oEPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
905F97012
GENERAL LAKE MICHIGAN
INFORMATION
From the wave-washed beaches of the northern shore to the bustling urban-industrial
communities at the southern rim, Lake Michigan represents an ecologically, culturally,
and economically diverse system unparalleled in the Midwest.
Lake Michigan, by volume, is the second largest Great Lake and the only one located
totally within the United States. The northern part is in the colder, less developed upper
Great Lakes region. It is sparsely populated,exc^|^i»Jox River Valley, and is
primarily covered with mixed wood fo^^^S^h^eteitiH^ate southern basin of
Lake Michigan is the most ^M^S^i^^^^^^^KKsysXemi it contains the
Milwaukee and Chicago nKStra^^ are typically fertile and
amenable to agriculture
rivers and streams all drain
ge basin covers more than 45,000
states: Wisconsin, Dlinois, Indiana, and
Lake Michigan discharj
that allows for a co
link in a waterway s;
Mississippi River to
the Fox and the Me;
the Grand in southvi^ Michigan.:
*:, .•-•:-,-,'.• "•.:.-.•?•*'t .*. , .-,
•n through the Straits of Mackinac at a rate
about every 100 years. The Lake forms a
to the Atlantic Ocean and south through the
Among the large rivers that enter the Lake are
, the St. Joseph, the Kalamazoo, and
depth
depth
largely of sand & pebble beaches
-------
Resources of the Lake Michigan Basin
Lake Michigan has unique conditions that support a wealth of
biological diversity, including many plant and animal species found
nowhere else in the world. Lake Michigan basin's sand dunes,
coastal marshes, tallgrass prairies, savannas, forests, and fens all
provide essential habitats for this diversity of life. Agricultural and
industrial products such as iron ore, coal, limestone, metals, petro-
leum, coke, and chemicals are derived from the basin's resources.
The water of Lake Michigan serves many purposes. It supports
large commercial and sport fishing industries. It provides industrial
process and cooling water, and water for agricultural irrigation.
Fleets of freighters pass over the Lake carrying bulk commerce
items. Lake Michigan serves as a source of drinking water, as a
place for swimming and fishing, as a scenic wonderland, and as a
sink for municipal and industrial waste and runoff from the sur-
rounding lands.
Chicago Portage
national Hittonc Site
State Parks
National Parks
National lak*«hore
Basin Land Use:
Shoreline Use:
Agricultural, 44%; Residential, 9%; Forest, 41%; Other, 6%.
Agricultural, 20%; Residential, 39%; Recreational, 24%; Commercial,
5%; Other, 5%.
Managing the Lake Michigan Basin
While parts of the Lake Michigan ecosystem (the interacting complex of living organisms and their non-living
environment) have been changed to better suit the needs of humans, the unexpected consequences of many of
the changes have only recently become apparent. People have begun to realize that changes to one part of an
ecosystem impact the health of the entire system. In order to improve environmental quality, all aspects of an
ecosystem need to be addressed. Managing the Lake Michigan basin as an ecosystem is an approach that takes a
broad systemic view of the interaction among physical, chemical, and biological components in the basin. It is a
geographically comprehensive approach, covering the entire system including land, air, and water. New empha-
sis on the importance of atmospheric inputs of pollutants and the effects of land uses on water quality are evi-
dence of the broad scope of management planning required in an ecosystem approach. An ecosystem approach
to managing the basin includes humans as a major factor in the well-being of the system. This suggests recogni-
tion of social, economic, technical, and political variables that affect how humans use natural resources. Human
culture, changing lifestyles, and attitudes must be considered in an ecosystem approach because of their effects
on the integrity of the ecosystem.
Use of the Lake Michigan basin's resources has brought wealth and well-being to its residents, but the full price
of the concentration of industry and people is only now being understood. The overall health of the Lake Michi-
gan ecosystem has been degraded by human activities, and continues to be diminished. Fortunately, many
people around the basin recognize the importance of restoring and protecting this resource, and are working
together to formulate creative solutions to preserve intact ecosystems, restore damaged ecosystems, and repair
highly disturbed areas.
For more information, please contact Judy Beck (3/2) 353-3849. E-mail: beck.judy@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
-------
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
LAKE MICHIGAN
MASS BALANCE
STUDY
What is "Mass Balance?"
Mass Balance is a concept based on the law of conservation of mass: the amount of
pollutants entering a lake should equal the amount of pollutants leaving, trapped, or
changed chemically in the lake. While the^oasegt is straight-forward, measuring which
pollutants enter Lake Michigan fr«tlH^^;^^^«|rs, and understanding how they
move through the L
What do we hope/to get out of a Mass Bafepce Study
The Lake Michiggi:
about the effects
enable us to make long-range predictions
;reases by:
ftqt&i amounted fourpollutants (polychlorinated biphenyls
n traiiSnpnaehlor, atrazine) entering the Lake from rivers;
V' ^';:.'•>:•"• V-'-'t
identifyinglthe total amoui^ of the four pollutants entering the Lake from the
atmosphere^(c^leddepospon), rivers, and sediment;
g of how pollutants move through the Lake (called
are made available to fish and Lake plant life
improving our
cyclin
(called bfoavaiiability)v
c - , • ,,. , \,. .-,. f\
helping ^ocal, State, and:Feoeral governments understand how decisions and
actionsjcaft agect the:Lake. ;
. ..
The U.S. Envir6nmental JProtecfioh: Agency (EPA) is especially interested in under-
standhig how pollutants effect LakejMichigan lake trout and coho salmon. Effects on
these two fish ane important because aiey are on the top of the food chain and will have
a higher amountpf contamflation. iXita collected during the study will be the most
comprehensive d|ita available oh tortjte pollutants in Lake Michigan. EPA will make it a
priority to providk data 16 the;genej&l public, anglers, environmental groups, and others
interested in the filadiftg^. ':'"'/
.
What has been done?
In 1994 and 1995, tributary samples were gathered during snow melt and heavy rains —
two times when most pollutants are washed into the Lake. Pollutants from the atmo-
sphere were measured on land during periods of both wet and dry deposition. Samples
-------
were also taken on the Lake to compare findings from land-based deposition. Samples were taken from Lake
water and Lake plants and animals. Finally, samples were taken from Lake sediments to determine the total
amount of pollutants in the mud which could be cycled back into the Lake.
Four specific pollutants are being analyzed: 1. PCBs; 2. mercury; 3. transnonachlor; and, 4. atrazine. PCBs,
mercury and transnonachlor are being studied because they increase in contamination levels as they move up the
food chain and because they break down extremely slowly in the environment. Atrazine, as an agricultural
herbicide, is being studied because of its common use in the Lake Michigan basin.
Who is involved?
States:
Wisconsin: Department of Natural Resources
Michigan: Department of Environmental
Quality
Federal:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Energy
Universities:
University of Minnesota
University of Michigan
Rutgers University
Indiana: Department of Environmental Management
Illinois: Department of Conservation
Illinois: State Water Survey
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey
University of Wisconsin
University of Maryland
Indiana University
When will the Mass Balance Study be complete?
Sampling began in Spring 1994 and continued through
Fall 1995. Laboratory analysis of the samples will be
completed in early Spring 1997.
These findings will be used to develop a mathematical
model for predicting cycling, bioavailability, and other
aspects of Lake pollutants. The preliminary mathematical
model results will be made available in Spring 1998. This
model may later be expanded for other pollutants and for
bodies of water besides Lake Michigan.
\Sampling Sites
\ Sediment •"
J Air A
For more information, please contact Glenn Warren, (312) 886-2405. E-mail: warren.glenn@epamail.epa.gov U.S.
EPA, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.
-------
dEPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
PLANNING FOR LAKE
MICHIGAN: THE LAKEWIDE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Process
The Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) is a management process for protecting and
improving conditions in the Lake Michigan ecosystem. The process identifies concerns,
solutions, and priorities for action by coordinated efforts of tribes, local, State and
Federal agencies, and a wide range of interested
The Participants
Public participation in
component in the succes
public involvement is rayjiffij$p£j^
input to a wide range^f a^ivJ^/:S6^(^ pf the
of the LaMP is a key
comprehensive approach to
i)le to take part in and provide
activities follow:
The Lake;
from trit
commut
lives from each
designated by tt e International
lakes is limited
around Ihe
Lake Michig
fqrumi is a ttrpachbaseostakeholders group with members
, e^yitontttentjp groups, local governmental agencies,
zaton^ flcadenm, sport and fishing groups, and representa-
>f the/10 Areas1 p^Concern (AOC). An AOC is a location,
Commission, where use of rivers, bays, or
Forum meets quarterly at AOC locations
ariti hosla pDblfl^ meetings to brief local residents on timely
jssut>s> '.'V;'x
There have b|enVi^Q, h^y^jme opportunity to review educational materi-
als and to desigrVa cominuqity project that would favorably impact the Lake
Michigan ecosysc
V
-------
The 10 AOCs around Lake Michigan are well into the process of developing and implementing Reme-
dial Action Plans (RAPs) to address the problems specific to each watershed. The States, in coordination
with local communities, have the lead in developing and carrying out these plans. EPA will provide a
liaison for each of the AOCs and grant funds have been dedicated to help coordinate these efforts.
Actions at the AOCs will reduce and clean up local sources of contamination, restore essential local
habitats, and improve lakewide conditions.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office is providing both grant funds and on-line services to estab-
lish a comprehensive source of Lake Michigan information for Internet users. Providing material on the
Internet a priority. This is where the large volume of Lake Michigan information, including reports and
studies can be found. The Lake Michigan Forum has an Internet site which is linked to other Great
Lakes and Lake Michigan-specific sites.
Tribes, and State and Federal agencies participate in the LaMP process through the Technical Coordinat-
ing Committee (TCC) and the Lake Michigan Management Committee. The ongoing work of the LaMP
process is conducted by the TCC in quarterly meetings and monthly conference calls. Ad hoc <
workgroups have been formed to address issues such as identifying the critical LaMP pollutants, tribu-
tary monitoring, pollution prevention, and success measures. Each TCC member represents the full
interests of not only that member's own agency but also those he or she works with closely. In October
1995, EPA formed an internal multi-program Lake Michigan Team to enhance the Agency's support for
the LaMP process.
Cooperating Agencies
Agencies, in addition to EPA, represented on the TCC and Lake Michigan Management
Committees are: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty Fishery
Management Authority.
Under the LaMP organization structure, the Lake Michigan Management Committee directs
overall policy, convene the TCC, and review technical workgroup products and recommenda-
tions of the Lake Michigan Forum. Managers and TCC members ensure implementation of the
recommendations within their jurisdiction through programmatic and statutory authorities of
their agencies. Funding can be from their agencies, through a number of grant opportunities
and/or through partnerships with other public and private entities.
The Plan
The Lake Michigan LaMP is called for under the United States/Canadian Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA), as well as the 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act. The
current draft LaMP (September 1993) focuses on toxic pollutants, but the participating govern-
mental agencies and stakeholders recognize that other stressors contribute to impairments of the
Lake. The LaMP is responding to these expressed concerns by evolving into a plan which en-
compasses a broad ecosystem approach to protecting and restoring the Lake Michigan ecosystem.
It also addresses the management needs presented by loss of habitat and biodiversity and the
introduction of damaging exotic species and toxic pollutants. The next draft of the LaMP
will include the results of a number of studies and monitoring efforts to determine the fate of
pollutants entering the Lake, and how they move through air, water, or sediments into the food
chain.
-------
Lake Michigan LaMP Management Structure
uses
USFWS
USACOE
USDA
USEPA
(Lake Ml
Team)
IDEM
IEPA
MDEQ
WDNR
Tribes
Technical
Coordinating
Committee
Ad-hoc
Work
Groups
Management
Committee
Local Government
Industry
Environmental
Non-Profits
Academia
Agriculture
RAPs
Recreation
Tribes
Lake Michigan
Forum
Ad-hoc
Work
Groups
Success Measures, Monitoring,
P2, Critical Pollutants
Data Management, Public Participation,
Stewardship Indicators
The Schedule and Format
The LaMP document will target those who will be making policy and resource decisions affecting the
Lake and who will need concise information and recommendations. The next draft of the LaMP is
planned for Fall 1997. In Fall 1996, a series of fact sheets, more general in nature, were developed to
provide current information on LaMP activities.
For more information, please contact Judy Beck (312) 353-3849. E-mail: beck.judy@epamail gov
L'S F.PA 77 West Inckwn Blvd . Chinien. II. 60f>04
-------
vvERA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
STATE OF
LAKE MICHIGAN
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) calls for lakewide planning to
focus on reducing the discharges of pollutants to the waters of the Lake Michigan ecosys-
tem to restore and protect the ecological health of the Lake. Pollutants in Lake Michigan
are not the only cause of existing or potential impairments. Habitat loss and shifts in
species composition are also important factors contributing to the degradation of the
quality of the ecosystem. Despite reductions in amiri^lt^m^ls of toxic pollutants during
the past 20 years, data indicate toxiapolluJiMSfsuli 'eHieftiiiegJgve impacts on the physical
and biological components
GLWQA mandates that
14 warning signs of an
LaMP has identified
to, these 14 sympto;
occurrence are boi
Lake Michigan T^
agencies) is in t
proposed pollutAflfs list
sources and set load
tion, and remediation
progress.
Plan (LaMP) address
impairments. The
or have the potential to contribute
the frequency of their
ignation of LaMP pollutants. The
cooperating tribal, State, and Federal
isf fi£^£ingmfarmation on the use impairments using the
,aRJlP draft. The next steps will be to determine
by implementation of prevention, reduc-
and monitoring will be used to measure
14Syiriiptomso(an Impaired Ecosystem
The Great Lakes Wati;Qu4IJtxAgrecfripnl flfi&jaates that the LaMP address the following 14 warning signs
(called benefuS(Sjrt{nl.s^;'rakLaMP intends to identify all causes for these 14
restore a healthy ecosystem.
1. Restriction on fis
consumption;
2. Tainting offish
3. Degradation of fisr.a!h4 wildlfe: :
population;
4. Fish tumors or other^etotitiiitiesv -
5. Bird or animal defomuUeis'or >, ; :
reproduction problem^;
6. Degradation of benthos
7. Restriction of dredging actrv^rfies;
8. Eutrophication or undesirable algae;
9. Restriction on drinking-water
consumption, or taste and odor
problems;
10. Beach closings;
11. Degradation of aesthetics;
12. Added costs to agriculture or
industry;
13. Degradation of phytoplankton
populations; and
14. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
-------
SOLEC Findings
The 1994 Canada/U.S. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)
findings for Lake Michigan were:
Environmental quality in the basin generally is best in the north, and deteriorates to the south.
Of the 10 Areas of Concern (AOCs - the most degraded areas) the Grand Calumet River/Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal, Milwaukee, and Green Bay AOCs are the largest and most degraded, although
the Kalamazoo River contains very large quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The sea lamprey has eliminated all stocks of native Lake trout, and severely depressed whitefish
and other aquatic populations. The future of the aquatic community is uncertain.
Sport fishery remains productive, based upon hatchery-reared salmon and Lake trout statistics.
The goal of self-sustaining Lake trout populations through natural reproduction remains elusive.
Whitefish populations, on the other hand, are increasing and support a valuable commercial
fishery.
Habitat loss (especially wetlands) is widespread in Lake Michigan, particularly in the southern
portion of the Lake. Urban sprawl and recreational development continue to destroy habitat and
biodiversity.
Bioaccumulative, persistent toxic substance levels in fish are similar to levels in Lake Ontario, and
are among the highest in the Great Lakes basin, resulting in a number of fish advisories.
A Mass Balance Study is currently underway to determine how toxic contaminants move into and
travel through the Lake ecosystem.
Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants
A Critical Pollutant Work Group, consisting of
technical staff from U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and the four Lake
Michigan states, developed a process for listing and
delisting substances as LaMP pollutants and identi-
fied those chemicals which, based on existing
information, are impacting Lake Michigan and its
watershed. Consistent with the recommendations of
the work group, EPA recommended LaMP pollut-
ants be categorized into three levels based on degree
of association with use impairments and spatial
distribution or frequency of occurrence.
Subsequent LaMP management activities also would be
tiered based on a pollutant's classification.
The GLWQA defines critical pollutants as substances
that exist at levels that impair beneficial uses due to
their presence in open lake waters, their ability to cause
or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement objectives,
or their ability to bioaccumulate. For the purposes of
the Lake Michigan LaMP, EPA proposes "critical
pollutants" (Level 1) as those substances that violate the
most stringent federal or state water quality
-------
standards or criteria in nearshore and/or open lake
waters of Lake Michigan, exceed a Food and Drug
Administration action level in Lake Michigan fish, or
contribute to use impairments on a lakewide basis (i.e.
in open-lake waters or in multiple nearshore Lake
Michigan and/or tributary waters). Based on available
information regarding the pollution of Lake Michigan
and the effects or potential effects of the pollutants on
aquatic life, wildlife, and humans, EPA has proposed
the following pollutants as critical pollutants (Level I)
for Lake Michigan: total polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs); dieldrin; chlordane;
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and degrada-
tion products; polychlorinated dibenzo-
para-dioxine(dioxins); polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(furans); and mercury.
EPA proposes "pollutants of concern" (Level 2) as
those pollutants that cause or contribute to use impair-
ments on a local or regional basis (i.e. only at one or a
few locations, including an AOC) or for which there is
evidence that loadings to, or ambient concentrations in,
the Lake Michigan watershed are increasing. Manage-
ment actions for these substances will emphasize
pollution prevention efforts, available load reduction
opportunities, and additional information collection.
Pollutants of concern include any chemicals associated
with a use impairment in an AOC, if it is not already
listed as a critical pollutant. In these instances, the
LaMP process will not duplicate or interfere with AOC
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) efforts. EPA believes
listing pollutants associated with impairments in only
one or a few AOCs as LaMP pollutants of concern
recognizes that these substances are present in the Lake
Michigan watershed, have been associated with an
impairment, and may be transported into the Lake if
control measures are not taken. Whenthe RAP process
determines that a chemical no longer contributes to use
impairments in any Lake Michigan AOC, it will be
considered for removal from the LaMP pollutant list.
EPA believes listing chemicals with increasing loads
and/or concentrations and those that cause impairments
in AOCs as LaMP pollutants of concern is consistent
with its pollution prevention policy. This approach will
allow participating agencies to prevent or reduce
pollutant loads prior to their causing a lakewide prob-
lem. Based on available data, EPA is proposing the
following pollutants of concern for Lake Michigan:
hexachlorobenzene; toxaphene; polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs); lead; copper; cadmium; and
zinc.
Proposed "emerging pollutants" (Level 3) are those
toxic substances that, while not presently known to
contribute to impairments or to show increasing load-
ings or concentrations, have characteristics indicating a
potential to impact the physical or biological integrity of
Lake Michigan. These characteristics include presence
in the watershed, ability to bioaccumlate, persistence,
andtoxicity.
EPA is proposing the following "emerging pollutants"
for Lake Michigan: atrazine; PCB substitute com-
pounds; and selenium.
POLLUTANTS: LAKEMICHIGAN LaMP
Level 1 Critical Pollutants
Total PCBs
Chlordane
Dioxins
Mercury
Dieldrin
DDT/DDD/DDE
Furans
Level 2 Pollutants of Concern Level 3 Emerging Pollutants
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
Cadmium
Copper
Arsenic
PAHs
Chromium
Zinc
Cyanide
Atrazine
PCB substitute compounds
Selenium
-------
Pollutants
Sources
Concerns
Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)
PCBs were widely used in the U.S. from
1929 to 1978 for various purposes, includ-
ing hydraulic fluids and lubricants. Pursu-
ant to the Toxic Substances Control Act in
1979, EPA prohibited the manufacture, dis-
tribution, and many uses of PCBs. PCBs are
still used in some closed electrical equip-
ment because of high heat resistance, and
stability.
PCBs are highly bioaccumulative and per-
sistent. All of the Great Lakes have fish
consumption advisories based on PCBs.
PCBs have been shown to cause liver can-
cer in laboratory animals and are probable
human carcinogens.
Mercury
A natural element, mercury was once widely
used by the pulp and paper industry and in
the manufacture of chlorine and caustic
soda. Coal-burning power plants and waste
incinerators are among active sources though
degassing of mercury from the earth's crust
may exceed anthropogenic releases.
Mercury is converted in lakes to methyl-
mercury (the organic form of mercury) by
bacteria under low oxygen conditions. Meth-
ylmercury is highly bioaccumulative.
Symptoms including deafness, blindness,
and death have been associated with the
long-term ingestion of mercury contami-
nated fish. Fish advisories based on mer-
cury are in effect for the St. Mary's River and
Lake St. Clair, 10,000 inland lakes in Michi-
gan, and 400 others in Minnesota and Wis-
consin.
Polychlorinated dibenzo-
paradioxins (PCDDs or dioxins)
A family of structurally related chemical
compounds, dioxins were present in fungi-
cides and herbicides. Dioxins are also gen-
erated by chlorine bleaching in pulp and
paper manufacture. They are also a byproduct
of combustion of organic material contain-
ing chlorine.
Dioxins are highly bioaccumulative and
persistent. 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic of
a chemical family of 75 compounds, is an
extremely potent animal carcinogen and
teratogen. In humans, it has been linked to
a skin disease. A recent epidemiological
study of occupational exposure to dioxin
found greater incidence of cancer among
highly exposed persons. EPA launched a
new assessment of dioxin's risks in 1991.
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFsorfurans)
A family of structurally related chemical
compounds, furans are present in
chlorophenols and derivative herbicides, are
a byproduct of the combustion of chlori-
nated organic matter, and are generated by
chlorine bleaching in pulp and paper manu
facture. Furans were also an inadvertent
contaminant to some PCB products.
2,3,7,8-TCDF is inferred to be one-tenth
as toxic as 2,3,7,8-TCDD, but it has similar
toxicological properties. Other PCDFs
show a similar toxicological relationship
to their PCDD analogs.
Dieldrin
An insecticide introduced in 1946, dieldrin
was widely used until restricted by Wiscon-
sin and Michigan in the late 1960s and
restricted by EPA on a national basis in 1974.
Dieldrin is a probable human carcinogen.
DOT and metabolites (DDE)
An insecticide introduced in 1946, DDT was
widely used until banned by Wisconsin and
Michigan in the late 1960s and by EPA on
a national basis in 1972. Environmental
concentrations have fallen significantly
since that time. States still receive unused
DDT stocks turned in by U.S. farmers.
DDT is converted to DDE by natural pro-
cesses. DDE is highly bioaccumulative
and persistent. It is known to cause egg-
shell thinning in birds and benign tumors
in laboratory animals.
Chlordane
Chlordane was once widely used in a variety
of pest control applications. EPA restricted
its use in 1978. In 1969, manufacturer
voluntarily cancelled all remaining uses ol
chlordane, with the exception of fire ant
control in power transformers.
Chlordane is a probable human carcinoge
and has a high potential for bioaccumulation
-------
You Are What You Eat
Fish Advisories
One of the persistant use impairments for Lake Michigan is the need to set fish advisories on fish consumption.
These will vary from species to species and from year to year. State Natural Resources and Public Health agen-
cies work with the Water Quality Agencies to determine the annual advisories. Nursing mothers, pregnant
women, and women who intend to have children should exercise caution in their choice of fish and preperation
methods. Restrictions on fish consumption should also be placed on small children. For information on specific
fish advisories in your area, contact your local health department.
Fish Cleaning Guide
Most of the toxic PCBs are in the fatty parts of a fish. By removing these fatty parts, you can reduce the amount
of PCBs you eat.
Here's what to do:
1. Trim fatty areas-the belly, the top of the back, and the lateral sides.
2. Remove or put holes in skin before cooking. This lets the fat drain off.
3. Cook so fat drains away. Bake, broil, grill or poach and throw away the liquid. Do not fry or make
soups.
4. Deep-fry trimmed fillets in vegetable oil. Throw away oil after cooking.
Dorsal Fat
U- Lateral
Fatty Tissue
Fat Belly
Tissue
-------
How the Food Chain Works
The fish you eat from Lake Michigan and its rivers feed on smaller fish that feed on smaller animals that feed on
smaller animals that feed on plant life from the bottom. The bottoms of many rivers are contaminated with PCBs.
So when you eat a fish, you may be eating PCBs-which can be harmful to your health.
DDT In
FWh-Eatlng Birds
25ppm
DDT in Urge Fish
2ppm
DDT in Small Fish
0.5 ppm
DDT In Zooplankton
0.04 ppm
DDT in water
0.000003 ppm,
or3ppt
Accumulation and Amplification of Organic Contaminants In an Aquatic 9y*twn
l-'oi mt»f infotiiKition. please contact Judy Heck, (312) 353-3849. E-mail: beck.jud\@epamail.epa.gov
I' .S /•./',!, 77 \V(",t Imkson lil\'tl. Chicago, 11. 60604.
-------
SPACE FOR NOTES:
2.
f
-xtt
^
t ,--> r
-\
-------
5EPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
CONTROLLING
LAKE MICHIGAN
LaMP POLLUTANTS
This fact sheet lists the pollutants by Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
category and highlights how these pollutants are addressed by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) programs-both regulatory and voluntary. Other federal and state agencies have
additional authorities that may, in some way, control these pollutants. Every environmental
statute highlighted controls almost all LaMP pollutants in some way, and some of the LaMP
pollutants have been banned from intentional production. Bans, however, do not always
require destruction of products in use. Reviewing the effectiveness.^ existing controls is one
step in the process of identifying the need for further actions juckas pre^eqtion, reduction,
source removal, or control activities. The LaMP process continues to evajuate the role of other
sources, such as air deposition and sedimentjfci
What are the Lake Michigan Pro
LaMP Pollutants?
The September 30, 1993, draft LaMP d^scriBe!::three categories fo^^ake Michigan LaMP
pollutants: critical pollutants, pollutants offconcem, and emerging pollutants.
*?'• •;, f V
,f
f , !—/ .
[proposed LaMP Critical pollutants
polychlorinated bjphehyls (PCBs) /
dieldrin
t
chlordane ?, .:;, • /
dichlorodiphenyjitrichloroelhane (t>DT) and metabolites"
mercury
dioxins
furans
Proposed LaMP Pollutants of Concern
arsenic
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc l__
hexachlorobenzene
toxaphene
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Proposed LaMP, Emerging Pollutants
atrazme
selenium
PCB substitute compounds
-------
EPA Regulatory Programs and
the Proposed LaMP Pollutants
Clean Water Act
The goal of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (or the Clean Water Act, CWA) is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters.
Wastewater and Storm Water Permits
Through the CWA, priority pollutants were identified
by Congress and interpreted by EPA to include 126
chemicals. EPA evaluated the technologies, available
to remove these pollutants from wastewater and
selected the best technologies for a number of indus-
tries. EPA then prepared national standards for those
pollutants as a mass or concentration remaining in
wastewater after the best available waste-water treat-
ment. All point source discharges are required to
obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to lawfully discharge.
NPDES permits require the operator of the source to
employ the best available water pollution control
technology and to further reduce discharges of pollu-
tion, as necessary, to comply with water-quality
standards.
Water Quality Standards and Criteria
The same list of 126 chemicals must be considered in
preparing water-quality standards and criteria under
the CWA. Water-quality standards consist of the
designated uses of the navigable waters (such as use
and value for public water supplies, propagation of
fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricul-
tural, industrial, and other purposes including their use
and for navigation) and water-quality criteria based on
such uses, and a non-degradation policy intended to
maintain high-quality waters in their present condi-
tion. Toxic substances shall not be present in waters
of the State in toxic amounts. Water-quality criteria
for the 126 priority pollutants are typically expressed
numerically. In addition to being considered in the
development of NPDES permits for point source
discharges, water-quality standards and criteria may be
considered in efforts to control nonpoint sources of
pollution. Money made available under the CWA
helps States control nonpoint sources of pollution.
Final Water-Quality Guidance for the Great
Lakes System
The Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System, also known as the Great Lakes Initiative or
GLI, consists of numeric water-quality criteria to
protect aquatic life, wildlife, and human health from
29 pollutants (including all proposed critical pollutants
except furans, and all proposed pollutants of concern
except lead); detailed methodologies to develop
additional criteria or maximum values comparable to
criteria for other pollutants; a non-degradation policy;
procedures to determine the need for and to calculate
water quality-based effluent limits for point source
discharges; and procedures for determining the total
maximum daily load of pollutants which may enter the
Lakes or their tributaries from all sources while still
attaining water-quality standards.
Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA 01
Superfund) is probably best known for authorities to
respond to emergency releases of hazardous materials,
and to clean up high-profile sites on the National
Priorities List. While Superfund focuses on site-
specific cleanups, it also addresses off-site contamina-
tion of surface waters, sediments, and ground water.
Superfund has several provisions that are preventative
in nature. These provisions address two different
subsets of the LaMP pollutants. First is the require-
ment to report, to the National Response Center, spills
greater than a "reportable quantity" (RQ) of "hazard-
ous substances" which include all the proposed critical
pollutants except furans (with an RQ of 1 pound each)
all of the proposed pollutants of concern, and seleniurr
(with various RQs, depending on the chemical form oi
the release) Reporting requirements assure that the
State and Federal officials are notified of the spill, and
emergency responders, including responsible parties,
address the spill to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts
to human health or the environment.
-------
Second, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program
under the Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know Act (incorporated as a Superfund amend-
ment) applies to manufacturing facilities (standard
industrial classification codes 20-39) that employ 10
or more full-time employees and that manufacture or
process more than 25,000 pounds or use more than
10,000 pounds of any listed chemical during the
calendar year. A total of 24,600 facilities nationwide
are required to make public the levels of toxic chemi-
cals they release into the air, water, and land. Facili-
ties report their TRI information annually to EPA and
to the state in which they are located. The list of
chemicals required to be reported includes some
proposed critical pollutants (PCBs, chlordane, and
mercury), all the proposed pollutants of concern, and
none of the emerging pollutants.
Oil Pollution Act
The Oil Pollution Act address threats to the environ-
ment from petroleum (i.e. PAHs) and non-petroleum
based oil releases or spills. In addition to requiring
that spill prevention measures (Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure Plans) be taken by
production, storage, and transportation facilities, the
Act requires EPA to prepare for (area-wide contin-
gency plans and Facility Response Plans) and to
respond to any oil spill affecting the inland waters of
the United States, including the Great Lakes system.
Clean Air Act
The purpose of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA)
is to protect and enhance the quality of the nation's air
resources to promote the public health and welfare and
the productive capacity of its population. A primary
goal of the CAA is to encourage and promote reason-
able actions for pollution prevention at all levels of
government. It provides authority to regulate 14 of the
20 LaMP pollutants.
Section 112(b) of the 1990 CAA amendments contains
a list of 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). EPA is
required by Section 112© to publish a list of catego-
ries and subcategories of major sources (potential
aggregate emitters of 10 tons per year of any HAP or
25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs)
and area sources (stationary sources of HAPs, exclud-
ing vehicles and major sources) of these pollutants. In
addition, Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to identity
and regulate the sources responsible for at least 90
percent of the total air emissions of alkylated lead
compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexa-chloro-
benzene, mercury, PCBs, 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodi-
benzofurans, and 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin.
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs EPA to establish a
maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standard for each of the source categories determined
under Section 112(c). Each MACT standard creates
emission limits for the HAPs emitted by sources
within the category. These hazardous air pollutants
listed in Section 112(b) of the CAA overlap with the
LaMP proposed pollutants: chlordane, DDE (a DDT
metabolite), hexachloro-benzene, PCBs, 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD, a dioxin),
toxaphene, arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds,
chromium compounds, cyanide compounds, lead
compounds, mercury compounds, polycyclic organic
matter, and selenium compounds.
In Section 112(m), the CAA provides EPA the author-
ity to regulate air emissions of hazardous air pollutants
if air deposition is found to contribute to exceedences
of water-quality standards.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The objectives of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) are to promote the protection
of human health and the environment and to conserve
valuable material and energy resources by proper
management of solid and hazardous waste. The
statute does not limit solid wastes to a particular phase
state and does not include a list of chemicals. Rather,
solid waste is defined to include garbage, refuse and
sludge resulting from particular activities. Hazardous
waste is solid waste which may pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly managed. RCRA
encourages process substitution, materials recovery,
properly conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment
over disposal of wastes.
-------
Under Subtitle C of RCRA, regulatory definitions of
solid and hazardous waste have been determined.
Hazardous wastes have characteristics such as
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. It is
important to realize that a single waste stream may
contain multiple pollutants and that a single pollutant
may be regulated under many RCRA hazardous waste
codes. For ex-ample, lead is identified as a hazardous
constituent in more than 20 RCRA hazardous wastes.
All of the proposed critical pollutants and pollutants of
concern are included in at least one RCRA hazardous
waste, and, of the proposed emerging pollutants,
several selenium compounds are also identified as
hazardous wastes.
EPA Regulatory Programs and the Pro-
posed LaMP Pollutants
Hazardous wastes are subject to varying levels of
federal regulation, depending in part upon the volume
of waste generated. A particular LaMP pollutant may
be present in a waste, but if hazardous waste is created
at a low rate at that facility (e.g., less than 100 kg per
calendar month), the waste does not enter RCRA's
cradle-to-grave regulatory scheme. Household hazard-
ous wastes are also excluded from the regulatory
definition of hazardous waste. The cradle-to-grave
regulatory scheme means that wastes are tracked
during active management by manifesting of ship-
ments from the generator through subsequent handlers
to the waste's final recycling (e.g., burning for energy
recovery or solvent distillation) or disposal (e.g.,
combustion, treatment to render nonhazardous, or
placement in a landfill).
Under Subtitle D of RCRA, federal solid waste regula-
tions include criteria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities and practices, such as "application
to land used for the production of food-chain crops."
This regulation provides the criteria distinguishing
between open dumps and allowable application of
solid waste containing cadmium (in units of kilogram
per hectare, depending on soil properties) or PCBs
(concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg must be incor-
porated into the soil, unless it is assured that PCB
content is less than 0.2 mg/kg in animal feed or less
than 1.5 mg/kg—fat basis—in milk). Cadmium and
PCBs are the only two pollutants so specifically
addressed.
Under the authority of RCRA Subtitle I regulations,
EPA regulates underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing hazardous substances as defined in
CERCLA (not including RCRA Subtitle C hazardous
wastes) and petroleum products. The technical stan-
dards include provisions for design, installation,
operating, release response, and closure. As discussei
under CERCLA reporting requirements for releases o
hazardous substances, 17 of the 20 LaMP pollutants
are covered by UST regulations.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives EP/
the authority to gather information about the toxicity
of particular chemicals and the extent to which peopk
and the environment are exposed to them. EPA then
uses the information to assess whether the chemicals
cause unreasonable risks to humans and the environ-
ment and to institute appropriate control actions after
weighing potential risks against benefits to the
nation's economic and social well-being. Essentially
all chemical substances except those used for the
following eight purposes are subject to TSCA regula-
tory authority: pesticides, tobacco, nuclear material,
fire-arms and ammunition, food, food additives, drug:
and cosmetics. These uses are regulated under other
statutes.
Using PCBs as an example, the manufacture of PCBs
was banned under TSCA authority in 1978, but due U
specific authorizations, exclusions, or exemptions,
some PCBs can be used to the end of their useful live
TSCA also prohibits dilution of PCBs to avoid TSCA
provisions, regulates the disposal above 50 ppm, and
controls the burning for energy recovery of PCB wast
oils between 2 and 50 ppm.. PCBs may still be used
indefinitely in electrical equipment, such as transform
ers and capacitors. Because the manufacture of PCBs
was banned in the 1970s, PCB transformers and
capacitors are at least 20 years old. This particular
group of equipment may experience a higher failure
rate as it approaches the end of its useful life.
-------
Of the other LaMP pollutants, TSCA regulates spe-
cific uses of DDT and lead and has specific testing and
reporting requirements for dioxins and furans. Many
PAHs have uses which may be regulated under TSCA,
but the TSCA regulatory status of each would have to
be checked individually.
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Roden-
ticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) regulates substances created for the
purpose of pest control. The statute requires EPA to
balance risk and benefit through regulation. Of the
critical pollutants, dieldrin, chlordane, and DDT are
canceled pesticides. Cancellation imposes a date when
sale and distribution may no longer take place (usu-
ally, 18 months from the effective date of cancella-
tion). End users are permitted to apply any existing
stocks according to label instructions. Although DDT
is a canceled pesticide, it is present as a by-product in
dicofol, a related pesticide currently in use. However,
all dicofol products containing more than . 1 percent
DDT contamination have been canceled. Fungicide
compounds containing mercury have also been can-
celed under FIFRA. Dioxins and furans are not
intentionally produced, but are created during the
manufacture of some pesticides. The herbicides 2,4,5-
T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) and silvex were
suspended and canceled because of dioxin contamina-
tion. Suspension is an action which disallows the use
of existing stocks and uses an allowable disposal
method, such as incineration or transfer to an appropri-
ate landfill.
Of the pollutants of concern, arsenic, though consider-
ably restricted, is still a component of some pesticides.
The inorganic arsenicals, lead, calcium, and sodium
arsenate and sodium arsenile have been canceled,
while arsenic trioxide is mainly used for wood treat-
ment, such as pressure-treated lumber. The organic
arsenicals, disodium methane-arsenate, mono sodium
methanearsenate, and cacodylic acid are used as
herbicides in and around ornamental trees, shrubs, and
lawns. Copper and zinc are used in pesticide products.
Hexachlorobenzene was canceled under FIFRA, but is
still contained as a low-level contaminant in a few
pesticides currently in use, such as DCPA (dacthal)
and chlorothalonil. Toxaphene's use as a pesticide is
canceled.
FIFRA authority is also being used to prepare the
pesticide component of ground-water protection plans.
The State Management Plan (SMP) proposed rule
includes voluntary best management practices to
reduce the contamination of ground water by pesti-
cides. In the proposed rule, the five pesticides, atr-
azine, simazine, cyanazine, alachlor, and metolachlor
will require that SMPs be developed for each state.
These five pesticides are herbicides used on major
crops (particularly corn and soybeans) in the Lake
Michigan watershed. Only atrazine has been identi-
fied as a LaMP pollutant because trace amounts were
detected in Lake Michigan water in 1992. As part of
the SMP process, the use of a given pesticide can be
restricted in specific portions of a state when the
ground-water concentration of the pesticide exceeds a
state's regulatory threshold and the contamination is
not from a point source.
EPA Voluntary Programs and Proposed
LaMP Pollutants
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Pollution prevention activities can be targeted on
LaMP pollutants by applying the same four-step
process laid out in iheCanada—United States Strategy
for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Sub-
stances in the Great Lakes (information gathering,
analysis, identification of cost-effective options, and
implementation) to all of the LaMP pollutants. The
Strategy includes challenges to the United States and
Canada to virtually eliminate mercury, dioxins and
furans, chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, toxa-
phene, octachlorostyrene, alkyl lead, PCBs,
hexachlorobenzene, and benzo(a)pyrene-a significant
overlap with the draft Lake Michigan LaMP pollut-
ants. Information gathering and analysis can consist
of reviewing government databases (e.g., TRI, RCRA
biennial reports, pesticide use and field crop data) to
-------
identity the most significant sources of the pollutants
and their sources.
33/50 Program
A partnership approach may be appropriate when
regulatory approaches are not cost effective or are
politically impossible. In Partnerships in Preventing
Pollution, A Catalog of the Agency's Partnership
Programs (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 100-B-96-001, Spring 1996), EPA
explains how it is building partnerships with a variety
of groups, including small and large businesses,
citizen groups, state and local governments, universi-
ties and trade associations. A successful example of
pollution prevention is the 33/50 program, which set
national priorities for preventing chemical releases to
the environment by targeting 17 pollutants reported to
TRI in 1988 for reduction by 33 percent in 1992 and
50 percent in 1995. The 33/50 target chemicals were
selected nationally on the basis of relative toxicity,
volumes of use, and potential for reduction through
pollution prevention. The LaMP pollutants overlap
with these 33/50 chemicals: mercury and compounds,
cadmium and compounds, chromium and compounds,
cyanide compounds, and lead and compounds. The
1,300 individual voluntary pledges from corporate
America represent a commitment to a cleaner environ-
ment in a healthy economy.
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Pro-
gram
EPA also describes the Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program (PESP) in the publication,
"Partnerships in Preventing Pollution, A Catalog of
the Agency's Partnership Programs." The PESP is a
broad effort by EPA, the United States Department of
Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration to
reduce pesticide use and risk in agriculture and non-
agricultural settings. In September 1993, the three
agencies announced a federal commitment to two
major goals:
• Developing specific use/risk reduction strategies
that include reliance on biological pesticides and
other approaches to pest control that are thought to
be safer than traditional chemical methods.
• Having 75 percent of U.S. agricultural acreage
adopt integrated pest management programs by
the year 2000.
One of the ways to reduce the use of persistent toxi-
cants for pest control is to use genetically engineered
crops, such as Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT) corn,
potatoes and cotton. Genetic engineering is also used
to prepare herbicide-resistant crops, such as Round-up
Ready Soybeans. While not necessarily reducing
overall pesticide use, glyphosate (the active ingredient
of Round-up) has not become a widespread water
contaminant.
Common Sense Initiative
Through this initiative, EPA is moving beyond the
traditional single media, one-size-fits-all approach to
environmental and public health protection towards a
holistic, industry-by-industry approach that looks
across all media. Approximately 40 projects are
underway in six industry sector teams made up of
representatives from:
• Environmental Organizations
• Environmental Justice and Community organizations
• Industry
• Labor
• Federal, State, and Local governments.
These teams are developing holistic, consensus-based
strategies to public health and environmental protec-
tion that are flexible, innovative alternatives to the
current regulatory system. The six industries partici-
pating are:
Automobile Manufacturing
Computers and Electronics
Iron and Steel
Metal Finishing
Petroleum Refining
Printing
-------
SPACE FOR NOTES:
i
—!•"
/•
For more information, please contact Sue Brauer, (312) 353-6134, E-mail: brauer.sue@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA. 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
&EPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
LAKE MICHIGAN
AREAS OF CONCERN
Areas of Concern
Lake Michigan has 10 Areas of Concern (AOC)
which were designated by the International Joint
Commission. An AOC is^fpeSttlWswhere use
of rivers, bays, dtIa^^§ j? Imijteid by Dilution.
& levels that
may
business and
governments have
ntirying pollution sources
ManJstiqUe Riv^r
Location
lutions for each AOC.
Multiple; activities Ire underway to address
concerns. For more information about actions and suc-
are listed for each AOC in the brief descriptions that follow.
.TheMapjstique Riyerylows southwest through Schoolcraft County in Michigan's
central Upper Peninsula, discharging into the Lake at Manistique. The AOC is the last
V lJ;mii^^r'tbJ&riV0f, Som the dam to the mouth of the harbor at Lake Michigan.
- - -.- . - -• ••.•. .
\ Brief Description ;
.The primary eriviroftlnental concern is contamination of sediments and fish by poly-
(PCBs). Oils and heavy metals also contaminate the AOC and
ec overflows can be a problem. A combined sewer overflow is the
g^pf^tjtn sewage and stormwater that have not been treated.
-------
()ngomg dredging of PCB-contaminated sediments will eventually lead to restoring most of the uses in the AOC
and will also lead to a reduction of PCB contamination to Lake Michigan.
Contacts
Mcrilce Blowers, Chair
Public Advisory Committee
ManiMique Papers, Inc.
453 S. Mackmac
Mamstique, Ml 49854
906-341-2175
Roger Eberhardt
MI Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-1119
ebcrharr@deq.state.mi.us
Jim Hahnenberg
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-353-4213
hahnenberg.jim@epamail.epa.gov
Lower Menominee River
Location
The Menominee River forms the boundary between the northeast corner of Wisconsin and the southern tip of
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In Wisconsin, this river is sometimes called the Brule. It flows between the
cities of Menominee, Michigan and Marinette, Wisconsin, before emptying into Green Bay on Lake Michigan.
The AOC includes the lower 3 miles of the river from the Upper Scott Paper Company Dam to the river's
mouth and approximately 3 miles north and south of the mouth along the adjacent shoreline of Green Bay.
Brief Description
The Ansul Chemical Company produced arsenic-based herbicides from 1957 to 1977. Wastes, including ar-
senic salts, were stored next to or dumped into the river causing the largest remaining impairments in the AOC.
Other pollutants such as mercury, PCBs, and oil and grease have also contributed to environmental problems.
Sources of contamination include coal and salt piles, a municipal landfill, industrial discharges, municipal
wastewater treatment plants, and combined sewer overflows. The ecosystem will be restored with the success-
ful implementation of the cleanup agreement between EPA and Ansul under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Contacts
Nancy Douglas, Chair
Citi/ens Advisory Council
Menominee Area Chamber of Commerce
IMS l()ih Ave., P.O. Box 436
Menominee, MI 49858
906-863-2679
Terry Lohr
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
608-267-2375
lohrt@dnr.state.wi.us
Charles Anderson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-886-1501
anderson.charles@epamail.epa.gov
Lower Green Bay and Fox River
Location
The AOC consists of the lower 7 miles of the Fox River and about 20 square miles of southern Green Bay. The
drainage area encompasses portions of 18 counties in Wisconsin and 40 watersheds of the Upper Fox River,
Wolf River, and the Fox River, including Lake Winnebago, and its pool lakes. A watershed is an area of land
from which water drains to a stream, lake, or wetland.
-------
Brief Description
If uses are to be restored, the amount of contaminated sediments and nutrients must be significantly reduced,
wetland habitat must be better protected and restored, and PCBs must be eliminated or reduced to a level where
no negative effects to the ecosystem can be detected. In addition, the introduction of exotic species must be
better controlled. Exotic species are not native to Lake Michigan and have been intentionally introduced or have
infiltrated the system. Some exotic species have a negative effect on native species.
Since 1988, 38 of the 120 recommended remedial actions have been implemented and another 57 have been
initiated.
Contact
Nancy Barker, Chair
Public Advisory Council
Alderman of Menasha County Board
Supervisor for Winnebago County
506 Keyes
Menasha, WI 54952
414-725-1441
Michael Finney
Oneida Nation
Community Development Division
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, WI 54155
414-236-2868
Sheboygan River
Location
Vicky Harris
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
Northeast Region
1125 N. Military Ave.
P.O. Box 10048
Green Bay, WI 54307
414-492-5904
Gallic Bolattino
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-353-3490
bolattino.callie@epamail.epa.gov
The lower Sheboygan River downstream from the Sheboygan Falls Dam, including the entire harbor and near-
shore waters of Lake Michigan, comprises the AOC. The AOC serves as a sink for pollutants carried from three
rivers: Sheboygan, Mullet, and Onion.
Brief Description
EPA designated the Kohler Company landfill, located approximately 300 feet from the river, as a Superfund site
in 1984. A year later, 14 miles of the river and the harbor were named as another Superfund site. Superfund is
a federal priority program which seeks the cleanup of the most polluted hazardous waste sites in the country.
While several contaminants contribute to the use impairments, PCBs are the overriding pollutant of concern in
the contaminated sediment throughout the system. The environmental problems will continue until appropriate
corrective actions ordered through Superfund are implemented.
Contacts
Barb Lillesand, Chair
Citizens Advisory Committee
Sheboygan County Chamber of Commerce
712 Riverfront Dr.
Sheboygan, WI 53081
414-457-9490
Marsha Jones
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
Southeast Region
P.O. Box 12436
2300 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
414-263-8708
jonesm@dnr.state.wi.us
Susan Prout
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-353-1029
prout.susan@epamail.epa.gov
-------
Milwaukee Estuary
Location
Included in the AOC are: the outer harbor and near shore areas of Lake Michigan, the lower 3.1 miles of the
Milwaukee River, the lower 3 miles of the Menominee River, and the lower 2.5 miles of the Kinnickinnic River.
Brief Description
The Milwaukee River ecosystem is affected by pollution sources associated with land use from the entire Mil-
waukee River watershed. As in all major industrialized urban areas, the ecosystem has been impacted by urban
runoff and development. In Milwaukee, upstream sources of PCBs have contaminated sediment and agricul-
tural runoff contributes nutrients and sediment to the system. Sediment remediation projects have begun in
Cedar Creek and non-point priority watershed projects have been implemented. Combined sewer overflows
have been greatly diminished. They used to occur, on average, 50 times per year and since 1994, now occur
fewer than 2 times per year.
Contacts
Steve Skavroneck
Citizens Advisory Committee
346 E. Wilson St.
Milwaukee, WI 53207
414-483-1512
cranehousesp@msn.com
Marsha Jones
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
Southeast Region
P.O. Box 12436
2300 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
414-263-8708
jonesm@dnr.state.wi.us
Stephen Jann
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, JL 60604-3590
312-886-2446
jann.stephen@epamail.epa.gov
Waukegan
Location
The Waukegan AOC is located in Lake County, Illinois, on the west shore of Lake Michigan. There is also an
Expanded Study Area (ESA) bounded by: the Dead River on the north; a bluff line which parallels Sheridan
Road on the west; the southern boundary of the former U.S. Steel Property on the south; and the near-shore
waters of Lake Michigan on the east. Waukegan Harbor consists of approximately 37 acres of industrial, com-
mercial, municipaJ, and open/vacant lands. The watershed of the Waukegan ESA contains the Waukegan River,
the North Ditch, and other near-shore areas which drain to Lake Michigan.
Brief Description
Three Superfund sites are located within the ESA. Major causes of environmental problems are contaminated
sediments and soils in and around Waukegan Harbor. Major concerns voiced by citizens include fish consump-
tion advisories and delays in harbor dredging.
Four major remedial actions have been completed that will significantly reduce the quantity of contaminants in
Waukegan Harbor and the near-shore area. One site alone resulted in the removal of approximately 1 million
-------
pounds of PCBs. The local Citizens Advisory Group has been instrumental in obtaining cooperation from local
responsible parties to pursue remedial investigations in addition to many other environmental activities.
Contacts
Charles C. Isley III, Chair Bob Schacht Matthew Didier
Citizens Advisory Group IL Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lake County Chamber of Commerce 1701 First Ave. 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
5221 Grand Ave. Maywood, IL 60153 Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Gurnee, IL 60031 708-338-7900 312-886-6711
847-249-3800 bshacht@cedar.cic.net didier.matthew@epamail.epa.gov
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
Location
The Grand Calumet River, originating in the east end of Gary, Indiana, flows 13 miles through the heavily
industrialized cities of Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond. The AOC includes Lake County, Indiana, north of
Interstate 80/94 and includes the east branch of the river, a segment of the west branch, and the Indiana Harbor
and Ship Canal.
Brief Description
The AOC is heavily industrialized, including steel mills, oil refineries, chemical plants, and many other indus-
trial operations. In contrast to the presence of heavy industry, the AOC also contains globally rare dune and
swale habitat that supports a multitude of native plant species. The majority of the river's flow drains into Lake
Michigan via the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, sending about 1 billion gallons of water into the lake per day.
Of the river's flow, 90 percent originates as municipal and industrial waste waters, cooling and process water,
storm water overflows, and combined sewer overflows. Heavy industrialization of the AOC has resulted in
widespread contamination of the soil, sediments and ground water by hazardous substances and petroleum
through accidental spills and releases. Between 5 and 10 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments cover
the bottom of the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, of which an estimated 150,000
cubic yards enter Lake Michigan annually. Millions of gallons of petroleum float on the ground water, and pose
a threat where ground water meets surface water. Hundreds of hazardous waste sites require cleanup, including
seven Superfund sites and numerous leaking underground storage tanks.
There are a host of activities underway where local, state and federal agencies, industry, and citizens are work-
ing together in formulating and implementing solutions to these problems.
Contacts
John Fekete, Co-Chair Kay Nelson, Director Stacy Greendlinger
Citizen s Advisory for the Remediation NW Regional Office U.S. Environmental Protection
of the Environment (CARE) Committee IN Dept. of Environmental Management Agency
Inland Steel 504 Broadway #418 77 W. Jackson Blvd.
3210 Watting St. Gary, IN 46402 Chicago, IL 60604-3590
East Chicago, IN 46312 219-881-6712 312-353-5069
219-399-4191 knels@opn.dem.state.in.us. greendlinger.stacy@epamail.epa.gov
-------
Kalamazoo River
Location
The Kalamazoo River is located in the southwest portion of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The river flows in a
westerly direction and discharges into Lake Michigan near the Town of Saugatuck. The upstream boundary of
the AOC is Morrow Dam, which forms Morrow Pond in Kalamazoo. The AOC extends downstream to Lake
Michigan, a distance of approximately 80 miles.
Brief Description
The Kalamazoo River has been identified as an AOC due to historic releases of PCBs from de-
inking operations at local paper mills. These PCBs have accumulated in sediment and fish. Source areas for the
PCB contamination have been identified along the mainstream from Calkins Dam to the City of Kalamazoo and
Portage Creek in the City of Kalamazoo. The upstream sources of PCBs are collectively referred to as the Allied
Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River site. The area became a Superfund site in August 1990.
Habitat loss due to sediment contamination, sedimentation, and local developmental pressures is a concern as is
fish contamination. In addition, nesting failure of bald eagles within the AOC suggests reproductive impair-
ments potentially linked to PCB sediment contamination. Studies of effects of PCB-contaminated sediments on
biota in the Kalamazoo River were released in Summer 1996. Significant effects were found in many levels of
the ecosystem throughout the AOC. These studies are one more link in the chain of events that will lead to
remediation of this Superfund site and ultimately reduce PCB loads to Lake Michigan. The Kalamazoo River is
the largest source of PCBs to Lake Michigan from Michigan tributaries.
Two active non-point source pollution control projects in tributaries to the Kalamazoo River, the Little Rabbit
River and Davis Creek, are expected to reduce loading of soil and certain contaminants to the Kalamazoo River
and to Lake Michigan.
Contacts
Robert Beck, Chair
Public Advisory Council
P.O. Box 181
Hopkins, MI 49328
616-793-7393
Roger Eberhardt
MI Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-1119
eberharr@deq.state.mi.us
Marcia Damato
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, II 60604-3590
312-886-6059
damato.marcia@epamail.epa.gov
Muskegon Lake
Location
Muskegon Lake is a 4,149-acre inland coastal lake located at the mouth of the Muskegon River in Muskegon
County, Michigan along the east shoreline of Lake Michigan.
-------
Brief Description
Muskegon Lake was originally identified as an AOC because, prior to 1973, it received direct discharges of
industrial and municipal wastewater, urban runoff, and combined sewer overflows. These discharges reduced
water and habitat quality in Muskegon Lake and its tributaries. Despite water quality improvements over the
years, Muskegon Lake has areas that are still seriously impaired by polluted ground-water sites flowing into the
Lake, contaminated sediments, insufficient dissolved oxygen, and degraded fish and wildlife habitat.
Increased treatment of industrial and municipal waste over the last 20 years has reduced the amount of pollut-
ants discharged in the AOC. Local problem spots such as Ruddiman Creek, a tributary to Muskegon Lake,
continue to be assessed and are the subject of educational and remedial action efforts by the community. The
Muskegon County Soil Conservation District has initiated many local community-based educational programs
to reduce non-point source pollution to Muskegon Lake and to Lake Michigan.
Contacts
Roland Crummel
Public Advisory Council
3071 Memorial Dr.
Muskegon, MI 49445-2123
616-744-4604
Roger Eberhardt
MI Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-1119
eberharr@deq.slate.mi.us
White Lake
Location
White Lake is a 2,570-acre inland coastal lake at the mouth of the White River, along the east shoreline of Lake
Michigan. The AOC includes White Lake proper and a 0.25-mile zone around Lake Michigan.
Brief Description
White Lake faces problems from contaminated ground water, urban runoff, combined sewer overflows, con-
taminated sediments, pollution from the atmosphere, and historical municipal and industrial discharges.
Assessment continues for sediments in the vicinity of the former leather tannery in Whitehall. The EPA research
vessel "Mudpuppy" collected core samples in 1994 and 1996 to determine the extent of heavy metal contamina-
tion in White Lake sediments.
Pumping and treating of ground water contaminated with organic solvents from the former chemical plant north
of White Lake has significantly reduced loadings of contaminants to White Lake and Lake Michigan.
Contacts
Tanya Cabala, Chair
Public Advisory Council
Lake Michigan Federation
425 W. Western #410
Mukegon, MI 49440
616-722-5116
Roger Eberhardt
MI Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
517-335-1119
eberharr@deq.state.mi.us
Mike Ribordy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 W. Jackson Blvd
Chicago, II. 60604-3590
312-886-4592
ribordy mikc@cpamail epa gov
-------
3EPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
SUCCESS AROUND
LAKE MICHIGAN
From preserving pristine areas to cleaning up areas contaminated with hazardous waste,
people around Lake Michigan are working together to care for this great resource. The
partnerships that have developed among communities, businesses, and different levels
of government have resulted in successful efforts to restore and protect habitats that are
vital for the support of healthy and diverse communities of plants, fish, and wildlife, for
our future. There are many groups and partnershinjptha)Uexist within the Lake Michi-
gan basin. Here is a small sampling of^rttwrtfti^ •a$vUie&yi the Lake Michigan
region.
Partnerships for Resto
Chicago Wilderness
In an unprecedented ra]tortjve efrt,; ^cpn|^!(dion-conscious organizations
joined forces in Aprif f^fe ^restOTe^iprbtec^alna 6r|serve the Chicago Wilderness,
more than 200,0(|Cacje^£fetropoUtan-ailw natural land. The Chicago Wilderness
region stretches Jarom the^fihlwaukee Prairie in southeast Wisconsin, around the south-
west tip of LakeOllfchigiJUi, ; through horthiast Illinois, and across northern Indiana to the
Dunes. The region incl ides some of the finest tallgrass prairies and open oak wood-
lands in the Midwest. ' 'h6 3<4 me'rnbfer ptganizations include local, State, and Federal
governments, research pd education institutions, landowners, and conservation groups.
jnities for community support and public
existing natural areas. Through this united
strength to be more effective and to reach
model for similar urban conservation efforts
Most member organizations offer ppf
involvement in preseBvjjvg arid resfoirjr
effort, Chicago Wilderness will h>ve tt
broader audiences, ^tiopei to serve as'
worldwide.
Leelanau Conservancy ^Leelaniati County 1
Established in 1988¥the liela^u Conseryanfcy has been able to recruit 1,700 members
(which represents a^pod |>erc«ntage of the atiilt population of the county). Its goal is
to preserve land and|w{iter resources of Leela$au County, Michigan. In carrying out its
mission, the Conservancy acquires land, iylpris with private landowners to protect land,
and works with localfeuid state-units-of govfemment lo own and manage land. A recent
$800,000 project resulted ii the prese^atiojr of an entire bluff and its associated 4,000
feet of Lake Michigarf.shpreHQe. The-Qon/fervancy also boasts a very successful and
cost-effective water quality monitoring nirogram of inland lakes and streams which
utilizes the volunteer effortsof committed citizens. It has collected and analyzed more
than five years of data, anttnow,tljjdugh additional volunteer efforts, will be able to
project trends necessary for pJorfning purposes.
-------
Ivanhoe Dune and Swale. IN
Dune and swale are being restored at this 100-acre preserve in Indiana through the efforts of volunteers and the
partnership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Indiana Department of Environmental Man-
agement (IDEM), and the Nature Conservancy. Volunteers remove trash left by midnight dumpers, remove
exotic plant species, provide habitat for the endangered Karner blue butterfly, and plant native vegetation in
disturbed areas.
Door County Conservation Initiative. WI
The goal of this project is to initiate and facilitate conservation activities on existing natural areas and on those
remaining unprotected, high quality natural areas of the Door Peninsula, WI. Primary activities of the project
have included conducting field inventory and historical research of several unexplored natural areas, as well as
creating or strengthening ties with landowners, the local land trust, lake and property owners associations,
academic institutions, and government agencies. A major product of this initiative has been the protection of
110 acres of critical uplands at the north end of Kangaroo Lake. Several other tracts, consisting of 180 acres,
have been protected at the site through verbal landowner agreements.
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative. MI
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative was formed in 1991 to protect the water quality of Grand Traverse
Bay and the surrounding water resources. The Initiative is using a partnership approach and is based on water-
sheds. More than 90 organizations and 200 contributors are advancing the Initiative's work to lessen non-point
source pollution. More than 35 teachers and 1,000 students are conducting stream assessments and water
quality tests. Twenty area resort owners are participating in the Initiative's water conservation program. The
Initiative publishes a State of the Bay report every two years and a quarterly newsletter.
Partnerships for Cleanups:
Manistique River and Harbor Site. Manistique. MI
Sawdust in the river and harbor from the saw milling era is now contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and heavy metals. EPA, local residents, and industries discussed possible steps to clean up the sedi-
ments. After a successful small-scale dredging project undertaken by EPA in the North Bay, the parties decided
to dredge the river and harbor. This community-supported agreement will result in the cleanup of longstanding
contamination.
Grand Calumet Cooperative Project. IN
EPA and IDEM are working with private property owners along the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor
Canal where the presence of petroleum products on the surface water is a concern. The participating companies
include AMOCO Corporation, Mobil Oil, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Phillips Pipe-
line Company, and Safety-Kleen Corporation. These companies have signed a Memorandum of Cooperation
with EPA and IDEM outlining actions they will take to make sure petroleum products do not move from their
properties along the top of the ground water into the Canal and ultimately into Lake Michigan. Safety-Kleen
and NIPSCO completed monitoring studies and determined that their properties are not sources of petroleum
products on the surface water. The remaining companies are proceeding with activities to eliminate petroleum
-------
contamination. This project is demonstrating that regulatory agencies and industry can work together in achiev-
ing environmental protection without having to rely on traditional regulatory approaches.
Outboard Marine Corp. Site. Waukegan. IL
Between 1990 and 1993, Outboard Marine Corporation, removed over 1 million pounds of contaminated sedi-
ments—96 percent of the PCB contamination—making it one of the world's largest PCB cleanups. Outboard
Marine paid for the total cost of the cleanup with EPA providing technical and planning assistance. The site
sparked community activism with the formation of the Citizens Advisory Group (CAG). The CAG is actively
pursuing shoreline redevelopment by working with a local bank, which holds the property title of a closed
salvage yard, to resolve environmental concerns about the site. In addition, the CAG helped obtain access from
private businesses and federal grant money to install monitoring wells in an area south of the harbor.
Cedar Creek Sediment Cleanup. WI
PCB-contaminated sediment in Cedar Creek, a tributary to the Milwaukee River, contributes to the deterioration
of water quality and a balanced ecosystem in this area. In 1994, Mercury Marine voluntarily cleaned up Ruck
Pond, the most upstream contaminated site. Ruck Pond had PCB concentrations as high as 150,000 parts per
million (concentrations over 50 parts per million are considered hazardous). The cleanup goal was the removal,
to the extent possible, of all the PCB-contaminated sediment. Approximately 5,900 cubic meters of sediment
were removed and post-removal monitoring indicates that the effort was a success. Water quality modeling
predicts, and monitoring planned for 1997 is expected to confirm, that fish tissue PCB concentrations have
dropped from concentrations in excess of 30 parts per million, to concentrations less than 2 parts per million.
For more information, please contact Judy Beck, (312) 353-3849. E-mail: beck.judy@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office November 1996
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
&EPA
Lake Michigan Forum
Lakewide Work Plan
1996-1998
Lake Michigan
FORUMHB
-------
, , w^* <*•*' »- i.-i-.Lrg.f.. . ,jL._.t^. *^.^ — . ---- *UL vtJt^T,^,,.^}, ,fcfct| Y> *' 1 .rt. iVJi^i' i-Mf*\r n-V15V.j,V bii ':J
Lake Michigan Basin
AREAS ABOUND THE LAKE
1 Monistique River
2 Menominee River
3 Fox River and Southern Green Bay
4 Sheboygan River
S Milwaukee Estuary
6 Woukegan Harbor
7 Grand Calumet River/
Indiana Harbor Ship (anal
8 Kolamazoo River
9 Muskegon Lake
10 White Lake
11 Grand Traverse Boy
Watershed Initiative
-------
INTRODUCTION
his document describes the agenda of the
Lake Michigan Forum - a diverse stakehold-
ers' group organized to work in partnership
with and supported by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the four Lake
Michigan states to protect and enhance environ-
mental quality in the Lake Michigan Basin.
The Forum is part of the Lake Michigan Lakewide
Management Planning (LaMP) Process which is a
requirement under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement between the United States and Canada.
The LaMP process involves setting goals to reduce
toxics, improve habitat, and restore beneficial uses
to the environment in the Lake Michigan basin.
The LaMP process also involves coordinating state
and federal government programs in order to meet
those goalsi
As the non-governmental component of the LaMP
process, the Forum has established this workplan in
an effort to identify and stimulate non-governmental
activities that are consistent with the goals set
through the LaMP process. This workplan covers
a range of activities such as pollution prevention,
sediment remediation, air transport of contaminants,
and public participation.
The LaMP process and the Forum's work are heavily
targeted to parts of the basin that are called "Areas of
Concern" (AOC) (see map). These are areas that
contribute pollution to Lake Michigan and where
there is much evidence of environmental degradation.
However, the LaMP process is also focussed on
preserving areas of quality as well as addressing
broad regional issues such as air deposition of toxics,
biological pollution, contaminated sediments, and
land use.
The Forum meets quarterly all around the Lake
Michigan Basin and the meetings are open to the
public For more information about Forum meeting
dates and locations, the LaMP process, and Lake
Michigan issues, please visit the Forum's comprehen-
sive site on the World Wide Web:
http://www.epa.gov/lmf/
If you have any questions about the work of the
Forum, please feel free to contact
Steve Skavroneck (Forum OChair) at (414)483-1512,
Maxine Appleby (Forum O>Chair) at (414)224-9462,
Judy Beck (U.S. EPA Lake Michigan Team Manager)
at (312)353-3849, or
Tim Brown (Staff to the Forum) at (312)554-0900.
U.S. EPA Region V General Information Line
at(800)621-8431
A list of participants in the Forum and the LaMP
process is included on pages 8 and 9.
-------
LAKE MICHIGAN FORUM WORK PLAN
August 1996 -August 1998
1. Provide Input Into the Lake Michigan LalYIP Process
As U.S. EPA's Lake Michigan Team and the
Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)
continue to develop and refine a LaMP docu-
ment for Lake Michigan, Forum members will
provide input and suggestions.
Action Steps:
a The Forum will track developments during
the revision and public comment period
leading up to the publication of the LaMP.
It will offer input when necessary to ensure
that the final LaMP document is current,
accurate, and representative of Lake Michi-
gan stakeholder concerns.
b. Once the final LaMP document is published,
the Forum will coordinate its activities to
complement LaMP goals and objectives.
c. The Forum will track other U.S. EPA, state,
and tribal initiatives affecting Lake Michi-
gan. The Forum will provide support to
these initiatives when necessary by provid-
ing comments and facilitation consistent
with the LaMP.
d The Forum will work to facilitate a discus-
sion of LaMP and Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) priorities and needs in a time frame
that promotes their inclusion in the re
sources and priority decisions of U.S. EPA,
other federal agencies, and the states.
2. Coordinate a Pollution Prevention / Toxle Reduction
Initiative with the Primary Metals Industry
i J
In 1995, the Forum developed a pollution
prevention/toxic reduction project, in the pri-
mary metals industry. The project stemmed
from a Forum report, A Review of Pollution
Prevention Efforts Compared to Pollution
Prevention Needs in the Lake Michigan Basin
(June 1995), and is intended to promote toxic
reduction/pollution prevention of critical
pollutants. The Forum chose to work with the
primary metals industry because it has been
identified through the LaMP effort as a contribu-
tor of critical pollutants.
The project will be conducted in two phases.
Phase I is intended to convene the federal, state,
and private participants and solicit interest in
the project; and Phase II will involve facilitated
negotiations on toxic reduction with the parties.
Expected outcomes of the project include:
• Obtain greater knowledge on the primary
metals industry's responsibility for critical
pollutant loadings in the Lake Michigan
basin.
• Identify whether and how pollution preven-
tion can address any loadings of critical
pollutants in the system in a non-regulatory,
voluntary fashion.
• Assess the effectiveness of pollution preven-
tion activities for the primary metals industry
and discover how those ideas can be applied
to facilities in the basin.
• Achieve commitments for load reductions.
-------
Funding for Phase I of the project has been provided
by the Joyce Foundation.
Action Steps:
a Convene US. EPA team managers to ensure
that the Forum's pollution prevention
project has the agency's support and to
ensure that it is in harmony with the objec-
tives of agency pollution prevention and
toxic reduction programs.
b. Meet with representatives of state environ-
mental agencies in the Lake Michigan basin
to inform them about the project and seek
state support
c Meet with a primary metals industry associa-
tion (or associations) to determine interest
in the project.
d. Determine if it is feasible to launch a suc-
cessful pollution prevention/toxic reduction
project in the basin. Convene company
representatives to work out the details of
the project
e Secure funding for Phase D of the project.
3. Raise the Priority ot Lake Michigan Issues among
Government Agencies
The changing role of government in Great Lakes
issues, the new partnership approach between
the federal government, states, and tribes, and
the emergence of community-based environ-
mental protection as a guiding principle for
government agencies may benefit local commu-
nities working on local or lake-wide issues in
the Lake Michigan basin. Federal, state, and
tribal officials suggest that communities look for
ways to take advantage of the "opportunities"
that are opening up through government reorga-
nizations and changes n approach. Local area
representatives and environmentalists, however,
are concerned that the reorganizations may
overlook the importance of Lake Michigan
issues unless local communities express the
priority nature of these issues to government
officials. The International Joint Commission
(IJC) is now placing an emphasis on binational
waters; this is causing concern because Lake
Michigan is not included.
Action Steps:
a Contact the IJC to express concern about the
decreased priority level of Lake Michigan
issues and to initiate a dialogue between the
IJC and Lake Michigan stakeholders. En-
courage local citizen committees to do the
same.
h Initiate additional contacts as necessary
with U.S. EPA, the IJC, the states, and tribes
regarding their decisions affecting the basin.
c. Track federal, state and tribal programs as
they evolve so that local communities can
communicate the importance of Lake
Michigan issues within those programs to
federal, state, and tribal officials. For
example, local areas should provide input
into the development of the Performance
Partnership Agreements between U.S. EPA
and the states so that federal Performance
Partnership funding passed to the states
supports programs that are aligned with
projects and initiatives in the Lake Michigan
basin. A similar effort can be made with
elected officials so that Lake Michigan
issues are recognized and given priority as
policy is developing.
d Communicate opportunities for influencing
federal, state, and tribal policy to local
communities.
-------
e. Identify and communicate local area needs
to U.S. EPA's Lake Michigan Team, and
establish a process whereby an ongoing
dialogue between U.S. EPA and local com-
munities is established. Such a dialogue
should ensure that U.S. EPA is aware of
local needs and that communities are aware
of how federal programs may impact
projects in local areas. This process can
help U.S. EPA to determine how itsiassis-
tance programs can best help local areas,
either directly or through the states and
tribes. Further, it can help to identify
possible Supplemental Environmental
Projects that maybe used in enforcement
negotiations. ;
4. Promote Basin-wide Information Exchanges
ij
There is no commonly accessible systeih for
promoting information exchange among stake-
holders in the basin so that successful ap-
proaches for addressing common issues, prob-
lem solving strategies, and lessons learned from
others' mistakes can be shared Such a system
could be useful to exchange ideas on environ-
mental education programs, land use planning
initiatives, watershed protection programs,
exotic species, and contaminated sediments. An
effective system of information exchange will
also allow interested parties to receive updates
on government programs which affect the basin
as well as funding opportunities for supporting
local initiatives. If successful, information
sharing should lead to the leveraging of exper-
tise to confront common problems and to better,
more efficient transfer and imitation of success
stories basin-wide.
The information to be shared will primarily be
for practitioners (people actively involved in
programs that impact the lake and its tributaries)
who can draw on it to support local activities as
well as to educate the general public.
Action Steps:
a Develop descriptions of successful projects
and initiatives that are underway throughout
the basin to address priority issues. Success
stories that were shared at the Forum's
Wingspread Conference in June 1996offera
good starting point
b. Use the Internet as a tool to promote infor-
mation exchange on success stories. How-
ever, since not all stakeholders have access
to the Internet, it should not be relied upon
as the only medium for basin-wide commu-
nication.
c the Lake Michigan Forum should facilitate a
basin-wide information exchange. The first
step will be to improve the Forum's Web site
and establish other communication tools
such as camera ready articles. 0;
5. Contribute to a Basin-wide Strategy to Promote
Sediment Remediation
Lake Michigan stakeholders at the June 1996
Lake Michigan Forum Wingspread Conference
recommended that sediment remediation should
be a priority issue for the Forum for the next two
years. There have been some successes in major
sediment remediation efforts in the basin. For
example, U.S. EPA and the Outboard Marine
Corporation undertook cleanup of contaminated
sediments from the Outboard Marine Superfund
site at Waukegan Harbor a few years ago; US.
EPA and Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
are currently dredging contaminated sediments
from Manistique Harbor, and U.S. EPA and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE)
recently released a draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) regarding a 3 5 year plan to
dredge and dispose of contaminated sediments
in the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal and Grand
Calumet River. While progress is being made on
this issue, sediment contamination continues to
be a major issue in other areas of the basin such
as the Sheboygan, Fox, Menominee, and
Kalamazoo Rivers, as well as Muskegon and
White Lakes.
-------
r
Action Steps:
a Initiate a dialogue with U.S. EPA's Sediment
Team and the U.S. ACE to promote an inte-
grated approach to sediment remediation in
the basin, develop sediment quality stan-
dards, and discuss an appropriate role for
the Forum (if any) in facilitating sediment
remediation (in addition to the following).
b. The IJC is developing a document on how
that organization can help move along
sediment cleanup in the Great Lakes Basin.
The Forum will track the IJC's progress and
interact with its efforts, as appropriate.
c Identify funding opportunities for specific
Lake Michigan-contaminated sediment sites.
Share this information with AOCs. Also,
identify additional research and develop-
ment of effective sediment removal, in situ
(in place), and post-dredging treatment
and approaches to deal with multiple
contaminants.
d Facilitate information transfer among Lake
Michigan sites to demonstrate organizational
and institutional processes for successful
cleanups.
6. Launch a Basin-Wide Discussion of Land Use Issues
and their Relationship to the Lake
There is no basin-wide approach to land use
issues, nor is it likely that there will be. How-
ever, local land use patterns impact habitat
diversity and water quality throughout the Lake
Michigan basin. While there are innovative
approaches to land use planning underway that
protect natural resources in areas like the Grand
Traverse Bay and the Oneida Reservation,
similar efforts must be promoted basin-wide.
Action Steps:
a. Encourage Lake Michigan AOC and Area of
Quality (AOQ) representatives to involve
land use professionals when attempting to
advocate environmentally sound land use
practices and water quality protection
programs in their respective areas.
b. Conversely, the Forum should encourage
land use professionals to seek the advice of
AOC and AOQrepresentatives in designing
land use plans.
c Seek information on organizations and
conferences in the region that address land
use issues. Collect success stories on
environmentally sound local land use plans
or patterns. Distribute the information to
Lake Michigan stakeholders and others,
especially land use professionals and
planning commissions, who may not be
familiar with the link between land use and
environmental problems in the basin.
d Arrange to send a land use professional from
each AOC and AOQto the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) in Novem-
ber 1996 to emphasize the nexus between
local land use and Great Lakes water quality
and habitat issues. Approach the Great
Lakes Protection Fund for travel assistance
to SOLEC.
e. Host a Lake Michigan Basin land use confer-
ence within the next two years. The confer-
ence will provide a forum in which land use
professionals and stakeholders from around
the basin can meet to exchange information
and develop a blueprint for sound water-
shed land use plans.
-------
'<<" *'•'" ' f *"*> Vr- ' •*' ?'~~*> ^-(^^M^^l
. P>
7. Find the Best Ways to Understand and Share the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Study, and Create a Meaning-
ful Public Bialogue Centering on the Policy Implica-
tions
A lack of information on the movement of
contaminants into and through the basin has
frustrated the efforts of scientists and policy
makers to construct programs to effectively
reduce loadings of critical pollutants. The
release of data from the Lake Michigan Mass
Balance Study will begin in 1997. This data
will provide a wealth of information on how
contaminants enter, remain, or leave the Lake
Michigan Basin. The information in the study,
if presented properly, could have a major effect
on policy making in the region with respect to
water quality.
Action Steps:
a Prepareforthereleaseofinformationfrom
the Mass Balance Study by making sure that
the data is accessible to the public. Encour-
age and assist with advance work so that
communities understand the purpose and
methodology of the study and how the data
is and can be used.
b. Enhance the partnership between the Forum
and U.S. EPA to develop and host Mass
Balance education workshops (possibly as a
part of the Lake Michigan Fellows Program)
for the public in each Lake Michigan water-
shed.
c. Determine the best ways to use the Mass
Balance Study.
8. Develop an Approach to Address Air Transport ot
Contaminants Into and Out ol the Basin
Although the total impact is not fully known,
air transport of persistent toxic substances is
thought to be a significant contributor to water
quality problems in the Lake Michigan Basin.
As information related to the Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Study is released, the extent of air
transport contamination in the basin-wide water
quality picture will become dearer.
Action Steps:
a. Make recommendations to the states and to
the federal government to better integrate
efforts to address sources of air pollution
inside and outside the basin.
b. Enhance the partnership between the Forum
and U.S. EPA to develop and host air trans-
port information and education workshops
for the public in each watershed. This could
be done in the context of the Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Study.
9. Stimulate Local Involvement in Basin-wide Issues
Several people from the region have indicated
that where there are well organized and thriving
public advisory committees, there is more
involvement, and consequently, more action at
the local level. However, public participation at
AOCs around the lake appears to be uneven, and
some AOCs have little or no public participa-
tion. While stimulating lake-wide interest is
difficult in any circumstance, it must first grow
from healthy community participation in local
issues.
Even in those areas with active public participa-
tion, the Forum should work towards educating
members of the public who may not yet be
familiar with basin-wide issues, but who may
nonetheless have a stake in the outcome of
programs that affect Lake Michigan.
-------
Action Steps:
a. Encourage increased participation in areas
within the basin where local and basin-wide
involvement has been reduced. Hold Forum
meetings in these areas. Coordinate these
Forum meetings with local and community
organizations, such as chambers of com-
merce and local service organizations, in
order to encourage a broad spectrum of the
community to learn about and participate in
local and lakewide issues.
b. Continue to expand Forum membership to
include broader interests from the basin
such as non-participating AOCs. New
members will be sought as necessary to
replace out-going members or to add a
particular stakeholder representatioa
c Help U.S. EPA develop a "Lake Michigan
Fellows Program" that will expand citizen
knowledge of the ecology and problems
inherent in the basin and enhance citizen
participation in the solutions to these
problems. Find ways to use the Fellows
Program to disseminate data from the Mass
Balance Study.
h*feJiM.,/^J>^h. *_k - i , - i ^ .
10. Hold Quarterly Meetings
The Lake Michigan Forum will meet quarterly
with the TCC to discuss Lake Michigan issues
and the projects that are ongoing as part of the
LaMP process. Each meeting will be held in a
different area in the basin to facilitate an ex-
change between the LaMP effort and local
initiatives around the basin. In each area, the
local Forum representative(s) will take the lead
in organizing a public meeting.
Action Steps:
a. The Forum will meet in mid-February,
mid-May, mid-August, and mid-November
each year.
h The Forum will coordinate its meetings
to highlight local efforts in the meeting
locations
c When possible and appropriate, the Forum
will hold meetings in conjunction with
other regional Great Lakes meetings, (e.g.,
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
and meetings of the UC.)
-------
Kj-Mppinri'ii.i,.. ** • «*»r*tww»#5'*r*'" •***• *•** '* "-T'*K*T**",
0*8 Michigan Foram Wort Plan
LAKE MICHIGAN FORUM MEMBERS
October 1996
Maxine Appleby (Forum Co-Chair)
Seagull Charters
Merilee Blowers
Manistique River RAP
David F.Bonistall
The Mead Corporation
Tanya Cabala
White Lake RAP
Jerry Engle
Muskegon Lake RAP
Michael Finney
Oneida Nation
Bruce Johnson
Fox-Wolf Basin 2000
Milan Kruszynski
Indiana Harbor / Grand Calumet RAP
Bob Overly
James River Corporation
JeannaPaluzzi
Resident - Willimasburg, MI
Mary Powers
Kalamazoo County Commissioner
MarkReshkin
Indiana University Northwest
Steve Skavroneck (Forum Co-Chair)
The Crane House
Al Smith
Friends of The St. Joseph River Association
Dan Thomas
Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council
Janet Vail
Grand Valley State University
Pamela Wallis
National Association of
Conservation Districts
Chris Wright
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
STAFF
Tim Brown
Clean Sites
JoelStemstein
Clean Sites
-------
TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
f
October 1996
Judy Beck, Chair TCC
Lake Michigan Team Manager
U.S. EPA, Region V
Roger Eberhardt
Michigan DepL of Environmental Quality
Surface Water Quality Division
Indiana DepL of Environmental Management
Greg Hill
Bureau of Watershed Management
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
Peter Hughes
Supervisory Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
BobKavetsky
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
East Lansing Field Office
MikeRipley
Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery
BobSchacht
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA LAKE MICHIGAN TEAM MEMBERS
October 1996
GaryGulezian
Lake Michigan Team Sponsor
Great Lakes National Program Office
Judy Beck
Lake Michigan Team Manager
Chuck Anderson
Water Division
Sue Rodenbeck Brauer
Wastes, Pesticides & Toxics Division
JeffGagler
Water Division
Steve Goranson
Regulatory Management Division
Stacy Greendlinger
Great Lakes National Program Office
Paul Horvatin
Great Lakes National Program Office
Grant Section
Steve Jann
Water Division
Marilyn Jupp
Water Divsion
Lou Kerestesy
Office of Regional Operations
State and Local Relations
Diana Mally
Superfund Division
Jennifer Manville
Resource Management Division
Susan Pastor
Office of Public Affairs
Susan Prout
Office of Regional Counsel
RickTonielli
Air and Radiation Division
-------
Lake Michigan
FORUMi
Printed on chlorine-free recycled paper with soy-based ink.
-------
&EPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
LAKE MICHIGAN
PARTNERSHIP
DIRECTORY
The desire to protect and restore Lake Michigan has created a number of governmental
programs at the international, national, state, tribal and local levels. Recent reorganizations
and downsizing have prompted government agencies to seek opportunities for forming
partnerships to leverage their scarce resources. The intent of this fact sheet is to present
some of the possible international, federal, state^and tribal governmental partners involved in
Lake Michigan issues, provide briefdj^cripflofls ofwou roles and list contacts for further
information. Partners at the Jofcal Ipvel aie;k«y I6any>successful effort. Unfortunately, all of
f\ iPTjV j^1' \'<''- ' *'*/•' ' '
the possible partners areft^$ n^rjterpus to list.
The Internation
Boundary W
contained
monitor air
International Join*'Commission
i idependent organization set up under the 1909
ijiciweeti the pnited&tates and Canada. By virtue of the authority
aty, the UCM assigned several responsibilities, one of which is to
'ogress made pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Great Lakes Regional Office Phone: (519) 257-6700
reat Lakes Commission
&•<•'.'•**••'-:":-, '1
The Great Lake£ Commission (QLC) is an interstate compact commission comprised of
gutematorialy-appointed and legislatively mandated representatives of the eight U.S. Great
Lakes states andjis the only Great Ijakes organization with a statutory mandate to represent its
views on comprehensive development, use and conservation of Great Lakes Basin collective
aquatic resources:
Phone: (313) 665-9135 / Fax: (313) 665-4370
Jil
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
The Great Lake* Fishery t^pmmissipnl(GLFC) was established by the Convention of Great
Lakes Fisheries between Canada and/he United States, which was ratified in October
SJ- '' ' I. ' ' f
1955. The GLFtj! was formed,to handle five general duties: I) to formulate a research
program to deterrhine the need fprrneasures to make possible the maximum sustained
productivity of anjlstpck1 of fish' 0f concern to both countries; 2) to coordinate and/or
undertake such reseych;3) to/ecommend appropriate measures on the basis of the find-
ings of the research; ^t^o^feUrnulate and implement a comprehensive program for the
eradication or minimization of sea lamprey populations; and 5) to publish information
obtained under its activities.
Phone: (313) 662-3209/Fax: (313)741-2010
-------
tf
tfc
Z'
1
3
A*
w
5
^B*
§
w
u
c
M>
*2
^^
• £•
^J
*
jjj
«
J
-S
MB*
s
'1
iscriptions and Agency Respoi
Q
1
Ok
§ 1
>> 2
e o
V b>
<
So
CN —
f"> O
CN *?
VO T?
s—^ r —
en ^*.
— en
co —
•^ rn
u
C ..
£ UH
00
'•^
O
2 'u 2
1|Ǥ d
> O rt
5S (x, fe "-1
*t3 (U CL -^
• 2 tS 13 S,
BJ 0 B G
1-1 ^ O U
P-J u1"^
ernors is a private, non-point co
sues common to the eight Great
is emphasized the benefits of a r
: needs and the environmental cl
The Council of Great Lakes Gov
cooperatively on public policy is
inception in 1982, the Council hs
addressing the region's economic
«_> C/l
S o
u e
On
u
o o
^! O
c g
63
\o m
v£> OO
9*O
Q
CN O
^, CN
CN ^
^ CN
CO —
^ d-
i>
c ..
si
•a «^
** O 3 • O
00 00 S C3 ^3
*C ** "3 ^ °
iljil
c 2 T? e 6
M -fc-* OJ i|V ^"t I
1 -a 1 8 •»
W AJ *^ C ^^
o M ** 5 2
£ * *O "* ^ rj
s states created the Great Lakes
tate environmental endowment.
cooperation in the management
gned the Fund as a $100 millior
projects, in participating states,
ice Great Lakes ecosystem healt
The governors of the Great Lake:
which is the nation's first multi-s
model of political and economic
The Great Lakes states have desi
Fund solicits grant proposals for
promote regional action to enhan
•a
i^j gj
c9 o
c3 2
o £
-------
2
Z
H
06
<
o-
j
2
U
Q
U
r-
Lake Michigan Contact
yi
•3
as
u
,0
°si
£
c
s
S""
S
£
9
as
y>
i)
to
Descriptions and Agency Responsibili
g
2
£
£
E
2
M
S
0.
1
M
U
e
tt>
M
Great Lakes National Program
Office
Phone: (312)886-4040
Fax: (312)353-2018
Lake Michigan Team
Phone:(312)353-3849
Fax: (312)886-2737
beck.judy@epamail.epa.gov
1-800-621-8431
•s i
(3 °o
S — e
« .. C J3
2 "o S «
•0 fa i •>
c e .2- ?
<" O a -rj
uj u cr c
'§ .O 60 «,
s -§ 1 1
1 o .2 5
1 £-1 »
a >/> -o o
11?. t
C •— WI J-J
CQ ^3 TJ3 *•*
C ^™
•S Q ea T3
g n E a
I &T8 S
,— • - c o
.5 S .2 ^
*^ ^ *j
«•-" ^ u u •
33-i Id
•o
C TJ
,
C U v
V C
11
11
oo o cu
Lake Michigan Field Station
Ecosystem monitoring
Phone: (616)759-7842
T3
e
WJ
t: •«
o •—
t1- H
8 §•
3 g
«i Q "^
I ^ 1
|_ 3 g .
| 1| |.|
S .a s "o o-
« "S _ i* •§
wi a2 ea cs
2 fe .2 o »
1 il 11
uu co S O -a
rs programs in cooperation with states to
and manage coastal resources.
performs basic research and assessment
coastal eutrophication.
data base for agricultural pesticides and
adings.
a •>. ~o o i/i o
« C c — c —
'c 2 * 2? '<« c
II !! it
—
o e
~ .2
u a c
E Z ^ o |
8" S u •§. .2 ?
Q Eg S - <
• c " S c S
e/i c u P c Q
. O U fa T3 y
D U O < < 5.
IN Dept. of Natural Resources
Phone:(317)232-1106
Fax: (317)233-4579
MI Dept. of Environmental
Quality:
Phone:(517)373-1950
Fax: (517)335-3451
WI Dept. of Administration
Phone: (608) 267-7982
Fax: (608)267-6931
U -J
ri c
c u
3 E
52 5.
on O
<3 v
8 1
1 i
a £•
u (P
•*• tn
fe "2
S 3
00 UH
"o 3
rs a quasi-regulatory coastal protection
n cooperation with EPA) that sets
ce-based management measures for cont
iti on of nonpoint source pollution in coa!
11 land-use activities.
u V3- e 5 «
i Hf s
2 Jr J> C C
<, O- Q. C3 CTJ
U
c
3l|
i gy
o *j
U E g
O J £
i/-i 1/1 f^ -^ r^
g m J^j r4 ^ co oo
i fS ON ^L O ' O "O
g11*! g§ |
ti
c
ea
o
S
c/)
» t/i
M a.
g -S
00 _S
(^ tZ
o ^
.a "o
i 1
b. t/i
O 1)
5 u
«.*(/] ^r
So ^
ss S -S
3-0 §
oo C UL,
a
-based program designed to support grea
: and wise use of Great Lakes resources.
Ckf)
|3
c
s
0
1
z
-------
OF THE INTERIOR
H
Z
3
t— i
f*s
ft.
u;
.
c/;
<—
u
3
c
0
U
§
M
IS
U
S
£
.3
N*4
Resources Available and Possible Roles
8
•o
Program Descriptions and Agency Responsibili
E
e
u
g
fiu
a
M
<
rt
•-. 00
•J 0
>> ^
= s
jf ~
u iy
— C
-C O
cu £
13
Staff, maps, reports, demonstration sites, education
materials, and monitoring equipment.
Offices located in Washington D.C. and regional
centers with fleld offices in each management area.
<£i
Oversight, management, or monitoring of national
natural resources, including land, water, and wildli
u
.fi
"o
c
c £*
!§
c/i'!
—i C
*-J 1— <
5
^M
p
m
5
£
u
c
o
£
•a
Maps and natural resource inventories of Indian an
tribal lands.
Funds for special projects.
Staff for technical assistance to Iribes.
S 15 T>
^ o s
Technical assistance to tribes on tribal lands mainl;
social services.
Some assistance for conservation work and educati
programs.
Natural resource inventories and monitoring of grc
and surface water.
c
.2
"t3 '••"*
is
JJ Jju
OQ <
VI
u
u
>
b.
CD
"« jjj 2
o 3
'ob IN —
O ii
"5 ^; ^
UJ ^ ^
u S S
j TT ^
^ i> o
CQ ^ C
" S 2 JS
O O o. u.
a
C m "o C
Staff for enforcement of Endangered Species Act a
other laws on public and private land, research rejx
and data on habitat, populations, and management •
wildlife. Funds for cooperative projects. Educatio
materials, teacher training, curricula, and maps.
ta -o
Oversight and regulation of the nation's wildlife
resources. Management of national wildlife refuge
enforcement of federal game and fish laws,
cooperative administration of national wetlands
program with the Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Cooperative projects to enhance wildlife habitat an
special studies including fisheries investigations.
u
•—
2
1.8
•5 £
£ co
S
S S
§ S; *?
"° *"^ o\
3 ^
13 ^
O° CO
. O
CO JO
D S
•H
'5.
CO
g
o
CQ
" •• CM
1 1 °
?33
1 gqf
h- O ^5
^ cx ?5
« u °°
I 0! -
o ,,
Implementation of ballast water sampling in Lake
Michigan under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisai
Species Prevention and Control Act of 1 990 and th
National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
Spill Response
Ballast water sampling.
•
D
'
c3 £
ill
1 §•-
8" 2 §
Q H U
-------
m
0
o
tt
a*
j
*j
^fj
03
J-jS
f^
2
jr*^
w
vo
9\
»\
H
TRATION OF
en
2
Q
<
>
Z,
U
O
•0 •<
S
Cu
P
^
^
Q
1
OF THE AGRICULTURE
H
W
^M
t^
J^
^N
^1
Q
•«
1
§
u
s
2
u
i
.^
1
M
d Possible Roles
c
J8
Z
J2
1
•<
1
.8
|
Program Descriptions and Age
E
2
ft*
•^i
e
|
igs
^^ r^i r^
| 4 4
.2 f^ «N
00 --~. ^
^5 *o
W) ^ --'
> JJ
.2 o x
1 -2
Ei <+,
ft !,{ ii jl lii
I! ill ?! §s ill
*>D iS '£ n t£ o •; 21 • * J£ »*-
U iij ii \\\ I**
If §11 1 i | i 8 |§1
i'l III III ill ill
11 1-tlf III III ill
il li.il In an an
c
2?§i 8 •
"S>T> JJ g
o. | * 3
i 1 8.1
s ill
fill
bb J> Q. 5
MM O -O U
o
u
CA
Ob f^
0 ^
e3 ^
I!
u
u
o
"S M S pj
C o c °
O -j; .V —
* •- j: ^
'i Q s ^
° c •§ io
1/1 O Z ._,
— « A C-
g t Q ..
^ O »-y j;
Z u 6E
•3 8
§D
1^
T3 C
u n
|ls
lla
"^ *d ffl
Program available in states to reti
to wetland status and protect exis
same easement/payment method i
u
u
u
oi
C/l
11
— 60
U O
O
nd grant program
Farming.
A practical research, education, a
promote lower input methods of 1
2 §
3 -3
3 (j
U 3
'C 1^
BO UM
< -o
4) C
Isustainab
Research ;
Program
u
c
E'~
•2 P; IS §
.£ \o oo a
.i rA rA o
Q Q JCj ^
"ffl ^V x-~y 3
>3 fN (S ^
41 fO f*"^ >
u ~rr ^ I
^ u ^
z £ [£ 5
QO wi ii t;
.£ 00 = 0 S
5 c .2 !? r?
2 -g s i -s ^ o
•3'^ 1
fill! !;
o- S u — •= y o
i j; > « j= < -s
S e ° s s - e
sHl^ 11
lilll IS
.S|^= II
= 1 .s 1 1 -1
•S •»• C JS u O
"O S— C «» 0 .t
3 S a &| g g .
H^ll 111
frit! |ll
«ft-OB.-i--O >«J
a§ °
••• p* trt
•PC E = C^
1 s §-«j> s
«= -o -| g ^ •= «
8.S * | SS "i
•S-S^ -l1^ 1
<* o 3 .S g -o S
25 § l! g I
•2 S e* J -o -g •£
2 ^.-r "" « E a
r|| 111 |
"2 s i .a 2 < .b s
§sfc .5so: ag
s s & .§ -i u ff a
•S * =5 a 1 * - 1
H -a §• S | 5 e E
Its 111 Li
S-^gg .s j; | «a
Illl His H
1111 iril ij
OS8.2, oiUo-w Uo
p"
"o S C
^C u
| Q .^
H Q t5
l"^"5-
sll!
-------
a
u
z;
H
as
^^
OH
U
H
^4
fr-H
•**
U
a
e
o
U
e
«
_W>
u
§
3
«
J8
"o
tt
V
2
'a
o
£
T3
ca
v
JQ
0)
"3
?
•<
u
u
3
o
1
8
•a
JS
|S
o
o.
£
£
5-
c
&
• vi vi
*tr 3 — i L.
2 T O 60
U J£ i «g 0-2
1 3 1 1 o£
Sl^ §• 11
s •— . u o
eg T3 « -0 U J2
c« c cu c c 2
"g -o •§ « •§ «
.y e 09 2 3 ^
-c i2 c""0 1 E
«> C S 60 °- "ca
— u c c t- c
£ 1 I '§ -2 -S
C u .S -a "
111 1 ll
c
u
b^ •— •
| -1 E | 1
S 00 U ^ ™
<». c [/) ij "O
c 1 & I a
•2 "u c ^ £
o ^ S 22 o ^
U-M M^ 03 C C
i a a * 1 s
111 ll *•
S-15 s g-^
^ « ... a. o -n
c ~o S — c o
C9 C 2 'S u .t2
iliUi
T3 2 ca Si oo «
-*• » *7 ^ 4> *^
^. CT fc s_-- u c/i
^
S
81
rrt U)
£•§
u c
.2 u
a So
CO •<
>» «
"« 15 —
s L: u «
a 1 $ =
,. "5 5 £ «
wl * - ii r \ *y
— U T! LJ u. X-.
» y C 4)
Ij-l^ 1 r, loci g 1
§ § g ? S s | g § | 5 S
^ 1 ^ t"~ > ^ f^" W) | ^ | E Q ^
zJQucn W »f~-voS S S. «*i so
-B — —. oh1!^. "o ^^"BpE? A o ?3lCSi
:eSO'"OjJl~- ^ Sr-coi: O O O^l>-oo
ucvo — ooc— c ro 5 — u oo c oo Br-.t^^o
l-|l7^ !|g^!^ 7. ili|§^
Z CD C u S «-> •SbrnE«jP^ -S'-SO*^
-------
RIBAL PARTNERS
a,
•g
y>
a
E
2
bft
1
ts
3
e
0
U
e
_
'£
u
§
3
^^
a, o
a. « *»
— i 2 ^
!— ' 00 *3
• trt t
a. « £
£ T3 ^"
I'll^
« "2 a. |
" S3 u -2
oo ti <"
E e 2 >
> .2 2 £
° § — ex
u = S S
g I -8 1
« e" C «j
'S "" § **
§ 2 O to
C ^Q ^>
E £ c u
— o E •«
1 1 1 1
° == 1 c
Ills-
O S f^i 4)
fill
E g <- Q.
8-^|
•r «» 73 5
e 2 C 35
(3 J £ S
W3
§
^
1 §
•— i .5
Little River Band of Ottawa
Natural Resources Commiss
P.O. Box 314
Manistee, MI 49660
Phone:(616)723-8288
Fax:(616)782-6882
i
CQ
"O
*^
CO
Little Traverse Band of Otta
Planning Department
1345 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 246
Petosky.MI 49770
Phone: (616) 348-3410
Fax:(616)348-2589
•
£
*?
Hannahville Indian Commui
N14911 Hannahville Bl Rd.
Wilson, MI 49896-9728
Phone: (906) 466-2959
Fax: (906) 466-2933
00
c
1 ^
13 S
§ -
— o
C "ii —
""So
™J *n _
~ S c3
S .SP
Ou~ IE
o u
o 2 S
0) Pi ^
^ g «3
C ai
8- 15
W5 Cd ^
U 00 O
|
•£• *^
^3 •* *^ O
CQ Ou . -5
C e w
3 .*M K ™
t3 •£ S .E
Z t£ "2
m JJJ O
_c™ "^ ?9 o
P § eo U
ca
^
I
x:
U
•o
c
(9
'S 5 U ^, _^
o -j S; n o c ..
g -g O S O X
O Z tN 00 (X U-
~
CJ
O
U
13
^ ^3 OO
"C f^^ i^"i C^
f"1 >-. oo t~ oo
m rt rj- >n O
J= ffl S ^ "^
vj *^ r~* z^
a iS Ji „ ij}.
.E o O« c ..
oo r- ^ o x
C^ C^ ^p« 1^^ (^
on r- 2 a. uu
-------
^RIBAL PARTNERS
e
,0
+rf
0.
'u
Q
2
M
S
Bu
Contact
1
*s
u
i
u
.*
,3
1
2 oo
c£ $£_
r* o oo vo
° $<^£
T3 _; ^ 00 ,
i"2§~3
PQ c ^5 VO t^
§ 1 a S §
s*f y£
^2 I J S
O, r- Q Cu Pu
Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin
Environmental Department
P.O. Box 365
Oneida, WI 541 55
Phone: (414) 869-4521
Fax:(414)869-2194
Sokaogon Chippewa Community
Environmental Department
Route 1, P.O. Box 625
Crandon, WI 54520
Phone:(715)478-2604
Fax:(715)478-5275
u
u
U
£
w
£
<"
U
Menominee Indian Tribe
Environmental Services - Menomin
P.O. Box 670
Keshena,WI 54135
Phone:(715)799-3096
Fax:(715)799-4525
t/i
S
u
Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohi
Environmental Department
Route 1
Bowler, WI 54416
Phone:(715)793-4942
Fax:(715)793-1307
>»
'£
Forest County Potawatomi Commu
P.O. Box 346
Crandon, WI 54520
Phone:(715)478-7209
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
February 1997
&EPA
Lake
Michigan
Fact
Sheet
SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL
AREAS AROUND
LAKE MICHIGAN
Lake Michigan has unique conditions that support a wealth of ecological diversity,
including many plant and animal species and natural features found nowhere else in the
world. Lake Michigan basin's sand dunes, coastaTpaarsjies, tallgrass prairies, savannas,
forests, and fens all provide essential habkate*lef*uHisi diversity of life.
These native ecosystems
basin, fish, wild rice, blui
sumption and export. Ti
Open space and beauti
tation of goods and
people live and worj
proving the ecolo
depends on it.
From upland to^oastal
environmental areas.
portrait of a small seleq
Chiwaukee Prairie -
;ty; of tfe: Lake Michi
- vv' - • •
In the Lake Michigan
foods for local con-
productive paper industry.
and visitors. Easy transpor-
:ts industries. Over 10 million
Maintaining and im-
ecosystem is vital. Our future
mmunitie$, th^ ^ake Michigan basin has many significant
it isdmpps^i^e to describe all of them, here is a brief
^of theibasinjs significant environmental areas:
species.
Crossing the IUinois^i$e0nsifti>9rder,is system is located on a beach dune and
swale complex donga:l:li5-i!Qite;stretchWLake Michigan. It contains precious ex-
panses of ecological ;fragite.dui^Jad^h\'ith wondrous flora and fauna unique to
shorelines. Ctowaiifeee Jttairie;isani eicdecjmgly rich complex of prairies, and is consid-
ered the most diverfe-Wet:.Pr^^:reniain®g-«i the Midwest. Coastal birds, such as
ducks, geese, gulls, |nd^ sliorebji(te;arepjentifjl. The marshes are home to the green
heron, great blue he^, arid American:bit
Wolf River - Menortinee Forest
The Wolf River is oneVof Wisconsin's; flips? intact examples of a high-quality, undis-
turbed, cold stream. A^kibli, irprovlde&nabitat for fish, mussels, and dragonflies. The
Menominee Forest, located; wiihinxthe^J5«enominee Reservation, is one of the largest
unfragmented blocks of f&ifestrwirnjJtiQVgrowth characteristics in Wisconsin. This
^* jt^^
sustainably managed hardwo^Afonifer forest, containing hemlock and beech, maintains
a great variety of plant and animal life.
-------
Southern Lake Michigan
Extending from the south side of Chicago, Illinois to Michigan City, Indiana, the southern shore of Lake Michi-
gan hosts an incredible number of significant ecosystems, some of very high quality. The Indiana Dunes Na-
tional Lakeshore ranks third of all U.S. National Parks in plant diversity, even though its acreage is less than 3
percent of the top two parks (Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains). The wetlands around Lake Calumet
provide roosting and nesting areas for many regionally rare birds, such as black-crowned night herons, and serve
as an important stopover point for migratory birds.
Michigan Islands
Michigan Islands are a collection of 11 variously sized islands located in northern Lake Michigan. The isolation
of the islands provides secluded habitat for shoreline species sensitive to disturbances, like nesting sites for
imperiled and rare birds, such as the endangered piping plover. Sand beaches, dunes, interdunal wetlands, and
wooded beach ridges feature rare plant species such as the threatened pitcher's thistle and dwarf lake iris.
Southwestern Michigan
Comprising rolling hills and flat lakeplains of fertile soils, southwestern Michigan supports several important
ecosystems. Unique habitats in this region support two endangered butterflies: the Mitchell's satyr and the
Karner blue. The Allegan State Game Area Marshes are recognized as among the most diverse and least dis-
turbed remaining examples of an inland coastal plain marsh community. Consisting of two excellent marsh
complexes, the areas provide refuges for important wetland species. Blue Lakes, located in a sandy glacial
outwash plain, embody high-quality examples of imperiled and significant oak barrens, and coastal plain marsh,
dry sand prairie, and wet meadow communities.
For more information, please contact Diana Mally, (312) 886-7275. E-mail: mally.diana@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604
------- |