DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Process Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Lower Cuyahoga River Final Report prepared by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water September 2003 The TMDL in Brief: Basin: Lower Cuyahoga River in the Lake Erie Basin Study Area: Lower 50 miles of Cuyahoga River and its tributaries. Goal: Attainment of the appropriate Aquatic Life Use Major Causes: Organic enrichment, toxicity, low dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and flow alteration Major Sources: Municipal discharges, combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, and industrial discharges. Measure: Total nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, biological and habitat indices Restoration Options: Long term control plans for combined sewer overflows, urban runoff controls, habitat protection and restoration, septic system improvements, point source controls, and public education Lower Cuyahoga River Watershed TMDLs TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................vi Components of the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Process ................. vii 1.0 Introduction ..................................................... 1 2.0 Waterbody Overview ............................................. 12 2.1 Description of the Study Area.................................. 12 2.1.1 Cuyahoga River Basin .................................. 12 2.1.2 Tinkers Creek Subbasin ................................ 13 2.1.3 Little Cuyahoga River Subbasin .......................... 13 2.2 Water Quality Assessment .................................... 13 2.3 Causes and Sources of Impairment ............................. 16 2.3.1 Lower Cuyahoga River ................................. 16 2.3.2 Lower Cuyahoga River Tributaries ........................ 21 3.0 Problem Statement .............................................. 35 3.1 Target Identification .......................................... 35 3.2 Identification of Current Deviation from Target ..................... 38 3.3 Source Identification ......................................... 44 4.0 Total Maximum Daily Loads....................................... 48 4.1 Background of TMDL Development Approach ..................... 48 4.1.1 Objective............................................ 48 4.1.2 Application of Water Quality Targets....................... 48 4.1.3 Linkages between Water Quality Impairments and Pollutants . 49 4.2 Method of Calculation ........................................ 50 4.2.1 TMDL Development: Load Duration Curve .................. 50 4.2.2 Allocation Methods .................................... 54 4.2.3 Habitat Goals ........................................ 68 4.3 Critical Conditions and Seasonality .............................. 68 4.4 Margin of Safety ............................................ 68 4.4.1 TMDL Priority 303(d) Listing ............................. 69 4.4.2 Target Development................................... 69 4.5 TMDL Calculations .......................................... 70 4.5.1 Load-Based Calculations: Total Phosphorus and Fecal Coliform . 70 4.5.2 Habitat Calculations for Aquatic Life ....................... 79 4.5.3 Dissolved Oxygen Water-Quality-based Effluent Limitations for Akron WWTP............................. 81 5.0 Public Participation.............................................. 82 i Lower Cuyahoga River Watershed TMDLs TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 6.0 Implementation and Monitoring Recommendations ................... 84 6.1 Reasonable Assurances ...................................... 84 6.1.1 DRAFT Implementation Plan............................. 84 6.1.2 Proposed NPDES Language ............................. 97 6.1.3 Expected Effectiveness of Example Restoration Scenario ...... 97 6.2 Process for Monitoring and Revision ............................. 98 References ....................................................... 101 Appendix A Communities Covered by Phase I and Phase II Storm Water Regulations in the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Area Appendix B Cuyahoga River Basin Year 2000 Exceedences of Ohio Water Quality Chemical/Physical Standards Criteria Appendix C Adaptive Management Implementation Plan for the Tinkers Creek Subbasin Appendix D Aquatic Life Use Attainment Status for Stations Sampled in the Cuyahoga River Basin July-September, 1999-2000 Appendix E NPDES Permitted Dischargers in the Lower Cuyahoga River Basin Appendix F Current 319 Projects in the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Area Appendix G Phosphorus Concentrations in the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Area Appendix H Causes and Sources of Impairment in the Lower Cuyahoga River Basin Appendix I Cuyahoga RAP Activities Benefitting the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Area Appendix J TMDL Development and Modeling Additional Information Appendix K Cuyahoga River Water Quality Standards as Listed in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-1-26 Appendix L Nutrients in the Lower Cuyahoga River Appendix M QHEI Data Sheets for Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Area (exclusive of Tinkers Creek watershed) Appendix N QHEI Data Sheets for the Tinkers Creek Watershed Appendix O Responsiveness Summary to Public Comments ii Lower Cuyahoga River Watershed TMDLs Figure Title Page Figure 1 Lower Cuyahoga River Basin attainment status 8 Figure 2a Schematic representation of the Lower Cuyahoga River watershed 9 Figure 2b Schematic representation of the Tinkers Creek watershed 11 Figure 3 Land use/cover map of the Lower Cuyahoga River basin 34 Figure 4 QHEI scores for the Lower Cuyahoga River 40 Figure 5 Combined sewer overflows in the City of Akron’s service area 44 Figure 6 Combined sewer overflows in Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District’s service 45 area Figure 7 Flow duration curve for the Cuyahoga River at Independence 51 Figure 8 Total phosphorus total maximum daily and summer load duration curves and 53 existing loads for the Cuyahoga River at Independence Figure 9 The Cuyahoga watershed and model divisions 58 Figure 10 Comparison of predicted, observed, and allowable annual total phosphorus runoff 59 loads at Independence. Annual precipitation included. Figure 11 Relationship between observed in-stream load at Independence gage and the total 64 upstream input load for fecal coliform Figure 12 Comparison of the actual observed fecal coliform load at Independence and the 64 exponential regression predicted load Figure 13 Stacked and percent flow contributions 66 Figure 14 Total phosphorus existing loads to the Cuyahoga upstream of Independence 67 Figure 15 Total phosphorus TMDL duration curve and allocations at Independence 72 Figure 16 Relative TP allocations of the TMDL, the WLA, and the LA at Independence 74 Figure 17 Fecal coliform TMDLs for single sample maximum and geometric mean criteria 75 compared to existing load data for the Cuyahoga R at Independence Figure 18 Relative contributions of fecal coliform TMDL allocations and non-point source 77 runoff load allocations after implementation actions such as the LTCPs are completed Figure 19 Water quality duration curve for the Cuyahoga River at Lower Harvard Avenue 78 Figure 20 E. coli total maximum daily load as presented in a duration curve format based on 79 a geometric mean standard of 126 fcu/100 ml. Figure 21 Lower Cuyahoga River QHEI scores per river mile for years 1991, 1996, and 2000 80 Figure 22 Lower Cuyahoga tributary QHEI scores from 2000 80 iii Lower Cuyahoga River Watershed TMDLs Table Title Page Table 1 Components of the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL Process vii Table 2 Summary of 303(d) list status for the lower Cuyahoga River watershed 3 Table 3 Summary of the components and examples of Ohio’s Water Quality Standards 14 Table 4 Land use distribution in the Lower Cuyahoga River basin 33 Table 4a Park land in the Lower Cuyahoga River TMDL area 33 Table 5 Target concentrations for phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite 36 Table 6 QHEI attributes that can serve as management goals for efforts to restore, 37 enhance, or protect aquatic life in streams Table 7 Cuyahoga RAP beneficial use impairments 41 Table 8 Criteria and targets used in developing the LDCs 51 Table 9 Overview of the Lower Cuyahoga TMDL development process 55 Table 10 Land cover for the Lower Cuyahoga watershed 57 Table 11 Total existing runoff bacteria load at Independence as calculated by FCLET 60 Table 12 Total phosphorus total maximum daily loads and allocations for the Cuyahoga 72 River watershed upstream of the Independence gage Table 13 Breakdown of total phosphorus allocations (lbs/day) for the Cuyahoga River 73 watershed upstream of the Independence gage Table 14 Fecal coliform total maximum daily loads and allocations for the Cuyahoga River 75 watershed upstream of the Independence gage Table 15 Breakdown of fecal coliform allocations for the Cuyahoga River watershed 76 upstream of the Independence gage Table 16 Reduction percentage needed per source category for the Cuyahoga at 76 Independence Table 17 Total Maximum Yearly Load and allocations for the Cuyahoga River watershed 78 upstream of the Ship Channel (Harvard Avenue) Table 18 Description of implementation actions and measures 90 Table 19 Time line and reasonable assurances 93 Table 20 Time line: monitoring, tracking and implementation 95 iv Lower Cuyahoga River Watershed TMDLs ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following Ohio EPA staff provided technical services for this project: • Biology and Chemical Water Quality - Jack Freda, Charles Boucher, Robert Miltner, and Steve Tuckerman, Roger Thoma • Nonpoint Source Issues - Dan Bogoevski, Mark Bergman • Point Source Issues - Jennifer Bennage, Sandra Cappotto, Donna Kniss, and Bill Zawiski • Project Leader - Dennis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cuyahoga River Area of Concern
    OHIO SEA GRANT AND STONE LABORATORY The Cuyahoga River Area of Concern Scott D. Hardy, PhD Extension Educator What is an Area of Concern? 614-247-6266 Phone reas of Concern, or AOCs, are places within the Great Lakes region where human 614-292-4364 Fax [email protected] activities have caused serious damage to the environment, to the point that fish populations and other aquatic species are harmed and traditional uses of the land Aand water are negatively affected or impossible. Within the Great Lakes, 43 AOCs have been designated and federal and state agencies, under the supervision of local advisory committees, are working to clean up the polluted sites. Ohio Sea Grant Cuyahoga River AOC College Program Who determines if there 1314 Kinnear Rd. is an Area of Concern? Columbus, OH 43212 614-292-8949 Office A binational agreement between the United States 614-292-4364 Fax and Canada called the Great Lakes Water Quality ohioseagrant.osu.edu Agreement (GLWQA) determines the locations Ohio Sea Grant, based at of AOCs throughout the Great Lakes. According The Ohio State University, to the GLWQA, each of the AOCs must develop is one of 33 state programs in the National Sea Grant a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that identifies all College Program of the of the environmental problems (called Beneficial National Oceanic and Use Impairments, or BUIs) and their causes. Local Atmospheric Administration environmental protection agencies must then (NOAA), Department of develop restoration strategies and implement them, Commerce. Ohio Sea Grant is supported by the Ohio monitor the effectiveness of the restoration projects Board of Regents, Ohio and ultimately show that the area has been restored.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuyahoga County Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Update 2019
    Cuyahoga County Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Update 2019 December 12, 2019 CUYAHOGA COUNTY URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT \\ 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 Why Tree Canopy is Important 03 Project Background 03 Key Terms 04 Land Cover Methodology 05 Tree Canopy Metrics Methodology 06 Countywide Findings 09 Local Communities 14 Cleveland Neighborhoods 18 Subwatersheds 22 Land Use 25 Rights-of-Way 28 Conclusions 29 Additional Information PREPARED BY CUYAHOGA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Meaney, GISP - Information & Research Manager Shawn Leininger, AICP - Executive Director 2079 East 9th Street Susan Infeld - Special Initiatives Manager Suite 5-300 Kevin Leeson - Planner Cleveland, OH 44115 Robin Watkins - GIS Specialist Ryland West - Planning Intern 216.443.3700 www.CountyPlanning.us www.facebook.com/CountyPlanning www.twitter.com/CountyPlanning 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CUYAHOGA COUNTY URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT \\ 2019 Why Tree Canopy is Important Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. Tree canopy provides many benefits to society including moderating climate, reducing building energy use and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), improving air and water quality, mitigating rainfall runoff and flooding, enhancing human health and social well-being and lowering noise impacts (Nowak and Dwyer, 2007). It provides wildlife habitat, enhances property values, and has aesthetic impacts to an environment. Establishing a tree canopy goal is crucial for communities seeking to improve their natural environment and green infrastructure. A tree canopy assessment is the first step in this goal setting process, showing the amount of tree canopy currently present as well as the amount that could theoretically be established.
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Forward with Lake Erie's Impairment Designation
    Moving Forward with Lake Erie’s Impairment Designation Since 2002, the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters in Ohio EPA’s biannual report to U.S. EPA (Integrated Report) has Policy Recommendations -Western Lake Erie Basin Impairment included many of the watersheds draining to the western basin. The agency’s past integrated reports have also listed the shore- line waters of the Lake Erie western basin and Lake Erie islands as well as the waters near the Toledo and Oregon municipal • To meet requirements under the Clean Water Act, TMACOG recommends that the U.S. EPA work collaboratively with the water intakes as impaired for all four beneficial uses (including for public drinking water due to harmful algal blooms). designated agencies of WLEB states – Ohio EPA, Michigan DEQ, and Indiana Office of Water Quality – to evaluate water However, an impairment designation for Ohio’s open waters of Lake Erie was withheld until 2018, when the Ohio EPA changed quality targets for open waters and set monitoring and assessment protocols that can be used to continue to evaluate the course and included the western basin’s open waters on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies in the 2018 Integrated status for the four beneficial uses in the open waters of Lake Erie’s western basin. Report. This new impairment designation for the open waters adds recreational use impairment due to large algal blooms. In 2016, Michigan DEQ assigned an impaired designation to Michigan waters of Lake Erie due to algal blooms caused by excessive • If U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses
    U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses Gretchen S. Curtis Lakeside, Ohio July 2011 U.S. Lighthouse Organizations • Original Light House Service 1789 – 1851 • Quasi-military Light House Board 1851 – 1910 • Light House Service under the Department of Commerce 1910 – 1939 • Final incorporation of the service into the U.S. Coast Guard in 1939. In the beginning… Lighthouse Architects & Contractors • Starting in the 1790s, contractors bid on LH construction projects advertised in local newspapers. • Bids reviewed by regional Superintendent of Lighthouses, a political appointee, who informed U.S. Treasury Dept of his selection. • Superintendent approved final contract and supervised contractor during building process. Creation of Lighthouse Board • Effective in 1852, U.S. Lighthouse Board assumed all duties related to navigational aids. • U.S. divided into 12 LH districts with inspector (naval officer) assigned to each district. • New LH construction supervised by district inspector with primary focus on quality over cost, resulting in greater LH longevity. • Soon, an engineer (army officer) was assigned to each district to oversee construction & maintenance of lights. Lighthouse Bd Responsibilities • Location of new / replacement lighthouses • Appointment of district inspectors, engineers and specific LH keepers • Oversight of light-vessels of Light-House Service • Establishment of detailed rules of operation for light-vessels and light-houses and creation of rules manual. “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 … “The Light-house Board carries on and provides for an infinite number of details, many of them petty, but none unimportant.” “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 “There is a printed book of 152 pages specially devoted to instructions and directions to light-keepers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cuyahoga River RAP State of the River Report
    CUYAHOGA RIVER REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT & PROCEEDINGSPROCEEDINGS OFOF THETHE OCTOCTOBEROBER 25,25, 20012001 SYMPOSIUMSYMPOSIUM JANUARY 2002 Sponsored by: The Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Prepared by Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland Ohio 44114 (216) 241-2414 FAX (216) 621-3024 This report was funded by grants from the George Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, the GAR Foundation, the Ohio EPEPAA andand thethe USUS ForestForest ServiceService DivisionDivision ofof StateState andand PrivatePrivate ForestryForestry NortheasternNortheastern Area,Area, andand technicaltechnical supportsupport from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. Additional reproduction of this report was funded with support from the US Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office CUYAHOGA RIVER REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN STATE OF THE RIVER REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE OCTOBER 25, 2001 SYMPOSIUM JANUARY 2002 Prepared by Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan Coordinating Committee Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan 1299 Superior Ave, Cleveland Ohio 44114 (216) 241-2414 FAX (216) 621-3024 This report was funded by grants from the George Gund Foundation, the Cleveland Foundation, the GAR Foundation, the Ohio EPA and the US Forest Service Division of State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, and technical support from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Acknowledgements Preparation of this document
    [Show full text]
  • Biological and Water Quality Study of the Ashtabula River and Select Tributaries, 2011
    Biological and Water Quality Study of the Ashtabula River and Select Tributaries, 2011 Ashtabula County Ashtabula River at Benetka Road (RM 19.03) OHIO EPA Technical Report EAS/2014-01-01 Division of Surface Water December 19, 2014 EAS/2014-01-01 Ashtabula River and Select Tributaries TSD December 19, 2014 Biological and Water Quality Survey of the Ashtabula River and Select Tributaries 2011 Ashtabula County December 19, 2014 Ohio EPA Technical Report EAS/2014-01-01 Prepared by: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Ecological Assessment Section 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Northeast District Office 2110 East Aurora Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 Mail to: P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 John R. Kasich, Governor, State of Ohio Craig W. Butler, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency i EAS/2014-01-01 Ashtabula River and Select Tributaries TSD December 19, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 12 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................... 13 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration
    Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration The Maumee River habitat restoration project at Penn 7 will improve habitat for fish and wildlife by creating coastal wetlands and forested upland along the Maumee River. Project Location and 30% Design Concept Map • Northern Shoreline of the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio Project Highlights Create 8.5 acres of emergent coastal wetland and 6.7 acres of submerged coastal wetland Improve roughly 59 acres of habitat including adjacent upland areas Control invasive plant species and plant native vegetation Install water control and fish habitat connectivity structures Funding is provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Regional Partnership The City of Toledo is implementing this project with assistance from their consultant, Hull and Associates Environmental Benefits Economic Benefits Community Benefits New fish and wildlife habitat Regional benefits to Downtown nature space Improved hydrologic eco-tourism, birding Improved water quality and connectivity and fishing ecosystem health Background of the Area of Concern (AOC) Located in Northwest Ohio, the Maumee AOC is comprised of 787 square miles that includes approximately the lower 23 miles of the Maumee River downstream to Maumee Bay, as well as other waterways within Lucas, Ottawa and Wood counties that drain to Lake Erie, such as Swan Creek, Ottawa River (Ten Mile Creek), Grassy Creek, Duck Creek, Otter Creek, Cedar Creek, Crane Creek, Turtle Creek, Packer Creek, and the Toussaint River. In 1987 the Maumee AOC River was designated as an AOC under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, 1968-Present
    Restoration of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, 1968-present Jeff Zeitler Abstract The Cuyahoga River of northeastern Ohio has long been notorious for its low water quality, especially for having caught fire at least three times between 1936 and 1969. The Upper Cuyahoga River has long been in better condition than the lower river. It is plagued by low dissolved oxygen as a result of its many drinking water reservoirs and its naturally low gradient, however its problems are dwarfed by those of the Lower Cuyahoga River. The lower Cuyahoga River has historically been heavily polluted by fecal matter and other discharge from sewage treatment plants, as well as by chemicals discharged by steel and coke refineries. The navigation channel at the mouth of the river robs the extreme lower portion of the river of oxygen. All these factors combined make the habitat value of the river very low. Restoration efforts began in the early1970’s and the Cuyahoga River today is in better condition, though much room for improvement remains. Introduction The Cuyahoga River is a U-shaped 100-mile (160 km) long low-gradient river located in Northeastern Ohio, beginning near the Lake Erie plain, heading south, then making a sharp turn to the north, passing through the major cities of Akron and Cleveland. The river moves slowly through a 813 square mile (2081 square km) watershed which is largely split between agricultural land use, urban uses, and second-growth forest. Akron is the fifth-largest city in Ohio, with 217,000 inhabitants and Cleveland is the largest city in Ohio, with a city population of 505,000 and a metropolitan area population of 2.9 million (City of Akron 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Lake Erie Lamp
    Lake Erie LaMP 2000 L A K E E R I E L a M P 2 0 0 0 Preface One of the most significant environmental agreements in the history of the Great Lakes took place with the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (GLWQA), between the United States and Canada. This historic agreement committed the U.S. and Canada (the Parties) to address the water quality issues of the Great Lakes in a coordinated, joint fashion. The purpose of the GLWQA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.” In the revised GLWQA of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987, the Parties agreed to develop and implement, in consultation with State and Provincial Governments, Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) for lake waters and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs). The LaMPs are intended to identify critical pollutants that impair beneficial uses and to develop strategies, recommendations and policy options to restore these beneficial uses. Moreover, the Specific Objectives Supplement to Annex 1 of the GLWQA requires the development of ecosystem objectives for the lakes as the state of knowledge permits. Annex 2 further indicates that the RAPs and LaMPS “shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses...they are to serve as an important step toward virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances...” The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement specifies that the LaMPs are to be completed in four stages. These stages are: 1) when problem definition has been completed; 2) when the schedule of load reductions has been determined; 3) when P r e f a c e remedial measures are selected; and 4) when monitoring indicates that the contribution of i the critical pollutants to impairment of beneficial uses has been eliminated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maumee River Watershed and Algal Blooms in Lake Erie1 2
    SESYNC Case Study The Maumee River Watershed and Algal Blooms in Lake Erie1 2 Ramiro Berardo3 & Ajay Singh4. Summary: The decay of Lake Erie’s environmental health and its impacts on local communities, including public health and the environment, was one of the focal events motivating the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Despite the considerable improvement in water quality in the 1970s and 1980s because of implementation of agricultural best management practices to address soil erosion, seasonal algal blooms returned to Western Lake Erie. Potential causes of algal blooms may be a mixture of agricultural and urban practices that threaten ecological stability and public health for millions dependent on the lake for drinking water, tourism, and fisheries. For instance, in fall, 2014, national attention turned to the city of Toledo, Ohio as the city’s residents experienced disruption to city services such as access to potable water and certain medical services including child birth and surgery. For this case study we will study the relationship between human behavior and water quality impairments which lead to toxic algal blooms in the Western Lake Erie Basin, and in particular, the Maumee River Watershed. We will also review prior management and policy efforts of different stakeholders to improve water quality as well as issues surrounding the development of proposed policy and management changes. Multiple stakeholders from multiple states and Canadian provinces are involved in seeking solutions to the ongoing pollution problems. This case study will be ideal to examine how cooperation unfolds in the presence of collective action problems, and the interrelationships between human behavior and environmental outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana's Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Domestic Action Plan (DAP) for the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB)
    Indiana’s Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) DOMESTIC ACTION PLAN (DAP) for the WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN (WLEB) February 2018 INDIANA’S GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT DOMESTIC ACTION PLAN for the WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN Table of Contents FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 GOALS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Timeframe to meet load reduction goals ........................................................................................................ 7 INDIANA’S PORTION OF THE WLEB ............................................................................................................................... 8 Land Use in the WLEB and Major Sources of Phosphorous ............................................................................ 8 WATERSHED PRIORITIZATION ..................................................................................................................................... 11 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ACHIEVING WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................. 14 Point Sources/Regulated ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]