FINDINGS FOR THE
     MICHIGAN COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM
                      

FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the State of
Michigan pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  The findings are
based on a review of the  Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source
Program, Final Document, June 1995 and supplemental material
provided by Michigan subsequent to the program submittal.  The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed this
information and evaluated the extent to which it conforms with the
requirements of CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend Michigan on the substantial
amount of time and effort put into developing your program and
we appreciate the commitment you have shown to complete an
ambitious task with limited resources.  We will continue to work
with coastal states and territories to ensure that these findings
represent an accurate assessment of current state and territory
abilities and efforts to address coastal nonpoint source pollution. 
We recognize that there may be further administrative changes to
the coastal nonpoint program that will impact these findings and
we assure you that, once such changes are finalized, we will review
these findings in light of the changes and make any necessary
adjustments. 


APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution
control program submitted by the State of Michigan pursuant to
Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, subject to certain conditions.  

     This document provides the specific findings used by
NOAA and EPA as the basis for the decision to approve
Michigan's program.  It also provides the rationale for the findings
and includes conditions that will need to be met for Michigan to
receive final approval of its program.  We recognize that Michigan
has already proposed some changes for its program that would, if
finalized, ensure the implementation of the management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  In those cases, the
conditions are based on the State's proposed changes. The
timeframes associated with conditions become effective on the date
of the approval letter for these findings.
INTRODUCTION

      This document is organized by the major nonpoint source
categories and subcategories identified in the section 6217(g)
guidance and the administrative elements identified in the program
guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area). 
Where appropriate, NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and
subcategories of management measures into a single finding.  The
structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the
finding is that the state program includes or does not include
management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance and
includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that
the state has identified a back-up enforceable policy, but has not
yet demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure
implementation.  For further understanding of terms in this
document, the reader is referred to the following:

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:  Program
Development and Approval Guidance (NOAA and EPA, January
1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA,
March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the Michigan
Coastal Nonpoint Source Program, Final Document, June 1995
("program submittal").  NOAA and EPA have written this
document as succinctly as possible.  We have relied upon, but do
not repeat here, the extensive information that the State has
included in its program submittal.  Further information and
analysis, including material provided by Michigan subsequent to
the program submittal, is contained in the administrative record for
this approval decision and may be reviewed by interested parties at
the following locations:

EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M St., SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact:  Robert Goo (202/260-7025)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact:  Kenneth Walker (301/713-3113, x169)

U.S. EPA
Office of Watersheds & Nonpoint Source Programs
Water Division
77 West Jackson Street 
Chicago, IL  60604
Contact:  Tom Davenport (312/886-0209)
I.  BOUNDARY

FINDING:  Michigan's proposed boundary for the 6217
management area, as shown in Figure C of the program submittal,
is sufficient to control the land and water uses that have or are
reasonably expected to have a significant impact on Michigan's
coastal waters.

RATIONALE:  Michigan's proposed boundary approximates the
NOAA recommendation of coastal watersheds, with the exception
of the Southwestern Lower Peninsula (Cass, St. Joseph, and
Kalamazoo counties), the Northern Lower Peninsula (Emmet,
Cheboygan, Alpena, Alcona, Oscoda, Otsego, Wexford, Kalkaska
and Crawford counties) and the Northwest Upper Peninsula
(Marquette, Dickinson, Ontonagon, and Luce counties). 

     Michigan's refinement of the NOAA recommendation in
these watersheds is based on the premise that dams in the lower
reaches of these drainage basins effectively serve to trap nonpoint
source pollutants before they reach the coastal waters of Michigan. 
As described in the program submittal, dams that define the
upstream limit of the management area are included in the
management area and are subject to the 6217(g) management
measures for dams.  While the data supporting the State's premise
is limited to a single pilot study of the Muskegon River watershed,
NOAA and EPA do not have information to indicate that the State
proposal excludes (a) existing land or water uses that reasonably
can be expected to have a significant impact on the coastal waters
of the State, or (b) reasonably foreseeable threats to coastal waters
from nearby activities landward of the State's 6217 management
area.

     Michigan also provided supplemental information on
detention times for several dams in close proximity to coastal
waters.  NOAA and EPA have concerns that the detention time of
12 hours for the Escanaba dams may not be extensive enough to
effectively remove nonpoint pollutants.  We recommend that
Michigan monitor the Marquette watershed (above the Escanaba
dams) for land use changes and make any appropriate changes to
the management area based on that data.

II.  AGRICULTURE 

FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  The State has identified
back-up enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the
agricultural management measures, but has not yet demonstrated
the ability of these authorities to ensure implementation throughout
the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Michigan will develop a strategy
(in accordance with Section XIV, page 16) to implement the
agricultural management measures throughout the 6217
management area.

RATIONALE:  As described in the program submittal, Michigan
proposes to implement the 6217(g) agricultural management
measures through guidance on Generally Accepted Agricultural
and Management Practices (GAAMPs).  The GAAMPs currently
address management measures for facility wastewater and runoff
from confined animal facilities, grazing, and irrigation water
management.  Subsequent to the program submittal, Michigan
provided additional technical guidance that is used to implement
the agricultural management measures.  The State's Agricultural
Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual for Michigan's
Nonpoint Source Control Program includes practices that can be
used to implement the erosion and sediment control, nutrient and
pesticide management measures.  According to supplemental
material provided by Michigan, this manual is used by technical
staff of state and Federal agencies, as well as soil and water
conservation districts, to promote water quality protection
practices.  The practices in the manual for erosion and sediment
control, nutrient and pest management are in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, while the GAAMPs do not fully address these
management measures.  Since Michigan's program submittal
focused on the GAAMPs, it is important that the practices in the
Agricultural BMP Manual for erosion and sediment control,
nutrient and pest management be used (instead of the GAAMPs) as
the basis for implementing the coastal nonpoint program. 
Michigan is currently developing GAAMPs for erosion and
sediment control, which could further support implementation of
the erosion and sediment control management measure.

     Michigan statutes provide incentives to implement
GAAMPs.  For example, farmers who implement GAAMPs are
exempt from liability for common law nuisance under the Right to
Farm Act (1981 PA 93, as amended) and from liability for
hazardous waste cleanup under the Environmental Response Act
(1982 PA 307).  However, these authorities do not specifically
require farmers to implement GAAMPs.  Michigan has identified a
back-up enforceable policy and mechanism, the Water Resources
Commission Act, which provides for enforcement in cases where
there is documentation of resource damage, but has not yet
demonstrated the ability of this authority to ensure implementation
of the agricultural management measures.  In material provided
subsequent to the program submittal, Michigan indicates that
"NRCS's whole farm planning is the most effective way to
implement the requirements of Section 6217."  Michigan needs to
include in its strategy a description of how the Agricultural Best
Management Practices Manual, the GAAMPs, and other programs
(e.g., whole farm planning) will be used, either alone or in
combination, to ensure implementation of the agricultural
management measures.

III.  FORESTRY

FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Michigan has identified
a back-up enforceable policy and mechanism for the forestry
management measures but has not yet demonstrated the ability of
this authority to ensure implementation of the management
measures throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Michigan will develop a strategy
(in accordance with Section XIV, page 16) to implement the
forestry management measures throughout the 6217 management
area.

RATIONALE:  Michigan's program, described in the Nonpoint
Source Forest Land Strategy on pages 118-121 of the program
submittal, contains several commendable voluntary efforts.  These
include the Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Lands
BMP manual, educational programs and technical assistance, a
Nonpoint Source Forest Land Strategy Committee, and field audits
by interdisciplinary teams that will publish annual audit reports
beginning in 1996.  In addition (as described in supplemental
material provided by Michigan), Michigan State University is
developing training sessions for loggers on the use of forestry
BMPs.  As described on page 92 of the program submittal,
Michigan's programs apply to "all sizes and classes of forest
ownership and operations; there is no five acre threshold or
exemption."

     According to supplemental material provided by the State,
the Inland Lakes and Streams provisions of the Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Act (PA 451) can be used to address
certain forestry activities, such as stream crossings for logging
roads.  These provisions apply to approximately 11,000 inland
lakes and 36,350 miles of streams in Michigan.  However, both the
provisions of Act 451 and the Inland Lakes and Streams Act itself
do not include a linkage to implementation of forestry BMPs in
accordance with the BMP manual.  Michigan has identified a back-
up enforceable policy and mechanism, the Water Resources
Commission Act, which provides for enforcement in cases where
there is documentation of resource damage, but has not yet
demonstrated the ability of this authority to ensure implementation
of the forestry management measures.

IV.  URBAN
                       
A.  NEW DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Michigan's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Michigan has
identified a back-up enforceable policy and mechanism for this
management measure but has not yet demonstrated the ability of
this authority to ensure implementation throughout the 6217
management area.
          
CONDITION:  Within two years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance.  Within one year, Michigan will develop a strategy (in
accordance with Section XIV, page 16) to implement the new
development management measure throughout the 6217
management area.
                         
RATIONALE:  Rule 1709(3) of the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Act (SESCA) provides that any facility
designed to convey water around an earth change area must be
designed to limit the flow to a non-erosive velocity.  However, this
provision does not require that facilities to control runoff be
designed in accordance with the new development management
measure with respect to peak runoff rate and volume and it does
not call for permanent runoff controls that achieve 80% removal of
total suspended solids (TSS) from post-development runoff. 
SESCA Rule 1709(2) provides that sediment caused by accelerated
soil erosion shall be removed from runoff water before it leaves the
site of the earth change.  This authority addresses erosion control
during construction, but it does not address the components of the
new development measure.  Even though SESCA maintains a
"zero discharge" goal for sediment following construction, it does
not includes provisions for post-development runoff in conformity
with the 6217(g) guidance.  Michigan needs to include in its
program management measures that, either by design or
performance, achieve the goals of the management measure.

     Michigan has identified a back-up enforceable policy and
mechanism, the Water Resources Commission Act, which provides
for enforcement in cases where there is documentation of resource
damage, but has not yet demonstrated the ability of this authority to
ensure implementation of the management measures.

B.  WATERSHED PROTECTION AND EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT           

FINDINGS:  Michigan's program includes management measures
for watershed protection and existing development in conformity
with the 6217(g) guidance, except for siting development to protect
the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural drainage systems. 
Michigan has identified a back-up enforceable policy and
mechanism for these management measures but has not yet
demonstrated the ability of this authority to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area.
   
CONDITION:  Within three years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures for siting development to protect
the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural drainage systems in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for watershed protection. 
Within one year, Michigan will develop a strategy (in accordance
with Section XIV, page 16) to implement the watershed protection
and existing development management measures throughout the
6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Michigan has a number of regulatory programs,
including the Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act and the
Flood Plain Control Act, that provide protection for specific areas
such as wetlands and floodplains.  The State has also begun to
provide for increased inter-agency coordination on a watershed
basis.  Efforts such as the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
and the Huron River program serve as good examples of watershed
protection efforts that are consistent with the objectives of this
management measure.  However, beyond the focus on important
natural resources (wetlands, floodplains, and  buffers), Michigan
does not have a program that evaluates development from a
broader perspective to ensure that watershed features are protected. 
The watershed protection measure is intended to provide goals to
use in developing comprehensive programs for guiding future
development in a manner that will prevent and mitigate the effects
of nonpoint source pollution.

     The State addresses existing development through a
number of programs such as the Rouge River National Wet
Weather Demonstration Project, Clean Water Act section 319
watershed projects, watershed initiatives, the International Joint
Commission designated Areas of Concern/Remedial Action Plan
program and the municipal stormwater permitting program.  As
described in supplemental material provided by Michigan, there are
fourteen Areas of Concern (AOCs), designated by the International
Joint Commission as priority areas for addressing existing water
quality problems.  Though the designation of these AOCs was
initially focused on point sources and contaminated sediments, the
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) now address nonpoint source
pollution on a watershed basis.  Schedules for implementing the
RAPs are based on a three stage process, including definition of
problems, actions needed to achieve restoration and a strategy for
tracking progress, and documenting that restoration has been
accomplished.  According to the program submittal, deadlines for
RAP development and reviews are included in the Great Lakes
Critical Programs Act of 1990.

     Michigan has identified a back-up enforceable policy and
mechanism, the Water Resources Commission Act, which provides
for enforcement in cases where there is documentation of resource
damage, but has not yet demonstrated the ability of this authority to
ensure implementation of these management measures.  We
encourage Michigan to pursue a comprehensive watershed
protection program that will address all coastal watersheds.

C.  SITE DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for protecting
areas that provide important water quality benefits and limiting
disturbance of natural drainage features, and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.
          
CONDITION:  Within three years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for site development.
          
RATIONALE:  Michigan partially implements this management
measure through Rule 1709 of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Act (SESCA), which "requires earth changes ... to limit the
exposed area for the shortest possible period of time."  In addition,
the Flood Plain Control Act, the Inland Lakes and Streams Act,
and the Natural River Act provide protection for certain natural
areas through the permit review process.  In supplemental material
provided by the State, Michigan proposes that routine permit
conditions require minimizing land disturbance and removal of
vegetation, however, no standard set of conditions to accomplish
these objectives was provided and it remains unclear that
conditions on routinely issued permits cover the full range of
activities described in the management measure.

     As discussed on page 19 of the program submittal, the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ -
formerly Department of Natural Resources) is currently working to
improve the program by drafting revised legislation to strengthen
the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act.  Amending the
SESCA to include site level management measures or otherwise
establishing standard permit conditions in rules that apply to all
site development activities could provide the opportunity to
achieve full conformity with this management measure.
                   
D.  CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL
          
FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for construction
sites that disturb less than one acre or are not within 500 feet of a
lake or stream, and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation.

CONDITION:  Within two years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance, or demonstrate that exemptions do not preclude the State
from fully implementing the management measure for construction
site erosion and sediment control throughout the 6217 management
area.
          
RATIONALE:  Act #347, SESCA, provides for implementation
of this management measure through local program delegation. 
Rule 1709 of SESCA requires the installation and continued
maintenance of permanent soil erosion control measures to ensure
that the site is stabilized. Landowners or developers who contract
for or allow earth changes are required to obtain permits and
prepare soil erosion and sedimentation plans.  The provisions of
SESCA are in conformity with the 6217(g) management measure,
except that they do not apply to construction activities that disturb
less than one acre of land or are not within 500 feet of a lake or
stream.  The 6217(g) management measure applies to construction
activities that disturb over 5,000 square feet.  Michigan needs to
address the current exemptions for land disturbances of less than
one acre (but greater than 5,000 square feet).  In supplemental
material provided by the State, Michigan proposes that wetlands
may be added to the list of waterbodies for which soil disturbance
activities would be subject to regulation (if within 500 feet of a
wetland).  However, Michigan has not yet  demonstrated that
current exemptions do not preclude the State from fully
implementing the management measure for construction site
erosion and sediment control throughout the 6217 management
area.

     Michigan also noted on page 19 of the program submittal
that, as currently written, there are limitations to the SESCA and
inconsistencies between SESCA and the rules under the Act. 
Proposed changes include increasing the accountability of
authorized public agencies, requiring restoration of off-site impacts
and reducing or modifying exemptions.  NOAA and EPA
encourage the State to strengthen the SESCA as proposed in the
program submittal.  
          
E.  CONSTRUCTION SITE CHEMICAL CONTROL
          
FINDING:  Michigan's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, but includes
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

CONDITION:   Within two years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance.

RATIONALE:  Michigan currently lacks specific program
elements that address the proper management and application of
chemicals, nutrients and toxic substances on construction sites. 
The program submittal describes training activities for authorized
public agencies that administer the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Act that include the use of soil tests to determine nutrient
needs, but the toxic substances and chemical elements of this
measure are not addressed by SESCA or its implementing rules.

     Michigan's Pesticide Control Act establishes procedures
for the distribution, labeling and application of pesticides,
including provisions that make it unlawful to apply pesticides in a
manner inconsistent with the pesticide label.  In addition, the
Water Resource Commission Act provides authority to enter upon
public and private property to conduct inspections or investigations
where a person is causing or about to cause unlawful pollution of
waters of the State.  The Hazardous Waste Management Act
restricts the use of hazardous materials.  These authorities provide
the State with enforceable policies and mechanisms that can be
used to ensure implementation of this management measure.

F.  NEW AND OPERATING ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
(OSDS)
          
FINDING:  Michigan's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and does not
include enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance.  Within three years, Michigan will include in its program
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of
the new and operating onsite disposal system management
measures throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Michigan's program does not include state
criteria, guidance or other standards and specifications for OSDS in
conformity with the 6217(g) management measures.  In general,
Michigan relies on county health departments to implement
individual OSDS programs.  The program submittal explains that
the Michigan Department of Public Health has issued the
"Michigan Guidelines for Subsurface Disposal" and the
"Maintaining Your Septic System" brochure, but the State does not
appear to play a role in ensuring that these guidelines are
consistently applied in jurisdictions throughout the 6217
management area.  These "Guidelines" are not binding or
enforceable.

     Subsequent to the program submittal, Michigan provided
NOAA and EPA with a document entitled "Michigan Criteria for
Subsurface Sewage Disposal."  However, the criteria specified in
the document do not apply to private single and two family
residential sewage systems constructed pursuant to local sanitary
codes.  Michigan has not documented that county health
departments are consistently implementing OSDS requirements in
conformity with the 6217(g) management measures.  The State has
also not described what actions the State may take where county
health departments fail to implement an OSDS program.

G.  POLLUTION PREVENTION
          
FINDING:  Michigan's program provides for the implementation
of management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance. 


RATIONALE:  Michigan's program includes a description of a
variety of efforts to achieve this management measure. 
Educational materials have been and continue to be developed by
the Nonpoint Source Program.  The "Guidebook of BMPs for
Michigan Watersheds" includes BMPs that address many elements
of the management measure and several publications have also
been developed for specific watershed projects.  The Protecting
Michigan's Future Bond Program/Solid Waste Alternatives
Program has the potential to become an excellent vehicle for
implementing and expanding nonpoint source pollution prevention
management measures statewide.

H.  ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES
 
FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
for roads, highways, and bridges in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance except for the construction site chemical control measure
for construction sites of less than 5 acres.  Michigan has identified
a back-up enforceable authority for this management measure but
has not yet demonstrated its ability to ensure implementation of the
management measures throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  For construction site chemical control, Michigan
will, within two years, include in its program management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Within one
year, Michigan will develop a strategy (in accordance with Section
XIV, page 16) to implement the management measures for roads,
highways and bridges.

RATIONALE:  As described on pages 83-89 of the program
submittal, Michigan has programs, including design review,
operation and maintenance, and project inspection, to implement
the roads, highways and bridges management measures, with the
exception of the construction site chemical control requirements,
which is limited to sites of 5 acres or more.

     Michigan has identified a back-up enforceable policy and
mechanism, the Water Resources Commission Act, which provides
for enforcement in cases where there is documentation of resource
damage, but has not yet demonstrated the ability of this authority to
ensure implementation of these management measures.  Existing
enforceable policies under the Michigan Water Resources
Commission Act, Part 21 Rules, require construction sites to have
approved equipment and storage areas; Part 5 Rules require
adequate facilities to contain accidental spills and to comply with
reporting procedures.  However, Michigan needs to modify its
program to provide enforceable policies and mechanisms or
demonstrate that existing 
authorities can ensure implementation for the roads, highways and
bridges management measures for construction sites of less than 5
acres. 

V.  MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for stormwater
runoff, and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to
ensure implementation.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Michigan will include in its
program management measures for stormwater runoff in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  Under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act,
Michigan requires a permit for new and expanding marinas. 
Permit applications must include an environmental assessment. 
All permit applications are subject to public review and comment,
and violations are punishable by fines.  Permit approvals are based
on design review, engineering data, and consideration of
environmental impacts.  Flushing requirements and water quality
assessments are not of primary concern in the State's process, but
can be required as determined by the State based on its review of
permit applications and plans.  

     Michigan's program, however, does not adequately address
the management measure for stormwater runoff.  The program
submittal does not describe how the State will implement the 80%
reduction in TSS from hull maintenance areas and does not cite
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.  In
supplemental material provided by the State, Michigan indicates
that runoff from marinas may be addressed through a general
stormwater permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), but Michigan has not yet issued
such a general permit.  If Michigan chooses to issue either general
or specific NPDES permits that include stormwater runoff from
marina facilities, those facilities will be exempt from coastal
nonpoint program requirements for marina stormwater runoff once
the permits are issued.

     Michigan requires all marinas with dockage for 15 or more
vessels capable of having holding tanks to provide on-site pumpout
services.  Michigan has numerous laws and programs designed to
assure that marinas and boat operators implement operation and
maintenance measures.  These include the Marine Safety Act;
Cleaning Agents and Water Conditioners Act; Used Oil Recycling
Act; Water Pollution Control Act; Rule 10; Rules for Storage of
Flammable and Combustible Liquids; and Department of Health
reviews of pumpout system plans.  As described in the program
submittal, Michigan has identified some problem areas in
implementing programs for operation and maintenance that need to
be addressed.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to further
improve outreach efforts and other program refinements to
effectively implement the management measures.

VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION

FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance, except for eroding
streambanks and shorelines, and includes enforceable policies and 
mechanisms to ensure implementation, except exemptions in
Michigan's Drain Code preclude the State from fully implementing
management measures for new channelization projects.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Michigan will develop a process
to address new channelization projects which are not reviewed
under existing authorities.  Within three years, Michigan will
include in its program management measures in conformity with
the 6217(g) guidance for eroding streambanks and shorelines.

RATIONALE:  Michigan streams may be modified either through
designation as a county drain under the Michigan Drain Code, or
by permit under the Inland Lakes and Streams Act.  Channel
projects permitted under the Inland Lakes and Streams Act are
reviewed for their potential effects on fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources.  However, channels constructed under the
Michigan Drain Code are exempt from the permitting requirements
of the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, and are not otherwise
required to be evaluated for their effects on surface water quality
and instream and riparian habitat.  This exemption precludes the
State from fully implementing management measures for
channelization since it does not ensure that new projects are
evaluated for effects on surface water quality and habitat, and are
planned and designed to reduce undesirable impacts.  

     Michigan implements management measures for the
operation and maintenance of existing modified channels through
County Drain Commissioners, who are responsible for periodic
inspection of drains to determine their integrity.  Erosion or
obstructions can, but are not required to be, repaired by the County
Drain Commissioners.  For other permitted channels which are
found to have significant effects on water quality or habitat, State
agencies work cooperatively to address problems on a watershed
basis.  For instance, the Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative has been
established to address nonpoint source problems in surface waters,
including those that result from channelization projects.  The State
is encouraged to pursue additional efforts to address nonpoint
source problems from channelization in other watersheds where
existing modified channels affect surface water quality and habitat.

     Michigan requires a soil erosion and sedimentation plan
and permit for construction of new dams and repair of existing
dams.  The State also licenses and regulates the generation, storage,
treatment and disposal of hazardous waste and has adequate
authorities to control pesticides and prevent or contain spills of
other substances.  Litter control at dam construction sites will be
implemented through the Littering Act, which prohibits the
littering of waterways.

     New dam construction, as well as the reconstruction and
alteration of existing dams, is reviewed under the Dam Safety Act
and Inland Lakes and Streams Act, for the possible effects of the
proposed activities on habitat for fish and wildlife. 
Recommendations are made to provide for fish ladders, run-of-the-
river operation, minimum flow releases, cold water releases, etc. 
The Dam Safety Act also gives Michigan the authority to limit
operations at all dams where significant damage to natural
resources is occurring or is anticipated to occur due to the
operation of a dam.   The State's program does not include
management measures for nonpoint source problems associated
with excessive surface water withdrawals, but, according to
supplemental information provided by the State, significant coastal
water quality problems associated with excessive surface water
withdrawals have not been documented in Michigan.

     Management measures for eroding shorelines and
streambanks are implemented through permits required for
streambank stabilization activities and the use of vegetative
methods is encouraged, when appropriate.  The State has also
undertaken a number of projects to address shoreline and
streambank erosion problems for water quality improvement, and
utilizes U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cost-share funds
and Clean Water Act 319 grants to encourage local communities
to address streambank erosion.  Management measures to protect
shoreline and streambank features with the potential to reduce
nonpoint source pollution are also implemented through
designation of Critical Sand Dune Areas and through regulation of
vegetation removal in designated buffer strips on Natural Rivers. 
County Drain Commissioners may also assess property owners for
streambank stabilization and correction of other erosion or
sedimentation problems within designated agricultural drains. 
However, the limited application of these efforts does not
constitute a process that has identified and protected streambank
and shoreline features with the potential to reduce nonpoint source
pollution.  In addition, the State's program does not include
management measures for uses of the shorelands or adjacent waters
which can result in erosion of shorelines and streambanks. 

VII.  WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND VEGETATED
TREATMENT SYSTEMS

FINDING:  Michigan's program includes management measures
in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

RATIONALE:  The Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act,
the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, and the Great Lakes Submerged
Lands Act are used to protect wetlands and riparian areas from the
effects of new activities which can impact these areas.  These laws
require permits for activities involving dredge and fill activities in
wetlands.  The Michigan DEQ has the authority to impose
conditions on permits to mitigate the impact of a wetland fill, to
improve water quality as part of a proposed project, or to provide
mitigation for unavoidable impacts involving lost wetland
functions.  In addition, Michigan implements the wetlands
protection program under 404 of the Clean Water Act and the
administrative responsibilities for this Federal program have been
assumed by the State since 1984.  Water quality impacts are
considered in the permit review process, and 404 permits are not
issued for activities which would result in a violation of State water
quality standards.

     Michigan's program also implements management
measures to protect nonpoint source functions within wetlands and
riparian areas from existing conditions within the wetlands
themselves, as well as from the effects of activities upstream in the
watershed.  This is accomplished through special Watershed
Initiatives, which identify priority areas for wetlands protection and
restoration in selected watersheds.  The State utilizes funds and
technical assistance provided through Clean Water Act 319 and
Coastal Zone Management Act grants to encourage local
governments and communities to implement BMPs on a watershed
basis for wetlands protection and restoration.  These approaches
are supplemented by a program of State wetlands acquisition,
encouragement of wetlands easements, designation of
Environmental Areas to protect coastal wetlands and adjacent
uplands, and encouragement of private wetlands acquisition
efforts.  Instruments such as tax reversion and land exchange are
also utilized to maximize acquisition efforts.  Potential nonpoint
inputs to wetlands from upstream sources are controlled at the site
through regulation of soil erosion and sediment control,
assessments conducted under the Natural Resources and
Environmental Control Act, and permits issued under the Inland
Lakes and Streams Act.  The Wetlands Protection Act requires
consideration of cumulative impacts to a wetland during the permit
review process for new projects, and guidelines are under
development for staff to use in improving cumulative impact
assessment methodology. 

     Michigan intends to implement the management measure
promoting restoration of wetlands and riparian areas through
education and incentive programs, and through cooperative efforts
between government agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service North American Waterfowl Management Plan and USDA
programs.  The Michigan Drain Code Program also provides for
restoration of wetlands in drains which have ceased to be of public
utility.  Michigan is encouraged to utilize these practices and
programs to implement the management measure.

     Michigan intends to implement the management measure to
promote vegetated treatment systems through the review of permits
for wetlands alterations and stormwater discharges, and through
the encouragement of local zoning ordinances which require
vegetated treatment systems for treatment of runoff between new
construction and surface waters.  Michigan is encouraged to utilize
these practices and programs to implement the management
measure.

          VIII.     ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION

FINDING:  Michigan's program establishes mechanisms to
improve coordination among State agencies and between State and
local officials.

RATIONALE:  Coordination mechanisms include joint agency
permit reviews for projects that involve overlapping jurisdiction
and an Interagency Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee.  Several
Memorandums of Agreement have been established that outline
coordination between divisions within State offices, between State
departments and between State and federal agencies.  Other
coordination mechanisms include a Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) liaison between the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and MDEQ and a Surface Water
Quality Division funded position within the Michigan Department
of Agriculture.  Proposed improvements to the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Act includes increased coordination
between the MDEQ and local implementing agencies.



IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FINDING:  Michigan's program provides opportunities for public
participation in the development and implementation of the coastal
nonpoint program.

RATIONALE:  The program submittal describes several activities
that provide opportunities for public participation in the
development and implementation of Michigan's coastal nonpoint
program.  Michigan created an advisory committee representing a
variety of constituency groups and workgroups for each nonpoint
source category.  Michigan also conducted an extensive public
education and outreach campaign targeted at the public and
affected interests.  Michigan held three public meetings across the
State to solicit public input.  Michigan provided a 30-day public
comment period on the final program submittal and received eight
comment letters during this period.  The State responded to these
comments.  Michigan plans to collaborate with other State and
federal agencies, local units of government and interest groups on
nonpoint source issues and continue to evaluate and improve
programs through cooperative efforts.

X.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

FINDING:  Michigan has included programs that will provide
technical assistance to local governments and the public for
implementing additional management measures.

RATIONALE:  Technical assistance is provided through
MDEQ's Section 319 program, which has developed several
technical assistance manuals to encourage implementation of best
management practices.  The Michigan State University
Cooperative Extension and the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) provide extensive technical
assistance regarding soil erosion control, water quality protection,
and general pollution prevention practices.  A NRCS employee is
on detail to MDEQ and a MDEQ funded inspector in the Michigan
Department of Agriculture provides technical assistance to farmers. 
The Saginaw Bay Wetlands restoration feasibility study is also
providing technical assistance to farmers in the watershed.  MDEQ
conducts training sessions for local enforcing agencies statewide
and technical assistance is also provided to local enforcing
agencies through the audit program.  Proposed improvements to
the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act includes increased
technical assistance to local implementing agencies.   MDEQ has
also proposed a cooperative effort between the State and the
boating industry to educate marina owners and operators.  These
proposed efforts would include workshops, training and
educational materials.

XI.  ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

FINDING:  Michigan's program provides for the implementation
and continuing revision of additional management measures
applicable to critical coastal areas and to cases where (g) measures
are fully implemented but water quality threats or impairments
persist.

RATIONALE:  Supplemental information provided by Michigan
during the program review identifies the Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) process for Areas of Concern (AOCs) as the mechanism for
determining additional management measures.  In addition, the
Grand Traverse and Saginaw Bay watershed initiatives include
activities that are currently underway or planned to address critical
coastal areas and areas where water quality impairments exist even
after (g) management measures or their equivalent have been
implemented.  The RAP process establishes a technical review,
inter-jurisdictional coordination, and public involvement that will
be used to determine what additional management measures may
be needed, and how they will be implemented. 

XII.  CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS

FINDING:  Michigan's program identifies and includes a process
for the continuing identification of critical coastal areas adjacent to
impaired and threatened coastal waters.

RATIONALE:  Michigan has identified a number of critical
coastal areas, including the Areas of Concern (AOCs) and the
Grand Traverse Bay and Saginaw Bay Watersheds, both of which
include activities that are currently underway or planned to address
critical coastal areas and areas where water quality impairments
exist even after (g) management measures or their equivalent have
been implemented.  Although there is a process for designating
additional Areas of Concern, the current focus of the program is on
developing Remedial Action Plans for existing AOCs.  While
NOAA and EPA encourage states to include previously designated
areas within the critical coastal areas under this program, NOAA
and EPA are concerned that the AOC designation may not fully
address all areas, including those areas in which new or
substantially expanding land uses may cause or contribute to the
impairment of coastal waters.  Therefore, we encourage the State to
consider expanding its process for identifying and addressing areas
with new or expanding land uses.     

XIII.  MONITORING

FINDING:  Michigan's program does not include a plan to assess
over time the success of the management measures in reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Michigan will develop a plan
that enables the State to assess over time the extent to which
implementation of management measures is reducing pollution
loads and improving water quality.  

RATIONALE:  In the program submittal, Michigan provides an
overview of several existing monitoring programs, but does not
describe how they will be applied to the section 6217 program.  It
appears that Michigan could identify efforts under its nonpoint
source monitoring strategy that can be used to assess over time the
success of the management measures in reducing pollution loads
and improving water quality at both the watershed and site-specific
scales.  For example, the watershed evaluation monitoring
described on page 196 could be applied to measure the pollutant
load reductions achieved due to implementation of management
measures throughout a watershed, yet the State identifies no
watersheds where such an effort will be undertaken.  In addition,
Michigan states that the source identification monitoring generates
data that "allows for the evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs,"
which clearly indicates that such monitoring could also be used to
provide site-specific assessments of management measure
effectiveness.

     Michigan should not need to undertake additional
monitoring to achieve the monitoring objectives of section 6217. 
It is stated on page 200 of the program submittal that Michigan
will continue its existing monitoring programs, and Michigan
states that this monitoring will support the coastal nonpoint source
control program.  Management measure tracking should be
incorporated into Michigan's plan to evaluate the effectiveness of
management measures in controlling nonpoint source pollution. 
This will enable the State to relate such implementation to changes
in water quality or pollutant loads.

XIV.  STRATEGY AND EVALUATION FOR BACK-UP
AUTHORITIES

     As noted above in the source category sections, within one
year, Michigan will develop a strategy to implement the
management measures for agriculture, forestry, urban (new
development, watershed protection and existing development), and
roads, highways and bridges sources throughout the 6217
management area.  This strategy will include a description and
schedule for the specific steps the State will take to ensure
implementation of the management measures; describe how
existing or new authorities can be used to ensure implementation
where voluntary efforts are unsuccessful; and identify measurable
results which, if achieved, will demonstrate the State's ability to
achieve implementation of the management measures using the
described approach.

     In order to evaluate the adequacy of this strategy, Michigan
will also develop and apply credible survey tools to demonstrate
the ability of the State's approach to achieve implementation for
these management measures.  The use of credible assessment
techniques is necessary in order for NOAA and EPA to evaluate, at
the end of the three year period described in the March 16, 1995
guidance issued by NOAA and EPA entitled Flexibility for State
Coastal Nonpoint Programs, whether the State's approach has
been successful or whether new, more specific authorities will be
needed.