[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
--------------------- Coastal Zone information Center D Tz@ LJD E@)) COORDINATING AND PLANNING FOR GREAT LAKES WATER AND LAND RESOURCES ANNUAL REPORT GB 1627 .G8 .G759 1977 he Great Lakes Basin Commission is dedicated to the best use ------ Tand conservation of natural resources in the region. To achieve this ambitious goal, it has undertaken the following: * Development of a resource use and conservation plan for the entire U.S. Great Lakes basin. 9 Coordination of planning and research by agencies and private groups through interstate-interagency committees, basin-wide conferences, and review of plans and research. 0 Establishment of long-term priorities for needed data collection and analysis. 0 Performance of special studies of resources as needed. The commission's The Basin Commission views the entire Great Lakes drainage basin-wide perspective basin of 117,000 square miles as an interconnected whole. The lake encourages comprehen- country and forests of the north, the flat crop lands to the south, sive rather than sec- and the mountains in the east are characterized by both diversity tional solutions. and interdependence, as are the five Great Lakes themselves. The commission's basin-wide perspective encourages comprehensive rather than sectional solutions and discourages the waste of over- lapping efforts. The Basin Commission was established in 1967 at the request of the Great Lakes states under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. Operating funds are supplied by the Great Lakes states and matched by the federal government. Commissioners represent the states and agencies listed on the back cover. Canadian federal and provincial government observ- ers and citizens attend the quarterly commission meetings, where decisions are made by commissioners on a consensus basis. The Basin Commission chairman is appointed by the U.S. President; the commissioners annually elect the vice-chairman from their state membership. The Great Lakes Basin Commission office in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is staffed by employee& engaged in planning,, coordina- tion, and public involvement and information. This annual report describes the commission's work, par- ticularly accomplishments in fiscal year 1977 (October 1976- September 1977). Am__ Property of NOAA Coastal Services CIW@ LibraZ7 gx' & FROM THE CHAIRMAN ................. THE GREAT LAKES BASIN PLAN .................... 3 THE LAKES ......................................... 5 THE COASTAL ZONE ............................... 8 THE BASIN ......................................... 10 INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SERVICES ........... 16 STATE ACTIVITIES IN THE BASIN .................. 17 FINANCIAL STATEMENT ........................... 19 LIST OF COMMISSIONERS ......................... 24 Photos courtesy of Ontario Minist7y of the Environment, p. 1; Michigan Tourist Council, p. 3; U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, p. 5; Michigan Department of Natural Resources, by Blanchard Mills, p. 8; Wisconsin Department offatural Resources, pp. 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19. To Their Excellencies, the Governors of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wis- consin, and to the U.S. Water Resources Council for transmittal to the Congress through the President of the United States: M an's impact on the environment ... The environment's,im- pact on man ... These two issues were prominent throughout fiscal year 1977. Most of the country experienced an extraordinarily cold winter in 1976-77 and a widespread drought plagued parts of the Great Lakes basin. Extensive media coverage of fuel shortages, energy legislation, toxic substances, environmental effects of alter- native sources of energy, destructive oil spills, and the hardships suffered by wildlife and agriculture during the hard winter and drought, made people more aware than ever before of the de- pletability and destructability of the natural resources they depend on. As it strove to meet As it strove to meet the needs and challenges presented, the needs and challenges, Great Lakes Basin Commission expanded its participation, plan- the commission ning, and coordination during 1977. Staff members participated in expanded its planning preparations for both the international United Nations Water and participation... Conference and the U.S. National Water Conference. Staff and state members also participated extensively in the new adminis- tration's national Water Resource Policy Study. The Basin Commission urged all levels of government to se- verely limit phosphates in detergents and to give increased atten- tion to the long-term effects of toxic substances. On the energy front, the commission decided to not support a proposed Interna- tional joint Commission study of the feasibility of oil and wet gas drilling in the Great Lakes. Concerned about protecting the Great Lakes from spills of oil and other hazardous cargoes, the commis- sion also recommended to both the U.S. and Canada that they speed up the development of regulations for vessel design, maintenance, and operation, as they had agreed to do under Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. The Basin Commission chose the pertinent issues of water supply and conservation, water pollution, and control of toxic sub- stances to be the focus of the current phase of its major effort, the Great Lakes Basin Plan. It also expanded the plan's public in- volvement program. The commission under- The commission undertook much successful inter-agency took much successful coordination during FY 1977. Pollution studies, fisheries manage- coordination... ment, research, transportation, and coastal management benefit- ted from this activity. The commission is encouraged by the willingness of its mem- bers tojoin in seeking to lessen the adverse impacts of man and en- vironment on each other and by increased ability to respond quickly to changing situations. It is looking forward to continuing work on the Great Lakes Basin Plan, strengthening its public in- volvement program, and further stimulating coordination and the exchange of ideas. Arthur H. Cratty Alternate Chairman 2 VWI@ ZI ik 41 144o,7j*:,_ T he Great Lakes Basin Plan is at the heart of the Basin Commis- sion ,s efforts to achieve the best use and conservation of the The Great Lakes Basin region's natural resources. The plan will be unique and valuable Plan is at the heart of the because it approaches problems from a basin-wide viewpoint. This commission's work... perspective will enable all basin planning and research to be coor- dinated and the relative urgency of solving different basin prob- lems to be determined. The plan will be officially reported to the public and those with the power to authorize and fund its recommended programs: Congress, the federal Office of Management and Budget, federal agencies, and the states. As circumstances change, the plan will be continually revised so that only the most up-to-date information and pertinent recommendations are released through an annual plan report. Plan Development The first phase of the plan was the Great Lakes Basin Frame- work Study, which compiled and analyzed all available data about As the Framework resources in the Great Lakes basin and their use. As the Study was completed, Framework Study was completed in 1976, the commission began the commission or- organizing a detailed plan for future work. This plan of study di- ganized a plan for fu- vided the work into four important activities: inventory, analysis, ture work. program formulation, and implementation. An inventoiy of all the needed facts-physical, institutional, demographic, and economic conditions, and past, present, and proposed plans, programs, and research-will be compiled. The inventory will be revised when new information is available. The inventory will undergo analysis to reveal how basin prob- lems are being dealt with and what problems need attention. The analysis will also define the interrelationships among problems and specify possible solutions to the problems. The probable impacts of each alternative solution will then be analyzed. The solutions might include research, plans, programs, or projects. The commission's Then program formulation will choose among the alternative res solutions to forge a recommended regional program. Finally, in earch and coordina- the implementation phase, priorities for carrying out the program's tion will contribute to various components and the appropriate agency for undertaking all steps in developing each component will be specified. The commission's coordina- the plan. tion and research activities will contribute to all phases of plan development. 3 A key decision in FY 1977 was that the plan should deal com- prehensively with a few specific resource issues at a time. This This issue-oriented issue-oriented approach will permit swift action on urgent prob- .approach will permit lems. After seeking the guidance of the states, federal agencies, swift action on urgent and the public, the commission decided to focus on three issues be- problems. tween FY 1977 and the end of FY 1979: � water pollution contol plans � control of toxic substances � water supply and conservation Near the end of FY 1977 the staff began work on these three problems by (1) indexing and examining the basin's comprehen- sive areawide waste treatment management plans (developed by states in accord with Section 208, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) to determine their cumulative impact and the extent to which further investments in pollution control are needed, (2) assessing the sources of toxic substances and the laws, regulations, programs, and administrative procedures affect- ing control of toxic substances, and (3) organizing a work program for water supply and conservation and planning a conference on water conservation. Also during FY 1977, the commission staff produced the first annual Great Lakes Basin Plan Report. It presents information in- tegrated from the National Water Assessment and the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study and some analysis based on inventories of previous, present, and proposed plans and programs. Public Involvement Citizen leaders on the Great Lakes Basin Plan's public in- Citizen leaders greatly volvement work group greatly influenced the development of the influenced develop- plan in 1977. The work group was made up of the commissioners ment of the plan in 1977. on the planning committee and 35 members of the public repre- senting a broad spectrum of concerns: civic, environmental, ripar- ian, industrial, labor, business, news media, and local government. The work group met three times for day-long sessions throughout the course of the year. Its primary purpose was to de- vise and recommend to the commission a comprehensive public in- formation and involvement program for the next two years. An ambitious public participation program evolved. It called for the development of numerous information materials, such as fact sheets, brochures, and a slide show, and for a series of public workshops throughout the region. The work group was also responsible for securing reim- bursement for travel expenses of citizen observers participating at commission and committee meetings. Its analysis and critique of the technical work itself led to numerous changes in the planning Great Lakes Basin Plan process, including the shift to an issue-oriented approach. The Brochure work group was instrumental in helping to rewrite the plan of study. "W W61 41" A miff, rut 4 Its mission of formulating a public participation program ac- Great Lakes Basi'll complished by,july 1977, the work group disbanded. But the ex- Report-1977 perienceof mergingthe planning committee with citizen represen- tatives had proved so fruitful that the commission was quick to ap- Inventoiy of Past Planning prove the establishment of a new work group to monitor and shape Studies, 1970-76, First public involvement activities for FY 1978. Edition STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION W ith the construction of ever larger vessels, it must soon be de- cided whether to expand Great Lakes locks and channels to accommodate the new giant ships. Proponents of a larger system feel it would draw more ocean-going vessels into the Great Lakes, and they emphasize that larger ships are more efficient to operate. Opponents point to the economic and environmental costs of ex- panding and maintaining a larger system. To help decision-makers sort out these conflicting argu- ments, the Basin Commission's standing committee on transporta- tion began planning a seminar of experts and citizens for late 1977 to outline the complete spectrum of factors that must be consid- ered before an intelligent decision can be made. A report listing all factors and detailing issues discussed at the seminar will be published. It J,41 A. Following an earlier workshop, the transportation committee recognized the need for a more efficient regional transportation system to facilitate a smoother exchange of commodities among water and other modes of transportation. So the committee spon- A workshop explored sored a workshop in FY 1977 to explore methods of achieving this methods of achieving integration among modes. The workshop found that regional and integration among modal self-interest and federal regulations inhibit multi-modal in- transportation modes. terchange. The workshop concluded that alteration of federal regulations and consolidation of federal financing and federal agencies dealing with transportation are essential first steps to- wards achieving integration. The committee published the proceedings of this workshop, and presented a concise report on the findings of both transporta- tion workshops to the Basin Commission to guide its approach to transportation-related problems. 5 Throughout FY 1977 the transportation committee's monthly memorandum kept individuals involved in all transPorta- tion modes abreast of national and regional developments. Also during 1977 the staff secretariat to the transportation committee served on the steering committee of the Great Lakes Cooperative Port Planning Study. This study, funded by the U.S. Maritime Administration and Great Lakes states, will prepare a marketing strategy to increase the flow of cargo through Great Lakes ports. The transportation committee is composed of transportation TowardMore Effective and specialists from the Great Lakes states' governments, various Efficient Multimodal branches of the federal government, and several private associa- Transportation in the Great tions. Regular meetings of the committee foster discussion and Lakes Region coordination among the diverse governmental and private entities. WINTER NAVIGATION S evere weather and ice have historically halted shipping on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway between mid-December and early April, requiring some industries to stockpile materials for the winter and causing others to depend partially or year-round on other forms of transportation. Interest in the possible economic benefits of winter navigation eventually resulted in a Congress- authorized program begun in 1970 to determine the practicability of winter navigation and its beneficial and adverse effects. 'T '7 4@, Aj .-7 The Great Lakes Basin Commission continued its participa- tion in this program during FY 1977. The commission's state caucus maintained its membership on the Great Lakes-St. Law- rence Seaway Winter Navigation Board, which oversees the dem- onstration program, and commission staff served on the board's working committee and its environmental planning task force. The staff also prepared a paper for the board and the state coastal zone management programs that described the opportunities for cooperation among these entities in situations where broken ice cover, spills, harbor modifications, and other concomitants of winter navigation might affect the coast. 6 In June the board asked the Basin Commission to study the The commission studied social effects of winter navigation to SUPPICMCDt information being the social effects of gathered on the engineering, economic, and environmental as- winter navigation... pects of winter navigation. The six-month study 0 identified known social effects of winter navigation through a literature review 0 identified potential and undocumented social effects through public meetings and interviews 9 rec9mmended a problem-solving plan of action. The first stage revealed that winter navigation affects occupa- tional groups, ice-dependent recreation, amount of structural damage from shore erosion and ice and wave action, and cross- channel transportation previously dependent on ice. The second stage revealed numerous public concerns about winter navigation, including its effects on the environment and on other modes of transportation, reduction of employment, and the validity and equity of basing decisions on cost/benefit ratios. Five recommendations resulted: 1. Establish a program to monitor the social effects of winter navigation on various types of communities and occupational groups. 2. Investigate the character and economics of ice-based rec- reation in the basin. 3. Examine existing and needed mechanisms for compen- sating for damages caused by winter navigation. The Social Aspects of 4. Develop contingency plans for winter transportation Winter Navigation across the St. Clair, Detroit, and St. Lawrence Rivers. 5. Establish a public involvement program. RESEARCH COORDINATION T he increasing volume and complexity of water research in he Great Lakes basin has created a need for more coordina- tion among research agencies and institutions. To meet this need the Basin Commission expanded its research coordinating efforts during fiscal year 1977. Under an interagency agreement with the U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency, the Basin Commission met 'in January 1977 with the agencies and institutions operating research vessels in the Great Lakes to review proposed cruise schedules and discuss ways to coordinate data collection. The commission staff then prepared a report that provided the research, surveillance and planning community with a summary of the capabilities and proposed cruise schedules of the U.S. Great Lakes research vessels. A streamlined international system of inventorying cruise data called ROSCOP was introduced to Great Lakes researchers at the January meeting and subsequently used on a trial basis. Its success will be reviewed at a similar meeting in 1978. In March 1977 the Great Lakes Basin Commission became a The commission member agency in the National Water Data Exchange. This data became a member of the exchange was established to report the availability of water-related National Water Data data and improve access to these data. The new program has more Exchange. than 60 member organizations across the country, including sev- eral in the Great Lakes region. Also during 1977 the Basin Commission established a new standing committee on research and development. This was in re- sponse to the need for coordination between the scientific commu- nity (including non-federal researchers) and the planning com- Great Lakes Research munity. Vessels, Capabilities, and The research and development committee will provide scien- Prelimina7y 1977 tific information and advice to the Basin Commission's planning Schedules activities. The committee will also bring to the commission's atten- tion issues in the scientific community about which the commission 7 may wish to advise the governors or federal agencies. The work of the committee will be reviewed after one year to determine changes in its function needed to improve its effective- ness. U TMIZI QMLOUkT@ 1773KI-P LMLU__J LZ___J STANDING COMMITTEE ON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT he Great Lakes shore zone is one of the most environmentally Tand economically sensitive portions of the Great Lakes basin. The shoreline's beauty and its usefulness for recreation, energy production, and commercial navigation have subjected it to exten- sive residential and commercial development. This develop- ment has increased shore erosion damages, caused waterfront blight, and destroyed wetlands. Conflicts over how to use the valu- able but finite space of the coastal zone have abounded. These problems on all U.S. coastlines prompted the passage of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and later, the 1976 Amendments to this act. The act encourages coastal states to develop comprehensive programs for managing their coasts and provides federal funds. The eight Great Lakes states soon realized the commonality of coastal problems and that any one state's coastal policies could affect the entire region. Therefore, they asked the Great Lakes Basin Commission in 1974 to establish a standing committee on coastal zone management. Representatives of the eight state coastal programs, six federal departments, and Canada meet to coordi- nate programs and resolve mutual problems. The coastal committee started 1977 with a workshop that explored how vegetation, rather than expensive and sometimes environmentally damaging structures, might be used in some situ- The commission pre- ations to stabilize Great Lakes shorelines. Two projects resulted. pared a shoreline prop- First, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Coastal Engineering Re- erty owner's manual... search Center began testing the feasibility of stabilizing Lake Michigan and Lake Erie dunes with vegetation, Second, the Basin Commission prepared a property owner's manual explaining how to use vegetation to reduce shoreline erosion. Demand for the manual has necessitated a second printing, which will bring the number of copies produced to over 22.000. A _7 N 8 An erosion hazard subcommittee worked during FY 1977 to ensure consistent methods of calculating shore recession rates and to coordinate state erosion plans. In the interest of accelerating the development of an insurance program for Great Lakes coastlines, the subcommittee acquired funding from the Federal Insurance Administration, whom it had been advising for several years, to de- sign a program in FY 1978 specifically for the Great Lakes. This program will assist already-threatened property owners and dis- The committee was in- courage new development in hazardous areas. strumental in the de- The sizeable portion of Great Lakes shoreline managed by velopment of a national Indian tribal governments in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan policy for Indian tribal is excluded from the states'coastal zonejurisdiction. To make coast- participation in coastal al planning as comprehensive as possible, a subcommittee was planning. formed in FY 1977 to coordinate state activities with tribal gov- ernments. The subcommittee was instrumental in encouraging the Office of Coastal Zone Management to develop a national policy that, while maintaining the sovereignty of the tribes, enables the states to finance the tribes' development of programs consistent with their own. Recognizing the ever-increasing volume of information gen- erated each year by Great Lakes research, the University of Michi- gan proposed in 1976 creating an information referral center to help scientists and planners, as well as non-technical people, locate the information they need. Working through the coastal commit- tee, the Great Lakes states refined the proposal and recommended that the center be co-directed by the Great Lakes Sea Grant offices Great Lakes Vegetation and the Basin Commission. The proposal was well-received by the Workshop Proceedings National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is ex- pected to fund the center by mid- 1978. NAW ,@4_ 11MM MM7 7-- Growing interest in maintaining healthy populations of The role Great Lakes fish resulted in the formation of a Great Lakes of vegetation iri shoreline fisheries management subcommittee in August 1977. The sub- committee is working closely with state, regional, and other fishery interests to develop a fisheries management strategy. It has re- ceived funding from the Office of Coastal Zone Management to design the necessary studies. ENERGY FACILITY SITING STUDY 0 ne of the greatest demands on the Great Lakes coastal zone is the location of electrical generating plants where cooling The Role of Vegetation in water and water-borne transportation are easily accessible. The Shoreline Management-A Great Lakes state coastal zone management programs thus asked guidefor Great Lakes the Great Lakes Basin Commission to conduct a study on the sub- shoreline property owners ject. Completed in early 1977, the study was designed to 0 determine the dependence of different types of energy facilities on coastal locations 9 0 project anticipated energy facility requirements for coastal Energy Facility Siting in the land and water Great Lakes Coastal Zone: e develop optional policies for state coastal zone programs. Analysis and Policy Options The final report of the study's findings also discusses the implica- tions of each policy option. This has provided state programs with the comprehensive view needed to make intelligent decisions. Michigan is using the study to develop proposed legislation for a state energy facility siting program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management has used the study in developing regulations. LM E@ GREAT LAKES BASIN FRAMEWORK STUDY he Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was the commission's The Framework Study Tfirst step towards developing a comprehensive basin-wide was the first step to- plan (the Great Lakes Basin Plan). The Framework Study is an ex- wards developing the haustive survey of basin resources, present and future demands'on Great Lakes Basin Plan. them, problems associated with their use, and possible solutions. This information provides the foundation needed for basin-wide planning. Completed during FY 1976, the Great Lakes Basin Frame- work Study was presented in FY 1977 for review by the Great Lakes governors, the head of each Basin Commission member agency,and the U.S. Section of the International joint Commis sion. Comments produced by this review were published in the fall of 1977 in the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study Executive Sum- mary. The Framework Study was then sent to the governors and legislatures of the Great Lakes states, the Water Resources Council, the President, and Congress. They will find in the Framework Study Report and Executive Summary the problem solving actions the Basin Commission has recommended. SON MAUMEE RIVER BASIN STUDY MEWgRK he Maumee basin encompasses 4.4 million acres in Indiana, _,@MV @AES BASM TOhio, and Michigan that drain into Lake Erie at Toledo. The FRRMIEWORK IN basin is noted for its productive farmland, but sedimentation from A -STUDV@W",,@ agricultural erosion clogs drains and channels and pollutes the riv- ers and Maumee Bay. Sedimentation from urban construction, as well as municipal and industrial wastes, seriously degrades water Great Lakes Basin quality in the basin's growing urban areas. Flooding along the Framework Study Executive streams and the Maumee Bay shoreline costs millions of dollars Summary and Brochurt, annually in damaged crops and property. 10 These problems, particularly poor water quality, made the Maumee basin a logical choice for the first Level B study in the Great Lakes basin. (A Level B study is an evaluation of a river ba- sin's resources to pinpoint problems and recommend corrective ac- tions to federal, states, and local entities.) By FY 1977 the study had identified the ma or problems and j Many of the Maumee prepared alternative solutions. Basin citizens and study partici- Ian's problem-solving pants then chose among the alternative solutions to form the pro- p posed Maumee Level B plan. Citizens expressed their thoughts programs are already about the proposed plan at a series of public hearings in February- being implemented. March 1977. This public input was utilized in finalizing the plan. The commission's approved Maumee Level B plan will be published in the Maumee River Basin Study Report-Environmental Impact Statement in early 1978. This will undergo an official 90-day review by the Great Lakes governors and federal agencies. The Maumee plan is composed of problem-solving programs that can be initiated immediately by government agencies at all ----------- levels. Key features are erosion control programs for agricultural and urban land that include development and implementation of farm conservation plans. The cumulative results of these programs would be a reduction of nearly 50% by 1990 of suspended solids and associated pollutants flowing to Maumee Bay and Lake Erie. PJVER BASIN PLAN Maumee River Basin Plan Brochure 16- OC14 air- V 4% Other major features include county land resource manage- ment plans based on balanced environmental and economic development objectives; a program coordinated among several Maumee River Basin Study agencies to preserve, restore, and improve wetlands, ecologically Report-Environmental sensitive and natural lands, and historic areas; floodplain man- Impact Statement agement programs to be conducted in conjunction with the na- tional flood insurance program; and programs to increase fish and wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation, particularly on floodplams Maumee River Basin to encourage appropriate changes in floodplain use. Level B Study-Plan The extensive public participation in the Maumee study has Supplement fostered the development of useful programs, and many compo- Public Comments- nents of the Maumee plan are already being implemented. For Written and Oral State- example, 14 Ohio counties with the Ohio Cooperative Extension ments on the Proposed Service are using portions of the Maumee plan to guide agricul- V WM tural erosion control and land use changes, control of pollution Maumee Level B Plan from runoff, and preparation of farm conservation plans. In addi- The Proposed Maumee tion, state and local agencies have used technical data developed LevelB Plan-A Summary during the study for developing areawide wastewater treatment plans. for Public Review FOX-WOLF RIVER BASIN STUDY F irst proposed by the Great Lakes Basin Commission on behalf of Wisconsin in 1972, the Fox-Wolf River Basin Level B Study received federal funding in October 1976, and Wisconsin and the Basin Commission began working together to develop a plan of study. In July 1977, however, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board terminated Wisconsin's participation in the study. Wisconsin found that other studies and programs conducted between 1972 and 1976 had eliminated much of the need for the study. It was questionable whether the study could be adequately completed in the two years finally allotted. Also, additional state and local match- ing funds required by modified federal rules were not available. For these reasons, the Basin Commission recommended study cancellation to the U.S. Water Resources Council. The study was terminated, and the unexpended federal funds were returned to the council. POLLUTION FROM LAND USE ACTIVITIES or many years efforts to reduce water pollution have been Faimed at eliminating or treating municipal and industrial sew- age, vessel wastes, and other concentrated pollution sources (termed point sources). Recently the significance of soil, chemicals, and other pollutants entering water from diffuse land sources (termed non-point sources) has been recognized. 7V I_1 ,I jFj,NW - A The Great Lakes are thought to be affected considerably by non-point source pollution, but prevention is limited by lack of knowledge about the origin, amount, and types of pollutants. Thus, the International joint Commission established in 1973 a U.S.-Canadian Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group to assess the extent of non-point source pollution and rec- The conunission's role ornmend remedies. concentrated on data Work for the Pollution Study has been assigned to various collection and analysis. U.S. and Canadian agencies and groups, including the Great Lakes Basin Commission. The commission's role in FY 1977 concen- trated on the collection, synthesis and analysis of data on the U.S. portion of the basin. Information developed by the commission staff working alone or with assistance from contractors includes: 1. Quantity of shoreline eroded and the amount of sediment this erosion contributes to the lakes. 2. Frequency and extent of wind-caused resuspension of bottom sediments near the shore and the effect of resuspension on water quality. 12 3. Updated guide to water quality gauging stations-their location, type of data they record, and institution operating the gauges. 4. Amount of pollution entering the Great Lakes from, tributaries. 5. Location and acreage of the different types of land use in the basin. 6. Amount of materials such as fertilizers and pesticides applied to the land in the basin. 7. Areas that are critical sources of pollution and the re- quired remedial measures and their estimated costs. 8. Current legislation, government programs, and inter- agency relationships that affect land use and water quality. 9. Projections of future land uses and economic and demo- graphic conditions. The commission also The Basin Commission staff also worked to encourage a encouraged a coordi- coordinated approach to the study by working closely with and nated approach to the providing assistance to the participating states and federal agen- study... cies. Staff (1) provided technical assistance to the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency and their contractors in carrying out several specific tasks supporting the Pollution Study (2) assisted the International joint Commission and the Great Lakes states with public meetings seeking public views about pollution and possible solutions and (3) analyzed the results of a Pollution Study Inventoty of Land Use and survey of farmers in the U.S. Great Lakes basin. The survey was Land Practices in the Great designed to determine farmers' opinions about the effects of agri- Lakes Basin cultural practices on the Great Lakes and their attitudes about pollution control methods. U.S. Great Lakes Shoreline The staff worked directly with Canadian participants to de- Erosion Loadings velop a way to organize the information collected by the Pollution Study so that the following questions can be answered: Existing River Mouth 0 Where are the land areas that contribute excessive LoadingData in U.S. Great amounts of pollutants to the Great Lakes? Lakes Basin 0 Why are these areas such heavy contributors? 0 How can pollution from these areas be controlled at a cost Delineation of Quantity comparable to the cost of controlling point source pollution. and Quality of Great Lakes Commission participation in the Pollution Study was funded U.S. Shoreline Eroded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. De- Material partment of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service. NATIONAL WATER ASSESSMENT-GREAT LAKES REGION W ater problems like flooding, drought, and pollution plague all portions of the nation. Some basis must be established for determining the relative urgency of these numerous and complex problems and the proper priorities for solving them. The Water Resources Council, the federal agency overseeing comprehensive water planning throughout the country, is doing this through its National Water Assessment. The Great Lakes region To ensure that state and regional views are a part of the as- water assessment sessment, the council has provided for detailed assessments in each was conducted by the region of the nation. The Great Lakes region assessment was con- commission. ducted by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, with the guidance of a work group representing states and federal agencies and a public review group of more than 500 basin residents. By 1977, economic and demographic growth in the basin had been projected to the year 2000, trends in water use and accom- panying environmental effects had been described, and problems had been identified. During the year the work group and public review group determined the consequences of not solving the problems and recommended appropriate research, studies, fed- eral programs, and legal and policy changes beneficial to water resources planning. 13 Problem Effects Several publications report FY 1977's findings. Problem Effects analyzes the severity of the problems and describes the conse- Summary Report quences of leaving them unsolved. The Summa7y Report presents Regional Chapter the recommendations and the region's view on national water is- -4- sues. The Regional Chapter is a working document for the Water r . Resources Council. 4,g (zv The Basin Commission's final contribution to the National Assessment is the Citizen's Summary. It presents in a concise, iffit-forward manner the region's problems, their effects if left straig @@j- unsolved, and the recommendations. In addition, it lists fed- e al and state sources of information about Great Lakes water, r i U resources. GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING STUDY he ability to determine the effects on the Great Lakes system of Great Lakes Basin Region Tproposed water-related plans and programs is essential to the CITIZEN'S SILIVIVART formulation of the Great Lakes Basin Plan. Planners, and legis- lators, administrators, and other policy-makers throughout the basin need this ability to guide them in planning for the protection and use of the Great Lakes basin's resources. Thus, the Great Lakes Citizen's Summary Basin Commission has given top priority to a Great Lakes Envi- ronmental Planning Study, which will begin at the start of FY 1978. The study is intended to assist planners and policy-makers by providing a way to determine systematically the cumulative long- range impacts of the plans and programs proposed by various levels of government. To do this, the study will assess the impacts of potential activities, combining expert judgment and analysis with quantitative tools such as mathematical models. GREAT LAKES REGIONAL TRAILS WORKSHOP he Great Lakes region is crisscrossed by many miles of Tabancloned railroad tracks. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 provides an opportunity to use these abandoned rail beds by converting them into trails. Regional interest sparked by this legislation quickly evolved into the concept of a Great Lakes regional trails system. To lay groundwork for developing a regional trails system and to establish communication among interest groups and gov- ernment agencies, the Great Lakes Basin Commission and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation jointly sponsored a Great Lakes Great Lakes Regional Regional Trails System Workshop in October 1976. The Basin Trails System Workshop Commission secured the participation of those Great Lakes basin states not in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's Lake Central District. _Zi" IR X 3@ 14 V@ Ot 71 7 Representatives of user groups and all government levels and others with expertise or interest in developing trails systems at- tended the workshop. They agreed that the greatest obstacle to es- The resulting Great tablishing a regional trail system was the lack of coordination Lakes Regional Trails among different levels of government and the private sector. Con- Council first met in May sequently, the workshop resolved that a regional trails council 1977. should be established to serve as a coordinating organization. The resulting Great Lakes Regional Trails Council first met in May, 1977. It includes representatives of state and federal governments, the National Trails Council, and trail-user groups from each Great Lakes state. PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL FUNDING 0 ne of the Basin Commission's mandates under the law is to recommend long-range priorities for undertaking research, planning, and construction projects in the basin. Towards this end the commission developed and published in 1976 a set of stan- dards by which priorities would be set (Annual Priorities Report 1977 PRIORITIES REPORT Guidelines). These guidelines also established systematic proce- dures to ensure that all member states and agencies can partici- pate in the evaluation. Using these guidelines, the 1977 Priorities Report was com- pleted in May 1977. It summarizes the programs proposed for in- itiation during fiscal years 1979-1983, assigns them high, medium, Mr or low priority, and numerically ranks the high priority programs. IL Major criteria used for ranking were: benefit to economic development and environmental quality, fulfillment of objectives, compatibility with other plans, degree of support, geographic im- pact, and uniqueness. Receiving high research priority were three investigations of IL Great Lakes resources and two examinations of the effects of energy production on water resources. Two studies of regulating Great Lakes $Oslo Commission Great Lakes water levels and flows also received high priority. In Jose 1977 the planning field, federal funding (under the Water Resources Planning Act) for development of comprehensive resource plans 1977 Priorities Report by the states received high priority. Most construction projects receiving high priority were those to alleviate damages from flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. Planning for and constructing municipal wastewater treatment plants also received high priority. The 1977 Priorities Report was submitted to the governors of An expression of the Great Lakes states, the U.S. Water Resources Council, the Pres- regional priorities, the ident, and Congress. As an expression of coordinated regional report guides actions priorities, the report serves to guide legislative and administrative affecting basin actions affecting natural resources of the Great Lakes basin. resources. EZ:3 , 77 11 7- W After completing the 1977 Priorities Report, the commisssion revised the guidelines slightly to make the 1978 Priorities Re- port even more responsive to the basin's needs. Work on the 1978 report began late in FY 1977, with completion scheduled for May 1978. 15 GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS REPORT T he Programs Report FY 77-81 catalogues and describes water- related research, planning, and programs conducted by government agencies in the Great Lakes Basin during fiscal years 1977-1981. This information helps planners avoid duplication of effort and provides a single reference for anyone interested in cur- rent efforts in the region. The Report categorizes the programs and describes their ob- jectives and contents. Information for each program includes the Prog,rams Report FY agency or department under whose auspices the work is done and 1977-81 the duration and cost of the work. TheProg,rams Report revises and updates a prior edition, Great Lakes Basin Programs FY 76-FY 77. New features include coverage of more agencies, more program categories, and a format consis- tent with the 1977 Priorities Report. All copies have been distributed; a new edition will be published in late FY 78. kHn PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE he public information office plays a vital role in all commis- Tsion activities. It serves as a contact point for all news media relations and mails regular releases to over 1200 newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations. The office provides liaison and clerical staff support to the public involvement work group, and is also responsible for the editing, publishing and dis- The information office tribution of all major commission reports and documents. responded to thousands The information office writes and publishes the Communi- of requests for information... cator, the commission's monthly newsletter, whose circulation grew from 15,000 to 17,000 in FY 1977. This sizeable mailing list was completely overhauled last year and computer-coded to allow for special mailings to over 50 differeent categories of readers. During the year the information office responded to literally thousands of requests for information by mail, by telephone, and in person. It also wrote, published and disseminated general in- formation materials, such as fact sheets, brochures, summaries and publications listings. As a public service, the information office, with financial support from the Water Resources Council, repro- duced and distributed over 16,000 copies of the draft option pa- pers for the National Water Resource Policy Study in July 1977. GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION LIBRARY he library is also vital to commission activities, serving both Tstaff and the public. As a selected federal depository library it automatically receives federal aocuments dealing with water re- sources, limnology, transportation, energy, land use, recreation, and agriculture. The library also collects state and Canadian documents concerning Great Lakes environmental resources. Periodicals, legislative and vertical files, and references and direc- tories round out the library's collections. During the past year the library completed converting its documents and catalog to the Superintendent of Documents classification system. The library also strove to make its collections easily accessible and usable by the staff and public. 16 A high-quality water has become a scarce commodity nation- swide andperiodic droughts threaten supplies, appreciation has grown for the vast quantity of water in the Great Lakes and the need to ensure its quality. During FY 1977 all basin states were actively developing Basin states were areawide waste treatment management plans (required by Section actively developing 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of area-wide waste treat- 1972). These plans will determine needed sewage treatment ment management facilities and provide for their management. They will also assess plans and coastal zone the type and amount of polluted runoff entering lakes and streams management programs. and determine practical controls. All the Great Lakes states are also developing coastal zone management programs pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and its 1976 Amendments. This act provides for fed- eral financial and technical aid to help states study their coastal areas and develop and carry out programs to govern how these areas are used. Once a state's coastal program is in effect, all new state and federal projects in the coastal zone must conform to the program's criteria. The states were involved in numerous other activities in the Great Lakes basin, some of which are described below. Illinois Illinois continued water quality and water use studies to de- termine the best allocation of the 3,200 cubic-feet-per-second flow of water it is allowed to divert from Lake Michigan into the Missis- sippi River basin. An allocation order went into effect in FY 1977 and the state has actively enforced the order and promoted conser- vation. Illinois upgraded Illinois Beach State Park, restoring new acquisitions to the natural state and developing trails. Indiana In July Indiana's governor established the Water Resources Study Commission to develop a plan for the efficient management and utilization of the state's water resources. The state approved flood plain management ordinances for five Indiana communities in the Great Lakes basin. Three communities were admitted to the national flood insurance program. Indiana continued to acquire land for recreational use along the Little Calumet River. F-VqkN"_Fm_- Michigan Ai- Michigan upgraded water quality standards for its lakes and streams and prohibited the sale of household laundry detergents containing more than 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight. The state also funded the construction of fishing facilities in metropolitan areas and completed a study on extending the spawning runs of salmon and steelhead farther upstream by building fish lad- ders around dams. This would provide additional fishing NMI opportunities. 17 Ohio Ohio has embarked upon an urban water front development program to revitalize the valuable downtown water resources of several cities. This has included a $5 million appropriation to begin development of Cleveland Lakefront Park. Municipal waste treat- ment plants in the portion of Ohio draining into Lake Erie received $204 million in construction grants from the federal government in FY 1977. Pennsylvania One of neighboring Pennsylvania's foremost concerns in its Great Lakes region is the control of beach erosion at Presque Isle State Park. In FY 1977 Pennsylvania began a project to demon- strate the feasibility of using vegetation to stabilize dunes. Pennsyl- vania added a new hatchery to bolster its successful establishment of Pacific salmon in Lake Erie and its tributaries. Pennsylvania's fish commission began attempts to re-establish lake trout, a once- abundant fish, in Lake Erie. New York New York's river basin planning programs progressed as it completed the Genesee River Basin Board Plan and began imple- menting the Black-St. Lawrence and Oswego Board Plans. The state is seeking to protect water quality through a program de- signed to eliminate or limit the disposal of toxins. To provide more information for this program, New York conducted a state-wide survey of industrial chemical use. The state expanded fisheries re- search in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. Minnesota The drought of 1976-1977 intensified Minnesota's efforts to allocate water among various uses. The state revised previously es- tablished guidelines and started to compile state-wide data on groundwater which will help ensure wise allocation of water. The state also provided funds to local soil and water conservation dis- tricts to share the cost of soil and water conservation. Minnesota continued the preparation of a state-wide water and related land resources plan. Wisconsin Wisconsin'sjust-completed outdoor recreation plan is a guide to maintaining high-quality outdoor recreation in the face of ever- increasing recreation demands. Major recommendations of the plan deal with regulating conflicts among various uses of Wisconsin waters, maintaining or rehabilitating water quality, and providing an increasing variety of trails. Lake restoration projects under Wis- consin's four-year-old inland lake protection and rehabilitation program moved into full swing. Vr REPORT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 20 STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES 21 BALANCE SHEET-GENERAL FUND ................ 22 BALANCE SHEET-PLANT AND EQUIPMENT FUND. 22 STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ..... 23 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ............... 24 19 ICERMAN, JOHNSON & HOFFMAN Cer-tifiedPablic 24ccoantants 303 NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST BUILDING rit. L. JOHNSON, C - P. A. ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104 OFFICES C. A. HOFFMAN, C. P. A. (313) 769-6200 ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN J, S. BURTTj C. P. HOWELL, MICHIGAN C. J. MOREHOUSE 7 C. P. A. ALLEGAN,MICHIGAN D. B. 3300TH, JR.,C. P. A. J. R. SUITS, C. P. A. D. L. BREDERNITZ, C. P. A. u. P. WAGNBR,JR.,C. P. A. C. W. DUNBAR, C. P. A Great Lakes Basin Commission 3475 Plymouth Road P.O. Box 999 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 We have examined the accompanying balance sheet for the General Fund and the Plant and Equipment Fund of the Great Lakes Basin Commission as of September 30, 1977 and the related statements of revenue and expenditures and changes in fund balance for the year then ended. Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. The comparative financial statements for the fifteen month period ended September 30, 1977 have not been audited by us but were taken from the unqualified opinion audit report for that period issued by other certified public accountants. In our opinion, the financial statements mentioned above present fairly the financial position of the Great Lakes Basin Commission at September 30, 1977 and 1976, and the results of its operations and change in its fund balances for the years then ended, in conformity with generally accepted ac- counting principles applied on a consistent basis. Ann Arbor, Michigan November 14,1977 20 STATEMENTS OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES Year ended September 30, 1977 and Fifteen Month Period ended September 30, 1976 Fifteen Year Ended Months Ended September 30, 1977 September 30, 1976 Revenue Federal Government agencies: Operations $ 479,000 $ 254,725 Other 476,715 540,976 Return of funds (Note 5) (232,947) -0- State Governments: Operations 240,000 300,000 Other 17,500 46,900 Other 20,488 31,252 Total revenue 1,000,756 1,173,853 Expenditures Salaries and fringe benefits: Salaries and wages 545,019 642,550 Payroll taxes 34,644 39,334 Retirement 24,624 24,887 Health and life insurance 29,898 28,778 634,18 735,549 Other Expenditures: Travel 41,128 47,849 Rent 55,752 66,895 Communications 12,924 14,781 Postage 5,204 4,542 Meetings and conferences 6,607 4,715 Insurance 2,611 2,887 Repairs and maintenance 2,030 4,632 Printing and reproduction 98,568 176,653 Professional services 9,322 5,310 Subcontracted services 36,251 175,894 Other services 35,539 38,334 Supplies 15,897 22,415 Books, maps, and periodicals 3,038 3,911 Furniture and equipment 5,482 16,317 Miscellaneous 1,156 702 331,50 585,837 Total expenditures 965,69 1,321,386 Excess of revenues (expenditures) 1_15@062 7533) See notes to financial statements 21 BALANCE SHEETS-GENERAL FUND September 30, 1977 and 1976 -1977 1976 Assets CURRENT ASSETS Cash on deposit in United States Treasury: Restricted: Maumee River Basin Study $ 614 $ 28,283 National Water Assessment 49,342 78,734 Unrestricted 29,206 (16,393) Petty cash. 79,16 90,62 100 100 Accounts receivable: Grants receivable-U.S. Government 47,300 24,000 Grants receivable-States 73,900 45,900 Grants receivable-States past due (Note 2) 31,125 44,300 Federal government agencies (including unbilled $39,760, 1977; $79,904,1976) 74,364 105,972 Other 18,544 1,398 Allowance for uncollectible accounts (5,000) (5,00 -240,233 216,570 Advances and deposits -15,476 10,415 Liabilities, Deferred Revenue and Fund Balance Jjjj@971 [email protected] CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable $ 37,928 $ 63,122 Unearned revenue (Note 5) 32,947 4,393 Retirement plan payments withheld and accrued 2,658 2,056 Accrued annual leave 54,785 49,524 Accrued sick leave 3,427 3,416 Reserve for unemployment costs 9,668 13,327 -141,413 135,838 DEFERRED REVENUE-GRANTS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE 18,925 42,300 FUND BALANCE Major restricted funds: Maumee River Basin Study 614 28,283 National Water Assessment 49,342 78,734 Balance for operations: Reserve for Publishing of Framework Study -0- 41,285 Reserve for future operations (deficit) 124,677 (8,731) 174,633 139,571 See notes to financial statements. 11IL971 11IL709 BALANCE SHEETS-PLANT AND EQUIPMENT FUND September 30, 1977 and 1976 1977 1976 Assets Furniture, equipment and library books (Note 1): Furniture and equipment $75,917 $70,435 Library books 15,305 15,305 12L222 IL.740 Fund Balance J@j @222 M1740 Statements of Changes in Fund Balance Year ended September 30,1977 and fifteen month period ended September 30, 1976 Balance, beginning $85,740 $69,423 Appropriations from unrestricted General Fund revenues 5,482 16,317 Balance, ending 12j,222 740 ja@._ See notes to financial statements. 22 STATEMENTS OF CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE Year ended September 30, 1977 and Fifteen Month Period ended September 30, 1976 GENERAL FUNDS RESTRICTED FUNDS Publishing of Publishing of Maumee National Fox-Wolf Future Framework Framework River Water River Operations Study Study Basin Stud Assessment Basin Study Total Fifteen month period ended September 30, 1976: Balance beginning of period 8,295 $58,249 $ -0- $45,705 $64,298 $ -0- $ 176,547 Revenue 185,236 -0- 5,702 -0- 28,000 218,938 Expenditures (202,262) -0- (22,666) (17,422) (13,564) (255,914) Fund transfers -0- (16,964) 16,964 -0- -0- -0- Balance (deficit) end of period $ (8,731) $41,285 $ -0- $28,283 $78,734 $ -0- $ 139,571 Year ended September 30, 1977: Balance (deficit) beginning of period $ (8,731) $41,285 $ -0- $28,283 $78,734 $ -0- $ 139,571 Revenue 892,678 12,525 -0- 28,500 67,053 1,000,756 Expenditures (759,270) (53,810) (27,669) (57,892) (67,053) (965,694) Fund transfers -0- -0- -0- Balance end of period $ 124,677 $ -0- $ -0- $ 614 $49,342 $ -0- $ 174,633 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS September 30, 1977 Significant Accounting Policies Effective September 30,1976 the Commission changed from a fiscal year endingjune 30 to a fiscal year ending September 30. This change was made to conform to a similar change made by the Federal Government. The accounting records of the Commission are maintained on the accrual basis of ac- counting. Accordingly,- revenue is recognized over the fiscal period of the Commission rather than the fiscal periods of the funding agencies. Furniture, equipment and library books have been recorded in the Plant and Equipment Fund at cost. No provision for depreciation has been provided. The Commission is exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is treated as an organization which is not a private foundation. The salary, expenses and related fringe benefits of the Commission Chairman are pro- vided by the Water Resources Council and these costs are not included in the financial statement. Grants Receivable-Past Due Amounts 5= 1977 1976 Illinois $23,900 28,600 Ohio 7,225 New York 2,200 Wisconsin 13,500 tj!J25 44,300 Lease Commitments The Commission leases its office facilities under an agreement which requires annual rental payments of $55,752 and expires October 9, 1978. The Commission also leases an automobile under an agreement which requires annual rental payments of $2,160 and expires March 27, 1978. Pension Plan The Commission has a pension plan for most of its employees. After one year of em- ployment the Commission will match the employees contribution to a maximum of seven percent of gross wages. Contribution made by the Commission for the year ended Sep- tember 30, 1977 amounted to $24, 624. Return of Grant Funds During the year ended September 30, 1977 the Commission received $300,000 in grants for the Fox-Wolf River Basin Study. When it was determined the study would no longer take place, $200,000 was refunded to the Water Resources Council. At September 30, 1977 there is an unrefunded balance of $32,947 included in unearned revenue. lHolf Qj? 171QWVjHC'@12HQ)H1_P1_D_D CQ@ Illinois Andy Kozak, Alternate Commissioner Dr. Leo M. Eisel, Commissioner (to 5/77) Staff Assistant to the Governor Illinois Department of Transportation Joseph Sizer, Alternate Commissioner Don Vormahme, Commissioner (5/77) Minnesota State Planning Agency Illinois Department of Transportation Don Rye, Alternate Commissioner (11/76) Peter Wise, Alternate Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Illinois Department of Transportation New York Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner Indiana New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation William]. Watt, Commissioner Executive Assistant to the Governor John A. Finck, Alternate Commissioner William J. Andrews, Alternate Commissioner New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Indiana Department of Natural Resources Ohio Ned E. Williams, Commissioner Michigan State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency William D. Marks, Commissioner (to 2/77) Dr. Robert W. Teater, Alternate Commissioner Michigan Department of Natural Resources Ohio Department of Natural Resources O.J. Scherschlight, Commissioner (2/77) . Carl A. Wilhelm (11/76) Michigan Department of Natural Resources State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency William D. Marks, Alternate Commissioner (2/77) Pennsylvania Michigan Department of Natural Resources C.H. McConnell, Commissioner Minnesota Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Archie Chelseth, Commissioner (to 5/77) Vernon M. Beard, Alternate Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Rf!sources 24 Wisconsin Federal Power Commission Lester P. Voigt, Commissioner (to 8/77) (renamed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Lenard B. Young, Commissioner (to 11/76) Anthony S. Earl, Commissioner (8/77) Federal Power Commission Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bernard D. Murphy, Commissioner (2/77) Rahim Oghalai, Alternate Commissioner Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Orel E. Haukedahl, Alternate Commissioner (to 5/77) Michael Ley, Alternate Commissioner (8/77) Federal Power Commission Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Clifford L. Emmerling, Alternate Commissioner (5/77) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of Agriculture Arthur H. Cratty, Commissioner U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Soil Conservation Service Don Morrow, Commissioner David Mussulman, Alternate Commissioner Region V, HUD Soil Conservation Service Harry P. Blus, Alternate Commissioner Region V, HUD U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Department of the Interior Brigadier General Robert L. Moore, Commissioner (to 11/77) Warren E. Hofstra, Alternate Commissioner (to 2/77) Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division North Central Region Colonel Andrew C. Remson, Jr., Commissioner (11/77) Madonna F. McGrath, Commissioner (2/77) Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division North Central Region Louis D'Alba, Alternate Commissioner Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division U.S. Department ofjustice Peter R. Taft, Commissioner (11/76) Colonel Harlan W. Johnson, Alternate Commissioner Land and Natural Resources Division Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division Bruce Rashkow, Alternate Commissioner (11/76) Colonel Melvyn D. Remus, Alternate Commissioner Land and Natural Resources Division Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Commerce Dr. Herbert Spielman, Commissioner James P. Stirling, Commissioner (to 11/76) Office of Environmental Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce Scott Gudgeon, Alternate Commissioner Loren A. Wittner, Commissioner (8/77) Office of Legal Advisor U.S. Department of Commerce Karl K. Jonietz, Alternate Commissioner Dr. Eugene J. Aubert, Alternate Commissioner Office of Canadian Affairs National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Dr. Gordon G. Lill, Alternate Commissioner Honorable David W. Oberlin, Commissioner National Ocean Survey St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Vernon C. Palmer, Alternate Commissioner (to 11/7 7) Commander Charles R. Corbett, Alternate Commissioner Maritime Administration U.S. Coast Guard Dr. Arthur P. Pinsak, Alternate Commissioner David C.N. Robb, Alternate Commissioner Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rear Admiral James S. Gracey, Alternate Commissioner George R. Alexanderj r., Commissioner (to 8/77) U.S. Coast Guard EPA Region V Rear Admiral Robert H. Scarborough, Harlan D. Hirt, Alternate Commissioner Alternate Commissioner (8/77) U.S. Coast Guard EPA Region V Great Lakes ICommission Henry L. Longest 11, Alternate Commissioner Robert T. Scott, Commissioner EPA Region V Colonel Leonardj. Goodsell, Alternate Commissioner (to 8/77) U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration Canadian Representatives Walter G. Belter, Commissioner Ray Robinson (Federal) Regional Studies Program Environment Canada Donald Gardiner, Alternate Commissioner William A. Steggles (Provincial) Technical Support Division, Chicago Ontario Ministry of the Environment NOTE: If starting or termination date occurred during FY 1977, date is listed. Starting date stands alone; termination date is preceded by to. N CTR L111RARY Great Lakes Basin Commission PostaSe artI Great Lakes Ba'i" C11@11 11 01@ IRS 3475 Plymouth Road 3 6668 14111249 2 Post Office Box 999 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Official Business Penallyfor hivate Use $300 OC007OG OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MGT NOAAt DEPT OF COMMERCE 11400 ROCKVILLE PIKE ROCKVILLE MD 20852 GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION Lee Botts, Chairman Members State of Illinois State of Indiana State of Michigan State of Minnesota State of New York State of Ohio Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State of Wisconsin Great Lakes Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of justice U.S. Department of State U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency imp 313/668-2300 ITS: 378-2300