1.2 Climate ....................................................... 10 3.1.3 Erosion ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Water Quality Board Position Statement on the Future of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans
    WQB Position Statement - Future of RAPS Page 1 of 11 GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS SEPTEMBER 1996 Introduction It has been over ten years since the Parties and Jurisdictions committed to the development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to restore all uses in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Recently, federal, state, and provincial budget constraints have resulted in less support for RAPs and public advisory committee (PAC) activities. Further budget cutbacks are anticipated. Numerous RAP stakeholders and many PACs have indicated that further progress will be difficult. In light of the fact that the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) was the originator of RAPs, that the WQB is the principal advisor to the International Joint Commission (IJC) on water quality matters, that the WQB is charged with assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of Great Lakes programs, and in response to concern for recent government cutbacks in RAP funding, the WQB has prepared this position statement on the future of RAPs based on its practical experiences over the last 11 years. This WQB position statement will review the history of RAPs, address current RAP funding concerns, and provide practical advice on sustaining RAP processes and ensuring continued progress toward the goal of restoring all uses in Areas of Concern. Water Quality Board Historical Perspective on RAPs The concept of RAPs originated from a 1985 recommendation of the WQB (WQB 1985). The WQB found that despite implementation of regulatory pollution control programs, a number of beneficial uses (e.g., unrestricted human consumption of fish, successful reproduction of certain sentinel wildlife species, fish and wildlife habitat) were not being restored, and recommended that comprehensive and systematic RAPs be developed and implemented to restore all beneficial uses in Areas of Concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Michigan and the Great Lakes
    35133_Geo_Michigan_Cover.qxd 11/13/07 10:26 AM Page 1 “The Geology of Michigan and the Great Lakes” is written to augment any introductory earth science, environmental geology, geologic, or geographic course offering, and is designed to introduce students in Michigan and the Great Lakes to important regional geologic concepts and events. Although Michigan’s geologic past spans the Precambrian through the Holocene, much of the rock record, Pennsylvanian through Pliocene, is miss- ing. Glacial events during the Pleistocene removed these rocks. However, these same glacial events left behind a rich legacy of surficial deposits, various landscape features, lakes, and rivers. Michigan is one of the most scenic states in the nation, providing numerous recre- ational opportunities to inhabitants and visitors alike. Geology of the region has also played an important, and often controlling, role in the pattern of settlement and ongoing economic development of the state. Vital resources such as iron ore, copper, gypsum, salt, oil, and gas have greatly contributed to Michigan’s growth and industrial might. Ample supplies of high-quality water support a vibrant population and strong industrial base throughout the Great Lakes region. These water supplies are now becoming increasingly important in light of modern economic growth and population demands. This text introduces the student to the geology of Michigan and the Great Lakes region. It begins with the Precambrian basement terrains as they relate to plate tectonic events. It describes Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks, restricted basin salts, and Niagaran pinnacle reefs. Quaternary glacial events and the development of today’s modern landscapes are also discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Study Area’S Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community
    Historical Profile of the Lake Superior Study Area’s Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY FOR THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL INTERLOCUTOR SEPTEMBER 2007 Lake SuperiorMixed Ancestry Final Report Historical Profile of the Lake Superior Study Area’s Mixed European-Indian Ancestry Community TABLE OF CONTENTS Map: The proposed Lake Superior NMCA 3 Executive Summary 4 Methodology/Introduction 5 Comments on Terminology 6 Chapter 1: Study Region from the 17th Century to the 1840s 8 Ojibway Indians residing on the North Shore of Lake Superior 8 Europeans and the Study Area 9 Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act of 1774 12 Mention of Mixed-Ancestry people in the Study Region 15 Chapter 2: Aboriginal Pressure for a Treaty Relationship 25 Louis Agassiz and the Study Region, 1848 28 Treaty Exploratory Commission 28 Mica Bay, 1849 33 Vidal and Anderson Report 35 Government Instructions about Treaty Terms 37 Robinson Travels to Sault Ste. Marie 38 Request for Recognition of “Halfbreed” rights 40 Negotiation of the Robinson-Superior Treaty 40 Chapter 3: Post-Treaty Government Activity 44 “Halfbreed” inclusion in Robinson-Superior Treaty Annuity Paylists 44 Postal Service in the Study Region 46 Crown Activity between 1853 and 1867 46 Chapter 4: Settlement, Resource Development, and Government Administration within the Study Region, 1864-1901 51 Policing 53 Post Office and Railroad 55 Census Information and the Study Region 58 1871, 1881, and 1891 Censuses – Nipigon 59 1881 Census – Silver Islet 61 1901 Census – Nipigon Township (including Dorion), Rossport (including Pays Plat), and Schreiber 62 Small townships not included in early Censuses 63 Joan Holmes and Associates, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Management of Sea Lampreys in the Great Lakes 2001
    INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF SEA LAMPREYS IN THE GREAT LAKES 2001 ANNUAL REPORT TO GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION by Larry P. Schleen Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Canada Gerald T. Klar U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marquette, Michigan United States GLFC Annual Meeting June 3-4, 2002 Contents Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………….…………….…. 1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….……………. 3 Commission Vision ………………………………………………………………………….………… 3 Fish Community Objectives …………………………………………………………………….….… Lake Superior ………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Lake Michigan ………………………………………………………………..……...…..…... 5 Lake Huron ………………………………………………………………………….………... 5 Lake Erie ……………………………………………………………………….………….….. 5 Lake Ontario ………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Lampricide Control – Introduction ..……………………………………………………………...….. 7 Lake Superior ………………………………………………………………………………… 7 Lake Michigan ……………………………………………………………………………..…. 10 Lake Huron ………………………………………………………………………………....… 11 Lake Erie ……………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Lake Ontario ……………………………………………………………………………..…… 14 Alternative Control …………………………………………………………………………………..… Sterile Male Release Technique – Introduction ………………………………………...... 15 Lake Superior ………………………………………………………………………. 15 Lake Michigan ………………………………………………………………………. 15 Lake Huron ………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Lake Ontario ………………………………………………………………………… 16 Barriers – Introduction …..……………………………………………………………..……. 16 Lake Superior ………………………………………………………………….…… 16 Lake Michigan ……………………………………………………………………...
    [Show full text]
  • 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality Appendix A
    Great Lakes Water Quality Board Report to the International Joint Commission 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality Appendix A Progress in Developing Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin Presented at Toledo, Ohio November 1987 Cette publication peut aussi Gtre obtenue en franGais. Table of Contents Page AC r ‘LEDGEMENTS iii INTRODUCTION 1 1. PENINSULA HARBOUR 5 2. JACKFISH BAY 9 3. NIPIGON BAY 13 4. THUNDER BAY (Kaministikwia River) 17 5. ST. LOUIS RIVER/BAY 23 6. TORCH LAKE 27 7. DEER LAKE-CARP CREEK/RIVER 29 8. MANISTIQUE RIVER 31 9. MENOMINEE RIVER 33 IO. FOX RIVER/SOUTHERN GREEN BAY 35 11. SHEBOY GAN 41 12. MILWAUKEE HARBOR 47 13. WAUKEGAN HARBOR 55 14. GRAND CALUMET RIVER/INDIANA HARBOR CANAL 57 15. KALAMAZOO RIVER 63 16. MUSKEGON LAKE 65 17. WHITE LAKE 69 18. SAGINAW RIVER/BAY 73 19. COLLINGWOOD HARBOUR 79 20. PENETANG BAY to STURGE1 r BAY ( EVER 0 ir c 83 21. SPANISH RIVER 87 22. CLINTON RIVER 89 23. ROUGE RIVER 93 24. RIVER RAISIN 99 25. MAUMEE RIVER 101 26. BLACK RIVER 105 27. CUYAHOGA RIVER 109 28. ASHTABULA RIVER 113 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 29. WHEATLEY HARBOUR 117 30. BUFFALO RIVER 123 31. EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK 127 32. ROCHESTER EMBAYMENT 131 33. OSWEGO RIVER 135 34. BAY OF QUINTE 139 35. PORT HOPE 145 36. TORONTO HARBOUR 151 37. HAMILTON HARBOUR 157 38. ST. MARYS RIVER 165 39. ST. CLAIR RIVER 171 40. DETROIT RIVER 181 41. NIAGARA RIVER 185 42. ST. LAWRENCE RIVER 195 ANNEX I LIST OF RAP COORDINATORS 1203 GLOSSARY 207 ii Acknowledgements Remedial action plans (RAPs) for the 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin are being prepared by the jurisdictions (i.e.
    [Show full text]