Detroit River Update Report November 1999
Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Committee Table of Contents
Table of Contents iii Acknowledgements v Executive Summary vii 1 Introduction 1-1 2 Overview of the Detroit River Corridor 2-1 3 Overview of the Recent Detroit River Management 3-1 Processes 4 Environmental Quality 4-1 4.1 Water Quality 4-2 A Historic and Current Monitoring 4-2 B Contaminant Loadings 4-4 C Chemical Water Quality Assessment 4-14 D Biological Water Quality Assessment 4-21 4.2 Sediment Quality 4-23 A Contaminants in sediments and Biota 4-24 B Toxicity 4-31 C Benthos 4-31 D Sediment Quality at Select Detroit River Sites 4-32 E Spatial Trends 4-37 F Temporal Trends 4-37 G Quality of the Detroit River Sediment Contaminant 4-38 Database 4.3 Contaminants of Fish and Birds 4-42 AFish 4-42 B Birds 4-46 5 Habitat 5-1 6 Progress 6-1 7 Conclusions 7-1 8 Recommendations 8-1 Appendix One A-1 Glossary B-1 iii References C-1
iv Acknowledgements
The Canadian federal government’s Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, a component of the Great Lakes 2000 program, provided funding in support of this Detroit River Update Report. The Cleanup Fund provides resources for demonstration projects addressing remediation of Areas of Concern and other priority areas in the Great Lakes. The report that follows addresses water quality in the Detroit River Area of Concern in Windsor, Ontario. The project also received financial support from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Staff members of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research (GLIER), the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) and Citizen’s Environment Alliance (CEA) prepared the report. In particular, the efforts of principal authors Cameron Straughan (GLIER), Matthew Child (ERCA) and Derek Coronado (CEA) are acknowledged. The principal editor of this report was Dr. Jennifer Read under the direction of Dr. Douglas Haffner, both of GLIER. Appreciation is extended to Jennifer Welsh (GLIER) who formatted the document.
The document was reviewed by members of the Canada and U.S. scientific community whose input is gratefully acknowledged. Although subjected to technical review, the Detroit River Update Report does not necessarily reflect the views of the Cleanup Fund, Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, or the city of Windsor.
v Executive Summary
This review of the state of the his Detroit River Update Report T Detroit River discovered that thousands summarises progress that has been made of kilograms of pollutants are released on the Detroit River since a July 1996 annually from the Canadian side of the report presented during stage two of the Detroit River; air emissions are the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process dominant source. Among the pollutants under the Canada-United States Water released are persistent toxic substances Quality Agreement of 1978. This report which violate the zero discharge is designed to inform the public about philosophy endorsed by the International progress in clean up efforts. It is also Joint Commission. Resuspension of intended to help the members of the pollutants from contaminated sediments Detroit River Canadian Cleanup is also a major source of pollutants in the Committee identify problems causing water and research indicates that the environmental degradation of the sediment quality has remained stable or Detroit River and prioritise the actions declined since the 1980s. This report required to restore its ecological contains data on the levels of specific integrity. pollutants in the river’s water, The Detroit River Update Report sediments, bird and fish populations. It provides an overview of the provides information on the environmental state of the Detroit River, environmental quality of specific sites summarises known pollutant inputs, and on the river. provides an assessment of the quality of Unfortunately, this report finds water and sediment in the river as well that both Canadian and United States as the contaminant levels in fish and agencies have reduced their commitment birds. Furthermore, the report assesses to monitoring Detroit River water historic loss of Detroit River habitat and quality in recent years. Local agencies, current efforts to conserve and restore however, have demonstrated a remaining habitat. This document also willingness to meet the shortfall, reviews difficulties associated with the regardless of the response from the other Detroit River RAP process. levels of government. The herring gull The report finds several monitoring programme, for instance, considerable challenges for the Detroit provides the best contaminant data set River Canadian Cleanup Committee. for the Detroit River; this programme Key among these is the need to must be maintained and included in any encourage governments at all levels to future monitoring and assessment plan. assume a strong leadership role in Clear, scientifically valid and Detroit River cleanup. This kind of socially acceptable objectives for de- leadership will enable the Cleanup listing the Detroit River as an AOC must Committee to set priorities and develop be developed in conjunction with the the long-term monitoring programmes United States. Objectives should include required to measure restoration and a detailed implementation schedule with maintenance of the ecological integrity a clear understanding of the involved of the Detroit River. governments’ responsibilities.
vii In addition, the report urges researchers. As well, there is a need to governments to protect remaining habitat increase outreach efforts to engage the and restore lost or degraded habitat community in cleanup efforts. This under the Biodiversity Conservation should include educational programs Strategy developed for the Canadian side designed for the general public and of the river. The report also urges the students at all levels. two federal governments and the The Detroit River Canadian International Joint Commission to Cleanup Committee is currently extend the AOC downstream to include involved in several projects designed to the mouth of the Detroit River and its improve our understanding of the Detroit submerged delta. Additionally, Lake St. River and to begin restoring habitat and Clair should be declared an AOC. water quality. The Committee welcomes The report suggests creating a your response to this report and “clearing-house” for information on the encourages you to become involved in Detroit River AOC which can serve as a restoring our river to a state where we resource for both the general public and can all enjoy it again.
Problems with a technical term? See the Glossary for help.
viii 1. Introduction he Detroit River is one of the most Pollution, Contaminated Sediments, T Combined Sewer Overflow, Habitat, and important rivers in North America. It Public Involvement and Communication. has been central to a number of First Through the co-ordinated activities of Nation communities for three thousand each Subcommittee, the Cleanup years. Since European settlement in the Committee is able to chart a course that 1700s, the river has provided a will return the Detroit River to a state of harvesting ground for fish and wildlife, a good environmental health. source of water for numerous uses, a This report has been developed corridor for the efficient transportation by the Committee to summarise the of goods, a recreation playground, and current environmental health of the river. an international boundary. (see The report will be used as a benchmark Overview of the Detroit River) to measure success in cleaning up the Intensive use of the river for all river in the future. It is part of a larger these purposes has not come without project that includes collecting and cost: over time, the environmental summarising available scientific quality of the river has been impaired. information on the Detroit River, and Today, virtually all aspects of the river modelling pollution in the river to bear some evidence of human impact, understand the origin and fate of including sediment and water quality, contaminants. The results of this fish and wildlife habitat, and the health activity will be used to provide guidance of fish and wildlife populations that live on priority cleanup activities and in or around the river. These impacts are predicted benefits. significant enough that the Canadian and U.S. federal governments have identified the Detroit River as one of 43 Areas of Concern (AOC), or pollution ‘hot spots,’ around the Great Lakes. The river’s designation as an AOC requires that a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) be developed to clean up the pollution. As part of this requirement, in 1998 the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Committee (DRCCC) was formed to cleanup, enhance, and restore Enjoying the Detroit River (Photo courtesy of the environmental health of the river. Essex Region Conservation Authority) The Committee consists of all levels of This report is divided into four government, local industries, business sections – an overview, a summary of groups, and community and environmental quality, a review of environmental organisations. The processes, and progress and Committee relies on six Subcommittees recommendations. Section 2, however, to implement projects that will lead to is the main focus of the report, and the environmental restoration of the river describes the environmental health of the - these Sub-committees include Point river including water quality, sediment Source Pollution, Non-Point Source 1-1 quality, contaminants in fish and birds, and habitat. The third section describes the resource management processes that The reader is reminded that have been used for the Detroit River, although the report addresses issues including the Remedial Action Planning pertinent to both the Canadian and U.S. that occurred up until 1996, and the sides of the river, the focus of the report activities of the Detroit River Canadian is on the Canadian side. The Detroit Cleanup Committee that began in 1998. River Canadian Cleanup Committee will Section 4 summarises progress to date in be working with its U.S. counterparts cleaning up the river, and includes a over the coming months and years to series of recommendations to set help ensure that the Detroit River is priorities for the cleanup of the river. restored using a watershed approach.
Aerial photo of the Detroit River. (Photo courtesy of GLIER)
1-2 Figure 1. Overview of the Detroit River
Peche Island
Zug Island
Mud Island
Grassy Island
Turkey Island
Bois Blanc (Boblo) Il d
Celeron Island Celeron Island
1-3 2. Overview of the Detroit River Corridor
he Detroit River lies in the heart of Commercial navigation is one of T the most important economic activities the Great Lakes basin and links Lake St. taking place on the river today. Eight Clair with Lake Erie. The binational thousand ships, both ocean-going and Detroit River watershed drains more lake freighters, use the Detroit River than 2,000 square kilometres (excluding annually. The Windsor Port Authority upstream areas of the Great Lakes basin) operates a very active international port and is a large, primarily urban region which, in 1997, handled more than three encompassing the metropolitan areas of million tonnes of cargo. Furthermore, Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. the river is a very important recreational More than three million people live in feature in southwestern Ontario, the metropolitan Detroit area, and more attracting large numbers of boaters, than 280,000 in the area surrounding anglers, and bird watchers annually. Windsor. The river flows approximately These important economic and 51 kilometres from the City of Windsor recreational values have helped to the Town of Amherstburg, and varies contribute to the designation of the in width from 600 metres at the Detroit River as an American Heritage Ambassador Bridge to more than 6.1 River. Canadian communities are kilometres at its downstream end. Some seeking a similar designation. 453 billion litres of water flow under the The Detroit River also provides Ambassador Bridge every day. important habitat for fish and wildlife. The Detroit River’s Canadian In fact, 65 fish species occur in the river, watershed includes the Little River, and as many as 40 more species have Turkey Creek, and the Canard River inhabited or migrated through the river watersheds. (see Figure 1) A variety of in the past. The river and its wetland land uses occur in these watersheds. The habitats support diverse wildlife species, lower reaches of Little River and the including waterfowl, raptor, and other entire Turkey Creek watershed are bird species. As with fish, the variety urban. The remainder of these and abundance of wildlife along the river watersheds and the Canard River corridor have declined due to human watershed are primarily used for impacts. agriculture. Along the Canadian side of the Detroit River approximately 47 percent of the shoreline is parkland, open space and natural areas, 27 percent is industrial and commercial, and 26 percent is residential.
2-1 3. Overview of Recent Detroit River Management Processes
measurable negative impacts to one or he environmental health of the T more of 14 environmental and economic Detroit River watershed has been an attributes. (Annex 2, Great Lakes Water issue for some time. In 1912, the Quality Agreement) International Joint Commission (IJC) Each RAP is to embody a investigated water quality conditions in systematic and comprehensive the Detroit River at the request of the ecosystem approach to restoring and governments of the United States and protecting beneficial uses, and serve as Canada. Although the problems of the an important step toward virtual time, primarily raw sewage from the elimination of persistent toxic towns and cities along the lakes, have substances. A RAP must proceed in been addressed, other issues such as the three stages: Stage 1, problem definition; presence of persistent toxic substances Stage 2, identification have been identified in and scheduling of subsequent investigations Each RAP is to embody a remedial cleanup of Great Lakes water systematic and activities; and Stage 3, quality. In 1987, the comprehensive evaluating and Detroit River was ecosystem approach to monitoring cleanup designated an Area of restoring and protecting activities. Concern (AOC) under the beneficial uses and serve The Stage 1 Great Lakes Water Quality as an important step RAP process officially Agreement. This toward virtual elimination began in the Detroit designation provides the of persistent toxic River AOC in 1987, major impetus for substances. Further, the although preliminary managing the Detroit governments are to work was undertaken as River for environmental ensure that the public is early as 1984. It was values. AOC designation consulted in all actions submitted for IJC requires the two federal undertaken through review in June 1991. governments develop a RAPs. Identified Remedial Action Plan sources of pollution (RAP) in conjunction with were contaminated state/provincial and local governments, sediments, point source discharges from industry, interested non-governmental municipal and industrial sources organisations and other interested including combined sewer overflows, citizens. and nonpoint sources of pollution from An AOC is defined as a such sources as urban and rural "geographic areas that fail to meet the stormwater runoff and air-borne general or specific objectives of the deposition of toxic substances. agreement where such failure has caused Environmental issues of concern or is likely to cause impairment of included changes in fish community beneficial use of the area's ability to structure, loss of fish and wildlife support aquatic life." Impairment of habitats, impact on biota from water and beneficial use(s) means a change in the environment sufficient enough to cause 3.1 sediment quality, and the presence of non-governmental organizations, and the exotic species. (Table 1) media. The assessment included an The IJC's review was completed examination of funding, institutional in May 1992 and was critical of the structure, roles of the Parties, scope of the available data collected and jurisdictions and other sectors, and initiatives to define the environmental public consultation. In addition to these problems. consultations, the IJC's Science Following completion of the Advisory Board conducted a public Stage 1 report, work proceeded on Stage meeting concerning issues of scientific 2 and by 1996 a draft report had been relevance to the development and prepared. The report updated the status implementation of the RAP. The of beneficial use impairments and the assessment made recommendations on a report identified contaminated sediment number of topics. as a major cause of beneficial use Following completion of the impairments. (Table 1) 1996 RAP Report, and during the period During the preparation of the of the IJC strategic review, the RAP Stage 2 document, provincial, state and team did not meet, although a number of federal agencies were unable to agree on organizations and agencies did continue implementation responsibilities and to undertake environmental studies, schedules, and therefore the report habitat enhancement, and water quality cannot be considered a Stage 2 RAP improvement projects for the purpose of report. At the July 30, 1996 meeting of improving the environmental health of the Binational Public Advisory the Detroit River. Committee to ratify the document, A significant step towards twelve members including the Chair, and restarting the process occurred in April environmental, academic, labour and 1998, when the governments of Canada, citizen representatives refused to endorse Ontario, United States and Michigan the report and walked out of the meeting. signed a Four Party Agreement They took this action primarily because reaffirming their commitment to of their frustrations with the level of cleaning up the Detroit River. Despite government co-operation and lack of this agreement, the two countries are not integration of government effort. working together regularly and, in some Despite this, the meeting continued and cases, the philosophical approaches to the report was accepted by the remaining resource management in each country members for transmittal to the IJC as a leads to inconsistencies and even basis for future work. However as noted conflict. above, the members recognised that the Table 1 lists beneficial uses and report did not constitute a Stage 2 RAP how they are impaired in the Detroit report. River AOC. Following the breakdown of the RAP process in 1996, the IJC conducted a strategic review of the RAP, which included consultations with local residents, representatives of government agencies, local industries, municipalities,
3-2 Table 1. Comparison of the Stage 1 RAP, IJC's Stage 1 Review Comments,1996 RAP Report, and DRCCC Assessment Regarding Beneficial Use Impairments. Use Impairment Stage 1 IJC Review Comments on 1996 Report DRCCC RAP Stage 1 RAP Conclusion Assessment Conclusion (1998)*
1. Restrictions on fish Impaired due to No other advisories exist; need Impaired for Impaired for fish and wildlife PCB and hazard assessment for other fish consumption mercury levels contaminants in fish and wildlife in certain fish 2. Tainting of fish and Not impaired Need study to verify conclusion Impaired for Impaired for fish wildlife flavour fish 3. Degraded fish and Not impaired Available data do not support Not impaired Impaired wildlife populations conclusion; need definitive study for fish; unknown for wildlife 4. Fish tumours or other Impaired Concur Impaired Impaired deformities 5. Bird or animal Not impaired Need study to support conclusion Unknown Impaired deformities or reproductive problems 6. Degradation of Impaired RAP does not acknowledge link Impaired Impaired benthos between sediment toxicity and degraded benthos 7. Restrictions on Impaired Sediment toxicity results confirm Impaired Impaired dredging activities this use impairment 8. Eutrophication or Not impaired No conclusive study available; Not impaired Not impaired undesirable algae need reassessment of available data to reach definitive conclusion 9. Restrictions on Impaired Many locations within AOC could Impaired (taste Impaired (taste drinking water not be sites for drinking water and odour) and odour) consumption or taste or intakes. Existing sites have been odour problems threatened by spills 10. Beach closings Impaired Concur Impaired Impaired 11. Degradation of Impaired Concur Impaired Impaired aesthetics 12. Added costs to Not impaired Limited documentation available; Not impaired Not impaired agriculture or industry need user survey to make determination 13. Degradation of Not impaired Bioassays in Trenton Channel Not impaired Not impaired phytoplankton and suggest use impairment; need zooplankton populations definitive study 14. Loss of fish and Impaired Sediment toxicity results and Impaired Impaired wildlife habitat violations of water quality objectives suggest impairment due to contaminants 15. Exceedance of Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Impaired water quality standards/ objectives * In 1998 the DRCCC agreed that uses no. 3 and 5 should be changed based on information in the 1996 RAP report which identified them as ‘unknown’.
3-3 The DRCCC is divided into six n January 1998, Environment Canada I Subcommittees, which are responsible sponsored a workshop which brought for developing and implementing interested individuals and organisations cleanup activities. The Subcommittees from the Canadian side together to report directly to the Cleanup discuss options for re-establishing the Committee, and include: process in Canada. The outcome of that workshop was the formation of the • Combined Sewer Overflows - this Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Subcommittee is responsible for Committee (DRCCC). The DRCCC is overseeing remedial activities made up of the following organisations: focussing on combined sanitary and storm sewer overflows to the river; Canadian Salt Company Limited Citizens Environment Alliance • Contaminated Sediments - this City of Windsor Subcommittee is responsible for Environment Canada overseeing remedial activities Essex County Federation of Agriculture focussing on contaminated materials Essex County Field Naturalists on the river bottom; Essex Region Conservation Authority Ford of Canada • Point Source Pollution - this General Chemical Subcommittee is responsible for Little River Enhancement Group overseeing remedial activities Ontario Ministry of the Environment focussing on municipal and Project Green industrial end-of-pipe discharges; Town of Amherstburg Town of LaSalle • University of Windsor Non-Point Source Pollution - this Windsor Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee is responsible for Windsor & District Labour Council overseeing remedial activities Windsor Environmental Advisory focussing on rural and urban runoff Council and air deposition to the river; Windsor Heavy Construction Assoc. • Chair, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Habitat - this Subcommittee is Committee responsible for overseeing remedial Chair, Combined Sewer Overflow activities focussing on natural habitat Subcommittee protection, enhancement and Chair, Contaminated Sediments restoration; Subcommittee • Chair, Habitat Subcommittee Public Involvement and Chair, Non-Point Source Pollution Communications - this Subcommittee Subcommittee serves in a public Chair, Point Source Subcommittee outreach and education, and media Chair, Public Involvement and relations role. Communications Subcommittee
3-4 Re-establishment of the Cleanup committee and subcommittee structure Problems with a has been a major success of the restarted technical term? process. The structure allows for the exchange of ideas and approaches, and See the Glossary for through the Subcommittees it has led help. most recently to the development of work plans and specific projects that include research studies and on-the- ground restoration activities.
The Detroit River watershed offers important habitat to Canada geese and other waterfowl. (Photo courtesy Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research.)
3-5 4. Environmental Quality
fish and birds, and habitat sub-sections. his assessment on environmental T These four sub-sections are closely quality is divided into water quality, linked through ecosystem processes. For which includes chemical loadings to the example: river, sediment quality, contaminants in
Contaminant loadings to water.
Water Sediment becomes becomes contaminated. contaminated. Bottom dwelling organisms become contaminated.
Fish become contaminated.
Contamination Birds become Routes: contaminated. Air Habitat quality Water diminished by Sediment contamination. Food Web
An understanding of the interactions between water, sediments, fish & birds, and habitat will enable us to develop the tools to protect and restore the Detroit River ecosystem.
4-1 4.1. WATER QUALITY A Historic and Current Monitoring
1996 RAP report. According to gencies responsible for managing A information gathered for Table 1, environmental quality have different monitoring of Canadian Detroit River mandates, and even though all such CSOs has not been conducted since agencies within the Great Lakes basin 1996. However, a city of Windsor CSO have agreed to an ecosystem approach, it Characterisation study for the Detroit is recognised that this approach requires River will be conducted in 1999 and interactive monitoring and assessment monitoring of Detroit River CSOs will programmes. Problems in the Detroit commence in 2000 or 2001, as part of a River are a good example of the long term strategy to monitor Turkey difficulties encountered when agencies Creek, Little River and Detroit River develop their own monitoring discharges. (Woods, 1999) Also programmes within the limits of their noteworthy is the fact that chemical and own mandates. For example, provincial biological monitoring on the U.S. side is and state agencies tend to monitor the now handled primarily by the Michigan worst case scenarios of chemical loading Department of Environmental Quality and impacts. Federal agencies tend to (MDEQ). The reduction in the number work at a larger scale of open lake of agencies monitoring water quality in effects and trans-boundary pollution. the Detroit River, could result in a Since no single agency is responsible for diminished database and, ultimately, ecosystem management, it is not effect decision making regarding Detroit surprising that there are little or no data River remediation. that address the Detroit River as a On the Canadian side, the functional ecosystem. Ontario Ministry of the Environment This document is written to be (MOE) has consistently monitored water understood by the public. As a ‘state of quality, which provides a good database the river’ report it is not possible at this using standardised techniques. However, time to take the independent data bases the most recent database was not and develop a statistically valid available for this report. In addition, assessment of system quality. For regardless of the quality of the database, example, most samples are taken in areas the MOE has not released a report on of known degraded condition, and it is Detroit River water quality since 1991. not possible or correct to average this (Kauss, 1999) Likewise, the MDEQ data into a comprehensive assessment of database was not available for this system quality. report. This assessment of Of all the water quality environmental quality concludes that parameters listed in Table 2, Lake Erie efforts require coordinated monitoring Loadings stands out as the strongest programmes at federal, provincial/state example of reduced monitoring effort in and municipal levels. Table 1 suggests, recent years. This is due to reduced however, that there has been a decreased agency involvement on both the U.S. effort in monitoring since 1996, despite and Canadian sides. the recommendations of the State 1 and
4-2 In conclusion, it appears there note that the involvement of the city of has been declining effort placed on Windsor demonstrates the willingness of monitoring the water quality of the local agencies to monitor the Detroit River, including both U.S. and environmental quality of the Detroit Canadian agencies, despite River, in the face of dwindling effort and recommendations made in the Stage I funding from both federal and provincial and 1996 RAP reports. It is important to governments.
Table 2. Historic and Current Water Quality Monitoring. Water Quality Historic Monitoring Current Monitoring Parameter (Prior to 1996) (1996 – 1999)
CSO Loadings* Canada: MOE, Env. Can., City of Windsor
Point Source Loadings* Canada: Env. Can., MOE, Canada: Env. Can., City of Windsor MOE, City of Windsor
Non-Point Source* Canada: Env. Can. Canada: Env. Can., Loadings ERCA
Atmospheric Loadings* Canada: Env. Can. Canada: Env. Can.
Water Quality US: EPA, MDNR US: MDEQ (Contaminants) Canada: MOE Canada: MOE, City of Windsor/ GLIER Water Quality (Biological) US: EPA, MDNR US: MDEQ Canada: MOE Canada: MOE, GLIER
Lake Erie Loadings US: EPA, NOAA, FWS, US: EPA USACE, MDNR, DDWS Canada: Env. Can. Canada: MOE, Env. Can. *Only Canadian-side sources were studied.
4-3 What we know: What we Need:
• In recent years, both U.S. and • MOE and MDEQ should provide Canadian agencies have reduced access to their water quality their commitment to monitor the databases; water quality of the Detroit River; • MOE and MDEQ should provide • Local agencies have demonstrated a recent analyses and reporting on their willingness to monitor the Detroit water quality databases; River – regardless of a lack of federal and provincial commitment. • Increased effort by both U.S. and Canadian agencies to monitor loadings into Lake Erie (i.e. another mass balance study); Problems with a • technical term? A study of the financial contributions of both U.S. and Canadian agencies See the Glossary pre and post 1996, in order to make for help. stronger conclusions regarding agency contributions to Detroit River monitoring over time.
B Contaminant Loadings data makes it difficult to quantify ince the 1980s, the focus of pollutant S pollutant loadings to the Detroit River. inputs (loadings) into the Detroit River, This section includes point and the Great Lakes basin, has primarily source and non-point source loadings, been on toxic substances and nutrients. loading to Lake Erie and atmospheric Monitoring programmes deposition to the Detroit and loading measurements The Detroit River is a River. Several major provide the data used to significant source of monitoring programmes form the basis of pollution zinc, nickel, lead, and studies of loadings prevention and copper, cadmium, to the Detroit River and remediation efforts. Each mercury, total Lake Erie are included in monitoring technique and phosphorus, this section. The focus study has inherent of this section is on strengths and weaknesses. chlorides, suspended solids, and total PCBs Canadian contributions Monitoring to the overall problem of programmes provide a to Lake Erie. pollutant loadings to the limited view of the Detroit River AOC. chemical loading problem, making it difficult to assess the overall status of the Detroit River Area of Concern (AOC). A lack of comprehensive, up-to-date
4-4 Point Source Loadings
Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA): The MISA set minimum legal requirements (monitoring and effluent limits) for nine industrial sectors in the early 1990s.1 Two essential elements of the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) Surface Water Quality Management Strategy form the foundation of MISA: assimilative capacity, and best available technology economically achievable Point source pollution. (Photo courtesy of Essex Region Conservation Authority.) (BATEA). Effluent limit regulations are based upon the more stringent of these Tables 3-6 summarise MISA data two elements, as well as federal or for average discharges of specific provincial regulations or guidelines. parameters for municipal pollution Every river and lake has been control plants, and industry that release determined to have a definable dilution, effluent directly to the Detroit River. All dispersion or assimilative capacity for of the data are from the 1997 MISA non-persistent waste discharges. MISA report, the most recent report available effluent limits indicate acceptable or from the MOE. Year to year variations unacceptable discharges from the to loadings do occur. The aim of this facilities included in the MISA report is to illustrate the relative programme. Only a few hazardous contributions of the most important substances (persistent and Canadian inputs to the Detroit River. bioaccumulative) have been banned in Table 3 shows discharges from Ontario. Thus, the release of most municipal pollution control plants to the chemicals is allowed on a case-by-case Detroit River AOC. Tables 4, 5 and 6 basis. (MOE, 1994) show discharges from three companies: The MISA minimum pollution Ford Motor Company; General control of persistent toxic substances is Chemical; and the Canadian Salt based on BATEA. (MOE, 1994) As Company. Notably, the data reveal treatment technology advances, BATEA significant loadings of persistent toxic requirements will be adjusted, in order to substances to the Detroit River from achieve the goal of virtual elimination. both the Ford Motor Company and However, no timetable for virtual General Chemical. elimination, through zero discharge, exists within MISA.
1 The nine industrial sectors are: organic and inorganic chemicals, iron and steel, electric power generation, metal casing, pulp and paper, metal mining and industrial minerals.
4-5 Table 3. MISA Data for Windsor Pollution Control Plants (1997 avg. load) Facility Bypass-total BOD5 Suspended Phosphorus Flow annual (1000m3) (kg/d) Solids (kg/d) (kg/d) (1000m3/d) Little River 620 81 111 7 14 West Windsor 628 5492 4106 119 139 Little River #2 ---- 125 119 6 25 Amherstburg 569 ------7 Source: Ministry of the Environment. 1997. Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement.
Table 4. MISA Data for Ford Windsor Casting and Engine Plants, Selected Parameters (1997 avg.) Monitoring Flow Suspended Aluminium Zinc Cyanide Phenolics Point (m3/d) Solids (kg/d) (kg/d) (kg/d) (kg/d) (kg/d) MISA pt. 0700 30147 356 17 34 11 3 (Plant-Process Effluent) MISA pt. 0900 162103 2496 6 ------(Other Direct Waste) Source: Ministry of the Environment. 1997. Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement.
Table 5. MISA Data for General Chemical (1997 avg.) Monitoring Flow Suspended P (kg/d) HCN As Hg 2,3,7,8-T4CDD/ Point (m3/d) Solids (kg/d) (kg/d) (kg/d) 2,3,7,8-T4CDF (kg/d) (pg/l) MISA pt. 186933 6671 1.5 1.1 0.1 0.000 ---- 0700 3 (Plant Process Effluent) MISA pt. ------1.1/ 0100 4.3 (Process Effluent) MISA pt. ------1.1/ 0200 101 (Process Effluent) Source: Ministry of the Environment. 1997. Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement.
4-6 Table 6. MISA Data for Canadian Salt Company (1997 avg.) Monitoring Point Flow (mg/l) Suspended Solids (kg/d) MISA pt. 0300 32 ---- (Ojibway Mine Process Effluent) MISA pt. 0500 15 ---- (Ojibway Mine Process Effluent) MISA pt. 0200 317 (m3/d) 5 (Ojibway Mine Plant-Process Effluent) MISA pt. 0700 21339 (m3/d) 348 (Evaporator Plant-Other Direct Wastewater) MISA pt. 0100 ---- 16 (mg/l) (Evaporator Plant-Other Direct Wastewater) Source: Ministry of the Environment. 1997. Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement.
Non-point Source Loadings A flow-monitoring program was conducted between December 1992 and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs): A December 1993. Monitoring was minimal provincial strategy exists for CSO conducted at 15 interceptor chambers, five loadings. These include elimination of dry interceptor or trunk sewer locations and in weather overflows and, by no later than 11 storm relief systems. Sampling was the year 2035, primary treatment must be carried out at seven locations on 22 provided to a minimum of 90 percent of occasions and supplemental samples were wet weather flow. (Windsor, 1995) collected at additional locations. (Windsor, Generally, there are no target values for 1995) load reduction or elimination, and, with Table 7 shows the loading the above exception, no specific timetables estimates of selected parameters from for implementation of the various elements Windsor CSO and storm systems, the of the CSO strategy. West Windsor Pollution Control Plant The 1995 Windsor Riverfront (WWPCP) and its bypass, and industrial Pollution Control Planning Study provides discharges to the Detroit River excluding the most up-to-date information on CSO background loadings. The study concluded loadings to the Detroit River. The data that 1% to 5% of the contaminant inputs to were used as a direct measurement of the Detroit River can be attributed to loadings contributed from CSOs and storm sources in the study area, compared to relief discharges. Data were also used to data (1979-1990) from the Stage I RAP. calibrate computer simulation models to (Windsor, 1995) predict CSO and stormwater discharges to the Detroit River under various conditions.
4-7 Table 7. Windsor Riverfront CSO Loadings (1992-93 kg/yr) Substance CSO Storm Relief WWPCP-by WWPCP Industrial Total Phosphorus 8,000 8,000 1,000 20,000 ---- 37,000 Lead 300 200 60 800 1,500 2,860 Zinc 1,300 1,200 80 1,200 24,500 28,280 Mercury 2 1 0.2 3 3 9.2 Copper 400 300 30 500 400 1,630 Cadmium 10 8 10 150 90 268 PCBs 1 1 0.01 0.2 2 4.2 Suspended 885,000 640,900 55,700 812,600 375,000 2,769,200 Solids Source: Windsor. 1995. Windsor Riverfront Pollution Control Planning Study-Phase I
Tributary Loadings table are the top two tributaries, by loading, for comparison. Rows two Little River, Canard River and Turkey through five show sediment loadings to Creek have been monitored since the Lake Erie and the remainder of the rows 1970s. Land use primarily determines the represent sediment loadings to Lake St. type, quantity and quality of loadings Clair. present in tributaries. Loadings from The Detroit River AOC tributary indirect atmospheric deposition to the loadings represent a small percentage of watershed may also be reflected in the overall loadings to Lake Erie and Lake tributary loading estimates. St. Clair, as demonstrated in Table 8. The Table 8 shows suspended sediment majority of the total suspended sediment loadings from Canadian tributaries of the loads from each of the tributaries were Detroit River AOC, 1997. Included in the comprised of silt-clay sediment.
Table 8. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Suspended Sediment Loadings (1997 tonnes) Tributary Total Mean percent Big Otter Creek 210380 38.5 Grand River 204692 37.4 Canard River 15716 2.9 Turkey Creek 616 0.1 Thames River 346421 75.0 Sydenham River 53509 12.0 Little River 3900 1.0 Source: Environment Canada. Water Survey Canada-Sediment Sampling Programme
4-8 Lake Erie Loadings:
Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels solids, and total PCBs to Lake Erie. Study (UGLCCS): The UGLCCS contained (Environment Canada, 1986) The Detroit the only mass balance studies of the River mass balance data provided a unique Detroit River. The studies (1986) and unsurpassed evaluation of pollutant concluded that the Detroit River is a loadings from the Detroit River to Lake significant source of zinc, nickel, lead, Erie. copper, cadmium, mercury (one study), total phosphorus, chlorides, suspended
Atmospheric Loadings:
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network trends in the concentrations of most semi- (IADN): The atmosphere has become an volatile organic compounds and trace increasingly important source of chemical metals at all the sites that have longer than inputs to the Great Lakes. The IADN is a a three year record. (IADN Sc. Steering system of monitoring stations created Committee, 1998) However, Table 9 under Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water shows that the loading levels of some Quality Agreement. The master station for persistent toxic substances remain at Lake Erie is located at Sturgeon Point, elevated levels. Lead appears to be New York. decreasing, although there are only partial The Scientific Steering Committee year data for 1993-94. DDT and B(a)P are of the IADN have observed downward increasing, and Lake Erie is a source of PCBs to the atmosphere, according to the data.
Table 9. Atmospheric Loading Estimates for Lake Erie (kg/yr) Year Sum-PCB Sum-PCB Sum-DDT Sum-DDT B(a)P Lead (wet+dry) (net gas) (wet+dry) (net gas) (wet+dry) (wet+dry) 1980-86 180 -1100 33 -213 81 230,000 1980-90 53 ---- 12 ---- 29 97,000 1991-92 37 -420 46 34 240 65,000 1993-94 60 -450 80 36 260 33,000(1) (1) partial year data for wet deposition Source: IADN, “Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals to the Great Lakes: A Review of Data Through 1994,” p.67.
Although the IADN presents estimates of deposited in urban areas; the IADN sites the concentration levels of various toxic are located in rural areas away from substances in Lake Erie, and the other industrial plumes. (IJC, 1998) Equivalent Great Lakes, it is not currently able to loadings in the Detroit River watershed determine a more comprehensive are, therefore, thought to be much higher understanding of the air deposition than the background levels summarised in problem in the Lakes. Many of the larger Table 9. pollutant particles are generated and
4-9 It has been suggested that the cause emissions. (Hoerman and Dolan) Table 10 of high air deposition of metals such as indicates that the loading estimates for cadmium, copper, lead and zinc in the lead and cadmium are substantially higher Detroit River AOC is the result of local air than the estimated background level.
Table 10. Estimated Metals Loads to the Detroit River AOC (tonnes) Metal AOC Background Lead 22.9 3.7 Cadmium 1.3 0.3 Copper 62.1 ---- Zinc 106.8 ---- Source: David Dolan. 1993. International Joint Commission.
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI): total waste generated (sum of releases The NPRI provides annual information on and transfers) 312,464 tonnes; the release and transfer of pollutants from • Canadian releases, 50,438 tonnes; facilities within Canada, including point • Canadian transfers, 15,893 tonnes; source data for air emissions. • Air deposition formed the largest In 1995, Environment Canada issued a percentage of all releases to the basin. report on industrial releases within the ( Environmental Canada, 1995) Great Lakes basin. The report used United The 1996 NPRI shows that the largest States’ Toxic Release Inventory data from local (Windsor and Essex County) releases 1992 and 1993 NPRI data. Among the were from air emissions. The combined report’s findings: water releases from both Canada and the United States to the Detroit River were the third largest to any water body in Canada. (Environment Canada, 1996)
The 1996 NPRI revealed, thirty-four substances were released and transferred in Windsor and Essex County from thirty-four facilities, including 126.81 tonnes of toxic and/or carcinogenic substances (chromium, nickel, formaldehyde, lead, cadmium and benzene). (Coronado, 1998)
Table 11. Details of Windsor, Essex County Releases and Transfers of Pollutants (1996, tonnes) Releases Air 2719.68 Water 863.16 Land 7.0 Transfers (1) Landfill 1361.9 Incineration 458.16 MSTP (2) 34.83 (1) transfers exclude physical treatment, chemical treatment and storage (Source: Coronado, 1998.) (2) municipal sewage treatment plant
Table 11 shows the three largest, detailed releases and transfers from Windsor and Essex County.
4-10 Table 12. Largest Polluters in Essex County (releases + transfers,1996 tonnes) Facility Pollutant Release Transfer Waste (total) Gen. Chemical Ammonia 1728.0 (air) ---- 1909.7 Zalev Brothers Zinc 0.190 (air) 423.3 (landfill) 878.0 WWPCP Ammonia 610.9 (water) ---- 638.5 Chrysler-WAP Methyl ethyl 152.39 (air) .01 (landfill) 636.8 ketone Ford-WCP Zinc 50.0 (water) 220.0 (landfill) 450.1 Source: Coronado, 1998.
Table 12 shows release and Essex County: General Chemical; Zalev transfer details about the pollutant Brothers; the West Windsor Pollution discharged in the largest quantity per Control Plant; the Chrysler-Windsor facility. It summarises the largest Assembly Plant; and the Ford-Windsor polluters (sum of releases and transfers) in Casting Plant.
The NPRI has many limitations, employees and manufacture, process including: or otherwise use any of the 176 listed • the information provided by the substances in specified facilities in the NPRI may be based concentrations or weights have to upon inadequate estimation methods; file a report; and • facilities are not required to conduct • data release is slow; the 1996 NPRI monitoring to develop their as released in July 1998. estimates; The weaknesses of the NPRI are • the data are from the facilities that significant. The NPRI contains data that meet reporting criteria, while other are limited and conservative for facilities are exempt from reporting, estimates of local releases, transfers and such as the retail fuel distributors, oil loadings to the Detroit River and Lake and gas wells, universities and Erie. colleges, agricultural harvesting; • only those facilities that employ the equivalent of 10 or more full-time
monitoring and modelling. Data gaps oading estimates are based on limited L and insufficient up-to-date, consistent monitoring and contain some inherent and comprehensive data makes it uncertainty. Conclusions based on these difficult to compile an accurate and estimates also contain that uncertainty. complete assessment of the loading Identification of the point source, performance of the Canadian side of the nonpoint source and tributary loadings AOC. Insufficient loading data will not within the Detroit River AOC is not only hinder pollution prevention and sufficiently addressed by current remedial programmes, but limit the
4-11 ability of the RAP process to measure Riverfront Pollution Control future successes. Planning Study every five years in order to provide a relatively frequent Nevertheless, some additional update of monitoring information on conclusions may be made: CSOs;
What we know: • conduct Detroit River mass balance studies every five years in order to • thousands of kilograms of pollutants provide more integrated information are being released annually from the on the sink/source pollutant pattern; Canadian side of the Detroit River; • Ministry of the Environment should • loadings of persistent toxic proceed with the rapid modernisation substances are unacceptable of Ontario’s standards for toxic air (violating the zero discharge pollutants, including heavy metals. philosophy initially endorsed by the Standards should be applied at the IJC); source and the cumulative effects of multiple sources should be • air emissions dominate Essex County considered in standard setting and pollutant discharges; and the approvals processes. (An Environmental Agenda for Ontario, • the Detroit River is a source of 1995); several priority pollutants to Lake Erie. • The NPRI should be significantly expanded to include a greater What we need: number of pollutants in its data collection programme. Independent • create a “clearing-house” for verification of facility supplied information on the Detroit River estimates should be required to AOC to provide up-to-date improve the credibility of the data. information for the public and Facility exemptions and threshold researchers; reporting limits should be reduced in order to make the NPRI more • accelerate the timetable for primary comprehensive; treatment of all CSO discharges to the Detroit River; • The province should complete the MISA through the establishment of • accelerate the plan to provide enforceable pre-treatment standards secondary treatment at the West for industrial discharges to sewers, Windsor Pollution Control Plant, discharges from sewage treatment currently a primary treatment plants, and major industrial sectors facility, to decrease pollutant not currently covered by the loadings such as nitrogen; programme. (An Environmental Agenda for Ontario, 1995) • conduct a comprehensive monitoring programme, similar to the Windsor
4-12 • The province should revise its substances. Virtual elimination standards for air and water pollutants efforts should be consistent with the and pesticides in order to be zero discharge definition provided by consistent with the position of the the IJC, that is elimination of the use, Great Lakes Water Quality generation and release of persistent Agreement on persistent toxic toxic substances.
Using clams as biomonitors along Detroit River. (Photo courtesy Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research.)
4-13 C Chemical Water Quality Assessment
concern”: cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, ontaminants and nutrients in water are C mercury, and PCBs. But what about a major issue in the Detroit River other contaminants? Can such a limited because they are directly and indirectly scope, and a lack of information on related to beneficial use impairments contaminants in general, represent what such as restrictions on fish and wildlife is really in Detroit River waters? consumption, tainting of fish and Adding to these difficulties, the wildlife flavour, fish tumours and other 1996 RAP Report did not mention the deformities, impacts on bottom-dwelling potential threats these contaminants organisms, and excedances of water could pose throughout the Detroit River quality standards/objectives. In fact, it system. These contaminants, and others has been suggested that the direct not mentioned in the report, can occur in contamination of water was the complex mixtures with varying degrees beneficial use impairment of most of toxicity, depending on their physical concern to the general public. (Beak and chemical characteristics. Also, they Consultants, 1993a) accumulate in different organisms at Despite the importance of this different rates - with varying degrees of issue, the 1996 Remedial Action Plan toxicity. This raises the question: how (RAP) Report presented limited contaminated is Detroit River water and information on contaminants in Detroit what are the related threats? River water. This lack of information is Throughout the section on water the result of a gradual decline in quality, the reader will encounter commitment to water quality monitoring information that refers to low, medium by both the U.S. and Canada. or high contamination/toxicity. These For example, water contaminant values are somewhat arbitrary and relate information in the 1996 RAP Report’s to the conclusions of the study reference Water Quality section was based solely and/or to environmental quality on one report which studied only total guidelines established by the agencies. lead, total copper, and total zinc. The goal of this section will be to (MDEQ, 1996) Likewise, in the provide the public with an overview of Tributaries section, Rouge River the Detroit River and an update of new loadings focused only on cadmium, information developed since 1996. The copper, lead, and zinc. No estimates reader will note the number of studies were given for mercury and PCBs were that have been implemented and the not analysed. The Point/Nonpoint general conclusions reached by the Source Technical Working Group researchers. Report section stated six “parameters of
4-14 Contaminant Levels in Water and Biota: Contaminant levels in biota represent The Ambassador Bridge only bioavailable contaminants, and and Detroit Edison each organism has a different capacity to Generating Station areas, accumulate contaminants from the both on the U.S. side, are water. As a result, a variety of biota must major sources of PCBs to be used to get a clear picture of Detroit River water. bioavailable contaminant levels in Detroit River water. In order to develop a full picture however, data on bioavail- of contaminant levels in sediments noted able contaminants must be combined the same spatial trend for mercury. with that for non-bioavailable In the Trenton Channel, both contaminants. Measuring total mercury and PCB levels in water have contaminant levels in water is important been shown to increase after a rain because these are used for water quality event. (Rossman, 1999 and Froese, et. guidelines and determining contaminant al., 1997) This suggests that run-off loadings to the river. and/or contaminated sediments - via resuspension - are a source of mercury Spatial Trends and PCBs in water. One study concluded Figure 2 shows that a variety of that 60 percent of total PCBs in water methods, and biota, have been used in are bound to suspended material, recent studies to estimate contaminant including sediments, which emphasises levels in water. For any given the importance sediments play in contaminant in a specific area, the contaminant dynamics in the Detroit results produced by each method are River. (Froese, et.al., 1997) generally comparable. Unfortunately, In the Trenton Channel, only two studies used in this report Monguagon Creek is the largest looked at total contaminant levels in the contributor of mercury in water. water. (Rossman, 1999; and Froese, (Rossman, 1999) Also, potential point- et.al., 1997) sources from industrial or municipal In general, Figure 2 indicates waste-water treatment outfalls poor water quality on the U.S. side of the demonstrated PCB levels up to a factor river. This coincides with poor sediment of four times greater than those from the quality as examined below. In fact, a channel. However, annual PCB loadings variety of evidence suggests a strong from these sources was small (less than link between sediment contamination two percent) compared with the and water contamination. substantial amount of chemical that is In one U.S. study, mercury levels transported through the channel. Annual were higher in water taken from along mass transport of PCBs through the the western Trenton Channel shoreline, Trenton Channel in 1995 was estimated as opposed to water from the middle of to be 600 kg. (Froese, et. al., 1997) In the channel. (Rossman, 1999) A study
For Your Information... In this report, contaminant levels are measured in :g/g, or “parts per million” (ppm). These units represent a very small amount, similar to 1mm per km.
4-15 comparing this value to loadings from In conclusion, there appears to be the Windsor Riverfront (4.2 kg), it is a strong relationship between obvious that the Trenton Channel is a contaminant levels in sediments and major source of PCBs to Lake Erie. contaminant levels in water throughout Another study found that caged the Detroit River. In general, highly clams set near the Detroit Edison contaminated sediments coincide with Generating Station, on the U.S. side, had highly contaminated water. Thus, significantly higher PCB and PAH levels remediation efforts should focus on than any other Detroit River site. removing contaminated sediments, once (Gewurtz and Haffner, 1999) The same it is known that no other sources are study found high PCB and PAH levels at causing elevated contaminant levels in the Ambassador Bridge, on the U.S. Detroit River water. side. The study also compared PCB and PAH contamination patterns in plankton Temporal Trends from the Detroit River and Middle Sister Unfortunately, only one study of Island, in the western basin of Lake Erie. contaminant levels in water attempted to Figure 3 shows little difference in PCB compare historic and current levels. In a levels. Figure 4, however, shows that study of the Trenton Channel, a PAH levels in Detroit River plankton are comparison between 1986 and 1995 roughly 400 times higher than levels revealed that total mercury levels in observed in plankton from Middle Sister water did not change. (Rossman, 1999) Island. This suggests that the Detroit Maximum mercury levels, however, River has major inputs of PAHs that appeared to be lower in 1995, which have not yet been quantified. suggests some improvement. Average While water quality is better along the Canadian side, problems are Detroit River water is evident. Medium levels of PAHs in substantially clams at Fighting Island and Turkey contaminated with PAHs. Island have been observed. On the The Ambassador Bridge Canadian side, elevated levels of PCBs and Detroit Edison areas, and DDT/DDE occur in water along the both on the U.S. side, are Little River/Riverside area. The water at major sources of these Peche Island was not impacted, which PAHs. suggests this contamination is localised and might indicate agricultural runoff. At Riverside, in particular, a pulse of mercury levels in walleye from the high PCB levels occurred in July 1999. western basin of Lake Erie, however, did (Gewertz and Haffner, 1999) This not change between 1982 and 1995. The coincided with a major rain event. Detroit River remains significantly (Gewertz, 1999) A study conducted in degraded, despite notable source 1991 observed moderately contaminated reductions of some contaminants. sediments just east of the mouth of Little River; these sediments are probably the source of elevated PCB levels in water. (Beak Consultants, 1993b)
4-16 Figure 2. General Contaminant Levels (Low, Medium, High) in Water-Associated Biota from Various Areas of the Detroit River PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Metals Caged -- Clams Clams Zebra - Zebra Mussels Mussels *SPMD SPMD SPMD
PCBs PAHs Caged Caged Clams Clams Zebra Zebra PCBs DDT/ Mussels Mussels DDE PCBs PAHs Caged Caged Caged Caged PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Goldfish Goldfish Clams Clams Caged Caged Caged Clams Clams Clams
PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs *SPMD SPMD SPMD
Metals PCBs PAHs Clams Caged Caged Clams Clams PCBs PAHs Caged Caged Clams Clams PCBs PAHs Caged - Clams Zebra Zebra Mussels Mussels Metals PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Water Caged - Caged Clams Clams LOW LEVELS ---Zebra MEDIUM LEVELS Mussels HIGH LEVELS -*SPMD SPMD SPMD - Water --
Metals PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs -*SPMD SPMD SPMD Clams ---
PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs *SPMD SPMD SPMD
* Semi-Permeable Membrane Device
Sources: Rossmann, 1999; Great Lakes Institute, 1997 a & b; Gewurtz and Haffner, 1999; Russell, 1996, Metcalfe et.al., 1997; Metcalfe et.al., 1999; Froese et.al, 1997. Figures courtesy Sara Gewurtz.
4-17 Figure 3 PCB Concentration in Plankton- 1998
Middle Sister I. (Lake Erie) Detroit River
0.0050 0.0050
g/g Organic Carbon) 0.0025 0.0025 µ
0.0000 0.0000
44 74 60 97
151 146 141 129 185 200 195 42 97 PCB Concentration ( Concentration PCB
Concentration C) Org. (ug/g 149 105 129 174 180 195 31/28 31/28 66/95 PCBs170/190 PCBs Sum of PCBs = 0.035 ± 0.001 Sum of PCBs = 0.058
Figure 4. PAH Concentration in Plankton - 1998.
Middle Sister I. (Lake Erie) Detroit River
0.0040 0.8000
0.0020 0.4000 g/g Organic Carbon) µ
0.0000 0.0000 NA AE NA AE FLT FLT PHE PHE B(b)F B(a)A B(a)P B(b)F B(a)A B(a)P D(ah)A D(ah)A PAH Concentration ( Concentration PAH PAHs PAHs Sum of PAHs = 0.010 ± 0.000 Sum of PAHs = 4.14 Concentration (ug/g Org. C) Concentration (ug/g
4-18 Figure 5. General Toxicity of Water from Select Detroit River Locations.
Aquarium Fish Aquarium Fish Tadpoles
Tadpoles
LOW TOXICITY Aquarium Fish MEDIUM TOXICITY HIGH TOXICITY Tadpoles
Aquarium Fish
Aquarium Fish
4-19 To date, only one study provided The few areas where there have been total water contaminant levels that could toxicity studies suggest a close be compared to existing water quality correlation between toxic effects and the guidelines. Average mercury levels in level of contamination in water. the Trenton Channel during 1995 where Future water toxicity studies 2.8 times higher than the human non- should use standardised toxicity tests cancer value (0.0018 µg/L) and 3.9 times applied across a variety of biota, in order higher than the standard for protecting to avoid confusing results. For example, wildlife (0.0013 µg/L), under Figure 5 shows different toxic responses Michigan’s Water Quality Standards for two organisms in the Trenton (MWQS) for mercury. (Rossman, 1999) Channel. This may be due to different However, mercury levels in water were tolerance levels among organisms, much lower than MWQS guidelines for different types of toxicity tests being the protection of aquatic life (0.77 µg/L). performed, or the data may indicate that Figure 5 illustrates which areas not all parts of the Trenton Channel are of the Detroit River have water that sufficiently contaminated to be toxic. produced a toxic response in test Standardised techniques would quantify organisms. The few studies implemented this variation and support stronger in the past decade support the conclusion conclusions about the toxicity of Detroit that more studies of water toxicity are River water. needed for a better understanding of the potential effects of contaminated water.
What we know: What we need: • High contaminant levels in water • More studies of both total and continue to be observed. These may bioavailable contaminant levels in be due to high contaminant levels in water, especially heavy metals; sediments which appear to relate • Better temporal trend studies of strongly to water contaminant levels; contaminants in water; • Restrictions on walleye consumption • More water toxicity studies, using are related to mercury levels in standardised toxicity tests applied water; across a variety of biota. • Chemicals in water are toxic to aquatic organisms, in some areas of the Detroit River; • Water quality has not changed since the mid 1980s.
For Your Information ...
Dioxins: Only trace levels of dioxins where found in clams from the Canadian side. Unfortunately, no recent U.S. side monitoring data were available for this report. Herring gull eggs collected from Fighting Island during the years 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, & 1997 had low to moderate dioxin levels. MOE fish consumption restrictions from 1987 to 2000 were not due to dioxins. Thus, dioxins are not a major concern on the Canadian side of the river.
4-20 D Biological Water Quality Assessment
significant source of total phosphorus to hosphorus is an important part of P Lake Erie. aquatic food webs, because it is an Unfortunately, Ontario Ministry essential nutrient for phytoplankton of the Environment (MOE) and which is the basic building block of the Michigan Department of Environmental food web. However, too much Quality (MDEQ) most recent water phosphorus leads to over enrichment, or quality databases were not available at eutrophication, of the water. the time of this report. Thus, definitive Eutrophication causes increased conclusions regarding temporal production of phytoplankton which can phosphorus trends in the Detroit River lead to excessive algal blooms, high cannot be made. This apparent lack of bacteria content, and low dissolved phosphorus data has caused some oxygen. It results in diminished water researchers to treat all of Michigan, quality and impacts negatively on fish, except the Raisin River, as an bird and human populations. "unmonitored area." (Dolan, 1999b) For Eutrophication problems were quite the purposes of this report, however, severe in Lake Erie during the 1960s. information from a limited number of The current, low phosphorus sources has been gathered to provide the levels in Lake Erie are thought to be the best possible picture of phosphorus result of highly successful phosphorus levels and biological water quality. loading reduction programs. For The 1986 UGLCCS listed total example, one study found that levels of phosphorus as a “pollutant of concern” phosphorus detected in Detroit River in the Detroit River, because it water, as it moves into Lake Erie, have contributed to both poor water quality declined by 85 percent between 1967 and impacts on biota. (Environment and 1981. (Hartig, 1983) Canada, 1988) However, studies Since phosphorus can be both an performed since 1986 may suggest essential nutrient and a potential otherwise. pollutant, it is an ideal parameter for One study looked at Lake Erie making a general statement about total phosphorus loadings from all biological water quality. This section sources including the Detroit River. The focuses primarily on phosphorus in study found that between 1985 and 1994, Detroit River water, because the river is total phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie a major source of phosphorus to Lake are variable. (Dolan, 1999b) During that Erie. For example, one study time, phosphorus loadings have been demonstrated that the Detroit River above the Great Lakes Water Quality generates approximately 93 percent of Agreement Target Load only in 1990 the total phosphorus inflow to the lake. and 1993. Phosphorus loadings in 1985, (Hartig, 1983) According to the 1986 1986, and 1991 meet the target load, and Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992 and Study (UGLCCS) the Detroit River is a
The U.S. shoreline of the Detroit River and/or upstream sources, such as Lake St Clair and its tributaries, might be responsible for most of the total phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie.
4-21 1994, or one half of the study period, are Riverfront and General Chemical, are all below the Agreement Target Load. not major sources of total phosphorus, The Lake Erie total phosphorus compared with roughly 8000 metric loading study clearly demonstrates that tonnes loaded into Lake Erie in 1994, an tributaries and direct municipal amount which is below the Agreement discharges are the major sources of total Target Load. (Dolan, 1999b; see Tables phosphorus loadings. Point sources 1, 2 and 4) along the Canadian shoreline of the Detroit River, such as the Windsor
What we know: What we need:
• The Detroit River is a major source • Temporal phosphorus trends using of phosphorus to Lake Erie; MOE and MDEQ data;
• In the early 1980s, phosphorus levels • More research on the U.S. side of the in the Detroit River were greatly river, and Lake St. Clair and its reduced, compared to the 1960s; tributaries, to determine the major source(s) of phosphorus loadings to • Total phosphorus loadings to Lake Lake Erie; Erie – including major contributions from the Detroit River - have been at • Another mass balance study to near target loads established by the determine the current significance of IJC since 1985; the Detroit River as a source of phosphorus to Lake Erie; • The Canadian side of the Detroit River is not a major source of total • Study of the potential effects of phosphorus. current Detroit River phosphorus levels on biota of Lake Erie.
Airborne pollution is a significant contributor to nonpoint source pollution. (Photo courtesy of Essex Region Conservation Authority.)
4-22 4.2. SEDIMENT QUALITY
restrictions on dredging and degradation ediment quality is a major concern in S of benthic communities. Despite the fact the Detroit River because sediments act that contaminated sediments may be as both a contaminant “sink” and source contributing to several problems, studies by trapping and holding contaminants have suggested that the general public long after point sources of pollution have does not consider sediment disappeared or have been reduced. They contamination a major concern. (Beak then release these contaminants back Consultants, 1993a) into the water and the food web. This section is designed to Sediments are a particular increase the general public’s awareness concern since the food web structure of of sediment contamination issues, while the river has changed to favour fish updating activities and developments species that live and feed near the since the 1996 RAP Report. bottom. This is a result of the Figure 1, “Overview of the introduction of zebra mussels, which has Detroit River”, in the Introduction to increased the densities of many bottom- this report, indicates the areas of the dwelling invertebrates on which bottom- Detroit River addressed in this section. dwelling fish feed. Each geographic sub- (MacIsaac, 1996) As a Problems with a section examines result, sediment technical term? contaminant levels in contamination has a See the Glossary sediments and biota, negative impact on sport for help. sediment toxicity, and fishing and may be a benthos. This organisation major cause of fish reflects how sediment consumption advisories for certain bound contaminants are thought to act in species. It is suspected that contaminants the environment and represents the in sediments contribute to fish tumours International Joint Commission and deformities. (Beak Consultants, “Sediment Triad” approach to sediment 1993a; Leadley, et.al., 1998; Arcand- assessment. The flowchart below Hoy and Metcalfe, 1999) outlines this process. Other problems associated with sediment contamination include
Contaminated Benthos Toxic Result: Altered Sediments become Effect(s) in Benthos contaminated Benthos (species composition and abundance)
4-23 A Contaminants in Sediments and Biota
biota, which may result in higher igures 6 and 7 summarise the general F contaminant levels in biota. contaminant levels in sediments and biota, More specific information about respectively, from selected locations in the contaminant levels in sediments and Detroit River. Both sediments and biota associated water provided in Figures 8, 9, are considered because studies have shown and 9. These figures illustrate low, that they can be similarly contaminated. medium and high sediment contaminant Thus, contaminant levels in biota can be concentrations from each study within used as a general indicator of sediment each area. quality, in the absence of actual sediment These figures also indicate which contaminant data. More appropriately, areas are exceeding the lowest levels at contaminant levels in biota can be used to which adverse effects have been detected. help reinforce existing sediment data and These guidelines are meant to be used as aid in designating an area as low, medium, an indicator to judge — with caution — or highly contaminated. (Leadley, 1998; low, medium and high sediment and Drouillard, 1996) contamination and toxicity. For example, The bioavailability of contaminants any area with levels above the guideline in sediments determines the chemical could be considered concentrations observed in “polluted” and biota, thus affecting the “low, Problems with a technical term? possibly poses a threat medium, high” designations. to aquatic organisms. For example, if organic See the Glossary The inclusion carbon content in sediments is for help. of these guidelines will high, contaminants will bind assist the general to it and not be as available for uptake by public in visualising the severity of biota. But if organic carbon content is low, sediment contamination in the Detroit contaminants are more bioavailable to River. The scientific merit of these guidelines is discussed later in the report.
Notes on Figures 6 though 11:
Certain contaminants are not included in Figures 6 to 11, because no recent study has been conducted and/or there are not enough data for a summary table or figure. Due to recent public and scientific concern, mercury is illustrated in Figure 8 (as metal levels), even though there are very little recent data on heavy metal levels in general. Also, only total PCB and PAH levels are illustrated because of a lack of consistent, comparable data for the individual compounds which make up these mixtures. Either DDT or DDE is illustrated, depending on the availability of data. • If certain areas of the river are not included in Figures 6 to 11, no recent study has been conducted in that area.
4-24 Figure 6. General Contaminant Levels in Sediments from Select Detroit River Locations. Metals Metals PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs
PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Metals Metals PCBs PCBs DDT/DDE DDT/DDE DDT/DDE PAHs Aquatic Plants 8 PAHs Metals AquaticPCBs Plants 8 PAHs Oil & Grease
21 MetalsBrown Bullheads PCBs DDT/DDE Metals 7 Macroinvertebrates PAHs PCBs Oil & Grease PAHs Oil & Grease Aquatic Plants 8
Metals LOW LEVELS PCBs 8 MEDIUM LEVELS AquaticDDT/DDE Plants HIGH LEVELS PAHs Macroinvertebrates 7 Oil & Grease
Brown BullheadsMetals 5 PCBs 7 PCBs 5 MacroinvertebratesPAHs Brown Bullheads DDT/DDE Oil & Grease PAHs Aquatic Plants 8
Metals Metals PCBs PCBs PCBs DDT/DDE DDT/DDE PAHs BrownPAHs Bullheads PAHs 20 Oil & Grease
Sources: Metcalfe, et.al., 1999; Leadley, et.al, 1998; Ostaszewski; Besser, et.al; Haffner and Leadley; Great Lakes Institute, 1995; and Pugsley, et.al.
4-25 Figure 7. General Contaminant Levels in Sediment-Associated Biota from Select Detroit River Locations
PCBs DDT/DDE Mayflies Mayflies
PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Brown Brown Brown Bullheads Bullheads Bullheads Stonecats Stonecats -
Low Levels Medium Levels High Levels
PAHs Fresh Water Drum
PAHs Brown Bullheads Gizzard Shad
PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Mayflies Mayflies - Brown Brown Brown Bullheads Bullheads Bullheads
PAHs Fresh Water Drum
PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Mayflies Mayflies - Brown Brown Brown Bullheads Bullheads Bullheads Brown Bullheads --Fresh Water Drum --Gizzard Shad
4-26 Figure 8. Maximum Concentrations of Total Mercury, PCBs, DDT/DDE and PAHs in Sediments from Select Detroit River Locations.
Peche Island Zug Island PCBs DDT Detroit PAHs
Peche Island Mud Island Zug Island Metals METALS PCBs PCBs DDT DDT PAHs Windsor PAHs
Mud Island
LOW LEVELS MEDIUM LEVELS HIGH LEVELS
Grassy Island Fighting Island Metals Grassy Island PCBs METALS DDT PCBs PAHs PAHs Turkey Island
Trenton Amherstburg Trenton Channel Bois Blanc (Boblo) Il d Metals PCBs Amherstburg DDT Channel PAHsCeleron Island PCBs Amherstburg DDT Celeron PAHs Island Celeron Island METALS Boblo Island PCBS Contaminant PCBs METALS DDT PCBs PAHs DDT PAHs PAHs
4-27 Figure 9: Contaminants in Water from Select Detroit River Locations
Peche Island
Zug Island SPMDs Detroit PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs Zug Island Windsor Ambassador Peche Island LOW LEVELS SPMDs MEDIUM LEVELS Bridge Zebra Mussels PCBs HIGH LEVELS PCBs DDT/DDE Mud Island PAHs PAHs Zebra Mussels PCBs PAHs
Grassy Island
Trenton Channel Turkey Island SPMDs Turkey Island Zebra Mussels PCBs PCBs DDT/DDE PAHs PAHs
Amherstburg Channel Trenton Channel Boblo Island SPMDs PCBs DDT.DDE Bois Blanc (Boblo) Il d PAHs
Celeron CeleronCeleron Island Island Island SPMDs PCDs DDT/DDE PAHs . Sources: IADN Scientific Steering Committee; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1996; Rossmann; Gewurtz, 1999b; Beak Consultants, 1993b.
4-28 Figure 10. Contaminant Levels in Water-associated Biota from Select Detroit River Locations
Peche Island Trenton Channel Brown Bullheads, Freshwater Drum & Gizzard Shad PAHs Mayflies PCBs Zug Island DDE Peche Island Brown Bullheads Brown PCBs Bullheads PCBs DDE DDT
Mud Island PAHs Peche Island Stonecats PCBs DDT Grassy Island Grassy Island Freshwater Drum Turkey Island PAHs Brown Bullheads & Gizzard Shad PAHs Turkey Island
LOW LEVELS Amherstburg MEDIUM LEVELS Channel HIGH LEVELS Mayflies PCBs DDE Bois Blanc (Boblo) Il d Bullheads PCBs DDE Celeron Island Boblo Island PAHs Freshwater Drum PAHs
4-29 Figure 11. Impact of Sediment Toxicity on Aquatic Organisms for Select Detroit River Locations
Brown Bulllheads Aquatic Plants
Aquatic Plants
Aquatic Plants
Brown Bullheads
Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic Plants
Macroinvertebrates LOW TOXICITY MEDIUM TOXICITY Aquatic Plants HIGH TOXICITY Macroinvertebrates
Brown Bullheads
Macroinvertebrates Brown Bullheads
Aquatic Plants
Brown Bullheads
sources: Leadley, et.al; Besser, et.al; Biernacki, et.al; Arcand-Hoy and Metcalfe; Pandrangi, et.al.
4-30 B Toxicity
difficult to argue that such an area is deally, in order to judge the toxicity of I non-toxic. The possible impacts on sediments in a given area, the toxic fishing and hunting will become clear. responses of different types of biota Figure 11 illustrates which areas should be considered, because species of the river have sediments that have have varying sensitivity to contaminants. been demonstrated to be toxic to aquatic If toxic effects are seen in many species organisms. throughout the food web, it is very
C Benthos
sediments were the primary source of enthos are bottom-dwelling B contamination. (Drouillard, et.all., 1996) invertebrates that tend to spend most of It follows that highly their lives within a given area. They are contaminated sediments will increase predictable and easy to capture, which contaminant levels in mayflies, possibly makes them easier to monitor than most to the point that there is a toxic effect other organisms. Not all benthic species and some mayflies will not survive. respond similarly to contaminants. As a Several other studies have observed the result, many studies have used the toxic effects of contaminated sediment presence, abundance, and community on various types of benthos. It is structure of benthos as a general important to note that mayflies, and indicator of sediment quality within a other types of benthos containing given area. contaminants, will pass those For example, aquatic worms contaminants onto fish through food web (Oligochaetes) are highly tolerant of interactions. (Persaud, et.al., 1993; most pollutants. They can occur in high Ingersoll, et.al., 1996; Besser, et.al., densities in sediments that are too 1996; and Hudson and Ciborowski, polluted or toxic to support other types 1996) of invertebrates. If an area supports In conclusion, it is possible to nothing but oligochaetes, the sediment is distinguish areas of contaminated/toxic probably highly polluted. sediment if environmentally sensitive Mayflies or "fish flies" locally, invertebrates are absent, the population (Ephemeroptera), are an environmentally densities of certain species are low, or sensitive species whose presence the community is dominated by a certain indicates good sediment quality. Their few. Studying benthos is the only absence from an area, or greatly reduced practical way to see the ultimate numbers, may indicate an area of outcome of high contamination and contaminated sediment. toxicity, which is adverse effects at the Use of mayflies as bio-indicators population level. Unfortunately, recent of sediment contamination is studies of benthos have been restricted to strengthened by a laboratory study that the Detroit River tunnel area, the demonstrated mayflies accumulate Trenton Channel and Fighting Island, so contaminants from the sediments while there are not enough data to develop a feeding. The study concluded that summary figure or table.
4-31 D Sediment Quality at Select Detroit River Locations
Peche Island “A Problem with PCB & DDT Levels?”
One study found a relationship between stonecats. (Figure 7) It is possible that the number of internal and external lesions other upstream sources, such as the in/on brown bullheads and the level of Clinton River, contribute to this organic contaminants in sediments. contamination as well. (Leadley, et.al., 1998) Higher levels of Figures 6 and 7 show elevated organic contaminants resulted in higher DDT levels in sediments and bottom incidence of tumours dwelling fish. Figure 10 and lesions. shows that DDT levels are The study Not enough studies high enough to pose a threat observed that the to aquatic organisms. occurrence of Peche of benthos have been However, one study found a Island brown bullheads conducted which diverse benthic community, with external lesions leaves an incomplete including mayflies, near was similar to picture of the Peche Island, which suggests Amherstburg Channel environmental that sediment quality is quite and much lower than quality of the Detroit good. (Beak Consultants, Trenton Channel. 1993b) Because only one However, the River. study used in this report occurrences of two observed high DDT levels, specific internal another study should be abnormalities did not differ significantly conducted to look at DDT levels in both between any of these sites. sediments and benthos. Only then can we The study also observed that decide if DDT is a real concern. organic contaminant levels in Peche Island Heavy metal contamination in brown bullheads did not correspond well sediments is low and heavy metal levels with sediment levels in that area. The in biota have not been reported in any study speculated that bullheads move recent study. (Figure 6) It is not possible to away from Peche Island to winter in the determine whether or not organisms are river, where they encounter higher being significantly exposed to heavy metal contaminant levels in the sediments. contamination via water or sediments. (Leadley, et.al., 1998) A study conducted Peche Island represents in 1991 observed moderately environmental quality at the head of the contaminated sediments, and moderately river. As such it is a good reference for impacted macroinvertebrate communities, determining what is achievable and just east of the mouth of Little River. establishing objectives for remedial (Beak Consultants, 1993b) These actions in the river. sediments are likely the source of elevated PCB contamination in bullheads and
4-32 Rouge River “Elevated Toxicity at two sites.”
A study of the effects of sediment on the downstream, near Zug Island. Sediments average leaf-to-root surface area of at the upstream site were more toxic than aquatic plants suggested elevated any other site studied. Rouge River toxicity at two sites in the Rouge, similar sediments are three to five times more to a 1988 toxicity study using bacteria. toxic than Peche Island and Turkey (Biernacki, et.al., 1997) Island. In the plant study, toxicity appeared higher at the upstream site than
Fighting Island “Lacks a diverse benthic community.”
At least nine families of macroinvert- here, the lack of a diverse benthic ebrates were identified in this area, community suggests that there could be including mayflies. However, the study some sort of environmental impact observed that Fighting Island does not occurring. (Figures 7 & 11) Unfortunately, support a highly diverse benthic there are no data on contaminant levels in community since chironomids (midge Fighting Island biota, so a complete larvae) have a relative abundance of about picture of contamination is not possible. 50 percent. (Besser, et.al., 1996) (Figure 7) Although sediment levels and toxicity data do not indicate a problem
Turkey Island “More stressed than upstream sites?”
A study of the effect of sediment on the A study of contaminants in gizzard average leaf-to-root surface area of aquatic shad suggested low PAH contamination, plants suggested low toxicity. (Biernacki, which could mean low PAH levels in et.al., 1997) sediments. (Gewurtz, 1999) However, However, toxicity appeared contaminants in sediments have not been slightly higher than Peche Island studied in this area since 1996. This is sediments. This is supported by another unfortunate, because a 1993 study found study which found that organisms from an area of moderately contaminated Turkey Island accumulated significantly sediments and moderately impacted more chemicals than those from Peche benthic communities just upstream of Island. (Beak Consultants, 1993b) This Turkey Island. The study found only suggests that further research should be crayfish and amphipods in the area, which conducted on the Canadian side preferably does not suggest a diverse benthic with different types of biota to determine community. (Beak Consultants, 1993b) if and why Turkey Island sediments are While present sediment quality of more toxic than upstream sites. Turkey Island is not clear, impacts on biota and benthos seem to be occurring.
4-33 Trenton Channel “Highly contaminated...high risk for biota.”
The highest levels of mercury and PCBs concentrations of PCBs and pesticides within the Trenton Channel were have generally decreased, loadings of observed at the Firestone Steel site. metals and PAHs from either local or (Ostaszewski) A rough estimate, using upstream sources have remained data from the same study, revealed that relatively constant. (Besser, et.al., 1996) approximately 74 percent of areas In the same study, relatively little sampled contained sediments with photodegredation of PAHs was mercury levels high enough to pose a indicated, suggesting that PAHs are still threat to aquatic life. (Figure 6) very persistent in the Trenton Channel. Sediment concentrations of most Sediment cores have been used to help metals, total PCBs, PAHs, and oil and further understand the history of grease have been observed to decrease contamination within the channel. For from upstream to example, contaminant downstream. levels, including The Trenton Channel is the only (Besser, et.al., mercury and PCBs, at 1996) However, area of the Detroit River that the Firestone Steel site another study did has a complete, obvious picture tend to be higher in the not observe this of contamination. surface sediment, trend because of suggesting either contaminated sediment disturbance or “hot spots” throughout the channel. the occurrence of current inputs. (Ostaszewski) It has been suggested that (Ostaszewski) the bioavailability of metals is greatest in A study of biota noted elevated sediments from downstream Trenton average fluorescent aromatic Channel sites. (Besser, et.al., 1996) hydrocarbons (FACs) levels in the bile Thus, it is possible that heavy metal “hot of brown bullheads. (Leadly, et.al., spots” upstream are contaminating 1999) These elevated FAC levels were benthic organisms downstream, which, thought to be related to elevated PAH in turn, contaminate the fish that feed on levels in sediments, and to storm water them. A 1998 study observed that run-off that also contained very high Trenton Channel sediments had lower levels of PAHs. organic carbon content than Peche Island A study of the impacts of and Amherstburg Channel, thus a sediment on the average leaf-to-root reduced capacity to bind to organic surface area of aquatic plants suggested contaminants. (Leadley, et.al., 1998) elevated toxicity at two sites, similar to a This could mean that sediment-bound 1988 toxicity study using bacteria. organic contaminants are easily released (Biernacki, et.al., 1997) Toxicity to the water and biota, resulting in appeared higher at the upstream site than increased risk of exposure. downstream. It was suggested that Concentrations of metals, PCBs, Trenton Channel sediments were three to pesticides, and PAHs were similar to five times more toxic than Peche Island those reported in the mid 1980s. and Turkey Island. (Leadley, et.al., 1998; and Besser, et.al., In one study, sediment toxicity 1996) While one study observed that tests revealed reduced growth and/or
4-34 survival of macroinvertebrates. Sediment This study confirmed earlier lab toxicity decreased with distance studies, conducted in 1991 and 1993, downstream, corresponding with which predicted that Trenton Channel decreasing levels of ammonia, most sediments were placing bullheads under metals, PCBs, PAHs, and oil and grease. high toxicological stress. (Maccubbin Similar results have been reported for and Ersing, 1991; and Ali, et.al., 1993) sediments collected in 1986. This study These studies concluded that the health suggested that individual or combined of the bullhead population was affected effects of heavy metals and PAHs are the by exposure to organic chemicals, major contributors to the toxicity of primarily through exposure to Trenton Channel sediments. (Besser, contaminated sediments. et.al., 1996) One study of Trenton Channel A study conducted along the U.S. benthos found that the area did not shoreline one to two kilometres support a highly diverse benthic downstream of the Trenton Channel, community. Only four different species observed that 20 percent of Detroit River were found. Significantly, oligochaetes brown bullheads had liver lesions and 20 (aquatic worms) comprised more than 95 percent had bile duct deformities. The percent of the macroinvertebrates study concluded Detroit River bullheads observed, well above the threshold of 80 are exposed to more contamination than percent oligochaetes cited by Thornley those in two other highly contaminated (1985) as indicating a “high degree of Areas of Concerns, Hamilton Harbour pollution.” These results were similar to and Black River. (Russell, 1996) previous results from surveys conducted Another study observed that during the mid 1980s. (Besser, et.al., Trenton Channel brown bullheads 1996) contained the highest concentrations of These results help substantiate organochlorine compounds and PCBs, the general belief that the Trenton compared with those from Peche Island Channel has highly polluted sediments and Amherstburg Channel. In addition, which are contaminating the biota, the study suggested that the Trenton causing toxic effects, and ultimately Channel bullhead population had the affecting the benthic community at a highest prevalence of internal and population level. (See Figures 8 and 11) external abnormalities, including liver, For the purposes of this report, this is the lip, and skin lesions, as well as truncated only area of the Detroit River for which barbels. (Leadley, et.al., 1998) such a complete, obvious picture of contamination is available.
4-35 Amherstburg Channel “A history of sediment quality problems.”
Concentrations of total PCBs and PAHs in These data suggest a history of sediments were three and five times sediment quality problems in the higher, respectively, than concentrations at Amherstburg Channel, combined with Peche Island. This suggests low to elevated contaminant levels in biota. medium sediment contamination. The occurrence of brown bullheads (Leadley, et.al., 1998)(Figures 7 and 8) with external lesions was similar to Peche A 1991 study also designated this Island and much lower than Trenton area as moderately contaminated and Channel. However, five specific types of noted one severely contaminated “hot internal lesions were more prevalent than spot” just off-shore from the town of at the other sites, and contaminants in Amherstburg. (Beak Consultants, 1993b) bullhead flesh were similar in composition The 1991 Stage I Report observed that to the sediments from where they were Amherstburg Channel sediments had the captured. (Leadley, et.al., 1998)(Figure highest PCB levels of any site on the 11) Canadian side, and PCB levels in caged clams were also higher. (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1991)
Celeron Island “Recent or continuing contamination from upstream.”
Levels of heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs, and studies of Celeron Island sediments to oil and grease are relatively low and are support this observation. not considered a threat to aquatic Also of interest is the fact that organisms. (Ostaszewski) Another study mercury and PAHs were found only in the demonstrates that Celeron Island surface interval of sediment cores, and sediments had the lowest levels of PCBs lead levels were also highest at the and PAHs, compared with other sites on surface. This suggests recent or continuing the United States side, but levels were still contamination from upstream sites or higher than sites on the Canadian side. possibly from resuspended contaminants. (Metcalfe, et.al., 1999) (Ostaszewski) The percent of total organic carbon Celeron Island is clearly a dynamic (TOC) in sediments is high, which area, with two separate studies giving suggests that sediments here have a high different views of sediment contamination. capacity to bind contaminants. (See Figures 6, 7, 8, & 11) More research (Ostaszewski) This means that some should be conducted, to provide a better contaminants might not be free understanding of contamination and (bioavailable) to contaminate aquatic toxicity at Celeron Island. This will also organisms, because they are temporarily improve our understanding of Lake Erie trapped in the sediments. This should contaminant inputs due to resuspended result in decreased toxicity, but sediments from the Detroit River. unfortunately there are no recent toxicity
4-36 E Spatial Trends Michigan shoreline of the Trenton t appears as though sediments on the U.S. I Channel. In addition, some Trenton side are more contaminated and more Channel studies suggest that contaminant toxic than the Canadian side. (Figures 6- levels and toxicity actually decrease with 11) For example, islands just off the distance downstream. As Figure 8 Michigan shoreline tend to have a higher demonstrates, Celeron Island has lower contaminant level on the shore nearest the PAH levels than the Amherstburg U.S. mainland. Channel. (Besser, et.al., 1996; and On the Canadian side, there could Biernacki, et.al., 1997) be a trend in increasing contamination and An internationally coordinated toxicity moving downstream, culminating monitoring plan is required for the entire in higher levels and toxicity reported for river. Such a plan will provide a less Amherstburg Channel. (Leadley, et.al., ambiguous understanding of sediment 1998) This trend may also be evident in a contamination, and therefore the study of PCB and DDE levels in adult importance of contaminated sediments to mayflies which suggests that levels the environmental health of the Detroit increase from Windsor to Wyandotte to River as a whole. Although there are Amherstburg Channel. (Corkum, et.al., definite contaminant ‘hot spots,’ these do 1997) not represent the comprehensive quality of This trend is not as obvious on the the Detroit River. U.S. side, due to the presence of several contaminant “hot spots” along the
F Temporal Trends
western basin of Lake Erie between 1961 n general, few Detroit River studies since I and 1995. The study found that small 1996 have addressed temporal trends in mayfly populations were almost always sediment quality. This could be due to a present between 1961 and 1995, southeast lack of data for certain sites, some species, of the mouth of the Detroit River. It was and specific chemicals, as well as the lack thought that this was probably due to the of compatible data sets. However, some relatively clean water from the Canadian general conclusions can be drawn from side of the river. (Krieger, et.al., 1996) A few studies that did attempt to compare comparison of oligochaete density and their results with studies from the 1980s. community structure between 1961 and Most studies conducted since 1996 1982 revealed very little change at the suggest that the sediment quality of the mouth of the Detroit River, in the western Detroit River has changed little since the basin of Lake Erie. The mouth remained mid-1980s. Relatively clean areas, such as “heavily polluted” and “impacted”. Windsor and Turkey Island, remain However, the western side of the mouth relatively clean while problem areas, such had much greater environmental as the Rouge River and the Trenton degradation than the eastern side, which is Channel, are still substantially degraded. consistent with sediment contamination This trend is supported by a trends in the Detroit River itself. comparison of mayfly distribution in the (Schloesser, et.al., 1995)
4-37 It may be concluded, cautiously, the river. Essentially, the Detroit River is that the sediment quality of the Detroit not being restored naturally, and River has either not changed since the remedial actions are essential to improve mid-1980s or has declined, pending sediment quality in the future. further research on the Canadian side of
G Quality of the Detroit River Sediment Contaminant Database
Since 1996, few heavy metal and and total PAHs more variable and less pesticide data have been collected for accurate, creating artificial highs and sediments on the Canadian side of the lows among studies. river. Although PCBs and PAHs have The inconsistencies in Table 13 been studied more thoroughly on both may account for the variable levels sides of the border, the databases are reported by each study within a given difficult to work with. Table 13 shows area. (Figures 9 and 11). A good that there are major differences in the example is Celeron Island which, for the techniques used to calculate PCB and purposes of this report, cannot be PAH levels in sediments. As a result, classified as having low or medium certain PCB congeners and PAH contaminated with PCBs, due to compounds detected in sediments in one significantly different results among study might not be detected in another. various studies. (Figures 6, 8 & 9) This makes the calculation of total PCBs
Table 13. Differing Detection Limits, and Numbers of PCB Congeners and PAH Compounds Reported, in Canadian and American Studies of Contaminant Levels in Sediments Study Reference PCB # PCB PAH # PAH Detection Congeners Detection Compounds Limit (µg/g) Reported Limit (µg/g) Reported Metcalfe, et.al., 1999 (Cdn) 0.00005 26 0.20 14 Leadley, et.al., 1998 (Cdn) 0.00005 39 0.20 16 Ostaszewski (U.S.) 0.33 0 0.33 15 Besser, et.al., 1996 (U.S.) 0.01 83 0.02 13
In addition to problems with definitions of “polluted” or “toxic;” nor sampling and analytical techniques, it is do they use the same level of difficult to determine appropriate contamination to determine them. guidelines for the Detroit River. (Persaud, et.al., 1993; Ingersoll, et.al., Guidelines from a number of 1996; Ostaszewski; and Long and government agencies, including the Morgan, 1991) Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, do not use the same
4-38 These guidelines therefore make provide a simple visual representation of estimates of sediment hazard contamination in the Detroit River. questionable and confusing. The MDEQ It is evident that binational 1996 Detroit River Remedial Action standards are required to establish Plan Report identified the same problem common sampling techniques, detection and proposed that the most stringent limits, the number or types of sediment quality guidelines be used by contaminant compounds to be detected both U.S. and Canadian agencies. There and reported, and sediment quality is no evidence that the 1996 proposal has guidelines. Only then can we get a clear been implemented. As a result, this picture of contamination in the Detroit report uses sediment quality guidelines River and move towards remediation. with caution in the illustrative figures to
Bi-national standards are needed for sampling techniques, detection limits, the number/types of contaminant compounds to be detected and reported, and sediment quality guidelines.
Table 14. Differing Sediment Quality Guidelines Used in Studies of Contaminant Levels in Sediments Contaminant MOE Lowest Effect Effect Range Median USEPA’s Effect Range Level (LEL) (µg/g) (ERM) (µg/g) Median (ERM) (µg/g)
Total PCB 0.07 0.73 0.4 Total DDT 0.007 - - Total PAH 4 2.2 35 Mercury 0.2 - 1.3 Definition A level of sediment The concentration of a The concentration of a contamination that chemical in sediment chemical in sediment can be tolerated by above which effects above which effects the majority of are frequently or are frequently or benthic organisms. always observed or always observed or Marginally polluted. predicted amongst predicted amongst most species. (Long Associated with the most species. and Morgan, 1991) absence of 5 percent Associated with of benthic taxa. adverse affects in 50 percent of bioassays (Persaud, et.al., 1993; with freshwater and Besser, et.al., sediments. (Besser, 1996) et.al., 1996) Dash: no data available.
4-39 What we know: What we need:
• Among sediment studies, different • A study, or series of studies, that sampling devises and field data provides a better understanding of recorded creates confusion when contaminant levels, both those in comparing studies; sediments and those bioavailable to • Despite elevated PCB and DDE benthos and plants; levels in benthos and high DDE in • Toxicity tests on benthic sediments, Peche Island represents communities; good general environmental quality • A study, or series of studies, that and serves as an example of what is provides a better understanding of possible on the Detroit River; ambient contaminant levels in • Zug Island is highly contaminated; sediments and benthic communities • Turkey Island sediments are more because most existing studies focus toxic than those at Peche Island; on environmental ‘hot-spots’; • Trenton Channel is the only areas of • Increased use the International Joint the Detroit River with a complete Commission’s “Sediment Triad” and obvious picture of approach for determining sediment contamination; quality; • In general, bottom-dwelling fish and • A more system-wide research, benthic communities remain including research along the impaired at the locations studied; Canadian shoreline, to see if toxicity • Sediments on the U.S. side are more and contamination are increasing contaminated and more toxic than with distance downstream; those on the Canadian side. • Locate and remediate sources of contamination to the Amherstburg Channel; Problems with a • Binational standards for sediment technical term? sampling techniques, detection See the Glossary limits, the number or types of contaminant compounds to be for help. detected and reported, and sediment quality guidelines, so that they can be used in a system-wide study of the Detroit River.
4-40 Figure 12. Mean Total Mercury in Walleye (all sizes) from Southern Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, and Lake Erie.
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 (ug/g) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 77 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 Lake Erie Central Basin Lake Erie Western Basin South Lake Huron Lake St. Clair Courtesy Andrew Toms, Great Lakes Institute, using MOE data.
Figure 13. Mercury Levels in 45 cm Walleye from Western Basin Lake Erie.
2.5
2
1.5
1
Mercury (µg/g) 0.5
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 93 95 97 Courtesy of MOE. Year
4-41 4.3. CONTAMINANTS IN FISH AND BIRDS sediment quality, most fish and birds move ontaminant levels and toxicity in C and/or feed throughout the river. Thus, they Detroit River fish and birds have long been a have the potential to become contaminated concern to the public. Indeed, this is one of from several different sources along the the major concerns listed in stage one of the river. As a result, fish and birds provide RAP. valuable insight into the general environ- Birds, such as herring gulls and mental quality of the Detroit River system. cormorants, have been used in previous The fish section that follows studies as indicators of contaminant levels addresses contaminant levels in walleye, and related toxicity. They are good consumption restrictions, and bottom- biomonitors because, like humans, they are dwelling fish. The bird section is divided by at the top of the food chain and species. It is hoped that they feed on a large variety of fish. Fish and birds these sections will help It is essential to con-sider provide valuable anglers, hunters, and other studies of the con-taminant levels insight into the users to understand the in both fish and birds because they environmental impact of the Detroit River have the potential to accumulate quality of the Detroit environmental quality on contaminants from a number of River as a whole. the fish and birds that they sources, including water, value. sediments, and contaminated food sources. Unlike the biota used to determine
A Fish A review of fish consumption guidelines means that walleye usually move upstream indicates that there has been little change in through the Detroit River to spawn or feed. the level of contaminants found in tested Thus contaminant levels in walleye fish (Ministry of the Environment, 1987- populations using the Detroit River are 1999). This supports other data that indicate probably best described by looking at Detroit River recovery has plateaued in contaminant levels in the Lake Erie recent years. populations, in particular those of the western basin. Mercury in Walleye In this report, contaminant levels in Many fish species move long distances in walleye from both Lake St. Clair and the search of prey and spawning western basin of Lake Erie habitat. Genetic studies have are examined, in order to demonstrated that there is a The Trenton Channel illustrate contaminant trends 30 percent chance of and Lake St. Clair for all walleye using the catching a Lake Erie walleye areas are major Detroit River corridor. in Lake St. Clair and only a 3 sources of mercury Figure 12 shows that percent chance of catching a contamination in mercury levels have Lake St. Clair walleye in walleye. decreased in Lake St. Clair Lake Erie. (Kreis, 1999) This walleye, although mercury
4-42 levels between 1992 and 1997 were This mercury data reveals the complexity of variable. In these years, it is not clear mercury dynamics in aquatic ecosystems. whether mercury concentrations are Figure 12 suggests that mercury increased. dynamics and recycling in Lake St. Clair Figure 13 also shows fluctuating result in elevated fish exposures. In fact, mercury levels in walleye from the western mean total mercury levels in the overall basin of Lake Erie, between 1992 and 1995. population of walleye seem to be increasing However, total mercury levels are higher in in Lake St. Clair. Upstream, mercury levels Lake St. Clair walleye. Analysis of the data in southern Lake Huron walleye follow a in Figure 13 reveals that the mean mercury much different temporal pattern than Lake concentrations in walleye from Lake Erie’s St. Clair. western basin have not changed significantly This upstream mercury recycling from 1982 to 1995. Although pre-1982 data could potentially effect Detroit River water are scarce, the mean concentrations suggest and resident biota. It would also cause that there has been a significant, nearly five- fold, decline in mercury concentrations Mean total between 1970 and 1982. (Kauss, 1999) These recent fluctuations in walleye mercury levels in mercury levels are consistent with findings all sizes of walleye presented at a 1999 Mercury Meeting held seem to be by the U.S. Environmental Protection increasing in Lake Agency in Detroit. (U.S. EPA, 1999) The St. Clair. The meeting was held to respond to recent public source of elevated and scientific concern regarding the possibility of increasing mercury levels in mercury is the Detroit River. Experts concluded that it somewhere along was not possible, at this time, to determine if the St. Clair River mercury levels were changing. It was noted or around the lake that the trend for mercury levels in fish - itself. high in the 1970s, declining into the 1980s, fluctuating in the 1990s - was similar to the consumption restrictions on certain sizes of trend for mercury levels in Detroit River walleye migrating from Lake St. Clair into sediments. This supports the conclusion that the Detroit River. Clearly, a future system- sediments are a major source of wide monitoring program is needed to focus contaminants, including mercury, and levels on entire Lake Huron to Lake Erie corridor. of contaminants in sediments appear to be Only then can we fully understand dictating contaminant levels throughout the contamination patterns and potential effects Detroit River system. on biota throughout this system. Figure 12 demonstrates that mercury levels in walleye are higher in Southern Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair compared to walleye from the western basin of Lake Erie. This is despite the existence of several mercury “hot spots” in the Detroit River.
4-43 PCBs in Walleye a concern because the fish are not reaching PCB levels in walleye are not an equilibrium with current inputs and the presently considered a problem. They recycling of PCBs in the aquatic ecosystem. declined significantly in Lake Erie walleye PCB levels, although low enough not to between 1977 and 1982, but were without restrict consumption, remain above the trend after 1982. (Cox, 1999; and De Vault, guideline to protect fish and wildlife. et.al., 1996) These consistent low levels are
For Your Information … In 1999, the level at which fish consumption restrictions for mercury in Ontario were issued changed from 0.5 ppm to 0.45 ppm.
Figure 15. Food Web Interactions from a Study of Detroit River Fish.
(y of y means young of year) Courtesy of Ron Russell.
4-44 Figure 15 demonstrates the complexity Bottom-Dwelling Fish & of the Detroit River food web. While Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons restrictions for some species continue (PAHs) unchanged, both rock bass and Bottom-dwelling fish warrant special freshwater drum show attention because they some improvement, On the U.S. side, reflect sediment regardless of more moderately to highly contaminant levels stringent PCB guidelines contaminated closely. Also, they are imposed in 1995. sediments at Zug consumed by many (Haytone, 1999) anglers, including those Decreased Island, the Trenton from the United States consumption restrictions Channel and Celeron who prefer fish from the on rock bass and Island are major Canadian side of the river freshwater drum are sources of PCBs because of problems with probably linked to their found in bottom- tainted fish flavour on the position in the food web. Michigan side. (Tulen, Figure 15 demonstrates dwelling fish. 1999) Recent studies have that both rock bass and suggested that organic freshwater drum occupy a similar chemicals, including PCBs, pesticides, position in the food web and feed on and PAHs, could be having toxic effects similar prey, thus they can be expected on bottom-dwelling fish, such as carp to be similarly contaminated. This fact and channel catfish. Because PAHs are stresses the importance of considering metabolised quickly, they are not found food web interactions when trying to in fish flesh and PAH metabolites are understand contaminant patterns in fish. found only in the bile. As a result, toxic (Ministry of the Environment, 1987- effects may be occurring due to exposure 1999) to PAHs, even though levels detected in It is interesting to note that PCB fish flesh are below detection. Thus, it levels in stonecats are much higher than possible that the health of Detroit River in rock bass, even though they both feed fish, in general, is more degraded than on crayfish. (Russell, 1996) This consumption guidelines would lead us to difference may be due to the fact that, believe. like carp, stonecats live most of their Clearly, there is not an adequate lives on the bottom whereas rock bass monitoring program to determine the only feed near the bottom. Also, rock impact PAHs are having on Detroit bass prefer a rocky bottom, which cannot River fish, and in particular bottom- accumulate high contaminant levels as dwelling fish. Bottom-dwelling fish are a silt would. Thus, strictly bottom- valuable part of the Detroit River dwelling fish, such as carp, stonecats, system. As noted in the impairment list and bullheads take-up contaminants not developed for the Detroit River, when only from food, but also from their species are negatively affected with constant proximity to contaminated tumours, lesions, or contaminated flesh, sediments. better cause-effect models must be developed in order to protect these species.
4-45 What we know: What we need:
• Mercury levels in 45 cm Lake St. • Cause/effect studies of PAH levels Clair walleye have improved since and toxicity in fish; the 1970s, but are fluctuating in the • More resources extended to the 1990s; MNR and MOE for improving • Mercury levels in the general Lake sampling and contaminant databases St. Clair walleye population appear for Detroit River fish; to be increasing; • More emphasis on a food web • Mercury levels in 45 cm walleye approach – including monitoring from Lake Erie’s western basin have contaminant levels in fish prey improved since the 1970s, but are populations such as benthos and fluctuating in the 1990s; forage fish; • In general, consumption restrictions • A system-wide monitoring and due to mercury levels in walleye assessment plan for the Lake Huron have not changed since 1987; to Lake Erie corridor. • In general, consumption restrictions due to PCB levels in carp have not changed since 1987; • Rock bass and freshwater drum shows signs of reduced mercury and PCB contamination since 1987; • Moderate to highly contaminated Detroit River sediments, from various areas on both the Canadian and U.S. sides, are major sources of PCB contamination and PAH exposure to bottom-dwelling fish.
B Birds
Herring Gulls
An excellent temporal contaminant Similar declines have been observed for database exists for the herring gull total DDT. population on Fighting Island. It has This is encouraging news, been annually updated since 1979 and especially since herring gulls from includes 1999 data. Unfortunately, 1999 Fighting Island feed mainly on fish; data was not available for this report. freshwater drum is the primary prey Concentrations of total PCB species most of the year. (Ewins, et.al., levels have declined since 1979 in 1994) Freshwater drum are a bottom- herring gull eggs collected from Fighting dwelling fish that eat zebra mussels. Island. Since 1993, concentrations have Zebra mussels are known to accumulate continued to decline from 27 µg/g wet high levels of contaminants. Thus, a weight to 17 µg/g in 1996 (Figure 16). continued decline in contaminant levels
4-46 in herring gulls tends to suggest that that do not effect them may cause stress contaminant levels in Detroit River to other organisms. (Ewins, 1992; freshwater drum and zebra mussels is Weseloh, et.al., 1990; and Weseloh, also declining. It follows that et.al., 1994) As a result, contaminant contaminant levels in other types of gull levels and toxicity in a variety of biota food may also be declining. must be considered before we can Herring gulls are considered conclude that the Detroit River is resistant to contaminants, so exposures healthy.
Figure 16. PCB Concentrations in Herring Gull Eggs (1986-1996)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 PCB (ug/g) 30 20 10 0
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year
Ducks
Surprisingly, only one study of Detroit observed. Higher contamination in Lake River ducks was available for this report. Erie ducks was due to a higher zebra The study examined contaminant levels mussel diet. (Mazak, et.al., 1997) in Mallards, Lesser Scaup, Greater Regardless of elevated Scaup, Bufflehead, Redhead, and contamination levels in both Detroit Canvasback ducks from the Detroit River and Lake Erie ducks, no adverse River site of Fighting Island, and Lesser effects on duck populations were Scaup, Greater Scaup, and Bufflehead apparent. For example, no gross external from Lake Erie’s western or internal abnormalities basin. Low-to-moderate The Detroit River were observed. Also, it was PCB contamination in and western not clear whether any of the Fighting Island ducks and basin Lake Erie ducks studied had reduced high PCB contamination in are major reproductive success as a Lake Erie ducks were result of increased PCB sources of PCB contamination in migrating ducks. 4-47 contamination. However, recent surveys The duck study concluded that cited within the study indicated that both the Detroit River/western basin of Lake Bufflehead and Common Goldeneye Erie corridor is a major source of have declined in abundance in eastern contamination to migrating ducks, due to North America. Also, laboratory studies the abundance of highly contaminated revealed that a diet of contaminated zebra mussels which ducks eat. zebra mussels from Middle Sister Island However, it was noted that additional in Lake Erie weakened the immune work is required to determine if system of Lesser Scaup chicks. The PCB contamination has adverse effects on levels in these laboratory chicks were wild duck populations. In addition, lower than levels reported in wild Lake studies should be conducted to determine Erie ducks, suggesting that similar if there are health risks to people who eat adverse health effects may be occurring ducks that migrate through the Detroit in wild populations. River and the western basin of Lake Erie.
Bald Eagle
A single study examined organochlorine between 1990 and 1996. Reproductive contamination in bald eagle eggs and success, a measure of the number of nestling blood from the Canadian side of young produced in each active nest, Lake Erie, including sites on the Detroit remained constant between 1982 and River. It found that Lake Erie eggs were 1996, and productivity was sufficient to equally or more contaminated with PCBs maintain a growing population. In fact, and DDE, compared to other highly the study reported that the number of contaminated active nests environments in PCB and DDE levels in Lake Erie increased the United States. bald eagle eggs declined between substantially (Donaldson, 1974 and 1994; however, these between 1980 et.al., 1999) and 1996, The study contaminants in eaglet blood with the most determined that remained stable between 1990 and rapid increase concentrations of 1996. between 1987 PCBs and DDE and 1993. The in Lake Erie eagle eggs declined study suggested that a combination of significantly between 1974 and 1994, reduced organochlorine levels, similar to declines in herring gull eggs. reintroduction efforts, immigration from However, PCB, DDT, and DDE other populations, and changes in habitat concentrations in eaglet blood have quality have likely contributed to the remained relatively stable between 1990 observed increase in the number of and 1996. breeding pairs. The study found no indication The study did find some that contaminants adversely affected indication that contaminants are still productivity in bald eagle populations playing a role in limiting eagle numbers. from the north shore of Lake Erie For example, 67 percent of eggs
4-48 collected between 1989 and 1994 still toxic to developing eagles; however, had DDE levels exceeding the level at none of the 1990 eagles had PCB levels which moderate eggshell thinning that high. occurs. The study theorised that potential Clearly, further research is negative effects may be occurring at the needed to see if contaminants in the level of individual nests, and not on a Lake Erie area are still affecting bald population scale. For this reason, DDT eagle populations. It is also important to and DDE levels in the Detroit note that the study cited suitable habitat River/western basin Lake Erie area as the main determinant of bald eagle should be closely monitored. abundance - specifically, the presence of The study also found that all suitable perch trees and ample forest Lake Erie eagle eggs sampled from the cover. 1970s had PCB levels high enough to be
What we know: What we need:
• The Detroit River and western basin • Long-term commitment to the of Lake Erie are important sources of herring gull contaminant monitoring PCB contamination in migrating program because it offers the best ducks; historic data-set on contaminant • Herring gull contaminant data levels in the Detroit River; suggest that levels of DDT and PCB • Avian species should be incorporated have continued to decline in the into the Detroit River monitoring and Detroit River; assessment plan. • Duck populations become contaminated while migrating through the Detroit River area; • Eagle populations reveal declining PCB and DDT levels and populations are increasing. It is possible that habitat plays a more important role than contaminants in re-establishing bald eagle populations.
4-49 5. Habitat
percent which exists as natural areas, he Detroit River watershed lies within T approximately 4.5 percent is forested an area referred to as the Carolinian and 1.5 percent is wetland. These zone, which is found south of an habitats have been inventoried and imaginary line from Toronto to Grand mapped through a number of studies. Bend. This zone is unique in Canada (Essex Region Conservation Authority and supports plants and wildlife that are (ERCA), 1999; LaSalle, 1996; Ontario found as far south as the southern United Ministry of Natural Resources, 1994a, States. Within this zone are plants and 1994b; ERCA and Windsor, 1992; and animals that rarely occur elsewhere. In Oldham, 1983) fact, the Detroit River watershed Sadly, the vast majority of the contains the greatest variety of plants natural attributes that once existed in the and animals in the entire country. Detroit River watershed have been lost For example, 65 percent of due to agricultural and urban Ontario’s rare plants occur development. In fact, a in the Essex region. The comparison of Detroit River Over the last 10 years, Detroit River watershed maps prepared in 1815 and contains some of the most there has been an incremental loss in 1982 shows that over 95 significant biological upland forest, wetlands, percent of upland forest, 96 communities in all of and riparian vegetation – percent of Canadian Ontario. These include despite ongoing habitat wetlands, and over 97 restoration activities remnant tracts of percent of U.S. wetlands Carolinian forest, tallgrass along the Detroit River have prairie, oak savannah and disappeared due to drainage for wetlands. Some of the most significant agricultural and urban development. Of wetland and forested habitats which those wetlands that have been preserved, currently exist along the Detroit River many are affected by poor water quality are identified in Table 15 and Figure 17. and excessive sedimentation. Along the Canadian side of the The wetlands that remain on the Detroit River approximately 47 percent Canadian side are primarily in the of the shoreline is natural area, parkland vicinity of the Canard River mouth, and open space, although much of this while the majority of the remnant consists of maintained grass areas. Of wetlands on the U.S. side are found the remainder, 27 percent is industrial downstream of Grassy Island. (Tulen, and commercial, and 26 percent is et.al., 1998) Many of the remaining residential. However, when the entire wetlands are associated with the 21 watershed is considered, the amount of Detroit River islands. This corresponds greenspace is much less. The Canadian with the higher fish and wildlife habitat side of the Detroit River watershed is values existing in the downstream comprised of approximately 68 percent portion of the river compared to the agricultural land use; 25 percent upstream portion of the river. In fact, developed areas, such as cities, towns, these wetlands have been designated as roads; six percent natural areas; and less globally significant by the Nature than one percent each of quarries, and Conservancy (1994). recreational land uses. Of the six
5-1 Class 1 Provincially Significant Wetland; largest wetland in the Detroit River. Supports at least 5 rare 5 least at Supports River. Detroit in the wetland largest Wetland; Significant 1 Provincially Class waterfowl optimal for be controlled to marsh the in level the water allows dykes of A series species. and breeding for both habitat excellent provides marsh and clean undisturbed, large, This production. area. staging Duck Canvasback significant a highly as known well is and waterfowl migratory floodplain as some as well River, Canard the on forest of upland tract extensive most the contains site This species. and plant shrub, tree, rare 20 least at and supports quality, of high are woods The upland forest. that River the Canard along areas of wooded link a long of one is site This species. 30 rare least at supports community, in this Trees Coffee Kentucky of The presence corridor. wildlife extensive an provide trees), female and male both with Canada in site (only regeneration abundant have they since especially significant. site this makes refuge ecological important an affords thus and Ontario in prairie tallgrass protected largest the Constitutes one Approximately America. North of portion a significant typified once which complex vegetation for a is of area This Complex. Prairie the Ojibway within occur in Ontario known species prairie the of half location. this in represented best is and find to difficult is most prairie mesic because interest great of all in this perspective) (from sites significant the most it one of making species rare 70 least at Contains Ontario. to the led has of brine form the in salt, sub-surface of The extraction species. 30 rare to over Home of assemblages best of the some by dominated community vegetation unusual a very of establishment on parts found are water saline of and pools Ditches Ontario. Southern in plants (salt-tolerant) halophytic and ducks. shorebirds migrating for habitat excellent provide which site, of the (75 plants of prairie diversity unusual the due to mainly is number This species. rare 50 than more Supports are species 40 shrub and tree 38 addition In and Canada. in Ontario localised very are which species), their reach species these as unusual, also is species hickory and four oak six of The presence found here. of Ontario. the south to diversity peak rare of number large a contains woodlot unusual and significant This species. rare 50 least at Supports in woods seen Oak Black an open of example finest the is woodlot This species. prairie particularly plants, the County. 416 ha (1031 ac) 90 ha (223 ac) 180 ha (445 ac) 245 ha (606 ac) 135 ha (334 ac) (232 ac) 48 ha (118 ac)
5-2 FeatureCanard River Marsh Mouth Size Scout Canard River ForestCamp Canard River Kentucky Coffee Comments Tree Woods Prairie Ojibway Complex Chemical Allied (salt- Wells Brine soils) rich WoodsLaSalle 94 ha Ojibway Black Oak Woods Table 15. Significant Habitats Along the Detroit River Habitats Along Significant Table 15. Canadian Sites Supports at least 75 rare species. Prairie remnants of this quality are very scarce in Canada. Several plants Several Canada. in scarce are very quality this of remnants Prairie species. rare 75 least at Supports Prairie Ojibway area. Windsor to the restricted range Canadian entire their have may site at this growing to considered be can Road Prairie Springarden Woods and Oak Black Ojibway Woods, LaSalle Complex, area. Windsor the through system a linkage form species, 8 Oak of presence the is site this of feature significant A very species. rare 20 least at Supports sometimes (and and Black Shumard Red, Pin, Chinquapin, Bur, White, Swamp White, rare: even some hybrids). Low, sandy diversity. surprising exhibits site the small, Although species. rare 20 than more Supports the knolls between soils Loamy species. prairie as tallgrass as well hardwoods upland both support knolls forest. lowland a support and drained are poorly prairie. remnant of an area is site this of portion significant The most species. rare 70 than more Supports of diversity high extremely an contains size, in acres) (1.5 0.6 hectares only although area, sandy open, This in Canada. else nowhere occur of which some species, prairie mostly plants, rare (4 swamp of pockets small with percent) (96 marsh primarily Wetlands; Significant 2 Provincially Class to exist. are known species animal significant many wetland the within found diversity the to Due percent); of amount An abundant diverse. is very the wetland that indicate types water open and interspersion The wildlife attract to helps habitat surrounding the of The diversity site. the at found are fauna and flora both wetland. to the Island: on Peche found "types" community plant four are There species. rare 20 than more Supports plant and bird of various numbers Large Beach. and Thicket, Shrub Tall Forest, Broadleaf Wetland, present. diversity habitat of degree the high to due island the on found can be species the and A wetland Wetland. Significant 3 Provincially Class species. rare 15 than more Supports the Towards area. natural significant the comprise island the end of north the at forest upland surrounding location and the size of Because Terns. and Gulls of colonies nesting are Island Fighting end of south waterfowl. migratory for stop a feeding as used is marsh the River, Detroit the within the from distinct aesthetically not is the site Although Wetland. Significant 3 Provincially Class for the wetland utilise species significant Many of wildlife. amount unusual an attracts it area, surrounding and the Fox Snake, Eastern Night-herons, Black-crowned Wrens, Marsh habitat. breeding or for feeding the at found also are species plant Significant Creek. Turkey at found be all can Rattlesnake Massasauga and Ironweed. Spiderwort Ohio are site (continued) 146 ha (360 ac) (101 ac) 15 ha (38 ac) (35 ac) 575 ha (1424 ac) (100 acres) (368 acres) 32 ha (79 acres)
Spring Garden Spring Road Prairie Devonwood College St. Clair 41 ha Prairie PrairieReaume 14 ha River Detroit Marshes Peche Island IslandFighting 40 ha 149 ha Creek Turkey Wetlands 5-3 Table 15. Canadian Sites Sites Canadian Table 15. Part of site presently protected by Conservation Easement. Owned by the State of Michigan. Site of Site Michigan. of the State Owned by Easement. Conservation by protected presently of site Part eagle Bald American raptors, for migratory habitat Essential prairie. native and Savannah Oak remnant development. by Now endangered area. spawning pike northern birds, neotropical (endangered), ducks, diving eagle, and bald osprey (endangered) for Habitat Michigan. of the State by owned Currently northern walleye, including species, fish for numerous site Spawning scaup. redhead, canvasback, such as shiner. spottail and shiner, emerald bass, smallmouth pike, opens Lagoon) Heron (Blue of which one lagoons, several and of canals 3.5 km with forested 15 percent for habitat wetland extensive and deer tail white wild, of population Resident River. Detroit to the directly for habitat resting and nesting Extensive piers. fishing public Two waterfowl. migrant and resident birds. neotropical wetlands, and coastal forest Carolinian parts equal Roughly Michigan. of the State by owned Currently by Underlain species. fish numerous and ducks and swans, geese, migrating of numbers large by utilised of species numerous by Used sturgeon. lake (threatened) for site spawning reputed limestone, dolomite turtle and frog several for site Breeding/nesting (endangered). eagles bald and birds neotropical migratory, species. disposal confined diked, Man-made, Service). Wildlife and (U.S. Fish Refuge Wildlife federal a Currently of acres) (230 hectares on 566 Located River. the Rouge from spoils dredge contaminated for facility spawning reputed and (Vallisneria) celery wild of submersed beds extensive support that shoals gravel/clay (Phragmites), grass reed giant by colonised predominantly are Uplands sturgeon. lake (threatened) for site deer, tail white for Habitat two ponds. around marshes cattail and trees, and cherry maple, cotton, willow, hawk. red-tail woodchuck, fox, muskrat, gray racoon, (70 acres) (70 acres) (982 acres) (101 acres) (72 acres) Essex Region Conservation Authority, 1999; and Manny, 1999. Manny, and 1999; Authority, Conservation Region Essex
5-4 Feature MarshHumbug 28 hectares IslandCeleron Size 28 hectares IslandBelle Comments 399 hectares IslandStony 41 hectares IslandGrassy 29 hectares Table 15. American Sites Table 15. American Sources: The Detroit River’s natural areas support a number of fish and wildlife species, although the diversity of species has declined with dwindling habitat availability. Currently, 65 native and exotic (introduced) fish species occur in the river. Historically, as many as 40 more species inhabited or migrated through the river. In particular, loss of nearshore habitats due to shoreline protection projects and related impacts River Canard dike. (Courtesy of the Great Lakes has reduced the amount of spawning and Institute for Environmental Research.) nursery areas in the river. Recent studies have shown that alewives, rainbow since the 1800s due largely to human smelt, gizzard shad, yellow perch, log impacts. perch, emerald shiner and minnows are In order to address these the most abundant species. The most concerns, a significant number of important recreational species include projects have been completed by walleye, yellow perch and white bass. government, industry, and non- (Goodyear, et.al., 1982; Hatcher and government groups to protect and restore Nester, 1983; Muth, et.al., 1986; Edsall habitats since the mid-1990s. These and Kraus, 1988; and Manny, et.al., projects are summarised in Appendix 1988) One and include land acquisition, tree- From a wildlife perspective, 27 planting, shoreline stabilisation, and species of waterfowl frequent the Detroit protection of significant habitats through River wetlands, and more that 17 species planning policies. The benefits of many of raptors including eagles, hawks and of these projects are already apparent. falcons, inhabit and migrate through the For example, increases in bald eagle area. More than 48 other bird species populations have been noted. are resident or migrate annually along (Deschamps, 1998) However, forested the river in globally significant flyways, areas continue to be lost to development, such as the Mississippi Flyway, between and there is much more work to be done Canada, the United States and South to restore degraded habitat. In order to America. (Manny, et.al., 1988; and improve the Detroit River watershed to a Cadman, et.al., 1987) The location and condition that would permit the abundance of these bird and wildlife ecosystem to function at a healthy level, populations is being tracked by a number habitat targets have been developed. of government agencies and other (Table 16) organisations. (Ojibway Nature Centre, 1998a, 1998b; and Mullie, et.al., 1996) As with fish populations, the diversity and abundance of wildlife along the river corridor have also declined dramatically
5-5 Figure 17. Habitats Features of Detroit River Canadian sub-Watersheds
Table 16. Detroit River AOC Habitat Guidelines vs. Existing Habitat Conditions Parameter Target Condition* Existing Condition Percent natural cover (all habitats) 12** 6.01 Size (ha) of largest forest patch 200 62.41 Percent forest cover >0.5 ha 30 4.49 Percent forest cover >100m from edge >10 0.34 Percent forest cover >200m from edge >5 0.04 Percent riparian vegetation along 1st to 3rd >75 7.87 order streams (>3m wide) Percent wetlands in subwatershed >6 1.55 * from Environment Canada et al., 1998 unless otherwise noted ** from ERCA, 1999.
5-6 These data show that a lot of work needs habitats that we can ensure the to be done to restore the environmental sustainability of the Detroit River health of the river and its watersheds. It is watershed’s fish and wildlife communities. only through protection and enhancement of existing habitats and restoration of lost
What we know: What we need:
• The location, extent and characteristics • Detroit River Canadian Cleanup of existing habitats are known; partners should develop an • That protection of existing habitats and implementation schedule for the restoration of degraded habitats is Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for needed. the Detroit River Watershed, and encourage the development of a similar strategy on the U.S. side of the river; • Habitat targets should be developed to guide habitat restoration activities. These guidelines should be ‘living’ and be adjusted based on new understandings, technologies, or progress; • An annual or semi-annual agency and stakeholder workshop should be held to summarize ongoing activities and identify opportunities for integration of efforts because of the range of habitat restoration activities; • Public involvement efforts in the Detroit River Cleanup should continue to be expanded to include habitat restoration and cleanup events; • The senior levels of government should continue to support habitat restoration and enhancement projects in the AOC and work closely with property owners; • The senior and municipal governments, and community members, should continue to develop adequate regulatory and voluntary measures for protecting habitats
5-7 6. Progress
Progress to restore and protect the environmental values of the Detroit River watershed has been ongoing since well before the formation of the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Committee. In fact, the 1996 Remedial Action Plan report and the International Joint Commission (1997) response to that report summarised a number of activities and initiatives that were contributing to the restoration of the river at that time. Furthermore, these reports presented a series of recommendations to further restore and protect the river. (See text box below.) Readers may note that most of the previous RAP and IJC recommendations have been acted on in some capacity, although there are still many which have yet to be implemented. Since the 1996 RAP report was prepared a number of initiatives, projects, and programs have been Snowy egret. (Photo courtesy Todd Leadley.) undertaken by a number of organizations and individuals that reside in the detail on specific projects described in Canadian side of the Detroit River this section can be found in Appendix watershed. One: Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit River AOC.) Summary of Recent Progress in the Sediment quality modelling Detroit River AOC projects led by the Great Lakes Institute This study found that the chemical for Environmental Research (GLIER) quality of the Detroit River has generally and the Ontario Ministry of the remained stable from the early 1990s. Environment (MOE) address fish and There has, however, been progress wildlife consumption restrictions. The addressing the issue of chemical loading projects identify contaminated sites, as well as the river’s other impaired determine historic and current sources of uses. In particular, seven impaired uses contamination, and how the physical have been the focus of restoration efforts features of the river impact sediments. since 1996. The impaired uses are fish This will enable contaminated sites to be and wildlife consumption restrictions, cleaned up and affected fish and wildlife degraded benthos, restricted dredging populations will helped. These projects activities, eutrophication, beach closings, will also address the dredging loss of fish and wildlife habitat and restrictions currently in place on the failure to meet water quality standards related to sewage polluted water. (More
6-1 river due to the danger of resuspending overflows (CSOs). CSOs occur after contaminants. storm events when too much rain water Projects directed toward overwhelms sewage treatment plants and improving and restoring degraded untreated sewage has to be released into benthos include monitoring efforts, such the river. The city of Windsor is as a city of Windsor biomonitoring working on a series of projects which programme designed to provide ‘real will reduce CSOs. Other initiatives to time’ water quality data. There are also reduce beach closings include the benthic monitoring programmes being construction of sanitary sewers in the implemented by both the city of Windsor Turkey Creek and Little River and GLIER as well as a benthic watersheds and the former Malden macroinvertebrate survey directed by the Township by Windsor, LaSalle and Ontario Ministry of the Environment Amherstburg. (MOE). These studies are designed to Loss of historic habitat is a provide more information on the state of significant concern on the Detroit River. Detroit River benthic communities. The Many local groups and stakeholders city of Windsor’s stormwater have been active in protecting remaining management programme will also have a habitat, such as tree cover and wetlands, positive impact on benthic communities. and restoring lost habitat. For example, The Essex Region Conservation Windsor, LaSalle and Amerherstburg, Authority (ERCA) has contracted with have recently adopted new official plans GLIER to undertake limited benthic that contain strengthened habitat assessments in the Canard and Little protection provisions. The city of River channels. Windsor and ERCA have completed Eutrophication is excessive improvements to Turkey Creek, while nutrient inputs which cause the growth ERCA has undertaken dyke stabilization of nuisance algae blooms. This has been and habitat enhancement work at Canard a significant problem in the Great Lakes Marsh. ERCA has also completed a basin since the mid-1960s. MOE and Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for GLIER modelling projects will help the Detroit River watershed in order to determine where excessive nutrient focus future restoration efforts. The loading is occurring. Municipal Little River Enhancement Group has led governments along the river, including habitat enhancement efforts in the Little Windsor, LaSalle and Amherstburg, are River watershed including garbage working to manage stormwater, reduce cleanup and reforestation efforts as well combined sewer overflows and reduce as participation in land use planning. infiltration of sanitary sewers. These initiatives will reduce the amount of untreated sewage released into the river and therefore the amount of phosphorus which is a nutrient of concern in eutrophication. Untreated sewage also affects public health by spreading disease. Beach closings are addressed through efforts to reduce combined sewer
6-2 In 1996 the Remedial Action Plan team made the following priority recommendations. The brackets after each recommendation indicates progress since the 1996 report.
• Meet water quality standards and use criteria for toxicity due to CSOs. (underway) • Complete implementation of short term CSO controls by 2000. (underway) • Development of long term plans by 1997 and implementation of controls by 2035. (some long term planning completed) • Identify CSOs with greatest impact and implement remedial programs. (underway) • Provide adequate disinfection of CSOs. (not yet implemented) • Remove settleable solids and control all floatable sanitary waste.(not yet implemented) • Implement pollution prevention programs, particularly contaminants of concern to municipal sewers. (underway) • Institute rigorous industrial pretreatment and source elimination programs. (underway) • Develop an education program for homeowners and commercial properties for waste reduction.(underway) • Voluntary public and industrial pollution prevention initiatives to prevent spills to the collection system. (underway) • Assure proper implementation of the Industrial Pretreatment Program (U.S.) and Municipal Sewer Use Bylaws (Ontario). (implemented) • Region-wide recycling and disposal programs for household hazardous waste. (implemented) • Implement a source control program for mercury and PCBs. (ongoing) • Develop a program to identify and remove illegal connections to the stormwater system. (ongoing) • Establish a Monitoring/Modelling group for the overall RAP. (group has been formed) • Evaluate non-point and non-traditional point sources to quantify and qualify source loadings of mercury and PCBs. () • River monitoring to determine local impacts and total loading to the river. (underway) • Monitoring to confirm stormwater loadings. (underway) • Develop a Habitat Inventory for the AOC. (completed) • Develop a G.I.S. for the AOC. (habitat GIS completed) • A hydraulic study of the Detroit River. (currently being finalised) • Public education program, involving a network of angler, environmental and conservation groups and schools. (underway) • Education program to train (professionals) in permitting requirements, violations, and enhancement/protection. (underway) • Begin remedial actions on the list of proposed habitat candidate sites. (plans will be finalised soon) • Remedial action on a list of “hot spots” based on mercury levels. (underway) • Develop a Habitat Management Plan for the AOC. (completed) • More efficient use of staff through co-ordination. (ongoing) • Improve communication between local government and developers with MDEQ and OMNR. (underway) • Local agencies review of plans and ordinances/bylaws to incorporate environmental aspects. (underway) • Implement the ERCA Private Sewage Disposal Proposal. (proposal implemented) • Implement ERCA Agricultural Soil Erosion Control Proposal. (proposal implemented)
6-3 In 1997 the IJC challenged the Detroit River RAP participants with the following recommendations. The brackets after each recommendation indicates whether progress has been made.
• The State of Michigan should meet support should be prioritised to its leadership commitments or reflect the importance of this initiate discussions with the Parties binational AOC (the Government of to ensure adequate leadership is Canada is currently providing provided. It should be noted that the significant funding for projects in the Michigan Department of AOC). Environmental Quality and U.S. • A co-operative modelling effort Environmental Protection Agency between Ontario Ministry of the are collaborating on contaminated Environment and Energy’s Science sediment work for the Trenton and Technology Branch and U.S. Channel. This is an excellent start Environmental Protection Agency’s toward a necessary type of Large Lakes Research Station should leadership (Michigan and U.S.EPA be established to evaluate and are currently discussing U.S. RAP prioritise remedial and preventative structure and roles). options (Detroit River Management • Efforts should be made to secure Model - Canada). elected official involvement in all • Remedial options to address future activities of the Detroit River contaminated sediments on the RAP. This should include regular Michigan side of the river must be briefings of elected officials, review developed and implemented. The of future iterations of the Detroit limited available funds should be River RAP and binational dialogue invested in remedial actions that will between Canadian and U.S. elected provide optimal environmental net officials. These elected officials benefit (Michigan and U.S.EPA are should be sought out as champions currently discussing U.S. RAP of the Detroit River RAP. Good structure and roles). examples of RAPs that have • Additional research necessary for benefited from elected official restoration should be supported by a involvement include the Rouge stable, competitive funding process River, Hamilton Harbour, Ashtabula (e.g., in Green Bay, Wisconsin this River and Severn Sound RAPs has not only furthered restoration, (elected officials are members of the but has saved money). The Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Government of Canada currently Committee). funds projects in the AOC and is • Federal, state and provincial evaluating its programs for post- governments should demonstrate 2001 when the current program commitment to the Detroit River expires. AOC and the Great Lakes Water • Action should be taken to fully Quality Agreement by providing involve major industrial and business sufficient financial and human interests in the restoration effort resources. Current levels of support (industry and business are members should be examined and financial
6-4 of the Detroit River Canadian • More resources should be devoted to Cleanup Committee). public outreach efforts, particularly • Community stakeholders from within the more impacted sub- Detroit and Windsor should consider populations consuming sport caught the option of establishing a Detroit fish from the Detroit River. Further, River community organisation to: greater media coverage of the Detroit champion co-operative, bi-national River AOC must be achieved cleanup of the Detroit River and (particularly in Detroit) to sediments; bring private and public complement outreach efforts (a partners together for revitalising the communications strategy will be Detroit River and be a catalyst for developed to publicise the findings projects to move them forward of ongoing Cleanup studies and further and faster. Extensive projects). outreach efforts should be conducted The current Binational Public Advisory within the business and industrial Council should be restructured and the sectors of the communities. These successor or comparable organisation efforts should include a compilation allowed greater citizen input. Citizens and dissemination of information on should be partners in the development economic and environmental and implementation of initiatives for benefits of initiatives such as remediation (a Public Involvement and remediating contaminated sediment. Communications Subcommittee has A community oriented, Public- been established and membership is Private Partnership has been open to all individuals and successful in Ashtabula, Ohio. (a organizations; the Subcommittee will be Public Involvement and promoting Cleanup projects once the Communications Subcommittee has project plans are finalised). been established and membership is open to all individuals and organizations). • Governments must view monitoring as part of their core environmental program in order to evaluate program effectiveness and make mid-course corrections. Further, efforts should be made to ensure a close coupling of management and monitoring/research to achieve maximum environmental remediation. Current efforts to monitor and assess the Trenton Channel should be expanded to the entire Detroit River ecosystem (a large Detroit River Management and Modelling Framework project has been initiated in the AOC).
6-5 7. Conclusion
adversely impacting the Detroit River his report found no direct evidence T ecosystem. that point source, non-point source, or These conclusions do not rule out CSO loadings from the Canadian side of the possibility of short-term, localised the Detroit River are major contributors impacts due to spills. In addition, to poor water and sediment quality, toxic information on loadings includes only effects on aquatic organisms, or fish those contaminants listed in MISA and consumption advisories. presented in this report. On the Canadian side, Atmospheric loadings contribute contaminant loadings into the Detroit to Air Quality Advisory Days and River are having a relatively small, more related health advisories. (Table 9) The localised effect on the Detroit River airborne contaminants of ecosystem – concern include DDT, compared with areas The Canadian side of B(a)P, lead, cadmium and on the U.S. side. For the river (Windsor and PCBs. These example, this report Essex County) is a contaminants may found evidence that originate from a variety of loadings from the major source of atmospheric loadings sources in the U.S. and Ford Windsor Canada, however, this Casting and Engine which contribute to Air report does suggest that Plants and Windsor Quality Advisory Days. there are major sources of Riverfront sewers atmospheric loadings on are contributing to moderate sediment the Canadian side of the river. These contamination in the Windsor area. include ammonia from General (Tables 3 and 4) This may affect benthic Chemical and methyl ethyl ketone from communities, limiting the food source the Chrysler Windsor Assembly Plant. for fish, but it is not a major cause of (Table 12) consumption restrictions on fish. This report concludes that Likewise, there is no evidence to sediments are a major source of suggest that contaminant inputs contamination to Detroit River water and originating from General Chemical are contaminant levels in sediments seem to having long-term adverse effects on be determining contaminant levels in water quality, sediment quality, or fish biota throughout the Detroit River and birds. (Table 5) Considering a ecosystem. In order to improve the variety of sources along the Canadian quality of Detroit River water and biota, side, PCB and phosphorus inputs are emphasis should be placed on the small, relative to those from the U.S. possibilities and benefits of sediment side of the river and possible upstream remediation. sources. Since loadings from the However, it is important to note Canadian side are relatively small, areas that the mercury database on the of moderately or highly contaminated Canadian side of the river is incomplete. sediment on the Canadian side reflect Further research is needed to determine historic inputs. Thus, remediation of if General Chemical and Windsor contaminated sediments would greatly Riverfront mercury loadings are
7-1 benefit water quality on dwelling organisms and the Canadian side of the contaminants in bottom- river and contribute Canadian and U.S. dwelling fish. Without toward reducing agencies should work this information, it is consumption advisories together to remediate difficult to tell if contact on certain species of fish. contaminated with contaminated However, once sediments. sediments or food web remediation has been interactions is adversely performed, contaminant loadings from affecting fish. More research is also the Canadian side must remain low. needed to quantify the linkages between Studies on the U.S. side have also contaminants in fish and contaminants in concluded that sediments are the major birds. This report recommends that an source of contaminants in water. A study international monitoring and assessment of current loadings to the U.S. side must plan be implemented in the Detroit River be carried out to determine if they will that will address nutrients, contaminants impact sediments on either side of the and habitat issues. river. While it can only be assumed Sediment remediation on both that contaminated water and sediments sides of the river is needed to eliminate are a hazard to fish and birds via food fish consumption advisories. Mercury web interactions, evidence suggests that and PCBs are the cause of Detroit River contamination is adversely affecting fish consumption advisories and the some habitats. Table 17 outlines where major source of these contaminants is contaminants are adversely affecting sediments from the Trenton Channel on habitat quality. Only those areas for the U.S. side, in combination with which data exist are represented. mercury sources in the Lake St. Clair/St. Clair River area. Canadian and U.S. agencies should work together to cleanup these sediments because fish movements are not restricted by boundaries. Fish that become contaminated on the U.S. side can be caught by fisherman on the Canadian side. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) should also emphasise monitoring PAHs in Detroit River fish, since this is a contaminant of concern in water, sediments and has been observed recent loadings. While evidence stresses the potential hazard of contaminated sediments, there have not been enough food web studies to link contaminated sediments with contaminants in bottom-
7-2 Table 17. Habitats Impacted by Contaminants in the Detroit River AOC. Habitat Impact Peche Island Moderate DDT/DDE levels in sediments and some bottom-dwelling fish. Medium to high PCB levels in bottom-dwelling fish. Fighting Island Medium PAH levels in water. Humbug Marsh High PAH levels in sediments. Celeron Island Medium PCB, DDT/DDE, and PAH levels in water and sediments. Medium toxicity in aquarium fish. Grassy Island Medium PCB and high PAH levels in water. High PCB and oil & grease levels in sediments. Medium PAH levels in some bottom- dwelling fish.
Note: Most of the habitats in Table 17 are impacted by contaminated sediments. This strengthens the conclusion that contaminated sediments are a major hazard to the environmental quality of the Detroit River.
7-3 8. Recommendations
4. Comprehensive binational his report summarises the T monitoring programs must be environmental health of the Detroit undertaken in the AOC. Binational River based on the most recent available monitoring must include data and research findings. It also contaminant loadings, water quality, summarises the progress that has been sediment quality, contaminants in made in the AOC since the 1996 fish and birds, and habitat quality. Remedial Action Plan report was Canadian and U.S. governments completed. Generally, the study must agree on standardised confirms that several pollution ‘hot monitoring techniques. An spots’ exist in the river, and that it is still implementation schedule should be subject to significant contaminant developed. loadings. The overall quality of the river itself is questionable, due to a failure to 5. The fish and wildlife habitat of the monitor/assess the river as an entire AOC must be protected and restored. ecosystem and it is hard to confirm Canadian and U.S. governments either a decline or improvement in the must protect remaining habitats and river’s environmental condition since the restore lost or degraded habitats. 1980s. Based on the findings of this This should be accomplished using update report, the Detroit River the Biodiversity Conservation Canadian Cleanup Committee Strategy and through development of recommends: Fish Habitat Management Plans for the tributary watersheds. 1. All levels of government in Canada Furthermore, a biodiversity must show strong leadership in conservation strategy should be ensuring the cleanup of the Detroit developed for the U.S. portion of the River, including adequate funding of watershed. Industry, developers and cleanup efforts and activities. municipalities must recognise responsibility for diminished habitat 2. Industry must recognise quality and assist in the protection/ responsibility for sources of restoration process. pollution - past and present - and assist in the cleanup process. 6. The Area of Concern should be extended downstream to include the 3. Objectives must be developed to mouth of the Detroit River and its assist Canadian efforts in delisting submerged delta. all beneficial use impairments in the AOC. Eventually, these objectives 7. Lake St. Clair should be designated should become binational. A detailed an Area of Concern – as proposed by implementation schedule for the various environmental groups. delisting process should be developed. Also, responsibilities 8. Community involvement and public should be assigned, to guide progress outreach efforts must be increased, towards delisting. as part of cleanup efforts. This should include educational programs
8-1 for both the general public and 9. A “clearing-house” for information students of all ages. on the Detroit River AOC must be created to provide up-to-date information for the general public and researchers.
Enjoying River Canard. Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Institute
8-2 Completed 1998 – ongoing 1999 1998 Little R. complete Ck. Turkey 99 percent complete 1998 Benefit Date Improves long term stability shoreline of and of section a 500m over habitat fish enhances shoreline Recommends measures to reduce CSO and total CSO to reduce Recommends measures loadingspollutant river. to the quality water improves previously areas in constructed been have Sewers serviced by combined sewers or septic systems, quality improve water which will Reduces CSOs to river river to CSOs Reduces river to CSOs Reduces Reduces CSOs to river of section 3.5km along habitat aquatic Improves channel ongoing Recommends activities improvedfor quality water values environmental other and Ongoing Ongoing A. Appendix One A. brackets) & Issue Addressed (14) stabilisation Shoreline fish and habitat enhancement (10,15) Determined quality/quantity(10,15) Determined to discharged being of wastewater impact the estimated and river management Stormwater (6,14) and erosion and of flooding effects the from impacts Reduces quality Water (10,15) septic systems and combined sewers overflows sewer Combined (10,15) to river system, combined as Acts (10,15) flowing to and surcharging the Interceptor Sewer Riverfront to contributes Indirectly (10,15) CSOs to sewer flows in Decrease (10,15) system sediments polluted Removed (6,14) to channel wetland reconnected and scale Subwatershed (6,14,15) planning and management Activity/Action Beneficial Use Impairment (in ShorelineDetroit Habitat River Enhancement Plans Windsor Riverfront Pollution Control Planning Study Central Avenue and East Riverside Stormwater Detention Regional Facilities inSewer installation Turkey Creek River watersheds Littler and Combined Sewer Separation Program Reconstruction of ‘Over-Under’ Sewer System Inflow/InfiltrationReduce to Sanitary Sewer System Disconnection Downspout Program/Catchbasin Restrictor Program Channel Creek Turkey Improvements Turkey Plans for Subwatershed and River Little Creek
A-1 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit River AOC. Organisation/ Facility City of Windsor Completed 1998 1998 Ongoing Complete Benefit tributaries subwatershed in quality water Improved Date Ongoing Recommends activities improvedfor quality water values environmental other and Improved flood control and improved fish and fish improved and control flood Improved wildlife habitat treatment secondary biological effective Cost river to CSOs Reduces 1996 Provide to information decisions enable as to how of areas to highlight and toxicity deal to best with concern highest previously areas in constructed been have Sewers Ongoing septic by serviced systems improvewill which qualitywater Protection areas other and of natural wetlands of section 3.5km along habitat aquatic Improves channel river to CSOs Reduces Ongoing brackets) & Issue Addressed sampling(15) Monitoring, and of sourcesanalysis into municipal and River Little Creek, Turkey subwatershed for Detroit River management scale Subwatershed 15) (6, 14, planning and management (6,14) Flood control and fish and fish and control Flood (6,14) wildlife habitat areas natural of Protection (14) (15)Best studied alternatives the for WWPCP the to biological of upgrade areas natural Protection of treatment of capacity Increase (10,15) be can that sewage combined PCP Windsor West the to pumped locationsdata the at strategic in AOC ongoing from impacts quality Water (10,15) septic systems other and wetlands of Protection (14) areas natural sediments polluted Removed (6,14) to channel wetland reconnected and to contributes (10, 15) Indirectly CSOs Activity/Action Beneficial Use Impairment (in Discharge Source Municipal Program Monitoring Turkey Plans for Subwatershed and River Little Creek Twin Oaks Business Park Improvements Protection Natural of Areas through Municipal Plans Innovative Study - West Windsor Pollution Control Plant Upgrade/Expansion of Caron Upgrade/expansion Avenue pumping station ProgramBiomonitoring quality water time’ ‘real Provide (6) Sanitary sewer installation in Creek watershed Turkey other and Wetlands of Protection Municipal through Areas Natural Plans Channel Creek Turkey Improvements Inflow/InfiltrationReduce to Sanitary Sewer System
A-2 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit in (continued) Detroit River the Progress of Recent AOC Summary Organisation/ Facility City of Windsor (continued) of LaSalleTown Completed 1997 Ongoing 1996-present 1997 1998 1998 BenefitProtection areas other and of natural wetlands Date Reduction of discharge of toxic effluent streams persistent and (ammonia chemicals) Sewers are being contracted in areas previously areas contracted in are being Sewers septic by serviced systems improve will which qualitywater during run-off sediment and nutrient in Reduction storm events Reduction of frequency and severity of ammonia discharges allowing discharges, of ammonia warning Early operationsplant action to take Reduction frequency of oil of spills and chemical releases content organic particularly effluent, in Reduction 1997 brackets) & Issue Addressed other and wetlands of Protection (14) areas natural Oil spills 14) 11, (6, 7, to accidental spills time response Improved (15) Ongoing discharge of toxic streamseffluent Detroit to River the 1999 (10,15) Water quality impacts from impacts quality Water (10,15) septic systems and Sedimentation 11) (7, 8, run-off stormwater (15) Spills liquids ammonia of to the Detroit River (15) Discharges of ammonia going undetected (6, 14) Oil spills 7, chemical and releases Over-enrichment/ 8) (7, 11, excessive from eutrophication nutrients in effluent water recirculation system recirculation water oil tanker unloading area containment upgrade ultrafiltration system oily for treatment waste all for containment secondary treatment waste oily for tanks conversion from to drywet collectors dust installation of ozonation for wastewater process treatment
Activity/Action other and Wetlands of Protection Municipal through Areas Natural Plans Beneficial Use Impairment (in at oil alarm system of Installation tank farm at Essex Engine Plant effluent toxicity high of Diversion streams to settling basins Sanitary sewer installation in Township Malden former Upgrades to Windsor Engine Plant • • • • Upgrades to Windsor Casting Plant • • at pond stormwater of Installation Plant Aluminum Windsor secondary of Installation containment spill and collection systems ammonia of Installation detection drains plant on equipment
A-3 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit in Detroit River the (continued) Progress of Recent AOC. Summary Organisation/ Facility of Town Amherstburg Ford Motor Company of Ltd. Canada Chemical General Ltd. Canada Completed 1998 – ongoing 1999-ongoing ongoing 1998-ongoing 1989-ongoing Benefit site at habitat aquatic Enhanced decisions management making for Information cleanupregarding activities, delisting criteria, etc. 1998 Date Raises of level public interest and knowledge; involvement encourages Information for making management decisions management making for Information – 1990 Improves long term stability shoreline of and shorelinealong habitat fish enhances and areas of natural aesthetic value Improves provides in habitat Little River more watershed brackets) & Issue Addressed (14) fish for Habitat enhancement organisms aquatic and (all) Willhealth current summarise on information provides and river of of fate and transport source, the contaminants (all) Raises level public of interest knowledge. and water and sediment toxicity sediment and water above.(all) See description 10,11) (6, 8, See above.(14) (14) stabilisation Shoreline fish and habitat enhancement (11,14) Removal of garbage and through reforestation Little River watershed See above. Activity/Action toDeclined provide information Site clean-up & habitat project enhancement Beneficial Use Impairment (in Detroit River Management and Framework Modelling Project Outreach -- Integrated other and sheet system, fact display lead) (PICS sub-committee Benthic MonitoringBenthic Program (6)Provides information valuable on Detroit River Management and (GLIER Framework Modelling lead) Evaluation of New Membrane Wastewater for Technology lead) (Windsor Treatment DetroitSt. Clair and Rivers (ERCA Analysis Encroachment Conservation Region St. Clair and lead)Authority ShorelineDetroit Habitat River lead) (ERCA Plans Enhancement Riparian Habitat Restoration on Urban Waterways (Little REG lead)
A-4 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit in Detroit River the (continued) Progress of Recent AOC. Summary Organisation/ Facility Canadian Salt Company ConstructionDean Company Ltd. GLIER, of University Windsor Environment Canada Completed 1999-2000 1994-ongoing 1998 1999 Planned for 2000 1989-ongoing 1989-ongoing Benefitdecisions management making for Information Date and MOE water of support in information Provides sediment data monitoring interpretation for and development model dyke 350 of along enhancement Habitat 1995 Enhancing habitat quality on private land in the Little River watershed Data for updating water quality updating quality andData for water contaminant Erie; provides to and the river Lake loadings remedial of effectiveness to assess the information and additionalmeasures contaminant identify issues; provides data calibration MOE for of Contaminants model. contaminant determining databases; Updating tributaries;loadings from provides information for remedial measures of the effectiveness assessing additional issues identify and Provides a tool help effectiveness assess to the of long improve to scenarios management various conditionsterm the of Detroit River of value aesthetic restore awareness; public Raise improve river; the habitat wildlife habitat wildlife improve awareness; public Raise 1990-ongoing and Day Arbor Week activities brackets) & Issue Addressed Provides(6) information on valuable toxicity sediment and water and fish sediment Water, 15) 8, (1, 7, tissue contaminant levels of protection and (14) Restoration dyke finger sheltering quality (1, 8, 15) Measures contaminant Measures 15) (1, 8, inputs water Addresses 15) 8, 10, 7, (1, 6, as as well quality sediment and inputs contaminant and fish sediment Water, 15) 8, (1, 7, tissues contaminant levels the from garbage 14) Removing (11, and watershed river of woodland lack (14) Addresses habitat in Little River watershed Activity/Action Survey Macroinvertebrate Benthic St. the of Selected Tributaries of Clair River, Detroit River and Harbour Wheatley Beneficial Use Impairment (in velocitiesMeasurement current of “Acoustic vessel-mounted via Profiler” Current Doppler Improvements Marsh Canard (Phases 1) Windsor KOA Campground (14) River watershed Little habitat Water Quality at the Head and Water Quality of Detroit RiverMouth the of Quality Sediment and Water St. River, Selected St. Clair Lake DetroitClair and River tributaries ofApplication KETOX-GIS Model 5.2) to (v to Detroit River integrate MOE datamonitoring term long of assessment and impacts Cleanup Crusades the of Little Watershed River Reforestation the of Little River Watershed Information/ParticipationPublic Quality Environmental (all) Earth through issues the of awareness public Raise
A-5 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit in Detroit River the (continued) Progress of Recent AOC. Summary Organisation/ Facility MinistryOntario Environment of MinistryOntario Environment of (continued) MinistryOntario Natural of Resources Little River Enhancement Group 1998 Completed 1993-ongoing Ongoing Since 1996 Since 1995 (Phase 1) 1998 (Phase 2) 1998 1998 Local review and conditions for projects affecting for and conditions review Local habitat fish Benefit are protected; create areas natural existing Ensure linkages;natural ensure habitat is rehabilitated possible where public educated Date of section 3.5km along habitat aquatic Improves channel 37ha of trees planted, 12km of buffer strips planted, strips buffer of 12km planted, trees of 37ha septic5 systems faulty upgraded, soil erosion protection structures at 24 built sites, 1.3 of ha land retiredfragile to 18 and vegetation, native no- till demonstration sites established resulting in over cultivation no-till of 2000ha Dyke stabilisation 350m over 370m and protects Class 1 and provideswetland habitat using bioengineering techniques (4 quality ha improves facility) water Recommends activities improvedfor drainage and environmental values fish fish habitat devolved to ERCA brackets) & Issue Addressed to planning use land Proper (14) and woodland riparian, integrate wetland habitat and sediments polluted Removed (6,14) to channel wetland reconnected (6,14) Soil erosion and water quality(6,14) Soil and erosion water tree planting, construction of through soil erosion control structures, septic system upgrades, and demonstration of no-till farming. of protection and (14) Restoration 1) and (Phase dyke finger sheltering Stabilisation cell dyke and of finger 2) (Phase management Stormwater (6,14) planning scale Subwatershed (6,14,15) and management and erosion and of flooding effects the Reduces Agreement (14) to of alteration permit Authority Activity/ActionCity of Windsor/Essex County Planning Use Land Public Information/Advocacy Beneficial Use Impairment (in Quality (all) Water/Air Raise public awareness issues; the of develop an Channel Creek Turkey Improvements Rural Non-PointRural Source Pollution Program Remediation Improvements Marsh Canard (Phases 1&2) Fisheries Act Central Avenue Regional Stormwater Detention Turkey Plans for Subwatershed and River Little Creek
A-6 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit in Detroit River the (continued) Progress of Recent AOC. Summary Organisation/ Facility Little River Enhancement Group (continued) Project Green Citizen’s Environment Alliance Essex Region Conservation Authority Completed 1998 – ongoing 1998 1999 1998 – ongoing Benefitstreambank Date Improved flood control and improved fish and fish improved and control flood Improved wildlife section a 1.1km over habitat channel of Provides and direction to wildlife fish habitat projects enhancement and restoration Improves long term stability shoreline of and of section a 500m over habitat fish enhances shoreline brackets) & Issue Addressed habitat and wildlife (14) Fish of __km of a total along enhancement Habitat (6,14) Flood control and fish and fish and control Flood (6,14) wildlife habitat document habitat restoration for in AOC the (14) stabilisation Shoreline fish and habitat enhancement Activity/Action Beneficial Use Impairment (in Riparian Habitat Plantings in Little Creek and Turkey River Watersheds Twin Oaks Business Park Improvements Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (14) Comprehensive planning ShorelineDetroit Habitat River Enhancement Plans
A-7 Summary of Recent Progress in the Detroit in Detroit River the (continued) Progress of Recent AOC. Summary Organisation/ Facility Essex Region Conservation Authority (continued) B. Glossary
Absorption: The process of absorbing or “taking up” a contaminant. For example, lakes absorb PCBs from the air – rather like a sponge absorbs water.
Background (Loading): The underlying biological, chemical and/or physical conditions before the addition of pollutants within a specified Area of Concern (AOC).
Benthos: Bottom-dwelling invertebrate communities. For example mayfly (“fish fly”) larvae (Ephemeroptera), midge fly larvae (Chironomids), aquatic worms (Oligochaetes), mussels, and crayfish. Some of these communities are preferred for assessing the ultimate outcome of toxic sediments (i.e. at the population level) because most of their lifecycle is spent in one area, their behaviour is predictable, and they are easy to quantify – unlike many bottom-dwelling fish.
Bioavailability: The degree to which a contaminant may be assimilated by an aquatic organism from the environment. Increased bioavailability means an organism has an increased risk of becoming contaminated by exposure to contaminated food, water, and/or sediments - or a combination of these factors.
Biota: Aquatic organisms which, in the Chemical Water Quality Section, are exposed to contaminants mainly through the water. Some spend their lives in one area (i.e. clams, mussels), thus they are good indicators of water quality in that area. Others do not necessarily spend their lives in one area (i.e. plankton) and are good indicators of water quality throughout the Detroit River system. Biota in the Sediment Quality Section includes benthos and bottom-dwelling fish such as brown bullheads. They have direct or indirect contact with the sediments and tend to spend their lives in one area, thus they are good indicators of sediment quality in that area.
Contaminant: A chemical or element that pollutes the air and/or water and/or sediments. It may eventually end up in the food web. At elevated levels it causes impairments such as smog advisories, restrictions on swimming, restrictions on dredging, and consumption restrictions on fish. Includes man-made pollutants released into the air and water, such as PCBs, DDT, and some PAHs. Also includes naturally occurring chemical elements, such as mercury and phosphorus, which, if they exceed background levels in the water and sediment, can have a negative impact on water, sediment, and food web quality.
DDT: An organochlorine pesticide. Use of DDT was banned in 1972. In the environment, it can exist in various forms (i.e. DDD & DDE). A measure of total DDT includes all of its forms (i.e. it adds together all the individual concentrations to get a total concentration). DDT, and its various forms, are highly persistent and can remain in the sediment, and in the flesh of aquatic organisms, for a long time. Thus aquatic and terrestrial organisms easily accumulate DDT when they eat other contaminated organisms.
B-1 Delisting Criteria: Established by the IJC. Criteria used to judge if a beneficial use impairment may be lifted, such as restrictions on fish consumption. The ultimate goal is to meet the criteria and remove all beneficial use impairments, thus removing the Detroit River as an AOC.
Dry Deposition (Loading): The amount of a substance delivered to ground level by the settling of airborne particles.
Ecosystem Approach: An approach that considers a variety of environmental compartments (i.e. air, water, sediments, habitat), the communities that live in them (i.e. benthos, fish, birds), and their linkages to each other (i.e. sediment quality effects water quality, food web interactions). The Environmental Quality Section of this report uses an “ecosystem approach” (see flowchart on page 5).
Exotic Species: A species that has been introduced to an area by accident (i.e. zebra mussels) or on purpose (i.e. carp). The opposite of “native species”.
Habitat: The area where a plant or animal is commonly found and lives and grows naturally.
Macroinvertebrate: An invertebrate that is visible to the naked eye. For example, mayfly (“fish fly”) larvae (Ephemeroptera), midge fly larvae (Chironomids), aquatic worms (Oligochaetes), mussels, and crayfish.
Median: When numbers are organised from smallest (minimum) to largest (maximum), the middle value is the median. For example, of the numbers 3, 5, 10, 12, and 20, the median is 10.
Native Species: A species that occurs naturally in an area. The opposite of “exotic species”.
Net Gas (Gas Exchange): The amount of gaseous contaminant absorbed by or volatilised from a lake. Net gas exchange is determined by adding absorption and volatilisation. A negative value indicates volatilisation from the lake to the air.
Non-Point Source: A source of contaminants that does not have an obvious point at which it is entering the water. As a result, contamination may come from a wide area, making it unpredictable and difficult to define. Organic Contaminants: Contaminants that contain carbon. They include chemicals like PCBs, pesticides, and PAHs that contaminate water, sediments, and/or biota. It also includes oil and grease, which is normally only associated with sediment contamination.
PAHs: (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons). Also called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. A by-product of the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, and other organic substances. PAHs can be man-made or occur naturally. In the environment, PAHs exist in various forms (i.e. pyrene & fluorene). A measure of total PAHs includes
B-2 all of its forms (i.e. it adds together all the individual concentrations to get a total concentration). Some forms have been shown to cause cancer.
PCBs: (PolyChlorinated Biphenyls). Use of PCBs was banned in 1972. In the environment, PCBs can exist in various forms called congeners (i.e. PCB congener #126). Some congeners are more toxic than others. A measure of total PCBs includes all of its congeners (i.e. it adds together all the individual congener concentrations to get a total concentration). Highly persistent, PCBs can remain in the sediment, and in the flesh of aquatic organisms, for a long time. Thus aquatic and terrestrial organisms easily accumulate PCBs when they eat other organisms that are contaminated.
Persistent: Any substance with a half-life in water of at least eight weeks.
Point Source: A direct, identifiable source of pollutant discharge. For example, factories, refineries, sewage treatment plants. ppm or µg/g: Contaminant levels are often measured in µg/g (micro grams per gram), which is sometimes referred to as “parts per million (ppm)”. These units represent a very small amount. For example, their linear equivalent comparison is “1 mm per km”.
Spatial Trend: A trend that is dependent on the area of the river. For example, if we compare sites along the Canadian shoreline to sites along the American shoreline, we can see a spatial trend for sediment contamination.
Temporal Trend: A trend that is dependent on time. We can see a temporal trend by comparing results between years. For example, to see how sediment quality has changed over the years, we compare recent sediment contaminant levels to levels reported in 1996.
TOC: The percent total carbon content in sediments. High TOC means that contaminants can bind tightly to sediments, making them less bioavailable to aquatic organisms - and therefore less toxic. However, high TOC itself can be a threat to aquatic life.
Toxicity: A measurement of the toxic effect a contaminant has on an organism. For example, the percent of organisms exposed to a contaminant that have DNA damage, reduced growth and/or survival, or abnormal body parts would be a measurement of toxicity.
Toxicology: The study of the cause of contamination, the exposure route, and the final effect it has on an organism. For example, high levels of a certain chemical are found in sediment, direct contact with sediments is found to contaminate mayflies, and the end result is a noticeable toxic effect such as DNA damage, reduced growth and/or survival, or abnormal body parts.
Tributary: A smaller stream of water that flows into a larger stream of water. For example, Turkey Creek is a tributary of the Detroit River.
B-3 Virtual Elimination: The process of designating a substance for elimination through zero discharge, with the recognition that absolute elimination is mitigated by some factors such as the previous release of persistent substances, or the fact that some substances exist naturally within the environment.
Volatilisation: The process by which contaminants become vapour. For example, some PCBs in water are volatile, thus they vaporise easily and end up in the air.
Wet Deposition (Loading): The amount of a substance delivered to ground level through precipitation.
Watershed: The area drained by a river or river system. Normally, a ridge or high land separates watersheds from each other.
B-4 C. References
Ali FN, Lazar R, Haffner GD, Adeli K. 1993. Development of a rapid and simple genotoxicity assay using a brown bullhead fish cell-line: Application to toxicological surveys of sediments in the Huron-Erie Corridor. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:342-351.
Arcand-Hoy LD, Metcalfe CD. 1999. Biomarkers of exposure of brown bullheads (Ameiurus nebulosus) to contaminants in the lower Great Lakes, North America. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:740-749.
Beak Consultants Limited. 1993 a. Detroit River AOC Technical Options Study Report, Beak Reference. 2763.1.
Beak Consultants Limited. 1993 b. Environmental assessment of Detroit River sediments and benthic macroinvertebrate communities – 1991, Volume 1. Beak Consultants: Brampton, Ontario.
Besser JM, Giesy JP, Kubitz JA, Verbrugge DA, Coon TG, Braselton WE. 1996. Assessment of sediment quality in dredged and undredged areas of the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River, Michigan USA, using the sediment quality triad. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:683-696.
Biernacki M, Lovett-Doust J, Lovett-Doust L. 1997. Laboratory assay of sediment phytotoxicity using the macrophyte Vallisneria americana. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16:472-478.
Cadman, MD, Eagles PFJ, and Helleiner FM. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory. University of Waterloo Press.
Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, 1999. An Environmental Agenda for Ontario http://www.web.net/cielap/agpapers.htm.
Corkum LD, Ciborowski JJH, Lazar R. 1997. The distribution and contaminant burdens of adults of the burrowing mayfly, Hexagenia, in Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 23:383-390.
Coronado, D. 1998. Review of the National Pollutant Release Inventory (1996). Citizens Environment Alliance: Windsor, Ontario.
Cox C. 1999 Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, Ontario. Personal Communication.
C-1 Deschamps, V. 1998. Southwestern Ontario Bald Eagle Monitoring Project - 1998 Participants Report, for OMNR South Central Region, Aylmer District. Ontario Birds at Risk Program. Bird Studies Canada.
De Vault DS, Hesselberg R, Rodgers PW, Feist TJ. 1996. Contaminant trends in lake trout and walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 24:884-895.
Di Maio J, Pekarik C, Weseloh DV. 1999. Contaminant levels in herring gull eggs from Lake Erie and the Detroit and Niagara Rivers: change-point regression analysis, 1974 to 1996. Unpublished report.
Dolan D.1999 a. Mercury load estimation for Detroit River point sources. Binational Mercury Meeting, Detroit, Michigan.
Dolan D. 1999 b. International Joint Commission. Windsor, Ontario. Personal Communication.
Donaldson GM, Shutt JL, Hunter P.1999. Organochlorine contamination in bald eagle eggs and nestlings from the Canadian Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 36:70-80.
Drouillard KG, Ciborowski JJH, Lazar R, Haffner GD. 1996. Estimation of the uptake of organochlorines by the mayfly Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:26-35.
Edsall, TA and Kraus PB. 1988. Detroit River Biota and Their Habitats: A Geographic Area Report of the biota Work Group, Upper Great lakes Connecting Channels Study. Queen’s Printer: Ottawa, Ontario.
Environment Canada. 1995. Industrial Releases Within the Great Lakes Basin: An Evaluation of NPRI and TRI Data. Queen’s Printer: Ottawa, Ontario.
Environment Canada. 1998. National Pollutant Release Inventory, Summary Report 1996. Queen’s Printer: Ottawa, Ontario.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada. 1986. Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study. Queen’s Printer: Ottawa, Ontario.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada. 1988. Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study: Volume II. Final Report. Queen’s Printer: Ottawa, Ontario.
Essex Region Conservation Authority. 1999. Essex Region Biodiversity Conservation Strategy - Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guidelines (DRAFT). Dan Lebedyk, Project Coordinator. The Conservation Authority: Essex, Ontario.
C-2 Essex Region Conservation Authority and the City of Windsor. 1992. City of Windsor Candidate Natural Heritage Sites Biological Inventory. The Conservation Authority: Essex, Ontario.
Ewins PJ, Weseloh DV, Groom JH, Dobos RZ, Mineau P. 1994. The diet of herring gulls (Larus argentatus) during winter and early spring on the lower Great Lakes. Hydrobiologia. 279/280:39-55.
Ewins PJ, Weseloh DV, Mineau P. 1992. Geographical distribution of contaminants and productivity measures of herring gulls in the Great Lakes: Lake Huron 1980. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18:316-330.
Froese KL, Verbrugge DA, Snyder SA, Tilton F, Tuchman M, Ostaszewski A, Giesy JP. 1997 PCBs in the Detroit River water column. Journal of Great Lakes Research 23:440-449.
Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research. 1997 a. Biomonitoring in the Detroit River 1997, Preliminary Report to: Corporation of the City of Windsor: Pollution Control Branch. Unpublished report, Windsor, Ontario.
Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research. 1997 B. Biomonitoring in the Detroit River 1996, Report to: Corporation of the City of Windsor, Pollution Control Branch. Unpublished report, Windsor, Ontario.
Gewurtz S, Haffner GD. 1999 a. Distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the foodweb of Western Lake Erie. Lake Erie at the Millennium – Changes, Trends, and Trajectories, Binational Conference, April, 1999, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario.
Gewurtz S. 1999 b. University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario. Personal Communication.
Goodyear CD, Edsall TA, Dempsey DM, Moss GD and Polanski PE. 1982. Atlas of Spawning and Nursery Areas of Great Lakes Fishes, Volumes 1-14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research. 1995. Detroit River Sediment Survey. Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor: Windsor, Ontario.
Haffner GD, Leadley T. 1998. Detroit River Tunnel Study: Sediment Quality. Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor: Windsor, Ontario.
Hartig J. 1983. Phosphorus control measures pay off in the Great Lakes. Water Engineering & Management. December :32-35.
C-3 Hatcher CO and Nester RT. 1983. Status and Potential of the St. Clair - Detroit River Ecosystems as a Spawning and Nursery Habitat for Great Lakes Fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Hayton A. 1999 Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, Ontario. Personal Communication.
Hoermann TA and Dolan DM, (n.d.) Implementation of Air Deposition Recommendation for the Point Sources/Nonpoint Sources Technical Work Group of the Detroit River RAP Team. Unpublished report, Windsor, Ontario.
Hudson LA, Ciborowski JJH. Teratogenic and genotoxic responses of larval Chironomus salinarius group (Diptera: Chironomidae) to contaminated sediment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:1375-1381.
IADN Scientific Steering Committee. 1998. Technical Summary of Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996.
Ingersoll CG, Haverland PS, Brunson EL, Canfield TJ, Dwyer FJ, Henke CE, Kemble NE, Mount DR, Fox RG. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge Chironomus riparius. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:602-623.
International Joint Commission. 1998. International Air Quality Advisory Board: Special Report on Transboundary Air Quality Issues. http://www.ijc.org/boards/iaqab/spectrans/cover.html
International Joint Commission. 1997. Report on the Ongoing Remedial and Preventive Efforts by Responsible Governments and Organizations Relative to Restoring the Detroit River. http://www.ijc.org/boards/annex2/detroit.html.
Kauss P. 1999. Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, Ontario. Personal Communication.
Krieger KA, Schloesser DW, Manny BA, Trisler CE, Heady SE, Ciborowski JJH, Muth KM. 1996. Recovery of burrowing mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae: Hexagenia) in western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 22:254-263.
Kreis R. 1999.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Grosse Ile, Michigan. Personal Communication.
Leadley, TA, Balch G, Metcalfe CD, Lazar R, Mazak E, Habowsky J, Haffner GD. 1998. Chemical accumulation and toxicological stress in three brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) populations of the Detroit River, Michigan, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:1756-1766.
C-4 Leadley TA, Arcand-Hoy L, Haffner GD, Metcalfe CD. 1999. Fluorescent aromatic compounds in bile as a biomarker of contaminant exposure in brown bullheads: Field and laboratory studies. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (in press).
Long ER, Morgan LG. 1991. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, Seattle, Washington.
Maccubbin AE, Ersing N. 1991. Tumours in fish from the Detroit River. Hydrobiologia 219:301-306.
MacIsaac HJ. 1996. Potential abiotic and biotic effects of zebra mussels on the inland waterways of North America. American Zoologist 36:287-299.
Manny BA, Edsall TA, and Jaworski E. 1988. The Detroit River, Michigan: an ecological profile. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report, 85, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Manny BA. 1999. United States Geological Survey. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Personal Communication.
Mazak EJ, MacIsaac HJ, Servos MR, Hesslein R.1997. Influence of feeding habits on organochlorine contaminant accumulation in waterfowl on the Great Lakes. Ecological Applications 7:1133-1143.
Metcalfe CD, Metcalfe TL, Riddle G, Haffner GD. 1997. Aromatic hydrocarbons in biota from the Detroit River and western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 23:160-168.
Metcalfe TL, Metcalfe CD, Bennett ER, Haffner GD. 1999. Distribution of toxic organic contaminants in water and sediments in the Detroit River. Submitted.
Michigan. Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. 1996 Detroit River Remedial Action Plan Report. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: Lansing, Michigan.
Michigan. Department of Natural Resources (Surface Water Quality Division)/ Ontario Ministry of Environment. 1991. Stage 1 RAP for Detroit River AOC. Michigan Department of Natural Resources: Lansing, Michigan.
Mullie A., Ross RK, and Dennis DG. 1996. Overview of Migrant Waterfowl Use of the Great Lakes Areas of Concern and Other Selected Coastal Sectors in Southern Ontario. Technical Report Series No. 261, Canadian Wildlife Service: Ottawa, Ontario.
C-5 Muth KM, Wolfert DR and Bur MT. 1986. Environmental Study of Fish Spawning and Nursery Areas in the St. Clair - Detroit River System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Nature Conservancy. 1994. The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: Issues and Opportunities. The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program: Chicago, Illinois.
Oldham. 1983 (updated 1994). Environmentally Significant Areas of the Essex Region. Essex Region Conservation Authority: Essex, Ontario.
Ojibway Nature Centre. 1998a. Christmas Bird Count for the Detroit River Area. City of Windsor Department of Parks and Recreation,Ojibway Nature Centre Website. http://www.city.windsor.on.ca/ojibway/birding.htm.
Ojibway Nature Centre. 1998b. Butterfly Count for the Ojibway Area. City of Windsor Department of Parks and Recreation. Ojibway Nature Centre Website. http://www.city.windsor.on.ca/ojibway/birding.htm.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1987. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Eleventh Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1988. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Twelvth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1989. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Thirteenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1990. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Fourteenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1991. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Fifteenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1992. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Sixteenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1993-1994. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Seventeenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1995-1996. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Eighteenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1997-1998. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Nineteenth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
C-6 Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 1999-2000. Guide to Eating Ontario Sportfish. Twentieth Edition. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of Environment and Energy. 1994. Water Management: Policies, Guidelines and Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources. 1994a. Detroit River Wetlands Mapping. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Chatham, Ontario.
Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, 1994b. Survey of Candidate Sites on the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers for Potential Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Chatham, Ontario.
Ostaszewski A. Results of the Trenton Channel Project Sediment Surveys 1993-1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division: Lansing, Michigan.
Pandrangi R, Petras M, Ralph S, Vrzoc M. 1995. Alkaline single cell gel (Comet) assay and genotoxicity monitoring using bullheads and carp. Environmental and Moleculer Mutagenesis. 26:345-356.
Persaud D, Jaagumagi R, Hayton A. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Queen’s Printer: Toronto, Ontario.
Pugsley CW, Hebert PDN, McQuarrie PM. 1988. Distribution of contaminants in clams and sediments from the Huron-Erie corridor. II – lead and cadmium. Journal of Great Lakes Research 14:356-368.
Ralph S, Petras M. 1998. Caged amphibian tadpoles and in situ genotoxicity monitoring of aquatic environments with the alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay. Mutation Research 413:235-250.
Rossmann R. 1999. Total Mercury in Waters of the Trenton Channel, Detroit River, USEPA Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Community-Based Science Support Staff. Unpublished report.
Russell RW. 1996. Bioavailability and biomagnification of organochlorinated chemicals in aquatic ecosystems. Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Windsor: Windsor, Ontario.
Schloesser DW, Reynoldson TB, Manny BA. 1995. Oligochaete fauna of western Lake Erie 1961 and 1982: signs of sediment quality recovery. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21:294-306.
C-7 Toms A. 1999. Mercury and Methylmercury in Lake St. Clair. University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario.
Town of LaSalle. 1996. Candidate Natural Heritage Area Biological Inventory and Land Use Planning Policy Direction - Discussion Paper No. 1. Prepared by Prince, Silani & Associates Urban and Rural Planning Consultants, and G. Waldron, Consulting Biologist. Unpublished report, LaSalle, Ontario.
Tulen L. 1999. Citizen’s Environment Alliance. Windsor, Ontario. Personal Communication.
Tulen LA, Hartig JH, Dolan DM and Ciborowski JJH (eds) 1998. Rehabilitating and Conserving Detroit River Habitats. Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research. Occasional Publication No. 1: Windsor, Ontario.
Weseloh DV, Mineau P, Struger J. 1990. Geographical distribution of contaminants and productivity measures of herring gulls in the Great Lakes: Lake Erie and connecting channels 1978/1979. The Science of the Total Environment. 91:141- 159.
Weseloh DV, Ewins PJ , Struger J , Mineau P, Norstrom RJ. 1994. Geographical distribution of organochlorine contaminants and reproductive parameters in herring gulls on Lake Superior in 1983. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 29:229-251.
Windsor. 1995. Windsor Riverfront Pollution Control Planning Study-Phase I. City of Windsor: Windsor, Ontario.
Woods, Kit. 1999. City of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario. Personal Communication.
C-8 Committee Chair
Jim Drummond (519) 945-5500 [email protected]
Subcommittee Chairs
Barb Bjarneson (519) 966-6240 [email protected] Public Involvement and Communications Subcommittee
Jim Drummond (519)945-5500 [email protected] Point Source Subcommittee
Doug Haffner (519) 253-3000 x3449 [email protected] Contaminated Sediments Subcommittee
Tom Murray (519) 255-6351 x6490 [email protected] Combined Sewer Overflows Subcommittee
Stan Taylor (519) 776-5209 x354 [email protected] Non-Point Source Pollution Subcommittee
Lisa Tulen (519) 257-6722 [email protected] Habitat Subcommittee
GREAT LAKES INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4