(jamxEcsaca
(jkdEsassB
11 j
.v
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Number
Section 1
Introduction 1
Executive Summary 6
Section 2
Can we all eat any fish? 12
Can we drink the water? 20
Can we swim in the water? 23
Are all habitats healthy, naturally diverse, and sufficient to sustain
viable biological communities? 26
Does the public have access abundant open space,
shoreline, and natural areas, and does the public have enhanced
opportunities for interaction with the Lake Michigan ecosystem? 41
Are land use, recreation, and economic activities sustainable
and supportive of a healthy ecosystem? 45
Are sediments, air, land, and water sources or pathways of
contamination that affect the integrity of the ecosystem? 51
Are exotic species controlled and managed? 66
Is collaborative ecosystem management the basis for
decision-making in the Lake Michigan Basin? 74
Do we have enough information, data, understanding,
and indicators to inform the decision-making process? 78
Section 3
Conclusions and Recommendations 84
Glossary 87
Appendix A LaMP Pollutants: Process for Biennial
Updates of Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutant List 89
Appendix B Lake Michigan Areas of Concern Matrix 96
Appendix C References for the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project 99
Photos courtesy of U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office "Visualizing the Great Lakes" are indicated by an asterisk! *)
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/image
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
1
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this Lakewide Management Plan
(LaMP) 2002 is to provide:
• An executive summary of the status of the Lake
Michigan ecosystem;
• A report on the progress in achieving the Lake
Michigan goals described in LaMP 2000 and
examples of significant activities completed in
the past two years;
• A summary of the current Lake Michigan mass
balance data and findings;
• Links to more detailed information in LaMP
2000 or other sources;
• An opportunity to comment on targets and
plans for pollution reduction and ecosystem
restoration;
• A proposal to identify additional pollutants to be
addressed by the LaMP in the future.
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
Since the release of LaMP 2000, several key
indicators point to the continuing concern for the
health of the ecosystem.
• Last year's beach season exhibited a growing
number of beach closings.
• Studies revealed that a critical layer of the
Lake Michigan aquatic food web appears to be
disappearing, and with the discovery of two new
aquatic nuisance species-there are now a total of
160 in the Great Lakes ecosystem-the integrity
of the food web of Lake Michigan is in question.
• Mercury in fish is such a prevalent problem
that 41 states now have mercury fish advisories,
and a national advisory has been issued for
certain ocean fish pointing to a problem of global
proportions.
• Climatic pattern changes, whether temporary or
permanent, are lowering lake levels as well as
raising concerns about groundwater and lake
interaction and diversion.
The Lake Michigan-Mississippi River basin divide: Chicago
Avenue west of East Avenue in Oak Park, Illinois
Photograph by Jeffrey E. Edstrom
• 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.
Despite these concerns, Lake Michigan supports
many beneficial uses. For example, it provides
drinking water for 10 million people; 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 (AOC) have been successful and are
outlined in Appendix B.
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. In
the case of Lake Michigan, the only one of the Great
Continental
Divide
Mississippi
Watershed
Great Lake*
Watershed
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002 )
-------
2
Door County, Wisconsin, Lake Michigan Lakeshore
Photograph by Karen Holland, EPA*
Lakes wholly within the borders of the United States,
the Clean Water Act (Section 118c) holds the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accountable
for the LaMP.
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. The LaMP 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."
It has been documented that core regulatory
programs at the federal, state, tribal, and local
levels have effectively controlled many pollutants.
Increased water quality protection is now being
addressed with the adoption of higher water quality
standards for the Great Lakes basin by each
Great Lakes state, with the goal of having the
new standards reflected in all permits by 2006.
What remains is 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. As the
1994 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
reported, "governments have traditionally addressed
human activities on a piecemeal basis, separating
decision making on environmental quality from
decision making on natural resources management
or on social or economic issues...." In addition,
decisions at different levels of government or across
political boundaries are being made unilaterally
without regard to watershed or ecosystem alignment.
What is LaMP 2000?
The publication of LaMP 2000 was the beginning
of a basinwide dialogue on which pollutants and
stressors should be prioritized for control, what
reduction targets should be applied to them, and
which ecologically rich areas should be identified
for restoration and protection. Some issues,
such as aquatic nuisance species, legacy sites,
and drinking water protection, require immediate
attention. Others will continue to be the subject
of public dialogue, while still other issues may
arise that require additional research. In 2000,
the Binational Executive Committee determined that
an adaptive management approach would guide the
LaMP process, making it an iterative approach. This
status report provides new information, responds to
input received, and sets targets and objectives for
public comment.
What was Accomplished and What
Challenges Remain?
Areas that were highlighted in LaMP 2000 and have
been accomplished include the following:
• Setting targets for reduction of critical pollutants
and stressors,
• Reviewing the LaMP list of contaminants and
stressors,
• Filling data gaps, including the Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Project,
• Identifying ecologically rich areas and habitats,
• Developing the concept of the area of
stewardship, and
• Convening public conferences and workshops
for development of a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) strategy, beach management, and
monitoring issues.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
Sailing Along the Milwaukee, Wisoncion
Shoreline of Lake Michigan
Photograph courtesy of the Lake Michigan Federation*
Progress made on accomplishing these objectives is
outlined in this status report. More detailed sections
on TMDLs, mass balance, and adaptive management
implementation will become supplements to LaMP
2000 by 2003.
Areas of LaMP Work that Remain a
Challenge
Finalization of a monitoring plan and prioritization
of indicators are still in progress. A draft monitoring
plan was issued along with a set of recommendations
in August 2000. To prioritize indicators and gather
missing data, two major initiatives have begun that
are focused on wetlands and the importance of the
"coastal area." The results of these efforts will
provide not only new data but also refined indicators
for wetlands by 2004, and the LaMP will utilize this
work in finalizing a set of LaMP indicators.
What is the LaMP? How and by Whom
is it Used?
The LaMP issued in April 2000 is both a large
reference document and a set of iterative proposals
or strategic agendas for remediating past errors and
achieving sustainable integrity in the Lake Michigan
basin ecosystem. It was prepared collaboratively
and is designed to be used by any number of Lake
Michigan entities or individuals. See the back cover
of this document for a list of Lake Michigan partners
who collaborated on the LaMP.
The LaMP document is being utilized as a guide
for decision making on policy issues and to help
guide funding like EPA's Coastal Environmental
Management Program and the Great Lakes National
Program Office grant process. At the state level,
for example, Michigan has utilized it for the Clean
Michigan Initiative grant program. A number of
universities are using it as a text book. Results from
grants and research provide the information used in
determining the lake status as reported in this 2002
status report.
How is the Process Utilized?
The list of goal, subgoals and activities have
produced projects like the Cook County PCB/
Mercury Clean Sweep Project. Other issues have
highlighted the need to convene and train managers
from around the basin resulting in sessions on the
Federal Beach Bill and a number of monitoring
conferences. LaMP partners have also participated
in the TMDL strategy discussion. For education and
outreach, materials have not only been produced, but
distribution opportunities have been supported like
the State of Lake Michigan 2001 Conference and the
Making Lake Michigan Great Boat Tour.
The goal of going beyond regulation requires a focus
on ecosystems, partnerships and innovation, shared
information, and the future.
A Focus on Ecosystems
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."
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
In 1998, the Lake Michigan Management Committee
adopted the ecosystem approach. The significance
for the Lake Michigan LaMP was 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, groundwater from
the Chicago 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.
A Focus on Partnerships and Innovation
As the LaMP 2000 points out, this framework
"also develops 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."
Nature Class at Chiwaukee Prairie, Kenosha, Wisconsin
Photograph courtesy of EPA Region 5*
A Focus on Shared Information
A key to engaging the necessary partners is a
common, accessible, and scientifically sound body
of knowledge. Lake Michigan protection and
restoration requires open dialogue between academia
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
and government agencies, as well as a collaborative
monitoring plan to provide a current database.
Reporting of current data and conclusions to the
public is an important component of this system.
This component presents many challenges, as data
quality plans improve data accuracy but hinder the
speed of reporting. Current management decisions
are often made with gaps in both data and
interpretation. These gaps may lead to incorrect
problem assessments or incorrect response actions.
The Lake Michigan LaMP has 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. Lake Michigan as a
studied object is a moving target, and to provide
adaptive management, there is a continuing need
for monitoring and reporting of the lakes's current
status.
A Focus on the Future: Sustainability and
Stewardship
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 over
time 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.
-------
5
k t ' Wr
r—
< ¦* ¦
,v\
Yellow Moccasin, Gibson Woods, Indiana
Photograph by Karen Holland, EPA*
Organization of this LaMP 2002 Status
Report
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. Specifically, this report is organized to
provide a summary status report on the subgoals
identified by the Lake Michigan LaMP. These
subgoals are stated as questions and are organized in
the following 11 sections:
1. Can we all eat any fish?
2. Can we 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 exotic species controlled and managed?
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?
Overall, the finding of this report is that the status of
achieving the goals is mixed. Some successes have
been achieved in pursuing these subgoals - notably,
drinking water quality is generally good throughout
the basin- but there is much room for improvement
in all the other areas. One objective of the LaMP
is to foster activities that will cause the status of
the subgoals to be "mixed/improving" by 2010 and
"good" by 2020. A summaiy graphic at the start of
each section of this report highlights the current and
projected future status of each subgoal. In addition,
following this introduction, an executive summary
of this status report is provided in the form of a
table. The table outlines the status of the subgoals
organized under the strategic agendas outlined in
LaMP 2000, significant activities completed in the
last 2 years, and next steps to achieve the targets
for each goal. Comments are requested on the next
steps and proposed targets.
Following the status report, this document concludes
with a proposal for updating the list of pollutants
addressed under the LaMP. The LaMP has adopted
an adaptive management approach that requires a
continuing review of the LaMP goals and pollutants.
The proposed process for updating the LaMP
pollutant list along with an updated proposed list of
pollutants for 2002 are provided in Appendix A and
are being offered for comment. A summary of the
status and progress in cleaning up the Lake Michigan
Areas of Concern is provided in Appendix B.
Where Can I Find LaMP 2000? Where
Do I Send Public Comments?
Lake Michigan LaMP 2000 is available on line
at www.epa.gov/glnpo/michigan.html For a CD
or printed copy of the LaMP or to make a
public comment, contact Janice Carrollo at U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code T-13J,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are Found in the Individual Subgoal Sections
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgaal* of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happening*
2000-2002
Near-Term Objective*
2002-2004
Long-Term Objective)
END POINT SUBGGALS
Human Health
Actions thai
prevent human
exposure to
pollutants in the
ecosystem and
prevent or
minimi /it sources
Subgoal 1
We can all eat any fish
Status
Mixed in 2000
• Mixed/Improving by
2010
• Good by 2020
Subgoal 2
Wc can drink the water
Status
• Good in 2000
• Good in 2010
• Good in 2020
Subgoal 3
We can swim in the water
Status
• Mixed in 2000
Mixed/Improving by
2010
• Good by 2020
• Fish advisories for mercury
by USFDA and for dioxin by
Michigan and the Tribes
4 Grand Cal and Fox River
AOC sediment cleanup plans
underway
• Soksogon Chippewa
Community Bans Bum
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
• By 2003, bold a mercury phascout
TMDL stakeholder meeting
By 2004, a TMDL Strategy will be
developed for Lake Michigan,
By 2002, EPA wil] track and report
on raw source water for Green Bay,
Milwaukee, Chicago, and Muskegon.
By 2003, souree water assessments
(including security assessment) will
be completed and reported.
By 2004, states will adopt criteria,
standards,, and monitoring programs
for beach bacteria.
• By 2006, the Binattonal Toxics Strategy goals of
90 percent reduction of high-level FCBs, 75
percent reduction of total dioxin and furun
releases, and 50 percent reduction of mercury
use and release will be reached.
By 2007, concentrations of PCBs in lake trout
and walleye will be reduced by 25 percent
These results are based on early Laic Michigan
Mass Balance model runs.
• By 2005, plans will be in place to address
drinking water susceptibility to contamination,
• By 2005, achieve a 30 percent reduction from
the 1992 per capita loadings from combined
sewer overflows (CSO), POTWs, and industry,
• By 2005,95 percent of high-priority beach
waters (as defined by the state) will be
monitored and a public advisory system will be
in place.
• By 2007,90 percent of monitored high-priority
beach waters (as defined by the state) will meet
federal and state bacteria standards for more
than 95 percent of the average swimming
season.
-------
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are Found in the Individual Subgoal Sections
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgoala of the Lake
Michigan LiMF
Sign) Htan e Happening}
2000-2002
Near-Term Objective*
2002-2004
Long-Term Objectives
Restoration and
Subgoal 4
• Perch population stitl
By 2002, a process for developing
By 2005, no net loss of wetland acreage and
Protection
All habitats are healthy,
dropping
biodiversity recovery manuals for
function will be achieved in the basin.
naturally diverse, anil
* Northwest Indiana Advanced
major ecosystem types in the Lake
• By 2012, die 2004 target acreages will be
Actions that
sufficient to sustain viable
Identification of Wetlands
Michigan basin will be implemented.
enhanced, restored, or protected: 1,000 acres of
restore, enhance,
biological communities
Study underway
* By 2004, set targets for critical areas
spawning areas (islands under water reefs);
and sustain the
• Keystone species (dipoteia) in
(fish spawning areas, dune and swale
(example acreages: 12,500 acres of system
health,
Status
Lake Michigan food web
complexes, wetlands, alvars, prairies.
wetlands; 1,000 acres of isolated wetlands; 1,000
biodiversity, and
* Mixed in 2000
vanishing
and oak savannas) will be identified,
seres of dunes; and 37,500 acres of stream
productivity of the
* Mixed/Improving by
* Supreme Court Ruling
mapped, and presented on line.
buffers - comments requested).
ecosystem
2010
narrows wetland regulation
• Habitat and Land Use Tool Box
• Good by 2020
• Wisconsin passes wetlands
published, distributed
protection law
Utilize SOLEC arid Duluth lab
• Piping Plover critical habitat
indicators and the Wetland
designated by USFWS
Consortium to finalize Lake
• Antrim County Wisconsin
Michigan indicators
Wetland Protection ordinance
• NACD stream buffer report release
* Wolf populations recovering
• A basin-wide buffer program will be
• Habitat and Land Use
developed
Management Tool Box under
Utilize 2000 landsat data to update
development
1994 baseline land cover GlS
• Established a 1994 baseline
• Critical areas mapped and presented
for land cover
on-line
• NIPC "Biodiversity Recovery
• By 2004, critical areas (fish spawning
Plan" document produced
areas, dune and swale complexes,
wetlands, alvars, prairies, and oak
savannas) will be identified, mapped,
and presented on line
-------
\
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are Found in the Individual Subgoal Sections
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgo&ls of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2002
Near-Term Objectives
2002-2004
Long-Term Objectives
Sustainable Use
Subgoal 5
* Governors and Premiers sign
• By 2003, the LaMP will partner with
• Sustainable management of the basin
Public access to open
Great Lakes Charter Annex
coastal zone management programs
Actions thai
space, shoreline, and
2001
in the Lake Michigan basin to ensure
concurrently
natural areas is abundant
« Indiana moves into Coastal
public access to the lake is balanced
sustain the health
and provides enhanced
Zone Management program
with protection of the ecosystem
of the environment,
opportunities for human
Wisconsin Smart Growth act
Identify the need for additional
the economy, and
interaction with the Lake
• Historic Agreement to
facilities and access points (such as
the communities of
Michigan ecosystem
Manage Fisheries in 1836
boat ramps canoc, and bicycle and
the ecosystem
Treaty Waters
walking trails around Lake
Status
• Economic valuation studies
Michigan).
* Mixed in 2000
by Northeast-Midwest
• Expand the Northeastern Illinois
• Mixed/Improving by
Institute, Lake Michigan
water trail to other states around Lake
2010
Federation, and University of
Michigan.
* Good by 2020
Wisconsin Sea Grant
4 Lake Michigan Potential
Damages study continues in
sixth year
* USGS Lake Michigan Trends
Project funded
• Publication and distribution of a
Habitat and Land Use Management
Tool Box that provides web-bascd
information sources on
environmentally sensitive habitat and
land use management policies and
Subgoal 6
USGS Pollutants of Concern
programs.
Land use, recreation, and
list developed
Establishment of a Lake Michigan
economic activities are
* Upland Michigan Land Use
Watershed Academy to provide
sustainable and support a
report
training to local planners and policy
healthy ecosystem
* Federal two-year ban on
drilling under the Great Lakes
makers on balancing environmental
concerns with economic and social
Status
activities in a watershed context,
Mixed in 2000
• Michigan moratorium on
Convening of a Brownfield to
* Mixed/Improving by
drilling under the Great Lakes
Greenfield Conference to highlight
2010
the need for redevelopment of
• Good by 2020
facilities that have mild to medium
contamination rather than developing
greens pace.
• Convene Planning Commissions to
partner on identifying societal
indicators and gathering data.
• On-line habitat atlas operational.
• FonmVGrand Valley State University
boat tow to AOC ports
-------
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are Found in the Individual Subgoal Sections
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgoals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happening!
2000-2002
Near-Term Objectives
2002-2004
Long-Term Objectives
MEANS (TO AN END POINT* SUBGOAL
Remediation and
Subgoal 7
* Lake Michigan Mass Balance
• A mercury source reduction and
• By 2010, remediation of 50 percent of AOC
Pollution
Sediments, air, land, and
(LMMB) findings published
sediment remediation strategy will be
sites
Prevention
water arc not sources or
¦ PCB levels in take trout
finalized.
¦ By 2020, remediation of 70 percent of AOC
pathways of
achieving equilibrium
• Contaminated sediment sites will Ik
sites
Actions that
contamination that affect
• U.S. EPA Atrazbe
reviewed and their status will be
• By 2025, remediation of 100 percent of AOC
achieve substantial
the integrity of the
Reassessment initiated
updated.
sites
pollution reduction
ecosystem
* IADN results consistent with
* EPA will compile a report on nutrient
• By 2010, vessels entering the Great Lakes will
by remediating
LMMB findings
contributions from the agricultural
discharge ballast water free of invasive species.
sites, controlling
Status
* Bush administration
sector and on point sources during
pathways.
• Mtxcd in 2000
announced climate change
wet weather.
preventing or
* Mixed/Improving by
and "'Clear Sides" initiatives
• Fall 2003 State of Lake Michigan
minimizing sources
2010
* Toxic Air Emissions
Conference will present updated
• Good by 2020
inventory released
« U.S, EPA published Air Great
Lakes Deposition {GLAD)
Strategy
• PCB/tnercury Glean Sweep
* Wisconsin mercury
regulations
* States act to control animal
operations
• New aquatic nuisance specie
mac* balance results.
By 2004 and 2005, develop
coordinated monitoring to provide a
10-year trend for the lake
« Track and provide information on
ANS developments as an important
pari of the LaMP education and
outreach efforts.
* By 2003, a multi-agency "SWAT"
Team will be developed to respond to
Subgoal 8
Exotic species are
found in Lake Michigan
newly discovered invasive species
* Michigan Ballast Water Bill
with the latest control technology.
controlled and managed
* St Lawrence Seaway
Corporation to incorporate
Status
ballast water practices
• Mixed in 2000
« Chicago River invasive
» Mixed1'!mprrovmg by
species dispersal barrier
2010
installed
~ Good by 2020
« ANS Task Force and Great
Lakes Panel cm ANS continue
work to control ANS
« Great Lakes Governors ANS
group created
-------
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are Found in the Individual Subgoal Sections
Strategic Action
Agenda
Subgoal* or the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happening*
2000-2002
Near-Term Objectives
2002-2004
Long-Term Objective*
Information
Sharing,
Collaboration and
Stewardship
Actions that
provide data access
and exchange,
facilitate
involvement, and
build capacity
Subgoal 9
Ecosystem stewardship
activities are common and
undertaken by public and
private organizations in
communities around the
basin
Status
• Mixed in 2000
• Miied/Improving by
2010
• Good by 2020
• Lake Michigan Forum
developing Stewardship Irust
• 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
• Wingspxcad Accord signed
• Volunteer Monitoring
Conference March 2002
• Establish the Lake Michigan
Watershed Academy
Publish additional education and
outreach materials
• Publish the habitat and land use
management tool box
• On-line habitat atlas will be
operational
• Hold FY 2002 Stale of Lake
Michigan Conference
• Convene a bi-staie St Joseph
Watershed conference on June 10 and
11,2002
• Establish the Lake Michigan
Watershed Academy
• Hold a 2003 State of Lake Michigan
conference
• Take comments on proposed changes
to Lake Michigan pollutant and
stressor lists
• Clean up and delist AOCs
¦ Implement the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy
Subgoal 10
Collaborative ecosystem
management is the basis
for decision-making in
the Lake Michigan basin
Status
* Mixed in 2000
* Mixed/Improving by
2010
* Good by 2020
-------
Executive Summary
Details on the Bullets Below are Found in the Individual Subgoal Sections
Strategic Action
Agenda
SubgoaU of the Lake
Michigan LaMP
Significant Happenings
2000-2002
Near-Terra Objectives
2002-2004
Long-Term Objectives
Research and
Subgoal 11
• LMMB project findings
• Monitoring research and
• Special effort and emphasis on coordinated
Monitoring
Wc have enough
» Lake Michigan Monitoring
development will be presented for the
monitoring in the Lakes Michigan basin by
informatioa'data/uridersCa
Coordinating Council
critical pollutant Watch List
2004-05
Actions thai
nding/ indicators 10
monitoring and assessment
• A LMMB Study report will be
monitor the
inform the decision-
inventory
prepared for each contaminant
ecosystem, reduce
making process
• Lake Michigan Monitoring
studied added to the LaMP 2000
uncertainty, and
Assessment report released
online.
Lttftaaour
Status
• Beach monitoring program
Progress will be made in prioritizing
decisions
• Mixed in 2000
(BEACH) created by U.S.
indicators far the lake and monitoring
• Mixed/Improving by
EPA
them.
2010
• EEC statement and
The coordinated monitoring plan for
• Good by 2020
monitoring conference
the lake will be finalized.
UCDclta Institute/Lake
LMMB Study findings will be
Michigan Foium Air
documented and model runs will be
Deposition Workshop
completed.
¦ Great Lakes Wetlands
Consortium consolidates
wetland information
• EPA/ORD wetlands
indicators
* LaMP pollutant list review
« Beach Conference, web site,
and manager's group
-------
12
Fishing from the Shore of Lake Michigan
Photograph courtesy of USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service*
2.0 Lake Michigan
Subgoals 2002
The following section describes the status of the
11 Lake Michigan LaMP subgoals. The targets for
each subgoal are depicted graphically, followed by
a short description of the status of the subgoal and
the challenges facing the LaMP process to improve
the status of the subgoal. Key activities or updates
relevant to the subgoal that have occurred over the
past 2 years are then described, followed by a brief
description of key next steps to achieve the subgoal
targets. Details appear in each subgoal section.
Subgoal 1
Can we all eat any fish?
Status
About 40 species of fish currently inhabit Lake
Michigan, most of which are native to the lake. Over
43 percent of all Great Lakes fishing is done in Lake
Michigan, and both commercial fishing and sport
fishing are significant contributors to the overall
economies of the states in the basin. Commercial
fish production (both nontribal and tribal) reaches
over 14.6 million pounds of fish annually.
While fishing is an important Lake Michigan
resource, the need exists for all four Lake Michigan
states to maintain advisories to warn the public about
otential health effects resulting from consuming
certain species of fish in the lake. As a result,
achievement of the goal in Lake Michigan is mixed.
Challenges
(1) To determine the source of toxic atmospheric
deposition to Lake Michigan.
(2) Secure resources to clean up contaminated
sediment sites.
(3) To make fish consumption advisory data
widely accessible and user-friendly.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
13
CortH
B a. iLru and Fsmgi
250*
Fish Consumption Advisories
Fish accumulate contaminants and
become a further source of
contamination for larger predator
fish. Fish consumption has been
shown to be a major pathway of
human exposure to persistent toxic
substances such as PCBs and mercury
because the contaminants biomagnify
as they move up the food web (Figure
1). The state fish consumption
advisories are necessary to protect
people from potential adverse health
effects associated with contaminants
found in fish. Fish consumption
advisories may also include
information to educate the public
on how to minimize exposure to
certain contaminants through proper
preparation and cooking of fish.
PCBs are the primary contaminant
causing the consumption advisories
for fish in Lake Michigan. Mercury
is also a cause of Lake Michigan
fish advisories, and all four Lake
Michigan states have issued warnings
about the consumption of mercury-
contaminated fish from inland lakes
as well. Dieldrin was previously a pollutant
contributing to fish consumption advisories, but the
Lake Michigan states no longer identify dieldrin as
a concern (Figure 2). States frequently use fish
consumption advisories as indicators of whether
their waters are meeting designated uses, triggering
the need for investigation and setting a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) for contaminants.
TMDLs for PCB and mercury are therefore required
for Lake Michigan. The fish consumption advisories
are updated annually and can be found at the
following web sites;
• Illinois: www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/fishadv/
fi shadvi sory02 .htm
• Indiana: www.in.gov/isdh/programs/
environmental/fa_l inks .htm
• Michigan: www.michigan.gov/mdch/
1,1607,7-132-2944_5327-13110--.00.html
Dead aamuJk ami •,
I Jiko* kwJ iwtfi meEftlf and many $yrrtft(£c cfHNm*C*fc *** .Vvcriftwl hy it*m* mu) &>oac£uaHit*t<*.
with ceneenHrettori# rftKNng totte icvc*s * a t crxmgfi. Tho trail>ch-i $ mftQfWfiod 4M e^ch or
IfKxl m*it fli tnrqM fefpftfiifcim ft«*l rtiArty :tni*ll flrWJl Nt tTftTwr* _ Hn'iiuU^ilN'^iAn rJ PCH* In I nkn Oftf^rK'r
Sower Joh«W9» -II 1999 (wprifrtMl p#rrrU«J«w)
• Wisconsin: www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/
fish/advisories
Mercury Advisories
Mercury is emerging as a growing concern in fish
in Lake Michigan, inland lakes in the basin, and in
the ocean. To address this concern, the states and
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have
issued advisories governing the consumption of fish.
States recommend that if a woman is pregnant or
could become pregnant, if a woman is nursing or
in child-bearing years, consumption of freshwater
sportfish caught by family and friends should be
limited to one meal per week. For adults, one meal
is 6 ounces of cooked fish or 8 ounces of uncooked
fish; for a young child, one meal is 2 ounces of
cooked fish or 3 ounces of uncooked fish.
The FDA has issued advice concerning mercury in
commercial fish in stores and restaurants, which
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
14
Chlordane
-BFF-
DiGldrin
Dioxina
PCBs
Mercury
Chlordane
Mercury
PCBs
DDT
Dioxins
Chlordane
DDT/BBC
Dieldfin
Mercury
PCBs
Ghlordano
DPT/DDE
GteMftn
PCBs
Mercury
•Ten* = nq longer a basts for a Lake Michigan open
water fish consumption advisory in 3001
Text = now 2001 fafl consumpllon advisory for Lake
Michigan open waler
Text = fan ctxisurnpiion advisory for open wBiera
of I afcfl MIeWgan
The foot indicales changed State fish consumption
advisories (FCA) fur the open waters uf Lake Michigan
from 1993 to 2001. The strike out font represents toxic
eheiweats that were the basis for a State FCA in 1993,
but are rto longer the Sasts for a Stale FCA in 2Q01.
Ths Italic font represents train ohsminsls (hat aw the
baste for now State FCA In 1ho open waters rrf Lake
Michigan, compared lo 1993 Tho normal font repmsonls
no charsgo from 15393 to 2001.
Lake Michigan
Watershed
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Data houtcb: Ravmed drafl l.aka MinhigaJi
Lakowido Manogomoot Plan for Toxic PoUuiante
In 1993 and States Fistn Consumption
Advisories 2001.
Map r.re.itfKl by: Martha Aviler,-Oi jmtwo
ORISE Research. US EPA Region 6.03K>M02
Lake Michigan Fish Consumption Advisories
"Z993 to 2001, with deletions in strike out font and
additions in italics font
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
15
Mercury Methylation
The global cycling of mercury and its
transformation to methylmercury is a complex
process. Mercury evaporates from soils and surface
waters to the atmosphere, is redeposited on land
and surface water, and then is absorbed by soil
or sediments. After redeposition on land and
water, mercury is commonly volatilized back to the
atmosphere as a gas or as adherents to particulates.
Once released into the environment, inorganic
mercury can be converted to organic mercury
(methylmercury) which is the primary form that
accumulates in fish and shellfish. Methylmercury
biomagnifies up the food chain as it is passed from a
lower food chain level to a subsequently higher food
chain level through consumption of prey organisms
or predators. Fish at the top of the aquatic food
chain, such as pike and bass in lakes, and shark and
swordfish in oceans, bioaccumulate methylmercury
approximately 1 to 10 million times greater than
dissolved methylmercury concentrations found in
surrounding waters.
includes ocean and coastal fish as well as other
types of commercial fish. FDA advises that
women who are pregnant or could become pregnant,
nursing mothers, and young children not eat shark,
swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish. FDA also
advises that women of childbearing age and pregnant
women may eat an average of 12 ounces of fish with
advisories purchased in stores and restaurants each
week. It is important to control the total level of
methylmercury consumed from all fish; therefore, in
a given week a woman of child bearing age should
not eat more than 12 ounces of cooked fish that have
advisories
Addressing PCB Sources
Since LaMP 2000, data collected from the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Study (discussed below)
and other sources indicate that PCBs entering the
lake from contaminated sediments and air deposition
continue to be the significant contributor resulting
in fish consumption advisories for the lake. As a
result, controlling these PCB sources will be critical
to eliminating fish consumption advisories in the
future and meeting the goal of restoring the fish to
good condition by 2020. Cleanup of contaminated
sites has been undertaken at 5 of the 10 Lake
Michigan Areas of Concern.
Two of the sites most highly contaminated with
PCBs in the sediments are found in the Fox River in
Wisconsin and the Grand Calumet River in Indiana.
Progress has been made in planning for cleanup
of these sites, also classified as Areas of Concern
(AOC), over the past 2 years.
In 2001, plans were announced for the Fox River/
Green Bay AOC. The proposed $310 million plan
calls for the removal of about 7.25 million cubic
yards of contaminated sediment containing more
than 64,200 pounds of PCBs from the lower Fox
River. The plan divides the river into four sections,
three of which would be dredged to remove the
contamination. The fourth area, between Appleton
and Little Rapids, would not be dredged. Instead,
the PCB levels would be monitored in that part of
the river. The plan also calls for removing the water
and stabilizing the dredged sediment from the river,
and disposing of it off site at licensed solid-waste
disposal facilities, including a possible new disposal
facility in the Fox River Valley.
With 24 paper and pulp mills on 39 miles of
the Fox River, it is the largest concentration of
mills in the world. The Fox River Intergovernmental
Partners (partners) signed a proposed agreement with
Appleton Papers, Inc. (API) and NCR Corporation
(NCR) to provide funding for interim cleanup and
natural resource restoration projects on the Fox
River and Green Bay while comprehensive cleanup
and restoration plans are being developed as part
of a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
Using Fish Advisories
Methylmercury is found primarily in the fish muscle
(fillets) bound to proteins. Skinning and trimming
the fish does not significantly reduce the mercury
concentration in the fillet, nor is it removed by
cooking processes. Because moisture is lost during
cooking, the concentration of mercury after cooking
is actually higher than it is in the fresh uncooked
fish. In contrast, PCBs adhere to fat, so the removal
of skin and fat, as well as broiling the meat, removes
up to 90 percent of the contamination.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
16
and natural resources damage assessment (NRDA).
Appleton Papers, Inc. reached an agreement with
environmental officials in June 2001 to begin paying
for its portion of the cleanup. Negotiations with the
other six mills are continuing.
Under the agreement, API and NCR will make:
(1) Payments totaling up to $40 million over the
next 4 years, based on estimates provided by
the partners, to fund cleanup and restoration
projects as they are identified.
(2) Four payments of $375,000 over the next 4
years, for a total of $1.5 million, to go to DOI
to help pay back expenses it has incurred in
putting together the NRDA.
The long-awaited Grand Calumet sediment cleanup
will begin in 2002. U.S. Steel has agreed to put
the cleanup on the fast track, with construction
beginning in January 2002 on a corrective action
management unit (CAMU) to contain the dredgings
on company property north of the river between
Bridge Street and the former American Juice factory.
Removal of PCB-contaminated sediment will start
in October 2002 along the eastern 11 miles below
the lagoons in Marquette Park at the 16-mile long
river's headwaters. Another 575,000 tons of less
hazardous waste from the next 31 miles to the Gaiy
Sanitary District will also be piped to the site from
two hydraulic dredges that will run 24 hours a day
to vacuum the river bottom. PCB dredging is
scheduled to be completed in May 2003, 3 months
ahead of the compliance date in the federal court
decree, dictating the cleanup.
To save money starting and stopping the dredges,
they will ran 24 hours a day, allowing the completion
of the 5-mile Gary stretch by July 2003. Water
and air quality will be monitored before, during, and
after the cleanup, and efforts will be make to keep
noise away from homes along the south side of the
river.
To make up for 14 acres of wetlands that will
be disturbed by dredging, 32 acres of undeveloped
dunes and swales on U.S. Steel's land will be
restored and donated to the National Lakeshore in
5 years.
Updates on these and other Areas of Concern are
included in Appendix C.
Dioxins Sources - Burn Barrels
Dioxins has also been identified as a fish
tissue contaminant resulting in fish consumption
advisories. Dioxins is created as a by-product of
the manufacture, molding, or burning of organic
chemicals and plastics that contain chlorine. Many
large combustion sources are now controlled to
prevent dioxins formation. One of the major
sources of dioxins found in Lake Michigan is the
Photo courtesy of U.S. EPA*
Tribes Address Burn Barrels
The Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake
Reservation) in Crandon, Wisconsin has made
progress in raising awareness about illegal dumping
and open burning. Lhe tribe revised their old solid
waste ordinance and researched the tribal court
authority to hear and rule on violations of the
revised ordinance. The Tribal Council then banned
the use of burn barrels on the reservation. The
burn barrel ban, increased enforcement against
illegal dumping, and strong youth and community
education have improved proper solid waste
disposal and recycling for the tribe. Within the past
2 years, the annual tonnage of solid waste generated
on the reservation has averaged about the same,
but the annual tonnage of recyclables diverted has
nearly tripled.
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians also adopted a ban on
burning any trash/garbage on all tribal lands.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
17
backyard burning of trash in "bum barrels." The
"Burning Household Waste" brochure developed by
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) lists pollutants emitted from bum barrels,
some of the health consequences, and national
household bum barrel emissions. It is available at
the MDEQ Environmental Assistance Center, from
district staff, or at www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd/publish/
95sblist.html
Lake Michigan TMDL Strategy
EPA is also moving forward with a TMDL strategy
to address sources of PCB and mercury load to the
lake that result in fish consumption advisories. The
overall goals for fishable, swimmable, and drinkable
water are present in both the federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) and GLWQA, with each taking a different
approach.
Under the Clean Water Act, the states and tribes use
the regulatory process to designate water body uses
and to set the standards necessary to support those
uses. Any request for a permit to discharge into
a water body is judged based on the designated
use of the receiving water body and state water
quality standards. Within the Great Lakes basin,
state water quality standards have been upgraded
to meet the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
objectives, which call for the standards to (1) be
no less restrictive than the pollutant limits that
protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife;
(2) encompass antidegradation policies; and (3)
incorporate implementation procedures.
The LaMP process, which implements the GLWQA
at the lake level, addresses the goals by bringing
together both the public and private sectors to
implement voluntary pollution reduction programs
TABLE 1
TMDL/LaMP COMPARISON
TMDL
LaMP
Scope
Water body quality
Ecosystems
Goals
State designated uses and standards
Adopted goals, beneficial uses
Problem
Identification
Problem identification and documented
source assessment
Problem identification and
documented source assessment
Targets
Numerical targets for loadings
Endpoint target reductions and
ecosystem objectives
Research and
Development
Link targets/sources = load and waste load
allocations
Link target/sources = projects
Tools/Impacts
Monitoring plan for stream reach
Ecosystem monitoring plan
Point Source
Permit limits (per effluent guidelines)
Indicators, compliance assistance
projects
Non-point
Sources
Voluntary, best management practices,
pollution prevention, education
Voluntary, best management
practices, pollution prevention,
education
Follow-up Plan
Permit/stream specific regulated entity
Sector specific, both public and
private projects
Process
CWA, defined in regulation, technical
calculation reviewed by EPA
CWA and GLWQA partnership
approach to manage pollutants
Tribes
Must have treatment as a State- adopted
water quality standards
LaMP committee membership
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
18
and strategies in order to reduce pollutant loading to
the lakes.
Water bodies are monitored, and when a water body
is determined to not be meeting quality standards—
even after application of permit-required wastewater
treatment technology—regulations require the state
to list the water as impaired (Section 303(d) list),
collect additional data, and calculate a TMDL.
The Great Lakes and many inland water bodies
appear on the Section 303(d) lists of most Region
5 states as impaired by mercury and PCBs based
on fish consumption advisories. Given the size and
complexity of the Great Lakes and the experience
in developing a mass balance model for Lake
Michigan, it will take many years and be resource-
intensive for the states to collect the necessary
data and develop TMDLs for all of their impaired
waters. After the TMDLs are developed, their
implementation for the Great Lakes will take much
longer and will require additional resources.
LaMP 2000 contained a draft strategic planning
document that outlined a number of issues to be
addressed in developing a final TMDL framework
for the lakes by 2004. Workshops held in 2001
for regulators and stakeholders highlighted their
common desire to more efficiently address impaired
waters. The TMDL strategy development process
will continue through 2004 and will include
ongoing stakeholder consultation. While the LaMP
and TMDL processes are seeking to achieve
improvements in the lake, the processes are designed
to achieve different end points. The similarities
and differences between the two processes are
summarized in Table 1.
The National Wildlife Federation proposed an
alternative mercury control program in lieu of a
mercury TMDL and Region 5 responded by working
with its states to develop a mercury phase-out
proposal. Implicit in the alternative approach is
a monitoring and reporting schedule that measures
progress or alerts the public to lack of progress.
Next Steps
• By 2003, hold a mercury phaseout TMDL
stakeholder meeting
• By 2004, a TMDL Strategy will be developed for
Lake Michigan.
• By 2006, the Binational Toxics Strategy goals
of 90 percent reduction of high-level PCBs,
75 percent reduction of total dioxins and furan
releases, and 50 percent reduction of mercury
use and release will be reached.
• By 2007, concentrations of PCBs in lake trout
and walleye will be reduced by 25 percent.
These results are based on early Lake Michigan
Mass Balance model runs.
Sunset at Indiana Dunes
Photo courtesy of the National Park Service Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore*
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
19
/
\
Mercury Phase-Out Proposal: Working Draft
The states and EPA have developed a working draft Mercury Phase-Out Proposal that may be accepted in lieu
of a TMDL. This working draft is still in discussion. A final proposal will be presented to stakeholders for
comments in Spring 2003. EPA has issued guidance indicating that waters may be removed from a Section
303(d) list on the basis that "other pollution controls" are in place that will attain water quality standards
within a reasonable time. Existing regulations and guidance will allow implementation of an alternative to a
TMDL provided that the alternative will result in the water body attaining water quality standards within a
reasonable time.
In brief, the basic concept of the phase-out proposal is to allow the Region 5 states to forgo developing TMDLs
for mercury-impaired waters, including those waters with only fish consumption advisories for mercury, if they
commit to perform the following actions:
• Expedite air and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting for mercury sources
incorporating the most stringent standards (for example, Maximum Achievable Control Technology [MACT]
standards or Great Lakes Initiative [GLI]). All new and existing NPDES permits will incorporate GLI
standards by 2006.
• Expedite contaminated sediment remediation activities so that all sites are cleaned up by 2025. The states
and Region 5 will work together to finalize a mercury source and sediment strategy by 2004.
• Implement voluntary mercury collection, reduction, and pollution prevention programs on an expedited
schedule. Such programs can include mercury thermometer exchanges, source identification and reduction
programs for publicly owned treatment works (POTW), and negotiation of voluntary elimination of mercury
switches in automobiles. Region 5 expects that to have an approvable reduction program, a state would
need to address in some way the following mercury-containing products: fluorescent lamps, thermostats,
thermometers, dairy manometers, auto switches, switches used in household appliances, and electrical
devices and measurement and control devices used in industry. In terms of source categories, a state
would need to address households and small businesses (for instance, by providing free or low-cost mercury
collection), schools, hospitals, automobile scrapping operations, dental offices, and the construction and
demolition industry. The programs should be based on the objective of virtual elimination of mercury use
and release. Where possible, a state should encourage discontinuation of mercury use and employment
of processes that eliminate mercury releases. Where mercury use and release cannot be avoided, a state
should seek to minimize releases through best management practices, improved waste management, and
pollution controls.
• Develop and implement a monitoring plan to assess progress in reaching program goals. The monitoring
plan should specify which parameters will be monitored and at what frequency. The plan should also
indicate what benchmarks must be achieved to certify that progress is being made toward eliminating
mercury impairments or fish consumption advisories for mercury in Region 5 waters.
EPA would forge individual state agreements through Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to allow states
to conduct the actions described above in lieu of developing mercury TMDLs; each LaMP would incorporate
the actions. The phase-out proposal supports the Great Lakes Strategy, LaMP mercury reduction targets, and
Binational Toxics Strategy mercury goals.
The phase-out proposal will be discussed at upcoming LaMP and Binational Toxics Strategy meetings and at
a special stakeholder meeting.
\
/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
20
Subgoal 2
Can we drink the water?
MIXED _____ MIXED
POOR MIXED
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
2000
GOOD
~
2010
~
2020
~
Status
The drinking water in the Lake Michigan basin is
of good quality, although there have been sporadic
outbreaks of illness related to drinking water. The
waters of Lake Michigan and surrounding areas are
a primary source of drinking water for 10 million
people who live in the basin. Because the average
adult in the United States consumes about 1.6 quarts
of water each day, health effects can be serious if
the drinking water supply has high levels of some
contaminants. This water is obtained from a variety
of suppliers, both public and private.
Challenges
(1) To understand possible vulnerabilities in
water sources and prepare protection plans.
(2) To monitor for possible new contaminants.
(3) Groundwater depletion in the basin increases
the number of requests to tap into the Lake
Michigan source; these requests need to be
tracked.
Drinking Water Contaminants
Various contaminants can adversely impact drinking
water, including microorganisms (for example,
bacteria, viruses, and protozoa such as
Cryptosporidium), chemical contaminants (including
naturally occurring chemicals 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
Certain chemical 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. 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.
Microbial contamination of drinking water can pose
a potential public health risk in terms of acute
outbreaks of disease. The illnesses associated
with contaminated drinking water are mainly of
a gastrointestinal nature, although some pathogens
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
21
are capable of causing severe and life-threatening
illness. In most communities, drinking water is
treated to remove contaminants before it is piped to
consumers, and bacterial contamination of municipal
water supplies has been largely eliminated by adding
chlorine or other disinfectants to drinking water in
order to prevent waterbome disease. As a result,
diseases such as typhoid and cholera have been
virtually eliminated. Although other disinfectant
treatments are available, chlorination still tends to be
the treatment of choice. When used with multiple
barrier systems (that is, coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, and filtration), chlorine is effective
against virtually all infective agents (Health Canada,
1998).
In general, drinking water provided by public
water suppliers is likely to remain of good quality
because of the multiple pollutant harrier approach
being implemented across the basin. Not only
are treatment systems and operating practices
continually improving, 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 assessing and protecting raw sources of
drinking water. Both the source water assessments
that must be completed for all public water supplies
by 2003 (see text box) and
recent data collected from
22 sites around the Great
Lakes are providing more
information about raw water
been observed at the U.S. sites included in the study
for the past ten years.
Overall, violations of chemical and microbial
standards in water provided by public water systems
in the basin are extremely rare. The risk of human
exposure to contaminants is low (SOLEC 2001).
The quality of water delivered, however, can vary
due to the possibility of contaminants entering the
distribution system.
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. EPA 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 EPA Office
of Groundwater and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
web site at www.epa.gov/OGWDW provides
detailed information on the nation's drinking water,
including drinking water and health information,
drinking water standards, and local drinking water
Great Blue Heron
Photo courtesy of Donald Breneman*
supplies. Samples from
the 22 sites were assessed
for microbiological and
chemical contaminants. The
samples revealed that the
health of the Great Lakes
raw drinking water supply,
including Lake Michigan, is
good (SOLEC 2001). All
of the parameters assessed
in the study were found
to be consistently below
drinking water standards.
In particular, no fecal
coliform exceedances have
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
22
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. Our drinking water is safer today than ever
before, but problems can and do occur although they
are relatively rare.
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, starting in 2003, the states will
distribute information on the status of the source
waters used by public water suppliers and the
level of susceptibility of those source waters to
contamination.
Next Steps
• By 2002, EPA will track and report on
raw source water for Green Bay, Milwaukee,
Chicago, and Muskegon.
• By 2003, source water assessments (including
security assessment) will be completed and
reported.
• By 2005, plans will be in place to address
drinking water susceptibility to contamination.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Water on Tap: A Consumer's Guide to the Nation's
Drinking Water. EPA 815-K-97-002
Health Canada. 1998. Summary: State of Knowledge Report on
Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes
Basin. Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Ottawa, Canada
Source Water Assessments for Public Water Systems Drawing Water from Lake Michigan
Under the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), states and tribes are required to develop
comprehensive Source Water Assessment Programs (SWAP) that will
1. identify the areas that supply public tap water,
2. inventory contaminants and assess water system susceptibility to contamination, and
3. inform the public of the result.
Funds to implement the assessments are available through the SDWA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Most states are currently conducting the assessments, and the results will be reported to the public in 2003.
Because of the unique nature of water intakes in the Great Lakes, a special approach has been developed by the
Great Lakes states to determine the source water assessment areas for Great Lakes water suppliers. A "critical
assessment zone" sensitivity factors is determined by multiplying the distance of a water intake from the shore
(L) by the water depth (D) in feet:
S=L x D
Generally, S values less than 25,000 represent highly sensitive intakes, while S values greater than 125,000
indicate lower sensitivities. The shallower, nearshore intakes are more sensitive to shoreline influences than the
deep, offshore intakes. This information is used by the states to determine the size of assessment areas, help
prioritize assessment activities, and assist with susceptibility determinations.
Information on source water assessment approaches and assessment results will be available from each of the
Lake Michigan states by 2003.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
Subgoal 3
Can we swim in the water?
MIXED MIXED
DETERIORATING ' E IMPROVING
GOOD
2000
2010
2020
~
Status
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 fully
support swimming and secondary contact recreation.
However, some areas do experience beach closures
because of contamination. As a result, the current
status of the goal is mixed.
Challenges
(1) Maintain and not overtax the wastewater
control infrastructure.
(2) Address nonpoint sources of pathogen load
to beaches and water bodies.
(3) Build a real-time beach monitoring and
reporting system.
Beach Closures
Beach closures resulting from high pathogen loads
have a negative effect on the lake's significant tourist
industry. Wet weather that causes overflows from
aging wastewater collection systems or treatment
plants, runoff from cities and farms, improperly
sited or maintained septic systems, and natural
sources release pathogens into tributaries and the
lake. When pathogen levels exceed standards, beach
managers post "No Swimming" notices in order to
protect human health.
Because the Lake Michigan states currently use
different standards and measurement methods to
determine the need for beach closings, there are
limitations on the ability to compare frequencies of
exceedances of microbiological standards in order
to evaluate trends in recreational water quality.
Despite these limitations, the frequency of beach
postings has traditionally been used as an indicator
of recreational water quality. Microbial standard
exceedances may be a better measure of the actual
health risk associated with recreational water quality.
By April 2004, all Great Lakes states will adopt
bacteria criteria at least as protective as EPA's
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -
1986. EPA's annual voluntary beach survey program
provides an indication of the status of beach health.
In 2000, Lake Michigan had 206 beach closings. Of
the 211 beaches on the lake, 137 were monitored for
pathogens. See Figure 3 for a summary of beach
closure locations in 2000.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
24
Federal Beach Bill
In October 2000, the U.S. Congress passed federal
legislation amending the Clean Water Act that
is referred to as the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act, or the BEACH
Act, The BEACH Act requires adoption of
consistent bacterial standards nationwide, research
on new pathogens and pathogen indicators, issuance
of new or revised criteria and guidance within
5 years, and development of rapid analytical
techniques for faster notification of the public
regarding elevated bacteria levels. The act also
authorizes EPA to award grants to eligible coastal
and Great Lakes states in order to set up beach
monitoring and public notification programs. In
2001, $2 million was appropriated for coastal
Lake Michigan Beaches Closures/Advisories in 2000
o
. o
• • •
©
%
Number of Closures:
® 0 (136 beaches)
• 1-4 (34 beaches)
o 5-9 (6 beaches)
• > 10 (14 beaches)
Lake Michigan
0
|
1
t
%
9:
O
o
O
I
1CO
V
EO
I
fiO
u
¦S
40
1
50
s
X
0
Closures/Advisories Caus-os as Reported by
Survey:
U-Mk h ptpclne
to*.
J*
iffi.
a*
¦ CSQ
~ Rmoff
s SKO
DSsorm wjitr
~ WAKSte
~ Other «
aunhi>ov*n *
CHiilH-i
* Beach closures data limited; net all recipients responded
to this voluntary survey,
* * Beaches with ono or mono that one cause {175 records}.
The total number of closures is great her (ban (he total number
of beaches with closures (53 beaches).
o®
• O'
Data sources; National Health Protection
Survey of Beaches J
-------
25
states to develop beach monitoring and notification
programs, and an additional $10 million has
been appropriated in 2002 to continue program
development and implementation. Out of the
2002 appropriation, the four Lake Michigan states
received over $ 1 million.
To provide more protection against gastrointestinal
illness, EPA requires that all states adopt E. coli
criteria for use as beach indicators by 2004. The
BEACH Act grants will result in improved beach
monitoring and public notification programs. EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD) will
be conducting epidemiological studies to examine
health risks associated with swimming at several
beaches across the country, including beaches on the
Great Lakes.
Great Lakes Beach Conference and
Follow-up Activities
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. A draft
National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria
for Recreational Waters was produced by EPA, and
the associated public notice appeared in the Federal
Register; the comment period ended in October
2001. The guidance will be used to help local
health departments and beach managers implement
a nationally consistent water quality monitoring
program for beaches. At the conclusion of the
conference, EPA presented a technical workshop on
the BEACH Act that was passed in October 2000.
This workshop provided conference participants
with the opportunity to leam about the purpose of the
BEACH Act and the funding available under the act.
Additional information regarding the BEACH Act is
available at www.epa.gov/OST/beaches.
Several follow-up activities have occurred since the
Great Lakes Beach Conference. An interactive
Listserv and networking opportunities have been
established. In addition, Great Lakes beach
closure maps have been updated by EPA Region
5. Additional educational and outreach materials
have been developed, and a Lake Michigan
volunteer water quality monitoring workshop was
held in March 2002. Additional opportunities for
information sharing and networking will be pursued.
For more information on beach management issues,
see the following web sites:
BeachNet e-mail list -
www.great-lakes.net/lists/beachnet/beachnet.info
Great Lakes Beach Conference 2001 complete
conference proceedings -
www.glc. org/monitoring/beaches/GLBCZ
Additional beach information or applying for beach
grant funds -
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches
Great Lakes Information Network's new human
health web site -
www.great-lakes.net/humanhealth/
Next Steps
• By 2004, states will adopt criteria, standards, and
monitoring programs for beach bacteria.
• By 2005, achieve a 30 percent reduction from the
1992 per capita loadings from combined sewer
overflows (CSO), POTWs, and industry.
• By 2005, 95 percent of high-priority beach
waters (as defined by the state) will be monitored
and a public advisory system will be in place.
• By 2007, 90 percent of monitored high-priority
beach waters (as defined by the state) will meet
federal and state bacteria standards for more than
95 percent of the average swimming season.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
26
(w3
Subgoal 4
Are all habitats healthy, naturally diverse, and sufficient to
sustain viable biological communities?
MIXED MIXED
DETERIORATING ~ * IMPROVING
GOOD
2000
2010
2020
Status
The Lake Michigan ecosystem continues to
experience profound changes because of
development, impacts of nuisance species, and
pollutant loading. Overall, the status of Lake
Michigan habitats, including open water, wetlands
(coastal and inland), coastal shore, tributaries,
lakeplains, and inland terrestrial systems, is mixed
to deteriorating. Many species habitats rank as
globally rare or imperiled based on their restricted
distribution, the level of threat, their ecological
fragility, and widespread damage or because they
are part of the single largest source of fresh
surface water in the world. This section assesses
the status of each of the general habitat types
in the Lake Michigan ecosystem and highlights
significant events since the issuance of LaMP 2000.
This assessment includes an overview of continuing
trends in habitat loss and decreased biodiversity as
well as the impacts of aquatic nuisance species.
Challenge
(1) To identify and enhance, restore, or protect
critical ecosystem features and habitat
through purchase or voluntary protection.
(2) To make habitat information readily available.
Open Lake System
The open lake waters of Lake Michigan consist
of both inshore and offshore waters, including all
waters from the offshore edge of coastal wetlands
lakeward. Significant changes in the lake ecosystem
S
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians Lake Trout project
The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Natural Resources Department is researching the
influence of egg and fry predators on the lack
of successful lake trout reproduction in the Great
Lakes. Predation, particularly by exotic species,
may exceed the potential of spawning reefs to
successfully incubate eggs and produce measurable
recruitment. During the study, the Little Traverse
Bay Bands have collaborated with the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, and the
University of Vermont. Egg, fry, and predator
abundance was measured at spawning reefs using
egg seeding, fry traps, and alewife exclosures.
Initial findings have documented lake trout egg
deposition and survival to yolk-sac fry for the first
time at specific sites in northeastern Lake Michigan.
Additional field and laboratory experiments will be
conducted to assess the current effect of predation
on recruitment.
\
\
y
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
27
/ s
Rise and Fall of the Lake Trout
Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) is a North
American salmonid that thrives in cold, fresh
water. Following the retreat of the last glacier, the
lake trout colonized Lake Michigan, and over the
subsequent 10,000 years or so, it became the top
predator in a complex ecosystem that co-evolved
with the other fish species. Over that period of time
different strains of lake trout evolved. Some strains
thrived in the deepest waters of the lake feeding on
the abundant chubs and deepwater ciscoes, while
other strains thrived in shallower areas.
Starting in the mid-1800s, the human population
of the region began to increase, and cities
started growing around the lake. With abundant
resources and convenient access to waterways, Lake
Michigan quickly became a major industrial hub of
the United States. Commercial fishing for lake trout
also became an industry, and by the beginning of
the 20th century, the lake trout population was in
decline. The decline continued until the mid-1950s,
when predation by sea lamprey, overfishing, and the
effects of industrial pollution led to the destruction
of lake trout fisheries and the disappearance forever
of many of the strains of lake trout that had evolved
in the lake.
Currently, federal, state and tribal management
agencies around the lake are attempting to
re-establish naturally reproducing populations of
lake trout by planting yearlings and eggs in
historical spawning areas. Assessments indicate that
self-sustaining populations of lake trout have yet to
be established. Research into the reasons for this
failure are ongoing, but may include:
• Loss of suitable spawning habitat
• Environmental contaminants
• Predation on larval lake trout by alewife
• Thiamine deficiency from a diet of alewife
• Loss of genetically distinct strains
LA
Photograph courtesy of the Canadian Department
of Fisheries and Oceans
\
began in the mid-1800s when large numbers of
people began to settle and develop the region.
Multiple stressors continue to negatively impact the
open lake ecosystem. The status of this ecosystem
is changing and is heavily dependent on human
management through predator fish stocking and
control of exotic species such as the sea lamprey and
zebra mussel.
Fish communities represent the highest trophic levels
within the Lake Michigan aquatic ecosystem. They
are also the most visible indicators of ecosystem
health and to most people, they represent one of the
most important resources of the lake. Originally,
Coregonids (including lake whitefish, lake herring,
chubs, and ciscoes) dominated the fish communities,
successfully inhabiting the many niches within the
lake. Following the introduction of the sea lamprey
in the 1950s, the population of top predator fish
(such as lake trout and burbot) were decimated, and
exotic species such as the alewife and rainbow smelt
flourished. The alteration of fish communities has
been the most obvious impairment to the aquatic
ecosystem of Lake Michigan.
The plankton communities (microscopic plant and
animals) of Lake Michigan are the foundation of the
food web and therefore are one of the most critical
components of the lake's ecosystem. Changes to
these communities may be occurring as a result of
the presence of contaminants and nutrients in the
water and sediment as well as exotic species such as
the spiny water flea (Bythotrephes cederstroemi) and
the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).
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 increase in
loading phosphorus in the lake has resulted in
important man-induced change to phytoplankton
communities, especially in nearshore areas. In
addition, studies indicate that increased salinity and
other environmental changes in Lake Michigan are
enabling nonindigenous animals and algae to adapt
more readily to the Great Lakes environment.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
28
Bringing Back the Lake Sturgeon
Photograph courtesy of the Canadian Department
of Fisheries and Oceans
Once abundant in the shallows of the Great Lakes,
the Lake Sturgeon was overfished to the point of
elimination in the Great Lakes. Total catch of
lake sturgeon peaked in the mid 1880s at 4,901
metric tons (8.6 million pounds). However, by 1900
commercial catches began to decline quickly as the
population of sturgeon plummeted. Between 1900
and the 1970s, sturgeon populations continued to
decline. In addition to over-harvesting, habitat loss is
a major factor contributing to the sturgeon's decline.
In the Great Lakes, the damming of tributary waters
has prevented access to historical spawning grounds and other spawning areas have been destroyed by siltation
resulting from deforestation, poor agricultural practices and dredging. Pollution from nutrients and contaminants
in the water has hindered reproductive success and the sturgeon's late maturity and infrequent spawning has
also contributed to its decline.
Lake sturgeon populations that remain in the Great Lakes today represent only a fraction of their former number.
The lake sturgeon is listed as a threatened species in 19 of the 20 states it inhabits and is recognized by the
American Fisheries Society as threatened throughout North America. Lake sturgeon are now protected in most
waters of the Great Lakes with closed seasons, size limits, harvest quotas and gear restrictions.
Throughout the Great Lakes, over 40 partnerships have been formed between federal and state agencies, tribal
governments, Canadian agencies, academic institutions, commercial fishers, sport anglers, private organizations
and individuals in order to conserve, protect and enhance lake sturgeon populations. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service offices throughout the Great Lakes are working together with other partners to better understand the lake
sturgeon's unique life history and meet rehabilitation challenges.
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 Bythotrephes, an exotic species.
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 fiy) 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.
Coastal and Inland Wetland Systems
The coastal wetland system supports the greatest
biological diversity and productivity in the Lake
Michigan basin. Coastal wetlands are classified as
open shoreline; unrestricted bays; shallow, sloping
beach; restricted riverine; lake-connected inland; and
protected or barrier beach. These wetlands are
important because they collect nutrients and organic
materials that are washed off the land into
tributaries. These wetlands support both the aquatic
food web and habitats for birds (resident and
migratory), mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish,
and invertebrates, all of which depend on coastal
wetlands for at least one life stage. Both lake
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
29
Status of Perch
A large decline in the number of yellow perch
surviving their first year of life (young-of-the-year
or YOY) has caused a reduction in the number of
perch in Lake Michigan with serious effects on the
sport fishing industry. The number of YOY perch
captured lakewide has dropped dramatically since
1988. In addition, the number of yellow perch
larvae captured at one site in Illinois has severely
declined since 1994. Data from one site, however,
cannot be used to decide what has happened
lakewide. Therefore, WDNR along with other
agencies and scientists has used a variety of
assessments to analyze the status of the current
yellow perch population. These assessments have
focused on (1) egg deposition, (2) spawning,
(3) post-larval perch, (4) YOY perch, and (5)
winter-graded mesh gill net assessment Although
more information is needed, these studies may
indicate some recent recovery in the yellow perch
population:
• The number of yellow perch egg masses found
in spawning areas in the lake increased from 0.5
per 1,000 square meters (m2) searched in 1997
to 7.29 per 1,000 m2 searched in 2001.
• In 1998, a total of 4,512 yellow perch were
captured during a spawning assessment, of
which only 221 or 4.9 percent were females.
In 2001, a total of 1,431 yellow perch were
captured; 993 were males, and 438 (31 percent)
were females.
For more information, see
www.dnrstate.wi.us/org/water/
fhp/fish/lakemich/YELLOWPERCH.htm
Photograph courtesy of the Canadian Department
of Fisheries and Oceans
level fluctuations and longshore sediment transport
are important in maintaining this highly productive
system.
Coastal wetlands differ from inland wetlands in
that they are shaped by lake processes such as
waves, wind tides, and water level fluctuations.
These processes result in constant shifting of the
wetland communities, permitting hardy species able
to accommodate such conditions to thrive while
eliminating other species that would thrive under
stable conditions. Multiple stressors continue to
degrade the Lake Michigan coastal wetland system.
Nonindigenous species, such as purple loosestrife,
are still largely uncontrolled despite attempts to
eradicate them. Changes in sediment composition
and deposition have affected the habitat types,
productivity, and diversity of these wetlands. The
pace of shoreline modification is increasing, and
there are no coordinated stewardship activities to
protect or restore the remaining fragments.
The inland wetland system—wetlands away from the
Lake Michigan shoreline—is a reservoir for water
in the Lake Michigan drainage basin. There are
many types of inland wetlands, including fens, bogs,
wet meadows, and wet forests. The health of
inland wetlands depends on the quantity and quality
of groundwater and surface water present. Inland
wetlands help to regulate the basin's volume of water
as well as sediment and certain pollutant loads.
They also store nutrients and serve as the nutrient
exchange vehicle for the diverse species that use
inland wetlands as habitat and feeding areas. Both
wetland and upland species breed and feed in the
Lake Michigan basin's inland wetlands.
Changes in Wetland Regulation: Impact
of the Supreme Court Ruling
In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed
federal authority to protect certain types of wetlands.
The court's five-to-four decision narrowed the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulating
authority for wetlands not associated with waters of
the United States such as a lake, stream, or river.
The court's decision came in response to a landfill
battle in northern Illinois. The regional solid
waste disposal authority sought to fill a wetland
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
30
Northwest Indiana Advance Identification of Wetlands Study
The Northwest Indiana Advance Identification of Wetlands study (AD ID) produced maps and assessments of
wetlands within the Lake Michigan Basin of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties. The maps, which have
a variety of corresponding biological, hydrologic, and management analysis, are available on the Indiana
Geological Survey web site at http://adamite.igs.indiana.edu/arcims/lrim/start.html. This GIS site covering Lake,
Porter and LaPorte Counties has interactive mapping capacity where users create customized maps. Besides
wetlands, other natural features such as geology, soils, and hydrologic boundaries can be mapped with a variety
of man-made features such as city boundaries, slag fill, and Superfund sites. Besides the ADID maps, the site
includes the National Wetlands Inventory (US Fish and Wildlife Service) which is more comprehensive than the
ADID but is outdated and provides less information.
The ADID study, completed in. 2000, used rapid-assessment methodologies in the field combined with aerial
photo, and topographic map, and file data analysis. Hard copy maps are available at these places: Lake County
and Porter County Surveyor's Offices, Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, LaPorte County
Planner's Office, and the South Bend Field Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The wetland maps were produced under a partnership of local business, government, and environmental groups,
lead by USEPA and the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission. The purpose of the project was to
identify and further the protection of wetlands having high quality plant and animal habitat, and wetlands that are
critical to storm water storage and pollutant removal, in advance of development threats.
Wetland Loss in the Lake Michigan Basin
Wetland within Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Photograph by David Riecks, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant*
for its new landfill. The wetland in question
was actually created when an abandoned quarry
filled with water and over time, the new wetland
became a nesting spot for migratory waterfowl. The
landfill proponents were able to successfully argue
that US ACE lacked regulatory authority to prohibit
creation of the new landfill because the wetland was
not linked to waters of the United States. The court
ruled that the US ACE must provide a nexus other
than solely migratory bird stopovers.
The ruling now places the responsibility for
protecting certain isolated wetlands in the hands
of state and local authorities. Two examples of
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
Millions of acres of inland wetlands have been
lost in the Lake Michigan basin to agriculture,
industry, and urban development. Over the last
two centuries, wetland losses in the four states
at least partially within the Lake Michigan
basin have been disproportionately greater than
in many other U.S. regions. Since the 1780s,
Lake Michigan basin states have lost an
estimated 21.9 million acres (62.9 percent) of
their wetlands out of the original 34.8 million
wetland acres. This compares with an average
loss of 52.8 percent nationwide. An estimated
12.9 million acres of wetlands remains in the
four states, representing more than 12.3 percent
of the wetlands within the lower 48 states.
I ^
this change in state and local roles are found in
Wisconsin and in Antrim County, Michigan (see box
below).
Coastal Shore System
The Lake Michigan coastal shore system includes
sand dunes, sand beaches, sand spits, bluffs,
-------
bedrock and cobble beaches, alvars,
and islands. These features buffer
coastal wetlands and inland ecosystems
from Lake Michigan waves, wind,
and ice. These habitats are rich in
species diversity but are greatly affected
by natural processes such as weather,
erosion, and lake level fluctuations.
Sand Dunes with Vegetation
Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore*
Sand Dunes
Massive coastal sand dunes flank the
Lake Michigan shoreline from northern
Indiana continuing northeasterly through
Michigan. Ancient high lake levels
formed the beach ridges, and as the lake
receded, the prevailing onshore winds
continued to blow beach sand up the
slopes. Lake Michigan is now home to
the largest collection of freshwater sand
dunes in the world. They run along the
entire shore to heights of 300 feet and
widths of more than 1 mile; they are
interrupted only by river valleys, cities,
and roads. The Lake Michigan dunes are
numerous, diverse, and irreplaceable.
The dune system is composed of
successive ridges of dunes: foredunes,
interdunal areas, and backdunes (usually
several). Dune and swale or ridge
and swale community complexes are
found at several locations throughout the
Lake Michigan basin. In the south,
the dunes or ridges run parallel to the
Lake Michigan shore and are rich in
oak savanna species. The wet swales
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
Keystone Species in Lake Michigan Food Web
Vanishing
One of the foundations
of the Lake Michigan
food web is
disappearing. Diporeia
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.
Hinnrpia We Diporeia spp.
fuVT , ! NO A A, GLERL)
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.
Diporeia are eaten by a variety of Great Lakes fish and
provide an important energy source because they contain
high amounts of fat.
Populations of Diporeia in the Great Lakes are important
indicators of environmental and ecological health, and
this is why it is particularly alarming to find that they
have disappeared from vast areas of the bottom of Lake
Michigan. 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 in
Lake Michigan in 1989, severely limiting the food available
to Diporeia.
-------
32
Lake Michigan Federation Biodiversity Recovery Report
The Lake Michigan Federation released a publication in 2001 entitled, The Lake Michigan Biodiversity
Recovery Support Document compiled from research, presentations, and discussions surrounding the Urban
Aquatic Habitat Summit held in November 2000. The purpose of this report was to gather relevant information
for a biodiversity blueprint for Lake Michigan's shoreline and tributaries.
The nearshore Lake Michigan zone is among the most biologically productive in the region. Nearly 30 percent of
the globally significant species and communities within the Great Lakes basin are associated with coastal shore
systems. At the same time, the lakefront of the area studied (from the Indiana Dunes to the Illinois State Park) is
under enormous pressure to produce a strong quality of life for the region.
The report's finding included:
(1)
(2)
The Illinois - Indiana Lake Michigan shoreline is vastly different from its presettlement state. Most
coastal wetlands and nearshore aquatic habitats have been eliminated or degraded. The effect of natural
forces on sand transport and shoreline development has been greatly reduced or eliminated entirely
in some areas.
Fish populations have changed dramatically since settlement. Original keystone predator species have
been replaced with stocked species. Native species are subject to extreme stresses as a result of exotic
species invasions.
(3) Lake Michigan's fisheries represent a strong potential economic, recreational, and environmental benefit
for the Illinois - Indiana area. Significant work is required to develop healthy, sustainable populations
of fish species in degraded habitats, including mitigating human impacts and preventing further exotic
species invasion. Federal policy tools may prove most helpful in achieving these ends.
(4) Former and working industrial sites in the Chicago area are beginning to serve as habitats for viable fish
and bird populations, suggesting that conditions are favorable for urban habitat recovery.
(5) It is essential to preserve rare habitats that cannot feasibly be replaced, such as the dune and swale
systems of northwestern Indiana. Stresses to these habitats should be minimized as much as possible.
(6) The Chicago shoreline serves as habitat for a variety of fish species. As the city redevelops its shoreline
over the next several years, it has a unique opportunity to emphasize aquatic habitat construction as part
of the lakefront park planning process.
(7) Multiple options for continued large- and small-scale habitat restoration and creation exist in the Chicago
area. Primary needs include funding and research from government and academic bodies
For more information, visit www.lakemichigan.org/habitat/bio_recovejy.asp
between these ridges support rich prairies and
sometimes rare coastal plain marsh communities. In
the north, the ridges are typically dominated by red
and white pine and other conifers, and the swales by
white cedar swamps or sedge meadows. Sand dunes
around Lake Michigan are threatened by residential
development, often very close to the shore, and by
mining. On the eastern shore of Lake Michigan,
an invasive, nonindigenous species, Baby's breath, is
threatening dune ecosystems. "Blowouts," which
occur most frequently in the foredune area, are
created when the vegetation is disrupted and the
wind quickly erodes the sand, leaving a saucer-
shaped depression. The most serious blowouts occur
as a result of human activity.
Sand Beaches
Sand beaches are a prominent coastal Lake Michigan
feature. They may be erosional, transitory, or
depositional. Shoals, sandbars, and sand spits
protect lagoons and coastal marshes from wind
and wave action. Artificial shoreline structures
and hardening of the shoreline have interrupted the
longshore sediment transport that naturally erodes
and replenishes sand beaches. In many areas, tons of
sand are brought in each year to artificially replenish
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
33
Lake Michigan Beach, Leland Michigan
Photograph courtesy of Michigan Travel Bureau*
beaches for recreational purposes. Beach closure
problems caused by excessive levels of pathogens
are discussed in Section 4.
Tributary System
Tributary streams and rivers are connected to Lake
Michigan in several ways. Energy and material
are transferred from lake to tributary and tributary
to lake by means of fish movement upstream and
downstream and by waters carrying material and
nutrients downstream. Diverse plant and animal
habitats are found throughout the tributary system,
and many of these habitats accommodate Lake
Michigan fish. The range of tributary habitats
present depends on the size, slope, substrate, and
geology of the drainage basin; basin land use;
groundwater characteristics; the climate; and the
nature of the terrestrial vegetation. The connection
of the streams and rivers to the lake maximizes the
biodiversity and production of fish in the lake.
The quality of many tributary rivers in the Lake
Michigan basin has been significantly impaired by
channelization, dredging, damming, sedimentation,
bankside vegetation loss, eutrophication, increased
spring flooding, and toxic contamination. Large
areas of inland forests and wetlands that once served
to regulate the quantity and quality of water flowing
into tributaries have been lost. As a result, tributaries
cany increased pollutant and sediment loads to the
lakes, and the suitability of those tributaries as
fish spawning habitats has been seriously impaired.
Habitat degradation has been the most severe in
urban areas. Pollution from agriculture, industiy,
and urban development has contaminated rivers and
sediment as well as the fish and wildlife that depend
on those rivers. Many rivers, particularly at the
rivermouths, have been declared AOCs and many of
their beneficial uses have been impaired.
Although the public uses many Lake Michigan basin
rivers and streams, the uses are not necessarily
sustainable at this time. Progress is being made
in improving and protecting tributary rivers and
streams, largely through the efforts of watershed
groups and remedial actions at AOCs. For
information on Lake Michigan tributaries, Surf Your
Watershed at www.epa.gov/siirf
Lake Michigan Dunes May Be Younger
than Previously Thought
Lake Michigan sand dunes were once thought to have been formed over 5,000 years ago and to have remained
relatively static ever since. New research has found that wind, waves, and human activity have reshaped the
dunes since the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age, and the dimes continue to change today. Alan
Arbogast of Michigan State University determined the age of the dunes by dating the layers of decomposed plant
residue within them. His research revealed that dunes appear to grow in spurts over many years. These spurts
are separated by hundreds of years of dormant growth.
Arbogast's work has helped regulators and planners understand that the dunes are active and that shifts in
the sands are not entirely the result of human activities. However, the research also reveals that construction
on or near the dunes may be destabilized as the dune sands continue to move, because the formation process
is ongoing.
Source: Chicago Tribune, November 18, 2001
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
34
/
\
USFWS Great Lakes Coastal Program
USFWS initiated a Coastal Program in the Great Lakes region in Fiscal Year 2000 and has made tremendous strides with
numerous partners on conservation and habitat restoration projects across the basin. Together with its lake partners, USFWS
undertook first-year projects that focused on island habitat restoration, monitoring, invasive species control, erosion prevention
along tributaries, and education. Using a nonregulatory partnership approach in the short time since its inception, the Coastal
Program has played a key role in:
• Funding dozens of projects in its first 2 years that were associated with coastal habitats of Lake Superior, Lake Michigan,
Lake Huron, the Detroit River, and Lake Ontario. These cooperative projects have produced measurable benefits to coastal
ecosystems by conserving fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats in coastal lands and waters.
• Restoring or protecting more than 906 acres of coastal fish and wildlife habitat
• Protecting approximately 3 miles of riparian habitat and restoring 8 miles of riparian habitat
• Removing three fish passage barriers in Great Lakes tributaries, thus reopening 8 miles of stream to allow passage of
anadromous trout and salmon.
Projects in the Lake Michigan basin include the following:
Native Aquatic Species Habitat Restoration, Antrim County, Michigan
Streambank restoration and culvert replacement projects to reduce sediment loading to Antrim Creek were completed with 2 years
of project funding by the Coastal Program under the direction of the Antrim Conservation District. Located in the northern part of
Antrim County, Michigan, Antrim Creek is a tributary of Lake Michigan and is a major spawning ground for numerous species of
native fish. A major fish-restricting culvert prevented 99 percent of fish from reaching the upper 4 miles of prime habitat. Erosion
was also impacting stream quality. Unstable banks resulting from foot traffic and sandy soils delivered harmful sediment loads
yearly. The sediment covered spawning habitat and eliminated invertebrates from parts of the stream. The partners have developed
and are implementing a plan to improve the quality of Antrim Creek. With the Coastal Program's funding, over 3 acres of riparian
land has been improved. First, the fish-restricting culvert on Old Dixie Highway was replaced with an open-bottom culvert.
Secondly, over a dozen erosion sites located throughout the 5-mile span of Antrim Creek were restored. Additionally, project funds
were used to remove tons of sediment covering spawning grounds. Biotechnical erosion control is the focus of the restoration.
Living and nonliving materials are used to help direct the water's force in order to eliminate toe and upper bank erosion. Overall,
stream improvements have increased the fish population and the spawning habitat for a variety of fish species.
Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Habitat Enhancement, Illinois Beach State Park, Illinois
Within this park, the North Dunes Nature Preserve contains 31 state-listed threatened and endangered species and 14 high-quality
natural communities. The preserve is also a target reintroduction site for the federally listed threatened Eastern prairie fringed
orchid. It contains appropriate habitat, but non-native and invasive woody species have encroached on the site, rendering it
unsuitable for orchids. The project will control invasive species and make the site suitable for orchid reintroduction.
Springfield Fen Restoration, LaPorte County, Indiana
This project will complete the restoration of Springfield Fen, a 45-acre nature preserve in Indiana's Lake Michigan watershed.
Invasive species that degrade habitat value will be removed from approximately 4.5 acres of the fen by means of mechanical and
chemical treatment. The effectiveness of the treatments will be monitored, and the area will be used as a demonstration project.
Spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species Between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basin via Interconnecting Waterways
- A Summary of Existing Information
Recent increases in world trade and the transport of goods have led to rapid increases in the intentional and unintentional transfer
of species between continents. When a nonindigenous species enters a new ecosystem, natural enemies and diseases are absent,
the species; population expansion is rapid, and the impacts on the receiving ecosystem are devastating. The interconnecting
waterways between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River basin provide convenient pathways for the exchange of such species.
This project will identify potential invaders, evaluate the threats that they pose to native ecosystems, and identify potential actions
that could help prevent their spread into the Great Lakes.
Watershed Assessment in the Baird Creek Watershed, Wisconsin
Baird Creek is a tributary of the Fox River. USFWS will assess erosion and sediment loadings into Baird Creek through a
nonpoint pollution reduction feasibility study. This project will help the Brown County Land and Water Conservation Department
to develop proper BMPs and will provide the background for future projects that will monitor BMP effectiveness over time.
Characterization of Potential Coaster Brook Trout Populations in Northern Lake Michigan Tributaries, Michigan
USFWS has recently become aware of an unconfirmed population of native coaster brook trout in a Lake Michigan tributary.
USFWS will work with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and local conservation agencies to inventory brook trout
populations in this and other potential coaster streams in northern Michigan.
\
/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
35
/
\
Wisconsin Wetland Law
On May 9, 2001, Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum signed the nation's first state law designed to protect
wetlands from the effects of the Supreme Court ruling that left some categories of wetlands largely unprotected.
The Wisconsin law is expected to become a template for other states' efforts to step up wetland preservation.
The law covers at least 1 million acres of wetlands, among them sedge meadows, shallow marshes, and seasonal
wetlands that are among some of the state's most productive in providing waterfowl and amphibian habitat,
storing flood waters, and helping to protect water quality. The law will not impose any new regulations on
landowners but allows the state to continue following the same process that was used for the past decade to
decide whether a project that potentially affects wetlands can proceed.
Since the January 9, 2001, Supreme Court ruling, USAGE has informed 37 Wisconsin applicants that it has no
jurisdiction over wetlands that the applicants projects affected. A handful of applicants had already filled or
excavated the wetlands by May 1, 2001. Those applicants who had been notified that the USAGE did not have
jurisdiction over their wetlands but who had not yet filled or dredged their wetlands must now await approval
from WDNR and any applicable local government body before beginning any filling or dredging.
Wisconsin's law gives WDNR the authority to protect isolated wetlands in Wisconsin that the USAGE has no
jurisdiction over as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling. No person can fill or dredge such a wetland unless the
state certifies that the project meets Wisconsin's water quality standards for wetlands.
Antrim County, Michigan, Wetland Protection Ordinance
The Antrim County Board of Commissioners adopted an Ordinance for the Protection and Regulation of Wetland
Areas in the county at its regular meeting on December 13, 2001. The passage of the ordinance means that
the county will have local control over the protection of wetlands as a valuable resource. Additionally, the
ordinance will not only provide the authority to regulate the wetlands contiguous to lakes and streams, but it will
also provide the authority to regulate other wetlands that are not connected to a water body. The preamble to
the ordinance includes the following text:
The Board of Commissioners of the County of Antrim finds that wetland areas are indispensable and
fragile natural resources. They also find that wetland areas provide many public benefits, including
maintenance of water quality through nutrient cycling and sediment trapping, and flood and storm water
runoff control through temporary water storage, slow release, and groundwater recharge. In addition,
wetlands provide open space; passive outdoor recreation opportunities; fish and wildlife habitat for many
forms of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl, and rare, threatened or endangered wildlife and plant
species; and pollution treatment by serving as biological and chemical oxidation basins.
Preservation of the remaining County wetlands in a natural condition is necessary to maintain
hvdrological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic natural resource values for existing and future
residents of the County of Antrim. Therefore the County Board of Commissioners declares a policy of
no net loss of wetlands. Furthermore, the County Board of Commissioners declares a long-term goal
of net gain of wetlands to be accomplished through review of degraded or destroyed wetlands within
the County and through cooperative work with landowners, using incentives and voluntary agreements
to restore wetlands.
Recognizing that much must be accomplished before the ordinance can become effective, the Board
of Commissioners tasked the County Planning Commission with implementation of the ordinance. The
implementation steps that must take place include provision of a 90-day public review period for the "Wetland
Inventory Maps," notification of all Antrim County residents that the ordinance has been adopted, adoption of a
fee schedule, and action by the Board of Commissioners to include the inventory maps as part of the ordinance.
A citizens' group petitioned the Board of Commissioners, asking for a referendum. A number of legal issues
concerning this proposal are currently being researched.
\
/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
36
USFWS Designated Critical Habitat for Endangered Great Lakes
Piping Plovers on May 7, 2001
Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat
refers to geographic areas that are essential for the
conservation of a threatened or endangered species and
that may require special management considerations
or protection. A critical habitat designation does not
create a preserve or refuge and only applies to situations
where federal funding or a federal permit is involved.
Designation of critical habitat does not affect private
landowners undertaking a project on private land that
does not involve federal funding or require a federal
permit or authorization.
In the Lake Michigan basin, USFWS's designation
affects mainland and island shoreline in Michigan,
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin as shown on the left.
The inland boundary for critical habitat areas extends
500 meters (1,640 feet) from the normal high water line.
Of the 35 Great Lakes piping plover individual habitat
units, 21 were designated as critical habitat in the Lake
Michigan basin.
There may be a need to temporarily restrict use of
some federally managed beaches during spring and
early summer to allow piping plovers to nest. However,
most beaches within critical habitat do not come under
federal authority and thus are not affected by the
designation.
Although USFWS designated miles of shoreline as
critical habitat, not all areas within the critical habitat
boundaries are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, roads, lawns, paved areas, and
other artificial structures will not be considered critical
habitat for the species even though they may fall within
critical habitat boundaries.
As a listed species under the Endangered Species Act, the piping plover is already protected wherever it occurs,
and federal agencies are required to consult on any action they take that might affect the species. The critical
habitat designation will help the species by ensuring that federal agencies and the public alike are aware of
the plover's habitat needs and that consultation with the USFWS by federal agencies is conducted when
required. Actions that occur within designated critical habitat do not require consultation if they do not affect
critical habitat.
The complete description of the final critical habitat designation for the Great Lakes breeding population of
the piping plover was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2001. These descriptions and additional
information on the piping plover and other endangered species are also available on the Service's website at
http://midwest.fws.gov/endangered/pipingplover
Approximate location of piping plover critical
habitat units in the Lake Michigan basin
(Not for regulatory purposes)
See Federal Register
May 7, 2001; Vol. 66, No. 88, pp. 22938-22969
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
/
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d)
Lists of Impaired Water Bodies in Lake
Michigan States
Under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b),
the states report on the status of their surface and
ground waters. Specifically, the states report on
the number of river miles or lake acres meeting
their designated uses and the sources of water
quality impairment. The State 305(b) reports
are ultimately compiled together to develop
a National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress.
Under CWA Section 303(d), States are to
identify impaired water bodies that either do
not meet or are threatened to not meet water
quality standards. The states are then required
to develop a schedule for completing TMDLs
for the "303(d) list" waters. The 303(d)
list identifies causes of impairment and likely
sources of pollutant load.
For more information on 305(b) reports
www. epa.gov/OW/305b
For more information on state 303(d) lists:
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
Also see Appendix A to this LaMP.
\
y
. t
m
A
L
*> A
Piping Plover
Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Lakeplain System
The lakeplain system occupies the area of the
ancestral lakebed of Lake Michigan that was formed
as the last glaciers receded. This lakeplain system
has served two important ecological functions: it
provided a refuge during severe weather events,
and it was historically important in flood water
retention. The system once harbored a rich diversity
of plants and animals, several of which appear on the
federal endangered species list. Lakeplain prairies
and savannas, two of the most imperiled ecological
communities in North America, are found in the
southern Lake Michigan basin.
The lakeplain system has been largely transformed
since European settlement began. Many of the
original plants and animals survive only in small,
previously protected areas that are no longer
viable or sufficient to sustain these historically
diverse communities. These communities are still
threatened by human development and by invasive
species.
Inland Terrestial System
The inland terrestrial, or upland, system of Lake
Michigan includes numerous types of forests,
barrens, and prairies. These areas are a result of
glaciation and climatic effects. Oak and pine barrens
found in the northern part of the basin are globally
significant and rare ecological communities.
One of the significant inland terrestrial features of
the Lake Michigan basin is the Niagara Cuesta, a
rocky outcrop of dolomite and limestone that arcs
from the Door County peninsula and the Garden
Peninsula to Niagara Falls. Many rare land snails,
some of which were only recently discovered,
inhabit the thin- layered soils and rocks of the
escarpment. Increased tourism in Door County
and on the Garden Peninsula has led to increased
development on the escarpment, threatening these
fragile habitats.
Measuring and Monitoring Lake
Michigan's Ecological Changes
The U.S. EPA Region 5 is undertaking an effort
to identify critical ecosystems and their status that
are most sustainable in the Great Lakes basin. The
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
38
Hearing the cries of wolves under a starry northern
sky is a unique experience that one doesn't soon
forget. Wolves once ranged throughout the Lake
Michigan basin, but by the 1960s there were none
left in Wisconsin and only a few in Michigan's upper
peninsula. For over 100 years, the governments
of Michigan and Wisconsin promoted extermination
of wolves in the region by placing a bounty on
the hides of wolves. Wisconsin repealed its wolf
bounty in 1957, and Michigan eliminated its bounty
in 1960.
The gray wolf was listed as a federal endangered species in 1967 by USFWS and was again listed in 1974 under
the provisions of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Since that time, wolf populations have slowly increased
in the northern Lake Michigan basin, with wolves migrating into Wisconsin and the upper peninsula from
Minnesota and Ontario, Canada.
Today, USFWS estimates that about 250 wolves exist in the upper peninsula and about 250 wolves make
northern Wisconsin their home. According to the National Wildlife Federation, the northern Great Lakes region,
including the Lake Michigan basin, now boasts the highest wolf population in the contiguous United States.
Wolf Populations Recovering in Lake
Michigan Basin
EPA Region 5 Critical Ecosystems Team undertook
a three-year study that has produced a physical
baseline built on 1994 Land Satellite imagery
(Landsat) (see Figure 4). The result is a GIS-based
tool that can characterize landscapes based on
three ecological criteria: (1) ecological diversity,
(2) sustainability, and (3) rarity of species and
landcover. The combination of these criteria identify
high quality ecosystems. The modeling can also
pinpoint ecosystems that are not protected, in public
US EPA Region 5 Critical Ecosystems Team Analysis
Lake Michigan basin
gr»sn ¦ 10% seorcn (of quality
n»<5 KSwM 10% Softrai fat 4ijtt*fUftf£y
Note Analysis «d no" incfctfr HwLM Wcb j.an
wiilws r* Ihf islwils w!rni |fm !.?kn
Analysis Eased
-------
39
Preserving and Enhancing Biodiversity in Southern Lake Michigan
A consortium of organizations, through an initiative called Chicago Wilderness, has produced the "Biodiversity
Recovery Plan" documenting the state of the region's ecosystems and biodiversity and the actions necessary
to restore them. Implementation of the recommendations of the plan has already begun with the Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission's (NIPC) "Protecting Nature in Your Community: A Guidebook for Preserving
and Enhancing Biodiversity" The guidebook is intended for local government audiences, counties, townships,
municipalities, park districts, and other entities to assist them in preserving, enhancing, and restoring biodiversity
in their jurisdictions.
In addition to identifying these strategies, the publication identifies economic benefits of protecting nature.
•Natural areas, such as wetlands and floodplains, can detain floodwater and thereby reduce or prevent
expensive property damage.
•Natural areas provide opportunities for recreational activities, which generate income and economic activity
for communities through local businesses that profit from increased recreational traffic and tourism.
•Parks, open space and natural areas may increase property values due to increased demand for these
amenities close to residential areas. Increased property values translate into increased revenue for local
governments.
•Open space costs less in community services than residential use.
•Nature provides numerous environmental services than residential use.
•Nature provides numerous environmental services, such as controlling erosion, improving air quality, and
protecting water quality and supplies, that would be quite costly to replicate.
More information is available at the NIPC website: www.nipc.cog.il.us/ and the Chicago Wilderness website:
www.chiwild.org
ownership or environmental management
programs. Areas of highest diversity can be
mapped against areas of lowest sustainability
to highlight the richest ecosystems that
are currently being threatened by chemical,
physical or biological stressors. A low
sustainability rating results from habitat
fragmentation, pavement color, and other
impairments.
This information can be used to help refine
restoration and protection targets for the Lake
Michigan basin as well as document the areas
of change and trends. Once the model is peer
reviewed and resources are identified to ran the
model with the new 2000 data, a comparison
with the Lake Michigan 1994 baseline status
can be made. The National Land Cover
Data Base is a cooperative project including
USEPA, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) (see Figure 4).
EPA Tool to Support Habitat Assessment and
Management
Habitat and Land Use Management Tool Box
EPA Region 5 has developed an incomplete but
informative list of the many web sites that provide
information on the cross-cutting issues of development and
environmental quality, including some possible sources
of project funding. LaMP 2000 documented that human
activities have altered the Lake Michigan ecosystem and
created physical stressors that threaten the integrity of the
ecosystem. LaMP 2000 recommended that information
and tools to mitigate these physical stressors be developed
and shared with landowners and with governmental units
where the authority for land use decisions resides, usually
at the local level.
The Tool Box is intended to be a working document and
will be revised as more information becomes available
or as suggestions for improvement are provided. Please
provide comments and suggestions to Laura Evans at EPA
Region 5 (e-mail: evans.laura@epa.gov).
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
40
Next Steps
• By 2002, a process for developing biodiversity
recovery manuals for major ecosystem types in
the Lake Michigan basin will be implemented.
• By 2004, set targets for critical areas (fish
spawning areas, dune and swale complexes,
wetlands, alvars, prairies, and oak savannas) will
be identified, mapped, and presented on line.
• By 2005, no net loss of wetland acreage and
function will be achieved in the basin.
• By 2012, the 2004 target acreages will be
enhanced, restored, or protected: 1,000 acres
of spawning areas (islands under water reefs);
(example acreages: 12,500 acres of system
wetlands; 1,000 acres of isolated wetlands; 1,000
acres of dunes; and 37,500 acres of stream
buffers - comments requested).
Beach at Empire, Michigan
Photo courtesy of the Michigan Travel Bureau
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
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?
MIXED _____ MIXED
POOR MIXED
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
GOOD
2000
2010
2020
Status
Currently, the status of the goal is mixed because
of the competing needs of the public and the
ecosystem. To move to mixed'improving status by
2010 and finally to good status by 2020, there is a
need to find a better balance between public access
and ecosystem protection. The Lake Michigan
LaMP focuses on the health of the Lake Michigan
ecosystem, so management actions implemented
under the LaMP are to take an ecosystem
approach to remediation and protection. The
1994 SOLEC Integration Paper developed by EPA
and Environment Canada states that "Governments
have traditionally addressed human activities on
a piecemeal basis, separating decision making
on environmental quality from decision making
on natural resource management or on social or
economic issues.... An ecosystem approach to
management is a holistic approach that recognizes
/
Lake Michigan Access Guide for Indiana
\
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(Indiana DNR) Division of Outdoor Recreation
completed an inventory and assessment of
recreational facilities and needs in the portions of
Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties within the Lake
Michigan watershed. The study, prompted in part
by the Northwest Indiana Public Work Groups of
1995 and a resolution by the Lake Michigan Marina
Development Commission, is now available as a
guidebook complete with maps indicating locations
of recreational sites and the activities available at
the sites. The guidebook is available on line at
www.state.in.us/dni7lakemich/pdf/access.pdf
\ ^
Volleyball on Beach at Grand Haven, Michigan
Photograph by Rodney E. Rouwhorst,
Michigan Travel Bureau*
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
42
The National Association of State Park Directors identified factors related to recreation and
open space that influence business location choices:
• Provision of parks and recreational services plays an influential role in a state's economic development
efforts. When companies choose to set up business or relocate, the availability of recreation, parks, and open
spaces is high on the priority list for site selection. Recreation and parks have a significant influence on
people's preferred living locations.
• Companies that do not have siting limitations based on raw material or energy availability or customer
proximity have great flexibility in where they locate, and they make decisions based on the quality of life
for their employees. For such companies, most of which are new high- technology firms, recreation and
conservation resources are fundamental to their definition of a community's quality of life.
• The National Park Service cites numerous examples of states and communities that identify quality of life
as the main factor in recruiting a business. Quality of life includes convenient access to natural settings;
recreational and cultural opportunities and open space; and the presence of greenways, rivers, and trails in
and adjacent to communities.
For more information, see www.naspd.org
the interconnectedness of and addresses the linkages
occurring among air, water, land, and living things."
Challenges
Public involvement in preservation and stewardship
of special natural areas with public access for sport
and recreational activities should be fostered by the
following:
(1) Broaden the dialogue with state and local
government land-use planners and decision-
makers to balance environmental and
recreational needs.
(2) Provide tools for local communities to
understand the value of the resource and develop
long-term management programs.
(3) Identify open space multi-use opportunities.
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
t? Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
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, Smart Growth policies are being pursued
by many communities, and resources such as the
"Wisconsin Planning Guide for Smart Growth" and
the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission's
"Environmental Considerations in Comprehensive
Planning: A Manual for Local Officials" 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
major cities. A well-defined four-season climate
supports many types of recreation ranging from ice
fishing, skiing, and snowmobiling in the winter to
-------
43
The Great Lakes Circle Tour is
a series of roadways around the
Great Lakes where people can
enjoy activities in the basin.
Follow the
Circle Tour
signs!
golf, fishing, boating, and swimming in the summer.
There are approximately 40 state parks in or near
the Lake Michigan basin as well as a large number
of 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 eight Great Lakes states have about 3.7 million
registered recreational boats, or about a third of
the nation's total. Michigan leads the nation in
the number of boat registrations and six Great
Lakes states rank in the nation's top ten in total
registrations. The commercial and sport fishing
industry in the Great Lakes basin is valued at more
than $4 billion annually.
The 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.
Canoeing on the Grand Traverse, Michigan
Photograph by Traverse City Convention and Visitos Bureau,
Courtesy of the Michigan Travel Bureau*
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, fioodways is incredibly high in the long
ran.
Next Steps
Over the next 2 years, the Lake Michigan LaMP will
be focused on achieving the following goals:
• By 2003, the LaMP will partner with the
growing coastal zone management programs in
the Lake Michigan basin to ensure that public
access to the lake is balanced with protection of
the ecosystem
• Identify the need for additional facilities and
access points (such as boat ramps canoe,
and bicycle and walking trails around Lake
Michigan).
• Expand the Northeastern Illinois water frail to
other states around Lake Michigan.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
44
/
\
Indiana Coastal Zone Management Program
The Coastal Zone Management Program is a national initiative, administered by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that focuses on balancing the economic prosperity and
environmental health of the nation's coasts. Participation in the Coastal Zone Management Program
will make over $900,000 available annually to achieve the goals of the Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal
Program. Michigan and Wisconsin also participate in the coastal zone management program.
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has completed the development process for the Lake
Michigan Coastal Program, including a framework for Indiana's participation in the Coastal Zone
Management Program. The Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program was developed to enhance the
State's role in planning for and managing natural and cultural resources in the coastal region and
to support partnerships between federal, state and local government agencies and organizations. The
Lake Michigan Coastal Program is based on a network approach that uses existing state laws and
programs. It is a new tool to implement existing programs and to provide funding for unique or
under-funded projects.
The Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program will, through grants and partnerships with local
communities, support activities that achieve the following goals in the coastal region:
• Protect and restore significant natural resources,
• Prevent the loss of life and property in coastal hazard areas;
• Improve public access for recreational purposes;
• Protect and restore important historic and cultural resources;
• Improve government coordination and policy and decision making;
• Prevent, reduce, or remediate nonpoint source pollution that affects coastal waters;
• Revitalize urban waterfronts and ports; and
• Provide for priority water dependent uses.
An extensive effort was made to continue public involvement during the development of the Lake
Michigan Coastal Program. The public provided comments on both a scoping document that proposed
the organization and goals of the Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program, released in May 2001,
and a draft Environmental Impact Statement, released in September 2001. The Department of Natural
Resources also held six public meetings and met with several local organizations and elected officials
to hear comments on the program. A final Environmental Impact Statement will be released in 2002.
There will be a final 30-day comment period on the final Environmental Impact Statement before
NOAA issues its decision on Indiana's participation in the Coastal Zone Management Program.
\
/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
15
Subgoal 6
Are land use, recreation, and economic activities
sustainable and supportive of a healthy ecosystem?
MIXED lllvrn MIXED
POOR MIXED ... GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
2000
2010
2020
Status
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 managing water resources and
determining the true value of a healthy
ecosystem. There is danger, however, that
the ecosystem could deteriorate in spite of
these activities.
Challenge
Land use and human activities are
undertaken by individuals aware of the lake
ecosystem's ability to support human and
environmental activities.
Sustainability
Effective, sustainable protection of the
Lake Michigan ecosystem requires that
the LaMP partners focus on promoting
balance between the environment and
society. The interdependencies inherent in
/"
\
Lake Levels
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. The decrease in precipitation over the
last five years and resulted in Lake Michigan being at its lowest
point since 1966. Lake levels rose between the mid 1960s and the
late 1990s.
The recent lower lake levels 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 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 2002 indicate that the lake may rise eight inches
due to increased rainfall early in the year and a decrease in
evaporation during the summer/fall 2001. This fluctuation may be
part of a 30 year cycle but deserves close monitoring.
Lake Level Monitoring
Current Lake Michigan levels can be monitored online through
a new National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
website, http://glakesonline.nos.noaa.gov. The site provides
immediate water level and meteorological data from water level
stations. There is a 6 minute interval between data readings and
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://hiiron.Ire.usace.army.mil/levels/fvnpglv.html
\
/
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
46
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. It places human
activities and communities within an ecosystem
and consequently, within ecosystem management. It
recognizes that human beings and their activities are
part of the ecosystem and that they affect and are
affected by its health.
The LaMP helps to identify the activities,
partnerships, and locations where ecosystem
management needs adjustment in order to attain
a sustainable Lake 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 and 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. To many, they also serve as a source
of civic pride and personal and spiritual well-
being.
• Supporting local economies. In sustainable
landscapes, people meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs.
Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study
The Lake Michigan Potential Damages Study
(LMPDS) continues in its sixth year. Under the
direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- Detroit District, in association with a number
of State and Federal agencies and non-govemment
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
Great Lakes Charter Annex 2001
There has been increasing focus on the issue of water
withdrawals and diversions of Great Lakes resulting in
the Great Lakes Governors and Premiers signing the
Great Lakes Charter Annex in June 2001. The Annex is
an amendment to the Great Lakes Charter of 1985 which
outlined a voluntary process for managing withdrawals
of water from the Great Lakes. It sets guidelines for new
Great Lakes water withdrawals. It establishes a series of
principles for a new standard used to review new water
withdrawals that would require new water withdrawals
to result in an improvement to the Great Lakes. This
standard is the first that would directly link water use
to restoration and improvement of the ecosystem. The
Governors and Premiers pledged to complete the final
agreement by 2004. More information on the Annex is
available at www.cglg.org/projects/water/index.html.
Lake Michigan Diversion to Chicago and the
Mississippi River System
During the late 1990s, the diversion of water from
Lake Michigan to the Chicago River exceeded the U.S.
Supreme Court consent decree limit (2.1 billion gallons
per day) by nearly 15% because of leakage at the Chicago
River control works. Following a Memorandum of
Agreement among the Great Lakes states, Illinois agreed
to reduce its annual diversion over 14 years to pay off
its water debt caused by the leakage. Repairs to the
Chicago River locks and construction of new control
works were completed in 2000. Because of this and
lower lake levels, Illinois exceeded its goal in reducing
the water debt between 2000 and 2002. The State
of Illinois constructed a new lakefront control wall to
prevent unintended leakage from Lake Michigan into
the Chicago River as one measure to bring the Chicago
diversion into compliance with a Supreme Court Consent
Decree.
DuSable Harbor, Chicago, Illinois
The new lakefront control works under construction at the mouth of the
Chicago River in 1999. The new wall significantly decreased leakage and
allowed the creation of a new marina for pleasure boats.
Photography by Daniel Injerd, Illinois Department of Natural Resources
-------
/
Historic Agreement to Manage Fisheries in
1836 Treaty Waters
On August 7, 2000, after months of negotiations, State
of Michigan and federal government officials joined
representatives of five Michigan Indian tribes to sign
a historic 20-year settlement for treaty fishing rights
in the Great Lakes. The agreement facilitates the lake
trout rehabilitation effort in Lake Michigan by placing
harvest limits on commercial and recreational lake trout
fisheries, eliminating "deferred" rehabilitation zones, and
recommending increases in stocking in areas containing
high-quality spawning habitat. These actions should
allow the growth of sizeable spawning stocks, thereby
improving the chances for successful reproduction. It
is important to note, however, that there are many
forces unrelated to mortality caused by commercial
or recreational fishing that are impeding lake trout
rehabilitation (for example, exotic species, loss of
genetic diversity and water quality).
The five tribes include the Bay Mills Indian Community,
the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa
Indians, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
\
L**K» arid IfcWKkncf of
M*.kw In&vi Land
in Mhrlklgjan
IW.' - fc-T a*
tad roC*»«fa*r«
|K| ¥ -fry
I til - C«dM fey OMW*.
MfCUffm
1*41 - C«W IS- Cfeiw*-*
/
organizations. The ultimate goal of the Study is
to conduct a long-term assessment of potential
shoreline damages over the next 50 years due to
fluctuating lake levels along the Lake Michigan
shoreline. A number of tasks were completed since
2000. These include:
Miller Woods, Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore, Lake Michigan
Photograph by B. Damn, National Park Service,
Indiana Dunes Lakeshore*
• GIS mapping of shore protection and boating
structures in drowned rivermouth areas of Lake
Michigan's eastern shore;
• An assessment of water level changes on the
recreational boating and charter fishing industry;
• An update and assessment of land use and
shoreline management practices;
• Land use trend analyses, land use / land cover
change analysis and trend predictions in five
prototype counties;
• Completion of the Flood and Erosion Prediction
System (FEPS) and its application to five
prototype counties;
• An assessment of the impacts to shore protection
and harbor structures as a result of changes in
water levels;
• Further development of geospatial databases for
the Lake Michigan shoreline.
Further information can be found on the Lake
Michigan Potential Damages study at http://
huron. Ire. iisace. army. mil/coastal/LMPDS
Land Conservation
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
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
48
Can the Value of Lake Michigan be Quantified?
Economic Valuation Study for the Great Lakes
The Northeast-Midwest Institute published a guidebook
that is intended to make Great Lakes decision makers
more familiar with the techniques available to measure
environmental benefits using economic tools. It is intended
not as an end point, but as a means to begin a discussion on
how to better make decisions that affect the Great Lakes.
The economic tools identified provide more insight into the
tradeoffs that decision makers must evaluate. These tools
help address such issues as:
• Converting Great Lakes Benefits of the Future to
Present-Day Value
• Managing Irreplaceable Amenities and Irreversible
Outcomes
• Accounting for Natural Resource Capital
• Risk and Uncertainty
• Sorting Through Benefits from Multiple Projects
• Accounting for Secondary Impacts
• Distribution of Benefits Across Society
• Distribution of Benefits Across Generations
• Placing a Value on Human Life and Health
Economic Valuation Study for Lake Michigan
The Lake Michigan Federation released a study in July
2001 that estimates the economic value that the public
places on southern Lake Michigan Natural Resources as
between $3 billion and $5 billion dollars. The Natural
Capital of the Southern Lake Michigan Coastal Zone: First
Steps Toward Economic Valuations surveyed residents of
Northeast Illinois and Northwest Indiana to determine how
much they would be willing to pay each year through
volunteer activities, donations to conservation groups and
taxes to maintain 13 species of birds and six species of
fish.
Economic Value of Cleaning Contaminated Sediments
The University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute completed
a study that estimates the economic benefits of cleaning up
contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
It uses the Lower Fox River/Green Bay as an example to
provide a critical view at potential methods for identifying
economic benefits of sediment remediation. The study is
based upon the question "Do we expect that the benefits of
sediment cleanup will be larger than the cost of a particular
alternative on a per household basis?" rather than simply
asking "What are the benefits of remediation?"
The researchers used contingent valuation analysis that
estimated that citizens of the Fox-Wolf water shed are
willing to pay $100 to $300 per household to clean the Area
of Concern. The estimates include a $222 per household
per year benefit from a 100 percent cleanup.
Erosion Along Developed Indiana Shoreline of Lake
Michigan
Photograph Courtesy of National Park Service,
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore*
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.
EPA'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 fun off volume, altering
regular stream flow and watershed hydrology,
reducing groundwater recharge, and increasing
stream sedimentation and water acidity." A 1-acre
parking 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.
Communities around the basin are continuing to
support conservation activities. For example, the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District (MMSD )
Commission approved a plan in September 2001 to
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
49
work with local community groups, municipalities
and others to purchase easements or acquire outright
properties identified as critical for guarding against
future flooding in the Menomonee River, Oak
Creek and Root River watersheds. The Commission
approved a contract with The Conservation Fund, a
national non-profit conservation organization
to act on MMSD's behalf in acquiring
easements and property, and administering the
program.
The Conservation Fund analyzed undeveloped
land in the three watersheds and identified
41 sites, totaling 7,065 acres that contained
the necessary soil conditions to provide future
flood-reduction benefits. In all, the group
estimated the sites could provide 4.7 billion
gallons of storage. The sites range in size
from 30 acres to 674 acres.
drilling, but no oil or gas has been produced.
Wisconsin allows drilling for oil and gas in certain
circumstances and Michigan has allowed drilling
that begins on land with the pipes "slanting" under
the lake .
Upland Michigan Land Use Report
The Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable
and Public Sector Consultants, Inc. released the final report
of the Michigan Land Resource Project in December 2001
- a study that projects the future of agriculture, forestry,
tourism, and mining in Michigan if present land use trends
continue. Using a land transformation model developed
by researchers at Michigan State University, the Michigan
Land Resource Project projects the future of Michigan in a
mapping format for the years 2020 and 2040. It also features
detailed economic forecasts for the land-based industries of
agriculture, forestry, tourism, and mining in the state. The
economic forecasts were prepared by researchers associated
with Michigan State University the University of Michigan,
and Michigan Technological University.
The Michigan Land Resource Project was funded by
grants from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Frey
Foundation. The complete report is available on-line at
www.publicsectorconsultants.com.
Among the major findings of the report:
• Michigan will lose 25 percent of its orchard land in the
next 40 years.
• The state' destination resorts, particularly those in the
northern lower peninsula, are threatened by encroaching
development along the travel corridors that lead to
them.
• In order to keep forestry harvesting costs down, access
to large parcels is necessary. As the land becomes more
fragmented, the price for harvesting Michigan's timber
will increase.
• Michigan will lose 1.9 million acres of farmland in the
next 40 years.
• Land available for hunting will dramatically decrease,
while "edge" species such as white-tailed deer will
continue to increase in numbers.
• "Built" land will increase by 4.1 million acres across the
state, more than tripling the existing amount of "built"
land.
• Transportation costs associated with moving
construction materials farther distances will dip into the
profit of mining operations.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
Oil and Gas Drilling in the Great
Lakes
With the energy "crisis" in California in 2001
came renewed interest in tapping oil and
natural gas reserves. 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 to the world's single largest source of
freshwater.
Due to this concern, an amendment to
the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act of 2002 prohibits 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. 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 bottomlands
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
-------
50
A Wisconsin Planning Guide for Smart Growth
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin-
Extension, released an 84-page "how-to" manual titled Planning for Natural Resources: A Guide to Including
Natural Resources in Local Comprehensive Planning. The natural resources guide is meant to provide useful
insights to a broad group of users including local government officials, land use planning consultants, and private
citizens interested in preserving wild areas and the natural resources of the state.
WDNR also created a new Internet web site devoted to land use issues and comprehensive planning. The site
not only provides a direct link to the department's own guide to including natural resources in local land use
planning, but links to guides and articles written and produced by other state agencies and organizations on
the same topic. The entire DNR comprehensive planning guide www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/landuse is
available to read or download from the DNR Web site.
As part of legislation passed by the state legislature in 1999, virtually every community in Wisconsin is required
to prepare or be part of a comprehensive land use plan. This is commonly referred to as Smart Growth and
all Wisconsin communities must have a comprehensive plan in place by 2010. Each Smart Growth plan is
required to include a compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs to address the conservation,
promotion and effective management of the community's natural resources. According to the legislation, each
community's plan must specifically address several key elements, including transportation, housing, agriculture,
and natural resources.
Next Steps
Over the next 2 years, the LaMP is targeting the
following for completion:
• Publication and distribution of a Habitat
and Land Use Management Tool Box that
provides web-based information sources on
environmentally sensitive habitat and land use
management policies and programs.
• Establishment of a Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy to provide training to local planners
and policy makers on balancing environmental
concerns with economic and social activities in a
watershed context.
• Convening of a Brownfield to Greenfield
Conference to highlight the need for
redevelopment of facilities that have mild to
medium contamination rather than developing
greenspace.
• Convene Planning Commissions to partner on
identifying societal indicators and gathering
data.
• On-line habitat atlas will be operational.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
Indiana Dunes
Photograph courtesy of National Park Service,
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore*
-------
Subgoal 7
Are sediments, air, land, and water sources or pathways of
contamination that affect the integrity of the ecosystem?
MIXED MIXED
DETERIORATING ' IMPROVING
GOOD
2000
2010
2020
Status
Sediments, air, land, and water
continue to be sources or pathways
of contamination that affect the
integrity of the Lake Michigan
ecosystem. While regulatory and
remediation programs reduce
pollutant sources, ongoing releases
and the region's legacy of
contamination continue to serve
as sources of pollutants. As a
result, the status of this goal
is mixed. There has been
significant activity that will assist
in changing the status to mixed/
improving over the next decade. In
particular, the findings of the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Study will
allow decision-makers to better
understand pollution pathways so
that they can develop more
effective policies to deal with
pollution issues and pathways.
The following section presents
recent findings regarding pollution
pathways and predictions of future Figure 5 Pollutants enter Lake Michigan through several pathways
levels of PCBs in lake trout fish Source: EPA (http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/airdep)
Augmented by Joseph F. Abboreno, Tetra Tech EM, Inc.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002 |
Dry -
Particle
Deposition
man-rnade
sources
AirjWaler
is Exchange
Wet
Deposition
indirect
leposilion
Tributaries
Direct Deposition
Sediment
Cycli n g
Ground Water
JF*
Air Masses
• Local or long-distance
transport
1 Changes in chemical/
physical forms
iVj
4<
Vv'.X;
Particulate
Matter
-------
52
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study Findings
• Present concentrations of PCBs in Lake
Michigan water and biota are dominated by
historical loadings as represented by the large
reservoir of PCBs present in bottom sediments.
As sediments are resuspended, PCBs are
released to the water column where they are
subsequently volatilized to the atmosphere.
• Once the sediment reservoir of PCBs is
depleted, the most important remaining sources
will become atmospheric absorption, tributary
loadings, and atmospheric deposition (wet and
dry). Gaseous exchange is an important
mechanism and together with vapor phase
concentrations, govern the movement of PCBs
into and out of Lake Michigan via the air.
• Chicago is an important contributor of
atmospheric inputs to the lake. Levels of PCBs
tend to be higher in the Chicago area than at
offshore and rural sites. High concentrations of
PCBs occur over the lake when the winds are
from the southwest (Chicago-Gary region) and
during warm months.
• Approximately 70 percent of the atrazine
loading to the lake comes from tributaries, with
the remaining 30 percent of the load coming
primarily from precipitation.
• Trans-nonachlor concentrations in Lake
Michigan rivers are relatively low in all cases.
However, the concentrations in rivers draining
agricultural watersheds are usually higher. The
Kalamazoo, Milwaukee, and Sheboygan Rivers,
and Indiana Harbor have slightly lower trans-
nonachlor levels than other Lake Michigan
tributaries, but are still of similar magnitude
(Figure 6).
• Mercury is transported into Lake Michigan
from a variety of sources, including tributary
rivers (Figure 7). Transport of mercury from
some tributaries to Lake Michigan increases
with summer and fall storm events, particularly
in more freely flowing rivers with mercury-
contaminated sediments.
Additional information on the study is available at
http://www. epa.gov/glnpo/monitorhtml.
References and figures see Appendix C.
tissue and atrazine in the waters of Lake Michigan.
The section concludes with an overview of specific
pathways that continue to serve as sources of
pollutant load to Lake Michigan.
Challenges
(1) To gather data on sources and pathways of
contaminants in Lake Michigan.
(2) To develop a better understanding of
the natural dynamics that affect pollutant
distribution in the Lake Michigan ecosystem.
(3) To reduce pollutant loads with effective
control and pollution control measures
(4) To develop coordinated monitoring in 2004
or 2005 and to develop a 10-year trend analysis
based on the 1994 mass balance project for the
lake.
tributary-average trans-nonachlor
I
0.0/
o.ot
g 0 .0 3
dis&olvfrd
parttculvt*
I
0.0 I
«
IS I M VH
i j i . l ii r i
^ ^ ^ 4 J, if Ar 4 4f
\\V VsNV \\
V» X \ % \ \ * \ X
Figure 6: Average Tributary trans-nonachlor
Concentrations
Source: EPA GLNPO
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project
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. The LMMB Project's specific objectives
are:
(1) To identify relative loading rates of four
categories of pollutants (PCBs, mercury,
transnonachlor, and atrazine) entering Lake
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
53
Mamnqufl
Men-omlnt*
Lake
MichiAAn
Pare Marquette
\
Sheboygan
Muskegon
Grand
Milwaukee
Kdljmaioo
|J St. Joseph
.
On
Di%salv«(t
Grand Calumcl
lulil
Figure 7: Lake Michigan Mass Balance Findings:
Methylmercury in Lake Michgan Tributaries (ing/L)
Michigan from major media (air, tributaries, and
sediments);
(2) To establish baseline loading estimates in
1994-1995 against which to gauge future
progress;
(3) To develop the predictive ability to determine
the environmental benefits of specific load
reduction scenarios for toxic substances and the
time required to realize those benefits through
the use of models; and
(4) To improve our understanding of key
environmental processes governing the
movement of pollutants through the lake
(cycling) and fish and plant life (bioavailability)
within relatively closed ecosystems.
The LMMB Project used a mass balance approach
to evaluate the sources, transport, and fate of
contaminants in the Lake Michigan ecosystem.
The mass balance approach is based on the law
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,
or sediments. Pollutants may leave the system
through burial in bottom sediments, 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.
Data reports and preliminary modeling results
are now being released by LMMB researchers.
Although a suite of models is still being developed,
modified, calibrated, and applied, preliminary model
results have been used to conduct these initial
assessments. The initial model results have focused
on PCBs and atrazine. Mercury and trans-nonachlor
model results will be published in the next 2 years.
A few highlights of these results are summarized
below.
PCB Prognosis for Lake Michigan:
Modeling Future PCB Levels in Lake
Trout
PCB concentrations in fish over the past 30 years
show a downward trend from peak levels in the
1970s (Figure 8). However, the most recent
data indicate that concentrations may be achieving
equilibrium above desired levels in lake trout.
Similar trends may be occurring in other species.
The LMMB Project was undertaken, in part, to
terrestrial organisms (including humans) in the
Lake Michigan ecosystem. 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 limited data.
The LMMB Project focused on constructing mass
balance models for a limited group of pollutants.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), trans-nonachlor,
atrazine, and mercury were selected for inclusion
in the LMMB Project because these pollutants
currently or potentially pose a risk to aquatic and
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
54
Total PCB Concentrations in Lake Michigan Lake Trout
Error bars = 95% confidence limits
o>
a>
S
®
£
¦
O)
O)
m
o
Q.
15
£
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
PCB Loads (kg/year) to Lake Michigan from
Major Monitored Tributaries, 1994-1995
Grand Calumet
Harbor
40
Year
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 further remedial and/or regulatory
efforts.
These interim results provide several insights into
the sources, fate, and effects of PCBs in Lake
Michigan and the continuing need for reduction.
Figure 9 shows a summary of PCB loads from
tributaries in 1994-1995. The relative importance of
sources and losses of PCBs in the entire system is
provided in Figure 10.
Table 2 outlines three scenarios evaluated using the
MICHTOX model. The scenarios evaluate a range
of management alternatives from taking no action
to reduce PCB loads to eliminating 50 percent of
loads to eliminating all PCB loads from tributaries,
atmospheric deposition, and the vapor phase. The
scenarios were evaluated to determine whether they
would achieve reductions in fish tissue PCB levels.
Under Scenario A, PCBs should continue to decline
over time even with no further controls (Figure
11) Under this scenario, PCBs should decline
naturally over time, but once the sediment reservoir
is depleted, further reductions will depend on the
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
1994-1995 Average Lake Michigan
PCB Fluxes (kg/year)
Figure 10
Green Bay Tributary
Loading
Green Bay
Volatilization
502
Green Bay
Gas Absorption
70
Main Lake
Volatilization
3000
Atmospheric
Deposition
216
Lake Michigan
PCB Inventory
Water Column = 690 kg
Active Sediment = 7071 kg
(0-3.3 cm interval)
control of the tributary and atmospheric sources.
Under Scenario B, in order to further reduce fish
consumption advisories by 2020, a 50 percent
reduction of PCB loads needs to occur. Under
Scenario C (hypothetical virtual elimination or
100 percent reduction of PCB loads), fish tissue
levels would be approaching advisory levels
by approximately 2020. However, this virtual
elimination scenario is hypothetical, because PCBs
presently found in the environment make virtual
elimination unfeasible.
Table 2. PCB Load Reduction Scenarios
Scenario
Description
Tributary Loads
Atmospheric
Deposition
Vapor Phase
Concentration
A
No Change
Constant
Constant
Constant
B
50% Reduction
50% Reduction
50% Reduction
50% Reduction
C
Virtual Elimination
100% Reduction
100% Reduction
100% Reduction
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
1995
2000
1
2005
Year
2010
2015
Atrazine Prognosis in the Open Waters of
Lake Michigan
Unlike PCBs and mercury, 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 include
tributaries and wet deposition (rain and snow).
Historical loading estimates of atrazine from both
tributaries and wet deposition to Lake Michigan
are depicted in Figure 12. Decreases in loadings
from the tributaries is evident starting in 1985. A
decreasing trend of loadings from the atmosphere in
the form of wet deposition is not as evident.
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 com growing regions
in the southern basin. Most of the atrazine loadings
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN)
IADN has been operating since 1990 through a partnership between Environment Canada and the U.S. EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office. IADN consists of a system of 5 master monitoring stations ( one located on each of five
Great Lakes) and several satellite stations ( see figure). IADN measures concentrations of PCBs, PAHs, organochloride
pesticides, and trace metals in the air and precipitation around the Great Lakes. One of the goals of IADN is to calculate
atmospheric loadings of these pollutants to the Lakes and examine trends in atmospheric concentrations at the different
stations over time. The latest IADN loadings report, using more recent data, is consistent with the LMMB findings. The
IADN findings include:
• PCB levels and loadings are generally decreasing at IADN master stations; however, available data for Chicago suggests
that PCB concentrations are holding steady over time.
• Loadings of banned pesticides to the Great Lakes are generally decreasing over time. Loadings of in-use pesticides
are generally twice as high as banned pesticides.
• Regional loadings of DDT and DDD have been consistently positive ( into the Great Lakes) over time. This finding
indicates that the Great Lakes basin is still acting as a sink for chemicals that have been banned from use in the United
States and Canada for over 20 years.
For more information on IADN, please refer to http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/IADN
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
57
Atrazine Reassessment
Atrazine is regulated as a pesticide and EPA has set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water. The
MCL is most important for groundwater sources as Lake Michigan provides a large dilution factor. EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs ( OPP) has released the preliminary ecological risk assessment for atrazine, a pesticide undergoing
re-registration and tolerance reassessment. The atrazine risk assessment and related documents are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
Concurrently, EPA's Office of Water has released the Draft Aquatic Life Criteria Document for Atrazine, which provides
recommendations to states and tribes for their use in establishing water quality standards as regulations. The associated
Federal Register notices are available on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. The comment periods for these
documents ended in 2001.
EPA's preliminary ecological risk assessment for atrazine indicates that risk quotients exceeded levels of concern for
chronic effects on mammals, birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and non-target plants at maximum and in some cases at
typical use rates. A refined risk assessment for atrazine focusing on the aquatic environment and using the extensive
ecosystem exposure monitoring data as well as additional ecotoxicological data found in the open literature, resulted
in concerns for adverse toxicological effects on freshwater and estuarine plants and their communities as well as
indirect adverse effects on aquatic invertebrate and fish populations at monitored atrazine levels in surface waters. For
more information on the preliminary ecological risk assessment, see http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/reregistration/atrazine/
atrazine_eco_assessment.pdf.
from the atmosphere to the lake are associated with
wet deposition.
In water, atrazine is primarily in the dissolved state
and, therefore, any processes that involve sediment
or suspended particle interactions are probably of
minor significance (Rygwelski et al. 1999).
Tributaries are the most significant source of atrazine
to the lake. Figure 13 illustrates atrazine loadings
from the eleven rivers monitored under the LMMB
Project. Estimates of these tributary loads were
made in 1994 and 1995 using two methods: (1)
monitoring estimates by USGS and (2) estimates
based on the amounts of atrazine applied in these
river basins and the amounts historically exported
from these types of watersheds. As depicted
in Figure 13, both methods for calculating loads
indicate that the tributary carrying the largest load
Historical Tributary and Wet Deposition Atrazine Loadings to Lake Michigan
9000
8000
7000
'g 6000
D>
5000
O)
.E 4000
¦O
o 3000
2000
1000
0
| Tributary
EH Wet Deposition
Figure 12
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1998
Year
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
58
Figure 13
Atrazine Loadings from Tributaries to Lake Michigan
Manistique River
1800 t
1600-
1400-
£ 1200
o>
*
t:
o
Q.
X
LU
a>
c
N
2
3c
n
+-»
o
1000-
800-
600-
400-
200-
Menominee
River
Sheboygan
River
Milwaukee
River
skegon
River
Grand
River
Kalamazoo
River
St. Joseph
River
Grand Calumet River
n
C
a
~).2
8*
.>
E°-
CO
o
_Q
g
c
CD
0£
of atrazine to the lake in 1994 and 1995 was the St.
Joseph River followed by the Grand River.
In order to understand the impact of the atrazine
loadings to Lake Michigan, a mass balance model
was developed for the lake. From these model
results, one can note that of the fluxes out of the
system, gross export out of the Straits of Mackinac is
largest at 1,550 kg/year (Figure 14). Net absorption
less volatilization is estimated to be a flux of 438
kg/year into the lake; however, if the vapor phase
concentration were assumed to be zero throughout
the model simulation, this number would be negative
indicating that there would be a net flux out of the
lake through volatilization.
The results from the modeling exercises indicate that
atrazine in Lake Michigan water is decaying only
at an estimated rate of 0.8 percent per year. This
translates into a half-life of approximately 87 years
due to loss through decay. The literature suggests
that atrazine decay is enhanced in shallow, warm
freshwater systems that have high suspended solids,
high dissolved organic carbon, low pH, and high
concentrations of nitrate ions (Rygwelski et al.
1999). The cold, deep, high pH, oligotrophic
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
/
Toxic Air Emissions Inventory
On January 16, 2002 the Great Lakes Commission released the 1998 Inventory of Toxic Air Emissions, presenting a
multijurisdictional inventory of point, area, and mobile (onroad and nonroad) sources for 82 toxic contaminants released in
the Great Lakes Basin. ( Emissions data were available for 78 of the 82 targeted contaminants.) This is an ongoing project
in which the air quality departments in each of the Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario perform the inventory
work, which is coordinated by the Great Lakes Commission. The emissions inventory is just that: an inventory of recorded
emissions of the targeted contaminants. The results are not a trend analysis of emissions. Differences between years are
mainly due to an expansion of area sources for some states and improvements of emission estimation methods, emission
factors, and activity data. The 1999 inventory will include all 188 hazardous air pollutants identified in Section 112(b) of
the Clean Air Act for point, area, and mobile sources.
The 1998 emissions inventory includes emissions from 672 distinct source categories and 1,532 distinct processes. Point
sources emitted all 78 pollutants, while area, onroad, and nonroad mobile sources emitted subsets of these pollutants.
Toluene was estimated to have the highest overall emissions (631,177,350 lbs. ) and parathion emissions were estimated
to be the lowest (0.58 lbs.). Additional inventory results and information, as well as state-by-state emissions data may
be found at www.glc.org/air/air3.html
y
waters of Lake Michigan do not appear to support
considerable decay of atrazine.
Long-term simulations under various loading
scenarios are depicted in Figure 15. The no action
scenario fixes current loadings at rates estimated
for 1998 and holds them constant. The resultant
lakewide concentration increases to approximately
67 ng/L. To maintain the lake concentration at levels
obseived in 1994 (no further degradation scenario), a
tributary load reduction of approximately 57 percent
would be needed. A 100 percent tributary load
reduction results in an ultimate concentration of
approximately 24 ng/L. The modeled scenario
yielding the most rapid decline in lake-wide
concentrations is achieved if all external loads were
shut off including tributary loads, wet deposition,
and load input from the vapor phase.
1994 Average Lake Michigan
Atrazine Fluxes (kg/year)
Figure 14
Atmospheric
Wet Deposition
2429
Volatilization
41
Absorption
479"
Export via
Chicago
Diversion
62
Input from
Lake Huron
130
Lake Michigan
Atrazine Inventory
186,358 kg
Settling, sediment resuspension and net burial are negligible
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
60
Climate Change and Clear Skies Initiative
On February 14, 2002, President Bush announced two
new initiatives aimed at reducing toxic air emissions: the
Clear Skies Initiative and the Global Climate Change
Policy.
The goal of the Global Climate Change Policy is to
cut greenhouse gas intensity ( defined as the ratio of
greenhouse gas emissions to economic output) by 18
percent over 10 years. This plan includes a 5-year, $4.6
billion commitment to tax credits for renewable energy
sources and cogeneration.
Other key domestic components of the policy include (1)
voluntary challenges to businesses to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions; (2) transportation programs to promote
development of fuel-efficient motor vehicles, research
options for producing cleaner fuels, and programs
to improve energy efficiency; and ( 3 ) a 10-year
commitment to enhance natural storage of carbon by
plant material by implementing and improving the
conservation title of the Farm Bill.
The policy also has international components, including
increased funding for "Debt-for-Nature" programs,
funding of climate observation systems in developing
countries, expanded technology transfer and capacity
building in developing countries, and international
research cooperative agreements (for example, with
Japan, Italy, and Central America). For more
information, see http://wMmwhitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2002/02/prin t/20020214-5. h tml
\ LMMB Project Summary
Preliminary model results are currently available for
PCBs and atrazine only Model results for mercury
and trans-nonachlor will be released in the next
2 years. The PCB model results indicate that
a 50 percent reduction in PCB loads to Lake
Michigan will be needed to reduce lake trout fish
tissue concentrations to below the fish consumption
advisory level of 0.5 g/g by 2020. In order to
maintain atrazine levels at 40 ng/L in the open
waters of the lake, the atrazine model predicts that a
57 percent reduction in tributary loading levels will
be needed.
Federal Conservation Programs
Innovative programs such as USDA's Environment
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) provide a "systems
approach" for addressing agricultural nonpoint source
pollution to Lake Michigan. This approach allows
for sustainable production of food and fiber products
while maintaining environmental quality and a strong
natural resource base. In addition, EPA has several
standing programs ( for example, Section 319 nonpoint
source pollution control ) to address soil erosion and
sedimentation within the basin.
Lakewide Atrazine Concentration Forecasts (Lake Michigan 41 Segment Model)
Figure 15
80-
70 -
Modeling Scenarios Starting 1998
No further action
57% tributary load reduction
100% tributary load and wet deposition reduction
- vapor phase concentration = 0
0 -T~i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
1963 1993 2023 2053 2083 2113 2143 2173 2203 2233 2263
Date
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
61
Other Pathways of
Pollutant Load 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
• Groundwater
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
The Great Lakes Air Deposition Strategy
In January 2002,EPA published its Great Lakes Air
Deposition (GLAD) Strategy: Priorities for U.S. EPA's
National Geographic Initiative Grants. The strategy is
intended to assist EPA Region 5 and the Great Lakes
states in allocating Great Lakes National Geographic
Initiative funds over the next 5 years by identifying
high-priority activities. There are four high priority
areas: (1) air deposition and source characterization
monitoring, (2) emission inventory development and
emission inventory development and emission factor
development, (3) atmospheric and multimedia modeling,
and (4) assessments of effects on aquatic life and
wildlife. Additional information on the GLAD
Strategy and proposal requirements is available at
http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/g\akes/g\ad.htm
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.
Loadings of pesticides whose use has been canceled
or restricted in the United States to Lake Michigan
are primarily from atmospheric sources that may
be 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, EPA Region 5 estimates
that agricultural clean sweeps have removed 1.9
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
Figure 16
[ Gf«a L Afcc-t EWilfi
D
Region 5 Agricultural Clean Sweep Results
1988-2001
Pesticides Removed:
Rwgtwi 5 vv«r 8 3 HflWOrti pccrtdi
US Totfll 22 v million pound*
Gfudt Laktt Btsin: 1 5 million pounat osr
i "ftipftbprivfon
V " ffMfl XHftMQlj
Sanrcm fttpen 'i W«*fca & to** Din
m4 Tone Of inch
Nrtf ¦>&¦» 3001
200 MM
«EPA
PBT Pesticides: S -1614
Avtr&ge COSl Ot Disposal: i1.50.Jb.
-------
62
Conservation and Buffer Strips Along Waterways
Federal legislation has established several programs to provide
financial incentives or actual payments to agricultural landowners
who choose to take land out of production. Using prescribed
land cover for 10 to 15 years is a means of reducing agricultural
runoff and the resultant erosion, sedimentation, water quality
degradation, and habitat destruction in streams and lakes. Among
these programs are the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), and
the Continuous CRP ( CCRP ), which are managed through
the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation
Service (www.nrcs.usda.gov). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service operates a private land management program to provide
cost-sharing incentives to individual landowners for habitat
improvement projects. There are similar programs at the state
and local levels offering grants, tax offsets, or conservation
easements. These programs are accomplished through local,
voluntary partnerships between individuals and government and
make use of financial incentives, which limits the number of
participants because of resource constraints.
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.
bodies from both point and nonpoint
sources. TMDLs will help manage water
quality on a watershed scale.
Major sources of nonpoint pollution include
urban stormwater runoff, discharges from
animal feeding operations, cropland runoff,
and episodic combined sewer overflows.
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.
million pounds of pesticides from the Great Lakes
basin (Figure 16)Figure 16
Nonpoint Source Pollution
EPA identifies polluted runoff as the most important
remaining 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,
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 maximim daily load (TMDL) studies
will be needed for these 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
In late 1999, EPA 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. These
controls must be in place by 2003.
This new stormwater rule builds 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 countiy will be controlled through
permits.
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
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
approach to assist owners and operators in
developing and implementing site-specific
management plans. Impacts from higher risk,
confined animal feeding operations (CAFO), such
as sites with the equivalent of 1,000 beef cows,
are addressed through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits under the
authority of the Clean Water Act. About 5 percent
of all animal feeding operations are expected to need
permits.
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewer overflows (CSO) continue to be
a major source of pollution in the Lake Michigan
basin. Combined sanitaiy and storm sewers were
commonly built throughout the Lake Michigan
watershed as an economical means of managing
urban wastewater. These systems are heavily
concentrated in the northeast and Great Lakes
regions. Under normal conditions, these combined
systems are able to transport sanitary wastes and
Sediment sampling aboard EPA research vessel, "Mud Puppy"
in Indiana Harbor Canal
Photograph courtesy of EPA, ARCS program*
Dredging Lake Michigan*
Photograph courtesy of USEPA
limited amounts of stormwater to a wastewater
treatment plant for disposal. However, during heavy
precipitation events, the combined sewer can become
overloaded and discharge the untreated overflow
containing sanitaiy and stormwater directly into
surface waters. Because the overflows contain
pathogens, toxic pollutants, solids, and debris, CSOs
can create serious public health and environmental
problems. CSOs are considered point sources under
the Clean Water Act and are therefore subject to
regulation.
On January 29, 2002, EPA delivered a Report to
Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of
the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. This
report provides an overv iew of the progress made in
controlling CSOs across the United States. It also
provides state-by-state summaries of CSO control
programs. Additional information on the report and
state CSO programs as well as the state-by-state
summaries can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes
Sediments: Both a Contaminant and a
Pathway
Land disturbed by natural or man-made processes
produce sediments that impair tributary mouths
and spawning areas. Better understanding of
sediment movement in the lake is the goal of the
Episodic Events: Great Lakes Experiment (EEGLE)
at www.glerl.noaa.gov/eegle/.
Sedimentation in the tributary mouths and nearshore
areas of Lake Michigan has been an ongoing
problem. See Appendix B for a summary of
sediment contamination and cleanups at the Lake
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
64
Michigan AOCs. Substances found in Lake
Michigan sediment reflect the land uses in the
upper portions of the watershed. Runoff from
agricultural lands washes soil particles as silt that
can smother aquatic habitat. The soil particles
may also cany agricultural chemicals and nutrients
into water bodies. Urban runoff also contributes
sediments contaminated with pesticides, nutrients,
oils, and other pollutants. Other substances
deposited into the lake and its tributaries, such
as PCBs, may bind preferentially with sediment
particles. These substances accumulate or persist
in the tributary mouths and nearshore areas because
unlike smaller rivers that are constantly flushed with
water, the lake is a sink. A drop of water entering
Lake Michigan will take an average of 100 years
to either evaporate or be washed into Lake Huron.
The retention time for a particle of sediment is even
longer.
Remediating Lake Michigan's legacy of
contaminated sediment continues to be a high
priority, and some progress has been made toward
remediating the most highly contaminated sites on
the lake in the past two years. As discussed under
subgoal 1 "Can we all eat any fish?," two examples
are moving forward on the Fox River in Wisconsin
and Grand Calumet River in Indiana. The removal
of 700,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment
from the east branch of the Grand Calumet River is
targeted to begin in 2002. The cleanup is a result
of a $30 million settlement between the Federal
government, the State of Indiana, and USX. The
sediments targeted have been highly contaminated
with PCBs, heavy metals, benzene, PAHs, and
cyanide. Approximately 4.65 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediment will eventually be removed
from the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Sediment dredging is also moving forward in other
areas of Lake Michigan. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is moving forward with a Comprehensive
Dredge Material Management Plan for Waukegan
Harbor, Illinois. The plan calls for dredging 250,000
cubic yards of polluted material and disposing the
material in a confined disposal facility.
Finally, progress is being made to reduce future
siltation and sediment contamination problems. The
Lake Michigan Forum has formed an Agriculture
Pollution Prevention Task Force to address specific
pollution prevention projects for sediments and
pesticides in the Lake Michigan basin. In winter
1999, the Forum held a workshop on sediment issues
Figure 17
53,000
41,000 52,000
Lake Michigan (values in cubic feet per second)
a Return flow is reduced by 3,200 ft3/s that is diverted
out of the basin at Chicago, III.
3 Withdrawals for power plant cooling not included
Citation: USGS
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
65
in the basin based on input received from the task
force. The Buffer Initiative is also an important step
forward in controlling this pathway, (see p. 77)
Groundwater Pathways in Lake Michigan
Groundwater enters the Great Lakes as either direct
or indirect discharge. Direct groundwater discharge
is flow directly into a lake through the lake bottom.
Indirect groundwater discharge is flow into a lake by
way of a tributary stream.
Groundwater discharge is a significant determinant
of the biologic viability of tributary streams and
coastal wetlands. In undisturbed areas, groundwater
discharge throughout the year provides a stable
inflow of water with consistent dissolved oxygen
concentration, temperature and water chemistiy.
Where land uses significantly reduce groundwater
flow to a stream, reaches of the stream or wetlands
may lose their biologic viability. Likewise, where
land uses add contaminants to a stream or wetland,
they also may become impaired.
Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake for which
there is enough information to estimate direct
groundwater discharge. Figure 17 represents the
relative contribution of groundwater and surface
water to Lake Michigan.
Until recently, the impact of groundwater on surface
water quality has largely been ignored. Nonetheless,
groundwater can have a significant effect on the
quality of water in stream tributaries to the Great
Lakes and on coastal wetlands by transporting
natural and man-made pollutants to them. In
agricultural and urban areas of the Great Lakes
basin, contaminants on the land surface become
dissolved in groundwater and eventually flows into
streams, wetlands, and the Great Lakes. This
widespread, diffuse flow of contaminants by way
of groundwater is a type of nonpoint source
contamination. Pesticides and nutrients, such as
nitrate and phosphorus, are the principal nonpoint
source form of pollution that reaches the Great
Lakes by way of indirect groundwater discharge to
tributary streams and coastal wetlands. The growing
understanding of the importance of this pathway has
led many States to begin setting ground water quality
standards and regulating the substances that can be
discharged to groundwater.
Next Steps
• A mercury source reduction and sediment
remediation strategy will be finalized.
• Contaminated sediment sites will be reviewed
and their status will be updated.
• EPA will compile a report on nutrient
contributions from the agricultural sector and on
point sources during wet weather.
• Fall 2003 State of Lake Michigan Conference
will present updated mass balance results.
• By 2004 and 2005, develop coordinated
monitoring to provide a 10-year trend for the
lake
• By 2010, remediation of 50 percent of AOC sites
• By 2020, remediation of 70 percent of AOC sites
• By 2025, remediation of 100 percent of AOC
sites
Luddington Lighthouse
Photograph by Carole Y. Sineheart, the Michigan Sea Grant Extension*
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
66
Subgoal 8
Are exotic species controlled and managed?
MIXED SIiVER MIXED
POOR MIXED
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
GOOD
2000
~
2010
2020
~
Status
The record of exotic species prevention and control
in Lake Michigan is mixed. While there are
success stories for the control of sea lamprey and
the potential to prevent future introductions, zebra
mussels and other new species continue to proliferate
and are competing for food and habitat with native
species. In the last 2 years, a new exotic, the
spiney water flea, was introduced to Lake Michigan.
Furthermore, there is a danger that other new exotics,
the bighead and silver carp from Asia, accidentally
released into the Mississippi River, could enter Lake
Michigan during the next few years through the
Illinois River system.
These trends highlight the need for more effective
action in preventing the unintentional introduction
of new species and controlling the nuisance species
already established. In summer 2001, the Great
Lakes Governors and Premiers signed an Action
Plan for Preventing and Controlling Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Species. This agreement builds
on actions such as installation of barriers for exotic
species, performance of demonstration projects, and
passage of new legislation to address the problem.
These actions will help to more the status of this goal
to mixed/improving by 2010 and to good by 2020.
Challenge
• To eliminate further ANS introductions by 2010.
The History of Exotics in the Great Lakes
One of the greatest threats to the restoration and
viability of native aquatic species in Lake Michigan
is aquatic nuisance species (ANS), or invasive exotic
species. Sea lampreys entered the Great Lakes
following construction of the Welland Canal in
the 1950s, which provided oceangoing vessels with
access to all the Great Lakes. More recent arrivals
such as the zebra mussel, round goby, and ruffe
entered the lake through ballast water releases.
Governments have been using various integrated
measures to control exotic species, including use
of barriers to prevent movement of the exotics into
tributary rivers and streams. Specially formulated
chemicals are used to target and kill young exotics,
but these chemicals sometimes also kill native
invertebrates and fish.
LaMP 2000 recognized that ANS have caused
irreparable harm to the ecosystem of Lake Michigan.
Prevention of unintentional introductions of such
species, not only in the Lake Michigan basin but
throughout the Great Lakes, is therefore one of the
most important actions for achievement of subgoal
4 - "All habitats are healthy, naturally diverse and
sufficient to sustain viable biological communities."
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
67
Sea Lampreys attaching themselves to native fish*
Photography courtesy ofUSEPA
Chapter 6 of LaMP 2000 lists the following actions
that can restore, enhance, and sustain the health,
biodiversity, and productivity of the ecosystem:
• Ballast water management and pollution
prevention
• Development of ballast water discharge
standards
• Legislation
• Technological efforts
• Research
There has been significant activity in all of these
areas in the past 2 years.
Ballast Water Management and Pollution
Prevention
There has been a movement to develop clear, concise
biological standards or guidelines for treatment of
ballast water working toward zero discharge of
ANS. These focus on best practical technologies
and devise a short-term plan for dealing with the
No-Ballast-On-Board (NOBOB) issue (where ballast
remains in the ship containing ANS). This will
require newly built ships to incorporate pollution
prevention technology to address the ballast water
problem as well as retrofitting existing ships.
Development of Ballast Water Discharge
Standards
The International Maritime Organization's (IMO)
Marine Environment Protection Committee is
developing draft regulations for ballast water
management to prevent the release of harmful
aquatic organisms present in ballast water. The
proposed instrument is a new international
convention addressing control and management of
ships' ballast water and sediments in the water. A
diplomatic conference is planned for late 2003 to
adopt the new regulations. For more information,
visit http://www. into, org/index
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is required by
the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) to
issue regulations and guidelines for ballast water
management practices to prevent introduction of
ANS to U.S. waters. In May 2001, the USCG
submitted a document titled Potential Approaches
to Setting Ballast Water Treatment Standards for
public comment. For more information on USCG's
progress, visit http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso
Legislation
In August 2001, Governor Engler signed the
Michigan Ballast Water Reporting Program into
law. This program requires MDEQ to determine
(1) whether all oceangoing vessels operating on
the Great Lakes are complying with the ballast
water management practices promoted by the
Shipping Federation of Canada and (2) whether all
nonoceangoing vessels operating on the Great Lakes
are complying with the ballast water management
practices promoted by the Lake Carriers' Association
and the Canadian Shipowners' Association. To help
make this determination, MDEQ has distributed a
reporting form to all vessel owners and operators.
All vessels complying with the applicable ballast
water management practices will be so identified
on the Michigan Ballast Water Management web
site at http://www.michigan.gOv/deq/l. 1607, 7-135-
3307_3667_82 78—, 00. html
As of March 1, 2002, any owner or operator of a
vessel that is not identified on the web site and
any persons in Michigan with contracts for the
transport of cargo with the operator of a vessel
that is not identified on the web site will not be
eligible for grants, loans, or awards administered
by MDEQ. The reporting program also requires
MDEQ to evaluate ballast water treatment methods
in order to prevent future introduction of ANS and
to determine a deadline for use of such treatment
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
68
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal
Barrier Study
USAGE completed installation of a demonstration
dispersal barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal. USACE is using the project to investigate
environmentally sound methods for preventing and
reducing dispersal of nonindigenous ANS between Lake
Michigan and the Mississippi River basin.
The canal forms a unique, manmade link between two
major watersheds and provides ANS with a pathway
between the two basins. A multi-agency panel agreed
to install an electronic dispersal barrier that does not
interfere with navigation or the Lake Michigan diversion
volume.
The effectiveness of the barrier will be monitored for up
to 2 years. A contract for monitoring of the project was
awarded in November 2001, and a contract for operation
and maintenance of the barrier was awarded in March
2002. Operation and monitoring will continue through
fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The total project cost will be
$2.2 million over the lifetime of the project.
Uppef mid Lomtr
51 Artlwj F#Uj Ljoekj
Cwei Diilricl
LKkSH* ¦
The Upper Mississippi and Illinois River systems and lock locations
Courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
methods, should it be determined that they are
available for use.
On the national level, the National Invasive Species
Act (NISA) is scheduled to be reauthorized in
2002. As the reauthorization process begins, the
opportunity exists to strengthen the NISA by
addressing programmatic and policy gaps, including
gaps associated with ballast water requirements.
The Department of Transportation has published the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation -
Seaway Regulations and Rules: Ballast Water, Final
Rule (33 CFR Part 401). Under agreement with the
St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation of
Canada, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation amended the joint regulations to make
compliance with the ballast water management
practices a mandatoiy prerequisite for clearance of a
commercial vessel for transit of the Seaway system
in support of assuring the continued control of the
introduction of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) in
the Great Lakes Seaway System.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Handbook will now
include the following:
Ballast Water Management Practices
Effective with the 2002 navigation season:
a. every vessel entering the Seaway after
operating beyond the exclusive economic
zone must agree to comply with the "Code of
Best Practices for Ballast Water Management
" of the Shipping Federation of Canada
dated September 28. 2000, while operating
anywhere within the Great Lakes and the
Seaway: and
b. every other vessel entering the Seaway that
operates within the Great Lakes and the
Seaway must agree to comply with the
"Voluntary Management Practices to Reduce
the Transfer of Aquatic Nuisance Species
Within the Great Lakes by U.S. and Canadian
Domestic Shipping" of the Lake Carriers''
Association and the Canadian Shipowners
Association dated January 26, 2001, while
operating anywhere within the Great Lakes
and the Seaway.
Technological Efforts
The Great Lakes Ballast Technology Project was
established in 1996 to accelerate development of
practical and effective ballast treatment technology
for ships. The project, which is led by the
Northeast-Midwest Institute and the Lake Carriers'
Association, is supported by grants from the Great
Lakes Protection Fund and several state and federal
agencies. The centerpieces and ongoing emphasis
£:>' Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
69
of the project are its high-flow field trials of
commercially available ballast treatment equipment.
Treatment technologies tested on working ships
include high-volume filtration, cyclonic separation,
and ultraviolet radiation. For more information, visit
the Northeast-Midwest Institute's web site at http://
www. nemw. org/biopollute. htm
Research
Under the Michigan Ballast Water Reporting
legislation, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality is in the process of
determining whether ballast water treatment methods
could be used by vessels to prevent future aquatic
nuisance species introductions. If treatment methods
are identified as available for use, the MDEQ will
determine a time period for vessel use of the
treatment method. After the time period determined
by MDEQ, all vessels must then verify the use
of the treatment method. The MDEQ is currently
evaluating treatment methods through an on-board
ship evaluation process.
Various research projects involving nonindigenous
species are being conducted throughout the Great
Lakes by governmental and academic entities.
Information on the results of research into ANS
impacts and prevention can be found at the following
web sites:
• http://www.sgnis.org
• http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/
Programs/nsmain.html
Other Actions
The ANS Task Force is an intergovernmental
organization dedicated to preventing and controlling
dispersal of ANS and charged with implementing
the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and
Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990. The various
NANPCA mandates were later expanded with the
passage of NISA in 1996. For a list of actions taken
by the ANS Task Force to prevent the introduction
and spread of ANS, visit the web site at http://
www.anstaskforce.gov/.
The Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance
Species is an intergovernmental, multi-stakeholder
organization whose charge is to identify Great
Lakes priorities regarding ANS; assist and make
recommendations to the ANS Task Force; coordinate
exotic species program activities in the region;
advise public and private interests on ANS control
efforts; and submit an annual report to the task force
describing ANS prevention, research, and control
activities in the Great Lakes basin. For the most
recent list of actions taken by the Great Lakes
Panel, visit the web site at http://www.glc.org/ans/
anspanel.html
The Great Lakes Governors' Ballast Water Initiative
was created at the request of Governor Engler and
unanimous approval of the Great Lakes Governors,
the Council of Great Lakes Governors has convened
a Task Force to explore, outline, and advise the
Great Lakes Governors and Premiers on the range
of options that exist to stop further introduction of
exotic species into the Great Lakes. The Task Force
is charged to formally recognize the importance
the Governors and Premiers place on the threat
nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species present to
the Great Lakes; to showcase and prioritize state/
provincial initiatives to date; to emphasize the
importance of a consistent and coordinated effort and
legislation throughout the region, and to ultimately
provide options as to how the Governors and
Premiers can best arrest the introduction and
spread of ANS within the region's ecosystem and
economy. The structure of the Task Force follows
the threefold organization of Michigan's dialogue
with the shipping industiy: management practices,
biocides, and technologies. It is the desire and
intention of the Task Force to build upon the efforts
already initiated on ANS in the Great Lakes region.
The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
process was originally developed to prevent
contamination and spoiling of food during
preparation and processing. However, through
an initiative of the Sea Grant program, the
process is being applied to collection and
distribution of bait fish and the aquaculture
industiy, which is often a pathway for ANS.
For a description of these initiatives, refer to
an article at http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/seiche/
jan. 01/art04. html
Since 1993, the USCG has had mandatoiy
ballast water regulations in place, and it has
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
70
recently solicited public comments on approaches
to setting standards for ballast water treatment and
implementing and enforcing those standards. EPA
released a draft report in September 2001 outlining
options for addressing ballast water and ANS. Great
Lakes Strategy 2001 identifies invasive species as
a major threat to the Great Lakes and proposes
numerous options, both regulatory and voluntary,
for eliminating further ANS introductions by 2010.
Finally, several states have introduced legislation to
address ANS in ballast water, but thus far Michigan
is the only state to adopt any form of ballast water
legislation.
Next Steps
• Track and provide information on ANS
developments as an important part of the LaMP
education and outreach efforts.
• By 2003, a multi-agency "SWAT" Team
will be developed to respond to newly
discovered invasive species with the latest
control technology.
• By 2010, vessels entering the Great Lakes will
discharge ballast water free of invasive species.
Sand Sculptures on the Beach
Photo courtesy of the Wisconsin Division of Tourism,
Milwaukee Dept. of City Development*
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
Subgoal 9
Are ecosystem stewardship activities common and
undertaken by public and private organizations in
communities around the basin?
MIXED „1V1_„ MIXED
P00R MIXED GOOD
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
2000
2010
2020
~
Status
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 current status of stewardship is
mixed but will improve as more Lake Michigan
partnerships are formed.
Challenge
To create a framework for participating organizations
to contribute their expertise and resources in a
manner that allows all partners to participate in
decision-making on an even basis.
The Importance of Partnerships
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.
/ " \
Cook County, Illinois Clean Sweep
In 1997, EPA, Illinois EPA, Cook County, the City
of Chicago, industry, and other stakeholders created
the Cook County PCB and Mercury Clean Sweep
Partnership. The partnership, which concluded in
December 2000, provided incentives and disposal
opportunities for small businesses and local governments
in Cook County to properly dispose of their PCB-
and mercury-containing materials and equipment. The
targeted businesses and government entities were chosen
because they were not served by household hazardous
waste collection events or national enforcement activities.
The result was the collection from voluntary participants
of 135 high-intensity discharge mercury bulbs, 57 8-foot
boxes and 231 4-foot boxes of fluorescent bulbs, 15
gallons of lab-packed mercury waste for stabilization,
134 gallons of lab-packed mercury for restoring, 640
PCB-containing ballasts, one 55-gallon drum of hexane/
PCB oil, one large PCB-containing transformer, and one
small and one large PCB-containing capacitor.
V
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
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, and local
relationships; local community empowerment;
increased focus on local partners; and watershed-
-------
72
Lake Michigan's Watershed 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 in the Lake Michigan watershed.
Many of the stressors on Lake Michigan are driven
or prevented by land use decisions made at the local
governmental level and/or private property Lake
Michigan LaMP 2000 highlighted the need to promote
a series of dialogues with local decision-makers about
the status of these decisions that would provide training
leading to plans, possible activities, and partnerships that
could benefit both the local and lake-wide ecosystems.
Many training materials and tools have been developed
including EPA's Watershed Academy Web-Based
Training ( www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy ),
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."
More Information
The Lake Michigan LaMP has also developed a "Habitat
and Land Use Management Tool Box" that is a collection
of hundreds of useful web sites for detailed followup.
In Fall 2002, the LaMP in cooperation with the Great
Lakes Commission will also preview the Lake Michigan
On-Line Habitat Atlas. Planning is underway to hold the
first Watershed Academy training in 2003.
For more information, contact: Judy Beck
(beck.judy@epa.gov)
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 Forum
The Lake Michigan Forum provides input on the
LaMP to EPA from representative stakeholders of
the Lake Michigan basin. In recognition of the
LaMP statement that eveiy 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.
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.
The forum holds public meetings quarterly at
different locations around the Lake Michigan basin
Lake Michigan Basin Stewardship Trust
Concept
The Forum is currently developing a "Stewardship
Trust" concept for use in helping to support community/
watershed-based stewardship initiatives. The Trust
would operate similar to community trusts that house
and manage several donor-directed and restricted use
funds. Fundraising, foundations, and state and federal
enforcement action settlements are all possible sources
of funds.
For more information, visit www.lbnichiganforum.org
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
and, in partnership with EPA and Grand Valley State
University, sponsors an education and outreach tour.
For more information, visit the forum web site at
wwwAkmichiganforum.org
Students getting hands-on experience aboard the W.G. Jackson
Photography courtesy of Grand Valley State University
The W.G. Jackson
Photography courtesy of Grand Valley State University
The "Making Lake Michigan Great" 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 Allendale, 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.
State of Lake Michigan Conference
In November 2001, EPA, Lake Michigan Forum, and
Grand Valley State University hosted the State of
Lake Michigan conference in Muskegon, Michigan.
The conference brought together over 300 attendees
and presenters to discuss the status of the
lake. A copy of the conference proceedings is
available on CD. Contact Janice Carrollo at
caiTollo.janice@epa.gov
Next Steps
• Establish the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy
• Publish additional education and outreach
materials
• Publish the habitat and land use management
tool box
• On-line habitat atlas will be operational
• Hold FY 2003 State of Lake Michigan
Conference
AS
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
74
Subgoal 10
Is collaborative ecosystem management the basis for
decision-making in the Lake Michigan basin?
MIXED MIV__ MIXED
POOR MIXED
DETERIORATING IMPROVING
GOOD
2000
2010
2020
Status
The LaMP provides a lake-level framework serving
both as a reference document and a proposal for
a process to remediate past errors and achieve a
sustainable Lake Michigan basin ecosystem. To this
end, every effort has been made to ensure that the
Lake Michigan LaMP and updates contain clear,
comprehensive goals, specific objectives, a strategic
plan, and a system of indicators and monitoring to
judge the environmental status and effectiveness of
current actions.
Collaboration among a variety of stakeholders to
improve the Lake Michigan ecosystem has increased
since LaMP 2000. This section documents several
of these collaborative activities, including:
• The Great Lakes Strategy (www.epa.gov/glnpo/
gls/index/html)
• Activities of the Binational Executive Committee
• Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
(www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/busintro.html)
• The Great Lakes Human Health Network
• Activities of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission (www.glfc.gov)
• A shared goals project involving EPA Region 5
and state water quality programs
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
• A buffer protection strategy
• The 2002 Wingspread Accord
Other collaborative activities, such as a proposed
mercury phase-out, are discussed in other sections of
this document.
Challenge
• To develop clear goals and objectives that
facilitate coordinated actions among agencies
and stakeholders.
Empire Bluff at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore,
Empire, Michigan
Photography courtesy of Michigan Travel Bureau*
-------
75
Great Lakes Strategy
Great Lakes Strategy 2002 was created by the
U.S. Policy Committee - a forum of senior-level
representatives of federal, state, and tribal agencies
responsible for environmental and natural resource
management of the Great Lakes - to help coordinate
and streamline the efforts of the many governmental
partners involved in protecting the Great Lakes.
The strategy focuses on multi-lake and basinwide
environmental issues and establishes common goals
that the governmental partners work toward. It
supports efforts already undeiway, including LaMPs
and RAPs for AOCs, by addressing issues that are
beyond the scope of these programs and helping to
integrate them into an overall, basinwide context.
The strategy also advances the implementation of
the United States' responsibilities under the 1987
GLWQA.
The strategy is a concise, policy level statement of
basinwide priorities and activities that address the
current state of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem
and key environmental goals for the future so that
a unified approach to implementation can be earned
out by a diverse set of federal, state, and tribal
agencies. The long-term vision of the strategy can
be simply expressed as follows:
• All Great Lakes beaches are open for swimming
all the time.
• All Great Lakes fish are safe to eat all the time.
• The Great Lakes are maintained and enhanced as
a safe source of drinking water.
• The Great Lakes basin is a healthy natural
environment for wildlife and people.
The Binational Executive Committee
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) is
charged with coordinating the implementation of the
binational aspects of the 1987 GLWQA. The BEC
is co-chaired by Environment Canada and U.S.
EPA, and includes members of the Great Lakes
states, the Province of Ontario, and other federal
departments and agencies in Canada and the United
States. 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 Binational Toxics Strategy
The Canada-United States strategy for the virtual
elimination of persistent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes basin, known as the Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS), provides a
framework for actions to reduce or eliminate
persistent toxic substances, especially those which
bioaccumulate. The strategy was jointly developed
by Canada and the United States in 1996 and 1997,
and it was signed by the two governments on April
7, 1997 .
The GLBTS establishes reduction challenges for an
initial list of persistent toxic substances targeted for
virtual elimination: aldrin/dieldrin, benzo(a)pyrene,
chlordane, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, alkyl-lead,
mercury and compounds, mirex, octachlorostyrene,
PCBs, dioxinss and furans, and toxaphene. These
substances have been associated with widespread,
long-term, adverse effects on wildlife in the Great
Lakes and through their bioaccumulation, pose
threats to human health. The strategy marked the
first time that specific reduction targets were set
jointly by the two countries.
Recognizing that virtual elimination is a long-term
process, the GLBTS provides the framework
for actions to achieve reductions for specific
toxic substances in the 1997 to 2006 timeframe.
Flexibility is provided in the GLBTS to allow
for revision of challenges, timeframes, and the list
of targeted substances. The development of
baseline measurements for tracking and measuring
progress toward reductions is a key element.
A "Technical Support Document" appended to
the GLBTS provides action items that will be
undertaken to pursue reductions (www.epa.gov/
glnpo/p2/bnsintro.html).
Great Lakes Human Health Network
A Great Lakes-wide human health network is
being formed to maximize resources and efficiencies
of scale. The U.S. EPA's GLNPO will provide
staff resources for a year (2002-2003) as a pilot
program. The human health network will bring
together experts from throughout the basin to share
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
76
information and provide technical assistance on
human health issues. The network will be holding
initial meetings to discuss terms of reference,
its mission, and other details. In the interim,
preliminary work on human health issues has begun,
including the holding of a Great Lakes Beach
Conference.
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.
• GLFC is also using sterile-male releases to
impede the reproductive success of sea lampreys,
conducting mark-and-recapture studies with
juvenile and adult sea lampreys to measure
population trends, and researching other
strategies to reduce populations of sea lampreys
without harming other parts of the ecosystem.
• GLFC technical committees have also developed
lakewide lake trout population models that
estimate total allowable catches of lake trout,
evaluate various fishery management strategies,
and estimate damage by sea lampreys to lake
trout populations.
Despite the great progress made, sea lampreys
continue to kill many fish each year, threatening the
restoration of lake trout to Lake Michigan. The
principal challenge in controlling the sea lamprey
and other exotic species in the lake lies in balancing
the use of effective control measures for exotic
species with preservation and restoration of native
species.
EPA Region 5 Shared Water Program
Goals
The EPA Region 5 Office of Water is collaborating
with state and tribal partners to protect and enhance
water quality throughout the area. On December 11,
2001, IEPA, IDEM, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, WDNR, EPA Region 5, and the EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) all signed
a Joint Commitment to Achieve Shared Water Goals.
The shared water goals are as follows:
• Goal 1: All waters in Region 5 will support
healthy aquatic biological communities.
• Goal 2: All waters in Region 5 will support fish
populations with safe levels of contaminants.
• Goal 3: Designated swimming waters in Region
5 will be swimmable.
• Goal 4: All people in Region 5 served by
public water supplies will have water that is
consistently safe to drink.
• Goal 5: The quantity and quality of critical
aquatic habitat in Region 5, including wetlands,
will be maintained or improved.
A Great Lakes Tributary Riparian Buffer
Protection Strategy
A team evaluating a Great Lakes Tributary Riparian
Buffer Protection Strategy is assessing options for an
integrated, interagency, tributary protection strategy
and developing associated recommendations for the
U.S. Policy Committee. The recommendations
should include identification of indicators or
performance measures that would be used as
targets and subsequently monitored to assess the
effectiveness of the strategy.
Systemic protection efforts for riparian areas
would provide multiple ecological benefits for
the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Terrestrial
habitat protection, travel and migration corridor
preservation, stream bank stabilization, hydrologic
flux moderation, reductions in pollutant loads
and impacts, and streambed stabilization are
all potential benefits of comprehensive riparian
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
77
An impaired stream before bank restoration and installation of stream buffers
Photography courtesy of the Brown County Land Conservation Department,
Green Bay, Wisconsin
buffer restoration and protection efforts. The
implementation challenge that must be overcome
to realize these benefits is multiple agency and
program coordination and integration. Many
jurisdictions have incentive programs for landowners
in the riparian zones. A major question is how
jurisdictional differences can be effectively blended
into a comprehensive effort by eliminating data
gaps, duplication of effort, and conflicts. An
equally important question is to what degree this
integration can occur without compromising the
initial legislative intent of the many program
authorities.
Commission, the Northeast Illinois Planning
Commission, and the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission signed the
Wingspread Regional Accord in 2002. The
Accord acknowledges that the southern Lake
Michigan tri-state region is characterized by socio-
economic and environmental interdependence, as
evidenced through shared water resources and
ecosystems, interconnected transportation systems,
and connected employment and residential
patterns.
Next Steps
Over the next 2 years, the LaMP will support
the following activities to increase collaborative
activities:
• Convene a bi-state St Joseph Watershed
conference on June 10 and 11, 2002
• Establish the Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy
• Hold a 2003 State of Lake Michigan conference
• Take comments on proposed changes to Lake
Michigan pollutant and stressor lists
The Farm Sendee Agency (FSA) administers
the current program with technical assistance
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). Under the program, agricultural lands
are converted into protected buffer strips or filter
strips as a means of reducing water runoff,
reducing sedimentation, improving water quality,
and providing food and habitat for wildlife. This
program offers cash incentives for enrollment,
annual payments during enrollment based on
local land rental rates, maintenance payments, and
bonus cost sharing for restoration practices. There
is a national goal to enroll 2 million miles of
protected riparian buffers.
The 2002 Wingspread Regional Accord
The Chicago Area Transportation Study , the
Northwest Indiana Regional Planning
Stream banks restored and stream buffers installed to prevent farm animals
from impairing the stream
Photography courtesy of the Brown County Land Conservation Department,
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
78
Subgoal 11
Do we have enough information, data, understanding, and
indicators to inform the decision-making process?
Status
Some information sources are available to support
Lake Michigan decision-makers, but more data
and indicators are needed to address complex
management issues. Numerous monitoring
programs and activities are currently underway in
the Lake Michigan basin at the federal, state,
county, municipal, and watershed levels. These
programs monitor water quality, sediments, fish,
air quality, and habitat. They involve collecting
chemical, microbiological, fish and wildlife, physical
characteristic, land use, and other environmental
data. The Lake Michigan I.aMP has also begun
identifying indicators to guide these monitoring
efforts. If the environmental indicators identified
by the Lake Michigan LaMP are to support future
Great Black Backed Gull
Photography courtesy of the National Park Service,
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore*
management decisions, they must be adopted by
monitoring programs basinwide and used to guide
sampling and assessment parameters and media.
Over the last 2 years, efforts have been undertaken
to gather data on wetlands, beaches, stream buffers,
and other items that will ensure that the goal
status changes from mixed to mixed/improving by
2010 and to good by 2020. The following section
describes these data collection efforts.
Challenge
To expand Lake Michigan basin monitoring
collaboration and coordination by promoting data
comparability and joint planning and to deliver
efficient and timely reporting on the status of the
Lake Michigan ecosystem.
Environmental Indicators
The Lake Michigan LaMP promotes use of
environmental indicators to track progress in
achieving the LaMP goals. For a list of potential
indicators, see Chapter 3 of LaMP 2000. The
concept of environmental indicators is not new.
State and federal agencies have used indicators to
track trends in environmental health, particularly fish
population trends and to help guide management
decisions. Effective use of the LaMP indicators
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
79
Air Deposition Monitoring
Recommendations
Recommended actions from the Delta Institute and
the Lake Michigan Forum include:
• creation of an adequate monitoring network and
comprehensive emission inventories; enhancement
of regional modeling efforts;
• examination of the implications of urban air toxics
initiatives;
• application of environmental management systems;
• extension of pollution prevention techniques to
agricultural practices;
• consideration of a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) calculation for Lake Michigan;
• targeted emission reductions from federal facilities;
and
• integration of reduction targets into energy policies.
Recommended actions from the IAQAB include:
• completion of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance
Study for pathways other than atmospheric
deposition;
• extension of that Mass Balance to other
contaminants;
• improvement of emission inventories, particularly for
point and areal dioxins sources within 100 km of
the Lake Michigan basin and for dominant areal,
and largely unqualified sources of PCBs and other
banned contaminants;
• development of a predictive, first estimate model for
areal urban emissions of banned contaminants ;
• use of models to estimate emissions of residual
banned pesticides from agricultural practices;
• and the continuation and extension of enhanced
ambient measurement schemes to better estimate
areal and regional loading and support model
verification.
will link actual environmental responses directly to
programs and activities.
The LaMP indicators are environmental, social, and
economic measures used to assess the achievement
of LaMP goals and objectives. These indicators will
demonstrate improvements in and protection of the
Lake Michigan ecosystem and will function as an
early warning system to identify pressures on the
ecosystem. The indicators will measure conditions
such as ecosystem integrity, aquatic health, human
health, and the quality of life.
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences
Additional work has been completed on the
indicators over the past 2 years through the State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process.
The SOLEC is hosted biennially by U.S. EPA
GLNPO and Environment Canada. The last SOLEC
was held in October 2000 in Hamilton, Ontario. The
next conference will be held in Cleveland, Ohio,
in October 2002. 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),
corporate, and not-for-profit managers to discuss
problems that affect the lakes. The conferences have
led to information gathering by a wide 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 itself and on extensive public comments
following the conference.
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 31 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 will develop goals, each with
an active working group, whose broad membership
will expand the core Council membership.
In 1999, four short-term working groups were
created to develop information to move the Council
forward: Data Inventory and Analysis; Monitoring
Objectives; Watershed Pilots; and Outreach and
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
80
Great Lakes Wetlands Consortium
Wellsndt Polvoon Co<«()|)n
far the US fi \dt> of the Great La kei Basin
I***#* fcf ws»
On November 29, 2000, EPA's GLNPO awarded a cooperative
agreement to the Great Lakes Commission for the first large-scale,
binational, collaborative effort to assess the ecological health of
Great Lakes coastal wetlands. A consortium brought together by
the Great Lakes Commission will (1) design and validate indicators
to assess the ecological integrity of Great Lakes coastal wetlands;
(2) design an implementable, long-term program to monitor Great
Lakes coastal wetlands; and (3) create and put coastal wetland
data in a binational database accessible to all scientists, decision-
makers, and the public. GLNPO has contributed $400,000 to the
effort, and the other consortium members are contributing over
$200,000. The consortium currently includes Great Lakes wetland
scientists and resource managers from the U.S. and CAnadian
federal governments, states and provinces, nonprofit organizations,:
and academia. Similar funding levels are expected fir each of
the next 2 years. The award is premised on the recognized need
to assess the health of Great Lakes coastal wetlands, which are an
integral part of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Coastal wetlands
have critically important ecological values and functions, yet little basinwide data is available for assessing their ecological
health. For this reason, a suite of 13 Great Lakes coastal wetland indicators was presented at SOLEC 1998. An assessment
of five of these indicators was presented at SOLEC 2000 in Hamilton, Ontario. The consortium's work will expand the
monitoring and reporting capabilities of the United States and Canada under the GLWQA. For additional information,
contact Karen Rodriguez of GLNPO at 312-353-2690 or rodriguez.karen@epa.gov.
¦
NHK«al Irwtfwr Ufc FWfr
DhS W*|A& iftwiOY
to data)
tm
Map courtesy of the Great Lakes Commission
Wetlands within Illinois Beach State Park
Photograph by David Riecks, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant*
Collaboration. The progress of those short-term
working groups set the stage for the development of
a new Council operating framework in 2001.
The new 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 new Council 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 new
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 Fisheries
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 comparability; quality assurance
and control planning; database sharing; and data
analysis approaches.
Lake Michigan Monitoring Assessment
The Great Lakes Commission, in partnership
with EPA and the Lake Michigan Monitoring
Coordinating Council, issued a report on Lake
Michigan monitoring in October 2000. The report
provides a comprehensive review of monitoring
programs at the federal, state, and local levels
for targeted watersheds; an analysis of gaps,
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
81
Lake Michigan Monitoring Assessment Recommendations
• Continue to update the monitoring inventory, and expand data collection to include all tributaries.
• Establish better lines of communication with state DNRs, USFWS, the U.S. Forestry Sendee, and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
• Better integrate habitat and wildlife monitoring with traditional water quality monitoring.
• Improve information on the geographic locations of monitoring sites.
• Initiate planning for a coordinated sampling event for 10 years following the initial LMMB Study, and share data and
modeling results with the public in a timely fashion through numerous outlets.
• Include academic research and data collection efforts in future updates to the monitoring inventory.
• Further examine the monitoring coverage of specific LaMP critical pollutants and emerging pollutants.
• Take better advantage of relatively untapped volunteer monitoring resources.
• Take better advantage of local agencies such as health departments, conservation districts, and planning agencies.
• Establish a better framework for bottom-up monitoring program linkages.
• Standardize data collection and reporting.
• Encourage federal, state, tribal, and local agencies to report monitoring coverage and results to a meta-database with
universal access.
• Develop an on-line database of monitoring information that is geographically based and content-searchable.
• Develop and coordinate implementation of comparable methods to collect indicator data in a coordinated network.
Additional information is available at http://mmglc.org/monitoring/lakemich
L.4%4) JF4M
Liki
While
L*1»
Ml
lAKt
MCMiGMf
IL
Oh
Catiri-H
-Grand . a
^
:
CuiwJ
IN
Tributary Lakesheds represented in the Lake Michigan Monitoring Report
Map courtesy of the Great Lakes commission
inconsistencies, and unmet needs; an assessment
of the adequacy of existing efforts to support
critical ecosystem indicators; and recommendations
for addressing major monitoring needs, particularly
those considered most important for lakewide
management decision-making. The study focused
on monitoring in Grand Traverse Bay, White Lake,
Muskegon Lake, the Grand River, the Kalamazoo
River, the St. Joseph River, the Grand Calumet River,
Waukegan Harbor, the Milwaukee River and Estuary,
the Sheboygan River, the Fox-Wolf River Basin,
Door County, the Menominee River, the Manistique
River, and the open waters of Lake Michigan.
The report outlines a series of recommendations
(see text box) for improving monitoring in Lake
Michigan. These recommendations are having a
broader impact as organizations and governments in
the United States and Canada are beginning work
on better coordinating the Great Lakes systemwide
monitoring strategy.
BEACH Monitoring
EPA initiated the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure, and Health (BEACH) program
to strengthen individual beach programs and water
quality standards, better inform the public, and
promote scientific research to further protect the
health of people who use beaches. EPA is
improving laboratory testing methods for detecting
contaminants at beaches and is assisting local
governments in monitoring beach water quality The
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
'*4
-------
82
Great Lakes Commission is pilot-testing a program
for communicating the results of the National Beach
Survey, assessing the consistency of beach closures
with restriction advisories, and creating maps that
connect with the national BEACH effort.
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network
U.S. EPA is a participant in the Integrated
Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN),
established in July 1988, by the Atmospheric
Deposition Monitoring Task Force of the
International Joint Commission. The objective of
IADN is to acquire sufficient, quality-assured data
to estimate the loading to the Great Lakes Basin of
selected toxic substances. The relative importance of
the atmospheric pathway can then be ascertained and
appropriate control strategies developed.
Coordination of Monitoring
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement requires
that LaMPs "include a description of surveillance
and monitoring to track the effectiveness of remedial
measures and the eventual elimination of the
contribution to impairments of beneficial uses..."
Monitoring collaboration and coordination need
to be maximized in order to promote data
comparability, enhance data utility, extend resources
and deliver efficient and timely reporting on
environmental change and progress as measured
by Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)
indicators.
Responsibility for monitoring in the Great Lakes
is divided among a vast number of program
and agencies throughout the basin. While
these monitoring efforts meet individual program
needs and mandate, the lack of consistency in
protocols and methodology limits the usefulness
of the resultant data for sharing, comparing
and opportunities coordination might provide. The
Binational executive Committee( BEC) sponsors two
frameworks for developing indicators and reporting
on the status of the Great Lakes ecosystem: LaMPs
and The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC)..
BEC requested agencies to investigate the
opportunities to enhance monitoring coordination
and prepare a status report for the BEC Spring
2002 meeting and a set of options for the Fall 2002
meeting. A series of workshops are being conducted
to develop a draft proposal.
Volunteer Monitoring
Volunteer monitoring is integral to the effort to
assess the health of our nation's waters. Government
agencies have limited funds for monitoring and
have found that volunteer programs can provide
high quality, reliable data to supplement their own
monitoring programs.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, in
partnership with The Ocean Conservancy and Lake
Michigan LaMP , coordinated a free, two-day
workshop March 19,20,2002 at the Illinois Beach
Resort and Conference Center in Zion, Illinois.
The 54 attendees were:
• Leaders of local volunteer water quality
monitoring programs
• Teachers conducting student water quality
monitoring programs
• Local, state, regional, and federal agencies
working with water quality issues
Workshop participants reviewed valuable techniques
for establishing or improving monitoring operations,
ensuring the quality of data collected, enhancing
training efforts, and improving program
management. In addition, the workshop promoted
coordination and networking among volunteer
monitors and government agencies operating in the
Great Lakes basin.
The Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) gave
a presentation on their network of volunteer
opportunities to help conserve Great Lakes
amphibians and birds and their threatened wetland
habitats through a binational, long-term monitoring
program, Initated in 1994 by Bird Studies Canada
and Environment Canada, the MMPhas been
developed and expaned through the additional
support of the US EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office and Great Lakes Protection Fund
as well as committed individuals and private
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
83
foundations. The MMP reports are respected and
utilized by those attempting to track conditions in
the Great Lakes. Additional Lake Michigan basin
volunteers are needed- contact :www.bsc.eoc.org or
call 1-888-448-2473.
Air Deposition Monitoring
During the 1999-2001 priority work cycle, the
International Air Quality Advisoiy Board (IAQAB)
and the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (SAB)
held two workshops, in cooperation with the Delta
Institute and the Lake Michigan Forum, focusing
on the capability of atmospheric models to support
the development of policies, including source
control strategies, by confirming deposition trends
and identifying significant sources of persistent
contaminants.
At the workshops, presentations from leading
researchers and modelers were followed by
discussion of the policy implication of their work.
Participants included representatives of municipal,
state and provincial governments, the U.S. and
Canadian governments, universities, consultants,
industry and environmental group. A Task
Force has been formed in response to the many
recommendations.
Next Steps
• Monitoring research and development will be
presented for the critical pollutant Watch List.
• A LMMB Study report will be prepared for each
contaminant studied added to the LaMP 2000
online.
• Progress will be made in prioritizing indicators
for the lake and monitoring them.
• The coordinated monitoring plan for the lake
will be finalized.
• LMMB Study findings will be documented and
model runs will be completed.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
84
3.0 Conclusions and
Recommendations
LaMP 2002 builds on LaMP 2000 and the Lake
Michigan Mass Balance Study preliminary model
runs to propose pollutant reduction targets. LaMP
2002 applies adaptive management approaches to the
list of LaMP pollutants and stressors and proposes
list changes based on the review that proposes
adding certain stressors to the level of pollutants
of concern. 1994 is established as the base line
for measuring activity results and a monitoring
dialogue will provide better coordinated efforts in
data collection and dissemination.
LaMP 2002 provides an update on the activities that
have been completed over the past two years to
improve the Lake Michigan ecosystem. Overall,
progress has been under all of the LaMP subgoals:
• More information regarding fish advisories is
being disseminated to the public, while plans to
control sources of contaminants in fish such as
PCBs in sediments are moving forward.
• Drinking water quality in the lake remains good,
although the potential for isolated contamination
events still needs to be assessed and controlled
through source water protection.
• Beach closures are a growing concern, but new
resources available under the Federal Beach Bill
and information and networking resources, such
as those provided through the Great Lakes Beach
Conference, are helping communities manage
this problem.
• Lake Michigan habitat continues to be
threatened by fragmentation, urban sprawl,
wetlands loss, and changes in biological
community structure. A number of new
programs are collecting data and refining
indicators .
• Open space preservation is increasing in
importance. State coastal zone management
programs will need to work to ensure that public
access to the lake is balanced with protection of
the ecosystem.
• Sustainable management of the Lake Michigan
ecosystem faces new challenges with regard to
declining lake levels, water diversions, and other
concerns.
• The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study
revealed the importance of the air deposition
pathway as a source of pollutant loading to the
lake as sediment sites are remediated. PCB
levels in Lake Michigan fish continue to decline,
but additional controls on PCB sources will
be needed to attain reduced fish consumption
advisory levels targeted for 2020. Atrazine
loadings through tributaries will also need to
be reduced to simply maintain atrazine levels at
current levels in the open waters of the lake.
• Aquatic nuisance species continue to enter the
lake, although new agreements and pilot control
programs including the ballast water reporting
program in Michigan, may help pave the way to
new management practices.
• New ecosystem stewardship activities are being
undertaken throughout the basin, including
establishment of a Lake Michigan Watershed
Academy in 2002.
• Opportunities for collaborative decision making
and information sharing are available through the
Great Lakes Strategy, the Binational Executive
Committee, the Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy, and others.
• More information is also becoming available
to support collaborative data collection and
reporting through the Lake Michigan Monitoring
Coordinating Council, SOLEC, IADN, and the
Great Lakes Wetland Consortium.
While much progress has been made, more
work is needed to achieve the management
recommendations outlined by the Lake Michigan
Technical Coordinating Committee in LaMP 2000.
These recommendations are reiterated below.
1. Ballast Water Control. The Great Lakes are
not only impacted by aquatic nuisance species
causing irreversible damage, but also serve
as a pathway to other connected ecosystems.
Standards or guidelines should be developed
for ballast water treatment, working toward
zero discharge.
2. Clean Up Legacy Sites. The Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Study has confirmed that
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
85
contaminated sediment sites in the lake
remain an ongoing source of contamination
into the food web, causing fish consumption
advisories and delaying dredging of navigable
waterways, thereby affecting the local
economies. In order to move swiftly to clean
up contaminated legacy sites, both on land
and in the water, we will convene federal and
state Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action,
Drinking Water, and Surface Water programs
for planning discussions focused on the Lake
Michigan ecosystem. The goal is to complete
most of the plans by 2005 and cleanup actions
by 2010. A few of the major sediment sites
may require additional time.
3. Protect Source Water. As the drinking water
source for 10 million people, it is important
to determine if the current level of protection
is sufficient. This can be done utilizing the
state source water assessments that delineate
source water areas and assess significant
potential contaminant sources. Consideration
should also be given to the issue of exporting
the water.
4. Protect Habitat. Determine a priority
for preservation sites within the recently
mapped bio-rich clusters as well as the sites
identified in the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, including connected
corridors between clusters. Wetland areas,
particularly those connecting to the lake that
are important to many species, and restoration
of coastal brownfields to greenfields, should
be highlighted. Natural areas not only
provide habitat, but also serve to filter
sediments and runoff, as well as store flood
waters and recharge ground water. This
information should be provided online.
5. Collaborate on Fish Projects. Develop
joint projects with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission that implement both the LaMP
and the Joint Strategic Plan for Management
of Great Lakes Fisheries. Collaborate on the
development of fish spawning maps to aid
protection activities and provide adjacent land
use planners with protection tools and data.
6. Match Decision Makers with Issues. The
appropriate level of government and other
nontraditional groupings should be convened
and engaged to accomplish LaMP goals. The
following should be promoted within these
groups: 1) national dialogue for control of
aquatic nuisance species and atmospheric
deposition of toxics; 2) academic and agency
dialogue to promote data sharing, to define
research needs, and to develop lake-related
courses; and 3) local dialogue to provide
protection tools and a lakewide perspective to
land use planners.
7. Control Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). The
mixed discharge of storm water and domestic
waste causes beach closings and is also
a pathway for pathogens to enter the
lake. Tools, training, and data should be
provided to local governments to promote full
compliance with CSO, SSO, and storm water
regulations, and sewer system maintenance
with awareness of land use planning on a
watershed basis.
8. Develop an Agriculture Pollution Prevention
Strategy. The strategy should include and
coordinate among states, Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the
Lake Michigan Forum's Agriculture Task
Force, promoting nonpoint source pollution
prevention. Such activities may include using
planted stream buffer strips, and pollution
prevention strategies for pesticides, confined
animal feed operations, and nutrient controls.
Food web disruptions in Lake Michigan relate
to sedimentation and continuing nutrient
pollution.
9. Implement Area of Concern (AOC) Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs). AOC RAPs are in
various stages of completion. Many RAP
and watershed groups, as well as local
communities, have included the watershed
in their planning and have developed a list
of priorities (found in Addendum 6-B of
the LaMP). These groups need support
that includes tools, technical assistance and
training, and some level of funding to
leverage scarce resources.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
86
10. Fill Data Gaps. Promote research with the
following goals: 1) define in-basin and out-
of-basin air pollution; 2) develop technology
to control aquatic nuisance species in
ballast water; 3) understand pesticides,
pathways, and longevity in open water; 4)
reuse contaminated sediments; 5) understand
endocrine disrupters and their effects, sources,
and possible controls; 6) identify fish
spawning site locations; and 7) review and
refine the Lake Michigan pollutants list.
11. Clean Sweep Strategy. Years after some
pesticides were canceled and restricted (such
as DDT/DDE, dieldrin, chlordane) they are
still recovered in clean sweep operations,
indicating the effectiveness of the tool.
However, there is no specific funding source
for these activities. Therefore, there is a
need to develop a strategy to ensure long-term
consistent funding or ownership of annual
pesticide, household hazardous waste, and
small business PCB/mercury Clean Sweep
programs for each state.
12. Measure and Report. Continue development
of the Lake Michigan Monitoring
Coordinating Council and jointly develop
a Monitoring Plan for Lake Michigan
that includes expanding the United States
Geological Service (USGS) National Water
Quality Assessment Program (NAQWA)
monitoring to Lake Michigan's eastern
shore and drainage. Develop a strategy
for duplicating the coordinated monitoring
(simultaneous air, water, land, open water,
and tributary mouths) of the Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Project (LMMB, 1994) in 2004
to have data for a 10-year analysis. Establish
a beach community monitoring network and a
volunteer basin monitoring network.
13. Provide on-Line Information, Public
Involvement Activities. Promote sharing of
public information and public involvement
by providing the following: 1) on-line data
site that includes public health information;
2) an on-line habitat atlas of the basin
showing ecologically-rich areas; and 3)
a running summaiy of comments and
responses. Continue the Forum's public
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
meetings, workshops, and boat tour in
partnership with organizations such as Grand
Valley State University, which also sponsors
the State of Lake Michigan Conference.
14. TMDL Strategy. Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) must be developed when
waters do not meet state-adopted water
quality standards, even after the
implementation of technology-based controls.
TMDLs are calculated to return waters
to their designated uses. States develop
TMDLs for their tributaries, but a strategy for
cooperative TMDL work for Lake Michigan
that includes a public involvement process is
needed.
15. Stewardship Actions. The majority of the
land that drains into the lake is privately
owned and managed. America's cities and
towns account for 80 percent of energy
use. Of that 80 percent, land use planning
and urban design affect about 70 percent,
or 56 percent of the nation's total energy
use. Energy production and transportation
are major sources of air pollution. The
message from these statistics is that every
basin resident is a "Lake Michigan Manager."
We need to strengthen partnerships with other
education and outreach efforts to promote
the activities necessary to accomplish the
following: 1) promote recycling efforts,
energy and water conservation, and trash
barrel burning awareness; 2) place special
emphasis on preventing the spread of aquatic
nuisance species by boat owners for the next
two years; 3) communicate the importance
of private efforts in habitat preservation on
both public and privately owned land; and 4)
develop an Areas of Stewardship program for
local communities and watersheds.
-------
87
Glossary
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)
Water-bome 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. Lhe
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 Lraverse Bay, Michigan and Door County,
Wisconsin.
Basin
Lhe land area that drains into a lake or river. Lhis area is defined and
bounded by topographic high points around the waterbody.
Beneficial Use
Lhe 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)
Lhe 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. Lhe
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: "Lhe 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
Lhe 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
Lhe 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.
Designated Uses
Lhe 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 over time,
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
Lhe 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
Lhe 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.
Lhese 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.
Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA)
An advisoiy issued by a government agency recommending that the
public limit their consumption of fish. Advisories are issued to limit
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
88
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 Coips 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 Fisheiy 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
particulates. 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.
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 qualify 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 Qualify Agreement in 1987.
Stressor
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; 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.
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 Coips 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 Registiy, U.S. Forest Service, Great
Lakes Fishery Commission, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Great Lakes Tribal
Governments.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
89
Appendix A
LaMP Pollutants: Process
for Biennial Updates of Lake
Michigan LaMP Pollutant
List
This appendix discussion outlines a proposed
process for updating the Lake Michigan LaMP
pollutant list. The discussion is organized in
three sections: (1) Background on LaMP pollutants,
(2) LaMP pollutants proposed for 2002, and
(3) adaptive management approach for LaMP
pollutants. Comments are requested. A more
detailed discussion is being added to LaMP 2000 at
www.epa.gov/glnpo/lamps.
1. Background
Under Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA), "critical pollutants" are to
be addressed through the LaMP process. In 1992
and 1993, a list of Lake Michigan pollutants was
developed by the Federal and State Lake Michigan
LaMP agencies. The pollutants were categorized
into three groups: critical pollutants, pollutants of
concern, and emerging pollutants. This list was
adopted and incorporated in Lake Michigan LaMP
2000. LaMP partners have adopted an adaptive
management approach to the LaMP list of pollutants.
Ongoing reviews ensure efforts are focused on
pollutants still causing beneficial use impairments.
This appendix outlines a proposed procedure to
implement adaptive management by evaluating the
previously listed LaMP pollutants and unlisted,
candidate pollutants. The new procedure is
consistent with the previous categorization of
pollutants into three groups, but renames the
emerging pollutants as a pollutant "watch list."
Comments are requested on the new procedure
described in this appendix. Listed in descending
order with regard to the potential level of impairment
or importance to the lake, the three categories of
LaMP pollutants are:
(1) Critical Pollutants, to be addressed through
LaMP reduction targets;
(2) Pollutants of Concern, to be addressed by
local actions facilitated by the LaMP, and
(3) A Pollutant Watch List to be addressed by
monitoring and research encouraged by the
LaMP.
This proposal also compares the 1993 LaMP
pollutant list (adopted in LaMP 2000) with the
new pollutant identification criteria and makes
recommendations for the LaMP 2002 list of
pollutants based upon preliminary information
gathered from the States. Additional information
will need to be collected and assessed to fully
implement the pollutant identification criteria, such
as a review of open water data to assess compliance
with Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative criteria.
Additional pollutants, beyond those identified
in 1993, are also considered for inclusion in
LaMP 2002 based upon the proposed pollutant
identification criteria.
Early in 2001, state and tribal partners expressed
concern that a new LaMP pollutant identification
process would be inconsistent with existing
regulatory programs or not benefit from information
gathered through existing programs. In response
to these concerns, the pollutant review process
builds on the existing requirements found at Sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Section 303(d) requires each State to prepare lists of
waters within its boundaries for which the effluent
limitations are not stringent enough to implement
any water quality standard applicable to such
waters. Section 305(b) requires each State to report,
to U.S. EPA, the water quality of all navigable
waters biennially. Because the implementing CWA
regulations were in flux during 2000, EPA waived
the requirement for States to submit their lists that
year; the lists are next due by October 1, 2002.
Other partners expressed concern about the potential
inconsistencies between State water quality criteria
and standards. Nationally, water quality monitoring
and data analysis are the foundation of water-
resource management decisions. Beginning with
stakeholder meetings in 2000, EPA and its
partners have been working together to develop a
consolidated 305(b)/303(d) assessment approach that
addresses water quality monitoring strategies, data
quality and quantity needs, and data interpretation
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
90
methodologies. In November 2001, EPA published
the 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment Report, which will result in a
more comprehensive and consistent description of
states' waters, including impaired waters. The
Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology
(CALM) aims to help states improve the accuracy
and completeness of 303(d) lists and 305(b)
reports as well as streamline these two reporting
requirements. In addition, the Great Lakes
Environmental Indicators (GLEI) Project is a four-
year cooperative agreement, among scientists from
a consortium of Great Lakes universities and
institutions, with two goals. The first goal
is to develop environmental indicators of the
condition of Great Lakes coastal and near shore
zones. The second goal is to link indicators with
specific stressors so managers can relate causes of
impairment for future monitoring. The GLEI effort
is relevant to the identification of impaired waters in
tributary mouths and nearshore lake waters. Once
indicators are developed, trends in these waters can
be tracked.
It is expected that the comparability of the
303(d)/305(b) reports relevant to Lake Michigan will
improve over time. As state lists of impaired waters
change, the LaMP pollutant identification process
will reflect those changes.
The timing of the LaMP pollutant review and
identification process is outlined in Table A-1.
2. LaMP Pollutants Proposed for 2002
The criteria for identifying pollutants within each
of the three categories identified by the LaMP are
outlined below. For critical pollutants and pollutants
of concern, these criteria are consistent with the
approach taken in 1993 and 2000, but are more
clearly stated.
In a limited effort to update the data evaluated
to categorize chemicals as critical pollutants,
background information was gathered to support the
analysis of the proposed 2002 pollutant identification
criteria, including the rationale for the 1993 LaMP
pollutant list. In addition, the States submitted
information to document the basis for listing the
open and near-shore waters of Lake Michigan
on CWA Section 303(d) lists prepared by
Lake Michigan States. Figure A-1 summarizes
the information that allows for an analysis of
the proposed 2002 pollutant identification criteria.
Specifically, the figure identifies those pollutants that
have been identified as impairing the open or
near-shore waters of Lake Michigan on CWA
Section 303(d) lists. In addition, fish consumption
advisories in the open waters of the lake, which are
not otherwise addressed as part of CWA Section
303(d) listings, are indicated as an "action level
exceedance." Pollutants that are identified as sources
of impairment in an Area of Concern are identified
as an action level exceedance in near-shore waters.
Comments are requested on whether releases to
tributary mouths and nearshore waters addressed
by Superfund remedial and RCRA corrective action
programs should also be considered action level
exceedances.
Based on this review, the pollutants in each category
may be compared from the LaMP 2000 to the
proposed categories in this 2002 update (see Table
A-2). This will be revised biannually.
Lake Michigan LaMP Critical Pollutants
Under this proposal, 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;
• Pollutants that exceed or trigger a relevant
Action Level, such as a fish consumption
advisory (FCA) or 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).
Comments are solicited on the proposed use of any
one of these four criteria to define critical pollutants
for the Lake Michigan LaMP.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
91
Table A-l Timing of LaMP Pollutant Review Process
Partners\
Input
Spring 2002
Summer 2002
Fall 2002
Winter
2002/2003
Spring
2003
Summer
2003
Fall 2003
Winter
2003/2004
Spring
2004
Federal,
State, and
Tribal LaMP
staff serving
on the LaMP
Toxic
Reduction
Sub-
committee
(TRS)
LaMP 2002
critical
pollutants,
pollutants of
concern,
watch list,
and review
process
proposed;
comments
requested
LaMP Toxic
Reduction
Subcommittee
(TRS)
receiving and
reading
comments
TRS
receiving
and
reading
comments
TRS
receiving
and reading
2002 303(d)
lists and
305(b)
reports and
other
comments
TRS
receiving
and
reading
comments
TRS collects
& reviews
additional
data
submitted
since 2002
303(d) lists
and 305(b)
report
TRS meets to
review
pollutant data
submitted and
to evaluate
comments on
LaMP
pollutant
process
TRS
Proposal to
Man.
Committee
LaMP
2004
Great Lakes
National
Program
Office
Lake
Michigan
Mass
Balance
(LMMB)
data reports;
sample Lake
Michigan
data fiom 2000
fish;
sample Lake
Michigan
2002 fish
collected
data fiom
2002 fish;
sample
Lake
Michigan
sample Lake
Michigan
2003 fish
collected
States
Programs
305(b)
reports due,
unless
consol. with
303(d) lists
2002
305(b)
reports due
303(d) lists
due
biannually
Tribes
Individually
solicited for
data
Deadline
for data for
2004
LaMP
Scientists
SOLEC
papers
IAGLR
papers
Forum,
Private
Sector and
the Public
LaMP 2002
proposals
June 30
deadline
for LaMP
pollutant
proposals
& data for
2004
LaMP
State of Lake
Michigan
Conference;
Preliminary
Results of
TRS review
Because dieldrin has been dropped from state fish
consumption advisories for the open waters of
Lake Michigan, the LaMP 2002 proposal removes
dieldrin from the critical pollutant list. The TRS
therefore proposes that dieldrin be categorized as a
pollutant of concern rather than a critical pollutant
and requests comment on this proposal.
Pollutants of Concern
Any one of the following three criteria are proposed
to define the Lake Michigan LaMP pollutants of
concern:
• Pollutants on State 303(d) lists identified as
causing impairments in near-shore waters and
Lake Michigan tributary mouths;
• Pollutants exceeding an Agency action level in
near shore 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).
Comments are solicited on the proposed use of any
one of these three criteria to define pollutants of
concern for the Lake Michigan LaMP.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
92
Many of the LaMP 2002 Pollutants of Concern
do not appear on State 303(d) lists for near-shore
waters, although some of those pollutants are still
identified as sources of impairment in the Areas of
Concern. Two additional categories of pollutants
and the addition of three specific chemicals as
Pollutants of Concern are proposed on the LaMP
2002 list because these substances are included
on State 303(d) lists as causes of impairment
for near-shore waters: pathogens, nutrients, endrin,
heptachlor expoxide, and BHC (lindane). Nutrients
and pathogens are proposed as pollutants of
concern in LaMP 2002 because they are causes
of impairment for nearshore and tributary waters
to the lake. For example, see the basis for
the 303(d) listing of the Manistique River and
Little Black Creek in Michigan and Lower Green
Bay in Wisconsin. Furthermore, the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement recognizes the need to
address pollutants other than toxic substances as
demonstrated by Annex 3 and Annex 13. Comments
are solicited on this proposal to include these
substances as pollutants of concern for the Lake
Michigan LaMP.
Pollutant Watch List
All three of the following three criteria are proposed
to define the Lake Michigan LaMP watch list:
• 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.
Table A-2
Comments are solicited on the proposed use of all
three criteria to define the pollutant watch list for the
Lake Michigan LaMP.
Participants in the LaMP process expressed some
concerns about whether these criteria are specific
enough to include endocrine disrupting and other
toxic effects. In identifying pollutants on the
Watch List, this proposal adapts the CWA definition
of "toxic pollutant". "The term 'toxic pollutant'
means those pollutants, or combinations of
pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which
after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,
or inhalation or assimilation into any organism,
either directly from the environment or indirectly
by ingestion through food chains, will, on the
basis of information available to the [U.S. EPA]
Administrator, cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions
in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such
organisms or their offspring" (United States Code,
Title 33, Section 1362(13)). While citing the CWA
definition, the evaluation of watch list pollutants
will also consider other definitions of toxicity,
including but not limited to definitions found in
the Food Quality Protection Act (1996), the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947),
the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (1976), any amendments
to these statutes, and their implementing programs.
Similarly, a variety of definitions for the terms
bioaccumulative and persistent likely exist. For
example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) issued its final policy statement on November
4, 1999 (64 FR 60194) for new persistent,
Comparison of LaMP 2000 Pollutants to Pollutants Identified
through Proposed Process
2000
2002
Critical Pollutants
PCBs, Dieldrin, chlordane,
DDT/DDE, mercury, dioxin
PCBs, chlordane, DDT/DDE,
mercury, dioxin
Pollutants of Concern
PAHs, Hexachlorobenzene,
lead, cadmium, chromium,
copper, zinc, arsenic, cyanide
PAHs, lead, cadmium,
chromium, copper, zinc, arsenic,
cyanide, endrin, heptachlor
epoxide, lindane, nickel,
nutrients, pathogens
2000 Emerging Pollutants
2002 Watch List
atrazine, selenium, PCB
substitute compounds
atrazine, selenium, PCB
substitute compounds
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
93
Lake Michigan Impairments Summary
Tributary mouths, near shore waters, open waters with AOCs
CWA-3Wi41
W«t«i Boriie*
Pd4Ki«aM Bum f«
impairment
Dwfc CfW*
Nul/rwrtfc. Sw&~;-eM Ha>tMX to La*.® Wkragan;
Ormt
Ma me* |Cr, CU, F% Zni
ftwftw
KVtfS
Ghctoftpn Rver
PCBi
5*}®W| S«p C4WW
vvwTwnP^
IMi
PC**, NU!T«enH
lit
KM.
l „k* IAr*m*n KBfc Mf>
W*A«u*i Htfbm
pee*
KMhj*
pr.Fn Kg nMrciiwi. n**w*
DDTWGDCO, Cnonn,
ii#ptor«»v rwtoMkt tw-k:
flundm), PAH **, Cd, Pb,
u>w IX», Hg, naqn
6Oath Hg, pb
TM Crwtc PCfe, Hg
vcn
tow
Oyft^Uk*
PCfiA ChtoAtenft
G«*cn Nywmr
PCBi
Q^idUMr
PCftS CNe*fof*
6r*M
MrrQjy
(Kj^iTwroa R^*r
PCQs
LxkiUnhiii
f*!IU OAvdtea Ki^rria
Lt«»r A'lMA
L^v
Ftb». NVvvy.
MtriWluc Rvcr
WHd
fen*
fVhoiimw
Wy«L#fce
PCSn , Mnruy
Mi^un^on u*c
PCB» Mma^f
Pw Miwt5t»«1fl Ijw^
l^CHi Mrwy
F»yiU«vUfcj«r
Mir wry
S**yni Onwk
POlR P,^^KW
1VhML«a
PCS*. Ofanfana Lfamxiry
Anas of Concern:
QJ Marrisllque Rlvor
til Morvomines River
E) Fo* River
Stwboysan River
00 Milwaukee Estuary
g] Waukegan Harbor
Qj Grand Calumet River
(7J Katamazoo River
0 Muskegon Lake
0 White Lake
Legend:
\NN* Green Bay
Lake Michigan
States Boundaries
( N * Mrfrwflfs, T ¦ Toxics,
S ¦ SadiniBnts, P « Pitfiegwu)
25
25 Miles
Locations:
O Harbor
G Mearghnre
o Open waters
B Tributary Mouths
MJU CfttJlfld by. MJrtlij Avllpi-Oulntero.
OWSE R«j>*Ch, US EPA Rftfon 5,
01/1MH
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
River
Oak Creek
Mamstique River (T, P) (Qj- i
Mcoornincc
(T.P)
Gre#n Bay
(S. Marinette)
m
Puck Creek
(N, S)
Fox River Lower
Sfrfl 3 (V
t.Twin River (T)
Manitowoc River (7}
Sheboygan River CO
Milwaukee River (T)
Root Rlvor (T)
W1 Lake Michigan (T)
Waukcgari Harbor (T)
IL Lake Michigan (T)
Glen Lake CO
Crystal Lake
(V
Portage Lake
m
Manistee Lake
(T.P)
Rere Marquette Lake
co
White Lake CO
Muskegon Lake CO
Mona Lake (T)
Grand River (T)
LltHe Black Creek f«,P)
Lake Ma cat w a (jt jyj
Kalamazoo River CO
Black River (T)
SL Joseph River fT, P)
Sawyer Creek (N)
Indiana Harbor CO
Burns Ditch fT)
•Saw.
.~iGalien River (T>
IN Lake Michigan fP)
-------
94
Supporting Information for Placing a
Chemical on the Watch List
Information supporting the placement of a chemical on
the watch list will be drawn from a number of sources
by necessity. For example, Manchester-Neesvig and
Sonzogni presented data for polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDEs) in Lake Michigan coho and chinook
salmon at the 44th Conference of the International
Association for Great Lakes Research in June 2001.
As another example, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Toxic Substances Hydrology (Toxics) Program
provides scientific information on the behavior of toxic
substances in the Nation's hydrologic environments.
The USGS Toxics Program conducts: (1) intensive
field investigations of representative cases of subsurface
contamination at local releases; and (2) watershed- and
regional-scale investigations of contamination affecting
aquatic ecosystems from nonpoint and distributed
point sources. In 1999-2000, the USGS Toxics
Program monitored several Lake Michigan tributaries
for these categories of pollutants: veterinary and
human antibiotics, human drugs, industrial and
household wastewater products, sex and steroidal
hormones and published results in 2002 (Kolpin et
al., "Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic
Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999 -
2000: A National Reconnaissance"in Environmental
Science and Technology, volume 36, 1202-1211).
In addition, the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) is funding a fish monitoring
program conducted by the University of Minnesota
to identify emerging pollutants in Great Lakes fish
tissue. The GLNPO fish monitoring will likely
include polybrominated diphenyl ethers ( PBDEs),
polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs), polybrominated
biphenyl (PBB) 153, perfiuorooctane sulfonate (PFOS ),
tetrabromobisphenol A, short-chain chlorinated paraffins,
alkylphenol ethoxylates ( APES), and chorothalon.
Finally, Federal and State regulatory programs may
periodically reassess regulated substances, and the TRS
may consider information from those reassessments
for Watch List pollutants or forward concerns about
Watch List pollutants for consideration during
reassessment. For example, an update on the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act's Tolerance
Reassessment and Reregistration for Atrazine and CWA
proposal for an Atrazine water quality standard is
provided elsewhere in this document.
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals.
Comments have been received recommending that
endocrine disrupting chemicals be included on the
watch list as a category of chemicals. EPA has been
interpreting endocrine disruption as fitting within
the toxicity definitions listed above and intends to
focus on this category when updating the watch
list. Comments are solicited concerning alternative
or supplemental definitions of toxicity
The renaming of the Emerging Pollutants category
to the pollutant Watch List better represents the
LaMP's assessment of the pollutants' potential threat
to human health and the environment in Lake
Michigan. Data corresponding to the LaMP 2000
emerging pollutants are not provided on CWA
Section 303(d) lists; the 2004 LaMP will depend
on other sources of information to evaluate the
LaMP 2000 emerging pollutants. A potentially
large number of pollutants could be placed on the
Watch List as information is gathered in the basin.
Pollutants may be removed from the Watch List
through a determination that no potential to impact
Lake Michigan exists or by a determination that the
pollutant is not present in the watershed. Comments
are solicited regarding the process for removal of
pollutants from the Watch List.
3. Adaptive Management Approach for
LaMP Pollutants
The LaMP envisions an ongoing adaptive
management process to continually review and
update the pollutant lists. In practice, parties will
submit data to the LaMP for review on a biennial
basis to support identification of a chemical in one or
none of the pollutant categories (see table above for
timing). The updated lists will then become part of
the biennial Lake Michigan LaMP report.
Load Reduction Targets for LaMP
Pollutants
It should be noted that this effort is not intended to
replace other, ongoing processes at multiple levels
of government to identify and reduce persistent,
bioaccumulative toxic substances in the Great Lakes.
For example, the load reduction targets identified
in this document do not replace the total maximum
daily load (TMDL) required by Section 303(d) of the
CWA. In addition, EPA and Environment Canada
continue with the implementation of the Binational
Toxics Strategy (BTS) for the virtual elimination
of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
95
/ s
Endocrine Disruptors
The endocrine system is responsible for regulating
and maintaining biological functions that are critical
for normal growth, development, and reproduction. It
includes the brain, reproductive organs, and various
endocrine glands. Endocrine glands monitor biological
processes through hormones with unique receptor sites;
hormones binding to their specific receptor sites is a
crucial step in the endocrine system's normal operations.
Endocrine disruption by exogenic chemicals is not a new
concept-the important question is whether the health of
humans and wildlife is being adversely affected by the
presence of small amounts of different types of man-
made chemicals in air, water, and food.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals work through several
mechanisms, usually by mimicking natural hormones,
blocking receptor sites, or delivering an inappropriate
"message". Human health concerns include increases
in reproductive tract cancers and abnormal sexual
development. In wildlife, documented observations
include decreased hatching success in birds, alligators,
and turtles, the synthesis and secretion of a female
hormone by male fish, changes in immune response, and
behavioral modification. Some of the chemical classes
that are receiving significant endocrine-related research
are alkyphenols, carboxylate derivatives, and dioxinss.
For more information on endocrine disruptors, see
www.epa.gov/oscmont/oscpendo
I ^
Now in its fifth year, the BTS recently reported
on the activities of its workgroups addressing
mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins/furan,
hexachlorobenzene/benzo(a)pyrene,
octachlorostyrene, pesticides, alkyl-lead, and
integration activities (Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy 2001 Annual Progress Report, Draft
January 16, 2002). The LaMP pollutant process
described in this memorandum is not intended to
replace these other, ongoing activities. Rather, the
Lake Michigan TRS proposes to draw upon these
other sources of information to fulfill the GLWQA
Annex 2 requirements for Lake Michigan.
Consistent with this intent and Annex 2 of the
GLWQA, the overall Lake Michigan goal as
expressed in this document is to improve ecosystem
health. Given the current, overall "mixed" condition
of Lake Michigan, the target is to be headed toward
"good" in 2010 and to achieve an overall condition
of "good" by 2020. Zeroing in on this target
requires activities related to specific pollutants and
the recognition that other stressors, including food
web changes, influence the progress toward the
targets.
Research and Regulatory Attention for the
Watch List
As substances that may cause an impairment are
identified, the LaMP encourages additional research
to determine whether there is a Great Lakes
impact. While no water, air or land disposal
regulatory standards currently exist for many of
the substances on the watch list, the Great
Lakes research findings are communicated nationally
for regulatory attention. These research findings
may result in substances being addressed through
voluntary product ingredient substitution rather than
new regulations.
EPA has developed a PBT Profiler to encourage
voluntary product ingredient substitution. The PBT
Profiler is a subset of methods included in the U.S.
EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substance's P2 Framework (http://www.epa.gov/
opptintr/p2framework) which is an approach to
risk screening that incorporates pollution prevention
principles in the design and development of
chemicals. The objective of the P2 Framework
approach is to inform decision making at early
stages of development and promote the selection
and application of safer chemicals and processes.
The PBT Profiler integrates methods for estimating
environmental persistence (P), bioconcentration
potential (B), and aquatic toxicity (T). The PBT
Profiler will predict P, B, and T characteristics
from chemical structure. When the user accesses the
PBT Profiler on the Internet, the program prompts
the user to enter the Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) number of chemicals under consideration.
The PBT Profiler is linked a database containing
CAS numbers and associated chemical structure for
over 100,000 discrete chemical substances. If the
CAS number is in the database, the PBT Profiler will
translate the CAS number into a chemical structure,
predict the PBT characteristics, and provide a PBT
Profile in a easy to understand format.
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
Appendix B
o\
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern April is, 1002
For mofeiftfoirnirion, yUit rfcc AOC wcb>iie bttpif /vny.iin.tt.fctj/xMmr/npi/aac-gbp.btmi
AOC Nunc
Primaiy
Conuunin*aci
Gt Orphic
Area
Impact# an Human, Aquatic* and WlkCLfie Health, the
Kirrironment, and the Kconocny and their Kffecta
ProgTam*
Qem-Up Acdona
KeyArtWly
Needed
Barrier
Next Step
Grand
#
PCB.
Grand Cahimet
* Cofitamicared
¦ Restrictions on eating fiah (Hnraan health, ipotffishii^, recreation)
* Superftind
* USX dedgpng
¦
• Public
*
Calumet
•
PAIIs
River
Sediments
¦ Tainted, 6ib tad widHfe flavor buatsng)
* RCKA
* W«ca4aadj
» CSOLon*
coocem
l.'SK OXQ)
Whm
«
Lagooe, Ban
* Cosrtbtaed Sewe*
• 1 teemed Gib aa«J *3dlife bwfcfe rod eepfoducttoe (Ecofiviem
* OeaaWwer
RemeiS-a .»^f!
Tear
ttpadk#
• NRDA-
*
QdMB
Bturchttkj
Owflova
^rtukulxky, hu£oan health, reaxauoo)
Aa.
* GSDSed
Coeurol
kxttionof
Coats>lettPRP
l»diist*
a
fhmrnf im
Wc« Branch,
* CofttattHflafiDd
1 Deformities foe fith, birds of tnrmalfr and tumor* so &sh (Bcofyttcztii
* WRDA
RcrocdutHW)
Plani
OKItSiuiilal&vl
tK^otatiema,
¦
Lad
Indani Harbor
pimmlwiicr
sustsunsbility, human health, recreation)
* N's-rigwiana]
* Na-ngidonaJ
¦ Issue
matrxid
* ACOK- mDA
•
Biochemical
rod Ship Canal,
* C-o ntami raxed had
¦ Harm to bottom dwelling aquatic lie (Kcoaystem siutainabtlhy}
Dredging
dredging
NFDE5
dispoaal
Diagnoatic
¦
IT* Lake
Etea
• Restricted dte^ng (Shipping
* Ntfunt
• LTV deaanp
PrtTTYH
* bxal
Feuihgtf Stoif
axygcn demand
Suiptnded H&da
OG md grease
George Btaaeh
* Habitat
B Ejtceaiire mi"riems ihsi cause ftf*? ?** popchdoM
Reaoufce
* BUI
fiaJpg *ad
• USXIteid
¦
of dw Cwui,
Pn^swaitws
ihu katfc* co bactcfi* growth (Aeaifaeuea, eeawiiesi tpor^tea$
Truiwe'i
Ifldkaioc
suiefa fot
Cofflecuve
Wctf L*kc,
~ Fire Suppftttkjft
• Coftttiaiftttrd driakiag «t». of jkk» taut ot o*kw (Hucua bcafch.
Dticogt
M :>:¦'+! in!*K
ftdceal
Ac&ob
George LaJkc
rod Keanbote
lake Michigan.
¦AN5
fosh and wikHifc health)
¦ Beach closings (Recreation, human health)
¦ Waate rnafcenal on shorelines tnd aDy ibeen an water {Acfrhcdca,
recreatioc)
* Inured food wppjy m kKieoi of U* food chua {Beoeyrata
tufUiiaajbiltty, ipofrSsthis^
* iVddcd costs 5.1 igm.-ulturc artel jnduitey JlncUjjiftnr)
* Lu« of full and wihfhfc habitat (Rccrcatk-n, open apace)
AKwirsmcnt
• T*£DL
underway
• Weat Bsaixh
HHUHt
pn^ccts
* L=ffl
concerns
* Peemirtiiig
*
ft*ou?ccs
MuugczncOt
L'nit
- GSD-Kw
( "Ivj n rut
' TMDURcM^f
toodrij^r i«u«
* MocikorBLH
Indicators
* EC! slurry wall
*
PCB.
From M»rr< it
# Xonpctn i
* RrrtrictMxi* on eating fish {Human bcafch, iportfiifaing, recreaiion)
* Suycrfund
* Supcrfund
* Dredging;'
* PRP coort
* Continue
River
m
KwrtpKonsa
Dam, which
pollution
¦ Harmed fiih and wildlife heakh and reproductiofi (Kcosjairm
- Clean Water
remoral of
Hacavanon
case
N*HA
*
Sedmcatt
fen Mosftw
* SedjrEizsci
auifraiQalrfli ry, hufyian, IseaJth, yearesricrfi'i
Aa
150u0WoAfc
* SBpownd
* l,w.aj fjndieg
* lUHiT- H}r
Michigan
Pood tad
* COfibtSUSIHed
* Defocooiik* ot repeoduetive pK iten foe bkdi ot trjxrali
* NtowrJLdd*
of PCS-
•ite de«t»p
syydi ftw
4 Fifiiih raBftM
tistadi 60 taik*
KdtiMai J*ud£llJ
^eoiySKffi MtUdih&ty, buffAfi bc-ilLfc, fOttCsHMQ]
• Nuual
d humao health)
* Lmm of Qcb ud wildlife hafcsiar (Re^K^Qoe^ opea. tpaoe)
Trurtcc'¦
Damage
Aiieaimer?
Bryant Mill Pond
¦ Nonpoint
pollunois pojecH
Hkouqo c«ktc^
pfO^CU&t
• Stream
buffers
» Dam removsJ
* IftvutigdE
¦tratzgy and
tkrennine
acbofl
Lower Pqoc
9
pa*
The iower i 12
* Utbto *&\ rem1
* &e«tciet»u oe cadag, Sva «ad towi (Huaraa beaJih, iportfihisit,
* Ckaa Wuccr
• Wtcetibcd HPS
* Or^S^QS
~ lipid had
* Fofi&iJ«^cy
Slw/
a
KH3
kai of the Fox
nuukfif
nwariaa}
Act
ilmciafriw
* PoJkuoQ
deyekipi3Q«£ii
(keifcoa
SoullKtn
¦
BOD
River a&d i S3
* Wastewater
• Low of ioh and v£Uk£c ha be*.at (Rc
Witcoriin
#
Mercury
Green .Bay our
• Acjuaric noisance
¦ Harm In bottom dwdling aquatic life (Txoskyreem ¦us^iinat*3rry)
Tiuftee'i
neariy completed
» Habitat
2DQ2)
*
Heavy metsj*
CD Point fcu
species
¦ Resuicwd dredjtfo.ft (S%p^
lii^nage
• 1>*k%h^ wd
ppoccenoei
* Re«sov»lof 10
«
PldkOgca
S*fe4e «ad Loo*
* 6n(ll&
* Coowaia«od ddatttg w»»r,
-------
Appendix B continued
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern April 16,2002
For more infotmanon, visii the AOC website bitp:/n&sluBC-map.bsml
ADC Name
rmnaiy
Geo graphic
Aica
Stressors
Impact* on Human, Aqua-tic, and WikLifc Health. the
Environment, and the Eooooniy sod their Effect a
Ocanr-Up Actions
ley Activity
Needed
Barries
Nm Sfrp
Mania riqux:
River
Michigan
* PCBt
• Heavy menJi
PajhogeM
The last VT
miW of the
rireito the
fSKXJlll of ifw
LirWt tiLAc
Michigan
¦ Combined sewer
tnciiiav
* S<4inie«cs
* ?QA-C«isifftk»iwl
wwdteit
* Wartcwstcr
dischxrgca
¦ Restrictions 00 eating fj vh {} licmn bcahh, sportfbhing, recreation)
¦ Harm to bottom dwelli^ aquatic Hfe (I'fcap^na surainshtEty)
¦ Resarieted dredging (ShipfHes^
* }V*ch dwiflgi Qtambofl, tanaa health)
* L!>« of Gab and wDdfafit iialatai {Recteatifitfi. open, tpux}
¦ Si^ofiand
• Ortdgirg of
eontaminaxed
aefeenn
«nnpkitd in
200l{90,000
mbac jardb)
• Sampling
and
n«)oimskjg
m Sampling »nH
DKHiimcinK
eontirajksgaa
pttio(
d^itmg
proccin
McHaniiKC
Rim
Michigan/
WWemin
¦ Aiscmc
* Mercury
- PCBi
« OD and gfCMe
* FitHogCft#
Lower 4.8 km of
river to the
mnuxh ±nd 5 km
north and »ouih
of the OKHSfe
along the bay
sliorr
~ Sediments
• Coastal! wasenhed
hshttat lots
pollun&o
* Haftkfied
liwrdirnTB
• Rrnnrtxxu oc rating fitlh .jl iunan hrattK fixjnfuhing, recreation)
• Harmed 6ih and wildlife beahh and reproduction (Ecosystem
¦usrairnMiiy, human heafrti, rtcre*tkm)
¦ Harm in be*rom dwelling aquatic fife (Euw^uui aoauinaiilir^
• KcMficted dftd^y?
• Beach dating JUccxcaOCa, buman health)
• Low of fish and wtklfciV hrnhkm. {Recreation, open space}
~ RCRA
Gocrectave
Action
* Hat KMgc of
arsenic
nsnedhnnn
{13,000 eubic
jwds}
* Ctnnbmrd icwrt
dimifow project
• riw l^iitg
• PlKrtDCt
riparian and
coairal
habom
• Poihjtfoe
prcvemjOd
* Aneoic
ffnr^garvg-
oi»npJeted
* Rwftt
dtpoii?
ckaattf> abo*e
aver mouth
Milwaukee
Estuary
Wil-OODALEi
* Phosphorus
¦ Nitrogen
* Pathogens
* PCBj
* Metal*
* PA.B*
Hie krwrr 5 km
of tie
Milwaukee Raver
i die lower 4 A
km of the
Meoomtaat
incdielmf
4 km of the
Vinmirlrinrair
River, the inner
and oufcr
and (he
SMHBlfaOM 'MGtfll
* Urban and ratal
runo#
* Wastewater
dbehajjffc*
* Sediment*
* Habits* km
* Dim*
• Resttiefica* on eating fiflh and fowl i'Humin heailih, sportfiahiiig,
¦ Harmed fiih and wildlife health and reproduction (Ivcosystem
suMairahtliry, human health, fecreaikHY)
¦ Deformitx* or reproductive pfohlemi for fUh, hied* <* animal* and.
in ft|h (K&xfiism Pttttiflabtey, tv-jfmen health, fectwirioft)
• Harm IO bu"tom chrdlieg aquatic life (fceosptcm sustuuatdi^
' Rewtnctxd lircdging ilSlhifraiqj^'
• Bxcevsive authema thai cause a]^ac, harming at^uark poptihnixu
and that leadi 10 hacrena growth (Aestheoea, recrtsDc-n
apoetfiahln^
¦ tlt«fiftg» (Iwwgjori, huenafl health)
• S^ficawt k^tl of In fter
• Impaired! food rjpf>ly at bottOim of die food chaza (Hosryitxm
fuatainabfliiy., iporiilkhin^1
¦ Ijiu of fiah a rut w£ldMe hahetat (Roncati&n, open tpacc";
• (Jean Water
Act
¦ Cle an Air
Acs
• Superfueu!
- Btiwf'sfitld*
• Ni-rigytanal
drcx^png
* Water poiintuxi
abilcmcca
* Pollution
pscvenajo
edi«ai»ei hcfpon
* Dam ttftuyral
~ Lbodgfag
• Noapomt
source
poillitiofl
tcmtrol
L-fiers
* Hjgh urban
density and
rapid
development
• A»«»meft£
jfj^i.irrtpitte
* Complete
assessment
Muskegon
Lake
Michigan
• PCBs
* Mescuiy
The entire 4149
ixre laic and
arresal
crihutuie*
* Sodimcnis
• Nonpokit
polltubon
* ReaLncoons on eating Bah laid fewi (Human healthy apottfiihmg.
eecaeatiuu)
Hajmcd fiah ami wildlife htaJth and reptoduedmn {Reoayatern
nyraxiafciBty, l^uenan hcahlv r^creanon)
¦ Kxrfrxd bottom d*tiJing a^wk life (EcMyvum iuwainaWity)
• Kcamcted drodj^ng ¦^hi^aag)
* Kirfniw nnlrj-nli that OJUtC algBC, Vmrnirig agnatic pop^latlOCJ
and that leads to btctrna growth (Aesthetics, recreation
ipunUno^
¦ Gootarni-Msed draiking wacer, nf poor «ute ew odor (Hiaran hcahh,
fiih and wldliit health)
• Low xjf Gah «ni wiMilfc haUtat (tUtrtatiem. Of»m tpaee)
* Etoowofii&ia:
* >CavigatuxkaJ
dredging
* Wastewater
veatsnent:
upgraded
* $0«* wibuaarjf
«encdl»3 «fion»
uctkrwiy
* Dredging
* Stream
btiffera
* More
mewmcot
* PCB&spoul
* Jjocai fundipg
match for
(jhiit
* Eemediauoo of
browniirHs
and acdimenia
hQw
Michigan
lntdati-rc funds
become
available
-------
Appendix B continued
x
Lake Michigan Areas of Concern April 16,2002
Fot rootc information, Yi&it the AOC website hltp;i/wwv, 9* tigt,ca/glmrf regis/ax-map, html _ _
AQCNirae
Primary
OrliSiLRiitnmfiE*
Gcflpijihic
Aw
Smuofi
Impact* an Human, AijUAOc, and Wildlife Health, the
Pnogs'aniii
Qeajii-Up Actiocia
K^Am-riiy
N«4rf
Barrier
Xea Sup
&heboy£*n
BW
Wkcofcaiii
• Md*
* fVKogrtu
* ltospiionja
• Ndiogexi
- PO*
- PAIIi
- Heavy tacts]*
TVMre*
StttflMftpn Rrt*f
ojTiraKrcAini
from due
Sheboygan Falls
Dam, jptrliniing
the entire luifanf
and Of?
water*
• Tftdu#wal tk
tgricufanal mnnff
* Rea*rict*»* OQ cxdflg fi*h arui M (Hurmft hciih, iporTtftiWng*
tcettttBtjft)
* Harraco ti»h and wildli/c health md tc(,a'x}ucticrtufl*r^Mcrnxn
ofVCH
'' i iff iHmi
bufien
¦ Habnu
pfutcCTSuft
• 3504dftdg^
WauJkcgiH
Harbor
mm.
• PCBs
1.2 squirt
kilucvcBcrsi of
iluhwkuJhJL
municipal mi^
open knds^
• Sediments
¦ TTapwiwI Twit*rtiwi ifaflling i.pt->ru- lifr ^TVfwywm »i
¦ Keiirtcttd drcd^fi^ (Shipping
* Beach ck*t«$» human health)
• Impaired food rappJy it bottorfi of eH* tood dhain fHcofjPrtero
sue tainibilify, sport£viu£^i
¦ Lou of fish anal hahBrar {Recrcadoai, open, spare)
• Sapcrfund
• Bctiwftfieldi.
• Corpa
nat%aa<>n
PW
ft
* SedimeiK
removal
^pindwikttfche^di)
» bkKKns reduce rEoeabooal and vintal appei! (Recmdon^
ecoryrteni mstainahdji^i
- Lena of fiih and wiklliEfe. hahtiai pLecpeadeo^ opai *p«ce)
* Supcrhitfxl
•RCftA
• PaWk oitxaEiiiei
* Stfewri
widen
• PRP ^xnsrt
• DftdgBigSfi
Tvrmtjfaf
(2002)
• Ocesdectal
ChemioJ »*"'
2002
-------
99
Appendix C
References for the
Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Project
Baker, Capel and Eisenreich. 1986. Influence of
colloids in sediment-water partition coefficients of
polychlorinated biphenyls in natural waters. Envir.
Sci. Technol. 20:1136-1143.
Baker, J. E. and S. J. Eisenreich. 1990.
Concentrations and fluxes of polycyclic aromatic
hydricarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls across
the air-water interface of Lake Superior. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 24(3):342-352.
Bamford, H.A., Poster, D.L. and J.E. Baker. 2000.
Henry's law constants of polychlorinated biphenyl
congeners and their variation with temperature. J.
Chetn. Eng. Data. 45:1069-1074.
Bamford, H.A., Poster, D.L. and J.E. Baker, (in
press) Using extrathermodynamic relationships to
model the temperature dependence of Henry's law
constants of 209 PCB congeners.
Eadie, B.J., N.R. Moore head and PF. Landrum.
1990. Three-phase partitioning of hydrophobic
organic compounds in Great Lakes waters.
Chemosphere 20(1-2): 161-178.
Edgington, D.N. and J. A. Robbins. 1976. Records
of lead deposition in Lake Michigan sediments since
1800. Environ. Sci. Technol. 10:266-274.
Edgington, D.N. 1991. Sediment core data for the
Green Bay Mass Balance Study. Center for Great
Lakes Studies, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.
Endicott, D.D., W.L. Richardson, and D.J. Kandt.
1992. MICHTOX: A Mass Balance and
Bioaccumulation Model for Toxic Chemicals in
Lake Michigan. Draft Report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, ERL-Duluth, Large Lakes Research
Station, Grosse lie, Michigan. 183 pp.
Endicott, D.D., 2002. Lake Michigan Mass Balance
Project: Modeling Total PCBs using the MICHTOX
Model. Report by Great Lakes Environmental
Center for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Contract No. 68-C-98-1034, Work Assignment 3-30.
Richardson, W. L., D.D. Endicott, R. G Kreis,
Jr., K. R. Rygwelski. 1999. The Lake Michigan
Mass Balance Project: Quality Assurance Plan
for Mathematical Modeling. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, ERL-Duluth, Large Lakes Research
Station Grosse lie, Michigan.
Robbins and Edgington. 1975. Determination of
recent sedimentation rates in Lake Michigan using
Pb-210 and C s-13 7. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta. 39:285-304.
Robbins, J.A. 1985. The coupled lakes model for
estimating the long-term response of the Great Lakes
to time-dependent loadings of particle-associated
contaminants. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL
GLERL-57. Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Schwarzenbach, R.P, Gschwend, P.M. and D.M.
Imboden .1993. Environmental Organic Chemistry.
Wiley and Sons. New York.
Thomann, R.V. and D.M. Di Toro.1983.
Physicochemical model of toxic substances in the
Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 9(4):474-496.
Wanninkhoff, R.J. 1992. J Geophys. Res.
97:7373-7381
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.
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. EPA 905-R-97-012b,
532pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1997.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMB)
Methods Compendium Volume 3: Metals,
Conventionals, Radiochemistiy, and Biomonitoring
Sample Analysis Techniques. Great Lakes National
Program Office. EPA 905-R-97-012c, 505pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October
1997. Lake Michigan Enhanced Monitoring Quality
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
100
Assurance Program Plan. Great Lakes National
Program Office. EPA 905-R-97-017, 134pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October
1997. Lake Michigan Mass Budget/Mass Balance
Work Plan. Great Lakes National Program Office.
EPA-905-R-97-016, 145pp.
Reports on the Lake Michigan Mass
Balance still in a draft stage to be
completed by December 2002
Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study:
Atrazine Data Report December 2001,US EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office, 905R-01-010
Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and trans-Nonachlor Data
Report December 2001,US EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office, 905R-01-011
Results of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study:
Mercury Data Report December 2001, US EPA
Great Lakes National Program Office, 905R-01-012
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study Quality
Assurance Report, December 2001, US EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office, 905R-01-013
For more Lake Michigan Mass Balance publications,
see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/pub.html
Unit Conversions
Symbol
Unit
Multipliers
kg
kilogram
103
g
gram
1
mg
milligram
10"3
ug
microgram
10"6
ng
nanogram
10"9
Pg
picogram
1012
Graphics courtesy of Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Grosse lie, Michigan
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
Lake Michigan LaMP 2002
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Lake Michigan Management Plan 2002 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Registry Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Chippewa-Ottawa Resousce Authority U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa
Indians
Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
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
Oneida Tribe, Wisconsin
The Lake Michigan LaMP 2002 is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/michigan.html
contains recycled fiber and is recyclable
------- |