Environmental Assessment and Habitat Evaluation of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels PDF
Preview Environmental Assessment and Habitat Evaluation of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels
Environmental Assessment and Habitat Evaluation of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Developments in Hydrobiology 65 Series editor H. J. Dumont Environmental Assessment and Habitat Evaluation of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Edited by M. Munawar and T. Edsall Reprinted from Hydrobiologia, vol. 219 (1991) Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Environmental assessment and habitat evaluation of the Upper Great Lakes connecting channels / edited by M. Nlunawar and T. Edsall. p. cm. — (Developments In hydrobiology ; 65) "Reprinted from Hydrob1o1ogia, vol. 219 (1991)" ISBN 978-94-010-5386-0 ISBN 978-94-011-3144-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-3144-5 1. Stream ecology—Great Lakes—Congresses. 2. Stream fauna- -Great Lakes—Congresses. I. Munawar, M. II. Edsall, T. III. Hydroblologla. IV. Series. ÜH104.5.G7E58 1991 574.5' 26323* 0977—dc20 91 -2725 ISBN 978-94-010-5386-0 Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved ©1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1991 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1991 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owners. v Contents Foreword ......................................................................... VB Preface. .......................................................................... IX St. Marys River Biota ofthe St. Marys River: habitat evaluation and environmental assessment by P. B. Kauss . Polycyclic aromatichydrocarbonsin surficial sediments andcagedmusselsofthe St. Marys River, 1985 by P. B. Kauss & Y. S. Hamdy 37 Effects ofpollution on benthic invertebrate communities ofthe St. Marys River, 1985 by A. J. Burt, P. M. McKee, D. R. Hart & P. B. Kauss 63 Useofageographicinformation systemdatabaseto measure and evaluatewetland changesin the St. Marys River, Michigan by D. C. Williams & J. G. Lyon. .................................................. 83 St. Clair River Limnological aspects ofthe St. Clair River by R. W. Griffiths, S. Thornley & T. A. Edsall. ...................................... 97 Distribution and abundance ofyoung fish in the St. Clair River and associated waters, Ontario by J. K. Leslie & C. A. Timmins ................................................... 125 Distribution and abundance ofyoung fish in Chenal Ecarte and Chematogen Channel in the St. Clair River delta, Ontario by J. K. Leslie & C. A. Timmins. .................................................. 135 Environmental quality assessment ofthe St. Clair River as reflected by the distribution ofbenthic macroinvertebrates in 1985 by R. W. Griffiths 143 Growth and overwinter survival of the Asiatic clam, Corbicula jluminea, in the St. Clair River, Michigan by J. R. P. French III & D. W. Schloesser 165 Deformities in larval Procladius spp. and dominant Chironomini from the St. Clair River by R. M. Dermott 171 Lake St. Clair Biota of Lake St. Clair: habitat evaluation and environmental assessment by J. H. Leach 187 The plankton ecology of Lake St. Clair, 1984 by M. Munawar, I. F. Munawar & W. G. Sprules. ................................... 203 Plankton community structure in Lake St. Clair, 1984 by W. G. Sprules & M. Munawar 229 Phosphorus cycling by mussels (Unionidae: Bivalvia) in Lake St. Clair by T. F. Nalepa, W. S. Gardner & J. M. Malczyk 239 Biology of the exotic zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, in relation to native bivalves and its potential impact in Lake St. Clair by G. L. Mackie 251 VI Detroit River The DetroitRiver: effectsofcontaminants and human activitieson aquatic plantsand animals and their habitats by B. A. Manny & D. Kenaga 269 ResponseofbacteriaandphytoplanktontocontaminatedsedimentsfromTrentonChannel,Detroit River by R. A. Moll & P. J. Mansfield 281 Tumors in fish from the Detroit River by A. E. Maccubbin & N. Ersing 301 Comparative studies ofthe Connecting Channels Heavy metal contamination ofsediments in the Upper Connecting Channels ofthe Great Lakes by S. J. Nichols, B. A. Manny, D. W. Schloesser & T. A. Edsall 307 Application ofamicrocomputer-based algalfluorescence techniquefor assessingtoxicity: Lake St. Clair and St. Clair River examples by M. Munawar, S. R. Severn & C. I. Mayfield ... ................................... 317 Amethodfor evaluatingtheimpactofnavigationallyinduced suspended sedimentsfromtheUpper Great Lakes Connecting Channels on the primary productivity by M. Munawar, W. P. Norwood & L. H. McCarthy 325 Heavy metals in aquatic macrophytes drifting in a large river by B. A. Manny, S. J. Nichols & D. W. Schloesser. .................................. 333 DistributionofHexagenianymphsandvisibleoilinsedimentsoftheUpperGreatLakesConnecting Channels by D. W. Schloesser, T. A. Edsall, B. A. Manny & S. J. Nichols 345 Production ofHexagenia limbata nymphs in contaminated sediments in the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels by T. A. Edsall, B. A. Manny, D. W. Schloesser, S. J. Nichols & A. M. Frank 353 Hydrobiologia 219: vii-viii, 1991. M. Munawar & T. Edsall(eds), Vl1 EnvironmentalAssessmentandHabitat Evaluation ofthe Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels. Foreword My first experience with an Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel was on a family tour ofthe Soo* inthemid-1930's. Iclearlyremembertheclosenessofthetoweringshipsinthelocks,theawesomerapids, and my impression that shooting the rapids in our rowboat wold be impossible. MynextexperiencewithGreatLakesConnectingChannelswasintheearly 1950scrossingtheNiagara River between my Connecticut home and Michigan State University. I shall always remember the majesty, beauty, and power ofthe falls, and also the chemical aroma ofthe mist. In the mid-1950's Irecall the massive waterfowllosses on the lower Detroit Riverdue to oil pollution. Conservationists carried oil-soaked ducks to the steps ofthe Michigan state capital in a protest against weak laws and insignificant penalties. My next experience was in the late 1950's when I returned to Michigan as an aquatic biologist. My assignment was to determine if the water quality and biota of the Detroit River was affected by the discharges ofthe municipal-industrial complex that had contributed so significantly to victory in World War II. Concern for the environment had not been important during that period and the consequences wereobvious. Foamygreendischargesfromdetergentmanufacturers,redriversfrom steelmills,fetidgrey sewagedotted withcondoms,squaremilesofoilysurfacesheen,andacresofputridsludgeovershadowed the analytical data. Pockets of clean water with thriving communities of diverse, pollution-intolerant plants and animals persisted, but were largely restricted to refugia on island shorelines in mid-river that were remote from polluted discharges. These surviving clean-water habitats and biota... reminiscent of conditions in bygone days when commercial bank seiners captured whitefish, and a whitefish hatchery operated successfully on the river... offered hope that the productive potential of the river could be restored ifthe pollution inputs could be reduced or halted. My water quality and biota work on the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels (supplemented by hunting and fishing experiences) continued intermittently through the 1960's. Coworkers such as John Neal (Ontario Water Resources) with interests in the channels were scarce, and published information on thechannels' biotaand habitats was virtually non-existent. Duringthis period, George Huntfrom the UniversityofMichigan and Tom Beak ofT. W. Beak, Ltd., produced the onlyconnectingchannelbiota papers ofwhich I am aware. What a treasure ofinformation the present volume would have been then! Securing judgements against polluters would have been a lot easier with the help of the information provided in this volume and with the assistance ofthe many agencies represented by the authors. Immense changes have occurred in the connectingchannels in recent years as we adapt to or correct ourpastmistakes, municipaland industrialdischargeshave beenreasonablycontrolledto allowrecovery ofmost parts ofthe connectingchannels aquatic ecosystem. Low flows in the St. Marys Rapids caused by hydropower diversions that by-pass the rapids have been partially remediated byconstructingberms to constrict part ofthe remaining flow to ensure there is spawning habitat for rainbow trout and other indigenous fishes thatcontributeto theriver's valuablefishery. International salmonfishing derbies have becomefestive occasions in the Soo. The whitefish and herringfisheries have recovered from their lows. Both cities are enjoying tourism booms which focus on water and recreation. Onthedownside, perhapsbecauseofhabitatqualityimprovementsinthearea,sealampreypopulations are out ofcontrol and contributing to serious mortalities ofchubs, salmon, and lake trout in northern *SooisacolloquialnamefortheSaultSte.MarieareathatliesinbothMichiganandOntariowheretheoutletofLakeSuperior forms the St. Marys Rapids and St. Marys River. Vlll Lake Huron. Because techniques for sea lamprey control in rivers this large are not effective, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission must develop new methods to protect the fisheries. In the Detroit Riverthe billions ofdollars spent on cleanup ofindustrial and municipal effluents have made the waterfront afocus for parks, marinas, and a host ofrecreational activities: e.g. 1,000,000-plus spectators for the fireworks display celebrating Dominion Day and Independence Day; 600,000 for hydroplane races. The walleye fishing, supported entirely by natural reproduction, is world class. Who could have imagined twenty years ago that city dwellers would be catching Pacific salmon from the shoreline parks ofWindsor and Detroit? Partofthechargefrom Canada and the United States to theGreatLakes Fishery Commission in the 1955 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries is to determine the measures which will make possible the optimum sustained productivity ofGreat Lakes fish. The Commission has long recognized that habitat qualityandquantityrelatedirectlytothischarge.TheCommissionhasrepeatedlyconfrontedawiderange ofhabitat issues and concluded that its role in these matters is as an advocatefor fishery resources. The Commissionalsoactsasacatalystforthedevelopmentofimprovedhabitatassessmentandmanagement capabilities among the agencies with programs involving the welfare ofthe Great Lakes ecosystem. Progress has been made in recent years in improvingwater quality and the related benthic conditions in the connecting channels. Biota have responded favourably, but fishery agencies are handicapped in managingtheresourcefor optimum sustainedproductivity. Theseagencies needthecapabilitytoidentify critical habitat components that are still missing and to be able to create, rehabilitate, or restore them. This volume is a major contribution toward such assessment and evaluation. Perhaps the next volume will focus on identifying the habitat needed to sustain the intensively managed aquatic communities in the Great Lakes ecosystem and on providinginsight into how to better develop and create that habitat. Threats to the aquatic resources ofthe Great Lakes and their connecting channels are greater than anyone agency,jurisdiction, orcountrycan defend against. The opportunities to optimize management ofthoseaquaticresourcesarealsogreaterthananyoneentitycanmeet. Futuremanagementwillcontinue in the direction being taken now with the strengthening ofpartnerships among governments, academia, and the public that will better integrate air, land, water, and fisheries and wildlife management. Recallthatin 1956,notlongaftertheoil-soakedduckswerecarriedtothecapitolsteps,WoodieGuthrie wrote and sang, 'This land is your land, this land is my land, this land was made for you and me'. His messagecaughton andthepeoplerealizedthattheir lands andwaterswerebeingbadlyused. Thepeople started to care about their resources and gradually the improvements came through legislation, nego tiation, regulation, and voluntary action. Thepublicbegan toparticipatein therediscovered, rejuvenated resources oftheGreat Lakes and the connectingchannels. And they began to care. Caringis something one acquires through exposure and understanding. The public gained a sense ofbelonging. That sense is somethingthat cannot be legislated orcommanded, it seeps into your being as one becomes a part of things. The public developed a strong emotional tie with the aquatic resources and the feeling evolved that this is 'my resource', 'my river', 'my bay', 'my lake'. The resulting message is also strong and clear: the public will not allow the ecosystem insults ofthe past. I am honored by the request of Editors Munawar and Edsall to contribute to this volume. Perhaps I have provided a perspective on the past and a feeling for our future direction ifwe are to achieve our goal ofoptimum sustainable aquatic communities. To become knowledgeable on the current situation in theconnectingchannels, andtoprepareourselvestotake thenext stepsin ecosystem recovery, simply turn to the following text. CARLOS M. FETTEROLF, Jr. Executive Secretary Great Lakes Fishery Commission and First Vice-President American Fisheries Society Hydrobiologia 219: ix-xiii, 1991. M. Munawar & T. Edsall(eds), IX EnvironmentalAssessmentandHabitat Evaluation ofthe Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels. © 1991 KluwerAcademicPublishers. Printedin Belgium. Preface M. Munawar1 & T. Edsa1l2 'Department ofFisheries & Oceans, Great Lakes Laboratoryfor Fisheries, & Aquatic Sciences, Canada Centrefor Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6, Canada; 2National Fisheries Research Centre-Great lakes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor MI, 48105, USA Key words: Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels, environmental assessment The Connecting Channels ofthe Upper Great Lakes - the St. Marys River, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River - are large riverine waterways that carry the outflow ofLake Superior into Lake Huron and the combined outflows of Lakes Michigan and Huron into Lake Erie (Fig. 1; Table 1). These channels are important fish and wildlife habitats, support a wide variety ofrecreational uses, are major navigation routes for interlake and ocean-going vessels, and are the municipal and industrial water supplies for major population centres in the region. The channel waters are also used to dilute and carry away the effiuents from municipal sewage treatment plants and from industry, includingthoseproducedbywoodpulpprocessingandpapermanufacturing,electricalpowerproduction, steelmaking and casting, mineral extraction, chemical manufacturing, petrochemical production and refining, and automobilemanufacturing.Thechannelsalso receiveandredistributepollutantsfrom urban and agricultural run-ofT and from the atmosphere (Tables 1& 2). Proceduresforenvironmentalassessmentandhabitatevaluationinthe UpperGreatLakesConnecting Channels have not yet been rigorously developed and tested (Lawrence, 1986; Munawar, 1988; Dodge, 1989) even though concerns about these connecting channels extend back to at least the turn of the century, when the International Joint Commission (HC) included the St. Marys, St. Clair, and Detroit rivers in a list ofpolluted Great Lakes waters. Since 1973, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board ofthe InternationalJointCommissionhas annuallyidentified'AreasofConcern'wheretheGreatLakesWater Quality Agreement guidelines (signed in 1972 by United States and Canada), have been violated and beneficial uses ofthe ecosystem have been impaired (DC, 1987; Hartig & Thomas, 1988). In 1983, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to initiate a study on the channels, and invited the Canadian Government to participate in the study. Ajoint U.S. and Canadian planning workshop was convened in 1984, and in 1985 the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study (UGLCCS) Management Committee drew on the results ofthe planningworkshop to outlinethe following study objectives (Limno-Tech, 1985): 1. ascertain the existing environmental condition ofthe study area to determine information gaps; 2. identifyandquantifypollutantimpactstohuman and aquaticlife,andtheirbeneficialuses inthestudy area; 3. determinetheadequacyofexistingor proposed control programsto ensureorrestore beneficial uses; and 4. recommendappropriatecontrol and surveillanceprogramsto protectand monitorthewaterways and the downstream reaches. x Table I. Physicalcharacteristicsandwater usageofthe UpperGreat LakesConnectingChannels(modifiedfrom EC& EPA, 1988.) St.Mary's River St.Clair River Lake St. Clair Detroit River PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Land Drainage Area (km x 1000)km2 49.3 146.6 159 160.9 Area km2 101-121 64 I115 51 Width km 0.30-6.4 0.25-1.2 39 0.66-3.0 Depth m Shallow-30 9-21 3.4 average 6-15 Flow m3s- '(X 103) 2.2 5.2 7.1 SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES TO: Drinking Water Intake - Municipal + + + + - Communal/Private + + + + Industrial Intakes - Iron & Steel + + - Pulp & Paper + - Petrochemical + + - Refining + + - Thermal Generating + - Hydroelectric + - Navigation (Locks) + - Mineral (Salt & Lime) + RECEIVING WATER FOR: Municipal STP + + + + Industrial - Iron & Steel + + - Pulp & Paper + - Petrochemical + + - Refining + - Thermal Generating + + - Mineral (Salt & Lime) + - Fabrication (Auto) + Ship Ballast + + + WATER USAGE Shipping Commercial Fishing Sport Fishing Boating/Sailing Swimming
The list of books you might like
