DOCSLIB.ORG

Report to Congress: Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report to Congress: Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin April 2016 Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin EPA 833-R-16-006 Report to Congress Combined Sewer Overflows into the Great Lakes Basin U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management This page intentionally left blank. Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin Table of Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................... ii List of Tables........................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary .............................................................................................. ES-1 1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Why Is EPA Preparing this Report to Congress? ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 The Challenges of Combined Sewer Systems and Combined Sewer Overflows .............................................. 1 1.3 What is the “Great Lakes Basin”? ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 How Do CSOs Impact the Great Lakes? ............................................................................................................... 5 1.5 The Federal Framework for CSO Control............................................................................................................. 6 1.5.1 CSO Control Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 7 1.5.2 Wet Weather Water Quality Act ............................................................................................................... 7 2 Methodology ...........................................................................................................9 2.1 Data Collection Method........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.2 What Data Were Collected? ................................................................................................................................. 9 3 Results ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Distribution of CSO Communities ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 LTCP Status of CSO Communities....................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of CSO Communities ........................................ 16 3.4 Treated and Untreated CSOs.............................................................................................................................. 18 3.5 Untreated CSO Events in 2014 ........................................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Summary of Untreated CSO Volume Reported in 2014 ................................................................................... 20 3.7 Treated CSO Events in 2014 ............................................................................................................................... 22 3.8 Summary of Treated CSO Volume Reported in 2014 ....................................................................................... 23 3.9 Summary of Individual State Data ..................................................................................................................... 25 3.9.1 New York ................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.9.2 Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................. 26 3.9.3 Ohio ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.9.4 Michigan.................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.9.5 Indiana....................................................................................................................................................... 30 3.9.6 Illinois ........................................................................................................................................................ 31 3.9.7 Wisconsin .................................................................................................................................................. 32 References .............................................................................................................. 35 Appendix ............................................................................................................... A-1 Glossary ................................................................................................................ G-1 Page | i Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin List of Figures Figure ES-1 2014 CSO Volume by State .......................................................................................... ES-5 Figure ES-2 2014 CSO Volume by Great Lake ................................................................................. ES-5 Figure 1-1. Typical Combined Sewer System......................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2. National Distribution of CSSs..............................................................................................3 Figure 1-3. Drainage Area of the Great Lakes Basin in the United States. ................................................5 Figure 1-4. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin. ....................................................................... 6 Figure 3-1. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S. ....................................................... 13 Figure 3-2. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in New York. ...................................................25 Figure 3-3.CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Pennsylvania............................................... 26 Figure 3-4. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Ohio. ..........................................................27 Figure 3-5. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Michigan.................................................... 29 Figure 3-6. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Indiana. ......................................................30 Figure 3-7. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois. .......................................................32 Figure 3-8. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Wisconsin. .................................................. 33 Cover: Fisherman and Great Blue Heron on a pier in Lake Erie. Cover Photo: Posnov/Getty Images Page | ii Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin List of Tables Table ES- 1. Summary of LTCP Status and 2014 CSO Events and Volume by State for States in Great Lakes Basin .................................................................................................................................. ES-3 Table ES- 2. Summary of LTCP Status and 2014 CSO Events and Volume by Lake for States in Great Lakes Basin .................................................................................................................................. ES-4 Table 1-1. Drainage Areas and Other Data for the Great Lakes ............................................................... 4 Table 2-1. Data on CSO Permittees ..................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-2. Data on LTCPs .................................................................................................................. 10 Table 2-3. Data on Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Programs .............................................. 10 Table 2-4. Data on CSOs.....................................................................................................................11 Table 3-1. CSO Communities by State in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S. ............................................ 14 Table 3-2. CSO Communities by Lake in the Great Lakes Basin ............................................................ 14 Table 3-3. CSO Control Plan Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by State Based on Available Data .................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 3-4. CSO Control Plan Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by Lake Based on Available Data .................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 3-5. Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities Based on Available Data ..............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AN OVERVIEW of the GEOLOGY of the GREAT LAKES BASIN by Theodore J
    AN OVERVIEW OF THE GEOLOGY OF THE GREAT LAKES BASIN by Theodore J. Bornhorst 2016 This document may be cited as: Bornhorst, T. J., 2016, An overview of the geology of the Great Lakes basin: A. E. Seaman Mineral Museum, Web Publication 1, 8p. This is version 1 of A. E. Seaman Mineral Museum Web Publication 1 which was only internally reviewed for technical accuracy. The Great Lakes Basin The Great Lakes basin, as defined by watersheds that drain into the Great Lakes (Figure 1), includes about 85 % of North America’s and 20 % of the world’s surface fresh water, a total of about 5,500 cubic miles (23,000 cubic km) of water (1). The basin covers about 94,000 square miles (240,000 square km) including about 10 % of the U.S. population and 30 % of the Canadian population (1). Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake entirely within the United States. The State of Michigan lies at the heart of the Great Lakes basin. Together the Great Lakes are the single largest surface fresh water body on Earth and have an important physical and cultural role in North America. Figure 1: The Great Lakes states and Canadian Provinces and the Great Lakes watershed (brown) (after 1). 1 Precambrian Bedrock Geology The bedrock geology of the Great Lakes basin can be subdivided into rocks of Precambrian and Phanerozoic (Figure 2). The Precambrian of the Great Lakes basin is the result of three major episodes with each followed by a long period of erosion (2, 3). Figure 2: Generalized Precambrian bedrock geologic map of the Great Lakes basin.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 St. Louis River Summit Proceedings
    St. Louis River Estuary Science Summit 2012 March 8 & 9 University of Wisconsin - Superior Yellowjacket Union St. Louis River Estuary Summit (March 2012) Page 2 Acknowledgments Thanks are owed to many people and organizations for support of this very grass-roots event. Special thanks to the following organizations who provided funding and in-kind contributions: Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve University of Wisconsin Extension University of Wisconsin – Superior Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Barr Engineering Company US Environmental Protection Agency – Mid-Continent Ecology Division Enbridge Engineering Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Wisconsin Sea Grant West Wisconsin Land Trust Limnotech Minnesota Sea Grant Organizing committee: Shon Schooler, Lake Superior NERR Sarah Johnson, Northland College John Jereczek, MN DNR Nick Danz, UW Superior Pat Collins, US FWS David Bolgrien, US EPA Rick Gitar, Fond du Lac Reservation Editors: Shon Schooler, Seth Bliss, Ralph Garono, and Patrick Collins Published by The Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, Superior, WI LSNERR Document number: 2012-R-1002 Cover photo by Sue OHalloran Interior Photos by Michel Anderson (www.singingcanoe.smugmug.com) St. Louis River Estuary Summit (March 2012) Page 3 Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................6 Abstracts for Oral Presentations ..................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) 2015-2019
    Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan 2015 - 2019 The Lake Superior Partnership September 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was made possible by the many individuals and organizations working to restore and protect the Lake Superior ecosystem. The document builds upon many relevant local, tribal, state provincial, national and binational plans. Special thanks to all those involved in preparing A Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Superior (LSBP, 2015); to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Lake Superior Technical Committee; to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Lakewide Management Annex (Annex 2) Subcommittee; to the numerous stakeholder groups that helped to refine the document through their review and comments at various stages of development; and to all the individuals of the Lake Superior Partnership who contributed to the LAMP’s development and who will be collaborating during the implementation of this plan. This document was prepared by the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan Writing Team, co-chaired by Rob Hyde of Environment and Climate Change Canada (formerly Environment Canada) and Liz LaPlante of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Writing Team members included: Jen Ballinger (GLIFWC), Marilee Chase (MNRF), Faith Fitzpatrick (USGS), John Jereczek (MNDNR), Ann McCammon-Soltis (GLIFWC), Michelle McChristie (MOECC), Henry Quinlan (USFWS), Mike Ripley (CORA), Lisa Sealock (ECCC), Stephanie Swart (MDEQ), Brent Schleck (NOAA), Amy Thomas (Battelle), Michele Wheeler (WDNR) and Laurie
    [Show full text]
  • The Laurentian Great Lakes
    The Laurentian Great Lakes James T. Waples Margaret Squires Great Lakes WATER Institute Biology Department University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Brian Eadie James Cotner NOAA/GLERL Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior University of Minnesota J. Val Klump Great Lakes WATER Institute Galen McKinley University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Atmospheric and Oceanic Services University of Wisconsin-Madison Introduction forests. In the southern areas of the basin, the climate is much warmer. The soils are deeper with layers or North America’s inland ocean, the Great Lakes mixtures of clays, carbonates, silts, sands, gravels, and (Figure 7.1), contains about 23,000 km3 (5,500 cu. boulders deposited as glacial drift or as glacial lake and mi.) of water (enough to flood the continental United river sediments. The lands are usually fertile and have States to a depth of nearly 3 m), and covers a total been extensively drained for agriculture. The original area of 244,000 km2 (94,000 sq. mi.) with 16,000 deciduous forests have given way to agriculture and km of coastline. The Great Lakes comprise the largest sprawling urban development. This variability has system of fresh, surface water lakes on earth, containing strong impacts on the characteristics of each lake. The roughly 18% of the world supply of surface freshwater. lakes are known to have significant effects on air masses Reservoirs of dissolved carbon and rates of carbon as they move in prevailing directions, as exemplified cycling in the lakes are comparable to observations in by the ‘lake effect snow’ that falls heavily in winter on the marine coastal oceans (e.g., Biddanda et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Agreement: What Happens in the Great Lakes Won’T Stay in the Great Lakes
    THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN AGREEMENT: WHAT HAPPENS IN THE GREAT LAKES WON’T STAY IN THE GREAT LAKES Kelly Kane This article provides a discussion of the current protections provided for the Great Lakes, and calls for an international binding agreement to ensure their continued protection. All past agreements between the United States and Canada to protect the Lakes have been purely good faith, and have no binding effect on the parties. The Great Lakes states and provinces have committed themselves to a good-faith agreement that bans all major withdrawals or diversions, subject to three exceptions. This Agreement has no legally binding effect on the states and provinces. The states, however, have created a legally binding Compact that does not include the Great Lakes provinces. The Great Lakes states have the power to make decisions regarding major withdrawals or diversions of Great Lakes water without the consent of the provinces. Although the current protections are morally binding, they will not provide enough protection for the Lakes given the increased concerns over water quality and quantity issues across the world. The federal governments of the United States and Canada should enter into a legally binding agreement to ensure the long-lasting enjoyment and protection of the Lakes. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 430 PART I: BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 432 A.Federalism and Water Management Approaches in the United States and Canada ........................................................................ 432 B.Legal History of Protections Placed on the Great Lakes ............. 433 C.Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement .................................................................. 438 D.The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystems
    REHABILITATING GREAT LAKES ECOSYSTEMS edited by GEORGE R. FRANCIS Faculty of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 JOHN J. MAGNUSON Laboratory of Limnology University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin 53706 HENRY A. REGIER Institute for Environmental Studies University of Toronto Toronto. Ontario M5S 1A4 and DANIEL R. TALHELM Department of Fish and Wildlife Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 37 Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 December 1979 CONTENTS Executive summary.. .......................................... 1 Preface and acknowledgements ................................. 2 1. Background and overview of study ........................... 6 Approach to the study. .................................... 10 Some basic terminology ................................... 12 Rehabilitation images ...................................... 15 2. Lake ecology, historical uses and consequences ............... 16 Early information sources. ................................. 17 Original condition ......................................... 18 Human induced changes in Great Lakes ecosystems ......... 21 Conclusion ............................................. ..3 0 3. Rehabilitation methods ...................................... 30 Fishing and other harvesting ............................... 31 Introductions and invasions of exotics ...................... 33 Microcontaminants: toxic wastes and biocides ............... 34 Nutrients and eutrophication
    [Show full text]
  • US Geologic Survey
    round goby<br /><br /> (Neogobius melanostomus) - FactSheet http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=713 NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Home Alert System Database & Queries Taxa Information Neogobius melanostomus Collection Info (round goby) HUC Maps Fishes Point Maps Exotic to United States Fact Sheet ©Dave Jude, Center for Great Lakes Aquatic Sciences Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas 1814) Common name: round goby Synonyms and Other Names: Apollonia melanostoma (Pallas, 1814), Apollonia melanostomus (Pallas, 1814) See Stepien and Tumeo (2006) for name change. Taxonomy: available through Identification: Distinguishing characteristics have been given by Berg (1949), Miller (1986), Crossman et al. (1992), Jude (1993), and Marsden and Jude (1995). Young round gobies are solid slate gray. Older fish are blotched with black and brown and have a greenish dorsal fin with a black spot. The raised eyes on these fish are also very distinctive (Jude 1993). This goby is very similar to native sculpins but can be distinguished by the fused pelvic fins (sculpins have two separate fins) (Marsden and Jude 1995). Size: 30.5 cm; 17.8 cm maximum seen in United States (Jude 1993). Native Range: Fresh water, prefers brackish (Stepien and Tumeo 2006). Eurasia including Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov and tributaries (Miller 1986). 1 of 6 7/21/2011 2:11 PM round goby<br /><br /> (Neogobius melanostomus) - FactSheet http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=713 Alaska Hawaii Caribbean Guam Saipan Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps Nonindigenous Occurrences: DETAILED DISTRIBUTION MAP This species was introduced into the St. Clair River and vicinity on the Michigan-Ontario border where several collections were made in 1990 on both the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004
    Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004 Open-File Report 2004–1403 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004 Compiled by Jennifer L. Bruce, Michelle M. Greenwood, and Susan Z. Jones Open-File Report 2004–1403 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Contents iii Contents Basic Mission and Projects ...................................................................................................................vii Wisconsin District Organizational Chart ...............................................................................................ix Cooperators ................................................................................................................................................x Summary of Hydrologic Conditions .......................................................................................................xi Surface-Water and Sediment Studies Team ...........................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Compact
    Great Lakes Compact Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Summary: > The Great Lakes Agreement and Compact seek to manage the Great Lakes watershed through a collaboration with all the states and provinces in the watershed. > Each state and province must pass a law to enact the Agreement or Compact, and that law will control diversions of water from the Great Lakes watershed. > The Sustainable Water Resources Agreement is an agreement among the Great Lakes States, Ontario and Québec. In Ontario it has been enacted into law through the Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario’s Water Act of 2007 and legislation has been approved by the National Assembly in Québec. The states are in the process of implementing the Agreement through the Water Resources Compact. Created the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Water Resources Regional Body that includes the Great Lakes Governors and the Premiers of Ontario and Québec. > The Water Resources Compact is an agreement among the Great Lakes States that is passed into law through an interstate compact. The Compact has been enacted into law in all 8 Great Lakes states. Created the Council of Great Lakes Governors composed of Governors from each Great Lakes State or their designees. History of Interstate and International Cooperation: Boundary Waters Treaty - 1909: Purpose - to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and to ensure the equitable sharing of boundary waters between Canada and the US. Treaty created the International Joint Commission (IJC) to decide issues of water diversion in the Great Lakes, and placed Canada and the US at the forefront of international efforts to protect and manage natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 State of the Great Lakes Report Michigan
    MICHIGAN State of the Great Lakes 2019 REPORT 2019 STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES REPORT Page 1 Contents Governor Whitmer’s Message: Collaboration is Key ............................................................... 3 EGLE Director Clark’s Message: New Advocates for the Great Lakes Community ................. 4 New Standards Ensure Safe Drinking Water in the 21st Century ............................................ 5 Public Trust Doctrine and Water Withdrawals Aim to Protect the Great Lakes ........................ 8 High Water Levels Put State on Alert to Help Property Owners and Municipalities .................11 Asian Carp Threat from Chicago Area Looms Over Health of Lakes and Aquatic Life ............ 13 EGLE Collaborates on Research into Harmful Algal Blooms and Response Measures .......... 15 Initiatives Foster Stewardship, Raise Water Literacy for All Ages.......................................... 18 Michigan Communities Empowered to Take Action for Great Lakes Protection ...................... 22 EGLE Strengthens Michigan’s Sister State Relationship With Japan’s Shiga Prefecture ....... 24 Soo Locks Project Finally Underway with 2027 Target Date for Opening............................... 25 Great Lakes Cruises Make Bigger Waves in State’s Travel Industry ............................................. 26 MICHIGAN.GOV/EGLE | 800-662-9278 Prepared by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy on behalf of the Office of the Governor (July 2020) 2019 STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES REPORT Page 2 Collaboration is Key hroughout the Great Lakes region, the health of our communities and the strength of our T economies depend on protecting our shared waters. The Great Lakes region encompasses 84 percent of the country’s fresh surface water, represents a thriving, $6 trillion regional economy supporting more than 51 million jobs, and supplies the drinking water for more than 48 million people.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Louis and Lower Nemadji River Watershed
    Wisconsin St. Louis and Lower Nemadji Watersheds River Watershed 2010 Water Quality Management Plan Update Lake Superior Basin, Wisconsin August, 2010 The t.S Louis River, the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior, drains 3,634 square miles, entering the southwestern corner of the lake between Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. The river flows 179 miles through three distinct areas: coarse soils, glacial till and outwash deposits at its headwaters; a deep, narrow gorge at Jay Cooke State Park in Minnesota; and red clay deposits in its lower reaches. As the St. Louis River approaches Duluth and Superior, the river takes on the characteristics of a 12,000 Contents acre freshwater estuary. The upper estuary has some Watershed Details 1 wilderness-like areas, while the lower estuary is character- Population and Land Use . 1 ized by urban development, an industrial harbor, and Ecological Landscapes . 3 a major port. The lower estuary includes St. Louis Bay, Other Details . 3 Map 1: St Louis River and Lower Nemadji Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, Kimball’s Bay, Pokegama Bay, River Watershed Invasive Species . 3 Howard’s Bay, and the lower Nemadji River. Historical Note . 4 Watershed Details Watershed Condition 4 Priority Issues . 4 Water Quality Goals . 4 Population and Land Use Overall Condition . 4 The watershed is dominated by Point and Nonpoint Sources . 5 forests (65%), agriculture (9%), Fish Consumption Advice . 5 followed closely by open water River and Stream Condition . 5 and open space (8%) (Figure 1). Lakes and Embayments . 16 Wetlands . 17 In 1987, the International Joint Waters of Note: . .22 Commission, an advisory com- mission on U.S-Canadian border Watershed Actions 23 Figure 1: Land Use in the St Louis and Lower Nemadji River Partnership Activities .
    [Show full text]
  • STATE-REGION7 FUTURE Great Lakes Region
    STATE-REGION7 FUTURE -'adeavailable under NASA sponsorWip Great Lakes Region in the interc-st of early and wide dis. sominiation of Earth Resources Survey - O Program inforration and without liability for any use m-Ue thereof." ft.14 /, a / 7 1'975 NationalWater Assessment ' E91O3) STAT' -REGIZONAI ]FUTU]RE GR /- N79-30594 ,LAKES REGION: IBM 1975 NIAfIONaL WATEE ,A.SESSHENIT (Great Liakes Basin Comm'ission) , /­ / / All / Juy 97 iE 1023\t6 •TT-EII c- # - I ~ . 7 NataJaonal Ws STATE-REGIONJ FUTURE Made available under NASA sponsorWip Great Lakes Region Ithe intercst of early and wide dis. ,minat,on of Earth Resources Survey if. - 1 ­ rograril Iqfcrtion and without liability I rany use m-Ude thereof." 4 ~~44of ,~~~ I Irlrf Ii :15 7' 1975 National Water Assessment '(E7~9jI0233) STAT' -REGIONA1 , < PUTU1E GRtEAT t r N79_30594/ LAKES REGION: THI 1975 11fICNAL flER 'ASSESSMENT (Great,ftakes Basin Commission) 119 p A~C A09/MP A01 / ) /"- C\sc/8l / Inclas - /fl" 'G3/43 00233, / / 1 I \ / iiI, I I I II I - - \fj i 1 \ Ii STATE-REGIONAL FUTURE GREAT LAKES REGION 1975 National Water Assessment Great Lakes Basin Commission July 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION......................... 1 REGIONAL GOALS ........... ............... .......... 7 LAKE SUPERIOR REGIONAL GOALS . ................. 8 LAKE MICHIGAN REGIONAL GOALS ....... .................... 15 LAKE HURON REGIONAL GOALS ........ ...................... 22 LAKE ERIE REGIONAL GOALS . .............. 25 LAKE ONTARIO REGIONAL GOALS ...... 32 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS........ ..................... 41 LAKE SUPERIOR REGION - ASA 01 ..... .. ..... 43 NORTHWESTERN LAKE MICHIGAN REGION - ASA 02 .... ........... 47 SOUTHWESTERN LAKE MICHIGAN REGION - ASA 03 . 47 EASTERN LAKE MICHIGAN REGION - ASA 04..... ........ .. 47 LAKE HURON REGION - ASA 05 .
    [Show full text]