-------
-------
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2008 Status Report
Introduction
Organization of the LaMP and this
Status Report for 2008
This document is intended to provide a status report
on the health of the Lake Michigan ecosystem and a
summary of the activities related to the Lake Michigan
LaMP that have occurred during the last 2 years.
Each chapter provides reports on current status,
challenges, indicators, and next steps for a specific
sub-goal area.
In addition to providing a status report, this report
identifies new information and tools for addressing
environmental problems identified within the report.
These tools can be used by government and/or
watershed groups to build a healthier Lake Michigan
environment.
The LaMP is based upon the vision, goal and subgoals
developed by a collaborative stakeholder process.
The vision and goal were adopted by the
Management Committee August 18, 1998.
The LaMP vision is:
The vision is a sustainable Lake Michigan ecosystem
that ensures environmental integrity and that supports
and is supported by economically viable, healthy
human communities.
Lake Michigan beach. Empire, Michigan
Michigan Travel Bureau
The LaMP goal is:
To restore and protect the integrity of the Lake
Michigan ecosystem through collaborative, place-
based partnerships.
The subgoals are stated as questions and are
organized in 11 chapters. The last, 12th chapter,
provides information on activities related to these sub-
goals in the 33 subwatersheds that make up the Lake
Michigan basin. The chapters are as follows:
1. Can we all eat any fish?
2. Can we all drink the water?
3. Can we swim in the water?
4. Are all habitats healthy, naturally diverse, and
sufficient to sustain viable biological communities?
5. Does the public have access to abundant open
space, shorelines, and natural areas, and does the
public have enhanced opportunities for
interaction with the Lake Michigan ecosystem?
6. Are land use, recreation, and economic activities
sustainable and supportive of a healthy
ecosystem?
7. Are sediment, air, land, and water sources or
pathways of contamination that affect the
integrity of the ecosystem?
8. Are aquatic and terrestrial nuisance species
prevented and controlled?
9. Are ecosystem stewardship activities common and
undertaken by public and private organizations in
communities around the basin?
10. Is collaborative ecosystem management the basis
for decision-making in the Lake Michigan basin?
11. Do we have enough information, data,
understanding, and indicators to inform the
decision-making process?
12. What is the status of the 33 Lake Michigan
subwatersheds?
What is the Status of the Lake?
"Lake Michigan is an outstanding natural resource of
global significance, under stress and in need of
special attention." LaMP 2000
The status of the lake is measured against the long-
term goals and targets for 2020. It is acknowledged
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan-Mississippi River basin divide: Chicago
Avenue west of East Avenue in Oak Park, Illinois.
Photograph Courtesy of Jeffrey Edstrom
that much work is needed and that the added stress
of climate change may significantly impact meeting
our goals.
Since the release of LaMP 2000, several key indicators
point to the continuing concern for the health of the
ecosystem.
• Beach season still finds many days when beaches
are closed due to levels of e. coli above the
standard. However, the number of days beaches
are closed is decreasing even with increased
monitoring of beaches.
• Data reveal that a critical layer of the Lake
Michigan aquatic food web continues to
disappear.
• The discovery of new aquatic nuisance species -
there are now a total of 185 in the Great Lakes
ecosystem - threaten the integrity of the food web
of Lake Michigan.
• PCBs and mercury in fish, while slowly declining,
remain a problem that requires fish consumption
advisories.
• Climatic pattern changes, whether temporary or
permanent, help focus attention about
groundwater levels and lake/groundwater
interaction.
• Terrestrial and aquatic animals appear to be
rebounding with eagles nesting on the southern
shore of Lake Michigan for the first time in 100
years, abundance of wolves lead to delisting it
from the endangered list, and a lakewide effort on
restocking sturgeon is underway.
• Black Crowned Night Herons are now nesting in
lakefront Chicago parks at renovated habitat.
• Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
the issue of protecting the lake's vast supply of
fresh drinking water has become a higher priority.
Since 2006, new and troubling concerns emerged.
• In 2007, an invasive virus, viral hemorrhagic
septicemia (VHS), was discovered in Lake
Michigan fish.
• In Fall of 2006 and 2007, large bird die offs along
the north Michigan coast were attributed to
botulism caused as a result of shore birds eating
fish that had the toxin.
• These events have pointed out the need to
sample and research the nearshore to gain a
better understanding of its unique dynamics.
Despite these concerns, Lake Michigan supports many
beneficial uses. In addition to providing a drinking
water supply for 11 million people; it has internationally
significant habitat and natural features; supports food
production and processing; supplies fish for food,
sport, and culture; has valuable commercial and
recreational uses; and is the home of the nation's
third-largest population center. Furthermore,
significant progress is being made to remediate the
legacy of contamination in the basin. Specifically,
ongoing actions to restore the Areas of Concern
(AOCs) have been successful and have received new
resources from the passage of the 2002 Great Lakes
Legacy Act. Their status is outlined in Chapter 7. The
Lake Michigan Watershed Academy was launched in
2003 and has brought together the regional planning
agencies of four states for the first time to align their
work with Lake Michigan trends and Phase 3 of this
work is beginning.
What was Accomplished?
Accomplishments include the following:
• Selection of Lake Michigan as one of three pilots
to test a new national monitoring design (see
Chapter 11).
• Reporting on collaborative monitoring of the basin
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-l. Lake Michigan Pollutants Proposed in 2004 and Revised in LaMP 2006.
Pollutant Classification
Critical Pollutants
Pollutants of Concern
Watch List
Final LaMP 2006 Pollutants
Revision of 2004 Proposed Pollutants
PCBs, mercury, DDT and metabolites, chlordane, dioxin, and pathogens (E. coli,
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Salmonella).
Siltation, sediments, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients, phosphorus,
metals, arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, zinc, nitrogen, total (nitrates + total
Kjehldal nitrogen), and TDS (conductivity).
PBDEs, PCNs, PFOS17, asbestos, PAHs, selenium, radioactive material, toxaphene, sulfur,
atrazine & degradation products , metolachlor & degradation products, acetochlor &
degradation products, glyphosate & degradation products, 1,4-dichlorobenzene
in 2005 (See chapter 7).
• Setting targets for reduction of critical pollutants
and stressors (see Chapter 7 and Chapter 4),
• Reviewing the LaMP list of contaminants and
stressors based on new monitoring and reports
(see Appendix A).
• Identifying data gaps as part of the national
monitoring design pilot (see chapter 11).
• Identifying ecologically rich areas and habitats
(see Chapter 4 and Chapter 12).
• Adding climate change into the concept of
sustainability and stewardship (see Chapter 6 and
Chapter?).
• Convening public conferences and workshops for
beach management, monitoring issues, and
watershed management (see Chapter 1, Chapter
4, and Chapter 12).
• Holding the 5th State of Lake Michigan
conference in October 2007 in Traverse City,
Michigan.
• Further developing remedial action plans and
developing delisting targets by 2008 for the 10
Lake Michigan AOCs.
• Convening of Ports workshops and project
developed.
Progress made on accomplishing these objectives is
outlined in this status report.
Adaptive Management
One of the key functions of the LaMP process is to
identify pollutants that are or have the potential to
adversely affect the Lake Michigan ecosystem. In
Appendix A of previous LaMPs the two-year cycle of
pollutant identification, an adaptive management
process, for three categories of Lake Michigan LaMP
pollutants, was outlined.
• Critical pollutants meet any one of four criteria,
pollutants needing an open water TMDL,
pollutants exceeding a GLI water quality criteria,
pollutants causing a fish consumption advisory, or
associated with other lakewide lakewide
designated uses. Critical pollutants connote the
need for a lakewide TMDL.
• Pollutants of Concern meet any one of three
criteria, including needing a TMDL in nearshore
waters or a tributary mouth, pollutants causing an
AOC impairment, or pollutants associated with
regional use impairments. Pollutants of concern
connote regional or AOC action.
• Watch List pollutants meet all three of these
criteria-potential to impact the Lake Michigan
ecosystem, presence in the watershed, and
bioaccumulation potential, persistence in water
or sediment, or toxicity singly or through
synergistic effects,. Proposed watch list pollutants
must be investigated to confirm that all three
criteria are substantiated and should be
prevented from reaching the open waters.
The LaMP committed to an adaptive management
approach which for the pollutant list, means a data
review in order to prepare each LaMP.
Subsequently, a five year cycle of an intensive
monitoring year for each of the five Great Lakes
evolved. It is proposed for discussion that our review
of the pollutants follow the five year cycle which will
provide the data needed for a review. A Next Step
for the LaMP Technical Coordinating Committee is to
review Appendix A- the guide for the adaptive
management pollutant list review process. There are
issues that need clarification and refinement. A few
of these include: Do we propose and confirm a
watch list pollutant based on potential to impact the
lake itself or the lake ecosystem? How should the
Clean Water Act section 303(d) process factor into
the review? Are we in alignment with other reviews
like the Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy? Other
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
state and federal agency lists and reviews? The work
will be published in LaMP 2010 and a status report
will be presented at The State of Lake Michigan
Conference 2009 in Milwaukee, Wl.
LaMP 2008 Data and Information
A key to targeting actions is engaging the necessary
partners in a common, accessible, and scientifically
sound body of knowledge. In 1999, the Lake
Michigan LaMP formed a basinwide coordinating
and monitoring council to coordinate and promote
common protocols and comparability in monitoring.
The goal is to facilitate data sharing across agencies
as well as among academic and research
disciplines. To provide adaptive management,
there is a continuing need for monitoring and
reporting of the lake's current status as conditions
change and targets move (see chapter 11).
Most, but not all of the data we use, has been peer
reviewed in its original development. The use in the
LaMP is considered secondary data. New data are
provided by:
• Researchers who publish and present at
conferences.
• Researchers who receive USEPA grants and
provide new data and insights.
• Scientists who volunteer and report on Great
Lakes indicators every two years at the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference.
• Short and long-term monitoring by many
different agencies for different aspects of the
lake and tributaries (See chapter 11).
Ongoing monitoring is essential to assess the health
of coastal ecosystems and detect changes over
time. More than any other measure, monitoring
provides accountability for management actions.
Lake Michigan needs a coordinated,
comprehensive monitoring network that can provide
the information necessary for managers to make
informed decisions, adapt their actions as needed,
and assure effective stewardship of Lake Michigan.
The proposed National Monitoring Network design
sets clear, specific goals and objectives for a
coordinated Lake Michigan monitoring network. The
proposed network, which would provide critical
information about the quality of coastal waters and
their tributaries, does not incorporate or replace all
ongoing water quality monitoring. Current synoptic
monitoring approaches are not effective for
determining trends over time due to annual and
seasonal rainfall and runoff variability.
A focus on the nearshore monitoring to fill gaps is
called for.
A Focus on the Future: Sustainability,
Stewardship and Climate Change
While partnerships can leverage resources, they also
must be led and supported. Setting shared goals,
objectives, and indicators in alignment helps to
conserve resources but does not do away with
resource needs. The interdependencies inherent in
the ecosystem approach require a balance among
three fundamental elements: environmental
integrity, economic vitality, and sociocultural well-
being. The ability of these elements to function in
balance overtime is one measure of sustainability.
Complex ecological processes link organisms and
their environment. These processes are often
referred to as "ecological services" because they
perform functions that combine to sustain life in the
ecosystem. The significant natural features of Lake
Michigan, such as its encompassing the world's
largest collection of freshwater sand dunes,
supporting 43 percent of the Great Lakes' large sport
fishing industry, and providing drinking water for over
10 million residents, means billions of dollars not only
to the economies of the four states that share the
lake but also to the nation as a whole (see Chapter
5 and Chapter 6).
A target of reaching sustainability on the way to the
ultimate goals of ecosystem integrity is reflected with
the nomenclature for the "meter" box at the start of
each chapter "not sustainable to sustainable".
A Focus on Climate Change as a Stressor
According to the Center for Science in the Earth
System Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere
and Oceans (University of Washington ICLEI Local
governments of Sustainability), climate change is
projected to have important impacts on Midwest
water resources. More extreme events will occur,
both in terms of droughts and rainfall. Overall, water
levels in the Great Lakes are expected to decline
significantly through evaporation due to increasing
temperatures. These declines are likely to lead to
more competition for water within the region and
between the U.S. and Canada, decreased
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
hydropower generation, fewer wetlands, and
increased water-based transportation costs.
Projected increases in heavy precipitation events are
likely to lead to more flooding and non-point source
pollution due to runoff.
With respect to human health impacts, the Midwest is
likely to benefit from fewer extreme cold outbreaks
with the potential for more heat-related illnesses
during the summer. Heat-related stress is particularly
a concern for urban areas where the concentration
of paved surfaces elevates nighttime temperatures.
Finally, the projected increase in extreme
precipitation events may lead to an increase in
insect or tick-borne disease.
Agricultural production is generally expected to
increase due to lengthening of the growing season
and carbon dioxide fertilization effects, but not in all
areas. Increased use of fertilizers for the longer
growing season will lead to increased nonpoint
source runoff from farm fields. Warmer air
Goldenrod, Unknown location
National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
temperatures and reduced soil moisture are
expected to increase forest fire risk and forest
susceptibility to disease and insects, contributing to
declines in both coniferous and deciduous trees.
Impacts on the forest industry could be significant
particularly when combined with the pressure to
convert forest land to other land uses.
Major changes in freshwater ecosystems are
expected. Warmer water temperatures favor warm
water fish species over cold water fish species and
increase the risk of invasive species. The potential for
more nutrient pollution and warmer water
temperatures increases the risk for algae growth in
freshwater lakes. As noted previously, declining lake
levels throughout the region could reduce wetlands
habitat. This has implications for the migrating birds
and other wildlife dependent on wetland systems for
all or part of their life stages.
A Focus on Ecosystems and Watersheds
In 1995, the Federal Interagency Ecosystem
Management Task Force defined an ecosystem as
"an interconnected community of living things,
including humans, and the physical environment with
which they interact. As such, ecosystems form the
cornerstone of sustainable economies." With regard
to ecosystem management, the Task Force
explained that "the goal of the ecosystem approach
is to restore and maintain the health, sustainability,
and biological diversity of ecosystems while
supporting sustainable economies and communities.
Based on a collaboratively developed vision of
desired future conditions, the ecosystem approach
integrates ecological, economic, and social factors
that affect a management unit defined by
ecological-not political-boundaries."
In response to the changing dynamic of
environmental management, the Lake Michigan
Management Committee adopted the ecosystem
approach in 1998. The significance for the Lake
Michigan LaMP was in the intent to address not only
the 10 areas that had been formally designated
AOCs by the 1987 GLWQA amendments, but also
other areas that were responsible for impairing the
lake's ecosystem. The prime example was the
Chicago area. Because of the rerouting of the
Chicago River into the Mississippi River system,
Chicago's surface water has been diverted out of
the basin; however, groundwaterfrom the Chicago
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
area has not been diverted, and the city's large
airshed has been shown to be a source of pollutants
that are deposited in and affect the lake. The
watershed/diversion connection is currently critical
as steps are underway to prevent invasive or
aquatic nuisance species from entering the Lake
from the Mississippi River system (See chapters).
A Focus on Partnerships, Innovation, and
Shared Information
Addressing the goals of a broad-based ecosystem
approach requires a new management framework.
As LaMP 2000 pointed out, the framework is based
on "partnerships of organizations brought together
to solve problems too large or complex to be dealt
with by one agency with a limited mission. This
approach also has the potential to leverage and
direct local, state and federal, and private resources
into a coordinated effort. The challenge is to create
the framework for participating organizations to
contribute their expertise and resources, often on an
uneven basis, but in a manner that allows all
partners to participate in the decision making on an
even basis" (see chapter 10).
In 2007, a number of public discussions were held in
conjunction with new state-issued permits as part of
the NPDES system. Questions were raised about the
state of knowledge of what is going into the lake.
GLNPO monitoring program samples the lake to find
what is entering the system from non-point,
unpermitted sources like air pollution and storm
water runoff. There is also an on-line database for all
permits and their limits. USEPA is working to provide
data on a watershed basis online and in a user-
friendly format (See chapter 11).
Background on the LaMP
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), as amended in 1987, the United States
and Canada agreed " to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." To
achieve this objective, the parties agreed to
develop and implement, in consultation with state
and provincial governments, LaMPs for open waters
and remedial action plans for contaminated AOCs.
In the case of Lake Michigan, the only one of the
Great Lakes wholly within the borders of the United
States, the Clean Water Act (Section 118c) holds the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
accountable for the LaMP.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
In 2000, the Binational Executive Committee
determined that an adaptive management
approach would guide the LaMP process, making it
an iterative approach.
Work on the Lake Michigan LaMP began in the early
1990s with a focus on critical pollutants affecting the
lake. At that time, monitoring data showed that
point source regulatory controls established in the
1970s and 1980s were reducing the levels of
persistent toxic substances such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), DDT, and other pesticides.
Monitoring results also indicated that nonpoint
sources of pollution such as runoff and air
deposition, as well as aquatic nuisance species,
were stressing the Lake Michigan ecosystem. LaMP
2000 states that "pathogens, fragmentation and
destruction of terrestrial and aquatic habitats,
aquatic nuisance species, uncontrolled runoff and
erosion are among the stressors contributing to
ecosystem impairments."
Increased water quality protection for the Great
Lakes watershed is now being implemented with the
adoption of more stringent water quality standards
for the Great Lakes basin drainage by each Great
Lakes state (the Great Lakes Initiative or GLI), with
the goal of having the new standards reflected in all
permits by 2006 or as new permits are issued.
Lake Michigan presents a set of difficult, persistent,
and multifaceted problems. In response, agencies
must develop new tools, refocus their strategies and
methods, and continually obtain new data. The
LaMP recommends using a watershed framework as
the most effective scale and structure for working on
these problems and provides draft fact sheets for
the 33 major Lake Michigan watersheds. Updated
versions are provided in Chapter 12.
Linking LaMP Goals to RAPs:
Remedial Action Plans (RAP) for 10 Lake
Michigan Areas of Concern
The GLWQA amendments of 1987 also called for the
development of RAPs for specific Areas of Concern.
The two Federal governments of the U.S. and
Canada were directed to cooperate with the state
and provincial governments to develop and
implement RAPs. The RAPs and LaMPs are similar in
that they both use an ecosystem approach to assess
and remediate environmental degradation of the 14
beneficial use impairments outlined in GLWQA,
Annex 2, and rely on a structured public
-------
involvement process. RAPs, however, encompass a
much smaller geographic area, concentrating on
an embayment or stretch of a river within a single
watershed with contaminated sediments leading to
fish advisories.
Forging a strong relationship between the LaMPs
and RAPs is important to the success of both efforts.
The RAPs serve as point source discharges to the
lake as a whole. Improvements in the AOC areas
will eventually help improve the entire lake. Much
of the expertise and land use control of use
impairments, possible remedial efforts and
watershed planning reside at the local level.
Cooperation between the two efforts is essential in
order for LaMPs to remove lakewide impairments
and for the RAP watershed to be able to restore
integrity. The State of Michigan, with 14 AOCs, has
developed, and USEPA has approved,
methodologies for setting delisting targets for
beneficial use impairments.
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
In October 2003, the Great Lakes Governors
identified nine critical environmental priorities for
regional action. These were adopted by the Great
Lakes Mayors and the Great Lakes Commission. In
May 2004, President Bush signed an Executive
Order creating a Cabinet-Level Task Force to bring
an unprecedented level of collaboration and
coordination among, State, Federal, and local
governments, tribes, and other interests in the
United States and Canada to accelerate
protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. This
led to the development and announcement of a
series of recommendations from stakeholders in a
final Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Report in
December 2005 after a year-long process of
research and consensus building.
The recommendations, while not official
government policy, reflect the consensus of the
wide range of stakeholders involved in the
collaboration process. GLRC action items and
goals key to Lake Michigan are listed at the
beginning of each LaMP chapter in next steps.
Chapter 10 details the current status of the GLRC.
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement Review
The governments of Canada and the United States
conducted a year long review process involving
over 350 stakeholders representing a broad cross
section of the Great Lakes community. Upon
completion of public comment period, a final
Agreement Review Report was presented for
consideration to the Binational Executive
Committee of Environment Canada and USEPA in
Fall 2007. Environment Canada and USEPA are
considering the Final Agreement Report and will
provide advice, respectively, to Foreign Affairs
Canada and the U.S. Department of State. The
governments will then determine next steps for the
Agreement, including whether it will be revised.
The mandated review of the GLWQA every six
years, does not obligate the governments to
amend or modify the Agreement.
More information is available at
<3[njoo/g|wcig.
What Do the First Two Pages of Each
Chapter Explain?
Page one of each chapter provides the current
status of the goal and the 2020 target that we are
striving to meet. It also lists the indicators that
informs the status statement and the challenges
and next steps that are needed with in the next two
years.
Why is Some Material Repeated and
Some More Detailed than Others?
Material in the LaMP is the most up-to-date that we
were able to obtain. There is often a lag time
between an activity and its final report, repeated
material is left to provide context. Each LaMP has
provided more details on a subject of importance
or recently released information.
Climate Change — Adaptation and
• • ••• •• *^ '
Mitigation
Both mitigation and adaptation actions are
required as a balanced response to climate
change. Mitigation measures are geared to reduce
emissions and increase sinks of greenhouse gases,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
while adaptation actions seek to increase resilience
by reducing risks and taking advantage of
opportunities due to a changing climate."
What are the "Text" Boxes and What
Do They Provide?
Throughout the document, "text" boxes are
employed to portray examples of work underway in
the basin, or, in some cases, a noteworthy event.
They are also used to provide details of what is being
discussed in the chapter. They often contain a web
address where the reader can follow up if interested.
The information does not necessarily imply activity
done under the auspices of the LaMP, but provides
examples of how LaMP goals can be accomplished.
What is a Subgoal and How Does it
Relate to the Sustainability Target?
The LaMP goals were developed collaboratively in
1998 and are the end points we hope to achieve
working under the GLWQA goal of protecting and
restoring the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes basin. The LaMP
committees chose 2020 as the target date where
monitoring results should indicate substantial progress
toward the goal. The sustainability targets describes
the 2020 milestone year id progress is being achieved
What is the "Lake Michigan
Toolbox"?
The 2008 Lake Michigan LaMP document
has a series of "Lake Michigan
Toolboxes" that provide links to resources that can
be applied to basin problems and exchange shared
experiences. They are targeted to assist local
government and watershed groups as they work to
better manage their local ecosystems. The tools
include example and model ordinances, manuals
and resources for local officials, planners, developers,
individual citizens, and other interested parties.
Where Can I Find LaMP Reports and
Where Do I Send Public Comments?
Lake Michigan LaMP 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 are
available on line at www.epa.aov/alnpo/
michiaan.html. For a CD or printed copy of the
LaMP or to make a public comment, contact the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code T-l 7J,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.
Public comments are factored into LaMP
deliberations and will be reflected in LaMP 2010.
How Can I Get Involved and Keep Up-
to-Date?
The Lake Michigan Forum is an EPA-sponsored
stakeholder group that meets quarterly, undertakes
projects that implement the LaMP. In addition, it has
a web site and a listserv. For more information, see
www.delta-institute.org.
USEPA, the Lake Michigan Forum and others sponsor
a State of Lake Michigan conference every two
years. The next conference is planned for October
2009 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The conference
provides opportunities for attending presentations
and networking.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Organization of the LaMP and this Status Report for 2008
What is the Status of the Lake?
What was Accomplished
Adaptive Management
LaMP 2008 Data and Information
A Focus on the Future: Sustainability and Stewardship
A Focus on Climate Change as a Stressor
A Focus on Ecosystems and Watersheds
A Focus on Partnerships and Innovation and Shared Information.
Linking LaMP Goals to RAPs
Remedial Action Plans.
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
What Do the First Two Pages of Each Chapter Explain?
Why is Some Material Repeated and Some More Detailed than Others?.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
Table of Contents
Introduction -1
-1
-1
-2
-3
-4
-4
-4
-5
-6
-6
-6
-7
-7
-7
Climate Change—Adaptation and Mitigation -7
What Are the Text Boxes and What Do They Provide? i-8
What is the 'Lake Michigan Toolbox? i-8
Where Can I Find LaMP reports and Where Do I Send Public Comments? i-8
How Can I Get Involved and Keep Up-to-Date? i-8
Executive Summary ES-1
Subgoal 1: Can we all eat any fish? 1-1
What is our target forsustainability? 1-1
Why is this important? 1-1
What is the current status? 1-1
What are the major challenges? 1-1
What are the next steps? 1-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 1-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 1-2
Fish Consumption Advisories 1-3
Process by which USEPA evaluates Chemicals for Human Risk 1-5
Sources of Exposure of PBDEs 1-5
Fish Contaminant Trends 1-6
Is there a Human Health Risk? 1-8
Collaborative Lake Michigan Strategy to Address Impaired Waters 1-8
Status of Mercury TMDLs in the Basin 1-9
Sources of Mercury 1-10
Sources of Other Pollutants 1-10
Subgoal 2: Can we drink the water? 2-1
What is our target forsustainability? 2-1
Why is this important? 2-1
What is the current status? 2-1
What are the major challenges? 2-1
What are the next steps? 2-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 2-2
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 2-2
Drinking Water Contaminants 2-3
The Importance of Groundwater 2-4
Drinking Water Monitoring and Reporting 2-4
Water Infrastructure Security 2-4
Drinking Water Security in the Lake Michigan Basin 2-4
Inadvertent Water Contamination 2-6
Water Quality Tracking 2-6
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 2-7
Drinking Water Quality Reports 2-9
Subgoal 3: Can we swim in the water? 3-1
What is our target forsustainability? 3-1
Why is this important? 3-1
What is the current status? 3-1
What are the major challenges? 3-1
What are the next steps? 3-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 3-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 3-2
Background 3-3
Progress on Developing and Implementing Beach Monitoring and Notification Plans 3-3
Illinois' Beach Program 3-5
Indiana's Beach Program 3-6
Michigan's Beach Program 3-8
Wisconsin's Beach Program 3-8
BEACH Watch 3-13
Annual Great Lakes Beach Association Conference 3-13
BEACH NET 3-13
Beach Cast 3-13
NEEAR Water Study 3-13
Sungoal 4: Are all habitats healthy, naturally diverse, and sufficient to sustain viable biological
communities? 4-1
What is our target forsustainability? 4-1
Why is this important? 4-1
What is the current status? 4-1
What are the major challenges? 4-1
What are the next steps? 4-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 4-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 4-2
Background 4-3
Threats to the Food Web Foundation 4-3
Fish Population Decreased in 2007 4-5
Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Michigan 2007 Report and Environmental
Objectives 4-7
Lake Sturgeon 4-5
Management 4-12
Progress Towards Sustainability and Recommendations for Fish 4-13
Land Use Changes 4-13
Wetland Restoration 4-13
Buffer Strips 4-15
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgaol 5: Does the public have access to abundant open space, shoreline, and natural
areas, and does the public have enhanced opportunities for interaction with the Lake Michigan
ecosystem? 5-1
What is our target forsustainability? 5-1
Why is this important? 5-1
What is the current status? 5-1
What are the major challenges? 5-1
What are the next steps? 5-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 5-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 5-2
Interacting with the Ecosystem 5-3
Public Interaction with the Lake Michigan Watershed 5-6
Outdoor recreation Opportunities 5-6
The Many Benefits of Open Space 5-7
Recreational Fishery and Parks Valued 5-7
Subgaol 6: Are land use, recreation, and economic activities sustainable and supportive
of a healthy ecosystem? 6-1
What is our target forsustainability? 6-1
Why is this important? 6-1
What is the current status? 6-1
What are the major challenges? 6-1
What are the next steps? 6-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 6-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 6-2
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Sustainability Vision Statement 6-3
Ecosystem Sustainability 6-3
United Nations 2007 Reports 6-4
Observed and Anticipated Effects on the Great lakes Basin Ecosystem 6-4
New Information on Groundwater Flow 6-2
Water Resource Issues 6-10
Great Lakes Water Availability and Use 6-11
Groundwater Flow Models in the Lake Michigan Basin 6-12
Lake Levels 6-12
Lake Level Monitoring 6-12
Land Use Impacts Water Quality 6-15
Oil and Gas Drilling in the Great Lakes 6-15
Subgoal 7: Are sediments, air, land, and water sources or pathways of contamination that affect
the integrity of the ecosystem? 7-1
What is our target forsustainability? 7-1
Why is this important? 7-1
What is the current status? 7-1
What are the major challenges? 7-1
What are the next steps? 7-2
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 7-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 7-2
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project 7-3
What It tells Us 7-3
What It Does Not Tell Us 7-3
Pathways of Pollution 7-3
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Mass Balance resampling Results 7-4
Lake Michigan PCBs 7-6
LMMB Major Findings: PCBs 7-6
Lake Michigan Atrazine 7-7
LMMB Major Findings: Atrazine 7-7
Lake Michigan Mercury 7-7
LMMB Major Findings: Mercury 7-7
Nutrients - Eutrophication 7-8
LMMB Major Findings: Eutrophication 7-8
Pollutants and Pathways to Lake Michigan 7-8
Atmospheric Deposition 7-9
Nonpoint Source Pollution 7-9
Phosphorus in the lake Michigan Basin 7-10
What Action is Needed? 7-12
Areas of Concern: Legacy of Contamination and Community Stewardship 7-13
Great Lakes Legacy Act 7-13
The LaMP Pollutant List 7-14
Areas of Concern Overview 7-15
Subgoal 8: Are aquatic and terrestrial nuisance species prevented and
controlled? 8-1
What is our target forsustainability? 8-1
Why is this important? 8-1
What is the current status? 8-1
What are the major challenges? 8-1
What are the next steps? 8-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 8-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 8-2
National Developments 8-3
U.S. Department of Transportation: St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation... 8-3
Great Lakes Ships Initiative 8-3
ANS Task force 8-5
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 8-5
Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions Booklet 8-8
Great Lakes Commission 8-8
Great lakes Regional Collaboration 8-8
Clean Boats Initiative 8-11
State Efforts to Prevent the Spread of ANS 8-12
Illinois 8-12
Indiana 8-15
Michigan 8-18
Wisconsin 8-10
Subgoal 9: Are ecosystem stewardship activities common and undertaken by public and private
organizations in communities around the basin? 9-1
What is our target forsustainability? 9-1
Why is this important? 9-1
What is the current status? 9-1
What are the major challenges? 9-1
What are the next steps? 9-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 9-1
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 9-2
The Importance of Partnerships 9-3
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan's Watershed Academy 9-3
USEPA Utilizes Watersheds for Regulatory Focus 9-4
Green Ports 9-5
Making Lake Michigan Great 2007 9-6
The Lake Michigan Forum 9-8
State of Lake Michigan Conference 9-9
Lake Michigan Partnership Directory 9-11
Subgoal 10: Is collaborative ecosystem management the basis for decision-making in the
Lake Michigan basin? 10-1
What is our target forsustainability? 10-1
Why is this important? 10-1
What is the current status? 10-1
What are the major challenges? 10-1
What are the next steps? 10-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 10-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 10-2
Major New Efforts Build on Lakewide Efforts 10-3
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 10-3
Aquatic Invasive Species 10-4
Binational Toxics Strategy Under Review 10-5
Toxic Pollutants 10-7
Habitat/Species 10-8
Coastal Health
Proposed Legislation in the 110th Congress 10-10
The Binational Executive Committee 10-12
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 10-13
Great Lakes Human Health Network 10-14
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission 10-14
Great Lakes Legislative Caucus 10-14
Subgoal 11: Do we have enough information, data, understanding, and indicators to inform the
decision-making process? 11-1
What is our target forsustainability? 11-1
Why is this important? 11-1
What is the current status? 11-1
What are the major challenges? 11-1
What are the next steps? 11-1
What are some tools to assist in the challenges? 11-2
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 11-2
What are the next steps for adaptive management review of the LaMP pollutant list? 11-2
Background 11-3
Lake Michigan Serves as National Monitoring Pilot 11-5
Summary and major Conclusions from Pilot Study 11-5
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council 11-11
Great Lakes National Parks Monitoring 11-12
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences 11-12
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 11-12
Subgoal 12: What is the status of Lake Michigan's Watersheds? 12-1
What is our target forsustainability? 12-1
Why is this important? 12-1
What is the current status? 12-1
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are the major challenges? 12-1
What are the next steps? 12-1
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem indicators used to help assess the status of the
Subgoal? 12-2
Watershed Management 12-3
Actions to Address feedback 12-3
Linking LaMP Goals to Effective Implementation: The Watershed Scale 12-4
Information from the Nature Conservancy 12-4
Lake Michigan Overview 12-4
Excerpt from State of the Great Lakes 2005: Lake Michigan 12-6
Watershed Fact Sheets 12-12
Betsie-Platte
Black-Macatawa
Boardman-Charlevoix
Brevoort-Millecoquins
Brule
Cedar Ford
Chicago Area Waterway System
Door-Kewaunee
Duck-Pensaukee
Ecsanaba
Fishdam-Sturgeon
Lower Fox (AOC)
Upper Fox
Lower Grand
Upper Grand
Kalamazoo (AOC)
Little Calumet-Galien (AOC)
Manistee
Manistique (AOC)
Manitowoc-Sheboygan (AOC)
Maple
Menominee (AOC)
Michigamme
Milwaukee (AOC)
Muskegon (AOC)
Oconto
Pere-Marquette-White (AOC)
Peshtigo
Pike-Root (Waukegan) (AOC
St. Joseph
Tacoosh-Whitefish
Thornapple
Lake Winnebago
Wolf
Appendix A: Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutant Discussion Paper- For Comment A-1
I. Background A-1
II. Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants Looking Back A-2
1. Criteria to Define Pollutants A-2
2. Pollutants Proposed in 2004, Finalized in 2006 A-3
III. Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants 2006 Review A-4
1. Pollutant Categorization Scenarios A-4
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
2. Pollutants from Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Lists of Category 5 Waters
for which a TMDL is required A-5
a. Illinois A-5
b. Indiana A-6
c.Michigan A-6
d. Wisconsin A-6
3. Pollutants Exceeding GLI Criteria A-6
4. Pollutants from Fish Consumption Advisories A-6
5. Pollutant Classification into Categories Using Scenarios 1 through 4 A-8
IV. Lake Michigan LaMP2006 Pollutants to be Reviewed in 2008 A-13
V. Concluding Remarks/Next Steps A-14
Appendix B: SOLEC Indicators B-1
Glossary G-1
References R-1
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are found in the Individual Subgoal Sections for the 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 LaMP Reports
Goal: To Restore and protect the integrity of the Lake Michigan ecosystem through collaborative place-based partnerships.
Strategic Action Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2008
Next Steps
Human Health
Actions that prevent
human exposure to
pollutants in the
ecosystem and prevent
or minimize sources
SOLEC Indicator Bundles
•Human Health
•Coastal Zone
•Contamination
•Land Use/Land Cover
Subgoal 1
We can all eat any fish
2002
Sfafus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
Subgoal 2
We can drink the water
2004
Sfafus
Sustainable in
2008
Sustainable in
2010
Sustainable in
2020
Subgoal 3
We can swim in the
water
Sfafus
Upgraded to
moving toward
Mixed/Improving
in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
2006
2008
Fish advisories for mercury by USFDA and for dioxin by Michigan and Tribes
Grand Cal and Fox River AOC sediment cleanup plans underway
Sokaogon Chippewa Community Bans Burn Barrels
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians ban burning trash/garbage on tribal lands
TMDL workshops with regulators and stakeholders held
Mercury Phase-Out proposal proposed
Drinking water monitoring and reporting information available on the web
Great Lakes Beach Conference held
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000
EPA and FDA issue joint mercury fish advisory
Legacy Act 2002 to clean up sediments passed and $10 million appropriated for FY 2004, $46 million proposed for FY 2005
Fish consumption advisory outreach programs developed for non-English speakers
Impaired waters strategy under development
Source water assessment programs almost completed
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 being implemented
Drinking water education programs developed
Defense Department Developing Rapid Water Quality Testing Technology
Constructed wetland effectiveness researched
Chicago and Milwaukee to control CSOs
Cladophora alga resurges
Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program Continues
Illinois Proposes 90 Percent Mercury Emissions Reduction
USEPA Issues New Mercury Rules
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program - States Complete All Assessments
Water Security Plan Required
Pharmaceuticals, Hormones and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams More Identifiable
NEEAR Water Study Helps Set New Beach Alert Standards
Cladophora Alga Continues to Grow
Lake Michigan CSOs Studied
Michigan to Clean up Galien River
Policy on Peak Wet Weather Discharges from Municipal Sewage treatment Facilities Proposed
Auto mercury recovery program up and running in all 50 states
Fish contaminants trending downward
Evidence of Pharmaceuticals being found in drinking water increasing
States building programs to dispose of medicines
All Lake Michigan states' source water assessments completed
More water efficiency resources becoming available
Number of beaches monitored up, but number of days closed trending downward
Cladophora becoming larger problem in Lake Michigan
Type E Botulism causes bird die-off s
More health departments developing predictive models for determining when to close beaches
More sanitary survey resources made available
Develop an Impaired Waters Strategy
Continue to address sediments and focus more on
nearshore contamination
Support a mercury product stewardship phase-down
Hold collection events for e-waste and
Pharmaceuticals
Work with new WaterSense label and Energy Star
program to promote benchmarking energy
performance of water utilities
Continue Watershed Academy to ensure land use
and planning take account of source water issues
protection needs
Seek funding to develop a source water protection
GIS system including recharge areas
Enhance local public water supply security awareness
Identify resources for public water suppliers to ensure
that by 2011 80% of the community water systems will
be substantially implementing source water protection
plans
Identify opportunities to work with the Great Lakes and
St. Lawrence Cities Initiative conservation framework
of 15% reduction from 2000 to 2015
Continue to implement actions outlined in the Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration's Coastal Health
Strategy
Continue to improve beach monitoring and public
notification.
Develop and disseminate a standardized sanitary
survey tool to identify contamination sources at Great
Lakes beaches.
Promote measures that will reduce or eliminate
pollution sources at Great Lakes beaches.
Continue support of Great Lakes Beach Association
conferences.
Disseminate information and training tools on the use
of forecast models at Great Lakes beaches.
-------
Strategic Action Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2008
Next Steps
Restoration and
Protection
Actions that restore,
enhance, and sustain the
health, biodiversity, and
productivity of the
ecosystem
SOLEC Indicator Bundles
•Biotic Communities
•Coastal Zone
•Aquatic Habitats
•Invasive Species
•Land use/Land Cover
•Resource Utilization
•Climate Change
Subgoal 4
All habitats are healthy,
naturally diverse, and
sufficient to sustain
viable biological
communities
2002
Sfafus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
2004
2006
2008
Perch population still dropping
Northwest Indiana Advanced Identification of Wetlands Study underway
Keystone species (diporeia) in Lake Michigan food web vanishing
Supreme Court Ruling narrows wetland regulation
Wisconsin passes wetlands protection law
Piping Plover critical habitat designated by USFWS
Antrim County, Michigan Wetland Protection ordinance rescinded
Wolf populations recovering
Habitat and Land Use Management Tool Box under development
Established a 1994 baseline for land cover
NIPC "Biodiversity Recovery Plan" document produced
Northwest Indian greenway plan unveiled
Sturgeon restoration efforts begin
Diporeia density continues to decrease
Dam removals in southeastern Wisconsin improve fish habitat
Nature Conservancy develops Biodiversity Blueprint
Chicago signs migratory bird treaty
Bald eagles return to Little Calumet River
Manistee Watershed grant
Wisconsin non-point source regulation promulgated
Little River Band Release Sturgeon Fingerlings
Boardman River Dams settlement Executed
Perch Young of the Year larger in number
Michigan and Other States Set Wetland Restoration goals
USFWS Awards grant to restore Hegewisch Marsh
Piping Plover agreement in place
Wisconsin DNR works to protect dwarf lake iris
Diporeia density continues to decrease
Wolves thriving, delisting proposed
Chicago Wilderness Report Card released (www.chicagowilderness.org)
Fish population decreased in 2007
Mersey Dam removed from Muskegon River and Sturgeon River Dam removed and river restored
States and federal government develop new plan for Lake Michigan Lake trout
GLFC releases 2007 Report and Environmental Objectives for lake Michigan
More sturgeon than thought found in Muskegon, Manistee, Grand, and Kalamazoo Rivers
Michigan DEQ report outlines impacts of beach maintenance
Collaborate with the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission on protecting
near and offshore spawning reefs
Develop process to refine habitat
restoration targets through public
discussion and promote work
toward targets
Continue to support components of
biodiversity plans through the
Watershed Academy.
Identify species sensitive to ground
and surface water interaction and
their current distribution
Provide GIS tools and land use
models in workshops to promote
knowledge of and protection of key
habitat areas
Promote new stream buffers,
wetlands, and dam removals using
federal, state, local, and private
resources and monitor loss and gain
trends
-------
Strategic Action Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2008
Next Steps
Sustainable Use
Actions that concurrently
sustain the health of the
environment, the
economy, and the
communities of the
ecosystem
SOLEC Indicator Bundles
•Contamination
•Biotic Communities
•Invasive Species
•Coastal Zones
•Aquatic Habitats
•Human Health
•Land Use/Land Cover
•Resource Utilization
•Climate Change
Subgoal 5
Public access to open
space, shoreline, and
natural areas is
abundant and
provides enhanced
opportunities for
human interaction with
the Lake Michigan
ecosystem
2002
Sfofus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
2004
Subgoal 6
Land use, recreation,
and economic
activities are
sustainable and
support a healthy
ecosystem
2006
Sfofus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
2008
Governors and Premiers sign Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001
Indiana moves into Coastal Zone Management program
Wisconsin Smart Growth act
Historic Agreement to Manage Fisheries in 1836 Treaty Waters
Economic valuation studies by Northeast-Midwest Institute, Lake Michigan Federation, and University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
Lake Michigan Potential Damages study continues in sixth year
USGS Lake Michigan Trends Project funded
USGS Pollutants of Concern list developed
Upland Michigan Land Use report
Federal two-year ban on drilling under the Great Lakes continued in 2003
Michigan moratorium on drilling under the Great Lakes
Dams removed in Milwaukee and Muskegon Rivers
Menominee tribe purchases proposed Crandon Mine site
Groundwater studies document unsustainable withdrawal
UIC study shows economic benefits of sediment clean ups
Crandon Mine site purchased by tribes
Northwest Indiana mayors join to remake Indiana lakeshore.
Lake Michigan water trail proposed
Chicago launches new water agenda.
Michigan governor outlines comprehensive water agenda.
MMSD creates river revitalization program using easement acquisition.
Chicago diversion deficit reduced faster than planned
Marquette Plan to open Indiana shore
Marquette Plan Phase 1 honored by American Society of Landscape Architects
Lake Michigan Watershed Trail proposed and under development
Sleeping Bear Dunes Developing New General Plan
Great Lakes Governors and Premiers Sign Great Lakes Charter Annex Implementing Agreements
Michigan passes new water withdrawal law
Illinois Governor Orders new water supply study
Lake Michigan diversion "debt" likely repaid in 2004 water year
Michigan court decree on walkable beaches
Predicted impacts of climate change on water resources identified
Marquette Plan Phase II Visioning Plan launched
Chicago area nature centers found rich in public benefit
Fishtown, Michigan receives NOAA Preserve America Initiative grant
Michigan and five tribes agree on tribal hunting and fishing
Chicago Wilderness launches "No Child Left Inside" program
International Upper Great Lakes Study preliminary report indicates the armored layer of the St. Clair River is stable and not eroding
USEPA issues Green Infrastructure policy that is shared with state, local, and tribal governments and watershed groups
Chicago developing comprehensive climate change strategy
Brookings Institute releases three studies on Great lakes regional economic leadership and stability
Partner with the growing coastal zone
management programs in the Lake
Michigan basin to ensure that the issue
of public access to the lake is balanced
with protection of the ecosystem
Support a dialogue on green marinas
(see Chapter 9) among states and Sea
Grant programs
Determine protection status of world's
largest collection of fresh water sand
dunes
Promote public involvement in
preservation and stewardship of special
natural areas and public access:
Broaden the dialogue with state and
local government land-use planners and
decision-makers to balance
environmental and recreational needs
through the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy
Provide tools for local communities to
understand the value of the resource
from a lakewide perspective and
develop long-term management
programs
Identify open space multi-use
opportunities and tools for such things as
flood retention parks and open space
with commuter bike trails, among others
Assist development of Green: Marina,
Highway, and Golf Course programs for
the basin to reduce inputs of nutrients,
pesticides, and other pollutants into
basin waters
Promote studies that investigate the
status of groundwater resources and
their impact on water quality, aquatic
habitat, and levels of Lake Michigan
Support studies to determine sustainable
yields for Great Lakes water resources
Continue to promote studies that
investigate the economic value of
remediating contaminated sites as
reported in LaMP 2006
Promote a basin-wide opportunities for
green areas that sequester carbon
-------
Strategic Action Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2008
Next Steps
Remediation and
Pollution Prevention
Actions that achieve
substantial pollution
reduction by remediating
sites, controlling
pathways, preventing or
minimizing sources
SOLEC Indicator Bundles
•Contamination
•Land Use/land Cover
•Invasive Species
Subgoal 7
Sediments, air, land,
and water are not
sources or pathways of
contamination that
affect the integrity of
the ecosystem
2002
Sfafus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
Subgoal 8
Aquatic and terrestrial
invasive species are
prevented and
controlled
Sfafus
Downgraded to
moving toward
Mixed/
Deteriorating in
2008, possible
deterioration
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) findings published
PCB levels in lake trout achieving equilibrium
U.S. EPA Atrazine Reassessment initiated
IADN results consistent with LMMB findings
Bush administration announced climate change and "Clear Skies" initiatives
1999 Toxic Air Emissions inventory released
U.S. EPA published Air Great Lakes Deposition (GLAD) Strategy
PCB/mercury Clean Sweep in Cook County, IL
Wisconsin mercury regulations
States act to control animal operations
New aquatic nuisance species found in Lake Michigan
Michigan Ballast Water Bill
St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation to incorporate ballast water practices
Chicago River invasive species dispersal barrier installed
ANS Task Force and Great Lakes Panel on ANS continue work to control ANS
2004
Corps funding secured for building permanent Asian Carp barrier on Chicago River system
Wisconsin begins mandatory rural NPS program
Michigan and Indiana add animal operation to permits
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District adopts mercury dental program.
Michigan proposes new NPDES permit for CAFOs
National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003 passed.
2006
Quagga Mussels Increasing in Number to Compete for Food with Native Mussels
Sound and Bubble Barrier Could Deter Asian Carp
PCB, Mercury and Nutrient findings from LMMB:
Forecasted PCB concentrations in lake trout may permit unlimited consumption as early as 2039 at Sturgeon Bay and 2044 at Saugatuck
• PCB trends indicate that concentrations are declining in all media
• Atmospheric deposition is the major current route of PCBs to the lake (from sources inside and outside the basin)
• Chicago urban area is a substantial atmospheric source of PCBs to Lake Michigan
• There is a dynamic interaction among water, sediments, and the atmosphere where large masses of PCBs from sediments cycle into and out
of the lake via the atmosphere as vapor phase
• The current major source of mercury to the lake is from atmospheric deposition.
• Modeling results suggest that a significant amount of the existing mercury settling out of water is being recycled back into the system.
• Lake Michigan phosphorus loads and concentrations are low and below GLWQA and IJC targets
• Tributaries are the major source of phosphorus to Lake Michigan
• Highest concentrations can be observed in selected nearshore zones near tributary mouths and in Green Bay
Green Bay clean-up agreements announced
2008
Lake Michigan Mass Balance resampling results released showing reductions in calculated loads of PCBs and mercury
Draft GLRC mercury Product Stewardship phase-down strategy released
Great lakes basin program for soil erosion and sediment control reauthorized
New Grand Calumet River Great Lakes Legacy Act Project Agreement signed.
Michigan begins to apply AOC delisting document
St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation require all ships coming to the Great lakes from foreign waters must flush ballast tanks with sea water
20th anniversary of introduction of zebra mussels into the Great lakes see their numbers declining and invasive quagga mussels numbers
increasing at rates higher than zebra mussels at their height
VMS virus found in all Great lakes
New ANS Mysidacea found in Lake Michigan
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Electric Barrier fully funded
Black carp listed as an injurious species
Impacts of climate change
Lack of comprehensive
understanding of pollutant
movement and remediation
makes the goal of reaching
sustainability by 2020 difficult
Impacts of increased global
mercury emissions
Increasing monitoring of existing
and emerging stressors on the
lake
Need to set delisting targets for
Areas of Concern and resources
to implement cleanup actions
Conduct education and outreach on
aquatic invasive species.
Eliminate ship and barge-mediated
introductions and spread of AIS in the
Great Lakes.
Enact federal, state, and/or local
governments measures that ensure
the region's canals and waterways
are not a vector for AIS.
Take immediate steps at the federal
and state government level to
prevent the introduction and spread
of AIS through the trade and potential
release of live organisms.
Establish a Great Lakes Aquatic
Invasive Species Integrated
Management Program to implement
rapid response, control, and
management programs and assess
the effectiveness of those programs.
-------
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2008
Next Steps
Information Sharing,
Collaboration and
Stewardship
Actions that provide
data access and
exchange, facilitate
involvement, and build
capacity
SOLEC Indicator
Bundles
•Contamination
•Biotic Communities
•Invasive Species
•Coastal Zones
•Aquatic Habitats
•Human Health
•Land Use/Land Cover
•Resource Utilization
•Climate Change
Subgoal 9
Ecosystem stewardship
activities are common
and undertaken by
public and private
organizations in
communities around
the basin
2002
Sfafus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
Subgoal 10
Collaborative
ecosystem
management is the
basis for decision-
making in the Lake
Michigan basin
Sfafus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
2004
2006
2008
Lake Michigan Forum developing Stewardship trust
State of Lake Michigan Conference held - November 2001
Forum/Grand Valley State University "Making Lake Michigan Great Tour" continues to educate about Lake Michigan
ecosystem during summer cruises
Great Lakes Strategy released in 2002 by U.S. EPA
Great Lakes Human Health Network established
Voluntary monitoring Conference March 2002
Wingspread Accord signed
Participation by regional councils in watershed planning and water supply conferences
Watershed Academy training held and 6 regional conferences held or planned
Indiana Coastal Zone program gives out first grants
Illinois Conservation Congress recommends investigation of CZM participation
Great Lakes Cities Initiative launched
Illinois Ecosystem Partnership for Lake Michigan in development
Waukegan recognized as an EPA Environmental Justice community
Great Lakes restoration bill introduced into Congress
EPA utilizes watershed focus
Mono Lake Watershed Stewardship Assessment completed
Illinois-lndiana-Wisconsin planning agencies agree to consistent groundwater planning
President signs Executive Order organizing Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration sees participation by numerous organizations and releases report and recommendation
in December 2005
Regional planning agencies follow-up on Phase II Watershed Academy activities
Lake Michigan Forum performs watershed assessment for Baird Creek
NIRPC releases Water Conservation and Protection Toolkit
NIPC releases 2040 regional framework plan with tools for decisionmakers
Michigan and Indiana Cooperate in Developing the St. Joseph River Watershed Management Plan
Great Lakes governors and Premiers sign Great Lakes Charter Annex Implementation Agreements
USEPA using watershed scale for implementation more frequently
Michigan builds "Clean Marina" program
USEPA and Forest Service sign agreement to restore water quality in national forests
Binational toxics Strategy under review
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors develop water conservation goals
Great lakes Water Quality Agreement under review
Develop projects utilizing the Lake Michigan LaMP
watershed fact sheets, land use management
tool box and exploration of other tools.
Provide additional education and outreach
materials on water conservation and source
water protection.
Continue the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy, support GIS and modeling workshops
and obtain and provide small implementation
grants to local communities.
Continue to build layers for the on-line habitat
atlas.
Hold FY 2009 State of Lake Michigan Conference
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Continue the research vessel boat tour- Making
Lake Michigan Great combined with outreach
and teacher workshops.
Continue publication of the Lake Michigan
Partnership Directory in each LaMP
Continue development and linkage of local
watersheds with basin-wide issues and activities
through the Watershed Academy and partnering
with state programs
Coordinate LaMP and GLBTS efforts on PCBs and
mercury
LMMCC continues leadership role for
collaborative monitoring in 2010
Coordinate with the four Coastal Management
programs to explore partnership opportunities
Explore partnerships with key EPA volunteer
programs like Climate Change, Clean Ports,
Clean Marinas, and Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship
-------
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2004
Next Steps
Research and
Monitoring
Actions that monitor
the ecosystem, reduce
uncertainty, and inform
our decisions
SOLEC Indicator
Bundles
• Proposed new
"Well-Being"
bundle
Subgoal 11
We have enough
inform ation/data/unde
rstanding/ indicators to
inform the decision-
making process
2002
Sfafus
Mixed in 2008
Mixed/Improving
by 2010
Sustainable by
2020
2004
2006
2008
LMMB project findings
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council monitoring and assessment inventory
Lake Michigan Monitoring Assessment report released
Beach monitoring program (BEACH) created by U.S. EPA
BEC statement and monitoring conference
IJC/Delta Institute/Lake Michigan Forum Air Deposition Workshop
Great Lakes Wetlands Consortium consolidates wetland information
EPA/ORD wetlands indicators
LaMP pollutant list review
Beach Conference, web site, and manager's group
National Park Service monitoring begins
Lake Michigan Monitoring Council develops 2005 intensive monitoring year plan
Midwest Spatial Information Partnership formed - Workshop held in conjunction with Lake Michigan Watershed Academy
LMMB data sets available
Ann Arbor Statement on long-range atmospheric transport proposed
USGS maintains surface water-quality network for streams in the Lake Michigan basin
GLNPO's Aquatic Contaminant Monitoring program completes FY 05 Intensive Year of Monitoring
First collaborative Lake Michigan basin-wide FY 05 Year of Intensive Monitoring completed
Lake Michigan serves as national groundwater monitoring pilot
EPA using new nearshore monitoring tool, the Traxus
GLNPO continues water quality surveys on the newly renamed "Peter L. Wise Lake Guardian"
Report on Lake Michigan nearshore
and food web issues for Great Lakes
Regional Research Information
Network
Review monitoring and research to
identify LaMP pollutants and trends to
determine if LaMP pollutants list needs
to be changed
Complete, analyze, and publish
coordinated monitoring results for the
lake intensive monitoring year 2005
Ensure Lake Michigan models will be
documented further, and additional
scenarios simulated with results shared
through the LaMP and in other ways
Assist coordination for the intensive
year and the national coastal
assessment year monitoring programs
for 2010
Use 2008 Lake Michigan Pilot funding,
for sampling and analysis, to refine
monitoring plans
Utilize FY05 and other monitoring data
to aid in adaptive management
review of LaMP Pollutant List (See
page 11 -2 and Appendix A for more
information)
-------
Subgoal 1
Can we all eat any fish?
What is our target for Lake Michi T t Dates for Sustainabi|ity
sustainability?
No lakewide fish consumption advisories.
oonHition nHvisorips mnv pxist Nor MIXED MIXED MIXED SUSTAINABLE
oonuiiion uuviboneb muy exibi SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING IMPROVING
from time to time.
Why is this important?
Fish are an important part of everyone's diet.
In the 1970s steps were taken to ban,
regulate, and clean up sources of toxic
substances that had entered the aquatic
food web. These actions resulted in marked
reductions of toxins in the ambient
environment and in fish tissue by the 1990s.
Reductions have recently slowed which may
be attributed to the impact of aquatic invasives on the food web. In addition, there are new or emerging
contaminants such as pesticides, flame retardants, Pharmaceuticals, and personal care products now found
in our aquatic environment that may impact the food web and require monitoring programs to be
developed.
What is the current status?
Overall, the status remains mixed, but FY 2005 monitoring shows a slight, but continued decline, in
contaminant levels. While progress has been made, fish advisories for PCBs and mercury are still issued in all
four Lake Michigan states. Advisories for chemicals other than PCBs and mercury have decreased over the
last several years as the chemicals became less prevalent and their releases more controlled.
What are the major challenges?
• Climate Change: Intense storms may increase high flow runoff events carrying contaminants and
sediment that adversely effect water quality.
• Dealing with the impacts of levels of mercury from local, national, and international sources.
• Eliminating use of remaining PCB equipment and remediating legacy PCB contamination in sediment
deposits
• Informing people about important health protection information related to fish advisories through widely
accessible, user friendly sources.
• Providing resources for action under the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA).
What are the next steps?
• Develop an Impaired Waters Strategy
• Continue to address sediments and focus more on nearshore contamination
• Support a mercury product stewardship phase-down
• Hold collection events for e-waste and Pharmaceuticals
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• State Fish Consumption Advisories
National Pretreatment Program
Mercury Programs Database
The Mercury Challenge
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator #114- Contaminants in Youna-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Status: Not Assessed, Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator #117- Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Status: Mixed, Trend: Improving (for PCBs, banned organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans) /
Unchanging or slightly improving (for PAHs and mercury)
Indicator #118- Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Status: Fair, Trend: Undetermined
Indicator #119- Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Status: Mixed, Trend: Improving/Undetermined
Indicator # 124 - External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish
Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan were unstudied for this indicator and were categorized with a
not assessed status and an undetermined trend.
Indicator # 41 77 - Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Status: Not Assessed, Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 4201 - Contaminants in Sport Fish
Status: Mixed, Trend: Improving
Indicator # 8135 - Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Status: Mixed, Trend: Improving
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.aov/solec/soal2007/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Fish Consumption Advisories
Consumers should know that fish and shellfish can be
important parts of a healthy and balanced diet.
They are good sources of high quality protein and
other essential nutrients.
Women of child-bearing age, fetuses, and children
are more susceptible to the effects of contaminants
in fish. State fish consumption advisories include
advice specifically targeted to these sensitive
populations.
Fishing is one of the most popular forms of outdoor
recreation in the Midwest, and Americans are eating
more fish as diets shift toward more low-fat foods.
Over 43 percent of all Great Lakes fishing in the U.S. is
done in Lake Michigan, and both commercial fishing
and sport fishing are significant contributors to the
economies of the states in the basin. Commercial fish
production (both nontribal and tribal) reaches over
14.6 million pounds of fish annually. The commercial
fishery is valued at more than $270 million and the
recreational fishery at $4 billion.
Fish consumption, however, has been shown to be a
major pathway of human as well as wildlife exposure
to persistent toxic substances, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury.
Contaminants released from many sources are
transported through the environment and are carried
into streams and lakes. Small organisms absorb these
contaminants and are, in turn, eaten by other
organisms and small fish. Some of these
contaminants bioaccumulate in the fish -and in
humans who eat them - to levels that can pose
health risks.
Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program
The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP) began in
1980 as a cooperative effort by USEPA, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (no longer participating), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (now the Biological Resources Division of U.S.
Geological Survey), and the eight Great Lakes States to
monitor and better define the fish contaminant problem in
the Great Lakes. The program consists of two separate
elements to monitor contaminants in whole predator fish
and in game fish fillets.
The GLFMP currently collects samples, for both elements of
the program, from a set number of sites per lake.
Collections alternate on a yearly basis, with even and odd
year collections. Element 1 samples consist of 5 whole fish
composites for a total of 50 fish collected per site. Element
2 samples consist of 5 skin-on fillets for a total of 15 fish
collected per site. All samples are provided to analytical
laboratory (currently a university grantee) as approximately
10 grams of frozen homogenate. The GLFMP currently
utilizes an established chemical parameter list for analysis,
though in recent years emerging contaminants of concern,
such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and
perfluorinated compounds (PFOS, PFOA), have been
added.
More information is available at: www.epa.aov/alnpo/
alindicators/fish.html
State fish consumption advisories are issued to
protect people from potential adverse health effects
associated with contaminants found in fish. These
advisories recommend amounts and types of fish that
are not safe to eat. Fish consumption advisories may
also include information to educate the public on
how to minimize exposure to certain contaminants
through proper fish preparation and cooking. The
advisories are viewed as a temporary measure to
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
State Fish Consumption Advisories
Illinois: www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/fishadv.htm
Indiana: www.in.aov/isdh/proarams/environmental/fa links.htm
Michigan: www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132-13110-,00.html
Wisconsin: dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/fish/
A consolidated source for Great Lakes fish consumption advisories as well as information on other standards applicable
to the lakes is available on a Great Lakes Information Network site:
www.areat-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/wildlife/fishadv.html
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Sport Fish Advisory Example
Illinois Lake Michigan Fish Advisory
Cook and Lake
Counties (Illinois)
Species and Meal Frequency
Chinook Salmon
.rf- *fcn»jnw*df
v •
— <^—
All Waters
Less than 32"
1 meal/month
- or-
Larger than 36"
6 meals/year
Contaminant - PCBs
Channel Catfish
^ ^;
All Waters
All Sizes
Do Not Eat
Contaminant - PCBs
Figure 1-2. Illinois Lake Michigan Fish
Coho Salmon
-J^ ^ ' *
All Waters
All Sizes
1 meal/month
Contaminant - PCBs
Lake Trout
A
All Waters
Less than 23"
1 meal/month
- or-
23" to 27"
6 meals/year
- or-
Larger than 27"
Do Not Eat
Contaminant - PCBs
Advisory
Source: www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/fishadv.
Rainbow Trout
r ^g^^ff^^r^
1 ' % '•^•'•"^ *
All Waters
Less than 22"
1 meal/week
-or-
Larger than 22"
1 meal/month
Contaminant - PCBs
Yellow Perch
* ' 'f *
All Waters
All Sizes
1 meal/week
Contaminant - PCBs
htm
Brown Trout
^fifl^fff^ *1Sff*r**-
v v™
All Waters
Less than 22"
1 meal/month
- or-
Larger than 25"
6 meals/year
Contaminant - PCBs
Carp
^^<
All Waters
All Sizes
Do Not Eat
Contaminant - PCBs
protect the public while control measures and site
cleanups reduce contamination to safe levels.
PCBs are the primary contaminant behind the fish
consumption advisories published by all four Lake
Michigan states. Mercury advisories are also issued
by each Lake Michigan state for fish of inland lakes
and some select Lake Michigan sites. As a rule,
mercury is the dominant contaminant behind fish
consumption advice from inland lakes due to
atmospheric deposition and the lack of elimination of
water through streams and or rivers. Dioxins,
chlordane, DDT, and many other contaminants are
also present in fish but are not in high enough
quantity to warrant advice beyond PCB levels.
States frequently use fish consumption advisories (See
opposite page) as indicators of whether their waters
are meeting requirements for designated uses. If a
fish consumption advisory is issued, this triggers the
need for a state to investigate and set a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) for contaminants. TMDLs
for PCB and mercury are currently required for Lake
Michigan. The fish consumption advisories are
updated annually and updates are published on
state fish consumption advisory web pages.
Locations of specific required TMDLs related to fish
advisories are listed in the watershed fact sheets (See
Chapter 12).
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Process by which USEPA evaluates
Chemicals for Human Risk
USEPA utilizes the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) to evaluate the health effects of individual
substances. IRIS provides hazard identification and
dose-response assessment information. The
information in IRIS can be used in combination with
exposure information to characterize the public
health risks of a given substance in a given situation.
These risk characterizations can form the basis for risk-
based decision-making, regulatory activities, and
other risk management decisions designed to
characterize and protect public health.
EPA's process for developing IRIS assessments consists
of: (1) an annual Federal Register announcement of
EPA's IRIS agenda and call for scientific information
from the public on the selected substances, (2) a
search of the current literature, (3) development of a
draft Toxicological Review (other support document)
and IRIS Summary, (4) internal peer consultation, (5)
Agency Review, (6) Interagency Review, (7) external
peer review and public comment, (8) final Agency
Review, Interagency Review and ORD management
approval, and (9) posting on the IRIS database.
For more information on the chemicals currently
being evaluated by IRIS go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/iris/index.cfm.
Sources of Exposure of PBDEs
Although use of flame retardants saves lives and
property, there have been unintended
consequences. There is growing evidence that
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) persist in the
environment and accumulate in living organisms, as
well as toxicological testing that indicates these
chemicals may cause liver toxicity, thyroid toxicity,
and neurodevelopmental toxicity. Environmental
monitoring programs in Europe, Asia, North America,
and the Arctic have found traces of several PBDEs in
human breast milk, fish, aquatic birds, and elsewhere
in the environment. Particular congeners, tetra- to
hexabrominated diphenyl ethers, are the forms most
frequently detected in wildlife and humans.
The mechanisms or pathways through which PBDEs
get into the environment and humans are not known
yet, but could include releases from manufacturing or
processing of the chemicals into products like plastics
or textiles, aging and wear of the end consumer
products, and direct exposure during use (e.g., from
furniture). Some research has evaluated PBDE levels
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Mercury Programs Database
The Mercury Reduction Programs Database was developed
and maintained by Region 1 and 2's Northeast Waste Man-
agement Officials' Association (NEWMOA) with support and
assistance from the Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS) and the Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange
(P2Rx).
The database can be searched by program, state, and
agency to find out what mercury reduction programs are
taking place nationally. Programs can also be added by or-
ganizations.
More information is available at:
www.p2rx.ora/Networkina/MercurvDB.cfm
Auto Mercury-Recovery Programs Up and
Running in All 50 States
EPA and eight organizations—representing states,
nongovernmental organizations, steelmakers, vehicle
manufacturers, automobile recyclers, and scrap metal
recyclers—launched a program in August 2006 to recover
mercury containing light switches from end-of-life vehicles
manufactured prior to 2002 before they are dismantled,
crushed, shredded, and melted to make new steel.
In its first year where all 50 states are participating in auto
mercury-recovery programs, more than 635,000 mercury-
based switches were removed from vehicles about to be
scrapped. This represents 1,400 pounds of mercury which is
more than the average coal-fired power plant emits in a
year. The Mercury Switch Removal Program has the potential
to recover 80 to 90 percent of available mercury switches,
leading to commensurate reductions in air emissions.
A second goal for the first year-developing a way to
measure overall progress in the program in future years-has
also been achieved. Progress will be measured by
determining the percentage of switches that are recovered
each year compared to the number of available end-of-life
autos from which switches can be recovered.
Approximately 5,900 automobile recyclers have already
agreed to remove and recover the switches before sending
vehicles to scrap recyclers, who in turn send the clean cars to
steel mills. The mills can then use the cars to make recycled
steel without worrying about releasing toxic mercury
emissions.
More information is available at:
www.epa.aov/mercurv/switch.htm
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Total RGBs in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Michigan Harbors
* :
1980
Year
s not oat
" t.S pprci
6 meals I year
1.1 -1.9 ppm
Unlimited
0 - J3£ ppm
Fish Contaminant Trends
The 6 adjoining diagrams represent general contaminant
trends in Great Lake Sport fish. These data were collected by
the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) under the
fish monitoring program. This program annually collects and
composites 15 salmon filets into three composites in the small,
medium, and large size categories from a variety of sites from
each of the Great Lakes. Data shown in the graphs above
reflect the changing nature of the Sport Fish Fillet Monitoring
piece of the fish monitoring program. Sites have been con-
tinuously added and removed over the life of the program
and samples themselves have varied from year to year ac-
cording to collection, location, size etc. For that reason, only
general trends can be gathered from this data.
Source: EPAGical Lakes National Program Office, 200*.
Figure 1 -1 Total PCBs in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites from
Lake Michigan Harbors
Total PCBs in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Michigan Harbors
2,50
1 2'°°
3
m 1.50
o
o.
g 1.00
£
0.50
0.00
S meals I year
1.1 -1J ppm
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 o - .nffm
Year
Source: EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. 2008.
Figure 1 -2 Total PCBs in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Michigan Harbors
Total DDT in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites from
Lake Michigan Harbors
-a 0-70
1 0,60
P" 0.50
8 0.40
f 0.30
•" 0.20
0.10
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
No Protocol for DDT exists for sport fish to consumption advice.
Source: EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 2008.
Figure 1 -3 Total DDT in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites from
Lake Michigan Harbors
In general, concentrations of select Persistent Bioaccumula-
tive Toxic (PBT) chemicals in Lake Michigan Coho and Chi-
nook Salmon fillets are declining, although very slowly. With-
out remediation of contaminated sediments or restriction of
contaminated atmospheric deposition, tissue concentrations
will continue to warrant fish consumption advisories. It is im-
portant to note that U.S. EPA does not issue fish consumption
advice, the Great Lakes States and Tribes are responsible for
this task. However, concentrations of GLFMP sportfish can be
compared to the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport
Fish Consumption Advisory categories (see figure 1-7).
Current concentrations of total PCBs in Lake Michigan coho
and chinook salmon fillets range between the one meal per
week and the one meal per month consumption advice
categories (see figures 1-1 & 1-2). Total PCBs are a summa-
tion of all PCB congeners analyzed.
No DDT protocols exist to compare Lake Michigan coho and
chinook salmon fillets concentrations to consumption advice
categories (see figures 1-3 & 1-4).
Current concentrations of Total Chlordane in Lake Michigan
coho and chinook salmon fillets fall into the unlimited con-
sumption category of the draft chlordane addendum to the
protocol (see figures 1-5 & 1-6). Total chlordane is a summa-
tion of cis and trans chlordane, cis and trans nonachlor, and
oxychlordane.
More information is available at the following:
PCB Protocol - JltteiZ/JlLcJs^jjxiu^
Hg Protocol -
FishFS/2007Hg Add Final 05 07.pdf
-------
Total DDT in Chinook Salmon Fillet
Composites from Lake Michigan Harbors
Total Chlordane in Co ho Salmon Fillet
Composites from Lake Michigan Harbors
0.80
0.70
1 0.60
t 05°
O 040
1 0.30
0.20
0.10
en
•3- 0.20
§
Ss f\ 4K
12 0,15
5 0.10
I 0.05
n OA
I
* ,
* *
* • . .
— — — 4-^-LL__
1 i * • 1 * t , |
» t * * »
1 meai / week
,1© • .65 p$m
unlimtted
Gonsun'splion
0 - .IS ppm
U-UU ------
1 Q?s 1 Qfin 1 Qftfi 1 oon 1 ciQfi ?mn ?m^
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
Source: EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 2008.
Figure 1 -4 Total DDT in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Michigan Harbors
Y*ar
Source: EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 10M,
Figure 1 -5 Total Chlrodane in Coho Salmon Fillet Compos-
ites from Lake Michigan Harbors
Total Chlordane in Chinook Salmon Fillet
Composites from Lake Michigan Harbors
ra u zo
- 0.20
1
fA *i PL
U.lo
8 0,10
a
2 0.05
A (VI
*
* * *
* * *"~ •— — ^-~~J
• » * • *
1 mea! / week
.16-.«6ppm
Uolimrted
Consumption
0 - .1 S ppm
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
Source: EPA Oral Latcs National Program Office. 2IK>8.
Figure 1 -6 Total Chlrodane in Chinook Salmon Fillet Com-
posites from Lake Michigan Harbors
Consumption limits for sensitive populations created for the Protocol for a Uniform Great
Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory**
Concentralion ol Chlor-
datic (p|)ni)**
Women ofchildbearingage and children under 15
**Chlordane protocols is draft
Saurccj Great Lak^s Sport Fisli Advisor>'Task force, http: fti.cfs.purdu
Figure 1-7. Consumption Limits for Sensitive Populations Created for the Protocol
for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
The Mercury Challenge
: National
Partnership
for
Environmental
Priorities
The National Partnership for Environmental Priorities' (NPEP) Mercury
Challenge promotes the voluntary, systematic elimination of mercury-containing
equipment from industrial sites. Mercury is a highly toxic chemical designated as one of
31 priority chemicals that USEPA wants to reduce in our nation's products and wastes.
Mercury is a documented contaminant of air, land, water, plants, and animals, and exposure to mercury can cause
serious health problems.
More information on mercury resources is available at the following sites:
• USEPA's mercury program at: www^eiDcajgcw/nTjaiMM/
• The Take the Mercury Challenge program at: www.j3joa^^
• "Building a Mercury Reduction Plan"
• Mercury-Free Success Stories:
ijCig^^
"Mercury: Serious Problem, Practical Solutions" Brochure at: yM^SB3^ovJnQe^lmercc^
in market basket foods. This research suggests that
dietary exposure does not account for high body
burden that have been observed in people. Dust
and air from the indoor environment may play a role
in PBDE body burden levels in addition to food.
More information is available at:
Source: Schecter A, Papke O, Harris TR, Tung KC,
Musumba A , Olson J, and Birnbaum L. 2006.
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Levels in an
Expanded Market Basket Survey of U.S. Food and
Estimated PBDE Dietary Intake by Age and Sex
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 1 14,
Number 10.
Is there a Human Health Risk?
VMS. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) virus is a
serious fresh and saltwater fish pathogen that is
increasingly observed in the Great Lakes region of
the United States and Canada. VHS virus is a
rhabdovirus that affects fish of all size and age
ranges. It does not pose any threat to human health
because it is not a human pathogen. Therefore, it
cannot infect humans if they eat fish with the
pathogen.
More information is available at:
heo^
sg_vhsfo_vs.pdf
Botulism. Type E botulism poisoning of fish and wildlife
has recently increased in the Great Lakes with the
most recent example in Michigan near the Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore where shore birds
died from eating contaminated fish. Many people
are concerned not only of the ecological impacts of
this type botulism but also of the human health
impacts.
In the past, a few Type E botulism cases have been
reported in humans. However, this was due to
improperly prepared smoked or cooked fish and
these cases were rare. Most media reports of
botulism issues in humans are from Type A and B
botulism. These types of botulism occur in food as a
result improperly canned or jarred food. Cooking
food to proper temperatures will destroy bacteria,
including botulism.
When fishing or hunting waterfowl in the Great Lakes,
take steps to choose healthy fish and discard fish or
waterfowl that are sick or act abnormally because
improper cooking may not destroy the botulism Type
E toxin.
Collaborative Lake Michigan Strategy
to Address Impaired Waters
The purpose of this strategy is reduce and virtually
phase out impairments caused by contaminants
such as mercury, PCBs, and certain banned
pesticides that have resulted in fish consumption
advisories, into the Lake Michigan ecosystem.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
National Pretreatment
Program
USEPA Region 5 developed a pretreatment program for the
NPDES Permit Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP) for
Mercury.
The new National Pretreatment Program controls and
minimizes the loading of pollutants to publicly owned
treatment works from industrial, non-domestic sources to
protect against operational, water quality, biosolids quality,
and worker health and safety problems. The goal is to aid in
meeting the Great Lakes Initiative water quality standards
the states adopted for mercury in permits. Tools and fact
sheets on wastewater pretreatment are also available on
the website.
More information is available at the Pretreatment Website
at:
www.epa.aov/r5water/npdestek/npdprta.htm.
The states have primary responsibility for preparing
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for impaired water
bodies and USEPA agrees to provide resources,
technical assistance, and facilitation to support the
states' TMDL development efforts on interstate waters
like the Great Lakes. Furthermore, recent changes to
USEPA 303(d) list guidance allow the states to address
impaired waters that are being remediated by other
means in a manner that could delay or possibly
eliminate the need for TMDL development.
A strategy to address the impaired waters of Lake
Michigan will take time to develop and implement
and needs to provide opportunities for the parties to
work collaboratively towards air quality reductions in
mercury that lead to perceptible reductions in state
waters and related fish tissues. This raises the question
of what a strategy to address the impaired waters of
Lake Michigan should be? Any strategy will take time
to develop and implement. It should provide
opportunities for the parties to work collaboratively
and avoid duplication of effort. Such a strategy
would be useful to divide the development and
possible products from the discussion into stages
aligned with the LaMP publications from 2006 through
2010. The stages could include activities and
milestones tracked over time to ensure that progress
is being made to remediate Lake Michigan. Any
strategy would need to be reviewed and mid-course
changes considered at each two year interval. If
sufficient progress is not made by 2010, work on
standard TMDLs for Lake Michigan would need to
begin and be completed by 2013 per the current
303(d) schedule and USEPA regulation.
To implement this approach, the following activities
should be conducted over the next two years:
• Continue discussion of the Strategy concept in
LaMP 2008.
• Finalize the 2005 Intensive Lake Michigan
Monitoring Plan and GLNPO Open Lake Organics
monitoring with Lake Michigan Mass Balance
models.
• Develop and share matrix of successful state
programs.
• If developed, publish the Strategy in LaMP 2010.
The Lake Michigan LaMP 2000, Appendix E, provided
an overview of issues and information needs for a full
TMDL Strategy for Lake Michigan. LaMP 2002 and
2004 summarized the dialogue and meetings since
LaMP 2000 and provided an early draft of a Mercury
Phase Out Proposal and also provided data from the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study and Enhanced
Tributary Monitoring Project.
Status of Mercury TMDLs in the Basin
Based on state submittals of the 2004 303(d) impaired
waters lists, there are 217 waters in the Lake Michigan
basin listed as impaired for mercury. The 217
impaired waters are located in the Lake Michigan
states of Illinois (2), Indiana (81), Michigan (88), and
Wisconsin (46). With every 303(d) list submittal, states
are required to identify waters targeted for TMDLs in
the next two years. In 2004, the Lake Michigan states
did not include any mercury-impaired waters on their
two-year schedule for TMDL development. However,
Michigan did submit a long-term TMDL development
schedule that included development of mercury
TMDLs beginning in 2011.
There are efforts underway by states outside of the
Lake Michigan Basin to address waters impaired by
atmospheric mercury. Minnesota recently
developed a statewide TMDL for mercury-impaired
waters. The TMDL addresses 512 TMDLs across the
state, excluding Lake Superior.
In 2007, EPA Region 1 approved a regional mercury
TMDL for the seven-state Northeast Region. The
regional TMDL outlines a strategy for reducing fish
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
tissue mercury concentrations using smallmouth bass
as the target fish. The current 90th percentile mercury
concentration in smallmouth bass in the Region is 1.14
ppm. To meet a target fish tissue concentration of 0.3
ppm, the TMDL calls for a mercury load reduction of
2,055 kg/yr in the Region and a reduction of 2,738
from out-of-Region sources for a total load reduction
of 98.2%. The reductions will be achieved through a
variety of point, nonpoint, and air emission controls.
Sources of Mercury
Air deposition is the dominant mercury pathway for
most water bodies. Sources of mercury in the
atmosphere are divided roughly at 1 /3 natural, 1 /3
from past human activity, and 1 /3 from current human
activity around the world. The current human activity
in the U.S. Mercury emissions are shown in Figure 1-8
(See preceding page).
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) is one
potential vehicle for developing a basin-wide mercury
product stewardship strategy and basin-wide mercury
phase-down program, including a mercury waste
management component. The states and the tribes
are putting together a workgroup to develop a
common strategy.
In February 2008, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) released a
comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use and
release of mercury to Michigan's environment. The
DEQ's Mercury Strategy Staff Report contains specific
recommendations and a comprehensive approach
to controlling mercury, including environmental
monitoring, inventory development, collaborations
and partnerships, education and outreach, and
regulatory controls. It also provides an overview of the
mercury problem, identifies current sources that
contribute to mercury releases, and identifies various
methods for reducing and eliminating the sources.
It outlines Michigan's rules, regulations, policies, and
monitoring activities for mercury and chronicles
various actions undertaken thus far to prevent the use
and release of mercury. More information is available
at www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-184041-
.OO.html
Sources of Other Pollutants
See Chapter 7 for a detailed discussion.
Sources of Current Mercury Emissions
in the U.S. (2002)
Hazwaste
Incineration
4%
Chlorine
Production
5%
Gold Mining
Municipal/ Other
Medical Waste
4%
Utility Boilers
44%
ffectric Arc
Furnaces
10%
Industrial Boilers
9%
Figure 1 -8: USEPA, 2002 National Emissions Inventory
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 2
Can we drink the water?
Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
NOT MIXED
SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING
MIXED
MIXED
IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE
2000
2008
2010
2020
What is our target for
sustainability?
A treated water supply that meets all Federal
drinking water quality standards.
Why is this important?
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides federal
standards and regulations for water supplies.
Lake Michigan water quality is
overwhelmingly good. Although there have
been past local problems that did cause
illness, current concerns are the need to
monitor for emerging contaminants and
depletion of ground water that serves as both
a drinking water source and also replenishes Lake Michigan.
What is the current status?
Drinking water quality for municipal systems using Lake Michigan water resources is of good quality. Supplied
water is also generally of high quality.
What are the major challenges?
• Climate Change: Energy consumption by water treatment facilities is significant and water quality
impacted due to intense storms, runoff, and temperatures promoting pathogen growth as well as
emerging water quality concerns
Aging water treatment infrastructure, operations, and maintenance plans
Improving public education on protection and conservation of water sources
Slow pace of implementing of source water protection plans
Managing impacts of urban and agricultural nonpoint source runoff
Monitoring for existing and emerging contaminants
Educating the public on the hydrological cycle and the need for stewardship of both drinking water
quantity and quality
What are the next steps?
• Work with new WaterSense label and Energy Star program to promote benchmarking energy
performance of water utilities
• Continue Watershed Academy to ensure land use and planning take account of source water issues
protection needs
• Seek funding to develop a source water protection GIS system including recharge areas
• Enhance local public water supply security awareness
• Identify resources for public water suppliers to ensure that by 2011 80% of the community water systems
will be substantially implementing source water protection plans
• Identify opportunities to work with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative conservation
framework of 15% reduction from 2000 to 2015
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
IL-IN Sea Grant Unwanted Medicine Disposal Community Tool Kit
Water Security Resources
USEPA Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance
Drinking Water Academy
• Water Efficiency Resources
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator #117- Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals
Great Lakes: Status: Mixed, Trend: Improving (for PCBs, banned organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and
furans) / Unchanging or slightly improving (for PAHs and mercury)
Indicator #118- Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Lake Michigan: Status: Fair, Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 4175 - Drinking Water Quality
Great Lakes: Status: Good, Trend: Unchanging
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.qov/solec/soql2007/
The original 1998 Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan goal referred to water quality. Recent concerns
about quqntity qre discussed in Chqpter 6. Both quqntity qnd quqlity fqctor into "sustqinqbility."
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Background
Drinking Water Contaminants
The waters of Lake Michigan and surrounding areas
are a primary source of drinking water for 10 million
people who live in the basin. The Lake Michigan
states currently are delegated to run their own
drinking water programs. Since LaMP 2000 the issue
of ground water depletion has been growing in
importance with implications for drinking water
sources and habitat (see Chapter 6 for more
information on ground water).
In addition, there is a growing concern over
Pharmaceuticals in source water. The first national
reconnaissance was completed by USGS in 2000. The
study found a wide range of contaminants, but at low
levels. Many compounds, however, do not have
established guidelines thereby demonstrating the
need for both monitoring and research.
Various contaminants can adversely impact drinking
water, including microorganisms (e.g., bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa such as cryptosporidium),
chemical contaminants (including naturally occurring
compounds and anthropogenic or synthetic
chemicals), and radiological contaminants (including
naturally occurring inorganic and radioactive
materials and metals). Some contaminants in raw
(untreated) water supplies, such as aluminum,
arsenic, copper, and lead, can be both naturally
occurring and the result of human activities. Other
contaminants, such as household chemicals,
industrial products, urban storm water runoff, fertilizers,
human and animal waste, nitrate (from fertilizers and
sewage), and pesticides, may also end up in raw
water supplies (EPA, 1999a; Health Canada, 1998).
Certain contaminants pose a concern when present
in drinking water because of possible health
consequences associated with these substances.
These contaminants may be in raw water as a result
of industrial and agricultural activities or treated
wastewater discharges (Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, 1997). Some may also be present in treated
water as a result of chemicals used in the drinking
water treatment process (Health Canada, 1998). The
impact of contaminants is diluted in a large water
body like Lake Michigan but could be more serious in
a groundwater source.
Great Lakes 2008 Earth Day Challenge
For Earth Day 2008, US EPA challenges
residents and communities around the
Great Lakes to collect and recycle elec-
tronic waste and to properly dispose of
unwanted medicines.
e-Waste
Electronic waste includes all those old or broken TVs, cell
phones, computer components and similar gadgets that
are part of our lives. E-waste contains possibly hazardous
materials that can harm human health and the Great Lakes
environment if disposed of improperly. In 2005 we discarded
an estimated 2 million tons of TVs, computers and other
electronic gear. Proper disposal and recycling are neces-
sary to avoid unwanted pollution. When we reuse or recy-
cle e-waste properly, we recover materials for re-use, save
energy and reduce the environmental costs of raw material
extraction and processing.
Medicines
Traces of medicines have been found in streams and the
Great Lakes where we get our drinking water and have
also been detected near wastewater treatment outflows.
Some of these medicines can lead to reproductive and
developmental problems in fish and other animals. We of-
ten treat leftover medicine as a common household waste.
More than half of people surveyed throw their unused
medicines in the trash while a third flush them down the
drain. In both cases, the medicines have the potential to be
released into our rivers and lakes.
The Challenge
U.S. EPA issued an Earth Day Challenge to residents, busi-
nesses and community organizations throughout the Great
Lakes basin to plan or participate in collection events of e-
waste or unwanted medicines during Earth Week April 19 -
„• •'; L__ 27. Across the Great Lakes region,
- '--''^ -;-'; communities are stepping up, sign-
s>rt C, ."^ _../' ing on to the challenge and add-
-V ._., , ing their collection and take-back
C.' , ,.-/ events to the efforts of thousands.
This is a chance to see how much
we can accomplish together. The Challenge is to collect a
million pounds of e-waste for proper management and a
million pills of unwanted medicines for responsible disposal
during Earth Week.
More information is available
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
In general, drinking water provided by public water
suppliers is likely to remain of good quality because of
the multiple pollutant barrier approach being
implemented across the basin. Not only are
treatment systems and operating practices
continually improving, but increased monitoring is
also providing more information about source water
supplies and the need for source water protection. In
the past two years, greater emphasis has been
placed on protecting raw sources of drinking water.
Both the source water assessments that were
completed for public water supplies and recent data
collected from 22 sites around the Great Lakes are
providing more information about raw water supplies.
The Importance of Groundwater
The Lake Michigan basin has had the luxury of
sufficient water of good quality. The basin has seen a
significant population expansion. However, many
communities reliant on groundwater are facing both
quality and quantity problems. Further, climate
change is likely to add pressure to a system that is
already stressed.
Seventy-nine percent of the Lake Michigan annual
recharge comes either directly or indirectly from
ground water. As such, being stewards of Lake
Michigan requires being stewards of the ground
water as well.
Drinking Water Monitoring and
Reporting
Continuing efforts must be made to inform health
professionals and the public of the results of analyses
of drinking water. USEPA requires that public water
supplies be monitored for bacteriological, inorganic,
organic, and radiological contaminants. The
analyses of drinking water include tests for the
physical and chemical characteristics of the water as
well as for contaminants from natural sources or
human activities. In addition, the USEPA Office of
Groundwater and Drinking Water (OGWDW) web site
at www.e|Dg.goy/OGWDW^ provides detailed
information on the nation's drinking water, including
drinking water and health information, drinking water
standards, and local drinking water information.
Community water suppliers deliver high-quality
drinking water to millions of people every day, and a
network of government agencies is in place to ensure
the safety of public drinking water supplies.
Water Infrastructure Security
Under both the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
the Clean Water Act (CWA), USEPA works closely with
partner organizations — other government agencies
and water utilities and associations (both drinking
water and wastewater) - to ensure clean and safe
water. Industry and government are also working
cooperatively to improve drinking water and
wastewater security. Building on and supporting long-
established relationships with its partners, USEPA helps
the water sector to: (1) understand and utilize the
best scientific information and technologies for water
security; (2) support assessment of utility vulnerabilities
to possible attack; (3) take action to improve security;
and (4) respond effectively and efficiently in the
event that an incident occurs. This commitment is
outlined in USEPA's Strategic Plan for Homeland
Security.
A number of actions are underway to support
development of tools, training, and technical
assistance for small and medium drinking water and
wastewater utilities, and actions are being taken to
promote information sharing and research on water
security (See the Lake Michigan Toolbox on
preceding page).
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 has drinking
water utilities facing new responsibilities. While their
mission has always been to deliver a dependable
and safe supply of water to their customers, the
challenges inherent in achieving that mission have
expanded to include security and counter-terrorism.
In the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, Congress
recognizes the need for drinking water systems to
undertake a more comprehensive view of water
safety and security.
Drinking Water Security in the Lake
Michigan Basin
All Community Water Systems in the Lake Michigan
Basin have submitted their Vulnerability Assessments
as required by the "Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002".
The current focus of drinking water security efforts is to
integrate drinking water security into the everyday
culture at all levels - local, state, and federal. The
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Partnership Investigates Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP)
Increasing evidence indicates widespread occurrence of PPCP compounds in surface water, sediments, and municipal
effluent, but data on the accumulation of PPCP compounds in fish tissue are scarce. US EPA Office of Science and
Technology within EPA's Office of Water responded to this agency priority and addressed this data gap through the
initiation of a pilot study. The purpose of the study is to investigate the occurrence of PPCP chemicals in fish tissue called
the National Pilot Study of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Fish Tissue. It will determine the concentrations
of 34 PPCPs in composited fish fillets and liver samples from five effluent dominated stream sites, plus one reference site
where waters are not impact dominated by waste water treatment plant effluents. A supplemental study on the North
Shore Channel of the Chicago River was added to the Pilot Study through collaboration with GLNPO. Both studies
concluded in March 2007.
This comprehensive and exploratory study was created through a collaborative process involving all partners and
organized by GLNPO. Because of the collaborative nature of the project, a large amount of work was completed for
minimal funding. The collaboration on this project allowed EPA to gain much greater insight into the presence, trends,
and ecological significance of PPCPs, hormones, and Alkylphenol. Ethoxylates (APEs) in an effluent-dominated stream.
Without the collaboration, EPA would have only been able to estimate concentrations of a small set of PPCPs in fish tissue.
This strong partnership has allowed the project team to leverage resources, gain access to facilities and locations using
the resources of all participating organizations, and provide technical support across among federal government,
academia, state government, and the local wastewater treatment agency towards a common goal. This partnership is
also showing its lasting strength through its use on similar projects in the region.
The supplemental study on the North Shore Channel is a collaborative partnership between GLNPO, Region 5, the
Chicago Regional Laboratory (CRL), the Office of Water, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), United States
Geological Survey (USGS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Saint Cloud State University, Clarkson
University, Baylor University, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (ILDNR), and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago (District). The four main objectives of the supplemental study support the Agency's strategic
Goal 4 to protect healthy ecosytems with the subobjective to improve the health of the Great Lakes ecosystems in
addition to addressing Goal 2, clean and safe water. The main objectives of the study are to: (1) determine if there is
reproductive impairment to resident fish; (2) estimate whole fish and fillet concentrations of PPCPs, APEs, and hormones;
(3) estimate effluent and stream concentrations of PPCPs, APEs, and hormones; and (4) document seasonal differences in
concentrations of these compounds in effluent, stream, and fish.
The project's preliminary results indicate mild affects on aquatic life and a need for development of new sampling and
analyses by monitoring agencies, additional research by academia, and strengthened relationships between
participating partners.
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Unwanted Medicine Disposal Community Tool Kit
With funding from US EPA GLNPO, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant created the toolkit Disposal of Unwanted Medicines: A Re-
source for Action in Your Community http://www.iisacp.ora/unwantedmeds/. This collection of resources is intended for
waste management officials and others who are interested in addressing the problem of unwanted medicines in the envi-
ronment. A panel of expert reviewers, including solid waste managers, pharmaceutical and personal care product re-
searchers, pharmacists, doctors, and communication specialists, reviewed this resource kit and their comments and sug-
gestions were incorporated into the final version.
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant focuses on collection events for the public as a partial solution to the problem on unwanted
medicines on the environment. To assist event organizers, the kit provides a set of case studies and sample educational
materials along with the Northeast Recycling Council's step-by-step advice for running a collection. Background informa-
tion on the science behind the issue and a bibliography of news stories and articles from scientific journals are also fea-
tured. Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant continues to post updated materials to the toolkit website in an effort to provide users
with the most current content available on this issue.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Water Security Resources
Water Security Resources
These resources are available at: cfpub.epa.aov/safewater/watersecuritv/waterresources.cfm
• Information on training courses, meetings, and workshops / webcasts for utilities, federal and state governments, and
utility security officials.
• Tools and technical assistance to assist utilities in developing and updating vulnerability assessments and emergency
response plans.
• Information about recently awarded grants and potential financial assistance programs.
• Information from trade/industry organizations, clearinghouses and information centers, state homeland security web
sites, state drinking water protection web sites, and USEPA programs.
Drinking Water Security Education Materials
The USEPA has recently developed a collection of useful education and resource materials on drinking water security. The
information includes resources on emergency preparedness, drinking water security, and law enforcement. These
materials can be found at: cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecuritv/index.cfm.
A compendium of laboratories identifying their capabilities to analyze for contaminants of concern can be found at:
www.epa.gov/compendium
The Water Contaminant Information Tool (WCIT) to assist in identifying unknown contaminants in water can be found at:
www.epa.gov/wcit.
User registration for these sites is required.
convened a Water Security Work Group (WSWG) that
was tasked with identifying the key features of an
"active and effective" security program. The
NDWAC-WSWG was composed of representatives
from water systems, water professional organizations,
state drinking water officials, and USEPA. The WSWG
identified 14 "key" features of an active and
effective security program for water systems. USEPA
subsequently met with the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Water Security
Committee and it was agreed that the 14 "key"
features should be integrated into the state and
federal drinking programs. USEPA will continue to
work with its partners to identify and facilitate
integration of water security activities at all levels and
is working to identify ways of measuring success in
these areas (see the Water Resources Toolbox ).
Inadvertent Water Contamination
Contamination of drinking water sources can result
inadvertently during the production, use, and
disposal of the numerous chemicals used in industry,
agriculture, medical treatment, and in the household.
Knowledge of the environmental occurrence or
toxicological behavior of contaminants has resulted
in increased concern over potential adverse
environmental and human health effects. For many
contaminants, public health experts have incomplete
understandings of their toxicological significance
(particularly effects of long-term exposures at low-
levels). The need to understand the processes
controlling contaminant transport and fate in the
environment and the lack of knowledge of the
significance of long-term exposures has increased the
need to study environmental occurrence down to
trace levels. Furthermore, the possibility that
environmental contaminants may interact
synergistically or antagonistically has increased the
need to define the complex mixtures of chemicals
that are found in our waters (toxics.usgs.gov/
reaional/emc.html).
Water Quality Tracking
In 2002, USEPA released the Great Lakes Strategy. A
key action from this effort was stated: "Beginning in
2002, USEPA, in cooperation with local utilities, will
track water quality at the intake points of selected
drinking water treatment plants around the Lakes.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Findings will be reported to the public through the
biennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC) "State of the Lakes report". More
information is available at: www.epa.aov/alnpo/als/
gls04.html.
As of April 2003, USEPA examined data provided by
114 public water systems in the Great Lakes basin
and by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Information
System. Specifically, USEPA has evaluated various
contaminants, including the following:
• Atrazine, an agricultural pesticide
• Nitrate and nitrite, which are naturally occurring
nutrients found at high levels in fertilizers
• Total coliform bacteria, E. coli, protoza, giardia,
and cryptosporidium, which may contaminate
water supplies after sewage spills
USEPA has also examined the turbidity, taste, odor,
and organic carbon content of drinking water
supplies to assess any other potential health issues. Of
the public water systems evaluated between 1999
and 2001, none exceeded drinking water standards
for atrazine, and only one exceeded drinking water
standards for nitrate and nitrite after treatment.
However, atrazine, nitrate, and nitrite are detected at
elevated levels in the Great Lakes, which indicates
that advanced treatment technologies prevent the
entry of significant concentrations of these
contaminants into drinking water supplies. For total
coliform and E. coli, only one violation of drinking
water standards occurred between 1999 and 2001 in
the Great Lakes basin. Finally, public water systems
rarely have problems with turbidity, taste, odor, or
organic carbon content.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
The Nation's water systems must make significant
investments to install, upgrade, or replace
infrastructure to continue to ensure the provision of
safe drinking water to their 240 million customers.
Installation of new treatment facilities can improve
the quality of drinking water and better protect
public health. Improvements are also needed to help
those water systems experiencing a threat of
contamination due to aging infrastructure systems.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996,
established the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) to make funds available to drinking water
How the Lake Michigan States are Dealing
With Medicine Disposal
There have been numerous new initiatives to deal with
the problem of medicine disposal in the Great Lakes.
Currently, many people dispose of old medicines by
flushing them down the toilet. Existing wastewater
treatment strategies cannot effectively treat for these
medicines and they end up in water bodies including
Lake Michigan.
Illinois EPA has proactively addressed the medicine
disposal issue by volunteering to cover incineration costs
for collections of household medicines in the state. In
response to this, county solid waste managers are
accepting medicines at household hazardous waste
(HHW) drop-off events. Some HHW sites are single-day
collections, while others are ongoing monthly or weekly
programs. Other models have been piloted in Chicago,
including a single-day multi-site drop-off with the sheriff's
department, the police, and retail stores participating.
An ecumenical faith-based environmental group in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan organized collections for
various special household wastes-most recently for
unwanted medicines on Earth Day 2007.
In Wisconsin, numerous counties and municipalities have
run medicine collection events for households, and
there is an effort by a state workgroup to create a
sustainable mail-back program. By describing and
comparing the various disposal methods and funding
sources WDNR hopes to provide insight into which
methods have been most successful and which will be
sustainable in the long term.
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Drinking Water Academy
Established by the USEPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, the Drinking Water Academy (DWA) is a
long-term training initiative whose primary goal is to expand
USEPA, State, and Tribal capabilities to implement the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In
addition to providing classroom and Web-based training,
the DWA acts as a resource for training materials pertaining
to SDWA implementation. More information is available at:
www.epa.aov/safewater/dwa.html.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Status
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 established the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
(SWAP) to help States locate and identify existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water for the
purpose of fostering local efforts to benefit and protect the resource. States are responsible for assessing the condition of
source water for all public water systems within their borders. Each assessment must include a delineation of the source
water area for each public water system, an inventory of potential contaminant sources, a determination of the system's
susceptibility to contamination from those sources, and must be made available to the public. Assessments are intended
to be a useful tool in helping water system develop plans and implement measures to protect their water source.
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan have completed all assessments. The focus of this program has now shifted to
using the assessments to encourage States and local water utilities to develop source water protection plans and
implement protection measures. USEPA and the States will be working to establish partnerships with volunteer and
nonprofit organizations and integrate source water protection with other regulatory programs in order to achieve results.
More information on this program is available at the following internet address: cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Sourcewater Protection Tools and Technical Assistance
A variety of tools are available to aid community planners, public water supply operators, and members of local source
water protection teams in developing source water assessments. The tools include general information on water quality
and surface and ground water hydrology, as well as specific information on watersheds, aquifers, and federally owned
public water supplies.
More information is available at: cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/ and
=i3GYJiQfe^^
Source USEPA
Source USEPA
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The
program also emphasizes providing funds to small
and disadvantaged communities and to programs
that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for
ensuring safe drinking water. The funds are passed
from USEPA to each state. For more information see:
j^^
Drinking Water Quality Reports
Information on local water quality is available from
several sources, including state public health
departments and local water suppliers. To inform the
public of the results of analyses of drinking water and
to demonstrate a commitment to protecting human
health, each community public water supplier is
required to generate an annual Consumer
Confidence Report that is made available to all
residents receiving water from the water system. A
Consumer Confidence Report provides information
about the source of water used, its susceptibility to
contaminants, the levels of contaminants detected in
the water, the likely sources of contaminants, and
potential health effects of any contaminant
detected at a concentration above its maximum
contaminant level (MCL). Consumer Confidence
Reports can be reviewed to get an indication of the
overall quality of treated surface water and
groundwater and the condition of the drinking water
provided. In addition, the states are distributing
information on the status of the source waters used
by public water suppliers and the level of
susceptibility of those source waters to
contamination.
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Water Efficiency
Climate Change Adaptation
and Mitigation
WaterSense
In June 2006, U.S. EPA helped
launch the WaterSense label to
spread the ethic of water ' •>'.',«
efficiency and promote the
tools like the successful energy Star trade marked program
for energy-efficient devices. The program features
information about water conservation as well as about
specific products that meet the WaterSense standards.
The average American could save 30,000 gallons of water
annually by adopting water-efficient methods and
products that would also translate into money savings on
water and sewer rates which are estimated to rise. The
current built water systems are aging and EPA estimates the
nation's systems need an investment of up to $1.2 trillion
over the next 20 years. More information is available at
wgjBi^fficiencyJitrjnl
lliamv
> \VHKT
Alliance For Water Efficiency
A new group is working with stakeholders to
help promote the WaterSense standard to
the public while also working with the
commercial sector. The Alliance for Water
Efficiency is a stakeholder-based 501 (c)3
non-profit organization dedicated to the efficient and
sustainable use of water.
Located in Chicago, the Alliance serves as a North
American advocate for water efficient products and
programs, provides information and assistance on water
conservation efforts. Charter members include Kohler
Company and Home Depot. More information is
available at www.^
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
VULNERABLE
Great Lakes Forever Coastal Drink Coasters.
Source: www.biodiversityproject.org
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 3
Can we swim in the water?
Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
NOT MIXED
SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING
MIXED
MIXED
IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE
2000
2008
2010
20201
What is our target for
sustainability?
Lake Michigan beaches are recognized as a
consistently healthy place to visit and enjoy
and are open more than 90% of the time.
Why is this important?
With the passage of the Beach Act in 2000,
Lake Michigan states received federal
funding to develop monitoring at high use
beaches. This increased beach closings as the
program commenced, but it also identified
gaps in testing and technology forE.co//
measurement as well as the need for best
management practices. Research shows that
factors like geography, water depth, weather,
beach grooming practices and nearby animal populations also contribute to the beach closing problem in
addition to the more obvious stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows and animal feeding operations
up stream.
What is the current status?
Beach closures have decreased slightly in recent years despite the fact that monitoring is increasing. Most
closures occurred at the same beaches. New monitoring strategies based on predictive models have
allowed beach managers in some areas to make better decisions regarding whether a beach should be
closed. Currently, closure decisions are usually based on data from the day before due to limits of testing
procedures.
What are the major challenges?
• Climate Change: Possibility of intense storms increase high runoff events promoting pathogen and algae
growth with adverse effects on water quality.
• Increasing bacteriological monitoring on beaches.
• Increasing use of predictive beach modeling and document its effectiveness
• Upgrading wastewater treatment systems as well as green infrastructure
• Encouraging increased energy conservation at water facilities
What are the next steps?
• Continue to implement actions outlined in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Coastal Health
Strategy
• Continue to improve beach monitoring and public notification.
• Develop and disseminate a standardized sanitary survey tool to identify contamination sources at Great
Lakes beaches.
• Promote measures that will reduce or eliminate pollution sources at Great Lakes beaches.
• Continue support of Great Lakes Beach Association conferences.
• Disseminate information and training tools on the use of forecast models at Great Lakes beaches.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
Beach Health Resources
Lake Michigan States' Beach Program Web Pages
Great Lakes Beach Association
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator # 4200 - Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Lake Michigan: Status: Fair; Trend: Undetermined (due to vast increase in number of reported beaches)
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.gov/solec/sogl2007/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Background
Lake Michigan contains the world's largest collection
of freshwater sand dunes and associated beaches,
particularly along its eastern shore. Of a total of 3,100
coastal acres, 1,200 acres is publicly owned and
available for use, while an additional 1,200 privately
owned acres has significant potential for public use.
It is important to note that most shoreline areas along
Lake Michigan support swimming and secondary
contact recreation. However, some areas do
experience elevated levels of E. coll bacteria. This
may be due to wet weather that causes overflows
from aging wastewater collection systems or
treatment plants, storm water runoff from cities and
farms, improperly sited or maintained septic systems,
and natural sources such as waterfowl. These sources
of contamination may release pathogens into
tributaries and the lake. When E. coll levels exceed
standards, "Beach Advisory or Closure" notices are
posted to protect human health. Recent studies
show other factors like geography, water depth,
weather, beach grooming practices and nearby
animal populations also contribute to beach
advisories or closures. As a result, the current status of
the goal is mixed, but appears to be improving.
Beach advisories or closures resulting from high
pathogen loads have a negative effect on the lake's
significant tourism industry. To improve water quality
testing at the beach and to help beach managers
better inform the public when there are water quality
problems, Congress passed the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act on October 10, 2000. The BEACH Act
requires adoption of consistent bacterial standards at
coastal waters nationwide, research on new
pathogens and pathogen indicators, and publication
of new or revised water quality criteria for pathogens
within five years. The BEACH Act also authorizes EPA
to award grants to eligible states, tribes, and
territories to develop and implement a program at
coastal and Great Lakes beaches, and to notify the
public when bacteria levels are exceeded.
Progress on Developing and
Implementing Beach Monitoring and
Notification Plans
Since passage of the BEACH Act, approximately
$11.7 million in BEACH grants have been issued to
Great Lakes states to implement beach programs,
which has resulted in a significant increase in the
number of monitoring and notification programs at
Great Lakes beaches. All of the Lake Michigan states
Lake Michigan Percentage
Beach Posting 1998-2006
• 0% posted
• 1 % - 4% posted
Q5%< 10% posted
• > or = 10% posted
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
ALL RULES APPLY/EAR ROUND
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROHIBITED
ANIMALS MUST BE ON $FT LEASH
NO ANIMALS ON BEACH
PARK CLOSES AT 11PM
FLAG SIGNAL SYSTEM
tfl IW T." ll( -+ji x ^4"-fi>:
'j%; niaij
•
The number of beaches closed every year has decreased despite the increase in the number of beaches
tested fore.coll.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Cladophora Algae Becoming Larger Problem in Lake Michigan
Cladophora is a branching, green filamentous algae found
naturally along the coastline of most of the Great Lakes. Research
in the 1960's and 70's linked Cladophora blooms to high
phosphorus levels in the water, mainly as a result of human
activities such as fertilizing lawns, poorly maintained septic
systems, inadequate sewage treatment, agricultural runoff and
detergents containing phosphorus. Phosphorus levels declined
due to tighter regulations and Cladophora blooms were largely
absent in the 1980's and 90's.
There has been a resurgence of macroalgae, predominantly
Cladophora, along the coast of Lake Michigan. These algae
blooms lead to unsightly and foul-smelling beaches and have a
negative impact on the economy as a result of lowered beach
use. Cladophora blooms result in reduced quality of drinking
water and decreased property values. Possible causes include
increased nutrient inputs, increased water clarity, increased
water temperature and changing lake level. While there have
been some efforts to remove Cladophora from beaches,
ultimately the solution to the Cladophora problem requires the
identification of the factors promoting Cladophora growth, and mitigating those factors.
Claphora
Photo courtesy of Brenda Moraska Lafrancois
It is unknown if there are increased nutrient concentrations entering the lake via streams and rivers or if zebra mussels
redistribute existing nutrients from the phytoplankton they consume to the Cladophora. Both may be happening. (Source:
Great Lakes Water Institute, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
For more information on Cladophora, see chapter 8 and v^Muwm^edy/De^^ and
2207 sgdowsky-Edf and
^ •
Type E Botulism Causes Bird Die-Off
at Sleeping Bear Dunes
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
experienced extensive waterbird die-offs in 2006
within the waters of Lake Michigan which included
nearly 3,000 grebes, gulls, cormorants, loons and
mergansers. Poisoning from Type E botulism toxin was
identified as the cause of the die-off. Initial
indications are that recent increases in native
Cladophora algae have become common in
shoreline locations across the Great Lakes and initial
research indicates that these die-offs are related to
an upwelling of lake-bottom sediments containing
the Type E Botulism. The sediment contain the
bacteria are being filtered by non-native Zebra
Mussels, concentrating the Botulism in the
mussels. The mussels are then eaten by non-native
Round Gobies. The Gobies are then eaten by the
birds who ingest the virus, become sick, and die. A
network of scientists are joining together to address
the problem. More information is available at
O or ww^yTsisgggrajryjm^^
Photo courtesy of Kenneth Hyde
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs):
Climate Change and Adaptation a Priority
There are currently 30 CSO communities with 347 CSO outfalls that dis-
charge within the Lake Michigan basin. Eighteen of the Lake Michigan
CSO communities are in Indiana, 11 are in Michigan, and one is in Wis-
consin.
• In Indiana, all 18 CSO permittees in the Lake Michigan basin dis-
charge in the vicinity of 303(d)-impaired waters. Thirteen of these
permittees discharge to waters where pathogens (£. co//) and/or
siltation were cited as reasons or causes of impairment.
• In Michigan, 10 of the 11 CSO communities discharge to 303(d)-
impaired waters. The waters in close proximity to the CSO commu-
nity of Norway have not been assessed. Three CSO permittees in
Michigan (Manistee, Miles, and St. Joseph CSO) discharge to 303(d)-
listed waters that specifically cite "CSO pathogen (Rule 100)" as a
source of impairment. In addition, three CSO permittees (East Lans-
ing, Lansing, and Crystal Falls CSO) discharge to waterbodies where
pathogens or pathogens and dissolved oxygen are cited as reasons
or causes of impairment.
• In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
operates the only combined sewer system (CSS) in the Lake Michi-
gan basin. MMSD's CSOs discharge to, or in close proximity to, 303
(d)-impaired waters where pathogens and/or dissolved oxygen have
been cited as reasons or causes of impairment.
ILLINOIS
Lake Michigan CSO communities
Source: USEPA
The proximity of a CSO outfall to an impaired water segment does not
in and of itself demonstrate that the CSO is the cause of the impairment. EPA believes the association between CSO loca-
tion and impaired waters is due to a number of factors in addition to CSO discharges. For example, CSOs are generally
located in urban areas where waterbodies also receive relatively high volumes of storm water and other pollutant loads.
Nevertheless, the strong correlation between CSO location and impaired waters does suggest that CSOs should be con-
sidered as a potential source of pollution when developing a total daily maximum load (TMDL) for an impaired water-
body.
While these CSOs all have long-term plans, climate change could have a major impact as pointed out in the February
2008 USEPA report, "Screening Assessment of Potential Impact of Climate Change on CSOs in the Great Lakes (EPA600R-
07/033F). More information is available at: www.epa.aov/ncea.
have beach monitoring and public notification
programs in place at most of their coastal beaches
and at all of their high priority or frequently used
coastal beaches.
During 2006, 83% of Lake Michigan beaches were
open more than 95% of the time. Increased
monitoring has resulted in approximately twice as
many postings since 2000. Several groups are
collaborating to identify and remediate sources of
beach contamination in Lake Michigan. Following
are beach program summaries for Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Illinois' Beach Program
The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), which
licenses bathing beaches in Illinois, has received
$1,469,228 in BEACH Act grants since 2001. Illinois'
Lake Michigan beaches are monitored five to seven
days a week during the swimming season. To
augment beach water quality monitoring, IDPH is
working with the Lake County Health Department
(LCHD) to validate and implement predictive models
at several Lake Michigan beaches. Because health
warnings are generally based on E. coll
concentrations from samples taken the previous day,
predictive models based on continuously measured
hydro-meteorological variables provide an excellent
alternative to monitoring. In the summer of 2004,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
SwimCast predictive modeling systems were installed
by the LCHD to predict whether water quality
standards would be exceeded at two Lake Michigan
beaches: Illinois Beach State Park-South Beach (IBSP)
in Zion, Illinois, and Forest Park Beach (FP) in Lake
Forest, Illinois. SwimCast measures air and water
temperature, wind speed and direction,
precipitation, relative humidity, wave height, lake
stage, insolation (light energy), and other water
quality parameters. SwimCast accurately predicted
whether E. coll concentrations were above or below
the 235-cfu/lOO ml threshold for full body contact 85%
of the time during the 2004 swimming season.
SwimCast was 89% accurate at IBSP beach and 95%
accurate at FP beach when used in 2005. The
SwimCast predictive model will be extended to
Chicago beaches where a model will be pilot tested
during the 2008 beach season. To access the
SwimCast Real Time Data Link, go to:
www.co.lake.il.us/health/ehs/SwimCastDataAP.asp
IDPH continues to develop and distribute educational
resources. An educational beach pamphlet titled,
"Why is the beach closed?" was developed and
distributed to beach patrons. IDPH also provides
beach closure and program information to
beachgoers through signs and its website at:
www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/beachhome.htm
Please Don't Feed the Waterfowl signs have been
posted at several Lake Michigan beaches to
discourage visitors from feeding birds, which have the
potential to contribute significant fecal loads to
beach water. Information on water quality for Lake
Michigan beaches in Lake County, Evanston,
Winnetka and Wilmette, Illinois, can be found at
www.earth911 .ora/wateraualitv/default.asp?
cluster=0 and information about Chicago's beaches
can be found at: www.chicaaoparkdistrict.com/
index.cfm/fuseaction/swim report.home.cfm
The City of Chicago also has a website and web site
links are provided through NBC Channel 5.
In 2007, IDPH developed a DVD for beach managers
about predictive models used in the Great Lakes,
including SwimCast. The DVD covers data collection,
equipment installation, quality assurance, the public's
view of the models, and costs. It also discusses
innovative beach management measures to reduce
beach closures through storm water management
and beach grooming techniques.
Source identification work is being conducted by
IDPH which received a grant from U.S. EPA to pilot a
beach sanitary survey tool in 2007 to identify pollution
sources at two Great Lakes beaches: Jackson Park
(63rd Street) Beach in Chicago, and Rosewood Beach
in Highland Park, Illinois. Preliminary results of the
sanitary survey suggest that Jackson Park Beach is
influenced by a large land area of rainwater runoff.
Also, the beach has a relatively shallow water depth,
a shallow beach and lake bottom slope, and has a
configuration that may trap water and inhibit entry
and mixing of cleaner lake water. Presence of gulls
and other birds may contribute to bacterial load
especially after rainfall and potentially after high
wave events. At Rosewood Beach, a total of 173
pipe structures were mapped, 44 of which were from
sanitary sewer sources; the remainder of the pipe
structures were storm water or drainage sources. At
the time of survey, however, there was little to no flow
in the tributaries (only one pipe had measurable
flow), so a more thorough investigation is needed.
In 2008, beach managers along Lake Michigan
formed a beach management association to
standardize beach monitoring protocols and
methods by which the public will be notified about
beach water quality.
Indiana's Beach Program
The Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) administers the Beach
Monitoring and Notification Program at Indiana's
Lake Michigan beaches. IDEM has received
$1,235,353 in BEACH Act grants since 2001. The
beach program is currently being operated in
conjunction with the Lake County Parks and
Recreation Department, the Hammond Sanitary
District, the City of East Chicago Health Department,
the Gary Sanitary District, the Town of Ogden Dunes,
and the LaPorte County Health Department.
Indiana has approximately 23 miles of beaches
located along the Lake Michigan shoreline, including
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, which has 9
nine beaches, and the Indiana Dunes State Park, with
2 two main sections of beaches, along with 14 other
county and city beaches. Prior to the BEACH Act, E.
co// monitoring occurred only one day per week at
Indiana's Lake Michigan beaches. Since receiving
funding, Indiana beach program managers relying
strictly on water quality samples now sample as
frequently as three to seven days per week at most of
its Lake Michigan beaches.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
IDEM has also used BEACH Act grant funds to keep
the public informed about beach water quality risks
to enable beachgoers to make better informed
decisions regarding recreational choices. Beach
managers notify the public of elevated bacteria
levels by posting beach advisory or closure signs. The
public can also access beach open/closure status
information on the beach notification project web
site (www.in.gov/idem/beaches). IDEM hired a
contractor to install 25 kiosks at several coastal
beaches which provide beachgoers with up-to-date
information regarding the status of beach waters as
well as additional information about the possible
sources and causes of E. coll contamination.
Recommendations are also provided as to how
beachgoers and watercraft operators can reduce
the likelihood of causing an E. coll release.
Several organizations have collaborated to identify
sources of contamination at beaches near Burns
Ditch, Indiana. There are 13 beaches in Porter
County and Lake County, Indiana, west of the Burns
Ditch outfall (a major point source of pollution), that
are subject to beach closures due to high counts of E.
coll. IDEM participated in a model project
collaborating with USGS, NCAA, the City of Gary
Sanitary District, the National Park Service, and local
health departments, to characterize the movement
of E. coll from Burns Ditch and to better understand
the relative effect of bacteria contamination on
beach waters. They studied the relationship between
E. coll counts in Burns Ditch and beaches to the west,
and hydro-meteorological factors, and this
information was used to develop a predictive model
for high E. coll counts at these beaches.
IDEM has used BEACH Act grant dollars to fund the
installation of two predictive models at two Lake
Michigan beaches with the goal of providing the
public with more rapid information about water
quality at beaches along Indiana's Lake Michigan
shoreline. During the 2006 beach season, IDEM
implemented project SAFE at the beaches west of
Burns Ditch (Portage Beach, Ogden Dunes, West
Beach, Wells Street Beach, Marquette Beaches, and
Lake Street Beach). During 2007, IDEM implemented
the predictive model, "SAFE" (Swimming Advisory
Forecast Estimates) for the Gary and Ogden Dunes
beaches. Gary and Ogden Dunes beaches using
SAFE model still performed water quality testing at
least once per week. A partnership between IDEM
and the City of Gary made the above predictive
modeling efforts possible.
The Importance of Predictive
Modeling and Sanitary Surveys
Public health agencies are starting to use predictive
modeling based on statistics to make real-time
decisions regarding whether a beach should remain
open or not.
Health departments and researchers compile a
record of how factors like rainfall, water temperature
and the presence of seagulls affect the E. coli count.
Some of this data collection can be done by
researchers and agencies, but statistics can also be
obtained from records kept by other sources, such as
local airports and the National Weather Service.
The models use these data to identify when the
factors most associated with high levels of E.coll
occur in combination with each other. In many
cases, these models are more accurate for
determining the exact days when beaches should be
closed as opposed to the current system when
beaches may be closed when they are safe, and
open when levels of E.coll are unsafe.
More communities are using or are investigating the
use of predictive modeling for making decisions on
closing beaches
While monitoring and predictive modeling are
reactive, Beach Sanitary Surveys are a proactive tool
that can be employed by local beach managers to
help determine probable sources of contamination in
recreational water.
More funding was made available to do these
surveys over the last two years. In response to the
recommended actions of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration's Coastal Health Strategy, the USEPA
released over $500,000, draft tools, and a guidance
document to pilot a standardized sanitary survey tool
throughout the Great Lakes in 2007.
Advanced Monitoring Initiative is a program
coordinated through U.S. EPA's Office of Research
and Development. It seeks to model the fate of
indicator bacteria as they move downstream of the
Valparaiso, Indiana, POTW to the Little Calumet River
and eventually Lake Michigan. The study focuses on
the relationship of quantitative Polymerase Chain
Reaction (qPCR) and cultural counts of indicator
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
bacteria. The relationship among independent
factors such as sunlight, flow, turbidity and fecal
indicator bacteria are being investigated. The study
will be integrated with IDEM's SAFE, NOAA OHHI and
USGS Oceans Research Priority Planning programs.
Michigan's Beach Program
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) has received a total of $1,708,572 in BEACH
Act funding since 2002 to support beach monitoring
and notification programs for 440 public beaches in
58 counties along the state's 3,200 miles of Great
Lakes shoreline. Along Lake Michigan:
• There are 299 public beaches on Lake Michigan
in 18 counties.
• In 2007, of the 110 Lake Michigan beaches that
were monitored, 25 beach closures or advisories
were reported due to water quality standards
being exceeded.
Waters associated with public beaches are
considered to not attain water quality standards
when E. coll monitoring data collected by county
health departments during the total body contact
recreation season of May 1 to October 31 meet one
or more of the following decision elements:
Great Lakes Dunes Stamps Issued in 2008
pay
Fi ^
gi.±i i
A series of stamps commemorating Great Lakes dunes will be released this year by the U.S. Postal Service. The series will
be offered as a single sheet depicting a dense grouping of plants and animals at Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore on
Lake Michigan, with the 10 individual stamps as insets in the scene. All of the 27 different plants and animals depicted on
the sheet may be found in the Sleeping Bear Dunes area.
More information is available at: www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2007/sr07 084.htm.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
• E. co// concentrations exceed the geometric
average water quality standard of 130 E. co// per
100 ml based on weekly samples collected over a
minimum of 16 weeks.
• Ten percent of the sample results exceed the
daily maximum water quality standard of 300 E.
co// per 100 ml based on weekly samples
collected over a minimum of 16 weeks.
• Two or more sample results collected at any time
during the total body contact recreation season
of May 1 to October 31 exceed the partial body
water quality standard of 1,000 E. co// per 100 ml.
The monitoring of beaches in Michigan is voluntary
and is conducted by the local health departments,
which are required to notify various entities of the test
results within 36 hours, and may petition the Circuit
Court for an injunction ordering the owners of a
beach to close the beach. The MDEQ provides Clean
Michigan Initiative-Clean Water Fund (CMI-CWF) and
BEACH Act grants to the local health departments to
aid in the implementation or enhancement of their
beach monitoring programs. The CMI-CWF and
BEACH Act grants are designed to fund proposals that
determine and report levels of E. co// in the swimming
areas of public beaches. The objectives of MDEQ's
beach program are to:
• Assist local health departments to implement and
strengthen beach monitoring programs.
• Determine whether waters of the state are safe
for total body contact recreation.
• Create and maintain a statewide database.
• Compile data to determine overall water quality.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of MDEQ programs in
attaining water quality standards for pathogen
indicators.
Local health departments request an average of
$380,000 in BEACH Act funds per year from the MDEQ
for local beach monitoring programs for 212 high-
priority beaches. Since passage of the BEACH Act,
there has been a dramatic increase in the number of
monitoring and notification programs at coastal
beaches in Michigan. The number of Great Lakes
beaches in Michigan that were monitored at least
once a week has grown from 83 in 2002 to 212 in 2007.
Local health departments provide beach monitoring
program information to the public via press releases,
brochures, beach signs, beach seminars, and Internet
access.
In 2006, monitoring was conducted at 207 Great Lakes
public beaches in 37 counties in Michigan. Out of
2,422 daily samples collected, 85 (3.5 percent)
exceeded Michigan's water quality standards. The
exceedances were reported from 50 beaches (24
percent of monitored Great Lakes beaches), 41 of
which reported beach closures or advisories (52
incidents lasting a total of 333 days).
All beach monitoring data are reported to and
evaluated by the MDEQ. The MDEQ incorporates
beach monitoring data into other water pollution
prevention programs to encourage strategic
improvements in water quality. Michigan's Beach
Monitoring web site immediately provides current and
historical test results for E. co// and beach closings/
advisories as they are reported from health
departments for all public beaches in Michigan. All
public beaches are required to post a sign indicating
whether the beach is monitored and where the results
can be found. More information is available at
www.dea.state.mi.us/beach/public/default.aspx.
Source identification work is also being conducted by
MDEQ which received a grant from U.S. EPA to pilot a
beach sanitary survey tool in 2007 to identify pollution
sources at 15 Lake Michigan beaches. Preliminary
results of the surveys indicate that numerous sources
of pollution have been identified along with potential
remediation measures to help reduce beach water
contamination. Recommended remediation
measures include gull management techniques such
as harassment by border collies, installation of wires
above the beach to deter gulls from landing, and
enacting an ordinance to ban feeding of waterfowl.
Other remediation measures may include better
beach maintenance, beach grooming, educating
beach goers, and implementation of storm water best
management practices.
Wisconsin's Beach Program
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) operates Wisconsin's Beach Monitoring and
Notification Program, the primary goal of which is to
reduce beach visitors' risk of exposure to disease-
causing microorganisms in water. Since 2001, WDNR
has received $1,460,130 in BEACH Act grants to
develop and implement monitoring and notification
programs at beaches along Lake Michigan and Lake
Superior. Passage of the BEACH Act has enabled
WDNR to substantially increase the number of coastal
beaches it monitors from six to 123.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
WDNR issues grants to communities along Lake
Michigan and Lake Superior to monitor beach water
quality. Fifteen health departments along these lakes
sample the water at beaches one to five times per
week. An advisory sign is posted warning swimmers
that there is an increased risk of illness whenever the
water quality criterion of 235 colony-forming units
(CPU) of E. col/7100 ml of water is exceeded. A red
stop sign that closes the beach is posted when E. coll
levels exceed 1,000 CPU/100 ml, indicating a more
serious risk of illness. Advisories and closures may also
follow rainfall events or storm water and sewage
overflows. Other factors that may influence E. coll
concentrations include the nuisance algae
Cladophora, wind direction, wave height, water
temperature, and beach grooming.
Statewide, the summer of 2006 had more closures
and advisories than 2005, but less than 2004. In
Wisconsin, 17.5% of the samples taken in 2006
exceeded the E. co//standard of 235 CPU/100 ml (676
samples out of 3861 total samples). Approximately 5%
of the total samples exceeded 1000 CPU/100 ml and
resulted in beach closures.
To design its beach program, the WDNR formed a
workgroup comprised of state and local
environmental and public health officials, academic
researchers and community groups. Using GPS
technologies, approximately 55 public beach miles
and 192 total coastal beaches were identified along
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Maps of the
beaches can be found at www.dnr.wi.aov/ora/
water/wm/was/beaches/state-map.htm Additional
GPS data layers were added to include the location
of all wastewater treatment plant outfalls along with
their proximity to the beaches. Additional information
was collected for each beach evaluating the
potential for impacts from storm water runoff, bather
and waterfowl loads, and the location of outfalls and
farms. This information was used to rank and classify
beaches as high, medium or low priority. These
rankings indicate how often the beaches should be
monitored to ensure that water quality conditions are
safe for swimming.
Wisconsin's beach program workgroup also
developed public notification and risk
communication measures so water quality monitoring
information is made available to the public in order
for beach visitors to make informed choices. These
measures included the development and posting of
signs at beaches to give notice to the public that the
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Beach Health Resources
Federal Government Resources
Assessing and Monitoring Floatable Debris.
www.epa.aov/owow/oceans/debris/floatinadebris/
BEACH Watch, www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/
BEACON - Beach Advisory On-line Notification
www.epa.aov/waterscience/beacon/
Great Lakes Monitoring -The Swimmability Index
www.epa.aov/alnpo/alindicators/water/beachb.html
National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants www.epa.aov/waterscience/
beaches/arants/auidance/index.html
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Combined Sewer Overflow http://cfpub1 .epa.gov/
npdes/home.cfm?proaram id=5
USEPA Report to Congress on Impacts and Control of
CSOs and SSOs http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/
cpolicv report2004.cfm
USEPA Report to Congress on Implementotion ond
Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
http://cfpub.epo.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicv report.cfm?
program id=5
Centers for Diseose Control - Heolthy Swimming
www.cdc.gov/heolthvswimming/
Non-Governmental Resources
Begches in the Gregt Lgkes Region
www.gregt-lgkes.net/tourism/rec/beoch.htmltnew
Council of Greot Lgkes Resegrch Mgnggers - Gregt
Lgkes-St. Lgwrence Resegrch Inventory
http://ri.iic.org
Gregt Lgkes Begch Associotion
www.gregt-lgkes.net/glbg/
Gregt Lgkes Begch Associotion Annuol Proceedings,
Green Boy, Wl, November, 2005.
www.gregt-lgkes.net/glbg/2005conference.html
Greot Lgkes BegchCgst- Gregt Lgkes Begch
Informotion (mony links from this site)
www.gregt-lgkes.net/begchcgst/nr moreinfo.html
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Lake Michigan States' Beach
Program Web Pages
Illinois
Illinois Beach Monitoring Home page
www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/beachhome.htm
Chicago Park District's Swim Report
www.chicaaoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/
swim report.home.cfm
Northern Illinois Lake Michigan beach notification
Web site (Lake County Health Department, Wilmette
Park District, Winnetka beaches and the City of
Evanston). www.earth911 .ora/wateraualitv/
default.asp?cluster=17
Indiana
• Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Beach Home page, www.in.aov/idem/beaches
• IDEM beach water quality notification Web site
http://www.earth911 .ora/wateraualitv/default.asp?
cluster=18
Michigan
• Michigan Beach Monitoring home page
www.michiaan.aov/dea/1,1607,7-135-
3313 3686 3730—Cl.OO.html
• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality-
Office of the Great Lakes www.michiaan.gov/
dea/1,1607,7-135-3313 3677—,00.html
• Michigan Sea Grant: www.miseaarant.umich.edu/
Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Beach Health Web site www.wibeaches.us
• Wisconsin Sea Grantwww.seaarant.wisc.edu/
• The Door County Beach Contamination Source
Identification Interim Report map.co.door.wi.us/
swcd/ and map.co.door.wi.us/swcd/
Interim Beach report 2005.pdf
• Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. 2003.
Deep Tunnel Fact Sheet www.mmsd.com/
wastewatertreatment/deep tunnel history facts.cfm
• Water Quality Research www.citvofracine.org/Depts/
health/water aualitv.aspx
coastal recreational waters are not meeting, or are
not expected to meet, water quality standards. These
signs, which are in English, Spanish and Hmong, were
designed based on feedback from a beach user
survey and public meetings held around the state.
Other public notification and outreach products
developed by the workgroup include an automatic e-
mail service to which the public can subscribe to
receive daily updates on beach conditions; a
statewide informational brochure, approximately
100,000 copies of which were distributed at local
beaches, parks, and health departments; a Beach
Health Web page (www.wibeaches.us) for reporting
up-to-date as well as historical conditions at all
Wisconsin coastal beaches; and an internal web site
for local health departments to report their daily
advisory and monitoring data in the format required
for EPA reporting at the end of the beach season.
Also, the WDNR, in collaboration with the State Lab of
Hygiene, released a short "how-to" sample E. colt
movie to the public.
Water quality awareness has increased in Lake
Superior and Lake Michigan Counties as more data
become available. Some counties and concerned
citizens have taken initiative and are working toward
finding sources of E. coll contamination and solutions
to address them.
In 2007, the WDNR received funding from U.S. EPA to
conduct sanitary surveys at 18 Wisconsin Great Lakes
beaches, including 11 along Lake Michigan. The
project has allowed researchers to identify potential
sources of microbial contamination at numerous
Great Lakes beaches in Wisconsin. Sources of E. coll
contamination may include agricultural runoff, urban
storm water and sewage overflows. Localized sources
from wildlife and waterfowl feces also contribute to
high levels of E. coll in both beach sand and water.
This project has also allowed researchers to initiate the
process of planning for mitigation of some of the
sources of beach water contamination.
The City of Racine is working closely with partners to
identify sources of beach water contamination.
Research conducted over the 2006 beach season
included:
• Characterization of E. coll in beach sands relative
to sediment size and hydrologic factors. This grant
allowed Racine to do hydrogeological
assessments of North Beach in Racine and at
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Eichelman and Pennoyer beaches in Kenosha
County to determine the relationship between E.
co// density in beach sands as a function of grain
size and uniformity. Results indicated that well-
sorted, fine sand has the highest concentration of
E. co// and this is most pronounced at the berm
crest, an area prone to continual wetting. Fine
sandy beaches may benefit most from beach
sand manipulation tactics. Racine's changes to
the beach slope, an increased berm crest, and
removing swales at North Beach have resulted in
improvements in recreational water quality.
• Sampling of gull feces for the isolation of
Campylobacter spp. In 2006, over 100 gull fecal
samples were screened for the presence of
enteric pathogens. This research will ultimately
help determine if E. co// from gulls carries the
same health risk to humans as from other sources.
This may allow Racine to discount the number of
advisories in areas where sources have been
adequately characterized.
• Evaluation of real-time, quantitative Polymerase
Chain Reaction (PCR) as a method to determine
pollutant loading. This project will allow Racine to
compare the DMA concentration present in
treated wastewater effluent, bypasses, storm
water, and surface run-off and to assess pollutant
loading in real-time. Analyses will be conducted
in conjunction with currently approved agar-
based and chemical detection techniques for
method comparison. The ability to monitor both
point source and non-point source contamination
in real-time will allow local governments to
undertake effective coastal management
measures.
For the first time, Racine's North Beach had five or less
advisories. This met the 2002 Great Lakes Strategy
goal of being open 95% (or more) of the swimming
season.
Door County is one of the most popular summer
tourist destinations in Wisconsin. Recreational water is
an important resource to the economy of this county.
In the summer of 2006, BEACH Act grant funds were
used to monitor 28 beaches along Lake Michigan;
however, funds could not be used for source
identification of microbial contamination. The Door
County Soil and Water Conservation Department
joined forces with University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh to
tackle the question, "Where is the beach water
contamination coming from, and is it safe to swim at
this beach?" The project objectives included:
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Great Lakes Beach
Association
The Great Lakes Beach Association (GLBA) plays an
important role in providing a forum for beach managers,
researchers, concurrent meeting with the Lake Michigan
State of the Lake conference.
More information is available at:
• Monitor E. co// concentrations at selected
beaches after significant rainfall to determine if
storm water runoff contributed significantly to
microbial contamination of beaches.
• Monitor pathogen concentration
(Campylobacter) at five selected beaches.
• Isolate E. co// from beach water, sand and avian,
bovine and human waste in Door County and
conduct DMA fingerprinting of these isolates to
further characterize the indicator organism used
to monitor beach water quality and help to
identify the source of contamination.
• Isolate Bacteriodes from avian waste from Door
County beaches to try to identify unique
sequences in the bacteria DMA that are specific
to waterfowl and will allow another mechanism of
source tracking microbial contamination in water.
Unique DMA sequences previously have been
identified in Bacteriodes from bovine and human
feces.
The combined efforts between beach monitoring
and microbial source tracking in Door County have
resulted in another summer's worth of excellent data
to be analyzed. In 2006, approximately 1000 E. co//
isolates were collected from water and waste and
the majority have been DMA fingerprinted. This
information has been added to the database from
previous years and researchers are beginning to see
patterns in isolates. In addition, a large amount of
spatial and rain data has been collected for the
studied beaches in 2005 and 2006. In all cases E. co//
concentrations were greater in storm water runoff
and appear to have a negative impact on beach
water quality for at least 8 hours after a significant
rainfall event.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Accomplishments Related to Communication to the
Public. Because it has been shown that people who
engage in recreational water sports have a higher
incidence of symptomatic illnesses, it has become
increasingly more important to make the public
aware of the potential health hazards that are
associated with recreational waters. Recent progress
has been made on the national and local levels to
provide the public with useful tools that can provide
needed information regarding the use of recreational
waters. At the national level, the following public
communication tools are available:
BEACH Watch
This website contains information about U.S. EPA's
BEACH Program, including grants, EPA's reference
and technical documents including EPA's Before You
Go to the Beach brochure, upcoming meetings and
events, conference proceedings, links to local beach
programs, and provides access to BEACON (Beach
Advisory and Closing On-line Notification), U.S. EPA's
national beach water quality database.
www.epa.gov/QST/beaches
Annual Great Lakes Beach
Association (GLBA) Conference
In February 2001, an EPA, LaMP, and City of Chicago-
sponsored Great Lakes Beach Conference was held
to share information on the science and technology
of beach monitoring as well as research on exposure,
health effects, and water quality indicators. More
than 250 environmental and public health officials,
beach managers, and regulators attended the 3-day
conference. The conclusions of the conference saw
the formation of the Great Lakes Recreation
Association whose list serve and annual meetings
provide quick sharing of research findings. The GLBA is
comprised of members from U.S. states, Environment
Canada, local environmental and public health
agencies, and several universities and NGOs. The
GLBA's mission is the pursuit of healthy beach water
conditions in the Great Lakes area. Since 2001, the
GLBA has held beach conferences annually to bring
together beach managers, scientists, and agency
officials to exchange information on improving
recreational water quality. The next conference is
planned for September, 2008, in northwest Indiana:
www.areat-lakes.net/alba/
BEACHNET
An email discussion list that seeks to facilitate
communication among people interested in the
improvement of recreational beach water quality in
the Great Lakes basin. The listserv is sponsored by the
GLBA and is hosted by the Great Lakes Information
Network (GLIN). Both the GLBA and the listserv are
open to anyone interested in improving beach water
quality, understanding bacterial contamination,
developing better ways to detect and monitor
pollution, or monitoring and assuring beach visitors'
health. There are currently several hundred
subscribers to BEACHNET. http://www.great-lakes.net/
glba
BeachCast. This website provides Great Lakes beach
goers with access to information on Great Lakes
beach conditions, including health advisories, water
temperature, wave heights, monitoring data, and
more. BeachCast is a service of the Great Lakes
Commission and its GLIN. http://www.glc.org/
announce/03/07beachcast.html
NEEAR Water Study
The National Epidemiological and Environmental
Assessment of Recreational (NEEAR) Water Study is a
multi-phase research study led by the Centers for
Disease Control and EPA's Office of Research &
Development and National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory with
assistance from USGS and NFS. The study investigates
human health effects associated with recreational
water use. The objectives of the NEEAR Water Study
are to (1) evaluate the water quality at two to three
beaches per year for three years concurrently with a
health study, (2) obtain and evaluate a new set of
health and water quality data for the new rapid,
state-of-the-art methods, and (3) develop new
federal guidelines and limits for water quality
indicators of fecal contamination so that beach
managers and public health officials can alert the
public about the potential health hazards before
exposure to unsafe water can occur. The studies
have been conducted at several Great Lakes
beaches, including three Lake Michigan beaches:
West Beach and Washington Park Beach in Indiana,
and Silver Beach in St. Joseph, Michigan, http://
www.epa.gov/nheerl/neear/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The next State of Lake Michigan Conference and
Great Lakes Beach Association meeting will be
held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in October 2009.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 4
Are all habitats healthy, naturally diverse, and sufficient to
sustain viable biological communities?
What is our target for SUStainability? Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
Healthy and diverse ecosystems are intact,
provide residents with wildlife watching and NOT MIXED MIXED MIXED SUSTAINABLE
recreation opportunities, and meet tribal needs for SUSTAINABLE °E™<™G
cultural, spiritual, and medicinal needs.
2000
Why is this important?
The Lake Michigan ecosystem continues to
experience profound changes due to pollutant
loading, development, and impacts of nuisance
species. Many species'habitats rank as globally />/>•!/>
rare or imperiled based on the level of threat, their 201 0
restricted distribution, and ecological fragility. j
I
What is the current status? 2020
• The overall status is Mixed/deteriorating as
habitat destruction is a permanent, irreversible loss.
• Benthic Aquatic Habitat. Introduction of invasive species is interrupting the aquatic food web. While aquatic invader zebra
mussels are declining in numbers, they are being replaced by the invasive quagga mussel. Native diporeia continue
declining significantly, leaving less native food at the base of the food chain.
• Fish Species. Invasive species are competing with native species for food. Lake Trout and Lake Sturgeon are making
comebacks as their numbers begin to see recovery and increases. Perch year of young are seeing increases as well.
• Terrestrial Habitat. Development in coastal counties is taking over habitat and farmland. Some restoration of wetlands,
native prairies and other habitat is taking place.
• Terrestrial Animals. Wolves are making a comeback in northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Eagles
have been sighted in the Chicago Lake Calumet region. More cities are taking part in decreasing light pollution during bird
migration season.
What are the major challenges?
• Climate Change: Temperature rise in tributaries and the lake will promote change to warmer water aquatic species,
shrinking of wetlands, and changing of shoreline dunes and coastal ecosystems.
• Restore and protect 125,000 acres of wetlands in the basin
• Changes in climate, lake levels, and groundwater recharge of streams at lake basin and sub-watershed scale impacting
native species
• Making habitat information on status and value readily available by 12-digit HUC watersheds
• Increasing stress on habitats based on predicted growth and development of coastal areas of the basin
• Promoting projects to identify, enhance, restore, or protect critical ecosystem features and habitat through purchase,
voluntary protection, or improved management
• Lack of connected migration corridors for plants and animals
• Lack of precise tracking tools for reporting gains and losses
• Lack of understanding of the causes, pathways, and needed actions for addressing the deaths of shorebirds from botulism
What are the next steps?
• Collaborate with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission on protecting near and offshore spawning reefs
• Develop process to refine habitat restoration targets through public discussion and promote work toward targets
• Continue to support components of biodiversity plans through the Watershed Academy.
• Identify species sensitive to ground and surface water interaction and their current distribution
• Provide CIS tools and land use models in workshops to promote knowledge of and protection of key habitat areas
• Promote new stream buffers, wetlands, and dam removals using federal, state, local, and private resources and monitor loss
and gain trends
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• Great Lakes Basin Landscape Ecology Metric Browser
• WildLink Program Helps Landowners Keep Space Open for Wildlife
• Great Lakes Basin Landscape Ecology Metric Browser
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help assess the
status of the subgoal?
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.aov/solec/soal2007/
Indicator #8 - Salmon and Trout
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend: Slightly
Improving
Indicator #17- Prevfish Population
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator #18 - Sea Lamprey
Status: Good/Fair; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 68 - Native Freshwater Mussels
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 93 - Lake Trout
Lake Michigan Status: Poor; Trend:
Declining
Indicator # 104 - Benthos diversity and
Abundance - Aquatic Oligochaete
Communities
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend:
Unchanging; Deteriorating
Indicator #109- Phytoplankton Populations
Status: Mixed"; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator #111- Phosphorus
Concentrations and Loadings
Lake Michigan Status: Open Lake - Good;
Nearshore - Poor; Trend: Open Lake -
Improving; Nearshore - Undetermined
Indicator #116- Zooplantkton Populations
Lake Michigan Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined (changing)
Indicator #117- Atmospheric Deposition of
Toxic Chemicals
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving (for PCBs;
banned organochlorine pesticides; dioxins and
furans) / Unchanging or slightly improving (for
PAHs and mercury)
Indicator # 122 - Hexagenia
Lake Michigan Status: Poor; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 123 - Abundances of the
Benthic Amphipod Dipore/a spp.
Lake Michigan Status: Poor; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator # 124 - External Anomaly
Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 125 - Status of Lake Sturgeon in
the Great Lakes
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend:
Improving and Undetermined
Indicator # 4504 - Wetland-Dependent
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Lake Michigan Status: Poor; Trend:
Unchanging
Indicator # 4507 - Wetland-Dependent Bird
Diversity and Abundance
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator # 4510 - Coastal Wetland Area by
Type
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 4858 - Ice Duration on the
Great Lakes
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 4861 - Effect of Water Level
Fluctuations
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 4862 - Coastal Wetland Plant
Community Health
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 4863 - Land Cover Adjacent to
Coastal Wetlands
Status: Not Fully Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7000 - Urban Density
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 7002 - Land Cover/Land
Conversion
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7006 - Brownfields
Redevelopment
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 7028 - Sustainable Agriculture
Practices
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7043 - Economic Prosperity
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7054 - Ground Surface
Hardening
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7056 - Water Withdrawals
Status: Mixed; Trend: Unchanging
Indicator # 7061 - Nutrient Management
Plans
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7062 - Integrated Pest
Management
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7100 - Natural Groundwater
Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator #7101 - Groundwater and Land:
Use and Intensity
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7102 - Base Flow Due to
Groundwater Discharge
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 7103 - Groundwater
Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 8129 - Area: Quality and
Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Alvers
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 8129 - Area: Quality and
Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Cobble Beaches
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 8129 - Area: Quality and
Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Islands
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 8129 - Area: Quality and
Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Sand Dunes
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator #8131 - Extent of Hardened
Shoreline
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 8135 - Contaminants Affecting
Productivity of Bald Eagles
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 8147 - Population Monitoring
and Contamination Affecting the
American Otter
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 8164 - Biodiversity Conservation
Sites
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 8500 - Forest Lands -
Conservation of Biological Diversity
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 8501 - Forest Lands -
Maintenance of Productive Capacity of
Forest Ecosystems
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 8503 - Forest Lands -
Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and
Water Resources
Lake Michigan
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 9002 - Non-Native Species -
Aquatic
Lake Michigan
Status: Poor; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 9002 - Non-Native Species -
Terrestrial
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Background
Habitats in the Great Lakes basin are many and
varied. This chapter discusses the status and
challenges of aquatic, terrestrial, and animal
habitats. Each faced challenges based on
significant changes in land use, invasive species,
pollution, and climate change.
Past LaMP Updates have detailed the elements that
make up the Lake Michigan basin's many diverse
ecosystems- from southern dune and swale to
northern forest and the open lake's very significant
aquatic food web. For LaMP 2008 we are presenting
the lake by its 33 drainage basin watersheds. These
watershed fact sheets contain information that
resulted from a unique partnership with the Nature
Conservancy's Great Lakes Program. They have
provided us with the "headlines" of their very detailed
work on Great Lakes biodiversity and the Natural
Heritage Programs' data and for the first time broken
down to the watershed level. Their complete work
can be found at www.nature.ora/areatlakes or
contact them at greatlakes@tnc.org (see Chapter
12).
We are presenting details from the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission's 2007 Lake Michigan Report on
the aquatic food web and its stressors. We are also
presenting an update on the efforts to protect and
restore wetlands as called for by the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration. An estimated 65,000 acres
of wetlands have been protected, improved and
restored across the Great Lakes basin since
December 2005 by federal agencies and their
partners. This estimate was obtained from a data call
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and U.S. EPA that
adopted reporting conventions of the Council of
Environmental Quality's annual, national wetlands
report. Agencies were asked to report 2006 and 2007
accomplishments for completed wetlands restoration
projects only. The information is intended to provide
an estimate of where Federal agencies and their
partners are in contributing to the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration's goal of protecting and
restoring 200,000 acres of wetlands across the basin.
The LaMP Habitat Committee responded to the
GLRC target goals for the Great lakes basin by
reviewing habitat losses and proposing to increase
net wetlands by 125,000 acres for the Lake Michigan
basin. Eighty-nine thousand of these acres would be
in Michigan and 30,000 in Wisconsin. Illinois and
Indiana have also committed to 1,000 acres each .
Additional details are provided in LaMP 2006.
Threats to the Food Web Foundation
The plankton communities (microscopic plant and
animals) of Lake Michigan are the foundation of the
aquatic food web and therefore are one of the most
critical components of the lake's ecosystem.
Monitoring the Benthic Community
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) is responsible for
monitoring the benthic community health over time to
identify any emerging water quality or food chain problems.
Benthic organisms inhabit the bottom sediments of the Great
Lakes and form an essential part of the food chain. The
Research Vessel Peter L. Wise Lake Guardian is used to
conduct the surveys. Diporeia, the formerly dominant
benthic macroinvertebrate in offshore waters of the Great
Lakes, decreased in abundance in southern Lake Michigan
by 89%, 91 % and 45% at sites at depths of < 30 m, 31 -50 m,
and 51-90 m between 1993 and 2002.
More information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/
alnpo/monitor.html
Lake Michigan Summer Survey Stations
H» »•*,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
SU Ml HU ER ON
+ Om
Figure 4-1. Diporeia density in the Great Lakes 1997
SU Ml HU ER ON
Figure 4-2. Diporeia density in the Great Lakes 2004
Source: David Rockwell, Environmental Scientist, MIRB-GLNPO; Dr. Richard Barbiero, Ph.D., Senior Environmental
Scientist, CSC; Thomas Nalepa, Research Biologist, GLERL, NOAA; Dr. Mary D. Balcer, University of Wisconsin-
Superior
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Changes to these communities may be occurring
due to the presence of contaminants and/or
nutrients in the water, sediment, and increasing
competition from invasive species such as the spiny
water flea (Byfhofrephes cedersfroem/) and the
zebra mussel (Dre/ssenapo/ymorpha).
The abundance and types of phytoplankton are
highly variable within the lake, depending on the
time of year, area of the lake, and availability of
phosphorus and other nutrients. They are generally
found throughout the open lake waters to the depths
of light penetration. The amount of phosphorus in the
lake is an important man-induced change to
phytoplankton communities, especially in nearshore
areas. In addition, studies indicate that increased
salinity and other (possible climate) environmental
changes in Lake Michigan are enabling
nonindigenous animals and algae to adapt more
readily to the Great Lakes environment.
Zooplankton communities include many different
invertebrates and comprise the bulk of the
planktivorous fish diet. Because most zooplankton
feed on phytoplankton, their abundance and
geographic occurrence are similarly dependent
upon water temperature, seasonal changes, and
food availability. Zooplankton colonize open waters
from the surface to the lakebed. Research
conducted in the past 15 years indicates that
zooplankton populations, such as Daphnia, may be
experiencing changes induced by Byfhofrephes, an
exotic species.
The D/pore/a spp., also
known as scuds,
sideswimmers, beach
hoppers, and sand fleas,
belong to the group of
invertebrates called
amphipods and are about
0.5 inch long. D/pore/a
have inhabited Lake
Michigan since the Great
Lakes were formed 5,000 to
10,000 years ago, and they
are environmentally
sensitive, thriving only in
clean, cold, well-oxygenated water. D/pore/a are
eaten by a variety of Great Lakes fish and provide an
important energy source because they contain high
amounts of fat.
D/pore/a spp.,
Photo courtesy of GLERL
The numbers and density of these amphipods is
decreasing in Lake Michigan. The change between
1997 and 2004 is dramatic (see Figure 4-1 and 4-2).
While scientists have not yet determined the exact
cause of the disappearance of the amphipods, they
suspect it is linked to the introduction of zebra mussels
to Lake Michigan in 1989, severely limiting the food
available to D/pore/a.
In addition, zebra mussels appear to be having a
significant impact on benthic (bottom-dwelling)
community structures and plankton abundance.
Zebra mussels, which can attach themselves to any
hard surface in the lake, have reached densities
higher than 16,000/m2 in southern Lake Michigan.
Negative impacts of their presence include
increased food competition (at the expense of fish
fry) for nearshore fish species (such as yellow perch),
increased biomagnification of contaminants in fish
eaters feeding on organisms that eat benthic
organisms, and possible zebra mussel-induced
mycrocystis blooms, which affect taste and odor in
the water.
The Great Lakes National Program Office is
supporting sampling activities aboard the Research
Vessel Peter Wise Lake Guardian.
Fish Population Decreased in 2007
The quantity of fish food in Lake Michigan hit a record
low for the second straight year in 2007. Data
collected by the U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes
Science center indicates that the volume of alewife,
bloaters, and other small preyfish eaten by salmon,
lake trout, and whitefish fell from 61 kilotons in 2006 to
30 kilotons in 2007. This is 92 percent below the 400
kilotons recorded in 1989.
There is speculation that this may be driven by the
explosion of quagga mussels now found in Lake
Michigan. Quagga mussels, an invasive species, now
make up 98 percent of the mussels in Lake Michigan.
Quagga mussels consume the plankton that are at
the base of the food chain. Unlike zebra mussels,
they can survive and thrive at lower depths. As the
quagga mussel population has grown, the zebra
mussel population has decreased.
The reduction in preyfish population is leaving less
food for salmon and whitefish. The states that
surround Lake Michigan stocked fewer salmon. There
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Mersey Dam Removed in Muskegon River Watershed
The Mersey Dam, located at the confluence of the Mersey and Muskegon Rivers, was removed in 2007,
restoring the natural course of the River. The river, which is a cold-water trout stream, now allows fish and
other aquatic life in the lower Mersey and Muskegon rivers to move freely between the two waterways.
The first Mersey Dam was built a mile from where the Mersey flows into Muskegon River in 1858. The dam once
powered a sawmill and grain mill, but it disrupted the river's natural flow, blocked fish passage, and increased
water temperatures. The river is now a fast-flowing river. Willow trees have been planted on the banks to
help provide shade to keep the temperature of the river cooler.
Two dams have been removed from the Muskegon River's main branch since the 1960s: the Newaygo Dam in
1969 and the Big Rapids Dam in 2001. Removal of the Newaygo Dam played a major role in the lower
Muskegon River becoming the state's most productive salmon stream.
Sturgeon River Dam Removed
The dam site before removal
A Wisconsin Power and Light dam located on the Sturgeon
River near Loretto was removed in its entirety in 2006 and the
river brought back to its original grade. The penstock, power
generating house and all electrical poles, wiring, and other
associated items are gone. All of the concrete was re-
moved and more than 80,000 cubic yards of sediment be-
hind the dam and that collected in the slack water below
for three years was disposed of in an adjacent upland swale
and then topsoiled, seeded and mulched. This is among the
largest dams completely removed in the State of Michigan.
The dam site after removal
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
is also speculation that the reduction in preyfish has
been caused by too many salmon chasing too few
preyfish.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission Lake
Michigan 2007 Report and
Environmental Objectives
Lake Michigan once supported the largest lake trout
fishery in the world before lake trout were driven to
extinction after the introduction of sea lamprey in the
1940s and 1950s, coupled with overfishing and
habitat degradation. In the mid-1980s, two lake trout
refuge areas were established in regions where the
most productive native lake trout spawning habitats
occurred in Lake Michigan. Stocking efforts were
concentrated in these areas and regulations
prohibited fishing for lake trout within these refuges.
Stocking programs have successfully built lake trout
spawning stocks to historic levels at which natural
reproduction occurred; however, current spawning
success has been very limited.
Lake Michigan has a number of offshore reefs which
are mainly concentrated in the Northeastern and
central regions. The widespread availability of
deepwater reef habitats structured the historical fish
community, which was predominantly deepwater
species such as Lake trout, whitefish, and ciscos.
However, with the extinction of native lake trout
populations, today these reefs are not being utilized
for spawning as much as they could be. The
nearshore reefs in Lake Michigan are located along
the northern, western and eastern shores as well as in
Green Bay, and have been subjected to
degradation by sedimentation and the invasion of
exotic species. These reefs historically supported
reproduction of lake trout, lake whitefish, yellow
perch, walleye, and smallmouth bass. Man-made
structures such as breakwalls, piers, industrial water
intake and discharge structures, and artificial reefs
also are utilized as spawning reefs (Fitzsimons 1995).
The 2000 Lake Michigan LaMP adopted the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission Lake Michigan
Environmental Objectives. For example:
• Benthivore Objective. Maintain self-sustaining
stocks of lake whitefish, round whitefish, sturgeon,
suckers, and burbot. The expected annual yield
of lake whitefish should be 1.8-2.7 million kg (4 to 6
million IbJ.Lake whitefish spawn throughout Lake
Michigan. Spawning reefs are located along the
States and Federal Government Develop
New Plan for Lake Michigan Lake Trout
Michigan DNR, Wisconsin DNR, the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service developed a revised plan for the lake trout in
Lake Michigan. Over the past 40 years efforts to
restore the lake trout populations in Lake Michigan
have met with limited success due to inadequate
levels of stocking, inappropriate stocking practices,
excessive fishing mortality, and interactions between
lake trout and native and non-native species. Based
on an analysis of these impediments, the Lake
Michigan lake trout plan was revised. The goals are
to reestablish a diversity of lake trout populations
composed predominantly of wild fish and sustain
desirable fisheries. By 2035, the states plan to have
wild fish comprise 75% or more of the population of
age-10 and younger in specific deep and shallow-
water habitats.
The plan shifts stocking to priority areas of limited
geographic extent that have the best reproductive
habitat and where fishing is minimized. In these
limited areas, hatchery-reared fish will be
concentrated to provide a sufficient density of adults
for successful reproduction and to reestablish lake
trout as a dominant local predator. Morphotypes
introduced from Lake Superior into deep, offshore
waters are expected to augment the population of
lean lake trout in shallow water.
Continued control of fishing and increased control of
sea lamprey populations are needed to achieve the
population densities required for sustained natural
reproduction. Assessment of progress towards
achievement of the goal and the results will be
reviewed annually and reported.
More information is available at: http://dnr.wi.gov/
fish/lakemich/managementreports.htm.
northwestern, northeastern and eastern shores
with concentrations in Grand Traverse Bay,
Beaver Island, Millecoquins Point and the Door
County peninsula. Round whitefish spawning
reefs are found in the northern half of the lake
around the Manitou Islands, Grand Traverse Bay,
Ludington, and the Door County peninsula.
• Physical/Chemical Habitat Objective. Achieve
no net loss of the productive capacity of habitat
supporting Lake Michigan's fish communities.
High priority should be given to the restoration
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
and enhancemenf of historic riverine spawning
and nursery areas for anadromous species.
Nearshore spawning reef habitats are important to
the reproductive success of lake trout, lake
whitefish, yellow perch and walleye populations
and offshore spawning reef habitats for lake trout
in Lake Michigan. High quality reef habitats are
required for natural reproduction of lake trout.
Degradation of water quality affects the biological
productivity of Lake Michigan's ecosystem.
Nutrification, sedimentation and contamination are
functions of natural as well as human activities and
Lake Trout
Courtesy of the Ontario Department of Fisheries and
Oceans
contribute to changes in the food web. Land use
changes, point and non-point discharges, and air
emission deposition jeopardize the water quality of the
lake.
The availability of nutrients in the water column plays
an important role in the lower trophic level of the food
web. Nutrients are necessary for regulating the
planktonic communities and maintaining the lake's
production. Increased nutrient levels can result in
eutrophication leading to an unbalanced ecosystem.
Increases in nutrients lead to an increase in aquatic
plant and algae production, a depletion of the
water's dissolved oxygen content resulting from plant
decay and oxygen uptake during algal blooms. In
addition, increased turbidity from algae reduces the
amount of light penetrating the water and decreases
the growth of submergent vegetation which can
result in a loss of habitat for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
Phosphorus has the greatest potential to affect the
lake's ecosystem by acting as a catalyst for
eutrophication. Regulation of phosphorus through
decreasing point sources from major water treatment
plants, and bans on phosphorus in detergents have
been a successful management strategy to control
eutrophication . Since 1981, phosphorus loadings in
Lake Michigan have been below target loads set by
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
the GLWQA of 5600 metric t/y, while chloride,
nitrogen and silica concentrations increased from
both increased loadings and biological cycling.
In nearshore waters, zebra mussels (and more recently
quagga mussels) are thought to have changed the
dynamics of phosphorus cycling and increased water
clarity, which along with increased tributary loadings
of phosphorus from agriculture and urban areas is
stimulating blooms of Cladophora, a benthic algae.
The consequences of algal blooms for fisheries are
potential degradation of nearshore spawning and
nursery habitat and harm to social concerns including
tourism and angling nearshore.
Sedimentation of nearshore habitats is a water quality
issue attributed to natural forces, but exacerbated by
human activities. The expansion of urban
development around the lake increases surface runoff
and magnifies erosion in concentrated patterns.
Agricultural practices such as tilling and overgrazing
expose large areas of soil to wind and water erosion.
Sedimentation can cloud water clarity, which reduces
the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation,
degrades fish spawning areas and food sources, and
acts as a medium to transport and retain pollutants.
Contaminants in the lake basin pose serious threats to
the health of the Lake Michigan ecosystem. The
various activities occurring in the Lake Michigan basin
such as urban, industrial and agricultural land uses
have left a legacy of contaminants in the lake. The
most severely degraded areas in the lake are
identified as Areas of Concern (AOCs). The GLWQA
defines AOCs as areas that fail to meet the objectives
of the agreement including impaired beneficial use of
the area's ability to support aquatic life.
Dams played a major role in the development of the
Great lakes for lumber mills, hydroelectric power,
navigation, and flood control. While thousands of the
dams remain, many of the benefits they originally
provided do not. As the original use is lost, so often is
the funding source for maintenance. Sixty percent of
dams are in private hands, 21 percent belong to local
governments, and the rest to federal and state
governments and utilities. Concern over aging dams
as well as their acting as barriers to fish passage
upstream highlighted the need to adapt dam
management practices.
In the Great Lakes, the ability to identify linkages
between climate, aquatic ecosystems, fish population
dynamics and fisheries has improved tremendously
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
WildLink Program Helps
Landowners Keep Space
Open for Wildlife
Climate Change Adaptation
The WildLink Program is overseen by the Conservation
Resource Alliance and assists volunteer land owners in
managing private-property corridors used by wildlife for
travel between one large parcel of land (such as state-
owned wildlife areas) to another. Its aim is to preserve
the rural character of northwestern Michigan for
outdoor recreation, hunting and wildlife watching in
natural surroundings.
Wild Link focuses on parcels which fall within ecological
corridors, or pathways of habitat. These privately
owned corridors provide the critical connections
between larger protected public properties.
The program, funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, assists land owners in outlining a five to ten-
year voluntary program for developing or modifying
land use in order to keep wildlife corridors open for
animal movement which may become critical to
survival in a future with climate change.
More information available at:
www.rivercare.org/wildlink/wildlink.php
through collaborative relationships and expertise
between state and federal research and
management agencies, and universities. The
availability of extensive time series data on fish
community abundances and harvests now permits
characterization of natural variability and prediction
of future climate impacts. Hydrodynamic circulation
models now available for Lake Michigan permit
understanding of how lake circulation patterns may
retain or advect fish larvae away from favorable
nursery areas, with implications for fish recruitment
and movement. Studies of land-use patterns,
watershed dynamics and fisheries habitat allow
prediction of direct and indirect effects of climate
change on tributary habitats and their adfluvial fish
populations.
Information and Research Needs include:
• Understand and predict climate change impacts
on fish habitats, fish vital rates, and fisheries
harvest over multiple spatial scales, ranging from
tributaries to open-lake habitats, and incorporate
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Great Lakes Basin Landscape
Ecology Metric Browser
USEPA designed a Great Lakes Basin Landscape
Ecology Metric Browser. The principal focus of this
project is the mapping and interpretation of landscape
scale (i.e., broad scale) ecological metrics among
hydrologic units and within 1 km, 5 km, and 10 km
regions of coastal land in the Great Lakes Basin (GLB).
Much is still unknown about the ecological relationships
between human activities, surface water quality, and
the biological characteristics with the GLB. This browser is
an important step toward understanding the distribution
of these phenomena and the analyses of their
interrelationships.
The browser is designed to present some key ecological
metrics to the GLB public and research communities at
a landscape scale and will be updated as additional
analyses are completed. For additional information
regarding the topic of landscape ecology, visit the
following web site: www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-sci/
intro.htm. This is the initial presentation of landscape
metrics for the GLB; for current applications of these
metrics and results from other related topics in the Great
Lakes, visit the following web site: www.epa.gov/
nerlesdl /Ignd-sci/we tlgnds.htm
that knowledge into fisheries management
policies.
• Quantify historic natural population variability of
young-of-year or yearling fish abundances on
annual and decadal time scales, and relating the
variability to historic climate patterns.
• Use regression and simulation models to predict
climate change impacts on key lake fishes across
multiple spatial scales.
Lake Sturgeon
Lake sturgeon, formerly a dominant nearshore
species, continues to be the object of increased
study and recovery effort. The previous state-of-the-
lake report indentified at least eight known remnant
populations, the largest spawning runs of several
hundred fish and the smallest with few or unknown
spawners annually. Several indications suggested
lake wide abundance, though low, was increasing.
Despite these positive signs, lake sturgeon continues
to be considered rare, endangered, threatened, a
species of greatest conservation need, or a resource
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Suamico Watershed Pike
Habitat Restoration Project
The intent of the Suamico Watershed Pike Habitat
Restoration Project of the Brown County Land
Conservation Department is to create, enhance or restore
high quality spawning and rearing habitat for Northern
Pike (a predator fish that resides in the Bay of Green Bay as
an adult) as well as enhancing and protecting critical
wetland habitat in an area where over 70% of such
habitat has been lost. To accomplish this, the project will
create approximately 12-14 acres of new spawning
marshes capable of producing in excess of 20,000 young
of the year Northern Pike per acre. The project plans to
remove several major stream impediments in order to
open access to an additional 3-4 miles of stream to
spawning Pike. The project will establish buffers along
shallow headwater streams which have been highly
degraded by agricultural runoff creating sediment and
nutrient related problems. Local and national conservation
groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited and the
Nature Conservancy will promote the importance of the
project on both a local and national level. The project will
work to educate local government and citizens regarding
the simplicity and effectiveness of vegetative buffers in
protecting streams and will encourage local government
to enact local ordinances for their perpetual protection.
Suamico Watershed Pike Restoration
Project
Pike and Buffers
A Close Relationship
conservation priority by one or more of the state,
tribal, and/or federal agencies with responsibilities for
the lake's fishes.
Recent mark-recapture estimates and direct counts
indicate annual spawning runs of 199-577 adults in the
lower Peshtigo River, 23-52 adults in the lower
Manistee River, 24-49 adults in the lower Fox River, and
15-23 adults in the lower Muskegon River. Though
spawning-run size in the lower Menominee River has
not been estimated, the resident population during
summer was estimated at 457-1,329 fish in 1991, and
spawners are thought to number in the hundreds
each spring. Gill-net assessments and sightings
suggest that annual spawner abundance in the lower
Oconto, lower Manistique, lower Grand, and lower
Kalamazoo rivers is less than 25 fish per river. Sightings
and sampling also suggest that adults may
periodically spawn in the lower St. Joseph and
Millecoquins rivers, and possibly on some shoals.
Populations also persist in two sections upstream of
dams on the Menominee River, in Indian Lake
upstream of the lower dam on the Manistique River,
and possibly upstream of the lower dam on the St.
Joseph River. A large, self-sustaining population exists
in the Lake Winnebago system upstream of the lower
Fox River. Although fish from these systems can move
downstream to Lake Michigan, they cannot return
upstream beyond the first dam on each river.
Since 2000, production of sturgeon larvae has been
documented in the lower Fox, Oconto, Peshtigo,
Menominee, Manistee, Grand, and Muskegon rivers,
and fall young-of-year (YOY) have been documented
in the Menominee, Manistee, Oconto, and Peshtigo
rivers. A single larvae has been collected in each of
the St. Joseph and Kalamazoo rivers. The largest
catches of drifting larvae and YOY have consistently
come from the Peshtigo and Manistee rivers.
Populations of lake sturgeon are genetically
structured, with differences occurring geographically.
Sturgeon populations in the Menominee, Peshtigo,
Oconto, lower Fox, and Wolf rivers, and all of Green
Bay were genetically more similar to each other than
to populations in the Manistee and Muskegon rivers,
which in turn were more similar to each other than to
populations in Lake Huron tributaries. Small
populations do not lack genetic diversity nor do they
exhibit higher levels of genetic drift or inbreeding
compared to larger populations. The significant
differences in allele frequency at microsatellite loci
and in mitochondrial DMA among populations,
including those in relatively close proximity, indicate
that populations are reproductively isolated and that
spawners exhibit a high degree of fidelity to their river
of origin. Tag returns also indicate that spawners
return to the same river repeatedly to reproduce.
Spawning populations are composed primarily of fish
less than 35 years of age and 175-cm total length,
although fish exceeding 50 yrs of age and 200 cm
have been collected. As expected, sex ratios of
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
spawning fish are highly skewed toward males,
particularly in rivers with younger fish. Open-water
assessments forgetting all sizes of sturgeon are
dominated by fish less than 1,000-mm TL and younger
than 12 years, suggesting recruitment to spawning
may improve. Observations of increased numbers of
spawning fish in some tributaries, and reports of
increased encounter rates by commercial and
recreational fishers and in agency assessments,
suggest recruitment has improved in at least some
areas of the lake during the 1980s and 1990s. If true,
spawner abundance in some rivers may continue to
increase in the near future as juveniles reach maturity.
Recaptures of marked sturgeon from the open waters
of central and southern Green Bay indicate a
population (fish >122 cm) of 920-4,455 (95% Cl). In a
population of this size a loss of more than 100 adult
fish/yr could be excessive. The recreational harvest in
the lower Menominee River has increased steadily
Lake Sturgeon
Figure Courtesy of the Ontario Department of Fisher-
ies and Oceans
over the past 20 years, reaching a high of 150 fish
(125-cm minimum length) registered during the 2003
season. While increasing harvest could be indicative
of increasing abundance, effort also is increasing.
Other sources of mortality are from injury of fish
released alive by recreational and commercial
fishermen and fish struck by boat propellers or killed
when passing through or around hydropower facilities.
Each summer since 2001, dead lake sturgeon have
been reported washed up on beaches from
numerous areas around the lake. As many as 21 fish
were reported in 2003, primarily from central Green
Bay. Other fish have been recovered near Michigan
City, Indiana, and Manistee and Petoskey, Michigan.
It is uncertain what proportion of this die-off is being
observed or reported. At the time of recovery, no
obvious cause of death has been apparent, but
laboratory examination of fresh specimens recovered
from Green Bay found enough C/osfrid/um botulinum
in ingested prey items to suspect type-E botulism.
Similar die-offs in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario since
2000 have been associated with type-E botulism .
More Sturgeon than Thought Found
in the Muskegon, Manistee, Grand,
and Kalamazoo Rivers
Sturgeon have been in the planet's waters for 100 million
years. The fish, which can grow to eight-feet long and
weigh 300 pounds, were a dominant Great Lakes fish for
thousands of years before the presence of logging, dam
construction and excessive fishing eliminated about 99
percent of the fish from Lake Michigan and its tributaries.
Scientists estimate that there are between 1,000 and 3,000
sturgeon in Lake Michigan, down from 11 million thought
to live in the lake in 1800. Biologists hope to restore its
population by improving fish habitat in large rivers - such
as the Muskegon, Manistee, Grand and Kalamazoo —
where sturgeon spawn and once were abundant.
Research by University of Georgia scientists indicated that
there are far more juvenile sturgeon in the Muskegon River
than previously believed.
Biologists from WDNR, MDNR and the USFWS have
conducted regular surveys of the sturgeon population in
the Menominee River for years, the largest population in
Lake Michigan. WNDR has active management involving
the harvest fishery and stocking in that system.
Researchers from Purdue University and the University of
Alaska working with USFWS and WNDR have conducted
annual recruitment surveys of young sturgeon in the
Peshtigo River from 2003-2007, indicating recent substantial
annual production.
Annual spawner abundance is also monitored in each
river where remnant populations persist (Fox, Oconto,
Peshtigo, Menominee). The Manistee River, Michigan also
has nearly a decade of good assessment data on adults
and recruitment of young, and ongoing rehabilitation
work.
Though sea lamprey-related mortality has not been
quantified for sturgeon, eighty-two of 212 fish
collected in 2003 from the open waters of Green Bay
bore 128 marks. Type A-IV and B-IV (healed) marks
were most common and amounted to 37 per 100 fish,
indicating that sea lampreys commonly attached to
sturgeon. Marking rates were 6 per 100 fish for AI-AIII
marks, which indicate more recent attachments. The
relationship between sea lamprey marking and
mortality is currently being researched. The sensitivity
of young lake sturgeon to the chemical TFM used to
treat rivers for larval lamprey has led to the
implementation in 1998 of a "sturgeon protocol" that
reduces the concentration of TFM and defers
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
treatments until after July 1 in rivers where YOY
sturgeon are known or suspected to occur.
Management
Substantial portions of the sturgeon's historic spawning
and rearing habitats are impounded or blocked by
dams, and no effective passage exists around these
barriers. Passage, however, is being designed into a
replacement for the Manistique River dam and for
several dams on the Menominee River. Passage for
native fish species, including lake sturgeon, will also be
provided as a condition of operation of a new barrier
to be constructed on the Cedar River. Careful
regulation of flow over dams and through hydropower
facilities is also necessary to ensure that river segments
below dams remain useable by sturgeon.
In 2000, recreational harvest of sturgeon from Lake
Michigan waters was banned, except in the
Menominee River where harvest from a fall
recreational fishery was reduced by increasing the
minimum size limit from 50 inches to 70 inches (TL) in
even numbered years, creating essentially a catch-
and-release fishery.
In 2004, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians began
on the Manistee River a long-term rearing program
where wild-caught larvae are transferred into a
streamside rearing facility for several months to
enhance early survival and then released back,
typically in late summer. The goal is to increase early
survival while not diminishing imprinting to the river.
In 2003, the Wisconsin DNR initiated reintroduction of
lake sturgeon into sections of the Milwaukee and
Manitowoc rivers having an unimpeded connection
to Lake Michigan. Hatchery-reared larvae from egg-
takes in the Wolf River were stocked into the
Manitowoc (N = 119,793) and Milwaukee (N = 64,000)
rivers in the spring of 2003. In 2004, fingerlings (N =
2,000) and juveniles (N = 200) were stocked into the
Milwaukee River, and will be stocked in both rivers in
2005. In addition, 6-8 adults were transferred from the
Wolf River into the Milwaukee River in each of these
years. Details of these stocking programs spurred
significant debate among the agencies and
institutions involved with lake sturgeon management
and research. Concern focused on the need to
maintain and ensure genetic diversity in Lake
Michigan populations and on the potential risks posed
to remnant populations if stocked fish were to stray
and spawn in non-target rivers. In 2003, the LMC
formed the Lake Michigan Lake Sturgeon Task Group
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Milwaukee Pilot Project Offers
Wetland Data Tools
In the last few decades, scientists have confirmed the
critical role wetlands play in urban as well as rural areas.
Not only do they provide habitat to a wide diversity of
valuable plants and animals, wetlands reduce flooding,
protect surface water quality, and provide scenic beauty
and open space. Many of the wetlands in the Milwaukee
River Basin have been destroyed, filled in, or drained to
create farm fields, cities, and roads. The Milwaukee River
Basin Wetlands Assessment Project seeks to understand
the consequences of these losses and examine options
for future planning. Questions the project will consider
include: What wetland resources do we have left and
how do they benefit us? Where can former wetlands be
restored for the most benefit for people and wildlife in the
basin?
The Milwaukee River Basin Wetlands Assessment Project is
a pilot project that will develop tools to improve planning
wherever wetland resources are a concern. It will
provide governments, conservation organizations, and
other decision makers tools to better understand where
wetland restorations are most likely to improve habitat or
water quality. These tools are a way of analyzing the
relative level
wetlands in small
catchments provide
wildlife habitat and
water quality
treatment (through
sediment trapping/
nutrient) to protect
downstream
waters. They relate
more to "ecosystem
services" than to
wetland biological
integrity.
The project is
spearheaded by
the Wisconsin
Department of
Natural Resources
through a grant
from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. More information is
available at: http://search.wi.gov/cs.html?url=http%3A//
dnr.wi.aov/wetlands/documents/
Mukwonaao Version MRPWAP August 17.pdf&charset=i
so-8859-1&at=url%3Adnr.wi.aov+%7C%
7C+milwaukee+river+basin+wetlands+assessment+proiec
t&col=noauerv+auerv&n=2&la=en
-------
(LSTG) and charged it with reviewing stocking
proposals and developing a rehabilitation plan for
lake sturgeon. Initial work on this plan resulted in draft
Guidelines for Genetic Conservation, Propagation
and Stocking of Lake Sturgeon in Lake Michigan. The
agencies agreed to follow these guidelines when
stocking fish in the future and began work to develop
streamside facilities as means of rearing lake sturgeon
in a manner that all agencies could accept for
stocking into the Milwaukee, Manitowoc, Cedar, and
Whitefish rivers beginning in 2006.
Michigan DEQ Report Outlines Impacts of
Beach Maintenance
A report released in March 2006 by the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality found negative
impacts to coastal areas where "beach grooming"
had occurred. The report, developed by a team of
scientists from Michigan State University and Grand
Valley State University, compared groomed beaches
with similar, nearby natural beaches, allowing the
researchers to measure how fish populations, other
animals, and marsh plants are affected.
The study showed that clearing vegetation through a
coastal marsh alters the chemical and physical
conditions of nearshore waters, reducing or
eliminating habitat for Michigan's important game fish
including yellow perch, smallmouth bass, and
largemouth bass.
According to the Michigan DNR, approximately 90%
of the 200 fish species living in the Great Lakes rely on
coastal wetlands during some part of their life cycle.
The report found negative impacts to several
important game fish including yellow perch,
smallmouth bass, and largemouth bass. The study
also found that beach grooming destroyed stands of
important plants and helped invasive species
colonize the groomed areas.
In light of this research, MDEQ Director Steven Chester
has recommended to the Legislature that the
provisions created through 2003 wetlands legislation
be allowed to expire according to the sunset dates in
the law.
More information is available at: www.michigan.gov/
dea/0,1607,7-135-3313 3687-10202-.OO.html.
Progress Towards Sustainability
Recommendations for Fish
Lakewide abundance and distribution of lake
sturgeon in Lake Michigan remains low and restricted
compared to historic levels. Although some
populations appear to be self sustaining and possibly
increasing in abundance, the long-term status of other
populations remains questionable. Research and
assessment efforts during the last five years represent
progress in meeting the fish community objective of
maintaining self-sustaining stocks, but the objective of
enhancing the lake-wide population will require a
larger effort. Existing agency rehabilitation plans and
the current draft of the LSTG rehabilitation plan
provide additional objectives and strategies for
maintaining and enhancing self-sustaining stocks of
lake sturgeon. Specific strategies include inventorying
populations and habitats so that areas for protection
and rehabilitation can be prioritized; augmenting
remnant populations and re-establishing others;
determining effects of exotic species, contaminants,
and diseases on lake sturgeon; and implementing
public education. A long-term commitment of
additional resources will be required to implement
and evaluate these strategies. With the eventual
approval of a lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan, it will
be appropriate to incorporate more specific
objectives and strategies for lake sturgeon into a
future revision of the lake's fish community objectives.
Land Use Changes
The Lake Michigan basin is seeing changes in land use
over the last several years. According to the National
Land Cover database, land is used primarily for
agriculture. However, according to the Coastal
Change Analysis Program overseen by NCAA,
development is encroaching on the farmland. Forest
land has decreased by a small amount, but this
decrease is being more than offset by an increase in
tree farming as evidenced by an increase in
shrubland. Wetlands saw a slight increase between
1996 an 2001, indicating that wetland restoration and
protection programs have had an effect.
Wetland Restoration
Wetland restoration programs have seen a significant
increase in activity. The Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration set a goal of increasing the net
acreage of wetlands Great Lakes basin-wide by 1.1
million by 2020. Michigan set a target acreage for its
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
portion of the Lake Michigan basin at 89,750.
Wisconsin has set a target statewide of an increase in
30,000 acres. Both states have developed programs
that encourage wetlands restoration using state and
private programs.
A wetland restoration project tracking database and
pilot collection system maintained by NRCS, USFWS,
and WDNR is working to help track wetland loss. This
project involves collecting a uniform set of data to
track wetland restoration projects done by the major
organizations responsible for wetlands. The project
also involves establishing a geospatial database that
contains the tracking data. The objective in this
project is to plug a major gap in reporting wetland
"gains" achieved through voluntary restoration
projects and to resolve the problem of double and
triple counting the acres involved when these players
Charter Township of Garfield in Grand Traverse County, Michigan
Riparian Vegetative Buffers
The Garfield Township Planning Commission began examining riparian vegetative buffers based on
recommendations in the Mitchell Creek Watershed Study. Vegetated buffers along streams and lakes provide
widely recognized environmental benefits. After initial investigations by the Planning Commission the one hun-
dred foot buffer recommendation of the Mitchell Creek Study was determined to be excessive in the context of
Garfield Township's suburban landscape.
In March 2006 Garfield Township adopted a thirty five foot vegetative buffer requirement which provides
maintenance of ground cover in its natural state, prohibits clear cutting of vegetation, and regulates fertilization
of stream bank vegetation.
Existing - Lawns and grading near edges of creeks.
Preferred - natural state vegetative buffers provide full to partial shading, and woody materials
contributing to the vegetative "tea" for a healthy fishery.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
collaborate on a restoration project. Many wetland
losses are not known because we have no way of
accounting for illegal losses or loses which do not
require a permit. The project will report wetland losses
and gains that are captured through the wetland
permit tracking and compensatory mitigation
databases to generate an overall status report on
known wetland activities.
Buffer Strips
Stream bank buffer strips not only provide buffers
against nonpoint pollution, they also protect aquatic
and stream bank habitat and provide for more
natural flow of streams.
Well managed riparian buffers generally support
larger populations of wildlife because the buffer
provides many habitat requirements. In a stratified
forest, different habitat zones exist vertically, including
at the soil-air interface, intermediate zones, and at the
canopy. Plants in these areas includes herbs and
shrubs at lower levels, and intermediate height and
taller trees which reach up to the canopy. Included
with the leaf litter and rotting logs at the soil-water
interface are insects. These organisms are a food
source for reptiles, amphibians, small field mammals,
and birds. The herbs and shrubs provide habitat for
insects, birds, and mammals. The intermediate zone
and the canopy serve as habitat for birds, bats,
squirrels, opossums, and raccoons. Bird habitat may
be highly stratified, and birds generally show a
preference for certain layers that differ in habitat
characteristics and food sources (See Chapter 7 for
information).
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration set goals for
the Great Lakes basin at 1.1 million new acres of
buffer strips. The states are beginning to set targets for
buffer strips for Lake Michigan streams.
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Buffer and Shoreline Protection Ordinances in Wisconsin
River Hills Buffers
The River Hills Committee on the Environment is working to restore and protect the riparian buffers which in turn restore
and protect the quality of all Village waterways. The Village has had a buffer ordinance since 1973. Because riparian
buffers are the single most effective protection for our water resources, it is vital that all residents support the preservation
of riparian areas along the Milwaukee River and our other Village waterways.
To be most effective river buffers should include native vegetation and be as wide as possible. Riparian strips of native
vegetation, shrubs, and trees filter polluted runoff and provide a transition zone between water and human land use. Buff-
ers are also complex ecosystems that provide habitat and improve the stream communities they shelter. Natural riparian
buffers have been lost in many places over the years. Restoring them will be an important step toward improving water
quality, riverbank stability, wildlife, and the aesthetics of our waterways in River Hills.
More information is available at www.riverhillswi.com.
Brown County Shorelands Ordinances
Brown County has two County Ordinances that include buffer strip requirements:
• Shorelands and wetlands ordinance (Chapter 22) (regulation can be used under this ordinance without cost share
required and
• Agricultural shoreland management ordinance (Chapter 10) (regulation can only be used under this ordinance after
cost share has been offered by the landowner)
More information is available at www.co.brown.wi.us/countv clerk/CountvCode/Chapter22.html and
www.co.brown.wi.us/countv clerk/CountvCode/Chapterl O.html.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
* Draft*
\A/ator r?olotoH
ivuiigaiion
^.,,:,.4S;Ap|pn®vi^v
Climate Change
, c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c^ y c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c , ,
Climate Change Consequences for Water
1
Atmospheric
Temperature
Change
1
Rain/Snow
Levels and
Distribution
1
Storm
Intensity
iilHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHllijJ
1
Sea Level
Rise
1
Ocean
Characteristics
(Chemistry/
Impacts on Water
atial - Freshwater
snge in flow
shwater/ variations
Hands - Drinking
reased water supply
tribution impacts
nvaslve - Expanded
jcies flooding
reased - Increased
nan use runoff/
water erosion
heries - High velocity
ruption flow imparts
on biotic
integrity
1
r
- Wetland - Wetland - Coral re
loss loss
- Shore - Shore
impacts
- Increase
erosion erosion distribut
- CSO - Salt water invasive
increases intrusion species
- Increased to drinking - Reduce<
runoff/ water
erosion supply
absorpti
capacity
- Expanded - Inundation
flooding of
- Damage treatment
to water infrastruc-
infrastruc- ture
ture
1
Water-Related
Research and
Adaptation Actions
1
DRAFT Chart: Consequences of Climate Change for Water from "Climate Change and the
National Water Program" March 1, 2008 memorandum from USEPA Deputy Administrator
Benjamin Grumbles to Office Directors: Office of Water, Water Division Directors: Regions 1 -
10 Great Waterbody Program Office Directors. More information is available at
wwvv.eDa.gov/wgter/climatechcinae/.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 5
Does the public have access to abundant open space,
shoreline, and natural areas, and does the public have
enhanced opportunities for interaction with the Lake
Michigan ecosystem?
What is our target for Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
sustainability?
Approximately 50% of the lakeshore area is open NOT M|X£D M|XEO M1XED SUSTAINABLE
and natural with protected areas and abundant SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING IMPROVING
opportunities for access and recreation.
Why is this important? ^....... ~
Outdoor recreation in the Great Lakes basin is
an important component of the region's
economy and quality of life. The region offers
outstanding tourism and recreational
opportunities ranging from wilderness activities in
pristine national parks to swimming at beaches, f)f\f)f\
fishing, boating, and bird watching. Pressures £\J£\J "T*"
from development and competing land uses
have the potential to limit public access to
shoreline and natural areas.
What is the current status?
Currently, the status of the goal is mixed due to the competing needs for the limited lakefront resources.
What are the major challenges?
• Climate Change: Lake level change, emergent vegetation, and storm surges from intensive storms will
impact dunes and coastal ecosystems and piers and docks
Pressure for new development on existing open lands and shorelines
Increased land costs driven by expanding development
Fewer government resources available for land use protection and purchase
Decreasing funding for recreational harbor maintenance
Lower lake levels leading to closure of some marinas
Lack of understanding of the economic benefits and value of natural areas
What are the next steps?
• Partner with the growing coastal zone management programs in the Lake Michigan basin to ensure that the
issue of public access to the lake is balanced with protection of the ecosystem
• Support a dialogue on green marinas (see Chapter?) among states and Sea Grant programs
• Determine protection status of world's largest collection of fresh water sand dunes
• Promote public involvement in preservation and stewardship of special natural areas and public access:
• Broaden the dialogue with state and local government land-use planners and decision-makers to balance
environmental and recreational needs through the Lake Michigan Watershed Academy
• Provide tools for local communities to understand the value of the resource from a lakewide perspective
and develop long-term management programs
• Identify open space multi-use opportunities and tools for such things as flood retention parks and open
space with commuter bike trails, among others
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• Lake Michigan Water Trails
• Great Lakes Circle Tour Coastal Access Guide: Using Web Mapping to Support Coastal
Cultural Tourism
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator # 7000 - Urban Density
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 7002 - Land Cover/Land Conversion
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 7006 - Brownfields Redevelopment
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 7054 - Ground Surface Hardening
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Alvers
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Cobble Beaches
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore Communities - Sand Dunes
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator #8131 - Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Status: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 8135 - Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.aov/solec/soal2007/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Interacting with the Ecosystem
For thousands of years, the abundant natural
resources of the Great Lakes system attracted
inhabitants to its shores. The fresh water, abundant
and diverse fishery, stands of trees, mineral wealth,
and fertile soils formed the basis for the quality of life
and the economy. The opportunity of using water for
drinking, power, and transportation was a key
element in the economic equation of the time. The
magnitude and diversity of the Great Lakes added a
challenging dimension to most endeavors though.
The interaction of Lake Michigan residents with their
ecosystem today is still based on natural resources
but is less "hands-on." For while the plows still till the
soil, the pork belly futures get sold in the Chicago
Commodities Exchange pits far removed from the
resource. More interaction is now self-selection of
activities in which residents are seeking quality of life
by being outdoors, often on or near the water. The
interaction termed "recreation" is so highly valued by
society that special purpose governmental units on
the federal, state, tribal, and local levels are charged
with protecting natural resources by providing and
promoting recreation services utilizing public funds.
Recreation takes place on the land, and on, in, and
under the water. Scuba diving at old ship wrecks and
other natural phenomenon in the lake is a growth
sport and opportunities abound to discover other
natural and cultural sites.
An entire industry exists to entice visitors to share the
region's natural resource-based activities. Studies
document that these nature-based tourism activities
provide a significant net positive gain for the health of
the residents and to the regional and national
economy. To sustain this interaction with a positive
net gain to the economy, the environment, and
society, critical coastal areas must be open and
accessible; water must be of high quality and
sufficient quantity; sensitive cultural, habitat and
biodiversity areas protected; and attention paid to
climate change and lake level interaction.
The Green Infrastructure movement is becoming
more widespread as a way to educate and inform
communities of the important values of open space.
Stated simply, green infrastructure is the system of
connected parks, trails, and stream corridors that
provide conservation and recreation benefits to a
community. This connected system is as important as
the more traditional infrastructure such as roads and
utility corridors for electric power transmission, water
and sewer, and public safety.
Areas used for recreation are also important to help
adapt to a changing climate. Open space and
The Marquette Plan to Open the Indiana Shoreline
The Marquette Phase II Visioning Plan was launched in 2007. It builds off of the Marquette Phase I project, which set a
goal of increasing public access and developing the urbanized area. Marquette Phase II imposes a new set of challenges
with a different set of stakeholders and interest groups. It will identify and address the needs of the smaller communities
and create a vision that will identify and protect greenways and identify possible water trails in the region.
The Marquette Plan is a regional plan that creates a comprehensive land use vision for the Lake Michigan drainage basin
and a strategy for implementation of that vision. Officially the project is an extension, or second phase, of The Marquette
Plan: The Lakeshore Reinvestment Strategy (2005).
The initial Marquette Plan: The Lakeshore Reinvestment Strategy was completed in 2005 and addressed pubic access and
redevelopment of the lakeshore from the Illinois state line to the Port of Indiana. It was initiated by First District Congress-
man Peter Visclosky and funded by the cities of Whiting, East Chicago, Hammond, Gary, and Portage. Projects included
in the Phase I plan are eligible for funding from the Regional Development Authority. Phase II will focus on the lakeshore
from the Port of Indiana to the Michigan - Indiana state line. Funding for planning the second phase is being provided
through a grant from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Lake Michigan Coastal Program with matching funds
from the Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation, the cities of La Porte and Michigan City, and La Porte County.
The plan received $20 million from the federal government as a result of leadership from Rep. Peter Visclosky.
More information is available at: w/yvyyii[jO£.c^^
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Lake Michigan Water Trails
There are many existing water trails in the Lake Michigan basin. Information about them can be found online at the
resources listed below.
Illinois
• Northeastern Illinois Watertrails: www.openlands.org/watertrails.asp and
aorp.awav.com/aorp/location/il/pad chic.htm
• Chicago Portage Canoe Trail: users.rcn.com/clonk/CCFPD/MINl/#Canoe trail.htm
• Illinois DNR Canoeing Opportunities: dnr.state.il.us/lands/Landmat/Proarams/Canoe Kavak.htm
Indiana
• Indiana's Canoe Trails: www.in.aov/dnr/outdoor/canoe/index.htm
Michigan
• Michigan's Canoe Trails: aorp.awav.com/aorp/resource/us river/mi.htm
• Kewaunee Water Trail: www.kavakwisconsin.net/watertrail/countvs/kewaunee-wisconsin.html
• Hiawatha Watertrail: www.hiawathawatertrail.org
Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Lake Michigan Watertrail: www.kavakwisconsin.net/watertrail/index.html
• Capitol Water Trails, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin: www.capitolwatertrails.org/
The Lake Michigan Toolbox:
Great Lakes Circle Tour Coastal Access Guide: Using Web Mapping to Support
Coastal Cultural Tourism
University of Wisconsin Seo Grant developed on interactive web mgpping gpplicgtion to integrote coostgl heritgge
tourism ottractions with the Greot Lgkes Circle Tour route ond provide detoiled informotion obout public occess to the
Greot Lgkes coost. The purpose of the Greot Lgkes Circle Tour-Coostgl Access Guide (http://mgps.ggug.wisc.edu/glct/
glct index.htm) is to direct trovelers off the heovily-traveled stgte gnd federal highwgys of the primory circle tour route
ond towords the mgny coostgl gccess sites gnd cultural tourism resources locoted on the downtown streets ond rural
roods thgt hug the Igkes.
Applicgtions developed in Google Mops, Google Eorth, gnd the open-source Open Loyers softwore provide both o land-
side and water-side perspective to the Wisconsin segments of the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior Circle Tour. Map
layers include the primary circle tour route, local roads, parks, beaches, lighthouses, shipwrecks, boat launches, historical
sites, and oblique photos. Panorama photos that synchronize the field of view with a vicinity map were taken for public
access sites to the Great Lakes.
The web mapping applications provide the capability to link to external web content about Great Lakes sites maintained
by the custodians of those features. Examples include links to information about shipwrecks, historic markers, lighthouses,
museums, and parks from the Wisconsin Maritime Trails web site maintained by the Wisconsin Historical Society and beach
information and conditions from the Wisconsin Beach Health site.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
INVEST Launches Study to Estimate Dollar Value of Natural Resources
Scientists at Grand Valley State University and Michigan State University developed a computerized tool that estimates
the value of natural features in Muskegon, Ottawa, Newaygo, Kent, Ionia, Allegan, and Barry counties. The program is
called INVEST, for Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services Tool. "We want people to realize that natural features have
economic value," said Alan Steinman, director of GVSU's Water Resources Institute and principal investigator on the pro-
ject. "INVEST is designed to provide citizens with a preliminary look at the value of services that nature provides for free."
Putting a dollar figure on nature, also called green infrastructure, is a difficult job in both a technical and philosophical
sense. Officials at the West Michigan Strategic Alliance took on such a challenge though, to help demonstrate that na-
ture is valuable and that damaging it comes at a price. 'This is an effort by West Michigan to better understand and
measure our quality of life," said Greg Northrup, president of the West Michigan Strategic Alliance. "We hope the mone-
tary values will help residents realize that maintaining our green infrastructure makes good sense in terms of both our envi-
ronment and our regional economy. Northrup expects the estimated value of the area's natural resources will increase
as scientists continue their research especially since current estimates are considered to be conservative.
According to the study performed by the INVEST program, 996,000 acres of forest land in the seven-county West Michi-
gan area were the region's most valuable natural asset, worth an estimated $1.1 billion annually. West Michigan's abun-
dant natural resources — forests, sand dunes, wetlands and water — provide a variety of benefits that are worth at least
$1.6 billion annually, according to a new study. Great Lakes beaches and sand dunes, which span 4,762 acres in Muske-
gon, Ottawa and Allegan counties, ranked second in value, at $139 million. Those were followed by cropland, at $119
million (including the value of crops); wetlands, $81 million; and inland lakes and streams (excluding Lake Michigan), at
$62 million. Newaygo County had the largest portfolio of natural features, worth an estimated $899 million. Much of that
value is due to the presence of the Manistee National Forest, Steinman said. Muskegon County placed second, with
natural features valued at $242 million. Muskegon was followed by Ottawa County, with $134 million, and Kent County,
$111 million. By comparison, the value of all goods and services produced by businesses in the seven county area studied
is $45 billion annually, according to the West Michigan Strategic Alliance.
The INVEST Web site (www.invest.wri.avsu.edu) provides a breakdown of the value of natural features in each of the
seven counties. Researchers calculated the worth of natural features by measuring the value of ecosystem services that
forests, wetlands and lakes provide. Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect benefits that natural features provide
humans, including recreation, improved water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, tourism, soil erosion control, food produc-
tion, scenic beauty, and improved human health.
Environmentalists have some hesitation about putting a dollar figure on nature. Many see natural resources as being in-
valuable, so having a price tag associated with them makes no sense, because no amount of money could ever fully
restore a damaged or destroyed landscape. Members of the INVEST team emphasize that getting accurate costs for
natural resources is not as important is their overall goal of influencing people and government officials about the impor-
tance of conserving natural resources.
Chicago Area Nature Centers Found Rich in Public Benefit
In many of the fast developing coastal areas around Lake Michigan natural areas are "developed" for economic benefit.
A new study funded by Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant shows these preserved places provide benefits for more than flora and
fauna. They also provide public benefits that can be measured in dollars, in this case $ 8 million per year.
Daniel McGrath, an economist at the Institute for Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
calculated the worth of two nature centers in Cook County, Illinois to those who use them. Chicago Park District's North
Park Village Nature Center and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County's Sand Ridge Nature Center. He measured the
total amount residents of the area were willing to pay in time and travel costs to visit the sites over the course of a season.
The study reflects conservative estimates of the economic values as it did not include the many out of state visitors nor the
educational benefits the nature centers provide through school-children visits which can be significant.
More information is available at http://www.iisacp.ora/news/072006.htm.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
wetland can also capture storm water and prevent
flooding. Walking and biking trails offer alternatives
to car transportation that emits greenhouse gasses.
Benefits in communities with well developed green
infrastructure include a higher quality of life for
residents. Healthy green infrastructure also minimizes
non-point source pollution problems, provides
transportation alternatives, and improves overall
environmental quality and public health.
Development pressures within the Great Lakes basin
will continue to increase. Great Lakes communities
need to consider growth management planning to
ensure that future community expansion, whether
residential, commercial, or industrial, does not have
negative impacts on the important resources values
of the Great Lakes.
Local, state, tribal, and federal government agencies
have widely varied natural resource ethics and
cannot deliver all that is needed to ensure a
sustainable future of protection for the Great Lakes.
Ultimately, local stewardship of important resources
will cumulatively protect the Great Lakes.
Public Interaction with the Lake
Michigan Watershed
According to the Federal Interagency Ecosystem
Management Task Force, an ecosystem is defined as:
"... an interconnected community of living things,
including humans, and the physical environment with
which they interact. As such, ecosystems form the
cornerstones of sustainable economies. The goal of
the ecosystem approach is to restore and maintain
the health, sustainability, and biological diversity of
ecosystems while supporting sustainable economies
and communities" (1995). Based on a collaboratively
developed vision of desired future conditions, the
ecosystem approach integrates ecological,
economic, and social factors that affect a
management unit defined by ecological—not
political—boundaries. The foundation of the
ecosystem approach is relating human beings and
their activities to the ecosystems that contain them.
As access to Lake Michigan increases, so does the
pressure for development. Growth of summer homes
and year-round homes on the shoreline leads to
more road construction, pollution from increased use
of automobiles, and human use of areas that
interrupts the natural web of basin life. In response,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
Fishtown Receives NOAA
Preserve America Initiative Grant
The Fishtown Preservation Society of Leland, Michigan,
Michigan Sea Grant were awarded a "Preserve America
Initiative" grant from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) . The $9,000 grant was awarded for
"Catching the Fishing History of Lake Michigan, 1871-2006."
It was one of eight awards given in a competition which
had 34 proposals submitted from across the nation. The
money will be added to exisiting funds of $50,000 obtained
from fundraising. The project is supported by the NOAA
Preserve America Initiative Grant Program, part of Preserve
America, a White House initiative aimed at preserving,
protecting, and promoting our nation's rich heritage.
Source: Fishtown, Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Smart Growth policies are being developed and
pursued by many communities, and resources such
as the "Wisconsin Planning Guide for Smart
Growth" (see djTnwi.g^v^ora/es/s£ieDce/!gjTdyse/
smart/ for more information), the Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning 's "Environmental
Considerations in Comprehensive Planning: A Manual
for Local Officials" (see ,
more information), and the Northwest Indiana
Regional Planning Commission's "Water Resources
Protection and Conservation Toolkit" (see
w\ww.nir|2c.org for more information) are becoming
more widely available.
Outdoor Recreation Opportunities
Outdoor recreation in the Great Lakes basin is an
important component of the region's economy. The
region offers outstanding tourism and recreational
opportunities ranging from wilderness activities in
pristine national parks to swimming at beaches in
-------
Michigan and Five Tribes Agree on
Tribal Hunting and Fishing
The State of Michigan and five Native American tribes
signed a consent decree that would allow the tribes to
regulate hunting and gathering as well as inland fishing in
tribal areas. Under the agreement, tribes would be
allowed, for example, to hunt for longer periods and shoot
more deer than under Michigan regulations. The tribes
agreed their treaty rights pertain to hunting, fishing, and
gathering only for subsistence purposes and not
commercial activities.
While writing their own rules and issuing separate licenses,
the tribes agreed to observe many of the state's policies
for protecting resources from overharvesting and abuse,
including limiting use of nets on inland waterways and
prohibiting use of gill nets, a type of net that kills virtually
any fish it snares.
The tribes also acknowledged their treaty rights do not
grant access to private property unless the owner gives
permission. However, tribal members can go onto private
lands already open to the public, such as forests owned
by timber companies, plus 4.5 million acres of federal and
state lands.
major cities. A well-defined four-season climate
supports many types of recreation ranging from ice
fishing, skiing, and snowmobiling in the winter to golf,
fishing, boating, and swimming in the summer. There
are approximately 40 state parks in or near the Lake
Michigan basin as well as national lakeshore parks
and fish and wildlife refuges. These can be visited by
following the Circle Tour route around Lake Michigan.
The Great Lakes Commission, in cooperation with the
Great Lakes states and provinces in the 1980s and
1990s, coordinated the creation of the Circle Tours
along existing roadways. The Lake Michigan Circle
Tour route is marked by signs that feature Lake
Michigan and the four surrounding states. In
addition, guides prepared by states and localities
that highlight enjoyable areas are important tools for
promoting public access as well as critical ecosystem
protection.
The Many Benefits of Open Space
Open space plays an important role in supporting the
economy. According to the National Association of
State Park Directors, use of geologically or
environmentally sensitive areas as open space or for
recreational purposes can reduce potential property
damage costs. Hazards that can be mitigated
through conservation of open space include
flooding, slope instability, and structural fire damage.
The combination of habitat protection and
recreation is often the highest and best use of lands
that are too fragile for development. The cost of not
protecting such assets as slopes, aquifers, woodlots,
wetlands, fens, alvars, floodways is incredibly high in
the long run.
The eight Great Lakes states have about 3.7 million
registered recreational boats, or about a third of the
nation's total. Michigan is second in the nation in the
number of boat registrations and six Great Lakes
states rank in the nation's top ten in total registrations.
Recreational Fishery and Parks Value
The Great Lakes recreational fishery is valued at $4.6
billion. The National Park Service (NPS) estimates
expenditures related to visits at national and state
parks at $22 billion (1993 dollars). The NPS 2004 survey
of states estimated demands for recreational facilities
and open space acquisition for three-quarters of the
states have not met the needs of fifty percent of the
population.
X •- -K=rm:" '-lu- • 'iisP^^BBHHHl^HW
,. ' .-
-------
Chicago Wilderness Launches
"No Child Left Inside" Program
In 2007, more than 200 Chicago Wilderness member
organizations formalized their long-standing commitment to
forge a connection between children and nature with
programs like camping trips, nature scavenger hunts and
birding hikes. In 2008, Chicago Wilderness members began
offering all-new programs as part of Leave No Child Inside,
including a Chicago Wilderness Field Book that encourages
fun and educational visits to local natural areas. Leave No
Child Inside comprises hundreds of year-round events in
nature that impact millions of children throughout the
region.
feaveno
Leave No Child Inside is built on principles popularized by
author Richard Louv in his 2005 book Lasf Child in the
Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder.
The book's premise is that social changes within the last
thirty years have led to a generation of children
disconnected from nature. Increasingly, children's health
experts agree that the lack of unstructured outdoor
playtime for children may be linked to childhood obesity,
attention deficit disorder, depression and other children's
health problems.
The U.S. Forest Service is taking the lead on the program for
Chicago Wilderness.
Chicago Wilderness' 200 members form a natural network
spanning more than 300,000 acres of forests, prairies,
savannas, wetlands, lakes and other protected open
spaces across southeastern Wisconsin, through northeastern
Illinois, in northwestern Indiana, and into southwestern
Michigan.
More information is available at www.KidsOutside.info.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 6
Are land use, recreation, and economic activities
sustainable and supportive of a healthy ecosystem?
What is our target for , , , _ . _ . ...... .....
, , . .... _ Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustamabihty
sustamabihty?
A healthy ecosystem that benefits and
, .... , NOT MIXED MIXED MIXED SUSTAINABLE
supports a strong economy valued, enjoyed, SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING IMPROVING
and maintained by society.
Why is this important?
Land use, recreation, and economic
activities are more sustainable, healthy, and
supportive of a healthy ecosystem, but there
is significant work that needs to be done.
There is more information available on critical
ecosystems, significant activity in better 2020 I v"
managing water resources, and more
interest in determining the true value of a
healthy ecosystem. There is danger, however, that the ecosystem could deteriorate if the knowledge is not
shared widely and translated into actions especially in light of climate change.
What is the current status?
The status remains mixed due to both positive and negative changes outlined in the LaMP.
What are the major challenges?
Climate Change: national goal of 18% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2012
Aging infrastructure and diminishing replacement resources
Lack of confidence in green infrastructure as replacement foraging infrastructure
Defining the climate change stressors likely to occur in the basin
Educating people on the watershed approach to ensure more effective environmental management
Conservation land being converted back to crops for biofuel
What are the next steps?
• Assist development of Green: Marina, Highway, and Golf Course programs for the basin to reduce inputs
of nutrients, pesticides, and other pollutants into basin waters
• Promote studies that investigate the status of groundwater resources and their impact on water quality,
aquatic habitat, and levels of Lake Michigan
• Support studies to determine sustainable yields for Great Lakes water resources
• Continue to promote studies that investigate the economic value of remediating contaminated sites as
reported in LaMP 2006
• Promote a basin-wide opportunities for green areas that sequester carbon
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• Smart Growth Information Sources
• Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Protects Land to Store Stormwater
• Green Infrastructure Overview Resources
• Wisconsin Sea Grant Online Planning Guide for Coastal Communities
• Index of Sustainability Web Pages
• Managing Stormwater for Sustainability
• LEED Certification of Green Buildings
• Chicago Climate Exchange Trading System
• The Sustainable Sites Initiative
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.aov/solec/soal2007/
Indicator # 4862 - Coastal Wetland Indicator #7061 - Nutrient
Plant Community Health
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 4863 - Land Cover
Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Status: Not Fully Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7000 - Urban Density
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 7002 - Land Cover/
Land Conversion
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed;
Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 7006 - Brownfields
Redevelopment
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 7028 - Sustainable
Agriculture Practices
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7043 - Economic
Prosperity
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7054 - Ground Surface
Hardening
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7056 - Water
Withdrawals
Status: Mixed; Trend: Unchanging
Indicator # 7057 - Energy
Consumption
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 7060 - Solid Waste
Disposal
Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Management Plans
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7062 - Integrated Pest
Management
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7064 - Vehicle Use
Status: Poor; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 7065 - Wastewater
Treatment and Pollution
Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7100 - Natural
Groundwater Quality and Human-
Induced Changes
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7101 - Groundwater
and Land: Use and Intensity
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7102 - Base Flow Due to
G aroundwater Discharge
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicgtor # 7103 - Groundwoter
Dependent Plgnt gnd Animgl
Communities
Stotus: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicotor # 8129 - Areo, Quglitv
gnd Protection of Speciol
Lgkeshore Communities - Alvers
Stotus: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicotor # 8129 - Areo, Quglitv
gnd Protection of Speciol
Lgkeshore Communities - Cobble
Beoches
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicgtor # 8129 - Areo, Quglity
gnd Protection of Speciol
Lgkeshore Communities - Islonds
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicgtor # 8129 - Areo, Quglity
gnd Protection of Speciol
Lgkeshore Communities - Sond
Dunes
Stgtus: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicgtor #8131 - Extent of
Hordened Shoreline
Stotus: Mixed; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicgtor # 8135 - Contomingnts
Affecting Productivity of Bold
Eggles
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicgtor # 8147 - Populotion
Monitoring gnd Contomingtion
Affecting the Americgn Otter
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicgtor # 8164 - Biodiversity
Conservotion Sites
Stotus: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicgtor # 8500 - Forest Londs -
Conservotion of Biologicgl Diversity
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicgtor # 8501 - Forest Londs -
Mgintengnce of Productive
Copgcitv of Forest Ecosystems
Stotus: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicgtor # 8503 - Forest Londs -
Conservotion ond Mgintengnce of
Soil ond Wgter Resources
Loke Michiggn Stgtus: Mixed;
Trend: Undetermined
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Sustainability Vision Statement
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration states that:
Sustainability is not one government program or
a spectator activity, it is a balancing act that
requires full involvement of all Lake Michigan
basin citizens. Until recently there were many
published materials on" what is" Sustainability and
"how to" but we have now reached the point
where we can begin to measure our progress or
lack there of. It is essential we track the use of
our resources: climate, water, energy, land,
industrial and municipal waste, water run off,
and flora and fauna.
GLRC's vision is:
A sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem that
ensures environmental integrity and that
supports, and is supported by, economically
viable, healthy communities.
This is built upon the United Nations' 1987 Bruntland
Commission report that defined Sustainability as:
development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. In alignment with this
sentiment is the Anishinaabeg Seventh Generation
Principle that each generation considers the impact
of its decisions on the next seven generations.
Ecosystem Sustainability
The interdependencies inherent in the ecosystem
perspective require a balance between three
fundamental elements: environmental integrity,
economic vitality, and sociocultural well-being. The
ability of these elements to function in balance over
time is a measure of Sustainability. The ecosystem
perspective requires a shift of focus from resource
programs to resource systems and in some cases their
interaction. It places human activities and
communities within an ecosystem and consequently,
within ecosystem management.
The LaMP helps to identify the activities, partnerships,
and locations where ecosystem management needs
adjustment in order to attain a sustainable Lake
International Upper Great Lakes Study
Releases Progress Report on St. Clair River
The International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS)
released its semiannual Progress Report. The main
objectives of this study are to review the regulations
related to Lake Superior outflows and to examine the
physical processes and possible ongoing St Clair River
changes and their impacts on the water levels of Lake
Michigan and Huron. The International Joint Comission
(IJC) directed the Study Board to complete the St Clair
River portion of the Study by early 2010.
As part of this effort, a binational team of researchers
has been investigating why water levels in the Upper
Great Lakes are so low and whether possible physical
changes in the St. Clair River might be responsible. The
goal of the study is to determine whether altering
regulations dealing with outflows from Lake Superior to
take into account changing interests and climate
would positively impact other connected waterways.
A recent estimate by the Georgian Bay Association
(GBA) indicated that the volume of the river outflow
may have increased by as much as 2.5 billion gallons
per day, or about 2 percent of the flow of the St Clair
River, as a result of dredging. These impacts are greater
than those previously reported by the IJC. The GBA is
requesting that action be taken immediately to
address this issue. IUGLS will be assessing all the
potential contributing factors to the changes in water
level in order to ensure that informed decisions can be
made. Studies have been initiated, hydrographic
surveys are being conducted, and hydrometric stations
are currently being installed in order to provide the
information needed to address this issue.
Included in the report were initial results of a video
analysis of more than 50 kilometers (30 miles) of the St.
Clair river bed on videotape. The preliminary analysis
noted that the river bed in the upper reach of the river
is fully armored and that the armor layer is made up of
coarse gravels, pebbles, and cobbles with sediment
size ranging from about 4 mm to 250 mm (1 /6 inch to
nearly 10 inches). Based on the capacity of the flow to
transport sediment, the armor layer in the upper part of
the St. Clair River is considered to be stable and is not
eroding.
More work involving sediment transport measurements
and sediment models are planned to test this
hypothesis. Additional video observations in the river
are planned.
The next semiannual IUGLS Progress Report is scheduled
to be released in April of 2008. More information is
available at wwwJj.jc3ls.oja
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Michigan basin. Sustainable landscapes are local
ecosystems that are healthy enough to provide a
range of valuable benefits and services, both now
and in the future. Such benefits and services to
humans include the following:
• Moderating natural events and human activities.
Healthy landscapes can make communities safer
and more livable by tempering the effects of
natural events and human activities. For
example, wetland systems can absorb and store
storm waters, thereby aiding in flood control and
ensuring more predictable stream flows and
water levels as well as often providing for
recharging local ground water.
• Enhancing social well-being. Healthy landscapes
provide services that make communities more
enjoyable and rewarding. For example, they
provide opportunities for outdoor recreation,
while also providing habitat for diverse plant and
animal species. Plantings along stream banks can
also provide buffers to filter pollutant runoff.
• Supporting local economies through tourism and
sustainable natural resource use
United Nations 2007 Reports
Sustainability Report. In 2007, 20 years after the
Brundtland Report, the United Nations weighed in on
both climate change and sustainability in different
reports. In its fourth Global Environment Outlook report
published in October, 2007 the UN reported that in
the two decades since the 1987 Brundtland
Commission findings on Sustainability that warned the
survival of humanity was at stake from unsustainable
development, not much has changed for the better.
The fourth report cites climate change, the rate of
extinction of species, and the challenge of feeding a
growing population among the threats putting
humanity at risk.
Climate Change Report. The United Nations in 2007
released the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report Climate
Change 2007. The Synthesis Report summarizes the
most important findings, some of which are:
1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
as is now evident from observations of increases in
global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising
global average sea level.
2. Observational evidence from all continents
and most oceans shows that many natural systems
are being affected by regional climate changes,
particularly temperature increases.
In terrestrial ecosystems, earlier timing of spring events
and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal
ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent
warming. In some marine and freshwater systems,
shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and
fish abundance are with high confidence associated
with rising water temperatures, as well as related
changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and
circulation.
3. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due
to human activities have grown since pre-industrial
times, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970
and 2004.
Changes in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and
aerosols, land-cover and solar radiation alter the
energy balance of the climate system.
4. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have
increased markedly as a result of human activities
since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands
of years.
5. Most of the observed increase in globally-
averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there
has been significant anthropogenic warming over the
past 50 years averaged over each continent (except
Antarctica).
In North America, one projected regional impact is
that coastal communities and habitats will be
increasingly stressed by climate change impacts
interacting with development and pollution. The
report also discussed adaptation and mitigation
options, albeit not from a regional perspective.
Observed And Anticipated Effects On The
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
In 2003, the International Joint Commission's (IJC)
Water Quality Board issued a report to the IJC on the
projected effects of climate change on the Great
Lakes Basin and recommended management
strategies. Climate Change and Water Quality in the
Great Lakes Basin; Report of the Water Quality Board
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Protects
Land to Store Stormwater
Climate Change Mitigation
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is purchasing and protecting land to reduce the impact of
development on stormwater overflows. The program, Greenseams, formerly known as the Conservation Plan, is a,
flood management program that permanently protects key lands containing water absorbing soils. The program
also aims to preserve land along stream corridors that connects the region's supply of public properties.
Greenseams provides added support and protection for MMSD's structural flood management projects -
infrastructure investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Greenseams identifies and purchases
undeveloped, privately owned properties in areas that are expected to have major growth in the next 20 years
and parcels of open space along streams, shorelines and wetlands. Sales are completely voluntary.
MMSD hired The Conservation Fund (TCP) to run Greenseams. TCP is a national non-profit conservation
organization that forges partnerships to protect America's legacy of land and water resources. TCP performs high
volume real estate transactions for local land trusts and government agencies throughout the country.
All land acquired will remain as open space, protecting water and providing the ability to naturally store rain and
melting snow in critical areas. Wetlands maintenance and restoration at these sites will provide further water
storage.
In addition, preserving the properties also saves wildlife habitat and creates recreational opportunities for people
living in the region. Where applicable, the properties can be used by the public for hiking trails, bird watching,
and other passive recreation.
More information is available at: www.mmsd.com/floodmanaaement/areenseams.cfm.
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Smart Growth Information Sources
Climate Change Mitigation
Smart growth is development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment. It changes the
terms of the development debate away from the traditional growth/no growth question to "how and where new
development should be accommodated."
Smart Growth answers these questions by simultaneously achieving:
• Healthy communities — that provide families with a clean environment. Smart growth balances development
and environmental protection - accommodating growth while preserving open space and critical habitat,
reusing land, and protecting water supplies and air quality.
• Economic development and jobs - that create business opportunities and improve local tax base; that pro-
vide neighborhood services and amenities; and that create economically competitive communities.
• Strong neighborhoods — which provide a range of housing options giving people the opportunity to choose
housing that best suits them. It maintains and enhances the value of existing neighborhoods and creates a
sense of community.Transportation choices — that give people the option to walk, ride a bike, take transit, or
drive.
• A sample of smart growth information sources include:
• www.epa.aov/smartarowth/
• www.cwp.org/index.html
• www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
to the Great Lakes International Joint Commission,
ISBN 1-894280-42-3. 2003. It is available at http://
www.iic.org/php/publications/html/climate/
index.html. The report said," A change in climate
could lead to alterations and impacts on
environmental quality. The climate changes fora
number of reasons- natural and anthropogenic- and
studies are being carried out to detect changes in
climate and identify associated impacts. Natural
climate variability is influenced by changes in solar
radiation, wobbles in the earth's orbit, and volcanic
activity. Humans influence the climate by urban
development, changes in land use patterns and
practices and increased emissions of greenhouse
gases.
Both mitigation and adaptation actions are required
as a balanced response to climate change.
Mitigation measures are geared to reduce emissions
and increase sinks of greenhouse gases, while
adaptation actions seek to increase resilience by
reducing risks and taking advantage of opportunities
due to a changing climate."
The effects of a changing climate will be
experienced in the Great Lakes and the Lake
Michigan basin over the next century. The Union of
Concerned Scientists Executive Summary Report,
Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes
Region: Impacts on Our Communities and
Ecosystems, has documented the following expected
changes:
• Winters are getting shorter;
• Annual average temperaturesfair and water) are
growing warmer
• Extreme heat events are occurring more
frequently;
• The duration of lake ice cover is decreasing as air
and water temperatures rise; and
• Heavy precipitation events, both rain and snow,
are becoming more common.
In addition, anticipated changes might include the
following:
• Future lake levels are expected to decline as
winter ice coverage decreases;
• Declines in the duration of winter ice are
expected to continue;
• The distributions of fish and other organisms in
lakes and streams will change. Coldwater
species such as lake trout, brook trout, and white
The Water Cycle
Source: USEPA
fish are likely to decline in the southern parts of
the Great Lakes region, while warm water species
are likely to expand northward;
• Invasions by non-native species will likely be more
common, increasing the stress on native plant
and animal populations;
• Lower water levels coupled with warmer water
temperatures may accelerate the accumulation
of mercury in the aquatic food chain as it is more
likely to convert into a more bio-available form;
• Earlier ice breakup and earlier peaks in spring
runoff will change the timing of stream flows, and
increases in heavy rainstorms may cause more
frequent flooding;
• More forest fires due to hotter and drier
conditions;
• Increased incidence of extreme events such as
severe storms and floods carrying sediment,
nutrients and other contaminates into tributaries
and the lake; and
• Increases in the number and severity of
summertime pollution episodes.
In the Lake Michigan watershed, a number of
mitigation measures are already underway. The
Chicago Climate Exchange and the LEED guidelines
for buildings are two examples of these measures. As
climate change adds stress to many of the current
Lake Michigan problems, green infrastructure tools
become a high priority that must move from
"examples" to the way to sustain communities.
As an example of moving from planning to reality,
Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed Executive Order
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Green Infrastructure
Overview Resources
(Climate Change
Adaptation)
Green infrastructure is an interconnected network of
green space that conserves natural ecosystem values
and functions and provides associated benefits to
human populations. The following are a series of
resources for further protecting and developing green
infrastructure.
USEPA Low Impact Development page:
www.epa.aov/owow/nps/lid
Low Impact Development Center:
www.lowimpactdevelopment.ora
Conservation Design Resource Manual:
Language and Guidelines for Updating Local
Ordinances, www.chicaaowilderness.org/
pubprod/miscpdf/CD Resource Manual.pdf
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Organizations
Network, http://nemo.uconn.edu/
Center for Watershed Protection, An Introduction
to Better Site Design www.cwp.org/
better site design.htm
Town of Fronklin, Mgssgchusetts, The Franklin Best
Development Practices Guidebook
www.fronklin.mg.us/town/plonning/
HANDBOOK.PDF
U.S. Depgrtment of Housing ond Urbgn
Development, The Practice of Low Impoct
Development, www.huduser.org/Publicgtions/
PDF/proctLowlmpctDevel.pdf.
Prince George's County Low Impoct Design
Strategies, www.epg.gov/owow/nps/lid/
lidnotl.pdf
Plgnning with Power, Purdue University,
www.plonningwithpower.org
0 The Relgtionship Between Lond Use Decisions
ond the Impgcts on Our Woter gnd Ngtural
Resources, www.plonningwithpower.org/pubs/
id 260.pdf
0 Impgcts of Development on Woterwgys,
www.plgnningwithpower.org/pubs/id-257.htm
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Wisconsin Sea Grant Develops
Online Planning Guide for
Coastal Communities
(Climate Change Adaptation)
The University of Wisconsin Seo Grant program developed
on online plonning guide for communities locoted on the
Greot Lgkes. Communities situoted on the Greot Lgkes in
Wisconsin foce g vgriety of chollenges in developing
comprehensive plons to guide future growth ond
development. In oddition to oil the elements of o
comprehensive plon thgt inlgnd communities must
oddress (e.g., housing, transportation, infrastructure, land
use, etc.), coastal communities also must tackle the
preservation and sustainable use of coastal amenities,
and the reduction of coastal hazards.
The Great Lakes Coastal Communities section of the
Community Planning Resource Website provides a toolkit
to support comprehensive planning and sustainable
development along the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior
coasts of Wisconsin. The website includes:
• A Planning Guide
• Information on Hazards Planning
• Plan Examples
• Laws and Regulations
• Training Materials
• Additional Links
• Maps and Data
• News and Events
More information is available at:
http://www.aaua.wisc.edu/cpr/
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Index of Sustainability
Web Pages
The USEPA Sustainability web site examines sustainability
and provides links to USEPA programs and tools in four key
areas: the Built or Human-created Environment; Water,
Ecosystems and Agriculture; Energy and the Environment;
and Materials and Toxics. Links to the programs and tools
are organized in three categories: Policies and Programs;
Research, Tools and Technologies; and Assessments and
Performance Measures.
More information is available at: www.epa.aov/
sustainabilitv/index.htm and
www.epa.aov/sustainabilitv/links.htm
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Chicago Climate Exchange
Trading System for Climate
Change Mitigation
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has developed an
integrated greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading
system includes a full portfolio of offset projects. CCX is-
sues tradable Carbon Financial Instrument® (CFI™) con-
tracts to owners or aggregators of eligible projects on the
basis of sequestration, destruction or reduction of GHG
emissions.
All CCX offsets are issued on a retrospective basis, with the
CFI vintage applying to the program year in which the
GHG reduction took place. Projects must undergo third
party verification by a CCX approved verifier. All verifica-
tion reports are then inspected for completeness by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA, formerly
NASD).
Offset projects can be registered by Members, Offset Pro-
viders and Offset Aggregators. Offset Providers and Offset
Aggregators do not have significant GHG emissions. Enti-
ties that have significant GHG emissions are eligible to sub-
mit offset project proposals only if they have committed
to commit their own emissions to the CCX Emission Reduc-
tion Schedule as Members. Offset projects involving less
than 10,000 metric of CO2 equivalent per year should be
registered and sold through an Offset Aggregator. The
terms of the business and legal relationships between ag-
gregators and offset project owners are left to the discre-
tion of those parties.
CCX has developed standardized rules for issuing CFI con-
tracts for the following types of projects:
• Agricultural methane
• Coal mine methane
• Landfill methane
• Agricultural soil carbon
• Rangeland soil carbon management
• Forestry
• Renewable energy
Traders moved 100,496 carbon contracts in February 2008
which equaled half of the total 2007 volume of 224,375.
More information is available at:
www.chicaaoclimateexchanae.com.
145 that requires that new state buildings be
constructed with "green" design".
The following are activities related to climate change
that support mitigation and adaptation in the basin.
• The National Summit on Coping with Climate
Change took place on May 8-10, 2007, in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. The summit brought together
leading scientists and scholars with key decision
makers in a structured discussion that addressed
the options available to institutions, firms, and
societies in the U.S. for adapting and responding
to climate change. The summit focused on four
specific sectors that represent illustrative
examples of the social, economic, environmental,
and natural resource issues that need to be
addressed. The chosen areas of focus were
Public Health, the Energy Industry, Water Quality,
and Fisheries. The summit then turned its attention
to general models for how different kinds of
organizations, within these sectors and more
generally, can put into place structures or
processes that help them to anticipate and
adapt to near- and long-term change.
Background papers and other information about
the summit are available on the internet at http://
www.snre.umich.edu/climate change/
sector papers.
• US EPA Region 5 recently released its climate
change strategy, entitled USEPA Region 5
Framework for Addressing Climate Change and
Clean Energy, (available at http://www.epa.gov/
region5/aboutr5/climatechange.htm). The
framework focuses on:
• Changing how our energy is produced;
• Changing how our energy is used;
• Changing how materials, products, and waste
are managed; and
• Integrating climate change considerations into
US EPA operations and core programs.
• The Pileus Project is coordinated by Michigan
State University (MSU) and US EPA's Office of
Research and Development. This project
provides useful climate information to assist
decision makers. The current focus is on two
leading industries in the Great Lakes region:
agriculture and tourism. Through the use of
climate models and participatory workshops,
Pileus seeks to: provide a better understanding of
historical climate trends, variability, and their past
impacts on people and industry; evaluate how
future climate trends and variability may impact
people and industry, using newly developed,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Green Infrastructure Policy
Ben Grumbles, USEPA Assistant Administrator for Water outlined a Green Infrastructure policy in 2007 that is not just for USEPA
but is a shared effort with states, tribes, local governments and watershed groups.
Green infrastructure can be both a cost effective and an environmentally preferable approach to reduce stormwater and
other excess flows entering combined or separate sewer systems in combination with, or in lieu of, centralized hard
infrastructure solutions. EPA Water Programs are in a pivotal position to exert leadership in the consistent and reliable
implementation of green infrastructure approaches.
Several cities, searching for alternatives to traditional hardscape solutions to wet weather discharge problems, have
initiated some green infrastructure approaches. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)has recently published a
document with information and case studies on these efforts. EPA urges the use of green infrastructure approaches
described in the NRDC report. Rooftops to Rivers: Green strategies for controlling stormwater and combined sewer
overflows (NRDC, June 2006) is available at: www.nrdc.ora/water/pollution/rooftops/contents.asp
Green infrastructure approaches essentially infiltrate, evapotranspirate or reuse stormwater, with significant utilization of soils
and vegetation rather than traditional hardscape collection, conveyance and storage structures. Common green
infrastructure approaches include green roofs, trees and tree boxes, rain gardens, vegetated swales, pocket wetlands,
infiltration planters, vegetated median strips, reforestation, and protection and enhancement of riparian buffers and
floodplains. Green infrastructure can be used where soil and vegetation can be worked into the landscape. It is most
effective when supplemented with other decentralized storage and infiltration approaches, such as the use of permeable
pavement, and rain barrels and cisterns to capture and re-use rainfall for watering plants or flushing toilets. These
approaches can be used to keep rainwater out of the sewer system to reduce sewer overflows and to reduce the amount
of untreated stormwater discharging to surface waters.
Green infrastructure facilitates or mimics natural processes that also recharge groundwater, preserve base flows, moderate
temperature impacts, and protect hydrologic and hydraulic stability.
Green infrastructure has a number of benefits:
• Cleaner Water -Vegetation and green space reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and, in combined systems, the
volume of combined sewer overflows.
• Enhanced Water Supplies -Most green infiltration approaches result in stormwater percolation through the soil to
recharge the groundwater and the base flow for streams.
• Cleaner Air-Trees and vegetation improve air quality by filtering many airborne pollutants and can help reduce the
amount of respiratory illness.
• Reduced Urban Temperatures -Summer city temperatures can average 10°F higher than nearby suburban
temperatures. High temperatures are linked to higher ground level ozone concentrations. Vegetation creates shade,
reduces the amount of heat absorbing materials and emits water vapor -all of which cool hot air.
• " Increased Energy Efficiency -Greenspace helps lower ambient temperatures and helps shade and insulate buildings,
decreasing energy needed for heating and cooling.
• Community Benefits -Trees and plants improve urban aesthetics and community livability by providing recreational and
wildlife areas and can raise property values.
• Cost Savings -Green infrastructure may save capital costs on digging big tunnels and stormwater ponds, operations and
maintenance expenses for treatment plants, pipes, and other hard infrastructure; energy costs for pumping water; and
costs of wet weather treatment and of repairing stormwater and sewage pollution impacts, such as streambank
restoration.
The Office of Water is working with a coalition of organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, and the Low Impact Development Center, to develop additional strategies
for green infrastructure approaches to water quality challenges.
More information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/qreeninfrastructure.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
LEED Certification of Green
Buildings
Mitigating Climate Change
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary, consensus-
based national standard for developing high-
performance, sustainable buildings. LEED standards in-
clude:
• New commercial construction and major renovations
• Existing building operations
• Commercial interiors projects
• Core and shell projects
• Homes
• Neighborhood development
LEED was created to:
• define "green building" by establishing a common
standard of measurement
• promote integrated, whole-building design practices
• recognize environmental leadership in the building
industry
• stimulate green competition
• raise consumer awareness of green building benefits
• transform the building market
LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building
performance and meeting sustainability goals. LEED em-
phasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site de-
velopment, water savings, energy efficiency, materials
selection and indoor environmental quality.
The U.S. Green Building Council is currently working with
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); and the Illuminating En-
gineering Society of North America (IESNA) to develop
proposed Standard 189, Standard for the Design of High-
Performance Green commercial Buildings.
The proposed standard will apply to new commercial
buildings and major renovation projects, addressing sus-
tainable sites, water use efficiency, energy efficiency, a
building's impact on the atmosphere, materials and re-
sources, and indoor environmental quality.
Standard 189P will be an ANSI-accredited standard that
can be incorporated into a building code. It is intended
that the standard will eventually become a prerequisite
under LEED.
More information is available at: wwwjJsg]3a,OTCL/
climate-related models; and create an economic
framework which explicitly incorporates climate
into the decision-making process. Stakeholders
and researchers from the Pileus Project are
building on each other's experiences, pooling
expertise, and expanding knowledge about
climate impacts on industry. The core research
team is located at MSU and consists of scientists
from diverse disciplines. For more information
about the Pileus Project, see http://
pileus.msu.edu.
• Teaming-up to create a resource on adaptive
management are King County, Washington, the
University of Washington, and ICLEI - Local
Governments for Sustainability, who have recently
produced Preparing for Climate Change: a
Guidebook for Local, Regional and State
Governments. The guidebook is one of the first
major local government resources on planning for
the impacts of climate change. It is available
online and can be downloaded for free, http://
cses.washinaton.edu/db/pdf/
snoveretalab574.pdf.
• The Midwest Governors signed an agreement
leading the way toward increasing energy
efficiency, expanding community-based energy
development, and establishing a statewide goal
to reduce GHG emissions.
• The National Governor's Association (NGA),
chaired by Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota,
has developed a publication entitled Securing a
Clean Energy Future: A Call to Action, which
outlines a strategy for reducing dependence on
oil and reducing emissions of GHGs. Securing a
Clean Energy Future: A Call to Action. 2008.
Available at http://www.subnet.naa.ora/ci/scef/.
Water-Resources Issues
The Great Lakes basin contains 95 percent of the
fresh surface water in North America and 18 percent
of the fresh surface water in the world. Ground water
underlying the basin constitutes another large volume
of freshwater. Humans, animals, and plants have
adapted to this abundance in water resources. Yet,
even in this water-rich area, water withdrawals,
diversions, and use sometimes conflict with the needs
of other users and ecosystems in the basin. For
example, pumping of large water-supply wells in
Wisconsin and Illinois has lowered ground-water levels
in the area, increasing pumping costs and levels of
such contaminants as radium. Because the Great
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Managing Stormwater for Sustainability
Climate Change Adaptation
Overviews
• Catching the Rain: a Great Lakes Resource Guide for Natural Stormwater Management, American Rivers
www.americanrivers.ora/site/PaaeServer?paaename=AR7 CatchinatheRain.
• An Eight-Step Approach to Stormwater Retrofitting: How to Get Them Implemented, Center for Watershed Protec-
tion, www.cwp.org/retrofit article.htm.
• Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting Implementation Guidance, USEPA
www.epa.aov/npdes/pubs/watershedpermittina finalauidance.pdf.
• Stormwater BMP Design Supplement for Cold Climates, Center for Watershed Protection, www.cwp.org/cold-
climates.htm.
• Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Technical Reference Manual, Lake County, Illinois,
www.co.lake.il.us/smc/reaulatorv/tac/refmanual.asp.
Example Stormwater Ordinances
• Stormwater Ordinances, www.stormwatercenter.net.
• Stormwater Manual Builder, www.stormwatercenter.net.
• Watershed Development Ordinance, Lake County Illinois, www.co.lake.il.us/smc/reaulatorv/wdo/default.asp
• Post-Construction Stormwater Management Ordinances, USEPA www.epa.aov/owow/nps/ordinance/
postcons.htm.
• Post-Construction Stormwater Management Ordinances, Stormwater Center, www.stormwatercenter.net/Model%
20Ordinances/Post%20Construction%20Stormwater%20Manaaement/post construction runoff control.htm.
• Operation and Maintenance Criteria for Stormwater Practices, www.stormwatercenter.net/Model%
20Ordinances/Operation%20&%20Maintenance.htm.
• Grand Traverse County, Michigan Soil Erosion and Stormwater Runoff Control Ordinance, including construction
and post-construction runoff control. www.stormwatercenter.net/Model%20Ordinances/Post%20Construction%
20Stormwater%20Manaaement/arand traverse county soil erosi.htm.
Lakes basin contains so many communities, industries,
and ecosystems that depend on quantities of water
and because competition for available water is
intensifying, there is a need to quantify the region's
water resources and the trends affecting them so
that the potential for possible future water-use
conflicts can be reduced or avoided.
In recent years, numerous government agencies,
commerce, industry, and the general public all have
expressed concern about potential large withdrawals
of water within the Great Lakes basin. In response,
the Great Lakes States and Canadian Provinces
signed the Great Lakes Charter Annex Implementing
Agreements in December 2005. Illinois, Indiana,
Minnesota, and New York have approved the
agreement. These multi-state and binational
agreements commit the States and Provinces to
more effective water-resources management. This
commitment requires a more detailed understanding
of the region's water resources and a synthesis of
available data and information.
Great Lakes Water Availability and Use
At the request of Congress, the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) is assessing the availability and use of
the Nation's water resources to gain a clearer
understanding of the status of our water resources
and the land-use, water-use, and natural climatic
trends that affect them. The goal of the National
Assessment of Water Availability and Use Program is
to improve our ability to forecast water availability for
future economic and environmental uses. Simply put,
the assessment will help characterize how much
water we have now, how water availability is
changing, and how much water we can expect to
have in the future.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Currently, the assessment is focused on the Great
Lakes basin (See Figure 6-1) to determine the best
methods to evaluate water resources, both surface
and ground water and to develop strategies for
delivering information about water availability and
use. Planned activities for the pilot study include
estimation of: (1) recent monthly streamflows; (2)
spatial and temporal trends in streamflow
characteristics, ground-water recharge, groundwater
flow, and ground-water storage; (3) basin ground-
water divides; and (4) consumptive water use. Other
water-resources regions will be added to the
assessment as evaluation methods improve and as
funding permits. More information is available at:
http://water.usas.aov/oaw/awrp/activities/
wateravail pilot.html.
Ground-Water-Flow Models in the
Lake Michigan Basin
Application of ground-water-flow models is one of
the most comprehensive ways to synthesize ground-
water data and to analyze the response of a ground-
water system to changes in the system, such as
increased pumping rates, changes in pumping
locations, changes in recharge, and climate
variations. Regional models that simulate ground-
water flow will greatly improve the overall
understanding of ground-water conditions in the
Great Lakes basin and provide a quantitative
framework to help manage water resources in ways
consistent with the Great Lakes Charter Annex
agreements. Comprehensive ground-water-flow
models are complex and time consuming to
develop; therefore, the entire Great Lakes basin
could not be modeled for this study. Instead, a
ground-water-flow model of the Lake Michigan
subbasin is being developed because (1) the entire
watershed is in the United States, and many datasets
already are available within the USGS; (2) ground
water is withdrawn from bedrock and glacial-deposit
aquifers, both of which are important aquifer systems
throughout the Great Lakes basin; (3) important issues
related to ground-water and surface-water
interaction can be simulated with the model; (4)
ground-water withdrawals in the Lake Michigan
subbasin may affect the locations of ground-water
f
t
1
v" * f*>
. CANADA (*""* Thunder Bay Marathon V <•**-.
V*»*' V. • .~ i-
Trols Rrvl&res
Ma rquette "~™- -Sau It Ste. Ma rlc
SanltSte Marie v_
<
Petoskey
Huron
Traverse City ^
V
Bay City, /
•Saginaw /
EXPLANATION
Great Lakes Drainage Basin V,^'^ -3
US A/Canada border
» Dties/towns
\ Ground-water withdrawal
'•-.'$•• rate, in millions of gallons per day
Portage' / South Bentf Elkhart,'
Michigan City Mlshawaka GosJien
Battle CraoK.'
Jackson
i« MILES
0 50 ICOKlOMETEflS
Sen i co map. Envi i orvnanl Canada
Figure 6-1 Groundwater Withdrawals in the Great Lakes Region
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
divides with Lakes Superior, Huron, and Erie; and (5)
problems caused by large-scale ground-water
withdrawals have been documented in the subbasin.
In addition, one or more separate models within the
Lake Michigan subbasin will be developed
specifically to simulate ground-water and surface-
water interaction in smaller watersheds because this
is an important component of the water balance not
only here but elsewhere in the Great Lakes basin.
These models will be used to test new techniques for
simulating the interactions of ground water and
surface water at the appropriate scale. More
information is available at
http://pubs.usas.aov/fs/2005/3113.
Lake Levels
The water-level elevations of Lakes Michigan, Huron,
Erie, and Ontario have varied about 6 feet since
1860, when accurate records of lake levels were first
recorded. Water levels in Lake Superior varied about
3 feet during the same interval. Prehistoric variations
were much greater and were strongly correlated with
climate change. Changes in water levels of the
Great Lakes constitute the largest changes in the
amount of water in the region. The Great Lakes basin
study will summarize what is known about lake levels
over the past 4,700 years. This analysis of lake levels
will help put recent low lake levels into perspective,
especially given the prospect of future global
warming.
Lake Michigan was measured at 2 feet below the
long-term average in 2001, having dropped more
than 40 inches since 1997 when it was at near record
highs. Levels increased for the 2002, but were still
below average. The decrease in precipitation over
the last five years resulted in Lake Michigan hitting its
lowest point since 1966. Lake levels rose between the
mid 1960s and the late 1990s.
The lower lake levels cause problems for the shipping
and boating industry. Cargo ships are forced to
lighten their loads, and many boat ramps become
inaccessible. According to the U.S. Great Lakes
Shipping Association, for every inch of water that
Lake Michigan loses, a cargo ship must reduce its
load by 90 to 115 metric tons, leading to losses of
between $22,000 and $28,000 per trip.
Early reports for 2008 indicate that the lake remains
below average even after a cold, wet winter. The
fluctuation may be part of a 30 year cycle but
Climate Change Mitigation Strategies
Illinois Green Neighborhood Award Act
The Illinois Green Neighborhood Award Act is intended to
provide support for sustainably designed neighborhoods
which are known to reduce energy consumption,
encourage strong local economies, and improve public
health. The Act provides incentives for development
projects in Illinois that are consistent with LEED_ND standards
of the U.S. Green Building Council, Congress for the New
Urbanism, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for
Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) is an extention of
LEED certification, the nationally accepted benchmark for
the design, construction and operation of high-
performance green buildings. Grants are available for up
to 1.5% of the total project development costs through the
department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, the
result will reduce energy consumption equal to $554 per
household annually and reduce dependence on cars and
gasoline that leads to $2,594 annual savings per household.
Chicago Climate Change Comprehensive Strategy
Chicago, under the direction of Mayor Richard M. Daley, is
developing a comprehensive strategy to address climate
change. Work began in December 2006 and the full
research findings, strategy and a measureable plan will be
released in 2008 . Key to the extensive nature of the
research and detailed plans was a base of foundation
support (The Joyce, Grand Victoria, Lloyd A. Fry, and
William J. Clinton Foundations). A large group of
stakeholders make up a task force, advisory and
communication committees to helped guide the work.
deserves closer monitoring. Levels have remained
lower for longer than they have in recorded history.
The 1964 low level was 576.1 feet.
There are other potential factors affecting the levels.
The International Joint Commission has proposed a
study to investigate possible physical changes in the
upper St. Clair River that may be causing water level
changes in Lakes Michigan and Huron, this work
would revise its upper Great Lakes Plan of study.
Lake Level Monitoring
Current Lake Michigan levels can be monitored
online through a new National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration website,
http://alakesonline.nos.noaa.gov. The site provides
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Long-term Average and Current Lake Michigan-Huron Water Levels
Lake Michigan-Huron Woter Levels in Meters (IQLDB5)
175.5
Figure 6-1 Long-term average water levels in Lakes Michigan-Huron
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON WATER LEVELS - APRIL 2008
£HS$T DATUM &??.•
LAKES MICHIfiAN-HUlllON
' sm IMS
11U '^ 1381 ttU
HB • mi mi
LEGEMD
- Mciiiinum s^xl H
Figure 6-2 Lakes Michigan-Huron Water Levels, April 2006 - April 2008
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Toolbox
Climate Change and Water
Quality
Climate Change Adaptation
A May 2007 National Summit at the University of Michigan:
Coping with Climate Change highlighted the potential
economic impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes
region. Many of the speakers referenced the conclusions
and recommendations of a 2003 IJC Water Quality Board
report entitled "Climate Change and Water Quality in the
Great Lakes Basin" (http://www.iic.ora/php/publications/
html/climate/index.html).
The report focuses on the need to adapt to changes in cli-
mate in order to ensure effective protection of the environ-
ment and maintain the region's economic strength.
immediate water level and meteorological data from
water level stations. There is a six minute interval
between data readings, and NOAA plans for real
time wind speed and direction data, in addition to
barometric pressure and air temperature data. This
augments the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website
that provides water level information
http://huron.lre.usace.armv.mil/levels/hmpglv.html.
Land Use Impacts Water Quality
The urbanized land area in the United States has
quadrupled since 1954. To compound the problem,
populations in coastal areas, which contain some of
the most sensitive ecosystems, have been increasing
even faster than in the rest of the country. From 1982
to 1996, the population in the Chicago-Northwest
Indiana area grew by 10.9 percent but consumed
44.2 percent of the land. (Urban Roadway
Congestion: Annual Report 1998) Wetlands, which
naturally help control runoff from urban areas by
storing flood and surface water and slowly releasing
and filtering it, have been destroyed in the Lake
Michigan basin to a greater degree than elsewhere
in the country.
USEPA's Office of Environmental Information states
that "the construction of impervious surfaces such as
roads and rooftops leads to the degradation of water
quality by increasing runoff volume, altering regular
stream flow and watershed hydrology, reducing
groundwater recharge, and increasing stream
sedimentation and water acidity." A 1-acre parking
The Lake Michigan Toolbox:
The Sustainable Sites Initiative
Climate Change Mitigation
The Sustainable Sites Initiative is an interdisciplinary partner-
ship between the American Society of Landscape Archi-
tects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, the United
States Botanic Garden and a diverse group of stakeholder
organizations to develop guidelines and standards for land-
scape sustainability. The motivation behind this initiative
stems from the desire to protect and enhance the ability of
landscapes to provide services such as climate regulation,
clean air and water, and improved quality of life. Sustain-
able Sites™ is a cooperative effort with the intention of sup-
plementing existing green building and landscape guide-
lines as well as becoming a stand-alone tool for site sustain-
ability.
More information is available at: www.sustainablesites.ora/
lot produces a runoff volume 16 times as large as that
produced by an undeveloped meadow. Many
impervious construction materials have higher
surface temperatures that may cause ambient air
temperatures to rise. When combined with a
decrease in natural vegetation, areas are subject to
what is called the urban heat island phenomenon,
which may increase utility bills, cause health
problems associated with heat stress, and accelerate
formation of harmful smog. Clearly the effect of
urban development on our communities and
environment is a cross-cutting issue.
Oil and Gas Drilling in the Great Lakes
Due to the high cost of fuel, there has been renewed
interest in tapping oil and natural gas reserves below
the Great Lakes. In the Great Lakes basin, much of
these resources lie under the lakes themselves.
Drilling under the lakes raises concerns because a spill
would lead to harm of the world's single largest
source of freshwater providing drinking water to 33
million people.
Due to this concern, an amendment to the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2002
prohibited all federal and state governments from
issuing leases or permits for new oil and gas
directional or offshore drilling in or under the Great
Lakes for two years. This moratorium was made
permanent in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Michigan's legislature passed legislation that would
ban all direct and directional drilling in its portion of
the Great Lakes basin. Furthermore, a proposed
natural gas pipeline for lake bed of Lake Michigan
from Wisconsin to Indiana was withdrawn in 2001.
Currently in the Lake Michigan basin, only Illinois has
never issued an oil or gas mineral lease for Lake
Michigan bottomlands. Indiana has permitted limited
exploratory drilling, but no oil or gas has been
produced. Wisconsin allows drilling for oil and gas in
certain circumstances and, in the past, Michigan has
allowed drilling that begins on land with the pipes
"slanting" under the lake.
Brookings Institute Studies:
Building Leadership for
North America's Fresh Coast
Over the last two years, the Great Lakes Economic Initiative
for the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings
Institute has produced three studies aimed at the
economic leadership and stability for the binational Great
Lakes region.
The recommendations offered by the Institute are
organized around a limited set of ambition goals, goals that
would serve to prioritize and unify efforts.
• By 2010, develop a binational innovation fund and
strategy
• By 2010, redevelop North America's freshwater coast
• By 2015, define and implement the U.S.-Canada
"Border of the Future"
• By 2025, realize binational Great Lakes carbon goals
and renewable energy standards
• By 2030, create a common market for commerce and
human capital
More information is available at \w^/,MQQMnas,e(lu/nietro.
In July 2008, 460 sailboats and more than 4,500 sailors
will flood the Straits area during the 100th sailing of
Chicago Yacht Club's Race to Mackinac, filling the
Mackinac Island marina and spilling over into St.
Ignace and Mackinaw City, Ml. This is the world's
longest freshwater sailing race at 333 miles.
Photo courtesy of Darren Beck
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 7
Are sediments, air, land, and water sources or pathways of
contamination that affect
What is our target for SUStainability? Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
A basin where remedial action needs have been
accomplished and materials in use are the least harmful NOT MIXED
SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING
to the environment and are used and disposed of in an
environmentally sensitive manner in the basin and
around the world.
Why is this important?
Pollutants are transported via different pathways leading
to multiple approaches needed to address pollutant
sources. The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study has
made a detailed examination of four categories of
pollutants and their impacts on pollutant loading on the
lake. The findings of the study allow decision-makers to
better understand pollution pathways and adopt policies to address pollutant sources.
What is the current status?
• PCBs. PCB concentrations in fish over the past 30 years show a downward trend from peak levels in the 1970s for all
media. Atmospheric deposition is the major current route of PCBs to the lake (from sources inside and outside the
basin) with the Chicago area being a significant source of atmospheric PCBs. The most recent data also exhibit a
decline, however, this indicates that the rate of decline is slowing and concentrations in lake trout remain above
desired levels.
• Mercury. The current major source of mercury to the lake is from atmospheric deposition. Modeling results suggest
that a significant amount of the existing mercury settling out of water is being recycled back into the system. Most
Lake Michigan lake trout and coho salmon exceed the USEPA guidelines for unrestricted consumption.
• Atrazine. Observed and forecasted lake-averaged concentrations of atrazine are well below USEPA biological
effects thresholds with tributaries serving as the major transporter of atrazine runoff from agricultural fields to the lake.
Atrazine is very persistent in Lake Michigan with decay estimated at less than 1% per year and concentrations
forecasted to increase in the lake under present loads (1994-1995 constant load).
• Phosphorus. Tributaries are the major source of phosphorus to Lake Michigan, but Lake Michigan open lake
phosphorus loads and concentrations are low and below GLWQA and IJC targets. Highest concentrations can be
observed in selected nearshore zones near tributary mouths and in Green Bay.
• Urban Runoff. An increase in urbanization is leading to an increase in nonpoint source runoff in the basin. Many cities,
however, are working to reduce the impacts of runoff through pollution prevention programs and stormwater retrofits
and implementation of Phase II of the Stormwater regulations.
• Agricultural Runoff. The Lake Michigan basin has a high concentration of agricultural enterprises where animals are
kept and raised in confined environments. Polluted runoff from animal feeding operations is a leading source of
water pollution in some watersheds.
• Areas of Concern. Areas of Concern have seen significant strides in remediation, although none of the lake Michigan
basin AOCs have been delisted. Work is currently focused on a BUI by BUI approach with Manistique the first to delist
a BUI.
• Climate Change. Temperatures impact on pollutants and their interaction with the aquatic environment
What are the major challenges?
• Impacts of climate change
• Lack of comprehensive understanding of pollutant movement and remediation makes the goal of reaching
sustainability by 2020 difficult
• Impacts of increased global mercury emissions
• Increasing monitoring of existing and emerging stressors on the lake
• Need to set delisting targets for Areas of Concern and resources to implement cleanup actions
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are the next steps?
• Develop a better understanding of the natural dynamics that affect pollutant distribution in the Lake Michigan
ecosystem and why near shore and open lake can have wide variances.
• Reduce pollutant loads with effective pollution control measures with a focus on nutrients and mercury.
• Build on the coordinated monitoring of 2005 and develop a 10-year trend analysis based on the 1 994-95 mass balance
project.
• Review contaminated sediment sites and their status and update the status of the Legacy Act funding or delisting
opportunities.
• Research nutrient contributions from the agricultural sector and nonpoint sources during wet weather and determine if
nutrient levels are linked to Cladophora blooms.
• Develop Impaired Waters Strategy.
• Promote phase-out of grandfathered in PCB use in equipment, and phosphorus in detergents, and fertilizers.
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• Nitrogen Removal
• Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection and Nonpoint Source Control
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator #111- Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Lake Michigan Status: Open Lake - Good; Nearshore -
Poor; Trend: Open Lake - Improving; Nearshore -
Undetermined
Indicator #114- Contaminants in Youna-of-the-Year
Spottail Shiners
Lake Michigan Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator #115- Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
Waterbirds
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator #117- Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Chemicals
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving (for PCBs, banned
organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans) /
Unchanging or slightly improving (for PAHs and mercury)
Indicator #118 -Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore
Waters
Lake Michigan Status: Fair; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator #119- Concentrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores
Status: Mixed Trend: Improving/Undetermined
Indicator # 121 - Contaminants in Whole Fish
Lake Michigan Status: Fair; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 124 - External Anomaly Prevalence Index for
Nearshore Fish
Indicator # 4177 - Biological Markers of Human Exposure to
Persistent Chemicals
Lake Michigan Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 4201 - Contaminants in Sport Fish
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 4202 - Air Quality
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 4501 - Coastal Wetland Invertebrate
Community Health
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 4502 - Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 4506 - Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicgtor # 7028 - Sustoingble Agriculture Practices
Stgtus: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicotor # 7061 - Nutrient Monggement Plgns
Stgtus: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicotor # 7062 - Integrated Pest Mgnggement
Stgtus: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicotor # 7064 - Vehicle Use
Stotus: Poor; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicgtor # 7065 - Wostewgter Tregtment gnd Pollution
Stotus: Not Assessed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicotor # 8135 - Contomingnts Affecting Productivity of
Bold Eggles
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicotor # 9000 - Acid Roin
Stgtus: Mixed; Trend: Improving
For more informotion on stotus of indicotors, see http://www.epo.gov/solec/sogl2007/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project
What It Tells Us
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) Project is
an enhanced monitoring and modeling project that
is working to develop a scientific base of information
to inform LaMP policy decisions and better
understand the science of pollutants within an
ecosystem (USEPA 1995; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1997d;
1997e; Richardson et al. 1999; USEPA 2001 d) . The
LMMB Project's specific objectives are:
• To identify relative loading rates of four categories
of pollutants (PCBs, mercury, trans-nonachlor, and
atrazine) entering Lake Michigan from major
media (air, tributaries, and sediments);
• To establish baseline loading estimates in 1994-95
against which to gauge future information;
• To develop the predictive ability through the use
of models to determine the environmental
benefits of specific load reduction scenarios for
toxic substances and the time required to realize
those benefits;
• To improve our understanding of key
environmental processes governing the
movement of pollutants through and out of the
lake (cycling) and fish and plant life
(bioavailability) within this large freshwater
ecosystem; and
• In addition, 11 tributary mouths were sampled for
nutrients.
The LMMB Project focused on sampling and
constructing mass balance models for a limited
group of pollutants. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), atrazine, phosphorus, trans-nonachlor, and
mercury were selected for inclusion in the LMMB
Project because these pollutants currently or
potentially pose a risk to aquatic and terrestrial
organisms (including humans) in the Lake Michigan
ecosystem and on the LaMP pollutant lists. These
pollutants were also selected to cover a wide range
of chemical and physical properties and represent
other classes of compounds which pose current or
potential problems. Once a mass budget for
selected pollutants is established and a mass
balance model calibrated, additional contaminants
can be modeled with sufficient data. For the LMMB
Study, models were calibrated using samples
collected and analyzed for such purposes by
numerous partners and collaborators (Hornbuckle et
al 1995; Hall and Robertson 1998; Hall et al 1998;
Hawley 1999; Robbins et al 1999; Green et al 2000;
Van Hoff 2000; Miller et al. 2001; USEPA 2001 a; 2001 b;
200 Ic; 200 le, 2002a, 2002b).
What It Does Not Tell Us
The data and models provide insights to the whole
lake ecosystem which may not represent data in any
given specific near shore area. The relationship of
the near shore to the open waters remains a topic
needing additional research.
Pathways of Pollution
Sediments, air, land, and water continue to be
sources or pathways of contamination that affect the
integrity of the Lake Michigan ecosystem. In the Lake
Michigan system, pollutant inputs may come from
atmospheric deposition, tributary loads, or sediments.
Pollutants may leave the system through volatilization
to the atmosphere, or discharge through the Straits of
Mackinac. Pollutants within the system may be
transformed through degradation or stored in
ecosystem compartments such as the sediments,
water column, or biota, including humans.
Cc
Sources of Pollutants
.. ,
•
Paniculate
Matter
• Local or lur>9 d.suncc-
transport
* Changes in chemical/
ptiyvic.il forms
man-made
sources
Figure 7-1 Pollutants enter and leave Lake Michigan
through several pathways
Source: www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/airdep
Augmented by Joseph F. Abboreno, LaMP 2002
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Resampling Results
Five of the original eleven Lake Michigan Mass Balance tributary sampling sites were resampled in 2005-2006. The
resampled sites were selected based on previously calculated loads of PCB and mercury to Lake Michigan; the resampled
sites included the Lower Fox in Wisconsin, the Grand Calumet Ship Canal in Indiana, and the Kalamazoo, Grand, and St.
Joseph Rivers in Michigan. Twelve (12) rounds of sampling were conducted at each of the five resampled tributary
monitoring sites.
Total Mercury Loads
Reductions in calculated total mercury loads relative to the loads calculated as part of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance
were observed in all five of the resampled sites (table 7-1).
Table 7-1. Calculated total mercury loads for the resampled sampling sites.
Site Load (Kg) Load (Kg) Min and Max Load (Kg)
1994-1995 2005-2006 Previous Years
Grand
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Grand Calumet Ship Canal
Fox
26
17
21
6
108
10
8
7
4.5
53
13.5 (2002); 24.8 (1999)
7.6 (2002); 13.3 (1999)
13.1 (2004); 32.1 (2001)
N/A
N/A
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Michigan District office of the U.S. Geological Survey
Michigan Water Science Center have been sampling the Grand, Kalamazoo, and St. Joseph Rivers for a variety of
constituents, including total mercury, since about 1999. Considering the loads calculated from the available data shows
how variable these numbers may be from year to year. The 1994-1995 load was nearly reached in 1999 on the Grand River.
In 2001 the load from the St. Joseph river exceeded that calculated during the 1994-1995 period.
Total PCB Loads
Reductions in total PCB loads relative to those calculated as part of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance were observed at all
five of the resampled sites (table 7-2).
Table 7-2. Calculated total PCB loads for the resampled sampling sites.
Site Load (Kg) Load (Kg)
1994-1995 2005-2006
Grand
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Grand Calumet Ship Canal
Fox
10
39
9.3
31
210
6.2
20
6.7
16
130
Year to year variations in flow and temperature make assessing changes in PCB loading rates a difficult proposition.
Considering the dissolved fraction of PCB during winter conditions minimized the effects of the confounding factors and
should offer a glimpse of the true trend in loading rates.
At the Lower Fox River, dissolved wintertime PCB concentrations have dropped from a median of about 3.5 ng/L to 1.5 ng/
L. This change suggests that natural recovery and active remediation on the Lower Fox River have resulted in a reduction in
wintertime PCB concentrations on the order of a factor of two in the 10 years since the completion of LMMB Project
sampling.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Confounding Factors
The calculated load reductions observed for both total PCB and total mercury may indeed be genuine; however several
factors suggest that the reduced loads might not be part of a larger trend, but are related to a number of confounding
factors. These factors include differences between flow regimes and sampling plans. Median flows for the 2005-2006
period were lower at all sites relative to the 1994-1995 median flow values; total annual flow volumes were less than 75% of
the total annual flow volumes observed during the LMMB for the Grand and Fox Rivers (table 7-3). The most dramatic
difference in flow regimes was observed at the Fox River site, where the May through September monthly median flow
values in 2005-2006 were up to several thousand cubic feet per second lower than the corresponding monthly median
values in 1994-1995.
Table 3. Median flows and comparison of total flow volumes for the resampled LMMB tributary monitoring sites.
Site 1994-1 995 (cfs) 2005-2006 (cfs) % of 1994-1 995 Flow Volume
Grand
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Grand Calumet Ship Canal
Fox
4360
1990
4100
459
3500
2838
1510
3006
407
3360
72.4 %
99.5 %
106%
89.0 %
74.1 %
Although the median flow values are consistently lower for the 2005-2006 period relative to the 1994-1995 period, the
extreme high flows were larger for the 2005-2006 period at the Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Grand Calumet sites (table 7-4).
Since an appreciable portion of the total mercury and total PCB load is driven by resuspension of contaminated sediment,
the higher ten percent exceedance flows might offset the effect of the lower median flow values for these sites.
Table 7-4. Ten percent exceedance flows for the resampled tributary monitoring sites.
Site 1994- 1995 (cfs) 2005-2006 (cfs)
Grand
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Grand Calumet Ship Canal
Fox
8640
2900
5900
486
6970
8131
3620
8255
525
5350
Budgetary constraints limited each of the five resampled sites to twelve (12) rounds of sampling. Numerical experiments
using suspended sediment data from the Lake Michigan Mass Balance confirm that calculating loads using a smaller pool
of observations decrease both the accuracy and precision of the load estimate (table 7-5). This makes detection of trends
much more difficult.
Table 7-5. Example of reduction in accuracy and precision of load estimate given a reduced level of sampling effort.
Sampling Scheme Computed Load and 95% Confidence Interval
ALL DATA (n=222):
MONTHLY DATA (n=12), 1st of month:
MONTHLY DATA (n=12), mid-month:
MONTHLY DATA (n=12), high-flow events:
1 28,700 MT + 7,300
1 1 8,500 MT ± 34,800
85,800 MT ± 1 3,800
1 41, 1 00 MT± 43,900
Conclusions
Reductions in calculated loads of both total mercury and total PCB relative to the loads calculated as part of the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance were observed in all five of the resampled sites. Hydrologic conditions at the Kalamazoo, St.
Joseph, and Grand Calumet sites suggest that the observed reductions in load are partly due to real changes in watershed
loading rates. It has been suggested that the half-life for PCB in the Lower Fox River is between 7 and 14 years.
Unfortunately, in order to detect even such a change as this given the confounding factors will require more sampling, or
the passage of more time in order that the effect size increases.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The LMMB Study used an integrated, multimedia
mass balance modeling approach (USEPA 1995;
1997a; Richardson et al. 1999) to evaluate the
sources, transport, and fate of contaminants in the
Lake Michigan ecosystem. The modeling framework
is a series of coupled and/or linked models which
integrates the physical, chemical, and biological
components of the system and accounts for the
dynamic interactions and processes in the system.
The mass balance approach is based upon the
principle of conservation of mass, which states that
the mass of a chemical contained in the lake is
equal to the amount entering the system, less the
amount leaving and chemically changed in the
system. In the Lake Michigan system, pollutant
inputs may come from atmospheric deposition,
tributary loads, and from sediments within the
system. Pollutants may leave the system through
discharge through the Straits of Mackinac,
permanent burial in bottom sediments, and
volatilization to the atmosphere. Pollutants within
the system may be transformed through
degradation or stored in the ecosystem
compartments such as the sediment, water column,
or biota, including humans.
The mass balance models rely on data and output
from multiple sources and were compiled into a
LMMB Study database (USEPA 2001 e).
Computational transport includes a hydrodynamic
model for advective/dispersive transport and
temperature and a surface wave model for wave
direction, height, and period; both use
meteorological data for input. The mass balance
components include sediment transport,
eutrophication, and contaminant transport and fate.
These models integrate atmospheric deposition and
tributary mass loadings. The food web models
receive chemical exposure concentrations and
bioavailability (chemical concentration in
phytoplankton) from the mass balance models and
are used to simulate and forecast contaminant
concentrations in the food web.
The modeling construct was applied to the study
contaminants, where appropriate, and used three
different spatial resolutions. Modeling results will be
provided for each of the contaminants at the highest
resolution that is presently available. The mass
balance was primarily designed to provide a
lakewide perspective of contaminant sources, fate,
transport and effects. However, with the present
spatial resolution design, selected aspects of the
contaminants can be addressed on a finer scale.
Information regarding Lake Michigan tributaries will
be provided from samples collected only from
tributary mouths.
Lake Michigan PCBs
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of
manmade, chlorinated, organic chemicals that
include 209 congeners, or specific PCB compounds.
The highly stable, nonflammable, non-conductive
properties of these compounds made them useful in
a variety of products including electrical transformers
and capacitors, plastics, rubber, paints, adhesives,
and sealants. PCBs were produced for such industrial
uses in the form of complex mixtures under the trade
name "Arochlor" and were commercially available
form 1930 through 1977, when the USEPA banned
their production due to environmental and public
health concerns (200 Ib).
PCB concentrations in fish over the past 30 years
(USEPA 2002a) show a downward trend from peak
levels in the 1970s. The most recent data also exhibit
a decline, however, this indicates that the rate of
decline is slowing and concentrations in lake trout
remain above desired levels. Similar trends are
occurring for other species. Declining concentrations
(IADN 2000; USEPA 2001 b; 2001 e; 2002a) are also
observed for other media. Although PCB
concentrations have been dramatically reduced in
all media since the 1970s, PCBs continue to
bioaccumulate above desired levels in fish as well as
other species. The LMMB Study was undertaken, in
part, to investigate this problem in detail and to
develop mathematical models that could be used to
project future concentrations in water, sediment, and
biota, with and without future remedial and/or
regulatory efforts (USEPA 1995; 1997a; Richardson et
al. 1999; USEPA 2001 d).
LMMB Major Findings: PCBs
• Forecasted PCB concentrations in lake trout may
permit unlimited consumption as early as 2039 at
Sturgeon Bay and 2044 at Saugatuck.
• PCB trends indicate that concentrations are
declining in all media.
• Atmospheric deposition is the major current route
of PCBs to the lake (from sources inside and
outside the basin).
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
• Chicago urban area is a substantial atmospheric
source of PCBs to Lake Michigan.
• There is a dynamic interaction among water,
sediments, and the atmosphere where large
masses of PCBs from sediments cycle into and out
of the lake via the atmosphere as vapor phase.
Lake Michigan Atrazine
Atrazine is one of the chloro-triazines, which also
include simazine and cyanazine. Atrazine is a widely
used herbicide for control of broadleaf and grassy
weeds in corn, sorghum, rangeland, sugarcane,
macadamia orchards, pineapple, turf grass sod,
forestry, grasslands, grass crops, and roses. In the
Lake Michigan basin, atrazine is used primarily on
corn crops and is usually applied in the spring before
or after emergence of the crop. Trade names for
atrazine include Aatrex, Alazine, Crisazina, Malermais,
Primatol, and Zeapos. Atrazine has been widely used
in the agricultural regions of the Great Lakes basin
since 1959 when it was registered for commercial use
in the United States. Atrazine was estimated to be
the most heavily used herbicide in the United States
in 1987 to 1989 with heavy use in Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio,
Texas, and Wisconsin. Peak total annual U.S. usage of
atrazine occurred in 1984 at 39.9 million kilograms.
Usage has been dropping since then and was
estimated at 33.8 million kilograms in 1995.
Unlike PCBs, the herbicide atrazine does not
bioaccumulate in organisms but does remain in the
water column. The two single-most important
atrazine loads to Lake Michigan are tributaries and
wet deposition (rain and snow). Decreases in
loadings from the tributaries are evident starting in
1985. A decreasing trend of loadings from the
atmosphere in the form of wet deposition is not as
evident. All of the estimates of tributary loadings
assumed that 0.6% of the applied active ingredient
(atrazine) reached Lake Michigan. This 0.6% is often
referred to as the Watershed Export Percentage
(WEP). Tributary loadings for 1989, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, and 1998 were based on actual records of
amounts applied per each county in the basin, and
calculating what portions of the amount applied in
those counties falls within a Lake Michigan Hydrologic
Unit Code area that eventually drains into the lake.
Tributary loading estimates for other years depicted
were based on total annual U.S. usage for those
years. For 1991, 1994, and 1995 wet deposition load
estimates were based on actual precipitation data
collect in the basin. Wet deposition loading
estimates for other years were based on total annual
U.S. usage for those years. Atmospheric loadings to
the lake are higher in the southern portions than in
the northern areas. The higher loadings in the south
are likely due to the close proximity of this area to
corn growing regions in the southern basin (Rygwelski
etal. 1999).
LMMB Major Findings: Atrazine
• Observed and forecasted lake-averaged
concentrations of atrazine are well below USEPA
biological effects thresholds.
• Tributaries are the major source of atrazine to the
lake.
• Atrazine is very persistent in Lake Michigan -
decay is estimated at less than 1% per year.
• Atrazine concentrations are forecasted to
increase in the lake under present loads (1994-
1995 constant load).
Lake Michigan Mercury
Mercury is a naturally-occurring metal in the
environment. Mercury is used in products such as
battery cells, barometers, thermometers, switches,
fluorescent lamps, and as a catalyst in the oxidation
of organic compounds. Global releases of mercury
to the environment are both natural and
anthropogenic (caused by human activity). Sources
of mercury releases include: combustion of various
fuels such as coal; mining, smelting and
manufacturing activities; wastewater; agricultural,
animal and food wastes. As an elemental metal,
mercury is extremely persistent in all media. Mercury
also bioaccummulates in fish tissue. Mercury is also a
possible human carcinogen and causes the following
human health effects: stomach, large intestine, brain,
lung, and kidney damage; blood pressure and heart
rate increase, and fetus damage (USEPA 2001 c).
Because of the possible human and ecological
effects of mercury, mercury was selected for study in
the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study as a
bioaccumulative metal. The objective of the mercury
investigation was to provide a mass balance for total
mercury (USEPA 1995; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1997d;
1997e; Richardson et al. 1999; USEPA 2001 d).
Methylmercury was not directly measured for the
LMMB Study, however, some information on this
parameter will be discussed.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Figure 7-2. Total mercury loads (kg/year) to Lake
Michigan from major monitored and unmonitored
tributaries.
Source:USEPA Office of Research and Development
Results of a dated sediment core provide a historical
perspective of mercury in Lake Michigan. Results
from a depositional basin indicate that
concentrations of mercury peaked in the mid 1940s
and have been declining since that time.
LMMB Major Findings: Mercury
• The current major source of mercury to the lake is
from atmospheric deposition.
• Most Lake Michigan lake trout and coho salmon
exceed the USEPA guidelines for unrestricted
consumption.
• Modeling results suggest that a significant
amount of the existing mercury settling out of
water is being recycled back into the system.
Nutrients - Eutrophication
Eutrophication from excessive nutrient loads and
nutrient concentrations has been under investigation
and has received control strategies in the Great
Lakes for the past 30 years.
LMMB Major Findings: Eutrophication
• Lake Michigan phosphorus loads and
concentrations are low and below GLWQA and
IJC targets.
Figure 7-3. Dissolved and Total Average Methylmercury
Concentrations in Monitored Tributaries.
Source:USEPA Office of Research and Development
• Tributaries are the major source of phosphorus to
Lake Michigan.
• Highest concentrations can be observed in
selected nearshore zones near tributary mouths
and in Green Bay.
• There is no evidence of increasing loads or
increasing concentrations in the open-water
through 2002; forecasts indicate relatively stable
phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations
into the future.
Pollutants and Pathways to Lake
Michigan
While the LMMB study focused on four pollutants to
develop a better understanding of pollutant fate
and transport within the Lake Michigan ecosystem,
many other pollutants are entering the ecosystem
through a variety of pathways. The following
discussion addresses recent investigations of four of
these pathways:
• Atmospheric deposition,
• Nonpoint source runoff, including combined sewer
overflows (CSO)
• Sediment, and
• Groundwater.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Atmospheric Deposition
The role of air pollution as an important contributor to
water pollution has long been recognized and has
been the subject of growing scientific study and
concern in recent years. Over the past three
decades, scientists have collected a large and
convincing body of evidence showing that toxic
chemicals released into the air can travel great
distances before they are deposited on land or
water. Most notably, PCBs and some persistent
pollutants (including several pesticides that have not
been used in significant amounts in the United States
since the 1970s) have been widely distributed in the
environment and are now part of the global
atmospheric background. Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act required congressional reports of the effect of
air deposition on the "Great Waters" of the United
States, including the Great Lakes where this pathway
was documented.
Loadings of pesticides whose use has been canceled
or restricted in the United States to Lake Michigan are
primarily from atmospheric sources that is impossible
to regulate or control. Although there are no current
commercial sources of banned pesticides in the
United States, loadings continue from use of
remaining consumer stocks, evaporation from soils,
resuspension of contaminated sediments, and
atmospheric transport from other countries that
continue to apply these substances. Further
pesticide reductions can only be achieved through
cleanup of contaminated sites, collection and
disposal of existing stockpiles ("clean sweeps"), and
use reduction in other countries. Between 1988 and
2001, USEPA Region 5 estimates that agricultural
clean sweeps have removed 1.9 million pounds of
pesticides from the Great Lakes basin.
While long-range atmospheric transport is an
important pollutant source for Lake Michigan, recent
studies also point to the influences of local sources,
particularly from urban areas. For example, air
sampling over Lake Michigan when the wind is
blowing from the southwest shows contributions of
PCBs, PAHs, and mercury from the Chicago area to
the lake. The relative importance of each pollutant
source to the overall loadings is variable depending
on the season and local weather conditions.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
According to the USEPA National Water Quality
Inventory Reports to Congress, states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions consider siltation and the over
enrichment of nutrients two of the three most
significant causes of impairment in many of the
streams throughout the Nation. Siltation alters
aquatic habitat and suffocates fish eggs and affects
other bottom dwelling organisms. Excessive nutrients
have not only been linked to hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico, but also to eutrophication and Cladophora
blooms in many of the bays and beaches around
Lake Michigan. Research in the 1960's and 70's linked
Cladophora blooms to high phosphorus levels in the
water, mainly as a result of agricultural runoff,
detergents containing phosphorus, inadequate
sewage treatment, and other human activities such
as fertilizing lawns and poorly maintained septic
systems (More information is available at
www.uwm.edu/Dept/GLWI/cladophora). Due to
tighter restrictions, phosphorus levels declined during
the 1970's and Cladophora blooms were largely
absent in the 1980's and 90's. Recently Cladophora
blooms are again a common occurrence along the
coast of Lake Michigan; however, the cause of these
blooms is unknown.
USEPA identifies polluted runoff as the most important
remaining uncontrolled source of water pollution and
provides for a coordinated effort to reduce polluted
runoff from a variety of sources. Previous technology-
based controls, such as secondary treatment of
sewage, effluent limitation guidelines for industrial
sources, point sources and management practices
for some nonpoint sources, have dramatically
reduced water pollution and laid the foundation for
further progress. However, nonpoint source loads
continue to turn rivers and streams into pollutant
pathways to the lake. Total maximum daily load
(TMDL) studies are needed for impaired tributaries to
identify the management measures needed to bring
them back into compliance with water quality
standards. Over the next several years, states will be
developing many TMDLs for pollutants entering into
water bodies from both point and nonpoint sources.
TMDLs will provide data to help manage water
quality on a watershed scale. See the watershed
fact sheets in Chapter 12.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Major sources of nonpoint pollution include urban
stormwater runoff, discharges from animal feeding
operations, cropland runoff, and episodic combined
sewer overflows. In addition, pollution can arrive via
air from outside a watershed.
Urban nonpoint source stormwater is water from rain
or snow that runs off city streets, parking lots,
construction sites, and residential yards. It can carry
sediment, oil, grease, toxicants, pesticides, pathogens,
and other pollutants into nearby storm drains. Once
this polluted runoff enters the storm sewer system, it is
discharged, usually untreated, into local streams and
waterways. It can contaminate drinking and
recreational waters and remains a major source of
beach closures.
In late 1999, USEPA promulgated rules to reduce
stormwater runoff from construction sites between 1
and 5 acres and municipal storm sewer systems in
urbanized areas serving populations of less than
100,000 through the issuance of permits. Generally,
these controls were required to be in place by 2008
and build on the existing program to control
stormwater runoff from municipalities with populations
greater than 100,000 and 11 industrial categories,
including construction disturbing over 5 acres. Under
the expanded program, sediment discharges from
approximately 97.5 percent of the acreage under
development across the country will be controlled
through permits. Many communities have passed
ordinances to address the regulation with more being
added every month.
The Lake Michigan basin has a high concentration of
agricultural enterprises where animals are kept and
raised in confined environments. Polluted runoff from
animal feeding operations is a leading source of
water pollution in some watersheds. Potential impacts
include the absence or low levels of dissolved oxygen
in surface water, harmful algae blooms, fish kills, and
contamination of drinking water from nitrates and
pathogens and beach closures.
For the vast majority of animal feeding operations
(AFO), voluntary efforts will be the principal approach
to assist owners and operators in developing and
implementing site-specific management plans.
Impacts from higher risk, concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFO), such as sites with the
equivalent of 300 beef cows, will be addressed
through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Nitrogen Removal
A recent U.S. EPA report "Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative
Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of
Current Science and Regulations", provides a synthesis of
existing scientific literature on the effectiveness of riparian
buffers to improve water quality through their inherent abil-
ity to process and remove excess anthropogenic nitrogen
from surface and ground waters. The following URL will ac-
cess a pdf of the report.
http://www.epa.aov/ada/download/
reports/600R05118/600R05118.pdf
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Catalog of Federal Funding
Sources for Watershed
Protection and Nonpoint Source
Control
U.S. EPA has compiled a Catalog of Federal Funding
Sources for watershed protection and nonpoint source
control at http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/. The web site is
a searchable database of financial assistance sources
(grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund a variety of
watershed protection projects. Examples of funding
sources include the U.S. EPA administered Section 319
Nonpoint Source grant program under the Clean Water Act
and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
and the Conservation Reserve Easement Program (CREP)
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
System (NPDES) permits under the authority of the
Clean Water Act. Wisconsin and Michigan
developed state programs for control. About 5
percent of all animal feeding operations are
expected to need permits.
Phosphorus in the Lake Michigan Basin
Phosphorus has been shown to be the nutrient limiting
production in Lake Michigan. To estimate where
phosphorus originates in the watershed, results from
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Conservation program participation (dollars/acre)
Figure 7-4. Phosphorus yields from Lake Michigan watersheds
as estimated from the SPARROW model for conditions similar to
1992 (Alexander and others, 2008).
ISO Kilometers
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
CONSERVATI
Figure 7-6. Conservation program participation (dollars/
acre).
Source: USEPA
Nonpoint source Phosphorus loadings (ATtlLA model] (kg/ha)
Figure 7-5. Ranking of phosphorus yields by watershed, based
on the yields from Figure 7-4 (Alexander and others, 2008).
N=1416
Figure 7-7. Nonpoint source phosphorus loadings.
Source: USEPA
the SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed
Attributes (SPARROW) model were examined for the
Lake Michigan Basin (Figure 7-4). SPARROW is a
hybrid statistical/deterministic model that relates
water-quality monitoring data to watershed sources
and characteristics. Results from SPARROW model
demonstrate that the majority of the phosphorus load
originates from the southern half of the drainage
basin. The highest yields were estimated to be from
West of the Fox River in Wisconsin, Northwest Indiana,
and the Maple River watershed in Michigan. These
areas have either intense agriculture or are highly
populated. Relatively low yields were estimated from
the forested areas in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan. This information can be used to rank the
basins in terms of their relative yields to the lake
(Figure 7-5).
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance project and the
annual GLNPO open water sampling concentrate
sampling for the open water of the lake for the
targets set in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
While the open water targets were being met, there
was a nearshore problem developing that resembled
the problems of the 1960s-1980s, cladophora blooms.
Research has linked these blooms to high phosphorus
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
levels in the water, mainly as a result of human
activity such as fertilizing lawns, poorly maintained
septic systems, inadequate sewage treatment,
agriculture and urban runoff and detergents
containing phosphorus. Due to past restrictions on
some sources of nutrients, open water phosphorus
levels declined during the 1980s and 90s, but recent
research suggests that the invasion of zebra and
quagga mussels in the Great Lakes are responsible for
the increase in algae by increasing the availability of
phosphorus for Cladophora and increasing water
clarity as they feed on the plankton in the lake. Since
we do not have management options to control the
invasive mussel population, the nutrient control
management options are again key to addressing
the problem. Additional research on the dynamics of
the nearshore is also needed.
What Action is Needed?
EPA is encouraging all states, territories and
authorized tribes to accelerate their efforts and give
priority to adopting numeric nutrient standards or
numeric translators for narrative standards for all
waters in states and territories that contribute nutrient
loadings to our waterways. Incremental progress can
be an effective way to accelerate progress. If a state
needs to implement numeric nutrient criteria
incrementally, EPA strongly recommends that states
adopt numeric nutrient standards for their priority
waters—i.e., waters at greatest risk of nutrient
pollution (such as those identified through the EPA-
USGS SPARROW modeling effort) or of greatest
consequence (such as drinking water sources)—first.
States may also choose to prioritize their actions for
waters where sufficient information is available to
move quickly to adopt numeric criteria in the near-
term. The state's nutrient criteria plan should reflect
the state's approach to setting standards for its
waters, and include schedules for adopting those
standards.
To be effective, nutrient criteria should address causal
(both nitrogen and phosphorus) and response
(chlorophyll-a and transparency) variables for all
waters that contribute nutrient loadings to our
waterways. EPA encourages the adoption of
standards for all four parameters because of the
interrelationships between these parameters and its
experience showing that controlling both nitrogen
and phosphorus is important to successfully
combating nutrient pollution in all waters. As always,
states, territories and authorized tribes have the
Five-Year Review Report Completed, Allied
Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River
Superfund Site, Kalamazoo, Michigan
On October 19, 2007, the Region 5 Superfund Division
issued the first Five-Year Review Report for the Allied Paper
Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River Superfund site,
located in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The site consists of six operable units (OUs). Record of
Decisions (RODs) were issued for OUS (February 1998), OU4
(September 2001), and OU2 (September 2006); the
remaining OUs (OU1, OUS, and OU7) are in different stages
in the Superfund cleanup process. The remedies selected
for OUS, OU4, and OU2 include: consolidation and
containment of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-
contaminated material; landfill cap over waste material;
long-term monitoring; and deed restrictions limiting
development of the property. The remedy has been
constructed at OUS; is under construction at OU4; and has
not yet been constructed at OU2.
The five-year review concluded that the remedy at OUS is
protective of human health and the environment in the
short term. However, in order for the remedy to be
protective in the long term, effective institutional controls
need to be implemented and methane gas that has
migrated off-site needs to be mitigated. The remedy at
OU4 is not protective of human health and the
environment because exposure pathways that could result
in unacceptable risks are not controlled.
For more information, contact: Shari Kolak at 312-886-
6151.
flexibility to address nutrient pollution using a subset of
or alternatives to these parameters if they are shown
to be scientifically defensible and protective of
designated uses.
With the establishment of numeric nutrient standards,
state governments and local communities can set
goals, establish controls, agree on risk management
approaches, measure performance, demonstrate
progress, and learn from each other. In a time of
scarce resources and competing priorities, we cannot
afford delayed or ineffective responses to this major
source of environmental degradation.
Bans on the use of phosphorus-containing products
are become more common. In 2003 Minnesota
adopted a ban on application of phosphorus in lawn
fertilizer and the amount of phosphorus applied via
lawn fertilizer dropped from 292 tons to 151 tons. Both
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Draft Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Mercury Product Stewardship Phase-down
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) held a sixty day (60) public comment period for a Draft Great Lakes
Mercury Product Stewardship Strategy (http://www.alrc.us/initiatives/toxicsdrafthaphasedownstrateav.html) that
ended at the end of October 2007. This Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy was developed in response to the
Great GLRC Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. The GLRC Strategy calls for the development of a basin-
wide mercury product stewardship strategy designed to phase out the use of mercury and provide for mercury waste
management. The GLRC document identifies full phase-outs of mercury-added products by 2015, as possible, as an
interim milestone for toxics reduction.
Some states, tribes and cities in the Great Lakes basin have passed laws or have implemented programs to prevent
pollution from mercury-containing products. This strategy seeks to build on those foundations to accomplish the 2015
phase-down goal. The strategy recommends a wide range of product-targeted policies for states to adopt, including
sale bans and phase-outs, disposal regulations, public awareness and education programs, collection/end-of-life
management for products, purchasing preferences, and labeling requirements. Some would require legislative
action; others can be implemented by state, municipal or tribal agencies.
Wisconsin and Michigan have put limits on the large
Confined Animal Feeding Operations which also
contribute to the nutrient load. Indiana banned
laundry detergents containing phosphorus in the
1970s and just passed a ban on eliminating
phosphorus in dishwashing detergents for home use.
The ban takes effect in July of 2010, giving industry
time to distribute the new, reformulated product. In
Michigan, bans on application of phosphorus
containing fertilizers for residential use have been
passed at both the county and local community
level. Public education is also needed as many
products are used without the soil tests to determine if
they are needed since there is the recognition that
some situations call for phosphorus like the
establishment of a new lawn.
Areas of Concern: Legacy of
Contamination and Community
Stewardship
LaMP 2000 explained: In 1987 the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the US and
Canada was expanded to address critical stressors
affecting the basin's ecosystem. The intersections of
major tributaries and the Lakes are areas where
human activity by-products and collected river
deposits concentrate." The Parties recognize that
there are areas in the boundary waters of the Great
Lakes system where, due to human activity, one or
more of the general or specific objectives of the
Agreement are not being met. Pending virtual
elimination of the persistent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes system, the Parties, in cooperation with
the State and Provincial Governments and the
Commission, shall identify and work toward restoring
and protecting beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or
in open waters." (GLWQA)
For each AOC a stakeholder group was convened to
work with federal and state agencies to develop
remedial action plans that defined the problem and
suggested remedial actions. This program has been
very successful in capturing the energy and creativity
of the communities. Unfortunately, agency funding
and resources have been uneven and have never
approached the scale needed for remediation of
large-scale legacy sites. Federal authorities like
Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Corrective Action Program and the Clean Water Act
have provided USEPA the tools to address some of
the large-scale actions needed. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has been given specific program
authority for AOCs.
Federal and State agencies and the AOC
communities want to move ahead, remediate and
restore impairments and delist their AOC. Matching
authorities to specific impairment sources and the
recovery time needed for the remediation actions to
"take" in the environment are lengthy procedures. A
number of new tools are now available:
• Delisting guidance finalized by Michigan and
approved by USEPA GLNPO in January 2006.
• Delisting Principles and Guidelines- adopted by
the U.S. Policy Committee in December 2001
• The Legacy Act of 2002- providing funding and
new authorities for putting remediation
partnerships together
Great Lakes Legacy Act
The Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) is aimed at
accelerating the pace of contaminated sediment
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion
and Sediment Control in Proposed Farm Bill
Congress included the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control as one of the conservation
programs in the proposed 2007 Farm Bill. The legislation
identifies the Basin Program as a means of achieving one
of the top priorities of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great
Lakes - reducing nonpoint source runoff from rural and
urban areas.
The Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control provides grants to local projects that
help reduce soil erosion and sedimentation and otherwise
control nonpoint source pollution on Great Lakes
tributaries. By helping to keep excess sediment and land-
based pollutants such as phosphorous and nitrogen out of
the water, the program helps maintain clean sources of
drinking water, protect fish and wildlife, and reduce the
costs of dredging sediment from navigation channels and
harbors. The program is administered by the Great Lakes
Commission. Since 1991, the program has helped prevent
more than 1 million tons of soil erosion and kept more than
5 million pounds of phosphorous out of Great Lakes
tributaries.
Sediment Remediation
New Grand Calumet River Great Lakes
Legacy Act Project Agreement Signed
In April 26, 2007, a Project Agreement was signed by the
U.S. EPA, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM), and the remediation and develop
the final design plans and specifications, general
provisions, and special requirements necessary for
sediment remediation at the West Branch Grand Calumet
River (WBGCR) between Columbia and Hohman Avenues.
This AOC represents one of the most heavily industrialized
areas in the United States, contains steel mills and heavy
manufacturing sites associated with the steel industry,
petroleum-related land uses, packaging operations,
chemical processing plants, and other industrial land uses.
The WBGCR has received inputs of contaminants from
various sources over the past century. In general,
sediments in the river have elevated concentrations of
heavy metals, PCBs, Semi-volatile organics (primarily
PAHs), and pesticides (e.g., DDT and degradation
products). This phase of the project is scheduled to be
completed in early 2008 with the possibility that the project
may eventually evolve into a remediation project. This will
occur if the project successfully meets U.S. EPA's selection
criteria identified in the Great Lakes Legacy Act
Implementation Rule, and is agreed to by U.S. EPA, IDEM
and IDNR.
remediation in Great Lakes' Areas of Concern
(AOCs). The Act authorizes up to $50 million for
projects that remediate contaminated sediments or
lead to remediation. The goal of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes
National Program Office is to identify and potentially
remediate all eligible contaminated sediment sites
within the 31 U.S. Areas of Concern.
As of July 2007, 3 remediation projects have been
completed (Black Lagoon, Trenton, Ml; Hog Island
Inlet and Newton Creek, Superior, Wl; and Ruddiman
Creek and Pond, Muskegon, Ml). Two remediation
projects are underway (Ashtabula River, Ashtabula,
OH and Tannery Bay St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie,
Ml), several assessment/feasibility/design projects,
and follow up restoration projects are underway. The
three completed projects have been highly
successful from a technical point of view, attaining
and/or exceeding the remediation goals established
for the project.
The projects have also been highly successful in
terms of attaining and/or exceeding the goals of the
stakeholders, their communities and the municipal,
county and state partners. The impacts of the
remediation will be highlighted, as well as the roles
and responsibilities from project submittal to
completion, and the key factors that made the
projects successful.
Under the GLLA a project is to be carried out in an
AOC located wholly or partially in the United States,
and the project:
1 . monitors or evaluates contaminated sediment;
2. implements a plan to remediate contaminated
sediment; or
3. prevents further or renewed contamination of
sediment.
More information is available at hjJQlll,
The LaMP Pollutant List
There are a number of pollutants that could be
placed on the LaMP pollutant list. These were
identified in LaMP 2004. The process for identifying
LaMP pollutants, the 2004 pollutants list, potential
pollutants to be added in 2006, and information on
pollutant management activities completed since
2002 are presented in Appendix A.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Areas of Concern Overview
There is an increasingly strong focus on remediating
the problems of areas of concern (AOCs). The ulti-
mate goal is to ensure the effective clean-up of
these contaminated areas and protect them by util-
izing watershed stewardship activities as a means of
ensuring their on-going protection.
The following matrix provides summary information
for the Lake Michigan AOCs. It provides information
regarding:
• AOC Name and Beneficial Use Impairments
(BUIs)
• Primary Contaminants
• Geographic Area
• Stressors
• Programs
• Clean-Up Actions
• Key Activities Needed
• Challenges
• Next Steps
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to restore and protect
14 beneficial uses in Areas of Concern. An impaired
beneficial use means a change in the chemical,
physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes sys-
tem sufficient to cause any of the impairments listed
below (BUIs are listed in the AOC name column using
the following numeration).
I. Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption -
When contaminant levels in fish or wildlife popu-
lations exceed current standards, objectives or
guidelines, or public health advisories are in ef-
fect for human consumption of fish and wildlife.
II. Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor - When ambi-
ent water quality standards, objectives, or
guidelines for the anthropogenic substance(s)
known to cause tainting are being exceeded or
survey results have identified tainting of fish and
wildlife flavor.
III. Degraded fish and wildlife populations - When
fish or wildlife management programs have
identified degraded fish or wildlife populations.
In addition, this use will be considered impaired
when relevant, field-validated, fish and wildlife
bioassays with appropriate quality assur-
ance/quality controls confirm significant toxicity
from water column or sediment contaminants.
Michigan Begins to Apply AOC Delisting
Document
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Wa-
ter Bureau recently published its Guidance for Delisting
Michigan's Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The Guidance
includes specific, measurable criteria for restoration and
removal of Beneficial Use Impairments identified in Annex
2 of the 1987 Amendments to the Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Agreement. The delisting criteria have been applied in
most of Michigan's Lake Michigan AOCs, including the
removal of the Degradation of Benthos Beneficial Use Im-
pairment in Manistique River. This presentation will provide
an overview of Michigan's delisting criteria and focus on
application of specific criteria, using Manistique River, Mus-
kegon Lake, White Lake, and Kalamazoo River as case
studies for Michigan's Areas of Concern.
IV. Fish tumors or other deformities - When the inci-
dence rates of fish tumors or other deformities
exceed rates at unimpacted control sites or
when survey data confirm the presence of neo-
plastic or preneoplastic liver tumors in bullheads
or suckers.
V. Bird or animal deformities or reproductive prob-
lems - When wildlife survey data confirm the
presence of deformities (e.g. cross-bill syn-
drome) or other reproductive problems (e.g.
egg-shell thinning) in sentinel wildlife species.
VI. Degradation of benthos - When the benthic
macroinvertebrate community structure signifi-
cantly diverges from unimpacted control sites of
comparable physical and chemical character-
istics. In addition, this use will be considered im-
paired when toxicity (as defined by relevant,
field-validated bioassays with appropriate qual-
ity assurance/quality controls) of sediment-
associated contaminants at a site is significantly
higher than controls.
VII. Restrictions on dredging activities - When con-
taminants in sediments exceed standards, crite-
ria, or guidelines such that there are restrictions
on dredging or disposal activities.
VIM. Eutrophication or undesirable algae - When
there are persistent water quality problems (e.g.
dissolved oxygen depletion of bottom waters,
nuisance algal blooms or accumulation, de-
creased water clarity, etc.) attributed to cultural
eutrophication.
IX. Restrictions on drinking water consumption or
taste and odor problems - When treated drink-
ing water supplies are impacted to the extent
that: 1) densities of disease- causing organisms
or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemi-
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
cals or radioactive substances exceed hu-
man health standards, objectives or guide-
lines; 2) taste and odor problems are present;
or 3) treatment needed to make raw water
suitable for drinking is beyond the standard
treatment used in comparable portions of
the Great Lakes which are not degraded (i.e.
settling, coagulation, disinfection).
X. Beach closings - When waters, which are
commonly used for total-body contact or
partial-body contact recreation, exceed
standards, objectives, or guidelines for such
use.
XI. Degradation of aesthetics - When any sub-
stance in water produces a persistent objec-
tionable deposit, unnatural color or turbidity,
or unnatural odor (e.g. oil slick, surface
scum).
XII. Added costs to agriculture and industry -
When there are additional costs required to
treat the water prior to use for agricultural
purposes (i.e. including, but not limited to,
livestock watering, irrigation and crop-
spraying) or industrial purposes (i.e. intended
for commercial or industrial applications and
noncontact food processing).
XIII. Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplank-
ton - When phytoplankton orzooplankton
community structure significantly diverges
from unimpacted control sites of comparable
physical and chemical characteristics. In ad-
dition, this use will be considered impaired
when relevant, field-validated, phytoplank-
ton orzooplankton bioassays (e.g. Cerio-
daphnia; algal fractionation bioassays) with
appropriate quality assurance/quality con-
trols confirm toxicity in ambient waters.
XIV. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat - When fish or
wildlife management goals have not been
met as a result of loss of fish or wildlife habitat
due to a perturbation in the physical, chemi-
cal or biological integrity of the Boundary
Waters, including wetlands.
Lake Michigan
Areas of Concern
,Yl.irmlu|iM-
River
Mcnomincc
River
Fox River/
Lower Green Bay
Shctioyg.in River
Milwaukee Eituary
White
take
Waukegitn
Harbor
Lake
River
Grand Calumet River/
Indiana Harbor
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
LaMP 2008 Update
For more information, see
AOC Name,
Location and BUIs
Grand Calumet
River
Indiana
Grand Calumet
River:
Lagoon, East Branch
and West Branch
Indiana Harbor and
Ship Canal, The Lake
George Branch of
the Canal, Wolf
Lake, George Lake
and Nearshore Lake
Michigan.
Listed BUIs
1, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII,
VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII,
XIV
Delisted BUIs
Stress ors and
Primary
Contaminants
• PCB and mercury
Contaminated
Sediments
• Pathogens from
Combined Sewer
Overflows
• Contaminated
groundwater
• Contaminated
land sites
• Habitat
Fragmentation
• Fire Suppression
• Aquatic nuisance
species
• PAHs
• Biochemical
oxygen demand
• Suspended solids
• Oil and grease
• PCB
• Mercury
• Metals
Programs
• Superfund
• RCRA
• Clean Water
Act
• WRDA
• Navigational
Dredging
• Natural
Resource
Trustee's
Damage
Assessment
• Great Lakes
Legacy Act
Clean- Up Actions
• West Branch Remediation
- a sediment dredging
and habitat restoration
demonstration project at
the East Chicago Sanitary
District Canal has been
designed by the USAGE
and ECSD
• U.S. Steel Gary Works
dredging of 5 river miles on
the East Branch complete
including 824,00 cubic
yards of sediment
removed from the river
and placed in the
Corrective Action
Management Unit
(CAMU).
• GSD Sediment
Remediation-selected
remedial option is currently
being considered by EPA
• Navigational dredging
• U.S. Lead- 19,000 cubic
yards of sediment have
been remediated
• A total of 700,000 cubic
yards of sediment have
been remediated
• IDEM and EPA are
currently working on the
amendment to currently
existing federal consent
decrees to address CSO
long term control plan
issues.
Delisting
Targets
Set?
• Delisitng
targets for
all 14 listed
BUIs will be
in place by
December
31,2008.
Key Activity Needed
• Sediment
remediation
• CSO Long Term
Control Plans
• Issue NPDES Permits
• BUI Indicator
Monitoring
• West Branch
assessment
completed in 2002
• Remedial
Alternatives
Development
Report completed
in 2006
• Coordination with
RAP program for
AOC delisting
purposes
Challenges
• Public concern regarding
location of contaminated
material disposal
• Local funding and match for
federal projects
• Legal concerns
• Permitting
• Monitoring resources
• The draft Water Quality
Component of Stage Two
includes some provisions
being implemented through
indirect methods; direct
resources for
implementation have been
limited
Next Steps
• EPA GLNPO - IDEM - IDNR are
working in partnership with the
Great Lakes Legacy Act to
remediate the West Branch of
the Grand Calumet River.
• Dredging at U.S. Steel
complete
• NRDA-Consent decree has
been entered and restoration
planning is underway
• ACOE- WRDA Diagnostic
Feasibility Study
• GSD-Site Characterization
• Monitor BUI Indicators
• CDF construction is currently
underway
• The RAP process has
developed and obtained
funds for a Toxic Pollution
Prevention (TPP) Program
-------
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
LaMP 2008 Update
For more information, see
AOC Name,
Location and BUIs
Stressors and
Primary
Contaminants
Programs
Clean-Up Actions
Delisting
Targets
Set?
Key Activity Needed
Challenges
Next Steps
Kalamazoo River
Michigan
I, III, V, VI, VII, X,
XI, XIV
From Morrow
Dam, which forms
Morrow Pond and
extends about 80
miles downstream
to Lake Michigan.
Also includes
about three miles
of Portage Creek.
PCBs in Sediments
Failing dams
forming onstream
impoundments
that house PCB
contaminated
sediments
PCB/Sediment
source areas such
as riverside former
mill properties,
disposal areas,
and landfills, and
river banks, and
floodplains.
Nonpoint
pollution
Phosphorus
Sediments
Nitrates
Salt
Mercury
Dioxin (2008 draft
IA)
E.coli
Antiquated land
use policies/
ordinances
Superfund
Clean Water
Act
Brownfields
Natural
Resource
Trustee's
Damage
Assessment
Superfund removal of 150,000
cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sediments from
Bryant Mill Pond
Contaminated material
removal from former Georgia
Pacific and Hawhthorne Mill
properties
Post Record of Decision landfill
closure occurring at Willow
Blvd./A-Site and 12th Street
Contained material removal
and offsite disposal year 1 of 2
completed in river, bank, and
floodplain near Plainwell
(Plainwell Dam removal
integrated into the cleanup
effort)
Additional progress at other
Superfund Operable Units
Sub-basin Watershed
Management/nonpoint
pollution projects Erosion
control programs, and
stormwater management
projects
A phosphorus TMDL for Lake
Allegan and the river upstream
has been established;
measures are being
implemented to reduce
phosphorus pollution from point
and nonpoint source partners
Yes;
working on
finalizing
targets for
Loss of Fish
and Wildlife
Habitat and
Degradatio
n of
Populations
Dredging/
Excavation/Safe
Disposal
Superfund site
cleanup decision
action
Stream buffers/river
corridor habitat
connections and
preservation
Dam removal
Coordination
between Superfund,
NRDA, stormwater,
TMDL, and RAP
programs necessary
for AOC delisting
purposes
Local funding match for
federal projects
Sustainable funding for
public advisory councils
and other watershed
project implementers
Decisions and actions on
the remediation of this
Superfund Site have
recently accelerated and
this momentum should be
fostered with community
participation and
departmental
collaboration from federal,
state, and local program
partners
Continue NRDA tracking
Continue remedial
investigation/ remedial
action at operable units and
newly defined river reaches
in Operable Unit 5
RAP to be revised as
Community Action Plan n
2008
Kalamazoo River/Lake
Allegan TMDL (Total
Maximum Daily Load)
continues
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Restoration tasks to be
identified and pursued
Work to Remove Beach
Closing BUI and Aesthetics
BUI
Formalize PAC operations as
a watershed umbrella
organization
Formalize a draft watershed
partnership agreement
Write watershed nonpoint
source plan
-------
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
LaMP 2008 Update
For more information, see
AOC Name,
Location and BUIs
Lower Fox River/
Southern Green
Bay
Wisconsin
The lower 40 miles
of the Fox River
and Green Bay
1, III, V, VI, VII, VIII,
IX, X, XI, XIII
Manistique River
Michigan
The last 1 .7 miles
of the river to the
mouth of the
harbor at Lake
Michigan
1, VII, X, XIV
BUI Vldelisted
Stressors and
Primary Contaminants
• PCBs
• Phosphorus
• Suspended solids
• Mercury
• Urban and rural
runoff
• Sediments
• Aquatic exotic
species
• Wetland loss
• Habitat alteration
• PCBs
• Combined sewer
overflow
• PCB-contaminated
sediments
• Superfund
Programs
Programs
• Clean Water
Act- Integrated
TMDLforthe
Lower Fox
• Superfund
• Natural
Resource
Trustee's
Damage
Assessment
• Superfund
• USACE
Clean- Up Actions
• Watershed NPS abatement
• Remedial investigation
completed remedial action
nearly ongoing. Dredging and
PCB removal (Deposit in 1 1,000
cubic yards of sediment
removed,, Deposit 56/57:
80,000 cubic yards of sediment
removed OU1 335,000 cubic
yards of sediment removed,
and Phase 1, 132,000 cubic
yards of sediment removed)
• Dissolved oxygen wasteload
• Deposit N, 56, 57
• Cumulative sediments
remediated from 1998-2007-
558,000 cubic yards
• Consent Decree for Phase 1
Fox River clean-up announced
4/12/06, Unilateral
Administrative Order issued
November 2007 for remainder
of river contamination (from
OU2 to OU5)
• Dredging of contaminated
sediments completed in 2000
(190,000 cubic yards)
• Manistique Wastewater
Treatment Plant made
improvements to its system
toward elimination of CSOs
• Degradation of benthic
community beneficial use
impairment delisted.
Delisting
Targets
Set?
• No, will be
started in
2008
• Yes, all
delisting
targets
were set in
2006
Key Activity
Needed
• Dredging
• Pollution
Prevention
• Stream buffers
• Habitat
protection and
restoration
• Coordination
with RAP
program for AOC
delisting
purposes
• Coordination
with integrated
TMDL
• Sampling and
monitoring
follow-up to
confirm
downward
trends of
contamination
• Coordination
with RAP
program for AOC
delisting
purposes
Challenges
• Rapid land
development
• Contaminated
material disposal
• Seeing through
completion of cleanup
for OUs 2-5
• Navigational dredging
• Fish consumption
advisories
• CSO to be closed by
2020
Next Steps
• Implement 4/1 2//06
Consent Decree for
detailed engineering for the
final cleanup plan.
• Compliance with the
Unilateral Administrative
Order issued November 13,
2007
• Remediation (using
dredging/disposal, capping
and sand covers) 1 of an
additional 7.5 million cubic
yards of sediment.
• Final cleanup expected to
be complete approximately
2020. River monitoring will
continue indefinitely.
• Implement integrated TMDL
• Sampling and monitoring
continuing as part of
delisting process
-------
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
LaMP 2008 Update
For more information, see
AOC Name, Location
and BUIs
Menominee River
Michigan/ Wisconsin
Lower 4.8 km of river to
the mouth and 5 km
north and south of the
mouth along the
Green Bay shore
1, III, VI, VII, X, XIV
Milwaukee Estuary
Wisconsin
The lower 5 km of the
Milwaukee River ; the
lower 4.8 km of the
Menominee River; the
lower 4 km of the
Kinnickinnic River; the
inner and outer Harbor
and the nearshore
waters
1, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, X,
XI, XIII, XIV
Stressors and
Primary Contaminants
• Lloyd/Flanders Paint
Sludge Site-high level of
lead and other heavy
metals coated sediments
where deposited
• Arsenic
• Mercury
• PCBs
• PAHs
• Oil and grease
• Pathogens
• Sediments
• Coastal wetlands habitat
loss
• Nonpoint pollution
• Historic shoreline
developments to support
harbor activities
• Phosphorus
• Pathogens
• PCBs
• Metals
• PAHs
• Urban and rural runoff
• Wastewater discharges
• Sediments
• Habitat loss
• n^i"! me
L/UI 1 lo
Programs
• MDNR-
Administrative
Order
• RCRA Corrective
Action
• Superfund
• Menominee
Watershed
Intiaative
• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Superfund
• Brownfields
• Navigational
dredging
Clean-Up Actions
• Paint sludge cleanup
completed in 1995 (10
million pounds of
hazardous waste from
Bay and 20 million
pounds of
contaminated
sediments.
• Development of
cleanup plans for the
Ansul site and river.
• Milwaukee Estuary Fish
spawning habitat
improvement project
• Kinnickinnic River
Remediation planned
for 2008-09
Delisting Targets
Set?
• In progress.
• In progress
Key Activity Needed
• Arsenic source control
• Dredging of arsenic
and coal tar
contaminated
sediments
• Protect riparian and
coastal habitat
• Manufactured Gas
Plant PAH site
remediation and
dredging.
• Dredging
• Nonpoint source
pollution control
• Stream buffers
• Pathogen source
research
• Coordination with
RAP program for AOC
delisting purposes
Challenges
• Funding for
dredging the
Menekaunee
I I 1
Harbor.
• Funding needed
for monitoring
for BUI
evaluation and
delisting targets.
• High urban
density and
rapid
development
• Historic
developed sites
which could be
restored to
improve
f| ___!._ I-.'
tlooaplain
functions and
wetland
function
Next Step
• Ansul site barrier wall
installation.
• Complete Arsenic dredging
• Manufactured Gas Plant site
remediation and dredging
for coal tar (PAHs).
• Identify sources for fish
consumption advisories
(mercury, PCBs, dioxin) to
ensure that sources are
controlled
• Estabrook Impoundment
remediation needed
(assessment in progress)
• Watershed analysis to assess
water quality impacts and
options for restoration
(funding needed)
-------
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
LaMP 2008 Update
For more information, see
AOC Name,
Location and BUIs
Stressors and
Primary Contaminants
Programs
Programs
Clean-Up Actions
Delisting Targets
Set?
Key Activity Needed
Challenges
Next Steps
Muskegon Lake
Michigan
The entire 4149 acre
lake and several
tributaries within the
immediate
watershed.
I, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX,
XIV
PCBs
Mercury
Unstable hydrologic
flow
Contaminated
Sediments
Nonpoint pollution
Coastal wetlands
and habitat loss,
isolation and
fragmentation
• Shoreline
Brownfield
Redevelopmen
t Authority
• Navigational
dredging
• Great Lakes
Legacy Act
and Clean
Michigan
Initiative
• Superfund
• Non-point
Source
• USACE
• US Fish and
Wildlife Service
- Coastal
IJrogram
Wastewater treatment
upgraded
Some tributary remedial
actions underway
Removal of about 90,000
cubic yards of
contaminated sediment in
Ruddiman Creek
• Yes targets are set
and approved by
the Muskegon
Lake Watershed
Partnership and
MDEQ for six (6) of
the nine(9) BUIs:
1) Fish
consumption
advisories; 2)
Beach Closings; 3)
Degraded
Benthos; 4)
Restrictions on
Dredging; 5)
Degradation of
Aesthetics; 6)
Eutrophication/
Undesireable
Algae;; Working
on finalizing
targets for Loss of
Fish and Wildlife
Habitat,
Degradation of
Populations, and
Restrictions on
Drinking Water
Contaminated
Sediment
Remediation
Stream buffers for
improved habitat
and water quality
More assessment
for progress on
attaining BUI
targets
TMDL Assessments
for Muskegon Lake;
Ruddiman Creek;
Ryerson Creek;
Bear Lake
Habitat restoration
along Muskegon
Lake's south
shoreline and
adjacent mouths
of tributaries and
lower river mouth
Coordination with
RAP program for
AOC delisting
purposes
• PCB disposal
• Local funding
match for federal
projects
• Base support for
local coordination
of AOC/PAC
process
Remediation of brownfields and
sediments
Sediment remediation in
Muskegon Lake at the Division
Street Outfall.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Restoration
Sheboygan River
Wisconsin
The lower
Sheboygan River
downstream from
the Sheboygan Falls
Dam, including the
entire harbor and
nearshore waters
I, III, V, VI, VII, VIII,
XIII
Suspended Solids
PCBs
PAHs
Heavy Metals
Pathogens
Phosphorus
Nonpoint source
pollution
Habitat restoration
on streambanks
and wetland areas
• Superfund
• RCRA
Corrective
Action
• Clean Water
Act #319
The former Tecumseh plant
site PCB hot spot removal
and cut-off trench installed
along the Sheboygan River
removing any preferential
pathways for contaminants
to move to the river from the
site.
Removal of 20,700 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated
sediments from Sheboygan
Falls downstream to the
Waelderhaus Dam-4.5
miles of river.
Brownfield remediation on
the C. Reiss Coal site.
In progress.
• Completion of PCB
remediation
• Completion of PAH
remediation at
Camp Marina coal
gasification site
• Control buffers
• Habitat protection
• NPS controls for
urban and rural
pollution
• Development of
Delisting Targets for
AOC.
• Funding needed for
monitoring for BUI
evaluation and
delisting targets.
Conduct sediment
recharacterization for the Middle
River, Lower River and Inner Harbor
reaches.
Complete dredging.
Dredge PAH contaminated
sediment at the manufactured
Gas Plant.
Conduct post-remedial monitoring
at the site and in the Upper River
section.
-------
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
LaMP 2008 Update
For more information, see
AOC Name,
Location and BUIs
Stressors and
Primary
Contaminants
Programs
Clean-Up Actions
Delisting Targets
Set?
Key Activity Needed
Challenges
Next Steps
Waukegan Harbor
Illinois
1.2 square kilometers
of industrial,
commercial,
municipal and open
lands.
PCB
contaminated
sediments
• Superfund
• Clean Water
Act #319
Approximately 1 million
pounds of PCBs dredged
from the harbor
Soil removal activities
completed at Waukegan
Manufactured Gas and
Coke site in 2005; extraction
and treatment of
contaminated groundwater
to continue at the site for
several years
Removal and disposal of
large amounts of acids,
bases, paints, solvents,
hydraulic oil, machining oil,
compressed gases, metals,
sludge and PCB-containing
transformer fluid from the
Waukegan lakefront site
In progress
Dredging
Brownfield
development
Habitat restoration
Coordination with
RAP program for AOC
delisting purposes
Dredging for
navigation and
contaminated
sediment removal
Contaminated
sediment disposal
Funding to fulfill
local match for
dredging and
remediation
projects
Pursuit of a dredging plan for the
removal of PCB contaminated
sediments from Waukegan Harbor
Final dredging and disposal of
Waukegan Harbor sediments
Outboard Marine Corporation
building, soil and groundwater
remediation
Implementation of best management
practices to reduce nonpoint source
pollution and improve water quality in
the Waukegan River watershed, as
per the watershed plan
White Lake
Michigan
Includes White Lake
and a one-quarter
mile wide zone
around the lake.
I, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX,
XI, XIV
Heavy metals
Stormwater
nonpoint
pollution
Arsenic
Chromium
Sediments
Industrial
contamination
Groundwater
contamination
• Superfund
• RCRA
Dredging in ATannery Bay®
(2002) - 73,000 cubic yards
of waste (hides, chromium,
and arsenic)
Cleanup of Occidental
Chemical site in 2002
Potential sources of
groundwater contamination
to White Lake and its
tributaries have been
identified and remediation
efforts are underway
Some eutrophication has
been alleviated by
improvements to the
sewage collection and
treatment systems
Contaminated groundwater
venting to the lake is being
intercepted by purge wells
and treated prior to
Yes; Targets are
pending MDEQ
approval
Assessment and
further study of
contaminated sites
Coordination with
RAP program for AOC
delisting purposes
• Monitoring
achievement of
delisting targets
Further study of the extent of
contamination from the Whitehall
Leather Company is needed, in
addition to possible remediation
funds.
Assessment is needed of sediments at
discharge points for other
contaminated sites
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Preservation
-------
Subgoal 8
Are aquatic and terrestrial nuisance species prevented and
controlled?
Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
NOT
SUSTAINABLE
MIXED
DETERIORATING
MIXED
MIXED
IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE
2000
2008
2010
2020
What is our target for
sustainability?
The major pathways for invasive species have
been identified and controlled and research
has yielded some effective control actions.
Why is this important?
The Lake Michigan ecosystem is in a state of flux
due to changing populations of aquatic
nuisance species and their resulting interactions
with native species. Once established, aquatic
nuisance species (ANS) are very difficult and
nearly impossible to control. The best example
of control is the case of sea lamprey. The Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, with participation by
State, Tribal and Federal agencies, has a mandate to assess and control sea lamprey populations in the Lake
Michigan basin.
What is the current status?
• The 20th anniversary of the zebra mussel's introduction and spread is overshadowed by the more than 180 invasives
that have followed.
• While the number of zebra mussels are declining they are being replaced by the more recent invasive quagga
mussel in numbers not seen by zebra mussels at their height. The native diporeia are declining in numbers
significantly, leaving less native food at the base of the food chain. The quagga mussels are also consuming larger
amounts of food eaten by the diporeia and other native Lake Michigan species.
• Although Asian carp have not been seen in Lake Michigan, they remain a threat and are held back by an electric
barrier in the Illinois Waterway Sanitary and Ship Canal. Funding for replacing the electronic barrier in the Sanitary
and Ship Canal was approved in November 2007.
What are the major challenges?
• Preventing new aquatic invasive species from entering the Great Lakes through ballast water
• Preventing invasive species from entering through canals and waterways
• Establishing a program for rapid response and management
• Determining the role of invasives in the nutrient problems and shorebird deaths due to botulism
What are the next steps?
• Conduct education and outreach on aquatic invasive species.
• Eliminate ship and barge-mediated introductions and spread of AIS in the Great Lakes.
• Enact federal, state, and/or local governments measures that ensure the region's canals and waterways are not a
vector for AIS.
• Take immediate steps at the federal and state government level to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS
through the trade and potential release of live organisms.
• Establish a Great Lakes Aquatic Invasive Species Integrated Management Program to implement rapid response,
control, and management programs and assess the effectiveness of those programs.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• Keeping Exotics out of the Water Through Public Awareness Campaigns
ANS Task Force Experts Directory
Sea Grant Programs
Controlling Invasive Species
• Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System(GLANSIS) Database of
Aquatic Invasive Species on the Great Lakes.
• Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator #18- Sea Lamprey
Status: Good/Fair; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 68 - Native Freshwater Mussels
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not Assessed
Indicator # 104 - Benthos diversity and Abundance - Aquatic Oliaochaete Communities
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend: Unchanging, Deteriorating
Indicator # 109 - Phvtoplankton Populations
Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 123 - Abundances of the Benthic Amphipod D/'pore/'a spp.
Lake Michigan Status: Poor; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 9002 - Non-Native Species - Aquatic
Lake Michigan Status: Poor; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 9002 - Non-Native Species - Terrestrial
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Undetermined
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.aov/solec/soal2007/
*The terms "Aquatic Invasive Species" and "Aquatic Nuisance Species" are used interchangeably throughout this chapter. They both
refer to species that are non-indigenous to Great Lakes waters.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
National Developments
The National Invasives Species Act (NISA) is the
primary legislation for the prevention and control of
aquatic nuisance species in the United States. NISA
was slated for review by the U.S. Congress and
eligible for re-authorization in 2002, however, despite
new introductions of ANS in the Great Lakes and
pressure from the Great Lakes States to take action at
a national level, Congress has failed to pass a
comprehensive reauthorization of NISA at the time of
this report. Several bills have been introduced in the
House and Senate including bills that would,
specifically, regulate ballast water discharges,
however, these bills are still pending.
U.S. Department of Transportation: Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, in conjunction with the St. Lawrence
Seaway Management Corporation of Canada, have
updated their rules and regulations to require that all
ships coming into the Great Lakes and Saint
Lawrence River from foreign waters and that are
reporting no ballast on board (NOBOB) will be
required to flush their ballast tanks with sea water in
order to reduce the risk of the introduction of exotic
species. Ships that enter the Saint Lawrence Seaway
from foreign waters [outside of the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ)] and are reporting to the U.S.
Coast Guard that they have ballast water in their
tanks are required to exchange that water with sea
water before entering however, until the recent rule
change, ships reporting no ballast on board were
under no such requirements.
Specifically, ships coming from outside waters under
Canadian jurisdiction, declaring no ballast on board,
must ensure that the residual ballast water in tanks
has been exposed to salinity conditions equivalent to
ballast water exchange by complying with one of the
following options:
• The residual ballast water came from ballast
water that was properly exchanged at sea;
• The residual ballast water meets the international
standard for treated ballast water;
• The ship complies with sections 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the
Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water
Management of the Shipping Federation of
Canada dated September 28, 2000, or;
• The ship conducted a saltwater flushing at least
200 nautical miles from shore.
It has been recognized that NOBOB ships often
contain residual ballast water and sediments in their
ballast tanks that can harbor exotic species and
pathogens. When these ships enter the Great Lakes,
they may visit more than one port and take on ballast
water from the Great Lakes in one place and then
release that water in another place allowing the
foreign organisms to be released.
This development has been hailed by many
participants of the Great Lakes Collaboration as a
positive step towards the prevention of aquatic
nuisance species in the Great Lakes. The
requirement for all NOBOB ships to flush their ballast
tanks with sea water or "swish and spit" as it has
come to be known, was one of action items
recommended by the Aquatic Invasive Species
Strategy Team in the Great Lakes Collaboration
report.
Great Lakes Ships Initiative
The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) is a collaborative effort
managed by the Northeast-Midwest Institute to end
the problem of ship-mediated invasive species in the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System through
independent research and demonstration of
environmental technology, financial incentives and
consistent basin-wide harbor monitoring. The
overarching goal of the GSI is to resolve the problem
of ship-mediated invasive species in the Great Lakes
as quickly, effectively and economically as possible,
and in coordination/ cooperation with prevailing
regulatory regimes.
The specific objective of the GSI is to accelerate
research, development and implementation of
effective ballast treatment systems for ships that visit
the Great Lakes from abroad. To achieve its research
and development objective, the GSI has established
research capabilities at three scales-bench, land-
based, and shipboard scales. The GSI activates these
capabilities to provide intensive testing services to
developers of ballast treatment prospects suitable to
Seaway-sized vessels. Meritorious systems can thereby
progress as rapidly as possible to an approval-ready
and market-ready condition. The GSI also provides
financial incentives for early installation and technical
assistance for effective operation of treatment
equipment.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Keeping Exotics out of the Water Through Public Awareness Campaigns
Habitattitude
Federal agencies and the pet industry are teaming up to help consumers prevent the release and escape of nonnative
plants and animals through Habitattitude, a new public education and outreach effort launched in September 2004. This
government-industry coalition is formed from the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network. The campaign encourages aquarium owners and water gardeners to avoid
unwanted introductions of nonnative species by adopting simple prevention steps when faced with an unwanted
aquatic plant or fish. Habitattitude campaign materials will be displayed in aquarium stores, aquatic retail outlets, hobby
magazines and nursery and landscape businesses across the country, as well as on packaging of related products.
More information is available at: vvwyyjTg^)itattitude.net.
Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!
Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! is the first national public awareness campaign developed by the ANS Task Force. It brings
public, private and nonprofit organizations together from the local. State, regional, and national levels to promote a
single, straight forward, empowering message via a compelling brand that focuses on preventing the continued spread
of aquatic nuisance species. The campaign targets all recreational water users to raise their awareness about aquatic
invasive species and empowers them to adopt prevention procedures that limit the spread of aquatic invasive species to
unaffected waters of the U.S.
More information is available at: wwwj3rofecj]£ou^^
TM
STOP AQUATIC
HITCHHIKERS!™
Prevent the transport of nuisance species.
Clean all recreational equipment.
www.ProtectYourWaters.net
Habitat
PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT
DO NOT RELEASE FISH AND AQUATIC PLANTS
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Toolbox
Sea Grant Programs
Sea Grant is a nationwide network (administered
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA]), of 30 university-based
programs that work with coastal communities. The
National Sea Grant College Program engages this
network of the nation's top universities in conducting
scientific research, education, training, and extension
projects designed to foster science-based decisions
about the use and conservation of aquatic resources.
Michigan Sea Grant, Illinois Indiana Sea Grant and
Wisconsin Sea Grant programs have ANS educational
and outreach programs relevant to Lake Michigan.
These resources can accessed at the Sea Grant
websites:
• National Sea Grant: www.seagrant.noaa.gov/
colleges/colleges.html
• Michigan: www.miseagrant.umich.edu/
• Illinois and Indiana: www.iisgcp.org/
• Wisconsin: www.seagrant.wisc.edu/
Lake Michigan Toolbox
ANS Task Force Experts
Directory
The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force created a
database of invasive species experts who can be
contacted to help identify species to determine if they
are a new or existing invasive species. The database
has been set up as a 2-tier system with the first tier
accessible to the public. The public portion of the
database will guide you to a state contact who acts
as a filter for information and identifications. If they
can't answer your question, these state contacts have
the ability to log in to the second tier experts. This
allows better tracking of the movement of invasives in
the Great Lakes.
More information is available at:
www.anstaskforce.aov/experts/search.php
The GSI is also working collaboratively with federal,
academic and state entities to establish consistent
and credible harbor monitoring for newly established
invasive species in harbors throughout the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system.
ANS Task Force
The Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force is an
inter-governmental body created by the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990. The Task Force is co-
chaired by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Via regional panels and issue specific committees,
the Task Force coordinates governmental efforts
dealing with ANS in the United States with those of the
private sector and other North American interests.
The following Task Force programs are very relevant
to preventing introductions of ANS to Lake Michigan:
Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species
The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species
was officially convened in late 1991 by the Great
Lakes Commission in response to section 1203 of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646). The Panel is
directed to perform the following tasks:
• Identify Great Lakes priorities
• Assist/make recommendations to a national Task
Force on Aquatic Nuisance Species (also
established via P.L. 101-646)
• Coordinate exotic species program activities in
the region
• Advise public and private interests on control
efforts
• Submit an annual report to the task force
describing prevention, research and control
activities in the Great Lakes Basin
The panel membership is drawn from U.S. and
Canadian federal agencies, the eight Great Lakes
states and the province of Ontario, regional
agencies, user groups, local communities, tribal
authorities, commercial interests, and the university/
research community.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
^J3ythotrephes and Cercopagis Density in Illinois Waters
«""*
£ 700
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Spiny Water Flea (Bythotrephes) and Fishhook Water Flea (Cercopagis) Density in Illinois Waters of Lake Michigan
Source: INHS Sampling, Witt et al. (in review)
Zebra and Quagga Mussel Sightings Distribution
Dreissena polymorpha and D. rostriformis bugensis
Map produced by the U.S. Geological Surwey, Gainesville, Florida, March 27,200«.
• Zebra mussel occurrences
o Quagga mussel occurrences
• Both species present
•^f Zebra mussels trailered overland
on boat hulls
Spread of zebra and quagga mussels 20 years after the zebra mussel was first introduced to the Great Lakes.
Source: USGA
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Quagga Mussel Overtakes Zebra Mussel as Dominant Invasive Mussel
The quagga mussel (Dre/ssena rostriformis bugensis) was first found in Lake Michigan in 1997 and has now re-
placed the zebra mussel (Dre/ssena polymorpha) as the dominant dreissenid in the lake. A whole-lake survey
(160 sites) in 2000 showed that zebra mussels comprised 98.1 % of the total dreissenid population, but a similar
survey in 2005 indicated quagga mussels comprised 97.7% of the population. Quagga mussels are replacing ze-
bra mussels at depths <50 m, but are also increasing at depths (>50 m) where zebra mussels were not previously
found. Further sampling at 40 sites in the southern basin in 2006 indicated that quagga mussels continue to in-
crease. Densities in 2005 at the 0-30 m, 31 -50 m, 51 -90 m, and > 90 m intervals were 1,585, 6,810, 658, and 24 per
m2, respectively, but densities in 2006 had increased to 11,622, 13,410, 4,754 and 180 per m2, respectively.
Quagga mussel densities in 2006 were 8.5 times greater than peak densities observed for zebra mussels in 1999.
The dreissenid phenotype found exclusively throughout each depth interval is quagga mussel "profunda", which
is well suited to conditions found in deeper regions. As the quagga mussel has increased and spread to deeper
water, the benthic amphipod Diporeia has continued to decline. The population of this fish food resource has
declined 94% between 1995 and 2005.
1994/95
2000
2005
Density (per m2)
Zebra Mussels
1994/95
Density (per m )
2000
Density (per m )
2005
Quagga Mussels
Density (per m )
Density (per m )
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
VMS Virus
Concerns over aquatic invasive species (AIS) have been growing since the sea lamprey invasion of the Great
Lakes in the early to mid-twentieth century.
Recently, a growing concern has emerged for aquatic invaders that cannot be seen with the naked eye,
such as viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Although pathogens and parasites have received less attention to
date, they are formally recognized as aquatic invasive species in the most recent amendment of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (16 USC 4702), and are clearly addressed in the
mandate of the intergovernmental Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS Task Force, Strategic Plan 2007
-2012).
The Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia virus (VHSv) has been identified in all of the Great Lakes, except Lake
Superior, with a significant number of large-scale fish mortality events. The pathogenic effects of this microbe
are clearly evidenced by massive die-offs among VHSv-infected Great Lakes fish, including muskellunge,
freshwater drum, yellow perch, gizzard shad, white bass, and round gobies.
VHSv, a viral fish disease, caused mortality in rainbow trout and turbot aquaculture operations in Europe, and
in Pacific herring and pilchard populations along the Pacific Coast of North America. This virus has a number
of identified isolates (unique genetic types) grouped in four types: three from Europe and one from North
America. The isolate recently found in Great Lakes fish is most similar to the VMS strain previously isolated from
the Atlantic Coast in eastern North America.
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions Booklet. Great Lake
Commission staff, on behalf of the Great Lakes Panel
on Aquatic Nuisance Species, completed work on
the development of a comprehensive publication:
Great Lakes Aquatic Invasions. The publication was
printed at the end of February 2007 and unveiled
with initial distribution in March at the Commission
sponsored Great Lakes Day 2007 events in
Washington, DC. Copies were also provided to
members of the national ANS Task Force, the Panel
and other interested parties at the Joint Meeting of
the ANS Task Force and Great Lakes Panel in May
2007. Staff have distributed over 2,000 of the 10,000
copies to agencies, legislators and others at a variety
of regional events. Further distribution of this
educational tool will continue to be targeted toward
state and federal legislators, as well as other prime
user groups from the recreational and commercial
sector. The Panel I/E Committee will also be asked to
aid in the development a feedback survey to track
the distribution and perceived value of the booklet.
An electronic version and associated references is
available online at jrHg://gJc.ora/gjTS/ggjjgticI
invasions.
Further information about the Panel, its activities, and
its membership can be found at: www.glc.org/ans/
Organisms in Trade The Great Lakes Commission is
currently conducting a collaborative planning
exercise with the goal of identifying and detailing the
primary components of a robust, outcome-oriented
project to advance management of the organisms in
trade vector for the Great Lakes region. Of growing
concern in the Great Lakes region are the invasion
risks posed by the organisms in trade vector and
associated pathways such as the aquarium and pet
trade, nursery and water garden outlets,
aquaculture, and bait, among others. This project,
funded through the Great Lakes Protection Fund, will
allow public and private sectors to work together to
address fundamental questions and identify
information resources regarding high-risk pathways
and associated species, business practices and
consumer behavior, and management approaches
(e.g., regulatory, voluntary and outreach).
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Initiative
The first line of defense against aquatic invasive
species (AIS) introductions is prevention; however,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Zebra Mussel
Quagga Mussel "profunda"
Intake Siphon
Source: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
**»«
Round Goby Populations in Indiana Waters
re
200
o>
Q. 150
re
O
c
re
o>
100
5°
The Round Goby
even the best prevention efforts may not stop all
introductions. Early detection and rapid response
efforts increase the likelihood that invasions will be
addressed successfully while populations are still
localized and can be contained and eradicated.
There are a variety of species-specific and location-
specific contingency plans that have been
completed by natural resource, environmental
protection, and land management agencies.
However, current organizational and fiscal resources
do not allow for planning for all possible events. As an
interim step toward improving AIS response capability
in situations where specific contingency planning
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Round Goby Populations in Indiana Waters of Lake Michigan
Source: Ball State University (Lauer et Al., 2004)
does not exist, a Rapid Response Communication
Protocol has been developed to insure that agencies
can efficiently coordinate and pool resources as soon
as a new invader is detected.
In December 2005, the federal agencies endorsed
forty-eight Federal Near Term Actions in support of the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) Strategy,
including "The Federal Interagency Task Force will
explore creating a Rapid Response Subcommittee
under the Regional Working Group to serve as a
central point of contact for information and activities
related to invasive species rapid response efforts."
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Corn trmed reports
Unconfirmed reports
Fish Samples'
USA"V.
MINNESOT&'r
New ANS Mysidacea found in Lake Michigan
H. anoma/a, or Mysidacea, was
reported for the first time in 2006
from two regions in the Great Lakes:
southeastern Lake Ontario at Nine
Mile Point near Oswego, New York,
in May 2006. The species, native to
the Ponto-Caspian region, was
discovered during fall 2006 in the
Lake Michigan basin. Large numbers
of individuals formed aggregations
in a shallow docking basin
connected to the channel linking
Lake Michigan and Muskegon Lake.
It has since been confirmed in a
growing number of locations around
Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes.
H. anoma/a was observed in the
docking basin through April 2007,
but disappeared thereafter. A few
individuals were subsequently
collected in the channel, and large
numbers (>130) were found in a
white perch stomach collected
from Muskegon Lake in July 2007.
Sampling in Lake Michigan off
Muskegon (tucker trawls, benthic
sleds, vertical tows, fish diets) did
not reveal any H. anoma/a during fall 2006 through summer 2007. Additional isolated reports of H. anoma/a
scattered around the nearshore areas of southern Lake Michigan from Muskegon to Cheboygan may indicate
that the species is now widespread in the basin. This is aquatic nuisance species number 183 for the Great Lakes.
For more information, or to report new findings of Mysidacea, see:
http://www.alerl.noaa.aov/res/Proarams/ncrais/henninnvsis/index.htnnl.
ILLINOIS
r'
Reports of Mysidacea in the Great Lakes
Source: National Center for Research on Aquatic Invasive Species
Mysidacea
Source: NOAA GLERL
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Controlling Invasive Species
Controlling the numbers and distribution of existing
nonindigenous species in the Great Lakes is still
extremely important in the ongoing battle against
invasive species. There are a variety of methods of
controlling existing populations. Some examples
include:
• Biocides: Chemicals, such as the lampricide IMF
(used to control sea lamprey populations) and
herbicides on aquatic plants, are sometimes used to
reduce or eradicate local populations of exotic
species.
• Barrier construction: Barriers use a variety of
methods, including sound waves, electrical impulses,
and visual and physical deterrents. These barriers
can help prevent the spread of exotics in smaller
waterways like canals and streams.
• Physical removal: Harvesting small populations of
aquatic plants, for instance, can act as a temporary
control in smaller inland lakes and waterways.
• Biological control: Very carefully selected non-
native species, usually predators, are introduced to
control population growth of another invasive
species. A good example of this is work done with
insects that specialize in eating purple loosestrife.
• Public education
More information is available at: www.areat-lakes.net/
teach/pollution/ans/ans 5.html
Over the year 2006, the Regional Working Group
established the Federal Aquatic Invasive Species
Rapid Response (FAISRR or "phaser") Subcommittee.
The subcommittee developed a Communication
Protocol with formal points of contact to help insure
that Federal agencies can efficiently coordinate and
pool resources.
Recognizing that this effort would only be successful if
non-federal partners were included, the Regional
Workgroup began discussions with GLRC Executive
Committee. In the Spring of 2007, the GLRC Executive
Committee endorsed the formation of an Aquatic
Invasive Species Rapid Response Initiative which
would expand the Communication Protocol to
include points of contact within State, Tribal, and City
agencies. A letter signed August 3, 2007 has been
transmitted to GLRC agencies, requesting the
identification of formal points of contact by
September 15, 2007.
Pennsylvania has offered to host a Mock Exercise
which will test the Communication Protocol. They are
able to bring additional resources to the effort from
an existing grant and will provide the meeting
facilities at Presque Isle, PA. (This location/event may
also occur in conjunction with Pennsylvania's Clean
Boats Day.)
The next step is to form a small steering committee to
guide the Mock Exercise. Membership will be on a
volunteer basis, solicited from the Communication
Protocol membership list.
Clean Boats Initiative
The Great Lakes are one of the top recreational
boating destinations in the nation. Nearly 4.3 million
boats are registered in the eight Great Lakes states.
These boaters spend nearly $16 billion on boats and
boating activities in a single year, directly supporting
107,000 jobs. Outreach efforts to this user group can
help ensure a healthy Great Lakes ecosystem, as well
as help support a strong and sustainable recreational
economy. The proposed "Great Lakes Clean Boat
Initiative" would promote these goals.
• The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Executive
Committee Sub-committee has proposed that
U.S. Sea Grant representatives lead regional
efforts on the Clean Boats Initiative. An initial
conference call with GLRC partners, Sea Grant
staff and other interested parties will be held in
coming weeks to clarify the workplan and
timeline moving forward.
• An informal steering group will be established that
will coordinate efforts to establish a compendium
of existing boater education and outreach
materials. It is possible that the steering group will
coordinate with the existing database hosted by
Portland State University (http://www.clr.pdx.edu/
projects/edoutreach/content/browse.php)
• Steering group members will also select a date or
dates for Clean Boat Day to be held during the
2008 boating season. It is possible that Clean Boat
Day will be held in conjunction with, or promoted
along with, the GLRC Rapid Response mock
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
exercise.
State Efforts to Prevent the Spread of
ANS
The states which share Lake Michigan's resources,
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin) know all
too well the negative effects that ANS have had on
their industries, tourism and lifestyles. The states,
collectively, are sharing the burden of controlling the
ANS already established in Lake Michigan but they
also share the desire to prevent further introductions.
The following efforts are being conducted to prevent
and control ANS on a state by state basis:
Illinois
Ilinois pet stores get a Habitattitude
(TM)Habitattiude posters are now in nearly every pet
store in Chicago. These posters, which were created
through a partnership between Illinois-Indiana Sea
Grant (IISG) and the City of Chicago Department of
Environment, encourage aquarium owners to use
alternatives to dumping aquatic pets and plants.
Soon, the posters will be distributed throughout the
state. The Illinois DNR,A6s fishery biologists will be
personally distributing the posters to pet stores in their
districts. This means that aquarium hobbyists and
backyard water gardeners statewide will have the
information they need to prevent the introduction
and spread of invasive species via their activities.
For more information, contact Kristin TePas
Chicagoland's "New Invaders Watch List" to add
aquatics
The New Invaders Watch is a partnership of
government, nonprofit, and volunteer organizations
dedicated to the early detection and control of new
exotic invasive plant and insect species in the
Chicago Wilderness (CW) region, an area of globally
threatened natural communities. They work to 1)
increase understanding of invasive species impacts,
their modes of invasion, and control measures to limit
their spread, 2) provide mechanisms to collect and
share information on plant and insect target species
to improve management strategies and predict
future distributions, and 3) facilitate the prevention
and control of new exotic invasives. To do this, they
rely on trained volunteers to locate and voucher
target species. With newly-secured funding, they will
Exotic Species Advisory Sign
•Brazilian Elbtfek
-
Eg&ria d&nsa
I'"" '^frf'jgf?-
Hydrilla vertkillata
;<
*Y
Efodea canadensis
Indiana is working to prevent the spread of Brazilian elo-
dea which has been found in the southern part of the
state. This diagram shows how to identify Brazilian elo-
dea from other nuisance aquatic plants.
More information is available at:
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
be able to add aquatic plant species to their current
list of mostly terrestrial target species.
More information is available at hjlei//
y^
they pull in and out of Lake Michigan. The sign
contains simple steps boaters can take to prevent
spreading AIS. To view the sign, visit htlpj/Z
AIS messages in 2007 fishing guide
Pages 48 and 49 of the 2007 Illinois Fishing Guide
feature AIS messages including the , "Stop Aquatic
Hitchhikers" campaign and /'Don't Dump Bait" logo.
It also includes full-color photos of adult Asian carp to
help anglers know these fishes. Side-by-side, full-color
photos of Asian carp juveniles and shad are also
featured, to show how similar the species appear.
Because they are difficult to tell apart, anglers should
not collect bait from Asian-carp infested waters for
use on uninfested waters.
To view an on-line version of the fishing guide, visit
Chicago marinas get new AIS signs
The marinas along Lake Michigan in Chicago are
decked out with new Exotic Species Advisory signs.
The Chicago Park District posted the signs at their
boat ramps so that recreational boaters see them as
Indiana
Brazilian Elodea Update
2007 marked the second consecutive year of
Brazilian elodea eradication efforts at 109 acre Griffy
Lake. Prior to eradication it was easy to fill sampling
rakes with Brazilian elodea. In the spring of 2007 only
two small sprigs of the plant were found; a hint that
continued vigilance was required. During an August
2007 intensive plant survey no Brazilian elodea was
found. While it is still too early to claim victory over the
species in Griffy Lake, at least the plant is at a non-
detectable level and may have been eradicated.
Plant surveys will continue in the coming years to
determine if there is any re-growth which will force
additional treatments.
Hydrilla Update
Hydrilla was discovered in 735 acre Lake Manitou in
August 2006. A multi-year eradication plan was
developed between DNR and SePRO Corporation.
all
Purple Loosestrife
Purple loosestrife is a plant of European origin, that has spread and
degraded temperate North American wetlands since the early
nineteenth century. The plant was introduced both as a contaminant
European ship ballast and as a medicinal herb for treatment of
diarrhea, dysentery, bleeding, wounds, ulcers and sores.
i The continued expansion of the plant coincided with increased
, development and use of road systems, commercial distribution of the
plant for horticultural purposes, and regional propagation of seed for
bee forage. It is found in all contiguous states (except Florida) and all
Canadian provinces.
'" Once established in wetlands and along stream banks it crowds out
.'. native species. One plant may produce 2.5 million seeds. It is
estimated that 200,000 ha of US wetlands are lost annually through
invasion of this species. The loss of wetlands and native habitat
impacts both flora and fauna with birds and migratory birds being
especially impacted.
Purple Lossestrife
Source: Lake Koshkonong Wetland Association
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Electric Fish Barrier Gets Funding
The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal provides an artificial link between the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River basins. To prevent the trans-migration of invasive species between the two basins—
and largely motivated by the spread of Asian carp toward the Great Lakes—the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers constructed and operates an experimental electrical barrier on the canal. This barrier is
failing and is in need of retrofitting. In addition, a second, permanent barrier is being constructed
near the experimental barrier to provide an extra layer of protection.
The second barrier consists of two arrays 350 feet long, which is 10 times the larger than the first.
Unlike the first experimental barrier that has a 3-5 year service life, this barrier has a 20 year service
life. $8.6 million in construction, $500,000 in operations and maintenance, and $665,000 in carry over
funding was approved as part of the Water Resources Development Act for the second barrier.
Funding already provided by the Great Lakes states for construction will be credited by the ACOE
for other projects in the states.
Chicago Sanitary and
Electric Fish Barrier
2Aand2B
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Chicago District
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Great Lakes Aquatic
Nonindigenous Species
Information System
(GLANSIS) Database of
Aquatic Invasive Species on
the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species
Information System (GLANSIS) is a database of
Aquatic Invasive Species on the Great Lakes. The
Great Lakes have a long history of aquatic
nonindigenous species (ANS) introductions- both
intentional and unintentional. As of 2007, over 180
nonindigenous species have been reported to have
reproducing populations in the Great Lakes basin, i.e.
lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, St. Clair, Erie, Ontario,
and their connecting channels and water bodies
within their respective drainages.
The present database targets ANS that are not
considered to have been native to any part of the
Great Lakes basin. Species that are documented as
native to part of the basin, but invaded other parts of
the basin due to human-expedited mechanisms or
range expansions are not included in this database
at the present time, except for the sea lamprey.
More information is available at:
www.alerl.noaa.aov/res/Proarams/ncrais/alansis.html
Implementation of that plan began in the spring of
2007. Sonar was immediately applied after hydrilla
growth was observed in the spring. The last hydrilla
vegetative material observed in Manitou was in the
middle of June; just one month after treatment
began. Lethal fluridone levels were maintained
through at least October. The telling sign in
determining whether the battle with hydrilla is being
won is to watch the tuber bank in the sediment. Pre-
treatment versus late summer 2007 tuber densities
were compared. It appears as though the tuber
bank has been reduced by more than 80% in the
first year. While Indiana DNR has made great strides
at reducing hydrilla at Lake Manitou in the first year,
we still have a long way to go to achieve our goal
of zero tubers and complete elimination of hydrilla.
At least two more years of whole-lake treatments
are anticipated.
Contact: Doug Keller, 31 7-234-3883,
dkeller@dnr.in.gov
Michigan
Michigan Passes Ballast Water Reporting Law
Michigan passed a ballast water reporting law that
requires the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) to determine whether ballast water
management practices are being complied with by
all vessels operating on the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence waterway.
The State of Michigan wants to take action to
protect the Great Lakes from aquatic invasive
species. Law supporters believe that If actions are
not taken to stop the spread of aquatic invasive
species, additional species will be transported into
the Great Lakes (and from the Great Lakes to other
parts of the world) through ballast water. Additional
major impacts such as elimination of native species
may be seen on the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Under the law, owners/operators of vessels must
register with The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality's Ballast Water Reporting List
and fill out a Ballast Water Management Practices
Report Form. Information required on the form
includes:
For oceangoing vessels:
• Indicate whether during the last 12 months, the
vessel maintained compliance with the Code of
Best Management Practices for Ballast Water
Management provided by the Shipping
Federation of Canada.
• Indicate whether the vessel is currently
complying with the ballast water management
practices
For nonoceangoing vessels:
• Indicate whether during the last 12 months, the
vessel maintained compliance with the
Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce the
Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species within the
Great Lakes by the United States and Canadian
Domestic Shipping, provided by the Lake
Carriers' Association and the Canadian
Shipowners' Association
• Indicate whether the vessel is currently
complying with the ballast water management
practices.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
More information is found at: htjjDi/Z
www.michigan.gov/deq/0, 1607,7-1 35-
As a result of Public Act 33 of 2005, Michigan's
Ballast Water Control General Permit became
effective January 1, 2007. As of October 2007,
MDEQ has issued 83 permits to 28 international
shipping companies to conduct port operations in
Michigan. A lawsuit was filed in federal court in
Detroit by a group of shipping interests, who
sought to nullify Public Act 33 of 2005; however, a
federal judge dismissed the suit determining the
statute was clearly rational and valid due to the
fact that Michigan is facing a serious threat to its
environment caused by AIS, has determined the
likely avenues by which those species are being
introduced, and has taken measures to stop this
introduction.
The Michigan DNR has also developed a process
for listing or delisting a species from Michigan's
current list of prohibited and restricted species.
Under the process, anyone can submit a request
to the MDNR proposing to list or delist a species
provided they complete the required request
form including reasons for the proposal and
documentation (scientific studies, expert opinion,
etc.) that supports the proposal. The MDNR will
then review the information for completeness and
then charge a technical review committee with
assessing the species. An opportunity for public
input will be offered. The Technical Committee will
then provide findings to the MDNR who will then
prepare a "Final Species Recommendation" for
the MDNR Director. Once a decision has been
made by the Director, legislative action will be
sought.
Wisconsin
Ballast Water
The WDNR has a draft rule completed on invasive
species control. The rule classifies existing and new
invasive species based on established criteria. The
rule places restrictions on the purchase, sale,
possession, transportation, and cultivation of
invasive species that are classified as prohibited
or restricted. It allows for the conditional
possession of some invasive species when
authorized by a permit from the WDNR. The WDNR
Black Carp Listed as an Injurious Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on October
18, 2007 added black carp (Mylopharyngodon
piceus) to the list of injurious fish under the Lacey
Act. This action prohibits live black carp, gametes,
viable eggs and hybrids from being imported into
or transported between the states of the
continental U.S., the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory
or possession of the U.S.
Black carp originally entered the U.S. in 1973 as a
"contaminant" in imported shipments of grass carp
or other Chinese carp stocks. The second
introduction of black carp took place in the early
1980s when it was used in fish production ponds in
the southeastern U.S. for biological control of a
parasite, and as a potential food fish. Since that
time black carp have become more commonly
used and transported, particularly during the late
1990s to control another species of snail-borne
parasite at primarily catfish and hybrid striped bass
farms.
PtTOJo by Rofo
miftem MajcjMtf H&toy Survey
C««*t Rivera Field sunian
will be taking the rule out to public meetings in
January to obtain input from stakeholders and
interested parties.
A Port of Milwaukee onshore ballast water
treatment feasibility study report was completed
by Brown and Caldwell via a contract with the
WDNR. The ballast water would be treated using
filtering screens and ultraviolet light to kill
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Toolbox
Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites
Phragmites australis (frag-MY-teez), also known as common reed, is a
perennial, wetland grass that can grow to 15 feet in height. While
Phragmites australis is native to Michigan, an invasive, non-native,
variety of phragmites is becoming widespread and is threatening the
ecological health of wetlands and the Great Lakes coastal shoreline.
Invasive phragmites creates tall, dense stands which degrade wetlands
and coastal areas by crowding out native plants and animals, blocking
shoreline views, reducing access for swimming, fishing, and hunting and
can create fire hazards from dry plant material.
Phragmites can be controlled using an integrated pest management
approach which includes an initial herbicide treatment followed by
mechanical removal (e.g., cutting, mowing) and annual maintenance.
For large areas with dense stands of phragmites, prescribed burning
used after herbicide treatment can provide additional control and
ecological benefits over mechanical removal. Early detection is key to
preventing large dense stands and is also more cost efficient.
Phragmites
Source: Michigan Sea Grant
ww.miseagrant.umich.edu
What You Can Do
1 . Identify plants to confirm if it is invasive phragmites
2. Read the Landowners Guide to Phragmites Control to understand the management issues
3. (In Michigan) Determine the location of the plants relative to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) by contacting
MDEQ's Land and Water Management Division (LWMD) for assistance
4. If necessary, apply and obtain permit(s):
• If chemical treatment below OHWM or in standing water, submit application for single-season Aquatic Nuisance
Control permit before August 15 in the year of the proposed chemical treatment
• If regulated mechanical activity below OHWM, submit application for 5-year LWMD permit
If necessary, submit application for permit from Army Corps of Engineers
5. Conduct treatment
6. Monitor impacts of the treatment(s)
7. Fulfill any permit reporting requirements
8. Repeat the process in future years
What You Should Know
• To Identify Phragmites, visitwww.invasiveplants.net/phraarnites/phraa/rnorph.htm or http://plants.usda.gov/java/
profile?symbol=PHAU7
• EosQiJeixU^jMte^
Required Criteria to Qualify for the General Permit for Limited Great Lakes Shoreline Management Activities - ^Control
Searchable Database for Licensed Herbicide Applicator Businesses (search under category "Aquatics")
More information is available at
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
organisms. Study results focused on the Port of
Milwaukee, but the approach would work in other
Great Lakes at a cost of $1 to $2 million per port. The
onshore treatment offers a less expensive alternative
to smaller ships that may find on-board treatment
technologies prohibitive.
Hydrilla
Hydrilla was discovered in August in a small pond in
northeast Wisconsin. The WDNR, the Department of
Ag, Trade, and Consumer, local county officials and
the landowner developed a plan to eradicate the
invasive plant. The pond was chemically treated with
an aquatic herbicide and other area waters were
surveyed to assure that the plant hadn't spread to
nearby waters. The pond has been recently
dewatered in preparation for the colder weather
with the goal being to hopefully freeze the hydrilla
tubers and propagules this winter.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 9
Are ecosystem stewardship activities common and undertaken by
public and private organizations in communities around the basin?
Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
MIXED
DETERIORATING
MIXED
MIXED
IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE
=1
What is our target for
sustainability?
There has been a paradigm shift from a few
actions on a large scale to many additional
actions by educated and trained basin
stewards
Why is this important?
Each government, institution, organization,
and individual within the Lake Michigan basin
has a potential role in ecosystem stewardship;
however, no single government institution,
organization, or individual has the ability to
implement stewardship activities
and achieve sustainability in the basin
unilaterally. The watershed fact sheets in
Chapter 12 are tools created to encourage the recognition of the linkage between local watershed actions
and Lake Michigan. The current status of stewardship is mixed but will improve as more Lake Michigan
watershed partnerships are formed and linked.
What is the current status?
There has been major progress in development of tools to help guide those interested in environmental action
from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), EnergyStar, and WaterSense, although there is
not enough awareness about these programs.
What are the major challenges?
• Creating a framework of tools and activities tailored to the watershed and community level while
promoting Lake Michigan basin-wide interaction and partnerships.
What are the next steps?
• Develop projects utilizing the Lake Michigan LaMP watershed fact sheets, land use management tool box
and exploration of other tools.
• Provide additional education and outreach materials on water conservation and source water
protection.
• Continue the Lake Michigan Watershed Academy, support GIS and modeling workshops and obtain and
provide small implementation grants to local communities.
• Continue to build layers for the on-line habitat atlas.
• Hold FY 2009 State of Lake Michigan Conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
• Continue the research vessel boat tour- Making Lake Michigan Great combined with outreach and
teacher workshops.
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
Watershed Management On-line Tools
USEPA Watershed Academy On-Line
Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
Michigan Environmental Council Tips on Reducing Phosphorus Pollution
Ecosystem-based Environmental Management System (Eco-EMS) Assessment Tool
EPA Calculator Puts Greenhouse Gas Savings in Everyday Terms
West Michigan Sustainable Purchasing Consortium
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
Indicator # 3514 - Commercial/
Industrial Eco Efficiency
Measures
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 4507 - Wetland-
Dependent Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed;
Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 4510 - Coastal
Wetland Area by Type
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator # 4858 - Ice Duration
on the Great Lakes
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating (with respect to
climate change)
Indicator # 4861 - Effect of Water
Level Fluctuations
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 4862 - Coastal
Wetland Plant Community
Health
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 4863 - Land Cover
Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Status: Not Fully Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7000 - Urban Density
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7002 - Land Cover/
Land Conversion
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed;
Trend: Undetermined
Indicator # 7006 - Brownfields
Redevelopment
Status: Mixed; Trend: Improving
Indicator # 7028 - Sustainable
Agriculture Practices
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7043 - Economic
Prosperity
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7060 - Solid Waste
Disposal
Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7061 - Nutrient
Management Plans
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7062 - Integrated
Pest Management
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7064 - Vehicle Use
Status: Poor; Trend: Deteriorating
Indicator # 7065 - Wastewater
Treatment and Pollution
Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 7100 - Natural
Groundwater Quality and
Human-Induced Changes
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7101 -Groundwater
and Land: Use and Intensity
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 7102 - Base Flow Due
to Groundwater Discharge
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator # 7103 - Groundwater
Dependent Plant and Animal
Communities
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality
and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Alvers
Status: Mixed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality
and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities -
Cobble Beaches
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality
and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Islands
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 8129 - Area, Quality
and Protection of Special
Lakeshore Communities - Sand
Dunes
Status: Not Assessed; Trend: Not
Assessed
Indicator # 8131 - Extent of
Hardened Shoreline
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Deteriorating
Indicator # 8164 - Biodiversity
Conservation Sites
Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 8500 - Forest Lands -
Conservation of Biological
Diversity
Status: Mixed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 8501 - Forest Lands -
Maintenance of Productive
Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
Status: Not Assessed; Trend:
Undetermined
Indicator # 8503 - Forest Lands -
Conservation and Maintenance
of Soil and Water Resources
Lake Michigan Status: Mixed;
Trend: Undetermined
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.gov/solec/sogl2007/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Importance of Partnerships
The past decade of ecosystem management in the
basin has seen a profound shift from a top-down,
command and control, government-dominated
approach to a bottom-up, partnership-based,
inclusive approach. This evolution is the manifestation
of a number of developments, including changes in
federal, state, tribal and local relationships; local
community empowerment; increased focus on local
partners; and watershed-based institution building. If
a sustainable Lake Michigan ecosystem is to be
achieved, it falls to us to rearrange ourselves, our
interest groups, and our governments into a new
institutional framework—a framework that consists of
existing organizations and governments "rafted"
together as full partners in the pursuit of the LaMP
goals.
Effective place-based partnerships are the result of
the rafting of "full partners." Full partnership implies
moving beyond the stakeholder model, wherein
citizen committees (stakeholder groups) are briefed
about agency plans and projects, to a model based
on full collaboration in the definition of basin-wide
goals and the sharing of resources to achieve these
goals. The Lake Michigan LaMP helped start and
supports a number of partnerships including the Lake
Michigan Forum and the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy. The Lake Michigan LaMP helped start and
supports a number of partnerships including the Lake
Michigan Forum and Watershed Academy.
Lake Michigan's Watershed Academy
The challenge of translating Lake Michigan scale
watershed data and planning to local governments
divided by political boundaries is being undertaken
through the development of the Lake Michigan
Watershed Academy. In 2000 and 2002, the Lake
Michigan Lakewide Management Plan highlighted
the need to promote a series of dialogues with local
decision makers about the status of their watersheds
and their impact on Lake Michigan. Monitoring data
and Geographic Information System presentations
clearly show the interconnected aspects of the basin
and the need to plan and cooperate across political
boundaries in order to conserve habitat and sustain
biodiversity.
The Lake Michigan Watershed Academy was
launched in March 2003 when the Academy hosted
Lake Michigan Toolbox
Watershed Management
On-line Tools
The Midwest Partnership for Watershed Management
was launched in 2002 by the Wisconsin DNR and
USEPA Region 5 Water Division to provide access to
free, coherently organized, scientifically-based
watershed-based information for local officials and
planners, natural resource managers, and the general
public. The partnership aims to provide the maximum
information and analytic tools to those levels of
government closest to the actual problems. It offers
both direct access to its own free web-based decision
support tools and road maps to other sites where
additional tools can be found. The effort has been
working closely with the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy.
Many communities do not have access to computer
models, or initial screening of, their environmental
problem and need cost effective, user friendly tools to
assist them. Existing information and analytic tools,
properly presented and freely accessible, and can
help meet this challenge. Watershed management
data and decision support tools can allow informed
screening and preliminary selection of alternatives,
eliminating large amounts of preliminary "leg work"
needed for watershed plan development.
More information is available at
a three-day event for staff, commissioners, and local
officials from six regional planning commissions that
operate on the shores of Lake Michigan. The purpose
of the sessions was to introduce many of them to the
watershed planning concept and provide an
overview on how the approach can be implemented
on the local level. The meeting was co-sponsored by
Western Michigan University's Institute for Water
Sciences. The participating regional planning
commissions from the four Lake Michigan states
include the Bay Lakes Regional Planning Commission,
the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for
Planning, the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning
Commission, West Michigan Regional Shoreline
Development Commission, and the Northwest
Michigan Regional Planning Commission.
The Academy meeting provided an opportunity to
present perspectives from USEPA Region 5, USEPA
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
headquarters, other federal agencies, tribal, state,
and environmental perspectives on clean water
issues and their relationship to watershed planning.
The regional planning commissions then followed up
with conferences in their respective areas tailored for
their communities. In addition to two pilot
conferences in South Bend, Indiana, and Kalamazoo,
Michigan, conferences were held in Green Bay,
Wisconsin, Traverse City, Michigan, Muskegon,
Michigan, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Additional
conferences in Phase II of the Academy.
The concept of a Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy is to provide a "packaging and delivery
system" that brings together the tools, data, and
expertise of many federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies as well as NGOs and environmental
organizations to explore opportunities for new
partnerships, thereby impacting the quality of the
land use plans and partners in the Lake Michigan
watershed.
The Lake Michigan Watershed Academy Phase III will
convene in May 2008 with a training conference and
will provide start-up funding for efforts to implement
projects resulting from the regional conference
discussions. See page 10-4 fora summary of Phase II
activities. For more information contact
www.chicagoareaplanning.org/lakemichigan/
USEPA Utilizes Watersheds for Program
Implementation
In December 2002 USEPA's Assistant Administrator for
Water issued a policy memorandum entitled:
"Committing EPA's Water Program to Advancing the
Watershed Approach." The memorandum not only
reaffirmed USEPA's commitment to the watershed
approach, but also reenergized efforts to ensure that
USEPA as a whole fully integrates the watershed
approach into program implementation. The
memorandum established a USEPA Watershed
Management Council (WMC) to accelerate efforts to
develop and issue National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits on a watershed
basis. The USEPA issued final guidance on watershed
permitting in December 2003 (EPA 833-B-03-004).
Watershed-based NPDES permitting is an approach
to developing NPDES permits for multiple point
sources within a defined geographic area. The
Lake Michigan Toolbox
USEPA Watershed Academy
On-Line
The Watershed Academy is a focal point for
providing training and information on
implementing watershed approaches.
Training materials and tools have been developed
including USEPA's Watershed Academy Web-Based
Training, Drinking Water Academy, American Water
Works Association Source Water Training, Land Trust
Alliance training materials, other existing videos and
state and local training materials such as Michigan's
Department of Environmental Quality's "Developing a
Watershed Management Plan for Water Quality."
These and others are available at: Many can be
accessed at
www.epa.aov/OWOW/watershed/wacademv
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Draft Handbook for
Developing Watershed Plans
This draft handbook is intended to help communities,
watershed organizations, and state, local, tribal and
federal environmental agencies develop and
implement watershed plans to meet water quality
standards and protect water resources. It was designed
to help any organization undertaking a watershed
planning effort, and it should be particularly useful to
persons working with impaired or threatened waters.
USEPA intends for this handbook to supplement existing
watershed planning guides that have already been
developed by agencies, universities, and other
nonprofit organizations. The handbook is generally
more specific than other guides with respect to
guidance on quantifying existing pollutant loads,
developing estimates of the load reductions required to
meet water quality standards, developing effective
management measures, and tracking progress once
the plan is implemented.
USEPA is making this draft document widely available
with the purpose of having it used and tested by a
variety of watershed partnerships. USEPA will be seeking
advice from such organizations in developing the final
version. More information is available at:
http://epa.gov/nps/watershed handbook/pdf/
handbook.pdf.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
primary difference between this approach and
the current approach to permitting is the
consideration of watershed goals and the impact
of multiple pollutant sources and stressors,
including nonpoint source contributions.
Watershed-based permitting may encompass a
variety of activities ranging from synchronizing
permits within a basin to developing water-quality
based effluent limits using a multiple discharger
modeling analysis. The type of permitting activity
will vary from watershed to watershed,
Lake Michigan Toolbox
Michigan Environmental
Council Tips on Reducing
Phosphorus Pollution
(Excerpted from "Something's Amuck: Algae blooms
return to Michigan shores," ]
Most American homeowners use fertilizers to assure
green and healthy lawns, but soil testing programs in
Michigan and other states have found that up to 99%
of samples provided by homeowners already have
enough naturally occurring phosphorus without any ad-
ditional contributions from fertilizers. Adding phosphorus
fertilizers means much of this ingredient will run off into
lakes and streams, stimulating algae blooms. Even
homeowners who don't live near lakes and streams
can send excess phosphorus into Michigan waters
through storm drains.
Some things that people can do to reduce phosphorus
in the environment include:
• Have your lawn soil tested. Many lawn care and
nursery stores now provide soil testing services.
• Use phosphorus-free fertilizer. Any bag of fertilizer
has a series of three numbers. The middle number
indicates phosphate content and should read "0."
If your store doesn't offer a phosphorus-free
fertilizer, demand to know why.
Other ways to reduce phosphorus include:
• Expand the use of buffer strips and other incentives
to reduce animal waste runoff.
• Control phosphorus content in dishwashing
detergents.
• Reduce the leakage of human wastes into
groundwater, streams and lakes from failing septic
systems and municipal sewers.
More information is available at: http://
www.mecprotects.ora/alaae062006.pdf.
depending on the unique circumstances in the
watershed and the sources affecting watershed
conditions. The ultimate goal of watershed-
based NPDES permitting, however, is to develop
and issue NPDES permits that consider the entire
watershed, not just an individual point source
discharger.
Although significant water quality improvements
have been made during the past three decades,
water quality problems remain. Many of the
remaining problems involve complex mixtures of
sources and impacts that require integrated,
holistic solutions. Over the past decade, the
number of sources subject to the NPDES program
has increased almost tenfold. There is a pressing
need for innovative and efficient solutions to
permitting these point sources that will result in
further water quality gains. As a mechanism to
help integrate other water program activities and
to target the most pressing environmental issues
within a watershed, a watershed-based
approach to NPDES permitting can serve as one
innovative tool for achieving new efficiencies and
environmental progress.
Green Ports
USEPA has unveiled a new plan of action for
working with public port authorities and other
interested groups to reduce the environmental
impacts of moving goods through ports. The
"Vision, Mission, and Strategy for Sustainable Ports"
recognizes the steady growth in global maritime
commerce and the critical role American ports
and related transportation and supply chain
partners play in managing the environmental
impacts of moving goods across the country.
Ports are vital to the United States economy.
Ocean-going ships move more than 99 percent
of U.S. overseas trade (by weight). The top ten
U.S. ports moved a combined total of 23 million
cargo containers in 2006. The environmental
challenges for ports and their transportation
network include reducing air emissions, improving
water quality, and protecting the health of
communities near port facilities.
EPA's Strategy focuses on six themes: Clean Air
and Affordable Energy, Clean and Safe Water,
Healthy Communities and Eco-systems, Global
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Environment, Ports Communications, and
Enforcement. There are more than 70 possible
actions, including working with port authorities, their
business partners and other sectors of the
transportation industry to quantify and reduce air
emissions from all sources along the shipping supply
chain; setting up state innovative financing funds to
help small owner-operators of diesel equipment
finance the upgrading or replacement of older,
dirtier engines; and collaborating with the
international port community on innovative
technologies and development of international
standards.
EPA's strategy complements the recent resolution
and guiding principles on port sustainability issued by
the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA).
EPA programs will work with AAPA, individual port
authorities, private port operators, transportation
supply and logistics companies, government
agencies, states, communities, and other interested
groups to promote and implement sustainable
practices at ports and their related operations. EPA
regions will work collaboratively with individual ports
to select (from among the full menu of possible
actions in the EPA Strategy) a specific set of activities
to work on together. These shared action plans will
address the unique environmental impacts and
opportunities for ports in different parts of the country.
More information is available at www;eE>g.ggy/
sectgr/gorts,.
Making Lake Michigan Great 2007
Since 1998, the W.G. Jackson research and
education vessel has been spreading the word
about the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management
Plan through the Making Lake Michigan Great tours.
Throughout the years, 30 ports of call have been
visited reaching four states, with local hosts
coordinating groups for hands-on water quality
sampling cruises. Participants in tour activities learn
about Lake Michigan and have the opportunity to
discuss lakewide concerns. Tour funding has come
mainly from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Great Lakes National Program Office.
The Jackson kicked off its 2007 season with 3 days in
Milwaukee, The first stop was at the Great Lakes
Water Institute, a University of Wisconsin Research
Facility. The Jackson then moved to the Pier
Wisconsin Dock, where it hosted five tours for local
Mona Lake Update
Industrial contamination has had a significant impact on
the Mona Lake watershed. A recent study by Matthew
Cooper at Grand Valley State University looks at the
impacts of the extensive history of industrial contamination
on all levels of life in the watershed. The purpose of this
study was to relate sediment contamination to faunal
community structure in Little Black Creek.
Little Black Creek, a tributary of Mona Lake, was heavily
industrialized with refineries, plating companies, and metal
finishing operations. Cress Creek, an uncontaminated
tributary of Mona Lake, was used as a reference. Sediment
toxicants, water chemical/physical variables, benthic
invertebrates, and fish were sampled at multiple stream
and wetland sites throughout each watershed seasonally.
The two streams had similar chemical/physical
characteristics though Little Black Creek sediments
contained higher levels of heavy metals and PAH
compounds.
Richness and densities of pollution sensitive Trichoptera and
P/ecopfera taxa were higher in Cress Creek. Indirect
gradient analyses indicated that differences between the
two streams outweighed differences due to relative
watershed position or season, suggesting that
anthropogenic disturbance in Little Black Creek altered
macroinvertebrate communities and these alterations
overshadowed temporal and site-specific variability.
Turbidity, sediment grain size, and toxicant levels were
greater in the wetlands of Little Black Creek though
macroinvertebrate communities appeared to respond
more to substrate characteristics and turbidity than toxicant
concentration.
Fish communities were substantially different between Little
Black and Cress Creek wetlands. Nineteen fish species were
collected from the Cress Creek wetlands while only three
species were collected from the Little Black Creek wetland.
More information is available at Mte/Z
www.monalakewalershed.orca/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan Toolbox
Ecosystem-based Environmental Management System (Eco-EMS)
Assessment Tool
Over the past few months, the Lake Michigan Forum has been developing an Ecosystem-based
Environmental Management System (Eco-EMS) assessment for the Muskegon Lake watershed. The goal of
the Eco-EMS is to identify opportunities to improve the environmental performance of Muskegon Harbor
relative to local watershed issues as part of the work of the LaMP Nearshore Focus Area.
The first task was the completion of an Ecosystem Impairment Profile and Matrix. The Delta Institute, which
supports the Forum, uses the Profile and Matrix to identify local ecosystem impairments and community
issues surrounding the Muskegon Harbor. By using various public databases, the Forum was able to
compile a comprehensive list of chemical and physical discharges in the Muskegon Lake watershed.
The next task is to compare the environmental impacts of Muskegon Harbor with those identified in the
Profile and Matrix. The purpose of this comparison is to evaluate the potential effects (positive or
negative) of the Harbor's operations on the local ecosystem.
To begin this process, the Forum convened a small group of Muskegon Lake stakeholders in November
2007. The project is expected to be completed at the end of the year.
If you are interested in attending, please contact Todd Parker at the Delta Institute, 517.482.8810.
Great Lakes Port Locations
JORT HURO N
RRYSUILLE
5T. CLRIR
IflRINE CITY
*BENTON
*ST. JOSEPH
*RIYER ROUGE
ECORSE
*BURNS HRRBOR MONROE
TOLE
CHICRGO
INDIRNR HRRBOR*
• R3HTRBULR
* FRIRPORT
Source: www.AmericanSteamship.com/unload ports big.html
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
and state government officials, community groups,
youth, engineering and environmental professionals.
The Jackson wrapped up its Milwaukee visit with a
special cruise for the Friends of the Milwaukee River
Water Monitors, a group that seeks to establish a
watershed-wide network of trained citizens, who
collect data and monitor streams. In early July, the
Jackson steamed into Waukegan for seven tours. At
this stop, the Jackson hosted a river clean-up group,
recreational boaters, a neighborhood group and
various youth and senior citizen groups. In addition,
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
EPA Calculator Puts Greenhouse
Gas Savings in Everyday Terms
The calculator converts greenhouse gas-related savings
estimates, typically presented in "million metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents," into familiar terms such as the
greenhouse gas emissions that would result from:
• Driving a particular number of cars for a year,
• Using a particular amount of gasoline or barrels of oil,
• Using a particular number of tanker trucks' worth of
gasoline,
• Providing energy to a particular number of homes for a
year,
• Growing trees across a particular number of acres for a
year,
• Recycling a particular quantity of waste instead of
sending it to the landfill, or
• Generating electricity from a particular number of coal
fired power plants for a year.
Users can enter savings in emissions, electricity
consumption, gallons of gasoline, or number of vehicles
into the calculator and determine up to 13 different ways
to express the magnitude of the savings. The calculator
uses the latest emission factors, approaches and statistics
available through 2007.
As an example, if a typical household switched all its
incandescent light bulbs to Energy Star qualified compact
fluorescent light bulbs, it would save about 75 percent of
the lighting electricity use, or about 1,463 kWh a year.
After five years, these energy savings are equivalent to:
• Saving about 10,289 pounds of CO2 emissions,
• Conserving 530 gallons of gasoline,
• Saving 11 barrels of oil,
• Planting 120 tree seedlings, or
• Recycling 1.6 tons of waste.
More information is available at www.epa.aov/
cleanenerav/enerav-resources/calculator.html
the DJ. Angus, a second Grand Valley State
University research vessel, hosted three cruises for the
public in Grand Haven in late July. These cruises
were funded by the Grand Haven Community
Foundation.
Plans are underway for the Making Lake Michigan
Great 2008 tour with stops in Michigan City, Indiana
and perhaps Racine, Wisconsin. If you are interested
in hosting a port or if you would like more information,
contract Janet Vail at vailj@gvsu.edu.
The Lake Michigan Forum
The Lake Michigan Forum provides input on the LaMP
to USEPA from representative stakeholders of the
Lake Michigan basin. In recognition of the LaMP
statement that every basin resident is a "Lake
Michigan Manager," the forum seeks opportunities to
foster ecosystem stewardship through multi-
organizational initiatives and partnerships, looking for
LaMP implementation opportunities beyond what
can be achieved by government efforts.
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Eco-Logical
Infrastructure consists of the basic facilities - such as trans-
portation and communications systems, utilities, and public
institutions - needed for the functioning of a community or
society. Sometimes the development of these facilities can
negatively impact water quality, habitat and ecosystems.
Techniques have been developed to better avoid, mini-
mize, and mitigate these impacts, as well as the impacts of
past infrastructure projects. However, the avoidance, mini-
mization, and mitigation efforts used may not always pro-
vide the greatest environmental benefit, or may do very
little to promote ecosystem sustainability. This concern,
along with a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding to foster
an ecosystem approach, mobilized a federal interagency
team to collaborate to write Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem
Approach to Developing Infrastructure Project. This ap-
proach has been captured in a publication and in June of
2007 Federal Highways made its first grant solicitation for
projects integrating transportation and resource planning to
develop ecosystem based infrastructure projects.
More information is available at:
www.environment.fhwa.dot.aov/ecoloaical.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
As the nongovernmental component of the Lake
Michigan LaMP, the Forum has a number of
responsibilities, including:
• Representing the diverse interests and geography
of the Lake Michigan basin and creating a
communication link between the forum
members' constituents and the LaMP process
• Providing input to and review of LaMP updates
and assisting in their completion and
implementation
• Identifying targets of opportunities for
demonstration projects relating to LaMP goals
and recommendations
• Promoting the LaMP to the public and building a
constituency for its implementation
• Serving as a forum for regional and watershed
approaches to accomplish LaMP goals;
• Serving as a forum for identifying, discussing, and
conveying critical/priority issues
• Serving as a conduit for public concerns and
input to the LaMP process
The forum's membership consists of representatives of
local governments, industry, environmental groups,
sport fishing interests, academia, agriculture, Native
American tribes, sewerage districts, and AOCs.
Interested parties should go to
www.lkmichiaanforum.org.
The forum holds public meetings quarterly at different
locations around the Lake Michigan basin and, in
partnership with USEPA and Grand Valley State
University, sponsors an education and outreach tour.
Each summer since 1998, the ship W.G. Jackson has
made its way around Lake Michigan on the Making
Lake Michigan Great Tour, spreading the word about
the Lake Michigan LaMP. The tour provides hands-on
experience in water issues for the public aboard a
research vessel operated by the Robert B. Annis
Water Resources Institute of Grand Valley State
University in Muskegon, Michigan. The event includes
cruises for students and the public, open houses, and
community activities. Since it began, thousands of
people have participated in the tour at 26 ports of
call around Lake Michigan.
The Forum publishes a monthly newsletter with up-to-
date information on its activities and information on
activities in the Lake Michigan watershed.
For more information, visit the forum web site at
www.lkmichiganforum.org.
State of Lake Michigan Conference
In October 2007, USEPA, the Lake Michigan Forum,
Michigan Sea Grant, and the Great Lakes Beach
Association hosted the biennial State of Lake
Michigan conference in Traverse City, Michigan. The
Conference brought together over 300 attendees
and presenters to discuss the status of the lake.
Presentations from the conference inform and are
often incorporated into the next LaMP publication.
The next conference is planned for October 2009 in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Michigan's Clean Marina Program
Boating is one of Michigan's most popular pastimes, with 1
million registered boats and 750 marinas. However,
common boating practices often release hazardous
substances into Michigan's waters.
In partnership with the Michigan Boating Industries
Association and the Michigan Sea Grant, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality developed this
program with the goal of protecting water resources and
wildlife habitat through environmentally sound marina and
boating practices.
The Clean Marina Program encourages marinas to develop
technically sound and economically achievable
approaches to prevent the release of hazardous
substances and reduce the generation of waste. A simple
process helps marinas achieve a clean marina designation.
• Contact MBIA, Sea Grantor MDEQ
• Sign pledge card
• Enroll & attend workshop—receive guide book and
checklist
• Perform marina self-evaluation
• Schedule site visit
• Site visit and evaluation by Clean Marina
representatives
• Marina incorporates recommendations
• Final site visit
• Clean Marina designation
This voluntary stewardship program is open to all public and
private marinas in the state.
More information is available at www.michiaan.gov/dea
and www.miseaarant.umich.edu.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Shedd Builds Great Lakes Awareness
Campaign: Listen to your Lakes
Shedd Aquarium launched a new Great Lakes awareness
campaign. The campaign consists of newspaper,
magazine, television, radio, online advertising, festival and
expo appearances and banners displayed at Chicago's
Venetian Night. The ads run in Chicago, Michigan and
Wisconsin.
Shedd also created a new Great Lakes web site,
www.listentoyourlakes.org, which includes a blog with up to
date Great Lakes stories from around the basin and
updates on the Great Lakes efforts.
Lake Michigan Toolbox
West Michigan Sustainable
Purchasing Consortium
A unique partnership between industry, business,
academia, local governments and non-profits has led to
the formation of the West Michigan Sustainable Purchasing
Consortium (WMSPC). Sustainable purchasing involves the
purchase of products and services that have a lesser or
reduced effect on human health and the environment
when compared with competing products that serve the
same purpose.
The objectives of the WMSPC are to 1 ) consolidate the
purchasing volume of the consortium, 2) leverage
favorable pricing on commonly used, high volume supplies,
equipment, and services that have a low impact on the
environment, and 3) promote economic development in
West Michigan.
If successful, the consortium could reduce waste, conserve
natural resources, materials, and energy, maximize
recyclability of purchased products and prevent persistent,
toxics from entering the Lake Michigan watershed. Initial
WMSPC members include Cascade Engineering, City of
Grand Rapids, DEQ, Delta Institute, GVSU, MetroHealth,
Steelcase, Sustainable Research Group and Van Andel
Institute
More information is available
r A ft OF I H r
Source: Association of Zoos and Aquariums,
The Zoo and Aquarium Parnership for the Great Lakes
was launched in January of 2007. Zoos and aquariums
reach a broad audience and are a trusted resource for
information as well as an inspiration for taking conserva-
tion action in general and specifically on the Great
Lakes. 38 institutions initially signed on to formally join
the partnership. For more information on the partner-
ship, see www.aljargal.brookfieldzoo.org.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
LAKE MICHIGAN
PARTNERSHIP
DIRECTORY
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Overview
The desire to protect and restore the Great Lakes has created a number of governmental programs at the
international, national, state, tribal and local levels. The intent of this directory is to present some of the
international, federal, state, and tribal government partners involved in Lake Michigan issues, provide brief
descriptions of their roles, and list contacts for further information. Partners at the local level are key to any
successful effort. Unfortunately, all of the possible partners are too numerous to list. Links to local watershed groups
are listed in the watershed fact sheets found in the 2004 Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan update
report.
There has been renewed efforts in fostering greater coordination to better protect, conserve, and restore the Great
Lakes. A 2004 Presidential Executive Order calls for collaboration among regional, state, local, tribal, and other
interests to develop an overall strategy for protecting the Great Lakes. This work was conducted between
December 2004 and December 2005, providing both short and long term recommendations. The final strategy will
be found at www.epg.ggy/gingo. In addition, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) of 1978 is up
for review triggered by the International Joint Commission's 12th Biennial Report on the GLWQA. To participate,
visit the IJC's website bulletin board at wwwjic.ora.
Lake Michiaan-Lakewide Management Program: Meetings and Reports
• Lakewide Management Plans are updated every two years. The next update will be completed in April 2010.
• The State of Lake Michigan conference is held every two years. The next meeting will be held in Milwaukee in
Fall 2009.
• The Lake Michigan Forum, an EPA sponsored stakeholder group holds quarterly meetings around the basin.
• The Lake Michigan Monitoring Council meets twice per year around the basin.
• The International Joint Commission (wwwjjc.orgj holds a Great Lakes public conference every two years. The
next meeting will be held in 2007.
• The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) (www.eEa.gov/gJn2o/soJec) is held every two years.
More Information on Federal Resources and Grants
There are many federal resources listed in this document. A website, www.gigjTts.gov, contains information for
finding and applying for all federal grant programs. It creates a centralized process to find and apply for over 900
federal grant programs. This site provides information in a standardized format across agencies and includes:
A "Find Grant Opportunities" feature to help applicants find potential funding opportunities.
An "Apply for Grants" feature that allows applicants to download, complete, and submit applications for specific
grant opportunities from any federal grant-making agency. A "Receive Grants Opportunity Notification" feature
that allows you to subscribe to receive announcements of both new grants and modifications of existing grant
announcements.
-------
International and Regional Partners
International Joint Commission —
The International Joint Commission (IJC) prevents and resolves disputes between the United States of America and
Canada under the 1909 Boundary Wafers Treafy. It rules upon applications for approval of projects affecting
boundary or transboundary waters and may regulate the operation of these projects; assists the two countries in the
protection of the transboundary environment, including the implementation of the Greaf Lakes Wafer Qualify
Agreemenf and the improvement of transboundary air quality; and alerts the governments to emerging issues along
the boundary that may give rise to bilateral disputes. The IJC operates a Great Lakes Office in Windsor, Ontario.
Great Lakes Commission — w¥
Croil I al-'CH The Great Lakes Commission is an interstate Compact Commission that promotes the orderly, integrated, and
'Commission comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water and related natural resources of the Great Lakes
'•'''"' (''"-mi'-''•'" '• basin and St. Lawrence River. Its members include the eight Great Lakes states and associate members from the
Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission —
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was established in 1955 by the Canadian/U.S. Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries. The GLFC coordinates fisheries research, control measures for the invasive sea lamprey, and facilitates
cooperative fishery management among the state, provincial, tribal, and federal management agencies. On the
basis of its research findings, the commission recommends measures that will permit the maximum sustained
productivity of stocks of fish of common concern.
Council of Great Lakes Governors — www.ee
The Council of Great Lakes Governors is a private, non-profit corporation established in 1982 and charged by its
member governors and associate member premiers to encourage and facilitate environmentally responsible
economic growth in the Great Lakes region. This is done through public-private efforts among the ten jurisdictions to
address common environmental and economic challenges.
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative — www.glslcities.orsi/
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSLCI) is a binational coalition of mayors and other local officials
"•••' ".• that works actively with federal, state, and provincial governments to advance protection and restoration of the
Great Lakes. The GLSLCI helps mayors and other local officials develop and advocate programs to improve the
resource.
Great Lakes Protection Fund —
-r— - ^ The Great Lakes Protection Fund is a private, nonprofit corporation formed in 1989 by the Governors of the Great
—-—'-— Lakes States as a permanent environmental endowment that supports actions to improve the health of the Great
Great Lakes Lakes ecosystem. The Fund seeks projects that lead to tangible improvements in the Great Lakes ecosystem; promote
Protection Fund the interdependence of healthy ecological and economic systems, and are innovative, creative, and venturesome.
Great Lakes Fishery Trust —
Great Lakes
Fishery Trust
The Great Lakes Fishery Trust (GLFT) provides funding to enhance, protect and rehabilitate Great Lakes fishery
resources. The GLFT manages its resources to compensate for lost use and enjoyment of the Lake Michigan fishery
resulting from the operation of the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant.
Lake Michigan Forum —
The Lake Michigan Forum provides public input to U.S. EPA on the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
anc' 's a radium for direct involvement in the LaMP process from representative stakeholders of the Lake Michigan
basin. The Forum also identifies and implements non-governmental activities that can help meet the LaMP goals.
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council — Mte//Mi^^JiySfl2iflfiv/loi21££
The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council fosters cooperation and coordination among groups involved in
all types of Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan monitoring activities. It works toward developing a
systematic and comparable approach to the collection, management, interpretation, and dissemination of
environmental data related to environmental monitoring in the Lake Michigan Drainage Basin.
Great Lakes Beach Association —
The Great Lakes Beach Association's (GLBA) mission is to pursue healthy beach water conditions in the Great Lakes
through communication and coordination of Great Lakes beach managers and researchers. It is made up of
members from state and local governments in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, Environment Canada
as well as several mid-west universities, non-government, regulatory and coordinating agencies, and environmental
groups. It oversees BEACHNET, a communication network/listserv, and holds an annual beach conference.
-------
United States Federal Partners
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) —
EPA administers educational and regulatory programs designed to protect the environment. EPA works mainly with
state, federal, regional, tribal, and local agencies on pollution control and prevention efforts. EPA oversees the
revolving loan fund program and brownfield grants. It conducts environmental assessments, water quality
monitoring, regulations and regulatory oversight, education, planning, technical, assistance, and grants. The
agency may provide staff, information, and data; laboratories and research facilities; grants and loans for pollution
control; educational materials; and monitoring equipment.
Office of Research and Development - www._eB,g,41ov£or,d£
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) is the scientific research arm of EPA. ORD's leading-edge research
helps provide the solid underpinning of science and technology for the Agency. ORD conducts research on ways to
prevent pollution, protect human health, and reduce risk. The work at ORD laboratories, research centers, and
offices across the country helps improve the quality of air, water, soil, and the way resources are used.
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) — www.eEg.gov^gJni2O
GLNPO brings together federal, state, tribal, local, and industry partners in an integrated, ecosystem approach to
protect, maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes. The program
monitors Lake ecosystem indicators; manages and provides public access to Great Lakes data; helps communities
address contaminated sediments in their harbors; supports local protection and restoration of important habitats;
promotes pollution prevention through such activities as the Canada-U.S. Binational Toxics Strategy; and provides
assistance for community-based Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern and for Lakewide Management Plans.
GLNPO uses its funding to assist Great Lakes partners through grants, interagency agreements, and contracts.
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — www.nggg.aov
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) — www.fllerLnoag.aov
Lake Michigan Field Station — www.aJerLnogg.gov^lj}ifs
Great Lakes Bathymetric Data —
NOAA administers programs in cooperation with states to inventory and manage coastal resources. It funds and
performs basic research and assessment relating to coastal eutrophication, and maintains data bases for
agricultural pesticides and nutrient loadings. NOAA provides funds to state coastal programs; staff for technical
assistance; data, reports, and educational materials; and special demonstration projects.
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management — www.ocrm.nos.nogg.aovZSZDl
Illinois Lake Michigan Coastal Management Program — www.dnr.stgte.iLys
Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program — wwwJn.aov/dnr/lgkeniich
Michigan Coastal Management Program — wwwjriichiaan.aov2agg2oj40ZJJ35-3313_3A7^
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program —
The Coastal Zone Management Program (CZM) is housed under the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management. CZM administers a quasi-regulatory coastal protection program (in cooperation with EPA) that sets
performance-based management measures for control and prevention of nonpoint source pollution in coastal
areas for land-use activities. CZM provides technical assistance and grant funds for plan development.
NOAA Sea Grant —
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant (IISG) — www.HsacE.gra
Michigan Sea Grant — wwwjTjisegargnt.yniich.edy
Wisconsin Sea Grant —
"Xyf
\fljl ||fjj
jjn|
University-based program designed to support greater knowledge and wise use of Great Lakes resources. The Sea
Grant program provides a staff network of advisory agents, researchers, and educators, and offers grant funds for
research and workshops.
United States Department of Homeland Security
United States Coast Guard — wjwwjjscajriiL/ySCG.sJitm
Hazardous Waste National Spill Response Center —
/a
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for spill response and ballast water sampling and water intake protections. It
has implemented ballast water sampling in Lake Michigan under the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.
U.S. Department of Defense, wjww.defenselink.mil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division,
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) oversees construction and operation of flood control and public water supply
reservoirs, conducts water-quality monitoring on lakes, regulates in-lake activities and shoreline development,
administers the wetlands dredge and fill permit program with EPA and FWS. COE enforces permit requirements for
US Army Corps wetland BMPs or other mitigation measures. The Water Resources Development Acts authorize environmental
of Engineers* restoration by the COE at certain Great Lakes sites. Offices are located in Washington D.C., the Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division, and Detroit District offices.
-------
United States Federal Partners (continued)
United States Department of the Interior (DOI) — www.d€»lgov
The DOI conducts oversight, management, and monitoring of national natural and cultural resources,
including land, water, and wildlife. Offices located in Washington D.C. and regional centers with field offices
in each management area. The DOI provides staff, maps, reports, demonstration sites, educational materials,
and monitoring equipment.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) —
The BIA provides technical assistance to tribes on tribal lands mainly for social services and assistance for
assistance for conservation work and educational programs, natural resource inventories and monitoring of
ground and surface water. The BIA offers funds for special projects, staff for technical assistance to tribes, and
maps and natural resource inventories of tribal lands.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) —
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region — www.|ws.flov£r™dwest
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program — w^wJws.floy2cogs|gl/CogstgiProg|gr!i
FWS oversees and regulates the nation's wildlife resources, manages national wildlife refuges, enforces federal
game and fish laws, administrates the national wetlands program with the Corps of Engineers and EPA, and
participates in cooperative projects to enhance wildlife habitat and special studies including fisheries
investigations. FWS provides staff for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and other laws on public
and private land; reports and data on habitat, populations, and management of wildlife; and funds for
cooperative projects, educational materials, teacher training, curricula, and maps.
National Park Service (NFS) —
The National Park Service (NPS) administers and manages national parks for preservation of natural and
cultural resources and recreation. NPS provides staff for oversight and administration, and funds for special
studies and occasionally cooperative projects on land adjoining park boundaries.
Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network — wwwljigtyj2jjEs.goy^jm/ynjts/g]kn
The Great Lakes Inventory & Monitoring Network is an office of the National Park Service that helps the nine
Great Lakes national park units inventory and monitor significant natural resources. The units extend from the
_ boreal forests of northern Minnesota to the sand dunes of southern Lake Michigan and represent the major
T" *'. freshwater ecosystems of the Upper Midwest.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) —
Great Lakes Science Center Research Programs —
Water Resources of Illinois —
Water Resources of Indiana —
Water Resources of Michigan —
USGS conducts long-term baseline monitoring of water resources, hydrologic and geologic investigations and
data, and special intensive short- term studies. USGS provides maps, data, and information on hydrology and
water-quality status and trends, and staff for technical assistance in designing a monitoring plan.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — www.Mis.flov
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry — www.atsdr.cdc.flov
ATSDR
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) provides health information to prevent harmful
exposures and disease related to toxic substances. ATSDR performs specific functions concerning the effect
on public health of hazardous substances in the environment. These include public health assessments of
waste sites, health consultations concernjng hazardous substances, health surveillance and registries,
response to emergency releases of hazardous substances, research in support of public health assessments,
information development and dissemination, and education and training concerning hazardous substances.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration — wwwJdoyaov
The FDA works with EPA to develop national fish advisories that provide important food health safety
information for consumers of fish. FDA assists in identifying the information regarding how much of specific fish
species can be consumed safely by different groups at risk to toxins that accumulate in fish tissues.
-------
United States Federal Partners (continued)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) —
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) — www.nrcs.usdg.gQv
Farmers Services Agency (FSA) — www.fsa.usda.gov
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) — www.csrees.usda.gov
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) — MWWJ_csreMJMsdg.flov/EM_ejisioji/UJArieAhtml.
USDA is the steward of our nation's 1 92 million acres of national forests and rangelands. It is the
country's largest conservation agency, encouraging voluntary efforts to protect soil, water, and
wildlife on the 70% of America's lands that are in private hands. Responsibilities and resources within
the following programs are divided among USDA departments:
USDA Forest Service — www.fs.fed.us
Established in 1905, the Forest Service manages public lands in national forests and grasslands, which
encompass 193 million acres of land — an area equivalent to the size of Texas. The Forest Service
provides technical and financial assistance to state and private forestry agencies, and manages
national forests for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable
resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and recreation.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) —www.Mgg.Mjdg,flQy/MgflrgfI!J/cri?,
CRP is a program to conserve and protect highly erodible or other environmentally sensitive land from
production by putting it in vegetative cover through easements and annual rental payments. CRP
provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water,
and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-
effective manner. The program provides assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with
Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws, and encourages environmental enhancement.
Wetlands Reserve Program —
The Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect,
restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The program's goal is to achieve the greatest
wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the
program. NRCS provides technical and financial support to help landowners with their wetland
restoration efforts. This program offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term conservation
and wildlife practices and protection.
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) —
c
The NACD is the nonprofit organization that represents the nation's 3,000 conservation districts.
Conservation districts are local units of government established under state law to carry out natural
resource management programs at the local level. Districts work with more than 2.5 million
conserving
natural resources cooperating landowners and operators to help them manage and protect land and water resources
'"' ""' ""''" on nearly 98% of the private lands in the U.S. NACD supports voluntary, incentive-driven natural
resource conservation programs that benefit all citizens.
Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program (SARE) —www.sare.ora
North Central Re ion SARE is a practical research, education, and grant program to promote lower input methods of
__ farming. The program has helped advance farming systems that are profitable, environmentally
SARE sound and good for communities through a nationwide research and education grants program.
*• * "' ' "' The program funds projects and conducts outreach designed to improve agricultural systems.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration —
The National Scenic Byways Program is a grass-roots collaborative effort established to help
recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States. Since 1992, the
"AMERICA'S program has provided funding for almost 1500 state and nationally designated byway projects in 48
states. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation recognizes certain roads as All-American Roads or
National Scenic Byways based on one or more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational,
and scenic qualities.
Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute (GLMRI) —
GLMRI was established in 2004 as a consortium of the University of Wisconsin-Superior Transportation ,
Logistics Research Center and the University of Minnesota Duluth College of Science & Engineering
and Labovitz School of Business & Economics to oversee and coordinate research on Great Lakes
maritime issues.
-------
Sfcrfe and Local Partners
State Water Quality Agencies
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency — w ww . e pa. j tate . jjj. us
Indiana Department of Environmental Management —
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality — www.mfchisan.gov/elea
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources — www.dnr.sigie.wLys
State water quality agencies administer many programs for protection of water quality in ground and surface waters, including the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, water-quality standards regulations, the nonpoint source program, and
ambient statewide monitoring programs. Agencies provide staff for technical assistance to local governments and individuals
implementing BMPs; water-quality monitoring, data, and reports; and funds for pollution control projects, educational materials, and
programs.
National Association of Regional Councils — www.nqrc.Qrg
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (Chicago) — www.cmap.illinois.gov
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (Gary) — wwWinirjjc.org
Michiana Area Council of Governments (MACOG) —www.mgcogicom
St. Joseph River Basin Commission (housed within MACOG) — www_.sirf>c.corri
West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission — www.wmsrdc.orfl
Northwest Michigan Council of Governments —
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Council (Milwaukee) —www.sewjBC.Qrg
Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission — www,_bay.ig_kert?c.oig.
^ Planning commissions work with local governments and organizations to promote sensible growth, and
• '1 f conduct regional planning related to transportation, the environment, and economic and community
••) >''" ^J.' development. Commissions provide geographic and demographic information such as forecasts of
•/. „ • " population, employment, and other socio-economic indicators. These commissions listed above participate
in the Lake Michigan Watershed Academy overseen by USEPA's Lake Michigan program.
Tribal Partners
United Indian Nations of the Great Lakes (UINGL) — www.gpisplpqbek.cq/uoi/greqtlqkes.htm
Several First Nations from Ontario and Quebec and tribes from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota joined to create the UINGL. They came together to sign the Great Lakes
Water Accord in which a number of united principles, values, concerns, and demands are identified. They
have been active in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) — www.18McQig.Qig
CORA regulates most Indian fishing in portions of Lake Michigan 1836 Treaty waters. A 1985 Consent
Agreement allocated the fishery resource among user groups, such as the tribes, sports fishers, the state, and
the federal government. Disputes are settled by an Executive Council comprised of CORA chairmen and
state and federal representatives.
Individual Tribes in the Lake Michigan Basin —
Michigan
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa — www.gtb.nsn.us
Hannahville Indian Community — (No web site)
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians — wwwJrboLconi
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians — wywJtbjDocjgwaTisrigoy
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi — \
Wisconsin
Forest County Potawatomi Community — www.fc.potawatomi.corn
Menominee Indian Tribe — www.menominee-Tisn.gov
Oneida Nation of Wisconsin — www.oneidanation.org
Sokaogon Chippewa Community — www.sokaogonchippewa.com
Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohicans — Mi
-------
Subgoal 10
Is collaborative ecosystem management the basis for
decision-making in the Lake Michigan basin?
What is our target for
SUStainability? Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
The promise of the GLRC is
realized where awareness and
responsibility is shared among NOT MIXED MIXED MIXED SUSTAINABLE
,! ,, y ' y. SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING IMPROVING
different levels of government,
non-governmental groups and ******** A
wide spread basin stewardship 2000
actions.
Why is this important?
The environmental problems in the
Great Lakes ecosystem have
become increasingly complex
over the years. The myriad of
jurisdictions and programs with
responsibility for the lakes is
similarly complex. According to a
2003 Government Accountability Office report, the government presence overseeing Great Lakes resources
includes two countries, multiple tribes, and First Nations, more than 140 Federal programs, and numerous city
and state programs all dealing with environmental restoration activities. While these organizations have
experienced individual opportunities for successes during the last 30 years, there has been no overarching
strategy to deliver coordinated restoration and protection efforts in the future.
What is the current status?
• There has been a significant increase in collaborative action over the last two years.
• The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative mayors announced a conservation framework in which
cities commit to reducing water use within their city limits. Cities will work towards a 15 percent
reduction in 15 years using 2000 as a base year.
What are the major challenges?
• Developing a lake level framework for clear goals and objectives that facilitates coordinated actions
among agencies and stakeholders in alignment with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
• Providing and facilitating opportunities for partnerships and leveraging resources
• Providing opportunities for involved stakeholders
What are the next steps?
Continue publication of the Lake Michigan Partnership Directory in each LaMP
Continue development and linkage of local watersheds with basin-wide issues and activities through the
Watershed Academy and partnering with state programs
Coordinate LaMP and GLBTS efforts on PCBs and mercury
LMMCC continues leadership role for collaborative monitoring in 2010
Coordinate with the four Coastal Management programs to explore partnership opportunities
Explore partnerships with key EPA volunteer programs like Climate Change, Clean Ports, Clean Marinas,
and Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
Building Collaborative Efforts in the Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Watersheds
CMAP Framework Plan with Tools for Officials and Planners
NIRPC Water Conservation and Protection Toolkit
Coastal America
Watershed Planning Brochure Wisconsin
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
• Access to Information About the Great Lakes
• Value of Great Lakes to Basin residents
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.gQy/SQlec/SQfll2007/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Major New Efforts Build on Lakewide
Efforts
Since 1991, the states, tribes, and federal agencies in
the Lake Michigan basin have been collaborating to
restore and protect Lake Michigan through the
Lakewide Management process. New activities at
Great Lakes wide scale may strengthen and enhance
LaMP work.
The Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration
On May 18, 2004, President Bush signed Executive
Order 13340 creating a cabinet-level Interagency
Task Force, led by USEPA, to bring an unprecedented
level of collaboration and coordination to restore and
protect the Great Lakes. USEPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), established under
the Clean Water Act, remains a focal point for Great
Lakes responsibilities. GLNPO was cited in the
Executive Order and given the responsibility of
providing assistance in carrying out the goals of the
Order. In addition, the Order directed that a
"Regional Collaboration of National Significance" be
convened to bring the many partners, both
governmental and nongovernmental together to
protect and restore the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC)
developed a Strategy that is different from any plan
proposed in the past. The collaborative activities of
federal, local, and state agencies, the tribes, elected
officials, industry, and non-governmental groups
demonstrate a unified effort to reach our goals. Eight
Strategy Teams, each focusing on a different issue
affecting the Great Lakes basin, began work in
January 2005 to develop recommendations for
action. More than 1,500 people from diverse
backgrounds participated in the process.
The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to
Restore and Protect the Great Lakes was released in
December 2005. A GLRC Executive Committee is
overseeing implementation of the Strategy in
accordance with the GLRC Strategy Implementation
EPA, U.S. Forest Service Sign Agreement to
Restore Water Quality
in National Forests
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water
and the U.S. Forest Service signed a September 2007
memorandum of agreement under which they have
agreed to pool efforts to develop plans to restore im-
paired water quality in national forests and grasslands. The
two agencies will jointly develop total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) or federally approved alternative ap-
proaches to tackle impaired waters in national forests and
grasslands.
EPA estimates that about 8 percent of all impaired waters
are located on National Forest System lands. Leading
causes of impairments include high temperatures, excess
sediment, and habitat destruction.
The Forest Service has already assisted EPA and states in
developing more than 300 TMDLs in roughly 30 national
forests, according to the agreement. In addition, the For-
est Service also uses a variety of watershed management
approaches. These include best management practices
such as erecting silt fences to prevent sediment from en-
tering streams.
The memorandum of agreement is available at
Framework which was issued in March 2006. The
GLRC Executive Committee brings together
representatives from the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative together with
representatives from the Council of Great Lakes
Governors, the Great Lakes Congressional
Delegation, and the Federal government. The GLRC
Executive Committee is responsible for directing the
ongoing activities of the GLRC, developing and
implementing mechanisms to promote accountability
(tracking), identifying and resolving major
implementation issues, facilitating coordination of
Great Lakes restoration and protection activities
among the GLRC participants, communicating with
stakeholders and providing for ongoing public
participation.
Eight stakeholder teams helped develop the
Collaboration's recommendations.
• Nonpoint Source Strategy Team
• Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBT) reduction
Team
• Invasive Species Strategy team
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
• Habitat/Species team
• Areas of Concern Restoration/Sediments Strategy
Team
• Indicators and Information Strategy Team
• Sustainable Development Strategy team
• Coastal Health Strategy Team
The Strategy is being used to guide Federal, State,
Tribal and other partners' actions to restore the Great
Lakes.
Federal commitments from the Strategy have been
identified in the Federal Near Term Action Plan (48
Actions) and are being implemented and tracked.
Fifteen of the 48 original near terms actions are
completed; two have been moved to long-term
status; the other 31 are on track. Highlights of Plan
accomplishments include:
• EPA, working with state and local partners, has
developed a standardized sanitary survey form for
state and local governments to use in assessing
their beaches, and is supporting implementation
pilots using the new survey.
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the
Asian Silver Carp, Largescale Silver Carp, and
Black Carp as injurious under the Lacey Act.
• In its FY 2008 budget, NCAA has requested
funding to establish habitat restoration
partnerships focused on Areas of Concern in the
Great Lakes, and to create a special NCAA
Office on Great Lakes Habitat Restoration that
would provide a focal point for all of NCAA's
restoration efforts in the Great Lakes.
• Twenty-two environmental restoration projects
around the Great Lakes are being funded this
year under the Great Lakes Watershed
Restoration Grant program. The program is
providing $1.1 million in federal money and
leveraging an additional $1.9 million in
contributions by non-federal partners. Partner
agencies are: EPA, the Fish & Wildlife Service,
NCAA, the Forest Service, and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
• EPA has completed 5 Legacy Act projects (4
remediation /I monitor and evaluate), and has 6
additional projects (all monitor and evaluate)
underway.
• The Corps of Engineers recently announced that
two projects from the Great Lakes region were
selected from a nationwide competition for
habitat restoration funding under the Estuary
Restoration Act of 2000.
• The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (IATF)
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
Regional Working Group has been meeting
weekly for over a year to oversee implementation
of the Near Term Actions, as well as other
provisions of the President's Executive Order on
the Great Lakes. The meetings have also
become an important forum to share information
about new programs/initiatives and funding
opportunities among members.
• The IATF created the Wetlands Subcommittee
and the Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response
Subcommittee to improve interagency
coordination on two high priority areas for the
Great Lakes. Both subcommittees are also
bringing in non-federal partners through joint
projects in cooperation with the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration.
• In addition to individual agency actions, the
GLRC Executive Committee is moving forward to
implement a series of joint initiatives to address
issues from the GLRC Strategy, including aquatic
invasive species, toxic pollutants, habitat
protection and restoration and clean beaches.
Aquatic Invasive Species:
Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Initiative.
While preventing the introduction of Aquatic Invasive
Species (AIS) is the first line of defense against
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Building Collaborative Efforts
in the Lake Michigan and
Great Lakes Watersheds
Collaboration among a variety of stakeholders to im-
prove the Lake Michigan ecosystem continues to in-
crease since LaMP 2000. This chapter documents sev-
eral of these collaborative activities. Some of the col-
laborative efforts include:
• The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration:
www.alrc.us
• The Binational Executive Committee
• Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy:
www.epa.aov/alnpo/p2/bns.html
• The Great Lakes Human Health Network:
www.epa.aov/alnpo/health.html
• The Great Lakes Fishery Commission: www.alfc.org/
• The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative:
www.alslcities.org/
• Council of Great Lakes Governors: www.cala.org
• Gregt Lgkes Commission: www.glc.org
• Gregt Lgkes Legislgtive Cgucus:
www.csgmidwest.org/About/GLLC.htm
-------
Binational Toxics Strategy Under Review
Experts from industry, environmental groups and regulatory agencies are reviewing the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
(BTS) to determine if and how it might be adapted to meet changing environmental needs in the Great Lakes region related to
reducing toxics and addressing new contaminants of concern.
The BTS is a voluntary agreement between the United States and Canada to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters in the Great Lakes ecosystem. This has led to significant non-regulatory pollution prevention
activities. For example, green chemistry, which designs toxicity out of chemicals, is among the more recent areas of interest
for environmentalists and some in industry. The strategy is driven by the review of and potential changes to the underlying
agreement — the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (WQA) — and increasing levels of chemicals not included in the
current strategy. Emerging contaminants of concern include polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluoroctanesulfonate.
In 1997, EPA and Environment Canada established 17 source and emissions reduction goals for the United States and Canada.
Over the past 10 years, both governments (with the help of state, provincial, tribal and local governments and stakeholders
from industry, academia, environmental and community groups) have worked together to reduce the use and release of
targeted toxic substances. To date, 12 of the 17 goals have been met, and the rest are well advanced. The report discusses
the significant voluntary projects of the Strategy, such as the burn barrel outreach campaign and the wood stove exchange
campaign, some of which have been adopted nationally on both sides of the border. The report also presents trends of these
substances in gull eggs and fish as well as open water, air and sediment. Overall, significant environmental improvements have
been realized for legacy pollutants in the Great Lakes. Looking forward, new challenges are presented by emerging
substances of concern, such as flame retardants. The U.S. - Canadian Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Tenth Anniversary
Edition 2006 Annual Progress Report is available at htt2^/bmationaLnet/bns/2006.
The 2006 BTS progress report released by the USEPA and Environment Canada indicated that the strategy has made significant
progress toward meeting its goals, including Canada's 85 percent reduction in mercury releases since 1988 and the United
States' estimated 50 percent reduction in mercury use nationwide and a 50 percent reduction in national mercury emissions. A
stakeholder forum held in Chicago in late May focused on whether the current BTS structure, is sufficient to address new
substances. The question raised was whether the strategy should focus on specific industry sectors, families of substances, or a
combination of approaches.
Possible changes to the current approach could include using the BTS to identify chemicals of concern and then having
specific workgroups target sectors where the chemicals are widely used. Other possible approaches include encouraging
sustainable manufacturing, behavior modification, green chemistry and "practical" precaution. Any specific changes to the
BTS will likely not be considered until after any changes in the WQA.
General Outcomes. Overall, the environmental analyses show many of the level 1 substances remain in the Great Lakes
environment at levels which exceed health based criteria, particularly mercury, PCBs, and the cancelled pesticides. These
substances continue to impair the Great Lakes, and limit fish consumption, particularly among sensitive populations such as
pregnant women and children, and among and indigenous fishers, such as many of the Tribes and First Nations. With regard to
source reductions, much progress has been made to date. Of seventeen reduction goals, ten have been met, three more will
be met by 2006, and the remaining four will be well advanced toward their respective targets. Notwithstanding these
accomplishments, much remains to be done to achieve the ultimate goal of virtual elimination in the Great Lakes.
Analyses suggests that significant source reduction opportunities remain for the "active substances" (i.e., substances for which
we have ongoing workgroup activities), which include mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans, HCB and B(a)P). With respect to the
"inactive" (i.e., no ongoing workgroup activity) level 1 substances, cancelled pesticides, alkyl lead, and OCS, the Parties have
decided to suspend GLBTS workgroup activities indefinitely, pending periodic review, and to defer to other programs, as
appropriate. However, these substances will continue to be tracked and monitored in the Great Lakes. Finally, the GLBTS will
continue to monitor and report on progress of sediment remediation activities in Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes basin,
and will continue to study issues associated with long-range transport of toxic substances from world-wide sources, in order to
better inform our priorities moving forward.
Conclusions. The GLBTS presents a unique model of how international cooperation and collaborative problem solving of issues
that are beyond the reach of regulations, can lead to real results in environmental protection. There may be an important
ongoing role for the GLBTS, not only with respect to the current level 1 substances, but also for newer chemicals of emerging
concern. The Parties intend to focus on next steps for the GLBTS in the coming months. Protecting the chemical integrity of the
Great Lakes, advancing the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and virtually eliminating PTS from the Great
Lakes basin are of paramount importance. The GLBTS may be one important tool to move us toward these goals.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
NIRPC Water Conservation and Protection Toolkit
The Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission released a Water Conservation and Protection Toolkit. The
toolkit consists of a series of fact sheets that provide overviews of the specific water resource protection and
conservation issues. It also identifies a series of resources saved on a CD that assists people, local governments, and
developers in making choices that better protect, conserve, and sustain local water resources.
Addressing water resources problems associated with a developing area requires a comprehensiveapproach. This
means:
• Protecting water resources from pollution and making sure that water sources are not pumped dry;
• Conserving water resources; and
• Restoring and improving water resources so that quality, quantity, flow, and timing align more closely with the
natural water cycle.
Overview Issues
• What is Water Use and Availability in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties in Northwest Indiana?
• The Great Lakes Charter Annex and Protecting, Conserving, Restoring, and Improving Water Resources
Fact Sheets for Local Officials
• How Can Stormwater Management Protect and Conserve Water Resources?
• How Can Sourcewater Protection Conserve and Protect Water Resources?
• How Can Land Use Planning and Zoning Protect and Conserve Water Resources?
• What Conservation Requirements Can Protect Water Resources?
• How Does Better Site Planning Protect and Conserve Water Resources?
Fact Sheets for Developers and the Public
• How Can Homeowners Protect and Conserve Water Resources?
• How Can Watershed Planning and Assessment Protect and Conserve Water Resources?
Many of the resources identified in the NIRPC toolkit, are reproduced in the Lake Michigan Toolbox resources
throughout LaMP 2008. More information is available atwww.nirjDC.org..
invasions, even the best prevention efforts may not
stop all AIS introductions. In 2007, the GLRC Executive
Committee endorsed the formation of an Aquatic
Invasive Species Rapid Response Initiative to increase
the likelihood that invasions will be addressed
successfully through early detection and rapid
response efforts, while populations are still localized
and can be contained and eradicated. In the
Summer of 2007, a Communication Protocol was
developed at the direction of the GLRC Executive
Committee and Points of Contact were identified by
participating GLRC agencies. In December 2007, a
compendium of the Points of Contact and
Communication protocol was finalized and
distributed to GLRC agencies. GLRC agencies are
now developing plans for a Mock Exercise to test the
Communication Protocol in Early Summer 2008.
Great Lakes Clean Boat Initiative. GLRC partners and
the media will promote a "Great Lakes Clean Boat
Day" early in the 2008 boating season. This effort will
celebrate recreational boating in the Great Lakes
and promote practices which will reduce the spread
of aquatic invasive species. The Great Lakes are one
of the top recreational boating destinations in the
nation. Nearly 4.3 million boats are registered in the
eight Great Lakes states. These boaters spend nearly
$16 billion on boats and boating activities in a single
year, directly supporting 107,000 jobs. Outreach
efforts to this user group can help ensure a healthy
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Great Lakes ecosystem, as well as help support a
strong and sustainable recreational economy.
Agencies are compiling educational material over
the winter of 2008. At the same time, the Great Lakes
States are determining the preferred day or days for
holding "Great Lakes Clean Boat Day".
Toxic Pollutants
Toxic Pollutants Initiative. The Toxic Pollutants
Initiative sets forth a series of near term activities
undertaken by members of the Collaboration to
reduce or virtually eliminate persistent toxic
substances such as mercury and PCBs in the basin, as
well as prevent new toxic threats to the basin through
pollution prevention and enhanced surveillance,
protect public health through education and
outreach, and work with international forums to
address sources outside the basin. Activities include:
• A Mercury Phase-down Strategy: In 2007, a
workgroup of state, tribal, and city staff
developed a basin-wide Great Lakes mercury
product stewardship strategy to fulfill the Strategy
recommendation to phase down mercury in
products and waste. The Draft Mercury In
Products Phase-Down Strategy is posted at:
http://www.glrc.us/initiatives/toxics/
drafthgphasedownstrategy.html
• A Burn Barrel Education and Outreach
Campaign: U.S. EPA with Great Lakes states,
tribes, and cities are jointly developing an
education and outreach program to address
open burning across the Great Lakes Basin. This
project targets local and tribal waste
management officials with information on
infrastructure and alternatives to burning in
communities and tools to strengthen burning
ordinances and support greater compliance with
current regulations. Staff is presenting this
program at meetings in all Great Lakes states.
• A Pharmaceutical and Electronic Waste Disposal
Education and Outreach: U.S. EPA, Great Lakes
states, tribes, and cities are developing an
education and outreach effort to address
pharmaceutical and electronic wastes in the
Great Lakes Basin, targeting waste management
officials with information about disposal and
recycling policies and options. IL/IN Sea Grant,
Great Lakes states, and U.S. EPA staff have
presented information to local solid waste
management officials and others on
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Coastal America
Coastal America is a federal agency partnership to
protect coastal habitat in the United States. It
engages in a range of _
activities nationwide. It has /•'sj' 4"i7s
begun work on several " * "
activities in the Lake Michigan
basin.
Corporate Wetlands
Restoration Partnership
The Corporate
Wetlands Restoration
Partnership is a
collaborative effort
led by Coastal
America between the
federal government,
state agencies and
private corporations and non-profits to restore
wetlands across the country. Companies contribute
funds and services to match funding for aquatic
habitat restoration, education and research projects.
To date, over 225 corporations, 13 Federal agencies,
over 125 non-governmental partners, including The
Nature Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
Atlantic Salmon Commission, Ramsar Secretariat and
several foundations have partnered with the program.
Coastal America Activity in the Lake Michigan
Basin
There has been preliminary activity in Illinois and
Wisconsin. In October of 2004 the Shedd Aquarium
became the first Coastal America Ecosystem Learning
Center in the Great Lakes. As part of that partnership
program, Chicago's Shedd Aquarium, USFWS, IL/IN
Sea Grant and Purdue sponsored a new exhibit on
Great Lakes Invasive species.
pharmaceutical at numerous conferences
throughout the basin.
• Great Lakes Sport Fish Consortium Project: The
Great Lakes Sport Fish Consortium, the Wisconsin
Department of Health and Family Services, and
representatives of Great Lakes states and tribes
finalized the Protocol for Mercury-based Fish
Consumption Advice: An addendum to the 1993
Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Develop Water Conservation
Framework and Goals
The Great Lakes Mayors announced the Great Lakes and
St. Lawrence Cities Initiative Water Conservation
Framework. The Framework is a voluntary program in which
cities commit to reducing water use within their city
limits. Cities will work towards a 15 percent reduction in
total water usage below year 2000 water consumption
levels by the year 2015. Re-evaluation will take place in
2015 to determine an appropriate target reduction to
achieve by the year 2025.
Recognizing that some cities already have water
conservation programs and others do not, the Framework
consists of two groups of cities. Group 1 includes cities that
have conservation plans in place and Group 2 includes
cities that do not have conservation plans, as of now.
The Framework allows cities to work together on the
issue. Cooperation will be fostered through a focus on the
sharing of best practices and annual recognition of efforts
to reduce water use. The Framework is an opportunity for
cities to take a unified and collaborative step to conserve
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSLCI) is
a binational coalition of mayors and other local officials
that works actively with federal, state, and provincial
governments to advance the protection and restoration of
the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. GLSLCI enables
mayors and other local officials to be active participants in
Great Lakes issues relating to governance, economics, and
science.
The GLSLCI Board of Directors includes Mayors Richard
Daley of Chicago, IL (Founding United States Chairman and
Director); David Miller of Toronto, Ontario (Founding
Canadian Chairman and Director); Gary Becker of Racine,
Wl (Chairman and Director); Lynn Peterson of Thunder Bay,
Ontario (Vice Chairman, Treasurer and Director); George K.
Heartwell of Grand Rapids, Ml (Secretary and Director);
Ellen Anderson of The Town of the Blue Mountains, Ontario;
Rudolph Clay of Gary, IN; Robert J. Duffy of Rochester, NY;
Carleton S. Finkbeiner of Toledo, OH; Eddie Francis of
Windsor, Ontario; Regis Labeaume of the Quebec
Metropolitan Community; Denis Lapointe of Salaberry-de-
Valleyfield, Quebec; Brian McMullan of St. Catharines,
Ontario; Don Ness of Duluth, MN; Joseph Sinnott of Erie, PA;
and Gerald Tremblay of Montreal, Quebec.
More information is available at www.alslcities.org/
watercons.htm#Overview.
Consumption Advisory, with funding from U.S.
EPA. Basin-wide consumption outreach materials
related to mercury will be produced by the end
of 2008.
• A Mercury Emission Reduction Initiative: In 2007,
the GLRC decided, under its Toxic Pollutants
Initiative, to develop a strategy for reducing
mercury emissions across the Great Lakes region.
This effort should produce institutionalized
activities to sustain mercury emissions reduction
from new and existing sources whose mercury
emissions have not been regulated, and from
sources where regulations have been
implemented but additional reductions are
technically feasible and economically
reasonable. Examples of potential sources
include manufacturing processes that produce
mercury emissions, and the disposal of mercury-
containing products. A Strategy will be drafted in
2008, including an evaluation of the major
sources of mercury deposition in the Great Lakes
region, identification of priority sectors, and
reduction approaches.
Habitat/Species
Habitat /Wetlands Initiative. The GLRC Strategy
outlined the problems associated with habitat loss
and degradation and provided recommendations
for protecting and restoring Great Lakes habitat. To
address the Strategy's key habitat and wetland
issues, the Collaboration launched a Wetlands
Initiative with two near-term goals: A wetlands
challenge to federal and non-federal partners to
protect and restore 200,000 acres of wetlands in the
Great Lakes Basin; and improving coordination of
federal wetlands management programs.
An estimated 65,000 acres of wetlands have been
protected, improved and restored across the Great
Lakes basin since December 2005 by federal
agencies and their partners. This estimate was
obtained from a data call to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and U.S. EPA that adopted reporting conventions of
the Council of Environmental Quality's annual,
national wetlands report. Agencies were asked to
report 2006 and 2007 accomplishments for
completed wetlands restoration projects only. The
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
information is intended to provide an estimate of
where Federal agencies and their partners are in
contributing to the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration's goal of protecting and restoring
200,000 acres of wetlands across the basin.
At the same time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) launched a $1 million Great Lakes Habitat
Initiative that builds upon the recommendations of
the Collaboration's Strategy. The initiative will help
partners advance habitat and wetland restoration
projects by connecting partners with the information
and resources they need to make projects happen.
This effort includes developing a database and
detailed inventory of potential habitat and wetlands
restoration projects.
The two initiatives share similar goals and have been
merged into one overarching Habitat/Wetlands
Initiative, focusing initially on coordination to
accomplish the wetlands challenge to federal and
non-federal partners to protect and restore 200,000
acres in the Great Lakes Basin. Activities include:
• Providing a stakeholder forum for partners to
communicate, leverage resources and identify
shared opportunities for partnering. The initiative
brings together federal agencies, states, tribes,
local governments and other Great Lakes
stakeholders to identify on-the-ground restoration
projects that contribute to the 2005 Strategy, and
to identify ways to implement such restoration
projects as well as ways to facilitate partnerships
and overcome hurdles to implementation. A
Steering Committee, Project Delivery Team and
Federal Wetlands Subcommittee have been
meeting regularly to share information and
provide regional coordination.
• Providing partners with the necessary information
to facilitate collaborative restoration work. The
initiative is connecting partners with information
about potential projects, programs and funding
sources. The Corps has created a Funding
Programs Inventory with information on more than
150 funding governmental and nongovernmental
programs for habitat restoration work. The
initiative has also developed a Restoration
Projects Database with over 200 potential
projects, and will be updated periodically.
• Monitoring Great Lakes wetland restoration
progress. Progress will be measured and assessed
against the 200,000 acre goal using the same
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Wisconsin Watershed
Planning Brochure
The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) works with many partners. Planning
commissions, county conservationists, municipalities,
lake and river groups, and individual citizens are critical
stewards of our water. WDNR is reframing its watershed
planning to reflect the interactive nature of watershed
work to move us toward a truly shared vision for
Wisconsin's Waters. In creating the Wisconsin
Watershed Planning Network, WDNR hopes to promote
watershed work and encourage collaboration on
research, planning, and projects. The Network provides
electronic access to interconnected databases for
watershed planning information and activities.
Whether you are developing watershed plans, smart
growth plans, or other resource strategies, the Network
is a centralized place to share and research data and
planning efforts.
More information is available at:
http://dnr.wi.aov/ora/water/watersheds/network/
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ora/water/watersheds/
plannina/WisconsinWatersheds.pdf
definitions and methodology as the President's
annual Earth Day Wetlands Report. Great Lakes
restoration progress will be reported beginning in
December 2007. Since December 2005, an
estimated 65,000 acres of wetlands have been
protected, improved or restored by federal
agencies working with partners. Significant
additional acreage has been protected and
restored by states, local and tribal governments,
and other partners.
• Developing a User Manual. In addition to the
three activities initially approved, a user manual is
being developed to guide partners in how to use
the database and tools to restore and protect
habitat in the Great Lakes.
Coastal Health
Beach Project Initiative. The GLRC identified coastal
health as a challenge recognizing the significance of
beaches to the economic well-being, health and
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
CMAP Framework Plan with Tools for Officials and Planners
The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) (formerly the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission)
released its "2040 Regional Framework Plan". It provides a series of tools for local elected officials and planners to
aid land-use decisions. The plan is the culmination of an extensive public-involvement process that included 200
workshops where 4,000 participants expressed their vision of how the region should address growth through the
year 2040. CMAP's "Common Ground" process engaged these communities' residents, elected officials, plan-
ners, developers and other stakeholders, who expressed five top priorities for 2040 on behalf of the region:
• We want livable communities.
• We want a region that views the diversity of its people as an asset.
• We want a healthy natural environment.
• We want a regional economy that is competitive globally.
• We want governments to collaborate at the local and regional levels.
The 2040 Plan describes 17 implementation strategies that require close partnership at the regional and local lev-
els. They include steps toward achieving a balance between jobs and housing, promoting alternative modes of
travel such as walking and biking, sustaining the water supply from Lake Michigan and other sources, preserving
farmland and other strategies.
More information is available at:
quality of life of the region's citizens. Because
contamination leading to beach advisories continues
to be a concern in the Basin, the GLRC called for
identification of sources of contamination and
remediation. Several federal, state, local, and tribal
partners who work together with the Great Lakes
Beach Association are creating and improving the
use of sanitary surveys and beach forecasting
models. The GLRC will increase this cooperation by
supporting and encouraging the use of sanitary
surveys and predictive modeling. Ultimately, the
GLRC hopes to recognize and integrate sanitary
survey tools and predictive modeling as a coastal
health initiative to enhance the health of beaches
along the Great Lakes to promote recreational
activity and reduce risk to human health. In 2008, the
partners are developing outreach materials for
distribution and utilization of the sanitary survey tools
and predictive models.
Proposed Great Lakes Legislation in
the 110th Congress
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S. 725):
Amends existing law to: require the Coast Guard to
implement ballast water regulations; require ships to
take steps to minimize the introduction of invasive
species; establishes an early detection and
monitoring programs along with state, regional and
federal rapid response networks; improves research;
authorizes the construction of a second barrier in the
Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal; and gives the
International Joint Commission a reference to
coordinate prevention efforts with Canada.
Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act (H.R.260):
Requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NCAA), the Smithsonian Institution,
and the U.S. Geological Survey to develop a marine
and freshwater research program to support efforts
to assess introduction rates and patterns of invasive,
nonnative species and efforts to detect, prevent, and
eradicate them. Reauthorizes the ship pathway
technology demonstration program. Requires the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a
grant program to fund research, development,
demonstration and verification of environmentally
sound, cost-effective technologies and methods to
control and eradicate such species.
Greaf Lakes Invasive Species Control Act (H.R.801):
Amends current law to require vessels equipped with
ballast water tanks but not ballast water on board
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
(NOBOB) to carry out ballast water exchange or
alternative ballast water management methods prior
to entry into any port within the Great Lakes. Directs
the Coast Guard to conduct a study of the
effectiveness of alternative ballast water
management methods in reducing the threat of
invasive species to the Great Lakes.
Prevention of Aquatic Invasive Species Act (H.R.889):
Amends current law to require vessels to conduct
ballast water treatment so that the discharged
ballast water will contain no more than a specified
level of living organisms or microbes. Urges the
Secretary to negotiate with foreign countries to
develop and implement an international program for
preventing the unintentional introduction and spread
of aquatic invasive species.
Ballast Water Management Act (H.R.2423/S. 1578): To
provide for the management and treatment of
ballast water to prevent the introduction of
nonindigenous aquatic species into coastal and
inland waters of the United States, and for other
purposes.
Coast Guard Authorization (H.R. 2830): Authorizes
appropriations for the Coast Guard for: (1) operation
and maintenance; (2) aids to navigation, facilities,
vessels, and aircraft; (3) Coast Guard research and
development; (4) retired pay; (5) bridges; (6)
environmental compliance; and (7) the Coast Guard
Reserve program. Amends the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
with provisions relating to the introduction and spread
of species from ballast water and other ship-borne
vectors.
Greaf Lakes Asian Carp Barrier Act (H.R. 553/S. 336):
This bill authorizes the Corps of Engineers to upgrade
Barrier I into a permanent barrier, complete
construction of Barrier II, operate and maintain both
barriers, and to study additional measures to prevent
carp from entering the Great Lakes.
Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (H.R 83. /S.
726 ): This bill amends the Lacey Act to legislatively
list three species of Asian carp as injurious wildlife. A
listing under the Lacey Act would prohibit the
interstate transport and importation of these fish.
Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act (H.R
1350/S. 791): The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Implementation Act makes many of the necessary
legislative changes to implement the policy
recommendations made by the Collaboration
strategy addressing aquatic invasive species, habitat
and species, toxic pollution, and many other issues.
Recreational Boating Act (H.R. 2550/S. 2067): Amends
the Clean Water Act to redefine the term "pollutant"
to exclude any deck runoff from a recreational
vessel, any engine cooling water, gray water, bilge
water effluent from properly functioning recreational
marine engine, laundry, shower, and galley sink
wastes from a recreational vessel, or any other
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a
recreational vessel.
Wafer Resources and Deve/opmenf Acf (H.R. 1495):
This legislation directs the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to undertake projects and is normally
reauthorized every two years. Regarding the Great
Lakes, it authorizes in-kind contributions to count
towards the non-federal cost-share requirement of
the John Glenn Basin program and the Great Lakes
Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program. The bill
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to convert Barrier I
into a permanent facility, to complete construction of
Barrier II, and to operate and maintain both dispersal
barriers at full federal cost. The legislation also
increases the authorization for section 206
(Restoration of the Environment for Protection of
Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems Program) and
section 1135 (Environmental Modification of Projects
for Improvement and Restoration of Ecosystems
Chicago Area Waterways
Todav
Hmi
Chicago Area waterways map showing location of carp
barrier (Illustration courtesy of Phil Moy, University of
Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute)
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Program), two programs that are used frequently
throughout the Great Lakes region.
Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and
Management Act (H.R.469): This bill would enable the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission to investigate effects
of cormorants on stocks of fish of common concern in
the Great Lakes.
Greaf Lakes Short Sea Shipping Enhancement Act of
2007 (H.R.981/S. 1683): Amends the Internal Revenue
Code to exempt from the harbor maintenance tax
commercial cargo (other than bulk cargo) loaded or
unloaded at U.S. ports in the Great Lakes Saint
Lawrence Seaway System.
H.R.I 842: Amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
prevent acid mine drainage into the Great Lakes.
Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2007
(S.950/H.R. 2342): Directs the Secretary of Commerce
to establish within NCAA a Coastal Ocean
Observation System to support coastal and fishery
management activities and an integrated national
ocean observation system, including the Great Lakes.
Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) designate as a unit of
the System any Federal agency or non-Federal entity
that operates marine sensors that collect observation
data in U.S. ocean and coastal waters; and (2)
coordinate such units' activities.
Wafer Quality Financing Act (H.R.720): Amends the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the
EPA to make grants to nonprofit organizations to
provide technical assistance to rural and small
municipalities for wastewater infrastructure financing.
Authorizes appropriations through FY2012 for: (1) state
pollution control programs; and (2) watershed pilot
projects. Revises: (1) eligibility requirements for grants
for sewage collection systems; and (2) state water
pollution control revolving fund provisions. Authorizes
and increases funding for capitalization grants for
state water pollution control revolving funds for
FY2008-FY2012. Revises funding allocations for
activities serving Indian tribes and reservations.
Requires the Comptroller General to study the
funding mechanisms and funding sources available
to establish a Clean Water Trust Fund. Requires the
EPA, in consultation with the State Department and
Canadian government, to study wastewater
treatment facilities that discharge into the Great
Lakes and provide recommendations to improve
monitoring, information sharing, and cooperation
between the U.S. and Canada.
H.CON.RES. 187: Expressing the sense of Congress
regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the
Great Lakes.
H.R.I842: To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
prevent acid mine drainage into the Great Lakes.
H.R.I844: To amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to prevent acid mine drainage into the
Great Lakes.
Greaf Lakes Wafer Protection Act (H.R.2907): To
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
establish a deadline for restricting sewage dumping
into the Great Lakes and to fund programs and
activities for improving wastewater discharges into
the Great Lakes.
Bad Polluters Act of 2007 (H.R.3276): To amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny refinery
expensing to owners of refineries that are permitted
to increase the discharge of pollutants into the Great
Lakes.
Beach Protection Act of 2007 (S. 1506/H.R. 2537):
Amends the Clean Water Act to include among
eligible grant activities the development and
implementation of programs for source tracking,
sanitary surveys, and prevention efforts to address the
identified sources of beach water pollution.
H.R. 2836: To authorize appropriations for the
National Sea Grant College Program Act for fiscal
years 2009 through 2013.
Greaf Lakes Pollution Prevention Act of 2007
(H.R.3360): Amends the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to prohibit either the EPA or any Great
Lakes state from issuing a permit for the discharge of
a pollutant into a body of water that is part of the
Great Lakes without the concurrence of all such
states. Authorizes a state to concur only after
providing notice in the vicinity of the portion of the
body of water within its boundaries and an
opportunity for public comment
The Binational Executive Committee
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) is charged
with coordinating the implementation of the
binational aspects of the 1987 Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The BEC is co-chaired
by Environment Canada and USEPA, and includes
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
members of the Great Lakes states, the Province of
Ontario, and other federal departments and
agencies in Canada and the United States and
tribes. The BEC addresses binational, basinwide issues
of concern and provides strategic direction to the
LaMPs, RAPs, and other Great Lakes programs such
as the Binational Toxics Strategy, and the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA), first signed in 1972 and
renewed in 1978, expresses the commitment of each
country to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes
Basin Ecosystem and includes a number of objectives
and guidelines to achieve these goals. It reaffirms the
rights and obligation of Canada and the United
States under the Boundary Waters Treaty and has
become a major focus of International Joint
Commission (IJC) activity.
The IJC is an independent binational organization
established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Its
purpose is to help prevent and resolve disputes
relating to the use and quality of boundary waters
and to advise Canada and the United States on
related questions. It has oversight to the
implementation of the GLWQA.
The 1972 Agreement set general and specific water
quality objectives and called for programs to meet
them. It gave priority to point-source pollution from
industrial sources and sewage plants. Point-source
pollution was dramatically reduced and many visible
and noxious pollution problems were alleviated by
regulatory programs like the Clean Water Act.
In 1978, the two governments replaced the 1972
Agreement with a new agreement. The 1978
Agreement built upon the foundation established in
the earlier Agreement, as well as new information
from scientists both in and out of government. It
shifted the focus from conventional pollutants, such
as phosphorus and bacteria, to toxic and hazardous
polluting substances. Persistent toxic substances
remain in the environment for very long periods, can
accumulate in living organisms, and can have serious
impacts on the health of wildlife and humans.
Through the 1978 Agreement, the two countries
adopted a policy that the discharge of any or all
persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated in
the Great Lakes and international section of the
St. Lawrence River. Timelines were then established
for municipal and industrial pollution abatement and
control programs.
The Agreement was amended in 1987 and added
several new programs and initiatives to restore
beneficial uses in open waters of the 5 lakes and in 43
of the most contaminated local areas in the basin.
Conditions have improved significantly in a number
of these local Areas of Concern (AOCs) and in the
open waters of the lakes.
But now, despite considerable progress to date, new
challenges are emerging while some old ones persist.
What does this mean for the Agreement? Should it -
or how should it - address issues like alien invasive
species, population growth and urbanization, new
chemical pollutants, climate change and human
health.
The governments of Canada and the United States
asked the IJC to seek the public's views on how well
the GLWQA has worked so far and how effective it
has been. In response, the IJC held public meetings in
14 Great Lakes and St. Lawrence cities in Fall 2005,
wrapping up its consultations with a Web Dialogue. It
also received comments from individuals and
organizations by hand, mail, fax, phone, e-mail and
online. More than 4000 individuals and organizations
took part.
The governments of Canada and the United States
conducted a year long review process involving over
350 stakeholders representing a broad cross section
of the Great Lakes community. Upon completion of
public comment period, a final Agreement Review
Report was presented for consideration to the
Binational Executive Committee of Environment
Canada and USEPA in Fall 2007. Environment
Canada and USEPA are considering the Final
Agreement Report and will provide advice,
respectively, to Foreign Affairs Canada and the U.S.
Department of State. The governments will then
determine next steps for the Agreement, including
whether it will be revised. The mandated review of
the GLWQA every six years, does not obligate the
governments to amend or modify the Agreement.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
For more information about the Agreement, view or
download the Guide to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement at: wwwjjc.or£i/g|coniyjtgtions.
Great Lakes Human Health Network
A Great Lakes-wide human health network was
formed by the Binational Executive Committee to
maximize resources and efficiencies of scale. The
USEPA's GLNPO provides staff resources to facilitate
the exchange of information and expertise among
health and environmental agencies. The human
health network brings together experts and agencies
from throughout the basin to share information and
provide technical assistance on human health issues
for inclusion in the LaMP. Currently, the Network has
representative from six federal government agencies,
five tribal government agencies, eleven state and
provincial government agencies, and one county
government agency. The Network anticipates that
the membership will continue to grow as the Network
becomes more widely known. Current information
on the Network and its work may be found at
www.epa.gov/glnpo/health.html.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) is a
critical partner in achieving a balanced and healthy
fish community in Lake Michigan, both in terms of
controlling exotic species and rehabilitating native
species in the lake. GLFC has adopted and
implemented an integrated management of sea
lamprey (IMSL) approach to control sea lamprey in
the Great Lakes. The IMSL process involves using a
variety of control methods instead of relying solely on
chemicals. For example, GLFC is reducing the
minimum lethal concentrations of chemicals used to
kill larval sea lampreys in order to protect young lake
sturgeon and is scheduling chemical treatments later
in the summer to reduce the effects on young lake
sturgeon. GLFC has reduced chemical use by 50
percent compared to the amounts used in the 1990s.
Great Lakes Legislative Caucus
State lawmakers from the eight states and two
Canadian provinces that surround the Great Lakes
have formed a caucus to coordinate legislative
action on Great Lakes issues. The group, comprised
of lawmakers from the 10 states and provincial
Legislatures, will serve as a clearinghouse for
information, policies and coordination on issues such
as beach closings, water diversion, and invasive
species. The caucus focused its activities around
aquatic nuisance species and the Great Lakes
Charter Annex.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 11
Do we have enough information, data, understanding, and
indicators to inform the decision-making process?
Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
NOT
SUSTAINABLE
MIXED
DETERIORATING
MIXED
IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE
2000
2008
2010
2020
What is our target for
sustainability?
A five year cycle of monitoring and reporting is
routinely published on line, in the LaMP, utilized
by the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating
Council (LMMCC) and the subject of
conferences.
Why is this important?
Accurate information is critical for making
informed decisions about Lake Michigan
ecosystem management. Legacy or existing
systems for monitoring are planned and
funded separately and are not formally tied to research. Further, data are often incompatible across
agencies and organizations, making it difficult to identify trends.
What is the current status?
• Positive movement was achieved by not only the collaborative FY 2005 intensive monitoring, but also
the attention to the issue as one of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration issues.
What are the major challenges?
• Data remains incompatible across organizations, reducing the value of this asset
• Time lag from sample collecting through analysis to interpretation
• Compare the data gathered from the 1995 Lake Michigan Mass Balance samplings with the 2005 year
of intensive monitoring data to determine if trends exist
• More monitoring and research needs on cladophora, botulism, and nearshore issues
• There is inadequate information for some of the SOLEC indicators
What are the next steps?
• Report on Lake Michigan nearshore and food web issues for Great Lakes Regional Research Information Network
• Review monitoring and research to identify LaMP pollutants and trends to determine if LaMP pollutants list needs to be changed
• Complete, analyze, and publish coordinated monitoring results for the lake intensive monitoring year 2005
• Ensure Lake Michigan models will be documented further, and additional scenarios simulated with results shared through the
LaMP and in other ways
• Assist coordination for the intensive year and the national coastal assessment year monitoring programs for 2010
• Use 2008 Lake Michigan Pilot funding, for sampling and analysis, to refine monitoring plans
• Utilize FY05 and other monitoring data to aid in adaptive management review of LaMP Pollutant List (See page 11-2 and
Appendix A for more information)
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
What are some tools for addressing the challenges?
• Lake Michigan Online GIS
Communicating Ecological Indicators
Permit Data on the Web
What are the State of the Lakes Ecosystem (SOLEC) indicators used to help
assess the status of the subgoal?
• Access to Information about the Great Lakes
• Research/Educational Opportunities
For more information on status of indicators, see
What are the next steps for adaptive management review of the LaMP
pollutant list?
• Conforming to or deciding not to conform to the NMN definitions of "shallow nearshore" (0 to 30 meters
depth), "medium nearshore" (30 to 80 meters depth), and "off shore" (greater than 80 meters depth) for
pollutant categorization. Conforming to the NMN would eliminate the first scenario which relied on the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance definition of "open waters" in 40 CFR 132.2 to categorize pollutants.
• Using the spreadsheet, created from state water quality and federal monitoring programs for the Lake
Michigan Pilot to summarize existing monitoring, to identify what is monitored where in the Lake
Michigan Basin.
• Updating Table A-5 in the 2004 Appendix A to show where potential watch list pollutants have been
detected. With the summary of monitoring programs, we will be better able to determine whether these
substances are monitored in Lake Michigan.
• Comparing detected chemicals to state water quality standards and water quality criteria (i.e., do they
exist?) and toxicological information. As an example of the latter, there was a talk at the Surface Water
Monitoring and Standards 2008 conference regarding use of TSCA and FIFRA data by States when IRIS
doesn't include data for a particular chemical.
• Decide whether the criteria to identify a "watch list" pollutant should include "potential to impact the
Lake Michigan ecosystem" or "potential to impact Lake Michigan.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Background
LaMP collaborators identified the need for
coordinated collaboration in 1998 and sponsored a
lake basin monitoring inventory and the formation of
the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council
(LMMCC). The LMMCC enabled the 2005 Intensive
Year of Monitoring as follow up to the 1995 Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Monitoring. In 2005, the
LaMP Technical Committees also conducted a
review of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference indicators to determine the
appropriateness for Lake Michigan and to identify
any gaps. Work on these issues are in alignment with
reviews at the national level conducted by the
President's U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) Strategy
Report on indicators and monitoring (www.alrc.us).
Highlights and excerpts follow.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
(www.oceancommission.gov) highlighted the need
for "unbiased, credible and up to-date scientific
information" to properly manage the human activities
that effect the nation's oceans coasts and Great
Lakes. The Commission, which presented its findings in
2004, found that new scientific findings demonstrate
the complexity and interconnectedness of natural
systems and that management approaches have not
been updated to reflect this complexity with
responsibilities remaining dispersed among a
confusing array of agencies at the federal, state, and
local levels. Managers, decision makers, and the
public require timely access to reliable data and solid
scientific information that have been translated into
meaningful products. The Commission urged
Congress to double the federal research budget over
the next five years and to fund and adopt an
integrated observing system on a regional basis.
The GLRC found that the volume of data collected
for the Great Lakes and their tributary watersheds has
expanded considerably in recent years, coinciding
with an increase in the complexity of issues that need
to be addressed. The current lack of accessible,
integrated information management systems limits
decision-making abilities and application of adaptive
management principles for the protection and
restoration of ecological resources. Adaptive
management requires one to identify priority issues,
gather information, establish metrics, evaluate
options, implement actions, track progress,
Lake Michigan Groundwater Pilot Study
The U.S. Geological Survey is conducting a pilot study in
the Great Lakes Basin for a national initiative to assess
water availability and use. In this study, key indicators for
assessing water availability are being identified and
refined. The pilot study also aims to provide scientific
information desired by the Great Lakes States in
development and refinement of water policies. Ground-
water availability in the Great Lakes Basin is being
quantified through regional assessments of recharge and
storage, estimates of baseflow, and assessments of
ground-water data collection. A ground-water-flow model
is being developed for the contributing area to Lake
Michigan to demonstrate the use of a large regional
model to address water-availability questions. In the Great
Lakes Basin; however, many water-availability issues are
local, and the regional model may not be able to address
these issues directly. Modeling techniques to address
ground-water/surface-water interaction and local water
availability issues will be refined and tested in this project.
The ground-water model is an important component of
the study because it provides a framework for the system,
allows for estimation of indicators that include ground-
water flux, and links flow processes to field data.
More information is available at http://acwi.gov/
monitoring/network/
reevaluate actions based on observed responses,
communicate results and adjust both management
approaches and monitoring activities. Although such
capabilities are advancing within the Great Lakes
basin, they exist only in piecemeal fashion and have
not been fully integrated for the comprehensive
management of the Lakes. To further complicate
matters, decisions made on one issue often affect
other issues. Observing systems, monitoring programs,
indicators, research, modeling and analysis,
information management and communication must
therefore be integrated into a holistic decision-
making process.
• Observing systems, including sensors, stations,
networks and field data collection are the primary
means forgathering information on the chemical,
biological and physical characteristics of the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
• Monitoring Programs use these observations to
take the pulse of the Great Lakes, assess natural
variability, drive ecosystem forecasting models,
and assess the progress of restorations efforts.
Current monitoring challenges include:
incomplete inventories of federal, state/provincial
and municipal observation and monitoring
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Lake Michigan Online GIS
Lake Michigan Online Atlas
The Lake Michigan Online Atlas provides Internet access to a number of information resources related to the Lake
Michigan basin. Reference maps offer an overview of the region. Computer-compatible data layers can be downloaded
for use in a geographic information system (GIS). Hyperlinks and contact information improve access to regional
resources. And an online mapping tool allows internet users to explore data and create custom maps using a web
browser.
More information is available at http://mapserver.alc.ora/website/atlas/viewer.htm.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission GIS
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is developing an aquatic atlas in GIS format that pulls together data from the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance studies, historical sediment surveys, coastal wetland data as well as dam databases to facilitate a
holistic approach to managing the Great Lakes basin. These layers of aquatic habitat information will complement the
current on-line atlas work of the Great Lakes Commission.
More information is available at www.alfc.ora/alais.
Openlands and Center for Neighborhood Technology
Openlands and the Center for Neighborhood (CNT) technology are updating a website that details the green
infrastructure for the greater Chicago region. In the first phase of the project, Openlands and CNT collected 170 layers of
valuable data on wetlands, floodplains, rivers, protected open space, threatened and endangered species, greenways,
trails and soils. The website has been utilized as a planning tool for creating linkages between existing protected lands
and for identifying opportunities for natural resource protection and restoration. Phase II will improve the existing website
with new and updated information and expand the project's geographic reach by adding data layers for 5 new
counties. Upon completion of Phase II, the website will be interactive and allow users to create customized maps of
specific geographic areas with the data layers which are most significant to them.
More information is available at: www.areenmappina.org.
activities; insufficient spatial density of basic
observations across the system; incomplete
coverage over varying time scales (real-time to
historic).
Goals or end point examples were developed by
the Great Lakes governors and adopted by the
GLRC. The LaMP goals were set through a
stakeholder process in 1998 and adopted by the
LaMP management committee (See page i-2 for
LaMP goals).
Indicators provide information on the state of the
Great Lakes and progress toward achieving goals.
Continued efforts are needed to ensure the
viability of an informative and scientifically-based
set of indicators (e.g., the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) indicator suite)
that are useful for management decisions and to
inform the public. The SOLEC indicator suite has
been refined over the last decade to be
comprehensive yet practical and actionable. In
addition, indicators should be used in relation to
realistic "end points" or desired results that are
accepted by most stakeholders. When identifying
end points, stakeholders must recognize that
variability is the norm in natural systems, therefore,
many targets and goals should not be expressed
as discrete numbers but rather as ranges of
desired, natural levels (See LaMP 2000, Chapters).
• Research and observations have traditionally been
focused on single issues. This focus must transition
to an ecosystem approach with greater emphasis
on predictive forecasting and adaptive
management. Research should be directed
towards improving the understanding of natural
fluctuations and interactions of ecosystem
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
components. Improvements in predictive
capabilities are needed, particularly regarding
the impacts of chemical, biological and physical
changes on ecosystem structure and function.
Development of such capabilities requires a
comprehensive research coordination strategy
across partnering institutions.
• Information produced by research and
observations must be made readily available to
managers, decision-makers and the public. This
will require information integration, management
and communication. The LaMP sponsors the Lake
Michigan Forum's State of the Lake Michigan
Conference every two years, the LMMCC work
and the LaMP document itself to inform managers
and the public of current status and trends.
Various methods are used to communicate
information to those that require it, but
coordination needs strengthening for the sheer
breadth of information collected over the region.
The lack of a coordinated message can make it
difficult for audience groups to interpret and
understand information. The audiences that
require information are also diverse, requiring that
complex information needs to be sufficiently
repackaged to meet their needs. Some
information, such as lake conditions and beach
closings, requires rapid delivery. In addition, two-
way communication needs to be promoted so
that user needs are conveyed back to those
producing the information. A comprehensive,
two-way communication strategy has not been
developed to address these needs.
Lake Michigan Serves as National
Monitoring Pilot
Lake Michigan was selected as one of three pilot
studies across the nation to test and improve upon
the design of the National Monitoring Network (NMN)
for U.S. Coastal Waters and Their Tributaries. The other
two pilot studies were the Delaware River and San
Francisco Bay. The pilot report provides background
information, discusses management issues, an
inventory of monitoring under resource components
of the NMN, a gap analysis and projected costs to
implement the NMN for Lake Michigan.
The Great Lakes and Lake Michigan in particular, are
in a period of changing conditions due to a wide
spectrum of watershed stressors from toxic pollutants,
nonpoint source pollution and water level fluctuations
to invasive species disrupting the food web and
ecosystem and rampant developmental pressures
throughout the region. Thus, unique needs exist in the
region; however, consistent monitoring and
assessment approaches with other regions of the
nation may be necessary to address these issues
under a common framework.
With these issues at the forefront, partners working on
or around Lake Michigan - including federal and
state agencies and academic institutions - have
established a robust framework of research and
collaborative monitoring efforts. The Lake Michigan
Pilot Study will enable partners in the basin to better
address these stressors and management issues. It
also helped to point out the level to which Lake
Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)-
expressed needs are being met. Results of the Study
will serve as a catalyst for assessing and improving
upon observing, monitoring and reporting needs for
the above-mentioned and other rapidly emerging
ecological problems both in the Lake Michigan basin
and in the Great Lakes region. Moreover, the explicit
linkage between upland, coastal and offshore waters
necessitates a more coordinated monitoring network.
The Lake Michigan Pilot Study is also as an excellent
surrogate for most coastal marine environments, with
its focus on integrating observations of complex
physical, chemical and biological processes and
development of enhanced monitoring strategies. The
Lake Michigan Pilot Study will ultimately generate a
monitoring design that could be applied to the other
four Great Lakes to better assess the ecological status
of the entire Great Lakes basin, while complementary
with monitoring parameters in other coastal regions of
the United States through its cooperation in the
National Monitoring Network for U.S. Coastal Waters
and Their Tributaries.
Summary and Major Conclusions from Pilot
Study
In spite of their large size, the Great Lakes are sensitive
to the effects of a wide range of pollutants from
permitted discharge, urban and agricultural run-off,
leachate and ground water. The large surface area
of the lakes also makes them vulnerable to direct
atmospheric pollutants, transported by weather that
falls with rain snow or dust from extreme distances.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
New Nearshore Monitoring Tool
In 2008, the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office will begin additional monitoring nearshore and offshore waters using
a sensor package towed behind the R/V Lake Guardian. The main work to be accomplished in the first year is learning the
capabilities of the sensor package and beginning the development of a monitoring program that will address the lack of
long-term data on the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes. The towed sensor package, the Triaxus, will include: a CTD
which will measure temperature, depth, conductivity and dissolved oxygen; a laser optical plankton counter which counts
and sizes particles in the Mysis through zooplankton ranges; two fluorometers which will provide information on the main
algae groups and on the "health" of the algae; a nitrate analyzer, which can be configured for other chemicals also, will
measure this nutrient and identify river plumes and other nutrient sources; finally, sidescan sonar will be used to identify and
map underwater habitat and other underwater structures and/or find objects on the lake bottom.
Nearshore efforts will begin by towing a Triaxus at the 20 or 30 meter depth contours around the lakes, beginning with Lake
Michigan in 2008. The sensors will help to provide a synoptic characterization of basic biological, physical and chemical
aspects of the nearshore area of each lake.
In addition to the nearshore program, the Triaxus will be used to enhance existing offshore monitoring program by
providing data as the R/V Lake Guardian travels from one sampling site to another. This information will help us to expand
understanding of the variability in plankton, algae and chemistry throughout the lakes. The towed sensors are similar to
sensors used on anchored buoys around the Great Lakes. The information from tows near the buoys could be used to
determine what water mass is represented by the buoy sensors. Finally, the towed sensor information will be used to
provide "ground truth" data for satellite image analyses for chlorophyll and other measurements.
Triaxus being lowered into the water
Triaxus in use
Source: USEPA
Outflows from the Great Lakes are relatively small
(less than 1 percent per year) in. comparison with
the total volume of water. Pollutants that enter the
lakes are retained and recycled in the system and
can become more concentrated with time.
Although part of a single system, each lake is
different. Because of the large size of the watershed,
physical characteristics such as climate, soils and
topography vary across the basin. To the north, the
climate is cold and the terrain is dominated by
granite bedrock called the Canadian or Laurentian
shield consisting of Pre-Cambrian rocks under a
generally thin layer of acidic soils. Conifers dominate
the northern forest. In the southern areas, the climate
is warmer with deeper soils developed on a variety of
sediments deposited by glaciers and as lakes,
beaches, outwash plains, wetlands and streams. In
addition, there are over 30,000 islands and very large
bays (Green Bay, Grand Traverse Bay, Saginaw Bay,
Georgian Bay) that are also unique in how pollutants
arc processed in the sub-bay system thus requiring
special or additional sampling.
As receiving bodies of tributaries which are, in turn,
receiving bodies for industrial and agricultural
discharges, the lakes also serve as drinking water for
40 million people. As the only fresh coast of the
United States, the lakes provide recreation through
fishing, boating, and the world's largest collection of
freshwater sand dunes. Biological monitoring is
important not only from an ecosystem perspective
but also for public health. Monitoring and research
for the last six years has begun to show a great
contrast between the nearshore and the open lake.
This also varies by lake but we see almost two
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Communicating
Ecological Indicators
Ecological indicators need to be made more understandable to the public (including decision makers). Methods for
articulating environmental values to make the connection between indicators and what the public (individuals) value
about the environment should be considered.
Translating the indicators of regional ecological condition used by USEPA into common language for communication with
public and decision-making audiences is critical.
A study by researchers from Clark University, Pacific Southwest Research Station of the USDA Forest Service, University of
Tennessee-Knoxville, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USEPA, and Vanderbilt University revealed that people did not want
to know what these indicators measured, or how measurements were performed. Rather, respondents wanted to know
what such measurements can tell them about environmental conditions. Most positively received were descriptions of the
kinds of information that various combinations of indicators provide about broad ecological conditions. Descriptions that
respondents found most appealing contained general reference to both the set of indicators from which the information
was drawn and aspects of the environment valued by society to which the information could be applied. These findings
can assist with future efforts to communicate scientific information to nontechnical audiences, and to represent societal
values in ecological programs by improving scientist-public communication.
More information about this issue can be found in a paper titled "Communicating Ecological Indicators to Decision
Makers and the Public" at: http://www.ecoloavandsocietv.ora/vol5/iss1 /artl 9/.
separate systems within each lake basin providing
another monitoring complexity.
Monitoring currently being conducted does not fully
meet the Network design in any of the resource
component groups. In some components (e.g.,
Rivers, Atmospheric Deposition) the current
monitoring locations are similar to the proposed
design. In other resource components (e.g.,
Beaches) the constituents proposed for the Network
design are currently being sampled. In other
resource component groups (e.g., Groundwater,
Atmospheric Deposition, Rivers) the temporal
approach proposed in the design is for the most part
being met Monitoring protocols being used across
the resource components are comparable across
the various monitoring entities in some cases but not
in all cases; and these protocols do not in all cases
meet the Network design requirements. QA/QC
activities across most of the resource component
groups meet the NMN design requirements; however,
this is not true for all of them. Data management
approaches are not fully integrated for any of the
resource components; however, for some
components (i.e. Beaches, Atmospheric Deposition,
Off Shore) coordinating data management will be
easier than for others (i.e. Near Shore, Wetlands). The
cost of filling the monitoring gaps varies considerably
across the various resource components, from several
hundred thousand dollars to close to ten million
dollars. The total monitoring gap for the Lake
Michigan Pilot Study is in the neighborhood of $25
million.
Finally, even if the NMN is implemented as designed,
we still would need to compare the data to
benchmarks before we could identify the condition
of the resource and know whether additional
protective measures are needed.
Federal and state agencies monitor contaminants in
Lake Michigan's offshore and shallow near shore
waters. No monitoring programs were identified in
the medium near shore as defined by the NMN for
Lake Michigan. States monitor Lake Michigan
watershed water quality in rivers and specific
contaminants such as those bioaccumulated in
predator fish in order to prepare fish consumption
and advice and to prepare Clean Water Act
Consolidated Section 303 (d)/305 (b) reports. The
Green Bay and Milwaukee wastewater utilities
monitor nutrients and/or pathogens.
Beaches. Strategic monitoring that involves spatial,
temporal, and source-tracking methods is needed.
Strategic monitoring in conjunction with a thorough
knowledge of the beach and its watershed can lead
to improvements in beach quality. However, to
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
develop more progressive monitoring strategies,
limited funding for routine monitoring programs may
need to be redirected towards start-up costs
associated with improved technology.
Wetlands. Prior to the establishment of the GLRC and
the release of the U.S. EPA's guidelines for
development of a wetland monitoring program in
2006, few coordinated monitoring efforts had been
initiated for coastal wetlands. Historically, each
agency and organization has had disparate goals
and monitoring techniques, and no organization has
overarching responsibility for data management. This
has lead to significant fragmentation of biological,
chemical, physical and landscape information across
federal, state, provincial, tribal and local agencies. It
is clear that glaring gaps exist in wetland monitoring.
With the establishment of new guidelines and
reiteration of the importance of wetland monitoring,
several new efforts have begun to allow better
monitoring of wetland resources.
The MDEQ and WDNR are completing Rapid
Assessment Methods (RAMs) for their states, and both
Indiana and Illinois are considering utilizing the well
established Ohio RAM, since their states are in similar
ecoregions. These programs correspond to the Level
II analysis recommended by the U.S. EPA, RAMs,
however, are likely to classify any coastal wetland
resource as a very high quality wetland, thus, these
protocols are best utilized at inland wetlands. A more
thorough analysis may be conducted in coastal
wetlands using a Tier III analysis. In addition, the
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium (GLCWC)
released a complete wetland assessment protocols
corresponding to the Tier I. It recommended
monitoring parameters. The protocols cover
assessment of wetland chemistry and landscape
features, as well as biological indicators for fish,
macroinvertebrates, vegetation, birds, and
amphibians. With the establishment of these
protocols, it is hoped that coastal wetland monitoring
data will be less fragmented across the basin and
more easily shared among agencies and
organizations.
Currently, the largest Lake Michigan monitoring effort
is organized through Bird Studies Canada's Marsh
Monitoring Program. This program sends volunteers in
to the field to collect data on wetland bird and
amphibian species. Data from the monitoring is
compiled into reports every five years. A second
major monitoring effort includes the ongoing National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program conducted by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This program
maps wetlands using remote sensing and follows the
status and trends of wetland loss and gain
throughout the nation. Minor monitoring efforts
include the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
(NRCS) National Resource Inventory, fish collection by
the State of Michigan's Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR), Fisheries Division, wetland status
and trends analysis and wetland inventory mapping
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) and a number of smaller volunteer or local
efforts. More information is available at www.glc.org.
Embayments. The NMN design recommends
sampling using a probability based design (illustrated
in Figure 3-6 on page 49 of the Network design
report). The NMN protocol defined 87 embayments
within the Great Lakes basin. Fifteen of these are
along the Lake Michigan shoreline. The Network
design report lists organic and inorganic
contaminants, biological, sediments, and physical
setting measurement for this resource component, for
which the recommended monitoring frequency is
once per year. At this point, there is no
The Lake Michigan Toolbox
Permit Data on the Web
Envirofacts (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/) is a single point of
access to select U.S. EPA environmental data. This website
provides access to several EPA databases to provide you
with information about environmental activities that may
affect air, water, and land anywhere in the United States.
With Envirofacts, you can learn more about these environ-
mental activities in your area or you can generate maps of
environmental information.
The Permit Compliance System (PCS) (http://www.epa.gov/
enviro/html/pcs/1 provides information on companies
which have been issued permits to discharge waste water.
You can review information on when a permit was issued
and expires, how much the company is permitted to dis-
charge, and the actual monitoring data showing what the
company has discharged.
STORE! (short for STOrage and RETrieval) (http://
www.epa.gov/storet/) is g repository for woter quglity, bio-
logicol, gnd physicgl dgtg gnd is used bystgte environ-
mentgl ggencies, EPA gnd other federol ggencies, universi-
ties, privgte citizens, gnd mgny others.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
comprehensive monitoring program focused
specifically on embayments in the basin. Seven of 15
Lake Michigan embayments are not currently a part
of any monitoring program. State fish chemical and
sediment monitoring is incomplete. However, various
elements are sampled within a number of
embayments as part of some other monitoring
program, as fallows:
Indiana Harbor: Mussel Watch, IDEM water
sampling, AOC sampling
Calumet Harbor: Mussel Watch, TEPA south shore
lake survey, AOC sampling
Milwaukee Harbor Mussel Watch, MMSD, WDNR
sampling, AOC sampling
Grand Traverse embayment at Leelanau State
Park: Mussel Watch
Little Traverse Bay; Tip of the Mitt Watershed
Council's water quality studies (ongoing
monitoring?)
Little Bay de Noc: MDNR fishery
Big Bay de Noc: MDNR fishery
OffShore. Currently, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National
Program Office and NOAA Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory are the entities
with long-term monitoring programs on Lake
Michigan. U.S. EPA visits eleven or more offshore sites
twice per year collecting water chemistry and
biological data as part of its mandate based on the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Clean
Water Act. NOAA visits one site on a more frequent
basis throughout each year. These monitoring
programs complement each other, giving both wide
spatial coverage and frequent temporal coverage.
Elsewhere, the NMN design for monitoring is based on
a randomized grid. An exception is made for this
subcomponent. Targeted sampling of the Great
Lakes will use fixed sites and continue historical
monitoring efforts in the offshore waters conducted
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and
the International Joint Commission. Sampling
locations for existing monitoring networks on the
Great Lakes, dating from the early 1980's are based
on alternative criteria. In the offshore area, water
mass movement appears to be sufficient to
"randomize" the sampling resource being sampled.
As part of the original Great Lakes Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) in the
late 1980's and early 1990's, a comparison study of
the existing deterministic sample sites and a
randomized grid was performed. The results of that
comparison were that very little difference existed
between the water chemistry values obtained from
either design, with the exception that some
randomized grid sites were placed at locations not
representative of the offshore area.
Recommendation: Maintain the current offshore
programs for both agencies, and supplement the
temporally more intense NOAA program with at least
one more station in the offshore area located near
Milwaukee, Wl.
Rivers and AOCs. All 20 of the river sites being
proposed for the Lake Michigan portion of the
national monitoring network currently have
streamflow gauging stations on them. Fifteen sites
have some ongoing water quality monitoring. None
of the sites has the complete proposed constituent
monitoring data set or is monitored at the proposed
frequency. All stream gauging is being done
according to proposed protocols. All water quality
monitoring is being done according to protocols
approved by either USGS or U.S. EPA for the
constituent of interest. Three additional rivers (Grand
Calumet, Sheboygan, and Manitowoc) are also
proposed for addition to the NMN design. Each of
these rivers has ongoing streamflow and water
quality monitoring. These 20 proposed network sites
will only provide coverage for about 71 % of the river
inflow to Lake Michigan. While we do not feel this is
adequate coverage, in and of itself, we believe that
when coordinated with monitoring at other river sites
in the basin it is possible to determine if short-term
added monitoring is needed to supplement the
network.
Additionally, regarding Great Lakes AOCs, a
complete and thorough set of monitoring protocols
to measure the restoration of their beneficial use
impairments is currently lacking. Since most have a
contaminated sediment component, the monitoring
of the AOCs cannot be met by near shore or tributary
river monitoring. GLNPO is working with the states to
develop delisting targets for each of the AOC
Beneficial Use Impairments by January 2009. These
targets will inform the AOC monitoring plan.
Dafa Management Issues. Access to accurate and
timely data by members of the scientific,
management, and policy community is critical to
decision making that affects Great Lakes water
resources. To support this need, significant time and
money has been spent collecting monitoring data
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
GLNPO Water Quality Surveys
The USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office's water quality surveys generally focus on the offshore waters of the lakes
(water greater than 30 meters in depth, or greater than 3 miles from shore). To ensure that sampling activities are
representative of lake conditions, samples are collected from multiple sites within each lake basin. The number and
locations of the sites needed to obtain a representative sampling of each basin was statistically determined using
historical data collected during intensive surveys of each lake. Each basin consists of several routine monitoring stations
and a "master station". The master stations generally represent the deepest area of the basin and are often used to
collect supplementary data for other (non-survey) purposes. The spring surveys are designed to collect water quality
information during unstratified
(isothermal) conditions of the lake, and
the summer surveys are designed to
monitor the Lakes during stratified
conditions. As a result, the number of
depths sampled during the summer is
greater than the number of depths
sampled during the spring surveys.
The surveys provide data to detect and
evaluate trends and annual changes in
chloride, nitrate nitrogen, particulate
nitrogen, silica, total phosphorus, total
dissolved phosphorus, particulate
phosphorus, chloride, and reactive
silica.
The biology program monitors
phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic
invertebrates, and chlorophyll a in the
water column. Zooplankton and
phytoplankton samples are collected
twice per year, in spring and summer.
The majority of benthos samples are
collected in summer, although a small
number of stations are visited in spring.
Some benthos-only stations are located
closer to shore.
The Peter L. Wise Lake Guardian
Maps of sampling stations can be found at: w
monitoring data are found on GLEN DA at:
Some graphs of information on water chemistry through 2006 are at:
index.htm.
including physical, chemical, biological, and cultural
data for the domain, These data have been, and are
being collected by a variety of agencies,
organizations, and institutions over space and time,
and represent a significant asset in better
understanding and managing the Great Lakes.
Unfortunately, much of these geographic data
remain inconsistent and/or incompatible across
organizations and boundaries, and subsequently are
not readily available for downstream analysis. This
general unavailability of data in the region can be
attributed to many things including institutional
barriers, security concerns, differing languages
(computer and otherwise), and financial constraints,
among others.
One such limiting factor is legacy systems, or
"stovepipes," used to collect, store, and transfer data
throughout the region. Owing to antiquated
software, hardware, and/or engineering
methodologies, stovepipes present a significant
obstacle to sharing data by making it too expensive
(In terms of time and money) to access the data.
Another issue affecting the usability of monitoring
data throughout the region relates to the general
"discoverability" of the data. Despite the trove of
data being collected, much of it remains hidden
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
^^^1
behind firewalls or scattered across different web
pages. For decision makers and resource managers
who depend on timely access to information, it is
critically important to make data more readily
available.
Efforts toward making monitoring data more
available are those concerned with the integration
and normalization of data across the region. The
Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) is a forerunner
in this regard, providing real-time access to Great
Lakes observing and monitoring data. GLOS provides
access to data on climate, meteorology, chemistry,
geology, biology and human activities that affect the
Great Lakes, their interconnecting waterways and
the St. Lawrence River, GLOS draws data about the
Great Lakes system from numerous sources,
consolidates it, and makes it available via the
Internet. This resource helps to meet the needs of
resource managers, researchers, educators,
commercial shippers, recreational boaters, beach
users and homeland security personnel.
The Middleton Data Center (MDC) is another
example of a multi-jurisdictional data aggregation
and integration effort. MDC, co-located with the
USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center, is involved in
several projects to develop better coordinated dam
management systems. One of these projects is a
cooperative effort with Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MMSD) to aggregate disparate
data from universities and local, state, and federal
agencies affecting areas within the MMSD's purview.
The MDC is also involved with the development of
water quality and quantity databases, leveraging
XML-based mechanisms (i.e. Web Services) for
sharing data across the region. These MDC projects
provide positive potential and a baseline for further
collaborative data management activities
throughout the Lake Michigan watershed.
Another important development in the arena of
sharing monitoring data through the region is the
advent of metadata-driven, web-based data
clearinghouse nodes. These clearinghouses make
disparate data infinitely more discoverable through
keyword, thematic, and spatially-based queries that
allow users to readily find and acquire data.
At the national level, several such portals have
sprung up over the past several years. In the U.S.
these include Geospatial One Stop (GOS: http://
aeodata.gov), USGS' National Map (http://
nationalmap.gov) and NASA's Global Change
Master Directory (GCMD: http://gcmd.nasa.gov). On
the Canadian side, there are the GeoConnections
(GeoConnections: (http://www.geoconnections.org)
and GeoGratis (GeoGratis: http://
geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca) clearinghouses. Regionally,
the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) is
providing similar functionality through its GLIN GIS
(http://gis.glin.net). The GLIN GIS provides user and
organizations the ability to publish their Great Lakes-
specific datasets, and makes these data available in
a variety of formats and Web Services.
Lake Michigan Monitoring
Coordinating Council
The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council
was established to enhance coordination,
communication, and data management among
agencies and other organizations that conduct or
benefit from monitoring efforts in the Lake Michigan
basin in the interest of supporting the Lake Michigan
LaMP.
The Council has members representing federal,
state, tribal, and local governments, nonprofit
watershed groups, and other environmental
organizations, educational entities, and the
regulated community. The Council meets twice
each year in locations throughout the watershed.
Council meetings, biennial conferences, and
feedback from constituents shape the Council's
work plan and activities.
The Council framework has been developed to
increase coordination between appropriate
monitoring entities, allow the development of a
strategic plan for monitoring, and add value to the
individual efforts of the Council's member
organizations. The framework takes advantage of
the logical interactions between the various
resource-based monitoring entities and other
affected stakeholder groups.
The working groups formed under this framework will
build on the efforts to coordinate monitoring within
individual resources by groups such as the Lakewide
Management Plan Committees, the Wisconsin
Groundwater Coordinating Council, and the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission. Each of these resource-
based working groups will coordinate existing
monitoring networks around several common
considerations: monitoring objectives; spatial,
temporal and parameter network design; methods
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
comparability; quality assurance and control
planning; database sharing; and data analysis
approaches. More information is available at
Great Lakes National Parks Monitoring
Two national parks in the Lake Michigan basin are
participating in a Great Lakes Network made up of 9
national park units from four states in the Great Lakes
region. At the southern end of the Lake, work is
progressing on assessing the extent of invasive plant
species in interdunal wetlands of the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore and State Parks. These special
wetlands are highly vulnerable to invasives such as
purple loosestrife and Phragmites. Park staffs are
working with The Nature Conservancy, Save the
Dunes Council, and Shirley Heinze Trust Fund to
formulate a control program that will eliminate
invasives and protect the native plant species.
The Sleeping Bear Dunes and the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore are working as a unit for
monitoring, fostering the exchange of information
and resources between parks with similar issues,
reducing per park costs through multi-park studies
and providing network-based expertise that would
not be affordable to the parks individually. The
overall purpose is to develop broadly-based scientific
data on current status and long-term trends in
composition, structure, and function of the parks'
ecosystems.
State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference
Additional work has been completed on the Great
Lakes indicators over the past 2 years through the
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)
process. The SOLEC is hosted every two years by
USEPA GLNPO and Environment Canada. The next
conference will be held in Niagara, Ontario in
October 2008. The conferences are intended to
provide a forum for exchange of information on the
ecological condition of the Great Lakes and
surrounding lands. A major goal is to bring together a
large audience of government (at all levels), tribal,
corporate, and not-for-profit managers to discuss
problems that affect the lakes. The conferences
have led to information gathering by a variety of
agencies and organizations. In the year following
each conference, a State of the Great Lakes Report
is prepared by the governments based on the
conference and public comments following the
conference (www.binational.net).
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) was created under Annex 15 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1990 to determine
the magnitude and trends of atmospheric loadings of
toxic substances to the Great Lakes. IADN is
operated jointly by the USEPA-GLNPO and
Environment Canada. Five master stations (1 per
Lake) are located in rural areas within one kilometer
of the shore to represent background conditions.
There are also 10 satellite stations that provide
additional detail on levels of toxics in the air around
the Lakes. USEPA operates 5 stations: the master
stations on Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Erie, as well
as two satellite stations in Cleveland and Chicago,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Q)
49 -
47 -
45 -
43 -
41
-93
I
IADN
Master Stations
Satellite Stations
, .^^, -
kf ^ ^T^
[/P ,t f
. ,
Huron
v // f ii vv *
/// m% < \ \V A
fr / ' I \ / ^Egbert
L. Michigan/ /sleePin9/GrV^nd 0
I /Bear CT\Tf
/ \Dunes \jj
,,«i .r™
Point
r'
\
/
Burlinc
x>- --
iock Pointy L L. Ontario
Sturgeon
Point
TI,
NT Chicago
I
85
IADN Master and Satellite Stations
Source: USEPA
-89 -85 -81
Longitude (W)
-77
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
People on beach at Warren Dunes, Indiana
US Environmental Protection Agency, Karen Holland
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Subgoal 12
What is the Status of Lake Michigan Subwatersheds?
What is our target for
sustainability?
Watershed boundaries are routinely
used as the unit for planning and
integrating human activities and
achieving an environmental,
economic, and social balance.
What is the current status?
While possessing globally significant
biodiversity resources, all but three of
the 33 major watersheds within the
Lake Michigan basin have some river
and stream reaches listed as impaired.
Lake Michigan Target Dates for Sustainability
NOT MIXED
SUSTAINABLE DETERIORATING
MIXED
MIXED
IMPROVING
SUSTAINABLE
2000
2008
2010
2020
What are the major
challenges?
• Climate Change: USEPA Office of Water is working to adapt more water programs to climate change
challenges at the watershed scale
• Building better understanding of the watershed approach
• Working with local communities to use watersheds as a basis for environmental decision making across
political boundaries
• Providing data for the 1,467 12-digit subwatersheds.
What are the next steps?
Make watershed fact sheets available to state, regional and watershed groups
Identify information to develop restoration targets for each watershed and facilitate the process
Provide accessible data at the 12-digit subwatershed level online
Provide training on information access and developing a watershed plan
Work with other watershed programs and efforts to leverage and integrate tools
Utilize the Watershed Academy to expand awareness of the watershed fact sheets
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Indicators (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Indicators by Number)
^ - Lake Michigan Status: Mixed; Trend: Undetermined
• The Nature Conservancy Biodiversity Areas and Species Protected
• Stream Reaches Listed as Impaired
• Number of Total Maximum Daily Loads Completed
• Number of projects supported through the 319 grants program with successful follow through
For more information on status of indicators, see http://www.epa.qQV/solec/sogJ2Q07/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Watershed Management
The first 11 chapters of the LaMP look at specific
environmental goals and issues. This chapter focuses
on bringing much of that information together on a
graphic and watershed basis.
Lake Michigan's 33 Tributary
Watersheds
The first step in advancing work watershed by
watershed is to provide available data in a
watershed-based format. Lake Michigan has 33
tributary watersheds at the 8-digit hydrologic unit
code (HUC) as defined by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Wisconsin manages its watersheds through
watershed management units that do not always
correspond with USGS HUCs. Instead, they follow a
combination of watershed and political boundaries.
Michigan's watershed management boundaries also
differ and generally use smaller watersheds.
Although a decade of effort has resulted in a general
awareness of the watershed approach within EPA,
recent evaluations show substantial gaps in
implementation. The watershed approach should
not be seen as merely a special initiative targeted at
just a selected set of places or involving a relatively
small group of EPA or state staff. Rather, it should be
the fulcrum of our restoration and protection efforts,
and those of our many stakeholders, private and
public. Failure to fully incorporate the watershed
approach into program implementation will result in
failure to achieve our environmental objectives in
many of our nation's waters.
Following are overviews of the 33 Lake Michigan
tributary sub-watersheds as well as an overview of the
Chicago Waterways system. They provide a picture
of Lake Michigan divided into watersheds, showing
the special and important elements present in the
watershed as well as the impairments that currently
exist. Also provided is an overview of the planning
underway and the groups involved. We seek
comments on these fact sheets as to their content
and usefulness.
Actions to Address Feedback
Feedback on the watershed fact sheets from LaMP
2004 to the present indicates the need for more
detailed information similar to the fact sheets at the
8 digit level. Work just completed in early 2008 by a
U.S. Great Lakes Basin
environmental condition by watershed
Scientists with the Great Lakes Environmental Indicator
(GLEI) Project (alei.nrri.umn.edu) have developed a
Condition Index that indicates the region's environmental
condition by watershed. The index is based on 207
individual stressors* that fall into five dominant human-
derived stresses to ecological condition: 1) type of land
use, 2) amount of agricultural activity, 3) point sources of
pollution, 4) atmospheric deposition, and 5) human
population density. The stresses in each watershed were
summarized and the resulting scores were distributed over
a gradient from worst (red) to best (green) indicating the
Environmental Condition of each coastal watershed, as
depicted on the map of the U.S. Great Lakes basin. Using
updated versions of appropriate databases and GIS
techniques, managers can produce similar Condition
Indexes for their area.
Source: New Index of Environmental Condition for Coastal
Wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin, alei.nrri.umn.edu.
* The Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS) was developed in the mid 1970s to put into digital form a number of
data layers which were of interest to the USGS. One of these data layers was the Hydrologic Units. The map is based on the Hydrologic
Unit Maps published by the USGS Office of Water Data Coordination, together with the list descriptions and name of region, subregion,
accounting units, and cataloging unit. The hydrologic units are encoded with an eight- digit number that indicates the hydrologic region
(first two digits), hydrologic subregion (second two digits), accounting unit (third two digits), and cataloging unit (fourth two digits).
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
partnership of EPA, states and USGS makes it
possible to list and map the 12 digit sub-watersheds
in LaMP 2008. At this smaller sub-watershed level
the number of watersheds and amount of data
preclude development of fact sheets. Our next
step is to investigate a digital and/or cd format and
to determine what data are available. Some of the
Lake Michigan states are working on or have similar
efforts that need to be integrated.
Currently, a significant amount of data is available
on line at www.epa.gov/surf and www.epa.gov/
watershedwebcasts/live
Linking LaMP Goals to Effective
Implementation: The Watershed
Scale
The development of the LaMP holds great promise
for achieving environmental improvement in the
Lake Michigan basin, but it also offers significant
challenges in terms of practicing environmental
restoration and protection on this scale. One of the
most significant of these challenges is the need for
cross-program and cross-jurisdictional coordination.
This includes coordination among the U.S. and
Canada, between federal agencies, and among
states, provinces, and tribes, as well as coordination
across a variety of statutory authorities. Because of
this, EPA has taken the approach of using existing
tools, as well as developing new and innovative
ones, in concert with federal, tribal, state, and local
partners to achieve environmental results that are
relevant to a given place. To simplify the myriad of
statutes, regulations, and resources affecting the
management of Lake Michigan, Chapter? of the
LaMP presents the Lake Michigan Stakeholder
Directory, a listing of the major governmental units,
regulatory agencies, and other significant
stakeholders that are responsible for managing
some aspects of the Lake Michigan ecosystem.
Each watershed fact sheet in this chapter also lists
groups involved in watershed management.
Information from The Nature
Conservancy
The fact sheets also provide information from the
Nature Conservancy from their just released
"Conservation Blueprint for the Great Lakes".
Jointly funded by GLNPO, the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, the Gund Foundation, the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Richard Ivey
Foundation, and the Living Legacy Trust, the
blueprint was a binational, collaborative effort to
identify areas of biodiversity significance
throughout the Great Lakes basin.
A total of 501 places were identified, mapped, and
inventoried, and an analysis of threats to each
place conducted by more than 200 scientists from
federal and state/provincial agencies and private
organizations. The results are impressive: the basin
contains 46 species found nowhere else in the
world and 279 globally rare plants, animals and
natural communities in a region of boreal, mixed
and deciduous forests, tallgrass prairies, wetlands,
sand dunes, alvars and islands. The areas are
critical to the preservation of biodiversity and
represent the best opportunities to preserve
species, natural communities and ecological
systems. For each area, the blueprint contains
information about Great Lakes species, natural
communities and ecological systems; maps of
where conservation is underway; summaries of
current projects and strategies; information on
threats to biodiversity; and, detailed descriptions of
plans. The blueprint also offers actions that can be
taken to protect these areas.
The Nature Conservancy is making this information
available to the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration for use in Great Lakes indicator and
habitat protection and restoration work. The
Conservation Blueprint is available online at: http://
nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/
greatlakes/files/conservation blprnt final.pdf.
Lake Michigan Overview
• Lake Michigan, the second largest Great Lake
by volume with just under 1,180 cubic miles of
water, is the only Great Lake entirely within the
United States.
• Approximately 118 miles wide and 307 miles
long, Lake Michigan has more than 1,600 miles
of shoreline.
• Averaging 279 feet in depth, the lake reaches
925 feet at its deepest point.
• It has a water surface area of 22,300 square
miles. The drainage basin, approximately twice
as large as the 22,300 square miles of surface
water, includes portions of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan and Wisconsin.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
On average, a molecule of water will spend 100
years in Lake Michigan before exiting to Lake
Huron at the Straits of Mackinac.
The lake's northern tier is in the colder, less
developed upper Great Lakes region, while its
more temperate southern basin contains the
Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas.
Additional Lake Michigan overview information on the
following pages is an excerpt from the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Report. This is followed by the fact
sheets on the individual subwatersheds.
Locations of The Nature Conservancy's Areas of Biodiversity
Source: The Nature Conservancy
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
THE GREAT
2005
3.6 Lake Micliignn
Assessment: The physical inlegrity of the Liike Michigan
<.-i osysli-m is mixed.
"Lake Michigan is an outstanding natural resource of global sig-
nificance, under stress and in need of special attention" (Lake
Michigan LaMP 2000). Since the original 2000 assessment,
there has been both positive and negative change in the Lake
Michigan basin. Positive work includes sediment clean ups, the
purchasing of large land parcels for preservation purposes, and
the rebounding of terrestrial species. Some negative changes
include continued pressure from invasive species on the aquatic
food wch and land development in the near coastal areas
Background Summary
Lake Michigan is one of the most complex ecosystems of the
Great Lakes due to its length of 307 miles (494 km). It varies
from north woods forest to southern dune and swale environ-
ments. The largest collection of fresh water sand dunes in the
world is a prominent feature, as are Lake Michigan's islands
which are grouped into two northern archipelagoes of 19 Grand
Traverse Islands and Beaver Islands. Many of the islands have
suffered a loss of natural habitat due to development and are
moderately degraded. Several of the Beaver Islands are part of
the Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge providing 235
acres (95 ha) of habitat for migratory and colonial nesting birds
and federally threatened plants like dwarf ins and Pitcher's this-
tle. There are three islands totalling 29 acres (12 ha) in the
Green Day National Wildlife Refuge that offers similar habitats.
Underwater reefs in both the nearshore and offshore are thought
to play an important role in Lake Michigan spawning.
Lake Michigan is the second largest Great Lake by volume and
A
Areas of Concern
§Mantetique Kiver
Msnominse River
Q Fax River/Southern Green Bay
0 Milwaukee Estuary
0 Waukegan Harbor
Q Grand Calumet River
(J tsalamazoo River
0 Mu&kegon Lake
(D White Lake
50 0 50
51] u VJ
• Cltias/Towns
/\/ State Border
Tributaries
| Lake Michigan Basin
Figure 1. Lake Michigan drainage basin.
Source: Environment Canada
42
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
contains over 2ffi b of the Great Lakes' coastal wetlands which
are responsible for ihe quantity and diversity of aquatic life seen
in the lake. Protection and enhancement of these areas are key
to the future sustainability of the coastal ecosystem
Lake Michigan is uniquely positioned with a direct connection
to the Mississippi River System through the Chicago Diversion,
and as such, has become a transfer point for many non native
species which threaten the biological integrity of all the Great
Lakes and the Mississippi River.
Lake Michigan has .1.1 8 digit hydrologie unit code (HUC) tribu-
tary watersheds, wilh all but three listed as impaired and 10 estu-
aries designated as Areas of Concern (Figure 1). Many
Michigan and Wisconsin tributaries have been dammed in the
past, bul recent dam removals in southeastern Wisconsin have
resulted in improved fish habitat, water quality and diversity of
species including the appearance of the rare greater redhorse in
the Milwaukee River.
Over 1C) million people are dependent on Lake Michigan for
high quality drinking water and recreation. Since the passing of
the U.S. Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act in 2000, the four Lake Michigan states are on
track for implementing these provisions with an average of 50%
more monitoring using enhanced water quality standards The
results have led to increased advisories and the need for studies
to determine contamination sources and management options.
Croundwater Flow
Groundwater beneath the Great Lakes has a different and
changeable divide than the Great Lakes surface/watershed
divide. In the Great Lakes basin, most shallow flow discharges
to local streams, the Great Lakes watershed divide (i.e. the
' / -*' -• ""^
'-^ds^>&=
Figure 2. Average groundwater and surface runoff components
of selected watersheds in the U.S. portion of the Greal Lakes
basin.
Source: lloltsehlag and Nicholas, 199S
sub-continental divide) also serves as a groundwater divide For
shallow How Most deep flow discharges are to regional sinks
with the deep aquifer divide being distant from the surface
watershed divide (Figure 2).
Groundwater divides move in response to pumping Studies
from the western Lake Michigan groundwater basin report that
the 1951.) pre-developmem divide and the year 2'A*.) divide for
the deep bedrock aquifer, show a pattern of movement The
western basin groundwater that once flowed east toward Lake
Michigan is now intercepted by pumping and diverted west
under the surface water divide.
Groundwater, once used, can be discharged to surface water bod-
ies in a different basin. Since the late 1940s, development on
the Mississippi basin side of the sub continental divide has
reversed deep flow patterns between west of the divide and the
Milwaukee area. The groundwnter levels are low enough that
Lake Michigan can migrate into the groundwater, a reversal of
the normal How (U.S. Geological Survey 1998).
Grouiidw liter's Kok1 in (lie Health of the Lake Michigun Ecosystem
The Great Lakes are in a topographically low setting that under
natural flow conditions, causes them to function as discharge
areas or "sinks" for the groundwater-flow system. Most ground-
water that discharges directly into the lakes is believed to take
place near the shore (Grannemann and Weaver 1999). Of all the
Great Lakes, Lake Michigan has the largest amount of direct
groundwater discharge (2,700 ft-Vs or 76 nvVs) because it has
more sand and gravel aquifers near the shore than any of the
other Great Lakes (Grarmcmann and Weaver, 1999) Although
this is a relatively low inflow compared to the total stream flow
into the lake from land areas (41,200 ft'/s or 1167 m-Vs) (Croley
and Hunter 1994), it is nearly equal to the amount of water
diverted from Lake Michigan through the Chicago Ship and
Sanitary ('anal ('fable 1) (Oberg and Schmidt 1994).
Lake
Suprt-.n
Huion
Ontmo
^ri "i
^~'~
"JM.S
UirfHC-RuiiafflixfctM) i^^^J(^^r
1 1 0 V. "•
KI..3 " -11.5
".S - •*?. J
Table 1. Basin water supply for the Greal Lakes.
Source; l.".S, Geological Survey, 1998, Water Supply
Paper
Groundwater Provides Refuge for Aquatic Organisms
Groundwater discharge to streams may help provide important
habitat for aquatic organisms, including fish. In addition,
because groundwater temperatures are nearly constant through-
out the year, stream reaches with relatively large amounts of
groundwater discharge can provide refuge to organisms from
heal in summer and from cold in winter. For example, some
stream reaches in the region remain unfrozen even though air
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
i^.?£'j?r£ ::sj?'—j^
temperatures are well below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees
Celsius). Other possible benefits to the survival of aquatic
organisms related to groundwater discharge to streams include
increasing concentrations of dissolved oxygen, adding small
amounts of nutrients that fire essential to the health of organisms.
providing cold pockets of water in summer, and maintaining
stream flow during dry periods.
Lake f .eveIK
Lake Michigan's water level was measured at 2 feet (61 cm)
below the long term average in 2001, having dropped more than
40 inches (102 cm) since 1997 when it was at near record highs.
Levels increased for 2002, hut were still below average. The
decrease in precipitation over the last five years resulted in Lake
Michigan being at its lowest point since 1966. Lake levels rose
between the mid-1960s and the late 1990s
The lower lake level has caused problems for the shipping and
boating industry. Cargo ships were forced to lighten their loads,
and many boat ramps became inaccessible. According to the
U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association, for even,' inch (2.5 cm)
of water that Lake Michigan loses, a cargo ship must reduce its
load by 90 to 115 metric tons, leading to losses of between
$22,000 and $28.000 U.S. per trip.
HP- • i I Hi |h'.
Figure 3. Lake Michigan-Huron water levels.
Source: Groat Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Early reports for 2004 indicated that the lake level was at an
average depth due to increased rainfall early in the year. The
kike measured one foot higher (30.5 cm) in the summer of 2004
than 2003 with the mean average of 579 feet or 176 metres.
This fluctuation may be part of a 30 year cycle that deserves
continued monitoring (Figure 3). (US. ACE, Detroit District)
Beaches
Lake Michigan contains the world's largest collection of fresh-
water sand dunes and associated beaches, particularly along its
eastern shore. Of a total of 3,100 acres (1,255 ha) along the
coast. 1,200 acres (486 ha) are publicly owned and available for
use, while another 1,200 acres (4S6 ha) are privately owned and
have significant potential for public use In addition to swim-
ming advisories due to poor water quality, there has been a
resurgence of the macro algae Cladophora along the coast.
ClaJophora blooms result in reduced water quality and beach
use Causes of this problem may be attributed to multiple fac-
tors, such as lower lake levels, increased water temperature,
nearshore nutrients and zebra mussel activity (Great Lakes Waler
Institute, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee).
Aquatic Food Web
The Lake Michigan aquatic food w:eb is threatened due to inva-
sive species competing for food and changing the physical envi-
ronment (Figure 4). Zebra mussels have the ability to filter
water allowing sunlight to penetrate to greater depths, possibly
causing algae blooms The invertebrate Diporeia is decreasing,
rapidly in Lake Michigan thus removing a foundation compo-
nent of the food web (Figure 5). The yellow perch population
remains low and zebra mussels, first introduced in 1989. have
shown a decline in certain areas Sea Lamprey populations have
increased in abundance and are now higher than in Lakes
Superior or Huron. Lake Trout are stocked and have not recov-
ered to the point of natural reproduction in the lake
Lake Sturgeon survive in the Great Lakes only in scattered rem-
nants, even though large scale commercial fishing for them
ended a century ago There were remnant populations known lo
spawn in the waters of S tributaries with connections lo Lake
Michigan. In 2003. enhanced stocking was undertaken with the
hopes lhat ihe stocked sturgeon would flourish, but not geneti-
cally impact the small remnant native population. There are cur-
rently 16 agencies and institutions involved with Lake Sturgeon
monitoring and investigations are coordinated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team
The most dramatic threat to Lake Michigan is from the Asian
carp species which is working its way up the Illinois waterway
system from the Mississippi River. The Asian carp was reported
to have escaped from aquaculture ponds adjacent to the
Mississippi River in the 1980s and the 1990s. An experimental
electrical barrier is currently in place Improvements to this bar-
rier as well as an additional barrier are planned This large carp
species weighs up to 90 pounds (41 kg) and is considered a
major threat to the Great Lakes food web.
Other Species
Land based species are fairing better. The grey wolf is now list-
ed as a recovered species and bald eagles have nested in the area
of the Little Calumet River for the first time in 100 years.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Kirtland's warbler, piping plover. Mine's emerald dragonfly and
the Kamer blue butlerfly all have recovery plans in plate. An
aggressive program lo tram whooping cranes lo migrate and
return to Wisconsin's wetlands (west of Lake Michigan) for
future nesting is underway.
Figure 4. Lake Michigan foodwch. Diporaia, central in the
diagram, was historically an important food for the fish on
the second line of the figure (species in the red squares),
Diporeia are the prey for the large predator fish like salmon
and lake trout at the top of the chart and foodweb (species in
the purple squares). Non-native species are competing with.
and possibly replacing the Diporeia in the Lake Michigan
ecosystem. The loss of Dipoivia threatens the species that
feed upon it and the whole foodweb
Source: Mason, Krause and Ulanowicz, 2002
1992
1QS3 I 358
2000 2001 2002 2003
Itenuv OwtnbenL'm7 s HP}
Figure 5. Diporeia density.
Source: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory-
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nil (urn I Amis
The dune and swale systems of the eastern lakeshore are a domi-
nant feature of Lake Michigan and provide unique hiibiUil trial
foster biodiversity. While afforded some protection under law.
this system faces extreme pressure as it is a sand product for
industry This area also has development pressures in the coastal
communities.
Wetlands, which naturally help control runoff from urban areas
by storing flood and surface water and slowly release and filter
it, have been destroyed in the Lake Michigan basin states to a
greater degree than elsewhere in the country. An estimated 21.9
million acres (8.9 million ha) of wetlands or 62.9% have been
lost. An estimated 12.9 million acres (5.2 million ha) of wet-
lands remain in the four Lake Michigan states, equivalent to
approximately 12.3% of the wetland area in the lower 48 states.
While this percentage is for the U.S. states not just the Lake
Michigan basin, it is indicative of the pressure on the wetland
systems. Wetland status in the Lake Michigan basin is therefore
mixed (Dahl 1990).
Forest status in the basin is good due to revisions to national for-
est plans (September 2003 U.S. Federal Register Notice) and the
continued practice of sustainability forestry1 management by the
Menominee Tribal Enterprises. The new forest plans address old
growth management issues. The Menominee Reservation
235,000 acres (95,102 ha) of forest land represent 150 years of
sustainable forest practice in the Wisconsin portion of the Lake
Michigan basin.
Lakeplain system of prairies and savannas found in the southern
part of the basin are two of the most imperiled ecological com-
munities in North America. Alvars, open areas of thin soils over
bedrock found in the northern basin, provide habitat for a num-
ber of rare plants and animals. Both of these systems are facing
fragmentation and destruction due lo land use development-
Pressures on the System
The 10 Areas of Concern in the Lake Michigan basin have con-
taminated sediment problems and either combined sewer over-
flows (CSO) and/or storm water problems. All 10 AOCs had
some remedial sediment work completed with much more reme-
diation still required, l-'or most of the sediment sites and CSOs
there ai'c plans in place but implementation is often forecasted
for the year 2020 or beyond PCBs are the main contaminant in
sediment and fish consumption advisories arc in place around
the lake thus keeping the assessment for fish communities in the
Lake Michigan basin as mixed.
The urbanized land area in the United States has quadrupled
since 1954. To compound the problem, populations in coastal
areas, which contain some of the most sensitive ecosystems,
have been increasing even faster than in the rest of the country.
From 1982 to 1996, the population in the Chicago Northwest
Indiana area grew by 10.9% but consumed 44.2% of the land
(Urban Roadway Congestion: Annual Report 1998). The
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission's portion of the area
is estimated to grow by 2 1 ° o from 2 to 2030. This growth
pattern is similar to other growth areas around the lake and will
further lax water infrastructure and resources
USEPA's Office of Environmental Information states "the con-
struction of impervious surfaces such as roads and rooftops leads
lo the degradation of water quality by increasing runoff volume,
altering regular stream flow and watershed hydrology, reducing
groundwater recharge, and increasing stream sedimentation and
water acidity." A one acre (0.4 ha) parking lot produces a runoff
volume 16 times as large as that produced hy an undeveloped
meadow. Many impervious construction materials have higher
surface temperatures that may cause ambient air temperatures to
rise. When combined with a decrease in natural vegetation.
areas are subject to the "urban heat island" phenomenon, which
may increase utility bills, cause health problems associated with
heat stress, and accelerate the formation of harmful smog.
Clearly the effect of urban development on our communities and
environment is a cross cutting issue.
Both the urban and agricultural uses of the land impact the lake.
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study has modelled the pesti-
cide alraxine in the basin and a dralt report and models have
determined the need for over a 50% annual reduction in loadings
from agriculture lands and the air in order to keep this pesticide
at a steady state in the lake While nutrient levels are increasing
in the nearshore areas due to urban runoff, these levels are not at
concentrations of concern in the open lake.
Actions
For a lake the size and complexity of Lake Michigan, it is not
surprising that there are some measures of improving conditions
as well as measures of deteriorating conditions As some issues
approach resolution, other new issues are developing such as
chemicals of emerging concern and new invasive species. Since
the overall status of the lake involves the interactions of chemi-
cal, physical and biological changes, it is necessary to under-
stand the interactions of how improvements in one of these cate-
gories will affect the other conditions in the lake.
There are many research and reporting needs required for Lake
Michigan which include:
• determining the groundwater status, mapping and groundwater
and surface waler interactions:
• identifying sources of Cladophora andE. Coli including the
interactions between physical and biological forces which affect
the health ot Lake Michigan beaches;
• tracking invasive species and their impact on the food web and
natural areas;
• identifying protected natural areas, ground areas below fly-
ways. unique features and wetlands and educating the public
Elevation*
feet
metres
Length
miles
kilometres
Breadth
miles
kilometres
Average Depth*
feet
metres
Maximum Depth9
feet
metres
Volume"
cu.mi.
km3
Water Area
sq.mi.
km2
Land Drainage Area
sq.ml.
km2
Total Area
sq.ml
km2
Shoreline Length1*
miles
kilometres
Retention Time
years
Population: USA (20QQ)C
Totals
Outlet
577
176
307
494
118
190
279
85
925
282
1,180
4.920
22,300
57,800
45,600
118,000
67,900
175,800
1,638
2,633
99
15,351,202
15.351.202
Straits of
Mackinac
* measured at low water datum
" including islands
5 2000 population census data were calculated based
on trie total population of each county, either
completely or partially, located wifriin the watershed.
Sources:
The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and
Resource Book
Statistics Canada, bnvironrnent Accounts and
Statistics Division, Spatial Environmental Information
System and Censuses of Population 2001,
U.S. Census Bureau: State arid County QuickFacts.
Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000
Census of Population and Houany, 1990 Census of
Population and Housing
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
about these areas and:
• modelling and GIS training for local officials to assist with
land use decision making.
Acknowledgments/Sources of Information
Croley. 'I.E.. and Hunter. T.S. 1994. Great Lakes monthly hydro-
logic data In National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Technical Report. ERL Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory (GLERL).
Dahl, I.E. 1990, Wetlands losses in the U.S., 1780s to 1980s.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Grannemann, KG., and Weaver. T.L. An annotated bibliography
of selected references on the estimated rates of direct
ground water discharge to the Great Lakes. U.S. Geological
Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report, pp. 9K-4039.
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http www.glerl noaa.gov. last accessed June 7, 2005.
Great Lakes Water Institute-Wisconsin Aquatic Technology and
Environmental Research, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
hltp"www.uwm edu'Dept Gl.W) '. last accessed June 7, 2005.
Iloltschlag, D.J., and Nicholas, J.R. 1998. Indirect ground water
discharge to the Great Lakes. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 98 579, 25 p.
Mason, D., Krause, A.E., and Ulanowicz, R.E. 2002. impact of
exotic invertebrate invaders on food source structures and
function in the Great Lakes, a network analysis approach.
http:' www.glerl.noaa.gov res Task rpts 2iAC-'nsmasonlO-l.htiiil.
last accessed June 8, 2005.
Oherg, K.A., and Schmidt, A.R. 1994. Measurements of leakage
from Lake Michigan through three control xlmcltmx near
Chicago, Illinois, April-October 1993. U.S. Geological Survey.
Water-Resources Investigations Report, pp. 94-4112.
Schrank, 1)., and Lomax, T.J. 1998. Urban roadway congestion:
annual report 199S. Texas Transportation Institute. The Texas
A&M University System, http: mohiliiy.tamu.edu. last accessed
June 9, 2005.
SOLHC 2004 Presentations, Toronto, Ontario. 2004. Lake
Michigan.
hllp: www epa.guv soleo solec_2oo4-prescnlations.;i.rRk'X-hliTiL
last accessed June 8, 2005.
U.S. Army Core of Engineers. Detroit District.
blip: wwwlre usiioe.iirmy.mil''. last accessed June 8, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Lake
.Michigan LaMP 2004 stains report
http: wwNv.epa.gov glnpolakeinich 2uo4updatc . last accessed
June 8, 2005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Environmental Information. http:-/ww\v epa.gov oei. last
accessed June 9, 2UU5.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
12 Digit HUCS for Lake Michigan Drainage Basin
-------
8-Digit HUCs for the Lake Michigan Watershed
*. __
I jh_
igammeEscanaba Manistique,
Tacoosh-Whitefish
Fishdam-Strgeon
Cedar-Ford^ //
Boardman-Charlevoix
Betsie-Platte
WolfDuck-Pensaukee
Lower Fox
Manitowoc-Sheboygan
Pere Marquette-Whi
rLake Winnebago
hornapple
Upper Gran
Back-Ma
St. Joseph
umet-Galie
There are 33 8-digit HUC watersheds in the Lake Michigan basin
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan 8-Digit HUG
Watersheds
Watershed HUC Code
Betsie-Platte 04060104
Black-Macatawa 04050002
Boardman-Charlevoix 04060105
Brevoort-Millecoquins 04060107
Brule 04030106
Cedar Ford 04030109
Chicago Area Waterway System
Door-Kewaunee 04030102
Duck-Pensaukee 04030103
Ecsanaba 04030110
Fishdam-Sturgeon 04030112
Lower Fox (AOC) 04030204
Upper Fox 04030201
Lower Grand 04050006
Upper Grand 04050004
Kalamazoo (AOC) 04050003
Little Calumet-Galien (AOC) 04040001
Manistee 04060103
Manistique (AOC) 04060106
Manitowoc-Sheboygan (AOC) 04030101
Maple 04050005
Menominee (AOC) 04030108
Michigamme 04030107
Milwaukee (AOC) 04040003
Muskegon (AOC) 04060102
Oconto 04030104
Pere-Marquette-White (AOC) 04060101
Peshtigo 04030105
Pike-Root (Waukegan) (AOC 04040002
St. Joseph 04050001
Tacoosh-Whitefish 04030111
Thornapple 04050007
Lake Winnebago 04030203
Wolf 04030202
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Appendix A
Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutant Identification and Classification
I. Background
The Lake Michigan LaMP in 20001 announced its management approach to the Lake Michigan ecosystem
would be adaptive. How does one identify Lake Michigan pollutants in an adaptive manner? The Lake
Michigan LaMP in 2002 proposed an ongoing biennial review process in its Appendix A2. The pollutant
identification process for the LaMP was developed in consideration of federal and state regulatory programs,
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plans drafted before 2000, Great Lakes strategies, and Annex 2 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 As Amended by Protocol Signed November 18, 1987 (GLWQA).
A summary of these influences and previous pollutant identification work provides context for the rest of this
LaMP 2006 Appendix.
Annex 2 of the GLWQA (1987) defines "critical pollutants" as substances that persist at levels
that, singly or in synergistic or additive combination, are causing, or are likely to cause,
impairment of beneficial uses3 despite past application of regulatory controls due to their:
presence in open lake waters; ability to cause or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement
objectives through their recognized threat to human health and aquatic life; or ability to
bioaccumulate. The GLWQA, as incorporated into the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of
19904 requires the parties to prepare a Lakewide Management Plan to evaluate existing
information on concentration, sources, and pathways of critical pollutants, including loading
information and estimates, to develop load reduction targets, to track implementation of
remedial measures, and to identify a process to recognize the absence of a critical pollutant in
open lake waters.
In 1992 and 1993, a list of pollutants was developed by the Federal and State Agencies
participating in the Lake Michigan lakewide management planning process. The pollutants
were categorized into three groups: critical pollutants, pollutants of concern, and emerging
pollutants. This list was incorporated into the chemical stressors section of Chapter 5 in Lake
Michigan LaMP 2000s. Listed in descending order with regard to the potential level of
impairment or importance to the lake, the three categories of LaMP pollutants were: critical
pollutants, to be addressed through LaMP reduction targets; pollutants of concern, to be
addressed by local actions facilitated by the LaMP, and a Pollutant Watch List to be addressed
by monitoring and research encouraged by the LaMP.
In order to adoptively prepare the pollutant list, ambient environmental data is essential. Great
Lakes National Program Office grantees have sometimes sampled the open waters of Lake
Michigan for pollutants while collecting monitoring samples for its Limnology Program6. The Lake
Michigan Mass Balance provided a wealth of chemical data for the 1994-1995 period. For a
ten year comparison to the Lake Michigan Mass Balance data, states are collecting additional
tributary samples in 2005 and 2006. Federal and state agencies monitor fish for public health fish
consumption advisories and to assess the condition of water resources.7 Finally, the Great Lakes
National Program Office also supports a fish monitoring program.8
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to prepare lists of waters within the state's
boundaries for which the effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement any water
quality standard applicable to such waters. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires
each State to report, to U.S. EPA, the water quality of all navigable waters biennially. The four
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan states satisfied these federal requirements in a variety of formats, complicating
comparison. After states followed federal guidance including the 2002 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology,
Guidance[s] for [the] 2004 [&2006] Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to
Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, the finding, understanding and integration
of state water quality information became easier. As state lists of impaired waters change, the
LaMP pollutant identification process will reflect those changes. One change consistent with the
federal guidance documents and adopted by three Lake Michigan states was the
incorporation of hydrologic unit codes, a national system for identifying water bodies and
stream segments. This code is reported by Michigan as the NHD code and by Indiana as the 14-
digit HUC.
There are multiple Great Lakes-wide strategies. The Great Lakes Strategy 2002: A Plan for the
New Millennium9 is a strategic plan for the Great Lakes Ecosystem developed by the United
States Policy Committee for the Great Lakes. It reiterates the goals of the Clean Water Act and
the GLWQA, and summarizes water10, air11 and international12 programs in the context of Great
Lakes goals and objectives. In December 2004, consistent with President Bush's May 18, 2004
Executive Order, a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration formed13. In December 2005, a Great
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy was released. It devoted a chapter to toxic pollutants,
one of eight issues addressed.
The State-of-the-Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) is another activity established through
the 1987 GLWQA. SOLEC focuses on an ecosystem setting (e.g., near shore in 1996) or subject
(e.g., chemical integrity in 2006) in its binational conferences in even-numbered calendar years.
The desire to use indicators developed by SOLEC is important to the Lake Michigan LaMP
pollutant identification process.
The pollutant identification challenge facing the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management plan stakeholders is to
be consistent with established policy and promulgated rules. Also, as resources are finite, it is advantageous to
rely on existing programs. In that vein, Illinois' draft 303(d) list for 2006 references Superfund sites and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act facilities.14 The Lake Michigan LaMP 2004 Appendix A had asked whether
such sites should be considered during pollutant identification.
II. Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants Looking Back
1. Criteria to Define Pollutants
The primary goal for pollutant categorization is to identify, at the appropriate geographic scale, problem-
causing chemicals that must be addressed regardless of the type of action to be taken. The pollutant
categories are heavily dependent on public health fish consumption advisories and state water quality
standards because data are available for these programs. In addition, the pollutant watch list includes
chemicals without final national water quality criteria, state water quality standards, or fish consumption
advisories. Candidates for the watch list therefore include conventional pollutants like nitrogen or ammonia as
well as "emerging" pollutants without regulatory thresholds or action levels.
The working definitions of critical pollutant, pollutant of concern, and watch list are the same as in Appendix A
of LaMP 200415. Any one of these four criteria may be relied upon to define the Lake Michigan LaMP 'critical
pollutants':
• Pollutants identified on Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin Clean Water Act Section 303(d) lists or in
Section 305(b) reports as sources of impairment to the open waters of the lake;
• Pollutants that have been found to exceed Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI) water quality
criteria in the open waters of the lake;
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
• Pollutants that exceed or trigger a relevant Action Level, such as a fish consumption advisory (FCA) or
a maximum contaminant level (MCL), in the open waters of the lake; or,
• Pollutants associated with other lakewide designated use impairments (e.g., impairment to aquatic
life).
Any one of the following three criteria may be relied upon to define Lake Michigan LaMP 'pollutants of
concern':
• Pollutants on State 303(d) lists identified as causing impairments in nearshore waters and Lake
Michigan tributary mouths;
• Pollutants exceeding an Agency action level in nearshore waters or tributary mouths, including
pollutants identified as a source of impairment in a Great Lakes Area of Concern; or
• Pollutants associated with regional use impairments (e.g., impairment of local fish communities or
populations).
The three criteria proposed in 2002 for Lake Michigan LaMP 'watch list' pollutant identification are:
• potential to impact the Lake Michigan ecosystem;
• presence in the Lake Michigan watershed; and,
• bioaccumulation potential, persistence in water or sediment, or toxicity singly or through synergistic
effects.
2. Pollutants Proposed in 2004, Finalized in 2006
In Lake Michigan LaMP 2006 Appendix A, we are continuing the adaptive management process of
reviewing information not incorporated when the Lake Michigan LaMP 2004 Appendix A was prepared. The
new information is used to propose a 2006 pollutant list for finalization in 2008. The pollutant list proposed in
2004 is finalized in 2006 'as is,' unless adverse comments were received or preparatory mistakes were made.
In the latter case, corrections are made. The terms "proposed" and "final" are relative and are terms of
convenience. There won't be a truly final list of Lake Michigan LaMP pollutants until the LaMP adaptive
management process changes or pollutant-caused impairments are remediated. See Table A-l on the
following page for the revised list of LaMP 2006 pollutants (proposed in LaMP 2004). Several corrections were
made to the Lake Michigan LaMP 2004 Tables A-6 and A-7:
• including pathogens on the critical pollutant row;
• deleting general category names for pollutants like Salinity/TDS/chlorides;
• deleting "impaired biotic communities (i.e., the possibility of a pollutant causing the impairment has not
been eliminated)";
• combining the two tables.
• adding a reference for PFOS; and,
• many of the watch list pollutants proposed in 2004 are not finalized below because peer-reviewed
literature or data produced pursuant to a quality assurance plan and satisfying all three watch list criteria
were not included in LaMP 2004 or subsequently identified.
The Great Lakes Initiative definition of open waters was used to identify critical pollutants and pollutants of
concern in 2004. That approach is rejected later in this document; see scenario 1 in the Lake Michigan LaMP
Pollutants 2006 Review, Pollutant Classification into Categories Using Scenarios 1 through 4.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-1. Lake Michigan Pollutants Proposed in 2004 and Revised in LaMP 2006.
Pollutant Classification
Critical Pollutants
Pollutants of Concern
Watch List
Final LaMP 2006 Pollutants
Revision of 2004 Proposed Pollutants
PCBs, mercury, DDT and metabolites, chlordane, dioxin, and pathogens (E. coli,
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Salmonella).
Siltation, sediments, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients, phosphorus,
metals, arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, zinc, nitrogen, total (nitrates + total
Kjehldal nitrogen), and IDS (conductivity).
PBDEs, PCNs, PFOS17, asbestos, PAHs, selenium, radioactive material, toxaphene, sulfur,
atrazine & degradation products , metolachlor & degradation products, acetochlor &
degradation products, glyphosate & degradation products, 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
Between 2004 and 2006, the proposed 2004 LaMP pollutants were compared to National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria18 and three states' water quality standards to determine whether any of the 2004
proposed watch list pollutants have any regulatory thresholds. Watch list pollutants with final federal water
quality criteria in 2006 include anthracene, acenaphthene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butylbenzyl phalate,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, di-n-butyl phalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, fluoranthene, fluorene,
nonylphenol, phenanthrene, pyrene, selenium, thallium and toxaphene. Water quality criteria for aquatic life
remain draft for atrazine19, nonylphenol20, and selenium21. At least one Lake Michigan state has water quality
standards for radioactive material (as strontium 90, gross beta, and radium 226), atrazine, butylated hydroxyl
toluene, and 4-methyl phenol, in addition to the watch list pollutants identified as having federal water quality
criteria.
Please note that water quality criteria are provided in the context of a designated use, like human
consumption of organisms and water, human consumption of organisms, and acute (criteria maximum
concentration) aquatic life or chronic (criteria continuous concentration) aquatic life. Federal water quality
criteria may have been finalized for one designated use and not others. In other words, additional criteria may
be proposed for pollutants identified above as having federal water quality criteria.
III. Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants 2006 Review
1. Pollutant Categorization Scenarios
Given the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, federal water quality criteria, state water quality standards,
requirements to calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads, and LaMP critical pollutants, how do we go about
restoring the contaminant-impaired uses of Lake Michigan? As in LaMP 2004, we rely on data prepared by
state and federal programs to identify pollutants, look for monitoring available to help us assess the ambient
conditions, and review scientific literature. Once pollutants are identified, the appropriate scale for action
should be determined. If one pollutant was primarily in open waters and not in nearshore waters, an open
water TMDL could be appropriate. If one pollutant was primarily in nearshore waters and not in open water
then, for example, the shoreline approach taken by Indiana for its E. coli TMDL might be appropriate for other
contaminants. Between LaMP 2004 and LaMP 2006, we intended to examine the metadata from State and
Federal monitoring programs in four scenarios with the intention of fine-tuning the criteria used to define the
LaMP pollutant categories. Ideally, the categories would suggest the appropriate scale for TMDL development
among other purposes.
In the first scenario, we proposed to rely on the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (GLI)22
definition of open waters of the Great Lakes and evaluate impairments as Lake Michigan or not Lake
Michigan. In this scenario, load reduction targets and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) would be calculated
for the entire Lake. We subsequently learned that when Michigan moved toward a probabilistic assessment of
state waters in order to prepare its 305(b) report, it stopped collecting fish in the open waters of the lake.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
However, Michigan collection of 'open water fish' continues when the fish are spawning in rivers, and
Michigan's Lake Michigan fish consumption advisory applies to the open waters. Similarly, Wisconsin reports
fish consumption advisories for Lake Michigan in its 303(d) list. Indiana's draft 2006 303(d) list associates the fish
consumption advisory with the waterbody segment name 'Lake Michigan shoreline.'
In the second scenario, we proposed to apply the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 definition of
near shore waters (approximated by a depth less than 90 feet), consistent with dividing Lake Michigan into
zones for calculating a total maximum daily load. Open waters are deeper than 27 meters. Nearshore waters
are from the beach lakeward to a depth of 27 meters. Inland waters are up to the first dam or other state-
designated river segment. Pollutant monitoring data specific to open waters and distinct from nearshore
waters is not readily available for the lake. The Illinois Lake Michigan monitoring plan identifies stations where
lake depths are greater than 90 feet. Pollutant transport from the atmosphere and tributaries to the GLWQA-
defined open waters of the Lake was addressed through the Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) study in
1994-1995, but the sampling points have not been categorized with respect to a depth of 90 feet, and most of
the pollutant data collected has not been modeled with a Lake Michigan Mass Balance Level 3 model, the
only model level that can distinguish the SOLEC-defined nearshore from the SOLEC-defined open waters.
In the third scenario, we proposed to categorize fish consumption advisories by "open water" and "nearshore
water" fish species, possibly resulting in division of Lake Michigan into zones forTMDL preparation. As in the first
scenario, the indicator crosses the geographic boundary. This scenario is further evaluated in this document
and is somewhat weakened by inconsistencies in preparation of state advisories and inconsistent knowledge
of analytes detected. In other words, a very detailed review of the fish pollutant analyte list for each state has
not been completed, and it isn't clear whether a pollutant is only in one state's waters or whether the pollutant
was not analyzed by all states.
Finally, we proposed a fourth scenario, to consist of identifying "open water" and "nearshore water"
impairments by pollutant. For example, E. coli exceedances have been addressed by Indiana through a TMDL
for a geographically discrete nearshore zone. For other pollutants, the presumption that a pollutant moves
along the shoreline without affecting the open waters and without significant air deposition is known to be
incorrect. Mercury, PCBs, chlordane, and atrazine are known to be air-deposited to Lake Michigan as well as
water-transported23. The International Air Deposition Network (IADN) includes two stations on Lake Michigan,
at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago at the south end of the Lake and at Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore in Michigan, slightly south of the 45th Parallel of Latitude. Gas-phase, particle, and
precipitation samples are collected at both stations. Of the final LaMP 2006 pollutants, the IADN chemical list24
includes PCBs, chlordane (trans- and cis-), and DDT (p,p'-, p,p'-DDD, and p,p'-DDE). IADN trace metals are
not monitored at the Lake Michigan stations. In addition to Lake Michigan Mass Balance air deposition
findings (for mercury, PCBs, chlordane, and atrazine), IADN demonstrates the importance of atmospheric
deposition of toxic chemicals like chlordane and DDT to Lake Michigan. IADN Dioxin monitoring was initiated
in the summer of 2004 and will continue indefinitely depending on funding availability.
The Lake Michigan states' 303(d) lists were reviewed to identify impaired Lake Michigan waters. In previous
LaMPs, only EPA-approved final 303(d) lists were cited. The 303(d) lists due on April 1, 2006 were available as
draft Clean Water Act Section 305(b) consolidated reports from three of four Lake Michigan states at the time
of document preparation. The draft lists, where available, are referenced in this LaMP because the
consolidated reports contained the hydrologic unit code and could be electronically sorted. This significantly
expedited preparation of this document.
2. Pollutants from Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Lists of Category 5 Waters for which a TMDL is required
a. Illinois
Illinois' draft 2006 303(d) list groups assessment information as follows: Lake Michigan, Lake Michigan Beaches,
and Lake Michigan Bays and Harbors, and Great Lakes/Calumet River Watershed. Based on the Illinois 303(d)
list, the fish consumption use of Lake Michigan is impaired by PCBs. Lake Michigan beaches are polluted by E.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Coli and PCBs. Lake Michigan bays and harbors are polluted by Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (total), Copper,
Lead, PCBs, Zinc, Nitrogen (total), and Phosphorus (total). Listed stream segments adjacent to and discharging
to Lake Michigan are polluted by Alpha BHC, Arsenic, Copper, Dieldrin, DDT, Endrin, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury, Nickel, PCBs, Silver, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and Zinc. Finally, listed Lake Michigan watershed
stream segments upstream of the tributary mouth are polluted by Alpha BHC, Aldrin, chromium (total), DDT,
Endrin, Heptachlor, Hexachlorobenzene, Nickel, PCBs, Silver, and Nitrogen (total).
b. Indiana
Based on Indiana's draft 2006 303(d) list, deep Lake Michigan open waters are either not impaired or not
assessed. The Lake Michigan shoreline is impaired due to PCBs, mercury, and E. coli. Assessed stream
segments discharging to Lake Michigan are impaired due to PCBs, mercury, and E. coli. Listed Lake Michigan
watershed stream segments upstream of the tributary mouth are polluted by nutrients, PCBs, mercury, E. coli,
ammonia, chlorides, cyanide, oil and grease, siltation, and total dissolved solids in Indiana.
c. Michigan
Based on Michigan's draft 2006 303(d) list, Lake Michigan is impaired due to PCBs, mercury, TCDD (dioxins),
chlordane, and DDT. The listed Lake Michigan beaches (including beaches on bays) are impaired by
pathogens. Listed Lake Michigan bays are impaired due to PCBs, chlordane, TCDD (dioxins), mercury,
pathogens, and nuisance oil product pollution. Listed Lake Michigan tributary mouths are polluted by PCBs,
mercury, chlordane, nuisance oil product pollution, and pathogens. Listed Lake Michigan watershed stream
segments upstream of the tributary mouth are polluted in Michigan by phosphorus, pathogens, mercury, PCBs,
TCDD, chlordane, dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, and bacterial slimes.
d. Wisconsin
Based on Wisconsin's final 2004 303(d) list and a review of counties on Lake Michigan and Green Bay, the Lake
Michigan open waters are impaired due to polychlorobiphenyls and mercury. The Lake Michigan beaches are
impaired due to E. coli. Bays are impaired due to mercury, polychlorobiphenyls, and phosphorus. Tributary
mouths are impaired due to mercury and polychlorobiphenyls. Assuming that stream miles are counted
beginning with zero at the mouth, then the stream segments assessed next to Lake Michigan are polluted by
sedimentation, creosote, polychorobiphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, phosphorus, TBD, nitrate,
mercury, metals, and bacteria, so these are pollutants of concern. Listed Lake Michigan watershed stream
segments upstream of the tributary mouth in Wisconsin are polluted by phosphorus, sediment,
polychorobiphenyl, metals, mercury, and bacteria.
3. Pollutants Exceeding GLI Criteria
Pollutants have not been found to exceed Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative water quality criteria in the deep
open waters of Lake Michigan. Unlike the other Great Lakes, Lake Michigan open waters are not monitored by
Canada for chemical pollutants. Lake Michigan open water has been analyzed by researchers and found to
be of good quality with respect to PCBs and mercury. Also, atrazine concentrations measured in 1994-1995 did
not exceed current federal water quality criteria.
4. Pollutants from Fish Consumption Advisories
State fish consumption advisories are prepared when pollutant concentrations in fish tissue are greater than the
action level or regulatory threshold. For LaMP 2004, we listed fish species included in State of Michigan
consumption advisories for Lake Michigan and then categorized the species location: normally found in open
waters, normally found in nearshore waters, and/or normally found in inland waters up to the first dam. See
LaMP 2004 Table A-l2S. Between 2004 and 2006, we reviewed fish consumption advisories or guides for all four
states and added species to the 2004 Table A-l. It is Table A-2 on the opposite page. We then replaced the
x's in the columns above with the contaminant causing the fish consumption advisory. Collapsing the rows by
state, we summarized fish contaminants by open waters, nearshore waters, and inland waters in Table A-3.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-2 Fish species in the table are included in the consumption guides or advisories prepared by Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Professional judgment and references available on the Internet were used to
categorize the fishes' habitat.
Fish Habitat ->
Fish SpeciesJ,
Black Redhorse
Bloater
Bluegill
Brook Trout
Brown Trout
Burbot
Carp
Catfish
Channel Catfish
Chinook Salmon
Chub
Coho Salmon
Crappie
Flathead Catfish
Freshwater Drum
Golden Redhorse
Lake Trout
Largemouth Bass
Longnose Sucker
Muskellunge
Northern Hogsucker
Northern Pike
Pink Salmon
Quillback
Rainbow Trout
Redhorse Sucker
Rock Bass
Round Goby
Sheepshead
Shorthead Redhorse
Silver Redhorse
Smallmouth Bass
Smelt
Splake
Steelhead
Sturgeon
Suckers
Sunfish
Walleye
Whitefish
White Perch
White Sucker
Yellow Bullhead
Yellow Perch
Normally found in Open
Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Normally found in Near-
shore Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Normally found in Inland
Waters
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-3 Contaminants causing fish consumption advisories in Lake Michigan. Illinois has a state-wide advisory
(SWA) for predator fish for women of childbearing age and children. Indiana has a do not eat advisory for fish from
the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal. fMichigan has a mercury advisory for all inland lakes, reservoirs,
and impoundments. '"Wisconsin's safe eating guidelines (SEG) do not specify the contaminant causing the
advisory.
Fish habitat— >
CONTAMINANT
causing advisory J,
PCBs, number of fish
species by state
Mercury, number of
fish species by state
Chlordane, number
of fish species by
state
DDT, number of fish
species by state
Dioxin, number of fish
species by state
Safe Eating
Guidelines
Lake Michigan
OPEN WATERS
Illinois 4
Indiana 8
Michigan 1 1
Wisconsin 9
Total 31
Illinois SWA
Indiana 1
Michigan 0
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 3
Wisconsin *
Total 3
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 1
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 3
Wisconsin *
Total 3
Wisconsin 3
Lake Michigan
NEARSHORE WATERS
Illinois 5
Indiana 13
Michigan 16
Wisconsin 21
Total 50
Illinois SWA
Indiana 3
Michigan 2
Wisconsin *
Total 5
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 1
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 1
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 2
Wisconsin *
Total 2
Wisconsin 16
Lake Michigan
INLAND WATERS
Illinois 6
Indiana 16
Michigan 7
Wisconsin 1 7
Total 40
Illinois SWA
Indiana 4
Michigan 2f
Wisconsin 1 and *
Total 7
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 1
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 1
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Illinois 0
Indiana 0
Michigan 1
Wisconsin *
Total 1
Wisconsin 20
5. Pollutant Classification into Categories Using Scenarios 1 through 4
Based on a review of pollutants identified from the draft 2006 303(d) lists for Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan,
the 2004 final 303(d) list for Wisconsin, and fish consumption advice, the LaMP 2006 critical pollutants and
pollutants of concern can be classified using the scenarios described earlier in this document.
Scenario 1. GLI Definition of Open Waters used to categorize pollutants
In this scenario, open waters are all waters lakeward from a line drawn across the mouth of tributaries to the
Lake. In this scenario, critical pollutants are found in all depths of the lake, harbors, bays, and beaches.
Pollutants causing impairments are taken from 303(d) lists, fish consumption advice, and monitoring data.
Applying the GLI definition of open waters doesn't help the LaMP distinguish between pollutants requiring
lakewide action and pollutants to be remediated through regional or local actions. The GLI definition of
open waters lumps together AOC and LaMP pollutants. Therefore, the LaMP will not rely on the GLI
definition of open waters in order to categorize pollutants.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-4. Proposed LaMP 2006 Pollutants for Finalization in 2008 Using GLI Definition of "Open Water"
Pollutant Classification
Proposed LaMP 2006 Pollutants for Finalization in 2008
Using GLI Definition of "Open Water"
Critical Pollutants
(connotation of lakewide
TMDLand LaMP action)
Illinois PCBs, E. Coli, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc,
nitrogen (total), phosphorous (total)
Indiana PCBs, mercury, E. coli
Michigan PCBs, mercury, TCDD (dioxins), chlordane, DDT, pathogens,
nuisance oil product pollution
Wisconsin polychlorobiphenyls, mercury, E. coli, and phosphorus
Pollutants of Concern
(connoting AOC action)
Illinois Alpha BHC, Arsenic, Copper, Dieldrin, DDT, Endrin, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury, Nickel, PCBs, Silver, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and Zinc
Indiana PCBs, mercury, and E. coli
Michigan PCBs, mercury, chlordane, nuisance oil product pollution, and
pathogens
Wisconsin mercury and polychlorobiphenyls sedimentation, creosote,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, phosphorus, TBD, nitrate, metals, and
bacteria
Watch List
(prevent from reaching
the Lake)
Illinois Alpha BHC, Aldrin, chromium (total), DDT, Endrin, Heptachlor,
Hexachlorobenzene, Nickel, PCBs, Silver, and Nitrogen (total)
Indiana nutrients, PCBs, mercury, E. coli, ammonia, chlorides, cyanide, oil
and grease, siltation, and total dissolved solids
Michigan phosphorus, pathogens, mercury, PCBs, TCDD, chlordane,
dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, and bacterial slimes.
Wisconsin phosphorus, sediment, polychorobiphenyl, metals, mercury, and
bacteria
Scenario 2. Use SOLEC definition of open water to categorize pollutants.
Once again, pollutant monitoring data specific to open waters and distinct from nearshore waters is not
readily available for Lake Michigan. The Illinois Lake Michigan monitoring plan identifies stations with lake
depths greater than 27 meters or 90 feet. Pollutant transport from the atmosphere and tributaries to the deep
open waters of the Lake was addressed through the Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) study in 1994-1995,
but the sampling points have not been reviewed with respect to a depth of 27 meters for this document. Most
of the LMMB pollutant data collected has not been modeled with a Lake Michigan Mass Balance Level 3
model, the only LMMB model level that can distinguish the SOLEC-defined nearshore from the SOLEC-defined
open waters. IADN sampling stations qualify as near shore in SOLEC terminology, but there are not air criteria
or regulatory thresholds with which to compare ambient analytical results for LaMP pollutants. Therefore, the
SOLEC definition of open water is not suitable for LaMP pollutant categorization because there isn't enough
data from ambient monitoring programs lakeward of the shoreline, harbors, and bays. The SOLEC definition of
open water may be suitable for LaMP pollutant categorization when LMMB level 3 model simulations are
available or when EEGLE26 simulations include lake depth information.
Scenario 3. Deduce pollutant categories from fish contaminant advisories.
Table A-3 shows that species-specific consumption advisories with species categorized by habitat (open
waters, nearshore waters, and inland waters) can, in some instances, be used to prioritize areas needing
contaminant-specific action. For example, more inland species of fish are contaminated with mercury
compared to the number of species inhabiting deeper open waters contaminated with mercury. Chlordane
impairs more species of open water fish than inland fish in Lake Michigan waters. Some fish consumption
advisories are relatively local, and concentration of contaminants would probably be more useful than
knowing only the species contaminated and the existence of an advisory. A more robust analysis would
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
include mapping fish contaminant data and evaluation for spatial trends. Higher fish contaminant
concentrations could be associated with sources to be controlled (i.e., distinguish air from water pathways), but
this may not shed new light as a source inventory already exists. In conclusion, the summary of fish
contaminants causing advisories, lumped by species and tallied by state, do not make the appropriate scale
forTMDL development self-evident. The appropriate definition of open water isn't easily derived from fish
consumption advisories.
Scenario 4. Use general knowledge of pollutant properties to categorize pollutants.
In chapters of LaMP 200027, the LaMP pollutants were discussed as chemical, physical, and biological stressors.
The loads of these stressors were discussed by source of data, such as monitoring, research, and regulatory
programs, and measured or estimated loads to the lake were reported. When information gathered between
2000 and 2006 is added to the LaMP 2000 information, pollutant categorization can be done subjectively (i.e.,
using professional judgment) as follows.
Pollutant
PCBs
Dioxins/furans
Mercury
DDT and me-
tabolites
Chlordane
E. coli
Critical
Pollutant
X
X
X
X
X
Pollutant of
Concern
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watch
List
X
X
X
X
X
Reason - typically the pollutant Is associated with a cate-
gory 5 water body on a state's clean water act Section 303
(D) list. Categorization considers long range air transport
and known pollutant sources and pathways.
PCBs are critical pollutants, pollutants of concern, and on
the watch list because of fish consumption advisories in all
four states from Lake Michigan to headwaters. Wisconsin
reports polychlorobiphenyls.28
Dioxins/furans are critical pollutants because Michigan has
fish consumption advisories for Lake Michigan and it is on
Michigan's list for Lake Michigan, including bays and a near
shore inland lake. No impairments due to dioxin are re-
ported by Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Mercury is a critical pollutant because of fish consumption
advisories reported on the Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin
lists, and air deposition research. Mercury is a pollutant of
concern reported in bays, harbors, and tributary mouths on
all four states' lists. Stream segments and water bodies
throughout the watershed are listed for mercury fish con-
sumption advisories.
DDT and metabolites are a critical pollutant because Michi-
gan has Lake Michigan fish consumption advisories. No im-
pairments due to organic pesticides are reported in Indi-
ana's and Wisconsin's 303(d) lists. DDT was reported on 303
(d) lists for assessed stream segments near to and far from
Lake Michigan.
Chlordane is a critical pollutant because Michigan has Lake
Michigan fish consumption advisories. No impairments due
to organic pesticides are reported on Indiana's and Wiscon-
sin's 303(d) lists. In Michigan, White Lake, Torch Lake, Ross-
common, Glen Lake, Galien River, and Lake Macatawa are
listed for chlordane.
E. coli impairs Lake Michigan in Illinois (66 beaches). In Indi-
ana, 58 stream segments or water bodies, including 4 seg-
ments of shoreline are impaired. E. coli is not monitored off-
shore, but may be transported with sediment.
Table A-5 (Part 1). Scenario 4 Table
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-5 (continued)
Pollutant
bacteria
pathogens
Bacterial
slimes
Alpha BHC
Dieldrin
Endrin
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Cyanide
Ammonia
Phosphorus
Nutrients
Organic
enrichment
Dissolved
Oxygen
Polycyclic
Aromatic
Hydrocarbon
Critical
Pollutant
Pollutant
of
Concern
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watch
List
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reason - typically the pollutant is associated with a category 5
water body on a state's clean water act Section 303(D) list.
Categorization considers long range air transport and known
pollutant sources and pathways.
Bacteria impairs 1 1 Lake Michigan beaches in Wisconsin. In
addition, bacteria are reported on Wisconsin's 2004 303(d) list
for more than 7 stream segments or water bodies in the
counties bordering Lake Michigan. Bacteria are not monitored
offshore, but may be carried with sediment29. Municipal water
intakes are at depths considered near shore.
Pathogens impair Lake Michigan beaches in Michigan.
Pathogens are reported on Michigan's list as a problem for 27
stream segments or water bodies. See the endnote for
bacteria.
Michigan listed Lost Creek and Unnamed Tributary to Platte
Lake segments.
Illinois listed the segment closest to the Lake and an upstream
portion of Pettibone Creek for Alpha BHC.
Illinois listed the tributary segment and an upstream portion of
Pettibone Creek for Dieldrin.
Illinois listed the tributary segment and an upstream portion of
Pettibone Creek for Endrin.
Illinois listed Waukegan harbor and an upstream portion of
Waukegan River.
Wisconsin listed at least Dutchman Creek.
Indiana listed upstream segments of the Grand Calumet and
Little Calumet Rivers
Indiana listed two upstream segments.
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor. Michigan listed twelve
upstream segments or water bodies. Wisconsin listed more
than 22 stream segments or water bodies including Green Bay
AOC (inner bay).
Indiana listed Wisler Ditch and tribs.
Michigan listed a segment of Unnamed Tributary to Platte Lake.
Michigan listed Deer Creek and Sycamore Creek segments.
Wisconsin listed at least Lincoln Creek, Lower Menominee AOC,
and Manitowoc River.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Table A-5 (continued)
Pollutant
Creosote
Nuisance oil
product
pollution
Oil & grease
Siltation
Sedimentation
IDS
Chlorides
metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Critical
Pollutant
Pollutant of
Concern
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watch
List
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reason - typically the pollutant Is associated with a
category 5 water body on a state's clean water act
Section 303(D) list. Categorization considers long range
air transport and known pollutant sources and pathways.
Wisconsin listed at least Little Menomonee River segment.
Michigan listed Sawyer Creek.
Indiana listed upstream portions of the Indiana Harbor
Canal and Grand Calumet River.
Indiana listed one upstream segment of Deep River
tributary.
Wisconsin listed at least 20 stream segments including
Mud Creek, Root River, and Two Rivers Harbor.
Indiana listed one upstream segment, Mud Creek.
Indiana listed one upstream segment, Mud Creek.
Wisconsin listed at least Racine Harbor, Milwaukee River
estuary AOC, Milwaukee River Estuary AOC - Kinnickinnic
River, Milwaukee River Estuary AOC - Menomonee River,
Milwaukee River Estuary AOC, Kewaunee Marsh,
Kewaunee Harbor, and East River
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor and Pettibone Creek.
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor and an upstream segment
of S. Br. Waukegan River
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor and Pettibone Creek.
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor and Pettibone Creek.
Illinois listed Pettibone Creek.
Illinois listed Pettibone Creek and S. Br. Waukegan River.
Illinois listed Pettibone Creek and S. Br. Waukegan River.
Illinois listed Waukegan Harbor and Pettibone Creek.
The 'apply professional judgment' scenario allows classification of E. coli, pathogens (viruses, protozoa,
bacteria), and bacteria as pollutants of concern because they have not been demonstrated to cause an
impairment in the deep waters of Lake Michigan. At the same time, when biological pollutants impact all
states, a classification of E. coli, pathogens, and bacteria as critical pollutants could be appropriate to boost
visibility and attract needed resources. Consistent with IADN and LMMB findings, air deposited toxics like
PCBs, dioxins/furans, mercury, and organochlorine pesticides have an open water impact and are critical
pollutants. Providing the names of the Category 5 waters when only a few are impaired gives some sense of
the impairment magnitude. Likewise, providing a number of assessed waters when many are impaired can
suggest how widespread the impairment is. Comparison of state lists suggests a discrepancy in number and
type of pollutants analyzed. The pollutant specific method and professional judgment also apply to Watch
List pollutants identified through literature review.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
IV. Lake Michigan LaMP 2006 Pollutants to be Reviewed in 2008
Scenarios 3 and 4 are most helpful when reviewing the critical pollutants and pollutants of concern. The same
watch list pollutants proposed in 2004 are proposed again here. Resources to perform a comprehensive
literature review were not available.
All actions to virtually eliminate PCBs, dioxin/furan, mercury, DDT, and Chlordane from use and potential
release to the environment should be taken in all four Lake Michigan states. Efforts have been underway
through a variety of mechanisms, like Hospitals fora Healthy Environment (H2E), Federal Electronics
Challenge, PCB Phase Down, and pesticide re-registration and reviews. The Toxic Pollutants chapter of the
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy included the following recommendations.
1) Reduce and virtually eliminate the principal sources of mercury, PCBs, dioxins and furans, pesticides
and other toxic substances that threaten the health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, through
coordinated intergovernmental strategies.
2) Prevent new toxic chemicals from entering the Great Lakes basin: Target production, use and sound
disposal of toxic chemicals across the Great Lakes basin through strategic deployment of pollution
prevention and waste minimization programs.
3) Institute a comprehensive Great Lakes research, surveillance and forecasting capability to help
identify, manage, and regulate45 chemical threats to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. A Great
Lakes basin-wide coordinated program that incorporates and augments current efforts should be
created to better characterize links between PTS sources and exposure. The multiparty program
should preferably be housed within an existing program or organization and call upon the combined
resources of federal agencies, states, academia, the private sector, and our Canadian neighbors.
4) Support efforts to reduce continental and global sources of PTS to the Great Lakes basin.
These recommendations apply to pesticide pollutants of concern, too. The above recommendations are
Table A-6. LaMP Pollutants for Discussion in 2006-2008
Pollutant Classification
LaMP Pollutants for Discussion in 2006-2008
Critical Pollutants
PCBs, mercury, DDT and metabolites, chlordane, and dioxin/furan.
Pollutants of Concern
PCBs, mercury, DDT and metabolites, Chlordane, dioxin/furan, E. coli, bac-
teria, pathogens. Alpha BHC, Dieldrin, Endrin, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nuisance oil product pollution, sedimenta-
tion, metals, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
nickel, silver, and zinc.
Watch List
Bacterial slimes. Nitrate, cyanide, ammonia, nutrients, organic enrichment,
dissolved oxygen, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, creosote, oil and
grease, siltation, sedimentation, TDS, chlorides, metals, chromium, manga-
nese, PBDEs, PCNs, PFOS, asbestos, PAHs (acenaphthylene, acenaphthene,
fluorene, 1 methyl-fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, 2-
methylphenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, retene, benzo(a)fluorene,
benzo(b)fluorene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofb +k) fluoranthene,
benzo(e)pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, indeno(c,d)pyrene, diben(ah)
anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene, antanthrene, and coronene), thallium,
selenium, phthalates, radioactive material, synthetic musks: six polycyclic
musks (AHTN, HHCB, ATM, ADBI, AHMI, & DPMI) and two nitro musks (musk
xylene and musk ketone), toxaphene, sulfur, atrazine & degradation prod-
ucts , metolachlor & degradation products, acetochlor & degradation
products, glyphosate & degradation products, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 2,6-di-
ferf-butylphenol, 2,6-di-ferf-p-benzoquinone, butylated hydroxy toluene, tri
(2-chloroethyl) phosphate, tri (2-chloroethyl) phosphate, 4-methyl phenol,
cimetidine, trimethoprim, lincomycin, cholesterol, coprostanol, 1-naphthol,
2-naphthol
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
consistent with the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and other strategy documents.
With respect to the biological pollutants and other pollutants of concern, the Coastal Health, AOC/
Sediments, and Nonpoint Source chapters in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
identified relevant goals. Chapters 2 and 3 of this LaMP address biological pollutants, too.
V. Concluding Remarks/Next Steps
Additional pollutants, such as those transported by air attached to particles like soot, may be unrecognized
pollutants of concern in nearshore urban areas. There is consensus by the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport
of Air Pollution that ozone and its precursors, fine particles, acidifying substances, mercury, and persistent
organic pollutants have potential for long range air transport. It's not clear that all of these are sampled and
analyzed in order to prepare the 303(d) lists or fish consumption advisories. Nonattainment areas could be
targeted for investigation after reviewing maps of nonattainment counties for Clean Air Act particulate matter
standards. Comparing target analyte lists for fish monitoring and water quality assessment programs was
beyond the scope of this document, but would help in evaluating whether dioxin, for example, is below fish
consumption advisory risk thresholds or not analyzed in Wisconsin and Indiana. (Dioxin is not part of Illinois'
Lake Michigan monitoring.)
This document concluded that looking at fish consumption advisories by species and applying professional
judgement to pollutants identified on Clean Water Act Section 303(d) lists are reasonable approaches to
defining critical pollutants and pollutants of concern. However, the definitions of critical pollutant, pollutant of
concern, and watch list are still open to revision. Questions for reviewers to consider follow. Should pollutants
appear only in the lakewide category (critical pollutant) if the pollutant causes impairments throughout the
watershed or should the same pollutant also be a pollutant of concern and on the watch list? Do we need
rigorous definitions of "open water" and "nearshore water" if the scenario 4 approach is selected? Is there
data available to distinguish pollutants in nearshore waters from open waters in other Great Lakes? These
questions and more will be the focus of the 2006 SOLEC Lake Michigan workshop on November 2, 2006 in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Endnotes
1 Lake Michigan LaMP 2000 is online atwww.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakemich/index.html.
2 Appendix A comprises pages 89 - 95 of the Lake Michigan LaMP 2002, available online at www.epa.gov/
grtlakes/lakemich/lm02/index.html.
3 The GLWQA (1987) identifies fourteen changes in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great
Lakes System sufficient to impair beneficial uses. For lakewide adaptive management, these fourteen
changes were rephrased as six endpoint goals such as "We can all eat any fish."
4 Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan requirements of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990
were incorporated in Section 118 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §1268(c)(4)).
5 Chapter 5 may be accessed online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakemich/lmlamp2000/LM%20chapter%
205.pdf.
6 A distinction is made between samples taken for a research project of limited duration and samples routinely
taken using an established protocol over many years. The latter type of sampling is called 'monitoring' in this
Appendix. GLNPO's Limnology Program is described online at www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/limnology/
index.htm.
7 See, for example, Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2005 and
Status of Pelagic Prey Fishes in Lake Michigan, 1992-2005
8 See GLNPO's Fish Indicators web page at www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html.
9 Available online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/gls/gls2002.pdf.
10 Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Guidance, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, Total
Maximum Daily Load, Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.
11 International Atmospheric Deposition Network, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, Great Lakes
Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory and Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System
12 Persistent Organic Pollutants and Heavy Metals Protocols under the United Nations' Economic Commission for
Europe's Convention (UNECE) on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), the Stockholm Convention
on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
Sound Management of Chemicals Program which has developed North American Regional Action Plans
(NARAPs) for a number of chemicals.
13 For more information about the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, see www.epa.gov/greatlakes/
collaboration/strategy.html and www.glrc.us/.
14 The draft Illinois 303(d) list was found at www.epa.state.il.us/water/tmdl/303d-list.html at the time of
document preparation.
15 See LaMP 2004 Appendix A online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakemich/2004update/lmlamp04_3a.pdf,
pages A-4 through A-6.
16 Tables A-6 and A-7 are on pages A-14 and A-15 of LaMP 2004 online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/
Iakemich/2004update/lmlamp04_3a.pdf.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
17 Kannan, K., Tao, L, Sinclair, E., Pastva, S., Jude, D., and Giesy, J. "Perfluorinated Compounds in Aquatic
Organisms at Various Trophic Levels in a Great Lakes Food Chain." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 48, 559-566
(2005).
18 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, EPA publication number EPA/OW/OST 4304T, 2006 is
available online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nrwqc-2006.pdf.
19 For more information, see www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/atrazine/index.htm.
20 For more information, see www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nonylphenol/.
21 For more information, see www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/selenium/index.htm.
22 Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 132.2: Open waters of the Great Lakes (OWGLs) means
all of the waters within Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, and Lake
Superior lakeward from a line drawn across the mouth of tributaries to the Lakes, including all waters enclosed
by constructed breakwaters, but not including the connecting channels. States have adopted this definition.
23 Lake Michigan Mass Balance results have been reported in this Lake Michigan LaMP, previous LaMPs, and on
the Great Lakes National Program Office webpage. See, for example, the LMMB PCB Data Report at
www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lmmb/results/pcb/index.html or the LMMB Mercury Data Report atwww.epa.gov/
grtlakes/lmmb/results/mercury/index.html.
24 From Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes: IADN Results through 2000, available
on-line at www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/reports/IADN_l 999_2000.pdf. See pages 2 and 3.
25 LaMP 2004 Table A-l is on page A-3, online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakemich/2004update/
Imlamp04_3a.pdf.
26 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
investigated an annually recurrent winter-spring sediment plume visible on satellite imagery of Lake Michigan,
resulting in many Episodic Events: Great Lakes Experiment (EEGLE) publications. Sediment plumes have also
been documented in fall. See www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/.
27 Chapter 5 of the Lake Michigan LaMP 2000 is online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/lakemich/lmlamp2000/LM%
20chapter%205.pdf.
28 According to www.chemfinder.com, the term polychlorobiphenyls corresponds to Arochlor 1262. Arochlor
1262 is a mixture of PCB congeners containing 62% chlorine by weight.
29 See previous endnote and description of increased bacteria growth with increased P in the plume at
www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/projects/p09/results.9.2000.html.
30 See Table A-5 in Lake Michigan LaMP 2004 on pages A-10 through A-l 3, online at www.epa.gov/grtlakes/
Iakemich/2004update/lmlamp04_3a.pdf.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Appendix B
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) Indicators
Indicators: Background
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) was established by the US and Canada in 1992 to hold
biannual conferences to meet the reporting requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). SOLEC has led the effort to collect, develop and refine a set of science-based, not programmatic,
indicators and taken an adaptive management approach to continually improve the effort.
In LaMP 2000, Chapter Three presented a cross walk of the SOLEC indicators and the Lake Michigan Lakewide
Management Plan goals. In preparation for LaMP 2006, the LaMP Technical Coordinating Committee
conducted a review of current SOLEC indicators in association with the Lake Michigan LaMP Goals. An
extremely strong alignment was found to still be in place.
The Lake Michigan LaMP has also adopted the SOLEC sustainability target gauge to help provide a quick,
summary visual of a measurement of where we are in achievement of the goal. For LaMP 2006, the titles at
each end of the gauge have changed from good and poor to sustainable and unsustainable. It is hoped
this action will help underscore the need to take action. In addition, following the" Status of the Goal" at the
beginning of each chapter a list of indicator titles are included to inform the reader as to the data used to
inform the status conclusion.
SOLEC Great Lakes Revised Indicator Framework
SOLEC has also been reviewing the indicators and has under gone a peer review process. A strong message
that emerged from both internal and external Peer Review sessions was the need to reduce the overall
number of indicators by identifying and eliminating those indicators that may be unnecessary or redundant.
An additional and related comment was that in order to accomplish this reduction, categorical groupings of
indicators by topic, issue or theme could be developed. Based on these recommendations, SOLEC organizers
grouped related indicators into the following categories and sub-categories (or "bundles" and "sub-bundles")
for ease in and presentation of related information and understanding of the larger issue:
1. Contamination
a. Nutrients
b. Toxics in Biota
c. Toxics in Media
d. Sources and Loadings
2. Biotic Communities
a. Fish
b. Birds
c. Mammals
d. Amphibians
e. Invertebrates
f. Plants
g. General
3. Invasive Species
a. Aquatic
b. Terrestrial
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
4. Coastal Zones
a. Nearshore Aquatic
b. Coastal Wetlands
c. Terrestrial
5. Aquatic Habitats
a. Open Lake
b. Groundwater
6. Human Health
7. Land Use - Land Cover
a. General
b. Forest Lands
c. Agricultural Lands
d. Urban/Suburban Lands
e. Protected Areas
8. Resource Utilization
9. Climate Change
In this approach, many indicators are relevant to more than one category. For example, "Contaminants in
Sport Fish" is included in both "Contamination: Toxics in Biota" and "Human Health." All of the indicators within
a category, however, contribute to a more complete evaluation of environmental conditions pertaining to
that category.
Other categories are possible, and they may of greater usefulness in the future. Likewise, the "old" categories
previously used for reporting Great Lakes indicators may still be relevant for some users. As originally
conceived, the Great Lakes suite of indicators was developed around the topics of open and nearshore
waters, coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, land use, human health, societal, and unbounded. Each
indicator was associated with one primary category, but all the indicators were also evaluated for relevancy
to other SOLEC categories and to other major environmental groupings (e.g., land, water, air, biota), issues
(e.g., contaminants, invasive species, urban sprawl), or indicator systems (e.g., IJC Desired Outcomes, Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement Impaired Beneficial Uses).
The categories currently listed are incomplete, and others may be incorporated in the future. For example,
under "Aquatic Habitats," indicators have yet to be identified and developed for inland surface waters,
including tributaries, inland lakes, and inland wetlands. The category "Resource Utilization" is also very
incomplete and will require quite extensive consideration of socio-economic indicators relevant to the
assessment of Great Lakes ecosystem components. Likewise, "Human Health" could be expanded to
"Human Health and Well Being" and include indicators to assess social values of residents in the Great Lakes
basin.
Changes to the Indicator Assessment Process
In response to suggestions from the peer reviews that the SOLEC process for the assessment of indicators was
not sufficiently transparent or standardized, some changes were made to make assessments more credible
and internally consistent. Previously, the available assessment options were restricted to Good, Mixed
Improving, Mixed, Mixed Deteriorating, and Poor. These were not always sufficient or helpful. For SOLEC 2004,
a system is being used to better express the relative condition and trend for all indicators. Authors have
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
provided a qualitative assessment for their adopted as they have done in the past, but the assessment
categories are now less ambiguous. Specifically, authors have provided a "condition" of the ecosystem
related to their indicator by selecting a "good, fair, poor or mixed" status and then assigning a "direction" of
"improving, unchanged, deteriorating or undetermined" to each indicator.
Five broad ranking categories were used to characterize the assessments:
• Good. The state of the ecosystem component(s) is/are presently meeting ecosystem objectives or
otherwise is in acceptable condition.
• Fair. The ecosystem component(s) is/are currently exhibiting minimally acceptable conditions, but it is not
meeting established ecosystem objectives, criteria, or other characteristics of fully acceptable conditions.
• Poor. The ecosystem component(s) is/are severely negatively impacted and it does not display even
minimally acceptable conditions.
• Mixed. The ecosystem component(s) displays both good and degraded features.
• Not Assessed. There is insufficient information to make an assessment
In addition, four ecosystem trajectories (or trends overtime) were recognized:
• Improving. Information provided by the report shows the ecosystem component(s) to be changing
toward more acceptable conditions.
• Unchanging. Information provided by the report shows the ecosystem component(s) is/are neither getting
better nor worse.
• Deteriorating. Information provided by the report shows the ecosystem component(s) to be changing
away from acceptable conditions.
• Undetermined. Data are not available to assess the ecosystem component(s) over time, so no trend can
be identified.
For Lake Michigan: Sustainability would be beyond meeting ecosystem objectives and would include a
system to maintain that status which might include monitoring, a watershed plan and local or state programs
or regulations to prevent regression and the ability to address new issues should they occur.
In the following pages, the status and trends are represented in the following manner..
Not
Assessed
Status
Good
Fair
^m
Poor
Mixed
Trend
^
Improving
+
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
CONTAMINATION
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU
Nutrients
111
7061
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings open lake
nearshore
Nutrient Management Plans
ER
? I - I ? ?
? I ? I ? I ?
ON
— » I
?
2005 Report
Toxics in Biota
114
115
121
124
4177
4201
4506
8135
8147
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Contaminants in Whole Fish
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the
American Otter
-> ? ->
-»_>-»
-» -» ->
? ? ?
?
->->->
-»
->
•*
-
— I
-*
-> 2005 Report
? 2003 Report
Toxics in Media
117
118
119
4175
4202
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals PCBs & others
PAHs & mercury
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Acid Rain
-»
4 & -
? ? ?
•* &
?
?
?
•
-»
-> 2005 Report
Sources and Loadings
117
4202
7065
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals PCBs & others
PAHs & mercury
Air Quality
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
Acid Rain
->
* & •*
->
Progress Report
-> 2005 Report
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU
Ml
HU
ERlON
Fish
8
9
17
93
125
4502
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
-»
?
->
->
?_
-»
?
«-
«-
?->
->
+
<-
-••
7-»
-»
•
^
4-
?
+
•
<-
4-
->
Progress Report
Birds |
115
4507
8135
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
?
<-
«-
*-
1
*-
-> 2005 Report
Mammals
8147 | Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
? 2003 Report
Amphibians
4504
7103
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
?
^
*-
4
2005 Report
Invertebrates
68
104
116
122
123
4501
Native Freshwater Mussels
Benthos Diversity and Abundance - Aquatic Oligochaete Communities
2005 Report
•
Zooplankton Populations | +
Hexagenia 1
Abundance of the Benth Amphipod Diporeia spp. 1 ^
•
<—
?
?
«-
•
?
?
«—
^
^
?
tf
«-
•
?
?
-
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health | 2005 Progress Report
Plants
109
4862
8500
Phytoplankton Populations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
? 2003 Report
•
+
«-
•
?
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
INVASIVE SPECIES
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Direction)
Lake
SU Ml HU ER ON
Aquatic
18
9002
Sea Lamprey
Non-Native Species (Aquatic)
-> 2005 Report
+ [ -
Terrestrial
9002
Non-Native Species (Terrestrial)
?
HUMAN HEALTH
ID#
4175
4177
4200
4201
4202
Indicator Name
Drinking Water Quality
Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Air Quality
2007 Assessment
(Status, Direction)
Lake
SU
Ml
HU
ER
ON
+
?
?
-f
?
•*
+?
-»•
?
-»
?
-»
-»
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
ID#
3514
7043
7056
7057
7060
7064
7065
Indicator Name
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficency Measures
Economic Prosperity
Water Withdrawls
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Disposal
Vehicle Use
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU ER ON
2003 Report
? 2003 Report
• 2005 Report
? 2005 Report
?
^^^^H
Progress Report |
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
COASTAL ZONES and AQUATIC HABITATS
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU MIlHUlER
COASTAL ZONES
ON
Nearshore Aquatic
4861
8131
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
? 2003 Report
<- 2001 Report
Coastal Wetlands
4501
4502
4504
4506
4507
4510
4861
4862
4863
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Abundance of the Benth Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
2005 Progress Report
Progress Report
? +
? ?
? <-
+• •
?
+ •
<-
?
«-
**
20C
«-
«-
?
<-
3 Re
^
•
?
<-
Dort
•
Progress Report
Terestrial
4861
8129
8129
8129
8129
8131
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Alvars
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Islands
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Sand Dunes
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
? 2003 Report
? 2001 Report
<- 2005 Report
?
2005 Progress Report
<- 2001 Report
AQUATIC HABITATS
Open Lake
111
118
119
8131
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings open lake
nearshore
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
? -
? ?
? ?
-»
?
?
?
&
?
?
?
?
-
?
?
«- 2001 Report
Groundwater
7100
7101
7102
7103
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Base Flow Due to Groundwate Discharge
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
2005 Report
2005 Report
-
2005 Report
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
LAND USE - LAND COVER
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU Ml HU ERJON
General
4863
7002
7054
7101
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Land Cover - Land Conversion
Ground Surface Hardening
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Progress Report
? ? | ? | ? | ?
2005 Progress Report
2005 Report
Forest Lands
8500
8501
8503
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
Forest Lands - Maintenance and Productive Capacity of Forest
Ecosystems
Forest Lands - Conservation & Maintenance of Soil & Water
Resources
?
?
? ? ? ? ?
Agricultural Lands
7028
7061
7062
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Nutrient Management Plans
Integrated Pest Management
2005 Report
2005 Report
2005 Report
Urban/Suburban Lands
7000
7006
7054
Urban Density
Brownfields Redevelopment
Ground Surface Hardening
?
•*
2005 Progress Report
Protected Areas
8129
8129
8129
8129
8164
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Alvars
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Islands
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshroe Communities
- Sand Dunes
Biodiversity Conservation Sites
? 2001 Report
«- 2005 Report
?
2005 Progress Report
Proposed Indicator
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
CLIMATE CHANGE
ID#
4858
Indicator Name
Climate Change: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SUlMI
1 '
HU
*?|j||g
ER
ON
|
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Glossary
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
Water-borne plants or animals that pose a threat to
humans, agriculture, fisheries, and/or wildlife
resources.
Area of Concern (AOC)
Areas of the Great Lakes identified by the
International Joint Commission as having serious
water pollution problems requiring remedial action
and the development of a Remedial Action Plan.
AOCs are defined in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement as: "a geographic area that fails to meet
the general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, or where such failure has
caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial
use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life."
Initially, there were 43 AOCs in the Great Lakes Basin.
Area of Stewardship
An Area of Stewardship watershed focus is an area,
most often a watershed, for which a level of
ecosystem integrity has been established as a goal
and where an integrated, multi-organizational
initiative or partnership is actively working to achieve
that goal. The Lake Michigan Watershed Academy is
being established to promote the concept of
stewardship. Examples of such areas include the
Chicago Wilderness, the Kalamazoo Multi-
Jurisdictional Watershed Agreement, and the work in
Grand Traverse Bay, Michigan and Door County,
Wisconsin.
Basin
The land area that drains into a lake or river. This
area is defined and bounded by topographic high
points around the waterbody.
Beneficial Use
The role that the government decides a waterbody
will fulfill. Examples of these uses include healthy fish
and wildlife populations, fish consumption, aesthetic
value, safe drinking water sources, and healthy
phytoplankton and zooplankton communities.
Restoring beneficial uses is the primary goal of the
Remedial Action Plans for the Areas of Concern and
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Beneficial Use Impairment
A negative change in the health of a waterbody
making it unusable for a beneficial use that has been
assigned to it. Examples of the 14 use impairments
designated in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement include: restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption, beach closings, degradation to
aesthetics, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and
restrictions on drinking water consumption. Local use
impairments occur in Areas of Concern or other
areas affecting the lake. Regional use impairments
occur in an Area of Concern cluster or multi-
jurisdictional watershed. Open water or lakewide
impairment is a condition of pervasive impairment.
Binational Executive Committee (BEC)
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) is a high-
level forum composed of senior-level representatives
of the USPC and Canadian counterpart agencies
who are accountable for delivering major programs
and activities to fulfill the terms of the GLWQA. The
BEC derives its mandate from the provisions of the
GLWQA which relate broadly to notification,
consultation, coordination, and joint activity. In
particular, Article X specifies the commitments of the
Parties to consultation and review: "The Parties (U.S.
and Canada), in cooperation with State and
Provincial Governments, shall meet twice a year to
coordinate their respective work plans with regard to
the implementation of this Agreement and to
evaluate progress made."
Biological Integrity
The ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain
a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community of
organisms having a species composition, diversity,
and functional organization comparable to the best
natural habitats within a region.
Boundary Waters Treaty
The international treaty between the United States
and Great Britain signed on January 11, 1909,
regarding the waters joining the United States and
Canada and relating to questions arising between
the two nations. It gave rise to the International Joint
Commission and the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
Buffer Strips
Vegetated buffer strips along waterways act as filters
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
for sediment, nutrients and pesticides that are
washing off the land heading for the nearest stream.
They are often wetlands that can also mitigate flood
water movement and serve as habitat for wildlife.
Cladophora
A natural occurring macroalgae found
predominantly along the coast. Large blooms lead to
unsightly and foul-smelling beaches and have
negative health and economic consequences. The
blooms can result in reduced drinking and swimming
water quality. Possible causes include increased
nutrient inputs, increased water clarity and /or
temperature and changing lake levels.
Conservation Easement
A conservation easement is a deed restriction placed
on a piece of property to protect resources
associated with that parcel, sometimes irrevocable. It
can cover a whole parcel or be for a stream bank or
lake shore. The easement is often held by
government entities while land owners receive tax
reductions or other payments
Criteria Pollutants
A group of air and water pollutants regulated by the
EPA under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act on
the basis of criteria that includes information on
health and environmental effects. Criteria pollutants
include particulates, some metals, organic
compounds, and other substances attributable to
discharges.
Critical Pollutant
Chemicals that persist at levels that are causing or
could cause impairment of beneficial uses lakewide.
The Lake Michigan LaMP has identified six critical
pollutants: PCBs, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT and its
metabolites, mercury, and dioxins/furans. See a/so
Great Lakes Critical Pollutants. Related program:
Lakewide Management Program.
Designated Uses
The role that a waterbody is slated to fulfill, such as a
drinking water source. Uses are specified in water
quality standards for each waterbody or segment,
whether or not the current water quality is high
enough to allow the designated use. Other typical
uses of a waterbody include propagation of fish and
wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industry, and
navigation.
Ecosystem
A biological community and its environment working
together as a functional system, including transferring
and circulating energy and matter. It is an
interconnected community of living things including
humans, and the physical environment with which
they interact.
Ecosystem Indicator
An organism or community of organisms that is used
to assess the health of an ecosystem as a whole.
When tracked overtime, an ecosystem indicator
provides information on trends in important
characteristics of the system. Also known as an
environmental indicator.
Ecosystem Integrity
A measure of the capacity of ecosystems to renew
themselves and continually supply resources and
essential services. Ecosystem integrity is the degree to
which all ecosystem elements-species, habitats, and
natural processes-are intact and functioning in ways
that ensure sustainability and long-term adaptation to
changing environmental conditions and human uses.
Ecosystem Management
The process of sustaining ecosystem integrity through
partnerships and interdisciplinary teamwork.
Ecosystem-based management focuses on three
interacting dimensions: the economy, the social
community, and the environment. Ecosystem-based
management seeks to sustain ecological health while
meeting economic needs and human uses.
Emerging Pollutant
The Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan
addresses emerging pollutants, which include those
toxic substances that, while not presently known to
contribute to use impairments or to show increasing
loadings or concentrations, have characteristics that
indicate a potential to impact the physical or
biological integrity of Lake Michigan. These
characteristics include presence in the watershed,
ability to bioaccumulate, persistence (greater than 8
weeks), and toxicity. Emerging pollutants include
atrazine, selenium, and PCB substitute compounds.
End Point Subgoal
End point subgoals describe the desired levels of
ecosystem integrity and ecological services required
to restore beneficial uses and provide for healthy
human natural communities in the basin.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA)
An advisory issued by a government agency
recommending that the public limit their consumption
of fish. Advisories are issued to limit exposure to toxic
substances in the fish that have the potential to
impact human health. A fish consumption advisory is
prepared annually by each state. Fish caught from
selected lakes and streams are tested for toxic
substances.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
An international agreement signed by the United
States and Canada in 1972 and updated in 1978 and
1987. The Agreement seeks to restore and maintain
full beneficial uses of the Great Lakes system.
Language committing the two nations to virtually
eliminate the input of persistent toxic substances in
order to protect human health and living aquatic
resources was included when the Agreement was
updated in 1978. The philosophy adopted by the two
governments is zero discharge of such substances.
Habitat
That space that is or can be successfully occupied
(inhabited) by a species or biotic community or some
broader (taxonomic or phylogenetic) entity. Habitat
is simply the place where an organism or group of
closely related organisms live.
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan is the only one of the five Great Lakes
wholly within the U.S. border. It is bounded by the
states of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It is
connected with and flows into Lake Huron through
the Straits of Mackinac.
Lake Michigan Basin
Used to describe Lake Michigan and the surrounding
watersheds emptying into the lake.
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
This document is both a reference document and a
proposal for a process that will guide remediation of
past errors and the achievement of sustainable
integrity of the basin ecosystem. It contains clear,
comprehensive goals, specific objectives, a strategic
plan, and a system of indicators and monitoring for
use in judging environmental status and effectiveness
of current actions.
Lake Michigan Management Committee (LMMC)
The LMMC guides the overall development and
implementation of the Lake Michigan LaMP. The
current membership includes: EPA (Lake Michigan
Team, Great Lakes National Program Office, and
Office of Research and Development), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Natural Resources Conservation Service), Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Indiana
Department of Environmental Management,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty
of Fishery Management Authority, and the Grand
Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians,
Michigan.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMB)
This mass balance research project begun in 1994 is
part of the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management
Plan and is designed to develop a sound, scientific
base of information that will guide future toxic
pollutant load reduction and prevention activities.
Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council
(LMMCC)
The Council provides a forum for identifying gaps and
establishing monitoring priorities, exchanging
information, and forming partnerships. It responds to
the need for enhanced coordination,
communication, and data management among the
many agencies and organizations that conduct or
benefit from environmental monitoring efforts in the
basin.
LaMP Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)
The TCC develops documents and programs, and
recommends strategies, goals, and objectives. The
current membership includes the same
agencies/entities as the Management Committee,
plus the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. There is a steering
committee and six subcommittees under the TCC.
Methyl Mercury
Any of several extremely toxic compounds formed
from metallic mercury by the action of
microorganisms and capable of entering the food
chain. Methyl mercury is an organic form of mercury
created when inorganic mercury is released into the
environment where it volatilizes back to the
atmosphere as a gas or as adherents to particulaltes.
Methylmercury biomagnifies up the food chain as it is
passed from a over food chain level to a higher food
chain level through consumption of prey organisms or
predators.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Nutrients
Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for
organism growth and development, such as carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorus. If out of balance can
cause impairment of waterways
Pressure-State-Response Approach
The pressure-state-response approach involves linking
environmental indicators to stressors that impact the
environment and to program activities. The use of
this approach should promote consistency in the
development and application of environmental
indicators. It is an organizing framework used by U.S.
EPA Region 5 in its "Guide for Developing
Environmental Goals, Milestones and Indicators,"
found in LaMP Appendix H.
Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
These are federally-mandated local plans designed
to restore environmental quality to Areas of Concern
on the Great Lakes (there are 10 in Lake Michigan
and there were initially 43 throughout the Great
Lakes). The Areas of Concern were identified for their
persistent pollution problems. Remedial Action Plans
were called for by a protocol added to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1987.
Sediments
soil particles that are or were at one time suspended
in and carried by water as a result of eroison and /or
suspension. The particles are deposited in areas
where the water flow is slowed such as in harbors,
wetlands and lakes.
Stress or
Any chemical, physical, or biological entity that can
induce adverse effects on individuals, populations,
communities, or ecosystems and be a cause of
beneficial use impairments. Examples of stressors
include: pathogens; fragmentation and destruction
of terrestrial and aquatic habitats; exotic nuisance
species; nutrients; and uncontrolled runoff and
erosion.
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is the process of economic
development to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
TMDLs are set by regulators to allocate the maximum
amount of a pollutant that may be introduced into a
waterbody and still assure attainment and
maintenance of water quality standards.
Type E Botulism
A common bacteria (Clostridium botulinum)
produces a toxin under certain conditions, namely
the anaerobic (oxygen-free) conditions that occur in
dead organisms. Animals, especially fish-eating birds,
ingest the toxin and get sick and die.
U.S. Policy Committee
The U.S. Policy Committee is a forum of senior-level
representatives from the Federal, State, and Tribal
governmental agencies that share responsibility for
environmental protection and natural resources
management of the Great Lakes - to advance the
restoration and protection of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem. U.S. Policy Committee Partners include
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U. S. Geological Survey, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Forest Service,
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, Great Lakes Tribal Governments.
Water Table
The upper surface of the groundwater or that level
below which the soil is saturated with water
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
References
Selected Chapter 7 references
Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., Boyer, E.W., Nolan, J.V., and Brakebill, J.W., 2008, Differences in
phosphorus and nitrogen delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin, Environ. Sci.
Technol., 42, 3, 822-830, 10.1021 /es0716103
Ambrose, R.B., Jr., S.I. Hill, and L.A. Mulkey. 1983. User=s Manual for the Chemical Transport and Fate Model
(TOXIWASP), Version I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, George. EPA-600/3-83-005, 178 pp.
Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, J.P. Connolly, and R.W. Schanz. 1988. WASP4, A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality
Model - Model Theory, User=s Manual and Programmers Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, ERL-Athens, Georgia. EPA-600/3-87-039, 297 pp.
Ambrose, R.B., J.L. Martin, and T.A. Wool. 1993. WASPS, A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model - Model
Theory, User=s Manual and Programmers Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, ERL-Athens, Georgia.
Bamford, H.A., D.L. Poster and J.E. Baker. 2000. Henry's Law Constant of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners
and their variation with temperature. J. Chem. Engin. Data 45:1069-1074.
Bamford, H.A., D.L. Poster and J.E. Baker. 2002. Using extrathermodynamic relationships to model temperature
dependence of Henry's Law Constants of 209 PCB congeners. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 4395-4402.
Beletsky, D., W.P. O=Connor, and D.J. Schwab. 1997. Hydrodynamic Modeling for the Lake Michigan Mass
Balance Project. In: G. Delic and M.F. Wheeler (eds)., Next Generation Environmental Models and
computational Methods, Chapter 13, pp. 125-128. Soc. Industr. Appl. Mathemat., Philadelphia, PA.
Bertram, P., G.Warren and P. Horvatin. 2000. Lake Michigan (USA) Mass Balance Study: modeling fate,
transport and bioaccumulation of PCBs, atrazine, trans-nonachlor and mercury.
Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 27:795-799.
Endicott, D.D., W.L Richardson, and D.J. Kandt. 2005. 1992MICHTOX: A Mass Balance and Bioaccumulation
Model for Toxic Chemicals in Lake Michigan. Part 1 in Rossmann, R. (ed.), MICHTOX: A mass balance
and bioaccumulation model for toxic chemicals in Lake Michigan. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory,
Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Large Lakes Research Station, Grosse lie, Michigan. EPA/600/R-05/158,
140pp.
Endicott, D.D. 2005. 2002 Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project: modeling total polychlorinated biphenyls in
using the MICHTOX model. Part 2 in Rossmann, R. (ed.), MICHTOX: A mass balance and
bioaccumulation model for toxic chemicals in Lake Michigan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Mid-
Continent Ecology Division, Large Lakes Research Station, Grosse He, Michigan. EPA/600/R-05/158, 140
pp.
Franz, T.P.; Eisenreich, S.J.; Holsen, T. 1998. Dry deposition of particulate polychlorinated biphenyls and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(23): 3681-3688.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Green, M.L.; DePinto, J.V.; Sweet, C.W.; Hornbuckle, K.C. 2000. Regional Spatial and Temporal Interpolation of
Atmospheric PCBs: Interpretation of Lake Michigan Mass Balance Data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34(9):
1833-1850.
Hall, D.W. and D. Robertson. 1998. Estimation of Contaminant Loading from Monitored and Unmonitored
Tributaries to Lake Michigan for the USEPA, Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study. Quality Systems and
Implementation plan. Report to the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. U.S.
Geological Survey, Middleton, Wl., 19pp.
Hall, D.W.; Behrendt, T.E.; Hughes, P.E. 1998. Temperature, pH, conductance, and dissolved oxygen in
cross-sections of 11 Lake Michigan Tributaries, 1994-5. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 98-567, 85pp.
Hall, D.W. 2000a. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Tributary Loads: Atrazine and Metabolites. Data Report/
Spreadsheet to the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. U.S. Geological Survey,
Middleton, Wl.
Hall, D.W. 2000b. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Tributary Loads: Nutrients, Suspended Solids, Carbon,
Chlorophyll, and Chloride. Data Report/Spreadsheet to the USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office, Chicago, IL. U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wl.
Hall, D.W 2000c. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Tributary Loads: Regression, Stratified Beale Ratio Estimator, and
Descriptive Statistics for all parameters with the exception of mercury and PCB congeners. Data
Report/Spreadsheet to the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. U.S. Geological
Survey, Middleton, Wl.
Hall, D.W., F. Blondin, and G.J. Warren. 2001. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Tributary Loads: PCB congeners.
Data Report/Spreadsheet to the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. U.S.
Geological Survey, Middleton, Wl.
Hawley, N. 1999. Sediment resuspenmsion and transport in Lake Michigan. Final report to the USEPA, Office of
Research and Development, NHEERL, MED- Duluth, MN and Grosse He, Ml. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, Ml. 240 pp.
Holson, T.M.; Keeler, G.J.; Noll, K.N.; Fang, G.; Lee, W.; Lin, J. 1993. Dry Deposition and Particle Size Distributions
Measured during the Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(7): 1327-1333.
Hornbuckle, K.C.; Sweet, C.W.; Pearson, R.F.; Swackhamer, D.L.; Eisenreich, S.J. 1995. Assessing annual water-air
fluxes of polychlorinated biphenyls in Lake Michigan. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29(4): 869.
HydroQual, Inc. 1996. Green Bay food chain model documentation. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology Division-Duluth, Large
Lakes Research Station, Grosse lie, Michigan, 107pp.
Madenjian, C.P.; DeSorcie, T.J.; Stedman, R.M.; Brown, Jr., E.H.; Eck, G.W.; Schmidt, L.J.; Hesselberg, R.J.;
Chernyak, S.M.; Passino-Reader, D.R. 1999. Spatial Patterns in PCB Concentrations of Lake Michigan
Lake Trout. J. Great Lakes Res. 25(1): 149-159
Madenjian, C.P.; Hesselberg, R.J.; Desorcie, T.J.; Schmidt, L.J.; Stedman, R.M.; Quintal, R.T.; Begnoche, L.J.;
Passino-Reader, D. 1998. Estimate of Net Trophic Transfer Efficiency of PCBs to Lake Michigan Lake Trout
from Their Prey. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(7): 886-891.
Miller, S.M.; Sweet, C.W.; DePinto, J.V.; Hornbuckle, K.C. 2000. Atrazine and Nutrients in Precipitation: Results
from the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34(1): 55-61.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Miller, S.M., M.L. Green, J.V. DePinto and K.C. Hornbuckle. 2001. Results from the Lake Michigan Mass
Balance Study: Concentrations and fluxes of atmospheric polychlorinated biphenyls and trans-
nonachlor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35: 278-285.
Pauer, J.J., W. Melendez, K.W. Taunt, and R.G. Kreis, Jr. 2006. Resurrections of the Lake Michigan
Eturophication Model, MICH1. Submitted to the Journal of Great Lakes Research.
Richardson, W.L., D.D. Endicott, R.G. Kreis, Jr., and K.R. Rygwelski. 1999 (2004). Quality Assurance Plan for
Mathematical Modeling - The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project. USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, NHEERL, MED, Community-Based Scientific Support Staff, Large Lakes Research Station,
Grosse lie, Ml, 233 pp.
Richardson, W.L., D.D. Endicott, and R.G. Kreis, Jr. 1999. Managing Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes: The
Lower Fox River/Green Bay Mass Balance Study. USEPA Report, ERL-Duluth, LLRS, Grosse He. In Internal
Review.
Robbins, J.A., N.R. Morehead, R.W. Rood, D.N. Edginton, and S. Meyer. 1999. Accumulation and near-
surface mixing of sediments in tLake Michigan as determined for the Lake Michigan Mass Balance
Program, Volumes 1 and 2. Project Report. Final report to the USEPA, Office of Research and
Development, NHEERL, MED- Duluth, MN and Grosse He, Ml. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Rodgers, P.W. and D. Salisbury. 1981. Water Quality Modeling of Lake Michigan and Consideration of the
Anomalous Ice Cover of 1976-1977. J. Great Lakes Res., 7(4):467-480.
Rygwelski, K. R., W. L. Richardson, and D. D. Endicott, 1999. A screening-level model evaluation of atrazine in
the Lake Michigan basin. J. Great Lakes Res. 25:94-106.
Schwab, D. And D. Beletsky. 1998. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Hydrodynamic modeling project.
Final report to the USEPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, MED- Duluth, MN and
Grosse He, Ml. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Ann Arbor, Ml. 53pp.
Stow, C.A. 1995. Factors associated with PCB concentrations in Lake Michigan salmonids. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 34:361-367.
Stow, C.A., S.R. Carpenter, and L.A. Eby. 1995. Evidence that PCBs are approaching stable concentrations
in Lake Michigan fishes. Ecological Applications 5(1):248-260.
Tierney, D.P., P.A. Nelson, B.R. Cristensen, and S.M.K. Watson. 1999. Predicted atrazine concentrations in the
Great Lakes: implications for biological effects. Journal of Great Lakes Research 25(3): 455-467.
Thomann, R.V. and J.P. Connolly. 1984. Model of PCB in the Lake Michigan Lake Trout Food Chain. Environ.
Sci Technol., 18(2):65-71.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Reducing Uncertainty in Mass Balance Models of Toxics in the Great Lakes B Lake Ontario
Case Study. Great Lakes Program, State University of New York at Buffalo.
USEPA, 1995. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project: Modeling Work Plan. Office of Research and
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent
Ecology Division, Community-Based Science Support Staff, Large Lakes Research Station, Grosse lie,
Michigan, 37 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1997. Lake Michigan Mass Budget/Mass Balance Work Plan.
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office., Chicago, IL. EPA-905-R-97-016, 145pp.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1997. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMB) Methods
Compendium Volume 1: Sample Collection Techniques. Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-97-012a, 403pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1997. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMB) Methods
Compendium Volume 2: Organic and Mercury Sample Analysis Techniques. Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-97-012b, 532pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1997. Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMB) Methods
Compendium Volume 3: Metals, Conventional, Radiochemistry, and Biomonitoring Sample Analysis
Techniques. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-97-012c, 505pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1997. Lake Michigan Enhanced Monitoring Quality Assurance
Program Plan. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-97-017, 134pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Atrazine Data
Report, December 2001, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. 905R-01-010
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Polychlorinated
Biphenyls and trans-Nonachlor Data Report, December 2001, USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office, 905R-01-011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Quality Assurance
Report, December 2001, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, 905R-01-013
U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. 2004. R. Rossmann (ed..) Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance
Project: PCB Modeling Report. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, MED - Duluth, MN
and Grosse He, Ml. In revision.
Van Hoof, P. 2000. PCBs in Lake Michigan Surficial Sediments. Report tothe USEPA Great Lake National
Program Office, Chicago, IL. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Atmospheric and Oceanic
Administration, Ann Arbor, Ml.
Velleux, M. L. and D. Endicott, 1994. Development of a mass balance model for estimating PCB export from the
Lower Fox River to Green Bay. J. Greaf Lakes Res. 20(2):416-434.
Velleux, M., D. Endicott, J. Steuer, S. Jaegar, and D. Patterson, 1995. Long-term simulation of PCB export from
the Fox River to Green Bay. J. Greaf Lakes Res. 21 (3):359-372.
Velleux, M. S. Westenbroek, J. Ruppel, M. Settles, and D.E. Endicott. 2001. A (Jser=s Guide to IPX, the In-Place
Pollutant Export Water Quality Modeling Framework, Version 2.7.4. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, MED, Grosse lie, Ml. EPA/600/R-01/074, 179 pp.
Wanninnkhoff, R.J. 1992. Relationship between gas exchange and wind speed over the ocean. J. Geophys.
Res., 97: 7373-7381.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
SOURCES OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THE
LAKE MICHIGAN MASS BALANCE STUDY
HOME PAGES:
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/index.html
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo
U.S. EPA Large Lakes and Rivers Forecasting Research Branch
http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/index.html
Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/michigan.html
LAKE MICHIGAN MASS BALANCE STUDY REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study Project Reports:
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project: Quality Assurance Plan for Mathematical Modeling, 1999
(March 2004)
http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/qa_lmmbp.pdf
Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Polychlorinated Biphenyls and trans-Nonachlor Data
Report. April 2004
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/results/pcb/index.html
Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study: Atrazine Data Report. December 2001
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/results/atra_datarpt.html
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Methods Compendium
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/methods/index.html
Links to other peer-reviewed journal publications (citations and abstracts) that resulted from the Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Study:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/results/pubs.html
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
Lake Michigan LaMP 2008
-------
r.. %r A* v -: •' "•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Lake Michigan Management Plan 2008 was developed by the Lake Michigan Technical Committee with
assistance from the Lake Michigan Forum and various other agencies and organizations. The LaMP benefited from the
publicly and privately funded research of many institutions, results of pilot projects and generous critiques throughout
the process. Our goal is to restore and protect the integrity of the Lake Michigan ecosystem through collaborative,
place-based partnerships. The following is a list of some of the major contributors to the LaMP.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Lake Michigan Forum
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office, Office of
Research and Development)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The Nature Conservancy
The Lake Michigan LaMP 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/michigan.html
------- |