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
------- |