Neill Bovaird
Bryan Falcone
Matt
Gentile
Lake Michigan is the second largest lake in the Great Lakes region. The drainage basin covers more than 45,000 square miles and receives waters from Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan (Planning). The lake drains directly into Lake Huron, making these lakes “hydrologically inseparable” (GLIN). Agricultural uses comprise 44% of the watershed, forests cover 41%, 9% is residential and 6% is classified as “other.” The 1,660 miles of shoreline around Lake Michigan have distinct multiple uses as well. Residential communities make up 39% of the shoreline, recreational uses 24%, agricultural enterprises consist of 20%, and commercial and other uses each represent 5% of the shoreline land use (Planning).
Since the late 1970’s, water quality has been diminishing in the heavily populated and industrial southern part of the watershed and is affecting the health of humans, fish and bird populations. The basin provides drinking water for millions of people and stressors contaminating the waters are backflows induced by sewer overflows, direct stormwater runoff, industrial discharges, pollutant loads from contaminated groundwater and sediments, atmospheric deposition, point and non-point source discharge. Exotic species is another major biological stressor of concern in this plan. There are 136 known exotic species that have become established in the Great Lakes. These species are capable of negatively affecting native plant, fish, and wildlife species. The most common method of introduction into the watershed is in ship ballast water. Once introduced, exotic species have the ability to become quickly established. Exotic species impact the watershed by creating a change in composition, loss of biodiversity, and a loss in recreational activities (fishing, swimming). An example of this is the zebra mussel that out-competes native amphipods, which make up 70% of the biomass of the lake bottom. If they continue to decline at their present rate, it could have an affect on a variety of fish species that rely on them for their major source of food. A decline in fish communities, the highest trophic level in the system, is the most obvious impairment. They are the key indicators of the health of the ecosystem and probably the most important resource the lake has to offer.
Human pathogens are another destructive biological stressor. They enter the watershed through agricultural runoff, industrial discharge, sewage discharge, and atmospheric deposition. E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia lamblia are human pathogens commonly found in areas polluted by agricultural runoff, sewage discharges, and wildlife excrements. Outbreaks of these pathogens may result in drinking water contamination and closing of beaches. There are 581 beaches listed for the Great Lakes basin, and on a summer weekend, at least a million people visit them. The closing of these beaches have negative economic and social impacts.
In order to reduce pathogens and exotic
species in the watershed, many methods must be used. A reduction of sewage and agricultural runoff
is essential. Also, ships entering the
watershed should exchange their ballast water at sea to get rid of any freshwater
species traveling in the ballast hold. Other methods include passing the water through ultraviolet light
or heating the water to high temperatures (MDEQ 1998b).
Members from the FWS, EPA, USGS, and four Lake Michigan states have formed a Critical Pollutant Work Group to identify and list substances as LaMP pollutants. Chemical stressors are divided into three categories: critical pollutants, pollutants of concern, and emerging pollutants and include such chemicals as DDT, mercury, lead, and PCB. Those pollutants, twenty in all, are substances that in high levels can cause negative impacts on the watershed. The chemicals present in the watershed cause fish and wildlife deformities, and reproductive effects. For example, bald eagles consume contaminated fish and suffer from reproductive suppression and egg thinning. High levels of pollutants also result in fish consumption advisories and can create large decreases in both recreational and commercial fishing activities.
Due to development, urban sprawl, and exponential growth of non-indigenous invasive species such as purple loosestrife, wetlands are being destroyed at catastrophic proportions. These wetlands provide habitat and feeding grounds for many amphibians, migratory birds, mammals and reptiles. Water quality and control is also benefited by the presence of wetlands in the Lake Michigan basin. Without wetlands, there is no natural filtration and storage system. Additional factors contributing to wetland destruction are channelization, dredging, damming, sedimentation, loss of bankside vegetation, increased spring flooding, toxic contamination and eutrophication.
Land and water
use in the Lake Michigan basin have been increasing with time. An increase in agricultural land has led to
an accelerated rate of erosion and turbidity in water sources. Mining pressures have led to sedimentation,
erosion, and landscape alterations. Also,
Lake Michigan has the largest concentration of freshwater sand dunes in the
world. These dunes are the preferred
habitat of a threatened bird species (piping plover), and three endangered plant
species (Houghton’s goldenrod, pitcher’s thistle, and dwarf lake iris).
In addition to the negative impact that dune mining has on these species,
it also has the potential to negatively impact the tourist industry.
More than one million visitors come to Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
each year and economic benefits were greater than $39 million since the park
opened and has created over 1,000 jobs (Lake Michigan Federation 1999).
It is essential that management actions be considered to restore the
ecological, social, and economic health of the system.
To deal with the environmental stressors that are detrimental to the Lake Michigan watershed, a management proposal known as the 2000 Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan was enacted. Initially, the purpose of the LaMP for Lake Michigan was focused on reducing and preventing the quantity of Critical Pollutants and toxic chemicals in the watershed. Over time this has become fused with the ecosystem sustainability approach, incorporating the lake and surrounding watersheds, and was formally adopted in 1998. This specifies the cooperation of federal, state and tribal participants into a Management Committee with varying organizational structures. In addition to multi-organization cooperation, involvement with the public is also a high priority. The LaMP Partnership, Education, and Outreach Committee was organized as a tool to implement continuous public involvement. As specified by the GLWQA, an International Joint Commission reviews the LaMPs along with Remedial Action Plans (RAP) in the finalization of projects. Ten Areas of Concern (AOC) have been “designated as having top priority” in their relative importance to the health of the ecosystem on a local and regional level (see Figure 1). The long-term goal is to remove AOCs from the list as ecosystem health is restored. This specific plan is designed to introduce and provide a background to the LaMP process and to develop a framework for future LaMPs. The Lake Michigan LaMP will be reviewed and modified every 2 years.
The goals of the Lake Michigan LaMP were modified after the addition of ecosystem objectives to encompass chemical, physical and biological stressors and human health issues. These are based on the principles of remediation, integrity and sustainability, and partnerships are classified on the local, regional, or lake-wide level. The main challenge presented to Lake Michigan is to balance ecosystem goals and objectives with the GLWQA and other stakeholder goals to produce an active, comprehensive plan.
The Lake Michigan
LaMP has specified two types of goals: end-point subgoals (i.e. all habitats
are healthy, naturally diverse, and sufficient to sustain viable biological
communities) and means to end-point subgoals (i.e. exotic species are controlled
and managed). End-point subgoals are
indicators that can be measured to reflect the condition of the ecosystem and
individual project goals support the subgoals of the LaMP. There
are many environmental, social, and economic indicators of Lake Michigan ecosystem.
These indicators are used to identify pressures, their effects, and what
steps are taken by managers and stakeholders to understand and control these
pressures. Indicators are useful to identify the improvements
made on the environment and protection of parcels. This process helps to connect the direct environmental
responses (i.e., fish population) with programs set forth to improve them respectively
through the Lake Michigan LaMP.
A list of dynamic
indicators has been produced by the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences
(SOLEC) and the International Joint Commission to relate the 11 subgoals of
the Lake Michigan Management Plan. Each of the subgoals described in the Lake
Michigan LaMP has an issue or geographic description that is recognized as well
as three different indicators: state, pressure, and human activity. An example
of these can be seen in Figure 2. Because
of the need to monitor the results, a network of reporting was developed that
includes the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project, the Lake Michigan Tributary
Monitoring Project, and the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating Council. This creates the need for significant coordination
between organizations, programs, states and provinces.
The effort to implement the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan is far-reaching and complex. Under Section 118(c) of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. EPA is responsible for implementing the management plan for Lake Michigan through a variety of governmental and non-governmental agencies and a multitude of networks. Committees at state, local, and tribal levels are formed and the distribution of responsibilities include: “a LaMP Technical Coordinating Committee, which is responsible for the document [the Management Committee document]; EPA staff responsible for the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study; and the Lake Michigan Forum, a stakeholder group funded by EPA.” The current Lake Michigan Management Committee includes representatives from at least 15 separate organizations that collaborate in committees and workgroups to implement the strategies and plans of the Lake Michigan LaMP.
One of the primary goals of the 2000 Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan is to implement the most current ideas and theories of ecosystem management. As a team, we have examined the Lake Michigan LaMP taking into consideration the present ideas of ecosystem management. When reviewing the lakewide management plan there were many important ecosystem management themes imbedded in the current plan while at the same time some were not delivered in great detail. Due to the large and diverse study area, the encompassing LaMP recommended generalized management action plans on the regional level while including the use of smaller scale action plans for specified areas. In evaluating the concepts of ecosystem management, we found the following themes to be important: a clear statement of goals and objectives, hierarchical view, ecological integrity and health, ecological and jurisdictional boundaries, interagency cooperation, human dimensions, adaptive management, monitoring, and future considerations.
The Lake Michigan LaMP clearly outlines and identifies the visions, goals and objectives of the management plan and takes into consideration social, economic and environmental entities. End-point goals are identified as well as the necessary steps to achieve them in the description of objectives. Another key theme to ecosystem management stated in the plan is to “restore and protect the integrity” as well as the sustainability of the Lake Michigan ecosystem. The goals of the Lake Michigan LaMP are based on three principles of the ecosystem management approach: “remediation, integrity and sustainability, and partnership frameworks.” Also mentioned is a defined scope and scale of the plan, the structure of why the plan was created, who was responsible, and how the plan would be implemented. It was clear in the description of the goals of this plan that dominant themes of ecosystem management were identified.
A hierarchical view of the Lake Michigan watershed was generally taken into account in the LaMP. Under consideration from fine to coarse scale were species components (i.e. invasive species, important economic species, and recreational species), habitat concerns (sand dunes and wetlands), watershed health (water quality, contaminants, and biodiversity) and basin ecosystem health (ecological, economic and social). Issues not taken into consideration in great depth by this plan but are important to the ecosystem approach are specific forest management practices, description of matrix, patch or corridor vegetation and an overall species composition list (including keystone and other focal species). These are important entities within the system and should be mentioned in greater detail.
The Lake Michigan LaMP has clearly identified the importance of preserving the integrity of the ecosystem. Sustainability is a main focus throughout the plan and demonstrates a clear understanding of the ecosystem approach. The plan promotes native diversity through the mention and concern of preventative measures of invasive and exotic species. The plan mentions details such as the ballast water controls and the importance of the protection of sand dunes, wetlands, and biodiversity to the integrity of the basin. Although the plan discussed many ecological processes, there was no mention of maintaining natural disturbance regimes. Although the importance of natural legacies and buffers in and around the basin were recommended for future plans, great detail was not taken. In addition, there was little discussion of the extirpation or reintroduction of native species of the area in the overall plan although it may be of primary concern at the local level. These concepts are also important entities within any management plan following the ecosystem management approach.
The Lake Michigan
LaMP works across administrative boundaries and ecological boundaries are considered
to be the extent of the plan. The plan
covers four states and stresses local, tribal and federal cooperation to administer
their plans along with the whole ecological region. While the Lake Michigan plan does not specifically
involve Canada, it is under the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement and thus must adhere to over-stepping political boundaries.
In working across these political boundaries, interagency cooperation is necessary to complete this theme of ecosystem management. Although the Lake Michigan LaMP is administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency, other agencies are directly involved and work collectively with the EPA such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and many others. The LaMP stresses interagency cooperation, which helps in developing the plan by creating committees and councils to participate in information sharing. The EPA has created a forum to link all interested parties to help create projects and public involvement.
The Lake Michigan LaMP has specific provisions for public involvement and the importance in human dimensions of the ecosystem. Stakeholders and other interested parties are described in great detail and an open communication between them is encouraged. A description of agency responsibilities and resource interactions were promoted in the plan. Charts were provided so that interested parties could quickly receive resource information to make planning more efficient (resources available online). This plan recognizes the anthropogenic impacts such as pollutant loading, destruction of habitat, dredging, water and land use and the effects of urban sprawl. It was apparent in the plan that many subgoals touched upon local human health and interactions with the environment (i.e. “can we swim in the water” and “can we eat the fish”). An ecosystem approach recognizes humans and their dominant role in system dynamics and functions.
Due to the dynamics of such a vast system, adaptive management practices are important to keep pace with the novel approaches of ecosystem management. The plan has recognized the goal of a sustainable ecosystem and understands that adaptive management is the key to reaching this goal. This is demonstrated by a clear revision and update of the plan every two years where data gaps are filled by public and agency input. Along with adaptive management is also a need for organizational change within the responsible agencies and corporations. Interagency committees have been formed along with the implementation of monitoring programs and governmental organizations have begun to focus more on “local community empowerment” in a bottom-up approach instead of a top-down, governmental decree approach.
The Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan has created a list of indicators for the health of the system. For these indicators to be effective, monitoring programs have been initiated to collect data from federal to local levels. The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (LMMCC) was formed to successfully monitor the data collected on these indicators. The Great Lakes Commission reviews the monitoring programs at all levels. The Mass Balance Approach was created and studies were conducted to improve monitoring capabilities and act as a source of checks and balances. Additional studies were conducted to test the usefulness of indicators and the plan clearly identified the importance of future monitoring programs.
The Lake Michigan LaMP regards future considerations as primary importance. There are many short and long term agendas, action plans, and specific steps outlined along with the feasibility of future endeavors. This plan keeps the original goals and objectives and the incorporation of new technological developments at the forefront of local and regional plans. Clear recommendations are made for future action plans (habitat, clean legacy sites, and the fulfillment of data gaps) over the next decade to adhere to the outlined goals and subgoals.
Overall, the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan covered most of the basic themes of ecosystem management we thought were important. Due to the size of the basin, the management plan at times generalized themes we thought would have been more beneficial in greater depth. It was clear that the plan understood this shortcoming as well, and provided for local interpretation of goals and objectives. This plan is used as a guide for all the actions necessary to obtain goals and it was clear that there are many finer level objectives not covered. The plan states clearly the importance of this management regime as the area is important ecologically, socially, and economically.
Figure
1. Lake Michigan Watershed
Figure 2. Example
of Subgoal Indicators.
IJC. 1994. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978 as Amended by Protocol Signed November 18, 1987. Reprint
February 1994.
USEPA-GLNPO. LaMP 2000. Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan. Revised: May 31, 2000. URL: http://www.epa.gov/glnop/lakemich/
USEPA-GLNPO. Planning. Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan: About Lake Michigan Planning. Last revised April 19, 2000. URL: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakemich/
GLIN. Great Lakes Information Network. Last revised March 27, 2002. URL: http://www.great-lakes.net/lakes/michigan.html
Lake Michigan Federation. 1999. “Vanishing Lake Michigan
Sand Dunes: Threats from Mining.”
Accessed November 23, 1999. http://www.lakemichigan.org/dunes.html
MDEQ. 1998b. Investigation Into the Spacial and Temporal
Distributions of DDT and DDE in
Michigan, Phase 2. Fiscal Year 1998/1999. Air Quality Division. U.S. EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office.