[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
FCoastal Zone"" Information Center WW-W 40% #00 4'i J 0% CUTIVIE" Ar SAW L ES:,,BASIN CTB 1627 MEWORK STU .G8 U515 1977 contenti tablai Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Great Lakes Basin: Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Frame- Basin Problems and Recommendations for work,1980,2000,2020 . . . . . . . . 3 their Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 General Recommendations . . . . . . . . 4 2 Great Lakes Basin Resource Problems Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Matrix . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Lake Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Identified Proposed Framework Capital Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Costs, Great Lakes Basin . . . . . . . 6 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Land Use and Management . . . . . . . 12 4 Identified Proposed Framework Opera- Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 tion, Maintenance, and Replacement Shorelands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Costs, Great Lakes Basin . . . . . . . 7 Implementation of Recommendations . . . 16 5 Power Development, Great Lakes Basin Great Lakes Basin Plan . . . . . . . . . 16 by State, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Responsibility for Implementation . . . 16 Institutional Problems . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 Cargo Carried on the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels by Area, 1959- Framework Study Report: Review 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7 Recreational Boating Use in the Great Lakes Basin by Lake Basin . . . . . . 11 8 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Data for the Great Lakes Basin by State, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9 Water Area and Land Use, by Plan Area 12 10 Acres of Farm and Forest Game Habitat f igurei in the Great Lakes Region by State, 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11 Great Lakes Shoreline Use, Ownership, 1 Great Lakes Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 and Condition by State, 1970 . . . . . 15 2 Factors of Water Supply to the Lakes, Average Values for October 1950-Sep- tember 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Published by the Public Information Office, Great Lakes Basin Commission, 3475 Plymouth Road, P.O. Box 999, Ann Arb7or, Michigan 48106. Printed in 1977. Cover photo by Kristine Moore Meves. Y -71q introduction The Great Lakes lie approximately at the center latter three responsibilities. Work on this plan of the North American continent and provide an was therefore begun immediately. The initial abundant water supply, a transportation network, step, utilizing existing data, was an exhaustive and recreational opportunities to thousands of survey of Basin water and related land resources square miles of continental interior (Figure 1). and their uses, problems, possible solutions, and Intense and diverse uses of the Great Lakes and projected future needs (Table 1). other water and related land resources in the This survey is the Great Lakes Basin Frame- Basin, however, have resulted in resource deple- work Study. The ultimate purpose of the Fra m-e- tion and damage which can be mitigated only work Study was to develop a framework, or basic by proper planning. plan, for meeting future water needs. The major During the late 1960s, in light of projected objective that guided framework formation was population growth and economic expansion, it improvement of the quality of life, with emphasis became evident to the Great Lakes Basin states on enhancing national economic development by that further resource utilization must be carefully continuation of past economic trends as modified planned to maintain water quality and quantity by present conditions. The resulting framework, adequate to meet the physical, economic, and called the Normal Framework, was then revised aesthetic needs of the Basin's population. It was to reflect to the extent practicable the desires also evident that effective planning for such a of the citizens and governmental units of the large, hydrologically and socially complex and Basin for maintenance of a high-quality environ- interrelated system could not occur through the ment and for regional economic development. The isolated actions of federal, state, and local organi- synthesis of these revisions is the Proposed zations in the Basin. Coordinated effort would Framework, which, together with public com- be imperative. Thus, in accordance with Public ment, is the basis of the Framework Study recom- Law 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Act mendations presented on the following pages. of 1965, the Great Lakes Basin Commission was These recommendations specify the actions that established on April 20, 1967, at the request of the Great Lakes Basin Commission proposes be five Basin states, with the concurrence of the supported by the President and Congress and other three. by the Governors and legislatures of the Great As set forth by this federal mandate, the Basin Lakes states. Commission's duties are fourfold. It is the primary coordinator of all federal, state, interstate, local, Implementation of the recommended studies and nongovernmental planning for water and and programs will constitute the initial actions related land resources. It must prepare and keep resulting from the Great Lakes Basin Plan. Study current a comprehensive coordinated joint plan findings and program accomplishments will then the Great Lakes Basin Plan. It must recommQ be added to the Plan, expanding its base of long-range schedules of priorities for collecting information and enabling determination of what and analyzing data and for investigating, plan- further studies and programs are needed. ning, and constructing projects. And it may un- This executive summary presents the problems dertake special studies that will augment the identified in the Framework Study, the recom- available information on water and related land mendations in full, and a discussion of institu- resources. tional and other considerations involved in The comprehensive Basin Plan is necessary for Framework Study implementation and future the adequate fulfillment of the Commission's planning. VYnperty of CSC Library 1 S LEGDID ------- GrBat lk. B-@, D, ----------- Subboxins FA f/ SubbaxLn -mbr tz MINNESOTA LAKE SUPERIOR --------- ------ I I sopmr ONTARIO STATUTE MIL MICH lr?AN-- St. MA,,, Bit- AV ------ At-.- R- .1w BAY lE(tRGlI WISCON A. S,,,,3 LAKE@URON Grm '01 Bay @h, S- & I N ONTARIO r-> L CANA_DA - 'fEb STATES S-P Bol. G-d bpd 2 St. Cl- Rat- wiscomsIN NE Ok Aitim Abo DOT* St. cls, J km taw :mcago I ILLINOIS 4 @f - oAkm Fan W-y W 52 1 N D I A N A Limao 0 H 10 TABLE I Great Lakes Basin: Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework, 1980, 2000, 2020 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N a % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILL:ON GALLONS PER DAY 4,300 870 1,030 over 2,810 29990 over 59400 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLON GALLONS PER DAY 10,60() 1,770 695 62 4,670 3,500 75 10,300 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 471 64.0 58.7 92 179 162 91 267 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 661 324 684 83 1,570 1,320 84 2,460 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 780 148 124 84 450 350 78 965 THERMAL POWER COOLING 179200 8,210 89210 100 38,700 38,700 100 96,500 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,060 3,680 3,680 100 4,940 4,940 100 6,720 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 8,580 7,330 7,330 100 6,000 6,000 100 9,210 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 51,300 51,300 100 105,000 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 100,000 105,000 57,300 55 201,000 132,000 66 324,000 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 80,700 24,800 20,300 82 52,300 46,700 89 79,200 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 29,000 69820 2,470 36 12,500 69330 51 19,500 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 7,260 7,260 --- --- 7,260 --- --- 7,260 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 343 432 432 100 583 583 100 754 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 20,450 20,450 4,000 20 20,450 11,400 56 20,450 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 6,210 6,210 695 11 6,210 1,810 29 6,210 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 27,900 27,900 4,370 16 27,900 13,100 47 27,900 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 1,200 1,200 45.6 4 1,200 125 10 1,200 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 10,900 10,900 585 5 10,900 1,760 16 10,900 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1.,710 1,710 342 20 1,710 1,026 60 19710 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 222 230 78 34 240 139 58 251 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 46,300 67,100 52,200 78 118,000 103,000 87 190,000 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 2,570 2,560 532 21 2,560 921 36 2,550 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 14 ,200 78,000 6,580 37 24,200 119300 47 32,400 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 10DO ACRES 2,920 1,170 40 7,990 3,020 38 14,100 1000 USER DAYS 49,600 15,000 2,250 15 23,900 7,230 30 33,300 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 10DO ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 30.0 22.2 74 62.0 52.9 84 109 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 170 151 89 348 319 92 600 basin problemr & recommendationr for their solution The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study has Recommendations Concerning the U.S. identified problems of varying severity associated Great Lakes Basin for Action Under the with practically all water and land resources and Auspices of the Great Lakes Basin resource uses (Table 2). The problems include Commission water pollution, lake level regulation, heavy rec- (1) Accelerate the development of the next por- reational demands, unplanned land use, and in- tion of the Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan adequate coastal zone management. The following to ensure its completion by 1980 through (a) discussion of these problems and the Commis- utilizing to the maximum practicable extent na- sion's recommendations concerning them also tional assessments of water problems and needs, cover general recommendations pertaining to the and other federal, state, interstate, regional, local, Proposed Framework and to actions that should and non-governmental plans in a continuous be taken under the auspices of the Great Lakes planning process, and (b) adequately funding Basin Commission. more detailed studies conducted by the Commis- sion, including the following in order of recom- mended priority for federal funding and early action by the Commission: GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Cost Start Length Studies ($1,000) (F. Y.) (Years) Recommendation Concerning the Great Fox- Wolf River Basin Level B Lakes Basin Proposed Framework Study 830 1977 2 Great Lakes Regional Water Follow the Proposed Framework as an initial and Energy Study 875 1978 2 guide to the development of the water and related Great Lakes Environmental land resources of the Basin. Planning Study 2,100 1978 3 The Proposed Framework encompasses the features (2) Coordinate and support expanded data col- believed necessary to develop the water and related land lection and research programs necessary for im- resources of the Basin in an optimal manner. It builds proved management of the water and related land on the situation that existed in 1970, the base year. Costs resources of the Basin. have been estimated for most of the elements and indicate a capital investmentof $25 billion, aboutone-half of which (3) Foster and support a comprehensive study is federal (Table 3) and an expenditure for operation, of transportation needs and opportunities in the maintenance, and replacement of $47 billion, about 80 Great Lakes Basin and their implication for water percent of which is public non-federal (Table 4) in the resources in the Great Lakes Basin. 50years from 1970 to 2020. This translates into an annual (4) Foster or undertake appropriate additional per capita cost of $30 in the early 1970s and $8.50 in studies to provide the details necessary for devel- 2020 and an annual operation, maintenance, and re- opment of the Comprehensive Coordinated Joint placement cost of $16 in the early 1970s and $30 in 2020. Plan, and for authorization and construction of In view of the central importance of a high level of water projects. quality to the future of the Basin, the water quality management program represents the largest single invest- ment at $10 billion over the 50-year period, or 40 percent, ENERGY for municipal wastewater treatment facilities in order to The Great Lakes Basin is an attractive region meet the requirements of P.L. 92-500, the Federal Water for power plant development (Table 5). The Great Pollution Control Act as amended. To build new facilities and bring existing facilities up to current standards, Lakes provide abundant water for cooling and nearly one-half of this expenditure is projected for the are a transportation medium for fuel delivered first 10 years, resulting in the high per capita costs shown along the thousands of miles of Great Lakes for the early period. shoreline. Industrial and urban centers in and 4 TABLE 2 Great Lakes Basin Resource Problems Matrix Great Lakes Basin Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie U) U) to U) @4 @4 @4 co M 44 CU CU :3: LH .3t r_ - @4 W ca W cu z 1z Ca a) w r co ca @4 ra Q) W r M co o) W r. cli (13 (1) @4 Q) Q) @o @4 Q) s., 4j Q) o) > @4 :3 > z) > > 0. = 0 > " w 71 y 0 C) 0 0 04 _H 0 0 ::D Resource Use Categor- WATER WITHDRAWAL5 MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1 2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL I RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 1 1 IRRIGATION 1 1 MINING 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING I 1 1 - - - - 1 NION-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2 - 2 2 1 1 1 - - 2 - 2 - - 1 1 2 - 1 3 3 2 3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2 - 2 1 1 1 - - - 2 - 2 - - 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 - HYDROELECTRIC'POWER 1 - - 1 - I - 1 - I - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 2 - 2 2 2 1 1 1 - 1 2 - 3 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 2 - 2 2 2 SPORT FISHING 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 - I - 1 - 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 2 - 2 2 2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 - - 1 1 2 1 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 2 - 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING 1 - - - 1 1 - - 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1 2 - 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - 1 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS LAND USE 2 3 2 3 2 - 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 - - 3 3 1 - 3 2 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1 - I - I - - 1 - I - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 2 - - 2 - CROPLAND DRAINAGE I - 2 1 1 - - 1 1 1 - 2 - 1 - - 1 - 2 - 2 2 1 FOREST LAND TREATMENT I - 1 - - 1 - 2 - I - I - - 1 - - - - - - SHORELAND EROSION 1 2 1 - - - 1 2 - 2 1 - - - 2 1 - - - 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 1 1 - 1 1 - I - 1 2 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - 2 - FLOOD PLAINS 2 - 2 2 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - 2 2 1 1 - 1 1 - 2 - 3 3 3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2 - 2 2 3 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 3 3 - 3 3 2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1 - 2 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 - - 1 1 2 - 2 1 2 OUTDOOR RECREATION 2 - 2 1 - 2 - - - - I - 2 1 1 1 - - 1 - 2 - 2 1 2 Legend: 3 Severe--Demands immediate attention 2 Moderate--Of major concern; potentially serious I Minor--Not considered a serious problem - Problem is insignificant or not known TABLE 3 Identified Proposed Framework Capital Costs, Great Lakes Basin ($1,000,000) (1970 Prices)' 2 1971-19W 1981-21M ZWI-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private T.Ul Fedwal - Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed PH WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 125.6 293.0 0 418.6 204.0 476.0 0 680.0 274.8 641.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 57.5 57.5 0 0 232.7 232.7 0 0 39 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.3 0 2.3 2.6 0.5 0 4.1 4.6 0.4 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 20.1 20.1 0 0 17.0 17.0 0 0 2 MINING 0 0 6.2 6.2 0 0 11.6 11.6 0 0 2 THERMAL POWER COOLING 3 0 14.4 272.7 287.1 0 54.2 1032.1 1086.3 0 101.1 192 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 4 3588.0 1196.0 0 4784.0 2186.2 728.8 0 2915.0 1970.2 656.8 SPORT FISHING 26.7 45.3 0 72.0 19.1 22.1 0 41.2 28.6 33.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 95.4 95.4 81.2 272.0 142.8 142.9 122.3 408.0 122.0 121.9 10 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 295.6 0 0 295.6 1386.6 0 0 1386.6 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 40.9 0 105.3 146.2 76.9 0 197.6 274.5 46.7 0 12 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 36.2 0 84.4 120.6 60.8 0 141.9 202.7 39.0 0 9 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 150.4 9.4 28.2 188.0 301.6 18.9 56.5 377.0 300.0 18.8 5 SHORELAND EROSION 5.7 0 22.1 27.8 9.2 0 36.7 45.9 9.2 0 3 STREAMBANK EROSION 5.3 0 13.9 19.2 16.3 0 41.4 57.7 26.9 0 69 FLOOD PLAINS-URBANS 410.7 0 136.7 547.4 297.3 0 98.8 396.1 84.8 0 2 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 12.1 109.1 0 121.2 22.5 202.1 0 224.6 21.2 190.7 0 OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 252.8 469.6 0 722.4 297.0 551.5 0 848.5 253.9 471.5 TOTAL 5045.7 2232.2 830.6 8108.5 5020.8 2196.5 1992.7 9210.0 3177.7 2235.6 2864 Some of these costs are presently being incurred through expenditures for programs now underway programs for water quality management accelerated under P.L. 92-500. The Federal obligations f pose in FY 1974 were estimated to be $488 million. Costs were not estimated for all the elements considered and evaluated in the Framework. The t consulted for details. 3 Water withdrawal costs only. Does not include secondary cooling facilities, etc. 4 Does not include private costs for industry treatment of water for reuse or discharge. 5 Some of these costs are associated with alleviating rural flood damages; however these are a re small part of the total cost, and the basic cost data did not permit distinguishing between urb TABLE 4 Identified Proposed Framework Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Great Lakes Ba (1970 Prices)' 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Priva WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 192.0 0 192.0 0 1,224.3 0 1,224.3 0 2,713.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 53.5 53.5 0 0 704.7 704.7 0 0 2,015 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 8.3 8.3 0 0 56.9 56.9 0 0 103 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 16.3 16.3 0 0 26 MINING 0 0 7.8 7.8 0 0 61.4 61.4 0 0 139 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 3.7 70.1 73.8 0 42.1 800.6 842.7 0 121.6 2,309 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 4,108.7 0 4,108.7 0 9,955.0 0 9,955.0 0 16,223.9 SPORT FISHING 9.4 12.6 0 22.0 21.0 33.2 0 54.2 29.0 42.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 62.9 62.9 0 0 432.0 432.0 0 0 772 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 36.0 0 0 36.0 438.2 0 0 438.2 732.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 31.9 31.9 0 0 50 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 0 25.2 25.2 0 0 38 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.5 1.0 3.3 4.8 4.3 8.6 30.1 43.0 7.0 14.1 49 SHORELAND EROSION 0.5 0 2.2 2.7 4.0 0 16.3 20.3 7.8 0 31 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 17.8 17.8 0 0 49 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 0.1 1.1 0 1.2 0.5 8.9 0 9.4 0.6 11.6 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 6.0 0 6.0 0 11.2 0 11.2 0 11.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 29.5 117.7 0 147.2 203.3 813.1 0 1,076.4 357.6 1,429.4 TOTAL 76.0 4,442.8 219.3 4,738.1 671.3 12,096.4 2,193.2 14,960.9 1 134.4 20,568.1 5,586 1These costs include the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of plant constructed by the capital costs shown in Table 1. They do not incl OM&R costs of existing facilities, for example the present navigation facilities, or for facilities for which capital costs were not estimated. 8 Executive Summary TABLE 5 Power Development, Great Lakes Basin by State, 1970 Installed Capacity (MW) Steam-Electric Hydro- Thermal Non- Fossil Nuclear Water State electrici Condensing2 Steam Steam Total Withdrawal (mgd) Illinois 0 113 1,068 0 1,181 580 Indiana 11 106 2,831 0 2,948 1,562 Michigan 285 1,148 9,932 145 11,510 6,149 Minnesota 83 8 307 0 398 250 New York 3,544 45 2,732 1,159 7,480 3,109 Ohio 0 188 4,388 0 4,576 3,400 Pennsylvania 0 4 119 0 123 144 Wisconsin 144 132 3,796 524 4,596 2,044 TOTAL 4,067 1,744 25,173 1,828 32,812 17,238 lConventional hydroelectric except 240 MW pumped storage in New York. 21nternal combustion and gas turbine. around the Basin provide a market for the energy reconciliation of the growing demands for electri- produced. A large quantity of power is presently cal power with ecological and environmental val- produced in the Basin, supplying the Basin's needs ues. To aid in this reconciliation, the Great Lakes and providing for some needs outside the Basin. Basin Commission recommends the following: It is expected that demands for electrical energy (1) Support studies by state and federal agencies from both inside and outside the Basin will and other power interests of hydroelectric power increase with population growth and industrial projects and other alternative sources of energy, expansion. including their economic, environmental, and so- Although water withdrawals for electrical en- cial impacts and costs. ergy production are expected to increase 5'/2 (2) Develop policies to reduce energy problems times by 2020, the major difficulties associated through proper management of water and related with energy production are not water supply, but land resources, including the early accomplish- water quality and overall environmental quality. ment of the Great Lakes Regional Water and There is concern about the local and lakewide Energy Study. effects of elevated temperature in power plant (3) Foster energy conservation as a basic policy discharges, and the attraction of fish to heated for the reduction of energy problems. discharges and the interactive effects of tempera- ture, chlorine, copper, and other effluent compo- NAVIGATION nents on fish and other organisms are areas of The vast Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River sys- active research. The significance of fish mortali- tem is a unique and valuable transportation route, ties, including those caused by power plant cooling stretching 2,342 miles eastward from America's systems, is still being determined in laboratory grain and iron ore producing heartland, past and field research studies. The natural beauty major industrial centers and on to the Atlantic of a locality may be spoiled and the air polluted Ocean. By linking the midcontinent with eastern by burning fossil fuels. The introduction of nu- cities and the seacoast, the Great Lakes signifi- clear power plants is opposed by those who fear cantly influence economic development and help the possibility of radioactive waste emissions, maintain economic health in the Region and accidents destructive to human life, or unsafe nation (Table 6). waste disposal. The great potential of this water highway is The crucial problem facing the Great Lakes only partially realized. Only a fraction of the cargo Basin in the area of energy production is the passing through the Great Lakes Region is Basin Problems and Recommendations 9 TABLE 6 Cargo Carried on the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels by Area, 1959-1973 (million tons) Area 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Lake Superior 60.3 81.8 68.9 70.0 72.7 77.9 78.7 85.3 75.4 76.5 85.3 78.7 71.6 75.6 92.0 St. Marys River 65.9 86.6 74.2 74.5 77.4 83.7 81.3 87.3 77.9 78.7 88.1 81.1 75.9 79.7 97.6 Lake Michigan including the 81.5 92.0 85.4 85.1 107.4 117.7 117.5 125.9 124.6 120.7 125.5 131.1 121.3 122.9 124.5 Port of Chicago I Lake Huron 106.4 126.0 113.8 114.9 122.7 136.7 138.9 148.0 136.0 138.5 144.5 141.3 130.8 135.5 155.4 St, Clair River, including 78.9 97.2 84.6 87.2 93.0 103.5 107.0 113.9 101.0 107.1 109.3 109.2 102.9 106.5 118.9 Channels in Lake St. Clair Detroit River 92.6 111.2 96.2 100.0 107.2 120.3 124.5 129.2 118.5 122.6 122.8 125.6 115.7 119.0 131.7 Lake Erie, including Upper 100.7 114.9 101.0 107.4 120.2 134.5 140.6 147.5 136.6 143.2 142.7 142.7 129.9 132.6 147.4 Niagara River Welland Canal 21.0 21.7 21.5 27.5 31.1 38.9 40.6 43.8 41.7 46.6 43.4 45.7 43.3 44.0 49.5 Lake Ontario, including 21.4 22.1 21.7 28.0 33.1 38.8 41.0 43.1 41.0 47.1 45.0 45.1 42.9 43.5 49.8 Lower Niagara River St. Lawrence River2 12.5 12.0 12.8 16.3 19.4 25.6 27.7 29.5 27.9 33.1 27.7 30.9 30.4 30.6 37.4 Net United States traffic on 184.3 209.5 213.3 217.5 231.7 217.3 221.8 225.9 228.2 208.8 214.0 231.9 the Great Lakes 'This area includes Chicago Harbor, North Branch, South Branch, Sanitary Ship Canal, Calmet-Sag Canal, Calmer Harbor and River, and Lake Calmet. 21ncludes the portion of the River between the International Boundary Line and Lake Ontario. shipped on the Great Lakes. Major difficulties Lakes respond to both natural and artificial fac- encountered by navigation are ice and channel tors (Figure 2). Variations in precipitation and depths and lock widths that do not accommodate evaporation influence long-term fluctuations. today's larger vessels used in international ship- Wind, barometric pressure differentials over the ping. It is possible to ease these navigational Lakes, ice and the variance of river outflows cause constraints, but some of the solutions may be short-term fluctuations. A few diversions, channel environmentally harmful. There is great concern alterations and regulatory works constitute the about shore damage from lake traffic and about present artificial controls. bottom disruption and wetland destruction re- Intensified interest in lake levels, resulting sulting from channel dredging and dredge mate- from unusually high and low lake levels since rial disposal. Careful planning and thoughtful the early 1960s, together with increased use of actions are necessary to reconcile the interests the lakes or the shoreline for living, recreation, of navigation with those of the environment and industry, and navigation, has generated diverse to provide Basin residents with the best possible and sometimes conflicting proposals for lake level solutions. To help solve these problems, the Great regulation. The international ef fects of lake levels Lakes Basin Commission recommends the follow- add to the delicacy of decisions about lake level ing: regulation. (1) Continue the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Studies are underway to further increase un- Seaway Navigation Season Extension Demon- derstanding of the natural causes of lake level stration Project until the technical, economic, and fluctuation, to improve forecasting techniques, environmental feasibility, or lack thereof, of sea- and to determine the effects of various lake level son extension has been determined for all parts regulation plans. To help expand knowledge of of the system, and investigate related programs lake level phenomena and their effects, the Great having significant impacts on navigation. Lakes Basin Commission recommends the follow- (2) Modify and deepen navigation harbors, ing: consistent with findings of need and with the (1) Foster or undertake Great Lakes level studies current 27-foot depth navigation system, consider- and lake level control studies through the Interna- ing environmental quality and economic effi- tional Joint Commission, giving emphasis to state ciency. and local involvement and considering benefits, costs, and environmental effects of: (a) the LAKE LEVELS proposed plan to regulate Lakes Superior, Erie, Great Lakes levels affect the extent of flooding, and Ontario (SEO-17P) employing existing works shoreline erosion, and shoreline property damage; and additional controlled outflow capacity pro- wetland acreage; depth of navigation channels; vided through the Black Rock Canal to the Nia- and hydroelectric power output. The levels of the gara River, using a new objective for regulating 10 Executive Summary 0 CONSTANT LEVE 00 10 11 0 74 51 g CONSTANT LEVEL a 0 z 1.4,V, 50 78 C. @z 0 _Z IT -_" CONSTANT LEVEL 0 'OZ '09 8 26 26 LONG LAKE, LAKE SUPERIOR OC _P0 25 LAKE MICH. 0 44 90 HURON .7 205 78 OUTFLOW 7.0 ERIE 3 z 0 0 LAKE MICH-HURON LAKE ERIE 0 ;0 0. CHICAGO DIVERSIONS :ONSTANT EL 1 34 z LAKE 0 O@TAOIO 251 OUTFLOW Notes: 205 To THE S___@ EA Outflows adju Sted so that supplies to the lakes equal w Ithrila,als, i.e., to condition of no WELLAND DIVERSION change on lake storage. Figures on sketch are thousands of cfs. 7 LAKE ONTARIO FIGURE 2 Factors of Water Supply to the Lakes, Average Values for October 1950-September 1960 the levels of Lake Superior, (b) constraints on lake politan areas. Competing land uses, high costs regulation downstream from Lake Ontario in the of recreational development, conflicting public St. Lawrence River; and (c) alternative means by opinion about developments, and congestion are which such constraints can be met or modified. some of the problems federal, state, and local decisionmakers face. The Great Lakes Basin RECREATION Commission recommends the following: The Basin's lakes, streams, parks, harbors, and other recreational resources provide both resi- (1) Give high priority to development of land- dents and nonresidents with many opportunities based, water-oriented outdoor recreation facilities for outdoor recreational enjoyment (Table 7). The in and near large urban concentrations. resulting tourist industry has aided the Basin's (2) Encourage additional public access to pri- economy. As demands for these resources in- vate lands for recreational purposes, especially L M 0 'C S 1A N, 74 " @1, 57 crease, shoreland development and erosion, urban in the southern half of the Basin, through incentive sprawl, and waste disposal sometimes diminish programs, education of users and private land- their capacity and attractiveness. While most owners, and other methods. recreational waters and lands occupy the northern (3) Provide recreational boating harbors and portion of the Basin, most of the population dwells harbors of refuge where determined necessary and in the southern portion. There is a need for more agreed to in the Great Lakes. day use and weekend use facilities close to metro- (4) Encourage development of public facilities Basin Problems and Recommendations 11 TABLE 7 Recreational Boating Use in the Great Lakes Basin by Lake Basin Great Lakes Access Total Number of Boats (000s) Boat Days in Use (000s) Lake Basin Harbors Sitesi _@esident Non-Resident Inland Great Lakes Inland Great Lakes Superior 37 426 62.5 25.5 78.4 9.6 2,157.0 112.0 Michigan 96 NA 301.8 197.4 362.9 136.3 9,759.1 3,019.9 Huron 23 198 49.4 80.2 93.1 36.5 2,720.9 1,071.7 Erie 59 129 190.9 17.9 134.3 74.5 3,956.9 2,148.1 Ontario 29 42 104.0 33.1 91.5 45.6 2,698.1 1,327.9 Great Lakes Basin 244 708.6 354.1 760.2 302.5 21,294.0 7,679.6 NA--Not Available 'Includes only access sites to inland lakes. TABLE 8 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Data for the Great Lakes Basin by State, 1970 1970 Average Demand Source Gross Self-Su22lied Industrial Domestic & Source Great Inland Lakes Ground- Industrial Consumptive State Commerci"I Industrial Total Capacity Lakes & Streams Water Water Reg. Withdrawal Use Illinois 1,084.5 252.4 1,336.9 1,843.9 1,566.0 0 277.9 NA 1,348 100 Indiana 117.1 53.9 171.0 397.7 146.8 49.1 201.8 NA 3,251 285 Michigan 738.1 414.8 1,152.9 1,915.9 1,529.4 41.4 345.1 3,833 2,374 224 Minnesota 18.1 7.6 25.7 49.6 38.3 0.2 11.1 153 68 5 New York 435 200 635 909 539 268 102 1,062 1,187 99 Ohio 487 187 674 1,173 886 208 79 2,786 1,605 119 Pennsylvania 36 19 55 78 70 3 5 NA 145 12 Wisconsin 182.3 122.9 305.2 1,042.2 748.9 77.6 215.7 95 595 54 TOTAL 3,098.1 1,257.6 4,355.7 7,409.3 5,524.4 647.3 1,237.6 --- 10,575 898 NA--Not Available for recreation by demonstrating the potential for feedlot runoff and heavy cropland fertilization, recreation and fishing. To support such develop- and widespread commercial and recreational use ment, foster one or more federally funded research of the water surface contribute municipal wastes, and development projects on small watersheds in toxic chemicals and elements, phosphate and or near urban areas where water quality condi- nitrate nutrients to the Basin's waters. Dredge tions are being restored, material, heated water effluent, and wastes from watercraft also enter the waters. Extremely diffi- WATER QUALITY cult to control are nonpoint sources of pollution Water, vital to all life, is the Great Lakes which originate from urban construction and land Basin's most abundant resource and is used for management practices such as row cropping and such valuable purposes as municipal supply, in- clearcutting. dustrial and agricultural production and process- Although general public awareness of the dis- ing, navigation, and recreation. advantages of polluted water has resulted in The Great Lakes contain many times the pollution reduction through measures provided amount of water conceivably needed for munic- by federal and state legislation, much more must ipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Because be done to restore many of the Basin's waters inland distribution of this water is expensive, to acceptable conditions and prevent degradation many areas of the Basin rely on more limited of presently clean waters. The Great Lakes Basin inland surface-water or ground-water supplies Commission recommends the following actions: (Table 8). The quality of these and Great Lakes supplies must be maintained if they are to be Water Quality usable. (1) Continue to implement the planning and However, many Great Lakes Basin waters have management aspects of the waterpollution control been contaminated. Urban and industrial centers, program for meeting the goals of, and standards 12 Executive Summary TABLE 9 Water Area and Land Use, by Plan Area (Base Year 1966-1967) (thousands of acres) Rivers, Land Resource Base Lakes, and Total Urban Pasture Forest Plan Area Total Area' Embayments Land Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land Other Total 1.0 16,998.4 1,083.1 15,915.3 422.3 692.9 165.3 14,264.5 370.3 15,493.0 2.0 33,283.1 1,010.7 32,272.4 2,907.8 13,016.1 1,405.3 12,596.2 2,347.0 29,364.6 3.0 8,628.4 186.5 8,441.9 568.6 2,901.2 358.8 4,109.0 504.3 7,873.3 4.0 15,876.0 197.6 15,678.4 2,421.3 8,550.7 715.4 3,022.4 968.6 13,257.1 5.0 11,721.0 449.3 11,271.7 667.7 3,448.1 861.0 5,632.6 662.3 10,604.0 TOTAL 86,506.9 2,917.2 83,579.7 6,987.7 28,609.0 3,505.8 39,624.7 4,852@5 76,592.0 'Area measurement by county boundaries. developed pursuant to, the Federal Water Pollution LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT Control Act as amended in 1972 and the Great Approximately 38 percent of the Great Lakes Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Basin land area is in agricultural production. (2) Maintain a level of federal and state fund- Urban or built-up areas occupy more than 8 ing for construction grants for wastewater treat- percent of the land and are expected to increase. ment facilities adequate to meet national and The forests, which comprise over 47 percent of international commitments, and assurances of the Basin's land area, are subject to frequent, funding continuity. heavy use by recreationists and by logging opera- (3) Foster methods of reducing nonpoint-source tions (Table 9). pollution. This includes increased support for Two major problems are associated with land development and implementation of areawide use management. The most obvious is that some waste treatment management plans (Section 208 activities disturb the land or destroy its natural of P.L. 92-500). vegetative cover. This results in unsightliness, (4) Accelerate those aspects of implementation decreased usefulness of the land for many of P.L. 92-500, in addition to those above, and purposes, and degradation of water quality as state programs which facilitate the improvement soil and contaminants wash into streams and of the quality of waters of the Great Lakes. This lakes or seep into the ground water. Agricultural includes additional funding for research, demon- activities often expose the land to erosion by water stration, water quality surveillance and monitor- and wind and add fertilizers and pesticides to ing, implementation, and legislative amendments. the environment. Urban construction repeatedly (5) Undertake the Great Lakes Environmental exposes great patches of earth to erosion. Unre- Planning Study to provide for a major study of corded, abandoned oil, gas, and salt wells and water quality aspects in the Great Lakes. test wells may pollute surface and ground water. (6) Fosterstudies of environmentally hazardous Unreclaimed mined lands pollute the water with substances such as organic contaminants, mer- undesirable chemicals and silt. Heavy recrea- cury, and other heavy metals to assess their effects tional use of forested areas may damage the plant and persistence and to determine methods of cover, exposing the soil to erosion. Improper log- eliminating their introduction and reducing their ging activities have similar effects. Many acres concentration in the Lakes. of forest growing over previously cleared land (7) Support legislation for immediate ban of require proper management to adequately protect nonessential uses of polychlorinated biphenyls the soil. (PCBs), and a complete ban as soon as substitutes The second problem associated with land is the for essential uses are found. competition for land and the allocation of land among conflicting uses. In heavily populated and growing areas of the Basin and in areas where Waste Management natural resources are abundant, demand for land (1) Continue study of all aspects of waste dispo- is intense. More than one-third of the total and sal, including solid and liquid wastes, and accel- much of the best cropland in the Basin is in erate studies on the recovery of useful materials standard metropolitan statistical areas where it therefrom. will be in demand for urban expansion. With Basin Problems and Recommendations 13 increased urbanization comes a demand for more in states where approval has been granted. open space within the urban area. Demand for (3) Support reclamation of mined lands to abate recreational opportunities is growing as popula- pollution from them and to provide the opportunity tion, incomes, and leisure time increase. for as many varied future land uses as possible. Urban expansion often results in the loss of High priority consideration should be given to the available mineral-bearing land, as zoning ordi- opportunities of using mined lands for future nances and construction prevent access to sand, recreation and open space use. gravel, and stone deposits. Planning to preserve mineral-bearing lands for future production is Flooding impossible when the location of mineral deposits (1) Accelerate flood plain delineation and flood is not known. Demand for land has frequently elevation determination studies in emerging urban resulted in construction in flood plains, so that areas. high economic losses are experienced when flood- (2) Institute flood damage reduction using both ing occurs. structural and nonstructural measures. All of these problems illustrate the need for (3) Encourage nonstructural flood plain mea- land use planning that will allocate land among sures, such as purchase (including less than fee suitable uses to the greatest benefit of the people simple and purchase with lease backs) or zoning in the Basin. The Great Lakes Basin Commission of shoreland and flood plain areas, as priority recommends the following: measures for resolution of flood problems wherever feasible. Agricultural and Forest Land Treatment (1) Complete or update detailed soil surveys FISH AND WILDLIFE within the U.S. Great Lakes Basin, particularly The wide range of water and land habitats in in the Lake Erie basin. the Great Lakes Basin supports diversified fish (2) Accelerate soil and water conservation and wildlife populations (Table 10). Over the ages treatment programs including those to reduce these populations have evolved to fit the climate sedimentation for land now in agricultural use and habitat in which they live, and each species in the LakeErie basin and also in the northeastern has become an integral, necessary part of the Lake Michigan basin. These programs should food chain or natural balance. The loss of one include, when appropriate, federal cost sharing species or the introduction of an alien species and other incentives to private land owners. may result in severe imbalance among other (3) Accelerate forest land treatment programs species, and environmental change may cause a to maintain high quality forest, sustain continuous degradation or decline in fish or wildlife popula- timber production, continue multiple use, control tions. Therefore, a healthy, diverse fish and wild- surface and streambank erosion, and promote life population is of value as an indicator of a reforestation which will affect runoff, ground healthy environment. water, organic loadings, and water temperatures, In many parts of the Great Lakes and in the with emphasis in the northwestern and northeast- Basin, however, fish species diversity and ern Lake Michigan basins, northern Lake Huron numbers have been reduced by contamination of basin, and eastern Lake Ontario basin. water by municipal, industrial, and agricultural (4) Accelerate assistance to improve soil drain- pollutants. The balance of the fish population in age of active cropland, consistent with preserving the Great Lakes has also been disturbed by wetland, primarily in the Saginaw and Maumee invasion of exotic species, particularly the parisi- basins and in the northwestern and southwestern tic sea lamprey. While the number and diversity Lake Michigan basins. of fish species have declined, the demand for sport fishing has grown, further complicating the Mineral Deposits maintenance of a balanced population. (1) Determine locations, extents, and values of The most serious threat to wildlife is habitat mineral deposits in the Basin. These determi- loss and degradation due to human activities. nations are especially important in areas of rapid Urban and industrial expansion destroy wildlife growth where access to essential minerals may habitat. Clean-farming practices reduce the habi- be lost, recovery of mineral deposits impeded, or tat's ability to support varied wildlife species. Of implementation of community plans later encum- particular concern is the loss of wetlands, so bered by higher priority need for minerals. important to waterfowl as nesting and resting (2) Identify locations, extents, and values of places, due to dredging and filling for navigation, mineral deposits in the beds of the Great Lakes construction, and other purposes. 14 Executive Summary TABLE 10 Acres of Farm and Forest Game Habitat in the Great Lakes Region by State, 1960 Total Land Area Farm Habitat Forest Habitat Total Habitat State (in acres) Acres % of Total Land Acres % of Total Land Acres of Total Land Illinois 2,367,300 1,466,500 62 148,100 6 1,614,600 68 Indiana 3,635,300 2,811,800 77 364,800 10 3,176,600 87 Michigan 36,223,100 13,447,700 37 18,993,600 52 32,441,300 89 Minnesota 6,579,900 587,400 9 6,037,500 92 6,624,900 loll New York 13,822,500 6,788,000 49 5,527,900 40 12,315,900 89 Ohio 7,747,500 6,354,500 82 1,089,800 14 7,444,300 96 Pennsylvania 519,100 281,900 54 124,000 24 405,900 78 Wisconsin 12,685,000 5,506,500 44 6,003,200 47 11,509,700 91 TOTAL REGION 83,579,700 37,244,300 45 38s288,900 46 75,533,200 91 lTotal habitat probably includes some water areas excluded from "land" area. NOTE: The area of the land resource base, made up of the farmland and forest land, and reported elsewhere, is based on 1966-67 measurements and estimates. Habitat is based on 1960 information and estimates. In some instances changes in land use result in habitat being recorded as greater than the corresponding land base in the PSA or State. Thus, pollution abatement and land use plan- Canadian government, to attain an optimum yield ning, as well as wildlife management, are neces- based on the productive capacity of the Lakes. sary to preserve the Basin's fish and wildlife (7) Continue federal support of Great Lakes resources. Towards this end, the Great Lakes public access and harbor of refuge programs to Basin Commission recommends the following: provide access to the fishery resources. (1) Accelerate protection and management of all wetlands that are valuable for wildlife and SHORELANDS fishery habitat and other unique and critical The scenic beauty of many Great Lakes shore- wildlife habitat in the Basin through appropriate lands and use of their waters for recreation, supply, state and federal legislation. and commercial navigation make them the focus (2) Expand wildlife management extension ser- for many types of development (Table 11). Devel- vices, cost sharing, and other incentives to private opment, in turn, magnifies or creates shoreland landowners to encourage game habitat develop- problems. The most severe of these problems is ment and maintenance. shore erosion. Although erosion is a natural geo- (3) Provide increased federal and state support logic process, heavy economic losses are annually for fish population research, assessment, and incurred due to development which now covers analysis so that interstate and international Great 50 percent of the shore. Because 70 percent of Lakes programs will have a stronger data base the Great Lakes shore is composed of erodible for cooperative decisions on species introductions, materials, shore erosion is extensive and especial- fish stocking, available harvest, and commercial ly severe over extended reaches. Higher than and sport fishery regulations. average lake levels in recent years have aggra- (4) Insure that the Great Lakes fishery man- vated the problem. agement decisions are designed for maximum Other shoreland problems stemming from de- public benefit. velopment include shoreland alterations, water- (5) Increase international efforts to develop front blight, inefficient land use due to nonessen- comprehensive alternative programs of sea lam- tial and conflicting activities, lack of historic prey control to reduce dependence on the selective preservation, lack of public access, encroachment toxicant TFM as the primary control method in on wetlands, and sedimentation. order that the value of the Great Lakes fishery The 3,470 miles of United States mainland (hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue an- Great Lakes shore are a fragile resource subjected nually) is not solely dependent on this control to the pressure of many uses. Great care must method. be taken to see that the quality of the shorelands (6) Support the formulation and implementa- is preserved and that the shores serve the greatest tion of an accelerated fish restocking program benefit to the most people. Towards this end, the for the Great Lakes, closely coordinated among Great Lakes Basin Commission recommends the U.S. federal and state agencies and with the following: Basin Problems and Recommendations 15 TABLE 11 Great Lakes Shoreline Use, Ownership, and Condition by State, 1970 Great Lakes Shoreline Total IL IN Mi MN NY OH PA Wi USE Residential, commercial & industrial, public lands & buildings 1,362.4 33.5 27.9 687.5 68.8 188.1 128.1 24.8 203.7 Agricultural & undeveloped 583.6 0.6 0.1 282.3 11.0 134.3 16.4 11.9 127.0 Forest 1,134.4 0 0 900.0 69.7 0 3.5 0 160.3 Recreation (public) 334.8 30.9 17.0 125.3 24.2 38.1 33.6 11.6 54.1 Fish & wildlife wetlands 55.4 0 0 27.3 1.2 0 8.7 0 18.2 OWNERSHIP Federal 133.1 3.1 9.3 38.2 20.1 0 5.8 0 56.6 Non-Federal public 466.2 35.8 8.7 217.5 19.0 44.7 24.5 11.6 94.3 Private 2,871.3 26.1 27.0 1,767.6 135.7 315.8 150.0 36.7 412.4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION No problem 1,666.0 0 0 1,203.4 163.5 106.6 21.7 0 170.8 Critical erosion 203.9 10.5 13.0 103.8 0.5 16.8 14.3 6.0 39.0 Noncritical erosion 993.2 0 9.6 479.2 10.9 179.6 37.9 36.0 240.0 Subject to flooding 289.8 0 0 185.7 0 19.1 10.8 0 74.2 Protected 317.7 54.5 22.4 51.2 0 38.4 105.6 6.3 39.3 TOTAL SHORELAND MILEAGE Great Lakes 3,470.6 65.0 45.0 2,023.3 174.9 360.5 140.3 48.3 563.3 Other2 521.7 0 0 206.2 31.3 154.0 74.5 0 55.7 IMileages estimated for lake basins and States from tables and small scale maps in Great Lakes Region Inventory Report, National Shoreline Study, August 1971, and Appendix 12, Shore Use and Erosion, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study. 2"Other" includes: MI-St. Marys River 91.2 mi MN-Duluth Harbor 31.3 mi OH-Sandusky Bay St. Clair River 37.0 mi NY-Niagara River 39.0 mi 74.5 mi Lake St. Clair 47.0 mi St. Lawrence R. 115.0 mi WI-Superior Harbor Detroit River 31.0 mi 55.7 mi Shoreline and Streambank Erosion (4) Institute nonstructural methods of reducing (1) Support the preparation of a cooperative shore erosion damage in undeveloped areas-e.g., assessment of shore damages due to high water zoning and setback requirements-until suitable levels of the 1970s, that will provide a base of methods for structural protection have been dem- information for evaluating the economic justifica- onstrated. tion of damage reduction options. (5) Develop a technical assistance program co- (2) Continue study for early authorization of ordinated among appropriate agencies to stabilize the breakwater at Presque Isle, Pennsylvania, severe streambank erosion areas. recommended for beach protection by the Chief of Engineers. (3) Support ongoing state and federal shore Coastal Zone Management erosion studies and coastal zone management (1) Continue studies for coastal zone manage- programs that provide information on both struc- ment, implement suitable management programs, tural and nonstructural methods of reducing shore and coordinate activities of an interstate nature erosion problems on the Great Lakes. within the context of federal and state laws. implementation of recommendationr GREAT LAKES BASIN PLAN expanding Great Lakes Basin Plan will undoubt- A familiarity with the Great Lakes Basin Plan, edly refine some Framework Study recommen- (the comprehensive coordinated joint plan) of dations, pinpointing specific locations and re- which the Framework Study and recommen- sources requiring study or action. The imple- dations are the first portion, is necessary to an mentation of the Framework Study recommen- understanding of how the recommendations will dations will thus take place within the context be implemented. of new information provided by the Great Lakes In keeping with the mission of the Great Lakes Basin Plan. Basin Commission, the Great Lakes Basin Plan's purpose is to enable coordinated, effective natural RESPONSIBILITY FOR resource planning and activity in the Great Lakes IMPLEMENTATION Basin. To this end, development of the Great The implementation of the Framework Study's Lakes Basin Plan will involve the following: recommendations will not occur automatically. maintenance of an inventory of completed or It will require deliberate effort at many levels ongoing plans or programs; identification of prob- of government and by the private sector and the lems; assessment of how well these problems are commitment of time, money, and other resources. being solved by the plans and programs in the Implementation will require data collection to inventory; and recommendation of plans and pro- provide background information for research and grams needed to solve problems presently ignored planning; basic research to determine the effects or inadequately treated. The recommended long of certain actions; detailed local planning to en- range plans and programs will be prioritized, with courage the best use of resources in the locality; annual updates, and organizations to implement and the adoption of programs to generate specific these actions will be suggested. structures, projects, laws, and other devices for Projects, programs, and studies throughout the meeting the needs. Basin will solve some problems, while different Accomplishment of these activities may require problems will crop up due to changes in resource changes in existing public law and policy. The demand and use and the evolution of national historically limited funds for research, data col- and local priorities and goals. Thus, the Great lection, planning, and implementation may have Lakes Basin Plan's inventory, analyses, priorities, to be increased to meet the challenges identified and recommendations will undergo continual in the Framework Study. modification. The activities of data collection, analysis and The Great Lakes Basin Commission is respon- research are generally the responsibility of spe- sible for the preparation and maintenance of the cific federal or state agencies, sometimes with Great Lakes Basin Plan and will itself encourage, local cooperation. Continuation and expansion of conduct or coordinate, and participate in studies these activities under the coordination of the more detailed than the Framework Study neces- Great Lakes Basin Commission will ensure sary to expand knowledge of and solutions for against deficiencies and duplication. Although the Great Lakes Basin resources and problems. The Commission is not a principle funding agency Commission will annually publish a report on for this kind of work, it can provide support and the progress of the Great Lakes Basin Plan. encourage the necessary authority and funds. The Framework Study is the first phase of the The Great Lakes Basin Commission is analyz- Great Lakes Basin Plan development. Its findings ing several regional studies (Southeast Michigan will be continuously updated and its recommen- Comprehensive Water Resources Study, Kalama- dations likewise may be altered as new informa- zoo-Black-Macatawa-Paw Paw Rivers Basin tion is gathered and circumstances change. The Study, Grand River Basin Comprehensive Re- 16 Implementation of Recommendations 17 sources Study, and Southeast Wisconsin Rivers coordination of the activities of the states and Basin Study) which will involve coordinated work local governments, as well as federal government by federal and state agencies. Specific project activities in the Great Lakes states. feasibility studies will be performed by the re- International agencies also exist. The Great sponsible local, state, or federal agency or by Lakes Fishery Commission and the International industry. Joint Commission (IJC) have the broadest reach. Public acceptance of the Framework Study-as The Great Lakes Fishery Commission's respon- a basis for cooperation and coordination and public sibility is to develop coordinated Great Lakes insistence on adequate future data collection, research programs, recommend measures to per- research, studies, legislation, and programs-is mit maximum sustained productivity of fish stock necessary to ensure that the study findings are of common concern, and formulate and implement used and the recommendations are implemented. a program to eradicate or minimize Great Lakes A comprehensive effort to increase public under- sea lamprey populations. standing of and participation in decisions about The International Joint Commission is an in- water and related land resources is needed. ternational investigative, deliberative, regula- Educational programs should be provided con- tive, and semi-adjudicative body with lake regu- cerning resource use, conservation, and develop- lation and water quality monitoring and surveil- ment. Accordingly, adequate funds for appropri- lance authority. It can, at any time, be assigned ate entities to design and implement continuing additional responsibilities agreed upon by the U.S. education and special study programs should be and Canadian governments. requested by water resources planning institu- The IJC is currently responding to the Terms tions, such as the Great Lakes Basin Commission. of References under the Great Lakes Water Qual- The Commission can act as a catalyst to encourage ity Agreement of 1972 between the United States public education by working with existing state and Canada. The Agreement assigns responsi- and federal agencies, public interest and special bility to the IJC to collect, analyze, and dissemi- interest groups, school systems, the news media, nate the data relating to the quality of the and others. boundary waters and permits it to advise the The local unit of government may be the critical federal, state, and provincial governments re- element in project implementation. An aggressive garding water quality and related matters. A city, county, or improvement district backed by research advisory board, composed of both Cana- an informed public may be most effective in than and United States members, was established planning and completing projects. under the IJC by the Agreement and provides for exchange of information between the two INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS nations and between the province and states. As The political and institutional aspects of re- currently constituted, the IJC prerogatives are source management in the Basin are very com- not broad enough to accommodate the initiatives plex. The Basin encompasses one Canadian prov- needed. The IJC prerogative could be expanded ince and eight U.S. states, each having specific to permit it to investigate on its own the matters rights, privileges, and responsibilities concerning of urgent concern to both governments. The Great the Lakes. Both federal governments and county Lakes Basin Commission could readily assist the and local governments are also concerned with IJC, for it is designed to manage multi-agency the Lakes. The resource use policies of the various planning programs. The Commission should be governmental units and agencies sometimes con- considered for future activities. flict. Overlapping jurisdictions frequently result There are several things to consider when in overlapping programs and duplication of ef fort. planning additional institutional arrangements These difficulties are magnified by the fact that that would provide the needed integration. First, the Great Lakes are a single physical system in any mechanism that purports to deal with Basin- which activities in one part ultimately affect the wide issues must be capable of dealing with the other parts. problems of multiple-use resources. To deal with this situation regional planning Second, a vast range of research, data collection, agencies and intergovernmental councils have and analysis must be accomplished to support been established to coordinate some of the activi- the decision-making process. Any organizational ties of local governments. Interstate agencies structure that fails to coordinate information coordinate research, planning, and other activities gathering and planning will necessarily be handi- when performed by two or more states. The Great capped in its ability to identify problems and Lakes Basin Commission provides Basinwide formulate policy goals. 18 Executive Summary Third, any institution that attempts to deal with constituencies. Solution of those issues could only the entire Great Lakes should have the authority be ensured through the political process. to set priorities. Without such authority it is The institutional arrangements affecting water probable that any agreement on goals and objec- resources will continue to be evaluated during tives would be a hollow gesture. Such an agree- the development of the Great Lakes Basin Plan, ment might offer enough platitudes to satisfy and further recommendations will be included many people, but in the face of a limited budget when appropriate. When presenting the Great it would be incapable of supporting hard decisions Lakes Basin Plan, the Great Lakes Basin Com- regarding program priorities. mission will submit recommendations for imple- Finally, the establishment of an agency to menting the plan, including the management integrate public authorities would be difficult adjustments needed for formulation of new or- because such an agency would have to resolve ganizations or the realignment of existing organi- conflicting goals supported by different political zations. framework study report: review commentir Section 204 of Public Law 89-80, The Water Great Lakes Basin Commission in accordance Resources Planning Act, requires that the Great with these requirements are reproduced on the Lakes Basin Framework Study Report undergo following pages. review by the heads of the federal, state, and The comments are reproduced with no omissions interstate agencies represented on the Great of any kind. International, federal, and state Lakes Basin Commission, and also by the In- agencies are grouped together, and arranged in ternational Joint Commission. Section 102(2)(C) alphabetical order with each group. of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) requires that these agencies Photographic copies of the letters are reduced also review the final Environmental Impact considerably in size in this volume. Original copies Statement, which incorporates comments made are on file with the Great Lakes Basin Commis- on the draft EIS. All comments received by the sion. 19 Review Comments 21 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972 PrLm 92@500 Pollution Control in Great Lakes (11 T1, A ini:,tl F deral tan: , agent es, ad t"iainl" ent:r cid I ro depar I ion e' 1, 1 , ,U, W.-Ii 17 1977 into ,r ... ants with any It,,,, political subdivision. interstate agency, 0r the, public aged", or combination0to car' In t In ' or I strate n@ ethod"'r' %11yto -re p@ j'ct' to "Iws and Inicues and develop Mr,iA Iratty re lim,ne ry plans For the elion nati Intler -@ttr,Ll 11,polSl,@Ctiopliiwithin At r"ur ".I ,hGre ake @ilityh jr%c@ltsi ng Iliairma 11,1,,r any Part of the watershed,I Great Lakes Basin Commission sh Idemonstrate the engineering and economic feasi andP cality of removal of polluta polluting matter 3475 Plymouth Road tats and prevention of any Post ice Box 990 from tering into the Gres Lakes in the future and other reductieI off eti" Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 and 4-ndial techniques which will -t ibute s,lolt-ti.11y tof' and practical methods of pollution prevention, reduction, or elimination. (b) Fed ral articipation in s h PrIj cI to "'j:c. a po I"c 1 sub shall Dear Mr. Cratty: the conditionethat"the Stat ,Ii ica o' 'Sion n't:rstat eni:y, fro, Frederick 0. or other public agency, or co IN to a request of December 25 wination thereof shail'pay not less than R'reply !a, and comments onesed report, together in tha 0 :eileines tlb"@r.P'0" f. percent", 11,1bhuetactualiproject costs, whic; paymeett%yebe in any W , i9rt is II'"' rs and Environmental Impact Statement, on the Great he udin It Xt k In e of th plr'in@ctnl par,:v mited to, land or into , h Lakes Basin Frame. rk Study. needed for the , maject, and personal property or s rvice, thea which shall be determined by the Administrator. The Enliradmi ntal Impact Statement could be strengthened by incl.,,i,,n c) Thereis au thg rized to be appropriatV12'000,000 to carry f a br d?.uss 192 5 0 ., )th9s - 0 Olt Ih:,,rbovi., 'U" ti.Inp s (a) add (bf1 section, which lecti I Ill of Public Law PI 1 tiI io7la'l 0@d0it, I', . so.e Control in Great Lake, I aArteGeneral Water Qu vI. uhl@cleended It Objectives," of the 1972 Grea Lakes Wo bter Quality Agreementityetween (d) (1) lu'recognition of the serious Condition, which exist in the Initll States and Canada, which is ing implemented by the Inter- Lake Irie: ecretary of the Army, actin,' thr III, thrf na ion It on6,,This pdiscussio on n uded in iris i ected to design er lity rograhus,' and 4.5.2, "Water Quality." I taiI isi c ld be i c, Eng dee s 'h1d1r nst :Jhiol I Sections 3.1.2.11 at and develo a dew ion waste t, program 1Irtthe rel,@iIitati.n and Inli moomental If rev isi ons to the report are made, the enclosed rewrite describ al of ake,),.rier I the in lliatpei@cifif detc@omiledd,arglneeroifng ing and 11@ig%fllnejrogram. along with thes the waterprogram of the Farmers Home.A mihindt@ ti I should be s b- the Ch da a in r' , and r commendations for it, financing @11 ogress I, I@insl stituted for the material on page 15a'a B be submitted to th:T0r statutory approval. Thi a0rity is in addition to, and not in Iiou of, other waste water studies aimed re aIeli mi noIing pollution chis dating from select sources around Lake Erie. (2) This program is to be developed in cooperation with the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, other inte res ted department,, ,:Sncie,, and instrumentalities fithe 11de A0,,rnlent,la nd In e 'iataId thei pol cal I , v'. Th@ 1PG grste riti s b i is on is re am set forth al rnative 0 Bar systems f' r managing waste water on a regional basis and hall pr.,.,i e M."." local add State governments with a range I, [email protected]" as to thetype of Enclosure system to be us ed fo r the trea tam' It of waste water. These alternative Sys tem, shalliI"u" both a'vanced waste treatment technology and land disposal @Yt "s incl.diIg aerated treatment-spray irrigation technology and will also incl no, provisions for the disposala's"iIastes, including sludge'Such pr09ram shouldinc1d@ mea surestIcont r,l point sources of pollution, area source'of pollution, including acid- in ine drainage, urban runoff and rural runoff, and in place sources of Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture, p. 3 U.S. Department of AerieIlture Comment on p111ution, including bottom loads, sludge banks, and Polluted harbor d, dg,Ig,. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study le is authorized 1. be apprpri1t:ct11n11w;Y11 to ,rry out be ' I'M thxso. s, pro ,s,.n, of subsection 1d) of is io ,ic 11 be vailabl e unti, expended suggest to' reference to the "ter Program If the Farmers Home Administration (F..A) I .,e l5 If Appendix 6 be revised to read as follows: 1972 GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT dprovide loan aIt n's do Water Article II @l sy . i 1,11 i, 'U'lori" 1, te s I rural " ';'ad"u.-td1"','l. 10 000 and waste di"ossarea peopl,Funds are available for public entities, -hicipaliti-, General Water Quality Objecti ves counties, special-purpose districts, and corporations not oper It ing for profit, The followin',h r,l water quality objectives for the bou "'ry waters of the Great L@k:, System are adopted. These waters should be- Priority will be give, to public entities in areas smaller than (a) Free from substances that enter the waters as a result of 5,500 people to restere a detriaratio, r,,,, human activity and that wiil set'l,to sform putresce t or an "r" or "ify a water system oraI inad ate ow r system. 05tii;.1 r tha ,ill Pr therwise objectionable sludge dp. i eferance ill also be given to projects which involve the merging ad,:rely 11:ct aquatic life or water of small systems.In additin I, borrowers must: (bl 'r,'r .f'. ing debris, oil , scum and other floating Be unable 1, obtain needed Funds from other sources at reason- torials enteringIhIwaters as a res "t of ... I activity 'lie rates and te rims not, sulliien e ,s ghtyi ad ra:- 'r t t:r'I, thi or leleter us (c) Fro ataen, er' a r ... lt ur inI . ... 1"a1 ... city to borrow and reply loan,, to olelge security activity producing cold- ad,,' 'oattho'scodilios"in's cn, for I.-, and to operate and maIIt.II the f.ci,ites or er .... s. a deg ree as to create a nuisance; ") 1, financially sound and able to organize and manage the syst em (d) Fre e fr om substances entering the waters as a result of human ,11ecIive ly. activity in councertrations that are toxic or harmful to human, aninia ' r a u' Ill live afinancially ... n1 ytem I .. d an take,, ,,e,,,,nt,, (I, Fr fr:m I'utrtic 'iefe; "t If human " a T, Iint' ntri" the t;'nui e revenue,,fees' or the, atI"@c,.ry sur_s ofIocome to pay a aIatins that creat sane rowths of operation, maintenance, reserve and retire the debt, act vity in c. centr Watic w..ds add algae. (11 1- a proposal hot will at be inconsist,nt with any level?,- ment plans I, state mu"i i,rild'cl'111@dcall as, or noic1Pal- ities in which the @rdph"d 'rejecti,t,,.Illnti Grant funds may be available for up to SO Percent If eligible proje t d_10 pm It costs, Such assistance will be made available for Projects ,ervin I the most finahc ially needy communities to redu @ user cost, to a r asnabla Iev el- Applic:tions for loans and grants are made at the local county office of the FIHA. are Department of Agriculture, p. 2 Department of Agriculture, p. 4 22 Executive Summary OFF. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY -2- CE OF THE A ISTANT _!ECRE7TARY th ....... ibl, ag ncy wo ld lend emphasis to the overall cr:dc. of . G. a u 24 FEB 1977 Ca OMPI ted at dy. I again express Our gratitude for the Opportunity afforded Mr. Froderilk 0. R-a us to review and comment on this --C.1l..t Framework Study. Ch-irma-, Great Lakes Basio C,.is.i.n P 0. Box 9" Sincerely, 3@75 Fly uth Read Aon Arbor, Mirhigle 48106 K Meth W. Tolo D rector Dear MI. R..s,: Office of Policy Development and Coordination .aThi- is io reply I- Y-ut letter 1. the S crat.ry of the At, Enclosure Iaq.,I iog ..d relosersod. I... to 'he Great Lake, Basis F-mr-rk Study lod the fi-I a-iroomstral i.P-cr tarourelt. I "'e 'tat . th t::y odi'has 'afp1rho Corps of E.gi.eer, h... parititipat d is _d.d Io-e.t- 0- draft mate al. The Department of the Army he. .. fo"ha, r..e. siI Ch Iles R. Ford Atii.g As. is 11"t Se .. -y of the At., (Ci, 1 .rk.) oplun., Department of the Army Department of Commerce, p. 2 Th. ft.. p.R., COMMENTS FROM THE DEP TRENT OF COMMERCE ON THE GREAT LAKES BASIN F@EWORK STUDY MAR 2 1977 Office Of the Sectetary H notable Fr:deri k 0. Rouse Secretarial Representative, Region V I at [email protected] Rive, He find thaStudy is basically 0 gold desc,ipti,n Of the basin a.. arm its P'S Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 and -ble It cont:in, easily understandable material which Can be used Dear Mr. House: by edut tOrS and interested citiIens in trying to develop Iano Plo ased to reply for secret ry Kreps concerning your their knowledge about the Great Lake, Basin. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study@. COMents on the final e.believe the Study is a basis On which to begin environmental impact statement ti ""the ron for the Study will be forth- t n1 Pri itles. coming ft the Office Of Environmental Affairs. A very favorable overall, -a. generated by those National Oceanic and Atmrsphtric Administration e Departreent of c' re Pon itnuth O::cr- who reviewed the Framework Great Lakes Envi,on,enta (GLERL) S dy ' Ihave -closed a Summary for those responses which I Research Laboratory tt delineates @e Sfudy.asaMost Useful tool in planning and .-ageme t. th Great Lakebe - As Department Of Commerce repre.en re [email protected] should at I and related land ttives the Great Lake. crammen ted in the second Para- --%he ft= the Great Lakes Environment 1 Gt Lakes Basin Frarsewo we graph Of no Basi Commission since the - arlyaI.a -to vo lop ant of the Is Is f a hrai E Trk Study, I thde Great Lake, Resea ch Laboratory @GLERL) th th yto a defic ... cy nvironmental Research Laboratory have Participated bothinhsd t ehrough its failat Polante daqua@ely the in Report tre to r prep .. ti-if Pacific _cti_. I ity for preparation in draft ' Li F sonswOrk Study to the d"el C..prehcn r..P.IlibIme -ndA -vi.- Coord,n. Plan opmen Ong E.by nt. -submitted c -"'0 (CCJP). Futrthfer al , in'the third and =pt dni'o'h ted.1,int.. LakescP on"T. t Or smlend7ce'.f paragraphLte. a remark in the Report 0, during th it reparation, and were dsepl involved in prepare- S@ip ERL the a relation tobetween C-r.ial and sport fisheries which tio, of th present version of the E-.y Y Report . GLERL also is alluded on Page 48 and 6, revi wed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and nub itt,d relationship figure page 50, but a GO for Department ravie j that is not obvious. E1171). I en through four ItiIch ti e nI are apprehensive a-t ho study such as -- var.?.nl that wetlee I aan addition, it -Porati%llty modified to a fin " ' ";71-nl6 ay h' Tents ' " IS a uar 17 The Red dr. . dul. this adequately address e. =on di1 accurst 1. y ofY tbu n. a w a Rec.sand gi'ally formatted sumsear the Framework Stud .Ociated with nd ti..s net Dlp@ltroent of Commerce extremes, for example, who, here igh or -ke mission r vo -low I a i are hI Tm`t. .... a't I w :r w w t eat. a. low interest :. sent for et e 1 hin the agency and c.vlllctsWhen.the lak 5at .tr. sveil what reflect our comment Simil nf ox I t0, the use of water? Can .11 needs be met; Ily, te lithere recorm@ ndations wer thus "n1wlicts? 1, here ri ub ected to public scrutiny and rehe w during th ale f 1. is levels,p-rity fo user, 976nreactions are refle v: . nthe [email protected] to., whatti. to Be j t - ring 1dPali I. t. . duri@g condit a cted reT. ,of be don, to alleviate ... ditin. that are caused by dia ter? por An :.'.al la.i:,'s uc P Plternative star suppliese @.on Pblic L.. 89-80 direct. each river basi, commission t In ditions ar: ad resse'h aCompreh nsive Coordinated Joi to e cine uchCactin .d by specI'l?.cs P, or at Prepare agencies their no I f- f responsibility; there- re atd nt Plan (C JIat and fore, addressing 1nd res,"rc' '.Pm n in the plan and then noting I( age lo@) . The 1-ew.Ik Study is these conditions d.scribeds 'P ad.'%n aseetsment of th status of our resour es and their ability to meet e pact n,eds,@ a first step in development xsdinaturall:n@ human f coor n. red ing. The Framework Study is quite latiefactOry ads a P first step in Department of Commerce Department of Commerce, p. 3 Review Comments 23 -4- identifying plans, options, and conflicts within the Main. Based on the above Working relationship and as one of the A deficiency in the Report is the failure to adaqua@ely relate principal participants and contributors in the Commercial the F@alwllk Study , development of I CrIp. Sect 0,, 1 and 5 Namigatio_,cWork Group Of the Study ram orga,i,ation, this b. include Ton. of t th dis ... Ih Cc:11 but these are restricted offic curs in the basic Study conclusions and recoomoon to what a CCJP can do rath than to what it actually is and da tionlithatp@rtain to the present :kd.pro;pec five f"w:rn of how1t will be developed and used in water and related land cc_ rc al navigation on the Great L .'he Cef.Ce, resource use and g ent. The intent of this complex effort ahtiSiP date no pr?bltT related to the maritime perspective. of is certainly notthe production of a docum,nobut rather is ttu y inve.tiga ion as finally published by the Great Lakes the production of a dyn amic PlN (CCJP) th at tb modified to a:in Commission. fit the changing need. and desires and to place h:se in a pro er p.. active I r the use,. and developer,. The Report fails to As further testimony to the effectiveness of the commercial ..tlpne 1. at 1Dgic and 11th olqy th will be used to ,aly,e and a"g' tion report findings in thetG,e,t Lakes Basin Framework evaluate plan,, altern. tv choices, problems and multiple c,,- Study, it is interesting to note hat the r:O -nd.tio.I fl n .itho n vig to icting uses in the develop- of an evlyi ,11. ut contained ii.Appe,.di,PCI - Clmmercidaalt@ous mod-ne- or., in... th . the reade 1 have dff@cu1ty Col. tng to any 'leme line With us.D a..1Cec._iI th i 'r wil i ' of an actionP1an that coul pot.n i.1ly ener.t. an enthus?Ltic Great L,keds-Seaw,yi Port Dev,lopmennt and Shipper Confer ..... response and desire to partLip,tet held in'De:,rborn'Michigan, in April 1976. This confye,eonce, co-spon or by the Maritime Administration, ..S. Arm Cps Although specific comments are probably not appropriate at thia of Engineers, St. Lawrence Seaway Develop ment@Irporation and level of review, III concerning epa't' of Commerce mission t . u.S. @O_ Guard, established many high prior ty rcc.@_ inte le ed ' add es:.D a sect7otnthe Report mehnd:ti?.ns thatgpa a.11,1.the re@-Amenw do 0 af Appendix 11 - S1 is 0rrn @OL1v tF. fa ram. a c'7b rc. No i - dri i. th! el."ion.hip rbetw.en the c-cricial and sport th orktiSntudy. fiNeri-gin the Grt at Lakes'The emerging significInc g. 48 . d f ur pa;C110the sport fishery is alluded t on panig 1 6, 5 is With regard to the ove Call report, in general, it appears cited as support, bu t artionship is not obvious-What comIto; and due to it, very comprehensive coverage a total fela phpru bel?l 11 th C:P,e,tn,ge of.the is cry doe, the commercial Od ction -ve it has considered a Ilient features associated res ad_bse I tI it really insignificant. with the bro d treatment of many diverse subjects which is the characteristic aim of Type I or Leve 1 Awater re our. Office of Coastal Zone Management framework tudi:s-Th Study's should be A On- tinuingvaluabl To for:nce and [email protected] to future studies of Great S ... a1 of th staff at the Office of Coastal Zone Managamt Lakes water and related land resource, problem,. 'OCZM)aarth he Study, having used it on a.'r of ... a.1 ..... illare'leirence source. Overall, it is an excel lent compilation of data on the Great Lakes region. National Marine Fisheries Service The National Marine Fisheries Service (formerly the Bureau of C-,cial Fisheries) participated actively in the Carl i- ph"es"thi a Study-Theacope of 'he participation was reduced followingdI .. ti. of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Great Lakes in 1970. For this reason, we are unable to comment on maximum sustainable yield projections in tab 1. II_'q (P. 278 of appendix 8). Department of Commerce, p. 4 Department of Commerce, p. 6 .BaVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2095 We are pleased to note significant I*ntribut Of our area APR 14 1977 inputs. our position at t at time placed heai@;'Iphasis upon: (1) the 'I'd 'or greater habitat protection, (2) the concept .fab. lanced recreations1/comma rcial fishery as foundation to optimal management of the fisheries resources, and (3) the need for better in formation on which to base the complex allocation and other management decisions. T a Great Lakes Basin Framework Study will beamost ueful tool 1,,I::!,l 1. 1,,,, Chairman i planning and ma,agementioftwata@ and r" red land re .urc a Great L. Basin Commi..i.n On the Great Lakes. Even . ituti,na 1 arrangement. [email protected]:d P. . Box 999 after the Study was initiated will benefit from the consolidated Ann ACb.r, Michigan 48108 information put forth in the report. D ar Mi. Roo- National Ocean Survey This is in .,pm,, to your letter of DecIAIDer 16. 1976, to Dr. Sao,.. The Na al Ocean Survey has no further Comments on the Great 'e,,,!ti,, C, at a The Great LAke. s.,i, Commission "FCAD-cuk @Cud' And th:,, k" ti07 .,ilt,d Envl,-I,l llp,,t Itateme- A, 11 kl-, La Basin Framework Study. A h.ve -I.Cad on Fast draft. of -Ti.. p.-i... of 1h d,,-Iltl We Would note, however, that th:"prpo,,,.d drredgidng in C. .. ti.n :ad we have ,tha,,1.f!1 t n ,-etlo4t,..dtd.. W. cI. h=::r .Te w tr u is rt ro _'h@c strongly with rr"R:.p*r.In' B.Sum, that i h axtended navigation willihe hygI b t@.:,o. P.'eh aurveyiq by the NationaI@cean Survey. We are in close touch Amajor requirement for achieving real future Prog' in with the cr'. of Engineer 11 such matter, and will pCog... the Fa. ut . .... .the C1:,!no, to 1 "1"' is that "" instit ,u,v,yi.g at _' needed the appropriate time. h,vc outh.-y to set ioI,, di r- Otherwi.., the in-d.d "pl-" tend to b ..... only A list of -gue 0 fit tbjectives And already intended prject::f.11;oprC. ipatig organiza- Maritime Administration ions. A fe@ minor cemDents are Ia..Coraideration. Thank you for no opportunity to I-ew this report. Office of Port and Interm,d,l Development Si ... rely, a W' ter and tell fed land r:t,?,urc .,tdy,.re?orted to be the largest Great Lakes area -veiat?.0fIkind ever con- I d'cted I aitime Admin i,tration played a key role in the r ... r@hthaud"Ir-pa kno a:tA p,ndix C9 tFation of the volume Adwp Commerci,l Naviga i? . AD the Maritime 7n. rti..'Si W. ter G. [email protected] participation in th :.Itldy 91110bacl to it. beginning in AaSiCmnt D Cector 1968-69, shortly afCcrestionfthe Great Lakes Basin for "Ihn,l,gy Liaison Commission, we are quite familiar with many of the agencies, [email protected].. of T.Clmal.Sy @-iaw in a,it. tin.,and OCg ani,ati,ns that contributed their labor and 1upp rt to the water transportation and navigation facilities E @l... ,or tion, of the Great Lal . Be. in Framework Study. Acc. Idingly C_- bar au.. of our long and close association with this StudyIffr@ and the Study contributors over a PeCi.d of71/2 Yearawe have ec; W. H. Psoningto., REPA helped Shape many of the proposed Study recommendations for C.__. ial navigation M the Great Lakes. Department of Commerce, p. 5 Energy Research and Development Admin- istration 24 Executive Summary UNITED STATES CO@Nlg ON GIB FRAMEWORK STUDY AND EIS ENVIRONMENTAL P-TE-1- AOEN- V 11* 11UT. sT 111 19, 11 111, of the i I .... tin, I, the d,raaa- Iry sake 111, r_... -I , the re'." ad its .... -a i,pl, -er letter far aV r..I dist tin the p, r ... ld brief" 'or' -' '-j ' ." i'f_'t I,, that -.1d h-e to be 1.rl.drd 1. f.-a ... k and point at say .1j., ... Id h.Va that eh..Id be kept I. i.d by the .ads,. Far -P APR 4 1977 Change, (,,d.,ti ... ) I, po,ar pr.ja.tions. Mr. 11th- 11:.1in'CA-ial'h1'.1 GT..iLake. .a- as Changing i .. P P.D. Bar 999 safety, P-lif :,ini,,l tin. to n-lear PoVer, Pblic at an, Ann A,b.r, Mi.hig.. 48106 G ... th I. EPA lit-at... that riAht P ... wt Irach of Door Mr. Cratty: the ef-anord PHS-HEW at1a U:.,.E.1iTa of data I... CEQ ad BEIR reports an rela,.nt Froa.- "!12'-Cy as as @-..'T.n th Crar rk gtd he do leg-I to - by UIEIA', 1-1 M Personal i_lVeent In The do t; N,, E, Train* y-al. a report re-troo.dti..., 1i Iia.,ira of the Safe Drinking Water Art ad say ... ... .t.ff [email protected].. daring to' "' 0report haV. related standards. -do as -1i ... r. of the diffi-Itia. f-:d P-pre'p2he . broad _'i.. d.rnat- ... h - the report far the F,aae ... k St.dy. Nor. r-o' of the Lakes and parceiVed p-b th no T or. I. as one hand, he desire to aVa rapidly to ipla.ant.tian I. prog- are,, f- ... ble to on, interests, yet there I, n,,,r 111,91 2. It -.1d be helpfal r. add a rl@ -r of "ara-jr di@fnfra-re. is. th.. pro ends far a nd:rli 1h t I iffor 'n"r-ti.' to "'cl""'ll ":.iify ....... l'rtifrna. It I., th.rML, ifthny) in ttb bol I lot hioh there are Potential r - ra ce IaNOR and PRO frl.ellrk. Th nerally appear, to ind that no -1:,fdl ..,P, a.IIrearson, of the ab.@ (I. PRO) . ....t for:s.='b!a .ig ifi ... t to USEPA that this F11-Irk Sr.dy he. a..ltad I. , it I. bar To all ther To PV of t are-orand.- t is ra.nl !fr I:, tl than,It p,,Irl to OSE@A that nhile Ih ht to ith the ti.n:rin th': p r!, Par, ran or hald be ake. a. Infiniti- or .rP-aa!.,. -:a`P1'!'p:r"IN"a-r .1-h- he "p,blir" hasn't yet looked far on-gh ,-,I:fli,,!y..th y d.tr t1- I I the b..In and foretell bar h Ia . y pr,j,,t,d shift,. Certainly CQP preparation .arthr r:.. r:.p, t: I. the heal .. .... iat- ith the 1,:i .. To ... Id haVe to reVi,. th... p,r,,pti,,, and -ampti.- the ,,Idnl:.tinltl tq.1r,l.,.tl,.iT,iplan, n I:, V.1 as sob Lear V! ..nat.ry inV Oa 11VI.. h a rap!rgt -k-ledged - the I' I' ,al!y d!dflio.I, to find in the report the -derlying prinriple, Fr_...,k portion of the C--P,,h:,,liya,r rdin.ted I.I.r Plan.The that are a sor. .r_tb . 'his Pr.r.. @il at I. g,V,rn each of the pr,bl,. are.. I. the ft.,,, 1 r t. red to farther elaboration of inr, th... are rattered th-gh so anny far fgo and Oar, d,fi,iti- r-aaand,ti-. UgA 111 ... th!, p.- -.1dy problems (p.4 ad p.12 ffths."R.P.ri" I !:"tb: b I. far ... tinning -k hirb ill integrate eno,ir.on nt.1 I_ far e.zp only A ly attended to and, ,,.pt n.r.1 -tenants in that Planning @irh Vater and related lead .... ro.. planning in The Great b,.t the general principle of t ' "" a or I,ake. Basin. .... . it Is hard to findh- .:t'.h:L'idgh."R..in "are ther, ,:.d.,elp.,d I. he spirit of gdn .. ......'and .. .P:.t-.'d'f."b'.-rtd in. . A "single ...ry page" of all J., t:p,r., .ly ,I. _r. :,-Ptdilnl,,t and,, and perception, V-ld be b.lpf.1 if it ro,ld I. the ran It ilabl, data, it does rant. Zen b add tor .hirh V. feel V.-not early rVl..ri... he front of the report, and d-,,,,hi, rates ..ad I. the -dy are A' Th' e':n':."hi. rlar .r...led. Ih it An t a.:- ry-n `.l=al lyai' art' the p-J.-A derand: -h --P:r n@ppl Add ert, lb. abi!ity , ,, can .... t! no "I as and 1h.r.ag; of a r rtarAl Iternti_ tad l_tia: '. f-sig.ifirently .It., the p,,Ja,t,d e,p ..... to these derand Environmental Protection Agency EPA, p. 3 APR 41977 B- While ESEPA r-.gni.a. the illl!,,Plln:l,, I , of 11, dev 1. r, r=, Great Lak , Basin Cassai-i- to rk for total land one.Into,, -k ase, hot I. -.il.bla to pra.ara 4. In g neral, the one .1 the r.pn,, I. that th... I, alent, of -t., .pan sp_r to r.Valt 1 11 11, a:brant I Sr.-d) and that the rej- pr-b - I. "r-" nt:r apply an ll.t1 k:ny"" ".I- a. s lands Litt, it, high far lrV:I . g . Nnch nith a.,r.dit-ra t'%@ta't 'r'ss' ')"it'I dans. or-ad - d7t eTi-.,tha s-,tent,bo @hirh increasing -Ver,,." 11-Isn@ohdit-, 1,t4. of -71. pla ;a Ijra-lt-l I 1. 11 " r.. "to the -177' anar h_ rnaider inn - gi- to In. fl. year. and While the report rkn,-l,dg,, this last r-flict and peciIi:. th I c ... Indiana, alth-gh dr-ght fl- i at erl..d. h..ld be rat:i,@:d USEPA feel. that the long range is Appeadi. 2, p-57-69. key ILI!, rsity I. I. the. 'lands and . or. ..bsr-i- P .. ra:d be da-lp I to addr... this dil- b-se. load 1-d-ti.. and n ... Al .-r-art. C. Since the GLBC in . Slate-Fadar.l agency, it I, nlt.r,l that th 11.. 1:,in this pyr.,. --!t%riAl1h, go the :tdy ...... I... a" b that 1_1 tiitytir.1Ihe Ven-1 ipleren- t,ti,n, the report Ile, not appeart. ... ... gh .... . the lr.l rronal Planning gr_y) _t_ ty norh a. is onergin in the field, of star onality, ,a,tal an,, and tl.n,por- ta-n. R.- gni.ing the di-r- net,,, of thint eVised at ,his LIZ ...... it i: no. a.ggested that the report be rbar rather 11 C11 race,, rti',IarLytl.,,Illy r..p p.rtiri,.- s,!p nd thi I the In addition to the r,,i,, I the Fratte-1 Itady Report, ne ha- revi-ed the RIS"'rh rr..Pni. 'he r.P-rL and are pr-di g the trarbrd r..a.ta-Altho.gh the Der.-bor 15 1976 _i@ In as a final EIS, it is noted that -'I.1ter addr-rd this CEQ ad that the final EIS is to be P--rra.L version - at pr_,ded to (@) and filed at -h t-Pared by the Water R .... -a Ca-il t- the rep _ is sent to the 971 FC-9-I he ....... r 11, 1, oder-1 Register). Oar roraerr,:,an her.- fare or tot iI.d a additional inf.r-ti.o t- a-sist WW@ and the GL.C in t@a r-ir. of the report.0.. .... " as a final EIS @ill be prepared ltj.111 Ill, a:,tbe EIK f!@,@d ViLh CiQ.At this tion - h-a an ra!a 'b ti. the or P-ad It'dY 111@ 11 Iee,.l AISad as b.lieVa The r.rraat drjft .1 lh@-E an .a the P-i... draft d-nt. , to,, responds to . rsarents 1011111i*n. I ... Id like to roop@ian,,, ,L I staff both ,or and or.. be " Rran, 1h, -ked on this .rt far 'hot r ..trordiaa', efforts in Providing report and A t'pandi. __rr.t. he -anher g,n,i,, in prop-Tirn and -ia,, of Lh.',dt.din, a-i-Li'tg. Sin,er!ly ylars, GeWrgR. Al a--nd1r, Ir. Regional Ad.iit _or A--harot EPA, p. 2 EPA, p. 4 Review Comments 25 C",-'Ir, " th, Enlil--l Impact 3 st-r-I for the G-I Li-I I-in rk Study of ;-ri..P, e.g. page, 49 ad 17, the SIS implies that ;,-t ,I ili-in", 11 I'll b, ""o-'eto -Pl@ enhance A, ildi-t1d I. our 71 f i .;,it .. minimIa I.., Phil, 11 191., wit the c-a, i:,[email protected].. As 11ali ... ly 11@t@leuld; 11 a, ""'I ........ I ('I') us .. It If 1-11 11 a will a used ad . cl,,e.cc I, -tiblishi.f p,i- a. or .1-111c made, @l; 1h,I dwed as an essential ad (Iy aI'd 1""' 1111yt1s, Itrllll!,, 11'11* in b. ...... ift'l- 11-g n'.cre fI_d 1.,.dat I,., inle-lied be i1ruil-ted into ". '1-19 hhabitat. p..... r printed document. 5.A 1. 02or liln add llAmr@-- kl-illlis@ _'Th, -_'l 11 Irlined ,.the mini .. ..i.... .. .. ii"tly 51-1.1 -rie- within the Final -ed -i. c 1@ .. . ..ihot.dIn [email protected] TIa I ... at. CIS -nti I to an III @,Alll 11-11al, ad do-pering l @... to 17 or12o I F1 ET to ,-ti, -d.*,[email protected] ;ith L,.t th n are . reinc, P, b, , , Pi o who, celilil.i.g I...... w 11, elbarealueti.e or be ne, to scin 'at @,,Lu ad,,,,, ,pact a of I' "I BI'le nals .I'd "local ted wateres Into 1. rat I hurecl. at their prcsc.L depth 1, 1, eiled Pof the I1,11irlill the ,I uit rdle.Iamew, at , ferry so_ c@ adI""n,forLand ly hotri L's 'I" """" I' in s d'see.,IP true @cLw.tarc that warl..d. are viewed problem.. The -ad ... S -9 I---. ma,,tanonee adr,1h. he. d be re-'cased Al-, the to"' is Lh'IIc ::d."`T1o'.pp ....htake, jjj@!,@g@ City, India., harbor i@ far on ship pt, year. Each ,,,,b,l shluld In c-l-Led 1. determine if presently anthlrilod d@pths .'r at Iwilhot cle add da.cs to t" 1" "1 'c" "'"far appr ... h to trP- on ... clit.ti- wtrante d. to tr@ fr b..in'.aatlI .silly. will " di' "'d ... .... .I' -,,me tl"@t ollu,sl@d,rdled po 6. of in d.Ld I ,I 'n :P_ ,_a.I risen Id be r.-Cr-B that . .11.Led Sediments "Y also no -pan lake di .... I and the Impact, -1 P-h open Inka the c"' " 'r'p"' d Irai age. th ` Ptop .. I I..... rk, in Ile disposal ... I be considered prior I. di .. sal. a ... sI .adntreatment I. much are PabItira than risk of catastrophic spills associated with the use of the The program, cc.rdl,,g I,P,,Ii,,,ll: pr.,,id,, The i"'r .. a' _1 ti I-B. earlier. should be c-sidered. _a, and sediment I., Idc 111.......... to The 1,,endl, do' "" I'Ica In to wh ch _ur each 'nest on. as n I "' or... 1p,. Ill that dr.191d 11.tells' "Ili theitrl 'andibl: method' a. in a lrA run. on 'Gh !ac Iare InIind a P will be tiliIed c, .,at the,, objectives. Probably do . bar , as d ,,,dllnC .. ld indeed d 1-ii-d h,,m in .1clic-plor systems such a Lake Sn'st I., and northern Lake Miehi,.n. 2. w-r S.p-ly illF.r the year 2020. the Proposed,F""',"r' "c"'I"" "or ... bion Child- of .,Ir per do, in rvei anti.1 .riclterarercial, and Power ness I. the Great Lkes Basin. '@hw -j.r dependence here IiI be do inland l.kr6, -cm. do C ... diatr,llaviPl.. ..:, Pa .. .. . .. water implies , ary "bili P .d.ant .... .tm.cIi.n'i. Ili" has I.. The Final Ill at,,, pg, 11, that additional habitat and wate I ... should iprove the 'ish:ry Is ... rces of the .ItPnI 1. not. that imp ... d.c.ta do at necessarily fi I imply rh.nga the,. The change is at always desirable. I'&' L9 ....... th . .... .d.. .. .... at"' and .. tl ties, We note that imp-B.InI. In or make for better r-reatI.., but are itte-ive rears-1- than f,-- fl,,,,, rivers, In liult I th . ..... d'ry I""'a ,a ... tared ith lot ... two recreation, It may I. but ter 11 such a ch..Ga were .,aided. EPA, p. 5 EPA, p. 7 2 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION W--- D.C. 20a2a lh, hm,- 1,en, actj @i,ully pl,,,,iag than . fl.wiru ... .. Iject .a be 9_2 ' ""' ':I.bir, s"ou high .1 @ Ia'y -vie,ed fur .d li'e- the -rd can I I is 3. Lo,- Tl@ A-:,*,Ithth,@L.@,Il trai, --i.l th.,Ir,,t. l.1e, by 20ofur cL u, 2ch tof`-c- 1AAR 16 W7 1 ine L, IiU -inl.rd sh.-@, stretch to ... a 4000 .1 e.isti.C A w- he case .Uh "Ply' ?"jectic's, which 'ill P-bPb Chairman 6s Basin Commission .Itr1cL dlc,@ : onl . ..... in . ....... . ...... .. as pi.pe-d it, 7. 11.11el, -Y Zero- -1 P-jecti-s. Post Oly outh Road "I C. ... .99 c-,-- -111 1-i -Cre- Am. Irimr, lihi,- 4RI06 in,e-@u: "'r,"L ;:a- Page 25 state, "11, wilhl ... 11 Dear Sir: I I .... tity I ,I-se@'- are not J... e"'c qw,lity el he L.k-' u, I s a . ueliP tl.tehPn, 'i'i: he I"'I"' g R,ase t" d re Is .... I"' "de:r it'It'f only if y to l-, 'closed ci izar.inG 11il'il ig repl ,f t.ity i, desige'l ti geremes'"iby tin, Comments an th grgP So paran@l ... ... .@l" a. 1' cir 1. their -1 -1 'c 'I- -The environ .. 5talli,pa'ct statement on the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, he @3I,I. each Pleat I I r_1G i1L "Is ttl 1 -1-111- licelarBas on lake Mithige.. a ,In . ...... ly i 'Ited 'Il- in III 'it" re art ji ..... e, the water and related land resources of urL, er, I'A I_, 11 fired '.., inR _ar. '11h t. in future ....... .... Ili, asin, d, ia 'd' on 1h... r ... r- through 11, bl' fer y':" a t ds to ensure the Ir- .a Iaa """'a Ear 2and presents recommend I INS for I I t a 1SpLj,!,Y I pe-1- no lake Super a, wlilh has been . little ar, t020, a said and wise usP of these resources. The "Proposed Fr mework" Ync@ , cd. 1, 1., @han &aa 9r.gra would q.irE a Capital investment of1"'t Tf of .ih would be Federal, O'er ion, a jo .hd-WIand aI d.,edi re f. . dration, Pat'I. .... 11 lin, ... ....... ` shoreline allocation P if tot:ar periodtuof $47 Mlion. for I'lon, c- ,'Inell- @ 1-111 tke 11-d on Lake Ci,Pn the maintenance, and replacement over th f ty-YI -is,in@ ad-run it@ in I,, 1-thelli qL.idr,.t of th, lake, some attention The Federal Power Commission staff, which has ipated in the -d cycle I. the .baIq ... I framework study, has reviewed the report and envi to 1 1 impact st:t..Pet ah.,Id lh@ give. - L c lsil_@iliLy of cl... r.paerntic 11. a planning for his -1- to determine the rdlatio@sship of the proposed framework program to In tters Comm 55 n-poh@ililities. Inch responsibilities relate y ff' tin t"nlectr I,, rk pr@11-. -ing rusairlmce or ed,.il,hth, an Ice de,elopmenlinlihydr-"P er and the reliability and adequacy ou c at@ .,,, Ontario _F .. the @Updd t... go hydr.elettri ill le I g w a..... ..... ........ 11, Final Ill do,, of electric service under the Federe PoerAct, and the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act. ri P__ of _,- --,, fa@ 1. ,It .... ti,es L@ thi, ,,th,d. Ile staff notes that power projectio", ere d .. loped For th 'r' -1 study, based on data an tr:,nd 1, f _at@., that was a," labl: esr@ly d0' 4. 11-1 in the Itudy peri ad.The study sumed that all needs for ..or generation y project, d...... in, dI ep 111uree let libel sold be et,,,ri-arily by thermal-electric plants although a few pumped .,c ia I .,.r one bit ct,ic developmerts were also forecast. As noted in the report, however r load far .... t, are being r.... 11:1 'artiliclarly 't.,a,e hydr le co.II.1 11-@ 197. t.01 PC .ill be . ........ r .. rg,, channel ........ t""' 1..... .. .... 'edw d rates of load or. th bar have be WE. Er ien Ed in wells. AlLh..gh it is rae.Cni'ed bar "Is atueturra Pon -ci-ed devel.p- in view of the rC: .no, will 11 highlydi-ptil to fish and ildlife hubI... .. I" In I reetur_ _serell ,cnli.rcd A. I-t State ad Federal th. flood pl.i. i. an c.s-- I-P.-I of r-1- AI111,Eb C4 cW110,o" GIB, "loll"" "i, 11 1-11 PGim, urul .1, acnativen, the ..But Il PImdPihC`Ince.. .." coI,,na to ""Psi c the- 1 .11 'ePPl- of d-i@i- ..king, .I be .1 no-t-c-al control I. be elf-ti- "o-'a EPA, p. 6 Federal Power Commission 26 Executive Summary Chairman -2- United States Department of the Interior r:c "t .11 is too early to determine tl,*Ia te Ihe reduced rret n ary I n t:fspermanent trend rather the empr:'t ",hct OFF[ E OF THE SECRETARY t1: arji@trilad projections should prove to be on the hil,l-ideo 'o "of WASHINGTON, D.C, 2WQ C, fac'Spro osed for development by the yar 2 2me be @e'ftrred until alater perpd. AT so th :trecect rapid esc:latioonoin fuel cos uld in affect the future mi x of gener ing apacity. Opportunities for the A Ptt eclno,i@ll development of conventional hydro 1-tric power may become more attract'Ye. ntly, increasing interest h: Sbeen displayed in the re- habilitation @C@in,tallation of modern units at retired hydro plants. 'cc rd n' Ithe material presented in the report, water ithdra als Mr. Arthir H. cratty, ACting Chairman for coolTnIiSleam-electric plants are projected to increase from about Great Lakes Basin Commission 17,200 million '-l"n ' p rd@y @,,qd, in 1970-to about 96,500 qd by the P. 0. Box 999 ha t@ JS asd on he year IDIO. T is Pr jec ion tumption that a mix of flow- 3475 Ply-th Road through and Supplementary cooling systems will be used. The staff notes Anan Atbor, Michigan 48106 that theost of cooling facilities fo ta'-" ,Iric plants installed c r :1bo 41, between 1971 ,1 1010, was estimated at ut $3. bi ion. This figure Deer Mr. cratty: would be Su 1ject to wide variations depending on the types of cooling I ili ties ultimatel y selected. It does give some idea, however, of the As requested in yourr letba, of December 15, 1976, we have examined the I matterials relating bo the Greet Lakes Basio, Ft7amsw0rk StXJKIY@ NO major nera order of magnitude of the inves tment required. probl- were, identifted during this - Ouse to the cialatively Based " it' consideration of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, long tims Period, the Study neceassarrily had to be coettmted under the the env irnmntal impact statement, and the Studies of its own staff, chibrolla of rapidly dwiging planninc; ard Policy criteria. W not., this Commi@sion concludes that the proposed framework program providesa for exasPle ,that this frmhawark study is based on CUERs Bar- C pro, us ful be'Sfor identifying and resolving existing and potential wat r jec-tions which are now ocruildered to reflart oncealeitically high aned related land issues in the Great Lakes Basin. The Commission no t:1 pcpolatim noembers. As the report indicates, differeeceaS between Sscies that the questions concerning power load forecasts and mans of meting C and E prcj@ Would becoms signifioant for the year 2000 and beyond. these load requirements will be matters requiring continual Study. The ConsissionStaff will continue working with the Great Lakes Basi n ammission Wa appreciate having been able W fully Participate in the ccndwt of to address these issues as they occur. this Study from the draft phase through the fical report. We are, siure that the wealth of dahs, and information ""viled will assist in more Sincerely yours, deta,led Plans and studios - the ftnitre fz the Great Lakes U.Sun. sinceraly y-, Richard L. Dunham Chai -n FPC, p. 2 Department of the Interior Dr-I.-I cH, STATE I c Z., H-h 22, 1977 BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERN TIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS 5D March 23, 1977 bell-" !tC Gt*,I,L,k In Mr. Arthur H. Crotty @7, ly-th R-d P. 0. B . 999 Alt.-t@ Chaircian @n _b- Mithige, 48106 Great Lakes Basin Commission 3475 Ply-th Road Im" Mt. C-tty: Post Office Box 999 An, AFb7 , Michigan 48106 This is 1. ts.",se t, y,,x let- nidt-ed t. the H.-II, C-1. Dear Mr. @ratty: A. Hill,, the, S .... t,.y If Dep., - If H-in, ad Urb,R D-lIp- The Depachment of State has reviewed the Final es.t. whetsil y.. 11qI11t th,t ws p..vide the CIessi-i- with ... Eegiro inental Impact Statement Prepadreyd.by tthe Comm"Si.o 'd@ g S e r-in the proposed Frame-k t I h rest ctiessent In the cmpl,t,d Greet Lakes B&sin F,smwwm,k Study R,p,rt Lakes Basin. 'i" "t the i.ri.dicti- of the c.-i-ioin end its relsted Fin,1 Envi-immental Impact st,tement. -"g'ih tion of extends to t e p.r the Basin within the U.S., We bell.,. the Ftam-rk Stud, -pre ... t. th.-gh ..-.y If water the 'velving Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan for th of _i_' 'k 'd I the ..:i%i ch r... in the best., ad .. such h..Id serve c. dir- the first at., , Il touch num.=.ra.T yh! e,cha,g a of inform.ti.. and other cooperation With inte re If future pl.snin I, d,t,il ... d,d t. ..ilebtlity If supply will psted Canadian federal and provincial authorities cove us -t that he C-ission, and eat the Gr .ad t ... Iv. for it. use. f'stctes, will be alert to -strictive possibilities opersti , with Canadian I rest,, Th.C and coordination wi th rel ated activities of the Imai..i.. is t. be .-.d.d f.t the .-px.h ... iv.n... If the F, ternati-al Joint C'-i,,i*,, United States and R.P.vt. Ca ..do For cur 'art tparhment of State will Pr be pleased to facilitate pro i,to coordination st With ly, C._.Ca@adi- authorities and the International Joint Is a We look foLw rd to Conti 11e..d w11k,t0q ther in thi rod ili@c tore the ake, in both DI. H.- ountpe i n, h i Ato the ' ""i inter- Z. -@- =i@! I. 'ife Rest ... t deP.rdence of the tors throughout the Great inflcn.e the ..... eirent and utLalcs Basin which ilization of its important resources Sincerely, He rb,,t Spiel... Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Housing and Urban Develop- Department of State ment Review Comments 27 -PARTMEPIT OF TRANSPORT-ION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD @02)4 2 -6-2 S- .1 1-- oF THs GOVBRNOR C.I:AI.O r-d-i@k 0. R-se I T"I"111" Jun 0. 1977 C. - Lk,s Basin Coamissim, P. 0. no. @91 Am, Arbor, Vi@hig.. 4810o Mr. Arthur H. Crafty car T U R I s B ... n Comaission lhi@ i, in r,p ... I to @- letter 11 15 1-cot- 197b dd-,rd to P U. S.@ ... S-11tau G111111 co--ing ."" P"P's'd -p- on 1hr C ... I Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 r .... -1, SL.dy. Dear Mr. Cratty: 11 ....... I pr,aling @Ioini,-ti- nd taff of th, Npartm- "ace ..... .u " his 1 tter is i respons to your request for comments on the Fr-ork --i,l .b.itt,d. We h- ie .. .. i Y ob Study Jecut v 5u_ 'yo he a , --le 1. off- no, @. . jection to Lhis opo- e * T ffected agencies of the State of Illinois have The OPPOIt"ity Lo 1-i- thi,s p,.p,s,d "PlIt is IPP-i-d. reviewed thi sdoctnaent and have no objections to its publication. Thank you for thi s opportunity to comment on the work of the Great Lakes Sinc-cly, Basin Comoission. X/Z@ Sincerely, F. P. SCHUBERT Captain, U.S. Coast Coard Deputy Chief, Office of Marine Euvi-ent and Systems ERB.B JRT:ab cc: D nald Vormahme Frank Beal Department of Transportation Illinois 0-C. -..No. @-, @10 0, April 20, 1977 February 9, 1977 Mr. Frederick 0: Rouse, Chairman Grea' Lakes -a- n C - i Mr. I,* Ird 1. Crook 1,111 Plymouth Road Eac., ive Director P.O. Box 999 Great Lakes Im,i, C-i- ion Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 '.0-B" 99' 1171 limouth Ro Dear Mr. Rouse: An. Ach.r' Mi chig.n 48106 The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study Report, 21 appendices Dear Mr. Crook: and En iroom-tal Impact Staten, have be.. rev e.ed by c of E 11 111P111: 1, y ur letter of April 11, 1977, pl.... be the appropriate officials of th:n st@at ndi.nai advised that th Int agational Joint C -i-ion does no, intend I - pleased to express th c*"urre the State .1 to 1-It on the Great Lek- Sto. Framework Study which y... Indiana with the Study . r: -endatio'nso' agency has conducted. N-rthal as the opportunity to ,me,t is gr. atly appreciated. Kindest Personal regards, Sincerely, Otis R. Bowe, M.D. Governor William A. Bullard ORB:- Secretary, U.S. Section International Joint Commission Indiana 28 Executive Summary STATE IF 1-11GA, STATE o, N- YORK E:XECUTfVE CIAIIER IAI 1 1, "1"11 ALIA1-2224 March 21, 1977 ............ Mr. Leonard Crook Batch 11, 1977 'xe"'i" 'ir'c'. rCoMi ssion Great Lakes Bas1n 3475 Plymp uth Road Box 999 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Dear Mr. Rouse: Dear Mr. Crook: This is in further response to your letter Of "'="La" 117G, and.roccuumanodations On the Gr t ke. Ifhav eviewed the final report and en;iromntal impact statement So.. Frams or,tudy Be or td Envidoconental Empact Statement. th: r Gr I LakeSBasin Framework Stud Porsuant to Mr. Rouse's request f ,,,.,:a 15 1 097u. New York State has a ithatstud aide, it, p"Eicip"t d in y i-cep@ien and we are generally Satisf ad wi h the a Sold s. The framework study represents an exhaustive and comprehensive compila- By Us ing a coordinated and comprehensive approach the ti on of data on a resource base for the Gr at Lakes Region. This will Consmis ce.._..d.d n fu r Stu ... P :ion has seriously c ... idered and has of ... iderable benefit ito edi:s and decisions relating oive and effective action: at.th:.f,rd ... kdRevelt11 to Present and future problems confronting Michigan and the other meet star add"lated r .... ice 'r " 1 nes ,he Great Lakes Sta te,. an idents of the basin. fr,,' r1k study finding' and recommendations Underwent tens i ve I, addition, the Comunissio, has actively ought and n ceview ba, Howev:x turn i al rySt d Agencies in recent months.r, there c"did redp and recommedati ns of the s tate. that has surfaced in this most recent review. The r:,,,rl andtrthldo tiii'@s.rdcr to -sure effective implement- 'e h:i re.. a. @,a'gd 60)'ntes that the resource base is more than adequate to tion of the study reccounendations. future food and li v"tdc I Production needs for the region. As you In- well as the the, Great is ke, States, ISconcherned Regarding the specific -concrendations in the report ' it add U, Michigan, as S to more intensive Uses. nr the continued loss of farml and T is' is imperative that energy conservation be stressed -Iegaid combined ,ith the uncertainties associated ith food production, raises be is ,he 'uns'i ne her the resource bas S a 'ua to meet f t the winter navigation demonstration project, a 1 0 wh t e i de te utu" t0hat a significant umout Of funding for environnuental studies food and livestock production needs of the Basin. must be a part of a, overall p, .Tam that mxe,ful,1,y,rzPl res Thank on for the opportuni0d Michigan to participate in the he environmental, economic, p rgeneration Ed tional stud nd Ed Fe,.dd P%aff rde nt implications ?f the navigation seaso ex ensio'. '-phasi,, y a1 w an rov, e to- S. or fn t the needfimproved water level a - Lake on trio in any Kind Personal regards. fuerther stud is. by the ITc tog ether with the ... lvemont.,1 th State and concerned public in developing future Pla . sincerel Al Soaspecial sunphasis should be placed Upon the immediate efs m n do itoring of industrial an dmunicipal wastes and r c isposal areas so that to in l,tants can be detected and their discharge or disposal prevented. P.1 Governor Michigan New York S,'PATE 0j, MINNEI,'O'I'A -2- S ATE PLANNING AGENCY IN CAP] TOL SQUARE BUILDING 550 CEDAR S REET ST, PAUL, S5101 The [email protected], Basi. F-..;,kiStddY h. smprovi ad New York . Ival.-l e t..l or ding he a ennent ""' dval.g..' of water and related resources in the June 13, 1977 Great Lakes portion of New York State. Sincerely, Mr. Arthur H. Cratty, Alternate Chai rman G"' t Lakes Basin Commi,sion 3475 PI you nth Road P. '. Be' "' Ad' Arbor ' Michigan ISIDI D.r Mr. Iratty: Honorable Frederick Rouse Throughout the preparation of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study Cb-an hs had numerous opportunities to pmv de comments Great Lakes Basin Commission d9: tf s f. ifs c. 0 sl@al so .1inule"2d nid Ini ti.n of the various drafts. Whe .. ed So, 999 "elellary or desirable, we have taken advantage Of those =h,apdrediated ;@n Arbor, Michigan 48106 opportunities and, generally, our concerns have been aceddte. Th e State of Minnesota has no further comments at this thn, on the framework Study and we support its transmittal to the U.S. Water Resources council. Thank yod,@,@ Since,J, Ihelseth, Minnesota 10-on-issioner Great Lakes Basin Commission ADC:pj cc: I v j.,:Prhn,,r.l,ud' T. Perpich di- Leonard T. Crook 'n E-Al ol-ET-TI E111101ER Minnesota New York, p. 2 Review Comments 29 RE: Final EIS - Great 1,k,, Basin Fro-lork Stil-dy-aK A_S5 1. .... February 10, 1977 3 !1,,---'-, on- 0- F=CuI,U_ A - -1 - @-: - CIL 1,, k,, Basin I.,mis,i.n 4,@,'L 3oIyrouh RoT, 2.0._ _Z CCK@= 07 CIVIL DZPCN@E 14_07]co" - _z@-icE PC, '.0 Bo 999 PZSl PICES Arr,'Arlo'r, Flichigan 48106 07 IS I-Ir PA Fu!_%@J T 0*1 co, :IXT 1- @_Iaza Co"QIrCSSION, Dear Chairman Rouse: oPrIct, t, The Cho io Enci@rodm,@ntlll Ir,Fl:,,!," Agency, acting as leactagency ,d. .r 0,, Ir v eI r cral Environmental Impact S atsionts, a, gl@c@ Other State anla,cid, on the adequacy of co@ vz.--o V'T CIS c"' the a1.1e refuldro, d F ra To date, the only comments received have been from the Ohio Department @f Natural Resources, 11 Y not, that information provided by the. 1 in our ravle, otter of th a Draft IS ,as orro leau, . Thl1 error b1c@,e,incI1g1,a,1ddii,n,1,he DIIA comments reproduced in Ann., 3 Oll pa o4th F , is. _e The --ous tat ... t 1, cpzn11i.1n1.t.11 If the royidu 1,11c, .d,- ".Acco rdiTog to Carter Isoc, ED om n'Iyear of sediment are due 11 S07EXCE 0- 0_@ I'o;;LTC pacifically to shorn -si-" Fop, AcIrl-', SoLCIP. 'd r, 1: According to Carter, the total fine 01Y daerived from the LTk2 Erie 11horIi, estimated @: .,, _,ACT, 1@;, ST: aht@1,5 t.hl6,,,illi..m ton,/year. rth S u d t er be f ,or comments on the Final FIST e ,ill f-I-d them to your Agency Pon receipt. E, apprciatc the opportunity to r, '112, the 11-1 ITS, Vytr,,u.@, yours, "',/rah ud, 1,-, .1.. 139 15 - (6@1) 11a a, Ohio Pennsylvania, p. 2 STATE OF WISCONSIN jpc K. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR k 33 VAISKIZV .@D-1. 1-ne ..H1 J. MmMak,. July 20, 1977 Greet 1-1 @ Basin Commission Arthur Crotty, Alternate Chairman D .,_ T o';' la2@ - 111HIlEn"03. 1. 111' @7 , ye 1 3 5 1 mouth Road 7-113133 P.0. Box 999 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 rno@rzcdz. C s_,_cz Dear Mr. Ctatty: IUDSET The State of Wisconsin has completed its review of the Great Lakes 7 7 0 4 ri 3 0 0 1 Basin Framework Study and the final environmental impact statement. P.C _sT.T This comprehensive study reflect, the view of f deral, state, and local agencies toward the water resource, IfIh: basin, including @M,2 r,oosyl-i, St- Cle-i',ahcar- - be C--n-'. ..agat fffic@ Wisconsin which participatad throughout the nine-yestrustud process. fO VIZ C--OcWe;`th Of P-T-591crnie C-tifi- t The information contained in the 27 volume sOf the dy has been' bet, il@ to, the. and will continue to be a help to the state identifying Great Lakes A-5 ji.-ti-Lod by ti- lb". P3C SAT - end the resources problems and their causes, despite some shortcomings @.Innl"T.re. r-n 41t, tho aji,11, oln,. I--- iLd 11.1tar: thn C, it. mentioned below and in the attached comments. ci.-111.1 -95, b,- V,a si it t: , CI @ - c! rintah-u;, - it i n-olio, to -b it In Z, 1--, @.n r- -4--l f-nilua co,noli 2 r- Enclosed are comments on the study and a copy of a resolution passed ti- bthe Natural Res ourcO , Bcard-The resolution and comments made by the Wisconsin Departm'ntof Natural Resou " 'to" so so a hI,aTo dviaable in future basin commisi' a in "M ies. "'o. @Cel, 11, cyangee th s on pl on g ctZtit Et -T th-I Fathe Natural nesources Board that all alternatives should t I fullI h have been y BapInrd d and pr_ ent ad in he Iromework Study. Also, cnrnin., thL. the Great Lakes ra .. Ork It `dy does 'or address a number of -jI1 issues.a of which have developed a' an -It appear, , S_ CX7 TXUT@ -115 go TtIon of tl@a'basic data is difficult to use ast1y iseit her out dated or displayed on an unsuitable geographical basis. To litigate these p,?bl,,,, in ftree.ltudiese lt,%coronduf ture study r-,isF1cLi., of th, i st U pIns gotai. off ct I aiito ble to s od p bil to bh- _'c t,iu. P, IJ nce is in l-f--:vc @Iic@cc; o-s- the end product and judge whether the study warrants,ss@la e--I-@ -r Ot, do,-n-,th_ participation, or should even be unde rt ak en by tha bas11 Co.. Ion. [email protected]: 'erl" 1;;-"b al_t ilit-had I would also Rest .1 tudi s, should beldecsigned in a format which si, tId .eli min tas co 1 e tion of unnecessary it2'0 i-t ion .;@@h th- I I@T-l C-, f- fo--ii 'S, dot 1information for the ri ue co:@,'-L- make he. .:'e' upla@le on t I pit I, and provides more use lIv. rn.e.tal 'a !tg ,aging n,,d,,F.mhi,.,i@1I(dedcv d.@plicatio., ud c? ,at, d,t., contributi.s stte , re ie f study data), use Idat a I viva". -e the -'-u, of thi, "a 'Al.i,h ic4 J til-V st", day-to-day state and local planning, and adoptioV of data by states Icinnaien ohi,ch 1-15 .1s. for their wataT resources plans. p,o,.ie-,,.1 co-2n- on nz,- We hope t1e,%th,d the ... 1?@,,d ... ents,.mil 6 helpful to your 0ssi n b. le so d 0, th !bb@ You for Y..- -2r!"tion. c coi I ,t bjt is pepajv, study and on future commission activities. 1i APR 13 19-,T MARTIN ."SC REIBER MIS:ded Pennsylvania Wisconsin 30 Executive Summary Resolution -2- by t 0 Wis'Onsin Natear1l R owcehs Baso,d Appardi. 1, Alternative Frameworks see- to take It" BOB pr,8... a, Is,, v,I, andI to 'he The 0 ... t IAk,, I, "I. ba: an ,"P"" " ' Main Frle rk Study he Rr .. d I. i.c .. iand l.Iflirt.. April 21, 19TT FIT IIl1pll* 11 1 1 101, he it"' ... I of ..rilull .. 1 1:8 .d .. Forest I...h pall ne t If . lolti..Itill 11 P111111 111"iea. of area ... lion, drainage If the and land trlle.t on the forest land. Net all the pp._..",. f th,::.,1.1.1 have b... t,d*".b- Pa., ,ph,.f,thh- a':Pa an out an -atirdfa .Skrain. is do- . readta:- 1*1:1 bank il,,R. ..bj -i to rji.". and I is I ... led had rhe pr ...... by "In"n.it-rur.1th-r"-g:.'f lead. is ..I of the .Jr --ib.l.l. to the --ler-lad ar-i. The tha,al R-... B-d -k-liedge. releipt of the Great Alan, an is live. to Ill the studies ad tell, ade by the 1,s],a Beal. F-lonk Study. Th Study represent . . . a.f.1 red 1,y i.terga..y cossair lee , whi,h rart.i,ly don't rely solely on ,=P:,di= of ben,basurk date reg:r@ia, the Seat.. The Busad is tl.l lure 1 -bad. to led... ar-ion. di::P!:i.ted that the ptiouss of liitd and ea-le-ted U,sth I, t are fully eapl-d old presented, ad direat, the APPENDIX 2, SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY D I,urtuent to aI,plore the- Materastives in tay fuath-, shore -P detailed studies that say f*jl- Tbi. appa,di. he, b... d-elp.d in the detail ad scope required to dol, in, only b i@ -1,3ed to ''a "h::i' I@ Plan far of 'It" and r:1':'-It1a'l'Oe.o- .7 the Great @kr, Basin withItad State..doil.. ,._.I ad inhis pp '=t .1 b:,,d..,.,,rb.. 1"'0 .. tin lre"y ...... b" 0 t'I-tiaw .at. data Or. ..lharOd I., the appandi.. 1, pp,"Ii, ri,,d,,h,,p,,gra. n,ia, i-.1-d in all- '. and , .,'. Ile_ i:..p ling d,his in Rise. This I, probably the _I, .-[-I sparl of this ppe.dix, 11111lit'rill xhl at to ,7T ati., I the Ilghithda, distribution and alilbility n. ofrstar a-ilability, r-ar-ir li,- f-ar. ling war: .a arted, th a selhad I- Y t ataI'd r-I1 u..:Rad are.ba:, wi @a,,aRi-1 ill _d"i.ra dataI II,andix is a .'Oful d 0 a ilar hydrologic pra tool far go I, :ntatiee If i.ndi,i.h. far are.. Ran- i,6 hydla'OGJ@ data re ... d_Ily devoid of Itllaaflow APPENDU 3,-KND GEUUNDWATFE ba- artain -hly to Wi .... @itata 1@,h rt.r. that r:l 11 9.1.la ax,aaai@ plapag., e:I beaaiI,i .w.I@ Mha I "11 1, Ind pWe. I'aP-all a' a,,,, I, proib@,ao Al . I.. dl.,:r ir. the state sb, in will.. sale irl.t.ant. is either nowIor sly be _able with Page 9, I-It paragraph - E-ha,i@ na, restr1i, gr,l,du,t,, P...... in the f.t,r,, with f-he, relia-e In -M8.. alar:,.(S-a --ant applies to page 21. P-l-gl-Ph 7 and par .... ph 31.) Wisconsin, P. 2 Wisconsin, p. 4 State of wl ..... in C,e.t @@Ca -r-t. a. the 3 a. Basin Fr---ark -dy 'Y thIre I.. to "' a 'w E'-r' General Couss..t. the t0-0- law @baoihje %'- Th' 'Irl:-"@-Eed ht " The Great @kes r, le -sa. Under the rw :8e 12-bework Study, . joint effort If and federal a ".I h-a .'if" of th'se P-1i.. .1 a dIs ....... Iorstaly ....... is the first b,si..id, p high, .,ad assuage l.:IiI8 d*,@, Ott th I an 11 ... d 'h her ownels OR 'Y state, @ke Basin. Although l-st seIk relief in _i_l I@ota """:led _d'. _I, too, for 0 0r 'a" ""I "I I-M rL.IIY a"O_t ,h,O a l'It --a's if he @ttrIOO ad. .f.,e,ll " 'a .. t th re-asse.d.tio-, the study -ill be P"M"Y us 1 0'adpr-l -Ea-%. in their planning activities, -:, of which ha's 'p 't an Wisconsin. At the ..a line. - If app ndic.. "g' Paragraph 111 the Wilt-l-in I-lke SlPeli-l Region ssadat.he to the study h!7b,- ad will _t 1-ita - 111olipal q.ifar. inf-ruetion in, the Stale of Wi-hain-I to be good -_aa Of general I.:111,,ep ..... rllk nI ife The studY" -lue to ishallowr 'PI"fict-1-9 1.9 water and lead leloor 'a led tth:' I 's I It ,-late near LTke Win.oh.g., programs in Wi .... at. is It" b; two lot 'act,,,: the _!1 the at-., an, the f_ Ii -,lure of ad at _:1 F. Re 25, -d _- h of the th rhe It .. Year th h all 'ec' Old led. Ths, r!* -I a Mig -i'y I. 'he .... .. hot e-t-sivef." Ps'a" phd I t ,a in the Mil k I rea. -lh-y; M hiRhIiEhlad below in"coushent"On .P i.L:f..d Page 26. the study. he indilid,,l -I- of p.r,g,sph 6 and page salinity in wis'Onsin .hIh of a" last PIrgrah - are 'I the Sp.cifil Conalents Mka below 2, Ug feet? 'Ile 28 f-Il P-s@ra,b - are are the, REPORT Old AFFE"IX 1, ALTERMT!,E U2Sart ra in a", PI-1a in Wi -rain wh L: A fr A e:lding to the lhlr.d.l,i.h to the Report 1- 21: ... b- P"'g-lo 3 - Th. PoIr C ... lY -dy hae I.. ... p,,,., . the p.rpo,, of sod is In an @,. fil,,at the U-S-G-S. A water a.pply pa a fo of id,,ti!yp Wit all I' do [email protected]. hper a be r, -bla- ahlylalet@ Printedu I.,F as dot' 'Ollltio- 01 planning.,, h I-' l, I a an "age 29 top of 2rd ,J.a, -W-l-t-sa, I-' Mil-auk- red-lod p..p.g. k n, hli."'ti:l rlo:'4,e the ... gh le- idaniff,-ti.. and dat ... juati.- IY GoIn@ to l.ke ..pply. P.:bI .. -a- thI,.tdy I, ,:.tly art '1' Ia'--rabiAr,i1j- ...... I of .pl.'th nIi,. fpth --pts to b..... a plan. For "':a''ar!tr d-. h -.1 a Fr ... works Report, Appeadi. Alt,rI,ti,a b1:I Iild -e,al lines Isperia, , te in WIRI ,ad Per- "ad' nor it a pI_Onsi-, Ith,.gh it has P-rport to Ple-1- 'he GLBC " 'le Of how to beat set the to I'. L 1111.1"t b.,kl.e,iIE of I by ,:;d, 't"'Y "I'le 111alioarts showed Ith! . ..... dull.. be eat 1. year. the a I'OhiIin. l rafiel'. both r,:@ip a, f in :f the People." lf this is really an "'a I -I.: , FI,"I 1-11 - R 'In, i.fo-s,ion hall a than the ,i,:,i:.d he deal d I. ids . dY is Judged th.r.as considerably. by hieh the total di..oI-e1r-lod @ka ',,n:b.,g,. 'h those aill. 'a d-I. in reas. high I-If-las and for the higher than A Be .... I-ltiO- to lhe.:,,hlha-Ei that there i- - let If aute".1 nol-I dias-1,,d solids.h is ,:,tle,,d t*geth.T b:, he lid it raw ; it an hecan Y d fr t.t APPENDIX 4, L-OLWY U' -1 - ENBA@ENTS as ilold b!y !t ':.'.'O-OFI*1!11 f .e I rit, "!._ ,belle d the, -hYll'al -old hePPI1 dire y h ".d;e H.leear, 11 the erl ite -1 a. Th's is a InIt detailed and I and -1 C isf saiIh g report2h Wis 1 or i_h _I 'al. Ali ..... in that wall, --palled I- P-lide d, 11 eye hot i",Id, C_ h-Rb t e...n.ind.ha. an 1 kely h- di ... t ff.l,.. ad o.ra r-O;;ahd...n. rWiI,this will be an e.ceIlanL"dI-part far _.y lIepsri-O, of --IsI R__as ApFE-IX 2. MINERAL RESOURCES 11 1:11rll. A'di' 5,P@rli@de: d@,e,a IL.Ikl. bsk I-.1dtda., ,be i.,.a :,u' 'Th G, is dr..ert "a eal l I w hit, is printed really ""I Yea .. ... an d is based -I all nine a.r. old.)d Wisconsin, P. 3 Wisconsin, p. 5 Review Comments 31 4 - 6 - ,at, -o, hill '@'114111 1". APPENDIX 16, DRAINAGE '. 'I I. Ale. I.Da Iill It- -cf.1 to elect p.bli@ cff.lca. Me ppoodi. dd,I.... the b-fic, of d-ia.ge to tlop p,,d.cti,,, I- d,e,",:ib.1, ... .t t:':. ".pI. P't hIt. p..... ch@%llald It' p...... d !I dtl.gi:'i". -AIA be of.'aaogT", .,., oftia. d ad @-el pit. :b_kqaltiIa the doff.Iti.. of lead. ..Idi.g dt.i.ag, ce- to be b-d to - h a 1. 11 alt. i. If- ly A f-ti- of the,, bich ... .. -Ily p,I,.,t ...... y "-'d lead, h-ld be d.I. Id.d 0.p-,d of --al y-1. F- I... plI, th ... ... '1 .. d' h'P ... d' '*" @.'Ict c. -d -.y be -ad -at ptce-at Itl..d. (..t log f.- d I .Iill 1:11 1. .ig'if-ocly .... .. . to I. .. tya h..Id - be d-i.ad. Thi. I. latho, tbitl:11y-.Id1 "I'd " 't:@" .le l1pollId. d..bdt'.1,'Ll clei'ate C"Ifte .2 be a71t co.pceh-ai- of d, i.aga polity - both ced, ..d belefit1cf,k. 11 Mali,... C-ty. Thtae IN ... -ti.l. lead - to -ti.o of a data 'eiat1.9 to o ... -alli@ ililg to S.b.,ea 2.1. APPENDIX 18, EROSION A. S.I.:NTAIION P-g-ph 2.1.1.2 - gil- the ap.ll "I 11bli'lld, I ... la 1,pl -11c. IIP11di, I.. to Set .. I-Id a 10 @hathet it I. dd--i,g ,I . c.'Pa . . . c _e body ;. @ i:i.. It the ef':_ of Id C,,.p..y h.. .--d , dia'. -Y I- i_-id, Iil-tali- --l!cy, It i, e..y U-ty, j.at -t of Sal.... 2.1, od E... I C..p,Iy, USA h.a --d ot ..ch ... I th.. .. -1-- of be I'f7 C.Iacc' to. Need. ln-o-y. ..JI, ilc-pp- ... body to F ... t C... ty. U"'-hi, ll-y,,, old"t, I. pdatl a"d :"pl ... tl.,* ,fl,,t laod .N:.t .ao of pl_'icI. .d c'. idealifi.cia. f l'itical a..It i. Pe gl.ph 2.2.1.1 - 1. 1976 the I "Iaah, C-ty Palk -d 11 .. log diffi-It to -1- to at,, q..Iity. It I.. d... - ddle;. itaelf C=i-i.. p.bli,h,d . -p- ca 1, 'led "_@aah. Cent' ad _d Cl_l to the --t t. hich p-ctit- -e bell, ,-,ad dto utili-i.. The i-a-7 d... P"'t" Ihat,.,.pp,.t.dh*,, ' " " to Pi" "'if":' I- ""P' ". I. SacLi.. 121it ':,ale. 'i goiIicaally ..ce -.Italli@ -z",hi. le -poti I. i. ch'al'-. if".-ltPaif I. ala'@.,d. ele It, "T -e I, f- t... _dat If -d,d oil -.1d be ,t,,i.g the d,,i.,gl Yale' , , ", Thi. deli-ry ratio of 100 palc-, @hich I. A gle- I-- APPENDIX 7, WATER QUALITY cat i.ati... The ppe.di. i. --Ily Ill -1- I.d it pte-11 I b... I --i- Ill 11 1.atai,,d a. App-di-a 16 od 18 1, -f.1 f-l a ._i!, of 'a'ar q-1ity ""ditill, to he altile 1- t, th I ....i I of cIrra- t pl.bll.a f. he Great L.k-Bat.. H-ar, they lat.le f I -It 1' 1 ldthe&'let.Ii_dcioa ... dto ch'dat. both -to go aaIdciti .. 1 tap i. order 1, be tili-d i" it, I .. lc,- p1:1111till, it to di"i-It to ---t .. aith., the .-.rely I, the ... of .. to' P"'la a, Iaaly . bILLe, tII. to _I,q_liLy c"_a .a f@ I" If the -Ilial to, Wi .... ai.. ad better dlt.ili.g If titic.1 ..... .ld -da. Allll,,l tle to I .. at i" to thiappcldi, pp,l,.tly 11 he APPENDIX 21, 0UTDOOE RECREAT10N tiae it ..I ri 'let, I-.to pal,a .,I ... of data. 'Pl'Ifi'ally. pleg- -a 11 Oo page 28, he at ch. --go pcra.I - 11- "0 eat oaiI glalt P"' '0 "for' to a'ate t the d""ipti" ' 'h@ 'il@ Pat Y" ,a -Pe t patclot 9 -1@baalo to the -riti"' If t' '-ti.. the Xr.lt 'odIId a 1" t'i1ryear ch.,gId to P, '..'ily . 5 P"c,.t Al- to Ippl:.alt the 11 elce't by Ih:cyl,, 2.CO eei. c. 'I, itttht"Iace It .r'e.rgy p-ble- The federal Era- . "or, 1111-ly, thia c..t food -a -1, ... led ..d the- .Rge to. to page It that g-l-alt de-llpalltl 11, CXpcILd t, i. to cedinS ll'. a'at .. . ._a. " -Pl-e it. -tiafy 80 pIrc..t,.f, rqi ....... to 1111 a:.dt200.O.:,d 11 P_at to 1111 r1ill, .. a , a i .. * Th. 20 20 at.'e._J"e P"" 'p ..... let' Th, at,, "a lity ....... d, d... ibd - p... 40-11 or, g.... Ily b_ be @_id@d that So parlaot i. the "light" fig.r. fot 198. or 2..I .cc.r.co IL lafl_t 'aleal at.. ..ch . he .1 'old -ff" bthey doI Thi, a-a --,i-ly high. Moat If chi. ppa.di, i, .tre.. ci-ifit.-I ay.t- @h- it d,,,,'t ..... I il he ill do hat @ilh @h- cl,y? " I'll 11 "Mi. ill the APPENDIX 22, AESTHETIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES it 'h't' "I' .... d:oc:17 ..a of the lhiHaa Ef-ceclt Cof-Oc1co.bi-d a .. "" 'y It .. .. I b 1111-ad an or bIf.,, ll:b , 1, 1911-" Tibia r.e':l-1, dl.,,,hal, .... til,@I:d aiRoili .. L r.c .. -,J@L I.. _l I. t be It. to fact, it -Ib:..I ci.I b f.le "ce'l ,Ilit_ lo II,_ I.'e at ap e 1@@ Ib,aed @q.I.t I If 'h . ....."11111111d. 11 1: able ec to the :'bell . .... I 1.7a"Ill.ble .. 1. .. be. it ..I bpli.had. Me .,I .. ge-cal ha, they d. act -ry aig I':"'Y f- IX to' '* r"i"'IhI .... rcae od .IlChtt@ co.p.,ed 1. -altro -at t1,! to @hi,h they',. located. I Wisconsin, p. 6 Wisconsin, p. 8 7 - ,H I i,@-d.cci.o 1he ---o L If PL 92-500 in Cliche, of 1972. he body of the 1pp-di. dc. &-alally reflect the d-,,- "d" to it-p-LI thlal the b,lk of the App-di., l%ajfI-y little 'y III if It Ih:,, !: !I@ it i. ohoa:@ybolt. ....... .... by "i' 1%- h a,, ce aj- .. lite .. Id ne-a- do ..tI..y. bear ay to :I.ci:.cly APPENDIX R-9, RECREATIONAL BOArING cae an i.da. ..p to 1-le lythiag. 11 "1 P11"i"l. ""r"bl' "Y to r"i" all he 1-iled fig-ea APPENDIX 3_31 HEALTH A@SPECTS P---e 11-a. 11-- S .. o Hall- aa .it led to Tab le R9-18- Chi I page 6, I,1c --, hot Tha- app-, to be 1@:acdahhe in Appeolia ,1aid PP ndl- 6be LU -1t fi,h-co, they ..y be q.1te "glifita- . Watr "pply!L p.1,iiI health. ch- S.peri.c. It dep-d, .. the lti@ity of the I. . t c-ce-ad @ h KPPLNU X 10, POWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT _L 1,1or, ... illy, I .. 1,, a, he Ippa"d 'i""l A, -_1d b., %'pyc@,_dI,1@11 @," Ilil ... ....... @-lp .1ldy, the .an I the 'aa of ..It app,y .d ix i' "n':'n'd . ..... b"h P' @ @ c.. tit.,Ill let a I pro ..d d id-and b- ch-Had ice ic@ Ill i a- t11. PIE ci.I to 1975. T,i. tc.d. 1. aka ba.l- I.-I If he pl.j-i.a.. [email protected] ....... it chat Hall,, Ill" try to Pd. d be_'that the d,q..t,ly add ..... a the ..Jet I ... to. @hich .111 d- p ith the .. .. k. it do '!" Itate f.t.t. 9-th of p.p.l.ti.., c.d.aclial, -Ilt- a.d Itl-i ... 1 ... 'a chi it.. - lacd I. the it.alicn . itd -tly 1975. @-Pca:d I" t@l_la l1I:'I1tthb.G-:1c@kI :.1.,1,.SPo.:th.,-@,.'th, pro it.. appe ch oI. Ad let A la, in,, .... .I.. p,:,,"L.,,nd i... dhe .poll are . .... htit.d cooaaq ... tly lellelle tilil-icn, IIn 'he E.. Pa i ,'b I i!,I hat .. 1-r-9111-tad bchi'tal1a P... .. 1 ""ly a "T P"ti" If 'h' "'I,n- a b, the y... @001- I. @i- of he 1-t l.. @hIch h-a beeo I-d b,.t P.eat .11 11.. d1t1il,1 -1 .. lift, co-enla ill 11 p-idcd Ilan ... ir,n.,,t,l the 1- t1at III 1agc1t tility to the Bali., -ric- El-,i@ P-r, a It 'apalc a .. _alt. ate P_P. cad on icd,e "'I' 11:q.- dali-S i a:n a 'ItHel, lal to pl-lly alil, or pc.j-t. iIed @ithi. the Fra-1-1 @t.@y. @i- Ito Oo pa,e 61 .,do 'h' e' it, E-1-ottal C .. idel- i..a, that alld....... 11 j-iadilli-l i-raal 'Secti.a N:' Late at. the P11.itt!.X pt .... I I ... !led lot he III e of @i a-ai. 1. chi. p.-col th in be f-alded to thi. 6.6.9) d.ea lot i- '.de the n- aiti.E bill Ulch, I ... - b-o- I., ". I' 'he ti-o of "e I'iti lE pa., I,,tbe Llc cli'jcd H@[email protected] no -bably d-a I., Ill "I t"I "ej -ticne c-tai-d in IhI -&-r.oge plane, h..- at.- thia i.f"ca ti.- -aa 7pp,,cllly '.ppli ad by the FPC, if ay l-ii I ia ade it a-ld ptb.1ly be ..da by that a,a.c, a. he, there ia -ai-ocy fr., let, to -LI. APPENDIX 12, SHORE USE AND EROSION Thle app-di. hae pl- c. be -I-le to the d.--- to p,,,r- ,let 11,d'f ' ":d C .. tl "" M...... nt Act of "' 2 . a. .-d to I""a f._at of the -pact and data tbalai. h.ee pr-ide,l -th I-d face lile i.f.l.ati... A-ldil,ly, tc-d. of ch..g. ia the .ae ..d ale-, I( the aho-lia at, ..at le.dily "ibl, he, the appIndI, I, ,,pr,d 11 data collected d.,i,g the p- - year, of the c.." aI N'_.. l _S_ APPENDIX , FLOODPLAINS Al,l,,,l 11, ill .. aliln to tli:..@p@paidi%..y be -cy aaf.1 i. the _t_ of the_i,e __ 'a,Ita- d-il .... of .. .r' 'ha , ia d.oa I. . l_j I_!Iby Iil c_i1 .1 P_._ .1 N.L .. I Raa .. ca'a Fl..1,1aia S-1- I'a aa aI.rkilg -I i. LUI-flle li-ed. I Wisconsin, p. 7 Wisconsin, p. 9 framework study availability If you wish to examine the Framework Study further, you may be able to find it in the library of a federal, state, or regional agency near you or in a local public library. You can also order copies of the entire set or individual volumes from the Great Lakes Basin Commission, P.O. Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. The Commission will send you free upon request a brochure describing each Framework Study volume. This brochure also lists the libraries at which the Framework Study is available. Just ask for the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study Brochure. f ramework study volumef Report Appendix 1: Alternative Frameworks Appendix 2: Surface Water Hydrology Appendix 3: Geology and Ground Water Appendix 4: Limnology of Lakes and Embayments Appendix 5: Mineral Resources Appendix 6: Water Supply-Municipal, Industrial, and Rural Appendix 7: Water Quality Appendix 8: Fish Appendix C9: Commercial Navigation Appendix R9: Recreational Boating Appendix 10: Power Appendix 11: Levels and Flows Appendix 12: Shore Use and Erosion Appendix 13: Land Use and Management Appendix 14: Flood Plains Appendix 15: Irrigation Appendix 16: Drainage Appendix 17: Wildlife Appendix 18: Erosion and Sedimentation Appendix 19: Economic and Demographic Studies Appendix F20: Federal Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix S20: State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix 21: Outdoor Recreation Appendix 22: Aesthetic and Cultural Resources Appendix 23: Health Aspects Environmental Impact Statement GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION Postage and Fees Paid 3475 PLYMOUTH RD. - P.O. BOX.999 Great Lakes Basin commission ANN ARBOR, Mi. 48106 -3 6668 14104 3952 -14* Official Business Penalty forPrivate use $300 U&MAIL 5W, :oq"- @5 .0 91 ft%oft* A @,LAKES CRT Arthur H. "Ctatty, iel Ll"' ;6W naM -419@ate of I Ilinois State of Indiana Stata of Michigan S 0 innesCta tateft M State of New Yolk U.S. State of Ohio 0 Commonwealth of Nh "40 nsylvania AW, State of Wisconsin Greaf Lakes Commission -A . . . . . . U.S. Department of AqFiculture U.S. Dep@@Kment of the Army-46@ U.S. Department of Commerce Fef@deral Power Commission