AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF THE STATUS OF THE FISH AND
WILDLIFE POPULATIONS IN THE DETROIT RIVER
By
Emily E. Wilke
A practicum submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Masters of Science
(Natural Resources and Environment)
at the University of Michigan
August, 2006
Faculty advisor(s):
Professor Donald Scavia, Chair
Professor David Allan
Professor Jennifer Read
Abstract
The Detroit River spans 32 miles from Lake St. Clair to the western Lake Erie basin. It
includes upland habitats, coastal wetlands, riverfront property, and numerous islands.
The Detroit River is unique in southeast Michigan because it acts as the border between
the United States and Canada, and is co-managed and researched by both countries. In the
early 1960s, the Detroit River and its tributaries made national headlines because of
devastating pollution problems. Fish and wildlife populations were severely degraded as
a consequence of loss of habitat, high levels of persistent contaminants, and excessive
phosphorus loadings. In the early-1970s, pollution abatement programs were instated and
fish and wildlife populations were improved, but further action is still warranted. In
support of these pollution abatement programs, data on a variety of parameters have been
collected over the past 30 years within and surrounding the Detroit River watershed. To
assess the status of fish and wildlife populations of the Detroit River, this six-step
Integrated Assessment, focused on a defined problem, is used to evaluate potential
management options. This assessment compiles existing information on fish and wildlife
population fluctuations, pressures on these populations, and current ecological health.
The goals of this assessment are to document the extent, characteristics, causes, and
consequences of the fluctuating fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit River
watershed. Future outcomes are predicted if current management strategies are held
constant and with two scenarios of additional management actions, including increased
remediation of contaminated sediment and increased protection and restoration of fish
and wildlife habitat. Guidance for managers is provided for implementation of the two
options to further enhance fish and wildlife populations. While the degradation of many
fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit River is irreversible, effective management
will continue to improve ecosystem health so that fish and wildlife populations become
and remain self-sustaining.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………
Table of Contents ……………………………………………….
ii
iii
Introduction …………………………………………………….
Problem Statement ………………………………………………
Documentation of Status and Trends ……………………………
Causes ……………………………………………………
Consequences ……………………………………………
Description of Causes and Consequences of Trends ……………
Habitat loss ………………………………………………
Persistent contaminants ………………………………….
Oïl pollution ……………………………………….…….
Phosphorus loadings …………………...………………..
Non-native, invasive species …………………………….
Predictions of Future Outcomes …………………………………
Scenario one ……………………………………………..
Scenario two ………………………………………….....
Scenario three ……………………………………………
Provision of Guidance for Potential Actions ……………………
Scenario two …………………………………………….
Scenario three ……………………………………………
Adaptive Management …………………………………………..
Conclusions ………………………………………………………
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………
Bibliography …………………………………………………...…
Appendix A. ……………………………………………………..
Appendix B. …………………………………………………...…
Appendix C. ……………………………………………………...
1
3
5
5
15
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
32
33
35
37
37
38
40
41
42
43
51
52
53
This Integrated Assessment stems from the Detroit River-Western Lake Erie Basin
Indicator Project. The parameters used in this Integrated Assessment were based on
indicator data collected and analyzed for the Indicator Project. For more information, the
Indicator Project is located on-line at:
http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/index.html. The Indicator Project will
be the central focus of the 2006, U.S.-Canada, State of the Strait Conference, held in Flat
Rock, Michigan and will be printed in the State of the Strait Conference Proceedings in
early 2007.
iii
Introduction
The Detroit River is shared by the United States and Canada and includes unique upland
habitats, coastal wetlands, and numerous islands (Appendix A). The River flows 32 miles
from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie and holds an immense amount of water draining the
upper three Great Lakes into the lower two. The Detroit River flows approximately 0.61.0 m/s and can supply the water capacity of Lake Erie in two years (Holcombe et al.
2003). Undeniably a vital part of the Great Lakes Ecosystem, the Detroit River is a
gateway for industry and a habitat corridor for countless numbers of species.
The Detroit River is one of 34 Waterfowl Habitat Areas of Major Concern in the United
States and Canada because there is significant breeding wetland habitat threatened by
dredging, filling, development, contamination, and exotic species. Diverse habitats are
vital to the over 200 migratory bird species (Licari and Dean 2004). Southeastern
Michigan is at the convergence of the Mississippi and Atlantic flyways, two of the four
major bird migration routes in North America (Bull and Craves 2003).
The Detroit River ecosystem is important not only for bird species. Seventy-six fish
species occur in the River, fifty-four of which are native (Gannon 2001). Detroit River
wetlands provide spawning areas for nineteen of the fish species in the Great Lakes and
nursery areas for fifteen of the species (USFWS 2005). Over 300 species of benthic
organisms have been recorded and are a major food source for the diverse fish
populations (Gannon 2001). More than five-million people derive aesthetic and economic
benefits from the diversity of biota and habitats in the lower Detroit River. Many
southeast Michigan residents depend on the health of the river ecosystem for their
livelihood.
One important feature along the Detroit River is the newly instituted (2003) U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge (IWR).
Approximately 95 percent of the original costal wetlands along the Detroit River have
been lost to development (Manny et al. 1988). The Detroit River IWR contains a
significant portion of the five percent of natural area remaining. Thirty-five of the
seventy-six different fish species occurring in the Detroit River have been identified near
the FWS Humbug Marsh Unit, which represents the last remaining mile of undeveloped
Michigan shoreline (Gannon 2001). The scope of this assessment is the Detroit River
IWR acquisition boundary and will assist refuge managers in selecting additional pieces
of coastal wetlands that could be purchase or co-manage.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada have
identified the Detroit River as a portion of the Great Lakes shoreline with significant
concentrations of coastal wetlands and distinctive characteristics (USEPA and Canada
1998). This recognition is significant given that the Detroit River is highly urbanized
along both the Canadian and U.S. shores. In 1998, the river was designated as an
American Heritage River, one of only fourteen in the nation. In 2001, the Canadian
government designated the river as a Canadian Heritage River, making the Detroit River
1
2
the only bi-national heritage river in the world (USFWS 2005). This designation allowed
for federal funding to support local community goals of revitalizating the River.
To effectively manage the Detroit River’s natural resources, the entire ecosystem needs
to be understood. One way to fully understand this ecosystem is to conduct an integrated
assessment. An integrated assessment is “a formal approach to synthesizing and
delivering relevant, independent scientific input to decision making through a
comprehensive analysis of existing natural and scientific information in the context of a
policy or management questions” (Michigan Sea Grant 2006a). A complete integrated
assessment brings together ecological, economic, and socio-political components of the
issue at hand.
This assessment is more focuses on ecology component, describing the status of the
ecosystem, outlining stressors such as pollution levels and loss of habitat, and discussing
how they affect ecosystem balance (Heinz 2002). The assessment will indicate how the
ecosystem has changed over the past 30 years, including fisheries and wildlife data
trends, identify possible causes of fluctuations, and discuss functional relationships
between the Detroit River ecosystem and the people that depend on it. This assessment,
addresses the following policy question in regard to the Detroit River Remedial Action
Plan: What are the causes, consequences, and correctives for degraded fish and
wildlife populations in the Detroit River?
Additionally, this assessment will provide a better understanding of the current ecological
status and options for directions that the Detroit River IWR managers, along with other
land managers and policy makers could take. The bi-national Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) of 1996 was established in response to the Detroit River being named a Great
Lakes Area of Concern by the International Joint Commission under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (IJC 1985; Hartig and Thomas 1988; Hartig and Zarull 1992).
The agencies implementing the RAP, such as the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, can also use this integrated assessment, as a reference to ensure future actions
are most effective for restoring the river’s beneficial uses, specifically fish and wildlife
populations.
This assessment will help guide restoration of fish and wildlife populations along the
Detroit River corridor. Its purpose is to summarize the current status and trends of
important fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit River from compiling data found in
numerous published and unpublished reports. Management and policies related to the
Detroit River clean-up will then be discussed along with two possible scenarios of future
management action.
Problem Statement
The Detroit River corridor began to make history as an environmental disaster after the
height of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-20th Century. In the past, the Detroit River
was treated as though its sole purpose was to satisfy human needs. With this mentality,
the River eventually accumulated enough human waste and pollutants that it became
unsafe to human health and was deemed biologically unproductive. The River Rouge,
one of the main tributaries to the Detroit River, made national headlines in late 1960s
when it ran red, then later caught on fire. Coincidently, Lake Erie was on the front cover
of several national magazines because of phosphorus-induced algal blooms and oxygen
depletion of deeper waters caused extensive fish kills. Eventually all fisheries were
closed and Lake Erie was declared “dead”.
Excess nutrient loads from an increasing human population and industry base caused
eutrophication, and ultimately a lack of oxygen in the water column. Significant
persistent contaminants, such as mercury and PCBs, in addition to eutrophication, caused
fish and wildlife populations to plummet (Bowerman et al. 1995; DeVault et al. 1996;
Bowerman et al. 1998; Madenjian et al. 1998; Canada 2001; MDNR 2001; Corkum et al.
2003; IJC 2004; Bridgeman et al. 2006; Manny 2006). With the clear evidence of
pollution, such as massive winter duck kills from oil contamination and fish kills from
eutrophication, elected officials began to take action. Federal environmental laws were
established and the State government began to demand that industries change their
operating procedures, no longer allowing activities such as dumping waste products into
the river system.
There have been substantial efforts to clean up the Detroit River as a result of the Clean
Water Act of 1972, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, Clean Michigan Initiative of 1998, and the Great Lakes
Legacy Act of 2002. Read (2001) states that, “we now recognize that it is our own uses of
the watershed that must be managed if we are ever to restore and protect its natural
integrity”. The ecological health of the river in some ways reflects us, our relationship
with the river is truly dynamic (Read 2001). However, much more effort is needed to
clean up the river if fish and wildlife populations are to become self-sustaining.
In accordance with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Governments of
Canada and the U.S. (Canada and USEPA 1995) stated the following environmental
concerns for the Detroit River:








degradation of the benthic populations;
fish tumors and other deformities;
restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption;
beach closings due to bacteria in the water;
restrictions on dredging;
taste and odor in drinking water;
degradation of aesthetics; and
loss of fish and wildlife habitat (USFWS 2005).
3
4
This assessment summarizes how far we have come in the remediation/restoration
activities to protect fish and wildlife populations and what we have yet to accomplish.
This assessment will provide a new way of looking at management actions for the Detroit
River and be an effective tool for policy-making.
Documentation of Status and Trends
There are many causes and consequences of degraded fish and wildlife populations over
the past 30 years in the Detroit River. While not a fully comprehensive list, data available
for the major causes and consequences, ranging from oil spills to bald eagle reproduction,
are described below. These parameters were chosen because of their direct relation to the
fluctuation of fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit River. For example, phosphorus
loadings from the Detroit River majority caused eutrophication in Lake Erie which in
turn decreased food availability and spawning habitat for fish species in the River.
Causes
Population Growth and Distribution
The City of Detroit's population increased more than six-fold during the first half of the
20th Century, due largely to a massive influx of Eastern European and Southern migrants
who came to the area to work in the burgeoning automobile industry. In 2004, Detroit
was the United States' 11th most populous city, with slightly over 900,000 residents. This
is only half the population the city boasted at its peak in the 1950s (Figure 1). Although
Detroit has experienced one of the largest population declines in the country, the area
surrounding the city has experienced rapid growth. In nearly a century, southeast
Michigan, which includes Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw,
and Wayne counties, has had an increase in population from 600,000 to 4.8 million
(SEMCOG 2002).
Detroit Population
SE MI Population
6
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
Number of People in SE MI
(million)
Number of People in Detroit
(million)
Figure 1. Figure displays population change in Detroit and in southeast Michigan
(including Detroit), 1900-2005 (Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments).
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
The population distribution has changed substantially in southeast Michigan between
1900 and 2005. Wayne County, which includes Detroit, showed dramatic population
growth between 1900 and 1950, while Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw Counties
experienced steady growth from 1950 to 2005 (Figure 2). People moved out of Detroit to
surrounding areas. Oakland County has experienced the most growth, with just the
5
6
northern townships increasing 40 percent since 1990. As of 2005, the fastest growing
areas in the region are southern and western Wayne County, the Ann Arbor area in
Washtenaw County, much of Livingston County, western and northern Oakland County,
and central Macomb County (SEMCOG 2001).
Number of People (million)
Figure 2. Figure displays population fluctuations in southeast Michigan by county, 19002005 (Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments).
3.0
Wayne Co.
2.5
Oakland Co.
2.0
Macomb Co.
Washtenaw Co.
1.5
Livingston Co.
1.0
St. Clair Co.
Monroe Co.
0.5
0.0
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Between 1900 and 2000, the entire region gained 4.3 million people. In 1900, the region
contained 10 cities, 133 townships, and 46 villages. By 2000 the numbers had increased
to 89 cities, 115 townships, and 27 villages (SEMCOG 2002). At the beginning of the
20th Century Wayne County was the only urbanized population center. By 2000,
Oakland and Macomb Counties had joined Wayne County in becoming urbanized
population centers (Figure 3). These figures reflect the nationwide shift from rural to
urban living over the past 100 years (SEMCOG 2002).
Figure 3. Figure displays the percent of the population of southeast Michigan in each county,
1900 and 2000 (Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments).
1900
Percent of Region
60
2000
50
40
30
20
10
0
Livingston
Macomb
Monroe
Oakland
St. Clair
Washtenaw
Wayne
County
The number of households in southeast Michigan is growing along with the population.
This growth has greatly increased the environmental impact that the population is having
on the region. The number of households has increased and continues to increase with
fewer people occupying each household (Figure 4).
7
Figure 4. Figure displays the number of households in southeast Michigan, 1930-2005
(Source: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments).
Number of Households
(millions)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2005
Ye ar
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments estimates that, in the next 25 years,
southeast Michigan's population will grow by 10 percent; however, that extra growth will
consume at least 30 percent more land (Liu 2005). As the population spreads throughout
the region transportation trends have changed. People are driving more often with longer
commutes to work (Figure 5). There are a lower percentage of people using public
transportation and fewer people are carpooling, which increases traffic and stresses on the
environment (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Figure displays the mean traveling time to work in southeast Michigan (min),
1980-2000 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).
Mean Travel Time (min)
26
25.6
25
24
23.4
23
22.5
22
21
20
1980
1990
Year
2000
Number of People
(thousand)
Figure 6. Figure displays the number of people that use mass transit to get to work in
southeast Michigan, 1980-2000 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau).
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
69
50
43
1980
1990
Year
2000
8
With the trend of a growing and sprawling population, more houses and longer commutes
to work, the landscape is being transformed. Now more than ever, there are more
developments and less land left in its original form.
Coastal Wetland Loss
Due to human population growth and expansion, many coastal wetlands have been lost.
Coastal wetlands were extensive along the Detroit River 200 years ago (Manny et al.
1988; Manny 2003). The first explorers, such as, Father Hennepin and Antoine Cadillac
described the Detroit River as a pristine “paradise” with abundant edible fruits, lush
meadows, forests, fish, and wildlife (Manny 2003). In 1815, the river shoreline consisted
of contiguous, coastal wetlands up to a mile wide along both sides of the river for most of
its length. This translates to approximately 10.7 square miles (2,768 hectares) of coastal
wetlands along the Michigan shore and complementary amounts on the Canadian shore
prior to shoreline development (Figure 7). Vegetation types included submersed marsh,
emergent marsh, wet meadow and shrub swamp, swamp forest, and lakeplain prairie.
Since 1815, the Detroit River ecosystem has undergone dramatic changes. Habitats for
fish and wildlife in the river are now degraded by contaminants, and greatly reduced in
abundance and quality from historic levels. The largest habitat change has been
encroachment into the river and hardening of the shoreline by the addition of steel sheet
piling, concrete break walls, and fill material (Manny et al. 1988).
Figure 7. Figure displays the Detroit River prior to shoreline development, 1815 (Source:
Association of Canadian of the Map Libraries, an 1815 map of the Detroit River showing coastal
wetlands up to a mile wide along both sides of the Map Libraries, Facsimile Number 20).
1815
9
Analysis of 1982 Landsat photographs (Figure 8) revealed only a tenth of a square mile
(25.5 hectares) of coastal wetlands remained on the Michigan mainland, mostly in the
vicinity of Humbug Marsh (Manny 2003). By 1982, more than 99 percent of the coastal
wetlands present in 1815 along the Michigan shore has been converted to other land uses.
In total, 97 percent of the coastal wetlands on both sides of the Detroit River have been
lost to development. In the process, people have lost benefits provided by wetlands along
the river, such as flood control, protection from shoreline erosion, and a filtration system
for nutrients and sediment.
Figure 8. Figure displays the distribution of wetlands and large submerged macrophyte beds
(wetland vegetation) in the Detroit River, July 1982 (Source: Manny et al. 1988).
Along with coastal wetlands and shorelines, most other land in southeast Michigan has
been converted by human activity. These land cover changes have created further
pressure on the functioning of the Detroit River ecosystem. Humans changed the
landscape, introducing the discharge of waste products into the river. Such waste
products include phosphorus, sewage overflows, oil spills and other contaminants.
10
Phosphorus Discharges
The Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) is one of the largest wastewater
treatment plants in North America, servicing over three million people and treating 700
million gallons of wastewater per day. From 1966 through the early 1980s, DWWTP
decreased its effluent total phosphorus concentrations by over 90 percent (Figure 9).
Since the early 1980s, concentrations have remained stable. In 1980, the DWWTP was
responsible for 40-45 percent of the municipal phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie. The
DWWTP became the single largest reason for the reversal of cultural eutrophication of
Lake Erie during the 1970s and 1980s due to increased regulations in accordance with the
U.S. and Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Hartig 2003).
Figure 9. Figure displays the total effluent phosphorus concentration (mg/L) from the Detroit
Wastewater Treatment Plant, 1966–2003 (Source: Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant).
20
1970
Polymer and Pickle
Liquor Feeding
1971
Facilities Added
Michigan Limits
Phosphorus in
Cleaning Agents to
8.7%
Effluent Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L)
18
16
14
1973-1976
Construction of
Aeration
Facilities
12
10
1977
Michigan's
Phosphorus
Detergent
Ban
8
6
1979-80
Implementation of
Alternative Sludge
Removal Process
1981
Consistent
Secondary
Treatment
4
2
0
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
Year
Combined Sewer Overflows
There are numerous points along the Detroit River where combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) have historically and currently still occur. CSOs take place when water that
drains from the streets combines with water contaminated with sanitary and hazardous
wastes that then get deposited straight into the River during overflows caused by heavy
storm events. Though there are no trend data, in 1988 there were 64 overflow locations
on the Michigan shoreline, 24 on the Ontario shoreline, and 185 overflow locations on
the River Rouge (Manny et al. 1988). Over the past 30 years there have been less
contaminants and sanitary sewage transported to the river by these means, however,
CSOs still exist during heavy storm events (USEPA 2001).
11
Oil Pollution
Oil pollution was a serious problem in the Detroit River watershed during the 1940s1960s causing severe winter duck kills. In the late 1940s duck hunters demanded the
attention of state legislators that lead to the Industrial Pollution Control Program in
Michigan. Upon initiation, the pollution was broadened and state approval was required
for all new uses of state waters (U.S. Department of Health 1962).
As sources of oil pollution were identified, pollution control efforts became increasingly
effective. According to the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1962),
there was a 97.5 percent reduction in oil discharges to the Detroit River between the late1940s and early-1960s. The total pollution volume was nearly 6,000,000 gallons per year
between 1946-1948 and less then 500,000 gallons by 1961 (Figure 10). There was an
additional 80 percent decrease in point source discharges of oil between 1963 and 1976
(MDNR 1977). As would be predicted, winter duck kills associated with oil pollution
also decreased dramatically.
Figure 10. Figure displays the total volume of oil and other petroleum products spilled in Detroit
River in gallons per year, 1946-1948 and 1961 (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
6,000,000
Gallons
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1946-1948
1961
Year(s)
Recent data collected by the U.S. Coast Guard indicate that there are still years in which
total volume of oil and other petroleum products spilled in the Detroit and Rouge Rivers
is comparable to estimated oil releases in 1961 (Center 2002). In April 2002, a 100,000
gallon oil spill occurred in the Rouge River (Figure 11). The U.S. Coast Guard and other
governmental and industrial partners undertook a $7.5 million clean-up on 27 miles of the
lower Rouge River and U.S. Canadian sides of the Detroit River (Hartig and Stafford
2003). Ten ducks and geese died as a result of the oil pollution. While this number may
be insignificant to years past, it reminds us that oil pollution continues to be a threat to
waterfowl (Hartig et al. 2006).
12
Figure 11. Figure displays the total volume of oil and other petroleum product spills reported in
Detroit and Rouge Rivers in gallons per year, 1995-2005 (Source: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
120,000
Gallons
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
The spills counted in these figures only represent reported incidents and there are likely
many unreported spills and releases through combined sewer overflow events. On
average, sixteen to forty-one spills of unknown volume have occurred each year since
1995 (Hartig et al. 2006). Although these spills are probably small in volume, they are
still a concern because of their frequency. In some years, more sheens were reported than
the volume of total spills, further documenting the ongoing release of oil of unknown
volume into the Rouge and Detroit Rivers (Hartig et al. 2006).
Zebra and Quagga Mussels
Zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena spp.) were first introduced into Lake St. Clair in
late 1986 and spread throughout the Detroit River and into Lake Erie by 1988. In 1991,
quagga mussels appeared likely through the same means, ballast water of ocean transient
freighters entering the Great Lakes, and spread throughout the corridor (Schloesser et al.
1998). The rapid spread of these mussels is due to their high reproduction rate, pelagic
larval stage, drifting ability of juveniles, and transport from shipping and recreational
boating (Griffiths et al. 1991).
The proliferation of these mussels caused major changes in the food web. They are filter
feeders that consume phytoplankton and some zooplankton, which subsequently causes a
decline in planktivorous fish species (Panek et al. 2003). Because they are filter-feeders,
they are accredited for “cleaning-up” the water column by filtering large quantities of
suspended particulate matter from the water (Leach 1993). However, these mussels have
reduced species richness in the Detroit River, displacing at least 10 (eight common, two
uncommon) native mussel species, probably because the Detroit River was the first
watershed to be colonized by zebra mussels in North America (Schloesser et al. 1998).
Currently, no fresh water mussel species (unionids) in the channels of the Detroit River
have an adequate population size to support viable reproduction (Schloesser et al. 2006).
Therefore, due to dreissena spp. infestations, unionids have been eliminated from the
main channels of the Detroit River (Schloesser et al. 2006). There is evidence in Lake
Michigan that quagga mussels are out-competing zebra mussels and causing relatively
13
more environmental damage (Michigan Sea Grant 2006b), but this has not yet been
shown for the Detroit River or Lake Erie.
Round Gobies
In 1990, round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus) originally from the Ponto-Caspian
region were first discovered in the Great Lakes (Jude et al. 1992). Round gobies are a
threat because they are able to proliferate and spread quickly. They tolerate a wide range
of environmental factors, are aggressive, have a broad diet, mature early, have the ability
to spawn many times during the year, spawn in multiple habitat types, and are larger than
other species that share the same niche (Charlebois et al. 1997; MacInnis and Corkum
2000). Initially the population quickly spread throughout the Great Lakes and grew
dramatically in every area, including the Detroit River (Lapointe 2006). However, there
is not sufficient data from the Detroit River to depict a trend in population or count
fluctuations. It is verified that round goby populations initially increased dramatically in
the Detroit River in the 1990s and still remain abundant in certain areas of the river today
(Lapointe 2006).
Sea Lamprey
The Detroit River remains the last interconnecting waterway in the Great Lakes where
larval sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) are unknown. Assessments in 1983 and 2000
proved negative for sea lamprey larvae, although earlier work yielded some American
brook lampreys (Sullivan et al. 2003). Though sea lampreys are not currently reproducing
in the Detroit River, they attack fish species throughout the corridor, such as the lake
trout and lake sturgeon. For example, a spermating male lake sturgeon caught by the
Belle Isle spawning reef in the spring of 2006 had multiple wounds from sea lamprey
covering the skin. Some wounds looked more healed than others.
Mute Swans
Mute swans (Cygnus olor) are a non-native, invasive species introduced from northcentral Asia and Europe. Mute swans spread throughout the United States from 1920
through the late 1970s when they were reported in all four major flyways. The overwintering mute swan count in the Detroit River watershed has fluctuated but shows a
steady positive trend from 1986 through 2004 (Figure 12).
14
Figure 12. Figure displays increasing mute swan counts from the annual Detroit River Christmas
Bird Count, 1981-2004. (Source: J. Craves, River Rouge Bird Observatory). *Variability in the
data relates to the ability of observers and extent of ice cover.
R2 = 0.4664
Number of Birds
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
Double-crested Cormorants
By the early 1970s, double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) were virtually
extinct due to DDE-induced reproductive failure (Weseloh et al. 1995). Subsequently, the
population has greatly expanded in the past two decades due to the ban of DDT, reduced
human persecution, and increases in foraging fish (Weseloh et al. 1995). On Lake Erie
the number of cormorant nests increased from 87 in 1979 to 12,973 in 2004 (Figure 13).
In 2000, 81 percent of the breeding population was located on East Sister and Middle
Islands, both are in the western basin (Hebert et al. 2005). Western Lake Erie, just
downstream of the Detroit River, is one of the five major cormorant nesting areas in the
Great Lakes (Weseloh et al. 2002).
Figure 13. Figure displays the number of double-crested cormorant nests on Pelee, Middle,
Big Chicken, East Sister, and Middle Sister Islands in western Lake Erie, Canada, 1979-2005
(Source: D.V. Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service). In 2001, the entirety of Middle Island
was not completely counted, however there was no change from 2000. The 2000 count for
Middle Sister Island (n=15) is a ground estimate.
Number of Nests
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year
15
Contaminants in Western Lake Erie Sediment
The sediments in Lake Erie reflect the ecological impact of human activity over time.
The highest mercury and DDT content in Lake Erie occurs in the western basin adjacent
to the Detroit River. Sediment cores taken from the western basin indicate that PCBs and
various organochlorines began to accumulate during 1953 to 1958 (Marvin et al. 2002).
Sediments in the western basin of Lake Erie exhibited the highest levels of contamination
due to the effluent from the Detroit River with highly urbanized and industrialized shores
(Marvin et al. 2002).
PCB and organochlorine concentrations in the western basin decreased considerably
between 1971 and 1995 and again in 1997-99 (Marvin et al. 2004). For the last 30 years,
average mercury concentrations in surface sediment in the lake fell by approximately
70%, dropping from 0.61 µg/g in 1971 to 0.190 µg/g in 1997–98 (Marvin et al. 2004).
Pollutants currently exceeding various guidelines include mercury, PCBs, and dioxins
and furans. As of 1998, the trend in decreasing sediment contamination suggests that the
U.S. and Canadian criteria for sediment quality in Lake Erie will be eventually achieved
for several contaminants (Hartig et al. 2006).
Consequences
Burrowing Mayflies
Burrowing mayflies (Hexagenia spp.), indicators of water quality, were historically (pre1950s) abundant and important in the western Lake Erie food web. However, in 1953
they disappeared shortly after an anoxic period (i.e., no dissolved oxygen near sediments)
attributed to organic loadings from municipal wastes. Between 1960 and 1990, few
mayflies were found in Lake Erie (Schloesser 2005). Nymphs returned to sediments of
western basin in 1992-93, after an absence of approximately 40 years (Krieger et al.
1996). Their recovery was aided by pollution-abatement programs combined with the
invasion of exotic zebra mussels in 1986 that cleaned up the water column of nearshore
waters. By 1997, nymph abundances were similar to historic abundances prior to
extirpation in the mid-1950s (Schloesser et al. 2000). Between 1997 and 2004, mayflies
gradually increased in distribution, spreading eastward in nearshore sediment and, by
2004, were present throughout the entire western basin. In 2004, biological reference
points (density descriptors of excellent, good, fair, poor, and imperiled) were established
based on mayfly abundance in the western basin (Commission 2004).
Recovery of the mayfly population in western Lake Erie has happened much faster than
models predicted (Schloesser et al. 2000). However, data indicate that from 1995 through
2004 there has been large year to year variability of nymph density (Figure 14).
16
Figure 14. Figure displays the density of Hexagenia spp. nymphs in the western basin of Lake
Erie, 1995-2004 (based on the three-year running averages and biological reference point
density descriptors; some minor differences exist in annual sampling sites; Source: U.S.
Geological Survey).
The mayfly population in portions of the basin exhibit large variation and appeared
threatened in some years, possibly as a result of fluctuating dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Any increase in the input of limiting nutrients (phosphorus) will probably
yield an increase in primary and secondary productivity, which in turn, could lead to
larger variation and possible declines in dissolved oxygen concentrations in summer
months (Commission 2004). However, a very low percentage of the hundreds of basinwide dissolved oxygen measurements have been below the concentration believed to be
lethal to mayfly populations. Exceedingly high nymph density, as well as exceedingly
low nymph density, may indicate an ecological imbalance. High nymph density may
indicate a state of nutrient enrichment which, if continued, could cause oxygen depletion
(Krieger 1999).
Yellow Perch
In the early 1800s there was a commercial fishery for lake whitefish, yellow perch, and a
few other species in the Detroit River (Haas and Bryant 1978). Catches for yellow perch
(Perca flavescens) were highest in the late 1800s and decreased substantially thereafter,
however they remained a substantial part of the fishery through the 1960s. Commercial
fishing continued on the Ontario side of the Detroit River until 1970 when high levels of
mercury found in Lake St. Clair closed all of the surrounding fisheries. The Detroit River
commercial fishery has not yet reopened (Manny et al. 1988).
The Lake Erie yellow perch population increased through the late-1970s likely due to
pollution abetment programs and decreased fishing pressure (Kenyon and Murray 2001).
Throughout the 1980s, the population was variable, until it plummeted in the late-1980s,
with very low numbers throughout the early-1990s. Due to good year-class production,
likely a result of the higher density of burrowing mayflies in the western basin, the
17
population increased from the mid- to late-1990s and has remained steady through 2006
(Figure 15).
Figure 15. Figure displays the estimated population of yellow perch in millions (ages 2+), in
the western Lake Erie basin, 1975-2006 (Source: Belore et al. 2006).
180
Population (millions)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005
Year
Walleye
In 1970, Lake Erie walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) harvest was halted due to mercury
contamination concerns, with renewed, but limited, harvest in 1972. Throughout the early
to late 1980’s, the combination of good water quality, recruitment, and management
allowed the populations to increase (Figure 16). This changed however, in the late 1980’s
and early 1990’s when several factors in conjunction with fishing pressure and poor
recruitment caused walleye productivity in Lake Erie to decrease. The population decline
continued for ten to fifteen years until a critical minimum in the population causing
negative fishery attributes, including declining angler interest and compromised
commercial economics in 2000 (Locke et al. 2005).
In an attempt to control the walleye decline, the Coordinated Percid Management
Strategy (CPMS) was enacted by the Lake Erie Committee that set the annual Total
Allowable Catch (TAC) at 3.4 million fish between 2001 and 2003. It also restricted
harvest timing to reduce fishing pressures on isolated spawning walleye. However, due to
year-class failures during this time, walleye populations failed to improve and the TAC
was reduced again to 2.4 million fish in 2004 (Locke et al. 2005).
18
Figure 16. Figure displays the walleye population in western and central Lake Erie basins
(ages 2+), 1978 to 2005. Quality levels of the population are indicated at the right (Source:
Lake Erie Walleye Task Group, Great Lakes Fishery Commission).
Walleye Population of Lake Erie Ages 2+
80
70
Millions of Walleye
60
High Quality
50
40
Maintenance
30
Low Quality
20
Rehabilitation
10
Crisis
04
05
20
20
02
03
20
20
00
01
20
20
98
99
19
19
96
97
19
19
94
95
19
19
92
93
19
19
90
91
19
19
88
89
19
19
86
87
19
19
84
85
19
19
82
83
19
19
80
81
19
19
19
19
78
79
0
Year
To maintain a healthy fishery, the LEC has determined that walleye populations should
be between 26 to 40 million fish. This value is desirable to provide sufficient fish for
commercial and angler use, and also to promote walleye migration from west to east. In
2005, walleye populations are rated as high quality (Group 2005).
Lake Whitefish
By the 1960s and 1970s lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) were at an all-time low
for a variety of reasons. Primarily reduced phosphorus loading and more-favorable
conditions for whitefish were achieved by the early-1980s, following the implementation
of the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Nalepa et al. 2005).
Harvests of lake whitefish in the Detroit River exceeded a half million pounds in the late1800s and declined through the early part of the 20th Century (Figure 17). Overharvesting and habitat degradation, such as the construction of the Livingstone Channel
from 1911-1916, resulted in very low catches after about 1910 in the Detroit River. The
demise of the whitefish coincided with the demise of the walleye, blue pike, and lake
herring. The Lake Erie whitefish fishery lasted in the east end of the lake until the 1960s.
After an absence of a suitable lake whitefish stock for approximately 20 years, lake
whitefish commercial fishing in Lake Erie increased to over one million pounds per year
during the late-1990s and early-2000s. In recent years, landings in Lake Erie have
declined slightly too approximately 600,000 pounds (Figure 18). This is evidence that
19
lake whitefish populations have rebounded, similar to what has been recorded for walleye
in Lake Erie (Knight 1997).
Figure 17. Figure displays the lake whitefish commercial landings in the Detroit River. Catch
is measured in thousands of pounds, 1870-2004 (Source: U.S. Geological Survey and
Baldwin et al. 1979).
Commercial Landings
(thousands of lbs)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
Year
1930
1940
1950
1960
…2004
Commerical Landings
(millions of lbs)
Figure 18. Figure displays the lake whitefish commercial landings in Lake Erie. Catch is
measured in millions of pounds, 1986-2004 (Source: Markham et al. 2005).
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year
1998
2000
2002
2004
In 2005, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers in partnership with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service collected a spermiating male and fertilized eggs from the Detroit
River. This was the first fertile lake whitefish found in the river since 1916 (Roseman et
al. 2006). In April, 2006 U.S. Geological Survey found 62 whitefish larvae in the lower
Detroit River, most were in the sac-fry stage. Because no larvae were found at sample
stations in the upper river during this time, researchers concluded that these fry were
produced in the Detroit River (Roseman et al. 2006). This is the first time that there are
confirmed native, reproducing lake whitefish in the Detroit River in approximately 100
years.
Lake Sturgeon
Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), similar to lake whitefish, have also started to
rebound and once again attempt to reproduce in the Detroit River. In 1890, Ontario
20
fisherman caught over 600,000 pounds of lake sturgeon in Lake Erie (Figure 19). During
the spawning period in June 1890, upwards of 4000 adult lake sturgeon were caught in
Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River on setlines and in pond-nets (Post 1890; Harkness
and Dymond 1961). Today, there is no active commercial fishery for lake sturgeon in the
Huron-Erie corridor, sport fishing harvest is now restricted in the St. Clair River and
Lake St. Clair, and no sturgeon may be possessed by anglers in Michigan or Ontario
waters of the Detroit River (GLFC 2003; MDNR 2005; OMNR 2005).
Lake Sturgeon (thousands of
pounds)
Figure 19. Figure displays the lake sturgeon Lake Eire commercial fish catch in Michigan and
Ontario waters, 1879-2000 (Source: U.S. Fisheries Commission Report, Fishing industry for
the Great Lakes Appendix 11 to the 1926 report by W. Koelz and Baldwin et al. 2002).
700
Michigan (MI)
600
Canada (ONT)
500
400
300
200
100
0
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
From 1970s to 1999 no lake sturgeon spawning was reported in the Detroit River, which,
at one time, was one of the most productive sturgeon spawning grounds in the United
States. In 2001, lake sturgeon spawning was documented on a cinder pile near Zug Island
in the Detroit River for the first time in over 20 years (Caswell et al. 2004).
In response to the discovery of sturgeon spawning, scientists conducted research to
determine the extent of the sturgeon population in the Detroit River including possible
spawning locations and success rates. From 2000 to 2002, they fished with set-lines for
741 days total, while the river was ice free and only caught 85 lake sturgeon. If this same
experiment was conducted in the late-1800s, over 1,000 lake sturgeon would have likely
been captured. Relative to historical catch rates, the catch per unit of effort during 20002002 was low (Caswell 2003; Boase 2005).
Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons
Bird Studies Canada monitors the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) population in
southern Ontario. Data show that both the number of nests and nest success in southern
Ontario has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Every year, two or three
new bald eagle territories are reported on the Canadian side of the Detroit River and
along the north shore of Lake Erie, which has resulted in a slowly increasing population
(Laing and Badzinski 2004). In 2004, there were 38 noted bald eagle territories in
21
southern Ontario, 81 percent of which contained active nests. From 2000 to 2004, an
additional two active nests were discovered in the Detroit River watershed (Laing and
Badzinski 2004).
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, in partnership with the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS), and
other Federal agencies coordinates a monitoring program in all of Michigan aimed at
assessing the health of bald eagles statewide. From 1961 to 1987 there were no bald
eagles produced on the U.S. side of the Detroit River in Wayne and Monroe Counties.
However, since 1991, there has been a steady increase in the Bald Eagle population with
an average of one new breeding area (or pair) located each year (Figure 20).
Figure 20. Figure displays the total number of eaglets fledged in Wayne and Monroe
Counties, U.S.A, 1987-2005 (Source: D. Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
12
Total Number
10
8
6
4
2
0
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
Year
The increase of the bald eagle population suggests the population is recovering in many
parts of the lower Great Lakes. The re-colonization of bald eagles in southern Ontario
and in Wayne and Monroe counties, especially the increased nesting success along the
Detroit River, is a positive sign of ecosystem health. However, eagles continue to be
vulnerable to high levels of human disturbance, contamination, and ongoing habitat loss.
Other raptors have also increased in number and began nesting throughout the area, such
as the once federally endangered peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; Figure 21), due to
similar factors.
22
Figure 21. Figure displays peregrine falcon presence and reproductive success in southeast
Michigan (Source: J.M. Yerkey, Michigan Department of Natural Resources).
11
nesting pairs
10
successful nests
young fledged
9
Total Number
8
7
6
5
4
five young
released
3
2
1
0
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Year
Common Terns
In the 1960s, the lower Great Lakes had the largest recorded number of common tern
(Sterna hirundo) nests when approximately 16,000 to 21,000 nesting pairs were observed
(Nisbet 2002). By 1980, only approximately 5,000 pairs were recorded in the same region
(Courtney and Blokpoel 1983). This decrease was due to many factors, including the
increase of the ring-billed gull population. In the highly urbanized Detroit River
watershed, the ring-billed gull population has increased 600-fold during the last quarter
century (Weseloh et al. 2001). The ring-billed gull is an earlier spring-arriving species,
opportunistic and readily adapts to human-altered habitats (Ludwig 1962). This has
resulted in the displacement of common terns from formerly mixed gull-tern colonies in
Detroit River, such as on Fighting Island (Figure 22). Although Fighting Island was once
a productive tern colony, there have not been terns nesting on the Island since 1998.
However, ring-billed gulls continue to successfully nest on the Island.
Figure 22. Figure displays the number of common tern nests on Fighting Island, 1977,
1995, 1998 and 1999. Nests were counted in early to mid-incubation time (Source:
D.V. Weseloh, Canadian Wildlife Service).
Number of Nests
200
159
150
100
33
50
4
0
1998
1999
0
1977
1995
Year
During years spanning 1960-1980, Courtney and Blokpoel (1983) documented over
4,500 common tern nests on Belle Isle and Mud, Grassy, Bob-Lo, and Fighting Islands in
23
the Detroit River. In 2005, less then 300 common tern nests were found on two manmade bridge protection piers within the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River (Figure 23),
representing a 98 percent decline in the last 25 years.
Figure 23. Figure displays the number of common tern nests in the Detroit River corridor,
1960-1980 and 2003-2005 (Sources: 1960-1980 population estimate from Courtney and
Blokpoel 1983*; 2003, 2004 and 2005 population estimates from Bull and Szczechowski).
Number of Nests
5,000
* 4,500
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
316
285
275
2004
2005
0
1960-1980
2003
Year
Not only has the nesting population decreased, but it has been estimated in recent years
that only about 20 percent of the chicks are making it to fledgling stage due to
environmental factors, contaminant sensitivity, and predation primarily by black-crowned
night herons (Szczechowski and Bull 2005). The number of common tern nests has
greatly decreased since the 1980s and terns have had moderate to poor fledge success in
2004 and 2005.
Herring Gull and Common Tern Egg Contamination
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) have contributed to the decline in common terns
however levels in tern eggs have greatly decreased in 2003 and 2004 compared to data
collected by the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1972. Common terns are an excellent
indicator species for tracking potential problems related to PCB contamination since
common terns are acutely sensitive to the dioxin-like toxic effects of PCB (Nisbet 2002).
Since 1981, however, PCB declines have markedly slowed; there appears to have been a
leveling off of PCB concentrations from 1991 to 2006 in common tern eggs from the
Detroit River (Figure 24).
Figure 24. Figure displays PCB 1260 trends in Detroit River common tern eggs, 1972-2004.
[Sources: PCB 1260 data for 1972 and for 1981 (Weseloh et al. 1989); *PCB 1260
concentrations in eggs collected on May 29, 1991 (Pettit et al. 1994); **PCB 1260
concentrations in eggs collected on May 6-8, 2003-2004 (Szczechowski and Bull 2005)].
40
PCB 1260 (mg/kg, wet wt.)
35
34.2
30
25
20
15
8.20
10
0
1970
**5.10
*4.90
5
**5.00
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
24
From 1974-2004, PCB concentrations in herring gull (Larus argentatus) eggs on Fighting
Island and Middle Island are similar to the common tern PCB concentrations. PCB levels
in herring gull eggs have declined by approximately 80 percent on Fighting and Middle
Islands since 1974 (Figure 25). Dichlorodiphenylchloroethylene (DDE; derivative of
DDT) concentrations have also declined approximately 90 percent since 1974 but have
remained fairly constant since the mid-1990s (Hartig et al. 2006).
Figure 25. Figure displays PCB 1:1 concentration in herring gull eggs on Fighting Island and
Middle Island, 1974-2004 (Source: Canadian Wildlife Service).
160
Middle
Concentration
(ug/g wet weight)
140
Fighting
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1974 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Wildcelery
Before the beginning of the 20th Century, contiguous coastal wetlands up to a mile wide
existed along both shores of the Detroit River (Manny 2003). By 1950 wetland vegetation
in the river, including wildcelery (Vallisneria americana) beds an important food source
for diving ducks, had decreased (Hunt 1963). Despite pollution abatement programs
implemented in the 1960s and 1970s, wildcelery in the lower Detroit River decreased
even further between 1950 and 1985 (Schloesser and Manny 1990). In 1986, the nonnative zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) began to colonize Lake St. Clair located
immediately up stream of the Detroit River. These filter-feeders are responsible for
increasing water clarity allowing more light penetration, which then increased wildcelery
abundance (Schloesser and Manny In Prep.).
Wildcelery abundance has been measured three times at five historically important duck
feeding locations in the lower Detroit River (Schloesser and Manny 1990). Wildcelery
tubers in river bottom sediments were collected and enumerated at Ballard Bar, Sugar
Island Bar, Swan Island Bar, North Bar, and Humbug Bar in May of 1950-1951, 19841985, and 1996-1997. Over the 46-year sampling period, wildcelery tuber abundance
declined 72 percent between 1950-51 and 1984-1985, and then increased 200 percent
between 1984-1985 and 1996-1997 (Figure 26). In 1985, wildcelery beds decreased,
25
resulting in a net loss of 36,720,000 tubers at the five locations (Schloesser and Manny
1990). Tuber abundance increased by the 1996-1997 sampling period.
Figure 26. Figure displays the mean number of wildcelery tubers per site at five historic
sampling locations in the Detroit River: Ballard Bar, Sugar Island Bar, Swan Island Bar,
North Bar, and Humbug Bar in May 1950-1951, 1984-1985, and 1996-1997. Standard errors
available only for 1984-1985 and 1996-1997 data (Source: U.S. Geological Survey).
30
Ballard Bar
20
10
0
30
Sugar Island Bar
20
10
Mean Number of Tubers (per m2)
0
30
Sw an Island Bar
20
10
0
30
North Bar
20
10
0
30
Humbug Bar
20
10
0
1950-1951
1984-1985
1996-1997
Years
From 1950-1951 to 1984-1985 there were small increases in wildcelery abundances at
Swan Island Bar and North Bar, however, these increases were not significant enough to
compensate for the large losses at other locations sampled. However, from 1984-1985 to
1996-1997 the mean density of wildcelery tubers increased significantly at all five sites.
The Humbug Bar site increased the least amount, from zero to one tuber per square
meter. The Swan Island Bar and North Bar had a higher mean number of tubers in 19941995 then in 1950-1951. However, the total estimated number of tubers was not
significantly different at all locations between 1950-1951 and in 1994-1995 (Schloesser
and Manny In Prep.).
26
Leaves of wildcelery provide cover for young fish, and starchy tubers are a preferred
food for diving ducks as they migrate through the corridor (Manny et al. 1988). In the
Detroit River, an average daily meal for a canvasback duck is 78.5 mL of wildcelery
buds. The decrease in the mean number of tubers from the 1950s to the 1980s was
equivalent to a net loss of 11,540,000 mL. This net loss corresponds to a potential loss of
147,000 waterfowl feeding days in the spring for canvasbacks, assuming that they did not
consume other food (Schloesser and Manny 1990). These feeding day figures are likely
an underestimate because more wildcelery tubers were consumed by the higher numbers
of diving ducks that migrated through Michigan in 1950 than in 1984-1985 (Hunt 1963;
Martz et al. 1976). There was in increase in duck feeding days between 1984-85 and
1996-97 with a slight increase in the migrating waterfowl population.
Description of Causes and Consequences of Trends
Introduction
The human population in the Detroit River watershed has grown substantially in the past
100 years. Not only has the population grown, but it has also dispersed, as more houses
are being built per person in southeast Michigan, thus consuming more land. Roads have
been constructed throughout the watershed and use is currently increasing. Millions of
people driving to work every day create environmental stressors via additional road
construction (causing an increase in impervious surface, sedimentation rate, and erosion),
an increase in air pollution, and the overuse of natural resources, such as petroleum.
People have a tendency to modify the environment to make it meet their needs. Since the
early 1900s, the Detroit River ecosystem has undergone dramatic changes; fish and
wildlife habitats have been degraded by shoreline and channel modifications, non-native
species were successfully introduced and have altered the food web, contaminant levels
have increased, and wetland abundance and quality has been drastically reduced. Habitat
modifications include encroachment to the river and hardening of the shoreline by the
addition of steel sheet piling, concrete break walls, and fill material. Other losses of
habitat included removal of limestone spawning grounds for lake whitefish to create
navigation channels, clearing of wooded areas for agriculture, and contamination of the
water by waste effluents. A combination of habitat loss and degradation, bioaccumulation
of persistent contaminants, such as mercury and PCBs through the food web,
eutrophication from phosphorus loadings, and non-native species introductions have
degraded fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit River.
Habitat Loss
Development has encroached on and converted many pristine natural areas, including
coastal wetlands. The lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, and walleye are three species
affected by spawning habitat loss, due to urban development, construction of river
barriers, and point and non-point source pollution. During the construction of the
Livingstone channel, from approximately 1907-1916, bedrock was blasted and removed.
Whitefish prefer to spawn on rock, honeycomb limestone, gravel or sand substrates (Hart
1930; Ihssen et al. 1981). Historic reports imply that the lower river was a prolific
spawning area prior to the construction of the shipping channel (Goodyear et al. 1982).
Lake sturgeon and lake whitefish have once again attempted to spawn in the Detroit
River but with few to no documented successes (Caswell et al. 2004; Roseman et al.
2006).
Raptors such as the bald eagle are also constrained because of a lack of nesting habitat
and are likely to become further constrained as the population continues to increase
(Laing and Badzinski 2004). The common tern population is very low because of lack of
nesting habitat and would likely increase if new nesting habitat was created
(Szczechowski and Bull 2005; Hartig et al. 2006). There are many other species, possibly
27
28
even the state and federally endangered northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa
rangiana) mussel that would also be able to thrive if more imperative habitat became
available. However, other factors such as the invasive zebra and quagga mussels in this
case, may still out compete native mussels even with more habitat available. Overall,
habitat loss has and continues to significantly contribute to the degradation of many fish
and wildlife populations in and around the Detroit River.
Persistent Contaminants
Human development and population growth correlate with an increase with waste. In the
mid- 20th Century development greatly contributed to industrial waste products such as
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury into the river system. These persistent
contaminants bio-accumulated through the food web, which is evident from the herring
gull and common tern egg PCB contamination data. The common tern population no
longer suffers from high PCB concentrations but instead from limited nesting habitat
along the Detroit River.
PCB and other chlorinated organic compounds have entered the Detroit River watershed
though various industrial and consumer uses. Some of these uses include hydraulic and
heat exchange fluid, plasticizers, caulking compounds, adhesives, paints, and printing
inks (Read et al. 2003). PCBs also enter the river through sewer pipes during combined
sewer overflow events. In 1986, sediments in sewer pipes possessed very high PCB
concentrations (Kenaga 1986) and these pipes actively dumped contaminated sediment
into the Detroit River (Kenaga and Crum 1987). In 1991, PCB concentrations in sediment
samples from Trenton Channel were four times greater than that recommended for
burrowing mayfly survival and emergence (Corkum et al. 2003). The largest PCB source
currently in the Detroit River and surrounding waterways is sediment downstream of the
Trenton Channel (Heidtke et al. 2006).
Dow Chemical, in Sarnia, Ontario and another mercury cell plant in Wyandotte, MI are
the industries that most contributed to the high levels of mercury in the Detroit River and
surrounding waterways. Dow Chemical Chlor-Alkali plant is the industry responsible for
much of the mercury contamination in the St. Clair River. Since 1949, Dow Chemical
had been operating a mercury cell plant in Sarnia (a second plant came on-line in 1965)
for production of chlorine and caustic soda. From the production process, mercury was
discharged into the river. Later, Dow Chemical voluntarily shut down its mercury cell
plants (Hartig 1983). Another mercury cell plant that discharged to the Detroit River in
Wyandotte, Michigan was also shut down in 1972. In 2005, the primary source of
mercury in the Detroit River was contaminated sediment from historic discharges
(Resources and Environment 1991) and atmospheric loadings. Contaminants located in
bottom sediment mix into the water column during storm events where they can be
consumed by aquatic life forms. Subsequently mercury is transported through the food
web to fish and wildlife.
Along with PCB and mercury, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and dioxins also
bio-accumulate through the food web and degrade fish and wildlife populations. DDT
29
compounds, including DDT derivatives DDE and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDD), were introduced into the environment through historical use as pesticides (LaMP
2006). Dioxins were originally introduced into the environment as combustion
byproducts, wood preservatives, and herbicides (LaMP 2006). Dioxin levels are high in
sediment in the western Lake Erie basin and above the Canadian probable effect level
(21.5 pg/g TEQ; CCME 1999). These elevated levels in the western basin sediments are
likely influenced by the Detroit River, and are responsible for the fish consumption
advisories in Lake Erie. The production of DDT and PCB is banned and dioxins have
substantially reduced, especially by enforcing restrictions on bleach pulp mills on the
Rouge River (LaMP 2006; McCormack and Ridgway 2006).
Contaminants bio-accumulate through the food web where they eventually affect the
highest predators such as bald eagles and humans. Currently, fish are not as contaminated
as they were in the 1960s, however advisories remain for eating certain species that come
from the Detroit River (Hummer 2001). Populations of raptors, such as bald eagles and
peregrine falcons, that are at the top of the food web, suffered in the 1950s and 1960s due
to habitat loss and persistent contaminants, such as DDE and PCB. Residues located in
the fish consumed by these raptors caused failed reproduction from egg shell thinning
and chick deformities (Bowerman et al. 1995; Bowerman et al. 1998; MDNR 2001;
Bowerman et al. 2003). From 1977 to 1982, PCB, mercury, and DDT concentrations in
Lake Erie walleye declined (DeVault et al. 1996). Also, PCB and DDT concentrations in
herring gull eggs decreased significantly from the late-1970s through the early-1990s
(Pekarik and Weseloh 1998). Bald eagles, along with the once federally threatened
peregrine falcon, are now successfully reproducing throughout the Detroit River corridor
following the ban of these and other organochlorine compounds in the 1970s (Bowerman
et al. 1995; Bowerman et al. 1998; MDNR 2001; Bowerman et al. 2003).
Oil Pollution
Industry has increased the incidence
of oil and other petroleum products in
the river system along with
phosphorus and persistent
contaminants. In addition to industry,
other sources of oil pollution were
soon recognized, such as municipal
wastewater treatment plants,
government installations, combined
sewer overflows, and shipping (IJC
1968). Industrial pollution on the
Detroit and Rouge Rivers was first
noticed as a problem at the end of the
19th Century (Hartig and Stafford
2003). Oil pollution affects many fish
and wildlife species, as well as
vegetation. In the late 1940s, oil
Table 1. Table displays waterfowl mortality in the
Detroit River due primarily to oil pollution, 1948-1967
(Sources: U.S. Department of Health 1962; Hartig and
Stifler 1979).
Year
Estimated Waterfowl Mortality
1948
11,000
1949
76
1950
871
1951
250
1952
1,000
1953
345
1954
238
1955
2,600
1956
191
1960
12,000
1967
5,400
30
pollution caused major winter duck kills (Table 1) in the Detroit and Rouge Rivers
(Hartig and Stafford 2003). Oil and other pollutants also decreased vegetation abundance
such as wildcelery. For example, at the Humbug Bar site wildcelery decreased because
bottom sediments were contaminated with oil (Hunt 1963). Consequently, diving ducks
such as the prized canvasback that depend on wildcelery (Vallisneria americana) for
migration through Detroit River corridor also declined (Miller 1943; Jones 1982;
Schloesser and Manny 1990).
Phosphorus Loadings
Phosphorus loadings from wastewater treatment plants, such as Detroit Wastewater
Treatment Plant (DWWTP), combined sewer overflows, fertilizers, and other human
influences caused increased biological productivity and subsequent eutrophication in the
Detroit River and western Lake Erie basin (Sperry 1967). Initial effects of phosphorus
loading also have a legacy effect as phosphorus accumulates in sediment layers and is
slowly recycled through the ecosystem for many years (Levine et al. 1986). Burrowing
mayfly nymphs and other benthic macroinvertebrates are intolerant of polluted sediment
associated with eutrophication and a lack of oxygen in the lowest layer of the water
column (Krieger and Ross 1993; Krieger et al. 1996).
Eutrophication in combination with invasive species and high contaminant concentrations
caused the demise of benthic macroinvertebrates, such as diporeia. Diporeia are the main
diet for lake whitefish (Nalepa et al. 2005) and their population decline is correlated with
a decrease in the lake whitefish population (Canada 2001; IJC 2004). Spawning runs of
lake whitefish into the Detroit River almost disappeared by the early 1900s due to food
shortages, predation by and competition with invasive species, over-fishing, and
degraded habitat and water quality (Trautman 1957; Hartman 1972; Goodyear et al.
1982). In recent years, Lake Erie whitefish populations have rebounded, similar to what
has been recorded for walleye (Knight 1997).
Walleye and yellow perch populations, which are very important ecologically and
economically are supported by burrowing mayfly populations respectively in the winter
and summer (Canada 2001). During certain times of the year mayflies can comprise up to
50 percent of the adult and juvenile perch diet (Bur Unpub.). Eutrophication caused the
demise of the mayfly populations (Bridgeman et al. 2006). Subsequently, the yellow
perch population decreased and the average individual perch became smaller (Madenjian
et al. 1998; Manny 2006).
In the late-1980s and through the 1990s, the walleye and yellow perch populations
declined due to a combination of fishing pressure, poor recruitment because of the
decline in benthic macroinvertebrates, spawning habitat loss due to urban development,
and environmental changes by invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels
(Kenyon and Murray 2001; Locke et al. 2005). In 2000, a critically low walleye
population was reached, causing declining angler interest and compromised commercial
economics (Locke et al. 2005). This was very devastating because yellow perch and
walleye are a large part of Detroit River corridor resident’s livelihoods (Manny 2006).
31
Walleye and yellow perch are species that the fishery and local communities surrounding
the Detroit River and Lake Erie depend on for their physical and economic well-being
(Locke et al. 2005).
Non-native, Invasive Species
Human influences, such as the sprawling distribution on the landscape and the flushing of
ballast water of foreign vessels, cause the introduction and spread of non-native invasive
species. Species that are accidentally or purposefully introduced into an ecosystem that
they did not historically inhabit can dominate and out-compete native species. Some
invasive species that have degraded native fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit
River include mute swans, double-crested cormorants (native but have invasive
characteristics), zebra mussels, quagga mussels, and round gobies. These species
dominate prime nesting and spawning habitat and change the food web diverting energy
from native species.
Mute swans and cormorants, in addition to being a nuisance to humans, are ecologically
damaging. Mute swans displace native waterfowl by taking over preferred nesting habitat
and can seriously damage beds of submerged vegetation critical to other waterfowl by
their heavy foraging. The abundance of cormorants degrades fish and wildlife
populations by impacting vegetation, especially the last natural remnants of Carolina
vegetation on East Sister and Middle Islands (Hebert et al. 2005), taking over other
colonial waterbird nesting habitat, and over consuming fish which creating a possible
threat to the fishery (Weseloh et al. 2002).
The introduction of non-indigenous species, such as dreissenid mussels and the round
goby caused the food web in Lake Eire to shift from pelagic to benthic, diverting energy
away from walleye and other fish populations. The introduction of dreissenid mussels
also caused the exacerbation of all other freshwater mussels (unionids) in the Detroit
River (Schloesser et al. 2006). A positive aspect of the round goby in the Detroit River is
that they feed on the invasive zebra mussels (Ray and Corkum 1997). Yet, round gobies
are a concern because they displace native species and feed on native fishes’ eggs, and
are bottom-dwelling therefore have the ability to transfer contaminants though the food
web (Corkum et al. 2004).
Predictions of Future Outcomes
An extensive amount of research has been conducted on the Detroit River. The Status and
Trends section of this assessment presents data on a variety of ecosystem parameters,
many have been measured yearly since the 1970s. Much of this monitoring is in response
to legislation instated to clean-up waterways, such as the Clean Water Act of 1972 and
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. More recent documents have been
produced (e.g. the 1996 Detroit River Remedial Action Plan
<http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/aoc/detroit.html> and the Lake Erie Lake Wide
Management Plan <http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeerie/lamp2000/> to direct
management activities on the Detroit River. Even with the current research and
management actions for the river, fish and wildlife populations have the potential to be
further degraded. There are additional management actions that could be considered to
increase or sustain fish and wildlife populations. Described below are three scenarios and
predicted outcomes 10 years from the present. Two of the scenarios include additional
management actions and the first describes what may happen to fish and wildlife
populations with no additional action. The three scenarios are:



SENARIO 1: No additional action
SENARIO 2: Ensure control of contaminants at their source and remediate 1.35
million cubic meters of contaminated sediment by 2016
SENARIO 3: Protect and restore 6,700 acres fish and wildlife habitat by 2016
SENARIO 1: No additional action
In 2016, human population will continue to grow in southeast Michigan. There will likely
be more subdivisions built in place of current wildlife habitat. Our continued
consumption of natural resources will put additional stress on the environment. The
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) estimates that, in the next 25
years, southeast Michigan's population will grow by 10 percent however that extra
population will consume at least 30 percent more land (Liu 2005). There will be further
increases in transportation with new roads constructed in the region. SEMCOG also
forecasts a population increase of 12 percent, 21 percent increase in households, and 16
percent increase in jobs by 2030 (SEMCOG 2004). It is speculated that these increases
will cause more land to be converted to meet human needs, stressing the ecosystem. All
of the non-native, invasive species will continue to flourish and dominate natural
landscapes, diverting energy and habitat from native species. Native fish and wildlife
species habitat could therefore decrease, which could further degrade already low
populations.
Fish populations may be stressed or possibly further degraded if no additional
management action is taken in the next 10 years. Fish species such as lake sturgeon and
lake whitefish will continue to struggle unless additional spawning habitat is created.
Yellow perch and walleye populations should fluctuate around carrying capacity if
regulations and phosphorus levels are held constant, thus maintaining low incidents of
32
33
eutrophication. In 2003, 2004, and 2005 there have been unexplained microcystis (toxic
blue-green algal blooms) in the western basin of Lake Erie (Bridgeman 2006).
Micorcystis blooms are associated with a high total phosphorus concentrations and a high
pH, which causes damage to fish gills (Bridgeman 2006). Continued toxic blooms could
cause harm to humans and have a devastating effect on the Lake Erie fishery over the
next 10 years.
Bird populations should, in general, increase or stay the same with no additional
management action in the next 10 years. Raptors that breed along the Detroit River
corridor, such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon should continue to increase. These
populations will at least increase until they have utilized all suitable nesting habitats.
Contaminant levels, such as DDT should stay at constant levels, as they have since the
early-1990s. However, the effects these low levels of persistent contaminants have on
wildlife and humans remain unknown. Oil spills on the river will continue to happen
sporadically; however, if current management actions are taken, spills can be contained
before becoming a detriment to waterfowl. Wildcelery populations should continue to
increase under the current management paradigm, which could increase the diving duck
populations that migrate through the corridor.
With no additional management action, invasive species will continue to spread and outcompete species with degraded populations. One such species, Phragmities australis will
continue to spread and dominate wetland areas, decreasing duck nesting habitat and
foraging habitat for many other species.
SENARIO 2: Ensure control of contaminants at their source and remediate 1.35 million
cubic meters of contaminated sediment by 2016
The goal of this scenario is to continue current management actions and increase the
amount of sediment remediated by 50 percent in the next 10 years compared to the last 10
years. This would mean approximately 1,350,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment
removed from the Detroit River watershed by 2016. The Detroit River contaminated
sediment is linked to restrictions on fish consumption, fish tumors or other deformities,
loss of fish and wildlife habitat, degraded invertebrate communities, and other beneficial
use impairments identified in the1987 protocol to the 1978 U.S.-Canada Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA 2005).
Contaminant loadings into the Detroit River have substantially decreased since the
1970s, however contaminant sinks in the atmosphere and sediment remain a concern
(Zarull et al. 2001). To eliminate the negative effects of contaminated sediment, it must
be removed from the river bottom. In the last 13 years, considerable progress has been
made in sediment remediation in the Detroit River watershed. From 1993 through 2006,
over 989,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment has been remediated as a result of
12 projects (Figure 27; Appendix B). The cumulative cost of these remediation projects
undertaken in the Detroit River watershed was over $154 million (Hartig et al. 2006).
Examples of contaminated sediment remediation projects completed include:
34

1998: approximately 306,000 m3 of contaminated sediment was removed from
Newburgh Lake impoundment on the Rouge River at a cost of $11 million,
resulting in a ten-fold decline in PCB contamination of fish and a lifting of the
health advisory on fish,
2003: approximately 122,300 m3 of contaminated sediment was removed from
Conner Creek at the upstream end of the Detroit River at a cost of $9 million,
resulting in substantial environmental, aesthetic, and economic benefits,
2005: approximately 87,900 m3 of contaminated sediment was removed from
Black Lagoon on the Detroit River at a cost of $9.3 million, furthering economic
revitalization of the adjacent area (Hartig et al. 2006).


Figure 27. Figure displays the cumulative volume of sediment remediated from the Detroit
River and western Lake Erie watershed, 1993-2006 (Hartig et al. 2006).
1100
1000
Sediment Removed (1000 m3)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
In addition to sediment remediation projects decreasing the amount of persistent
contaminants in the River, there is also evidence that remediation projects could reduce
the remaining excess phosphorus. Phosphorus loadings have a legacy effect because
phosphorus complexes with mineral elements and accumulates in sediment layers and
slowly recycles through the ecosystem for many years (Levine et al. 1986). Increasing the
amount of sediment remediated by 50 percent will therefore decrease phosphorus sinks,
which could further decrease the incidence of eutrophication. It is speculated that the
decrease in phosphorus concentrations could increase burrowing mayfly and other
macroinvertebrate populations that are sensitive to dissolved oxygen concentrations. With
an increase in macroinvertebrates, fish populations could also increase.
Sediment remediation is the only way to decrease the amount of persistent contaminants
from the Detroit River, since they do not break down naturally. Contaminant loading has
significantly decreased since the ban of PCB and DDT, but remnants have settled out in
the sediment and mix into the water column during storm events. These suspended
sediments are then able to bio-accumulate through the food web. With enhanced
remediation projects, PCB levels in common tern and herring gull eggs have the ability to
35
decrease. This also brings about the possibility for all fish species in the Detroit River to
be safe for human consumption in the future. Increased sediment remediation will
increase fish and wildlife habitat and enhance stability of the ecosystem.
SENARIO 3: Protect and restore 6,700 acres fish and wildlife habitat by 2016
Over time, the expanding human population has reduced the habitat for fish and wildlife,
impacted water quality, and impaired the rivers natural resources (MDNR 1996). Habitat
can be defined as places in the river where physical, chemical, and biological factors (e.g.
soil and water quality) sustain all life stages of fish and wildlife, including their
reproduction (GLFC 1987; Canada 1998). “The largest habitat change has been
encroachment into the river and hardening of the shoreline by the additional of sheet
steel, cement walls, and fill material” (Manny 2003). A 50 percent increase (6,700 acres)
of habitat protected or constructed in the next 10 years, as compared to the last 10 years,
would provide the opportunity for self-sustaining fish and wildlife populations. Not only
would healthier fish and wildlife populations stabilize ecosystem properties, they would
also improve our quality of life through enhancing aesthetic, recreational, economic
benefits in the region.
The 1996, Detroit River Remedial Action Plan defined objectives for restoring fish and
wildlife habitat and identified 20 candidate sites for habitat restoration in Michigan and
Ontario (MDNR 1996). In 1999, the U.S. EPA funded the U.S. Geological Survey’s
Great Lakes Science Center to inventory all fish and wildlife habitat in Michigan (Manny
2003). The inventory consisted of examining public records to determine the name,
ownership, area, assessed value, present zoning, river frontage, shoreline treatment, fish
and wildlife resources, wetland classification, habitat quality rating, remediation
potential, planned remediation, completed remediation, and possible sources of funding
for remediation. The inventory results were published in a report titled “Detroit River
Candidate Sties for Habitat Protection and Remediation” which concluded there where
104 sites totaling 3,436 acres in Michigan that ought to be protected or restored (Manny
2003). These sites could be ranked in order of priority, with the habitat types needed by
the greatest diversity of species protected and/or restored first (Manny 2003). Agencies,
such as the Nature Conservancy or the U.S. FWS could ensure the protection of these
important natural remnants. In 2001, the President signed a bill creating the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge, the first bi-national refuge in the country. Since its
instatement, the Refuge has grown significantly (Figure 28).
36
Figure 28. Figure displays the cumulative amount of acres owned or co-managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, 2001-2006 (Source: J.H. Hartig,
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge).
5,000
4,500
4,000
Acres
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
In combination with restoration and enhancement projects, U.S. FWS and other
government and non-profit agencies property acquisition could increase by 50 percent. In
the next 10 years these acquisitions will enhance the likelihood of fish and wildlife
population sustainability. This would translate to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
protecting approximately 6,700 more acres along the Detroit River by 2016. Habitat
could be set aside for all important life stages of recovering species to allow populations
to increase closer to their historic extent. Some Detroit River species that are currently
constrained because of lack of habitat include:




lake sturgeon, spawning habitat;
lake whitefish, spawning habitat;
common tern, nesting habitat; and
diving ducks, foraging habitat.
If this wildlife habitat can be created, enhanced, or simply protected from human
development, these populations could have the room and resources to become selfsustaining.
Provision of Guidance for Potential Actions
The following actions are suggestions to implement the remediation scenarios: ensure
the control of contaminants at their source and remediate 50 percent more (1.35 million
cubic meters) contaminated sediment and protect and restore 50 percent more (6,700
acres) fish and wildlife habitat, by 2016. These actions could be considered to increase
and help stabilize degraded fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit River
SENARIO 2: Ensure the control of contaminants at their source and remediate 1.35
million cubic meters of contaminated sediment by 2016
Sediment remediation can occur through many different methods. There may be natural
recovery of contaminant levels in sediments with source controls, depending on the
severity of the contamination and location of the sediment. However, natural recovery in
the Detroit River, if it did occur, would likely take centuries because of the current level
of contamination. Phytoremediation is also used in many cases to reduce contaminant
levels in the soil. However, with these contaminants located at the bottom of the river this
method would likely be ineffective. Contaminated sediment could also be capped so that
it is contained and unable to be taken in by biota. This method, however, would also not
be beneficial given the location of the contaminated sediment.
Contaminated sediment could also be removed from the river bottom then treated or
contained in a confined disposal facility or an upland containment cell where it could no
longer enter the water column to harm fish, wildlife, or humans (Zarull et al. 2001).
Although this remediation process is costly (over $154 million total for target amount) it
would likely be the most effective in the Detroit River. It may take many years before the
positive effects are evident from removing the contaminated sediment and extent of
contaminated sediment in the River is unknown. Some contaminated sediment is
remediated during routine dredging in the Detroit and Rouge Rivers by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The amount of contaminated sediment removed is miniscule,
however, compared to that during a remediation project (Hartig 2003).
High priority areas to be targeted first for remediation activities, such as the Trenton
Channel near the mouth of the Detroit River, are where sources have stated there are high
contaminant concentrations (Marvin et al. 2002; Corkum et al. 2003; Heidtke et al. 2006).
The BASF site (formally the Federal Marine Terminal Site) in Riverview, Michigan
along the Trenton Channel is high priority for sediment remediation. In 2002, $8 million
was spent to encircle 30 acres with a watertight barrier to prevent contamination from
entering the Detroit River. Despite this effort remediation is still warranted (Hartig 2003).
The area just north of Humbug marsh, adjacent to the former Chrysler Tract (a
brownfield currently owned by Wayne County), could also be top priority a sediment
remediation project (Appendix C). Sampling could be conducted to confirm contaminant
levels pre-remediation, although high levels are suspected because of the location, at a
river mouth and in an embayment (Zarull et al. 2001).
37
38
SENARIO 3: Protect and restore 6,700 acres fish and wildlife habitat by 2016
As of 2006, significant efforts have been put forth by the U.S. FWS to acquire sites listed
in the “Detroit River Candidate Sites for Habitat Protection and Remediation” and
remaining coastal wetlands to become part of the Detroit River IWR. Two properties with
high priority fish and wildlife habitat that could be protected from development are
Round and Sugar Islands near the mouth of the Detroit River. Continued targeting of the
remaining public and private properties along the river that have high habitat value is
essential.
State and county agencies, such as the Michigan Department of Natural Resources or
Wayne County Parks Department, that own and manage property along the Detroit River
corridor could be encouraged to restore additional lands or purchase remnant natural
areas.
On the Canadian side of the river, Ojibway Shores is a high priority for protection
because it is the only remaining natural shoreline within the City of Windsor. Ojibway
Shores is 39 acres and located just south of Windsor. The property has high biodiversity
but development by the Windsor Port threatens conservation efforts (Manny 2003; Tulen
et al. 2006). The Canadian government signed the agreement to make the Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge, and could purchase this property to protect habitat and add
to the bi-national Refuge (Tulen et al. 2006).
As the popular saying goes, “build it, and they will come”. That was the theory with the
construction of the sturgeon spawning habitat created off the north edge of Belle Isle in
2004. This habitat construction was successful because USGS scientists located a
spermating male in the vicinity of the reef in spring 2006. Other habitat could be
constructed, such as common tern nesting habitat along the Sugar Island Cut Dike (aka
“Cross Dike”) owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or on Mud Island owned by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The shoreline of Grassy Island, Crystal Bay Island, or
the Sugar Island Cut Dike could also be modified to create coastal wetlands of
“bulrushes, shrub swamp, wet prairie, mixed hardwoods, and beech-maple forest” like
those present before European settlement (MNFI 2000). There is immense potential in
coastal areas that are currently degraded to become quality habitat with enhancement or
restoration techniques.
The Detroit River Remedial Action Plan encourages creation of more wetland habitat and
supplementary riverbank restoration projects. As of 2006, there have been 22 soft
engineering riverbank restoration projects enhancing fish and wildlife habitat along the
Michigan shore. Along the Ontario shore, there also have been numerous successful
habitat restoration projects. Some of these projects include Goose Bay Park on the
Windsor waterfront, Turkey Creek channel improvements, Little River watershed
shoreline stabilization and reforestation, and Canard River marshes enhancement
(DRCCC 1999). Sediment remediation projects may also create more wetland habitat by
making once toxic areas clean to inhabit. These restoration efforts should be continued
along the Detroit River and its tributaries on both sides of the border.
39
There are two main uncertainties give the task of protecting or restoring 6,700 acres of
fish and wildlife habitat. It is uncertain how much the individual fish and wildlife
populations will grow given the increased habitats and exactly how much habitat is
needed for their stabilization. Also, it is uncertain what edge-effects may occur to
protected habitat directly adjacent to residential or industrial property.
Adaptive Management
To manage the Detroit River ecosystem, one could assess set priorities and take action in
an iterative process, integrating the environment with economic and social understanding
for continuous improvement in management decisions. Information gained from past
experiences could be used to continually reassess priorities for future management
actions (Holling 1978). Monitoring, research, and assessment are essential for adaptive
planning and management (Zarull 1994). It is pertinent to routinely update indicator
reporting and repeat integrated assessment priorities as future actions are taken, so that
policy-makers and decision-makers management actions address current ecosystem needs
(Hartig 1997).
40
Conclusions
The pressure that humans place on the environment and the Detroit River ecosystem has
become an engrained pattern. These stressors affect fish and wildlife populations and
then come around full circle to affect the human population through compromises in both
health and economic well-being. There have been many environmental improvements in
the last 30 years as fish and wildlife populations on the whole have increased. However,
continual improvements are needed in dynamic ecosystems, as is shown throughout this
assessment. Additional management actions can increase degraded fish and wildlife
populations in the Detroit River. With an increase in sediment remediated from the
Detroit River, and important habitat protected or restored, wildlife populations may have
the ability to stabilize. The past degradation of fish and wildlife populations in the Detroit
River is irreversible, but effective management will continue to increase ecosystem health
to the point that populations are able to become and remain self-sustaining.
41
Acknowledgements
This integrated assessment could not have been possible without the collaboration of
many agencies and individuals who manage, conduct research, or simply just care about
the Detroit River. There are too many people and agencies I have worked with to name.
Dr. Donald Scavia provided guidance throughout the process of writing this Integrated
Assessment. John Hartig and Steve Dushane are making a tremendous effort in managing
the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. The Metropolitan Affairs Coalition and
American Heritage River provided funding to write the Detroit River-Western Lake Erie
Basin Indicator Project, from which this integrative assessment is based. Thanks to Dr.
David Allan and Dr. Jennifer Read for being an integral part of the peer review process
and to Brook Wilke and Meredith Haamen for providing much needed editorial
assistance. Lastly, I thank all of the agencies that have collected the data presented on the
Detroit River and for all of the work they do in helping to make this assessment possible.
42
Bibliography
Baldwin, N. S., R. W. Saalfeld, et al. (2002). Commercial Fish Production in the Great
Lakes 1867-2000, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. 2006.
Baldwin, N. S., R. W. Saalfeld, et al. (1979). Commercial Fish Production in the Great
Lakes 1867-1977. Ann Arbor, MI, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.
Belore, M., A. Cook, et al. (2006). Report of the Lake Erie Yellow Perch Task Group,
Great Lakes Fishery Commission: 49.
Boase, J. (2005). Lake Sturgeon Research on the Detroit River in 2002. E. E. Wilke.
Grosse Ile, MI.
Bowerman, W. W., D. A. Best, et al. (2003). "Associations between Regional Differences
in Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene in Blood of
Nestling Bald Eagles and Reproductive Productivity." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 22(2): 371-376.
Bowerman, W. W., D. A. Best, et al. (1998). "Trends of Contaminants and Effects in
Bald Eagles of the Great Lakes Basin." Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 53(1): 197-212.
Bowerman, W. W., J. P. Giesy, et al. (1995). "A Review of Factors Affecting
Productivity of Bald Eagles in the Great-Lakes Region - Implications for
Recovery." Environmental Health Perspectives 103: 51-59.
Bridgeman, T. B. (2006). Microcystis and the Muddy Maumee. Oregon, OH.
Bridgeman, T. B., D. W. Schloesser, et al. (2006). "Recruitment of Hexagenia Mayfly
Nymphs in Western Lake Erie Linked to Environmental Variability." Ecological
Applications 16(2): 601-611.
Bull, J. N. and J. Craves (2003). Biodiversity of the Detroit River and Environs: Past,
Present, and Future Prospects. Honoring Our Detroit River. J. H. Hartig.
Bloomfield Hills, MI, Cranbrook Institute of Science.
Bur, M. T. (Unpub.). Yellow Perch Diet. Sandusky, OH, U.S. Geological Survey, Great
Lakes Science Center and Lake Erie Biological Station.
Canada, Environment (1998). A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great
Lakes Area of Concern. Downsview, Ont., Environmental Conservation Branch.
Canada, Environment (2001). Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem. Ontario, Ontario Ministry of the Environment: 4.
Canada, Government of and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA (1995). The
Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 2006.
Caswell, N. M. (2003). Population Characteristics, Spawning Sites, and Movement of
Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens) in the Detroit River, Central Michigan
University.
Caswell, N. M., D. L. Peterson, et al. (2004). "Spawning by Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser
Fulvescens) in the Detroit River." Journal of Applied Ichthyology 20(1): 1-6.
CCME, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (1999). Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines. Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Center, U.S. Coast Guard National Response (2002). Emergency Response Notification
System (Data Collected from 1982-2005), U.S. Coast Guard. 2005.
43
44
Charlebois, P. M., J. E. Marsden, et al. (1997). The Round Goby, Neogobius
Melanostomus (Pallas), a Review of the European and North American Literature,
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program and Illinois Natural History Survey: 76.
Commission, Ohio Lake Erie (2004). Mayfly Metric of the Lake Erie Quality Index:
Design of an Efficient Censusing Program, Data Collected, and Development of
the Metric. Toledo, OH, Ohio Lake Erie Commission: 1-39.
Corkum, L. D., J. J. H Ciborowski, et al. (2003). PCBs in Adult Aquatic Insects'.
Evaluating Ecosystem Results of PCB Control Measures within the Detroit RiverWestern Lake Erie Basin. T. Heidtke, J. H. Hartig and B. N. Yu. Chicago, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 905-R-03-001: 84-88.
Corkum, L. D., M. R. Sapota, et al. (2004). "The Round Goby, Neogobius Melanostomus,
a Fish Invader on Both Sides of the Atlantic Ocean." Biological Invasions 6(2):
173-181.
Courtney, P. A. and H. Blokpoel (1983). "Distribution and Numbers of Common Terns
Nesting on the Lower Great Lakes During 1900-1980: A Review." Colonial
Waterbirds 6: 107-112.
DeVault, D. S., R. Hesselberg, et al. (1996). "Contaminant Trends in Lake Trout and
Walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes." Journal of Great Lakes Research
22(4): 884-895.
DRCCC, Detroit River Canadian Cleanup Committee (1999). Detroit River Update
Report. Windsor, Ont., Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research.
Gannon, J. E. (2001). Changes in River Biota over Time. State of the Strait: Status and
Trends of the Detroit River Ecosystem Conference Proceedings, University of
Windsor. Windsor, Ontario.
GLFC, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (1987). Guidelines for Fish Habitat
Management and Planning in the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor, MI, Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission.
GLFC, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (2003). Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes;
Lake Sturgeon, the Giant of the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor, MI, Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission: 2.
GLWQA, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (2005). Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006.
Goodyear, C. D., T. A. Edsall, et al. (1982). Atlas of Spawning and Nursery Areas of
Great Lakes Fishes. Washington, DC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Grant, Michigan Sea (2006a). Integrated Assessment: Causes and Consequences of
Environmental Change, MI Sea Grant. 2006.
Grant, Michigan Sea (2006b). Expansion of Quagga Mussels in Lake Michigan Adds to
Food Web Uncertainties. upwellings - online edition.
Griffiths, R. W., D. W. Schloesser, et al. (1991). "Distribution and Dispersal of the Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena-Polymorpha) in the Great-Lakes Region." Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(8): 1381-1388.
Group, Lake Erie Walleye Task (2005). Report for 2004 by the Lake Erie Walleye Task
Group. Ann Arbor, MI, Lake Erie Committee, Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Haas, R. C. and W. C. Bryant (1978). Status of the Fisheries Resources in Lake St. Clair
and Connecting Waters. Mt. Clemens, MI, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lake St. Clair Great Lakes Station: 41.
45
Harkness, W. and J. Dymond (1961). The Lake Sturgeon. Ontario, Ontario Department of
Lands and Forests, Fish and Wildlife Branch: 121.
Hart, J. L. (1930). "Spawning and Early Life History of Whitefish (Coregonus
Clupeaformis) in the Bay of Quinte, Ontario." Contributions to Canadian Biology
and Fisheries 40: 165-214.
Hartig, J. H. (1983). "Lake St. Clair: Since the Mercury Crisis." Water Spectrum 15(1):
18-25.
Hartig, J. H. (1997). "Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans: Fostering Adaptive
Ecosystem-Based Management Processes." The American Review of Canadian
Studies: 437-458.
Hartig, J. H., Ed. (2003). Eutrophication of Lake Erie. Honoring Our River Caring for
Our Home. Bloomfield, MI, Cranbrook Institute of Science.
Hartig, J. H. (2003). Evaluating Ecosystem Results of Pcb Control Measures within the
Detroit River-Western Lake Erie Basin: Appendix 6. Sediment Remediation in
the Detroit River-Western Lake Erie Watershed. Detroit, MI, Greater Detroit
American Heritage River Initiative. 2006.
Hartig, J. H. and T. Stafford (2003). The Public Outcry over Oil Pollution of the Detroit
River. Honoring Our Detroit River. J. H. Hartig. Bloomfield Hills, Cranbrook
Institute of Science: 69-78.
Hartig, J. H. and M. E. Stifler (1979). Water Quality and Pollution Control in Michigan.
Lansing, MI, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Hartig, J. H. and R. L. Thomas (1988). "Development of Plans to Restore Degraded
Areas in the Great Lakes." Environmental Management 12(3): 327-347.
Hartig, J. H. and M. A. Zarull (1992). Under Raps: Toward Grassroots Ecological
Democracy in the Great Lakes Basin. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Hartig, J. H., M. A. Zarull, et al. (2006). Detroit River-Western Lake Erie Basin Indicator
Project. Grosse Ile, MI, Large Lakes Research Station.
Hartman, W. L. (1972). "Lake Erie: Effects of Exploitation, Environmental Changes, and
New Species on the Fishery Resources." Journal Fisheries Research Board
Canada 29: 931-936.
Hebert, C. E., J. Duffe, et al. (2005). "Unique Island Habitats May Be Threatened by
Double-Crested Cormorants." Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1): 68-76.
Heidtke, T., J. H. Hartig, et al. (2006). "Pcb Levels and Trends within the Detroit RiverWestern Lake Erie Basin: A Historical Perspective of Ecosystem Monitoring."
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 112(1-3): 23-33.
Heinz, J. H. (2002). The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters,
and Living Resources of the United States. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
University Press.
Holcombe, T. L., L. A. Taylor, et al. (2003). "Revised Lake Erie Postglacial Lake Level
History Based on New Detailed Bathymetry." Journal of Great Lakes Research
29(4): 681-704.
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York,
John Wiley and Sons.
Hummer, J. (2001). Detroit River Area of Concern, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 2006.
Hunt, G. S. (1963). "Wildcelery in the Lower Detroit River." Ecology 44.
46
Ihssen, P. E., D. O. Evans, et al. (1981). "Life History, Morphology, and Electrophoretic
Characteristics of Five Allopatric Stocks of Lake Whitefish (Coregonus
Clupeaformis) in the Great Lakes Region." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 38: 1790-1807.
IJC, International Joint Commission (1968). Pollution of the Detroit, St. Clair, and St.
Mary Rivers. Washington D.C.
IJC, International Joint Commission (1985). Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality.
Windsor, Ontario, Great Lakes Water Quality Board.
IJC, International Joint Commission (2004). Twelfth Biennial Report, Chapter 4:
Ecosystem Integrity: The Changing Lake Erie Ecosystem. United States and
Canada, International Joint Commission: 52.
Jones, J. J. (1982). Potential Effects of Winter Shipping on Diving Ducks Wintering in
the Detroit River. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan: 91.
Jude, D. J., R. H. Reider, et al. (1992). "Establishment of Gobiidae in the Great Lakes
Basin." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 416-421.
Kenaga, D. (1986). Concentrations of PCB's in Sediment Depositional Zones in the
Upper Detroit River Along the United States Shore, July 8 and 9, 1986 and the
18th Street Sewer System, Detroit, Michigan, July 14 and 15, 1986. Lansing, MI,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Surface Water Quality Division: 13.
Kenaga, D. and J. Crum (1987). Sediment PCB Concentrations Along the U.S. Shoreline
of the Upper Detroit River, and Sediment and Water PCB Concentrations in Two
City of Detroit Combined Sewers with Overflows to the Detroit River, July and
October, 1986, and January, 1987. Lansing, MI, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Surface Water Quality Division: 6.
Kenyon, R. and C. Murray (2001). A Review of the Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay
Yellow Perch Sport Angling Fisheries, 1997-2001. Fairview, PA, Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission, Lake Erie Research Unit: 19.
Knight, R. L. (1997). "Successful Interagency Rehabilitation of Lake Erie Walleye."
Fisheries 22(7): 16-17.
Krieger, K. A. (1999). Ecosystem Change in Western Lake Erie: Causes and Effect of
Burrowing Mayfly Recolonization. Tiffin, OH, Heidelberg College, Water
Quality Laboratory.
Krieger, K. A. and L. S. Ross (1993). "Changes in the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Community of the Cleveland Harbor Area of Lake Erie from 1978 to 1989."
Journal of Great Lakes Research 19(2): 237-249.
Krieger, K. A., D. W. Schloesser, et al. (1996). "Recovery of Burrowing Mayflies
(Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae: Hexagenia) in Western Lake Erie." Journal of
Great Lakes Research 22: 254-263.
Laing, D. K. and D. S. Badzinski (2004). Trends in Bald Eagle Population Size and
Productivity Along the Detroit River and on the North Shore of Lake Erie.
Southwest Ontario, Bird Studies Canada.
LaMP, Lake Erie LaMP Work Group (2006). Lake Erie Lamp, Section 5: Sources and
Loads, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada.
Lapointe, N. (2006). Round Goby Research in the Detroit River. E. E. Wilke. Grosse Ile,
MI.
47
Leach, J. H. (1993). Impacts of Zebra Mussel (Dreissna) on Water Quality and Fish
Spawning Reefs in Western Lake Erie. Zebra Mussels: Biology, Impact, and
Control. T. F. Nalepa and D. W. Schloesser. Ann Arbor, MI, Lewis Publishers:
381-97.
Levine, S. N., M. P. Stainton, et al. (1986). "A Radiotracer Study of Phosphorus Cycling
in a Eutrophic Canadian Shield Lake, Lake-227, Northwestern Ontario."
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43(2): 366-378.
Licari, A. and L. Dean (2004). Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 2005.
Liu, X. (2005). Detroit River/Western Lake Erie Indicator Project. E. E. Wilke. Detroit.
Locke, B., M. Belore, et al. (2005). Lake Erie Walleye Management Plan. Ann Arbor,
Lake Erie Committee, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.
Ludwig, J. P. (1962). "A Survey of the Gull and Tern Populations of Lakes Huron,
Michigan, and Superior." Jack-Pine Warbler 40: 104-119.
MacInnis, A. J. and L. D. Corkum (2000). "Fecundity and Reproductive Season of the
Round Goby Neogobius Melanostomus in the Upper Detroit River." Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 129: 136-144.
Madenjian, C. P., D. W. Schloesser, et al. (1998). "Population Models of Burrowing
Mayfly Recolonization in Western Lake Erie." Ecological Applications 8(4):
1206-1212.
Manny, B. A. (2003). Setting Priorities for Conserving and Rehabilitating Detroit River
Habitats. Honoring Our Detroit River Caring for Our Home. J. H. Hartig.
Bloomfield Hills, Cranbrook Institute of Science: 121-139.
Manny, B. A. (2006). Yellow Perch and Burrowing Mayfly Populations in Lake Erie. E.
E. Wilke. Ann Arbor.
Manny, B. A., T. A. Edsall, et al. (1988). The Detroit River, Michigan: An Ecological
Profile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Markham, J., P. Ryan, et al. (2005). Report of the Lake Erie Coldwater Task Group. Ann
Arbor, MI, Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, Lake Erie Committee.
Martz, G. F., J. W. Aldrich, et al. (1976). History and Future of Canvasback Populations
in Michigan's Great Lakes Habitat During Fall Migration and Early Winter.
Lansing, MI, Michigan Department of Natural Resources: 22.
Marvin, C., M. Alaee, et al. (2002). "Persistent Organic Pollutants in Detroit River
Suspended Sediments: Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans,
Dioxin-Like Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Polychlorinated Naphthalenes."
Chemosphere 49(2): 111-120.
Marvin, C. H., M. N. Charlton, et al. (2002). "Surficial Sediment Contamination in Lakes
Erie and Ontario: A Comparative Analysis." Journal of Great Lakes Research
28(3): 437-450.
Marvin, C. H., S. Painter, et al. (2004). "Trends in Spatial and Temporal Levels of
Persistent Organic Pollutants in Lake Erie Sediments." Chemosphere 54(1): 3340.
Marvin, C., S. Painter, et al. (2004). "Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Mercury
Contamination in Sediments of the Laurentian Great Lakes." Environmental
Research 95(3): 351-362.
48
McCormack, F. M. and J. W. Ridgway (2006). Rouge River Watershed Nonpoint Source
Management: Significant Components of Urban Pollutant Loads-Crossing the
Final Hurdles for Achieving Water Quality Standards, The Rouge River Project.
2006.
MDNR, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1977). The Detroit River: 19661976: A Progress Report. Lansing, MI, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.
MDNR, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1996). Detroit River Remedial
Action Plan Report. Lansing, MI, Surface Water Quality Division.
MDNR, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2001). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
Leucocephalus), Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2006.
MDNR, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2005). Fishing Regulations, Lake
Sturgeon, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2006.
Miller, H. J. (1943). Waterfowl Survey of Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River,
Lake Erie and Marshes Adjacent to These Waters. Lansing, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division: 132.
MNFI, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (2000). Land Use Circa 1800 County Base by County [Wayne County]. Lansing, MI.
Nalepa, T. F. , L. C. Mohr, et al. (2005). Lake Whitefish and Diporeia Spp. In the Great
Lakes: An Overview. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Dynamics of Lake
Whitefish (Coregonus Clupeaformis) and the Ampnipod Diporeia Spp. In the
Great Lakes. L. C. Mohr and T. F. Nalepa. Ann Arbor, Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission. 66: 5.
Nisbet, I. (2002). Common Tern: Sterna Hirundo. Philadelphia, PA, Birds of North
America Inc.
OMNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2005). Fishing Regulations for the
Province of Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006.
Panek, J., D. M. Dolan, et al. (2003). Detroit's Role in Reversing Cultural Eutrophication
of Lake Erie. Honoring Our Detroit River. J. H. Hartig. Bloomfield Hills, MI,
Cranbrook Institute of Science.
Pekarik, C. and D. V. Weseloh (1998). "Organochlorine Contaminants in Herring Gull
Eggs from the Great Lakes, 1974-1995: Change Point Regression Analysis and
Short-Term Regression." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 53(1): 77115.
Pettit, K. E., C. A. Bishop, et al. (1994). An Atlas of Contaminants in the Eggs of FishEating Colonial Birds of the Great Lakes (1989-1992) Vols I and Ii. Ontario
Region, Canadian Wildlife Service.
Post, H. (1890). "The Sturgeon; Some Experiments in Hatching." Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
19: 36-40.
Ray, W. J. and L. D. Corkum (1997). "Predation of Zebra Mussels by Round Gobies,
Neogobius Melanostomus." Environmental Biology of Fishes 50(3): 267-273.
Read, J. (2001). Detroit River: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. State of the Strait:
Status and Trends of the Detroit River Ecosystem Conference Proceedings,
University of Windsor. Windsor, Ontario.
49
Read, J., D. Haffner, et al., Eds. (2003). Mercury and PCB Contamination of the Detroit
River. Honoring Our Detroit River. Bloomfield Hills, Cranbrook Institute of
Science.
Resources, Michigan Department of Natural and Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(1991). Stage 1 Remedial Action Plan for the Detroit River Area of Concern.
Lansing and Sarnia.
Roseman, E., G. Kennedy, et al. (2006). Assessing Lake Whitefish Spawning and
Nursery Habitat in the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Ann Arbor,
MI, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center.
Roseman, E., G. W. Kennedy, et al. (2006). Evidence of Spawning by Lake Whitefish in
the Lower Detroit River. International Association for Great Lakes Research,
Windsor, Ont.
Schloesser, D. W. (2005). Restoration of Burrowing Mayflies in the Great Lakes. Ann
Arbor, MI, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center.
Schloesser, D. W., W. P. Kovalak, et al. (1998). "Impact of Zebra and Quagga Mussels
(Dreissena Spp.) on Freshwater Unionids (Bivalvia : Unionidae) in the Detroit
River of the Great Lakes." American Midland Naturalist 140(2): 299-313.
Schloesser, D. W., K. A. Krieger, et al. (2000). "Recolonization and Possible Recovery of
Burrowing Mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Hexagenia Spp.) in Lake Erie of the
Laurentian Great Lakes." Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 8:
125-141.
Schloesser, D. W. and B. A. Manny (1990). "Decline of Wild-Celery Buds in the Lower
Detroit River, 1950-85." Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1): 72-76.
Schloesser, D. W. and B. A. Manny (In Prep.). Recovery of Wildcelery, Vallisneria
Americana, in the Lower Detroit River of the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.
Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center.
Schloesser, D. W., J. L. Metcalfe-Smith, et al. (2006). "Extirpation of Freshwater
Mussels (Bivalvia : Unionidae) Following the Invasion of Dreissenid Mussels in
an Interconnecting River of the Laurentian Great Lakes." American Midland
Naturalist 155(2): 307-320.
SEMCOG, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (2001). 2030 Regional
Development Forecast for Southeast Michigan: Population, Households, and Jobs,
for Cities, Villages, and Townships 1990-2000. Detroit, Southeast Michigan
Council of Governments: 7-9.
SEMCOG, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (2002). Historic Populations
and Employment by Minor Civil Division, Southeast Michigan: Population, 19002000; Employment, 1970-2000. Detroit, Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments: 2-5.
SEMCOG, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (2004). A Summary of the 2030
Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan, SEMCOG. 2006.
Sperry, K. (1967). "Water and Air Pollution - 2 Reports on Cleanup Efforts .1. Battle of
Lake Erie - Eutrophication and Political Fragmentation." Science 158(3799): 351357.
Sullivan, P. W., G. C. Christie, et al. (2003). "The Sea Lamprey in Lake Erie: A Case
History." Journal of Great Lakes Research 29: 615-636.
50
Szczechowski, B. and J. Bull (2005). Detroit River Common Tern Population. E. E.
Wilke. Grosse Ile, MI.
Trautman, M. B. (1957). The Fishes of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio, Ohio State University
Press.
Tulen, L. A., M. Buckner, et al. (2006). Making a Case for Ojibway Shores. International
Association for Great Lakes Research, Windsor, Ont.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1962). Pollution of the Navigable
Water of the Detroit River, Lake Erie and Their Tributaries within the State of
Michigan. Detroit, MI, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001). Detroit River Area of Concern,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada (1998).
Biodiversity Investment Areas: Coastal Wetland Ecosystems, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 2006.
USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2005). Detroit River International Wildlife
Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.
Grosse Ile, MI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Large Lakes Research Station.
Weseloh, D. V. C., C. Pekarik, et al. (2002). "Population Trends and Colony Locations of
Double-Crested Cormorants in the Canadian Great Lakes and Immediately
Adjacent Areas, 1990-2000: A Manager's Guide." Journal of Great Lakes
Research 28(2): 125-144.
Weseloh, D. V., T. W. Custer, et al. (1989). "Organochlorine Contaminants in Eggs of
Common Terns from the Canadian Great Lakes, 1981." Environ. Pollution 59:
141-160.
Weseloh, D. V., P. J. Ewins, et al. (1995). "Double-Crested Cormorants of the Great
Lakes: Changes in Population Size, Breeding Distribution and Reproductive
Output between 1913 and 1991." Colonial Waterbirds 18: 48-59.
Weseloh, D. V., T. Havelka, et al. (2001). Biodiversity Along the Detroit River Corridor:
Changes and Prospects. State of the Strait, University of Windsor. Ontario,
Canada.
Zarull, M. A. (1994). "Research: The Key to Great Lakes Rehabilitation." Journal of
Great Lakes Research 20: 331-332.
Zarull, M. A., J. H. Hartig, et al. (2001). "Contaminated Sediment Remediation in the
Laurentian Great Lakes: An Overview." Water Quality Research Journal of
Canada 36(3): 351-365.
Appendix A. Map displays the Detroit River and some of the islands and important
features the river contains, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Detroit River
International Wildlife Refuge acquisition boundary (Map Credit: E.E. Wilke).
.
51
Appendix B. Location of sediment remediation projects in southeast Michigan (Source:
Hartig, J.H. 2003. Sediment remediation in the Detroit River-Western Lake Erie
watershed. In Heidtke, T.M., J. Hartig, and B. Yu. Evaluation ecosystem results of PCB
control measures within the Detroit River-Western Lake Erie Basin. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-905-R-03-001, Chicago, Illinois).
52
Appendix C. Figure displays the area adjacent to the former Chrysler Tract in the
Trenton Channel of the Detroit River that is a high priority for sediment remediation.
Former
Chrysler Tract
Humbug Marsh
Calf Island
53