c/EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
             Great Lakes
             National Program Office
             536 South Clark Street
             Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA 905/9-80-006-B
September 1980
   Vol. 2-
    C', I
Post-Pluarg
Of Great Lakes Water
Quality Management
Studies and Programs
             Volume II

-------
                                   FOREWORD

The United States Environmental  Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and governmental  concern about the dangers of pollution
to the health and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul  water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimony, to the deterioration of our  natural
environment.

The Great Lakes National  Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S.  EPA, was.
established in Region V,  Chicago to provide a specific focus on the water
quality concerns of the Great Lakes.   GLNPO provides funding and personnel
support to the International Joint  Commission activities under the U.S.-
Canada Great Lakes Water  Quality Agreement.

Under the terms of the Agreement a  series of studies were funded to examine
the relationship between  land use and water quality.  The studies were con-
ducted by the IJC Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG),
In order to further build upon the  accomplishments of the PLUARG effort,
GLNPO contracted with the Great Lakes Basin Commission to prepare this
report which describes the work which is continuing to address the problem
of pollution from land.

We hope that the information and data contained herein will help planners
and managers of pollution control agencies make better decisions for
carrying forward their pollution control responsibilities.

                              Madonna F. McGrath
                              Director
                              Great Lakes National Program Office

-------
                                                            EPA-905/9-80-C06-B
                                                            September 1980
                 POST-PLUARG EVALUATION OF GREAT LAKES

             WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND PROGRAMS

                               Volume II

                                    by


                          Rose Ann  C. Sullivan
                          Timothy J. Monteith
                          William C. Sonzogni
                   Great  Lakes Basin Commission  Staff
                          Ann Arbor, Michigan

                                  for

                   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
                            Chicago, Illinois


                             Project Officer
                              Kent  Fuller
                   Great Lakes National  Program Office


              Prepared for the Great Lakes  National  Program
              Office, EPA, in partial fulfillment of U.S.
              Environmental  Protection Agency  Interagency
              Agreement No.  AD-85-F-0-015-0 with  the Great
              Lakes Basin Commission.


This report presents information  based  in part on the results to date of
Great Lakes Water Quality Management studies.   Because these studies are
ongoing, the findings and conclusions in this  report will  need to be
periodically updated to reflect  progress that  has been made.  This report
is intended to promote discussion and further  coordination of Great Lakes
planning efort.

                   GREAT LAKES NATIONAL  PROGRAM OFFICE
              U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V
                     536 SOUTH CLARK STREET, ROOM 932
                         CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605
                            U.S. Environmental  Protection
                            Region V, Library
                            230 South Dearborn Street
                            Chicago, Illinois  60604

-------
                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 The  authors wish to thank Melanie Baise,  formerly  of  the  Great
 Lakes Basin Commission staff, and the numerous federal,  state,
 and  regional  agency  personnel  who contributed  information.
 The  secretarial  support  of Ann  Davis  and  Kelsie  Raycroft  is
 very much appreciated as well.
                          DISCLAIMER
This study was carried  out by  the  Great Lakes Basin Commission
staff in partial fulfillment of an Interagency Agreement with
the  Great  Lakes National Program  Office,  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency  (EPA).   The  findings,  conclusions  and
recommendations  are  those   of   the  authors  and  do  not
necessarily reflect  the views of U.S. EPA  or the Great Lakes
Basin Commission.
                J-o^jonmental Protection Agenc?
                               ii

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
                                                                      Page No.
DISCLAIMER [[[    1IL

LIST OF TABLES  ................ .......................................    1V

LIST OF FIGURES [[[    V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  [[[

CONCLUSIONS  [[[    3

RECOMMENDATIONS  [[[    6

1 .  INTRODUCTION [[[    9
 2.   UPDATE  ON  WATER  QUALITY  STUDIES  AND RESOURCE PLANNING AND
       MANAGEMENT  PROGRAMS  	   11
          Pilot Watershed  Studies  	   11
                                                                          1 *^
          Lake  Erie Wastewater  Management Study 	   ij
          Section  108(a) Demonstration Projects 	   ^
          Lorain Harbor  Study 	   *•*
          The Wisconsin  Nonpoint  Source Water Pollution Abatement
            Program  (Wisconsin Fund) 	   20
          Stratford/Avon River  Environmental Management Project	   20

-------
                                                                      gage No.


          The  Soil  and  Water  Resources Conservation Act	  27
          Soil  Conservation Service  Inventory of Prime
            and  Unique Farmlands	             27
          Great Lakes Basin Commission 208  Report Bibliography	    30
          The  Phosphorus Management  Strategies  Task Force
            Recommendations	                  32
          The  International Joint  Conmission1s
            Recommendations	             36

3.  UPDATE ON  U.S. GREAT LAKE  TRIBUTARY  LOADINGS	  38

4.  POST-PLUARG MEETING ON POLLUTION  ABATEMENT STRATEGIES
      FOR THE  GREAT LAKES	         79

5.  "WATERSHED" - A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE FOR CHOOSING AMONG POINT  AND  NONPOINT
      CONTROL  STRATEGIES	         82

REFERENCES  	                           83

BIBLIOGRAPHY 	                    88

APPENDICES	
    A.   Honey Creek Watershed Management Project  Tour -
           July 16 , 1980	   89
    B.   GLBC "208" Bibliography Retrieval	   92
    C.   1976-1978  River Mouth Loadings	   104
    D.   Sumnary  of Results - Post PLUARG Meeting on
           Pollution Abatement Strategies for  the Great Lakes.	   121
    E.   Synopsis of the "WATERSHED" Process	                     139
                                       IV

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
    1.   Completed Prime and Unique Farmlands
         County Inventory Maps in the Great Lakes Basin
    2.   208 Bibliography Key Word Dictionary
    3.   U.S. Great Lakes Tributary Loadings - WY 1977, WY 1978
    4.   Hydrologic Area Loads - WY 1977, WY 1978
    5.   U.S. Great Lakes Tributary Loadings - WY 1975, WY 1976
    6.   Hydrologic Area Loads - Lake Erie - WY 1975, WY 1976
    7.   U.S.  Great  Lakes  Tributary  Total  Phosphorus  Loads  and  Flow
         WY 1975 to WY 1978.

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
   1.     Total U.S.  Tributary Flow

   2.     Grand River,  Michigan:   Flow  and Ortho  Phosphorus  Load  at  the
          Mouth.
                                      VI

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
         This report  presents  the results  of recent  efforts  by the  Great
Lakes  Basin Commission  staff  to update  and  integrate  the  findings  and
recommendations of the International Joint  Commission's  Pollution  from Land
Use Activities Reference Group  (PLUARG)  with  other related studies.   It  is
one of a series of U.S.  Post-PLUARG activities  recommended by  the  Reference
Group to ensure that the initiatives  begun under PLUARG are not lost.

         The report concentrates on five different areas:

         1.  update of major water quality studies and resource planning and
             management programs  and  projects related to  Great  Lakes  water
             quality concerns;

         2.  update on U.S. Great Lakes tributary loadings;

         3.    results of   a  Post-PLUARG  meeting  on  pollution  abatement
             strategies for the Great  Lakes;

         4.   initial  work  developing  "WATERSHED" - a management  technique
             for choosing among point  and nonpoint control strategies;

         5.  reconsideration of PLUARG findings  and recommendations  in  light
             of new information.
         Five  appendices  provide  detailed  information  to  support  this
report.

         A  number  of  national  and  regional   programs  are  continuing  to
contribute to the development and implementation of nonpoint  source  controls
in  the  basin.   The  Nationwide Urban  Runoff  Program,  in  particular,  is
expected  to  provide  some  much  needed  information  on  the  benefits  and
effectiveness of urban controls.

-------
 Task  Fore"""  'T! reCOTnendati°nS °£  ^ Ph°*Ph— "«,«.t Strategies
 Task  Force generally  confirm  past reco™e»dations Bade  by pL]JARG  anj  ^
 Great  Lakes  Basin  emission  concerning  pQint  „„  nonpo£nt
 control  strategies  for  the   lakes.    The  Task  Force  advocates a  staged
 approach to phosphorus management, using the target load, established in the
 1978  Great  Lakes  Water  Quality  Agreement  as guidelines  tor planning
 purposes .

         Some  PLUARG recommendations  for   information  needs  still  require
 attention,  as  identified  by  attendees  at  the recent  Post-PLUARG  meeting.
 These  include  the  development  of techniques  and  guidelines  for identifi-
 cation  of  hydrologically  active  areas,  the  development  of  detailed  cost
 information on agricultural nonpoint  controls, and  the  identification  of
 secondary  effects  associated  with remedial measures  to  control  phosphorous
 from nonpoint  sources.

         An examination of Great Lakes  tributary data  from  water  years  1975
to 1978 reveals substantial annual  variations  in both flow  and  load  to  the
lakes.  Natural variability in  runoff was found to  cause  major  variations  in
the loadxngs of total phosphorus and suspended  solids.   Data indicates  that
Lake  Erie  continues  to  receive  the largest  total  phosphorus and  soluble
ortho  phosphorus tributary loads.

-------
                               CONCLUSIONS

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

1.  Probably more progress has been made toward understanding nonpoint source
    pollution problems in the Great Lakes basin than any place else in the
    world.  Results and recommendations from past and continuing programs in
    both the U.S. and Canada (i.e., PLUARG, 108(a) Demonstration Projects such
    as the Black Creek Study and the Washington County Project, the Wisconsin
    Fund, "208" Studies, the Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study, etc.) seem
    to be converging.  However, with the completion of PLUARG, no formal
    mechanism remains for coordination and unified action.

2.  The IJC's recommendation of regulation of manure spreading on frozen
    ground, as highlighted in its report to the governments on pollution from
    land runoff, does not reflect the work done on this subject in PLUARG.

3.  There is still no indication that lead is causing water quality problems
    in the Great Lakes.  The statement in the IJC's report to the governments
    that lead is a "pollution time bomb" is not in accord with the PLUARG
    report.

4.  Draft final recommendations of the Phosphorus Management Strategies  Task
    Force (PMSTF) generally confirm past recommendations of the Great Lakes
    Basin Commission concerning nonpoint source phosphorus control strategies
    for the Great Lakes.

5.  Additional promotion and consideration should be given to  the  other
    benefits of nonpoint source controls  (besides * phosphorus  load  reductions)
    such as energy savings and reductions  in heavy metal  loadings.  Negative
    -secondary effects that may occur  as a  result  of remedial  programs should
    also be considered  in development of a Great  Lakes  management  strategy.

-------
 6. Acceptance of  conservation  tillage  is rapidly increasing  in many parts of
    the  U.S.  and Canadian basins.   This  is largely due to  the  energy savings
    realized with  conservation  tillage  and the  effort  which has been  made to
    demonstrate  the  utility of  the method to  farmers.   The  importance  of  a
    long-term,  person-to-person  technology transfer   program  should  not  be
    underestimated.

 7. The  economics  of conservation tillage  appear  favorable  following  a year of
    observation  on  the   Honey  Creek  Watershed  project.    Erosion  reduction
    associated with no-till appears  significant.

 8. Results of the Menomonee River  Pilot  Watershed  Study indicate  that because
    soils  eroding  to waterways  do   not  completely disperse  during  the  early
    stages of transport,  nonpoint source controls which trap soil  particles of
    silt-size  or  larger  and  aggregates   are  able  to  capture  a  significant
    percentage of clays  (and associated  pollutants).

 9.  Results  of   the  Menomonee  River  Pilot  Watershed  Study  indicate  that
    atmospheric  inputs  presently  contribute more  than  70  percent  of  the  PCB
    load to Lake  Michigan.

10. The  Nationwide  Urban  Runoff  Program will  provide  some much needed
    information  on  the  benefits Nand  effectiveness  of  urban controls  so  that
    the  necessity  for  controls  beyond  those  recommended  by PLUARG  can  be
    ascertained.

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

 1. Draft  final  recommendations  of  the   PMSTF are  in  agreement  with  past
    recommendations made  by  PLUARG and  the  Great  Lakes  Basin  Commission
    concerning point  source  phosphorus control  strategies.

-------
UPDATE ON POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO THE LAKE

1. Draft  final recommendations  of the  PMSTF advocate  a staged  approach to
   phosphorous  management,  utilizing  the  target  loads  as  guidelines  for
   planning  purposes.    This  approach  recognizes  the  fact  that  phosphorous-
   induced  water  quality degradation  is  reversible,  so that receiving waters
   are  not  irreversibly  harmed  if all pollutant inputs  are  not  immediately
   controlled.

 2.  Recent  information from  the PMSTF  confirms  past  estimates  of the
    phosphorus  load contributed  to  the lakes from various sources.

 3. With  regard  to P  availability,  the  majority of point source  phosphorus
    which reaches the lakes appears to be in a biologically available form.

 4.  Based  on an  analysis of four years of  data,  natural variability in runoff
     was  found  to  cause major variations  in the  tributary loading to the  lakes
     of  total phosphorus  and suspended  solids.

  5.  During water  years 1975 and 1976  tributaries exhibited both high  flows and
     loads for  virtually all parameters relative to the historical  average.   In
     water year 1977 both flow and  loading  decreased markedly.   Water  year 1978
     exhibited  medium  to high  flows and loads, depending upon the lake  basin.

  6.  An examination of  data from  water  years 1975 to  1978  indicates  that Lake
     Erie  receives  the largest  total  phosphorus  and soluble ortho  phosphorus
     tributary  loads while Lake Superior receives the smallest loads.

  7.  As  evidenced  by  examining data   from  water years  1976 and  1977,  event
     response  tributaries  show much wider  fluctuations  in  load  with changes in
     flow then do stable response  tributaries.

-------
                                 RECOMMENDATIONS
         The following are offered as recommendations, in addition to the many
implicit recommendations included  in  the  "Conclusions".

1. Studies  designed  to  provide  detailed  cost  information  on  agricultural
   nonpoint controls should be  stepped  up.

2. Techniques  and  guidelines  should  be  developed  for identification  of
   hydrologically active areas  (remote  sensing  offers  some promise).

3. The  efforts  of  "208" agency programs and  ongoing  federal  and  state
   demonstration  projects  and  programs  should  be  coordinated  to  assure
   consistency  in  the  recommendations  made to  the  public  concerning nonpoint
   source pollution control.

4. Studies  should be  encouraged on  the percentage of  pollutants  contained  in
   urban and  rural  runoff  which are attributable to atmospheric deposition.

5. Funding  should be provided for demonstration  projects which  assess the long-
   term effects of  nonpoint controls.

6. Information from the  large  number  of  ongoing  and completed  agricultural
   research  projects  addressing  conservation   tillage  systems  in  the  basin
   (i.e. Maumee  Basin Water  Quality  Demonstration Project,  Honey  Creek
   Watershed  Project, Southeast Saginaw  Bay ACP Project)  should  be used,  if
   appropriate, to modify  strategies  for managing nonpoint inputs to the lakes.

7. Additional programs,  like  the  Northeast Ohio Areawide  Coordinating Agency's
   (NOACA)  Lake  Erie  Tributaries  Stormwater  Effects Evaluation,  should  be
   encouraged to  integrate Great Lakes water quality  and  fisheries  management
   programs,  thereby adopting an ecosystem approach.

-------
8.  The  Soil  Conservation  Service  Inventory  of  Prime  and  Unique  Farmlands
   should be  utilized  in  support  of  PLUARG's  recommendation  that  farmlands
   which have the  least  natural  limitations for agricultural use  be retained
   for this  purpose.

9.  A tributary loading  calculation program should be initiated using data from
   the  last  20  years.    This would give  some indication  of how  tributary
   concentrations   have   changed   over   time,    particularly   following
   implementation of  point  source  controls.

-------

-------
                                  CHAPTER 1
                                 INTRODUCTION
         Under an Interagency Agreement  with the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA),  the Great Lakes Basin Commission (GLBC),  in cooperation with  the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)  of EPA,  has undertaken a number of
activities  to ensure  that   the  findings and recommendations  of PLUARG  are
considered  and  incorporated into  ongoing water quality planning and manage-
ment  programs  in the  basin.   The  first  Post-PLUARG  report,  entitled  "Post-
PLUARG Evaluation of  Great  Lakes Water Quality Management  Studies,"  was  com-
pleted in  July  of  1979 (Skimin et al..  1979).  A second  report  was  completed
in March,  1980  (Sullivan  et al.,  1980).   This report  updates some of the  work
initiated  under previous  Agreements  and  provides  information  on  recent
activities.

         Chapter 2  of this report  provides information  on  a  number  of
significant  studies  and  programs  of  relevance to  Great Lakes  water quality
problems.   Results  of  PLUARG  pilot watershed  studies  that have  just  become
available  are described.    Recent  developments from  the  U.S. Army  Corps of
Engineers' Lake Erie  Wastewater  Management  Study  (LEWMS)  are discussed.
Recent  efforts  under  the Wisconsin Nonpoint  Source Water Pollution Abatement
Program  (Wisconsin  Fund)  and the Corps of  Engineers'  Lorain Harbor  Study are
presented.    Section   108(a)  Demonstration  Projects  funded in  the  past  few
months are reviewed and summarized.

         Updates on  a number of  nationwide  programs  currently addressing the
problem  of  non-point  source   pollution  either  directly  or  indirectly  are
provided.   Chapter 2  includes reviews of projects being conducted in  the basin
under the auspices  of  the Rural Clean  Water Program,  the  Agricultural
Conservation  Program  and  the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.

         A description of the  bibliography  of 208 documents  recently  completed
by  the  Basin  Commission  is  included.    The  recent  recommendations  of  the
Phosphorus  Management Strategies Task Force and the  International Joint
Commission are  also  reviewed.

-------
         Chapter  3  presents  river  mouth  loadings  calculated  by Great  Lakes
Basin  Commission  staff for water years  1975  to 1978.  A discussion  of trends
in  river  mouth   loadings  for  total   phosphorous,  orthophosphorus,  suspended
solids and chloride is also included.

         Chapter 4 summarizes the results of  the Post-PLUARG meeting  sponsored
by the Basin Conmission and the  Great  Lakes National  Program Office  last  June.
The  meeting  was  held to  assess technical  developments which  have  occurred
since the PLUARG study was completed in 1978.

         Chapter 5 describes  the management technique, "WATERSHED",  currently
being  developed  by  Great  Lakes  Basin  Commission staff  for  EPA.   This
management  technique  is  designed   to  aid  decision-makers  in  choosing  among
point and non-point  source control  strategies  within  a drainage  basin.
                                      10

-------
                                  CHAPTER  2

                        UPDATE  ON  WATER QUALITY  STUDIES
                      AND RESOURCE PLANNING AND  MANAGEMENT
                                    PROGRAMS
         The  first  two  Post-PLUARG reports (Skimin  et  al..  1979;  Sullivan £t
al., i960)  discussed  a  number of water quality studies and  programs which  are
7n~the process of developing  detailed  information on  the  causes  and  control of
nonpoint  source  pollution.   This chapter updates information contained  in  the
previous  reports and  describes  other  studies  and  programs which  are  addressing
subjects  relevant  to PLUARG.   Additionally,  recent ^commendations  from  the
Phosphorus  Management  Strategies  Task Force  and  the  International Joint
Conmission  are summarized and reviewed.

PILOT WATERSHED  STUDIES

Menomonee River  Pilot Watershed Study

          Two draft final reports  have been received  from  the  Menomonee River
 Pilot  Watershed  Study  since  the  last  Post-PLUARG report  (Sullivan et  al;>
 1980)  was  completed.   Additionally,  a  summary  of  the  eight  major  research
 efforts of the Menoomonee Study, and recommendations for remedial measures was
 published in July of this year (Chesters  et al.,  1980).

           A  detailed  study  was  made  available  in  December,  1979,  on   the
 dispersibility  of  soils and  elemental  composition of  soils,  sediments,  dust
 and  dirt  in  the  watershed  (Dong  et al . .  1979).    Measurement  of   the
 dispersibility  of  the  major  soil  types  in  the  basin was  perceived  to be  an
 indirect method  for  evaluating nutrient availability and pollutants  sorbed  on
 the surface, as well as the  potential of the  soil to erode.

          Dispersibility is one  of  the  primary factors  contributing  to a soil's
 erosion  potential.   Soils  which naturally  disperse  readily in  water are  of
 greater  concern than those which remain in  aggregate  form  since  the  dispersed
                                         11

-------
 fine particles are more readily transported overland in surface runoff.   Finer-
 textured particles  also  remain  in  suspension longer,  resulting  in  increased
 availability of the associated pollutants.

          Results of the study indicated that  soils  eroding  to  waterways  do  not
 completely   disperse  during  the  early  stages of  transport.   Thus, nonpoint
 source  controls, such as settling ponds which are  able to  trap  soil  particles
 of   silt-size  or  larger  and  aggregates,   are able  to capture  a  significant
 percentage  of clays close to  the  source  of  the eroded  material.

          The particle-size  distribution in samples  of  soils, bottom sediments,
 suspended  sediments,   and  urban  street  dust  and  dirt   was   also  analyzed.
 Sediment, dust and dirt samples  with  elemental compositions greater  than soil
 levels  were  suspected  of  receiving  inputs  of pollutants.   The locations   of
 pollutant   inputs  to  the  river  were  identified  by  comparing  the  elemental
 composition of  the clay-sized  fraction of  bottom sediments  from  different
 locations.

          A  two-part draft  final  report on  the atmospheric  chemistry of PCBs
 and  PAHs and  the  significance  of atmospheric  inputs of  these  substances   to
 Lake Michigan  was  made  available  in March,   1980  (Andren et al.,  1980).   Study
 results  indicated  that  at  the present  time  atmospheric inputs contribute over
 70 percent  of  the PCS load to Lake Michigan.

         Twelve  polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons  were identified  in aerosols
 sampled  over Lake Michigan.   This marked  the  first time  measurements of this
 kind had  been made over a large  inland  lake.   Researchers  felt  that the PAHs
 identified  originated  from man-made  combustion processes.   Removal  from the
 air was  determined  to be primarily  a  result  of  impaction.   Thus,  the  air   to
water flux  is  slow,  but significant, with  the lake  functioning as a permanent
 (or nearly  so)  sink.   Adsorption and sedimentation  eventually  remove the PAHs
 from further cycling.
                                       12

-------
LAKE ERIE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY (LEWMS)

Honey Creek Watershed Management Project

         Among  the  primary  components  of  the  Honey  Creek  Project  are  the
numerous  farm  plots demonstrating  the use of  reduced  tillage  and  no-till
methods  of farming.   Recently,  the results  obtained  on  these  demonstration
plots  in 1979 were  published  (HCJBS,  1980).  Plot histories  from planting to
harvest, economic data and soil erosion information were reported.

         The  economics  of  reduced  and  no-tillage  systems  appear  favorable
following  a single year of  observation.   Twenty-eight of  the 31  reduced-till
and  no-till plot variations  for both  soybean  and  corn cropping systems showed
positive net  returns.   Although there were  too  few conventional  tillage plots
to  allow for accurate  comparisons,  it was  felt  that  reduced-till and no-till
methods  were  at least  as profitable  as  the conventional systems in the area.

         Erosion reduction  associated  with  no-till also  appears  significant.
Fourteen of  19  plots  with a variety  of  crop rotations had  an estimated  soil
loss reduction of 50 percent  or  more.   Seven of these showed reductions of  75
percent  or more.  The data  suggests that  on-site  retention of nutrients would
be  increased  as well.

          Appendix A is a summary of information  presented  at a recent tour  of
 the Honey  Creek Watershed Management  Project.   An earlier tour of the project
was  described in  "Post-PLUARG  Evaluation of  Great  Lakes  Water  Quality
Management Studies  and  Programs" (Sullivan  et al.,  1980) .   The  environmental
 and  economic  impacts  of  conservation  tillage  practices  in  the  Great Lakes
 basin is   the  subject  of  a recent Great Lakes  Environmental Planning Study
 (GLEPS)  contribution by GLBC staff (Baise et al.,  1980).
                                        13

-------
 SECTION  108(a) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

         A  number of  projects  have recently  been funded with  Section 108(a)
 monies  by  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.    Descriptions  of  the
 studies  concerned with notipoint source pollution abatement follow.

 Maumee Basin Water Quality Demonstration Proiect

         The Maumee  Basin Water Quality  Demonstration Project  is  intended to
 show  new  and  innovative  techniques  and  programs  for  reducing  agricultural
 sediment  and  rural  sewage  pollution  within  the  Maumee  River  Basin.   It  is
 composed  of two  parts:    the  Allen County  Project   and  the Defiance  County
 Project.

         Allen County Project.    The Allen County  Project is  intended  to  run
 five years.  It  has received initial funding  for 18 months.

         The agricultural component  of the project  will  focus  on demonstration
of  voluntary  conservation  tillage  systems.    Specific  objectives  of  this
portion of the  project are:

         1.  "To  demonstrate that  conservation  tillage systems  are  a
            profitable  and reliable alternative to conventional
            tillage   systems  on soil  types   which comprise  a  large
            portion  of the  Maumee  Basin.

         2.  To  demonstrate  how  to  get  farmers   to  readily  adopt
            conservation  tillage on  a voluntary basis.

         3.  To demonstrate  a program which could serve  as  a model  for
            treatment  of other critical  areas within  the Lake Erie
            Basin.

         4.  To demonstrate  several  types  of alternative  conservation
            tillage  systems and  to evaluate  the   degree  of  erosion
            protection afforded by each system.  To demonstrate which
                                      14

-------
            of  these systems provide  acceptable erosion control
            benefits  and  which  provide  preferred  erosion  control
            benefits .

        5.  To  obtain  information on the changes  in  insect  and weed
            pressures  and pesticide  uses when there is  a  high
            concentration  of  conservation  tillage in  an  individual
            area.
                •
        6.  To  obtain  other  technical  and economic information which
            will  aid existing water quality and technical assistance
            agencies   in   their  current   programs   that   address
            agricultural  sediment reduction.

         7.  To  bridge  the gap  between  planning  for  reductions  in
            agricultural   sediment  loadings and  actually  seeing  it
            happen on  the land."   (ADSWCD,  1980)

         The Allen  County Project  approach is  similar to that of  the Honey
Creek Watershed Project under LEWMS.  It  is  based  on the premise that  farmers
will voluntarily  adopt  conservation tillage methods  if they are demonstrated
to  be   profitable  (in  terms of both  production  and  energy savings)   and
reliable.    Results  from  the  Honey  Creek Project continue  to underscore  the
importance  of a long-term,  person-to-person technology transfer program.   The
Allen  County  Project  will include  group educational  meetings,  provision  of
equipment,  agronomic management  assistance  (including  pest  management),   and
economic evaluations of the demonstration plots .

         The monitoring project  will  address the extent to which  conservation
tillage practices are accepted.   The degree  of acceptance  will  subsequently be
used  to  predict   water  quality  changes,  employing   the  relationship  to  be
developed  from  monitoring efforts under  the Defiance project.  Parameters to
be  measured include:   residue cover, percentage" of land meeting  the Universal
Soil Loss Equation  (USLE), and type of equipment owned by farmers.
                                       15

-------
          The Allen County work effort will also include a rural sewage project
 to  demonstrate  alternatives  for  achieving water  quality improvements in areas
 where  a  large  number  of failed  individual  sewage  systems  exist.   Specific
 objectives are as follows:

          1.   "To monitor the existing conditions  of  the project area
              and quantify the existing effects on water  quality.

          2.   To  monitor  the project  area after  replacement   of  the
              failed  systems  and  quantify  improvements  in  water
              quality.

          3.   To  demonstrate  administrative  and procedural arrangements
              for bringing about replacement of the failed systems.

          4.   To  serve as  a model  program which would be carried out in
              other  problem areas within the Maumee Basin.

          5.   To   evaluate  the  relative   phosphorus  and  nitrogen
              contributions  of  agricultural run-off  versus  domestic
              sewage sources within the project  area" (ADSWCD,  1980).

          During  the project's first  year  baseline data will  be collected  to
 determine existing water  quality.   Malfunctioning  systems will  also  be
 identified.    During  the  second  year,  failed  systems  will  be  corrected  or
 replaced.  Monitoring will  continue  for  at least  one  year  after the  majority
 of this work  is completed to document  resultant  changes  in water quality.

         Defiance County Project.   The  Defiance  County  Project   is  also
 scheduled to run for a five  year  period.   Initial  funding is for two years.

         The  Defiance  project  will compliment  the Allen  County study.   The
major  difference is  that  financial  incentives will  be paid  to  farmers   to
 obtain  adoption  of  conservation  tillage  practices.   The major objectives   of
 the project are:
                                       16

-------
        1.  "To demonstrate  and measure the effectiveness of Best
            Management  Practices  in reducing  sediment  loss from
            agricultural  land.

        2.  To demonstrate the conservation value of  several  unique
            and innovative practices on the fine textured lake plain
            soils.

        3.  To  monitor  the  effects of  applied  BMP's  in  reducing
            erosion and  nutrient  loss and to evaluate the suitability
            of  the  unique  and  innovative   practices   on crop
            production.

        4.  Design and carry out an effective information program to
            gain  acceptance  of the conservation  program  in  the
            Defiance County  Project  and to use  the results  of  the
            project  to  encourage  implementation  of BMP's  in other
            areas of the county and the Great Lakes  Basin.

        5.  To  gain  farmer acceptance  of  the BMP's and  unique  and
            innovative  practices  that  are effective  in  reducing
            sediment  loss  and  improving  water  quality"   (ADSWCD,
            1980).

        The Defiance  project  will be  intensively  monitored  to  quantify
reductions  in  sediment   and  improvements  in  water  quality  associated  with
implementation  of BMPs.   As  previously mentioned, results  of  this monitoring
effort will  be  extended for use in the Allen County program  evaluation.

        The different  approaches encompassed  in  these  two  projects  are
expected to provide  EPA  with alternative  strategies for  carrying  out future
basinwide  programs.   It  will be  important  that  results  of these  two   projects
are viewed  in  conjunction with  the findings  of  other  ongoing  and  completed
projects  which have addressed  the  conservation  tillage  question (i.e.,
programs  such   as  the  Washington   County, Wisconsin,  Project;   Honey  Creek
Watershed  Project;  and the Saginaw  Bay ACP Project).
                                      17

-------
 On-Site Innovative and Alternative Waste Disposal Project

          At the  time  of  this  writing,  EPA also anticipated funding a  two  year
 study by  Purdue  University  and  the   Indiana  State  Board  of Health  on
 alternative on-siCe waste disposal systems.  The  project  will  install, monitor
 and  evaluate  a  number of alternative  and innovative demonstration systems  on
 sites  with  different characteristics  and soil  types.    Educational   programs
 will  also  be conducted  and  publications  developed  during the  course of  the
 study to provide current information to health  personnel, builders, engineers,
 homeowners,  etc.

          Both PLUARG  and the  IJC concluded  that small  scale,  private waste
 disposal  systems are  not a major  source  of  Great Lakes  pollution, especially
 phosphorus  pollution.  However,  failed systems can  contribute  to local water
 quality problems and  present local  health  hazards  in  the basin.

 Extension Agronomist  - SE Saginaw  Bay ACP  Project
          Section   108(a)  monies  have  been  provided  to   the  Tuscola  County
 Cooperative  Extension Service to  finance  employment  of an .agronomist  to work
 "one  on  one"  with landowners  involved in the Southeast Saginaw Bay ACP special
 project  (see  page  21).    Funding  is  for  a  two  year  period.    As  previously
 mentioned,  the importance of  such a  program has been underscored  by results
 from  the Honey Creek Watershed Project.

         The   agronomist  will  provide  technical   assistance  to  farmers
 interested  in  implementing conservation  tillage practices.   Since entirely new
 management  is  required with  conservation tillage  practices, the  farm  operator
 will  need to be  instructed in  what equipment  to use  on various  lands and  types
 of soil as well as herbicides and insect problems  and controls.

         The  extension  agronomist  will also  conduct conservation  tillage
 demonstrations on field  size  plots  on different  soil types  to  demonstrate
various management  practices  and  associated  effects on  production and  soil
 loss.  Nine to 20 demonstrations will  be conducted  each year.   Data collected
on each plot will  serve  as a  basis  for seminars, tours,  and  program evaluation.
                                       18

-------
Lake Erie Tributaries Stormvater Effects Evaluation

         The Northeast Ohio  Areawide  Coordinating  Agency (NOACA) has  received
108(a) funds  to  conduct  a one  year  study  on the impacts of  stormwater  runoff
on  local  fish   communities.    Previous work conducted  by  NOACA  under  the
auspices of  the  "208" program  produced evidence  that  local fish  populations
were  strongly affected   by  channel  scour  and  sediment  transport,   factors
associated with  runoff  events   (NOACA,  1979).   By identifying and  quantifying
the  impacts   of  stormwater  runoff  on  aquatic  communities,  NOACA  hopes  to
convince local  authorities  of  the urgency  and  beneficiality of  implementing
nonpoint source  control  programs.   This study provides  a good  example  of how
the  integration  of  Great Lakes  management programs,  utilizing an  ecosystem
approach, may effectively address multiple  concerns.

         Great Lakes Basin Comnission staff, at  the  request  of the  Great Lakes
National Program Office, reviewed  a  number of  these  and  other projects  for
108(a) funding.   Comnents reflected  the concerns  expressed in  PLUARG  (1978),
as well as recommendations of the Great Lakes Basin Commission (1979,  1980b).

LORAIN HARBOR STUDY

         The Lorain Harbor and  Black  River  are  the  focus of a U.S. Army Corps
of  Engineers  study  similar  to  the  Cuyahoga   River  Restoration  Study  (see
Sullivan et  al. ,  1980).    A  reconnaissance  report  was  completed  in  1978  and
subsequently revised in January  of 1979 (U.S. Army COE,  1979).

         Of  particular  interest is  an  erosion   and  sedimentation  study  which
will  be  conducted  on  the  Black  River for  the purposes  of reducing  annual
maintenance dredging in  the  harbor  and  improving water  quality.   As  presently
contemplated, the  study  effort   will  concentrate on  in-stream,  as opposed  to
"upland" erosion.  However,  critically  eroding upland areas  will  be identified
using, in  part,  the LEWMS'  Land  Resource  Information System (LRIS).   Results
will  be  presented  to  the  appropriate  levels   of  government  and  the
implementation of  preventive measures  in  these critical  areas  discussed.   A
preliminary feasibility report  is scheduled for  completion in March of 1982.
                                       19

-------
THE WISCONSIN NONPOINT SOURCE  WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM (WISCONSIN
FUND)

         Two  of  the four  priority watersheds  selected  for  inclusion  in the
1980 Wisconsin  Nonpoint Source Water  Pollution  Abatement  Program are  in the
Lake Michigan drainage  basin.  One is  the  Green  Lake  watershed located in the
Upper  Fox  River basin.   Agricultural nonpoint source pollution  is the
principal concern to be addressed.   It  is estimated  that over  85  percent of
the phosphorus  entering Green  Lake is attributable to  rural  nonpoint  sources
(Baumann, 1980).

         The  second  project  area  is  the Onion  River  watershed, part  of the
Sheboygan River  basin.   Dairy  farming is the principal  land use,  and manure
carried  in runoff from  barnyards  or  frozen or saturated fields was  identified
as  a  serious nonpoint   source  pollution  problem.   Phosphorus loading to  Lake
Michigan  is  particularly  great  from this  watershed due  to  the   high   clay
content  of  the  soil.    Work  plans for the two  projects  were  not completed at
the time of  this writing.

STRATFORD/AVON RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT

         A  two-year water   quality  management  and demonstration  project is
underway in Ontario's Avon  River  basin.   The Ontario  Ministry  of the
Environment  is  providing $220,000  a  year  to identify  and  control  pollutant
inputs  to  the river.   Demonstration  efforts  will focus on  urban  runoff and
storm  water   quality improvements  in the  City  of Stratford,   as  well as  soil
erosion  and  conservation measures in rural areas.

         The  first   year of the  study  (1980/81) will  concentrate  on   data
collection,   problem  evaluation,  and  identification  of  remedial   measures.
Results  of  both  the  Honey  Creek Watershed Management  Project  and   the  Black
Creek  108(a)  Demonstration Project are being  evaluated  for their applicability
to  this  northern watershed.  The overview model developed in PLUARG  (Johnson ej:
al.,  1978;   Heidtke et al.,  1979)  will  be  used to  conduct  a  preliminary
evaluation  of changes  in  loadings  associated  with implementation  of  control
measures.
                                       20

-------
THAMES RIVER BASIN IMPLEMENTATION  PROGRAM

         The  Thames River Basin Implementation  Program  in Ontario  is  a
three-year program which will both promote and evaluate the cost-effectiveness
of rural best management practices for control of soil loss and improvement of
water quality.   Demonstration sites  are currently being  identified  for good
and  poor  management  practices and  existing  or  potential  erosion  situations.
Site selection should be  finalized  by the fall of this year with planning and
implementation of demonstration practices to  follow.

         In  addition  to the  above,  current municipal  drain  construction and
maintenance  practices  will  be  evaluated  and,  if  necessary,  suitable
demonstrations undertaken.   A booklet  of guidelines  for  minimizing environ-
mental  impacts  associated  with  drain  construction  and  maintenance will  be
developed for use by contractors,  as  well as  individual  farmers.

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION  PROGRAM (ACP)
Southeast Saginaw Bay Control Drainage Basin Project

         As  discussed  in  the previous  Post-PLUARG  report  (Sullivan et al.,
1980) ,  one  of  the  largest  special  projects  designated  under  the ACP  is
currently underway in  the  Saginaw Bay  basin.   At the  start  of the  project's
first year,  $380,000 was used to cost-share various best management  practices
in the study area (ECMPDR,  1980).  Additionally,  a preliminary  field  survey of
area farms is being conducted to collect data on  operations using conventional
and  conservation tillage  practices.   A more  detailed  study  of five  to ten
farms will  be made  to obtain  additional  data on  the  farming, practices.   A
major portion  of the  economics  model and  computer  program (see  Sullivan  et
al.,  1980) is  also  being developed.   Evaluation  of  the BMPs  is not  scheduled
to begin until October  of this year.
                                       21

-------
 RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

 The Saline Valley Project

         The  Saline  Valley  Project  has  received $200,000 to launch its program
 of  nonpoint   source  controls  (see  Sullivan  et al.,  1980) .   One of  the  first
 steps was  the circulation  of a newletter  to  rural  landowners  encouraging them
 to  participate in  the  development  of  site-specific water  quality  management
 plans  for  their  property.    About 30   applications  were  received  in  the
 Washtenaw  and Monroe County offices even  before  publication of the  newsletter
 (Backer, 1980).   The program appears  to  be receiving  favorable  publicity  via
 word of mouth.

         The  Great   Lakes  Basin  Commission has  supported  the  Saline  Valley
 Project  since its initiation.   The Commission continues to provide  input  on
 project  development  through  is  membership on  the  Technical  Assistance
 Subcommittee.

 The Lower Manitowoc River Watershed Project

         The  Lower Manitowoc River  Watershed Project, one  of the five original
Wisconsin Fund projects  (see  Sullivan  et  al.,   1980)  was  recently selected  for
 inclusion  in  the  Rural Clean Water Program.    Federal   funds will  be used  to
 complete the  project.    As  of  June  1,  1980,   $120,000  had been  set  aside  for
 individual  landowners to install best management practices.

NATIONWIDE  URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM

         As discussed  in previous  Post-PLUARG reports,  EPA has initiated  a
Nationwide   Urban  Runoff  Program  as  part of the  continuing  Water  Quality
Management  Program.   The overall objectives of this  program are  to:

         1.  determine  the  extent  to which designated  water uses are
             being impaired  by urban stormwater pollution,
                                       22

-------
         2.   develop  water  quality  criteria  appropriate  for  the
             protection  of  water  uses   from  the  transient   and
             persistent effects of stonnwater,

         3.   quantitatively determine  the  sources  of urban stonnwater
             pollutants,

         4.   evaluate  the  effectiveness of best  management  practices
             and,

         5.   develop   strategies   for   the   optimum   wide  scale
             implementation of BMPs  (IEPA, 1978).

Ongoing Projects

         There  are  six  prototype  projects  under  this  program  in Region  V.
Five  are  located within  the basin.   The  sole  exception  is the  Champaign,
Illinois project.

         In  Champaign,  Illinois,  a  pilot  project   to  demonstrate   the
effectiveness of  a  street  sweeping  program has been  initiated.   The  project
will extend over a three  year period and  will  consist of  study before,  during
and after implementation  of BMPs.  The overall objectives of the  program are:

         1.   To  demonstrate the effectiveness of  streetsweeping  as  a
             BMP and to evaluate streetsweeping operations as affected
             by sweeping  frequencies, land use, and other factors.

         2.   To  determine the significance of deposition and  scour in
             sewers during  transport of pollutants  to receiving
             waters.   To determine  the fraction  of  pollutant  runoff
             from  the  street  surface.

         3.   To  determine  the pollutant contribution  attributable  to
             atmospheric  fallout and rainfall.
                                      23

-------
         4.   To obtain  information to calibrate the continuous CONQUIL
             model.   Information needs  include  determination  of
             coefficients  for  the  function  relating  total solids
             accumulation  on  street  surfaces  with  time,  land  use,
             street  surface  type  and  condition,  traffic count,  and
             season,  as well  as  determination  of  coefficients  for the
             function  relating  rate  of material  washoff from  paved
             surfaces  to available materials,  particle  size,  slope,
             flow rate,  surface  roughness, and traffic.

         Michigan's  Tri-County  Regional  Planning  Commision   (TCRPC)  will  be
administering a  second  prototype  project  in the  state's capitol.   Three  BMPs
will be evaluated as  components  of a multi-million  dollar urban  storm drainage
improvement  project.   The  BMPs to be  included  are an in-line  upsized tile  with
sumps  below grade  draining  a  residential  area;   an  in-line  surface  "wet"
retention basin  draining  a  shopping  center  (with  retained water  used  to
irrigate  an  adjoining   golf  course);   and  an  off-line  "dry"  detention  basin
located downstream of the "wet"  retention basin.

         Monitoring  and analysis will  occur  over  a three year period with the
project scheduled for  completion  in  the  spring of 1982.  The major objective
of  the  study will  be  to determine the cost-effectiveness  of the  three  BMPs.
Capital  costs,  operation  and maintenance  costs,  as well  as  long-term
operational   costs, will be determined.   Loads  of various  pollutants in  the
stormwater entering  and leaving  each  BMP  will  be  obtained.   An assessment  will
also be made of the  impact  of these  practices  on  receiving  water (Grand River)
quality.

         The Wisconsin Department  of  Natural  Resources   (WDNR)  and   the
Southeastern  Wisconsin  Regional  Planning   Commission  (SEWRPC)  will  be
conducting  a study in  Milwaukee  County,  Wisconsin,  to  determine  the  water
quality effects  of  streetsweeping  timing  and  frequency  in a  public works
program.  The  study  will   be  conducted for three  years with  a final  report
anticipated  by  the  summer of  1982.
                                      24

-------
         A  second  objective  of  the project is  to  develop a methodology which
municipalities  can use to  design urban  nonpoint  source  control  programs to
meet  water  quality objectives.   The Model Enhanced  Unit Load  (MEUL) model,
developed during  the  Menomonee  River Pilot Watershed  Study,  will be  modified
to allow managers  to design  control programs using readily available data  such
as land use, slope and imperviousness  of soil.

         Additional objectives  include  the determination  of  the  contribution
of pollutants  from roof tops, atmospheric deposition, and winter  accumulation
to urban  watersheds.    The  impact  of  a  streetsweeping   program  on receiving
water quality will also be evaluated.

         Transferability  of  study results  to  areas  outside  Milwaukee County
will  be  assessed.   Results  will  be  transferred  using a simple model  designed
to  use  readily  available   information.   The  model  will  be  tested  for
municipalities in the  SEWRPC region.

         One  of the  Southeast  Michigan  Council  of Governments'  (SEMCOG)
Nationwide  Urban  Runoff  Program projects will test the  effectiveness  of  BMPs
which  were  already installed  and  in use  for  control  of excess  runoff  and
sediment in Oakland County.   Project  objectives  include the following:

         1.  To monitor  the  water  quality of  stormwater discharges
             leaving various  retention  systems and to  determine  the
             effect on receiving waters.

         2.   To  analyze  the  effectiveness of  alternative detention
             systems.

         3.   To analyze  the effectiveness  of  existing  institutional
             arrangements for  establishing  water quality  control
             procedures and to formulate recommendations  for necessary
             changes.

         4.   To develop  guidelines  for  use in  developing stormwater
             retention systems that optimize water quality.
                                       25

-------
         5.  To  estimate  costs  for detention  configurations and
             maintenance.

         6.  To determine  operation  and  maintenance requirements for
             stormwater retention systems (SEMCOG,  1978).

         The  Southeast Michigan  Council of  Governments  is  administering  a
second  NURP  project  in  the  Huron  River  watershed  of Washtenaw  County,
Michigan.  The project began in October  of  1978  and is scheduled to terminate
in  May  of 1981.   Three  categories  of  BMPs  are  being  evaluated  for their
effectiveness and cost  in  reducing  or preventing pollutant  loading from urban
runoff:    (l)  a runoff   ordinance;  (2)  natural  wetland,   and (3)   surface
retention/detention.

         A substantial amount of  work has been  completed on  the effects  of a
man-made  impoundment   on  downstream  water  quality.    Preliminary  evaluation
indicates  that  the  pond  is successfully mitigating  many of  the deleterious
effects of storm drain discharges to  the  river.   For example,  utilizing amass
balance approach, it was determined  that  large  quantities  of heavy metals and
suspended  solids  discharged to  the  pond were  retained within  the  pond area
(ECTP,  1980).   At the same time, however,  the  deposition  of such materials
creates  the  potential for  long-term  impacts   on  both  the  impoundment  and
downstream waters.

         The  Northeast  Illinois  Planning Commission  (NIPC)   is  assessing  the
control potential of wet-bottom  detention facilities.   They  are also  studying
the sources and movement of urban stormwater  pollutants.   The focus  of their
study is Lake Ellyn.

         Data are  currently being  collected  to  characterize  the  sources  of
urban  runoff  pollutants,   their  spatial  and  temporal  distribution   in  the
watershed, and  their transport  mechanisms.    The   work   effort  includes
atmospheric deposition sampling  to  provide  information  on the contribution of
pollutants by rain and dry  fallout.   This is consistent with one of the major
reconmendations  of the  Post-PLUARG meeting  that  "studies  should be encouraged
on the percentage of pollutants contained in urban  and  rural runoff which are
attributable to atmospheric deposition"  (GLBC, 1980a).
                                       26

-------
         Sampling of  runoff water  quality,  flow  and  precipitation  began  in
March of  1980.   The quality and quantity of bottom materials in the basin  is
also being  sampled.   The  removal  efficiency  of  the detention  basin will  be
evaluated over  a range of  events,  as  will  pollutant characteristics and  the
ability of the basin to retain solids for two  particle size  intervals.

         A  summary of  the  work  effort during  the  first   project  year  was
recently  completed by  NIPC  for EPA.    The   paucity  of  data  precluded  the
formation of any firm conclusions at the time  of this writing.

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION ACT (RCA)

         The  U.S.  Department  of   Agriculture's   (USDA)  draft  Appraisal  and
Program Report  (see  Sullivan et al., 1980) drew over 67,000  written  responses
during  the  public review and comment  period which ended March  28, 1980.   The
information  received  has  been  evaluated  and  a report  prepared  on the  nature
and  substance of  the  public's comments.   The  RCA Coordinating Committee is now
reviewing the contents  of  this  report.  This  information,  in conjunction with
a Lou Harris-USDA  public opinion poll  on conservation,  will  be used to prepare
the  USDA's recommended  soil  and  water conservation program.

         The  recommended  program will  then  be  presented  to the  Secretary of
Agriculture  and  then  to the  public  for  review  and  comment.   Upon completion of
the  public  review  period,  the   USDA will  transmit the  recommended  program to
the  President who will  then  send it to the Congress.

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE PRIME  AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS INVENTORY

         The  Soil  Conservation Service  (SCS)  is  publishing   inventory  maps
delineating  prime  and unique farmland and farmland of state  and  local
importance  by county.  State maps  are  also  being  prepared  which  show general
areas  of prime  farmland.    States  select  counties for  the  inventory based on
need.   A high priority is  assigned  to  those  counties  experiencing  rapid  land
use  change.   The maps  will  help officials,  planners and the general public in
their   efforts  to  retain  valuable  farm  acreage.    This  is consistent  with
PLUARG's  recommendation   that farmlands  which have  the  least  natural
limitations  for  agricultural use be  retained for this purpose (PLUARG, 1978).

                                        27

-------
         The agency hopes  to  publish 1,200 county maps  by mid-1980.   Table  1
lists inventory maps of counties  in  the  Great  Lakes  basin which were published
as of  January,  1980.   An updated  listing of  county inventory  maps  will  be
available this fall.
                                       28

-------
                                    TABLE 1

           COMPLETED PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS COUNTY INVENTORY MAPS

                            IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
  MAPS PUBLISHED (COUNTY)    DATE
* Illinois
    DuPage
    Kane
    Lake
               IN PROGRESS
                                            Will
                                            MeHenry
EST. PUBLICATION
                              April 1980
                              April 1980
May 1979
May 1979
May 1979
    Lake
    Allen
    Elkhart

  Michigan
    Genesee
    Ottawa
    Grand Traverse
    Macomb
    Muskegon
    Lapeer
    St.  Clair
    Washtenaw

  Minnesota
    Carlton

 * New York
    Yates
    Ontario
    Monroe
    Genesee
    Niagara
    Orleans
    Seneca

  Ohio
    Wood
    Hancock

  Pennsylvania
    Erie

  Wisconsin
    Washington
    Waukesha
    Walworth
     Brown
    Kenosha
     Ozaukee
    Milwaukee
     Racine
February 1978
September 1977
January 1979
March 1977
March 1977
June 1977
September 1979-
October 1979
November 1979
December 1979
January 1979
 September  1979
 January  1978
 February 1978
 November 1979
 January  1980
 January  1980
 January  1980
 January  1980
 January 1977
 June  1977
 March 1978
 May 1978
 September 1979
 September 1979
 September 1979
 September 1979
 September 1979
 September 1979
 September 1979

-------
GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION "208"  REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY

         "208" water  quality  management agencies  generated  and compiled  much
valuable information  as  they responded  to the mandates  of  the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500).  In an effort  to maximize  the  utilization
of  this  information  in  other  planning and management activities in  the  basin,
a  key-word  coded  bibliography  of  "208"  water  quality  management  planning
reports has  been  completed by the Basin Commission  staff.   Information  on the
hundreds of  reports  developed by "208" agencies  in  the  Great Lakes basin has
been  entered  into  the  Basin  Conmission's  computer.   At  the time  of  this
writing,  the bibliography  contained  745  entries.    The  bibliography  will  be
updated as additional reports become available.

         Reports  can  be  selectively retrieved  by:    (1)  state,  (2) lake,  (3)
river basin group,  (4)   agency,  or   (5)  subject (key word).    Multiple
specification  retrievals  are  also possible.   A  complete  list  of keywords  is
included in  Table  2.   Appendix B  contains an  example of  a retrieval utilizing
the  keywords:    "Remedial  Measures,"  "Problems"  and  "Costs" under  "Nonpoint
Sources."

         The bibliography  is  available  for use by the general  public,  as well
as  by planning  and  management agencies.   It may  be  accessed  through the Great
Lakes  Information Center at the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
                                        30

-------
                                   TABLE 2

                              208 BIBLIOGRAPHY
                             KEY WORD DICTIONARY
100  Point Sources
    110  Sources
    120  Projections
    130  Alternatives
    140  Recommendations
    150  Facility Plans

200  Nonpoint Sources
    210  Problems
    220  Remedial Measures
    230  Recommendations
    240  Unit Area Loads/Models
    250  Other
    260  Costs

300  Toxic Substances
    310Problems
    320  Special Studies
    330  Management Programs

400  Atmospheric Loads

500  Great Lakes Issues
    510  CZM
    520  Great Lakes Water Quality
         521  Re c coin end at ions

600  Land Factors
    610Inventory
    620  Projections
    630  Soils/Geology

700 Population
    710  Current
    720  Projected

800 Sludge
    810  Quantity
    820  Disposal Plan
    830  Alternatives/Techniques

900 River and Lake Basin
    910Water Quality Assessments
    920  -Detailed Studies
    930  Modeling Activities
    940  Wast Load Allocations
    950  Other
1000 Biological Studies

1100 Other Special Studies
     1110 Groundwater
     1120 Water Conservation
     1130 Phosphorus
     1140 Rainfall
     1150 Inland Lakes
     1160 Maps

1200 Wetlands

1300 Dredging

1400 Management Plan
     1410 Existing Framework
     1420 Alternatives
     1430 Recommendations
     1440 Objectives
     1450 Other
          1451 Economics
          1452 Implementation
          1453 Legislation/Legal Issues
          1454 Report Summaries

1500 Public Participation
1600
1700
Work Program/5-yr Strategy
1610 Annual Work Program
1620 Five Year Strategy
Other
1710 Environmental
                        Assessment
                                       31

-------
THE PHOSPHORUS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES  TASK FORCE  RECOMMENDATIONS

         The draft  final  report  of  the  Phosphorus  Management Strategies  Task
Force  (PMSTF)  was made  available  June 30,  1980.   The  document  is now  under
review by the  Great  Lakes  Science  Advisory  Board and  the Water Quality  Board
of  the  IJC.    The  IJC's  final  recommendations  on phosphorus  management
strategies  for the Great Lakes should be  available  this  fall.

         The  report, entitled  "Phosphorus  Management  for the  Great  Lakes,"
includes a  review  of  the 1978  Great Lakes  Water  Quality  Agreement  (GLWQA)
phosphorus   target  loads, a discussion of phosphorus inputs  to the lakes,  an
evaluation of  the mathematical models  used in establishing the  target  loads,  a
review of point and  nonpoint  source  pollution controls,  a recommendation  for  a
staged  approach  to  phosphorus  management,  and  a  discussion  of  information
needs.   In  the  draft  final  report,  the PMSTF  "proposes  that  a  phosphorus
management  strategy  be developed as  a  continuing process  encompassing  a staged
approach which  includes  implementation programs, study programs, evaluation  of
studies, and decision making" (PMSTF,  1980).  The task  force's  recommendations
for the proposed strategy are  summarized below.

Point Source Control

         The task  force  recommends  that  municipal  wastewater treatment  plants
in  the basin  which  discharge in  excess  of  1  million  gallons  per day  (mgd)
limit  the  total phosphorus concentration  in their  effluents to  a maximum  of
1.0  mg/L.    Plants  which  can achieve  levels  less than 1.0 mg/L should  be
encouraged   to  do  so.  This mirrors  the  Basin Commission's recommendation for
phosphorus  control at municipal  plants (GLBC, 1979;  GLBC, 1980b) .

         The  task  force  recommends that   planning  for  future  municipal
facilities   in  the lower  Great  Lakes  should  consider  future requirements  for
phosphorus   levels in the  effluent  on the order  of 0.1  to  0.5 mg/L.    It  is
further recommended  that  the  phosphate detergent  ban be  retained  and  controls
extended to the states of  Pennsylvania and Ohio.   This  is consistent  with the
resolution adopted by the GLBC in November of 1976 which  reads as  follows:
                                       32

-------
              "The  Great  Lakes  Basin Commission believes that the
              control  of  phosphorus  in detergents  is an effective
              action  that  can  be taken  to preserve  the  future
              quality  of  the  Great  Lakes.     Therefore,  it
              recommends  that all  appropriate governments require
              detergents  manufactured or  sold for  domestic use in
              the   Great  Lakes  Basin  not  contain phosphorus in
              excess  of  0.5  percent  by  weight  expressed as
              elemental phosphorus"  (GLBC,  1976).

         The  effects  of  a detergent  phosphorous  ban on  municipal wastewater
treatment in  the  basin  is the subject  of a recent  Great Lakes Environmental
Planning  Study  report by  GLBC  staff  (Heidtke  et al.,   1980a).    Changes  in
average  influent   and  effluent  loadings  of  total  phosphorous  at municipal
sewage treatment plants are examined,  as well as  the potential  economic  impact
on chemical  phosphorus removal  programs .

         The  PMSTF reviewed a variety  of treatment  and  management  options
available to  reduce  phosphorus  in  municipal  wastewaters.    The  task   force
concluded that the most cost-effective option for  a given municipality must be
determined  on a  site-specific  basis.    Existing facilities,  final effluent
requirements,  location,  sludge disposal,  and costs of chemicals should  all be
considered.    It  recommends that research  and  development efforts which  focus
on new or innovative technology be expanded.

         Land application  of  wastewater  is  recommended  where  cost-effective.
This  is  consistent  with  the   Basin  Commission's recommendation  that   water
quality  planning "give more consideration  to alternatives to traditional  waste
treatment,  such  as  land  application"  (GLBC,  1980b) .   A  recent  Great   Lakes
Environmental Planning Study contribution  completed by GLBC  staff  investigated
the  advantages  and disadvantages of  land application of municipal  wastewater
in  the  basin  (Heidtke  et al. ,  1980b) .   The  study  also  addressed the
comparative  costs  of treatment  by  land  application  versus more  conventional
technologies.
                                       33

-------
         Finally, the PMSTF recommends  that  studies be  initiated  to determine
 reductions  in  toxics  and  hazardous  substances  associated  with  phosphorus
 removal.    This  reflects  a  prior  GLBC  recommendation  that  water  quality
 planning "evaluate the effectiveness  of remedial  programs  on parameters
 besides  those (they) are designed to  affect"   (GLBC, 1980b).

 Nonpoint Source Control

         The  task  force  concluded  that  nonpoint  source  controls  may  be
 required to provide  part of  the  additional  load  reductions  projected for  Lake
 Erie  and Lake Ontario (3,700 tons/year and 2,600 tons/year,  respectively [best
 estimates]).   The  PMSTF recognized  that "nonpoint management  plans are  ...
 hampered by a  lack  of knowledge  about the  effectiveness  of  remedial measures
 in  reducing loadings  and  the question of relative  biological  availability  of
 phosphorus" (PMSTF,  1980).    Until  a  thorough  analysis  of specific  problem
 areas and  alternative remedial  measures  is  undertaken,  the  task force
 recommends that voluntary,  low-cost remedial measures  (Level  1)  (PLUARG,  1978)
 be  implemented,  where appropriate,  across the  basin.

         This   is  consistent  with  PLUARG1 s  recommendations  as  well  as  the
 recommendation in the IJC's report  to the governments,  which states:

              "Governments  (should)  implement  low  cost  but
              generally  beneficial  measures  throughout  the Basin
              ...  at  least   PLUARG  'Level  1' rural  and  urban
              control measures..."  (IJC, 1980).
 It  is also consistent  with  the  GLBC's  recommendation  that  "nonpoint  source
 control  programs  should  be  immediately  implemented,  but  should  emphasize
measures which can be  implemented at  relatively low cost" (GLBC,  1980b) .

         Consistent  with  the  IJC's  and  PLUARG1s  recommendations,  the  task
 force stressed the need for  identification of  hydrologically active  areas  and
concluded  that  implementation  of  remedial  measures should proceed on  a
 priority basis,  treating areas  where  the  largest  and most  rapid  reductions  can
be achieved at the least cost.   This  also reflects recommendations made  by  the
GLBC  concerning  phosphorus  nonpoint  source  control (GLBC, 1980b).   The need
for   development  of  techniques  and  guidelines  for  identification  of
hydrologically active areas  was also a  concern expressed  by  attendees  at  the
recent Post-PLUARG meeting  (See  Appendix D) .    The  PMSTF further  recommends

                                      34

-------
that a modeling  capability be  developed  for  predicting  phosphorus  reductions
from critical  areas.

         The task  force  recommends  initiation  of demonstration  watershed
studies  in  critical  problem areas  to evaluate:    (1)  cost-effectiveness  of
remedial  measures, (2)  problems  associated  with  implementation, and  to  (3)
provide  examples  of  programs  as  incentive   for  landowners.    Their
recommendation   is,   again,  consistent  with   the  Basin   Commission's
recommendations  concerning   phosphorus   nonpoint   source  control  strategies
(GLBC, 1980b).

         The  PMSTF  recommendation  is supported by  the  following conclusions
and recommendations expressed at  the Post-PLUARG meeting:

         1.  "Little  is known about  the  long-term  effects of nonpoint
             controls.   There is a need  for  adequately  funded, long-
             term demonstration programs.

         2.  It  is recommended  that  studies designed to  provide
             detailed  cost  information on  agricultural  nonpoint
             controls be  stepped  up.

         3.  Additional consideration ...  should be given to the  other
             benefits of nonpoint source controls (besides  phosphorus
              load reductions)...   Negative  secondary  effects ...
              should also be  considered"   (GLBC, 1980a) .

         The  task  force  recommends implementation of a basinwide  public
 information  and  education  program.    This is  consistent  with  PLUARG's
 recommendation  "that  greater  emphasis be  given  to  the  development  and
 implementation  of information,  education  and technical assistance  programs"
 (PLUARG, 1978).   The importance  of education programs involving  components of
 demonstration  and technical  assistance  was  also  recognized  at  the  Post-PLUARG
 meeting.  Attendees  noted that the success of  the  conservation tillage  program
 under the  Honey  Creek  Watershed  Project,  for example, was largely attributable
 to the effort which  has  been made  to demonstrate  the  utility  of  the  method to
 farmers  (GLBC,  1980a).

                                       35

-------
         The  PMSTF  also recognized  the need  for monitoring  load  reductions
associated  with  control programs.   This  was  reconmended  at  the  Post-PLUARG
meeting:

              "Continued monitoring  is  necessary  to  establish
              whether the  load  reductions  (including  available
              phosphorus)   expected  from  different  remedial
              programs actually occur"  (GLBC,  1980a).
Information Needs

         Finally, the draft  final  report  contains  a  recommendation  that  a
permanent  research  organization  be   established  to serve  the  phosphorus
management  needs of the  lakes.   Specifically,  the  organization  would  be
charged with reducing uncertainties  regarding  the  following:

         1.  Target  loads

         2.  Phosphorus  availability

         3.  Social  benefits and costs  associated  with improving Great
             Lakes water quality.

         4.  Appropriateness of institutional  approaches.

         5.  The  structure  of  analytical  models  and development  of
             data bases  to  facilitate attainment  of the  objectives.

The Basin  Comnission has also recommended  that  a study of benefits and  costs
of improving Great Lakes water quality  be  initiated (GLBC,  1980b).

THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT  COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS

         The IJC's report to  the governments  of  Canada  and the United  States
on pollution from land use activities in the basin was made  available  in March
of 1980 (IJC, 1980).   The Commission concluded that the boundary waters  of the
Great Lakes  system  are  being polluted  by  land drainage.   The IJC  agreed  with
PLUARG1 s finding that such  pollution occurs most  seriously from land  areas  of
intensive agricultural and  urban use.

                                       36

-------
         The  IJC  has  formulated  a  series of  18  recommendations  to  the
governments  of  the  U.S.  and  Canada.   The  recommendations  generally  reflect
those  of PLUARG  (PLUARG,  1978)  as  well as  the  GLBC's  recommendations
concerning water quality management (GLBC,  1980b)  and the hazardous materials
strategy for the basin  (GLBC, 1980c) included in  the Great Lakes Basin Plan.

         However,  in  contrast to  PLUARG1s  recommendations,  the IJC  has
recommended  that  the  governments  adopt  regulations  to  prohibit winter
spreading of  manure  on  frozen  ground.   Attendees  at  the  recent Post-PLUARG
meeting questioned  the  need  for regulation  of  winter-spreading  of manure on a
basinwide basis  (see  Appendix D) .    Instead,  for  any  given situation,  an
appropriate  mix of controls  should be developed  which may  or  may not  include
elimination  of  winter-spreading  of manure.   Attendees  felt  that government
funding of manure  storage should not  be encouraged  because storage is commonly
installed for  the  convenience  of  the farm operator and,  therefore,  should
remain part  of his cost of operation (GLBC,  1980a).
                                      37

-------
                               CHAPTER 3

             UPDATE ON U.S. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY LOADINGS

         As part of the PLUARG study, the Great Lakes Basin Commission,
under  contract  with  the Environmental Protection Agency  (Contract  No.
68-01-1598),  produced  a  report  entitled  "United  States  Great  Lakes
Tributary Loadings" (Sonzogni et al., 1978).  Annual loads to the Great
Lakes  from  U.S. tributaries  were  estimated  for  eight parameters  for
water  years 1975 and 1976 where data were available.

         Because the  1975  and  1976  water  years  represented very
high-flow  conditions,  it  was  desirable to  calculate  loads  for  water
year  1977  which represented  a  very  low-flow  year.    This  chapter
presents the results and conclusions  of these calculations.  Water year
1978  has  also  been  included  to  provide  another  reference  for
illustrating the tributary loading process.

         This  update  provides a  perspective  on  the  1976 water  year
which  was  frequently  termed the"base"   year  throughout  the  PLUARG
process.   It  also  allows  for  further analysis  of the  relationships
among  the  point  and  nonpoint  sources  that  contribute  to  tributary
loadings.

METHODOLOGY

         Loadings have  been calculated  for  total  phosphorus,  soluble
ortho phosphorus, suspended solids  and  chloride.  These parameters were
selected because   of  data  availability and  their  importance  in
understanding the eutrophication  process.   Data were obtained for water
years  1977  and 1978 for  all lakes  except Lake Erie.   The Lake  Erie
calculations were completed for  1976, for which data were  not available
during the PLUARG study, and water  year 1977.   Because  of  the excellent
work being done by the  U.S.  Army Corps of  Engineers and the Heidleberg
College Water Quality Laboratory on  Lake  Erie, it was decided  to rely
on their  analysis rather  than to  recalculate loads  for the  lake.  This
information was not  yet available  at  the  time of this writing.
                                    33

-------
         River mouth  loads  were calculated  using  the  ratio  estimator
method  as  described   in  IJC  (1976).    This  method has  been  widely
reviewed  and  is  generally  accepted by  the  Great  Lakes  research  and
surveillance community as both the preferred and PLUARG standard method
for  calculating   tributary  loads.    The  method  calculates an  average
daily  load  at the river mouth  and  adjusts  for flow variability over an
annual  cycle.   The adjusted  daily load  is  then  used  to  calculate an
annual  river mouth load.

         Point  source  loading data  were  updated using  "208" reports.
All  available  point  source  information  for present  and  future
conditions  were  examined  to provide  data  on the parameters of interest
for  all U.S.  Great  Lakes  tributaries.  Where "208" information was not
available,  the  previously  used data  base  compiled  from  state records
was  used.   The method of calculating both point and diffuse river mouth
loads  and the methods used for calculating  loadings  from unmonitored
areas  are presented in Sonzogni et al.,(1978).

RESULTS

          Tables  3, 4, 5 and 6 present tributary and  land runoff loading
information  for  the  entire  U.S.  Great  Lakes basin.   Table  3  gives
information  by  lake  and  the total  U.S.  Great  Lakes basin  for  water
years   1977  and  1978.    Table 4  provides  information on   individual
hydrologic  areas  within river basin groups  .   Table 5 presents the  1976
values  for  Lake  Erie  chat  were not available when the PLUARG tributary
loading report  (Sonzogni et al.,  1978)  was published.   Table 6 shows
the  hydrologic  area breakdown  of  these  loads.  All values presented in
these  tables  are  based upon an  analysis of  point and nonpoint  inputs to
individual  rivers draining  the U.S. portion  of  the  basin.   The values
for  the hydrologic  areas  have  been rounded to two significant figures.
The  river basin  group totals,  lake  totals,  and U.S.  basin  totals are
summations  of their respective hydrologic area values.

  A  description  of  the U.S.  tributaries,   their  organization and  maps of
  their  drainage  basins may  be  found  in Hall  et al.,  (1976).
                                        39

-------
                                                        Table  3
                                                    U.S. GREAT LAKES


                                                   TRIBUTARY LOADINGS

                                                  WY  1977, WY 1978
LAKE
NUMBER NAME
1 Lake Superior
2 Lake Michigan
3 Lake Huron
4 Lake Erie*
5 Lake Ontario
TOTAL*
Chloride 1977
7J
1 f\ n *
Total Monitored Dif- Unit
Load Load fuse Area
80,220 31,400 51 9.4
490,200 405,080 60 25
200,600 181,910 33 16
592,200 494,000 76 81
1^166,000 1,122,900 52 130
2,529,220 2,235,290 58 48
Chloride 1978
7*
•I « A ,
Total Monitored Dif- Unit
Load Load fuse Area
104,060 35,710 62 15
590,300 454,300 67 34
263,800 228,690 52 32
NA NA NA NA
1,489,200 1,434,900 59 190

 Total  load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)

"Portion  of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
%
 197$ Lake  Erie  data not  available (NA)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10~1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                    Table  3
                                                U.S. GREAT LAKES

                                               TRIBUTARY LOADINGS
                                                WY 1977, WY 1978
LAKE


NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5



NAME
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
TOTAL
LAKE
1
2
3
4
5

Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie*
Lake Ontario
TOTAL*
LAKE
1
2
3
4
5

Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie*
Lake Ontario
TOTAL
Total
1
Total
Load
780
2,173
791
5,130
1.800
10,674
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
374
1,768
653
4,018
1,390
8,203
1977
%3
Dif-
fuse
83
46
42
57
50
55
Soluble Ortho Phosphorus
139
819
369
1,334
704
3,365
63
587
308
1,054
605
2,621
Suspended Solids
594,800
341,210
262,800
2,958,300
1,331,600
5,488,710
399,880
272,290
190,500
2,253,800
1,130,500
4,246,970
71
38
39
24
41
35
1977
97
90
95
99
99
98

A
Unit
Area
.15
.09
.08
.53
.20
.19
1977
.022
.026
.034
.058
.063
.038

130
26
60
520
290
180
Total
n
Total
Load
1,343
3,178
972
NA
1,993
	
Soluble
152
1,191
367
NA
552
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
600
2,499
758
NA
1,640
	
1978
%3
Dif-
fuse
94
62
53
NA
56
	
Ortho Phosphorus
54
774
265
NA
476
72
55
28
NA
20

4
Unit
Area
.29
.17
.12
NA
.24
___
1978
.025
.056
.024
NA
.025
	 	 	 	
Suspended Solids
706,400
677,400
364,700
NA
881,700
395,800
519,000
260,200
NA
710,800
1978
100
94
95
NA
97

160
54
82
NA
190
	 	 	 	
 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
o
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)

 1978 Lake Erie data not available (NA)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10"1 metric tons/km /yr)

-------
                                                     Table
                                              HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS

                                                  LAKE SUPERIOR
                                                WY 1977,  WY  1978
Hydrologic Area



Number
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5

1.2.1
J..2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.2.7
1.2.8




Name
Superior Slope Complex
Saint Louis River
Apostle Island Complex
Bad River
Montreal River Complex
River Basin Group 1.1 Total
Porcupine Mountains Complex
Ontonagon River
Keweenaw Peninsula Complex
Sturgeon River
Huron Mountain Complex
Grand Marais Complex
Tahquamenon River
Sault Complex
River Basin Group 1.2 Total

Total

1
Total
Load
110
70
140
88
_A1
449
20
140
21
37
54
19
21
_ia
331
Phosphorus

2
Monitored
Load
0
70
47
0
Ji5_
152
6
140
0
37
0
18
21
_Q
223
1977
I3
h
Dif-
fuse
100
76
66
98
J2
83
87
99
100
100
14
94
86
100
84


A
Unit
Area
.18
.06
.27
.34
JLL^
.16
.06
.40
.06
.20
.03
.06
.08
^21
.14

Total

i
Total
Load
170
310
280
140
_11
915
22
120
86
29
58
70
24
_L2
428
Phosphorus


1978
X3
7 %
Monitored" Dif-
Load
0
310
97
0
JA
421
6
120
0
29
0
0
24
_£
179
fuse
100
95
100
99
_a&
98
88
99
100
100
15
98
88
1QQ
87


A
Unit
Area
.29
.31
.55
.55
JU.
.37
.07
.33
.25
.16
.03
.22
.10
*ZL
.18

Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)

Portion of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10~1 metric tons/km^/yr)

-------
                                                    Table  4
                                             HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
LAKE MICHIGAN


Hydrologic Area

Number
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.2.1
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.4.8


Name
Menominee Complex
Menominee River
Peshtigo River
Oconto River
Suamico Complex
Fox River
Green Bay Complex
River Basin Group 2.1 Total
Chicago-Milwaukee Complex
Saint Joseph River
Black River (S. Haven) Complex
Kalamazoo River
Black River (Ottawa Co.) Comp.
Grand River
River Basin Group 2.3 Total
Muskegon River
Sable Complex
Manistee River
Traverse Complex
Seul Choix-Groscap Complex
Manistique River
Bay De Noc Complex
Escanaba River
River Basin Group 2.4 Total

Total
Total1
Load
17
51

C

130
630
260
300
16
170

510
1,010
38
38
56
38
14
40
16
33
273

WY 1977, UY
1973

Phosphorus 1977
2
Monitored
Load
8
51
AA
?
360
75
563
56
300
0
170
n
510
980
38
0
50
A
0
AO
A
33
169

Dif-
fuse
100
15
n
94
100
57
76
60
28
33
62
0
51
37
31
67
8A
95
78
100
AO
100
100
89

Unit4
Area
.06
.01
.17
.OA
.12
.15
.09
.13
.08
.11
.11
.13
.09
.OA
.07
.10
.05
.10
.10
.05
.1A
.07
Total
Total
Load
2A
100
27
A2
15
780
390
1,378
A80
300
13
200
12
A80
1,005
34
42
67
45
14
52
23
38
315
I

Phosphorus
Monitored
Load
11
100
27
A2
5
780
210
1,175
150
300
0
200
0
480
980
3A
0
60
3A
0
52
6. A
38
194


1978
2 **
L Dif-
fuse
100
58
3
94
100
81
92
82
60
31
54
10
43
33
28
65
86
97
83
100
100
100
100
91
	


Unit4
Area
.09
.06
.01
.15
.12
.37
.58
.26
.51
.08
.08
.04
.07
.11
.08
.03
.08
.12
.06
.01
.14
.08
.16
.08

Total load from Uydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)

Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
»1
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

 Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10   metric tons/km /yr)

-------
                                                       Table
                                                HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
LAKE HURON

Hydrologic Area
Number Name
3.1.1 Les Cheneaux Complex
3.1.2 Cheboygan River
3.1.3 Presque Isle Complex
3.1.4 Thunder Bay River
3.1.5 Au Sable and Alcona Complex
3.1.6 Rlfle-Au Gres Complex
River Basin Group 3.1 Total
3.2.1 Kawkawlin Complex
3.2.2 Saginaw River
3.2.3 Thumb Complex
River Basin Group 3.2 Total

Total
Total1
Load
160
13
4.3
11
16
36
245
6
510
30
546
WY 1977. WY
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
85
18
0
11
14
15
143
0
510
0
510
1978
1977
%J
Dif-
fuse
100
91
100
59
91
48
88
100
18
68
21


Unit4
Area
.31
1.2
.04
.02
.02
.06
.10
.06
.06
.06
.06

Total
Total1
Load
190
30
6.5
11
24
49
310
11
600
51
662

Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
72
30
0
11
22
23
158
0
600
0
600

1978
Z3
Dif-
fuse
100
95
100
59
94
62
92
100
30
81
35


Unit4
Area
.51
07
04
.02
04
.11
.14
11
.11
.11
.11

 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
>
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources  (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10""1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                           Table
                                                    HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                         LAKE ERIE

                                                      WY  1977, WY  1978
.p-
Ol
Hydrologic Area

Number
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
/• 1 7


4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5

4.4.1
4.4.2
/•AT


Name
Black River
St. Clair Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
River Basin Group 4.1 Total

Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron- Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4.3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Total
Total1
Load
32
37
120
330
30
32
180
761
IS
1,700
150
240
250

2,375
300
360
86
88
60

894
190
250
660
1,100
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
32
6
120
200
30
0
160
548
o
1,700
110
240
180

2,230
290
360
81
88
41
860
0
250
130
380
1977
Dif-
fuse
5
84
31
99
0
100
67
72
86
59
62
80
72

63
6
56
61
24

15
80
91
56
68

Unit4
Area
.01
.32
.19
1.7
____
.37
.37
.41
.48
.58
.35
.50
.67

.56
.12
.63
.25
.26

.16
.92
1.6
1.8
1.1
Total Phosphorus 1978
%3
i 2 4
Total Monitored Dif- Unit
Load Load fuse Area

















             load from Hydrologic Area  (metric  tons/yr)

       Portion of total load  that was monitored  (metric  tons/yr)
3Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

 'Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or

  10~1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
       Table  4
HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
LAKE ONTARIO
WY 1977, WY 1978
Hydrologlc Area
Number Name
5.1.1 Niagara-Orleans Complex
5.1.2 Genesee River
River Basin Group 5.1 Total
5.2.1 Wayne-Cayuga Complex
5.2.2 Oswego River
5.2.3 Salmon Complex
River Basin Group 5.2 Total
5.3.1 Black River
5.3.2 Perch Complex
5.3.3 Oswagatchie River
5.3.4 Grass-Raquette-St. Regis Comp.
River Basin Group 5.3 Total

Total Phosporus
Total1
Load
110
310
420
31
300
60
891
150
19
70
250
489
2
Monitored
Load
0
300
300
0
800
0
800
150
0
70
170
290
1977
%3
Dif-
fuse
57
36
40
92
37
92
43
55
100
06
76
72

Unit4
Area
.23
.15
.19
.23
.23
.23
.23
.15
.15
.15
.23
.19

Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
Portion of total load that was monitored (metric
tons/yr)
Total
Total1
Load
110
420
530
35
750
57
842
190
31
100
300
621
Phosporus
2
Monitored
0
400
400
0
750
0
750
190
0
100
200
490
1978
%3
rn f

fuse
5Q
53
54
92
33
92
40
64
100
97
80 !
78
Unit*"
Area
.25
.32
.31
.25
.19
.22
.19
.24
.24
.22
.29
.26

3
Percent of total load from diffuse sources
4
Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr
10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)
(nonpoint]
or

-------
                                                    Table  4

                                              HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS

                                                  LAKE SUPERIOR
                                                WY 1977, WY 1978
Hydrologic Area

1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.2.7
1.2.8
Name
Superior Slope Complex
Saint Louis River
Apostle Island Complex
Bad River
Montreal River Complex
River Basin Group 1.1 Total
Porcupine Mountains Complex
Ontonagon River
Keweenaw Peninsula Complex
Sturgeon River
Huron Mountain Complex
Grand Marais Complex
Tahquamenon River
Sault Complex
River Basin Group 1.2 Total

Soluble
Total1
Load
11
17
20
16
5.1
69.1
3.7
17
10
2.5
26
3.6
2.6
4.6
70.0
Ortho Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
0
17
6.8
16
4.2
44.0
0.8
17
0
2.5
0
0
2.6
0
22.9
%3
Dif-
fuse
100
51
100
96
18
80
65
96
100
100
9
83
44
100
61
1977
Unit
Area
.018
.009
.039
.059
.059
.023
.008
.046
.030
.014
.010
.010
.005
.066
.021

Soluble
Total1
Load
7.1
20
26
11
6.6
70.7
3.1
16
14
6.2
28
5.0
4.7
4.6
81.6
Ortlio Phosphorus 1978
2
Monitored
Load
0
0
8.9
11
6.2
26.1
0.6
16
0
6.2
0
0
4.7
0
27.5
%J
Dif-
fuse
100
57
100
93
27
80
58
96
100
100
13
88
69
100
65
Unit
Area
.012
.012
.050
.038
.022
.024
.006
.044
.039
. 034
.014
.014
.015
.066
.026

1Total load fro» Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
2Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
^Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
4Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                            Table
                                                     HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                         LAKE MICHIGAN

                                                       WY  1977, WY  1978
Hydrologic Area

Number
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7

2.2.1
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5

2.4,1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.4.8
	

Name
Menominee Complex
Menominee River
Peshtigo River
Oconto River
Suamico Complex
Fox River
Green Bay Complex
River Basin Group 2.1 Total
Chicago-Milwaukee Complex
Saint Joseph River
Black River (S. Haven) Complex
Kalamazoo River
Black River (Ottawa Co.) Comp.
Grand River
River Basin Group 2.3 Total
Muskegon River
Sable Complex
Man is tee River
Traverse Complex
Seul Choix-Groscap Complex
Manistique River
Bay De Noc Complex
Escanaba River
River Basin Group 2.4 Total
Soluble
Total1
Load
1.1
6.6
5.0
10
1.4
70
67
161.1
150
61
9.8
72
8.1
270
420.9
6.5
11
18
21
3.7
7.2
2.5
16
85.9
Ortho Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
0
6.6
5.0
10
0.5
70
39
131.1
6.7
61
0
72
0
270
403
6.5
0
16
0
0
7.2
0.7
16.2
46.6
Dif-
fuse
100
0
0
87
100
0
77
39
39
Q
69
0
59
40
28
17
72
94
80
100
100
100
100
84
1977
Unit4
Area
.004
	
	
.034
.011
	
.084
.014
.101
	 	
.073
	
.073
.073
.035
.002
.017
.032
.026
.026
.019
.008
.068
.021
Soluble
Total1
Load
1.1
19
32
3.1
8.3
190
190
453.4
290
49
7.5
67
6.5
230
360
11
10
14
20
4.2
11
1.4
16
87.6
Orfaho Phosphorus 1978
2
Monitored
Load
0.5
19
32
3.1
2.9
i!90
100
347.5
29
49
0
67
0
230
346
11
0
12
1.5
0
11
0.4
16
51.9
Dif-
fuse
100
0
58
58
100
60
92
69
67
0
60
0
49
30
22
53
71
91
79
100
100
100
100
85
Unit4
Area
.004

.062
.007
.066
.066
.277
.072
.320

.049

.049
.049
.024
.008
016
024
024
029
029
.005
.068
.021
-p-
co
      Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)


      Portion  of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
£l

 Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or

  10"1 metric tons/km /yr)

-------
                                                      Table   4
                                               HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                    LAKE HURON



3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3

Hydrologic Area Soluble
	 £ 	 2 	 — 	 h
Narae
Les Cheneaux Complex
Cheboygan River
Presque Isle Complex
Thunder Bay River
Au Sable and Alcona Complex
Rifle-Au Gres Complex
River Basin Group 3.1 Total
Kawkawlln Complex
Saglnaw River
Thumb Complex
River Basin Group 3.2 Total

Total
Load
30
2.0
0.7
2.1
4.9
in
49.7
5.7
290
24
319.7
WY 1977, HY !
978
Ortho Phosphorus
2
Hani to red
Load
7.1
2.0
0
2.1
4.5
2.6
18.3
0
290
0
290
zJ
Dif-
fuse
100
61
100
0
85
16
77
90
28
80
33

1977
Unit*
Area
.100
.003
.005
.007
.009
.018
.051
.051
.051
.051

Soluble
Total1
Load
53
2.7
0.7
1.8
4.1
.13
112.2
2.5
240
12
254.5

Ortho Phosphorus

1978
o
2 *J
Monitored Dif-
Load fuse
12
2.7
0
1.8
3.8
4.8
25.1
0
240
0
240
100
70
100
0
83
29
56
76
13
57
15
	 1
	
o.it4
Area
.174
.005
.005
.006
.013
.030
.019
.019
.019
.019


^Total load  from Hydrologic Area  (metric  tons/yr)
2Portion of  total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
[-(?(_ \_Clll- \J x- ^-** »_*».*-  -«,»*»— —	
Total diffuse  unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 in~l mot-fir- t-nns/km /vr)
10"1 metric  tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                     Table  4
                                              HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                   LAKE ERIE


Hydrologic Area


Number
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3



Name
Black River
St. Clair Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group 4.1 Total
Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron-Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4.3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Soluble
i
Total
Load
9.8
3.3
60
130
9.6
15
86
313.7
14
350
48
60
54
526
120
150
22
23
1.5
316.5
24
3.8
150
177,8
WY 1977, WY
1978

Ortho Phosphorus 1977
2
Monitored
Load
9.8
2.7
60
82
9.6
0
78
242.1
0
350
38
60
45
493
120
150
21
23
1.4
315.4
0
3.8
0
3.8
%3
Dif-
fuse
0
9
30
99
0
100
66
71
82
0
40
59
37
16
0
0
11
25
0
3
19
0
0
3
L
Unit
Area
	 	
.002
.092
.706
	
.173
.173
.166
.173
	
.071
.089
.075
.032
	
	
.035
.027
	
.013
.027
	
	
.007
Soluble Ortho Phosphorus 1978
%3
1 2 4
Total Monitored Dif- Unit
Load Load fuse Area
























Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10~1 metric tons/km^/yr)

-------
                                                     Table 4
                                              HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                   LAKE ONTARIO
                                                WY  1977, WY  1978
Hydrologic Area



Number
5.1.1
5.1.2

5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3

5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4




Name
Niagara-Orleans Complex
Genesee River
River Basin Group 5.1 Total
Wayne-Cayuga Complex
Oswego River
Salmon Complex
River Basin Group 5.2 Total
Black River
Perch Complex
Oswagatchie River
Grass-Raquette-St. Regis Comp.
River Basin Group 5.3 Total

Soluble

i
Total
Load
23
91
114
17
430
45
492
27
3.9
15
52
97.9
Ortho Phosphorus

2
Monitored
Load
0
91
91
0
430
0
430
27
0
15
42
84
,3
%
Dif-
fuse
0
0
0
100
41
95
48
0
100
90
44
51
1977

A
Unit
Area
	
	
	
.130
.130
.176
.134
	
.031
.031
.028
.026

Soluble

i
Total
Load
32
120
152
5.2
240
11
266
52
4.8
18
59
134
Ortho Phosphorus 1978

2
Monitored
Load
0
120
120
0
240
0
240
52
0
18
46
116
»3
%
Dif-
fuse
27
18
20
75
0
78
5
37
100
92
50
52

A
Unit
Area
.031
.031
.031
.031
	
.034
.007
.037
.038
.039
.035
.037

Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
4Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                    Table   4
                                             HYDROLOGIC AREA  LOADS
                                                 LAKE  SUPERIOR

                                                WY 1977, WY 1973
Hydrologic Area


Number
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
114
1.1.5

1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.2.7
1.2.8


Name
Superior Slope Complex
Saint Louis River
Apostle Island Complex
Bad River
Montreal River Complex
River Basin Group 1.1 Total
Porcupine Mountains Complex
Ontonagon River **
Keweenaw Peninsula Complex
Sturgeon River
Huron Mountain Complex
Grand Marais Complex
Tahquamenon River
Sault Complex
River Basin Group 1.2 Total
*0ver 46,000 MT/yr from upstream
point sources.
**Drains a large clay area
Suspended Solids

Total1
Load
26,000
9,100*
190,000
43,000
3,400
271,500
3,400
220,000
17,000
40,000
i,300
16,000
21,000
3,600
323,300

2
Monitored
Load
0
9,100*
64 , 000
43,000
1,200
117,300
1,100
220,000
0
40,000
480
0
21,000
0
282,580
1977
Z3
Dif-
fuse
100
0
100
100
100
95
93
100
100
100
88
100
100
100
99


Unit*
Area
43
360
170
19

110
12
620**
48
220
8.2
52
95
52
160

Suspended

Total1
Load
42,000
100,000
370,000
20,000
1 ,100
533,100
4,500
120,000
17,000
19,000
2,300
4,700
4,400
1,400
173,300
Solids 1978

2
Monitored
Load
0
100,000
130,000
20,000
900

250,900
1,500
120,000
0
19,000
0
0
4,400
0
144,900

Z^
Dif-
fuse
100
99
100
100
94

100
100
100
100
100
88
99
100
100
99


Unit
Area
70
110
720
77
13

220
16
340
48
100
8
15
20
20
85

Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)

Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
o
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

''Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10-1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                        Table  4
                                                 HYDROI.OGIC AREA LOADS
                                                     LAKE MICHIGAN
Hydrologic Area


Number
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7

2.2.1
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5

2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2.4.8



Name
Menominee Complex
Menominee River
Peshtigo River
Oconto River
Suamico Complex **
Fox River
Green Bay Complex
River Basin Group 2.1 Total
Chicago-Milwaukee Complex
Saint Joseph River
Black River (S. Haven) Complex
Kalamazoo River
Black River (Ottawa Co.) Comp
Grand River
River Basin Group 2.3 Total
Muskegon River
Sable Complex
Man is tee River
Traverse Complex
Seul Choix-Groscap Complex
Manistique River
Bay De Noc Complex
Escanaba River
River Basin Group 2.4 Total
Suspended Solids

Total
Load
5,300
7,300
3,500
7,700
610
46,000
16,000
86,410
33,000
69,000
4,400
23,000
2,500
47,000
145,900
16,000
11,000
14,000
8,800
4,100
11,000
7,600
3,400
75,900

2
Monitored
Load
2,300
7,300
3,500
7,700
210
46,000
8,300
75,310
12,000
69,000
0
23,000
0
47,000
139,000
16,000
0
13,000
480
0
11,000
2,100
3,400
45,980
1977
73
Dif-
fuse
100
75
94
83
100
79
98
84
85
94
98
88
87
88
91
99
97
87
98
100
100
100
95
96


Unit
Area
19
5.2
11
25
4.9
21
25
17
50
53
46
39
34
28
40
22
23
24
14
29
29
26
14
21
Suspended

Total1
Load
20,000
21,000
6,000
4,400
1,000
170,000
72,000
294,400
10,000
72,000
5,200
31,000
3,300
63,000
174,500
24,000
15,000
17,000
11,000
4,500
12,000
8,600
6,400
98,500
Solids

Monitored
Load
8,800
21,000
6,000
4,400
360
170,000
38,000
248,560
44,000
72,000
0
31,000
0
63,000
166,000
24,000
0
15,000
700
0
12,000
2,400
6,400
60,500
1978
73
2 Dif-
fuse
100
91
QS
71
100
94
100
96
94
88
98
91
93
91
90
99
98
100
99
100
100
100
100
99


Unit4
Area
74
18
19
12
8.1
94
120
64
180
56
55
54
47
39
47
34
31
29
18
32
32
29
27
28
  Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources  (nonpoint)
  Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)

  Point sources to the Indiana Harbor C&nal and Burns Ditch
  are considered direct;   see page 87.
**The source of data for the Suamico Complex  is the Pensaukee  river which  is very  flashy.
Total diffuse unit qrea load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10   metric tons/km /yr)

-------
                                                           Table  4
                                                    HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS

                                                         LAKE HURON
                                                      WY 1977,  WY 1978
Mydrologic Area
Number
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
Name
Les Cheneaux Complex *
Cheboygan River
Presque Isle Complex
Thunder Bay River
Au Sable and Alcona Complex
Rifle-Au Gres Complex
River Basin Group 3.1 Total
Kawkawlin Complex
Saginaw River
Thumb Complex
River Basin Group 3.2 Total

Suspended Solids
Total1
Load
160,000
4,300
1,300
2,500
3,000
12,000
183,100
3,700
64,000
12 , 000
79,700
2
Monitored
Load
110,000
4,300
0
2,500
2,700
7,000
126,500
0
64,000
0
64,000
1977
%3
Dif-
fuse
100
99
100
94
99
99
99
100
81
100
85

Unit4
Area
190
10
8.9
7.3
5.2
42
86
37
32
32
32

Suspended
Total1
Load
130,000
3,200
1,100
2,400
6,400
31,000
174,100
9,600
150.000
31,000
190,600
Solids
Monitored
Load
81 , 000
3,200
0
2,400
5,900
17,700
110,200
0
150,000
0
150,000
1978
2 &
i Dif-
fuse
100
99
100
93
100
100
97
100
92
100
93

Unit4
Area
190
7.6
7.3
6.9
11
110
80
95
84
84
85

Ul
.p-
      Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
     2
      Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
     k
     Based on the Pine River which is very flashy
Percent of total load from diffuse sources  (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load  (kg/hectare/yr or
 10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                           Table   4
                                                    HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                         LAKE ERIE
                                                        WY 1977,  WY  1978
Hydrologic Area

Number
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3


Name
Black River
St. Clalr Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group 4.1 Total
Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron-Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black- Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula— Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4.3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Suspended Solids
Total1
Load
9,300
2,900
30,000
95,000
6,500
13,000
50,000
206,700
9,600
800,000
64,000
100,000
190,000
1,163,600
200,000
120,000
110,000
69,000
39,000
538,000
310,000
460,000
280,000
1,050,000
2
Monitored
Load
9,300
1,000
30,000
58,000
6,500
0
42,000
146,800
0
800,000
38,000
100,000
120,000
1,058,000
170,000
120,000
98,000
69,000
37,000
494,000
0
460,000
95,000
555,000
1977
%3
Dif-
fuse
100
99
92
100
76
100
98
97
100
99
99
99
100
99
100
92
100
100
99
97
100
100
99
99

Unit4
Area
51
20
140
500
22
150
150
150
150
460
240
250
700
430
850
460
1,400
320
430
620
1,800
3,200
1,100
1,500
Suspended Solids 1978
%3
1 2 4
Total Monitored Dif- Unit
Load Load fuse Area
























Ln
Ui
      Total  load  from Hydrologic  Area  (metric  tons/yr)
      Portion  of  total load  that  was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
4Total  diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10~1  metric tons/km^/yr)

-------
                                                      Table
                                               HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS


                                                    LAKE ONTARIO

                                                  WY 1977, WY 1978
Hydrologic Area
Number
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
Name
Niagara-Orleans Complex
Genesee River
River Basin Group 5.1 Total
Wayne-Cayuga Complex
Oswego River
Salmon Complex
River Basin Group 5.2 Total
Black River
Perch Complex
Oswagatchie River
Grass-Raquette-St. Regis Comp
River Basin Group 5.3 Total

Suspended
Solids
Total Monitored
Load Load
74,000
1 ,100,000 li
1,174,000 1,
6,500
86,000
11,000
103,500
25,000
4,100
11,000
.14,000
54,100
0
000,000
000,000
0
86,000
0
86,000
25,000
0
11,000
8,500
44,500
1977
%3
Dif-
fuse
99
100
100
100
79
100
82
83
100
100
98
92

Unit4
Area
270
1,500
1,300
51
51
45
48
39
33
26
17
26

Suspended
Solids
1 2
Total Monitored
Load Load
74,000
480,000
554,000
14,000
160,000
32,000
206,000
85,000
4,700
16,000
16,000
121,700
0
440,000
440,000
0
160,000
0
160,000
85,000
0
16,000
9,800
110,800
1978
%3
Dif-
fuse
99
99
99
100
89
100
91
95
100
100
98
97

Unit^
Area
270
680
600
110
110
130
110
150
37
37
19
62

 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
f\
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10~1 metric tons/km /yr)

-------
                                                           Table
                                                    HYUROLOGIC AREA LOADS


                                                        LAKE SUPERIOR

                                                        WY 1977,  IVY 1978
Hydrologic Area


Number
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1. A
1.1.5

1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.2.6
1.2.7
1.2.8

*
33.000
sources


Name
Superior Slope Complex
Saint Louis River
Apostle Island Complex
Bad River
Montreal River Complex
River Basin Group 1.1 Total
Porcupine Mountains Complex
Ontonagon River
Keweenaw Peninsula Complex
Sturgeon River
Huron Mountain Complex
Grand Marais Complex
Tahquamenon River
Sault Complex
River Basin Group 1.2 Total

Metric Tons/Yr from point
on the Mineral River
Chloride 1977
1
Total
Load
3,600
16,000
. 2,800
2,000
7,000
31,400
34,000*
2,400
2,200
1,000
3,400
3,200
2,000
620
48,820
2
Monitored
Load
0
16,000
970
2.000
5,700
24,670
410
2,400
0
1,000
920
0
2,000
0
6,730
%3
Dif-
fuse
100
72
100
98
95
84
4
98
100
100
70
95
96
100
31
A
Unit
Area
6.0
12.0
5.5
7.6
8.5
11.0
4.4
6.7
6.2
5.8
11,
9.9
8.9
8.9
7.4

Chloride 1978
1
Total
Load
6,000
25,000
4,500
2,000
7,000
44,500
35,000
4,100
4,200
2,400
6,000
4,700
2,400
760
59,560
2
Monitored
Load
0
25,000
1,100
0
0
26,100
610
4,100
0
2,400
0
0
2,500
0
9,610
z3
Dif-
fuse
100
82
100
98
95
89
95
99
100
100
75
96
97
100
41
A
Unit
Area
10
22
8.7
7.5
35
17
6.4
11
12
13
18
14
11
11
12

Ln
--J
      Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)

      Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
j
 Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                          Table  4

                                                   HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS

                                                       LAKE MICHIGAN
                                                      WY 1977, WY 1973
Hydrologic Area

Number
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.2.1
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5

2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.4.6
2.4.7
2 4.8


Name
Menominee Complex
Menominee River
Peshtigo River
Oconto River
Suamico Complex
Fox River
Green Bay Complex
River Basin Group 2.1 Total
Chicago-Milwaukee Complex
Saint Joseph River
Black River (S. Haven) Complex
Kalamazoo River
Black River (Ottawa Co.) Comp.
Grand River
River Basin Group 2.3 Total
Muskegon River
Sable Complex
Manistee River
Traverse Complex
Seul Choix-Groscap Complex
Manistique River
Bay De Noc Complex
Escanaba River
River Basin Group 2.4 Total
Chloride
Total1
Load
1,200
5,200
2,500
4,800
1,200
36,000
13,000
63,900
54,000
68,000
5,300
48,000
5,000
96,000
222,300
35,000
15,000
76,000
9,600
1,100
3,000
3,300
7,000
150,000
1977
2
Monitored
Load

5
2
4
36
7
56
14
68
48
96
212
35

75
1

3

7
122
550
,200
,500
,800
410
,000
,000
,460
,000
,000
0
,000
0
,000
,000
,000
0
,000
,700
0
,000
920
,000
,620

Dif-
fuse
100
62
59
98
100
55
86
66
51
66
91
71
74
69
69
97
96
1
92
100
100
100
100
48

Unit4
Area
4.6
3.0
4.9
18.
9.3
11
18
9.7
48
37
52
66
56
45
46
48
31
13
13
8.0
8.0
11
30
21
Chloride
Total1
Load
2,300
7,800
3,600
8,500
2,100
53,000
21,000
98,300
72,000
73,000
6,200
57,000
6,000
120,000
262,200
39,000
17,000
73,000
13,000
1,600
4,200
2,400
7,600
157,800
1978
2
Monitored

1
7


53

61
17
73
57
120
250
39

72
2

4

7
125
Load
,000
,800
0
0
0
,000
0
,800
,000
,000
0
,000
0
,000
,000
,000
0
,OOQ
,100
0
,200
660
^600
,560

Dif-
fuse
100
74
72
99
100
69
91
78
63
69
92
75
78
74
73
98
97
1
83
100
100
100
100
52

Unit4
Area
8.6
5.4
8.8
33
17
21
32
18
81
41
62
83
71
59
57
54
36
18
18
11
11
79
32
24
vn
CO
                                                                     Percent of total  load  from  diffuse sources (nonpoint)
Total load from Hydrologic  Area  (metric  tons/yr)

Portion of total load  that  was monitored (metric  tons/yr)        Total diffuse unit, area load  (kg/hectare/yr or
                                                                  1O   m*^ t- r ^ f t-ona/lrm  /\rr}
    Point sources to the Indiana Harbor Cnaal andBurns Ditch
    are considered direct;  see page 87
                                                                           metric tons/km

-------
                                                      Table
                                               HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                    LAKE HURON
                                                  WY 1977, WY  1978
llydrologic Area
Number
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
Name
Les Cheneaux Complex
Cheboygan River
Presque Isle Complex
Thunder Bay River
Au Sable and Alcona Complex
Rifle-Au Gres Complex
River Basin Group 3.1 Total
Kawkawlin Complex
Saginaw River
Thumb Complex
River Basin Group 3.2 Total

Chloride 1977
Total1
Load
2,200
5,200
1,400
3,100
7,500
11,000
30,400
3,800
16 0,000
6,400
170,200
2
Monitored
Load
510
5,200
0
3,100
6,900
6.200
21,910
0
160,000
0
160,000
%3
Dif-
fuse
100
95
100
72
99
97
95
98
18
98
22
Unit4
Area
7.2
12
9.5
6.8
13
37.
14.
37
17
17
18

Chloride 1978
Total1
Load
3,000
6,800
1,800
3,800
8,600
17,000
41,000
5,800
200,000
17,000
222,800
2
Monitored
Load
690
6,800
0
3,800
7 , 800
9,600
28,690
0
200,000
0
200,000
%3
Dif-
fuse
100
96
100
77
99
98
96
99
36
99
43
Unit4
Area
9.7
16
12
9.1
15
58
19.
58
46
46
46

 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
f\
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                      Table  4


                                               HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS


                                                    LAKE ERIE

                                                 WY 1977, WY  1978
Hydrologic Area

Number
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3


Name
Black River
St. Clair Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group 4.1 Total
Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron-Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4.3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Chloride 1977
Total1
Load
5,600
8,100
56,100
J.00,000
23,000
4,200
21,000
>18,000
3,300
120,000
20,000
29,000
21,000
193,300
25,000
71,000
18,000
18 , 000
8,800
.40,800
12,000
8,100
20,000
40,100
2
Monitored
Load
5,600
2,900
56,000
74,000
23,000
0
18,300
179,800
0
120,000
13,000
29,000
5,400
167,400
23,000
71,000
16,000
18,000
7,800
135,800
0
8,100
2,900
11,000
Dif-
fuse
96
98
77
99
64
100
78
89
97
69
84
88
92
78
47
34
92
93
80
53
90
94
72
82
Unit4
Area
30
54
22
390
66
69
49
140
50
50
65
65
71
56
50
100
210
77
78
89
66
53
77
48
Chloride 1978
Total1 Monitored Dif- Unit4
Load Load fuse Area
























 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
f\
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
t
 Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10-1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                    Table
                                             HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                  LAKE ONTARIO
                                                WY 1977, WY 1978
Hydrologlc Area
Number
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5. 3. A
Name
Niagara-Orleans Complex
River Basin Group 5.1 Total
Wayne-Cayuga Complex
Os we go River
Salmon Complex
River Basin Group 5.2 Total
Black River
Perch Complex
Oswagatchie River
Grass-Raquette-St. Regis Comp.
River Basin Group 5.3 Total

Chloride 1977
Total1
Load
17,000
150,000
167,000
6,900
960,000
3,700
970,600
10,000
1,700
5,700
11,000
28,400
2
Monitored
Load
0
140,000
140,000
0
960,000
0
960,000
10,000
0
5,700
7.200
22,900
%J
Dif-
fuse
82
94
93
98
43
93
43
73
100
98
83
84
Unit4
Area
53
200
170
53
310
14
240
14
14
13
11
12

Chloride 1978
Total1
Load
17,000
230,000
247,000
6,900
,200,000
3,000
,209,900
8,500
1,400
5,400
17.000
32,300
2
Monitored
Load
0
210,000
210,000
0
1,200,000
0
1,200,000
8,500
0
5,400
11,000
24,900
%J
Dif-
fuse
82
96
95
98
52
91
51
68
100
98
S9
86
Unit4
Area
53
320
260
53
460
11
350
11
11
12
18
14

Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
3Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
Sotal diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                     Table  5
                                                 U.S. GREAT LAKES

                                                TRIBUTARY LOADINGS
                                                 WY  1975, WY 1976
LAKE

NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5



Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake


NAME
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
TOTAL
LAKE
1
2
3
4
5

Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake

Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie*
Ontario
TOTAL
Lake
1
2
4
c

Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake

Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie*
Ontario
TOTAL
Total
Total
Load
1,389
3,190
1,720
8,639
1,966
16,904
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
999
2,772
1,472
6,899
1,424
13,566
1975
Dif-
fuse
90
55
66
81
53
81
Soluble Ortho Phosphorus
464
1,224
456
2,070
522
4,736
133
1,055
365
1,320
374
3,247
Suspended Solids
1,380,000 1,
608,800
467,300
6,054,000 3,
1,054,000
9,565,000 6,
011,200
455,700
256,300
822,000
779,000
324,200
88
56
45
62
45
60
1975
96
93
98
99
95
98

Unit'1
Area
.28
.15
.27
1.3
.23
.40
1975
.09
.06
.05
.23
.05
.10

300
49
110
1,100
220
310
Total
Total1
Load
964
3,596
1,954
7,112
3,513
17,139
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
464
3,062
1,563
5,953
2,580
13,622
1976
%J
Dif-
fuse
86
63
83
71
72
72
Soluble Ortho Phosphorus
361
1,153
843
2,104
549
5,010
86
933
663
945
416
3,043
Suspended Solids
720,800
742,400
765,100
V06,900
L545.000
7,980,200
477,030
602,100
424,100
2,927,000
1,316,000
5,716,230
86
55
83
45
32
55
1976
93
95
99
98
96
97

Unit
Area
.20
.19
.40
.91
.56
.40
1976
.07
.05
.17
.17
.04
.09

150
57
180
740
330
250
 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
2
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)

 1978 Lake Erie data not available (NA)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
Total
  10
il diffuse unit area load  (kg/hectare/yr or
~1 metric tons/km /yr)

-------
                                                       Table  5
                                                   U.S. GREAT LAKES
                                                  TRIBUTARY LOADINGS
                                                   WY  1975, WY 1976
LAKE
NUMBER NAME
1 Lake Superior
2 Lake Michigan
3 Lake Huron
4 Lake Erie*
5 Lake Ontario
TOTAL*
Chloride 1975
1 22 4
Total Monitored DIf- Unit
Load ..Load fuse Area
92,680 50,520 61 13
775,500 636,960 65 43
377,400 351,290 66 60
855,600 577,800 90 91
1,199,900 1,149,200 52 140
3,301,080 2,756,770 66 74
Chloride 1976
•1 2 Z3 4
Total Monitored DIf- Unit
Load Load fuse Area
81,600 26,680 55 10
711,600 563,650 72 42
422,100 359,030 70 74
696,900 463,900 80 100
1,607,800 1,553,300 64 220
3,520,000 2,966,500 69 80
 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
*1978 Lake Erie data not available (NA)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                      Table  6
                                               HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS


                                                    LAKE ERIE

                                                  WY 1975,  WY  1976

Number
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4 . 1. D
4.1.6
4.1.7

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5

4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3

Hydrologic Area
Name
Black River
St. Clair Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group 4.1 Total
Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron-Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4.3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Total
Total1
Load
46
64
260
320
250
60
310
1,310
69
2,600
240
630
310
3,839
750
790
160
380
190
2,270
300
180
740
1,220
Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
46
23
260
200
2SO
0
280
1,059
0
2,600
150
600
220
3,570
660
790
140
330
170
2,090
0
180
' 0
180
1975
%3
Dif-
fuse
86
92
58
96
60
100
72
76
95
86
85
81
86
85
76
65
96
100
97
79
92
94
63
75

Unit4
Area
.22
.40
.76
1.6
7fl
.70
.70
.74
1.0
1.3
.77
1.3
1.0
1.2
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.6
1.2
1.6
1.5
Total
Total1
Load
130
200
160
740
Aft
66
310
1,654
90
3,000
100
360
110
3,660
64
420
40
210
64
798
220
310
470
1,000
Phosphorus 1976
2
Monitored
Load
130
110
160
450
Aft
0
270
1,168
0
3,000
86
360
84
3,530
40
420
40
210
45
755
0
310
190
500

%3
Dif-
fuse
76
97
48
99
100
81
86
95
76
44
87
64
76
36
0
7
84
29
28
83
92
38
65

Unit4
Area
.53
1.0
.06
3.9
. .77
.77
1.06
1.3
1.3
.12
.79
.19
1.03
.21
.03
.82
.21
.26
1.1
2.0
1.0
1.0
 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
2
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
 Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
t,
 Total  diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10~1  metric tons/km^/yr)

-------
                                                     Table 6
                                               HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS


                                                    LAKE ERIE

                                                 WY 1975, WY 1976
Hydrologic Area

Number
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5

4.4.1
4.4.2
4 4.3


Name
Black River
St. Glair Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group 4.1 Total
Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron— Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula— Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4.3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Soluble
Total1
Load
26
21
78
170
40
11
100
446
17
610
77
85
55
844
320
180
24
57
27
608
39
13
1ZO
172
Ortho Phosphorus
2
Monitored
Load
26
0
0
110
40
0
0
176
0
610
52
83
44
789
140
180
22
0
0
342
0
13
0
13
%3
Dif-
fuse
87
89
32
96
0
100
58
67
90
68
75
31
59
64
72
32
85
99
89
64
67
54
12
28
1975
Unit4
Area
.12
.12
.12
.86
	
.12
.18
.22
.24
.24
.22
.07
.12
.20
1.0
.25
.26
.26
.26
.47
.16
.05
.05
.07
Soluble
Total1
Load
38
66
130
160
49
17
96
556
12
600
35
69
59
775
190
180
42
80
53
545
49
19
160
228
Ortho Phosphorus 1976
2
Monitored
Load
0
47
0
0
0
0
86
133
0
600
30
69
33
732
0
0
0
80
0
80
0
0
0
0
%3
Dif-
fuse
61
95
67
100
0
100
69
75
79
41
17
64
42
43
12
0
55
79
51
25
60
38
12
24
UnitA
Area
.13
.43
.43
.86
	
.20
.20
.31
.15
.15
.02
.11
.09
.12
.10
	
.30
.30
.30
.16
.18
.05
.05
.08
 Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
2
 Portion of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)

Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
 10-1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                     Table  6
                                              HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS
                                                   LAKE ERIE
                                                 WY  1975, WY 1976
Hydrologic Area


Number
4.1.1
A. 1.2
A. 1.3
A.I. A
A. 1.5
A. 1.6
.1.7
A 2 1
A. 2. 2
A. 2. 3
A. 2. A
A 9 S

A. 3.1
A. 3. 2
A. 3. 3
A. 3. A
A 3 5

A.A.I
A. A. 2
A A 3



Name
Black River
St. Clair Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group A.I Total
Ottawa River
Mauniee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group A. 2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group A. 3 Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group A. A Total
Suspended

Solids

Total Monitored
Load
16,000
13,000
18,000
23,000
23,000
7 900
150,000
250,900
54,000
1 AGO, 000 1,
110,000
340,000
280,000
2,184,000 1,
460,000
630,000
270,000
570,000
240,000
2,170,000 1,
450,000
680,000
320,000
1,450,000
Load
16,000
0
0
17,000
23,000
o
0
56,000
0
400,000
66,000
320,000
180,000
966,000
240,000
630,000
250,000
0
0
120,000
0
680,000
0
680,000
1975
•r3
%
Dif-
fuse
100
100
96
26
82
100
99
91
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
100


UnitA
Area
86
86
86
86
92
92
460
177
840
SAO
420
860
1,000
817
2,000
2,700
3,600
2,700
2,700
2,600
2,700
4,800
1,100
2,300
Suspended

Total1
Load
16,000
65,000
110,000
100,000
22,000
7,900
170,000
490,900
65,000
1,740,000 1
46,000
180,000
110,000
2,141,000 2
50,000
130,000
A20.000
2 A, 000
28,000
652,000
53,000
680,000
190,000
923,000
Solids

Monitored
Load
0
46,000
110,000
0
0
0
150,000
306,000
0
,740,000
27,000
180,000
70,000
,017,000
43,000
130,000
380,000
24,000
27,000
604,000
0
0
)0
0
1976
73
2 '"
Dif-
fuse
100
100
98
100
93
100
100
99
100
100
99
100
100
100
95
93
91
99
99
93
100
100
98
99


Unit
Area
86
A40
550
550
92
-92
530
370
1,000
1,000
170
460
400
790
210
530
4,900
110
310
720
310
4,700
500
1,300
1Total load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
2Portion of total load that was monitored (metric tons/yr)
^Percent of total load from diffuse sources (nonpoint)
''Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  10-1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
                                                    Table   6
                                             HYDROLOGIC AREA LOADS



4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
/j.l. 5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3

Hydrologlc Area

Black River
St. Clalr Complex
Clinton River
Rouge Complex
Huron River
Swan Creek Complex
Raisin River
River Basin Group 4.1 Total
Ottawa River
Maumee River
Toussaint-Portage Complex
Sandusky River
Huron— Vermilion Complex
River Basin Group 4.2 Total
Black-Rocky Complex
Cuyahoga River
Chagrin Complex
Grand River
Ashtabula-Conneaut Complex
River Basin Group 4. 3, Total
Erie-Chautauqua Complex
Cattaraugus Creek
Tonawanda Complex
River Basin Group 4.4 Total
Chloride
Total1
Load
8,100
6,600
26,000
29,000
29,000
8,300
37,000
144,000
9,600
270,000
32,000
49,000
26,000
386,600
53,000
110,000
24,000
66,000
28,000
281,000
12 , 000
10,000
22,000
44,000

LAKE ERIE
WY 1975, WY
1975
2
Monitored
Load
7,800
0
0
18,000
29,000
0
0
54,800
0
270,000
20,000
47,000
17,000
354,000
27,000
110,000
22,000
0
0
159,000
0
10,000
0
10,000

1976

%3
Dif-
fuse
97
97
52
99
74
100
84
82
99
93
92
95
95
93
90
79
99
100
99
90
94
95
90
92



Unit4
Area
43
43
70
150
96
96
96
87
150
150
110
120
92
130
210
380
310
310
310
300
68
68
68
68


Chloride 1976
Total1 Monitored
Load Load
8,200
30,000
44,000
29,000
31,000
9,000
23,000
74,200
4,700
160,000
9,000
26,000
29,000
228,700
22,000
130,000
23,000
67,000
11,000
>53,000
13,000
10,000
18,000
41,000

0
21,000
44,000
0
0
0
20,000
85,000
0
160,000
1,900
26,000
19,000
206,900
11,000
130,000
21,000
0
10,000
172,000
0
0
0
0



%3
Dif-
fuse
97
99
71
99
74
100
80
86
98
76
77
87
94
81
41
64
94
98
85
76
90
96
60
79



Unit4
Area
44
200
160
150
100
100
58
110
72
72
84
56
100
69
39
360
280
31C
110
230
69
64
34
47

       load from Hydrologic Area (metric tons/yr)
2Portion of total load that was monitored (metric  tons/yr)
4Total diffuse unit area load (kg/hectare/yr or
  lO"1 metric tons/km2/yr)

-------
         In tables 4  and 6  the  "Total  Load" column  represents  the total
diffuse and point  source load coming into  the  lakes from the tributaries
within a given area.   The "Monitored Load"  column  gives  that  portion of  the
total  load that  was  calculated  from existing flow and concentration field
data on individual tributaries within a  particular area.  An  estimated load
was  also  obtained  for  the  unmonitored  areas.   The  estimated unmonitored
load plus the  monitored load equals the total load.  The "Percent Diffuse"
column represents that portion of the total load  which is nonpoint or from
diffuse  sources (includes  base  flow).    This value  is  obtained  by
subtracting all known point source loads to the tributaries of the area in
question.   It was  assumed  that  100  percent of  all point  source  inputs
within a given basin are delivered to the lake  in calculating this diffuse
load.   The  "Unit  Area"  column  presents  the   total (monitored  plus
unmonitored area)  diffuse  unit  area load.   This value  was  obtained  by
dividing the  total  diffuse load  by the given  area.

         Values presented  in  Tables  3  and 5  for  total  load and monitored
load are  summations  of  the  river basin group  information.    The percent
diffuse and unit area  loads are  calculated  for  each  lake  based  on  the
diffuse load  and  the  diffuse load  divided by  the drainage area of  the given
lake,  respectively.   All  values presented  in these  tables  are  based upon
the  best  available  data  for both  river  mouth and  point   source loading
information.

         The  river  mouth loads used to generate these tables are  presented
in  Appendix  C.    This  appendix updates  Appendix D  of  the  previous
Post-PLUARG report entitled  "Post-PLUARG  Evaluation  of Great  Lakes  Water
Quality Management Studies  and  Programs"  (Sullivan  et al.,  1980).   The
appendix  provides  river  mouth  loads  obtained  from  either  the  ratio
estimator  method  or directly from the U.S.  Lake Erie  Wastewater Management
Study.
                                   68

-------
DISCUSSION
Flow
         In order to evaluate  the  changes  in  load  that occur from one year
to the  next,  it is important  to consider  the natural variability in flow.
Figure  1 shows  mean  annual  flows (in  cubic meters  per  second)  for  the
entire  U.S.  portion of the  basin  for water years  1958  through  1978.   The
figure  also  indicates how these flows compare to  the long term historical
flow which is represented by the dashed line.  The data used in this figure
are based upon  USGS gaging  station records.   Flows  from gaged rivers were
adjusted to river mouths, and  flows from ungaged tributaries were estimated
by extrapolating flows from  the gaged  areas.   Figure 1 shows that the mean
annual  daily  discharges during water years  1975  and 1976  were  very high
compared to  the  long  term  flow.   Water year  1977  represents a significant
drop in  the mean annual  flow while 1978  rebounded  to another significantly
high flow year.

         This figure not  only shows the  year  to year variability but also
the  significant  changes that  occur  over  a 20 year period.    The  early to
mid-1960's  represent  a  time  of  significantly  low  flows  from U.S.
tributaries, while  the  early to mid-1970's show a significantly  high flow
pexiod.

         It is important to remember that within any given year differences
in flow may occur  during  the  spring  period.   For some  streams,  a large
fraction  of the  annual  load  is  delivered  at  this  time.   A  detailed
discussion of  flow variability and  the  relationship of  flow  to  pollutant
concentration is presented in Sonzogni et al.,(1978).

Great Lakes Load Summary

         Tables 3 and 5  present the  tributary loads  to each  lake  for water
years 1975 through 1978  (except for 1978  Lake Erie).  These loads represent
best  estimates  utilizing the data  available.  Thus, it is important that an
understanding of  the  limitations  of  the data be  kept  in mind  throughout
this  analysis.
                                   69

-------
F
L
0
W
S
                           FIGURE 1
                    TOTAL  U,S, TRIBUTARY FLOW
     5000 -
4000 —
3000
S    2000 -
     1000  -
        0
                                       ~U
LONG
TERM
             58  60  62  64  66  68  70  72  74  76   78

                        MEAN ANNUAL FLOWS
                           WATER YEARS
                            70

-------
          Water year 1977 stands out as a  result  of  the  dramatic decline in
 loads   (for  parameters  studied)  relative to  1975   and  1976  (with a  few
 exceptions).   For total phosphorus, the load from the U.S.  side declined by
 about  6,500 mt/yr from 1976 to 1977.   Significant declines  are noted in all
 lakes,  with Lake Erie  showing  the largest  decline  (from  7,100 mt/yr  to
 5,100  mt/yr).   Total  phosphorus unit  area loads  declined  from .4 kg/ha/yr
 in 1975 and  1976  to .19 kg/ha/yr in 1977.

          The   load  of  soluble ortho  phosphorus  also  showed  a  significant
 decline from  1976 to 1977.   The  load was  reduced from 5,000 mt/yr to 3,400
 mt/yr.   The diffuse area load is about 0.04 kg/ha/yr  as  opposed to  the 0.1
 kg/ha/yr and 0.09 kg/ha/yr values for  1975 and  1976,  respectively.

          For   both  total  phosphorus  and  soluble ortho  phosphorus  it  is
 important  to   note  the  significant decline  in the  diffuse portion  of  the
 load.   In  1975 about 80% of the total phosphorus  river mouth  load was  from
 diffuse sources.    In  1976 around  70%  came  from  diffuse sources, while  in
 1977 only  55%  of  the  total phosphorus  load was diffuse.  For  soluble ortho
 phosphorus the 1975  (60%)  and 1976  (55%) diffuse  portions are  significantly
 higher  than the 1977 value  of 35%.

         Suspended  solids  loads  declined from about 8,000,000  mt/yr  in  1976
 to  5,500,000 mt/yr in  1977.   This  corresponds  to a diffuse unit  area  load
 reduction  of   250  kg/ha/yr  to  180 kg/ha/yr.    The  vast majority  of  the
 suspended  solids  load remains  diffuse in origin.

         The chloride load  reduction from  1976  to  1977 amounts to  1,000,000
mt/yr (from 3,500,000 mt/yr to 2,500,000 mt/yr.).

         Because  of  the lack of  information available  for  Lake Erie, 1978
total  comparisons cannot  be  made.    However,  by examining  each  lake it
appears  that for most parameters  the loads rebound significantly above 1977
levels.  This  pattern would be expected due to the significant rise  in flow
during water year 1978  (see Table 7).
                                    71

-------
                                              TABLE  7
                                        U.S. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY
                                     TOTAL PHOSPH3RIB LOADS AM) FLOW
                                      WY 1975 TO  WY 1973

LAKE
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
IDEAL
Total
Lake
Area
(km2)
44,000
117,741
41,920
55,590
45,770
304,690
Total Ihosphorus Loads
fran River Mouths (mt/yr)

,1975
1,389
3,190
1,720
8,639
!ii66
16,904

1976
964
3,5%
1,954
7,112
3,513
17,139

1977
780
2,173
791
5,130
liSOO
10,674
St. Lawrence River

1978
1,343
3,178
972
9,100**
1^993
16,486**
Gaged
Area
(km2)
20,393
83,9%
21,883
38,678
32,671
97,621
773,890
Mean Annual Flow
at Gage (m /s)

1975
209
852
231
423
593
2,308
8,100

1976
176
913
277
428
839
2,633
8,510

1977
126
524
121
294
647
1,712
7,380

1978
262
793
174
489
811
2,529
8,130

Long Term
195
749
176
345
546
2,011
6,860
*    Probably low because it does not include event data for 50% of the area.
**   Estimated load for Lake Erie will be updated with the Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study data.
                                                  72

-------
Lake Superior

         Total phosphorus loads  for Lake  Superior exhibited a decline  from
1975  through  1977  and then  a  significant rise in  1978.   An unusually low
value of  70  mt/yr  was reported  in 1977  for  the  Saint Louis  River.    This
corresponds to  a very low flow value of  only  996 cfs at the gage for  that
year.   An equally remarkable  3,755  cfs  high  flow was  reported  for water
year  1978,  for the  Saint Louis.   This  flow  fluctuation  seems  to be the
major cause of  the total  lake  load fluctuation.  This  is  primarily because
the  St.  Louis River  is the  single largest tributary  draining  Lake  Superior
from  the  United States side.  Table 7  shows  how  the total  phosphorus  load
and  flow  fluctuate over these  four years.

          The  soluble  ortho phosphorus   loads  from  Lake   Superior  show  a
similar  pattern but  do  not  show a large  rise  in  load during  water  year
1978.   This  analysis is  somewhat hampered by the  lack  of  soluble  ortho
phosphorus  data in  1975,  1976  and 1978  for  the St. Louis River.

          The Lake  Superior  suspended  solids load  is  relatively  stable
between 1976 and 1978.   The 1975 value  is  almost twice as high as  any of
 the other years monitored in this study.

          The chloride load  fluctuates  very little from 1975  through  1978.
 A  low  value of  80,000  mt/yr  was recorded   in  1977 and  a high  value  of
 100,000 mt/yr in 1978.

 Lake Michigan

          Total  phosphorus   loading  to  Lake  Michigan  from its  tributaries
 follows the  same pattern as the tributary  flow to that lake  (See Table 7).
 1975 and 1978 values  are very  similar,  at  3,200  mt/yr, with  1976 showing a
 high of 3,600 mt/yr,  and 1977 a  load of  2,200 mt/yr.

          The soluble ortho  phosphorus  loads are  virtually  the  same  for
 1975,  1976  and  1978,  about  1,200  mt/yr.    The  1977 value,  800 mt/yr,
 represents a low point in  the data.
                                     73

-------
         Suspended  solids  loads range from 610,000 tnt/yr  to 740,000 mt/yr
for water  years 1975, 1976  and  1978.  The 1977 value  of  340,000 mt/yr  is
the lowest value recorded over  this  four years period.

         The chloride loads  for  1975  and 1976 are 780,000 mt/yr  and  710,000
mt/yr respectively.   The  1977  value  of 490,000 mt/yr represents  the  lowest
value with 1978 rising to 590,000 mt/yr.

Lake Huron

         The total  phosphorus  load from U.S. Lake Huron  tributaries  follows
a pattern  similar  to the flow  from  these  rivers (Table 7).   1975 and  1976
show loading values  of 1,700 mt/yr  and 1,900  mt/yr respectively.  The  load
then declines  to a low  of  790 mt/yr in  1977,  and  then  increases  to  970
mt/yr for water year  1978.

         The  soluble ortho  phosphorus  loads  to Lake Huron  vary from 460
mt/yr in  1975  to a high of  840 mt/yr in  1976.  Water  years 1977 and  1978
have identical values of 370 mt/yr.

         The  suspended  solids  loadings  from  U.S.  Lake Huron  tributaries
showed dramatic  fluctuations.   The  1976 water year  value  of 760,000 mt/yr
represents a high  for the  four years examined.  This declines  to a low  of
260,000 mt/yr in 1977, a drop of 500,000 mt/yr.

         The  chloride loadings  fluctuate  in  much  the  same  manner  as  the
suspended solids.    1976  has the highest value,  of 420,000 mt/yr, and  1977
has the lowest value, 200,000 mt/yr.

Lake Erie

         Data were  not  complete  for water year  1978 so  the analysis  for
this lake  is  limited to  three years.   The total  phosphorus loadings  from
U.S. tributaries to Lake Erie  show a steady decline  from 1975 through  1977.
A high  of 8,700 mt/yr in  1975  is  2,600 mt/yr greater  than the low value
reported  in  1977.    This  is  primarily due  to  a reduction  in flow  between
those years as seen  in Table 7.

                                     74

-------
         Soluble ortho phosphorus  loads  are virtually  identical  for water
year 1975 and 1976.  The  1977 value is about 800 mt/yr less at 1,300 mt/yr.

         A  significant  decline  in  suspended   solids  is  noted   from  1975
through 1977.  The high value of 6,000,000 mt/yr is the highest observed to
any lake  from the  U.S.  side  in 1975.  The low  value  of 3,000,000 mt/yr in
1977 is half of  the  1975  value but still stands out as the highest  load to
any one lake.

          Chloride  loading to Lake Erie  is much  more  stable, with a high
value of  860,000 metric tons  in 1975, 700,000 metric  tons  in  1976  and  a  low
of 600,000 metric  tons in 1977.

Lake Ontario

          Lake  Ontario shows  higher  than  average  flows  for  the  period  of
1975  through 1978.  While most lakes were receiving  extremely low flows in
1977,  Lake Ontario  values  remained  above  average.    It  is  interesting  to
note  that there is a significant rise in  total phosphorus between 1975  and
1976  from 2,000 mt/yr to  3,500 mt/yr.  A significant  decline  to  1,800 mt/yr
occurred  during water  year  1977.   This rise  and  fall corresponds  to  the
fluctuations in flow over these three  years  (See Table  7).   However,  in
1978  the  tributary flow  is at a level similar  to that of 1976 but the total
phosphorus load remained  relatively  low at 2,000 mt/yr.

          The soluble ortho  phosphorus  load for water  years  1975, 1976  and
 1978 are  all around 500  mt/yr.  In  1977  however,  a  load  of 700 mt/yr  was
calculated during a time  when flows  were low.

          The suspended solids  load  follows  the pattern described for total
 phosphorus.  A high is reported in 1976 and a  low value reported  in 1978.

          The chloride load  follows  the pattern  for   flow  seen  in Table 7.
 1975 and  1977  are very   similar at  about  1,200,000 mt/yr.   1976 has  a high
 value of  1,600,000 mt/yr with  1978 at 1,500,000 mt/yr.
                                     75

-------
 Historical Perspective

          There is a great danger  in  attaching  significance  to any one year
 of  tributary load  data because  of  the  natural variability in  flow  and
 diffuse source runoff.   A  long range  perspective  is needed  to  evaluate  a
 remedial program or to  understand the significance of tributary imputs  to
 the Great Lakes  System.

           Table  7 illustrates fluctuations in flow over a four-year period.
 The impact  on  the  loads can  be  seen more  clearly  by adjusting  the  river
 mouth   loads  to  the historical  flow.   By applying  the  proper  conversion
 factors an average  concentration to  the lake from all  U.S.  tributaries  can
 be calculated.    The values  obtained  are 0.15 mg/yr.  for 1975,  0.13  mg/yr
 for 1976,  1977,  and  1978.   Although  this  only represents  four  years of
 data,  the average  tributary concentration  remains  remarkably stable over
 this  period of  time.    In  other  words,   it  appears  that  the  natural
 variability  in runoff  explains major  variations  in the  loading  of  total
 phosphorus to the lakes.

          Figure 2 shows  the  fluctuation in  flow  at  the mouth of  the  Grand
 River   in  Michigan as  compared   to fluctuations  in the  annual ortho
 phosphorus load.  Again,  an  indication of  the significance of the  flow and
 load relationship is seen.   This detailed  look shows the general  decline in
 the  ortho  phosphorus loads over time  from  the 1960's  to 1970's.

 Summary

         Lake Erie  continues to receive the largest total  phosphorus and
 ortho  phosphorus  loads  while  Lake Superior  receives  the  smallest loads.
 The Maumee River contributes the largest total phosphorus, ortho  phosphorus
 and  suspended solid  loads  from any one  stream, while the  Oswago River,  in
 the Lake Ontario  basin,  contributes  the largest  chloride  load.   Suspended
 solids   loads  remain 90 - 100%  nonpoint in nature,  while  total phosphorus
varies   from  40 - 80% nonpoint.    The highest  unit area  loads  of total
 phosphorus and  suspended solids are  in the  Lake Erie basin,  the "thumb"
area of Michigan,  and  in  western Lake  Ontario.   Almost  all  the point
sources  of  phosphorus  are  from  municipal   plants, with  the  industrial
component being  low overall.

                                    76

-------
           FIGURE 2
     GRAND RIVER, MICHIGAN
FLOW AND ORTHO PHOSPHORUS LOAD
         AT THE MOUTH
                      _Kly _  Mean Annual Ortho Phosphorus Load
                      	  Mean Annual Flow
i A nAn
1U , uuu —

9,000 _
|
a 8,000 _
§
3
jE- 7,000 -
3
i 6,000 _
o

- 450 fc
2
400
— O
3
o
350 ^
1
300 M
— o
g
en
250 £
— O
°
_ 200 |

5
150 ""'

100
_
50

0

           WATER YEAR

-------
         There  are significant differences  in tributary  response  to
precipitation.    This  is evidenced  by examining  the  1976 and  1977  water
years.   Event  response  tributaries  (as defined  in  Sonzogni  et  al.,  1978)
show much wider  fluctuations  in  load with changes  in  flow  then do  stable
response tributaries.

         The fluctuations  in flow and load monitored over these  four  years
of data indicate the importance of studying a low flow period of time.  By
examining Figure  1 it  can  be  seen  that  the early  to mid-1960's have  a
significantly  different  tributary  flow  history  than  the  early  to
mid-1970's.   It would  be extremely  advantageous  to the  understanding of the
U.S.  Great   Lakes  tributary  system  to  undertake  a  loading calculation
program using data from  the  last  20  years.  This  would  give some  indication
of how  tributary  concentrations  have  changed over time,  particularly with
the implementation of  point  source  controls.
                                   78

-------
                                  CHAPTER 4

   POST-PLUARG MEETING  ON  POLLUTION ABATEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE GREAT LAKES
         A meeting was held  on  June 24th and 25th, 1980, to  assess  technical
developments which have occurred since  the completion  of PLUARG.   Co-sponsored
by  the  GLBC  and the  Great  Lakes  National  Program Office  of  the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency,  the   participants  included  representatives
from   federal,  provincial,  and   state government  agencies   as  well  as
representatives  from  "208"  areawide  water  quality  management  agencies  and
academic experts from  both  the  U.S.  and Canada.   The  group  included
representatives from  nonpoint  pollution  control  projects and  programs underway
in the basin as  well  as a  number of the members of the  Task  C Reference  Group
of PLUARG.

         The objectives of  the meeting were to:

         1.   reevaluate  the  Pollution  from Land  Use  Activities
             Reference Group  findings and recommendations  in  light  of
             recent developments;

         2.   consider  the International Joint Commission's conclusions
             and  recommendations  contained  in its  report  to  the
             governments of the U.S. and Canada;

         3.   identify  future research and program needs;

         4.   reinforce  the  technical contacts established during  the
             PLUARG study;

         5.   provide   the Great  Lakes  National  Program  Office  with
             information  on the  progress that has been made  toward
             understanding  nonpoint source  pollution  since  PLUARG's
             final report,  and  to identify  additional  information
             needs.
                                       79

-------
         The conference focused on  providing  answers,  or at least  statements,
in reply  to a  series  of  questions developed by  Great  Lakes Basin  Commission
staff.   The  questions  reflected   the  PLUARG  findings  and recommendations,
recommendations  contained  in  the  IJC's report  to  the  governments,  and
perceived  information  needs relating  to  nonpoint  source  pollution.   Major
conclusions and  recommendations  were as  follows:

 1.  Probably more progress has  been made  toward  understanding  nonpoint source
    pollution problems  in the  Great  Lakes basin  than  any place  else  in the
    world.    Results  and recommendations  from past  and  continuing programs  in
    both the U.S. and Canada (i.e., PLUARG, 108(a) Demonstration  Projects such
    as the Black Creek  Study and the  Washington  County Project,  the Wisconsin
    Fund,  "208"  Studies, the Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study, etc.) seem
    to  be  converging.    However,  with  the completion  of  PLUARG,  no  formal
   mechanism remains  for  coordination and  unified  action.

 2.  The  IJC's  recommendation of  regulation  of  manure  spreading  on  frozen
    ground,  as  highlighted in its  report to the  governments on pollution from
    land runoff,  does  not  reflect the work done on  this  subject  in PLUARG and
    is not  appropriate .

 3. There  is still no  indication that  lead is causing  water quality problems
    in the  Great Lakes.   The statement  in  the IJC's report to the governments
    that lead is a "pollution time  bomb"  is  unfounded  and not  in accord with
   the  PLUARG report.

 4. Additional  promotion  and  consideration   should  be   given  to  the  other
   benefits  of  nonpoint source controls (besides  phosphorus load reductions)
   such  as  energy savings and  reductions  in  heavy metal  loadings.   Negative
   secondary effects  that may  occur  as  a result  of remedial  programs  should
   also be  considered  in development of a Great Lakes management strategy.

 5. It  is  recommended that studies  designed  to  provide  detailed cost
   information on agricultural nonpoint controls be stepped up.
                                   80

-------
 6.  Now more than ever,  a need exists  for  coordinating  the efforts  of "208"
    agency  programs  and  ongoing  federal and state  demonstration  projects  and
    programs to assure consistency  in  the recommendations made to  the public
    concerning  nonpoint source  pollution control.

 7.  Continued monitoring  is  necessary to establish whether the load reductions
    (including  available  phosphorus) expected from different remedial programs
    actually occur.   Event  monitoring  (including measurement of  available  P)
    is also needed  on select  tributaries to  determine  the  effectiveness  of
    nonpoint controls  during major  storm events.

 8.  Little  is  known about  the  long-term effects  of  nonpoint controls.  There
    is a need  for  adequately funded,  long-term  demonstration  programs.

 9.  Studies  should be  encouraged on  the percentage  of pollutants  contained in
    urban and  rural  runoff which  are attributable  to  atmospheric deposition.

10.  With regard to  P  availability:   over the  long  run,  the majority of point
    source  phosphorus  which reaches  the lakes  is  in a biologically available
    form.

11.  PLUARG recommended that  "hydrologically active areas" be identified at the
    local level.   While the hydrologically active area concept is still valid,
    it  needs   further  definition  if it   is  to  be  practically  applied.
    Techniques and guidelines  should be  developed for  identification of
    hydrologically active areas (remote sensing offers  some  promise).

12.  Acceptance  of conservation tillage  is rapidly increasing in many parts of
    the U.S. and  Canadian basins.   This is largely  due  to  the  energy  savings
    realized with conservation tillage and  the effort which has  been made to
    demonstrate the utility  of the  method  to  farmers.   The importance  of  a
    long-term,  person-to-person  technology  transfer  program  should  not  be
    underestimated (GLBC, 1980a).

An expanded summary  of the meeting  is contained in Appendix  D.
                                    81

-------
                                   CHAPTER 5

                                  "WATERSHED"
                 A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE FOR CHOOSING AMONG POINT
                         AND NONPOINT CONTROL STRATEGIES
         As  part  of  its  Post-PLUARG  work effort  for EPA,  GLBC staff  began
development  of  a  management technique designed  to  aid water  quality  planners
evaluate  sources  and  controls  of  a  given  pollutant within  a  basin.    The
management  technique,  "WATERSHED",   is basically  an  accounting  technique  to
help  assimilate  existing  state-of-the-art  information  so  that  reasonable
choices,  among  pollution  control alternatives  can   be  made.   It  provides  a
logical sequence for estimating  the relative  importance  of  different  pollutant
inputs at the river mouth or some receiving body.  WATERSHED  is unique  in that
it integrates  the  vast amount of technical information now  available  on both
point  and  non-point pollution control.   It  attempts  to quantify  information
generated from years of research  and demonstration.

         WATERSHED has  been derived  from  several  studies,  most  conducted  in
the  Great  Lakes basin.   These  studies  include  the Pollution  from Land  Use
Activities Reference Group  study,  the Lake Erie  Wastewater  Management  Study,
the  Black  Creek,  Washington County,  and Red  Clay  Erosion Demonstration
projects conducted  under  Section 108  of  Public Law  92-500,  a host  of  studies
conducted  under  Section  208  of Public  Law  92-500,  and  the  Wisconsin  Fund
Program.

         However,  although all of the  above studies  have had  an  influence,  the
foundation for WATERSHED  lies  in the  "overview  modeling" process (Johnson  et
al.,   1978;  Heidtke,  1978;  Heidtke  et al.,  1979)  developed  as   part  of  the
PLUARG  study.    Yet,  WATERSHED  is  designed   to  be  much  more  flexible  than
PLUARG1s overview model.   While  the  overview model was  basically a  research
tool, WATERSHED is  designed as  a management  or  application  tool.  Appendix E
contains a synopsis of the WATERSHED process.
                                    82

-------
                                  REFERENCES
Allen  and  Defiance  Soil  and  Water  Conservation Districts  (ADSWCD)   (1980).
    "Maumee River  Basin  Water  Quality  Demonstration  Proposal -  Plan  of Work
    for Demonstrations and  Evaluations  in  Allen and Defiance Counties, Ohio,"
    Unpublished,  39 pp.

Andren, A.W.,  Doskey,  P.V.,  and J.W.  Strand  (1980).    "Menomonee River Pilot
    Watershed  Study  - Atmospheric  Chemistry of  PCBs  and PAHs,  Draft Final
    Report,  Vol.  9," Prepared  for  the  International  Joint   Commission's
    Pollution  from Land  Use Activities  Reference  Group  (PLUARG),  International
    Joint Commission, Windsor,  Ontario,  110 pp.

Baise, M. , Monteith,  T.J.,  and R.  A.  Sullivan  (1980).   "The  Environmental  and
    Economic Implications of Conservation Tillage Practices in the Great Lakes
    Basin," Great  Lakes  Environmental  Planning  Study (GLEPS) Contribution  No.
    20, Great Lakes Basin Commission,  Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Baumann,  J.,   Special  Studies  Section,  Bureau  of  Water  Quality,  Wisconsin
    Department  of Natural  Resources,   Madison,   Wisconsin  (1980).    Personal
    communication.

Chesters, G.,  Konrad, J.G., and  G.V.  Simsiman (1980).   "Menomonee River Pilot
    Watershed  Study  - Summary and Recommendations,  Draft Final  Report, Vol.
    1," Prepared  for  the International  Joint  Commission's Pollution from Land
    Use  Activities Reference   Group  (PLUARG),  International  Joint  Commission,
    Windsor, Ontario, 77  pp.

Dong,  A.,  Chesters,  G.,  and   G.V.  Simsiman  (1979).    "Menomonee River Pilot
    Watershed  Study  -  Dispersibility   of  Soils  and  Elemental   Composition  of
    Soils,  Sediments  and  Dust and Dirt  from  the  Menomonee  River  Watershed,
    Draft  Final  Report,  Vol.  6,"  Prepared  for  the  International Joint
    Commission's  Pollution  from  Land Use Activities Reference Group  (PLUARG),
    International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario,  55 pp.
                                    83

-------
Backer,  C.,  District  Conservationist,  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Soil
    Conservation Service,  Ann Arbor,  Michigan  (1980).  Personal communication.

East  Central  Michigan  Planning  and  Development  Region  (ECMPDR)  (1980).
    "Southeast  Saginaw Bay  Monitoring  and Evaluation Project -   East Central
    Michigan Planning  and Development  Region's  Work Plan  for  EPA Continuing
    Planning Monies,  October  1,   1980  -  September  30,  1981,"  East  Central
    Michigan Planning and  Development Region,  Saginaw, Michigan, 63 pp.

Environmental Control Technology Corporation (ECTP) (1980).  "Status Report of
    Work  in  Progress - Evaluation  of Urban  Stormwater  Runoff  and Management
    Practices for Controlling Urban  Stormwater Runoff,"   Environmental Control
    Technology, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  Unpublished.

Great  Lakes  Basin  Commission  (1976).   "Detergent Phosphorous  Ban Recommend-
    ation  As  Adopted,  November,  1976,"  Great   Lakes  Basin  Commission,  Ann
    Arbor, Michigan.
Great  Lakes  Basin  Commission  (1979).   "Water  Quality Recommendations  - As
    Adopted,  August, 1979," Great Lakes Basin  Commission, Ann  Arbor, Michigan.

Great  Lakes   Basin   Commission   (1980a).    "Summary  of Results,  Post-PLUARG
    Meeting  on Pollution  Abatement  Strategies  for  the  Great  Lakes,"  Great
    Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  Unpublished,  13  pp.

Great  Lakes  Basin Commission  (I980b) .  "Great Lakes Basin Plan, Water  Quality
    Plan  and  Final  Environmental  Impact  Statement,"  Great  Lakes  Basin
    Comnission, Ann  Arbor,  Michigan, 74 pp.

Great  Lakes  Basin  Commission  (1980c) .   "Great  Lakes Basin Plan,   Hazardous
    Materials  Strategy  and Final Environmental Impact  Statement," Great  Lakes
    Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,  Michigan,  83  pp.

-------
Hall,  J.R.,  Jarecki,  E.A.,  Monteith,  T.J.,  Skimin,  W.E.,  and W.C.  Sonzogni
    (1976).    "Existing River  Mouth Loading  Data  in  the  U.S.  Great Lakes
    Basin,"  Prepared for the  International  Joint  Commission's  Pollution  from
    Land  Use Activities Reference  Group  (PLUARG),   International  Joint
    Commission,  Windsor, Ontario, 713p.

Heidtke, T.M. (1978).   "Comparing  Costs  of Pollution  Control,"  Great Lakes
    Communicator 9:1, p.5.

Heidtke,  T.M.,   Sonzogni, W.C.,  and  T.J.  Monteith  (1979).    "Management
    Information  Base and  Overview Modeling:  Update of  Projected  Loadings to
    the Great Lakes."  Great Lakes Basin  Commission, Ann Arbor,  Michigan, 38p.

Heidtke,  T.M.,   Scheflow, D.J., and  W.C.  Sonzogni  (1980a).   "Detergent
    Phosphorus  Control:    Some  Great  Lakes  Perspectives,"  Great  Lakes
    Environmental  Planning Study  (GLEPS)  Contribution  No.  21,  Great Lakes
    Basin  Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  21  pp.

Heidtke, T.M., Scheflow,  D.J.,  and W.C.  Sonzogni  (1980b).  "Comparative Cost-
    Effectiveness   of  Land  Application  of  U.S.  Municipal  Wastewater:
    Implications  for Phosphorus Control in the Great Lakes Basin,"  Great Lakes
    Environmental  Planning  Study  (GLEPS)  Contribution   No.  19,  Great Lakes
    Basin  Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  34  pp.

Honey Creek  Joint Board of Supervisors  (1980).  "Honey Creek Watershed  Project
    -  Tillage Demonstration  Results 1979,"  Prepared  for  the Lake  Erie
    Wastewater  Management Study (LEWMS), U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers,
    Buffalo,  New York, 61 pp.

Illinois Environmental  Protection  Agency  (1978).    "Work Plan  and Budget  for
    Pilot  Project to Demonstrate Effectiveness  of  Street  Sweeping Program,"
    Illinois  Environmental   Protection  Agency,   Springfield,   Illinois,
    Unpublished.
                                  85

-------
International  Joint  Commission  (IJC)  (1976).   Great Lakes Water Quality  Board
    Appendix   B,  Surveillance  Subcommittee,  International  Joint   Commission,
    Windsor, Ontario.

International  Joint  Commission  (IJC)  (1980).   "Pollution  in  the  Great  Lakes
    Basin from Land Use  Activities,"  International Joint  Commission,  Windsor,
    Ontario, 141  pp.
International  Joint  Commission's Pollution from Land Use  Activities  Reference
    Group (PLUARG)  (1978).   "Environmental  Management  Strategy for  the  Great
    Lakes System," International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario,  173 pp.

Johnson, M.G., Comeau,  J.C.,  Heidtke,  T.M.,  Sonzogni, W.C.,  and B.W.  Stahlbaum
    (1978).    "Management  Information  Base and  Overview Modelling."   Prepared
    for  the International Joint Commission Pollution from Land Use  Activities
    Reference Group  (PLUARG), International  Joint  Commission,  Windsor,
    Ontario,  90p.

Joint  Water  Quality/Science  Advisory  Boards'  Task  Force  on  Phosphorus
    Management  Strategies  (PMSTF)  (1980) .    "Phosphorus  Management  for  the
    Great  Lakes,"   International  Joint   Commission,   Windsor,  Ontario,
    Unpublished, 123 pp.

Northeast  Ohio  Areawide Coordinating  Agency  (NOACA)   (1979).    "Lake  Erie
    Tributaries  Stormwater  Effects Evaluation -  A Proposal,"  Northeast Ohio
    Areawide Coordinating Agency,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  41 pp.

Southeast Michigan  Council  of  Governments (SEMCOG) (1978).  "Nationwide Urban
    Runoff  Program,  Determination  of  Effectiveness  of BMPs,"   Southeast
    Michigan Council of Governments,  Detroit, Michigan.

Sonzogni, W.C.,  Monteith, T.J.,  Bach, W.N.,  and V.G. Hughes  (1978).  "United
    States  Great Lakes  Tributary Loadings,"  Prepared   for  the International
    Joint  Commission's  Pollution  from Land Use  Activities   Reference  Group
    (PLUARG),  International  Joint  Commission, Windsor, Ontario,  187p.
                                    86

-------
Sullivan,  R.A.C.,  Sanders,  P.A.,   and  W.C.  Sonzogni  (1980).    "Post-PLUARG
    Evaluation of Great Lakes Water Quality Management  Studies  and  Programs,"
    Great Lakes  Basin  Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 162 pp.

U.S. Department  of the  Army,  Buffalo  District,  Corps  of Engineers  (1979).
    "Reconnaissance   Report  on   Lorain  Harbor,   Ohio,   for   Navigation
    Improvements,"  U.S. Department  of  the Army,  Buffalo,  District, Corps  of
    Engineers, Buffalo, New York, 85 pp.
                                   87

-------
                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Indiana State  Board  of Health (1980).   "Purdue  University  On-Site  Innovative
    and Alternative  Waste  Disposal  Project in Cooperation with  Indiana  State
    Board of Health," Unpublished, 9 pp.

McFadden, J.J.  (1980).   Stratford/Avon  River  Environmental  Management  Project
    Newsletter, Upper Thames  River Conservation Authority, London, Ontario,  3p.

McFadden, J.J. (1980).  Thames River Basin  & Implementation Program
    Newsletter, Upper Thames  River Conservation Authority, London, Ontario,  4p.

Northeastern  Illinois  Planning  Conmission  (1978).    Nationwide  Urban  Runoff
    Program Project Proposal, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
    Chicago, Illinois,  Unpublished.

Tri-County  Regional  Planning  Commission  (1979).    Nationwide  Urban  Runoff
    Program Project Proposal,  Tri-County  Regional  Planning  Commission,
    Lansing, Michigan,  Unpublished.

Tuscola County  Cooperative Extension  Service  (1980).   "Application  for  Great
    Lakes  National   Program  Office  (GLNPO)  Grant  to   Permit  Employment  of
    Agronomist to Aid  the  Huron-Tuscola  ACP Special Project," Unpublished,  4
    pp.

Wisconsin Department  of Natural  Resources  (1979).    Nationwide  Urban  Runoff
    Program Project Proposal, Wisconsin Department of Natural  Resources,
    Madison, Wisconsin,  Unpublished.
                                   88

-------
                                   APPENDIX A

                HONEY CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT TOUR
                                 JULY 16, 1980
         The Honey  Creek Watershed  Management  Project  to study  the  economic
and  water  quality  implications  of no-till  farming  is  in its second  year of
operation.   This  tour  of  several  demonstration plots  of  corn  grown  under
no-till  conditions  was  conducted to  provide  a  "hands  on"  experience  for  a
group  of Canadians  interested  in the  applicability of  no-till  for  Ontario
farmers.   An  earlier  tour  of  the  project  was  held  in  October,  1979   (see
Sullivan et al.,  1980).   Information made  available  since that  date  has  been
summarized below.

SOIL TYPE
         Soil drainage  is  a key  factor  in determining whether  or  not no-till
farming is  feasible.   The  Honey  Creek Watershed soils  fall  in the moderately
well  to  somewhat poorly drained  range.    Blount  silt  loam is  the  most common
soil  type.   In  many  areas, particularly  low-lying regions,  some  surface and
sub-surface  drainage  is  required  for  no-till  to be  successful.   However, it
was  emphasized  that  in  these  areas,  additional drainage  would be  needed to
practice conventional tillage as well.

NITROGEN FERTILIZER USE

         Conflicting  results exist  with  regard  to the  effect of  no-till on
nitrogen fertilizer use.   In several of the  Honey  Creek demonstra-tions plots
nitrogen fertilizer  use  increased.   However,  this was  due  to increased  soil
moisture content which created the potential for larger yields.

         The use  of  rye  as a  cover  crop may  increase  denitrification.   One
fanner whose corn  crop  exhibited  signs  of nitrogen  deficiency early in its
growth traced the  problem to a combination of  wet  soil  and  a rye  cover crop.
When  "burned off",  the rye utilized much  of  the available nitrogen  as it
decomposed.
                                    89

-------
NO-TILL PLANTERS

         No-till  farming  uses  a planter  which  performs several  operations in
one.   The  planter also  has  the  flexibility  to be  used  under conventional
tillage settings with very successful results.   The  no-till  planter is $200 to
$300 per  row more expensive than  a  conven-tional planter.   An Allis-Chalmers
six row no-till planter costs roughly $12,000.

         The most  important aspects of  a  planter are to provide consistent and
accurate  seed  depth  and  good  seed-soil   contact.    No-till   planters  have
improved  over  the  years with innovations  such  as  the  press wheel  which
performs the final operation of pressing  the  soil  down  over  the seed to ensure
good contact with  the soil.

         There is  an increasing demand  for  no-till planters  in the Honey Creek
watershed  and  availability is  still  a  problem.  One  farmer  cited  a waiting
period of  two  years  for  a John Deer  no-till  planter.   Technical assistance is
required to  familiarize  the  farmer with  calibrating  the  planter to the proper
seed depth.

INSECT CONTROL

         Both  the project  conservationist  and  a cooperative  extension agent
stated  that  increased  insecticide  use  was  not  of  necessity  with  no-till.
Keeping chemical  use to  a minimum requires  that  the  farmer  be  provided with
technical  assistance.   An example of  this is  a cooperative extension service
program providing weekly inspections  for insects  at  a nominal  fee.    It  was
repeatedly  emphasized  that  a high level  of management is the key to ensuring
the most efficient and effective use of insecticide.

WATER QUALITY

         Part  of  the tour  consisted  of  a  visit  to  the  River  Studies  Lab of
Heidelberg  College under the  direction of Dr.  David Baker.   Dr.  Baker noted
that no-till has  the potential  to  reduce  phosphorus loadings to  streams.   This
                                    90

-------
is accomplished  through a  reduction  in  soil  erosion  and  increased rainfall
infiltration which allows  phosphorus to be adsorbed in  lower parts of the  soil
profile.

         The  issue  of  the  delivery  ratio of  sediment  to  streams  is being
studied.    Results  so  far  indicate a range  from  6% to  12% depending upon  soil
type.  No correlation between watershed size and delivery ratio has  been  found
thus far.

         Studies  are   just  beginning  to  determine  the  level  of herbicide
present  in water bodies.  Atrazine  is  being examined,  with higher levels  being
detected  then expected.    However,  these  results  are  tentative  and  no
explanation has been attempted as yet.

NO-TILL APPLICABILITY IN NORTHERN REGIONS

         It was emphasized  to the Canadian visitors  that  the  climatic  and soil
conditions present  in  Ontario might make no-till  farming unfeasible.   Similar
conditions exist  in the northern portion of the U.S.  Great  Lakes basin.   The
positive  effects  of a  layer of  mulch on the  soil  surface  increases  further
south  by keeping  the  soil moister  and  cooler  in  the spring.   In  northern
areas,  less  extreme methods of  residue management,   ie.,  other conservation
tillage  practices,  would be more applicable to  meeting the goals  of  reducing
soil erosion,  improving water quality and reducing fanner expenses.
                                    91

-------
                                   APPENDIX B
                       GLBC "208" BIBLIOGRAPHY RETRIEVAL
         The  following  is a  sample of  a  retrieval made  from the  GLBC  "208"
Bibliography  discussed  in Chapter 2.   The key words  chosen  for  this  example
were nonpoint source "problems" (key word  #210) ,  "remedial measures" (key word
#220),  and  "costs"  (key  word  #260).    The  format  selected  for this  sample
retrieval included specification of the  208 agency  acronym,  state of location,
applicable lake basin(s) and the title and date of the report.
                     208 RETRIEVAL FOR NONPOINT SOURCES:
                       PROBLEMS,  REMEDIAL MEASURES, COSTS
    STATE:  Minnesota
    LAKE(S): Superior
    208 AGENCY:  MPCA

       Forestry. Package 1.  August,  1979.


    STATE:  Minnesota
    LAKE(S): Superior
    208 AGENCY:  MPCA

       Construction Activities.  Package 1.  August,  1978.
    STATE:  Minnesota
    LAKE(S):  Superior
    208 agency:  MPCA

       Highway De-icing Chemicals.  Package 1,  Supplement.  June,  1978.
                                    92

-------
STATE: Minnesota
LAKE(S): Superior
208 AGENCY: MPCA

   Highway De-icing Chemicals. Package 2. May, 1978.
STATE: Minnesota
LAKE(S): Superior
208 AGENCY: MPCA

   Urban Runoff. Package 1. May, 1978,
STATE: Minnesota
LAKE(S): Superior
208 AGENCY: MPCA

   Urban Runoff. Package 2, Supplement to: Descriptions of Existing
     Institutions and Programs Related to Water Quality Management
     Planning Study Topics. November, 1978.
STATE: Minnesota
LAKE(S): Superior
208 AGENCY:  MPCA

   Roadside  Erosion. Package 2,  Supplement to:  Description of Existing
     Institutions and Programs Related to Water Quality Management
     Planning Study Topics.  January,  1979.
                                93

-------
 STATE:  Wisconsin
 LAKE(S):  Michigan
 208 AGENCY: WDNR

   Upper  Fox River  Basin Water  Quality  Management  Plan.   Appendix  D:
      Nonpoint  Source  Information.   1977.
STATE: Wisconsin
LAKE(S): Michigan
208 AGENCY: FVWQPA

   Report No. 5:  Instream Alteration Study.  October,  1977.
STATE: Illinois
LAKE(S): Michigan
208 AGENCY: NIPC

   Areawide Water Quality Management Plan Part I Chapters 1-10.  June,
     1978.
STATE: Illinois
LAKE(S):  Michigan
208 AGENCY:  NIPC

   Areawide  Water Quality Management Plan, Summary.  (Adopted by
     Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, January 4, 1979).
     March,  1979.
                                94

-------
STATE: Indiana
LAKE(S):  Michigan
208 AGENCY: MACOG

   Plate Book.  1978.
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron
208 AGENCY: ECMPDR

   Development of Management Alternatives:  Control of Pollution from
      Individual Waste Treatment Systems (Preliminary Draft).  July,
      1977.
STATE: Michigan
LAKE (S): Huron
208 AGENCY: ECMPDR

   Nonpoint Source Inventory.  Region VII Areawide Waste Treatment
     Management Study (Preliminary Draft).  1977.
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron
208 AGENCY: ECMPDR

   Water Quality Relationships.  Vol. IA, IB, II (Preliminary Draft).
     Region VII Areawide Waste Treatment Management Study.  February,
     1978.
                                95

-------
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron
208 AGENCY: ECMPDR

   Alternative Structural and Non-Structural Tactics (Preliminary
     Draft).  Region VII Areawide Waste Treatment Management Study.
     September, 1977.
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron
208 AGENCY: ECMPDR

   Alternative Structural and Non-Structural Plans and Their
      Consequences (Preliminary Draft).  Region VII Areawide Waste
      Treatment Management Study.  March,  1978.
 STATE: Michigan
 LAKE(S): Huron
 208 AGENCY: ECMPDR

   Selected 208  Plan  and  Plan  Management  Program  (Preliminary Draft).
      Region VII  Areawide  Waste Treatment  Management  Study.   June,  1978.
 STATE:  Michigan
 LAKE(S):  Huron Erie
 208  AGENCY:  GLS-V

    Urban  Nonpoint Source Pollution in GLS  Region V - A .Background
      Report (First Draft).  February, 1978.
                                 96

-------
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron Erie
208 AGENCY: GLS-V

   208 Areawide Water Quality Plan.  Volume I - Plan Summary (Draft)
     May, 1978 (Revised, August, 1978).
STATE: Michigan
IAKE(S): Huron Erie
208 AGENCY: GLS-V

   Urban Nonpoint  Source Pollution  in GLS  Region  V  - A  Background
      Report  (Draft).  April,  1978.
 STATE:  Michigan
 LAKE(S):  Huron Erie
 208 AGENCY:  GLS-V

   Agricultural  Nonpoint  Source Pollution in GLS Region V - A
      Background  Report (Draft).  April,  1978.
 STATE:  Michigan
 LAKE(S): Huron Erie
 208 AGENCY: GLS-V

    The Impact of Unsewered Development on Water Quality in Region V
      (Draft).  May, 1978.
 STATE: Michigan
 LAKE(S): Huron Erie
 208 AGENCY: GLS-V

    Minor Sources of Pollution  in GLS Region V:  Chloride Application,
      Construction, Mining and  Roadside Erosion - A Background  Paper.
      April, 1978.
                                 97

-------
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron Erie
208 AGENCY: GLS-V

   Residual Wastes and Water Quality in Region V - A Background Report
     April, 1978.
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron Erie
208 AGENCY: GLS-V

   Solid Waste.  April, 1978
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron
208 AGENCY: NEMCOG

   Appendices 1-9:  Working Papers of the Clean Water Program.  1978.
STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Huron
208 AGENCY: NEMCOG

   Draft Working Papers of the Clean Water Program.  1978.


STATE: Michigan
LAKE(S): Michigan Huron
208 AGENCY: NMRPDC

   Water Quality Assessment.  January, 1978.
                                98

-------
  STATE: Michigan
  LAKE(S): Michigan Huron
  208 AGENCY: NMRPDC

   Working Papers.
 STATE: Michigan
 LAKE(S): Michigan Erie
 208 AGENCY: Reg II

    Selected 208 Plan.  December, 1977 (Revised, April, 1978),
 STATE:  Michigan
 LAKE(S):  Michigan Erie
 208  AGENCY:  Reg II

   Nonpoint  Source Inventory (Draft).   March,  1977,
STATE:  Illinois
LAKE(S): Michigan
208 AGENCY: NIPC
   Suggested On-Site Stormwater Detention Ordinance - Draft. September
     1979
STATE: New York
LAKE(S):  Ontario
208 AGENCY: NYSDEC

   Kashong Creek Watershed.  Example Area Study.  March 1978.
                               99

-------
STATE: New York
LAKE(S): Erie Ontario
208 AGENCY: NYSDEC

   Water Quality Management Planning. Appendix B-l.  Rural Nonpoint
     Sources Statewide. October 1976.
STATE: New York
LAKE(S): Ontario Erie
208 AGENCY: NYSDEC

   New York State Non-Designated 208 Urban Runoff Study. First Interim
     Report. Synopsis.
STATE: New York
LAKE(S): Ontario
208 AGENCY: CNYRPDB

   Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. Interim Report. November 1976,
STATE: New York
LAKE(S): Erie Ontario
208 AGENCY: ENCRPB

   Rural Nonpoint Runoff Problems/Analysis. Task 10. Final. January,
      1979.
STATE:  New York
LAKE(S): Erie Ontario
208 AGENCY: ENCRPB

   Urban Storm Runoff Problems/Analysis. Task  9.  Final.  January,  1979.
                                100

-------
 STATE: Wisconsin
 LAKE(S): Michigan
 208 AGENCY: SEWRPC
   Technical Report #21: Sources of Pollution  in Southeastern
     Wisconsin: 1975. September, 1978.
STATE: Wisconsin
LAKE(S): Michigan
208 AGENCY: SEWRPC

   Vol. 4: Rural Stormwater Runoff. December, 1976,
STATE: Wisconsin
LAKE(S): Michigan
208 AGENCY: SEWRPC

   Vol. 3: Urban Stormwater Runoff. July, 1977.


STATE: Wisconsin
LAKE(S): Superior
208 AGENCY: WDNR

   Appendix C: Communities with Septic Tank Problems.
STATE: Ohio
LAKE(S): Erie
208 AGENCY: TMACOG

   208 Report #17:  Technical Alternatives for On-Site Wastewater
     Treatment and  Disposal. September, 1976.
                              101

-------
STATE: Ohio
LAKE(S): Erie
208 AGENCY: TMACOG

   208 Report #13: Legal Authority for Agricultural Pollution Abatement
     Programs in Ohio. January, 1976.
STATE: Ohio
                        \
LAKE(S): Erie
208 AGENCY: TMACOG

   Proceedings of Workshop on Agricultural Practices for the Abatement
     of Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. June, 1976. Final Draft of
     Institutional Arrangements for Agricultural Pollution Abatement.
STATE: Ohio
LAKE(S): Erie
208 AGENCY: NOACA

   Agricultural  and Urban Sediment Pollution Abatement  in Northeastern
     Ohio. 1977.
 STATE: Ohio
 LAKE(S): Erie
 208 AGENCY:  NOACA

   Road  Salt:  Profile  of  Environmental  and Property  Impacts. May  1978.
                                102

-------
STATE: Ohio
LAKE(S): Erie
208 AGENCY: NOACA

   Urban Stormwater Runoff
STATE: Ohio
LAKE(S): Erie
208 AGENCY: NOACA

   Control  of Nonpoint  Source Pollution  from Rural  Lands  Through  the
      Use of Best Management  Practices.
 STATE:  Ohio
 LAKE(S):  Erie
 208 AGENCY: EDATA

    208  Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan for Mahoning and
      Trumbull Counties.  Final,  July,  1977. Volune III:  Stormwater
      Pollution Control.
 STATE: New York
 LAKE(S): Erie Ontario
 208 AGENCY: ENCRPB

    Pollutant Accumulation and Sedimentation Problems/Analysis. Task 15
      Final. January, 1979.
                                 103

-------
                                   APPENDIX  C
                         1976 -  1978 RIVER MOUTH LOADINGS
         The  following  are the results of  the  loadings calculations described
m  Chapter  3.   Information  given  is  for  water  years  1976,  1977  and  1978
Information is  presented  by tributary and  the  associated lake basin and  river
group (as explained  in  Chapter 3).    The  load  is presented  in  metric tons per
year (mt/yr)  followed by the mean  square error (in mt/yr)  squared.   Finally
the number of sampies utilized to calculate the load is specified
                                 104

-------
       TRIBUTARY
         NAME

 1       PINE
 2       BELLE
 3       CLINTON
 4       RAISIN
 5       MAUMEE
 6       PORTAGE
 7       SANDUSKY
 8       HURON OHIO
 9       VERMILION
10       BLACK
11       CUYAHOGA
12       CHAGRIN
13       GRAND OH
14       ASHTABULA
15       CONNEAUT
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 1976
LAKE  RIVER       LOAD
BASIN GROUP       MT\YR
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
                    76.5
                    33*2
                   156.2
                   269.2
                  2960.0
                    86.5
                   362,0
                    92.1
                    22.2
                    34.5
                   416.5
                    43.6
                   209.8
                    17.7
                    31.5
 MEAN SQUARE
ERR(MT\YR)**2

       1819.7
         76.8
        405.3
      13049.2
MUM OF
SAMPLES

 12
 12
 12
 12
              NA
0.2
9.9
3244.6
13.5
19334.8
3.9
0,2
10
10
13
11
12
12
11
              105

-------
              SOLUBLE ORTHO PHOSPHORUS 1976
      TRIBUTARY
        NAME

1      PINE
2      BELLE
3      RAISIN
4      MAUMEE
5      PORTAGE
6      HURON OHIO
7      VERMILION
8      SANBUSKY
9      GRAND OH
LAKE  RIVER
BASIN GROUP
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
LOAD
MTXYR

  32.6
  14.2
  85.6
 598.0
  30.5
  33.4
   5.3
  68.6
  80.2
 MEAN SQUARE
ERR
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1976



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|;>
°>
>
"*;,
>
>
4
*


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16


TRIBUTARY
NAME
PINE
BELLE
CLINTON
RAISIN
MAUMEE
PORTAGE
SANDUSKY
HURON
VERMILION
BLACK
ROCKY
CUYAHOGA
CHAGRIN
GRAND OH
ASHTABULA
CONNEAUT


LAKE
BASIN
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE


RIVER
GROUP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3


LOAD
MT\YR
29566.5
16281.2
383316.7
148098.3
1740000.0
27100.0
182000.0
55800.0
14533.2
10702.8
32081,0
133805.3
379774.0
24393.8
2565.1
24336.2


                        MEAN SQUARE
                       ERR**2

                         265076544.0
                          52774256.0
                       30985809920.0
                       11191005184.0
                          92366512.0
                           3326045.0
                                 0.0
                        1038481408.0
                                 0.0
                         168137008.0
                           1234701.0
                           9366670.0
NUM OF
SAMPLES

 12
 12
 11
 12
                                     MA
 11
  9
265
 12
160
 11
  9
  8
      107

-------
CHLORIDE 1976
       TRIBUTARY
         NAME

 I      PINE
 2      BELLE
 3      CLINTON
 4      RAISIN
 5      MAUMEE
 6      PORTAGE
 7      SANDUSKY
 8      HURON OHIO
 9      VERMILION
10      BLACK
11      CUYAHOGA
12      CHAGRIN
13      GRAND OH
14      ASHTABULA
15      CONNEAUT
LAKE  RIVER-
BASIN GROUP-
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
  LOAD
  MT\YR

 16198.5
  4997.1
 44549.0
 20536.7
161000.0
  1900.0
 25800,0
  9230.0
 10149.2
 10767.5
132638.9
 20944.2
596050.4
  6055.5
 83962.9
                      MEAN SQUARE
                     ERR(MT\YR)**2

                        72281776.0
                        10847020.0
                        42210448.0
                         8652080.0
                        10282868.0
                         1349467.0
                       427491328.0
                         1867937.0
                    110720778240.0
                         3683983.0
                      8327942144,0
NUM OF
SAMPLES

 12
 12
 12
 12
                                   NA
 11
 10
 13
 11
 12
 12
 10
     108

-------
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 1977
>
[>
>
>
**
>
;.

•'
>
•:•
•>
>
:•
>
>
>
>
;.
>
>
;.
^
--
f
f
.-
.-
:•
.-
;.
.-
:•
!•
;.
>
.-.
.-
.s
>
>
.-
.-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
TRIBUTARY
NAME
ST LOUIS
BOIS BRULE
NEMADJI
BAD
MONTREAL
TAHQUAMENON
LAKE
BASIN
SUPE
SUPE
SUPE
SUPE
SUPE
SUPE
PRESQUE ISLESUPE
STURGEON
CARP
ONTONAGAN
FORD
OCONTO
SHEBOYGAN
PESHTIGO
FOX
PENSAUKEE
MANITOUQC
KEUAUNEE
E TWIN
ROOT
MENOMINEE
MILWAUKEE
ST JOSEPH
KALAMAZOO
GRAND
MUSKEGON
MANISTEE
BOARDMAN
*MANISTIGUE
WHITEFISH
ESCANABA
THUNDER BAY
RIFLE
AU ORES
CHEBOYGAN
AU SABLE
PINE
SAGINAW
BELLE
BLACK
CLINTON
HURON
RAISON
ROUGE
MAUMEE
SUPE
SUPE
SUPE
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
MICH
HURO
HURO
HURO
HURO
HURO
HURO
HURO
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
RI<
GRI
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
4
A
A
A
A
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
               LOAD
               MTXYR

                 70,3
                  9.5
                 37.2
                 52.9
                 34.9
                 21.2
                  5.9
                 37,3
                 21.1
                141.1
                  7.5
                 45.6
                 33.4
                 20.8
                356.0
                  l.S
                 18.4
                  4.7
                 18.0
                 17.6
                 50.6
                 38.4
                305.1
                173.8
                513.3
                 38.4
                 50.4
                  4.0
                 39.5
                  4.4
                 33.0
                 10.8
                 13.2
                  1.9
                 18.0
                 14.5
                 84.9
                510.6
                  5.9
                 31.6
                120.0
                 29.7
                161.0
                203.0
               1700.0
GUARE
YR)**2
44.0
8.7
80.4
308.2
23.0
10.2
1.6
318.0
20.4
2667.5
2.0
196.8
7.4
3.0
1708,0
0.0
8.6
0.1
1.0
14.0
79.6
31.2
716.2
136.6
1094,2
18.9
30.8
0,4
12.8
1.2
24,9
1.1
16.9
0.1
9.2
4.4
1779.1
2282.4
NUM OF
SAMPLES
13
9
23
23
12
24
12
12
8
24
24
11
11
11
25
11
11
10
11
10
12
12
12
24
242
24
24
12
24
12
24
12-
24
12
24
12
12
36
        109

-------
                           TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 1977
            TRIBUTARY
              NAME

     46      PORTAGE
>    47      HURON
>    48      SANDUSKY
>    49      VERMILLION
>    50      BLACK
>    51      ROCKY
>    52      CUYUHGA
>    53      CHAGRIN
>    54      GRAND
>    55      ASHTABULA
>    56      CONNEAUT
>    57      CATTARAGUS
>    58      18 MILE
>    59      GENESEE
>    60      OSUEGO
>    61      BLACK NY
>    62      RAQUETTE
•>    63      GRASS
>    64      OSWEGATCHIE
LAKE  RIVER
BASIN GROUP
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
LOAD
MT\YR

 109.0
 111.0
 244.0
  70.0
 170.0
 127.0
 357.0
  81,3
  88.1
  16.7
  23.9
 252.0
 133.0
 298.9
 799.4
 146.0
  91.1
  78.1
  69.0
                     MEAN SQUARE
                    ERR
-------
           SOLUBLE ORTHO PHOSPHORUS 1977
TRIBUTARY
  NAME
LAKE  RIVER-
BASIN GROUP
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
 ST LOUIS    SUPE
 BOIS BRULE  SUPE
 NEMADJI     SUPE
 BAD         SUPE
 MONTREAL WISSUPE
 TAHQUAMENON SUPE
 ONTONAGAN   SUPE
 PRESQUE ISLESUPE
 STURGEON    SUPE
 CARP        SUPE
 OCONTO      MICH
 PESHTIGO    MICH
 FOX         MICH
 PENSAUKEE   MICH
 MANITOWOC   MICH
 KEWAUNEE    MICH
 E TWIN      MICH
 SHEBOYGAN   MICH
 ROOT        MICH
 MENOMINEE   MICH
 ST JOSEPH   MICH
 KALAMAZOO   MICH
 GRAND       MICH
 MUSKEGON    MICH
 MANISTEE    MICH
 BOARDMAN    MICH
 *MANISTIQUE MICH
 WHITEFISH   MICH
 ESCANABA    MICH
 FORD        MICH
 THUNDER BAY HURO
 RIFLE       HURO
 AU ORES     HURO
 CHEBOYGAN   HURO
 AU SABLE
 PINE
 SAGINAU
 BELLE
 BLACK
 CLINTON
 HURON
 RAISON
 ROUGE
 MAUMEE
 PORTAGE
HURO
HURO
HURO
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
1
1
1
1
1
2
*.
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
o
LOAD
MT\YR

  17.2
   3.3
   3.5
  15.9
   4.2
   2.6
  17.1
   0.8
   2.5
  13.5
  10.0
   5.0
  69,6
   0.5
   7.2
  10,7
   8.0
  13.5
   6.7
   6,6
  61.0
  72.0
 268.5
   6.5
  16.2
   1.2
   7.2
   0.7
  16.2
   1.2
   2.1
   2.0
   0,6
   2.0
   4.5
   7.1
 292.4
   2.7
   9.8
  59,7
   9,6
  77.5
  82.2
 348.0
  38.1
aUARE
YR>**2
136.6
0.2
0.5
213.8
0.9
0.9
5.8
0.0
0.2
17.7
83.5
4.3
227.2
0.0
13.4
19.5
0.6
18.8
14.7
0.8
382.4
39.0
108.5
1.9
9,5
0.1
3.2
0.0
36.3
1.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.2
2589.3
NUM OF
SAMPLES
4
9
10
10
9
12
12
12
12
8
11
11
12
11
11
10
11
11
10
12
12
12
243
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
24
                                          NA
                        111

-------
                       SOLUBLE ORTHO PHOSPHORUS 1977
            TRIBUTARY
              NAME

     46      HURON
>    47      SANDUSKY
>    48      VERMILLION
>    49      BLACK
>    50      ROCKY
>    51      CUYUHGA
:>    52      CHAGRIN
>    53      GRAND
>    54      ASHTABULA
>    55      CONNEAUT
>    56      CATTARAGUS
>    57      18 MILE
>    58      GENESEE
>    59      OSUEGO
>    60      BLACK NY
>    61      RAQUETTE
>    62      GRASS
>    63      OSUEGATCHIE
LAKE  RIVER-
BASIN GROUP
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
LOAD
MT\YR

  24*9
  59,8
  19*9
  69,4
  52,7
 152,0
  21,2
  22,9
   0.7
   0,7
   3,8
   2.9
  90.9
 428,5
  26,6
  13,5
  28.6
  14.8
                     MEAN SQUARE
                    ERR(MT\YR>**2
           NUM OF
           SAMPLES
   237,8
114769.9
    78.1
    35.4
     6.7
    17.5
 9
10
 8
 7
 7
 8
                                    112

-------
CHLORIDE 1977
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
TRIBUTARY LAKE
NAME BASIN
ST LOUIS SUPE
BOIS BRULE SUPE
NEMADJI SUPE
BAD SUPE
MONTREAL SUPE
TAHQUAMENON SUPE
PRESQUE ISLESUPE
STURGEON SUPE
CARP SUPE
ONTONAGAN SUPE
FORD MICH
OCONTO MICH
FOX MICH
PESHTIGO MICH
MANITOWOC MICH
PENSAUKEE MICH
SHEBOYGAN MICH
KEWAUNEE MICH
E TWIN MICH
MENOMINEE MICH
ROOT MICH
MILWAUKEE MICH
ST JOSEPH MICH
KALAMAZOO MICH
GRAND MICH
MUSKEGON MICH
MANISTEE MICH
BOARDMAN MICH
*MANISTIQUE MICH
WHITEFISH MICH
ESCANABA MICH
THUNDER BAY HURO
RIFLE HURO
AU ORES HURO
CHEBOYGAN HURO
AU SABLE HURO
PINE HURO
SAGINAW HURO
BELLE ERIE
BLACK ERIE
CLINTON ERIE
HURON ERIE
RAISON ERIE
ROUGE ERIE
MAUMEE ERIE
RIV
GRC
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
 LOAD
 MT\YR

 15616.9
   159.6
   809.5
 1993.5
 5659,4
 2037.5
   411.4
 1054.5
   922.2
 2435,1
   552,4
 4759.6
 36054,1
 2487.1
 1265,7
   407.8
 3402.8
   662.1
 1649,1
 5254.4
 3826,1
 10543.2
 68252.9
 48568.1
 95561.2
 35364.2
 74895.2
  1698.0
 2983.9
   916.8
 6994.9
 3107.2
 3788,5
 2465.1
 5197.5
 6900,1
   509,7
156433.6
 2900.0
  5620.0
 56100.0
 22700.0
 18300.0
 73700,0
123000.0
EAN SQUARE
f?**2
4291579.0
1824.1
7919,3
30237.8
8128852.0
163365.9
9134.4
12579.4
36570.5
72546.3
777.2
7016444.0
4278481.0
1083910.0
242.8
1391.9
31126.2
156.9
664.1
51383.3
10035518.0
3275017,0
17673472.0
4080633.0
5913592.0
1124774.0
20602976.0
3850.0
9303.8
4966.8
3233628.0
13758,1
27410.9
124232.8
24485.3
32722.9
53371.8
326451456.0
NUM OF
SAMPLES
15
4
17
17
12
24
12
12
8
24
24
2
23
3
3
3
11
4
3
12
13
12
12
24
242
24
24
12
24
12
24
12
23
12
24
12
12
36
                                        NA
          113

-------
                             CHLORIDE 1977
>     1     TRIBUTARY
>     2       NAME

             COMMAND
     46      PORTAGE
>    47      HURON
>    48      SANDUSKY
>    49      VERMILLION
>    50      BLACK
>    51      ROCKY
>    52      CUYUHGA
>    53      CHAGRIN
>    54      GRAND
>    55      ASHTABULA
>    56      CONNEAUT
>    57      CATTARAGUS
>    58      18 MILE
>    59      GENESEE
>    60      OSUEGO
>    61      BLACK NY
>    62      RAQUETTE
>    63      GRASS
>    64      OSWEGATCHIE
LAKE  RIVER
BASIN GROUP
ERIE   2
ERIE   2
ERIE   2
ERIE   2
ERIE   3
ERIE   3
ERIE   3
ERIE   3
ERIE   3
ERIE   3
ERIE   4
ERIE   4
ERIE   4
ONTA   1
ONTA   2
ONTA   3
ONTA   3
ONTA   3
ONTA   3
LOAD
MT\YR
                 13200.0

                 29400.0
                  5400.0
                 12100.0
                 10800.0
                 71000.0
                 15900.0
                 17580.0
                  3050.0
                  4720.0
                  8100.0
                  2900.0
                141060.0
                965441.2
                 10050.5
                  3106.1
                  4131.3
                  5738.6
 MEAN SQUARE
ERR(MT\YR)**2
                                           NUM OF
                                           SAMPLES
                       NA
           245217968.0
          8674615296.0
              378230.4
               40695.0
              266603.0
              218398.8
                 17
                 23
                 21
                  8
                  8
                  8
                                   114

-------
                          SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1977
..=•
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
TRIBUTARY LAKE
NAME BASIN
ST LOUIS SUPE
BOIS BRULE SUPE
BAD SUPE
NEMADJI SUPE
MONTREAL SUPE
TAHQUAMENON SUPE
PRESQUE ISLESUPE
STURGEON SUPE
CARP SUPE
ONTONAGAN SUPE
FORD MICH
OCONTO MICH
PESHTIGO MICH
FOX MICH
PENSAUKEE MICH
MANITOWOC MICH
KEWAUNEE MICH
E TWIN MICH
SHEBOYGAN MICH
MENOMINEE MICH
ROOT MICH
MILWAUKEE MICH
ST JOSEPH MICH
KALAMAZOO MICH
GRAND MICH
MUSKEGON MICH
MANISTEE MICH
BOARDMAN MICH
*MANISTIQUE MICH
WHITEFISH MICH
ESCANABA MICH
THUNDER BAY HURO
RIFLE HURO
AU ORES HURO
CHEBOYGAN HURO
AU SABLE HURO
PINE HURO
SAGINAW HURO
BELLE ERIE
BLACK ERIE
CLINTON ERIE
HURON ERIE
RAISON ERIE
ROUGE ERIE
MAUMEE ERIE
RIVER
GROUP
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
LOAD
MT\YR
9089.7
2063,6
42851.0
62033.4
1185.1
20875.6
1079.9
40503.2
483.8
217354.5
2313.1
7690.8
3506,9
46105.8
214.7
1464.9
544.3
1943.6
4334.8
7275.4
4762.2
7764.4
68767,9
23008,2
47046.9
15583.7
12903.0
483.3
10855.1
2131.6
3382.1
2548.7
5807.2
1168.1
4331.3
2735.2
114697.8
64408.5
1040.0
9290.0
29900.0
6460.0
42200.0
57700.0
803000.0
 MEAN SQUARE
ERR(MT\YR>**2

    1948354.0
      83040.6
  835567872.0
          1.0
      89920.0
   72768160.0
     212137.1
  672361472.0
      36500.6
 6751281152.0
     202748,8
   11942845,0
    1544790.0
   50877792.0
       6347.7
      24563,6
      15974,4
      21974.4
    1090685.0
    1492029.0
    9028218.0
   25814880.0
  181685968.0
    6343270.0
    8685259.0
   29611104.0
    2009144.0
       9383.2
    7513681.0
     404750,7
     185289.4
     295204.1
    1185211.0
      63280,9
     770389.8
     259207.5
 3859277312.0
  149306144.0
NUM OF
SAMPLES

 12
 11
 24
365
 12
 24
 12
 12
  8
 24
 24
 11
 11
 25
 11
 11
 10
 11
 11
 12
 12
 12
 12
 24
242
 24
 24
 12
 24
 12
 24
 12
 24
 12
 23
 12
 12
 36
                                    115

-------
                     SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1977
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
TRIBUTARY
NAME
PORTAGE
HURON
SANDUSKY
VERMILLION
BLACK
ROCKY
CUYUHGA
CHAGRIN
GRAND
ASHTABULA
CONNEAUT
CATTARAGUS
18 MILE
GENESEE
OSWEGO
BLACK NY
RAQUETTE
GRASS
OSUEGATCHIE
LAKE
BASIN
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERIE
ERE I
ERIE
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
ONTA
RIVER
GROUP
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
LOAD
MTNYR
37700.0
67400,0
101000.0
54600.0
115000,0
53700.0
117000.0
97500.0
69300.0
13500.0
23700.0
459500.0
190000.0
1048073.0
85778.8
24756.8
4693.8
3853.2
11446.0
                                                MEAN SQUARE
                                               ERR
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 1978
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
TRIBUTARY LAKE
NAME BASIN
ST LOUIS SUPE
NEMADJI SUPE
BOIS BRULE SUPE
MONTREAL SUPE
BAD SUPE
PRESQUE ISLESUPE
STURGEON SUPE
TAHQUAMENON SUPE
ONTONAGON SUPE
FORD MICH
MENOMINEE MICH
PESHTIGO MICH
PENSAUKEE MICH
OCONTO MICH
KEWAUNEE MICH
E. TWIN MICH
MANITOWOC MICH
SHEBOYGAN MICH
ROOT MICH
FOX MICH
MILWAUKEE MICH
ST JOSEPH MICH
KALAMAZOO MICH
GRAND MICH
MUSKEGON MICH
BOARDMAN MICH
WHITEFISH MICH
MANISITEE MICH
*MANISTIQUE MICH
ESCANABA MICH
THUNDER BAY HURO
AU ORES HURO
AU SABLE HURO
PINE HURO
RIFLE HURO
CHEBOYGAN HURO
SAGINAW HURO
GENESEE ONTA
OSWEGO ONTA
BLACK NY ONTA
OSWEGATCHIE ONTA
GRASS ONTA
RAQUETTE ONTA
RIV
GRC
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
                       LOAD
                       MT\YR

                        307.2
                         86.8
                          9.8
                         13.7
                         54.9
                          6.4
                         29.4
                         24,5
                        119.0
                         10.6
                        102.6
                         27.2
                          5.3
                         42.0
                         22.1
                         12.9
                         86.0
                         93.0
                         50.3
                        779,9
                         97.4
                        296,2
                        200.0
                        478.9
                         33.7
                          3.4
                          6.4
                         60.5
                         52.5
                         38.3
                         10.8
                          7.1
                         22,4
                         72,0
                         15.8
                         30.5
                        602.3
                        400.0
                        752.3
                        192.3
                         99.7
                         88.9
                        109.5
                                                MEAN  SQUARE
                                               ERR(MT\YR)**2
HUM OF
SAMPLES
9983.4
274,0
19,5
2.5
49.1
0.2
71.1
8,4
1060,5
2,4
216.9
8.0
0.4
46,2
55.2
1.5
685.9
576.3
251.6
5948.4
99.0
1504.2
150.6
2891.8
43.0
0.1
2.6
81,4
26,0
49.8
1.3
1.3
3.6
1689.5
12.0
163.2
7070.2
1414.1
7629.6
2458.6
311.7
643.2
155,8
8
24
7
12
12
11
11
24
23
24
12
4
12
14
27
12
12
12
12
24
12
12
24
22
24
12
12
24
24
24
12
12
12
12
23
23
35
17
20
16
6
4
6
                117

-------
           SOLUBLE ORTHO PHOSPHORUS 1978
       TRIBUTARY
         NAME
LAKE  RIVER
BASIN GROUP
 1      BOIS BRULE  SUPE   1
 2      NEMADJI     SUPE   1
 3      MONTREAL    SUPE   1
 4      BAD         SUPE   1
 5      TAHGUAMENON SUPE   2
 6      PRESGUE ISLESUPE   2
 7      STURGEON    SUPE   2
 8      ONTONAGAN   SUPE   2
 9      FORD        MICH   1
10      MENOMINEE   MICH   1
11      PESHTIGO    MICH   1
12      PENSAUKEE   MICH   1
13      OCONTO      MICH   1
14      KEWAUNEE    MICH   1
15      E. TWIN     MICH   1
16      MANITOWOC   MICH   1
17      SHEBOYGAN   MICH   1
18      ROOT        MICH   2
19      FOX         MICH   1
20      ST JOSEPH   MICH   3
21      KALAMAZOO   MICH   3
22      GRAND       MICH   3
23      MANISTEE    MICH   4
24      MUSKEGON    MICH   4
25      BOARDMAN    MICH   4
26      *MANISTIGUE MICH   4
27      WHITEFISH   MICH   4
28      ESCANABA    MICH   4
29      THUNDER BAY HURO   1
30      RIFLE       HURO   1
31      AU ORES     HURO   1
32      AU SABLE    HURO   1
33      PINE        HURO   1
34      CHEBOYGAN   HURO   1
35      SAGINAW     HURO   2
36      GENESEE     ONTA   1
37      OSWEGO      ONTA   2
38      BLACK NY    ONTA   3
39      OSWEGATCHIE ONTA   3
40      GRASS       ONTA   3
41      RAQUETTE    ONTA   3
LOAD
MTXYR

   3,5
   5,4
   6,2
  10,6
   4,7
   0,6
   6,2
  16,4
   0,5
  18,9
  31,6
   2.9
   3,1
  11,6
   5,4
  41,3
  44,0
  29,4
 189.1
  48,7
  66.9
 232.9
  12.2
  11.4
   1,5
  11,0
   0.4
  16.0
   1.8
   2.8
   2.0
   3.8
  12.3
   2.7
 240.0
 118.7
 243.7
  52,3
  18.4
  27.6
  18.2
 MEAN SQUARE
ERR(MT\YR)**2
NUM OF
SAMPLES
1.1
0.7
0.2
1.5
1.4
0.0
4.3
9.3
0.0
25,9
394.0
0.4
0.0
4.2
5.7
102.4
188,9
115.8
1188.7
139.4
51.9
568.5
3.0
4.1
0.1
15.1
0.0
41.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
5.0
0.3
859.5
752.4
609,3
233.0
0.3
104.9
24.3
7
8
12
12
12
11
11
11
12
12
4
12
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
22
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
23
8
9
6
6
4
6
                               118

-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS 1978


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
TRIBUTARY LAKE
NAME BASIN
BOIS BRULE SUPE
MONTREAL SUPE
OCONTO SUPE
BAD SUPE
ST LOUIS SUPE
NEMADJI SUPE
PRESQUE ISLESUPE
STURGEON SUPE
TAHQUAMENON SUPE
ONTONAGON SUPE
MENOMINEE MICH
FORD MICH
PESHTIGO MICH
PENSAUKEE MICH
KEWAUNEE MICH
E. TWIN MICH
MANITOWOC MICH
SHEBOYGAN MICH
FOX MICH
ROOT MICH
MILWAUKEE MICH
ST JOSEPH MICH
KALAMAZOO MICH
GRAND MICH
MUSKEGON MICH
MANISITEE MICH
*MANISTIQUE MICH
ESCANABA MICH
BOARDMAN MICH
UHITEFISH MICH
CHEBOYGAN HURO
THUNDER BAY HURO
AU GRES HURO
AU SABLE HURO
PINE HURO
RIFLE HURO
SAGINAW HURO
GENESEE ONTA
OSWEGO ONTA
BLACK NY ONTA
OSWEGATCHIE ONTA
GRASS ONTA
RAQUETTE ONTA
RIVER
GROUP
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
LOAD
MTXYR
3858.1
873.7
4361.1
19835.1
102791.1
122145.8
1510.2
18867.8
4367.5
119178.6
20842.6
8840.4
5970.7
357.3
3543.0
2521.4
13622.2
18632.5
170370.8
5481.1
38988,7
71771.6
30821.8
62931.4
24107.8
14997.8
11905,7
6376.8
710.2
2397.6
3175.1
2445,6
3761.2
5864.1
81048.3
13906.1
148927.7
444045.8
160562.6
85043.8
16151,0
2994.3
6828,6
                                MEAN SQUARE
                               ERR(MT\YR)**2

                                   6293354.0
                                     39486.0
                                   3574437.0
                                  14110186.0
                                 404097280.0
                                         1.0
                                    386464.1
                                  75845680.0
                                    851029,6
                                4508045312.0
                                  47809648.0
                                  18321872.0
                                  13177562.0
                                     19902.6
                                   7616410.0
                                   2319370,0
                                  75933712.0
                                  62755536.0
                                1519745024.0
                                   6395605.0
                                 457587712.0
                                 206378240.0
                                   7821415.0
                                 615050496.0
                                 101734000.0
                                   2351714.0
                                   2462751.0
                                   3067304.0
                                     44856.0
                                    651620.2
                                    136764,1
                                    232684.2
                                    403842.3
                                    530202.6
                                3366283520.0
                                  15346037.0
                                1682731264.0
                                5113024512.0
                                 217462128.0
                                1238408704.0
                                    1495482.0
                                     26227.2
                                    627401.6
NUM OF
SAMPLES

  7
 12
  9
 12
  8
365
 11
 11
 22
 19
 12
 24
  4
 12
 27
 12
 12
 12
 23
 12
 12
 12
 24

 24
 24
 23
 23
 12
 12
 23
 12
 12
 12
 12
 23
 35
 18
 15
 18
   6
   4
   6
                119

-------
                         CHLORIDE 1978
           TRIBUTARY
             NAME
LAKE  RIVER
BASIN GROUP
     1      ST LOUIS    SUPE   1
     2      NEMADJI     SUPE   1
     3      TAHQUAMENON SUPE   2
     4      ONTONAGON   SUPE   2
     5      PRESOUE ISLESUPE   2
     6      STURGEON    SUPE   2
     7      FORD        MICH   1
     8      MENOMINEE   MICH   1
     9      FOX         MICH   1
    10      MILWAUKEE   MICH   2
    11      ST JOSEPH   MICH   3
    12      KALAMAZOO   MICH   3
    13      GRAND       MICH   3
    14      MUSKEGON    MICH   4
    15      MANISITEE   MICH   4
    16      *MANISTIQUE MICH   4
    17      ESCANABA    MICH   4
    18      BOARDMAN    MICH   4
    19      WHITEFISH   MICH   4
    20      THUNDER BAY HURO   1
    21      AU ORES     HURO   1
    22      AU SABLE    HURO   1
    23      PINE        HURO   1
    24      RIFLE       HURO   1
    25      CHEBOYGAN   HURO   1
    26      SAGINAU     HURO   2
    27      GENESEE     ONTA   1
    28      OSWEGO      ONTA   2
    29      BLACK  NY    ONTA   3
    30      OSWEGATCHIE ONTA   3
    31      GRASS       ONTA   3
    32      RAQUETTE    ONTA   3
LOAD
MTXYR
25044.5
1125.0
2453.3
4075.3
606.5
2353.3
1028.0
7793,5
52688.1
17144.2
73069.6
57381.6
115942.4
39154.7
71765.8
4202.0
7636.0
2114.3
659.9
3825.4
3959.6
7838.7
689.2
5678.2
6821.5
202946.5
213370.8
1160764.0
8537.1
5381.8
6169,7
4659.8
MEAN SQUARE
ERR(MT\YR>**2
10710756.0
31860.7
273370.9
426324.8
5766.9
372009,9
7504.1
555200.3
4387524.0
37398480.0
40175392.0
7487332.0
417755904.0
1905141.0
11505364,0
176220.2
3358910.0
1329,6
3988.9
142194.7
369314,9
27379.3
15867.4
38973,6
158284.5
1172546560.0
1430424064.0
11185729536.0
2093629.0
516396.3
6504459.0
1260593.0
NUM OF
SAMPLES

  8
 12
 24
 23
 11
 11
 24
 12
 24
 12
 12
 24
 22
 24
 24
 24
 24
 12
 12
 12
 12
 12
 12
 23
 24
 35
 18
 21
 15
   6
   4
   6
NA - is unknown
                                    120

-------
                                  APPENDIX D
                              SUMMARY  OF RESULTS

                  POST-PLUARG MEETING  ON POLLUTION ABATEMENT
                        STRATEGIES FOR THE GREAT  LAKES

                               June 24-25, 1980

                         Great Lakes Basin Conmission
                             Ann Arbor, Michigan

                                 Sponsored by

                       The Great Lakes  Basin Commission
                                     and
               The  Great Lakes National  Program Office, U.S. EPA
MEETING OBJECTIVES
         The objectives  of the  conference were  to:

         1.  reevaluate  the Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group
             (PLUARG)   findings  and  recommendations  in  light  of  recent
             developments;

         2.  consider the  International Joint  Commission's  (IJC)  conclusions
             and recommendations contained in its report to  the governments  of
             the U.S. and Canada;

         3.  identify future research and program needs;
                                     121

-------
          4.   reinforce  the  technical  contacts .established  during  the  PLUARG
              study;

          5.   provide  the Great  Lakes  National  Program  Office  (GLNPO) with
              information  on  the  progress  that  has  been  made  toward
              understanding nonpoint  source  pollution since  PLUARG1s final
              report, and to identify additional information  needs.
 FORMAT
         Participants  (see  attached  list)  in  the  conference  included
 representatives  from federal,  provincial,  and  state  government  agencies  as
 well as representatives  from "208"  areawide water quality  agencies  and
 academic  experts  from both the  U.S.  and Canada.   The  group  included
 representatives from nonpoint  pollution  control projects and programs underway
 in  the  basin  as  well as  a  number of  the members of the Task C Reference Group
 of  PLUARG.   No  attempt  was  made  to secure  the  participation  of  all  of  the
 former members of PLUARG.

         The conference  focused on  providing answers,  or  at least  statements,
 in  reply  to a series of questions developed by  Great Lakes  Basin Commission
 (GLBC)   staff.     The   questions   reflected   the   PLUARG   findings   and
 recommendations,  recommendations  contained  in  the IJC's  report  to  the
 governments,  and   perceived  information  needs  relating   to  nonpoint  source
 pollution.

         On the  first  day, a series of  eight  questions  were  addressed  in
 plenary  session.    The following   day,  attendees  were  divided  into  two
workgroups  to  facilitate  discussion on a number of  additional  issues.   At  the
conclusion  of  the  meeting, workgroup moderators presented  summaries of  their
respective   sessions  and  solicited  additional comments  from  the  group  as  a
whole.    Brief  summaries  of   the  discussions  and  a  listing  of  the major
conclusions  and recommendations follow.
                                   122

-------
                                PLENARY SESSION
QUESTION;   The IJC, in its report to the  governments,  went  a step further than
PLUARG's final report by  recommending  regulation  of manure-spreading on frozen
ground.  Do  we agree that  this recommendation is  appropriate?   Should  it  be
implemented over the entire basin or just concentrated in dairy areas?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         The  IJ  's recommendation  of  manure  spreading  on  frozen  ground,  as
highlighted  in its report  to the  governments  on pollution  from land runoff,
does  not   reflect  the   work  done  on  this  subject  in  PLUARG  and  is  not
appropriate.

General Discussion

         The  group concurred  with  PLUARG's  finding  that  manure-spreading  on
frozen  ground is  not  a  major water  quality problem  in  the basin, although
local  problems do  exist.   The press attention  the  recommendation has received
in both the  U.S.  and Canada  has hampered progress  in establishing credibility
with  landowners  involved in  remedial  programs  such as  the  Washington County,
Wisconsin, 108(a) Demonstration Project.

         While the  control  or elimination of manure-spreading on frozen ground
is  appropriate in  certain  instances,  across-the-board mandatory controls are
unnecessary.   For  any  given  situation,  an appropriate mix  of controls should
be developed  which may or  may not  include  elimination  of  winter-spreading of
manure.  The  most  effective  nonpoint source  controls are those which have been
tailored to reflect the local  situation.

         Government funding  of manure  storage should not be encouraged because
storage is  commonly  installed for the  convenience  of  the  farm operator and
should, therefore,  remain a  part of his  cost  of operation.   Manure storage may
cause  just  as many problems  as  winter-spreading.    Ultimately,  the material
must be placed somewhere.
                                     123

-------
QUESTION;    Should  there be  any  change in  the  priority  given  the  problem
pollutants in PLUARG's final report?  For example, "lead" ... also, "chloride"
— cited by some  as  the most serious long-term problem which could affect the
Great Lakes.  What new information has become available on the significance of
these pollutants?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         There  is still  no  indication  that  lead  is  causing  water  quality
problems  in  the  Great  Lakes.    The  statement  in  the IJC's  report  to the
governments that  lead  is  a  "pollution  time  bomb"  is  unfounded  and  not  in
accord with the PLUARG findings.  Chloride could have a  subtle effect over the
long  term,  but  does  not  pose  the  imminent  hazard  certain  other  toxic
substances do (i.e.,  PCBs).

General Discussion

         The  switch  to unleaded gas  should significantly reduce  lead pollution
in the future.

         Urban  runoff studies  have not  highlighted chloride  as  a nonpoint
source problem.   Indeed, in  some  areas of the  basin,  salt for deicing purposes
has  become difficult  to  obtain.   This  should  reduce  future  use.     Large
chloride inputs to the lakes may be attributable  to point sources.

QUKSTIOH;  Are we adequately measuring the lakes'  response to nonpoint  control
measures?    Are  the  percent  reductions   of P  which can be achieved by
implementation of various nonpoint  source  abatement measures,  as discussed in
the PLUARG report, reasonable?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         Continued  monitoring   is  needed  to  establish  whether  the  load
reductions  (including available  P)  expected  from different remedial programs
actually occur.
                                     124

-------
General Discussion

         We do not have  enough  nonpoint source controls  implemented   basin to
recognize  a  whole-lake response  to  a  reduction  in loading  from  this source.
However, we are observing marked results in the nearshore areas.

         Utilizing sediment  as  a  surrogate  for  P,  Honey Creek  study results
indicate a 50 to 90Z reduction  in  P relative  to the sediment reduction.  Study
results also  indicate  that watersheds  with  fairly low gross erosion rates have
a high delivery rate of clays.

QUESTION;   How do  we evaluate various control  programs during high  and low
runoff events?  Do we develop a strategy based on  the historical average or do
we remove  the extreme high flow event  from our  average?

Conelus ions/Rec ommendations

         Event monitoring  (including  measurement of  available  P)  is needed to
determine  the effectiveness  of nonpoint  controls during major  storm events.
The mechanics of  in-lake dispersion  of pollutants  associated with  these  events
also  require  further  study,   In general, control strategies  should be  based on
historical  average  flows.

General Discussion

         The  importance  of  incorporating  the catastrophic  event  in the  long-
term  average  is  partially  dependent upon  how  success is evaluated.    For
example,  is  the  concern eliminating  instream  standard  violations  or a  long-
term  reduction in pollutant  loading to the  lakes?

         In  developing a model,  various design  flows  can be  investigated  for
their impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  control measures.    It was noted  that
there is  not much difference between  a 10 year  and a  20  year event  on  urban
land.  For agricultural  land,  it is  also  important to consider the  season  of
the  year  (i.e.,  a  February  storm is  of  greater  significance  than an  August
storm).
                                      125

-------
          It  was suggested that strategies be designed by focusing on  technical
 and  economical  feasibility rather  than  a  storm event.

 QUESTION:    What  form  should  tributary  monitoring  in  the  basin take  in  the
 future?   Do  we  need more event sampling?  ...sampling to determine available P?
 What  are  the findings  of  significance since  PLUARG's  final report?

 Conclusions/Recommendations

          It  is  recommended  that  long-term,  continuous  monitoring  programs be
 initiated  on a few  key tributaries.   Particular  emphasis  should be placed on
 storm  event  samples.   This  will  provide better  information  than   a partial
 effort  on a number of  river  courses.    Little  event  sampling  has  been done
 since PLUARG.

 General Discussion

         Tributary  monitoring  is  necessary  to  determine  the  effects  of
 nonpoint source pollution controls.   The  costs  of monitoring are insignificant
 when compared to the costs associated with nonpoint source control programs.

         Storm  event  monitoring is  presently  underway in Wisconsin  and  Ohio.
 The  Ontario  Ministry  of  Environment has also  begun event  monitoring  at  15
 river mouths.

 QUESTION;  Fro. GLBC staff work, we  have  found  that metal  inputs from nonpoint
 sources are  greater  than from point  sources.   Are we agreed  that heavy  metal
 inputs still have little effect on the lakes?

 Conclusions/Recommendations

         There  is  still  no  indication  that heavy  metal  inputs are  causing
water quality problems in the Great Lakes.

QUESTION;   "208" agencies have provided much useful information  with regard to
nonpoint  source  pollution.   What  will be the  role  of  "208" agencies beyond
 1983?
                                     126

-------
Conclusions/Recommendations

         Ongoing federal and state demonstration projects and programs must be
coordinated  with  "208"  activities  to   assure  constistency   in  the
recommendations  made to  the  public  concerning  nonpoint  source  pollution
control.

General Discussion
         A  consensus  was  not  reached  on  what  the   function  of  the  "208"
 agencies  should  be beyond  1983.   One view stressed the need  for  retention of
 the  "208" agencies  in their present  capacity,  recognizing that  the  planning
 agencies  have established the designated management agencies  (DMAs)  and could
 provide  them with  a regional perspective.   Additionally, the  "208"  agencies
 have established themselves with  local  landowners  affected by nonpoint source
 control  implementation.   Such  a  working relationship would take a long time to
 establish and might  be difficult to achieve at the  state level.

          Some participants  felt  it  was  time  to  adopt   a more  site-specific
 level of planning  (i.e.,  such as the Wisconsin Fund).   The  DMAs should fully
 assume their  responsibilities  with  support  from  the  states  and the  federal
 government.   Findings from the various demonstration projects,  etc.,  should be
 implemented through the  DMas.

          A third  view proposed  that, in  the  future,  the "208" program  should
 be  flexible  to  accommodate  differences  among  the   states.    Michigan,   for
 example, has  no undesignated areas,  while  states such  as Ohio  and  Wisconsin
 have  a  sizable  portion  of  their  area in "non-designated" status.  The  states
 already have water quality management planning responsibilities in these areas.

 QUESTION;    Is  it  possible  to  easily identify  hydrologically  active  areas?
 Have  any technological  advances been  made  (i.e.,  in remote sensing)  that would
 be  of assistance?
                                      127

-------
Conclusions/Recommendations
         While  the  hydrologically  active  area concept is still valid,  it  needs
further  definition  if  it  is  to  be  practically  applied.    Techniques ami
guidelines  should  be  developed  for  identification  of  hydrologically active
areas.
General Discussion
         A  "common  sense" approach  is still most  widely used  in identifying
hydrologically active  areas  in the basin.   Slope,  soil  type,  and proximity to
the water course are among the  parameters  utilized  for identification.  It was
noted that the size of hydrologically  active areas  may vary from year to year,
depending on rainfall  amount, duration and intensity, as well as other factors!
                                    128

-------
                                  WORKGROUP I
QUKSTIOH;   What  are the  effects  of implementation  of no-till  practices with
regard to:  (a) reduction of P; (b) reduction of solids?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         Field observations  indicate  that no-till practices  reduce  soil loss,
thereby reducing both solids and P loading to the streams.

General Discussion

         Use  of  no-till  or  reduced  tillage  is  increasing rapidly  and can be
expected  to continue.   This is  largely  due to the associated fuel  savings  and
the  effort which has been made to demonstrate  the utility  of  the  methods to
farmers.

          Seventy-five  to 90%  reductions  in potential  gross  erosion have  been
observed  with conservation  tillage.   Sediment  yields have  been reduced  from
0.5  to 8  tons/acre  in some instances.

QUESTION:   Are minimum  or no-till  methods applicable to all  parts of  the Great
Lakes basin,  given  differences in  social and physical factors?

 Conclusions/Recommendations

          While no-till  is not  suitable for all parts of  the  basin,  there are  a
 number  of  minimum-till methods which can  be incorporated  into a custom-fit
 program for a particular area.
                                      129

-------
 General Discussion

          The time  and  fuel savings  associated  with  no-till  are  significant.
 The economic benefits have sold  the  practice.   Making the equipment  available
 and  providing  farmers  with  an  opportunity   to experience  and  exchange
 information  on  new tillage  practices  has also been  important.

          The following  reasons  were identified  as contributing to  the negative
 attitude  toward no-till:

          (1) prior problems with insects and disease  resulting  from leaving  a
              cover stand;
          (2) misinformation concerning the benefits of no-till;
          (3)  prior  lack of special seed hybrids and herbicide*.

          Residue  management was  identified  as  critical  to  the  success  of a
 tillage  system.   Seed variety  is also particularly important with use of a no-
 till  system.

          The  incidence  of disease  and pest problems  does  not appear greater
with  use  of  no-till.    Increased  usage  of  pesticides  is  not  necessarily
required.    Appropriate  crop rotations  are used.    One  study  has  noted  an
 increased incidence of  resistant weeds in areas  that  have been no-till  farmed
 for a number  of years.

QUESTION;  What  new information has become available on costs  associated with
controlling  nonpoint  source   pollution?    For  exaaplc,  is  it  possible  to
generalize a  cost  per  soae  unit of land (i.e.,  k«2)  for a variety  of tillage
practices?

Conelusions/Recommendations

         There is  still a lack  of detailed cost  information  for rural  nonpoint
controls.   It is  recommended  that  studies designed  to provide  detailed  cost
information  on  agricultural nonpoint  controls  be  stepped  up.   Results  from
studies  such as  the  Nationwide  Urban Runoff  Program  (NURP)  should provide
information on urban controls  in the future.
                                     130

-------
 General Discussion

          It  is difficult to arrive  at  general  costs for agricultural nonpoint
 controls because  practices  are  tailored  to  individual  farms.   Additional
 experience with  these  practices  should  provide general cost estimates.

          To  successfully  promote conservation  tillage  you  must  have:   (1)
 public  information and education, (2)  financial  incentives available,  and (3)
 technical assistance  available  to the landowner.   Of these three requirements,
 a technical assistance  program  is,  by  far,  the most  important.   Financial
 incentives may be necessary in  those areas where conservation tillage has not
 been  previously  used  (in order  to demonstrate  the  process)  and  where minimum
 or  no-till  cannot be  well adapted to  site  conditions.   Other areas'may expect
 to  realize an  overall economic benefit.

          The Nationwide  Urban Runoff Program will provide information  on the
 costs  of  controlling  urban  nonpoint  source  pollution.   Results  from  this
 program  should be  applicable  nationwide.   "208"  programs have already provided
 some information on the costs associated with urban controls.

 QQgSTIOH;  What  are some  of the possible secondary  effects of  nonpoint  source
 P and  sediment  control?   For  example:   (a) greater herbicide  and  pesticide
 usage associated with no-till operations;  (b)  reduced dredging as a  result  of
 decreased  sedimentation;  and (c)  decreased partieulates  in  the  lakes  (which
 appear to be the major removal mechanism for xenobiotics).

 Conelus ions/Recommendat ions

         Urban sediment  controls  reduce  maintenance  and the  manpower  hours
 necessary to clean out  municipal systems (i.e., catchment basins).

         Conservation  tillage   and  no-till  methods  increase  the   soil
 infiltration rate  and,  therefore,  a  larger  percentage  of  the pesticides,
nitrates, etc.,  applied  to  the  land  may  be  reaching  the  water  table.
Subsurface drainage may be  necessary  to  protect the groundwater  system.
                                    131

-------
         Decreased  deposition  of  sediment  in  streams  could  affect  fish
spawning beds.

QUESTION;   How do we evaluate nonpoint source programs when there are numerous
objectives (i.e., lake  water  quality vs. local water quality)?

Conelusions/Recommendat ions

         We presently have  insufficient  information to  properly evaluate
nonpoint  source  programs from  a multiobjective  viewpoint.   Results   of the
Nationwide Urban  Runoff  Program should provide  us with  information on urban
controls.   There  is  a  need  for  adequately  funded,  large-scale,  long-term
projects which will properly  define  the  impact of  rural  controls.

QUESTION;   What  priority should be  given  to urban vs.  rural  nonpoint source
control in the Great Lakes?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         Load reductions  should be accomplished  by the most cost-effective mix
of  urban  and  rural controls.   It  is impossible  to emphasize  either rural or
urban controls without reference to  a specific pollutant.
                                    132

-------
                                  WORKGROUP II
QUESTION;  What proportion of  the  soluble  P that enters the tributaries (i.e.,
from point sources) is  likely  to  become part of  the  unavailable particulate P
pool during transport?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         Over the  long  run,  the majority  of  point  source P which  reaches the
lakes  is  in a biologically  available form.   However,  a portion of  this load
remains "functionally unavailable"  due  to  its position  in  the  water  column or
in sediments.

         Studies  should be  encouraged  to determine  what  percentage  of the
available  P above  a point  source  remains  available  below the point  source
input, and what are the  primary instrearn removal mechanisms at different  times
of the year.

         A Great  Lakes  strategy should  address  both the nearshore  and  whole-
lake effects of  pollution.   Future  investigations  and  modeling efforts  should
reflect this concern.

General Discussion

         Highest  loading  rates of  soluble P have  been recorded during   storm
events.    However, with  high  flows  the  sediment  load   increases  and  more
adsorption  is  likely  to occur.    In contrast,  during low flows more   P  is
removed from the stream via biological uptake.

         The significance of  flood plain deposition  to  P reduction  should not
be underestimated.  Estimates place this at  as  much as 50 percent.   Deposition
may be only temporary, however.
                                     133

-------
         It  has  been estimated  that  as much  as  80% of  the  P contributed  by
 point  sources  is  subjected  to a temporary  sink.   Lag  time, prior  to transport
 downstream,  may vary from a  season  to a year.   Point  source P which  becomes
 associated with sediment may still be readily available.

         A Canadian  study in  the Lake  Erie  basin  determined that 20  to  50%  of
 the  total  P  input was associated with  sediment (at  sediment  concentrations  of
 40  ppm  to  180 ppm).    This  range  is  lower  than  that  found  for most  U.S.
 tributaries.   For  example,  the Black Creek  study  found 90%  of  the total  P
 associated  with  sediment.    However,   sediment  concentrations  were  notably
 greater  in this instance.

 QUESTION:   Since  a  large percentage  of the  nonpoint  P input  appears  to  be
 unavailable, are  nonpoint control  programs really  worthwhile in  terms of  P
 control?

 Conclusions/Recommendations

         Nonpoint control  programs  are worthwhile and provide  additional
 benefits beyond reduction of  P.   These  other  benefits, such as energy  savings
 and reductions  in heavy metal  loadings, should  be  promoted.

 General Discussion

         It  is estimated  that  soluble  P comprises roughly  25%  of  the total  P
 load to  the  lakes.   Nonpoint  sources  vary  significantly in the proportion  of
 soluble P they  contribute.

         It  is  estimated that  25  to  30%  of  the particulate  P  delivered  to
Great Lakes  tributaries  is available.   The available  particulate  P input  is
 important,  however,  since the  particulate input is often large.

         A  tendency exists with some to  focus  solely on sediment management  as
 a means  of  improving water  quality.   More   information  is  needed  on  how
remedial  programs  may affect the  loss  of soluble pollutants  from land.
                                     134

-------
         To reduce the soluble P input from agricultural land, water yield may
have to  be reduced.   Management  practices which  increase  retention and soil
infiltration would  be  encouraged.   Proper  handling  of animal wastes  and the
correct  usage  of  fertilizers  should  be  promoted  to  help reduce  soluble  P
loads.

         Since   large  water  yields  are  usually associated  with  major  storm
events, the effectiveness of some controls will be curtailed at certain  times.
Still,  during  some  of these  events  (convective storms which  usually  produce
long,  steady,  but relatively low  intensity rains) water courses  flow  slowly
and a portion of the soluble P load may be adsorbed.

QUESTION;   What  new information is available  on transmission losses of  point
and nonpoint source  pollutants to  the  lakes?

Conelus ions/Rec ommendations

         PLUARG's  conclusion  that   transmission  loss   is  negligible   (a
transmission coefficient  of "1") over  the long  run  still appears valid.

QPESTIOH;   Do  we  know the fraction of pollution contained  in  urban and  rural
runoff which is attributable  to atmospheric deposition on the land?  What are
the parameters  affected by atmospheric deposition?   Is this an item  that  needs
to  be  emphasized  in  future  nonpoint  source  research,  or  does  enough
information already  exist for our  use?

Conelus ions/Recommendat ions

         Although we   have  estimates  of  the  amount  of  P  attributable   to
atmospheric deposition in  the basin, we  lack information  on the percentage  of
pollutants  contained  in  urban  and  rural  runoff  which  are  attributable   to
atmospheric deposition.
                                    135

-------
General Discussion

         In certain areas of  the basin,  wind  erosion  may be  a more significant
source  of  nonpoint pollution  than generally recognized.   Wind  erosion  which
occurs outside the basin may also contribute to Great Lakes pollution.

         It  appears  that  clays  and  organic  material are the  particles
transported long  distances.   Therefore,  the contribution  of  P from  long-range
wind  erosion  may  be  considerable.   "Localized" wind  erosion also  occurs  in
which  particulate  matter  may be moved  to a position  where  it is more  easily
entrained during runoff events.

QUESTION;   Should P management strategies  be  integrated more  with  strategies
for the  abatement of toxics  and hazardous  materials pollution?   Are nonpoint
source controls likely to have any effect on the  input of xenobiotics?

Conclusions/Recommendations

         Other advantages  of  nonpoint source  strategies should  be  recognized
   not  only the  effects  on toxics and  hazardous materials  pollution but  the
effects on fisheries,  dredging,  etc.,  as  well.

         While the heavy metals load  contributed by rural runoff may  be  large
relative to other  sources,  this is predominately  a natural  load.   This  fact
should  be  noted  in  future  decisions  between  point  and  nonpoint   pollution
strategies.

General Discussion

          Pesticide  inputs  from  nonpoint  sources  deserve  additional  study.
This  may become  a significant problem in the  future  as a result of  increased
use of pesticides in conservation  tillage systems.
                             ***********
                                     136

-------
         The discussion  indicated that  probably  more  progress  has been  made
toward  understanding  nonpoint  source pollution  problems  in  the  Great  Lakes
basin than  any  place  else in the world.   However,  concern was  expressed  over
the fact that,  with  the  completion of PLUARG, no formal  mechanism remains for
coordination of efforts.   A coordinating mechanism  is  necessary  to ensure  that
results and recommendations from past and  continuing  programs  in both  the  U.S.
and Canada  are given  publicity;  and to  ensure that  developing  programs  are
oriented toward implementation of both the IJC's  and PLUARG's  recommendations.
                                    137

-------
                         Post-PLUARG Meeting Attendees

John Adams, U.S. COE, Buffalo
James Arnold, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Melanie Baise, Great Lakes Basin Commission
Dave Baker, Heidelberg College
Dan Bondy, LJC, Windsor
Dennie Burns, Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Gordon Chesters, University of Wisconsin, Water Resources Center
Ralph Christensen, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA
John Crumrine,  Soil  and Water District, Ohio
Kent Fuller, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA
Randall Giessler, Soil Conservation Service, Lansing, MI
Dennis Gregor,  Environment Canada
Joe Hadley,  NASA, Lewis Research Center
Tom Heidtke, Great Lakes Basin Commission
Donald Jeffs, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Robert Karwowski, GLS-Region V
David Kile,  Soil Conservation Service, Columbus, Ohio
John Konrad, Wisconsin DNR
Narindar  Kumar, U.S. EPA
Terry Logan, Ohio State University
Fred Madison, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Edwin Monke, Agricultural Engineering, Purdue  University
Tim Monteith, Great  Lakes Basin  Commission
Robert  C. Ostry, Ontario Ministry  of  the Environment
John  B.  Robinson, University  of  Guelph
John  Schleihauf, Ontario Ministry  of  Agriculture and Food
Bill  Sonzogni,  Great Lakes  Basin Commission
Randy Stelle,  NY  State Department  of  Environmental Conservation
George  Stem, Soil  Conservation  Service,  U.S. COE,  LEWMS
Robert  Stiefel, Ohio State  University
Rose  Ann Sullivan,  Great  Lakes  Basin  Commission
Karen  Switzer-Howse, Land Resources Research Institute, Ottawa
Don Urban, USDA, U.S. EPA
                                      138

-------
                                   APPENDIX E

                      SYNOPSIS OF THE "WATERSHED" PROCESS

         The  initial step  in WATERSHED is  division of  a river  or drainage
basin  into  sub-basin units.   Point and  nonpoint  sources  in  these  sub-basins
are  then  identified and their respective pollutant  inputs  are  estimated.  An
accounting system is then used to  route  the inputs downstream to the receiving
water  as  shown  in  the model  schema in Figure  1.    This accounting  can be
performed manually  or with  the  aid of a  computer.   Transmission losses,  which
may  occur due to a reservoir or other  obstruction,  are  estimated  through the
application  of "transmission  coefficients"  in  various stretches   of the
tributary.  The  percent  of  the  pollutant that is likely to reach the receiving
water  in  a biologically available  form can  also  be  factored  in.   Remedial
measures  can  be  compared  in  terms of  cost  per  unit  reduction in  pollutant
input  at  the  receiving  water to  account for differences  between  upstream and
downstream sources.  This  basic  "accounting  system" is  readily adaptable to
large  or small watersheds and can be as general as the user desires.

         Techniques  for  estimating pollutant  loads  (when  these loads  are not
already monitored)  are  based on  the  most accurate  and  up-to-date  information
available.  For  agricultural  land, the Universal Soil  Loss Equation  (USLE) is
used  in  evaluating the  effect  of  various  management   techniques,  such  as
conservation  tillage,  on loadings  from  agricultural land.   This  allows  load
reductions to be  related to a series  of established factors  that  affect  soil
erosion  losses   from land.   Widespread  use  of  the USLE  in  the  field has
established its validity and utility for this purpose.

         The  WATERSHED  approach  can  next be  used  to choose  the  best  mix of
point  and nonpoint  management  techniques to achieve  a  certain  load allocation
for  a  receiving  water  body.   Through  a  cost-effectiveness  ranking  scheme,
WATERSHED  shows the  order in  which remedial measures should be  implemented to
achieve the  greatest water  quality improvements at  the least cost.

         Thus, WATERSHED provides  planners  and managers  with  a logical  guide
to select  among point and nonpoint  water  quality control  programs.   It  will be
                                     139

-------
most valuable if used with the  assistance of  individuals  or  agencies  familiar
with  the specific  characteristics of  the hydrologic  basin under study.
WATERSHED'S  straightforward  accounting  should  be  applicable  to  most river
basins,  but  its application  should  be customized  through  the use  of local
information and  expertise  whenever possilble.
                                     140

-------
          GEOGRAPHIC
MODEL
                                                              "SMPLE" MUNQFMJTY V
                                                                          COMPLEX
                                                                          MUNORAUTY 'B
            LAKE
                                                        LAKE
FIGURE 1     WATERSHED  MODEL LLUSTRATION

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 REPORT NO.
  EPA-905/9-80-006B
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Post-PLUARG Evaluation of Great  Lakes
 Water Quality  Management Studies
 and Programs-Volume II
                                                            . REPORT DATE
                                                              September 1980
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 AUTHOR(S)
           Rose  Ann  C.  Sullivan,  Timothy J. Monteith
 and William C.  Sonzogni
                                                            I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                                              A42B21
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Great Lakes  Basin Commission
3475 Plymouth Road
P.O. Box  999
Ann Arbor.  Michigan 48106
                                                                   2A
                                                                   *AC
                                                            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                                AD-85-F-0-015-0
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Great Lakes  National  Program  Office
 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
 536 South Clark  Street, Region V
 Chicago.  Illinois 60605
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

                                                             Progress Apr.  flO'/ Sept   60'-
                                                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                                                             U.S.  EPA-GLNPO
s.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES   j^s study  is to provide  information on  a  number of
 significant  studies and programs  of relevance to Great Lakes water quality  problems.
6. ABSTRACT
 This report  presents the  results of recent  efforts by the  Great Lakes_Basin
 Commission staff to update  and  integrate the  findings and  recommendations  of the
 International  Joint Commission's Pollution  for Land Use Activities Reference Group
 (PLUARG) with  other related studies.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS   C. COSATI Field/Group
 Soi"1 erosion
 Tillage
 Non-point source
 Phosphorus loading
 Water  quality
 Sediment
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  Available  to  public through National  Tech-
  nical  Information  Service, Springfield,VA
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                            150  pages
                                                                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R.y. 4-77)    PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
                                                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-750-745/80

-------