1

NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL GLERL-114

Proceedings of the Workshop

The Environmental Implications of Cargo Sweeping in the Great Lakes

David F. Reid

NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Guy A. Meadows

University of Michigan, Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Ann Arbor, Michigan

September 1999

NAT OI NAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRAT OI N

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

William Daley

Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

D. James Baker

Under Secretary for Oceans

and Atmosphere/Administrator
2

NOTICE

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement

by the NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories. Use of information from

this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of such products for

publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. This is GLERL Contribution

No. 1139.

The Workshop was held at the University of Michigan North Campus Commons

in Ann Arbor, MI, September 27-28, 1994, and was sponsored by the U.S. Coast

Guard - Ninth District. The Workshop was convened by David F. Reid and Guy

A. Meadows.

This publications is available as a PDF file and can be downloaded from

GLERL’s web site: www.glerl.noaa.gov. Hard copies can be requested from the

GLERL Publications Unit, 2205 Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

darnell@glerl.noaa.gov.
3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 4

I. Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 4

II. Summary of the Risk to Fisheries & Habitat Work Group Report .................................................. 4

III. Summary of the Sediment Accumulation And Toxicity Work Group Report ................................. 5

IV. Summary of the Water Column Impacts Work Group Report......................................................... 5

V. Overall Workshop Recommendations ............................................................................................. 6

A. THE CARGO SWEEPING WORKSHOP............................................................................................... 7

I. Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 7

II. Workshop Goals .............................................................................................................................. 7

III. Workshop Organization ................................................................................................................... 8

IV. Background Materials ..................................................................................................................... 8

V. References ....................................................................................................................................... 8

B. REPORT OF THE RISK TO FISHERIES AND HABITAT WORK GROUP ...................................... 10

VI. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10

VII. Work Group Participants ................................................................................................................11

VIII. Commodities.................................................................................................................................. 12

IX. Recommended Approaches ........................................................................................................... 15

X. Other Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 16

XI. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 17

XII. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 17

C. REPORT OF THE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND TOXICITY WORK GROUP ................... 18

XIII. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 18

XIV. Work Group Participants ............................................................................................................... 18

XV. Questions ....................................................................................................................................... 18

XVI. Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 18

XVII. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 22

XVIII. Suggested Readings ....................................................................................................................... 23

D. REPORT OF THE WATER COLUMN IMPACTS WORK GROUP .................................................... 25

XIX. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 25

XX. Work Group Participants ............................................................................................................... 25

XXI. Assessment of Commodities ......................................................................................................... 25

XXII. Scientific Issues and Questions ..................................................................................................... 27

XXIII. Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix I: Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix II: Workshop Participants ........................................................................................................... 33

Appendix III: Suggested Strategy for Breakout Groups .............................................................................. 36

Appendix IV: Text of a Letter from John Gannon to CDR Eric Reeves with Additional

Recommendations from the Fisheries and Habitat Work Group........................................... 37

Appendix V: Recommended Methods for Tier I Assessment ..................................................................... 39

Appendix VI: Review of the U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy (Reid et al., 1994) ................ 41
4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. Overview

“Cargo sweeping” is the practice of removing the residues of dry bulk cargoes, such as iron ore, coal, grain, and

various rock materials, from the deck and holds of cargo vessels. Such residues occur after most loading or

unloading operations. Cleanup is accomplished by washing the decks and cargo spaces with water, which is then

discharged over the side, usually while underway.

Coast Guard regulations proposed in 1989 would have made the discharge of cargo residues illegal on the Great

Lakes, which would have disrupted the continued operations of the U.S. Great Lakes shipping industry. In September 1994 a workshop was held to identify the research needed to provide a scientific basis for regulatory

decisions. Three separate work groups, Risk to Fisheries & Habitat, Sediment Accumulation & Toxicity, and

Water Column Impacts, were convened. Each group was asked to consider and identify what we already know

and what gaps there are in our knowledge and understanding related to cargo sweeping, what further information

or studies are needed, and how best to obtain the requisite information.

● All three groups identified the need for comprehensive information on the composition of the commodities,

especially relative to impurities and added chemicals that might prove environmentally harmful. Such information should be obtained by literature searches and direct analyses of the composition.

● Each group indicated the need for studies to determine the bioavailability and bioaccumulation of cargo

components and impurities that may be toxic.

● Each group identified a series of other information gaps and questions in need of answers, and recommended

various approaches to obtain needed information.

II. Summary of the Risk to Fisheries & Habitat Work Group Report

This group was asked to consider the potential for changes in bottom habitat character and quality that might

result from an accumulation of cargo residues in a particular area over time.

The group identified and discussed four critical bottom habitats (plant bed, mud/silt, sand, and rocky shoals) and

seven potential risks posed by the discharge of commodities (smothering and suffocation, osmotic stress, toxicity,

nutrient enrichment, change in bottom substrate composition, filling of interstitial spaces in bottom substrate, and

esthetics).

This group concluded that residues of cement, grain, coarse limestone, and wood pulp or chips from vessels are

not likely to cause serious environmental damage or produce negative impacts on plants and animals in the Great

Lakes. Residues of taconite pellets and finely divided limestone, coal, sand, and possibly slag may adversely alter

coarse- and rocky-substrate habitat by filling interstitial spaces. There is a critical lack of knowledge and, therefore, a strong need for research to determine if exposure to iron ore, taconite pellets, coal, coke, rock salt,

millscale, and slag causes any measurable toxic effects in Great Lakes plants and animals.

The group concluded that specific research is needed to properly determine and evaluate the environmental

implications of cargo residues and recommended four general activities to accomplish this: (1) detailed chemical

analyses of specific commodities, (2) literature searches, (3) laboratory experiments, especially toxicity bioassays

and determination of oxygen demand, and (4) related field testing and measurements.
5

III. Summary of the Sediment Accumulation And Toxicity Work Group Report

This work group was charged to address the potential effects of cargo residues that reach and accumulate in softbottom sediments. They formulated scientific questions required to address the potential effects of cargo residues

and identified a two-tiered approach to answer the most important questions, which are:

1. Does cargo sweeping adversely affect bottom sediments or the biota that reside in or near this sediment?

2. What are the chemical compositions of the cargo commodities?

3. Are the deposited materials in the sediment from cargo sweeping activities toxic or bioaccumulated by

benthic organisms?

4. Is deposition of cargo residues changing the physical structure of the bottom sediments, e.g., increasing the

amount of hard substrate, therefore changing the habitat for the benthos?

5. How do cargo sweeping activities relate and compare to other discharges of similar or the same compounds

into the Great Lakes?

The work group noted that data on the chemical composition of the dry cargoes would be extremely helpful in

designing experiments and field studies. This information would also provide a foundation for simple loading

calculations to determine the potential signal against baseline that would need to be examined. In addition, they

concluded that a literature survey of benthic community data relative to sediment composition and location of the

shipping tracks is required to allow the best experimental design for field studies.

IV. Summary of the Water Column Impacts Work Group Report

This group considered the possible affects that cargo sweeping activities might have in the water column.

They evaluated the dry bulk commodities for both toxicological and water quality effects. The group concluded

that short-term changes in local turbidity thay may result from cargo sweeping events would be of little demonstrable environmental consequence within the water column. However, the potential for toxic chemicals to be

introduced into the water column from the bulk commodity residues and of any materials used in treating those

commodities could not be properly evaluated. Some additional concerns were expressed regarding possible effects

on biotic communities growing proximal to the air-water interface and the sediment-water interface.

Four major issues were identified by the group:

1. Cargo statistics: detailed information is required regarding which bulk cargoes are carried and which result

in the need for cargo sweeping.

2. Chemical composition of the cargo: such information is needed to prioritize research into the possible

environmental effects.

3. Physical characteristics of the discharge “plume”: chemical and biological analyses should be considered

in the context of the physical properties of the discharge (plume) in the near- and far-field.

4. Environmental effects: the bioavailability, solubility, toxicity, and nutrient potential of the materials found

in dry bulk cargoes should be determined.
6

The group recommended that the necessary statistical data on materials shipped, the detailed chemical composition of these materials, and the amounts of such materials discharged to waters of the Great Lakes due to cargo

sweepings under normal and worst case conditions, be compiled. They reached consensus that the dispersal of

materials from cargo sweepings, once introduced into the water column, is insufficiently known. The group

recommends that modeling studies of the dispersal of particulate materials having the physical characteristics of

the various types of cargo residues introduced into the Great Lakes be conducted, with verification by appropriate

field experiments.

V. Overall Workshop Recommendations

1. An appropriate scientific basis for regulatory and procedural decisions is lacking, therefore, an aggressive

multifaceted research program should be initiated to explore a myriad of information gaps and related questions and concerns. Such a research program should fully explore, measure, and evaluate the environmental

implications of cargo residue discharge in the Great Lakes through a series of literature searches, laboratory

and field studies, measurements, and experiments.

2. A group of Great Lakes scientists should be formed to advise the Coast Guard and Lake Carriers’ Association

on specific areas or sensitive fisheries habitats that may be at risk from cargo sweeping, on a case by case

basis.

3. Although the Interim Enforcement Policy proposed by the U.S. Coast Guard (see Reid et al., 1994) was only

specifically addressed by the Fisheries and Habitat Group, it is worth noting that they expressed concern

about permitting cargo sweeping in new areas, that is, areas other than those historically used for sweeping,

and recommended that consideration be given to continuing cargo sweeping activities in the same areas used

historically for that purpose, until there is a scientific basis for changing that practice.

_____________________________

David F. Reid

Workshop Co-chair

_____________________________

Guy A. Meadows

Workshop Co-chair
7

A. THE CARGO SWEEPING WORKSHOP

I. Overview

Cargo sweeping is the practice of removing the residues of dry bulk cargoes, such as iron ore, coal, grain, various

rock materials, etc., from the deck, holds, and cargo tunnels of cargo vessels. Such residues occur after most

loading or unloading operations. Residues must be cleaned-up for crew safety as well as for assuring that new

cargoes do not become contaminated with the remains of previous cargoes. Cleanup is accomplished by washing

decks and cargo spaces with water, which is then discharged over the side, usually while underway. This practice

has been common for over 100 years in the Great Lakes.

In 1989 the U.S. Coast Guard proposed regulations to implement Annex V of the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly referred to as “Marpol 73/78”, or “Marpol”. Annex V regulates the

discharge of “garbage” from ships, and establishes an international regimen designed for the high seas. However,

the enabling legislation in the U.S., which took the form of amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships

and to Coast Guard regulations in 33 C.F.R. 151.51 et seq., extended this regimen to the inland waters of the U.S.,

including the Laurentian Great Lakes. In their announcement of proposed regulations, the U.S. Coast Guard

served notice that, under the mandate of the new legislation, the discharge of cargo residues into the waters of the

Great Lakes would be prohibited. The Great Lakes carriers (Lake Carriers’ Association) protested this plan and

identified threats to the health and safety of their shipboard personnel, as well as economic impacts that could

shutdown the U.S. Great Lakes shipping industry. As a result, in September 1993 the U.S. Coast Guard put into

effect “an interim enforcement policy designed to provide a reasonable balance between the need to protect the

environment of the lakes against any possible harm while taking account of the need for safe (and continued)

operation of commercial bulk carriers” (parenthetical note added by D. Reid).

While implementing the interim policy, which allows the shippers to continue their cargo sweeping operations

(with restrictions) on the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard also identified the need to produce a final regulation, and

they also recognized that it should be based on sound scientific information and analysis. There was, therefore, a

somewhat urgent need to involve the scientific community to develop better scientific information and understanding about the possible environmental effects of cargo residues. The first step occurred when the Coast Guard

Ninth District asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA/GLERL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to form an ad hoc Scientific Steering Committee to

review what information was available and advise them on the environmental implications and effectiveness of

their interim regulations. A second goal was to convene a scientific workshop to identify information and research

needed to understand and evaluate the environmental implications of cargo sweeping. The Steering Committee

Report was submitted in August 1994, a month prior to this workshop (Reid et al., 1994), and is attached herein as

Appendix VI.

II. Workshop Goals

The workshop was designed to bring together members of the scientific, shipping, and Coast Guard communities

to share information and discuss the environmental implications of cargo sweeping in the Laurentian Great Lakes.

The specific goals of the workshop were to identify:

1. what are the scientific questions that must be answered in order to have a sound scientific basis for final U.S.

Coast Guard cargo sweeping regulations, and

2. how do we obtain the information needed to answer those questions?
8

III. Workshop Organization

The workshop was organized around an opening half-day session during which information about cargo sweeping, ranging from what, why, and how, to legislative and regulatory considerations, were presented. After receiving a charge from the workshop organizers, the attendees broke into three different work groups:

Risk to Fisheries & Habitat

Leader: J. Gannon (National Biological Survey, now the USGS,

Biological Resources Division)

Sediment Accumulation & Toxicity

Leader: P. Landrum (NOAA/GLERL)

Water Column Impacts

Leader: G. Stoermer (University of Michigan)

Each group met for the rest of the afternoon and next morning to identify what we already know and what gaps

there are in our knowledge and understanding related to cargo, what further information or studies are needed, and

how best to obtain the requisite information, such as:

● chemical analyses of specific commodities (for what)?

● literature searches?

● laboratory experiments?

● field work?

● all of or a combination of the above?

● other activities?

Appendix I is the agenda from the workshop, Appendix II is a list of attendees, and Appendix III is the suggested

strategy and report outline proposed for the breakout groups.

IV. Background Materials

The following documents provided background information and were handed out at the workshop (see “References”, below):

Martec Ltd., 1984.

Hamburg Maritime Research, 1988.

Melville Shipping Ltd., 1993.

Reid et al., 1994.

In addition, a subsequent publication, Reeves and Perry (1995) provides a good overview of the historical and

regulatory aspects of this issue.

V. References

Hamburg Maritime Research Institute (Institut an der Fachhochschule Hamburg), Marine Pollution Due to the

Transport of Solid Bulk Cargoes by Ships, Jacobi, H., H.-J Golchert, L. Ivens, and J.C. Riedel-Lorjè, a report

commissioned by the Federal Environmental Agency, February 1988.

Martec Ltd., An Assessment of Dry Granular Bulk Cargo Losses at Loading and Unloading Ports, (a report to

Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec), December 1984.

Melville Shipping Ltd., Review and Investigation of Procedures Governing the Discharge of Non-Regulated
9

Cargo Residues from Ships into the Great Lakes. SSC File No. 014SS.T8080-2-6861/B (a report to the Canadian

Coast Guard - Ship Safety, Ottawa, Ontario), December 1993.

Reid, D.F., P. Landrum, G. Meadows, J. Gannon, and E. Stoermer. Review of U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy, Report of the Cargo Sweeping Scientific Steering Committee, NOAA/Great Lakes Environmental

Research Laboratory, Contribution #. (See Appendix VI of this Workshop Report) (1994).

Reeves, E. and L. Perry. Marpol V and Cargo Residues in the Great Lakes. Update of a presentation to the Great

Lakes and Great Rivers Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Conference in St.

Catherines, Ontario, Canada, on May 6, 1994. U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District, Port Safety and Environmental

Protection Branch, Cleveland, OH (1995).
10

B. REPORT OF THE RISK TO FISHERIES AND HABITAT WORK GROUP

VI. Introduction

The group’s charge was to assess the risks posed by cargo residue discharges (deck sweeping/hosing and tunnel

pumping) from lake carriers to fishery resources and their habitats in the Great Lakes. Our approach was to define

the types of nearshore aquatic habitats which could be damaged by these practices. We identified four types of

habitat: plant bed, mud/silt, sand, rocky shoals. Then, by reference to a diagram of a typical Great Lakes harbor

and nearshore area, we identified, by number, six potential risks posed by the discharge of commodities listed in

Reid et. al., 1994 to fish and other aquatic life that live in those habitats (Table 1). These risks are summarized in

a habitat:commodity matrix (Table 2).

Subsequent discussions produced a list of 25 scientific issues, information gaps, and needed scientific studies.

Each was prioritized based on its relevancy to the recommended interim policy, and whether it could be obtained

through (1) review of existing literature and data, (2) laboratory studies, or (3) field studies. In addition, the group

critiqued the interim policy recommended in the steering committee’s report.

Table 1. Risks posed by cargo discharges (by sweeping and tunnel pumping) from lake carriers to fishery resources and their

habitats in the Great Lakes.

1. Smothering and suffocation

2. Osmotic stress

3. Toxicity

a. acute

b. chronic

4. Nutrient enrichment

a. Enhanced productivity

b. Over-enrichment and algal blooms

5. Change in bottom substrate composition

a. Physical - from deposition of commodity

b. Biological - e.g. enhanced algal growth

c. Habitat creation

6. Filling of interstitial spaces in bottom substrate

7. Esthetics

a. Commodity visible on shoreline and beaches
11

VII. Work Group Participants

John Clark International Joint Commission

Mark Coscarelli Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources

Michelle Dallafior Office of Senator John Glenn (Ohio)

Thomas Edsall National Biological Survey (now U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division)

John Gannon National Biological Survey (now U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division; Group Leader)

Anjanette Hintz U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

David Jude University of Michigan

Joseph Leach Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Douglas Lee University of Connecticut

Bruce Manny National Biological Survey (now U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division; Reporter)

Thomas Morris Canadian Coast Guard

Laurie Perry U.S. Coast Guard

George Ryan Lake Carriers’ Association

David Van Bunt Lake Carriers’ Association

Katherine Weathers U.S. Coast Guard

Habitat Plant bed Mud-silt Sand Rocky Shoals

Commodities

Iron ore 1, 3 1, 3? 0 1,6

Coal-coke 5b, 3, 1 3, 1, 5b 3, 1, 6 3, 1, 6

Limestone 1? 5a, 5c 5c, 6 5c, 6

Site dependent

Gypsum 0? 1? 0 1?

Cement No sweepings or deck washing (not released into lakes)

Potash 4a 4a 4a 4a

Fertilizer 4a 4a 4a 4a

Urea-SD Minor Minor Minor Minor

Grain 4a Minor - fine dust

Float dust 2? 2? 2? 2?

Salt 3? 3? 3? 3?

Wood-pulp ? ? ? ?

Lake Michigan 0? 1? 0 1, 6

Foundry Sand Minor

Other Millscale 3? 1, 3 1, 3

Slag 3? 1, 3 1, 3 1, 6

Table 2. Habitat: commodity matrix showing suspected ecological impacts of commodity discharges, including those impacts of greatest importance. Numbers refer to risks

identified in Table 1.
12

VIII. Commodities

The only information provided to the group about commodities was that in the review of the interim policy by the

Scientific Steering Committee. The group chose to first evaluate those commodities carried in largest quantity,

then the others.

The potential environmental impacts of greatest concern to the group were smothering and suffocation, toxicity,

and filling-in of interstitial spaces by discharges of taconite pellets/iron ore and coal-coke. It is believed that

discharges of coal have the potential to cause reduced algal growth on the bottom. Discharges of finely-divided

limestone have the potential to fill interstitial spaces in coarse and rocky-substrate habitat types, thereby reducing

local biological productivity.

Conversely, discharges of limestone chunks have the potential to create habitat with interstitial spaces that could

result in increased local biological productivity.

Representatives from the Lake Carriers’ Association provided the following general information:

● most iron (90%) is carried as taconite pellets, not raw ore;

● cement is transported without residues, because it is handled in a vacuum line aboard specially-equipped

vessels;

● the quantity of wood chips or pulp shipped aboard lake carriers is very small and may be zero;

● only a few shipments per year of urea move through the lakes on foreign vessels -- nearly all “fertilizer”

shipped on lake carriers is potash.

1. What Do we Already Know?

(a) The Interim Policy states that the only washdowns permitted in harbors are following loading or unloading limestone; residues of other cargoes must be discharged outside of harbors.

(b) Dr. Peter Chapman reported that impurities in coal, such as PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)

and selenium, and in taconite, such as chromium, leach out only slowly in the normal pH of water in the

Great Lakes (7-9). But, under acidic conditions that often prevail in soft (mud/silt) bottom sediments in

the lakes such impurities would leach out more quickly. According to Dr. Bruce Brownawell, PAHs in

coal are not bioavailable. Yet PAH levels around coal deposits on the bottom of the ocean often exceed

sediment quality criteria.

(c) Sand carried by lake carriers is mined on land from dunes near Ludington and Freeport, MI.

(d) Gypsum is shipped from only two ports, both in Michigan -- Alabaster and Port Gypsum, and is used

almost exclusively for production of drywall board.

(e) Foreign, saltwater ships bring in steel and take grain, wood chips, and a little fertilizer out of the Great

Lakes.

(f) Urea is carried about twice per year on the Great Lakes by saltwater vessels.

(g) Potash is shipped about five times per month aboard lake carriers.

(h) Grain loading is tightly controlled and produces little cargo residue, just “fugitive” hulls and dust. Grain

is not pumped from the tunnel of lake carriers before loading the next commodity.

(i) No U.S. carriers transport wood chips.
13

(j) MiIlscale, a by-product of steel making, is ground to small diameter and taken to Gary, Indiana to extract

remaining iron.

(k) It was also noted that rainbow trout fingerlings are routinely raised to edible size in iron ore mines in

Minnesota, which suggests that iron ore and anything leachable from it into water are probably not toxic

to trout.

2. Potential to Cause Environmental Damage

About 60 U.S. and 60 Canadian vessels carry 165 million tons of dry cargo during about 15,000 transits per year

in and out of about 80 ports on the Great Lakes. A conservative estimate of the magnitude of the total impact

assumes that 3/4ths of those transits each generates an average of 500 lbs. of cargo sweepings. The annual loading

of cargo sweepings to the Great Lakes would then be 2,812 short tons. Unfortunately, an adequate environmental

damage assessment awaits full knowledge of toxic substances, if any, in the various commodities, and exactly

when, where, and how they are discharged. George Ryan of the Lake Carriers’ Association reported that the

amount of cargo residue discharge has recently been reduced by about 50% aboard vessels in the fleet by good

housekeeping measures. An estimated 5% of some cargoes is lost in port as “fugitive” dust during loading.

3. Issues and Information Gaps

A number of issues, information gaps, and scientific studies were considered and ranked by the Fisheries and

Habitat Work Group. The following were considered to be priority topics for further investigation and study:

(a) Issue: Toxicity

(1) Do commodities contain toxic impurities and if so, at what concentration, especially, taconite, coal,

gypsum, rock salt, slag and millscale? Do contaminants leach out of taconite pellets in acidic, mud/silt

lake sediments?

(2) Is the anti-caking agent (sodium hexacyanoferrate(II) in rock salt toxic to aquatic organisms?

(3) Are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in coal toxic to aquatic organisms?

(4) Can lumps of coal be colonized by aquatic plants and animals? Is coal dust toxic to aquatic macrophytic plants?

The best approach would be to perform exposure, bioassay studies in natural lake water to determine the

toxicity of each suspected commodity impurity. Test organisms would include those sensitive to foreign

substances and characteristic of the four main Great Lakes habitats:

Habitat Test Organism

mud-silt burrowing mayflies

sand scuds

rock lake trout eggs and fry

plant beds eggs and fry of yellow perch and northern pike, snails

The criteria for “toxicity” would be the concentration lethal to 50% of the test organisms during a 4-day,

bioassay exposure (96-hr LC 50).

(b) Issue: Water Column Effects
14

1) Do fish larvae feed on finely divided commodity discharges; are fish larvae in the water column

harmed by eating fine particles of any commodity? For example, do fish larvae that concentrate near

the water surface, such as whitefish, eat coal or iron ore dust? If so, how much dust can they eat

before exhibiting chronic or acute effects?

2) Are fish eggs in the water column harmed by exposure to commodity discharges? For example, are

floating eggs of freshwater drum or eggs of yellow perch and northern pike attached to vegetation

adversely affected by exposure to coal or iron ore dust?

c) Issue: Smothering

1) Do any of the commodities cause a reduction in the dissolved oxygen needed by aquatic life?

2) In finely divided form, does any commodity create a biological oxygen demand in the water column

or on the lake bottom?

3) Do small particles in commodity discharges onto rocky habitat physically clog interstitial spaces and

bury fish eggs incubating there?

4) In the water column, how much of each commodity is required to lower the dissolved oxygen level to

5 milligrams per liter (5 ppm), the minimum concentration for good fish populations and aquatic life

in fresh water (U.S. EPA, 1977. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 256 pp.)?

(5) On the lake bottom, in each of the habitat types, how much of each commodity is required to lower

the dissolved oxygen level to 1 milligram per liter (1 ppm), the minimum concentration for survival

by desirable, benthic invertebrates that are indicators of good environmental quality?

(d) Issue: Natural Variability

Can an impact from cargo discharges on benthic plant and animal communities be distinguished from natural

temporal and spatial variability in such communities?

The best approach would be to review the variability of long-term, Great Lakes data sets on benthic plant and

animal communities including both the published and “gray” literature. This information could be summarized by habitat type.

(e) Information Gaps

(1) How are commodities distributed over the lake bottom along shipping lanes used historically for

cargo sweeping?

(2) Do zebra mussels colonize coal, limestone, and other hard commodities discharged onto the lake

bottom? Are such discharges creating habitat for such nuisance organisms where it did not exist

before cargo sweeping began?

(3) Is water depth more important than distance from shore? What criteria define an “adequate” water

depth for discharge of each commodity? Why discharge 12 miles out from shore when “adequate”

depth exists 2-3 miles from shore?

(4) Are variances to the 12-mile rule (see Interim Regulations) warranted in some areas or with some

cargoes? Criteria that should be included are (1) water depth, (2) lake bottom type, (3) biological
15

activity, and (4) type of commodity. The best approach would be to identify a committee of scientists

to establish defensible scientific criteria for cargo discharges within the 12 mile rule of the Interim

Enforcement Policy and to evaluate port and commodity combinations that are of special concern to

the Coast Guard and Lake Carriers’ Association.

(5) What is the aerial extent of cargo discharge impacts? What percentage of each lake bottom is presently affected by cargo discharges? Needed from the Lake Carriers’ Association are maps showing

where ships have traditionally discharged cargo sweepings. Ideally, the maps would show (1) portions

of ship tracks preferred for such discharges, (2) portions of tracks used for continued sweeping, (3)

what commodities have been discharged on each track, and (4) how many years each commodity has

been discharged on each track. George Ryan agreed to prepare such maps and provide them to the

U.S. Coast Guard.

(6) Flushing of residues from cargo holds, conveyor tunnels, and self-unloader booms appears to result

in much larger commodity discharges than deck sweepings (i.e., discharge of cargo residues by

hosing-off the deck with water). More accurate estimates of the amount of each commodity that is

flushed out under the worst of conditions are needed.

4. Other Issues and Information Gaps

The following questions were also considered the Fisheries and Habitat Work Group, but were given lower

priority:

(a) Do acidic conditions in lake sediments leach toxic substances from discharged commodities?

(b) Do coal discharges adsorb PAHs from the Great Lakes environment and benefit habitat quality on the lake

bottom?

(c) Can any of the coarse-grained commodities, especially limestone chunks, provide a healthy suitable

habitat for desirable aquatic life, e.g., perhaps limestone chunks being deposited in existing sandy or

rocky areas diversify the habitat? How much of each commodity in coarse, large-diameter form can be

safely discharged onto rock bottom areas?

(d) How much of each commodity in finely divided form can be safely discharged onto mud, silt, and sand

habitats without lowering dissolved oxygen or burying desirable benthic animals?

(e) Would wrecked (sunken) ships loaded with commodities of interest be good field sites for evaluation of

the environmental effects on benthic plant and animal communities?

(f) At what rate do small particles of each commodity settle in lake water?

IX. Recommended Approaches

1. Need chemical analyses of specific commodities.

2. Conduct literature searches on the following topics:

(a) How pure is each commodity? What data exist on possible toxic impurities in each commodity?

(b) Search mining literature for acidity and toxic substances, such as selenium and PAHs, that can leach from

coal.
16

(c) Are there data concerning whether or not finely divided coal adsorbs contaminants, such as selenium and

PAHs, from the water column or interstitial water?

3. Laboratory experiments

(a) Conduct toxicity (96-hr LC 50) bioassays of each commodity using standard organisms (midge larvae,

oligochaete worms, fathead minnows) and protocols recommended by the American Society for Testing

of Materials (ASTM).

(b) Determine the biological oxygen demand per unit weight of each commodity in finely divided form on

representative sediments from each of the four example habitat types.

4. Field work

(a) Investigate whether sensitive, sessile benthic animals inhabit areas along shipping lane segments used

historically and during the Interim Policy to discharge cargo residues. For example, do burrowing mayflies inhabit sediments along outbound shipping lanes from the ports of Detroit and Toledo in western

Lake Erie? What animals and plants live on the lake bottom in and along shipping lanes out of Port

Huron in southern Lake Huron? What fisheries habitats are traversed by such segments?

(b) Conduct “worst case studies” on the benthic community in sediments of:

1. Duluth Harbor where up to 2 feet of taconite pellets cover the bottom;

2. surrounding major historical shipwrecks which contained large amounts of specific commodities as

cargo.

(c) Field bioassays could be developed based on caged organisms, sediment traps, and measures of BOD at

the sediment water interface and within interstitial spaces.

X. Other Considerations

The Fisheries and Habitat Group reviewed and discussed the Interim Enforcement Policy covered in the report by

the Ad Hoc Scientific Steering Committee (Reid et al., 1994). The group endorsed the rule that no cargo sweeping take place in connecting channels and in Lake St. Clair (already a long-standing practice of the Lake Carriers’

Association members). However, the wisdom of permitting cargo sweeping in areas other than those used historically for sweeping was questioned, but the Group could not reach a consensus opinion.

The group addressed several specific requests from the Lake Carriers’ Association which are not met by the

interim policy, including:

1. A washing zone in western Lake Erie -- vessels unloading limestone in the Port of Detroit need to pump stone

from their tunnels before taking on coal in Toledo Harbor. Under the Interim Policy they pump out their

tunnels as they circle offshore in the western basin. After discussion, the group decided to recommend that

such carriers pump the stone out in the shipping channel leading from the deep (36-foot) hole to Maumee Bay.

This practice would concentrate the cargo sweepings in one approved stretch of the channel that is dredged

periodically. Any commodities discharged in this stretch that are later found to be toxic can be removed to a

confined disposal facility.

2. Variances to the 6- and 12-mile rule in northwestern Lake Superior, northeastern Lake Michigan, and southwestern Lake Huron.

3. A variance to the 12-mile rule in central Lake Huron around the Yankee Reef fish spawning area.
17

The group’s recommendations on each of these needs were summarized by Dr. John Gannon (Group Chair) in a

letter to Cdr. M. Eric Reeves dated October 7, 1994 (Appendix IV).

XI. Conclusions

1. Residues of cement, grain, coarse limestone, and wood pulp or chips on/in vessels will likely cause no-tominor environmental damage or negative impacts on plants and animals in the Great Lakes.

2. Residues of taconite pellets and finely divided limestone, coal, sand, and possibly slag may adversely alter

coarse and rocky-substrate habitat by filling interstitial spaces.

3. Specific research is needed to determine if exposure to iron ore, taconite pellets, coal, coke, rock salt,

millscale, and slag causes any measurable toxic effects in Great Lakes plants and animals.

XII. Recommendations

1. A group of Great Lakes scientists should be formed to advise the Coast Guard and Lake Carriers’ Association

on specific areas or sensitive fisheries habitats that may be at risk from cargo sweeping, on a case by case

basis.

2. Specific research to evaluate the environmental implications of cargo residues should be conducted to provide

a scientific basis for decisions.

3. Consideration should be given to permitting cargo sweeping on the same areas used historically for that

purpose until there is a scientific basis for changing that practice.
18

C. REPORT OF THE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND TOXICITY WORK GROUP

XIII. Introduction

The work group was charged to address the potential effects of cargo residues that reach and accumulate in softbottom sediments. Specifically, the work group formulated scientific questions required to address the potential

effects of cargo residues and identified approaches required to answer the most important questions.

XIV. Work Group Participants

Dale Baker Minnesota Sea Grant Extension

Neely Bostick U.S. Geological Survey

Bruce Brownawell SUNY at Stony Brook

Allen Burton Wright State University

Peter Chapman EVS Environmental Consultants

Lorraine Filipek U.S. Geological Survey

Susan Fisher Ohio State University

Chris Ingersoll National Biological Survey (now U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division)

Peter Landrum NOAA/GLERL (Group Leader)

Michael Lewis Geological Survey of Canada

Michael Lydy U.S. Geological Survey (Reporter)

Dora Passino-Reader National Biological Survey (now U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division)

Susan Tewalt U.S. Geological Survey

Eric Reeves U.S. Coast Guard

Steven Thorp Great Lakes Commission

Christopher Wiley Canadian Coast Guard - Ship Safety

XV. Questions

The work group began with a discussion of the commodities, but because of minimal information about composition of the commodities of interest, their composition, and the bioavailability of toxic components in these commodities when they are deposited in sediments, a different approach was taken. This new approach formulated a

list of important questions to address the charge of the Work Group. The questions below were thought to be

important to determine the potential impacts of cargo residues on sediment-dwelling organisms. The first question

was the most important; however, the first three questions are the most critical to address.

1. Does cargo sweeping adversely affect bottom sediments or the biota that reside in or near this sediment?

2. What are the chemical compositions of the cargo commodities?

3. Are the deposited materials in the sediment from cargo sweeping activities toxic or bioaccumulated by

benthic organisms?

4. Is deposition of cargo residues changing the physical structure of the bottom sediments, e.g., increasing the

amount of hard substrate, therefore changing the habitat for the benthos?

5. How do cargo sweeping activities relate and compare to other discharges of similar or the same compounds

into the Great Lakes?

XVI. Approach

In order to obtain the data to answer the questions, the Work Group outlined a two-tiered approach for conducting

an assessment:
19

1. Tier I: Assessing the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Cargo-Residue-Associated Contaminants to Benthic

Communities.

(a) Background: The objective of the Tier I studies is to determine the potential for toxicity and bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants associated with the deposition of cargo residues in soft-bottom sediments

in at least three locations the Great Lakes.

In the aquatic environment, most anthropogenic chemicals and waste materials, including both toxic

organic and inorganic chemicals, eventually accumulate in sediment. Sediment provides habitat for many

aquatic organisms and contaminants in sediments may be directly toxic to aquatic life or can be a source

of contaminants for bioaccumulation into the food chain. Concentrations of contaminants in sediment

may be several orders of magnitude higher than in the overlying water; however, bulk sediment concentrations have not been strongly correlated to bioavailability.

Partitioning or sorption of a compound between water and sediment may depend on many factors including: the contaminant’s aqueous solubility, pH, redox, affinity for sediment organic carbon and dissolved

organic carbon, grain size of the sediment, sediment mineral constituents (oxides of iron, manganese, and

aluminum), and the quantity of acid-volatile sulfides in sediment. Although certain chemicals are highly

sorbed to sediment, these compounds still may be available to the biota. Contaminants in sediments may

be directly toxic to aquatic life or can be a source of contaminants for bioaccumulation into the food

chain.

The Tier I assessment will provide data to (1) determine whether contaminants in cargo residues are

harmful to or are bioaccumulated by benthic organisms, (2) identify spatial and temporal distribution of

contamination within the track lines and in the surrounding areas, (3) determine the relationship between

benthic community structure as a measure of toxic effects and bioaccumulation, and (4) investigate

interactions among contaminants.

Assessments of benthic communities have been used to measure interactive toxic effects of complex

contaminant mixtures in sediment. A knowledge of specific pathways of interactions among sediments

and test organisms is not necessary in order to conduct the assessment; however, data generated in Tier II

described below are necessary to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Field surveys can provide either a qualitative reconnaissance of the distribution of sediment contamination or a quantitative statistical comparison of contamination among sites. Surveys of benthic communities are usually part of more comprehensive analyses of biological, chemical, geological, and hydrographic data (see Tier II below). Statistical correlations may be improved and sampling costs may be

reduced if subsamples are taken simultaneously for sediment toxicity tests, chemical analyses, and

benthic community structure.

The null hypothesis for the Tier I studies is as follows: benthic communities inhabiting shipping tracts are

not impacted by the deposition of cargo residues on soft-bottom sediments. If results from the Tier I

studies nullify this hypothesis (e.g., impacts are observed), Tier II studies are required to determine causeeffect relationships and factors controlling the bioavailability of contaminants associated with cargo

residues deposited on soft-bottom sediments. A tiered-testing strategy includes a hierarchy of studies with

the studies in each successive tier becoming progressively more rigorous, complex, informative, and

costly.

(b) Methods: The Tier I assessment should be conducted at a minimum of three locations in the Great Lakes

where historic releases of cargo residues have been deposited on soft-bottom sediments. The steps to be

taken at each of the three locations are:
20

(1) identify track lines by use of charts and personal communications,

(2) use sonar sweeps to locate footprints of deposited cargo residues within a track line,

(3) design sampling plan for benthic community and sediment analyses,

(4) collect sediments from stations within a trackline and from the surrounding reference areas,

(5) split the sediment sample into a subsample for benthos and a subsample for sediment analyses,

(6) sieve the benthos subsample to: (a) isolate and preserve benthos for taxonomy and bioaccumulation

measures, and (b) qualitatively identify the presence of cargo residues,

(7) process the sediment analysis subsample for physical and chemical characterizations, and

(8) sort benthos subsamples for taxonomic identifications and residue analyses. Steps 4 through 7 would

be performed on the ship at the sampling location.

Appendix V contains the Work Groups’ recommended methods for each of these eight steps.

2. Tier II: Assessing Cause-and-Effect Relationships and Factors Controlling the Bioavailability of Contaminants-Associated with Cargo Residues.

(a) Background: Tier II studies would address questions that may arise or remain after completion of Tier I

studies, investigate cause-effect relationships for potential contaminant-related effects found in Tier I, and

address additional issues that overlap with other work groups. The Work Group did not discuss these

approaches in detail, but suggested studies that would contribute to an improved understanding of the

questions. The types of studies listed below are not in any specific order and their relative priority would

need to be established after the Tier I studies are complete.

Although a variety of approaches could be used to make site-specific decisions, no one single approach

can adequately address sediment quality. Overall, an integration of several methods using the weight of

evidence is the most desirable approach for assessing the effects of contaminants associated with sediment. Hazard evaluations integrating data from laboratory exposures, chemical analyses, and benthic

community assessments (the Sediment Quality Triad) provide strong complementary evidence of the

degree of pollution-induced degradation in aquatic communities.

Additional information is needed to identify the specific contaminants that are actually responsible for the

observed/measured toxicity. Confirmation of sediment toxicity or the interactive effects of sediment

toxicants can be determined using laboratory toxicity tests with field-collected sediments, toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs), or by conducting toxicity tests with chemicals spiked into sediments. Once

the probable cause(s) of sediment toxicity has been identified, better decisions can be made regarding

options for disposal of specific cargo residues.

The advantages of the Tier II studies include an improved definition of cause-effect relationships, the

demonstration of the important processes leading to the effects, and the establishment of pathways and

processes leading to a larger ecosystem perspective. Tier II studies could address a wider range of variables than will be addressed under Tier I. Thus, these studies may identify conditions that are unusual or

outside the range of the Tier I design. The Tier II studies are very specific studies and will require substantial resources to completely identify issues and will need to be field verified to assure that the findings

under controlled conditions actually represent the conditions in the field.
21

(b) Laboratory Bioaccumulation Testing: This testing can be performed with field-collected material or

with product mixed into sediment under specified conditions. This testing will directly define the source

of material and, in the case of mixed product, would address the issue of potential immediate bioavailability that might be changed with age. The method would provide very strong exposure data and provide a

direct measure of constituent bioavailability. Such studies could readily be performed with the Great

Lakes amphipod, Diporeia, because there is ample literature on methodology (See Suggested Readings).

(c) Toxicity Testing: Tests could be performed with either field-collected material or with product added to

sediment. This would be an excellent approach to confirm whether benthic community effects observed in

the field were due to habitat alteration or to toxic responses. Further, the addition of product to sediment

would permit the addition of fresh material for toxicity under a worst case condition. Methods exist for

measuring mortality responses as well as growth effects of sediment-associated contaminants. Such

testing would be conducted with the organisms designated by U.S. EPA for freshwater toxicity testing or

with a variety of organisms that have been identified as useful sediment test organisms by the American

Society for Testing and Materials (see list of suggested readings).

(d) Leaching Studies: These studies could be used to determine the amount of material that would be

available to the ecosystem through the water. It would tend to indicate the amount of bioavailable material

for a given product.

(e) Measures of Porewater Concentrations: These measures provide the information on the release of toxic

constituents after modification due to changes in chemistry that occur in the sediment. Such measures can

give good indications of the extent of long-term bioavailability. These porewater samples should be

obtained from cores rather than grab samples, because the porewater obtained from grabs may not be

representative of porewater in intact sediment cores.

(f) Expanded Chemical Characterization of Sediment: The chemistry under Tier I focuses on only a few

constituents and sediment characteristics that may drive the bioavailability of product constituents. The

Tier II chemistry would be expanded to better define the chemical conditions in the system and provide a

better estimate of the conditions that are important for affecting the bioavailability. These chemistry

measures would also provide better spatial resolution of cargo residues within sediment habitats.

(g) Variables: The impact of multiple variables may effect the conditions under which effects are observed.

Variables such as depth, sediment composition and particle size, product composition and particle size,

and duration of deposition may modify the tests and measures described above under Tier II and alter the

biota response to cargo residue exposure. Thus, to fully understand cause and effect under a second tier of

studies, the above studies would need to be conducted under a wide range of conditions for each of the

products of importance.

3. Other Considerations

(a) Evaluation of porewater metal concentrations was suggested to have some importance for both sediment

exposures and for determining the flux of material to the overlying water over long time periods. Leaching of metals into porewater and subsequent exchange into overlying water could result in exposure to

epibenthic and pelagic organisms.

(b) The number of tracks that need to be investigated for a Tier I study was not completely agreed upon. It is

clear that there are three general environmental types within the lakes that should be considered -- upper

lakes (upper Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Superior), the lower lakes (Lower Lake Michigan, eastern

Lake Erie, Lake Ontario) and the western basin of Lake Erie. It is not clear whether tracks containing the

major commodities -- iron ore, coal, and limestone - would need to be investigated separately and in

mixture, or whether just considering tracks with mixtures would be sufficient. However, there is some
22

thought that tracks containing these commodities in mixture would have areas that are dominated by one

form or another, so the signals may well be separated. The final recommendation is to look at the tracks

emanating from three ports containing steel producing facilities - one in lower Lake Michigan, one in

Lake Superior and one in western Lake Erie. This approach is thought to be adequate to address the

question of impact.

(c) There was considerable discussion on the number of transects and, therefore, samples that would be

required to address the question of impacts. This discussion was not resolved by the Work Group, but

there appears to be sufficient literature that could provide a design committee with the appropriate information on the variability that would be expected.

(d) Shipwrecks were identified as additional sources of known time-of-product-introduction to sediments.

These wrecks are thought to be good supplementary sites for studies where only one cargo would be

present and the potential impact could be investigated. Further, the duration of submersion would be

known and the impact of this duration could be investigated.

(e) Changes in the substrate are expected to result in alteration of habitat that could result in changes to the

benthic community, although not being directly toxic. Increased hard substrate can decrease numbers of

organisms which prefer soft-bottom sediments, while possibly providing zebra mussels with a substrate to

colonize. These effects may need to be sorted out under Tier II.

(f) Another potential modification of the system is the change in discharge location as a result of the Interim

Regulations. In some locations within the lakes the residue discharges are now occurring over new

substrate. This provides areas to study the impact of new discharges, old discharges and a mixture,

depending on location.

(g) The funds available for studies are often limited. It is clear that with unlimited funds, studies under both

Tier I and Tier II would be useful for addressing these issues. However, the Work Group thought that a

rough approximation of the costs for Tier I would be useful (Table 3). In this estimate, there was no

consideration of overhead, the costs for data analysis, or report generation. However a minimal cost for a

QA/QC program was included. Additionally, the costs for the sonar work to map 400 km2

 would be on the

order of $500,000. Some reduction of these mapping related costs could probable be attained by using

U.S. Coast Guard Vessels for some of the operations.

(h) There was a suggestion that the experimental design for Tier I be reviewed by a scientific steering committee. This committee should not only develop an initial design, but should oversee a review of the data

and interpretation of results from the studies. Such an independent committee could provide an independent scientific oversight.

XVII. Recommendations

Little information was available at this workshop on the chemical composition of the dry cargoes being transported across the Great Lakes. However, the Work Group felt that assembling this information would be extremely helpful in the design of experiments and field studies. This information would also provide a foundation

for simple loading calculations to determine the potential signal against baseline that would need to be examined.

A literature survey of the benthic community data relative to sediment composition and location of the shipping

tracks is required to allow the best experimental design for the Tier I field studies. Data sets held by Dr. Trefor

Reynoldson and Dr. Kristin Day from the Canada Centre for Inland Waters and other data sets found in the

literature may provide an initial indication of the impacts or absence of impacts from deposition of cargo residues,

as well as an indication of benthic community variability.
23

XVIII. Suggested Readings

American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard guide for collection, storage, characterization, and manipulation of sediment for toxicological testing, Philadelphia: ASTM E 1391-94. ASTM Annual Book of Standards

Volume 11.04.

American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard Guide for conducting sediment toxicity tests with freshwater invertebrates, Philadelphia: ASTM E 1383-94. ASTM Annual Book of Standards Volume 11.04.

American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard guide for designing biological tests with sediments, Philadelphia, ASTM E 1525-94 . ASTM Annual Book of Standards Volume 11.04.

Chapman, P.M. Sediment quality criteria for the sediment quality triad-An example. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

5:957-964 (1986).

International Joint Commission. Procedures for the assessment of contaminated sediment problems in the Great

Lakes. Sediment Subcommittee and its Assessment Work Group to the Great Lakes Water Quality Board Report

to the International Joint Commission, Dec. 1988.

Landrum, P.F., G.A. Harkey, and J Kukkonen. Evaluation of Organic Contaminant Exposure in Aquatic Organisms: The Significance of bioconcentration and Bioaccumulation. In. M.C. Newman and C. Jagoe, eds. Quantitative Ecotoxicology: A Hierarchial Synthesis, Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, (In Press).

Lee, H., B.L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Windsor, D.T. Specht, and R.C. Randall. Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment

Bioaccumulation Tests, Report No. 600/R-93/183, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR (1993).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sediment classification methods compendium. EPA 823-R-92-006,

Washington, DC (1992).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sedimentassociated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. EPA 600/R-94/024, Duluth, MN (1994).

Activity Cost Per Sample Cost per Location1

Collection & Shipment $ 125 $ 3,750

Benthos Identification $ 300 $ 9,000

Sediment Analyses

Physical Characterization $ 100 $ 3,000

Chemical Analyses

(metals, PAH, AVS,

porewater metals) $ 650 $19,500

Benthos Residue Analyses

(metals and PAH) $ 500 $15,000

TOTAL: $1,675 $50,250

Table 3: Sample Collection and Analytical Costs (1994 dollars) for Tier I

Studies at One Location

1 Assuming three samples per station and ten stations per location
24

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Evaluation of dredged material

proposed for discharge in inland and near coastal waters. Report number pending, Washington, DC (1994).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ARCS Assessment Guidance Document, EPA-905-B94-002 Chicago, IL,

247 p. (1994).
25

D. REPORT OF THE WATER COLUMN IMPACTS WORK GROUP

XIX. Introduction

Cargo sweepings, as applied here, is a general term applied to materials discharged from Great Lakes dry bulk

carriers during normal cargo handling operations. These materials consist of cargo residues, any additives which

may be added to bulk cargoes to improve handling characteristics (e.g., anti-caking agents), small amounts of

debris (e. g., paint chips) derived from the ship’s deck and cargo holds, and small amounts of other materials such

as lubricants, surfactants, and stack emissions associated with normal ship operations. These materials are introduced to waters of the Great Lakes by a number of processes including wind induced movement of fine materials

and materials washed from decks by intent, rainfall, or waves. However, the greatest bulk of discharge is associated with deck washing and cargo tunnel cleaning. In either case, the initial contact between the commodity and

the lake occurs in the water column. This is a somewhat arbitrary designation, but as used here it, “water column”

includes that portion of the lake from the water’s surface to immediately above, but not including the bottom

sediments.

Because large particles of dense material settle rapidly and would be expected to be rapidly transported to the

sediments this group focused on the potential environmental effects of the finer grained and readily dissolvable

fractions of the commodities, and those light fractions which might either float of be entrained in the water

column for relatively long (> 1 day) periods. Both short-term and long-term effects were considered. Although,

we were primarily concerned with effects on the indigenous biota we also considered the aesthetic effects of

floating materials, a subject which has not been adequately addressed (EVS Consultants 1994). In a general sense,

we conclude that the likelihood of deleterious effects in the water column is small, but recognize that this conclusion is based more upon conjecture than upon established fact. Further research and demonstration is needed to

provide a positive demonstration that cargo sweepings do not harm beneficial uses of Great Lakes waters and the

biotic communities which inhabit the water column.

XX. Work Group Participants

Ellen McDonald Ohio State University

Richard Harkins Lake Carriers’ Association

Barry Lesht Argonne National Lab. (Reporter)

Andrew Prior Melville Shipping Ltd.

Eugene Stoermer University of Michigan (Group Leader)

James Whitaker Chester Environmental

XXI. Assessment of Commodities

After initial discussion and analysis it is the consensus of the work group that short-term changes in local turbidity

which may result from cargo sweeping events would be of little demonstrable environmental consequence within

the water column. It is not so clear, however, that introduction into the water column of bulk commodities and of

any materials used in treating those commodities would be similarly benign. Some additional concerns were

expressed regarding possible effects on biotic communities growing proximal to the air-water interface and the

sediment-water interface. We therefore evaluated the environmental effects of the several commodities identified

by the Steering Committee in terms of their potential for both toxicological and water quality effects. Although

the work group recognized that the amount of material entering the water as a result of any single cargo sweeping

is likely to be small, the group chose to consider plausible worst-case conditions for a single event and potential

or demonstrated cumulative effects. No substances were eliminated from analysis on the basis of conjecture. The

evaluations of the individual commodities appear below. A summary of those evaluations appears in Table 4.

1. Taconite and iron ore: information presented at the workshop indicated that almost all iron ore is now

carried in the form of pelletized taconite so these two categories were combined. Although sparingly soluble,
26

this material could introduce biologically effective quantities of certain elements into Great Lakes waters,

particularly in oligotrophic regions. Of particular concern is the possibility of both toxicological and nutrient

effects of trace metals contained in the taconite.

2. Coal: coal may have toxicological and water quality effects. Of further concern are soluble materials (e.g.,

glycol) that may be added to coal shipments to facilitate their handling.

3. Coke: coke is considered to be similar to coal for possible water column effects. Information presented to the

group indicates that it is routinely shipped as bulk cargo on lakes.

4. Limestone: no toxic or water quality effects within the water column are attributed to limestone. It may effect

benthic plant communities, but there is insufficient information to determine the possible importance or extent

of such effects. Under certain conditions, fine particulate limestone may adversely affect neuston communities.

5. Gypsum: no toxicological or water quality effects are attributed to gypsum. It may effect benthic plant

communities, but there is insufficient information to determine the possible importance or extent of such

effects. Under certain conditions, fine particulate gypsum may adversely affect neuston communities.

6. Cement: no toxicological or water quality effects within the water column are attributed to cement. It may

effect benthic plant communities, but there is insufficient information to determine the possible importance or

extent of such effects. Under certain conditions, fine particulates from cement may adversely affect neuston

communities. However, information presented at the workshop indicates that cement cargoes are handled with

specialized equipment which minimizes residues.

7. Potash: potash may have both toxicological and water quality effects.

8. Fertilizer: fertilizer may have both toxicological and water quality effects. There is some question, however,

about whether fertilizer is carried as a dry bulk cargo, particularly since this category is separated from

potash, one common constituent of most fertilizers, in tonnage reports.

9. Grain: although grain itself is not considered to have toxicological effects, some question was raised about

herbicides, pesticides, and other fumigants with which the grain may be treated before shipping. Such materials may be soluble and may have toxicological effects. Because grains are a bioavailable carbon source and

are of low density, they may float and be colonized by biota indigenous to the surface layer. These biota may

concentrate toxic materials also found in grain residues in the surface layer.

10. Rock Salt: salt entering the lake will dissolve and increase the local salinity. Both toxicological and water

quality effects are possible. Materials used to treat the salt before shipping may also have toxicological and

water quality effects.

11. Sand and Gravel: no toxicological or water quality effects are attributed to sand and gravel. They may effect

benthic plant communities, but there is insufficient information to determine the possible importance or extent

of such effects.

12. Clay and refractories: no toxicological or water quality effects were attributed to clay and refractories. They

may effect benthic plant communities, but there is insufficient information to determine the possible importance or extent of such effects. Under certain conditions, fine particulates associated with these cargoes may

adversely affect neuston communities.

13. Wood pulp: if wood pulp consists only of raw untreated wood chips, it would have a water quality effect
27

similar to grain, but no toxicological effect. Processed wood pulp, however, has a potential for toxicological

effects due to chemical amendments during processing.

14. Slag: because slag is a result of smelting, it may concentrate trace impurities that could have toxicological

and water quality effects.

15. Mill scale: because mill scale is a ferrous product, it may contain trace metals that could have toxicological

and water quality effects.

After reviewing and summarizing the list of commodities, the group felt that several common issues were obvious. Rather than develop questions on a commodity-by-commodity basis, the group decided that a more general,

methodological approach would be more productive. It is clear that completely satisfactory evaluations of the

possible effects of cargo sweepings will demand further evaluation and research.

XXII. Scientific Issues and Questions

The following four questions could be applied to all of the commodities that have been identified as having

potential environmental effects in the Great Lakes water column.

(a) What dry bulk commodities are subject of cargo sweeping and how much is transported?

(b) What is the complete chemical composition of the discharged materials?

(c) What are the physical and transport properties of the discharge “plume” in the near field and far field.

(d) What are the toxicological and nutrient properties of the discharged materials.

Toxic Water

Commodity Effects Quality Rank

Effects

Taconite/iron ore ? ? 1

Coal ? ? 2

Coke ? ? 2

Limestone – ? 10

Gypsum – ? 10

Potash ? ? 4

Fertilizer ? ? 5

Grain – ? 6

Rock Salt ? ? 3

Sand & Gravel – ? 10

Clay & Refractories – ? 10

Wood Pulp ? ? 9

Slag ? ? 7

Mill Scale ? ? 8

Table 4: Potential for water column effects from

dry bulk commodities shipped on the Great Lakes.

Note: Materials for which the effects are suspected or

unknown are indicated by a question mark. Materials

that are known or strongly suspected to have no effect

in the water column are indicated by a minus sign. The

ranking indicates the preferred order of analysis based

on the amount shipped and the potential for possible

effect.
28

1. Issues

(a) Cargo statistics. There was some confusion during the workshop regarding exactly which bulk cargoes are

carried and which were subject to cargo sweeping. On the basis of currently available statistics, it is not

entirely clear which of the materials transported on the Great Lakes are handled as bulk cargo subject to cargo

sweeping. There is also considerable concern regarding possible additions of noxious chemicals during the

cargo handling processes, in the form of anti-caking agents, antifreeze, etc. We feel that, at a minimum, a

thorough review of data and statistics by independent experts is necessary.

(b) Composition of the cargo. Such information is needed to prioritize research into the possible environmental

effects. Much of this information is probably available from the literature, but it was not clear to the work

group if trace constituents have been adequately analyzed for the various types of cargoes and their multiple

sources represented in the Great Lakes trade. From the point of view of water column effects, emphasis

should be place on determining the constituents of the materials that would have fairly long residence times in

the water column (i.e., the fine size fractions) and on those portions that may dissolve. Bulk descriptive

information (e.g., that found on Material Safety Data Sheets) will not be sufficient for evaluation of the

specific environmental effects. On the other hand, it is possible that some studies have been done on the

chemical composition major bulk commodities -– taconite and coal. Emphasis should be placed on determination of bioactive constituents. Any materials that are added to or used to treat the bulk cargo should be determined as well.

(c) Physical characteristics of the discharge “plume.” Chemical and biological analyses should be considered

in the context of the physical properties of the discharge (plume) in the near- and far-field. It will be important

to determine the range of discharge quantities and to use these values in analysis of dispersal of materials in

the water. Assuming a worst case, in which all of the material is deposited at once, physical models of dispersal can be developed that would place an upper bound on the concentrations of materials found in the

water and on the dose experienced by the indigenous biota in the near-field. Information needed for these

models would include the size and density distribution of the discharged materials. The model would be

expected to simulate the concentration field, extent, and movement of the discharged material as a function of

time. Presently available models may not be adequate to predict concentrations in the far-field, particularly for

discharges containing a variety of particle sizes.

(d) Environmental effects. We need to determine the bioavailability, solubility, toxicity, and nutrient potential of

the materials found in dry bulk cargoes. The emphasis of these studies should be on the overall effects of the

materials actually entering the water on the species found in the waters of the Great Lakes. While some

information on effects may be found from existing laboratory studies, especially for taconite and coal, further

experiments using either field mesocosms or laboratory microcosms will be desirable.

2. Approach

The recommended approach has several elements and implied decision points. We feel that it also builds the basis

for appropriate regulatory actions, up to and including convincing experimental demonstrations of minimal

environmental damage.

Further review of actual bulk cargo transport may serve to eliminate some of the materials currently listed (e.g.

Portland cement) from consideration and may possible highlight additional areas of potential concern. It is

conceivable that thorough review may also reveal the presence of physical materials (e.g. asbestos) within dry

bulk cargoes so potentially damaging to human health that more stringent regulation need be contemplated. In any

case, confident knowledge of actual quantities of materials shipped and the fraction of these materials introduced

to Great Lakes waters by cargo sweeping, is the first necessary element of a rational regulatory approach.
29

The next necessary element is quantitative knowledge of the range of concentrations of potentially bioactive

materials in Great Lakes dry bulk cargoes. In this regard, it should be noted that concerns regarding materials

entering the water column include:

(a) Potential chemical toxic effects.

(b) Potential chemical stimulatory effects.

(c) Potential physical effects.

(d) Synergistic effects.

Given the facts that some trace constituents may be biologically affective in picogram, or possible lower, quantities (Lin and Schelske, 1979) and that there exists very little experimental data concerning most potentially

sensitive Great Lakes populations, due caution should exercised in assuming a no-harm condition on the basis of

chemical analysis alone.

The limits of possible effects could more reasonably be estimated from a combination of accurate and precise

knowledge of the quantities and chemical composition of materials introduced plus estimates of the dispersal of

materials in the water column. The group felt that thoughtful exercise of existing models, or relatively simple

modifications of existing models, would be capable of providing reasonable estimates. Further model development and testing may be necessary to satisfactorily treat with effects in the far field or effects of discharges which

have a continuous range of particle sizes.

Realistically, however, it appears that confident evaluation of water column effects will be best and most economically accomplished by direct experiment. Assessment of potential effects from a priori information would

demand detailed knowledge of the effects of several tens of chemical species on the several hundred biological

species which occur in the water column of the Great Lakes. Most of the required information is currently lacking,

and obtaining it would be a daunting undertaking, since accuracy of chemical measurements required approaches

the current state of the art, there exists very limited physiological information on important biological populations,

and many of these populations have not been successfully cultured.

3. Additional Concerns

One aspect of the potential effects of cargo sweepings that the work group found particularly frustrating were

possible effects on biotic communities, particularly plant communities, which grow in the proximity of the

surface. A very highly specialized and generally poorly known biotic community, the neuston (organisms that

depend on and/or inhabit the surface film of a body of water), inhabits the air-water interface in most lakes.

However, there does not appear to be much data concerning the neuston in the Great Lakes (Fuhs, 1982). It is

known that nutrients and contaminants (Rice et al., 1982, Armstrong and Elzerman, 1982) are concentrated in the

surface micro-layer of the Great Lakes. The contribution of cargo sweepings to such surface concentrations is

presently unknown.

Plant communities which grow attached to surfaces, but which project into the water column, are also a source of

possible concern. During closing summations in the workshop it became apparent that these communities were

not extensively considered by any of the break-out groups. Extensive and highly diverse algal and bryophyte

communities are known to exist on various substrates on the bottoms of the Great Lakes to depths of ca. 40 m

(Stoermer, 1981, Henson, 1984). Although incompletely known, such communities are apparently extremely

diverse (Stoermer, 1975), inhabit a variety of substrate types (Kingston et al., 1979, Stevenson and Stoermer,

1981, Edsall et al., 1991) . Such communities may be particularly sensitive to particulate materials discharged to

the water column because they could be subject to physical smothering, in addition to nutrient or toxic effects.
30

4. Recommendations

(a) It is clear that the first two elements discussed are generic to all aspects of the cargo sweepings question. This

work group will not recommend specific methods or approaches, but will emphasize the need for independently verifiable statistics and analyses. We support a general recommendation that the Coast Guard compile

and verify, or cause to be compiled and verified, the necessary statistical base on materials shipped, the

detailed chemical composition of these materials, and the amounts of such materials discharged to waters of

the Great Lakes due to cargo sweepings under normal and worst case conditions.

(b) It was the consensus of the group that the dispersal of materials from cargo sweepings, once introduced into

the water column, was insufficiently known. We therefore recommend that the Coast Guard conduct, or cause

to be conducted, modeling studies of the dispersal of particulate materials having the physical characteristics

of the various types of cargo sweepings introduced into the Great Lakes. We also feel it highly desirable that

these models be verified by appropriate field experiments.

(c) The work group considered the most important issue, potential harm, particularly difficult to resolve for the

water column. The reasons for this are the very large number of potentially bioactive materials involved, the

large number of species which could be affected, and the current status of knowledge concerning such communities in the Great Lakes. This problem is particularly difficult because of the current body of scientific

opinion which holds that modifications of organism communities are the most sensitive index of undesirable

ecological change and the growing incorporation of this paradigm into public perception, policy, and law:

“..it is paradoxical that so much effort in “ecotoxicological” studies has been devoted to

metabolic parameters, that is, production, decomposition, and nutrient cycling, for it

appears that ecological stress must be very extreme before these activities are significantly

disrupted. Far more sensitive and far more important in the case of organisms valued by

humans or by higher organisms in the food chain, are the changes in species composition

which occur. It appears that early indications of stress at the ecosystem level would be

detected far more readily by changes in the species composition of the biotic community

than by changes in community metabolism or chemical cycling, for the latter are among

the most robust ecosystem-level parameters” (Schindler, 1985).

An adequate demonstration using the traditional organism-by-organism, chemical-by-chemical bioassay

approach would be a daunting undertaking. Because the presumption of minimal harm is quite strong, we

recommend the alternative approach of microcosm or mesocosm experiments using actual Great Lakes water

column assemblages and actual cargo sweeping materials at a range of concentrations including the worst

plausible case determined from data gathered or determined from implementation of recommendations 1 and

2 above. Experiments of this type have proven highly useful in detecting and nutrient and toxic effects in

sensitive communities, in the Great Lakes and in other aquatic systems (Schelske, 1984). We therefore

recommend that the Coast Guard solicit plans for such experiments from laboratories with demonstrated

expertise in analysis of Great Lakes water column communities.

(d) Since little, if any, information exists concerning the potential or realized effects of cargo residues on plant

communities growing on surfaces but projecting into the water column, we recommend that research be

undertaken to explore and, if possible, quantify, such potential effects and their importance.

(e) In the case of neuston communities, effort should be directed to determining what, if any, fraction of cargo

residues are trapped in surface films. If these experiments or observations prove positive, experiments should

be designed to determine the range of residence times for such materials and their effects on biota living in

neuston communities. Since there appears to be no information on this topic specific to the Great Lakes, the

first elements of this task will, of necessity, be observational.
31

(f) Potential problems associated with the effects of cargo sweepings on benthic plant communities which project

into the water column are equally poorly known, but perhaps more tractable. Based on material presented at

the Workshop, it appears feasible to locate ship tracks under which there have been deposited fairly extensive

deposits of cargo residues over time. A first order assessment of potential problems should be available from

comparison of communities which have historically been affected by cargo sweepings and communities at the

same depth and occupying the same substrates at localities remote from extensive ship traffic.

In order to implement these studies, it will be necessary to use well equipped and trained divers, or underwater vehicles. Program design should assure adequate observations of all major substrate types upon which

cargo residues may be deposited. It should also be realized that a historical study will likely provide a “worst

case” scenario, since cargo handling procedures have likely improved in recent decades, and certain types of

materials, such as coal ash, which were previously discharged in large quantities, are no longer being discharged to Great Lakes waters.

XXIII. Literature Cited

Armstrong, D.E. and A.W. Elzerman. Trace metal accumulation in surface microlayers. J. Great Lakes Res. 8:

282-287 (1982).

Edsall, T.A., E.F. Stoermer, and J.P. Kociolek. 1991. Periphyton accumulation at remote reefs and shoals in Lake

Superior. J. Great Lakes Res. 17: 412-418 (1991).

EVS Consultants. Final Report: Qualitative Assessment of Cargo Residue Washdown in the Great Lakes. Prepared

for Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, Cleveland Ohio. 55 pages plus appendages (1994).

Fuhs, G.W. Microbiota in surface films: An historical perspective. J. Great lakes Res. 8: 312-315 (1982).

Henson, E.B. Notes on the benthic alga Dichotomosiphon from the Straits of Mackinac area of Lakes Michigan

and Huron. J. Great Lakes Res. 10: 85-89 (1984).

Kingston, J.C., R.L. Lowe, E.F. Stoermer, and T.B. Ladewski. Spatial and temporal distribution of benthic diatoms in northern Lake Michigan. Ecology 64: 1566-1580 (1983).

Lin, C.K. and C.L. Schelske. Effects of Nutrient Enrichment, Light Intensity and Temperature on growth of

Phytoplankton from Lake Huron. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research

Laboratory Duluth, EPA-600/3-79-049. 63 pp. (1979).

Rice, C.P., B.J. Eadie, and C.M. Erstfeld. Enrichment of PCB’s in Lake Michigan surface films. J. Great lakes

Res. 8: 265-270 (1982).

Schelske, C.L. In Situ and Natural Phytoplankton Assemblage Bioassays. p. 15-47. In: Algae as Ecological

Indicators ( E. Schubert, ed.). Academic Press, London (1984).

Schindler, D.W. The Coupling of Elemental Cycles by Organisms: Evidence from Whole-Lake Experiments. p.

225-250. In: Chemical Processes in Lakes (W. Strumm, ed.) John Wiley and Son, New York (1985).

Stevenson, R.J., and E.F. Stoermer. Quantitative differences between benthic algal communities along a depth

gradient in Lake Michigan. J. Phycol. 17: 29-36 (1981).

Stoermer, E.F. Diatoms associated with bryophyte communities growing at extreme depths in Lake Michigan.

Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 88: 91-95 (1981).
32

Appendix I: Workshop Agenda

Tuesday, September 27

 8:15 a.m. Introduction and Overview

G. Meadows (CILER), D. Reid (NOAA)

 8:30 a.m. What, Why, & How of Cargo Sweeping

G. Ryan (Lake Carriers’ Association)

Cargo Characteristics and Methods of Handling Cargo Residues in Holds and Tunnels

R. Harkins (Lake Carriers’ Association)

Methods of Handling Residues on Decks and the Impacts of regulations on Safety

D. Van Brunt (USS Great Lakes Fleet, Inc.)

 9:25 a.m. Legislative Background - MARPOL V and the Enabling Legislation

CDR. E. Reeves (USCG, Ninth District)

10:00 a.m. BREAK

10:20 a.m. Summary & Overview of the Melville Report

A. Prior (Melville Shipping, Ltd.)

10:55 a.m. The Scientific Steering Committee Review of the USCG Interim Enforcement Policy

D. Reid (NOAA/GLERL)

11:30 a.m. Scientific Issues Based on Present Knowledge

P. Chapman (EVS Environmental Consultants)

12:00 p.m. LUNCH

 1:30 p.m. Follow-up & Charge

D. Reid (NOAA/GLERL)

G. Meadows (CILER)

 2:00 p.m. Breakout Groups Convene

Water Column Impacts -- G. Stoermer (University of Michigan)

Sediment Accumulation & Toxicity -- P. Landrum (NOAA/GLERL)

Risk to Fisheries & Habitat -- J. Gannon (National Biological Survey)

 3:15 p.m. BREAK

 3:30 p.m. Breakout Groups continue

 5:00 p.m. Breakout Group Progress Reports & Key Issues

 5:45 p.m. Adjourn for Evening

Wednesday, September 28

 7:45 a.m. Coffee & Refreshments

 8:15 a.m. Recap of Progress

G. Meadows (CILER)

D. Reid (NOAA/GLERL)

 8:30 a.m. Breakout Groups Reconvene

10:00 a.m. BREAK

10:30 a.m. Breakout Groups continue

12:00 p.m. LUNCH

 1:15 p.m. Breakout Groups Reconvene - wrap-up

 2:30 p.m. Final Plenary Session/Breakout Groups Reporting

 4:00 p.m Close
33

Mr. Dale Baker

Minnesota Sea Grant Extension

2305 East 5th St.

Duluth, MN 55812

Work: 218-726-8108 FAX: 218-726-6556

Email: dbaker@d.umn.edu

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Mr. Robert Beck

Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Work: 734-764-0282 FAX: 734-936-8820

Email: bob_beck@um.cc.umich.edu

Working Group: Floating

Dr. Neely H. Bostick

U.S. Geological Survey

Denver Federal Center, MS 972

Denver, CO 80225-0046

Work: 303-236-0581 FAX: 303-236-7738

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. Bruce Brownawell

Marine Sciences Research Center

SUNY at Stony Brook

Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000

Work: 516-632-9411 FAX: 516-632-8820

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. Allen Burton

Biological Sciences Dep’t

Wright State University

Dayton, OH 45435

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. Peter M. Chapman

EVS Environmental Consultants

195 Pemberton Avenue

North Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada V7P2R4

Work: 604-986-4331 FAX: 604-662-8548

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. John L. Clark

International Joint Commission

100 Ouellette, 8th Floor

Windsor, Ontario Canada N9A 6T3

Work: 519-257-6709

Working Group: Floating

Mr. Mark Coscarelli

Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources

Office of the Great Lakes

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, MI 48909

Work: 517-373-3588 FAX: 517-335-4053

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Ms. Michele Dallafior

Office of Senator John Glen

503 Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, D.C., 20510

Work: 202-224-4229 FAX: 202-224-7983

Working Group: Floating

Mr. John Distin

4900 Society Center

127 Public Square

Cleveland, OH 44114-1304

Work: 216-479-8530 FAX: 216-479-8780

Working Group: Floating

Mr. Thomas Edsall

USGS, Biological Research Division

Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Work: 734-994-3331, X235 FAX: 734-994-8780

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Dr. Lorraine H. Filipek

U.S. Geological Survey

MS972, Box 25046

Lakewood, CO 80225

Work: 303-236-3329 FAX: 303-236-7738

Email: lfilipek@dncrdso.cr.usgs.gov

Working Group: Sediment Tox

Dr. Susan Fisher

The Ohio State University

1735 Neil Ave.

Columbus, OH 43210

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. John Gannon

USGS, Biological Research Division

Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Work: 734-994-3331, Ext 237 FAX: 734-994-8780

Email: john_e_gannon@usgs.gov

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Appendix II: Workshop Participants
34

Mr. Richard W. Harkins

Lake Carriers’ Association

614 Superior Avenue, West

Cleveland, OH 44113-1383

Work: 216-621-1107 FAX: 216-241-8262

Working Group: Floating

Ms. Anjanette Hintz

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Federal Bldg., Rm 204

145 Water St.

Alpena, MI 49707

Work: 517-356-3052

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Mr. Neil Hunter

Canadian Ship Owners Association

350 Sparks Street, Suite 705

Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7S8

Work: 613-232-3539 FAX: 613-232-6211

Working Group: Floater

Dr. Christopher Ingersoll

National Biological Survey

4200 New Haven Rd.

Columbia, MO 65201

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. David Jude

CGLAS, 3116 IST Bldg., 2099

University of Michigan

2200 Bonisteel Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2099

Work: 734-763-3183

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Dr. Peter F. Landrum

NOAA/GLERL

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2945

Work: 734-741-2945 FAX: 734-741-2055

Email: landrum@glerl.noaa.gov

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. Joseph H. Leach

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Lake Erie Fisheries Station, R.R. No. 2

Wheatley, Ontario Canada N0P 2P0

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitat

Dr. Barry M. Lesht

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 S. Cass Ave.

Argonne, IL 60439

Work: 708-252-4208 FAX: 708-252-5498

Email: bmlesht@anl.gov

Working Group: Water Column

Dr. Michael Lewis

Geological Survey of Canada

P.O. Box 1006

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia

Canada B2Y 4A2

Work: 902-426-7738 FAX: 902-426-4104

Email: mlewis@agcrr.bio.ms.ca

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. Michael Lydy

Department of Biological Sciences

Wichita State University

1845 N. Fairmont

Wichita, KS 67260-0026

Work: 316-689-3111 FAX: 316-689-3772

Email:

Working Group: Sediment Tox

Dr. Bruce Manny

USGS, Biological Research Division

Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Work: 734-994-3331, x255 FAX: 734-994-8780

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Dr. Ellen McDonald

The Ohio State University

Civil Engineering - 470 Hitchcock Hall

2070 Neil Ave.

Columbus, OH 43210

Work: 614-292-6420 FAX: 614-292-3780

Email: mcdonald.136@osu.edu

Working Group: Water Column

Dr. Guy Meadows

Naval Arch. & Marine Engineering

The University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2145

Work: 734-764-5235 FAX: 734-936-8820

Email:gmeadows@engin.umich.edu

Working Group: Floater

Mr. Tom Morris

Canadian Coast Guard, AMSEB

344 Slater St.

Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0N7

Work: 613-991-3170 FAX: 613-954-4916

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Dr. Dora R. Passino-Reader

USGS, Biological Research Division

Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Work: 734-994-3331, X229 FAX: 734-994-8780

Working Group: Sediment Tox.
35

Ms. Laurie Perry

U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District

1240 E. 9th St.

Cleveland, OH 44199-2060

Work: 216-522-3968 or 522-3994 FAX: 216-522-3261

Working Group: Fisheries & Habitats

Mr. Andrew Prior

Melville Shipping, LDT

350 Sparks St., Suite 1007

Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1R 7S8

Work: 613-238-1840 FAX: 613-238-1291

Email: melville@gabriel.resodox.net

Working Group: Floating

CDR. Eric Reeves

U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District

1240 E. 9th St.

Cleveland, OH 44199-2060

Work: 216-522-3994 FAX: 216-522-3261

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Dr. David Reid

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2945

Work: 734-741-2019 FAX: 734-741-2003

Email: reid@glerl.noaa.gov

Working Group: Floater

Mr. George J. Ryan

Lake Carriers’ Association

614 Superior Ave., West

Cleveland, OH 44113-1383

Work: 216-621-1107 FAX: 216-241-8262

Working Group: Floater

Dr. Eugene Stoermer

University of Michigan

M19 IST Bldg 2099

2200 Bonisteel Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2099

Work: 734-764-5238

Email: stoermer@umich.edu

Working Group: Water Column

Ms. Susan Tewalt

U.S. Geological Survey, MS 956

Reston, VA 22092

Work: 703-648-6437 FAX: 703-648-6419

Email: stewalt@nords.er.usgs.gov

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Mr. Steve Thorp

Great Lakes Commission

400 Fourth St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Work: 734-665-9135 FAX: 734-665-4370

Email: sthorp@glc.org

Working Group: Sediment Tox.

Mr. David Van Brunt

USS Great Lakes Fleet, Inc.

227 West First St.

Duluth, Minnesota

Working Group: Floater

Lt. JG. Katherine Weathers

U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District

1240 E. 9th Street

Cleveland, OH 44199-2060

Work: 216-522-3994 FAX: 216-522-3261

Working Group: Water Column

Mr. James B. Whitaker

Chester Environmental

P.O. Box 15851

Pittsburgh, PA 15244

Work: 412-269-5848 FAX: 412-269-5865

Working Group: Water Column

Mr. Chris Wiley

Canadian Coast Guard

Ship Safety

201 N. Front St.

Sarnia, Ontario Canada N7T 8B1

Work: 519-383-1837 FAX: 519-383-1997

Working Group: Sediment Tox.
36

Appendix III: Suggested Strategy for Breakout Groups

SUGGESTED APPROACH

I. Focus on commodities listed in Committee report (Reid et al., 1994).

II. Start with the Committee report, and:

1. Discuss, categorize, and prioritize each commodity in terms of environmental risks/threats and perceived

significance to the Great Lakes ecosystem, if any (agree with CR, disagree with CR, modify CR).

2. Starting with the highest priority, identify scientific issues and questions associated with each commodity

that must be resolved or answered in order to make scientifically defensible assessments of the environmental impacts of in-water disposal.

3. Identify what we already know and what gaps there are in our knowledge and understanding of each such

issue or question, what further information or studies are needed to resolve them, and how best to obtain

the requisite information, such as:

a) chemical analyses of specific commodities (for what)?

b) literature searches?

c) laboratory experiments?

d) field work?

e) all of or a combination of the above?

f) other activities?

REQUESTED BREAKOUT GROUP REPORT OUTLINE

I. General Comments

II. Categorize, prioritize, and discuss each commodity in terms of environmental risks/threats and perceived

significance to the Great Lakes ecosystem, if any.

III. Starting with the highest priority commodity, identify issues associated with each commodity that must be

resolved/answered in order to make scientifically defensible assessments of the environmental impacts of overwater disposal.

IV. For each such issue, identify the information needed to resolve the issue and the recommended approach to

obtaining the requisite information:

● chemical analyses of specific commodities (for what)?

● literature search and desktop exercise?

● laboratory experiments?

● field work?

● all of or a combination of the above?

● other activities?

V. Recommendations (remember, the recommendations from the workshop will be used to develop one or more

Requests for Proposals by which the Coast Guard will develop a sound scientific basis for final regulations).
37

Appendix IV: Text of a Letter from John Gannon to CDR Eric Reeves with Additional

Recommendations from the Fisheries and Habitat Work Group

October 7, 1994

Cdr. M. Eric Reeves, Chief

Marine Port and Environmental Safety Branch

Ninth Coast Guard District

1240 E. Ninth Street

Cleveland, OH 44199-2060

Dear Commander Reeves:

The Cargo Sweeping Workshop was held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, September 27-28, 1994. I was the moderator

for the Fisheries and Habitat Sub-group. I also was the main contributor concerning habitat issues to the report by

Reid et al. (1994) entitled, “Review of U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy”.

One of the agenda items at the workshop was to review from the habitat perspective the Interim Policy and the

Cargo Sweeping Scientific Steering Committee’s (Reid et al. 1994) recommendations. There was general affirmation that prohibiting cargo sweeping within 6-miles of shores and islands and near specific offshore shoals designated on the maps (Reid et al. 1994) is generally protective of the most sensitive fish habitats in the Great Lakes.

In some areas the recommended nearshore protected zone was extended to 12 miles to compensate for high

concentrations of reefs, shoals, and islands that were also designated on the maps.

Workshop participants recognized that the choice of these limits is somewhat arbitrary as there is no definite

demarcation between highly sensitive and less sensitive habitat. Consequently, consensus was reached at the

workshop that exceptions to the general recommendations could be made without adversely affecting habitat

where: (1) deep waters occur within the 6-mile limit; and (2) structured habitat consisting of gravel, cobble,

boulders, and submerged bedrock outcrops is absent. Such exceptions should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis

by Great Lakes habitat experts.

The following exceptions were specifically discussed at the workshop and the conclusions reached follow:

Lake Huron: Southern portion near Port Huron - The shipping lanes from Port Huron north approximately to

Harbor Beach are over sandy bottom in relatively deep water. A 3-mile limit in this area would be sufficiently

protective of habitat.

Lake Huron: Mid-lake reef-shoal complex - The rectangular box on the map in Reid et al. (1994) delineates a

proposed lake trout refuge for protection of spawning and nursery habitat on the Yankee Reef - Six Fathom Bank

complex. It was recognized that the shipping lanes traversing the southwest corner of the rectangle is over less

sensitive deep water habitat. The zone for protecting habitat has been redrawn to conform to the natural contours

of the shallow, rocky area (map attached). This approach is consistent with the manner in which zones of protection were drawn for offshore reefs and shoals in the other Great Lakes in Reid et al. (1994).

Lake Superior: Northwestern shore - The shoreline from Duluth to approximately Grand Marais, MN is rocky

and drops quickly into deep water. The most sensitive habitat in this area is nearshore. Because of the steep drop

off, a 3-mile limit in this area would be sufficiently protective of habitat.
38

Lake Michigan: Northeastern shore - Shipping lanes pass within the zones recommended as protective of habitat

off Big Sable and Betsie Points (Reid et al. 1994). Habitat under these shipping lanes is sandy bottom in relatively

deep water. A 3-mile limit off these points would be sufficiently protective of habitat.

Lake Erie: Western basin - Reid et al. (1994) recommends no cargo sweeping in the western basin of Lake Erie to

protect highly productive and sensitive habitats. A variance has been granted by your office to allow cargo sweeping in western Lake Erie from the Port of Toledo in response to extraordinary economic hardship and safety risk.

It was recommended at the workshop to allow cargo sweeping only in the shipping channel off the Maumee River

mouth. This would confine cargo sweepings to a known area rather than broadcasting the material over sensitive

habitat. The material then would be handled as part of routine maintenance dredging activities on an as needed

basis.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information concerning these recommendations.

Sincerely yours,

(signed)

John E. Gannon, Chief

Section of Habitat and Contaminant Assessment

National Biological Survey

Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105
39

Appendix V: Recommended Methods for Tier I Assessment

The Sediment Toxicity Work Group recommends that the following steps be conducted for a Tier I assessment:

(1) identify track lines by use of charts and personal communications, (2) use sonar sweeps to locate footprints of

deposited cargo residues within a track line, (3) design sampling plan for benthic community and sediment

analyses, (4) use a PONAR grab to collect sediments from stations within a track line and from the surrounding

reference areas, (5) split the sediment grab sample into a subsample for benthos and a subsample for sediment

analyses, (6) sieve the benthos subsample to: (a) isolate and preserve benthos for taxonomy and bioaccumulation

measures, and (b) qualitatively identify the presence of cargo residues, (7) process the sediment analysis

subsample for physical and chemical characterizations, and (8) sort benthos subsamples for taxonomic identifications and residue analyses. Steps 4 through 7 would be performed on the ship at the sampling location.

Detailed Description of Individual Steps

(1) Identify track lines by use of charts and personal communications. Initial locations of probable ports and track

locations will be provided through consultation with the Coast Guard and the Lake Carriers Association to

identify likely locations of cargo sweeping activities.

(2) Use sonar sweeps to locate footprints of deposited cargo residues within a track line. Lake features have been

identified through sonar as a backscatter anomaly. Thus, using acoustic reflectivity mapping, the tracks for

cargo sweeping should be identifiable. This approach uses the difference in the density of the cargo residue

deposits relative to the soft sediments to identify the location. This approach has been demonstrated to

successfully identify such deposits based on limited ground truth.

(3) Design sampling plan for benthic community and sediment analyses. Replicate grab samples would be

collected across a gradient from stations located outside the track line (reference stations) and from stations

located within the track line (footprints of deposited cargo residues, Figure 2). The number of replicate grabs

per station, the number of stations per location, and the station positions would depend on the information

gathered in Steps 1 and 2. Published literature also could be used to evaluate spatial variability and establish

the required number of replicate grab samples and the number of stations (e.g., Reynoldson and Day database). See the section titled “Other Considerations” below for additional detail on sampling design.

(4) Use a PONAR grab to collect sediments from stations within a track line and from the surrounding reference

areas. A PONAR grab would be used to collect about the upper 10 cm of the sediment surface. Only grabs

which sampled a consistent volume of sediment would be processed.

(5) Split the sediment grab sample into a subsample for benthos and a subsample for sediment analyses. The

contents of each grab would be placed into a pan, homogenized, and split into two subsamples.

(6) Sieve the benthos subsample to (a) isolate and preserve benthos for taxonomy and bioaccumulation measures,

and (b) qualitatively identify the presence of cargo residues. The benthos subsample would be sieved on deck

through a 1.0 mm (perhaps larger) and 0.25 mm sieve with lake water. The materials retained by the 1.0 mm

sieve would be observed for the presence of cargo residues; the materials retained by the 1.0 and 0.25 mm

sieves would be preserved for later benthos taxonomic identification and residue analyses of the benthos. The

materials passing through the 0.25 mm sieve would be washed overboard. A preservative compatible with

processing samples for taxonomic identifications and for residue analyses would need to be identified (e.g.,

while ethanol has been used to preserve benthos samples for taxonomy, it may not be appropriate for preserving benthos samples for residue analyses). Some of the grab collected from footprint stations may not contain

evidence of cargo residues in the materials retained by the 1.0 mm sieve (e.g., presence of taconite pellets,

magnetic materials, or large coal particles). If a grab does not contain evidence of cargo residues, then all of

the material from the grab could be returned to the lake and additional grabs could be collected from the
40

footprint station in an attempt to obtain more appropriate samples. While replicate subsamples from individual grabs would be stored individually, these replicates might be composited for analysis (e.g., combination of replicate benthos samples from a station for residue analysis) depending on the results of chemical

analyses of sediments or on funding limitations. Compositing might consist of combining samples (e.g.,

organisms, sediment) and chemically analyzing the mixture rather than the individual samples. The chemical

analysis of the mixture provides an estimate of the average concentration of the individual samples making up

the composite. Compositing also may be used when the cost of analysis is high.

(7) Process the sediment analysis subsample for physical and chemical characterizations. Aliquots of subsample

would be preserved on board the ship following standard methods. Analyses performed in the laboratory on

these aliquots would include (1) particle size, (2) ammonia, (3) pH, (4) hydrogen sulfide, (5) total organic

carbon, (6) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), (7) total metals, and (8) porewater metals. A measurement of acid-volatile sulfides and simultaneously extracted metals also may be useful in evaluating metal

bioavailability in sediments.

(8) Sort benthos subsamples for taxonomic identifications and residue analyses. This processing would be

performed in the laboratory. One subset of the benthos would be taxonomically identified to the lowest

practical level (e.g., genus or species) and a second subset of the benthos would be analyzed for residues of

concern (e.g., PAHs and metals depending on the results of the sediment analyses of these compounds).
41

Appendix VI: Review of the U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy

(Reid et al., 1994)

Cargo Sweeping Scientific Steering Committee

(ad hoc)

Review of U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy

August, 1994

David F. Reid, Ph.D., Chairperson

NOAA/Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593

(734) 741-2019

Peter Landrum, Ph.D.

Research Chemist (Toxicology)

NOAA/Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1593

Guy Meadows, Ph.D.

University of Michigan

Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

2600 Draper Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2145

John E. Gannon, Ph.D.

Section Chief, National Biological Survey

Great Lakes Science Center

1451 Green Road

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2899

Eugene F. Stoermer, Ph.D.

University of Michigan

M19 IST Building, 2099

Ann Arbor, MI 48109
42

Table of Contents

 I. Cargo Sweeping Scientific Steering Committee .......................................................................................... 43

 II. U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy ............................................................................................ 43

 III. Environmental Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 43

1. Reference Materials.................................................................................................................................. 43

2. The Cargo Sweeping Process ................................................................................................................... 43

3. The Dry Bulk Cargoes. ............................................................................................................................. 44

4. Environmental Concerns .......................................................................................................................... 46

 IV. Protection of Spawning Areas........................................................................................................................ 49

1. Great Lakes in General ............................................................................................................................. 50

2. Lake Superior ........................................................................................................................................... 50

3. Lake Michigan.......................................................................................................................................... 50

4. Lake Huron ............................................................................................................................................... 50

5. Lake Erie .................................................................................................................................................. 55

6. Lake Ontario............................................................... .............................................................................. 51

V. Committee Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 51

VI. Committee Recommendations Concerning the Interim Enforcement Policy .............................................. 52

VII. References .................................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix I. Ninth Coast Guard District Instruction 16460.1: Enforcement of Marpol V and Cargo Residues .. 54

Appendix II. Maps Depicting Recommended Protected Zones ........................................................................... 59

Appendix III. Conversion Factors ........................................................................................................................ 65

Appendix IV. U.S. Dry-Bulk Carriage: 1993 Navigation Season ........................................................................ 65
43

 I. Cargo Sweeping Scientific Steering Committee

At the request of the U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District, the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL, Ann Arbor, Michigan) assembled an ad hoc scientific steering committee (the Committee) to assist

with two tasks relative to the cargo residues issue:

1. to review, critique, and comment on the Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy from an environmental

standpoint;

2. to plan and hold a workshop on the environmental implications of cargo residue discharges in the Great Lakes

and to identify issues that require further investigation, to provide an improved scientific basis for a final policy

determination.

The Committee was established and first met in March, 1994. Members are listed on the front cover of this report.

II. U.S. Coast Guard Interim Enforcement Policy

U.S. Coast Guard Ninth District Instruction 16460.1, 22 September 1993, established an interim policy on the

enforcement of 33 CFR 151.66 against the discharge of cargo residues. See Appendix I.

III. Environmental Considerations

1. Reference Materials

In order to assess the environmental implications of the interim policy, the Committee had first to understand the

cargo sweeping process and identify the nature of the materials involved. Several documents were provided by the

U.S. Coast Guard for this purpose:

(a) Martec Ltd., An Assessment of Dry Granular Bulk Cargo Losses at Loading and Unloading Ports, (a

report to Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec), December 1984.

(b) Hamburg Maritime Research Institute (Institut an der Fachhochschule Hamburg), Marine Pollution Due

to the Transport of Solid Bulk Cargoes by Ships, Jacobi, H., H.-J Golchert, L. Ivens, and J.C. RiedelLorjè, a report commissioned by the Federal Environmental Agency, February 1988.

(c) Ninth District Instruction 16460.1, Enforcement of Marpol V and Cargo Residues, September 22, 1993.

(d) Melville Shipping Ltd., Review and Investigation of Procedures Governing the Discharge of NonRegulated Cargo Residues from Ships into the Great Lakes. SSC File No. 014SS.T8080-2-6861/B (a

report to the Canadian Coast Guard - Ship Safety, Ottawa, Ontario), December 1993.

(e) Material Safety Data Sheets for Bituminous Coal, Natural Iron Ore, Iron Ore Concentrates, Iron Ore

(Taconite) Pellets, Limestone, Dolomite, and Magnesium Agricultural Limestone (Dolomite).

(f) Numerous communications between the U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District, and the Lake Carrier’s Association (Cleveland, OH).

2. The Cargo Sweeping Process

It is the understanding of the Committee that

(a) In the course of loading and unloading dry bulk cargo, some amount of cargo material is spilled or blown
44

onto the deck of the ship, and some cargo material is also left in the holds and tunnels of the ship. The

process of cargo sweeping has been carried out for some 70-75 years on the Great Lakes and involves

washdown of decks and washout of the holds and tunnels of dry bulk carriers, commencing shortly after

leaving port, with the wash water routinely being discharged overboard.

(b) Washdown of the deck of the ship to eliminate cargo residue is necessitated by safety and sanitary considerations; washdown of the holds and tunnels of the ship is also necessary to avoid contaminating one

cargo with residue from the previous cargo, i.e., when the type of cargo being carried changes.

(c) The washdown is generally the first order of business upon clearing port and may take 1-6 hours over

distances ranging from 28 - 185 km (15 - 100 statute miles) and use 30,000 - 302,000 liters (8,000 -

80,000 gallons) of water. The total amount of cargo residue washed overboard varies depending on the

specific cargo, size of the ship and the circumstances of loading or unloading. Estimates range from 95 -

680 kg (200 - 1500 pounds). See Appendic III for conversion factors.

3. The Dry Bulk Cargoes

There are numerous dry bulk cargoes carried via the Great Lakes. Reference (d) included a list of 62 commodities

carried by the Canadian shipping industry. The top ten were: coal & peat, iron agglomerates and pellets, wheat,

rock salt, cement, potash (potassium salts), dolomite, rape seed, metallic salts and peroxy of inorganic acids, and

barley. However, for the U.S. carriers, the principal dry bulk commodities identified for and considered by this

Committee are:

(a) Iron Ore: consisting of any of the common iron ores, such as hematite and magnetite; primarily iron

oxides and hydroxides, may be mixed with small amounts of other common minerals such as clays and

quartz (silica); may have associated trace metals. Insoluble in fresh water, sparingly soluble under acidic

conditions. The Committee was provided with a Material Safety Data Sheet listing the typical composition of “Natural Iron Ore” as Iron oxide (92.2%), silica (5.4%), aluminum oxide (1.4%), traces (<0.14%

each) of phosphorus, manganese, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, potassium oxide, sodium oxide, and

sulfur.

(b) Taconite: an iron-bearing chert containing 25-30% hematite and magnetite. It is a low-grade ore that is

pelletized for blast furnace reduction. Insoluble in fresh water, but sparingly soluble under acidic conditions. The Committee was provided with a Material Safety Data Sheet listing the typical composition of

“Iron Ore Pellets” as iron (65.6%), silica (5.4%), and traces (<0.3% each) of phosphorus, manganese,

calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, potassium oxide, sodium oxide, and sulfur.

(c) Coal: organic matter that has been subject to high pressure and heat on geologic time scales. Bituminous

coal, also called soft coal, is a form of coal that yields pitch and tar as it burns and also produces much

smoke and ashes. May contain measurable amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Coal is

insoluble in fresh water even under mildly acidic conditions. The Committee received a Material Safety

Data Sheet listing the typical composition of bituminous coal as fixed carbon (50-72%), volatile matter,

including fused polycyclic hydrocarbons (17-37%), ash (5-13%), moisture (3-8%), sulfur (0.5-1.8%), and

elemental and compounds of hydrogen (4.2-5.2%), nitrogen (1.3-1.6%), and chlorine (0.03-0.2%).

(d) Coke: a derivative of coal or petroleum; contains only elemental carbon and residual mineral impurities

that were present in the original material. Coke is insoluble in fresh water, even under acidic conditions.

(e) Limestone: this is natural rock material consisting primarily of calcium carbonate [CaCO3

]; when

magnesium is also included, it is called dolomite or dolomitic limestone [CaMg(CO3)2]; the metamorphosed form of limestone is marble. Sparingly (and slowly) soluble in fresh water, increasingly soluble as
45

pH decreases. Could have associated trace minerals and other constituents. The Committee received

Material Safety Data Sheets for both limestone and dolomite, listing the typical compositions as calcium

and magnesium carbonates (99+%), and silica (<1%).

(f) Gypsum: a natural mineral compound, hydrated calcium sulfate [CaSO4∑2H2O], may also include

anhydrite (CaSO4). Sparingly soluble in fresh water.

(g) Cement: a powdered substance made of calcium oxide [CaO] and clay; may be premixed with washed

sand or gravel. Sparingly soluble in water; solubility increases with decreasing pH.

(h) Potash: the Committee was not given specific information about the chemical composition, but the term

“potash” is generally understood to mean one or more salts of potassium, particularly potassium carbonate [K2

CO3], but possibly potassium hydroxide [KOH], or a mixture of several potassium salts. Often

expressed as “K2O”, and may be lumped with “fertilizer”. All common potassium salts are readily soluble

in fresh water.

(i) Fertilizers: the Committee was not given specific information about the type(s) and composition(s) of

“fertilizers” shipped on the Great Lakes. The Committee made the assumption that these are nitrogen and

phosphorus salts, most likely ammonium, potassium, or sodium salts of nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate.

Urea [CO(NH2

)2] is another form of nitrogen commonly included in fertilizers. All of these forms of

nitrogen and phosphorus are highly soluble in fresh water.

(j) Grain: small hard seeds of typical cereal plants, such as wheat, rice, corn, and rye. Insoluble in fresh

water, but will decompose over time (days to months).

(k) Rock salt: sodium chloride [NaCl], very soluble in fresh water. May have trace amounts of other sea

salts associated with it. May contain sodium hexacyanoferrate(II) as an anti-caking agent, which releases

cyanide when dissolved in water.

(l) Sand: commonly used term for natural rock and mineral detritus with particle sizes ranging from 2 to 1/

16 mm diameter, most often composed of quartz and siliceous minerals resistant to chemical weathering.

Unwashed sand may have silt and clay mixed in. In general, the minerals that form sand are very insoluble in fresh water.

(m) Gravel: commonly used term for natural rock and mineral fragments with diameters in the range of 76

mm to 4.76 mm, the individual pieces usually being more or less rounded.

(n) Clay and Refractory Materials: the Committee had no specific compositional information. Clay is a

general name given to a suite of very small (<0.005 mm) mineral particles composed of hydrous aluminum and magnesium silicates that are the decomposition products of natural rock weathering. Clays are

often active adsorption sites for other elements and organic compounds in water. Clays are insoluble in

fresh water.

(o) Wood pulp: processed wood that consists of cellulose fibers alone or cellulose with lignin (lignin is an

organic compound that acts as a binder for the cellulose fibers in wood). Both are insoluble in fresh water.

Some chemicals used to process the original wood chips may be retained with the pulp, including dioxin,

a known environmentally hazardous chemical. However, the Committee has no information as to the

amounts, if any, of residual processing chemicals that might be associated with the pulp.

(p) Slag: this is a generic term applied to a product of smelting that contains, mostly as silicates, those

substances left over after the production of the target metal, and having a lower specific gravity that the
46

target metal; also called cinder. For example, the slag of iron blast furnaces is a mixture of calcium,

magnesium, and aluminum silicates, while the slag produced by lead and copper smelting furnaces is

predominantly iron silicates. No information was provided concerning the exact nature of the Great Lakes

material, but the Committee made the assumption that ancillary constituents, such as trace metals associated with the ore, would wind up in the slag. Silicates, in general, are relatively insoluble.

(q) Millscale: this is a black scale of magnetic iron oxide formed on iron and steel when heated for rolling,

forging, etc. Iron oxides are insoluble in fresh water, but the solubility increases with decreasing pH.

Unless specifically indicated, the actual composition of these materials was not provided to the Committee and

the information in the above descriptions is that commonly associated with the specific name used to describe the

commodity. Appendix IV provides statistics for some of these commodities for the 1193 navigation season.

4. Environmental Concerns

The Committee considered the potential for each of the commodity types identified for U.S. carriers to cause

environmental degradation. The Committee found that each cargo could be classified as either relatively soluble

or relatively insoluble, and either biousable-biodegradable or not biousable-biodegradable. The latter classification is for materials that are organic and subject to decomposition (i.e., biodegradable) or that contain nutrient

compounds in an available form that would stimulate phytoplankton growth (biousable).

The terms soluble and insoluble are used in a relative sense. Materials that are classified as relatively soluble are

those the Committee expects to dissolve rather quickly (minutes to days) in the water column and therefore do not

have a high probability of significant long-term accumulation in the sediment zone. Materials that are classified as

relatively insoluble are those that the Committee expects to accumulate in sediments and remain for periods of

months to decades or longer. However, it must be also be recognized even materials classified as insoluble may

decompose or react geochemically over time and eventually dissolve or change in chemical form. In addition,

there may be some constituents of the relatively insoluble materials that are soluble or sparingly soluble such that

these constituents will dissolve into Great Lakes waters over shorter periods of time. Table 1 summarizes the

Committee’s general breakdown of the commodities considered.

NOT BIOUSABLE OR BIOUSABLE OR

BIODEGRADABLE BIODEGRADABLE

RELATIVELY Iron ore, taconite, coal, limestone Wood pulp

INSOLUBLE (various forms), sand, gravel, Grain

petroleum coke, clay & refractory

materials, slag, millscale

RELATIVELY

SOLUBLE Rock salt, gypsum, cement Potash, fertilizers

Table 1: Classification of Primary Dry Cargoes Transported by U.S. Carriers
47

The Committee felt that discharge of these materials through the cargo sweeping process must be evaluated for

their potential to produce environmental degradation (1) in the water column, (2) in bottom sediments, and (3)

especially in important habitats and fish spawning areas. The types of environmental impacts expected include:

no significant effects; acute effects (effects that can be identified almost immediately and that have a relatively

short - minutes to weeks - expected duration), and chronic effects (long-term effects, possibly not immediate, but

duration lasting weeks to years/decades).

Rock salt, fertilizers, gypsum, cement, and potash are all soluble, but may not enter the water column in a completely dissolved state and could reach the bottom before dissolution is complete under certain circumstances. The

speed of dissolution will be determined by the solubility, the amount of material, and the particle size. For example, rock salt is very soluble, but if present in large lumps, it is possible that undissolved pieces could reach the

bottom before total dissolution occurs, whereas finely powdered rock salt would dissolve completely in the water

column. Cement may actually form hardened lumps before becoming sufficiently dispersed. The Committee

concluded that these materials may have a potential for acute effects in the water column, but that the risk of harm

is low in the open lakes, and any harmful conditions that do arise will not last long nor be widespread given the

estimated amounts of material, volume of washwater, and expected dilution associated with a single sweeping

event.

Potash and fertilizers have the added potential to stimulate phytoplankton and aquatic weed growth, leading to

localized plankton blooms, heavy aquatic weed growths, and possible eutrophication. This would be of concern if

it occurred in an area that is already eutrophic. In such an area, the capacity of the local ecosystem to assimilate

such the additional plant matter would be low to non-existent. Therefore, multiple or repetitive discharges of

fertilizer and potash residues should be avoided in waters known to be eutrophic or mesotrophic with restricted

circulation, such as western Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, and Green Bay (Figure 1).

There are also many bays and harbors that are eutrophic, but the Interim Enforcement Policy does not allow any

discharges inside of three miles from land, except where safety considerations require it, so such areas are not a

major consideration.

Figure 1. Nutrient-enriched Areas of the Great Lakes. Trophic

status was defined by levels of phosphorus, chlorophyll A, and

water clarity (Statistics Canada, 1986).
48

The greatest risk from these materials would be to important habitats and spawning areas where larval and juvenile aquatic organisms may be more susceptible to even short-term habitat degradation. Rock salt, fertilizers, and

potash could cause localized stress and/or mortality of biota if their dissolved concentration is great enough (i.e.,

osmotic problems). Gypsum and cement dust may be more of a threat by producing high turbidity in the water

column and/or sudden significant deposition on top of the lake bottom sediments, causing suffocation of local

organisms.

The other cargoes under consideration are generally insoluble or not very soluble in the water column. Wood pulp

and grain residues are organic, but not generally soluble. Depending on the size and density, wood pulp, grain

dust, and powder may remain suspended in the water column for long periods of time, or may sink to the bottom.

In either case these materials will biodegrade over time, and are not generally considered toxic in and of themselves. The greatest environmental threat is the possibility of localized mortality via suffocation due to turbidity or

depletion of oxygen from the water column, either of which could be detrimental to important habitats and

spawning areas. The Committee does not believe that the risk to open lake ecosystems from individual sweeping

events is significant given the amount of material involved and the probability of dispersion in the water column.

However, the Committee is concerned that the impingement of these materials on important habitats and spawning areas could temporarily degrade the habitats and negatively affect critical larval and juvenile of aquatic

organisms. The Committee is also concerned that there may be traces of dioxin and other organics associated with

wood pulp, and traces of pesticides and herbicides associated with grain, but had no data with which to address

these questions.

Of the insoluble cargoes, barring evidence or information to the contrary, the Committee found that limestone,

sand and gravel, clays and refractory materials do not, by themselves, pose a significant risk to open lake ecosystems, especially from individual sweeping events. This assumes that there are no toxic ancillary materials associated with these main cargoes, i.e., trace heavy metals. It was recognized that these types of materials might, under

certain conditions, produce short-term degradation in a very localized zone of the water column or bottom sediments by producing high turbidity in the water column and/or sudden significant deposition on top of the existing

lake bottom sediment. The immediate threat in both cases would be to local aquatic organisms which might

experience stress and/or mortality due to suffocation. The Committee did not consider this to be a significant

concern for the open lakes. However, the Committee is concerned that repeated deposition of these materials in

important habitats and spawning areas could change the character of those areas and degrade or destroy their use

as such. See Section V, below.

The remaining insoluble cargoes, -- iron ore, coal, petroleum coke, millscale, and slag -- were determined by the

Committee to have the potential for both acute and chronic environmental impacts and were worthy of more

intense scrutiny. In fact, the Committee spent more time considering these materials than any others. The acute

threat from these cargoes is the same as noted above for limestone, gypsum, sand, gravel, cement, and clays and

other refractory materials, i.e., localized high turbidity in the water column and sudden deposition covering the

existing bottom sediments during and immediately after the sweeping operation. As was found for the previous

materials, the Committee did not consider these short-term effects to be of significant concern in general, except

in important habitats and spawning areas, where they should be avoided.

Of greatest concern to the Committee, however, is the repetitive addition and probable build-up of these materials

in bottom sediments and the potential chronic effects on both hard and soft bottom habitats. The concern is twofold: (1) iron ores, millscale, and slag all have or may have associated trace amounts of non-ferrous metals, some

of which can be quite toxic; coal may have associated trace metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have

been known to leach from soft coals; therefore, any significant build-up of these materials in bottom sediments

may pose a contaminant risk, and (2) if these materials are of sufficient particle size to sink rapidly, they could

represent a significant threat to hard spawning and habitat substrates through acute suffocation and long-term

habitat degradation.
49

Iron ores, coal, coke, millscale, and slag are sufficiently insoluble that there is little threat of significant releases of

these toxic components to the water column during the time these materials remain suspended, which is a function

of particle size and location. In general, small particles may remain in suspension for days, weeks, or even

months, and will most likely be swept off to the circulation-determined main depositional areas of the lakes where

they will accumulate in the deep bottom sediments. However, larger particles and pieces will settle out relatively

close to the point of discharge. Not only will they accumulate in the local sediments, but if discharged over

important hard-substrate habitat and spawning areas, their long-term build-up on such substrates could change the

physical character and ultimately degrade or destroy the habitat quality and value.

The Committee had no information about the distribution of particle sizes in the sweepings, i.e., the amount by

weight that is dust vs. larger pieces and lumps. However, the Committee feels that when integrated over the 70-80

year history of cargo sweeping, the continued discharge of iron ores, coal, coke, millscale, and slag residues pose

a greater potential risk to the environment than any of the others considered.

The Committee attempted to further assess this risk of toxicity, focusing on iron ore and coal as the two leading

commodities (by weight) transported by U.S. lake carriers. However, there was insufficient specific information

about the composition of coal and coke shipped across the Great Lakes to make further assessment. A small

amount of data, apparently for iron ore, was provided by the Lake Carriers’ Association. Based on the analytical

data they provided and assumptions about the amount dissolution, dilution, and dispersion that would occur, the

Committee found that the risk of developing acutely toxic metal concentrations in the water column from a single

sweeping of iron ore is low. Thus, the discharge of iron ore sweepings was not found to pose a significant acute

threat to the ecosystem. However, the Committee still believes that the greatest potential for environmental impact

from the cargo sweeping practice is in the accumulation of material from individual sweeping events over the 70+

year history of the practice on the lakes. This is an issue that will require direct study to properly assess.

The Committee also notes that there are other cargoes that may be transported, but in low volume, across the

Lakes which have not been considered here. Metal ores, for example, might have a much greater potential for

toxicity than iron ore.

IV. Protection of Habitats and Spawning Areas

The Great Lakes contains a diverse assemblage of native and introduced fish species. Nearly all of them sometime

during their life cycle depend on shallow water habitat for their survival and growth. These shallow water zones

consist of erosional areas characterized by firm or hard substrates ranging from sand to boulders. Other shallow

waters protected from wind action are depositional zones of silt and mud, often containing submergent and

emergent aquatic macrophyte beds. Most species of fish use these shallow zones for spawning and nursery

grounds (Gannon, et al., 1985; Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Shallow water zones are not confined to nearshore areas. Submerged bedrock reefs and gravel shoals, some

located at considerable distances from shore, are extremely important fish spawning and nursery grounds. The

lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) depends on these offshore reefs and shoals for spawning. The Great Lakes

fisheries management community has designated many of these sites as lake trout sanctuaries and off-limits to

exploitation, in an effort to rehabilitate lake trout populations in the Great Lakes (Stanley et al., 1987). These sites

are also used as spawning and nursery grounds for many other species. Since the lake trout is a sensitive indicator

of high water quality, protecting lake trout habitat will effectively protect habitat for the majority of the Great

Lakes fish community.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mapped fish spawning and nursery habitats in the Great Lakes (Goodyear et

al. ,1982). These maps were used as the basis for making the following recommendations concerning cargo

sweeping in the Great Lakes. These recommendations especially focus on protecting fish habitats from acute and

chronic toxicity potentially associated with cargo residues. Although aggregates such as limestone, gravel, etc. are

non-toxic and actually could provide habitat structure, discharging these materials over sensitive fish habitats
50

should still be avoided. These materials could suffocate bottom organisms and alter the size-composition of

bottom materials in ways that could degrade existing habitat.

1. Great Lakes in General. The charts accompanying this report (Appendix II) are marked with lines depicting

areas we recommend be protected from cargo sweeping operations (hatch marks point into the recommended

protected areas). In general the near-shore protected areas are 6 miles wide, with some exceptions necessary

to protect off-shore reefs and key habitats. The choice of these lines is somewhat arbitrary as there is no

definitive marker by which to identify and separate highly sensitive habitats from less sensitive habitats.

However, in general, the firm substrates important as fish spawning and nursery habitats are located within 6

miles of shores and islands. Moreover, the most eutrophic waters and areas containing submergent and

emergent aquatic macrophytes are located within the 6-mile limit also. Consequently, disallowing cargo

sweeping within the 6-mile limit is generally most protective of all habitats except for those shoals and reefs

that are further offshore. Offshore shoals and reefs that should be protected are also marked on the accompanying maps. In some cases the recommended nearshore protected zone had to be extended to 12 miles to

compensate for reefs, shoals, and islands. The following discussion is specific for each lake.

2. Lake Superior. The 6-mile limit protects near-shore sensitive fish spawning and nursery grounds throughout

Lake Superior, including the Apostle Islands area, Michipicoten and Caribou Islands, Thunder Bay,

Keweenaw Bay, and Whitefish Bay. A very narrow zone greater than 6-miles exists between Pie Island and

the Sibley Peninsula (Thunder Bay) and Isle Royale, but is not wide enough to show on the accompanying

map. In order to protect fish habitats around Isle Royale and nearby Fisherman Reef and Bateau Rock, a 12-

mile limit is recommended along the southern edge of Isle Royale. In addition, offshore fish spawning reefs

associated with Stannard Rock, Superior Shoal, and Southwest Bank require protective zones separate from

the contiguous nearshore zone.

3. Lake Michigan. The 6-mile limit generally protects near-shore sensitive fish spawning and nursery grounds

in Lake Michigan except in the northern portion where there are many islands, shoals, and reefs. It is recommended that the 12-mile limit be employed north of the 45th parallel to fully protect lake trout sanctuary

waters and other important fish habitats near the islands. Offshore lake trout spawning reefs (Milwaukee Midlake Reef and Julian’s Reef) in the southern basin are marked with separate protective zones that should be off

limits to cargo sweeping. A small area of water greater than 6 miles from shore occurs in northern Green Bay.

However, this area includes sensitive fish habitats associated with Whaleback, Minneapolis, and Drisco

Shoals. Consequently, we recommend that cargo sweeping not be allowed in Green Bay unless required for

safety reasons. In the latter case, such operations should be in the northern end in waters greater than 6-miles

from shore (not marked on the map), but should stay as far from Whaleback, Minneapolis, and Drisco Shoals

and the bordering islands as possible.

4. Lake Huron. The 6-mile limit is generally protective of the nearshore habitats in Lake Huron. Exceptions are

the designated lake trout refuges off Drummond and Cockburn Islands and the mid-lake refuge associated

with Six Fathom Bank and Yankee Reef. All of the North Channel area should be off limits to cargo sweeping,

even though a small area is more than 6 miles from shore. There are so many sensitive fish habitat areas

associated with islands, shoals, and reefs in Georgian Bay that the 6-mile limit is insufficient for environmental protection and the recommended restricted zone as shown on the accompanying map is 12 miles, except in

the northwest end where Dawson Rock necessitates an even wider restricted zone.

5. Lake Erie. The 6-mile limit is protective of the nearshore habitats in the central and eastern basins of Lake

Erie. In western Lake Erie, there are many important habitat areas associated with islands and reefs beyond

the 6-mile limit and only a small area is more than 12 miles from shore. It is recommended that cargo sweeping be severely restricted in the western basin of Lake Erie, allowing only those cases for which it is impractical to go elsewhere. In the latter case, the sweeping operations occur at least six-miles from the mainland and

the shippers’ should stay as far away from islands and charted reefs as possible.
51

6. Lake Ontario. The 6-mile limit is protective of the nearshore habitats throughout the main portion of the

lake, except for the fish spawning habitats associated with Mulcaster Patch and Scotch Bonnet Shoal. We

recommend that these be protected by extending the restricted zone to 12 miles from the mainland in those

areas. The 6-mile limit is also protective of the islands and shoals near the St. Lawrence River mouth and the

Bay of Quinte.

V. Committee Findings

1. There are identifiable potential environmental effects from the discharge of cargo materials into the Great

Lakes and cause for concern about the effects of discharges in or near important habitats and sensitive spawning areas.

2. There is insufficient evidence to support finding an immediate or severe risk associated with the interim

policy to allow continuation of cargo sweeping discharges of the primary commodities identified in this

report. However, there is also a paucity of data and studies on which to base comprehensive risk assessments,

and there is a clear need for a comprehensive data compilation and scientific studies related to this issue. In

addition, this finding does not apply to materials not specifically included here that may be occasionally

transported and that may be toxic.

3. The greatest concern, and greatest potential environmental risk, is associated with cargo residues that are

relatively insoluble and which may contain toxic components, such as coal, coke, iron ore, slag, millscale, and

other metal ores. These have the potential for long-term accumulation in bottom sediments, and if repeatedly

deposited on hard-substrate habitats or spawning reefs, could change the physical character of these habitats

and degrade their habitat value.

4. The use of 3, 6, and 12 mile distance-from-shore criteria is arbitrary and these distances are not based on any

known environmental factors. Of perhaps greater importance than distance-from-shore is water depth,

openness of the discharge area, and proximity to important habitats and sensitive spawning areas. Deeper

water and open lake areas allow for more dispersion and dilution compared to shallow and/or confined areas

such as western Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and bays and harbors. Cargo sweeping should not be allowed close

to important habitat and spawning areas. Based on the Committee findings presented in Section V of this

report, the application of the arbitrary 6-mile limit does provides sufficient protection in most areas, although

there are some exceptions where the 12-mile limit is recommended. See Section V for specifics.

5. The Committee notes that many of the existing shipping lanes are less than 12 miles from shore. One effect of

the unmodified Interim Enforcement Policy will be to move cargo sweeping discharges away from the areas

that have been receiving these residues for some 70+ years to areas (12 miles out) that have not, typically,

received these discharges. If one assumes that there is an environmental risk associated with accumulation of

cargo residues in bottom sediments, then the unmodified Interim Enforcement Policy will result in an expansion of the area of bottom sediments potentially impacted by cargo sweeping. The Coast Guard should

balance this consideration against the impacts of continuing cargo sweeping along existing shipping lanes for

another few years while scientific studies are conducted. The latter would add about 7% to the existing

potential of environmental damage (i.e., assuming the practice continues for another 5 years before scientific

studies are complete, the additional “loading” of material to areas already receiving sweepings is an additional

5 years on top of a70 years that the practice has gone unabated, or about a 7% potential increase in residues).

6. The issues concerning the environmental effects of cargo sweeping are not fully resolvable without further

information, especially the characteristic chemical compositions of the cargoes. There is a growing recognition among the environmental community and regulatory agencies that there are cumulative effects of multiple stresses on the ecosystem. There is a need to bring the issue of cargo sweeping to the attention of the

aquatic science community, to have a thorough review of the existing scientific literature conducted and
52

analyzed, to identify the key scientific questions, and to develop well though-out specific laboratory and field

studies necessary to answer those questions.

VI. Committee Recommendations Concerning the Interim Enforcement Policy

1. The Coast Guard may wish to reevaluate the proposed application of a 12 mile enforcement limit to all

cargoes. Most cargoes do not appear to pose a sufficient threat to the environment to justify moving their

discharge to a new location, except when necessary to protect habitat and spawning areas.

2. For natural materials (such as limestone, sand, gravel, clay, refractory materials, and gypsum), rock salt,

potash, fertilizer, cement, grain, seed, and wood pulp, the Committee found no basis to restrict their discharge

except as recommended in Section V of this report, to protect habitat and spawning areas. This assumes that

the quantities involved in a single sweeping event are the same or less than those assumed for this evaluation

(<700 kg). Spawning areas, in particular, should be protected from the possibility of damage caused by longterm build-up of these materials on spawning substrates.

3. The discharge of rock salt, potash, fertilizer, grain, seed, and wood pulp residues should be avoided in western

Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay unless it is absolutely impractical to carry out such

operations elsewhere, e.g., vessels exchanging cargo in Toledo.

4. For materials that are known to have a high potential for associated toxic components (iron ore, coal, coke,

millscale, and slag) the Coast Guard should rigorously pursue obtaining as much information from the carrier

organizations as possible concerning the actual composition, including trace constituents, of these commodities. The Coast Guard may wish to maintain the interim 12-mile enforcement zone for these materials until

sufficient information is provided to make a reasonable assessment of contaminant levels and risk to the

environment, after which the enforcement policy can be adjusted if appropriate. Iron ore, for example, was

evaluated based on information provided by the Lake Carriers’ Association and found to pose little acute

threat to the ecosystem. The enforcement limit was moved to 6 miles for most areas of the lakes by the Coast

Guard on April 7, 1994.

5. In general, the Committee recommends that the Coast Guard, when considering requests for waivers, take into

account the expected frequency of cargo sweeping in the waiver area as well as the nature of the material

involved. For example, there is a considerable difference in risk potential associated with sweeping operations

that will only occur only a few times during the entire navigation season in the area under consideration and

operations that will involve quite frequent sweeping operations in the same area.

6. The Committee urges the Coast Guard and the Great Lakes shippers to continue to work together on this

problem, and in particular, for the shippers to aggressively seek new procedures and technologies that lessen

the amounts of residues that are washed overboard.

These recommendations refer only to the application of the Interim Enforcement Policy and do not represent an

endorsement of cargo sweeping discharge into the Great Lakes by this Committee. The Committee believes that

the environmental effects of cargo sweeping activities on the Great Lakes require and deserve additional scrutiny

that will require substantially more information than the Committee had available for its deliberations.

VII. References

Gannon, J. E., R. Danehy, J. Anderson, G. Merritt, and A. Bader. The ecology of natural shoals in Lake Ontario

and their importance to artificial reef development, p. 113-134, In Artificial Reefs - Marine and Freshwater

Applications, D’Itri, F. (ed.), Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI (1985).
53

Goodyear, C.D., T.A. Edsall, D.M. Ormsby Dempsey, G.D. Moss, and P.E. Polanski. Atlas of the Spawning and

Nursery Areas of Great Lakes Fishes, U.S. Fish and Wild. Serv. FWS/OBS-82-52, vol. 1-14 (1982).

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. Freshwater Fishes of Canada, Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Bull. No. 184 (1973).

Stanley, J.G., R.L. Eshenroder, and W.L. Hartman. Sanctuaries for lake trout in the Great Lakes. Coastal Zone ’87

Conf., W. W. Div./ASCE, Seattle, WA, p. 3141-3152 (1987).

Statistics Canada. Human Activity and the Environment: A Statistical Compendium. Figure 6.6.21, page 279.

Statistics Canada, Ottawa (1986).
54

APPENDIX I: NINTH DISTRICT INSTRUCTION 16460.1

Enforcement Of Marpol V And Cargo Residues
55
56
57
58
59

Lake Superior

Lake Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

Lake Ontario

APPENDIX II: Maps Depicting Recommended Protected Zones

(Hatch marks point into areas recommended for protection.
60

Lake Superior -- Recommended Protected Zones

(Hatch marks point into areas recommended for protection)
61

Lake Michigan -- Recommended Protected Zones

(Hatch marks point into areas recommended for protection)
62

79o 80o

Lake Huron -- Recommended Protected Zones

(Hatch marks point into areas recommended for protection)
63

Lake Erie -- Recommended Protected Zones

(Hatch marks point into areas recommended for protection)
64

Lake Ontario -- Recommended Protected Zones

(Hatch marks point into areas recommended for protection)
65

1 kilogram = 2.2046 pounds

1 gallon = 3.7853 liters

1 cubic meter = 1000 liters = 264.2 gallons

1 nautical mile = 1.151 statute miles = 1,852 m = 6,076 ft.

1 statute mile = 0.86836 nautical miles = 5,280 ft. = 1,609 m

APPENDIX III: Conversion Factors
66

Information in the following table was obtained from the 1993 Annual Report of Lake Carriers’ Association, Cleveland, OH.

 Commodity Net Tons

Iron Ore 57,608,273

Coal & Coke 19,548,911

Limestone & Gypsum 22,234,518

Cement & Potash 3,598,577

Grain 901,543

Salt 750,170

Sand 436,609

APPENDIX IV: U.S. Dry-Bulk Carriage: 1993 Navigation Season