State of the Great Lakes 2012 405640 7

7/28/2019 State of the Great Lakes 2012 405640 7

1/26

STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES2012


2/26

ContentsGovernors Introduction 1 Rick Snyder, Governor

On the Sustainability of Systems 2 Jon W. Allan, Director, Ofce of the Great Lakes

Chapter I: Water Quality 3

GreatLakesWaterQualityAgreement:2012Update 4

Rick Hobrla, Ofce of the Great Lakes

MeasuringSuccessintheGreatLakes:AWaterResourcesPerspective 5

Dawn Roush, Department of Environmental Quality

MichiganFarmerVericationProgramEncouragesStewardship 6

Jan Wilford, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Chapter II: Water Use

StewardshipofaSharedResource 7

Jon W. Allan, Director, Ofce of the Great Lakes

Chapter III: Aquatic Invasive Species 8

AsianCarp:Prevention,DetectionandtheRoleofCitizens 9

Tammy Newcomb, Department of Natural Resources

MichigansComprehensiveandCollaborativeAttackonAIS 10

Sarah LeSage, Department of Environmental Quality

ConfrontingAquaticInvasiveSpeciesatIsleRoyaleNationalPark 11

Phyllis Green, Superintendent, Isle Royale National Park

Chapter IV: Great Lakes Fisheries 12

Todd Grischke, Todd Kalish and Philip Schneeberger; LakeBasin Coordinators, Department of Natural Resources

Chapter V: Coastal Wetlands 13

NortheastMichiganCooperativeWeedManagementArea:BuildingaSustainableInvasiveSpeciesProgram 14

Jennifer Muladore, Huron Pines

RestoringtheWetlandsofSaginawBay 15

Charles Bauer, Department of Environmental Quality

Chapter VI: Localized Restoration Efforts 16

RevitalizingtheRiverRaisinAreaofConcern 17

Barry LaRoy, Monroe Commission on Environment and Water Quality

RestoringBenecialUsesinSelectAreasofConcern 18

John Riley and Stephanie Swart, Ofce of the Great Lakes

CoastalRestorationEconomics 19

Dr. Paul Isley, Grand Valley State University

RestoringtheDeerLakeAreaofConcern 20

Stephanie Swart, Ofce of the Great Lakes

BringingBacktheFish:HabitatReconstruction 21

Stephanie Ariganello, Michigan Sea Grant

LakewideConservation:ACollaborativeApproach 22

Mary Khoury, The Nature Conservancy

Epilogue: Shared Governance Key to Our Great Lakes Future 23

State of the Great Lakes | 2

DNR Photo: David


3/26


IntroductionGovernorRickSnyder

Michigan is dened

by the waters that

surround us.

O course the GreatLakes dene our

geography. Butthey also play a

dening role inour recreation, oureconomy, even our

weather. Our watersshaped our history,

and they will shape our uture. We mustkeep a strong ocus on protecting and

managing the Great Lakes because theyare an integral part o our quality o lie.Beyond the deep personal and cultural

connection most Michiganders eel to thelakes, they are a key reason people come

here to live, work and play.

The State o the Great Lakes report is anannual publication or Michigan residentsand the state legislature about what

is happening in the Great Lakes. Theollowing pages document everything

rom the historic update o a bi-nationalagreement protecting water quality to

updates on impacts o invasive species,

snapshots o wetland protection eorts

and some bright news about restoration

eorts along Michigans coastline.

The state o the Great Lakes is steadilyimproving by many measures. The rst bill

I signed as Governor o Michigan codieda arming program aimed at reducing

agricultures impacts on Michigan waters.The state has done a lot to reducephosphorus in our waters, a leading

cause o harmul algae blooms. We aremaking steady progress to improve beach

monitoring, ensuring that visitors whocome to enjoy a day at the beach can do

so with condence in the water quality.

But we still have much work to do. The

Council o Great Lakes Governors late thisyear elected me to co-chair the group, and

I am honored to accept the nomination.It is an opportunity to bring Michigans

voice to the head o the table on somevery important issues or which interstatecollaboration could be the key to success.

My special message on energy and the

environment this year identied somekey concernsaquatic invasive species

are an environmental threat we must

address more eectively, and Michigan wil

continue to be a leader. I also have called

on the Department o EnvironmentaQuality to produce a comprehensive

water strategy or water quality and usethroughout the state. I have asked or

stronger ocus on green solutions toimprove our storm water management

more unding to improve municipal sewesystems and a comprehensive reinventiono our wetlands management program.

We reside in the middle o one-th o the

Earths surace reshwater. I am proud othe leadership Michigan has historically

shown on issues aecting the GreatLakes, and I hope you share with me thecommitment to continue that tradition as

a legacy or our children and their children

Our wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams areall connected to the Great Lakes, and we

must consider that interconnection as welook or ways to protect and manage themSimilarly, our communities, businesses

tourism economy and our individuaquality o lie in Michigan is inevitably

connected to the Great Lakes, so oustewardship must refect our dependence

on the waters that dene us.

NR Photo: David Kenyon 1


4/26

The Michigan Department o

Environmental Qualitys Oce o theGreat Lakes shepherds the maintenance

o existing habitat and unction, guardingthe environment rom threats such as

aquatic invasive species or overuse oresources, and pursues the restoration odegraded environments.

Simultaneously, the oce acilitates

appropriate use and enjoyment o theseresourcesthe sh, wildlie, minerals,

air and water. Finding the balance canbe dicult at times, but that balance isinormed by learning about what sustains

the processes that supply us thesematerials and goods rom nature, and

managing our wastes with care.

I suggest that a next logical step in this

progression involves placemaking andshared governance. This idea buildson healthy ecosystems, champions

orward-looking planning, design and

management o public spaces, andsupports people in strengthening theirconnections with and love o their

communities and regions.

But behind the scenes o placemaking,

people also must be able to rely on wateras a resource in their everyday lives, and

that requires adaptable inrastructure.Because healthy, resilient systems

naturally vary over time, we should designand build to prepare or these changes.

For example, lower lake levels in the

Michigan-Huron system have aected

commercial navigation and recreationaboating. The situation presents signican

and costly implications or water use.

We should look at smart options such ascreating more green inrastructure in oucites and along the coasts. This, in turn

creates open space like parks and raingardens, which uels placemaking.

In designing inrastructure, we mus

consider its interactions with aquaticinvasive species such as zebra and quaggamussels. Their prodigious reproduction

can clog water intakes costing millionsLikewise, we can scarcely imagine the

consequences o Asian carp overrunningthe Great Lakes. Once oreign organisms

become established, they are nearlyimpossible to eradicateand they candisrupt ood webs and wreak ecological

economic and social havoc.

More thoughtul and protectiveinrastructure, a vigilant deense o the

lakes biological systems and ecologicaprocesses, and careul diligence inostering and expanding the human use

and enjoyment o this great resource wilortiy our relationship with our waters

and reinorce our identity as the GreatLakes State. Michigans Governor calls o

these integrated solutions in his SpecicaMessage on Energy and the EnvironmentFor example, creating sense o place by

celebrating the waterront as a gathering

site will add to that improved quality olie.

Our system is sustainable i and only i itpersists as a healthy whole over timeeconomically, socially and ecologically. It

is sustainable i and when we turn to ouGreat Lakes and see ourselves refected

back in our waters and in our places. Thissustainability requires a dogged pursuit

o citizenship, engagement, commonvision and and a very real love o the

places we call home.

In ecology, sustainability

usually reers to anecosystems ability to

persist as a whole overtime. This equation

also typically considerseconomics and socialinfuences. But it rarely

includes the humanexper iencet hings

like engagement andcitizenship, anity to each other and to

our love o place.

I believe these elements are absolutely

and deeply interrelated, and that ourhealthy natural systems orm the

oundation o this relationship. The moreresilient and biologically intact a coastal

ecosystem remains, the more social andeconomic benets it can provide. Wehave too oten orgotten this bond, and

historically chose to sacrice long-termsystem integrity and health or short-

term excess.

With the rm goal in mind o expandingand strengthening our social, ecologicaland economic linkages, I keep an eye

squarely xed on the hallmarks o healthynatural systems. For me, they come down

to our basic principles:

Bolstering resiliencethe ability torespond to change and system stress

Maintaining a broad diversity o plants

and animals

Preserving distinctive natural systems Fostering intactness o our landscape

The last idea may be new to some. Itmeans that systems unction better aslarge continuous expanses than small,

disconnected stretches. For example,our groundwater fows into and eeds

our streams, lakes and ultimately theGreat Lakes. These linkages and the

maintenance o hydraulic fow is animportant piece o a healthy and intact

landscape.


On the Sustainability

f SystemsonW.Allanrector, Michigan Ofce of the Great Lakes

2

DNRPhoto:DavidKe

nyon


5/263

But water quality has suered due to human use and overuseduring the past century. Michigan places high priority on wate

quality and the state has a number o programs in place tomanage what gets into our waterways, monitor and detect

problem substances and clean up contamination i and whenit is ound.

The Michigan Department o Environmental Qualitys WateResources Division has established metrics to measure

progress in meeting standards or water quality in the stateThese measure beach bacteria levels, chemical uptake in

sh and nutrients that contribute to algae growth. With thisinormation, the state can monitor the eect o managementpractices and regulations, and modiy them as needed to best

protect and improve Michigans water quality.

Other eorts are underway to address nutrient runosedimentation and pollution. The Michigan Department o

Agriculture and Rural Development administers the MichiganAgriculture Environmental Assurance Program, an incentive-based, voluntary program that helps arms prevent or minimize

agricultural pollution risks.

The Great Lakes are ar more than a mere geographical eatureThe quality o their abundant resh water is central to our lives

and our liestyle. Michigan works daily to preserve and improveour waters so the basin can fourish ecologically, economically

and socially.

DNR Photo: David Ken


Water Quality

Chapter I: Water Quality

The largest reshwater system in the world has drawn people toMichigan and the Great Lakes region or centuries. Even with

requent global shortages, the basin will continue to provide usabundant resh wateras long as wise management o Great

Lakes water quality remains a priority or Michigan and theother Great Lakes states and provinces.

This stewardship responsibility was recognized in 1909, whenthe Boundary Waters Treaty was rst signed by the United

States and Canada. Through the treaty, the International JointCommission was established to oversee boundary waters,

including the Great Lakes, and to deal with serious problemsthreatening these resources. This year, or the rst time in 25years, the U.S. and Canadian governments met ater several

years o negotiations to codiy updates to the agreements

provisions or restoring and protecting the Great Lakes. Theamended binational agreement addresses todays issues in thelakes and creates a structure or measuring progress toward

our goals, including maintaining and improving water qualityin the basin.

With careul stewardship, wise management and sustainablepractices, these precious reshwater resources will be available

or generations to come. The Great Lakes provide or more than40 million people who reside within the basin. The lakes also

support recreational opportunities, cool the heat o industry,oer diverse sheries, supply irrigation to agriculture, and help

power our homes and businesses.


6/26

pollution incident or

the threat o one, theederal governments

are committed tosharing inormationacross borders. I

planned activitiescould lead to a

pollution incidentor have a signicant

cumulative impacton the GreatLakes, the ederal

governments willprovide notication

to one another.Examples include the

storage and transero nuclear wastes, theconstruction o oil

and gas pipelines andthe establishment o

new mines, reneriesor power plants.

The agreement expands the role othe International Joint Commission, a

binational advisory board ormed underthe Boundary Waters Treaty to advise the

U.S. and Canadian governments on cross-boundary water issues. The IJC is charged

with preparing a triennial assessment oprogress toward the goals o the GLWQA.In conjunction with this report, the Parties

will convene a triennial Great Lake Public

Forum to solicit input on the state o thelakes and binational priorities.

While introducing important newadjustments, the new agreement alsopreserves important parts o the 1987

language. It retains the phosphorusloading goals or each o the lakes while

adding other phosphorus concentrationgoals. It retains the requirement to

establish and implement LakewideAction and Management Plans or each

o the Great Lakes. Finally, it continues theArea o Concern program, which identies

geographic areas o degradation, andrequires the development o Remedia

Action Plans to restore them.

The amended agreement sets out ashared vision or a healthy and prosperouecosystem, in which the waters o the Grea

Lakes enhance the livelihoods o presen

and uture generations o Americansand Canadians. While the agreement isbetween the ederal governments o the

United States and Canada, it recognizesthat the involvement and participationo State and Provincial Governments

are essential to achieve the objectiveso this Agreement. Michigan, the Grea

Lakes State, will continue to play a keyrole in protecting and restoring this

prized, shared resource under the revisedagreement.

On September 7, 2012, at the Canadian

Embassy in Washington, D.C., U.S.Environmental Protection Agency

Administrator Lisa Jackson and CanadasMinister o the Environment, Peter Kent,signed the newly amended Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement. First signedin 1972 and last amended in 1987,

the GLWQA is a model o binationalcooperation. Its purpose is to protect the

chemical, physical and biological integrityo the worlds largest surace reshwatersystem. The signing ceremony marked

the culmination o three years o publichearings and binational negotiations.

The revised agreement will acilitate

government action on threats toGreat Lakes water quality and includesstrengthened measures to anticipate and

prevent ecological harm. New provisionsaddress aquatic invasive species, habitat

degradation and the eects o climatechange. Annex Committees will be

established in the coming months toadvise the Parties on how to implementthese new provisions.

The agreement adopts some basic

principles and methods includingadaptive management, a precautionary

approach and science-basedmanagement. The adaptive managementconcept suggests that solutions must rst

be tested, then modied as necessary to

achieve desired results. The precautionaryprinciple states that lack o ull scienticcertainty should not be used as reason

or postponing measures to preventenvironmental degradation. Science-based management means that decisions

should be based on the best availablescience, research and knowledge.

Another signicant change in the revised

GLWQA is the addition o notication andresponse requirements. In the event o a

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement:

An Updated Clean Water Constitution

RickHobrla

Chief, Areas of Concern and Great Lakes Coordination programsMichigan Ofce of the Great Lakes

State of the Great Lakes |

Water Qua

4

Photo:MichiganSeaGrant


7/26

wastewater acility discharges. Despitethis reduction, there has been essentially

no corresponding decline in mercurylevels in edible portions o sh to date

This is due to the signicanatmospheric deposition loadingrom other sources, such as coal

red power plants.

This tracking has shown thato reach our sh consumption

goal, the DEQ will need toocus primarily on reducingatmospheric deposition

Currently, Michigans StatewideMercury Strategy aims to

reduce all o these sources, andour Measures o Success wil

continue to track our progress.

The Measures o Success also establish

goals or nutrients in our waterways. Thehighest phosphorus concentrations in

Lake Huron are in Saginaw Bay, whereeorts have been underway since the

1970s to address related concernsAlthough the goal o 15 microgramsper liter o phosphorus has nally been

achieved in Saginaw Bay, nuisanceconditions like beach muck have

continued. This has led the DEQ and itspartners to examine the infuence o

invasive species such as zebra and quaggamussels, changing water levels and otheactors that may complicate solutions to

nutrient-related problems.

Tracking progress on water qualityimprovement eorts provides critica

guidance or new strategies. We arededicated to maintaining clean wateresources or the use and enjoyment o

residents and visitors, now and in theuture.

Lakes. The Measures o Success help uscommunicate with the broader public

how that work is proceeding.

For example, the DEQis tallying the 2012beach monitoring data

reported in BeachGuard,a public online resource

that provides waterquality data, beach

advisories and closures.We monitor 430 omore than 1,200 public

beaches in Michiganto determine whether

beaches are sae orswimming. BeachGuard

shows that 105 beaches(24 percent o themonitored beaches or 8 percent o all

beaches) reported advisories or closureson at least one day in 2012.

Our goal is that all o our beaches will

always be open, with waters sae orswimming. We are working toward thiswith local partners to leverage resources

and eliminate known pollution sourcessuch as illicit wastewater connections and

nonpoint source runo. Negative impactso these sources o pollution such as

elevated E.coli levels at beaches can beexacerbated during wet weather events.

The DEQ contributes to the states

annual sh advisory, which inorms thepublic about which species are sae toeat by coordinating sh collections and

contaminant analyses. There has been astatewide sh consumption advisory ormercury since 1988. The goal is to reduce

mercury, as well as PCBs and dioxin, tolevels that are sae or consumption in the

sh o our Great Lakes, inland lakes andrivers.

Through our Measures o Success, we

have tracked reductions in mercury rom

A recent Pure Michigan commercial paystribute to our water resources: clean

lakes, clear streams and more reshwatercoastline than any other state in the

country. That message also refects thegoals o the Michigan Department oEnvironmental Quality; making our

waters sae and clean or recreation,shing, drinking and healthy aquatic

ecosystems.

In the past two years, the DEQ set outto measure progress toward our goalsand better explain what we do well and

what could use improvement. We callthese metrics our Measures o Success,

and renes our mission to achievemeaningul outcomes. Our mission has

not changed, but by setting goals andmeasuring our progress, we can betterexamine the big picture or water quality

and quantity, and place our work withinthat broader context.

We have worked or decades to improvewater quality through programs that

eliminate beach closings, reducecontaminants in sh tissue and

decrease nutrient loads to our Great

Measuring Success in the Great Lakes:

A Water Resources Perspective

DawnRoushAquatic Biology Specialist

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality


Water Qua

5

DNR Photo: David Kenyon

For more inormation on the Wate

Resources Division and a closer look athe Measures o Success, please visit ou

website at www.michigan.gov/wrd

DNRPhoto:DavidKenyon
http://michigan.gov/wrdhttp://michigan.gov/wrd


8/26

For more inormation, contact Jan

Wilord, MAEAP Program ManageMDARD, at 517-241-4730

[email protected], or visiwww.maeap.org

veried. To remain a MAEAP-veried armMDARD inspections must be conducted

every three years and arm operatormust meet MAEAP standards.

MAEAP Continues to Grow

Every year, Michigan armers attend

educational programs geared towardenvironmental stewardship and MAEAP

verication. More than 10,000 Michiganarms have started the verication

process, with almost 1,400 vericationsto date. Annually, more than $1.2 million

is invested or best management practiceimplementation by armers workingtoward MAEAP verication. MDARD

estimates that MAEAP helps to reducethe phosphorus loads reaching stream

by more than 340,450 pounds annually.

that could help protect naturalresources. Further, MAEAP

provides assistance to makeneeded changes to arm practices

and veriy that appropriatepractices were embraced by allpartners and are actually being

implemented. Representativesrom these groups are still

involved in MAEAPs work, servingon committees and spreading

the word to encourage armers toparticipate. In 2011, Public Acts 1and 2 codied MAEAP into law, providing

incentives and an ocial structure or theprogram.

To become MAEAP veried, armers must

complete three comprehensive steps:

1. Attend an educational seminar

2. Conduct a thorough, condentialon-arm risk assessment with a

tailored action plan addressingpotential environmental risks

3. Complete an MDARD siteinspection

Each o MAEAPs systemsLivestock, Farmstead and

Croppingexamines adierent aspect o a arm,

as each has a dierentenvironmental impact.

Once the armer completes

the rst two steps, aMDARD sta memberinspects the arm. This

veries that the armmeets MAEAP program requirements

related to applicable state and ederalenvironmental regulations and MichiganRight to Farm guidelines, and that the

armer adheres to MAEAP standards. Whensuccessully completed, the producer

receives a certicate o environmentalassurance and may display a MAEAP sign

signiying that the arm is environmentally

Through programs like the MichiganAgriculture Environmental Assurance

Program, Michigans agriculturalcommunity plays a key role in stewarding

our natural resources. MAEAP helpsarms o all sizes and means voluntarilyprevent or minimize agricultural

pollution risks. The program aims toreduce armers legal and environmental

risks through education, the completiono a arm-specic risk assessment and

an on-site verication that armers haveimplemented recommended practices toprotect water quality.

MAEAP began not as a government

or regulatory program, but rather apartnership eort designed to protect

natural resources and advance positivecommunity and neighbor relations.

This collaborative partnership links the

Michigan Department o Agricultureand Rural Development, the Michigan

Environmental Assurance AdvisoryCouncil and the agricultural and

environmental communities togethertoward a shared goal o improving andprotecting water quality.

Program Emphasizes Collaboration

and Cooperation

MAEAP was rst developed in 1997 by acoalition o armers, commodity groups,

state and ederal agencies, universities,and conservation and environmental

groups. This collaboration provides aorum or armers to become better

educated about management options

Michigan Farmer Verication

Program Encourages Stewardship

JanWilfordProgram Manager, Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program

Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development


Water Qua

6

Michigan is leading the way nationwide in

effective stewardship practices with the voluntary,

incentive-based MAEAP program. This continued

effort shows agricultural producers long-term

commitment to protecting the environment while

maintaining economic success.

-MDARD Director Jamie Clover Adams
mailto:[email protected]://www.maeap.org/http://www.maeap.org/mailto:[email protected]


9/26

While we all are at the mercy o nature on this issue, it provides

a salient example o how water use can aect people all arounda lake. Back at the turn o the century, the Sanitary District oChicago did not consult with Canada about constructing its

diversion, and by 1907 the two were embroiled in litigation ovelake levels and navigation.

Today we have a monumental, game-changing tool to avoid

water use conficts. The Great Lakes Compact provides aramework or consensus-based decision-making about howwater rom the lakes can be used, in what quantities and where

For any diversion, the state receiving that water must make acase to the other states and provinces in the compact that the

removal o that water will meet the requirements set orth in theagreement.

Another tool unique to Michigan is the Water WithdrawaAssessment Tool. With this online interace, the resource impact

o a proposed withdrawal can be predicted in advance. Accordingto state law, any withdrawal must meet the environmental and

ecological standard o no adverse resource impact beore it canbegin. One critical aspect o the tool is that it continually adjust

to account or new withdrawals and uses science-based metrics

Within the state, the southwest region has experienced prevalen

large quantity withdrawals. To address this issue, the legislature

convened the Southwest Michigan Water Resources Council in2011 to evaluate existing tools and processes in the St. Josephand Kalamazoo River watersheds, as well as recommend a new

state water conservation and eciency program. Their studyis currently underway and will inorm uture improvements tomanaging these uses.

The Great Lakes states and provinces have a responsibility to

each other to continue to nd ways to improve the eciencyand wisdom with which we use this reshwater treasure. We

must take advantage o innovative technologies to encouragegreater stewardship o our water resources so they may suppor

healthy natural systems and human use and enjoyment orever

The Great Lakes are a shared resource. Their currents could

deliver a message in a bottle rom Michigan to any o seven otherstates or even Canadian shores. This multiplicity o jurisdictionsrepresents the third most populous coastal region in the U.S.,

with 10 percent o Americans and more than 30 percent oCanadians living and working in the basin. And because this is

such a broad swath o people, with a rich biological, commercialand recreational dependence on water, we all must work

together to use the resource with the utmost care.

Today, people on the shores o the Lake Michigan-Lake Huron

system are acing the possibility o all-time low water levels.Some believe that diversions taking water rom the lake system

at the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and increased fow onthe St. Clair River has exacerbated these reductions, and that

undoing these human changes will raise lake levels.

Practically speaking, only nature can raise these lake levels,

but humans historically have had an impact. The St. Clair Riverchannel was expanded in the 1960s, increasing its outfow and

lowering lake levels by 10-16 inches. Some have suggested thatinstalling weirs in this location could raise the water but this

would have little eect, high costs and would impede shipping.

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, completed in 1900,

ultimately lowered the lakes levels by about two inches.

Incidentally, man-made diversions into the system near ThunderBay, Ontario, raise the water more than that amount.

Chapter II: Water Use

Stewardship of a Shared ResourceJonAllanDirector

Michigan Ofce of the Great Lakes

tate of the Great Lakes | 2012

Water Use

7

DNR Photo: David K

Photo:MichiganSeaGrant


10/26

strategies to best minimize the risk o AIS rom the MississippRiver (http://www.glc.org/caws).

Michigan has ormed a collaborative team consisting o theDepartments o Environmental Quality, Natural Resources

Agriculture and Rural Development and Transportation to createand implement a new state management plan or invasive

species. The Wildlie Division in the Department o NaturaResources administers a GLRI grant to create capacity or rapid

response to any new species discovered in the state.

While connected waterways present the most intuitive pathway

or invasive species, 2012 has been a critical year or urtheaction on controlling another vectorships ballast water. The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard havenalized standards or ballast water treatment, which will urthe

reduce the risk o new species arriving in the Great Lakes.

The news is not all good, however. InvasivePhragmitesa grass

that can devastate coastal ecosystemshas proven exceedinglydicult to contain. At great expense, thousands o our inland

lakes receive chemical treatment every year or other invasiveplant growth. In addition, commercial trade o organisms

including Internet sales, has emerged as an open pathway omany non-native species to arrive in Michigan.

Regardless o ones use o the lakes, the responsibility to ensure

the exclusion o non-native species and containment o thosealready here alls to each one o us. Whether at the helm o a10-oot dinghy or 1,000-oot barge, every captain must ensure

his or her vessel is not carrying invasive specieson the insideor outside. Whether a person is on the water every day, once ayear, commercial or recreational, his or her gear must be clean

Whether one keeps a small water garden, acres o ponds or justan aquarium, it is his or her responsibility to avoid any invasive

plant or animal species.

It is possible to prevent new non-native species rom establishingpopulations in the Great Lakes, but it will require eective

permanent action rom all o us.

Imagine the Great Lakes without any invasive species. Nosea lamprey killing whitesh, no zebra mussels clogging

water intakes, no invasive Phragmites blocking views and noround goby taking the place o trophy perch on shing lines.What an incredible, positive dierence it would have made

in our enjoyment and use o the Great Lakes, as well as in ourpocketbooks, to have excluded these interlopers rom the start.

But today we nd ourselves with well-established invasive

species populationsand without an inexpensive controlmethod or any o them. In act, most have no eective controlmethod at all.

Pondering the bygone benets and present costs o invasive

species provides a powerul incentive to prevent moreintrusions rom non-native plants and animals. Michigan needs

capacity to take decisive action in response to any new speciesthat may be discovered. Whether one shes, boats, swims, drinkstreated water, enjoys the views rom the shore or all o the above,

invasive species have diminished everyones use and enjoymento the Great Lakes.

Several state, ederal and local governments as well as many

non-governmental organizations directly target preventionthe most cost-eective tool available. Many species are poisedto enter the Great Lakes, i we provide them withor ail to

blocka pathway to get here. Michigan has a number o

strategic eorts underway to close these pathways and reducethe spread o the species already here.

The threat o Asian carp has aroused an unprecedentedpublic engagement and understanding o a complex issue.

The region is ortunate to have strong support or deterrence

which, combined with ederal Great Lakes Restoration Initiativeunding, has led to a furry o projects to address the issue.

Increased prevention, control and response capacity have been

established at the ederal, state and local levels o governmentas well as in non-governmental organizations and universities.

A January 2012 report, Restoring the Natural Divide, outlined

Chapter III:

Aquatic Invasive Species


Aquatic Invasive Species

8

Photo: Michigan Se
http://www.glc.org/caws/pdf/CAWS-PublicSummary-mediumres.pdfhttp://www.glc.org/caws/pdf/CAWS-PublicSummary-mediumres.pdf


11/26

DNR law enorcement eortto stop the movement o

live silver and bighead carpIn addition, the undingwill acilitate planning

and preparedness shouldbigheaded carp be ound in

Michigans waters. The statesDNR-implemented plan

or management o Asiancarp calls or preventioncommunication, assessment

control, and managemen(http://1.usa.gov/Tc9TFy).

Separation o the Mississipp

River and Great Lakes Basins providesthe most viable long-term, sustainablesolution to prevent bigheaded carp and

other invasive species rom disruptingthis important resource. A recent study

sponsored by the Great Lakes Commissiondeveloped a plan to restore the natura

basin divide through changes in water/sewage management and controinrastructure, updates in shipping and

transportation modes, and placement obarriers. The preerred alternative would

cost $3.3 - $4.3 billion, which translates toonly $4 peryear or 50 years per household

in the two basins.

Michigan citizens must be vigilant and

help in the prevention to keep bigheaded

carp out o Michigan. Report unusual shand know your bait species. Materials areavailable to assist in identication, and

an online reporting system is availableon the DNR website. Any suspectedimportation or sale o live Asian carp can

be reported to the RAP hotline at 800292-7800. Michigans experiences with

zebra/quagga mussels, round gobies andsea lamprey prove that prevention is a

more eective and less costly than tryingto manage invasive species already in the

Great Lakes.

huge, sometimesnearing 100 pounds.

Bigheaded carp arelter eeders, strainingplankton out o the

water column, whichcompetes directly

with nearly all nativespecies. In addition,

due to their size,bigheaded carpconsume a great

volume o plankton,leaving very little or

native creatures.

Because o their eeding habits, carp arenot a viable recreational species, butcommercial shing has been used in

eorts to control them in places wherethey are already present. A series o

three electric barriers in the CAWS is thelast line o deense between the current

population ront and the Great Lakes.

Now, work is underway to expand on that

saety measure. Michigan representativesare delivering our states message by

serving on the Asian Carp RegionalCoordinating Committee, an advisory

body that oversees activities in the CAWS.Likewise, the state has avoice on the Executive

Steering Committee or

the Great Lakes MississippiRiver InterBasin Studyconducted by the Army

Corps o Engineers tolook into alternativesor preventing invasive

species entry to the GreatLakes.

Through the DEQs

aquatic invasive speciesprogram, unds were

made available to increase

While no breeding populations obighead or silver carp, also known

collectively as Asian carp or bigheadedcarp, have been ound in the GreatLakes, they are close enough to warrant

the label o an imminent threat. A recentbinational risk assessment by Canada,

the U.S. and the Great Lakes FisheryCommission concluded that the Chicago

Area Waterway System poses the greatestrisk or introduction into the Great Lakes.

The report noted that as ew as 10 malesand 10 emales in the Great Lakes could

provide a reproducing population.Experts predict that these voracious sh

would thrive in the systems rivermouthbays, Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie. Butthe Michigan Departments o Natural

Resources and Environmental Quality,and the Oce o the Great Lakes are

working diligently to prevent bigheadedcarp rom entering the Great Lakes in the

rst place.

Bigheaded and silver carp populations

have expanded rapidly up the Mississippi,Missouri and Illinois rivers, and continue

to colonize other waterways in newlocations. These are long-lived sh that

reproduce prolically and can become

Asian Carp: Prevention, Detection

and the Role of Citizens

TammyNewcombResearch Program ManagerMichigan Department of Natural Resources


Aquatic Invasive Spec

9

Photo: Michigan Sea Grant
http://michigan.gov/dnrhttp://michigan.gov/dnr


12/26

The prevention, management and controlo aquatic invasive species can only be

accomplished through the coordinatedeorts o an extremely large and

diverse group o stakeholders. Planning,communication and coordination areessential or success in our eorts to

address harmul species already presentand potential new invaders.

Michigans rst Aquatic Nuisance Species

State Management Plan was approvedin 1996. This plan, now called the AISState Management Plan, is undergoing

its second revision with anticipatedcompletion in 2013. The departments o

Environmental Quality, Natural Resources,Agriculture and Rural Development, and

Transportation collaborated on dratinga complete update o the plan, witheedback rom partners.

The drat revised AIS plan outlines new

actions or implementation in additionto maintaining and enhancing

existing eorts to protect allMichigan waters including theGreat Lakes, connecting channels,

rivers and streams, inland lakes andwetlands.

The drat AIS plan is based on our

goals:

Prevent new introductions of

AIS into Michigan waters

Limit the dispersal ofestablished populations o AISthroughout Michigan waters

Develop a statewide

interagency early detectionand rapid response program to

address new AIS Manage and control AIS to

minimize the harmul ecological,economic, social, and public health

impacts resulting rom establishedpopulations

The drat plan ocuses onstrategic actions that include

development o protectiveregulations that are consistent

across the Great Lakes region,the creation o a comprehensiveeducation and outreach

program, and research onew techniques to manage

established populations oinvasive species. All types o aquatic

invasive organisms, rom plants to animalsand diseases, are covered in the plan.

The plan identies three priority pathwaysor which prevention eorts are most

needed:

Canals and waterways, specically

Asian carp through the Chicago AreaWaterway System

Ballast water discharges

Trade of live organisms

The drat plan also recognizes

the need or new eorts todetect and respond to newinvaders. The Department o

Natural Resources WildlieDivision, in partnership with

the Michigan Natural FeaturesInventory, currently leads a

pilot project to monitor andtreat populations o severalaquatic invasive plants with

limited distribution in Michigan.

The lessons learned rom thisproject will help urther developMichigans monitoring program

with expanded and coordinatedeorts to detect and report AISusing existing eld sta and all

available external partners.

Species new to Michigan waters can bedetected using traditional monitoring

techniques such as netting, electroshing,plant surveys or newer methods like

environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis.

This technique tests watesamples or trace amounts

o genetic material rommucus, scales or other sh

parts. eDNA monitoringis underway in strategiclocations to look or signs

o Asian carp. Researchersare working to expand the

use o eDNA monitoring todetect other species o concern not yet

known to be in Michigan waters, includingsnakeheads,Hydrilla and golden musselsPortable testing units capable o quicke

sample analysis are being developed tomake the testing process more accessible

and user riendly.

Several agencies are increasing outreacheorts to build awareness o how toprevent AIS and identiy potentia

invaders. Look or billboards along keyhighways and posters at local bait shops.

To prevent the next zebra mussel it is

critical that we develop a network oproessional biologists, educated riparianlandowners, boaters and anglers on the

water who know what to look or andwhat to do i they nd an unusual plant

or animal.

We have accomplished and learned agreat deal since Michigans rst plan wasnalized more than 15 years ago. We

are building on existing AIS prevention

monitoring and control eorts, andmoving orward with implementationo the updated plan. Knowing the

importance o managing existing AISwhile preventing new invaders, our stateis all-in on this critical issue. Michigan wil

lead the basins states and provinces in anunprecedented collaboration to protect

our essential Great Lakes resources.

Michigans Comprehensive and

Collaborative Attack on Aquatic Invasive Species

SarahLeSageAquatic Invasive Species Program Coordinator




10

Photo: Michigan

Sea Grant

For the updated drat AIS StatManagement Plan vis

www.michigan.gov/aquaticinvasive
http://www.michigan.gov/aquaticinvasiveshttp://www.michigan.gov/aquaticinvasives


13/26

times or sae ship operations. For thatreason, ballast treatment is critica

Currently there are AIS ound at the Islandthat are not ound in Houghton and

vice versa, so implementing a system toprevent transers was critical.

Sta at Isle Royale havealso helped coordinate the

development o two newballast treatment systems

by the U.S. GeologicaSurvey, the AmericanSteamship Company and

other industry and nongovernmental partners

One system is intended opermanent installation on

Great Lakes reight vesselsunable to use commerciallyavailable treatmen

systems due to the uniqueoperating conditions o

the lakers. The secondsystem in development is intended o

use in emergency situations such agrounding, high risk ballast or ailure oinstalled ballast treatment equipment

The principal technological challengeor both treatment systems was mixing a

large volume o water in tanks designedto prevent movement o water. Our team

resolved this issue and is steadily movingtoward ormal adoption o both systems.

A great number o benets to human

use and enjoyment are at risk rom AIS. In2008, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency reported that 58 new AIS had

the potential to signicantly disrupthe Great Lakes system. Estimates oAIS species damages in the Great Lakes

alone have reached as high as $5.7 billionWith ballast water clearly one o the

highest-risk vectors or AIS introductiontreatment and high standards should be

a priority or anyone who cares about thehealth o our critically important Grea

Lakes ecosystems and resources.

become an established breeding colony.Divers have eectively cleared or reduced

populations at popular docks. Withoutthese actions the potential harm to native

mussel and endemic aquatic species ininland lakes could be substantial. Butthis is just one o innumerable potential

invaders, and thelarger question asks

how we stop aninvasion beore it

starts.

Ballast water aboard

ships is one o themain vectors or

introducing invasivespecies. When not

hauling cargo, manyships must bringaboard water to

increase the stabilityo the boat. When

cargo is ofoaded inone port, the ship brings on ballast water

to replace the cargo. Then the ship takesthat water and the organisms within toanother port where it discharges the

ballast as it loads new cargo. Duluth,Minnesota is a prominent

area or ballast exchange.

Isle Royale collaborateswith numerous entities inthe region and around the

country to help combat

the spread o AIS romballast. Thanks to GreatLakes Restoration Initiative

unding, in May Isle Royale National Parkcompleted the installation o a newballast treatment system aboard their

passenger vessel, the M/V Ranger III. TheRanger III carries passengers and cargo

between Houghton, Michigan and IsleRoyale National Park located on Lake

Superior. The Ranger III crew minimizesthe amount o ballast released, but water

intake and discharges are required at

Problematic invasive species signicantlythreaten the ecological, economic, cultural

and physical well-being o the Great Lakesecosystem. The National Park Service

protects native species on park lands andwaters, and prevention and eradication oinvasives at places like Isle Royale National

Park is a high priority. Lake Superior andIsle Royale are unparalleled examples o

healthy biological systems in the GreatLakes region. Yet aquatic invasive species

could unravel these ecosystems. We haveseen such impacts with existing aquaticinvasive species. Zebra and quagga

mussels are among the most damagingand invasive o more than 180 AIS ound

in the Great Lakes to date. These non-native mollusks have been shown to

cause signicant damage to local andbroad-scale ecological processes andhave been especially damaging to native

mussel populations.

Zebra mussels, like most invasivespecies, are highly adaptable. It was

once believed that water temperatures,calcium concentrations and even bottomcomposition would prevent the spread

o this nuisance species. However,numerous populations have

established themselves inbays and harbors in Lake

Superior. In 2009, adultzebra mussels were oundat Isle Royale. Where these

individuals came rom and

how long they had beenthere is unknown. Their rapidand complete eradication

at this time is o paramount importance.Otherwise, they may spread across theisland and into inland lakes that support

some o the highest concentrations onative mussel populations in the Great

Lakes.

National Park divers are activelyeradicating the mussels rom Isle Royale

by manual removal beore they can

Confronting Aquatic Invasive Species

at Isle Royale National ParkPhyllisGreenSuperintendent

sle Royale National Park



11

Photo:PaulBrown

Photo: Michigan Sea Grant

quagga mussel


14/26

This year in Michigan, Great Lakes anglers spent 4.3 million hours inpursuit o the big one or in many cases, dinner. Fishing is a huge

contributor to quality o lie in Michigan, or those who live hereand or the states many visitors. Keeping up with the sh can provechallenging, and keeping up with the lakes is a great place to start.

The successes seen in Great Lakes sheries result largely rom a

combination o investments in critical habitat protection, qualityhatchery products and eorts to rehabilitate native species. Strong

wild reproduction o salmon, steelhead, walleye and perch hasadded to this success. On the other side o the coin, the lakes havealso seen negative impacts rom aquatic invasive species such as sea

lamprey, zebra mussels, quagga mussels, alewives and round gobies.

For example, the Lake Huron oodweb has changed dramatically

during the past decade, romthe plankton at the base to theChinook salmon at the top. The

lakes most productive zones,historically oshore, have shited

toward nearshore areas as a resulto these changes, with an eect on

which sh species dominate thelake.

Alewives, once the main prey sh

in Lake Huron, have allen to an all-time low. Chinook salmon, reliant

on alewives or ood, have also declined. The DNR has implemented

signicant stocking reductions o Chinook salmon in Lakes Huronand Michigan to match the declining levels o productivity in thelakes, with natural reproduction the primary contributor to the

shery.

The decline o alewives also correlates with lakewide increases inwild reproduction o lake trouta potential sign o a recovering

population. Other Lake Huron sh like walleye, yellow perch andsmallmouth bass have also shown signs o signicant natural

reproduction in the past decade.

Chapter IV: Great Lakes FisheriesToddGrischke,ToddKalishandPhillipSchneebergerBasin Coordinators for Lakes Huron, Michigan/Erie and Superior

Michigan Department of Natural Resources


Great Lakes Fisheries

12

Catch rates or Saginaw Bay walleye have skyrocketed since 2004peaking in 2008 at a 30-year high. That year, catch rates or walleye

were seven times those seen in the 1980s and 90s. Likewise, climbingcatch rates in Lake Hurons steelhead shery over the last severayears show improvement and promise or the uture.

In an eort to protect these sheries, recent, ocused control eorts

have helped to keep sea lamprey populations below historic levelsbut they are still above the target identied or eective control in

Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Non-native smelt have declined, budistribution o the invasive round goby continues to grow.

In Lake Superior, at least 39 invasive species have become establishedover the past our decades. In spite o these challenges, the lake

boasts completely rehabilitated populations o lake trout, whichreached perilous lows in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Today the sh have

achieved near-historic levels o abundance in most areas o the lakedue to stocking, and are now sel-sustaining.

Lake Erie presents a very dierent shery than the upper Great Lakescharacterized by perch and walleye. Yellow perch populations have

fuctuated, drastically alling and rising twice since the 1960s due tonutrient problems in the lake, the varying health o plant lie called

macrophytes, overexploitation and other issues. Interagency eortsto reduce exploitation and protect spawning perch have resultedin the rebuilding o stocks, steady harvest and several recent strong

year-classes.

In 2005, Lake Eries overall walleye population surged, becoming ahigh quality stock, indicating more than 40 million individuals, o

the rst time since 1993. Improved management and reproductivesuccess, as well as a higher availability o ood led to this increase

The population has fuctuated since 2005 but some postulate tha

the potential or trophy walleye in the lake has never been higher.

Michigans world-class reshwater shery depends on healthy lakesand careul understanding o these complex ecosystems. The state

$2 billion annual angling economy supports thousands o peopleand raises quality o lie or residents and visitors alike. Great shing

is just one part o Pure Michigan, but it is an essential part.


15/26

The land-water interace helps dene Michigans identity andcreates a sense o place in the Great Lakes State unlike anywhere

else.

Michigans coast is characterized by unique ecology, culturallysignicant waterronts, historical eatures and abundantrecreational opportunities. Many o our natural riches lie within

the wetland areas that line much o our coast, drowned rivermouths and island gems.

The term coastal wetland reers to diverse landscapes

marshes, ens, bogs, reshwater estuaries, orested dune andswale complexes, lake plain prairies and more.

These areas provide habitat or hundreds o bird, sh and

amphibian species. Fish use coastal wetlands at all stages otheir lie cycle. And as adults, more than two-thirds o lake shspecies spawn here. Birds, reptiles and amphibians also live in

coastal wetlands.

Coastal wetlands provide critical habitat or migration, eeding

and nesting o waterowl and shorebirds. These stopover sitesduring spring and all migrations attract birders rom across the

continent to catch a glimpse o a rare species.

Unortunately, development has resulted in wetlanddegradation, and about 50 percent o these critical areas have

been lost to agriculture and industry in the last 150 years. In

13

addition, sedimentation, contamination and invasive speciesoten threaten these areas.

But with Great Lakes Restoration Initiative unding, the state is

making signicant progress in restoring large coastal wetlandsystems in areas like Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, and WesternLake Erie. This has helped move orward projects to restore the

hydrology o wetlands to accommodate re-established foraeducate the public on the benets o wetlands, remove invasive

Phragmites, enhance habitat or rare wildlie and more.

Further restoration in these areas also will provide improvedhunting, shing, canoeing, hiking, bird watching and otherrecreational opportunities or residents and visitors.

Many ederal, state and local programs have gotten involved inprotecting and restoring coastal wetlands, including the CoastaZone Management Program, administered by the Michigan

Oce o the Great Lakes.

The CZMP provides unding and technical assistance to suppor

on the ground restoration projects, easibility studies orestoration and resource management, and outreach to improve

public understanding o coastal habitats.

Partnership and collaborations have and will continue to becrucial to continued success in restoring and protecting these

incredibly valuable and diverse areas.

Photo: Michigan Sea

Chapter V:

Coastal Wetlands


oastal Wetlands


16/2614

Huron Pines welcomes volunte

throughout the spring, summer, andto assist with reporting and treating AI

visit www.huronpines.orgto learn m

For more inormation about the NortheMichigan CWMA or the Huron Pi

invasive species program, contact Ecolo

Jennier Muladore at 989-448-2293 extor Jennier@huronpines.

invasive species and landowners willingto organize AIS treatments.

The work o the volunteers has not only

expanded our treatment area, it hasenabled our Invasive Species SWAT

Team to ocus on high-priority hotspots

protecting rare and endangered species

and heavily inested areas at the same

time. In 2012, our SWAT Team treatednearly 70 acres o Phragmites in coastacountiesbut this doesnt tell the whole

story. The number o acres treated hasgone down since 2011, along with the

density o the remaining stands, and thenumber o people grouping together to

kill invasive species in cooperation witheach other has greatly increased. There isstill a lot o work to be done, but success

is in sight.

Huron Pines, a nonprot group workingto conserve the orest, lakes and streams

o Northeast Michigan, has spent thelast our years spreading the word about

invasive species to locals and visitors. Theoutreach has also laid the groundworkor a strong, locally-led eort that will

continue, we hope, or years or decadesto come.

Working with landowners,

local governments, stateand ederal agencies, andother partners within the

structure o the CooperativeWeed Management Area

partnership, we set goalsbased on acres treated

as well as the numbero people reached. Thecollaborative eorts o all

agencies, nonprot groups,and individuals together

are part o what make theNortheast Michigan CWMA so strong.

Through a series o grants rom the CoastalZone Management program, Huron Pines

has been able to help people betterappreciate the good, wild things about

northern beaches while enabling themto watch or and prevent invasive species

rom urther establishing themselves inthe area.

In 2011 and 2012, Huron Pines

sta gave over 30 presentationsto landowner groups, serviceorganizations, garden clubs and

volunteers. We also developedan inormation packet about thespecial natural eatures o Northeast

Michigans coastline and the invasivespecies that threaten them, providing

them to 10,000 landowners andvisitors. Through this eort and our

volunteer and education events, wehave connected with residents who

assist with reporting the locations o

The northeast portion o the LowerPeninsula aces dierent issues than

counties to the south when it comes toghting aquatic invasive species. Tourism,

a major source o income to people on theGreat Lakes coast and inland waterways,is also particularly vulnerable to AIS in this

region o the state. At the same time, theareaparticularly the coastis home to

many rare and endemic species o plantsand animals ound nowhere else in the

world.

Even requent visitors to the beaches o

Northeast Michigan may not have heardo the Pitchers thistle (an endangered

native wildfower) or invasive Phragmites(a tall grass). But the invasive orm o

the grass is quickly spreading acrossthe thistles native beach habitat. Inthe process, high-density Phragmites

stands have obscured views and blockedwaterront access.

Because the shoreline ecosystems

in Northeast Michigan are relativelyundeveloped and intact, protectingthese ecosystems is especially important.

Even though invasive plants are movingnorthward along shorelines and

roadways, or southward rom the Straits oMackinac, they can be stoppedwithout

costing large sums o restoration money.

Northeast Michigan Cooperative Weed Management Area:

Building a Sustainable Invasive Species ProgramJenniferMuladoreEcologist

Huron Pines


Coastal Wetla

Supporting partners:U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceU.S.ForestService

NaturalResourcesConservationService

MichiganDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality

NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration

NationalFishandWildlifeFoundation

TheCarlsFoundation

DTEEnergyFoundation

MichiganNaturalFeaturesInventory

PaulH.YoungChapterofTroutUnlimited

AuSableRiverPropertyOwnersAssociation

Individualdonors
http://www.huronpines.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.huronpines.org/


17/26

200 acres o coastal wetland areas to lake

plain prairie habitat by removing invasivePhragmites and boosting the native seedbank.

Overall, wetland restoration and

protection in the Saginaw Bay has beenvery successul. Based on a June 2012

Ducks Unlimited report, updated analysisshowed 60 percent o the existingwetlands in the Saginaw Bay Coastal Plain

are protected. The vast majority o areasconsidered high priority are protected

but 4,529 o the most important acresremain unguarded. I those also were

conserved, the overall rate o protectionin the Saginaw Bay Coastal Plain wouldincrease to 72 percent. Certainly, more

work can be done to ensure long-lastingprotections, especially in high-priority

areas.

Michiganders and state visitors treasurethe ecological wealth o the SaginawBays beautiul wetlands. Even i it

goes uncelebrated, these wetlands

contribution to water quality aectsscores o people around the bay andbeyond. The services these areas provide

as well as their immutable contributionto the local identity and culture haveinspired careul maintenance and diligent

protection. We all are beneciaries othese worthy projects.

altering the soil or vegetation, harvestingtimber within colonial bird nesting areas

or building permanent structures.

The ederal government, through the U.S.Fish and Wildlie Service, manages theShiawassee National Wildlie Reuge and

is currently working with Ducks Unlimitedto restore 700 acres o emergent marsh

and enhance 240 acres o existing wetlanddominated by invasive species. This

project includes sh passage to all 940acres o emergent wetlands. The projectarea is surrounded on three sides by the

reuges new auto tour route and willcreate outdoor recreation opportunities

or the public.

Land conservancies in the watershed havebeen key partners to the protection andrestoration o the bays wetland resources.

The Saginaw Basin Land Conservancyrecently added 44.4 acres o land to its

existing Sand Point Nature Preserve inHuron County. SBLC now

oversees seven preservesadjacent to the SaginawBay shoreline totaling

approximately 563 acres.These preserves are open

to the public.

Federal, state, local,and non-governmentalpartners all have

recognized and wisely

prioritized programs tocontrol the invasive reed,Phragmites, which oten

displaces native specieso plants and animals.

This has proven critical to coastal wetland

rehabilitation in Saginaw Bay. The FWS andBay County have collaborated to address

several miles o shoreline aficted withPhragmites. The FWS also has committed

unding to Arenac and Huron Counties orsimilar control eorts. In another project,

SBLC is working to restore approximately

Saginaw Bay contains one o the largestareas o reshwater marsh in the world. In

addition to its extensive coastal wetlands,the watershed boasts the Shiawassee

National Wildlie Reuge, more than 9,600acres o marsh, bottomland hardwoodorest and grasslands. The Shiawassee

State Game Area contains another 9,758acres o natural area. A magnet to birders,

shermen, hunters and tourists, the bayswetland resources generate an estimated

$15.9 million per year in recreationalrevenue.

Unortunately, the benets providedby the bays wetland resources were

not always so well appreciated. In thepast, many o the Saginaw Bays coastal

wetlands were converted to armlandor other uses, causing signicant loss onatural habitat. This historic wetland loss

in part led to the areas designation as aGreat Lakes Area o Concern more than

30 years ago. But recent eorts to restoreand protect wetlands

in the Saginaw Baywatershed have comea long way toward

addressing thesehistoric wetland losses

and ensuring that thisarea remains a jewel

o the Great Lakes.

Federal, state, local and

non-governmental

partnerships haveproven critical torestoration eorts.

The state provides abase o protection orcoastal habitat around the bay through the

Michigan Department o EnvironmentalQualitys Environmental Areas program,

which requires landowners to careullymanage environmentally sensitive places.

Landowners in these approximately120 areas must obtain DEQ approval or

potentially harmul activities such as

Restoring the Wetlands of

Saginaw Bay

CharlesBauerSenior Environmental Quality Analyst



Coastal Wetla

15

Artwork: Trevor Edmonds

For the Saginaw Basin Field Guide, visitwww.sblc-mi.org/guide.html
http://www.sblc/http://www.sblc/


18/2616


Localized Restoration

Chapter VI:

Localized RestorationPhoto: Michigan Sea

As a world-class manuacturing center, Michigan changed

history. Our state became synonymous with the prosperitybrought by booming industry. Michigan used her own ore and

workorce to produce the products o the day. But we now knowthat or all o its positives, many o the waste handling practices

common in this era contaminated some o our most prizednatural waterways.

Ater the signing o the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreementbetween the U.S. and Canada and the passage o the Clean Water

Act, both in 1972, remedying contemporary sources o pollutionwas the necessary rst action. We have dramatically cleaned up

our waste streams and the places where they discharged.

We now are let with the task o repairing the damage inficted

by years o historical dumping, and we are making remarkableprogress in restoring healthy ecosystems in the Great Lakes.

Progress shows up most prominently in localized restoration

eorts, particularly in the Great Lakes Areas o Concern. TheGLWQA has driven restoration eorts, providing a rameworko benecial uses o water, such as sae beaches or swimming,

shing and clean drinking water, and the underlying rationaleor restoring those where impaired.

Over the last 40 years, many uses have been restored. The

ollowing articles tell that story through many stories oindividuals at the local level. Piece by piece, these will lead tothe ultimate goal o the near uturebeginning to delist some

o Michigans 14 AOCs. Decades in the making, declaring or

the rst time that a Michigan AOC is no longer impaired wilbe historic. The ederal Great Lakes Restoration Initiative hasprovided unding or many projects, and serves as a rising tide

liting all boats.

We can once again use and enjoy places like the south shore oMuskegon Lake and White Lake, both AOCs that have come a

long way. Many more places, such as the Manistique River, arenot ar behind.

In other areas, we no longer consider just site-specic remediaactions and neither do we anticipate stopping at restoration

We will look beyond revitalization to a renaissance or the GreaLakes.

A major part o this revitalization involves helping places with

economies aected by environmental degradation to recover. In

this chapter, economist Dr. Paul Isley details the ways in whichrestoration projects have already boosted the economy around

Muskegon Lake even though it remains an AOC.

As these areas look to revitalization, Great Lakes health is onits way back. The collaborations that have emerged rom this

process involve a remarkable group eager to maintain coursewith sights set on restoring every last benecial use hinderingMichigans AOCs.

There is still a long way to go, but we are making strides and a

Great Lakes renaissance, with resilient natural ecosystems and

revitalized coastal communities, is on the horizon.


19/26

By the end o the year, a project by

the Michigan Department o NaturaResources will recreate approximately 18

acres o Great Lakes marsh and 32 acreso lakeplain prairie. A second project wil

repair dikes and install water control or310 acres o marsh and control invasivePhragmites in approximately 1,100 acres.

All told, these projects drew nearly$7 million in unding rom the GreatLakes Restoration Initiative and more

than $17.3 million rom EPA and DEQThis investment provides extraordinarybenets to the River Raisins plant and

animal inhabitants, as well as its humanneighbors and visitors. Our goal is that

with the crescendo o this restorationrevolution, the area will shed its AOC

designation, providing a new reason orpeople everywhere to remember the

River Raisin.

conned disposal acility atSterling State Park or the

materials that will be removedrom the AOC. The site also

will maintain capacity to storesediment removed in theuture or navigation channel

maintenance.

The rivers dams have restrictedsh movements or many years.

A new River Raisin sh passageproject aims to reconnect LakeErie to the lower 23 miles o the

river, allowing access not seenin decades or sh, canoes and

kayaks. The project will restoreand improve habitat that will

support benecial uses by shand wildlie.

The rst phase reopens 3.5miles o the river by removing

two low-head dams andinstalling rock arch rapids at

two locations in Monroe. PhaseII will reconnect 19.5 rivermiles by installing two rock

arch rapids, constructing a small channeladjacent to Waterloo Dam and cleaning

out Grape Mill Race.

Sterling Island, a man-made island withinthe AOC, has experienced signicanterosion, impairing spawning, nursery

and reuge habitat or sh and aquatic

organisms. A corrective project willaddress the areas Loss o Fish andWildlie Habitat BUI by constructing a

rock defector and longitudinal stonetoe to protect the existing bank againstriver fows, ice foes and wave action rom

Lake Erie. Further, the eort will improvethe grade and install timber steps to

prevent erosion caused by pedestrianoot trac. Under the waters surace,

a rock-substrate spawning area andbasking zone or waterowl and turtles

will provide additional wildlie habitat.

The River Raisin in Southeast Michiganprovided the backdrop or some o the

most pivotal points in Michigan history.The area hosted a battle in the War

o 1812 which so inspired Americanrevolutionaries that Remember the RiverRaisin was their rallying cry as they drove

the British rom Michigan orever.

Later, Ford Motor Company built onthe banks o the river along with other

manuacturers during a dierentrevolutionthe Industrial Revolution.

Today, however, the River Raisin is part o

a restoration revolution, which looks toheal this historic site or the birds, sh and

people who nd themselves drawn to itsrunning waters.

In 1987, the River Raisin was designateda Great Lakes Area o Concern, with

polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminatedsediment the primary issue. But the

problem proved deceivingly complex.This single chemical led to three o the

sites nine benecial use impairments:

Restrictions on sh and wildlife

consumption Bird or animal deformities or

reproductive problems Restrictions on dredging activities

Ten years ater the AOC designation,Ford Motor Company removed 20,000

cubic yards o highly PCB-contaminated

sediment rom the area under ordersrom the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency.

From 1998-2002, EPA and the MichiganDepartment o Environmental Quality

monitored the AOC, nding high levels oPCB still remaining.

Further removal came with a Great Lakes

Legacy Act unding agreement in April,2012. Its EPA Contaminated Sediment

Project includes the utilization o a

Revitalizing the River Raisin Area of Concern

BarryLaRoyCommissioner

Monroe Commission on Environment & Water Quality

17


Localized Restorat

Photo:EnvironmentalConsultingTechnology


20/26

Restoring Benecial Uses in the Kalamazoo

River, Muskegon Lake and White Lake

JohnRileyandStephanieSwartArea of Concern Coordinators


Through partnerships developedbetween residents and state, local and

ederal governments, three BUIs havebeen removed, or are in process. DEQ

and EPA have taken out contaminatedsediment at Ruddiman Creek and theDivision Street Outall.

Perhaps the most impressive example o

teamwork came with a plan to address along-contaminated property in northeast

Muskegon. No combination o eortother than ull participation rom EPAthe U.S. Army Corps o Engineers, DEQ

city o North Muskegon, MuskegonLake Watershed Partnership and state

legislature could have resulted insuccess at this site. Using this vast poo

o expertise, the group pulled togetherunding rom extremely diverse sourcesto map the contamination on the

property and develop a plan to addressthe problem.

Outcomes

Local citizens, government agenciesnonprots and others all have contributedto unprecedented restoration eorts in

Michigans AOCs. Combined with essentia

unding rom the GLRI, these stakeholdershave in the past two years alone removedor laid the groundwork to remove 17

BUIsa tremendous achievement.

As the AOC program has matured, the

people behind it have rened theirapproach to restoration, apparent in

the ever-accelerating pace o restoredbenecial uses. Thanks to these eorts

Michigan will soon see its rst AOCdelistings and, we hope, a boost in quality

o lie.

to evaluate nutrient levels and assessthe communities o bottom-dwelling

organisms that make up the base o theood web.

Those studies show that whilephosphorous levels remain slightly

elevated, the lake is no longer consideredeutrophic. And lake sedimentsonce

highly contaminatednow support adiverse and healthy biological system

o invertebrates to anchor the ood web.As a result, both the Eutrophicationor Undesirable Algae BUI and the

Degradation o Benthos BUI wereremoved rom the White Lake AOC.

Following a comparative analysis o

edible portions o sh tissue rom 2006and 2011 in White and Muskegon Lakes,the state o Michigan will recommend

that the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency remove the Restrictions on Fish

and Wildlie Consumption BUI rom both.It is important to note that although the

BUI will be removed in the short term, shconsumption advisories remain in placeor these and other lakes in the state.

For specic inormation, consult www.michigan.gov/eatsaesh.

Muskegon Lake Partnerships

The city o Muskegon was once amongthe largest cities on the east coast oLake Michigan, thanks in part to thriving

timber and ur businesses, as well as

paper manuacturing, smelting, and oiland gas production.

While those activities brought acommercial boon, they also led tocontaminated sediments, degraded

habitat and the loss o many recreationaluses in the region. In many areas, the

waterront serves as a gathering place,bolstering community. At Muskegon Lake,

nine BUIs have stood in the way. But thatnumber is shrinking, thanks to exceptional

coordination and collaboration.

Jump-Starting the Healing Process

The Great Lakes Area o Concern program

in 2010 entered a new era o on-the-ground action, ueled by an inusion o

unding in the orm o the Great LakesRestoration Initiative. This programprovides the necessary capital to bring

some o the Great Lakes most distressedareas back rom the brink.

Beore GLRI unding became available

in 2010, only seven Benecial UseImpairments were removed romMichigans 14 AOCs. But with newound

ederal resources, Michigan was able tomore than double that countto 15

total in 2011 alone. More hard work andcollaboration this year urther increased

momentum, with nine BUIs removed or inthe process.

Degradation of Aesthetics Focus

The Michigan Oce o the Great Lakes,

with assistance rom the MichiganDepartment o Environmental Qualitys

Water Resources Division, designed andadministered a statewide assessment orthe Degradation o Aesthetics BUI. Areas

with this impairment have had issueswith water surace oil sheens or scum,

unnatural colors, turbidity or other visualproblems.

The assessment showed no problems inrepeated samplings o the River Raisin,

the Kalamazoo River or the St. Clair River

AOCs, and those BUIs were removed.

Progress in White Lake

Two BUIs were removed rom the WhiteLake AOC in Muskegon County this yearand a third is pending. Ongoing

collaborative relationships with acultyand sta at the Grand Valley State

University Annis Water ResourcesInstitute, along with eorts by the

Muskegon Conservation District, haveproven instrumental to the areas

progress. Researchers undertook studies


Localized Restorat

18
http://www.michigan.gov/eatsafefishhttp://www.michigan.gov/eatsafefishhttp://www.michigan.gov/eatsafefishhttp://www.michigan.gov/eatsafefish


21/26

increased value can be estimated by

calculating how the value o a housechanges with respect to distance rom the

restoration. An average house within 800meters o the waterront would increasein value by more than $3,500 in 2011

When aggregated across the aectedarea, property values increase by nearly

$12 million. This not only makes currenthomeowners wealthier, but it also has the

potential to add an additional $600,000 inproperty tax revenue.

Such a large percentage o the populationlives or recreates in Michigans coasta

regions that improved coastal zones havethe potential to be game changing. The

increase in tourism will be one o themost visible components, but improvedproperty values and higher values o

recreation or local residents will improvethe quality o lie or Michiganders.

While impossible to measure, this value

will show up economically with a risein happy workers with ample housingassets. This kind o person is more likely

to decide that Michigan is a great placeto work, live and play and will be more

likely to stick around or the long haul.

water quality by infuencing runo, which

is important to anyone participating inrecreation in or around the water.

Surveys showed that the healthierbiological system at Muskegon Lake

improved the recreation experienceor boaters and shermen, as well as or

people biking and hiking around theshoreline. A dollar value or the improved

recreational experience can be calculatedby observing whether more people usethe area and i they are willing to spend

more to do so.

In this case, the $10 million spent onthe restoration resulted in an estimated

65,000 additional visits to the area,generating $1 million a year in extraspending. In addition, the visitors had an

improved recreational experience, whichcan attract travelers rom arther away.

Improving the aesthetics o an area

by sotening the shoreline can havea proound eect on housing prices.Homeowners in the area preer a natural

waterront over the aging, hardenedshoreline, resulting in higher housing

prices near natural coastline. The

It may seem impossible, at rst thought,

to assign a value to a shing trip, anaternoon at the beach or a shoreline walk.

But it is indeed possible, and extremelyimportant in helping to determine howto best use limited resources to restore

coastal areas in need o improvement.

A variety o techniques can help todetermine the value o a land or water

use related to a coastal restoration. Butthe most common ways to measure thatvalue involve rising property values near

the restoration, increased recreationvalues, and the value o improved quality

o lie. A discussion o these techniquescan be ound at http://1.usa.gov/RROrqc.

A recent Muskegon Lake shorelinerestoration provides a good example

o each technique, used right here inMichigan: http://bit.ly/RROLoU.

In Muskegon, contractors removed ll,

sotened shoreline and restored naturalvegetation. This created a better shore-to-land interace, improving the biological

system supporting aquatic lie, whichis particularly benecial to recreational

shing. Over time, it will also improve

Coastal Restoration Economics:

Many Happy Returns

Dr.PaulIsley

Professor and Chair of EconomicsGrand Valley State University

19


Localized Restorat

Photo:KathyEvans
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/economic_benefits_factsheet3.pdfhttp://www.glc.org/announce/11/pdf/Muskegon-Lake-ARRA-econ-fact-sheet_Final_May2011.pdfhttp://www.glc.org/announce/11/pdf/Muskegon-Lake-ARRA-econ-fact-sheet_Final_May2011.pdfhttp://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/economic_benefits_factsheet3.pdf


22/26

Ishpeming has worked diligently with theDEQ and EPA to eliminate this, the lastcontrollable source o mercury to Dee

Lake and the Carp River. The crucial partor the city was cost, and during tough

economic times in 2010 it allocated$700,000 to match $2 million in Great

Lakes Restoration Initiative undingPartridge Creek will be diverted romthe mine shats in two phases, with

each phase creating naturalized streamchannels while restoring and upgrading

the citys storm water inrastructure.

Phase I is substantially complete, andPhase II will begin in the spring o 2013

The accomplishments in Partridge Creek

will provide the city with restored areas

or recreational use and allow DEQ andEPA to reach restoration goals or the DeeLake AOC that once seemed impossible.

When the Partridge Creek diversionproject is complete, Deer Lake and the

Carp River will look the same as they donowcold waters teeming with sh

The dierence may not be outwardlyvisible, but the AOC is now on track to be

among the rst in Michigan to shed thedesignation, thanks to the perseverance

o a dedicated ew.

designation. But mercury levels were stillhigh, and Deer Lake needed more help.

Clis Natural Resources worked withthe DEQ to minimize the disturbance

o sediments in the lake, preventing aprocess called methylation, which makes

mercury more harmul to sh and theenvironment. Recently, the sh o DeerLake and the Carp River have shown a

reduction in mercury levels.

Despite these improvements, Deer Lakesh still contained

enough mercury torequire the catch andrelease designation

or the lake. A study

o mercury sourcesshowed that PartridgeCreek, a tributary to

Carp Creek, could be acontributor. Originallypart o the storm water

system in Ishpeming,Partridge Creek was

diverted into a mine in 1973 to combatfooding issues associated with the

growing community. A 2004 DEQ studyindicated that the creek was indeed a

major source o mercury or Deer Lake.

Deer Lake, Carp Creek and the Carp Riverlie tucked away in the Upper Peninsula

just west o Marquette. Judging byappearance alone, one might never

suspect that this, one o the mostproductive lakes in the U.P., is also aGreat Lakes Area o Concern. Mercury

contamination, algae blooms and otherissues in the lake have contributed to this

designation.

In 1981, the Michigan Department oCommunity Health issued a do not eatadvisory or all sh species in the creek,

river and lake. Mercury rom historicmining in the area had accumulated in

the sh, rendering them inedible. Thelakes eagles suered rom reproductive

diculties and the lake was prone to algalblooms.

These were tough problems, but thelocal public advisory council, Michigan

Department o Environmental Quality,the city o Ishpeming and the mining

company Clis Natural Resources met thechallenge head on. Ishpeming upgradedits wastewater treatment plant, which

ended untreated and partially treatedwastewater discharges to the creek,

thereby reducing the algae blooms andphosphorous. By 2000, small

decreases in mercury were alsoseen in some species o sh,which advanced the AOC toward

removing its sh consumption

benecial use impairment.

Studies by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlie Service showed arebound in the eagle population,with the birds successully

reproducing on the shores oDeer Lake or the past 15 years.

The eagles reproductive success and the

wastewater treatment upgrades led tothe removal o two BUIs, a benchmark

on the road to removing the areas AOC

Restoring the Deer Lake Area of Concern

StephanieSwartArea of Concern Coordinator



Localized Restorat

20

Pho

to:StephanieSwart

Photo:JeredOttenwess


23/26

The long, dark shapes looming on thescreen took a moment to come into

ocus. As they did, the camera capturedlake sturgeons perorming what theyddone or eonsnding a suitable place

to spawn. However, the sh representedmore than just spawning to those on

the other end o the cameratheysymbolized a huge restoration success.

These sturgeons congregated on rockrees installed as part o the St. Clair River

Middle Channel restoration project led by

Michigan Sea Grant. The project ocused

on restoring sh spawning habitat inorder to recruit several endangered or

threatened sh species, including lakesturgeon, mooneye, northern madtomcatsh and the river redhorse sucker.

Valuable commercial and sport sh such

as walleye and lake whitesh also areexpected to use the rees or spawning.

It is science in action, said JennierRead, assistant director o Michigan SeaGrant and project lead. This is the kind o

research project where were perormingresearch not just to learn new things, but

to apply what weve discovered. And withthis project, weve been rewarded with

early success.

Because o the Huron-Erie Corridorslocation in the heart o the Great Lakes

the restoration has potential to benetwaters upstream and downstream. Therestoration eorts could also provide

cultural and economic benet, bolsteringcommercial

Documents

State of the Great Lakes 2012 405640 7