DOCSLIB.ORG

Programmatic Environmental Impact Staement for Northern Border

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programmatic Environmental Impact Staement for Northern Border Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Northern Border Activities Section 6: Great Lakes Region July 2012 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONTENTS 6 Great Lakes Region ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 6-4 6.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6-4 6.2.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 6-4 6.2.2.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ..................... 6-4 6.2.2.2 Class I Areas ..................................................................................................... 6-6 6.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 6-8 6.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6-8 6.3.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-10 6.3.2.1 Blocks of Regionally Significant Habitat ....................................................... 6-10 6.3.2.2 Sensitive Habitats ............................................................................................ 6-13 6.3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 6-14 6.3.2.4 Wildlife Typically Found in the Region ......................................................... 6-17 6.3.2.5 Vegetative Habitat Typically Found in the Region ........................................ 6-18 6.3.2.6 Wetlands and Waterways ................................................................................ 6-19 6.3.2.7 Aquatic Resources in the Region .................................................................... 6-19 6.4 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 6-21 6.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-21 6.4.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-21 6.4.2.1 Physiographic Provinces ................................................................................. 6-21 6.4.2.2 Geologic Conditions ....................................................................................... 6-21 6.4.2.3 Soils ................................................................................................................. 6-32 6.4.2.4 Prime and Unique Farmland ........................................................................... 6-34 6.5 Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 6-36 6.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-36 6.5.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-36 6.5.2.1 Groundwater ................................................................................................... 6-36 6.5.2.2 Surface Waters and Waters of the United States ............................................ 6-37 6.5.2.3 Floodplains ...................................................................................................... 6-39 6.5.2.4 Transboundary Water Agreements ................................................................. 6-40 6.6 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 6-41 6.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-41 6.6.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-41 Northern Border Activities 6-i July 2012 PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6.6.2.1 Regulatory Review .......................................................................................... 6-42 6.6.2.2 CBP Noise Sources ......................................................................................... 6-42 6.6.2.3 Non-CBP Noise Sources ................................................................................. 6-43 6.6.2.4 Background Noise Levels ............................................................................... 6-44 6.6.2.5 National Parks ................................................................................................. 6-45 6.7 Climate Change and Sustainability ............................................................................... 6-46 6.7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-46 6.7.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-46 6.7.2.1 Climate Regions of the Northern Border—Overview .................................... 6-46 6.7.2.2 Climate in the Great Lakes Region ................................................................. 6-46 6.7.2.3 Climate Change in the United States—Midwest Regional Assessment ......... 6-47 6.8 Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 6-48 6.8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-48 6.8.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-48 6.8.2.1 Land Cover and Related Land Uses in the Great Lakes Region ..................... 6-48 6.8.2.2 Land Cover and Related Land Uses in the Areas North of the Great Lakes Region… ........................................................................................................................ 6-53 6.8.2.3 Land Ownership in the Great Lakes Region in the United States .................. 6-58 6.8.2.4 Land Ownership in Canada North of the Great Lakes Region ....................... 6-61 6.8.2.5 Land Use Management ................................................................................... 6-62 6.8.2.6 Consistency with Enforceable Policies of the Coastal Zone Management Act ………… ........................................................................................................................ 6-62 6.9 Aesthetic and Visual Resources .................................................................................... 6-66 6.9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-66 6.9.2 Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 6-66 6.9.2.1 Affected Landscapes ....................................................................................... 6-66 6.9.2.2 Areas with High Visual Sensitivity ................................................................. 6-68 6.9.2.3 Affected User Groups ..................................................................................... 6-69 6.10 Socioeconomic Resources .......................................................................................... 6-71 6.10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6-71 6.10.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 6-71 6.10.2.1 Regional Demographics ................................................................................ 6-71 6.10.2.2 Population and Growth Trends ..................................................................... 6-72 6.10.2.3 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment .......................................................... 6-77 6.10.2.4 Property Values ............................................................................................. 6-80 Northern Border Activities 6-ii July 2012 PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6.10.2.5 Regional Economies ..................................................................................... 6-82 6.10.2.6 Economic Profiles of POEs and BPSs in the Great Lakes Region ............... 6-85 6.11 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ..................................................................... 6-98 6.11.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6-98 6.11.2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 6-98 6.11.2.1 Archaeological Resources: Prehistoric/Precontact Context .......................... 6-98 6.11.2.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Site Probability .................................................. 6-99 6.11.2.3 Historic Context .......................................................................................... 6-101 6.11.2.4 Historic/Protohistoric
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Forests in Michigan
    OriqiMI from Digitized by Go gle UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NATIONAL FORESTS IN MICHIGAN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTH CENTRAL REGION • MILWAUKEE, WIS. ON THE COVER. —Great Conglomerate Falls on the Black River. p-3e«M ERRATA Page Line 5 3 97,000,000 should be 45,000,000. 7 4 Porcupine should not be listed vvilh fur bearers. 17 7 Si.o'jld read "the red pine by its ClUoLC"G Cf t»Vj". 44 2-3 Should read "4 rniies east of Munising". UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 sEr^ •*«$• . AU TRAIN FALLS ON THE HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST. Drama of Michigan Forests DRAMA of the forests of Michigan has been written in several acts THEeach with its colorful pageantry. The action has concerned the magni ficent woodlands of the redman, the rapid depletion of those forests in the last century, and their slow but sure rebuilding in the present. The elusive "northwest passage" to China, Indian furs and Indian souls, iron and land and copper brought the white men to Michigan. In 1621, only 1 year after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, young Etienne Brule, protege of Champlain, reached Lake Superior and was disappointed to find its waters fresh. Thirteen years later, Jean Nicolet, another protege of the French governor of Canada, entered the unknown Lake Michigan through the Straits of Mackinac. Though he never found the longed-for route to the Orient, Nicolet did initiate the French fur trade with the Indians in this territory. Heroic followers of Brule and Nicolet were the Jesuit fathers Jogues and Raymbault, who preached to the Ojibwas in 1641 at Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Economic Potential in the Arctic Woods, K
    NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC Transportation and economic potential in the Arctic Woods, K. B.; Legget, R. F. This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur. Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur: Traffic Quarterly, 14, pp. 435-458, 1960-12-01 NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC : https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=35ca3993-c5a1-47bc-94ba-3bbe04114bca https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=35ca3993-c5a1-47bc-94ba-3bbe04114bca Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB. Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at [email protected]. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information. Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Lake Superior in 2000
    THE STATE OF LAKE SUPERIOR IN 2000 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 07-02 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States, which was ratified on October 11, 1955. It was organized in April 1956 and assumed its duties as set forth in the Convention on July 1, 1956. The Commission has two major responsibilities: first, develop coordinated programs of research in the Great Lakes, and, on the basis of the findings, recommend measures which will permit the maximum sustained productivity of stocks of fish of common concern; second, formulate and implement a program to eradicate or minimize sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes. The Commission is also required to publish or authorize the publication of scientific or other information obtained in the performance of its duties. In fulfillment of this requirement the Commission publishes the Technical Report Series, intended for peer-reviewed scientific literature; Special Publications, designed primarily for dissemination of reports produced by working committees of the Commission; and other (non-serial) publications. Technical Reports are most suitable for either interdisciplinary review and synthesis papers of general interest to Great Lakes fisheries researchers, managers, and administrators, or more narrowly focused material with special relevance to a single but important aspect of the Commission's program. Special Publications, being working documents, may evolve with the findings of and charges to a particular committee. Both publications follow the style of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Sponsorship of Technical Reports or Special Publications does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions contained therein are endorsed by the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Regions of Minnesota: Level III and IV Maps and Descriptions Denis White March 2020
    Ecological Regions of Minnesota: Level III and IV maps and descriptions Denis White March 2020 (Image NOAA, Landsat, Copernicus; Presentation Google Earth) A contribution to the corpus of materials created by James Omernik and colleagues on the Ecological Regions of the United States, North America, and South America The page size for this document is 9 inches horizontal by 12 inches vertical. Table of Contents Content Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Geographic patterns in Minnesota 1 Geographic location and notable features 1 Climate 1 Elevation and topographic form, and physiography 2 Geology 2 Soils 3 Presettlement vegetation 3 Land use and land cover 4 Lakes, rivers, and watersheds; water quality 4 Flora and fauna 4 3. Methods of geographic regionalization 5 4. Development of Level IV ecoregions 6 5. Descriptions of Level III and Level IV ecoregions 7 46. Northern Glaciated Plains 8 46e. Tewaukon/BigStone Stagnation Moraine 8 46k. Prairie Coteau 8 46l. Prairie Coteau Escarpment 8 46m. Big Sioux Basin 8 46o. Minnesota River Prairie 9 47. Western Corn Belt Plains 9 47a. Loess Prairies 9 47b. Des Moines Lobe 9 47c. Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Drift Plains 9 47g. Lower St. Croix and Vermillion Valleys 10 48. Lake Agassiz Plain 10 48a. Glacial Lake Agassiz Basin 10 48b. Beach Ridges and Sand Deltas 10 48d. Lake Agassiz Plains 10 49. Northern Minnesota Wetlands 11 49a. Peatlands 11 49b. Forested Lake Plains 11 50. Northern Lakes and Forests 11 50a. Lake Superior Clay Plain 12 50b. Minnesota/Wisconsin Upland Till Plain 12 50m. Mesabi Range 12 50n. Boundary Lakes and Hills 12 50o.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Years of Michigan State Parks
    1 ourmidland.com 2 Page 2 | Week of May 6 -11, 2019 Which state park was Michigan’s first? As the DNR celebrates the 100th anniversary of Michigan state parks system, a natural question arises – what was Michigan’s first state park? Well, the answer depends on how you interpret the question and isn’t simple. The 2019 state parks centennial celebration is centered around the formation of the Michigan State Park Commission by the state Legislature on May 12, 1919. The commission was given responsibility for overseeing, acquiring and maintaining public lands and establishing Michigan’s state parks system. One of the state’s earliest purchases was the site of Interlochen State Park in 1917. Although the land was purchased prior to 1919, Interlochen was the first public park to be transferred to the Michigan State Park Commission in 1920 and is considered Michigan’s first state park. However, many consider Mackinac Island as Michigan’s first state park, which is also true. Approximately 25 years before legislation estab- lished the state park commission, the federal government gifted the Mackinac Island property it owned to the state in 1895. The island was designat- ed as Michigan’s first state park under the Mackinac State Park Commission. Because Mackinac Island is operated under the Mackinac State Park Commission and was not placed under the Michigan State Park Commission, there is more than one answer to the “first state park” question. Interlochen State Park The Michigan Legislature paid $60,000 for the land that became Interlochen State Park, located southwest of Traverse City, in 1917.
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Status, Distribution, and Trends of Mixedwoods in the Northern United States1 Lance A
    881 ARTICLE Contemporary status, distribution, and trends of mixedwoods in the northern United States1 Lance A. Vickers, Benjamin O. Knapp, John M. Kabrick, Laura S. Kenefic, Anthony W. D’Amato, Christel C. Kern, David A. MacLean, Patricia Raymond, Kenneth L. Clark, Daniel C. Dey, and Nicole S. Rogers Abstract: As interest in managing and maintaining mixedwood forests in the northern United States (US) grows, so does the importance of understanding their abundance and distribution. We analyzed Forest Inventory and Analysis data for insights into mixedwood forests spanning 24 northern US states from Maine south to Maryland and westward to Kansas and North Dakota. Mixedwoods, i.e., forests with both hardwoods and softwoods present but neither exceeding 75%–80% of composition, comprise more than 19 million hectares and more than one-quarter of the northern US forest. They are most common in the Adirondack – New England, Laurentian, and Northeast ecological provinces but also occur elsewhere in hardwood-dominated ecological provinces. These mixtures are common even within forest types nominally categorized as either hardwood or softwood. The most common hardwoods within those mixtures were species of Quercus and Acer,and the most common softwoods were species of Pinus, Tsuga,andJuniperus. Although mixedwoods exhibited stability in total area during our analysis period, hardwood saplings were prominent, suggesting widespread potential for eventual shifts to hardwood dominance in the absence of disturbances that favor regeneration of the softwood component. Our analyses sug- gest that while most mixedwood plots remained mixedwoods, harvesting commonly shifts mixedwoods to either hard- wood- or softwood-dominated cover types, but more specific information is needed to understand the causes of these shifts.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Herman, Barrett, Chokio, and Morris Quadrangles
    DESCRIPTION OF THE HERMAN, BARRETT, CHOKIO, AND MORRIS QUADRANGLES. By Frederick W. Sardesoii. INTRODUCTION, general trend northeastward, reach an altitude of 2,000 feet, Winnipeg, which discharges through Nelson River into Hud­ GENERAL RELATIONS. and the Mesabi Range stands 2,200 feet above the sea. son Bay. Northeastern Minnesota and a little of northern Although they reach an altitude of 2,000 feet in places along Wisconsin are drained into Lake Superior, part of the St. The area here described lies between parallels 46° 30' and their western margin and in the Turtle Mountains plateau on Lawrence system. The rest of Minnesota, except the extreme 46° and meridians 95° 45' and 96° 15' and includes the the international boundary, the Glaciated Plains elsewhere lie southwest corner, the greater part of Wisconsin, and the Herman, Barrett, Chokio, and Morris quadrangles, comprising considerably lower. In North Dakota and South Dakota and eastern two-thirds of Iowa are drained directly into the upper 834.83 square miles. It is in western Minnesota and includes eastern Nebraska their surface slopes in general eastward to Mississippi, and the remainder of the region mapped in figure the greater part of Grant and Stevens counties and small adja­ a level of about 1,000 feet along the Missouri and to consider­ 2 is drained into the Mississippi through the Missouri. The cent parts of Douglas, Pope, and Big Stone counties. (See ably less in the valley of Red River. In the area east of this State of Minnesota lies in part of each of the four drainage fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Rudyard
    Environmental Assessment Rudyard United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Eastern Region Hiawatha National Forest June 2013 Responsible Official: Stevan Christiansen W1900 West US 2 St. Ignace, MI 49781 (906) 643-7900 ext. 113 (906) 643-7611 (TDD) (906) 643-8759 (Fax) [email protected] Additional Information: Brad Cooper W1900 West US 2 St. Ignace, MI 49781 (906) 643-7900 ext. 111 (906) 643-7611 (TDD) (906) 643-8759 (Fax) i Cover picture: Rudyard vicinity map. The Rudyard Project Area is approximately 34,000 acres and is located on the Eastside of the Hiawatha National Forest in Mackinac and Chippewa Counties, Michigan. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or activities.) If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD). If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office. To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call Toll free, (866) 632-9992 (Voice).
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers National Park Service 1994 Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region Peter J. P. Gogan Yellowstone National Park Jean Fitts Cochrane USFWS, Anchorage, AL Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Gogan, Peter J. P. and Cochrane, Jean Fitts, "Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region" (1994). U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers. 11. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the National Park Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 9 Restoration of woodland caribou to the Lake Superior region PETER J. P. GOGAN AND JEAN FITTS COCHRANE Introduction Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) historically occupied the boreal forest zone across the North American continent. The distribution and abun­ dance of the species has declined in the past century. In particular, it has been extirpated from much of the southern limits of its historical range on both sides of the boundary between Canada and the United States (Bergerud 1974). Translocation of animals from extant populations may be used to reestablish populations in portions of the species' former range. Recently, wildlife biolo­ gists in Ontario have translocated woodland caribou to a number of sites in or adjacent to Lake Superior. While it is too soon to evaluate their long-term suc­ cess, these restoration efforts do provide useful insights into factors likely to influence the outcome of woodland caribou translocations elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Beach Monitoring Report
    MI/DEQ/WRD-12/034 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION AUGUST 2012 STAFF REPORT MICHIGAN BEACH MONITORING YEAR 2011 ANNUAL REPORT INTRODUCTION The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program, is summarized in the January 1997 report entitled, “A Strategic Environmental Quality Monitoring Program for Michigan’s Surface Waters” (Strategy) (MDEQ, 1997). The objectives of the beach monitoring component of the Strategy are listed below: 1. Assist local health departments to implement and strengthen beach monitoring programs. 2. Create and maintain a statewide database. 3. Determine whether waters of the state are safe for total body contact recreation. 4. Compile data to determine overall water quality. 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of MDEQ programs in attaining Water Quality Standards (WQS) for pathogen indicators. 1. ASSIST LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS TO IMPLEMENT AND STRENGTHEN BEACH MONITORING PROGRAMS Beach Monitoring The monitoring of beaches in Michigan is voluntary and is conducted by the local health departments. Health departments are required to comply with Michigan’s WQS according to R 333.12544 of the Public Health Code, 1978 PA 368 (Act 368), as amended. According to R 333.12541 of Act 368, a local health officer or an authorized representative of a local health department that conducts tests at bathing beaches is required to notify the MDEQ and other entities of the test results within 36 hours of conducting a test or evaluation. This rule also states that the local health department may petition the circuit court for an injunction ordering the owners of a beach to close the beach.
    [Show full text]