[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
4010 @12 @one Coastal informatiOn Center jar ".4 T OM A01 . . ........ jc, POO g 4", la I @ -41*11,11, 04 @Arlk A VA APPEN4DIk FF@a ewo rk,. a AMU JrColni' L4$ REAT L^ES BASIN F Great Lakes Basin Framework Study _Js APPENDIX 1 ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS GREAT LAKES BASINCOMMISSION Prepared by Surface Water Hydrology Work Group Sponsored by U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Published by the Public Information Office, Great Lakes Basin Commission, 3475 Plymouth Road, P.O. Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Printed in 1976. Cover photo by Kristine Moore Meves. This appendix to the Report of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was prepared under the auspices of the Great Lakes Basin Commission to provide data for use in the conduct of the Study and preparation of the Report. The conclusions and recommendations herein are not necessarily those of the Basin Commission. The recommendations of the Great Lakes Basin Commission are included in the Report. The copyright material reproduced in this volurne of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was printed with the kind consent of the copyright holders. Section 8, title 17, United States Code, provides: The publication or republication by the Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor. The Great Lakes Basin Commission requests that no copyrighted material in this volume be republished or reprinted without the permission of the author. OUTLINE 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 SYNOPSIS This appendix describes the formulation carried costs. Summary cost tables are provided. out as a part of the Framework Study and the Two separate frameworks are included. One is results of those formulation procedures, including the Normal Framework (NOR), based almost en- the anticipated results of the framework solutions tirely on projections stemming from the OBERS or programs selected. Costs are estimated to the Series C Economic and Demographic Projections end of the study period, which is the year 2020. (National Economic Development, or NED, objec- The appendix contains sufficient description of tive). The other is the Proposed Framework the Basin, its economic and demographic charac- (PRO), which differs from the Normal Framework teristics, and its water and related land resources in certain respects. It is an effort to reflect the to permit an understanding of the existing situation desires of the people in various parts of the Basin and the problems anticipated. It describes the basis and the decisions of the Great Lakes Basin Com- on which projections of requirements and needs mission with respect to certain developments. Both were made for the years 1980. 2000, and 2020, and frameworks are fully treated with respect to out- the quantification, where practicable, of 23 re- puts and costs. source needs at these years. The appendix provides information broken down The methods used to determine the ways to meet by States, Lake basins and by planning subareas or needs are described, and tables are included to river basin groups. show the results to be expected from the solutions For additional detail on the existing situation, or programs chosen. Estimates of capital cost and of the methodology used in making projections, the operation, maintenance and replacement costs are single-purpose solutions proposed, and some of the provided by time periods, broken down into Fed- cost estimating procedures, reference should be eral costs, public non-Federal costs, and private made to the 22 basic resource appendixes. v FOREWORD The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study is the vided background information and represented first study undertaken by the Great Lakes Basin their agency's concerns during the decision-making Commission, a State-Federal organization estab- process. Planners from regional agencies, repre- lished by Executive Order No. 11345, dated April sentatives from private groups such as American 20, 1967, under the authority of Section 201 of Association of University Women and League of Public Law 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Women Voters, as well as concerned and interested Act of 1965. Under this act the Great Lakes Basin individuals, also served on the task forces for for- Commission is designated as the principal agency mulation or acted as observers. for the coordination of planning for water and Thus, it is believed that the framework formula- related land resources in the Great Lakes Basin tion fairly represents the professional knowledge of among the various Federal, State, local and non- the Federal and State agencies having specific re- governmental entities. Appendix 1, Alternative sponsibilities in the Basin and also the judgment, Frameworks, and the Framework Study of which it aspirations, and desires of the people in each part is a part, represent the first steps towards prepa- of the Basin. ration of a Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan The 15 plan formulation task forces worked (CCJP) for the development and utilization of the under the general direction of the Plan and Pro- water and related land resources in the Great gram Formulation Committee. A member of the Lakes Basin. The CCJP is one of the major re- staff of each Commissioner, either the Commis- sponsibilities of the Commission under the Water sioner or a technical assistant, comprised the com- Resources Planning Act. mittee. The Chairman was Leonard T. Crook, Ex- The authority of the Great Lakes Basin Com- ecutive Director and Planning Director, Great mission, and therefore the scope of the Framework Lakes Basin Commission. Study, is limited to the Great Lakes Basin within The chairmen of the task forces were members of the United States down to and including the point the Commission staff. The following Commission at which the St. Lawrence River ceases to be the staff members directed the work in the various international boundary. Lake basins toward preparation of the initial The Framework Study represents the combined drafts of text and tables reporting the formulation efforts of all the Great Lakes Basin Commission process and results. member agencies, coordinated by the Commission staff headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Lake Superior States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Eugene A. Jarecki New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin Lake Michigan played a major role in the formulation of frarne- Eugene A. Jarecki works for those planning subareas and Lake basins John L. Hull within their geographic areas. Because of their David C. N. Robb heavy involvement in water and related land re- Lake Huron sources programs, the U.S. Army Corps of E i John L. Hull r1g1_ Lake Erie neers and the Department of Agriculture were Kenneth E. McElroy represented on all framework formulation task Paul Vachon forces. The Department of the Interior was often Leonard T. Crook involved through the Bureau of Outdoor Recre- Lake Ontario ation and the Fish and Wildlife Service (formerly Kenneth E. McElroy the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife). The Paul Vachon Environmental Protection Agency was represented in most cases, or provided input on special request. Alfred Behm of the Corps of Engineers, North Matters dealing specifically with the Lakes involved Central Division, provided coordination with the the Lake Survey Center of the Department of Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Commerce. Other agencies were represented as Study in River Basin Group 2.2. appropriate. Even when representatives were not Throughout the study period many permanent actually present at task force meetings, they pro- and temporary members of the Basin Commission A vii Appendix 1 staff participated in calculations and preparation of Section 1 to 5 and Sections 11 and 12, was the tables. Suzanne Braley and Susan Green were re- responsibility of 0. C. Reedy of the Commission sponsible for compiling many of the final tables staff, with the assistance of Martha W. Deline. M. throughout the appendix. Annette Ketner supervised the design and produc- Compilation of the appendix, including writing of tion of the volume. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OUTLINE .................................................... SYNOPSIS ................................................... v FOREWORD ................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES .............................................. xviii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. xxxv INTRODUCTION .............................................. xxxvii I BASIN DESCRIPTION ....................................... 1 1.1 General ............................................... 1 1.2 Planning Subdivisions ..................................... 1 1.2.1 Counties ........................................ 1 1.2.2 River Basins and Complexes ........................... 3 1.3 Land and Water Areas .................................... 3 1.4 Natural Characteristics .................................... 3 1.4.1 Geology, Physiography, Topography ..................... 3 1.4.2 Climate .......................................... 7 1.4.3 Water Resources .................................. 9 1.4.4 Related Land and Other Natural Resources ................ 13 1.4.4.1 Soils .................................... 13 1.4.4.2 Forests .................................. 15 1.4.4.3 Minerals .................................. 15 1.4.4.4 Fish ..................................... 15 1.4.4.5 Mammals and Birds .......................... 16 1.5 Human Characteristics .................................... 18 1.5.1 Population and Economic Factors ....................... 18 1.5.1.1 Population ................................. 18 1.5.1.2 Economic Base ............................. 21 1.5.2 Institutional Arrangements ............................. 24 1.6 Use of Resources ........................................ 24 1.6.1 Land Use, Treatment, and Management ................... 24 1.7 Problems, Needs, and Trends.in the Great Lakes Basin .............. 26 1.7.1 Natural .......................................... 27 1. 7.2 Human .......................................... 27 2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, SUBOBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA ............. 29 2.1 Introduction and Definition .......... ...................... 29 2.2 Derivation of Goals, Subobjectives, and Criteria ................... 30 2.3 Social Well-Being ........................................ 31 2.4 Normal Growth ......................................... 32 2.5 Accelerated Growth ....................................... 32 2.6 Limited Growth ............... * * 6r, ' * ... ---***-- 33 2.7 Specific Subobjectives and Criteria in the eat Lakes Basin .......... 33 ix x Appendix 1 Page 3 FUTURE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS 39 3.1 Economic and Demographic Projections ......................... 39 3. 1.1 Population ....................................... 40 3.1.2 Employment ..................................... 41 3.1.3 Income ......................................... 41 3.1.4 Production ....................................... 43 3.2 Resource Requirements ................................... 46 3.2.1 Methodology ..................................... 46 3.2.2 Projected Water and Related Land Requirements ............ 46 3.2.2.1 Table of Projections .......................... 48 4 FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT ................................. 49 4.1 The Idea of a Framework .................................. 49 4.1.1 Frameworks for the Great Lakes Basin ................... 49 4.1.2 Frameworks for Future Time Periods .................... 49 4.1.3 Constraints ...................................... 50 4.1.4 Who Will Use the Frameworks ......................... 50 4.2 The Process of Framework Formulation ........................ 50 4.3 Objectives and Alternative Frameworks ......................... 51 4.3.1 Normal Growth and OBERS Projections .................. 51 4.3.2 Other Alternatives ................................. 51 4.3.3 Proposed Framework ............................... 52 4.4 Water and Land Resources ................................. 52 4.4.1 Opportunities, Needs, and Problems ...................... 52 4.4.2 Resource Supply .................................... 54 4.5 Future Needs and Problems ................................ 55 4.5.1 Ongoing Programs ................................. 56 4.6 Program Alternatives ..................................... 56 4.6.1 Alternative Solutions ................................ 56 4.6.2 Program Categories ................................ 57 4.6.3 Water Withdrawals ................................. 60 4.6.4 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ........................... 60 4.6.5 Related Land Uses and Problems ...* .................... 61 4.7 Framework Selection, Criteria, and Priorities ..................... 61 4.8 Framework Costs ....................................... 61 4.8.1 General Criteria for Capital and Operation, Maintenance, and Re- placement Costs ................................... 61 4.8.1.1 Capital Cost Details .......................... 62 4.8.1.2 Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Cost Details . . 64 4.8.2 Cost Summary Table ................................ 64 4.9 The Normal Framework .................................... 64 4.10 The Proposed Framework .................................. 65 5 ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS FOR THE GREAT LAKES BASIN ...... 67 5.1 Introduction ....... -*---** ...................... 67 5.2 Existing Resource Use and Development ........................ 67 5.2.1 Water Withdrawals ................................. 67 5.2.1.1 Municipal Water Supplies ...................... 67 5.2.1.2 Industrial Water Supplies ...................... 67 5.2.1.3 Rural Water Supplies ......................... 67 5.2.1.4 Irrigation Water Supplies ...................... 67 5.2.1.5 Mineral Water Supplies ....................... 68 5.2.1.6 Power Development .......................... 68 Table of Contents xi Page 5.2.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ........................... 69 5.2.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Discharges ................ 69 5.2.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Discharges ....... 69 5.2.2.3 Hydroelectric Power ................. ........ 69 5.2.2.4 Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation ............... 69 5.2.2.5 Sport Fishing .............................. 70 5.2.2.6 Recreational Boating ......................... 70 5.2.2.7 Commercial Fishing .......................... 70 5.2.2.8 Commercial Navigation ....................... 70 5.2.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ....................... 70 5.2.3.1 Agricultural Land Treatment and Cropland Drainage ... 72 5.2.3.2 Forest Land Treatment ....................... 72 5.2.3.3 Shoreline Erosion ........................... 73 5.2.3.4 Streambank Erosion ......................... 73 5.2.3.5 Flood Plains ............................... 75 5.2.3.6 Wildlife Management ......................... 75 5.2.3.7 Aesthetic and Cultural Resources ................. 76 5.2.3.8 Outdoor Recreation .......................... 76 5.3 Problems ............................................. 78 5.4 Projected Resource Needs and Opportunities ..................... 80 5.4.1 Water Withdrawals ................................. 80 5.4.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ........................... 80 5.4.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ....................... 81 5.5 Normal Framework ....................................... 81 5.5.1 Water Withdrawals .................................. 81 5.5.1.1 Municipally Supplied .......................... 81 5.5.1.2 Self-Supplied Industrial ....................... 81 5.5.1.3 Rural Domestic and Livestock ................... 82 5.5.1.4 Irrigation ................................. 82 5.5.1.5 Mining ................................... 82 5.5.1.6 Thermal Power Cooling ....................... 82 5.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ........................... 82 5.5.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Discharges ................ 82 5.5.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Discharges ................ 82 5.5.2.3 Hydroelectric Power ......................... 83 5.5.2.4 Sport Fishing .............................. 83 5.5.2.5 Recreational Boating ......................... 83 5.5.2.6 Commercial Fishing .......................... 83 5.5.2.7 Commercial Navigation ....................... 83 5.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ....................... 84 5.5.3.1 Agricultural Land Treatment ................... 84 5.5.3.2 Cropland Drainage ............. 84 5.5.3.3 Forest Land Treatment ....................... 84 5.5.3.4 Shoreland Erosion ........................... 84 5.5.3.5 Streambank Erosion ......................... 84 5.5.3.6 Flood Plains ............................... 84 5.5.3.7 Wildlife .................................. 84 5.5.3.8 Aesthetic and Cultural Resources ................. 85 5.5.3.9 Outdoor Recreation .......................... 85 5.5.4 Statistical Tables .................................. 85 5.6 Proposed Framework ..................................... 85 5.6.1 Water Withdrawals ................................. 86 5.6.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ........................... 86 5.6.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ....................... 87 5.6.4 Statistical Tables .................................. 89 5.7 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ............................. 89 xii Appendix 1 Page 6 LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN ..................................... 91 6.1 Study Area ............................................. 91 6.1.1 Human Characteristics ............................... 91 6.1.2 Water Resources .................................. 91 6.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources ...................... 93 6.1.4 Problems ........................................ 93 6.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development .................. 94 6.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 97 6.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 98 6.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 100 6.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 1.1 ......................... 104 6.2.1 Summary ........................................ 104 6.2.2 The Area ........................................ 104 6.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 104 6.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 104 6.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 104 6.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 106 6.2.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 108 6.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 108 6.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 109 6.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 110 6.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 1.2 ......................... 110 6.3.1 Summary ........................................ 110 6.3.2 The Area ......................................... 110 6.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. fil 6.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... III 6.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal. Water Uses .................... ill 6.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 113 6.3.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 114 6.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ............. ....... 114 6.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 115 6.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ......... ....... 117 6.4 Lake Supejior Intrarelationships ............................. 117 6.4.1 Commercial Navigation .............................. 117 6.4.2 Recreational Boating ................................ 117 6.4.3 Commercial and Sport Fishery ......................... 117 6.4.4 Water Quality - @ ...................................... 118 6.4.5 Levels and Flows ............................... 118 7 LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN ..................................... 119 7.1 Study Area ............................................ 119 7.1.1 Human Characteristics ............................... 119 7.1.2 Water Resources .................................. 121 7.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources ...................... 121 7.1.4 Resource Problems ................................. 124 7.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development .................. 124 7.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 124 7.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 127 7.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 130 7.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.1 ......................... 135 7.2.1 Summary ........................................ 135 7.2.2 The Area ................ ....................... 136 7.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 136 7.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 138 Table of Contents xiii Page 7.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 138 7.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 138 7.2.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 139 7.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 139 7.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 140 7.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 141 7.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.2 ......................... 141 7.3.1 Summary ........................................ 141 7.3.2 The Area ............. .......................... 142 7.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 142 7.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 142 7.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 144 7.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 145 7.3.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 146 7.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 146 7.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 148 7.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 149 7.4 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.3 ......................... 149 7.4.1 Summary ........................................ 149 7.4.2 The Area ........................................ 149 7.4.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 149 7.4.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 151 7.4.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 151 7.4-3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 151 7.4.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 152 7.4.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 152 7.4.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 154 7.4.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 154 7.5 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.4 ......................... 154 7.5.1 Summary ........................................ 154 7.5.2 The Area ............. .......................... 155 7.5.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 155 7.5.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 155 7.5.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 155 7.5.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 157 7.5.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 158 7.5.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 158 7.5.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 159 7.5.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 160 7.6 Lake Michigan Intrarelationships, ............................. 160 7.6.1 Commercial Navigation .............................. 161 7.6.2 Recreational Boating ................................ 161 7.6.3 Sport Fishery ..................................... 161 7.6.4 Commercial Fishery ................................ 161 7.6.5 Water Quality .................................... 161 7.6.6 Levels and Flows ................................... 162 8 LAKE HURON BASIN ....................................... 163 8.1 Study Area ............................................ 163 8.1.1 Human Characteristics ............................... 163 8.1.2 Water Resources .................................. 163 8.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources ...................... 165 8.1.4 Resource Problems ................................. 167 8.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development .................. 171 8.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals ........................... 171 xiv Appendix 1 Page 8.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 173 8.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 175 8.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 3.1 ......................... 178 8.2.1 Summary ........................................ 178 8.2.2 The Area ........................................ 179 8.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 180 8.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 180 8.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 180 8.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 182 8.2.4. Alternative Frameworks .............................. 183 8.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 183 8.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 185 8.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 186 8.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 3.2 ......................... 186 8.3.1 Summary ........................................ 186 8.3.2 The Area ........................................ 186 8.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 188 8.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 189 8.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 189 8.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 190 8.3.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 191 8.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 191 8.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) ..................... 192 8.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 194 8.4 Lake Huron Intrarelationships ............................... 194 8.4.1 Commercial Navigation .............................. 194 8.4.2 Recreational Boating ................................ 194 8.4.3 Commercial and Sport Fishery ......................... 194 8.4.4 Water Quality .................................... 194 9 LAKE ERIE BASIN ......................................... 195 9.1 Study Area ............................................ 195 9.1.1 Human Characteristics ............................... 195 9.1.2 Water Resources .................................. 197 9.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources ...................... 197 9.1.4 Resource Problems ................................. 202 9.1.4.1 Problems Matrix ............................ 203 9.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development .................. 203 9.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 203 9.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 207 9.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 207 9.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.1 ......................... 211 9.2.1 Summary ........................................ 211 9.2.2 The Area ........................................ 213 9.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 213 9.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 213 9.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ..................... 213 9.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 215 9.2.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 216 9.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ...................... 216 9.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 218 9.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ...... 6 .......... 220 9.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.2 ......................... 220 9.3.1 Summary ........................................ 220 9.3.2 The Area ........................................ 220 Table of Contents xv Page 9.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 220 9.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 222 9.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 222 9.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 223 9.3.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 224 9.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 224. 9.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 226 9.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 227 9.4 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.3 ......................... 227 9.4.1 Summary ........................................ 227 9.4.2 The Area ............ * 228 9.4.3 Projected Resource Needs a4P'r*o b*l*e m's 228 9.4.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 228 9.4.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses 230 9.4.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 231 9.4.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 232 9.4.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 232 9.4.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) ..................... 235 9.4.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 236 9.5 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.4 .......................... 236 9.5.1 Summary ........................................ 236 9.5.2 The Area ........................................ 236 9.5.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 238 9.5.3.1 Water Withdrawals ......... ; ................ 238 9.5.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... . 238 9.5.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems .................. 238 9.5.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 239 9.5.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 239 9.5.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 240 9.5.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 243 9.6 Lake Erie Intrarelationships ............... I................. 243 9.6.1 Commercial Navigation .............................. 243 9.6.2 Recreational Boating ................................ 244 9.6.3 Water Quality .................................... 244 9.6.4 Levels and Flows .................................. 244 9.6.5 Commercial and Sport Fisheries ........................ 244 10 LAKE ONTARIO BASIN ....................................... 247 10.1 Study Area ............................................ 247 10.1.1 Human Characteristics ............................... 249 10. 1. 1. 1 Institutions ................................ 249 10.1.2 Water Resources ................................... 250 10.1.2.1 Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River ............. 250 10.1.2.2 Inland Lakes and Streams ..................... 250 10.1.2.3 Ground Water .. ............................ 250 10.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources ....................... 251 10.1.4 Resource Problems ................................. 252 10.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development .................. 253 10.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 2M 10. 1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 256 10.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 261 10.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 5.1 ......................... 264 10.2.1 Summary ......................................... 264 10.2.2 The Area ............ 264 10.2.3 ProjectedResourceNeedsan@'@ro'bl*e*m*s'*.****.***'*''*i***' 264 xvi Appendix 1 Page -10.2.3.1 Water'Withdrawals ........................... 264 10.2-3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 266 10.2-3.3 Related Land.Uses.and Problems ................. 267 10.2A Alternative Frameworks .......................... : ' ' 268 '10.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ...................... 268 10.-2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 271 10.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 271 10.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 5.2 ......................... 271 10.3.1 Summary ........................................ 271 10.3.2 The Area ............. ........................... 272 10.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems .................. 272 10.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 272 10.3.3.2 - Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 274 10.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 275 10.3.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 277 10.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 277 10.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 279 10.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 282 10.4 Frameworks for River Basin Group 5.3 ......................... 282 10.4.1 Summary ........................................ 282 10.4.2 The Area ........................................ 282 10.4.3 Projected. Resource Needs and Problems .................. 283 10.4.3.1 Water Withdrawals .......................... 283 10.4.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses .................... 283 10.4.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems ................. 285 10.4.4 Alternative Frameworks ............................. 287 10.4.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ..................... 287 10.4.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) .................... 289 10.4.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ................. 290 10.5 Lake Ontario Intrarelationships .............................. 290 10.5.1 Commercial Navigation .............................. 290 .10.5.2 Recreational Boating ................................ 290 10.5.3 Water Quality .................................... 291 10.5.4 Levels and Flows .................................. 291 10.5.5 International Field Year -for the Great Lakes ............... 291 10.5.6 Commercial and Sport Fisheries ........................ 291 1-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF FRAMEWORK PROGRAMS ................. 293 11.1 General Remarks and Recommendations for Implementing the Framework. 293 .11.1.1 Considerations not Included in the Framework .............. 293 11.2 Framework Action Program ................................ 294 .11.2.1 Policy Considerations ................................ 204 11.2.1.1 Mineral Resource Conservation and Use ............ 295 11.2.1.2 Outdoor Recreation .......................... 295 11.2.1.3 Commercial Navigation ....................... 295 11.2.1.4 Shore Use and Erosion ........................ 295 11.2.1.5 Environmental Setbacks ....................... 296 11.2.1.6 Reduction of Power Growth Rate ................. 296 11.2.1.7 Great Lakes Levels-,'Flows, and Diversions .......... 296 11.2.1.8 Consumptive Use ........................... 296 11.2.2 Coordinated Management .............................. 296 11.2.3 Investment ...................................... 297 11.3 Future Planning Studies ................................... 300 11.4 The Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (CCJP) ................. 302 11.4.1 Introduction ................................. I ..... 302 Table of Contents xvii Page 11.4.2 Definition of the CCJP ............................... 302 11.4.3 Elements of the Comprehensive, Coordinated Joint Plan ........ 302 11.4.4 Procedures for Developing the CCJP ..................... 302 11.4.5 Strategies ....................................... 303 11.4.6 Policies ......................................... 303 11.5 Institutional Arrangements in the Great Lakes Basin ............... 303 11.6 Research, Data Collection, and Analysis ........................ 306 11.6.1 Introduction ...................................... 306 11.6.2 Data Collection .................................... 306 11.6.3 Data Analysis ..................................... 307 11.6.4 Research ........................................ 307 11.6.5 Great Lakes Basin Data Collection, Data Analysis, and Research Needs .......................................... 308 11.7 Addendum ............................................. 313 11.7.1 Introduction ............................... * ** '* * * 313 11. 7.2 Planning and. Management to Achieve Comprehensive Goals ..... 313 12 FRAMEWORK TABLES ...................................... 321 12.1 Introduction ........................................... 321 12.2 Table Arrangement ...................................... 321 12.3 Table Entries .......................................... 321 12.3.1 1970 Supply ....................................... 322 12.3.2 Water Withdrawals .................. I .............. 322 REFERENCES ................................................ 469 GLOSSARY .................................................. 471 xviii Appendix I LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 General Great Lakes Information ............................... 3 1-2 Hydrologic and Political Subdivisions ............................. 3 1-3 Counties in the Great Lakes Region by Plan Area and Planning Subarea .... 4 1-4 River Basins and Complexes in the Great Lakes Basin ................. 5 1-5 Land and Water Area, Great Lakes Region and Basin; by Plan Area, PSA or RBG, and State ........................................... 6 1-6 Land and Water Area, Great Lakes Region and Basin, by State .......... 7 1-7 GroundWater Potential, Based on 70% Flow Duration ................ 11 1-8 Great Lakes Surface Area, U.S. and Canada ....................... 11 1-9 Historicaily Important Commercial and Sport Fishes of the Great Lakes .... 16 1-10 Population Distribution, Great Lakes Basin ........................ 19 1-11 Great Lakes Region Population and Urban Population by Plan Area, 1 970 ... 20 1-12 Great Lakes Region Population and Urban Population by State, 1970 ....... 20 1-13 Population Data by SMSA for the Great Lakes Basin, 1960 and 1970 ....... 21 1-14 Great Lakes Region Share of United States Total for Selected Agricultural Commodities, 1964 ......................................... 22 1-15 Great Lakes Basin Share of Total United States Production of Livestock and Livestock Products ......................................... 22 1-16 Employment by Selected Industries, 1950-1970 and Projected 1980-2020 .... 23 1-17 Water Area and Land Use, Base Year 1966-1967 .................... 25 1-18 State Summary of Water Area and Land Use, Base Year 1966-1967 ....... 25 1-19 Subobjectives and Criteria for Resource Use Categories ............... 34 1-20 Key Variables for Alternative Future Growth Conditions, Great Lakes Region 40 1-21 Projected Populations, Great Lakes Region and Plan Areas ............. 41 1-22 Projected Total Employment, Great Lakes Region and Plan Areas ........ 42 1-23 Projected Average per Capita Income, Great Lakes Region and Plan Areas 43 xviii List of Tables xix Table Page 1-24 Projected Resource Requirements for the Great Lakes Region ........... 44 1-25 Future Water and Related Land Needs and Opportunities, Great Lakes Basin (Total)-Normal Framework .................................. 53 1-26 Program Selections, Great Lakes Basin, Normal Framework ............ 58 1-27 Costs Used in Framework Estimates and Program Cost Allocation among Fed- eral, Non-Federal, and Private Sectors ........................... 62 1-28 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Data for the Great Lakes Basin, 1970 68 1-29 Rural Water Supply in the Great Lakes Basin, 1970 .................. 68 1-30 Irrigation Water Supply, Great Lakes Basin, by State (base year) ......... 68 1-31 Minerals Water Supply, Great Lakes Basin by State, 1968 .............. 69 1-32 Power Development, Great Lakes Basin, 1970, by State ............... 69 1-33 Municipal and Industrial Waste Flow ............................ 70 1-34 Current Sport Fishery Uses, Great Lakes Basin, 1970, by State .......... 70 1-35 Recreational Boating Use in the Great Lakes Basin, by Lake Basin ......... 71 1-36 Traffic Carried on the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels by Area, 1959- 1973 ................................................... 72 1-37 Comparative Land Areas, Great Lakes Region and Great Lakes Basin ...... 72 1-38 Agricultural Land Needing Treatment by State, 1970 ................. 72 1-39 Forest Land Treatment Needs (including National Forests) ............. 73 1-40 Great Lakes Shoreline, Use, Ownership, and Condition, 1970, by State ..... 73 1-41 Great Lakes Shoreline Use, Ownership, and Condition, 1970, by Lake Basin . . 74 1-42 Streambank Erosion and Damage, Great Lakes Basin by State ........... 74 1-43 Flood Damage from Streams and Area Affected, 1970 ................. 75 1-44 Acres of Farm and Forest Game Habitat, Great Lakes Region by State, 1960 75 1-45 Land-Based Water-Oriented and Water-Surface Recreation Days, 1970 ..... 77 1-46 Land and Water Surface Usable for Recreation in the Great Lakes Basin, 1970 77 1-47 Great Lakes Basin, Resource Problems Matrix ...................... 79 1-48 Land Use, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1966-67, by PSA ................ 93 1-49 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Superior Plan Area .............. 94 1-50 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Superior Plan Area by PSA ........ 95 xx Appendix 1 Table Page 1-51 Lake Superior Basin, Resource Problems Matrix .................... 96 1-52 Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Superior Plan Area .......... 98 1-53 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supplies, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 98 1-54 Industrial Water Supply Development, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 ...... 98 1-55 Rural Water Supply, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 .................. 99 1-56 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Superior Plan Area, Base Year, estimated ... 99 1-57 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1968 ................. 99 1-58 Source of New Water Used by Mineral Industries, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1968 ................................................... 99 1-59 Electric Power Development, Lake Superior Plan Area ................ 99 1-60 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Flows, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 100 1-61 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 .................. 100 1-62 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1969 ........ 100 1-63 Agricultural Land Treatment Needs, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 ....... 101 1-64 Drainage Limitations in the Lake Superior Plan Area ................. 101 1-65 Lake Superior Shoreline Conditions, 1970 ......................... 101 1-66 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Superior Basin, 1970 ................. 101 1-67 Estimated Flood Damages, Lake Superior Basin, 1970 ................. 102 1-68 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Superior Plan Area, 1960 ................. 102 1-69 Land and Water Surface Usable for Recreation in the Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 ................................................... 102 1-70 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Superior ................................................ 104 1-71 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 1.1 ............ 106 1-72 Use and Projected Needs for. Recreational Boating, PSA 1.2 ............ 113 1-73 Land Use, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1966-67 ...................... 122 1-74 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Michigan Plan Area .............. 122 1-75 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Michigan Plan Area by PSA ........ 123 1-76 Lake Michigan Basin, Resource Problems Matrix .................... 124 1-77 Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Michigan Plan Area ......... 125 List of Tables xxi Table Page 1-78 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 126 1-79 Industrial Water Supply Development, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 ..... 127 1-80 Rural Water Supply, Lake Michigan Plan Area@, 1970 .................. 127 141 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970, estimated ....... 128 1-82 Source of New Water Used by Mineral Industries, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1968 ................................................... 128 1-83 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1968 ................ 128 1-84 Electric Power Development, Lake Michigan Plan Area ................ 128 1-85 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Flows, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 129 1-86 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 .................. 129 1-87 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1969 ........ 130 1-88 Agricultural Land Treatment Needs, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 ....... 130 1-89 Drainage Limitations in the Lake Michigan Plan Area ................. 130 1-90 Approximate Forested Land Area and Ownership, Lake Michigan Plan Area 131 1-91 Lake Michigan Shoreline Conditions, 1970 ......................... 131 1-92 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Michigan Basin, 1970 ................. 132 1-93 Estimated Flood Damage, Lake Michigan Basin, 1970 ................. 132 1-94 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1960 ................ 134 1-95 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Michigan Plan Area ........................................ 134 1-96 Land and Water Surface Usable for Recreation in the Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 ................................................... 135 1-97 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 2.1 .......... I. . 138 1-98 Comparison of Areas of Planning Subarea 2.2 and River Basin Group 2.2 .... 142 1-99 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 2.2 ............ 145 1-100 Traffic Handled by Major Harbors in RBG 2.2 as Percent of Great Lakes Total 145 1-101 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 2.3 ............ 152 1-102 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 2.4 ............ 157 1-103 Lake Huron Basin, Resource Problems Matrix ...................... 168 1-104 Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1966-67 ........................ 170 xxii Appendix 1 Table Page 1-105 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area ............... 170 1-106 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area by PSA .......... 170 1-107 Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Huron Plan Area ........... 171 1-108 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 .... 172 1-109 Industrial Water Supply Development, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 ....... 172 1-110 Rural Water Supply, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 ................... 172 1-111 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970, estimated ......... 172 1-112 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1968 ................. 173 1-113 Source of New Water Used by Mineral Industries, Lake Huron Plan.Area, 1968 .................................................... 173 1-114 Electric Power Development, Lake Huron Plan Area ................. 173 1-115 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Flows, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 ... 174 1-116 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 .................... 174 1-117 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1969 ......... 174 1-118 Agricultural Land Treatment Needs, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 ........ 175 1-119 Drainage Limitations in the Lake Huron Plan Area .................... 175 1-120 Lake Huron Shoreline Conditions, 1970 ........................... 176 1-121 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Huron Basin, 1970 .................. 176 1-122 Estimated Flood Damage, Lake Huron Basin, 1970 ................... 176 1-123 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Huron Plan Area, 1960 .................. 177 1-124 Land and Water Surface Usable for Recreation in the Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 ................................................... 178 1-125 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Huron Plan Area .......................................... 178 1-126 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 3.1 ............ 182 1-127 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 3.2 ............ 189 1-128 Land Use, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1966-67 ......................... 199 1-129 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Erie Plan Area ................. 200 1-130 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Erie Plan Area by PSA ........... 201 1-131 Lake Erie Basin, Resource Problems Matrix ....................... 204 List of Tables xxiii Table Page 1-132 Municipal Water Supply Developmen t, Lake Erie Plan Area ............. 206 1-133 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 ..... 206 1-134 Industrial Water Supply Development, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 ........ 206 1435 Rural Water Supply, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 ..................... 206 1-136 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Erie Plan Area, Base Year, estimated ...... 207 1-137 Source of New Water Used by Mineral Industries, 1968 ................ 207 1-138 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1968 ................... 207 1-139 Electric Power Development, Lake Erie Plan Area ................... 208 1-140 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Flows, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 ..... 208 1-141 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 ..................... 208 1-142 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1969 ........... 209 1-143 Agricultural Land Treatment Needs, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 .......... 209 1-144 Drainage Limitations in the Lake Erie Plan Area .................... 209 1-145 Lake Erie Shoreline Conditions, 1970 ............................ 210 1-146 Streambank Erosion in the. Lake Erie Basin, 1970 .................... 210 1-147 Estimated Flood Damages, Lake Erie Basin, 1970 ................... 210 1-148 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Erie Plan Area, 1960 ................... 211 1-149 Land and Water Surface Usable for Recreation in the Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 ................................................... 211 1-150 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Erie Plan Area ........................................... 211 1-151 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 4.1 ............ 215 1-152 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 4.2 ............ 222 1-153 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 4.3 ............ 230 1-154 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 4.4 ............ 238 1-155 Estimated Population Change, PSA 4.4 ........................... 241 1-156 Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1966-67 ........................ 251 1-157 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Ontario Plan Area ............... 251 1-158 Actual and Projected Land. Use, Lake Ontario Plan Area by PSA ......... 253 xxiv Appendix 1 Table Page 1-159 Lake Ontario Basin, Resource Problems Matrix ..................... 254 1-160 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 ... 255 1-161 Municipal Water Supply Devel()pment, Lake Ontario Plan Area .......... 255 1-162 Industrial Water Supply Development, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 ...... 255 1-163 Rural Water Supply, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 ................... 255 1-164 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Ontario Plan Area, Base Year, estimated .... 256 1-165 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1968 ................. 256 1-166 Source of New Water Used by Mineral Industries, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1968 ................................................... 256 1-167 Electric Power Development, Lake.Ontario Plan Area ................. 256 1-168 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Flows, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 257 1-169 Sport Fishery, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 ....................... 257 1-170 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1969 ......... 258 1-171 Agricultural Land Treatment Needs, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 ........ 259 1-172 Drainage Limitations in the Lake Ontario Plan Area .................. 260 1-173 Lake Ontario Shoreline Conditions, 1970 .......................... 260 1-174 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Ontario Basin, 1970 .................. 261 1-175 Estimated Flood Damages, Lake Ontario Basin, 1970 ................. 261 1-176 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1960 ................. 261 1-177 Land and Water Surface Usable for Recreation in the Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 ................................................... 263 1-178 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Ontario Plan Area ......................................... 263 1-179 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 5.1 ............ 267 1-180 Comparison of Population Projections, PSA 5.1 ..................... 271 1-181 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 5.2 ............ 275 1-182 Comparison of Population Projections, PSA 5.2 ..................... 280 1-183 Comparison of Municipal Water Supply Data, PSA 5.2 (mgd) ............ 280 1-184 Use and Projected Needs for Recreational Boating, PSA 5.3 ............ 285 1-185 Comparison of Population Projections, PSA 5.3 ..................... 289 List of Tables xxv Table Page 1-186 Water Supply Capital Costs, RBG 5.3 ............................ 289 1-187 Coordinated Management Agencies .............................. 298 1-188 Allocation of Costs for GLBFS Programs Among Federali Non-Federal, and Private Sectors ........................................... 299 1-189 Great Lakes Basin Future Planning Studies-Level B ................. 301 1-190 Great Lakes Basin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 324 1-191 Great Lakes Basin, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ................ 324 1-192 Great Lakes Basin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework .............................................. 325 1-193 Great Lakes Basin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 326 1-194 Great Lakes Basin, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ............... 326 1-195 Great Lakes Basin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework .............................................. 327 1-196 Great Lakes Basin, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs 328 1-197 Great Lakes Basin, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks . . 328 1-198 Lake Superior, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 330 1-199 Lake Superior, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ................... 330 1-200 Lake Superior, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework .............................................. 331 1-201 Lake Superior, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 332 1-202 Lake Superior, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework .................. 332 1-203 Lake Superior, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework .............................................. 333 1-204 Lake Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 334 1-205 Lake Michigan, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ................... 334 1-206 Lake Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework .............................................. 335 1-207 Lake Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 336 1-208 Lake Michigan, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework .................. 336 xxvi Appendix 1 Table Page 1-209 Lake Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework .............................................. 337 1-210 Lake Huron, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 338 1-211 Lake Huron, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ..................... 338 1-212 Lake Huron, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 339 1-213 Lake Huron, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 340 1-214 Lake Huron, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework .................... 340 1-215 Lake Huron, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework ............................................... 341 1-216 Lake Erie, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ... 342 1-217 Lake Erie, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ...................... 342 1-218 Lake Erie, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 343 1-219 Lake Erie, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 344, 1-220 Lake Erie, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ..................... 344 1-221 Lake Erie, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 345 1-222 Lake Ontario, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 346 1-223 Lake Ontario, Capital Costs, Normal Framework .................... 346 1-224 Lake Ontario, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 347 1-225 Lake Ontario, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 348 1-226 Lake Ontario, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ................... 348 1-227 Lake Ontario, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework .............................................. 349 1-228 Lake Superior, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs .... 350 1-229 Lake Michigan, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ... 350 1-230 Lake Huron, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ..... 350 1-231 Lake Erie, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ...... 351 1-232 Lake Ontario, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs .... 351 1-233 Lake Superior, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks ..... 352 List of Tables xxvii Table Page 1-234 Lake Michigan, Comparison of Total Costs, -NOR and PRO Frameworks .... 352 1-235 Lake Huron, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks ...... 353 1-236 Lake Erie, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks ....... 354 1-237 Lake Ontario, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks ..... 354 1-238 RBG 1.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 356 1-239 RBG 1.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 356 1-240 RBG 1.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 357 1-241 RBG 1.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 358 1-242 RBG 1.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 358 1-243 RBG 1.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 359 1-244 RBG 1.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 360 1-245 RBG 1.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 360 1-246 RBG 1.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work ............................... .................. 361 1-247 RBG 1.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 362 1-248 RBG 1.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 362 1-249 RBG 1.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 363 1-250 RBG 2. 1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 364 1-251 RBG 2.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 364 1-252 RBG 2.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 365 1-253 RBG 2.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 366 1-254 RBG 2.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 366 1-255 RBG 2.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 367 1-256 RBG 2.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 368 1-257 RBG 2.2, Capital Cost, Normal Framework ........................ 368 1-258 RBG 2.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 369 xxviii Appendix I Table Page 1-259 RBG 2.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 370 1-260 RBG 2.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 370 1-261 RBG 2.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 371 1-262 RBG 2.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 372 1-263 RBG 2.3, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 372 1-264 RBG 2.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 373 1-265 RBG 2.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 374 1-266 RBG 2.3, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 374 1-267 RBG 2.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work ................. I ................................. 375 1-268 RBG 2.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 376 1-269 RBG 2.4, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 376 1-270 RBG 2.4, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 377 1-271 RBG 2.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 378 1-272 RBG 2.4, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 378 1-273 RBG 2.4, Operation Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 379 1-274 RBG 3. 1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 380 1-275 RBG 3.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 380 1-276 RBG 3.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 381 1-277 RBG 3.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 382 1-278 RBG 3.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 382 1-279 RBG 3.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 383 1-280 RBG 3.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 384 1-281 RBG 3.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 384 1-282 RBG 3.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 385 List of Tables xxix Table Page 1-283 RBG 3.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 386 1-284 RBG 3.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 386 1-285 RBG 3.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 387 1-286 RBG 4. 1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 388 1-287 RBG 4. 1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 388 1-288 RBG 4.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 389 1-289 RBG 4. 1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 390 1-290 RBG 4.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 390 1-291 RBG 4.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 391 1-292 RBG 4.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 392 1-293 RBG 4.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 392 1-294 RBG 4.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 393 1-295 RBG 4.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 394 1-296 RBG 4.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 394 1-297 RBG 4.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 395 1-298 RBG 4.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 396 1-299 RBG 4.3, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 396 1-300 RBG 4.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 397 1-301 RBG 4.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 398 1-302 RBG 4.3, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 398 1-303 RBG 4.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 399, 1-304 RBG 4.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 400 1-305 RBG 4.4, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 400 1-306 RBG 4.4,. Operation,. Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 401 xxx Appendix 1 Table Page 1-307 RBG 4.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 402 1-308 RBG 4.4, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 402 1-309 RBG 4.4, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 403 1-310 RBG 5. 1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 404 1-311 RBG 5.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 404 1-312 RBG 5.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 405 1-313 RBG 5.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 406 1-314 RBG 5.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 406 1-315 RBG 5.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 407 1-316 RBG 5.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 408 1-317 RBG 5.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 408 1-318 RBG 5.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 409 1-319 RBG 5.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework . . . 410 1-320 RBG 5.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 410 1-321 RBG 5.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work ................................................... 411 1-322 RBG 5.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 412 1-323 RBG 5.3, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 412 1-324 RBG 5.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 413 1-325 RBG 5.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 414 1-326 RBG 5.3, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 414 1-327 RBG 5.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work ......................... I ......................... 415 1-328 RBG 1.1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 416 1-329 RBG 1.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 416 1-330 RBG 2. 1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 416 1-331 RBG 2.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 416 List of Tables xxxi Table Page 1-332 RBG 2.3, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 417 1-333 RBG 2.4, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 417 1-334 RBG 3. 1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 417 1-335 RBG 3.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 417 1-336 RBG 4. 1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 418 1-337 RBG 4.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 418 1-338 RBG 4.3, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 418 1-339 RBG 4.4, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 418 1-340 RBG 5. 1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 419 1-341 RBG 5.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 419 1-342 RBG 5.3, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs ........ 419 1-343 RBG 1.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 420 1-344 RBG 1.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 420 1-345 RBG 2.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 421 1-346 RBG 2.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 422 1-347 RBG 2.3, Comparison of Total-Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 422 1-348 RBG 2.4, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 423 1-349 RBG 3.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 424 1-350 RBG 3.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 424 1-351 RBG 4.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 425 .1-352 RBG 4.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 426 1-353 RBG 4.3, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 426 1-354 RBG 4.4, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 427 1-355 RBG 5.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 428 1-356 RBG 5.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 428 1-357 RBG 5.3, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ......... 429 1-358 Illinois, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ...... 430 1-359 Illinois, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ........................ 430 xxxii Appendix 1 Table Page 1460 Illinois, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework 431 1-361. :Illinois, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ..... 432 1462 Illinois, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ....................... 432 1-363 Illinois, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work ................................................... 433 1-364 - Indiana, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ..... 434 1-365 Indiana,. Capital Costs, Normal Framework ........................ 434 1-366 Indiana, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework 435 1-367 Indiana, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework .... 436 1-368, Indiana, Capital Costs,@ Proposed Framework ....................... . 436 1-369 Indiana, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 437 1-370 Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework .... 438 1-371 Michigan, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 438 .1-372 Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 439 1-373 Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ... 440 1-374 Michigan, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ...................... 440 1-375 Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 441 1-376 Minnesota, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ... 442 1-377 Minnesota, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ....................... 442 1-378 Minnesota, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work ................................................... 443 1-379 Minnesota, Needs, Outputs, and Precent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 444 1-380 Minnesota, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ..................... 444 1-381 Minnesota, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 445 1-382 New York, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ... 446 1-383 New York, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ...................... 446 1-384 New York, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 447 List of Tables xxxiii Table Page 1-385 New York, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 448 1-386 New York, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ..................... 448 1-387 New York, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work .................................................. 449 1-388 Ohio, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ....... 450 1-389 Ohio, Capital Costs, Normal Framework .......................... 450 1-390 Ohio, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework 451 1-391 Ohio, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework ...... 452 1-392 Ohio, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ......................... 452 1-393 Ohio, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework 453 1-394 Pennsylvania, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 454 1-395 Pennsylvania, Capital Costs, Normal Framework .................... 454 1-396 Pennsylvania, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame- work .................................................. 455 1-397 Pennsylvania, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 456 1-398 Pennsylvania, Capital Costs, Prop'osed Framework ................... 466 1-399 Pennsylvania, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework .............................................. 457 1-400 Wisconsin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework .... 458 1-401 Wisconsin, Capital Costs, Normal Framework ...................... 458 1-402 Wisconsin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frame-@ work .................................................. 459 1-403 Wisconsin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 460 1-404 Wisconsin, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework ..................... 460 1-405 Wisconsin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Frame- work ................................................... 461 1-406 Illinois, Comparison 9f Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks .......... 462 1-407 Indiana, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks .......... 462 1-408 Michigan, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks . ........ 463 1-409 Minnesota, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ........ 464 1-410 New York, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ........ 464 xxxiv Appendix 1 Table Page 1-411 Ohio, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ............ 465 1-412 Pennsylvania, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ...... 466 1-413 Wisconsin, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks ........ 466 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Great Lakes Basin .......................................... xlii 1-2 Great Lakes Region Planning Subareas ............................ 2 1-3 Percentage of Total Region Area in Each State ...................... 7 14 Physiography of the Great Lakes Region .......................... 8 1-5 Estimated Ground Water Yield in the Great Lakes Basin ............... 10 1-6 Factors of Water Supply to the Lakes ............................ 12 1-7 Profile of the Great Lakes System ............................... 14 1-8 Employment, Great Lakes Region ............................... 22 1-9 Land Ownership, Great Lakes Region ............................ 1-10 Distribution of Total Land Area by Land Use, Great Lakes Region, 1967-68 26 1-11 Population Growth in the Great Lakes Region ....................... 40 1-12 Projected Employment in the Great Lakes Region .................... 42 1-13 Projected Growth in Total Personal Income, Great Lakes Region .......... 43 1-14 Projected Earnings in Manufacturing, Great Lakes Region .............. 43 1-15 Projected Earnings in Mining, Great Lakes Region .................... 43 1-16 Projected Earnings in Agriculture, Great Lakes Region ................ 46 1-17 Schematic Diagram of Framework Selection ........................ 51 1-18 Total Average Annual Catch and Value of the US Great Lakes Commercial Fish- eries ................................................... 71 1-19 Total Urban and Non-Urban Annual Requirements by Major Activity Group . . 78 1-20 Plan Area 1, Lake Superior .................................... 92 1-21 Land Use in the Lake Superior Basin ............................. 95 1-22 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 1 ......................... 103 1-23 Lake Superior West, Planning Subarea 1. 1 ......................... 105 1-24 Lake Superior East, Planning Subarea 1.2 .......................... 112 xxxv xxxvi Appendix 1 Figure Page 1-25 Plan Area 2, Lake Michigan ................................... 120 1-26 Land Use in the Lake Michigan Basin ............................. 126 1-27 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 2 ......................... 133 1-28 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1 .................... 137 1-29 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2 ..................... 143 1-30 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin Group 2.3 ..................... 150 1-31 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4 ..................... 156 1-32 Plan Area 3, Lake Huron ..................................... 164 1-33 Land Use in the Lake Huron Basin .............................. 166 1-34 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 3 ......................... 177 1-35 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1 ......................... 181 1-36 Lake Huron South, River Basin Group 3.2 ......................... 187 1-37 Plan Area 4, Lake Erie ...................................... 196 1-38 Land Use in the Lake Erie Basin ................................ 199 1-39 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 4 ......................... 212 1-40 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1 ....................... 214 1-41 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2 - ....................... 221 1-42 Lake Erie Southeast, River Basin Group 4.3 ........................ 229 1-43 Lake Erie Northeast, River Basin Group 4.4 ........................ 237 1-44 Plan Area 5, Lake Ontario ..................................... 248 145 Land Use in the Lake Ontario Basin .............................. 252 146 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 5 ......................... 262 1-47 Lake Ontario West, River Basin Group 5.1 ......................... 265 1-48 Lake Ontario Central, River Basin Group 5.2 ........................ 273 149 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3 ......................... 284 INTRODUCTION The primary function of the Alternative Frame- that to identify one objective as environmental was works Appendix is to document the Great Lakes to imply that the others might not consider en- Basin Framework Study plan formulation process vironmental quality, and that this might be mis- and to present the results of that process. In draft leading. form, it also served as a basic working document Accordingly, other terms were adopted and the for those individuals and organizations directly in- objectives are referred to in this study as Normal volved. Growth (NOR), Limited Growth (LIM), and Ac- The reader is referred to the Report for a de- celerated Growth (ACC). scription of the Framework Study, its conclusions The Framework Study is a broad appraisal of the and recommendations. Basic information on avail- needs and desires of citizens of the Great Lakes able resources and present and projected require- Basin for the conservation, development, and utili- ments, needs, and problems related to the water zation of water and related land resources. It iden- and related land resources in the Great Lakes Basin tifies the regions (hydrologic, political, economic, are presented in Appendixes 2 through 23. The etc.) that have current or potential problems and Environmental Impact Statement contains infor- require more detailed investigations and analyses. mation on the effects the Proposed Framework It recommends implementation of plans and pro- may have on the environment. grams in areas not requiring futher study. It con- The basic purpose of the Great Lakes Basin siders Federal, State, and local means, both struc- Framework Study is to identify geographic areas tural and nonstructural, for dealing with the and resource categories where future demands as problems within the framework of the major ob- compared with available supplies may create prob- jectives stated previously. lems in meeting the needs of the people of the Basin The Great Lakes Basin Framework 1Study did for water and related land resources. Geographic not involve basic data collection, cost estimating, or areas and resource categories where potential con- detailed formulation of projects. It was not de- flicts exist between competing resource uses are signed to give specific answers to what should be also identified. As a first step toward a comprehen- done; rather, it was intended to indicate possibili- sive coordinated joint plan for management of the ties that should be considered and consequences of resources of the Great Lakes Basin, this study these choices. provides a rational framework to formulate and The Framework Study formulation process con- evaluate the relative merit of alternative courses of sisted of five major steps. Step I involved an as- action to solve the current and potential problems, sessment of the present resource capability. In resolve the potential conflicts, and meet the needs Step 2, the goals, objectives, subobjectives, cri- of the people at a minimum cost. teria, and problems of water and related land re- The Framework Study was accomplished under sources in the Great Lakes Basin were defined, guidelines established by the United States Water mainly in qualitative terms. In Step 3, the quanti- Resources Council. These were initially dated Oc- tative requirements and needs for water and re- tober 1967, but were upgraded to reflect the mul- lated land resources were derived. In Step 4, al- tiobjective concepts stated in the 1970 draft ".Prin- ternative programs were proposed to meet the ciples and Standards." These were not rigorously needs determined in Step 3 and solve the problems. applied but had considerable influence on the plan- Finally, in Step 5, the economic, demographic, and ning process. The objectives are: physical consequences of the alternative programs (1) to enhance national economic development proposed in Step 4 were estimated. (2) to enhance the quality of the environment In assessing the present resource capability the (3) to enhance regional development year 1970 was selected as a standard base, and the (4) to enhance social well-being or quality of life results are summarized in the tables provided in for all people. this appendix. Resource capability is summarized While the Great Lakes Basin Commission recog- in the Report and described in detail in Appendixes nized the validity of the objectives promulgated by 2 through 23. the Water Resources Council, it also recognized The process of defining goals, objectives, subob- xxxvii xxxviii Appendix 1 jectives, criteria, and problems is discussed in de- lems for the planner who must translate them into tail in the body of this appendix. Three time spans quantitative criteria, standards, requirements, and were considered in this and other framework stud- needs. These significant shifts in the desires of ies throughout the nation: a short-range period individuals and collective groups at all levels of ending in 1980, a medium-range period ending in government have made the planning process sub- the year 2000, and a long-range period ending in the stantially more complex, but at the same time more year 2020. It must also be recognized that in mul- relevant and controversial. tiobjective planning the goals, objectives, subob- To facilitate the planning process, the Great jectives, criteria, and problems differ greatly and Lakes Basin was subdivided into five Lake basins dynamically among many other factors. For exam- numbered in downstream order: Lake Superior, ple, the aspirations of an individual change dramati- 1.0; Lake Michigan, 2.0; Lake Huron, 3.0; Lake cally both from day to day and over a long time as Erie, 4.0; and Lake Ontario, 5.0. See map of Great changing circumstances and varying physical and Lakes Basin (Figure 1-1). The Lake basins were intellectual contingencies have their effects. The then subdivided into 15 river basin groups with two interests of an individual are usually much nar- to four to each Lake basin, depending upon stream rower and more immediate than those of an inter- configuration, political boundaries, and population est group, local government, State government, concentrations. Because much of the information to Federal government, or international body. These be used was available only on a political subdivision differences become dramatically evident in the basis, the Region (the political boundary equivalent process of attempting to quantify requirements and of the Basin) was also subdivided into 15 planning needs. For the majority of categories of water and subareas, utilizing county lines as boundaries to related land use, requirements are a function of approximate as closely as practicable the hydrolo- total population and the direct or indirect per capita gic boundaries of the river basin groups. This sub- demand for the resource. Since needs are simply division is illustrated on Figure 1-2. the difference between requirements and available Section 1 contains a list of the counties in the developed supply, determination of needs to be met Basin, arranged by planning subareas, and a list of in the formulation process depends heavily on pro- the river basins and complexes arranged by river jected levels of population and per capita demand. basin group. Traditionally, planning has been predicated on As an initial phase of the planning process, the the basic concept that growth is inevitable; indeed, task of assembling information on available re- that it is good and therefore desirable. Thus, future sources and on needs and problems was divided populations and per capita demands have normally among 22 work groups, each having a specific sub- been projected within relatively narrow ranges of ject area or function for study and analysis. The variability by extrapolating trends by simple or general procedure was for each work group to elaborate methods. The development of require- assemble data pertinent to its subject field from ments and needs was basically a matter of a simple published and unpublished information. Historical mathematical calculation, and problem identifica- information to show trends was utilized, and the tion was basically the process of identifying unmet most recent information available was obtained. needs in time and place. The plan formulation The base year adopted for common data compari- process then became one of selecting alternative sons was 1970, and in those cases where the latest means of meeting those needs that would not be best information was for another year, an estimate detrimental to the economy of the environment. was made for the base year. Projections were made The last decade, however, has seen a radical of the requirements or demands for the particular change in planning philosophy. Questions, which at resource under study for each of the three target one time were never asked, or whose answers were years, 1980, 2000, and 2020. The projections were considered extraneous to the planning process, based on the projected population and economic have now become a part of the planning process growth presented in the OBERS studies, a popula- itself. These include questions as to whether a tion and economic growth study of the nation pre- laissez-faire, perpetual growth philosophy is really pared by the Office of Business Economics (OBE), desirable or acceptable, let alone inevitable. The Department of Commerce; and the Economic Re- new environmental awareness has forced a shift in search Service (ERS), Department of Agriculture. emphasis from rather simple single-purpose struc- As a result of reorganization, the OBE was re- tures for water supply and pollution control to named Bureau of Economic Analysis, but the acro- coordinated management schemes involving non- nym OBERS is still used. These studies were ap- structural as well as structural measures for total propriately disaggregated to the 15 planning environmental management. Goals of social well- subareas. being and environmental quality have become The requirements or demands generated by each major considerations to the public and major prob- resource use, or function, were compared with the Introduction xxxix available developed resource for each function in needs that included the use of resources in one area each planning subarea. The developed resource in by persons from another. In outdoor recreation, for each planning subarea in 1970, known as the sup- example, established patterns of travel result in ply, compared with the demands or projected de- the recreation requirement (need) at the forest mands for the base year and the three target years, campground rather than at the permanent resi- provided information on the needs to be met in each dence. Also, for some functions such as commerical of these years. Needs are, in other words, the navigation, the whole of a Lake basin rather than a measure of the extent to which the presently de- single planning subarea is the element to be con- veloped resources fail to meet the projected re- sidered. If the availability of a resource in a certain quirements. Each of the work groups also identi- planning subarea permitted, programs were some- fied existing and potential problems in its subject times selected that would develop the capability of area, and each of them suggested ways in which the the resource above the needs in that planning sub- problems could be solved and the needs met. area. This would help offset the inability of that This historic information and the projections, resource to meet the needs in other planning sub- together with the estimates of requirements, areas. needs, supply, the statement of problems, and the The frameworks for each Lake basin and for the analysis of the ways to solve problems and meet Great Lakes Basin are obtained by summing up the needs, provided the basic input to framework for- planning subarea quantities. Thus, for some func- mulation. The actual formulation was undertaken tions, unmet needs in one. area are absorbed by by 15 task forces, one for each planning subarea in surplus resource capability in another. This as- the Basin. Each task force consisted of a member of sumption of transferability is not always appro- the Commission staff, representatives of the De- priate. An examination of the specific circum- partments of Agriculture and the Army, represen- stances must be made in each case, and some tatives of the States, and representatives of other adjustments may be required. Federal agencies as appropriate. The initial work of In the six-county area in Illinois in Planning formulation was generally undertaken indepen- Subarea 2.2, needs met by programs adopted for dently by the task forces. In some cases the task the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin forces met with representatives of local interest Study were transferred to that study area and the groups or with individuals who had particular remainder were met, insofar as possible, in Great qualifications or interest in the area and were in a Lakes Basin Framework Study programs. position to spend time working in the formulation The formulation process was initially carried process. In other cases the local input was obtained through for projections based on the Normal through existing reports, consultation with profes- Growth (NOR) objective, developed from the sional personnel in the area who had knowledge of OBERS projections, and subsequently the same local attitudes, and by written communication. process was repeated to a limited extent and with For each of the functions all conceivable alterna- appropriate modifications for two additional objec- tive ways of meeting needs and solving problems tives, labeled ACC and LIM for accelerated and were listed and considered by the task forces. Some limited growth. of these could be quantified as having a specific The ACC and LIM frameworks were only par- identifiable effect on the needs to be met. Others tially developed, not as potential alternative were qualitative only, and some had so little impact frameworks for consideration by the Commission, that they were dropped from further consideration. but rather as planning tools to define and limit the The solutions chosen by the task forces in each case extreme positions of high and low demands on the were identified in sufficient detail to permit recon- water and related land resources of the Basin. They structing the planning process. The necessary doc7 were not fully developed in any respect, and are umentation was prepared and tabular presenta- not published. These frameworks bracket the NOR tions made of needs, problems, needs met, needs Framework, and they provided the planners with unmet, types of solutions adopted, costs to Fed- guidelines to assist in selecting the final mix of eral, non-Federal, and private entities, and other developmental and environmental considerations pertinent information. for the Proposed Framework. The elements of In some cases needs arising in one planning sub- ACC framework reflected needs for water and area could be met in another, and a fully devel- related land resources based on maximum possible oped formulation procedure would include'a formal population and maximum possible per capita de- transfer of needs and selection of programs in the mand on all portions of the resource base. The LIM receiving area to meet these needs. In the present framework, on the other hand, was based on re- study such a formal procedure has not been fol- quirements projected on the basis of limited popu- lowed. For some functions the methodology for lation growth in the Great Lakes Basin and de- quantifying needs incorporated patterns of meeting creasing per capita use of the resources. X1 Appendix 1 The frameworks prepared by the task forces quantity with copies available for reference to per- were reviewed by a subcommittee of the Plan and sons who need the information. It principally sup- Program Formulation Committee (Subsection 2.2) plements Section 3 of Appendix 1. and by that Committee itself, and recommended to Annex C consists of tables of requirements, sup- the Commission for 'Consideration. At this time a ply, and needs by river basin groups for all time series of meetings was held throughout the Basin to frames. This annex was proposed when it was obtain the reactions of local interest groups and expected that there would be separate needs de- individuals to the emphasized objectives in the veloped for NOR and PRO Frameworks and that various parts of the Basin, and the detailed compo- the working draft 'would also include the rudimen- nents of the frameworks developed pursuant to the tary ACC and LIM frameworks. When it was de- objectives. Appropriate modifications were then cided not to prepare separate needs for PRO, the made in the frameworks, and the information pre- annex became less desirable, and it was decided not sented in this appendix is the result. to compile the information in this form. There will During the framework formul .ation process and be no Annex C. in the preparation of this appendix, a number of Annex D, "Issues and Alternatives," provides a annexes were suggested. These would cover cer- record of the issues raised before the Commission, tain items in more detail than required in the ap- the decisions reached thereon, and the alternatives pendix, and would provide a permanent repository considered for the solution of problems and meet- and reference for some information, keeping the ing of needs in the various resource use categories. size of the appendix within manageable limits. As It will be reproduced in limited quantity and will be work progressed, it was found that information in available for reference to persons who have need some of the five suggested annexes might be incor- for this information. porated elsewhere, that some annexes should not Annex E, "Programs, Capital Costs, and OM&R be published because of questionable widespread Costs," compiles work sheets used in the frame- value, and that others could be made available to work formulation process. It consists of tables that persons who would have use for them. Because of are a basic record of the program selections and the frequent references to the letter designations of costs for the various elements of these program the annexes and the publication of Annex E in 1972 selections. Because of refinement in the data and a for use as a planning tool, the letter designations of number of internal changes in the program selec- the annexes have been retained, even though some tions and capital costs and OM&R costs, the annex of them are not now actively in use. The informa- is not correct and up-to-date and does not reflect tion below indicates the designations associated accurately the information given in the tables of the with the various annexes and the status of each appendix. However, it is the only record which with respect to publication and the data contained shows the breakdown of program selections and the therein. cost of these various components. It is not being corrected or updated because of the work in- Annex A contains a list of counties by planning volved. A number of copies have been distributed subarea and a list of basins and complexes by river to persons who participated in the Framework basin group. This information has been incor- Study, and additional copies, prepared in late 1972, porated into Section 1 of Appendix 1, and the annex are available in the Commission office for reference is therefore not, being prepared. use and loan. The annex should be used with cau- Annex B, "Procedures for Determination of Al- tion. The data should be checked against the infor- ternative Futures in the Great Lakes Basin mation in Appendix I -and the latter considered Framework Study," gives a detailed discussion of more reliable. However, for persons who wish to alternative requirements including Alternative know some of the details of the preparation of the Demand Supply and Needs (ADSUN). This annex appendix and the selection of the frameworks, has been prepared and will be reproduced in limited Annex E is a valuable document. LEGEND ------- Grea Lakes BQsi ----------- Subb..I.. SubbQsin number MINNESOTA -e LAKE SUPERIOR 1j, V, D uth perior ONTARIO A ------ MICHIGAN Al P"", V <2 O@ WISCON LA KE URON Gr- Bay H16AN Aj<E City ... ....... Sagin ... ..... ,I .. I',, Milwaukee 130falo Rapids s, U." Racineo T n, NEW@ RK Kadosl@a' WISCONSIN ed:s YO stop S'. C1., ILC OIS ,,c, Kala. 0 N % Jack n D,"., Chicago MICHIGAN ICH C, INDIANA OHIO ILLINOIS Hamm n@ Gar I S.Vh Btdd oledo Cle,eladd z 0 oAkron 0 z 60 6,z Fort Way, z 4 I D I A N A Limao N "Z 0 H 1 0 40 z 0',___, Section 1 BASIN DESCRIPTION 1. 1 General are drainage areas in the United States of the five Great Lakes: Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and The physical setting of the Great Lakes Basin Ontario including the St. Lawrence River. For has influenced the development of the Basin, in- convenience, these major subbasins are usually re- cluding the economic activities, the population, and ferred to as basins (Figure 1-1). the distribution of the population. The setting also Some of the information needed for the study played a principal role in determining the frame- was available only by counties, without regard to works which were suggested for the conservation, drainage basin boundaries. Consequently, the term control, and use of the water and related land Great Lakes Region was adopted for this study as resources of the Basin. The most significant single an approximation by county boundaries of the element in the physical setting is the series of five Great Lakes Basin. The Region does, however, Great Lakes, the largest series of freshwater include certain seleeted additional counties having bodies in the world. This unique water feature, an important economic relationship to the Basin. coupled with the mineral resources of the Basin and The Region is divided into five subregions having a the agricultural opporunties afforded by the land, similar county-boundary relationship to the five has produced a highly developed industrial and Lake basins. These subregions are shown on the agricultural area, supporting 14 percent of the maps as plan areas and use the same numbers, I U.S. population in 4 percent of the total U.S. area, through 5, as the corresponding basins. Each of the and contributing far more than its share of the five plan areas has been further divided into groups country's economic activity. of associated counties, called planning subareas Executive Order No. 11345 established the Great (PSAs). The planning subareas are counterparts of Lakes Basin Commission on April 20, 1967, and the river basin groups. Both are numbered as deci- defined its jurisdiction to "extend to those portions mal subdivisions of the respective plan areas and of the Great Lakes States of Illinois, Indiana, basins (Figure 1-2). Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl- This breakdown of the study area considered vania, and Wisconsin that are drained by the St. many criteria including the utilization of existing Lawrence River system, including the Great water management study areas; the recognition of Lakes, their tributaries, and tributaries to the St. intrastate, State, interstate, and international in- Lawrence River which reach that river within the terests; the collection, processing, and presentation United States. . . ." of hydrologic, economic, and demographic data; and As defined,, Great Lakes Basin is located in the each area's potential for comprehensive water eastern portion of the north central United States management. Many of these considerations are along the boundary with Canada between 40'30' complementary, others are competitive. The and 48*20' north latitude and 74'30' and 93'10' west adopted breakdown is consistent with these cri- longitude (Figure 1-1). The Basin extends nearly teria. 900 miles from west to east and 525 miles between The relationship of the various levels of subdivi- its north-south extremes. General area information sions is illustrated in the partial listing in Table 1-2, for the entire Basin as well as the study area is which also shows the numbering system adopted. presented in Table 1-1. 1.2.1 Counties 1.2 Planning Subdivisions Table 1-3 shows the counties in the Great Lakes Region, arranged by plan area and planning sub- For planning purposes the study area has been area. There are no duplications in this listing. All subdivided into five major subbasins, and further counties in the Great Lakes Region are shown, and into fifteen river basin groups. The five subbasins none are shown which are not in the Region. 1 It1112 LEGEND Great Lakes Region cq Subregions 41z- Planning Subareas MIN@ESOTA N@OFA Subregion number Planning Subarea M LAKE SUPERIOR County Boundaries blAruTL (v-j ONTARIO c 1.2 L @i&IG N 411c" 2.4 S 0 L F-- '-1 M WISC LAKE URON NSUNN 3 1 2.. ONTARIO @Ml HIG@N AU 5.11 WIS@ONSIN \X1 @E-W Y R s' CI- ILLINOIS NE nN .2 H 0 1 ILLINOIS -T 71- 0 z I N D I A N A 0 H 10 0- Basin Description 3 TABLE 1-1 General Great Lakes Information (area in square miles) Drainage Basin (land & water) Water Surface La -nd Surface' U.S. Canada Total U.S. Canada Total U.S. Canada Total Lake Superior 37,500 43,500 81,000 20,600 11,100 31,700 169900 32,400 49,300 Lake Michigan 67,900 0 67,900 22,300 0 22,300 459600 0 45,600 Lake Huron 25,300 49,500 74,800 9,100 , 13,990 232000 162200 35,600 51,800 Lake St. Clair 2,370 4,150 6,520 162 268 430 2,208 3,882 6,090 Lake Erie 23,600 9,880 339500 4,980 4,930 9,910 18,620 4,950 23,600 Lake Ontario 169800 15,300 32,100 3,460 3,880 7,340 .13,340 11,420 24,700 Total to Lake Ontario Outlet 173,470 1229330 2959800 60,602 34,078 94,680 112,868 88,252 20191003 Lake Ontario Outlet to Moses-Saunders Dam 1,6852 1,3252 3,010 1202 1152 235 1,5652 1,2102 2,775 Total3 175,200 123,600 298,800 60,720 34,190 94,910 1149430 89,450 203,900 Grass-Raquette-St. Regis 3,200 3,200 Total Basin Study Area 178,350 60,720 117,630 IDifference between total basin area and water area. 2Estimated breakdown between U.S. and Canada. 3Rounded. NOTE: The drainage basin area in both U.S. and Canada, above the mouth of the St. Regis River is approximately 302,000 square miles. TABLE 1-2 Hydrologic and Political Subdivisions HYDROLOGIC SUBDIVISIONS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS GREAT LAKES BASIN GREAT LAKES REGION 2.0 Lake Michigan Subbasin 2.0 Lake Michigan Plan Area 2.3 Lake Michigan Southeast River Basin Group 2.3 Lake Michigan.Southeast Planning Subarea St. Joseph River Basin .(25 counties) Black River Complex Kalamazoo River Basin Ottawa Complex Grand River Basin 1.2.2 River Basins and Complexes were made by different processes and treat some nearshore portions of the lakes differently. Table 1-4 shows the interrelationships among the The distribution of the area among the States is Lake basins, river basin groups, and hydrologic areas also shown in Figure 1-3. "river basins and complexes). 1.4 Natural Characteristics 1.3 Land and Water Areas The area 's of the Region and Basin are given in 1.4.1 Geology, Physiography, Topography Table 1-5 and Table 1-6, the information for which came from Appendix 13, Land Use and Manage- Most of the rock formations that underlie the ment. The area by political boundaries (the Region) Great Lakes Basin were formed within the last shows the water area (rivers, lakes, and embay- half-billion years or since the end of Precambrian ments) and the remainder as land in thousands of Era. A geologic reconstruction of the Region sug- acres. The area by hydrologic boundaries (the gests that many forces have been at work, from Basin) is shown in both square miles and thousands superheated lavas and voleanics to widespread gla- of acres for comparison. The basic measurements cial action. In the Paleozoic Era, which was 500 4 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-3 Counties in the Great Lakes Region by Plan Area and Planning Subarea LAKE SUPERIOR--PLAN AREA 1.0 PSA 2.2 continued PSA 2.4 continued PSA 4.2 continued PSA 1.1--L. Superior West INDIANA Schoolcraft Lucas Lake Wexford Mercer 14INNESOTA La Porte Ottawa Carlton 'o r ter Paulding Cook Starke LAKE HURON--PLAN AREA 3.0 Putnam Lake Sandusky St* Louis WISCONSIN PSA 3.1--L. Huron North Seneca Kenosha Van Wert WISCONSIN Milwaukee MICHIGAN Williams Ashland Ozaukee Alcona Hayfield Racine Alpena Wood Douglas Walworth Arenac Wyandot Iron Washington Cheboygan PSA 4.3--L. Erie Central Waukesha Crawford PSA 1.2--L. Superior East Iosco OHIO PSA 2.3-4. Michigan SE Montmorency Ashtabula MICHIGAN Ogemaw Cuyahoga Alger INDIANA Oscoda Geauga Baraga Elkhart Otsego Lake Chippewa Lagrange Presque Isle Lorain Gogebic Marshall Medina Houghton Noble PSA 3.2--L. Huron Central Portage Keweenaw St. Joseph Summit Luce Steuben MICHIGAN Marquette Bay PSA 4.4-4. Erie East Ontonagon MICHIGAN Clare Allegan Genesee PENNSYLVANIA Barry Gladwin Erie LAKE MICHIGAN--PLAN AREA 2.0 Berrien Gratiot NEW YORK Branch Huron Cattaraugus PSA 2.1-4. Michigan NW Calhoun Isabella Chautauqua Cass Lapeer Erie MICHIGAN Clinton Midland Niagara Dickinson Eaton Saginaw Iron Hillsdale Tuscola Menominee Ingham LAKE ONTARIO--PLAN AREA 5.0 WISCONSIN Ionia PSA 5.1--L. Ontario West Brown Jackson LAKE ERIE--PLAN AREA 4.0 Calumet Kalamazoo NEW YORK Door Kent PSA 4.1--L. Erie NW Allegany Florence Montcalm MICHIGAN Genesee Ottawa Li i gston Fond du Lac St. Joseph Lenawee Mov n Forest Livingston O.nroe Green Lake Shi awa ssee Macomb leans Kewaunee Van Buren Monroe Wyoming Langlade Oakland PSA 5.2--L. Ontario Cgntrdl Manitowoc @PSA 2.4-4. Michigan NE St. Clair Marinette Sanilac NEW YORK Marquette MICHIGA14 Cayuga Menominee Antrim Washrenaw Oconto Benzie Wayne Herkimer Madis n Outagamie Charlevoix PSA 4.2-4. Erie SW Oneida Shawano Delta Onondaga Sheboygan Emmet INDIANA Ontario Waupaca Grand Traverse Adams Oswego Waushara Kalkaska Allen Schuyler Winnebago Lake De Kalb Seneca Leelanau Tompkins Mackinac OHIO PSA 2.2--L. Michigan SW Allen Wayne Manistee Auglaize Yates ILLINOIS Mason Crawford Cook Mecosta Defiance PSA 5.3--L. Ontario East Du Page Missaukee Erie Kane Muskegon Fulton NEW YORK Lake Newaygo Hancock Jefferson McHenry Oceans Henry Lewis Will Osceola Huron St. Lawrence million to 250 million years ago, the Basin was Erie-Ontario regions, with thickness of almost 2000 covered by shallow seas teeming with aquatic life. feet reported. Sediment and evaporites from these seas formed Depressions in sedimentary strata over the Basin the bedrock deposits of limestone, dolomite, other were the beginnings of the present five Lakes. Ice carbonates, sandstones, and shales, which charac- up to two miles thick covered the entire Region terize the Basin. Some of the world's greatest salt during thousands of years of climatic change. As deposits occur in the lower Lake Michigan and the glaciers advanced and receded they scoured and Basin Description 5 TABLE 1-4 River Basins and Complexes in the Great Lakes Basin LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN 1.0 River Basin Group 3.1 continued Presque Isle complex Lake Superior West, River Basin Group 1.1 Thunder Bay Superior Slope complex Alcona complex St. Louis River Au Sable River Apostle Islands complex Rifle-Au Gres complex Bad River Montreal River complex Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group 3.2 Kawkawlin complex Lake Superior East, River Basin Group 1.2 Saginaw River Porcupine Mountains complex Thumb complex Ontonagon River Keweenaw Peninsula complex Sturgeon River LAKE ERIE BASIN 4.0 Huron Mt. complex Grand Marais complex Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1 Tahquamenon River Black River Sault complex St. Clair complex Clinton River LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 2.0 Rouge complex Huron River Swan Creek complex Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1 Raisin River Menominee complex Menominee River Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2 Peshtigo River Maumee River Pensaukee complex Toussaint-Portage complex Oconto River Sandusky River Suamico complex Huron-Vermilion complex Fox River Sheboygan-Green Bay complex Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2 Black-Rocky complex Chicago-Milwaukee complex Cuyahoga River Chagrin complex Grand River Lake Michigan Southeast, River.Basin Group 2.3 Ashtabula-Conneaut complex St. Joseph River Black River complex Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4 Kalamazoo River Erie-Chautauqua complex Ottawa complex Cattaraugus Creek Grand River Tonawanda-Buffalo complex Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4 Muskegon River LAKE ONTARIO BASIN 5.0 Sable complex Manistee River Lake Ontario West, River Basin Group 5.1 Traverse complex Niagara-Orleans complex Seul Choix-Groscap complex Genesee River Manistique River Bay de Noc complex Escanaba River Lake Ontario Central, River Basin Group 5.2 Wayne-Cayuga complex LAKE HURON BASIN 3.0 Oswego River Salmon River complex Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3 Black River St.. Marys complex Perch River complex Les Cheneaux complex Oswegatchie River Cheboygan River Grass-Raquette-St. Regis complex 6 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-5 Land and Water Area, Great Lakes Region and Basin; by Plan Area, PSA or RBG, and State Political Boundaries Hydrologic Boundaries Plan Area 1000s Acres Total Area % of % of Planning Subarea Rivers, Lakes, 1000S of Square % of Lake Great Lakes & State Total Area and Embayments Land Area Acres Miles RBG Basin Basin 1.0-Lake Superior 16,998.4 1,083.1 15,915.3 10,870.4 16,985 100 14.4 1.1 10,324.5 851.0 9,473.5 5,906.5 9,229 100 54.3 7.8 Michigan --- --- --- 83.8 131 1 ---- ---- Minnesota 7,317.8 737.9 6,579.9 3,930.9 6,142 67 ---- ---- Wisconsin 3,006.7 113.1 2,893.6 1,891.8 2,956 32 ---- ---- 1.2 6,673.9 232.1 6,441.8 4,963.9 7,756 100 45.7 6.6 Michigan 6,673.9 232.1 6,441.8 4,905.0 7,664 99 ---- Wisconsin --- --- --- 58.9 92 1 ---- ---- 2.0--Lake Michigan 33,283.1 1,010.7 32,272.4 29,011.0 45,330 --- 100 38.5 2.1 10,401.9 391.2 10,010.7 10,791.0 16,861 100 37.2 14.3 Michigan 1,936.6 46.8 1,889.8 2,300.8 3,595 21 ---- ---- Wisconsin 8,465.3 344.4 8,120.9 8,490.2 13,266 79 -1 --- ---- 2.2 5,315.8 103.7 5,212.1 1,391.9 2,175 100 4.8 1.9 Illinois 2,401.3 34.0 2,367.3 38.4 60 3 ---- ---- Indiana 1,194.2 19.9 1,174.3 426.2 666 30 ---- ---- Michigan --- --- --- 106.2 166 8 ---- ---- Wisconsin 1,720.3 49.8 1,670.5 821.1 1,283 59 ---- ---- 2.3 9,126.4 171.0 8,955.4 8,291.8 12,956 100 28.6 11.0 Indiana 1,608.3 27.9 1,580.4 1,084.8 1,695 13 ---- ---- Michigan 7,518.1 141.1 7,375.0 7,207.0 11,261 87 ---- ---- 2.4 8,439.0 344.8 8,094.2 8,536.3 13,338 100 29.4 11.3 Michigan 8,439.0 344.8 8,094.2 8,536.3 13,338 100 ---- ---- 3.0--Lake Huron 8,628.4 186.5 8,441.9 10,357.8 16,184 --- 100 13.8 3.1 4,167.0 149.2 4,017.8 5,207.7 8,137 100 50.3 6.9 Michigan 4,167.0 149.2 4,017.8 5,207.7 8,137 100 ---- ---- 3.2 4,461.4 37.3 4,424.1 5,150.1 8,047 100 49.7 6.9 Michigan 4,461.4 37.3 4,424.1 5,150.1 8,047 100 ---- ---- 4.0--Lake Erie 15,876.0 197.6 15,678.4 13,734.4 21,460 --- 100 18.2 4.1 4,062.1 81.7 3,980.4 3,328.0 5,200 100 24.2 4.4 Michigan 4,062.1 81.7 3,980.4 3,313.3 5,177 99 ---- ---- Ohio --- --- --- 14.7 23 1 ---- ---- 4.2 6,368.7 49.2 6,319.5 6,634.9 10,367 100 48.3 8.8 Indiana 884.5 3.9 880.6 820.5 1,282 12 ---- ---- Michigan --- --- 328.3 513 5 ---- ---- Ohio 5,484.2 45.3 5,438.9 5,486.1 8,572 83 ---- ---- 4.3 2,332.2 23.6 2,308.6 2,081.9 3,253 100 15.2 2.8 Ohio 2,332.2 23.6 2,308.6 1,978.9 3,092 95 ---- ---- Pennsylvania --- --- --- 103.0 161 5 ---- ---- 4.4 3,113.0 43.1 3,069.9 1,689.6 2,640 100 12.3 2.2 New York 2,588.8 38.0 2,550.8 1,466.9 2,292 87 ---- ---- Pennsylvania 524.2 5.1 519.1 222.7 348 13 ---- ---- 5.0--Lake Ontario 11,721.0 449.3 11,271.7 11,308.8 17,670 --- 100 15.0 5.1 2,476.8 18.1 2,458.7 2,249.6 3,515 100 19.9 3.0 New York 2,476.8 18.1 2,458.7 2,188.8 3,420 97 ---- ---- Pennsylvania --- --- --- 60.8 95 3 ---- ---- 5.2 5,682.6 255.2 5,427.4 4,362.9 6,817 100 38.6 5.8 New York 5,682.6 255.2 5,427.4 4,362.9 6,817 100 ---- ---- 5.3 3,561.6 176.0 3,385.6 4,696.3 7,338 100 41.5 6.2 New York 3,561.6 176.0 3,385.6 4,696.3 7,338 100 ---- ---- TOTAL 86,506.9 2,927.2 83,579.7 75,282.4 117,629 --- ---- ---- Basin Description 7 TABLE 1-6 Land and Water Area, Great Lakes Region and Basin, by State Region--Political Boundaries Basin--Hydrologic Boundaries 1000s Acres Total Area % of Rivers, Lakes, 1000s of Square Great Lakes State Total Area and Embayments Land Area Acres Miles Basin Illinois 2,401.3 34.0 2,367.3 38.4 60 0.05 Indiana 3,687.0 51.7 3,635.3 2,331.5 3,643 3.10 Michigan 37,258.1 1,035.0 36,223.1 37,138.5 58,029 49.33 Minnesota 7,317.8 737.9 6,579.9 3,930.9 6,142 5.22 New York 14,309.8 487.3 13,822.5 12,714.9 19,867 16.89 Ohio 7,816.4 68.9 7,747.5 7,479.7 11,687 9.94 Pennsylvania 524.2 5.1 519.1 386.5 604 0.51 Wisconsin 13,192.3 507.3 12,685.0 11,262.0 17,597 14.96 TOTAL 86,506.9 2,927.2 83,579.7 75,282.4 117,629 100.00 Lakes began to collect. Subsequent isostatic read- justment of the earth's crust, some independent New York crustal warping, and natural erosion led to a drain- age system that constitutes the Great Lakes Basin. 17% Michigan The areal geology of the Basin provides a sepa- ration of the entire Great Lakes drainage basin into Wisconsin 43% three major physiographic provinces (Figure 1-4). 15% The Superior Highlands of northern Minnesota, 9% northern Wisconsin, and northwestern Michigan Ohio are in the Laurentian Uplands Province, or Laurentian Plateau. This area is generally charac- terized by low-lying swamps, poorly drained areas, Minnesota 8% Pennsylvania 1% and occasional ranges of hills. Elevations range Illinois 3% from 600 to 1,200 feet. An outlying portion of the \Indiana 4% Laurentian Plateau includes the Adirondack Mountains of New York, east of Lake Ontario and Total Area in Region south of the St. Lawrence River. Here the relief is State (1,000,000 acres) sharply defined, with elevations up to 4,500 feet above sea level. The four lower Lakes and much of Michigan 3Z3 the drainage basin are in the Interior Lowlands New York 14.3 Province, which is better drained than the Lauren- Wisconsin 13.2 tian Uplands. Its pronounced ridges consist largely Ohio 7.8 of glacial moraines and outcrops of resistant, dip- Minnesota 7.3 ping, older bedrock. The latter appears as the Indiana 3.7 Niagara Peninsula of New York and Ontario and Illinois 2.4 the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin. Elevations in the Pennsylvania 0.5 Interior Lowlands range from 700 to 1,000 feet. Total Area in Region 86.5 Minor portions of the drainage basins of Lake On- tario and Lake Erie are in the Appalachian Plateau FIGURE 1-3 Percentage of Total Region Area Province. The adjacent higher area, which forms in Each State the Basin boundary, is the Allegheny Mountains, or Allegheny Plateau. gouged the land, leaving thick deposits of glacial q aPennsyl, material over much of the Basin. It was only after 1.4.2 Climate the retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet about 11,000 years ago that the waters of the present Great In general, the Great Lakes Basin experiences a 0 MINNESOTA LAKE SUPERIOR e+ Laur'vmtla @.;v.-4 1-w TA. W j c I 'AAN!," Ile GOMM RAV LAKF@IIURON 7 URON TARIO A _UA Mt, SWES ohm it K lu"ols NEW vo CM"P ILLINOIS w rat Way 1 N D I AN A 0 H 10 Basin Description 9 continental to semimaritime climate that is largel y annual precipitation increases to more than 47 determined by westerly atmospheric circulation inches. The relative uniformity of precipitation (cyclonic storms), the Basin's latitudinal position over a large area is due to the lack of any major between 40'30' and 48020' N, and the modifying topographic variation in the Basin and the uni- influence of the Great Lakes on local weather. formity of exogenous weather. Increases in pre- Climate over the Region is normally humid cipitation on the southeastern edge of the Basin are throughout the year, with cold winters and cool caused by the higher elevations of those areas. summers in the north and warm summers in the Precipitation decreases somewhat from the south south. Average annual frost-free season is about to north and from east to west. Precipitation de- four months at the northern extremity of the Basin creases with increased latitude because the colder about six months at the southern extremity. atmosphere at high latitudes does not contain as Prevailing winds in the Great Lakes area are much moisture as the warmer, southern atmos- from the west, although winds do blow from any phere. The east-to-west precipitation decrease is sector. Winter winds of highest frequency and caused by the interaction of the Lakes (moisture magnitude are from the west in the western half of sources), the prevailing westerly winds, and Basin the Basin. In the eastern half of the Basin, winter configuration. The prevailing exogenous winds winds are most frequently from the west, south- have reduced moisture content after having west, and northwest. Summer winds are usually crossed. the plains. They receive moisture from the from the southwest and south throughout the Lakes, and precipitation amounts increase toward Basin. There is a strong tendency for maximum the east. The Allegheny and Adirondack highlands wind vectors to be aligned with the long axes of the trigger orographic precipitation in the eastern por- Lakes. tions of the Basin. Mean annual surface air temperatures over the Seasonally, the lake effect influences precipita- Basin range from approximately 39'F on Lake Su- tion patterns in the Basin. Spring and summer perior to 49*F on Lake Erie. Minimum and max- precipitation is greater inland than over the Lakes imum monthly temperatures occur in February and and coastal areas. Conversely, winter precipitation July, respectively, on all the Great Lakes. Dif- is greater over the Lakes and coastal areas than ferences in latitude cause a decrease in average inland. monthly temperatures of about 10'F from south to north. The Great Lakes, which comprise about one-third of the area of the Basin, act as a medium 1.4.3 Water Resources for heat exchange between the water masses and the atmosphere. The Lakes tend to moderate tem- The 95,000 square miles of Great Lakes surface perature differences in adjacent land areas. Thus, area covers 32 percent of the entire Great Lakes the interiors of Michigan's upper and lower penin- drainage area in the United States and Canada. sulas are colder than the coastal areas at the same Relatively short, immature streams, inland lakes, latitudes. and minor embayments constitute more than 2.9 Short-term local variations in surface air tem- million acres (4,500 square miles) of additional sur- peratures can be extreme. It is not unusual for face water in the Basin. Ground water is present intense cells of cold arctic air to lower temperatures throughout the Basin, but it is in very limited as much as 50'F in one day. quantity in the areas where the basement rock is In addition to moderating air temperatures, the near or at the surface. Great Lakes also change Basin humidity by con- Surface and subsurface water resources are in- tributing thousands of tons of moisture by evapo- terconnected and in ample supply over the entire ration. Estimates of the annual rate of evaporation Great Lakes Basin. These water resources are on the surface of the Great Lakes range from a constantly moving through a complex hydrologic minimum of approximately 1. 5 ft. on Lake Superior cycle, in which water may be stored, be captured to approximately 3.0 ft. on Lake Erie. On an annual and used by local flora and fauna, be evaporated, or average the Great Lakes increase the humidity of run off without use. Generally speaking, about the Basin approximately 15 percent. one-third or 12 inches (63.2 billion gallons per day) Annual precipitation over most of the Great of the water which falls annually as precipitation Lakes Basin including rainfall, snow, and less im- runs off the land into streams, lakes, and ultimately portant modes of transfer of water from the atmos- into the Great Lakes. Average annual runoff from phere to the earth surf ace ranges f rom less than major U.S. tributaries ranges from 9 to 38 inches 28 to more than 37 inches. Annual snowfall ranges due to differences in temperature, vegetation, ter- from 40 inches to 120 inches. In the southeastern rain, surficial features, geology, and land use, as and eastern portions of the Basin, the Adirondack well as to differences in annual precipitation dis- Mountains and the Allegheny Plateau, the total tribution. General low topographic relief and surfi- (%PLANATI orovAd-water yield based opt runoff at ID-PerceRt f low 4" Milliea* of gallons per day per sq. mile Less Wo Q. 0.26 - CS0 More thaw 0.50 50YA LAKF ------- A. ONTARIO C-1 v URON 1AKE S'F, ......... . .... ,P1 10 N A Basin Description 11 cial glacial deposits encourage infiltration of water, TABLE 1-8 Great Lakes Surface Area, U.S. while numerous lakes, marshes, and peat bogs re- and Canada flect poor development of regional surface drainage systems. Area streams are generally short, and Area World Ranking their average annual flows are low for the amount Lake (sq.mi.) (Freshwater) of area drained. Base flow of regional streams is derived largely from ground-water sources. Figure 1-5 shows that Superior 31,700 1 nearly half of the Basin's land area is underlain by Huron 23,000 4 aquifers that yield more than 0.25 million gallons per day per square mile (mgd per sq. mi.). Well Michigan 22,300 5 yields in the Basin can range as high as 5,000 Erie 9,910 11 gallons per minute (gpm) in these areas. Average annual yield from ground-water systems in the Basin Ontario 7,340 14 is estimated at 26 bgd (Table 1-7). - TOTAL 94,250 TABLE 1-7 Ground Water Potential, Based on 70% Flow Duration 1-7. Twenty-two feet in elevation separate Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Lake Huron and Lake Basin Yield (mgd) Michigan are one large reservoir at approximately the same level. Only eight feet in elevation sepa- Lake Superior 4,240 rate Lakes Huron and Erie. The drop from Lake Lake Michigan 11,710 Erie to Lake Ontario is 325 feet, largely concen- trated at Niagara Falls. Lake Huron 3,215 The chemical and biological characteristics of the Great Lakes system are undergoing rapid change Lake Erie 1,945 except in Lake Superior. The Lakes changing the Lake Ontario 4,910 most are those surrounded by the greatest con- centrations of human population. Significant in- TOTAL 26,020 creases in the last 40 years in levels of total dis- solved solids, largely phosphates, calcium, sodium, sulfates, and chlorides, particularly in Lakes Erie The areas adjacent to Lake Superior and in the and Ontario, are generally considered to correlate Adirondack region of New York have low yields with the rapidly aging aquatic systems. because the underlying bedrock is the Precambrian Total alkalinity (as CaCO,) ranges from 46 parts crystalline complex. Elsewhere, in Pennsylvania, per million (ppm) in Lake Superior to 113 ppm in Ohio, and much of New York, the sedimentary Lake Michigan. The pH ranges from 8.0 to 8.5 for bedrock formations also are low-yielding aquifers. most of the waters, except Lake Superior, where In some Michigan and Indiana areas the water is the range is from 7.0 to 8.0. Sulfate concentrations too saline for use. Fresh water is present through- are greater than chloride concentrations in the out the Basin, but saline water may be encountered upper Lakes, and sulfates and chlorides are almost in one or more aquifers almost any place in the equal in Lakes Erie and Ontario. The proportions Basin. of calcium, magnesium, and sodium in the upper The Great Lakes represent the greatest fresh- Lakes are about 10:3:1. Potassium usually averages water storage system in the world (Table 1-8). around 1 ppm in all the Lakes. Silica usually fluc- Waters from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and tuates between 2 and 3 ppm, although only trace the Georgian Bay all drain into Lake Huron, which amounts of silica occur at times in the highly pro- transmits the water from these basins, as well as ductive waters of Lake Erie. Concentrations of its own supply, to Lake Erie through the St. Clair total phosphorus are low in the upper Lakes and River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River. Lake are usually less than 5 ppm in the open waters of Erie in turn transmits all of this water, plus the Lake Superior. The phosphorus content of water contribution of its own basin, through the Niagara from Lake Erie is about six times greater than that River to Lake Ontario. The Lake Ontario outlet is in the the other Lakes. The dissolved oxygen con- the head of the St. Lawrence River. The factors of tent of much of the Great Lakes water is near water supply to the Lakes are shown in Figure 1-6. ' saturation, even at the greatest depths, and super- There is a progressive drop in surface elevation saturation is common. However, dissolved oxygen through the series of Lakes, as shown in Figure concentrations of less than 1 ppm have been found C-1 0 ONSTANT LEVE C 00 'D C z 0 0 ii W -n 74 51 @c n 0 CONSTANT LEVEL:N 0 Z 50 78 @0 0 - m (I C. 9 15 0 CONSTANT LEVEL Q, CA 109 87 NG LAKE, 26 26 tp LO LAKE SUPERIOR 01@ 25 Z G K c@ -P Z 0 0 1 0 V SID S Y, D ER N LAKE A4lCH.HUnOlV 0 -0- 44, 90 ;p 'v'D 187 205 OUTFLOW 7.0 E@JC 78 ON 7 ;v 3 0 LAKE MICH-HURON 0 LAKE ERIE 0 4 Z CHICAGO DIVERSIONS 0 0 0 3 0 Notes: 20 Outflows adjusted so that supplies to the lakes r" equal withdrawals, i.e., to condition of no WELLAND DIVERSION change on lake storage. Figures on sketch are thousands of cfs. 7 Q1 C eb Basin Description 13 in Lake Erie in the bottom waters in an area of the land remains in forest. Most of the rolling several hundred square miles of the central basin, uplands have loamy soils. The more level and The plankton composition found in the Great stone-free areas are good to excellent cropland. Lakes is characteristic of large and deep lakes. Much of the less suitable land remains in forest Diatoms are the most important constituents of the cover. There are a few rocky highlands like the plankton, although zooplankton may occasionally Porcupine Mountains in the area. equal the diatoms in biomass but not in numbers. In eastern Wisconsin and southern Michigan Blue-green and green algae are at times especially nearly all the soils were formed under forest vege- abundant in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. How- tation and are light in color and low in organic ever, even in Lake Erie diatoms usually comprise matter except in areas of poor natural drainage. All 75 percent of the phytoplankton. of the soils in these two areas were heavily gla- ciated. Most of the soils usually are quite acid, therefore, liming is a first essential for crop pro- 1.4.4 Related Land and Other Natural duction, especially for alfalfa. Fertilization with Resources phosphorus and potassium is also generally re- quired for efficient crop production, and nitrogen A number of complex climatic, topographic, geo- fertilizer usage has increased greatly in recent logic, and human factors have combined to create years. Soil drainage, both internal and surface basinwide differences in the quantity, quality, and drainage, is required for efficient economic opera- distribution of soils, forests, minerals, fish, and tions. wildlife resources. The largest area of productive soils is in the eastern Wisconsin area where the topography gen- erally is level or gently rolling. Most of the soils are 1.4.4.1 Soils loams to clay loams and of good permeability and water-holding capacity. Scattered areas of organic The soil types of the Great Lakes Basin are soils (peats and mucks) are in the poorly drained determined by past and present climatic conditions, areas. Limited areas of sandy soils also occur. In natural drainage, vegetative cover, and the break- Southern Michigan the glacial material varies in down of parent glacial material. The entire Basin texture from sand to clay. The soils are quite was glaciated and left with drift that ranges in variable in texture, permeability, and management thickness up to 1, 100 feet. Lacustrine deposits requirements. The topography is nearly level to generally characterize the present lake shore gently rolling, although glacial knolls and hills are areas while organic soils are common in inland common in some places. The least productive of swamp and marsh areas. these soils are found near the western Basin The soils of the Basin are best described in terms boundary in Wisconsin. The soils are primarily of areal groups which reflect soil origin and compo- droughty sands and loamy sands and poorly drained sition in terms of management practices. In Min- organic soils. nesota, the Upper and northern Lower Peninsulas The muck and peat soils of the eastern Wisconsin of Michigan, and the related Wisconsin area, the and southern Michigan area have special require- soils are influenced by the cool, moist forest and are ments. They are potentially productive when they light-colored, acid, rather infertile, and low in or- are drained. Fertilization of these soils is necessary ganic matter. They vary greatly because of dif- for crop production. They can be utilized for either ferences in parent material. In the northern por- specialized or general crops. tion, the topography is uneven due to intense Northern Indiana, eastern Illinois, northwestern glaciation. Stones, sands, and gravels are common, Ohio, and extreme southern Michigan have been and there are swamps and marshes in which or- heavily glaciated. The soils that were formed under ganic soils have formed. A small amount of good forest vegetation are generally light in color and soil is intermixed with the poor. The primary veg- low in organic matter, although there are also ex- etative cover is pine, spruce-fir, and hardwood tensive areas of dark-colored, poorly drained soils, forest. developed from various types of glacial material. In the southern part of this area, sands with These differ considerably in texture. Fine-textured sandy or gravelly subsoils predominate. Some soils, such as the Hoytville and Paulding clays, are crops can be grown, but productivity is limited, and extensive in the lacustrine lake plain area of north- the area is best suited to pine forest. There are western Ohio. Sands and sandy loam soils occur in some gently sloping to flat plains on the shores of northwestern Indiana. Most of the soils in other Lake Superior in all three States that are relatively areas, however, have a friable loam to silt loam smooth, stone-free, usually rich in lime in the sub- surface layer. soil, and thus suitable for limited farming. Much of The land is mostly level to gently rolling, except (71 LAKE ST. LAWREN LAKE S ST. MARYS RIVER ST CLAIR RIVER NIAGARA EL FALLS LAKES MICHIGAN- HURON LAKE S EL LAKE EL. 600.4 EL. 578.7 573.0 570.4 ONTARIO L. ERIE LAKE SUPERIOR 244.8 DETROIT RIVER LAKE EL. 20 925 FT ST. CLAIR MICHIGAN ST. LAWRENCE 752 FT. HURON 212 FT. 804 FT. 1333 NIAGARA RIVER - FT. 379 -60 -1 223 t 89 -1 236 135 1 150 1 77 1281 52 133 1 350 T T T T DISTANCES IN MILES ELEVATIONS ON THE LAKE SURFACES ARE AVERAG INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES DATUM (1955) A THE NEAREST TENTH (1/10) FOOT. HORIZONTi SCALES HAVE BEEN DISTORTED TO CONVEY VIS Basin DescTiption 15 on moraines and near main streams where the land mountainous regions, and hardwoods, 'Which cover may be rolling to steep. Much of the land was much of the southern and central Basin. Agricultural originally poorly drained; most of it is now artifi- land use in central lower Michigan, Ohio, Pennsyl- cially drained, but inadequate drainage is still a vania, and New York has replaced forested lands. problem in many areas. Peat and muck soils are The forests are used now for the multiple purposes rather extensive in northwestern Indiana and are for which they are suited. intensively used. The northeast area of the Basin includes portions of northeastern Ohio, the northern portion of Erie 1.4.4.3 Minerals County, Pennsylvania, and northern New York. The soils were derived from parent material that The distribution of the rocks and sediments of varied from hard crystalline rock to lake-plain each of the three geologic eras represented in the sands and clays. Most of the region was covered by Great Lakes Basin also defines the type-and loca- glaciers from the north. They mixed older soils tion of mineral resources and mineral production with various kind of rocks, such as sandstone, within the Basin. Virtually all of the metal re- shales, limestones, and clays. Most of the soils are sources, including iron, zinc, lead, silver, and cop- in the gray-brown podzolic group and are quite per are found in the Precambrian rocks. Hence, deficient in lime and phosphorus. The surface hori- these resources are produced in the northwestern zons are fairly high in organic matter. There is a and extreme eastern parts of the Basin in Michi- considerable area of more productive soils which gan, Minnesota, and New York. The Paleozoic developed from calcareous glacial drift south of rocks contain the mineral fuels of oil, gas, and coal, Lake Ontario in New York. and nonmetallic minerals including limestone, dolo- Poor drainage is a serious problem in northeast- mite, sandstone, shale, salt, gypsum, and natural ern Ohio and Erie County, Pennsylvania, or where brines, and are largely found in lower Michigan, the soils have been developed from sandstone or Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and New York. The *occur- shale. rence and production of these mineral fuels and Along the southern shores of Lake Erie and Lake nonmetals depend on the geographic distribution Ontario is the Lake Plain Province. It averages 3 to and accessibility of certain formations. @he non- 5 miles in width along Lake Erie and is generally 10 metal deposits of sand and gravel, clay, marl, and to 25 miles wide along Lake Ontario. The land is peat found throughout the Basin are contained in generally level to gently rolling, and dairy farming the unconsolidated Cenozoic sediments. is prominent in this area. 1.4.4.4 Fish 1.4.4.2 Forests Fish habitat provided by inland streams and Before settlement, most of the land area of the lakes, as well as by the Great Lakes, supports a Basin was occupied by virgin forest. Forest cutting wide variety of cold- and warm-water species for and clearing began in the early 1800s and increased sport fishing and a limited commercial fishery. during the settlement period. Not only was the land About 173 species in 75 genera and 29 families cleared for agricultural uses, but the nation's are represented in the Great Lakes system. In lumber needs were increasingly supplied from the addition to those which found their way to the Basin's forests, particularly during the last half of Great Lakes by natural means there are 11 species the nineteenth century. The dramatic harvest of which have been purposely or accidentally intro- the original stands attracted the growth of wood- duced and have established themselves. An addi- using industries which soon outstripped the sus- tional 7 species were introduced but failed to es- tained yield and eventually moved to other areas. tablish permanent populations. By the early 1900s, most of the virgin @orests had However, of all these species supported by the been cut, and the lumber companies' operations Great Lakes, only 53 have, at various times, con- were gone. Approximately 39.6 million acres, sistently contributed to the commercial fishery as nearly half of the Basin, are now classed as forest food. An additional 8 species contributed in a mar- land. Most of the forest cover has been reestab- ginal way. Of the total, 26 are definite sport fishes, lished by natural regeneration and forest manage- 11 are mafginal sport fishes, and 28 species are, or ment practices. States with the highest percentage have been, both commercial and sport fishes. An of the forest resources are Minnesota, Wisconsin, additional 10 or 12 species, principally minnows, Michigan (northern half), and New York. Common are of commercial, importance as the basis of a species are conifers, such as pines, spruce, and fir, bait business associated with sport fishing. The which dominate the upper Basin and the New York maximum number of utilized species is about 110, 16 Appendix 1 but only 14 of the 173 species have been considered lar business. In addition, panfish such as bluegill, prime species, readily acceptable on the market and perch, and other species are abundant throughout commanding a price commensurate with the cost of the Basin. The number of fishermen seeking these capture and processing. Another group of prime species may exceed those angling for game fish. species is that considered adequate for sport and Salmonid fishing is also noteworthy. Recent stock- food by the angler. These two groups are listed in ing of the Great Lakes with coho and chinook Table 1-9. Not all of these species can be taken salmon has made these flsh abundant in streams today; some are endangered, and some are extinct. tributary to Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron. The introduction and immigration of exotic spe- cies has modified the native species distribution greatly. Carp were introduced the latter part of the TABLE 1-9 Historically Important Commer- 19th century, and substantial populations were well cial and Sport Fishes of the Great Lakes established by 1900. Smelt were stocked in a lake Common Name Genus and Species tributary to Lake Michigan in the 1920s, and spread COMMERCIAL FISH quickly throughout the upper Great Lakes and into Lake Erie. The sea lamprey and the alewife, now lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens abundant in most of the Lakes, were unknown lake trout Salvelinus namaycush except in Lake Ontario prior to the opening of the lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis Welland Canal. It is generally accepted that the sea cisco (lake herring) Coregonus artedii lamprey entered Lake Ontario after 1880 via the bloater Coregonus hoyi Erie Canal. The first record of alewives in Lake deepwater cisco Coregonus johannae Ontario was in 1873. Carp and smelt have contrib- blackfin cisco Coregonus nigripinnis uted substantially to the commercial take. Alewife, kiyi Coregonus kiyi despite its abundance, is difficult to market. The white perch is a recent immigrant. A large popula- northern pike Esox lucius tion is established in Lake Ontario in the Bay of white bass Roccus chrysops Quinte and in eastern Lake Erie. The relationship yellow perch Perca flavescens of these exotics to other species is as yet unknown, sauger Stizostedion canadense except in the case of the sea lamprey, which, be- walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreum cause of its parasitic nature, has caused drastic blue walleye (blue pike) Stizostedion vitreum glaucum decreases in the abundance of certain native fishes. Control measures have been undertaken by both SPORT FISH the U.S. and Canada. rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri brown trout Salmo trutta 1.4.4.5 Mammals and Birds brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Nearly all of the Great Lakes Basin is wildlife northern pike Esox lucius habitat. In the U.S. portion of the land area, there muskellunge Esox masquinongy are 75 million acres of habitat or resource base out smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui of a total of 84 million acres. The shoal waters in the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides U.S. portion of the Great Lakes total 610,000 acres. yellow perch Perca flavescens Of this total, 491,000 acres are important to wild- walleye Stizostedion vitreum life. All of the open waters are used from time to time by migrating waterfowl. The value of this habitat varies greatly, but the important consider- ation is that all nonurbanized land, some urban Habitat conditions vary over inland lakes and lancl, and all waters have some value to wildlife. streams with coldwater species dominating in the The eight kinds of Basin wildlife habitat include northern half of the Basin and warmwater species northern wilderness forests, farmland woodlots, most common in the southern portion. Trout fishing blocks of eastern hardwood forest, river bottom is good in many lakes and streams in Minnesota, woodlands, scrub and brush lands, open fields and Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York. meadows, cropland, and freshwater wetland. Some of these lakes and streams are stocked on a As a rule, the supply of wildlife habitat other "put and take" basis. than cropland is good in the northern and far east- Sport fishing for warmwater species such as ern areas of the Basin and is only fair south of these smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleyes, large- areas. The country north of the Milwaukee-Buffalo mouth bass, and muskellunge is a multimillion dol- line is forested and sparsely settled, while south of Basin Desciiption 17 this line the area is heavily settled and is primarily northern areas are the same as those of Lake industrial and agricultural. Superior basin with the exception of the timber The single most important factor affecting Basin wolf, which is very rare. The black bear is found wildlife and habitat is human population growth throughout the northern region. Further south the and the resultant increase in intensity of land use, wildlife species become less specialized. Farm which causes both degradation and loss of habitat. game such as the ring-necked pheasant, cottontail The varieties of wildlife that occupy this habitat rabbit, and gray and fox squirrel, and big game are diverse, and include big game, small game, and such as the white-tailed deer and black bear are furbearers, waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, common. and song birds. There are about 63 species of Michigan contains a pocket of prairie chicken mammals and 300 species of birds native to the habitat, which supports a low population of these Basin. Some of these animals and birds are rare, rare birds. Another rare species found in the area is some are endangered, and some are common. the Kirtland's warbler which nests in a special The Lake Superior basin is the northernmost of habitat niche in young pine forest lands. Bald the five Great Lakes basins and has ecological eagles and ospreys, which used to be common in the characteristics that differ from the others. The Green Bay area and in the islands and bays on the soils, waters, and the Lake are of low fertility. The opposite side of the Lake, are becoming less com- geology of the basin and the weather are responsi- mon but are still present seasonally. Remaining ble for the vegetative types and lack of productiv- waterfowl marshes in the Green Bay area support ity. Topsoils are thin and acidic and support only nesting and idle waterfowl. Significant waterfowl specialized plant species. The runoff is low in nu- marshes exist in the Fox River and Wolf River trients. Streams, lakes, and marshes are infertile drainage basins and at Seney, Michigan. Small wa- and Lake Superior is a cold, infertile or oligotrophic terfowl marshes also exist at river mouths around lake. the Lake. The wildlife species of the Lake Superior basin Degraded habitat in the urbanized southern Lake reflect the soil types and plant ecology. They are Michigan basin supports little wildlife. However, fewer in species diversity, lower in density, and some paradoxes occur here. Large flocks of resting more specialized than elsewhere in the Great Lakes waterfowl are to be found off the Gary, Indiana, Basin. Of all the wildlife species of the basin, steel complex during the fall. City parklands and perhaps the timber wolf demonstrates best the forest preserves support small populations of rab- influence of the environment. The wolf requires a bits, squirrels, furbearers, and numerous species of vast unbroken wilderness with few human intru- songbirds. These are important because they pro- sions. He also requires white-tailed deer and moose vide recreation and outdoor enjoyment right in the populations as well as smaller mammals in suffi- urban areas. cient numbers to sustain him through the winter. The northern half of the Lake Huron basin has a Prey species require a special habitat to thrive, and rolling topography vegetated with a variety of cov- natural or man-caused disturbances in the habitat er types including northern forest jack pine and can diminish prey species populations and thereby other timber, open grassy areas, wooded bogs, and diminish the wolf population. brush lands. Many small lakes and marshes are Other Lake Superior basin species include present, and this region is of high wildlife value. coyote, red fox, snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse, The southern half is generally flat, heavily agricul- black bear, bald eagle, osprey, sharp-tail grouse, turalized, and less wooded. The streams are slow- woodcock, spruce grouse, bobcat, lynx and fur- moving and of lower quality than the northern bearers including otter, fisher, beaver, mink, streams, but wetlands important to wildlife are muskrat, and pine marten. present. Lake Michigan and its extensive drainage basin Many thousands of acres of fine waterfowl marsh encompass a wide variation in vegetative and cli- surround the open waters of Saginaw Bay and matological situations. The basin's northern extrem- extend inland up the Saginaw River system, creat- ities are f orested on both sides of the Lake, but in ing a nationally known waterfowl concentration Wisconsin the forest cover begins to change and area. Inland wetlands also support nesting popula- gives way to agricultural lands at the Green Bay tions of geese and ducks. latitude. In Michigan the forest cover extends fur- The Lake Huron Area has a variety of wildlife ther south to approximately the Muskegon-Clare- species such as black bear, white-tailed deer, elk, Midland line. Land around the southern tip of the turkey, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chicken, Lake (exclusive of urban areas) is completely agri- mourning dove, ring-necked pheasant, woodcock, cultural with little tree cover remaining in Indiana ruffed grouse, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, and Illinois. gray squirrel, fox squirrel, aquatic and terrestrial Wildlife species in the Lake Michigan basin's furbearers, bobcat, waterfowl, shore birds, pas- 18 Appendix 1 serine birds, and other songbirds. Eagles, osprey, and other farm game species are found in medium- and the endangered Kirtland's warbler can also be to-high densities, as are waterfowl species. found in the basin. The western part of the Lake Erie basin is a flat lake plain, heavily farmed and urbanized. Cover 1.5 Human Characteristics consists of brushy, idle farmland, small woodlots, and wooded stream bottoms. Stream gradients are Water and related land resources have histori- very gentle and streams are wide, shallow, and cally played a key role in economic development and slow-moving. The tree and shrub species are those population distribution over the Great Lakes Basin. of the eastern deciduous forest. By 1850 the exploitation of the iron, copper, tim- The very gently sloping character of the west ber, and agricultural resources had begun, and the end of the Lake Erie basin changes almost imper- Great Lakes were now to become a main commer- ceptibly eastward, first to rolling topography and cial waterway for the nation. Railways came to the then to plateaus and glaciated valleys in New York. Lakes during this time encouraging more settle- The cover here is much more extensive than in the ment. Locks and canals built during this century western half of the basin. Tree and shrub species provided Great Lakes ports and cities new oppor- are the same as in the western basin, but also tunities for growth. include conifers and shrub species associated with The Great Lakes also supported a thriving com- northern hardwoods. The wildlife of this area in- mercial fishing industry, famous for whiteflsh, lake cludes those species adapted to farmed areas and a trout, and other species, which peaked in the 1890s low-to-medium population of forest species. Some and has generally declined since that time. The white-tailed deer are found in the western basin, industry felt particularly the deadly effects of the but the Allegheny Plateau in the east is the best sea lamprey. forest wildlife habitat, with white-tailed deer, The Great Lakes Region has water supply, min- black bear, turkey, ruffed grouse, and squirrels eral resources, and transportation routes which present. Probably the most important wildlife pop- have combined to create major industrial develop- ulations of the basin are the waterfowl in the highly ments and population concentrations at former productive marshes of the western basin and in trade centers or port cities. The lower Lake basins scattered areas in the eastern basin. have developed most rapidly, while some northern The Lake Ontario basin contains a wide variation areas of the Basin have declined in population in of sometimes complicated topographic features. recent years, largely because of the relatively The level plain around the edge of the Lake gives harsh climate and isolation. way to rolling, glaciated topography. The uplands are plateaus or glaciated hills with steep slopes. The total relief from the St. Lawrence River to the 1.5.1 Population and Economic Factors Adirondack Mountains is the greatest in the Basin. Wildlife habitat in the Lake Ontario basin is The availability and high quality of natural re- varied and is generally of high quality for wildlife sources continue to be major factors in develop- production. Farming is restricted to localized areas ment patterns of the Basin. Consequently, a ma- of suitable soils. Elsewhere, secondary forest cover jority of the people in the Basin are concentrated in remains. Tree species are those of the northern port and industrial centers along the shores of the forests, including balsam fir, white pine, hemlock, Great Lakes or near the junctions of major land birch, spruce, maple, and aspen. In the lower ele- and water transportation routes. In addition to this vations of the western half of the basin, only de- growth of urbanized centers, some rural nonfarm ciduous species are found. areas continue to grow rapidly. Bays, river mouths, and shoreline estuaries in the St. Lawrence River include many thousands of acres of some of the finest freshwater marshes in 1.5.1.1 Population New York State. There are also high quality inland marshes in the river system, particularly down- Although the Great Lakes Region constitutes stream from the Finger Lakes and in the St. only 4 percent of the nation's area, the population Lawrence Plain. has consistently accounted for approximately 15 Wildlife species in the Lake Ontario basin include percent of the people in the United States in the waterfowl and shorebirds, and farm and forest census decades from 1940 to 1970 (14.4 percent in wildlife. White-tailed deer, black bear, ruffed 1970). The population density for the Region is four grouse, and other forest species are found in me- times the national average. There is considerable dium densities. Furbearers are well established. variation among the Lake basins in population dis- Cottontail rabbit, ring-necked pheasant, squirrels, tribution and in urban-rural balance. The Lakes Basin Description 19 TABLE 1-10 Population Distribution, Great Lakes Basin Plan Area Number of Persons Population Distribution Planning Subarea Actual Projected % of % of % of & State 1960 1970 1980 2000 2026-- PSA Plan Area Gt Lks Basin l,.O Lake Superior 544,784 533,539 537,900 594,600 668,800 --- 100 1.8 1.1 358,722 345,155 366,600 417,200 475,000 100 68.1 1.2 Michigan --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- Minnesota 276,599 265,539 288,188 334,297 386,147 77 ---- ---- Wisconsin 82,123 79,616 78,375 82,950 88,890 23 ---- ---,7 1.2 186,062 188,384 171,300 117,400 193,800 100 38.2 0.6 Michigan 186,062 188,384 171,294 177,377 193,767 100 ---- ---- Wisconsin --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- 2.0 Lake Michigan 12,041,378 13,516,965 15,542,300 19,645,400 24,829,500 100 46.1 2.1 1,005,023 1,082,100 1,357,600 1,726,000 100 7.4 3.4 Michigan 65,786 62,153 66,059 74,089 86,114 6 ---- ---- Wisconsin 830,610 942,870 1,016,073 1,283,534 1,639,932 94 ---- ---- 2.2 8,481,097 9,492,823 10,999,000 13,844,500 17,385,700 100 70.2 32.4 Illinois 6,220,913 6,978,947 7,884,751 9,625,841 11,782,042 74 ---- ---- Indiana 686,570 757,989 914,612 1,221,634 1,611,178 8 ---- ---- Michigan --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- Wisconsin 1,573,614 1,755,887 2,199,616 2,996,976 3,992,508 18 ---- ---- 2.3 2,211,001 2,522,579 2,914,000 3,771,900 4,876,400 100 18.7 8.6 Indiana 440,573 478,991 527,185 635,519 778,309 19 ---- ---- Michigan 19770,428 2,043,588 2,386,807 3,136,340 49098,081 81 ---- ---- 2.4 452,884 496,540 547,200 6719400 841,400 100 3.7 1.7 Michigan 452,884 496,540 547,187 6719372 841,443 100 ---- ---- 3.0 Lake Michigan 1,056,577 1,236,265 1,411,000 1,809,200 2,324,400 100 4.2 3.1 119,007 142,064 164,300 208,700 267,000 100 11.5 0.5 Michigan 119,007 142,064 164,285 208,655 266,959 100 ---- ---- 3.2 937,570 1,094,201 1,246,800 1,600,500 2,057,400 100 88.5 3.7 Michigan 937,570 1,094,201 1,246,751 1,600,538 2,057,431 100 ---- ---- 4.0 Lake Erie 10,465,813 11,513,853 13,299,600 16,794,200 21,280,500 100 39.3 4.1 4,291,457 4,848,153 5,801,700 7,425,200 9,567,600 100 42.1 16.5 Michigan 4,291,457 4,848,153 5,801,693 7,425,197 9,567,643 100 ---- ---- Ohio --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- 4.2 1,565,736 1,725,351 19963,500 2,473,800 3,116,200 100 15.0 5.9 Indiana 285,110 338,163 403,574 561,272 775,863 20 Michigan --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- Ohio 1,280,626 1,387,188 1,559,893 1,912,551 2,340,323 80 ---- ---- 4.3 2,825,417 3,098,513 3,476,400 4,389,200 5, 526,500 100 26.9 10.6 Ohio 2,825,417 3,0989513 39476,359 4,389,182 5,526,520 100 ---- ---- Pennsylvania --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- 4.4 1,783,203 1,841,836 2,058,000 2,506,000 3,070,200 100 16.0 6.3 New York 1,532,521 1,578,182 1,764,995 2,143,968 2,617,288 86 ---- ---- Pennsylvania 250,682 263,654 293,010 362,015 452,944 14 ---- ---- 5.0 Lake Ontario 2,256,046 2,531,673 2,775,600 3,494,900 4,393,100 100 8.6 5.1 797,364 946,131 978,200 1,221,800 1,538,000 100 37.4 3.2 New York 797,364 946,131 978,212 1,221,785 1,538,044 100 ---- ---- Pennsylvania --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- 5.2 1,236,359 1,361,399 19571,700 2,015,900 2,5569500 100 53.8 4.6 New York 1,236,359 1,361,399 1,571,672 2,015,912 2,556,549 100 ---- ---- 5.3 222,323 224,143 225,700 257,200 298,600 100 8.8 0.8 New York 222,323 224,143 225,655 257,172 298,586 100 ---- ---- TOTAL 23,364,598 29,332,295 339566,400 42,338,300 53,496,300 20 Appendix 1 Michigan and Erie plan areas have accounted for Most of the 29 million people in the Great Lakes about 46 and 39 percent, respectively, of the total Basin reside in urban port areas along the shores of population of the Region in the period 1940 to 1970. the lower Great Lakes. Major urban complexes The other plan area percentages are Lake Ontario, accounting for a dominant share of the Region's 9 percent; Lake Huron, 4 percent; and Lake Supe- population include Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Chicago, rior, 2 percent. Details of actual and projected Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Cleveland, Ohio; and population are given in Table 1-10, in which popu- Buffalo, New York. Over 80 percent of the popula- lations for State portions of planning subareas tion is classified as urban. Data on Standard Met- are taken from Table 19-41 of Appendix 19, Eco- ropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) are given in nomic and Demographic Studies, and populations Table 1-13. for PSAs are taken from Tables 19-11 to 19-40 The northern and inland portions of the Basin are inclusive, in which the projected data are rounded more sparsely populated than areas situated along and adjusted. The State data do not correspond or near the Great Lakes shoreline. Population den- exactly with the data broken down by PSAs for the sities are lowest in the northern portions of Minne- projected years 1980, 2000, 2020. Summaries of sota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York. De- total and urban population by plan areas and States clines in population have been noted in some are shown in Tables 1-11 and 1-12. counties in these areas. TABLE 1-11 Great Lakes Region Population and Urban Population by Plan Area, 1970 Percent of Percent 1970 Great Lakes Urban of Region Plan Area Population Region Population Population 1.0--Lake Superior 533,539 1.8 315,789 1.1 2.0--Lake Michigan 13,516,965 46.1 11,186,962 38.1 3.0--Lake Huron 1,236,265 4.2 702,813 2.4 4.0--Lake Erie 11,513,853 39.3 9,727,303 33.2 5.0--Lake Ontario 2,531,673 8.6 1,593,388 5.4 TOTAL 29,332,295 100.0 23,526,255 80.2 TABLE 1-12 Great Lakes Region Population and Urban Population by State, 1970 Percent of Percent 1970 Great Lakes Urban of Region State Population Region Population Population Illinois 6,978,947 23.8 6,710,912 22.9 Indiana 1,575,143 5.4 1,206,116 4.1 Michigan 8,875,083 30.2 6,553,773 22.3 Minnesota 265,539 0.9 175,612 0.6 New York 4,109,855 14.0 2,851,286 9.7 Ohio 4,485,701 15.3 3,691,014 12.6 Pennsylvania 263,654 0.9 197,659 0.7 Wisconsin 2,778,373 9.5 2,139,883 7.3 TOTAL 29,332,295 100.0 23,526,255 80.2 Basin Desc7iption 21 TABLE 1-13 Population Data by SMSA for the 1.5.1.2 Economic Base Great Lakes Basin, 1960 and 1970 SMSA and State 1960 1970 From the viewpoint of economic development the TOTAL GREAT dominant characteristic of the Great Lakes Region LAKES BASIN 26,364,598 29,332,295 is its location within the highly industrialized and TOTAL 30 SMSAs in heavily populated north central United States. GREAT LAKES BASIN 22,022,603 24,974,257 Furthermore, the Great Lakes area lies astride the ILLINOIS 6,220o913 6,978,947 transcontinental link between the agricultural pro- Chicago 6,220,913 6,978,947 duction regions of the north central States and the INDIANA 1,076,801 1,193,853 consuming areas to the east. Included in the area Fort Wayne 232,196 280,455 are the major routes through the United States Gary-Hammond- manufacturing belt and the direct line between the E. Chicago 573o548 633,367 South Bend 271,057 280,031 metropolitan complexes of Chicago and New York. MICHIGAN 5,962,457 6,806,151 Moreover, the 95,000 square miles of water surface Ann Arbor 172,440 234,103 provide the means of transporting over 100 billion Bay City 107,042 117,339 ton-miles of waterborne freight per year over the Detroit 3,762,360 4,199,931 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway navigation sys- Flint 416,239 496,658 Grand Rapids 461,906 539,225 tem. Jackson 131,994 143,274 The Great Lakes Region is typified by a wide Kalamazoo 169,712 201,550 variety of economic conditions and occupational Lansing 298,949 378,423 Muskegon- pursuits. The northern Basin is characterized by Muskegon Heights 149,943 157,426 industry dependent on forest and mineral resources. Saginaw 190,752 219,743 and the growth of the year-round recreation and Toledo, Ohio-Mich. (Mich. portion only) 101,120 118,479 tourist industry. Low family incomes, outmigra- MINNESOTA 231,588 220,693 tion, and poor farming are typical in many of these Duluth-Superior, northern areas. Agriculture and diversified man- Minn.-Wis. (Minn. ufacturing are concentrated in the central section portion only) 231,588 220,693 of the Basin, while on the Lake shores there are a NEW YORK 2,934,097 3,209,055 Buffalo 1,306,957 1,349,211 number of centers for heavy industry, with em. Rochester 732,588 882,667 phasis on iron, steel, petroleum, and chemical pro- Syracuse 563,781 636,507 duction. General farming is practiced over large Utica-Rome 330,771 340,670 areas in the southern part of the Basin, while OHIO 3,422,739 3,745,840 specialized crops are grown along the lee sides of Akron . 605,367 679,239 Cleveland 1,909,483 2,064,194 the Lakes. The recreation industry is important in Lima 160,862 171,472 the northern and eastern sections of the Basin. Lorain-Elyria 217,500 256,843 About 50 percent of the nation's steel production Toledo, Ohio-Mich. (Ohio portion only) 529,527 692,571 comes from the Great Lakes Region. Value added PENNSYLVANIA 250,682 263,654 in manufacture in the Region reached $58.1 billion Erie 250,682 263,654 in* 1967, 22 percent of the nation's total. Nearly 8 WISCONSIN 1,923,326 2,172,235 percent of the nation's mineral production value, or Appleton-Oshkosh 231,990 276,891 approximately $1.5 billion, came from the Region in Duluth-Superior, 1968. Slightly more than 71 percent of the nation's Minn.-Wis. (Wis. portion only) 45,008 44,657 iron ore dollar value was derived from the Great Green Bay 125,082 158,244 Lakes area in that year. Kenosha 100,615 117,917 Milwaukee 1,278,850 1,403,688 Agricultural sales in 1964 of crops, livestock, and Racine 141,781 -170,838 livestock products were $2.4 billion, which repre- sented nearly 7 percent of the national total (Tables NOTE: Subsequent to the 1970 census the def- 1-14 and 1-15). Forest production values of timber initions of the SMSAs have been changed, some areas modified, and new SMSAs iden- cut (stumpage).in 1962 was more than $19 million, tified. These changes are not reflected while harvested forest resources were valued at in the table. One of the new SMSAs is he Region. Value added in timber- Battle Creek, Michigan. Changes affect $85 million for t ing area and/or title have been made in based economic activities in 1962 amounted to al- Fort Wayne, Indiana; Detroit, Flint, most $2 billion. Kalamazoo, Lansing, Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Michigan; Toledo, Mich-Ohio; In 1970 approximately 11.3 million persons (38.5 Rochester, New York; and Lima, Ohio. percent of the population) found employment in SOURCE: 1960 and 1970 Census of Population, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mming, manufac- U.S. Department of Comerce,.Bureau of turing, trades and services,. and other occupations the Census, for the above states. in the Region (Figure 1-8). Since 1940 the Region .22 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-14 Great Lakes Region Share of TABLE 1-15 Great Lakes Basin Share of Total United States Total for Selected Agricultural United States Production of Livestock and Live- Commodities, 1964 stock Products Percent of Percent of Commodity U. S. Total Item Total U.S. Alf alf a 12.7 Value of livestock & livestock products 7.4 All Hay 10.3 No. of milk cows 15.3 Dry Field Beans 49.6 Pounds of milk sold 18.4 Corn Silage 15.7 No. of cattle sold 4.2 Oats 14.7 No. of calves sold 5.0 Potatoes 8.7 No. of hogs & pigs sold 5.2 Corn, Grain 8.5 No..of sheep & lambs sold 2.7 Dozens of eggs sold 7.1 Sugar Beets 7.2 No. of broilers sold 0.6 Soybeans 6.8 No. of.hens & roosters sold 7.0 Wheat 6.8 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Rye 5.8 Agricultural Census, . 1964 Barley 0.1 Sour Cherries 90 Transportation, Communications, Contract Construction Sweet Cherries 35 Public MANUFACTURING Apples 23 Utilities \6.3 Pears 7 Grapes 5 W I.sale\'\ 34.6% Peaches 4 and Retail 1.8% ra do AGRI- Cucumbers & Pickles 33 CULTURE Snap Beans 30 Finance, 14.6%1 ORESTRY, 11 Services 13.3% FISHERIES Insurance, Cabbage 21 RealEstate INING Dry Onions 18 0.3% Sweet Corn 17 OTHER 63.3% Government Green Peas 16 FIGURE 1-8 Employment, Great Lakes Re- gion. The breakdown of "other" is based on total earnings which represent employment with rea- has employed about 15 percent of the nation's total sonable accuracy. work force. Projections for the next 50 years indi- cate an overall decline in the Region's share for national employment to 13.6 percent by 2020. Data In 1970 nearly $114 billion (18 percent of the on employment by selected industries for plan national total) in total personal income was gen- areas are shown in Table 1@16, and for the Region erated in the Region. The heavy concentration of in Figure 1-8. The breakdown of "other" in this industrial activity has supported per capita income figure is based on total earnings which represent and personal income at a level 20 percent. higher employment for the Basin with reasonable accu- than for the nation. as a whole. Additional informa- racy. tion i@ provided in Section 3 of this appendix. Basin Description 23 TABLE 1-16 Employment by Selected Industries, 1950-1970 and Projected 1980-2020 (in thousands) Actual rojected Industry & Plan Area 1950 1960 1970 1980 2000 2020 Agricul ture Forestry & Fisheries 1.0 18.3 7.6 3.8 4.5 2.9 1.8 2.0 220.0 142.2 95.1 97.0 69.5 49.7 3.0 40.6 21.3 11.4 12.4 7.3 4.5 4.0 131.8 87.2 58.7 60.0 43.0 30.5 5.0 69.0 47.3 31.7 31.6 22.6 16.1 Total 479.7 305.8 200.7 205.5 145.3 102.6 Mining 1.0 19.3 21.9 17.0 17.2 16.8 16.6 2.0 7.2 7.3 8.4 6.1 6.2 6.1 3.0 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.5 4.0 5.8 5.7 8.7 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.0 3.8 3.6 3.2 2.4 2.1 1.9 Total 38.7 40.5 39.0 32.8 32.2 31.8 Manufacturing 1.0 33.4 27.7 25.5 29.6 31.5 34.8 2.0 1,544.6 1,769.1 1,808.4 2,101.3 2,357.4 2,705.0 3.0 1120.3 146.6 165.4 201.3 247.1 305.9 4.o 1,422.6 1,532.5 1,597.4 1,816.0 2,015.6 2,286.7 5.:0 @264.2 295.2 308.8 355.8 413.9 485.8 Total 3,385.1 3,771.0 3,905.5 4,504.0 5,065.5 5,818.2 Other (Including Federal Military) 1.0 109.2 117- 3 125.5 143.8 170.5 198.3 2.0 2,339.8 2,756.9 3,436.0 4,172.6 5,673.9 7,436.2 3.0 137.9 186.1 243.5 315.7 442.4 595.4 4.0 1,808.4 2,175.9 2,731.3 3,401.9 4,672.1 6,207.5 5.0 407.2 488.2 620.7 718.8 972.9 1,271.5 Total 4,802.5 5,724.6 7,157.11 8,752.8 11,931.8 15,708.9 Total Employment 1.0 180.2 174.5 '171.8 194.8 221.8 251.5 2.0 4,111.6 4,675.4 5,347.9 6,378.0 8,107.8 10,198.0 3.0 301.5 356.0 422.1 530.2 698.0 907.0 4.0 3,368.6 3,801.4 4,396.2 5,283.2 6,736.1 8,530.1 5.0 744.1 834.6 964.4 1,108.8 1,411.8 1,776.2 Total 8,706.0 9,841.8 11,302.3 13,495.0 17,175.5 21,662.8 'See Figure-1-8 for breakdown of "other". NOTE: Entries may not add to total because of rounding. 24 Appendix 1 1.5.2 Institutional Arrangements eight States of the Basin established by compact the Great Lakes Commission for more effective The responsibilities for managing the conserva- management of certain Lake resources. tion, development, preservation, and use of water Under the Federal system, all powers not spe- and land resources in the Basin are complex and cifically granted to the Federal government are diffused among various international, Federal, reserved for the States. State regulation of water State, and local levels of government, and nu- use is specifically derived from the general police merous nongovernmental institutions. powers. As the problems concerning the Lakes have in- In turn, the political subdivisions of the States creased, so have the interests and concerns of that is, local governmental units, may exercise only people and organizations. This has resulted in in- those powers delegated by the State constitution or creased activity by governments, organizations, State legislative body. Through such enabling leg- and private citizens. In recent years the number of islation, municipalities, counties, and townships institutions concerned with the Great Lakes has have received authorization to engage in varied increased dramatically. Missions sometimes are water resources functions throughout the Basin. In uncoordinated and overlapping, and there are some addition, the various State legislatures have sanc- gaps in coverage. Cohesiveness and definition of tioned the creation of a host of special purpose purpose among these institutions requires districts with powers to furnish different water strengthening. (The responsibilities, history, and services. activities of many of the institutions mentioned All such special purpose districts and all units of here are described in the Great- Lakes Basin Com- local government operate under enabling statutory mission publications, Great Lakes Institutions,, provisions which define their financial, proprietary, June, 1969, and Great Lakes Directory, March, and regulatory powers. These limitations are ex- 1976.) ' tremely important with regard to the effectiveness More than one-third of the boundary between the of local governmental units in meeting the needs United States and Canada traverses the Great for water services and in solving related problems. Lakes. Because of the nature of the Lakes and Complex aggregation of county agencies into re- their importance to the two countries, it has long gional commissions is also common in the Basin. been recognized that close international coopera- The Northeast Illinois Planning Commission, for tion between the United States and Canada in -the example, represents six counties and more than management and control of the Great Lakes is 1,700 separate local governments. Added to these beneficial to both countries. This cooperation is public institutions is a rapidly growing number of conducted through two international commissions special interest groups. and other less formal institutions. The Interna- tional Joint Commission, established in 1909, deals with all boundary waters. The Great Lakes Fishery 1.6 Use of Resources Commission was organized in 1955. Less formal international institutions working within the Basin The uses of resources for specific purposes and as include: Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes they relate to the selection of programs making up Basin Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data (1953), Great the frameworks are discussed in other appropriate Lakes Study Group and Federal Interagency Com- sections. mittee (1962), International Association for Great Lakes Research (1967), and International Field Year on the Great Lakes (1968-74). 1.6.1 Land Use, Treatment, and Management In the United States. portion of the Great Lakes Basin, the Federal government has definite statu- The availability, distribution, control, and use of tory responsibilities for planning and management water influence the use of land resources. Con- of Basin resources. Institutions most directly re- versely, land use, treatment, and management sponsible on the Federal level include the U.S. practices are closely associated with the quality and Departments of Agriculture, Army (Corps of En- quantity of water resources in the Great Lakes gineers), Commerce, Health, Education and Wel- Basin. Ownership of the 83.6 million acres of land in fare, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, the Great Lakes Region is shown in Figure 1-9. and Transportation; the Federal Power Commis- Urban areas dominate the western and southern sion; and the Environmental Protection Agency. shores of Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Ontario; The Great Lakes Basin Commission and Upper- forests are mainly concentrated in northern Min- Great Lakes Regional Commission are State/Fed- nesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York; and eral organizations active in resource planning for agricultural lands are primarily found in eastern their respective jurisdictional areas. In 1955 the Wisconsin. northern Indiana, northern Ohio, Basin Description 25 TABLE 1-17 Water Area and Land Use, Base Year 1966-1967, (in thousands of acres) Rivers Land Resource Base Plan Area Lake., and Total Urban Pasture Forest and PSA Total Area' Embayments Land Area Built-up Cropland Range Land Other Total PSA 1.1 10,324.5 851.0 9,473.5 284.5 430.1 99.5 8,354.9 304.5 9,189.0 1.2 6,673.9 232.1 6,441.8 137.8 262.8 65.8 5,909.6 65.8 6,304.0 Plan Area 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 PSA 2.1 10,401.9 391.2 10,010.7 464.0 3,316.4 356.7 5,116.5 757.1 99546.7 2.2 5,315.8 103.7 5,212.1 1,210.5 2,843.4 237.4 340.7 580.1 4,001.6 2.3 9,126.4 171.0 8,955.4 818.5 5,374.8 459.4 1,704.7 598.0 5,136.9 2.4 8,439.0 344.8 8,094.2 414.8 1,481.5 351.8 5,434.3 411.8 7,679.4 Plan Area 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 PSA 3.1 4,167.0 149.2 4,017.8 179.6 531.2 173.6 2,914.3 219.1 3,838.2 3.2 4,461.4 37.3 4,424.1 389.0 2,370.0 185.2 1,194.7 285.2 4,035.1 Plan Area 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 PSA 4.1 4,062.1 81.7 3,980.4 759.5 2,215.6 117.7 665.7 221.9 3,220.9 4.2 6,368.7 49.2 6,319.5 567.8 4,735.1 213.8 453.4 349.4 5,751.7 4.3 2,332.2 23.6 2,308.6 609.0 741.3 131.3. 538.8 288.2 1,699.6 4.4 3,113.0 43.1 3,069.9 485.0 858.7 252.6 1,364.5 109.1 2,584.9 Plan Area 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 PSA 5.1 2,476.8 18.1 2,458.7 271.1 1,055.1 162.9 871.5 98.1 2,187.6 5.2 5,682.6 255.2 5,427.4 250.7 1,759.1 443.7 2,545.7 428.2 5,176.7 5.3 3,561.6 176.0 3,385.6 145.9 633.9 254.4 2,215.4 136.0 3,239.7 Plan Area 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 2,927.2 83,579.7 6,987.7 28,609.0 39505.8 39,624.7 4,852.5 76,592.0 'Area measurement by county boundaries. TABLE 1-18 State Summary of Water Area and Land Use, Base Year 1966-1967, (in thousands of acres) Rivers Land Resource Base Lakes, and Total Urban Pasture Forest State Total Area' Embayments LaLld Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land Other Total Illinois 2,401.3 34.0 2,367.3 678.0 1,249.6 98.7 93.0 248.0 1,689.3 Indiana 3,687.0 51.7 3,635.3 381.4 2,392.5 203.1 302.6 355.7 3,253.9 Michigan 37,258.1 1,035.0 36,223.1 2,594.8 11,338.2 1,268.4 19,347.7 1,674.0 33,628.3 Minnesota 7,317.8 737.9 6,579.9 162.5 258.3 62.0 5,981.5 115.6 6,417.4 Mew York 14,309.8 487.3 13,822.5 1,103.6 4,164.6 1,072.4 6,773.4 708.5 12,718.9 Ohio 7,816.4 68.9 7,747.5 1,074.6 4,837.5 304.5 920.3 610.6 6,672.9 Pennsylvania 524.2 5.1 519.1. 49.1 142.2 41.2 223.7 62.9 470.0 Wisconsin 13,192.3 507.3 12,685.0 943.7 4,226.1 455.5 5,982.5 1,077.2 11,741.3 Great Lakes Total 86,506.9 2,927.2 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. southern Michigan, and parts of New York. Table project areas lie partly or wholly within the Great 1-17 provides information for the Region on land Lakes Region. use by plan area and planning subarea. Table 1-18 State, county, and private forest lands account provides the same information by State. Informa- for more than 85 percent of-the Region's forested tion on land use is displayed in Figure 1-10. area. While some of that area has received ade- Approximately 47 percent of the Region is cov- quate land treatment, more than half the area, and ered by forests. More than 95 percent of the Re- some national forest land as well, can profit from gion's forest land is classed as commercial, with additional treatment programs and management about 58 percent of those lands in farm and miscel- plans. laneous private ownership. Seven national forests, The protection and proper use of the soil re- seven purchase units, and eight land utilization source and the orderly disposal of surplus waters 26 Appendix 1 State and Local 12.2 % assistance under this program. As of January 1, 10,200,000 acres 1970, 38 projects were authorized for planning, 10 Federal 7.4% had been approved for construction, and 7 had been 6,200,000. completed. The flood prevention project at Buffalo acres Creek, New York, has also been completed. Some of the more common conservation and land management measures applied to reduce erosion, 80.4% control sediment runoff rates, and assist in con- Private ( Individual trolling both surface and subsurface water are and Corporation) conservation cropping systems, contour farming, 67,200,000 strip cropping, pasture and hayland plantings, crop acres residue management, minimum tillage, diversions, and tile drains. Conservation practices are needed and feasible on 16.7 million acres of cropland, 2.4 million acres of pasture, and 1.3 million acres of FIGURE 1-9 Land Ownership, Great Lakes other land. As of July 1, 1969, treatment has been Region adequately applied on 11.9, 1.0, and 3.6 million acres of cropland, pasture, and other land, respec- tively. are primary concerns in all parts of the Basin. As of 1965, nearly 183,000 acres of land had been Federal, State, and local governmental agencies disturbed by mining operations in the Great Lakes and private individuals are involved in numerous Region. The counties in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illi- programs to provide adequate land treatment and nois, Indiana, and Michigan that make up the Lake management to land resources in the Great Lakes Superior and Lake Michigan basins accounted for Region. 61 percent of the 1965 total. There are 189 soil conservation districts and/or Slightly more than half of the U.S. mainland soil and water conservation districts which cover shoreline in the Great Lakes Basin has been subject nearly all of the Basin. These districts, organized to erosion or flooding damages. About 10 percent of under State law, are locally managed. The districts the total shoreline is protected by shore protection are responsible for land conservation planning, and structures. Reaches of major shore protection the implementation of wise land treatment and works are located in Cook County, Illinois; Lake conservation practices. As of 1970, these districts County, Indiana; and Macomb and Wayne Coun- have sponsored or cosponsored six resource con- ties, Michigan. Five Federal beach erosion control servation and development projects which cover 28 projects have been completed on the shores of counties in four Basin States, Minnesota, Wiscon- Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York. sin, Michigan, and New York. Private individuals have also constructed local Watershed projects under the Watershed Pro- shore protection works in damage areas. tection and Flood Prevention Act (PL. 82-566), are An accurate measure of land and water devel- concerned with proper land treatment, agricultural oped for aesthetic and/or cultural enjoyment is not water management, and flood prevention. There available for the entire Basin. Many areas have have been more than 100 applications for planning been reserved for historical and cultural purposes throughout the Basin States. 1.7 Problems, Needs, and Trends in the Great 47.456 342% Lakes Basin Forested Land Cropland 39,625000 28,609,000 Natural resources and human elements are in- acres acres terrelated and must be considered together in any discussion of problems in the Basin. The following 8.4% Pasture and Range Land 4.2% general discussion of Great Lakes problems and S.8% 506,000 acres trends is arbitrarily divided into natural and human Other Lin Urban Built -Up resource sections and represents what are consid- 4,852,000 acres 6,988,000 acres ered to be important areas of systemwide concern. Specific problems relating to water and land re- FIGURE 1-10 Distribution of Total Land Area sources are discussed as part of the treatment of 342 C r 0 p la od 28, 609,000 acres Pa th'r Urban 6.938.8c by Land Use, Great Lakes Region, 1967-68 each geographic subdivision. Basin DescTiption 27 1.7.1 Natural The disposal of dredged material in the Great Lakes is a problem of large proportions. There are a number of significant water resource From the land resource viewpoint, inability to problems facing the Great Lakes and their tribu- keep up with recreational demand, loss of high- tary stream systems. In gross terms it is safe to say value agricultural land, and uncontrolled urban that water quality and not water quantity is a sprawl are major problems in the Basin. In general, major problem in the Great Lakes Basin. Quality one of the most critical needs for recreation in the control problems are becoming serious in areas of Basin is the provision of high-capacity facilities for high population concentration like Chicago-Gary, day use and weekend use close to major metropoli- Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. Lake Erie and tan areas. Accessibility to all city residents must southern Lake Michigan are experiencing accel- also be provided. The shorelines and islands of the erated eutrophication as a result of large quantities Great Lakes offer great opportunity for recreation, of untreated or inadequately treated substances but there is a constant fight to prevent industrial, entering the Lakes. The loss of recreational use of commercial, and private ownership from excluding beaches and fish and wildlife habitat on the Great public access to the regional land and water re- Lakes and on interior lakes and streams illustrates sources. the intensity of growing pollution problems. Waste Flooding problems occur on an estimated 556,000 must be controlled at its source, and additional acres in the Basin. Although this flooding may be research is required to help answer the many serious locally, it has no measurable effect on the questions surrounding the pollution problem. The flow regimes of the Great Lakes system. Damages projected expansion of power facilities in the Basin are highest in urban flood plains where there is raises a concern over the dissipation of large quan- development that is susceptible to flooding dam- tities of heat from condenser cooling systems. The ages. kinds and quantities of agricultural substances ap- Based on conditions of the late 1960s, it is es- plied to Basin lands must be carefully scrutinized in timated that over 164 million tons of solids erode light of their potential effects on water quality. from the drainage area each year. Local regions In addition to excess waste and inadequate waste with the most critical problems include the Chi- treatment in many parts of the Basin, long-term cago-Milwaukee-Gary area, RBG 2.2; the south- Great Lakes level fluctuations and discharge varia- west Michigan-northwest Indiana area, RBG 2.3; tions are a major problem. Significant damage and and the northwest Ohio-Indiana-Michigan area, lost economic opportunity arise from lake level RBG 4.2. More than 50 percent of the total eroded fluctuations. Abnormally high levels cause flooding solids come from these three regions. and erosion damage to shorelines and structures. Land treatment is necessary to reduce runoff, During periods of abnormally low lake levels, less erosion, and sedimentation, and to improve water draft is available to commercial navigation, result- management. Urban runoff must be controlled and ing in higher shipping costs; flows decrease in con- studied in view of the trend towards increasing necting channels, causing a decrease in hydoelectric urbanization in the Basin. Significant trends in land power generation; fish and wildlife habitat is ex- use include a general decline in total and commer- posed and threatened; recreation craft are excluded cial forest land, a decline in agricultural land, and from canals and waterways; and the recreation an increase in lands used for highways, powerlines, value of water and shoreline is reduced. Some urban areas, and recreational and industrial devel- modification of the levels 'of Lake Superior and opments. Lake Ontario has been effected by control works at their outlets. The desirability and means of exer- cising further control of lake levels is under con- sideration by the International Joint Commission. 1. 7.2 Human Commercial and recreational uses of the Great Lakes are increasing. The completion of the St. The availability and use of natural resources Lawrence Seaway has greatly expanded the eco- account largely for the concentration of population nomic development opportunities for the Basin. and industrial growth in the Basin. In the next 50 The trend toward larger commercial ships which years, the population of the Region is predicted draw more water may require the enlarging and nearly to double. With industry moving to the deepening of existing projects and channels and lakeshores, population areas may also concentrate extending the navigation season. An expanding there. A developing Great Lakes megalopolis may recreational fleet of larger size and deeper draft also create problems of magnitude far greater than will create problems of overcrowding and inade- those experienced with only 29 million persons in quate depths in existing facilities and waterways. the Basin. Problems of congestion, social unrest, 28 Appendix 1 and unemployment are magnified in heavily urban- under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, is ized areas. In the northern portions of the Basin, responsible for matters affecting the boundary outmigration and a declining economy are critical waiters of the United States and Canada. It acts on factors. request from the two governments. Its level of The natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin activity has increased under the provisions of the are vast but not unlimited, and the interrelation- Water Quality Agreement of April 15, 1972, but it ships arising from their use are quite complex. has neither the authority or the staff to collect new However, plans can be made which will facilitate data or plan studies in the Basin. utilizing the resources effectively and yet judi- Environment Canada and other agencies of the ciously, and the selection of frameworks is an at- Canadian government and the government of the tempt to do this in an orderly fashion. Province of Ontario have responsibilities for water One of the most difficult problems facing the resource matters in their respective jurisdictions. system is coordinating the numerous levels and It is expected that, at an appropriate time, studies activities of the institutions which man creates to may be undertaken in Canada similar to the Great manage his resources and himself. The number of Lakes Basin Framework Study in the United governments and laws controlling portions of the States. In the meantime close liaison is maintained system is astounding. Canada is faced with similar through formal channels and by informal contacts problems, and yet no institution exists to place the among various representatives of the two countries numerous demands made upon the Great Lakes to facilitate work in both countries and to insure system in a proper perspective. that no action will be taken that is not in the The International Joint Commission, established interest of both countries. Section 2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, SUBOBJECTIVES, AND CRITERIA 2.1 Introduction and Definition terms of either geographic location or program content. A study which seeks ways of managing water (4) Criterion-a quantifiable constraint or as- and related land resources must have a sense of sumption which assists the planner in selecting direction. It should be oriented toward the goals of programs responsive to a specified subobjective. the public. Often there are different "publics" Criteria are not needed where subobjectives are which have different goals, and these must be rec- specific enough to enable the planner to make se- ognized. For such a range of goals the steps must lections among programs for a particular frame- be identified which lead to each goal. This enables work. initial steps to be selected in full knowledge of A number of guidelines have been proposed for where they lead. Thus, such steps will not be defining the objectives by which planning studies selected as ends in themselves, or solely for their will attempt to reach the goals of the people. Work own ends, which may be short-sighted, but will also on the Framework Study was commenced under be selected with a concern for broader, long-range the "Guidelines for Framework Studies," October goals. 1967, prepared by the Water Resources Council. The goals of the public include aspirations for These guidelines did not specifically define objec- social, economic, and environmental well-being. tives, but the procedures outlined and the general The steps leading toward them may be defined in instructions tended to emphasize the national many ways. One hierarchy of terms used in this and economic development objective. The three other other planning studies lends itself to definitions of objectives listed below were also expected to be alternatives at various levels. Thus, the path may recognized in the selection of solutions to problems be traced back from the goal to the selection of the and ways of meeting needs. During the course of initial step and proper choice identified at each fork the Framework Study, a special task force re- in the path. ported to the Water Resources Council in July 1970 The following definitions apply to this discussion on suggested principles and standards for planning of goals, objectives, subobjectives, and criteria. the use of water and related land resources. The (1) Goal-the end to which a plan is directed. task force suggested that each of the objectives of The goal provides a specific direction in which to national economic development, environmental proceed in order to approach the ideal condition, quality, regional development, and social well- but it is not necessarily obtainable. In the plural, being be given equal consideration in the planning goals are the aspirations that people have for their process. Following considerable discussion and social, economic, and environmental well-being. some modification, the "Proposed Principles and (2) Objeetive-an attainable step to betaken or Standards" were printed in the Federal Register, point to be emphasized on the way toward meeting December 21, 1971, and public reaction wassought. or attempting to meet a goal. In the plural, objec- In this proposal national economic development tives are groupings of subobjectives related to each and environmental quality *objectives were speci- other, which collectively define one of the four fied, but with the provisions that the evaluatiofi of objectives of water resource planning-social well- projects should also consider regional development being, national economic development, regional and social well-being or quality of life. Congression- development, and environmental quality. al policy, as expressed in Section 209 of P.L. (3) Subobjective-an action which allocates 91-611, the Flood Control Act of 1970, expressly human and natural (water and related land) re- stated that all four items were considered to be sources and/or utilizes other programs to move objectives. This was the situation during most of toward a defined goal. Some subobjectives are the period of formulation of the Framework Study. general in nature, while others are quite specific in Subsequently the "Principles and Standards" 20 30 Appendix 1 were published in the Federal Register, September (1) Normal Growth-represents the traditional 10, 1973, containing only the two objectives spe- national economic development objective because cified in the "Proposed Principles and Standards,'.' the latter is the reflection of a continuation of past with the other two considered in analysis and for- trends. mulation. The "Principles and Standards" became (2) Limited Growth-reflects the traditional effective on October 31, 1973, following a brief environmental quality objective because, as period of litigation. The Congress, however, in growth of population and the. economy is limited, P. L. 93-251 directed the President to review the there is more emphasis on the enhancement and use of all four objectives in planning and formula- preservation of the natural resources. ting water resource projects. (3) Accelerated Growth neourages develop- The two objectives in the effective "Principles ment in a part of the Basin or the entire Basin, and Standards" are stated as follows: through employment of unused or external re- (1) to enhance national economic development sources that will increase the population in the area, by increasing the value of the nation's output of and increase the economic growth. goods and services and improving national eco- The objectives are sometimes referred to in this nomic efficiency study as Normal Growth objective, Limited (2) to enhance the quality of the environment Growth objective, and Accelerated Growth objec- by the management, conservation, preservation, tive. Theses terms are often abbreviated to NOR, creation, restoration, or improvement of the qual- LIM, and ACC. ity of certain natural cultural resources and ecolo- In applying each of these objectives to the ele- gical systems. ments of the Framework Study the overriding ob- The other two objectives are: jective is to enhance the well-being of the people or (1) to enhance social well-being by the equitable the quality of life. This may be done by improving distribution of real income, employment, and pop- the distribution of employment opportunities, pop- ulation, with special concern for the incidence of ulation, and income; helping to provide for educar consequences of a plan on affected persons or tional, cultural, and recreational opportunities; and groups; by contributing to the security of life and by improving the security of life, health, and prop- health; by providing educational, cultural, and rec- erty. reational opportunities; and by contributing to na- A framework includes programs for the conser- tional security vation, use, preservation, and development of (2) to enhance regional development through water and related land resources. The outputs in increases in a region's income; increases in employ- various resource categories considered collectively ment; and improvements of its economic base, en- will achieve goals. vironment, social well-being, and other specified components of the regional objective. The pattern for framework formulation for the 2.2 Derivation of Goals, Subobjectives, and Framework Study was set during the period in Criteria which three objectives were specified for use. As a practical matter, the Framework Study was predi- The Water Resources Planning Act, P. L. 89-80, cated heavily on the national economic develop- provides in Section 201(b)(1) that each river basin ment objective, with all possible consideration commission shall ". . -. serve as the principal given to maintenance of a high-quality environment agency for the coordination of Federal, State, in- in all respects. Regional development was also taken terstate, local and nongovernmental plans for the into account, and the overriding character of social development of water and related land resources in well-being was recognized. its area, river basin, or group of river basins. . . . " The Great Lakes Basin Commission was con- The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, there- cerned about identifying one objective as environ- fore, incorporates Federal, State, interstate, local, mental because the possible inference might be and nongovernmental goals, subobjectives, and drawn that other objectives did not consider en- criteria. Goals, subobjectives, and criteria ex- vironmental quality. It was felt that this might be pressed by the International Joint Commission are misleading both to the persons working in the also considered. Study and to reviewers and those making use of the For the purposes of preparing alternative frame- final product. In order to prevent any such misin- works, the Great Lakes Basin Commission. estab- terpretation, the Commission relied on the rela- lished a Plan and Program Formulation Commit- tionship between three chosen objectives and the tee. One of the responsibilities of this committee rates of growth of the population and the economy. was the derivation of goals, subobjectives, and The objectives are accordingly identified in this criteria for the alternative frameworks. This com- Study as the following: mittee established a plan formulation task force in Goals, Objectives, Subobjectives, and Criteria 31 each of the fifteen of the river basin groups that tunities for all residents; and in promoting the included both governmental and nongovernmental maximum opportunities for each person to improve personnel. As framework formulation proceeded, his social conditions and to contribute to the fullest these task forces developed and refined the list of extent of his abilities. subobjectives which were initially provided by the (3) environmental balance: to provide the States for each river basin group. A subcommittee mechanisms for optimal use of water and land of the Plan and Program Formulation Committee resources over time with full cognizance and pro- reviewed the alternative frameworks for each river motion of high environmental standards of health, basin group and Lake basin and commented on the beauty, and diversity. goals, subobjectives, and criteria that emerged In describing the relationship of these somewhat from the task force efforts. The comments covered general social well-being subobjectives to the task tradeoffs among the NOR, LIM, and ACC growth of framework formulation for a Great Lakes Basin objectives, as well as geographic tradeoffs among framework for management of water and related the various parts of the Great Lakes Basin. land resources, we must assume that government The Commission drew upon various sources for has an obligation to assure all citizens opportuni- the goals, subobjectives, and criteria to be used in ties which will permit maximum utilization of their the initial formulation of alternative frameworks: abilities. In order to maximize the development of (1) Federal departments and independent human potential, it is necessary to coordinate ac- agencies were contacted for those items they tivities related to income maintenance, training wished to contribute. - programs for the unemployed, and provision of (2) The public was afforded opportunities to other appropriate social services. contribute through representation on the task Few of these activities are within the realm of forces and through public involvement meetings. water and related land resources planning. Natural These were held in Green Bay, Wisconsin; Elkhart resources development in the United States during and Fort Wayne, Indiana; Toledo, Ohio; and Du- the twentieth century is but one component of the luth, Minnesota. total process of technological change which has (3) Meetings w,-.re held with groups of State brought the American people from an a .grarian department and bureafi heads from Ohio, Minne- lifestyle to one of urban industrialism. It is clear sota, Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois. that planning and development of land and water (4) Reports from State agencies, regional plan- resources take place in the broad context of na- ning agencies, and other sources were reviewed by tional, State, and local levels of social, economic, the task forces. and political planning and priority-setting for the (5) The goals, subobjectives, and criteria were optimization of a variety of cultural functions. considered and more clearly defined at the 15 public Consequently, resource development competes for meetings to review the preliminary frameworks. investment dollars with social welfare, highway development, and other governmental functions. For water and related land resources, the fol- 2.3 Social Well-Being lowing social well-being subobjectives constitute the overriding social well-being objective that is to The broad categories of the social well-being be provided for the formulation of the frameworks objective mentioned earlier can be articulated in a to meet any of the three growth objectives-NOR, somewhat parallel but slightly different way as ACC, or LIM: follows: (1) to make available to all communities where (1) economic health: to provide opportunities feasible an adequate supply of raw water to sup- for orderly planned growth and stability in eco- port a stable, diversified economy nomic output, employment, and income, consistent (2) to provide adequate water-oriented outdoor with the aspirations of residents of the Great Lakes recreation facilities to meet the needs of the resi- Basin. These opportunities will require an orderly dents of the Great Lakes Basin within reasonable regional growth pattern based on optimum use of distances of their homes the area's physical and cultural resources; adequate (3) to attain and maintain water quality suitable transportation facilities for production of goods and for water contact activities without danger to pub- services; and high-quality public facilities for water lic health throughout the Great Lakes Basin and supply and waste disposal services at a reasonable especially near urban areas cost. (4) to identify flood-prone areas and to elimi- (2) social welfare and mobility: to utilize the nate all dangers of drowning due to floods in these Region's physical and cultural resources in contrib- areas uting to the security of life and health; in provid- (5) to provide adequate reserve capacity for ing for aesthetic, cultural, and recreational oppor- municipal and industrial water supply to protect 32 Appendix 1 against interruption of services at times of critical (2) labor force participation rate need such as droughts or fires (3) employment rate (6) to protect the public health by recommend- (4) proportion of employment in the private ing limits on biologically concentratable toxic sub- economy stances. (5) hours per person per year in the private economy. The OBERS projections, provided on a national 2.4 Normal Growth basis, were disaggregated to the Great Lakes Basin level. They were made useful for planning within The major components of normal growth include the Basin at the level of smaller geographic areas increases in the gross national product (GNP), na- by the Economic and Demographic Work Group. tional income (NI), and personal.income (PI). Appendix 19, Economic and Demographic Studies, While investment in water resources develop- contains the projections for planning subareas ment is only one of many kinds of investment (used with necessary adjustments in river basin contributing to national economic development, the groups) and in some cases for specific purposes for availability of water resources program outputs in still smaller areas. sufficient quantity and quality is an important base The basic framework analysis for the Great for many kinds of economic activity. Lakes Basin has, therefore, been based on the Development of water and related land resources national economic development or Normal increases the productivity of natural resources and Growth objective, as reflected in demographic and the productivity of labor and capital used with economic characteristics projected for the entire these resources. Increases in crop yields, increased United States and disaggregated to the Great earnings through changes in land uses, expansion Lakes Basin and its planning subareas. The frame- of recreational use, and increased peaking capacity work constitutes a starting point in the develop- for power systems are examples of direct increase ment of alternative frameworks for the Basin and in productivity from water and related land devel- permits a comparison of the basic framework with opment that contribute to the national product. In similar frameworks developed for other basins of addition to the value of goods and services derived the United States. by users of program outputs, there may be external The Normal Growth subobjectives are consid- gains to producers and consumers as well as gains ered in Subsection 2.7, which includes a listing of resulting from the employment of otherwise un- the specific subobjectives and criteria of the three employed or underemployed- resources. Output objectives categories for the entire Great Lakes may also be increased by cost savings which release Basin. resources for employment elsewhere. Droughts, floods, and fluctuating water supplies cause disruption in economic activity. Reduction in direct economic losses through water and related 2.5 Accelerated Growth land resource projects will reduce losses to other dependent activities and thereby contribute to eco- The Accelerated Growth objective emphasizes nomic stability. the enhancement of regional development through The Normal Growth objective includes an as- increases in the Great Lakes Region's share of sumption that the economy tends to be in an equi- national income and employment; improvement of librium condition in which production and consump- its economic base, environment, and social well- tion are balanced by the forces of a competitive being; and increased attainment of other specified economy. This objective also assumes that public regional subobjectives. investment changes income flows by alterations in General components of the Accelerated Growth the use of economic resources, the level and com- objective include: position of output, and patterns of consumption. (1) increases in regional income which may The Normal Framework is based on the Great yield several benefits: Lakes Region's share of the national economy, (a) the value to the users of increased out- specifically the disaggregation of the gross national puts of goods and services from a plan product to a regional gross product, national popu- (b) the value to users of output resulting lation to a regional population, national income to from external economies regional income, and national employment mix to (c) the value of output resulting from the regional employment mix. The Normal Framework use of resources otherwise unemployed or un- assumes that past trends will be -followed for the deremployed parameters listed below. (d) additional net income from the con- (1) population of the working age struction or implementation of a plan for regional Goals, Objectives, Subobjectives, and Criteria 33 growth increases and from other economic activi- values. It also recognizes that as incomes and living ties induced by the operation of such a plan levels increase, society appears less willing to ac- (2) increases in regional employment. Employ- cept environmental deterioration in exchange for ment opportunities are a special concern as they additional marketable goods and services. In re- provide the means to retain any increase in the base sponse to man's varied spiritual, psychological, rec- population and otherwise to contribute to attain- reational, and material needs, the LIM objective ment of a viable economic and social community. reflects this abiding concern with the quality of the Although there will be exceptions, it may be gen- natural physical-biological system in which all life is erally anticipated that increases in regional income sustained. will be compatible with the objective of increasing The Limited Growth objective includes the fol- regional employment. lowing general components: (3) diversification of the regional economic (1) protection, enhancement, restoration, or base. A major subobjective wi 'thin the Great Lakes creation of areas of natural beauty for human en- Region is the attainment of a flexible and respon- joyment such as streams, inland lakes, the Great sive economic posture that enables the Region to Lakes, and their banks, shores, and adjacent land, withstand changes in the composition of its gross recognizing that some unspoiled, visually attractive regional product over time due to advances in water areas and adjacent lands must be preserved technology, changes in consumer behavior affect- and, in appropriate instances, enhanced for public ing intermediate and flnal demands, and related use and enjoyment changes in production. Where the existing eco- (2) preservation or enhancement of especially nomic base may be too narrow and specialized, valuable or outstanding archaeological, historical, private and public investments, including those for biologicalI(including fish and wildlife habitat), and water and related land resources, can make effec- geological resources tive contributions toward broadening it. (3) enhancement of the values of water, land, (4) other specially identified subobjectives. and air by control of pollution, including solid Where there are other subobjectives of special wastes concern to a particular subregion within the Great (4) prevention of erosion and restoration of Lakes Region, these are specified as components Of eroded areas, including emphasis on the control and the Accelerated Growth objective. Such subobjec- treatment of watersheds, mined areas, and critical tives are expected to be derived from the task force erosion areas such as lake shorelines, gulleys, efforts. streambanks, roadsides, and beaches. The negative Subsection 2.7 includes Accelerated Growth sub- effects of sedimentation within streams, lakes, and objectives and criteria that are deemed applicable beaches must also be prevented. throughout the Great Lakes Basin. (5) reduction in losses to the environment else- where in the nation. For example, deterioration of water quality in Lake Erie places more pressure on 2.6 Limited Growth natural resources for recreational use outside the Basin. The Limited Growth objective is responsive to (6) avoidance of nonreversible decisions. society's concern for reduced consumption of lim- The Limited Growth subobjectives and criteria ited natural resources and a conviction that this that are deemed applicable to the entire Great reduction can come through a reduction in popula- Lakes Basin are discussed in Subsection 2.7. tion and per capita consumption. A Limited Growth objective permits a greater emphasis on the con- servation, preservation, creation, restoration, or improvement of the quality of natural and cultural 2.7 Specific Subobjectives and Criteria in the resources and ecological systems, and the mainte- Great Lakes Basin nance of the natural environment as a source of present enjoyment and a heritage for future gen- The subobjectives and criteria presented in erations. This is the kind of concern upon which the Table 1-19 will be applied to the extent possible National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is throughout all of the river basin groups and Lake founded. basins in the Great Lakes Basin. These subobjec- Planning for the Limited Growth objective ex- tives and criteria were derived from the above plicitly recognizes the desirability of diverting a definitions and background material and from the portion of the Great Lakes economic and natural synthesis of subobjectives expressed by interna- resources from production 'of market-oriented tional, Federal, State, and local governmental per- goods and services in order to conserve, preserve, sonnel, and by nongovernmental and public sources create, restore, and improve natural environment throughout the Great Lakes Basin. In those few 34 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-19 Subobjectives and Criteria for Resource Use Categories Resource Us:cCategories and Obj tives Subobiective Criteria WATER WITHDRAWALS Municipally Supplied Objective--- Invest in capital and annual costs to provide Select alternative programs that maximize net benefits NORMAL GROWTH water to meet projected output of goods and taking into account adverse environmental effects. Con- services. sider rehabilitation of existing systems, small-scale groundwater development systems and large-scale regional systems for Lake Michigan. Emphasize groundwater devel- opment with minimum potential for small regional water systems for Lake Huron. Objective--- Development of additional source capacity to Include alternative programs most likely to result in net ACCELERATED GROWTH maximize net effects on region's income, em- regional economic gains. Emphasize large-scale regional ployment, population, economic base, environ- systems, rehabilitation of existing systems and pipelines ment, and social development. to the Lakes. Objective--- Satisfy needs with emphasis on minimum dis- Limited development to areas where environmental gains LIMITED GROWTH ruption of the environment with full consid- result. Limit programs to in-place resource capability. eration of environmental protection. Minimize transport and consumptive use of waters. Self-Supplied Industrial Objective--- Invest in capital and annual costs to meet Select alternative programs that maximize net benefits NORMAL GROWTH projected output of goods and services. Min- taking into account adverse environmental effects proba- f-u- investment in the Lake Superior area. bly mixing groundwater and lake sources. Reuse wherever possible. Objective--- Increase region's share of national industri- Select alternative most likely to result in regional ACCELERATED GROWTH al output by supplying water needs to meet economic gains and net regional economic benefits. all potential regional economic gains at min- Consider lake intakes with industries sharing intake's imum cost. cost. Objective--- Satisfy needs with minimum disruption to the Minimize new water intakes. Use bighest possible level LIMITED GROWTH environment. Avoid industrial development of recirculation. Decrease consumptive use as much as and locations at surface water interfaces. possible. Rural Dom. & Livestock Objective--- Meet needs with safe (health) supply. En- Include least cost alternative. Don't preclude resource NORMAL GROWTH courage ground-water development. development that would contribute to national economic growth. Objective--- Invest to meet all needs with a safe supply Develop rural and agricultural water supply that will ACCELERATED GROWTH (health) to maximize regional net income from result in regional economic gains. Possibly include pToduction of food and fiber . reservoirs and pipelines to streams and lakes. Objective--- Maintenance of minimu stream flows takes No withdrawals allowed that would make stream flow less LIMITED GROWTH priority over rural withdrawals. Protect than 7 day-10 year low flow. ground-water quality and levels. Irrigation Objective--- Meet needs where economically and environmen- Irrigate only to increase production, reduce costs, or NORMAL GROWTH tally feasible. improve quality. Select alternative programs that max- imize net benefits. Objective--- Invest to maximize region's share of economic Encourage groundwater and lake source development. In- ACCELERATED GROWTH gains through increased irrigation water sure regional benefits justify investment. uses. Objective--- Only produce where there is no loss of aes- Limit withdrawals to those quantities that do not deplete LIMITED GROWTH thetic or cultural values. Preserve high streams below 7 day-10 year low flow. Limit development value agricultural land. of new lake sources. Mining Objective--- Region produces its share of national pro- Satisfy needs with least cost alternative. Don't pre- NORMAL GROWTH duction. clude future use of minerals. Objective-- Maxim, possible development of deposits to Encourage lakes as source of water for minerals produc- ACCELERATED GROWTH capture greater share of market for region. tion. Objective--- Limit new surface water development. No Limit production to areas where there is no loss of LIMITED GROWTH production allowed in designated environmen- aesthetic, environmental, or cultural values. tal or natural areas. The rma 1 Power Cooling Objective--- Meet the needs with least possible disruptive Use least cost alternative that is consistent with envi- NORMAL GROWTH impact. ronmental standards. Objective--- Increase production to maximize region's Lake sources encouraged with least cost alternative. ACCELERATED GROWTH share of the national economy. Emphasize cost over environmental impact for plant and power line sites. Goals, Objectives, Subobjectives, and Criteria 35 TABLE 1-19 (continued) Subobjectives and Criteria for Resource Use Categories Resource Use Categories and Object iv es Subobjective Criteria The rma 1 Power cont'd Objective--- Avoid water withdrawals or discharges in lo- Predetermined site locations for environmental protection. LIMITED GROWTH cations producing any environmental damages. Minimize flow through cooling. Strive to reverse present consumptive use rate structure. Emphasize enviromental impact over costs in plant and power line siting. NON-WITHDRAWA@ WATER USES Municipal Wastewater Discharge Objective--- Attainment and maintenance of water quality Use least cost alternative. Encourage regional systems NORMAL GROWTH standards and schedules with provisions for where applicable, including municipal and industrial opportunity to upgrade standards and speed waste handling. up schedules. Objective--- Attainment and maintenance of water quality Less uniform geographic investment. Increase outside ACCELERATED GROWTH standards and schedules with provision for government investment in regional systems and urban areas. opportunity to adjust schedules for short Minimum restraint to high growth rate for economic devel- time periods. opment. Emphasis on Lake Superior. Objective--- Continue upgrading water quality standards Invest in programs and projects to reduce pollution dis- LIMITED GROWTH and emphasize speeding up of schedules to charge as expeditiously as possible. No pollutant dis- attain the highest level of water quality charges by 1980. Place heavy emphasis on abatement of that is technically feasible. point- and non-point sources of wastes for Lake Superior. Industrial Wastewater Discharge Objective--- Attainment and maintenance of water quality Use least cost alternative. Encourage regional systems NORMAL GROWTH standards and schedules with provision for where applicable, including municipal and industrial opportunity to upgrade standards and speed waste handling. up schedules. Objective--- Attainment and maintenance of water quality Less uniform geographic investment. Increase outside ACCELERATED GROWTH standards and schedules with provision for goverment investment in regional systems and urban areas. opportunity to adjust schedules for short Minimum restraint to high growth rate for economic devel- time periods. opment. Emphasis on Lake Superior. Objective--- Continue upgrading water quality standards Invest in programs and projects to reduce pollution dis- LIMITED GROWTH and emphasize speeding up of schedules to charge as expeditiously as possible. No pollutant dis- attain the highest level of water quality charges, including vessel wastes, by 1980. Place heavy that is technically feasible. emphasis on abatement of point- and non-point sources of wastes for Lake Superior. Hydroelectric Power Objective--- Develop hydroelectric power where economic- Consider least cost alternative for pump-storage sites NORMAL GROWTH ally and environmentally feasible. Not or other options. Not applicable for Lake Erie. applicable for Lake Erie. Objective--- Preserve future power generation options. Predesignate any pumped storage or other hydro sites. ACCELERATED GROWTH Not applicable for Lake Erie. Not applicable for Lake Erie. Objective--- Limit hydroelectric expansion. Include Minimize environmental damages by improved operations LIMITED GROWTH development if it minimizes detrimental and proper removal of obsolete facilities. Maintenance environmental effects. Not applicable for of minimum low flows has priority over power production Lake Erie. No hydroelectric expansion in in Lake Ontario. Lake Superior. Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation Objective-- Investment in keeping with national economic Include programs to increase benefits from existing high NORMAL GROWTH constraints and maintenance of well being of quality surface water. Encourage more efficient use of people tantamount to the objective. existing surface water. Include programs that provide parks near urban areas. Objective--- Invest in programs to enable region to attract Designate and develop streams, lakeshores, and unique ACCELERATED GROWTH a greater share of recreation industries from natural areas with emphasis on high quality recreation other areas. user attraction. Objective--- Acquisition or preservation and management Acquire all streams for future use. Acquire all lake- LIMITED GROWTH of all water front and unique natural areas shore and phase out over time non-public use which may for public benefit. cause environmental harm. Acquire other areas with rec- reational potential as needed to satisfy subobjective. Sport Fishing Objective--- Invest in development programs where bene- Selected investment in programs to round out balanced NORMAL GROWTH fits will justify investment. Also, main- national fishing opportunity. Protect and enhance ex- tain the existing resource, at least at isting wetlands, stream, and late habitat; acquire addi- present level. tional areas. 36 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-19 (continued) Subobjectives and Criteria for Resource Use Categories Resource Use Categories and Objectives Subobjectives Criteria Sport Fishing cont'd Objective--- Maximize regional share of fishing opportun- High level of investment in stocking program. Planting ACCELERATED GROWTH ities on a sustained basis. and habitat programs to provide maximum fishing opportun- ities. Protect wetlands and acquire additional fishery areas. Objective--- Preserve all streams and lakes to highest Designate and protect all public waters. Enhance fishing LIMITED GROWTH possible natural level of quality and corre- through stocking and new species introduction. Set aside lative fishing experience. Enhance all fish- and protect all anadromous streams, wetlands, and other ing experiences. Preserve all anadromous areas. Acquire additional public waters. fishing streams. Recreational Boating Objective--- Modest investment in keeping with national Adequate ports of refuge. Navigational aids to meet de- NORMAL GROWTH economic constraints. mands. Few new reservoirs. Encourage better use of ex- isting areas. Objective--- Invest to attract a greater portion of the Develop new recreational boating facilities including ACCELETERATED GROWTH national recreational boating activity. harbors and marinas. Objective--- Preserve all recreational opportunities with Encourage rehabilitation of existing sites adapted to the LIMITED GROWTH minimum disruption of natural environment. natural environment. Commercial Fishing Objective--- Invest in programs and developments where Select investments to round out balanced commercial fish- NORMAL GROWTH benefits will justify investment, and where ing opportunity. the fishery is compatible with sport fishery management. Objective--- Maximize commercial fishing opportunities on High level of investment in stocking programs; planting ACCELERATED GROWTH a sustained yield basis, and maintain compat- and habitat programs to provide maximum fishing opportun- ibility with sport fishery management. ities. Objective--- Maintain commercial fishing as a means of Designate and protect all public waters. Maintain fish- LIMITED GROWTH fish management. Avoid exploitation in order ery by stocking, introduction of new species,and managed to preserve all species, and maintain com- harvests. Set aside and protect all anadromous streams. patibility with sport fishery management. Commercial Navigation Objective--- Maintain region's projected share of national Invest in harbor and channel projects, and other develop- NORMAL GROWTH commerce. ments with economic justification, for low cost, deep draft navigation and the provisions of incremental im- provements to the navigation system in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Objective--- Increase region's share of national commerce Supplement investment to yield more and better ports, ACCELERATED GROWTH thru technically feasible, economically jus- handling facilities, deeper channels, and extension of tifie@,and environmentally acceptable means. the navigation season. Implement more competitive rate structure. Objective--- Avoid navigation improvements which have det- To the extent technically feasible and environmentally LIMITED GROWTH rimental environmental effects. acceptable, maintain efficient, low cost, deep draft nav- igation and the provision of incremental improvements to the connecting channels, harbors, locks, canals, dams, and extension of the season. Plan to orient barge canal to recreational use. RELATED LAND USE AND PROBLEMS Agricultural Land Treatment Objective--- Include region's share of erosion control Annual damages must exceed annual costs of correcting dam- NORMAL GROWTH and land treatment programs. ages. Continuation of ongoing programs. Meet 42% of total needs by 2020. Objective--- Include all projects and programs which would Meet 88% of total needs by 2020. Ongoing plus accelerat- ACCELERATED GROWTH enhance the region's agricultural development ed programs. Emphasize economic gain over environmental opportunities. losses. Objective--- Emphasize land treatment programs resulting Meet 100% total needs by 2020. Aesthetic wildlife and LIMITED GROWTH in environmental gains. recreation values take precedence over economic return fro. land treatment. Cropland Drainage Objective--- Invest in projects or programs that are econ- Select justified alternative. Include drainage projects NORMAL GROWTH omically and environmentally feasible. that increaseproduction and efficiency and reduce cost. Goals, Objectives, Subobjectives, and Criteria 37 TABLE 1-19 (continued) Subobjectives and Criteria for Resource Use Categories Resource Use Categories and Obj ectives Subobjective Criteria Cropland Drainage cont'd Objective--- Invest in all projects and programs which Returns and reduced damaging may not exceed fiscal and ACCELERATED GROWTH would enhance regional agricultural devel- environmental costs of corrective action. opment opportunities. Objective--- Emphasize environmental and natural habitat No drainage of agriculture land. Emphasize aesthetic LIMITED GROWTH losses over economic gains. wildlife and recreation values over economic return from agricultural land. Forest Land Treatment Objective--- Invest to enhance output of forest products. Maintain programs that are consistent with land use NORMAL GROWTH Include region's share of erosion control plans. Plan to meet 50% of total needs by 2020. and land treatment programs. Objective--- Invest to increase region's share of fibre Include all projects and programs which would enhance the ACCELERATED GROWTH production nationally. region's forest development opportunities. Plan to meet 60% of total needs by 2020. Objective--- Emphasize land treatment programs resulting Aesthetic and wildlife and recreation values take pre- LIMITED GROWTH in environmental gains. cedence over economic return from forest land treatment programs. Plan to meet 100% of total needs by 2020. Shoreland Erosion Objective- Balanced use'of shorelands to meet national Include structural and institutional measures with NORMAL GROWTH standards. Assume treatment of all critical maximum net benefits. Correct erosion problem for all non-protected areas is in national interest. critical non-protected areas by 1980. Objective--- Manage shoreland for uses which maximize re- Increase investments in water related enterprises. Cor- ACCELERATED GROWTH gional economic gain. Assume treatment of rect erosion problem for all critical and non-critical all critical and non-critical non-protected no-protected areas by 1980. areas is in regional economic interest. Objective--- Preservation of shorelands as a unique re- Acquire or manage designated environmental and natural LIMITED GROWTH source. Only include corrective programs areas on shorelands for public benefit. Endorse develop- where environmental gains would exceed ertvi- mental setbacks for all shoreland areas unless public ronmental losses. benefits can be shown to outweigh public disadvantages. Streambank Erosion Objective-- Invest in projects and programs where econ- Damages must exceed fiscal and environmental costs of NORMAL GROWTH omically and environmentally feasible. corrective action. Objective--- Include all projects and programs which Emphasize economic gain over environmental losses. Assume ACCELERATED GROWTH would enhance region's developmental oppor- complete abetment of all damages is in regional interest. tunities. Objective--- Limit investment to programs and projects Emphasize environmental and natural habitat preservation LIMITED GROWTH that have positive environmental effects. over economic gains. Flood Plain Managemient Objective--- Maximize net benefits from national point Use non-structural measure first. Include structural NORMAL GROWTH of view. Minimize future flood plain devel- measures where justified. Encourage flood plain manage- opment. ment. Objective--- Use flood plain to maximize regional economic Include non-structural and structural projects. Scale ACCELERATED GROWTH benefits. projects larger than NOR projectionb. Objective--- Utilize flood plain to minimize disruption Shift all land area subject to flooding to non-damaging LIMITED GROWTH to natural environment. uses with high number of environmental corridors. Use 100 year flood plain as area to be set aside. Wildlife Management Objective--- Plan for increase in state and federal in- Coordinate with competitive uses to maximize net benefits NORMAL GROWTH vestment to increase national net benefit. from wildlife program. Objective--- Invest so that region will attract a greater Emphasize habitat management and program expansion includ- ACCELERATED GROWTH share of wildlife industry from other regions. ing production of game species and fur-bearing animals. Objective--- Protect all endangered species. Preserve No physical.alterations detrimental to wildlife habitat. LIMITED GROWTH natural wildlife habitat and manage for Management of wetlands for environmental preservation species protection. and habitat improvement. Aesthetic and Cultural Objective--- Only preserve those values whose user fees Designate caves, historical structures, and other aes- NORMAL GROWTH would exceed costs plus such extra values thetic and cultural areas desirable to maintain the well needed to maintain a level for the well be- being of people. ing of people tantamount to the objective. 38 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-19 ( continued) - Subobjectives and Criteria for Resource Use Categories Resource Use Categories a." Object _ ives Subobjectives Criteria Aesthetic & Cultural cont'd Objecti@e- Only preserve those aesthetic and cultural No environmental corridors beyond those required to pro- ACCELERATED GROWTH resources needed to provide for that level vide a minimum acceptable level for the well being of of social well being of people necessary people. to furnish a liveable place in which to earn a livelihood. Objective--- Maximize availability of aesthetic and cul- Preserve all areas inventoried in framework studies plus LIMITED GROWTH tural resources for future generations. all other areas having significant potential. Implement long-range land use planning. Outdoor Recreation Objective--- Investment in keeping with national economic Include programs that would likely yield net benefits NORMAL GROWTH constraints and maintenance of well being of (fiscal, physical, and social). people tantamount to the objective. Objective--- Invest in programs to enable region to Development of stream, lakeshore, and unique areas with ACCELERATED GROWTH attract a greater share of recreation indus- emphasis.on high quality recreation user attraction. try fro. other areas. Objective--- Protect all high value open space recreation- Acquire, preserve, or manage all recreational lands for LIMITED GROWTH al opportunity areas and unique natural areas public benefit. for public benefits. instances where the subobjective -or criterion for a public, the conceptual tie between a given criterion Lake basin differs from that of the Great Lakes and a program selection is relatively strong. In fact Basin, the difference is pointed out at the appro- the criterion may have evolved as a statement priate place in the matrix. which would support a specific selection or class of Generally speaking, it is difficult to articulate a selections associated with traditional ways of set of goals, subobjecfives, and criteria at the out- meeting a recognized need. set of a study. These emerge as the public has an In a similar fashion, the subobjectives and cri- opportunity to respond to preliminary framework teria for the Accelerated Growth and Limited proposals based on tentative assumptions of goals. Growth objectives were used as guides to the kinds It is equally difficult to apply goals, subobjec- of programs which might be selected-more so in tives, and criteria explicitly in the formulation connection with some resource use categories than process. Sometimes the criteria will point toward with others. Because frameworks were not devel- specific programs, but usually they only point in a oped for the Accelerated Growth and Limited general direction. The process of working out the Growth objectives, the process was not carried to a detailed statements, of defining the terms used, conclusion, but the direction which planning could and of drawing distinctions has made both those take was identified by the subobjectives and cri- persons -responsible for plan formulation and those teria. persons concernedwith planning issues better able On the other hand, when it came time to select 'to articulate their goals. Thus, the planning process 7programs for a Proposed (PRO) Framework (de- has been enhanced. scribed in Section 4), which would represent a In preparing the framework to meet the Normal proposal which the Commission selected from a Growth objective, it was found that the subobjec- number of alternatives, no specific subobjectives tives and criteria were rather specific for some of or criteria were stated. Rather, programs within the resource use categories and quite general.for the specific resource use categories were selected in others. Because this objective reflects trends and is relationship to those which reflected normal most familiar to planning personnel as well as to the growth, accelerated growth, and limited growth. Section 3 FUTURE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS What do the next fifty years hold for the Great future resource development. That is, given a Lakes Basin? Are the pressures of population range of quantitative projections of accelerated, growth on a collision course with efforts to achieve normal, and limited growth and associated re- and maintain a high quality environment? The an- source requirements that encompass the high and swers are uncertain. What is clear is that in the low extremes of all perceptions of the future for the past we have too often failed to evaluate the en- Great Lakes, there exists a framework within vironmental consequences of growth primarily for which the interrelationships between developmen- economic gain. Throughout the United States, sci- tal growth and natural resource quality can be entists, economists, and planners are studying our balanced. The following sections quantify the al- history to give us a grasp on the future. Ideas ternative futures of accelerated, normal, and lim- which challenge the values and goals of perpetual ited growth for the Great Lakes Basin. Annex B growth are providing the impetus for consideration documents the assumptions and methodology used of new directions for our rapidly changing techno- for the data presented. (See Introduction for avail- logical society. ability of Annex B.) The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study es- tablished dynamic planning tools for projecting new growth directions for the Region. Tradition- 3.1 Economic and Demographic Projections ally, long-range studies (50 years) have relied upon what we know best, the past, to project the future. A range of population and economic activity Since it is not possible to foresee the future, pro- levels has been projected for the next fifty years in jections must necessarily be based on modifications the Great Lakes Region. The preparation of these of past relationships believed to have future rele- multiple projection levels was accomplished in two vance. The choice of the past relationships to be major steps: extended and the methodology for extending them (1) The Great Lakes regional disaggregation in are based on assumptions. Some of these assump- 1968 of the national economic and demographic tions are stated explicitly and some are implicit in projections, known as OBERS projections, was the activity and land use expected to prevail during assumed to reflect normal growth conditions. the projection period. In the course of this study, (2) The accelerated and limited growth pro- the Great Lakes Basin Commission broke with jections resulted from a Great Lakes Basin Com- tradition. The Commission recognized that any mission computer program (ADSUN-Alternative major urban area, like the Great Lakes Region, Demand, Supply, Needs) utilizing the OBERS that is undergoing a process of megalopolitan for- series of "Effects of Alternative Assumptions on mation has the option and responsibility to project Projections of Gross National Product for the years alternative futures that could differ signifleantly 1980, 2000, 2020," prepared in late 1971. No new from past trends. assumptions concerning national and regional eco- In the extreme, alternative futures for the Great nomic structure were made for accelerated and Lakes Region mean changes in the competitive limited growth projections. economic position of the Region with respect to the Two key factors should be remembered in the nation, and changes in per capita demands on the interpretation of regional projections for the Great resource base of the Great Lakes Basin over the Lakes. First, all projections in the study were next fifty years. This is illustrated in Table 1-20. made on a national basis and then disaggregated to The logic behind the development of extreme the Great Lakes Region based upon judgments that projections, or upper and lower limits, emanates established the Region's share of a national eco- from the recognition of a wide divergence of opin- nomic and/or demographic parameter. Second, ion of national, regional, State, and local goals for there are no confidence limits placed upon any of 39 40 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-20 Key Variables for Alternative Future Growth Conditions, Great Lakes Region Economy Resource Consumption Future Growth Gross Regional Per Capita Per Capita Condition Population Product Income Demand ACCI High High High High (Accelerated) NOR2 Medium Medium Medium Medium (Normal) LIM3 Low Low Low Low (Limited) 'Maximum possible development and natural resource demand 2Trend development and resource demand 3Minimum development and natural resource consumption the projected growth levels. Judgments were made has accounted for a steady 14 to 15 percent of the to shift the regional competitiveness of the Great total U.S. population in the census decades from Lakes to represent accelerated and limited growth 1940 to 1970. Normal growth projections pose a levels. The study did not evaluate where relative gradual decline in the regional share of the national gains and losses would take place within other population levels to just over 13 percent, amount- regions of the nati6n. Subregional shifts in relative ing to more than 53 million people b@ 2020. Ac- shares of projections were assumed for the plan- celerated growth projections for the nation and the ning subareas within the Great Lakes Region itself. Region shift population from other parts of the The upper and lower limits of projections for the country to the Great Lakes area so that 17 percent Great Lakes Region theoretically encompass any of the national total, or 85 million persons, would possible high or low levels of development ultima- live in the Region by 2020. Given implicit or explicit tely to be attained in the Basin by 2020. Changing policies that would limit national population growth and shifting past economic and demographic trends to near zero levels, the Region's population would indicate that man can control his own destiny. reach 37 million by 2020, or less than 11 percent of National, State, and local policy alterations in the the national total (Figure 1-11). Under limited social, political, economic, and natural resource 90 fields are necessary to accomplish desirable ACC changes. The planning task, then requires a look at 8S.0 the implications of various gro@th conditions on (17% U S. Total) water and related land resources. The present and future patterns of water and related land use in the Great Lakes Basin depend, 60 0 in large part, on its population, industrial develop- ment, agricultural economy, forest and mineral NOR _01 5 production, electrical power production, and (13% U.S.Total) standard of living. The following subsections de- scribe the results of projecting new directions for L I M growth in the Great Lakes Region. 30 36.9 29.3 (11% U.S.Totan 3.1.1 Population Over 29 million people resided in the Great Lakes Region in 1970. More than 85 percent of that total 19701980 2000 2020 live within 50 miles of the shores of the Lakes Erie FIGURE 1-11 Population Growth in the Great and Michigan. Historically, the Great Lakes Region Lakes Region Assumptions and Requirements 41 TABLE 1-21 Projected Populations, Great Lakes Region and Plan Areas (in thousands) Growth Assumption and Region 1970 1980 2000 2020 ACC 1.0--Superior 533.5 677.0 1,061.0 1,822.3 2.0--Michigan 13,517.0 17,026.1 249338.0 38,236.2 3.0--Huron 1,236.3 1,627.0 2,521.0 4,263.0 4.0--Erie 11,513.8 14,641.0 20,904.0 33,010.0 5.0--Ontario -2,531.7 3,158.0 4,723.3 7,725.3 Total Great Lakes 290332.3 37,129.1 53,547.3 85,056.8 NOR 1.0--Superior 533.5 538.1 595.0 669.0 2.0--Michigan 13,517.0 15,492.3 19,645.4 24,829.5 3.0--Huron 1,236.3 1,411.1 1,809.2 2,324.4 4.0--Erie 11,513.8 13,300.0 16,794.2 21,281.0 5.0--Ontario -2,531.7 2,776.0 3,495.0 4,393.1 Total Great Lakes 29,332.3 33,517.5 42,338.8 53,497.0 LIM 1.0--Superior 533.5 495.2 485.0 478.0 2.0--Michigan 13,517.0 14,162.2 15,676.4 17,087.1 3.0--Huron 1,236.3 1,297.0 1,451.0 1,618.0 4.0--Erie 11,513.8 12,162.0 13,403.1 14,651.4 5.0--Ontario -2,531.7 2,544.4 2,801.0 3,042.4 Total Great Lakes 29,332.3 30,660.8 33,816.5 36,876.9 growth assumptions, all areas in the Great Lakes of national employment. In 1970, 15 percent of the Region except the Lake Superior region are still national work force labored in the Great Lakes projected to gain in population for 50 years (Table Region. The Region's share of national employment 1-21), but population pressures on Great Lakes by 2020 is projected at approximately 17 percent resources would be curtailed. under accelerated growth, 13 percent under normal growth, and 11 percent under limited growth (Table 1-22, Figure 1-12). 3.1.2 Employment In 1970, approximately 11 million persons were 3.1.3 Income included in the Great Lakes Region's work force. Assuming that the employment participation rate In the period from 1940 to 1960, the Great Lakes remains at near 40 percent for all growth projec- Region maintained approximately 18 percent of the tions, total employment projections follow popula- nation's total personal income while averaging a 20 tion trends in terms of the regional per cent share percent higher per capita income than national 42 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-22 Projected Total Employment, Great Lakes Region and Plan Areas (in thousands) Growth Assumption and Region 1970 1980 2000 2020 ACC 1.0--Superior 171.8 256.0 409.3 688.3 2.0--Michigan 5,347.9 7,072.0 10,145.2 15,808.0 3.0--Huron 422.0 624.0 990.0 1,665.0 4.0--Erie 4,396.2 5,870.0 8,475.2 13,329.1 5.0--Ontario 964.4 1,276.4 1,928.2 3,177.0 Total Great Lakes 11,302.3 15,098.4 21,947.9 34,667.4 NOR 1.0--Superior 171.8 195.0 222.0 252.0 2.0--Michigan 5,347.9 6,378.0 8,108.0 10,198.0 3.0--Huron 422.0 530.2 698.0 907.0 4.0--Erie 4,396.2 5,283.1 6,673.1 8,530.1 5.0--Ontario 964.4 1,109.0 1,412.0 1,776.0 Total Great Lakes 11,302.3 13,495.3 17,113.1 21,663.1 LIM 1.0--Superior 171.8 175.0 174.0 176.0 2.0--Michigan 5,347.9 5,667.4 6,163.5 6,611.3 3.0--Huron 422.0 473.0 537.1 598.0 4.0--Erie 4,396.2 4,694.4 5,123.3 5,535.0 5.0--Ontario 964.4 987.3 1,081.0 1,666.0 Total Great Lakes 11,302.3 11,997.1 13,078.9 14,586.3 so levels. The heavy concentration of industrial activ- ACC ity in the Region has played a major role in its past W 34.7 performance. In 1970, total personal income in the C (17% U.S. Total) Region neared $114 billion. Projections of personal NOR and per capita income for normal growth conditions 9L 25 21.7 are consistent with trends described for population .r- and employment for the Basin with respect to the (13% U.S. Total) nation. Accelerated growth assumptions project 11.3 LIM 14.6 that the Region will have 18 percent of the nation's (11% U.S. Total) personal income by 2020, while limited growth 1970 1980 2000 2020 conditions project a decline to near 12 percent of total national personal income (Figure 1-13, Table FIGURE 1-12 Projected Employment in the 1-23). Annual per capita income, while variable Great Lakes Region over the Great Lakes area, ranged between $3,000 Assumptions and Requirements 43 TABLE 1-23 Projected Average per Capita In- tions of agricultural activity, manufacturing, and come, Great Lakes Region and Plan Areas (1967 forest and mineral production are particularly sig- dollars) nificant for future planning because they depend Growth Assumption upon the utilization of basic natural resources. and Region 1970 1980 2000 2020 Some of these resources such as water and trees are renewable; that is, within a reasonable length ACC of time they can be reestablished. Other resources 1.0--Superior 3,037 4,655 9,054 18,395 such as minerals and valuable agricultural land, are 2.0--Michigan 3,961 5,956 10,834 20,916 nonrenewable; that is, once unique deposits are 3.0--Huron 3,420 5,206 9,967 19,761 extracted or cropland is taken up by urban expan- 4.0--Erie 39743 5,817 10,623 20,702 sion, they cannot be replaced. Projected values of 5.0--Ontario 3,589 5,434 10,216 20,103 economic production are reported for the Great Total Great Lakes 3,802 5,800 10,622 20,646 Lakes Basin in Figures 1-14, 1-15, and 1-16 in dollars of total earnings for accelerated (ACC), NOR normal (NOR), and limited (LIM) growth assump- tions. 1.0--Superior 3,037 4,183 72581 13,516 2.0--Michigan 3,961 5,226 82258 14,717 400 (1967 $) ACC 3.0--Huron 3,420 4,610 8,190 14,270 396 4.0--Erie 32743 5,106 8,568 14,575 (24% U.S.Total) 5.0--Ontario 3,589 4,817 8,375 14,432 Total Great Lakes 3,802 5,101 8,598 14,603 LIM 1.0--Superior 3,037 3,753 5,964 9,621 2.0--Michigan 3,961 4,727 6,851 10,352 200 3.0--Huron 3,420 4,156 6,423 10,023 NOR 4.0--Erie 3,743 4,618 62722 10,256 U-6 5.0--Ontario 3,589 4,353 6,579 10,168 C (18% U.S. Tota 0 b. 3,802 4,613 6,746 10,275 10 Total Great Lakes NOTE: Average per capita income = total personal in- LIM come divided by population. 91 and $4,000 in 1970, with the highest levels in the 38 (14% U.S.Total) Lake Michigan and Lake Erie regions. 1970 1980 2000 2020 3.1.4 Production FIGURE 1-14 Projected Earnings in Manufac- Economic production provides both the necessi- turing, Great Lakes Region (1967 dollars) ties and the luxuries of life for people influenced by the resour .ces of the Great Lakes Basin. Projec- 2.5 (1967 $) ACC 200 ACC 2.0 2.323 (12% U.S.Total) 17S6 (18% U.S. Total) VA NOR 1000 NOR 1.193 78 (8% U.S. Tota D C (14% U.S. Total) &_ to LIM LIM .658 379 H: (12% U.S. Total) 1 (6% U.S. To ta 0 1970 1980 20100 20120 19701980 2000 2020 FIGURE 1-13 Projected Growth in Total Per- FIGURE 1-15 Projected Earnings in Mining, sonal Income, Great Lakes Region (1967 dollars) Great Lakes Region (1967 dollars) TABLE 1-24 Projected Resource Requirements for the Great Lakes Region Resource Us, Lake Superior Region Lake Michigan Region Lake Huron Region Lake Erie Re gion Fmk. Units 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 _ 2020 1980 2000 - -2020 1 WATER WITHDRAWALS Municipally Supplied ACC gd 2,870 6,680 13,800 --- 1,060 --- 3,080 7,300 15,200 --- 1,400 2,830 6 NOR 2,470 3,230 4,220 --- 251 --- 2,100 2,830 3,760 --- 579 770 5 LIM 1,260 1,680 1,620 --- 135 --- 1,330 1,430 1,460 ill 340 341 2 Self Supplied ACC gd 1,930 5,930 19,400 477 959 3,600 4,700 7,220 19,500 500 740 2,380 7 Industrial NOR 3,770 3,730 6,350 491 428 929 3,270 2,700 4,640 388 294 648 8 LIM 823 594 1,110 172 122 196 1,990 1,340 1,770 247 176 282 3 Rural Domestic & ACC gd 354 459 636 74 105 158 255 282 428 80 100 136 Livestock NOR 265 323 362 48 60 72 148 182 209 62 70 78 LIM 221 205 187 41 41 40 157 133 136 52 44 40 Irrigation ACC mgd 975 2,320 3,610 153 292 644 628 1,100 2,300 180 335 724 1 NOR 828 1,250 1,700 108 155 232 426 650 904 99 174 262 1 LIM 401 582 603 53 62 77 222 248 283 66 79 89 Mining ACC mgd 130 436 1,320 65 154 477 259 555 1,730 58 121 347 1 NOR 85 157 292 33 50 80 163 295 513 31 54 93 LIM 45 72 98 23 30 44 109 143 200 22 28 43 Thermal Power ACC mgd 12,600 43,300 93,700 3,310 15,900 38,400 9,370 33,900 68,400 5,700 8,000 15,700 31 Cooling NOR 8,300 22,200 47,600 1,880 8,070 19,500 7,350 17,600 34,800 5,700 5,890 7,940 23 LIM 68 108 3,960 1,020 1,530 446 285 617 5,330 4,700 3,790 188 15 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES Municipal Wastewater ACC gd 3,500 6,350 14,000 82 1,010 2,640 2,990 6,930 14,400 493 1,330 2,690 7 Discharges NOR 964 1,450 2,170 ill 175 263 2,130 2,670 3,450 427 585 773 3 LIM 1,400 1,590 15,40 101 129 140 1,270 1,360 1,390 230 322 324 3 Industrial Waste- ACC gd 4,780 6,530 15,600 429 863 3,240 4,230 6,500 17,600 503 665 2,140 10 water Discharges NOR 3,310 3,130 5,090 418 262 364 2,980 2,080 2,690 572 490 1,000 7 LIM 1,950 1,640 2,060 155 110 176 1,790 1,210 1,600 223 158 254 4 Hydroelectric Power ACC mgd --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Flow NOR 51,800 51,800 51,800 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 59,400 75,500 130,000 Ill LIM --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Water oriented Out- ACC 1000 160,000 255,000 489.000 21,700 39,600 77,100 113,000 189,000 341,000 42,600 65,200 122,000 346 door Recreation NOR Rec 88,300 139,000 201,000 11,600 17,800 25,200 69,600 104,000 149,000 22,800 33,900 48,300 197 LIM Days 101,000 145,000 161,000 12,700 17,200 20,800 70,600 94,900 113,000 22,400 28,100 35,300 211 Water Oriented Out- ACC 1000 --- --- --- 138 229 357 616 1,010 1,590 217 344 529 2 door Recreation NOR Acres 1,050 1,740 2,670 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - LIM W.S., --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Sport Fishing ACC 1000 51,100 74,900 120,000 90,900 15,200 27,200 42,500 60,800 96,100 12,000 18,200 30,000 203 NOR Angler 38,300 48,300 58,400 9,200 11,900 14,900 32,700 42,000 48,600 17,200 21,500 20,800 105 LIM Days 34,100 38,000 41,600 5,610 6,270 7,030 27,800 30,600 33,300 6,240 6,820 7,380 77 Sport Fishing ACC 1000 N/A NOR Acres LIM W.S., Recreational Boating ACC 1000 --- --- --- 6,360 9,100 14,400 .29,200 42,700 69,000 8,840 13,000 21,000 76, NOR Boat 16,100 20,400 25,900 4,840 6,130 7,790 7,630 9,650 12,300 4,660 5,760 7,230 35, LIM Days --- --- --- 4,040 4,300 4,570 7,150 8,210 9,090 4,340 4,650 5,000 34, Recreational Boating ACC 1000 1.160 1,160 1,160 750 750 750 309 309 309 247 247 247 3, NOR Acres --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- LIM W.S., --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Commercial Fishing ACC m-tons NOR year LIM sAva as[I P--l -Tqvlu-H ATTVT3u-2 sat@([ Tvnu ..Vj..S Z1901 6*6L L'89 T*9 6*9 6*S Z,9C T'6Z CIEZ E*9 E T17 t? Eq S'LE 17,cc Z'Stl 9'OOT T*89 O'ET Z*6 Z,9 S,Lt Z'TC 9*TZ 9*6 9*9 C *17 C'EL Vos -/,cc ..I.v NON zos L17Z 6ET z * SS 9*ZE 17'LT ZLT 0,98 91s@ T*SC 6*17T US 81Z 90T E1@9 OOOT MY --u co will ..J@v HON YIN OOOT MY -- OOT'TC 009'6Z oo,8Z 011'T 0-71'T 09T'T OW6 OCZ'6 OLt"S 0091C OWE EWE oos"71 OOS'ET 009,CT Nill 008,89 OOS'ZL OoEltg OWE OZ6'Z OT9'Z 009,ZT OOE,cz 0011oz 09S'6 Ogg's ogg,L 008,8C oog,K 006'OE ..J.v UON OD 0051" 00.7'sq OOL'917 069'17 OEVC OTCZ o0g,oz 006'BT 009'ET 009'CT Ogg's 08019 oog,g,7 00011C OOT'ZZ 0001 30y TV- YIN .Av(j will 006'TL 009"79 ooS,og OL9'S OLO'S OLT'S oog,zz 008'61 oov,8T OLL'g 09T'S 0007 OWCZ OOE,oz OOS'LT ... n MON YIN OOOT MY 00SIZZ 000'6T OOC'OT OZT'V OTL'Z OT6'T 0017'ZT ooclol OWS OSZ'T 061'T OSVT OZ91.7 og,7,@7 OST'17 Ki 11 oot"ZE o0z'n OOO'ST 0178'S OWC OTT'Z 009'LT COVET 099'6 OLL'T 001ST OOE'T ogS,g Ogg's OSS'17 S..@ov soN 008's-1 000,0C oo+/'oz EST's OTZ,-7 OTC,z 006'17Z ooz,gT 000'TT OES,z 006'T OWT OOC'6 OZO,L Ozz's OOOT MY 3u 0,7SIZ 0 S s z ogS,z "Z 817 Z 69Z EZL SZL ZEL T6Z Z6Z C6Z 060'T 060'T 090'T Hi 11 0,7s,z 0 S g z ogs,Z 81Z 817Z 0Z CZL 8ZL ZEL T6Z UZ C6Z 060'T 060'T 0901T -G-V-V dOK 01SIZ oss'z ogs,z StIz 89Z 617 Z ZZL 9ZL ZCL T6Z UZ C6Z 060'T 060'T 090'T OOOU ODY TV 00WEET 00-i'Z6 ootlog OSE'T WiL 6Z'i 005'69 009'LS 00010t, oq/,T 080'T ELL 00LISS 006'IC 001181 Kill 000'69T 000'STT 008'99 OT6'T LV6 SLV OWS6 00 17 ' C L 00 C , 17 11 ocg,@ OSEIT 9S9 GOSIC8 00 1 1 0 V occloz aj.Y NON 000'69Z 000'91/T 001'9L 099,z 06T*l M 000'M OOZ'16 ooslos OWE 00LIT @L6 000'61T ODS'OS ooz,Ez ODDT Dov TV W 9CZ 9zz VU f.'IT 8'9T 6ZI SZT ozi 6*OT 6*6 6'S Z*CS SISL 9'@L Hill 0Z 9CZ 9zz 8*LT C*LT 8*9T 6ZT SZT ozi VOT 6*6 6'S VES SISL 9*@L U.V.v HON 0Z 9CZ 9zz S*LT VLT S'9T 6ZI M OZT 6'OT 6*6 6'S VCR S,81 9'VL oool@ Dov ue ov,711 OWT ov-111 T'66 1*66 T*66 9CS 9CS 9ES M Z-7T M ZT9 ZTV M OWT otll OWT V66 T'66 T'66 9CS 9cs 9ES Z@T Z!7T Z1iT ZT9 M M a-v UON OWT 01717'1 09-I'T T'66 T*66 T'66 9E5 9CS 9ES Z17T Z17T M z1v ZTt, ZT9 0001 Doy u. 00610T 006'OT 006'OT OWT OWT OWT 00'Z 00'Z 0617'Z OTL'T OTL'T OTL'l OLL,E OLVE OLl'C wil 006'01 006'01 006'OT OWT OL-7'T OWT OWZ 06V'Z 00'Z OWT OWT OTL'T OLL,E OWE OLLIE NON 006'01 006'01 006'OT OL-7'T 0 L 17 'T OV?'T 00'Z 0617 ' Z 061'Z OTL'T OTL'T OTL'l OLL'E OWE OLLIE --TTW Doy u oull 08Z'T OSZ'T 981 98T 981 EST EST EST Z9T z9T z9T Leg L85 L89 Kill O8Z'T osz'l osz,T 98T 98T 98T EST CST EST Z9T Z9T z9T leg L85 189 HON ORZ,l OSZ'T 09Z'T 98T 98T 98T EST EST EST Z9T Z9T Z91 Leg Leg 189 --TTH Dov 006'LT 006'11 006'IT OWE OWE 0,78,E OEZIZ OEZIZ ocz,z OTS'Z OT9'Z ols,Z 090'6 090'6 090'6 Hill 006'LT 006'Ll 006'LT Ovq,E ovs1c 0,78 1 E ocz'z OEZ,z ozzlz OT8'Z OTS'Z OT9'Z OSO'6 090'6 050'6 ..J@v HON 006'LT 006*LT 006'Ll 0,78,C ot's, E 0,78, E ocz'z OEZ,z OEZ,z 018,z OTS,z OTB'Z OSO'6 OSO'6 OSO'6 OOOT 33y - ozz,g ozz,g ozz,g @09 1109 1709 01,7,c Olt, I C OT-7'E US ZLS ZLS OZS'T OZ9'T OZS'T will ozz,g ozz,g ozz,g @09 V09 @09 OWE OWE OT'7'E ZLS US ZL9 OZS'T OZ9'T OZS'T ..J.v 11ON .2 ozz,g ozz,g ozz,g 1709 '709 @09 ol?, C OWE OWE US US US OZg'T OZS'T OZS'T OOOT Dov -- 0051oz oos'oz 005,0Z Oog,z oog,z oog,z OSE,g 08C19 ORE19 osolz ogolz Oso,z 056'8 096'8 OS6'8 Nil oos,oz oosloz 005,0Z Oog,z oog,z 0091Z OqE,g o8C,g OqE,g ogo,z oso'z Oso,z OS6'S 056'9 OS6'S 5.@ov NON 005,0Z 0051oz oos'oz oog,z 0091Z oog,z o8c,g OqE,g OSE,g Oso,z oSO,z oso'z OS6'S 096'8 056'8 0001 Dov CS-1 M SEE T T T TOZ 991 LVI 9C OE 17Z LZI TOT 89 CSL Cos czv z z z STE 175Z Z6T 89 017 RZ 96T IST TTI IvaA NON 89Z'T -ZO8 SOS C z LE9 99C TEZ ZTT E9 @c SZE Wz 6ZT suol- DDv 46 Appendix 1 (1967 $) 3.2.1 Methodology 6.0 The methodologies used by the Framework ACC Study work groups and by the ADSUN program to 5.4 (8% U.S.Total) translate economic and demographic projections into water and land requirements were basically a NOR function of an economic and/or demographic vari- 3.0 2.6 able, a unit per capita demand for resources, and a (6% U.S.Total) use efficiency factor: R = A x D x e 1.3 LIM 1.4 where (5% U.S. Total) R = water or land re .quirements 1970 1980 2000 2020 A = economic and/or demographic activity vari- FIGURE 1-16 Projected Earnings in Agricul- able; e.g., population, economic production in dol- ture, Great Lakes Region (1967 dollars) lars. Economic base projections for the normal growth D = unit demand for water or land resources; conditions have been extensively reported in Ap- e.g., gallons per person per day, recreation days pendix 19, Economic and Demographic Studies. per person Measures of economic production are major factors e = use efficiency ratio. in the determination of resource requirements de- In determining resource requirements, the scribed in the following subsection. ADSUN program represented the alternative lim- ited and accelerated growth conditions by varying unit demand coefficients as well as economic and/or 3.2 Resource Requirements demographic activity levels in determining re- source requirements of normal growth conditions. What do projections of accelerated, normal, and The Framework Study functional appendixes and limited growth mean for the environment of the Annex B of Appendix 1 show the detailed method- Great Lakes Basin? The Framework Study inter- ologies for translating projections into water and prets this question to have both quantitative and land requirements. See the Introduction for avail- qualitative aspects. That is, people's needs for ability of Annex B. food, clothing, water, recreation, etc., depend not only upon an adequate amount of water and land capable of supplying those needs, but also upon an 3.2.2 Projected Water and Related Land assurance that the natural resources, of the Basin Requirements will not be degraded in quality so as to preclude future use. Some projected resource requirements, All water and land requirements developed for such as those for water for drinking and for eco- the accelerated, normal, and limited growth as- nomic production, will increase. Other resource sumptions were included in three categories: water requirements, such as forest land treatment, which withdrawal uses, nonwithdrawal water uses, and are tied more directly to maintenance and en- related land. uses. On a functional use basis, some hancement of resource conditions, remain rela- overlap occurs within these three major categories. tively constant over time. Both general types of In the following description, each functional re- resource requirements are reported here for fu- source use is described only once though its asso- tures based upon accelerated, normal, and limited ciated requirements may appear more than once in growth assumptions. Water and related land re- Table 1-24 which presents projected resource re- quirements for normal growth are extensively doc- quirements for the Great Lakes Region and its five umented in the 24 functional appendixes prepared plan areas. The unusual terms and units of measure for thlis study. Resource requirements projected are presented in the Glossary. for accelerated and limited growth derive both Water users in the Basin rely on the Great from the Alternative Demand, Supply, Needs Lakes, inland lakes and streams, and ground-water (ADSUN) computer program and from input and resources. Projections of accelerated, normal and judgments supplied by functional work groups. The limited economic and demographic growth were judgmental inputs for determining accelerated and translated into projected point withdrawal re- limited growth resource requirements differed quirements for municipal, industrial, rural, agri- from those for the normal growth projections de- cultural, mineral; and electric power uses. veloped in the 24 appendixes. Water withdrawn for residential, commercial, Assumptions and Requirements 47 public, and industrial (not self-supplied) purposes kilowatt hours produced by generating plants using through centralized collection and distribution sys- flow-through cooling systems. However, most of tems was projected in the municipal water supply the water is returned to the source with only about category. Under the normal growth projection, one percent being consumed. Plants which use unless there was reason to support an exception, supplemental cooling systems divert much less per capita water usage for domestic and commer- water from the source but have a higher consump- cial purposes was assumed to accrue at a rate of 1 tive use than flow-through plants. percent per year to 108 gallons per capita per day Thermal electric cooling water diversions made (gpcd); then at a rate of 0.25 percent per year to a by flow-through and supplemental (cooling tower) maximum of 130 gpcd if this figure were attained systems were estimated for normal growth. Max- prior to 2020. Accelerated growth projections as- imum and minimum per capita energy and cooling sumed per capita rates by planning subareaabovethe water requirements for accelerated and limited normal level. In contrast, limited growth projections growth were projected using normal projections as assumed a leveling off of per capita water use, a base. generally by the year 2000. Projected requirements for municipal and indus- Except for consideration of recirculation factors, trial wastewater treatment were based on esti- projections of industrial water requirements were mates of municipal and industrial water supply made on a unit demand basis, as they were for requirements with emphasis *on organic or oxygen- municipal use requirements. The determination of consuming wastes. Requirements for advanced the normal growth relationships between industrial waste treatment or flow management were based output and water use helped determine the extent on an analysis of low-flow characteristics at node to which the numerical coefficients of water use points in Basin streams. would vary above the normal level for accelerated Water-oriented outdoor recreation activities in- growth and below the normal level for limited cluded in this study are swimming, picnicking, growth. Recirculation of industrial water due to camping, hiking and sightseeing. Requirements for technological advances was assumed in all future alternative growth conditions were projected in industrial water requirements. terms of recreation days and in terms of land and An important though relatively minor category water surface area. A recreation day is defined as a of water requirements is rural water. Uses consid- visit by an individual to a recreation area during all ered in estimating rural water supply requirements or a significant portion of a 24-hour day. include rural farm and nonfarm uses for domestic Projected requirements for sport fishing and rec- water, livestock, pesticide spray water, and water reational boating depend entirely upon license for sanitizing and cleaning. Rural water use factors sales and boater registration estimates. For the were applied to projections of population, live- normal growth projection, assumptions were made stock, and crop production to generate water re- to account for transfer of demand into and out of quirements for normal, accelerated, and limited the Basin. As in the recreation category, accel- growth. erated and limited growth requirements for sport Estimated economic production of food and min- fishing and boating were projected on a per capita erals was a key factor in determining future water use basis. and land requirements for crop irrigation and min- The future outlook for Great Lakes commercial ing. Again using a variable demand coefficient, total fishery resources is very complex and must be water use for accelerated, normal, and limited analyzed by individual fish species. Most species growth was determined after dollar production es- have rather specific geographical, ethnic, religious, timates were made. Projected population partici- or cultural appeals that bear upon future market pation in golfing activities was translated into demand for fishery production. Characteristics of water and land estimates for the future. the past and future supply base, and maximum Electric power generation in the Great Lakes sustained yield estimates are extensively docu- Basin is dependent on water resources to supply mented in Appendix 8, Fish. cooling water for condensers or to supply water for Low, mediumand highprojections of prospec- conventional hydroelectric power plants and those tive commercial traffic were developed to represent using pumped storage facilities. Nuclear-fueled a range of possible futures for navigation in the steam-electric plants require much more cooling Basin. Low traffic projections were assumed if the water than fossil-fueled plants at the present time. limited growth objective were pursued throughout It is anticipated that improved design and operat- the Region. Medium projections were assumed for ing experience will reduce this difference soon. the normal growth or national economic develop- Depending on cooling water temperature rise, ment objective, while high projections were as- plant efficiency, and type of plant, some 100 to 200 sumed for the accelerated growth objective for acre-feet of water are required for each million maximum regional development. 48 Appendix 1 Estimates of opportunities for agricultural and Requirements for aesthetic and cultural re- forest land treatment were based upon an evalua- sources were not defined in quantitative terms for tion of present resource conditions and the objec- the Framework Study. tive of preventing future resource degradation. Estimates of drainage requirements quantify in acres the opportunities for increasing the efficiency 3.2.2.1 Table of Projections of agricultural production by draining cropland soils presently degraded because of wetness. Table 1-24 displays projections of requirements Streambank and shoreland erosion and associated for the various resource use categories for 1970 damages to be prevented were based on the pres- (existing situation) and the three target years for ent and projected severity of the erosion problems accelerated (ACC), normal (NOR), and limited in the study area. It was assumed that the esti- (LIM) growth assumptions. The NOR data are mated annual damages would continue at their essentially the historical and projected quantities present levels unless preventive action were taken.. provided by the work groups in the resource ap- Average annual flood damages provided the basis pendixes and constitute the basis for framework for flood prevention requirements. Damages were selection in the study. ACC and LIM growth pro- projected to occur in both urban and rural flood jections, on the other hand, were not developed as plains assuming no preventive actions were taken. viable projections for use in framework analysis. Wildlife pressures were documented in terms of As stated in Section 3. 1, they are intended to wildlife habitat requirements as well as user-day encompass any high or low levels of population or estimates. Projections of user-days by hunters economic development conceived to be attainable based on license data represent one-half of the by the year 2020. They set limits within which any projected user-day estimates. Nonconsumptive deviations from the normal growth and its related wildlife uses, such as bird watching, wildlife ob- frameworks will fall. This concept must be kept in servation, photography and the like, represent the mind in referring to Table 1-24 and in analyzing the other half. data. Section 4 FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT 4.1 The Idea of a Framework Each State in the Great Lakes Basin has respon- sibility for planning the wise use of its resources, The Great Lakes Basin Framework Study is the but it has an equal responsibility for planning this manifestation of one level of a process generally use in such a way that other States will not be referred to as planning. In this case, it is directed adversely affected. This requires that there be an primarily at water and related land resources. understanding of interrelationships and that the Planning takes many forms; it may be very general effects of alternative choices in resource use be or very detailed. It may be an inventory, or it may understood. The Framework Study and the frame- result in quite definitive proposals or plans that are works it developed are one effective way of ana- intended to be adopted and carried out with very lyzing and reporting these interrelationships. Fed- little modification. The Framework Study falls eral agencies charged with specific functions somewhere between these two extremes. It is a related to resource use have the same responsibili- preliminary investigation or reconnaissance in- ties as the States. Each agency must know the tended to provide broad-scaled analyses of water effects of choices made in its own sphere on other and related land resource problems and furnish a resources and resource uses. A comprehensive general outline of the probable nature, extent, and analysis, such as the Framework Study, enables timing of measures for their solution. these interrelationships to be understood. The The result is not a plan but rather several corn- Framework Study is coordinated by having all af- binations of possibilities. From these combinations, fected State and Federal agencies participate, and proposals to be studied in more detail are selected. it is made comprehensive by including all resource From this detailed investigation, plans will emerge. uses and the consequences of the many choices The product of the Framework Study is, in the very which can be made among these various uses. best sense, a "framework" within which further, The unique features of the Great Lakes Basin are more detailed planning can be done and which will as important to Canada as they are to the United serve as a guide to the limit of development and the States, and choices made in one country affect the consequences which may result from various chosen resources of both. The Framework Study is not a courses of action. The Framework Study and the joint effort between the two countries, and the resultant framework or frameworks are not a frameworks do not encompass resource develop- panacea for the problems encountered in attempting ment in Canada. However, the interchange of in- to wisely use the resources of an area, but they help formation, ideas, and objectives among personnel of simplify what could be a complicated resource pic- the two countries permits the use of the frame- ture. works with reasonable confidence that the interests of Canada are properly considered. 4.1.1 Frameworks for the Great Lakes Basin The Great Lakes Region is unique, because it 4.1.2 Frameworks for Future Time Periods contains the largest series of freshwater bodies in the world. This resource, coupled with a wealth of As pointed out above, the frameworks which are forests, minerals, and agricultural products, has a product of the Framework Study provide a guide resulted in a large concentration of people and for future, more detailed planning, and for analyz- industries, and a heavy demand for the services ing the way in which specific plans will mesh to- they need. The Lakes contribute a water supply gether in the entire Basin or in the smaller study and a transportation route. They also serve as a areas of the Basin. The frameworks also provide a sink for waste disposal. This creates some of the means for analyzing the timing of resource devel- present problems. The interrelationships of the opment and use. A situation is analyzed as it exists land and water resources and of the human re- in mid-1970 and as it is expected to develop in the sources are particularly complex, and the guidance years of 1980, 2000, and 2020. The changes which provided by frameworks is helpful for this reason. occur in population, economic development, and 49 50 Appendix 1 resource use, and their interrelationships are es- study, new data, new emphases, and a new social or timated for these dates. This permits an analysis of economic climate can come into the picture. The the solutions to problems and the measures needed presentation of consistent conclusions drawn from to utilize effectively the resources at a level of basic data accumulated during different time development consistent with population and eco- periods is a very difficult task. nomic change. It permits adjusting a total program over a period of time to accommodate fiscal and other limitations and gives administrative and leg- 4.1.4 Who Will Use the Frameworks islative branches of the various levels of govern- Adherence to the frameworks in carrying out ment an opportunity to schedule water resource further studies or in management of resources is programs in coordination with programs in other not mandatory for any governmental entity. It is fields, taking into account finances of the total the hope and expectation that having participated program rather than of simply part of it. in the development of the frameworks, the several levels of government will wish to consider them in 4.1.3 Constraints further work. It may be that the Congress and legislatures will use the frameworks as a guide for controlling the expenditure of funds. There was no There are both institutional and legal constraints statutory obligation to participate in the Frame- connected with any framework developed in this work Study, although all the States in the Basin study. To some extent, they are interrelated. and most of the affected Federal agencies have The most obvious constraint is that the study and found it in their interest to do so. However, the the frameworks do not include the Canadian por- priority accorded to this work has varied so widely tion of the Great Lakes Basin. The legislative act among and within the States and over the period of under which the Great Lakes Basin Commission the study that the input has not been uniform. operates specifically provides that the jurisdiction, Therefore, it can be reasonably anticipated that the powers, and prerogatives of the International Joint utilization of the product, the frameworks, will not Commission will not be affected by the act. By be uniform. Much depends on the attitude of the Executive Order, the Water Resources Council is public and its acceptance of the frameworks as directed to consult with the Department of State as representing a high-level, professional product appropriate on matters under consideration by the consistent with the public good. Great Lakes Basin Commission that relate to the The first National Water Assessment prepared areas of interest to and under the jurisdiction of the by the Water Resources Council after the Frame- International Joint Commission and the Great work Study is completed will incorporate data from Lakes Fishery Commission. This order also re- the Framework Study in the Great Lakes portion stricts the area of jurisdiction of the Great Lakes of the Assessment. Thus, the Study will permit Basin Commission to the United States. These comparison of Great Lakes needs and other param- constraints do not, however, preclude the exchange eter� with those of the nation and of other re- of technical data and information between repre- gions. sentatives of the two countries or discussion of the problems of the Great Lakes Basin. Thus, although the frameworks do not include Canada ' implemen- 4.2 The Process of Framework Formulation tation of the proposals they make will not adversely affect Canada and Canadian interests. The process of framework formulation is rela- A second constraint is that the Framework Study tively simple in concept, but each of the steps can not study, plan, or recommend diversions into becomes quite complex when carried out in an area or out of the Great Lakes Basin. Existing diver- as large as the Great Lakes Basin. The following sions are, of course recognized, as are possible are these steps in their basic form: adjustments of present diversion uses within the (1) projecting, to specific dates in the future, limitation of 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs) total economic and demographic factors relating to the diversion prescribed by U.S. Supreme Court. Basin A third constraint inherent in the concept of the (2) estimating, for these dates, the require- Framework Study is the difficulty of obtaining and ments of the people, specifically for those resource compiling current, accurate, and useful informa- uses, or functions, which involve use of water sup- tion. Because data are not collected specifically for plies or the related land a study during the same period of time, but rather (3) determining the developed supplies of re- are incorporated from different time periods as sources for the various functions selected, and available, they may not have consistent relation- specifically in terms of use of water and related ships. Furthermore, over the protracted period of a land Framework Development 51 Economic and 0- number corresponding Consideration of Demographic to steps described in Range of Possible Projections Section 4.2 Solutions I Commodity and Service Requirements (Base Year and Water and Land Future Years) 2 Requirements Needs, Com- modities and Selection of the Services also Framework Water and Resource Supply Supply of Water Land (Base Year) and Land GL FIGURE 1-17 Schematic Diagram of Framework Selection (4) comparing the developed supply with the 4.3.1 Normal Growth and OBERS Projections requirements at one of the selected dates to deter- mine the needs at that date On a nationwide basis, the national economic (5) selecting from the range of possible ways of development objective, which has been equated meeting the need, a solution or combination of with normal growth in this study, is the basis for solutions best adapted to the circumstances the framework studies of water and related land (6) analyzing and adjusting the solutions to de- resources. The projection of economic and demo- termine which ones can serve more than one pur- graphic trends into the future on a nationwide basis pose, which ones may be mutually exclusive, and has been a function of the OBERS studies. (See which ones should finally be included in the selected Introduction for further discussion.) frameworks. The demographic and economic levels deter- Figure 1-17 illustrates this very simplified de- mined in these studies and disaggregated to the scription of framework formulation. The remainder Great Lakes Basin and smaller areas are related to of this section is devoted to more detailed descrip- amount and occurrence of resource use (quantities tion of various parts of the process and contains of water withdrawn for use, uses of water in the references to the location in the appendix of de- stream or lake, and related land uses). The use scriptions of other parts. Coverage is not neces- relationships were developed for a number of spe- sarily in the order in which the procedures above cific functions, such as municipal water supply, have been listed nor in the order in which they are irrigation, minerals production, recreational boat- actually carried out. Many processes go on concur- ing, wildlife, land-based water-oriented recreation, rently in framework formulation. and a number of others. The nature of the rela- tionship and the quantities of resource use at the present time (in this study taken to be mid-1970) were analyzed, and from the relationships, projec- 4.3 Objectives and Alternative Frameworks tions were made of resource use or requirements for the target years. These requirements are fur- Section 2 of this appendix describes the range of ther discussed in Section 3 of this appendix. I 9T objectives which will influence the extent and kind of development and use of water and related land resources. That section also describes the charac- 4.3.2 Other Alternatives teristics of three levels of growth related to the objectives. These levels of growth influence the The OBERS projections, described previously, way in which frameworks are developed and re- are one of three sets of projections used in the sources utilized. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study. The other 52 Appendix 1 sets of projections are related to the accelerated Resource Use Categories Unit' growth and limited growth objectives. The objec- Water Withdrawals tives themselves are discussed in Section 2 of this Municipally Supplied mgd appendix, and the projections are discussed in Sec- Self-Supplied Industrial mgd tion 3. Rural Domestic and The underlying philosophy of developing the ac- Livestock mgd celerated and limited growth objectives, and the Irrigation mgd projections related to them, was that these would Mining mgd constitute extremes of growth not expected to be Thermal Power Cooling mgd realized but serving as limits to guide the judgment Nonwithdrawal Water Uses of the people in the Basin and the planning staffs in Municipal Wastewater Discharges mgd the development of the Proposed Framework. Industrial Wastewater Consequently, while requirements were estimated Discharges mgd based on the projections related to accelerated and Hydroelectric Power mgd limited growth, and the process of determining Water Oriented Outdoor 1000 Recreation Days; Recreation 1000 acres W.S. needs and selecting frameworks was carried out to Sport Fishing 1000 Angler Days; some extent for each growth assumption, the re- 1000 acres W.S. sults were so extreme as to be misleading unless Recreational Boating 1000 Boat Days; used in a very limited context. However, they have 1000 acres W.S. been an aid in guiding the judgment of planning Commercial Fishing m tons per year staffs, and some selective parameters have been Commercial Navigation m tons per year used for illustrative purposes to indicate what ex- Related Land Use and Problems treme conditions might exist if the objectives were Agricultural Land fully pursued. The details are not included in the -Treatment 1000 acres -Cropland Drainage 1000 acres published record of the study but are in the files of Forest Land staff working papers. -Treatment 1000 acres Shoreland Erosion miles Streambank Erosion miles Flood Plains, 4.3.3 Proposed Framework -Urban 1000 acres; $1000 AAD -Rural 1000 acres; $1000 AAD No separate set of projections was made for use Wildlife Management 1000 acres; in formulating the framework adopted and recom- 1000 user-days Aesthetic and Cultural 1000 acres mended by the Great Lakes Basin Commission. Outdoor Recreation This framework is called the Proposed (PRO) -Intensive 1000 acres Framework. -Extenstive 1000 acres No economic growth rate was assumed for the 'See Glossary for definitions of units. Basin, nor for any part of the Basin. Rather, the desires of the local people and their governments as communicated to planning personnel were reflected 4.4.1 Opportunities, Needs, and Problems in the elements of the framework which were se- lected. Further discussion is provided in Subsection Three categories of remedial and enhancement 4.10. measures arise out of the analysis of water and land resources: opportunities, needs, and problems. Generally, only one of the three applies to each of 4.4 Water and Land Resources the resource use categories, but problems may occur in cases where opportunities and needs are The Framework Study deals basically with water also present. Future needs and problems are dis- and related land resources and the ways in which cussed in Subsection 4.5. They are included at this these resources may be made most useful to people. point only to differentiate among the three. Needs The uses to which the resources are put vary as do can be quantified. They result from a situation in the effects of uses on the resources. In order to which the present developed supply of a resource provide for orderly and consistent consideration of for a particular use is not sufficient to meet the these uses or functions and to- permit uniform requirements anticipated at a future time. Prob- treatment and comparison in the 15 river basin lems may or may not be quantified. For example, groups, the resource use categories have been the extent of flooding can be quantified and the classified as follows: extent to which flooding can be alleviated can be Framework Development 53 TABLE 1-25 Future Water and Related Land Needs and Opportunities, Great Lakes Basin (Total)-Normal Framework 1970 Needs and Opportunities3 RESOURCE USE Base Year, 1970,to CATEGORIES UNITSI SupplY2 -1980 2000 2020 Water Withdrawals Municipally Supplied mgd 4,300 870 2,810 5,400 Self-Supplied Industrial mgd 10,600 1,110 4,670 10,300 Rural Dom. & Livestock mgd 471 64 179 267 Irrigation mgd* 681 824 1,570 2,460 Mining mgd 780 148 450 965 Thermal Power Cooling mgd 17,200 8,210 38,700 96,500 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses Mun. Wastewater Dischgs. mgd4 3,060 3,680 4,940 6,720 Ind. Wastewater Dischgs. mgd4 8,580 7,330 6,000 9,210 Hydroelectric Power mgd NA 47,300 51,300 105,000 W.O. Outdoor Recreation 1,000 rec. days 100,000 105,000 201,000 329,000 1,000 acres W.S. NA --- --- --- Sport Fishing 1,000 angl. days 80,700 24,800 52,300 79,200 1,000 acres W.S. Recreational Boating 1,000 boat days 29,000 6,820 12,500 19,500 1,000 acres W.S.* 7,260 7,260 7,260 7,260 Commercial Fishing million tons/yr. Commercial Navigation million tons/yr. 343 432 583 754 Related Land Use & Problems Agr. Land-Treatment 1,000 acres* 20,450 20,450 20,450 20,450 -Cropland Drainage 1,000 acres* 6,210 6,210 6,210 6,210 Forest Land-Treatment 1,000 acres* 27,900 27,900 27,900 27,900 Shoreland Erosion miles 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Streambank Erosion miles 10,900 10,900 10,900 10,900 $1,000 AAD 1,710 1,710 1,710 1,710 Flood Plains--Urban 1,000 acres 222 230 240 251 --Urban $1,000 AAD 46,300 67,100 118,000 190,000 --Rural 1,000 acres 2,570 2,560 2,560 2,550 --Rural $1,000 AAD 14,200 18,000 24,200 32,400 Wildlife Management 1,000 acres 2,920 7,990 14,100 1,000 user days 49,600 15,000 23,900 33,300 Aesthetic & Cultural 1,000 acres Outdoor Rec.-Intensive 1,000 acres 30 62 109 -Extensive 1,000 acres 170 348 600 lAsterisk denotes opportunity 21ncludes problems and opportunities 3Additional resource requirements beyond 1970 requirements 4Total treatment requirement at each time period; footnote3 does not apply quantified. But in other cases, such as awkward or other planning elements, a table has -been prepared ineffective institutional arrangements, the prob- entitled "Future Water and Related Land Needs lem cannot be expressed in units of quantity. In and Opportunities." An example is Table 1-25 for some cases, resource uses may present opportuni- the Great Lakes Basin. The table lists the resource ties for enhancement of the resource, alleviation of use categories described in Subsection 4.4 and the a problem, or expansion of the range of the uses of 1970 supply described in Subsection 4.4.2. It also the resource. These are classified as opportunities. lists needs and opportunities for the planning tar- For each of the 15 river basin groups and for get years 1980, 2000, and 2020. 54 Appendix 1 The column "1970 Supply" contains primarily the Details are given in the appropriate parts of Sec- quantified supply which was compared with re- tion 5, and Sections 6-10. However, there are some quirements to determine needs (see Subsections generalizations that can be made with respect to 4.4.2 and 4.5). It also contains quantified problems, the supply of water and land, and the functions which should be alleviated if practicable, for served in the Basin by these two basic resources. shoreline erosion, streambank erosion, and flood With a few exceptions, all areas of the Basin damages. The column also contains quantified op- have an adequate supply of good quality water for portunities where the resource may be enhanced municipal, rural domestic, livestock, and industrial for irrigation, recreational boating water surface, uses. Where the amount and quality of ground agricultural land treatment, agricultural cropland water are not satisfactory, surface water supplies drainage, and forest land treatment. These last five are used. For communities near the Great Lakes, items are identified in the table by an asterisk N. lake water is used. The choice among the alterna- (On the program work sheets, which are included in tive sources often involves overall cost based on Annex E, the symbol (1) was used.) This extent to both treatment required and the cost of developing which the opportunities are utilized is shown in the supply. Industries have not developed where a every case in the program sheet and the summaries supply was not available, but no industry has been thereof. However, some exceptions to the general forced to move because of outgrowing its supply. statements above must be noted: Agricultural irrigation is not practiced on a large (1) The 1970 supply for municipally supplied scale in the Basin, and water has generally been water is actually the 1970 average demand or available for the areas needing it. However, the withdrawal requirement. This quantity, rather availability of additional supplies might induce ad- than actual supply, was used in the work group ditional irrigation in some places. Supplies of water methodology. for condenser cooling of thermal electric power (2) In irrigation -and mining, the supply and plants have controlled the location of the plants, needs are stated in average mgd for the season and the supplies at the selected locations have been during which the water is withdrawn. The length of adequate. Because of increasing concern about the season varies among the different river basin return of heated water to sources, some problems groups, influenced by several factors. Data are have arisen with respect to siting of plants, but given in Appendix 5, Mineral Resources, and Ap- water as such is adequate. The Basin as a whole pendix 15, Irrigation. If reduced to an annual does not have much opportunity for conventional amount the figure would be less than that shown. It hydroelectric development, although in a few is not proper to add water withdrawal figures for all cases, notably at Niagara Falls, along the St. six categories to obtain a total. Lawrence, and in New York State, there are pos- (3) The 1970 supply for municipal wastewater sibilities, many of which have already been devel- discharges and for industrial wastewater dis- oped. Pumped-storage plants are being con- charges are based respectively on municipal and structed, and others are under study. The industrial water requirements for the year. Simi- availability of sites limits the amount of hydroelec- larly, treatment needs are assumed to be for the tric power development. Thermal electric power water supply provided. Figures are often not iden- plants supply the major portion of the power loads tical because changes made from time to time in one in the Basin. set of estimates were not incorporated into the In general, there is a shortage of facilities, in- other set. However, differences are not significant. cluding the basic supply of water, for water- oriented outdoor recreation in the southern part of the Basin; and an adequate supply, or often a 4.4.2 Resource Supply surplus, in the northern part of the Basin. This relationship exists for the present population, in A further step toward development of a frame- spite of the fact that many persons from the work consists of making an inventory and analysis southern part ofthe Basin get their recreation in of the resources available in the area. This analysis the northern part. There is plenty of water for considers both the functional resource utilized by recreational boating when the Great Lakes are the public (for example, the number of recreation considered, but the distances between adequate days of water skiing that can be provided in a harbor facilities make much of the water surface season) and the basic resource which permits this unsafe for use. Thus the effective availability of functional use (for example, the number of acres of suitable water supplies for recreational boating is water surface available for water skiing). This reduced. The sport fishery on the streams, inland analysis is necessarily related to the individual area lakes, and Great Lakes accommodates all who now being studied. In the case of this Framework go fishing, but more would take advantage of this Study, these areas are the 15 river basin groups. sport if the pressures were not so great. Conse- Framework Development 55 quently, it can be said that, in general, there is a supply of suitable water. Coupled with this is a shortage of supply over the Basin. The same situa- need for control of the water in order to have it tion exists with respect to wildlife. Because of available at the right place at the right time, and to crowding, many people who would like to do not reduce flooding and other hazards. hunt or engage in observing wild animals, bird- These definitions and studies are based on a watching, and nature photography. constant price relationship. This is necessary to The Basin has far more areas and locations of avoid the complexity of considering a variable price aesthetic and cultural value than are being effec- structure. tively utilized. The problem is not one of an ade- Estimating the requirement for a function, such quate supply; but one of access, management, and as swimming, and converting this requirement into availability for public use and protection over a long a requirement for water and land to provide swim- period of time. ming facilities, requires an analysis of many inter- For the detailed studies of resource supply in the relationships. These relationships are different for individual areas, analyses were made of the total each function. The methodology for estimating the availability of the resource and the extent to which requirements for the specific functions is contained it is being developed and used at the present time. in the functional appendixes. A summary of the Limiting factors were considered. In some cases, estimation of requirements is giVen in Section 3 of the limiting factor is the availability of the re- this appendix. source; e.g., the flow of a stream. In other cases, The discussion in Section 3 includes the deriva- the availability is related to the extent to which the tion of requirements for a level of economic growth resource has been developed for use; e.g., an based on past trends nationally and in the Great aquifer tapped by a number of wells but not yet Lakes Basin, and also for accelerated and limited fully utilized. In this case, the present limit is the levels of growth. For each of the sets of require- number of wells, whereas the ultimate limit is the ments thus developed, there is a set of needs, capacity of the aquifer to provide water. In some obtained by a consideration of the requirements cases the resource capacity is being fully utilized at and supply. For the Normal Framework the needs the present time. In other cases, resource capacity for each river basin group, Lake basin, and the may now be available, having already been devel- Great Lakes Basin are given in Section 5 and Sec- oped for future use. This is the situation with most tions 6-10 of this appendix. The needs determined municipal water supply systems, which are seldom under the accelerated and limited growth assump- developed for the precise requirements at the time tions are questionable because of the inherent wide of completion, but rather are overdeveloped to range of assumptions going into their determina- permit some expansion. tion, and they were developed only in selected cases to guide the judgment of planners in connec- tion with framework analysis. They have not been 4.5 Future Needs and Problems published. In addition to the needs determined as described A need is defined for this study as the amount of above, there are many problems connected with the water and related land which must be developed to utilization of resources, and these are also consid- meet the deficit in commodities or services ered in the Framework Study. Problems may be identified in the study at a specific time, location, and physical, such as flooding or erosion, or they may price. This deficit is determined by the analysis of take the form of conflicts in resource use, legisla- requirement and supply. tion that inhibits use or development, institutional Needs in the present study are determined for arrangements, or other considerations. Each of the years 1980, 2000, and 2020 by comparing the re- functional appendixes contains a discussion of quirements projected for these years (see Section problems related to the function, and throughout 3), with the resource supply for the base year, plan formulation the problems have been consid- 1970. If the requirement for the base year or one of ered together with needs in developing frame- the projection years is greater than the supply, works. Early in the formulation process the prob- there is a need at that year. Conversely, if the lems in each river basin group were listed and supply is greater than the requirement for a spe- classified subjectively as to their significance- cific year, there is no need at that.time, but a minor, moderate, or severe. In this appendix the surplus. problems are shown in a matrix. The matrix for the Needs are perceived by the individual in terms of - Great Lakes Basin is shown in Table 1-47. The specifies: food and drink, gasoline for the car, matrix is arranged by river basin group and by electric power, a place to swim, etc. But in the locations within the river basin group as well as by Framework Study these specific needs are trans- type of problem. Matrices for the Lake basins are lated into changes in land use and an adequate in Tables 1-51, 1-76, 1-103, 1-131, and 1-159. The 56 Appendix 1 frameworks developed for each of the river basin Many of the devices or solutions are well known groups take into account not only the quantified and come to mind quickly in the process of frame- needs, but also the problems, and they endeavor to work analysis, but so that no possibilities would be provide solutions for the latter or to indicate where overlooked, lists were prepared of a wide range of additional research, studies, or legislation may be devices or solutions. There were about 150 initially, required to reach a solution. and these lists were screened as to their applicabil- ity in any particular circumstance. Random order was used in the lists so that no priority would be 4.5.1 Ongoing Programs associated with the listing. To illustrate the pro- cedure, the list used for screening solutions for An identified need or problem may be met in providing water supply is given below. Each of the one of two ways. In some cases, there are ongoing 17 items listed was considered with respect to its programs which have been authorized and for applicability for municipal water supply, self- which funding is expected to continue without fur- supplied industrial water, rural, mineral, and irri- ther authorization. Resources made available by gation supplies, and thermal electric power plant these programs are considered to be available cooling. without further action and are utilized in meeting The elements to consider are as follows: needs at the target dates. Any need not so met is to (1) variance of crop patterns to reduce irriga- be met through programs included as a part of the tion water use framework. The ongoing programs are discussed in (2) improved delivery systems Section 5 and Sections 6 to 10 in relation to the (3) effluent charges framework formulation for specific areas. (4) evaporation reduction (storage) (5) ground-water development, use, and man- agement (including storage) 4.6 Program Alternatives (6) land use changes (7) pipelines (from outside river basin group) The overall thrust of a framework study is to (8) pipelines (within river basin group) select a group of devices which will provide solu- (9) process modification in industries tions to the identified' problems and means for (10) recirculation meeting the quantified needs for water and related (11) reclamation of wastewater land resources. These devices may be structural or (12) reservoirs-offstream nonstructural. They may serve a single purpose or (13) storage-onstream more than one purpose. They may be independent (14) advances in technology or interrelated. Whatever they are and of whatever (15) water use management including: nature, they constitute a framework for dealing (a) pricing and metering policies with a single set of needs and identified problems. (b) public education (c) per capita demand-supply control (d) water rationing 4.6.1 Alternative Solutions (16) weather modification (17) zoning of industrial sites. - For some functions, there may be only one way In most cases, the task forces used their knowl- of meeting the need or solving a problem, but for edge or judgment or the information given in the most functions there are a number of ways, among functional appendixes to screen out most of the which choices have to be made. For example, a elements rather quickly. Reasons for dropping an municipality that needs an additional water supply element included: the element was not applicable in because of projected increase in population or per a particular instance; it was of too little conse- capita use may be able to meet this need by pump- quence to be justified for consideration; or the costs ing from ground water, diverting water from a would be far greater than costs for alternatives. No stream or one of the Great Lakes, or building a element was arbitrarily discarded simply because it storage reservoir and capturing flood flows of a was innovative or unusual. stream for use at the appropriate time. It may even Similar lists of devices were utilized for water be possible to meet a significant portion of the need quality, flood damage prevention, outdoor recre- by controlling waste, metering, and other non- ation, both land and water requirements, fishery structural measures that will promote efficient use management, wildlife management, commercial of the existing supply, and thus postpone the need navigation, power production, and managment of for increasing the supply. The range of possibilities water-related land resources. These lists are in- and procedures for making a selection are discussed cluded in Annex D, Issues and Alternatives. (See later in this section. Introduction for availability of Annex D.) Framework Development 57 4.6.2 Program Categories the appropriate unit (see Glossary). The columns are in groups of three, for the three time periods at A series of undertakings (or solutions or devices, which projections and estimates are made-1980, as they may be called) initiated to accomplish cho- 2000, and 2020. The first 12 columns (four sets of sen objectives may be referred to as a program. A three each) deal with the total quantities of the program deals with water and related land resource needs and opportunities covered by the particular aspects that have something in common, though the program sheets. The last 36 columns (12 sets of functions themselves which use these aspects of three each) deal with the programs and manage- water and related land may differ materially. In ment arrangements by which the needs and oppor- order to consider the related aspects as a group and tunities are met. provide multiple-purpose solutions to the maximum The first 12 columns are used as follows. Columns extent, the solutions were combined into three 1, 2, and 3 contain the total needs and opportuni- general groups of programs, categorized as water ties. Columns 4, 6 and 6 show the needs satisfied by management, land management, and common the programs. (They are the summation of the water and related land management actions: outputs shown in columns 13 to 48 inclusive.) Col- (1) water management programs umns 7, 8, and 9 are the transfers of needs or (a) source-Great Lakes opportunities into and out of the Great Lakes (b) source-inland lakes and streams Basin. (e) source-ground water When the program sheets were set up, it was (d) reservoir storage-instream and off- expected that there might be transfers of needs or stream opportunities among the river basin groups, af- (e) structural, including stream modifiea- fecting a number of different resource use catego- tion ries. As formulation progressed, however, it be- (f) nonstructural-legislative and institu- came apparent that the work groups had tional incorporated into the methodology for determining (2) land management programs needs most of the transfers which could practicably (a) use changes be made, considering the amount and accuracy of (b) treatment the basic information available. The transfer (c) legislative and institutional process was, however, extremely important in (d) public acquisition connection with RBG 2.2 and PSA 2.2. This plan- (3) common water and related land management ning subarea includes the six counties in Illinois actions which are also included in the Upper Mississippi (a) increased efficiency River Basin Comprehensive Study. The three (b) collection and dissemination of informa- transfer columns were utilized in the work sheets tion. to keep records of the adjustments between the In order to provide an orderly and consistent Great Lakes Basin and the Upper Mississippi River method of analyzing the outputs of selected devices Basin. The task force working in this area thought and their capability for meeting needs and provid- in terms of transfers to or from the Mississippi ing solutions to problems, a program sheet was River Basin and affixed an appropriate plus or developed. This program sheet served both as a minus sign in this context. So, the minus sign shows work sheet during the process of plan formulation needs transferred from the Upper Mississippi and as a means of presenting the results. The River Basin to the Great Lakes Basin to be met program sheet for the Great Lakes Basin is shown there, whereas the plus sign indicates needs trans- in Table 1-26. A program sheet consists of a stub ferred from the Great Lakes Basin to the Upper entry column in two parts-name and unit-and 48 Mississippi River Basin, to be met there. This columns for information. For convenience in han- concept of the transfer process is necessary in dling and reproduction, the program sheet has been order to interpret correctly the tables affecting prepared in a format with two sets of stub entries, PSA 2.2, PSA 2.0, the Great Lakes Basin, and the each one followed by 24 columns, with the second States of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. set of stub entries and columns shown on the sheet Columns 10, 11, and 12 indicate needs which below the first. In using the form, it must be kept in cannot be met in the Great Lakes Basin and must mind, however, that actually the second group of be transferred or remain unmet. Columns 13 to 48, columns is simply a continuation of the first group. in groups of three, consist of the programs in The 37 lines in the form, identified by names in categories of Water Management, Land Manage- the stub entry column, correspond to the resource ment, and Common Water and Related Land Man- use categories listed in Subsection 4.4. Each of the agement, as listed in this subsection. They show resource uses has a corresponding unit; all of the the amount of needs met by each of the programs remaining columnar entries are shown in terms of selected, and in total equal the amounts in columns 58 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-26 Program Selections, Great Lakes Basin, Normal Framework NEEDS AND NEEDSSATISFIED TRANSFER-IN(+) RESOURCE USE 0 CATEGORLES UNITS OPPORTUNITIES BYPROGRAIVIS OR OUT I(-) 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) I WATER WITHDRAWALS 2 Municipally Supplied .9d 870 2,810 5,4001 1,030 2,990 9 - 5110 -(160) -(180) @-(150) 3 Self-wpplied Industrial gd 1.110 4,670 10,3001 69 3,500 S - ??o -+(417) +(1170) 2080 4 Rural Domestic & Livestock .9d 64 179 267 59 162 245 +(5) +(17) + 22 5 Irrigation mgd 824 1,57 2.46 68 1 j a2,100 -�(140) +(240) +(360) 6 Mining gd 148. 450 965 124 329 837 +(24) +(61) + 128) 7- Thermal Power Cooling -gd 8,210 38,700 96,500 A?I Q- -1 Qi;_w 8 NON-WIT DRAWAL WATER USES 9 Mun. Wastewater Discharges mgd 3,680 4,940 6,720 _3.680 4,940 6.720 10 Ind. Wastewater Discharge, m9d 7,330 6,000 9,21 7.33 6 000 9,210 11 Hydroelectric Power .9d 47.300 51,300.105,000 47,3o 510105,000 _T2_ W.O. Outdoor Recreation 1000 rec. days 105.000 201.0001329,000 57@300 32 000 190,000 +0065) +(1963 1-(2679 13 1000 acres W.S. NA 1 14 Sport Fishing 1 DOO anglWr -days 24.800 52.3001 79.200 20joo 46 700 72,800 15 1000 acres W.S. 14A 1 1 16 Recreational Boating 1000 boat days 6,820 12,500 19,500 2.470 6,330 1().8oo 17 1000 acres W.S. 7_MkQ 7 26 7,26 + + 18 Commercial Fishing In. tons/yr NA Commercial Navigation In. tons/yr 432 583 754 432 583 754 20 RELATED LAND U ES & PROBLEMS 21 Agricultural Land-Treatment 1000 acres 20,450 20,450 20,45 1,80 5,410 7,570 +(1640) +(1640) +(1640) 22 -Cropland Drainage 1000acres 6.210 6,210 6,21 435 858 1,470 +035) +035) +035) 23 Forest Land - Treatment 1000 acres 27.900 27,900 27,900 2.830. 8.490 14.200 +(160) +(160) +(160) _iT Shoreland erosion miles 1.200 1,200 1,20C 46 125 204 25 Streambank erosion miles 10,90o 10,900 10,90 585 1,760 2,930 +(112) +(112) +(112) 26 . $1000 AAD 1,710 1 10 252. 756 1.260 +(25) + 25 +(25 27 Flood Plains - Urban 1000 acres 230 240 25 78 119 Iqq 28 - Urban $1000 AAD 67,100 118,000 190.00 52.20 103,000 177,000 _F9_ -Rural 1000 acres L560 7 960 2-95 93? 921 1,220 30 -Rura[ $1000 AAD 18,000 24,200 32.40 6.58 11,300 18,100 _j_1 Wildlife Management 1000 acres 2.920 7 QQQ 11- Inn 1-17n 3,020 4,930 32 1000 user days 100 h23900 33.300 2.2501 7,230 12,500 33 Aesthetic & Cultural 1000 acres I 34 -Outdoor lqac@. - Intensive 1000 acres 2 -10 2 11 @'11 1, 75.3 +(3) +(6) +(9) 3 Extensive 1000 acres 70 q! 4531 +(18) + 38 + 51 3:1 37 1 1. Water Management (cont.) RESOURCE USE UNIT E. Structural (incl. F. Non-Structural - A. Use Changes CATEGORIES S Legislative and Stream Modification) Institutional 1 __r_ 980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) 1 WATER WITHDRAWALS 21 Municipally Supplied m9d 3 Self-supplied Industrial mild 4 Rural Domenic & Livestock .9d 5 Irrigation mild 6 Mining gd 7 Thermal Power Cooling gd 8 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES 9 Mun. Wastewater Discharges .9d 3,680 4.940 6.720 10 Ind. Wastewater Discharges .9d 7.330. 6,000 9,210 11 Hydroelectric Power mgd 47,300 51,300 105.000 12 W-0. Outdoor Recreation 1000 rec. days 48,900 LI-1 13 1000 acres W.S. 14 Sport Fishing 1000 angler days 18,300 41,700 67,000 15 1000 acres W.S. 16 Recreational Boating 1000 boat days 17 1000 acre W.S. 18 Commercial Fishing In. tons/yr 19 Commercial Navigation m. tons/yr 20- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 211 Agricultural Land-Treatment 1000 acres 22 -Cropland Drainage 1000 acres 23 Forest Land - Treatment 1000 acres 24 Shoreland e-rosion miles 46 125 204 25 Streambank erosion mile, 5851 1.760. 2,930 26 $1000 AAD 252 7561 1.260 27 Flood Plains - Urban 1000 acres 60 76 82, 28 Urban $1000 AAD 48.80 -18,000 27,000 V 29 Rural 1000 acres 464 - 725 850 V V 30 -Rural $1000 AAD 5,59 8,300 10,300 1 V V 31 Wildlife Management 1000 acres T V _____T _"50 '080 +22 @06 0) 28) 4'9 40 60 5,'3 32 '@00 .0 5203 4 V67 2 50) 2' 513 32 1000 user days 33 Aesthetic III Cultural 1000 acres 34 Outdoor Rec. - Intensive loo0a 3 22.0 51.7 75.1 _T5_ - Extensive 1000 acres 151 319 453 _16 37 Legend: V--Not quantifiable, NA--Data not available, -Surplus of supply over Framework Development 59 TABLE 1-26 (continued) Program Selections, Great Lakes Basin, Normal Framework UNMET NEEDS OR 1. Water Management OPPORTUNITIES (D A. Source - B. Source - (SURPLUS+) Inland Lakes and C. Source - D. Reservoir Storage - Great Lakes Streams Groundwater Instrearn & Offstrearn 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 1 2000 2020 1980- 2000 2020 1980 2000 1 2020 (10) 0 1) (12) (13) (14) . (15) (16) 1 (17) 118) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23)8 (24)1 0 0 0 926 2,610 4.750 23 80 150 68 220 390 13 0 220121 0 0 0- 480 2,650 6,120 140 560 1.4401 75 290 6-6 3 0 0 0 12 38 56 47 -124 189 4 0 0 0 69 90 210 320 1,120 290 505 715 35 555 0 0 20 50 100 40 307 57. 194 420 7 10 106 0 01 01 8.210 38.700196.500 7 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 11 39,635 0 1,000 1,000 8.400 15.000 20.000 12 13 4,500 5,600 6,400 2-000 5,800 14 4.350 6 .170, 8, 700 1,440, 3,320 5.600 1.030 3,010 5,200 16 + + + 1L 1L 0 0 0 426 575 744 19 20 17,010 13,400 11,240 1 1 9,440 5,017 4,405 - 22 24,910 19,250 13,540 23 1-194 1,075, 996 24 jo. 2o3 9.0281 7ASS @5- 1,413 9291 49S 26 192 loll 92 12 17 17 27 14,900 15,0001 13-000 1,300 3,000 4,000 28 2 n9s 1.6391 1-iio 53 84 110 29 11,420 12,9001 14.300 900 1,800 2,300 30 1,75o 4,970 9.17o -TT 12 750 16,670 20,800 1 1 1 32 33 +427 +636 +851 0.2 0.2 0.2 34 35 36 37 11. Land Management 111. Common Water & Related Land Mgt, Actions B. Treatment B. Collection and C. Legislative and D. Public Acquisition A. Increased Dissemination of Institutional Efficiency Information* 1980 2000 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 1 2000 1 2020 1980 2000 2020 1980 020 2020 1 1361 1 J34) (15) 1371 (38) J39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) IiT (48) 0 0 40 21 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 IL2 13 7- 14 15 7T6 17 18 6. 8 101 19 20- 1,800 5@410 7.570 21 435 858 1,470 2 2.830 1 8-490,14,200 23 24 25 26 6 46 100 --7- -TT 2.1n0 22,000 76,000 28 p,olo, 141 , 90 1 420 l' 7'o 15 112 260 29 90 1.3oo 5,500 30 770 2,140 3,600 70 130 230 330 750 1 loo 31 825 3J40 5,960 475 860 1,120 950 3,030 5.420 32 33 427 636 851 N34 35 36 37 requireme t dam analyses, monitoring, flood plain information studies 60 Appendix 1 4, 5, and 6. In many cases, no quantity is shown, through the condenser, although dissipation of ex- but the applicability of a program is indicated by a cess heat before the water is returned to the source check mark. is becoming more common. Only the program sheet for Great Lakes Basin is An inspection of the program sheet described in contained in Appendix 1 (Table 1-26). The other Subsection 4.6.2 (Table 1-26) will show that most tables are in Annex E and the figures therein have needs relating to water withdrawals are met from not been corrected or rounded. (See the Introduc- Great Lakes sources, inland lakes and streams, or tion for availability of Annex E.) ground water, and may include either instream or There are always opportunities for new, unusual, offstream reservoir storage. In special circum- and innovative solutions to problems and devices stances, other devices are used. For example, in- for meeting needs. Some of these are recognized in creased irrigation efficiency on land presently ir- the Framework Study, and others have been de- rigated may provide a source of water for veloped during subsequent, more detailed studies. additional land. Both the frequently used and the However, in most cases, standard, recognized pro- unusual solutions are described in Sections 6-10 for grams are used for meeting needs and solving each of the planning subareas. problems, with the choices among the several al- ternative programs dependent upon local condi- tions, public preferences, and cost. In the discus- sion of the frameworks for the Great Lakes Basin, 4.6.4 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses the five Lake basins, and the 15 river basin groups This group of resource uses involves all kinds of contained in Section 5 and 6 through 10, informa- water uses that do not include withdrawal from the tion is provided on the devices selected for meeting needs and solving problems. In the following sub- source. Hydroelectric power production takes ad- sections of this section, some generalized informa- vantage of the energy of falling water. Water- tion is provided on the ways in which the needs in oriented outdoor recreation, recreational boating, the various resource use categories are most fre- and commercial navigaiion primarily make use of quently met. the water surface. Sport fishing and commercial fishing depend on the biological environment for maintaining a fishery. Municipal and industrial 4.6.3 Water Withdrawals wastewater discharges deal with the removal of pollutants from the water and the restoration of the The functions for resource uses which make up water to a quality that will be suitable for other the category of water withdrawals have the com- purposes. mon characteristic that water is withdrawn from a The devices used to meet the needs and solve the source in order to be put to use. In only a few cases problems are of a wider variety than those asso- is all of the water used. In most cases, some of the ciated with water withdrawals, simply because water is used, and the remainder is available to be nonwithdrawal water uses are of a more diverse returned to a source for use elsewhere. That which nature. Here again, however, there is a fairly is not available to be returned is spoken of as being standard group of solutions, supplemented in spe- consumptively used. The proportion of the water cific instances by some more unusual or innovative withdrawn which is consumptively used varies with opportunities. The treatment of municipal and in- the function. Some of the water is returned very dustrial wastewater discharges generally requires quickly to the source. For example, water used for structural solutions, although education, process washing dishes goes immediately into the sewer, changes, and increasing the efficiency of existing the waste treatment plant, and back to a source. plants will have some effect. Hydroelectric power Other water is not so quickly returned. For ex- production normally involves construction of a res- ample, water used for watering a lawn and which ervoir for pumped storage, for diurnal regulation of soaks into the ground may have to percolate some water supply, or for regulation of irregular annual distance before it gets into a ground-water source, stream flows. Solutions for water-oriented outdoor whence it is pumped for additional use or appears, recreation rely largely on changes in water and land sometimes many years later, in a surface water use. Sport fishing is enhanced by programs on the source. In some processes, water is used repeat- Great Lakes, inland lakes and streams, and by edly, and only enough is withdrawn to make up for some reservoir construction. Recreational boating the water which is consumptively used. In other is primarily dependent on the Great Lakes and on processes most of the water is returned. An ex- inland lakes and streams, but in some instances, ample of the latter is the use of water for cooling reservoir construction may help. Commercial flsh- the condensers of thermal power plants. Often no ing and commercial navigation are both dependent treatment is given the water after it passes on the Great Lakes. Framework Development 61 4.6.5 Related Land Uses and Problems program sheet, and the needs met at each time period are obtained by adding the outputs of the A great diversity exists among the programs program elements for the time period. related to land uses and problems. Agricultural Where there are optional solutions, cost consid- land treatment, cropland drainage, and forest land erations may be significant. No specific rules can be treatment rely on onsite treatment for alleviating laid down that will fit all conditions. However, in all problems and meeting needs. Control of shoreland consideration of alternative solutions, the effects on and streambank erosion relies primarily on struc- the environment and on the well-being of the peo- tural measures, including stream modification. The ple become overriding. Maximum social values to reduction of flood damages can be accomplished in a the local community and the region and minimum number of ways: sometimes through reservoir adverse impacts on the environment are sought. storage; in other cases through onsite structural measures, including stream modification; and often by institutional arrangements and legislative ac- 4.8 Framework Costs tions. Wildlife management depends somewhat on land treatment measures, but even more heavily on During the process of selecting the various ele- legislative and institutional arrangements and pub- ments which go into a framework, a comparison of lic acquisition. The effort to maintain aesthetic and financial costs is frequently desirable. Both invest- cultural features relies heavily on public acquisition ment cost and operation, maintenance, and re- and increased efficiency of use. The land required placement (OM&R) costs are important, particu- for outdoor recreation can be supplied in some larly if the choice among two or more elements instances by land use changes, but in many cases cannot be cleanly made using other criteria. Also in must be acquired by public bodies. Increased effi- the review and ultimate use of the framework, the ciency is viewed as a factor here also. costs of the various elements help determine which programs will be undertaken first, and how to budget public funds for these undertakings. 4.7 Framework Selection, Criteria, and The "Guidelines for Framework Studies, October Priorities 1967," established by the Water Resources Council provide that general cost estimates for broad com- The process of developing a framework is largely ponents of a framework will be of reconnaissance one of correlating information from a great many quality and detail, based primarily on experience in sources, interpreting the desires of the local people the study region. The elements of framework plans and of the various governmental levels, and apply- for which costs have been developed include those ing experience and judgment in the selection of facilities and programs of a governmental or group program elements to meet needs and provide solu- type and those individual programs normally fin- tions to problems in each specific case. For a river anced wholly or in part by public funds. In general, basin group, the needs are compiled, and the ele- improvements or programs entirely financed by ments which may provide solutions are reviewed. individuals were not costed, although in some cate- Of those which are to be considered, estimates are gories some private costs were included. The ef- made to determine which of the elements can con- fects of such private investments on water and tribute to meeting needs or solving problems. Spe- related land resources were considered. Cost es- cific quantities are determined where appropriate. timates were separated into Federal, public non- Often the information will come from the functional Federal, and private elements on the basis of initial appendix. In some cases, it is developed by the investment ' not on the basis of reimbursability. formulation group. Single-purpose elements are Some costs paid initially from Federal funds are considered in the first instance. After all functions reimbursed by beneficiaries and thus are ultimately have been considered, and the elements screened, not Federal costs. Cost tables for the Great Lakes it may become apparent that some solutions can be Basin are found in Table 1-27. chosen which will serve more than one purpose. For example, a reservoir built to provide a water sup- ply may also be adapted to preventing a certain 4.8.1 General Criteria for Capital and OM&R amount of flood damage; or a proposal to zone a Costs flood plain against building encroachment may per- mit the development of the area for recreational Both capital investment costs and annual opera- purposes. When the full range of possible multi- tion, maintenance, and replacement costs, where ple-purpose solutions has been explored and the appropriate, were developed for programs asso- output of each of the program elements has been ciated with most of the 22 resource use categories determined, the information is summarized on the identified in this study. Using the best available 62 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-27 Costs Used in Framework Estimates (dollars) and Program Cost Allocation among Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Sectors (percent) CAPITAL OM&R NON NON Resource Use Category Capital Costs (dollars) Annual OM&R Costs (dollars) FED FED PVT FED FED PVT W4TER WITIN)RAWALS1 Municipally Supplied 299,000/mgd 29,800/mgd 30 70 0 0 100 0 Self-Supplied Industrial 83,000/mgd 14,800/mgd 0 0 100 0 0 100 Rural Domestic and Livestock 71,000/mgd 14,600/mgd 10 0 90 0 0 100 Irrigation 22,600/mgd 600/mgd 0 0 100 0 0 100 Mining 66,400/mgd 11,900/mgd 0 0 100 0 0 100 Thermal Power Cooling 35,000/mgd 1,800/mgd 0 5 95 0 5 95 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES Municipal Wastewater DischargeS2 75 25 0 0 100 0 NOR Framework. lump am estimate for RBG variable by REG --- --- --- --- --- --- PRO Framework $300 per capita $10 per capita per year --- --- --- --- --- --- Industrial Wastewater Discharges Imp sum estimate for RBG variable by RBG 0 0 100 0 0 100 Hydroelectric Power 80-120/kw variable/kw of installed capacity --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation see below -------- --- --- --- --- --- --- Sport Fishing lump a= estimate for RBG Imp am estimate for RBG --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- Recreational Boating lump sum estimate for RBG lump sum estimate for RBG 35 35 30 0 0 100 Commercial Fishing not estimated -------- --- --- --- --- --- --- Commercial Navigation Imp am estimate for RBG lump a= estimate for RBG 100 0 0 100 0 0 RELATED LAND USE AND PROBLEMS Agricultural Land Treatment Imp a= estimate for RBG .5% of total periodic capital cost 28 0 72 0 0 100 Cropland Drainage lump a= estimate for RBG .5% of total periodic capital cost 30 0 70 0 0 100 Forest Land Treatment lump sum estimate for REG variable by REG 80 5 15 10 20 70 Shoreland Erosion Imp sum estimate for RBG 2% of total periodic capital cost 20 0 80 20 0 so Streambank Erosion 33,000/mile 2% of total periodic capital cost 28 0 72 0 0 100 Flood Plains lump a= estimate for REG -------- 5 75 0 25 5 95 0 Wildlife Management Imp a= estimate for REG not available 10 90 0 0 100 0 Aesthetic and Cultural not estimated -------- --- --- --- --- --- --- Outdoor Recreation Imp sum estimate for REG lump a= estimate for REG 35 65 0 20 80 0 'Costs presented are for surface water development only. Costs for groundwater development vary more widely over the Basin than do the costs for surface water development. The outside range for capital cost of wells is it= $21,000 to $71,000 per mgd, and the range for pumping costs is from $8,000 to $117,000 per mgd. The average cost in unconsolidated aquifers is $32,000 capital cost for the wells and $30,000 for pumping per mgd. In bedrock aquifers the averages are $45,000 capital cost and $27,000 for pumping. 2CQsts of NOR are based on applying unit treatment costs per mgd on a judgment basis for each RBG. They include only interceptors and treatment. Replacement is included with capital cost. Costs for PRO are based on population and are applied by RBG's. They cover all costs, including sewers, to which Federal grants are available, except separate storm waste control. Replacement is included with O&M. 3Either 100% State.or 100% private. No Federal money. 440% of am of Capital plus OM&R is Federal, 60% is State. No private. SAnnual OM = 0.1% total Capital Cost for the period if such is greater than $1,400,000. If Capital Cost is less than $1,400,000, annual OM = 0.4% total Capital Cost. information, these costs were determined for each installation costs and such related nonstructural of the three time periods involved, for each of the program costs as technical and financial assistance. 15 river basin groups, and for both the NOR and The totals include all costs for labor, materials, PRO Frameworks. All costs assume a base price equipment, rights-of-way, water rights, reloca- year of 1970 and apply to programs implemented tions, contingencies, engineering, and administra- after 1970. OM&R costs for existing program ac- tion, although individual costs for each of these tivities are not included in this study. All the costs categories were not recorded. developed in this Framework Study for the various It is important to note that the capital cost programs associated with the development, utiliza- associated with each of the different program com- tion, and conservation of the resources concerned ponents differ according to resource use category. are considered to be of preliminary or reconnais@ For this reason the following more complete defi- sance nature. nition of capital costs is provided. (1) Water Withdrawals (a) Municipal Water Supply-Capital costs 4.8.1.1 Capital Cost Details include all predistribution costs, including develop- ing the source, constructing the treatment plant, Capital costs refer to first-time costs, including and conveying the supply to the treatment plant. Framework Development 63 These costs do not include those for developing treatment where justified, inflow infiltration analy- water storage at the source. These are included in sis, rehabilitation or correction of sewers where reservoir costs where appropriate. required, construction of new collector and inter- (b) Self-Supplied Industrial-This includes ceptor sewers, and the separation of combined all costs of getting the water from the source to sewers. This is a much broader group of elements plant, including source development and transmis- than is considered in the NOR Framework., The sion expenditures. Treatment is not included be- treatment of separate storm-water wastes is not cause this element varies so greatly among plants, included. This is the only element subject to Fed- depending on the use to which the water will be eral grant and incorporated in the needs survey put. that is not included in the PRO costs.. (c) Rural Domestic and Livestock Water Some additional information is given in connec- Supply-Costs are similar to those determined for tion with a discussion of programs selected. See municipal water supply costs except transmission Subsection 5.5.2.1 for NOR and subsection 5.6.2 and treatment costs are not included. for PRO. (d) Irrigation Water Supply-Costs in- (b) Industrial Wastewater Discharges-As cluded are predistribution costs of intake, diver- with municipal wastewater discharges, capital sion, well development, and transmission. costs for this function include the total costs for (e) Mining-As with self-supplied indus- plants and facilities, from waste isolation through trial, capital costs include all expenditures for treatment and outfalls. source development and transmission to site. (c) Hydroelectric Power-Capital invest- (f) Thermal Power Cooling-Costs for this ment encompasses site (land and landrights), power function are limited to intake development. plant (pumping and generating units, accessory (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses electric equipment), reservoir, dam, and waterway (a) Municipal Wastewater Discharges- costs. These costs are pertinent to pumped storage Costs for this function are estimated by different projects only. No new conventional hydroelectric methods for the NOR Framework and the PRO power generation is anticipated during- the period Framework. For NOR the estimates provided by of study. the work group were used. These estimates were (d) Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation- based on estimated cost per mgd for capital invest- See item 30). ment including replacement, and for O&M. The (e) Sport Fishing-Costs include all struc- capital costs for this function include the total cost tural and nonstructural measures necessary to sat- required for plants and facilities, from intercepting isfy program requirements. Structural measures sewers to treatment plants and outfalls; advance include fish piers, fish passage structures, im- wastewater treatment costs; and costs for replace- poundments, vessels, and facilities. Non-structural ment or major repairs for new plant construction, measures apply, basically, to land development and estimated to be necessary every 20 years. O&M control, although fish production is also included. costs are also based on unit costs per mgd devel- (f) Recreational Boating-Construction of oped by the work group from available data. harbors and marinas is included as well as addi- Costs for the PRO Framework reflect changed tional and improved access. Creating new water conditions as a result of the Federal Water Pollu@ surface areas by constructing impoundments tion Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92- and/or navigation channels is not included. 500). This act increased the coverage of the Federal (g) Commercial Fishing-Costs have not grant program to include construction of sewers, been estimated. separation of combined sewers, and treatment of (h) Commercial Navigation-All costs as- separate storm waste. The costs are based on a unit sociated with dredging, channel deepening, season cost per capita for construction and a unit cost per extension, lock construction, harbor creation, and capita for O&M. The estimates for replacement have been added to those for O&M. This is consis- structure development are included. These costs tent with all other costs in the Framework Study were developed as of 1970 and do not reflect the except for the NOR costs for waste treatment increased cost figures that evolved from the find- described above. ings of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Surveys required under P.L. 92-500 were made Navigation Season Extension Demonstration and in 1973 and 1974 by the States, and the earlier Survey studies. survey data were used. in deriving estimates (3) Related Land Use and Problems through year 1990 for new construction necessi- (a) - Agricultural Land Treatment-Costs tated by growth, "catch-up", and replacement. The are those associated with the planning and applica- elements included in unit costs include needs for tion of standard land treatment measures for mul- secondary treatment, needs for more stringent tiple use and management of the land, erosion and 64 Appendix 1 sediment control, and, improvement of hydrologic remembered that they are not true annual costs, conditions. but include only operation, maintenance, and re- (b) Cropland Drainage-All costs included placement costs. No allowances for interest or for are necessary to provide interception and removal amortization have been included. Replacement of water. costs of waste treatment facilities are included in (c) Forest Land Treatment-Treatment capital costs in NOR rather than with O&M costs, costs include those for multiple-use plans, refores- consistent with the estimates made by the work tation, improved harvesting, forest stand improve- group. In PRO the replacement costs are included ment, erosion control, grazing control, and urban with O&M costs, as is the case generally in this forestry. study. (d) Shoreland Erosion-Costs included are all those for establishing the structures necessary for the protection of shoreline presently classified 4.8.2 Cost Summary Table as suffering from critical erosion. These structural Table 1-27 presents a summary of unit costs used measures include riprap and sandfill, protective and indicates the programs for which lump sum (I. s) beaches, seawalls, filled groins, stone revetments, estimates were made for the river basin group bulkheads, artificial beach fill, groins, breakwaters, (RBG). Because there is great variability of pro- or various combinations of these. gram costs among planning subareas, it is impor- (e) Streambank Erosion-Capital costs for tant to recognize that these costs are only this function include the costs of providing both averages. structural and nonstructural bank erosion control The breakdown among Federal, public non-Fed- measures for strearnbank presently classified as eral, and private costs is shown in Table 1-27. suffering from severe erosion. Structural measures In most instances the breakdown into Federal include riprap, groins, piling, gabions, and grade and non-Federal cost sharing is bared upon current stabilization and side inlet structures. Nonstrue- legal and institutional arrangements. In the case of tural protection is restricted to improving ground municipal wastewater discharges and shoreland cover. eroSioh control, however, the percentages pre- (f) Flood Plains-Capital costs are those sented reflect possible future cost sharing devel- associated with providing dams and reservoirs, oped through new legislation. levees and floodwalls, and such channel modifica- tion measures as straightening, deepening, widen- ing, clearing, lining (with concrete), and creating 4.9 The Normal Framework diversions. Some urban flood plain costs are asso- ciated with alleviating rural flood damage; however The Normal Framework, NOR, is the initial for- these are a relatively small part of the totalcost, and mulation for the Framework Study. It is described the basic cost data did not permit distinguishing for the entire Great Lakes Basin in Section 5 of this between urban and rural. appendix, and for each of the planning subareas in (g) Wildlife Management-Capital costs Sections 6 through 10. The development of the assigned to the structural category are restricted to Normal Framework was the responsibility of the facility construction or improvement. Nonstruc- task force chairmen and the task forces, in consul- tural costs make up the bulk of capital expenditures tation with work group chairmen and others. Some and include land acquisition, wetlands develop- of the general characteristics of the NOR Frame- ment, establishment of forest openings, and train- work and the underlying assumptions and tech- ing of new conservation officers. niques are included here to facilitate an under- (h) Aesthetic and Cultural-Costs have not standing of the specific elements and qualities been determined. which are presented later in this appendix. (i) Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation- The needs considered in framework formulation Costs are those for the specific facility plus costs were developed by the work groups. In most cases, for associated parking, sanitary facilities, power, they used OBERS projections of economic and and water. Costs for roads, sewage treatment fa- demographic data to develop requirements and cilities, administration, landscaping, and signs are subtracted the base year supply from requirements also included. Incorporated in these costs are those to arrive at the needs. In several fields, however, for land acquisition. the work groups found it necessary to develop special methodology for arriving at needs and de- 4.8.1.2 Operation, Maintenance, and fining resource opportunities. The methodology is Replacement Cost Details given in each case in the resource appendixes. Some additional detail about requirements is given With respect to annual OM&R costs, it should be in Section 3 of this appendix. Framework Development 65 The work groups also selected programs to meet as a proposal of the Great Lakes Basin Commis- the needs and described these in the respective sion. The intent was to modify the Normal Frame- appendixes. These programs were generally se- work, NOR, through adjustment of needs where lected to serve single purposes. They were devel- feasible, but principally through changes in the oped by each work group in the context of its own programs selected, in such a way that PRO wo 'uld particular interest. An underlying objective of the represent, to the extent practicable, the views and work groups was to meet the needs with the re- desires of the people and governments of the Basin sources available whenever possible. Given the as these were understood by the Commission. Sec- choice of alternative programs, elements such as tions 2 and 3 provide discussions of some of the economic efficiency, environmental impact, past factors and influences considered. trends, Federal and State priorities, and relation- ship to other areas and to other resource use cate- After the Normal Framework had been selected, gories came into consideration. The precise basis and limits of growth explored, meetings were held for selection is not always identified in the resource at 15 locations in the Basin. The public and repre- appendixes. However, the program selections sentatives of governmental units were invited to made by the work groups reflected the national express their views on appropriate program ad- economic development objective. This objectivi@ justments for the area. Written views were also has been the guide in most water resource planning solicited. These views were compiled and made over the last several years, even though it has not available to plan formulation personnel. always been conformed to specifically. The objectives for the Normal Framework enun- To further define the parameters of the Proposed ciated in Section 2 of this appendix were developed Framework, several series of issues were formu- concurrently with or later than the resource lated, dealing with specific questions relevant to appendixes. However, they too reflect the national the selection of programs. These were put forth as economic development objective in terms of normal matters for decision by the Plan and Program For- growth and no inconsistency is noted in the Normal mulation Committee (sometimes initially by a sub- Framework. committee) and by the Commission. A description In selecting program elements for the river basin of the process, including the issues themselves, is groups, the plan formulation task forces considered provided in Annex D. (See Introduction for avail- initially the recommendations of the work groups ability of Annex D.) as contained in the appendixes. These were adopted unless a task force had a basis, such as Having heard the views of the public and gov- multipurpose projects, conflicts, or different objec- ernmental representatives and the issue decisions, tives, for modifying a work group proposal or the plan formulation task force chairmen, in con- making a different selection. In the vast majority of sultation with task force members and other individual program selections, those recommenda- knowledgeable persons, selected programs for the tions proposed by the work groups have been in- Proposed Framework. Sometimes uniform treat- cluded in the Normal Framework; so the Normal ment over the Basin was prescribed. In other cases Framework emphasizes, with n-dnor exceptions, the individual programs were selected for each the national economic development objective. river basin group. Following this selection and the subsequent detailed work of determining outputs, needs met, not met, exceeded, and transferred, the 4.10 The Proposed Framework costs were estimated as they were for the Normal Framework and the tabular presentations pre- The Proposed Framework, PRO, was developed pared. Section 5 ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS FOR THE GREAT LAKES BASIN 5.1 Introduction background against which the frameworks for future This section provides an overview of the Basin management and use can be considered. as a whole. It describes the existing situation, the use of the land and water resources, and the ongo- 5.2.1 Water Withdrawals ing programs that are significant in terms of the Framework Study. It considers the problems of the The actual availability of water for withdrawal Basin as a whole and those local problems which purposes in the Great Lakes Basin has not at any appear in a number of different places. The section time been a constraint to an activity. However, the describes the needs for water and land resources in cost of obtaining the water has influenced, in many terms of the resource use categories and the op- cases, the location of the activity. The largest sin- portunities for management of these resources. gle use of withdrawn water is for thermal power Finally, it describes the Normal and Proposed cooling. Frameworks for the entire Basin and the results that can be expected if these alternative frame- works are implemented. 5.2.1.1 Municipal Water Supplies Much of the information is consolidated from the details provided in Sections 6 through 10. These Municipal water supply systems range from sections deal with the individual Lake basins, and those utilizing a small, local source to large regional reference should be made to them for such details. systems withdrawing from the Great Lakes. In- Some of the resource use categories, 'the prob- formation on the present development of municipal lems and needs related to them, and the solutions water supplies and the sources from which water is adopted in the frameworks are Basinwide in scope withdrawn is given in Table 1-28. In Illinois a large and are treated as such. In the majority of cases, part of the withdrawal is for the Chicago metro- however, these elements are treated initially with politan area, where most of the population lives respect to the river basin groups and are consoli- outside the Great Lakes Basin but is served by dated for presentation for the Great Lakes Basin. water from Lake Michigan. In this consolidation, a breakdown by States is shown to facilitate the use of the data in State 5.2.1.2 Industrial Water Supplies planning and implementation. Where Lake basin consolidation is desired, the appropriate section Industrial water supplies provided from private should be consulted. sources are also shown in Table 1-28. The principal sources of self-supplied industrial water are the Great Lakes and connecting channels, with 5.2 Existing Resource Use and Development ground-water and other surface supplies utilized The water and land resources of the Great Lakes where availability and economy dictate. Basin are described in Section 1. The way they are being used at the present time is the subject of this 5.2.1.3 Rural Water Supplies subsection. In general, the information on resource use is derived by consolidating the information Supplies for rural domestic and livestock use for each of the 15 planning subareas or river basin come principally from ground-water sources. Data groups in such a way as to provide information for are shown in Table 1-29. each of the States and for the Great Lakes Basin. A summation of this sort does not give information on the differences among the various parts of the Basin, 5.2.1.4 Irrigation Water Supplies particularly those differences within a single State. It does indicate the present use of the resources as a Irrigation water is principally from ground- 67 68 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-28 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Data for the Great Lakes Basin, 1970 (in mgd) Municipal 1970 Average Demand Source Gross Self-Supplied Industrial Domestic & Source Great Inland Lakes Ground- Industrial Consumptive State Commercial 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 28S .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 11173 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 TABLE 1-29 Rural Water Supply in the Great water sources, with some use of surface supplies. Lakes Basin, 1970 (in mgd) Irrigation is seasonal, varying with crop and loca- Developed Consumptive tion. Both the seasonal rate and average on an State Source Capacity Use annual basis are shown in Table 1-30. Illinois 39.8 10.2 5.2.1.5 Mineral Water Supplies Indiana 40.2 11.4 Michigan 186.9 53.7 Most supplies of water for mineral processing are seasonal, but the largest single user, using nearly Minnesota 5.2 1.5 three-fourths of the total, has a year-round re- New York 66 27 quirement and utilizes a Great Lakes source. Most Ohio 61.0 19.0 of the other supplies come from surface sources, with some from ground water. Data are in Table Pennsylvania 3 1 1-31. Wisconsin 68.9 26.9 5.2.1.6 Power Development TOTAL 471 151 Power development in the Basin in 1970, the base TABLE 1-30 Irrigation Water Supply, Great Lakes Basin, by State, estimated (base year) Agriculture Golf Courses. Total Annual Acres Seasonal Annual Acres seasonal Annual Withdrawal 1,000 mgd mgd I'm mgd mRd m State gd Illinois 3.1 5.63 1.54 6.6 36.93 10.12 11.66 Indiana 4.0 7.30 2.00 8.5 48.78 12.54 14-54 Michigan 125.7 222.23 60.88 5.6 28.40 7.78 68.66 Minnesota 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.92 1.62 1.62 New York 16.1 27.53 7.54 7.9 37.73 10.34 17.88 Ohio 9.9 16-23 4.44 28.9 137.71 37.73 42.17 Pennsylvania 1.0 1.73 0.47 0.3 1.62 0.44 0.91 Wisconsin 37.0 67.45 18-48 6.7 39.13 10.72 29.20 TOTAL 196.8 348.10 95.35 66.1 333.22 91.29 186.64 Alternative Frameworks 69 TABLE 1-31 Minerals Water Supply, Great 5.2.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Discharges Lakes Basin, by State, 1968, estimated (mgd) - New Water' Annual Table 1-33 shows the average quantities of waste Total Water Annual Consumptive treated in municipal plants and discharged in the ve State Requirements Seasonal A _Y...'Ze Use Basin. Included are significant quantities of indus- Illinois 3.8 2.2 1.6 0.1 trial wastes handled in municipal systems. Indiana 23.0 14.3 11.1 0.6 Michigan 241.9 137.8 102.3 15.7 Minnesota 871.0 542.0 542.0 42.0 5.2.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Discharges New York 40.5 25.0 21.0 5.6 Ohio 55.8 42.0 36.9 10.4 Waste discharges from industry-owned treat- Pennsylvania 2.2 1.8 1.2 0.0 ment plants are also shown in Table 1-33. These are Wisconsin 31.0 14.4 10.7 1.0 only final treated discharges and do not include TOTAL 1,269 780 726 75 in-plant treatment for reuse. 'New water is that portion of the total supply which is withdrawn from the source during the period considered. 5.2.2.3 Hydroelectric Power The balance of the total requirement is provided by recirculation. Present use of water for hydroelectric power year, is shown in Table 1-32. Many of the plants generation has not been evaluated. The installed included in this total are relatively small, with less capacity is shown with other power data in Table than 10 MW capacity, but the larger plants supply 1-32. It will be noted that the 1872 MW pumped almost all of the power and energy, except in local storage plant at Ludington, Michigan, is not in- areas and for some peaking operations. cluded in this table because it began operation in 1973, subsequent to the base year, 1970. 5.2.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses This category ificludes use of the water essen- 5.2.2.4 Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation tially in place, except for temporary diversion or withdrawal of water for hydroelectric power pro- No accurate identification has been made of duction. The category also includes waste treat- water used for outdoor recreation, but some gen- ment as a means of maintaining water quality suit- eral data are given in Tables 1-45 and 1-46 in able for various uses. Subsection 5.2.3.8. TABLE 1-32 Power Development, Great Lakes Basin, 1970, by State Installed Capacity (MW) Steam-Electric Hydro- Thermal Non- Fossil Nuclear Water State electricl 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. 2Internal combustion and gas turbine. 70 Appendix I TABLE 1-33 Municipal and Industrial Waste waters and inland lakes and streams. Most boaters Flow use only one of these environments; very few use Municipal Industrial both. Data on recreational boating are shown in Waste Flow Waste Flow Table 1-35. State mgd mgd Illinois 71 20 5.2.2.7 Commercial Fishing Indiana 223 2,983 Data on commercial fishing were not compiled for Michigan 1,196 1,546 this study. However, the general history and pres- ent status for the Basin are shown in Figure 1-18. Minnesota 23 32 New York 590 1,551 5.2.2.8 Commercial Navigation Ohio 674 1,674 Commercial navigation uses the system of Lakes Pennsylvania 46 147 and connecting channels, often with no reference to Wisconsin 308 631 the particular State or country constituting the boundary of the waterway. However, the harbors or terminal points and waterway improvements TOTAL 3,067 8,584 have specific geographic locations. Table 1-36 gives data on cargo movement in various parts of the 'Work is underway to cease discharging system. to Lake Michigan and divert out of the Basin. 5.2.3 Related Land Uses and Problems 5.2.2.5 Sport Fishing The water and land area of the Great Lakes Data relating to sport fishing are shown in Region and present land use are shown in Tables Table 1-34. 1-17 and 1-18. The distribution of the land area by use is displayed in Figure 1-10. The areas shown are. for the Region as defined by political bounda- 5.2.2.6 Recreational Boating ries, and the total area of 86,506,900 acres is larger than that of the Basin (75,284,000 acres). The com- Recreational boating uses both Great Lakes parison by States is shown in Table 1-37. TABLE 1-34 Current Sport Fishery Uses, Great Lakes Basin, 1970, by State Ponded Water Fishing Licenses Angler Days (thousands) State (acres) -Resident Non-Resident Inland Great Lakes Illinois 30,364 273,520 1,267 817 800 Indiana 33,393 162,377 12,628 1,101 170 Michigan 789,129 782,954 165,380 21,616 4,582 Minnesota 562,526 94,163 38,851 3,097 10 New York 264,336 367,182 14,649 13,606 1,800 Ohio 58,609 335,530 9,724 11,316 7,880 Pennsylvania 722 17,360 1,050 558 500 Wisconsin 385,761 373,822 95,624 12,932 481 TOTAL 2,124,840 2,406,908 339,183 65,043 16,143 Alternative Frameworks 71 140 Note: Total annual value is in corrected dollars (value is deflated by wholesale price 130 ineex, 1957-19S9-. 100%) 120 CATCH z 110 VALUE IL 100 20 L& fA 90 is 16 -J so RE 77 7- 70 14 z 60 12 o 50 R., 8 z z z 40 z 6 La 30 cc 4 oc La ma 20 to is 79 1885 1890, 1903 1914 1920 1925 1930- 1935- 1940. 1945- 1950- 1955- 1960- 1965 &'89 1'93, &'08 219 ?24 -!29 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 97, FIGURE 1-18 Total Average Annual Catch and Value of the US Great Lakes Commercial Fisheries TABLE 1-35 Recreational Boating Use in the Great Lakes Basin, by Lake Basin Great Lakes Access Total Number of Boats - Total Boat Days in Use State Harbors Sites Resident Non-Resident Inland Great Lakes Inland Great Lakes Illinois 17 NA 41.8 13.8 18.2 27.4 239.6 359.4 Indiana 7 40 36.9 6.7 28.1 15.4 781.4 388.3 Michigan 94 839 299.2 199.1 362.2 136.1 10,590.4 3,840.9 Minnesota 7 130 36.4 13.5 47.4 2.5 1,275.6 26.0 New York 42 52 123.5 34.4 100.0 57.9 2,949.4 1,089.6 Ohio 27 10 52.8 4.8 33.4 24.2 975.9 699.6 Pennsylvania 5 0 1.3 0.2 0.6 0.9 18.1 25.9 Wisconsin 47 866 116.7 91.6 170.3 38.1 4,463.6 649.3 TOTAL 2461 708.6 354.1 760.2 302.5 21,294.0 7,679.0 NA--Not Available ITotal includes two harbors each lying in two States, actual number of harbors is 244. 72 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-36 Traffic 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 Chicagol 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 IThis area includes Chicago Harbor, North Branch, South Branch, Sanitary Ship Canal, Calumet-Sag Canal, Calumet Harbor and River, and Lake Calumet. 21ncludes the portion of the River between the International Boundary Line and Lake Ontario. TABLE 1-37 Comparative Land Areas, Great TABLE 1-38 Agricultural Land Needing Treat- Lakes Region and Great Lakes Basin (in thou- ment by State, 1970 sands of acres)' Agricultural Land (1000s of Acres) State Region Basin Needing Needing State Total Treatment Drainage Illinois 2,401.3 39 Illinois 1,348.3 65.1 13.3 Indiana 3,687.0 2,333 Indiana 2,595.6 1,673.0 549.3 Michigan 37,258.1 37,138 Michigan 12,606.5 8,076.3 1,684.3 Minnesota 320.3 216.0 57.5 Minnesota 7,317.8 3,931 New York 5,237.0 3,076.6 762.0 New York 14,309.8 12,715 Ohio 5,142.0 4,023.9 2,461.8 Ohio 7,816.4 7,480 Pennsylvania 183.4 71.7 23.6 Pennsylvania 524.2 387 Wisconsin 4,681.6 3,248.6 666.6 Wisconsin 13,192.3 11,262 TOTAL 32,114.7 20,451.2 6,218.4 TOTAL 86,506.9 75,284 productivity. Distribution of drainage require- 'The percentage of land in each State ments is shown in Table 1-38 also. (based on political boundaries of the Region) is displayed in Figure 1-3. 5.2.3.2 Forest Land Treatment 5.2.3.1 Agricultural Land Treatment and There are about 39.6 million acres of forest land Cropland Drainage in the Region. About 5.1 million acres of Federal and 13.7 million acres of non-Federal forest lands It is estimated that 20.5 million acres (63 percent) are adequately treated and are at acceptable man- of the 32.1 million acres of agricultural land in the agement levels. Basin will require some type of conservation treat- The need for treatment of the remainder is dis- ment in order to maintain fertility. Distribution tributed as shown in Table 1-39. Much of the area throughout the Basin is shown in Table 1-38. needing treatment is in private holdings other than Drainage systems are needed on 6.2 million acres of those of the forest industry, and the owner either the cropland acres. Many of these acres needing does not recognize the need or does not know where drainage will also need other treatment to maintain to turn for specific help. Some of the acres shown in Alternative Frameworks 73 TABLE 1-39 Forest Land Treatment Needs 5.2.3.3 Shoreline Erosion (including National Forests) Forest Land (1000s of Acres) There are nearly 3,500 miles of Great Lakes Needing shore in the Basin. If connecting channels, Lake St. State Treatment Total Clair, Duluth-Superior Harbor, Sandusky Bay, and the St. Lawrence River are added, the total is Illinois 6.4 93.0 nearly 4,000 miles. Susceptibility to damage from Indiana 275.0 302.6 erosion ranges Widely, from negligible to critical. The type of material, physical configuration, and Michigan 13,892.8 19,347.7 orientation with respect to wind and waves are Minnesota 3,835.2 5,981.5 factors which do not change. A significant variable New York 4,732.5 6,773.4 factor is lake level. In general, the higher the lake levels the greater the damage from erosion. The Ohio 732.8 920.3 base year for this study, 1970, was a year in which Pennsylvania 133.5 223.7 levels were only slightly above normal, and the Wisconsin 4,346.8 5,982.5 extreme erosion of 1972 to 1976 had not yet oc- curred. Table 140 provides information on shore- line and erosion at the base year by State. Table TOTAL 27,955.0 39,624.7 1-41 provides the same information by Lake basin. the table have been double-counted because more 5.2.3.4 Streambank Erosion than one type of treatment is needed on a particular tract. The banks of streams in the Basin have been TABLE 1-40 Great Lakes Shoreline, Use, Ownership, and Condition, 1970, by State Great Lakes Shor-eline 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 0 900.9 69.7 0 3.5 0 160.3 Recreation (public) 334.8 30.9 17.0 125.3 24.2 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 19.1 44.7 34.5 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 Frcunework Study. 2"Other" includes: MI--St. Marys River 91.2 mi MN--Duluth Harbor 31.3 mi OH--Sandusky My 74.5 mi St. Clair River 37.0 mi ' Lake St. Clair 47.0 mi NY--Niagara River 39.0 mi WI--Superior Harbor 55.7 mi Detroit River 31.0 mi St. Lawrence River 115.0 mi 74 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-41 Great Lakes Shoreline Use, Ownership, and Condition, 1970, by Lake Basin Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Great Lakes Shoreline Total Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario USE Residential, Commercial and Industrial, Public Lands and Buildings 1,362.4 201.4 552.4 256.6 202.5 149.5 Agriculture and Undeveloped 583.6 40.2 280.6 84.7 68.2 109.9 Forest 1,134.4 599.0 350.0 181.0 4.4 0.0 Recreation (Public) 334.8 70.2 160.8 25.6 48.0 30.2 Fish and Wildlife Wetlands 55.4 1.2 18.2 17.1 18.9 0.0 OWNERSHIP Federal 133.1 91.4 25.4 9.5 6.8 0.0 Non-Federal Public 466.2 87.0 219.9 56.4 71.0 31.9 Private 2,871.3 733.6 1,116.7 499.1 264.@ 257.7 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION No Problem 1,666.0 738.2 471.8 327.7 68.5 59.8 Critical Erosion 203.9 28.7 13b.i 8.0 20.3 16.8 Noncritical Erosion 993.2 127.9 457.4 154.4 84.5 169.0 Subject to Flooding 289.8 11.8 140.7 74.9 44.0 18.4 Protected 317.7 5.4 162.0 0 124.7 25.6 TOTAL SHORELINE MILEAGE Great Lakes 3,470.6 912.0 1,362.0 565.0 342.0 289.6 NOTE: Mileages 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 Frwnework Study- TABLE 1-42 Streambank Erosion and Damage, Great Lakes Basin by State Bank Miles of Damag Annual Damage (Dollars) State Moderate Severe Land Loss Sedimentation Other Total Illinois 39 7 14,900 600 13,800 29,300 Indiana 277 49 40,700 29,900 4,600 75,200 Michigan 3,817 2,087 277,000 164,200 123,200 564,400 Minnesota 131 33 1,900 500 1,300 3,700 New York 1,420 301 86,400 249,100 45,900 381,400 Ohio 1,029 185 35,700 391,100 5,700 432,500 Pennsylvania 180 3 500 1,300 0 1,800 Wisconsin 1,096 280 139,500 41,400 40,400 221,300 TOTAL 7,989 2,945 596,600 878,100 234,900 1,709,600 Alternative Frameworks 75 TABLE 143 Flood Damage from Streams and Area Affected, 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (In Dollars) Flood Plain State Urban Rural Urban Rural Illinois 0 0 0 0 Indiana 10,637,980 190,750 17,315 52,493 Michigan 27,778,030 5,584,310 118,701 998,772 Minnesota 79,000 45,400 120 103,522 New York 1,032,500 1,922,200 34,345 340,790 Ohio 3,906,220 5,046,300 29,074 388,594 Pennsylvania 9,500 37,400 403 8,630 Wisconsin 2,665,750 1,368,046 15,205 675,390 TOTAL 46,108,980 14,194,406 215,163 2,558,191 TABLE 1-44 Acres of Farm and Forest Game Habitat, Great Lakes Region by State, 1960 Tot Forest Habitat Total Habitat (11 1 d Area Farm Habitat . :n State re.) 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 38,288,900 46 75,533,200 91 ITotal 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. classified according to their degree of erosion. 5.2-3.6 Wildlife Management Damages occur from loss of land, sedimentation, and other factors including water quality de- Of the total land area of the Basin, 91 percent terioration, effects on fish and their habitat, etc. was classified as wildlife habitat in 1960. No later The bank-miles of erosion and the estimated complete data were available at the time of the average annual losses are shown in Table 1-42. The study. Data are shown in Table 1-44. The habitat erosion is classified as 2,945 miles of severe erosion area is constantly decreasing as urban expansion, and 7,989 miles of moderate erosion. transportation systems, and other uses encroach on forest and agricultural land. However, the prinei-, 5.2.3.5 Flood Plains pal problem is that much of the habitat area sup- ports only a minimum wildlife population, and much Damages from flooding occur in all parts of the is not accessible for hunting or other uses. Man- Basin, in both urban and rural areas. They include agement of habitat land for multiple uses, including structural damage; loss of land, topsoil, and crops; hunting and nonconsumptive uses (photography, sediment deposition; interruption of communica- bird-watching, and other nature study), is one way in tions; and occasionally loss of life. Data relative to which more hunting and other wildlife uses can be flood damage are given in Table 1-43. accommodated. .76 Appendix 1 5.2.3.7 Aesthetic and Cultural Resources patterns change, these zones will require increased planning attention. In the survey of aesthetic and cultural resources The first priority is buffer zones, which lie im- a large number of specific features and areas were mediately adjacent to the expanding urban centers, identified and indicated on maps which appear in and thus face the greatest threat to their inherent Appendix 22, Aesthetic and Cultural Resources. resource features and the integrity of their environ- The analysis of these areas shows that more than 90 mental systems. These areas are particularly im- percent of the Basin's significant aesthetic and cul- portant as places of relaxation and recreation for tural resource features are located within environ- many urban residents who lack access to private mental systems paralleling water systems or areas transportation. Immediate planning attention of strong physio- grap hie relief. These systems can be should be given to buffer zones surrounding Chi- categorized along the following lines: cago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, and (1) Urban buffer zones are environmental sys- Buffalo. tems that, because of their close proxin-dty to ex- Linkage corridors are the second priority. isting urban concentrations, serve as natural Today, many exist as picturesque natural land- buffers to urban expansion. scapes, rich in cultural and aesthetic features. It is (2) Linkage corridors are those environmental important that they be studied in detail to insure systems that form linking corridors between con- that the resource features will not be destroyed in centrated urban areas. the expansion of the transpoitation system. Pres- (3) Shore zones are environmental systems that ent linking corridors are especially prevalent south parallel and/or encompass portions of the shorelines of Green Bay to Milwaukee and Chicago, north- of the Basin's lakes, streams, and wetlands. ward along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, and east-west across Michigan, linking Detroit with (4) Other zones are those environmental sys- Lansing, Grand Rapids, Lake Michigan, Flint, Sag- tems that do not fall into the first three categories. inaw, and Bay City. Such areas may include significant groupings of Shore zones, the third priority, need constant resources or single resource features. evaluation. The recent authorization of Apostle Is- (5) Resource clusters are groupings of similar lands, Sleeping Bear Dunes, and Indiana Dunes as or dissimilar resource features considered impor- national lakeshores reflects an awareness of the tant enough to be identified either as part of the importance of proper development of shorelines. environmental systems or separate from them. The high quality of the Lake Superior shoreline While these features might not be important indi- should be actively preserved. vidually, when four or more are closely associated There are clusters of significant resource fea- as a group, they warrant special planning and tures which make up the fourth priority for study. management consideration. These groups of features need to be recognized and (6) Single scattered resource features are studied in greater detail, and many of them could sometimes located outside environmental zones, be included in comprehensive plans for environ- corridors, or clusters. Often these features have mental zones or corridors. the potential to affect development and use pat- Last in the general priority schedule, but with terns around them. Although they are not as great individual items which may be near the top, are a planning consideration as the zones, corridors, those single scattered resource features which and resource clusters, their identification is impor- command individual attention. These may be aes- tant. thetic or cultural and could constitute a focus for Certain environmental zones and corridors, re- recreational, historical, or cultural complexes. source clusters, and single isolated significant re- sources are, by virtue of their location, more likely to be affected by existing and potential human 5.2.3.8 Outdoor Recreation impacts. For this reason, some are in more critical need of planning attention and further detailed Water-oriented outdoor recreation involves pro- study. While the priority given planning varies viding both land and water in appropriate relation- somewhat in different parts of the Basin, a general ship for a number of recreational activities. The Basinwide planning attention and study priority general distribution by major activity groups of ranking for these zones, corridors, and features is requirements for outdoor recreation in the Basin is suggested. For the purposes of this priority rank- shown in Figure 1-19. Land-based water-oriented ing, the category of "other zones" is not treated due recreation and water surface recreation are the to the general location of such zones in areas not activity groups considered in the Framework likely to be immediately affected by human activ- Study. In these two groups the activities in 1970 ity. However, if existing and projected impact were as shown in Table 1-45. Alternative Frameworks 77 TABLE 1-45 Land-Based Water-Oriented and Water-Surface Recreation Days, 1970 (in thousands) Recreation Days--Annual Recreation Days--Summer Plan Area Land Based water Land Based Water and PSA Water Oriented Surface Total Water Oriented Surface Total. Plan Area 1.0 --- --- 4,358 --- --- 2,574 PSA 1.1 2,273 580 2,853 1,383 391 1,774 1.2 995 510 1,505 596 204 800 Plan Area 2.0 --- --- 77,315 --- --- 49,176 PSA 2.1 8,302 1,682 9,984 4,970 1,156 6,126 2.2 33,814 7,643 41,457 22,052 5,124 27,176 2.3 17,154 3,465 20,619 10,287 2,384 12,671 2.4 4,372 883 5,255 2,622 608 3,203 Plan Area 3.0 --- --- 10,099 --- --- 6,219 PSA 3.1 1,649 336 1,985 999 232 1,231 3.2 6,752 1,362 8,114 4,050 938 4,988 Plan Area 4.0 --- --- 56,650 --- --- 34,814 PSA 4.1 18,398 3,711 22,109 11,018 2,557 13,575 4.2 10,012 2,008 12,020 6,010 1,383 7,393 4.3 12,729 2,559 15,288 7,639 1,761 9,400 4.4 6,021 1,212 7,233 3,612 834 4,446 Plan Area 5.0 --- --- 17,901 --- --- 11,085 PSA 5.1 5,204 1,030 6,234 3,132 710 3,842 5.2 8,043 1,537 9,580 4,887 1,063 5,950 5.3 1,752 335 2,087 1,060 233 1,293 TOTAL --- --- 166,323 --- --- 103,868 TABLE 1-46 Land and Water Surface Usable compiled from a number of sources. These data for Recreation in the Great Lakes Basin, 1970 have a number of limitations: (thousands of acres) (1) No information was available on the amount PSA Land Great Lakes Inland Lakes Total of existing recreation lands used for sightseeing, driving and walking for pleasure, and attending 1.1 5,300.0 325.0 506.0 6,131.0 outdoor games and concerts. 1.2 2,100.0 481.0 116.0 2,697.0 (2) Information on the recreational opportuni- 2.1 1,300.0 245.0 251.0 1,796.0 ties provided by local government was inadequate. 2.2 122.4 124.0 69.0 315.4 2.3 80.0 69.0 106.0 255.0 (3) Data on private recreational opportunities 2.4 2,200.0 451.0 228.0 2,879.0 were incomplete in many of the States in the Basin. 3.1 1,691.0 178.0 111.0 ]-,980.0 (4) Some States did not provide fully updated 3.2 11.3 137.0 24.0 172.3 information, so other less accurate inventory data 4.1 68.1 151.0 40.0 259.1 had to be used. 4.2 24.0 59..0 26.0 109 0 4.3 33.7 69.0 15.0 117:7 (5) The inclusion of water acreages in the sup- 4.4 146.5 96.0 1.0 243.5 ply base was somewhat arbitrary. It was assumed 5.1 94.5 38.0 10.0 142.5 that 80 percent of all inland water surface acreages 5.2 159.5 51.0 170.0 380.5 and 50 percent of the Great Lakes water surface 5.3 211.0 77.0 32.0 320.0 within two miles of the shoreline are available for TOTAL 13,542.0 2,551.0 1,705.0 17,798.0 recreation. The Basin has quite large areas of land and water suitable for recreation, but it also has large The land and water surfaces usable for recre- numbers of people who need recreational oppor- ation in the Basin are shown in Table 1-46. No new tunities. The characteristics which provide the op- information was collected for this study, and the portunities are generally in the northern part of the data on water and land used for recreation were Basin, while the population concentrations are .78 Appendix 1 220 200- Total ...... .... Urban 180- Non-tkban ...... .... 160- ..... ..... f 140 - 120 - ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... C, 100 - C 0 ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... 60- 40- 20- 0- Land@Based Land-Based Water Surface Winter Sports Other Water Oriented General FIGURE 1-19 Total Urban and Non-Urban Annual Requirements by Major Activity Group (1970) generally in the southern portion. This imbalance' above, waste discharges from the mining industry presents one of the problems of resource use. are more serious than any problem of water with- drawal for that industry. There are problems related to water-oriented 5.3 Problems outdoor recreation in many parts of the Basin. In general they occur because the areas of recreation The Resource Problems. Matrix for the Great opportunity are not near the population concentra- Lakes Basin and the five Lake basins, Table 1-47, tions. There are also some specific conflicts in land identifies the locations and make-up of the critical use, notably along lakeshores and in areas where problems of the Basin. For the Basin as a whole, no restrictions to access preclude the use of high- problem is classified as severe or demanding im- quality land for recreation. mediate attention. A number are of major concern The problems relating to sport and commercial and potentially serious. In local areas some need fishing, recreational boating, and commercial navi- immediate attention. gation involve principally the management of re- The problems identified with mining water with-, sources and development of facilities, but these are drawals are primarily related to the return of. by no means simple problems, and some introduce process wastewater to a Lake and to shoreline land direct conflicts in uses. The need to coordinate the use rather than to the withdrawals themselves. commercial and. sport fishery has been mentioned. Thermal power cooling is not a major problem at Facilities are identified in the specific areas where this time, but it may be potentially serious. Today, they are needed. Elimination of pollution in lakes power plant siting requires study and individual and streams is recognized. Not so apparent-is the site analysis, and has attracted widespread public need to consider fish and wildlife interests in con- concern. nection. with lake level control. High lake levels, Wastewater discharges, both municipal and in- which increase erosion and flooding, normally ben- dustrial, now constitute problems in nearly all parts efit fish and wildlife habitat. The overall impact of the Basin. In the Lake Erie basin they demand must be considered. immediate attention, andelsewhere early remedial There are problems in many parts of. the Basin measures will avoid potential trouble.. As noted regarding land use. These stem largely from a lack TABLE 147 Great Lakes Basin, Resource Problems Matrix Great Lakes Basin Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie W @4 4 U M co _4 cc M -4 M co 1-1 co ca 14 W 1@4 -4 D: 14 44 1w :3: C It z W cc W M W C:0 M a) w M ca cu W r- co co (V $4 r. 0 co W @4 0 cd ca 0) W @a W @j a) Q) @a @4 " (D W 4 W 4j 4) (V IQ W 4j a) 0) > 0.W =1 rl > 0@ @4 z r@ > C1. W ::$ 0 > P, $4 :' = > CL =5 Resource Use Catego@y o ::D c4 a o tD w @-40 0 @D V4 @_4 0 0 ZD C4. 0 0 C4 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED - - 1 - 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 1 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 - RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 1 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - IRRIGATION I 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - - MINING 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 - - - - 1 - - 1 1 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 1 1 1 - - - - I - - 1 - - - - - 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2 - 2 2 1 1 1 - - 2 - 2 - - 1 1 2 - 1 3 - 3 2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2 - 2 1 1 1 - - - 2 - 2 - - 2 1 2 1 1 3 - 2 2 HYDROELECTRIC POWER 1 - - 1 - 1 - I - I - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 2 - 2 2 2 1 1 1 - 1 2 - 3 1 2 1 - I 1 1 2 - 2 2 SPORT FISHING 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 - I - I - 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 2 - 2 2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 - - - 1 1 2 1 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 2 - COMMERCIAL FISHING 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 1 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1 2 - 1 1 1 2 - 1 1 - I - 1 1 - I - - 1 BELATED LAND USES & PROBLEM LAND USE 2 3 2 3 2 - 2 1 3 2 - 2 2 2 3 - - 3 3 1 - 3 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1 - 1 - 1 - - I - I - - 1 - I - - 1 - 2 - - 2 CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1 - - 2 1 1 - - 1 1 1 - - 2 - 1 - - 1 - 2 - 2 2 FOREST LAND TREATMENT 1 - - 1 - I - - 1 - 2 - - 1 - I - - I - - - - - SHORELAND EROSION I - 2 1 - 1 2 - - - 2 1 - - - 2 1 - - - STREAMBANK EROSION I - - 1 - I - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - I - 1 - - 2 FLOOD PLAINS 2 - 2 2 1 1 1 1 - I - 2 2 1 1 - 1 1 - 2 - 3 3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2 - 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 3 3 - 3 3 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1 - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 - - 1 1 2 - 2 1 OUTDOOR RECREATION 2 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 1 1 - - 1 - 2 - 2 1 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 80 Appendix I of adequate planning to insure that land is used for 5.4.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses the purpose for which it is best suited. Degradation also occurs because of overuse of land for housing, Quantities of municipal wastes to be treated are recreation, mining, or many other purposes. The shown as needs. The degree of treatment is not most crucial areas are the land-water interface identified in Table 1-25 and is not uniform along the lakeshores and streambanks. Damage in throughout the Basin for the Normal Framework. the flood plain and erosion and flood damage along Secondary treatment is a general requirement, the shore are manifestations of these problems that with tertiary treatment and 90-percent phosphate must be attacked vigorously and soon. removal required in specified locations. Wildlife management is another field in which Industrial waste treatment quantities will de- there are a few critical areas, primarily related to crease from the present through 2000 and then will preservation of high-class habitat. Some of these increase to slightly above present quantities by are marshes and wetlands along the shores of the 2020. The early decrease is caused by process Lakes. changes and increased in-plant treatment and reuse, coupled with increasing reliance on munici- pal waste treatment facilities for processing plant 5.4 Projected Resource Needs and waste discharges. Opportunities Water needs for hydroelectric power production Requirements, or future demands upon the re- are not instream. uses for conventional plants; sources, were projected for 22 resource use cate- rather they are withdrawal and return uses for gories under the general headings of Water With- pumped storage plants. The Ludington, Michigan, drawals, Nonwithdrawal Water Uses, and Related plant began operations just after the base year, and Land Uses. These are discussed in Section 3. needs are shown for 1980. Pumped storage instal- When the supply (1970 base) is subtracted from lations are anticipated in the Lake Ontario basin in the requirements, the needs are obtained. The both the later time periods, with needs as shown. projected needs for resource use by time period are Water-oriented outdoor recreation needs, stated shown in Table 1-25. in terms of recreation days, increase for all parts of In the resource use categories of existing water the Basin except in the Lake Superior basin and surface acreage for recreation activities, irrigation, northern Lake Ontario basin, where existing sup- agricultural land treatment, cropland drainage, and ply is in excess of future requirements. These are forest land treatment, the terni needs is not strictly prime recreation areas and the automatic transfer appropriate. Opportunities is a better term than of needs, because of the mobility of persons seeking needs. recreation, will tend to wipe out the excess. Land Needs or opportunities were calculated for each needs are considered in Subsection 5.4.3. of the 15 river basin groups (or planning subareas, Needs for the sport fishery occur both in the as appropriate) and added to obtain a total for the Great Lakes and in inland lakes and streams. To Basin in each category. some extent some transfer between the two can be effected, but most anglers prefer one or the other. Recreational boating needs occur both in the 5.4.1 Water Withdrawals Great Lakes and in inland lakes and streams. The large extent of water surface in the Lakes gives the Needs have been developed along conventional appearance of an adequate supply of boating water, lines, with reasonable consistency among various but much of the area is too far from shore for safe parts of the Basin. There are no particular prob- operation of small boats. In addition facilities are lems. Adequate supplies are available, and in many needed to create safe conditions that will permit cases, there is a choice among sources to meet a meeting some of the needs. Some additional inland particular need. It should be noted in using the data water surface is desirable, but better management in Table 1-25 that the withdrawal rates for irriga- and improved access are needed. tion and mining are seasonal rather than annual. Needs for the commercial fishery have not been Thus, the tabulated rates of withdrawal cannot be evaluated. Management of the commercial fishery added to obtain total annual quantities. will be based on programs compatible with the For thermal power cooling, the quantities repre- sport fishery. sent a mix of cooling types split between the Case I and Case II assumptions. Case I is all flow-through An expansion of commercial navigation is pro- except plants known to be supplemental; Case II is jected in terms of tonnage handled. This is trans- all supplemental except plants known to be flow- lated into harbor and port requirements and other through. physical changes in the system. Alternative Frameworks 81 5.4.3 Related Land Uses and Problems a summation of the selections made. In addition to the narrative, there is a tabular presentation of For several of the resource use categories in this statistical information in Section 12 about the en- group, opportunities rather than needs are shown tire Great Lakes Basin, and also about the individ- in Table 1-25. These also relate closely to the ual Lake basins, river basin groups, and States. existing situation, which is described in Subsection Sections 6-10 provide more detailed textual infor- 5.2.3. mation on each Lake basin. A revision of the table There are an estimated 20.5 million acres of from Annex E containing the program selections agricultural land that could benefit from some form for the Great Lakes Basin is included (Table 1-26). of conservation treatment. This acreage includes For the details of the selection of the programs 6.2 million acres on which drainage systems are for the individual river basin groups, specific sec- needed to develop and maintain high production. tions of this appendix should be consulted. For Forest land presents similar opportunities to details relating to any particular resource use cate- maintain high quality forest, sustain continuous gory, the appropriate resource appendix should be timber production, and continue multiple use used. The issues considered and the resolution of through appropriate land treatment measures. these issues are discussed in Annex D of this ap- About 10 percent of the Great Lakes shoreline pendix. (See Introduction for availability of Annex has been protected against erosion, but more than D.) 30 percent may have been subject to this form of damage in the base year (1970), with still greater amounts subject to erosion when lake levels are 5.5.1 Water Withdrawals higher. Along streambanks there are more than 10,000 miles subject to erosion damage, but only part of 5.5.1.1 Municipally Supplied the total can be protected economically. Flooding and flood damage must be alleviated in An overriding consideration in the selection of extensive urban and rural areas. programs was to provide adequate municipally To meet the nee(Is of hunters and those who are supplied water to meet the needs projeCted for the interested in bird-watching, animal photography, time period. For the Normal Framework, about 85 and other nonconsumptive wildlife pursuits, an ex- to 90 percent of the need is expected to be met by tensive increased area must be managed effectively withdrawals from the Great Lakes. Ground-water for wildlife habitat. In some areas this will be a sources supply the next largest amount, followed primary use, and in others it will be a secondary, by reservoir storage and inland lakes and streams. but recognized and planned, use. There is no problem in meeting the needs at any The treatment of aesthetic and cultural needs is point. However, in some places where present qualitative at this time with the hope that specific supplies are from ground water and large increases areas and features will be developed and preserved in need were developed, it was necessary to go to as a natural part of resource use and conservation. the Great Lakes at a greater cost than that in- The land presently used for water-oriented out- curred in providing the present supply from rela- door recreation has not been identified and quan- tively local sources. The Lake Michigan Plan Area tified. However, estimates have been made of the presents special problems because such a large amount of land required to meet needs for intensive proportion of the population, particularly in the and extensive types of development in order to Chicago area, lives outside the drainage basin. Al- meet recreation day needs. though some of the needs for municipal water are supplied by sources related to the Upper Missis- sippi River Basin, there is a large net export of 5.5 Normal Framework water from the Great Lakes Basin to the Upper Mississippi River Basin for municipal use in this This subsection provides an analysis of the NOR area. Framework for the Great Lakes Basin. (PRO is considered in Subsection 5.6.) This subsection con- siders each of the resource use categories individu- 5.5.1.2 Self-Supplied Industrial ally and describes the framework. In some cases these elements are selections made for the Basin as By far the largest amount of self-supplied indus- a whole from a consideration of Basinwide issues. trial water is furnished from the Great Lakes, In other cases, the elements were selected for each particularly in the period 2000 to 2020. Programs individual river basin group, and the framework for have been selected to provide water from inland the Basin with respect to this element consists of lakes, streams, and ground water as well as from 82 Appendix 1 the Great Lakes. In 1980 about half the supply 5.5.1.6 Thermal Power Cooling comes from the Great Lakes, and considerably more of the supply comes from other surface sup- All needs in all time periods are met by use of plies than from ground water. By 2020 nearly 75 water from the Great Lakes for this purpose. percent comes from Great Lakes sources with the other relationships about the same. No reservoir storage is projected for self-supplied industrial water. 5.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses The situation in the Chicago area is unusual because much of the planning subarea is in the 5.5.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Discharges Upper Mississippi Basin. A large portion of the needs are met from local supplies, principally Programs have been selected to provide treat- ground water. This differs from the municipal ment for all municipal wastes adequate to meet the water supply in Chicago, most of which comes from requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Con- the Great Lakes Basin. Thus, the needs computed trol Act before the 1972 Amendments. The effect of for the entire PSA 2.2 are substantially reduced by the 1972 Amendments was less in the Great Lakes transferring some of the needs to the Upper Mis- Basin than in many other parts of the country sissippi Basin. To the extent that needs are met in because of the higher standards already imposed in the Great Lakes Basin, programs have been se- the Basin to protect the quality of the Lakes. In lected to provide water from Lake Michigan. general, these standards required secondary treat- ment with 80-percent phosphate removal in all cases and advanced waste treatment with higher 5.5.1.3 Rural Domestic and Livestock degree of phosphate removal at points where spe- cific requirements were imposed. Also, treatment Water for these purposes is nearly always sup- of flows from combined sewers was generally a part plied from a nearby source, and programs selected of the requirement to be met. involve both surface- and ground-water sources, The quantities of waste to be treated shown in with the latter three to four times as large as the the tables of needs were developed by the Water former. In the Chicago area some water is provided Quality Work Group and are contained in Appendix from the Upper Mississippi Basin to serve the 7, Water Quality. These quantities are shown for needs projected for the Great Lakes Basin. both NOR and PRO. The costs, however, are based on different methodologies for the two frame- works. For NOR the methodology is that contained 5.5.1.4 Irrigation in Appendix 7. Costs developed and reported in 1967 and 1969 by the Federal Water Quality Ad- Inland surface-water and ground-water sources ministration and updated to 1970 by indexing have together supply almost ten times as much as Great been applied to the quantities of waste to be Lakes sources, and ground water provides signifi- treated on a planning subarea basis. They include cantly more than surface sources. A very small all op erations from interceptor sewers through the amount is projected to be -obtained from reservoir treatment plant, including secondary treatment, storage. All opportunities for irrigation are met. In phosphorous removal, and advanced waste treat- the Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary area there is some ment where required. Estimates are based on a adjustment of needs and supply in the three af- study of the requirements in each planning sub- fected States between the Upper Mississippi Basin area. Replacement costs under this procedure are and the Great Lakes Basin. included with capital costs rather than with O&M costs. A discussion of the assumptions and the pro- 5.5.1.5 Mining grams and their estimated costs for PRO are given in Subsection 5.6.2. Here, as in irrigation, the inland surface- and ground-water supplies are utilized far more heavily than the Great Lakes. Ground water plays a much more important part than does surface water in 5.5.2.2 Industrial Wastewater Discharges mining use. A very small portion is expected to be obtained from reservoir storage. All needs are The frameworks provide for adequate facilities met. Water from the Upper Mississippi Basin to treat industrial wastewater discharges not han- meets needs in the Great Lakes Basin for mining dled through municipal plants. Because of changes use. in technology, increased recycling of water within a Alternative Frameworks 83 plant, and an increasing reliance on municipal with the sport fishery. In both cases needs exist waste treatment plants, the projected amounts to and are met on inland waters and the Great Lakes, be treated decrease from the present to 1980 and and to some extent, programs can be introduced 2000 and then increase by the year 2020. Treatment which will induce persons to choose one or the is adequate in the Normal Framework to meet all other for satisfying the desire for this kind of the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution recreation. Control Act prior to the 1972 Amendments. About 60 percent of the recreational boating needs have been met, based on the generalized criteria used to estimate capacity and the economic 5.5.2.3 Hydroelectric Power and demographic data used to project require- ments. If safe, uncrowded boating opportunities The number of locations in the Basin where con- are desired, the opportunities to provide increased ventional hydroelectric plants can profitably be in- boating capacity on the Great Lakes and on inland stalled is extremely limited. There are a number of lakes and streams are limited. On the Great Lakes, places where pumped storage is a feasible way of potential capacity is about 130 percent of existing meeting part of the power requirements, and capacity, and on inland lakes and streams this fig- plants to accomplish this are included in the frame- ure is about 110 percent. works. All needs for power generation are met. Hydroelectric power carries that share of the load for which it is suited, both in terms of power and 5.5.2.6 Commercial Fishing energy. At the present time the sport fishery is more valuable to the Great Lakes Basin than the com- 5.5.2.4 Sport Fishing mercial fishery, in terms of both the number of people affected and the economic value to the Programs to meet the needs for a sport fishery States. It is therefore anticipated that the com- are largely nonstructural, involving legislative and mercial fishery will be managed to complement the institutional changes. Some public acquisition of land sport fishery, and that programs will be adopted to and water is involved, and information must be use the commercial fishery for removal of undesir- collected and disseminated. Needs ranging up to 10 able species, harvesting of excesses, and similar percent of the total are met by the use of multi- functions. The control of sea lamprey and the mon- purpose reservoirs. Unmet needs amount to be- itoring and control of the alewife will be continued. tween 8 percent and 18 percent depending on the In addition, the States will act individually, con- time period. There are a few opportunities in some jointly through whatever agreements can be prac- parts of the Basin to develop a fishery which will ticably made, and with the assistance of the Fed- more than meet the projected needs and will assist eral government, to provide ways in which in alleviating shortages in other areas. The few commercial fisherman can be licensed, or contracts opportunities which do exist have not been specif- can be let for specific fishing operations. Eventu- ically identified. ally, commercial fishing can only be properly man- The sport fishery involves both inland waters and aged on a lakewide basis with agreements among the Great Lakes. In both cases part of the problem Great Lakes States, the Province of Ontario, and is accessibility, ownership, and availability of the other responsible agencies. water, and part is the management of the fishery itself. Techniques that will be utilized on inland waters are cleaning up of polluted streams and 5.5.2.7 Commercial Navigation lakes; stocking, managing, and controlling species; and providing access. On the Great Lakes there are Commercial navigation is both a localized and a some access problems, but the principal problems Basinwide operation. The broad expanses of the occur in the management of the fishery, including Lakes themselves and the confines of the connect- stocking, substitution of species, elimination of un- ing channels serve the Basinwide needs of naviga- desirable species, resolution and management of tion and transport. The individual ports at which the relationship between sport fishery and com- cargoes are loaded and unloaded are focal points of mercial fishery, and similar related programs. the interface between land and water transportation. In the Normal Framework, programs include the maintenance of navigation improvements such as 5.5.2.5 Recreational Boating dredging of harbors and connecting channels, the maintenance of navigation aids, etc. Programs also Recreational boating shares some characteristics provide for harbor improvements by creating 31- 84 Appendix 1 foot depths in Silver Bay, Duluth-Superior, and of the study period. A small amount of treatment Taconite Harbors in Lake Superior; in the connecting done in the Upper Mississippi River Basin is in- channels in Lake Superior and Sault Ste. Marie; in cluded. Escanaba, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Indiana Har- bors; and in the connecting channels in Lake Michigan, including the Straits of Mackinac. These 5.5.3.4 Shoreland Erosion improvements will permit the use of the new supercarriers for handling iron ore from Lake The programs selected for the Normal Frame- Superior to the Lake Michigan ports. work provide for treatment of the critical erosion areas that were determined in 1970 at the rate of 20 percent in the first 10 years, 40 percent in the next 5.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems 20 years, and 40 percent in the last 20 years. All critical erosion areas are treated by various struc- tural methods that are appropriate. None of the 5.5.3.1 Agricultural Land Treatment noncritical areas are treated. A great deal of the agricultural land in the Great Lakes Basin will profit from conservation measures 5.5.3.5 Streambank Erosion of various sorts, such as those now being applied in most areas on a limited scale. Programs adopted for Not all the erosion areas, even those classified as the Normal Framework contemplate continuation severe, are treated in the period of study, but of the present rate of treatment. It would not be programs have been selected that will accomplish feasible to treat all of the land that could profit as much as is believed feasible. To some extent, the from treatment. In fact, less than half of the land is problem of correcting erosion on private land treated; about 9 percent in the first time period, 26 makes it impracticable to attempt to meet all of the percent in the second time period, and 37 percent in needs. About 5 percent, 16 percent, and 27 percent the final time period. This includes consideration of of the total needs or opportunities for correcting the land treated in the Upper Mississippi River streambank erosion are met in the three time Basin in the vicinity of Chicago. periods. 5.5.3.2 Cropland Drainage 5.5.3.6 Flood Plains Opportunities for effective drainage treatment Programs for reducing floods and flood damage in exist on a considerable amount of cropland, either both urban and rural areas involve both structural as the sole conservation practice, or in conjunction and nonstructural methods. Reservoirs are used in with other practices. Some of this land will remain a few cases to reduce flood peaks, and stream in crops, and, if drained, the same crops can be channel improvements are also utilized. In addi- raised on it at lower cost, or higher-value crops can tion, land use changes, including new zoning, legis- be raised. Other land, which may go into urban lative and institutional changes, and education in development, will need to be drained in order to the proper use of the flood plains are all utilized. provide suitable areas for development. Not all of About 93 percent of the urban damages and 56 the opportunities for drainage are accepted in the percent of the rural damages are alleviated at the Normal Framework. The amount treated ranges end of the study period. from 7 percent in the first time period to a total of 24 percent in the final time period. The drainage programs include some effected on land in the 5.5.3.7 Wildlife Upper Mississippi River Basin. The ability to meet the needs for wildlife re- sources varies widely over the Basin. Both hunting 5.5.3.3 Forest Land Treatment and such nonconsumptive uses as bird-watching, photography, and nature study are involved. It is As with agricultural land treatment and cropland possible to meet the needs in some areas through drainage, there are far more opportunities for management of the existing habitat. In other places forest land treatment than can be feasibly ac- this is difficult and may become impossible as land cepted. The needs met or opportunities accepted use changes occur. The programs selected involve amount to about 10 percent in the first time frame, public acquisition of additional land, changes in land 28 percent in the second, and 51 percent at the end use treatment of some areas to improve the habitat, Alternative Frameworks 85 legislative and institutional changes to control the for each resource use category, and the needs use of the land, provision of access for hunters and which are met, unmet, exceeded, or transferred. other users, and changes in the availability of some This table originally appeared in Annex E. The data species for hunting. has been revised to conform to final selections. Both the ability to meet needs and the relation- Tables 1-190 through 1-192 in Section 12 show ship between habitat area and user days may vary Great Lakes Basin needs, outputs, and percents over the Basin. The percentage of habitat needs needs met; capital costs; and operation, mainte- met decreases from 40 percent to 35 percent over nance, and replacement costs for the Normal the time period to 2020. However, more effective Framework. management results in an increase from 15 percent to 38 percent of the user-days being met. 5.6 Proposed Framework 5.5.3.8 Aesthetic and Cultural Resources A second framework, the Proposed (PRO) Framework, was developed in an effort to recog- No programs have been specifically proposed in nize preferences of Basin residents regarding the the Normal Framework, but the needs for corridor future of parts of the Basin, and to reflect State and shoreline development, which are expressed in policies and programs. The NOR Framework did Appendix 22, Aesthetic and Cultu@al Resources, not do this. In an area as large as the Great Lakes have first priority in enhancing the aesthetic and Basin, with a wide range of population densities, cultural values in the Basin. This work should have employment opportunities, recreational resources a priority as high as any other work in the pro- and other factors, no uniform opinion is held as to grams. There are individual sites which should also the optimum programs for the Basin. be examined carefully for early acquisition, pres- The Proposed Framework was developed fol- ervation, or governmental control. lowing a series of public meetings at which Basin residents were encouraged to express their views. The selections made in NOR were used as a base 5.5.3.9 Outdoor Recreation for discussion, and the total range of possible con- ditions developed for limited growth and accel- It is impossible to meet all the projected needs erated growth objectives gave an opportunity for for water-oriented outdoor recreation at any of the considering desirable changes from NOR. three target dates. The unmet needs range be- State, regional, and local policies with respect to tween 35 percent and 55 percent for the three time population and economic growth do not differ periods. About 8 to 10 percent of the Basin's total greatly from those of OBERS projections on which projected needs are met in the Chicago area by the NOR Framework is based. The general atti- programs developed in the Upper Mississippi River tude is that slower population growth is likely, and Basin. Meeting the outdoor recreation needs in- a slower rate of economic growth may be desirable. volves acquisition of additional land; development No new projections were made, but where alter- of some of this new land and some presently uti- natives were available for meeting needs and solv- lized land for more intensive recreational uses; ing problems, those emphasizing environmental development of additional water surface through quality and reflecting slower rates of population the use of multipurpose reservoirs; and acquisition, increase and economic growth were selected. zoning, and development of access to existing water. There are publicly owned areas in all parts For most resource use categories there are no of the Basin that can be made available for outdoor quantitative changes in the Basin total from NOR. recreation use. The land needed for intensive de- In a few instances changes were made in one or velopment could be provided by these areas. Where more of the river basin groups. The 15 separate there are opportunities to do so, recreation facili- river basin groups were then summed to achieve the Basin total. In the case of commercial naviga- ties are developed beyond the needs of the partic- ular area, because it is recognized that existing and tion there is no quantitative difference in the pro- future travel patterns will enable persons to travel gramed traffic, but the elements selected for. de- to areas where attractive recreational opportuni- velopment are based on a systemwide approach to ties exist. the development of this mode of transportation. The specific emphases related to various resource use categories are described for PRO in comparison 5.5.4 Statistical Tables with NOR, and in those instances where outputs differ in magnitude or timing, the quantification is Table 1-26 shows the various programs selected shown. 86 Appendix 1 5.6.1 Water Withdrawals The estimates for PRO have been extracted from those developed by the States and the U.S. En- In only a few instances do program selections for vironmental Protection Agency in the 1973 Survey water withdrawals under the PRO Framework of Needs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment differ from those under the NOR Framework. Facilities. Needs are the same except for thermal power Survey data were collected through question- cooling, discussedbelow. Municipal water supplies, naires completed for each existing facility, each self-supplied industrial water, and rural domestic facility under construction, and each proposed fa- and livestock supplies are furnished through simi- cility within communities with populations of lar program selections. An emphasis on educating 10,000 or more. States were permitted to sample the public to use water resources more sparingly, smaller communities. Questionnaires were re- providing that the public health, welfare, economy, viewed by the State for completeness, consistency of and social well-being of the inhabitants are not data with State plans, priorities and schedules, and adversely affected, is part of the PRO Framework. reasonableness of projections of needed size and Crop irrigation needs in the area around Cleve- cost. The questionnaires were also reviewed by the land, Ohio, are not met in PRO, and mining needs EPA for basic eligibility under the Federal Water there are met only for the period to 1980. Because Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. other uses of the land are given higher. priority, 92-500), eligibility for inclusion in the 1973 Survey, water is not supplied for these two purposes. Ad- reasonableness of size of facility, reasonableness of ditional provisions relating to mineral lands are cost of project, and consistency of data with other discussed in Subsection 5.6.3. factors, such as permit stipulations, water quality For thermal power cooling, the PRO Framework standards, etc. is predicated on individual site selection and deter- The survey was designed with the expectation mination of the most suitable method of cooling, that it will be continuously updated through plan- either flow-through or some form of supplemental ning studies, revised State construction priority cooling. Needs for cooling water could be greater or lists, grant applications and awards, reports on smaller than in NOR. It is generally assumed that completed facilities, and other data. Such updating more supplemental cooling would be used, with will serve well as an indication of trends of costs, fewer withdrawals, greater consumptive use, and needs, improvements, etc., in the treatment of higher capital and operating costs. This might not wastewater in the Basin and nationwide. be the case, however, if site selection for flow- The questionnaire provided information on ex- through cooling were undertaken seriously. Be- isting and required treatment levels, flows, and cause of these uncertainties, no quanfification of costs for each category of needs which each facility PRO as differing from NOR is shown. may require. The survey grouped the many types of needs into five major categories: (1) needs required to achieve secondary treat- 5.6.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ment (2) needs required to achieve more stringent Needs for nonwithdrawal water uses in PRO are treatment than secondary, where this could be the same as in NOR. However, some assumptions justified * regarding program selection in PRO result in sig- (3) needs for infiltration/inflow analyses and re- nificantly higher costs than those in NOR. habilitation or correction of sewers The same quantities of municipal and industrial (4) needs for construction of new collector and wastes are treated under PRO as under NOR. interceptor sewers However, because of the changes in Federal grant (5) needs for separation of combined sewers authority under the Federal Water Pollution Con- and treatment of storm waters where justified. L trol Act Amendments of 1972 and more accurate Some of these categories were further divided information as to required treatment plants and into component subparts. A summation of needs as costs, a different methodology for estimating costs defined in these five categories is used for the costs was used in PRO, and the costs are considerably in PRO through 1982. This includes both the cost of higher. These costs are based on the need surveys updating facilities to current standards and the cost made pursuant to the 1972 Amendments and are of facilities required for population growth. Costs not specifically related to the waste treatment beyond 1982 are estimated as described below. quantities shown. However, since both costs and Wastewater flows requiring treatment have not waste treatment quantities were derived from the been revised from previous estimates. It is noted, same basic projections of population and waste however, that flow volumes may, in fact, vary treatment, the relationship is believed well within considerably among planning subareas and from the accuracy of the estimates. NOR to,PRO. Variation in flow may be induced by Alternative Frameworks 87 sewer separation, treatment of combined sewer (e) through the Welland Canal into Lake flows, and correction of infiltration/inflow prob- Ontario lems. With stringent new legislation and deadlines (2) four weeks through the St. Lawrence River for meeting water quality standards, such im- system. provements are becoming standard. As noted in Subsection 5.5.2. 1, the costs for NOR included interceptors and treatment plants. 5.6.3 Related Land Uses and Problems Under the effective provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, A number of recommendations are included in Federal i grant programs are available for the five the PRO Framework relative to more effective categories listed above in the needs survey. Costs management and use of land. Many do not have for PRO include all elements from sewers through costs attached. The following are general recom- the treatment plants, including separation of com- mendations: bined sewers. The only element not included is "That additional studies be made at the State separate storm-water control. The result, in terms level, leading to the development and adoption of a of cost estimates, is that far more elements are comprehensive land use policy for the Great Lakes being included in PRO than in NOR, and since the Region." (The cost of these sudies will not be information is more accurate and up-to-date, the stated). costs are higher. The unit cost of $300 per capita for "That studies be made in order that land use investment was used to estimate the cost of facili- decisions can be based on adequate information ties required due to population increase. The re- relative to the physical land base for suitable uses, placement cost of facilities, based on a 20-year life resulting in improved land use policies and permit- span, is included with operation and maintenance ting water resource planning to complement land under PRO*rather than with capital costs. The unit use objectives." (The cost of these studies will not be cost for. operation and maintenance, $10 per capita stated.) per year, includes all of the operating costs. "That State-approved local control ordinances The result of the inclusion of far more facilities be established directed toward the control or and assumptions of higher unit costs is a higher treatment of runoff and sediment reduction on total cost for wastewater treatment in PRO, in- urban and rural lands. State-established regula- cluding both capital and OM&R costs over the same tions would prevail if local regulations are not im- period 1970 to 2020. This increase is roughly three plemented by July 1, 1977" (consistent with Fed- times the costs in NOR for the same period. eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of Programs in PRO are the same as in NOR for 1972). hydroelectric power, sport and commercial fishery, "That the States should set time limits for local and recreational boating. Water-oriented outdoor entities to manage and develop policies, objectives, recreation is discussed in Subsection 5.6.3. programs and implementation techniques for flood For commercial navigation, more extensive plain regulations. If the local entities do not meet deepening of connecting channels and harbors is the time limits, the States should then manage and included in PRO than was the case in NOR. Addi- regulate the flood plains according to State stat- tional elements are channel improvements, includ- utes. " ing a lock and dam in the St. Clair River and "That adequate sums of money be allocated to deepening that channel to 34 feet, and dredging the manage and control flood plain lands considering Detroit River and other channels; deepening to the cost may be allocated to both flood plain damage 31 feet the harbors of Marquette, Calumet, Port of alleviation, outdoor recreation and other uses of the Indiana, Detroit, Toledo, Sandusky, Lorain, flood plain." Cleveland, Conneaut, Erie, and Buffalo, and channel With respect to mineral deposits, PRO recom- dredging and structure modification in St. Lawrence mends: "That as part of the planning programs, Seaway. particularly in urbanizing areas, due consideration The following extension of the navigation season be given to the preservation for possible future is also included in PRO: utilization of known mineral deposits." (1) six weeks extension for the following seg- With respect to reclamation of mined lands PRO ments: recommends: "That those previously mined lands (a) from western Lake Superior, through that have a significant adverse effect on the envi- the Soo Locks and St. Marys River, and to south- ronment be reclaimed. The extent to which a spe- ern Lake Michigan cific mined area is to be reclaimed would have to be (b) through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers decided on a case by case basis. Restoration of and Lakes St. Clair and Erie lands affected by current and future mining opera- 88 Appendix 1 tions should be the responsibility of the landowner, quantification of more effective treatment is shown and/or operator. States that have not already done for PRO than for NOR, but it is apparent that so should be encouraged to institute legislation to programs 50 percent to 100 percent more extensive require restoration of lands as part of all future should probably be considered. mining activities. The general principle supported Streambank erosion protection is provided in in the Proposed Framework is that the land be NOR for the 2,945 bank miles subject to severe reclaimed to abate pollution sources and to provide erosion. This is 27 percent of the total of 10,934 the opportunity for appropriate future land uses. bank miles having some erosion. The same rate of When location and topography are suitable, high treatment and total protection is provided for in priority consideration should be given to the op- PRO. portunities of using mined lands for future recre- In flood plain management, the adopted pro- ation and open space." grams for PRO are the same as for NOR, and costs Agricultural land treatment would, under the are also the same. Through education, emphasis on NOR Framework, be applied by year 2020 to about flood plain zoning, use of flood plains for recreation 37 percent of the land suitable for such treatment. and other activities which have low vulnerability to In PRO the rates were selected for a higher rate of flood damage, and similar means, it is expected that treatment, with drainage eliminated in certain the rate of increase in flood damage costs due to areas that are not now highly productive. The area increasing property values can be slowed or re- treated by 2020 would be about 76 percent of the versed. land suitable for treatment. Wildlife management programs in NOR met 35 Cropland drainage under NOR would be applied percent of the habitat needs and exceeded the by year 2020 to 24 percent of the land having a user-day needs. In PRO the same programs are wetness problem. Under PRO the land providing included, but there is particular emphasis on ac- high agricultural production would be drained to quisition of high-quality habitat including all wet- the extent of 42 percent of the total having a lands. wetness problem. No specific programs for aesthetic and cultural Forest land conservation under the NOR values were included in NOR. A few features were Framework includes programs that treat 14 million identified, and the same concepts emphasized as in acres, or about 50 percent of the 28 million acres the priorities given in Appendix 22, Aesthetic and needing treatment. PRO provides for treatment of Cultural Resources, for the five Lake basins. PRO 22 million acres or more than 75 percent of the recommends that the zone concept be implemented total. In both cases some areas are provided with at higher levels and more rapidly, and that specific multiple treatment programs. feature and site identification and study be empha- Of the total shoreline of the Great Lakes, 1,192.6 sized and acquisition follow as appropriate. miles were subject to erosion in 1970. Three terms There is the same amount of outdoor recreation are used to identify the extent of erosion hazard of programed in PRO as in NOR and the same output. shore areas. High risk erosion connotes physical Both depend heavily on the private sector for a conditions of erodible shore coupled with a high large part of the total development. In PRO, how- probability of lake conditions that will cause such ever, the emphasis is on governmental input to erosion. Critical erosion includes both the high risk urban-oriented recreation and on efforts to interest of erosion and the existence of high value economic private developers in providing facilities removed or recreational resources. Noncritical erosion from urban centers. These facilities would require means that there is a high risk of erosion, but high greater travel, but they would also provide the value economic or recreational resources do not highest quality recreation. Public funds should be exist. NOR protected all the shoreline subject to used with the following priorities: critical erosion in 1970, which amounted to 203.9 (1) urban recreation developments and acquisi- miles or 17 percent of the total. With higher lake tion and retention of unique and natural areas of levels and other changes in conditions in 1973, a regional significance much larger portion suffered erosion damage or (2) developments on land now publicly owned was susceptible to such damage, but a complete (3) other developments, to the extent that pub- inventory for the Basin is not available. However, lic funds are available for investment in urban for the shoreline in Michigan, a total of 715 miles lands. They may be used where feasible to assist was classed in 1973 as high risk erosion mileage the following: along Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron. This (a) acquiring flood plain land in rapidly ur- compares with 104 miles classed in 1970 as subject banizing areas to critical erosion and 479 miles classed as subject (b) clearing flood plains of damage-prone to noncritical erosion for a total of 583 miles. No uses and making them available for recreation use. Alternative Frameworks 89 5.6.4 Statistical Tables Table 1-196 compares land treatment programs. Section 12 contains Table 1-193, which gives needs, outputs, and percent of needs met for PRO; 5.7 NOR and PRO Framework Costs Tables 1-194 and 1-195 list capital costs and opera- tion, maintenance, and replacement costs. These Table 1-197 in Section 12 lists the total costs tables indicate by italics where PRO entries differ (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the from NOR. periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. Section 6 LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN 6.1 The Study Area Other principal rivers are the Bad River in Wis- consin and the Ontonagon River in Michigan. Statistical information about the Lake Superior The basin contains approximately 58,000 acres of basin and its subdivisions, River Basin Groups 1.1 inland lakes more than 40 acres in size, with many and 1. 2, and the counterpart Plan Area 1 , subdivided more smaller lakes dotting the region. Lake Goge- into Planning Subareas 1.1 and 1.2 is given in bic is the largest inland lake in the area, with a water Section 1. A map of the area is shown in Figure surface area of 8,700 acres. Seventeen reservoirs 1-20. have been constructed in the region, several of which are located near Duluth. The largest is on the Cloquet River, Minnesota, containing 171,400 acre-feet of 6.1.1 Human Characteristics storage. Since 1921, the level of Lake Superior has been The population density in the United States por- regulated by control works in the St. Marys River tion of the Lake Superior basin is low, about 31 above the rapids at Sault Ste. Marie. From 1957 to people per square mile. According to the 1970 the base year of the study, 1970, the range of census, 529,500 people reside in the area. Three of elevation of Lake Superior from extreme low to the 17 counties, St. Louis County, Minnesota; extreme high has been about 2.4 feet. The. max- Douglas County, Wisconsin; and Marquette imum range from highest monthly mean to lowest County, Michigan, account for 330,000 people, or 63 monthly mean for the period 1860 to 1970 was 3.83 percent of the total population. Other population feet. In addition to precipitation and runoff, Lake data are in Table 1-10. Superior receives water by importation via the The basin residents are only a small portion of Long Lake-Ogoki hydroelectric projects located in the people who use the natural resources in the Canada. This diversion averages nearly 5,000 cfs of area. Nonresidents significantly swell the area's water which formerly flowed north to the Hudson population during the hunting and vacation sea- Bay. The average annual outflow from Lake Supe- sons. Resort and second-home seasonal uses add rior through St. Marys River is about 74,500 efs. significantly to the number of part-time residents in The Lake Superior basin has a poor to fair po- the area. With better means of transportation and tential for ground-water supplies, but locally there the advent of snowmobiling as a sport, the nonres- are good aquifers. The best aquifers are in sand and ident uses are increasing yearly in both numbers gravel deposits, especially in the east end of the and duration. The estimated effect of this nonres- Upper Peninsula of Michigan, in the headwaters of ident population influx is a more than twofold in- the St. Louis River Basin of Minnesota, and in the crease in basin population during parts of the year. headwater areas of Wisconsin. Elsewhere the bed- rock is predominantly Precambrian igneous, meta- morphic, and sedimentary rock, with a 25- to 400- 6.1.2 Water Resources foot thick glacial drift cover providing limited ground water. On the average, surface runoff is about 8 to 10 The quality of surface waters is generally high, inches per year over the basin. There are hundre& with localized areas receiving substantial amounts of surface streams, typically short and fast with of domestic and industrial wastes. The lower St. erratic seasonal flows. The principal river is the St. Louis River is of poor quality, with numerous in- Louis, which has a drainage area of about 3,700 stances of oxygen depletion occurring in the past. square miles, with a portion of the stream length Most of the tributaries to Lake Superior in the forming part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin bound- Wisconsin portion, and some in Michigan, produce ary. A portion of the Wisconsin-Michigan boundary considerable quantities of sediment. The biological, is formed by the Montreal River, one of the smaller chemical, and physical characteristics of Lake Su- streams draining an area of about 281 square miles. perior waters are generally of excellent quality, 91 It v LAKE BASIN BOUN PLAN AREA BOUND CANADA AIINKI-A wiscoNsIN 5 NEWYORK 4 -.-s j1N.-A' _o 1EN"111.11NIA VICINITY MAP R I N @PA@ o MINNESOTA lp 0 1.2 m I c H_ I A a M ISCONSIN SCALE IN MILES @3. 40 50 Lake Supeiior Basin 93 except for localized areas. Generally, good-quality along with spruce and fir, typify these softwood ground water is available, except for highly miner- forests. alized water occurring in a few areas, particularly Mineral commodities presently produced in the in the Superior Slope and Apostle Islands com- basin include clay, iron ore, peat, sand and gravel, plexes, the Keweenaw. Peninsula area, and in the silver, copper, and crushed stone (gabbro and ba- headwaters of the Tahquamenon complex. salt). Current reserves of iron ore are considered to be 988 million tons measured, 6.9 billion tons indi- - cated and inferred, and 40.6 billion tons potential. 6.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources Reserves of titaniferous iron, anorthosite, and copper, silver, and nickel sulfides are also available, With the exception of Michigan's Huron and but commercial exploitation is currently uneconomi- Porcupine Mountains, the ridges of the Keweenaw cal. Peninsula, and the steep slopes northeast of Du- The Lake Superior basin abounds in outstanding luth, the Lake Superior basin is typified by either natural resources and aesthetically pleasing areas. rounded hills with deep-cut valleys or level to There are more inland lakes per square mile than in gently undulating plains. any of the other basins, and hundreds of clear The soils of the area are fairly low in natural streams. Bogs, swamps, sand dunes, waterfalls, fertility and were formed under coniferous or and a number of forest types comprise some of the mixed coniferous forest covers. Those in the west- major features in the area. The presence of a ern part of the basin belong to somewhat poorly variety of wildlife forms including moose, whitetail drained soil associations; whereas those in the deer, and the timber wolf, along with ruffed Michigan and Wisconsin portion include better- grouse, woodcock, and a wide variety of songbirds drained sandy loams, sandy clays, and sandy clay and waterfowl, provide abundant hunting and loam tills. aesthetic opportunities. Sport fishing is both wide- Overall land use in the Lake Superior basin spread and diversified. Brook, brown, and rainbow seems fairly consistent with its soil capabilities and trout, along with smallmouth bass and northern is outlined in Section 1. Figure 1-21 shows land use pike, make up the majority of the sport catch, in Plan Area 1 and PSAs 1.1 and 1.2. although introduction of coho, pink, and chinook The proportion of land in agriculture is the salmon in Lake Superior has provided additional lowest of any of the basins (Tables 1-48, 1-49, opportunities. One of the basin's great assets is the 1-50). The most important agricultural products 912-mile Lake Superior shoreline. A number of are potatoes, cloverseed, and dairy products, al- outstanding recreational areas are found near or though such fruits as apples, blueberries, cranber- along this shoreline, including the Apostle Islands ries, and strawberries are grown along the south- complex, the newly created Pictured Rocks Na- ern shores of Lake Superior. tional Lakeshore, Tahquamenon Falls, and the On the other hand, the proportion of land in famous Isle Royale National Park. forest is the highest of any of the basins. (Tables 1-48, 1-49, 1-50). Hardwood forests of beech, birch, maple, and aspen typify the Michigan-Wis- 6.1.4 Problems consin areas of the basin. Intermixed hardwood and softwood forests characterize the Minnesota por- Socioeconomic problems in the Lake Superior tion. Second growth jack, red, and white pine, basin are serious. Over the past decade, the region TABLE 1-48 Land Use, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1966-67 (in thousands of acres) Resource Base PSA and Total Urban Pasture Forest State Land Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land Other Total PSA 1.1 Minnesota 6,579.9 162.5 258.3 62.0 5,981.5 115.6 6,417.4 Wisconsin 2,893.6 122.0 171.8 37.5 2,373.4 188.9 2,771.6 PSA Total 9,473.5 284.5 430.1 99.5 8,354.9 304.5 9,189.0 PSA 1.2 Michigan 6,441.8 137.8 262.8 65.8 5,909.6 65.8 6,304.0 TOTAL 15,915.3 422.3 692.9 165.3 14,264.5 370.3 15,493.0 94 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-49 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Superior Plan Area (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 Lake Superior Total land area' 15,915.3 --- 15,915.3 --- 15,915.3 --- 15,915.3 Total urban and 422.3 0.7 423.0 8.8 431.8: 18.1 449.9 built-up Total nonurbanized 15,493.0 15,492.3 15,483.5 15,465.4 land Resource Base: Cropland 692.9 M2 692.9 (0.4) 692.5 (0.8) 691.7 Pasture 165.3 165.3- (0.1) 165.2 (0.2) 165.0 Forest Land 14,264.5 (0.7) 14,262.8 (8.0) 14,254.8 (16.6) 14,239.2 Other Land 370.3 370.3 (0.3) 370.0 (0.5) 369.5 Total.3 15,493.0 (0.7) 15,492.3 (8.8) 15,483.5 (18.1) 15,465.4 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. 'Total land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection.periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. (*) indicates < 50 ac. depletion. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. has experienced high. unemployment, low incomes, portions of Lake Superior being subject to critical and significant outmigration of workers. Although erosion. total personal income reached over $1,620 million in Severe climate, adverse topography, long dis- 1969, the per capita income of $3,037 lags far be- tances to markets, and poor-drainage in some areas hind the Great Lakes Region average of $3,802. prevent these lands from reaching their potential The major economic problems relate to a decline for food and fiber production. These factors, plus in markets for forest and mineral products as well the ppor productivity of most of- the area's soils, as to marginal agricultural activity. A- decline in the effectively restricts agricultural activities.. In this commercial fishing industry brought about by respect, the Michigan land portion of this basin is sharply reduced catches of valuable fish species is a the area in the Great Lakes Basin that has no Class contributory factor. Generally inadequate trans- I lands, i.e., those lands most suitable for agricul- port facilities, combined with a commercial naviga- tural activities. There are flooding problems based tion industry that is closed down for three months on natural soil and cover conditions in some areas. of the year, further complicate these problems. Except for the rural Sturgeon River basin area in Municipal water supply systems throughout the Michigan's western section, the only serious flood- area are generally in need of replacement. Lack of ing problems are in a few urbanized areas. population and economic -growth has meant min- The low productivity which typifies many of the imum expansion and little modernization for many area's lakes and streams creates some problems decades. with respect to fish abundance. The declining value Water quality is generally excellent throughout of wildlife -habitat in some areas brought about. by the basin. Some localized areas such as the St. the changing forest cover is posing definite local Louis River basin, however, suffer from both mu- threats to the abundance of deer and grouse. Lim- nicipal and industrial wastes. Mining wastes also ited access to inland lakes, coupled with inaccessi- present problems in some areas. One of the more bility of many stretches of the Lake Superior serious problems is in the Superior Slope complex shoreline, sets certain limits on resource use. along the northern Lake Superior shoreline. Problems of land use, particularly in terms of Overall, the heavy forest cover and lack of agri- competition for shoreline areas, are evident in the cultural activity keep erosion from becoming . a areas near the major cities. Because of the in- serious basinwide problem. Lack of conservation creasing influx of seasonal residents, speculative treatment practices in some agricultural and forest land developers, and mining activity, some of these lands, however, results in runoff, erosion, and sed- land use problems are acute. imentation problems. Topography and erodibility A summary of the resource problems to be found factors contribute to these problems, especially in in the Lake Superior basin is shown on Table 1-51. the western portions of Wisconsin where geologi- cally young red clay soils encourage massive erosion and sedimentation. Although stream bank erosion is 6.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development widespread throughout the basin, it reaches serious proportions in only a few localized areas. The same The Lake Superior basin is the most extensively can be said of shoreline erosion, with only scattered forested area in the Great Lakes Basin, with Lake Superior Basin 95 TABLE 1-50 Actual, and Projected Land Use, Lake Superior Plan Area by PSA (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use - -1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 PSA 1.1 Total land areal 9,473.5 --- 9,473.5 --- 9,473.5 --- 9,473.5 Total urban and 284.5 .7 285.2 7.8 293.0 14.9 307.9 built-up Total nonurbanized 9,189.0 9,188.3 9,180.5 9,165.6 land Resource Base: Cropland 430.1 (*)2 430.1 (.4) 429.7 (.7) 429.0 Pasture- 99.5 99.5 (.1) 99.4 (.2) 99.2 Forest Land 8,354.9 (.7) 8,354.2 (7.0) 8,347.2 (13.5) 8,333.7 Other Land 304.5 M 304.5 (.3) 304.2 (.5) 303.7 Tota13 9,189.0 (.7) 9,188.3 (7.8) 9,180.5 (14.9) 9,165.6 PSA 1.2 Total land areal 6,441.8 --- 6,441.8 --- 6,441.8 --- 6,441.8 Total urban and 137.8 137.8 1.0 138.8 3.2 142.0 built-up Total nonurbanized 6,304.0 6,304.0 6,303.0 6,299.8 land Resource Base: Cropland 262.8 262.8 M 262.8 (.1) 262.7 Pasture 65.8 65.8 M 65.8 M 65.8 Forest Land 5,909.6 5,909.6 (1.0) 5,908.6 (3.1) 5,905.5 Other Land 65.8 65.8 65.8 65.8 Total3 6,304.0 6,304 0 1.0 6,303.0 (3.2) 6,299.8 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Miehigan. lTotal land area = total area - water area, and is assumed con@tant for proj-tion p@riods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. indicates < 50 ac. depletion. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Other 2.3% Pasturel.0% Cropland 4.3% Urban 2.6% Urban 3% Other 1% Cropland S% Pasture 1% Pasture 1% Forest 9 0 % Cropland 4 % Other 3% Urban 2% PLAN AREA 1 Total Land Area 15,91S,300 acres @b n 2 Forest 88% Planning Subarea 1.1 Planning Subarea I *22 JForest92% Total Land Area Total Land Area d5 s 9,473,SOO acres 6,441,800 acre: FIGURE 1-21 Land Use in the Lake Superior Basin 96 -Appendix 1 TABLE 1-51 Lake Superior Basin, Resource Problems Matrix LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN 1.0 West River Basin Group 1.1 Superior St. Louis Apostle Bad Slope River Islands River Montreal Complex Basin Complex Basin Complex Q) Q) W Q U U _4 Cd co ru Cd ru 0 _q :B: 4 1 41 4., 4, 4 Cd W 0 r-q @4 0 -A @4 0 @4 0 @4 0 @4 -W Q $4 @4 4J > " P z P :$ 0 P :1 A 0 Resource Use Category 0 0 @D 04 @-4 W @_4 @-4 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED - - - - - - - - - - - - - SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 1 1 - - I - - 1 1 RURAL DOMESTIC& LIVESTOCK 1 1 - - I - - 1 IRRIGATION - - - - - - - 1 MINING 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING - - - - - 1 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 1 1 - - - - 2 2 1 - - - INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 1 1 - - - 1 3 1 1 - - - HYDROELECTRIC POWER 1 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 - - SPORT FISHING 1 1 1 - 1 - 2 1 2 - 1 - 1 - - 1 - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1 1 2 - - 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - COMMERCIAL FISHING 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 RELATED LAND USES& PROBLEMS LAND USE 2 2 - 1 - 3 2 1 1 - 2 2 - 2 - - 2 - AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1 1 - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1 1 - 2 1 - 1 1 - 1 2 - - - FOREST LAND TREATMENT 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 SHORELAND EROSION 1 1 - - 1, - - 2 - - 1 - - STREAMBANK EROSION - 1 - I - - 2 - - 2 - - 2 FLOOD PLAINS 1 1 - 1 2 1 1 - - - 1 - - 1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1 1 - I I I I I - - I - - I - - 1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 - 2 1 - 1 - 1 - - - OUTDOOR RECREATION - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - Legend: 3 Severe--Demands immediate attention 2 Moderate--Of major concern; potentially serious 1 Minor--Not considered a serious problem - Problem is insignificant or not known 13,308,900 acres of commercial forest land. Present Lake Superior basin are substantial. In 1964, it was income in payrolls of . forest-based industries is estimated that there were 1.4 million visitations to about $55 million (estimated 1970), with employ- the area, with $50 million spent by tourists. De- ment at about 11,000. About 12,500 are employed in tailed data and evaluations on existing economic mineral production, with value added estimated at and demographic conditions may be found in the more than $625 million. Almost 70 percent of the various'functional appendixes for the Great Lakes nation's production of iron ore comes from the Lake Basin Framework Study, and particularly in Ap- Superior region. About 6,000 people were em- pendix 19, Economic and Demographic Studies. A ployed in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in picture of present natural resource development 1970. The recreational uses and development in the gives an indication of the needs which have been Lake Supetior Basin 97 TABLE 1-51 (continued) Lake Superior Basin, Resource Problems Matrix LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN 1.0 East River Basin Group 1.2 Porcu- Ontonagon Keewenaw Sturgeon Huron Grand Tahquamenon pine Mt. River Peninsula River Mountain Marais River Sault Complex Basin Complex Basin Complex Complex Basin Complex W 14 W a) 4) W Q) 41 U U 0 C) U U 'A Ca Cd Ca rd Co Ca Cd Co -1 @1: 4' 41 4-4 U. 4. 41 41 Ca W $4 W r. -4 W `q P r, r-i 14 0 -4 W 0 @4 W 0 Cd W Ca Cd Q) 0 Co 0) Co cc a) Co Q) 0 0 W 0 W W 0 0 W 4j 'D P 41 a W 4j .0 W 4j 0 W 4J a W 4-1 $4 :J 0 P g r. P 0 r. P 0 0 W :3 0 04 1-4 @D H @D 04 H ;D Cd H H 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1. 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 1 2 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - met in the past as well as an indication of the day were withdrawn from ground water, inland lakes direction for future resource development. and streams, and Lake Superior for all uses. Municipal water supplies served 382,900 persons (73 percent of the total population) in 1970 (Table 6.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals 1-52). Most of the larger municipalities are located near Lake Superior. As a consequence, more than Because of low population and limited develop- half the total water supply comes from the Lake ment of industry, agriculture, and electric power, (Table 1-53). the Lake Superior basin has the lowest total water Industrial water supplies from private sources withdrawal of the five Lake basins, The mining come primarily from surface water supplies (Table industry uses large quantities of water to process 1-54). The value added by manufacturing was taconite and othpr iron ores. Pulp and paper mills in about $382 million in 1970. this area also use tremendous amounts of water. Ground water, supplemented by some inland In 1970it wasestimated that 1,300 milliongallons per lakes and streams, is the primary source of water 98 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-52 Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Superior Plan Area (mgd) 1970 Average Demand Domestic Municipally PSA State and Commercial Supplied Industrial Total Source Capacity 1.1 Minnesota 18.1 7.6 25.7 49.6 Wisconsin 5.2 1.2 6.4 24.1 Michigan 1.0 --- 1.0 1.5 1.2 Michigan 13.8 1.5 15.3 23.0 TOTAL --- 38.1 10.3 48.4 98.2 TABLE 1-53 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supplies, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Water Source Inland Lakes PSA State Source Capacity Great Lakes and Streams Groundwater 1.1 Minnesotii 49.6 38.3 0.2 11.1 Wisconsin 24.1 5.5 1.2 17.4 Michigan 1.5 --- 0.5 1.0 1.2 Michigan 23.0 13.1 1.6 8.3 TOTAL --- 98.2 56.9 3.5 37.8 supplies for rural domestic, livestock, spray water, TABLE 1-54 Industrial Water Supply Develop- and rural nonfarm uses (Table 1-55). ment, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Irrigated cropland and golf courses cover about Self-Supplied 1,700 and 1,800 acres respectively (Table 1-56). Not Gross Water Consumptive much demand for crop irrigation has been experi- PSA State Requirementsi Withdrawals Use enced in this area, but some orchards, potatoes, 1.1 Minnesota 153 68 5 and vegetables are irrigated. Inland lakes and Wisconsin 95 26 2 streams and ground water have been the source of Michigan --- --- supply. 1.2 Michigan 104 32 4 In 1968, approximately 59,000 acres of land were TOTAL 352 126 11 under active mineral production, with the bulk of 'Partially supplied by recirculation. land required for mining activity centered around the Mesabi Iron Range in Minnesota and the iron ceeded 3.9 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in ore ranges in Marquette County, Michigan. Water 1970. All condenser cooling systems operating in was used in the production of iron ore, sand and 1970 were of the flow-through type. gravel, copper, and crushed limestone (Table 1-57). Lake Superior furnished the major portion of the water withdrawals, with the largest quantity being 6.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses diverted for the Silver Bay taconite plant (Table 1-58). In terms of requirements for treatment of waste- As of December 31, 1970, electric power genera- water discharges, there were about 44.6 rngd of tion facilities of 10 megawatts or more within the municipal effluents and about 55.2 mgd of industrial Lake Superior basin consisted of eleven thermal effluents in the basin in 1970. The Lake Superior plants and three hydroelectric plants. All fourteen basin falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal- installed power plants and two more scheduled State conference on Lake Superior. Major pollution plants are privately or municipally owned, varying problems are traceable to effluents from mining and in type and capacity. The basin's electrical power forest products industries, and to the lack of ter- development is shown in Table 1-59. tiary or, in some cases, secondary treatment by With a total installed capacity of about 790 meg- both public and private wastewater disposal sys- awatts, net power generation f rom the basin ex- tems. Because of the variance in treatment (or no . Lake Superior Basin 99 TABLE 1-55 Rural Water Supply, Lake Supe- treatment) for point sources of wastewater such as rior Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) industry or municipal outfalls, and complexities Developed Consumptive associated with nonpoint sources such as agricul- PSA State Source Capacity Use tural or mining areas, an accurate summary of the status of wastewater treatment cannot be made. 1.1 Minnesota 5.2 1.5 Table 1-60 indicates the 1970 level of municipal and Wisconsin 2.3 0.6 industrial wastewater discharges. 1.2 Michigan 5.0 1.2 The single largest United States source of in- TOTAL 12.5 3.3 dustrial effluent comes from Reserve Mining Com- pany taconite plant at Silver Bay, Minnesota, which for several years has discharged approximately 67,000 long tons of taconite tailings into Lake Su- TABLE 1-56 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake perior daily. As a result of a suit filed by the Superior Plan Area, (base year) estimated Department of Justice in behalf of EPA and joined Agriculture Golf Courses by several States, the discharge into the lake is to Withdra.al (.gd) Withdrawal (mgd) 100-Day 100-Day be stopped and onland disposal instituted. PSA Acres Season Annual Acres Season Annual The many opportunities for sport fishing in the 1.1 --- --- --- 1,650 6.1 1.7 area are dominated by coldwater species. Fishing 1.2 1,733 2.6 0.7 150 0.7 0.2 access, a continuing sea lamprey problem in Lake TOTAL 1,733 2.6 0.7 1,800 6.8 1.9 Superior, low productivity and poor wintering habitat of some inland waters, and depletion of TABLE 1-57 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Su- some species are problems. Current fishery pro- perior Plan Area, 1968, estimated (mgd) grams involve proper protection and improvement of natural resources, direct manipulation of fish New Water Intake populations, maintenance plantings, and continuing Total Water Annual Consumptive PSA Requirementsi Seasonal Average Use 2 control of the sea lamprey. Table 1-61 illustrates 1.1 871 542 42 the situation as of about 1970. 1.2 67 34 30 12 Recreational boating is somewhat limited bya TOTAL 938 572 54 short season and a deficiency of sheltered areas on Lake Superior for smaller craft. However, because lNew water intake plus recirculated (seai;onal) of abundance of water acreage and high quality 2Annual average boating, demands are steadily increasing, largely through use by nonresidents (Table 1-62). In- TABLE 1-58 Source of New Water Used by creased sport fishing as a result of introduction of coho salmon is increasing the demand for harbor Mineral Industries, Lake Superior Plan Area, facilities. 1968, estimated (mgd) Commercial fishing activities are carried on to a New Intake May-October Average for 365 Days limited extent in open Lake Superior waters. Both Streams 5.4 5.4 Wisconsin and Michigan restricted commercial Lake Superior 534.3 530.0 fishing to limited entry as of 1970. During the Other Lakes 26.7 26.7 period 1965-1969, the average annual value of six commercially important species was about $983,000 Ground Water 1.0 1.0 and average annual catch about 7,343,000 pounds. Mines 9.1 9.1 In 1970, approximately 105 million tons of com- TOTAL 576.5 572.2 merce moved through the locks on St. Marys River, which connects Lake Superior to Lake Huron. The TABLE 1-59 Electric Power Development, Lake Superior Plan Area Type and Capacity (MW) Steam-Electric Hydro- Internal Fossil Water Withdrawal PSA electric Combustion Steam Total (mgd) 1.1 88 15 389 492 311.9 1.2 42 40 215 297 203.8 TOTAL 130 55 604 789 515.7 100 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-60 Municipal and Industrial Waste- 14,254,500 acres of forest land, 21 percent of which water Flows, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 is in national forest ownership, is provided through mgd programs by the U.S. Forest Service under the PSA State Municipal Industrial national forest system and Federal-State Coopera- tive Forestry; by State and county agencies; by 1.1 Minnesota 23.5 31.5 private owners and industry; and by the soil and Wisconsin 9. 2 water conservation districts. Current forest land 1.2 Michigan 12.0 23.7 treatment and management programs have con- TOTAL --- 44.7 55.2 tributed to the adequate treatment and acceptable management levels of 7,784,000 acres of national, State, county and private forest land in the region, cornme'reial navigation season is considered to or 54 percent of the total forest land. average 240 days. Ten commercial harbors are lo- Some shore erosion protection measures have cated on Lake Superior, and major commodities been provided by the Corps of Engineers under its moved are iron ore, coal, and grain. beach erosion control authority, but mostly private shore property and commercial interests have con- structed seawalls, riprapping, and cribbing on 6.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems scattered reaches of the shoreline. The use and ownership of Lake Superior shoreland and that of In f970, the agricultural land that needed treat- the St. Marys River are shown in Table 1-40. Table ment amounted to 472,900 acres consisting of crop- 1-65 indicates status of the Lake Superior shoreline land, pasture, and other land (Table 1-63). Ap- as of 1970. proximately 314,700 acres, about 45 percent of all Streambank erosion is severe in some of the cropland, is now receiving adequate land conserva7 tributaries to Lake Superior. Besides being detri- tion treatment and management. Drainage limita- mental to water quality, erosion hastens the loss of tions also exist in the Lake Superior Plan Area as existing land and agricultural and urban improve- shown in Table 1-64. ments (Table 1-66). Property owners desiring to Land treatment and management for the install streambank erosion control measures may TABLE 1-61 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1970 Ponded Waters Fishing Licenses PSA State (acres) Resident Non-Resident Angler Days 1.1 Minnesota 562,526 94,163 38,851 3,107,000 Wisconsin 69,696 17,189 16,275 1,284,000 1.2 Michigan 145,535 34,007 19,053 2,701,000 TOTAL 777,757 145,359 74,179 7,092,000 TABLE 1-62 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Superior Plan Area, 1969 Lake Superior Access Total No. Total Boat Days PSA, State Harborsi Sites2 of Boats in Use 1.1 Minnesota 7 130 34,000 1,759,0003 Wisconsin 7 276 33,400 1.2 Michigan 23 26 20,600 512,000 TOTAL ---- 37 432 88,000 2,271,000 IDuluth-Superior counted only in Minnesota 2May include both inland lakes and streams 3Total for PSA 1.1 Lake Superior Basin 101 be furnished with technical assistance by the U.S. Over 97 percent of the 15.9 million acres in the Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Lake Superior basin is classified as wildlife habitat. Corps of Engineers. More than 94 percent of this total, or approximate- There are only two major existing structural ly 14.3 million acres, is forested. Ninety-three flood control projects: one on Ball Park Creek at percent of the habitat shown in Table 1-68 is con- Bayfield, Wisconsin, constructed by the Corps of sidered huntable. Engineers, and another on Mission Creek at Fond The area of the land resource base, made up of du Lac, constructed by the State of Minnesota. the farmland and forest land, and reported in Table There are numerous channel improvements, in- 1-17, is based on 1966-1967 measurements and cluding floodwalls, channel straightening, and re- estimates. Habitat is based on 1960 information and lated flood control measures, which have been con- estimates. In some instances changes in land use structed by local governments and private result in habitat being recorded as greater than the interests. Flooding caused nearly a million dollars corresponding land base in the planning subarea or in damages in 1970 (Table 1-67). State. Figure 1-22 reflects the present availability and use of waterfowl habitat. Over 61,000 acres of shoal TABLE 1-63 Agricultural Land Treatment areas exist with one-half of this total important as Needs, L 'ake Superior Plan Area, 1970 (thou- nesting, resting, and feeding areas. sands of acres) Much of the existing habitat is of generally low Pasture Other quality. This is reflected by the basin's wildlife PSA Cropland Land Land Total species, which are generally lower in density and 1.1 187.9 75.9 53.8 317.6 more specialized than those found elsewhere in the 1.2 100.3 49.7 5.3 155.3 Great Lakes Basin. TOTAL 288.2 125.6 59.1 472.9 In an inventory of outstanding, unusual, and significant aesthetic and cultural values in the Lake Superior basin, more than 500 items in 26 catego- TABLE 1-64 Drainage Limitations in the Lake ries were identified. Environmental systems of the Superior Plan Area (thousands of acres) Lake Superior basin in most critical need of plan- Total Agricultural Drainage Problems ning attention are identified in Appendix 22, Aes- PSA Land Area Land Severe S ome thetic and Cultural Resources. They include shore 1.1 9,473.5 530 37 39 zones, buffer zones, and linkage corridors. 1.2 6,441.8 326 55 15 The United States portion of the Lake Superior TOTAL 15,915.3 859 92 54 basin is the least urbanized of the five Great Lakes basins. For this reason, its resources have been TABLE 1-65 Lake Superior Shoreline Conditions, 1970 (miles) Total Subject to Erosion Subject No PSA State Shoreline Critical Noncritical Protected to Flooding Problem 1.1 Minnesota 174.9 0.5 10.9 0 0 163.5 Wisconsin 156.3 13.0 93.8 0.5 11.8 37.2 Michigan 5.0 0 0 0 0 5.0 Total 336.2 13.5 104.7 0.5 11.8 205.7 1.2 Michigan 575.8 15.2 23.2 4.9 0 532.5 Total 575.8 15.2 23.2 4.9 0 532.5 TOTAL --- 912.0 28.7 127.9 5.4 11.8 738.2 TABLE 1-66 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Superior Basin, 1970 Bank Miles_.2_f Damag,@_ Annual Damages PSA -state Severe Moderate Land Loss Sedimentation Other Total 1.1 Michigan 33 131 13,300 3,500 15,900 32,700 Wisconsin 121 197 1.2 Michigan 317 631 112,300 95,200 12,400 219,900 TOTAL 471 959 125,600 98,700 28,300 252,600 102 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-67 Estimated Flood Damages,.Lake Superior Basin, 1970 Estimated Acres Annual Damages in Flood Plain RBG State Urban Rural Urban Rural 1.1 Minnesota 79,000 49,400 120 112,322 .Wisconsin 241,800 5,000 938 19,547 1.2 Michigan 385,000 217,600 4,721 55,160 TOTAL --- 705,800 272,000 5,779 187,029 TABLE 1-68 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Superior Plan Area, 1960 Total Land Area 'Farm Habitat Forest Habitat Total Habitat PSA State (acres) Acres % of Total Land Acres % of Total Land (acres) 1.1 Minn. & Wisc. 9,473,500 816,500 8 8,511,300 90 9,327,800 1.2 Michigan 6,441,800 346,200 5 5,831,800 91 6,178,000 TOTAL --- 15,915,300 1,162,700 7 14,343,100 90 15,505,800 NOTE: The area 0f the land resource base, made up of the farmland and forest land, and reported elsewhere, is based on 19 66-1967 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. relatively little affected by urbanization. This basin acres, is nearly half the total land area of the basin is rich in clusters of resources features that have and constitutes more than half the total designated helped to make it a prime attraction to recreation- recreation land in the Great Lakes Basin. Approx- ists and casual visitors. imately 6 million acres are national, State, and county The outdoor recreation resources in this area forests. are exceptional. Outstanding recreational features Portions of more than 6.4 million additional acres include Isle Royale National Park, portions of the of public forest land in the basin have a potential Boundary Waters Canoe Area, the 219,000-acre for new recreational development. Of this total, Voyageurs National Park, the beaches of Whitefish about 2.8 million acres are in national forest, about Bay, dunes and cliffs of'the Pictured Rocks Na- 1.7 million acres are State forest, and about 1.9 tional Lakeshore, the 56,000-acre Apostle Islands million acres are owned by county and local gov- National Lakeshore area, Tahquamenon Falls, the ernments. Also available for hunting, fishing, and Big-Sea-Water Recreation. Area, the Huron and other general recreational activities are thousands Porcupine Mountains, and a segment of the North of acres of lands owned by paper, mining, and Country Trail. The proposed Grand Portage Na- power companies. tional Monument comprising 12,644 acres, extend- Hundreds of inland lakes containing some of the ing along 28.7 miles of Lake Superior shoreline, and highest-quality waters east of the Mississippi are encompassing fourteen offshore islands, will be an scattered throughout the area. The inland surface additional attraction. Extensive forests, abundant waters available for recreation far surpass those inland lakes and streams, and over 900 miles of Lake Superior shoreline provide a quality resource base for outdoor recreation. TABLE 1-69 Land and Water Surface Usable Much of the area's terrain and the long for Recreation in the Lake Superior Plan Area, winter, provides an excellent setting for the winter 1970 (thousands of acres) sports enthusiast. More than 1,000 acres have been Lake Inland developed for skiing and sledding activities, and PSA Land SuRerior Lakes Total there are over 250 miles of snowmobile trails in the Michigan portion of the basin. 1.1 5,300 325 506 6,131 Table 1-69 shows land and water surface avail- 1.2 2,100 481 116 2,697 able for recreation. The total land area in the basin TOTAL 7,400 806 622 8,828 designated in 1970 for recreation, 7.4 million Migration and/o( wintering 2 Nesticig and migration vtcmiry MAP OF THE DRAINAGE SASINS OF THE GREAT @,AKES, 0 T A ell MINNESOTA 12 M I C H I G A N WISCONSIN SCALE IN AfILES 10 20 30 40 50 104 Appendix 1 found in any other Lake basin, and constitute fully State parks and recreation areas) because of the 30 percent of all such waters in the Great Lakes availability of resources. Basin. Tables 1-238, 1-239, and 1-240 in Section 12 Principal rivers of the area include the Black, summarize the Normal Framework and costs. Ontonagon, Presque Isle, Tahquamenon, Two Hearted, Dead, Sturgeon, Montreal, and St. Louis. The first five have been identified for possible in- 6.2.2 The Area clusion in a State scenic or natural rivers system. Over 500 miles of canoe trails have been developed The study area, located in the northwest portion in the Minnesota and Wisconsin portions of the of the Great Lakes Basin, drains more than 9,200 basin. Many of the lakes also provide excellent square miles of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michi- opportunities for canoeing in wilderness settings. gan land bordering the northwestern shore of Lake The 912-mile Lake Superior shoreline is proba- Superior (Figure 1-23). Statistics are included in bly the basin's finest recreational asset. It is un- tables in Section 1. questionably one of the most picturesque of any in the Great Lakes Basin. Along its length can be found 170 miles of public beaches (Table 1-70). 6.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems Many of the area's outstanding features can be found along this shoreline. The projected needs for resources by time level The existing developed supply of total recrea- are shown on Table 1-238 in Section 12. tional facilities is shown in Section 12 in Table 1-198. This table also shows projected needs and outputs from the Proposed Framework for the 6.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals Lake Superior basin developed from the frame- works for RBG 1.1 and RBG 1.2. The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 are estimated at an additional 2190 mgd. The base year 6.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 1.1 water withdrawals were about 995 mgd. About 93 percent of the additional water withdrawal need is for thermal power cooling and 5 percent is for rural 6.2.1 Summary domestic and livestock, irrigation, and mining. Municipal water supply and self-supplied industrial Under a normal growth condition, the 1970 pop- withdrawals each account for about I percent of the ulation of 345,155 in PSA 1. 1 would increase to additional water to be withdrawn. about 475,000 at year 2020. Total employment is estimated to increase to 177,300 in 2020 as com- pared to 117,956 at the 1970 level. An approximate 6.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses 50 percent decrease by 2020 of employment in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries is projected, There are many problems within the river basin with mining expected to recover to about the 1960 group that cause degradation and restriction of level (20 percent above 1970) and manufacturing uses. These will continue to have deleterious ef- and other employment to increase 50 percent. fects in the future. They include adequacy and The western Lake Superior basin will experience operation characteristics of municipal waste treat- continued recreational development (national parks, ment plants; collecting and intercepting sewers; recreation and wilderness areas, and trails; and industrial outfalls; combined sewers; steam power TABLE 1-70 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Superior Plan Area (in acres) Publicly Owned Beaches Privately Owned Beaches Usable Open to Public Not Open To Public Open to Not With Without Potential for Little/No PSA Public Restricted Usable Charge Charge Development Potential Total 1.1 34.7 0 0.1 7.3 0 0 8.5 50.6 1.2 127.3 0.5 0 0 9.6 0 23.1 160.5 TOTAL 162.0 0.5 0.1 7.3 9,6 0 31.6 211.1 % 76.7 <1 <1 3.5 4.5 0 15.0 Lake Supe7ior Basin 105 LIKE VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES i!i 5a I;o oWwo Rive, 4P,=cz;, &.1i, L.kE, COOK Q. 1 rand Marais BEL itt LAKE ALLrora Chishol 0 m c) @ Vir..ni ...................... Hibbing Eveleth 94 ef 0 at 9- Siiver Bay E, %eftic: S N VVIALr S T. 'LL.'0 U I S 4. Two Harbors 'D 0 APOSTLE ISLANDS s GQ 0) 0 1:51 Bayfield ST. IS Dulut w Clo uet o o S erior APOSTLE ISLANDS eAshla _14S4 Pot o . @Inw..d CARLTON@ 'a. 0 0z uj BAD zQ i@ Ln Isco Irv DOUGLAS BAYFIELD AL.LAN. IRON RIVER BASIN GROUP PLANNING SUBAREA SCALE IN MILES IS FIGURE 1-23 Lake Superior West, Planning Subarea 1.1 106 Appendix 1 plants; fertilizers and pesticides from agriculture mately 40 percent of the cropland is presently idle, and land runoff; dredging and redeposition of bot- and this is projected to increase to 65 percent by tom sediments in open water; and phosphorus and 2020. Nearly 50 percent of the cropland is now nitrogen inputs into the streams. being used for forage production, and this is pro- Corrective programs have been initiated to up- jected to decrease to less than 30 percent in 2020. grade water quality throughout the river basin Agriculture is marginal at present and is projected group. Municipal programs to meet water quality to decline further in the future. standards have been hampered by failure of the The following are some of the problems asso- Federal government to meet its commitment to ciated with agriculture and forestry: share in the cost of the construction of the plants. (1) low productivity resulting from a combina- There is a need to implement programs for the tion of relatively poor soils and a short growing reduction of agricultural wastes, nutrients, sedi- season ments, insecticides, and herbicides. (2) lack of adequate markets Problems related to fish habitat and fishing in (3) poor accessibility this area are lack of fishing access, presence of the (4) improper management and use of agricul- sea lamprey in Lake Superior, low productivity, tural and forest lands. This is detrimental to low quality of wintering habitat in some inland economic growth and environmental enhancement. waters, and depletion of some species. (5) a lack of conservation treatment practices One of the main problems in this area is that on agricultural and forest lands resulting in in- some of the existing inland waters are overused at creased runoff and some erosion and sedimentation. the present time for recreational boating. The lack Forest land is predicted to decrease due to high- of stream improvement, lack of maintenance, and way, power line, reservoir, urban, recreational, periodic low flows limit small boat opportunities and industrial developments. Unless strong action and the amount of canoeing on some inland waters. is undertaken to halt the accelerating deterioration The influx of nonresident boats into the area is of natural environment, rehabilitation of the extremely high each season and is steadily increas- for'ested land will be very costly, if not impossible. ing. Table 1-71 shows recreational boating use in Some other major problems in this area are how to PSA 1.1 in 1970 and projects future needs. secure good management for private forest lands In addition to making water surfaces available to and how to protect and establish trees and shrubs boaters, it is necessary to provide berthing facili- in areas surrounding urban and built-up areas. ties, launching sites, access, and navigational aids. There are 118.2 miles of Lake Superior shoreline The volume of waterborne commerce handled at with erosion problems in this river basin group, ports in River Basin Group 1. 1 is among the largest with 13.5 miles subject to critical erosion and 104.7 in the Great Lakes. This topic is discussed in Sec- miles subject to noncritical erosion. The total tion 5 in relation to the Great Lakes Basin and in shoreline in this area is 336.2 miles, of which 0.5 Subsection 6.4, Lake Superior Intrarelationships. miles are protected. Along streams which drain areas of less than 400 square miles, there are 313 bank-miles subject to 6.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems moderate streambank erosion damage, and 154 miles subject to severe damage. The annual dam- There are an estimated 834,100 acres of agricul- age is estimated at $32,700 per year, principally tural land, consisting of cropland, pasture, and due to land losses. For streams draining more than other land, in this planning subarea. Approxi- 400 square miles, there is an annual estimate of 15 bank miles of moderate streambank erosion with negligible damage. Most of this damage is from TABLE 1-71 Use and Projected Needs for Rec- sedimentation. See also Table 1-66. The greatest reational Boating, PSA 1.1 streambank erosion problem in this area is the high erosion in northwestern Wisconsin that mostly 1000 Boating.Days occurs on private land. It is difficult both from a Great Lakes Inland financial and a persuasive point of view to imple- Category Waters Waters ment streambank erosion programs. To reduce erosion and sedimentation, more regulation is 1970 Use 40 1,719 needed in highway, urban, and suburban construc- 1980 Needs 103 147 tion programs and in logging. The land in the southeast part of the river basin 2000 Needs 124 273 group, from Duluth to the northern part of Ashland 2020 Needs 151 399 County, Wisconsin, has high erosion and sedimen- tation rates, and local damage to cropland and land Lake Superior Basin 107 in other uses is common. Sedimentation from the somewhat distorted conclusion because it was not entire area is estimated at 102,000 tons per year. possible to quantify the directional patterns of The greatest flood damages in this river basin travel in the methodology used for estimating re- group occur in the urban area, although the agri- quirements. The actual situation, as indicated by cultural lands are also subject to considerable studies made by the States of Wisconsin and Min- damage. The major problems are encroachment on nesota, is that there is very heavy travel north the natural flood plain areas, the lack of local flood from the urbanized area around Chicago and Mil- plain zoning and regulation, constricted river waukee, as well as from outside the Basin, to make reachesi inadequate channel capacity, or a combi- use of the extremely desirable recreation areas in nation of these causes. About one-third of the the Lake Superior basin. Not only does the direc- average annual urban damages occur in the Bad tion of travel influence the requirements in this River drainage area, and three-fourths of the area, but the quality of the recreation experience average. annual rural damages occur in the St. has led people to drive farther than they normally Louis River basin. would, and farther than was considered in the There appears to be an adequate supply of land methodology. and wildlife habitat to satisfy normal needs. There Thus, the needs for the target years for almost is a shrinking resource base. Wildlife habitat land is all forms of recreation are believed to be under- being allocated to other uses, and in some cases stated. In considering the entire Great Lakes land is not managed as well as it could be f or Basin, the process of framework formulation takes multiple uses including wildlife conservation. An into account transfer of needs from one area to additional' acute problem, particularly in the St. another. This is not normally done in considering a Louis River basin, is the need for preservation or single river basin group. However, because of the protection of the remaining wetlands in the area. A availability of the State studies, the frameworks large portion of the inland wetland area still re- developed for River Basin Group 1.1 have been maining in the Great Lakes Basin is found in this expanded beyond those required to meet the needs river basin group. determined in the Outdoor Recreation Work Group Existing aesthetic and cultural values have been methodology. These frameworks have endeavored summarized previously in Subsection 6.1. The to meet the needs as they are conceived after major problem is the need to preserve outstanding consideration of all the information available but values. In Planning Subarea 1.1 such cities as Du- without formally transferring the needs. Table luth, Hibbing, and Virginia, Minnesota, and Supe- 1-238 in Section 12, shows a summary of the ex- rior and Ashland, Wisconsin, face some urban ex- tensive and intensive land needs and program out- pansion. By the year 2020 it is estimated that puts. 307,900 acres will be devoted to urban use, an A significant part of the need is to serve urban increase of 23,400 acres over the 1966-67 figures. residents, and presently undeveloped portions of Environmental buffer zones immediately adjacent existing recreation areas in or near urban centers to the edge of the expanding urban centers are in could be developed to meet this need in part. need of study and planning attention to insure proper use of their inherent significant resources. In addition to the general problems of meeting Environmental corridors merit consideration in this recreation needs, particularly where large numbers area. At the present time, institutional arrange- of persons come from outside the area, there are ments and funding are not available to meet these some specific problems related to unique high- objectives. The Lake Superior shore is important quality recreational opportunities. The principal enough to warrant immediate steps for preserva- one is in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Most of tion. the visitors to this area enter at only six of the 78 The land acreage available for recreation in this access points. The result is that the wilderness planning subarea is about 5.3 million acres. Of this areas near these six access points receive exces- total, more than 4.1 million acres are in national, sively heavy use, and the beauty of the wilderness State or county forests. There are nearly 127,000 in the vicinity is being threatened with severe acres of Indian lands. State and local parks contain degradation. On the other hand, many other areas more than 40,000 acres. The total acreage of the receive little or no use. No immediate solution is Great Lakes and inland waters amounts to more apparent, but solutions are being sought. than 690,000 acres. Large areas of potentially desirable recreational An analysis of the recreational demand and sup- land have been disturbed in connection with the ply for each of the target years indicates that no extensive mining of iron ore in the Minnesota por- need exists for additional acreage through year tion of the area. The large open-pit excavations and 2020 for several activities, and only moderate needs huge piles of spoil detract from the aesthetic quali- for the remaining activities. However, this is a ties of the area. 108 Appendix 1 6.2.4 Alternative Frameworks standards. Litigation to halt discharge of taconite waste into Lake Superior is nearing a conclusion, Two alternative frameworks are presented for and this matter is not included in the NOR Frame- this river basin group. The Normal Framework work program. does not reflect coordination for the Lake basin or Water-oriented outdoor recreation is discussed the Great Lakes Basin. under related land uses and problems. The Proposed Framework contains the recom- All sport fishery needs are met by programs mendations of the Commission in an effort to re- which include intensive management of reclaimed flect the views of the people of the basin and the trout lakes; management of other lakes for other policies and programs of the States. To some ex- species; introduction of salmon and steelhead into tent, the Proposed Framework reflects coordina- Lake Superior; spawning run development; man- tion in its formulation among a number of river agement and stocking of the stream fishery waters; basin groups, both in the Lake basin and in the and continued vigilance against the sea lamprey. Great Lakes Basin as a whole. Recreational boating needs are met on both Lake Superior waters and inland waters. During the first ten years the needs are greater on Lake Superior, 6.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) but by 2020 the needs on inland waters will have increased beyond those on the Lake Superior The Normal Framework is based on meeting waters. Programs for Lake Superior include quantified needs and solving identified problems to berthing facilities, launching sites, navigational the maximum practicable extent consistent with aids, and habors of refuge. On inland waters the subobjectives and criteria discussed in Section 2 of programs primarily provide launching sites, access, the appendix. The program outputs and costs are and some berthing facilities, in addition to making summarized in Tables 1-238, 1-239, and 1-240, increasing amounts of water available to the public which are in Section 12. for boating. Because it is probable that boaters will (1) Water Withdrawals come into the area in numbers above those indi- Generally, the water withdrawal problems are cated by the needs, the programs go further than not serious, and all quantified needs are met. Large simply meeting the needs and provide facilities for quantities of water for thermal power cooling and a surplus of boating days over the period. self-supplied industrial uses, including mineral Commercial navigation programs include essen- processing, will probably come from Lake Supe- tially a continuation of present practices, namely, rior. Municipal and industrial supplies will be pro- the maintenance of the existing systems of harbors vided by expanding ground-water sources, but and channels, including the containment of all pol- after the year 2000 these systems will place in- luted dredge spoil. Expansion of the total system to creased reliance on inland lakes and streams. A include a longer navigation season or provision for large regional water supply system for the Duluth larger ships is discussed in Section 5 and Subsection area, and a similar system for Marquette, Michi- 6.4. In RBG 1.1 Silver Bay, Duluth-Superior and gan, will take water from Lake Superior. As an Taconite Harbors will be improved. alternative, reservoir storage should be considered (3) Related Land Uses and Problems in Marquette County, Michigan, to meet needs For the treatment of agricultural land and forest after the year 2000. Rural domestic and livestock land, the programs consist of a continuation of requirements are met from ground-water sources, present practices of conservation, drainage of the while irrigation needs are met from either ground- agricultural land, and land treatment on the water sources or inland lakes and streams, depend- forested land. Not all the opportunities for en- ing on the particular location and the availability hancement of these lands have been accepted. and cost factors. The 13.5-mile section of Lake Superior shore (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses which is subject to critical erosion will be treated All waste treatment needs are met by municipal during the projection period using conventional or self-supplied industrial facilities, using conven- methods of structural protection. The 104.7-mile tional methods. Between 1970 and 1980, several section of the shore subject to noncritical erosion is locations in the Minnesota portion of the river basin not treated under the programs. group are expected to add tertiary treatment facil- Streambank erosion is severe on about one-third ities to comply with water quality standards, and of the total bank-mileage subject to erosion, and additional locations will require this between 1980 this severe portion is treated under the programs and 2020. There are relatively small quantities of by conventional structural methods. waste which may need advanced treatment in the Flood damages in urban areas are eliminated on Wisconsin area, and these have not been evaluated, about half the area before 1980 by structural pro- but there should be no problem with meeting the grams. Programs in later years also involve strue- Lake Superior Basin 109 tural measures but rely also on land use changes, so that outmigration of the population can be re- treatment, and institutional changes. About 80 duced or eliminated. percent of the total urban land affected is protected (1) Water Withdrawals in the total time period. Rural treatment is almost Differences with respect to water withdrawals in entirely by structural methods, and eliminates the PRO Framework as compared to the NOR have flood damage on about 40 percent of the land af- not been evaluated, but they are considered minor fected. for a framework analysis. It should be noted that Wildlife management opportunities in the river the NOR assessment of water withdrawals for the basin group are such that the quantified needs for Minnesota portion of RGB 1.1 is in substantial habitat can be more than met by treatment of land agreement with the findings of the @rst assess- to improve its habitat capabilities and by some ment done by the State of Minnesota on water and public acquisition. User-day needs for both hunters related land resources. and nonconsumptive users are not met. (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses Aesthetic and cultural needs were not quantified, In addition to the NOR recommendations for the and no specific programs adopted. treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater, Outdoor recreation needs for the total period are the PRO Framework includes meeting the Federal more than met by existing facilities, but as pointed Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 out in the discussion in Subsection 6.2.3.3, there and a specific recommendation that alternative are believed to be markedly greater needs than means be found of disposing mining and ore process- projected. In addition, because of the opportunities ing tailings. This is being handled by litigation. for development, programs have been adopted to With regard to fishing opportunities, the PRO provide facilities which would permit meeting needs Framework emphasizes the expansion of commer- transferred from other river basin groups and cial fishing opportunity as a basis for improved other Lake basins. The principal means by which employment. Such a recommendation may well this is accomplished is by changes in land use: lands conflict with existing State policies, which gener- particularly adapted to recreation are utilized for ally seek to expand sport fishing opportunity as a this rather than for other purposes. Multiple use is basis for growth of the recreation and tourist sec- also a possibility in some cases. For the intensive- tors of the economy. In any event, the PRO ly developed land, public acquisition of the major Framework recommends acceleration of fish man- portion of the land will be required with some use agement programs and a resolution of any conflict changes on land already devoted to public use. between sport and commercial emphasis in such (4) Framework Outputs and Costs management efforts. Tables 1-238, 1-239, and 1-240 in Section 12, The PRO Framework includes an endorsement provide information on needs, outputs, percent of of the expansion of the port facilities at Duluth and needs met, and capital and OM&R costs for the Superior as set forth by the Seaway Port Authority NOR Framework. of Duluth. Attention should also be given to the expanded development of related land transit sys- tems (highways and rail) to enhance the effective- ness of the Duluth port facilities. In order to main- 6.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) tain environmental quality while these expansions are undertaken, the PRO Framework includes a A specific objective of the Proposed Framework provision to require treatment of all shipping for River Basin Group 1.1 is to maintain and pre- wastes. This would necessitate adequate port facil- serve a high-quality environment while enhancing ities for such treatment and uniform regulations employment opportunities. The PRO Framework throughout the Great Lakes. The Framework also recognizes population growth somewhat lower than advocates a 31-foot depth navigation system and that of the NOR Framework. A lower projection is extension of the navigation season. Silver Bay, consistent with the recently observed downward Duluth-Superior and Taconite Harbors are men- trend in the fertility rate. tioned in connection with this. There is more com- 'The PRO Framework provides for improvement plete discussion in Subsection 5.5.2.7 and Subsec- in the regional economy by expansion of the rec- tion 6.4. reational industry, expansion of the extractive (3) Related Land Uses minerals industry, and commercial harbor develop- The PRO Framework recommends the develop- ment. It does not include dependence on the ex- ment of comprehensive land use plans for the entire pansion of the power industry as a basis for eco- RBG 1. 1 area. Particular attention should be given nomic development (particularly if the power is to to the establishment of criteria for the development be exported to other areas). It is important to of natural resources (specifically dealing with min- increase employment possibilities within RBG 1.1 ing and lumbering practices) and for the use of 110 Appendix I shoreland areas. In related land transit systems, need for specific criteria to insure that such devel- attention should be given to the air pollution prob- opments do not endanger the high-quality natural lems of taconite dust from open railroad cars. environment which is one of the greatest assets of The PRO Framework includes specific recom- RBG 1. 1. mendations on agricultural and forest land treat- (4) Framework Outputs and Costs ment programs. The difference between the NOR Tables 1-241, 1-242, and 1-243 in Section 12 Framework and IChe PRO.-Framework programs is provide information on needs, outputs, percent of shown in Table 1-328 of Section 12. The PRO needs met, and capital and OM&R costs for the Framework provides an accelerated program for all PRO Framework, indicating by italics where they agricultural and forest land treatment needs to be differ from the NOR. Table 1-328 compares land met by the year 2020. The accelerated agricultural treatment programs. land treatment programs include only conservation practices. PRO includes no cropland drainage pro- grams. 6.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs Shoreland erosion was viewed by many as being a considerably more serious problem than is sug- Table 1-343 in Section 12 lists the total costs gested in the NOR Framework. The higher lake (capital plus OM&R) for the NOR and PRO levels of 1973, even though slight for Lake Supe- Frameworks for the periods 1971-1980 and 1971- rior, did increase the damage, but the difference 2020. has not been determined for this area. The PRO Framework recommends that the schedule for controlling shore erosion be accelerated so that 6.3 Frameworks for.River Basin Group 1.2 such erosion is controlled by the year 1990. Fur- thermore, a re-evaluation of shore erosion problems should be made so that several areas (particularly 6.3.1 Summary those with red clay problems) could be reclassified in order to receive adequate protection. Shoreland Under a normal growth condition in Planning management plans are recommended for all Great Subarea 1.2, the 1970 population of 188,384 would Lakes shores by 1980 for protection and preserva- increase to about 193,800 at year 2020. Total em- tion of shoreland integrity and uniqueness. ployment is estimated to increase to 74,200 in 2020 The PRO Framework places greater emphasis on as compared to 53,862 at the 1970 level. An ap- flood plain zoning and regulation than on structural proximate 73 percent decrease by 2020 of employ- measures as a means of reducing flood damages. ment in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries is pro- The impact of flooding damages is reduced by flood jected, with a slight decrease in mining employ- insurance. ment and increase of 30 percent in manufacturing In the PRO Framework -wildlife habitat, partic- and other employment. ularly wetlands, should be protected from drain- The southern Lake Superior basin will have con- age. tinued recreational development (national parks, The PRO Framework contains several recom- recreation and wilderness areas, and trails; and mendations relative to outdoor recreation. Outdoor State parks and recreation areas) because of the recreation should be broadly based in River Basin availability of resources. Table 1-244 in Section 12 Group 1.1 in order to be attractive to a variety of summarizes the needs, needs satisfied, and percent out-of-basin recreationists. While some wilderness needs met for the Normal Framework. Capital recreational opportunity should be preserved, costs are summarized in Table 1-245, also in Sec- major emphasis should be much broader so that tion 12, and operation, maintenance, and replace- recreation may provide substantial enhancement of ment costs in Table 1-246. the regional economy. The PRO Framework also provides for the expansion and improvement of the highway transportation network. This is essential 6.3.2 The Area for easy movement and improved access for recre- ationists. Since Lake Superior is one of the region's River Basin Group 1.2 is located in the northwest greatest recreational assets, the PRO Framework portion of the Great Lakes Basin and encompasses provides for improved public access to shore areas. 7,756 square miles of Michigan and Wisconsin land While much of the outdoor recreation opportunity bordering the southern shore of Lake Superior will be provided for through government expendi- (Figure 1-24). tures, private developments will also be important Trades and services, particularly in the recrea- to the growth of the recreational sector of the tional field, play a key role in the economic struc- economy. The PRO Framework emphasizes the ture of the area. Mineral production, associated Lake Superior Basin 111 industries, and forestry products.are also important comply with established water quality criteria if a to the economy. Iron ore and copper deposits found flow-through cooling method is used. Failure to primarily in the western portion of the region in the arrive at. environmental standards will continue to Gogebic and Marquette iron ranges are among the cause delays in the construction of needed gen- area's most valuable natural resources. Manufac- erating facilities. Historically, supplemental cool- turing activity in RBG 1.2 is largely oriented ing has been used only in areas of limited water toward these natural resources. availability. Re-evaluation of use of supplemental Generally, the area is characterized by decreas- cooling will result from the desire to limit thermal ing population, except for a few of the larger urban discharges. Supplemental cooling systems involve areas, such as Marquette. Over the past decade, higher capital costs, higher operating costs, and the population in this planning subarea has experi- more evaporation loss than flow-through cooling, enced high unemployment and low income. There but the amount of withdrawal is much less. has been a significant outmigration of workers. 6.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses 6.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems Industrial wastewater discharges not connected with municipal wastewater treatment facilities are The projected needs for resource use by time expected to increase only slightly in the future due level are shown on Table 1-244 in Section 12. to a trend in industry to provide more recirculation Where needs can be quantified, they are not dis- and also to make more extensive use of municipal cussed in the text unless special conditions warrant plants. such discussion. Corrective programs have been initiated to up- grade water quality throughout the river basin group. Michigan is initiating a program for the 6.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals control of soil erosion and sedimentation. Con- struction by municipalities of facilities to meet The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 in RBG water quality standards has been hampered by the 1.2 are estimated at an additional 1,015 mgd. The failure of the Federal government to meet its com- base year water withdrawals were about 294 mgd. mitments to share in the construction costs. There About 86 percent of the additional water with- is a need to implement programs for the reduction drawal need is for thermal power cooling,* 5 percent of agricultural wastes, nutrients, sediments, insec- for self-supplied industrial withdrawals, and 8 per- ticides, and herbicides. cent for mining, with the remainder for rural do- Problems in RBG 1.2 related to fish habitat and mestic and livestock and irrigation needs. Gener- fishing are lack of fishing access, the presence of ally, the water withdrawal problems are not sea lamprey in Lake Superior, low productivity of serious. Large quantities for both self-supplied in- area waters, poor wintering habitat of some inland dustrial needs, including water for mineral proc- waters, and depletion of some species. essing, and for thermal power cooling will proba- In addition to making water surfaces available to bly come from Lake Superior. boaters, it is necessary to provide berthing facili- Consumptive use of municipal water is projected ties, launching sites, access, and navigational aids. at 1.5 mgd, 2.1 mgd, and 2.4 mgd by 1980, 2000, One of the main problems in this area is inadequate and 2020, respectively. The water resources avail- access to many inland lakes. The lack of stream able are adequate to meet all future water require- improvement, lack of maintenance, and periodic ments. Although most communities and municipal- low flows limit small boat opportunities and the ities do not face problems of supply, there are amount of canoeing on some inland waters. The problems in updating the systems, particularly in influx of nonresident boats into the area is ex- providing the necessary distribution and treatment tremely high each season and is steadily increasing. facilities. In some cases intercommunity eoopera- Table 1-72 shows recreational boating use in PSA tion might help to solve mutual problems. 1.2 and projects future needs. Consumptive use of self-supplied industrial The principal cargo shipped over the lake is iron water is projected at 5 mgd, 15 mgd, and 30 mgd by ore from Marquette. Marquette receives large 1980, 2000, and 2020, respectively. amount of coal, and both Marquette and Ontonagon There is a lack of available water of suitable receive considerable amounts of petroleum prod- quality at certain locations. Periodic surveys of uets and miscellaneous items. Continued provisions water-use patterns are needed to keep abreast of must be made for containment of all polluted discharge and recirculated water-use changes. dredge spoil and maintenance of the existing sys- Future large generating stations must be able to tems of harbors and channels. This topic is consid- 112 Appendix 1 KEWEENA ISLE ROYALE KE EN N Laurium A&I PENIN LA KEWEENAW COUNTY Houghton LAKE SUPERIOR Portage take -1 Ontonagon 0- o J- HURON MT.. Yellow Dog 1a/ S RGEON 0 Marquette Gogebic take Wakefield 0 TONAGO Ishp\ g emin C)Negaunee *Ironwood r \-/, @ HOUGHTON GA ;MA2 PWCUPINE MIT GR NO 'ONTONAGON LGOGEEIIC--@ 1@j z 0 /C/, MARQUETTE /Sco /`vS11v ALGER LAKE SUPERIOR o @C, Hearted d Sault Ste. Marie NO ARAIS WHITEFISH ENON SAY 11\ 0 Mun, ..g u8henon SAULT Tab LUCE < @A@LGER CHIPPEWA lk@i- @0- I," VIC11,111Y MAP 1111E RIVER BASIN GROUP o -1o)- PLANNING SUBAREA LE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 a@@IILE RO11 FIGURE 1-24 Lake Superior East, Planning Subarea 1.2 Lake Superior Basin 113 ered overall in Subsection 5.5.2.7 and in Subsection which 4.9 miles are protected, 15.2 miles are sub- 6.4. ject to critical erosion, and 23.2 miles are subject to noncritical erosion. Along streams which drain less than 400 square 6.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems miles, there are 591 bank-miles subject to moderate streambank erosion damage and 315 miles subject Approximately 40 percent of the cropland is pres- to severe streambank damage. The annual damage ently idle, and this is projected to increase to 65 is estimated at $219,900 per year, principally due to percent by 2020. Nearly 50 percent of the cropland land losses. For streams draining more than 400 is now being used for forage, and this is projected square miles, there are an estimated 42 bank-miles to decrease to less than 30 percent in 2020. Only of severe streambank erosion with about $12,000 small quantities of high-value cash crops are raised damage annually. Most of this damage is from in the area. Agriculture is marginal at present and sedimentation. The greatest streambank erosion is projected to decline further in the future. problem in this area is on private land in the Keweenaw and Grand Marais complexes. It is dif- ficult to organize and finance streambank erosion TABLE 1-72 Use and Projected Needs for Rec- programs. More regulation of highway construction reational Boating, PSA 1.2 and logging is needed to reduce erosion and sedi- mentation. Erosion control is needed on 103,000 1000 Boating Days acres, where an estimated 82,600 tons of sediment Great Lakes Inland per year originate. Category Waters Waters Table 1-244 in Section 12 gives estimates of areas subject to flooding and of annual losses. The major 1970 Use 79 433 problems are encroachment on the natural flood 1980 Needs 34 0 plain areas and the lack of local flood plain zoning and regulation, coupled with constricted river 2000 Needs 33 27 reaches and inadequate channel capacity. Major 2020 Needs 33 3 urban damages occur in the Ontonagon River basin and Sturgeon River basin. The latter basin ac- counts for 94 percent of the rural average annual There are approximately 105,000 acres of agri- damages. cultural land on which production is presently re- Table 1-244 estimates future needs for wildlife duced or limited by excess water in the soil profile. user-days and acreage. There appears to be an About one-third of this is cropland needing drain- adequate supply of land and wildlife habitat to age. The following are some of the problems asso- satisfy the needs for NOR growth conditions in ciated with agriculture and forestry: spite of a shrinking resource base. Wildlife habitat (1) low productivity resulting from a combina- land is being allocated to other uses. Some farming tion of relatively poor soils and a short growing practices leave little habitat on the land, and season drainage, stream modification, and urban en- (2) lack of adequate markets croachment have contributed to the reduction of (3) poor accessibility habitat. An acute problem, particularly in the On- (4) improper management and use of agricul- tonagon River basin, is the need for preservation or tural And forest lands. This is detrimental to eco- protection of the remaining wetlands in the area. nornic growth and environmental enhancement. To meet the projected needs of the next 50 years, (5) a lack of conservation treatment practices an additional 50,000 acres should be considered for on agricultural and forest lands, resulting in in- wildlife management and habitat development. creased runoff and some erosion and sedimentation. Existing aesthetic and cultural values are sum- Forest land will probably decrease due to high- marized in Subsection 6.1. The major problem is way, power line, urban, recreational, and industrial the need to preserve outstanding values. Cities developments. Unless strong action is undertaken such as Ironwood, Houghton, and Marquette face to halt accelerating deterioration, rehabilitation of urban expansion. Environmental buffer zones im- the forested land will be very costly, if not impos- mediately adjacent to the edges of the expanding sible. Some other major actions needed in this area urban centers need study and planning attention to are implementation of management procedures in insure proper use of their significant inherent re- private forest lands and protection and establish- source features. Environmental corridors merit ment of trees and shrubs in areas surrounding consideration in this area. At the present time, urban and built-up areas. institutional arrangements and funding are not The total shoreline in this area is 575.8 miles, of available to meet these objectives. 114 Appendix 1 This river basin group contains some of the for RBG 1.2 are summarized in Tables 1-244, 1- highest-quality recreational resources in the Great 245, and 1-246 which are found in Section 12. Lakes Basin. Examples are Tahquamenon Falls, (1) Water Withdrawals Pictured Rocks, the Huron and Porcupine Moun- Generally, the water withdrawal problems for tains, the proposed North Country Trail, and Isle RBG 1.2 are not serious, and all quantified needs Royale National Park. are met. The 1970 source supply for municipal The gross land area available for recreation is water is greater than the projected withdrawals for about 2.1 million acres, of which more than 1.8 2020, so no quantified needs are shown. However, million acres of forest land are in State and national rehabilitation and replacement of the facilities will forests. Isle Royale National Park contains 134,000 be necessary through the entire period, and it may acres of wilderness, and State and local parks and be that communities will wish to combine facilities water access areas contain 128,000 acres, of which in order to get the advantages of larger-scale con- 122,000 acres in three parks are wilderness. The struction. The NOR Framework suggests that inland water areas contain about 116,000 acres. some regulatory storage may be utilized in the An analysis of the recreational demand and sup- rebuild facilities. The water required for self- ply for each of the target years indicates that no supplied industrial purposes and for thermal power need exists for additional acreage through year cooling will be obtained from Lake Superior. About 2020 for several activities, and only moderate needs half the water for mining use will be obtained from for the remaining activities. However, as discussed Lake Superior under the programs selected, with in Subsection 6.2.3.3, this conclusion is somewhat most of the other half being obtained from inland distorted because it was not possible to quantify lakes and streams. Rural domestic and livestock the directional patterns of travel in the methodol- water will normally come from local ground-water ogy used for estimating requirements. Subsection supplies at the point of need. Irrigation supplies 6.2.3.3 discusses the findings of studies made by will come either from ground water or from inland Wisconsin and Minnesota and explains how this lakes and streams, depending on the availability at additional information altered the frameworks de- the point of need and the comparative cost. It is veloped for RBG 1. L.The same also applies to RBG estimated that about half will come ffom each 1.2. source. Some storage may be involved. (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses The Normal Framework program to meet water 6.3.4 Alternative Frameworks quality standards will generally provide a minimum level of secondary waste treatment to remove at Two alternative frameworks are presented for least 90 percent of the organic material and about this river basin group. The Normal (NOR) Frame- 80 percent of the phosphates from municipal work reflects a normal growth objective, based on wastes. Because of the unique importance and sen- needs derived from the OBERS projections. It sitive ecological balance of Lake Superior and its meets these needs to the maximum extent practic- vulnerability to relatively low levels of nutrient able within the river basin group. The Normal input, additional programs of advanced waste Framework for this river basin group does not treatment may be important for some of the mu- reflect coordination for the Lake basin or the Great nicipalities and industries that discharge or drain Lakes Basin. into the Lake. Industrial wastewater discharges The Proposed (PRO) Framework, contains the will be increasingly treated in municipal plants, but recommendations of the Commission in an effort to full treatment to meet the water quality standards, reflect the views of the people of the basin. To some including necessary advanced treatments, will be extent, it reflects coordination in the development expected in any plants which treat their own of the Framework among a number of river basin wastes. Programs for agricultural waste treatment groups, both in the Lake basin and in the Great are not included, but the effects of fertilizers and Lakes Basin as a whole. pesticides from agriculture and land runoff require additional study. Water-oriented outdoor recreation is discussed under related land uses and problems. 6.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) All sport fishery needs are met by programs which include primarily public acquisition of access The Normal Framework is based on meeting and nonstructural legislative and institutional quantified needs and solving identified problems to changes. These will include fish management pro- the maximum practicable extent consistent with grams on inland lakes and streams and in the Great the subobjectives and criteria discussed in Section Lakes; stocking programs; the control of sea lam- 2 of the appendix. The program outputs and costs prey; and related types of programs. Lake Superior Basin 115 Recreational boating needs are met both on Lake needs transferred from other river basin groups Superior waters and inland waters. Programs for and Lake basins. The principal means is by changes Lake Superior include berthing facilities, launching in land use, in which lands particularly adapted to sites, navigational aids, and harbors of refuge. On recreation are utilized for this rather than for other inland waters, the programs primarily provide purposes. Multiple use is also a possibility in some launching sites, access, and some berthing facili- cases. For the intensively developed land, public ties. Increased efficiency in the use of available acquisition of the major portion of the land will be water surface is paramount, and there will proba- required, with some changes on land already de- bly be an actual reduction in the total amount of voted to public use. water available on inland lakes and streams over (4) Framework Outputs and Costs the 50-year period. Section 12 contains Tables 1-244, 1-245, and Commercial navigation programs include a con- 1-246 which provide information on needs, outputs, tinuation of present practices, namely, the mainte- percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs nance of the existing systems of harbors and chan- for the NOR Framework. nels, including the containment of all polluted dredge spoil. Expansion of the total system to include a longer navigation season and accommo- 6.3-4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) dation for larger ships is discussed in Subsection 5.5.2.7 and Subsection 6.4. A specific objective of the Proposed Framework (3) Related Land Uses and Problems for River Basin Group 1.2 is to maintain and pre- For the treatment of agricultural land and forest serve a high quality environment while enhancing land, the programs consist of a continuation of employment opportunities. The PRO Framework present practices of conservation and drainage of considers population growth to be somewhat lower the agricultural land, and appropriate treatment on than that in the NOR Framework. A lower pro- the forested land. Not all the opportunities for jection is consistent with the recently observed enhancement of these lands can be accepted be- downward trend in the fertility rate. cause the benefits do not justify the costs. While the PRO Framework provides for im- The 15.2 miles of shoreline subject to critical provement in the regional economy by expansion of erosion are treated during the projection period, the recreational industry and the extractive miner- using conventional methods of structural protec- als industry, it does not include dependence on the tion, but none of the 23.2 miles subject to noncriti- expansion of the power industry. The power gen- cal erosion are treated. erating capacity of River Basin Group 1.2 should be Streambank erosion is severe on about one-third increased only to meet the needs created within the of the total bank-mileage subject to erosion, and area itself and not for export purposes. The PRO this severe portion is treated under the program by Framework recommends that efforts be made to conventional structural methods. reduce the per capita use of electric energy. While Flood damages in urban areas are eliminated on the PRO Framework does recommend that some about one-fourth of the area for each of the time industrial expansion take place in order to provide periods by conventional structural methods, and greater employment opportunities, it is important increasingly from 1980 to 2020 by legislative and that new industries be as nondamaging as possible to institutional changes. However, not all of the needs the environment. It is important to provide em- can be met during the projection period. In rural ployment opportunities in RBG 1.2, so that outmi- areas, the total acreage protected is about one- gration can be reduced or eliminated. third of that subject to flooding. About one-half of (1) Water Withdrawals the protection comes from structural measures, There are no differences with respect to water and the other half from legislative and institutional withdrawals in the PRO Framework as compared changes. to the NOR Framework. Wildlife management opportunities in the river (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses basin group are such that the quantified needs for The PRO Framework includes programs to habitat can be more than met. Programs would rely comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control heavily on public acquisition and management of Act Amendments of 1972 as early as possible. This land to improve its habitat capabilities. While nu- would result in a higher order of treatment in a merical user-days do not appear to be met, it is shorter time than that which would occur in the NOR believed that the use of habitat by hunters and Framework. other users at different times of the year will result The PRO Framework includes recommendations in meeting practically all these needs. to accelerate fish management programs, particu- Outdoor recreation programs have been adopted larly those that would increase sport fishing oppor- to provide facilities which will permit meeting tunities. Fish management programs should em- 116 Appendix 1 phasize coldwater species over warmwater species. larly since the great majority of the land is The generally high water quality of the area allows forested. many excellent coldwater species to flourish. This is In terms of meeting shoreland erosion needs, the not the case in many other river basin groups where PRO Framework recommends that the surface lower water quality and different climatic conditions elevation of Lake Superior be maintained at levels are found. The PRO Framework recognizes this which will minimize shore property damage, in rather unique fishing opportunity by continuing to addition to including NOR programs for shoreland emphasize the propagation of coldwater species. protective measures. Stabilization of lake levels is The PRO Framework recommends the accelera- important so that recreational development can tion of development of small boat harbors. The take place near the shoreline without being subject establishment of such facilities at locations like to either flooding or erosion. Shoreland manage- Grand Marais is important to the growth of the ment plans are recommended for all Great Lakes recreation sector of the economy. shores by 1980 in order to protect and preserve Because of pollution from untreated ship wastes, shoreland integrity and uniqueness. the PRO Framework includes a recommendation With regard to flood plain management, the PRO for the treatment of all such wastes. Treatment of Framework includes a recommendation that zoning ship wastes is an important environmental safe- take precedence over structural measures. Zoning guard that should be established to insure that will allow flood plains to be used for recreational cost-efficient deep-draft navigation, which the purposes, and the maintenance of streams in a Great Lakes Basin Commission has endorsed, may free-flowing state will enhance recreational poten- be realized within the context of a quality environ- tial. Flood insurance provides a supplementary way ment. Adequate port facilities for such treatment of reducing the impact of flood damage. are required as well as uniform regulations Wetland areas should be fully protected under throughout the Great Lakes system. Improvement the PRO Framework. This is an essential recom- of Marquette Harbor is included in the PRO mendation because of the importance of wetlands Framework. Subsection 5.5.2.7 and Section 6.4 to the propagation of wildlife. Abundant wildlife in contain discussion of expansion of the total system. RBG 1.2 is a significant element of the appeal of the (3) Related Land Use river basin group to both hunters and wildlife ob- The PRO Framework includes a recommendation servers. for the development of comprehensive land use The PRO Framework contains several recom- plans. Such planning is being initiated by the State mendations relative to outdoor recreation. Outdoor of Michigan at the present time. That effort is recreation should be broadly based in RBG 1.2 in endorsed. It is particularly important to include order to be attractive to a variety of recreationists criteria for the development of natural resources from outside the basin. The major emphasis should (particularly mining and lumbering) and for the use be on broad and variable outdoor recreational op- of shoreland areas. The PRO Framework recom- portunities to provide substantial enhancement of mends programs of shoreland management which the regional economy. The PRO Framework also recognize the Great Lakes shoreland as a unique recommends a transportation system that will im- natural resource. This includes developmental set- prove access to major recreational areas. This is backs for all shoreland areas unless public benefits essential in order to facilitate easy movement of can be shown to outweigh public disadvantages. recreationists within the area. Since Lake Superior Both agricultural and forest land treatment pro- is one of the region's greatest recreational assets, grams are substantially greater in the PRO than in the PRO Framework provides for improved public the NOR Framework.- The differences between the access to shore areas. While much of the outdoor two frameworks are shown in Table 1-329 in Sec- recreational opportunity will be provided through tion 12. The PRO Framework provides for acceler- government expenditures, private developments ated treatment for all agricultural land (exclusive will also be important to the growth of the recrea- of drainage) to be accomplished by the year 2020. tional sector of the economy. The PRO Framework PRO forest land treatment programs will also meet emphasizes the need for specific criteria to insure all of the needs by the year 2020. A further PRO that such developments do not endanger the high- recommendation with respect to forest lands is that quality natural environment. forest land use practices provide for the joint (4) Framework Outputs and Costs commercial and recreational use of those lands. Section 12 contains Tables 1-247, 1-248, and This recommendation with respect to forest lands is 1-249, which provide information on needs, out- that forest land use practices provide for the joint puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R commercial and recreational use of those lands. costs for the PRO Framework, indicating by italics This recommendation is important for maintaining where they differ from the NOR Framework. the recreational opportunities in RBG 1.2, particu- Table 1-329 compares land treatment programs. Lake Supe?ior Basin 117 6.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs mental safeguards in order to insure that recrea- tional uses (another major economic sector of the Table 1-344 in Section 12 lists the total costs region) of the Lake will not be impaired. Recrea- (capital plus OM&R) for the NOR and PRO tional use could be impaired, for example, if ade- Frameworks for the periods 1971-1980 and 1971- quate criteria are not established for. the safe dis- 2020. posal of polluted dredge spoil and for the treatment of all shipping wastes. Failure to establish these criteria could easily contribute to the degradation 6.4 Lake Superior Intrarelationships of Lake water or be detrimental to the quality of shoreland areas. Various lakes uses, such as commercial naviga- tion, recreational boating, and sport and commer- cial fishing, as well as such parameters as water 6.4.2 Recreational Boating quality and levels and flows, frequently cross polit- ical boundaries. While these activities are usually A program providing for the establishment of land based, or at least heavily influenced by land- new small-boat harbors is essential to the expan- based activities, their nature is such that it is useful sion of recreational boating opportunity throughout to view them within the context of Lake Superior Lake Superior. The introduction of coho salmon in itself in addition to viewing them in the context Of Lake Superior, and the restocking of other sal- specific river basin groups. monid �pecies such as lake trout, have improved the sport fishery considerably, concurrent with the expansion of recreational boating. Since the 6.4.1 Commercial Navigation nature of boating activity is such that rather large distances are frequently covered, it is essential that The Great Lakes Basin Commission has endorsed a system of small boat harbors be developed. Lake the following policy guidelines with respect to Superior experiences frequent storms which are commercial navigation: often severe. This increases the need for adequate To the extent technically feasible, economically justi- harbors of refuge. While the shoreline is not always fied, and environmentally acceptable, the Great Lakes amenable to the construction of such facilities (due Basin Commission favors the maintenance of efficient, low to its rocky character), there are enough sites to cost, deep draft navigation and the provision of incremental improvements to the navigation system in the Great Lakes provide harbors an average of 15 to 20 miles apart. and St. Lawrence Seaway, including connecting channels, Improvements in the system of communicating shipping and receiving harbors, compensating works, addi- weather conditions to boaters are also important if tional locks, canals, dams, and extensions of the navigation the harbors are to be used with greatest effective- season. ness. The terms "economically justified" and "environ- mentally acceptable" are of particular importance in the case of Lake Superior. The somewhat eco- 6.4.3 Commercial and Sport Fishery nomically depressed nature of the Lake Superior region and the importance of commercial naviga- It is only in recent years that sport fishing has tion to the regional economy make it likely that any outstripped the once-substantial commercial fish- improvement in the navigation system of the Great ing industry in Lake Superior. At the present time, Lakes would be economically justified with respect sport fishing brings about four times as much in- to the Lake Superior region. The advent of super- come to the region as does commercial fishing. It is carriers (730 ft. to 1000 ft. long) will increase the expected that this trend will continue. competitive advantage of Lake Superior iron ores Lake Superior is an oligotrophic lake with rela- over eastern Canadian ores. This is because the tively few fish species. In a simple ecosystem such Welland Canal is not sufficiently large to accom- as this, the abundance of one species can have an modate new superearriers that would otherwise immediate and dramatic effect on the survival, carry ores from eastern Canada to inland ports growth, and/or abundance of another. Further- such as Chicago. The deepening of commercial more, recent research has indicated that the fish of harbors to 31 feet in several major ports would oligotrophic lakes are much more likely to concen- allow large ships to load more fully. The possibility trate contaminants such as mercury and persistent of extension of the navigation season could well pesticides than fish found in eutrophic lakes. Given increase the region's economic stability by reducing this delicate ecological balance in Lake Superior, it the rather high rate of seasonal unemployment. becomes of utmost importance to have intensive At the same time, such improvements, if real- and intelligent fish management programs. ized, must be developed with adequate environ- Various stocking programs involving primarily 118 Appendix 1 salmonid species have provided revitalization of the Lake by thoroughly treating all shipping fishing opportunities in Lake Superior. These pro- wastes, by the containment of dredge spoil, and by grams are carried out by the States of Minnesota, compliance on the part of the municipal and indus- Wisconsin, and Michigan. Since fish often move trial dischargers with Federal water quality stand- freely throughout the lake, it would be desirable to ards. The disposal of mine tailings in the Lake has have greater coordination among the States of the been ordered stopped through litigation. fish stocking efforts in order to avoid duplication and potential overstocking. Given the relatively large number of salmonid 6.4.5 Levels and Flows species in.Lake Superior, it is important to continue lamprey control programs. If such programs are The level and outflow of Lake Superior has been not carried out in all portions of Lake Superior, the regulated since 1921. It is presently being regu- efforts of fish managers in some areas will be nulli- lated under rules established by the International fied by the continued availability of lamprey habitat Joint Commission in 1949 (and modified in 1955). in other areas. Any change that would affect the level of Lake While direct coordination of management efforts Superior would have implications for many users is essential to maintain the.quality of the Lake throughout the Lake. Of regional significance are Superior fishery, it is also important to prevent the proposals to store additional waters temporarily in degradation of Lake Superior by the introduction Lake Superior to alleviate flooding conditions on :of pollutants. The potential importance of sport downstream Lakes during periods of above-normal fishing and the delicate nature of Lake Superior (in lake levels. Principal uses that would be affected terms of the susceptibility of fish to pollutants) may include commercial navigation, power, and shore justify even more stringent water quality stand- property utilization. There are trade-offs and con- ards for municipal and industrial discharges than flicts in connection with lake level regulation for now exist. these uses. For example, a scheme to maximize commercial navigation opportunities would not necessarily complement one to generate power. 6.4.4 Water Quality Nor would either of them necessarily be consistent with a scheme designed to minimize erosion bn the Lake Superior is not only the largest of the Great shoreline of Lake Superior, or with a scheme to Lakes, it is also the cleanest. The importance of maintain waters at specific levels to enhance wild- maintaining the Lake in this state cannot be life and aesthetic and cultural values. Changes in overemphasized. The Lake is much colder than the the regulation of Lake Superior levels are being other Great Lakes, and so its assimilative capacity considered with maximum regional benefits to is lower. Since the processes by which various all the Great Lakes in mind. Regional adjustments types of pollutants are broken down proceed more in shore property damages, power generation, slowly in Lake Superior, it.is-more susceptible to commercial navigation, and recreational boating degradation by such pollutants. Lake Superior are being considered. The PRO Framework rec- provides a source of clean water to the downstream ommends that any shore property damages, ero- Lakes. The pollution problem of Lake Erie might sion problems, or other detrimental effects to the be considerably worse if it were not for the clean Lake Superior area should be compensated for water available from Lake Superior. when Regional (Great Lakes system) benefits are Due to water circulation patterns, the apparently maximized. The International Great Lakes Levels localized sources of pollution can affect other uses Board of the International Joint Commission has throughout the entire Lake area. Because of the recently conducted a study of possible change in delicate nature of Lake Superior, it behooves users regulation of the levels of the Great Lakes. The to take steps to preserve the high water quality of final report was made public in August 1974.. Section 7 LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 7.1 Study Area kegon, Michigan. PSAs 2.1 and 2.4 are mostly north of this line and PSAs 2.2 and 2.3 mostly This basin is the only Great Lakes basin lying south. The northern portion of the area is over 50 entirely within the boundaries of the United percent forested. Here, the agricultural areas are States. The entire area drains to the Straits of relatively small, but specialized and significant. Mackinac, the natural outlet for the basin. There is There are relatively small urban centers. This area also a man-made diversion from the basin at Chi- is used throughout the year for recreational pur- cago. Statistical information on the Lake Michigan poses as a retreat from population and industrial basin and its river basin groups, and the counter- concentrations. In contrast, the southern portion of part plan area and PSAs, is given in Section 1. A the planning subarea is largely cropland and highly map appears in Figure 1-25. urbanized with minor contributions from forest and It is apparent from a study of the map and the pasture lands. This area is heavily industrialized, statistical information that special consideration heavily populated, and in places heavily polluted. must be given to the Chicago metropolitan area in terms of water resource planning for the basin. Much of the metropolitan area lies in the Upper 7.1.1 Human Characteristics Mississippi River Basin rather than in the Lake Michigan basin, and yet it is because of the location Plan Area 2, Lake Michigan, had the largest on the Lake that the population increases and eco- population of the five plan areas in 1970, with about nomic growth of the area have been so great. It is 46 percent of the Regional population. The popula- impossible to exclude consideration of the Chicago tion density of 296 persons per square mile is the area in an analysis of either the Upper Mississippi greatest in the Great Lakes Region. River Basin or the Great Lakes Basin. For this Out of the 86 counties located in the Lake Michi- reason, both the Upper Mississippi River Compre- gan Plan Area, four of the counties-Cook in Illi- hensive Basin Study and the Great Lakes Basin nois, Milwaukee in Wisconsin, Lake in Indiana, and Framework Study include this area. Six counties in Kent in Michigan-have 56 percent of the total Illinois are involved. Each study recognizes that population. The 1970 population census showe id certain elements of the study area are related pri- 11,187,000 persons, or 83 percent of the areas marily to one or the other of the basins, and in total population of 13,517,000, living in urban areas determining requirements, needs, and programs including 13 SMSAs (see Tables 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, for meeting needs, the capabilities of the two areas and 1-13). Battle Creek, Michigan was designated have been taken into account, on a rational basis an SMSA after the 1970 data were compiled. where possible, and arbitrarily in a few cases. The basin has a distinct contrast in population There is no double counting in the final result. The distribution. The southern half is highly urbanized details of handling the various resource use eate- and also highly diversified in agricultural activities. gories with respect to the overlapping considera- The northern half is more devoted to development tion in the two studies are discussed in Subsection and utilization of recreational resources. Nonresi- 7.3, Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.2. dents significantly swell the population of the Plan Area 2, Lake Michigan, constitutes nearly northern portion during the hunting and vacation 40 percent of the Great Lakes Region. In several seasons. Better means of transportation and rising respects, including land use patterns, land use incomes have increased resort and second home problems, and population concentrations, the Lake seasonal use and added significantly to the part- Michigan study area falls into northern and south- time residents in the area. Snowmobile use attracts ern - portions divided by a line running approxi- people to stay for extended periods in the area mately through Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Mus- during the winter. 119 120 Appendix 1 CA.-V- T ----- LAKE BASIN BOUNDARY PLAN AREA BOUNDARY vjCjNj-fY MAP VOL 2.1 2 vv N I c H I A N Ax LLINOIS i N D I N SCALE im WLES Plan Area 2, Lake michigan Lake Michigan Basin 121 7.1.2 Water Resources 1-73, 1-74, and 1-75 provide information on land use in the Lake Michigan basin. An abundant supply of generally high-quality The southern sections of the basin are primarily water comes from surface and subsurface sources agricultural with only 10 to 17 percent left in forest in the Lake Michigan basin (see Subsection 1.4.3). land. Deciduous species were the dominant original Average annual runoff in the basin is about 10 cover of these areas. Most of the remaining forest inches. The river systems of the basin are products cover of this area is in farm woodland. Figure 1-26 of glacial moraines and are typically short with illustrates the land uses. limited drainage basins. Even so they are among Land use patterns and statistics, though sugges- the longest in the Basin. Many of the rivers of tive, do not completely reflect the highly urbanized northern Wisconsin and Michigan have their areas which characterize the southern portion of sources in or flow through national or State forest the Lake Michigan basin. It is projected that urban lands, while southern area streams generally origi- built-up areas will gain primarily at the expense of nate in or flow through agricultural and urban cropland. Tables 1-74 and 1-75 summarize these areas. projections. The land use changes are many and Subsurface water resources occur in both uncon- complex. Unfortunately, uniformly reliable data on solidated sediment aquifers and bedrock aquifers in current land use and management activities in the the Lake Michigan basin, providing the greatest region are deficient. As urban expansion, new sea- ground-water supply of any Great Lakes basin. The sonal developments in the northern portion of the glacial drift contains many high-producing basin, and pressures for additional developments aquifers, particularly in the Lower Peninsula of along the shorelines increase, more governmental Michigan. The western shore of Lake Michigan is units will be faced with a need for expanded land underlain by high-producing bedrock aquifers. use planning. Areas of poor ground-water yield are relatively Mineral deposits found in the basin are reflec- scarce and of small areal extent, mainly occurring tions of its sedimentary origin and subsequent gla- in the Precambrian areas of northern Wisconsin ciation. Iron is found principally in the northwest- and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and in the ern Michigan section of the basin while stone and Ottawa River in the Lower Peninsula. Highly sa.- sand and gravel are principal minerals in most of line water is present at shallow depths in the bed- the basin. Oil, gas, salt, and gypsum deposits occur rock formations of Michigan's Lower Peninsula primarily in Michigan. Marl is also found in south- and in extremely deep wells in northern Indiana. ern Michigan and northern Indiana. Northern Illi- Overlying aquifers in the glacial drift provide good nois produces peat in significant quantities. freshwater sources, however. The saline water is a Wildlife habitat and resources vary from north to source of potential contamination to the overlying south with changes in land use and climate. Farm aquifer. game, deer, and small game animals like squirrels, rabbits, fox, skunks, and raccoon are located in the basin's interior, but the shoreline and bays are the 7.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources most valuable wildlife areas. The shores of Lake Michigan serve as protection and sustenance for Soils of the Lake Michigan basin include sandy many permanent as well as migratory waterfowl and gravelly soils in northern Michigan and Wis- and other bird species. Big game animals including consin, lightly colored loams and clay loams in white-tailed deer and black bear are found in the eastern Wisconsin, and variable sands and clay soils northern reaches of Wisconsin and Michigan. in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. Most of the soils The northern portion of the basin has excellent are quite acid and low in organic matter. Poor fish habitat for northern pike, walleyes, large- drainage is a problem in central Wisconsin, as well mouth bass, smallmouth bass, trout and muskel- as northern Indiana, eastern Illinois, and southern lunge. In addition, perch, bluegill, crappie, and Michigan. various sunfishes are also found throughout the From north to south the extent of land in forests basin lakes and streams. Other common species decreases. Most of the northern one-third is include catfish, rock bass, white bass and the legs forested. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the desirable sheepshead, carp, bowfin and gar. Mi- northeastern section of Wisconsin are both covered grations and spawning runs of walleyes, white extensively by northern hardwoods and conifers bass, sturgeon, smelt, and suckers provide seasonal with aspen stands appearing in great numbers, and recreational opportunities for fishermen in many numerous bogs. The northern Lower Peninsula of streams tributary to Lake Michigan. Michigan is 70 percent forested, with coniferous In Lake Michigan itself, fishing for lake trout, species and aspen dominating the landscape. Tables walleyes and whitefish. has been important in the 122 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-73 Land Use, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1966-67 (thousands of acres) Resource Base PSA and Total Urban Pasture Forest state Land Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land Other Total PSA 2.1 Michigan 1,889.8 52.0 133.6 21.7 1,664.5 18.0 1,837.8 Wisconsin 8,120.9 412.0 3,182.8 335.0 3,452.0 739.1 7,708.9 PSA Total 10,010.7 464.0 3,316.4 356.7 5,116.5 757.1 9,546.7 PSA "2.2 Illinois 2,367.3 678.0 1,249.6 98.7 93.0 248.0 1,689.3 Indiana 1,174.3 122.8 722.3 55.7 90.6 182.9 1,051.5 Wisconsin 1,670.5 409.7 871.5 83.0 157.1 149.2 1,260.8 PSA Total 5,212.1 1,210.5 2,843.4 237.4 340.7 580.1 4,001.6 PSA 2.3 Indiana 1,580.4 156.4 1,031.3 106.8 140.1 145.8 1,424.0 Michigan 7,375.0 662.1 4,343.5 352.6 1,564.6 452.2 6,712.9 PSA Total 8,955.4 818.5 5,374.8 459.4 1,704.7 598.0 8,136.9 PSA 2.4 Michigan 8,094.2 414.8 1,481.5 351.8 5,434.3 411.8 7,679.4 TOTAL 32,272.4 2,907.8 13,016.1 1,405.3 12,596.2 2,347.0 29,364.6 past in both the sport and commercial fisheries. basin, especially in the northern one-third; which is With the invasion of the sea lamprey and, more 90 percent forest. Approximately 40 percent of the recently the alewife, into the Lake, fish populations forest land in Michigan's Upper Peninsula is pub- have undergone some major changes. The success- liely owned, as is 35 percent in the northern Lower ful introduction of the coho and chinook salmon has Peninsula. added new dimensions to the basin's fishery re- Lake Michigan has some of the finest beaches on source. the Great Lakes, particularly along its eastern Forested land, large expanses of dunes and shore. Over one-third of the area of the beaches is beaches, and hundreds of inland lakes provide publicly owned, and an additional equal amount is many opportunities for outdoor recreation activi- privately owned but has some potential for public ties in the Lake Michigan basin. The forests are use. Lake Michigan islands provide an excellent particularly significant in the northern part of the base for recreational use. Within this region there TABLE 1-74 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Michigan Plan Area (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 Lake Michigan Total land area' 32,272.4 --- 32,272.4 --- 32,272.4 --- 32,272.4 Total urban and 2,907.8 658.8 3,566.6 903.2 4,469.8 788.2 5,25M built-up Total nonurbanized 29,364.6 28,705.8 27,802.6 27,014.4 land Resource Base: Cropland 13,016.1 (446.7) 12,569.4 603.3 11,966.1 513.6 11,452.5 Pasture 1,405.3 (38.1) 1,367.2 51.7 1,315.5 44.5 1,271.0 Forest Land 12,596.3 (88.9) 12,507.4 134.2 12,373.2 136.4 12,236.8 Other Land 2,347.0 (85.1) 2,261.9 114.0 2,147.9 93.7 2,054.2 Tota12 29,364.6 (658.8) 28,705.8 903.2 27,802.6 788.2 27,014.4 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. 'Total land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 3Bracketed figures reporesent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. Lake Michigan Basin 123 TABLE 1-75 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Michigan Plan Area by PSA Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 PSA 2.1 Total land areal 10,010.7 --- 10,01-0.7 --- 10,010.7 --- 10,010.7 Total urban and 464.0 23.0 487.0 43.2 530.2 53.3 583.5 built-up Total nonurbanized 9,546.7 9,523.7 9,480.5 9,427.2 land Resoure Base: Cropland 3,316.4 (8.0)2 3,308.4 (15.0) 3,293.4 (18.5) 3,274.9 Pasture 356.7 (.9) 355.8 (1.6) 354.2 (2.0) 352.2 Forest Land 5,116.6 (12.3) 5,104.2 (23.2) 5,081.0 (28.6) 5,052.4 Other Land 7557.1 (1.8) 755.3 (3.4) 751.9 (4.2) 747.7 Total3 9,546.7 (23.0) 9,523.7 (43.2) 9,480.5 (53.3) 9,427.2 PSA 2.2 Total land areal 5,212.1 --- 5,212.1 --- 5,212.1 --- 5,212.1 Total urban and 1,210.5 515.7 1,726.2 671.5 2,397.7 504.9 2,902.6 built-up Total nonurbanized 4,001.6 3,485.9 2,814.4 2,309.5 land Resource Base: Cropland 2,843.4 (366.4) 29477.0 (477.2) 1,999.8 (358.8) 1,641.0 Pasture 237.4 (30.6) 206.8 (39.8) 167.0 (29.9) 137.1 Forest Land 340.7 (43.9) 296.8 (57.1) 239.7 (43.0) 196.7 Other Land 580.1 (74.8) 505.3 (97.4) 407.9 (73.2) 334.7 Tota13 4,001.6 (515.7) 3,485.9 (671.5) 2,814.4 (504.9) 2,309.5 PSA 2.3 Total land areal 8,955.4 --- 8,955.4 --- 8,955.4 --- 8,955.4 Total urban and 818.5 105.0 923.5 159.7 1,083.2 196.7 1,279.9 built-up Total nonurbanized 8,136.9 8,031.9 7,872.2 7,675.5 land Resource Base: Cropland 5,374.8 (69.4)2 5,305.4 (105.5) 59199.9 (129.9) 5,070.0 Pasture 459.4 (5.9) 453.5 (9.0) 444.5 (11.1) 433.4 Forest Land 1,704.7 (22.0) 1,682.7 (33.5) 1,649.2 (41.2) 1,608.0 Other Land 598.0 (7.7) 590.3 (11.7) 578.6 (14.5) 564.1 Total3 8,136.9 (105.0) 8,031.9 (159.7) 7,872.2 (196.7) 7,675.5 PSA 2.4 Total land areal 8,094.2 --- 8,094.2 --- 8,094.2 --- 8,094.2 Total urban and 414.8 15.1 429.9 28.8 458.7 33.3 492.0 built-up Total nonurbanized 7,679.4 7,644.3 7,635.5 7,602.2 land Resource Base: Cropland 1,481.5 (2.9) 1,478.6 (5.6) 1,473.0 (6.4) 1,466.6 Pasture 351.8 (.7) 351.1 (1.3) 349.8 (1.5) 348.3 Forest Land 5,434.3 (10.7) 5,423.6 (20.4) 5,403.2 (23.6) 5,379.6 Other Land 411.8 (.8) 411.0 (1.5) 409.5 (1.8) 407.7 Total3 7,679.4 (15.1) 7,664.3 (28.8) 7,635.5 (33.3) 7,602.2 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. lTotal land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. are several areas that possess high recreational for addition to this system or as part of State wild, value which has warranted recent authorization for scenic, or recreational rivers systems. acquisition. These include Sleeping Bear Dunes Although there are hundreds of inland lakes in National Lake Shore, Michigan, Indiana Dunes the Lake Michigan basin, the shores of many of National Lake Shore, Indiana, and the Ice Age them, particularly in the southern part of the re- National Scientific Reserve in Wisconsin. A portion gion have been developed heavily with residences of the Wolf River, Wisconsin, has been designated and summer cottages. These lakes have beach part of the national wild and scenic river system, areas that probably total thousands of acres. Their and a number of other rivers are being considered water surface area is approximately 811,000 acres. Z (D im- '8 o 1-3 On m C", 0 C@ Z- M (D (D CD D, wm Z' @@ P M@ 5 -1 Z Z(D M z 5. 0_ ID x z go z co X, 07' m -1 02 (D A (D CD aq D", M CO Z CD "Z > 90 Z CD :@ :@ (D ID :E, @v ts % 0 :s: 0 Z Oq 'I aq CD p @ . " I I I I I I I . I . . @ I - I @ - I I i 0 CD (D M 0 -7z _0 - M -1 a. n M p OQ 0 0 C) 10 w (!-4 1 CD, m CD (D 0 go -1 .1 P. Z 0 t, So 05,4 mc+ >4 c) 2. Z Z (D '0 ZZ ID w C- (D m C@ tj +CD sm, 0 5 CD 0 CD d m C@ n 0 w -1 3 1 CD CL (D It ID (D CD M t I I I C, (D 10+ -A (D 5 co , 4 (D aq (D rp -C$ CD ,j cz@ m (-D 4 rq 1+ CD 5 0:r ttj 'I :r I-ft --aq 00 = 'I @j C+ -1 CD 0 C-t, M +I in, M " = C+ U2 MCD m 0 M ". > q M (D 5 CD ol M CD -t -1 0 t74 CD (D CD (D o rj) (D CD t< 0 (D -1 to z C> 0 .1 02 zz dq 0 CD 5 o FA m (D (D ID CD ID .1 M = 5. Z Za. +rA 0 go 0 M " 5 C) -M, U02 'IAD W > -I CO IrA W CD rt- C+ p :@ :@ w CD @@ Z 0 CD M @l (D c+ 'I 'n 'I w MO P :@ N* C@ uq 0 - Z (D (D CD @o 0, m w 0 - M 11 CD -,I t@ CD ID @;! m CD CD t$ 5 (D DD n CD 5* 5 Z ca 5' CD t_.4 5 9 (D 1+ 5 (D CD VD I< M M ID ID 5;q 0 1.1 1. g (D V CD 0@ sm@ sg@"!ITOIRII; 8 8 IA @ J*. -1c, 9 1 Rl C@ -1 19 > o > C C, > 00 C, >1 > Z a @ '@ m r ZDZo. Zg"', > Z > a9 5 El 0> Z 0 > > r) 0 CL P- U) U) n En X Z m m m o Z m C, m @ 0 m 0 H. H. n 0 :a' rT 0 D @ < 00 0 0 a a @ > > o :E 0 a H ID 4)0 0 0 H. pa 0 m m j @ m LIZ > Z G) Z > 0 0 m o - 0 > 0 -1 c > Z 0 OQ rt w . 2 z a (n aq 0 0 0 z Z Z o m T, C: 4) co P) P, cn 0) 4) (D z 2 1 1 Z 0 Z 0 1 . . >m Z 0 C) > :j CO H. H- 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 m m x > A Z > 0 0 C) m 0 m m m @3 0 0 M, M" 2 - - - - - . . . - - - - - - 0 0 n 0 n nm I 1 0 (-n 0 (D rQ Lo LI) w (71 OD t1o J.- CD 0 0 . 1 0 w LJ 00 r.- cl) w 0 Ili 14 a, ON Ln vi CN ul 0a mm 0 u R 0 El u R (D u R Ln H ef. 00 L,) un 00 w tz) Lo CD @o . . 0 "Oll IEDI rl Ul L,> 4-, --n r'.) @D CL P) 0) w r- @j X, I I- I I I - @ I - I I I I I I I I I I II I R Cn F- CL rt FJ F@ R ,@j UR 0 LO 41 w " 00 rr I I I I I I I I I I I II I I ON -i k-n . ?@ . . FE 00 t1i 00 @o u Ru I I I In U) u 0 Ru 0 In (D LO 00 -,1 Ov I_n rl.) 00 @.n Li P, 00 .9- Li 00 n 00 Op In m M m -j CD 'D 00 r U R. Iu n 126 Appendix 1 Pasture 4% Pasture 4%- Other 7% Forest 7% Planning Subarea 2.1 Planning Subarea 2.2 Total Land Area Total Land Area Other 10,010,700 acres S,212,100 acres 11% 23% Cropland Forest Urban 33% S1% Cropland SS% ther 7.2% Pasture4.3% Urban S% Forest 39% Cropland Pasture S% 40.3% Pasture 4% Other 7% Other S% Urban 9% 19% PLAN AREA 2 Forest Total Land Area 18% Urban 32,272,400 acres Urban 5% Cropland 9% Cropland 60% Forest 68% Planning Subarea 2.3 Planning Subarea 2.4 Total Land Area Total Land Area 8,9SS,400 acres 8,094,200 acres FIGURE 1-26 Land Use in the Lake Michigan Basin TABLE 1-78 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Water Source Inland Lakes -PSA State Source Capacity Great Lakes and Streams Groundwater 2.1 Michigan 7.7 1.8 1.9 4.0 Wisconsin 284.3 78.8 76.4 129.1 2.2 Wisconsin 733.8. 664.6 --- 69.2 Illinois 1,843.9 1,566.0 --- 277.9 1.1 35.1 Indiana 183.0 146.8 Urban 4S%@ 0 .4 t @e @r a 4 3 2.3 Indiana 145.7 --- --- 145.7 Michigan 331.1 --- 192.0 2.4 Michigan 58.7 34.6 5.3 18.8 TOTAL --- 3,588.2 2,631.7 84.7 871.8 Lake Michigan Basin 127 In 1967, the Lake Michigan Plan Area accounted the high-value crops irrigated were potatoes, veg- for about 47 percent of the total value added by etables, orchards, and sod. Inland lakes and manufacturing for the entire Great Lakes Region. streams and ground water are the major water It also used approximatley 54 percent of total sources. manufacturing water withdrawals. It is estimated Water for primary mineral production is supplied that about 95 percent of the water self-supplied by principally from inland lakes and streams and manufacturers is taken from surface water sup- ground water (Table 1-82). Information on miner- plies, primarily from Lake Michigan. The re- als water supply in 1968 is shown in Table 1-83. mainder is obtained from company-owned wells. As of December 31, 1970, the 55 electric power Table 1-79 contains data on industrial water supply generation plants of 10 megawatts capacity or more development. within the Lake Michigan basin included 34 fossil- Inland lakes and streams and ground water are fueled steam, 9 gas turbine, 5 hydroelectric, 5 the primary sources of rural water supplies for internal combustion, and 2 nuclear-fueled steam domestic, livestock, spray water, and nonfarm uses electric plants. Table 1-84 provides information on in the region. Table 1-80 shows developed source electric power development. Plants that in 1970 supply and consumptive use for the rural water were scheduled for construction had a total capac- supply in 1970. ity of 9,530 megawatts and consisted of one In 1970 an estimated 344 mgd of water were pumped storage, 1,872 megawatts; six nuclear- supplied over a 100-day season to irrigate 21,590 fueled steam plants, 6,943 megawatts; two fossil- acres of golf courses and 133,726 acres of high- fueled steam plants, 681 megawatts; and one gas value cropland in the Lake Michigan basin (Table turbine plant of 34 megawatts. Virtually all con- 1-81). This is an annual average 94 mgd. Some of denser cooling systems operating in 1970 were of the flow-through type. TABLE 1-79 Industrial Water Supply Develop- ment, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) 7.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses Self-Supplied G:,os aeter Consumptive R .7,W PSA State e. nts, Withdrawals Use Some of the more serious water quality problems 2.1 Michigan 11079 2 9 1 in Lake Michigan itself exist in the Green Bay area, Wisconsin 311 36 southern Lake Michigan, and in the Grand Trav- 2.2 Wisconsin 258 16.2 erse Bay area. Major pollution problems are Illinois 11,605 2 1,348 99.5 traceable to the effluents from forest products in- Indiana 3,184 278.6 dustries in the northern portion of the basin, to the 2.3 Indiana 1,260 2 48 5 lack of tertiary treatment, and in many cases, Michigan 406 42 secondary treatment, in both public and private 2.4 Michigan 201 90 7.7 wastewater disposal systems, and to drainage from TOTAL 14,145 5,654 486 agricultural, urbanized, and natural lands. Because 'Partially supplied bv recirculation of the variance in treatment (or no treatment) for 2Figure is total for PSA point sources of wastewater, and the complexities of nonpoint sources, a summary of the exact status of wastewater treatment cannot be made. The fol- TABLE 1-80 Rural Water Supply, Lake Michi- lowing stream segments are reported by the States gan Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) to have priority for correction of water quality deficiencies: Developed Consumptive (1) River Basin Group 2.1 PSA State Source Capacity Use (a) Fox (Green Bay) River-from upper 2.1 Michigan 9.0 4.4 dam at Appleton to Green Bay Wisconsin 38.5 19.1 (b) Green Bay-southeast from navigation 2.2 Wisconsin 28.1 7.2 channel and southeast from north line of Brown Illinois 39.8 10.2 County Indiana 19.7 5.1 (2) River Basin Group 2.2 2.3 Indiana 14.5 4.3 (a) Honey Cre.ek-Milwaukee County, Michigan 67.8 19.9 Wisconsin 2.4 Michigan 16.8 4.8 N Indian Creek-Milwaukee County, Wisconsin TOTAL 234.2 75.0 . (c) Kinnickinnic-Milwaukee County, Wis- consin 128 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-81 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970, estimated Agriculture Golf Courses Withdrawal (mgd)- Withdrawal (mgd) 100-Day 100-Day PSA Acres Season Annual Acres Season Annual 2.1 28,282 49.5 13.6 4,700 22.1 6.0 2.2 14,689 26.7 7.3 12,100 56.9 15.6 2.3 62,956 117.7 32.2 4,600 21.6 5.9 2.4 27,799 48.9 13.4 190 0.9 0.3 TOTAL 133,726 242.8 66.5 21,590 101.5 27.8 TABLE 1-82. Source of New Water Used by TABLE 1-83 Minerals Water Supply, Lake Mineral Industries, Lake Michigan Plan Area, Michigan Plan Area, 1968-, estimated (mgd) 1968, estimated (mgd) New Water Intake New Intake April-November Average Total Water Annual Consumptive PSA Requirementsi Seasonal Average Use2 Streams 16.0 11.7 2.1 16.5 2.6 2.2 1.4 Lakes 9.6 7.4 2.2 38.0 21.9 16.0 0.6 Ground Water 15.9 10.7 2.3 28.7 16.3 10.9 0.3 Mines 4.0 3.3 2.4 6.6 5.1 4.4 0.1 Purchased 0.3 0.3 TOTAL 89.8 45.9 33.5 2.4 Other 0.1 0.1 lNew water intake plus recirculated (seasonal) TOTAL 45.9 33.5 2Annual average (c) Upper Elkhart River-Indiana (d) Menomonee River-Milwaukee County, (d) Lower Elkhart River Wisconsin below confluence with Honey Creek (e) Little Elkhart-Lower Pigeon River (e) Milwaukee River-Milwaukee County, M St. Joseph River-main stem Wisconsin, downstream from North Avenue Dam (g) Red Cedar River-Michigan, East M South and Menomonee Canal and Burn- Lansing to confluence with Grand River - ham Canal-Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (h) Kalamazoo River-Michigan, Comstock (g) Underwood Creek-Milwaukee to Kalamazoo County-Allegan County line includ- County, Wisconsin ing Portage Creek below Cork Street, Kalamazoo (h) Pike River-Racine County, Wisconsin (i) Battle Creek-Michigan, Charlotte to W Calumet River-Indiana ten miles downstream (j) Deep River-Indiana (j) St. Joseph River-Michigan, Hillsdale W Little Calumet River-Indiana to Jonesville (3) River Basin Group 2.3 (k) Grand River-Michigan, Jackson to (a) Upper Pigeon Creek-Indiana Ingham County line and Lansing to Grand Ledge (b) Turkey-Baugo Creeks (4) River Basin Group 2.4-none reported TABLE 1-84 Electric Power Development, Lake Michigan Plan Area Type and Capacity (MW) Steam Electric Hydro- Internal Combustion Fossil Nuclear Water Withdrawal PSA electric and Gas Turbine Steam Steam Total (mgd) 2.1 150 47 989 524 1,710 669 2.2 --- 283 6,125 6,408 3,208 2.3 36 217 2,116 --- 2,369 1,079 2.4 87 67 616 75 845 471 TOTAL 273 614 9,846 599 11,332 5,427 Lake Michigan Basin 129 TABLE 1-85 Municipal and Industrial Waste- the Lake with the waste contents of those waters. water Flows, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 Under the limitations set by the U.S. Supreme mgd Court for water diversion from the Lake Michigan PSA State Municipal Industrial watershed by the State of Illinois, total withdrawal is limited to an average over a five-year accounting 2.1 Michigan 4.7 9.0 period of 3,200 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 2,068 Wisconsin 87.7 310.0 mgd. This includes pumpage for municipal and in- 2.2 Wisconsin 211.1 321.0 dustrial water supply and diversion for navigation Illinois 71 20 and waste assimilation purposes. Indiana 113.6 2,953.0 Wastewater from the City of Hammond, In- 2.3 Indiana 71.9 25.8 diana, and the area it serves is also normally di- Michigan 170.0 220.0 verted from the Lake Michigan drainage area to the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Occasionally 2.4 Michigan 27.0 82.3 the Grand Calumet River reverses and flows into TOTAL 693 3,941 Lake Michigan. Current fisheries programs involve protection 'Work is underway to cease discharging to and improvement of natural resources, direct ma- Lake Michigan, and divert out of the Basin. nipulation of fish population, maintenance planting, and some indirect continuing control of the sea The growth of algae due to nutrients has caused lamprey. While both sport and commercial fisheries nuisance conditions in locations on the southern end are affected in Lake Michigan, the latter is subor- of Lake Michigan. This problem can be partially dinated to the former at the present time. Occa- relieved by adequate treatment facilities. Sedi- sionally the alewife die-off creates problems along mentation, thermal input, watercraft discharge, the beaches of Lake Michigan. However, the and oil spills detract from the water quality of the alewife population is a source of food for predators. Lake. The Lake Michigan basin falls under the Table 1-86 illustrates the current situation as of jurisdiction of the Federal-State conference on about 1970. Lake Michigan. Because of the large numbers of boaters, many Table 1-85 shows the 1970 municipal and indus- areas, particularly in the southern portion of the trial wastewater flows discharging into Lake Mich- Lake Michigan basin, are overcrowded. Table 1-87 igan drainage. illustrates the existing development of recreational Except during extreme flood conditions, the City boating in the basin. of Chicago and State of Illinois divert the natural There are 29 Federal commercial harbors and 7 drainage from about 810 square miles of the Lake private commercial harbors on Lake Michigan. Michigan basin and waste flows from the Chicago Total traffic handled, including receipts and ship- area into the Illinois River, to keep from burdening ments, is over 100 million tons annually. The com- TABLE 1-86 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 Ponded Waters Fishing Licenses Angler Days PSA State (acres) Resident Non-Resident (1000) 2.1 Michigan 35,427 10,472 9,848 110 Wisconsin 278,102 176,617 48,548 10,900 2.2 Wisconsin 37,963 180,016 30,801 1,229 Illinois 30,364 273,520 1,267 1,617 Indiana 4,826 60,638 3,615 320 2.3 Indiana 27,871 66,914 7,932 834 Michigan 104,756 242,417 58,821 4,566 2.4 Michigan 285,565 129,846 51,359 8,678 TOTAL --- 804,874 1,140,440 212,101 28,254 130 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-87 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1969 Lake Michigan Access Total No. Total Boat Days PSA State Harbors Sites of Boats in Use 2.1 Michigan 21 25 Wisconsin 322 590 161,000 4,440,0003 2.2 Wisconsin 6 0 Illinois 17 0 97,400 1,280,0003 Indiana 7 0 2@ .3 Indiana 0 40 120,600 3,516,000 Michigan 9 130 2.4 Michigan 23 257 121,800 3,543,000 TOTAL --- 96 1,042 500,800 12,779,000 lMenominee Harbor counted only in Michigan 2Nine harbors on Lake Winnebago also have access to Lake Michigan 3Total for PSA TABLE 1-88 Agricultural Land Treatment TABLE 1-89 Drainage Limitations in the Lake Needs, Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1970 (thou- Michigan Plan Area (thousands of acres) sands of acres) Total Agricultural Drainage Problems Pasture Other PSA Land Area Land -rere Some PSA Cropland Land Land Total 2.1 1,702.3 269.6 253.5 2,225.4 2.1 10,010.7 3,680 276 461 2.2 5,212.1 3,077 161 331 2.2 1,800.5 147.0 222.7 2,170.2 2.3 8,955.4 5,822 314 586 2.3 3,060.6 351.3 127.6 3,539.5 2.4 8,094.2 1,834 121 58 2.4 632.1 263.0 122.9 1,018.0 TOTAL 32,272.4 14,413 872 1,436 TOTAL 7,195.5 1,030.9 726.7 8,953.1 quality, erosion hastens the loss of existing land mercial and industrial development around the and natural resources, agricultural improvements, southern end of the Lake has built up largely on the and urban development. Particularly intense ero- base of water transport. sion conditions occur in southern portions of River Basin Group 2.1 due to intensified agriculture and intense rainfall. River Basin Group 2.3 suffers from 7.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems significant amounts of erosion and sedimentation due to the presence of highly erodible soils, slopes Of the 32.3 million acres of land in the area, about and other relief characteristics, relatively intense 13 million were cropland in 1970. Conservation rainfall, and extensive cultivation of cropland. Es- measures have been applied to much of the agri- timated gross erosion rates range from about 2 tons cultural land with the assistance of the Department per acre in the northern edge of this area to more of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service, which than 6 tons in the southwestern part. In RBG 2.4 acts through local soil and water conservation dis- erosion and sedimentation rates are the highest in tricts. Land still not included in conservation pro- the western parts of the planning subarea. Signifi- grams and which could profit from such programs is cant reasons for this are the concentration of fruit listed in Table 1-88. farming along the western shore areas and the A significant part of the benefits from land present management practices of clean cultivation treatment measures comes from preventing ero- during much of the growing season. sion and the resulting transport and deposition of Approximately 2.3 million acres of agricultural sediment. Besides being detrimental to water land in the Lake Michigan basin have a drainage Lake Michigan Basin 131 TABLE 1-90 Approximate Forested Land Area complete forest cover in the north to farm wood- and Ownership, Lake Michigan Plan Area land in the south. (thousands of acres) Portions of five national forests are located State, County, within the Lake Michigan basin. The total gross Area National and Private area within national forest boundaries in the basin is 3.2 million acres (Table 1-90). PSA 2.1 763.0 4,296 Conservation and treatment that consist of re- PSA 2.2 --- 337 forestation, forest stand improvement, grazing PSA 2.3 4.0 1,703 control, erosion control, improved harvesting, urban forestry, and multiple land-use planning, are PSA 2.4 992.5 -4,504 presently considered to be adequate over 4.4 mil- lion acres, or 41 percent of the non-Federal forest TOTAL 1,759.5 10,840 lands in the Lake Michigan basin. Forest land treatment practices are also extensive on national problem (Table 1-89). This is only about 7 percent forests and other Federal lands, but no estimate is of its drainage area, but the total acreage is second available of the percentage which is considered to only to Lake Erie basin in total acres of drainage be adequately treated at present. problems. Nearly 900,000 acres of cropland and Of the 1,362 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline, pastureland have a severe problem with no drain- about 590 miles were classed in 1970 as subject to age improvements installed; there are also approx- erosion (Table 1-91). Estimates for 1973 conditions imately 1.4 million acres of land with a drainage are greater. For the State of Michigan about 450 problem on which some drainage improvements miles were classed as "high risk" in 1973, compared have been installed. These installations have not with 80 miles critical and 300 miles noncritical in been maintained and are not adequate to provide 1970. (Critical erosion implies economic conse- the needed drainage for cropland. quences great enough to warrant protective mea- Drainage limitations not only affect agricultural sures. High risk connotes probability of occur- production potential, but also may limit urban rence.) Structural protective measures have been growth in the Lake Michigan basin. In ten of the provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SMSAs in the Lake Michigan basin, the portions under its authority for beach erosion control, and which are not yet in an urban built-up category by private and commercial shore property owners. have moderately wet soils that would create prob- At present the use and development of the lems for future development. These soils will need shorelines in northwestern Indiana and eastern Il- internal and supplementary drainage in order to be linois are largely commercial and industrial. This developed for urban purposes. Generally speaking, use gives way to permanent and seasonal residen- the majority of the SMSAs located in the Lake tial development north to an approximate line from Michigan basin have wetness problems on 30 per- Frankfort, Michigan, to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. cent to 45 percent of their nonurban lands. From this line northward, including the Upper Approximately 39 percent, or 12.6 million acres, Peninsula of Michigan, the shoreline has less de- of the study area is forest. From north to south, the velopment, with agricultural and forest lands pre- extent of land in forest decreases, from nearly dominating. Distribution of shoreland use and TABLE 1-91 Lake Michigan Shoreline Conditions, 1970 (miles) Total S@bject to Erosion Subject No PSA State Shoreline Critical Noncritical Protectei to Flooding Problem 2.1 Michigan 61 0 39.0 0 22.0 0 Wisconsin 315 0 98.6 20.4 62.4 133.6 Total 376 0 137.6 20.4 84.4 133.6 2.2 Wisconsin 92 26.0 47.6 18.4 0 0 Illinois 65 10.5 0 54.5 0 0 Indiana 45 13.0 9.6 22.4 0 0 Michigan 23 0 23.0 0 0 0 Total 225 49.5 80.2 95.3 0 0 2.3 Michigan 85 38.6 45.2 1.2 0 0 2.4 Michigan 676 42.0 194.4 45.1 56.3 338.2 TOTAL --- 1,362 130.1 457.4 162.0 140.7 471.8 132 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-92 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Michigan Basin, 1970 Bank Miles of Damage Annual Damages PSA state Severe Moderate Land Loss Sedimentation Other Total 2.1 Wisconsin 151' 875 27,000 4,700 28,000 59,700 Michigan 9 323 2.2 Wisconsin 8 27 Illinois 7 36 15,000 800 15,300 31,100 Indiana 3 10 2.3 Indiana 46 267 35,700 13,400 15,900 65,000 Michigan 257 495 2.4 Michigan 554 722 34,900 10,900 32,800 78,600 TOTAL --- 1,035 2,755 112,600 29,800 92,000 234,400 TABLE 1-93 Estimated Flood Damage, Lake Michigan Basin, 1970 Estimated Average Estimated Acres Annual Damages ($) in Flood Plain RBG State Urban Rural Urban Rural 2.1 Michigan 191,560 31,801 1,571 55,228 Wisconsin 2,143,450 1,167,406 12,069 592,727 2.2 Wisconsin 280,500 191,650 2,198 54,386 Illinois --- --- --- --- Indiana 8,419,180 38,700 2,200 3,865 2.3 Indiana 397,800 28,000 3,413 14,956 Michigan 2,542,830 1,961,690 46,222 266,332 2.4 Michigan 98,800 147,132 3,235 112,592 TOTAL 14,074,120 3,566,379 70,908 1,100,086 ownership for each of the four States bordering Lake Michigan shoreland includes approxi- Lake Michigan is shown in Table 1-40. mately 175,000 acres of shoals and wetlands. Some Table 1-92 shows the extent of streambank ero- 140,000 acres are considered to be extremely im- sion problems in the Lake Michigan basin. portant fish and wildlife habitat. About 1.1 million acres of urban and rural flood While the open waters of the Lake are used plain in the basin are subject to over $17 million of primarily as waterfowl resting areas, shoals and average annual damages, based on 1970 conditions marshes are used for resting, nesting and feeding. of economic development (Table 1-93). The Lake Michigan basin is one of the most There are few major Federal flood control proj- important basins in the production of waterfowl in ects within the Lake Michigan basin. Measures the Great Lakes Basin. Figure 1-27 indicates which characterize the flood protection throughout primary waterfowl areas of the shoreline and the Lake Michigan basin include channel diver- wetland regions over the basin. sions, channel improvements, levees and flood- In an inventory of outstanding, unusual, and walls, institutional measures, and land treatment significant aesthetic and cultural features in the areas. Major flood damage protection measures Lake Michigan basin, 1,400 items in 27 categories have been instituted in all river basin groups in the were identified. Environmental systems of the Lake Michigan basin except RBG 2.4. Lake Michigan basin in most critical need of plan- Nearly 90 percent of the Lake Michigan region is ning attention are identified in Appendix 22, Aes- considered capable of supporting wildlife (Table thetic and Cultural Resources. They include buffer 1-94). A high percentage of the habitat area is zones, shore zones, and linkage corridors. The pro- considered huntable, and much is used by both jected increase in urban development through 2020 hunters and nonhunters. makes it urgent that immediate planning attention Lake Michigan Basin 133 Migration and/or wintering Nesting and migration G) 5 KMYORK 4 VICINITY MAP ...... ..... 2.4 C 0 N S I N 0 M I C H I G A N 2.3 2.2 ILLINOIS I N D I A N A FIGURE 1-27 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 2 be given to all river basin groups in the Lake ural foundations on which much of the Lake Michi- Michigan basin, particularly RBG 2.2 and RBG 2.3. gan basin's outdoor recreation activities are built. Forested lands, large expanses of dunes and The forest environment is a significant factor in beaches, and hundreds of inland lakes are the nat- the basin's recreational attraction. More than four 134 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-94 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Michigan Plan Area, 1960 Total Land Area Farm Habitat Forest Habitat Total Habitat PSA State (acres) Acres % of Total Land Acres % of Total Umd_ (acres) 2.1 Michigan 1,889,800 179,800 10 1,641,500 87 1,821,300 Wisconsin 8,120,900 4,044,500 50 3,370,500 42 7,415,000 2.2 Illinois 2,367,300 1,466,500 62 148,100 6 1,614,600 Indiana 1,174,300 846,800 72 131,000 11 977,800 Wisconsin 1,670,500 1,232,900 74 158,900 10 1,391,800 2.3 Indiana 1,580,400 1,249,900 79 145,000 9 1,394,900 Michigan 7,375,000 5,216,900 71 1,081s5OO 15 6,298,400 2.4 Michigan 8,094,200 1,701,700 21 5,905,900 73 7,607,600 TOTAL --- 32,272,400 15,939,000 49 12,582,400 39 28,521,400 NOTE: The area of the land resource base, made up of the farmland and forest land, and reported elsewhere, is based on 1966-1967 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. TABLE 1-95 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Michigan Plan Area (acres) Publicly Owned Beaches Privately Owned Beaches Usable Open to Public Not Open to Public Open to Not With Without Potential for Little/No PSA Public Restricted Usable Charge Charge Development Potential Total 2.1 137.5 3.9 0.8 0 0 64.2 223.6 430.0 2.2 570.2 72.4 53.9 26.8 0 202.6 116.6 1,042.5 2.3 215.5 0 0 0 0 426.6 198.9 841.0 2.4 293.1 0 0 0 0 497.3 121.0 911.4 TOTAL 1,216.3 76.3 54.7 26.8 0 1,190.7 660.1 3$224.9 % 37.7 2.4 1.7 0.8 0 36.9 20.5 million acres of forest lands are publicly owned, eight-island area which is approximately one-third with nearly two million acres in national forests, 1.6 publicly owned. million acres in State forests, and one-half million There are several areas within this basin pos- acres owned by local governments. From north to sessing such high recreational value that they were south, the extent of forested land decreases, from recently authorized for acquisition by Congress. about 90 percent in the northern one-third to less A@eas presently being acquired include Sleeping than 20 percent in the southern sections. About 40 Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (Michigan), and percent of the forest land in Michigan's Upper Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (Indiana). The Peninsula is publicly owned, while in the northern Ice Age National Scientific Reserve in Wisconsin Lower Peninsula, about 35 percent of the forest is has been authorized. Acquisition is a State respon- in public ownership. sibility. Portions of the Wolf River (Wisconsin) and Lake Michigan has some of the finest beaches on the Pere Marquette River (Michigan) have been the Great Lakes, particularly along its eastern designated as components of the National Wild and shore. Of the total of over 3,100 acres, about 1,200 Scenic Rivers System. Other rivers in the Lake acres are publicly owned and available for use, and Michigan basin being considered for designation as an additional 1,200 acres in private ownership have wild, scenic, or recreational rivers by either the some development potential for public use (Table Federal or State governments include the Little 1-95). Manistee, Manistee, Pine, Escanaba, Whitefish, Islands in Lake Michigan that provide an excel- Manistique, and Muskegon in Michigan; the Pike, lent base for recreational use and development Pine, Wolf, Brule, and Popple Rivers in Wisconsin; include (1) the Green Bay Islands, containing more the Fox River in Illinois; and the Elkhart -in In- than 22,000 acres of land in the northern part of diana. the Lake, (2) North and South Manitou Islands, In spite of the extensive recreational resources in included as part of the Sleeping Bear Dunes Na- the Lake Michigan basin, there are also many tional Lakeshore, and (3) the Beaver Islands, an problems associated with - recreation here. In the Lake Michigan Basin 135 TABLE 1-96 Land and Water Surface Usable of the recreational resources are of national sig- for Recreation in the Lake Michigan Plan Area, nificance. 1970 (thousands of acres) Within the boundaries of Planning Subarea 2.2, Lake Inland there are five standard metropolitan statistical PSA Land Michigan Lakes Total areas, including Chicago, the largest city in the Great Lakes Basin, Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, 2.1 1,300.0 245.0 251.0 1,796.0 Kenosha, Milwaukee, and Racine. Amid this highly 2.2 122.4 124.0 69.0 315.4 urbanized setting are found recreation resources 2.3 80.0 69.0 106.0 255.0 2.4 2,200.0 451.0 228.0 2,879.0 which, because of their proximity to millions of ToTAL 3,702.4 889.0 654.0 5,245.4 people, are quite significant. The many inland lakes in Wisconsin's portion, the dunes along southeast- ern Lake Michigan, and the Lake Michigan shore- heavily urbanized area the tendency is for the line form the major elements of the area's recre- recreational land to be converted to uses which ation resource base. produce greater income and remove it from the Planning Subarea 2.3 contains many miles of recreation category, thus further depleting the rec- picturesque Lake Michigan shoreline, numerous reational opportunities in this area where they are lakes, and several outstanding recreation areas, so badly needed. This problem is accentuated by including the Waterloo Recreation Area, Yankee the fact that the recreation business is affected Springs Recreation Area, and the Allegan State quickly and sharply by changes in the economic Forest. situation so that it is relatively unstable, and a Planning Subarea 2.4 possesses many high-qual- lowering of the general economic level of the region ity recreation areas, including Sleeping Bear and the nation reduces to an even greater extent Dunes, Grand Traverse Bay, and the adjacent the stability of the recreation industry. shoreline. Large areas of public forest lands are Furthermore, the proximity of the recreation also located here, including the Manistee and facilities just north of the heavily urbanized areas Hiawatha National Forests, and a number of State means that these are quickly overcrowded on forests. The Big Bay de Noc area of the Upper wee-kends and holiday periods by persons moving Peninsula is important both as a waterfowl area into them from the cities. The population of the and as an area of significant aesthetic values. Chicago urban complex flows up both sides of Lake The existing developed supply of recreation Michigan into the recreation areas farther north, areas is shown in Section 12 on Table 1-204. This saturating all of the immediately adjacent area on table also shows projected needs and outputs from the way, and the population of the heavily urban- the Proposed (PRO) Framework for the Lake ized Detroit area floods into the northern part of Michigan basin developed from the frameworks for Michigan. RBGs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. The latter situation is also affected by the fact that while the north and south interstate highway system is developed through the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, the feeder roads into the recreation 7.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.1 areas on both sides, particularly toward the Lake Michigan side, are not highly developed. Traffic 7.2.1 Summary problems on these roads are almost as great as the problems at recreation facilities themselves. Under normal growth conditions the 1970 popu- Although there are hundreds of inland lakes in lation of 1,005,023 in PSA 2.1 is projected to in- the Lake Michigan basin, the shores of many,. crease to 1,527,000 by year 2020. Total employment especially in the southern part of the basin, have is estimated to increase from 371,022 in 1970 to been heavily developed for permanent and summer 672,400 in 2020. Agriculture, forestry, and fish- residence. These lakes contain an undetermined eries are expected to decrease nearly one-half in amount of beach area that probably measures into the 50-year period. Mining will increase about 50 the thousands of acres. percent but remain minor, and manufacturing is Land and water available for recreation use in expected to increase nearly 65 percent. Services the Lake Michigan basin are shown in Table 1-96. and other industries will more than double. Tables The land is in public ownership, under Federal, 1-250, 1-251, and 1-252 (found in Section 12) sum- State, county, and local governments. marize the Normal (NOR) Framework and costs. Planning Subarea 2.1 contains large tracts of The northwest portion of the Lake Michigan public forest lands and many inland lakes. Lake basin will continue to have recreational develop- Winnebago, Wisconsin's largest inland lake, lies in ment to take advantage of the natural resources of the southern portion of the area. In addition, some the area. 136 Appendix 1 The population is just over half urban, and the The area has a continental climate with extremes proportion will no doubt increase, following na- of heat and cold in the summer and winter. Grow- tional and Basinwide trends. There are two SMSAs ing season ranges from about 80 days in the north- in the river basin group-Green Bay, and Apple- west to 160 days in the southeast. Precipitat' @n ton-Oshkosh, both in Wisconsin. Together they averages about 28 to 32 inches per year. Runoff contain about 43 percent of the population of the averages 10 to 15 inches annually. Snow covers the PSA. ground in practically all the winter months, and The availability of water has not been a bar to most streams are ice covered from late November any development for which other factors were fa- until late March. Surface-water supplies and vorable, but the quality of water is seriously de- ground-water supplies are both abundant. graded in the streams below some of the industries, The most prevalent minerals in the river !-,isin particularly food processing, beverages, chemicals, group are nonmetallic: sand, gravel, clay, and paper products, and primary metals. This is par- limestone. These are used for building and road ticularly true along the lower Fox River, but a construction. In Iron and Dickinson Counties, similar problem exists along the Oconto, Peshtigo, Michigan, there are deposits of iron ore which have and Menominee Rivers. been and are presently being mined. The reserves, The Normal Framework provides for correcting both metallic and nonmetallic minerals, are be- conditions which have caused the degraded water lieved to be great. quality, by alleviating flood damages, providing Seven counties in the heavily forested, lightly land treatment and drainage, and providing shore- populated area north of Green Bay lost population land protection. These are corrective measures. between 1960 and 1970. The heavily populated NOR also provides for increased recreational op- counties in the Green Bay-Lake Winnebago area all portunities, expansion of recreational boating, en- had a considerable increase in population, and the hancement of fish and wildlife habitat for improved planning subarea showed a net gain over all. conservation in these fields, and the provision of The area is shown in Figure 1-28. Statistical water supplies for all uses to meet the needs of a information about the river basin group and plan- balanced development. ning subarea is given in Section 1. 7.2.2 The Area 7.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems River Basin Group 2.1 iies in the northwest por- Future demands or requirements upon the re- tion of the Lake Michigan basin in the States of sources were projected in Section 3. Michigan and Wisconsin. It includes four river Needs determined for resource uses by time basins and four complexes made up of smaller level are shown on Table 1-250 on Section '2. basins. The planning subarea includes three. coun- Where needs can be quantified, they are not dis- ties in Michigan and twenty counties in Wisconsin cussed in the text unless special conditions warrant (See Subsection 1.2). such discussion. Topographically, the area is rolling to hilly, with Problems in RBG 2.1 relate primarily to the moderate relief, but some isolated hilly to moun- impact of people on land and water. Waste treat- tainous areas of high relief occur in Iron and Dick- ment facilities have not kept pace with growth, and inson. Counties, Michigan, where the elevations stream quality has been degraded. range from 1,000 to 2,000 feet above sea level. Increasing amounts of sediment and nutrients Drainage is generally from northwest to southeast, are being added to the streams and lakes from but the Fox River in its lower reach runs in a urban growth, highway construction, improperly northeasterly direction into Green Bay. maintained streambanks and lakeshores, and agri- Four general areas associated with land types cultural activities adjacent to the streams or lakes. are the heavily populated commercial-industrial The popularity of many of the lakes for recreation complex in the area around Oshkosh and Green and permanent home sites has caused lake pollution Bay; the intensively farmed area in the southern and pollution of the ground-water aquifers. and eastern part of the river basin group; the Fish and wildlife habitat has been destroyed largely forested, heavily used recreation area in through expansion of industrial and urban devel- the northern and western portion; and Door opment, by changes in land use, and by the de- -County, east of Green Bay, a heavily used recre- teriorated water quality from wastes put into the ation area with very shallow soil cover and poten- streams. This water quality deterioration has ex- tial ground water pollution problems due to the panded also to Lake Michigan itself, principally in crevieed limestone. the Green Bay area. Lake Michigan Basin 137 VICINITY MAP .1ke Michigamme SCALE IN MILES Im IRO AIE -W. Paint Riv higarnme Rese-01--_ '?Iron River We lf,'* A41 DICKINSON' /V C /Vs/tv Pine River ENOM P-pple Iron Mount. 0 Norwa 71 10 Esca aba FLORENCE Kingsford Ce ar INE T INEE MENOMINEE Rii er -a LF.REST Pelht - Q""SHINGTON / at@ ISLAND 0 LINGLADE' ALI, Ant;@ 0 PESH W TI 0 Men I ee s M OMINEE I i@ -- / S, I Mari ette OCONTO Oconto Ost r on Say Shawano L ke DOOR .b, ShawanC SHAWANO P OCONTO ZR KEWAUNEE intonville 0 SAUMIGO OUTA MIE 0 FOX Green Bay ib, 'Zi De Pere @ Kewaunee Waupaca New London ROWN WAUPACA @wleton Kaukauna I MAN TOW C A.- M nasha CAL MET SH BOYG N '04. R".' GRE N AY Neenah it.--c River Two Rivers Lak Poyg.. .1 Manitowoc WAUS ARA Berlin Oshkosh Chilton WINNEBAGO FOND DU LAC S E YGA 0 Ripon Green Lake Fond d Lac Sh b. Sheboyg an ymo I RIVER BASIN GROUP MAR ETTE GREEN LAKE )ge,@/ PLANNING SUBAREA ,7P.,t.ge SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 1-28 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1 138 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-97 Use and Projected Needs for Rec- suitable facilities along the Lake Michigan shore is reational Boating, PSA 2.1 also a possible solution. The commercial fisher@y is 1000 Boating Days faced with the usual problems in the Great Lakes: Great Lakes Inland the question of management alternatives, the com- Cateogry Waters Waters petition for riparian lands where shore-based facil- ities could be established, and the need for techno- 1970 Use 330 4,110 logical improvement in fishing gear and processing techniques. The basic question is the way in which 1980 Needs 450 300 commercial fishing will be handled as part of the 2000 Needs 600 1,020 total fishery management in the Great Lakes Basin. Commercial navigation will be influenced by the 2020 Needs 780 2,010 overall treatment of this resource throughout the Great Lakes Basin. The major receipt in the area has been coal, and the principal shipments have 7.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals been lumber, newsprint, pulp, and paper. It is not anticipated that changes in the size of ships or the The needs in the water withdrawal category have length of navigation season will significantly affect been developed along conventional lines, and no this area. particular problems exist. Adequate water sources are available. In many cases there is an opportunity for choice among sources to meet a particular need. 7.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems No peculiar problems exist in the area. The 7.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses maintenance of the soil resource in the agricultural area requires constant surveillance, and treatment The problem of unsatisfactory water quality measures are needed. There are areas where ex- points up the most significant aspect of nonwith- cess water on the surface or in the soil profile is a drawal water uses, that of the need for treatment problem, and drainage will alleviate this problem of wastewater, both municipal and industrial. and permit increased crop production at lower pro- There are no peculiar problems associated with this duction costs. need, except that industries such as wood pulp or The long-term trend in forest land is toward a food products generate very high oxygen demand declining acreage, as forest land gives way to in the wastes. Techniques for adequate treatment highways, power lines, reservoirs, and urban, rec- are available. Of the over 30 hydroelectric devel- reational, and industrial developments. The chal- opments in RBG 2.1, only 2 plants are over 10 lenge is to satisfy increasing demand for goods and megawatts in capacity. No additional installations services from a declining forest resource base. All are anticipated. of the acreage now available will be needed in the The river basin group has a wealth of water area future. Management efforts and forest land treat- and outdoor recreational opportunities, but it has ment must be intensified. the usual problems involving competing land use, Shoreline erosion is not a serious factor in the pollution, and questions of recreational develop- river basin group. Streambank erosion does pre- ment or preservation and protection. None of these sent some problems, but losses are relatively small. is unusual. The inland lakes and upland streams Flooding may occur at any time, but generally the provide high quality fisheries, but the deteriorated major floods are the result of rain and/or snow melt water quality in the lower reaches of the rivers on frozen or nearly saturated ground. A few in- prevents fisheries from developing in this area. tense summer storms have caused destructive This is one of the problems which must be resolved. floods. Overbank flooding is also caused by ice The high-quality recreational boating in the area jams. Conditions vary among the different induces a large number of people to come in from streams, and both structural and institutional mea- outside, adding to the already high concentration of sures must be considered. local boaters. Table 1-97 shows recreational boat- The loss of wildlife habitat to urban and resort ing use in PSA 2. 1 and projects future needs. There development is a significant problem in the river are opportunities for additional development on basin group, as it is throughout most of the Great inland waters, including the portion of the Fox Lakes Basin. River between Lake Winnebago and Green Bay, There is a wealth of opportunity for outdoor which was initially improved in the interest of recreation, and a great diversity of recreational commercial navigation and which may now be resources. There are no particular problems asso- available for recreational boating. Development of ciated with development, but the acquisition and Lake Michigan Basin 139 management of the resource is a major undertak- (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ing. Municipal waste treatment plants will meet ef- fluent requirements established prior to the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 7.2.4 Alternative Frameworks 1972, including phosphate removal, throughout the entire period. Advanced waste treati..6nt needs are Two alternative frameworks are presented for indicated for the portions of the Fox River, the this as for other river basin groups. The Normal Oconto River, and the Peshtigo River, where Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- problems revolve primarily around paper mill tions to meet needs outside the RBG 2.1 in the wastes. Industrial wastewater discharges will also Lake Michigan basin or the Great Lakes Basin. be treated to meet effluent requirements. Regional The Proposed Framework contains the recom- treatment of wastewater is not anticipated but mendations of the Commission in an effort to re- might be considered for the latter part of the flect the views of the people of the basin, and the 50-year period. policies and programs of the States. To some ex- Water requirements for hydroelectric power tent, it reflects coordination in the development of production in existing plants will be met. No addi- the Framework among a number of river basin tional plants are projected. groups, both in the Lake Michigan basin and in the Water-oriented outdoor recreation will be dis- Great Lakes Basin as a whole. cussed in connection with related land uses and problems. The fishery is adequate to meet needs through 7.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) 1980. Degraded water quality in the lower portions of the streams has eliminated much sport fishery. NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and Adequate waste treatment may permit a rebuilding solving identified problems to the maximum prac- of this habitat. In addition, management of the ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and fishery through stocking, introduction of predators criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The for forage species, physical and chemical removal program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- of unwanted fish, and provision of adequate access tion 12 in Tables 1-250, 1-251, and 1-252. to the water are programs included in NOR which (1) Water Withdrawals will meet the needs in all periods of the study. In NOR the principal elements of municipal Recreational boating needs are met in NOR by water supply include ground-water development, a acquisition of critical areas and by more efficient pipeline to the Great Lakes for a regional water use of the existing water. There is an adequate supply, and the development of water systems to supply of water surface available. Around the in- provide intake from inland lakes and streams. All land lakes and streams access and launching sites needs are met. must be developed, and on Lake Michigan naviga- Self-supplied industrial water needs are met by tional aids and harbors of refuge are needed to increasing amounts of water from the Great Lakes, permit use of the extensive water surface available inland lakes and streams, and ground-water sources beyond Green Bay, which is already heavily used. over the 50-year period. The largest single source Commercial fishery and commercial navigation is the Great Lakes, but in each time frame less than are discussed in Subsection 7.6, which deals with half the total requirement is met from this source. Lake Michigan intrarelationships. No specific navi- Inland lakes and streams are utilized slightly more gation improvements are included in NOR. than ground water. (3) Related Land Use and Problems Mineral industry water needs are fully met in Agricultural land treatment will be carried out NOR, about half from inland lakes and streams and through conventional methods throughout the 50- half from ground water. year period on 43 percent of the acres which could Irrigation needs are met initially from inland benefit from treatment. lakes and streams and ground water, with a possi- Agricultural drainage will be carried out by bility that by 2020 about 20 percent of the needs group action on 34 percent of the land adversely may be met from the Great Lakes, and 40 percent affected by drainage conditions during the 50-year each from inland lakes and streams and ground period. water. Reservoir storage may be provided in all Forest land treatment will be applied to 66 per- time periods. cent of the land that could profit from treatment. Thermal power cooling needs are met by siting Improved management practices, technical assis- plants on the shore of Lake Michigan and providing tance, and consulting services will materially help a mix of flow-through and supplementary cooling to preserve and enhance the forest environment. systems. Shoreline erosion is not a serious factor, as there 140 Appendix 1 is no critical erosion area in the river basin group gional economic development objectives. This is under 1970 conditions. No programs are included in interpreted in the Normal Framework as repre- NOR. senting an extension of trends in the demand for Streambank erosion occurs in isolated areas and water and land resources. only a minimum program to correct 11 percent of The environmental quality problems addressed the mileage in the 50-year period has been included. indicate that the restoration of a very high level of This accounts for roughly 30 percent of the dam- water quality, the development and conservation of ages. recreational opportunities, the reduction of rural Both structural and nonstructural measures are and urban flooding, improvements to fish and wild- included in flood plain management in NOR, and at life resources, and a balanced level of development, the end of the 50-year period, about 67 percent of supported by funding as necessary by Federal, the urban affected area is expected to be taken care State, and local levels, need top priority if the of, accounting for 75 percent of the average annual objectives of the public in the area are to be damages. Rural area affected is much larger, and achieved. the results of treatment much less, so that a much PRO quantification differs from NOR in only a smaller percent of the area and of the average few elements. These are shown in Section 12 on annual damages is taken care of. Tables 1-253, 1-254, and 1-255. Wildlife habitat is faced with continual re- (1) Water Withdrawals duction, but this trend is alleviated by purchase and All needs are met in PRO as in NOR with the management, and acreage needs are met. The same program selections. The environmental user-day needs appear not to be met, but this aspects of power plant siting are given more problem is believed exaggerated because actually weight, but there is no identified difference in the hunters and non-consumptive users will use the quantity or cost of water. same area at different times. (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses About 75 percent of water-oriented outdoor rec- Wastes will be treated in both municipal and reation-day needs can be met in the 2020 period. industrial treatment plants to meet the require- This will require that 70 percent of the "intensive- ments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act use" land be developed and arrangements made for Amendments of 1972. Quantities of waste to be the use of 90 percent of the "extensive-use" land. handled are the same for PRO as for NOR. Treat- Acquisition and development of several thousand ment costs will be greater. For other non-with- acres in selected areas will be necessary over the drawal water uses the needs are met for PRO the entire time period to provide a constantly growing same as for NOR. A sport fishery balanced be- base of land and associated water for this form of tween coldwater and warmwater species is pro- outdoor recreation. gramed, and there is emphasis on meeting needs (4) Framework Outputs and Costs near urban areas. Section 12 contains Tables 1-250, 1-251, and (3) Related Land Uses and Problems 1-252, which provide information on needs, out- Needs for related land uses and problems are the puts, and percent needs met, and capital and same as in NOR, but they are met to a greater OM&R costs. extent in PRO. All of the agricultural land which can profit from the treatment will be treated, and the drainage program will be nearly doubled. All of 7.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) the forest land that can profit from treatment will be treated. Table 1-330 in Section 12 compares land The economic growth and population base for treatment programs for NOR and PRO. PRO are not numerically different from NOR. Shoreline treatment may be greater in PRO be- However, the States recognize as a major problem cause of higher lake levels and critical reaches in the population imbalance between the northern and RBG 2.1, but no quantities are shown. Shoreland southern areas of RBG 2. 1. management plans for all areas are urged. There is continuing economic decline and outmi- Severe erosion reaches of streambanks will be gration from the northern part of the basin, with treated in PRO as in NOR. There will be greater increasing concentration of economic activity and emphasis on flood plain management in the reduc- population in the southern part. tion of flood damage under PRO. Wildlife manage- PRO does not specifically recommend future so- ment programs are the same for PRO as for NOR. cial and economic policies or programs to influence PRO will meet all water-oriented outdoor recre- the rate of growth and/or distribution of people in ation needs. It is assumed that approximately 60 the river basin group. However, it has estimated percent of the outdoor recreation needs will be met the water and related land programs needed to with public funds (Federal, State, and local), and it support growth rates generally associated with re- is further assumed that the remainder will be met Lake Michigan Basin 141 either by private funding or not at all, and that the for navigation and waste assimilation purposes, is priorities for the use of publi'c funding will be limited to 3,200 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 2,068 (a) urban recreation developments, and acquisi- million gallons per day (mgd). Wastewater dis- tion and retention of unique and natural areas of charges from the City of Hammond, Indiana, and regional significance the area it serves are also normally diverted from (b) developments on lands now publicly owned Lake Michigan to the Upper Mississippi River (c) other developments. Basin. (Occasionally the Grand Calumet River re- It is assumed that to the extent public funds are verses and flows to Lake Michigan.) available for investment in urban lands, they may The most severe problems in River Basin Group be used where feasible to assist in acquiring flood 2.2 are meeting the future water quantity require- plain land in the rapidly urbanizing areas in the ments and maintaining or improving the present southern portion of the basin, in clearing flood water quality. To formulate alternative futures for plains of drainage-prone uses, and in making them RBG 2.2, it is not only necessary to consider the available for recreational use. various subobjectives and criteria, but also imper- (4) Framework Outputs and Costs ative to consider the availability of the resources in Section 12 contains Tables 1-253, 1-254, and the adjacent basin. The recently completed Upper 1-255, which provide information on needs, out- Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study puts, percent needs met, and capital and OM&R (UMRCBS) facilitates such consideration. costs for PRO, indicating by italics where they In the formulation of the Normal Framework, it differ from NOR. has been assumed that the present dependence on Lake Michigan for water supply will continue in the 7.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs future. Ground water will be used where it is available. Table 1-345 in Section 12 lists the total costs With respect to nonwithdrawal uses, the Normal (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the Framework is designed to meet the water quality periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. standards existing in the base year, 1970. The PRO Framework meets the higher standards of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 7.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.2 of 1972. Neither water-oriented outdoor recreation needs nor recreational boating needs can be met within RBG 2.2. The requirements for commercial 7.3.1 Summary navigation can be met. Related land problems stem, in many cases, from RBG 2.2 is the most highly urbanized area in the improper or mismanaged land use. Regulation of entire Great Lakes Basin. The Chicago-area mega- development on the flood plain and the shoreland lopolis lies on the hydrologic divide between Lake will be necessary if damages are to be reduced in Michigan and the Illinois River, which is a part of the future. Some structural remedies have been the Upper Mississippi River Basin, covering por- proposed to alleviate existing conditions. There is tions of southeast Wisconsin, northeast Illinois, and little agricultural land within the boundary of RBG northwest Indiana. This concentration of people 2.2, and hence these treatment programs are small. and industries generates tremendous requirements The Normal Framework does not propose satisfy- for water and related land resources. Not all pur- ing much of the wildlife and recreation needs be- poses are compatible; for example, recreational de- cause opportunities simply do not exist in the area. velopment competes with industrial expansion for Table 1-256, in Section 12, lists the needs, outputs, use of the Lake Michigan shoreline. and percent of needs met for the Normal Frame- In some areas, explicit choices have been made. work for RBG 2.2. The two tables following (Table The City of Chicago with the State of Illinois chose 1-257 and Table 1-258) show costs. to protect its water supply in Lake Michigan by In referring to the summary table, it should be diverting about 810 square miles of the natural noted that needs shown are for the planning sub- Lake Michigan drainage area to the Illinois River. area or river basin group, depending on the par- The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chi- ticular resource category and the methodology of cago constructed the diversion system and main- the work group. However, programs for meeting tains it. The U.S. Supreme Court has set a limit for the needs are for the river basin group. When the water diversion from the Lake Michigan watershed outputs do not match the needs, it is often because by the State of Illinois. Under present conditions, needs have been transferred between Great Lakes the total withdrawal, including pumpage for mu- and Upper Mississippi River Basins. These nicipal and industrial water supply and diversion transfers are explained in the text and are also 142 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-98 Comparison of Areas of Planning 2020 are projected to be over 31,500 mgd. The base Subarea 2.2 and River Basin Group 2.2 year withdrawals totaled almost 10,000 mgd. The Acres 2020 need is made up of about 80 percent for State PSA RBG thermal power cooling, 13 percent for self-supplied industries, 6 percent for municipally supplied water Illinois 2,401,300 39,000 users, and the remainder for rural domestic and livestock, irrigation. and mining uses. Indiana 1,194,200 426,000 Except for thermal power cooling, water with- Michigan 0 106,000 drawal amounts were computed for the 17 county PSA 2.2. Basically, this same area was analyzed in Wisconsin 1,720,300 821@000 the UMRCBS. The UMRCBS satisfied a portion of TOTAL 5,315,800 1,392,000 these needs for the Great Lakes Basin which does not "double-count" the requirements associated incorporated into the appropriate tables of Annex with the Milwaukee-Chicago-Gary-Hammond com- E. See the Introduction for availability of Annex E. plex. (1) Municipally Supplied Water Plan formulation for the UMRCBS supplied part 7.3.2 The Area of the need from available resources, primarily ground water resources in the Illinois River basin. The area covers the southwest part of Lake In view of the shortage of sufficient ground water Michigan and lies within portions of Wisconsin, and the existing interbasin transfers, the study Illinois and Indiana. PSA 2.2 includes seven coun- transferred over 1,000 mgd of the 2020 need to ties in Wisconsin, six counties in Illinois, and four GLBFS to be supplied from Lake Michigan. If counties in Indiana. Of these 17 counties only water withdrawals from Lake Michigan to supply Ozaukee and Milwaukee Counties in Wisconsin lie areas outside the basin are continued, some of the wholly within RBG 2.2. In fact, six counties lie future industrial self-supplied water needs would wholly within the Upper Mississippi River Basin. be shifted to municipally supplied sources. The net See Table 1-98 for a coynparison of the areas of result of these adjustments was to increase mu- PSA 2.2 and the RBG 2.2. nicipally supplied water withdrawal needs for 2020 The 1970 population of Planning Subarea 2.2 was from 1,768 mgd to 1,921 mgd. 9,492,823, with 18.5 percent in Wisconsin, 73.5 (2) Self-Supplied Industrial Water percent in Illinois, and 8 percent in Indiana. Needs These needs were also considered by both stud- for many of the resource categories are based on ies. Again, needs were programed for satisfac- planning subarea populations when, in fact, most of tion where the resources were available. Slightly these people neither live within the Great Lakes over 1,000 mgd of the 2020 need were converted to Basin nor rely on its resources. municipal supply and transferred to GLBFS. Shifts Figure 1-29 shows the areal extent of Planning were made to account for more industrial use of Subarea 2.2 and River Basin Group 2.2. Section 1 municipally supplied water in the future. Self- contains data about the area. supplied industrial use needs were transferred from GLBFS to UMRCBS, with the net result a decrease in self-supplied industrial water with- 7.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems drawal needs in GLBFS for 2020 from 4,020 mgd to 1,986 mgd. Future demands upon the resources, or require- (3) Rural Domestic and -Livestock Water ments, were described in Section 3. Needs deter- This category of need is closely related to geo- mined for resource uses by time period are shown graphic location. Water is seldom transported great in Table 1-256 of Section 12. Because of the dual distances for rural uses. Therefore, to avoid dupli- consideration of six Illinois counties in the Upper cation of needs in both regions, a simplistic ap- Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study proach was used. This approach resulted in 80 (UMRCBS) and the Great Lakes Basin Framework percent of these rural needs.being programed as Study, adjustment of needs was incorporated into part of the UMRCBS and the other 20 percent to be the framework formulation process to avoid dou- considered in the GLBFS. This reduced the 2020 ble-counting. Details are discussed below. need for rural domestic and livestock water with- drawals from 27.3 mgd to 5.5 mgd. (4) Irrigation Water 7.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals There are vast differences in projections for irri- gation water between the UMRCBS and the. The total water withdrawal needs to the year GLBFS. A partial explanation,is the. inclusion of Lake Michigan Basin 143 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES W@Hlpq OZAUKEE Be nd -LL .1 Creek Port Washington 0 e Hartford@ Cedarburg Oconornowoc Milwaukee Waukesha @ ) South Milwaukee MILWAUKEE WAUKESHA Roo, WALWONIH ICAGO- LWAUKEE Racine Elkhorn RAC'Iar ( Kenosha WIS -C 0 @'S-IN K E.N.C@S H A Ol-larvard ILLINOIS 0 Zion 3), Waukegan C Marengo 0 Crystal Lake Lake Forest MEHENRY Highland Park -7 LAKE KANE In COOK UPPER MISSISSIPPI RI R BASIN Saint Charles 0 I a Z GREAT LA ES BASIN ICHIGAN OD DU PA E INDIANA Aurora Michigan City C. t R Chesterto 0 9 La Porte Joliet hicago Heights @ A IL AUKEE /- ra,so LA PORTE O:z Crown Point z t5c WILL PORTER Knox KE STARKE N6."e CHIGAN DIANA nC,tY . La Porte I@RTE RIVER BASIN GROUP SCALE IN MILES PLANNING SUBAREA 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE -1-29 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2 144 Appendix 1 golf course irrigation in the irrigation category of City to meet Indiana water quality standards. the GLBFS. The UMRCBS, on the other hand, After 1980, Portage, Indiana, will need advanced considered these withdrawals as municipally sup- wastewater treatment. plied. Recognizing these differences and the mag- There are numerous manufacturing establish- nitude of the amounts involved, the simplistic 80 ments and a substantial dairying activity in the percent-20 percent split of needs was used. This Wisconsin portion of RBG 2.2. In 1970 about reduced the 2020 need for irrigation water with- 1,500,000 Wisconsin people were served by munic- drawals from 454 mgd to 91 mgd. ipal treatment plants which handled wastewater (5) Mining Water flows of 211 mgd. In addition, industrial flows in The only area not duplicated by the UMRCBS in 1970 were about 3,274 mgd. By the year 2020, computing mining water withdrawal needs was municipal flows could reach 1,049 mgd. Current Ozaukee and Milwaukee Counties in Wisconsin. advanced wastewater treatment needs have been The adjustment made for this resource category identified on the Milwaukee River below Camp- was based on an analysis of the distribution of bellsport, Kewaskum, and West Bend to the mouth present water use by commodity (i.e., sand and of the river at Milwaukee, on the Pike River below gravel, stone, coal, and other) and site locations. Sturtevant, and on the Menomonee River below The result of this analysis indicated that 92 percent Menomonee Falls. of the mining water required by PSA 2.2 would be (2) Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation obtained from sources within the Illinois River In 1970 Planning Subarea 2.2 generated 26.7 basin. Therefore, the need for mining water with- percent of the Great Lakes Basin's total acreage drawals was reduced from 140 mgd to 11.2 mgd for requirements for water-oriented outdoor recre- the year 2020. ation. However, PSA 2.2 could provide only 1.8 (6) Thermal Power Cooling Water percent of the Basin's supply. The total recreation The Power Work Group adjusted the require- requirement for PSA 2.2 was 170.3 million recre- ments for both the UMRCBS and the GLBFS to ation days, with the water-oriented recreation re- eliminate duplication. This was part of the pr'oee- quirement at 44.5 million recreation days. By the dure used to prepare Appendix 10, Power. year 2020 these requirements are projected to be nearly 500 million and 135 million recreation days, respectively. 7.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses As discuss ed previously, the PSA 2.2 needs must be reduced to RBG 2.2 needs to avoid overlap. A (1) Wastewater Discharges detailed breakdown of needs was not feasible. There are no significant waste discharges into However, provisions were made in the plan for- Lake Michigan from the Illinois portion of RBG 2.2, mulation process to take credit for needs met by except for the North Shore Sanitary District, UMRCBS. This is in effect a transfer of needs and which is under order to divert its effluent from so appears in Annex E tables (see Introduction). Lake Michigan. No municipal discharges are an- (3) Sport Fishing ticipated in the future. There are small industrial The projected sport fishery requirements by waste discharges to the Lake. 2020 are over 30,000,000 angler days. After an The Indiana portion of RBG 2.2 is the most analysis of existing supply, the 2020 need for PSA highly industrialized area of the State with five of 2.2 was set at 17,263,000 angler days. The the nation's major steel plants, four major oil re- UMRCBS satisfied 8,105,000 angler days. Thus, fineries, and other heavy manufacturing and chem- the Great Lakes Basin's portion of the require- ical industries. Wastewater discharges from the ments is 91158,000 angler days. The Fish Work Hammond, Indiana, area into the Upper Missis@ Group transferred requirements to areas of supply sippi River Basin are not considered as part of this outside RBG 2.2 and further reduced these re- study. In 1970 about 340,000 Indiana people were quirements. With a capacity given at 3,166,000 served by municipal treatment plants which han- angler days, need has been stated at 4,434,000 dled wastewater flows attributable to the Lake angler days for the year 2020. In summation, needs Michigan basin of 114 mgd. In addition the 1970 for sport fishing have been adjusted to consider the industrial wastewater flows were about 3,000 mgd existing resources capability (supply), the existing into Lake Michigan basin. By the year 2020, mu- resource capability of other river basin groups nicipal flows could reach 334 mgd, and industrial within the Great Lakes Basin (intrabasin flows could reach 4,000 mgd. Between 1970 and transfers), and the existing and potential resource 1980 advanced wastewater treatment (advanced capability of the adjacent areas of the Upper Mis- biological treatment, physical-chemical treatment, sissippi River Basin (interbasin transfers). or land treatment) is needed at Gary, East Chicago, Problems associated with sport fishing include Crown Point-Hobart, Valparaiso, and Michigan water quality degradation, lack of public access, Lake Michigan Basin 145 TABLE 1-99 Use and Projected Needs for Rec- TABLE 1-100 Traffic Handled by Major Har- reational Boating, PSA 2.2 bors in RBG 2.2 as Percent of Great Lakes Total 1000 Boating Days % of Great Lakes Total Great Lakes Inland Commodity Received Shipped Category Waters Waters Iron Ore 33 1970 Use 768 512 Coal 8 13 1980 Needs 282 102 Limestone 22 2000 Needs 429 203 Grain 15 2020 Needs 588 321 General Cargo 36 45 Other Traffic 33 33 and a reduction of spawning area brought about by the filling of shoreline marsh areas. There is a specific need to develop a comprehensive, coopera- Commerce shipped and received in 1970 tive management plan. amounted to 55.5 million tons of bulk commodities (4) Recreational Boating and 6.6 million tons of general cargo. By 2020 In 1968 there was an average of over '1.5 regis- commerce is expected to reach 117.5 million tons of tered boats per 100 persons in PSA 2.2. This does bulk commodities and 13.4 million tons of general not include canoes, sailboats, and small craft lo- cargo. cated in the area, the numbers of which are un- Strong port promotional policies and favorable known. RBG 2.2 experiences only a moderate influx action to reduce discriminatory rail rates could of nonresident boaters because of the limited area substantially increase the area's share of grain ex- of inland waters and the excessive pressure on the ports and general cargo. At the present time, an resource base from local boaters. See Table 1-99 extension of the navigation season and improve- for recreational boating use in PSA 2.2 and pro- ments to facilitate handling the 1,000-foot vessels jected future needs. are under consideration. The resident fleet in the Planning Subarea is projected to grow from 180,000 boats in 1968 to 336,000 by the year 2020. It has been estimated 7.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems that 90 percent of the demand for resident boats over 30 feet long and 50 percent of the demand for Approximately 2,170,200 acres of agricultural the remainder of the resident fleet plus the present land, cropland, and pasture in PSA 2.2, on which nonresident demand are being satisfied in River conservation practices have not been applied, Basin Group 2.2. would benefit from such practices. About 526,700 of The waters of Lake Michigan are not considered these acres are in RBG 2.2. safe for boats less than 20 feet in length. Recrea- An inventory of soil wetness in PSA 2.2 has been tional boating generally occurs in the vicinity of the made, and it is estimated that 442,400 acres of 30 commercial and recreational harbors which offer agricultural land have a drainage problem. Of this refuge. amount, RBG 2.2 has 66,600 acres in Wisconsin, Inland lakes are heavily used. Canoeing is not none in Illinois, and 40,800 acres in Indiana, for a widely pursued because of the high degree of area total of 107,400 acres. development and the poor water quality. Needs There is a shortage of well-drained soil conditions have beep. identified with the Upper Mississippi in the nonurban land that is expected to become River Basin and RBG 2.2 as appropriate. For the urban land. Some drainage will be necessary before latter there are estimated to be 588,000 boat days such urban expansion can occur. Drainage systems for Lake Michigan and 321,000 boat days for inland are needed on 21,600 acres for the removal of lakes and streams in 2020. excess surface and internal water. There are about (5) Commercial Navigation 340,700 acres of forests in Planning Subarea 2.2. Major harbors located in RBG 2.2 include Port The opportunity exists to program for forest land Washington, Milwaukee, Oak Creek, Port of Chi- treatment on 212,000 acres in order to realize im- cago (Chicago Harbor and Calumet Harbor and portant conservation. About 51,400 of these acres River), Indiana Harbor, Buffington Harbor, Gary are in RBG 2.2, the balance in the Upper Missis- Harbor, and Port of Indiana (Burns Waterway). sippi River Basin. They handle a significant part of the Great Lakes There are 49.5 miles of shoreline in this river traffic, as shown in Table 1-100. basin group subject to critical erosion and 80.2 146 Appendix 1 miles subject to noncritical erosion. There is no this as for other river basin groups. The Normal problem of overlap with the Upper Mississippi Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- River Basin. There are no flooding problems asso- tions to meet needs outside the river basin group in ciated with the shorelands. the lake basin or the Great Lakes Basin. There are 91 bank-miles in this planning subarea The Proposed Framework, on the other hand, subject to moderate or severe streambank erosion contains the recommendations of the Commission damage, of which 12 miles are in RBG 2.2. The total in an effort to reflect the views of the people of the estimated 1970 annual damages in PSA 2.2 resulting basin, and the policies and programs of the States. To from streambank erosion are $32,200. some extent, it reflects coordination in the develop- In this river basin group the greatest flood dam- ment of the framework among a number of river ages occur in the urban areas. The average annual basin groups, both in the lake basin and in the Great damages in urban areas are estimated at nearly $9 Lakes Basin as a whole. million in 1970 and are projected to increase to $13 million by 1980 and $56 million by 2020. Similar figures for rural areas are $230,000 in 1970 and 7.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) projections of $297,000 by 1980 and $679,000 by 2020. The urban area subject to flooding is on the NOR is based on meeting quantifled needs and order of 5,000 acres, and the rural area subject to solving identified problems to the maximum prac- flooding is on the order of 55,000 acres. There is no ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and overlap of these estimates into the Upper Mississippi criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. River Basin. Section 12 contains the program outputs and costs In 1970 there were about 384,100 hunters in which are summarized in Tables 1-256, 1-257, and Planning Subarea 2.2. There is a need to plan for 1-258. 670,900 hunters by 1980 and over one million hunt- (1) Water Withdrawals ers by 2020. The wildlife demand is about 50 per- There is adequate water from Great Lakes cent consumptive use, or hunting, and 50 percent sources to meet water withdrawal needs up to and nonconsumptive use, or observing, photographing, beyond 2020. The development of Great Lakes and otherwise enjoying wildlife. One of the greatest source capacity is the program selected in NOR to problems in this area is the need to set aside and satisfy all of the needs for municipally supplied protect areas having considerable value for either water, self-supplied industrial water, and water for feding grounds or other wildlife habitat use. From thermal power cooling. Rural domestic and live- the standpoint of preserving wildlife opportunities, stock needs and water for mineral production are optimum human population levels have already been all expected to be satisfied by the development of exceeded. ground-water sources that are adequate to do this. If all of the hunter-day needs are to be satisfied Irrigation needs, including golf courses, will be in this planning subarea under the assumptions satisfied primarily by water from inland lakes and used in the study, an additional 1,383,600 acres streams and from ground water. above the 1970 supply of 1,344,680 acres of hunt- Programs are included to initiate research to able.land will be needed by 1980. This figure will bring about process modification and recirculation increase to 4,406,400 acres by 2020. About 25 per- which would reduce the overall amount of water cent of the total planning subarea acreage was withdrawals and would bring about advances in suitable for hunting in 1970. By 1980, 50 percent technology which would have the same results. will be needed, and by 2020 there will not be (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses sufficient land. For this reason intra- and interbasin The NOR Framework includes programs to pro- transfers of needs are programed to meet about 25 vide municipal wastewater treatment facilities to percent of the planning subarea need. handle the need for treating quantities of waste The existing aesthetic and cultural values in RBG discharges. In addition to the basic requirements of 2.2. have been referred to in Subsection 5.1.5.3. secondary treatment and 80 percent phosphorus The major problems are removal throughout the river basin group, there (1) the need to preserve outstanding values will be 10 locations needing advanced waste treat- (2) industrial and residential use of shoreline ment by 1980 and one more between 1980 and 2000, which competes with preservation of aesthetic val- in order to meet the water quality criteria as of ues 1970. (3) inadequate funds for land acquisition. The cost of the advanced waste treatment is included in the investment costs. No data are 7.3.4 Alternative Frameworks available on the cost of industrial waste treatment in this area. Municipal facilities handle a substantial Two alternative frameworks are presented for portion of the industrial wastewater. NOR includes Lake Michigan Basin 147 a recommendation for implementation of the re- still are. All of the program elements considered in gional waste treatment concept. the framework formulation process for reducing or Fishery management programs in NOR include preventing flood damages have some merit. Esti- land acquisition for access and habitat protection on mates of benefits (damages reduced or acres pro- inland water areas. This program, coupled with tected) and costs were available for structural so- future additional stocking from a new warmwater lutions such as channel modification, reservoirs, hatchery, is estimated to satisfy angler-day levees, floodwalls, and other protective works. Es- needs. It should be emphasized that the NOR timates of damage reduction, acres protected, and Framework does not at the present time have costs have also been made for some nonstructural specific programs to provide substantial new op- programs. portunities for new access facilities in the urban- Regulated use of flood plains to achieve substan- ized areas. Information on the potential and the tial reduction of flood damages in the urban areas is corresponding costs of additional fishery opportu- an essential feature of the NOR Framework. In- nity development in these urbanized areas is not stitutional reduction measures are appropriate available. throughout almost all of the river basin group in the NOR includes programs to satisfy most of the areas adjacent to the main stem and the principal boating-day needs in all of the time periods. The tributaries. additional development will be on Lake Michigan. NOR includes channel modification to reduce Recreational boating on inland areas is already at a damages caused by a structural flood control proj- saturated level. ect for the Milwaukee River main stem, the Little Commercial fishing is discussed in Subsection 7.6, Calumet River, and damages in numerous up- Lake Michigan Intrarelationships. stream watersheds. Commercial navigation is also discussed in subsec- NOR, if fully implemented and funded, and fully tion 7.6. Specific investments in RBG 2.2 included in supported by the residents of the basin, would NOR for commercial navigation are eliminate almost all of the average annual flood (a) dock improvement in Lake Calumet damages by the year 2020. For wildlife management, NOR includes a con- (b) rebuilding of the bulkhead at Navy Pier tinuation of ongoing budgeted programs by State (c) dock and wharf improvement at Milwaukee agencies for habitat management, enforcement, (d) additional dredging at the Milwaukee, Chi- and research. In addition to land acquisition, NOR cago, and Indiana harbors. includes recommendations for continuing wildlife (3) Related Land Use and Problems research conducted by State-supported universities The programed agricultural land treatment in and private investments in wildlife management. NOR is essentially a continuation of ongoing pro- NOR provides that features with outstanding, grams at a level that has been followed in the past. unusual, and significant aesthetic and cultural val- Programs for drainage of cropland have been ues be acquired in the early-action period and con- selected to include the on-farm drainage measures served for the benefit of future generations. included in the land treatment needs at a current NOR provides for meeting a portion of the rec- program rate of installation. The drainage mea- reational needs. In each of the time periods, ex- sures are tiling, field ditching, and other field isting public lands currently undeveloped are to be drainage. Drainage improvement is also needed on developed more intensively while maintaining a urban development areas. The amount of such setting as natural as possible. The NOR Frame- drainage and locations where it will be needed have work also provides that on class 2 recreational not been determined except by standard metropol- areas (areas designated as general outdoor recrea- itan statistical areas. tional areas which are subject to substantial devel- The forest land treatment program for NOR opment for a wide variety of specific recreational provides forest land treatment at a higher level uses including unique natural areas), all existing than merely a continuation of the past trend. publicly owned lands consi sting largely of State and The shoreland erosion program included in NOR regional parks and forests should be developed to would treat the critical erosion areas by the year their optimum capacity to provide additional rec7 2020. reational opportunity. The streambank erosion program would provide NOR also provides for treatment by 2020 of all the streambank mileage in (a) additional access sites in suitable places on RBG 2.2 subject to severe erosion. Lake Michigan The resource most directly involved in reducing (b) reclaiming polluted beach areas along the flood damages is people. Damages would be less if Lake shore in and near urban areas settlement patterns and land use patterns had been (c) the preservation of areas of significant cul- substantially different from what they were and tural, historical, or biological interest 148 Appendix 1 (d) continuing activity by the private sector to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- develop quality recreational facilities for golfing, ments of 1972, and higher costs are shown than for skiiing, camping, swimming, picnicking, and other NOR. Problems associated with overflow from recreational facilities which the private sector can combined sewers will be corrected by 1977, or as develop effectively. soon thereafter as practicable. Even with the transfer of needs to the Upper The PRO Framework emphasizes the develop- Mississippi River Basin, NOR falls far short of ment of sport fishery in and near the urban areas, satisfying the recreation-day needs in this planning but information on the potential benefits and the subarea. The remaining needs may be satisfied corresponding costs of additional fishery opportu- elsewhere in the Great Lakes Basin, or changes in nity development in these urbanized areas is not activity preference may reduce some of the es- available. timated future demands. The PRO Framework for recreational boating is (4) Framework Outputs and Costs the same as the NOR Framework. Section 12 contains Tables 1-256, 1-257, and Commercial fishing is discussed in subsection 7.6, 1-258 which provide informati on on needs, outputs, which deals with Lake Michigan intrarelationships. percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs Commercial navigation is discussed in subsection for NOR. 7.6 and more completely in Section 5, dealing with the entire Basin. In RBG 2.2 the harbors at Calumet and Port of Indiana would be deepened, and the naviga- 7.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) tion season would be extended for six weeks in this area. State, regional, and local policies with respect to (3) Related Land Use and Problems population and economic growth do not deviate The agricultural land treatment and cropland greatly from those of the OBERS projections on drainage programs are substantially greater in which NOR is based. The general attitude is that PRO than in NOR. With the pressures of urban- slightly slower population growth is likely, and a ization upon prime agricultural land, particularly slower rate of economic growth may be desirable. acute in the area, an accelerated program provides No new projections were made, but where alter- for treatment of 88 percent of the opportunity by natives were available for meeting needs and solv- 2020. ing problems, those selected emphasized environ- The forest land treatment program was given mental quality coupled with slower rates of high priority in the NOR Framework because of population and economic growth. Without provid- the unusual conditions of urban forestry in RBG 2.2, ing any quantitative information, PRO endorses and no additional emphasis is included in PRO. The conservation and wise -use of natural resources, comparisonof theseNOR and PRO programs is given fostered by the use and development of govern- in Section 12 on Table.1-331. ment policies, incentives, and penalties. The spe- With the higher lake levels of 1973, areas of cific emphases for PRO related to various resource critical erosion that were not considered in NOR use categories are described below, and where have become apparent along the Lake Michigan outputs differ from NOR in magnitude or timing, shore. PRO recommends protection for these the quantification is shown. areas. However, the mileage and costs are shown (1) Water Withdrawals the same as NOR. PRO is the same as NOR in water withdrawal Streambank erosion programs are the same in quantities. With emphasis on reduction in per capi- PRO as in NOR. ta use and a lower rate of population increase, it is The PRO Framework accomplishes the same anticipated that water withdrawals will be reduced. flood damage reduction as NOR, but emphasizes For thermal power cooling, specifically, PRO pro- the need for adequate expenditure of funds in vides for consideration of the type of cooling on a managing flood plains and use of these lands for site-by-site basis, with the implicit assumption that purposes less subject to high flood-related losses. more supplemental cooling will be used than is pro- PRO has the same programs as NOR for wildlife vided for in NOR. In the extreme case this could management. reduce withdrawals for this purpose in PRO to Aesthetic and cultural programs are the same for about 4 percent of those in NOR, increase con- PRO as for NOR. sumptive use by possibly 25 percent, and increase The PRO Framework recommends resource uti- power costs by somewhat over 5 percent. Actual lization that will meet water-oriented recreation experience would no doubt result in changes less needs to the maximum practicable extent. Nu- extreme than these. merically, the outputs are the same as NOR, but an (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses additional recommendation is that priorities for the In waste treatment, PRO meets the standards of use of public outdoor recreation funds be given Lake Michigan Basin 149 to developingfacilities which meet urban needs, then be corrected or avoided through structural means, to developing facilities on existing public lands, and, as well as through nonstructural means such as land where feasible, to acquiring flood plain land in rapidly management and local ordinances. urbanizing areas, clearing flood plains of damage- The framework developed under the normal prone uses, and making them available for recreation growth projection for this river basin group pro- use. vides for correction of conditions that have de- (4) Framework Outputs and Costs graded water quality, alleviation of flood damages, Section 12 contains Tables 1-259, 1-260, and 1-261 treatment and drainage of land, and protection of which provide information on needs, outputs, per- shoreland. The framework also provides for the cent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs for increase of recreational opportunities, expansion of PRO, indicating by italics where they differe from commercial navigation and recreational boating, NOR. Table 1-331 compares land treatment pro- enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and the grams. provision of water supplies for all uses to meet the needs of a balanced -development. The Proposed Framework is consistent with the 7.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and reflects a higher degree of wastewater Table 1-346 in Section 12 lists the total costs treatment. Agricultural and forest land treatment (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the and drainage measures are more extensive, and periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. shoreland erosion measures reflect the high lake levels of 1973. 7.4 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.3 7.4.2 The Area 7.4.1 Summary The study area of River Basin Group 2.3, located River Basin Group 2.3 is one of the most diver- in the south-central portion of the Great Lakes sified of the river basin groups in the Great Lakes Basin, drains the portions of Michigan and Indiana Basin. It has the most potential for conflicts among that border the southeastern shore of Lake Michi- agricultural, urban, and recreational uses. It has a gan. solid base in agriculture, containing the largest The major tributary is the Grand River, which proportion of land in farms and the largest number has a drainage area of 5,661 square miles. Besides of farms of any river basin group. It ranks first in the Grand, the principal streams are the Kalamazoo acreage in fruits and commercial vegetables as well River and the St. Joseph River. The area includes as in irrigated farms. Planning Subarea 2.3 has five Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: South more Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas than Bend, Indiana; and Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kala- any other planning subarea, but it ranks fourth in mazoo-Portage, and Lansing-East Lansing, Michi- total population. (As of the base year, 1970, PSA gan. Battle Creek was designated subsequent to 2.3 had five SMSAs, but a sixth, Battle Creek, the 1970 census as a SMSA. The area is shown in Michigan, has since been added.) Yet, the area has Figure 1-30. Section I contains additional informa- by far the most wetland acreage within a river tion. basin group. Besides urban expansion potential and pressures upon recreational opportunities by nearby large metropolitan areas, there are pres- 7.4.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems sures for land use changes on prime agricultural lands as well as wetlands. There are existing and Future demands upon the resources, or require- emerging conflicts between agricultural practices ments, were projected in Section 3. and the preservation of wildlife and aesthetic and Needs determined for resource uses by time cultural values. period are shown in Section 12 on Table 1-262. Local water sources may be a limiting con- Where needs can be quantified, they are not dis- straint upon full development of some urban areas cussed in the text, unless special conditions war- on a long-term basis. However, the areas such as rant such discussion. South Bend and Elkhart, Indiana, and Jackson and The most serious problems in RBG 2.3 are those Lansing, Michigan, can augment local supplies ei- concerning land use, including problems of shore ther through reservoir development or by obtain- erosion. Other problem areas are treatment of ing supplies from Lake Michigan. (The latter two wastes and overcrowded conditions for fishing, cities might also be served from Lake Huron.) hunting, recreational boating, and other forms of Major problems of erosion and sedimentation can outdoor recreation. 150 Appendix 1 X& MO7NCAL KENT Sparta 0 AWA Rockf rd 0'13.lding LINTON SHIAWASSEE Grand Haven G,,,d Walker GRAND e 0 G nd i@' Owos o N Ra *ds Ionia SI Iny Creek St. John -@@or"nna vvl@E I Lowell Durand Hudsor W 'Vi%ll'e ortland s OTTAWA Zeelan@ - C- Lookisgg . 2 >= 10 IA Holland ALLEGAN Z -amt@ Grand Ledge Lansing -to/ Hastings Cedar River Gun Lake Mason 00 KALAMAZOO Ch a o t At@eO 'Katon Rapids Plain,vell E ON. IN VAN@BIJ Otse'go Uee GHAM South Haven B CK RIVER REN K-A@AIVIAZOO CALHOU, JACKSON 1tiver tt'e Creek Kala Rj,er lamazoo Jackson Pa. paw -Marshall 0 Michi Center aw law Albion rtage / z St. Joseph Benton F arbor CASS ST.. @OSEP ANCH HILLSDALE -0 hr Ri Cold aterO Hills ale Buchan 0 Niles ST.JOSEPH Sturgis BERRIEN 1* MICHIGAN 0 IN61-ANA- te I TEIJB@N-/ MICHI South 0el hart 0 An).a OHIO @@Bend Goshen LA(@RANGE ST. JOSEPH Ligonie -,(-LK ART endallvilleo) Plymouth MARSHALL RIVER BASIN GROUP PLANNING SUBAREA VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES EI 5o IN o.W. to, SCALE IN MILES -Hii 0---q 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 1-30 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin Group 2.3 Lake Michigan Basin 151 7.4.3.1 Water Withdrawals had to underwrite the Federal share. There is a need to develop and implement programs for the The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 are reduction of agricultural wastes, nutrients, sedi- estimated at an additional 12,700 mgd, compared to ments, insecticides, and herbicides. base year water withdrawals of about 1,930 mgd. There is a need for fish passage improvements, Generally, water withdrawal. problems are not fish production through hatcheries, fish population serious. However, excessive lowering of ground- control, fish habitat improvement and protection, water level has been experienced in the Lansing and improved fishing access. area, and there is a possibility of local over- In additio n to making more water surface avail- development of ground water in this area. The able to boaters, it is necessary to provide berthing critical areas of concern in future years for supplying facilities, launching sites, boating access, and navi- municipal and industrial water requirements are in gational aids. Lansing, Jackson, and South Bend, where alterna- One of the main problems in this area is inade- tives such as interbasin conveyance of water, quate access to many inland lakes. The lack of obtaining an adequate supply from Lake Michigan, or stream improvement and maintenance and periodic reservoir storage could be considered. One of the low flows limit small boat opportunities, especially difficulties will be the financing of any large regional those for canoeing, on inland waters. water supply system which might be considered for Waterborne commerce handled at ports in RBG the Lansing area and possibly include the Jackson 2.3 is relatively small. Continued provision must be area. (This might be from Lake Huron rather than made for containment of all polluted dredged spoil Lake Michigan.) Reservoir storage could be consid- and maintenance of the existing systems of harbors ered after 2000 to meet the projected demands in the and channels. Elkhart River basin, Indiana. 7.4.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems 7.4.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses Maintenance of this agricultural base requires constant surveillance, and treatment. measures are There are no unusual circumstances relating to needed. Included are lands with a wetness problem municipal or self-supplied industrial wastewater on which drainage is needed. treatment. The proportion of industrial wastewater There is more cropland in this river basin group discharges treated by industry is expected to de- than in any other in the Great Lakes Basin. How- crease somewhat in the future in view of a trend to ever, cropland is predicted to decrease under provide more recirculation coupled with the trend growing pressure to convert the land to other uses. for industry to have its waste treated in municipal Generally, these other uses reduce the amount of plants. cover on the land and increase the amount of ero- Between 1970 and 1980 a number of locations in sion and sedimentation. the river basin group, in both Indiana and Michi- Present forest land is predicted to decrease due gan, are expected to require - advanced waste to highway, power line, and reservoir construction, treatment facilities in order to comply with 1970 and urban, recreational, and industrial develop- water quality standards. Additional locations in ments. Unless forest land treatment is undertaken Michigan are expected to reach this stage after to halt the accelerating deterioration of the natural 1980. environment, rehabilitation of the forest land will There are many problems within RBG 2.3 that be very costly, if not impossible. Some other major cause degradation and restriction of uses. These problems in this area involve improved manage- include problems with adequacy and operating ef- ment of private forest lands and protection and ficiencies of municipal sewage treatment plants, establishment of trees and shrubs in areas sur- collecting and intercepting sewers, industrial out- rounding urban and built-up areas. falls, combined sewers, steam power plants, fertil- The shoreline area of Lake Michigan in RBG 2.3 izers and- pesticides from agriculture and land run- is one of the most severely eroding areas in the off, and redeposition in open water of dredged Great Lakes Basin. The shoreline consists of sand bottom sediments. dunes and sand banks throughout the entire length, Corrective programs have been initiated to up- and is directly in the path of severe westerly grade water quality throughout RBG 2.3. Imple- storms and winds. The high lake levels of 1973 have mentation by municipalities of construction pro- created erosion conditions more severe than those grams to meet water quality standards has been shown in the tables. hampered by lack of Federal funding to meet cost Along streams in PSA 2.3 that have a drainage sharing commitments. The State of Michigan has area of less than 400 square miles, 481 miles are 152 Appendix 1 subject to moderate streambank erosion damage, TABLE 1-101 Use and Projected Needs for and 272 miles are subject to severe damage. The Recreational Boating, PSA 2.3 annual damage is estimated at $65,000. For 1000 Boating Days streams draining more than 400 square miles, there Great Lakes Inland are an estimated 312 bank-miles of severe stream- Category Waters Waters bank erosion with an estimated $26,400 worth of damage annually. The greatest problem in this area 1970 Use 978 2,538 is the high erosion rates occurring principally on private land. To reduce erosion and sedimentation, 1980 Needs 1,032 492 more regulation of urban and suburban construc- 2000 Needs 1,422 1,182 tion programs is needed. The greatest flood damages in this river basin 2020 Needs 1,962 1,992 group occur in the urban areas, although the agri- cultural lands are also subject to considerable quantities of land are already in public ownership damage. The major problems are encroachment on and could accommodate some additional recrea- the natural flood plain areas and the lack of local tional development. These areas include Allegan flood plain zoning and regulation. The flooding State Forest, Fort Custer, Waterloo, and Ionia problems of many of the urban areas are the result recreation areas, all in Michigan, and several of the of constricted reaches of the rivers, inadequate newer State parks. channel capacity, encroachment on the natural There are an additional 115,404 acres of State flood plain, or a combination of these causes. About game and wildlife areas within the Michigan por- one-half of the urban average annual damages tion of Planning Subarea 2.3. In the not too distant occur in the Grand River basin. future, it may be necessary to utilize these public There does not appear to be enough land and lands more fully and provide some other types of wildlife habitat in RBG 2.3 to satisfy the projected compatible recreational opportunities for the gen- needs. The resource base is shrinking as wildlife eral public in addition to hunting and fishing. De- habitat land is converted to other uses. Some velopment of other recreational areas to meet the farming practices leave little wildlife food and remaining needs in this subarea would involve the cover on the land. Drainage, stream modification, acquisition of new land for recreational develop- and urban encroachment have also contributed to ment or the exportation of a part of the subarea's the reduction of wildlife habitat. An acute problem recreational requirements to areas further north. in this area is the need for preservation or protec- tion of the remaining wetlands in the area. A large portion of the inland wetland areas still remaining 7.4.4 Alternative Frameworks in the Great Lakes Basin is found in this planning subarea. Two alternative frameworks are presented for Existing aesthetic and cultural values have been this as for other river basin groups. The Normal. summarized previously in Subsection 7.1. The Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- major problem is the need to preserve outstanding tions to meet needs outside RBG 2.3 in the Lake values. Environmental buffer zones immediately basin or the Great Lakes Basin. adjacent to the edge of the expanding urban The second of the alternatives, the Proposed centers are in need of study and planning attention Framework contains the recommendations of the to insure proper use for their inherent significant Commission in an effort to reflect the views of the resource features. Environmental corridors merit people of the Basin and the policies and programs consideration in this area. At the present time, of the States. To some extent, it reflects coordina- institutional arrangements and funding are not tion in the development of the Framework among available to meet these objectives. a number of river basin groups in the Lake basin This planning subarea attracts many people from and in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. outside its boundaries for recreational purposes, especially for weekend and vacation uses. Table 1-101 shows recreational boating use in PSA 2.3 7.4.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) and projects future needs. Many of these people come from the Chicago and Detroit metropolitan NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and areas and northern Indiana. The 1970 area's devel- solving identified problems to the maximum prac- oped capacity for land-based water-oriented out- ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and door recreation must be more than doubled by 1980 criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The and increased five-fold by 2020 if needs projected program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- for normal growth are to -be satisfied. Limited tion 12 on Tables 1-262, 1-263, and 1-264. Lake Michigan Basin 153 (1) Water Withdrawals Lake Michigan intrarelationships, and in Section 5. There are adequate water resources to meet No specific navigation elements are included for water withdrawal needs with additional source ca- this river basin group. pacity developed from the Great Lakes. Lake (3) Related Land Use and Problems Michigan is the source considered in this frame- Both agricultural land treatment and cropland work. Self-supplied industry will continue to obtain drainage are included in NOR. The forest land a great share of its water from inland lakes and treatment is at a level that represents both the streams, with a little over 20 percent from ground- ongoing programs and the accelerated program. water sources. Rural domestic and livestock needs NOR provides shoreline protection for the entire and much of the irrigation and mining needs will be portion of the Lake Michigan shoreline subject to satisfied from inland lakes and streams. About 30 critical erosion. The noncritical reaches will not be percent of the rural domestic water supply and protected. mining needs will be supplied from ground-water NOR includes correction of streambank erosion sources. It is estimated that the water for thermal by 2020 on all of the streambanks subject to severe power cooling generally will be supplied by Lake erosion. None of the moderate streambank erosion Michigan. would be treated. In the middle- and long-range time periods, reg- NOR includes early-action programs to reduce ulatory storage, probably by reservoirs, will be- urban and rural flood damages along all of the main come increasingly important. All needs are met. streams and principal tributaries, utilizing both Land-use changes, process modification, and re- structural and nonstructural means. Use of both circulation will have a considerable impact on the types of programs continues in the 1980-2000 and water withdrawal needs. Programs are included in 2000-2020 periods. NOR to initiate research to bring about process For wildlife management, NOR includes acquisi- modification and recirculation, which would reduce tion and leasing of lands, development of streams, the overall amount of water withdrawals. Addi- and the management of stocks of waterfowl and tional advances in technology will also reduce game. Wetlands are emphasized. amounts of withdrawal. NOR provides for the development of outstand- (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses ing and unusual significant aesthetic and cultural NOR includes both municipal and industrial values. Many of these sites should be acquired in waste treatment plants to meet water quality the early-action program (see Appendix 22, Aes- standards prior to the Federal Water Pollution thetic and Cultural Resources). Some of the most Control Act Amendments of 1972. It also provides valuable wetland resources in the Great Lakes that there will be no degradation of water quality Basin are located in RBG 2.3. The wildlife program where existing water quality exceeds the standards. includes the acquisition and development of some of In addition to secondary treatment, there are a these areas. Additional areas would be considered number of locations in RBG 2.3 in both States that in the aesthetic and cultural programs. will require advanced wastewater treatment by the NOR includes additional recreational develop- year 1980. Additional facilities will be required ment to satisfy about 55 percent of the water- before the year 2020. oriented outdoor recreation needs as they accrue No hydroelectric power development is planned during the planning period from 1970 to 2020. Pro- in RBG 2.3. grams to accomplish this include acquisition and Programs for developing the fishery in the river development of river valleys for valley recreation basin group are included in NOR to augment ongo- areas, additional acquisition and development of ing and existing programs in the area. These pro- about 6 miles of shoreline along Lake Michigan, grams include fish passage improvements, fish pro- acquisition and development of 8 regional parks duction, fish hatcheries, fish population control, during the 50-year period, acquisition and devel- additional access to fishing areas, and fish habitat opment of access segments along rivers and major improvement and protection. tributaries for extensive recreation under the nat- The recreational boating programs include addi- ural rivers act of the two States, and placing under tional marinas, harbors, and access points on Lake contract and development an estimated 300,000 Michigan and marinas and inland lake and stream acres of wetlands under the Water Bank Act of access points. In later time periods artificial im- 1970. poundments may be created and used for boating. Only about half the outdoor recreation acreage Much of the additional fishing demand will come requirements are met in the Normal Framework from the South Bend, Chicago, and Detroit metro- over the long term. The remaining needs for out- politan areas. door recreation will be met to a certain extent in Commercial fishery and commercial navigation the northern areas of the State of Michigan. are discussed in Subsection 7.6, which deals with (4) Framework Outputs and Costs 154 Appendix 1 Section 12 contains Tables 1-262, 1-263, and Aesthetic and cultural resource programs in PRO 1-264 which provide information on needs, outputs, are the same as in NOR. percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs. In water-oriented outdoor recreation, PRO will meet essentially the same proportion of needs as NOR. Emphasis will be on programs affecting 7.4.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) urban areas, with reliance on the private sector to expand the development of areas away from the PRO was formulated in consultation with State cities. Priorities for the use of public funding will officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- be grams, as well as the desires of area residents. (a) urban recreation developments and acquisi- State, regional, and local policies with respect to tion and retention of unique and natural areas of population and economic growth do not differ regional significance greatly from those of the OBERS projections used (b) developments on lands now publicly owned in NOR. (c) other developments. (.1) Water Withdrawals To the extent public funds are available for in- All elements in PRO are the same as in NOR, vestment in urban lands, they may be used where except that more individual attention is given to feasible to assist in acquiring flood plain land in the site selection and cooling process for thermal power rapidly urbanizing areas in the southern portion of plants. If the proportion of flow-through cooling is the basin and in clearing flood plains of damage- increased, the total withdrawal will be increased, prone uses and making them available for recre- but consumptive use will be'less. ation use. (4) Framework Outputs and Costs (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses Section 12 contains Tables 1-265, 1-266, and Quantities of waste to be treated are the same in 1-267 which provide information on needs, outputs, PRO as in NOR, but PRO meets the higher stand- percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs ards of the-Federal Water Poilution Control Act for PRO, indicating by italics where they differ Amendments of 1972, so costs are greater. PRO also from NOR. Table 1-332 compares the land treat- emphasizes the need for studies of methods of ment programs. controlling nonpoint sources and agricultural wastes. For sport fishing and recreational boating, the program selections for PRO are the same as for 7.4.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs NOR. Commercial fishery and commercial navigation Section 12 contains Table 347 which lists the total programs are the same in PRO as in NOR, except costs (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for for the general system programs for navigation, the periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. which may have minor effects on the river basin! group. (3) Related Land Use and Problems 7.5 Frameworks for River Basin Group 2.4 Agricultural land treatment, cropland drainage, and forest land treatment are all programed for greater and more rapid accomplishment in PRO 7.5.1 Summary than in NOR. Comparison is shown in Table 1-332 of Section 12. This river basin group is unique in having two Shoreland erosion protection is programed for land areas separated by Lake Michigan. Three the same number of miles in PRO as in NOR. counties in the planning subarea are located in the However, it is recommended that the greater Upper Peninsula of Michigan and 18 counties in the amount of shore subject to critical erosion with Lower Peninsula. Together, these two sections recent high lake levels be provided with structural constitute the shoreline of both sides of the north- protection by 1980 and all shoreland be under man- ern part of Lake Michigan. agement programs by that date. Looking at RBG 2.4 as a whole, there are no Streambank erosion protection programs in PRO problems apparent which are severe enough to are the same as in NOR. The quantity of flood require immediate attention. Generally speaking, damage reduction is the same in PRO as in NOR, problems involve matters of land use, streambank but there is more emphasis on flood plain manage- erosion, flooding, and shoreline erosion. In a few ment and other nonstructural measures. cases, localized areas have problems of severe pro- PRO recommends an increase over NOR in the portions, and many areas have problems of moder- amount of wetlands acquired for wildlife manage- ate magnitude. Water withdrawals and nonwith- ment. drawal water uses are taken care of quite Lake Michigan Basin 155 satisfactorily with the resources in the river basin erosion programs reflect the high lake levels expe- group. rienced in 1973. Because of its natural endowment and subse- quent development, the area provides many high- 7.5.2 The Area grade recreational experiences, and the recrea- tional opportunities will be enhanced under the Figure 1-31 shows the areal extent and the framework adopted. drainage pattern of River Basin Group 2.4 and also Agriculture in RBG 2.4 is quite specialized. In the counties included in the planning subarea. Sta- the northern counties dairy products, beef, berries, tistical and descriptive information is in Section 1. and potatoes, and some other vegetables are the principal products. In the counties of the Lower Peninsula, fruit and vegetable production are 7.5.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems major enterprises, and three of the counties are the leading three counties nationally in the production Needs for each time period are shown on Table of sour cherries. Dairy and livestock production are 1-268 of Section 12. Vaere needs can be quantified, also important in the Lower Peninsula. Lumbering they are not discussed in the text, unless special was at one time a major industry in both the Upper conditions warrant such discussion. and- Lower Peninsula portions of the river basin group. The current economy in the Upper Penin- sula is still largely related to wood-using indus- 7.5.3.1 Water Withdrawals tries-pulp, paper, and wood products-and the same is true to some extent of the Lower Penin- The needs in the water withdrawals category sula. Manufacturing is of very little importance in have been developed along conventional lines, and the Upper Peninsula, except for a few light indus- no particular problems are associated with them. tries. In the Lower Peninsula, some of the former Adequate water sources are available. In many sawmill towns have converted to general manufae- cases there is an opportunity for choice among turing and provide a wholesale-retail trade base. sources to meet a particular need. Recreation is an important part of the economy of the entire river basin group. In the Lower Penin- sula three harbors are important in commercial 7.5.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses navigation. This diverse economy influences the choice of elements in the NOR'Framework. How- Municipal wastewater treatment requirements ever, matters concerning maintenance of water increase by about one-third in 1980, and by the year quality; correction of land use, flooding, and erosion 2020 the total quantity to be treated is a little over problems; and development of opportunities for three times that of the base year. At the same time, recreational boating, sport fishing, and general industrial wastewater discharges decrease from outdoor recreation have loomed large in the pro- the base year to year 2000 and then increase be- grams adopted. tween 2000 and 2020, but to an amount less than Table 1-268 in Section 12 shows needs, outputs, treated in the base year. The reduction in industrial and percent of needs met under NOR. Tables 1-269 treatment requirements is primarily due to the and 1-270, also in Section 12, show capital costs and trend toward in-plant treatment and reuse of water operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. so that water requirements are reduced. Water requirements for hydroelectric power The Proposed Framework is intended to reflect generation at the base year have not been quan- the policies of the State and local governments and tified. Hydroelectric installed capacity was on the the wishes of the residents of the area. The appli- order of 10 percent of the total installed capacity, cation of these policies does not result in projec- and generation was about 7 percent of the total tions of population or economic activity which power generated in the base year. Almost immedi- differ from the OBERS projections. However, ately thereafter, however, a large pumped storage some local residents have expressed a desire for plant at Ludington, Michigan, came into operation reduction in the rate of energy use, and increased and became by far the largest single element in the attention to the environment. generating system in the river basin group, ac- The Proposed Framework is consistent with the counting for about 75 percent of the total installed Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments capacity and about 45 percent of the total power of 1972 and reflects a higher degree of wastewater generated in RBG 2.4. The need for water for treatment. Agricultural land treatment and forest hydroelectric power use increased sharply from the land treatment are increased over NOR levels, but base year to 1980 to serve this plant, but remained no cropland drainage is programed. Shoreland constant thereafter. 156 Appendix 1 SCHOOLCRAFT 0+ ESCANABA 0 0 Ma,istiq,e take STIQU D E-TAV p ACKINAC L S IX-GROSC AY DE NOC Ilre,ocal Lake "A C1 (@.,kir.c Island o' Manistique 0 st@ I nace Escanaba ladstone 11 @dl li@ j Straits of Mackinac Bois Blis c Island B-er Island G 0 etoskey Charlevoix 'ET take Charlevc,ix Boyne Ci)@ CHARLEVOI/ North Manitou Island South Mainit- Island s Torch Lake ANTRIM Glen 0 Lake % b LEELANA RA ERSE BENZIE Tr,v,l e City 0 pa' Frankfort Crystal Lake SKA GRAND TRAVERSE KALKA MISSAUKEE ggir. Lake RIVER BASIN GROUP .'e @ ) PLANNING SUBAREA MANISTEE Portage Hou ht.n ke Lake MANISTEE take Cadill-@@C_' C/. C. Manistee 0 jz: -@dillac li"t, WEX ORD ROSCOMMON S.bln River -\ -1 D Ludington Pere MUSKEGON VICINITY MAP MASON '@:5 LAKE OSCEOLA, SCIJE IN M- I ES SABLE Big R.@.@s mECOSTA OCEANA White 4 Fremont :@j NEZYGO 0 Mu kegon SCALE IN MILES "-I Lr@F II-IIIIIIIIII MUSKEGON 0 5 20 25 FIGURE 1-31 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4 Lake Michigan Basin 157 TABLE 1-102 Use and Projected Needs for 7.5.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems Recreational Boating, PSA 2.4 1000 Boating Days No peculiar land resource problems exist in RBG Great Lakes Inland 2.4. The maintenance of the soil resource in the Category Waters Waters agricultural area requires constant surveillance, and treatment measures are needed. There are 1970 Use 969 2,574 areas where excess water on the surface or in the soil profile is a problem, and drainage will alleviate 1980 Needs 291 387 this problem and permit increased crop production 2000 Needs 417 798 at lower production costs. There is a long-term trend of declining forest 2020 Needs 540 1,290 land acreage because of encroachment by high- ways, power lines, reservoirs, and urban, recrea- tional, and industrial developments. However, it is also expected that some idle cropland will probably Problems adversely affecting the sport fishery revert to forest over a period of time. The chal- are principally related to land use and result from lenge is to satisfy increasing demand for goods and erosion and sedimentation and the runoff from services from a declining forest resource base. All agriculture and other lands. This runoff contains of the acreage now available will be needed in the nutrients, and in many cases, pesticides, herbi- future. Management efforts and forest land treat- cides, fungicides, and other chemicals, which pose a ment must be intensified. threat to the fishery resource and to the humans Along the shoreline of the Upper Peninsula, consuming the fish. Also in some areas where real there is no shoreland subject to critical erosion. estate developments are being carried out, tribu- However, along the Lower Peninsula, there are 42 tary streams are dammed in connection with the miles subject to critical erosion and needing treat- development, reducing the amount of water avail- ment. able for the fish and also blocking the feeder Streambank erosion presents some problems, streams used for spawning. but losses are generally small. There is a quite high participation in boat own- The average annual damages due to flooding in ership in this river basin group, with about 9.7 urban areas are expected to be almost 4 times as registered boats for every 100 residents. Possibly great in year 2020 as in the base year. However, 10 percent of the total number of boats are not only slightly more acreage will be flooded. In rural registered. There is also a very large amount of areas the damages nearly double during this inland water available for boating, including lakes period, while the acreage remains essentially the and streams which are suitable for boating and same. There are no specific problems related to the canoeing. Harbors and protective waters are rela- flooding, but the urban area would profit most from tively plentiful and well-spaced in Lake Michigan. any effective prevention. The relationship between boating-day needs for The loss of wildlife habitat to urban and resort Great Lakes and for inland waters is shown in Table development is a significant problem in the river 1-102. The adequate supply of inland lakes is rela- basin group. There are other problems, some re- tively little used and principally requires access and lated to the use of pesticides, which have proved to launching sites to facilitate increased usage. be persistent and are taking their toll of many rare Berthing facilities will also be required, particu- and endangered species as well as the more com- lar1v on Lake Michigan. mon species. Habitat loss is also affecting certain No estimates of needs for commercial fishery species. The use of off-the-road vehicles and snow- have been made, and in general, this use of the mobiles is creating wildlife management problems. resource is subordinated to sport fishery. These However, because of the relatively sparse popula- alternatives are considered for Lake Michigan and tion, management practices will permit enhance- for the entire Great Lakes Basin in Subsections ment of this resource to a greater extent than in 5.2.2.8, 5.5.2.7, and 7.6.1. many parts of the Basin. There is no harbor in the river basin group which A number of resource types listed in Appendix can be considered a major Great Lakes port. How- 22, Aesthetic and Cultural Resources, relate to the ever, the nine principal harbors handle enough establishment of corridors and buffer zones around traffic to make commercial navigation a significant and between population centers and along the consideration in selecting frameworks for RBG 2.4. shoreline and streams. Others relate to the acqui- About 14 percent of the expected population of sition and preservation of specific natural or cul- RBG 2.4 will be supported by this activity in 1980 tural features, which should be identified at an and about 19 percent in 2020. early date and preserved by proper actions. 158 Appendix 1 There is a wealth of opportunity for outdoor poses will be met almost equally from groundr recreation, and a great diversity of recreational water sources and from inland lakes and streams,- resources. There are no particular problems asso- depending on the cheapest and most available ciated with development, but acquisition and man- source near the point of use. agement of the resource is a major undertaking. The quantities of water required for thermal Uncontrolled and mismanaged development can power cooling dictate that Lake Michigan -receive degrade and destroy the resource. first consideration as a source for this water, and the Normal Framework includes this as the source of the entire supply. No water above that presently 7.5.4 Alternative Frameworks provided will be needed for this purpose prior to the year 2000. Two alternative frameworks are presented for (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses this as for other river basin groups. The Normal NOR provides for treating municipal wastes by Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- conventional processes, including secondary treat- tions to meet needs outside RBG 2.4 in the Lake ment, and for 80 percent removal of phosphates. basin or the Great Lakes Basin. Advanced waste treatment is provided in those The second of these- alternatives, the Proposed cases where it is needed to meet water quality Framework, contains the recommendations of the standards. It is anticipated that regional waste Commission in an effort to reflect the views of the treatment systems may prove desirable from an people of the basin and the policies and programs of economic standpoint in certain areas. the States. To some extent, it reflects coordination Industrial waste treatment is also provided in in the development of the framework among a conventional fashion. Based on projected quanti- - number of river basin groups, in both the Lake ties, no additional facilities are expected to be basin and the entire Great Lakes Basin. needed before year 2000. This is due to the in- creased in-plant recirculation of water and greater 7.5.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) use of municipal facilities for treating industrial wastes. However, higher standards- and new pro- NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and cesses may require new plants. NOR meets ef- solving identified problems to the maximum prac- fluent standards prior to the Federal Water Pollu- ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and tion Control Act Amendments of 1972. cliteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The The requirement for additional water for hydro-- program outputs and costs for RBG 2.4 are sum- electric power production, which is shown as a marized in Section 12 on Tables 1-268, 1-269, and need, is not in the strict sense a nonwithdrawal 1-270. water use, as is the case with conventional hydro- (1) Water Withdrawals electric plants. The need in question is for a Water withdrawal needs in River Basin Group pumped storage plant,. located on the shores of 2.4 for NOR will be met in fairly conventional Lake Michigan. This plant withdraws and returns fashion. Municipal water requirements will be met the water on an almost daily basis, pumping from principally by development of Great Lakes sources, Lake Michigan to an elevated reservoir during the with ground water the next largest source, and pumping cycle at the time of low demand on the inland lakes and streams used in a relatively minor power system, and releasing water from the reser- way. There is a possibility of reservoir develop-. voir to Lake Michigan during the generating cycle ment for municipal. water supply. The industries at the time of peak power demands. The supply is which supply their own water have adequate source adequate for this purpose. capacity through year 2000 by making use of tech- It is not possible to meet all the projected needs niques that are rapidly developing for recycling the for additional angler-days for sport fishing. NOR water and withdrawing smaller amounts. Rural includes proposals for land management that will domestic and livestock water will principally come improve the habitat and for other institutional from ground-water supplies in the localities where changes. No acquisition of additional fishing water it is needed. Some care will be needed, particularly or fisherman access or any construction is contem- in parts of the Upper Peninsula, to avoid attempt- plated in the framework. ing to develop wells in areas where yields are too There is adequate inland water to supply the low. Irrigation supplies will come from the best needs for recreational boating through the projec-, available source near the point of - use, principally tion period, and the Great Lakes water surface is from ground water, but also from inland lakes and. adequate. However, additional access facilities and streams. Reservoir storage for irrigation is also a launching sites. and similar facilities are required possibility. The needs for water for mining pur- for inland waters, and -berthing facilities are Lake Michigan Basin 159 needed on Lake Michigan. -By the end of the pro- opment of Lake Michigan shoreline, development jection period, needs will be met. of additional facilities in national forests, acquisi- Commercial fishing and commercial navigation tion and development of regional parks, the devel- are discussed in Section 5 and Subsection 7.6. Pro- opment of about 50 miles of scenic river, and ac- posals for the improvement of Escanaba Harbor quisition and development of about 100 miles of the and the Straits of Mackinac are included in NOR. proposed North Country Trail. The private sector (3) Related Land Use and Problems will be urged to continue development of high- Agricultural land treatment is included in NOR quality recreational facilities. at essentially the same level as the program that (4) Framework Outputs and Costs has been followed in the past. About 42 percent of Section 12 contains Table 1-268 which gives the land that could profitably use treatment for needs, outputs, and percent of needs met for the conservation benefits will be treated by the year Normal Framework; Tables 1-269 and 1-270 list 2020. Agricultural land drainage is included in NOR capital costs and operation, maintenance, and re- to the extent of 51 percent of the total needs. placement costs. About half of the forest land that.could profit by treatment will be treated. Twenty percent of the shoreland subject to criti- 7.5.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) cal erosion will receive protection in the first ten years, and an additional 40 percent will be treated PRO was formulated in consultation with State in each of the remaining 20-year periods. No pro- officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- tection will be afforded reaches subject to noncriti- grams as well as the desires of local residents. cal erosion. State, regional, and local policies with respect to All of the streambank mileage subject to severe population and economic growth do not differ erosion will be treated, with 20 percent of this work greatly from those of the OBERS projections. done in the period to 1980, an additional 40 percent However, State data indicate that populations may by 2000, aM the balance by year 2020. None of the be even lower than before projected. mileage subject to moderate erosion will be PRO does not specifically recommend future so- treated. cial and economic policies or programs to influence Programs for the alleviation of flood damage the rate of growth or distribution of people in River consist of both structural and institutional mea- Basin Group 2.4. sures. Flood plain legislation and control should be The environmental quality problems addressed instituted at the earliest practicable date and will indicate that the restoration of a very high level of increase in effectiveness, so that during the period water quality, development and conservation of 2000-2020 an estimated 75 percent of the average recreational opportunities, reduction of rural and annual damages can be prevented through institu- urban flooding, improvements to fish and wildlife tional means. Structural measures will begin as resources, and a balanced level of development, appropriate in the various locations and will sup- supported by funding, as necessary, on the Fed- plement the institutional arrangements in prevent- eral, State, and local levels, are needed as top ing the remaining flood losses. priority if the objectives of the public in the area Wildlife management is provided for in NOR by are to be achieved. continuation of ongoing programs including habitat PRO quantification differs from NOR in only a management, enforcement, and research. Addi- few elements. Comparative data are included tional programs in the same fields will be carried where pertinent. out. These will more nearly meet the wildlife user- day needs than the hunting acreage needs, though (1) Water Withdrawals neither will be fully met. PRO is the same as NOR for all withdrawals. No There is no specific provision in NOR for aes- water above that presently provided for thermal thetic and cultural programs, but the recognition of power cooling will be needed prior to the year 2000. significant areas in RBG 2.4 that may be lost should PRO endorses the concept of -encouraging reduc- lead to the protection and possible acquisition of tion in the rate of growth of per capita use of power these areas, and the development of buffer zones providing that the health, welfare, economy and and corridors. social well-being of the inhabitants are not adver- The area has great potential for water-oriented sely affected. PRO also places more emphasis on outdoor recreation, and programs have been se- environmental considerations in plant siting, and lected for NOR that will provide surplus recreation individual selection for each site of the appropriate days at all three target dates. Programs include cooling water. system. If more supplemental cooling development of the authorized Sleeping Bear is introduced, the quantity withdrawn will be less, Dunes National Lakeshorej acquisition and devel- but there will be much more,consumptive use. I 160 Appendix 1 (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses uses. This should result in improved land-use poli- In connection with waste treatment, PRO meets cies and permit water resources planning to com- the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution plement land-use objectives. Control Act Amendments of 1972, and higher costs Wildlife management programs in PRO are the are shown. PRO recommends full consideration of same as NOR. possibilities for waste treatment systems with on- PRO has no specific provision for aesthetic and land disposal. Major sources of pollution in the area cultural programs, but recognizes the same ele- are agricultural wastes, and PRO recommends at- ments as NOR. tention to alleviating or treating these, including PRO includes resource utilization that will meet nonpoint sources. all water -oriented outdoor recreation needs. It is The program for hydroelectric power production assumed that approximately 60 percent of the out- is the same for PRO as for NOR. PRO is the same door recreation needs will be met with public funds as NOR for sport fishing and recreational boating. (Federal, State, and local), and it is further as- (3) Related Land Use and Problems sumed that the remainder will be met either by PRO provides for treatment by year 2020 of all private funding or not at all. The priorities for the the agricultural land which can profitably use use of public funding will be: treatment for conservation benefits. No cropland (a) urban recreation developments and acquisi- drainage is included in PRO. The total forest land tion and restoration of unique and natural areas of treatment will be about 60 percent of the opportu- regional significance nity. This is more than in NOR. (b) developments on lands now publicly owned Treatment of shoreland against erosion should (c) other developments. reflect the severe conditions of high lake levels of To the extent public funds are available for in- 1973. However, because data are not available, the vestment in urban lands, they may be used where quantities shown are the same as NOR. feasible to assist in acquiring flood plain land in For streambank erosion PRO is the same as urbanizing areas and in clearing flood plains of NOR. damage-prone uses and making them available for In flood plain management the numerical data for recreation use. The Proposed Framework empha- PRO are the same as for NOR. However, the sizes a need for specific criteria to insure that such Proposed Framework recommends that adequate recreational developments are -consistent with the sums of money be allocated to manage and control maintenance of a high-quality environment. flood plain lands, with money allocated to both flood (4) Framework Outputs and Costs plain damage alleviation and to outdoor recreation Section 12 contains Table 1-271, which gives and other uses of the flood plain. needs, outputs, and percent of needs met for PRO; The Proposed Framework includes the concept Tables 1-272 and 1-273 list capital costs, and that the States should set a time limit for local operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. entities to manage and develop policies, objectives, These tables indicate by italics where PRO entries programs, and implementation techniques for flood differ from NOR. Table 1-333 compares land plain regulations. If the local entities do not meet treatment programs. the time limits, the States should then manage and regulate the flood plains according to State stat- utes. 7.5.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs The Proposed Framework recommends the es- tablishment of State-approved local control ordi- Table 1-348 in Section 12 lists the total costs nances directed toward sediment reduction and the (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the control or treatment of runoff on urban and rural periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. lands. Consistent with Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, State-estab- lished regulations would prevail if local regulations are not implemented by July 1, 1977. 7.6 Lake Michigan Intrarelationships The Proposed Framework for River Basin Group 2.4 includes the recommendation that additional Various lake uses, such as commercial naviga- studies be made at the State level leading to the tion, recreational boating, and sport and commer- development and adoption of a comprehensive cial fishing, and such parameters as water quality, land-use policy for the Great Lakes Region, in- levels and flows, and shore erosion, cross political cluding zoning to restrict flood plain usage, provi- boundaries. Although these activities and para- sions for erosion control for urban and rural areas, meters have already been discussed for each river and land-use decisions made on adequate informa- basin group, it will also be useful to discuss'them in tion relative to the physical land base for suitable relation to the entire Lake Michigan basin. Lake Michigan Basin 161 7.6.1 Commercial Navigation The periodic die-off of the alewife in recent years has caused a substantial problem in Lake Michigan. The importance of commercial navigation to most The reintroduction of salmonid species helps to portions of the Lake Michigan basin is such that control alewife populations. improvements in the navigation system are essen- Because many of the salmonid species are ana- tial to the economic health of the region, and ex- dromous, it is important that sport fish manage- tension of the navigation season in other parts of ment programs be coordinated with programs to the Great Lakes system is important to the ports on protect the quality of the inland streams used by Lake Michigan itself. Consistent with these guide- salmonid species for spawning. lines, the Normal Framework provides for en- largement of the Lake Superior-Lake Michigan system. Harbors at Escanaba, Chicago, and Mil- 7.6.4 Commercial Fishery waukee, and Indiana Harbor would be deepened to 31 feet, and constrictions in the Straits of Mackinac Many aspects relating to management of sport would be eliminated. Environmental quality must fishery also affect commercial fishery. The two have be maintained, and the disposal of dredge spoil is often been in conflict as to time, area, and species. critical in this respect. Management concepts are being developed that will In PRO the harbors at Calumet and Port of utilize a controlled commercial fishery as a man- Indiana would be deepened as part of the 31-foot agement tool as well as an economic enterprise and system. The navigation season would be extended will assist in developing and maintaining the sport by six weeks through the Soo Locks, the St. Marys fishery, which has impact on more people and is of River, and to southern Lake Michigan. more economic importance than the commercial fishery. 7.6.2 Recreational Boating The demand for recreational boating opportuni- 7-6.5 Water Quality ties has increased markedly in the Lake Michigan Much of Lake Michigan has excellent water basin. Small boat harbors are not always spaced quality. Furthermore, circulation patterns tend to closely enough for boaters to have ready access to a contain the pollution in localized areas such as the sheltered port. More berthing facilities are also needed at the harbors. Construction of new harbors southern portion of the Lake and Green Bay. The and expansion of public access and existing facili- water quality of the Lake is threatened by many ties are needed in some areas. Because of heavy use influences. In the southern portion there is sub- in the southern portion of the basin, the boating stantial industrial development, while in the north- opportunities in the northern portion are becoming ern and eastern portions there is considerable ag- more popular. New construction here is essential if ricultural development. Both of these can lower the the needs are to be met. Systems for providing water quality. weather information and other urgent messages to Another potential threat to water quality in the boaters must be developed and installed. Lake comes from the anticipated increase in power generation. Lake Michigan is particularly suited for power generation because of the large power loads 7.6.3 Sport Fishery in the region and the abundant water for cooling purposes. At the present time, the States border- Sport fishing is rapidly growing throughout much ing on Lake Michigan are developing standards of Lake Michigan. Opportunities are generally good with respect to discharge of waste heat to the except where water quality has been substantially Lake. Some groups have expressed strong prefer- degraded, as in the southern portion of the Lake. ences for the use of supplemental cooling systems Various programs by the States bordering the in power plants. Lake for stocking salmonid species have revitalized The degradation of water quality from activities fishing opportunities. Still greater coordination is associated with commercial navigation can be pre- desirable in order to avoid duplication and potential vented through management of all shipping wastes overstocking. and proper disposal of polluted dredge spoil. Because of the relatively large number of sal- It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of monid species in Lake Michigan, it is important to high quality water in meeting the needs of the large continue lamprey control programs throughout the population on the shores of Lake Michigan. Fur- Lake, in order to keep the efforts of fish managers thermore, there is a real possibility of passing in some areas from being nullified by the continued pollution thresholds in certain areas of the Lake. availability of lamprey habitat in other areas. For these reasons, an expanded water quality 162 Appendix 1 monitoring program throughout the Lake is rec- Supreme Court decree of 1967 to an annual average ommended. Such a program will provide informa- of 3,200 cubic feet per second (2068 mgd). Levels of tion for wise water management and will assist in the Great Lakes system are responsive to inflows and the enforcement of water quality standards and outflows in both the United States and Canada. regulations. A general discussion appears in Section 5. Because of recent high lake levels, and the sus- ceptibility of Lake Michigan shores to much greater 7.6.6 Levels and Flows erosion damage with only slightly higher levels, there have been proposals to increase the diversion Unlike Lake Superior or Lake Ontario, Lake at Chicago and lower the Lake by a small amount. Michigan is not a regulated Lake. Inflows, out- Also, because the diversion occurs in the most flows, and the level of the Lake are almost exclu- polluted portion of Lake Michigan, advocates be- sively a result of natural phenomena. The most lieve that increasing the diversion would serve to significant manmade influence is the diversion to "flush out" the polluted end of the Lake. These the Mississippi River through the Illinois River at proposals are among the many included in the the City of Chicago. This diversion is limited by the overall studies of lake regulation. Section 8 LAKE HURON BASIN 8.1 Study Area attractive because of its recreational resources, indicated by the approximately 20,700 seasonal va- The United States portion of Lake Huron and its cation homes that are located in the area. The drainage basin lies in the State of Michigan. More highest concentration of these homes is in the than half the Lake surface area and more than counties adjacent to Lake Huron and in the coun- two-thirds of the drainage basin are in Canada. ties with large numbers of inland lakes. In addition Principal inflow to Lake Huron is from Lake Supe- to these seasonal vacation residents, thousands of rior and Lake Michigan. The Lake Huron drainage tourists come to the area each year for recreation. basin lies in portions of both the Upper and Lower The economy in the southern portion of the ba- Peninsulas of Michigan. However, the Lake Huron sin is focused on intensive, heavy manufacturing, region (Plan Area 3.0), which is based on county largely concentrated in the urban areas of Genesee, boundaries for planning convenience, is only in the Saginaw, and Bay Counties, and in Midland Lower Peninsula. (See Figure 1-32). For planning County, which is the center of one of the largest purposes, the Lake Huron basin (3.0) is divided into chemical industries in the United States. Most of two river basin groups, (RBGs 3.1 and 3.2), with the population is in these four counties. Most of the planning subarea economic counterparts, (PSAs 3. 1 other counties in the southern portion of the basin and 3.2). For a list of counties, river basins and depend on resource base activities such as the complexes, and other data, see Section 1. prime agricultural land in the Thumb area and in the western part of the basin. 8.1.1 Human Characteristics 8.1.2 Water Resources The Lake Huron plan area ranked fourth in pop- ulation of the five plan areas in 1970, with 1,236,265 The Lake Huron basin has over 208,000 acres of persons, about 4 percent of the regional population. inland lakes and approximately 8,000 miles of This was an increase of 17 percent from the 1960 streams and rivers. The lakes range in size from population of 1,056,577. The rate of increase was 50,000 acres to small glacial ponds measuring one- slightly higher in the northern part of the area than tenth of an acre. The nature, availability, and in the southern part, though the latter is by far the quality of the water resource differ between the more populous. In the 11 northern counties only northern and southern parts of the basin. Streams Alpena, Cheboygan, losco, Otsego, and Presque in RBG 3.1 are typically short, with generally Isle Counties supported population centers large stable flows and small drainage areas. Water sur- enough to be classified as urban. Of the remaining face on inland lakes within PSA 3.1 exceeds 134,000 counties, four had less than 10,000 persons each. acres. Ground-water yields are estimated to range The urban population of the northern area was 26 from over 700 mgd for the Au Sable River basin to percent of the total. The southern portion of the less than 10 mgd in lacustrine deposits along the area shows a wide spread between sparsely settled lakeshore. In general, most water in the glacial Gladwin County, which has no urban population, deposits is of good chemical quality, although it and Genesee County, which has a population den- may be hard. Local areas, however, have very poor sity of about 690 persons per square mile, the quality ground water, especially where bedrock second most densely populated area in Michigan. containing highly mineralized water lies directly Over 61 percent of the people in the southern portion under glacial deposits. live in urban areas. The Flint, Saginaw, and Bay In the northern part of the basin, water from City standard metropolitan statistical areas are all lakes and streams and limited ground-water in the southern part. Major centers in the northern sources should be adequate to satisfy developing portion are Cheboygan, Rogers City, and Alpena. water needs. There are no extensive aquifers Additional statistics are given in Section 1. known to be capable of yielding large flows of The northern half of the Lake Huron basin is ground water to individual wells. However, this 163 164 Appendix 1 MINNE-1 (D .... IN 5 NEW YORK N 4 .-NOIS 111NI-1- VICINITY MAP 0 \ 'N T R' 1 0 'X5 o 3 L A K E mic IGAN U 0 0 -N TO 3.2 SCALE IN MILES ----- LAKE BASIN BOUNDARY i@@ 410--90 PLAN AREA BOUNDARY FIGURE i-32 Plan Area 3, Lake Huron Lake Huron Basin 165 area has an abundance of surface water resources. soils, those developed under cool, moist climate Though not generally long or steep, the streams from siliceous parent material, cover most of the drain over 6,700 square miles in the upper part of area. Typically, these soils are low in lime content, the basin. Relatively stable streams include the Au low in fertility, and subject to severe drainage Sable, Black, and Rifle Rivers. The potential res- restrictions. ervoir storage capacity is estimated to be about The soils of the southern portion of the basin 76,000 acre-feet, if all adequate streams and lakes show little resemblance to the bedrock. Instead, were developed for water supply. Potential in- their character is determined by differences in the crease in surface water yield from developing these glacial mantle. Deposits range from lacustrine clays resources is estimated at about 225 mgd. In spite of to outwashes of nearly pure sand, and contain a the overall limited potential for large ground-water large variety of mineral materials. In addition the resources, sustained yield of the ground-water re- actions of climate, cover, and topography working sources in the planning subarea is estimated to be on the parent materials over a long time period about 1945 mgd. have resulted in soils of great variety in terms of In the southern part of the basin the streams drain texture and soil profile development. Slightly over primarily agricultural land with extensive artificial 50 percent of the total land base in the southern drainage, and the urbanized areas of Flint and the portion of the basin is subject to some drainage or Saginaw Valley. Flows are unstable and water flooding problem. About 24 percent of the cropland quality is poor due to turbidity and municipal, is' subject to drainage problems and on half of this industrial, and agricultural wastes. Inland lakes are area these problems are severe. not plentiful except near the headwaters, and sur- The land resources of the basin are used for face resources are variable but generally poor in many diverse purposes. The low soil fertility in quantity and chemical quality. Flows of the lower sections of the northern portion of the region and Saginaw River are significantly affected by the the large number of limestone outcrops along the raising and lowering of Saginaw Bay. Lake Huron shoreline have limited the potential for The two principal bedrock aquifers, the Grand agriculture in that area. However, agriculture will River-Saginaw and the Marshall, locally yield large cbntinue to be important, particularly the produc- volumes of ground water, but over the aquifer area tion of potatoes, beef, and milk. as a whole the yield would be moderate. In addition Distribution of uses of the total land area in the to the scarcity of large ground-water supplies, Lake Huron region and in the two planning sub- there is a problem of poor quality. Saline waters areas is shown in Figure 1-33. are often found at depths less than 100 feet either Beech, birch, maple, and hemlock are the major in the drift or in the bedrock. In general, poor forest trees covering the northern portion of the water quality can be expected in the central basin basin, parts of the middle portion, and the Lake area. Part of the poor water quality probably re- Huron shore area. A wide band of jack, red, and sults from the natural migration of saline water white pine stretches across the central portion of upwards and outwards from the inner and deeper the northern area of the basin, bordered by areas of bedrock formations in the Michigan basin. spruce and fir to the south. In the southern portion The surface waters of the Flint River basin con- of the basin, the species are aspen, birch, elm, ash, stitute a limited source of supply for withdrawal maple, and pine. These species are not of high uses. Although the City of Flint has developed the quality for producing marketable saw logs. Con- potential of the Flint River to a considerable degree, sequently, the forest industry in the 11 counties of the principal supply is Great Lakes water pur- PSA 3.2 is primarily oriented to the production of chased from the City of Detroit. Smaller communi- pulpwood and Christmas trees, with only a limited ties depend upon ground water. The basin is rela- amount of timber being used for manufacturing or tively close to suitable supplies from Lake Huron other wood products. and Saginaw Bay. The total built-up area of the northern portion of The quality of water in the main body of Lake the plan area is less than 85,000 acres.' The number Huron is excellent. Lake Huron waters are low in of farms in this portion of the area has been de- turbidity and moderate in hardness. Lake Huron is clining for several years. Much of the land in the suitable for domestic water supply and will be kept abandoned farms did not become part of any so under present plans through the year 2020. other farming enterprise, and the percentage of the total area in farms declined from 22.3 percent in 1959 to 19.7 percent in 1965, and to 16.1 percent in 8.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources 1969. The southern portion of the'plan area contrasts Soils in the Lake Huron basin vary widely from with the northern portion in that 54 percent of the north to south. In the northern portion the podzol total land area is cropland. This area ranks high in 166 Appendix 1 Other 6% Pasture 4% Urban 5% Cropland Forest Cropland 13% 34% Pasture 4% 49% Other 6% Other Pasture 4% Urban 7% PLAN -AREA 3 Forest Total Land Area 27% 8,441,900 acres Cropland Urban Forest 72% Planning Subarea 3.1 Planning Subarea 3.2 S4% 9% Total Land Area Total Land Area 4,017,800 acres 4,424,100 acres FIGURE 1-33 Land Use in the Lake Huron Basin total value of farm products sold. Cash crops, and gravel, and limestone. In addition, cement and grain, and other field crops predominate, with a lime are manufactured from both local and im- value of slightly over $100 million annually; Live- ported raw materials, and bromine, calcium com- stock sales account for about 40 percent of the pounds, iodine, magnesium, and potash (sAlines) value of farm products sold. Important crops are are extracted or manufactured from the natural dry beans, sugar beets, and potatoes. This planning brines. By far the most important mineral group is subarea leads the Great Lakes Basin in dry field the salines. bean production and produces one-third of the field Wildlife habitat and wildlife resources vary from beans for the entire nation. north to south, with changes in land use and climate In the northern portion of the plan area, it is being important factors in the variation. The projected that by 2020 urban built-up areas will northern part of the plan area is characterized by gain primarily at the expense of forest land, while large tracts of State and national forests. Human in the southern portion the changes will be population densities are low and problems here are primarily at the expense of cropland. The reduction those of resource management. In the big game of the land base due to urban buildup in the north- category, deer are the major species. There is also ern portion amounts to only 32,800 acres, while in a small herd of elk in four northeast counties. Elk the south the shift is projected to be 180,100 acres. hunting was permitted in 1964 and 1965 but has not As urban expansion, new seasonal home develop- been permitted since then. Black bear hunting is ment in all portions of the basin, and pressures for permitted in limited areas of the northern Lower additional developments along the shoreline of Peninsula. Lake Huron materialize, more governmental units Good habitat conditions provide the small game will be faced with the need for land use plans or hunter with some of the best ruffed grouse arid revision of existing plans. woodcock hunting in the State. Squirrel, varied Mineral deposits found in the Lake Huron basin hare, and cottontail rabbit make up the remainder reflect the geology and sedimentation in the area of the small game population. and its subsequent glaciation. Minerals found in the For the waterfowl hunter, many species of ducks 4@ 4 q% In 7% northern portion include gypsum, petroleum and and geese frequent the open waters of Lake Huron natural gas, sand and gravel, shale, and limestone. and the many inland marshes, lakes, rivers, and The minerals found in the southern portion include flooded areas. clay, peat, petroleum and natural gas, salt, sand The southern portions of the basin, particularly Lake Huron Balsin 167 the Thumb and the Saginaw Valley, are renowned ' were few major changes in the fish population of for pheasant hunting. Squirrel, rabbit, grouse, and take Huron prior to 1930. However, there has been raccoon are favorite targets of the upland game considerable change since then. Many of the species hunter, and fox hunting provides sport for man and in the lake today were deliberately introduced or dog. Many private land owners cooperate by al- have entered the lake indirectly as a result of man's lowing hunting on their land. However, the wildlife activities. Following the establishment of the sea habitat has deteriorated lately. Clean farming lamprey in the 1930s,.the lake trout and the white- practices, particularly in the Thumb on the east fish population underwent rapid decline. This al- side of Saginaw Bay, have decreased nesting and lowed the smelt and smaller chub population to winter cover for pheasant and reduced the pheas- increase in the 1940s and the alewife population to ant food supply. In addition to the degradation of explode in the 1950s. Concurrently, the walleye and habitat, losses of habitat area are occurring from suckers started to decline in the 1940s, a trend urban expansion. The construction of highways, which has continued to the present time. The lake subdivisions, and new utilities has taken a signifi- herring population fell sharply in the 1940s and cant amount of land. suffered an extreme decline to near insignificance in The northern portion of the area offers the sport the 1950s and 1960s. Today, the alewife dominates fisherman an abundance of fishing opportunities. A the lake, while control of the sea lamprey is the wide variety of species, numerous large lakes, major factor in permitting reestablishment of the many miles of stream accessibility, and a rural high-value predator species. The successful intro- natural environment influence large numbers of duction of the coho and chinook salmon have added fishermen to travel fairly long distances to fish in new dimensions to the fishery resources of Lake this area. Huron. In the lower portion of the basin, pollution from The Lake Huron region includes many of the industrial, municipal, and agricultural development elements which are important to the recreation has in the past diminished the fishing quality in resource base. Among these are more than 1.5 many of thb major rivers and impoundments, par- million acres of State and national forests, many ticularly around Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, and iuland lakes and rivers, and the beaches of Lake Midland. Additional problems are serious erosion Huron. The northern half of the region is less and siltation from both agriculture and urban con- heavily populated, and thus less developed, than struction. These require corrective action. Man- the southern half and has the more extensive re- agement for the valuable sports species and the creational opportunities. The southern half has al- removal of rough fish are also problems in this most equally good opportunities at its northern portion of the basin. Pollution of the rivers and border, but these gradually give way to more impoundments in the past has discouraged many of highly populated areas toward the southern part of the fishermen in this area and caused them to seek the basin. The lake plain circling Saginaw Bay lacks their recreation in Saginaw Bay or further north in many natural resources necessary to provide varied the Great Lakes Basin. However, recent improve- recreational opportunities, yet the shoreline of the ment in water quality and the newly planned im- bay is marshy and supports large numbers of wa- poundment of the Pine River offer hope for rees- terfowl and fish species. tablishing valuable fish species within the southern The shores of many inland lakes have been de- portion of the basin. veloped with residences and summer cottages. The United States sector of Lake Huron itself While these lakes have many acres of beach, public may be divided into four general ecological areas, use is limited by the lack of access sites. Of the each of which has traditionally yielded a charac- more than 700 acres of beach along the western teristic combination of fish species. In the large shore of Lake Huron, approximately 140 acres are central basin, which extends from above Rogers publicly owned, but 13 acres are closed because of City south to below Harbor Beach, were chubs and pollution. Another 50 acres may have potential for lake trout. The far northern straits were similar to public use. the adjacent habitat of Lake Michigan and sup- The Au Sable, Carp, Black, Oequeoc, and Rifle ported lake trout, whitefish, and suckers. The Rivers have been identified as potential scenic or southern portion of Lake Huron yielded yellow natural rivers by Michigan. The Tittabawassee, perch, lake herring, walleye, and suckers near the Shiawassee, Flint, and Cass Rivers and their tri- shore and whitefish offshore. Saginaw Bay pro- butaries offer a significant recreation resource vided a highly productive habitat for yellow perch, base. smelt, walleye, lake herring, suckers, catfish, and carp. 8.1.4 Resource Problems Other than the appearance of carp and the near disappearance of sturgeon in the early 1900s, there Potentially severe problems in the Lake Huron M -1 @@ 0 m C-tI 5 - CD cr r- 0 > * m 0 0 m 0 r m 8 0 m 0 * m K z --j K F, m 0 K :E zr" m M @c 0 0 Z 0 w (D cm-r--4mom >M m I > -< 0 c 0 7: - C M - M -C5 (D @L - cn r- 9 9 C-) 0 -4 0 m Z m > ri) 0 momomzr 4 0 0 Z (D 0--IVOMMMMF0> c Z- z m > 0 > m 0 M -i m m A) -'j "DI m Oslo I o m C 0 0 m :jj K r- --I > c c --4 m m > -n K > > --i 0 .1 z n 5 m co > z r- Cn M m m -0 m @? 0 4 0 --1 M 00 cn . r- > r- 0 -0 > m 0 0 K > > z C) c 0 m: - m > r, V 0 r- z0ZO >>Z-Fn0r'* Zgr-r-- 01 F- t--' W m 20 > Z- A m r-- r- Z Z --i:* > m Fn W (D0 'D (D 0 o Z (n m > > > 2 (n Z cr cn V M tr :@ @R @L . .. m m --I > z Z -n r, C) --A m > V) m 0 cn (D - > 0 -0 . I C> m 0 m - > V-) m -0 V) m c m (D (D M H 0 m m r- L) OLAMZrI < m 0 -1 m > 0 z -0 n 5 " m 0 0 z CL -c@ x -4 m cn 0 > > > 0 cu cn m .0 - c F) E 0 m 0 0 > V 0 m m C g > r, rt m m V CA > 0 j - GQ -) z c > > C 0 0 F. z z M M Z5 z L --j m > --j r- 0 in 1 11 (D -0 00-3, 0 (D 1 0) (D cn > z z -4 m --I z 0 M -4 M C) > 0 cD m Zb Z' r(DI Ln z m CO) 0 C) m (D C@ (D 0 m 0 m m m 0 M 0 C) CD (D 0 0 P. 0 C1 < m -i m 20 z @" 5; ch Z @F rt 1 m m > m a- 0 r 0 0 @I '1 0 0 04@ r) @h CD m Fn 0 m 0 aq AD m 5 0 @:$ m 0 m 0 z: m x m 0 M - 11@ = 5 z ca :z > C C@ Z 0 m > m CA n -1 Z ID m C) m n 11 z CL 0 H m C) m V) CD n (D m cn m orq "I z C+ (n (D H- (D 0 (D 0 CL 0 CL (D I (D 0 0 c@ w rt m CD 3 0 CF) 11 (D C@ n (D Z M'C$ " @t .. 03 0 rt z 0 rt F@ I @-A I I I I F- I F@ Overall 4 . m -1@ 0 0 0 C m (D rt Overall ;.Vo H C-t- 1 0 @t 0 Overall 0 0 H* C@ Urban 0 C+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rural A V (D ID (D (D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Interfa M CD H (D e z M 0 C+ co -1 ID, 0 cl ::r CD 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Overall @j 0 (D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Urban C@ Rural C@m aq m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I Interfa (D 0 M 0 n CD m @0 0 F@ F@ Overall 0 - 0 0 C+ Urban V Z CD CD C@ C+ CD '+ z 11 1 H @-- rl@ @- I @- I w I I I N) F- I I I I I I I I Rural C-t- C+ (D CI W Z " -I Interfa 0 n C-t- C-t- C@ I I I I Lj I I I I I I 1 1 0 (D Li Overall 0' ::r 5D Urban Rural (D C@ 0- w (D -t Interfa I W I I I I I I I I I I I I C- :0 Go :0 F@ I I Lo I I I I I I I I I I Overall ::Y' @:s (D (D r, - O@ CD 90 Z (D 0. w m 1-0 z 0 @I , 0 0 Q, m -1 W I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I Urban 5*-' z 0 P 0 E@ 5 z P 5 10 n F-L -1 Z -I U- CD CD CD tz (D - CD Lo Rural -0 CD (D q. n Uq m M, Z M (D n w @@ o1q - n 1@ (D Z " Z (D W M w @:F" in. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w I I I I I I I I I Interfa 1 0 0 z Co m (D 0-1 -,t3 .1 cn@ 5] (D 0 :3- ::r (D (D0 (D n Z.1 1 F@ NJ Lo I I F- I Overall ts (D C-1- r, o- @;' - w 0ts @:r CD (D F- I Urban CD (D CD C+ C+ w @V CD m M C+ 1-3'zz -- M m I I I I @- @-- I U.) I f I F- I I I I I I I I I Rural P (D Z (D tr Z n z n orq M Z (D 11 + C5 El PW', F- I F- I I I Nj II I W I I F@ I F- I I F- I I I I I I Interfa CD @3' 't@ 'I (D CD M W (D (D A." 0 S,, U, n -. (D (D F- HI LJ I I I I I I I I I Overall go n ". tr c+ @ 2. n C, (D Z 0 (-D- - n -5 (,D :0 @Y, 0 Urban rD (D -1 CD rA r.) Rural Interfa CD CP W CD (D (D (D 0 CD - Z z 5, C+ -1 (D rJ F@ W Overall DD Q, m m m@3- (InD cr z z ,I It (D 0 (D @I CD n (D U rbg n 0 (D 0 CD rA 9P 5 V 0@ CD . , . I F- I I I I I I I I I I Rural P z tIj F-II LO I I I Interfa -1 0 Z CD W 0 ID (D D: n E5 -C 5m + H W F- I F- [,J N.1 (D @:F, 0 cy, (DP * Overall CD (D Z W n ID " M ID - :@' o 0@ ID Z C@ o CD CD m - 11 -1 (D 'I Open Wa M@ o 'A m o ID CD (D :@ :0 .@, z 0Z F@ F-- @-j " III Lo I I F@ F@ I I I I I I I I I It m Overall aq 90 z o @,@ n 0, Z 0 (D I F@ I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Urban . @M, Oq, It (D - @Ir 0 CO (D 0 Li F@ F-j I I I I I I I Rural (D D) CD M M(D Li F- I I I I I I I I I Interfa( C+ (D ty, (D M 0 0 F- P- w I I r) rIj I I Overall CD t7' ID Z Po p ID M m:3- 1 1 1 11 1 w I I I I Li w I Urban P-V C@ (D c.@ nm t (D -I- t, 0,0 (D (D - =@ w 0 1tIj II w r) rQ I I Rural ID (D (D CD I I F@ Interfac (D (D Oq . 5' Overall orq r7. 0 (D CD Cr 0 (D M Urban lc@ z Rural (D (D Sz 0 M (D M P (D -1 Z n ZL w - 7 (D C@ @F Interfac 170 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-104 Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1966-67 (thousands of acres) Resource Base PSA and Total Urban Pasture Forest State Land Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land- Other Total PSA 3.1 Michigan 4,017.8 179.6 531.2 173.6 2,914.3 219.1 3,838.2 PSA 3.2 Michigan 4,424.1 389.0 2,370.0 185.2 1,194.7 285.2 4,035.1 TOTAL 8,441.9 568.6 2,901.2 358.8 4,109.0- 504.3 7,873.3 TABLE 1-105 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 Lake Huron Total land areal 8,441.9 --- 8,441.9 --- 8,441.9 --- 8,441.9 Total urban and 568.6 60.4 629.0 86.9 715.9 65.6 781.8 built-up Total nonurbanized 7,873.3 7,812.9 7,726.0 7,660.4 land Resource Base: Cropland 2,901.2 (31.7)2 2,869.5 (46.1) 2,823.4 (32.4) 2,791.0 Pasture 358.8 (2.8) 356.0 (4,0) 352.0 (3.0) 349.0 Forest Land 4,109.0 (21.7) 4,07.3 (30.8) 4,056.5 (25.7) 4,030.8 Other Land 504.3 (18.7) 485.6 (6.0) 479.6 (4.5) 475.1 Tota13 7,873.3 (60.4) 7,812.9 (86.9) 7,726.0 (65.6) 7,660.4 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. 'Total land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. TABLE 1-106 Actual and Projected Land -Use, Lake Huron Plan Area by PSA (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 PSA 3.1 Total land areal 4,017.8 --- 4,ol7.8 --- 4,017.8 --- 4,017.8 Total urban and 179.6 8.3 187.9 10.9 198.8 13.6 212.4 built-up Total nonurbanized 3,838.2 3,829.9 3,819.0 3,805.4 land Resource Base: Cropland 531.2 (1.1)2 530.1 (1.5) 528.6 (1.9) 526.7 Pasture 173.6 (.4) 173.2 (.5) 172.7 (.6) 172.1 Forest Land 2,914.3 (6.3) 2,908.0 (8.3) 2,899.7 (10.3) 2,889.4 Other Land 219.1 (15) 218.6 (.6) 218.0 (.8) 217.2 Total3 3,838.2 (8.3) 3,829.9 (10.9) 3,819.0 (13.6) 3,805.4 PSA 3.2 Total land areal 4,424.1 --- 4,424.1 --- 4,424.1 --- 4,424.1 Total urban and 389.0 52.1 441.1 76.0 517.1 52.0 569.1 built-up Total nonurbanized 4,035.1 3,983.0 3,907.0 3,855.0 land Resource Base: Cropland 2,370.0 (30.6) 2,339.4 (44.6) 2,294.8 (30-5) 2,264.3 Pasture 185.2 (2.4) 182.8 (3.5) 179.3 (2.4) 176.9 Forest Land 1,194.7 (15.4) 1,179.3 (22-5) 1,156.8 (15.4) 1,141.4 Other Land 285.2 (3.7) 281.5 (5.4) 276.1 (3.7) 272.4 Total3 4,035.1 (52.1) 3,983.0 (76-0) 3,907.0 (52.0) 3,855.0 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. 'Total land area = total area.- water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Lake Huron Basin 171 TABLE 1-107 Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Huron Plan Area (mgd) 1970 Average Demand Domestic Municipally PSA State and Commercial Supplied Industrial Total Source Capacity 3.1 Michigan 6.2 0.8 7.0 10.5 3.2 Michigan 73.6 52.0 125.6 188.4 TOTAL --- 79.8 52.8 132.6 198.9 fluent from primary sewage treatment plants. ginaw Bay to about 2.5 miles upstream and the crop Algal blooms are common occurrences in these areas located along the upper reach of the main areas. stem and the lower reaches of the two branches of Water in the Saginaw River (RBG 3.2) is of the Kawkawlin River. A steady development of land substandard quality throughout its entire length. for residential purposes has taken place near the Tributary inflows contribute sizeable waste loads, mouth of the Kawkawlin River. The trend shows no especially of chlorides and nutrients. The Flint sign of abating, and property owners are reluctant River wateis are degraded by eight municipal and to recognize the flood threat. Zoning restrictions institutional wastewater treatment plants, storm against further development would help to prevent water overflows, tributary waste loads, and un- increased flood damages. treated or partially treated sewage discharges from Wildlife habitat in the Lake basin is diverse. It outlying townships. The other rivers in the basin all includes the northern forests, active and fallow have reaches of substandard quality due to quanti- cropland, and some of the most valuable waterfowl ties of dissolved solids, septic tank discharges, or marsh in the State of Michigan. Urban areas com- industrial and agricultural waste discharges. prise a significant portion of the lower portion of Streambank erosion and resulting sedimentation th6 basin, and their associated problems have are moderately severe in this Lake basin, with over seriously degraded some of the wildlife habitat. 1,700 bank miles subject to some erosion. Stream- Changes in forest succession are also occurring to bank erosion along rivers with less than 400 square some extent. The loss and degradation of wetland miles of drainage area amounts to about 612 miles habitat around Saginaw Bay is one of the most with severe erosion and 950 miles with moderate critical wildlife resource problems. The bay and its erosion. Streambank erosion along rivers and extensive marsh complex is a nationally known streams draining more than 400 square miles waterfowl concentration area. The construction of amounts to about 147 miles of streambank that are a small boat channel, docks, and other marine fa- subject to erosion, with about one-third of that cilities in the marsh area has adversely affected mileage subject to severe erosion. The average wildlife resources. annual damages from land loss, sedimentation, and These conditions in the two river basin groups other degradation amounts to about $140,000 per that make up the Lake Huron basin indicate the year for the Lake basin. need for land use management in all areas. Even though many of the rivers and the drainage areas in this Lake basin are small, there are flood problems. Flood overflows resulting from ice jams, 8.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development and floods created by severe rainstorms, some of which may be extremely local, have caused dam- ages to both urban and rural areas. Flooding prob- lems in the northern portion of the Lake basin are 8.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals relatively minor and generally local in nature. Areas affected have been farm lands, power facili- In the Lake Huron basin there are adequate ties, and secondary roads and their drainage struc- water resources of satisfactory quality for water tures. Storms and prolonged rain have caused soil withdrawal functions. The approximate require- losses from cultivated fields. ment in 1970 was 1,480 mgd. Lake Huron serves as In the southern part of the Lake basin, some the principal source of water in the basin, furnish- flooding occurs almost every spring. The flood of ing about 75 percent of the water withdrawn in March 1948 was one of the most severe. The areas 1970, with inland lakes and streams and ground subject to inundation in the Kawkawlin basin are water supplying the balance. the residential areas along both banks from Sa- In 1970 about 766,000 persons in the Lake Huron 172 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-108 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Water Source Inland Lakes PSA State Source Capacity Great Lakes and Streams Groundwater 3.1 Michigan 10.5 5.0 - 5.5 3.2 Michigan 188.4 135.8 2.1 50.5 TOTAL --- 198.9 140.8 2.1 56.0 TABLE 1-109 Industrial Water Supply Devel- TABLE 1-110 Rural Water Supply, Lake opment, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Huron Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Self-Supplied Developed Consumptive Gross Water Consumptive PSA State Source Capacity Use PSA State Requirementsi Withdrawals Use 3.1 Michigan 80 25 3 3.1 Michigan 6.8 2.0 3.2 Michigan 815 515 31 3.2 Michigan 32.5 9.4 TOTAL 895 540 34 TOTAL 39.3 11.4 'Partially supplied by recirculation TABLE 1-111 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970, estimated Agriculture Golf Courses Withdrawal (mgd) Withdrawal (mgd) 100-Day 100-Day PSA Acres Season Annual Acres Season Annual 3.1 650 1.0 0.3 600 2.4 0.7 3.2 10,300 17.9 4.9 460 1.7 0.5 TOTAL 10,950 18.9 5.2 1,060 4.1 1.1 basin, or 41 percent of the population of the north- water supplies because of the limited yields of the ern portion and 65 percent of the population of the aquifers and the frequent occurrence of poor water southern portion, were served by central water quality. systems. The municipal water supply development Ground water is the primary source for rural and sources are summarized in Tables 1-107 and domestic and livestock water, although inland lakes 1-108. and streams supply small amounts. See Table 1- In the northern part of the basin, important 110. manufacturing includes cement production, paper In 1968 an estimated 23.0 mgd of water was and paper products, and miscellaneous metal prod- supplied for a 100-day season to irrigate 1,060 acres ucts. Industry used only about 11 percent of the of golf courses and 10,950 acres of high-value crops total water withdrawn by municipal systems. The (Table 1-111). Some of the crops irrigated were economy of the southern portion of the basin is potatoes, beans, vegetables, orchard, and sod. In- focused on intensive heavy manufacturing activi- land lakes, streams, and ground water are assumed ties, and industry used about 41 percent of the to have been the major source of supply. Wherever water withdrawn by the municipal systems in 1970, possible, ground water was used because the areas largely for processing and cooling. See Table 1-109. irrigated are often rather small and somewhat Manufacturers who were supplied by their own scattered, and the use of ground water is most systems, withdrew about 10 times as much water in economical. 1970 as that obtained by those manufacturers who Inland lakes, streams, and ground water are the obtained their water from public water supplies. In major sources for the mineral industry for the Lake general, wells are not expected to maintain a Huron basin. Table 1-112 indicates the total water significant role as a source of new manufacturing required and the new water withdrawal in the Lake Huron Basin 173 TABLE 1-112 Minerals Water Supply, Lake TABLE 1-113 Source of New Water Used by Huron Plan Area, 1968, estimated (mgd) Mineral Industries, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1968, New Water Intake estimated (mgd) Total Water Annual Consumptive i@ew Intake April-November Average for 365 Days PSA Requirementsi Seasonal Average Use2 Streams 4.2 3.5 3.1 22.1 20.9 14.0 1.7 Lakes 9.6 9.6 3.2 10.8 3.9 2.6 0.0 Ground Water 2.4 1.6 TOTAL 32.9 24.8 16.6 1.7 Mines 1.3 1.3 lNew water intake plus recirculated (seasonal) Other 0.2 0.1 2Annual average TOTAL 17.7 16.1 TABLE 1-114 Electric Power Development, Lake Huron Plan Area Type and Capacitv (MW) Steam Electric Hydro- Internal Combustion Fossil Nuclear Water Withdrawals PSA electric and Gas Turbine Steam Steam Total (mgd) 3.1 110 99 209 0 3.2 10 242 1,366 --- 1,618 749 TOTAL 120 341 1,366 --- 1,827 749 basin. Sources of new water used by the mineral and agricultural sources into Saginaw Bay, and industry in 1968 are estimated in Table 1-113. excessive algal blooms in warm weather have As of December 1970, 11 electric power generat- occurred. The quality of the water in Saginaw Bay ing plants of 10 MW capacity or more within the reflects the materials received from the Saginaw Lake Huron basin include two hydroelectric, three River and the smaller contributions from other gas turbine, two internal combustion, and four tributaries. While the existing water quality of the fossil-fueled steam plants. One gas turbine plant, bay as a whole is adequate to support all designated one fossil-fueled plant, and two nuclear plants (at a uses with moderate exceptions, the waters of the single location) are scheduled to @e in operation inner bay are substandard with respect to nu- after 1970 with a total capacity of 2,016 MW. All trients, and water quality along the western shore condenser cooling systems operating in 1970 were of Saginaw Bay north of Bay City is substandard the flow-through type. The basin's electric power because of the high coliform. levels that occur at a development is shown in Table 1-114. limited number of beaches. Water quality in a number of nearshore areas 8.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses within the harbors and at the mouth of tributary streams is lower than that of Lake Huron proper. These areas include the Straits of Mackinac, Che- For study purposes this category includes mu- boygan Harbor, Rogers City Harbor, Thunder nicipal and industrial wastewater discharges as Bay, Harrisville Harbor, Oscoda Harbor, Harbor well as nonwithdrawal uses of water. Although Beach, and Port Sanilac. In general, these areas significant consumptive uses of water are not asso- receive waste loads from tributaries, municipal ciated with these functions, demands are imposed treatment plants, and industries, and experience upon the water resource. slightly lower dissolved oxygen and slightly in- Water quality is generally good throughout the creased levels of total solids and other parameters. upper portion of the basin, although there are In almost all cases the concentration of phosphorus localized reaches of substandard water quality re- and nitrates is sufficient to support algal growth ceiving effluent of municipal primary treatment which, under certain conditions, could interfere plants and/or industrial discharges. In the southern with water uses. portion of the basin, the Saginaw River has suf- fered from poor water quality in recent years, The following stream segments are reported by partly because of inflows carrying sizeable waste the States to have priority for correction of water loads of chlorides and nutrients. quality deficiencies: The Saginaw River discharges considerable (1) River Basin Group 3. 1-none reported quantities of nutrients from industrial, municipal, (2) River Basin Group 3.2 174 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-115 Municipal and Industrial Waste- Provincial government of Ontario, are conducting water Flows, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 several programs on the Lake. Management mea- mgd sures under way include sea lamprey control, PSA State Municipal Industrial stocking of hatchery-reared salmon, habitat im- provement and maintenance, regulation of fishing, 3.1 Michigan 5.0 12.3 and research. The sea lamprey control in the 3.2 Michigan 80.0 453.0 United States waters of Lake Huron is presently TOTAL --- 85.0 465.3 being carried out by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife under contract with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. (a) Flint River-Flint to Genesee County- About 129,600 boats were registered in 1968 for Saginaw County line the Lake Huron region. While there are 23 boat (b) Shiawassee River-Linden to Genesee harbors on the Lake Huron shoreline, the use of the County-Shiawassee County line Great Lakes waters is limited by the lack of suit- (e) Shiawassee River-Owosso to ten miles able mooring places (Table 1-117). There are few downstream mooring spaces available,in the northern part of the (d) Tittabawassee River-Midland to Mid- basin. land County-Bay County line. Water resources management, protection, and Because of the variance in treatment or lack of facility development to increase the resource base treatment for point sources of wastewater, and are needed. In order to utilize the existing inland complexities involved with nonpoint sources, a sum- water base at the projected usage by the year 2000, mary of the exact status of wastewater treatment it will be necessary to almost double the number of cannot be made. Table 1-115 shows the 1970 mu- boating access sites. The extensive Great Lakes nicipal and industrial wastewater flows for the waters are more than adequate to accommodate the planning subarea. existing and projected boating use. However, ad- The management objective of the State of Mich- ditional harbors would greatly enhance the safety igan for Lake Huron is to manage the waters in of this area for Great Lakes boaters and provide such a way as to achieve the maximum develop- additional sheltered mooring waters at which to ment of both sport and commercial fisheries. Sport base a significant portion of the projected new fishery use in the Lake Huron plan area in 1970 is recreational craft ownership. shown in Table 1-116. To achieve this goal, the There are four Federal and five private commer- State and Federal governments, as well as the cial harbors on Lake Huron. Total traffic handled TABLE 1-116 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 Ponded Waters Fishing Licenses Angler Days PSA State (acres) Resident Non-Resident (1000) 3.1 Michigan 138,777 59,740 14,443 3,800 3.2 Michigan 29,575 106,606 3,466 2,343 TOTAL --- 168,352 166,346 17,909 6,143 TABLE 1-117 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1969 Lake Huron Access Total No. Total Boat Days PSA State Harbors Sitesi of Boats in Use 3.1 Michigan 16 146 49,800 1,431,000 3.2 Michigan 7 67 79,800 2,361,000 TOTAL --- 23 213 129,600 3,792,000 1May include both inland lakes and streams Lake Huron Basin 175 TABLE 1-118 Agricultural Land Treatment TABLE 1-119 Drainage Limitations in the Needs, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1970 (thousands Lake Huron Plan Area (thousands of acres) of acres) Total Agricultural Drainage Problems Pasture Other PSA Land Area Land Severe Some PSA Cropland Land Land Total 3.1 4,017.8 696 85 59 3.1 267.5 130.1 38.0 435.6 3.2 4,424.1 2,555 387 339 3.2 1,390.3 154.4 70.9 1,615.6 TOTAL 8,441.9 3,251 472 398 TOTAL 1,657.8 284.5 108.9 2,051.2 the total land area with drainage problems in the (shipments and receipts) is about 32 million tons per Great Lakes Basin as a whole. The basin ranks year. fourth of the five Great Lakes basins in this respect. Some drainage improvement measures have been installed, but indications are that about 8.1.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems 572,300 acres of cropland provide opportunity for drainage improvement either because drainage fa- In a number of respects including land-use pat- cilities have not beeninstalled or because they have terns, land-use problems, and population concen- not been maintained and are not adequate to trations, the Lake Huron study area may be di- provide the drainage needed. vided into northern and southern parts that Drainage limitations not only affect agricultural approximate the division between the River Basin production potential, but also may place limitations Groups 3.1 and 3.2. The situation in the Upper on urban growth. In the Saginaw-Bay City SMSA, Peninsula portion of RBG 3.1 is similar to that in which has a total nonurban base of about 711,800 the Lower Peninsula portion, but when specific acres, dry soils without wetness problems are data on land are given, they are for PSA 3. 1, which scarce, estimated at only about 40,000 acres. The is in the Lower Peninsula only. As indicated ear- wet soils will need internal and supplemental lier, Planning Subarea 3.1 is sparsely populated and drainage in order to be developed for urban pur- supports limited manufacturing or industrial devel- poses. opment. The region is heavily forested, with over Portions of two national forests are located 4.1 million acres of national, State, county, and within the Lake Huron basin boundaries. These are private land under tree cover. In contrast, Plan- the Hiawatha National Forest, which has a very ning Subarea 3.2 sustains a highly diversified man- insignificant amount of acreage in the basin, al- ufacturing, trades, and services economy in the though none of it lies within the plan area; and the major cities of Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, and Mid- Huron National Forest, which has over 2,400,000 land, while its fertile soils support some of Michi- acres in the basin. Of the total forest land, gan's best farm production. 4,072,000 acres are considered commercial. In Subsection 8.1.4 is was pointed out that Conservation and treatment, which consists of probblems in land use, particularly in the shoreline reforestation, forest land improvement, controlled areas, are increasing because of the influx of grazing erosion control, improved harvesting tech- seasonal residents, speculative land developers, niques,urban forestry, and multiple land-use man- and mining activities. This situation points to the agement, is presently considered to be adequate on need for a land use policy, implemented with about 1,650,000 acres of the total forest land in the controls such as zoning. Particularly with respect to Lake Huron basin, excluding the national forest problems which may develop from mining activi- and other Federal lands. Forest land treatment ties, it is important to recognize the importance of practices are also extensive on these Federal lands, mineral deposits and to insure that these deposits but no estimate is available of the area which is are extracted in a manner consistent with a general adequately treated. land use policy that protects the adjacent areas. Table 1-40 shows ownership and use of Lake Conservation treatment measures applied to ag- Huron shorelands; Table 1-120 gives information ricultural land in the Lake Huron plan area have on Lake Huron shoreland conditions. Although the been accomplished with the assistance of the Soil shorelines are protected from westerly winds and Conservation Service of the Department of Agri- are relatively free of areas of critical erosion, the culture, but a continuing program is needed (see amounts of erosion have increased markedly due to Table 1-118). high water and severe winds in some areas over the Approximately 870,000 acres of agricultural land last several years. Under 1973 conditions there are in the Lake Huron basin have a drainage problem estimated to be over 100 miles of high risk erosion (Table 1-119). This represents about 11 percent of shoreline. 176 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-120 Lake Huron Shoreline Conditions, 1970 (in miles) Total Subject to Erosion Subject No RBG state Shoreline Critical Noncritical Protected to Flooding Problem 3.1 Michigan 361.0 7.8 62.9 0 7.2 283.1 3.2 Michigan 204.0 0.2 91.5 0 67.7 44.6 TOTAL --- 565.0 8.0 154.4 0 74.9 327.7 TABLE 1-121 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Huron Basin, 1970 Bank Miles of Damage Annual Damages PSA State Severe Moderate Land Loss Sedimentation Other Total 3.1 Michigan 229 413 26,700 13,300 22,700 62,700 3.2 Michigan 397 670 43,400 14,400 21,700 79,500 TOTAL --- 626 1,083 70,100 27,700 44,400 142,200 TABLE 1-122 Estimated Flood Damage, Lake In the State of Michigan local authorities have Huron Basin, 1970 the responsibility for defining the flood plain and [email protected] Average Estimated Acres A .1 @a..ges ($) in Flood Plain specifying or establishing its limits, but few, if any, RBG State Urban Rural Urban Rural communities within the basin have effective land- 3.1 Michigan 29,600 214,100 733 39,315 use regulations for proper flood plain development. 3.2 Michigan 591,900 892,600 7,441 254,126 Some Statewide regulations on a broad basis fill in TOTAL 621,500 1,106,700 8,174 293,441 the gaps left by the local governments. Michigan Act 288 (Public Acts of 1967) of August 1, 1967, Streambank erosion in the Lake Huron region is contains provisions to regulate the subdivision of widespread, with 1,709 miles of streambank sub- land and to control residential building' develop- ject to erosion (Table 1-121). The erosion is clas- ment within the flood plain areas. Michigan Act 245 sified as slight, moderate, or severe in damage. of .1929, amended by Act 167 (Public Acts of 1968) The annual damages resulting from all stream- of June 17, 1968, provides the Michigan Water bank erosion include those from land loss, sedi- Resources Commission with the power to imple- mentation, loss of reservoir capacity, sediment ment the portion of the Act dealing with flood plain damages to crops and cropland, and damages lands and to make regulations and orders for the to culverts, bridges, and other facilities. Damages prevention of harmful interference with the dis- also occur as a result of the raw bank cuts that charge and stage characteristics of streams. deface the natural beauty of the streams. This Most of the land in Lake Huron basin is consid- affects aesthetic values for canoeists and others. No ered wildlife habitat and much of this is huntable economic value has yet been placed upon this aes- land. Most of the habitat is used by both hunters thetic aspect. and nonhunters. For the purposes of planning, the The overall contribution of sediment from nonconsumptive users were estimated to equal the streambank erosion is a minor part of the total consumptive users in numbers. About 14,000 acres sediment resulting from all types of erosion in the are considered to be areas of ecological significance basin. Erosion plays an important present and fu- in the Lake Huron basin. These include natural ture role in degrading water quality. The effects on areas, beaches, dunes, harbors, and bays, shoals water quality are particularly noticeable in devel- and marshes used for resting, nesting, and feeding. oping urban areas. Urban development leads to The Lake Huron basin is one of the most important increased runoff because the house tops, parking basins in the Region for the production of water- lots, streets, and other hard surfaces do not allow fowl. Many of the streams and marshes are fre- water to soak in. quented by mallard, black, and teal ducks. Michi- There are no major flood control projects within gan's inland Thumb area also provides excellent the Lake Huron basin. Protection measures in- nesting habitat for sizeable populations of water- cluding channel diversion, channel improvement, fowl including the Canada goose, and further in- levees and floodwalls, land treatment measures, land, the Saginaw area provides prime breeding and institutional measures have been installed in and nesting habitat for various species of water- nine areas. Table 1-122 estimates flood damage in fowl. Particularly valuable are the Shiawassee the Lake Huron basin in 1970. State Game Area and the Shiawassee National Lake Huron Basin 177 TABLE 1-123 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Huron Plan Area, 1960 TotaI Land Area Farm Habitat Forest Habitat Total Habitat PSA State (acres) Acres % of Total Land Acres % of Total Land (acres) 3.1 Michigan 4,017,800 762,000 19 3,023,000 75 3,785,000 3.2 Michigan 4,424,100 2,849,000 64 1,056,000 24 3,905,OoO TOTAL --- 8,441,900 3,611,000 43 4,079,000 48 7,690,000 NOTE: The area of the land resource base, made up of the farmland and forest land, and reported elsewhere, is based on 1966-1967 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. 4 VICINITY MAP 0 N T A R 1 0 a ID % 90 3.1 L A, K E MICHIGAN H U R 0 N Migration and orwintering IL Nesting and migration FIGURE 1-34 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 3 178 Appendix 1 Game Area. Many other nesting areas are found in potential for recreational development because of both Lapeer County and in the Grand Blanc area in close proximity to large population concentrations. Genesee County. The Lake Huron region has many of the same Table 1-123 shows the acreage of farm and forest problems which occur throughout the Great Lakes game habitat by planning subareas in 1960. Figure area with respect to outdoor recreation, but the 1-34 indicates primary waterfowl use areas along region itself is so diverse that problems range the shorelines and in the wetland regions. widely in nature. In the northern part, where there In an inventory of outstanding, unusual, and are considerable forest, lake, and river resources, significant aesthetic and cultural values in the Lake the economic situation is depressed, and there has Huron basin, 229 items in 22 categories were re- not been adequate development of the resources by corded. Environmental systems of the Lake Huron the private sector for public use. In addition, the basin which need planning attention most critically highway system expedites travel north and south, are linkage corridors, resource clusters, buffer but there are not enough feeder roads into the zones, and shore zones, as described in Appendix recreation areas. Recreational development is like- 22, Aesthetic and Cultural Resources. The pro- ly to increase at a rapid rate because of the influx of jected increase in urban development through the persons from the more crowded southern areas in year 2020 makes prompt planning attention urgent the Lake Huron basin and the adjacent Lake Erie to both planning subareas in this basin-particu- basin (particularly Detroit and environs), who will larly PSA 3.2. make use of the facilities of the northern part of the The resource base in the Lake Huron basin has Lake Huron region. many pleasing aspects that relate to outdoor recre- The southern part of the Lake Huron region, on ation. Included are more than 400,000 acres of the other hand, has a very small area of land and national forests, nearly 1.2 million acres of State water devoted to recreation, with an average of forest lands, many inland lakes, Lake Huron only 10.3 acres of all types of recreational land beaches, and the rivers. In the northern half of the available per thousand people. This compares un- basin, features include extensive forests, many favorably with a recommended average of 10 acres lakes and streams, the last area of undeveloped of urban recreational areas, 15 acres of extra urban Lake Huron shoreline, and a topography and cli- open space, and 65 acres of large parks, forests, mate conducive to winter sports. and other open spaces per 1,000 people. It is un- In the southern half of the basin, river valleys or likely that this standard can be met, and the pres- forests in the north and glacial moraines in the ent movement of population to the north for recre- south support heavy recreational activities. Al- ation purposes is likely to continue and to be though not as aesthetically attractive as those in accentuated. the northern half, these rivers have exceptional Table 1-124 indicates the land and water surface currently available for recreation in the Lake Huron basin in 1970. Table 1-125 provides infor- TABLE 1-124 Land and Water Surface Usable mation on amount, ownership, and recreational po- for Recreation in the Lake Huron Plan Area, tential of Great Lakes beaches in the plan area. 1970 (thousands of acres) Lake Inland 8.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 3.1 PSA Land Huron Lakes Total 3.1 1,691.0 178.0 111.0 1,980.0 8.2.1 Summary 3.2 11.3 137.0 24.0 172.3 TOTAL 1,702.3 315.0 135.0 2,152.3 Nearly three-fourths of the land area in RBG 3.1 TABLE 1-125 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Huron Plan Area (acres) Publicly Owned Beaches Privately Owned Beaches Usable Open to Public Not Open to Public Open to Not With Without Potential for Little/No PSA Public Restricted Usable Charge Charge Development Potential Total 3.1 83.4 0 0 0 23.5 46.6 357.8 511.3 3.2 43.6 0 13.1 0 0 0 157.2 213.9 TOTAL 127.0 0 13.1 0 23.5 46.6 515.0 .725.2 % 17.5 0 1.8 0 3.3 6.4 71.0 Lake Huron Basin 179 is forested and provides for some forest resource- to 1,000 feet above sea level. In the northwestern oriented industry. The same is true of the mineral portion of the basin an exception to this general resource and its related industry. Agricultural em- condition occurs where hilly, sandy, morainal ployment is declining and trades and services are uplands predominate and elevations reach nearly increasing. 1,400 feet. The oldest bedrock formations stretch River Basin Group 3.1 is part of the high-quality across the northern one-third of the region. Lime- recreation area of Michigan, and an increasing part stone outcrops occur in Alpena, Cheboygan, Chip- of the economy is related to this use of resources. pewa, and Presque Isle Counties. A wide band of Summer and winter recreation demands are met by undifferentiated bedrock composed of blue-gray a great diversity of recreational facilities. The fu- limestone and calcareous shale lies across Cheboy- ture of outdoor recreation in this river basin group gan and Presque Isle Counties. Shale formations is very bright. outcrop in Alpena, Presque Isle, Cheboygan Coun- The availability of water has not been a con- ties. The Michigan formation, composed of shale, straint to any development for which other factors sandstone, beds of gypsum, and some dolomitic were favorable. However, the presently developed limestone, outcrops in losco and Ogemaw Counties. quantities of water are not adequate to meet all the The area experiences a humid continental climate needs projected for the future. Water quality is with frequent and sometimes rapid weather generally good, although there are localized changes caused by storms sweeping across the reaches of substandard water quality. These sub- Great Lakes Region from the west and the south- standard reaches receive the effluent of primary west. The northern part of the area is cooler than treatment plants or industrial discharges, seepage the southern part. Cool breezes from Lake Huron from septic tanks, the discharge of raw sewage into serve to make the shoreline attractive for summer streams, and the naturally heavy silt load carried vacationists. Seasonal temperature variations can by some streams. During the navigation season the be extreme across the area. Mean annual precipi- St. Marys River is degraded by vessel traffic, which tation ranges from 26 to 30 inches, with an average has a tendency to concentrate the waste in the river around 28 inches. Droughts occur occasionally but because of the pumping of bilges and ballast or the are not usually of long duration. Snowfall depths discharging of sewage while in the river area. reach from 50 to 120 inches, increasing from Water quality standards include secondary treat- southeast to northwest across the area. Mean an- ment as a minimum for all municipal wastes and an nual growing seasons vary from nearly 130 days equivalent treatment for all industrial wastes. In along the shoreline and in the southern counties to addition, a minimum of 80 percent phosphorus re- less than 90 days in the interior uplands. A cool, moval is required. Advanced waste treatment is comfortable summer climate and abundant winter required in certain stream sectors and effluent snowfall make the area attractive for year-round disinfectant is necessary, particularly where re- recreation activities. creational use of the receiving water is prevalent or The soil is formed chiefly from glacial deposits, desired. and its composition varies from predominantly sand The framework developed under the normal in the northern and western portions to mainly clay growth projections for this river basin group pro- land and swampy areas in parts of Ogemaw, losco, vides for water supplies for all uses to meet the Alcona, Alpena, and Montmorency Counties, and to needs of a balanced development and for correcting more stony lands in Alpena, Presque Isle, and conditions which have degraded water quality. Cheboygan Counties. Characteristically, there is a NOR provides for increased recreational oppor- layer of acid organic matter on the surface, un- tunities, expansion of commercial navigation and derlain by a gray leached layer from which iron and recreational boating, enhancement of fish and aluminum have been removed. Typically the sub- wildlife habitat, alleviation of flood damages, land soils are low in lime content and fertility. treatment and drainage, shoreline protection. This planning subarea ranks last in population Section 12 contains Table 1-274 which shows among the 15 planning subareas in the Great Lakes needs, outputs, and percent of needs met under the Basin. The rate of growth from 1940 to 1970 was Normal Framework; Tables 1-275 and 1-276 show well below the Great Lakes Basin average. losco capital costs and operation, maintenance, and re- County grew from 16,500 to 24,900 between 1960 placement costs. and 1970, but Presque Isle County declined slightly during the decade. Since 1940, employment has increased less rapidly than in other areas of the 8.2.2 The Area Great Lakes Basin. It is expected to increase at a slightly faster rate than population. Total personal The area is characterized by rather flat to rolling income is expected to increase a little faster than terrain with elevations ranging from about 600 feet the expected Basin and national average annual 180 Appendix 1 rate of 4 percent. The per capita income should Lower Peninsula of Michigan pose no limitation to continue at about 70 percent of the national the development of outdoor recreation in River average. Only 26 percent of the people in Planning Basin Group 3.1. Subarea 3.1 were classified as urban in 1970, but a Figure 1-35 shows the areal extent of River higher degree of urbanization can be anticipated. Basin Group 3.1 and the planning subarea. See also Additional population and economic data are pro- Section 1. vided in Subsection 8.1.1 and Section 1. About 3 million acres of PSA 3.1 are forest land. More than 400,000 acres are in national forests, 8.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems 879,900 acres are in State-owned forest land, and the balance is in holdings of other public agencies, The projected needs for resource use by time the forest industry, and farmer-private ownership. periods are shown in Section 12 on Table 1-274. The latter accounts for about one and a half million acres or about 50 percent of the total forested area. The area in the Lower Peninsula is well endowed 8.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals with inland lakes and shorelines. Shoreline length along the inland lakes is about 1,065 miles. This, The needs within the water withdrawals cate- added to the 263.3 miles of Lake Huron shoreline in gory have been developed along, conventional lines, PSA 3.1, results in a total shoreline of 1,225 miles and even though the needs are expected to more in the planning subarea. Approximately 87 percent than double from 1970 to 2020, the only problems of the total shoreline is privately owned, with 879 that have been identified are that presently devel- miles of inland lake shoreline, and 185 miles of Lake oped quantities of water are not adequate to meet Huron shoreline in private ownership. all of the needs projected for the future. In many The Lake Huron shoreline of the RBG is 361.0 cases there is an opportunity for choice among miles and 91.2 miles of St. Marys River shore also water sources to meet a particular need. The main lies within the RBG. sources of additional development of water will be While the river basin group is not considered a the inland lakes and streams and ground water, manufacturing region in the State, this activity is witfi only municipal water and self-supplied indus- locally significant. Tfie forest resources provide trial water drawing on the Great Lakes as a source material for the production of paper, cardboard, of their supply. The major requirements will come plywood, and other wood products, and pleasure after the year 2000 for self-supplied industrial boats, shoes, and miscellaneous metal products are water and for mining water supplies. There is no also produced. The coastal counties along Lake projected need for cooling water for power gener- Huron furnish limestone, cement, wood products, ation in the river basin group. fish, and machinery. Distance from centers of population tends to restrict industrial development to that which is 8.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses directly related to the nearby forest and mineral resources, and to manufacture of high value or low The existing water quality situation was dis- bulk products. cussed in Subsection 8.1.4. Water quality standards Trades and services play an important role in the include secondary treatment as a minimum for all economy. Few major trade centers exist in this municipal waste and an equivalent treatment level largely rural area. Services such as hotel accom- for all industrial wastes. In addition, a mininium of modations, tourist camps, laundry services, and 80 percent phosphorus removal is required. amusements have expanded to meet the increasing Problems of fish habitat in this river basin group tourist trade. are related to the rapid development of recreational The resources of the planning subarea lend properties, which has caused considerable damage themselves directly to recreation. Summer and to both lakes and streams. Dredging and filling winter recreation demands are met by a great have reduced the available spawning areas in some diversity of facilities. Summer and fall activities of the inland lakes. Septic tank runoff from heavy include boating, water skiing, swimming, fishing, cottage development has speeded up the process of picnicking, camping, hunting, and other recrea- eutrophication in some of the inland lakes. Intense tional activities. In the winter, snow skiing and strearnside cottage development has destroyed snowrnobiling are probably the most popular activ- some of the aesthetic and cultural attractions on ities. Other important winter activities include ice many of the streams. The construction of low head fishing, sledding, tobogganing, ice boating, and ice dams on trout feeder streams has elevated the skating. temperatures beyond the limits where trout will The abundant water resources of the northern survive. Some of the larger inland lakes of the river Lake Huron Basin 181 VICINITY MAP SCALE tN@MILES 0 Im Pine RiVa, ST.MARYS CHIPPEWA WA MACKINAC LIS CHENEAU to Carp DRUMMOND ISLAND St. nace Mmc@kinac island Strait, 0 inac is Blanc Island C eboygan Black Burttak Mullet Lake L k Rogers City \ 0 Le 0'. RES E ISLE 0 CHI@BOGAN --G.nd Lake PREsQuEl E CHEBOYG@N 1@ -7----- - --- - 4 Lo ek. X- s Alpena TH NNR BAY Thunder Say OTSEG MON 0 FNCY C ALP NA\ H.@Jb-d Lake Au Sable ALCONA Grayling U SABLE 0 R D OSCODA IOSCO OSL.d. Av 0, Tawas City a E t Tawas RIFLE U GR@ES Is F I OGEMJkW I'-.".- RIVER BASIN GROUP ARENAC Rine Rii,', PLANNING SUBAREA SAGINAW BAY IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 1-35 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1 182 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-126 Use and Projected Needs for especially true for the limestone trade, which must Recreational Boating, PSA 3.1 depend on return shipments of coal to enable ves- 1000 Boating Days sels to be operated economically. Improvements to Great Lakes Inland accommodate supercarriers are not expected in the Category Waters Waters near future for the limestone and the coal trade but may become a reality later, depending upon the 1970 Use 384 1,047 market conditions. 1980 Needs 384 108 2000 Needs 516 276 8.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems 2020 Needs 657 438 Agricultural land treatment needs are based on criteria which provide for the proper use and basin group are deep enough to support trout as treatment of the land for sustained 'agricultural well as warmwater fisheries. Many of the smaller production within the inherent capability of the lakes are managed exclusively for trout through soil. Estimates of land treatment needs emphasize periodic chemical treatment and annual mainte- physical needs and were developed independently nance plantings. Anadromous runs are limited in of the economic model used to determine the pro- the rivers due to the location of hydroelectric dams jected crop acreage and crop production require- and the lack of adequate sea lamprey control in ments. Lake Huron. The few streams that do support runs Much of the northern and eastern portions of of steelhead and salmon are very important to the River Basin Group 3.1 are subject to severe drain- species composition of the area. There is need for age restrictions, and production is reduced or lim- fish passage improvement around the hydroelectric ited by excess water in the soil profile. Drainage dams, fish production through hatcheries, fish pop- measures have both beneficial and adverse effects, ulation control, additional fishing access, and habi- and the implementation of them depends on the tat improvement and protection. alternative possible uses of the lands having a The relatively highboating participation factor wetness problem. In addition to the need for of 12 boats per 100 population is primarily due to drainage on the agricultural land, some drainage the many inland lakes located within a reasonable will be necessary before urban expansion can occur proximity of the area's rather sparse population. on presently nonurban land. Although some of the lakes in this area receive Most of the public and industry-owned forest intensive use, the area's water base is generally lands are under some degree of management; how- underutilized for recreational boating. This river ever, much of the private. forest land is either basin group can absorb a transfer of about 4.5 unmanaged or inadequately managed. One of the million boat days from other areas, thus avoiding greatest existing forest land problems is how to the need and related expense of increasing the secure good management on this private land. An- water base of these nearby areas. However, it will other management problem that must be consid- be necessary to provide more uniformly dispersed ered is how to secure good management, protec- access to the existing water base in order to pre- tion, and establishment of trees and shrubs in areas clude any local or isolated instances of undesirable surrounding urban built-up areas. intensive use. Recreational boating on the Great Shoreline erosion is not a serious problem in the Lakes is generally limited to the small areas off- river basin group. Of the 361 miles of Lake Huron shore at harbors, locations at which small craft are shoreline, about 63 miles are subject to noncritical based, and locations contiguous to sheltered erosion, and about 8 miles, from Au Sable Point waters. Additional harbors and mooring facilities southward to just north of Tawas Point State Park, are necessary to enhance the enjoyment and safety are subject to critical erosion. The remainder of the of recreational boating on Lake Huron. Table 1-126 Lake Huron shoreline is made up either of stones shows recreational boating use in PSA 3.1 and and boulders or sand beaches. occasionally inter- projects future needs. rupted by marshes. Storms over the Great Lakes Commercial navigation will be influenced by the generally move east, so the western Lake Huron overall treatment of this resource use throughout beaches (the lee shore) are protected from damage. the Great Lakes Basin. Much of the area's popula- Streambank erosion does present some problems tion is supported by industries producing or utiliz- but losses are relatively small. Data are provided in ing large quantities of bulk commodities, and the Table 1-121. The major problem in alleviating economy of the area is highly dependent upon effi- streambank erosion is that the eroded areas are cient, low-cost transportation systems. This is scattered and expensive to treat, and there is need Lake Huron Basin 183 for further study of methods and effectiveness of The estimated amount of land which has been de- treatment. veloped to meet the recreational demands for the Flooding in the area may occur at any time, but first two time frames does not indicate additional the major floods are the result of rain and/or snow needs. melt on frozen ground or nearly saturated ground, intense summer storms, or overbank flooding caused by ice jams. The greatest flood damage 8.2.4 Alternative Frameworks occurs in the rural areas. The flood problems of the urban areas are the result of constricted reaches of Two alternative frameworks are presented for the rivers, inadequate channel capacity, encroach- this as for other river basin groups. The Normal ment on the natural flood plain, or a combination of Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- these causes. tions to meet needs outside RBG 3.1 in the Lake The principal problem relating to wildlife is one basin or the Great Lakes Basin. of declining value of wildlife habitat rather than The Proposed Framework contains the recom- loss of habitat. Deer and other forest game are mendations of the Commission in an effort to re- decreasing in many of the areas. The decline of rare flect the views of the people of the basin and the and endangered species is a problem that in some policies and programs of the States. To some ex- cases is very difficult to remedy, because the rea- tent, it reflects coordination in the development of sons for the decline of these animals and birds and the Framework among a number of river basin how they are affected by habitat loss or overhar- groups, both in the Lake basin and in the Great vest are often not generally understood or agreed Lakes as a whole. upon. Shrinking hunter access to wildlife land is a related problem, and occurs throughout the Great Lakes Basin except in the northernmost planning 8.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) subareas where public land is adequate. This is a serious problem because wildlife habitat is ex- NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and pected to decrease while gross hunter demand is solving identified problems to the maximum prac- expected to increase. ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and The area contains a wealth of diverse and often criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The unique aesthetic and cultural resources. The major program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- problem is the need to preserve the outstanding tion 12 in Tables 1-274 to 1-276. values of these resources, which include beaches (1) Water Withdrawals and wetlands, unique glacial formations, wildlife There is adequate water to meet the water with- areas, and sites and objects pertaining to early drawal needs for the three time frames. The de- Indian cultures and to exploration. Aesthetic and velopment of Lake Huron as a source is programed cultural aspects are interrelated with all other to supplement ground water to satisfy all of the functions in a water and related land resource needs for municipally supplied and self-supplied study. No specific alternative programs or pro- industrial water, with greater quantities program- jected requirements can be readily discerned. ed for the period after year 2000. Ground water is However, additional legislation may be needed to the source for all rural domestic and livestock expedite a program of acquisition and manage- needs, and withdrawals for mining and irrigation ment, and the private sector should be encouraged needs are supplied from inland lakes and streams to participate in the program for preservation and and ground water, with the larger amount being protection of these unique and significant areas. supplied from inland lakes and streams for irriga- The Planning Subarea 3.1 possesses many high tion use, including both agricultural and golf course quality recreational areas and supports a diversity irrigation. More than 50 percent of the supply for of popular recreational activities. The total annual mining would come from ground water. There are requirements for water-oriented outdoor recre- no needs in the river basin group for water for ation activities in 1970 were nearly 2 million recre- thermal power cooling. ation days. This is estimated to increase to more Land use changes and process modification in- than 6 million recreation days by 2020. Even cluding increased recirculation would have a con- though there are no standard metropolitan statisti- siderable impact on the water withdrawal needs. cal areas in River Basin Group 3. 1, there are some Programs are included in the Normal Framework needs to be met in the smaller urban areas. Also, to initiate research to bring about process modifi- there is a transfer of urban needs from cities just to cation and increased recirculation to reduce the the south of this river basin group. The swimming overall amount of water withdrawals. beach acreage in RBG 3.1 appears adequate to (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses meet present and future needs to the year 1980. NOR includes programs for both municipal and 184 Appendix 1 industrial wastewater discharge treatment to meet country. Nor is it expected that sediment reduction water quality standards prior to the 1972 Amend- and other environmentally beneficial effects from ments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. higher levels of agricultural land treatment would It also provides that there will be no degradation of justify a higher investment. Agricultural land water quality where existing water quality is at a treatment will be carried out by conventional higher level than that provided by the existing methods throughout the 50-year period. standards. In addition to the basic requirement of Drainage of cropland will improve the produc- secondary treatment and 80 percent phosphorus tivity of these lands and reduce the total land removal throughout the river basin group, there needed for food production. A properly managed are a number of locations within the river basin program can benefit agriculture, water quality, and group which will need advanced treatment by 1980 wildlife, reduce erosion, and reduce breeding and several more that will need advanced treat- places for mosquitoes or other insects. The drain- ment between 1980 and the year 2000. NOR in- age programs have been selected to include the cludes programs to provide the needed municipal on-farm drainage measures at the current rate of and industrial treatment facilities to handle the installation. quantities of waste which are indicated by the The forest land treatment program will control needs. erosion, provide wildlife habitat, and enhance en- Programs for agricultural waste treatment are vironmental values. NOR provides treatment at a not included, but the effects of fertilizers, pesti- faster rate than continuation of past trends or cides, and nutrients from agricultural and land ongoing programs would provide. The shoreland runoff require additional studies. erosion program in NOR would take care of the Needs are programed to be satisfied in all time critical problems. periods for water-oriented outdoor recreation, and The streambank erosion program for NOR would by year 2020 for recreational boating. provide treatment by 2020 of all of the streambank The fishery management programs included in mileage classified as subject to severe erosion. This the Normal Framework provide for land acquisi- is about 37 percent of the stream mileage subject to tion for fisherman access and habitat protection on some erosion. These measures would reduce the the inland water areas. This program, coupled with estimated damages by about 30 percent. Stream- increased future stocking from the new warmwater bank erosion is widespread, and effective protec- fishery hatcheries, is estimated to satisfy fisher- tive measures are very costly to install and main- man day needs. It should be emphasized that NOR tain. Consequently, none of the moderate at the present time does not have specific programs streambank erosion would be treated in NOR. in which to provide substantial opportunities for Both structural and nonstructural measures are new access facilities in the urbanized areas. Infor- included in NOR to alleviate flood damages. The mation on the potential and the corresponding costs structural programs are composed of storage, of additional fishery opportunity development in levees, floodwalls, and other protective works to these urbanized areas is not available. prevent those potential damages which remain Commercial fishing data are discussed in Section after the flood plain legislation is effective. Flood 5 and Subsection 8.4.3. plain legislation will be least effective in the early Commercial navigation needs, which are esti- years, reducing damages due to growth by about 10 mated to slightly double over the 50-year time percent between 1970 and 1980. It might be 40 span, have been programed to be met. Specific percent effective in the next period and about 75 investments in NOR for commercial navigation are percent effective by the year 2020. expenditures for construction and maintenance of NOR includes programs to provide additional Federal harbors at Cheboygan and Alpena. The opportunities above the 1970 levels for hunting or commercial navigation programs are discussed in simply observing wildlife. These programs include Section 5 and Subsection 8.4.1. Costs for private a continuation of the ongoing programs by the harbors at Calcite, Stoneport, Port Gypsum, and State agencies for acquisition and development, Bay Shore are not available. habitat management, law enforcement, and re- (3) Related Land Uses and Problems search. Additional programs that will be funded The programed agricultural land treatment is through the Michigan Department of Natural Re- essentially a continuation of the ongoing programs sources are being included in the Normal Frame- at a level that has been followed in the past. It is work. The programs selected under NOR fully not expected that a higher investment would result meet the user-day needs in all time periods, but do in substantially higher production levels of food and not fully meet acreage needs. fiber that could be marketed more efficiently from The Normal Framework for this- river basin this region than from some other region in the group envisions that outstanding, unusual, or sig- Lake Huron Basin 185 nificant aesthetic and cultural values will be ac- outdoor recreation, recreational boating, and sport quired in an early time period. Additional legisla- fishing. tion may be needed to expedite the program of It should be emphasized that neither NOR nor acquisition and management, and the private sector PRO at the present time has specific programs in should be encouraged to participate in the program which to provide substantial opportunities for new for the preservation and protection of these unique access facilities in the urbanized areas. and significant areas. To the extent technically feasible, economically Outdoor recreation programs for NOR satisfy all justified, and environmentally acceptable, PRO of the intensive and extensive development. The recommends the maintenance of efficient, low-cost, acquisition and development of the State and na- deep draft navigation, and the provisions of incre- tional forest lands, mileage along the Lake Huron mental improvements to the navigation system at shoreline, and two new regional parks, plus the the harbors at Cheboygan and Alpena. PRO also acquisition of land for scenic rivers, are expected to includes a recommendation for extension of the provide recreation in the latter time frame for the navigation season to increase the efficiency at Cal- Normal Framework. In addition to intensive rec- cite, Stoneport, Port Gypsum, and Bayshore. reational use, extensive recreational use is also These are private harbors and cost for improve- included as part of these programs. ment is not available. Adequate measures are to be (4) Framework Outputs and Costs provided for the containment of polluted dredge Section 12 contains Tables 1-274, 1-275, and spoil. 1-276 which provide information on needs, outputs, (3) Related Land Uses and Problems and percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R PRO includes the recommendation that addi- costs. tional studies be made at the State 'level leading to the development and adoption of a comprehensive land use policy for the Great Lakes Region. Such 8.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) studies are being initiated by the State of Michigan at the present time. These studies would enable PRO was formulated in response to reactions to land use decisions to be based on adequate infor- the Normal Framework by the public as well as by mation about suitable uses for the physical land State and regional officials. State, regional, and base. This would result in improved land use poli- local policies with respect to population and eco- cies and would permit water resources planning to nomic growth do not deviate greatly from those of complement land use objectives. the OBERS projections used in NOR. PRO recommends more extensive programs than (1) Water Withdrawals NOR for agricultural land treatment, so that all PRO supports development and programing to agricultural land treatment needs exclusive of satisfy the water withdrawal needs in essentially drainage will be met by the year 2020. This alter- the'same manner as outlined in NOR. In the middle native land treatment program emphasizes en- and long-range period there will be a shift to meet vironmental gains and enhancement and preserva- some needs with sources from water courses rather tion of natural resources. than from inland lakes. All needs are met. There PRO recommends that only limited cropland are no needs in River Basin Group 3.1 for water for drainage be programed, since there is little need to thermal power cooling. There are no problems be- increase crop production in this region. lieved to be associated with the supplying of ade- PRO recommends forest land management and quate quantities of water for the various purposes. treatment programs which would satisfy about 60 (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses percent of the total needs by the year 2020. These PRO meets water quality standards of the 1972 are more extensive programs than those in NOR. Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Con- PRO suggests that a reassessment of shoreline trol Act, including those problems associated with erosion based on 1973 lake levels may indicate the overflow of storm sewers and sanitary waste additional mileage of critical reaches. There are 50 from existing combined sewers, programed to be miles of high-risk shoreline in 1973. PRO recom- abated by 1977. mends that all critical shoreline reaches be pro- PRO includes a recommendation for the study of gramed for protection before 1990. Shoreland the most efficient means of controlling agricultural management plans will be implemented for all wastes. Adequate attention must be given to the Great Lakes shores by 1980 so as to protect and treatment of nonpoint sources of agricultural preserve shoreland integrity and uniqueness. wastes if water quality is to be maintained at a high PRO programs for protection by 2020 of all level in this area. streambank miles subject to severe erosion. PRO is the same as the NOR for water-oriented PRO recommends that adequate sums of money 186 Appendix 1 be allocated to manage a nd control flood plain lands, 8.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 3.2 considering that the cost may be allocated to flood plain damage alleviation, outdoor recreation, and other uses of the flood plain. Flood insurance could 8.3.1 Summary provide still another supplement to the many pro- grams for reducing flood damage. In 1970 the population of Planning Subarea 3.2 PRO includes the concept that the States should was 1. 1 million, eighth among the 15 PSAs, and set time limits for local entities to manage and employment was 382,000 or just over 3 percent of develop policies, objectives, programs, and imple- the Basin total. Population and employment trends mentation techniques for flood plain regulations. If have paralleled those in the Great Lakes Basin the local entities do not meet the time limits, the since 1940. States should then manage and regulate the flood Because of its location and available natural re- plains according to State statutes. sources, three distinct areas of activity have de- PRO recommends the establishment of State- veloped in the river basin group: agricultural, approved local control ordinances directed toward forest-recreational, and urban-industrial. The agri- the control or treatment of runoff and reduction of cultural areas are on the extremely productive soils sediment on urban and rural lands. State-estab- of the Saginaw Valley; the recreation areas are in lished regulations would prevail, consistent with the forests, which provide scenic beauty and sparse Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments population in the proximity of the large urban of 1972, if local regulations are not implemented by centers; and the urban-industrial center results July 1, 1977. from location on the Great Lakes, the availability of PRO includes resource utilization that will meet land in close proximity to the Detroit-Chicago cor- all water-oriented outdoor recreation needs. It is ridor, which is being developed, and a multitude of assumed that approximately 60 percent of the other factors that are related to the growth of the outdoor recreation needs will be met with public area. funds (Federal, State and local), and it is further Water resources in this river basin group vary assumed that the remainder will be met either by widely. Depending on locality, water may be plen- private funding or not at all. The priorities for the tiful or scarce, clean or polluted, and an asset or a use of public funding will be: problem. The eastern boundary of the river basin (a) recreation developments, and acquisition group is formed by Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay. and restoration of unique and natural areas of In some areas flooding is a problem, but on the regional significance other hand, some industries, as well as residents, M developments on lands now publicly owned have trouble procuring enough water of a suitable (c) other developments. To the extent public quality for their needs. funds are available for investment in shorelands, The frameworks developed under the normal they may be used where feasible to assist growth projections for this river basin group pro- (i) in acquiring land so as to preserve and vide for water supplies for all uses to meet the protect its uniqueness needs of a balanced development, correcting condi- (ii) in clearing flood plains of damage-prone tions which have caused degraded water quality. uses, and making them available for recreation use. They provide for increased recreational opportuni- PRO emphasizes a need for specific criteria to ties, expansion of commercial navigation and re- insure that such recreational developments are creational boating, enhancement of fish and wildlife consistent with the maintenance of a high-quality habitat for improved conservation, alleviation of environment. flood damages, land treatment and drainage, and (4) Framework Outputs and Costs shoreline protection. Section 12 contains Tables 1-277, 1-278, and 1-279 Section 12 contains Table 1-280 which shows which provide information on needs, outputs, per- needs, outputs, and percent of needs met under the cent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs for Normal Framework; Tables 1-281 and 1-282 show PRO, indicating by italics where they differ from capital costs and operation, maintenance, and re- NOR. Table 1-334 compares land treatment pro- placement costs. grams. 8.3.2 The Area 8.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs Figure 1-36 shows the areal extent of River Table 1-349 in Section 12 lists the total costs Basin Group 3.2 and the corresponding planning (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the subarea. Statistical information is in Section 1. periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. River Basin Group 3.2 is located for the most Lake Huron Basin 187 S L A K E H U R 0 IN Port Austi Caseville CLARE job giver KAWKAWLIN THUMB GLADWIN S.- -2. ii@ Bad Axe Harbor Beach SAGINAW SAY RiVer HURON Chipp. -f! Midland le ount Pleasant J Ess xvi Bay C Ity ISABELLA MIDLAND It BAY 'Ca- St. Louis SAGINAW MITI Saginaw River Vassar .Ithaca ib Chesaning TUSCOLA SAGINAW III ount orns GRATIOT 'f- Flint Flushing Lapeer @OvvossO 0 Swartz Creek Durand GENESEE Fentg'A ..0", L7V -r- VICINITY MAP RIVER BASIN GROUP SCALE IN MILES o @o 1@@ PLANNING SUBAREA SCALE IN IL 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 1-36 Lake Huron South, River Basin Group 3.2 188 Appendix 1 part in what is known as the lakeless region of the mining employment will decline, while the service State of Michigan. This is especially true in coun- industries will employ a growing proportion of the ties close to Saginaw Bay and lower Lake Huron. total. The lakel'ess nature of the river basin group and the The trend toward increased urbanization is ex- flat, featureless, clay plains result from glacial pected to continue, in part reflecting the continuing lakes and the sediment deposited in them. reduction of agricultural employment. The Flint The river basin group has 204 miles of varied area is the second most densely populated area in shoreline along Lake Huron, including rock out- Michigan. The median age of the residents is 271/2 crops, sand and shingled beaches, marshes, and years. Median age in the Saginaw Bay area is even clay bluffs. These individual types of shoreline lower-26 years. provide wildlife habitat and opportunities for Although no figures are available to indicate various kinds of recreation. specifically the net migration into or within PSA The area is subject to the variety of weather 3.2, figures suggest that all counties experienced conditions associated with a humid continental cli- significant in-migration in recent years. The popu- mate. It lies in the pathway of storms that sweep lation and density figures should probably be raised across the Great Lakes Region from the west and somewhat for water resource planning purposes, to southwest. The climate is characterized by fre- account for a significant and grQwing number of quent and sometimes rapid weather changes, by seasonal residents not counted in the census data. exteme seasonal temperature variations and by a It has been estimated that seasonal residents may fairly even annual distribution of precipitation, increase the PSA's summer population by as much with the winter portion consisting mainly of snow. as 8,000 to 10,000 persons. Taking into account The mean annual temperature is nearly uniform short-term tourists, the peak seasonal total of do- over the area. The highest recorded temperature mestic and recreational water users in the PSA was 108 degrees Fahrenheit, and the lowest was may reach 1.2 million persons. -30 degrees Fahrenheit. The mean annual precipi- Planning Subarea 3.2 supports an active, di- tation is slightly less than 30 inches. Average an- verse, year-round sport fishery that is based pri- nual snowfall is about 40 inches, with the heaviest marily on warmwater species, although the north- snowfall occurring in January. The growing season ern part of the planning subarea contains varies across the basin from 120 days in the north significant amounts of trout water and trout fishing to about 148 days in the south. opportunities. Michigan's inland Thumb area also Over the past years, both acreage devoted to provides excellent nesting and breeding grounds farming and the number of farm employees have for a sizeable population of waterfowl, including been steadily declining, but production has been the Canada goose. The natural habitat is also sup- steadily increasing. This greater efficiency is the plemented by a significant number of farm ponds result of more mechanization and improved tech- which have been constructed recently near an ex- nology. While the agricultural industry in the plan- cellent supply of food from the local farms. Further ning subarea is a significant sector of the economy, inland, the Saginaw Bay area also provides prime it has little to offer in terms of providing additional breeding and nesting habitat for various species of jobs, because of the trend toward larger farms, waterfowl. Both the Thumb and bay areas are more mechanization, and increased efficiency. heavily used during migrations by- many species of Agriculture accounted for about 21/2 percent of the waterfowl. employment in 1970, a decline of 78 percent be- The excellent natural outdoor recreation re- tween 1940 and 1970. This decline was slightly sources in the planning subarea, its proximity to more rapid than that in the nation or in the Basin. the major population centers of Flint, Saginaw, and The industry in PSA 3.2 was dominated in 1970 Bay City, and its location relatively close to Detroit by manufacturing, which employed 156,000 all indicate an increasing demand for outdoor rec- workers and accounted for almost 41 percent of the reation. The continuous upswing in population, in- total employment. (Employment in manufacturing come, and leisure time also plays an important part was 25 percent in the nation and 35 percent in the in the growing use of these land and water re- entire Great Lakes Basin.) The leading employers sources for outdoor recreation. were the chemical, primary metal, automobile, and food industries.' Mining employment has been de- clining and losing significance in the basin economy. The increasing importance of the service indus- 8.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems tries is also evident in-this planning subarea. Even though employment in manufacturing will nearly The projected needs for resource use by time double by 2020, this is less than the proportional period are shown in Section 12 on Table 1-280. growth in the total employment. Agricultural and Where needs can be quantified, they are not dis- Lake Huron Basin 189 cussed in the text unless special conditions warrant of rough fish species is a problem. Pollution of the such a discussion. rivers and impoundments has discouraged many fishermen in this river basin group and caused them to seek their recreation in Saginaw Bay or further 8.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals north in the other areas of the Great Lakes Basin. However, recent improvements in water quality One of the problems in River Basin Group 3.2 in and the newly planned impoundment on Pine River connection with water withdrawals is that pres- offer hope for reestablishing valuable fishery spe- ently developed quantities of water are not ade- cies within the river basin group. There is need for quate to meet all of the needs projected for the fish production through fish hatcheries, fish popu- future. However, adequate sources of water are lation control, habitat improvement and protection, available, and no problem of quantity or quality has and improved access. deterred any development for which other factors Boating is a major recreational activity in RBG were favorable. 3.2. About 1,500 miles of main stream and tributary rivers are suitable for canoeing. The lower 20 miles of the Saginaw River have been improved for com- 8.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses mercial navigation, but they are also heavily used by small recreational craft. Substandard water quality is the most significant About two-thirds of the Great Lakes shoreline in aspect of nonwithdrawal water uses in RBG 3.2. In the RBG lies along Saginaw Bay. Four recreational recent years severe water quality problems have boat harbors have been constructed with Federal been experienced in the Saginaw River over vir- and State participation along the eastern shore of tually its entire length, in the Flint River in the the bay. The other one-third of the shoreline con- vicinity of the City of Flint, and in the lower sists of the more severe and less sheltered coasts of portion of the Cass River. Other areas of water Lake Huron. Only one Federally authorized and quality deterioration include the Shiawassee River funded harbor has been built on this hazardous from its mouth to Corunna, the Tittabawassee shore. This harbor, Harbor Beach, was built for River between Midland and its confluence with the lake carrier traffic but is also used by many small Saginaw River, and a number of minor streams, craft. The use of Great Lakes waters for recre 'a- including the Pinconning and the Kawkawlin tional boating is limited by the lack of adequate Rivers. These streams have smaller drainage areas mooring places and more suitable harbors. Most and are predominantly agricultural in -nature with boating activity occurs on Saginaw Bay and in a very little industrial activity. Poor water quality small area of about 16,000 acres offshore of the five results from storm water overflows, tributary harbors and centers for marina development lo- waste loads, and untreated or partly treated sew- cated on Lake Huron. Table 1-127 shows recrea- age discharge from outlying areas in the RBG. tional boating use in PSA 3.2 and projects future Major industrial activities in the river basin needs. A positive resource management program is group include chemical establishments, refineries, essential to protect and assure the existing water slaughterhouses, food processing operations, and resource base and to meet the projected needs. The numerous automotive manufacturing facilities. The features of such a program would include the reg- industrial concentrations are found along the Sa- ulation and management of boating activities to ginaw River between Bay City and Saginaw, in the achieve greater utilization of the water resources, Greater Flint area, in Midland, and in the Alma-St. resource management and protection, and facility Louis area. Since 1970 both industries and munici- palities have made significant progress toward up- grading the quality of the Saginaw River through TABLE 1-127 Use and Projected Needs for Re- compliance with discharge improvement require- creational Boating, PSA 3.2 ments. There are no projections for increased hydro- 1000 Boating Days electric power installations use. Great Lakes Inland Water pollution from industrial, municipal, and Category Waters Waters agricultural development in RBG 3.2 has dimin- ished the fishing quality in many of the major rivers 1970 Use 1,164 1,677 and impoundments, particularly around Flint, Sa- 1980 Needs 480 72 ginaw, Bay City, and Midland. Additional problems are serious erosion and siltation from both urban 2000 Needs 663 351 construction and agriculture. In addition, fish man- 2020 Needs 888 717 agement for valuable sport species and the removal 190 Appendix 1 development to increase opportunities to use the further study to determine the most economical resource base. way to protect against this problem. The principal commercial harbor in this river The four major streams in River Basin Group 3.2 basin group is the Saginaw River Harbor. Principal have watersheds of different size, shape, intensity receipts are limestone, coal, and general cargo. of precipitation, pattern of interior drainage, and General cargo is also exported. If the facilities at channel slope and corresponding flow patterns. The the two existing commercial harbors, Saginaw records show that damaging floods in Saginaw River Harbor and Harbor Beach, are maintained, basin nearly always occur in the spring of the year the projected tonnage increase could be handled by and most commonly in the last half of March or the these two harbors. Extension of the navigation early part of April. These floods may be general season should have high priority. throughout the river basin or local and limited to one or two tributaries, without serious rise in the other tributaries. The general floods in the Saginaw 8.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems River seem to recur with an average frequency of about once in six or seven years. On any given Agricultural land treatment needs are based on tributary, the frequency is more nearly once in criteria which provide for the proper use and every two or three years. In the Thumb complex, treatment of the land for sustained agricultural the region contains several small -rivers and production within the. inherent capabilities of the streams which drain the section of land outlined by soil. Treatment needs of cropland and other lands the shores of the Thumb and of the Lower Penin- are developed by considering primarily the conser- sula. This area is typical of lands draining into the vation of the soil resource in terms of soil loss southern portion of Lake Huron. Even though the tolerance. Conservation of the plant cover and the rivers and drainage areas are small, this region is soil resource is considered in determining treat- not without its flood problems. Flood damages were ment needs of pasture land and woodland. experienced in 1935, 1942, and 1948. The flood Slightly over 50 percent of the total land base in overflows in 1935 and 1948 were intensified by ice RBG 3.2 is subject to some drainage or flooding jams, and the flood of June 1948 was created by a problems. About 12 percent of the cropland is sub- severe rainstorm. However, other flooding has ject to severe drainage problems, and an additional been extremely local and has caused only minor 12 percent of the cropland is subject to some water damages to cropland in most cases. problems. In this river basin group the greatest flood dam- Present agricultural production is reduced or ages are projected to occur in the rural areas until limited by excess water in the soil profile. In the the latter part of the 50-year study period. The determination of treatment needs, the beneficial flood problems in the urban areas are the result of and adverse effects of drainage measures must be constricted reaches of river, inadequate channel weighed. The type of food or fiber to be produced capacity, encroachment on the natural flood plain, must be taken into account, and it is important to or a combination of these causes. consider possible alternative uses of land having Wildlife habitat in Planning Subarea 3.2 is di- wetness problems. verse. It includes northern forests, active and fal- In addition to the need for drainage on agricul- low farmland, and fine waterfowl marsh. Urban tural lands, soil conditions will require some drain- areas comprise a significant portion of the planning age on lands where urban expansion will occur. No subarea and have seriously degraded the wildlife quantification of this acreage is included in the habitat. Framework Study. Changes in forest succession are occurring here, Maintenance of forest cover is needed for water- but to a lesser degree than in other parts of the shed protection, continued timber production, rec- Basin. Loss and degradation of wetland habitat reation, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and a around Saginaw Bay are among the most critical combination of these values. A relatively small wildlife-oriented resource problems. Approxi- percentage of the land is devoted to forest land in mately 40,500 acres of fine marsh exist along the RBG 3.2, and securing good management for the shores of the bay, and the area is a nationally privately owned forests is a problem. known waterfowl concentration area. Construction Of the 204 miles of shoreline in River Basin of small-boat channels, docks, and other marine Group 3.2, only about 0.2 miles of shoreline near facilities in the marsh area brings about distur- Port Sanilac is subject to critical erosion, and about bances which adversely affect the wildlife resource. 91 miles are subject to noncritical erosion. Shrinking hunter access to wildlife lands is another Major problems connected with streambank ero- major problem and is of particular interest to this sion are that the miles subject to erosion are scat- area where there are limited acreages of public land tered and expensive to treat. There is a need for that are adequate for hunting or observing wildlife. Lake Huron Basin 191 This problem is particularly serious because gross RBG 3.2 in the Lake basin or the Great Lakes hunter demand is expected to increase while wild- Basin. life habitat is expected to decrease. The second alternative, the Proposed Frame- While specific needs and opportunities are not work, contains the recommendations of the Com- identified, there are a number of resource types mission in an effort to reflect the views of the listed in Appendix 22, Aesthetic and Cultural Re- people of the basin, and the policies and programs sources, that need to be considered. Some of these of the States. To some extent, it reflects coordina- concern the establishment of corridors and buffer tion in the development of the framework among a zones around and between population centers and number of river basin groups, both in the Lake along shorelines and streams. Others relate to the basin and in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. acquisition and preservation of specific natural and cultural features. The major problem is the need to preserve the outstanding value of these resources. 8.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) These cultural and aesthetic resources are well distributed throughout the planning subarea. No NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and specific alternative programs or projected require- solving identified problems to the maximum prac- ment can be readily discerned. However, additional ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and legislation may be needed to expedite a program of criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The acquisition and management, and the private sector program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- should be encouraged to participate in the program tion 12 in Tables 1-280, 1-281, 1-282. for the preservation and protection of these unique (1) Water Withdrawals and significant areas. A number of these areas need There is adequate water to meet the needs for to be identified at an early date, and proper steps municipal water for all three time frames if addi- must be taken for their preservation. tional sources are developed from Lake Huron. The requirement for water-oriented outdoor NOR envisions that most of the water will come recreation was nearly 3 million recreation days in from Lake Huron, with a supplemental supply from 1970 and is estimated to increase to more than 20 ground water. Shortly after 1970, a withdrawal million recreation days by the year 2020. from Lake Huron for the Detroit metropolitan area The land available for recreation in this planning began operation. Some of this water is sold for use subarea is rather limited. The forested northern in RBG 3.2. Only this portion of the water is section of the PSA lends itself well to camping and considered in this section. That used in RBG 4.1 is hunting and other recreational activities that de- considered in Section 9. The self-supplied industrial pend upon the natural environment. The greatest water will largely come from the Great Lakes and current need is for the development of facilities from inland lakes and streams, with a small quan- usually associated with the urban areas. There is a tity coming from ground water. Rural water will be shortage of trail development. The need for camp- supplied entirely from ground water sources. ing acreage is estimated to increase. Because there Water for mining and irrigation will come from is a relatively little public land available for more both inland lakes and streams and ground water, intensive development, the total land acreage that with most coming from surface sources. Water for must be acquired and developed is relatively large. future additional thermal power cooling is pro- More than 19,000 acres were required in 1970, but jected to come entirely from Lake Huron. by the year 2020 the total land needed to satisfy the Some land use changes and process modifica- recreational demand will approach 84,000 acres. tions, including increased recirculation, could re- Several of the State parks and some of the State duce water withdrawal needs. Programs to bring game and wildlife areas could support additional about process modification are included in NOR. limited development. However, a significant (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses amount of other resources with recreational poten- NOR includes programs for both municipal and tial that could be utilized exist in the planning industrial waste-water discharge treatment to subarea. meet all of the water quality standards prior to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. It also provides that there will be no degradation of water quality where existing water 8.3.4 Alternative Frameworks quality is at a higher level than that provided by the existing standards. Between the years 1970 and Two alternative frameworks are presented for 2020, a number of areas in RBG 3.2 are expected to this as for other river basin groups. The first require advanced waste treatment. Most will re- alternative, the Normal Framework, does not re- quire this treatment before 1980. flect coordination of solutions to meet needs outside Programs for agricultural waste treatment are 192 Appendix 1 not included, but the effects of fertilizers, pesti- grams selected do not meet all of the requirements cides, and nutrients from runoff require additional for 2020 in either habitat area or user days. studies. The Normal Framework for RBG 3.2 expects The fisheries management program included in that outstanding, unusual, and significant aesthetic NOR provides for land acquisition for access to and and cultural resources will be acquired early and set habitat protection on the inland lakes and streams. aside for the benefit of future generations. Addi- This program, even when coupled with additional tional legislation may be needed to expedite the stocking from hatchery-produced fish, will not program of acquisition and management, and the wholly satisfy the fisherman-day needs. private sector should be encouraged to participate The needs for recreational boating include addi- in programs to preserve and protect these unique tional inland water, access facilities, launching and significant areas. sites and related facilities, and berthing facilities The programs selected for outdoor recreation for along the shores of Lake Huron. These are included intensive and extensive development do not fully in the Normal Framework, but will not satisfy meet the needs. The acquisition and development recreational boating needs. of flood plains and mileage along the Lake Huron Commercial fishing is discussed in Section 5 and shoreline, and the acquisition and development of Subsection 8.4.3. regional parks are the programs envisioned to sup- Commercial navigation is considered on a sys- ply recreation needs. However, there are severe tem-wide basis in Section 5, and Subsection 8.4. 1. limitations to the development of these areas. Ex- (3) Related Land Uses and Problems isting private developments that clutter the lake- The programed agricultural land treatment is shore with cottages, summer residences, and year- essentially a continuation of the ongoing programs round homes have preempted many of the high at a level that has been followed in the past. quality areas with potential for recreational devel- Cropland drainage would be accomplished by the opment. The greatest current need is for develop- year 2020 on about one-third of the land having a ment of facilities usually associated with the urban wetness problem. This will improve the productiv- areas. ity of these lands and thereby reduce the total land (4) Framework Outputs and Costs needed for food and fiber. Section 12 contains Tables 1-280, 1-281, and Forest land treatment is accelerated above the 1-282, which provide information on needs, out- existing level of treatment. puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R The shoreline erosion program would treat the costs. 0.2 mile stretch of critical erosion along the Lake Huron shoreline. No protection would be afforded reaches subject to noncritical erosion. 8.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) Streambank erosion programs in NOR would pro- vide treatment by 2020 for all of the streambank PRO was formulated in response to reactions to mileage classified as subject to severe erosion. No the Normal Framework (NOR) by the public and protection is provided for streambank erosion that State and regional officials. State, regional, and is classified as moderate. Streambank erosion is local policies concerning population and economic widespread, and effective protection measures are growth do not differ greatly from those of the very costly to install and maintain. OBERS projections used in NOR. Both structural and nonstructural measures are (1) Water Withdrawals included in NOR to alleviate flood damages. The PRO supports programs that satisfy water with- structural measures are composed of facilities for drawal needs in essentially the same manner as storage, levees, floodwalls, and other protective outlined in NOR. All needs are met. works to prevent those potential damages which PRO endorses the concept of encouraging reduc- remain after the flood plain legislation becomes tion in the rate of growth of per capita use of effective. Legislation will be least effective in the power, providing that the health, welfare, econ- early years, and may reduce damages by about 10 omy, and well-being of the inhabitants are not percent. Some 40 percent of the damages are es- adversely affected. Developmental setbacks for timated to be prevented by flood plain legislation power plants are recommended for all shoreline between 1980 and 2000, and about 75 percent by areas. Environmental considerations should be 2020. thoroughly explored and agreed upon in advance of A continuation of ongoing wildlife management plant location and design. programs budgeted by the State agencies for habi- PRO supports the needed research in the rela- tat management, enforcement, and research are tionship of resource use to the severity of resource included in NOR. Additional programs are included problems in the Great Lakes Region, and realizes which would be funded through the State. Pro- the need for basic understanding of critical human Lake Huron Basin 193 and natural resource interrelationships, so that programed for protection before 1990. Shoreland water and related land planning and research may management plans will be implemented for all be fully integrated. Great Lakes shores by 1980 to protect and preserve (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses shoreland integrity and uniqueness. PRO meets standards of the Federal Water Pol- PRO recommends the same streambank erosion lution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and in- treatment as NOR. cludes solutions to problems associated with the PRO recommends that adequate sums of money overflow of storm and sanitary wastes from exist- be allocated to manage and control flood plain lands. ing combined sewerage systems to public waters. The cost may be allocated to flood plain damage This problem is programed in PRO to be abated by alleviation, outdoor recreation, and other uses of 1977. the flood plain. Flood insurance could provide still The Proposed Framework recommends study to another supplement to the many programs for re- determine the most efficient means of controlling ducing flood damage. agricultural wastes. Adequate attention must be PRO includes the concept that the States should given to the treatment of nonpoint sources of agri- set time limits for local entities to manage and cultural wastes if water quality is to be maintained develop policies, objectives, programs, and imple- at a high level. mentation techniques for flood plain regulations. If To the extent technically feasible, economically the local entities do not meet the time limits, the justifiable, and environmentally acceptable, PRO States should then manage and regulate the flood recommends the maintenance of efficient, low-cost, plains according to State statutes. deep draft navigation, provision of incremental im- PRO recommends the establishment of State- provements to the navigation system in the Sa- approved local control ordinances directed toward ginaw River, and the extension of the navigation the control or treatment of runoff and reduction of season. Adequate measures are to be provided for- sedimentation on urban and rural lands. State- the containment of polluted dredged spoil. established regulations would prevail if local regu- The fisheries management programs included in lations are not implemented by July 1, 1977, PRO are the same as in NOR. consistent with Federal Water Pollution Control (3) Related Land Uses and Problems Act Amendments of 1972. PRO includes the recommendation that addi- PRO programs for outdoor recreation do not i tional studies be made at the State level leading differ from NOR programs. They will not meet all to the development and adoption of a compreh6n- water-oriented outdoor recreation needs. It is as- sive land use policy for the Great Lakes Region. sumed that approximately 60 percent of the out- Such studies are being initiated by the State of door recreation needs will be met with public funds Michigan at the present time. Such studies would (Federal, State and local) and that the remainder enable land use decisions to be based on adequate will be met either by private funding or not at all. information about the physical land base and its The priorities for the use of public funding will be: suitability for various uses. Improved land use (a) urban recreation developments, and acqui- policies would result and would permit water re- sition and restoration of unique and natural areas of sources planning to complement land use objec- regional significance tives. (b) developments on lands now publicly owned PRO programs for agricultural land treatment (c) other developments. are accelerated above those of NOR. To the extent public funds are available for in- The Proposed Framework endorses the concept vestment in shorelands they may be used where that field drainage of agricultural cropland is an feasible to assist in acquiring shoreland to preserve integral part of the agricultural land treatment and protect its uniqueness in urbanizing areas. program, and PRO recommends drainage at a rate Public funds may also be used for clearing flood above that of NOR. plains of damage-prone uses and making them PRO recommends forest land management and available for recreation use. PRO emphasizes a treatment programs be conducted at a higher rate need for specific criteria to insure that such re- than in NOR. creational developments are consistent with the Shoreland erosion was viewed by many as being maintenance of a high-quality environment, a much more serious problem than is suggested in (4) Framework Outputs and Costs NOR. PRO recommends that a reassessment be Section 12 contains Tables 1-283, 1-284 and 1- made of the shoreline reaches, based on 1973 285, which provide information on needs, outputs, shoreline erosion in the Great Lakes. This may percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs indicate additional mileage of critical reaches. for PRO, indicating by italics where they differ from There are about 50 high-risk miles under 1973 lake NOR. Table 1-335 compares the land treatment levels. PRO recommends that all critical reaches be programs. 194 Appendix 1 8.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs Huron shore, the use of Lake Huron for recrea- tional boating is limited by the 'lack of suitable Table 1-350 in Section 12 lists the total costs mooring places and space. There are a few moor- (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO in the ing spaces available in the northern part of the periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. basin. If additional facilities were developed, to- gether with a suitable communication system for informing boaters of weather conditions, the Lake 8.4 Lake Huron Intrarelationships could be utilized for recreational boating much Various lake uses such as commercial navigation, more extensively than it now is. recreational boating, and sport and commercial fishing, and such parameters as water quality, levels and flow, , and shore erosion cross political 8.4.3 Commercial and Sport Fishery boundaries. Although these activities and para- meters have already been discussed for each river The management objective of the State of Mich- basin group, it will also be useful to discuss them in igan is to enhance the sport fishery ifi Lake Huron relation to the entire Lake Huron basin. and to utilize the commercial fishery in conjunction with the sport fishery as a management tool. In general, the sport fishery is far more valuable in 8.4.1 Commercial Navigation terms of revenues produced, and affects far more people than would a rejuvenated commercial fish- The amount of traffic handled at commercial ports ery. However, by proper management and coordi- on Lake Huron is not a significant part of the total nation of the two, both can be made more effective commercial traffic on the Great Lakes, but the in meeting needs for pleasure and food. traffic carried on -Lai-e Huron itself is significant. it is not proposed tha'k-1 %.y of the harbors be enlarged to 31-foot depths ih order to handle the large ore ships now being used on the Lakes. Programs in 8.4.4 Water Quality both NOR and PRO for River Basin Group 3.1 show development consisting of both structural changes Lake Huron is second only to Lake Superior in at the Soo and extension of the navigation season. the high quality of its water. Because of the rela- The season extension will have beneficial effects on tively low concentration of people along the shore the ports on Lake Huron, even though specific of the Lake, and because conditions in other Lakes work at these ports is not a part of the program. have alerted individuals and governmental agencies to pollution problems, the quality of Lake Huron probably will be maintained at higher level. Cer- 8.4.2 Recreational Boating tainly the use of the Lake for a public water supply for the Detroit metropolitan area and other places While there are 23 boat harbors on the Lake will encourage maintenance of high quality. Section 9 LAKE ERIE BASIN 9.1 Study Area Erie Plan Area of 287 persons per square mile was the second greatest in the Region. No other Lake basin includes parts of as many The Lake Erie basin is the most urbanized basin, States as does the Lake Erie basin, which includes with 88 percent of its population residing in the 10 parts of five of the eight Basin States. This results major urban areas of Detroit and Ann Arbor, in greater political complexity. Hydrologically, the Michigan; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Lima, Toledo, basin includes not only the Lake proper and its Akron, Cleveland, and Lorain-Elyria, Ohio; Erie, tributaries, but also the St. Clair River, Lake St. Pennsylvania; and Buffalo, New York. Clair, and the Detroit River. At the outlet the basin Population and some economic data are contained is defined to extend to below the mouth of Ton- in Section 1. awanda Creek, a tributary of Niagara River. Sta- The economic, social, and physical development tistical and descriptive information is in Section 1, of the Lake Erie basin has relied upon the avail- and the area is shown in Figure 1-37. ability and quality of its natural resources and the The Lake Erie basin has a typically humid conti- opportunities they afford. The availability of furs, nental climate, with the moderating influences of forests, and farmland, combined with the ease of Lake Erie felt along the lakeshores and the east- navigation and a good water supply, encouraged ernmost portion of the basin. There are no signifi- settlers to move west. Some of the earliest settle- cant physiographic influences. The basin as a whole ments were at Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. has a mean annual temperature of about 50'F, with Much of the land was cleared for agriculture in the extremes of -30'F and 100*F recorded. 1800s, while canals and railroads opened the way Mean annual precipitation is about 34 inches. It for industrial development and shipping from lake ranges from 32 to 48 inches, and increases from shore communities. Commercial fishing for the north to south and west to east. Prevailing winds highly valued whitefish and lake trout boomed in average about 10 mph in the basin and are from the the early decades of the 20th century, but subse- south and west. Velocities as high as 91 mph have quently declined due to the deadly effects of the been recorded. Thunderstorms and fog are common invading sea lamprey and poor water quality in occurrences on Lake Erie. Most of the basin expe- many portions of the Lake. Heavy industry, chem- riences more than 150 frost-free days. Snowfall ical production, and manufacturing were important averages 40 to 100 inches annually from west to in the early economy of the cities. east over the basin. Humidity and precipitation are The Lake Erie region is now characterized by a high in the basin. During most years ice formation diversified economy which relies upon light and on Lake Erie is relatively greater than on any of heavy industry, manufacturing, agriculture, and the other four Great Lakes. The western basin, tourism and recreation. Industrial activity is con- shallow bays, and protected areas are normally centrated in the highly populated metropolitan ice-covered from mid-January to mid-April. areas, and most is near the lake shore, since it requires a plentiful water supply and waterborne commerce. The chief products of manufacturing 9.1.1 Human Characteristics are automobiles, fabricated metal, primary metals, rubber, food, petroleum, chemicals, and paper. The Lake Erie Plan Area had the second largest Total value added by manufacture in the region is population of the five plan areas in 1970, with 39 estimated at more than $17 billion annually. percent of the total Great Lakes Region population. Despite decreasing acreage in actual agricultural Only the Lake Michigan Plan Area was more pop- production, agricultural sales in the Lake Erie re- ulous, with 46 percent of the Region's population. gion remain high. Generally speaking, agricultural The 1970 overall population density in the Lake production in the western portion of the basin is 195 0 N T A R 4.1(/ . ...... -MICHIGAN NEW YORK 4.4 E. yo" PENNSYLVANIA 3 mscaNs@N LAKE BASIN BOUNDARY PLAN AREA BOUNDARY vi Lake E?@ie Basin 197 characterized by dairy products, vegetables, fruits, the Niagara and Portage Escarpments and are field crops, and livestock and livestock products. typically short and flow directly to Lake Erie. The central and eastern sections of the basin pro- The Maumee River has the largest drainage area duce nursery and greenhouse products, vegetables, of any stream in the basin and contributes the most and specialty crops such as grapes, pears, and sediment to the Lakes. sweet cherries. With the exception of River Basin Group 4.1 in Tourism and recreation add hundreds of millions the western portion, there are few inland lakes and of dollars to the basin's economy each year, The ponds in the Lake Erie basin. Artificial impound- largest enterprises are in and near Sandusky, Ohio, ments, particularly in Ohio, are found frequently and Erie, Pennsylvania. throughout the basin. The Lake Erie island area resort towns along the In general, the Lake Erie basin has the least Lake, combined with State and regional parks, add overall ground-water potential of the five Great to the attraction of the region. One of the most Lakes basins. However glacial drift provides ex- serious detriments to recreational growth is the cellent aquifers in selected areas of Michigan, New degraded environmental condition of the basin York, and Ohio. The carbonate aquifers are signif- water and land resource systems. icant in the western Ohio and northern New York The availability of the Lakes and the St. areas. Areas of limited ground-water potential Lawrence Seaway for waterborne commerce makes occur in the lake plains along the southern shore of the Lake Erie basin a major distribution center for Lake Erie east of Sandusky and in the upland areas both raw materials and finished products. The basin of Pennsylvania and New York. In these areas, has eleven major U.S. ports at Detroit, Toledo, overuse of ground water would reduce surface Sandusky, Huron, Lorain, Cleveland, Fairport, water availability, and vice versa. The total esti- Ashtabula, Conneaut, Erie, and Buffalo. Coal and mated ground-water potential of the Lake Erie iron ore are the largest volume commodities, but basin is 1,946 mgd. foreign package trade is also high in tonnage. Chemical quality of the ground water has been a limiting factor in ground-water development in the Lake Erie basin. However, most poor-quality water can be treated to improve its quality if it is 9.1.2 Water Resources not too expensive to do so. Water from the surficial sand and gravel aquifers generally is good to fair in As natural storage reservoirs, Lakes St. Clair quality. Iron usually is present and the water can and Erie are among the region's most important be hard and contain appreciable dissolved solids. assets. Average annual inflow to the Lake Erie Bedrock aquifers consistently yield hard to very system (which includes Lake St. Clair) from Lake hard water with dissolved solids often exceeding Huron is 187,000 cubic feet per second (efs). The the recommended limit of 1,000 mg/l. Locally, and average outflow at the Niagara River is 202,000 efs. increasingly with depth, saline water is present. The net increase in flow of 15,000 efs is generated Iron and sulfate contents may be relatively high in by the natural and man-made conditions within the local areas and increase treatment costs. Lake Erie basin. Unfortunately, Lake Erie has become infamous in the past few years for its degraded quality. The concentration of heavy 9.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources metals in fish in Lake St. Clair and accelerated eutrophication of the western and central basins of Most of the Lake Erie basin lies within the Lake Erie have focused national attention upon eastern lake section of the Central Lowland phy- these resources. Lake Erie has phosphorus con- siographic province. Glaciation of the entire basin centration about six times that of other Great has created the r-olling morainal hills of moderate Lakes. However, Lake Erie has the natural ability relief in the Michigan area, the extensive lake to cleanse itself of polluted materials in a shorter plains bordering the lake system, and much of the period of time than the other Great Lakes because Maumee basin, and maturely dissected till-covered of its rapid flushing rate. uplands of the Appalachian Plateau. The basin di- Area streams and lakes have poor natural drain- vide has altitudes generally over 1,000 feet, with age, especially in the west. High dissolved solid the greatest altitudes reaching 2,300 feet in the concentrations and low-quality water occur in most Cattaraugus watershed of New York. stream reaches due to municipal, industrial, and The prominent physiographic features include agricultural wastes. Low dissolved oxygen concen- the Maumee lake plain, which was called the Great trations and high algae growths are also charac- Black Swamp before it was drained, the inland teristic of much of the surface water resource in Portage Escarpment along the southeastern shore the Lake Erie basin. Streams in the east drain from of Lake Erie, and the deeply incised headwater 198 Appendix 1 valleys of Pennsylvania and New York. Several condition (1966-67) land use in the Lake Erie basin prominent linear sand beaches, which are remnants by urban and nonurban breakdown, and by a of beaches of the glacial lakes, parallel the Lake breakdown of the resource base. Erie shore. Many linear hills are moraines depo- The water and related land resource problems sited at the glacial ice margins. resulting from land use changes are many and Bedrock exposures are increasingly prominent complex. Table 1-129 projects changes in land use toward the eastern part of the basin. Along the to .2020. Table 1-130 shows the same information Portage Escarpment and in the incised valleys, broken down by PSA. Had it not been for massive gently dipping shales and sandstones have been planning in the past, resulting in the establishment exposed by erosion or were not covered by drift. of park districts and metropolitan authorities which Many of the incised valleys are partially filled with today largely comprise those buffer zones immedi- thick deposits of glacial drift, especially in the New ately adjacent to the large cities, an even greater York area. Buried valleys occur in other parts of urban concentration would exist today. the basin. Rocks near the surface principally con- Unfortunately, uniformly reliable data on cur- sist of carbonates in Indiana, western Ohio, and the rent urban land use and management activities are northern part of New York, whereas shales and not sufficient to form a basis for projection. It can sandstone are dominant in the other areas. be expected that some program of urban planning The drift overlying the bedrock is dominantly assistance, such as that provided by the Depart- fine grained throughout most of the basin except in ment of Housing and Urban Development under Michigan and in local areas in New York and Ohio. Section 701 of the 1954 Housing Act, as amended, The outwash and morainal deposits in these areas will continue. As urban expansion reaches into new consist of coarse-grained material which contains areas, more governmental units will be faced with a significant ground-water resources. The lake plains need for land use plans or revisions of existing are underlain by lacustrine deposits of clay, silt, plans. Thus, land use planning will continue to be and fine sand of low permeability. Similarly, clayey an important function of local governments. There till mantles most of the bedrock upland of the is also growing interest and activity in comprehen- Appalachian Platenn region. The soils which cover sive land use planning at the State level. the basin were derived from parent material that For recreational use, the highest quality water varied from hard crystalline rock to lake plain resources are found within the Michigan portion of sands and clays. Most of the soils are in the gray- the basin. Rolling morainic terrain with wooded brown podzolic group, with phosphorus and lime cover and numerous inland lakes in southeastern content low in the east to moderate in the west. Michigan provide the setting for outdoor activities. Surface horizons are high in organic matter. Poor The rivers of this portion of the basin offer addi- drainage is serious in northern Ohio and Erie tional opportunity for recreational areas. Espe- County, Pennsylvania, where tb- soils have been cially significant for park development are the developed from sandstone or shate. Huron and Clinton Rivers. Frontage on Lake Erie, About one-fifth of the region is covered by Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and the St. Clair forest. Climatic and pedologic factors favor hard '- River provides a potentially valuable asset to the wood forest types throughout the basin, with soft- resource base. However there are inherent prob- Woods appearing in mixed stands in New York. lems that restrict full use of these resources. For The most common trees are oak, ash, maple, elm, example, industrial and residential development, and hickory. Most of the forested land consists of which is often deteriorated, precludes public rec- small woodlots. Four major forest concentrations reation in important areas. Pollution of these in the basin include the morainal areas in Michigan, waters by residential and industrial wastes has also the green belts around Detroit suburbs and Cleve- seriously restricted the use of much of these re- land, and the dissected plateau east of Buffalo, sources. New York. Several State parks also have large In the Lake Erie basin, the Maumee River basin timber stands. is the area most deficient in recreational resource Mineral resources are primarily nonmetallic, capability. Recreational development there is jeonsisting largely of oil and gas, sand and gravel, largely confined to the river valleys. salt, gypsum, clay, and peat. Large salt deposits From Toledo eastward to Buffalo, the greatest are located in the western portion of the basin, recreational resource features are the Lake Erie while clay production dominates the lakeshore re- shoreline and the major stream valleys. The west- gion. ern and southern shores of Lake Erie contain more The Lake Erie region is highly urbanized. It is than 1,300 acres of beach. Of this total, more than projected that urban built-up areas will gain pri- 600 acres are publicly owned, and most of this is marily at the expense of cropland. open to the public. However, about 40 acres in the Table 1-128 and Figure 1-38 illustrate the base vicinity of Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo are pol- Lake Erie Basin 199 TABLE 1-128 Land Use, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1966-67 (thousands of acres) Resource Base PSA and Total Urban Pasture Forest State Land Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land Other Total PSA 4.1 Michigan 3)980.4 759.5 2,215.6 .117.7 665.7 221.9 3,220.9 PSA 4.2 Indiana 880.6 .102.2 638.9 40.6 71.9 27.0 778.4 Ohio 5,438.9 .465.6 4,096.2 173.2 381.5 4,973.2 PSA Total 6,319.5 567.8 4,735.1 213.8 453.4 349.4 5,751.7 PSA 4.3 'Ohio 2,308.6 609.0 741.3 .131.3 538.8 288.2 1,699.6 PSA 4.4 Pa. 519.1 49.1 142.2 41.2 223.7 62.9 470.0 New York 2,550.8 435.9 716.5 211.4 1,140.8 46.1 2,114.8 -PSA Total 3,069.9 485.0 858.7 252.6 1,364.5 109.1 2,584.9 TOTAL 15,678.4 2,421.3 8,550.7 715.4 3,022.4 968.6 .13,257.1 Pasture 3% Pasture 3% Other 6% Other 6% Forest 7% Planning Subarea 4.1 Planning Subarea 4.2 Total Land Area Total Land Area Forest 3,980,400 acres 6,319,400 acres rban 17% 9% Urban @Cropland 19% Cropland 55% ther 6.1% 75% Pasture 4.5% Forest 19.2 Urban Cropland 15.4% S4.5% Pasture 8% Pastur 6% Other 4% Other PLAN AREA 4 13% Forest 23% Total Land Area Cropland 15,678,300 acres Cropland Forest 32% Urban 28% 44% (A 0 e 26% 4 * Planning Subarea 4.3 Planning Subarea 4. 1 16% Total Land Area Total Land Area Urban 2,308,600 acres 3,069,900 acres FIGURE 1-38 Land Use in the Lake Erie Basin 200 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-129 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Erie Plan Area (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 Lake Erie Total land areal 15,678.3 --- 15,678.3 --- 15,678.3 --- 15,678.3 Total urban and 2,421.2 550.2 2,971.4 871.7 3,843.1 687.0 4,530.1 built-up Total nonurbanized 13,257.1 12,706.9 11,835.2 11,148.2 land Resource Base: Cropland 8,550.7 (333.1)2 8,217.6 (514.9) 7,702.7 (401.7) 7,301.0 Pasture 715.4 (28.9) 686.5 (48.2) 638.3 (39.3) 599.0 Forest Land 3,022.4 (138.1) 2,884.3 (225.7) 2,658.6 (179.9) 2,478.7 Other Land 968.6 (50.1) 918.5 (82.9) 835.6 (66.1) 769.5 Tota13 13,257.1 (550.2) 12,706.9 (871.7) 11,835.2 (687.0) 11,148.2 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. lTotal land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. luted to such an extent that they are now closed to The current State comprehensive outdoor recre- swimming. Much of the remaining shoreline having ation plan for Ohio includes scenic highways in beaches has been developed with residences, cot- several counties within the Lake Erie basin. The tages, and industry. As in the Lake Michigan por- proposed North Country Trail would cut across tion of the Basin, overdevelopment of the shoreline River Basin Group 4.2. and severe degradation of the water quality hinder Many of the States within the basin have also public development and utilization of this important established their own trail systems. A portion of resource. Industrialized portions of the Cuyahoga Ohio's Buckeye Trail is found within the Lake Erie River in Cleveland, Ohio, are so polluted they have watershed. It serves the Cleveland-Akron area and periodically caught fire. will tie in with the proposed North Country Trail. The Bass Islands, north of Port Clinton, Ohio, Several bicycle trails have also been developed in include 6,000 acres with high recreational value. Ohio. The Maumee Valley Bikeway includes three Lying within 250 miles of 21 million people, they round-trip tours totaling over 20 miles. have been used as a resort area for many years. Interpretive nature trails are found in the Further east, the armlike peninsula of Presque Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Parks in River Basin Isle, near Erie, Pennsylvania, contains a 3,100 acre Group 4. 1. State park which receives both summer and winter The fish distribution and composition in Lake use. Erie differs from that in the other Great Lakes, The major stream valleys include the Maumee, primarily because of environmental factors. The Sandusky, Vermilion, Black, Cuyahoga, Chagrin, Lake Erie fish ecosystem has undergone radical and Grand in Ohio, and the Cattaraugus in New changes due to environmental changes coupled with York. The Sandusky River has already been desig- high rates of harvest. Blue pike became nearly nated as a scenic river by Ohio; similar designation extinct in 1958 and are listed as an endangered for the Chagrin has been proposed. The Cuyahoga species. White bass and channel catfish have been River between Cleveland and Akron has been abundant since the 1900s, and harvesting emphasis planned as a major recreational complex. A seg- has shifted to these species in the last 20 years. ment of the Maumee River was considered, but not The capability of Lake Erie to support fish is selected, as an additional to the National Wild, being maintained and may be increasing. The Scenic, and Recreational Rivers System. western basin of Lake Erie accounts for the major In portions of northeast Ohio; Erie County, portion of Lake Erie commercial and sport fish Pennsylvania; and Cattaraugus and Chautauqua production, and as many as 19 species have oc- Counties, New York, there are significant areas of curred in fish landings during the history of the rolling terrain with significant aesthetic qualities. fisheries. Parts of these areas contain substantial wooded In the 1970s, there has been a valuable, but tracts. Additional features of recreational signifi- unstable walleye population in western Lake Erie cance include the Zoar Valley portion of Cat- and a separate, less valuable but more stable popu- taraugus Creek, for which preservation has been lation in the eastern basin. Since the start of this proposed, and Niagara Falls. This world famous century, walleye, yellow perch, white bass, and tourist attraction is located in Planning Subarea channel catfish have occurred in Lake Erie com- 4.4, but is hydrologically in the Lake Ontario basin. rnercial landings, and within the past quarter Lake Erie Basin 201 TABLE 1-130 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Erie Plan Area by PSA (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 PSA 4.1 Total land area' 3,980.4 --- 3,980.4 --- 3,980.4 --- 3,980.4 Total urban and 759.4 294.5 1,053.9 417.1 1,471.0 276.3 1,747.3 built-up Total nonurbanized 3,221.0 2,926.5 2,509.4 2,233.1 land Resource Base: Cropland 2,215.6 (202.6)2 2,013.0 (287.0) 1,726.0 (190.1) 1,535.9 Pasture 117.7 (10.7) 107.0 (15.2) 91.8 (10.1) 81.7 Forest Land 665.7 (60.9) 604.8 (86.2) 518.6 (57.1) 461.5 Other Land 222.0 (20.3) 201.7 (28.7) 173.0 (19.0) 154.0 Total3 3,221.0 (294.5) 2,926.5 (417.1) 2,509.4 (276.3) 2,233.1 PSA 4.2 Total land area' 6,319.4 --- 6,319.4 --- 6,319.4 --- 6,319.4 Total urban and 567.8 62.7 630.5 101.6 732.1 106.8 838.9 built-up Total nonurbanized 5,751.6 5,688.9 5,587.3 5,480.5 land Resource Base: Cropland 4,735.1 (51.7) 4,683.4 (83.6) 4,599.8 (87.9) 4,511.9 Pasture 213.8 (2.3) 211.5 (3-8) 207.7 (4.0) 203.7 Forest Land 453.4 (4.9) 448.5 (8.0) 440.5 (8.4) 432.1 Other Layid 349.3 (3.8) 345.5 (6.2) 339.3 (6.5) 332.8 Tota13 5,751.6 (62.7) 5,688.9 (101.6) 5,587.3 (106.8) 5,480.5 PSA 4.3 Total land area' 2,308.6 --- 2,308.6 --- 2,308.6 --- 2,308.6 Total urban and 609.0 140.4 749.4 260.2 1,009.6 218.2 1,227.8 built-up Total nonurbanized 1,699.6, 1,559.2 1,299.0 1,080.8 land Resource Base: Cropland 741.3 (61.3) 680.0 (113.5) 566.5 (95.2) 471.3 Pasture 131.3 (10.8) 120.5 (20.1) 100.4 (16.8) 83.6 Forest Land 538.8 (44-5) 494.3 (82.5) 411.8 (69.2) 342.6 Other Land 288.2 (23.8) 264.4 (44.1) 220.3 (37.0) 183.3 Tota13 1,699.6 (140.4) 1,559.2 (260.2) 1,299.0 (218.2) 1,080.8 PSA 4.4 Total land areal 3,069.9 --- 3,069.9 --- 3,069.9 --- 3,069.9 Total urban and 485.0 52.6 537.6 92.8 630.4 85.7 716.1 built-up Total nonurbanized 2,584.9 2,532.3 2,439.5 2,353.8 land Resource Base: Cropland 858.7 (17.5) 841.2 (30.8) 810.4 (28-5) 731.9 Pasture 252.6 (5.1) 247.5 (9-1) 238.4 (8.4) 230.0 Forest Land 1,364.5 (27.8) 1,336.7 (49-0) 1,287.7 (45.2) 1,242.5 Other Land 109.1 (2.2) 106.9 (3-9) 103.0 (3.6) 99.4 Tota13 2,584.9 (52.6) 2,532.3 (92.8) 2,439.5 (85.7) 2,353.8 Source: Developed-by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department oF Agriculture, East Lansing, Mihcigan. 'Total land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. century harvesting emphasis has shifted to these Erie has been dictated by many factors. Each de- species. Because of harvest and habitat stress cade has experienced various social and/or eco- factors, these populations are depressed and fluc- nomic conditions that dictated the status of the tuating, and consequently carp, freshwater drum, sport fishery. Due to commercial exploitation and and smelt dominate the Lake Erie fish ecosystem. environmental degradation, species composition On a yearly basis Lake Erie has accounted for a has changed in recent years. Species which are third of the total Great Lakes fish production. currently available and sought by sport anglers are, Sport fishing has played an important role in the somewhat in order of abundance, yellow -perch, development of resorts or vacation areas at the white bass, channel catfish, smallmouth bass, and islands off various points along the south shore of walleye. United States sport fishing on Lake Erie Lake Erie. Fishing pressure and success on Lake during the past decade has been directed primarily 202 Appendix 1 at these. The yellow perch is by far the most above. Forest species such as snowshoe hare, popular and harvested species in the Lake, ac- wildcat, and porcupine, are occasionally seen in the counting for 96 percent, by number, of the catch. southeast portion of this area. The open water on White bass and channel catfish angling is a spring Lake Erie and Presque Isle Bay has declined in and early summer fishery confined primarily to the waterfowl value due to pollution that diminishes western and central basins. Walleye and small- food organisms. Ducks are still found in high mouth bass angling is concentrated at the Bass numbers but are decreasing. Fur bearers in inland Islands, at the reef areas of the western basin, and marshes and streams are doing well, with high along the rocky shorelines of the central and east- populations of muskrat and beaver. Other occa- ern basins. These two species are the mainstay of sional species are osprey, bald eagle, and coyote. the New York sport fishery. Annual walleye and A broad variety of wildlife habitat exists across smallmouth bass angler success is strongly depen- the New York portion of the basin. Wildlife habitat dent on the current population densities of these suitable for farm game is located along the lake species. plain hill country that extends northeast from the In Michigan, the existing wildlife environment Pennsylvania line to the Lake Ontario shore. This has suffered from human disturbance in marsh- land supports medium densities of most farm game lands. This has resulted in a decline of water- species except mourning dove, which is present in dependent wildlife in the Saginaw Bay area, St. low densities. The Niagara River is an important Clair River, Lake St. Clair, inland southern Michi- waterfowl resting and feeding area during migra- gan and along the Lake Erie shoreline. Little doc- tion. umentation is available, but it is evident that herons, bitterns, rails, cranes, and other aquatic birds have also suffered from this habitat destruc- tion. 9.1.4 Resource Problems In northwest Ohio wildlife habitat has generally undergone more detrimental change than any other area in the basin. Large-scale destruction of Perhaps the most notorious Lake Erie basin marshes has occurred here in the past. More re- water quality problem is that of eutrophication in cently changes in agricultural practices have the Lake itself. This has been thoroughly docu- seriously reduced the value of other habitat types. mented in the International Joint Commission's Rabbits, pheasants, squirrels, doves, and bobwhite 1969 report on the "Pollution of Lake Erie, Lake quail have been declining in this area, indicating Ontario, and the International Section of the St. that upland habitat is being reduced in productivity Lawrence River;" in the 1968 Federal Water Pol- and quantity. Raptorial birds are declining. Deer lution Control Administration's "Lake Erie Report: herd size is increasing, primarily due to restrictive A Plan for Water Pollution Control;" and more hunting regulations and deer migration from ad- recently, in "Project Hypo: An Intensive Study of joining States. Fur bearers are declining in the Lake Erie Central Basin Hypolimnion and Re- numbers. Of particular significance is the muskrat. lated Surface Water Phenomena," by the Canada Ohio has the second highest muskrat harvest in the Centre for Inland Waters and the U.S. Environ- United States. Loss of any significant amount of mental Protection Agency, Region V. All of these remaining habitat and consequent reduction in studies have indicated that high levels of nutrients muskrat will result in local economic losses. In being discharged to Lake Erie.have created a con- northeast Ohio the impact of agriculture is less dition, particularly in the central basin, in which intense, and habitat for deer and other woodland large algal concentrations develop, die, sink to the game has increased. Northeast Ohio has medium bottom, and decay. This may create a phosphate deer and grouse densities. Change in ownership of cycle which will be self-generating in several years, nonurban land from agriculture to other private unless prompt abatement is implemented. High interests has greatly improved upland game habi- algal concentrations and oxygen depletion are the tat, although it has somewhat hurt the productivity two main problems in the open waters of the Lake. of the habitat for some woodland species such as The following stream segments have been reported pheasant and bobwhite quail. Other wildlife spe- by the States to have priority for correction of cies, with the exception of raptors, which are de- water quality deficiencies: clining nearly everywhere, are doing well in this part of the State. (1) River Basin Group 4.1 The status of wildlife and its habitat is poor in the (a) Clinton River-Michigan, Pontiac to Indiana portion of the basin. mouth, and the Red Run Basin Wildlife habitat in Erie County, Pennsylvania, is (b) Huron River-Michigan, Dexter similar to that of northeast Ohio, as described through Ford Lake Lake Erie Basin 203 (c) Saline River-Michigan, Saline to ten ing commercial navigation, fishing, and recreation. miles downstream Several localities have enacted sediment control (d) South Branch River Basin-Michigan, ordinances to control erosion primarily related to Adrian to confluence with main branch. construction activities; similar action by other local (2) River Basin Group 4.2 governments may be anticipated. The problems of (a) Maumee River-Indiana, main stem flood plain development are becoming more widely (b) Cedar Creek-Indiana recognized, and better controls may be adopted in (c) St. Marys River-Indiana the future. Some municipalities have taken action (d) St. Joseph River-Indiana to revise or supplement zoning ordinances to in- (e) Maumee River-Ohio, main stem clude flood plain zoning. The entire issue is so downstream of Defiance, and northern tributaries complex that only broad generalizations are possi- (f) Maumee River-Ohio, main stem from ble. Indiana State line to Defiance, and southern tribu- Major problems associated with Lake Erie taries to Maumee shoreline use are flooding, particularly at the east- (g) Lake Erie-Ohio, mouth of Maumee ern and western ends of the Lake, and the pressure River to Erie County-Lorain County line for greater public ownership of the shoreline. (h) Sandusky River-Ohio, main stem Extensive urban, agricultural, and transporta- (i) Portage River-Ohio, tributaries tion development has decreased the availability of (j) Lake Erie-Ohio, Michigan State line to fish and wildlife species and habitat in most parts of Ten Mile Creek, and including Ten Mile Creek the Lake Erie basin. Warmwater and rough fish (k) Sandusky River-Ohio, all tributaries species dominate most of the area's inland lakes and (1) Huron River-Ohio, entire basin streams. Some stocking programs supply coldwater (m) Portage River-Ohio, main stem trout species to basin streams in Michigan, but (n) Vermilion River-Ohio, entire basin. largely on a put-and-take basis. The decline of the (3) River Basin Group 4.3 high-value species and the increase in low-value (a) Cuyahoga River-Ohio, Lake Rockwell species is the major problem of the Lake Erie dam to mouth, and tributaries fishery. The lack of adequate funding and support (b) Lake Erie-Ohio, western Cuyahoga forcollection of fishery data is also a problem. The County line to Grand River, including minor tribu- lack of institutional arrangements is also a major taries hindrance to the coordination of fishery research (c) Lake Erie-Ohio, eastern Lorain and the improvement of fishery stocks throughout County line to western Cuyahoga County line, the Lake Erie basin. An additional problem with including minor tributaries. respect to commercial fisheries is the lack of (d) Chagrin River-Ohio, entire basin coordinated research and management policies in (e) Lake Erie-Ohio, mouth of Grand the agencies bordering Lake Erie. River to Ohio-Pennsylvania line Wildlife has been depleted to the extent that (f) Cuyahoga River-Ohio, upstream of deer are the only significant big game species, and Lake Rockwell small game species include fox, rabbit, and pheas- (g) Rocky River-Ohio, entire basin ant to a limited degree. (h) Grand River-Ohio, entire basin (i) Ashtabula River-Ohio, entire basin. (4) River Basin Group 4.4 9.1.4.1 Problems Matrix (a) Niagara River-New York, main stem (b) Tonawanda Creek-New York For each resource use category, the water and (e) Scajaquada Creek-New York related land resources problems were judged to be (d) Chautauqua Creek-New York either severe, moderate, minor, or no problem, for (e) Lake Erie-New York each river basin and complex in the Lake Erie (f) South Branch Cattaraugus Creek- basin, as indicated in Table 1-131. The problems New York evaluation was for the period of the present time to (g) Murder Creek-New York 1980. (h) Cattaraugus Creek-New York (i) Big Sister Creek-New York. Streambank erosion is severe in many of the 9.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development tributaries in the Lake Erie basin. Particularly critical are the large sediment deposits in the Mau- mpe Bay and at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. 9.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals These depositors are expensive to remove, and they limit many other water resource uses includ- In the Lake Erie basin there are, overall, ade- z > r- * , > m 00 m z 0 > m m z m > (D 0 > F, C; z -, i i -C! m > C I n 10, > C) > r, Im -M> -m >,- ro-- 0- > No- m F, 0 0 0 2 M m a M> C-, @o so Prm. -T> m 0 'm T oz 'm > o m > m C; > -;z> > z C-) z rn m > r- z 0 ->z z E-M: -r, r m m MT, Z, - m m C, M > m 0 g g 00 (D C) > m C C) 0 !1 m M m > m 1 2@ o 03 -, m 0 > mm> <5> 0 m (D m > M- m > m C) z M z > 0 M m 0 Z -i M 0 C w Km Rzaxzmcl) > C) --i C > 8 m :>* " -Z :>j .0, 10 11 (D Z > Z z 9: -4 m > Z > Z z 9 m -4 5 2 - z 0 > z m 0 m --4 M 0 -1 -1 m m r- -i m m r m Cj) z o m z 0 > z M T T = 2 m m 0 M > -4 m z 0 0 L) !q > 5 m 0 > m 0 m 0 m m 0 = X m m z 0 0 = > C: z 0 > > :0 'n C 0 H > m 'n " 0 m C) m " n m m C) m C) m C) n m m Cn w M V) 0 CL IE Cn :3 CA (D I I I " I I I I I Overall m 0 1 1 W" I I I w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Urban 'r. H o tz m n 0 H, 0 I I HW I I I " I I I I I " I I i I I I I Rural "I 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I interface Overall 0 Overall x Ove::ll 0 WW I I I w I I I I Urb 0 0 = Cr o H" Ruial pr (D C) Interface H. 0 OQ 0 z Overall I > Urban z m I I Rural ww I 0 IQ 0 0 interface D, 0 0 Overal V 0 r 0 Urban io 0 Rural mI Interface Ov.ra Urban Rural CL Interface m rn D CA m rA rn Lake E7@ie Basin 205 TABLE 1-131 (continued) quate water supplies for withdrawal functions. LAKE ERIE BASIN 4.0 However, quality problems inhibit some uses and NW RBG 4.1 Southwest River Basin Group 4.2 - there are local areas with short supplies. The ap- Raisin Maumee Toussaint- Sandusky River Basin River Basin Portage C. River Basin proximate average withdrawal requirement in 1970 W 0) (U was 14,700 mgd, of which 60 percent was for U U U W W thermal power cooling. In 1970, 10,031,100 persons were served by cen- 0 W Q) @1 0 0 0) W 4 P lu W W.0P W 4 W > Z C > > >P Z 0 > 0 0 04 0 0-E-W W_@ 0 04 tral water systems. Of these, 8,151,600 were served by Great Lakes sources; 1,165,500 were - - - - served by inland lakes and streams; and 713,900 - - - - - - - - - - - - - were served by ground-water sources. The munici- I - - - I - 1 - pal water supply sources and development are 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 summarized in Tables 1-132 and 1-133. 1 2 - - - - Heavy water uses occur in areas of major popu- 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 2 2 3 3 2 3 lation concentrations, namely Planning Subareas 1 2 3 3 1 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.1 and 4.3. Purification treatment is generally 2 2 1 2 1 1 2- - 2 2 - 2 2 required of all surface water supplies, while 1 1 3 2 2 - 2 2 2- 2 - 2 - 2 2 ground-water supplies are disinfected and often 1 1 2 2 - - 2 2- - 2 2 - - 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - receive some type of corrective treatment such as 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - softening or iron removal. 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - In 1967 the Lake Erie region accounted for about 1 - 2 2 - 2 2 - 2 50 percent of the total value added by manufacture 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 22 2 1 2 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - for the entire Great Lakes' Basin. It also used - - - - - - - - - - - approximately 40 percent of the total manufactur- 2 2 2 1 1 - 1 - - - 1 - I - 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 3 1 3 3 3 1 ing water withdrawals. This included nearly one- 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 33 2 2 3 3 1 2 third of the water withdrawn by municipal sys- 3 - 1 3 1 1 - 1 - 2- - 2 1 - 1 - tems. Additional self-supplied withdrawals are 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 shown in Table 1-134. It is estimated that more than 95 percent of the water self-supplied by man- LAKE ERIE BASIN 4.0 ufacturers is taken from surface water supplies, C RBG 4.3 East River Basin Group 4.4 _ Ashtabula - Erie-Chau- Cattaraugus Tonawanda: with the Great Lakes or their connecting water- Conneaut C. taugua C. Creek Buffalo C. ways the primary sources. The remainder, about W Q) W W 180 mgd, is obtained from company-owned wells. U U U co 10 cc Inland lakes and streams and ground water are W Cd M 0 0 $4 W 0 PQ) W M 0 OW) the primary sources of rural domestic and livestock W 4 $4 W 0 W > > 8 a 4 water supplies. Rural water supply information for 1970 appears in Table 1-135. - - - - - - - - - Nearly three times as much water was used to - - - - - - - - irrigate golf courses as was used to irrigate the - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - region's high-value crops, although the golf course I - 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1- 1 1 1 - 1 1 acreage was slightly less (Table 1-136). High-value - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - crops, grown primarily in River Basin Group 4.1, include potatoes, vegetables, fruits, and sod. In- 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 23 1 2 2 3 2 3 land lakes and streams and ground water were the 1 2 - I - - - - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - principal sources of supply for irrigation uses. 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 22 1 1 2 3 1 2 Inland lakes and ground water are major water 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 12 1 2 2 3 1 2 - 1 - - 1 2 -- 1 2 - - 1 2 sources for the mineral industry in the Lake Erie I - - - - - - - - - - - - basin (Table 1-137). Some parts of the industry 1 1 1 11 2 2 operate on a year-round schedule. However, the principal water users in the mineral industry 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 operate seasonally, usually from April to No- 1 1 1 2 2 1 11 1 1 2 1 - vember (Table 1-138). - 1 - - 1- 1 1 - 1 - In 1970 electric power generation within the - 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - Lake Erie basin came essentially from 56 thermal 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 - 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 23 2 1 3 3 2 1 electric plants over 10 MW in size. There are no 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 11 1 2 3 3 1 3 hydroelectric power plants over 10 MW capacity in 2 1 2 1 2 11 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 22 1 1 2 3 1 2 the basin. All but 15 of the 56 installed power plants 206 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-132. Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Erie Plan Area _(mgd). 1970 Average Demand Domestic Municipally PSA State and Commercial Supplied Industrial Total Source Capacity 4.1 Michigan 474 265 739 1,295 4.2 Indiana 20 9 29 69 Ohio 113 44 157 373 4.3 Ohio 374 143 517 800 4.4 Pennsylvania 55 10 65 78 New York 177 95 272 413 TOTAL --- 1,213 566 1,779 3,028 TABLE 1-133 Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Water Source. Inland Lakes PSA State Source Capacity Great Lakes and Streams Groundwater 4.1 Michigan 1,295 1,200 30 65 4.2 Indiana 69 --- 48 21 Ohio 373 197 128 48 4.3 Ohio 800 689 80 31 4.4 Pennsylvania 78 70 3 5 New York 413 352 23 38 TOTAL --- 3,028 2,508 312 208 TABLE 1-134 Industrial Water Supply Devel- TABLE 1-135 Rural Water Supply, Lake Erie opment, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Self-Supplied Gross Water Consumptive Developed Consumptive PSA State Requirementsl Withdrawals Use PSA State Source Capacity Use 4.1 Michigan 2,633 1,297 135 4.1 Michigan 49 12 4.2 Indiana 1,1942 19 2 Ohio 299 34 4.2 Indiana 6 2 4.3 Ohio 2,786 1,306 85 Ohio 36 13 4.4 Pennsylvania 2,3422 35 3 4.3 Ohio 25 6 New York 911 79 4.4 Pennsylvania 3 1 TOTAL 8,955 3,867 338 New York 14 5 'Partially supplied by recirculation. TOTAL 133 39 2Figure Is total for PSA Lake Erie Basin 207 TABLE 1-136 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Erie Plan-Area, Base Year, estimated Agriculture Golf Courses Withdrawal (mgd) -Withdrawal (mgd) 100-Day 100-Day PSA Acres Season Annual Acres Season Annual 4.1 23,437 37.4 10.3 2,200 12.6 3.5 4.2 4,969 8.6 2.4 12,620 60.4 16.5 4.3 4,935 7.8 2.1 18,600 89.2 24.4 4.4 5,220 9.0 2.4 2,400 11.15 3.2 TOTAL 38,561 62.,8 17.2 35,820 173.7 47.6 TABLE 1-137 Source of New Water Used by significant consumptive uses of water are not asso- Mineral Industries, 1968, estimated (mgd) ciated with these functions, demands are imposed New Intake April-November Average for 365 Days upon the water resource. Streams 16.3 12.5 The water quality situation was discussed in Lakes 49.2 34.2 Subsection 9.1.4; Waste discharges in the Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania portions of Ground Water 34.1 30.2 the basin are given-in Table 1-140. Sport fishery Mines 13.4 9.8 use is shown in Table 1-141. Other 2.1 1.9 Lake St. Clair is heavily used for recreational TOTAL 115.1 88.6 boating as are parts of Lake Erie and the connect- ing channels and inland lakes and streams. De- graded water quality inhibits some use. The perti- TABLE 1-138 Minerals Water Supply, Lake nent information on boating is in Table 1-142. Erie Plan Area, 1968, estimated (mgd), There are 16 Federal harbors and one private commercial harbor on Lake Erie. Total traffic han- New Water Intake dled, both shipments and receipts, is nearly 160 Total Water Annual Cionsumptive PSA Requir mental Seasonal Average Use2 million tons annually. 4.1 104.1 59.6 41.5 1.0 4.2 29.4 22.1 20.3 0.9 4.3 32.3 24.3 20.7 9.7 4.4 11.0 9.1 6.1 0.2 9.1.5.3 Related Land. Uses and Problems TOTAL 176.8 115.1 88.6 11.8 Over 50 percent of the land area of the basin is lNew water intake plus recirculated water (seasonal) cropland. Pasture and other land add an additional ZAnnual average 10 percent to the agricultural resource base. Nearly 20 percent is forest land. Table 1-143 lists the agricultural land treatment and all but one of the five plants scheduled as of opportunities by planniiig subareas in the Lake 1970 are privately owned. They vary in type and Erie basin. capacity (Table 1-139). Net power generation in the About 3,857,000 acres, or 37.6 percent of all basin exceeded 61 billion KWh of electricity in agricultural land in the basin, is now receiving ade- 1970. quate conservation land treatment and manage- Condenser cooling systems operating in 1970 ment. were of the flow-through type. Most of the large Conservation measures applied to agricultural power sites are located on the Great Lakes or lands in the Lake Erie basin have been accom- connecting channels. plished by local soil and water conservation dis- tricts with technical assistance from the Soil Con- servation Service. 9.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses The Lake Erie basin has nearly 50 percent of the drainage problem acres reported for the entire For study purposes this-category includes mu- Great Lakes Basin. An analysis of the soil condi- nicipal and industrial wastewater discharges as tions in the Lake Erie basin indicates that over 1.3 well as nonwithdrawal. uses of water. Although million acres of crop and pasture land have a severe 208 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-139 Electric Power Development, Lake Erie Plan Area Type and Capacitv (MW) Steam Electric Gas Internal Nuclear Fossil Water Withdrawals PSA Turbine Combustion Steam Steam Total (mgd) 4.1 401 76 70 6,013 6,560 3,850 4.2 116 18 1,148 1,282 892 4.3 53 21 3,345 3,419 2,548 4.4 --- 5 1,575 1,580 1,470 TOTAL 570 120 70 12,081 12,841 8,760 TABLE 1-140 Municipal and Industrial Waste- Drainage limitations also portend limitations on water Flows, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 urban growth. Portions of six SMSAs in the Lake mgd Erie basin, which are not presently in an urban PSA State Municipal Industrial built-up category, have wet soils that will create problems for future development. They will need 4.1 Michigan 897 746 internal and supplementary drainage in order to be developed for urban purposes. 4.2 Indiana 37 4 Toledo, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and Lima, Ohio N/A N/A Ohio, each have wet soil conditions on more than 80 4.3 Ohio N/A N./A percent of the nonurban land. Metropolitan areas which have a wetness problem in 50 to 80 percent of 4.4 New York 202 920 the soil include Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, Ohio; Pennsylvania 46 147 Erie, Pennsylvania; and Buffalo,, New York. Pro- jected demands for urban development indicate TOTAL --- N/A N/A shortages in available land base by 2020 in the Detroit metropolitan area. Large areas of develop- N/A - Not available ment, particularly in the Detroit-Ann Arbor, To- ledo, Ft. Wayne, and Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria problem with no drainage improvement installed, areas, will take place on soils with poor drainage. and that 2.5 million acres have a drainage problem This indicates an urgent need for zoning and proper although some improvements have been installed land use planning. (Table 1-144). These installations have not been Table 1-40 shows ownership and use of Lake maintained and do not provide the needed drain- Erie shoreland. Table 1-145 contains information age. Planning Subarea 4.2 has the most serious on shoreline areas in the basin which are subject to drainage problem area in the region with over 2.4 erosion and flooding. Streambank erosion is severe million acres inadequately drained at present. in many of the tributaries in the Lake Erie basin, as TABLE 1-141 Sport Fishery Uses, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 Ponded Waters Fishing Licenses Angler Days PSA State (acres) Resident Non-Resident (1000) 4.1 Michigan 49,500 200,000 8,400 4,000 4.2 Indiana 700 35,000 1,100 100 Ohio 40,700 155,000 7,700 9,800 4.3 Ohio 17,900 181,000 2,000 9,330 4.4 Pennsylvania 700 17,000 1,100 1,060 New York 700 95,000 6,800 3,560 TOTAL --- 110,200 683,000 27,100 27,850 Lake Erie Basin 209 TABLE 1-142 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1969 Lake Erie Access Total No. Total Boat Days PSA State Harbors Sites3 of Boats in Use 4.1 Michigan 141 90 118,000 3,447,000 4.2 Indiana 0 19 10,900 325,500 Ohio 12 32,800 976,500 4.3 Ohio 15 10 24,800 699,000 4.4 Pennsylvania 5 0 1,500 44,000 New York 92 10 20,800 613,000 TOTAL 55 129 6,105,000 lIncludes Lake Erie, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and Detroit River harbors 21ncludes Niagara River above Niagara Falls 3May include both inland lakes and streams TABLE 1-143 Agricultural Land Treatment TABLE 1-144 Drainage Limitations in the Needs, Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 (thousands of Lake Erie Plan Area (thousands of acres) acres) Total Agricultural Drainage Problems Pasture Other PSA Land Area Land Severe Some PSA Cropland Land Land Total 4.1 3,980.4 2,328 316 428 4.1 1,173.5 86.2 45.4 1,305.1 4.2 6,319.5 4,949 756 1,665 4.2 3,653.6 120.5 46.4 3,820.5 4.3 2,308.6 873 113 205 4.3 494.4 84.2 121:5 700.1 4.4 3,069.9 1,111 137 204 4,4 383.1 144.9 23.9 551.9 TOTAL 15,678.4 9,261 1,322 2,502 TOTAL 5,704.6 435.8 237.2 6,377.6 indicated in Table 1-146. Particularly critical are lated activities. In view of the population of the the large sediment deposits in Maumee Bay and at area, this is an inadequate amount of habitat to the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. These deposits maintain wildlife populations and to provide a good are expensive to remove and they limit many other hunting experience. The population increase and water resource uses, including commercial naviga- changes in farming practices are expected to fur- tion, fishing, and recreation. ther deplete the habitat area over the next 50 Table 1-147 summarizes the urban and rural years. The Lake Erie basin provides nesting, mi- acreage subject to flooding and average annual gration, and wintering areas for waterfowl as urban and rural damages as of 1970, by States and shown in Figure 1-39. Poor water quality has re- river basin groups. duced the capacity of the area to support waterfowl There are 11 locations in the basin where levees, in recent years by reducing the food supply. floodwalls, or channel improvements have been in- In an inventory of outstanding unusual, and sig- stalled for flood control purposes, and 26 places nificant aesthetic and cultural values in the Lake where institutional measures are in effect. In three Erie basin, over 500 items in 24 categories were areas, one of which covers several small stream recorded. basins, land treatment measures have been used. Environmental systems of the Lake Erie basin in Table 1-148 shows the wildlife habitat in the most critical need of planning attention are buffer Lake Erie basin. Wildlife habitat is about 80 per- zones, linkage corridors, shore zones, and resource cent of the total land-, and about 40 percent of this is' clusters. considered huntable. The same area is probably The principal problems related to outdoor recre- also used for bird-watching, photography, and re- ation in the Lake Erie basin are the result of the 210 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-145 Lake Erie Shoreline Conditions, 1970 (miles) Total Subject to Erosion Subject No PSA State Shoreline Critical Noncritical Protected to Flooding Problem 4.1 Michigan 32.5 0 0 0 32.5 0 Total 32.5 0 0 0 32.5 0 4.2 Ohio 85.5 0 28.0 38.4 10.8_ 8.3 Total 85.5 0 28.0 38.4 10.8 8.3 4.3 Ohio 104.8 14.3 9.9 67.2 0 13.4 Pennsylvania 4.0 0 4.0 0 0 0 Total 108.8 14.3 13.9 67.2 0 13.4 4.4 Pennsylvania 44.3 6.0 32.0 6.3 0 0 New York 70.9 0 10.6 12.8 0.7 46.8 Total 115.2 6.0 42.6 19.1 0.7 46.8 TOTAL --- 342.0 20.3 84.5 124.7 44.0 68.5 TABLE 1-146 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Erie Basin, 1970 Bank Miles of Damage Annual Damages PSA State Severe Moderate Land Loss Sedimentation Other Total 4.1 Michigan 324 563 35,800 9,700 16,200 61,700 4.2 Indiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ohio 106 782 33,400 78,400 5,400 117,200 4.3 Ohio 79 247 19,300 319,700 2,300 338,600 Pcl-msylvania 1 29 100 300 0 400 4.4 Pennsylvania 2 151 400 1,000 0 1,400 New York 70 140 23,600 11,700 21,300 56,600 TOTAL --- 582 1,912 112,600 420,800 45,200 575,900 TABLE 1-147 Estimated Flood Damages, Lake Erie Basin, 1970 Estimated Average Estimated Acres Annual Damages ($) in Flood Plain RBG State Urban Rural Urban Rural 4.1 Michigan 23,953,050 2,104,030 57,870 206,400 4.2 Michigan --- 20,100 --- 5,893 Oh--'- 2,687,820 4,452,500 14,788 331,255 Indiana 1,821,000 135,050 11,702 34,014 4.3 Ohio 1,218,400 594,500 14,286 57,909 Pennsylvania 3,000 29,000 70 6,050 4.4 Pennsylvania 6,500 7,700 333 1,990 New York 921,600 397,700 21,514 91,605 TOTAL 30,611,370 7,740,580 120,563 735,116 Lake Erie Basin 211 TABLE 1-148 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Erie Plan Area, 1960 Total Land Area Farm Habitat Forest Habitat Total Habitat PSA State (acres) Acres % of Total Land Acres % of Total Land (acres) 4.1 Michigan 3,980,400 2,502,000 63 454,000 11 2,956,000 4.2 Ohio 6,319,400 5,205,000 82 573,000 9 5,778,000 4.3 Ohio 2,308,600 1,150,000 50 517,000 22 1,667,000 4.4 Pennsylvania 519,100 282,000 54 124,000 24 406,000 New York 2,550,800 1,192,000 47 857,000 34 2,049,000 TOTAL --- 15,678,300 10,331,000 66 2,525,000 16 12,856,000 NOTE: The area of the land resource base, made up of the farmland and forest land, and reported elsewhere, is based on 1966-1967 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. TABLE 1-149 Land and Water Surface Usable infrequent harbors-of-refuge, and inadequate com- for Recreation in the Lake Erie Plan Area, 1970 munications, not all of the water surface can be (thousands of acres) utilized. Some of these matters can be taken care of Lake Inland by prudent investment. The western part of the PSA Land Erie Lakes Total Lake Erie shore is largely marsh. Thus it is not 68.1 151.0 40.0 259.1 useful for many types of recreation, but it provides 4.1 24.0 59.0 26.0 109.0 wildlife habitat. This use, however, is limited be- 4.2 33.7 69.0 15.0 117.7 cause so much of the marsh has been filled in for 4.3 146.5 96.0 1.0 243.5 industrial purposes. 4.4 The general suitability of water and land for TOTAL 272.3 375.0 82.0 729.3 water-oriented outdoor recreation was described in Subsection 9.1.3. Table 1-149 gives the amount of water and land surface usable for recreation in the high population densities. It is likely to be imposs- Lake Erie basin. Table 1-150 gives information on ible to provide adequate land, particularly near the the Lake Erie beaches. urban areas, to meet the minimum standards gen- erally accepted for recreational purposes. Some of the natural areas, particularly forests in the 9.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.1 Maumee basin, are so fragile that to use them heavily would destroy their value. The numbers of people living in the basin and the industries which 9.2.1 Summary have developed have contributed to the pollution of Lake Erie to such an extent that many of the The most severe problems in River Basin Group beaches which should be available for recreation 4.1 are presently poor water quality resulting from are closed. There is adequate water on the Lake for municipal and industrial waste discharges, high recreational boating, but because of limited access, levels of flood damages and areas subject to flood- TABLE 1-150 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Erie Plan Area (acres) Publicly Owned Beaches Privately Owned Beaches Usable Open to Public Not Open to Public Open to Not With Without Potential for Little/No PSA Public Restricted Usable Charge Charge Development Potential Total 4.1 142.7 0 13.6 6.8 7.7 111.9 146.0 428.7 4.2 22.8 0 0 54.7 3.6 77.9 64.7 223.7 4.3 162.6 8.2 15.0 .7 4.8 8.9 46.9 247.1 4.4 216.1 21.6 12.2 21.2 40.7 42.6 63.7 418.0 TOTAL 544.2 29.8 40.8 83.3 56.8 241.3 321.3 1,317.5 % 41.3 2.3 3.1 6.3 4.3 18.3 24.4 212 Appendix 1 _F 0 N T A R 1 0 4.1 MICHIGAN NEW YORK 4.4 E K PENNSYLVANIA ........... 4.2 4.3 0 H 1 0 J Migration and or wintering 4 Nesting and migration VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1-39 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 4 ing, and a shrinking wildlife habitat base. Over- water would also be used where it is available in shadowing these problems is the fact that this is adequate quantity and quality, and there would be one of the most rapidly urbanizing areas in the some minor withdrawals from inland lakes and entire Great Lakes Basin. This places considerable streams. However, these are expected to increase demand on the water and related land resources for for irrigation in the latter time periods. all purposes. Many of the purposes cbnfliet with With respect to nonwithdrawal water uses, the each other: for example, recreational development Normal Framework is designed to meet the exist- versus wildlife protection along the Lake Erie ing water quality standards and precludes degra- shoreline. The subobjective and criteria for water dation of higher levels of water quality that exist at withdrawals stipulate tat least-cost sources be the present time. The framework has not been able selected. Normal growth in the area would include to satisfy all of the recreation-day needs in this mineral production at any location where such area. Of the total agricultural and forest land with resources have been identified. The extent of rural opportunity for treatment, only a small portion has water withdrawals and irrigation water withdraw- been programed for treatment in the formulation of als in the future will depend on the policy with the Normal Framework. It is not believed to be in respect to land use in this area. It is assumed in the the overall interest of national economic develop- .1 @@r4.2 Normal Framework that the availability of water ment to program higher levels of'land treatment. and related land resources will not be a constraint This same judgment has also been made with re- on achieving the normal growth level and normal spect to rectifying streambank erosion problems economic expansion in this area. In ,ne fo.-mulation and to eliminating urban and rural flood damages. of the Normal Framework it has been assumed that A high level of flood plain management will be the existing dependence on the Great Lakes for necessary, including continued regulation of devel- water supply would continue in the future. Ground opment in the flood plain, if damages are to be Lake Erie Basin 213 prevented in the future. Although there is oppor- difficulty is associated with the financing of large tunity for a substantial program of wildlife habitat regional water supply systems. acquisition and development, the framework does not anticipate satisfying all of the wildlife acreage needs. This is due primarily to lack of funds and 9.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses other land uses that yield more monetary return. The framework has selected for acquisition and In 1970 a total of 897 mgd of domestic, commer- preservation only the aesthetic and cultural re- cial, and industrial wastewater was treated in mu- sources whose acquisition and preservation is ex- nicipal facilities. This amount is projected to in- pected to have a net gain of beneficial effects over crease only slightly by 1980, and by nearly 75 adverse effects. percent by 2020. Industrial wastewater which was Section 12 contains Table 1-286 which lists the treated in industry-owned treatment facilities needs, outputs, and percent of needs met for the amounted to 746 mgd. This is expected to decrease Normal Framework for River Basin Group 4. 1; in the future due to more in-plant recirculation and Tables 1-287 and 1-288 list the capital costs and greater reliance on municipal treatment plants. operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. Between 1970 and 1980, twelve locations in the river basin group are expected to require advanced waste treatment facilities in order to meet water 9.2.2 The Area quality standards. An additional three locations are expected to add advanced treatment between 1980 All of the population in this area lies within the and 2000, and an additional 2 locations between State of Michigan, although the headwaters of one 2000 and 2020. stream lie a very short distance across the Ohio Existing water quality problems are severe in border. Population, per capita income, and em- this river basin group, particularly in the Clinton ployment are discussed in Section 1. The study area River, Rouge River, Huron River, and Raisin is located at the west end of Lake Erie and includes River basins. Other areas of severe water degra- the area draining to the St. Clair River, Lake St. dation include the Detroit River where it enters Clair, and the Detroit River. It drains 5,200 square Lake Erie, and the mouth of the Raisin River miles, almost all in Michigan, about 4.4 percent of where it enters Lake Erie. Poor water quality the land area of the Great Lakes Region and 24 results from nutrient discharges, agricultural percent of the Lake Erie basin. Figure 1-40 shows wastes, some raw sewage overflow discharge from the areal extent of River Basin Group 4.1. combined sewers, and primary and secondary treatment plant effluent in streams whose flow is inadequate to assimilate such wastes. Corrective 9.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems programs are under way to upgrade water quality throughout RBG 4.1. Future demands upon the resources, or require- This highly urbanized river basin group is in the ments, were projected in Section 3. The projected process of planning regional interceptors and waste needs for resource use by time level are shown in treatment plants. Disagreements among local gov- Section 12 in Table 1-286. Where needs can be ernments, regional planning agencies, and the quantified, they are not discussed in the text unless State of Michigan with respect to whether certain special conditions warrant such discussion. municipalities should be forced to participate in regional systems has delayed construction. The 1972 Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada calls for a higher level of 9.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals water quality to be achieved in Lake Erie at an earlier date than had previously been expected. The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 are The full ramifications of the agreement are not yet estimated at about 5,200 mgd above the base year clear. withdrawals of 6,000 mgd. About 50 percent of the Implementation of construction programs to additional water withdrawal need is for thermal meet water quality standards has been hampered power cooling, with municipal water supply and by the failure of the Federal government to meet self-supplied industrial withdrawals comprising its commitments to share in the cost of the con- about 20 percent each, and the balance split among struction of these plants. The State of Michigan has rural domestic and livestock, irrigation, and mining had to underwrite the Federal share. It is also needs. difficult to provide facilities to reduce or eliminate Water withdrawal problems are relatively minor combined sewage overflow and polluted storm in this river basin group. Perhaps the greatest water. 214 Appendix I -.y) 0 BLACK --___�ANILAC >1 Port Huron 0 ST. 4@LAIR 0 AND MAComB ST. CLAIR LIVJNGSTON e Holly 17 Ron,t,o St Clair 0 t3L.ke Orion CLfNTON f Roch [email protected] I Marine City o H.@eli o Ne. l3aiti!nore I h., B-Y Afg t, Clerni,n 0 0 0 A 0 rth q- 0 19 4RON 0 '4 .it Chelsea j ROUGE /LAKE ST. CLAIR -11 Iroor -10or yps.fa nti -,C2---_---@YASHTENAW Flat Rock 00 Milan 0 Tecullh C1 RAISIN Adrian Hu n "ioO \LENAWEF RIVER BASIN GROUP MICHIGANI MbNR0E OHIO PLANNING SUBAREA SCALE IN MILES FIGURE 1-40 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1 10 15 Lake Erie Basin 215 Throughout the entire river basin group there is TABLE 1-151 Use and Projected Needs for Re- a need to implement programs for the reduction of creational Boating, PSA 4.1 agricultural wastes, nutrients, sediments, insecti- 1000 Boating Days cides, and herbicides. Great Lakes Inland The projected sport fishery needs are based on a Category Water.s Waters transfer to other portions of the Great Lakes Basin of considerable demand originating in the planning 1970 Use 969 2,478 subarea both now and in the future. One of the most significant problems in this area 1980 Needs 780 150 affecting sport fishing has resulted from filling of 2000 Needs 1,191 741 shore marshes to create building sites. This prac- tice has significantly reduced the available spawn- 2020 Needs 1,695 1,455 ing areas, particularly for northern pike. Poor water quality due to industrial and municipal pol- lution has degraded many of the rivers and im- The -greatest problem associated with the con- poundments to the point where rough fish such as carp are all that remain. Portions of the Raisin servation of agricultural lands is the increasing River, Rouge River, and Willow Creek have water pressure to convert to other uses. In many cases quality designations now which will not allow en- these other land uses reduce the amount of cover on hancement of the fishery in the near future. the land and increase the rate of erosion and the An associated institutional problem is that about amount of sediment. 60 of the existing reservoirs in River Basin Group Production under present use is reduced or lim- 4.1 offer the best potential for intensive fish ited by excess water in the soil profile of about management, but they are not generally available 74,400 acres. Drainage has both beneficial and ad- because they are owned and operated by local units verse effects, and the selection of a drainage pro- of government. There is a need to develop cooper- gram depends not only on food and fiber to be ative management plans with these units of gov- produced, but also on the alternative uses of the ernment. lands having a wetness problem. The 1970 use of and projected needs for recrea- Much of the land expected to convert from non- tional boating are divided between Great Lakes urban to urban uses in the Detroit-Ann Arbor and waters and inland waters as shown in Table 1-151. Toledo areas is wet, and drainage will be necessary In addition to planning for the satisfaction of the before such urban expansion can occur. Drainage boating day needs, it is also necessary to plan systems are needed on 434,400 acres for removal of berthing facilities and launching sites. excess surface and internal water. One of the main problems in this area is that Maintenance of forest cover is needed for water- existing inland waters are overused at the present shed protection, continuing production of timber time for recreational boating. An additional prob- products, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, aes- lem is that land at many of the remaining 36 reser- thetics, and combinations of these values. voir sites that have boating opportunities is being About 16 percent of the total acreage in Planning bought up and used for other purposes. The lack of Subarea 4.1, or 665,000 acres, is forested, and stream improvements, lack of maintenance, and 244,000 of these acres receive adequate land treat- periodic low flows limit the amount of canoeing and ment. There is an opportunity to program for small boat opportunity on inland streams. forest land treatment on the remaining 421,000 The future waterborne commerce expected to be acres in order to realize the values cited above. handled at ports in River Basin Group 4.1 will Some of the major problems in this area are how to increase sharply as shown in Section 12 in Table secure good management for private forest lands 1-286. The present ratio of receipts to shipments is and how to protect and establish trees and shrubs greater than 25 to 1 and will likely continue. in areas surrounding urban and built-up areas. There are no reaches of shoreline in RBG 4.1 subject to critical or noncritical erosion. There are some flooding problems which will be discussed 9.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems below under Lake Erie intrarelationships. The major problem related to shore use is that a very Of the 2,555,000 acres of agricultural land con- small amount of the shoreline is available for public sisting of cropland, pasture land, and other land, use. Transportation facilities, power plants, and about 1,305,000 acres are such that conservation other uses continue to decrease shoreline availabil- practices could be effectively applied to reduce soil ity. There is considerable need and interest in losses and to conserve plant cover. shifting to wildlife uses of the shoreline and pro- 216 Appendix 1 tecting it for the continuation of those uses, as well land are given in Table 1-286 in Section 12. Meeting as providing for more public use. the needs is a problem because there are consider- Streambank erosion results in increased sedi- able pressures for other land uses with greater mentation in streams, and the resultant degraded economic returns than recreational use. These water quality prevents other uses of the water. A needs are for a two-fold increase in the intensively major problem in alleviating streambank erosion is developed recreation land and about a five-fold that the streambanks in many cases are private increase in land for other summer activities by property, and owners either do not have the re- 2020. The present proportion of available recre- sources or do not have the willingness to correct the ation land to population in this highly urbanized problems. area is much -lower than accepted standards. In this river basin group, the greatest flood In addition to pressures for other land uses, some damages occur in the urban areas (see Table 1-286 of the more serious problems associated with satis- in Section 12). Ice jams are a major cause of stream fying recreational needs in this area are degraded overflows in the Port Huron area. In the Clinton water quality, lack of adequate funding, develop- River basin, the capacity of the Red Run Drain has ment in the flood plains which precludes recrea- been exceeded, and this has caused flooding prob- tional use, and competing uses for shorelines. lems in the basin. Structural improvements have been authorized, but have not yet been imple- mented. Problems in the Rouge River basin result 9.2.4 Alternative Frameworks from inadequate sewer and drainage ditch capacity and from low basements. The flooding of agricul- Two alternative frameworks are presented for tural land in the Raisin River basin is complicated this as for other river basin groups. The Normal by poor land drainage. Framework (NOR) does not reflect coordination of About 50 percent of the demand for wildlife solutions to meet needs outside the RBG in the availability is for consumptive use, or hunting, and Lake basin or the Great Lakes Basin. 50 percent is for nonconsumptive use, such as bird- The second alternative, the Proposed Frame- watching, photography, etc. Quantities are shown work (PRO), contains the recommendations of the in the table. One of the greatest problems in this Commission in an effort to reflect the views of the area is the need to set aside and protect areas people of the Basin and the policies and programs having considerable wildlife value as feeding. of the States. To some extent, it reflects coordina- grounds or appropriate habitat. In particular, tion in the development of the framework among a marshes in the lower Detroit River need to be number of river basin groups, both in the Lake protected and preserved. Private development ac- basin and in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. tivity on Celeron Island and chemical pollutants coming from Detroit are serious threats to water- fowl habitat. The projected population levels over 9.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) the next 50 years will seriously threaten wildlife opportunities in RBG 4.1. From the standpoint of The Normal Framework is based on meeting preserving wildlife opportunities, optimum popula- quantified needs and solving identified problems to tion levels have already been exceeded in the river the maximum practicable extent consistent with basin group. subobjectives and criteria discussed in Section 2 of If all of the hunter-day needs are to be satisfied the appendix. The program outputs and costs are in this river basin group, acreage as shown in Table summarized in Section 12 in Tables 1-286, 1-287, 1-286 in Section 12 will be needed. In this highly and 1-288. urbanized area, 25 percent of the total planning (1) Water Withdrawals subarea acreage was suitable for hunting in 1970. There is adequate water to meet water with- By 2020 there is need for 53 percent of the total drawal needs up to and beyond 2020 if additional land area to be suitable for hunting. However the capacity is developed to withdraw Great Lakes 1970 supply of huntable land is projected to de- water. A program to develop such capacity has crease by 300,000 acres if present land use trends been selected to satisfy all of the needs for mun- continue. icipally supplied water, self-supplied industrial With respect to aesthetic and cultural values in water, and water for thermal power cooling in this river basin group, the major problems are River Basin Group 4. 1. Water needs for rural do- industrial and residential use of shoreline, which mestic and livestock use and for mineral production competes with the preservation of aesthetic values, are all expected to be satisfied by the development the inadequacy of funds for land acquisition, and of ground-water sources which are adequate to do the need to preserve outstanding values. this. Irrigation needs, including golf courses irri- Needs for recreation days, water surface, and gation, will be primarily satisfied by water from the Lake Erie Basin 217 Great Lakes in the short-range period. In the mid- vided. On that basis, an additional 625,000 angler dle- and long-range periods, there will be a shift to days will be provided in RBG 4.1 as a result of the meet these needs with sources from inland water warmwater hatchery and related renovation proj- courses and from ground water. ects planned. About a third of the total capital costs Land use changes and process modification and of the new hatchery and appropriate operational recirculation would have considerable impact on the costs have been allocated to this river basin group. water withdrawal needs. The framework includes Other fishery management programs included in the initiation of a program to influence land use in NOR provide for land acquisition for fisherman this respect. Programs also are included to initiate access and habitat protection on about 1,060 acres research to bring about process modification and of inland water areas in Livingston County. This recirculation. program, coupled with future additional stocking The Corps of Engineers is currently investigat- from the new warmwater hatchery, is estimated to ing the possibility of land disposal of wastewater or satisfy all of the angler day needs in the river basin some combination of land and surface water dis- group. It should be emphasized that the Normal posal which would conceivably make a substantial Framework at the present time does not have quantity of relatively high-quality water available. specific programs to provide for new access facili- All of the power cooling needs are expected to be ties on Lake St. Clair and in the urbanized areas of supplied with water from the Great Lakes. The the basin, namely in Detroit adjacent to the Detroit power will be generated by thermal electric gen- River, and along portions of Lake Erie. Informa- erating plants. tion on the potential and the corresponding costs of (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses additional fishery opportunity development in these The Normal Framework includes the criterion urbanized areas is not available. that the 7 day-10 year low flow will be maintained The Normal Framework includes recreational to the maximum extent Possible in the streams in boating programs in all of the time periods, but less the area. Treatment plants are expected to provide than 10 percent of the needs are met. Boating on a high level of treatment. inland areas is already at a saturated level, and Two programs in NOR would provide municipal additional stream access is the only solution pro- waste treatment facilities and industrial waste posed. treatment facilities. Commercial fishing will be discussed under Sub- NOR includes programs to meet water quality section 9.6, dealing with Lake Erie intrarelation- standards prior to the Federal Water Pollution ships. Control Act Amendments of 197Z Specifically, There are no specific investments included in the they provide needed municipal waste treatment Normal Framework for port development for com- facilities to handle the quantities of waste dis- mercial navigation. charges that are indicated as needs. In addition to (3) Related Land Use and Problems the basic requirements of secondary treatment and The programed agricultural land treatment is 80 percent phosphorus removal throughout River essentially a continuation of ongoing programs at a Basin Group 4.1, there are a number of locations level that has been followed in the past. Higher that will need advanced waste treatment by 1980, levels are not warranted under national economic and additional locations in successive time periods. development criteria. The cost of the advanced waste treatment is in- Drainage of cropland will improve the productive cluded in the investment costs. No data are avail- capacity of these lands and thereby reduce the total able on the cost of industrial waste treatment in land needed for food production. A properly man- this area. Municipal facilities handle a substantial aged program can benefit the farmers, aid water volume of the industrial wastewater. quality and wildlife, and reduce erosion. Health NOR includes a recommendation for implemen- benefits will accrue as drainage reduces breeding tation of the regional waste treatment concept as places for mosquitoes and other insects. Drainage endorsed by the Southeast Michigan Council of programs have been selected to include the on-farm Governments and the Michigan Water Resources drainage measures included in the land treatment Commission. needs at a current program rate of installation. The The new warmwater fish hatchery for southern drainage measures include tiling and field ditching. Michigan is expected to provide substantial fishing Drainage improvement is also needed on urban improvement in 25,000 acres of inland waters in development areas. The amount of such drainage or RBG 4. 1. A major portion of the stocking will occur where it will be needed has not been determined as renovation projects on existing lakes and im- except by standard metropolitan statistical areas. poundments. It is projected that with each new The forest land treatment program will control acre of water brought under intensive management erosion, provide wildlife habitat, and enhance en- for warmwater species, 25 angler days are pro- vironmental values. This program provides forest 218 Appendix 1 land treatment at a higher level than that pursued recreation areas, acquisition and development of 40 in the past or present. The higher level is believed miles of stream valleys, additional beach develop- to be justified by the desired results. By 2020 about ment in St. Clair and Sanilac Counties, and acqui- 37 percent of the total forest land with an opportu- sition and development of two new regional parks nity for treatment as of 1970 will have received of 2,000 acres each. that treatment if the Normal Framework is imple- Between 1980 and 2000, the Normal Framework mented. would satisfy a portion of the recreational needs No shoreland erosion program is included in the with continued development on existing recreation Normal Framework because there were no needs. lands, acquisition and development of an additional The streambank erosion program will provide 50 miles of stream valleys, and two additional re- treatment by 2020 of all the streambank mileage gional parks of 2,000 acres each. subject to severe erosion. Between 2000 and 2020 no additional public in- The resource most directly involved in reducing vestment is anticipated to provide new recreational flood damages is people. Damages would be less if lands and opportunities. Additional private devel- settlement patterns and land use patterns were opment will be encouraged in this time period. substantially different from what they have been. In each of the time periods, existing public lands To substantially reduce flood damages in urban currently undeveloped should be developed more areas in River Basin Group 4.1, regulated use of intensively while maintaining a setting as natural flood plains is an essential feature of the frame- as possible. NOR also provides that on class II work. Institutional reduction measures are appro- lands (general outdoor recreational areas subject to priate throughout almost all of the RBG in the substantial development for a wide variety of areas adjacent to main stem streams and principal specific recreational uses, and including unique tributaries. natural areas), all existing publicly owned lands NOR includes channel modification to reduce that consist largely of State and regional parks and damages in the Black River, Clinton River, and forests should be developed to their optimum Rouge River basins, as well as in numerous up- capacity to provide additional recreational oppor- stream watersheds. Flood proofing is included to tunity. reduce damages in the Black, Pine, Belle, Rouge, NOR also provides for additional access sites in Huron, and Raisin River basins. Modification of suitable places on Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and existing building use is included to reduce damages their tributary streams; the reclamation of polluted in the Rouge, Belle, Huron, and Raisin River beach areas along the Lake Erie shore in and near basins on the main stem and principal tributaries. Detroit and Toledo; and the acquisition and devel- The Normal Framework for wildlife manage- opment of land, where future studies may indicate ment includes a continuation of ongoing budgeted to be appropriate, for small impoundments and programs by State agencies for habitat manage- recreational facilities for golfing, skiing, camping, ment, enforcement, and research. Additional pro- swimming, picnicking, and other recreational ac- grams are included for the following: tivities in which the private sector can function (a) upland game habitat acquisition effectively. (b) wetlands acquisition The Normal Framework falls far short of satis- (c) wetlands development fying the recreation day needs in this planning (d) waterfowl museum and ecology training fa- subarea. These needs will have to be satisfied else- cilities where in the Great Lakes Basin. (e) waterfowl hunter training (4) Framework Outputs and Costs (f) increasing the number of new conservation Section 12 contains Tables 1-286, 1-287, and officers. 1-288 which provide information on needs, outputs, NOR provides that the following outstanding, percent of needs met and capital and OM&R costs. unusual, and significant aesthetic and cultural val- ues be acquired in the early action period and set aside for the benefit of future generations: 9.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) (a) all 18 of the waterfowl habitat sites in the area PRO was formulated in consultation with State (b) all 29 of the historical structures and places officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- in the area grams, as well as the desires of area residents. (c) wetlands included in the wildlife programs State, regional, and local policies with respect to discussed above. population and economic growth do not deviate NOR programs for meeting a portion of the greatly from the OBERS projections used in NOR. recreational needs between the present time and A specific objective of PRO for RBG 4.1 is to 1980 include additional development on existing improve the quality of life for the residents of the Lake E?ie Basin 219 area. Improvements in the quality of life will be as opposed to disposal in diked areas or in swamps contingent upon such factors as the restoration of and wetlands. water quality, the expansion of recreational oppor- (3) Related Land Uses tunities, the minimization of unemployment, and The Proposed Framework for RBG 4.1 includes a the enforcement of existing legislation at all gov- recommendation for the development of compre- ernmental levels, supported by funding as neces- hensive land use plans. Such planning is being sary from Federal, State, and local governments initiated by the State of Michigan at the present for the conservation, use, and development of time. This effort is endorsed. water and related land resources. Limitations on Both agricultural and forest land treatment pro- growth of both the population and the economy grams are substantially greater in PRO than in may well be necessary. NOR. The expansion of agricultural land treatment (1) Water Withdrawals programs is essential in light of the large amount of There are no significant differences between sediment found in rivers in the southern portion of PRO and NOR with respect to water withdrawals. PSA 4. 1. Much of this sediment load could be PRO does include a recommendation that Federal reduced through the implementation of adequate commitments for financing of municipal water erosion control programs. With respect to shore projects be met in order that development can be areas PRO takes into consideration Michigan's 1973 kept on schedule. PRO encourages the considera- study of critical erosion damage and flooding dam- tion of environmental impact in the selection of a ages. No specific programs are provided, however. site for each individual thermal power plant, and This evaluation increases the classification of sever- encourages the use of a cooling system appropriate ity of flooding over the estimates included in NOR. to the site. The tendency will be toward supple- PRO recommends that all new uses of the shoreland mental cooling. areas (industrial, commercial, and residential) be (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses required to be set back from the water. It also The Proposed Framework recommends that recommends consideration of the Detroit Master there be a substantial expansion of water quality Plan as a comprehensive plan for the riverfront management programs. Requirements of the Fed- area of metropolitan Detroit. eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of Flood plain management is recommended instead 1972 will be met. Such management programs of structural measures for the reduction of flood should address themselves to the consistent en- damages. Flood plain management should stress forcement of existing water quality legislation, but the recreational benefits to be gained from setting should also address problems such as the wide- aside the flood plain lands. Management programs spread use of salt for snow removal, the substantial such as zoning, then, would have benefits not only amounts of pollution resulting from overuse of fer- in the reduction of direct flood damages, but also in tilizers and from other inadequate land conserva- the provision of much-needed recreational oppor- tion measures, and the need for retention of storm tunity. water in the southeastern Michigan area. The use A specific recommendation of PRO for RBG 4.1 of supplemental cooling will involve increases in is the protection of the Pointe Mouillee marshes. The consumptive use of water. The reduction of heated construction of protective works to prevent these water discharges is considered by many persons to marshes from being eroded and washed away is be of sufficient importance to warrant such an in- essential to preserve one of the few wildlife re- crease. serves in the area. The preservation of this wildlife While a portion of the recreational boating needs habitat is a high priority item. will have to be met in areas outside PSA 4.1, PRO With respect to outdoor recreation, the estab- recommends improvements in the recreational lishment of a joint Michigan-Ohio commission to boating potential at Sterling State Park, located on deal with improvements in recreational opportuni- the Lake Erie shore. ties is an important item in PRO. The expansion of Commercial navigation is of substantial impor- public investment for recreation in the time frame tance to the regional economy. PRO endorses the between the year 2000 and the year 2020 is reeom- concept that port expansion is necessary to keep mended. the Great Lakes in a competitive position with (4) Framework Outputs and Costs respect to other regions of the United States. Im- Section 12 contains Tables 1-289, 1-290, and provement of Detroit harbor and extension of the 1-291 which provide information on needs, outputs, navigation season are included. The program is fur- and percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R ther discussed in Subsection 9.6, Lake Erie ln@ costs for PRO indicating by italics where they trarelationships. PRO recommends that considera- differ from NOR. Table 1-336 compares land tion be given to the on-land disposal of dredge spoil treatment programs. 220 Appendix 1 9.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs sion and sedimentation in this river basin group. The Maumee River is one of the major contributors Table 351 in Section 12 lists the total costs (capi- of sediment to Lake Erie. Increased sedimentation tal plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the periods has changed the ecology of Maumee Bay and has 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. been a major factor in changing the ecology of the western basin of Lake Erie by covering fish spawning grounds. Since the sources of the sedi- 9.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.2 ment are spread throughout the entire river basin, this will be a difficult problem to overcome. Much of the Maumee River in Ohio and the 9.3.1 Summary Maumee River and its tributaries between Fort Wayne and the Ohio-Indiana State line was consid- The population in PSA 4.2 is expected to grow ered for addition to the national wild, scenic, and from 1,725,300 in 1970 to 3,116,100 in 1980, an 80 recreational river system, but was not included, and percent increase. Also projected is a 50 percent part has been designated for these uses by the State decrease in employment in agriculture, forestry of Ohio under its authority. and fisheries; a modest increase in mining employ- The Normal Framework includes those programs ment; and a substantial increase in manufacturing that would maximize national economic efficiency. and other employment, including services. This selection of programs whose benefits exceed There are three major economic centers in this costs by the greatest amount has been based on the planning subarea: Toledo, Ohio; Fort Wayne, In- best judgments that can presently be made, since diana; and Lima, Ohio. In Toledo availability of benefits and costs have not been evaluated, except water resources is not judged to be a constraint on for a very generalized estimate of costs. Programs economic growth. However, there are considerable have been selected to put underemployed and un- difficulties in satisfying the recreational needs of employed resources in this river basin group into the area. Improvement in water quality, more reg- employment wherever possible. It was assumed, ulation of land use, and a substantial program of however, that the economy of the planning subarea land acquisition for recreational development could would not differ from that forecast by the OBERS render the, Toledo ar6a a more attractive place to projections and reflected in the needs. live and thereby enhance its opportunities for The Normal Framework is summarized in Sec- growth. tion 12 in Table 1-292 which lists the needs for the In the Fort Wayne area availability of water re- framework, the output or levels of needs satisfied sources is more likely to be a constraint on eco- from the program selections, and the percentage of nomic growth. About year 2000 Fort Wayne may needs met. Tables 1-293 and 1-294 list capital costs have some difficulty in satisfying its municipal and and operation, maintenance, and replacement industrial water supply needs. Lima, Ohio, is an- costs. ticipated to have the water needed for economic growth; it has recently expanded its water supply facilities. 9.3.2 The Area At the present time, in the major areas of popu- lation concentration in the planning subarea, poor River Basin Group 4.2 covers portions of the water quality and the lack of recreation facilities States of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. However, the are deemed to be major constraints on the overall corresponding planning subarea includes parts of social well-being of the people who live in the areas. only Ohio and Indiana. Therefore, economic and In the next 30 to 50 years the lack of available demographic data for Michigan are not included in water may also be a problem in some localities. this section. Descriptive and statistical information One of the major resource problems in this area is provided in Section I and Subsection 9. 1. The study is the future role of present agricultural land. Al- area is located at the southwest end of Lake Erie, as ready there are conflicts developing between agri- shown in Figure 1-41. Besides the Maumee River cultural land use and the preservation of wildlife, basin, RBG 4.2 includes the Toussaint-Portage aesthetic and cultural values, and recreational op- complex, the Sandusky River basin, and the Huron- portunities. PSA 4.2 is the most valuable and pro- Vermilion complex. The area has a strong agricul- ductive agricultural area in the Great Lakes Basin. tural base and extensive navigation and port devel- If the recreation and wildlife needs are to be satis- opment at Toledo and Sandusky. fied, there will have to be some shifting of land use from agricultural uses to recreational and wildlife 9.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems uses. Somewhat related is the major problem of ero- The projected needs for resource use by time Lake Erie Ba3in 221 N LAKE ERIE H IIN ff.,mile c Q mic hl@urnee Bay 0 Toledo Montpeli r LUCAS OTTA @\j Kellys Island LLIAMS cre e FULTON dssi%0. 4e -Port Clint 10 0 Sandusky Say Bryan 0 urn eLL 9@11 eA Vo 0 DEFIANCE Ma o. ing Napolleon B Gree Sandusky 4F Auburn SS INT- F . r,4 o n t ERIE Is ORT GE /SA US Y c3l, 0 Defia C Bellev Norvialk M k LION Fo' oria HURON-V ILI or'. HENRY W D ON Paulding. cr PUTNAM MAUMEE Tiffin d River Findlay 0 i lard Fort Wayn PAULDI SENECA HURON ALLEN V RT CRAWFORD ALLEN Carey SANDUSKY Van Wert D lp S ALLE COCK Bucyru -;tta@a Upper an s y Ada 0 a, )AND . Lima MERCER AU LAfZE ap onet-,,@ Celina St. Marys RIVER BASIN GROUP PLANNING SUBAREA VICINITY MAP SCAL IN MILES 10 -0. SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 x FIGURE 1-41 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2 222 Appendix 1 period are shown in Table 1-292 in Section 12. TABLE 1-152 Use and Projected Needs for Where needs can be quantified, they are not dis- Recreational Boating, PSA 4.2 cussed in the text unless special conditions warrant 1000 Boating Days such discussion.. Great Lakes Inland Category Waters Waters 9.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals 1970 Use 498 804 The total withdrawals for RBG 4.2 as of 1970 are 1980 Needs 105 102 estimated at 1,500 mgd. By 2020, under the as- 2000 Needs 231 243 sumptions for the Normal Framework, this is ex- pected to increase to over 9,500 mgd. Thermal 2020 Needs 402 426 power cooling accounts for about 90 percent of the additional water withdrawals needed between the Some of the problems associated with providing present time and 2020. sport fishing opportunities shown in Table 1-292 in Generally speaking, the availability of water to Section 12 are the following: meet the water withdrawal needs is not a problem, (1) Impoundments in natural drainage ways are with Lake Erie available as a source. However, eutrophic in nature primarily because of intensive because of the large need at Fort Wayne, Indiana, agricultural, land management activities, and sec- and its inland location, supplies here are expected ondarily because of human wastes. to continue to c 'ome from reservoir storage. The (2) Abandoned limestone quarries offer some self-supply of water by industry may be a problem potential, but it is difficult to maintain desirable fish because the ground-water resources are not of high population levels in them without maintenance quality throughout this entire area, andthere is some stocking programs. pressure for industry to locate considerably inland in (3) Multiple recreational demands on certain some of the moderate sized towns in the river basin inland impoundments reduce their utilization for group. The uneven distribution of good quality fishing purposes. ground water and low flow of many streams in this (4) Water level fluctuations, especially during river basin group are two of the major problems spawning seasons, have reduced species productiv- affecting water withdrawals. Funding of municipal ity in certain lakes. water supply plants is also a difficult problem. Some (5) Excessive sedimentation at many impound- taste and odor problems have occurred at municipal ments has reduced their productive capacity. watersupply intakesin Lake Erie and theriver basin (6) Water quality problems have degraded group. some streams, such as the Ottawa River between Lima and its mouth, sufficiently to preclude signif- 9.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses icant fish populations. (7) Channel modifications, although producing Of the 194 mgd of waste treated in municipal some flood control and drainage benefits, have fre- plants in RBG 4.2 during 1970, nearly 20 percent quently not been maintained in such a way as to was in Indiana, the balance in Ohio. By 2020 the permit natural stream conditions that provide a total will more than double, and the Indiana percent- desirable stream fishery habitat. age will decrease somewhat. The main recreational boating problem in - this Stream flows are too low to assimilate these river basin group is that inland waters are being wastes after primary treatment, and therefore ad- used at about three times the desirable capacity vanced waste treatment is needed prior to 1980 while Great Lakes waters are being used at about throughout the Ohio portion of the river basin group one-third of desirable capacity. Needs are shown in and in areas of Indiana. Table 1-152. The use of the Great Lakes waters is Industrially treated wastewater flows are pro- limited by the number of suitable mooring places jected to decrease until the year 2000 and then and the space between harbors. Facilities should be increase slightly, as shown in Table 1-292 in Section provided for disposing of vessel wastes. 12. Recycling of water within each plant, and in- Recreational boating is just one of the uses com- creased reliance on municipal waste treatment sys- peting for the shoreline in this river basin group. tems affect these flows. This land use is not compatible with wildlife pres- Some of the major problems associated with ervation, power plant use, and industrial and resi- waste discharges are the difficulty of financing dential private use. treatment plants, the need to reduce or eliminate Commercial fishing needs and problems are dis- combined sewage overflows, and the need to reduce cussed in Subsection 9.6, Lake Erie Intrarelation- sediment and nutrient loads. ships. Lake Erie Basin 223 Projected waterborne commerce is shown in In the Maumee River basin, major rural damages Table 1-292 in Section 12. There is further discus- and rural flood control problems are limited to the sion in Subsection 9.6. The problems related to port flood plains. The flood problems of the urban areas facilities will probably be those associated with are the result of constricted reaches of the rivers, changing the types of commodities handled. Other inadequate channel capacity, encroachment on the commercial navigation problems that apply to ports natural flood plain, or combinations of these causes. in this area are the shortage of municipal funds to The principal damage from floods in the Portage put into port facilities and the fact that overland River basin results from the loss of crops during carriers do not afford lake ports equitable inland the growing season. Encroachment on the flood access in the form of nondiscriminatory rates and plain and constricted channels are major problems equal services. The Port of Toledo is a free port, or in the Sandusky River basin. one into which foreign goods may be brought with- Floods on the Vermilion River are often accom- out imposition of customs duties if they are in- panied by ice jams so that resulting flood stages are tended for, reexportation. or local consumption. higher than they would be from river discharge alone. 9.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems There does not appear to be an adequate supply of land and wildlife habitat to satisfy (in the Normal There are an estimated 3,820,500 acres in PSA Framework) the needs given in Table 1-292 in Sec- 4.2 which would benefit from agricultural land tion 12. There is a shrinking resource base. Wildlife treatment conservation measures. This is about 60 habitat land is being reallocated to other uses. percent of the total land area. There are an es- Some farming activity leaves little wildlife habitat timated 2,421,000 acres of agricultural land in this on the land. Due primarily to the lack of funds for planning subarea with a wetness problem. Produc- wildlife enhancement, channel modification in this tion on this land within its present use is reduced or area has reduced wildlife habitat. limited by excess water in the soil profile. There is An additional acute problem in this area is the an acute shortage of well-drained soil for urban need for preservation or protection of the remain- development around Toledo, Fort Wayne, and ing wetlands adjacent to the Lake Erie shoreline. Lima. The existing aesthetic and cultural values have There are an estimated 348,000 acres of land in been summarized in Subsection 9.1. The major the planning subarea on which forest land treat- problem is the need to preserve outstanding values. ment conservation measures would be suitable. There are a number of linkage corridors of merit One of the major problems is the declining acreage in this area, and there is a need for buffer zones of forest land as it gives way to agricultural uses, around Toledo and Fort Wayne. There are inade- highways, power lines, reservoirs, and urban re- quate funds for land acquisition. creational and industrial development. It is difficult to satisfy demands for these goods and services In order to provide about six times as many without a decline in forest land. The land use con- recreation days in 2020 as were provided in 1970, it flict is particularly acute in buffer zones around is estimated that an additional 8,200 acres in this urban areas and in the corridors linking urban river basin group would be needed for intensive areas. land-based water-oriented recreational use, as well About one-third of the Lake Erie shoreline is as an additional 39,100 acres for less intensive subject to noncritical erosion, and much is subject land-based recreational use. to inundation during severe easterly storms. There The conflicting land use pressures from agricul- is a considerable need in this area for marsh and tural, aesthetic and cultural, wildlife, and recre- wetland management, and because of the expand- ation uses have been cited above. Additional prob- ing metropolitan areas of Cleveland and Toledo, lems associated with satisfying the recreational there is a need for more publicly owned shoreline. needs are that much of the water throughout the A major problem in alleviating streambank ero- river basin group is too low in quality to provide sion is that high erosion rates occur largely on pleasant recreational opportunities, that many of private land, and the owners may not have the the streams in. this area have low flows in the finances or the desire to implement streambank, recreation season, and that land acquisition for erosion projects. More regulation is needed in recreation purposes in urban areas is excessively urban and suburban -construction projects. expensive because of the competing land uses. Poor In RBG 4.2 the greatest flood damages occur in water quality is a definite prohibition on recrea- urban areas, as shown in Table 1-292 in Section 12. tional opportunities in Lake Erie near Toledo, the The major problems are encroachment. on the nat- Ottawa River below Lima, the Blanchard River ural flood plain areas and the lack of local zoning below Findlay, and the Maumee River below Fort and regulation. Wayne. 224 Appendix 1 9.3.4 Alternative Frameworks advanced waste treatment in the period between the present time and 1980 at four locations in Two alternative frameworks are presented for Indiana. Removal of 80 percent of the phosphorus RBG 4.2 as for other river basin groups. The Nor- is included, except for municipal waste treatment mal Framework does not reflect coordination of plants in Ohio whose total capacity is less than 1 solutions to meet needs outside the RBG in the mgd. Smaller communities in Indiana discharging Lake basin or the Great Lakes Basin. the ditches with low flows will be expected to The second alternative, the Proposed Frame- provide treatment facilities in the near future. work, contains the recommendations of the Com- Throughout the 1970-2020 time frame, NOR in- mission in an effort to reflect the views of the cludes the provision of additional boat access sites people of the basin and the policies and programs of at suitable places in Lake Erie and on its tributary the States. To some extent, it reflects coordination streams; acquisition and development of land for in the development of the framework among a recreational use on all suitable upstream watershed number of river basin groups, both in the Lake impoundments; acquisition and preservation of basin and in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. areas of significant cultural, historical, or biological interest; and reliance on the private sector to de- velop quality recreational facilities for golfing, 9.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) camping, swimming, picnicking, and other activi- ties that complement public 'recreational develop- NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and ment. If these programs are implemented, they solving identified problems to the maximum prac- would require an increase of 50 percent by 1970 and ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and 150 percent by 2020 in the land being used for criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The recreation in the river basin group. program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- Two programs are expected to provide the tion 12 in Tables 1-292, 1-293, 1-294. needed fishing opportunity in River Basin Group (1) Water Withdrawals 4.2 and adjacent Lake Erie waters. One of these is NOR satisfies all of the'water withdrawal needs the program of reservoir construction as outlined in in RBG 4.2 for the respective time periods. The the Northwest Ohio Water Development Plan. Great Lakes are likely to be the source for most of Fourteen multiple purpose reservoirs which would the municipal, self-supplied industrial, and thermal contribute to satisfying the angler-day needs in this power cooling water withdrawals. Ground water is area are included in that plan. Two of these reser- likely to be the source for all of the rural domestic voirs would provide for development of trout fish- and livestock needs, most of the mining needs, and ing, four would include development for angler a part of the irrigation needs. Irrigation water access, four would include development of angler withdrawals include water for both agricultural and facilities, and six would include recreational reser- golf course irrigation. voir development. In themiddle- and long-range time periods reser- The second program contributing to the satisfac- voir storage will play an increasingly important tion of angler-day needs in this area is municipal part in meeting the municipal water withdrawal and industrial waste treatment, which will permit needs. About 84 mgd will be needed by 2020 from development of the fishery in streams with im- new offstream reservoirs in the Ohio portion of proved water quality. RBG 4.2. About 56 mgd will be needed by 2020 NOR includes programs to satisfy much of the from instream or offstream reservoirs for meeting recreational boating-day needs. Great Lakes needs Fort Wayne's needs. Some of these reservoirs may could be more than met but inland lakes needs also be in Ohio. would not be fully met. The framework provides (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses for 5,000 new water surface acres of impounded NOR includes programs of both municipal and waters to be developed between the period 1980- industrial waste treatment to meet water quality 2000, and an additional 5,000 between 2000 and standards existing before the Federal Water Pol- 2020. In addition, NOR provides for 15 public lution Control Act Amendments of 1972. It also access areas at inland lakes to be developed be- provides that there will be no degradation of water tween 1980 and 2000, and 25 more between 2000 quality where existing water quality is at a level and 2020. NOR also includes Great Lakes marina higher than that provided for in the standards. and harbor construction to provide an additional About 67 percent of the total municipal wAste- 12,01)0 berths by 2020, with 3,000 of these berths water flow in the Ohio portion of RBG 4.2 comes developed by 1980. The framework also includes from the Toledo area. The Normal Framework construction of. inland marinas and public access to includes advanced waste treatment throughout the the Great Lakes. entire Ohio portion of the area. It also includes Commercial fishing and commercial navigation Lake Erie Basin 225 programs are discussed under Subsection 9.6, Lake plain management is needed to reduce damages on Erie Intrarelationships. the main stem and principal tributaries and to (3) Related Land Use protect those areas from flooding. The programed agricultural land treatment is The Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife plans essentially a continuation of ongoing programs at a to acquire as many as 2,500 to 3,000 acres by 1980 level that has been followed in the past. Included as additions to existing game lands in the Great are on-farm and project drainage measures such as Lakes Basin in Indiana. Some of this would be in tiling and field ditching. River Basin Group 4.2, and is included in the Nor- The forest land treatment program in NOR is at mal Framework. Also included are the following approximately the same level as ongoing programs, management programs: except for an accelerated program in the interest of (a) Local zoning ordinances should be adopted controlling erosion, improving fish and wildlife or amended to limit the proliferation of residential habitat, improving timber production, and improv- and industrial development and to maintain open ing hydrologic conditions. space. NOR includes a level of streambank erosion con- (b) Land should be acquired by counties to con- trol that would, by 2020, provide for corrective serve critical components of wildlife habitat and to treatment on all streambank reaches subject to guarantee public access to natural areas. severe erosion. None of the moderate streambank (c) Easements should be obtained or other in- erosion would be treated in the Normal Frame- centives offered to private landowners to insure the work. Streambank erosion is widespread, and ef- preservation of natural, unique ecological, and sce- fective protection measures are very costly to in- nic areas. stall and maintain. (d) Lease agreements between State agencies NOR includes in the early action period pro- and landowners for controlled access to private grams to reduce urban and rural flood damages on land should be retained and expanded. all the main stem and principal tributaries of the (e) Legislation should be enacted and policy Maumee, St. Joseph, St. Marys, Auglaize, Blan- developed on stream and lakeshore filling to pre- chard, Tiffin, Portage, Sandusky, Huron, and Ver- vent further destruction of privately owned milion Rivers. Types of programs are institutional marshes as well as degradation of water courses by or land regulation and zoning programs, flood- municipal dumps (for example, the Ohio Stream proofing, modification of existing building use, re- Littering Law and the Indiana Department of location and damageable property, emergency Natural Resources, Natural Resource Commission measures, and flood warning ind evacuation sys- Wetlands Policy Statement). tems. An urban redevelopment program is included M Public land should be acquired, including for the Maumee, St. Marys, Vermilion, Blanchard, some of the remaining wetlands in the Lake Erie and Sandusky River basins. Channel modification marsh region of Ohio. programs are included for the Blanchard and San- (g) More attention should be given to the con- dusky River basins. sumptive and nonconsumptive uses of fur bearers. In the upstream watershed areas, throughout Ohio is currently one of the two top commercial the entire river basin group, channel modification muskrat harvesting States in the nation. appears to be a desirable program for some Landowner complaints indicate that more ree- streams. There are a few scattered opportunities reational use could be made of beaver to help for reservoir development to reduce rural flood satisfy some of the projected demand. Expanded damages in parts of the St. Joseph River basin. educational programs on the aesthetic and wildlife In the period between 1980 and 2000, the same values created by the beaver are needed to reduce programs apply. However, in this time period some landowner resistance to this species where it causes channel modification, levees, floodwalls, and other little economic damage. A better policy is needed if local protective works are included for Fort Wayne this species is to continue to be a positive force in on the Maumee River, at St. Marys on the St. the improvement of wildlife habitat. Marys River, and at Bucyrus and Tiffin on the Sandusky River. Levees, floodwalls, and other The Ohio Division of Wildlife has tentative plans protective works are included for Milan on the to purchase approximately 23,000 additional acres Huron River. of wildlife lands in the Great Lakes Basin in Ohio. Channel modifications and reservoirs appear to Some of these lands would be in River Basin Group become a feasible alternative in the late time period 4.2. This acquisition is included in NOR. In addition in many of the upstream watersheds. In the period to these lands, the State hopes to purchase as much between 2000 and 2020, most of the structural of the remaining Lake Erie shoreline wetlands as measures would have been implemented, and a possible. rather extensive and effective program of flood NOR provides for the acquisition and preserva- 226 Appendix 1 tion in River Basin Group 4.2 of the following types State, regional, and local policies with respect to of aesthetic and cultural features: population and economic growth do not deviate (a) one upland game bird habitat location greatly from the OBERS projections used in NOR. (b) one waterfowl habitat location The Proposed Framework anticipates a level of (c) historical structures at 29 locations. population somewhat lower than that expected in NOR. This lower level should be realized if the NOR includes additional recreational develop- objective to maximizing environmental quality with ment to satisfy about 60 percent of the water- minimum unemployment is to be achieved. The oriented outdoor recreation needs as they accrue prevailing attitude in the area is that environmen- during the period 1970 to 2020. Programs to ac- tal problems must be resolved before additional complish this include instrearn and offstream reser- effort is exerted to attract additional population or voir storage, land use changes, public acquisition of economic growth. land, and some programs for the collection and The problems addressed indicate that restoration dissemination of information. of a very high level of water quality, timely con- The Normal Framework provides for the con- servation of recreational opportunities, acquisition struction, before 1980, of six State parks as out- of aesthetic and cultural values, and enforcement lined in the Northwest Ohio Water Development of existing local, State, regional, and Federal laws, Plan; additional development of Crane's Creek supported by funding as necessary from Federal, State Park to its optimal level of economic and State, and local levels, are needed as top priority, if management efficiency; addition of recreational fa- the desired objectives of the public in the area are cilities at Grand Lake; acquisition and construction to be achieved for PRO and for future conserva- of recreational facilities at the proposed Auglaize tion, use, and development of water and related River parkway; a Maumee River parkway; a land resources. Sandusky River parkway; a new regional park in The Proposed Framework includes a strong edu- northeastern Indiana; reservoir development at cational program to encourage conservation of Bucyrus, Ohio; and additional development of rec- water resources and the wise use of power. It is reational land in the Lake Erie Islands, including expected that the Ohio Environmental Protection necessary harbors of refuge. Agency and the Ohio Department of Natural Re- In the 1980-2000 period the framework includes sources would take the lead role in accomplishing acquisition and development of segments of the such education in this area. Blanchard, St. Joseph, Huron, Defiance, Portage, Provision of water supply and waste treatment Maumee, Auglaize, and Sandusky River valleys; of should be self-supporting. This concept is included additional land on Lake Erie Islands; and of the in the Proposed Framework. Rate structures and Powell Creek recreation areas. legislation should be modified as necessary to NOR provides for acquisition and development achieve this. during the 2000-2020 time frame of segments of the The Proposed Framework includes implementa- Maumee, Sandusky, Portage, St. Joseph, 'Blan- tion of the Northwest Ohio Water Development chard, Tiffin, Huron, Vermilion, and St. Marys Plan, following reconciliation of differences be- River valleys; and of two new 200-acre State parks tween Ohio and Indiana. oriented to provide considerable water surface PRO encourages research on heavy metals. It area, if possible. includes the concept that industry must be respon- If these programs are implemented, they would sible and held liable for safe disposal of toxic require the acquisition and development of 11,900 wastes. Soil conservation practices, with the ex- acres by 1980 and 35,000 acres by 2020. This com- ception of widespread channelization, should be pares with a 1970 estimate of 24,000 acres of land stepped up for agricultural lands, and agricultural suitable and being used for recreation in the river wastes should be treated where they occur, using basin group. regulation as well as soil conservation land treat- (4) Framework Outputs and Costs ment practices. Section 12 contains Tables 1-292, 1-293, and The public desires the establishment of a park 1-294 which provide information on needs, outputs, along the Maumee River in River Basin Group 4.2. percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs. Such a proposal is included in PRO and has been endorsed by the State of Ohio as a part of its wild, scenic, and recreational river system. The area 9.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) involved in recreational opportunities is greater in PRO than in NOR. In PRO there will be more PRO was formulated in consultation with State emphasis on acquiring easements rather than fee- officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- simple acquisition of recreational land in this area. grams, as well as the desires of area residents. The Proposed Framework includes a recommen- Lake E?ie Basin 227 dation that there be stronger legislation with re- opment in PRO. Improvement of Toledo and San- spect to the use of the flood plains in the State of dusky Harbors and extension of the navigation Ohio. Such legislation should be enforced by the season are included. See Section 5 and Subsection State rather than at the local level. 9.6.1. Population density zoning should eventually (3) Related Land Use occur. Changes in tax assessments or appraisal Agricultural land treatment, cropland drainage, methodology were suggested in order to enhance and forest land treatment are all accelerated in the conservation and preservation of land in its PRO above the levels of NOR in order to conserve present use rather than uses which will result in the resource base. The comparison is shown in more taxes. This will assist in filling the need in this Table 1-337. area for environmental enhancement. Recreation development emphasizes urban- Additional studies should be undertaken to related areas and relies more heavily on the private assess the advantages and disadvantages of the sector to maintain high-quality facilities in the continued building of islands in Maumee Bay and choice recreation areas. around the shoreline of Lake Erie. Until such (4) Framework Outputs and Costs studies have been completed, such construction Section 12 contains Tables 1-295, 1-296, and should be deferred. PRO includes more money for 1-297, which provide information on needs, out- the acquisition of wildlife areas and wetlands than puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R was included in the Normal Framework. costs for PRO, indicating by italics where they In considering the Proposed Framework, a differ from NOR. Table 1-337 compares land number of persons supported the concept that treatment programs. docking and lock usage fees for commercial navi- gation should be set sufficiently high that those firms utilizing new facilities will pay for them. 9.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs Others preferred that such fee not be imposed. PRO recommends that power plants in River Table 1-352 in Section 12 lists the total costs Basin Group 4.2 be sited and constructed so as not (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the to destroy any marshlands. periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. Future development in River Basin Group 4.2 should encourage light rather than heavy industry, increase tourism, education, and service-oriented 9.4 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.3 businesses, and thus achieve water quality protec- tion. Policies and regulations pertaining to use of resources which are in short supply should encour- 9.4.1 Summary age reduction in per capita use of such resources through increased emphasis on conservation and Population in RBG 4.3 is projected to increase increased efficiencies, and should consider increas- nearly 80 percent from 1970 to 2020. While per ing rate structures with increased use, taking into capita income will continue above the national account the overall effects of such rate structures. average, the difference will be less. About one- Stringent air and water quality standards, solid third of the employment is in manufacturing. The waste disposal regulations, and flood plain man- small amount of employment in agiieulture, for- agement through regulation, incentives, penalties, estry, fisheries, and mining is expected to decline. and revenue sharing are also included in the Pro- As in other areas in this basin, the water- posed Framework for facilitating these policies. oriented outdoor recreation needs and wildlife Shore erosion should be controlled and abated by management or hunting needs are difficult to sat- 1980 around the shoreline of Lake Eric. Existing isfy due to the many competing land uses. RBG 4.3 policies with respect to Federal, State, and local is one of the most densely populated in the entire funding should be amended so that this objective Great Lakes Basin. The pressures for residential can be accomplished. and commercial developments are expected to be so (1) Water Withdrawals great in the future that there will be pressure to There are no specific program differences be- forego meeting irrigation and mining needs. tween PRO and NOR and all needs are met. Other problems are water quality and erosion (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses and sedimentation. Waste treatment programs in PRO meet the The Normal Framework has been formulated by requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Con- the selection of those programs which would tend trol Act Amendments of 1972. Other programs are to minimize the public costs involved in satisfying essentially the same as in NOR, except that com- the needs. To some extent the overall effect of mercial navigation reaches a higher stage of devel- optimizing the maximum beneficial effects over the 228 Appendix 1 adverse effects has also been considered. NOR has 9.4.3.1 Water Withdrawals been based on the assumption of maintaining the 7 day-10 year low flow in the streams throughout the The total water withdrawals for RBG 4.3 in 1970 river basin group. In some cases this assumption were estimated as 4,520 mgd. By 1980 under nor- has dictated which source of water for withdrawals mal growth conditions, there is estimated to be a is to be incorporated or selected. Thermal power need for additional water withdrawals of 350 mgd. plants were assumed to be located on or near the This need is projected to increase to 10,600 mgd shores of Lake Erie and to use the Lake as a source by 2020. In 2020 about 80 percent of the water for cooling water. withdrawals will be for thermal power cooling, 15 NOR includes somewhat more land acquisition percent for self-supplied industrial water, nearly 5 and development for public use in this area than in percent for municipal water, and about 1 percent some of the other planning subareas. This is be- split among rural domestic and livestock, irriga- cause this area is highly urbanized at the present tion, and mining. time. Unless acquisition is undertaken soon, the There are problems associated with the satisfac- overall environmental quality of the river basin tion of irrigation and mining withdrawal needs. group may be lowered enough to deter people from These are not water withdrawal problems as much coming to live and work in this area. This would not as they are land use problems. be in the interest of national economic development The major problems related to municipal water since there is considerable investment in having a withdrawals appear to be the "need for more effi- viable economy in this area. An adequate level of cient management of existing systems, elimination environmental quality is essential, even in the na- of small and inefficient systems, extension of some tional economic development objective, in order to individual systems to greater area-wide distribu- maintain this as an attractive area. As a result a tion, and the provision of adequate financing and a somewhat higher level of stream valley develop- more equitable rate structure. In addition, it is ment and aesthetic and cultural value preservation very difficult to overcome legal obstacles and pub- has been included in NOR. lic opposition to the construction of municipal water Section 12 contains Table 1-298 which lists the supply projects. needs, outputs, and percent of needs met for Lake T%ere is a need for additional funds for State Erie River Basin Group 4.3 for NOR; Tables 1-299 personnel to inspect water supply systems and and 1-300 list the capital costs and operation, plants more frequently. maintenance, and replacement costs of the frame- In the Cuyahoga River basin several communi- work. ties have exceeded the capacity of ground water to meet their needs. In the Chagrin River basin sev- eral communities have also approached the limits of 9.4.2 The Area their well-field capacity and are expected to rely increasingly on surface water in the future. In the RiverBasin Group 4.3 is a highly populated, highly Grand River basin there is a need for some small industrialized, highly polluted portion of the Lake water supply systems to be replaced with larger Erie drainage basin. It in@ludes five river basins or regional systems. There are no water resource complexes: the Black-Rocky complex, Cuyahoga deficiencies in the Ashtabula-Conneaut complex. River basin, Chagrin River basin, Grand River In summary, the main problems associated with basin, and Ashtabula-Conneaut complex. The last municipal water supply in this area are those of extends into Pennsylvania, and includes 4 miles of management and the method of paying for the cost Lake Erie shoreline. Additional information is of water supply development. given in Section 1. Figure 1-42 shows the areal Although the self-supplied industrial water extent of River Basin Group 4.3. Planning Subarea withdrawals are expected to be less than 1% times 4.3 is restricted to eight counties located in north- those of 1970, the consumptive use of this water is projected to increase more than ninefold by the eastern Ohio, and economic and demographic data year 2000. This is due to an expected increase in the relate to those counties. in-plant recirculation of industrial process water, which will decrease withdrawal rates but increase consumptive use rates. Problems associated with 9.4.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems power production include thermal pollution, the potential harmful effects of heated water discharg- The projected needs for resource use by time ing into Lake Erie, air pollution due to particulate level are shown in Table 1-298. Where needs can be and gaseous stack emissions, and the attractiveness quantified, they are not discussed in the text unless of electric power facilities. Some concern has also special conditions warrant such discussion. been expressed over the possible danger of radio- Lake Erie Basin 229 0 onneaut a c 0))Ashtabula C @b. INS m z Gene@ z 0 0 (1) - 0@- < Fairport Harbor 01-1 < lefferson r--1 Painesville > z Ilk LAKE GRAND 'k > ASHTABULAI CHAGRIN Lorain C e, Ian d 81-k Ri-, 0 Elyria GEAUGA (Oboer,rin CLIIYAHOGA BLA K CKY CUYAHOGA 0 Wellington R venna Medon. 0 LORAIN MEDINA PORTAGE RIVER BASIN GROUP VICINITY MAP PLANNING SUBAREA SCALIF IN MILES 0 50 I@o J, SCALE IN MILES r22i to 15 FIGURE 142 Lake Erie Southeast, River Basin Group 4.3 230 Appendix 1 active wastes in relatively densely populated areas. TABLE 1-153 Use- and Projected Needs for There is a lack of sufficient information on the Recreational Boating, PSA 4.3 environmental impacts of siting and operating nu- 1000 Boating Days clear power plants, and there is a need for better Great Lakes Inland dialogue.with the public concerning the develop- Category Waters Waters ment of such plants. 1970 Use 327 372 -9.4.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses 1980 Needs 90 45 Among the major water quality problems in the 2000 Needs 189 138 .area are high bacterial counts, which prevent body 2020 Needs 258 210 contact recreation in most principal streams; low dissolved oxygen levels, which hinder fish produc- tion; and the construction and operation of treat- In recent years a considerable investment in ment facilities, made difficult by complex problems industrial wastewater treatment has been made in associated with financing, manpower, and legisla- this area. This fact, coupled with increasing recir- tion. There is a need for regional authorities and culation and an increasing dependence of industrial master planning in the consolidation and integra- plants on waste treatment by municipal systems, tion of collection systems and treatment facilities. will tend to minimize the capital and OM&R costs Enforcement of water quality standards and the associated with future industrial waste treatment checking of industrial waste treatment discharges facilities in this area. is very expensive from a government point of view. The sport fishing opportunity that must be There is a need to reduce agricultural wastes, in- planned for year 2020 is an increase of nearly 60 cluding nutrients, sediments, insecticides, and her- percent in the existing angler opportunity days. bicides. There is a need for an expanded area-wide One of the major limitations affecting fish produc- surveillance systern and a need to reduce dissolved tion and distribution in RBG 4.3 is that all ponded solids. waters in this area are to some degree eutrophic. In the Black-Rocky River complex the discharge Accelerating rates of eutrophication are occurring of untreated or inadequately treated sewage as the result of intensive agricultural use. Sedi- seriously affects the recovery capabilities of 'the mentation has been responsible for altering habitat streams. Although several proposed projects would in older impoundments. Too much vegetation was appear to have marginal effects on the water qual- removed in the process of clearing reservoir sites, ity directly downstream, advanced waste treat- so other impoundments suffer from lack of habitat ment is required to achieve a satisfactory level of development. Water level fluctuation, thermal stream water quality. stratification, and low dissolved oxygen conditions At the present time, the headwaters of the are other problems in impoundments in northeas- Cuyahoga River above Akron, Ohio, generally ex- tern Ohio. Low water quality is also a major de- hibit good water quality and serve as a source of terrent to stream fishing opportunities. In head- public water supply. However, water quality deg- water areas, limiting factors on fishing productivity radation is expected due to the potential urban are related to agricultural and flood control prac- development in the general Cleveland-Akron area. tices, particularly siltation. Impoundments on tri- There is, therefore, an immediate need to assure butaries in the headwaters of the Cuyahoga River that this urban development does riot result in such are thought to have eliminated the upstream and degradation. The river below Akron is seriously lateral nursery areas that supply the sport fishery polluted, with the lower reach of navigation chan- along the main stem of the river. Although the role nels exhibiting gross amounts of oils, solids, and that pesticides play in limiting fish production is not oxygen-consuming materials stemming from both entirely clear, there is concern that this is also a municipal and industrial discharges. Advanced problem. waste treatment must be installed in this basin to The total number of craft using the boatable reach suitable water quality standards. water within RBG 4.3 is expected to nearly double In the Chagrin and Grand basins and Ashtabula- between 1970 and 2020, and the number of boat Conneaut complex, advanced waste treatment is days to increase by about two-thirds (Table 1-153). also considered necessary. Although quality in the One of the major problems in this area is that there upper reaches is better than that in the more densely are few harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes. developed downstream areas, municipal and indu 's- Although commercial harbors are used by recrea- trial discharges to the rivers degrade the quality of tional craft, no improvements have been made water reaching Lake Erie. specifically for such craft. This area has only a few Lake Erie Basin 231 streams suitable for canoeing. The lack of stream discussed in detail in Appendix 16, Drainage, indi- improvements, lack.of maintenance, and periodic cates that almost all of River Basin Group 4.3 has low flows limit the amount of canoeing and small - severe drainage limitations, with the exception of boat opportunity on these streams. The lower the area around Akron, the upstream Cuyahoga reaches of several streams have been improved for area, and a portion of the Grand River valley. This commercial navigation but are little used by rem means that it would be very difficult to provide creational craft due to unattractive industrial sur- adequate drainage in most of this river basin group, roundings and the presence of large ships. Many of but does not necessarily mean that this land cannot be the small streams are navigable for only a few used for cropland. hundred feet from the mouth. The main rivers and Maintenance of forest cover is needed for water- tributaries which have been identified as good ca- shed protection and for continuing multiple re- noeing waters are the Cuyahoga and Black Rivers, source uses. There are about 539,000 acres of and Conneaut Creek. There is need for a continuing forests in the planning subarea. This represents 23 program for improving small boat harbors on Lake percent of the total land area. On 109,000 acres of Erie. This is essential to the expansion of recrea- this land, treatment is adequate. There is an op- tional boating on these waters. Future opportuni- portunity for forest land treatment on the remain- ties for recreational boating in this area must be ing 430,000 acres. largely oriented toward the Great Lakes because The major problem associated with forest land inland waters now are utilized to capacity. It is treatment is that of maintaining the forest land in important that reservoir sites be identified and land the face of pressures for change. Reduction of acquisition begun if inland boating is to be in- sediment in streams and increased opportunity for creased. recreation and aesthetic and cultural uses would be Commercial fishing: needs and problems are dis- the major benefit from a program of forest land cussed in Subsection 9.6, Lake Erie Intrarelation- treatment in this subarea. In addition, forest land ships. treatment would help maintain high quality water Harbors in this area include Lorain, Cleveland, in those upstream reservoirs that are proposed for Fairport, Ashtabula, and Conneaut, Ohio. Annual water supply. . dredging is needed if use is to continue. In RBG 4.2 there are an estimated 14.3 miles Needs are shown in Section 12 in Table 1-298. subject to critical erosion along the shoreline of Ports in this area are projected to handle consider- Lake Erie, all in Ohio. There are an additional 9.9 ably more receipts of iron ore in the future than miles subject to noncritical erosion in Ohio, and 4.0 they have in recent years. Competitive iron ore miles in Pennsylvania, based on 1970 evaluations. from the East and possible movement of coal by Severe damage from shoreline erosion occurred pipeline could present serious problems for com- during the record high lake levels of 1951 and 1952, mercial navigation in this area in the future. and again in 1973. In several highly developed areas, erosion has become critical, and many homes will be lost unless protected immediately. 9.4.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems The Northeast Ohio Water Development Plan has suggested a long range subobjective of making all It is estimated that practices could be applied to of the. shoreline of this planning subarea available reduce soil losses and conserve plant cover on about for public use. This runs counter to the actual :700, 100 acres of agricultural land-about 30 per- trend. Since 1952 there has been about a 50 percent cent of the total land in, PSA 4.3. These conserva- increase in the number of miles of shoreline devel- tion practices would have beneficial effects on the oped for residential use, a 75 percent increase in natural resource base beyond those directly related commercial and industrial use, an 11 percent in- to production of food and fiber. These effects, crease in public parks, and a decrease in agricultural particularly needed in this. area, include reduction and undeveloped frontage. of sediment in the surface water and improvement There are 356 streambank. miles in this river of. plant cover. basin gr oup subject to moderate or severe stream- The greatest problem associated with the conser- bank erosion. In the streams for which the drainage vationmeasures on agricultural land is theincreasing area is less than 400 square miles, there are about pressure to convert these lands to other uses. 276 bank miles subject to moderate damage and 45 Drainage measures can have both beneficial and bank miles subject to severe damage. The total adverse effects depending on the possible alterna- average . annual damages for these reaches is tive uses of the land. Urban development in this $32,200. For streams with drainage of more than area may alter or cut off natural surface or subsur- 400 square miles, there are 35 bank miles subject to face drainage patterns. severe damage. The damages for this reaches Analysis of soil drainage limitations, which is are estimated to total $268,600 annually. The total 232 Appendix 1 annual damages are estimated at $300,800. Cleve- Two other problems are specifically relevant for land Harbor, Ohio, undergoes the highest amount the area. There is a considerable need for additional of maintenance dredging of any of the navigation water for boaters and water skiers. The demand facilities on the Great Lakes, averaging about for such facilities will not be adequately met in the 1,220,000 cubic yards peryear. About 60 percent of near future. On the other hand, large amounts of the material dredged is from channels along the needs for swimming can be met on relatively Cuyahoga River upstream from its mouth. The smaller areas of water surface. Lake Erie has vast remainder is from the outer harbor. Maintenance expanses of water surface that are potentially dredging is also necessary in the harbors at Lorain, available to meet the need for power boating. Fairport, Ashtabula, and Conneaut, Ohio. However, at the present time, activities are res- In RBG 4.3 the greatest flood damages occur in tricted to a significant degree by limited launching urban areas, as shown in Table 1-298 in Section 12. and docking facilities, by rough water, and by Encroachment on the flood plain and the lack of limited public ownership of lake frontage. flood plain regulations and zoning are major prob- Planning Subarea 4.3 contains several large lems resulting in the high damage levels. cities, so the problem of providing urban recrea- The 1970 level of wildlife user-day supply in this tional opportunities is of paramount importance. river basin group and the needs are shown in Table Exclusive of Cuyahoga Metropolitan Park District 1-298 in Section 12. Nearly a 50 percent increase in land and municipal golf courses, there are only 3.5 supply is needed by 1980 and more than double the acres of recreation land per 1000 persons in the City supply by 2020. Major problems are those of land of Cleveland. Similarly, Akron provides only about use and maintaining adequate acreages of wildlife 2.7 acres per 1000 population. Present standards habitat. The small size of most public hunting areas indicate a need of 6 to 10 acres of land per 1000 in this area severely limits their ability to provide persons for neighborhood, community and district quality hunting opportunities and major game spe- parks. The use of several public beaches in the cies. Use of public land for both consumptive and Cleveland area has been greatly limited by pollu- nonconsumptive purposes will become more in- tion. tense. Population-related problems increase more rapidly than the population growth rate. Therefore, crowding and the resultant lowering of the quality of 9.4.4 Alternative Frameworks the outdoor experience will probably be the foremost of the foreseeable problems on public wildlife lands. Two alternative frameworks are presented for The restriction of hunting access on private land is this as for other river basin groups. The Normal another problem in this area. Water pollution is also a Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- major problem. Air pollution tends to deter people in tions to meet needs outside RBG 4.3 in the Lake their pursuit of nonconsumptive wildlife experi- basin or the Great Lakes Basin. ences. Air pollution also limits what can be planted to The Proposed Framework contains the recom- enhance wildlife habitat. Established white pine mendations of the Commission in an effort to re- plantations are dying within a zone of 30 miles of the flect the views of the people of the basin, and the industrial centers in this area. It is important that policies and programs of the States. To some ex- channel modification projects include wildlife en- tent, it reflects coordination in the development of hancement features. the framework among a number of river basin The outstanding, unusual, and significant aes- groups, both in the Lake basin and in the Great thetic and cultural values in this area have been Lakes Basin as a whole. covered in Subsection 9.1.3. The primary problem here is one of competing land uses and lack of money available for acquisition. In this particular 9.4.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) area buffer zones and linkage corridors are extremely important if aesthetic and cultural values and social NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and well-being are to be maintained. solving identified problems to the maximum prac- To meet estimated recreation-day requirements, ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and the present availability must be markedly in- criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The creased by 1980 and then nearly doubled by 2020. program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- This emphasizes the need for land use planning and tion 12 on Tables 1-298, 1-299, and 1-300. the very immediate need for identification, preser- (1) Water Withdrawals vation, and conservation of recreational opportuni- NOR satisfies all of the municipally-supplied, ties throughout the entire river basin group. The self-supplied industrial, and rural domestic and land required in order to meet this need has been livestock water withdrawal needs in each -of the estimated in Table 1-298 in Section 12. time periods. The Great Lakes are the primary Lake E7@ie Basin 233 source for almost all the municipal needs and all of and anticipated programs. Additional access to the the self-supplied industrial needs. Ground-water Lake Erie shore and offshore fishing are also in- withdrawals in this area were estimated to be 31 cluded in the Normal Framework. mgd for municipal water in 1970. The resource The future prospect for river and stream warm- capability for ground water has been estimated to water fisheries is not optimistic. Improvement in be 300 mgd. Therefore, it is obvious that the Nor- water quality will help, together with some reser- mal Framework could include more ground-water voir construction, and increased access to streams. development than is reflected in the program se- Programs beyond 1980 will be directed toward ef- lections. Lake Erie has been selected as the source forts to develop new inland water areas strictly for because of the economic advantages expected to sport fishing and allied interests, and toward addi- accrue as a result of establishing regional water tional access to Lake Erie waterfront angling, par- systems. NOR satisfies all of the rural domestic and ticularly in the reach between Lorain and Paines- livestock water withdrawals from ground-water ville, Ohio. development. NOR programs aim to shift the fishing oppor- NOR includes programs that satisfy all of the tunities in River Basin Group 4.3 away from sub- irrigation and mining needs, even though land use stantial dependence upon impoundments toward an pressures for other uses may be so great that increasing level of fishing in the improved streams irrigation and mining could phase out over the and rivers of the RBG. planning period. Adequate water is available if land This combination of fishery management mea- use policies are adopted which encourage irrigation sures is expected to be adequate to satisfy all of the and mining. angler-day fishing needs in this area in the respec- All of the thermal power cooling water with- tive time periods. drawals are expected to come from Lake Erie. The Normal Framework includes programs to (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses increase the recreational boating opportunity on NOR includes waste treatment measures to meet the Great Lakes as well as on inland lakes and the water quality standards before the Federal streams. Needs would be nearly met in the early Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, time periods and exceeded in 2020. NOR provides and provides that water quality not be allowed to for the construction of three harbors for recrea- be degraded in areas where water quality is higher tional boating, two of which have already been than the existing standards. The recommended approved. One is at the Chagrin River about 17 waste treatment includes conventional secondary miles east of Cleveland and the other at'Geneva- treatment plus 80 percent removal of phosphates on-the-Lake about 17 miles east of Fairport. The as a minimum. Advanced waste treatment is included third harbor would be between Lorain and the in NOR for all of the locations in this river basin Rocky River. group. Another program included in NOR is additional Ongoing fishery management programs directed breakwater protection at existing harbors. All of the towards ponded waters presently hold the greatest commercial harbors in the area have areas that could promise for developing and expanding the sport be developed -as marinas. However, the existing flshing potential of northeastern Ohio. Ongoing breakwater systems are designed for commercial programs should include frequent stocking of ponds navigation and do not provide adequate protection with walleye and smallmouth bass. On a few select for small boats. stream systems, there should be follow-up inven- NOR also includes programs to develop addi- tories of these populations to ascertain the chang- tional access to Great Lakes waters in order to ing ecology of the streams. Chemical eradication of supplement the present intensive use of inland rough fish and subsequent establishment of pri- waters. Twelve such sites are included between mary and secondary predatory species should also 1970 and 1980, and an additional nine between 1980 be included as an ongoing program for the man- and 2000. agement of sport fisheries. Also, where feasible, the Commercial fishing and commercial navigation development, preservation, and management of programs are discussed in Subsection 9.6, Lake nursery habitats for game species should be un- Erie Intrarelationships. dertaken. This is expected to become an important facet of inland water management. Pike and wall- (3) Related Land Use eye should continue to be stocked in inland waters. The Normal Framework includes programs to It is expected that future expansion of the Pacific provide agricultural land treatment by 2020 on salmon program will be limited. about 31 percent of the total land on which treat- Obtaining public access to fishing waters through ment would be effective. Drainage would be pro- easement or agreement, and through the construc- vided by 2020 on about 15 percent of the total lands tion of impoundments, is a high priority for present with a wetness problem. The agricultural land 234 Appendix 1 treatment and drainage programs are essentially a acquisition and preservation of the following addi- continuation of ongoing programs. tional outstanding, unusual, and significant aesthetic The forest land treatment program provides for and cultural values: an accelerated level of forest land treatment. Pro- (a) four animal wildlife habitat areas grams for shoreline erosion will protect areas (b) two habitat areas for birds of prey where continued critical erosion is likely to endan- (c) four wetland areas ger life or public safety within the next five years, (d) four beach areas and where continued erosion is likely to endanger (e) ten waterfall and rapids areas property or wildlife habitat or landmarks of histor- (f) twelve proposed State parks ical and natural significance within five years. (g) twenty-five proposed municipal parks. NOR provides for streambank erosion treatment No cost estimate is available. on those bank miles that are subject to severe In NOR the programs meet only about half the erosion damages. Reaches selected for treatment recreation-day needs by 2020. are those where the benefits of damage reductions The following programs are included during the are likely to exceed the cost of accomplishing those 1970-1980 time frame: reductions. No program is included in the Normal (a) the complete acquisition of land in the Framework for abatement of moderate stream- Cuyahoga River valley and the acquisition of ease- bank damage. ments on the valley wall lan& as set forth in the The most important programs included in the Cuyahoga River Valley of Ohio Recreation Feasibil- framework for reducing urban and rural flood ity Study damages and protecting acres subject to flooding (b) acquisition and development of the Lake are flood plain management or regulation. In the Shore Park Beach in Lake County, listed in the early time period the Normal Framework includes State plan channel modifications, floodwalls, and local protec- (c) development of an additional recreation fa- tion works to be developed in the Cuyahoga River cility at the Berlin Reservoir to be acquired as areas of Brooklyn Heights, Valley View, and Inde- needed pendence. In the upstream watersheds of the Black (d) acquisition of land and recreational devel- and Rocky River basins, the framework includes opment for an impoundment and recreation facility channel modification and reservoir protection. All on the upper part of the Chagrin River of the other reduction measures are applicable to (e) the acquisition and development of lands essentially all of the main stem and principal along the Rocky River valley in Medina County and tributary areas. along the lower Grand River and Chagrin River In the period between 1980 and 2000, NOR in- valleys. cludes programs for channel modification in the The framework includes the following additional Eastlake area of the Chagrin River. The other developments between 1980 and 2000: reduction measures are also continued during this (a) the acquisition and development of lands period. In the late action period, the primary pro- along the Black River gram is flood plain management. (b) acquisition and development of river valleys The wildlife programs in NOR at the present should be continued time satisfy only a small part of the needs. The (c) recreational development at the Mogadore State of Ohio Division of Wildlife plans to acquire Reservoir near Akron at least 10,000 acres of the remaining wetlands in (d) development of wildlife areas for certain the lake shore and marsh region of Ohio. Some of recreational activities. this is expected to be in River Basin Group 4.3. The following program elements are included in NOR includes programs for the acquisition and NOR for the 2000-2020 time frame: preservation of the following types of outstanding, (a) intensification of development in those met- unusual, and significant aesthetic and cultural values ropolitan park areas having the potential to support in River Basin Group 4.3: increased development (a) two upland game bird habitat locations (b) acquisition and development of lands on the (b) eight waterfowl habitat locations Upper Cuyahoga River and the Conneaut River (c) historical structures and places at 45 locations valley (d) sites and objects pertaining to early Indian (c) development of the Lake Erie beach east of culture at two locations. Conneaut. Because of the necessity for an aesthetic and (4) Framework Outputs and Costs cultural environment to be maintained in this Section 12 contains Tables 1-298, 1-299, and urbanized area in the interest of social well-being, the 1-300 which provide information on needs, outputs, Normal Framework also includes programs for the percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs. Lake E7ie Basin 235 9.4.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) oriented recreation activities considered in this study. PRO was formulated in consultation with State PRO includes a recommended study on existing officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- and proposed levels of radioactivity in Lake Erie. grams, as well as the desires of area residents. The Proposed Framework includes a recreational State, regional and local policy assumptions with program with aesthetic and cultural and other en- respect to population and economic growth do not vironmental benefits based on the creation of a deviate greatly from the OBERS projection used in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. This is similar to NOR. but more extensive than the proposal included in The objective of PRO is to achieve a very high the NOR. level of environmental quality while minimizing Additional legislative measures should be passed unemployment. giving the International Joint Commission author- The water supply and waste treatment in the ity to prevent land fill encroachment along the future in River Basin Group 4.3 should be self- shores of the Great Lakes. supporting, and changes in rate structures and Money should be spent and resource projects legislation should be made as soon as possible to undertaken to develop successful programs that accomplish this objective. will draw on volunteers to clean up pollution- PRO includes a strong educational program to water pollution as well as air pollution and solid promote conservation of water resources and en- waste pollution. ergy, the wise use of power, and the reduction of PRO recognizes, not only for this area but waste. The lead for this program is expected to be throughout the Basin, the importance of an inves- taken by the Ohio Environmental Protection tigation into nuclear plant hazards and safety, be- Agency and Ohio Department of Natural Re- cause of the remote possibility of irreversible sources. radioactive pollution of the Great Lakes. The Normal Framework does not, in the opinion PRO includes a recommendation for a permanent of the State of Ohio and the public in the area, have ban on drilling for oil and gas in Lake Eric. sufficient programs to meet shore erosion needs in (1) Water Withdrawals River Basin Group 4.3. Therefore, it is recom- Programs are the same for PRO as for NOR mended in the Proposed Framework that all of the except for irrigation and mining. All crop irrigation shoreline area subject to shore erosion be cor- is to be phased out by 1980 and only golf course rected. The specific financial and institutional ar- irrigation provided. Mining needs are met to 1980 rangements for accomplishing this are not yet de- and held constant from that point on. No difference fined, but the Proposed Framework does recognize is shown in programs for,thermal power cooling, that the Normal Framework programs are not ex- but the emphasis is on selection of a cooling system tensive enough in the eyes of the public and the to suit the requirements of each site rather than State of Ohio. generalized regulation of method. Although islands in Lake Erie might be useful (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses for recreational, jetport, and other purposes, PRO While there are no differences between NOR and does not include such recommendations as probable PRO in the amount of wastewater treated, PRO in the future. It is definitely necessary that more complies with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Commercial navigation, information on the advantages and disadvantages discussed in Subsection 9.6, is emphasized more in of such undertakings should be available before any PRO than in NOR, with provisions for a system to recommendations could be acted on even in a pre- provide greater harbor and channel depths and liminary fashion. PRO does recognize, however, extension of the navigation season. that there is a need for improved transportation (3) Related Land Use throughout the Basin, both for commerce and for Agricultural land treatment, cropland drainage, personal transportation. and forest land treatment are carried on at faster The Proposed Framework for the Cleveland area rates and to a greater extent in PRO than in NOR. includes a recommendation that additional ways be A comparison is shown in Table 1-338. Other pro- agreed upon to protect open space from develop- grams are the same, but the emphasis in providing ment, including mining and irrigation. This objec- water-oriented outdoor recreation is on develop- tive is highly desired in the Cleveland area. ment in the vicinity of urban areas and encourage- Methods might include financial incentives and tax ment of private enterprise to maintain good facili- relief for private land owners, including farmers. ties at high-quality recreation locations. PRO should have a substantially greater pro- While water withdrawals for mining needs are gram for urban recreation than is reflected in NOR. met only until 1980, and held constant from then on The requirements go well beyond the water- because of local preferences for other uses of the 236 Appendix 1 land, it is noted that this may run counter to the Section 12 contains Tables -1-304, 1-305, and following pertinent "issues" adopted by the Great 1-306, which list needs, output, and percent of Lakes Basin Commission on May 15, 1973, and needs met, as well as capital and OM&R costs for August 17, 1973: the NOR Framework in River Basin Group 4.4. The Proposed Framework should recommend that no in- tensive urban or other essentially irreversible surface de- velopment be undertaken without a mineral survey to de- 9.5.2 The Area termine the quantity and quality of the mineral resources that might be affected. That as part of the planning programs, particularly in This area lies at the northeastern end of the Lake urbanizing areas, due consideration be given to the preser- Erie basin and includes part of the area that drains vation for possible future utilization of known mineral de- into the Niagara River from its headwaters to posits. approximately the lower end of Grand Island. Al- (4) Framework Outputs and Costs most the entire portion of the Lake Erie basin in Section 12 contains Tables 1-301, 1-302, and Pennsylvania is included in RBG 4.4. The corre- 1-303, which provide information on needs, output, sponding planning subarea includes all of Niagara percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs County, New York, which extends to Lake On- for PRO, indicating by italics where they differ tario, and includes part of that shoreline and all of from NOR. Table 1-338 compares land treatment the Niagara River and some minor streams. Popu- programs. lation in the RBG is largely concentrated in the Erie, Pennsylvania, and Buffalo, New York, met 9.4.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs ropolitan areas. The PSA includes the City of Nia- gara Falls. Figure 1-43 shows 'the areal extent of Table 1-353 in Section 12 lists the total costs River Basin Group 4.4 and Planning Subarea 4.4. (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the Section 1 and Subsection 9.1 provide some statisti- periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. cal information. Manufacturing is important in both the Erie and Buffalo areas, and trades and services are also 9.5 Frameworks for River Basin Group 4.4 significant in the economy. Fruit, vegetables, and dairy farming are major agricultural activities. The planning subarea ranks eighth in value of farms 9.5.1 Summary among the 15 planning subareas in the Great Lakes Region. Farms are typically small. The most im- Problems that at the present appear to be most portant vegetables are tomatoes and snap beans. severe in River Basin Group 4.4 are the degraded The number of acres of orchards, groves, and water quality in the lower reaches of many of the vineyards in PSA 4.4 is second highest in the Great tributary streams and the Niagara River and the Lakes Region, with grapes, pears, and sweet cher- flooding of many thousands of acres of urban and ries being the most significant fruit crops. rural flood plains. Erosion along the Lake Erie New York and Pennsylvania are strong home- shore is also a problem. Increasingly, there will be rule States that place most of the responsibility for competition for the use of the available land for a water and related land resources with the munici- great many purposes-a problem which is indicated palities. In addition to municipal and county plan- now by the declining wildlife habitat. The frame- ning boards, regional resource planning and man- works adopted for the river basin group recognize agement groups have been established in the area. these problems as well as the needs for additional The Erie County Metropolitan Planning Depart- resource use. Treatment of municipal and indus- ment covers Erie County, Pennsylvania, and the trial waste to meet water quality standards is a Northwestern Pennsylvania Resources Planning major program. Major water withdrawals will be and Development Commission covers a multi- from Lake Erie and the Niagara River, except county area that includes Erie County. This is one locally where inland lakes and streams and ground of the 10 official areas of the State designated by water are more advantageous sources. The allevia- the governor as a basic unit for State planning and tion of damages from flooding can be accomplished programs. largely through legislation and other institutional In New York there are regional water resources measures, with some structural measures proposed planning boards (under authority of Title 11, Ar- for specific areas. The importance of managing the ticle 15, New York State Environmental Law), land in such a fashion that wildlife habitat can be including the Allegheny River Basin Board (cover- developed and enhanced at the same time that ing. the Lake Erie shore area of Chautauqua other uses are accommodated is recognized. Land County), and three regional planning and develop- treatment programs are incorporated. ment boards: the Western Board (also known as the Lake Erie Basin 237 LAKE ONTA 7 NIAGARA Lockport Niag ra Fa Is N onawanda k Grand I ONAWANDA-B LO atavia Ellicott F,. s Buffalo L ncas EaStAur a 0 Hamburg lpringviFl, C-A--u0"5 0 Dunkirk ERIE CATTARAUGUS 4- 0 Fredonia WD t ield Prarsque Island Salamanca Erie - 3: @ Jamestown 90lean W z z WI CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS (L PENNSYLVANIA z 0 Corry W ERIE e Union City RIVER BASIN GROUP -M VICINITY MAP PLANNING SUBAREA CINIDA SCALE IN MILES "C"GA 0 so i@. WE NEWIOR PEI.S-11.A SCALE IN MILES L 15 20 FIGURE 1-43 Lake Erie Northeast, River Basin Group 4.4 238 Appendix 1 Erie and Niagara Counties Board), the Genesee- TABLE 1-154 Use and Projected Needs for Finger Lakes Board, and the Southern Tier West Recreational Boating, PSA 4.4 Board. A regional water resources planning board 1000 Boating Days was established in the Lake Erie drainage basin in Great Lakes Inland portions of Erie, Niagara, Genesee, Wyoming and Category Waters Waters Cattaraugus Counties but was terminated in 1974 after completing a comprehensive water and re- 1970 Use 390 267 lated resource management plan which was adopted by the State with some modifications. 1980 Needs 153 96 2000 Needs 162 105 9.5.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems 2020 Needs 225 162 The projected needs for resource use in RBG 4.4 by time level are shown in Table 1-263 in Section Lake Erie is presently restricted in New York in 12. Where needs can be quantified, they are not response to concern over exploration practices discussed in the text unless special conditions which could degrade water quality. warrant such discussion. The angler days needed in 1980 will be about 40 percent greater than those available in 1970, and by 2020 about 55 percent greater. Degraded water -9.5.3.1 Water Withdrawals quality and limited access contribute to the problem of providing an adequate sport fishery. The total withdrawal needs to 2020 are estimated The needs for boating water to provide adequate for RBG 4.4 at about 7,700 mgd above the base additional boat days, as shown in Table 1-154, are year withdrawal of 2,790 mgd. About 84 percent of divided between inland water and the Great Lakes, the additional requirement is for thermal power with needs for the latter significantly greater in cooling, 11 percent is for self-supplied industrial each time period. Problems associated with using water, and the remainder is for municipally sup- the existing water surface are access to inland lakes plied water, irrigation, mining, and rural domestic and streams, degraded water quality on some of and livestock, with demand decreasing in the order the streams, which makes boating and canoeing presented. unattractive, and the need for marinas and harbors of Water withdrawal problems are not great. There refuge on Lake Erie. is an adequate supply in Lake Erie and the Niagara Needs for commercial navigation are given in River, and the major withdrawals will be from Table 1-304. There are no problems peculiar to the these sources. Inland lakes and streams and gTound area. The dredging of habors is necessary as a water will supply local requirements as appro- continued maintenance program. Enlargement will priate. be necessary if larger ships are to be accommo- dated. This is further discussed in Subsection 9.6. 9.5.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses 9.5.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems The increase in municipal wastewater discharges to be treated in RBG 4.4 reflects in part the in- Conservation land treatment measures could be creasing reliance of industry on municipal treat- profitably applied to about 552,000 acres in RBG ment plants. Industrial wastewater discharges to 4.4. These measures could be expected to reduce be treated by industry will also increase, but at a erosion and flooding and the consequent sedimen- much slower rate. This slower rate reflects the tation, and to increase the production of food and increase in the amount of recirculation in plants and fiber. About 341,000 acres have drainage prob- the reliance on municipal plants mentioned above. lems which impede the most effective present use The disposal of untreated wastes directly into the and could practicably be mitigated by drainage Niagara River at several points must be elimi- measures. nated. Combined sanitary and storm sewer systems It is estimated that 75 percent of the forest land are a problem in this river basin group, and the is adaptable to forest treatment which will permit untreated storm water overflows contribute to poor better multiple use of the forest and assist in solv- water quality in the Niagara River and Lake Erie. ing other problems such as flooding, erosion, and There are 15 locations in Pennsylvania and New sedimentation. York that need advanced wastewater treatment at There are 6 miles of Lake Erie shoreline subject an early date. Drilling for oil and natural gas in to critical erosion in Pennsylvania and 32 miles in Lake Erie Basin 239 that State subject to noncritical erosion. There are solving identified problems to the maximum prac- also 10.6 miles in New York subject to noncritical ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and erosion. This total is about 42 percent of the lake- criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The shore in the river basin group. program outputs and costs for RBG 4.4 are sum- About 90 percent of the total cost of streambank marized in Section 12 in Tables 1-304, 1-305, and erosion comes from streams draining more than 400 1-306. square miles, even though the total mileage in (1) Water Withdrawals smaller drainage areas is several times greater. NOR satisfies all of the water withdrawals at all The area subject to flooding and the losses are time periods. The municipally supplied water and given in Table 1-304. As areas now rural become self-supplied industrial water are principally ob- urbanized, the losses from flooding will increase tained from the Great Lakes, but some supplies are sharply unless measures are taken to prevent the obtained from ground water and inland lakes and flooding or alleviate the losses. streams. Rural domestic and livestock water and The problems relating to wildlife values are sim- that required for irrigation and mining are obtained ilar to those in other parts of the basin, including from the inland surface water and ground water gradual encroachment on the habitat, deterioration sources. Water for thermal power cooling is ob- of the habitat, and desire on the part of more tained from the Great Lakes. There is a possibility people to hunt or observe wildlife. The quantities of adverse effect on water quality, recreation, sport involved are given in Table 1-304 in Section 12. The fishing, and aesthetics at some future time if sur- number of user days available must increase by face water withdrawals from inland streams be- about 50 percent in the next 50 years if needs are to come too great. These effects can be anticipated be met. and increasing reliance placed on the Great Lakes, There are aesthetic and cultural values in the if necessary. The framework provides for storage area, many of which have been identified. Around in the periods to 2000 and 2020 to assist in providing each of the metropolitan areas, buffer zones are water for irrigation uses. desirable to make urban life more pleasant, and to (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses give relief from the continuous buildup of homes and NOR includes waste treatment measures provid- businesses. ing secondary treatment, plus 80 percent phos- Over half again the number of recreation days phate removal, in all waste treatment plants as a used in 1970 must be provided by 1980, and by 2020 minimum. Standards existing prior to the Federal the 1970 supply must be doubled if needs are to be Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 met. The amount of water and land surface inten- will be met. Advanced waste treatment is antici- sively and extensively developed is shown in Table pated to be required at 15 areas in Pennsylvania 1-304 in Section 12. However, the table cannot and New York. In some of these places, low-flow adequately show the problemof providing recreation augmentation from potential storage impound- facilities for the people who live in the Jnner city. ments will provide some additional enhancement of water quality, but such augmentation is not con- sidered a substitute for advanced waste treatment. 9.5.4 Alternative Frameworks It is anticipated that regional waste collection and treatment systems will be used in a number of Two alternative frameworks are presented for places to improve efficiencies in the handling the this as for other river basin groups. The Normal wastewater. Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- The NOR programs for meeting projected fish- tions to meet needs outside RBG 4.4 in the Lake ery needs combine the creation of additional habitat basin or the Great Lakes Basin. with the management and provision of access to The alternative, the Proposed Framework, con- existing habitat. Improvement in stream flow con- tains the recommendations of the Commission in an ditions, as well as the creation of additional water effort to reflect the views of the people of the basin area, should improve the fishery base in River and the policies and programs of the States. To Basin Group 4.4. A significant nonstructural pro- some extent, it reflects coordination in the devel- gram incorporated into NOR is the acquisition of opment of the framework among a number of river fishing rights along some 68 miles of streams in the basin groups, both in the Lake basin and in the river basin group. Provision of adequate waste- Great Lakes Basin as a whole. water treatment should reverse the declining fishery production in the river basin group and provide additional opportunities for anadromous 9.5.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) fish to utilize the upstream reaches of the area's water resources. Additional public access to inland NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and lakes and streams, new impoundments, and Lake 240 Appendix 1 Erie will provide additional opportunity to meet average annual damages in urban areas, and ap- angler-day needs. Proposed harbor improvements proximately 80 percent of the projected average in the recreational navigation portion of the Normal annual damages in rural areas. Framework will enhance the downstream habitat The enhancement of wildlife resources in RBG of high-value anadromous fish, and thus increase 4.4 can be accomplished through land acquisition spawning in upstream areas. for upland and big game species, technical assis- Programs selected to enhance recreational navi- tance to rural land owners for the development of a gation opportunities include improvement of har- sound wildlife management program, acquisition of bors and marinas on the Lake Erie shore in Penn- public hunting lands to offset the trend toward sylvania and New York, and provision of access to diminished private land access, legislative zoning to existing waters and to impounded waters that increase emphasis on green belts and open space, would be created for recreational and flood control wetlands acquisition, and State fish and game purposes. In addition to the structural elements of agency educational programs to promote better the recreational navigation program, a significant land owner-hunter relationships. In addition to level of needs can be met by zoning and manage- these specific program elements, the overall effect ment measures which must necessarily accompany of increasing water quality will be beneficial to the the institution of structural programs in RBG 4.4. wildlife species in the region. Commercial fishing and commercial navigation There is great potential for multi-purpose use of are covered in Section 5 and Subsection 9.6. proposed recreational facilities in this particular (3) Related Land Uses and Problems planning subarea. Proposed single- and multiple NOR includes programs to provide agricultural purpose storage impoundments are estimated to land treatment for about 38 percent of the total provide a significant amount of the recreation-day land on which treatment could be effectively ac- needs in the future. complished. The framework includes providing Land use changes, including acquisition and res- drainage by 2020 to about 8 percent of the total land ervation of flood plain areas and recreational sites with a wetness problem. These agricultural and along Lake Erie and several streams in RBG 4.4, land drainage programs are essentially a continua- can provide a much needed recreational source for tion of ongoing programs. area residents. Several new State parks are pro- The forest land treatment program included in jected in NOR in the years 2000 and 202Q, as well as NOR provides for treatment of about 38 percent of an emphasis upon the increased utilization and ef- the lands that can be treated effectively. ficient use of existing forest lands. The designation NOR provides for shoreline erosion abatement of three river valley preserves, extending over 40 measures to be built before 1980 on the 6 miles of miles of the area's streams, can provide a focus for shoreline subject to critical erosion. aesthetic enjoyment as well as a haven for wildlife Streambank erosion problems will be alleviated species. Of particular note in NOR is the Pennsyl- through structural measures on the severe erosion vania proposal for creating a scenic easement pro- areas. gram of approximately 30 miles of streambank NOR programs for prevention of potential flood within the river basin group. These easements damages consist of nonstructural measures as well would be instituted through legislative measures as structural programs for storage impoundments, and are projected to provide open space areas for levees, floodwalls, and other protective works. aesthetic and recreational opportunities and com- Flood plain legislation is an integral part of the plement the existing park systems. framework. NOR assumes that for the immediate (4) Framework Outputs and Costs time period, damages to existing development in Section 12 contains Tables 1-304, 1-305, and the flood plain can best be reduced by structural 1-306, which provide information on needs, out- measures and that nonstructural measures cannot puts, percent of needs met and capital and OM&R be fully implemented except where existing legis- costs. lation will permit and enforcement is adequate. NOR programs in RBG 4.4 are estimated to allevi- ate 50 percent of the projected average annual 9.5.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) damages in urban areas and 15 percent of the projected damages in rural areas by 1980. Included PRO was formulated in consultation with State in these estimates is the assumption that 10 percent officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- of the projected average annual damages due to grams, as well as the desires of area residents. growth will be. alleviated through the implementa- State, regional, and local policy assumptions with tion of flood plain legislation. By the year 2000, respect to population and economic growth do not structural and nonstructural measures are esti- deviate greatly from the OBERS projection used in mated -to alleviate nearly 97 percent of the total NOR. Lake E?ie Basin 241 The overall objective of improving the well-being TABLE 1-155 Estimated Population Change, of New York and Pennsylvania residents in River PSA 4.4 Basin Group 4.4 can be partially attained through Change (in miilions) implementation of framework programs which 1970 1980 2000 2020 conserve, preserve, and develop water and related NORI 1.8 2.1 2.5 3.1 land resources in the basin. In Pennsylvania (Erie County and Lake Erie), PRO is based upon a New York' 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.6 conservation policy which simultaneously encour- Pennsylvania' .2 .4 .4 .5 ages economic development and environmental en- PR02 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 hancement through wise use of resources. Regard- ing environmental policy, Pennsylvania's New York3 1.6 1.6 1.8 --- constitution guarantees the people's rights to clean Pennsylvania4 .2 .3 .3 --- air, pure water, and the preservation of environ- 1OBERS 1968 Series C data. mental values. Further, Pennsylvania is designated 2Total of New York and Pennsylvania figures. to act as a trustee for the people to conserve and maintain these resources for the benefit of all the 3official New York State Projections, New York State people. However, action programs are evaluated Office of Planning Services. not only in terms of their effectiveness in conserv- 4Erie County Population Analysis, report and base- ing natural resources, but also in terms of the line projections in comprehensive waste water changes they cause in the economies of the affected quality management study for the Lake Erie Basin areas. Under home rule, local governments in (Pennsylvania portion). Pennsylvania initiate actions within a framework of State regulatory and permit systems. and resource opportunities reflects these multiple During recent years Pennsylvania has acquired objectives. The State's regional planning boards, increasing legislative authority for the regulation its State development plan, and its environmental of activities that affect the environment. This in- plan reflect these objectives. cludes successive amendments to the Clean Stream The Proposed Framework for RBG 4.4 was for- Law to cover all forms of pollution, restoration of mulated in response to public reaction and comment open-pit mining sites, and the regulation of activi- at public meetings in Erie, Pennsylvania, and Buf- ties, including agriculturej conducive to erosion. falo, New York. Further consultation With the Legislation is pending for the management of flood States of New York and Pennsylvania provided the plains, and authority has already been given to basis for the information which follows. initiate a scenic river system in the State. In addi- Based upon public attitudes and more detailed tion, a State Environmental Master Plan is being State planning activities in River Basin Group 4.4, prepared as a tool for improving and protecting the normal (OBERS, 1968) projections of population environment. and employment appear to be higher, at least PRO recognizes the capability of the Eric County through the year 2000, than those now anticipated land and water resources to sustain substantial for RBG 4.4. Based on existing information, Table increases in economic growth. Further, future 1-155 depicts the population base presently being growth is relatively independent of Federal-State used in State planning efforts for PSA 4.4. water resources investment. With the environ- The effects of a slowing population growth rate mental safeguards mentioned previously, Pennsyl- and changing migration patterns will not signifi- vania's policy will continue to encourage develop- cantly alter the region's labor force until after the mental growth through State programs and local year 2000. It is conceivable, however, that eco- initiative. Pennsylvania's portion of RBG 4.4 is nomic conditions, measured in terms of average per included in the Appalachian Regional Development capita income and output per worker in PRO, could Program. A Statewide comprehensive investment lead to a better balanced and stabilized economy plan is being developed as a tool for improving the than would be the case under growth rates assumed State's economy. in NOR. In the, New York portion of RBG 4.4, as in With a few exceptions, PRO generally supports Pennsylvania, water and related land resources are the types of structural and nonstructural programs capable of sustaining substantial increases in established to meet resource needs and opportuni- overall population growth and economic develop- ties quantified in NOR. More detailed planning ment. Growth in the region is directed through will identify more specifically the quantities of re- investment and programs under the multiple ob- source needs associated with PRO. jectives of regional development, environmental The emphasis upon environmental quality could quality, and economic efficiency. The establishment stimulate new technologies and policies aimed at of program alternatives to meet people's needs more beneficial use of water and land resources. In 242 Appendix 1 resource development these policies will likely be mental cooling systems in contrast to some use of based on the philosophy of pricing the true cost of Lake Erie for heat dissipation in NOR. resource use and passing the cost on to the direct (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses beneficiaries of developed programs. Further, PRO Water quality programs in PRO are based on supports additional research and technological in- compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Con- novation aimed particularly at waste management, trol Act Amendments of 1972, which require shoreland erosion control, and power development whenever possible, achievement of water clean problems. enough for recreational uses, and clean enough for PRO recommends the development of a compre- the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and hensive, coordinated, joint plan using New York wildlife, by July 1, 1983; and require that there be no State's Erie-Niagara Basin Comprehensive Water discharges of pollutants into area waters by 1985. Resources Plan for that portion of RBG 4.4. The Act extends the Federal pollution control Great Lakes Basin Commission policy state- requirements to all U.S. waters. NOR assumes ments that influence PRO investments and re- that only interstate waters are covered by Federal source management programs are described in legislation. PRO prescribes that municipal and in- Annex D. (See Introduction for availability of dustrial wastewater discharges will be given best Annex D.) Basinwide policy affects River Basin available treatment and that nonpoint pollution Group 4.4 in the following ways and resource cate- sources will be controlled by 1983. gories: Public, private industry, and government sup- (1) Recreational programs should be provided port exists for encouraging commercial shipping by as close as practicable to urban areas given avail- deepening harbors and channels beyond the able resource supplies. average of 27 feet at Erie, Pennsylvania, and Buf- (2) A comprehensive shoreland management falo, New York. There is ample support for channel program is of the highest priority. and harbor depths of 31 feet in Buffalo and Erie (3) The promotion of a low-cost commercial harbors, and PRO recommends that this deepening navigation system is desirable and attainable with be undertaken. By 2020 an active program will be environmental safeguards. required to maintain waterborne commerce oppor- (4) A lake level control program for Lake Erie tunities between Lakes Erie and Ontario. The two needs to be established. options available are Joint Canadian-American im- (5) A comprehensive wastewater management provements of the Welland Canal and/or an all- plan will be required to meet the requirements of American Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Waterway east the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- of the Niagara River through portions of River ments of 1972. Basin Groups 4.4 and 5.1. PRO recommends the (6) Aesthetic and cultural zones within the re- completion of current studies, the development of gion should be identified and preserved to the more accurate economic, social, and environmental maximum extent possible. costs, and later review and decision, pending con- Planning studies more detailed than the Frame- sideration of the several alternative developmen 'ts. work Study have been accomplished in portions of PRO does, however, include for the middle range Pennsylvania and New York. The results of these planning period (1980 to 2000) additional lockage more specific planning studies should serve as and channel capacity in the St. Lawrence Seaway. guides for future resource programs. This may force an earlier decision on the alterna- (1) Water Withdrawals tives for maintaining commerce between Lakes More detailed planning studies by the Erie- Erie and Ontario. Niagara Basin Regional Water Resources Planning (3) Related Land Uses Board have supplemented the Framework Study PRO supports the continuation of ongoing agri- by estimating municipal water supply costs for the cultural land treatment programs with no addi- 1980 time period at approximately $51 million (total tional project action for drainage of croplands. cost includes transmission system and improve- Certain land treatment practices will be accel- ments to existing systems which were excluded in erated to increase treatment measures on 370,100 Framework Study). acres. PRO recommends an accelerated forest land Total power production is not anticipated to treatment program that would treat 60 percent of change significantly from the Normal Framework the forest land needs by 2020, or approximately over the projection period despite emphasis on 516,000 acres. Comparison with NOR is shown in environmental considerations. As requirements for Section 12 in Table 1-339. improving environmental quality become stiffer, Based on public meetings and the conclusions of more energy may be needed to accommodate these more detailed studies, PRO acknowledges the im- needs. Under a comprehensive shoreland use pol- mediate need for action to control and prevent icy, plants may be required to utilize total supple- urban and rural flood damages, particularly in the Lake Erie Basin 243 Erie-Niagara basin. NOR appears to have un- Lakes in volume, with less assimilative capacity. It derestimated the potential for flood damages in the has the second largest concentration of population area through 1980. In response, a vigorous flood along its shores of any of the Lakes, resulting in plain management program which includes imple- large inputs of pollutants. The Maumee River mentation of State-approved nonstructural and brings in large amounts of sediment eroded from structural measures is recommended. agricultural land and other land in the Maumee Based on the experience of protecting Presque basin. Lake Erie is the most polluted of the Lakes, Isle, as well as the costs of future proposals, it is to the extent that it has almost become a symbol for felt that NOR estimates are low. The following is a lake pollution and high eutrophication. list of alternative plans for the protection of Presque Isle proposed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bufallo District: 9.6.1 Commercial Navigation Plan Cost Estimate Full breakwater $32 million The major Lake Erie ports are at Detroit, To- ledo, Sandusky, Lorain, Cleveland, Erie, and Buf- Partial breakwater $18 million falo, and there are a number of smaller ports. Ports Groins $9 million near the western end of the Lake ship about 86 percent of the coal handled in the Great Lakes, and Sand reeirculation $ 5 million Detroit receives about 30 percent of the total. Ports in Lake Erie receive over half of the iron ore and The magnitude of the above estimates, and the limestone shipped on the Lakes and ship about 16 failures of previous protection projects, indicate percent of the limestone. Detroit receives about 26 that successful stabilization of Presque Isle will be percent of the general cargo handled, and Lake much more costly in the Proposed Framework. Erie ports ship about the same percentage of the (4) Framework Outputs and Costs overseas cargo. Commercial navigation is an im- Section 12 contains Tables 1-307, 1-308, and POrtant function on this Lake. Toledo has one of the 1-309, which provide information on needs, out- two inland free ports in the United States. puts, percent of needs met and capital and OM&R Some vessels now being utilized between Lake costs for PRO, indicating by italics where they Superior and Lake Michigan are built to the length differ from NOR. Table 1-339 compares land and beam compatible with the new Poe Lock at the treatment programs. Soo, but are only partially loaded because of depth limitations in the channels and harbors. It is only natural, therefore, that alteration of the channels 9.5.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs and harbors in the Great Lakes is being considered. This will have an important favorable impact on Table 1-354 in Section 12 lists the total costs commercial navigation on Lake Erie, and on ports (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO for the which serve that navigation. Extention of the nav- periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. igation season will have a similar favorable impact, and if the season is extended to include the St. Lawrence Seaway System, the amount of overseas 9.6 Lake Erie Intrarelationships traffic will no doubt increase markedly. Ongoing studies relating to the modification of the system There are a number of uses of Lake Erie which and extension of the season were discussed in must be considered with respect to the Lake itself Section 5. rather than with respect to any river basin group. The Normal Framework does not include specific The use of the Lake for some activities may not programs for the extension of the Great Lakes recognize the international boundary, nor the navigational season. boundaries of the four States which border the Most of the problems associated with the struc- Lake. Those activities which utilize the Lake as a tural and operational changes in the Great Lakes- whole are discussed in this subsection. The rela- St. Lawrence navigation system and the Lake Erie tionships with the other Great Lakes were dis- part of that system are being addressed in ongoing cussed in Section 5. studies. NOR provides for timely completion of The physical geography of the Lake Erie basin, ongoing studies, development of new technology, out of which has developed and on which has been and strong local port promotion policies. These superimposed the very high degree of economic could significantly affect the total traffic handled at development, has created some situations within Lake Erie ports. Lake Erie that are more aggravated than in the PRO includes consideration of channel improve- other Lakes. Lake Erie is the smallest of the Great ments, including a lock and dam in the St. Clair 244 Appendix 1 River (34 feet depth); dredging Detroit River and ulation of levels and flows of Lake Erie than cur- other channels; deepening to 31 feet the harbors of rently exists in the Niagara River and in diversions Detroit, Toledo, Sandusky, Lorain, Cleveland, to the'New York State Barge Canal and the Wel- Conneaut, Erie, and Buffalo; extension of the nav- land Canal. Regulation of lake levels for various igation season for six weeks in segments of the purposes results in conflicts. A scheme to maximize system from western Lake Superior through the commercial navigation opportunity will not neces- Soo Locks, St. Marys River and to southern Lake sarily complement one to generate power. Nor Michigan, through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers would either of them necessarily be consistent with and Lakes St. Clair and Erie, and through the a scheme to minimize erosion along the shoreline or Welland Canal into Lake Ontario; and for four to enhance wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic and weeks through the St. Lawrence River system. cultural values. With the completion of the study of levels and flows by the International Joint Commission, some additional consideration may be given to specific 9.6.2 Recreational Boating work to be accomplished in Lake Erie. Likewise, while the International Field Year for the Great If the recreational boating needs are to be met in Lakes (IFYGL) has concentrated on data collection the Lake Erie basin, much of the increased use will for Lake Ontario, some of the product of that have to be on Lake Erie itself. This will require a investigation will be applicable to Lake Erie. The program of construction of small boat harbors, both Normal Framework includes recommendation for as harbors of refuge and as locations for marinas the continuation of IFYGL activities and the ex- and berthing facilities. Also needed will be access tension of related studies to Lake Erie. points on the Lake and a smallcraft weather warn- Much of the shoreline of Lake Erie is subject to ing system. Both frameworks include in each of the damage from erosion. Any control of lake levels to four river basin groups in the Lake Erie basin an alleviate this damage will have an effect on other appropriate program for upgrading the facilities functions, and the interrelationships must be care- mentioned in order to keep pace with the public fully weighed. desire for boating opportunities. 9.6.5 Commercial and Sport Fisheries 9.6.3 Water Quality The commercial fishery of Lake Erie has under- The fame, or notoriety, of Lake Erie has be- gone major changes in the past century and a half. come worldwide because of the seriously degraded The changes have been caused by changing demand quality of its water. While the situation is serious, for fish species, changing techniques for harvesting it is not as hopeless as has often been presented. the various species, and changes in the numbers of The eutrophication, the -acceleration of which is various species. Lake Erie still supports a consid- largely charged to the input of phosphorus to the erable numbe;- of fish and a large harvest could be Lake, has reached dangerous proportions in parts taken, but the species available are not those which of the Lake, and questions have been raised as to are in demand, so a large commercial fishery is not whether the trend toward deterioration can be profitable. reversed. Lake Erie has the smallest assimilative Sport fishing has also been an important feature capacity of any of the Lakes, but it also has the of Lake Erie for many years, particularly in the most rapid turnover of water. However, this ex- western basin. The most desired species are usually change of water through inflow and outflow does not the most prevalent, and a larger sport fishery not occur uniformly throughout the Lake, and the could be supported if fishermen were willing to take places where flow and exchange do not take place some of the more abundant, less desirable species. have become critically polluted. The frameworks With four States of the United States and the recommend measures for treating the municipal Province of Ontario in Canada each managing the and industrial wastes which enter waters that flow fishing in its waters in a somewhat different fash- to the Lake. PRO is more stringent than NOR. ion, there has been very little consistency in the These measures are given the highest priority in regulation of either commercial fishing or sport the Framework Study. fishing, except through the limited coordination activities of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. In general, the sport fishery has experienced fewer 9.6.4 Levels and Flows limitations and less management than the commer- cial fishery. The present policy of the States points The frameworks do not recommend greater reg- to managing in the interest of the sport fishery in Lake Erie Basin 245 the Lake. Physical facilities, stocking, access, and developments as may be warranted, stocking, con- other devices will be used to develop the sport trol of the fishery to maintain a proper balance fishery, and the commercial fishery will be managed between predators and prey fish, and the necessary to complement the sport fishery. studies, research, sampling, and similar programs that will lead to a better identification and knowl- The Normal Framework supports the measures edge of the fishery characteristics of the Lake and being taken to this end, including such physical the way in which the fishery can be managed. Section 10 LAKE ONTARIO BASIN 10.1 The Study Area of. the Appalachian Plateau and. the severely eroded Adirondack Mountains. All of the U.S. portion of the Lake Ontario basin The Lake Ontario basin's physiography provides lies in New York except -for.the extreme -head- one of the most scenic areas within the Great Lakes waters of the Genesee River, which are in Penn- Basin. Recreation seekers from the. basin and sylvania. In addition to the Lake Ontario basin throughout the nation are attracted to Niagara itself, the study area includes the U.S. portion of Falls and the gorge below, the beautiful, historic the St. Lawrence River basin. This is also in New Finger Lakes region, the forested, lake-dotted York State. . Hydrologically, all of the Niagara Adirondack Mountains, and the. Thousand Islands River basin is in.the Lake Ontario basin. However, area of the St. Lawrence River. because of Buffalo's economic impact and orienta- Glaciation in the Lake Ontario region resulted in tion toward Lake Erie, the Lake Ontario basin less extensive deposition of material than in the boundary adopted for this study is opposite Grand upper Great Lakes Basin, but a more rugged land- Island, which is in the Niagara River just above the scape was developed in the Lake Ontario region. power intake. This boundary line, which is essen- Ice movement from the north was inhibited by the tially at Niagara Falls, places Buffalo in the Lake highlands of the Adirondack and Appalachian Pla- Erie basin and all power diversion and return in the teau provinces. Many glacial features appear in the Lake Ontario basin. For the purposes of economic basin, including drumlin fields, waterfalls, kame, and demographic studies, however, all of Niagara kettle, and esker topography, meltwater channels, County is included in Planning Subarea 4.4. See eaves, solution channels, and disappearing streams, Figure 1-44 for a map of the area. Descriptive and and many fossiliferous bedrock exposures. statistical information was included in Section 1. Glacial deposition resulted in a relatively thin River Basin Groups 5.1 and 5.2 include most of veneer of shaley till over most of the Appalachian the tributaries to Lake Ontario and three-fourths Plateau region. Deposition in the narrow, deeply of its shoreline. Most streams in RBG 5.3 flow into incised bedrock valleys was much greater, with the St. Lawrence River, which heads in the RBG. depths up to 1,000 feet, largely of fine-grained Four major physiographic provinces are repre- material. A thin veneer of lake clays, silts, and fine sented in the Lake Ontario basin. The Appalachian sands mantles the Central Lowland province area. Plateau includes the hilly uplands covering the Following the glacial action, marine seas invaded southern half of the Genesee and Oswego drainage the St. Lawrence Valley and deposited marine areas and the unique Finger Lakes region. All of clays and silts as far west as Ogdensburg, New the lowlands bordering Lake Ontario and extending York. along the St. Lawrence River through the Thou- Bedrock exposures of poor permeability are sand Islands are part of the Eastern Lake section quite common in the basin. Except for a carbonate of the Central Lowland province. The broad low- sequence cropping out along the northern edge of land extending to the lower reaches of the Great the Appalachian Plateau province, shales and silt- Lakes Basin is part of the St. Lawrence Valley stone dominate this province. Another, older car- province. The Adirondack province includes the bonate sequence, along with underlying sandstone, mountainous headwaters of the Black, Oswegat- is present in the Black River and St. Lawrence chie, and Grass-Raquette-St. Regis River systems. lowlands. These sedimentary rocks crop out around The Adirondack Mountains include the highest the basement rock comprising the Adirondack points in the Great Lakes Basin, and the lowest Mountains. point in the Basin is at its outlet where the St. The Adirondacks principally consist of an ig- Lawrence River flows into Canada. Thus the Lake neous-metamorphic complex of some of the oldest Ontario basin has the greatest extremes in altitude rocks on the continent. The sedimentary rocks of any Lake basin: from over 4,500 feet to 150 feet gently dip away from the Adirondacks and south- above sea level. Much of the basin has rugged ward in the Appalachian Plateau. topography, particularly the deeply incised valleys The factors that determine the climatic character 247 248 Appendix 1 @INNC@TA wIsCoNsIN 2 `cM AN (LLINO)S VICINITY MAP 0 IN j A R 1 0 5@ L A K E ONTARIO 5@2 N E W LAKE BASIN BOUNDARY PLAN AREA BOUNDARY SCALE IN MILFS 0 10 20 30 40 50 FIGURE 1-44 Plan Area 5, Lake Ontario Lake Ontario Basin 249 of the Lake Ontario basin are the presence of large characterized by paper, chemical, and specialized bodies of water, Lakes Erie and Ontario, the exis- photographic equipment. All the major cities in the tence of relatively high mountains in and adjacent Lake Ontario basin serve as trade and service to the eastern reaches of the basin, and prevailing centers for the residents. winds from west to east in the summer and from The Lake Ontario basin has four Federal har- southwest to northeast in the winter. As these bors: Rochester, Great Sodus Bay, Oswego, and winds pass over Lake Ontario, they absorb consid- Ogdensburg. Coal, chemicals, and food and petro- erable moisture, which is deposited as orographic leum products are major commodities shipped from precipitation upon encountering the high land these ports. In 1968 Lake Ontario carried 47.1 masses of the Tug Hill plateau and the Adirondack million tons of traffic; the St. Lawrence River be- Mountains. tween the international boundary and Lake On- The mean annual precipitation ranges from 32 tario carried 33.1 million tons that same year. inches along the lakeshore to 52 inches in the east- An abundance of generally high-quality land and ern portion of the basin. The annual average snow- water resources form the basis for the important fall is 64 inches along the shoreline and 128 inches in tourism and recreational enterprises in the Lake the northeastern portion of the basin. Mean daily Ontario basin. It has been estimated that approxi- temperatures range from 17'F to 25'F in January, mately $273 million are spent annually by recre- and from 78OF to 84OF in July. Extremes may be ationists in the basin. Lakeshore and interior re- -55'F and about 100'F. The number of frost-free sorts are favorite summer and winter recreation days varies from 160 to 200 along the lakeshore and areas. from 120 to 160 in the interior. Although the wind velocity averages about 10 miles per hour, veloci- ties as high as 73 mph have been recorded. 10.1.1.1 Institutions New York is a strong home rule State which 10.1.1 Human Characteristics places most of the responsibility for water and related land resources with municipalities. In addi- The Lake Ontario Plan Area had 9 percent of the tion to municipal and county planning boards, re- total Great Lakes Region's population in 1970, and gional resource planning and management groups ranked third in population among the five plan have been established. Functional planning'for areas, with the Lake Michigan and Lake Erie re- comprehensive water resource development in gions having more population. The- 1970 overall New York is accomplished through the coordina- population density of 143 persons per square mile is tion of State, local, and Federal agencies by several one of the lowest in the Region. SMSAs within the regional water resources planning boards. The Lake Ontario region include Rochester, Syracuse, water resources boards are established under au- and Utica-Rome, New York. Over 70 percent of the thority of Title 11, Article 15, of New York State population lives in the nine counties making up Environmental Law as a result of applications by these SMSAs. several counties for the responsibility to prepare The Lake Ontario region is largely rural. Small comprehensive plans for the areas they represent. towns and rural communities dot the entire region, Regional water resources boards are presently in except the eastern highlands. Fruit, vegetable, and existence in the Genesee, Black, and St. Lawrence dairy production are of major importance, along River basins, and formerly existed in the Oswego with localized areas of diversified manufacturing River basin. and industry. Poor climate, soils, and topography The New York State Office of Planning Services discourage agriculture (with the exception of also provides guidance, encouragement, and finan- dairying) in PSA 5.3,'but mineral, forest, and re- cial aid to six regional planning and development creational resources strengthen this area's econ- boards responsible for portions of the Lake Ontario omy. Industrial activity is highly diversified over basin. These boards, whose members are local of- PSA 5.2. Syracuse is the principal industrial fleials and other citizens named by their county center, producing such varied products as ma- governments, coordinate the planning of units chinery, food, paper, and chemicals like caustic within their boundaries and also work to coordinate soda. Dominant agricultural activity in this area local and regional plans with State programs. The includes dairying and fruit and vegetable produc- boards' boundaries follow the State's geographic tion. Grape production is high in this region. Near regions for planning and development and include the lakeshore fruit orchards and dairy farms the following regions: Genesee-Finger Lakes, dominate the landscape of PSA 5. 1, while livestock Southern Tier Central, Southern Tier East, Cen- production is prevalent in the more rugged inland tral, Upper Mohawk Valley, and Black River-St. plateaus. Industrialization in the Rochester area is Lawrence. 250 Appendix 1 10.1.2 Water Resources draining into Lake Ontario. Major rivers in the basin include the Genesee, Oswego, Seneca, Black, 10.1.2.1 Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence and Raquette Rivers. River The Oswego, Seneca, Oneida, and Clyde Rivers have been canalized for barge and recreational Average annual inflow to Lake Ontario through traffic and are a part of the New York State Barge the Niagara River and the Welland Canal is 202,000 Canal system. Rivers, lakes, and embayments have cubic feet per second. Average annual outflow into a surface area of 449,300 acres, with inland lakes the St. Lawrence River is 239,000 cubic feet per accounting for about 75 percent of the total. Most second. inland lakes are found in the headwater areas. The net increase in flow of 37,000 cfs is generated Planning Subarea 5.3 contains over 281 inland by the natural inflow from the drainage basin and lakes, most of which are located in St. Lawrence affected by manmade conditions within the Lake County. The central section (PSA 5.2) has fewer Ontario basin. The inflow is regulated by flow con- lakes (approximately 85), but they cover 191,000 trol in the Niagara River and through lock opera- acres. The Finger Lakes in PSA 5.2 occupy a series tions in the Welland Canal. Outflow and lake levels of nearly parallel troughs in the southwestern por- are. regulated by structures in the St. Lawrence tion of the Oswego River basin. The lakes range in River. size from 30 square miles to Lake Oneida's 80 Lake Ontario is generally considered to be the square miles. The numerous natural lakes in the second most polluted of the Great Lakes. It is Lake Ontario basin provide a high degree of natural approaching a serious stage of eutrophication, flood control. which in part has prompted the recently begun The Genesee River and some of its tributaries International Field Year for the Great Lakes, a are major sediment transporters. The Barge Canal joint U. S. -Canadian research program. It is hoped makes use of the Oswego River and its two major that this research and a step-up in water pollution tributaries, the Seneca and Oneida Rivers. The control efforts within the last decade or so will dependable supply of the Oswego River is equal to prevent Lake Ontario from reaching the state of the low flow of the tributary rivers. However, degradation Lake Erie has reached. However, this subject to legal constraints, these flows can be will be exceedingly difficult because Lake Erie out- supplemented as needed by water from Lake Erie flow is a major contributor to the water quality and the Genesee River on the west, from the problems in Lake Ontario' Finger Lakes, from the Rome summit area by The Lake Ontario outflow at its northeast end minimum diversions from the Mohawk and Black forms the St. Lawrence River, which flows from Rivers, and from diversion from a small reservoir Lake Ontario across the St. Lawrence plain into the on the Susquehanna headwaters. Discharge is gen- Gulf of St. Lawrence. The broad, multiple-channel erally dependable in RBG 5.3. river head and the small islands between the chan- nels is called the Thousand Islands area. East of this area the river channel narrows abruptly where 10.1.2.3 Ground Water it flows across a hard, resistant rock protrusion of the Canadian Shield. The river outlet is a long, Moderate to poor ground-water resources are horn-shaped passage which opens into the Gulf of available in the Lake Ontario basin. Most of the St. Lawrence. basin is underlain by fine-grained sedimentary or igneous rocks. The better-yielding aquifers occur locally in the carbonate rocks of central New York, 10.1.2.2 Inland Lakes and Streams the sandstone and carbonate ro 'cks along the St. Lawrence valley, and the sand and gravel in the Climatic, topographic, and geological factors in- glacial drift in valley bottoms. The Adirondack area fluence the flow and runoff of basin streams. The of RBG 5.3 has the greatest estimated ground- basin contains more than 28,000 miles of rivers and water yield of the basin, and one of the greatest in streams. Going from west to east in the basin and the entire Great Lakes Basin. The Lake Ontario from north to south in the eastern portion, average basin is estimated to be capable of producing 4,910 runoff increases from about 15 inches to 40 inches mgd. annually. Many regional streams have their origins Areas of critical water supply occur along the in the highland regions of the Adirondacks, the Tug entire Lake Ontario lowlands from Niagara Falls to Hill Plateau, and the Appalachians. The flows are the Black River. The bedrock aquifers have low flashy, with steep gradients and numerous water- yields, and saline water is present in much of the falls. As the streams reach the flatter lake plain lowland area south of the Lake. Sustained droughts areas, they become sluggish and meander before create severe water shortages in the Ontario low- Lake Ontario Basin 251 TABLE 1-156 Land Use, Lake Huron Plan Area, 1966-67 (thousands of acres) Resource Base PSA and Total Urban Pasture Forest State Land Area Built-Up Cropland Range Land Other Total PSA 5.1 New York 2,458.7 271.1 1,055.1 162.9 871.5 98.1 2,187.6 PSA 5.2 New York 5,427.4 250.7 1,759.1 443.7 2,545.7 428.2 5,176.7 PSA 5.3 New York 3,385.6 145.9 633.9 254.4 2,215.4 136.0 3,239.7 TOTAL 11,271.7 667.7 3,448.1 861.0 5,632.6 662.3 10,604.0 TABLE 1-157 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Ontario Plan Area Basin (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Ac tual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Proiected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 Lake Ontario Total land area' 11,271.7 --- 11,271.7 --- 11,271.7 --- 11,271.7 Total urban and 667.7 103.2 770.9 138.8 909.7 157.4 1,067.1 built-up Total nonurbanized 10,604.0 10,500.8 10,362.0 10,204.6 land Resource Base: Cropland 3,448.1 (39.3)3 3,408.8 52.0 3,356.8 59.7 3,297.1 Pasture 861.0 (8.5) 852.5 11.4 841.1 12.8 878.3 Forest Land 5,632.6 (48.0) 5,584.6 65.8 5,518.8 74.2 5,444.6 Other Land 662.3 (7.4) 654.9 9.6 645.3 10.7 634.6 Tota12 10,604.0 (103.2) 10,500.8 138.8 10,362.0 157.4 10,204.6 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. 'Total land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 3Bracketed figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. lands and in the Black River valley. Locally, the which is forested varies from about 20 percent in sand and gravel aquifers are very productive. the Genesee and Oswego basins to nearly 100 per- cent in the Adirondacks. Most of the forest land in the Adirondack region is in the State-owned 10.1.3 Land and Other Natural Resources Adirondack Forest Preserve. Outside this region most of the forest land is privately owned, although With the exception of the narrow lake plains area there are scattered State and county-owned in the basin, soils are typically poor, having high forests. Dairying is the predominant agricultural acidity, and composed of a mixture of sand, gravel, activity in the basin, with fruit and vegetable pro- and stones. Swamps are common in the headlands. duction important in the western half of the basin Bedrock outcrops and glacial till deposits over the and in the Finger Lakes region. Distribution of the basin make poor soil constituents. Land cover in uses of the land in the basin is shown in Table 1-156 the region is highly variable. Northern hardwoods and Figure 1-45. Table 1-157 provides information predominate with many varieties of conifers inter- on land use in the basin in 1966-67 and projects mixed. Red spruce and balsam fir characterize the future changes to the land resource base. Table Adirondack region, with white pine, hemlock, and 1-158 provides the same information broken down northern white cedar present in the Tug Hill Pla- by PSA. teau. The distribution of rocks and glacial debris de- The vast amount of land in agriculture and forest fines the type and location of mineral resources gives the Lake Ontario basin a decidedly rural- within the Lake Ontario region. Precambrian and scenic setting. Over 80 percent of the land is in- Cenozoic formations produce significant quantities cluded in these categories. That portion of the land of iron ore, lead, base metals (especially zinc), tale, 252 Appendix 1 Pasture 7.6 % Pasture 7% Other 5.8% Other 4% Cropland Forest Forest 30.5% 49.9% Croplan 35% PLAN AREAS Planning Subarea 5.1 43% 5% Total Land Area Total Land Area Urban 11,271,700 acres 2,458,700 acres Urban 5.9 Pasture 8% ther 8% Other 4% 8% Pasture 19% Forest Cropland Forest Cropland 47% 65% 32% Planning Subarea 5.2 Planning Subarea 5.3 Total Land Area Total Land Area 5,427,400 acres 3,385,600 acres Urban 4% Urban 5% FIGURE 1-45 Land Use in the Lake Ontario Basin marble, limestone, and dolomite. Sand and gravel, of Oswego; however, there are good beaches at peat, marl, and salt are extracted from unconsoli- Fair Haven and Hamlin Beach State Parks and at dated glacial and lake plain deposits. Ontario Beach in Rochester. East of Oswego, ex- The basin's water and land resources are espe- cellent sand beaches are common up to Henderson cially favorable for the growth and maintenance of Harbor. From Henderson Harbor northward to the wildlife and fish resources. The basin is especially head of the St. Lawrence River the shore is low and noted for its large deer population. Small game rocky. species like rabbit, raccoon, pheasant, and squirrel One of the more striking shore formations lies are among the many animals that are common in east of Sodus Bay where the erosion of drumlins the basin. Coldwater and warmwater fishing in the has created unusual topography. The Thousand basin is very productive. Muskellunge, northern Island region at the head of the St. Lawrence River pike, bass, walleyed pike, salmon, and brook, lake cuts through an area of glaciated crystalline rocks and rainbow trout are favorite fish game species. forming an isthmus between the ancient Lauren- The United States shoreline of Lake Ontario tian Highlands of Canada and the Adirondacks of (including islands) between the Niagara River and New York. This "granite knob" country, though the Iroquois Dam on the St. Lawrence River is low in relief, has a jumbled topography that gives about 726 miles in length. The southern shore is the countryside a picturesque appearance, exem- extremely regular with few natural embayments. plified by the St. Lawrence River flowing through O"_r er'" t he-r Urban 5;% kUrban 41 1 OUrban 51 The shoreline consists principally of eroded clay the Thousand Islands. and silt bluffs, but from Braddock Bay eastward there are occasional ponds or bays. These bays have sandbar barriers across their mouths, which 10.1.4 Resource Problems render them ineffective as recreational boat har- bors. Sand beaches are narrow and infrequent west For each resource use category, the water and i Lake Ontario Basin 253 TABLE 1-158 Actual and Projected Land Use, Lake Ontario Plan Area by PSA (thousands of acres) Implied Change Implied Implied Actual 1966-67 to Projected Change Projected Change Projected Land Use 1966-67 1980 1980 1980-2000 2000 2000-2020 2020 PSA 5.1 Total land areal 2,458.7 --- 2,458.7 --- 2,458.7 --- 2,458.7 Total urban and 271.1 30.2 301.3 40.6 341.9 51.4 393.3 built-up Total nonurbanized 2,187.6 2,157.4 2,116.8 2,065.4 land Resource Base: Cropland 1,055.1 (14.02 1,040.5 (19.6) 1,020.9 (24.8) 996.1 Pasture 162.9 (2.2) 160.7 (3.0) 157.7 (3.8) 153.9 Forest Land 871.5 (12.0) 859.5 (16.2) 843.3 (20.5) 822.8 Other Land 98.1 (1.4) 96.7 (1.8) 94.9 (2.3) 92.6 Tota. 13 2,187.6 (30.2) 2,157.4 (40.6) 2,116.8 (51.4) 2,065.4 PSA 5.2 Total land areal 5,427.4 --- 5,427.4 --- 5,427.4 --- 5,427.4 Total urban and 250.7 72.2 322.9 91.1 414.0 98.0 512.0 built-up Total nonurbanized 5,176.7 5,104.5 5,013.4 4,915.4 land Resource Base: Cropland 1,759.1 (24.5) 1,734.6 (31.0) 19703.6 (33.3) 1,670.3 Pasture 443.7 (6.2) 437.5 (7.8) 429.7 (8.4) 421.3 Forest Land 2,545.7 (35.5) 2,510.2 (44.8) 2,465.4 (48.2) 2,417.2 Other Land 428.2 (6-0) 422.2 (7.5) 414.7 (8.1) 406.6 Tota13 5,176.6 (72.2) 5,104.5 (91.1) 5,013.4 (98.0) 4,915.4 PSA 5.3 Total land areal 3,385.6 --- 3,385.6 --- 3,385.6 --- 3,385.6 Total urban and 145.9 .8 146.7 7.1 153.8 8.0 161.8 built-up Total nonurbanized 3,239.7 3,238.9 3,231.8 3,223.8 land Resource Base: Cropland 633.9 (.2) 633.7 (1.4) 632.3 (1.6) 630.7 Pasture 254.4 (.1) 254.3 (-6) 253.7 (.6) 253.1 Forest Land 2,215.4 (.5) 2,214.9 (4.8) 2,210.1 (5.5) 2,204.6 Other Land 136.0 M 136.0 (.3) 135.7 (.3) 135.4 Tota13 3,239.7 (.8) 3,238.9 (7.1) 3,231.8 (8.0) 3,223.8 Source: Developed by Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, East Lansing, Michigan. 'Total land area = total area - water area, and is assumed constant for projection periods. 2Bracket figures represent urban depletions for 1967-1980, 1980-2000, and 2000-2020. indicates < 50 ac. depletion. 3Detail may not add to total due to rounding. related land resources problems were rated as se- In the Rochester area high bacterial counts from vere, moderate, minor, or no problem for each metropolitan sewage have caused many public river basin complex in the Lake Ontario basin, and beaches to be closed. the results are presented in Table 1-159. The The nutrient-laden waters of Lake Erie, wastes problems evaluation was for the base year. The from the heavy industrial complex along Buffalo problems most prevalent throughout the basin Creek, and direct waste discharges from munici- were in the field of outdoor recreation. Wildlife palities and industries constitute a major pollution management also requires attention at an early load to the Niagara River, creating excessive date. In RBGs 5.1 and 5.2 municipal and industrial growth of Cladophora in the lower reaches of the wastewater discharges create problems which are river below the falls. serious and demand immediate attention. In Lake Ontario proper major problems include: (1) the growth of Cladophora, a filamentous 10.1.5 Existing Resource Use and Development green alga largely from nutrient inputs coming into Lake Ontario through the Niagara River (2) the die-off of alewife within the Lake, 10.1.5.1 Water Withdrawals creating undesirable conditions along the beaches (3) the buildup of sulfate and chloride ions and In the 1970 base year, 1,994,440 persons in the total dissolved solids in the Lake. Lake Ontario basin were served by central water TABLE 1-159 Lake Ontario Basin, Resource Problems Matrix LAKE ONTARIO BASIN 5.0 River Basin Group 5.1 River Basin Group 5.2 River Basin Group 5.3 Niagara Genesee Wayne- Oswego Salmon Black Perch Oswegatchie Grass Orleans C. River Basin Cayuga C. River Basin River C. River Basin River Basin River Basin Complex' Z2 U Ca 0 0 co 0 - ca m r '4 a) $. 0 0 Q) P M 0 cu M '05 W M 0 QW) W M wo W 0 0 W " W A 1@ W 4 W " W " W 4 W W I W @a S. " Resource Use Category > ;> > a > > M a > W z C > z r > > P :@ 0 > W a > z > C 0 0 @D cz 0 W 0 :ml W - C W 0 0 0 ;= W . 0 :D 0@ . 0 Pd 0 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 1 1 - - I - - - I - 1 - - I - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IRRIGAT16N 2 2 2 - 2 - I - I - 2 1 - I - 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MINING 2 2, 2 - 1 2 2 - 1 - 2 2 - 1 2 2 - I - - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THERMAL POWER COOLING 2 1 - - - 1 1 3 - 1 2 1 - - 2 - - 2, - 2 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 - 1 1 3 3 2 - I - 1 1 1 1 2 1 - I INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2 2 - 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 - 3 1 3 3 3 - I - I 1 1 1 2 1 - - - - - - - - - HYDROELECTRIC POWER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 - 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SPORT FISHING 1 1 - I - - I - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 - I - - - I RECREATIONAL BOATING - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMERCIAL FISHING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 2 2 - - - - 2 2 - - 2 - - - - 2 2 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS LAND USE 2 2 - - 1 1 2 3 2 - 2 1 - 1 1 2 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1 1 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - - - - - - I - 1 - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - CROPLAND DRAINAGE - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - I - 2 - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOREST LAND TREATMENT I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - 1 - I - - - I - - - 1 - - - I - SHORELAND EROSION 1 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - I - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STREAMBANK EROSION 2 -2 - 1 - - 3 3 - - 2 - 1 - - - 3 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - FLOOD PLAINS 2 2 1 - - - 1 3 3 - 2 - - - - 3 3 3 - - - - - 1 2 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 - 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 -2 2 1 1 - 2 2 - - - 2 - - - 2 - - - 2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1 1 - 1 1 2 1 - I - 1 1 1 1 2 1 - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - I - - 1 1 - - 1 1 OUTDOOR RECREATION 3 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 - 2 3 2 2 2 1 - 2 - 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 IThe full name of this area is the Grass-Raquette-St. Regis Complex Legend: 3 Severe--Demands immediate attention 2 Moderate--Of major concern; potentially serious 1 Minor--Not considered a serious problem - Problem is insignificant or not known Lake Ontario Basin 255 TABLE 1-160. Water Sources for Municipal Water Supply, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Water Source Inland Lakes PSA State Source Capacity Great,Lakes and Streams Groundwater 5.1 New York 174 136 20 18 5.2 New York 240 32 175 33 5.3 New York 82 19 50 13 TOTAL --- 496 187 245 64 TABLE 1-161 Municipal Water Supply Development, Lake Ontario Plan Area (mgd) 1970 Average Demand Domestic Municipally PSA State and Commercial Su2plied Industrial Total Source Capacity 5.1 New York 81 50 131 174. 5.2 New York 136 51 187 240 5.3 New York 16 29 45 82 TOTAL --- 233 130 363 496 TABLE 1-162 Industrial Water Supply Devel- TABLE 1-163 Rural Water Supply, Lake On- opment, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) tario Plan Area, 1970 (mgd) Self-Supplied Developed Consumptive Gross Water Consumptive PSA State Source Capacity Use PSA State Requirementsi Withdrawals Use 5.1 New York 245 50 5 5.1 New York 10.8 5.2 5.2 New York 588, 262 19 5.2 New York 32.1 12.3 5.3 New York 229 76 7 5.3 New York 9.3 4.9 TOTAL 1,062 388 31 lPartially supplied by recirculation TOTAL 52.2 22.4 systems; 809,800 were served by Great Lakes for the entire Great Lakes Basin. It.used approxi- sources; 975,100 were served by inland lake and mately 4 percent of the total manufacturing water stream sources; and 209,500 were served by withdrawal. About 98 percent of the water self- ground-water sources. Municipal water supply supplied by industries is taken from surface water sources and development are summarized in Tables supplies, with inland lakes and streams as the pri- 1-160 and 1-161. mary source. The remainder is obtained from com@ Industries in the Lake Ontario basin utilized pany-owned wells. Table 1-162 contains data on about 36 percent of the water withdrawn by mu- industrial water supply development, nicipal systems in 1970. Heavy water uses occur in Ground water is the source of most of the water each of the three river basin groups. In RBG 5.1 supplies for rural domestic and livestock, spray the manufacture of photographic equipment re- water, and nonfarm uses throughout the entire quires a considerable amount of water. In RBG 5.2 Lake Ontario basin (Table 1-163). there is considerable dependence by industry on In 1970 an estimated 49 . mgd of water was municipally supplied water. Industries that use a supplied over a 100-day season to irrigate 11,842 considerable amount of water in this area include acres of high-value cropland and 5,770 acres of golf paper and paper board and primary metal produc- courses in the Lake Ontario basin. Ground water is ers. the principal source, with some water from surface In 1967 the Lake Ontario region accounted for 6 supplies (Table 1-164). percent of the total value added by manufacture Minerals operations are largely on a seasonal 256 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-164 Irrigation Water Supply, Lake Ontario Plan Area, Base Year, estimated Agriculture Golf Courses Withdrawal (mgd) Withdrawal (mgd) 100-Day 100-Day PSA Acres Season Annual Acres Season Annual 5.1 4,492 8 2.2 1,000 5 1.4 5.2 7,350 13 3.6 4,200 20 5.5 5.3 0 --- 570 3 0.8 TOTAL 11,842 21 5.8 5,770 28 7.7 TABLE 1-165 Minerals Water Supply, Lake TABLE 1-166 Source of New Water Used by Ontario Plan Area, 1968, estimated (mgd) Mineral Industries, Lake Ontario Plan Area, New Water Intake - 1968, estimated (mgd) Total Water Annual Consumptive New Intake April-November Average for 365 Days PSA Requirementsi Seasonal Average Use2 5.1 4.5 2.7 1.9 0.4 Streams 4.2 3.5 5.2 14.3 12.8 12.2 3.7 Lakes 9.6 9.6 5.3 12.9 2.2 2.0 1.3 Ground Water 2.4 1.6 TOTAL 31.7 17.7 16.1 5.4 Mines 1.3 1.3 lNew water intake plus recirculated water (seasonal: Other 0.2 0.1 April-November in PSA 5.1 and PSA 5.2; May-October in PSA 5.3 TOTAL 17.7 16.1 2Annual average TABLE 1-167 Electric Power Development, Lake Ontario Plan Area Type and Capacity (MW) Steam Electric Hydroelectric Gas Fossil Nuclear Water Withdrawal PSA Conventional Pumped Storage Turbine Steam Steam Total (mgd) 5.1 2,011 240 38 470 517 3,276 737 5.2 86 0 5 806 642 1,539 1,046 5.3 1,207 0 1 . 0 0 1,208 0 TOTAL 3,304 240 44 1,276 1,159 6,023 1,783 basis. Inland lakes are the major source of water 10.1.5.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses for this industry in the Lake Ontario basin (Tables 1-165 and 1-166). The following stream segments have been re- In 1970 electric power supply within the Lake ported by the States as having priority for correc- Ontario basin came principally from generating tion of water quality deficiencies: plants of 10 MW and larger, consisting of 5 fossil (1) River Basin Group 5.1 steam plants, 1 pumped storage plant, 13 hydro- (a) Genesee River-upper portion from electric plants, 2 gas turbine plants, and 2 nuclear Pennsylvania line to Mt. Morris, New York steam plants. Additional nuclear development (b) Lake Ontario-western section scheduled as of 1970 included one plant in RBG 5.1 (c) Genesee River-from Mt. Morris to and four locations in RBG 5.2 (Table 1-167). Power New York State Barge Canal generation for the basin exceeded 34 billion kilo- (d) Canaseraga Creek watt-hours of electricity in 1970. (e) Keshequa Creek All condenser cooling systems operating in 1970 (f) Honeoye Creek were of the flow-through type. Although most of (g) Genesee River-lower portion the large thermal power sites are located on the (h) Black Creek Great Lakes, the connecting channels, or in the St. (i) Oatka Creek Lawrence River, there are also some plants along (j) Van Campen Creek the shores of inland lakes. (2) River Basin Group 5.2 Lake Ontario Basin 257 TABLE 1-168 Municipal and Industrial Waste- There are numerous hydroelectric plants in the water Flows, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 tributary streams of the St. Lawrence River in mgd RBG 5.3. Over 80 percent of the present hydro- PSA State Municipal Industrial electric capacity of the Great Lakes Basin is found in the Lake Ontario basin, primarily in RBG 5.1 5.1 New York 225 298 (Niagara River) and RBG 5.3. It has been esti- mated that over 5,700 MW of potential pumped 5.2 New York 128 188 storage capacity could be developed at sites in the 5.3 New York 15 145 Lake Ontario basin. An additional 627 MW of con- ventional hydropower is also undeveloped in the TOTAL --- 368 631 basin. The New York Power Authority's Niagara Hy- droelectric Project consists of the Robert Moses Niagara power plant and the Lewiston pumped (a) Lake Ontario-central section storage plant. These plants working together make (b) Onondaga Lake it possible to utilize effectively the flows available (c) Chittenango Creek from the Niagara River for power. The 1950 Treaty (d) Seneca Lake-upper portion between the United States and Canada concerning (e) Oneida River Niagara Project power diversions provides that M Oneida Creek during the hours 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. April 1 to (g) Owaseo Inlet September 15, and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. September 16 (h) Canandaigua Outlet through October 31, at least 100,000 efs must be (i) Oswego River allowed to flow over Niagara Falls. At all other (j) Fish Creek-Barge Canal portion times the flow over the falls may be reduced to no W Seneca River less than 50, 000 cfs. In order to use the larger night- (j) Red Creek time flows available under the Treaty for power W Crusoe Creek diversions it was necessary to provide the storage (1) Skaneateles Creek reservoir facilities. At night when power require- (m) Seneca Canal ments are small some of the available water is (3) River Basin Group 5.3 pumped into the Lewiston pumped storage reser- (a) Lake Ontario-eastern section voir. The following day when peak power demands (b) St. Lawrence River are large, stored water is released through the (c) Sandy Creek Lewiston units which are then functioning as tur- (d) Hammond Brook bine generators. The water released augments (e) Oswegatchie River daytime diversions from the Niagara River for use M Indian River at the Robert Moses Niagara power plant. (g) Grasse River Commercial fishing in Lake Ontario has never (h) St. Regis River been comparable to that of the other Lakes. Sport (i) Elm Creek fishing has been of significant importance in the (j) Raquette River eastern basin and in shoal and bay areas since Waste discharges treated in the base year are before 1900. Table 1-169 provides information on shown in Table 1-168. the Lake Ontario sport fishery in 1970. Smallmouth TABLE 1-169 Sport Fishery, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 Ponded Waters Fishing Licenses Angler Days PSA State (acres) Resident Non-Resident (1000) 5.1 New York 11,860 75,620 1,100 2,600 5.2 New York 211,950 152,660 3,500 6,200 5.3 New York 39,8001 43,650 3,200 3,000 TOTAL --- 263,610 271,930 7,800 11,800 IThe discrepancy between this figure and the averages given in the text discussion also appears in Appendix 8, Fish, and has not been resolved. 258 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-170 Recreational Boating Development, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1969 Lake Ontario Access Total No. Total Boat Days PSA State Harbors Sites2 of Boats in Use 5.1 New York 12 5 24,500 648,000 5.2 New York 12 29 82,000 2,460,000 5.3 New York 91 8 30,600 918,000 TOTAL 33 42 137,100 4,026,000 lIncludes St. Lawrence River 21nland lakes bass continues to be the most important game fish (7) coordination with Ontario and upper Lakes and presently supports a multimillion dollar sport to insure total fish management of the Lake on a fish business complex. Yellow perch, bullheads, sound basis northern pike, and various other panfish make up (8) research to develop management methods the list of important angler species. The eastern to solve present and predicted needs basin supports almost the entire sport fishery and (9) cost-benefit data to help determine the most most of the commercial fishery in Lake Ontario. justifiable total fishery for the Lake Since 1950, smelt dipping has become a major (10) education of the public as to the potential family-oriented sport fishery during the spring of the Lake and best methods available to utilize spawning run. A winter ice fishery is popular for the total fishery. yellow perch, and to a much lesser degree, north- In River Basin Group 5.1 there is a need for ern pike. additional lake fisheries in the upper portion of the Results from the 1968-70 New York and Ontario Genesee basin. Problems in the 5.1 area restricting experimental salmon stocking program were very fishing opportunities include water quality impair- poor, due primarily to high mortality from lamprey ment, high intensity boating use, and the need for predation. Canadian tributaries received lamprey development of shorelines on the larger lakes. control treatment in 1971, the New York waters in Drawdown and water level regulation are problems 1972. It is anticipated that lamprey control will be in some of the lakes. repeated every four to six years. Current fish management programs in PSA 5.1 In addition to lamprey control, adequate sal- include stocking, stream improvement, and special monid stocking must be insured. Plans for expan- fishing regulations. The trout stocking program sion of existing State hatchery facilities and possi- totals 100,000 yearling trout and 22,000 fingerling ble construction of one or two State and/or Federal trout annually. The species stocked are lake trout, hatcheries are in the formative stage. rainbow trou 't, brown trout and brook trout. The major fishery problems related to Lake On- The waters in Planning Subarea 5.2 offer an tario proper are listed below in order of priority: excellent variety and abundance of fish habitat, and (1) protection and enhancement of the habitat consequently, the number of important sport spe- base cies is large. This presents a problem in determin- (2) development of a major salmonid sport ing the most important species on a priority basis. fishery through Lake and rainbow trout are extremely valuable (a) lamprey control sport species in the Finger Lakes. Pollution from (b) salmonid stocking industrial, agricultural, and domestic sources is the (c) acqusition and development of access sites major problem affecting fishing throughout the 5.2 (d) promotion area. Fluctuating water,level is a problem on many (3) development of a fish stock monitoring sys- waters. Natural and manmade barriers are a prob- tem for the open lake and inshore areas lem to anadromous fish management. (4) protection and enhancement of the existing Because of the wide range of habitat, Planning inshore warmwater fishery Subarea 5.3 supports a large number of fish spe- (5) development of a commercial fishery where cies. Fishable waters in this area, excluding compatible with the sport fishery marshes and farm ponds, include approximately (6) automated processing of all data 31,000 acres of ponded cold water, 29,200 acres of Lake Ontario Basin 259 ponded warm water, 2,630 miles of coldwater TABLE 1-171 Agricultural Land Treatment streams, and 721 miles of warmwater streams. Needs, Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1970 (thousands Much of the designated coldwater habitat also sup- of acres) ports the warmwater species. There is a need for Pasture Other ponded trout waters in most of the section outside PSA Cropland Land Land Total of the Adirondack Mountains. 5.1 533.5 96.3 24.4 654.2 Both pollution and power dam regulation are 5.2 998.5 304.6 109.2 1,412.3 major fishery problems in PSA 5.3, causing low flows harmful to fish. Existing dams are the major 5.3 368.2 141.9 19.8 529.9 problem in anadromous fish management. This is TOTAL 1,900.2 542.8 153.4 2,596.4 particularly true of the Black River. In the upper reaches of the river systems, and to some degree in Salmon River, the Moose River, Fish Creek, and the downstream reaches, beavers have ruined Fall Creek. once-excellent trout waters over the past 20 years. River Basin Group 5.3 experiences a large influx About 137,000 boats operated in the Lake On- of nonresident boaters because of its large quanti- tario basin in 1968. The vast majority of recrea- ties of water suitable for recreational boating, its tional craft used today are 20 feet or less in length. scenic beauty, and freedom from an urban envi- Boating opportunities developed in River Basin ronment. Few potential reservoir sites exist in the Groups 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are shown in Table 1-170. area. Only a few large sites are available. Along the River Basin Group 5.1 experiences only a modest Lake Ontario shoreline there are several large bays influx of nonresident boaters because of its limited available to offer shelter and boatable water when quantity of water suitable for recreational boating. use of the open Lake would be hazardous. This area Lake Ontario beaches in RBG 5.1 are generally also includes the upper 114 miles of the St. narrow and composed of sand and gravel. The Lawrence River from the head of the river at Lake shoreline is generally regular with little natural Ontario. The river in the area is essentially an arm shelter. Ponds are cut off from the Lake. The of the Lake, and the drop in water surface eleva- narrow and shallow outlet channels are usable only tion from Lake Ontario is small. The current is slow by small boats familiar with the waters. The ponds and in many cases imperceptible. There is an themselves are much used by small boats. The abundance of sheltered waters for-boating, includ- principal streams that have been identified as good ing areas suitable for construction bf marinas and canoeing waters are the Genesee River and John- launching ramps. The upper 40 miles of the river is: son Creek. The lack of stream improvements, lack the famous Thousand Islands section noted for its of maintenance, and periodic low flows limit the scenic beauty. This combination of sheltered water amount of canoeing and small boat opportunities on and beautiful scenery attracts boaters from well the inland streams in the area. outside the area, including many from outside the River Basin Group 5.2 experiences a large influx State. There are Federal harbor projects at Sack- of nonresident boaters because of its large quanti- etts Harbor, Cape Vincent, Morristown, and Og- ties of water suitable for recreational boating. densburg. These provide some facilities for recrea- There are few reservoir sites in the RBG 5.2 area. tional craft. Some of the inland lakes in the more The large inland lakes, particularly the Finger rugged portion of the area are not readily access- Lakes, are extensively used for recreational boat- ible. It is State policy to maintain such areas as ing. Lake Ontario shoreline characteristics in RBG wilderness. Principal rivers and tributaries that 5.2 are varied. Most of the area east of Oswego is have been identified as good canoeing waters are well-suited for recreational boating, with a number the St. Lawrence, Black, Oswegatchie, Indian, of sheltered open water areas, There are five Fed- Grass, and Raquette Rivers. eral harbor projects along the lakeshore in the RBG There are Federal harbors on Lake Ontario at 5.2 area: Oswego Harbor, Great Sodus Bay, Little Rochester, Great Sodus Bay, Oswego, and on the Sodus Bay, Port Bay, and Port Ontario. The latter St. Lawrence River at Ogdensburg. two have not been built as yet. Private interests Major commodities at Rochester include ex- have.provided boating facilities at three other lo- ports of coal to Canada and imports of cement from cations. These harbors provided mooring for 835 Canada. vessels in 1967. Part of the RBG 5.2 area, the No commerce has been reported at Great Sodus northeastern corner, is still in almost wilderness Bay in recent years. Traffic at Oswego consists of condition and not readily accessible to boaters. receipts of cement from Canadian and from U.S. However, these areas are available to canoeists and lake ports and shipments of fuel oil to Canada from some of the canoe waters connect to extensive the United States. systems of canoe waters east of the Great Lakes At Ogdensburg, traffic of 0.3 million tons in 1969 Region. The principal canoeing streams are the included imports of pulp and newsprint from 260 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-172 Drainage Limitations in the and ownership for the Lake Ontario basin. The Lake Ontario Plan Area (thousands of acres) shorelands within one-half mile of the lakeshore Total Agricultural Drainage.Problems are predominantly agricultural or open lands. The .PSA Land Area Land Severe Some- lands immediately adjacent to the Lake are gener- 5.1 2,459 1,316 147 87 ally open or in low-density development. Urban 5.2 5,427 2,631 251 234 development is concentrated in the areas of Ro- 5.3 3,386 1,024 206 117 chester, Irondequoit, and Oswego. The Lake On- tario shoreline includes numerous bird nesting and TOTAL 11,272 4,971 604 438 migration areas. Major islands and island groups in Lake Ontario include Grenadier-Fox-Litt Islands, Galloo Island, Canada and receipts of gasoline and fuel oil from and the Stony Islands. These islands are for the other U.S. lake ports. most part privately owned and used primarily for Table 1-171 lists the existing agricultural land by hunting and fishing activities. planning subareas in the Lake Ontario basin. About The Lake Ontario shoreline has considerable un- 1,414,700 acres or 33 percent of all agricultural land protected mileage subject to noncritical erosion and in the basin is now receiving adequate conservation a somewhat lesser amount of unprotected shoreline land treatment and management. subject to critical erosion, as shown in Table 1-173. Conservation measures on agricultural lands in Beach erosion control reports have been com- the Lake Ontario basin have been accomplished by pleted for Fort Niagara State Park, Hamlin Beach private land owners and local soil and water con- State Park, Fair Haven State Park, and Selkirk servation districts with technical assistance from Shores State Park, and projects have been autho- the Soil Conservation Service. rized. The first two of these are awaiting funds in About 14 percent of the total agricultural land in order to be built; the latter two have been deferred the Lake Ontario basin, or 1,656,000 acres, has a due to a lack of local interest. wetness problem (Table 1-172). About two-thirds Table 1-174 summarizes existing streambank of this is wet cropland and pasture land needing erosion by river basin group. Streambank erosion on-farm action, and the balance is wet cropland and results in some siltation of reservoirs in the Lake pasture land needing.project action. Dry soil con- Ontario basin and increases the amount of harbor ditions occur in'the Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, dredging for commercial navigation. Increased and Rome areas, and urban expansion there is not sediment resulting from urbanizing areas could be- constrained by soil wetness. The large lake plain come the major source of sediment in the streams areas in RBGs 5.1 and 5.2 have historically had in this area as well as a serious pollution threat as a poor drainage. carrier of contaminants. More than 5.6 million acres, or 50 percent of the Table 1-175 summarizes the urban and rural Lake Ontario region, is covered by forests. About 5 acreage subject to flooding and urban and rural million acres are classed as commercial forest land. average annual flood damages as of 1970 by river Hardwoods such as maples, beeches, and birches basin group. predominate. The Adirondack Mountain area has There are two channel improvements and one the major concentration of forest in the Lake On- levee project in RBG 5.1; three channel improve- tario basin. Ownership is 80 percent private, 10 ments and a watershed treatment area in RBG 5.2; percent forest industry, and the balance, State, and institutional measures in both. There are no Federal, and other public. About 3.8 million acres existing flood damage protection measures in RBG of the total could benefit from forest conservation 5.3. The flooding which occurred in June 1972 re- treatment. sulted in very high levels of both urban and rural Table 1-40 in Section 5 summarizes shoreline use damages in the Genesee River basin. TABLE 1-173 Lake Ontario Shoreline Conditions, 1970 (in miles) Total Subject to Erosion Subject No RBG State Shoreline _&r_itical Noncritical Protected to Flooding Problem 5.1 New York 81.6 12.3 46.7 11.7 10.9 0 5.2 New York 132.5 4.5 84.1 9.4 0 34.5 5.3 New York 75.5 0 38.2 4.5 7.5 25.3 TOTAL 289.6 16.8 169.0 25.6 18.4 59.8 Lake Ontario Basin 261 TABLE 1-174 Streambank Erosion in the Lake Ontario Basin, 1970 Bank Miles of Damage Annual Damages PSA State Severe Moderate Land Loss Sedimentation Other Total 5.1 New York 45 266 29,200 203,800 1,600 234,600 5.2 New York 109 674 25,600 29,600 13,800 69,000 5.3 New York 77 340 8,000 4,300 9,600 21,900 TOTAL --- 231 1,280 62,800 2379700 25,000 325,500 TABLE 1-175 Estimated Flood Damages, Lake Ontario Basin, 1970 Estimated Average Estimated Acres Annual Damages ($) in Flood Plain RBG State Urban Rural Urban Rural 5.1 New York 213,500 496,600 7,535 72,153 5.2 New York 116,100 822,800 8,060 1309837 5.3 New York 9,500 205,100 768 46,195 TOTAL 339,100 1,524,500 16,363 249,185 TABLE 1-176 Wildlife Habitat in the Lake Ontario Plan Area, 1960 - Y-otal Land Are3 Farm Habitat Forest Habitat Total Habitat PSA State (acres) Acres % of Total Land Acres % of Total Land (acres) 5.1 N.. York 2,458,700 1,525,700 62 579,100 24 2,104,800 5.2 New York 5,427,400 2,9099800 54 2,080,900 38 499709700 5.3 New York 393859700 19160,300 34 2,011,300 59 39171,600 TOTAL --- 11,271,700 5,595,800 50 4,671,300 41 10,247,100 NOTE: The area of the land resource base, made up of the farmland and forest land, and reported elsewhere, is based on 1966-1967 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. 10.2.5.3 Related Land Uses and Problems Farm game is doing well in the lowland portion of the planning subarea, with pheasant populations A good diversity of habitat exists across the higher than is usual in the Basin. This may indicate basin. This diversity makes it possible for a greater that changes in farming practices which are detri- variety of wildlife to exist, as well as making the mental to habitat have not yet occurred here as habitat more productive. Table 1-176 shows types extensively as elsewhere. Most fur bearers are of habitat available. found at medium densities in the shore marshes and The Niagara River is an important waterfowl marshes associated with inland rivers and streams. resting and feeding area during migration. Scat- Planning Subarea 5.2 is a large sprawling area tered small wetlands are found, mostly near the which encompasses a wide variety of habitats, in- Lake Ontario shore, but none are of great water- cluding agricultural lands, small woodlots, idle fowl importance. The primary waterfowl use areas farmlands, marshy stream bottoms, lake-asso- are shown on the map, Figure 1-46. ciated marshes, wooded river bottoms, and inter- Planning Subarea 5.1 is about equally divided mediate and mature forests. A broad urban belt into southern forested uplands and northern agri- bisects the planning subarea from east to west, and cultural lowlands. The lowland portion contains expansion of the zone is eliminating wildlife habi- numerous wetlands in lakeshore bays and inland tat. However, idle farmland is more common in the areas. vicinity of urban areas, and due to its high quality Forest game populations in the southern half of as wildlife habitat, the increases in this acreage the planning subarea are of low to medium density. partially compensate for habitat losses. 262 Appendix 1 CANAM 3 wiscoNso v 4 N ILINOIS PENNSYL-A 11NO-A o.@ s VICINITY MAP 0 N T A R 1 0 5.3 C@A"IOA L A K E ONTARIO 5.2 Y 0 R K 5.1 In ... Migration and or wintering Nesting and migration FIGURE 1-46 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 5 Lake Ontario Basin 263 TABLE 1-177 Land and Water Surface Usable The land and water resources of the Lake On- for Recreation in the Lake Ontario Plan Area, tario basin offer a variety of features important for 1970 (thousands of acres) recreation. Table 1-177 shows the land and water Lake Inland surface area available for recreation use. Forested PSA Land Ontario Lakes Total land is abundant, and a portion of it is under public ownership. Inland lakes and rural landscapes offer 5.1 94.5 38.0 10.0 142.5 considerable scenic appeal to the tourist. 5.2 159.5 51.0 170.0 380.5 The 290-mile Lake Ontario shoreline, with its 5.3 211.0 77.0 32.0 320.0 beaches, bluffs, sand dunes, inlets, and bays, is a TOTAL 465.0 166.0 212.0 843.0 dominant recreational feature of the basin. Island shoreline is an additional resource. Beach areas on Lake Ontario are less prominent than on any of the A diversity of wildlife species exists here due to other Great Lakes. The total beach area amounts to the variety of habitats. Forest game populations in only about 63 acres, 33 acres in public ownership the eastern and southern portions of the planning and 30 acres in private ownership (Table 1-178). subarea are at low to medium densities. The farm The water adjoining seven of the 33 acres in public game species, such as rabbit, ring-necked pheas- ownership has been polluted to such an extent that ant, and mourning dove, are doing well, and fur the shoreline cannot be used. bearers are also thriving. The plentiful wetland The Thousand Islands area at the outlet of habitat is important to most fur bearers as well as Lake Ontario and the beginning of the St. to waterfowl and the few bald and golden eagles. Lawrence River has been a prime tourist attraction Planning Subarea 5.3 is the most complex region for many years. New York State and Canada both of the New York portion of the Great Lakes Basin. have developed substantial recreational facilities in It includes a large part of the Adirondack Forest this area. Preserve as well as a portion of the St. Lawrence The headwater areas of the streams draining into River island complex. Many different habitat types Lake Ontario from the south have much rolling exist across the planning subarea. Forest game terrain with very significant aesthetic qualities. populations vary greatly among species. Fur The Finger Lakes area and Genesee Gorge are bearers are generally of medium density through- included in this area. The eastern end of this basin out the area, with some species at high levels. The extends into the western part of the Adirondack presence of unusual wildlife species at healthy Park and includes much rugged relief covered with population levels is indicative of the high value of forests. the wilderness habitat. One interesting species, the Problems of providing outdoor recreation in the coyote, has become well-established here, adding Lake Ontario basin are generally the same as in the more diversity to the fauna. other areas, except that in most cases there is an Farm game habitat is not as plentiful as forest inflow of people for recreation rather than an out- and forest transition habitat, with farm game spe- flow towards other areas. The principal problem in cies generally restricted to the farm lowlands along the western part of the basin is an inadequacy of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River shore- beach area. Most of the existing beach area is lines. privately owned and both the privately and publicly Over 350 outstanding, unusual, and significant owned areas are so heavily polluted that very little aesthetic and cultural features have been identified is available for use. The eastern part of the basin in the Lake Ontario region. Details are in Appendix receives a great deal of use from persons outside 22, Aesthetic and Cultural Resources. the basin, and a continuing improvement of the TABLE 1-178 Amount, Ownership, and Recreational Potential of Great Lakes Beaches, Lake Ontario Plan Area (acres) Publicly Owned Beaches Privately Owned Beaches Usable Open to Public Not Open to Public Open to Not With Without Potential for Little/No PSA Public Restricted Usable Charge Charge -Development Potential Total 5.1 2.5 0 6.9 0 0 0 24.9 34.3 5.2 11.5 0 0 3.9 1.7 0 0 17.1 5.3 11.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.9 TOTAL 25.9 0 6.9 3.9 1.7 0 24.9 63.3 % 40.9 0 10.9 6.2 2.7 0 39.3 264 Appendix 1 highway system permits longer and more frequent The Normal Framework includes programs to trips from the very heavily urbanized areas of New meet the water quality standards existing prior to York. Little beach area is available on the Lake the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- Ontario shore in this portion of the basin also. The ments of 1972, and precludes degradation of higher beach that is available and many of the beaches in levels of water quality where they exist at the State parks in the Thousand Islands area are in present time. public ownership. The framework has not been able to satisfy all of The existing developed supply of land and water the water-oriented outdoor recreation, sport fish- surface areas available for recreation in the Lake ing, erosion control, flooding, and wildlife needs in Ontario basin is shown in Section 12 in Table 1-222. this river basin group. This is partially due to the This table also shows projected needs and outputs topography of the land and partially due to com- from the Proposed Framework for the Lake basin peting land uses. A high level of flood plain man- developed from the frameworks for RBGs 5.1, 5.2, agement will be necessary, including continued and 5.3. regulation of development in the flood plain if damages are to be prevented in the future. Section 12 contains Table 1-310, which lists the 10.2 Frameworks for River Basin Group 5.1 needs, outputs, and percent of needs met for the Normal Framework in River Basin Group 5.1; Tables 311 and 312 contain capital costs and opera- 10.2.1 Summary tion, maintenance, and replacement costs for the Normal Framework. The most severe present problems in River Basin Group 5.1 are lack of resource supply to provide additional recreational opportunity, low flows in 10.2.2 The Area many streams, the difficulty of finding adequate supplies of high-quality water for rural domestic Planning Subarea 5.1 lies within the State of and livestock needs, competing land uses, and the New York, and all of the population considered is in widening gap between wildlife habitat supply and that State, even though River Basin Group 5.1 wildlife needs. The land base suitable for wildlife is extends a'short distance into Pennsylvania. Popu- decreasing as the neL-ds for such land are increas- lation, per capita income, and employment were ing. This is due to urbanization and the accompa- discussed in Section 1. Planning Subarea 5.1 is nying pressures for residential, commercial, and located in the northeastern portion of the Great industrial land uses. Lakes Basin along the southern shore of Lake Other major problems include flooding in the Ontario, and consists of six northwestern New Genesee River basin, the proper maintenance of York counties. The Niagara-Orleans complex lake levels, and of flows throughout the Barge (which includes the Niagara River below Grand Canal and in the streams in the river basin group, Island) and the Genesee River basin combine to the adequate protection of fishery values in the drain over 3,515 square miles of New York and eastern part of Lake Ontario, and the adequate Pennsylvania land. Figure 1-47 shows the planning preservation of aesthetic and cultural recreational subarea counties and depicts major drainage areas. values throughout the -entire Lake basin. Municipal water supply and waste treatment systems in the Normal Framework include pro- 10.2.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems grams to encourage industries to join municipal or regional industrial supply and waste treatment The projected needs for resource use in RBG 5.1 systems, and for such systems to be combined into by time level are shown in Section 12 on Table larger regional systems where economies would 1-310. Where needs can be quantified, they are not result. discussed in the text unless special conditions war- In the Normal Framework the availability of rant such discussion. water and related land resources is not likely to be a constraint on achieving the projected growth level, with the possible exception of meeting rural 10.2.3.1 Water Withdrawals domestic and livestock needs. Ground water should be used to the maximum extent possible, where it is The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 are available in adequate quantity and quality, because estimated for RBG 5.1 at nearly 4,000 mgd above of the considerable savings in treating ground the base year water withdrawals of 944 mgd. Over water as compared to treating surface water in this 90 percent of the additional water withdrawal need area. is for thermal power cooling. Lake Ontario Basin 265 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 0 0 0 jofII State Barg- C-n./ (3 0Albion Rochester 0 Medina Brockport Le.iston Lockport Niagara Fa/19/'@'_ LEANS a a kCreek Grand Island 10 *Bata)ia MO ROE LIVINGSTON GENESE 51 /-.- Lake Hemlock Lake Hone Lake DansVill 0 WYOMING % ALLEGANY Wellsville NEWYO@K PENNFLVANIA VICINITY MAP SCAU 'NM!LES 0 50 100 SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 147 Lake Ontario West, River Basin Group 5.1 266 Appendix 1 The water withdrawal problems are relatively (4) extremely large sediment loads carried by minor in this river basin group, with perhaps the the Genesee River. Most of this load originates greatest being the difficulty of obtaining adequate from upstream bank and sheet erosion. Large water of satisfactory quality if water quality quantities are eventually deposited in the harbor standards are not met. Of slightly lesser concern, area where they are annually dredged. A study but also important, is the difficulty of satisfying should be made to determine what measures might irrigation needs where they are expected to occur. be taken to reduce this sediment load. The same water that is needed on the land for An additional significant planning problem in this irrigation is also needed in the streams for fishing river basin group is that the Rochester embay- and other purposes. ment, which includes the Monroe County shoreline of Lake Ontario and Irondequoit Bay, has water pollution problems caused by the discharge of mu- 10.2.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses nicipal and industrial wastes. High bacterial counts for the metropolitan sewage have caused the main In 1970 a total of 225 mgd of domestic, commer- public beaches in the embayment to be closed. cial, and industrial wastewater was treated in mu- Pumped storage hydroelectric power plants are nicipal wastewater treatment facilities in RBG 5. 1. expected to be built after 1980 with needs for water This amount if projected to increase slightly by as shown in Table 1-310. 1980, and more than double by 2020. Industrial The sport fishing needs shown in Table 1-310 wastewater which was treated in 1970 in industry- reflect an assumed transfer of considerable angler- owned wastewater treatment facilities amounted to day needs from other portions of the Great Lakes 298 mgd, of which over half was condenser cooling Basin, specifically the Buffalo area. water. This waste flow is expected to occur at about The effect of poor water quality on fishing op- the same rate through 1980 and then increase portunity is the most serious fishing problem at the through 2020. The needs shown include an increas- present time. In some of the better trout streams ing amount of cooling water. Streams or stream tributary to the Genesee River, there are problems reaches that will require advanced waste treatment of conflict between irrigation water withdrawals to meet the water quality standards include Eight- and the maintenance of flows for fishing and other een Mile Creek, Oak Orchard Creek, Sandy Creek, uses. If the New York State program for lamprey Salmon Creek, the portion of the Genesee River control recently initiated in the Lake Ontario basin downstream from Avon, and its tributaries, in- is successful, there will be a substantially higher eluding Honeoye, Keshequa, Wolf, Oatka, Black, amount of fishing opportunity in Lake Ontario ad- Conesus, and Canaseraga Creeks. In its last 5 to 6 jacent to this river basin group than there is at the miles, the Genesee River is in its most seHous state present time. A lakewide coordinated lampricide of degradation. The discharge from an industry program is needed. primary treatment plant was the principal cause of There is also a serious need to collect fishery use this condition. This industry has secondary treat- data for the river basin group and for Lake On- ment facilities which began operation after the base tario. There is a need to develop additional oppor- year. These should greatly reduce the effluent tunities for lake fishing in the upper portion of the loading. Poor-quality water may also be attributed Genesee River basin. Other problems affecting to intermittent discharges from combined sewer fishery habitat include: overflows from the City of Rochester and the latent. (1) eutrophication in many of the inland lakes oxygen demand of the extensive sludge deposits. and the bays along Lake Ontario Other serious water quality problems which may (2) destruction of stream trout by pesticides not readily be resolved by conventional treatment (3) conflict between shoreline use on large lakes methods include: for recreation and for fishing. It is difficult to fish (1) an accelerating rate of eutrophication in some of the lakes during daytime hours, especially some of the smaller interior lakes as a result of on the weekends, due to boating and water skiing. cottages ringing the lakes. Some recent sewer con- (4) destruction of fish spawning areas due to struction in an effort to abate such pollution should drawdown through water level regulation on some be carefully surveyed as to its success. of the inland lakes (2) rapidly rising chloride levels in area waters. (5) destruction of trout stream habitat through The possibility of immediately reducing the amount gravel removal and channel dredging of salt applied to roads during the winter should be (6) sedimentation threatening trout spawning examined. areas in streams. (3) extensive use of pesticides in the fruit belt In addition to planning for the satisfaction of the of the lake plain area. Closer control is clearly boating day needs, it is also necessary to plan needed. berthing facilities and launching sites. Present Lake Ontario Basin 267 TABLE 1-179 Use and Projected Needs for and increase the amount of sediment. Sedimenta- Recreational Boating, PSA 5.1 tion regulations and laws are needed, particularly 1000 Boating Days in urban areas, if water quality is to be improved by Great Lakes Inland reducing the amount of sediment. Category Waters Waters It is estimated that 234,000 acres of agricultural land has a drainage problem and that on 147,000 1970 Use 282 366 acres the problem requires project action. Programs along the Lake Ontario plain area are 1980 Needs 144 57 needed at the present time. The Oatka Creek wa- 2000 Needs 195 117 tershed area is likely to need a project action pro- gram by 1980. 2020 Needs 267 207 The difficulty of meeting land use needs for ex- panding urban areas as a result of the wetness problem is not as acute in PSA 5.1 as it is in other boating day use is about equally divided between areas of the Great Lakes Basin. In the Rochester Lake Ontario and inland waters. Needs for Lake area about 33 percent of the n6nurban land base has Ontario by 1980 are over twice the needs for inland a wetness problem which would need to be cor- waters (Table 1-179). There will continue to be rected before this land could be used for urban more needs for Lake Ontario through 2020, al- uses. The remaining 67 percent is suitable for though needs for inland waters will increase at a urban development. greater rate. A major requirement for meeting There are about 867,000 acres of non-Federal needs is the provision of access, launching sites, forests in River Basin Group 5. 1, of which 424, 000 and berthing facilities. acres receive adequate conservation treatment. Problems associated with recreational boating There is opportunity for treatment on the remain- are that use of Lake Ontario is limited by the ing 443,000 acres in order to realize the maximum scarcity of mooring sites, and the inland lakes are multiple benefits. There are no national forests in crowded beyond the desirable capacity for recrea- River Basin Group 5.1 and only 5,400 acres of tional boating. Federal forest land. PSA 5.1 has few inland waters. If recreational There are several critical bird nesting and mi- boating is to develop as projected, additional sur- gration areas along the Lake Ontario shoreline in face water must be provided. Access sites to new Planning Subarea 5.1, adjacent to Johnson Creek, waters as well as additional access sites for existing Oak Orchard Creek, and Braddock Bay. waters are also needed. Another urgent need is a Most of the shoreline subject to flooding is in better communication system to inform recrea- Monroe County west of Rochester, while critical tional boaters on Lake Ontario of weather condi- and noncritical shoreline erosion occurs mostly in tions and forecasts. Orleans and Niagara Counties. Very little cargo is handled on the U.S. shore of Needs for streambank erosion control are shown Lake Ontario. From the present time to 2020, the in Table 1-310. Streambank erosion results in in- several ports along Lake Ontario in the U.S. are creased sedimentation in streams. This prevents expected to handle less than a million tons of cargo other uses of the water as a result of the degraded annually. This small amount of commerce consists water quality. The effect of sedimentation on primarily of coal shipments and smaller amounts of fishing has been previously noted. Another problem other traffic. related to stream bank erosion is that it is very The most significant priority for the Port of difficult to correct because the streambanks often Rochester is strong port promotion to increase the are private property, and owners may not have general cargo traffic with Canada and overseas. either the resources or the willingness to correct the problems. In River Basin Group 5.1 the greatest flood 10.2.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems damages occur in rural areas. Floods in the summer of 1972 in the Genesee River basin have reempha- It is estimated that on about 654,200 acres, or 29 sized the flooding problem, especially the land loss percent of the total agricultural land in RBG 5.1, resulting from floods in the upstream areas. conservation practices could be effectively applied Some of the more important wildlife problems to reduce soil losses and to conserve plant cover. include posting by land owners, which restricts The greatest problem associated with the con- access and leads to underharvest; loss of wetlands servation of agricultural lands is the increasing due to industrial and municipal developments; sin- pressure to convert these lands to other land uses gle-purpose flood control, navigation, and agricul- that often reduce the amount of cover on the land tural drainage programs; cottage development; and 268 Appendix 1 water pollution severe enough to affect wildlife cited above. The increasing populations with higher food supply and population levels along 100 miles of incomes and more leisure time create an ever-in- stream. creasing pressure on recreational facilities, espe- About one-half of the need shown in Table 1-310 cially day-use recreational activities such as playing is for hunting and one-half for nonconsumptive fields, golf courses, and bicycle trails. wildlife use, such as observation and photography. A critical obstacle in meeting recreational needs Urban encroachment on wildlife habitat is the is the lack of Lake Ontario beach acreage available most important wildlife problem in the lowlands. to the public. Only 34 acres of beach, of which 25 Conversion of agricultural land to residential or acres are privately owned, were available in industrial uses not only permanently destroys hab- Monroe and Orleans Counties, according to the itat, but also effectively restricts wildlife manage- International Joint Commission inventory of beach ment and the use of surrounding lands. Bet 'ween areas. Most beaches in public ownership were 1970 and 2020 it is estimated that 122,200 acres of heavily polluted at the time of the survey in 1967. wildlife habitat will be lost through urbanization in Unless there is a shift from private to public own- Planning Subarea 5.1. ership in this area, it will be very difficult to meet A wildlife use problem that goes hand-in-hand the recreational needs of the Rochester area. Some with posting is the tendency for sportsman groups of the prime land areas for industrial development to reserve the right to hunt on private land by in this area are along the shorelines and the stream direct payment to the landowner. This is a partial valleys along the lower Genesee River. Transpor- solution to the restricted access problem, but it also tation routes also conflict with aesthetic and re- aggravates the overall problem because hunting creational land uses. preserves are operated well below maximum sus- tained yield, and for only a select few, thus limiting overall hunting opportunity. 10.2.4 Alternative Frameworks Loss of wetlands is an importari+--wildlife problem because this habitat is in short supply in the plan- Two alternative frameworks are presented for ning subarea. These losses are frequently due to this as for other river basin groups. The Normal single-purpose programs for navigation and waste Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- disposal. Poor water. quality reduces wildlife popu- tions to meet needs outside RBG 5.1 in the Lake lation and impairs the aesthetic qualities of the basin or the Great Lakes Basin. water system, thus diminishing its ability to satisfy The Proposed Framework contains the recom- nonconsumptive wildlife demand. This is particu- mendations of the Commission in an effort to re- larly true in the lower Genesee River basin. The flect the views of the people of the basin and the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge northeast of policies and programs of the States. To some ex- Buffalo provides about 177,000 user-days. The ref- tent, it reflects coordination in the development of uge attracts ducks, geese, whistling swans, and the framework among a number of river basin coots. In several places in the river basin group, the groups, both in the Lake basin and in the Great pressure for more recreation has resulted in wet- Lakes Basin as a whole. lands being dredged or filled by various levels of government to provide additional park lands and facilities such as boat channels, marinas, boat 10.2.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) ramps, roads, building sites, and golf courses. In- dustry and commerce also take their toll of wet- NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and lands. solving identified problems to the maximum prac- The existing aesthetic and cultural values in this ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and river basin group have been cited above. Major criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The problems are competition between industrial or program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- residential use of shoreline and preservation of tion 12 on Tables 1-310, 1-311, and 1-312. aesthetic values, inadequate funding for land ac- (1) Water Withdrawals quisition, and the need to preserve outstanding There is adequate water to meet water with- values. drawal needs for RBG 5.1 up to and beyond 2020 if The projected need is for land-based water- additional source capacity is developed. Most of the oriented outdoor recreation developed capacity to municipal water supply, self-supplied industrial be more than doubled by 1980, and more than water, and water for thermal power cooling is quadrupled by 2020. In order to satisfy this need by expected to come from Lake Ontario. The largest 1980, it has been estimated that an additional 800 portion of the demand occurs in the Rochester area. acres of land must be provided. The rural water supply needs will be satisfied by a The problem of beach closings has already been combination of water from inland lakes and streams Lake Onta?io Basin 269 and from ground water. The irrigation and mining and Honeoye Lakes, Eighteen Mile Creek, Sandy water supply needs are all expected to be satisfied Creek, Oak Orchard Creek, Salmon Creek and its from inland lakes and stream sources. Some reser- tributaries, Brockport and West Creeks, the Ro- voir development is possible. chester embayment, and Irondequoit Bay and The Normal Framework, in addition to including Irondequoit Creek. the development of sources to meet the needs as The NOR program to meet fishery needs and they accrue, includes a program for periodic sur- solve problems consists of several features. One is veys of water use for the respective purposes. the construction of about 16 upland reservoirs, of The additional power development to 1980 in the which four are also for recreation use. The re- framework includes only nuclear thermal generat- mainder of them are primarily for fishing. The ing capacity, and the bulk of the new capacity and second is a series of ongoing fish management pro- generation to 2020 is expected to be nuclear ther- grams, consisting of implementation of the stream mal generating power plants along the shores of protection law; various abatement programs to en- Lake Ontario. Some increase in fossil fueled and in hance water quality; stocking programs, including noncondensing plants is also included. The Normal stocking of anadromous fish in the lower Genesee Framework provides for nearly doubling hydro- River and Irondequoit Bay; stream improvements; electric power installation after 1980. It has been and the initiation and enforcement of special fishing assumed that 960 MW of pumped storage will be regulations. These management programs are ex- developed in RBG 5.1 by 2000, and an additional pected by 1980 to raise present capability of the 1200 MW by 2020. river basin group's fishery resources to the level of (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses supporting an additional 545,000 user-days an- The Normal Framework provides, as a criterion, nually. that the 7 day-10 year low flow will be maintained Also included in the ongoing programs are mea- to the maximum extent possible in the streams in sures for the acquisition of fishing access along 97 RBG 5.1. New York State is well into the imple- miles of stream, requiring 224,000 acres of land. mentation of its pure waters program, having con- This will provW more fishery than the reservoirs structed and expanded many municipal waste will provide. treatment plants in the Great Lakes Basin within The 2000 and 2020 aspects of the fishery pro- the last decade. Federal reimbursement for the grams include a continuation of the management State's prefinancing of much of the Federal cost of programs. In the period between 1980 and 2000, this construction is still pending. additional fishery opportunities would be supplied The Normal Framework provides that secondary by the construction of four major reservoirs and waste treatment will be programed throughout the four upstream reservoirs. All of these are multi- entire area, with 85 percent BOD removal or better ple-purpose projects with fishing benefits as well as in all cases. In addition, some of the larger plants recreational benefits. In the period between 2000 are also required to remove phosphates. and 2020 the framework includes the construction New York State has prepared a water quality of an additional major reservoir for warmwater plan to meet 1990 needs. The plan as it existed on fishing. December 31, 1971 was adopted for NOR. It in- The fishery programs, as outlined, do not meet cludes sewage treatment plant projects, either all of the anticipated angler-day needs. It is ex- construction of completely new plants or expansion pected that a portion of the needs will have to be of existing plants, at 23 locations. satisfied in other areas of the Great Lakes Basin or Other waste treatment improvements, other in other major river basins throughout the country. than sewage treatment plants, are also provided NOR will not satisfy all of the boating-day needs for in the New York State Plan to 1990 at 13 in any of the time periods. Lake Ontario needs are locations. These improvements have also been se- more than met by 2020, whereas inland water lected and endorsed for the Normal Framework. needs are only about 10 percent met by that year. The waste treatment projects which have been The programs consist of constructing marinas, approved or completed in New York State under harbors, and access sites on Lake Ontario, with the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmen- equal amounts in the three time periods; con- tal Conservation have been assumed to be ongoing structing an impoundment; and additional marinas programs and in place as of the base year. In and access points on inland lakes and streams. addition to the conventional secondary treatment Commercial fishing and commercial navigation and phosphate removal as already noted, the Nor- are discussed under Subsection 10.5, Lake Ontario mal Framework also includes provisions for ad- Intrarelationships, and in Section 5. vanced waste treatment for the following: the (3) Related Land Use lower main stem of the Genesee River around the The programed agricultural land treatment for Little Finger Lakes, plants discharging to Conesus RBG 5.1 is essentially a continuation of ongoing 270 Appendix 1 programs at a level that has been followed in the Genesee River basin, and the other programs are past. The drainage program provides for drainage continued. of cropland between now and 1980 and for group In the period between 2000 and 2020 the pro- project action on the same land to obtain required grams, as described between the present time and outlets for the field drainage. There are no addi- 1980, are continued. No additional structural pro- tional drainage programs after 1980. grams or reservoir storage are called for in this time A forest land treatment program is included in period. the Normal Framework at a higher level than has The NOR program for wildlife management in- been practiced in the past or present. The desired cludes a continuation of ongoing programs by State result is believed to justify the higher treatment agencies for habitat improvement, enforcement, level. The accelerated portion of the forest land and research. treatment program provides that the existing au- Additional programs included in the Normal thorities and manpower and budget levels be ex- Framework are: panded and increased throughout the projection (a) acquisition of wetlands period. About half of the acreage to be treated in (b) lease or purchase of unique and critical each time period will receive treatment similar to wildlife areas the ongoing programs, and the other half will re- (c) management and development of State ceive accelerated treatment. lands The Normal Framework includes programs to (d) acquisition of public hunting lands protect Lake Ontario shoreline subject to critical (e) hunting and access easements on private erosion. lands. The streambank erosion program would provide NOR provides that the following outstanding, treatment by 2020 on all the streambank mileage in unusual, and significant aesthetic and cultural values RBG 5.1 subject to severe erosion. be acquired in the early action period and set aside for Institutional measures or flood plain management the benefit of future generations: are included in NOR for the reduction of both urban (a) waterfowl areas and rural flood damages in each of the time periods. (b) 18 historical structures and sites These measures are not expected to be effective in (c) wetlands included in the wildlife programs reducing rural damages in upstream watershed discussed above. areas, however. The framework provides for res- (The names of the values refer to the inventory ervoir storage in the Canaseraga and Oak Orchard contained in Appendix 22, Aesthetic and Cultural Creek watersheds in the period between the pres- Resources). ent time and 1980. This will reduce the rural dam- NOR includes construction before 1980 of several ages and rural acreage subject to flooding. small reservoirs in upstream areas, and the acqui- Another program element included in the early sition and development of recreational opportuni- action period for flood damage reduction is the ties along 10 miles of river valley. provision of structural protective works in Cana- Between 1980 and 2000, NOR would satisfy an seraga and Oak Orchard Creek watersheds, on the additional portion of the recreational needs with Genesee River at Wellsville, on the rural flood the construction of four major and four minor res- plains in the Red Creek watershed, and in the ervoirs, and the additional acquisition and develop- Oatka Creek watershed. The projects in the Cana- ment of 10 miles of flood plain. seraga, Oak Orchard Creek, and Oatka Creek wa- Between 2000 and 2020, NOR includes the con- tersheds will be effective in reducing rural damages struction of two additional major reservoirs and and protecting rural acreage subject to flooding, four smaller upstream reservoirs. The framework, and the projects in the Wellsville and Red Creek also in this time period, includes acquisition and areas will be effective in reducing urban damages development of 10 additional miles of flood plains, and protecting urban acreage. the development for recreational use of State The Normal Framework also includes proposals forest lands, and the development for recreational for land use changes, land treatment, and increased use of wildlife lands. efficiency in utilizing the land in order to reduce The program elements listed above for recrea- damages. The framework also includes recommen- tional development in the State parks represent dations for lake regulation around Conesus Lake, development on only about 16 @percent of the exist- around Honeoye Lake, and in the Canaseraga ing undeveloped State and county park areas. In Creek watershed (Silver Lake) in order to reduce 1970 @ the Allegheny State Park contained no re- urban and rural'flood damages in those locations. creational. development. In the period 1980-2000 @ additional channel modi- In addition to the programs cited above, the fication is included for the rural flood plains in the following elements should be given priority for Lake Onta?io Basin 271 acqu.sition and development throughout the 1970- TABLE 1-180 Comparison of Population Pro- 2020 time frame: jections, PSA 5.1 (a) development of additional recreational fa- 1000s of People cilities on State forest land 1970 1980 2000 2020 (b) development of recreational facilities in public wildlife areas GLBC 946 978 1,222 1,538 (e) public access sites on streams and lakes (1968 OBERS) where additional potential for use exists New York State --- 1,084 1,403 N/A (d) encouragement of the private sector to con- (OPS) tinue development of quality recreational facilities for golfing, skiing, camping, swimming, and for indicate that this may not be the best solution, but other activities where it can function effectively. the question has not yet been completely resolved. (4) Framework Outputs and Costs Waste treatment in PRO is consistent with the Section 12 contains Tables 1-310, 1-311, and requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Con- 1-312 which provide information on needs, outputs, trol Act Amendments of 1972. Needs and outputs percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R costs are the same as NOR, but treatment is more strin- for.NOR in RBG 5.1. gent in some areas and costs may be higher. (3) Related Land Uses The PRO Framework recommends the continua- 10.2.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) tion of ongoing agricultural land treatment pro- grams and the acceleration of other appropriate PRO was formulated in consultation with State practices on 506,900 acres in RBG 5. 1. No addi- officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- tional drainage action on existing croplands grams, as well as the desires of area residents. through 2020 is recommended. An accelerated State, regional, and local policy assumptions with forest land treatment program is recommended to respect to population and economic growth do not improve forest management on -235,000 acres by differ greatly from the OBERS projections used in 2020. Table 1-340 compares NOR and PRO in these NOR. categories. The Proposed Framework for RBG 5.1 reflects (4) Framework Outputs and Costs the comprehensive and ongoing plans of the State, Section 12 contains Tables 1-313, 1-314, and the Genesee-Finger Lakes Regional Planning 1-315, which provide information on needs, out- Board, and the Genesee Regional Water Resources puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R Planning Board. costs for PRO, indicating by italics where they The State of New York Office of Planning Ser- differ from NOR. Table 1-340 compares land vices (OPS) has prepared and is keeping up to date treatment programs. demographic projections for the entire State based on methodology quite different from OBERS. In general, these projections are lower than the NOR 10.2.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs projections, due to decreasing migration rates into the New York State portion of the Great Lakes Table 1-355 in Section 12 lists the total costs Basin, and the recent downward trend in fertility (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO in RBG 5.1 rates. However, in PSA 5.1 the OPS projections for the periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. are higher than the NOR projections. Subsequent planning efforts in PSA 5.1 by the Great Lakes Basin Commission should utilize OPS projections. 10.3 Frameworks for River Basin Group 5.2 The differences in the projections are illustrated in Table 1-180. (1) Water Withdrawals 10-3.1 Summary There are no significant differences between the Proposed Framework and the Normal Framework The most severe present problems in River Basin for RBG 5.1 with respect to water withdrawals. Group 5.2 are the following: (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses (1) lack of adequate funding for the construc- A major multiple-purpose reservoir in the upper tion of municipal waste treatment facilities, cou- reaches of the Genesee River has been considered pled with the difficulty of establishing and ade- as a part of the PRO early action program in RBG quately enforcing water quality standards and 5.1 for the reduction of flood damages and for meeting the deadlines specified in enforcement recreation and other purposes. Additional studies conferences and international agreements 272 Appendix 1 (2) meeting the water-oriented outdoor recre- acquiring and allocating for various public uses the ation needs land adjacent to the Finger Lakes and to the other (3) the difficulty of providing adequate quantity inland lakes and streams. and quality of water for rural domestic and live- A high level of flood plain management will be stock use necessary, including continued regulation of devel- (4) streambank erosion in the Oswego River opment in the flood plain, if damages are to be basin. prevented in the future. Transportation corridors One of the difficult planning tasks for the river and urban expansion will have to be carefully basin group involves the regulation of the inland planned and the results of that planning stringently lakes and streams. Many of the Finger Lakes feed enforced if desirable land use patterns are to be to the New York State Barge Canal. The proper achieved in this river basin group. regulation of the flow from the Finger Lakes into Section 12 contains Table 1-316 which lists the the Barge Canal and subsequently to the cast or needs, outputs, and percentage of needs met for west or to the north to Lake Ontario through the the Normal Framework for River Basin Group 5.2; Oswego River presents a very difficult problem. Tables 1-317 and 1-318 contain capital costs and The many uses and problems pertaining to the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for Finger Lakes, particularly recreation, shoreline the Normal Framework. erosion, boating, and flood control, are all affected by the regulation plans that are adopted. There are complex interrelationships among recreation, 10.3.2 The Area power generation, commercial navigation, fishing, and water quality which all have to be considered. Planning Subarea 5.2 is within the State of New The Finger Lakes themselves are an outstanding York. It is located in the northeastern portion of natural resource, and the proper allocation of their the Great Lakes Basin along the southern shore of use, and management for their continued use for Lake Ontario. The political and hydrologic makeup future generations pose difficult engineering as well of the area is described in Section 1. The Oswego as institutional and political problems. River basin constitutes about 75 percent of the The Normal Framework does not consider the drainage area of the river basin group. availability of water and related land resources to ' Figure 1-48 locates the subarea counties and be a likely congt@aint to achieving the normal depicts major drainage areas. growth level. There is a considerable dependence in this river basin group on inland lakes and streams for municipal, self-supplied industrial, irrigation, 10.3.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems and mining water. Ground water is the primary source for rural domestic and livestock water and The projected needs for resource use by time for mining water. There is also a much larger level are shown in Section 12 on Table 1-316. amount of reservoir storage for municipal water Where needs can be quantified, they are not dis- supply in this river basin group than in most of the cussed in the text unless special conditions warrant others in the Great Lakes Basin. such discussion. Lake Ontario will continue to be the source of most of the cooling water for thermal power gen- eration. 10.3.3.1 Water Withdrawals The Normal Framework includes programs to meet the existing water quality standards prior to The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 are the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- estimated for RBG 5.2 at 3,370 mgd in addition to ments of 1972, and precludes degradation of levels the base year supply of 1,570 mgd. Nearly 75 of water quality higher than the standards where it percent of the additional water withdrawal needs is exists at the present time. The framework supports for thermal power cooling. a continuing implementation of the New York State The water withdrawal problems are relatively pure waters program and asks that more funds be minor in this river basin group, perhaps the great- made available for construction as well as adminis- est being the possible degradation of surface water tration and enforcement of that program. quality as a result of mining operations, particu- The Normal Framework in RBG 5.2 has not been larly in and adjacent to urbanized areas. Ground- able to satisfy all of the water-oriented outdoor water quality in the vicinity of mining operations is recreation needs. Sport fishing needs are not met in also likely to be degraded. Ground-water quality in 1980, but are essentially met in 2000 and 2020. One Onondaga County is poor, and a shift to Great of the major problems in this area is the conflict Lakes sources is expected which will be rather between private land use and the desirability of expensive for that area. One of the main problems Lake Ontario Basin 273 Creel' s Xj Creak S G 10 LMON 0 Oswego Camden Fulto WAYN E ood Rome r\ WAYNE-C LIGA Oneida Lake N- York fate - I- -- - -) /I "\ \- Ba wi-Vill,, Barge Canal k % lyde Utica $let. Barge C. a,, Oneid 0 ris Syrac e Palmyra Ly Newark- It ONTARIO OSj GO Waterloo S a Falls Aubur N NDA A Cazeno 0 anandaigua Ofi- HERKIMER GeneVa* Lake -Hamilton ONEIDA Skeneateel La C.-nd.ig.. C.Y.g. O...o Lak Lake Lake Y-A E S MADISON Penn Yen Lake CAYU SENECA Keukallake atkins dIen Ithaca RIVER BASIN GROUP S UYLER TOMPKINS PLANNING SUBAREA VICINITY MAP ..... S-1 IN MILIs L'If 110 SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 148 Lake Ontario Central, River Basin Group 5.2 274 Appendix 1 is the proper allocation of surface waters to the Lake. The tributaries flowing into the lake and the various uses and the proper regulation of inland lake itself receive large quantities of phosphate lakes and the barge canal system in order to from municipal and industrial wastes. In addition, achieve optimum benefits from these several uses. the lake receives many direct discharges from cot- tages, from the barge canal traffic vessel w.astes, and from a large number of pleasure craft. 10.3.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses There is opportunity for the development of hy- droelectric power, and this may prove to be an Domestic, commercial, and industrial waste- economical way to provide some needed capacity water treated by municipal wastewater treat- and to conserve nonrenewable energy sources. ment facilities in RBG 5.2 is expected to more than Studies of economic and financial feasibility have double by 2020. Only modest increases in the in- not been made. dustrially treated wastewater are expected The sport fishing demand for RBG 5.2 is pro- throughout the planning period, largely due to an- jected to be about 150 percent of the base year level ticipated recirculation by industry. Reaches in the by 1980 and 250 percent of the base year level by river basin group that are major zones with poor 2020. water quality include Naples Creek, Canandaigua Pollution, including industrial, agricultural, and Inlet, Keuka Inlet, Dresden area (Seneca Lake), domestic wastes, is the major problem affecting Catherine Creek, Geneva area (Seneca Lake), fish habitat throughout the area. The sources, and Cayuga-Seneca Canal, Cayuga Inlet, Ithaca area the most critical locations, are discussed with water (Cayuga Lake), Cayuga Outlet, Skaneateles Creek, quality. In 1970 Onondaga Lake was closed to all Ninemile Creek, Harbor Brook, Onondaga Creek, fishing due to very high levels of mercury in fish. Ley Creek, Onondaga Lake, Onondaga Outlet, Other factors associated with habitat deteriora- New York State Barge Canal (Macedon to Three tion are high water temperature, flooding, erosion, Rivers), Chittenango Creek, Limestone Creek, dry stream beds, and siltation. Fluctuating water Buttermilk Creek, Canaseraga-Cowaselon-Canas- level is a problem on many waters. Irrigation and tota Creeks, Sconondoa Creek, Oneida Creek, On- poor logging practices also contribute to degrada- eida Lake, Oneida River, and Oswego River (Three tion. Rivers to Lake Ontario). The New York State Barge Canal System affects The overall water quality in this river basin fish habitat through navigational pollution and group has been a very severe problem for some through water level fluctuations. Dredging and time. Perhaps the worst areas are in the rural parts dumping of spoil, primarily in the barge canal sys- of the Wayne-Cayuga Complex and throughout the tem, has been a real problem. Oswego River basin. Natural and manmade barriers are a problem to A good many of the Finger Lakes themselves anadromous fish management. Suburban expansion have, for the most part, water of satisfactory and increased population have brought with them quality, although in many cases, either at the inlet many activities that cause habitat degradation. or the outlet, or at some point along the perimeter Highway construction and private development of the lake, the water is of a quality which restricts along stream and lake shores also contribute to the its use. The solution in most of these cases is to overall problem. In addition to problems created by provide adequate treatment of municipal and in- man, beaver have caused deterioration of high- dustrial wastes and wastes from shoreline homes, quality streams in the past 20 years. This is partic- and to control wastes from watercraft. ularly true of spring streams in upper Salmon Problems in two of the lakes are particularly River and Fish Creek tributaries located in the Tug critical. Decades of use as a receptacle for all types Hill section. Cutting of cover and shallow flooding of untreated wastes have rendered Lake Onondaga of vegetation creates drastic adverse changes in the unsuitable for public water supply, recreation, or water quality of once-excellent trout streams. fishing, and turned it into one of the most serious Fluctuation of water levels in Lake Ontario in pollution problems in New York State. Even under connection with power production and navigation natural conditions, hydrologic factors would have sometimes may create low water levels in estuaries made assimilating wastes particularly difficult, and and marshes near stream mouths. Such low water the combination of raw or partially treated dis- levels are detrimental to production of many spe- charges, the first flush from the combined sewer cies of fish. system which carries quantities of untreated sew- The opportunities for salmon fishing in this area age to the lake, and the large deposits of organic will be substantially increased if the lamprey con- and inorganic sediments have contributed to a very trol program begun by the State of New York in critical situation. .1971 and 1972 is successful. The other particularly critical lake is Oneida In 1970, Lake Ontario provided 20 percent and Lake Ontario Basin 275 TABLE 1-181 Use and Projected Needs for mercial harbors. No commerce has been reported Recreational Boating, PSA 5.2 at Great Sodus Bay in recent years. Traffic at 1000 Boating aXs Oswego consists of Canadian imports, intralake Great Lakes Inland receipts of cement, and exports of fuel oil to Can- Category Waters Waters ada. The total income generated by the above traf- fic is estimated at $15,000,000 in 1980, and is pro- 1970 Use 492 1,968 jected to increase to $26,000,000 in 2020, for a tonnage of 0.6 million tons and 0.8 million tons 1980 Needs 84 336 respectively. 2000 Needs 153 732 The most significant need in this area is strong port promotion to build up the general cargo traffic 2020 Needs 237 1,218 with Canada and overseas. Cargo handled at the ports in River Basin Group 5.2 is not expected to exceed one million tons annually between now and, inland waters provided 80 percent of the boating- 2020. day supply in RBG 5.2 (Table 1-181). The needs are projected to increase to 2020, when the total needs will be about 60 percent above base year supply. 10.3.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems The needs will be supplied by Lake Ontario and by inland waters in about the same proportions. Conservation practices could be effectively ap- Planning for the satisfaction of the boating-day plied to about 26 percent of the total land in RBG needs involves berthing facilities and launching 5.2 to reduce soil losses and to conserve plant sites. One of the major problems related to recrea- cover. tional boating is that the facilities at inland lakes The erosion and sedimentation rates in River are inadequate, even though the surface area is Basin Group 5.2 are the highest of those in the available. Access sites and marinas are needed. The eastern part of the Great Lakes Basin, principally lack of stream improvement and the inability to because of the intensive agricultural practices. maintain low flows limit the use of small tributaries Other parts of the area are less intensively used, in the river basin group by canoes and small boats. and although relief conditions are more severe, However, some very attractive canoe waters exist erosion rates are lower. in the northeastern part of the RBG. On the boat- Increasing pressure to convert agricultural lands ing waters in Lake Ontario the use on holidays and to other uses is also a major problem. In many weekends exceeds the design capacity, and inten- cases, these other land uses reduce the amount of sive management is required. There are insuffi- cover on the land and increase the amount of sedi- cient mooring sites for Great Lakes recreational ment. Control of erosion is needed, particularly in craft. Only eight exist at the present time. Access urban areas, if water quality is to be improved by points are needed also. reducing the amount of sediment. An updated program concerning small boat har- An estimated 485,000 acres of agricultural land bors on Lake Ontario is essential to the expansion has a drainage problem which limits production of recreational boating on these waters. Present under present use. About 251,000 of these acres programs do not provide for adequate facilities in could profit from a drainage program that would time to meet the projected needs. In addition to help to develop and maintain economical farm more harbors on the lake, a better system of get- units. Both onfarm installations and project action ting weather and storm forecast information to programs will be required. Drainage to improve recreational boaters is needed. pasture, forest, or other land is not thought to be The RBG 5.2 area has a large quantity of inland needed. waters, and no additional improved waters need to No estimate is available for the drainage im- be provided for boating needs. The New York provement needed on areas for urban development. State Barge Canal provides some boating water The lack of dry land for urban development is not a and access among the lakes. While a number of very serious problem. In the Syracuse Standard potential multiple-purpose reservoir sites exist in Metropolitan Statistical Area about 24 percent of this area, there are no studies at the Federal level the nonurban land base has a wetness problem concerning their development. The State of New which would need to be corrected before this land York is making studies of water resource problems, could be used for urban uses. In the Utica-Rome including boating. SMSA about 18 percent of the nonurban land base Very little cargo is handled on the U.S. shore of has a wetness problem. Lake Ontario. There are no major ports in this Maintenance of forest cover is needed for water- area. Great Sodus Bay and Oswego are the com- shed protection, continuing production of timber 276 Appendix 1 products, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, aes- (2) the construction of marinas,_ shoreline cot- thetics, and combinations of these values. tages, resorts, and roads on areas which intrude on There are about 2.5 million acres of non-Federal wetlands and other important wildlife habitat forests in PSA 5.2, nearly half the total area. On (3) dredging and filling activities one-third of the forest land, treatment is adequate. (4) drainage of inland wetlands There is an opportunity to program for forest land (5) posting of private lands treatment on the remaining two-thirds. (6) early season haying operations There are 88.6 miles of shoreline in the RBG (7) fall plowing which reduces winter cover, subject to erosion. The lake bluff area just east of feeding, and nesting areas for cottontails and Sodus Bay has houses dangerously close to the top pheasant of the receding bluff. Of the total, 84.1 miles are (8) use of herbicides. subject to noncritical erosion, and 4.5 miles are The 1970 wildlife user-day demand is expected to subject to critical erosion. Only about 7 percent of increase by 75 percent by 2020. Half of this is for the entire shoreline in the river basin group is hunting and half is for nonconsumptive use. In protected. None of the shoreline is subject to order to meet the needs, 609,000 acres must be set flooding. There are several critical bird nesting and aside by 2020. migration areas along the shoreline, particularly in Along the shoreline of Lake Ontario there is a the Mexico Bay area. One of the major concerns critical need for planning and detailed study of the with respect to shoreline use is that, if many power existing and potential future environmental sys- plants are built there, the heated condenser cooling tems. A system of buffer and linkage patterns water will tend to reduce the ultimate value of the corridors stretches along the shoreline from Nia- area as a bird nesting and n-dgration area and will gara Falls to Syracuse and Utica and then north- also curtail the quality of the fishing in the area ward to Watertown. These corridors warrant adjacent to these plants. planning attention and detailed study to insure the Needs for streambank erosion control are shown future availability and proper use of the resource in Table 1-316. Streambank erosion is difficult to features. Emphasis must also be given to the re- correct because many of the streambanks are pri- source clusters and scattered single resource fea- vate property. Owners do not have the resources or tures, since these serve as the attractions for rec- the willingness to *correct the problem. reationists vis .iting the area. A lack of consideration Flooding can occur in the Oswego River basin at for their future and for their proper use could any time of the year, and there is usually some result in their degradation and loss. One of the flooding every year. High flows result nearly every more difficult planning problems in the area is what spring from a combination of rainfall and melting land to set aside for future recreational and aes- snow. Summer storms usually affect only a small thetic and cultural use. The land adjacent to the area. Although the basin has a total of 5,121 square Barge Canal, the Finger Lakes, and the streams miles, its principal flood problems occur at points connecting them form a highly valuable aesthetic where the tributary drainage area is 200 square and cultural network of linkage corridors. Some miles or less. As of the present time, areas with conflicts exist between the use for recreation and the average annual damages greater than $20,000 occur maintenance of aesthetic and cultural values and along the Seneca River from its confluence with uses for other purposes. Skaneateles Creek to its confluence with the Oneida River, along almost the entire shoreline of Oneida The land-based water-oriented recreation-day Lake, and along the entire length of the Oneida developed capacity in 1970 must be nearly quadru- River. Most of the entire Barge Canal reach in pled to meet 2020 requirements. In order to satisfy RBG 5.2, as well as most of the Finger Lakes this need by 1980, it is estimated that an additional shorelines and the streams connecting the Finger 800 acres of land in RBG 5.2 will be needed for Lakes with the Barge Canal, are expected to be intensive land-based water-oriented recreational subject to major flooding damages in the period use, as well as 19,300 acres for land-based, less between the present time and 2020. The exceptions intensive recreational use. There is also an unsa- to this are Seneca Lake, Owasco Lake, the Oswego tisfied demand in this area for playfields, nature River, and the streams connecting Owasco Lake and bicycle trails, sledding and ice skating areas, with the Seneca River. Needs for alleviating dam- and swimming beaches. Perhaps the major problem ages are shown in Table 1-316. in this area is the extensive private ownership of Some of the more serious wildlife problems in- shorelines along the Finger Lakes, which makes clude: public development of recreational facilities, par- (1) fluctuating water levels on both inland lakes ticularly swimming facilities, difficult and expen- and on Lake Ontario sive. Lake Onta?*io Basin 277 10.3.4 Alternative Frameworks The need for additional developed capacity for rural domestic and livestock water withdrawals is Two alternative frameworks are presented for rather small throughout the entire planning period this as for other river basin groups. The Normal to 2020. It is not expected that any difficulty will Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- arise in meeting these needs. They are likely to be tions to meet needs outside RBG 5.2 in the Lake met from ground-water development. basin or the Great Lakes Basin. It is expected that the water for minerals pro- The second alternative, the Proposed Frame- duction will be supplied from ground water and work, contains the recommendations of the Com- from inland lakes and streams. mission in an effort to reflect the views of the Most of the irrigation water needed by 2020 could people of the basin and the policies and programs of come from inland lakes and streams, with lesser the States. To some extent, it reflects coordination amounts from reservoir storage and from ground in the development of the framework among a water. This water withdrawal need will be difficult number of river basin groups, both in the Lake to meet without additional resource development. basin and in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. In NOR all of the water withdrawals for thermal power cooling in RBG 5.2 are expected to be from Lake Ontario. It is expected that this would be the 10.3.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) least-cost source and that the least-cost site for the generation of additional power would be along the NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and shores of Lake Ontario. solving identified problems to the maximum prac- NOR also assumes that the river basin group will ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and have additional hydroelectrical power generation of criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The 2,100 megawatts by 2020. Opportunities exist in program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- the Salmon River basin and at several locations in tion 12 in Tables 1-316, 1-317 and 1-318. the Oswego River basin. These would be pumped (1) Water Withdrawals storage plants. Their economic feasibility has not There is adequate water to meet water with- yet been established. Should they not be built, this drawal needs for RBG 5.2 up to and beyond 2020 if would not materially affect the overall power sup- additional source capacities are developed. The ad- ply of the region. ditional municipal water supply capacity to be de- (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses veloped is split largely between inland lakes and NOR includes a criterion that the 7 day-10 year streams, reservoir storage, and Lake Ontario. By low flow will be maintained to the maximum extent 2020 an additional 100 mgd will be needed from possible in the streams in RBG 5.2. Programs meet Lake Ontario, 51 mgd from development of inland the requirements prior to the Federal Water Pol- lakes and streams, 20 mgd from ground water, and lution Control Act Amendments of 1972. New York 80 mgd from reservoir storage. State is well along with implementing its pure Shifts from ground water to Lake Ontario waters program, having constructed and expanded sources are expected to occur in many areas of many municipal wastewater treatment plants in Onondaga County. The Onondaga County Water the Great Lakes Basin within the last decade. NOR District obtains water from Lake Ontario and provides that secondary treatment will be included wholesales it to the Onondaga County Water Au- throughout the entire area with 85 percent BOD thority and the City of Syracuse. The quantity is removal or better in all cases. New York State has expected to increase, as systems now using prepared a water quality plan which includes sew- ground-water sources shift to purchasing water age treatment plant projects (construction of new from the Authority. A major expansion of the plants or expansion of existing plants) at 35 loca- Onondaga County Water District facilities will be tions by 1990. Other waste treatment improve- needed by about 1990. Treatment for water supply ments are also provided for in the New York State is not a major problem but may become so if the plan at 19 locations by 1990. pollution levels of Lake Ontario continue to in- The waste treatment projects which have been crease. approved or completed under the jurisdiction of the It is expected that essentially all of the self- Department of Environmental Conservation have supplied industrial water in RBG 5.2 will come been assumed to be ongoing programs and in place from inland lakes and streams. These needs reflect as of 1970, or the base year. In addition to conven- the expectation that, as manufacturing production tional secondary treatment and phosphate removal, expands, the gross water requirement will be met the Normal Framework includes provisions for ad- in part by new withdrawals of water to satisfy the vanced waste treatment primarily in Onondaga needs and in part by recirculation and redirection of County and in some of the streams connecting the use of water in the existing and new plants. Finger Lakes with the Barge Canal. Advanced 278 Appendix 1 waste treatment is expected to be needed in the The NOR Framework includes in all time periods Canandaigua Outlet, the Keuka Outlet, Catherine the development of Great Lakes harbors, marinas, Creek, Seneca River, City of Geneva, Owasco and -access sites, inland marinas, and lake and Outlet below Auburn, all around Onondaga Lake, stream access sites. and around most of Oneida Lake itself. Phosphate Commercial fishing and commercial navigation reduction is needed along the Oswego River. are discussed in Subsection 10.5, Lake Ontario The, fishery program to meet needs and solve Intrarelationships, and in Section 5. problems consists of severatfeatures. They include (3) Related Land Use the following in the period to 1980: The programed agricultural land treatment in (a) acquisition of fishing access rights along 422 NOR is essentially a continuation of ongoing pro- miles of streams, of which 80 percent are in the grams for RBG 5.2, at a level that has been fol- eastern Oswego County area, with the Fish Creek lowed in the past. watershed the principal stream Drainage programs for cropland have been se- (b) stream modification to improve 348 miles of lected to include onfarm. drainage measures in- the stream habitat using some instream structures eluded in the land treatment needs at a current rate and bank stabilization devices. Sixty-five percent of of installation. the reaches would be in the eastern Oswego County The program for forest land treatment is at a area. higher level than a continuation of the past trend or (c) the continuation of stocking programs and ongoing programs would indicate. harvest management The NOR Framework provides that all of the 4.5 (d) the. preservation of natural shorelines miles of the shoreline subject to critical erosion in where exceptional habitat exists, such as much of. RBG 5.2 will be treated in the period to 1980. the Finger Lakes shoreline The streambank erosion program would provide (e) regulation of major inland lakes so draw- treatment by 2020 of all of the streambank mileage down has minimal effect on habitat. subject to severe erosion. Both the maintenanc@ of water quality through In the period before 1980, NOR includes four waste treatment and the initiation of low flow types of management to reduce urban and rural implementation from inland lakes would create ad- flood damages and to protect acreage subject to ditional fishing opportunity. flooding. These measures include flood plain zoning, It has been estimated that the projected increase channel modification, reservoirs, and lake regula- in-supply of fishery opportunities in RBG 5.2 as a tion. Lake regulation is applicable to Seneca Lake, result of these various programs might approxi- Cayuga Lake, Canandaigua Lake, Owasco Lake, mate 3.1 million angler days. The current supply is Skaneateles Lake, Otisco Lake, Onondaga Lake, over 6.2 million angler days. and Oneida Lake. Flood-proofing is a viable flood Special research projects included in the Normal reduction measure and is included in the frame- Framework as ongoing programs include studies of work for the entire river basin group. Diversion is lamprey control, rainbow and lake trout produc- included as a flood damage reduction measure for tion, and the practicality of articifical spawning the Oswego River. Reservoirs are included as a channels. These are being carried on in the Finger reduction measure for Onondaga Lake, for the Lakes by, Cornell University as a cooperative outlet from Cayuga Lake, for the outlet from State-Federal program. Owasco Lake, and for the outlet from Oneida Lake. Fishery plans beyond 1980 are speculative and Each,of the above reservoir alternatives would depend considerably upon the success of new pro- reduce damages in the rural flood plains. grams in the area. If the lamprey control and In the upstream watershed areas other reduction anadromous fish programs are successful, there measures which are useful in reducing damages will be economic justification for bold planning to include. a modification of existing building use, the obtain the maximum possible fisheries in the area. relocation of damageable property, emergency The degree of water pollution abatement and habi- measures, and a flood warning and evacuation sys- tat protection that can be accomplished in this tem. Reservoirs are included in the framework to decade will determine the success or failure of most reduce rural flood damages in the upstream water- projected plans for the river basin group. The shed area just west of Rome, the Oswego River Normal Framework includes a continuation of the drainage area below Three Rivers, and the Oneida programs which are outlined above for the early River watershed area between Oneida Lake and action period. Three Rivers. Channel modification appears to be a NOR programs fail to satisfy all of the boating desirable alternative in the upstream watershed of day needs for RBG 5.2 in the early. time periods. Flint Creek, the area just west of Rome; the Os- They meet inland water needs in 2020, but only 80 wego River below Three Rivers; the Oneida River .percent of Lake Ontario needs. between Oneida Lake and Three Rivers; and wa- Lake Ontario Basin 279 tersheds 454, Black Wine i Creek, Egypt, Sodus creational use, new lands will have to be acquired in Ditch, and the area northeast of Clyde north of the and near urban areas throughout the planning area. Clyde River. These recreation areas should be oriented solely Zoning reduction measures are included in the toward day use activities, including outdoor games program for the reduction.of both urban and rural and sports, picnicking, swimming, nature and bi- flood damages in each of the time periods. These cycle trails, and other compatible uses. measures are not expected to be effective in reduc- Between 1980 and 2000 the framework would ing rural damages in upstream watershed areas, provide: however. (a) additional recreation facilities on State Generally speaking, in the time periods 1980- forests and game lands 2000 and 2000-2020, there is a shift from structural (b) the development of three new parks of 2,000 measures to institutional measures to prevent ad- acres of land ditional flood damages. (e) the acquisition and development of 30 miles For wildlife management, NOR includes a con- of -river valley consisting of 9,600 acres of land tinuation of ongoing programs by State agencies (d) Butternut reservoir (south of Syracuse on for habitat enforcement and research. Additional Butternut Creek) and five additional major reser- programs included in the Normal Framework voirs would have to be funded through new sources. (e) Ahe acquisition and construction of five In the periods between the present and 1980, the Barge Canal recreation sites framework includes acqusition and management of (f) the acquisition and construction of four in- wetland, acquisition of access and hunting ease- land lake recreational sites. ments on private land, and technical assistance in Between 2000 and 2020 the Normal Framework developing wildlife potential on private land to includes the development of three new parks of increase hunting opportunity on land under lease. 2,000 acres each and the acquisition and develop- In the period between 1980 and 2000 the Normal ment of 30 miles of river valley. Framework includes the following: Even with the development cited, the Normal (a) continuing development of State-owned Framework is not able to satisfy all of the water- land oriented recreation-day needs in RBG 5.2. The (b) expanding programs of cooperative agree- unsatisified needs would have to be satisfied else- ment for access to private lands where in the Great Lakes Basin or remain unsatis- (c) provision of techni@al assistance in develop- fied. ing wildlife potential on private lands (4) Framework Outputs and Costs (d) completion of the scheduled acquisition pro- Section 12 contains Tables 1-316, 1-317, and gram for wetlands. 1-318, which provide information on needs, out- In the period 2000 and 2020, the Normal Frame- puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R work includes acquisition of upland blocks of land costs for NOR in RBG 5.2. or remaining privately owned property within ex- isting game management areas, expansion of the program for access to private land, and continuing 10.3.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) technical assistance to develop wildlife potential on private lands. PRO was formulated in consultation with State The framework provides that outstanding, un- officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- usual, and significant aesthetic and cultural values grams, as well as the desires of area residents. be acquired in the early action period for the ben- The Proposed Framework substantially reflects efit of future generations, and that corridors be the comprehensive and ongoing plans of the State developed as appropriate to maintain the quality of and its regional planning board in the Oswego life in the urban parts of the area. River basin, described in Subsection 10. 1. NOR recommends Como Reservoir, two new The State of New York Office of Planning Ser- parks, and acquisition and development of 20 miles vices (OPS) has prepared and is keeping up to date of river valley for meeting a portion of the recrea- demographic projections for the entire State. tional needs between the present time and 1980. These projections are lower than the OBERS The two new parks will utilize about 2,000 acres projections used for NOR, primarily due to de- each, and the 20 miles of river valley will utilize creasing migration rates into the New York State 6,400 acres. In addition, the framework suggests portion of the Great Lakes Basin. The recent that better utilization be made of existing State downward trend in fertility rates has also contrib- forest lands and State game lands by providing uted to the difference between OPS and OBERS additional recreation facilities thereon. projections. Subsequent planning efforts in RBG For those lands managed for high-density re- 5.2 area by the Great Lakes Basin Commission 280 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-182 Comparison of Population Pro- TABLE 1-183 Comparison of Municipal Water jections, PSA 5.2 Supply Data, PSA 5.2 (mgd) 1000s of People 1980 2020 1970 1980 2000 2020 GLBFS NYS GLBFS NYS GBLC 1,361.4 1,571.7 29015.9 29556.5 Supply (1968) 187 139 187 139 (1968 OBERS) Developed Capacity (1968) 239 --- 239 --- New York State --- 1,496 1,823 --- Requirement 268 189 490 451 (OPS) Need 29 50 251 312 (GLBQ should utilize OPS projections. The dif- accomplish this has been drafted for submission to ferences in the projections are illustrated in Table the State Legislature. 1-182. The PRO Framework supports the establish- (1) Water Withdrawals ment of such a system in the interest of resolving There is considerable difference between the es- water resources and management problems in the timates of municipal water supply needs for RBG Oswego River basin. 5.2 made by New York State Department of En- PRO also supports the basin plan recommenda- vironmental Conservation and those prepared for tion for immediate adoption of the following reor- this Framework Study. Table 1-183 illustrates the dering of functional priorities for water level con- comparative data. trol and flow regulation: It appears that the primary difference is in the (a) public water supply (where applicable) methodology and is related mostly to two factors: (b) water damage prevention, water quality, the GLBC data include some portion of counties and 'environmental management which are not included in the Great Lakes* Basin, (c) lake shoreline recreation, including pleasure and the GLBC data assume a higher level of devel- boating oped capacity for Onondaga County sources from (d) commercial navigation the Great Lakes than has been reflected in the New (e) agricultural water supply York State work. New York State estimates the (f) hydroelectric power generation. capital cost of providing future municipal water PRO also includes: supply needs and improvements by 1980 at some (a) the improvement of the basic' hydrologic $140 million for the Proposed Framework. data network, including the cooperative New York The Proposed Framework includes development State-United States Geological Survey Stream of reservoirs for Ithaca's water supply on Six Mile Gaging Program to assure that dependable infor- Creek as well as for Madison and Oneida Counties mation is available at all key locations to judge the on Fish Creek. state of the system in relation to public needs The irrigation data included in the GLBC studies N the utilization of failsafe communication are somewhat different from the New York State systems to transmit this information to a basin data because irrigation in the G ,LBC study includes operation center golf course irrigation as well as agricultural crop- (c) the utilization of modern data processing land irrigation. equipment to process data from the recommended A number of major findings and recommenda- hydrologic network into a format to support timely tions in the Oswego River basin comprehensive operational decisions plan for management of water and related re- (d) utilization of failsafe communication sys- sources are included in the Proposed Framework. tems between the operational center and individual The coordinated plan was prepared by the Eastern operation facilities (that is, lake outlets and gates). Oswego River, Cayuga Lake, Wa-Ont-Ya, and The Proposed Framework for RBG 5.2 concludes Chemung River Basin Regional Water Resources that public interests can best be served by con- Planning Boards and was adopted by the State in solidating into single administrative units many 1974. existing local government operations for water and One of the primary constraints in the Oswego wastewater facility management. Further, the River basin area is that there is no centralized Proposed Framework supports the creation of authority for regulating releases from the lakes and county and/or regional agencies to administer regulating flows throughout the Oswego system. water supply and wastewater collection and treat- The Department of Environmental Conservation ment facilities in urban areas where they do not and the Department of Transportation are acting currently exist. cooperatively as resource management agencies PRO recommends that sufficient resources be until an acceptable system for basin management made available to support expanded agricultural can be devised and implemented. Legislation to demands and urges recognition of agricultural Lake Ontaiio Basin 281 water supply as a legitimate use of canal resource Streambank erosion protection for RBG 5.2 is capability. Satisfaction of potential agricultural the same in PRO as in NOR. water supply demands without impairment of other The PRO Framework recommends that a first beneficiary uses will require stricter operational step in a program of flood plain management should control of lake levels and lake releases. The PRO be immediate action by local municipalities to pass Framework recommends that future diversions appropriate legislation to permit private property from barge canal facilities for agricultural water owners to get insurance under the Federal flood supply purposes be accepted as a legitimate use of insurance program. these facilities and that an appropriate fee schedule The Proposed Framework recommends addi- reflecting the benefits received by agricultural tional study leading to authorization of a system of water users be designed and instituted. flood damage reduction measures to reduce the (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses threat of catastrophic floods and associated major PRO provides for waste treatment consistent damages and reduce the magnitude of damages of with 'the Federal Water Pollution Control Act lesser floods. The system will probably include im- Amendments of 1972. Numerically the outputs are proving the flood carrying capacity of the Oneida the same as NOR. Costs may be higher, and work River, improving several outlets and outlet struc- may be accelerated. tures, constructing a channel to divert flood waters Other nonwithdrawal use categories for RBG 5.2 from the Clyde or Seneca Rivers to Lake Ontario, are the same in PRO as in NOR, except for com- and Federal participation in potential multiple- mercial navigation, which is discussed in Subsec- purpose upland reservoirs. tion 10.5 and in Section 5. The Proposed Framework concurs with the Os- (3) Related Land Uses wego River Basin Plan's recommendation for the The following comments are based on the surn- acceleration and expansion of efforts by State gov- mary of findings and recommendations in the Os- ernment to develop the recreational potential of the wego River Basin Plan. present Barge Canal and its predecessor, the Erie PRO concurs in the recommendation for the ac- Canal. celeration of land conservation programs through- The PRO Framework recommends Level C out the watershed system. For RBG 5.2 acce- studies in the Oswego River basin. The purpose of lerated land treatment is recommended at more these studies would be to provide a basis for the than twice the rate of present ongoing land treat- authorization and subsequent implementation of ment programs. New means for financial assistance recommendations in the basin plan. The studies for these programs by State and local government may be carried out in cooperation with Federal deserve exploration. PRO further recommends a agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- prompt investigation of the feasibility of debris neers, which has a Congressional authorization for control structures on main streams tributary to the Oswego River basin studies, and the Soil Conser- basin's principal lakes. Forest land treatment mea- vation Service. sures should also be accelerated so as to treat some Central authority is needed to manage the lake 860,000 acres of forest land by year 2020. system, which is now operated by numerous gov- The PRO Framework concurs in the recommen- ernmental entities. Such management could reduce dation that shoreline zoning be established and that flood damages and coordinate competing uses on detaile& plans for the development and manage- lakes and streams of the Oswego River basin for ment of the shorelines of the lakes be prepared. recreational, agricultural, water supply, commer- These are for inland lakes. The PRO Framework cial navigation, municipal water supply, and other also recommends that the appropriate basin agency purposes. be given authority to assure that lake and basin The Great Lakes Basin projection of recreation shoreline management objectives are achieved. needs may be too high when compared to the pro- The PRO Framework also concurs with the Os- jections made by New York State. This is attri- wego River Basin Plan's conclusion that public butable largely to differences in methodology. Dif- access to public waters is a necessary element of ferent types of recreation experiences are included plans to use these waters fully. Irreplaceable re- in the respective studies, as well as differences in source areas of unique scenic, ecological, or cultural evaluation of public and private recreational sup- interest should be preserved, and selected reser- plies. Of particular importance is the fact that the voir sites having identifiable public benefits should New York data include boating needs under be protected from encroachment. Therefore, the water-oriented outdoor recreation, and the Frame- PRO Framework concurs in the recommendation work Study treats these needs separately. for public acquisition of these areas by appropriate The Proposed Framework recommends land use local and State agencies and further recommends zoning around the lakes to encourage a shift over State financial assistance for this purpose. time to more opportunities for public recreation. 282 Appendix 1 Such a recommendation will have to be imple- of maintaining adequate incomes and employment mented if the GLBC Proposed Framework Basin- opportunities in the area. From a natural resource wide recommendations, which call for 60 percent of point of view, the physical problems are relatively the recreation needs to be satisfied with public minor when compared to the rest of the Great facilities and 40 percent to be satisfied with private Lakes Basin. facilities, are to be satisfied. In New York the One of the constraints in planning in this river historic trend is for 20 percent of recreation needs basin group is the "forever wild" provision of the to be supplied by public facilities. An increase to New York State Constitution that applies to the the PRO objective of 60 percent will take a long Adirondack State Park. time, if it can be accomplished at all. Specifically, The Normal Framework satisfies all of the water one of the land use problems around the Finger withdrawal needs, which are relatively minor in Lakes is that lots in the second tier back from the this area. There is considerably less dependence on lakes have no lake access. Lake Ontario water in this river basin group than The items for the Proposed Framework are there is in RBGs 5.1 and 5.2. based largely on the summary of findings and rec- Municipal and industrial waste treatment pro- ommendations of the regional water resources grams provide for a minimum of secondary treat- planning boards in the Oswego River basin. The ment throughout the river basin group plus addi- Proposed Framework supports the increase of tional treatment where it is deemed to be needed. standards of all coldwater streams and the in- There are surplus opportunities for providing creased standards of the Erie-Niagara Barge Canal recreation day use, angler days, boating days, and to Class B Level. wildlife user days. It is expected that RBG 5.3 will (4) Framework Outputs and Costs satisfy a considerable part of the needs that are Section 12 contains Tables 1-319, 1-320, and generated but not satisfied in other river basin 1-321, which provide information on needs, out- groups in the Lake Ontario basin. puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R Although there are substantial opportunities to costs for PRO, indicating by italics where they provide agricultural land treatment, forest land differ from NOR. Table 1-341 compares land treatment, drainage, and to abate shoreline and treatment programs. streambank erosion, these programs are generally not as extensive in this area as they are in other areas because of the less valuable agricultural land 10.3.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs and different land use. Much of this land is hilly and covered with forest with low sedimentation rates. Table 1-356 in Section 12 lists the total costs Shoreline problems are also different because of (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO in RBG 5.2 regulation of levels of the St. Lawrence River, and for the periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. the fact that storm effects from winds blowing across bodies of water are not prevalent. The aesthetic and cultural values are very ex- 10.4 Frameworks for River Basin Group 5.3 tensive in this river basin group, and along with some other areas in New York State and portions of Pennsylvania, this area may well constitute the 10.4.1 Summary only large expanse of land intervening between the projected eastern megalopolis and the projected The most significant problems in River Basin Great Lakes megalopolis. Group 5.3 are the increasing pressures for recrea- This condition emphasizes the need for timely tional and seasonal home development and the dif- policy decisions regarding future development and ficulty of insuring that such development will pro- the need for well-thought-out plans to insure that ceed in a way that will preserve the aesthetic, these aesthetic and cultural values are available for cultural, and unique natural resource values of this the use of future generations. area. There is also concern over proposals to locate Section 12 contains Table 1-322 which lists the thermal power plants along the eastern shore of needs, output, and percent of needs -met for the Lake Ontario because of fears that some of the Normal Framework in RBG 5.3. Tables 1-323 and plants might damage the fish and wildlife resources 1-324 show capital costs and operation, mainte- on the shelf in eastern Lake Ontario and in the nance, and replacement costs. Lake and bays. Generally speaking, these problems are not se- vere. Some are moderate and most of them are 10.4.2 The Area minor. RBG 5.3 is not a very densely populated area. There are some economic problems in terms This area lies entirely in New York State and Lake OntaTio Basin 288 extends beyond the Great Lakes Basin proper to tions restrict flow downstream from the plants at include the area in the United States tributary to some times when the flow is needed to maintain the the St. Lawrence River. St. Lawrence County is dilution necessary to meet water quality standards. thus included, and the basins of the Oswegatchie, This is a problem in the upper Black River, the Grass, Raquette, and St. Regis Rivers, as well as Oswegatchie River, and the Raquette River. In the smaller basins. Nearly 65 percent of RBG 5.3 is St. Lawrence River there are some problems asso- tributary to the St. Lawrence River. Both the ciated with toxic wastes, including mercury, from highest and lowest elevations in the Great Lakes hard products industries. In inland lakes through- Basin are in this RBG. Statistical and descriptive out the river basin group, there is some pollution information are provided in Section 1 and Subsec- due to septic tank drainage from cottages. In the tion 10. 1 Figure 149 shows a map of the area. Black River basin there is heavy organic loading, mainly from pulp and paper mills. Sometimes the water quality fails to meet standards for bacteria 10.4.3 Projected Resource Needs and Problems and dissolved oxygen as a result of these industrial wastes. In the Oswegatchie River there are zones The projected needs. for resource use by time of localized pollution caused by paper mill, dairy, level are shown in Section 12 in Table 1-322. Where heavy metal, and sewage wastes, where water needs can be quantified, they are not discussed in quality fails to meet standards for dissolved ox- the text, unless special conditions warrant such ygen, toxic and floating solids, discoloration, and discussion. soluble solids. In the Grass River there are loca- lized zones of heavy organic loading from metal and dairy industries, and from municipalities. In the 10.4.3.1 Water Withdrawals Raquette River there is organic loading from paper mills, and from municipalities in the lower reaches. The total water withdrawal needs to 2020 are Perhaps the greatest conflict resulting from the estimated for RBG 5.3 at 55 mgd above the base above pollution is the impact that it has on the year water withdrawal of 135 mgd. Most of the quantity and quality of the fishing opportunity in water withdrawal needs are for municipal water the river basin group. Adequate waste treatment supplies, the second largest need being that for for industrial and municipal wastes is needed in the irrigation water supply. There is no thermal power Black River from Black River to Lowville. Even- cooling. The water withdrawal problems are rela- tually, improved industrial and municipal waste tively minor. treatment will also be needed in the Black River Although water use for mineral production is from Port Leyden to Keyuta Lake, if desired con- relatively small, it is important to have periodic ditions are to be maintained for trout fishing. surveys of the water use patterns of the mineral In the Oswegatchie River, municipal waste industry to keep abreast of the intake and dis- treatment and, more critically, adequate industrial charge water use changes. waste treatment will eventually be needed in the reach from the mouth to Rensselaer Falls. Even- 10.4.3.2 Nonwithdrawal Water Uses tually, improved waste treatments for municipal waste will also be needed from Elmdale to Ed- In 1970 a total of 15 mgd of commercial, domes- wards, but adequate treatment for industrial waste tic, and industrial wastewater was treated in mu- in this reach must be regarded as the most impor- nicipal wastewater facilities in RBG 5.3. This tant requirement. The last polluted reach of the amount is projected to increase by one-third by Oswegatchie extends from Newton Falls to Cran- 2020. berry Lake. Eventually, improved industrial and Industrial wastewater treated in 1970 in in- municipal waste treatment in combination with the dustry-owned wastewater treatment facilities present low-flow augmentation will be needed to amounted to 145 mgd. This waste load is expected bring this sector into compliance with State stand- to decrease to 69 mgd by 1980, largely due to ards. recirculation, to 15 mgd by 2000, and back up to 19 Adequate waste treatment for industrial wastes mgd by 2020. The motivation for the recirculation is will be needed in order to correct water quality to a large extent the effluent treatment require- problems in the Grass River below Massena. ment resulting from the water quality standards. Eventually, advanced waste treatment for all of This recirculation will result in an increased con- the dairy waste in the area along the Grass River sumptive use. Water quality problems have been between the dam at Madrid and just below the identified in River Basin Group 5.3, but none so town of Canton will be needed. Advanced waste severe that they demand immediate attention. One treatment is required for some local and municipal problem is that hydroelectric power plant opera- and industrial wastes in the Raquette River basin, 284 Appendix 1 M ena V, 6&, 0 Ogdensburg @1 -j Potsdam Q Canton 0 Black GRASS 67 Lake, RAQUETTE-ST. REGIS 19 19 G rreu 40 '\TupperLak PERCH V, Cranb rry take I 'I 0SWEG T.1-17 waterWwn 0 a,th ge 0 Beaver Stillwaft@r Reservoir Paquette ake LAKE Lowville BLACK Fulton Lakes ONTARIO JEFFERSON "e, Moose RIVER BASIN GROUP VICINITY MAP PLANNING SUBAREA SCAL@!N -CS 1A11 'o, SCALE IN MILES 5 10 1 r3 20 FIGURE 1-49 Lake Ontario Fast, River Basin Group 5.3 Lake Ontario Basin 285 but particularly for the paper mill there. Also, to more facilities on the Lake, another urgent need there is a need for a modified schedule of stream- is a better system to advise recreational boaters of flow regulation by upstream power plants. There weather conditions and forecasts. Additional im- are some problems with industrial wastes receiving proved access is needed both for inland waters and poor treatment and discharging to the St. sheltered Lake Ontario water. Lawrence River in the area of Massena as well as at Very little cargo is handled in the ports of River Ogdensburg. This situation is expected to be alle- Basin Group 5.3. From the present time through viated by the mid-1970s. 2020, Ogdensburg on the St. Lawrence River is The sport fishing needs for RBG 5.3 by 2020 are expected to be the only significant harbor in this projected to be an additional 2 million angler days area. Traffic is less than a million tons and is pro- above the existing supply of 3,006,000 angler days. jected to reach only 0.6 million tons by 2020. The These figures are based on an assumed transfer of most significant need for this area is strong port angler-day needs from other areas of the Lake promotion to increase the bulk and general cargo Ontario basin. It is likely that this river basin group traffic with Canada and overseas. The topic is fur- will satisfy some of the needs originating from the ther considered in Subsection 10.5, and Section 5. Syracuse and Rochester and Buffalo areas as well as from areas to the east and south outside the Great Lakes Basin. 10.4.3.3 Related Land Uses and Problems There is a need for ponded trout waters in most of the sections outside the Adirondack Mountains. The agricultural land that can effectively be Except for this need, the area is capable of sup- treated to reduce soil losses and to conserve plant pqrting present and projected angling demands cover is about 11 percent of the total land in the through 1980. If habitat improvement and inten- RBG 5.3. sive management practices are provided, the area In this particular river basin group the economic could support considerably more angling pressure return from livestock and livestock products, par- than has been projected. ticularly dairying, is much greater than the return As shown in Table 1-184, the recreational boat- from crop production. Crop and tillage rotation, ing needs in RBG 5.3 are relatively small in terms drainage, changes in land use, reestablishment of of the existing supply. The area provides quite vegetative cover, and brush control are among the good boating opportunities at the present time. In practices needed. addition to planning for the satisfaction of the It is estimated that 323,000 acres of agricultural boating-day needs, it is also necessary to plan land have a drainage problem. berthing facilities and launching sites. Many po- Project action for drainage is needed on about tential canoe and small boat streams in this area 206,000 acres. There is not expected to be any need improvement and maintenance. Low flows difficulty in meeting land use needs for urban areas also contribute to problems of providing opportun- in the river basin group. ities for canoe and small boat experiences. There is Maintenance of forest cover is needed for water- insufficient mooring along Lake Ontario. shed protection, continuing production of timber An updated program concerning small boat facil- products, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, aes- ities on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River is thetics, and combinations of these values. This is essential to the expansion of recreational boating particularly important in this area because of the on these waters. The present programs do not vital role that the forest plays in attracting tourists provide for adequate facilities within a reasonable to the region and in providing a source of income time frame to meet the projected needs. In addition from the timber industry in this region. Timber cutting on public lands in the Adirondack area is TABLE 1-184 Use and Projected Needs for prohibited by the New York State Constitution. Recreational Boating, PSA 5.3 The greatest existing forest land problem is how 1000 Boating Days to secure good management for private forest lands which constitute over one-third of the total area of Great Lakes inland PSA 5.3. The bulk of the privately owned forest is Category Waters Waters owned by farmers or other individuals, with only 1970 Use 549 369 about one-fifth of it being owned by the forest industry. On only 490,000 acres of 2.2 million 1980 Needs 12 3 forested acres is treatment adequate. The single most important type of need in this area is for 2000 Needs 9 6 forest stand improvement, with reforestation and 2020 Needs 0 9 grazing control of moderate importance. There is no Lake Ontario shoreline in RBG 5.3 286 Appendix 1 subject to critical erosion, and only a small amount (4) the difficulty of providing access for hunters subject to flooding. Some protective works have to the Adirondack zone, which is open for hunting been built. Much of the shoreline in Jefferson (5) forest preserve prohibition against the con- County is agricultural and undeveloped, with about struction of many roads and maintenance of winter an equal amount being residential. Only a very travel routes small amount of the shoreline is commercial and (6) disagreement over management practices, industrial, and only 3 percent is available for re- such as antlerless deer seasons creational use. The shoreline is 96 percent privately (7) damage to wetland areas by filling and owned. The principal change in the land use of the dredging, agricultural drainage and channeling, shoreline in the last twenty years has been a large land fills, urbanization, pollution (including increase in residential development, with a similar overenrichment), creation of impoundments, and decrease in agricultural and undeveloped frontage. fluctuating water levels The absence of critical erosion problems in this area (8) the lack of information concerning popula- is attributable to the natural resistance of the rocky tion status of several species, including some forms shore and lake level regulation, which reduces peak considered to be endangered, such as the pine lake levels. marten. There are 417 bank-miles in the planning Advanced vegetative succession coupled with subarea subject to moderate or severe streambank selective cutting of softwood trees has seriously erosion damage amounting to an annual average of reduced productive forest habitat in many areas. $21,900. Logging is prevented by the State Constitution In this river basin group the greatest flood dam- within the forest preserve, and this results in gen- ages occur in rural areas. Flooding in the Black eral deterioration of whitetailed deer in winter River basin affects primarily the flat lands between range. Other problems are the destruction of Lyons Falls and Carthage. This is the only place in whitetailed deer in winter concentration areas by RBG 5.3 where major flood damages (estimated timber harvest and the construction of impound- $133,000 annual average) occur. This land is used ments and the harassment of yarded deer by almost entirely for agricultural purposes, with snowmobiles. dairying the principal activity. Flooding here may There is a need to introduce new wildlife species. occur at any time of the year. Often the combina- Some zones have stable land use patterns but lack tion of heavy spring rainfall and melting snow with wildlife species adapted to such use. Statistics on the breaking up of river ice causes flood conditions needs are shown in Table 1-322. in this reach of the basin. Although flooding in the The existing aesthetic and cultural values in RBG reach between Carthage and Lake Ontario is less 5.3 have been mentioned in Subsection 10.1. The frequent, the damage is serious, as it affects in- major problem is the need to preserve outstanding dustrial and residential areas. values. Much of the land in this area is in private Floods are not as serious a problem in the Os- ownership, and regulations are needed in order to wegatchie basin. Sometimes, however, the dam- insure that if such ownership continues, private ages are intensified due to ice jams. At Gouverneur development will not take place which will detract approximately 25 residential units suffer damage. from the overall attractiveness of the area. There Floods are also not a serious problem in the are numerous clusters of single and multiple aes- Grass, Raquette, and St. Regis River basins. thetic and cultural values. If these are to-be pre- Floods that-have occurred appear to be due to ice served, there will probably need to be a consider- jams rather than to high discharges. able increase in the funds spent for land acquisition Major damages are. expected to occur in the in this area for aesthetic and cultural values. lower reaches of the Oswegatchie, Grass, Ra- The land-based water-oriented recreation-day quette, and Black River basins by 2000 and 2020, developed capacity of 2 million recreation days respectively, unless flood plain management pro- annually in 1970 will need to be increased by nearly grams or other alternatives are effective in pre- 3 million recreation days annually by 2020. venting these damages. The present amount of water surface acreage Problems affecting wildlife at the present time appears to be adequate to meet the requirements of include: water-dependent activities until the year 2020. (1) climate cycles of severe winters which peri- One of the major recreation problems in RBG.5.3 odically reduce some species is the overuse of shoreland areas for recreation. (2) illegal shooting and dog predation which The eastern Lake Ontario shoreline has very few limit the distribution of deer and some other spe- reaches suitable for development. The inventory cies conducted for the International Joint Commission (3) damages caused by some species, such as disclosed only 12 acres of beach on Lake Ontario in beaver, in areas of intensive land -use this subarea, all of it in public ownership. Lake OntaTio Basin 287; This subarea receives heavy use from the Al- year low flow will be maintained to the maximum bany, Schenectady, and Utica areas, especially for extent possible in the streams in the area. NOR weekend and vacation use. Furthermore, the ex- meets requirements prior to the Federal Water tension of the freeway north from Albany opened Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. New the Adirondack area to people from the New York York State is well along with implementing its pure City area. It is anticipated that the intensity of use waters program, having constructed and expanded in this general area will increase steadily in the many municipal wastewater treatment plants in the future. Great Lakes Basin within the last decade. The framework provides that secondary treatment will be included throughout the entire area with 85 10.4.4 Alternative Frameworks percent BOD removal or better in all cases. New York State has prepared a water quality plan which Two alternative frameworks are presented for includes sewage treatment plant projects (con- this as for other river basin groups. The Normal struction of new plants or expansion of existing Framework does not reflect coordination of solu- plants) at eighteen locations by 1990. Other waste tions to meet needs outside the RBG in the Lake treatment improvements are also provided for in basin or the Great Lakes Basin. the New York State plan to 1990 at two locations. The second alternative, the Proposed Frame- New York State has also banned phosphates in work, contains the recommendations of the Com- detergents. mission in an effort to reflect the views of the The Normal Framework does not include ad- people of the basin and the policies and programs of vanced waste treatment at any specific locations in the States. To some extent, it reflects coordination RBG 5.3 in any of the specific time periods. in the development of the framework among. a By 1980, with proper management, the existing number of river basin groups, both in the Lake water resources and fishery resources can readily basin and in the Great Lakes Basin as a whole. absorb the increased needs of 712,000 angler days. Management includes: (a) the development of trout water outside the 10.4.4.1 Normal Framework (NOR) Adirondacks (b) pollution abatement NOR is based on meeting quantified needs and (c) flow regulation, including the setting of solving identified problems to the maximum prac- minimum stream flows ticable extent consistent with subobjectives and (d) lake flow regulation criteria discussed in Section 2 of the appendix. The (e) access development for fishery purposes and program outputs and costs are summarized in Sec- expansion of the anadromous fish program tion 12 in Tables 1-322, 1-323, 1-324. (f) development of necessary fish weirs and (1) Water Withdrawals other structures The water withdrawal needs are relatively minor (g) modernization of hatchery facilities to insure in RBG 5.3. There is adequate water to meet all of necessary fish stocks the water withdrawal needs up to 2020 if additional (h) control of beaver source capacity is developed. The additional source (i) funds to carry on practical fish research and capacity for municipal water supply will come management related needs. largely from inland lakes and streams and from All of these programs continue through all the Lake Ontario, with only a minor amount from time periods. ground water. No additional needs are indicated for The Normal Framework includes programs self-supplied industrial water. The rural domestic which will not only satisfy all of the boating day and livestock waters are all expected to come from needs in all of the time periods but will result in a ground water. The irrigation water needs are sa- surplus of boating opportunity in River Basin tisfied about one-half from inland lakes and streams Group 5.3. and one-half from the development of ground Marinas on inland. lakes and access points on water. Reservoir storage is a possibility. All of the Lake Ontario are included in the program in all mining water supply needs are expected to be time periods. No Great Lakes harbor construction satisfied by water from inland lakes and streams. is required in this area. No water withdrawals for power are anticipated. Zoning to meet the boating demand in inland No thermal or hydroelectric power generating ca- waters could be accomplished by reducing the space pacity is expected to be developed in this river standard from six to five acres per boat. Such a basin group in the Normal Framework. program has been included in the Normal Frame- (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses work. NOR includes as a criterion that the 7 day-10 Commercial fishing and commercial navigation 288 Appendix 1 are discussed in Subsection 10.5, Lake Ontario (a) a program of outright acquisition and ac- Intrarelationships, and in Section 5. quisition of perpetual leases on critical wetland (3) Related Land Use units, totaling 42,500 acres by 1980 in Jefferson and The programed agricultural land treatment in St. Lawrence Counties, to provide 40,000 wildlife RBG 5.3 is essentially a continuation of ongoing user-days annually programs at a level that has been followed in the (b) the development and rehabilitation of facili- past. ties on 3,000 previously acquired acres as well as The forest land treatment program included in some additional acquisition to round out public use the Normal Framework will treat about three complexes, to provide an additional 60,000 wildlife times as much forest acreage as is presently being user-days annually by 2000. treated. (c) the continued development, including reha- Drainage of cropland will improve the productive bilitation, of previously constructed facilities on capacity of these lands and thereby reduce the total public use areas, totaling 45,000 acres to provide an land needed for food production. The drainage additional 90,000 user-days annually by 2020. program will benefit the farmers, water quality, This would not meet needs at 2020. wildlife, and will reduce erosion. Poorly drained NOR provides for outstanding, unusual, and sig- agricultural lands in this area are used for pasture. nificant aesthetic and cultural values to be acquired With drainage, lands can be used more intensively in the early action period and preserved for the with an increase in average net returns of $25 per benefit of future generations. acre per year. The total drainage that would be The framework includes programs not only to accomplished by 2000 is 38,800 acres. meet the recreational needs in RBG 5.3 but also to The framework does not include any programs create a surplus of recreational opportunity, for correction or abatement of shoreline erosion, as thereby meeting needs from other areas and also there are no reaches subject to critical erosion. perhaps improving the economy,of this particular Streambank erosion programs would provide area. treatment by 2020 on 77 strearnbank miles subject Between the present time and 1980, the follow- to severe erosion and reduce annual streambank ing items are included in the Normal Framework damages by $18,800 by 2020. for meeting recreational day needs: NOR includes a program of flood plain manage- (a) two new parks similar to existing State ment for the abatement of flood damages and the parks, which will require about 2,000 acres of land. prevention of flooding. Flood plain zoning measures Together they would provide the opportunity for are included in the program for the reduction of an additional 1,364,000 recreation days annually. both urban and rural flood damages in each of the (b) acquisition and development of ten miles of time periods. These measures are not expected to river valley. This would require about 3,200 acres be effective in reducing rural damages in upstream of land and provide the opportunity for 800,000 watershed areas. visitor days. In addition to the program of flood plain zoning or (c) eight new canoe routes, which involve about flood plain management, NOR also includes a 150 miles of stream channel modification construction project in the (d) preservation of some scenic and recreation Sucker Brook watershed for the early action period areas and an additional channel modification project for (e) increased utilization of existing lakes the lower portion of the St. Regis River watershed. (f) initiation of a system of scenic, wild rivers Programs for flood-proofing and the relocation of and rivers and lakes usable for recreation. damageable property appear to be the most desir- able alternatives for the rural flood plains in the In the period between 1980 and 2000, the Normal Black, Oswegatchie, Grass, Raquette, and St. Framework includes five regional parks similar to Regis river basins. In many of the upstream wa- existing State parks. Each of these would require tersheds these programs are desirable in addition about 2,000 acres of land, and collectively they to modification of existing building use, emergency would provide the opportunity for an additional measures, and flood warning and evacuation sys- 3,410,000 annual visitor days. The Normal Frame- tems. work also includes in this time period increased The Normal Framework for wildlife manage- utilization of existing recreational facilities and ad- ment includes a continuation of ongoing budgeted ditional access sites, although the recreation days programs by State agencies for habitat enhance- that would result from such programs have not ment, enforcement, and research. Additional pro- been estimated. grams are included in the framework which would No additional recreational development pro- have to be funded through new and presently un- grams are included for the period between 2000 and identified sources as follows: 2020. Lake Onta?io Basin 289 NOR supports the City of Watertown in plans to TABLE 1-185 Comparison of Population Pro- acquire flood plain land for conservation. jections, PSA 5.3 The framework for the Village of Alexandria Bay 1000s of People includes the development and expansion of its ex- 1980 2000 2020 isting waterfront park. County 1970 GLBFS OPS TL_BFSOPS GLBFS OPS The framework also supports assistance for the Jefferson 89 89 89 101 92 117 --- Village of Massena to concentrate on development Lewis 24 23 24 26 26 30 --- of an existing site for a regional park. St. Lawrence 112 114 120 130 128 151 --- (4) Framework Outputs and Costs TOTAL 225 226 233 257 246 298 --- Section 12 contains Tables 1-322, 1-323, and 1-324, which provide information on needs, out- puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R suitable for irrigation), a growing demand for food, costs for NOR in RBG 5.3. and the positive regional economic benefits that would result from increased basin agricultural pro- duction, irrigation represents a promising long- 10.4.4.2 Proposed Framework (PRO) term opportunity. Therefore, the program outputs for irrigation could be increased. PRO was formulated in consultation with State The GLBC municipal water supply costs do not officials in order to reflect State policies and pro- include needed improvements to water supply sys- grams, as well as the desires of area residents. tems. More detailed studies have concluded that State, regional, and local policy assumptions with such costs are very substantial in RBG 5.3. Table respect to population and economic growth do not 1-186 illustrates comparative costs as evaluated by differ greatly from the OBERS projections used in GLBC and the New York State Department of NOR. PRO Framework programs are discussed Environmental Conservation, respectively. only where they differ from NOR. A power plant siting study is currently being PRO for RBG 5.3 substantially reflects in gener- done in New York State. Initial results confirm alized programs the comprehensive and ongoing NOR expectations that there will be no water plans of the State and its Black River-St. Lawrence withdrawals for thermal power cooling in this area. Region. (2) Nonwithdrawal Water Uses The State of New York Office of Planning Ser- A major multiple-purpose reservoir appears de- vices (OPS) has prepared and is keeping up to date sirable as the most probable solution to some of the demographic projections for the entire State. needs in the Black River basin. This would be These projections are lower than the NOR proj- needed after the early action period. It would re- ections primarily due to decreasing migration into duce flood damages along the main stem of the the New York State portion of the Great Lakes Black River, enhance hydroelectric power genera- Basin. The recent downward trend in fertility rates tion, provide recreational opportunities, and has also contributed to the difference between OPS thereby relieve some of the pressure on Adiron- and OBERS projections. Subsequent planning ef- dack Park, enhance irrigation potential, and pro- forts in the RBG 5.3 area by the Great Lakes Basin duce other land enhancement benefits. Commission (GLBC) should utilize OPS projec- The Proposed Framework includes a recommen- tions. The differences in the projections are illus- dation for prompt implementation of the pending trated in Table 1-185. waste treatment to meet the standards of the Fed- (1) Water Withdrawals eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of Most of the water supply for irrigation in RBG 1972. 5.3 will be from inland lakes and streams, rather (3) Related Land Uses than 50 percent from ground water and 50 percent Ongoing programs of agricultural land treatment from inland lakes and streams, as was indicated in should be continued and certain appropriate prac- the NOR Framework. More detailed planning tices accelerated to treat 324,300 acres of land by studies by the New York State Department of 2020. The PRO Framework for RBG 5.3 represents Environmental Conservation have concluded that, a more than doubling of land treatment over past in' the period after 1980, agricultural irrigation practices. Additional drainage measures are not could become increasingly important in RBG 5.3. recommended at this time. Forest land treatment All of the constraints which presently limit vegeta- should also be accelerated over past practices to ble production and irrigation use could be over- treat 869,000 acres by 2020. Treatment of 60 per- come, provided there was local desire to increase cent of this acreage would be provided for in the vegetable production. Because of the substantial PRO Framework. soil and water capability for irrigation (an esti- Flood-proofing and the relocation of damageable mated 118,800 acres of land would be physically property do not appear to be particularly appro- 290 Appendix 1 TABLE 1-186 Water Supply Capital Costs, RBG 5.3 (millions of dollars) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 GLBC NYS GLBC NYS GLBC NYS Municipal 1.1 14.6 3.0 --- 4.2 --- priate flood reduction measures in the Black River The Normal Framework does not include specific basin, as most of the damages are agricultural programs for the extension of the Great Lakes rather than urban. navigation season. (4) Framework Outputs and Costs Extension of the navigation season is included in Section 12 contains Tables 1-325, 1-326, and PRO as follows: 1-327, which provide information on needs, out- (1) six weeks for segments of the system from puts, percent of needs met, and capital and OM&R (a) western Lake Superior through the Soo costs for PRO, indicating by italics where they Locks, St. Marys River, and to southern Lake differ from NOR. Table 1-342 compares land Michigan treatment programs. (b) through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers and Lakes St. Clair and Erie (c) through the Welland Canal into Lake On- 10.4.4.3 NOR and PRO Framework Costs tario (2) four weeks through the St. Lawrence River Table 1-357 in Section 12 lists the total costs system. (capital plus OM&R) for NOR and PRO in RBG 5.3 Most of the problems associated with the struc- for the periods 1971-1980 and 1971-2020. tural and operational changes in the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence navigation system and the Lake On- tario part of that system are being addressed in 10.5 Lake Ontario Intrarelationships ongoing studies. The Normal Framework provides for timely completion of ongoing studies, develop- There are a number of uses of Lake Ontario ment of new technology, and strong local port which must be considered with respect to the Lake promotion policies. Generally speaking, there are itself rather than with respect to any river basin very minor changes in port cargo anticipated for group. Those activities which utilize the Lake as a the ports in the U.S. portion of Lake Ontario. In whole are discussed in this subsection. The rela- future years these ports will take on an even less tionships with the other Great Lakes are discussed significant role than they have at the present time. in Section 5. 10.5.2 Recreational Boating 10.5.1 Commercial Navigation An updated program concerning small boat har- The flow of overseas general commerce on Lake bors on Lake Ontario is essential to the expansion Ontario centers largely at Toronto. However, by of recreational boating on these waters. Such a 1995 annual shipping is expected to be about 60,000 program is included in the Normal Framework. short tons through the Port of Rochester, and In addition to more harbors on the Lake, another 95,000 short tons through the Port of Oswego. urgent need is a better system to inform recrea- Traffic on the St. Lawrence River through Mon- tional boaters of weather conditions and forecasts. treal is projected to be 10,200,000 short tons. This item is also included as a special program or A number of alternatives are being considered study resulting from the Normal Framework. On for extension of the navigation season and also for Lake Ontario a desirable spacing for harbors of improvements in the navigation system. One group refuge should be 15-20 miles. One of the other of alternatives involves only the upper four Lakes aspects of recreational boating that pertains to the and would have little or no effect on Lake Ontario. entire Lake Ontario basin is the possibility of ex- Even the alternatives which include Lake Ontario panding the program of boating in the New York and St. Lawrence River would have minimum im- State Barge Canal, perhaps to the exclusion of pacts, because very little cargo is handled on the using the Barge Canal for commercial navigation. U.S. shore of Lake Ontario. Ongoing studies re- An expanded program, including harbors of refuge lated to modffication of the system and extension of around Lake Ontario, would make it possible for the season are discussed in Section 5. boaters to boat on the canal and then along the Lake Ontario Basin 291 shoreline of Lake Ontario through the Thousand tions for completing the data analysis of the Inter- Islands area and back again. That is to say, by national Field Year for the Great Lakes. This is a sticking to the shoreline of Lake Ontario during the cooperative study of Lake Ontario, involving many season in which the Lake is open, it is possible to universities and governmental agencies in the boat for some considerable distances. There is an United States and Canada. From April 1972 abundance of sheltered waters for boating, includ- through April 1973 physical, biological, and chemi- ing many areas suitable for the construction of cal data were collected systematically for the entire marinas and launching ramps in the Thousand Is- Lake. This is the first time a study of such scope lands area. An expanded program could be initiated has been undertaken. Hopefully, the information to enhance the economy of the area. gained from this study will greatly enhance the ability to manage the water quality of Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes. This study was under- 10.5.3 Water Quality taken because it was generally recognized that data presently available in the Great Lakes system were Probably the most serious and perplexing prob- inadequate for effective planning and management lem in the Lake is the yearly crop of Cladophora, a of the basin's resources. The need was also recog- form of filamentous green algae. The largest single nized for an adequate amount of data and under- source of nutrient input to Lake Ontario is the standing on which to build for quantitatively pre- Niagara River, reflecting the fact that this Lake is dicting the effects on this resource of various downstream from four other Lakes and suffers the management strategies, both structural and non- consequences of what happens above it in the structural, now being planned. Basin. Fortunately for the health of the Lake, Another objective of the study was to gain some many of the nutrients going into Lake Erie are additional understanding of the scientific and tech- retained in that Lake and not carried out by the nical aspects of the complex interrelationships Niagara River. within and among the physical, chemical, and bio- Other problems peculiar to Lake Ontario include logical subsystems in the Lake environment. Sev- the invasion of the alewife, which die in enormous eral levels and flows research studies and inves- numbers within a short period during each summer tigations are included in the Normal Framework as and drift onto the shores, adding their stench to the follows: windrows of rotting Cladophora on the beaches. (1) a study to improve estimates of monthly and In addition to the buildup in nutrient compounds, annual evaporation from Lake Ontario. This would Lake Ontario waters have deteriorated in chemical be in conjunction with a similar study on Lake Erie, quality as measured by such parameters as the and the results of the two studies on these lakes sulfate and chloride ions and total dissolved solids. would be extended to other Lakes. (2) a study of the ice characteristics in the St. 10.5.4 Levels and Flows Lawrence River to ascertain the vertical and hori- zontal water diffusion factors The framework does not include recommenda- (3) a study to determine the effect of Niagara tions with respect to greater regulation of levels Falls on the waters of Lake Ontario. and flows of Lake Ontario than currently exists. There are trade-offs and conflicts between lake 10.5.6 Commercial and Sport Fishery level regulation for various purposes. A scheme to maximize commercial navigation opportunity would The New York commercial fishery is separated not necessarily complement one to generate power. by legal boundaries and regulations into two areas, Nor would either of them necessarily agree with a Lake Ontario proper and Chaumont Bay. Com- scheme designed to minimize erosion along the mercial fishing is of much less consequence than the shoreline of Lake Ontario or one to maintain waters sport fishery and is valued at less than $100,000 per at specific levels to enhance the wildlife and aes- year to the fishermen. The commercial fishery, thetic and cultural values. The International Joint therefore, cannot be allowed to jeopardize the mil- Comn-dssion study of further regulation of the lion-dollar sport fishery. There should be a tre- levels of the Great Lakes is still under considera- mendous potential for salmonid production in Lake tion. Ontario. It is the primary objective of present management programed for the Lake. 10.5.5 International Field Year for the Great It is doubtful that commercial fishing will regain Lakes its prominent position in Lake Ontario unless other sources of food fishes collapse throughout the The Normal Framework includes recommenda- world. Future commercial fisheries will be strictly 292 Appendix 1 controlled and must enhance or at least not endan- funding will be required for lake-oriented manage- ger the sport fishery. One fact is certain: manage- ment to provide public access, fishing piers, artifi- ment of the open lake must be coordinated between cial reefs, safety harbors, adequate work vessels Ontario and New York in order to be successful. for additional census research, and fish stock moni- The sport fishery is a major factor in the economy toring. of many communities. A multimillion-dollar business Major fishery problems and needs are sum- complex is supported by smallmouth bass and marized below in order of priority. associated species. In addition, excise taxes on (1) protection and enhancement of the habitat fishing tackle help support much of the State's fish base research program. Party or guideboat service would (2) development of a major salmon sport fishery quickly become a maj or industry again if a good sport through fishery is provided. Also of significant economic (a) lamprey control importance is the sale of bait. There are no reliable (b) salmonid stocking figures available on the actual value of the sport (c) acquisition and development fishery in the Lake. More intensive census data are (d) promotion required, and this is included as a high priority (3) development of a fish stock monitoring sys- management program in the Normal Framework. tem for the. open lake and inshore areas The other uses of Lake Ontario also have an (4) protection and enhancement of the existing effect on fish resources. Of particular concern is the inshore warmwater fishery effect of thermal discharges, recreational boating (5) development of a commercial fishery where and water skiing, construction. dredging, spoil and compatible with the sport fishery filling operations, proposed year-round navigation, (6) automated processing of all data fluctuations of water levels for hydroelectric power (7) coordination with Ontario and upper Lakes to operations, and use of tributary streams and upper insure total fish management of the Lake on a sound Lakes drainage for industrial and domestic waste basis disposal. (8) research to develop management methods to In addition to regulation of these activities, ade- solve present and predicted needs quate salmonid stocking must be insured. Plans for (9) cost-benefit data to help determine the most expansion of existing State hatchery facilities and justifiable total fishery for the Lake possible construction of one or two State and/or (10) education of the public as to the potential of Federal hatcheries are in the formative stage. the Lake and best methods available to provide the Proposed long-range plans call for annual stocking potential and utilize the total fishery. of Lake Ontario with two million salmonids in New Ot equal or greater importance than State con- York waters, and 'similar numbers in Canadian trol in Lake Ontario is the need for international waters. Coho and chinook salmon, and rainbow and interstate authority to control practices that (steelhead), lake, and brown trout are proposed. degrade the fighery throughout the Great Lakes Intensive management of fishing streams will Basin. Comprehensive planning with all water require extensive acquisition and development and users on a local, State, and international basis will maintenance funds for public fishing rights. Similar be required. Section 11 IMPLEMENTATION OF FRAMEWORK PROGRAMS 11.1 General Remarks and Recommendations local governments and by private groups. The for Implementing the Framework Commission believes that this investment will pro- mote and support orderly, economical, and envi- The framework is really not a plan in the usual ronmentally sound development of Great Lakes sense of the word. It is an outline of various kinds resources to serve the well-being of the people. The of programs which, if adopted, will lead to the local unit of government may well be the critical conservation, development, and use of the water element in implementation. This will vary some- and related land resources of the Basin in a way what by State. An aggressive city, county, or im- that will meet the needs and desires of the people of provement district backed by an informed public the Basin, and at the same time supply those ma- will be most effective in accomplishing planning and terials, products, and functions which the Great completing projects. Implementation of the frame- Lakes Basin can best provide for the nation. Im- work programs may require changes in existing plementing the framework does not mean simply public law and policy. The historical patterns of constructing a number of projects, passing a funding limitations on research, data collection, number of laws, or providing for the needs of planning, and implementation may have to change people. It means exploring ways in which to build to meet the challenges the framework has identi- upon the general outline or framework; adopting fied. programs out of which will come specific struc- This section treats several major components of tures, projects, laws, and other devices for meeting recommended implementation, including research, the needs; conducting basic research to determine data collection and analysis, future planning stud- the effects of certain actions; collecting data to ies, action programs, institutional arrangements, provide background informatiori for research and and a strategy for the continuing development of planning; and planning locally in the degree of the Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (CCJP) detail that will lead to the best use of resources in for the Great Lakes Basin. the locality. The framework does recommend some structural and nonstructural measures. But it is recognized 11.1.1 Considerations not Included in the that more detailed studies are needed, and that the Framework recommendation of a particular program carries with it the reservation that additional planning may The concern about energy shortages and the show that some other alternative may be pre- desire to conserve raw materials and minimize en- ferred. vironmental degradation have intensified interest Recognizing these limitations, and with the un- in recovering both energy and usable materials derstanding that conditions, attitudes, and future from waste that is now discarded. These possibili- study results may change, the Commission recom- ties were not considered in the Framework Study, mends in general that all necessary steps be taken but application of known processes and their fur- to implement the structural and nonstructural pro- ther development will assist in meeting needs pro- grams in the framework during the peiiods indi- jected in the Study by conserving minerals in the cated in Section 5. While the tables presenting the Basin through recycling and producing heat energy elements and costs of the programs do not indicate through incineration of solid waste. further planning, data collection, or research, these The field of solid waste management and re- are implicit parts of the adopted framework. The source recovery has undergone great technological accomplishment of this planning, data collection, change in recent years. Not only can many materi- and research will refine the programs and estimates als such as paper, glass, and ferrous and nonferrous of costs, which are now necessarily very general. metals be reclaimed from municipal refuse and The framework implementation will require sub- recycled, but many communities are now looking to stantial capital investment by Federal, State, and garbage or organic materials as possible energy 293 294 Appendix 1 supplies. Resource recovery and waste utilization in response to changes in the political as well as the significantly reduce many of the environmental im- physical environment. Changes in prevailing policy pacts inherent in materials production and residual can directly affect the types of programs that are disposal. The use of recycled materials increases implemented. For example, changes may shift em- energy efficiency in the production of new materi- phasis from structural to nonstructural means of als, and it has been demonstrated that air pollution reducing flood damages. Another significant policy and water resource requirements are diminished by change is one in which priorities are altered to such using recycled materials. Obviously, increasing the an extent that the timing of various programs is use of recycled materials reduces the pressure for drastically accelerated or delayed. An example of exploitation of virgin resources, thus reducing ad- this type of change is the Federal Water Pollution verse environmental impacts inherent in exploita- Control Act Amendments of 1972, which provided a tion. Additionally, resource recovery programs re- substantive change in not only the timing but also duce the amount of land resources devoted to the funding arrangements to achieve water quality land-filling activities, which in turn reduces the improvements. possible contamination of surface and ground A third type of policy change is one that affects water. Even in the best-designed sanitary landfill, the planning process through which programs are the potential for leachate contamination of ground- selected to address resource problems. An example water supplies is still real. of this type of change is provided by the Water There is a definite trend towards increasing uti- Resources Council's Principles and Standards for lization of waste resources, both within the Great Water and Related Land Resources Planning, Lakes Region and in other areas of the country. which may have a major impact on the planning This should be part of the framework implementa- processes used by government agencies and con- tion program. At the present time, however, a sequently on the results of those processes. If these number of tax laws and pricing levels present sig- principles and standards are fully implemented in nificant obstacles to resource recovery programs. their present form, they will require a more rigor- In light of increasing materials and energy short- ous comparison of alternatives, including costs and ages, these should be thoroughly reevaluated. In- benefits, than has previously been the case. This creasing the durability of goods presently produced impact on the details of the planning process will in the Region and fostering resource recovery pro- have a significant effect on the results obtained grams will reduce the pressures for natural re- through that process. source exploitation and diminish the potential for A few issues requiring consideration of changes environmental degradation resulting from materi- in policy have been identified in the framework als production and residual disposal. formulation process. Because the basic formulation in NOR is defined as equivalent to the national economical development objective, and because the 11.2 Framework Action Program traditional solutions are essentially those which can accomplish the objective at least cost, these were Implementation of the Proposed Framework adopted wherever appropriate in NOR. Thus, not programs will require definition and continual very many changes in policy matters were actually asessment of resource policy, the coordination of considered by the Commission. organizations to manage Great Lakes resources, The functional programs included and evaluated and adequate investment by government and pri- in both NOR and PRO Frameworks are based in vate sources. These elements of action program large measure upon existing policy, funding ar- implementation are separately discussed in the fol- rangements, and institutional structures. The lowing subsections. Framework Study has drawn upon these realities but has sought to identify needs (informational, institutional, etc.) that are not currently receiving 11.2.1 Policy Considerations adequate attention under existing structures and procedures. These are further commented upon in Policy should establish the means by which fi- Subsection 11.5. nancial and institutional resources are directed to Those matters of policy that did surface during the resolution of problems. With respect to water the study were handled in various ways. Generally and related land resources, policy is most fre- an issue paper was prepared, considered at com- quently articulated in legislation at all levels of mittee level (usually the Plan and Program For- government and is made operational through in- mulation Committee), and then, depending upon terpretative agency guidelines and funding. While the action of that committee, considered by the policy change is generally evolutionary in nature, it Commissioners. Occasionally, the Plan and Pro- is always a dynamic process and can change rapidly gram Formulation Committee would adopt a reso- Implementation 295 lution of the issue, particularly if there were no 11.2.1.2 Outdoor Recreation policy change, but only a narrowing of range of formulation activity. However, if a policy change The Great Lakes Basin Commission favors re- were involved, the committee normally directed source utilization that will meet all water-oriented the staff to refer the matter to the Commissioners. outdoor recreation needs. It is assumed that ap- Usually the issue was presented along with the way proximately 60 percent of the outdoor recreation in which it was handled in the Normal Framework, needs will be met with public funds (Federal, State, possible alternative ways of resolving it in the and local), and it is further assumed that the re- Proposed Framework, and favorable and unfavor- mainder will be met either by private funding or able comments. A method for handling the issue in not at all. It is assumed that the priorities for the PRO was then proposed, and a consensus of the use of public funds will be: Commission developed through discussion. In some (1) urban recreational development and acquisi- instances, following the general resolution of an tion and retention of unique and natural areas of issue, specific questions were raised for considera- regional significance tion in the formulation process. Often these were (2) developments on land now publicly owned handled by the individual plan formulation task (3) other developments. forces or the Plan and Program Formulation Com- It is assumed that, to the extent public funds are mittee. Only occasionally did the specific questions available for investment in urban land, they may be reach the full Commission. The specific. issues and used where feasible to assist in acquiring flood plain their resolution are included in more detail in land in rapidly urbanizing areas and in clearing Annex D, and the decisions are incorporated in the flood plains of damage-prone uses and making them framework program selections. (See Introduction available for recreation use. for availability of Annex D.) During the formulation and review process, some The general issues stated in the following sub- expansion and clarification of this language was sections are in the language adopted except for recognized. While the objective is to have 60 per- minor changes to improve wording. Substantial cent of outdoor recreation needs met with public questions raised after an issue statement was funds this has not been the case historically. For adopted are discussed following the issue, with a example, in New York about 20 to 25 percent of the resolution if one was achieved. needs have been met with public funding. While the language refers to the need for urban recreation development, it is felt that the problem of meeting the demand for urban recreational opportunities 11.2.1.1 Mineral Resource Conservation and near the centers of population must be emphasized. Use It is pointed out however, that the unique and natural areas of regional significance to be pur- It is recommended that as a part of planning chased with public funds may be rural as well as programs, particularly in urbanizing areas, due urban. consideration be given to the preservation of known mineral deposits for possible future utiliza- tion, and that the Proposed Framework include a 11.2.1.3 Commercial Navigation recommendation for reclaiming those previously mined lands that have a significant adverse effect To the extent technically feasible, economically on the environment. The extent to which a specific justified, and environmentally acceptable, the mined area is to be reclaimed would have to be Great Lakes Basin Commission favors the mainte- decided on a case-by-ease basis. Restoration of nance of efficient, low-cost, deep-draft navigation lands affected by current and future mining opera- tions should be the responsibility of the land owner and the provision of incremental improvements to and/or operator. States that have not already done the navigation system in the Great Lakes and St. so should be encouraged to institute legislation to Lawrence Seaway, including connecting channels, require restoration of lands as part of all future shipping and receiving harbors, compensating mining activities. The general principle supported works, additional locks, canals, dams, and exten- in the Proposed Framework is that the land be sion of the navigation season. reclaimed to abate pollution sources and to provide the opportunity for appropriate future land uses. When location and topography are suitable, high 11.2.1.4 Shore Use and Erosion priority consideration should be given to the op- portunities of using mined lands for future recre- The Commission favors a vigorous program to ation and open space. reduce losses to shore property interests. Such a 296 Appendix 1 program should include a combination of protective 11.2.1.7 Great Lakes Levels, Flows, and works; public acquisition of shorelands; and strict Diversions zoning based on sound economic analysis, careful environmental evaluation, and a multiple-purpose The Great Lakes Basin Commission supports the approach to shoreland management. The. Commis- general concept of variable diversions into and out sion recommends implementation of this program of the Great Lakes Basin in the interest of a more with early intensification of programs for data col- beneficial range of levels and flows within the Great lection, applied research, and engineering applica- Lakes. It urges that the appropriate agencies ble to the areas subject to erosion damage. study, plan, and make recommendations on vari- able diversions with full consideration of environ- mental impacts and other factors on a broad re- gional basis. 11.2.1.5 Environmental Setbacks The Commission recommends a program of 11.2.1.8 Consumptive Use shoreland management which recognizes the Great Lakes shoreland as a unique natural resource. To In consideration of the complex issue of the in- implement this policy, the Proposed Framework creasing consumptive use of the waters of the Great should endorse developmental setbacks for all Lakes Basin, and the many fssues and interests shoreland areas unless public benefits can be shown involved, the Great Lakes Basin Commission rec- to outweigh public disadvantages. ommends that an appropriate study be made of the The question has been raised as to who should entire issue of consumptive use of the waters of the demonstrate that public benefits accruing from Great Lakes Basin. shore construction would outweigh public disad-' vantages. No criteria were enunciated, 'but the 11.2.2 Coordinated Management sense of the discussion appeared to be that, al- though some buildings would be useful only on the -Action programs are those specific recommenda- shore and others overwhelmingly desirable in shore tions included in the PRO Framework that can be locations, the resp6nsibility should be on the con- implemented under current policies and author- structing agency to prove its case for a shore ities. Because of the integrated nature of water and location. related land resource problems and functions and the many governmental units having jurisdiction in effective resource management, various means of 11.2.1.6 Reduction of Power Growth Rate influencing management exist. These means range from information flow to the physical construction A factual discussion of power consumption will of projects, and all have varying degrees of impact be contained in the plan formulation without taking on Basin resources. These elements of resource a position that a reduction in growth of consump- management may be characterized as intervention tion should be encouraged. It should be noted, strategies. They are means by which organizations however, that improved efficiency would, in effect, have an impact on resource utilization of congerva- reduce the rate of per capita use. tion. The decision not to take a position favoring a Table 1-187 is designed to summarize the means reduction in rate of growth of energy consumption of intervention that are available to the various was made before the "energy crisis" and before the agencies working on Great Lakes Basin resource public meetings. At the meetings and in discussions matters. For each agency the types of intervention with the appropriate plan formulation task forces, strategies that it may exercise in any given re- the residents of some areas took strong positions source category are entered in the table. The in- favoring education and policies to reduce growth of tervention strategies are defined below. consumption. These views are stated in the Pro- (1) information (I)--data collection, research, posed Framework. On May 20, 1975, the CommiS7 storage and management of data, and dissemina- sion adopted the position that the Commission, in tion of all types of information to planners and approving the Proposed Framework, endorses the others concept of encouraging reduction in the rate of (2) technical assistance (T)-providing techni- growth of per capita use of power providing that cal advice through meetings, consultation, furnish- the public health, welfare, economy, and social ing literature, plans, review, and any other means well-being of the inhabitants are not adversely by which the technical aspects of problems and affected. solutions may be considered Implementation 297 (3) financial assistance ($)-all forms of Anan- strategies available to each of those agencies, the cial intervention such as grants, cost sharing ar- need for continued coordination should be clear. rangements, fines, incentives, etc. There are instances when an agency provides Basin (4) regulation (R)-administration of all forms integration on a specific resource use function, but of regulation, standards, permits, licenses, and such integration across all functions is usually monitoring, as well as enforcement and the prose- lacking. Increasingly, the emphasis in considera- cution of violators tion of various action programs needs to be in the (5) planning (P)-design of alternative pro- context of the total Great Lakes system. It is this grams and projects to meet specified goals, objec- type of coordinating, integrating effort that can tives, and policy directives best be provided by the Great Lakes Basin Com- (6) project development (D)-design, construc- mission. tion, operation, and maintenance of projects and services that are the recommendations of planning efforts. 11.2.3 Investment The agencies listed in Table 1-187 include the members of the Great Lakes Basin Commission and The programs specified in the Proposed Frame- are in some cases broken into services or bureaus works (see Section 5 and Sections 6-10) are pro- within member agencies. Also included are agen- jected to cost more than $25 billion by 2020, not cies that are not members of the Commission, but including interest on the invested capital. have a substantive role in resource management. Very important to the implementation of the The activities of the private sector are also noted. programs are the arrangements by which the rec- The resource use functions in Table 1-187 have ommended programs and projects can be funded. been developed by combining the resource use cat- The division of costs among Federal, public non- egories described in Section 4. The combinations of Federal, and private interests strongly influences various categories are explained below. whether a given program will become a reality. (1) Water Withdrawals The breakdown used in estimating the costs of (a) municipal-domestic, commercial, and the NOR and PRO Frameworks is shown in Table industrial water supply through municipal systems 1-188. (b) industrial-self-supplied industrial pro- Some water resource functions are of such a scale grams, mining programs, and thermal power cool- or are deemed to be of such national importance ing programs that significant portions of capital project costs, (c) rural-rural domestic, livestock, and ir- such as for commercial navigation, have tradition- rigation programs. ally come from Federal sources. In many instances, (2) Nonwithdrawal Uses the commitment of non-Federal interests must be (a) water quality-programs to manage demonstrated through cost sharing arrangements. municipal and industrial wastewater discharges In other instances, such as industrial wastewater M reereation-water-oriented outdoor treatment or thermal power cooling facilities, the recreation programs private sector must provide financing for develop- (c) fish and wildlife-sport fishing and ment. Private costs should always be considered so wildlife management programs that the economic impact of water resource devel- (d) navigation-recreational boating and opment will be as evident as the impact on physical commercial navigation programs. resources. (3) Related Land Uses and Problems In planning for a 50-year time period it is impor- (a) agriculture-land treatment and crop- tant to evaluate the cost of operation, maintenance, land drainage programs and replacement (OM&R) activities. In some in- (b) forestry-forest land treatment pro- stances, -the total of these costs may exceed the grams initial capital investment for the project. As with (c) shore land s-s horeland erosion pro- capital costs, OM&R costs are often divided among grams Federal, public non-Federal, and private interests, (d) streambank-streambank erosion pro- but the division of these costs may differ from that grams of capital costs. Frequently the Federal govern- (e) flood plains-all flood damage reduction ment will contribute a major portion of the capital programs costs, but expect other interests to operate and M aesthetic and cultural-all conservation maintain the completed facilities. In general, Fed- and preservation programs not covered in other eral participation in project financing is much more categories. significant for capital costs than for OM&R costs. Given the many agencies addressing many re- The estimated capital and OM&R costs for the source functions, and the variety of intervention programs in the NOR and PRO Frameworks were TABLE 1-187 Coordinated Management Agencies (see Subsection 11.2.2 for key) Functions and Categories Water Withdrawals Non-Withdrawal Water Uses Related Land Uses Water Fish & Agency Municipal Industrial Rural Quality Recreation Wildlife Navigation Agriculture Forest Shorelands Streambanks Agriculture ERS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FRA --- --- $ $ --- --- --- $ $ FS --- --- --- --- IT$RPD --- --- IT$RPD --- --- SCS --- --- ITPD T I --- ITRPD --- I ITD Army--CE $DP --- --- $RPD IT$RPD --- IT$PD --- --- IT$RPD IT$RD, Commerce--NOAA --- --- --- IT --- --- IT --- --- IT$P --- HEW ITR --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HUD $ $ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Interior BM IT --- --- --- --- --- --- --- BOR --- --- --- IT$P --- --- --- --- --- --- BSFW --- --- --- --- --- IT$RPD I --- --- --- --- GS I IT IT IT --- --- --- --- --- --- IT NPS --- --- --- --- I$RD --- --- --- --- --- --- Justice R R --- --- --- State--IJC --- --- IRP --- IRP --- --- --- I Transportation CC --- --- --- --- --- ITR SLSDC --- --- --- --- --- --- IT$RPD --- --- --- --- EPA IP P IT$RPD --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FDC --- I --- --- --- --- --- --- GLC --- --- --- --- --- Ip --- --- --- --- GLBC --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- States Natural --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Resources --- --- --- IT$RPD IT$RPD IT$RPD --- --- IT$RPD --- Environmental --- --- --- IT$RPD --- --- --- --- --- --- Health IT$RPD --- --- IT$RPD --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Transportation --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Commerce --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Counties --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Regional Entity --- --- --- --- --- --- --- City --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SID I$PD --- I$PD I$PD --- --- --- --- --- I$PD --- Private IT$ IT$PD I$PD IT$PD I$PD I$PD I$PD I$PD I$PD I$PD I$PD Implementation 299 TABLE 1-188 Allocation of Costs for GLBFS Programs Among Federal, Non-Federal, and Private Sectors (in percent) Capital OM&R Non- Non- Resource Use Category Federal Federal Private Federal Fedcral Private WATER WITHDRAWALS Municipally Supplied 30 70 0 0 100 0 Self-Supplied Industrial 0 0 100 0 0 100 Rural, Domestic, & Livestock 10 0 90 0 0 100 Irrigation 0 0 100 0 0 100 Mining 0 0 100 0 0 100 Thermal Power Cooling 0 5 95 0 5 95 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES Municipal Wastewater Discharge 75 25 0 0 100 0 Industrial Wastewater Discharge 0 0 100 0 0 100 Hydroelectric Powerl --- --- --- --- --- --- Water Oriented Outdoor Rec. --- --- --- Sport Fishing2 --- --- --- --- --- --- Recreational Boating 35 35 30 0 0 100 Commercial Fishing --- --- --- --- --- --- Commercial Navigation 100 0 0 100 0 0 RELATED LAND USES AND PROBLEMS Agricultural Land Treatment 28 0 72 0 0 100 Cropland Drainage 30 0 70 0 0 100 Forest Land Treatment 80 5 15 10 20 70 Shoreland Erosion 20 0 80 20 0 80 Streambank Erosion 28 0 72 0 0 100 Flood Plains 75 0 25 5 95 0 Wildlife Management 10 90 0 0 100 0 Aesthetic and Cultural --- --- --- Outdoor Recreation 35 65 0 20 80 0 lEither 100 percent State, or 100 percent private (no Federal money) 240 percent of sum of capital plus OM&R is Federal, 60 percent is State (no private money) allocated among Federal, public non-Federal, and basis for estimating. The development of new ap- private sectors. The allocation was based on the proaches to water and related land management current cost sharing arrangements and practices of could significantly alter the magnitude of the cost. the agencies responsible for implementing the re- Furthermore, the division of cost is not fixed over spective programs and was developed through time. Legislative change such as the Federal Water consultation among Commission and agency staff Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 can personnel. For categories in which arrangements substantially alter cost sharing arrangements. The have flexibility, averages were developed. This was subject of cost sharing is undergoing considerable also done where several agencies or States have discussion at the present time, and change in the different program arrangements within a resource distribution among various interests can be ex- category. The intent was to provide uniform cost pected. sharing analysis over the entire Basin and for the Another source of change in the division of cost is entire study period. the emerging trends in resource management. The The cost estimates included are based upon ex- trend toward nonstructural flood plain management isting management experience, which can provide a rather than structural measures may mean that 300 Appendix 1 funds could be made available for other projects. It is necessary to develop priorities for the con- Furthermore, the emerging prominence of specific duct of possible Level B studies since not all studies problem areas such as coastal zone management can or should be pursued simultaneously. Recent can provide another shift in emphasis and precipi- changes in the concept of Level B studies have tate changes in cost sharing. While it is difficult, if emphasized the centrality of State preferences for not impossible, to predict or quantify the impact of participation in Level B planning. Section 209 sug- these potential changes, it is important to ac- gests the significance of water quality issues in knowledge their existence. The framework costs establishing priorities for Level B studies. Current are not designed to anticipate all such changes, but guidelines for Level B planning also suggest that rather to provide an estimate of the order of mag- priorities be given to those areas where water nitude of the investment that will be required to quality issues are closely tied to urban-industrial meet needs and objectives in water and related concentrations, to other water resource functions land resource development and conservation. such as water supply, and to areas where Level B The Great Lakes Basin Commission and its planning will support other types of resource plan- member agencies and States should monitor regu- ning such as coastal zone and land-use planning. larly the effect of cost distribution on the comple- Based upon the general criteria outlined above tion of programs, and make appropriate recom- and on consultation with State members of the mendations for legislative@ and administrative Great Lakes Basin Commission, the list of studies changes that will insure that funding distribution shown in Table 1-189 was developed as of May, procedures are not a deterrent to timely execution 1975 (see Great Lakes Basin Framework Study of high-priority work. Report for later Commission action). The studies approved for submission are listed in order of pri- ority and estimated costs are given for each. The 11.3 Future Planning Studies Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study (GLEPS) has been under consideration by the One of the principal purposes of a framework Great Lakes Basin Commission for several years. study is to identify areas requiring further, more This study is a special Level B effort designed to detailed study. Usually a limited geographic area is address water quality management issues regard- selected, but sometimes one or more specific func- ing the Great Lakes proper, with emphasis on the tions in an area of wide extent are identified. This development of a mathematical modeling tool to requirement in the Framework Study comes from evaluate alternative management strategies. policy statements relating to planning, and these in The nature of the Great Lakes Basin with its turn have their genesis in Federal and State laws large expanses of open water makes it unique and/or policies. The intent is to carry out planning among river basins of the United States. This in sufficient detail to facilitate effective decision- unique character requires studies that specifically making with respect to investment and resource address lake problems as opposed to traditional policy. comprehensive planning for watershed problems. The clearest statement of policy comes from While no specific guidelines have been developed Section 201 (2) of Public Law 89-80, the Water for the conduct of such studies, several Great Resources Planning Act of 1965, which states that Lakes studies have been proposed, and some deal- river basin commissions will ing with specific lakes or parts thereof are under- Prepare and keep up to date to the extent practicable a way. The GLEPS will, among other things, coordi- comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan for Federal, State nate these separate studies. One study not yet interstate, local, and nongovernmental development of undertaken would determine consumptive use in water and related resources ... the Basin in order to assess the impact on lake and from Section 209 of Public Law 92-500, the hydrology of the many withdrawals with accompa- Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments nying consumptive losses. It has been estimated of 1972 which states: that such a study could be undertaken by the Great The President, acting through the Water Resources Coun- Lakes Basin Commission staff for approximately $60,000. cil, shall, as soon as practicable, prepare a Level B Plan under the Water Resources Planning Act for all basins in Under Section 201 (b) (1) of P. L. 89-80, each the United States. All such plans shall be completed not river basin commission shall later than January 1, 1980 ... ... serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Fulfillment of this later legislative mandate will Federal, State, interstate, local and nongovernmental plans provide essential input to the formulation of the for the development of water and related land resources in Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (CCJP) as its area, river basin, or group of river basins ... it is presently conceived (Subsection 11.4). This responsibility is acted upon with respect to Implementation 301 TABLE 1-189 Great Lakes Basin Future Plan- international organizations such as the Interna- ning Studies-Level B tional Joint Commission, participation in Federal Study Federal Cost agency studies such as Type IV studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, consulta- Maumee River Basini $1,554,000 tion on State planning efforts in a review and Fox-Wolf River Basin2 831,000 advisory capacity, and membership on planning boards conducting special studies, such as the Energy Policy and Planning Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Winter Navi- Study2 794,000 gation Board. Coordination is and will be accom- Great Lakes Environmental plished in the future through consultation with Planning Study2 2,100,000 Commission member agencies and States in order to maintain an ongoing inventory of planning ef- Great Lakes Regional Lake forts in the Great Lakes Basin. This inventory will Levels Study2-3 --- serve to reduce duplication of efforts among Southern Michigan River various levels of government and to identify plan- Basins --- ning needs that are not being met through ongoing programs of Great Lakes Basin Commission Western Lake Superior members. Through contacts with Canadian coun- River Basins --- terparts, the Great Lakes Basin Commission seeks Northern Indiana River Basins to maintain a continuing cognizance of Basin plan- Eastern Lake Erie River ning that is carried on in the Canadian portion of Basins --- the Great Lakes drainage basin. While the water resource planning in the Great Northern Michigan River Lakes Basin is done under the same general au- Basins --- thorities as in other river basins, there are some New York River Basins --- peculiar aspects of the Great Lakes Basin that affect the way in which studies are carried out and Southeast Wisconsin River the output results needed. It is important to keep Basin --- these factors in mind when studies are proposed Regional Planning Studies --- and initiated, in order to insure that the constraints and requirements are met in each study. lIn progress Briefly stated, the critical water problems in the Basin are more problems of pollution than of allo- 2Approved February 1975, for submission to cation. For the foreseeable future there is water Water Resources Council for all uses which have been given serious consid- 3Approval withdrawn May 1975 eration, providing the quality of the water can be maintained at suitable levels. Quality control is exercised more effectively by land use management in addition to water use Level B planning in two ways. The study manager controls, particularly in an area like the Great of a given study may be an employee of the Com- Lakes Basin that is more than urban than rural. mission, or a Commission staff member may serve This means that those elements related to land use as a member of a Level B planning team that is led management and land use planning, principally by a State-appointed study manager. In either urban and regional planning agencies, should be case, the role assumed by the Great Lakes Basin incorporated into the planning process. This was Commission participant will emphasize coordina- not adequately done in the Framework Study. The tion of planning efforts, particularly with respect to basic data for land use and management were funding arrangements for the study. But in the oriented toward the agricultural land base, and the former situation, the Commission participant framework programs relate primarily to this aspect would have considerably more influence on the plan of land use. The expanding urban and transporta- formulation process. In either case, the Level B tion requirement for land was recognized princi- study is a Commission study conducted under pally as a reduction in resource base and not given Commission approval, policy, and procedures. adequate treatment in its own right. In Level B and Other aspects of planning coordination that are other detailed studies the capability of local, part of Commission activities include Commission urban-oriented planning entities should be relied on staff participation in a variety of studies conducted heavily. These studies should identify land-use re- by all levels of government in the Great Lakes lated problems that can be addressed by the Basin. These include participation in efforts by areawide planning agencies. 302 Appendix 1 11.4 The Comprehensive Coordinated Joint 11.4.2 Definition of the CCJP Plan (CCJP) The Great Lakes Basin Commission adopted the following definition on February 26, 1975: 11.4.1 Introduction The Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (CCJP) is a specific document composed of elements approved and Public Law 89-80 is not very explicit about what adopted by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, identifying constitutes a comprehensive coordinated joint plan. those water and related structural and non-structural proj- ects, pro ams and other measures designed to enhance the Each river basin commission has inter reted its . gr p economic, environmental, and social conditions of the area, charge to include defining the CCJP, as well as and will include the Level A Study (Framework Study) and developing and submitting the CUP to the Presi- revisions through the National Assessment; Level B Stud- dent and Congress through the Water Resources ies and revisions to reflect changed conditions; and the Council. The CCJP requirement and authority results of appropriate Commission, Federal, State, re- gional, interstate, local and non-governmental planning come from Sections 201 (b) (2) and 204 (3) and (4) of studies. The CCJP will be developed through a continuous, P.L. 89-80. Section 201 states that dynamic procedure, may be prepared in stages, and will be (b) Each such commission for an area, river basin, or kept current. group of river basins shall, to the extent consistent with section 3 of this Act- (2) prepare and keep up to date, to the extent practicable, 11.4.3 Elements of the Comprehensive a comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan for Federal, State, Coordinated Joint Plan interstate, local and nongovernmental development of water and related resources: Provided, That the plan shall The CUP as defined for the Great Lakes Basin include an evaluation of all reasonable alternative means of achieving optimum development of water and related land consists of the following elements: resources of the basin or basins, and it may be prepared in (1) a baseline which will consist of existing stages, including recommendations with respect to individ- projects and ongoing nonstructural programs, and ual projects; . . . projects under construction by both the govern- mental and private sector Section 204 states that (2) a direction for the future which is deter- See. 204. Each river basin commission shall- . mined from the Great Lakes Basin Framework (3) submit to the Council for transmission to the President Study and the National Assessment, and further and by him to the Congress, and the Governors and the identified by possible alternatives and gaps which legislatures of the participating States a comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan, or any major portion thereof or should be filled by additional studies (Level B), and necessary revisions thereof, for water and related land may include the selection of alternatives (Level B resources development in the area, river basin, or group of and/or Level Q. Projects and programs will be river basins for which such commission was established. grouped into short-term, mid-term, and long-term Before the commission submits such a plan or major portion categories. thereof or revision thereof to the Council, it shall transmit the proposed plan or revision to the head of each Federal (3) a concise statement of recommended short- department or agency, the Governor of each State, and and mid-term actions based on consideration of all each interstate agency, from which a member of the com- existing and anticipated needs and problems and all mission has been appointed, and to the head of the United available information sources. States section of any international commission if the plan, portion or revision deals with a boundary water or a river crossing a boundary, or any tributary flowing into such a boundary water or river, over which the international com- 11.4.4 Procedures for Developing the CUP mission has jurisdiction or for which it has responsibility. Each such department and agency head, Governor, inter- state agency, and United States section of an international The CCJP will be developed by the following commission shall have ninety days from the date of the procedures: receipt of the proposed plan, portion, or revision to report (1) The Great Lakes Basin Commission (GLBC) its views, comments, and recommendations to the commis- sion. The commission may modify the plan, portion, or will establish a baseline of projects and programs revision after considering the reports so submitted. The consisting of completed and underway structural views, comments, and recommendations submitted by each projects and nonstructural programs when the Federal department or agency head, Governor, interstate Commission agrees that such projects - and pro- agency, and United States section of an international com- grams contribute to meeting the needs and prob@ mission shall be transmitted to the.Council with the plan, lems of the particular plan area and the Region as a portion, or revision; and whole. The adoption of baseline projects and pro- (4) submit to the Council at the time of submitting such grams will not be subject to the 90-day statutory plan, any recommendations it may have for continuing the functions of the commission and for impleinenting the plan, review process, but will be handled internally by including means of keeping the plan up to date. Commission action. Implementation 303 (2) The GLBC will adopt the Framework Study (3) Through a continuous planning system, the as the Level A portion of the CCJP and initiate the status of the CCJP for all segments of the Basin 90-day review process. will be continuously maintained and periodically (3) The GLBC, following review and consider- updated when major changes are appropriate. ation of appropriate studies made at the local, (4) Careful consideration will be given to cur- State, or Federal level, will, through a continuous rent Principles and Standards as enunciated by the planning system, select and designate elements to Water Resources Council in developing the CCJP be part of the CCJP, superseding earlier data as- where Federal activities are involved. appropriate. (5) Regional preferences will be identified and (4) The GLBC will also select elements of the deviations from national projections and policies CCJP from implementation studies, some of which will be explained. will be Level C studies and some of which may be State, regional, or private studies that were not previously reviewed or transmitted by the Com- 11.5 Institutional Arrangements in the Great mission but are processed through agency chan- Lakes Basin nels. Through the continuous planning system, each Commissioner will bring to the attention of The previous subsections have explored a the Commission those studies in his area which number of the actions and studies which will be have not had formal Commission review, but which required to implement the framework programs. may supersede earlier data. The nature and size of the Great Lakes Basin and (5) The GLBC will review the CCJP following the distinctive characteristics of this intercon- each revision of the National Assessment and will nected system of lakes and streams make imple- update the economic, demographic, and policy in- mentation a formidable task. But in addition the formation in the CCJP and will insure that the jurisdictional authorities and traditional areas of existing situation is accurately stated. concern of two nations, one Province, eight States, (6) The GLBC will periodically, depending on the multiple agencies within each of those entities, the number and significance of the changes to be a number of intergovernmental relationships, and made in the CCJP, document these changes, innumerable substate units of government all make transmit the document for the statutory review, confusion and conflicts inevitable. More than one and then transmit the revised CCJP to the Water governmental unit will influence the planning for Resources Council. and management of almost any resource and will be affected by the outcome. Consequently, one cannot avoid addressing the complexities of organizational 11.4.5 Strategies arrangements when considering the means by which framework programs can be implemented. The following strategies will be utilized: The ultimate success of the framework programs is (1) The Great Lakes Basin Commission will dependent upon the existence and functioning of utilize existing and ongoing studies to secure the institutions and organizations that are capable of intitial CCJP elements. implementing the programs. (2) The Commission will adopt procedures and As with other parameters in the planning proc- attempt to secure programs that will result in ess, existing organizational arrangements should preparation of the CCJP elements for the Great not be taken as absolutes, for they too are amena- Lakes Basin at the earliest possible date. ble to change and restructuring. Thus, the current (3) The Commission will insure that Level B, array of governmental units must not be viewed as Type 2, State, River basin, and other major re- immutable constraints on the formulation of alter- gional study efforts will be tailored to provide ele- native courses of action. However, for planning ments of the CCJP upon their completion. purposes assumptions must be made about the ex- istence of certain relationships during the time frame under consideration. It is always necessary, 11.4.6 Policies for the sake of time, cost, and simplicity, to assume that certain conditions (physical, economical, and The Great Lakes Basin Commission will follow social, as well as institutional) will prevail. The these policies: problem is in deciding which assumptions to em- (1) GLBC endorses State leadership in devel- brace and in making those chosen explicit. opment of portions of the CCJP. In the Great Lakes BasinFramework.Study, two (2) State programs and policies will be ade- major assumptions are implicit: (1) that the fun- quately reflected in portions of the CCJP for par- damental institution of Federalism in the United ticular States. States, and the Federal-State and inter-State rela- 304 Appendix 1 tionships which it engenders, will remain, and (2) Policy, composed of selected Commissioners . rep- that the independent, sovereign status of Canada resenting both States and Federal agencies. Sec- and the United States mandates that the States and ond -, Dr. Lyle E. Craine of the University of Mich- Provinces cannot settle issues of an international igan School of Natural Resources was retained as a nature on their own volition. Although it may seem consultant to the Commission and produced a Final unnecessary to articulate these well-acknowledged Report on Institutional Arrangements for the principles, it is important to recognize that in the Great Lakes (March 15, 1972). Finally, as the case of the binational Great Lakes Basin, the influ- Framework Study neared completion, the Com- ence of nine Provincial and State governments on mission staff reviewed the previous studies, made mechanisms for institutional coordination has been, an analysis of other pertinent literature, and pre- and will most probably continue to be, of para- pared initial drafts of Section 11 for the Commis- mount importance. For it is within these "con- sioners' consideration. straints" that all other institutional permutations The Task Force on Organizational Policy was must be formulated, even though the physical and created in 1969 and charged with the responsibility ecological relationships in the Great Lakes know no of reviewing the types of organizational arrange- such bounds. While new mechanisms may be desir- ments available to manage river basins and of able and possible within the context of the above making recommendations to the Commission on the assumptions, it may also be that,fundamental and structure that should be adopted. After a series of far-reaching changes in resource planning and preliminary meetings that explored A variety of management cannot be achieved without abandon- possible mechanisms for organizational coordina- ing these assumptions. When one explores this tion, the task force concluded that there was a need subject, one should not lose sight of this possibility. to determine what necessary management func- The subject of the appropriate institutional ar- tions (used in the broadest sense) were not being rangements for managing water and related land performed. It was at this point that Dr. Craine was resources is a topic that has received considerable retained. attention, both generally and as specifically appli- In his study, Professor Craine addressed the cable to the Great Lakes Basin. In addition, the question of the optimum resource management ar- Commission, during the course of the Great Lakes rangement for the United States portion of the Basin Framework Study, has attempted through Great Lakes Basin. He adopted a 'two-pronged several projects to describe or analyze organiza- operational objective: "(1) to determine what needs tional arrangements in the Basin. to be done that is not now being done; and (2) to Initially, the Commission, in cooperation with make recommendations for institutional changes the Great Lakes Panel of the Committee on Mul- designed to get done what needs to be done." After tiple Use of the Coastal Zone, National Council on stating six ways by which agencies can become Marine Resources and Engineering Development, involved in Basin management, Dr. Craine re- published a document entitled Great Lakes Insti- viewed the ability of existing institutions to per- tutions (1969), which contained descriptions of the form these functions and concluded that no agency vast array of agencies and organizations in Canada "is meeting the need for integration of public au- and the United States that had an interest in water thorities relating to resource use and develop- and land resources in the Basin. An updated and ment." This need was felt to be critical since "the expanded document, Great Lakes Directory, was primary issues confronting a basin-wide agency published in 1976 by the Commission, in coopera- stem from conflicting goals based upon various tion with the Interagency Committee on Marine values and public preferences expressed and sup- Science and Engineering, Federal Council for ported by different political constituencies," which Science and Technology. Two Framework Study issues can only be solved through the political pro- volumes, Appendix F20, Federal Laws, Policies, cess. This led Dr. Craine to the further conclusion and Institutional Arrangements, and Appendix that the institutional problem for the Great Lakes S20, State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Ar- Region "is intergovernmental rather than just in- rangements, catalog and briefly describe the legal teragency." In order to achieve the desired inte- jurisdiction and authority of those Federal, State, gration, Dr. Craine outlined a basin-wide agency substate, and special purpose governmental agen- that would utilize "primary policy controls, to- cies that are responsible for resource matters. gether with such planning as reflects and imple- These appendixes do not, however, attempt to an- ments the policy determination made." He consid- alyze the adequacy of existing arrangements or ered the question of representation on such an explore alternatives. agency to be crucial, and suggested that the States, More direct study of this question was accom- the Federal government, and Basin residents plished in three other activities. First, the Com- (through specially elected representatives) were mission created a Task Force on Organizational the three interests of concern. Implementation 305 Upon the receipt of Professor Craine's report, position in the political dialogue should ultimately the Task Force concluded that no action should be be voiced by a single spokesman, although it is taken, and the Commission accepted this recom- recognized that the various Federal agencies with mendation. The Commission foresaw that comple- an interest in the outcome of any particular policy tion of the Framework Study and possibly the choice should all be actively involved in formulating CCJP itself might be required before management a Federal position. A second and equally important adjustments could be sufficiently identified to per- corollary is that the States are only a second level mit formulation of new organizations or realign- of government, and that subsidiary levels within ment of existing organizations. States have planning and management responsibil- In keeping with the Task Force's repeated em- ities and must therefore be involved in decision- phasis on the need to identify problems before making, particularly in land use matters which attempting to decide upon a particular arrange- largely control water use and water quality consid- ment and mechanism for resource management, erations in the Great Lakes Basin. Veritical. as well what follows is limited to a discussion of the salient as horizontal coordination is needed, particularly features and problems of the Great Lakes Basin around the individual Lake. which must be considered in any proposed solution. Finally, the international character of the Great Agreement on such a framework for inquiry is Lakes Basin raises the third factor to be consid- necessary before efforts to identify a particular ered; namely, that,the mutual, daily interest that organizational structure can be truly fruitful. both the U.S. and Canada have in this unique Three aspects of the current situation in the resource indicates that a special working relation- Basin stand out as the most critical factors to ship, unencumbered by the ordinary demands of consider. The first relates to the physical charac- international protocol, would be appropriate for a teristics of the Basin, and the others to the extant major part of the business that the two counties governmental situation. need to conduct relative to the utilization of the Although the Great Lakes is properly viewed as Lakes' resources. As currently constituted, the In- a single physical system in which activities in one ternational. Joint Commission's prerogatives are part ultimately affect the system elsewhere, the not broadly enough drawn to satisfy the require- Framework Study has identified a great diversity ment for the kind of international cooperation that of resource values and problems that exist at dif- is needed. This is not to say, however, that they ferent places in the Basin. Each of these will re- could not be. That question is simply not raised at quire specialized management that is fitted to the this time. circumstances at hand. Thus, to geographically in- Within the context of these three general tegrate management control would be neither de- aspects, there are subsidiary factors that must be sirable nor practical; that is, management is not the considered when developing organizational ar- problem. rangements. First, any mechanism which purports On the other hand, the fact remains that the to deal with Basinwide resources issues must be Basin is a closed system in which the gains accom- capable of dealing with the problems of multiple plished in one place can be negated by action else- use of the resource base, for that is in fact the where unless a general agreement on mutually manner in which the Great Lakes and their asso- acceptable goals and objectives has been reached. ciated land resources are approached. This implies more than mere informational coordi- nation. Rather, it will entail an essentially political Second, as Subsection 11.6 reveals, there is a exchange for which the rules of interaction are vast range of research and data collection that must agreed to and politically binding. Typically, this be accomplished in order to provide information to would be considered integration at the policy-mak- the decisionmakers. Any organizational structure ing or policy-planning level. that fails to coordinate information generation and To achieve such a political interaction, any pro- planning will necessarily be handicapped in its posed institutional arrangement must take into ac- ability to identify problems and formulate policy count the second factor; namely, that the integra- goals. tion called for is distinctly intergovernmental in Third, any institution encompassing the Great nature, as opposed to simply interagency. The Lakes must have the authority and political viabi@ States after all, are sovereign. Thus, barring some lity to set priorities among competing goals and greater Federal requirement for concerted action, objectives, in recognition of the fact that the pie is the general-purpose units of government in the never big enough, to satisfy all possible desires. United States are the fundamental building blocks Without such authority, there is a great danger upon which any scheme of policy/planning integra- that any agreement on goals and objectives would tion must be based. As a first corollary, the Federal be a hollow gesture with enough platitudes to sat- government is but one sovereign entity and its isfy everyone, but with few hard decisions about 306 Appendix 1 which programs should proceed first in the face of Atomic Energy Commission. In addition, other limiting budgeting. Federally linked organizations involved in re- In sum, the critical deficiency in the Great Lakes search, data collection, and data analysis in the Basin is that institutional arrangements for arriv- Great Lakes Basin include the Great Lakes Basin ing at a political consensus do not exist. At best, Commission, the Council on Environmental Qual- current arrangements only facilitate exchanges of ity, the International Joint Commission, and the information. These are sometimes in the form of Great Lakes Fishery Commission. A multitude of planning studies, but are often not even that well State, local, university, and private organizations is organized. Such a situation does not provide the also involved in research, data collection, and data degree of geographical integration which is neces- analysis in the Basin. A directory of Great Lakes sary for resolving basic conflicts in resource utili- institutions including Canadian institutions, is pub- zation. lished by the Great Lakes Basin Commission. 11.6 Research, Data Collection, and Analysis 11.6.2 Data Collection The collection of basic data, as indicated above, 11.6.1 Introduction is essential to planning and evaluation of alterna- tive courses of action. The type, amount, and sen- Up to this point this section has dealt primarily sitivity of the basic data needed will obviously with the responsibilities of the Great Lakes Basin depend on the purpose of the data acquisition pro- Commission and its agencies for carrying out addi- gram. For example, data needs for planning, man- tional planning, preparation of the CCJP, and the agement, enforcement, or research purposes may institutional arrangements that will be necessary vary considerably. A good data program must in- for planning and action programs. However, in clude data collection, analysis, storage, retrieval, order to provide a background for planning, imple- and dissemination, and a means for anticipating mentation of plans, and the subsequent operation probable future needs. In formulating a basic data and management of programs, it is necessary to program, it is especially important to insure that consider research, data collection, and analysis as potential users know what are available and where, an essential part of the planning process. Good so that timely retrieval can be accomplished. planning is dependent on good, timely research and Traditionally, Federal and State government data gathering and interpretation. In the broad basic data collection programs have been oriented sense, the goals of Federal, State, and nongovern- to the collection of data for specific missions. There mental data collection and research programs are to is a need for the coordination of such mission- support the management of water and related land oriented programs into an environmental data sys- resources so as to meet the needs of people, to tem to avoid unnecessary overlap and to encourage minimize damage to life and property, and to es- collection and dissemination of usable information tablish or preserve a quality environment. for multiple purposes. Federal organizations which have significant re- Practically every Federal agency and many State search, data collection, or data analysis programs in and local agencies and private groups collect data the Great Lakes Basin include the Department of that are of interest and potential use to individuals the Interior (Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife concerned with water and related land resources in Service, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of the Great Lakes Basin. The principal Federal Mines, National Park Service, Office of Water Re- agencies which collect water data for general use, search and Technology), the Department of Com- such as the U.S. Geological Survey, the National merce (National Ocean Survey, National Weather Ocean Survey, the National Weather Service, and Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Mari- the Environmental Protection Agency, maintain time Administration, Social and Economic Statis- catalogs of stored data that are available for re- tics Administration, and others),, the Department trieval. of the Army (Corps of Engineers), the Environ- River stage, precipitation, and other hydrologic mental Protection Agency, the National Aeronau- and meterologic data collected by National Oceanic tics and Space Administration, the Department of and Atmospheric Administration agencies, as well Transportatio 'n, the Department of Agriculture, as data on stream discharge, stream water quality, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Science and ground water occurrence and characteristics Foundation, the Federal Power Commission, the collected by the U.S. Geological Survey are coor- Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Energy dinated as provided in OMB Circulars A-62 (me- Research and Development Administration. The teorological and climatic data) and A-67 (hydrologic latter two organizations formerly comprised the data). Even though coordination among agencies Implementation 307 has recently improved, economies of combination zations, should be coordinated as well as possible, and scale have been accomplished only in part. particularly in terms of data reporting formats. State water data collection agencies tend to be More effort is also needed in coordinating U.S. and specialized and to range widely in function and the Canadian programs involving the Great Lakes. information gathered is generally not readily ac- cessible. Other Federal agencies, like the Corps of Engi- 11.6.3 Data Analysis neers, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Energy Research and Development Administration, Fed- Although considerable data on the Great Lakes eral Power Commission, Department of Agricul- have been accumulated, very few have been uti- ture, Department of Housing and Urban Develop- lized to the extent possible. Generally, environ- ment, several Department of Interior agencies mental data collected for a particular purpose are (Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, analyzed with regard only to the study purpose. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Mines), However, such data could be extremely useful as and Department of Transportation, also collect re- background information to other studies or pro- source data for agency mission purposes. jects. For example, in recent years a great deal of Periodic soil and water conservation needs in- detailed limnological data have been collected by ventories are prepared by the U.S. Department of power companies for the purpose of evaluating the Agriculture and include data on land capability, effect of power plants on the Great Lakes. Many of land use, conservation practices related to land use, these data have not been analyzed, and the work to and small watershed projects. At ten-year inter- date has been directed, in general, toward power vals, the Forest Service conducts forest surveys of plant-induced degradation only. However, these the States in the Basin. Cut and growth data and data, if properly analyzed, would probably be ex- data on the extent of forest land and volume of tremely useful in the interpretation of the physical, timber are collected. These data help in planning chemical, and biological characteristics of the for a continuing supply of forest products and Lakes. amenities for the use and enjoyment of the Basin's One data source that has been proven to be population. Generally speaking, the responsibility extremely useful for purposes other than that for for collection of water and associated land resource which it was intended is' municipal water intake data, such as information related to flood control, data. Much of the historical, chemical, and biologi- shore erosion, recreation, mineral resources, and cal data, as well as temperature data, that are urban growth, is dispersed among agencies and is available for the Great Lakes were obtained from relatively uncoordinated. Also, while great water intake data, although these data were prob- amounts of resource data have been accumulated, ably taken only for the purpose of insuring an particularly within the Federal and State govern- adequate public water supply. Because of the lack ment agencies, many potential data users do not of historical data on the Lakes, the water intake know what data are available and where to go to data have been carefully analyzed and general his- get the data. torical trends in water quality derived. This ex- In order to fill the above gap in coordination, it is ample shows the importance of analyzing data from recommended that the Great Lakes Basin Com- more than one viewpoint. mission develop and maintain a Great Lakes Re- Unfortunately, very little Federal funding has gional Data Referral Center and Clearing House been provided in the past for data analysis alone. that would direct requests for data and other in- Most projects that are funded involve the collection formation to the appropriate Federal or State of new data. There is a great need for increased agency or data system. The referral center would financial support for interpretation of existing data. be publicized widely and its services would be More thorough interpretation will mean more efli- available to all. An annual report would provide a cient new data collection as well as more effective systematic review of any changes in referral center use of existing information on the Great Lakes. activities* ' The referral center would also make recommendations to promote coordination among agencies, particularly in the area of water quality 11.6.4 Research data collection. A need exists for continuation and possible ex- Environmental research is not an end itself, but pansion of ongoing data collection programs, par- rather is a basis for sound decisionmaking. The ticularly such broad scale programs as the Interna- responsibility for identifying needs and conducting tional Field Year on the Great Lakes. Other basic research related to water and land resources in the data collection programs, such as those carried out Great Lakes Basin is dispersed and may often be in recent years by NOAA, EPA, and other organi- uncoordinated among sectors of the research com- 308 Appendix 1 munity. Most of the research sponsored by Federal (2) Water Resource Use and Management agencies, either in-house or by contract, is carried (a) water supply-municipal, industrial, out in the context of agency niissions. At the State rural level, water resources research and development is (b) water quality (pollution control) conducted on State-oriented problems and is often (c) fish cooperatively funded by Federal agencies. At the (d) navigation--commercial and recrea- university level, pure and applied water research is tional boating conducted on a broad spectrum ranging from single (e) power discipline interests to broad interdisciplinary ap- M levels and flows proaches. Private industry also has a role in water (g) shore erosion related research, mainly in the context of solving (3) Land Resources Use and Management industry problems, such as the development of (a) land use and management equipment to improve water-use efficiency and to (b) flood plains cope with waste products, and in the development (c) irrigation of machinery and equipment for manufacture and (d) drainage sale. (e) wildlife Water quality research in the Lakes can be used M erosion and sedimentation as an example of how ongoing programs in the (4) Economics/Social/Institutional Basin treat one portion of the environmental re- (a) economic and demographic search picture. The Federal Water Pollution Con- (b) Federal and State: laws, policies, and trol Act and its amendments in 1956, 1961, 1970, institutional arrangements and 1972 authorize and/or require research and (5) Environmental Quality demonstration projects for the Great Lakes. At the (a) outdoor recreation U.S. Federal level, the Environmental Protection (b) aesthetic and cultural resources Agency (EPA) is primarily responsible for water (c) health aspects pollution research. Expenditures for this work The five major categories in the above outline during fiscal year 1972 were about $4.5 million in correspond to the general groupings used through- the Basin. During this same period about $10.6 out the Framework Study for classifying the work million was spent by other Federal departments of groups and appendixes. The subdivisions of each of seven independent agencies on Great Lakes water the major categories correspond to the subject pollution research. The agencies were the Atomic matter of Appendixes 2 through 23. Energy Commission (now the Energy Research Data collection needs, data analysis needs, and and Development Administration and the Nuclear research needs have not been separated. There is Regulatory Commission); the Departments of often a close relationship among these endeavors, Commerce, Defense, Interior, and Transportation; and hence they are difficult to separate. The listing the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather illus- tion; and the National Science Foundation. As was trative of general areas needing increased attention pointed out above, these agencies, with the excep- in the near future. tion of NSF, were engaged in "mission-oriented" Those individual research, data collection, and research. Nevertheless, the broad interpretation of data analysis needs which are considered to be of "mission" inevitably results in some overlap in ac- particularly high priority have been marked by an tivities. asterisk(*). The priority given to an individual item will vary according to needs of different areas of the Basin, the introduction of new problems (for 11.6.5 Great Lakes Basin Data Collection, example, PCBs and other chemicals were not Data Analysis, and Research Needs known to be environmental hazards until only a few years ago), the results of ongoing research, and the A list of a wide range of water and related land judgment of the individual assigning the priority. use functions in the Great Lakes for which data Nevertheless, in view of the length of the research collection, data analysis, and research is needed has needs list and limited amount of funds available to been prepared. This list has been organized ac- support research projects, it was felt that some cording to the categories shown below. priority should be assigned to the individual re- (1) Basic Resource Information search needs. (a) climate and meteorology The needs list is presented below. (b) surface water hydrology 1. Basic Resource Information (c) geology and ground water A. Climate and Meteorology (d) limnology of lakes and embayments (1) identify and refine short- and long- (e) mineral resources range weather forecasting techniques Implementation 309 (2) establish the relationships between tion on ground-water resources in the Basin air temperature and relative humidity over the (6) determine the impact on Great Great Lakes surfaces Lakes water quality of septic tank disposal systems (3) evaluate the effectiveness of under different soil conditions in the Basin. weather modification as a method of precipitation D. Limnology of Lakes and Embayments control in areas of the Great Lakes Region (1) *conduct a long-term quantitative (4) establish the relationships between inventory of Great Lakes biota for the purpose of meteorological data taken over land and, corre- developing biological maps of the Great Lakes sponding data over the Lake surfaces and deter- (2) *determine the relative impor- mine desirable locations of meteorological stations tance of sediments as a nutrient source in each of on the Lakes the Great Lakes (5) compute reliable estimates of an- (3) *determine the availability to nual, monthly, and weekly evaporation from each aquatic life of different forms of chemical pollutants of the Great Lakes. contributed to the Great Lakes B. Surface Water Hydrology (4) *research the synergistic effects (1) *investigate methods for deriving of toxicants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides) on improved estimates of tributary runoff from gaged aquatic life in the Great Lakes and determine the areas and generally expand the hydrologic moni- ultimate fate of these toxicants in the lake system toring network for the Great Lakes Basin (5) *estimate the loading of chemical (2) *research the significance of pollu- pollutants to the Great Lakes from atmospheric tants associated with suspended solids in tributary precipitation and dry fallout flow (6) increase taxonomic research and (3) improve the understanding and develop detailed keys to the fauna and flora of the ability to predict the movement of suspended sedi- Great Lakes ment in tributaries to the Great Lakes (7) conduct further basic research on (4) *develop predictive models for the chemical transformation processes in the Great transport of nutrients, hazardous materials, and Lakes other pollutants in streams tributary to the Great (8) determine the significance of wind- Lakes induced mixing on the uptake or release of sub- (5) develop improved methods to fore- stances associated with sedimented material in the cast freeze-up, break-up, and the spatial extent nearshore areas of the Great Lakes and thickness of the Great Lakes ice cover (9) survey the frequency and extent (6) analyze the formation and behavior of storm-induced mixing of nearshore areas and of ice cover in the Lakes and connecting channels embayments (7) compare and analyze results of ex- (10) investigate the fundamental role isting snow melt research with information for the of bacteria and fungi in nutrient recycling Great Lakes Basin, and investigate the peculiari- (11) intensify the development of re- ties of the Great Lakes Basin as they might affect mote sensing techniques for the study of limnolo: snow melt runoff. gical characteristics of the Lakes C. Geology and Ground Water (12) compile and develop charts show- (1) *conduct quantitive studies on ing velocity and direction of currents in connecting aquifer parameters and potential stresses on the channels ground water system in order to evaluate the long- W) conduct further basic research on range development potential of critical aquifers the physical limnology of the Great Lakes, includ- throughout the Basin ing studies on lake oscillation, open lake circulation (2) *evaluate the hydrogeologic ef- patterns, the relation between open lake circulation fects of artificial ground-water recharge and re- and nearshore currents, and stratification phenom- search the fate of contaminants introduced into ena, such as the thermal bar aquifers (14) investigate the role of accumula- (3) *develop means to make more ac- tions of nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, and curate appraisals of the direct ground-water inflow refractory organics in snow ice. or outflow to the Lakes in order to refine the water E. Mineral Resources budget of the Great Lakes system (1) *assess the probable environmental (4) improve methods of applying sys- impacts of expanding the mining and refining in- tems analysis to ground-water resources develop- dustries which utilize water resources of the Basin ment (2) determine more precisely the (5) *research the impact of urbaniza- quantity and/or quality of the Great Lakes Basin 310 Appendix 1 mineral resources through field examinations, in- tion assessments in order to evaluate the outcome cluding areas under the Lakes themselves of fishery management policies and predict the (3) *determine the potential impact on -outcome of future management strategies water quality of alternative mineral extracting (2) *continue to conduct basic research methods in the Great Lakes Basin environment on the physiological requirements of fishes of the (4) define more definitely long-term Great Lakes and the.environmental factors affect- requirements for sand and gravel resources, par- ing them, and further study of bioaccumulation ticularly for construction, beach fill, and offshore patterns of toxic substances in fish terminal construction, and investigate the ecologi- (3) continue to study means of control- cal impact of offshore sand mining. ling pest fish species in the Great Lakes (e.g., 11. Water Use and Management lampreys) through chemical, biological, and other A. Water Supply-Municipal, Industrial, techniques and evaluate the overall effect of these and Rural controls (1) *investigate new ways to optimize (4) continue to research methods to the removal of potentially harmful substances improve the sport fishery in the Great Lakes and (e.g., trace organic compounds, viruses, asbestos) develop managerial techniques to improve con- from drinking water trolled commercial fisheries (2) conduct investigations into the de- (5) assess the reaction of various spe- velopment of regional water supply systems in- cies to exploitation and/or predation and human cluding an evaluation of changes required in the decision to effect better management of fisheries present institutional arrangements of service utili- (6) *evaluate the effect of new species ties introduced to the ecosystem, including their posi- (3) investigate improvements to the tion in the food chain, their competition with operational efficiency of municipal and industrial other species for food and spawning areas, and wastewater treatment plants their effect on the forage base (4) conduct further research and de- (7) demonstrate the feasibility of con- velopment in modification of industrial unit proc- trolling excessive fish die-offs esses to reduce water withdrawal requirements in (8) investigate the effect of turbidity the future. derived from tributary inputs, shore erosion, or B. Water Quality suspension of sedimented material on fish spawning (1) *undertake design research to de- areas. termine the most efficient monitoring program D. Navigation-Commercial and Recre- needed to characterize the water quality of the ational Boating Great Lakes (1) research the potential environmen- (2) *expand the network of water tal effects of spills of fuel shipments on the Great .quality monitoring stations to include heavy Lakes metals, pesticides, refractory organics, and other (2) conduct investigations which will potentially toxic substances determine how the following factors will affect port (3) *develop new cost-effective facilities for commercial navigation methods to conserve and/or recycle valuable re- (a) extension of the season and sources found in wastewater reduction of.stockpile requirements (4) *develop methods to test new (b) trend towards supercarriers chemicals for possible hazards before they are used and resulting large cargo delivery in the Great Lakes environment (c) trend towards increased pellet- (5) *continue research on means of ization and higher iron content in iron ore shipments disposal of sludges produced in water supply and (d) *possibility of transmission of wastewater treatment processes coal and/or iron ore via pipeline (6) determine the economic and tech- (3) determine the feasibility of using nical feasibility of further reductions of point heated effluents in extending the length of naviga- sources of nutrients tion season, considering the possible adverse en- (7) demonstrate the feasibility of con- vironmental effects trolling excessive growths of weeds and algae (e.g., (4) analyze the social and economic Cladaphora) in the Great Lakes factors related to water availability for recreational (8) develop methodologies to predict boating the extent and rate of response of the Great Lakes (5) determine the effect of vessel squat to reduced nutrient loadings. in constricted reaches of connecting channels. C. Fish E. Power (1) *continue to perform fish popula- (1) *conduct an inventory of the types Implementation 311 and quantities of pollutants which enter the Great acceptable methods for water level regulation, in- Lakes that are derived from power plants, both in cluding a compensation plan for parties adversely and out of the Great Lakes Basin affected by level changes (2) *analyze existing power plant site (2) prepare Great Lakes inflow/out- data to better -ascertain physical and biological flow forecasts both monthly and annually to aid in changes in the Great Lakes and tributaries from the operational decisions and management of the power plant discharges hydrologic resources of the Basin (3) *determine the biological effects (3) analyze possible effects on Great of entrainment and impingement of organisms at Lakes levels caused by anticipated changes in ice cooling water intakes, such as the effect of the loss retardation of larval fish on future fish stocks (4) evaluate the effects of precipitation (4) *develop methods to conserve/re- and evaporation on lake levels over different cycle water used in energy production, including an periods-day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to- assessment of feasibility of using heated water for year, and longer agriculture, aquaculture, industrial processes, etc. (5) analyze and forecast short period (5) compile a review of the state-of- water level changes on the Great Lakes at regula- the-art on the design of cooling water intake and tory structures discharge structures to minimize impingement and (6) further study the effect on lake entrainment levels from seiches and other phenomena caused by (6) *conduct analysis of the impacts of wind and barometric pressure changes power plants in the following areas (7) research deep water wave charae- (a) methods of ash handling and teristics and the resulting maximum storm water disposal levels which affect shoreline erosion. W fallout of particulate emis- G. Shore Use and Erosion sions from stacks (1) *determine the magnitude of phys- (c) effects of biocides and other ical and ecological damages to the Lakes from chemicals in blowdown waters which are dis- shoreline erosion processes charged to water bodies (2) *conduct special research studies to (d) methods for the transfer and assess the effects of shoreline modifications on en- storage of fuels and power vironmental values in the shoreline zone. (7) investigate the near-term and 111. Land Use and Management long-term fuel requirements and available reserves A. Land Use and Management to supply existing and future power plants in the (1) *determine the specific sources and Great Lakes Basin and the available alternatives to means of control of nutrients and other pollutants the use of natural fuels for power generation, in- derived from land runoff cluding the overall social and economic effects (2) *develop methodologies that can be (8) *research the potential environ- used to predict the potential impacts of alternative mental hazards of major nuclear power plant ac- land resource management plans cidents involving large scale releases of radioactive (3) refine remote sensing techniques materials to the Great Lakes for the purpose of land use inventories (9) research the land/water/air me- (4) *derive guidelines for planning and teorological interactions which affect atmospheric management at various levels and combinations of transport to the Great Lakes (e.g., the importance land use and establish limitations on land use of sea breezes along the Great Lakes coast) (5) continue the development of new (10) *investigate the environmental pesticides and biological agents that are biode- impact of fuel (e.g., coal) processing within the gradable and have a minimum impact on the envi- Great Lakes Basin ronment (11) *inventory the environmental (6) study nutrient release and water hazards to the Great Lakes system from energy- yield from forest areas under different harvesting intensive activities not associated with power techniques (e.g., mechanized logging, clear cut- plants, such as the pollutants emitted by automo- ting), management techniques (e.g., prescribed biles burning), and on-site preparation techniques (e.g., (12) investigate the effect of cooling on-site debarking) towers upon local and regional weather modifica- (7) develop an efficient method for es- tion including cloud formation, increase of precipi- tablishing improved pastures by. seeding without tation, increase of fogging, and icing. tillage in rock or stump-covered land. F. Levels and Flows B. Flood Plains (1) *continue to study internationally (1) investigate and determine the rel- 312 Appendix 1 ative costs of various nonstructural measures for the factors controlling accumulation, and the effect flood control purposes on water quality of organic sediment material (as (2) determine ways to reduce flood opposed to mineral sediment) damages through education of the public (4) further investigate the use of (3) develop new methods for channel chemical flocculation for removing suspended solids improvement and/or streamflow regulation, con- from desilting basins sidering the environmental impact of such action. (5) conduct research in those areas of C. Irrigation agricultural management that involve moisture in- (1) improve means to identify, assess, filtration, permeability, and resistence to erosion and predict the ecological impacts of irrigation and (6) develop educational programs to channelization promote public awareness of the factors involved in (2) further investigate the use of and the importance of programs to reduce erosion treated wastewater for irrigation purposes and sedimentation problems (3) determine the practicability of ir- (7) *determine the quantity of solids rigating through using tile drainage water, espe- contributed to the Lakes from urban debris, in- cially for truck crops and sod farms. cluding settled dust from fossil fuel burning, dis- D. Drainage charge of wastes from industrial processes and (1) *further study the ecological and sewage treatment, and other miscellaneous socioeconomic importance of wetlands (marshes) to sources, such as garden plots, street litter, and the Great Lakes, considering, for example, the wind-scattered trash effect of marsh drainage on water quality (8) conduct field studies in Great (2) investigate the impact on water Lakes Basin localities to localize and verify empiri- quality of draining excess water on land where a cal formulas for sediment yield, such as the Uni- naturally high water table, natural precipitation, or versal Soil Loss Equation seepage limits agricultural production or urban use (9) analyze the trap efficiencies of (3) study the process of tree root inva- sediment collection basins and establish guidelines sion of tile lines to determine for their design and installation, particularly in (a) the relative ability of the dif- urban areas ferent tree speciL-s to cause a problem (10) evaluate stability ofchannel banks (b) the distance the tile should be on both natural and constructed channels. from various trees and shrubs IV. Economics/Social/Institutional (c) the best means of controlling A. Economic and Demographic roots where tile must be near windbreaks, or- (1) compile and evaluate economic data chards, or other trees related to the allocation of Great Lakes fishery (4) analyze soil profile requirements resources. related to blinding tile after the drain has been B. Federal and State: Laws, Policies, and installed. Institutional Arrangements E. Wildlife (1) Metermine how the evaluation of (1) conduct further research to deter- socioeconomic factors in water resource and asso- mine the status of management needs for nongame ciated land use planning can be improved wildlife (2) *assess the social, economic, and (2) evaluate the potential for use of environmental impacts of complying or not com- shrubs with persistent fruit as a food source for plying with the requirements and goals of the Fed- wildlife in critical winter clime habitats in the Great eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of Lakes Region 1972 (P.L. 92-500) (3) assess patterns of ingress and (3) *research new ways to involve and egress of Great Lakes Basin wildlife for wildlife educate the public in water resources and asso- management purposes. ciated land use issues F. Erosion and Sedimentation (4) *establish a centralized clearing (1) *devise new methods to control house and information service for water quality soil erosion in watersheds, and further study the data to facilitate multi-agency management re- significance of soil erosion on water pollution sponsibility for water quality (2) *research the effect of dredging (5) determine the relationships among on the water quality and ecology of the dredged Federal, State, regional, and local institutions that area and assess the role of dredge spoil in water will best promote economy and effectiveness in pollution dealing with water resources problems in the Great (3) conduct basic research into the Lakes Basin rate of accumulation, the location of accumulation, (6) *investigate the environmental, so- Implementation 313 cial, and economic impacts of limiting industrial (2) *develop practicable indices that growth in the Great Lakes Basin. protect water recreationists from enteric, upper V. Environmental Quality respiratory tract, and fungal infections A. Outdoor Recreation (3) *intensify research programs (1) expand data collection and analysis aimed at the study of the nature and occurrence of programs to determine the extent of private re- viruses in the Great Lakes creational development and the need for public (4) delineate environmental factors re- facilities sponsible for vector problems (2) evaluate the socioeconomic impact (5) determine the health hazard, if of water and air pollution on various water-related any, from vessel waste discharge in the Great recreational activities Lakes. (3) evaluate the potential of using railroad rights-of-way to meet a portion of recrea- tional needs, particularly in urban areas 11.7 Addendum (4) identify, collect, and analyze data defining the recreation carrying capacity of special areas, such as wild and scenic rivers, wilderness 11.7.1 Introduction areas, and national lakeshore areas (5) collect and analyze cost/return in- In response to a series of questions and issues formation on several kinds of private income- emerging from the Great Lakes Basin Framework producing recreation enterprises being established Study, a study was initiated by the Department of in the Basin Housing and Urban Development, Region V. The (6) evaluate the impact of restricted study was conducted by Robert C. Einsweiler, Inc. uses of automotive travel on upper Great Lakes Part IV of this study, dated June 30, 1974 (re- recreational areas vised), titled "Planning and Management to (7) *evaluate the direct impact of the Achieve Comprehensive Goals" is presented below. use of snowmobiles, off-the-road vehicles, trail bikes, etc., on the natural environment (8) evaluate the potential of mined 11.7.2 Planning and Management to Achieve areas for recreational use in the Great Lakes Basin. Comprehensive Goals* B. Aesthetic and Cultural Resources (1) *further develop the use of mul- tiobjective evaluations, including methods to quan- THE CASE FOR CHANGE titatively assess presently unquantified environ- mental amenities, in order to facilitate the Recommending changes in current planning and comparison of alternative water resources objec- management techniques to achieve comprehensive tives goals implies dissatisfaction with current methods (2) *evaluate the impact of intensified and results. Change implies further intervention in land use, transportation networks, water use, and the ways public agencies, private firms or individ- energy management on the Basin aesthetic and uals make decisions today. It probably implies a cultural resources transfer of authority or sharing of authority be- (3) identify and analyze aesthetic fac- tween functional agencies or governmental levels. tors associated with the siting of power plants as These implications explain why change is slow and they affect land use and shore access why demonstrated need for change is so critical. (6) *conduct detailed resource identifi- What is the demonstrated need to alter the plan- cation efforts for buffer zones, linkage corridors, ning and management systems in the Great Lakes shore zones, resource clusters, and other features Basin? The case is not well made in the Great Lakes of the Basin's aesthetic and cultural resources. Basin Framework Study. It requires reading be- C. Health Aspects tween the lines. Here are a few examples: (1) *evaluate the short and probable (1) The GLBC study approach documented the long-term effects on human health of microcontam.- resource demand to the year 2020. It partially inants (e.g., carcinogenic organic compounds, as- evaluated alternative policies to further accelerate bestos, viruses) found in some drinking water sup- growth or to limit it. The final proposed alternate, plies PRO, is defined generally in words, but not trans- *Robert C. Einsweiler, Inc., from Relating Water Resource Planning to Comprehensive Development Objectives, Part IV, June 30, 1974 (revised). 314 Appendix 1 lated into programming. Time and money ran out. on structural measures to management and regula- The program costs that are going to Congress are tory measures such as flood plain zoning, flood essentially based on trends. insurance and flood forecasting, with consignment (2) The planning procedure used rests on mas- increase in responsibility of local officials, including sive data collection and untold time of federal urban planners." I agency staff. The two combined to produce a long In tracing the evolution of water resources plan- plan preparation period with the concurrent results ning, Hufschmidt and Elfers comment:' that much of the data are already obsolete and the The striking characteristic of this evolution is that it has final Framework is not yet in print. The cyclical, dealt with coordination of planning at the national and successive approximations approach of the new B major river basin levels, and in Federal-State terms. In this Level studies should avoid this pitfall. evolution there has been no explicit concern for problems of coordination of water resource planning or management at (3) The program proposed generally reflects the urban-metropolitan level. Rather, the assumption has attempts to augment supply or demand. Alterna- been made that urban-metropolitan interests would be re- tive programs to reduce demand, such as land use presented by the States, and would be accommodated in the regulation and pricing of services, rarely appear as detailed planning that would be undertaken by Federal- recommendations. This is partly true for areawide State commissions on a river basin basis. It appears likely that the present pattern of organization agencies, too. The selection process to arrive at and administration of Federal-State water resource plan- final programming is documented in only a few ningon a river basin basis will prove inadequate to the solution cases. of the urban-metropolitan water resource problems of the (4) The local government and special districts 1970's and 1980's. There must be a more explicit recognition of metropolitan interests in National-State water resource that will have to implement most of the program planning. recommendations were involved in only a minor way or not at all. The State and local agencies that could exercise preventive strategy also were in- volved in a very limited way or not at all. They are PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS to be involved more in the new B Level studies. In spite of these negative remarks, the study did produce a general understanding of water resource Organizational Role problems in the region and made the case for ac- tion. The issue is what action by which agency? Three specific problems in decision-making by "One of the first to recognize the need for greater the present structure have been identified by the emphasis on urban and metropolitan aspects of Great Lakes Basin Study: (1) spillover effects from water resources was Lyle Craine of the University private development to public resources, e.g. storm of Michigan, Department of Conservation. Speak- water runoff and siltation and wetland drainage, (2) ing before a meeting of sanitary engineers in 1959, spillover effects from one functional agency to an- Craine pointed to four emerging trends in the U.S. other, e.g., land drainage for agriculture and re- water resource situation. sulting loss of habitat for wildlife, (3) spillover (1) An increasing emphasis of intensive water effects from one government to another, e.g., up- resource management in growing metropolitan stream community waste release to downstream areas, that would require that water resource community recreation or water supply. planning and management be integrated with Solutions to all these problems require some shift overall urban planning. or sharing of authority between private and public (2) A changing pattern of water resource use sectors, between functional specialists and gener- from rural development to municipal and indus- alists in government, and between levels of gov- trial, to urban-oriented recreational, and to recog- ernment. nition of the 'intrinsic visual value of water re- Perhaps the most critical and difficult path will be source,' thus leading to an 'environmental the phenomena variously described as "hardening preservation' purpose. of the categories" or "functional feudalism." It is (3) An increasing desire and requirement for most evident at the Federal level and least at the greater local participation in national water man- local level. The phenomena is so pervasive, how- agement programs, in two ways: ever, that the areawide comprehensive planning (a) a greater local voice in water manage- agencies studied for this report frequently admit- ment designs ted that functional funding pushed them into func- (b) a requirement that localities bear more tional plans that did not add up to a consistent of the costs of Federal water development pro- comprehensive purpose. grams. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (4) In the field of flood control planning and with the resultant OMB A-95 circular was one policy, a changing emphasis from primary reliance response to the inter-functional, inter-governmen- Implementation 315 tal spillover problem. Integrated grants adminis- performed to everyone's satisfaction is clear. But tration (IGA) and OMB circular A-102 are other more effort has gone into it at the local level than at measures. The National Environmental Policy Act any other level. that led to the Environmental Impact Statement The challenge in the near term to implement the and the Council on Environmental Quality is an- Framework is to forge a new federal, state, local other response to the side effects of single purpose planning and management relationship as implied actions. Finally, special revenue sharing, according on the GLBFS cover that takes advantage of the to the Advisory Commission on Inter-governmen- unique and complementary advantages of each tal Relations, has this as one of its purposes: level of government and to build on existing insti- To build a potential power base for the enactment of broad tutions rather than creating new ones. For the federal aid programs for strengthening of the role of the longer term, new arrangements may be needed at responsible locally-elected generalist-the Mayor, the Gov- the multi-state regional level to handle trade-offi@ ernor, the County Executive-and diminishing the role of between development and environment and the vertical autocracy-the functional specialist at all gov- among states. This is discussed more fully later. ernmental levels.:, Three regions have been identified. (See Part II The easy solution when things are not working as on Tools to Control both Supply and Demand.) It desired is to create a new institution. The more would be desirable for all three levels of govern- difficult approach, but undoubtedly more effective ment to actively participate in all three regional in the long run, is to build new relationships among planning and management programs. Further at- existing institutions. That is part of the rationale tention should be given to the concepts of lead for the proposed "Umbrella Multi-Jurisdictional agency in this work. The GLBC is the likely can- Organization" (UMJO) for sub-state regions. The didate for lead role in the lake region; the State intent is to tie together various governmental Planning Agency, State Natural Resource Depart- levels and functions as they play out in one geo- ment or non-metropolitan sub-state agency for the graphic region. A similar purpose is intended by production lands regions, and an urban sub-state or creative use of the Coastal Zone Management Pro- metropolitan agency for the urban regions. Be- gram for example. cause the problem of greatest urgency falls in the Based on the Great Lakes Basin Framework urban settings (see Part 1) that region will be used Study findings, the major problems requiring at- for further description of a planning and manage- tention occurred in three nongovernmental regions: ment system. (1) the multi-state, natural-resource based Lake Region, (2) the sub-state, resource-based produc- Planning Process tion land region-agriculture, forestry and mining, and (3) the sub-state major population concentra- The terms planning and management are used tion or metropolitan regions. The solutions will together in recognition of the trend away from require Federal-State-Local cooperative efforts, as professionally designed technical solutions to prob- no single governmental level by itself has full au- lems and toward the continuing input of planning to thority to act. short- and long-range decision making, and to The role of the State is critical for two reasons. policy formation and implementation by duly The State is the ultimate repository of land use elected public officials. As water resource manage- control, though most has been delegated to local ment plans are replacing ad hoc single purpose government. The State is the creator of local gov- construction projects so are urban development ernments. The States are beginning to create deci- and land use management systems replacing map- sion-making mechanisms to handle functional or oriented, long term land use plans. The shift is interest group conflicts and to go beyond to con- toward greater integration with the ongoing man- sider State settlement policy, but much remains to agement of the public affairs of the nation. Plan- be done. The Federal Government must continue ning and management approaches to implementing its past catalytic role of solving inter-governmental the GLBFS should be in the forefront of this trend. problems in providing financial and technical There are many approaches to comprehensive wherewithal to do so. The local governments are in planning. The differences depend on degree of un- the last-but-not-least role. Of all government certainty, authority of the preparing agency, atti- levels, local government has traditionally estab- tudes about public intervention in private transac- lished the necessary mechanism and exercised the tions, level of funding, degree of integration with responsibility required to solve problems like those daily decision making and other factors. The two in the basic trade-off between competing func- extremes are easily defined. tions, trade-offs between private and public, and At one end is the long term map-oriented plan controlling demands for public services as well as based on the rational planning method, i.e., start- supply. That the trade-off function has not been ing with goals, proceeding through objectives and 316 Appendix 1 policies to programs. This process has merit only value, and serve as an acceptable image of the when the authority to implement is highly central- future toward which efforts should move. As a ized, so goals, too, are easily derived. Plans for second step, using attitude surveys and other new towns or major building projects are possible means, an attempt is made to identify what people examples. Even with these, however, certainty is value in today's environment that they would be likely less than it should be for such long range reluctant to see changed. Third, existing or poten- decisions. The approach is derived in part from the tial problems are identified for commencing discus- design professions. While the GLBC Framework sion and debate. Then strategies or programs are Study appears to use this approach on first blush, proposed to solve the problems without harming further study places it closer to the Darwin Stuart those items people value. Finally, a monitoring approach. The Alternative Frameworks qualifies system is established to check for unwanted change the ability to set goals without continuing interac- in what people value and to check for programmed tion. Also the material in the various appendixes is improvement in ameliorating or solving problems. more problem solving not goal achieving in its Measurement is critical. The measures must be orientation. performance or results based, i.e., degree of pollu- At the other end of the spectrum is the incre- tion improvement, congestion relief, etc., not just mental decision process based on Lindblom .4 This dollars spent, units built or similar measures al- approach makes incremental adjustments to though they are necessary too. Finally, the process operating programs that are not producing satis- must recycle, as proposed in the new Level B factory results. It is geared toward the short term studies, to move to agreement by a series of ap- operating decisions of a public manager. proximations. Darwin Stuart in an article in the Urban Affairs This is an accommodation to a series of concerns Quarterly, has challenged both extremes.5 The ra- reflected in other processes. First there is a need to tional method is cited 'for the difficulty or impossi- look to the future to attempt to design that "better bility of weighting goals in order to set priorities. world" and also to be as certain as possible that The other end of the spectrum is marked down for today's actions lead toward that future. But the being less than what is possible and desirable to difficulties with setting abstract goals and moving solve urban problems. The focus on short term toward them in lock-step fashion is well known. It increments can still lead to undesirable long term is difficult for individuals to respond.to goals sepa- effects unless the long term consequences are eval- rate from the concrete impact of them today. This uated. That is what an Environmental Impact is acknowledged in the Alternative Frameworks Statement is supposed to be, the long term effect of report. The recycling process of the B studies, an incremental decision. It is expensive as a method where consequences of pursuing the goals become of planning and decision making. evident, allows sharper conclusions as to acceptable Stuart argued for a mid-range problem oriented directions for the future. solution in his article, although he would modify Another aspect of this same concern is the impact that further today.6 or side effect of proposed programs. In the case of Comprehensive planning has never had to face newer development management systems, a key the barbs of public dissatisfaction with side effects purpose likely to be achieved is reduction in cost for because no one has fully implemented a complete public facilities. This is a direct response to citizen plan in a major urban area. When and if the day pressures. HoNyever, if the public sector cost re- arrives that such authority is centralized, one can duction leads to private sector cost increases and anticipate complaints about unexpected side ef- change in the type of housing that can be built, the fects. The recent attempts at sophisticated growth citizens may alter their opinion about public service control----@'no growth" or "slow growth" systems- costs. Thus the need to survey and monitor what have caused concern for side effects.-, What will people value in the existing setting that they would happen to land values? What effect will that have like maintained or improved but not degraded. on housing choice? If these increase the cost will A process using monitoring is essential to any they be offset by lowered public expenditures? And development action today. Society has now moved more. to the point where the questions it can ask about This suggests a new approach, a modification of consequences of proposed actions far exceed the what has come to be called guidance systems. The ability to respond. The body of knowledge does not proposed approach combines a number of tech- exist. As programs are proceeding there is a grow- niques now frequently used separately. The long ing mass of recorded opinion as to what may hap- term or alternative futures are developed as scen- pen if a project proceeds, but precious little empir- arios, and as probabilities of social and technologi- ical data on what has happened in similar cal change. These can test the consequences of circumstances in the past. The present process current decisions, provide feedback on what people enables stopping action when adverse conse- Implementation 317 quences are of such potential magnitude or such order-of-magnitude costs, subject to refinement great probability that it is best to seek alternatives. through B and C level or other studies, they are a The monitoring process would enable action to place of beginning to achieve a budget tie. While proceed in projects of considerable benefit where non-federal dollars are identified they are not allo- the possibility of adverse consequences is in dispute cated to state and local levels. or where corrective programs could be taken if Unfortunately, most of the areawide work re- needed. . viewed was not tied down to capital or operation Monitoring is equally important for all public and maintenance costs. Without such costs the expenditures. There is need for more documented evaluation of feasibility is weak. The Southeastern results and evaluation of major items to see if the Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission pinpoints forecasted benefits actually occurred and whether responsibilities by agency in its watershed studies the project performed as planned. It is politically if not identification of program costs. Erie-Niagara difficult to record mistakes. But concern for the has prepared a full list of water resource related public interest demands that we treat "planning as projects by priority as information for the State learning. " Environmental Board election in November. Recycling, or approaching a plan by a series of Some have suggested that sub-state district or- approximations has many points to commend it. It ganizations not only coordinate the local govern- enables early concurrence on what the important ment budget elements in regional programs, but problems are, ranges of acceptable solutions, con- the state and federal elements as well. Obviously a flicts among solutions or agencies, and pinpointing best fit of state-local programs would occur where research and data gathering where they are the sub-state district area was used by the state as needed. a decentralized service delivery area and as a basic It is critical at this juncture to distinguish be- input to state budgets. No state in this region is tween plans as an aid to forming policy and plans to known to be approaching this level of integration, implement that policy. The concern, here, is with however. The point is that the more integration of the former. These are plans of less detail than federal-state-local programs that occurs in the implementation plans. The parallel is between a geographic area of a major problem identified in the Level B and Level C study. Unfortunately, prac- Alternative Frameworks, the more likely an effec- tice has not distinguished and clarified these two tive solution will be found. separate uses. It is common to use design level detail and approaches to policy level issues with Development Management Process resultant excess costs and time and lack of clarifi- cation of the true policy choices. Those policy This is distinguished from the policy formation choices among functions or programs competing for process. It is the management of implementation. the same scarce dollars, must be made by duly Within the urban area, as described in Part I, elected officials. There is no professional training three systems would be managed in concert with that enables a planner to make public value choices. the hydrological system: protection open space, Another aspect of the planning process is the urban development, and support systems. Land need to incorporate and integrate all relevant plan- use and hydrology are, in many respects, merely ning programs. For the urban centered regions this opposite sides of the same coin. The land was in should encompass HUD "701" funding for compre- large part formed by water and continues to change hensive planning, open space, sewer, and water its physiographic face based in large part on water. facilities, EPA water quality and air pollution con- Land uses are frequently sensitive to water avail- trol planning, DOT highway and mass transporta- ability, to the surface drainage patterns, sub-sur- tion, Department of Agriculture Comprehensive face water and soil conditions, and other water- Sewer and Water Planning, and B level or Section related factors. The support systems-primarily 209 river basin studies. Integrated Grants Admin- sanitary sewer, water, storm drainage, transpor- istration procedures ease this process somewhat. tation-enable urban development to free itself or Coordination is not achieved by having the federal ignore the natural restraints of the land. These agencies who dispense these planning funds sit systems can be planned in concert with the land and together on a Title II Commission of the Federal hydrological systems if those who set development Regional Council. It requires integration of the policy so choose. work as produced by the recipient agency or agen- What is suggested is a crude three-part manage- cies in the urban region. ment system that draws on the findings of the A final consideration is the tie to budgets. The Alternative Frameworks. The program could be Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, as most made more sophisticated by noting that each parcel water resource studies, is expressed primarily in of land has an "intrinsic suitability" for use to Congressional budget dollars. Although these are achieve maximum social value as McHarg defines 318 Appendix 1 it.,, The program could be vastly sophisticated by control systems-sanitary sewers, parks, plugging in social and economic policy and consid- schools-is enabled when that is a more reasonable erations. These are not meant to be excluded. course. In short, the tools are available to prevent Rather the proposal is for a bare bones approach many of the forecasted public costs in the Alterna- that seems to fit together the pieces identified in tive Frameworks, if governments are willing to use the Alternative Frameworks as either the cause of them. or solution to pressing problems. Performance standards can be set to meet water Simply put, the place of beginning is the green resource needs. In the most stringent type cases space called protection open space that can enable land use performance standards can be tied to the natural management of the hydrologic sys- natural resources as at Lake Tahoe" or the Chris- tem-surface . water runoff, flooding, siltation, tina project." Storm water runoff models devel- ground water recharge, water for recreation and oped to forecast storm drainage needs can be run in aesthetics-while at the same time providing green reverse and used to set maximum allowable runoff space for recreation, for wildlife, for a natural from parcels, sub-divisions or drainage areas. order to develop and possibly some air pollution Again, it appears that the SEWRPC work is the abatement as well. most advanced in this regard although not as rig- The Alternative Frameworks suggest substantial orous in its requirements on development as the costs for this approach owing to purchase costs. All two examples cited. the land need not be in public hands. Much of it can. The third part of the urban system is the support remain private and provide the necessary function. system component, the treatment plants, sewer, This has been a difficulty in the past, but three storm sewer, water and transportation. These, too, trends are emerging to alter the past. can be used in preventive fashion to reinforce the First, builders and developers are finding that land use controls by careful coordination with the designing with nature can add value to their re- protection open space. maining lands offsetting costs of preserving the These systems, in most of the major regions, lands or natural processes. Local officials must have been planned by areawide agencies to some make this information available. degree. They may not have been planned to the Second, the courts are deciding cases more sophistication necessary to meet. the guidelines of stringently on natural resource issues. Some are DOT, EPA, NOAA and other agencies under re- approaching the point identified in The Rockefeller cent legislation. Most of the areawide studies pro- Report I that an owner can do anything on his land pose using these capital investments to guide de- that does not alter the public benefits of natural velopment. No sophisticated techniques such as systems now existing, i. e., water purification via adequate public facilities ordinances were identi- marshes. fied, however. Third, new development control techniques that To be effective, the development management are performance in nature, specifying degree of system must be operated as a system. That is the care to be taken, can enable developers to proceed tools selected to guide action in the three categories without harm to natural processes. Also new tech- described above must be coordinated. This involves niques of incentive and development rights interagency action in the multi-governmental set- transfer enable land owners to meet higher criteria ting of a metropolitan area. It means multi-agency or to not develop land at all and still not lose coordination even within a single government. It financially. can be done. It is being done as the NSF study The areawide agencies reviewed all have some demonstrates. partial version of this system planned or in proces& How doe& this land development conceptual The Southeastern Wisconsin Planning Commission scheme relate to the GLBFS 23 resource use cate- work appears to be the most advanced and most gories? Do the two tie together? (The categories detailed. are listed in Part III and on each chart.in Appendix The second part of the system is the land devel- C [of the Einsweiler report]). opment itself. The practice in the.past has been to The concept, schematically, is as follows: build public facilities to handle the spillover of new Urban development- private development, i.e., storm sewers, ponding -land uses areas, water control systems for siltation, and the -support systems like. One of the newer modes of development man- Production lands agement.is to require each developer to manage all Protection lands spillover costs or externalities. That means provide The 23 categories can be re-listed in line with this on site for continuation of aquifer recharge, collec- set of headings and as they relate to urban com- tion of storm water and release at pre-development munity objectives, land use and growth. (Number rates, silt prevention and others. Payment toward in parentheses if from GLBFS list): Implementation 319 Support Systems As with the first set, there would be limited 1. Municipally supplied water (1) urbanization without these items. The production 2. Self-supplied industrial water (2) land items can be viewed several ways. They are 3. Municipal waste water (7) land to be protected from urbanization as such 4. Industrial waste water (8) needs are agreed upon. They represent products 5. Thermal power (cooling) (6) that contribute to urban processing and manufac- 6. Hydroelectric power (9) turing industries. The side effects-drainage, irri- 7. Commercial navigation (14) gation-can pollute urban waters, particularly as Production Lands urban waste management is improving more rap- idly than the problems of non-point source pollution 8. Agricultural land from these production activities. These lands, by -treatment (15) their extent, can be used to shape, restrain, or -cropland drainage (16) channel development. -irrigation (4) The protection lands category is frequently sub- 9. Forest land (treatment) (17) divided into recreation lands. and natural process 10. Mining (5) lands. For greater simplicity that was not done. In Protection Lands terms of market intervention, the same require- 11. Surface waters ment holds for either. The shaping effect and con- -water oriented recreation (10) tribution to amenity and well-being go without -sport fishing (11) saying -. -recreational boating (12) No urban land use appears here and logically so -commercial fishing (13) given the limitations of the water resources act. 12. Floodplains (20) There is some urban land use related to all support 13. Shoreland (erosion) (18) systems, some protection lands, and possibly some 14. Streambank (erosion) (19) production lands particularly if urban forestry is 15. Wildlife management (21) includedi 16. Aesthetic and cultural (22) The point of the comparison is to show the true 17. Outdoor recreation (23) interdependence of areawide comprehensive plan- The only item excluded is water withdrawal for ning and the water resource planning. A greater rural domestic and livestock use. While of direct attempt to directly relate the two, rather than impact in non-metropolitan areas, it is a more re- translate one into the other, should be made at the mote impact in metropolitan centers. basin study level. Resources prevented expanding The support systems are listed first as a precon- more fully the consequences of unilateral action in dition to urban development. These items enable any of these resource use categories. Suffice it to people to live well or poorly. They can be used to say that treating the support systems from their shape development as well as serve it. Pricing, water implications alone could adversely impact extension policies, capital programming are among development. Contrarily, using the systems solely the ways the items can be used to achieve water to shape and serve development while ignoring the resource and comprehensive development objec- water resource impact is equally shortsighted. tives. It is obviously necessary to agree on the The challenge to wed the two is there. It is being development objective first, if the. action is to be pursued partially by some areawide agencies and beneficial. Key transportation and nonelectrical local governments. It is time to get it together with energy items are missing. the natural resource people. Section 12 FRAMEWORK TABLES 12.1 Introduction Minnesota New York This section contains a family of tables which Ohio constitute the numerical reporting of the Frame- Pennsylvania work Study. These tables are referred to in Sec- Wisconsin tions 5 and 6-10, which deal with framework for- The Great Lakes Basin tables are arranged as mulation for the Basin and the river basin groups. shown below: The tables show the 1970 supply in each of the NOR-needs, outputs, percent needs met resource catagories; the needs, outputs, and per- -capital costs cent needs met for three time periods for NOR and --OM&R costs PRO; the capital costs and operation, maintenance, PRO-needs, outputs, percent needs met and replacement costs for each time period for the --capital costs two frameworks; and comparison of land treatment -OM&R costs programs and of costs for NOR and PRO. Comparison of NOR and PRO land treatment The arrangement of the tables is discussed in programs Subsection 12.2 and remarks on the table entries, Compaiison of NOR and PRO costs somewhat in the form of general footnotes, are given in Section 12.3. For the five Lake basins the tables are arranged in the following order: (1) NOR-needs, outputs, percent needs met 12.2 Table Arrangement -capital costs --OM&R costs The two major groups of tables are those re- PRO-needs, outputs, percent needs met flecting the Normal Framework and those reflect- ---capital costs ing the Proposed Framework. There are also -OM&R costs groups of tables comparing NOR and PRO land The above block of information is repeated for each treatment programs and NOR and PRO costs. of the Lake basins; then follow The tables are arranged by geographic areas as (2) comparison of NOR and PRO land treat- follows: ment programs for each Lake basin Great Lakes Basin (3) comparison of total costs of the NOR and PRO frameworks for each Lake basin. Lake Superior Basin The same arrangement is used for the 15 river Lake Michigan Basin basin groups and for the 8 States, except that there Lake Huron Basin are no tables comparing land treatment programs Lake Erie Basin by States. Lake Ontario Basin RBGs 1.1, 1.2 RBGs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 12.3 Table Entries RBGs 3.1, 3.2 RBGs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 The stub entries are the same in all of the tables RBGs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 except those comparing land treatment programs. Illinois The standard entries are the 23 resource use cate- Indiana gories for which needs were estimated and which Michigan formed the basis for framework formulation. 321 322 Appendix 1 The units in which the entries are stated are agriculture land treatment, cropland drainage, generally understood or are explained in the glos- forest land treatment, and water surface area for sary. The three entries, 1000 acres W.S., refer to recreational boating represent opportunities to en- the area of water surface related to water-oriented hanee the value of the resource rather than needs outdoor recreation, sport flshing, and recreational to be met. Also, for all categories except municipal boating. Data were not available in all cases. The and industrial wastewater, the needs and oppor- two entries, m-tons/yr, refer to million tons per tunities for 1980, 2000, and 2020 represent quanti- year of commercial fish catch, and million tons per ties above the base year. In other words, the sup- year of cargo transported in commercial naviga- ply at 1970 has been subtracted from the tion. Data on the fishing catch were not available, requirement at 2000 to obtain the need at year and this resource use category is treated only in the 2000. (Part of this need will be met in 1980 if the text and does not appear in the tables. As discussed needs for that year are satisfied.) For the two in the text, 1000 user days of "wildlife manage- exceptions noted, wastewater discharge require- ment" includes both consumptive use (hunting) and ments are entered at each time period, based on the nonconsumptive use (photography, nature study, methodology used by the Water Quality Work bird-watching, etc.). The latter is estimated to Group. equal the former, which is projected by methods described in Appendix 17, Wildlife. 12.3.2 Water Withdrawals 12.3.1 1970 Supply It must be kept in mind that the water with- Data in this column were estimated from data drawals are stated in terms of rate of flow rather provided by the work groups, as described in the than total quantity. Hence, to obtain a quantity a appendixes. Information for the Great Lakes Basin time period must be introduced. Generally, one is also shown in Table 1-37 in Section 5, and is year is used, and the rates are annual means. described in general terms in Subsections 4.4 and However, irrigation and mining are based on sea- 4.5. This table also has footnotes which are appli- sonal use of water, and the quantities shown are cable to appropriate columns of the tables in this seasonal means. These are numerically larger than section showing needs, outputs, and percent needs would be the case if annual means were used. met. Therefore the water withdrawal quantities must The salient points of the description and foot- not be added in an attempt to calculate total with- notes are that the "needs" entries for irrigation,, drawal of water in any area. Framework Tables 323 FRAMEWORK TABLES Great Lakes Basin, Normal ............ 324 RBG 4.1, Proposed ................. 390 Great Lakes Basin, Proposed ........... 326 RBG 4.2, Normal ................... 392 Great Lakes Basin, Comparison ......... 328 RBG 4.2, Proposed ................. 394 Lake Superior, Normal ............... 330 RBG 4.3, Normal ................... 396 Lake Superior, Proposed .............. 332 RBG 4.3, Proposed ................. 398 Lake Michigan, Normal .............. 334 RBG 4.4, Normal ................... 400 Lake Michigan, Proposed ............. 336 RBG 4.4, Proposed ................. 402 Lake Huron, Normal ................ 338 RBG 5.1, Normal ................... 404 Lake Huron, Proposed ............... 340 RBG 5.1, Proposed ................. 406 Lake Erie, Normal .................. 342 RBG 5.2, Normal ................... 408 Lake Erie, Proposed ................ 344 RBG 5.2, Proposed ................. 410 Lake Ontario, Normal ............... 346 RBG 5.3, Normal ................... 412 Lake Ontario, Proposed .............. 348 RBG 5.3, Proposed ................. 414 Comparisons by Lake ................ 350 Comparisons by RBG ................ 416 RBG 1.1, Normal ................... 356 Illinois, Normal .................... 430 RBG 1.1, Proposed ................. 358 Illinois, Proposed ................... 432 RBG 1.2, Normal ................... 360 Indiana, Normal ................... 434 RBG 1.2, Proposed ................. 362 Indiana, Proposed .................. 436 RBG 2.1, Normal ................... 364 Michigan, Normal .................. 438 RBG 2.1, Proposed ................. 266 Michigan, Proposed ................. 440 RBG 2.2, Normal ................... 368 Minnesota, Normal .................. 442 RBG 2.2, Proposed ................. 370 Minnesota, Proposed ................ 444 RBG 2.3, Normal ................... 372 New York, Normal ................. 446 RBG 2.3, Proposed ................. 374 New York, Proposed ................ 448 RBG 2.4, Normal ................... 376 Ohio, Normal ..................... 450 RBG 2.4, Proposed ................. 378 Ohio, Proposed .................... 452 RBG 3.1, Normal ................... 380 Pennsylvania, Normal ................ 454 RBG 3.1, Proposed ................. 382 Pennsylvania, Proposed .............. 456 RBG 3.2, Normal ................... 384 Wisconsin, Normal .................. 458 RBG 3.2, Proposed ................. 386 Wisconsin, Proposed ................. 460 RBG 4. 1, Normal ................... 388 Comparisons by State ................ 462 TABLE 1-190 Great Lakes Basin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1990 2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNrT SUPPLY 0 % N 0 % N 0 WATER f(ITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLIO" GALLONS PER DAY 4,300 870 11030 over 2,810 2.990 ever 5,400 5,550 over SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 10,600 1,110 695 62 4,670 3,500 75 10,300 8,220 8o Q. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MIL .LION GALLONS PER DAY 471 64.0 58.7 92 179 162 91 267 245 92 R IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 681 824 684 83 1.570 1,330 85 2,460 2,100 85 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 780 148 124 84 450 389 86 965 837 87 THERMAL POWER CDOLING 17,200 8,210 8,210 too 38,700 38,700 100 96,5W 96,500 too WON-W[E"DIRAWAL WATER &ME$ MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.060 39680 3.680 100 4,940 4,940 100 6,720 6.720 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 8.590 1,330 7,330 100 6 1000 61000 100 9,210 9.210 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 51,3W 51.300 100 105,000 105,000 too WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR NEC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 10010M 105,000 57,300 55 201,000 132,000 66 324.000 190,00o 58 10110 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 80. 700 24,800 20,300 82 52,300 46,700 89 71992()0 72,800 92 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1001) BOAT DAYS 29,000 6,820 2,470 36 12,500 6.330 51 19,500 10,800 st fooe ACRES WATER sunrAcr 7.260 7.260 --- --- 7.260 --- --- 7,260 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL N"IOATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 343 432 432 100 583 583 100 754 754 100 RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMS AGRIC. LANO-TREATMENT IOW ACRES 20,450 20,450 11800 9 20,450 5.410 26 20,450 7.570 37 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 6,210 6,210 435 7 6,210 858 14 6,210 1,470 24 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 27,900 279900 2,830 10 27,900 8,490 28 27.900 14,200 51 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 1,200 11200 45.6 4 1.200 125 10 1,200 204 17 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 10.900 10.900 585 5 1019W 1,760 16 10,900 2,930 27 *1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAOES 1.710 1.710 342 20 19710 1,026 60 1,710 1,710 100 FLOOD PLAINS-URPAN 1000 ACRES 222 230 78 34 240 139 58 251 199 79 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 46,300 67,100 52,200 78 118,000 103.000 87 190,000 177.000 93 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 2,570 2,560 532 21 2.560 921 36 2,550 1,220 48 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 14,200 181000 6,580 37 24,200 11,300 47 32.400 18,100 56 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 10010 ACRES 2.920 1,170 40 7,990 3,020 38 14,100 4,930 35 IWO USER DAYS 49,600 15,ooo 2,250 is 23,900 7,230 30 33,300 12,500 38 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 36.0 2i.2 _i4 6K; 52.9 84 109 75.3 -gi -EXTENSIVE IBM ACRES HA 170 151 89 348 319 92 600 453 76 TABLE 1-191 Great Lakes Basin, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1990 1981-200D 2MI-2020 REBOU13CE USIE CATEGORY fedard NpwFed pff"te Total Fedwal Has-Fed P"Vou Total fedurd Mon-Fed PIN&" Total - Total WATER WIT RAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 125.6 293.0 0 418.6 204.0 416.0 0 680.0 274.8 641.1 0 915.9 2,014.5 SELF,'""LIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 57.5 57.5 0 0 232.7 23Z.7 0 0 391.5 391.5 681.7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.3 0 2.3 2.6 0.5 0 4.1 4.6 0.4 0 3.4 3.8 11.0 IRRIGATION 0 0 20.1 20.1 0 0 17.4 17.4 0 0 21.3 21.3 58.8 MINING 0 0 6.5 6.5 0 0 13.9 13.9 0 0 25.1 2S.1 45.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 14.4 212.7 287.1 0 54.2 1,032.1 1,086.3 0 101.1 1,921.4 2,022.5 3.395.9 WN-WITHDRAWAL WATE USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DIS"'HARGES 1.340.4 446.5 0 11786.9 1.065.0 354.7 0 1,419.7 1.457.6 485.6 0 1,943.2 5,149 *8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING . 26.7 49.3 0 72.0 19.1 22.1 0 41.2 29.6 33.7 0 62.3 175.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 95.4 "A 81.2 272.0 142.8 142.9 122.3 408.0 122.0 121.9 104.5 348.4 1,028.4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 395.3 0 0 395.3 0 0 0 0 396.3 RELAUD LAND USES A PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 21.0 0 54.0 75.0 42.1 0 108.3 150.4 25.0 0 64.3 89.3 314.7 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 34.1 0 79.7 113.8 34.7 0 81.1 116.6 44.6 0 103.8 140.3 377.9 FOREST LAND-TREATIWENT 96.8 6.1 18.1 121.0 196.2 12.2 36.6 244.0 193.6 12.1 36.3 242.0 607.6 SHORELAND EROSION 5.7 0 2?. 1 27.8 9.2 0 7 45.9 9.2 0 36.8 46.0 119.7 STREAMIIANK EROSION 5.3 0 13.9 19.2 16.3 6 ri .4 57.7 26.9 0 69.4 96.3 173.2 FLOOD FLAIMS-URPAN - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 410.7 0 136.7 547.4 297.3 0 98.8 396.1 04.8 0 28.4 113.2 1,056.7 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 12.1 109.1 0 121.2 22.5 202.1 0 224.6 21.2 190.7 0 211.9 557.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 252.8 469.6 0 722.4 297.0 5SIA 0 648.5 2S3.9 471.5 0 725.4 2.296.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 2.426.9 1.479.4 764.8 4.67i. i ?.74i:i 1,315.7 1.825.4 6,382.1 2,542.5 2,057.7 2.806.2 7,406.4 18,459.6 TABLE 1-192 Great Lakes Basin, Operation, Maintenance, and Repla cement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-100 1901-2= - 2MI-2020 RUM= USE CATFOORY FmdwW Nowfod Pdvaft Tated f4dwal Nop*W prko- TuA fodwW Man-Fed p1h," Taal Total WATER WIT"DRAINALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 192.0 0 192.0 0 1,224.3 0 1.224.3 0 2.713.9 0 2,713.9 4,130.2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 53.6 53.5 0 0 704.7 704.7 0 0 2.015.3 2.015.3 2.773.5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 8.3 8.3 0 0 56.9 56.9 0 0 103.9 103.9 169.1 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.9 2.2 0 0 16.4 16.4 0 0 26.8 26.8 46.1 MINING 0 0 7.7 7.7 0 0 65.7 65.7 0 0 157.0 157.0 230.4 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 3.7 70.1 73.8 0 42.1 800.6 842_7 0 121.6 2,3D9. 8 2.431.4 3.347.9 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 1,381.0 0 1.381.0 0 3.64 i. 8 0 3.641.8 0 4,760.2 0 4,760.2 9.783.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR AEC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 9.4 12.6 0 22.0 21.0 33.2 0 64.2 29.0 42.4 0 71A 147.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 62.9 62.9 0 0 432.0 432.0 0 0 772.6 772.5 1,2157.4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 ".2 0 0 ".2 198.4 0 0 198.4 297.6 RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 1.9 1.9 0 0 14.9 14.9 0 0 27.1 27.1 43.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 2.8 2.8 0 17.2 17.2 0 0 30.3 30.3 60.3 FOREST LAND-TREATIMENT 0.3 0.6 2.3 3.2 2.3 16.3 23.3 4.5 9.0 31.3 44.8 71.3 SHORELAND EROSION o.S 0 2.2 2.7 4.6 0 16.3 20.3 7.8 0 31.0 38.8 61.8 w 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 17.8 17.8 0 0 49.8 w STREAMBANK EROSION 49.8 69.4 Q FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -UR AN 0.1 1.1 0 1.2 0.5 8.9 0 9.4 0.6 11.6 0 12.2 22.8 _RU:AL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 6.0 0 6.0 0 11.2 0 11.2 0 11.2 0 11.2 28.4 AESTHETIC b CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 29.6 117.7 0 147.2 203.3 813.1 0 1.016.4 357.6 1.429.4 0 1.781.0 2.950.6 -EXTENSIVE 39.8 1,714.7 216 - 390.3 59j_j TOTAL :i 1,97ii 5,779, 2,15li-i 8,26ii 5,554.8 15,252.0 25,491.3 TABLE 1-193 Great Lakes Basin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Neeids Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 20W RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED M:LL:ONN GALLONS PER DAY 4,300 870 1,030 over 2,810 2,990 over 5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL M LLO GALLONS PER DAY 10,600 1,110 695 62 4,670 3,500 75 10 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 471 64.0 58.7 92 179 162 91 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 661 824 684 83 1,570 2,320 84 2 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 780 148 124 84 450 350 78 THERMAL POWER COOLING 17,200 8,210 8,210 100 38,700 38,700 100 96 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,060 3,680 3,680 100 4,940 4,940 100 6 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 8,580 7,330 7,330 100 6,000 6,000 100 9 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 51,300 51,300 100 105 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 100,000 105,000 57,300 55 201,000 132,000 66 324 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 80,700 24,800 20,300 82 52,300 46,700 89 79 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 29,000 6,820 2,470 36 12,500 6,330 51 19 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 7,260 7,260 --- --- 7,e6O --- --- 7 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 343 432 432 100 583 583 100 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 10DO ACRES 20,450 20,450 4,000 20 20,450 11,400 56 20 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 6,210 6,210 695 11 6,210 1,810 29 6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 27,900 27,900 4,370 16 27,900 13,100 47 27 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 1,200 1,200 45.6 4 1,200 125 10 1 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 10,900 10,900 585 5 10,900 1,760 16 10 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,710 1,710 342 20 1,710 1,026 60 1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 222 230 78 34 240 139 58 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 46,300 67,100 52,200 78 118,000 103,000 87 190 -RURAL IWO ACRES 2,570 2,560 532 21 2,560 921 36 2 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 14,200 18,000 6,580 37 24,200 11,300 47 32 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 2,920 1,170 40 7,990 3,020 38 14 1000 USER DAYS 49,600 15,000 2,250 15 23,900 7,230 30 33 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- - --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 30.0 22.2 74 62.0 52.9 84 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 170 151 89 348 319 92 TABLE 1-194 Great Lakes Basin, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,0w,000) 1971-1980 1"1-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Noix-Fod Private Total 7.;;;1- N.-Fd Pli 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 21 MINING 0 0 6.2 6.2 0 0 11.6 11.6 0 0 20 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 14.4 272.7 287.1 0 54.2 1,032.1 1,086.3 0 101.1 1,92 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 3,588.0 1,196.0 0 4,784.0 2,186.2 726.8 0 2,915.0 1,970.2 656.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 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 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 295.6 0 0 295.6 1,386.6 0 0 1,386.6 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 STREAMBANK EROSION 5.3 0 1379 19.2 16.3 0 41.4 57.7 26.9 0 6 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 410.7 0 136.7 547.4 297.3 0 98.8 396.1 84.8 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 12.1 109.1 0 121.2 22.5 202.1 0 224.6 21.2 190.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 252.8 469.6 0 722.4 297.0 551.5 0 848.5 253.9 471.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 5,045.7 _2,232.2 830.6 8,108.5 5,020.8 2,196.5 1,992.7 9,210.0 3,177.7 2,235.6 2,86 TABLE 1-195 Great Lakes Basin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework ( 1971-ISW 1981-2000 2001-2026 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total faderal Non-Fod Privift Totill I Fedwal Non-Fed Pr 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 2,01 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 8.3 8.3 0 0 56.9 56.9 0 0 10 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 16.3 16.3 0 0 2 MINING 0 0 7.8 7.8 0 0 61.4 61.4 0 0 13 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 3.7 70.1 73.8 0 42.1 800.6 842.7 0 121.6 2t3O 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 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 9.4 12.6 0 22.0 21.0 33.2 0 54.2 29.0 42.4 RECREAT10NAL BOATING 0 0 62.9 62.9 0 0 432.0 432.0 0 0 77 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 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 5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 0 25.2 25.2 0 0 3 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.5 1.0 3.3 4.8 4.3 8.6 30.1 43.0 7.0 14.1 4 SHORELAND EROSION 0.5 0 2.2 2.7 4.0 0 16.3 20.3 7.8 0 3 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 17.8 17.8 0 0 4 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.1 1.1 0 1.2 0.5 8.9 0 9.4 0.6 11.6 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 6.0 0 6.0 0 11.2 0 11.2 0 11.2 AESTHETIC -ht CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 29.5 117.7 0 147.2 203.3 813.1 0 1,016.4 357.6 1,429.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 76.0 4.442.8 21;_.@ 4, 7 3 Vl.@ 12@096 4 2,793.2 14,960.9 1,134.4 20,568.1 4.48 TABLE 1-196 Great Lakes Basin, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differen RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-20M 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-20DO 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 20,450.0 1,800.0 3,610.0 2,160.0 7,570.0 4,000.0 7,400.0 4,100.0 15,500.0 2,200.0 3,790 CROPLAND 6,210.0 435.0 423.0 612.0 1,470.0 695.0 1,115.0 800.0 2,610.0 260.0 692 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 27,900.0 2,830.0 5,660.0 5,610.0 14,200.0 4,370.0 8,730.0 8,700.0 21,800.0 1,540.0 3,070 TABLE 1-197 Great Lakes Basin, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL - P130POSEO NORMAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 418.6 192.0 610.6 478.6 192.0 610.6 2,014.5 4,130.2 6,144.7 2,014.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 57.5 53.5 111.0 57.5 53.5 111.0 681.7 2,773.5 3,455.2 681.7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 2.6 8.3 10.9 2.6 8.3 10.9 11.0 169.1 180.1 11.0 IRRIGATION 20.1 2.9 23.0 20.1 2.9 23.0 58.8 46.1 104.9 58.5 MINING 6.5 7.7 14.2 6.2 7.8 14.0 45.5 230.4 275.9 38.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 287.1 73.8 360.9 287.1 73.8 360.9 3,395.9 3,347.9 6,743.8 3,395.9 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 1,786.9 1,381.0 3,167.9 4,784.0 4,108.7 8,892.7 5,149.8 9,783.0 14,932.8 10.326.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 72.0 22.0 94.0 72.0 22.0 94.0 175.5 147.6 323.1 175.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 272.0 62,9 334.9 272.0 62.9 334.9 1,028.4 1,267.4 2,295.8 1,028.4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 295.6 36.0 331.6 395.3 297.6 692.9 1,682.2 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND--TREATMENT 75.0 1.9 76.9 146.2 3.4 149.6 314.7 43.9 358.6 587.4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 113.8 2.8 116.6 120.6 3.1 123.7 377.9 50.3 428.2 453.3 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 121.0 3.2 124.2 188.0 4.8 192.8 607.0 71.3 678.3 940.0 SHORELAND EROSION 27,8 2.7 30,5 27.8 2.7 30.5 119.7 61.8 181.5 119.7 STREAMBANK EROSION 19.2 1.8 21.0 19.2 1.8 21.0 173.2 69.4 242.6 173.2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 547.4 1.2 548.6 547.4 1.2 548,6 1,056.7 22.8 1,079.5 1,056.7 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 121,2 6.0 127.2 121.2 6.0 127.2 557.7 28.4 586.1 557.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION--INTENSIVE 722A 147.2 869.6 -722.4 147.2 869.6 2,296.3 2,950.6 5,246.9 2,296.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 4,671.1 1,970.9 6,642.0 8,108.5 4,733.1 12,846.6 18,459.6 25,491.3 43.950.9 25,596.5 TABLE 1-198 Lake Superior, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1990 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED M:LLION GALLONS PER DAY 48.5 3.3 3.3 IN 13.2 13.2 100 25 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL M LLION GALLONS PER DAY 125.5 2.1 2.1 100 14.9 14.9 100 72. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.5 0.3 0.3 100 3.0 3.0 100 4. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 10.7 8.0 8.0 100 17.2 17.2 100 27. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 576.5 38.9 38.9 100 97.3 97.3 100 19 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 516 0 0 1.100 1,100 100 2.91 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 44.7 48.1 48.1 100 55.9 55.9 100 67. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 55.2 44.4 44.4 100 39.7 39.7 100 61. HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0.0 --- --- 0.0 --- --- 0. WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION.DAYS 8,820 + 3,840 over + 10,400 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 7,090 987 677 68 2,170 1,700 78 3.80 IWO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1001D BOAT DAYS 2,270 284 271 95 403 501 over 5 100D ACRES WATER SURFACE 1,800 1,800 --- --- 1,800 --- --- 1.80 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 99.5 99.5 100 136 136 100 17 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 473 473 39.0 8 473 117 25 47 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 117 117 11.1 9 117 15.9 14 11 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 10,000 10,000 1,090 11 10.000 3,270 33 10,00 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 156 156 5.7 4 156 17.2 11 15 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,430 1,430 94.2 6 1,430 283 20 1.43 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 254 254 51.3 20 254 152 60 25 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES @.8 5.8 1.6 28 5.8 2.7 46 5. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 706 871 312 36 1,360 829 61 2,2 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 187 187 60.7 32 187 68.3 36 18 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 272 346 60.0 17 511 116 23 63 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 731 over 60.0 722 over 20 t000 USER DAYS 3020.0 82.0 93.2 over 68.4 195 over 12 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.1 2.5 over 0.5 6.6 over -EXTENS VE 1000 ACRES NA 0.0 34.2 over 0.0 58.0 over I . TABLE 1-199 Lake Superior, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1990 1981-20M 2001 4M RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed PrIve" Total Fedwal Non-Fed prive" Total Fedwal Nw-Fed Prl WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.3 0.6 0 0.9 0.8 1.9 0 2.7 1.0 2.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 4. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0. MINING 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 6. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 36.4 38.3 0 3.2 60. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 14.9 4.9 0 19.8 9.6 3.2 a 12.8 12.3 4.1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.3 3.4 0 5.7 0.7 1.8 0 2.5 1.2 2.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 9.8 9.8 8.4 28.0 7.8 7.8 6.6 22.2 6.5 6.5 5. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 17.8 0 0 17.8 0 0 0 0 17.8 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.4 0 1.2 1.6 0.9 0 2.2 3.1 0.5 0 1.3 1.8 6.5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.7 0 1.7 2.4 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 0 0 0 0 3.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 29.6 1.9 5.5 37.0 60.8 3.8 11.4 76.0 60.8 3.8 11.4 76.0 189.0 SHORELAND EROSION *8 0 3.0 3.8 1.5 0 6.0 7.5 1.5 0 6.1 7.6 18.9 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.9 0 2.2 3.1 2.6 0 6.7 9.3 4.3 0 11.2 15.5 27.9 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 3.6 0 1.2 4.8 2.2 0 0.7 2.9 0.9 0 0.5 1.4 9.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.8 7.5 a 8.3 1.8 16.5 0 18.3 2.3 20.5 0 22.8 49.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 18.6 34.5 0 53.1 8.3 15.5 0 23.8 6.0 11.2 0 17.2 94.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 82.6 62.7 26.3 171.6 115.3 52.2 76.3 243.8 97.3 54.0 107.5 258.8 674.2 TABLE 1-200 Lake Superior, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1900 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedenif Non-Fed Privm Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Prwft Tout Total WATER WITHDRAWALS. MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 5.4 0 5.4 0 12.6 0 12.6 18.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 13.3 13.3 17.5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 3.6 3.6 5.2 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.7 MINING 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 15.0 15.0 0 0 29.8 29.8 47.1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 18.7 19.7 a 3.6 68.5 72A 91.8 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 25.0 0 25.0 0 107.8 0 107.8 0 128.2 0 128.2 261.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.0 1.4 0 2.4 1.4 4.3 0 5.7 2.4 4.6 0 7.0 15.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 7.3 7.3 0 0 45.7 45.7 0 0 76.2 76.2 129.2 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0 4.0 B.0 0 0 8.0 12.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0,3 0.7 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.5 5.2 7.4 1.5 3.0 10.6 15.1 23.4 SHORELAND EFIOS16N 0.0 0 0.4 M .6 0 2.4 3.0 1.2 0 4.9 6.1 9.5 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.0 3.0 0 0 7.9 7.9 11.2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 1.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 1.2 0 1.2 2.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.6 6.1 0 7.7 11.1 44.5 0 55.6 20.1 80.1 0 100.2 163.5 TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 2.7 33.6 11.3 _47.6 17.8 16;. 9;:i 280.2 3;-; ;n@_@ 21;, 48i.; gl@_; TABLE 1-201 Lake Superior, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 48.5 3.3 3.3 100 13.2 13.2 100 2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 125.5 2.1 2.1 100 14.9 14.9 100 7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.5 0.3 0.3 100 3.0 3.0 Too IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 10.7 8.0 8.0 100 17.2 17.2 100 2 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 576.5 38.9 38.9 100 97.3 97.3 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 516 0 0 --- 1,100 1,100 100 2, NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 44.7 48.1 48.1 100 55.9 55.9 100 6 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 55.2 44.4 44.4 100 39.7 39.7 100 6 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0.0 --- --- 0.0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,820 + 3,840 over + 10,400 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 7,090 987 677 68 2,170 1,700 78 3, 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 2,270 284 271 95 403 501 over 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE 1,800 1,800 --- --- 1,800 --- --- 11 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 99.5 99.5 100 136 136 100 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 473 473 89.2 19 473 255 54 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 117 117 0.0 0 117 0.0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 10,000 10,000 2,090 20 10,000 6,020 60 10, SHORELAND EROSION MILES 156 156 5.7 4 156 17.2 11 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,430 1,430 94.2 6 1,430 283 20 11 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 254 254 51.3 20 254 152 60 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES @.8 5.8 1.6 28 5.8 2.7 46 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 706 871 312 36 1,360 829 61 2, -RURAL 1000 ACRES 137 187 60.7 32 187 68.3 36 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 272 346 60.0 17 511 116 23 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 731 over 60.0 722 over 1000 USER DAYS 3020.0 82.0 93.2 over 68.4 195 over AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.1 2.5 over 0.5 6.6 over -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 0.0 34.2 over 0.0 58.0 over TABLE 1-202 Lake Superior, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001 -I= RESOUBCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Noo-fed Plive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed PF WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.3 0.6 0 0.9 0.8 1.9 0 2.7 1.0 2.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 36.4 38.3 0 3.2 6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 29.2 9.8 0 39.0 18. 6.2 0 25.0 17.2 5.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.3 3.4 0 5.7 0.7 1.8 0 2.5 1.2 2.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 9.8 9.8 8.4 28.0 7.8 7.8 6.6 22.2 6.5 6.5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 48.0 0 0 48.0 18.0 0 0 18.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES,& PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.3 0 0.9 1.2 0.8 0 1.9 2.7 0.4 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 56.8 3.6 10.0 71.0 114.4 7.2 21.4 143.0 114.4, 7.2 SHORELAND EROSION .8 0 3.0, 3.8 1.6 0 6.0 7.5 1.5 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.9 0 2.2 3.1 2.6 0 6.7 9.3 4.3 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- -URBAN 3.6 0 1.2 4.8 2.2 0 0.7 2.9 0.9 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.8 7.5 0 8.3 1.8 16.5 0 18.3 .2.3 20.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 18.6 34.5 0 53.1 8.3 15.5 0 23.8 6.0 11.2 TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 171.4 69.2 29.4 270.0 177.9 58.6 85.3 321.8 155.8 59.0 TABLE 1-203 Lake Superior, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework .1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-20 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Pfivate Total fedwal Non-Fed Privm Total Fedwal NQn-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 5.4 0 5.4 0 12.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0;0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 15.0 15.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 18.7 19.7 0 3.6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 108.6 0 108.6 0 221.1 0 221.1 0 271.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.0 1.4 0 2.4 1.4 4.3 0 5.7 2.4 4.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.3 7.3 0 0 45.7 45.7 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 6.0 0 0 6.0 28.1 0 0 28.1 32.1 0 RELATED LAND USES & P OBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.6 3.2 1.1 15.9 2.5 4.9 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 .6 0 2.4 3.0 1.2 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.0 3.0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 010 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0 0.6 0.0 0.7 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 1.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.6 6.1 0 7.7 11.1 44.5 0 55.6 20.1 80.1 -EXTENSIVE 5;7@ 37T -D 42Z. TOTAL 13;.@ 4F@ 281.5 lul. TABLE 1-204 Lake Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT St"LY N 0 Y, N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,040 479 635 over 1.400 1,580 over SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5,680 585 169 29 2.190 1,020 47 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MI LLION GALLONS PER DAY 234.2 30.9 25.6 83 88.5 71.1 80 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 363 466 326 70 885 641 72 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 45.9 39.4 14.9 38 ill 49.7 45 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5,430 3,160 3,160 100 17,100 17,100 100 4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 686 965 965 100 1,450 1,450 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,920 3,313 3,313 100 3,130 3,130 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PCR DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 47.300 47,300 100 4 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 42,300 49,100 17,300 35 94,200 40,200 43 15 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 10DO ANGLER DAYS 27,700 10,500 8.620 82 20,500 18,300 89 3 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 12,800 3,340 1,040 31 6,100 2,726 45 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 2,620 2,620 --- --- 2,620 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- ill ill 100 151 151 100 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 8,950 8,950 730 8 8,950 2,190 24 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 1,520 1,520 142 9 1.520 197 13 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 9,050 9,050 981 11 9.050 2,940 32 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 587 587 26 4 587 78 13 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 3.800 3,800 204 5 3.800 612 16 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 410 410 82 20 410 246 60 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 70.8 74.9 21.9 29 78.5 40.2 51 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 14,100 20,300 14,400 71 40,700 32,700 80 8 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 11100 1,100 154 14 11100 300 27 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3,570 4,580 1,300 28 5,660 2,070 37 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 1,710 674 39 4,530 1,620 36 IODD USER DAYS 23,700 7,090 709 10 10,900 1,860 17 1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 14.9 5.4 36 31.6 13.6 43 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 87.8 37.8 43 183 92.2 50 TABLE 1-205 Lake Michigan, C apital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-IM RESDU CE USE CATEGORY Fedenif Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwol Noo-Fed prive" Total Federal Non-Fed p, WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 40.1 93.6 0 133.7 79.2 184.9 0 264.1 117.7 274.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 14.0 14.0 0 0 70.5 70.5 0 0 14 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0 1.4 1.6 0.3 0 2.2 2.5 0.2 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 10.0 10.0 0 0 9.8 9.8 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 5.5 105.0 110.5 0 24.3 462.3 486.6 0 44.3 84 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 385.1 128.3 0 513.4 368.3 122.8 0 491.1 500.3 166.6 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR AEC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 6.3 11.0 0 17.3 2.9 5.9 0 8.8 5.2 10.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 33.9 33.9 29.1 96.9 60.3 60.3 51.5 172.1 48.1 48.1 4 GUMMEHUIAL FibilING COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 37.5 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT ' 8.2 0 21.1 29.3 16.6 0 42.4 59.0 9.7 0 2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 10.3 0 24.0 34.3 5.1 0 11.9 17.0 12.0 0 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 32.8 2.0 6.2 41.0 66.4 4.1 12.5 83.0 64.8 4.0 1 SHORELAND EROSION 2.7 0 10.6 13.3 5.3 0 21.3 26.6 5.3 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.9 0 4.8 6.7 5.7 0 14.4 20.1 9.4 0 2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- 7- --- --- --- -URSA% 121.3 0 40.3 161.6 22.7 0 7.4 30.1 23.3 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3.3 29.9 0 33.2 5.6 49.8 0 55.4 4.9 44.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 78.0 144.9 0 222.9 96.7 179.4 0 276.1 79.9 148.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 724.1 449.1 267.2 1440.4 772.6 631.5 708.2 2112.3 880.8 739.2 116 TABLE 1-206 Lake Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Frameworl 1971-1980 1981-1= 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed - private Total Faderal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 77.3 0 77.3 0 607.1 0 607.1 0 1366.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 14.0 14.0 0 0 188.8 188.8 0 0 59 RURAL DOMESTIC 6 LIVESTOCK 0 0 3.2 3.2 0 0 23.4 23.4 0 0 4 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 8.6 8.6 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 7.0 7.0 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.4 27.0 28.4 0 18.2 345.7 363.9 0 53.5 101 NON-WITHDRAINAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 352.0 0 352.0 0 1024.0 0 1024.0 0 1388.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.1 3.4 0 5.5 5.9 13.7 0 19.6 8.4 17.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 22.1 22.1 0 0 159.3 159.3 0 0 28 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 15.2 0 0 15.2 30.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.8 5.8 0 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 4.3 4.3 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 1.4 5.0 7.1 1.4 2.9 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.0 1A 2.1 0 8.5 10.6 4.3 a I STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 6.5 6.5 0 0 1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0 2.0 0 2.0 0.1 2.3 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 2.8 0 2.8 0 2.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 8.5 33.3 0 41.8 59.2 236.5 0 295.7 105.8 423.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 11.0 469.6 72.4 553.0 83.1 1905.7 762.9 2751.7 150.4 3256.9 203 TABLE 1-207 Lake Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N o % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,040 479 635 over 1,400 1,580 over SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5,680 585 169 29 2,190 1,020 47 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 234.2 30.9 25.6 83 88.5 71.1 80 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 363 466 326 70 B85 641 72 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 45.9 39.4 14.9 38 111 49.7 45 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5,430 3,160 3,160 100 17,100 17,100 100 4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 686 965 965 100 1,450 1,450 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 'MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,920 3,313 3,313 100 3,130 3,130 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 47,300 47,300 100 4 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 42,300 49,100 17,300 35 94,200 40,200 43 15 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 100D ANGLER DAYS 27,700 10,500 8,620 82 20,500 18,300 89 3 IWO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 12,800 3,340 1,040 31 6,100 2,726 45 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 2,620 2,620 --- --- 2,620 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- ill 100 151 151 100 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 8,950 8,950 1,630 18 8,950 4,630 52 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 1,520 1,520 275 18 1,520 686 45 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 9,050 9,050 1,310 14 9,050 3,940 44 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 587 587 26 4 587 78 13 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 3,800 3,800 204 5 3,800 612 16 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 410 410 82 20 410 246 60 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 76.8 74.9 21.9 29 78.5 40.2 51 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 14,100 20,300 14,400 71 40,700 32,700 80 8 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 11100 1,100 154 14 11100 300 27 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3,570 4,580 1,300 28 5,660 2,070 37 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 1,710 674 39 4,530 1,620 36 1000 USER DAYS 23,700 7,090 709 10 10,900 1,860 17 1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 14.9 5.4 36 31.6 13.6 43 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 87.8 37.8 43 183 92.2 50 TABLE 1-208 Lake Michigan, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal No*-Fed Prive" Total F16 I Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 40.1 93.6 0 133.7 79.2 184.9 0 264.1 117.7 274.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 14.0 14.0 0 0 70.5 70.5 0 0 14 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0 1.4 1.6 0.3 0 2.2 2.5 0.2 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 10.0 10.0 0 0 9.8 9.8 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 5.5 105.0 110.5 0 24.3 462.3 486.6 0 44.3 84 NQ.N-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 622.5 207.5 0 830.0 633.8 211.2 0 845.9 681.8 227.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 6.3 11.0 0 17.3 2.9 5.9 0 8.8 5.2 10.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 33.9 33.9 29.1 96.9 60.3 60.3 51.5 172.1 48.1 48.1 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 37.5 0 0 37.5 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 16.6 0 42.5 59.1 30.9 0 79.3 110.2 18.8 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 12.7 0 29.5 42.2 19.9 0 46.3 66.2 12.4 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 44.0 2.8 8.2 55.0 89.6 5.6 16.8 712.0 88.0 5.5 SHORELAND EROSION 2.7 0 10.6 13.3 5.3 0 21.3 26.6 5.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.9 0 4.8 6.7 5.7 0 14.4 20.1 9.4 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 121.3 0 40.3 161.6 22.7 0 7.4 30.1 23.3 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3.3 29.9 0 33.2 5.6 49.8 0 55.4 4.9 44.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 78.0 144.9 0 222.9 96.7 179.4 0 276.1 79.9 148.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1,028.1 529.1 296.1 1,853.3 1,208.8 721.4 783.8 2,714.0 1,095.0 802.3 1 TABLE 1-209 Lake Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-20; RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priveft Total Fedwal Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed. WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 77.3 0 77.3 0 607.1 0 607.1 0 1366.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 14.0 14.0 0 0 188.8 188.8 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 3.2 3.2 0 0 23.4 23.4 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 8.6 8.6 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 7.0 7.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.4 27.0 28.4 0 18.2 345.7 363.9 0 53.5 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 1,194.7 D 1,194.7 0 2,880.7 0 P, 880. 7 0 4,491.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.1 3.4 0 5.5 5.9 . 13.7 0 19.6 8.4 17.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 22.1 22.1 0 0 159.3 159.3 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 6.0 0 0 6.0 55.2 0 0 55.2 86.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 12.9 12.9 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 8.5 8.5 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.3 1.2 2.5 8.8 12.5 2.2 4.4 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.0 1.3 2.1 0 8.5 10.6 4.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 6.5 6.5 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-UROAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0 2.0 0 2.0 0.1 2.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 2.8 0 2.8 0 2.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 8.5 33.3 0 41.8 59.2 236.5 0 295.7 105.8 423.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 17.0 1,312.4 73.6 1,403.0 123.6 3,763.5 778.0 4,665.1 207.2 6,362.2 2 TABLE 1-210 Lake Huron, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1990 20W RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 132.6 33.8 33.8 100 121 121 100 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 540 107 107 100 354 354 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 39.3 8.3 8.3 100 20.9 20.9 100 3 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 23.3 84.9 84.9 100 132 132 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 24.8 8.6 8.6 100 25.6 25.6 100 5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 750 1,130 1,130 100 7.320 7,320 100 18, NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 85.0 ill ill 100 175 175 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 465 418 418 100 262 262 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 5,310 6.650 3,950 55 12,500 9.740 78 19, 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 6,140 3,060 2,300 75 5,790 4.760 82 8, 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,800 1.040 349 34 1,810 936 52 2. 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 854 854 --- ... 854 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 27.5 27.5 100 40.5 40.5 100 5 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,050 2,050 205 10 2,050 615 30 2. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 572 572 51.7 9 572 65.2 11 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,810 2.810 286 10 2,810 858 31 2. SHORELAND EROSION MILES 163 163 1.6 1 163 4.8 3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,710 1,710 125 7 1,710 376 22 1, $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 142 142 28.4 20 142 85.2 60 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 8.1 8.9 2.1 24 9.9 4.4 44 1 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 622 856 300 35 1.380 722 52 2 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 294 292 71 24 292 118 40 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,110 1,300 437 34 1,510 598 40 1 WILDLIFE MA14AGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 239 49 21 771 136 18 1 1000 USER DAYS 6,800 825 308 37 1,710 1,040 61 2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.7 1.3 76 3.2 3.4 over -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES RA 9.6 .5.6 58 18.3 12.1 66 TABLE 1-211 Lake Huron, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-IM -1961-2000 2001-2020 RIESOURCEUSE CATEGORY Federol Non-fqd Prim TOW fedeml Non-Fed prlyft Tafal Faftal Nen-FGd p WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.3 10.1 0 14.4 11.6 27.2 0 38.8 16.1 37.6 SELF-SUPPLiED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.9 8.9 0 0 20.5 20.5 0 0 4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.0 37.5 39.5 0 10.8 206 216.8 0 20.0 38 NON--VVITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL @%ASTEWAIER DISCHARGES 52.6 17.5 0 70.1 59.4 19.7 a 79.1 81.1 27.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 1.2 0 2.0 0.8 1.7 0 2.5 3.7 6.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 10.6 10.6 9.0 30.2 12.2 12.2 10.5 34.9 20.0 20.0 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 340.0 0 0 340.0 0 0 0 0 340.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT Z. b 0 6.4 8.9 4.9 0 12.6 17.5 3.0 0 7.6 10.6 37.0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.6 0 10.9 15.5 1.0 0 2.4 3.4 8.5 0 19.7 28.2 47.1 FOREST LANO-TREATMENT 11.2 0.7 2.1 14.0 21.6 1.3 4.1 27.0 21.6 1.3 4.1 27.0 68.0 SHORELANO EROSION 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 2.1 2.6 .5 0 2.1 2.6 6.4 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.1 0 3.0 4.1 3.5 0 8.8 12.3 5.7 0 14.8 20.5 36.9 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 20.7 0 6.9 27.6 16.0 0 5.3 21.3 26.7 0 8.9 35.6 84.5 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2.8 25.0 0 27.8 5.1 45.4 0 50.5 3.1 28.5 0 31.6 1ID9.9 AESTIJETIC III CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 14.0 26.0 0 40.0 20.0 37.2 0 57.2 23.3 43.3 0 66.6 163.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 125.4 93.1 88.8 307.3 496.6 155.5 275.3 927.4 213.3 184.1 501.4 898.8 2133.5 TABLE 1-212 Lake Huron, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total FWairal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Total WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.8 0 5.8 0 66.1 0 66.1 0 138.3 0 138.3 210.2 SELF-SUPPLtEO INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 134.1 134.1 0 0 410.6 410.6 552.9 RURAL DOIAE7TIC & LIVESTOCK 0 a 2.5 2.5 0 0 14.3 14.3 0 0 26.0 26.0 42.8 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 2.3 2.3 4.1 MINIFIG 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 6.4 6.4 0 0 14.5 14.5 21.7 THEAMAL POWER COOLING 0 .5 9.7 10.2 0 7.6 144.5 152.1 0 23.5 446.7 470.2 632.5 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 42.0 0 42.0 0 166.0 0 166.0 0 228.0 0 228.0 436.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.7 1.1 0 1.8 2.4 5.5 0 7.9 4.2 7.2 0 11.4 21.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.7 7.7 0 0 49.5 49.5 0 0 90.0 90.0 147.2 CCIMMFRCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 80.0 0 0 80.0 160.0 0 0 160.0 240.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3.2 3.2 5.2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE a 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 3.3 3.3 5.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.9 2.8 0.3 0.7 2.4 3.4 5 6 Q SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.8 1.0 0.4 0 1.7 2.1 3.2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 10.7 10.7 15.3 FLOOD PLAIN' -URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 1.6 --URBAN 0.0 0.1 a 0.1 0.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.1 0 1.0 .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 1.6 0 1.6 5.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R EC R EAT ION ANTENSIVE 1.9 7.7 0 9.6 13.1 52.7 0 65.8 25.8 103.3 0 129.1 20,i-; -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 2.6 58.7 30.7 92.0 96.0 301.5 360.6 758.1 190.8 503.5 1011.4 1705.7 2555.8 TABLE 1-213 Lake Huron, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 132.6 33.8 33.8 100 121 121 100 2g SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 540 107 107 100 354 354 100 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 39.3 8.3 8.3 100 20.9 20.9 100 32. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 23.3 84.9 84.9 100 132 132 100 21 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 24.8 8.6 8.6 100 25.6 25.6 100 55. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 750 1,130 1,130 100 7,320 7,320 100 18,80 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 85.0 ill ill 100 175 175 100 26 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 465 418 418 100 262 262 100 36 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 5,310 6,650 3,950 55 12,500 9,740 78 19,90 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 6,140 3,060 2,300 75 5,790 4,760 82 8,80 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,800 1,040 349 34 11810 936 52 2.70 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 854 854 --- --- 854 --- --- 85 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 27.5 27.5 100 40.5 40.5 100 58. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,050 2,050 449 22 2,050 1,250 61 2.05 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 572 572 76.3 13 572 190 33 57 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,810 2,810 343 12 2,810 1,030 37 2,81 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 163 163 1.6 1 163 4.8 3 16 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,710 1,710 125 7 1,710 376 22 1,71 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 142 142 28.4 20 142 85.2 60 14 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 8.1 8.9 2.1 24 9.9 4.4 44 10. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 622 856 300 35 1,380 722 52 2,53 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 294 292 71 24 292 118 40 29 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,110 1,300 437 34 1,510 598 40 1,77 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 239 49 21 771 136 18 1,40 1000 USER DAYS 6,800 825 308 37 1,710 1,040 61 2,67 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 1.7 1.3 76 3.2 3.4 over 5. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 9.6 5.6 58 18.3 12.1 66 33. TABLE 1-214 Lake Huron, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 20014M RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed PHYM Totsi Fedwal Non-Fed plivate Tt-.I Federal Non-Fed Privet WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.3 10.1 0 14.4 11.6 27.2 0 38.8 16.1 37.6 0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 1) 0 8.9 8.9 0 0 20.5 20.5 0 0 42.1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.4 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 2.2 MINING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 1.9 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.0 37.5 39.5 0 10.8 206 216.8 0 20.0 380.6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 130.5 43.5 0 174.0 115.5 38.5 0 154.0 115.5 38.5 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 1.2 0 2.0 0.8 1.7 0 2.5 3.7 6.4 0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 10.6 10.6 9.0 30.2 12.2 12.2 10.5 34.9 20.0 20.0 17.0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 76.0 0 0 76.0 363.0 0 0 363.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT q. u 0 12.1 16.9 8.8 0 22.5 31.3 5.4 0 13. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.3 0 9.9 14.2 7.0 0 16.5 23.5 4.5 0 10. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 12.8 0.8 2.4 16.0 27.2 1.7 5.1 34.0 27.2 1.7 5. SHORELAND EROSION 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 2.1 2.6 .5 0 2. STREAMBANK EROSION 1.1 0 3.0 4.1 3.5 0 8.8 12.3 5.7 0 14. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 20.7 0 6.9 27.6 16.0 0 5.3 21.3 26.7 0 8. -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2.8 25.0 0 27.8 5.1 45.4 0 50.5 3.1 28.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 14.0 26.0 0 40.0 20.0 37.2 0 57.2 23.3 43.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 282.9 119.2 93.8 195.9 591.2 174.7 300.3 1,066.2 251.7 196.0 499. TABLE 1-215 Lake Huron, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,00( 1971-1980 1981-2M . 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed wive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedmi Non-Fed pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.8 0 5.8 0 66.1 0 66.1 0 138.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 134.1 134.1 0 0 410. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 14.3 14.3 0 0 26. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 2 MINING 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 6.4 6.4 0 0 14 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 .5 9.7 10.2 0 7.6 144.5 152.1 0 23.5 446 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES u 232.3 0 232. 3 0 570.7 0 570.7 0 851.9 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.7 ill 0 1.8 2.4 5.5 0 7.9 4.2 7.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.7 7.7 0 0 49.5 49.5 0 0 90 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 9.0 0 0 9.0 127.0 0 0 127.0 218.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.7 3.7 0 0 5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 10 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 2.5 3.6 D. 7 1.4 4 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.8 1.0 0.4 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 10 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.1 0.9 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 1.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.9 7.7 0 9.6 13.1 52.7 0 65.8 25.8 103.3 --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 11.6 24;.0 30.9 291.5 143.1 706.3 364.3 1,213.7 249.2 1,128.1 1,017 TABLE 1-216 Lake Erie, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,770 307 307 100 1,060 1,060 lob 2 1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,870 356 356 100 1,930 1,930 100 4:0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 133.1 15.1 15.1 100 48.8 48.8 100 75 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY .237 215 215 100 414 414 100 6 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 115.1 48.3 48.3 100 180 180 100 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 8.760 --- 91020 9,020 Wo 2612 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,880 2,130 2,130 100 29670 2,670 100 3.4 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,490 2,980 2,980 100 2,080 2,080 100 2.6 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PgR DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 30,700 38,900 23,600 61 73,100 48,600 66 119,0 IODD ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 27,900 4,880 4,540 93 14,100 13,500 96 20,7 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE .NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 6,110 1,520 413 27 3,000 1,133 38 4,8 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 1,240 1,240 --- 1,240 --- --- 1,2 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 192 192 100 254 254 100 3 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 6,380 6,380 615 10 6,380 1,840 29 6.3 DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 3,400 3,400 152 4 3,400 436 13 3A FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,230 2,230 172 8 2.230 516 23 2,2 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 105 105 8.9 8 105 14.8 14 1 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 2,490 2,490 116 5 2,490 349 14 2A $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 579 579 115.8 20 579 347.4 60 5 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 10DO ACRES 121 124 49.4 40 128 85.9 67 1 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 30.600 44,600 37,000 83 74,100 68,500 92 100.2 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 735 733 208 28 728 1 365 50 7 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 7,740 9,650 4,080 42 13,100 79230 55 17.6 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 888 95.4 11 2,080 275 13 3.4 100D USER DAYS 13,900 6,490 1,020 16 10,200 3,670 36 14,4 AESTHETIC &,CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 11.9 7.3 61 22.5 15.3 68 38 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 67.9 39.2 58 127 78.6 62 2 TABLE 1-217 Lake Erie, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1960 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Fedwal NaD-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed P, WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 76.7 178.8 0 255.5 97.0 226.2 0 323.2 122.2 285.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 29.5 29.5 0 0 130.6 130.6 0 0 17 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0 1.0 1.1 0.1 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 6.4 6.4 0 0 4.4 4.4 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 5.7 5.7 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.8 299.9 315.7 0 30.0 57 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 797.7 265.9 0 1063.6 566.9 188.8 0 755.7 753.6 251.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 10.1 22.4 0 32.5 5.4 8.4 0 13.8 8.4 9.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 29.2 29.2 24.6 83.0 50.4 50.4 43.1 143.9 36.0 36.0 3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 7.5 0 19.0 26.5 14.9 0 38.3 53.2 8.9 0 22 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 13.3 0 31.0 44.3 24.2 0 56.4 80.6 24.1 0 56 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 9.6 0.6 1.8 12.0 19.2 1.2 3.6 24.0 19.2 1.2 3 SHORELAND EROSION 1.3 0 5.0 6.3 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 0.6 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.0 0 2.8 3.8 3.2 0 8.3 11.5 5.4 0 13 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- 245.5 0 81.7 327.2 153.3 0 51.0 204.3 33.6 0 11 -RURAL --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3.8 34.0 0 37.8 6.4 57.8 0 64.2 8.5 76.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 111.2 206.5 0 317.7 140.3 260.7 0 401.0 116.6 216.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1306.9 737.4 204.2 2248.5 1081.9 B09. 3 644.6 2535.8 1137.2 906.2 902 TABLE 1-218 Lake Erie, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed PrivM Total Federal Non-Fed prive" Total Federal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 101.5 0 101.5 0 466.1 0 466.1 0 1005.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 26.7 26.7 0 0 342.4 342.4 0 a 891 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 13.1 13.1 0 0 24 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 7 MINING 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 32.4 32.4 0 0 82 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8.1 154.3 162.4 0 31.7 602 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 899.0 0 899.0 0 2176.0 0 2176.0 0 2840.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 3.5 4.3 0 7.8 3.9 5.9 0 9.8 5.9 8.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 16.7 16.7 0 0 119.6 119.6 0 0 218 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 8.5 8.5 0 0 16 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.8 2.5 0.5 1.0 3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0 2.5 3.1 0.9 0 3 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 9 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -URBAN 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 0.2 4.9 0 5.1 0.2 6.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 4.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 11.4 45.7 0 57.1 83.2 333.1 0 416.3 146.9 587.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 15.0 1053.1 52.3 1120.4 88.1 2997.8 687.5 3773.4 154.4 4484.7 1869 TABLE 1-219 Lake Erie, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY IN 0 % IN 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,770 307 307 100 1,060 1,060 100 2 11 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3 870 356 356 100 1,930 1,930 100 4:030 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY Ifi.1 15.1 15.1 100 48.8 48.8 100 75.9 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 237 215 215 100 414 402 97 667 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 115.1 48.3 48.3 100 180 141 78 398 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 8,760 0 0 --- 9.020 9,020 100 26,200 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,880 2,130 2,130 100 2,670 2,670 100 3,450 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,490 2,980 2,980 100 2,080 2,080 100 2,690 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 30,700 38o9OO 23,600 61 73,100 48,600 66 119,00 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING ION ANGLER DAYS 27,900 4,880 4.540 93 14,100 13,500 96 20,70 IDDO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING IODD BOAT DAYS 6,110 1,520 413 27 3,000 1,133 38 4,83( 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 1,240 1.240 --- --- 1,240 --- --- 1,24 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 192 192 100 254 254 100 31 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT IDDO ACRES 6,380 6,390 1,340 21 6.390 3,820 60 369 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 3,400 3,400 302 9 3,400 812 24 3:40 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 10DO ACRES 2,230 2,230 313 14 2,230 934 42 2,23 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 105 105 8.9 8 105 14.8 14 10 STRFAMBANK EROSION MILES 2,490 2,490 116 5 2,490 349 14 2,49 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 579 579 115.8 20 579 347.4 60 57 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 121 124 49.4 40 128 85.9 67 13 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 30,600 44.600 37,000 83 74,100 68,500 92 100,20 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 735 733 208 28 728 365 50 72 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 7,740 9,650 4,080 42 13.100 7,230 55 17,60 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 888 95.4 11 2,080 275 13 3,46 1000 USER DAYS 13,900 6,490 1,020 16 10,200 3,670 36 14,40 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 11.9 7.3 61 22.5 15.3 68 38. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 67.9 39.2 58 127 78.6 62 20 TABLE 1-220 Lake Erie, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-202D RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Nos-Fed Privaft Toul Fedwall Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 76.7 178.8 0 255.5 97.0 226.2 0 323.2 122.2 285.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 29.5 29.5 0 0 130.6 130.6 0 0 173 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0 1.0 1.1 0.1 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 6.4 6.4 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 1 6 MINING 0 0 1. 7 1.7 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.8 299.9 315.7 0 30.0 570 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 1,831.5_ 610 *5 0 2,442.0 1,196.5 398.5 0 1,594.0 1,010.2 336.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 10.1 22.4 .0 32.5 5.4 8.4 0 13.8 8.4 9.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 29.2 29.2 24.6 83.0 50.4 50.4 43.1 143.9 36.0 36.0 31 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- 0 --- 0 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 54.0 0 54.0 544.5 0 0 544.5 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 15.5 0 39.5 55.0 29.1 0 74.8 103.9 17.6 0 45. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 17.3 0 40.4 57.7 30.2 0 70.6 200.8 19.9 0 46. 17.6 1.1 3.3 22.0 34.4 2.2 6.4 43.0 34.4 2.2 6. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 2. SHORELAND EROSION 1.3 0 5.0 6.3 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 0.6 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.0 0 2.8 3.8 3.2 0 8.3 11.5 5.4 0 13. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --URBAN 245.5 0 81.7 327.2 153.3 0 51.0 204.3 33.6 0 il. -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3.8 34.0 0 37.8 6.4 57.8 0 64.2 8.5 76.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 111.2 206.5 0 317.7 140.3 260.7 0 401.0 116.6 216.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 2,414.7 1,082.5 235.3 3,732.5 2,290.4 1,020.0 695.4 4,005.8 1,413.5 992.8 913. TABLE 1-221 Lake Erie, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1071-1980 1981-2000 2001-202 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed P&M Total Federal Non-Fed Privau Total Federal Non-Fed Priw WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 101.5 0 101.5 0 466.1 0 466.1 0 1005.3 SELF-SUPPLtED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 26.7 26.7 0 0 342.4 342.4 0 0 891. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 13.1 13.1 0 0 24. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 7. MINING 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 28.1 28.1 0 0 64. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8.1 154.3 162.4 0 31.7 602. NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 2,133.7 0 2,133.7 0 5,242.P, 0 5,242.2 0 8,894.@ INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.5 4.3 0 7.8 3.9 5.9 0 9.8 5.9 8.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 16.7 16.7 0 0 119.6 119.6 0 0 218. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 6.0 0 0 6.0 154.0 0 0 154.0 284.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 12.0 12.0 0 0 19. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 12.4 12.4 0 0 19. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.2 4.0 5.8 0.8 1.5 5. SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0 2.5 3.1 0.9 0 3. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 9. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 0.2 4.9 0 5.1 0.2 6.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 4.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 11.4 45.7 0 57.1 83.2 333.1 0 416.3 146.9 587.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 21.1 2,287.8 53.3 2,362.2 242.5 6,064.7 696.0 7,003.2 438.7 10,539.6 1, 8c;5 TABLE 1-222 Lake Ontario, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Nee& Met, Normal Framework 1970 1990 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY YNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 362 47.3 47.3 100 220 220 100 424 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 388 59 59 100 180 180 100 519 RURAL DOMESTIC At LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 52.2 9.4 9.4 100 17.7 17.7 100 25.9 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 48.1 50.5 50.5 100 126 126 100 214 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 17.7 13.2 13.2 100 36 36 100 75.4 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,780 3,920 -3,920 100 4,110 4,110 100 6,160 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 368 427 427 100 585 585 100 773 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 631 572 572 100 490 490 100 11000 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 100 4,000 49000 100 57,900 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR@ REC. IWO RECREATION DAYS 129700 10,100 8,590 85 219200 23,000 Over 35,600 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FIS14ING i000 ANGLER DAYS 11,800 5,350 49210 79 9,700 8,390 86 15,200 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 4,030 636 401 63 11210 1,037 86 1,940 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 750 750 --- --- 750 --- --- 750 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 1.5 1.5 100 1.8 1.8 100 2.1 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2.600 2,600 215 8 2,600 647 25 2,600 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE IODD ACRES 604 604 78.1 13 604 144 24 604 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,840 3,840 300 8 3,840 903 24 3,840 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 186 186 3.4 2 186 10.1 5 186 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,510 1,510 46.2 3 1,510 139 9 1,510 $IOOD AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 326 326 65 20 326 195.6 60 326 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 16.4 16.8 2.6 15 17.3 5.9 34 17.8 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 339 473 179 38 948 492 52 11910 -RURAL IODO ACRES 249 249 38.3 15 249 69.8 28 249 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,520 2,170 702 32 3,440 1,330 39 5.840 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 78 123 over 544 265 49 1,050 IOOD USER DAYS 2,110 491 180 37 983 580 59 1,510 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE IODO ACRES --- 1.4 5.7 Over 4.2 13 over 8.2 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 4.3 33.8 over 19.3 78.3 over 40.7 TABLE 1-223 Lake Ontario, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) - 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 B_E_90V8CE USE CATEGORY Fedmi Non-Fed Privau Total Fedwal Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Fri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.2 9.9 a 14.1 15.4 35.8 0. 51.2 17.8 41.4 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 10.0 10.0 0 0 28 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 2 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 6.9 130.2 137.1 0 1.4 27.5 28.9 0 3.6 68 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARG6 90.1 29.9 a 120.0 60.8 20.2 a 81.0 110.3 36.7 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 7.2 7.3 0 14.5 9.1 4.5 0 13.6 10.1 5.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 11.9 11.9 10.1 33.9 12.2 12.2 10.5 34.9 11.4 11.3 9 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT Z.q 0 6.3 8.7 4.9 0 12.7 17.6 2.9 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 5.2 0 12.1 17.3 4.1 0 9.7 13.8 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 13.6 0.8 2.6 17.0 27.2 1.7 5.1 34.0 27.2 1.7 SHORELAND EROSION 0.7 0 2.5 3.2 1.3 0 5.0 6.3 1.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 1.3 0 3.2 4.5 2.1 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 19 6 0 6.6 26.2 103.2 0 34.3 137.5 0.3 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.4 12.6 0 14.0 3.6 32.6 0 36.2 2.3 21.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 31.0 57.7 0 88.7 31.6 58.8 0 90.4 28.2 52.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 187.7 157.0 178.5 503.2 274.7 167.2 120.9 562.8 213.9 173.1 1 TABLE 1-224 Lake Ontario, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Privm Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 6.9 0 6.9 0 79.6 0 79.6 0 191.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.4 4.4 a 0 35.4 35.4 0 0 10 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 4.6 4.6 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.8 33.4 35.2 0 7.3 137.3 144.6 0 9.3 17 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 63.0 0 63.0 0 168.0 0 168.0 0 176.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.1 2.4 0 4.5 7.4 3.7 0 11.1 8.1 4.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 57.9 57.9 0 0 10 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 2.5 3.5 0.7 1.4 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2.1 2.6 1.0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0 1.2 0.1 1.7 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 6.1 24.9 0 31.0 36.7 146.3 0 183.0 59.0 235.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 8.3 99.9 49.7 157.9 44.9 408.6 251.4 704.9 68.9 620.3 41 TABLE 1-225 Lake Ontario, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework - 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 362 47.3 47.3 100 220 220 100 42 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 388 59 59 100 180 180 100 51 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 52.2 9.4 9.4 100 17.7 17.7 100 25. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 48.1 50.5 50.5 100 126 126 100 21 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 17.7 13.2 13.2 100 36 36 100 75. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,780 3,920 3,920 100 4,110 4,110 100 6,16 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 368 427 427 100 585 585 100 77 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 631 572 572 100 490 490 100 1,00 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 100 4,000 4,000 100 57.90 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 12,700 10,100 8,590 85 21,200 23,000 over 35,60 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 11,800 5,350 4,210 79 9,700 8,390 86 15,20 IWO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 4,030 636 401 63 1,210 1,037 86 1,94 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 750 750 --- --- 750 --- --- 75 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 1.5 1.5 100 1.8 1.8 100 2. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,600 2,600 485 19 2,600 1,390 53 2,60 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 604 604 41.5 7 604 119 20 60 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,840 3,840 392 10 3,840 1@180 31 3,84 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 186 186 3.4 2 186 10.1 5 18 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,510 1,510 46.2 3 1,510 139 9 1,51 $1000.AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 326 326 65 20 326 195.6 60 32 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 16.4 16.8 2.6 15 17.3 5.9 34 17. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 339 473 179 38 948 492 52 1191 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 249 249 38.3 15 249 69.8 28 24 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,520 2,170 702 32 3,440 1,330 39 5,84 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 78 123 over 544 265 49 1,05 1000 USER DAYS 2,110 491 180 37 983 580 59 1151 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE IWO ACRES --- 1.4 5.7 over 4.2 13 over 8. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 4.3 33.8 over 19.3 78.3 over 40. TABLE 1-226 Lake Ontario, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Foderal Non-Fed P&M Total Fedwal Nol3.F9d Prive" Totill -Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.2 9.9 0 14.1 15.4 35.8 0 51.2 17.8 41.4 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 10.0 10.0 0 0 28 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 2 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 6.9 130.2 137.1 0 1.4 27.5 28.9 0 3.6 68 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 9X4. 2 324.8 0 1,299.0 222.8 74.2 0 .997.0 145.5 48.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 7.2 7.3 0 14.5 9.1 4.5 0 13.6 10.1 5.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 11.9 11.9 10.1 33.9 12.2 12.2 10.5 34.9 11.4 11.3 9 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 73.0 0 0 73.0 305.2 0 0 305.2 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 3.9 0 10.1 14.0 7.4 0 19.0 26.4 4.5 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 2.0 0 4.5 6.5 3.7 0 8.5 12.2 2.2 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 19.2 1.2 3.6 24.0 36.0 2.3 6.7 45.0 36.0 2.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.7 0 2.5 3.2 1.3 0 5.0 6.3 1.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 1.3 0 3.2 4.5 2.1 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 19.6 0 6.6 26.2 103.2 0 34.3 137.5 0.3 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.4 12.6 0 14.0 3.6 32.6 0 36.2 2.3 21.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 31.0 57.7 0 88.7 31.6 58.8 0 90.4 28.2 52.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1,148.7 432.3 175.7 1,756.7 752.8 221.8 127.6 1,102.2 261.7 185.5 14 TABLE 1-227 Lake Ontario, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework 1071-1980 1981-20M 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privm Toull Fedwal Non-Fed Privm Tatel Fedwal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 6.9 0 6.9. 0 79.6 0 79.6 0 191.0 SELF-SUPP"To INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.4 4,4 0 0 35.4 35.4 0 0 10 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 4.6 4.6 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 o.2. 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.8 33.4 35.2 0 7.3 137.3 144.6 0 9.3 17 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 439.4 0 439.4 0 1,040.3 0 1,040.3 0 1,714.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.1 2.4 0 4.5 7.4 3.7 0 11.1 8.1 4.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 9.1 9.1 a 0 57.9 57.9 0 0 10 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.0 3.0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.0 3.7 5.2 0.9 1.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2.1 2.6 1.0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0 1.2 0.1 1.7 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 6.1 24.9 0 31.0 36.7 146.3 0 183.0 59.0 235.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 17.4 476.3 49.7 1 543.4 11P.1 1,281.2 252.8 1,653.1 181.1 1,258.7 42 TABLE 1-228 Lake,Superior, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differen RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTA-L -By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTA-L By 1980 1981- AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 413 39 78 46 163 89.2 165.8 101.0 356.0 50.2 8 CROPLAND DRAINAGE 117 11.1 4.3 0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -11.1 - FORESTED LAND 10,000 1 .090 2,180.0 2,280.0 5,550.0 2,010.0 4,010.0 3,980.0 10,000,0 920.0 1,83 TABLE 1-229 Lake Michigan, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 8,950.0 73M 1,460.0 870.0 3,060.0 1,630.0 3.000.0 1,510.0 6,140.0 900.0 1,54 CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1,520.0 142.0 55.0 178.0 375.0 275.0 411.0 272.0 958.0 133.0 35 FORESTED LAND 9,050.0 981 1,959.0 1,920.0 4,860.0 1,310.0 2,630.0 2,590.0 6,530.0 329.0 67 TABLE 1-230 Lake Huron, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differen RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 2,050.0 205.0 410.0 246.0 861.0 449.0 801.0 500.0 1,750.0 244.0 39 CROPLAND DRAINAGE 572.0 51.7 13.5 120.8 186.0 76.3 113.7 115.0 305.0 24.6 10 FORESTED LAND 2,810.0 286.0 572.0 572.0 1,430.0 343.0 687.0 690.0 1,720.0 57.0 11 TABLE 1-231 Lake Erie, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 6,380.0 615.0 1,225.0 740.0 2,580.0 1,340.0 2,480.0 1,520.0 5,340.0 725.0 1,255. CROPLAND DRAINAGE 3,400.0 152.0 284.0 314.0 750.0 302.0 510.0 368.0 1,180.0 150.0 226. FORESTED LAND 2,230.0 172.0 344.0 344.0 860.0 313.0 621 .0 626.0 1,560.0 141.0 277. TABLE 1-232 Lake Ontario, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-20 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 2,660.0 215.0 432.0 260.0 907.0 485.0 905.0 550.0 1,940.0 270.0 473 CROPLAND DRAINAGE 604.0 78.1 65.9 0.0 144.0 41.5 77.5 47.0 166.0 -36,6 11 FORESTED LAND 3,840.0 300.0 603.0 607.0 1,510.0 392.0 788.0 780.0 1,960.0 92.0 185 TABLE 1-233 Lake Superior, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESIDURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital CIM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capit WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 1.4 6.9 18.5 25.4 6.9 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 6.1 17.5 23.6 6.1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 5.2 5.5 0.3 IRRIGATION 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.7 1.6 0.9 MINING 2.6 2.3 4.9 2.6 2.3 4.9 12.7 47.1 59.8 12.7 THERMAL POWER COOL%NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 101.7 91.8 193.5 101.7 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 19.8 25.0 44.8 39.0 108.6 147.6 49.0 261.0 310.0 87.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.7 2.4 8.1 5.7 2.4 8.1 11.8 15.1 26.9 11.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 28.0 7.3 35.3 28.0 7.3 35.3 68.7 129.2 197.9 68.7 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 48.0 6.0 54.0 17.8 12.0 29.8 66.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.0 1.2 6.5 0.9 7.4 5.3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 2.4 0.1 2.5 0 0 0 3.4 0.7 4.1 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 37.0 0.9 37.9 71.0 1.8 72.8 189.0 23.4 212.4 357.0 SHORELAND EROSION 3.8 0.4 4.2 3.8 0.4 4.2 18.9 9.5 28.4 18.9 STREAMBANK EROSION 3.1 0.3 3.4 3.1 0.3 3.4 27.9 11.2 39.1 27.9 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 4.8 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 4.8 9.1 1.3 10.4 9.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 8.3 0.4 8,7 8.3 0.4 8.7 49.4 2.5 51,9 49.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 53.1 7.7 60.8 53.1 7.7 60.8 94.1 163.5 257.6 94.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 171.6 47.6 219.2 270.0 138.0 408.0 674.2 811.1 1,485.3 923.8 TABLE 1-234 Lake Michigan, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL - PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital CIM&R TOTAL Capital OM&Ft TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 133.7 77.3 211.0 133.7 77.3 211.0 790.2 2,051.1 2,841.3 790.2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 14.0 14.0 28.0 14.0 14.0 28.0 227.1 798.9 1,026.0 227.1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 1.6, 3.2 4.8 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.1 69.1 75.2 6.1 IRRIGATION 10.0 1.5 11.5 10.0 1.5 11.5 29.8 24.5 54.3 29.8 MINING 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.4 6.8 27.0 33.8 6.8 THERMAL POWER COOLING 110.5 28.4 138.9 110.5 28.4 138.9 1,483.5 1,462.6 2,946.1 1,483.5 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 513.4 352.0 865.4 830.0 1,194.7 2,024.7 1,671.4 2,764.0 4,435.4 2,584.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES ___ --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 17.3 5.5 22.8 17.3 5.5 22.8 41.3 51.3 92.6 41.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 96.9 22.1 119.0 96.9 22.1 119.0 406.5 469.2 875.7 406.5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 44.6 6.0 50.6 37.5 45.6 83.1 200.5 147.6 348.1 RELATED LAND USES PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 29.3 0.8 30.1 59.1 1.4 60.5 123.0 17.1 140.1 236.4 34.5 270.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 34.3 0.8 35.1 42.2 1.1 43.3 91.2 12.2 103.4 149.8 22.6 172.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 41.0 0.9 41.9 55.0 1.3 56.3 205.0 22.5 227.5 277.0 36.0 313.0 SHORELAND EROSION 13.3 1.3 14.6 13.3 1.3 14.6 66.5 33.2 99.7 66.5 33.2 99.7 STREAMBANK EROSION 6.7 0.7 7.4 6.7 0.7 7.4 60.4 24.9 85.3 60.4 24.9 85.3 FLOOD PLAiNS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 161.6 0.3 16119 161.6 0.3 161.9 222.7 4.7 227.4 222.7 4.7 227.4 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 33.2 1.7 34,9 33.2 1.7 34.9 137.7 7.0 144.7 137.7 7.0 4.7 --- --- --- --- --- AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 222.9 41.8 264.7 222.9 41.8 264.7 727.2 866.5 1,593.7 727.2 866.5 1,593.7 TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 1,440.4 56.0 1,96.4 1,85ii 1,403.0 3.256.3 6,33-37i 8,75i.i 15.08i.3 7,653.5 14,695.9 22,351.i TABLE 1-235 Lake Huron, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $l,0W,0W) 1971-IM 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL - PROPOSED NORMAL PROPOSED Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Coplul OM&R TOTAL WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 14.4 5.8 20.2 14.4 5.8 20.2 106.9 210.2 317.1 106.9 210.2 317.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 8.9 8.2 17.1 8.9 8.2 17.1 71.5 552.9 624.4 71.5 552.9 624.4 RURAL DOMEST11C & LIVESTOCK 0.3 2.5 2.8 0.3 2.5 2.8 1.2 42.8 44.0 1.2 42.8 44.0 IRRIGATION 2.3 0.3 2.6 2.3 0.3 2.6 5.9 4.1 10.0 5.9 4.1 10.0 MINING 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.8 7.3 3.5 21.7 25.2 3.5 27.7 25.2 THERMAL POWER COOLING 39.5 10.2 49.7 39.5 10.2 49.7 656.9 632.5 1,289.4 656.9 632.5 1.289.4 WN-WITHDRAWAL WATER USFS MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 70.1 42.0 112.1 174.0 232.3 406.3 257.3 436.0 693.3 482.0 1,654.9 2,136.9 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.0 1.8 3.8 2.0 1.8 3.8 14.6 21.1 35.7 14.6 21.1 35.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 30.2 7.7 37.9 30.2 7.7 37.9 122.1 147.2 269.3 122.1 147.2 269.3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 a 0 76.0 9.0 85.0 340.0 240.0 580.0 439.0 354.0 793.0 RELATED LAND USES St PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 8.9 0.2 9.1 16.9 0.4 17.3 37.0 5.2 42.2 67.4 9.9 77.3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 15.5 0.4 15.9 14.2 0.4 14.6 47.1 5.4 52.5 52.6 7.8 60.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 14.0 0.4 14.4 16.0 0.4 16.4 68.0 6.6 74.6 84.0 10.8 %. 8 SHORELAND EROSION 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.3 6.4 3.2 9.6 6.4 3.2 9.6 STREAMBANK EROSION 4.1 0.5 4.6 4.1 0.5 4.6 36.9 15.3 52.2 36.9 15.3 52.2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 27.6 0.1 27.7 27.6 0.1 27.7 84.5 1.6 86.1 84.5 1.6 86.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 27.8 1.4 29.2 27.8 1.4 29.2 109.9 5.5 115.4 109.9 5.5 115.4 Q, AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 40.0 9.6 49.6 40.0 9.6 49.6 163.8 204.5 368.3 163.8 204.5 368.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 307.3 92.0 399.3 495.9 291.5 787.4 2,133.5 2,555.8 4,689.3 2,509.1 3,900.0 6,409.1 CAD TABLE 1-236 Lake Erie, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PRQPQS9Q NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital CIM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capi WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 255.5 101.5 357.0 255.5 101,5 357.0 986.0 1,572.9 2,558.9 986.0 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 29.5 26.7 56.2 29.5 26.7 56.2 333.9 1.260.9 1,594.8 333.9 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 39.2 41.7 2.5 IRRIGATION 6.4 0.9 7.3 6.4 0.9 7.3 17.6 13.7 31.3 17.3 MINING 2.0 3.3 5.3 1.7 3.4 5,1 17.5 117.7 135.2 10.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 916.0 796.4 1,712.4 916.0 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 1,063.6 899.0 1,962.6 2,442.0 2,133.7 4,575,7 2,824.1 5,915.0 8,739.1 5,383.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 32.5 7.8 40.3 32.5 7.8. 40.3 64.6 32.3 96.9 64.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 83.0 16.7 99.7 83.0 16.7 99.7 329.9 354.7 684.6 329.9 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 54.0 6.0 60.0 0 0 0 598.5 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2b.5 0.7 27.2 55.0 1.3 56.3 111.4 15.5 126.9 221.8 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 44.3 1.1 45.4 57.7 1.4 59.1 205.1 26.1 231.2 224.8 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 12.0 0.5 12.5 22.0 0.6 22.6 60.0 7.9 67.9 108.0 SHORELAND EROSION 6.3 0.6 6.9 6.3 0.6 6.9 12.1 8.0 20.1 12.1 STREAMBANK EROSION 3.8 0.3 4.1 3.8 0.3 4.1 34.5 12.9 47.4 34.5 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 327.2 0.7 327.9 327.2 0.7 327.9 576.3 12.1 588.4 576.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 37.8 1.8 39.6 37.8 1.8 39.6 187.1 9.7 196.8 187.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 317.7 57.1 374.8 317.7 57.1 374.8 1,051.5 1,207.4 2,258.9 1,051.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 2,248.5 1.120.4 3,368.9 3,732.5 2,362.2 6,094.7 7,730.1 11A02.4 19,132.5 11,058.3 TABLE 1-237 Lake Ontario, Comparison of Total Costs, NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 14.1 6.9 21.0 14.1 6.9 21.0 124.5 277.5 402.0 124.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 4.9 4.4 9.3 4.9 4.4 9.3 43.1 143.3 186.4 43.1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.3 0,8 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.9 12.8 13.7 0.9 IRRIGATION 1.1 0.2 1.3 1.1 0.2 1.3 4.6 3.1 7.7 4.6 MINING 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.3 5.0 16.9 21.9 5.0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 137.1 35.2 172,3 137.1 35.2 172.3 2,37.8 364.6 602.4 237.8 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 120.0 63,0 183.0 1,299.0 439.4 1,733.4 348.0 407.0 755.0 1,790.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 14.5 4.5 19.0 14.5 4.5 19.0 43.2 27.7 70.9 43.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 33.9 9.1 43.0 33.9 9.1 43.0 101.2 167.1 268.3 101.2 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 73.0 9.0 82.0 0 0 0 378.2 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 8.7 0.2 8.9 14.0 0.3 14,3 36.8 5.2 42.0 56.5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 17.3 0.4 17.7 6.5 0.2 6.7 31.1 5.9 37.0 26.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 17.0 0.5 17.5 24.0 0.7 24.7 85.0 10.9 95.9 114.0 SHORELAND EROSION 3.2 0.3 3.5 3.2 0.3 3.5 15.8 7.9 23.7 15.8 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.5 13.5 5.1 18.6 13.5 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 26.2 0.1 26.3 26.2 0.1 26.3 164.1 3.1 167.2 164.1 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 14.0 0.7 14.7 14.0 0.7 14.7 73.5 3.7 77.2 73.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 88.7 31.0 119.7 88.7 31.0 119.7 259.7 508.7 768.4 259.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 503,2 157.9 661.1 1,756.7 543.4 2,300.1 1,587.8 1,970.5 3,558.3 3,451.7 TABLE 1-238 RBG 1.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 33 2 3.3 3.3 100 13.2 13.2 100 25.3 SELF.-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY @4 + --- --- + --- --- 20.0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 7.5 0.3 0.3 100 1.9 1.9 100 2.5 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 7.3 5.0 5.0 100 12.5 12.5 100 19.7 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 542 30.0 30.0 100 62.0 62.0 100 107.0 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 312 0.0 0.0 --- 849.5 849.5 100 2,038 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.7 37.1 37.1 100 43.7 43.7 100 52.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 31.5 23.6 23.6 100 23.6 23.6 100 34.9 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0.0 --- --- 0.0 --- --- 0.0 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 6,547 + 2,870 over + 7,480 over + 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 4,391 773 463 60 1,627 1,161 71 2,561 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,759 250 230 92 397 410 over 550 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 1,028 1,028 --- --- 1,028 --- --- 1,028 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 89.3 89.3 100 121.8 121.8 100 159.9 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 317.6 317.6 27.6 9 317.6 83.0 26 317.6 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE IOW ACRES 84.6 84.6 11.1 13 84.6 15.9 19 84.6 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT IODO ACRES 5,640 5,640 616 11 5,640 1,848 33 5,640 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 117.3 117.3 2.7 2 117.3 8.1 7 117.3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 482 482 30.8 6 482 92.4 19 482 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 32.7 32.7 6.5 20 32.7 19.6 60 32.7 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 1.1 1.1 0.5 45 1.1 0.8 72 1.1 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 320.8 409.5 166.6 41 610.4 484.0 79 954.5 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 131.9 131.9 51.3 39 131.9 55.8 42 131.9 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 54.4 69.2 36.3 52 117.7 46.0 39 199.7 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 202.0 over 60.0 667.0 over 150.0 1000 USER DAYS 1,616 52.0 47.2 91 54.0 110.2 over 64.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.1 1.9 over 0.5 4.8 over 1.0 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 0.0 3.5 over 0.0 16.0 over 1.1 TABLE 1-239 RBG 1.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1990 1981-20DO 20014020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedemi Non-Fed Pritnits Total Federal Non-Fed plive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.3 0.6 0 0.9 0.8 1.9 0 2.7 1.0 2.3 SELFSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 2 THERMAL POWER ODOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.5. 28.2 29.7 0 2.1 39 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 9.6 3.2 0 12.8 5.5 1.8 0 7.3 6.8 2.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1.7 2.5 0 4.2 0.5 0.8 0 1.3 0.5 0.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 8.7 8.7 7.4 24.8 6.6 6.6 5.7 18.9 5.9 5.9 5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 17.8 0 0 17.8 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.3 0 0.8 1.1 0.6 0 1.6 2.2 0.4 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.7 0 1.7 2.4 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 16.8 1.0 3.2 21.0 34.4 2.1 6.5 43.0 34.4 2.1 6 SHORELAND EROSION 0.4 0 1.4 1.8 0.7 0 2.8 3.5 0.7 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 0.8 0 2.2 3.0 1.4 0 3 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 2.6 0 0.8 3.4 2.2 0 0.7 2.9 0.9 0.5 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.5 4.9 0 5.4 1.4 12.9 0 14.3 1.9 17.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 14.9 27.7 0 42.6 5.8 10.8 0 16.6 3.5 6.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 56.8 48.6 18.2 123.6 77.4 38.4 50.9 166.7 57.4 39.9 63 TABLE 1-240 RBG 1.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-19136 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwel Non-Fed privau Total fedwal Non-Fad private Total Federal Non-Fed Pfl WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 5.4 0 5.4 0 12.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK a 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 12.4 12.4 0 0 22 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 a 0 0 0 0.8 14.5 15.3 0 2.6 49 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 16.2 0 16.2 0 87.8 0 87 '8 0 103.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 0.8 1.2 0 2.0 0.5 2.5 0 3.0 1.2 2.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 6.7 6.7 0 0 41.7 41.7 0 0 70 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0 4.0 8.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 3.0 4.2 0.8 1.7 6 S14ORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.1 1.4 0.6 0 2 MEAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - ..URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 0.4 0.0 0.5 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.2 4.7 0 5.9 8.3 33.1 0 41.4 14.4 57.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 2.0 23.0 9.6 34.6 13.5 131.5 75.1 220.1 25.0 181.4 159 TABLE 1-241 RBG 1.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 33.2 3.3 3.3 100 13.2 13.2 100 25.3 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 94 + --- --- + --- --- 20.0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 7.5 0.3 0.3 100 1.9 1.9 100 2.5 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 7.3 5.0 5.0 100 12.5 12.5 100 19.7 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 542 30.0 30.0 100 62.0 62.0 100 107.0 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 312 0.0 0.0 --- 849.5 849.5 100 2,038 NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.7 37.1 37.1 100 43.7 43.7 100 52.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 31.5 23.6 23.6 100 23.6 23.6 100 34.9 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0.0 --- --- 0.0 --- --- 0.0 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 6,547 + 2,870 Over + 7,480 Over + 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 4,391 773 463 60 1,627 1,161 71 2,561 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,759 250 230 92 397 410 Over 550 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 1,028 1,028 --- --- 1,028 --- --- 1,028 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 89.3 89.3 100 121.8 121.8 100 159.9 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 317.6 317.6 58.5 18 317.6 167.2 53 317.6 ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 84.6 84.6 0.0 0 84.6 0.0 0 84.6 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 5,640 5,640 1,129 20 5,640 3,385 60 5,640 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 117.3 117.3 2 117.3 8.1 7 117.3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 482 482 30.8 6 482 92.4 19 482 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 32.7 32.7 6.5 20 32.7 19.6 60 32.7 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES .1.1 1.1 0.5 45 1.1 0.8 72 1.1 -URBAN $10DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 320.8 409.5 166.6 41 610.4 484.0 79 954.5 --RURAL 10DO ACRES 131.9 131.9 51.3 39 131.9 55.8 42 131.9 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 54.4 69.2 36.3 52 117.7 46.0 39 199.7 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 202.0 over 60.0 667.0 over 150.0 1000 USER DAYS 1,616 52.0 47.2 91 54.0 110.2 over 64.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION--INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.1 1.9 over 0.5 4.8 over 1.0 -EXTENSIVE NA 0.0 3.5 over -0.0 16.0 over 1.1 TABLE 1-242 RBG 1.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed PrivM Total Federal Non-Fed Priva WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.3 0.6 0 0.9 0.8 1.9 0 2.7 1.0 2.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0. MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 2. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 28.2 29.7 0 2.1 39. NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 27.0 9.0 0 36.0 17.3 5.7 0 23.0 13*5 4.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.7 2.5 0 4.2 0.5 0.8 0 1.3 0.5 0.8 RECREATtONAL BOATING 8.7 8.7 7.4 24.8 6.6 6.6 5.7 18.9 5.9 5.9 5. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 48.0 0 0 48.0 17.8 0 0 17.8 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.2 0 0.5 0.7 0.5 0 1.3 1.8 0.3 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 31.2 2.0 5.8 39.0 64.0 4.0 12.0 80.0 64.0 4.0 12 SHORELAND EROSION 0.4 0 1.4 1.8 0.7 0 2.8 3.5 0.7 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 .0.8 0 2.2 3.0 1.4 0 3 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 2.6 0 0.8 3.4 2.2 0 0.7 2.9 0.9 0.5 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.5 4.9 0 5.4 1.4 12.9 0 14.3 1.9 17.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 14.9 27.7 0 42.6 5.8 10.8 0 16.6 3.5 6.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 135.8 55.4 18.8 210.0 118.4 44.2 55.4 218.0 93.6 44.0 68 TABLE 1-243 RBG 1.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Privm Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 5.4 0 5.4 0 12.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 12.4 12.4 0 0 22 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 14.5 15.3 0 2.6 49 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 88.6 0 88.6 0 183.1 0 183.1 0 231.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 0.8 1.2 0 2.0 0.5 2.5 0 3.0 1.2 2.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 6.7 6.7 0 0 41.7 41.7 0 0 70 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION G. 0 0 0 6.0 28.0 0 0 28. D 32.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0. P 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.8 6.1 8.8 1.2 2.4 8 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.1 1.4 0.6 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 0.4 0.0 0.5 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSWE 1.2 4.7 0 5.9 8.3 33.1 0 41.4 14.4 57.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 8.1 95.5 9.3 113.4 38.0 227.8 77.9 343.7 49.4 309.9 161 TABLE 1-244 RBG 1.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % A WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 15.3 + --- --- + --- --- SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 31.5 2.1 2.1 100 14.9 14.9 100 52. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.0 0.0 0.0 100 1.1 1.1 100 2. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.4 3.0 3.0 100 4.7 4.7 100 7. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 34.5 8.9 8.9 100 35.3 35.3 100 82. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 204 0.0 0.0 --- 246.2 246.2 100 869. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.0 11.0 11.0 100 12.2 12.2 100 15. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 23.7 20.8 20.8 100 16.1 16.1 100 26. HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0.0 --- --- 0.0 --- --- 0. WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 2,276 + 974 over + 2,914 Over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,701 214 214 100 538 538 100 1,23 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 512 34 41 Over 6 91 Over 3 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 769 769 --- --- 769 --- --- 76 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 10.2 10.2 100 14.2 14.2 100 19. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 155.3 155.3 11.4 7 155.3 34.3 22 155. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 32.5 32.5 0.0 0 32.5 0.0 0 32. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,390 4,390 475 11 4,390 1,422 32 4,39 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 38.4 38.4 3.0 8 38.4 9.1 24 38. STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 948 948 63A 7 949 19Q.2 ZQ 94 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 221.1 221.1 44.8 20 221.1 132.6 60 221. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 4.7 4.7 1.1 23 4.7 1.9 40 4. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 385 46.7 145.8 32 751.3 345.4 46 1,24 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 55.2 55.2 9.4 17 55.2 12.5 23 55. --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 217.6 277.0 23.7 8 393.2 69.8 18 437. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IWO ACRES 0.0 28.5 Over 0.0 54.5 over 50. 1000 USER DAYS 1,405 30.0 46.0 Over 14.4 84.4 over 55. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 0.6 over 0.0 1.8 over 0. -EXTENSIVE' 1000 ACRES TIA 0.0 30.7 over 0.0 42.0 over 0. TABLE 1-245 RBG 1.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-20W 2001-2020 RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Priva" Total Fedwal NowFed Privaft TOW Federal Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SELFSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER CDOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 8.2 8.6 0 1.1 20 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 5.2 1.8 0 7.0 4.1 1.4 0 5.5 5.5 1.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 0.6 0.9 0 1.5 0.4 0.8 0 1.2 0.8 1.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 1.1 1.1 1.0 3.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 3.3 0.6 0.6 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U. 1 0 0.4 0.5 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 0.1 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 12.8 0.8 2.4 16.0 26.4 1.6 5.0 33.0 26.4 1.6 5 SHORELAND EROSION 0.4 0 1.6 2.0 0.8 0 3.2 4.0 0.8 0 3 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.8 0 4.5 6.3 2.9 0 7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- ..URBAN 1 0 0 0.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.3 2.6 0 2.9 0.4 3.6 0 4.0 0.4 3.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.7 6.8 0 10.5 2.5 4.7 0 7.2 2.5 4.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 25.8 14.0 8.2 48.0 37.9 13.7 25.5 77.1 40.0 14.4 43 TABLE 1-246 RBG 1.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2MI-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Privau Total fedwal Non-Fed private Total Fadmi Non-Fed pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 10 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 2 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 7 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 a 0 0 0 0.2 4.2 4.4 0 1.0 19 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES 8.8 0 8.8 0 20.0 0 20.0 0 25.0 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0.9 1.8 0 2.7 1.2 2.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0. 4.0 4.0 0 0 6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINA, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 2.3 3.2 0.7 1.3 4 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 o.2 0.3 0 1.3 1.6 0.6 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 5 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.4 1.4 0 1.8 2.8 11.4 0 14.2 5.7 22.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 0.6 10.6 1.8 13.0 4.3 34.4 21.4 60.1 8.2 52.6 57 TABLE 1-247 RBG 1.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 15.3 + --- --- + --- --- SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 31.5 2.1 2.1 100 14.9 14.9 100 52. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.0 0.0 0.0 100 1.1 1.1 100 2. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.4 3.0 3.0 100 4.7 4.7 100 7. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 34.5 8.9 8.9 100 35.3 35.3 100 82. 'THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 204 0.0 0.0 --- 246.2 246.2 100 869. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.0 11.0 11.0 100 12.2 12.2 100 15. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 23.7 20.8 20.8 100 16.1 16.1 100 26. HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PeR DAY NA 0.0 --- --- 0.0 --- --- 0. WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 2,276 + 974 over + 2,914 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,701 214 214 100 538 538 100 1,23 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 512 34 41 over 6 91 over 3 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 769 769 --- --- 769 --- --- 76 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 10.2 10.2 100 14.2 14.2 100 19. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 155.3 155.3 30.7 20 155.3 68.0 57 155. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 32.5 32.5 0 0 32.5 0 0 32. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IODO ACRES 4,390 4,390 878 20 4,390 2,634 60 4,39 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 38.4 38.4 3.0 8 38.4 9.1 24 38. STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 948 948 63.4 7 948 190.2 20 94 $100D AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 221.1 221.1 44.8 20 221.1 132.6 60 221. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 4.7 4.7 1.1 23 4.7 1.9 40 4. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 385 46.7 145.8 32 751.3 345.4 46 1,24 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 55.2 55.2 9.4 17 55.2 12.5 23 55. -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 217.6 277.0 23.7 8 393.2 69.8 18 437. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 28.5 over 0.0 54.5 over 50. IWO USER DAYS 1,405 30.0 46.0 over 14.4 84.4 over 55. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.0 0.6 over 0.0 1.8 over 0. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 0.0 30.7 over 0.0 42.0 over 0. TABLE 1-248 RBG 1.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY F4dmI Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Noib-Fed private TOW Fedwal Non-Fod Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 8.2 8.6 0 1.1 20 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 2.3 0.7 0 3.0 1.5 0.5 0 2.0 3.7 1.3 5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 0.6 0.9 0 1.5 0.4 0.8 0 1.2 0.8 1.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 1.1 1.1 1.0 3.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 3.3 0.6 0.6 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRtC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 0,1 0 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 25.6 1 . r, 4.8 32.0 50.4 3.1 9.5 83.0 50.4 3.1 9. SHORELAND EROSION 0.4 0 1.6 2.0 0.8 0 3.2 4.0 0.8 0 3. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.8 0 4.5 6.3 2.9 0 7. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 1.0 0 0.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.3 2.6 0 2.9 0.4 3.6 0 4.0 0.4 3.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.7 6.8 0 10.5 2.5 4.7 0 7.2 2.5 4.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 33.4 13.7 10.6 60.0 59.5 14.3 30.0 103.8 62.2 15.4 48. TABLE 1-249 RBG 1.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework ($1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privm Total Fedwal Non-Fed Privau To"I Foderal Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 10. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 2. IRRIGATION 0 a 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0. MINING 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 7. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 4.2 4.4 0 1.0 19. NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 20.0 0 20.0 0 38.0 0 38.0 0 40.R INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0.9 1.8 0 2.7 1.2 2.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 6. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEARS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.8 4.8 1.4 24.1 7.1 8.9 2.5 61. SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.3 1.6 0.6 0 2. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 5. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.4 1.4 0 1.8 2.8 11.4 0 14.2 5.7 22:7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 0.7 21.9 2.0 24.6 4.8 53.2 24.1 82.1 8.9 69.6 61. TABLE 1-250 RBG 2.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework ZQ 12, 1970 1"o 2M 2020 41, RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SwLy N 0 N 0 N 0 % @bl WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 92.8 34.2 34.2 100 102.7 102.7 100 202.4 202.4 100 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 320 105 105 100 159 159 100 346 346 100 Z:t RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 47.5 9.9 9.9 100 23.0 23.0 100 35.2 35.2 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 77.4 71.4 71.4 100 142.8 142.8 100 226.9 226.9 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.6 0.6 0.6 100 3.2 3.2 100 7.9 7.9 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 669.2 777 777 100 2,108 2,108 100 4,526 4,526 100 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 92.4 128.4 128.4 100 192.3 192.3 100 280 280 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 319 291 291 100 254 254 100 425 425 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,763 2,464 2,260 92 7,977 6,460 81 15,510 11,660 75 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 11,010 3,107 3,107 100 6,743 6,618 98 10,765 10,630 99 11000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 4,440 750 270 36 1,620 709 44 2,790 1,220 44 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 950 951 --- --- 951 --- --- 951 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 3.8 3.8 100 4.7 4.7 100 5.0 5.0 100 RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,225 2,225 222.5 10 2,225 667.6 30 2,225 934.7 42 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE IODD ACRES 451 451 ill 25 451 135 30 451 154 34 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IODD ACRES 3,046 3,046 405 13 3,046 1,214 40 3,046 2,023 66 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 137.6 137.6 0 0 137.6 0 0 137.6 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,358 1,358 32 2 1,358 96 7 1,358 160 12 $IWO AVE A14HUAL DAMAGES 195.7 195.7 39.1 20 195.7 117.4 60 195.7 195.7 100 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN IWO ACRES 13.6 14 1.0 7 14 3.9 28 14 8.0 57 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,335 3,007 146.7 5 5,317 1,190 22 10,260 7,743 75 -RURAL IODD ACRES 648 648 74.6 12 648 164.9 25 648 198.4 31 -RURAL $1101DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 19199 1,600 312.8 20 11991 625.3 31 2,140 733.3 34 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IWO ACRES --- 0 470 over 495 1,190 over 1,125 11901 over 1000 USER DAYS 5,169 660 80.6 12 1,265 162.2 13 1,793 317.6 18 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.7 1.0 59 5.0 3.7 74 9.9 6.9 70 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 7.3 3.5 48 23.7 16.6 70 47.5 40.7 86 TABLE 1-251 RBG 2.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-INO 1"14M 2001@= RESOUBIDE @ USE CATEGORY F4dwal Non-Fed Pdw" TOM Federel NowF*d Pdvm TOW Federal Non-Fed Pdvm Totel Lo-tal WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.9 6.9 0 9.8 5.3 12.4 0 17.7 7.7 17.9 0 25.6 53.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.7 8.7 0 0 4.5 4.5 0 0 15.5 15.5 28.7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 1.7 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 1) 2.4 2.4 0 0 2.6 2.6 7.5 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.4 25.9 27.3 0 2.3 44.2 46.5 0 4.2 80.4 84.6 1,58.4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHIARGEi 54.7 18.2 0 72.9 74.8 24.9 0 99.7 98.9 33.0 0 131.9 304.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.5 0 0.8 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 0.5 0.9 0 1.4 3.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 14.3 14.3 12.2 40.8 16.4 16.4 14.0 46.8 7.1 7.1 6.0 20.2 107.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.5 0 6.5 9.0 5.0 0 12.9 17.9 3.0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 7.3 0 17.0 24.3 1.8 0 4.3 6.1 1.4 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 12.8 0.8 2.4 16.0 25.6 1.6 4.8 32.0 25.6 1.6 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0 0.8 1.1 0.9 0 2.3 3.2 1.5 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 5.4 0 1.8 7.2 3.1 0 1.0 4.1 14.6 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL ... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.5 13.9 0 15.4 2.8 24.8 0 27.6 2.2 19.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION ANTENSIVE 7.4 13.6 0 21.0 11.1 20.5 0 31.6 20.9 38.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 109.5 69.6 78.2 257.3 147.1 103.6 91.0 341.7 183.5 122.9 TABLE 1-252 RBG 2.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $ 1971-1980 , 1981-2000 2001-20 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Prive" TOW Fedeml Non-Fed Priva" Total Fedwol Non-Fed YLATER WITHOFUAM@kS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.2 0 5.2 0 42.9 0 42.9 0 96.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.8, 8.8 0 0 46.8 46.8 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 9.7 9.7 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.4 6.6 7.0 0 2.6 49.2 49.2 0 6.0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 74.0 0 74.0 0 208.0 0 208.0 0 286.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.4 1.3 0 1.7 I.D 2.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.2 7.2 0 0 45.8 45.8 0 0 UUMMEHLIAL PILHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 2.7 2.7 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.3 0.1 0 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.9 2.8 0.6 1.1 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.4 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 1.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.1 4.2 0 5.3 8.2 32.7 0 40.9 17.6 70.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1.3 85.1 25.6 112.0 8.9 289.7 161.4 460.0 19.2 463.8 TABLE 1-253 RBG 2.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 19M 2= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT a"LY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 92.8 34.2 34.2 100 102.7 102.7 100 202 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 320 105 105 100 159 159 100 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MI LLION GALLONS PER DAY 47.5 9.9 9.9 100 23.0 23.0 100 35 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 77.4 71.4 71.4 100 142.8 142.8 100 226 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.6 0.6 0.6 100 3.2 3.2 100 7 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 669.2 777 777 100 2,108 2,108 100 4,5 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 92.4 128.4 128.4 100 192.3 192.3 100 2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 319 291 291 100 254 254 100 4 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,763 2,464 2,260 92 7,977 6,460 81 15,5 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 11,010 3,107 3,107 100 6,743 6,618 98 10,7 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 4,440 750 270 36 1,620 709 44 2,7 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 950 951 --- --- 951 --- --- 9 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 3.8 3.8 100 4.7 4.7 100 5 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,225 2,225 489.5 22 2,225 1,402 63 2,2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE IOW ACRES 451 451 ill 25 451 215 48 4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,046 3,046 609 20 3,046 1.828 60 3,0 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 137.6 137.6 0 0 137.6 0 0 137 sTREAMi3ANK EROSION MILES 1,358 1,358 32 2 1,358 96 7 1,3 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 195.7 195.7 39.1 20 195.7 117.4 60 195 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 11.6 14 1.0 7 14 3.9 28 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,335 3,007 146.7 5 5,317 1,190 22 10,2 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 648 648 74.6 12 648 164.9 25 6 -RURAL $IWO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,199 1,600 312.8 20 1,991 625.3 31 2,1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 0 470 over 495 1,190 over ill 1000 USER DAYS 5,169 660 80.6 12 1,265 162.2 13 1,7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE IODO ACRES --- 1.7 1.0 59 5.0 3.7 74 9 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 7.3 3.5 48 23.7 16.6 70 47 TABLE 1-254 RBG 2.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1990 1981-20M 20014= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedmi Non-Fed pdvm Tabi Fedwal Nos-Fad pdvm Total Fftkmi Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.9 6.9 0 9.8 5.3 12.4 0 17.7 7.7 17.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.7 8.7 0 0 4.5 4.5 0 0 1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.4 25.9 27.3 0 2.3 44.2 46.5 0 4.2 8 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 76.5 25.5 0 102.0 75.0 25.0 0 100.0 83.2 27.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.5 0 0.8 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 0.5 0.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 14.3 14.3 12.2 40.8 16.4 16.4 14.0 46.8 7.1 7.1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 7. D 0 0 7.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 5.5 0 14.2 19.7 10.3 0 26.5 36.8 6.2 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.4 ol 10.2 14.6 4.3 0 10.1 14.4 3.4 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 20.0 1.2 3.8 25.0 39.2 2.4 7.4 49.0 39.2 2.4 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0 0.8 1.1 0.9 0 2.3 3.2 1.5 0 3 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 5.4 0 1.8 7.2 3.1 0 1.0 4.1 14.6 0 4 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.5 13.9 0 15.4 2.8 24.8 0 27.6 2.2 19.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 7.4 13.6 0 21.0 11.1 20.5 0 31.6 20.9 38.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 145.6 77.3 80.5 303.4 168.7 104.5 113.0 j86. 2 186.6 118.5 145 TABLE 1-255 RBG 2.1. Overation. Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 _ 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed Privae Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.2 0 5.2 0 42.9 0 42.9 0 96.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.8 8.8 0 0 46.8 46.8 0 0 94 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 2.5 2.5 D 0 9.7 9.7 @o 0 17 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 3 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 2 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.4 6.6 7.0 0 2.6 49.2 51.8 0 6.0 113 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 159.3 0 759.3 0 370.0 0 370.0 0 577.4 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.4 1.3 0 1.7 1.0 2.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.2 7.2 0 0 45.8 45.8 0 0 72 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 1.0 4.0 0 0 4. D 4.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 4. 4.3 0 0 6 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.5 2.5 0 0 3 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.1 3.9 5.6 1.0 9.0 6 SHORELAND - EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 D'i 0.1 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.4 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.8 0 0.8 1.4 0 1.4 0 1.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.1 4.2 0 5.3 8.2 32.7 0 40.9 17.6 70.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 2.4 170. 4 25.8 198.6 13.2 452.2 165.7 631.1 23.6 756.1 323 TABLE 1-256 RBG 2.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1090 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,645 355 511 over 986 1,170 over I SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 4,790 440 24 5 1,890 721 38 4, RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 87.6 6.6 1.3 20 21.7 4.3 20 2 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 94 175 35 20 305 61 20 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 21.9 26.6 2.1 8 66.7 5.3 8 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,208 1,312 1,312 100 8,915 8,915 100 25, NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 324.7 475.2 475.2 100 695.2 695.2 100 1. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,274 2,793 2,793 100 2,685 2.685 100 4. HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 10W RECREATION DAYS 17,820 32,610 7,055 22 56,930 14,820 26 88, 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING t000 ANGLER DAYS 2,654 2,596 2,325 90 4,196 3,925 94 4, IDDD ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING t000 BOAT DAYS 1,280 384 164 43 632 315 50 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 470 470 --- --- 470 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 79.9 79.9 100 108.4 108.4 100 14 RELATED LAND USES III MOOLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,170 2,170 52.1 2 2,170 155.9 7 2, -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 442 442 4.5 1 442 7.9 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 212 212 19.7 9 212 51.4 24 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 129.7 129.7 9.9 8 129.7 29.7 23 12 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 91 91 0.6 1 91 1.8 2 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 32.2 32.2 6.4 20 32.2 19.3 60 3 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 4.4 5.8 2.4 41 7.5 4.2 56 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 8,700 13,060 12,050 92 27,100 25,325 93 56. -RURAL IODO ACRES 58.3 56.9 27.8 49 55.2 38.1 69 5 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 230.4 296.6 156.5 53 456.6 304.6 67 67 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 1,384 164.6 12 2,730 334.3 12 4, 1000 USER DAYS 7.6BI 5,015 82.5 2 7,508 193.9 3 9. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL IODO ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 8.0 1.7 21 16 3.7 23 -EXTENS1 1000 ACRES NA 51 9.9 19 98.5 20.9 21 TABLE 1-257 RBG 2.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1990 1981-2000 2001,2= RESOUQCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Prfwft Total Fafto NOWEN pdvm TOW Fedwal Non-Fed WATER LNITHEIRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 29.1 67.8 0 96.9 51.2 119.4 0 170.6 62.4 145.5 SELFSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 57.8 57.8 0 0 1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.3 43.6 45.9 0 13.3 252.8 266.1 0 28.6 5 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 190.1 63.3 0 253.4 105.2 35.1 0 140.3 154.1 51.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.0 6.3 0 9.3 1.5 2.6 0 4.1 1.4 2.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 9.0 9.0 7.9 25.9 8.8 8.8 7.5 25.1 8.8 8.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 36.9 0 0 36.9 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U-5 0 1.5 2.1 1.2 0 3.0 4.2 0.6 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.5 0 1.0 1.5 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.9 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION 1.4 0 5.5 6.9 2.8 0 11.0 13.8 2.8 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 76.3 0 25.4 101.7 0.4 0 0.1 0.5 5.8 0 .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.4 3.8 0 4.2 0.8 7.4 0 8.2 1.0 8.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 31.7 58.9 0 90.6 40.0 74.2 0 114.2 6.8 12.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 342.9 211.4 88.5 642.8 251.0 260.9 335.1 847.0 245.6 258.3 67 TABLE 1-258 RBG 2.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-2000 --- 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal NowFed PrivatO Total Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed PH WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 55.0 0 55.0 0 417.0 0 417.0 0 859.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 110.2 110.2 0 0 4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.6 11.2 11.8 0 9.2 174.9 184.1 0 30.7 58 NON-4WITHEIRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 104.0 0 104.0 0 290.0 0 290.0 0 382.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 1.3 2.3 0 3.6 1.6 3.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 35.6 35.6 0 0 5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 9.0 0 0 9.0 18.0 0 RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMS AGRIC. LANO-TREATMENT v 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.6 0.7 1.1 0 4.4 5.5 2.2 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.9 0 1.0 0.1 1.0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.4 13.4 0 16.8 24.3 97.0 0 121.3 37.1 148.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.7 174.1 20.2 198.0 35.9 816.8 330.7 1183.4 59.2 1425.0 106 TABLE 1-259 RBG 2.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 19M 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY- UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,645 355 511 over 986 1,170 over 1,7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 4,790 .440 24 5 11890 721 38 490 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 87.6 6.6 1.3 20 21.7 4.3 20 27 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 94 175 35 20 305 61 20 4 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 21.9 26.6 2.1 8 66.7 5.3 8 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,208 1,312 1,312 100 8,915 8,915 100 25,2 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 324.7 475.2 475.2 100 695.2 695.2 100 110 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,274 2,793 2,793 100 2,685 2,685 100 4,3 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PtR DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 17,820 32,610 7,055 22 56,930 14,820 26 8899 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,654 2,596 2,325 90 4,196 3,925 94 4,5 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,280 384 164 43 632 315 50 9 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 470 470 --- --- 470 --- --- 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 79.9 79.9 100 108.4 108.4 100 140 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,170 2,170 114.5 5 2,170 328.0 15 2,1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 442 442 19.9 5 442 57.0 13 4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 212 212 19.7 9 212 51.4 24 2 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 129.7 129.7 9.9 8 129.7 29.7 23 129 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 91 91 0.6 1 91 1.8 2 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 32.2 32.2 6.4 20 32.2 19.3 60 32 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN IWO ACRES 4.4 5.8 2.4 41 7.5 4.2 56 9 -URBAN $10DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 8,700 13,060 12,050 92 27,100 25,325 93 56,0 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 58.3 56.9 27.8 49 55.2 38.1 69 52 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 230.4 296.6 156.5 53 456.6 304.6 67 679 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 1,384 164.6 12 2,730 334.3 12 4,4 1000 USER DAYS 7,681 5,015 82.5 2 7,508 193.9 3 9,8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 8.0 1.7 21 16 3.7 23 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 51 9.9 19 98.5 20.9 21 1 TABLE 1-260 RBG 2.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1071-1980 1981-20M 2001 RESOUEtCE USE CATEGORY Fademl Non-Fed Pri"" Tatil Fadval Nos-f4d Pdvob Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 29.1 67.8 0 96.9 51.2 119.4 0 170.6 62.4 145.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 57.8 57.8 0 0 10 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.3 43.6 45.9 0 13.3 252.8 266.1 0 28.6 54 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES Sn3. 0 101.0 0 404.0 297.0 99.0 0 396.0 .31 P. 0 104.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.0 6.3 0 9.3 1.5 2.6 0 4.1 1.4 2.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 9.0 9.0 7.9 25.9 8.8 8.8 7.5 25.1 8.8 8.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 22.0 0 0 22.0 132.3 0 0 132.3 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.3 0 3.3 4.6 2.4 0 6.2 8.6 1.5 0 3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.9 0 2.1 3.0 1.7 0 3.9 5.6 1.0 0 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 0 0.0 SHORELAND EROSION 1.4 0 5.5 6.9 2.8 0 11.0 13.8 2.8 0 11 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 76.3 0 25.4 101.7 0.4 0 0.1 0.5 5.8 0 1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.4 3.8 0 4.2 0.8 7.4 0 8.2 1.0 8.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 31.7 58.9 0 90.6 40.0 74.2 0 114.2 6.8 12.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 478.9 249.1 91.5 819.4 540.5 324.8 340.7 1,206.0 403.5 311.0 675 TABLE 1-261 RBG 2.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed P&M Total Fedwal Non-Fed Priva" Tatel N..-Fd PVI WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 55.0 0 55.0 0 417.0 0 417.0 0 859.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 110.2 110.2 0 0 400 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 4 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 2 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.6 11.2 11.8 0 9.2 174.9 184.1 0 30.7 584 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 491.4 0 491.4 0 1,223.1 0 1,223.1 0 1,971.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 1.3 2.3 0 3.6 1.6 3.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 35.6 ' 35.6 0 0 59 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 3.0 0 0 3.0 37.0 0 0 37.0 62.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.6 0.7 1.1 0 4.4 5.5 2.2 0 8 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.9 0 1.0 0.1 1.0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.4 13.4 0 16.8 24.3 97.0 0 121.3 37.1 148.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 6.7 561.5 20.3 586.5 63.8 174.9 331.7 2,145.4 103.0 3,014.4 1,065 TABLE 1-262 RBG 2.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 265.9 81 81 100 281 281 100 560. SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 454 40 40 100 139 139 100 32 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 82.3 11.5 11.5 100 35.8 35.8 100 52. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 140.8 190.8 190.8 100 368 368 100 553. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.3 10.6 10.6 100 38.9 38.9 100 91. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,079 1,069 1,069 100 6,038 6,038 100 11,56 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 241.9 324.9 324.9 100 509.6 509.6 100 753. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 245.8 161.5 161.5 100 140.8 140.8 100 237. HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 10,360 13,380 6,067 45 25,640 14,570 57 42.17 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 5,400 3,202 1,988 62 5,761 4,547 79 8.83 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,516 1,524 168 11 2,604 601 23 3,95 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 262 262 --- --- 262 --- --- 26 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR KA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 4.6 4.6 100 5.8 5.8 100 6. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,540 3,540 354 10 3,540 1,062 30 3,54 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 10W ACRES 577.9 578 15.6 3 578 39.0 6 57 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 1,230 1,230 96 8 1,230 289 23 1,23 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 83.8 84 7.7 9 84 23.2 28 8 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,065 1,070 60.6 6 1,070 181.8 17 1.07 $IWO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 91.4 91.4 18.3 20 91.4 54.8 60 91. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 49.6 51.6 17.3 34 53.3 30.2 57 55. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,941 4,130 2,216 54 8,038 6,116 76 16.74 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 281.3 279 41.9 15 278 70.7 25 27 ..RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,990 2,496 796.9 32 2,976 1,055 35 3,44 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 299 18.7 6 986 41.3 4 1,73 1000 USER DAYS 7,004 1,009 320.5 32 1,507 976.5 65 1,93 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL IDW ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 4.2 1.6 38 8.1 3.8 47 1 -EXTENSIVE IWO ACRES NA 24 9.4 39 45.9 22.8 50 77. TABLE 1-263 RBG 2.3, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2WO 2001-2020 RE QQ13CE USE CATEGORY Fodwal Non-Fed Prf"" Totill Fedwal NowF@d Prive" Total Fedwal Non-Fod Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 7.4 17.2 0 24.6 21.0 49.0 0 70.0 45.0 104.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 15 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0 0.7 0.8 0.2 0 1.4 0.1 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 0 5.3 5.3 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 5 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.9 35.5 37.4 0 8.7 165.2 173.9 0 9.7 183 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 90.8 30.3 0 121.1 159.1 53.0 0 212.1 210.5 70.1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.5 2.0 0 3.5 0.8 1.7 0 2.5 1.7 3.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 3.0 3.0 2.6 8.6 23.8 23.8 20.3 67.9 22.0 21.9 18 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT q.U 0 10.2 14.2 8.0 0 20.5 28.5 4.8 0 12 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.6 0 3.8 5.4 1.7 0 3.8 5.5 8.5 0 19 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 4.8 0.3 0.9 6.0 9.6 0.6 1.8 12.0 9.6 0.6 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.6 0 2.4 3.0 1.2 0 4.9 6.1 1.2 0 4 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.4 2.0 1.7 0 4.3 6.0 2.8 0 7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 38.3 0 12.7 51.0 15.4 0 5.1 20.5 2.9 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.9 8.1 0 9.0 1.3 11.8 0 13.1 1.1 10.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 24.7 45.9 0 70.6 33.3 61.9 0 95.2 36.2 67.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 178.3 _108.7 79.4 366.4 277.1 210.5 242.2 729.8 346.4 288.0 274 TABLE 1-264 RBG 2.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-IM 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total fedwel Non-Fed Privew Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 15.7 0 15.7 0 135.0 0 135.0 0 381.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 31.8 31.8 0 0 83 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 8.1 8.1 0 0 14 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 4.3 4.3 0 0 7 MINING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 12 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.5 9.1 9.6 0 6.4 121.6 128.0 0 15.8 300 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES * o 438 0 612 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 136 0 136 0 438 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.6 1.0 0 1.6 2.1 5.0 a 7.1 2.6 5.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 26.1 26.1 0 0 62 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.8 2.8 0 0 5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.4 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 1.9 2.4 1.0 0 3 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 5 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 0.0 0.8 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 3.0 11.9 0 14.9 20.2 80.7 0 100.9 37.6 150.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.7 165.7 17.5 186.9 22.9 666.7 205.0 894.6 41.4 1167.5 500 TABLE 1-265 RBG 2.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1990 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILL1014 GALLONS PER DAY 265.9 81 81 100 281 281 100 560. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 454 40 40 100 139 139 100 32 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 82.3 11.5 11.5 100 35.8 35.8 100 52. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 140.8 190.8 190.8 100 368 368 100 553. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.3 10.6 10.6 100 38.9 38.9 100 91. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,079 1,069 1,069 100 6,038 6,038 100 11,56 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 241.9 324.9 324.9 100 509.6 509.6 100 753. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 245.8 161.5 161.5 100 140.8 140.8 100 237. HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 10,360 13,380 6,067 45 25,640 14,570 57 42,17 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 5,400 3,202 11988 62 5,761 4,547 79 8,83 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,516 1,524 168 11 2,604 601 23 3,95 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 262 262 --- --- 262 --- --- 26 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 4.6 4.6 100 5.8 5.8 100 6. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,540 3,540 778.8 22 3,540 2,235 63 3,54 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 577.9 577.9 144.5 25 577.9 413.8 72 577. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 10DO ACRES 1,230 1,230 125 10 1,230 377 31 1,23 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 83.8 84 7.7 9 84 23.2 28 8 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,065 1,070 60.6 6 1,070 181.8 17 1,07 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 91.4 91.4 18.3 20 91.4 54.8 60 91. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 49.6 51.6 17.3 34 53.3 30.2 57 55. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,941 4,130 2,216 54 8,038 6,116 76 16,74 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 281.3 279 41.9 15 278 70.7 25 27 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,990 2,496 796.9 32 2,976 1,055 35 3,44 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 299 18.7 6 986 41.3 4 1,73 1000 USER DAYS 7,004 1,009 320.5 32 1,507 976.5 65 1,93 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 4.2 1.6 38 8.1 3.8 47 1 -EXTENSIVE 10DO ACRES NA 24 9.4 39 45.9 22.8 50 77. TABLE 1-266 RBG 2.3, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Foderal Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 7.4 17.2 0 24.6 21.0 49.0 0 70.0 45.0 104.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 15 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0 0.7 0.8 0.2 0 1.4 1.6 0.1 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 0 5.3 5.3 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 5 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.9 35.5 37.4 0 8.7 165.2 173.9 0 9.7 183 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 227.2 75.8 0 303.0 230.2 76.8 0 307.0 248.2 82.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1.5 2.0 0 3.5 0.8 1.7 0 2.5 1.7 3.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 3.0 3.0 2.6 8.6 23.8 23.8 20.3 67.9 22.0 21.9 18 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 8.0 0 8.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 8.8 0 22.5 31.3 16.3 0 41.0 58.2 10.0 0 25. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 7.4 0 17.2 24.6 13.9 0 32.3 46.2 8.0 0 18. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 5.6 0.3 1.1 7.0 12.0 0.7 2.3 15.0 12.0 0.7 2. SHORELAND EROSION 0.6 0 2.4 3.0 1.2 0 4.9 6.1 1.2 0 4. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.4 2.0 1.7 0 4.3 6.0 2.8 0 7. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- -URBAN 38.3 0 12.7 51.0 15.4 0 5.1 20.5 2.9 0 0. -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.9 8.1 0 9.0 1.3 11.8 0 13.1 1.1 10.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 24.7 45.9 0 70.6 33.3 61.9 0 95.2 36.2 67.3 . -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 334.1 154.2 105.3 593.6 371.0 234.4 292.7 898.1 391.2 300.8 287. TABLE 1-267 RBG 2.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed Privew Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 15.7 0 15.7 0 135.0 0 135.0 0 381.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 31.8 31.8 0 0 83. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 8.1 8.1 0 0 14. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 4.3 4.3 0 0 7. MINING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 12. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.5 9.1 9.6 0 6.4 121.6 128.0 0 15.8 300. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 456.8 0 456.8 0 1,,)93.1 0 1,093.1 0 1,685.4 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.6 1.0 0 1.6 2.1 5.0 0 7.1 2.6 5.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 26.1 26.1 0 0 62. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.C 0 0 1.0 4.0 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.8 0.6 0 0 6.8 6.8 0 0 20. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 5.4 5.4 0 0 8. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.6 0.3 0.6 2. SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 1.9 2.4 1- 0 0 3. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 5. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 0.0 0.8 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.0 11.9 0 14.9 20.2 80.7 0 100.9 37.6 150.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 4.7 486.5 18.5 509.7 27.0 1,321.9 214.0 1,58P.9 45.5 2,241.1 512. TABLE 1-268 RBG 2.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1 so 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 % IN WATER WITHDRA ALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 39.1 8.9 8.9 100 30.8 30.8 100 63. SELF.-SUPPLIEO INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 89.6 + + over + + over 77. RURAL DOMESTICS LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.8 2.9 2.9 100 8.0 8.0 too 13. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50.4 28.7 28.7 100 68.7 68.7 100 10 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.1 1.6 1.6 100 2.3 2.3 100 7. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 471.3 0 0 --- a 0 --- 1,06 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 27 36 36 100 56 56 100 8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 82.3 68 68 100 50 50 100 7 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PgR DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 47,300 47,300 100 47,30 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 5,348 646 1,950 Over 3,646 4,310 over 7,69 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING IODO ANGLER DAYS 8,678 1,642 1,200 73 3,833 3,200 83 6,54 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,543 678 433 64 1,215 1.101 91 1.83 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 940 941 --- --- 941 --- --- 94 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 22.5 22.5 100 32.0 32.0 100 44. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,018 1,018 101.8 10 1,018 305.4 30 1.01 ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 47.6 47.6 10.8 23 47.6 21.8 46 47. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,563 4,560 460 10 4,560 1,381 30 4s56 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 236.4 236 8.4 4 236 25.2 11 23 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,276 1,276 110.8 9 1,276 332.4 26 1,27 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 90.2 90.2 18.0 20 90.2 54.1 60 90. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 3.2 3.5 1.2 34 3.7 1.9 51 4. -UR .BAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 98.8 131 12.6 10 230 63.7 28 425. -RURAL 1000 ACRES 112.6 112 9.8 9 112 25.9 23 11 -RURAL $IOOD AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 147.1 190 32.9 17 238 85.1 36 288. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 26 21 81 316 50.5 16 70 1000 USER DAYS 3894.4 404.6 225.0 56 664.8 525.0 79 1.02 AESTHETIC A CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.0 1.1 Over 2.5 2.4 96 5. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 5.5 15 Over 14.5 31.9 over 29. TABLE 1-269 RBG 2.4, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 20014020 TOW Fedeml Man-Fed P&M Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.7 1.7 0 2.4 1.7 4.1 0 5.8 2.7 6.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC 6 LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 Q.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 010 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 49.5 16.5 0 66.0 29.2 9.8 0 39.0 36.8 12.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.5 2.2 0 3.7 0.4 0.9 0 1.3 1.6 3.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 7.6 7.6 6.4 21.6 11.3 11.3 9.7 32.3 10.3 10.3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.6 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.1 0 2.9 4.0 2.4 0 6.0 8.4 1.3 0 3. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.9 0 2.2 3.1 1.0 0 2.3 3.3 0.2 0 0. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 14.4 0.9 2.7 18.0 29.6 1.8 5.6 37.0 29.6 1.8 5. SHORELAND EROSION 0.7 0 2.7 3.4 1.3 0 5.4 6.7 1.3 0 S. STREAMBANK EROSION 1.0 o 2.6 3.6 3.1 0 7.8 10.9 5.1 0 13. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 1.3 0 0.4 1.7 3.8 0 1.2 5.0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.5 4.1 0 4.6 0.7 5.8 0 6.5 0.6 5.6 AESTHETIC IN CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 14.2 26.5 0 40.7 12.3 22.8 0 35.1 16.0 29.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 93.4 59.5 21.1 174.0 97.4 56.5 39.8 193..7 105.5 70.8 80. TABLE 1-270 RBG 2.4, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedeml Non-Fed PrIva WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 12.2 0 12.2 .0 29.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.0 3.0 0 0 5. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 1. MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 18. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 38.0 0 38.0 0 88.0 0 88.0 0 108.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.0 1.4 0 2.4 2.1 5.1 0 7.2 3.2 6.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.3 7.3 0 0 51.8 51.8 0 0 94. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 6.2 0 0 6.2 12.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 1. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 22 3.1 0.6 1.3 4. SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2.2 2.7 1.1 0 4. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 o.4 0.4 0 0 3.6 3.6 0 0 9. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 1.0 3.8 0 4.8 6.5 26.1 0 32.6 13.5 54.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 2.4 44.9 8.8 56.1 15.6 132.4 65.7 213.7 30.8 200.5 158. TABLE 1-271 RBG 2.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 39.1 8.9 8.9 100 30.8 30.8 100 63.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 89.6 + + over + + over 77.5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.8 2.9 2.9 100 8.0 8.0 100 13.0 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50.4 28.7 28.7 100 68.7 68.7 100 105 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.1 1.6 1.6 100 2.3 2.3 100 7.1 T14ERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 471.3 1) 0 --- 0 0 --- 1,060 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 27 36 36 100 56 56 100 86 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 82.3 68 68 100 50 50 100 78 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 47,300 47,300 100 47.300 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 5,348 646 1,950 over 3,646 4,310 over 7,690 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 8,678 1,642 1,200 73 3,833 3,200 83 6,549 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,543 678 433 64 1,215 1.101 91 1,830 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 940 941 --- --- 941 --- --- 941 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 22.5 22.5 100 32.0 32.0 100 44.7 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS, AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,018 1,018 243.3 24 1,018 660.7 65 1,018 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 47.6 47.6 0 0 47.6 0 0 47.6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,563 4.563 561 12 4,563 1,682 37 4,563 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 236.4 236 8.4 4 236 25.2 11 236 STREAMBANY EROSION MILES 1,275 1,276 110.8 9 1,276 332.4 26 1,276 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 90.2 90.2 18.0 20 90.2 54.1 60 90.2 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 3.2 3.5 1.2 34 3.7 1.9 51 4.0 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 98.8 131 12.6 10 230 63.7 28 425.0 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 112.6 112 9.8 9 112 25.9 23 112 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 147.1 190 32.9 17 238 85.1 36 288.9 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 26 21 81 316 50.5 16 708 1000 USER DAYS 3894.4 404.6 225.0 56 664.8 525.0 79 1,029 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 10DO ACRES --- 1.0 1.1 over 2.5 2.4 96 5.2 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 5.5 15 over 14.5 31.9 over 29.2 TABLE 1-272 RBG 2.4, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,N0,0N) 1971-1980 1901-2000 2001 1= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Priym Total Fftlml Non-Fed Privew Totel Fedwal Non-Fed Priva WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.7 1.7 0 2.4 1.7 4.1 0 5.8 2.7 6.3 SELFSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0. IRRIGATION 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 1. MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 35. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 15.8 5.2 0 21.0 31.5 10.5 0 42.0 38.2 12.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.5 2.2 0 3.7 0.4 0.9 0 1.3 1.6 3.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 7.6 7.6 6.4 21.6 11.3 11.3 9.7 32.3 10.3 10.3 8. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 7.6 0 0 7.6 23.6 0 0 23.6 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.0 0 2.5 3.5 1.9 0 4.7 6.6 1.1 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 17.6 1. 1 3.3 22.0 36.8 2.3 6.9 46.0 36.8 2.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.7 0 2.7 3.4 1.3 0 5.4 6.7 1.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.0 0 2.6 3.6 3.1 0 7.8 10.9 5.1 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 1.3 0 0.4 1.7 3.8 0 1.2 5.0 0 0 ..RURAL --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.5 4.1 0 4.6 0.7 5.8 0 6.5 0.6 5.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 14.2 26.5 0 40.7 12.3 22.8 0 35.1 16.0 29.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 69.5 48.4 19. 1 137.0 128.4 57.7 37.5 223.6 113.7 72.1 TABLE 1-273 RBG 2.4, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,0 1971-1980 1981-2000 Z001 -2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 1.4 0 1.4 0 12.2 0 12.2 0 29.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMEST)C & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.0 3.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 87.2 0 87.2 0 194.5 0 194.5 0 257.7 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.0 1.4 0 2.4 2.1 5.1 0 7.2 3.2 6.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 7.3 7.3 0 0 51.8 51.8 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 1.0 10.2 0 0 10.2 16.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.0 3.6 5.1 0.9 1.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2.2 2.7 1.1 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.6 3.6 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.0 3.8 0 4.8 6.5 26.1 0 32.6 13.5 54.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.1 94.1 9.0 106.2 19.8 239.3 66.6 325.7 35.1 350.7 1 TABLE 1-274 RBG 3.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1990 RESIDUR E USE CATEGORY UNIT AMY N 0 N 0 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 7 0 1.7 1.7 100 5.9 5.9 100 1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY i5 + + 100 5.0 5.0 100 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 6.8 2.5 2.5 100 5.6 5.6 100 1 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.5 5.5 5.5 100 11.8 11.8 100 1 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 20.9 7.0 7.0 100 19.4 19.4 100 4 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- NON-WffHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.0 7.2 7.2 100 12.0 12.0 100 1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12 9.7 9.7 100 9.8 9.8 100 1 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PgA DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. IOW RECREATION DAYS 2,630 + 720 over 774 2,430 over 2. 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 3,800 1,881 1,400 74 3,339 2.858 86 4, 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,431 492 240 49 792 744 94 1. IODD ACRES WATER SURFACE 592 592 --- --- 592 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 22.3 22.3 100 33.3 33.3 100 4 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 435 435.6 43.6 10 435.6 130.7 30 43 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 63 63.3 4.7 7 63.3 10.2 16 6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,030 2,030 228 11 2,030 685 34 2, SHORELAND EROSION MILES 70.7 71 1.6 2 71 4.7 7 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 642 642 45.8 7 642 137 21 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 62.7 62.7 12.5 20 62.7 37.6 60 6 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 6.7 0.7 0 0 0.8 0.1 13 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 29.6 40.0 1.0 3 74.9 13.6 18 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 39.3 39.3 14.5 37 39.3 19.2 49 3 -RURAL $IWO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 214.1 256.6 230.2 90 302.7 271.4 90 37 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 22 25 over 152 74 49 1000 USER DAYS 1,601 32.2 43.0 over 133 176.3 over AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 0 0.4 o;;-r 0 1.3 over -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 0 0.5 over 0 1.9 over TABLE 1-275 RBG 3.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-19M 1981_20W 2WI,"24 RESOURCE USIE CATEGORY Fedwal NowFed Pri"" TOW fedwel Non-Fed private Total fklml Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.1 0.3 0 0.4 0.3 0.7 0 1.0 0.4 1.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 4.6 1.5 0 6.1 6.1 2.0 0 8.1 7.6 2.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.7 1.1 0 1.8 0.2 0.5 0 0.7 1.8 3.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 4.3 4.3 3.7 12.3 7.8 7.8 6.7 22.3 7.1 7.0 COMMERCIAL FISHING COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 340.0 0 0 340.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U. 0 1.3 1.8 1.0 0 2.5 3.5 0.6 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.3 0 0.8 1.1 0.8 0 1.8 2.6 0.6 0 1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 8.8 0.5 1.7 11.0 16.8 1.0 3.2 21.0 16.8 1.0 3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 2.0 2.5 0.5 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 1.3 0 3.2 4.5 2.1 0 5 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 3.3 0 1.1 4.4 1.3 0 0.4 1.7 1.1 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- .-RURAL --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.9 8.3 0 9.2 1.6 13.9 0 15.5 1.4 13.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.7 5.1 0 7.8 6.6 12.3 0 18.9 8.4 15.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 26.8 21.1 11.4 59.3 384.3 38.2 21.5 444.0 48.4 43.5 24 TABLE 1-276 RBG 3.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-IM 1981-2000 - 2991-2020 RESDURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed PrIve" Total Fedwal Non-Fed private Total fedwal Non-Fed pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 2.7 0 2.7 0 6.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 a 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 10 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 5 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.7 4.7 0 0 10 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 6.0 0 6.0 0 20.0 0 20.0 0 24.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.6 0.9 0 1.5 1.3 3.4 0 4.7 2.4 4.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 3.6 3.6 0 0 27.0 27.0 0 0 51 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 80.0 0 0 80.0 160.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.6 2.2 0.2 0.4 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.80 1.0 0.4 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 4 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 0.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 0.3 1.1 0 1.4 2.4 9.7 0 12.1 6.1 24.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 0.9 8.9 5.6 15.4 84.1 37.2 40.5 161.8 169.1 60.8 85 TABLE 1-277 RBG 3.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALL014S PER DAY 7.0 1.7 1.7 100 5.9 5.9 100 12 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 25 + + 100 5.0 5.0 100 36 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 6.8 2.5 2.5 100 5.6 5.6 100 10 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.5 5.5 5.5 100 11.8 11.8 100 18 MINING . MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 20.9 7.0 7.0 100 19.4 19.4 100 40 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 0 --- NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.0 7.2 7.2 100 12.0 12.0 100 18 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12 9.7 9.7 100 9.8 9.8 100 17 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PFR DAY RA 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 2,630 + 720 Over 774 2,430 over 2,2 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 10DO ANGLER DAYS 3,800 1,881 1,400 74 3,339 2,858 86 4,8 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,431 4132 2413 49 792 744 94 1,0 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 592 592 --- --- 592 --- --- 5 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 22.3 22.3 100 33.3 33.3 100 48 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 435 435.6 93.4 21 435.6 227.1 52 435 ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 63 63.3 0 0 63.3 0 0 63 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 2,030 2,030 66 13 2,030 799 39 2,0 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 70.7 7i 1.6 2 71 4.7 7 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 642 642 45.8 7 642 137 21 6 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 62.7 62.7 12.5 20 62.7 37.6 160 62 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN IODO ACRES 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.8 0.1 13 0 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 29.6 40.0 1.0 3 74.9 13.6 18 1 -RURAL IODO ACRES 39.3 39.3 14.5 37 39.3 19.2 49 39 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 214.1 256.6 230.2 90 302.7 271.4 90 379 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IODO ACRES --- 22 25 Over 152 74 49 3 1000 USER DAYS 1,601 32.2 43.0 over 133 176.3 over 2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 0 0.4 over 0 1.3 over 0 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES - 0 0.5 Over a 1.9 over 2 TABLE 1-278 RBG 3.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Pr'lvM Total Federal Non-Fed P&M Total Fedwal Non-Fed p, WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.1 0.3 0 0.4 0.3 0.7 0 1.0 0.4 1.1 SELF-SUPP@LIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.4 b.4 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL VVATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 9.8 3.2 0 13.0 12.0 4.0 0 16.0 12.8 4.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.7 1.1 0 1.3 0.2 0.5 0 0.7 1.8 3.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 4.3 4.3 3.7 12.3 7.8 7.8 6.7 22.3 7.1 7.0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 76.0 0 0 76.0 363.0 0 0 363.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.4 0 0.9 1.3 0.7 0 1.8 2.5 0.4 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT .9.6 0.6 1.8 12.0 20.0 1.2 3.3 25. D 2D. 0 1.2 SHORELAND EROSION 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 2.0 2.5 0.5 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 1.3 0 3.2 4.5 2.1 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 3.3 0 1.1 4.4 1.3 0 0.4 1.7 1.1 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.9 8.3 0 9.2 1.6 13.9 0 15.5 1.4 13.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.7 5.1 0 7.8 6.6 12.3 0 18.9 8.4 15.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 108.4 22.9 10.3 141.6 415.3 40.4 19.6 475.3 56.0 45.4 2 TABLE 1-279 RBG 3.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Fedeml Non-Fed PrivatB Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 2.7 0 2.7 0 6.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.7 4.7 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 27.3 0 27.3 0 64.5 0 64.5 0 83.1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.6 0.9 0 1.5 1.3 3.4 0 4.7 2.4 4.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 3.6 3.6 0 0 27.0 27.0 0 0 5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 9.0 0 0 9.0 127.0 0 0 127.0 218.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.0 0.0 a 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.9 2.7 0.5 1.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.80 1.0 0.4 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 0.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R ECR EATION ANTENSIVE 0.3 1.1 0 1.4 2.4 9.7 0 12.1 6.1 24.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- TOTAL 9.9 30.2 5. 6 45.7 2 81.8 40.5 253.5 227.4 120.5 8 TABLE 1-280 RBG 3.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 20W RESOURCE USE CATE GORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 125.6 32.1 32.1 100 115.4 115.4 100 232 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 515 107 107 100 349 349 100 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.5 5.8 5.8 100 15.3 15.3 100 22 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 19.8 79.4 79.4 100 120.3 120.3 100 190 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.9 1.6 1.6 100 6.2 6.2 100 15 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 750 1,130 1,130 100 7.320 7,320 100 18,8 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 80 104 104 100 163 163 100 2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 453 408 408 100 252 252 100 3 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 ___ WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. IWO RECREATION DAYS 2,682 6.648 3,230 49 11,720 7,310 62 17.6 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE . NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 100D ANGLER DAYS 2,343 1,180 900 76 2,451 1,900 78 3.9 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING tOOO BOAT DAYS 2.361 552 109 20 1,014 192 19 1,6 t000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 262 262 --- --- 262 --- --- 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR 5.2 5.2 100 7.2 7.2 100 9 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,616 1,616 161.5 10 1,616 484.5 30 1,6 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 509 509 47.0 9 509 55.0 11 5 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 781 781 58 7 781 173 22 7 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 91.7 92 0 0 92 0.1 @j STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,067 1.067 79.4 7 1,067 238.2 22 1,0 $100D AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 79.5 79.5 15.9 20 79.5 47.7 60 79 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 1.4 8.2 2.1 26 9.1 4.3 47 10 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 591.9 816.4 299.3 37 1,306 708.6 54 2,3 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 254.2 253 56.5 22 253 98.6 39 2 -RURAL $1 ODO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 892.6 1.044 206.5 20 1,211 326.4 27 1,3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 217 24.0 11 619 62.0 10 1,0 1000 USER DAYS 5,194 793.2 264.5 33 1,573 864.5 55 2,4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL IWO ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES -7 1.7 0.9 53 3.2 2.1 66 5 -EXTENSIVE IWO ACRES NA 9.6 5.1 53 18.3 10.2 56 30 TABLE 1-281 RBG 3.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-202D EESQyRCE USE CATEGORY Fadmi Non-Fed PrivIft Total Fedwal Non-Fad pfivm Total Fedeml Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.2 9.8 0 14.0 11.3 26.5 0 37.8 15.7 36.5 SELFZUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.9 8.9 0 0 20.1 20.1 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC A LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.0 37.5 39.5 0 10.8 206.0 216.8 20.0 38 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGii 48.0 16.0 0 64.0 53.3 17.7 0 71.0 73.5 24.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.6 1.2 0 1.8 1.9 3.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.3 6.3 5.3 17.9 4.4 4.4 3.8 12.6 12.9 12.9 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.0 0 5.1 7.1 3.9 0 10.1 14.0 2.4 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.3 0 10.1 14.4 0.2 0 0.6 0.8 7.9 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 2.4 0.2 0.4 8.0 4.8 0.3 0.9 6.0 4.8 0.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.7 0 1.9 2.6 2.2 0 5.6 7.8 3.6 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 17.4 0 5.8 23.2 14.7 0 4.9 19.6 25.6 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.9 16.7 0 18.6 3.5 31.5 0 35.0 1.7 15.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 11.3 20.9 0 32.2 13.4 24.9 0 38.3 14.9 27.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 98.6 72.0 77.4 248.0 112.3 117.3 253.8 483.4 164.9 140.5 4 TABLE. 1-282 RBG 3.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1990 1981-20M 2001-= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Mon-Fed priva" Total f4doml Non-Fed prNm Tutd Fw" Non-Fed Pf WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.5 0 5.5 0 63.4 0 63.4 0 131.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 132.8 132.8 0 0 4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 11.4 11.4 0 0 2 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 .5 9.7 10.2 0 7.6 144.5 152.1 0 23.5 4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER UK$ MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 3610 0 36.0 0 146.0 0 146.0 0 204.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- ... ... --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 011 0.2 0 0.3 1.1 211 0 3.2 1.7 2.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 22.5 22.5 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- ... --- ... --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMA AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN - . ... --- --- --- --- --- ... --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 a 0.1 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0.0 0.7 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.9 0 0 .9 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 0.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.6 6.6 0 8.2 10.7 43.0 0 53.7 19.7 78.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1.7 49.8 25.1 76.6 11.9 264.2 320.2 596.3 21.5 442.8 9 TABLE 1-283 RBG 3.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1990 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 125.6 32.1 32.1 100 115.4 115.4 100 232 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 515 107 107 100 349 349 100 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.5 5.8 5.8 100 15.3 15.3 100 22 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 19.8 79.4 79.4 100 120.3 120.3 100 190 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.9 1.6 1.6 100 6.2 6.2 100 15 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 750 1,130 1,130 100 7,320 7,320 100 18,8 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 80 104 104 100 163 163 100 2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 453 408 408 100 252 252 100 3 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 2,682 6,648 3,230 49 11,720 7,310 62 17,6 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,343 1,180 900 76 2,451 1,900 78 3,9 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING IDDO BOAT DAYS 2,361 552 109 20 1,014 192 19 1,6 IDDO ACRES WATER SURFACE 262 262 --- --- 262 --- --- 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 5.2 5.2 100 7.2 7.2 100 9 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,616 1,616 355.3 22 1,616 101.8 63 1,G -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 509 509 76.3 15 509 190 37 5 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 781 781 77 10 781 232 30 7 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 91.7 92 0 0 92 0.1 <1 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,067 1,uo 79.4 7 1,067 238.2 22 1 r) $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 79.5 79.5 15.9 20 79.5 47.7 60 79 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 7.4 8.2 2.1 26 -9.1 4.3 47 10 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 591.9 816.4 299.3 37 1,306 708.6 54 2,3 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 254.2 253 56.5 22 253 98.6 39 2 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 892.6 1,044 206.5 20 1,211 326.4 27 1,3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 217 24.0 11 619 62.0 10 1,0 1000 USER DAYS 5,194 793.2 264.5 33 1,573 864.5 55 2,4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.7 0.9 53 3.2 2.1 66 5 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 9.6 5.1 53 18.3 10.2 56 30 TABLE 1-284 RBG 3.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,WO,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Privm Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.2 9.8 0 14.0 11.3 26.5 0 37.8 15.7 36.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.9 8.9 0 0 20.1 20.1 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.0 37.5 39.5 0 10.8 206.0 216.8 0 20.0 38 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 120.7 40.3 0 161.0 203.5 34.5 0 138.0 102.7 34.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.6 1.2 0 1.8 1.9 3.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.3 6.3 5.3 17.9 4.4 4.4 3.8 12.6 12.9 12.9 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 4.4 0 11.2 15.6 8.1 0 20.7 28.8 5.0 0 12.7 AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 3.2 0 9.9 14.2 7.0 0 16.5 23.5 4.5 0 10.4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 3.2 0.2 0.6 4.0 7.2 0.4 1.4 9.0 7.2 0.4 1.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.7 0 1.9 2.6 2.2 0 5.6 7.8 3.6 0 9.4 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- 25.6 0 8.5 --URBAN 17.4 0 5.8 23.2 14.7 0 4.9 19.6 --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.9 16.7 0 18.6 3.5 31.5 G 35.0 1.7 15.4 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 38.3 14.9 27.7 OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 11.3 20.9 0 32.2 13.4 24.9 0 - - --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 174.5 96.3 83.5 354.3 175.9 134.2 280.8 1590.9 195.7 150.4 476. TABLE 1-285 RBG 3.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privau I Fedwal Non-Fed Priva" Total Fademl Non-Fed Privab WATER WITHDRAWALS 0 5.5 0 5.5 0 63.4 0 63.4 0 131.7 MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0 8.2 8.2 0 0 132.8 132.8 0 0 400. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 20. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 11.4 11.4 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 2. MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 4. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 .5 9.7 10.2 0 7.6 144.5 152.1 0 23.5 446. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES 205.0 0 205.0 0 506.2 0 506.2 0 768.8 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES I --- --- --- --- INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 1.1 2.1 a 3.2 1.7 2.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 22.5 22.5 0 0 38. COMMERCIAL FISHING COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS u 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 5. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 4. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.4 1. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0. SHORELAND EROSION 2.6 2.6 0 0 6. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 --- --- --- --- FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0.0 0.7 -URBAN -RURAL -RURAL 1.7 0 1.7 0 0.9 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.6 6.6 0 8.2 10.7 43.0 0 53.7 19.7 78.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1.7 218.8 25.3 245.8 11.9 624.5 323.8 960.2 21.5 1,007.8 930. TABLE 1-286 RBG 4.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER W THDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 738.9 165.3 165.3 100 553.4 553.4 100 1,094 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,297 30.8 30.8 100 401 401 100 923 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 49.4 4.8 4.8 100 13.9 13.9 100 18.3 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50 192.1 192.1 100 291.9 291.9 100 389.1 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 59.6 21.6 21.6 100 83.4 83.4 100 180.1 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,850 0 0 --- 1,046 1,046 100 2,679 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 897 992 992 100 1.194 1,194 100 1,55i INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 746 504 504 100 247 247 100 255 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 9,033 16,610 7,680 46 29,800 16,210 54 47,530 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING . 1000 ANGLER DAYS 4,000 723 723 100 1,628 1,628 100 2,860 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,447 930 82 9 1,932 158 8 3,150 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 318 318 --- --- 318 --- --- 318 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 52.0 52.0 100 68.9 68.9 100 88.1 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1.305 1,305 130.6 10 1,305 391.7 30 1,305 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 434 434 71.3 16 434 163 38 434 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 421 421 31 7 421 93 22 421 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 887 887 64.8 7 887 194 22 887 SIOM AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 61.7 61.7 12.3 20 61.7 37.0 60 61.7 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 57.9 58.6 24.8 42 59.5 38.6 65 60.8 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 23,950 35,370 32,620 92 56,460 53,930 96 66,220 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 206 206 80.5 39 204.8 130.3 64 203.5 -RURAL SIODO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,104 2,466 1,758 71 3,025 2,400 79 3,571 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 440 19.0 4 874 68.8 8 1.447 1000 USER DAYS 5,804 3,193 757.0 24 4,948 2,930 59 7,078 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL IWO ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 5.6 2.1 38 9.5 4.7 49 15.7 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 32 9.9 31 53.9 19.3 36 89.0 TABLE 1-287 RBG 4.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-19M 1981-20M 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Prl"u Total Federal Non-Fed Private Totof Federal Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 64.2 149.7 0 213.9 61.2 142.9 0 204.1 77.0 179.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 30.7 30.7 0 0 43. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0. IRRIGATION 0 0 5.8 5.8 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 2. MINING 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 3. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1.8 34.8 36.6 0 2.9 54. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 525.0 175.0 0 700.0 225.0 75.0 0 300.0 281.3 93.7 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.7 2.0 0 2.7 0.4 0.8 0 1.2 0.8 1.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 3.7 3.7 3.1 10.5 3.6' 3.6 3.1 10.3 5.3 5.3 4. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.b 0 4.1 5.7 3.2 0 8.3 11.5 1.9 0 4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 7.5 0 17.4 24.9 10.0 0 23.3 33.3 2.0 0 4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 2.4 0.2 0.4 3.0 2.4 0.2 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.8 0 4.6 6.4 3.0 0 7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 180.1 0 60.0 240.1 15.5 0 5.1 20.6 29.9 0 9 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.9 16.9 0 18.8 1.5 13.7 0 15.2 1.6 13.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 50.6 93.9 0 144.5 55.1 102.3 0 157.4 46.8 86.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 837.5 441.3 95.8 1374.6 379.7 340.3 115.0 835.0- 452.0 384.1 135 TABLE 1-288 RBG 4.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-IM 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwel NomFed private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total fedwal Non-Fed Prh WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 80.6 0 80.6 0 274.2 0 274.2 0 554.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 63.9 63.9 0 0 195 RURAL DOMESTIC A LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.7 5.7 0 0 9 IRRIGATION D 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 3.9 3.9 0 0 5 MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 19.1 19.1 0 0 47 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.9 17.9 18.8 0 3.4 63 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 450.0 0 450.0 0 1100.0 0 1100.0 0 1500.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 0.7 1.4 0 2.1 1.1 2.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 14.3 14.3 0 0 26 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.2 4.2 0 0 6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 5 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.1 2.1 0 2.2 0.1 2.4 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 0.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 3.9 15.7 0 19.6 32.2 128.9 0 161.1 57.3 229.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 4.1 548.4 9.3 561.8 33.0 1508.4 131,5 1,672.9 58.6 2292.7 363 TABLE 1-289 RBG 4.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 738.9 165.3 165.3 100 553.4 553.4 100 1,09 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,297 30.8 30.8 100 401 401 100 92 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 49.4 4.8 4.8 100 13.9 13.9 100 18. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50 192.1 192.1 100 291.9 291.9 100 389. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 59.6 21.6- 21.6 100 83.4 83.4 100 180. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,850 0 0 --- 1,046 1,046 100 2,67 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 897 992 992 100 1.194 1,194 100 1,55 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 746 504 504 100 247 247 100 25 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 9,033 16,610 7,680 46 29,800 16,210 54 47,53 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 4,000 723 723 100 1,628 1,628 100 2,86 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,447 930 82 9 1,932 158 8 3,15 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 318 318 --- --- 318 --- --- 31 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 52.0 52.0 100 68.9 68.9 100 88. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,305 1,305 287.1 22 1,305 822.3 63 1,30 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 434 434 ?1. 3 16 434 186.8 43 43 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 421 421 85 20 421 25.3 60 42 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 887 887 64.8 7 887 194 22 88 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 61.7 61.7 12.3 20 61.7 37.0 60 61. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 57.9 58.6 24.8 42 59.5 38.6 65 60. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 23,950 35,370 32,620 92 56,460 53,930 96 66,22 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 206 206 80.5 39 204.8 130.3 64 203. -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,104 2,466 1,758 71 3,025 2,400 79 3,57 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 440 19.0 4 874 68.8 8 1,44 1000 USER DAYS 5,804 3,193 757.0 24 4,948 2,930 59 7,07 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 5.6 2.1 38 9.5 4.7 49 15. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 32 9.9 31 5-3.9 __19.3 36 89. TABLE 1-290 RBG 4.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed P&M Total Federal Non-Fed Privats Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 64.2 149.7 0 213.9 61.2 142.9 0 204.1 77.0 179.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 30.7 30.7 0 0 43 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 5.8 5.8 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 2 MINING 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1.8 34.8 36.6 0 2.9 54 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 372.8 124.2 0 497.0 417.0 139.0 0 556.0 482.2 160.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 0.7 2.0 0 2.7 0.4 0.8 0 1.2 0.8 1.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 3.7 3.7 3.1 10.5 3.6 3.6 3.1 10.3 5.3 5.3 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 17.0 0 0 17.0 445.0 0 0 445.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 6.6 0 16.9 23.5 4.0 0 10. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 8.9 12.4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 6.1 0 14.2 20.3 11.0 0 25.5 36.5 5.5 0 12. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 4.0 0. 2 0.8 5.0 8.0 0.5 1.5 10.0 8.0 0.5 1 . SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.8 0 4.6 6.4 3.0 0 7. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 180.1 0 60.0 240.1 15.5 0 5.1 20.6 29.9 0 9. .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.9 16.9 0 18.8 1.5 13.7 0 15.2 1.6 13.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 50.6 93.9 0 144.5 55.1 102.3 0 157.4 46.8 86.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 705.2 390. 6 97.9 1,193.7 1, 026. ? 404.6 126.9 1,558.2 664.1 451.5 150. TABLE 1-291 RBG 4.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Priva WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 80.6 0 80.6 0 274.2 0 274.2 0 554.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 63.9 63.9 0 0 195 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 D 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.7 5.7 0 0 9 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 3.9 3.9 0 0 5. MINING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 19.1 19.1 0 0 47. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.9 17.9 18.8 0 3.4 63. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 952.5 0 952.5 0 250. 6 0 2,250.6 0 3,239.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 0.7 1.4 0 2.1 1.1 2.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 14.3 14.3 0 0 26 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 2.0 0 0 2.0 118.0 0 0 118.0 228.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.7 2.7 0 0 4. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 4.4 4.4 0 0 6. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 0.2 0. 4 1. SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1. 1 1.1 0 0 5 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -URBAN 0.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.1 2.1 0 2.2 0.1 2.4 ..RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0.8 0 0.8 0 0.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.9 15.7 0 19.6 32.2 128.9 0 161.1 57.3 229.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 6.1 1,050.9 .9.4 1,088.4 151.1 2.659.1 133.9 2_944.1 286.7 4,032.5 366 TABLE 1-292 RBG 4.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT JPPLY N 0 % N 0 WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 185.9 23.4 23.4 100 116.2 116.2 100 260. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 318 so 58 100 23B 238 100 52 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 42.4 8.7 8.7 100 21.7 21.7 100 33 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 69 0.8 0.8 100 49.4 49.4 100 113 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 22.1 8.7 8.7 100 29.6 29.6 100 59. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 891.8 0 0 --- 3,623 3,623 100 8,7 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 194.0 238.1 238.1 100 317.5 317.5 100 411 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 329.0 345 345 100 211 271 100 3 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 5,070 8,780 5,455 62 15,940 10,570 66 25.5 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 91900 2,269 2,269 100 5,275 5,275 100 9,6 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,302 207 144 70 474 462 97 8 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 265 265 --- --- 265 --- --- 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 54.4 54.4 100 68.7 68.7 100 80 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3t821 3,821 382.1 10 3,821 1,146 30 3,8 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 2,520 2,520 61.0 2 2,520 251 10 2.5 FOREST LAND.-TREATMENT IODO ACRES 348 348 31 9 348 92 26 3 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 28.0 28.0 0 0 28.0 0 0 28 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 888 888 21.2 2 888 63.6 7 8 $11WO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 117.2 117.2 23.4 20 117.2 70.3 60 117 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES [email protected] 26.7 4.4 16 27.0 16.0 59 27 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 4,510 6,081 2,652 44 11,320 9,964 88 20,8 -RURAL IDDO ACRES 371.2 371 99.3 27 370.6 150.6 41 370 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 4,610 5,758 1,853 32 7,714 3,217 42 9,8 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 312 19.1 6 618 55.1 9 9 1000 USER DAYS 3,688 1.162 95.0 8 1,844 270.0 15 2.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATiONANTENSIVE i000 ACRES --- 2.6 1.7 65 4.9 3.3 67 8 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 14.7 10.2 69 27.2 19.2 71 39 TABLE 1-293 RBG 4.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-202D RESQqqLCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Primm Total Fedwal Non-Fed privou Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.0 4.7 0 6.7 12.1 28.2 0 40.3 12.6 29.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 15.0 15.0 0 0 2 RURAL DOMESTIC A LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 6.3 120.5 126.8 0 9.0 17 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNFCIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 41.1 13.7 0 54.8 81.1 27.0 0 108.1 102.2 34.1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 6.8 17.9 0 24.7 1.7 5.2 0 6.9 1.3 4.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 8.9 8.9 7.5 25.3 23.0 22.9 19.7 65.6 14.1 14.1 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC, LAND-TREATMENT 4./ 0 12.0 16.7 9.4 0 24.0 33.4 5.6 0 14. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.5 0 10.5 15.0 14.0 0 32.5 46.5 20.0 0 46. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 3.2 0.2 0.6 4.0 3.2 0.2 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.2 0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.0 0 2. --- --- --- --- --- FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- .-URBAN 43.5 0 14.5 58.0 72.2 0 24.0 96.2 2.9 0 1. -RURAL --- --- --FIURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.5 13.5 0 15.0 3.4 30.3 0 33.7 4.4 39.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 11.5 21.3 0 32.8 16.9 31.5 0 48.4 20.0 37.0 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 126.3 80.1 50.5 256.9 237.6 151.6 240.1 629.3 187.3 167.0 275. TABLE 1-294 RBG 4.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 19 1-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private TOW Fedeml Non-Fed Prime Total Federal Non-Fed Prive WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 3.4 0 3.4 0 41.9 0 41.9 0 111.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.6 4.6 0 0 46.1 46.1 0 0 117. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.3 5.3 0 0 9. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 1. MINING 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 9. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3.2 62.0 65.2 0 11.2 212. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 76.0 0 76.0 0 202.0 0 202.0 0 244.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.2 1.4 0 2.6 0.8 2.3 0 3.1 1.7 3.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 48.1 48.1 0 0 92. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 6. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 3.8 3.8 0 0 9. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 1. I FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 1.7 0 1.8 0.1 2.2 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 2.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.3 9.2 0 11.5 14.7 58.9 0 73.6 26.5 105.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.5 90.8 12.7 107.0 15.6 311.8 174.0 501.4 78.4 481.5 460. TABLE 1-295 RBG 4.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT- SUPPLY N 0 % N. 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 185.9 23.4 23.4 100 116.2 116.2 100 260.8 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 318 58 58 100 238 238 100 523 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 42.4 8.7 8.7 100 21.7 21.7 100 33.9 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 69 0.8 0.8 100 49.4 49.4 100 113.7 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 22.1 8.7 8.7 100 29.6 29.6 100 59.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS MR DAY 891.8 0 0 --- 3,623 3,623 100 8,787 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 194.0 238.1 238.1 100 317.5 317.5 100 411. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 329.0 345 345 100 271 271 100 382 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PCR DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 10DO RECREATION DAYS 5,070 8,780 5,455 62 15,940 10,570 66 25,580 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 9,900 2,269 2,269 100 5.275 5,275 100 9,66 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,302 207 144 70 474 462 97 82 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 265 265 --- --- 265 --- --- 26 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 54.4 54.4 100 68.7 68.7 100 80. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,821 3,821 840.6 22 3,821 2,407 63 3,82 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 2,520 2,520 208.3 8 2,520 .565.4 22 2,52 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 348 348 38 11 348 113 Z@ 34 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 28.0 28.0 0 0 28.0 0 0 28. STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 888 888 21.2 2 888 63.6 7 88 $10DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 117.2 117.2 23.4 20 117.2 70.3 60 117. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 26.5 26.7 4.4 16 27.0 16.0 59 27. -URBAN $10DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 4,510 6,081 2,652 44 11,320 9,964 88 20,80 -RURAL 1DOO ACRES 371@2 371 99.3 27 370.6 150.6 41 370. --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 4,610 5,758 1,853 32 7,714 3,217 42 9,87 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1ODD ACRES --- 312 19.1 6 618 55.1 9 94 1000 USER DAYS 3,688 1,162 95.0 8 1,844 270.0 15 2,54 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 2.6 1.7 65 4.9 3.3 67 8. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 14.7 10.2 69 27.2 19.2 71 39. TABLE 1-296 RBG 4.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privm Total Federal Non-Fed Pfivm Totel Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.0 4.7 0 6.7 12.1 28.2 0 40.3 12.6 29.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 15.0 15.0 0 0 23 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 6.3 120.5 126.8 0 9.0 171 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 182.2 60.8 0 243.0 150.8 50.2 0 201.0 143.2 47.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 6.8 17.9 0 24.7 1.7 5.2 0 6.9 1.3 4.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 8.9 8.9 7.5 25.3 23.0 22.9 19.7 65.6 14.1 14.1 12 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 58.2 0 0 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 9.0 0 0 9.0 58.2 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 11.7 0 30. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 10. 3 0 26.4 36.7 19.4 0 49.9 69.3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 10.0 0 23.3 33.3 17.1 0 40.0 57.1 12.9 0 30. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 2.4 0.1 0.5 3.0 4.0 0.2 0.8 5. 0 4.0 0.2 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0 --- 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.2 0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.0 0 2. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- .-URBAN 43.5 b 14.5 58.0 72.2 0 24.0 96.2 2.9 0 1. --- --- --- --- --- --- ..RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ..RURAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.5 13.5 0 15.0 3.4 30.3 0 33.7 4.4 39.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- 37.0 OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 12.5 21.3 0 32.8 16.9 31.5 0 48.4 20.0 --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 288.3 127.2 77.8 493.4 379.4 174.8 273.7 827.9 228.1 181.7 273. TABLE 1-297 RBG 4.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,0W,000 1971-1980 1981-20DO 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 3.4 0 3.4 0 41.9 0 41.9 0 111.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.6 4.6 0 0 46.1 46.1 0 0 117. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.3 5.3 0 0 9. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 1. MINING 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 4.0 4.0 0 0 9. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3.2 62.0 65.2 0 11.2 212. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 307.5 0 307.5 0 731.5 0 731.5 0 1,146.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.2 1.4 0 2.6 0.8 2.3 0 3.1 1.7 3.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 48.1 48.1 0 0 92. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 1.0 17.0 0 0 17.0 30.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 0 12. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 8.0 8.0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 7.1 7.1 0 0 11. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 D. SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 1. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -LIRBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0*1 1*7 0 1.8 0.1 2.2 -RURAL --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 2.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R EC R EATION -INTENSIVE 2.3 9.2 0 11.5 14.7 58.9 0 73.6 26.5 105.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 4.5 322.3 13.6 340.4 32.6 841.3 182.0 1,055.9 58.4 1,383.7 468 TABLE 1-298 RBG 4.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent NeMs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 516.9 79.5 79.5 100 247.7 247.7 100 494 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,306 153 153 100 836 836 100 1,7 RURAL DOMESTIC A LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 24.7 1.6 1.6 100 6.3 6.3 100 8 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 97 + + 100 16.5 16.5 100 63 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 24.3 14.4 14.4 100 53.1 53.1 100 128 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,548 0 0 --- 2,553 2,553 100 8,2 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 516.9 610.2 610.2 100 800.3 800.3 100 1,0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1.349 1,190 1,190 100 938 938 100 1,2 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PgR DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,045 9,175 5,690 62 17,220 11,750 68 28,0 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING IDDO ANGLER DAYS 9,333 972 972 100 5,174 5,174 100 5.5 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 699 139 109 81 327 307 94 4 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 298 298 --- --- 298 --- --- 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 70.4 70.4 100 94.9 94.9 100 120 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LANO-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 700 700 52.1 7 700 156 22 7 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 265 265 4.1 2 265 7.2 3 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 430 430 32 7 430 97 23 4 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 28.2 28.2 2.9 10 28.2 8.8 31 28 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 356 356 16.0 4 356 48.0 19 3 SIOW AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 341.7 342 68.4 20 342 205.2 60 3 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN IWO ACRES 14.4 15.1 6.3 42 15.9 9.4 59 16 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,221 1,799 1,118 62 3,598 2,573 72 7,4 -RURAL IODO ACRES 64 63.3 11.1 18 62.4 28.9 46 61 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 623.5 830.8 377.4 45 1,179 668.0 57 118 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IWO ACRES --- 100 2.8 3 410 11.4 3 8 1000 USER DAYS 3,184 1,793 84.3 5 2,841 233.3 8 4.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-41NITENSIVE i000 ACRES 2.6 1.7 65 5.2 3.5 67 9 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 15 10 67 29.7 20.4 69 51 TABLE 1-299 RBG 4.3, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001 -I= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed privau Total Federal Non-Fed priva" Total Fedwal Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 7.0 16.2 0 23.2 14.7 34.3 0 49.0 21.7 50.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 12.7 12.7 a 0 56.7 56.7 0 0 7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4.5 84.8 89.3 0 9.9 181 NON-WITHDFtAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 102.0 34.0 0 136.0 218.3 72.7 0 291.0 264.0 88.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0.9 0 1.2 0.4 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 10.2 10.2 8.6 29.0 15.9 15.9 13.7 45.5 10.9 10.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 u U u u RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.2 a 3.0 4.2 0.7 0 1.8 2.5 8.8 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 0 0.6 0.8 2.0 0 4.8 6.8 8.6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.6 D.1 0.3 2.0 4.0 0.2 0.8 5.0 4.0 0.2 0.8 5.0 12.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.2 1.5 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 7.3 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.2 1.6 0.7 0 1.9 2.6 4.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 14.2 4.7 18.9 5.4 0 1.8 7.2 0.8 0 0.3 1.1 27.2 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.3 3.1 0 3.4 1.2 11.0 0 12.2 2.3 20.8 0 23.1 38.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 36.9 68.6 0 105.5 38.0 70.7 0 108.7 20.8 38.5 0 59.3 27 -3.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 173.6 132.4 30.9 336.9 300.2 210.2 -167.9 678.3 328.9 _220.2 289.7 838.8 1854.0 TABLE 1-300 RBG 4.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Privau Total Federal Non-Fed Private TOW Total WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 11.7 0 11.7 0 96.7 0 96.7 0 219.2 0 219.2 327.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 11.5 11.5 0 0 149.5 149.5 0 0 387.8 387.8 548.8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 2.5 2.5 3.9 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.8 0.8 1.0 MINING 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 8.0 8.0 0 0 21.5 21.5 30.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0@ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2.3 43.6 45.9 0 9.7 184 193.7 239..6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 259 0 259 0 738 0 738 0 912 a 912 1909 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 0.4 1.2 0 1.6 0.4 1.6 0 2.0 4.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 34.8 34.8 0 0 62.3 62.3 102.0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.8 1.3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.7 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.6 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 1.9 2.4 3.7 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1.3 1.3 1.8 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0 0.6 1.2 --RURAL --- --- --- -RURAL --- 0.2 0 0.2 --- 0.6 0 0.6 0 1.6 0 1.6 2.4 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 C) AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.4 13.5 0 16.9 20.7 82.7 0 103.4 31.7 126.7 0 158.4 278.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.6 284.8 17.6 306.0 21.4 922.1 239.8 1183.3 33.7 1271.6 664.1 1968.4 3457.7 TABLE 1-301 RBG 4.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 516.9 79.5 79.5 100 247.7 247.7 100 494. SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,306 153 153 100 836 836 100 1,73 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 24.7 1.6 1.6 100 6.3 6.3 100 8. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 97 + --- --- 16.5 5.1 32 63. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 24.3 14.4 14.4 100 53.1 14.4 27 128. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,548 0 0 --- 2,553 2,553 100 8,20 NON-MiTHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 516.9 610.2 610.2 100 800.3 800.3 100 1,03 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,349 1,190 1,190 100 938 938 100 1,28 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,045 9,175 5,690 62 17,220 11,750 68 28,0 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 9,333 972 972 100 5,174 5,174 100 5,5 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1 1000 BOAT DAYS 699 135 109 81 327 307 94 46 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE 298 298 --- --- 298 --- --- 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 70.4 70.4 100 94.9 94.9 100 120 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 700 700.1 114.6 16 700.1 328.4 47 790. ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 265 2,35.3 21.9 8 235.3 59.8 23 265. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 430 430 86 20 430 258 60 4 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 28.2 28.2 2.9 10 28.2 8.8 31 28 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 356 356 16.0 4 356 48.0 19 3 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 341.7 342 68.4 20 342 205.2 60 3 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 14.4 15.1 6.3 42 15.9 9.4 59 16 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,221 1,799 1,118 62 3,598 2,573 72 7,4 -RURAL IWO ACRES 64 63.3 11.1 is 62.4 28.9 46 61 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 623.5 830.8 377.4 45 1,179 668.0 57 1,8 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 100 2.8 3 410 11.4 3 8 1000 USER DAYS 3,184 1,793 84.3 5 2,841 233.3 8 4,0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 2.6 1.7 65 5.2 3.5 67 9 -EXTENSIVE 10DO ACRES NA 15 10 67 29.7 20.4 69 51 TABLE 1-302 RBG 4.3, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Privew Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 7.0 16.2 0 23.2 14.7 34.3 0 49.0 21.7 50.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDU STRIAL 0 0 12.7 12.7 0 0 56.7 56.7 0 0 74 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 a 0 0 0 a THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4.5 84.8 89.3 0 9.9 18 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 521.2 173.8 0 695.0 326.2 108.8 0 435.0 255.8 85.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0.9 0 1.2 0.4 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 10.2 10.2 8.6 29.0 15.9 15.9 13.7 45.5 10.9 10.9 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 9.0 0 0 9.0 1P. 5 0 0 12.5 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.3 0 3.3 4.6 2.4 0 6.2 8.6 1.5 0 3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.2 0.0 2.9 4.1 2.2 0 5.0 7.2 1.5 0 3 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 4.8 0.3 0.9 6.0 70.4 0.7 1.9 13.0 10.4 0.7 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.2 1.5 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 0.6 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.2 1.6 0.7 0 1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 14.2 0 4.7 18.9 5.4 0 1.8 7.2 0.8 0 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.3 3.1 0 3.4 1.2 11.0 0 12.2 2.3 20.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 36.9 68.6 0 105.5 38.0 70.7 0 108.7 20.8 38.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 606.6 272.4 35.2 914.2 430.2 246.8 173.9 850.9 327.4 217.9 287 TABLE 1-303 RBG 4.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Prim WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 11.7 0 11.7 0 96.7 0 96.7 0 219.2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 11.5 11.5 0 0 149.5 149.5 0 0 387 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 2 IRRIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 3. 7 3. ? 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2.3 43.6 45.9 0 9.7 1 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 538.7 0 538.7 0 1, 336. 5 0 1,336.5 0 2,358. 7 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 0.4 1.2 0 1.6 0.4 1.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 4.9 4.9 0 0 34.8 34.8 0 0 62 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 0 7.0 0 0 7.0 10.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.4 0.2 0.5 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - --URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0 0.5 0.0 0.6 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 1.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 3.4 13.5 0 16.9 20.7 82.7 0 103.4 31.7 126.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 4.6 564.5 17.9 587.0 28.4 1,520.8 237.4 1,786.6 42.8 718. 6 648 TABLE 1-304 RBG 4.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 20DO RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N a % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 327.2 39.1 39.1 100 137.7 137.7 100 260. SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 946 114 114 100 454 454 100 84 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.6 0 0 --- 6.9 6.9 100 1 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 20.5 22.5 22.5 100 55.7 55/7 100 100. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 9.1 3.6 3.6 100 13.8 13.8 100 30. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,470 0 0 --- 1.800 11800 100 6.50 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 268 294 294 100 359 359 too 44 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,067 942 942 100 627 627 100 76 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,596 4,343 4,820 over 10,130 10,040 99 17.56 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- -- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 4,617 911 478 63 2 ,068 1,427 69 2,63 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- -- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 657 249 78 31 267 206 77 38 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 358 358 --- --- 358 --- --- 35 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- -- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 15.2 15.2 100 21.0 21.0 100 29. RELATED LAN6 USES & PROBLEMS- AGRIC. LAND.-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 551.9 551.9 49.9 9 551.9 149.6 27 551. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 182 182 15.1 8 182 15.1 8 18 FOREST LAND.-TREATMENT 10DO ACRES 1,027 1,030 78 8 1,030 234 23 1,03 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 48.6 49 6.0 12 49 6.0 12 4 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 363 363 14.4 4 363 43.2 12 36 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 58.8 58.0 11.6 20 58.0 34.8 60 58. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN IDDO ACRES 21.8 23.2 13.9 60 25.6 21.9 86 27. -URBAN $IBM AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 928.1 1,344 576.4 43 2,760 2,000 72 5,68 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 93.6 92.2 16.9 18 89.8 54.8 61 87. -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 405.4 592.1 88.4 15 1,1W 949.3 80 2.34 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 36.0 54.5 over 175.0 139.5 80 266. 1000 USER DAYS 1,230 338.4 79.8 24 524.6 227.1 43 662. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- -- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.1 1.8 Over 2.9 3.8 over 5. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 6.2 9.1 Over 16.3 19.7 over 29. TABLE 1-305 RBG 4.4, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Priva" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Priveft Total Fedeml Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED M 8.2 0 11.7 8.9 20.9 0 29.8 10.9 25.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 9.4 9.4 0 0 28.2 28.2 0 0 32 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3.2 59.8 63.0 0 8.2 156 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 129.6 43.2 0 172.8 42.5 14.1 0 56.6 106.1 35.4 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- - WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 2.5 2.3 0 4.8 3.0 1.5 0 4.5 5.9 2.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.4 6.4 5.4 18.2 7.9 7.9 6.7 22.5 5.8 5.8 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.6 0 1.4 2.0 1.1 0 3.0 4.1 0.7 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.0 0 2.4 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 4.8 0.3 0.9 0.9 9.6 0.6 1.8 12.0 9.6 0.6 1 SHORELAND EROSION 1.0 0 3.8 3.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 1.0 1.4 0.7 0 1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.7 0 2.5 10.2 60.2 0 20.1 80.3 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.1 0.5 0 0.6 0.3 2.8 0 3.1 0.3 2.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECIREATION-INTENSIVE 12.2 22.1 0 34.9 30.3 56.2 0 86.5 29.0 53.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 169.5 83.6 27.0 280.1 164.2 _107.7 121.8 393.2 169.0 134.9 201 TABLE 1-306 RBG 4.4, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Private TOW Federal Non-Fed Private T-W, Federal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.8 0 5.8 0 53.3 0 53.3 0 119.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.3 8.3 0 0 82.9 82.9 0 0 190 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 2 IRRIGATION 13 0 ID. 1 0.1 0 0 0.4 ID. 4 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1.6 30.8 32.4 0 7.5 142 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 114.0 0 114.0 0 136.0 0 136.0 0 184.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.9 1.9 0 3.8 2.1 1.0 0 3.1 2.7 1.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 22.4 22.4 0 0 37 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.5 1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.5 1.9 0.4 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 a 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.6 0.0 0.9 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 a 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.8 7.3 0 9.1 15.6 62.6 0 78.2 31.4 125.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - TOTAL 3.8 129.0 12.8 145.6 18.2 255.4 142.2 415.8 34.8 439.0 382 TABLE 1-307 RBG 4.4, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0- % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 327.2 39.1 39.1 100 137.7 137.7 100 260.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 946 114 114 100 454 454 100 849 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.6 0 0 --- 6.9 6.9 100 15 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 20.5 22.5 22.5 100 55.7 55/7 100 100.8 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 9.1 3.6 3.6 100 13.8 13.8 100 30. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,470 0 0 1,800 1,800 100 6,503 NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 269 294 294 100 359 359 100 445 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,067 942 942 100 627 627 100 76 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 8,596 4,343 4,820 over 10,130 10,040 99 17,560 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 4,617 911 478 63 2,068 1,427 69 2,632 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 657 249 78 31 267 206 77 38 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE 358 358 --- --- 358 --- --- 358 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 15.2 15.2 100 21.0 21.0 100 29.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 551.9 551.9 92.6 17 551.9 265.5 48 551. ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 182 182 0 0 182 0 0 182 FOREST LAND.-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,027 1,030 104 10 1,030 310 30 1,030 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 48.6 49 6.0 12 49 6.0 12 49 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 363 363 14.4 4 363 43.2 12 36 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 58.8 58.0 11.6 20 58.0 34.8 60 58. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 21.8 23.2 13.9 60 25.6 21.9 86 27.9 -URBAN $110DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 928.1 1,344 576.4 43 2,760 2,000 72 5,688 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 93.6 92.2 '16.9 18 89.8 54.8 61 87. --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 405.4 592.1 88.4 15 1,180 949.3 80 2,34 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 36.0 54.5 over 175.0 139.5 80 266. 1000 USER DAYS 1,230 338.4 79.8 24 524.6 227.1 43 662. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.1 1.8 over 2.9 3.8 over 5.3 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 6.2 9.1 over 16.3 19.7 over 29. TABLE 1-308 RBG 4.4, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 3.5 8.2 0 11.7 8.9 20.9 0 29.8 10.9 25.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 9.4 9.4 0 0 28.2 28.2 0 0 32 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3.2 59.8 63.0 0 8.2 156 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 755.2 251.8 0 1,007.0 301.5 100.5 0 402.0 129.0 43.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 2.5 2.3 0 4.8 3.0 1.5 0 4.5 5.9 2.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.4 6.4 5.4, 18.2 7.9 7.9 6.7 22.5 5.8 5.8 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 19.0 0 0 19.0 28.8 0 0 28.8 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.4 0 0.9 1.3 0.7 0 1.8 2.5 0.4 0 1.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 6.4 0.4 1.2 8.0 2.0 0.8 2.2 15.0 12.0 0.8 2.2 SHORELAND EROSION 1.0 0 3.8 4.8 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.0 1.4 0.7 0 1.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 7.7 0 2.5 10.2 60.2 0 20.1 80.3 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.1 0.5 0 0.6 0.3 2.8 0 3.1 0.3 2.7 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 12.2 22.7 0 34.9 30.3 56.2 0 86.5 29.0 53.8 0 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 314.5 292.3 24.4 1,131.2 454.0 193.8 121.0 768.8 194.0 742.7 201.6 TABLE 1-309 RBG 4.4, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Privet WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.8 0 5.8 0 53.3 0 53.3 0 119.3 0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 8.3 8.3 0 0 82.9 82.9 0 0 190.3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 2.3 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.8 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 3.4 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1.6 30.8 32.4 0 7.5 142.2 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 335.0 0 335.0 0 923.6 0 923.6 0 2,150.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.9 1.9 0 3.8 2.1 1.0 0 3.1 2.7 1.3 0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 22.4 22.4 0 0 37.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 2.0 0 0 2.0 12.0 0 0 12. n 16.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0. - 0.6 1.9 2.8 0.2 0.4 7 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.5 1.9 0.4 0 1. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1.2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.6 0.0 0.9 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R ECR EATION -INTENSIVE 1.8 7.3 0 9.1 15.6 62.6 0 78.2 31.4 125.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 5.8 360.0 12.6 368.4 30.4 1,043.4 142.8 1,216.6 50.7 2,404.9 381. TABLE 1-310 RBG 5.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY YNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 131.0 14.3 14.3 100 82.6 82.6 100 144.4 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50 4 4 100 21 21 100 84 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 10.8 4.1 4.1 100 3.6 3.6 100 6.8 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.6 16.8 16.8 100 42.9 42.9 100 77.7 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.7 6.7 6.7 100 13.5 13.5 100 25.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 737 838 838 100 1,665 1,665 100 3,654 NON-WITHDRAWAL WAT R USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PEA DAY 225 256 256 100 351 351 100 464 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 298 298 298 100 377 377 100 775 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PCR DAY NA + + --- 4.000 4,000 100 24,000 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 3,292 3,740 2,810 75 7.039 6,438 91 11,310 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,625 1,456 1,000 69 2,273 1,700 75 3,886 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING IODD BOAT DAYS 648 201 103 51 312 200 64 474 IWO ACRES WATER SURFACE 165 165 --- --- 165 --- --- 165 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 0.6 0.6 100 0.7 0.7 100 0.8 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 10130 ACRES 654.2 654.2 59.0 9 654.2 174.2 27 654.2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 147 147 18.5 13 147 18.5 13 147 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IODO ACRES 443 443 38 9 443 113 26 443 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 59 59 2.5 4 59 7.4 13 59 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 311 311 9.0 3 311 27.0 9 311 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 234.6 234.6 469 20 234.6 140.6 60 234.6 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 1.5 7.7 2.0 26 7.9 3.5 44 8.2 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 213.5 301.0 154.0 51 613.8 375.8 61 1,254 -RURAL IODO ACRES 72.2 72.0 24.2 34 71.8 38.8 54 71.5 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 496.6 720.2 346.7 48 1,054 591.5 56 1,622 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 24 4.0 17 161 75.0 47 296.0 1000 USER DAYS 599.4 168 10.0 6 322.4 125.0 39 481.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.8 0.8 100 1.6 1.9 over 3.0 -EXTENSIVE IOW ACRES NA 2.8 5.8 Over 8.0 12.3 over 14.9 TABLE 1-311 RBG 5.1, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RE DU CE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privau Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.3 3.0 0 4.3 6.1 14.3 0 20.4 5.6 12.9 SELFSUPPLIFO INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 5. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 0. MINING 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 2. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.5 27.8 29.3 0 1.4 27.5 28.9 0 3.5 66. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 58.5 19.5 0 78.0 40.5 13.5 0 54.0 67.5 22.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WAIER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.5 2.5 0 5.0 2.7 1.4 0 4.1 4.2 2.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.3 6.3 5.5 18.1 3.7 3.7 3.2 10.6 3.7 3.7 3. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U. 1 1.7 2.4 1.3 0 3.4 4.7 0.8 0 2.0 2.8 9.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.6 0 3.7 5.3 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 5.3 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 3.2 0.2 0.6 4.0 3.2 0.2 0.6 4.0 10.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.5 0 1.9 2.4 1.0 0 3.9 4.9 1.0 0 3.9 4.9 12.2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 2.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14.9 0 5.0 19.9 102.8 0 34.2 137.0 0 0 0 0 156.9 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.1 0.4 0 0.5 0.4 3.8 0 4.2 0.4 3.9 0 4.3 9.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 11.1 20.7 a 31 8 14 6 27.1 0 41 7 8.3 15 4 0 23*7 97 2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -:- TOTAL 99.2 54.0 47.4 200.6 176.6 65.4 75.9 317.9 95.1 64.1 86.5 244.7 763.2 TABLE 1-312 RBG 5.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed prwate Total Total WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 31.7 0 31.7 0 59.7 0 59.7 93.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.7 3.7 0 0 15.6 15.6 19.6 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 1.7 1.7 3.2 IRRIGATION G Q 0.1 0.1 Q a 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.7 '0.7 1.2 MINING 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3.5 3.5 5.6 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 .4 7.1 7.5 0 2.3 42.8 45.1 0 4.8 90.9 95.7 148.3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 31.0 0 31.0 0 84.0 0 84.0 0 88.0 0 88.0 203.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHAROES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.5 0.6 0 1.1 1.8 0.9 0 2.7 2.5 1.2 0 3.7 7.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING a 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 18.8 18.8 0 0 28.3 28.3 50.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND.-TRrATMENT u 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.9 0.9 1.5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.5 1.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 1.6 2.0 .8 0 3.1 3.9 6.1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.8 0.8 1.1 @0 to FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0 0.9 0.1 1.4 0 1.5 2.5 IPA -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 2.5 10.1 0 12.6 15.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 61.0 0 76.3 23.8 95.0 0 118.8 207.7 Q -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.0 44.3 12.1 59.4 17.5 181.1 71.9 270.5 27.3 250.5 146.5 424.3 754.2 TABLE 1-313 RBG 5.1, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 131.0 14.3 14.3 100 82.6 82.6 100 144. SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50 4 4 100 21 21 100 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 10.8 4.1, 4.1 100 3.6 3.6 100 6. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.6 16.8 16.8 100 42.9 42.9 100 77. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.7 6.7 6.7 100 13.5 13.5 100 25. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 737 838 838 100 1,665 1,665 100 3,65 NION-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 225 256 256 100 351 351 100 46 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 298 298 298 100 377 377 100 77 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA + + --- 4.000 4,000 100 24,00 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 3,292 3,740 2,810 75 7,039 6,438 91 11,31 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,625 1,456 1,000 69 2,273 1,700 75 3,88 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 648 201 103 51 312 200 64 47 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 165 165 --- --- 165 --- --- 16 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 0.6 0.6 100 0.7 0.7 100 0. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 654.2 654.2 127.1 19 654.2 363.8 56 654. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 147 147 0 0 147 0 0 14 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 443 443 47 11 443 141 32 44 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 59 59 2.5 4 59 7.4 13 5 STREAMBANK EROSION M(LES 311 311 9.0 3 311 27.0 9 31 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 234.6 234.6 469 20 234.6 140.8 60 234. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 7.5 7.7 2.0 26 7.9 3.5 44 8. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 213.5 301.0 154.0 51 613.8 375.8 61 1,25 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 72.2 72.0 24.2 34 71.8 38.8 54 71. -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 496.6 720.2 346.7 48 1,054 591.5 56 1,62 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 24 4.0 17 161 75.0 47 296. 1000 USER DAYS 599.4 168 10.0 6 322.4 125.0 39 481. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.8 0.8 100 1.6 1.9 OVer 3. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 2.8 5.8 over 8.0 12.3 over 14. TABLE 1-314 RBG 5.1, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privm Total Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.3 3.0 0 4.3 6.1 14.3 0 20.4 5.6 12.9 SELIPSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 2 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.5 27.8 29.3 0 1.4 27.5 28.9 0 3.5 66 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 849.0 283.0 0 1,132.0 100.5 33.5 D 1,340.0 71.2 23.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 2.5 2.5 0 5.0 2.7 1.4 0 4.1 4.2 2.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.3 6.3 5.5 18.1 3.7 3.7 3.2 10.6 3.7 3.7 3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U. D 0 1.3 1.8 1.0 0 2.5 3.5 0.6 0 1 . -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 2.4 0.1 0.5 3.0 4.8 0.3 0.9 6.0 4.8 0.3 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0.5 0 1.9 2.4 1.0 0 3.9 4.9 1.0 0 3. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0 1. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-URBAN 14.9 0 5.0 19.9 102.8 0 34.2 137.0 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.1 0.4 0 0.5 0.4 3.8 0 4.2 0.4 3.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 11.1 20.7 0 31.8 14.6 27.1 0 41.7 8.3 15.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 888.7 317.5 43.5 1,249.7 85.5 [email protected] 75.3 398.7 100.2 65.5 85. TABLE 1-315 RBG 5.1, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 2.1 0 2.1 0 31.7 0 31.7 0 59.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.7 3.7 0 0 15. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 1. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0. MINING 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 3. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 .4 7.1 7.5 0 2.3 42.8 45.1 0 4.8 90. NON-WITHDRAINAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 149.2 0 149.2 0 371.7 0 371.7 0 720.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.5 0.6 0 1.1 1.8 0.9 0 2.7 2.5 1.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 18.8 18.8 0 0 28. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.2 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 1.6 2.0 .8 0 3. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ..URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0 0.9 0.1 1.4 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION- INTENSIVE 2.5 10.1 0 12.6 15.3 61.0 0 76.3 23.8 95.0 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.0 162.5 11.9 177.4 17.6 468.8 71.5 557..q 27.3 883.0 146. TABLE 1-316 RBG 5.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 10 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 186.7 29.2 29.2 100 123.3 123.3 100 251 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 262 55 55 100 159 159 100 4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.1 4.4 4.4 100 11.3 11.3 100 15 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.8 27.9 27.9 100 71.2 71.2 100 118 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.8 5.6 5.6 100 20.6 20.6 100 45 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,046 3,080 3,080 100 2,446 2,446 100 2,5 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 128 155 155 100 216 .216 100 2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 188 205 205 100 98 98 100 2 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA + + over + + over 33,9 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. IWO RECREATION DAYS 7,386 6,064 3,554 59 12,800 10,900 85 21,2 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 10DO ANGLER DAYS 6,216 3,180 2,500 79 6,036 5,300 88 9.1 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 2,460 420 285 68 885 818 92 1,4 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 364 364 --- --- 364 --- --- 3 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 0.5 0.5 100 0.6 0.6 100 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 10W ACRES 1,412 1,412 125.2 9 1,412 375.8 27 1,4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 250.9 251 41.0 16 251 86.7 35 2 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,671 1,670 132 8 1.670 398 24 1,6 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 89 89 0.9 1 89 2.7 3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 783 783 21.8 3 783 65.4 8 7 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 69.0 69.0 13.8 20 69.0 41.4 60 69 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN IWO ACRES 8.1 8.3 0.6 7 8.6 2.3 27 8 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 116.1 160 25.0 16 312.2 111.9 36 619 -RURAL 10OD ACRES 130.8 131 11.7 9 131 22.8 17 1 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 822.8 1,187 347.6 29 1,869 627.9 34 3,1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 26.0 76.5 over 307.0 144.5 47 609 1000 USER DAYS 1228.0 276.6 150.0 54 587.6 405.0 69 922 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- 0--; --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.3 4.1 ve 2.0 9.2 over 4 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES HA 1.5 23.0 over 11.3 52.2 over 23 TABLE 1-317 RBG 5.2, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RIESOLI CE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed PrintO Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed PH WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.6 6.1 0 8.7 8.3 19.5 0 27.8 11.0 25.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.6 4.6 0 0 8.6 8.6 0 0 2 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 5.4 102.4 107.8 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 26.3 8.7 0 35.0 16.5 5.5 0 22.0 37.5 12.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.2 2.3 0 4.5 3.0 1.5 0 4.5 2.8 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 5.4 5.4 4.6 15.4 8.4 8.4 7.2 24.0 7.6 7.6 COMMERCIAL FIS14ING --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.4 0 3.6 5.0 2.9 0 7.3 10.2 1.7 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 2.7 0 6.2 819 3.1 0 7.1 10.2 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 5.6 0.3 1.1 7.0 12.0 0.7 2.3 15.0 12.0 0.7 SHORELAUD EROSION 0.2 0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0 1.1 1.4 0.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.2 0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - URBAN 3.8 a 1.3 5.1 0.4 0 0.1 0.5 0 0 ..RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.4 3.1 0 3.5 1.5 13.5 0 15.0 1.0 9.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION INTENSIVE 13.1 24.4 0 37.5 13.4 24.9 0 38.3 12.8 23.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 63.9 55.7 125.7 245.3 70A 74.0 36.6 181.0 87.7 80.7 4 TABLE 1-318 RBG 5.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1, 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-42020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedml Non-Fed Priva" Tool Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pr WATER ViTHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 4.3 0 4.3 0 43.2 0 43.2 0 117.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 31.7 31.7 0 0 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.4 26.3 27.7 0 5.0 94.5 99.5 0 4.5 8 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 26.0 0 26.0 0 68.0 0 68.0 0 72.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 0.9 0 1.7 2.8 1.4 0 4.2 2.8 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.4 5.4 0 0 38.2 38.2 0 0 7 COMMERC:AL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMEHC AL UAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND.-TREATMENT 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1 1.5 0.3 0.6 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.2 0 STRtAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ..URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.5 10.2 0 12.7 15.4 61.4 0 76.8 25.3 101.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.3 43.0 37.2 83.5 18.4 180.2 175.3 373.9 28.6 298.1 26 TABLE 1-319 RBG 5.2, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 186.7 29.2 29.2 100 123.3 123.3 100 251. SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 262 5.5 55 100 159 159 100 43 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.1 4.4 4.4 100 11.3 11.3 100 15. IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32.8 27.9 27.9 100 71.2 71.2 100 118. MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 12.8 5.6 5.6 100 20.6 20.6 100 45. THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,046 3,080 3,080 100 2,446 2,446 100 2,50 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 128 155 155 100 216 216 100 28 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 188 205 205 100 98 98 100 20 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PgR DAY NA + + over + + over 33,90 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 7,386 6,064 3,554 59 12,800 10,900 85 21,27 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 10DO ANGLER DAYS 6,216 3,180 2,500 79 6,036 5,300 88 9.17 10M ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 2,460 420 285 68 885 818 92 1,45 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 364 364 --- --- 364 --- --- 36 COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 0.5 0.5 100 0.6 0.6 100 0. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,412 1.412 275.6 20 1,412 789.2 56 1,41 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 250.9 250.9 41.5 1? 250.9 118.9 47 250. FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,671 1,670 172 10 1,670 515 31 1,67 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 89 89 0.9 1 89 2.7 3 8 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 783 783' 21.8 3 783 65.4 8 78 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 69.0 69.0 13.8 20 69.0 41.4 60 69. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES m 8.3 0.6 7 8.6 2.3 27 8. -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 116.1 160 25.0 16 312.2 111.9 36 619. -RURAL 1000 ACRES 130.8 131 11.7 9 131 22.8 17 13 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 822.8 1,187 347.6 29 1t869 627.9 34 3,14 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 26.0 76.5 over 307.0 144.5 47 609. 1000 USER DAYS 1228.0 276.6 150.0 54 587.6 405.0 69 922. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.3 4.1 over 2.0 9.2 over 4. -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 1.5 23.0 over 11.3 52.2 over 23. TABLE 1-320 RBG 5.2, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-20 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Privelte Total Federal Non-Fed fil" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.6 6.1 0 8.7 8.3 19.5 0 27.8 11.0 25.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.6 4.6 0 0 8.6 8.6 0 0 22 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 5.4 102.4 107.8 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 2 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 114.8 38.2 0 153.0 117.8 39.2 0 157.0 65.2 21.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - SPORT FISHING 2.2 2.3 0 4.5 3.0 1.5 0 4.5 2.8 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 5.4 5.4 4.6 15.4 8.4 8.4 7.2 24.0 7.6 7.6 6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 33.0 0 0 3.3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES St PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 3.1 0 ?. 9 71.0 5.8 0 15.0 20.8 3.6 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 2.0 0 4.5 6.5 3.7 0 8.5 12.2 2.2 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 8.0 0.5 1.5 70. 0 15.2 1.0 2.8 19.0 115. P 7. Q SHORELAND EROSION 0.2 0 0.6 0.8 0.3 0 1.1 1.4 0.3 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.2 0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 1.0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --URBAN 3.8 0 1.3 5.1 0.4 0 0.1 0.5 0 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.4 3.1 0 3.5 1.5 13.5 0 15.0 1.0 9.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 13.1 24.4 0 37.5 13.4 24.9 0 38.3 12.8 23.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- TOTAL 188.8 85.4 128.7 402.9 178.4 1-06.0 46.2 332.6 122.7 90.3 5 TABLE 1-321 RBG 5.2, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Prive" Total Federal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 4.3 0 4.3 0 43.2 0 43.2 0 117.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 31.7 31.7 0 0 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0,4 0.4 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0. 1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.4 26.3 27.7 0 5.0 94.5 99.5 0 4.5 8 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 251. 0 251.7 0 585.3 0 585.3 0 888.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 0.9 0 1.7 2.8 1.4 0 4.2 2.8 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.4 5.4 0 0 38.2 38.2 0 0 7 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 4.0 0 0 4.0 16.0 0 0 16.0 16. n 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.3 2.3 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.2 0.4 0.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.2 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.0 0.2 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.5 10.2 0 12.7 15.4 61.4 0 76.8 25.3 101.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 7.3 268.8 37.4 313.5 34.6 697.6 177.0 909. P, 44.7 1,114.6 26 TABLE 1-322 RBG 5.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 44.4 3.8 3.8 100 14.1 14.1 100 2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 76 + + 100 + + 100 RURAL DOMESTIC A LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 93 0.9 0.9 100 2.8 2.8 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.7 5.8 5.8 100 11.6 11.6 100 1 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.2 0.9 019 100 1.9 1.9 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 0 --- NON-WrrHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 15 16 16 100 18 18 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 145 69 69 100 15 15 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PCR DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 2,051 311 2,220 over 1,346 5,634 over 2, 10M ACRES WAIER SURFACE %A --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING IODO ANGLER DAYS 3.006 712 712 100 1,388 1,388 100 2, IWO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 918 15 13 87 15 19 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 221 221 --- --- 221 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 0.4 0.4 100 0.5 0.5 100 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT IODO ACRES 530 530 32.2 6 530 96.6 18 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 206 206 18.6 9 206 38.8 19 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,730 1,730 130 8 1,730 392 23 11 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 38.2 38.2 0 0 38.2 0 0 3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 417 417 15,4 4 417 46.2 11 $10130 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 21.9 21.9 4.4 20 21.9 13.1 60 2 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.1 13 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 9.5 12.0 0.2 2 21.6 4.1 19 3 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 46.2 46.2 2.4 5 46.2 8.2 18 4 -RURAL $IWO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 205.1 266 7.8 3 520.1 107.5 21 11 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IODO ACRES --- 28.0 42.5 over 76.0 45.5 60 1000 USER DAYS 284.4 46.4 20.0 43 72.6 50.0 69 10 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- ... 0;__ --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.3 0.8 er 0.6 1.9 over -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 0 5.0 over 0 13.8 over TABLE 1-323 RBG 5.3, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 ISSI-2M 2001-2020 RESO QCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Totel fedwal Non-Fed PrIve" Total _id..I N,..Fd P WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.3 0.8 0 1.1 0.9 2.1 0 3.0 1.3 2.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 '0 0.2 0.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGEi 5.3 1.7 0 7.0 3.8 1.2 0 5.0 5.3 1.7 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.5 2.5 0 5.0 3.4 1.6 0 5.0 3.1 1.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U.4 0 0.9 1.3 018 0 1.9 2.7 0.4 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.9 0 2.2 3.1 1.1 0 2.5 3.6 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 6.4 0.4 1.2 8.0 12.0 0.8 2.2 15.0 12.0 0.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 0.7 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.9 0 0.3 1.2 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.0 9.0 0 10.0 1.7 15.3 0 17.0 0.9 8.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 6.8 12.6 0 19.4 3.6 6.8 0 10.4 7.1 13.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 24.8 27.2 5.3 57.3 -27.8 27.9 8.2 63.9 31.2 28.3 TABLE 1-324 RBG 5.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-2000 - 20012= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed privas Total Federal Non-Fed PF WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 4.7 0 4.7 0 13.5 SELF-SUPPLIEO INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES U 6.0 0 6.0 0 16.0 0 16.0 6 16.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 0.9 0 1.7 2.8 1.4 0 4.2 2.8 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOAT114G 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.6 0.3 0.6 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.5 0.5 a 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.1 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.1 4.6 0 5.7 6.0 23.9 0 29.9 9.9 39.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1.9 12.5 0.6 15.0 9.0 47.3 4.2 60.5 13.0 71.7 TABLE 1-325 RBG 5.3, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 44.4 3.8 3.8 100 14.1 14.1 100 2 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 76 + + 100 + + 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 93 0.9 0.9 100 2.8 2.8 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.7 5.8 5.8 100 11.6 11.6 100 1 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.2 0.9 0.9 100 1.9 1.9 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 15 16 16 100 18 18 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 145 69 69 100 15 15 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS P@R DAY NA 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS 2,051 311 2,220 over 1,346 5,634 over 21 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 3,006 712 712 100 1,388 1,388 100 2, 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 80AT DAYS 918 15 13 87 15 19 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE 221 221 --- --- 221 --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- 0.4 0.4 100 0.5 0.5 100 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 530 530 82.0 15 530 232.5 44 ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 206 206 0 0 206 0 0 2 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,730 1,730 1?3 10 1,730 521 30 1,7 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 38.2 38.2 0 0 38.2 0 0 38 STREAMBANK EROSION M@LES 417 417 15.4 4 417 46.2 11 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 21.9 21.9 4.4 20 21.9 13.1 60 21 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.1 13 0 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 9.5 12.0 0.2 2 21.6 4.1 19 39 --RURAL 1000 ACRES 46.2 46.2 2.4 5 46.2 8.2 18 46 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 205.1 266 7.8 3 520.1 107.5 21 1,0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES --- 28.0 42.5 over 76.0 45.5 60 1 1000 USER DAYS 284.4 46.4 20.0 43 72.6 50.0 69 10 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.3 0.8 over 0.6 1.9 over 1 -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA 0 5.0 over 0 13.8 over 2 TABLE 1-326 RBG 5.3, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed PrivStS Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed P, WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.3 0.8 0 1.1 0.9 2.1 0 3.0 1.3 2.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 10.5 3.5 0 14.0 4.5 1.5 0 6.0 9.0 3.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.5 2.5 0 5.0 3.4 1.6 0 5.0 3.1 1.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 40.0 0 0 40.0 305.2 0 0 305.2 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.3 0 0.9 1.2 0.6 0 1.5 2.1 0.4 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.8 0.6 1.6 11.0 16.0 1.0 3.0 20.0 16.0 1.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 0.7 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.9 0 0.3 1.2 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.0 9.0 0 10.0 1.7 15.3 0 17.0 0.9 8.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 6.8 12.6 0 19.4 3.6 6.8 0 10.4 7.1 13.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 71.4 29.2 3.5 104.1 336.4 28.4 6.1 370.9 38.9 29.8 TABLE 1-327 RBG 5.3, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980 i981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fod Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 4.7 0 4.7 0 13.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-MITHICIRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 38.5 0 38.5 0 83.3 0 83.3 0 105.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 0.9 0 1.7 2.8 1.4 0 4.2 2.8 1.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 COMMERC14L FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 5.0 0 0 5.0 58.0 0 0 58.0 96.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 0.3 0.3 0 0 AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.0 0. 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.6 2.3 0.4 0.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.0 0.1 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1.1 4.6 0 5.7 6.0 23.9 0 29.9 9.9 39.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 6.9 45.1 0.5 52.5 67.0 114. 8 4.2 186.0 109.1 161.1 TABLE 1-328 RBG 1.1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differeno RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 317.6 27.6 55.4 33.4 116.4 58.5 108.7 65.8 233.0 30.9 53. CROPLAND 84.6 1111 4.8 0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -11.1 -4. DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 5,640.0 616.0 1,232.0 1,332.0 3,180.0 1,129.0 2,256.0 2,255.0 5,640.0 513.0 1,024. TABLE 1-329 RBG 1.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differena RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 155.3 11.4 22.9 12.7 47.0 30.7 57.3 34.8 122.8 19.3 34. CROPLAND 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 4,390.0 475.0 947.0 947.0 2,369.0 878.0 1,756.0 1,756.0 4,390.0 403.0 809. TABLE 1-330 RBG 2.1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000@ 2Wl-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 2,225.0 222.5 445.1 267.1 934.7 489.5 912.5 556.0 1,958.0 267.0 467. CROPLAND 451.0 111.0 24.0 19.0 154.0 111.0 104.0 85.0 300.0 0 80. DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 3,046.0 405.0 809.0 809.0 2,023.0 609.0 1,219.0 1,218.0 3,046.0 204.0 410. TABLE 1-331 RBG 2.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differen RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 T6-TAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 , 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL 2,170.0 52.1 103.8 52.1 208.0 114.5 213.5 130.1 458.1 62.4 109. LAND TREATMENT CROPLAND 442.0 4.5 , 3.4 13.7 21.6 19.9 37.1 22.6 79.6 15.4 33. DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 212.0 19.7 31.7 0.0 51.4 19.7 31.7 0.0 51.4 0 TABLE 1-332 RBG 2.3, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference PRO Minus NOR RES06RCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOT;E- By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 3,540.0 354.0 708.0 425.0 1,487.0 778.8 1,456.2 556.0 2,791.0 424.8 748.2 131.0 1,304.0 CROPLAND 578.0 15.6 16.4 143.0 175.0 144.5 269.3 164.1 577.9 128.9 252.9 21.1 402.9 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 1,230.0 96.0 193.0 193.0 482.0 125.0 252.0 252.0 629.0 29.0 59.0 59.0 147.0 TABLE 1-333 RBG 2.4, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference PRO Minus NOR RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By IM 119911-21WO 2001-2020 TOTAL 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1,018.0 101.8 203.6 122.2 427.6 243.3 417.4 274,1 934.8 141.6 213.8 151.9 507.2 CROPLAND 47.6 10.8 11.0 2.7 24.6 0 a 0 0 -10.8 -11.0 -2.7 -24.5 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 4,560.0 460.0 921.0 921.0 2,302,0 561,0 1,121,0 1,121.0 2,803.0 10110 200.0 200.0 501.0 TABLE 1-334 RBG 3.1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) WR PRO Difference PRO Minus NOR RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 19so 198j.2000 2001.2= YO-TAL 9V IM 1981,2000 2001,2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 435.6 43,6 Bill 5213 14310 93,4 133,7 105,2 332.3 49.8 46.6 52.9 149.3 CROPLAND 63.3 4,7 516 515 15,7 0 0 a 0 -4.7 -5.5 -5.5 -15.7 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 2,030.0 22810 457,0 457,0 1,142,0 26610 533.0 533.0 1,332.0 38.0 76.0 76.0 190.0 C) TABLE 1-335 RBG 3.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference PRO Minus NOR RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 FOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1990 1081-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1,616.0 161.5 323.0 193.8 678.3 355.3 662.7 403.0 1,421.0 193.8 339.7 209.2 742.7 @0 b@ CROPLAND 509.0 47.0 8.0 115.0 170.0 76.3 113.7 115.0 305.0 29.3 105.7 0 135.0 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 781.0 58.0 115.0 115.0 288.0 77.0 155.0 155.0 387.0 19.0 40.0 40.0 99.0 41 TABLE 1-336 RBG 4.1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) - NOR PRO Diffe ence RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOT@-L- --6y 1-980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1,305.0 130.6 261.1 156.5 548.2 287.1 535,2 326.7 1,149.0 156.5 274.1 CROPLAND 434.0 71.3 91.7 18.0 181.0 71.3 115.5 74.1 260.9 0 23.8 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 421.0 31.0 62.0 62.0 155.0 85.0 168.0 168.0 421.0 54.0 106.0 TABLE 1-337 RBG-4.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differenoe RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 3,821.0 382.1 763.9 454.0 1,600.0 840.6 1,566.4 955.0 3,362.0 458.5 802.5 CROPLAND 2,520.0 61.0 190.0 267.6 518.6 208.3 357.1 267.7 833.1 147.3 167.1 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 348.0 31.0 61.0 61.0 153.0 38.0 75.0 75.0 188.0 7.0 14.0 TABLE 1-338 RBG 4.3, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-20M 2001-2020 fO-TAL By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 700.0 52.1 103.9 63.0 219.0 114.6 213.8 130.5 458.9 62.5 109.9 CROPLAND 265.0 4.1 3.1 27.8 35.0 21.9 37.9 27.8 87.6 17.8 34.8 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 430.0 32.0 65.0 65.0 162.0 86.0 172.0 172.0 430.0 54.0 107.0 TABLE 1-339 RBG 4.4, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Differena RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOT@L- By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-2 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 551.9 49.9 99.7 60.3 209.9 92.8 172.7 104.6 370.1 42.9 73. CROPLAND 182.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 15.1 0 0 0 0 -15.1 -0. DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 1,030.0 78,0 156.0 156.0 390.0 104.0 206.0 206.0 516.0 26.0 50. TABLE 1-340 RBG 5.1, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL- By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-20 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 654.2 58.0 116.2 69.5 243.7 127.1 236.7 143.1 506.9 69.1 120.5 CROPLAND 147.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 18.5 0 0 0 0 -18.5 -0.0 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 443.0 38.0 75.0 75.0 188.0 47.0 94.0 94.0 235.0 9.0 19.0 TABLE 1-341 RBG 5.2, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference P By 1980 1981-200 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTA y 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 1,412.0 125.2 250.6 152.0 527.8 275.6 513.6 314.8 1,104.0 150.4 263.0 CROPLAND 251.0 41.0 45.7 0.0 86.7 41.5 77.4 47.2 166.1 0.5 31.7 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 1,670.0 132.0 266.0 266.0 664.0 172,0 343.0 344.0 859.0 40.0 77.0 TABLE 1-342 RBG 5.3, Comparison of PRO and NOR Land Treatment Programs (thousands of acres) NOR PRO Difference P RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Opportunity By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTA By 1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 TOTAL By 1980 1981-200 AGRICULTURAL LAND TREATMENT 530.0 32.2 64.4 38.4 135.0 82.0 150.9 91.4 324.3 49.8 86.5 CROPLAND 206.0 18.6 20.2 0.0 38.8 0 0 0 0 -18.6 -20.2 DRAINAGE FORESTED LAND 1 730.0 130.0 262.0 262.0 654.0 173.0 348.0 348.0 869.0 43.0 86.0 TABLE 1-343 RBG 1.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL -Epital OM&R Td-TAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL- Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 1.4 6.9 18.5 25.4 6.9 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 3.3 5.0 1.7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4 2.5 0.1 IRRIGATION 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.6 MINING 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 7.1 37.2 44.3 7.1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 71.3 67.3 138.6 71.3 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 12.8 16.2 29.0 36.0 88.6 124.6 29.2 207.2 236.4 77.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 4.2 2.0 6.2 4.2 2.0 6.2 6.8 8.6 15.4 6.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 24.3 6.7 31.5 24.8 6.7 31.5 60.6 118.6 179.2 60.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 48.0 6.0 54.0 17.8 12.0 29.8 65.8 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 4.7 0.6 5.3 3.4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 2.4 0.1 2.5 0 0 0 3.4 0.7 4.1 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 21.0 0.5 21.5 39.0 1.0 40.0 107.0 13.2 110.2 199.0 SHORELAND EROSION 1.8 0.2 2.0 1.8 0.2 2.0 8.9 4.5 13.4 8.9 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.0 0.1 1 .1 1.0 0.1 1.1 9.0 3.5 12.5 9.0 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 3.4 0.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 3.4 7.7 0.9 8.6 7.7 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 5.4 0.3 5.7 5.4 0.3 5.7 39.0 2.0 41.0 39.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R EC REATION- INTENSIVE 42.6 5.9 48.5 42.6 5.9 48.5 69.2 119.1 188.3 69.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 123.6 34.6 158.2 210.0 113.4 323.4 451.0 620.1 1,071.1 634.1 TABLE 1-344 RBG 1.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital CIM&R TUT-AL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 4.4 14.2 18.6 4.4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 2.8 3.0 0.2 IRRIGATION 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 MINING 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.9 5.6 9.9 15.5 5.6 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 30.4 24.5 54.9 30.4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 7.0 8.8 15.8 3.0 20.0 23.0 19.8 53.8 73.6 10. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.5 0.4 1.9 1.5 0.4 1.9 5.0 6.5 11.5 5. RECREATIONAL BOATINr 3.2 0.6 3.8 3.2 0.6 3.8 8.1 10.6 18.7 8. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC, LAND-TREATMENT 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.3 2.1 1.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 16.0 0.4 16.4 32.0 0.8 32.3 82.0 10.2 92.2 158.0 SHORELAND EROSION 2.0 0.2 2.2 2.0 0.2 2.2 10.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 STREAMBANK EROSION 2.1 0.2 2.3 2.1 0.2 2.3 18.9 7.7 26.6 18.9 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.4 1.8 1.4 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2.9 0.1 3.0 2.9 0.1 3.0 10.4 0.5 10.9 10.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 10.5 1.8 12.3 10.5 1.8 12.3 24.9 44.4 69.3 24.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 48.0 13.0 61.0 60.0 24.6 84.6 223.2 191.0 414.2 289.7 TABLE 1-345 RBG 2.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL - PROPOSED NORMAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 9.8 5.2 15.0 9.8 5.2 15.0 53.1 144.9 198.0 53.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 8.7 8.8 17.5 8.7 8.8 17.5 28.7 150.4 179.1 28.7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.5 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.7 28.4 30.1 1.7 IRRIGATION 2.5 0.3 2.8 2.5 0.3 2.8 7.5 6.1 13.6 7.5 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 2.8 3.1 0.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 27.3 7.0 34.3 27.3 7.0 34.3 158.4 178.7 337.1 158.4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 72.9 74.0 146.9 102.0 159.3 261.3 304.5 568.0 872.5 313.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.4 3.1 5.4 8.5 3.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 40.8 7.2 43.0 40.8 7.2 48.0 107.8 125.0 232.8 107.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 7.0 1.0 8.0 0 0 0 7.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 9.0 0.2 9.2 19.7 0.5 20.2 37.6 5.2 42.8 78.8 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 24.3 0.6 24.9 14.6 0.4 15.0 35.0 6.6 41.6 40.2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 16.0 0.4 16.4 25.0 0.6 25.6 80.0 8.9 88.9 123.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.1 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.1 1.2 9.6 3.6 13.2 9.6 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 7.2 0 7.2 7.2 0 7.2 30.8 0.6 31.4 30.8 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 15.4 0.8 16.2 15.4 0.8 16.2 64.7 3.3 68.0 64.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R ECR EATION -INTENSIVE 21.0 5.3 26.3 21.0 5.3 26.3 112.2 134.1 246.3 112. -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 257.3 112.0 369.3 303.4 198.6 502.0 1,035.0 1,372.0 2,407.0 1,139. TABLE 1-346 RBG 2.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 7971-1980 - 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL _ZTp-ital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TO Capital OM&R TOTAL Capit WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 96.9 55.0 151.9 96.9 55.0 151.9 475.4 1,331.0 1,306.4 475. SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 2.0 1.8 3.8 2.0 1.8 3.8 164.8 512.6 677.4 164. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 7.5 7.8 0. IRRIGATION 1.2 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 11 3.1 2.6 5.7 3. MINING 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0. 0.5 4.3 4.8 0. THERMAL POWER COOLING 45.9 11.8 57.7 45.9 11.8 57.7 883.4 810.7 1,694.1 883. NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 253.4 104.0 357.4 404.0 491.4 895.4 599.1 776.0 1,375.1 1,216. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 9.3 0.9 10.2 9.3 0.9 10.2 17.5 9.6 27.1 17. RECREATIONAL BOATING 25.9 5.9 31.8 25.9 5.9 31.8 76.2 100.5 176.7 76. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 22.0 3.0 25.0 36.9 27.0 63.9 154. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND--TREATMENT 2.1 0.1 2.2 4.6 0.1 4.7 8.4 1.2 9.6 18. ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.5 0.0 1.5 3.0 0.1 3.1 9.8 1.0 10.8 12. FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0 1.0 3.0 0.4 3.4 3. SHORELAND EROSION 6.9 0.7 7.6 6.9 0.7 7.6 34.5 17.2 51.7 34. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 0. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 101.7 0.2 1G1.9 101.7 0.2 101.9 109.9 2.3 112.2 109. --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 4.2 0.2 4.4 4.2 0.2 4.4 22.3 1.1 23.4 22. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 90.6 16.8 107.4 90.6 16.8 107.4 224.1 323.5 547.6 224. -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 642.8 198.0 840.8 819.4 588.5 1,407.9 2,669.3 3,929.0 6,598.3 3,415. TABLE 1-347 RBG 2.3, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY -EWp tal OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 24.6 15.7 40.3 24.6 15.7 40.3 244.5 532.6 777.1 244. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 3.3 3.4 6.7 3.3 3.4 6.7 27.2 118.9 146.1 27. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.8 1.0 1.8 0.8 1.0 1.8 3.5 24.0 27.5 3. IRRIGATION 5.3 0.3 6.1 5.3 0.8 6.1 15.3 12.4 27.7 15. MINING 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.5 1.1 5.7 18.3 24.0 5. THERMAL POWER COOLING 37.4 9.6 47.0 37.4 9.6 47.0 404.6 454.1 858.7 404. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 121.1 136.0 257.1 303.0 456.8 759.8 613.8 1.186.0 1,799.8 941. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.5 1.6 5.1 3@5 1.6 5.1 11.0 16.9 27.9 11. RECREATIONAL BOATINC 8.6 1.7 10.3 8.6 1.7 10.3 139.2 90.4 229.6 139. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 8,0 1.0 9.0 0 0 0 8.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 14.2 0.4 14.6 31 .3 0.8 32.1 59.8 8.3 68.1 125.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 5.4 0.1 5.5 24.6 0.6 25.2 39.3 3.4 42.7 97.6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 6.0 0.1 6.1 7.0 0.2 7.2 30.0 3.3 33.3 37.0 SHORELAND EROSION 3.0 0.3 3.3 3.0 0.3 3.3 15.2 7.6 22.8 15.2 STREAMBANK EROSION 2.0 0.2 2.2 2.0 0.2 2.2 18.0 7.4 25.4 18.0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 51.0 0.1 51.1 51.0 0.1 51 .1 75.3 1.6 76.9 75.3 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 9.0 0.5 9.5 9.0 0.5 9.5 33.4 1.8 35.2 33.4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 70.6 14.9 85.5 70.6 14.9 85.5 269.3 303.8 573.1 269.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 366.4 186.9 553.3 593.6 509.7 1 103.3 2,005.1 2,790.8 4,795.9 2,470.9 TABLE 1-348 RBG 2.4, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TO Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 2.4 1.4 3.8 2.4 1.4 3.8 17.2 42.6 59.8 17.2 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 17.0 23.4 6.4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 9.2 9.S 0.6 IRRIGATION 1.0 0.2 L2 1.0 0.2 1.2 3.9 3.4 7@3 3.9 MINING 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 0.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.1 19.1 56.2 37.1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 66@O 38.0 104.0 21.0 87.2 108.2 154.0 234.0 388.0 114.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.7 2.4 6.1 3.7 2.4 6.1 9.7 19.4 29.1 9.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 21.6 7.3 28.9 21.6 7.3 28.9 83.3 153.3 236.6 83.3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 7.6 1.0 8.6 0.6 18.6 19.2 31.2 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 4.0 0.1 4.1 3@5 0.0 3.5 17.2 2.4 19.6 14.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 3.1 0.1 3.2 0 0 0 7.1 1.2 8.3 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 18.0 0.4 18.4 22.0 0.5 22,5 92.0 9.9 101.9 114.0 SHORELAND EROSION 3.4 0.3 3.7 3.4 0.3 3.7 16.8 8.4 25.2 16.8 STREAMBANK EROSION 3.6 0.4 4.0 3.6 0.4 4.0 32.7 13.4 46.1 32.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 6.7 0.2 6.9 6.7 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 4.6 0.2 4.8 4.6 0.2 4.8 17.3 0.8 18.1 17.3 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 40.7 4.8 45.5 4M 4.8 45.5 121 .6 105.1 226.7 121 .6 TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 174.0 56.1 230.1 137.0 10-6-. 245--2 624.5 659.6 1,284.1 626.9 TABLE 1-349 RBG 3.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL - - RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capi WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.7 2.9 9.6 12.5 2 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 11.6 14.6 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0.9 1.01 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.5 9.3 9.8 0. IRRIGATION 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.1 0. MINING 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.6 1.0 2.6 15.7 18.3 2. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 6.1 6.0 12.1 13.0 27.3 40.3 24.3 50.0 74.3 46. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.8 1.5 3.3 1.8 1.5 3.3 7.5 13.0 20.5 7. RECREATIONAL BOATING 12.3 3.6 15.9 12.3 3.6 15.9 54.7 81.7 136.4 54. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 76.0 9.0 85.0 340.0 240.0 580.0 439. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND.-TREATMENT 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.3 0.0 1.3 7.4 1.1 8.5 5. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.1 0 1.1 0 0 0 5.6 0.7 6.3 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 11.0 0.3 11.3 12.0 0.3 12.3 53.0 4.7 57.7 62. SHORELAND EROSION 1.2 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.3 6.2 3.1 9.3 6. STREAMBANK EROSION 1.5 0.2 1.7 1.5 0.2 1.7 13.5 5.7 19.2 13. FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 4.4 0 4.4 4.4 0 4.4 7.6 0.5 8.1 7. -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- "RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 9.2 0.5 9.7 9.2 0.5 9.7 39.2 2.0 41.2 39. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION--INTENSIVE 7.8 1.4 9.2 7.8 1.4 9.2 50.7 44.0 94.7 50. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 59.3 15.4 74.7 41.6 45.7 187.3 619.5 493.0 1,112.5 741. TABLE 1-350 RBG 3.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R T-OTAL Capital' OM&R TOTAL pital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 14.0 5.5 19.5 14.0 5.5 19.5 104.0 200.6 304.6 104. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 8.9 8.2 17.1 8.9 8.2 17.1 68.5 541.3 609.8 68. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 1.6 1.8 0.2 1.6 1.8 0.7 33.5 34.2 0. IRRIGATION 2.1 0.3 2.4 2.1 0.3 2.4 5.1 3.8 8.9 5. MINING 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 6.0 6.9 0. THERMAL POWER COOLING 39.5 10.2 49.7 39.5 10.2 49.7 656.9 632.5 1,289.4 656. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 64.0 36.0 100.0 161.0 205.0 366.0 233.0 386.0 619.0 436. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 7.1 8.1 15.2 7. RECREATIONAL BOATING 17.9 4.1 22.0 17.9 4.1 22.0 67.4 65.5 132.9 67. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 7.1 0.2 7.3 15.6 0.4 16.0 29.6 4.1 33.7 62.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 14.4 0.4 14.8 14.2 0.4 14.6 41.5 4.7 46.2 52.6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 3.0 0.1 3.1 4.0 0.1 4.1 15.0 1.9 16.9 22.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 STREAMBANK EROSION 2.6 0.3 2.9 2.6 0.3 2.9 23.4 9.6 33.0 23.4 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 23.2 0.1 23.3 23.2 0.1 23.3 76.9 1.1 78.0 76.9 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 18.6 0.9 19.5 18.6 0.9 19.5 70.7 3.5 74.2 70.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 32.2 8.2 40.4 32.2 8.2 40.4 113.1 160.5 273.6 113.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 248.0 76.6 324.6 354.3 245.8 600.1 1,514.0 2,062.8 3,576.8 1,767.6 TABLE 1-351 RBG 4.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 213.9 80.6 294.5 213.9 80.6 294.5 674.6 909.7 1,584.3 674.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 2.6 2.3 4.9 2.6 2.3 4.9 76.6 262.1 338.7 76.6 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.7 16.4 17.1 0.7 IRRIGATION 5.8 0.8 6.6 5.8 0.8 6.6 10.4 9.9 20.3 10.4 MINING 0.8 2.0 2.8 0.8 2.0 2.8 6.3 69.0 75.3 6.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.7 85.9 179.6 93.7 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 700.0 450.0 1,150.0 497.0 952.5 1,449.5 1,375.0 3,050.0 4,425.0 1,696.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.7 0.9 3.6 2.7 0.9 3.6 6.3 6.1 12.4 6.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 10.5 2.4 12.9 10.5 2.4 12.9 35.9 42.9 78.8 35.9 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 17.0 2.0 19.0 0 0 0 462.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 5.7 0.1 5.8 12.4 0.3 12.7 24.0 3.3 27.3 50.2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 24.9 0.6 25.5 20.3 0.5 20.8 64.8 11.0 75.8 75.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 2.0 0.1 2.1 5.0 0.1 5.1 8.0 1.2 9.2 25.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 STREAMBANK EROSION 2.1 0.2 2.3 2.1 0.2 2.3 19.2 6.8 26.0 19.2 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 240.1 0.5 240.6 240.1 0.5 240.6 300.5 5.2 305.7 300.5 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 18.8 0.9 19.7 18.8 0.9 19.7 49.5 2.5 52.0 49.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR R EC R EATION -INTENSIVE 144.5 19.6 164.1 144.5 19.6 164.1 435.6 467.1 902.7 435.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 1 374.6 561.8 1,936.4 1,193.7 1,066.4 2,260.1 3,181.1 4,949.1 8,130.2 4,017.6 TABLE 1-352 RBG 4.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in,$1,000,000) - 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PRQPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital CIM&R TOTAL Capital CIM&R TOTAL Capital- OM&R TCTAC__ -Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 6.7 3.4 10.1 6.7 3.4 10.1 89.1 157.2 246.3 89.1 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 4.8 4.6 9.4 4.8 4.6 9.4 43.4 168.5 211.9 43.4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.8 15.8 16.6 0.8 IRRIGATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.5 4.2 2.7 MINING 0.2 0A 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.0 13.6 15.6 2.0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.5 288.7 596.2 307.5 NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 54.8 76.0 130.8 243.0 307.5 550.5 299.2 522.0 821.2 635.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 24.7 2.6 27.3 24.7 2.6 27.3 36.9 11.3 48.2 36.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 25.3 5.9 31.2 25.3 5.9 31.2 131.2 146.1 277.3 131.2 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 9.0 1.0 10.0 0 0 0 67.2 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 16.7 0.4 17.1 36.7 0.9 37.6 70.1 9.7 79.8 147.8 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 15.0 0.4 15.4 33.3 0.8 34.1 128.3 13.7 142.0 133.3 FOREST LAND.-TREATMENT 2.0 0.1 2.1 3.0 0.1 3. 1 10.0 1.3 11.3 13.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 6.3 2.6 8.9 6.3 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 58.0 0.1 58.1 58.0 0.1 58.1 158.1 4.2 162.3 158.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 15.0 0.7 15.7 15.0 0.7 15.7 92.2 4.6 96.8 92.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 32.8 11.5 44.3 32.8 11.5 44.3 138.2 217.5 355.7 138.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 256.9 107.0 363.9 493.4 340.4 833.8 1,516.0 1,578.3 3,094.3 2,004.7 TABLE 1-353 RBG 4.3, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 - - PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 23.2 11.7 34.9 23.2 11.7 34.9 144.4 327.6 472.0 144.4 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 12.7 11.5 24.2 12.7 11.5 24.2 143.6 548.8 692.4 143.6 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0.1 0. 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.9 4.1 0.2 IRRIGATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 2.4 1.0 3.4 2.1 MINING 0.8 0.3 1.6 0.5 0.9 1.4 7.5 30.3 37.8 0.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0.0 0.0 J.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 287.2 239.6 526.8 287.2 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 136.0 259.0 395.0 695.0 538.7 1 233.7 779.0 1,909.0 2,688.0 1,471.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.5 0.8 9.3 0.5 0.8 3.3 4.1 @A 3.3 RECREATIONAL BOATINr 29.0 4.9 33.9 29.0 4.9 33.9 105.6 102.0 207.6 105.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 9.0 1.0 10.0 0 0 0 21. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.1 0.1 2.2 4.6 0.1 4.7 8.8 1.3 10.1 18. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.0 0.0 1.0 4.1 0.1 4.2 8.6 0.7 9.3 16. FOREST LAND.-TREATMENT 2.0 0@1 2.1 6.0 0.2 6.2 12.0 1.6 13.6 32. SHORELAND EROSION 1.5 0.1 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.6 7.3 3.7 11.0 7. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 4.7 1.8 6.5 4. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 18.9 0.1 19.0 18.9 0.1 19.0 27.2 1 .2 28.4 27. --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3.4 0.2 3.6 3.4 0.2 3.6 38.7 2.4 41.1 38. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 105.5 16.9 122.4 105.5 16.9 122.4 273.5 278.7 552.2 273. TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 336.9 306.0 642.9 914.2 587.0 1 50T. i 1,854.0 3,45T@ 5,31 T_. 2,50-. TABLE 1-354 RBG 4.4, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 11.7 5.8 17.5 11.7 5.8 17.5 77.9 178.4 256.3 77. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 9.4 8.3 17.7 9.4 8.3 17.7 70.3 281.5 351.8 70. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 3.1 3.9 0. IRRIGATION 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 2.1 1.3 3.4 2. MINING 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.7 4.8 6.5 1 . THERMAL POWER COOLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 227.6 182.1 409.7 227. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 172.8 114.0 286.8 1,007.0 335.0 1,342.0 370.9 434.0 804.9 1,581. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 4.8 3.8 8.6 4.8 3.8 8.6 18.1 10.9 29.0 18. RECREATIONAL BOATING 18.2 3.5 21.7 18.2 3.5 21.7 57.2 63.7 120.9 57. COMMERCIAL FISHING - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 19.0 2.0 21.0 0 0 0 47. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.0 0.1 2.1 1.3 0.0 1.3 8.5 1.2 9.7 5. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 3.4 0.1 3.5 0 0 0 3.4 0.7 4.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 6.0 0.2 6.2 8.0 0.2 8.2 30.0 3.8 33.8 38. SHORELAND EROSION 4,8 0.5 5.3 4.8 0.5 5.3 4.8 4.3 9.1 4. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 4.3 1.7 6.0 4. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 10.2 0 10.2 10.2 0 10.2 90.5 1.5 92.0 90. --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.6 0 0.6 0.6 0 0.6 6.7 0.2 6.9 6. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 34.9 9.1 44.0 34.9 9.1 44.0 204.2 244.1 448.3 204. --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 280.1 145.6 425.7 1,131.2 368.4 1,499.6 1,179.0 1,417.3 2,596.3 2,438 TABLE 1-355 RBG 5.1, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NO8MAL_ RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTA-L Cap WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 4.3 2.1 6.4 4.3 2.1 6.4 43.2 93.5 136.7 43 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 7.o 19.6 26.6 7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 3.2 3.6 0 IRRIGATION 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 1.8 1.2 3.0 1 MINING 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.7 3.2 5.6 8.8 3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 29.3 7.5 36.8 29.3 7.5 36.8 127.9 148.3 276.2 127 NON-MITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 78.0 31.0 109.0 1,132.0 149.2 1,261.2 222.0 203.0 425.0 1,361 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.0 1.1 6.1 5.0 1.1 6.1 15.3 7.5 22.8 15 RECREATIONAL BOATING 18.1 3.5 21.6 18.1 3.5 21.6 39.2 50.6 89.8 39 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.4 0.1 2.5 1.8 0.0 1.8 9.9 1.5 11.4 7 ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 5.3 0.1 5.4 0 0 0 5.3 1.1 6.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 2.0 0.1 2.1 3.0 0.1 3.1 10.0 1.3 11.3 15 SHORELAND EROSION 2.4 0.2 2.6 2.4 0.2 2.6 12.2 6.1 18.3 12 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.7 1.1 3.8 2 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -URBAN 19.9 0.1 20.0 19.9 0.1 20.0 156.9 2.5 159.4 156 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 9.0 0.4 9.4 9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 31.8 12.6 44.4 31.8 12.6 44.4 97.2 207.7 304.9 97 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 200.6 59.4 260.0 1,249.7 177.4 1,427.1 763.2 754.2 1,517.4 1,899 TABLE 1-356 RBG 5.2, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY __6pital OM&R TO T WAL OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capi WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 8.7 4.3 13.0 8.7 4.3 13.0 73.0 165.3 238.3 73 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 4.6' 4.1 8.7 4.6 4.1 8.7 36.1 123.7 159.8 36 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 8.1 8.5 0 IRRIGATION 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 2.2 1.5 3.7 2 MINING 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.5 10.6 12.1 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 107.8 27.7 135.5 107.8 27.7 135.5 109.9 216.3 326.2 109 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES J5. 0 26.0 61.0 153.0 251.7 404.7 107.0 166.0 273.0 397 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 4.5 1.7 6.2 4.5 1.7 6.2 13.2 10.1 23.3 13 RECREATIONAL BOATING 15.4 5.4 20.8 15.4 5.4 20.8 61.0 114.0 175.0 61 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 33.0 4.0 37.0 0 0 0 33. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 5.0 0.1 5.1 11.0 0.3 11.3 21.3 2.9 24.2 44. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 8.9 0.2 9.1 6.5 0.2 6.7 19.1 3.5 22.6 26. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 7.0 0.2 7.2 10.0 0.3 10.3 37.0 4.7 41.7 48. SHORELAND EROSION 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.9 3.6 1.8 5.4 3. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.7 0 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 6.3 2.2 8.5 6. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --UREIAN 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.6 0.4 6.0 5. --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 3.5 0.2 3.7 3.5 0.2 3.7 28.5 1.4 29.9 28. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 37.5 12.7 50.2 37.5 12.7 50.2 112.5 215.9 328.4 112. -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 245.3 83.5 328.8 402.9 313.5 716.4 638.2 1,048.4 1,686.6 1,002. TABLE 1-357 RBG 5.3, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL - PROPOSED NORMAL Capital CIM&R TOTAL Capital OM&F: TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.1 0.5 1.6 1.1 0.5 1.6 8.3 18.7 27.0 8. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTiC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.6 0. IRRIGATION 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.0 0. MINING 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0 0. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 7.0 6.0 13.0 14.0 38.5 52.5 19.0 38.0 57.0 32. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.0 1.7 6.7 5.0 1.7 6.7 14.7 10.1 24.8 14. RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.6 1.0 2.5 3.5 1. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 40.0 5.0 45.0 0 0 0 345. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 5.6 0.8 6.4 4. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 3.1 0.1 3.2 0 0 0 6.7 1.3 8.0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 8.0 0.2 8.2 11.0 0.3 11.3 38.0 4.9 42.9 51. SHORELAND EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 4.5 1.8 6.3 4. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.6 0.2 1.8 1 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 10.0 0.5 10.5 10.0 0.5 10.5 36.0 1.9 37.9 36. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 19.4 5.7 25.1 19.4 5.7 25.1 50.0 85.1 135.1 50. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 57A 15.0 72.3 104.1 52.5 156.6 186.4 167.9 354.3 549 TABLE 1-358 Illinois, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWAL$ MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 210 490 over 588 1,110 over SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 182 --- 1,130 --- --- 9.o RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.0 0 0 0 0 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 129 25.9 19 226 45.1 20 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0.8 0.1 13 2.0 0.2 10 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 831 831 100 6,350 6,350 100 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 0 0 --- INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 0 0 --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS --- 1,200 --- --- 3,600 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 795 795 100 1,500 1,500 100 IODO ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 284 121 43 468 233 50 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 65.1 0 0 65.1 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 13.3 0 0 13.3 0 0 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT IODO ACRES 6.4 0 0 6.4 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 10.5 2.1 .20 10.5 6.3 60 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 46 0 0 46 0 0 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 29 1.7 6 29 5.0 17 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 0 0 --- 0 0 --- -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 0 --- 0 0 --- -RURAL IODO ACRES 0 0 --- 0 0 --- -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 692 0 0 1,370 0 0 1000 USER DAYS 2,510 0 0 3,750 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.2 --- --- 0.7 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.4 --- --- 4.2 --- TABLE 1-359 Illinois, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 BESQUQCE USE CATEGORY FWeral Non-Fed Prive" Totel Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed P WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 27.9 65.1 0 93.0 48.3 112.8 0 161.1 57.8 134.8 SELFSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 8.6 8.6 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.5 27.6 29.1 0 9.7 183.4 193.1 0 18.6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.5 3.8 0 6.3 1.1 1.6 0 2.7 1.9 1.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.7 6.7 5.8 19.2 6.5 6.5 5.5 18.5 6.5 6.5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.6 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.4 1.7 0.7 0 2.6 3.3 0.7 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 4.8 8.9 0 13.7 24.0 44.6 0 68.6 0 0 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 42.2 86.0 36.4 164.6 81.2 175.2 200.8 457.2 66.0 161.4 40 TABLE 1-360 Illinois, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY IKIMI Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 52.8 0 52.8 0 395.5 0 395.5 0 802.5 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 18.1 18.1 0 0 13 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.4 7.1 7.5 0 6.6 125.4 132.0 0 20.3 38 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC, --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0 1.2 0.5 0.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 4.4 4.4 0 0 26.3 26.3 0 0 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND.-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.0 1.3 0.5 0 2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RUR,IkL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.5 1.9 0 2.4 4.3 17.1 0 21.4 6.7 26.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 0.6 55.3 12.2 68.1 5.3 419.9 171.6 596.; 850.2 56 TABLE 1-361 Illinois, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1990 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1337 210 490 over 588 1,110 over I SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1348 182 --- --- 1,130 --- --- 2 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 39.8 3.0 0 0 9.8 1 0 0 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 40.8 129 .25.9 19 226 45.1 20 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2.2 0.8 0.1 13 2.0 0.2 10 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 580 831 831 100 6,350 6,350 100 17 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 7 0 0 --- 0 0 --- INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 20 0 0 --- 0 0 --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 10DO RECREATION DAYS NA --- 1,200 --- --- 3,600 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 1617 795 795 100 1,500 1,500 100 1 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 599 284 121 43 468 233 50 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 65.1 65.1 0 0 65.1 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 13.3 13.3 --- --- 13.3 --- --- FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 6.4 6.4 0 0 6.4 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 10.5 10.5 2.1 20 10.5 6.3 60 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 46 46 0 0 46 0 0 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 29 29 1.7 6 29 5.0 17 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- -URBAN $10DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- -RURAL 1000 ACRES 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 692 0 0 1,370 0 0 2 1000 USER DAYS 2,510 0 0 3,750 0 0 4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 10DO ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.2 --- --- 0.7 --- -EXTENSIVE 10DO ACRES NA --- 1.4 --- --- 4.2 --- TABLE 1-362 Illinois, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981.2= RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Nou-Fed Private Total Federal Mon-Fed PH WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 27.9 65.1 0 93.0 48.3 112.8 0 161.1 57.8 134.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 8.6 8.6 0 0 3 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.5 27.6 29.1 0 9.7 183.4 193.1 0 18.6 35 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.5 3.8 0 6.3 1.1 1.6 0 2.7 1.0 1.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.7 6.7 5.8 19.2 6.5 6.5 5.5 18.5 6.5 6.5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 9.9 0 0 9.9 S6.4 0 0 56.4 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGR(C. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.4 1.7 0.7 0 2.6 3.3 0.7 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 4.8 8.9 0 13.7 24.0 44.6 0 68.6 0 0 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 52.1 86.0 36.4 174.5 137.0 175.2 200.8 513.-0 66@ 0 161.4 40 TABLE 1-363 Illinois, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framwork (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1901-20W 1-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedem( Non-Fed Privm Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 52.8 0 52.8 0 395.5 0 395.5 0 802.5 SELF-SUPPL)ED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 18.1 18.1 0 0 13 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0.4 7.1 7.5 0 6.6 125.4 132.0 0 20.3 38 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0 1.2 0.5 0.7 RECREATIONAL BOATIN13 0 4.4 4.4 0 0 26,3 26.3 0 0 4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 110 19.0 0 9 19.0 34.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.0 1.3 0.5 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 1) 0 0 0 D FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0 1) 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION -INTENSIVE 0.5 1.9 0 2.4 4.3 17.1 0 21.4 6.7 26.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1.6 55,3 za. 9 69@ 1 24-7 429.9 171.6 61S.6 41.7 850.2 56 TABLE 1-364 Indiana, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESDURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 36.9 24.5 66 145 93.4 64 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 239 --- --- 663 --- --- RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 4.7 4.1 87 14.2 12.2 86 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 39.0 27.8 71 82.1 62.6 76 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 11.3 3.2 28 30.9 10.6 34 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 110 110 --- 780 780 100 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 274 274 100 363 363 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,600 2,600 Wo 2,470 2,470 loo HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS --- 4,220 --- --- 9,670 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 1,690 1,690 100 2,690 2.690 100 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 362 74 20 640 231 36 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,670 116 7 1,670 346 21 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 549 18.8 3 549 55.4 10 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IODO ACRES 275 24.0 9 275 69.1 25 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 22.6 2.6 12 22.6 7.8 35 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 346 8.9 3 346 26.6 8 11000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 75.Z 1.4 2 75.2 4.1 5 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 17.4 2.7 16 18.2 14.9 82 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 15,600 12,200 78 31,500 30,100 96 -RURAL IODO ACRES 52.7 3.5 7 51.9 7.2 14 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 260 48.0 18 406 128 32 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 333 14.3 4 726 22.6 3 1000 USER DAYS 1.220 101 8 1,840 243 13 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.1 --- --- 2.6 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 6.1 --- --- 14.4 --- TABLE 1-365 Indiana, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-202 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwel Mon-Fed Pri" ut.@ Federal Nog-Fed Pdvm Total Fedwel Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.7 3.9 0 5.6 6.8 16.0 0 22.8 12.3 28.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 47.5 47.5 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 THIEHMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.2 3.7 3.9 0 1.2 22.3 23.5 0 4.2 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER OISCHARGEi 14.2 4.7 0 18.9 48.4 16.1 0 64.5 77.6 25.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.3 2.7 0 4.0 0.2 0.8 0 1.0 0.4 1.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 3.0 3.0 2.7 8.7 9.9 9.9 8.3 28.1 7.6 7.6 COMMERCIAL FIS14ING COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 11.2 0 0 11.2 0 0 0 0 11.2 RELATED LAND USES 6 PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.3 0 3.5 4.8 2.7 0 7.0 9.7 1.6 0 4.0 5.6 20.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.6 0 3.8 5.4 3.0 0 7.0 10.0 4.6 0 10.8 15.4 30.8 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.2 0.1 0.2 1.5 2.2 0.1 0.4 2.7 1.7 0.1 0.3 2.1 6.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.4 0 1.7 2.1 0.8 0 3.4 4.2 0.8 0 3.3 4.1 10.4 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0 1.1 1.5 2.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 76.3 0 25.5 101.8 41.6 0 13.9 55.5 0.7 0 0.2 0.9 158.2 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.2 1.3 0 1.5 0.2 1.8 0 2.0 0.2 2.1 0 2.3 5.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 22.6 41.9 0 64.5 16.5 30.7 0 47.2 12.1 22.5 0 34.6 146.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 123.9 57.8 45.9 227.6 143.8 76.6 112.0 332.4 120.0 92.4 183.5 395.9 955.9 TABLE 1-366 Indiana, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Faftel Non-Fod Privow Total Federal Non-Fed priva" Total Fedwal Non-Fed primo Total Total WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 3.3 0 3.3 0 37.9 0 37.9 0 115.1 0 115.1 156.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0 0 252.7 252.7 354.6 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 3.8 3.8 0 0 7.1 7.1 11.4 IRRIGATION 1) ID 13.) 0.1 0 ID 0.7 0.7 0 0 1.3 1.3 2.1 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 3.9 3.9 5.5 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.1 0.9 1.0 0 0.8 15.2 16.0 0 4.1 78.5 82.6 99.6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES a 49.0 0 49.0 0 152.0 0 152.0 0 198.0 0 198.0 399.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.9 1.0 0 1.9 0.2 1.7 0 1.9 1.1 3.7 0 4.8 8.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 17.4 17.4 0 0 35.0 35.0 54.4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 2.8 5.6 0 0 5.6 8.4 RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 1.8 1.8 2.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 2.0 2.0 3.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.4 1.7 0.7 0 2.6 3.3 5.2 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0 1.5 0.1 1.4 0 1.5 3 2 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- 0.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 0.1 a 0.1 0.3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 2.5 9.9 0 12.4 15.2 60.9 0 76.1 23.8 95.4 0 119.2 207.7 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.4 63.6 5.8 72.8 _18.6 254.9 142.4 415.9 31.4 417.9 385.2 834.5 1 .323.2 TABLE 1-367 Indiana, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 171 36.9 24.5 66 145 93.4 64 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,251 239 --- --- 663 --- --- 1 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 40.2 4.7 4.1 87 14.2 12.2 86 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 53.1 39.0 27.8 71 82.1 62.6 76 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 14.3 11.3 3.2 28 30.9 10.6 34 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,562 110 110 --- 780 780 100 3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 223 274 274 100 363 363 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,983 2,600 2,600 100 2,470 2,470 100 4 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS NA --- 4,220 --- --- 9,670 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 1,271 1,690 1690 100 2,690 2,690 100 3 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,170 362 74 20 640 231 36 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 1,670 1,670 f54 15 1,670 7f8 44 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 549 549 53.5 10 549 149 27 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 275 275 L18. 5 10 275 63.5 30 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 22.6 22.6 2.6 12 22.6 7.8 35 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 346 346 8.9 3 346 26.6 8 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 75.2 75.2 1.4 2 75.2 4.1 5 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 17 17.4 2.7 16 18.2 14.9 82 -URBAN $lWO AVE 'ANNUAL DAMAGES 10,595 15,600 12,200 78 31,500 30,100 96 63 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 26 52.7 3.5 7 51.9 7.2 14 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 123 260 48.0 18 406 128 32 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 333 14.3 4 726 22.6 3 1 1000 USER DAYS 1,220 101 8 1,840 243 13 2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.1 --- --- 2.6 --- -EXTENSIVE 10DO ACRES NA --- 6.1 --- --- 14.4 --- TABLE 1-368 Indiana, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Prive" Totill Federal Non-Fad Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.7 3.9 0 5.6 6.8 16.0 0 22.8 12.3 28.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0 47.5 47.5 0 0 7 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.8 0. 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.2 3.7 3.9 0 1.2 22.3 23.5 0 4.2 3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 204.8 68.2 0 273.0 168.8 56.2 0 2 5. 0 168.0 56.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FIS@ING 1.3 2.7 0 4.0 0.2 0.8 0 1.0 0.4 1.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 3.0 3.0 2.7 8.7 9.9 9.9 8.3 28.1 7.6 7.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 7. 7 17. 2 0 0 17.2 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 7.6 10.5 5.6 0 14.3 19.9 3.4 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE L. 6 0 6.0 8.6 4.7 0 11.0 15.7 3.1 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.4 0.1 0.2 1. 7 2.6 0.2 0.5 3.3 2.1 0.1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.4 0 1.7 2.1 0.8 0 3.4 4.2 0.8 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0 0.6 0.9 0.4 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 76.3 0 25.5 101.8 41.6 0 13.9 55.5 0.7 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.2 1.3 0 1.5 0.2 1.8 0 2.0 0.2 2.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 22.6 41.9 0 64.5 16.5 30.7 0 47.2 12.1 22.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 325.0 121.3 52.2 498.5 275.2 116.8 123.4 515.4 211.1 122.6 1 TABLE 1-369 Indiana, Qperation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980 1981.2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed Privau Total Federal Non-Fed p, WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 3.3 0 3.3 0 37.9 0 37.9 0 115.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 99.9 99.9 0 0 2 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 3.8 3.8 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.1 0.9 1.0 0 0.8 15.2 16.0 0 4.1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 294.0 0 294.0 0 719.2 0 719.2 0 1,186.1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.9 1.0 0 1.9 0.2 1.7 0 1.9 1.1 3.7 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 2.0 2.0 0 0 17.4 17.4 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 1.0 8.0 0 0 8.0 12. 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 2.2 2. 2 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.4 1.4 D 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 1.4 1.7 0.7 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.7 0.1 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0 1.5 0.1 1.4 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.5 9.9 0 12.4 15.2 60.9 0 76.1 23.8 95.4 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - -i;6 TOTAL 4. 4 308.6 6.1 319.1 23.8 822.1 144.0 989.9 8 1, 3 TABLE 1-370 Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1900 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 282 282 100 960 960 100 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 95.9 95.9 100 726 726 100 RURAL DOMESTIC Ik LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 27.3 27.3 100 77.7 77.7 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 490 490 100 848 848 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 50.0 50.0 100 181 181 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,200 2,200 100 14,700 14,700 100 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,400 1,400 100 1,850 1,850 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,160 1,160 100 698 698 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 47,300 47,300 100 47,300 47,300 100 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS --- 20,400 --- --- 46,400 --- 10110 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 11000 ANGLER DAYS 8,460 6,050 72 16,900 14,100 83 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 3,970 1,060 27 7,170 2,820 39 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 11000 ACRES 8,080 804 10 8,080 2,410 30 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 1,680 145 9 1,680 273 16 FOREST LAND.-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 13,900 1 9420 10 13,900 4,260 31 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 583 20.7 4 583 62.3 11 MEAMBANK EROSION MILES 6,210 461 7 6,210 1,380 22 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 564 60.8 11 564 182 32 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 10DO ACRES 126 46.2 37 129 74.2 58 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 40,600 35,100 86 66,000 60,100. 91 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 991 213 21 987 359 36 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 6,750 3,050 45 8,170 4,200 51 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 959 140 15 2,850 369 13 1000 USER DAYS 59380 1,620 30 8,740 5,510 63 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 6.8 16.0 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 70.2 --- 125 --- TABLE 1-371 Michigan, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal NoD-Fod Prive" Totsl Federal Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 76.0 177.2 0 253.2 93.5 218.3 0 311.8 136.1 317.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 7.7 7.7 0 0 51.4 51.4 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0 1.3 1.5 0.3 0 2.2 2.5 0.2 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 14.3 14.3 0 0 10.2 10.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 6.6 6.6 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 3.8 73.1 76.9 0 21.9 415.6 437.5 0 35.4 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 123.9 241.3 0 965.2 466.6 156.2 0 624.8 602.6 200.9 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.1 8.3 0 13.4 2.8 6.0 0 8.8 8.8 16.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 28.7 28.7 24.5 81.9 51.3 51.3 43.9 146.5 55.6 55.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 340.6 0 0 340.6 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 9.4 0 24.0 33.4 18.7 0 48.1 66.8 11.1 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 14.1 0 33.0 47.1 13.1 0 30.6 43.7 18.1 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 46.9 2.9 8.8 58.6 93.8 5.8 17.6 117.2 93.7 5.9 1 SHORELAND EROSION 1.9 0 7.7 9.6 3.9 0 15.5 19.4 3.9 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 3.8 0 9.9 13.7 11.5 0 29.7 41.2 19.2 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 240.0 0 80.0 320.0 45.7 0 15.3 61.0 59.1 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ..RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 6.6 59.0 0 65.6 9.6 86.1 0 95.7 6.8 61.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 101.8 189.0 0 290.8 117.8 218.9 0 336.7 119.5 221.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1,258.4 710.2 286.7 2,255.3 _1,271.2.- 764.5 686.7 2,722.4 1,134.7 914.9 1,0 TABLE 1-372 Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,0 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 102.1 0 102.1 0 474.6 0 474.6 0 1,065.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 13.9 13.9 0 0 230.4 230.4 0 0 7 RURAL DOMESnC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 32.2 32.2 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 11.0 11.0 0 0 MINING 0 0 3.7 3.7 0 0 32.8 32.8 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.0 18.8 19.8 0 15.2 289.5 304.7 0 44.5 a NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 663.8 0 663.8 0 1,780.0 0 1,780.0 0 2,431.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.8 4.4 0 7.2 8.3 18.7 0 27.0 12.7 23.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 19.8 19.8 0 0 143.5 143.5 0 0 2 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 a 86.2 0 0 86.2 172.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 6.6 6.6 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 7.0 7.0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.5 1.1 2.2 7.7 11.0 2.8 4.0 SHORELANO EROSION 0.2 0 0.7 0.9 1.5 0 6.2 7.7 3.1 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 12.9 12.9 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-URBAN 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 0.2 3.4 0 3.6 0.2 4.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 4.8 0 4.1 0 3.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 9.4 37.8 0 47.2 70.8 283.0 0 353.8 133.1 532.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 12.6 813.3 68.3 894.2 163.1 2,581.9 779.8 3,52;.i 32i.; 4,108.8 2.0 TABLE 1-373 Michigan, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,153 282 282 IOG 960 960 100 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,374 95.9 95.9 100 726 726 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 187 27.3 27.3 100 77.7 77.7 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 250.6 490' 490 100 848 848 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 137.8 50.0 50.0 100 181 181 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 6,149 2,200 2,200 IGO 14,700 14,700 100 3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,196 1,400 1,400 100 1,850 1,850 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,546 1,160 1,160 100 698 698 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PCR DAY NA 47,300 47,300 100 47,300 47,300 100 4 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS NA --- 20,400 --- --- 46,400 --- 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 26,200 8,460 6,050 72 16,900 14,100 83 2 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 14,400 3,970 1,060 27 7,170 2,820 39 1 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 8,080 8,080 1,?90 22 8,080 5,050 63 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 10M ACRES 1,680 1,680 297 18 1,680 782 47 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 13,900 13,900 2,100 15 13,900 6,310 45 1 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 583 583 20.7 4 583 62.3 11 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 6,210 6,210 461 7 6,210 1,380 22 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 564 564 60.8 11 564 182 32 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 105.5 126 46.2 37 129 74.2 58 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 27,557.8 40,600 35,100 86 66,000 60,10@ 91 8 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 818.2 991 213 21 987 359 36 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3,682.0 6,750 3,050 45 8,170 4,200 51 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 10DO ACRES NA 959 140 15 2,850 369 13 1000 USER DAYS NA 5,380 1,620 30 8,740 5,510 63 1 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE IODO ACRES --- 6.8 --- --- 16.0 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA --- 70.2 --- --- 125 --- TABLE 1-374 Michigan, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Foderal Nau-Fod Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 76.0 177.2 0 253.2 93.5 218.3 0 311.8 136.1 317.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 7.7 7.7 0 0 51.4 51.4 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0 1.3 1.5 0.3 0 2.2 2.5 0.2 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 14.3 14.3 0 0 10.2 10.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 6.6 6.6 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 3.8 73.1 76.9 0 21.9 415.6 437.5 0 35.4 6 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES @e2u. 2,16.8 0 987.0 773. 2 257.8 0 1,031.0 858.8 286.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.1 8.3 0 13.4 2.8 6.0 0 8.8 8.8 16.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 28.7 28.7 24.5 81.9 51.3 51.3 43.9 146.5 55.6 55.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 108.6 0 0 108.6 831.8 0 0 831.8 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1@. 1 0 46.4 C4. 7 33.8 0. 86.9 120.7 L10. 6 0 5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 17.1 0 11.3 59.0 31.0 0 Z2. 2 103.2 17.7 0 4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 69.1 4. 3 13.0 86.4 141.0 8.8 26.4 176.2 141.1 8.8 2 SHORELAND EROSION 1.9 0 7.7 9.6 3.9 0 15.5 19.4 3.9 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 3.8 0 9.9 13.7 11.5 0 29.7 41.2 19.2 0 .4 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 240.0 0 80.0 320.0 45.7 0 15.3 61.0 59.1 0 1 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 6.6 59.0 0 65.6 9.6 86.1 0 95.7 6.8 61.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 101.8 189.0 0 290.8 117.8 218.9 0 336.7 119.5 221.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1,417.8 717.1 321.8 2, 4 56. @ -1,147.2 869.1 775. @9 3, 792.2 1,447.4 1,003.1 1,03 TABLE 1-375 Michigan, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 102.1 0 102.1 0 474.6 0 474.6 0 1 065.6 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 13.9 13.9 0 0 230.4 230.4 0 0 70 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 32.2 32.2 0 0 5 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 11.0 11.0 0 0 1 MINING 0 0 3.7 3.7 0 0 32.8 32.8 0 0 8 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.0 18.8 19.8 0 15.2 289.5 304.7 0 44.5 84 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 1,671. 9 0 1,671.9 0 .5,976. 0 3, 976. 0 5,85@. 9 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.8 4.4 0 7.2 8.3 18.7 0 27.0 12.7 23.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 19.8 19.8 0 0 143.5 143.5 0 0 27 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 14.0 0 0 14.0 263.2 0 0 263.2 470.4 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 C. 6 6.6 0 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 12.7 12.7 0 0 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.2 0.4 1.5 2.1 2.0 4.0 13.5 19.5 3.5 0 2 SHORELAND EROSION 0.2 0 0.7 0.9 1.5 0 6.2 7.7 3.1 0 1 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 12.9 12.9 0 0 3 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-URBAN 0.0 0.7 0 0.7 0.2 3.4 0 3.6 0.2 4.3 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 3.2 0 3.2 0 4.8 0 4.3 0 3.5 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 9.4 37.8 0 47.2 70.8 283.0 0 353.8 133.1 532.5 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 26.6 1,821. 5 69.7 1,917.8 346. 0 4,780.4 ?98. 7 b, 925. 1 623.0 7,538.7 2,0 TABLE 1-376 Minnesota, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework * 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER INITHDRAINA0 MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.0 3.0 100 12.1 12.1 100 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY + --- --- + --- --- RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0.2 0.2 100 1.3 1.3 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.8 3.8 100 9.6 9.6 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PiR DAY 20.4 20.4 100 42.2 42.2 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 850 850 100 NOW-IfflTLIDRAINAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 28.1 28.1 100 34.2 34.2 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 23.6 23.6 100 23.6 23.6 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. IWO RECREATION DAYS + I,710 over + 4,315 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 710 400 56 1,370 900 66 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 193 177 92 306 316 Over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 216 18.8 9 216 56.4 26 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE IODD ACRES 57.5 5.5 10 57.5 7.9 14 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,840 419 11 3,840 1,260 33 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 11.4 0.1 1 11.4 0.3 3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 179 7.6 4 179 22.8 13 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3.7 0.7 20 3.7 2.2 60 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN IWO ACRES 0.1 0.1 100 0.1 0.1 100 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 102 87.5 86 171 152 89 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 112 51.3 46 112 55.6 50 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 63.2 36.2 57 108 44.3 41 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 0 114 over 40 384 over 1000 USER DAYS 34.8 17.0 49 36.2 35.0 97 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 1.1 --- --- 2.8 --- -EXTENSIVE IODD ACRES --- 0.8 --- --- 0.8 --- TABLE 1-377 Minnesota, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-202 RESOUFICE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Priva" TOW Federal Non-Fed prive" Total, Federal Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWAL$ MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.2 0.6 0 0.8 0.8 1.7 0 2.5 0.9 2.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 28.3 29.8 0 1.7 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 6.0 2.0 0 8.0 2.9 0.9 0 3.8 3.6 1.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.6 1.4 0 2.0 0.4 0.4 0 0.8 0.3 0.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.7 6.7 5.7 19.1 5.1 5.1 4.3 14.5 4.5 4.5 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 17.8 0 0 17.8 0 0 0 0 17.8 RELATED LAND USES & ROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.2 0 0.6 0.8 0.4 0 1.0 1.4 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 3.2 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.4 0 0.8 1,.2 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0 0 0 0 1.7 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 11.4 0.7 2.2 14.3 23.4 1.4 4.4 29.2 23.5 1.4 4.4 29.3 72.8 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.7 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 1.8 FLOOD PLAiNS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 2.4 0 0.8 3.2 0.4 0 0.1 0.5 1.0 0 0.4 1.4 5.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.2 1.8 0 2.0 0.7 6.3 0 7.0 1.2 10.8 0 12.0 21.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 10.9 20.2 0 31.1 2.8 5.3 0 8.1 2.8 5.2 0 8.0 47.2 -EXTENSIVE ... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 39.1 33.4 11.9 84.4 55.1 22.6 40.7 118.4 38.5 27.4 46.5 112.4 315.2 TABLE 1-378 Minnesota, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) jul-1980 - 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fsdwml Non-Fed Fedeml Non-Fed PrIvM Total Fedwal Non-Fed Private Toul Total- WATER WITHDRAWALf, MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 4.9 0 4.9 0 11.4 0 11.4 16.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.7 IRRIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 MINING 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 8.4 8.4 0 0 15.5 15.5 25.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 14.5 15.3 0 2.4 45.8 48.2 63.5 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 1010 0 10.0 0 78.0 0 78.0 0 92.0 0 92.0 180.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.7 0 1.0 0.1 012 0 0.3 0.3 0.6 0 0.9 2.2 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 32.1 32.1 0 0 54.0 54.0 91.3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0 4.0 8.0 0 0 8.0 12.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.0 0.0 D a 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.4 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.0 0.0 D 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 FOREST LAND-TREATME14T 0.0 0.1 6.9 0.3 0.3 0.6 2.0 2.9 0.6 1.2 4.0 5.8 9.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 O.D 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.8 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.5 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMSNT 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.6 0 0.6 1.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.6 2.5 0 3.1 4.4 17.6 0 22.0 8.3 33.1 0 41.4 66.5 TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 0.9 1-3-.9 6.9 21.7 8.8 102.7 5i. i 16;.i 173 14T_@ .12i-i 28j_.i 47i:i- TABLE 1-379 Minnesota, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 26 3.0 3.0 100 12.1 12.1 100 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 68 + --- --- + --- --- RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.2 0.2 0.2 100 1.3 1.3 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 5.9 3.8 3.8 100 9.6 9.6 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 542 20.4 20.4 100 42.2 42.2 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 250 0 0 --- 850 850 100 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 23 28.1 28.1 100 34.2 34.2 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 32 23.6 23.6 100 23.6 23.6 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS P5R DAY NA 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 10DO RECREATION DAYS NA + 1,710 Over + 4,315 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 3,170 710 400 56 1,370 900 66 2 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,301.6 193 177 92 306 316 over 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 216 216 39.8 18 216 114 53 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 57.5 57.5 0 0 57.5 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,840 3,840 @'68 90 3,840 2,300 co 3 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 11.4 11.4 0.1 1 11.4 0.3 3 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 164 179 7.6 4 179 22.8 13 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3.7 3.7 0.7 20 3.7 2.2 60 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 0.1 0.1 0.1 100 0.1 0.1 100 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 79 102 87.5 86 171 152 89 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 3.4 112 51.3 46 112 55.6 50 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 63.2 36.2 57 108 44.3 41 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES NA 0 114 over 40 384 over 1000 USER DAYS NA 34.8 17.0 49 36.2 35.0 97 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE IODO ACRES --- 1.1 --- --- 2.8 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA --- 0.8 --- --- 0.8 --- TABLE 1-380 Minnesota, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Privm Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.2 0.6 0 0.8 0.8 1.7 0 2.5 0.9 2.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 28.3 29.8 0 1.7 3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES ,4. 0 8.0 0 32.0 15.8 5.2 0 21.0 12.0 4.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.6 1.4 0 2.0 0.4 0.4 0 0.8 0.3 0.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 6.7 6.7 5.7 19.1 5.1 5.1 4.3 14.5 4.5 4.5 --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING --- 1 17.8 0 0 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 63.6 0 0 33.6 7.6 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS 0 0.4 0.5 0.3 0 0.9 1.2 0.2 0 0. AGRIC, LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 2 8 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT P. 1. 2 j. 3 4.0 16.5 43.5 2.7 8.2 54.4 43.5 7 0.0 0 0.1 '6.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 0.3 0 0. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 2.4 0 0.8 3.2 0.4 0 0.1 0.5 1.0 0 0. --URBAN --- --- --- ..RURAL --- --- --RURAL 7.0 1.2 10.8 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.2 1.8 0 2.0 0.7 6.3 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- 2.8 5.2 OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 10.9 20.2 0 31.1 2.8 5.3 0 8.1 -- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 100.0 40.0 12.7 152.7 97.9 28.2 44.0 160.1 06.8 31.5 50. TABLE 1-381 Minnesota, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,00 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2029 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pfivm Total Federal Non-Fed Priva WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 4.9 0 4.9 0 11.4 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 M 0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 15 MINING 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 8.4 8.4 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 14.5 15.3 0 2.4 45 NON--WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES u 62.7 0 62.7 0 138.1 0 138.1 0 186.9 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.7 0 1.0 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.3 0.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 32.1 32.1 0 0 54 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- 6. 0 0 -18.0 0 2 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 6.0 32.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT u 0 0.0 (11.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.2 4.4 6.2 0.8 1.7 5 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 STREAMEANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 0 0.0 0.2 -URBAN 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.6 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.6 2.5 0 3.1 4.4 17.6 0 22.0 8.3 33.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- 80.8 30.5 257.0 TOTAL 7.0 66.6 7.2 3 .1 11 _5 TABLE 1-382 New York, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 78.1 78.1 100 333 333 100 SELF.-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 156 156 100 566 566 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 9.4 9.4 100 23.4 23.4 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 69.9 69.9 100 174 174 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 16.3 16.3 100 48.0 48.0 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PEA DAY 3,920 3,920 100 5,900 5,900 100 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 630 630 100 841 841 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,380 1,380 100 1,020 1 9020 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 4,000 4,000 100 5 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. IWO RECREATION DAYS --- 13,100 --- 32,500 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 5,980 4,510 75 11,300 9.390 83 1 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 850 468 55 1,440 1,210 84 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- C04MERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,080 259 8 3,080 777 25 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 762 91.1 12 752 157 21 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,730 368 8 4,730 1,110 23 SHORELAND, EROSION MILES 196 3.4 2 196 10.1 5 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,675 41.3 2 1,675 124 7 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 381 72.4 19 381 217 57 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN IWO ACRES 36.2 16.5 46 39.1 27.7 71 -URBAN $IODD AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,470 755 51 2,990 2,490 83 -RURAL IWO ACRES 339 55.2 16 336 125 37 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,750 791 29 4,610 2,280 49 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 110 173 over 702 395 56 1000 USER DAYS 795 255 32 1,450 795 55 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 7.4 --- --- 16.6 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 42.3 --- --- 97.0 --- TABLE 1-383 New York, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESQUIJ!CE USE CATEGORY FadmI Non-Fed pri"" Total Federal Non-Fed P&M Totel Fedwal Non-Fed Fri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 6.8 15.8 0 22.6 22.6 52.6 0 75.2 26.9 62.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 12.7 12.7 0 0 33.7 33.7 0 0 5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.9 0.9 a 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 6.9 130.2 137.1 0 4.6 87.3 91.9 0 11.9 22 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 201.0 67.0 0 268.0 92.3 30.7 0 123.0 172.5 57.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 8.9 8.9 0 17.8 11.9 5.9 0 17.8 15.9 7.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 17.4 17.4 14.8 49.6 18.9 18.9 16.4 54.2 16.3 16.3 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.9 0 7.5 10.4 5.9 0 15.3 21.2 3.5 0 9. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 6.1 0 14.1 20.2 4.1 0 9.7 13.8 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 17.8 1.1 3.3 22.2 35.6 2.2 6.7 44.5 35.5 2.2 6. SHORELAND EROSION 0.6 0 2.6 3.2 1.3 0 5.0 6.3 1.3 0 5. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.4 2.0 1.7 0 4.2 5.9 2.7 0 7. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- .-URBAN 27.3 0 9.1 36.4 163.3 0 54.5 217.8 0.3 0 0. --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.4 12.8 0 14.2 3.9 34.8 0 38.7 2.6 23.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 42.4 78.8 0 121.2 60.7 112.6 0 173.3 54.8 101.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 333.2 208.7 198.5 740.4 422.3 262.3 236.5 921.1 332.4 284.2 331. TABLE 1-384 New York, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,0 1971-IM 1 1-2DOO 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed privm Total Fedeml Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Priv WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 11.1 0 11.1 0 121.7 0 121.7 0 289.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 11.5 11.5 0 0 105.9 105.9 0 0 265. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.3 5.3 0 0 9. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 2. MINING 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 5.1 5.1 0 0 ]1. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.8 33.4 35.2 0 8.9 168.1 177.0 0 16.8 317. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 168.0 0 168.0 0 280.0 0 280.0 0 320.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.8 3.9 0 7.7 9.3 4.6 0 13.9 10.6 5.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 12.1 12.1 0 0 77.2 77.2 0 0 132. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT U 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 2.1 2.1 0 0 3. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 2.6 2.6 0 0 3. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.9 3.2 4.5 0.9 1.8 6. SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2.1 2.6 1.0 0 4. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 a 1.9 1.9 0 0 4. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 1.7 0 1,8 0.1 2.6 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.9 0 1.9 0 1.3 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 7.9 31.7 0 39.6 51.5 206.0 0 257.5 88.6 354.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 11.9 217.4 60.2 289.5 61.8 62;.@ 37@.; 1,062.4 101.2 991.1 761. TABLE 1-385 New York, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY IN 0 N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 635 78.1 78.1 100 333 333 100 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,187 156 156 100 566 566 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 66 9.4 9.4 100 23.4 23.4 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 65.3 69.9 69.9 100 174 174 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER OAY 25 16.3 16.3 100 48.0 48.0 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,109 3,920 3,920 100 5,900 5,900 100 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 590 630 630 100 841 841 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,551 1,380 1,380 100 1,020 1,020 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PgR DAY NA 0 0 --- 4,000 4,000 100 5 WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS NA --- 13,100 --- --- 32,500 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 15,41n 5,980 4,510 75 11,300 9,390 83 1 10DO ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 4,639 850 468 55 1,440 1,210 84 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,080 3,080 565 is 3,080 1,620 53 DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 762 762 41.5 5 762 119 ir FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,730 4,730 48P. 10 4,730 1,450 31 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 196 196 3.4 2 196 10.1 5 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1 675 1,675 41.3 2 1,675 124 7 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 381 381 72.4 19 381 217 57 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 32 36.2 16.5 46. 39.1 27.7 71 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 942.3 1 470 755 51 2,990 2,490 83 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 309.1 339 55.2 16 336 125 37 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1 620.7 2,750 791 29 4,610 2,280 49 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES NA 110 173 over 702 395 56 1000 USER DAYS NA 795 255 32 1,450 795 55 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 7.4 --- --- 16.6 --- -EXTENSIVE 10DO ACRES NA --- 42.3 --- --- 97.0 --- TABLE 1-386 New York, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwel Nou-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 6.8 15.8 0 22.6 22.6 52.6 0 75.2 26.9 62.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 12.7 12.7 0 0 33.7 33.7 0 0 5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 6.9 130.2 137.1 0 4.6 87.3 91.9 0 11.9 22 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 1,338.8 446.2 0 1, ?85. 0 099.8 133.2 0 533 254.2 84.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 8.9 8.9 0 17.8 11.9 5.9 0 17.8 15.9 7.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 17.4 17.4 14.8 49.6 18.9 18.9 16.4 54.2 16.3 .16.3 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- 0 COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 92.0 0 0 92.0 0 0 @20. 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS q. z 0 20.9 15.1 8.0 0 28.6 4.9 0 12. AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1.9 0 4.6 6.5 4.7 0 8.5 12.2 2.2 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 24. 8 1. 5 7 31.0 46.4 2.9 8. 7 58.0 46.4 2.9 9. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 5.0 SHORELAND EROSION 0.6 0 2.6 3.2 1.3 0 5.0 6.3 1.3 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.6 0 1.4 2.0 1.7 0 4.2 5.9 2.7 0 7.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 54.5 217.8 0.3 0 0.1 27.3 0 9.1 36.4 163.3 0 --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- 2.6 23.7 0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.4 12.8 0 14.2 3.9 34.8 0 38.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- 7___ --- 121- 2 60.7 112.6 0 173.3 54.8 101-9 OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 42.4 8.8 0 --- --- --- - TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 1,567.7 588.3 193.8 -',349.2 1,062.3 -365.5 242.6 1,670.4 428. 6 31,9.2 341. TABLE 1-387 New York, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000 1971-1980... 1981-2009 - 2 1- 02 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed PH WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 11.1 0 11.1 0 121.7 0 121.7 0 289.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 11.5 11.5 0 0 105.9 105.9 0 0 265. RURAL DOMEMC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 M (I G 5.3 5.3 0 0 9. 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 2. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 5.1 5.1 0 0 11. MINING 8.9 168.1 177.0 0 16.8 317. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 1.8 33.4 35.2 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 711.6 0 711.6 0 1,725.3 0 1,725.3 0 3,042.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- SPORT FISHING 3.8 3.9 o 7.7 9.3 4.6 0 13.9 10.6 5.3 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 12.1 12.1 0 0 77.2 77.2 0 0 132. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 10.0 0 0 10.0 80.0 0 0 30.0 120.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.3 3.3 0 0 5. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 2. 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.5 5.4 7.7 1.1 2. 2 ?. FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0 2.1 2.6 1.0 0 4. SHORELAND EROSION 1.9 0 0 4. STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 00 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 1.7 0 1.8 0.1 2.6 -URBAN --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- -RURAL 1.3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.9 0 1.9 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- 88.6 354.3 OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 7.9 31.7 0 39.6 51.5 206.0 0 257.5 --- --- - -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- 221.4 3.713.7 163. TOTAL 21.9 761.1 60.0 843.0 142.2 2 071.6 377.1 _590.9 - TABLE 1-388 Ohio, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESDURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % p WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 101 101 100 341 341 100 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 203 203 100 1,040 1,040 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 9.1 9.1 100 25.0 25.0 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0.6 0.6 100 56.0 56.0 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 22.0 22.0 100 78.9 78.9 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 6,180 6,180 100 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 805 805 100 1,060 1,060 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,510 1,510 100 1,190 1,190 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS --- 10,600 --- 21,100 --- IDDD ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 2,490 2,490 100 9,350 9,350 100 1 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 301 224 74 706 677 96 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES IN PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 10011 ACRES 4,020 385 10 4,020 1,150 29 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 2,460 50.1 2 2,460 218 9 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT IODO ACRES 733 59.0 8 733 177 24 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 52.2 2.9 6 52.2 8.8 17 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 991 29.8 3 991 88.8 9 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 433 79.8 18 433 239 55 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 30.1 10.4 35 31.1 16.5 53 -URBAN $IWO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGEt 5,510 3.710 67 10,700 8,590 80 2 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 394 110 28 393 176 45 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 6,400 2,230 35 8,620 3,860 45 1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 368 20.4 6 942 64.0 7 1000 USER DAYS 2,790 168 6 4,430 471 11 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 3.2 --- --- 6.3 --- -EXTENSIVE 10W ACRES --- 19.2 --- 37.3 --- TABLE 1-389 Ohio, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed priva" Total Fedwal Non-Fed Priveft Totel Fe"al Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 8.8 20.5 0 29.3 24.2 56.4 0 80.6 30.0 70.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 15.2 15.2 0 0 63.6 63.6 0 0 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0 MINING 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 3.0 3.0 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 10.7 204.0 214.7 0 18.9 35 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 141.0 47.0 0 188.0 290.3 96.8 0 387.1 354.8 118.2 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.9 17.4 0 23.3 1.8 5.8 0 7.6 1.3 4.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 17.2 17.2 14.8 49.2 34.3 34.3 29.4 98.0 22.2 22.2 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 11.6 0 12.0 16.6 9.3 0 24.0 33.3 5.6 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.0 0 9.3 13.3 12.1 0 28.1 40.2 19.3 0 4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 3.0 0.2 0.5 3.7 6.8 0.4 1.3 8.5 6.8 0.4 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.2 1.5 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 0.6 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0 0.9 1.2 1.0 0 2.7 3.7 1.7 .0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 57.7 0 19.2 76.9 40.7 0 13.6 54.3 3.4 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.8 16.5 0 18.3 4.6 41.2 0 45.8 6.7 59.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 47.3 87.8 0 135.1 52.7 97.9 0 150.6 37.8 70.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 291.9 20.6 74.3 572.8 478.4 343.5 373.9 1,195.8 490.2 364.6 54 TABLE 1-390 Ohio, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-INO 1981-2= I -I= RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal NowFed pCivate TOW Federal Non-Fed prive" TOW Fedwol Non-Fed Pf WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 14.8 0 14.8 0 129.9 0 129.9 0 296.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 15.4 15.4 0 0 188.0 188.0 0 0 48 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 Q 0 CA 0.5 0 0 MINING 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 11.4 11.4 0 0 2 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 5.6 105.6 111.2 0 20.9 39 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 325.0 0 325.0 0 910.0 0 910.0 0 1,120.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.4 1.2 0 1.6 1.0 3.2 0 4.2 1.0 3.8 RECREATIONAL BOAT114G 0 0 9.6 9.6 0 0 73.3 73.3 0 0 11 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 3.2 3.2 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 3.4 3.4 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 STREAM10ANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 1.8 0 1.9 0.1 2.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 2.3 0 2.3 0 3.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 5.5 22.0 0 27.5 33.9 135.8 0 169.7 55.0 220.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 5.9 364.2 28.1 398.2 35.3 1,188.8 394.0 1,618.1 56.8 1,668.2 1,08 TABLE 1-391 Ohio, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESDURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED mILLION GALLONS PER DAY 674 101 101 100 341 341 100 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,605 203 203 100 1,040 1,040 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 61 9.1 9.1 100 25.0 25.0 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 153.9 0.6 --- --- 56.0 44. 7 80 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 42 22.0 22.0 100 78.9 40.P 51 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3,400 0 0 --- 6,180 6,180 100 1 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 674 805 805 100 1,060 1,060 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,674 1,510 1,510 100 11190 1,190 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS NA --- 10,600 --- --- 21,100 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING IOW ANGLER DAYS 19,116 2.490 2,490 100 9,350 9,350 100 1 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 1,675 301 224 74 706 677 96 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 4,020 4,020 846 21 4 020 2,420 60 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 2,460 2,460 183 7 2:460 552 22 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 733 733 119 16 733 356 49 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 52.2 52.2 2.9 6 52.2 8.8 17 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 991 991 29.9 3 991 88.8 9 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 433 433 79.8 18 433 239 55 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 26.1 30.1 10.4 35 31.1 16.5 53 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3,590.1 5,510 3.710 67 10,700 8,590 80 2 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 145.1 394 110 28 393 176 45 -RURAL $IWO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,108.9 6,400 2,230 35 8,620 3,860 45 1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES NA 368 20.4 6 942 64.0 7 1000 USER DAYS NA 2,790 168 6 4,430 471 11 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 3.2 --- --- 6.3 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA --- 19.2 --- --- 37.3 --- TABLE 1-392 Ohio, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,0N) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Prive" Total Federal NowFed Priva" -Total Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 8.8 20.5 0 29.3 24.2 56.4 0 80.6 30.0 70.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 15.2 15.2 0 0 63.6 63.6 0 0 8 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0 IRRIGATION 0@ 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1. P. 7.9. n 0 MININU U U U.7 0. 7 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 10.7 204.0 214.7 0 18.9 35 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 660.8 220.2 0 881.0 434.2 144.8 0 579.0 351.0 117.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 5.9 17.4 0 23.3 1.8 5.8 0 7.6 1.3 4.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 17.2 17.2 14.8 49.2 34.3 34.3 29.4 98.0 22.2 22.2 1 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 18.0 0 0 18.0 70.7 0 0 70. 7 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 26.3 36.5 19.3 0 49. G 68. D 11.7 0 3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 9.9 0 23.2 33.1 17.0 0 39.8 56.8 12. ? 0 2 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 6.9 0.4 1.3 8.6 13.9 0.9 2.6 17.4 13.8 0. 7 SHORELAND EROSION 0.3 0 1.2 1.5 0.6 0 2.3 2.9 0.6 0 STREAMBANK ERUS!ON 0.3 0 0.9 1.2 1.0 0 2.7 3.7 1.7 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 57.7 0 19.2 76.9 40.7 0 13.6 54.3 3.4 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.8 16.5 0 18.3 4.6 41.2 0 45.8 6.7 59.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 47.3 87.8 0 135.1 52.7 97.9 0 150.6 37.8 70.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 845.1 J80. 0 103.0 1,328.1 715.0 392.0 -409.8 1,516.8 429..9 363.9 54 TABLE 1-393 Ohio, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 20014-020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Priva" Total Fedwel Non-Fed Privm Total Fadmi Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 14.8 0 14.8 0 129.9 0 129.9 0 296.9 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 15.4 15.4 0 0 188.0 188.0 0 0 48 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 7 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 MINING 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 7.1 7.1 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 5.6 105.6 111.2 0 20.9 39 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 ?91. 1 0 791.1 0 1,926.9 0 1,926. 9 0 3,253.1 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.4 1.2 0 1.6 1.0 3.2 0 4.2 1.0 3.8 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 9.6 9.6 0 0 73.3 73.3 0 0 13 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 2.0 0 0 2.0 24.0 0 0 24.0 40.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 8.0 8.0 0 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 7.3 7.3 0 0 1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.2 1.7 0.4 0.7 SHORELAND EROSION 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 0.5 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 1.8 0 1.9 0.1 2.3 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 2.3 0 2.3 0 3.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 5.5 22.0 0 27.5 .33.9 135.8 0 169.7 55.0 220.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 9 830.3 29.2 867.4 59.4 2.205.8 399.0 2,664.2 97.0 3,801.7 1, TABLE 1-394 Pennsylvania, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 8.3 8.3 100 24.7 24.7 100 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 17.0 17.0 100 68.0 68.0 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 0 --- 1.2 1.2 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.1 3.1 100 7.8 7.8 100 MINING AMLLION GALLONS PER DAY 0.5 0.5 100 1.8 1.8 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 --- 0 --- --- NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 91.0 91.0 100 103 103 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 139 139 100 97.0 97.0 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS --- 337 --- 502 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 278 278 100 427 427 100 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 35 11 31 37 119 78 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 71.7 6.5 9 71.7 19.4 27 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE IODO ACRES 23.6 2.1 9 23.6 2.1 9 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1IODO ACRES 134 10.1 8 134 30.4 23 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 38.0 6.0 16 38.0 6.0 16 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 157 0.4 1 157 1.2 1 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1.8 0.1 4 1.8 0.2 13 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 0.3 0.0 0 0.3 0.1 33 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 8.5 0.2 2 14.6 2.6 18 -RURAL . 1000 ACRES 2.0 0.0 0 2.0 0.0 0 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 10.7 0.0 0 13.7 0.0 0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IODO ACRES 3.6 4.5 Over 17.5 9.5 54 IODD USER DAYS 33.8 4.8 14 52.5 12.1 23 AESTHETIC 6 CULTURAL 1OOD ACRES --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.1 --- 0.2 --- -EXTENSIVE IWO ACRES --- 0.6 --- --- 1.0 --- TABLE 1-395 Pennsylvania, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-20 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedeml Non-Fed Prive" Total Fedwal Nuu-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.0 2.2 0 3.2 1.7 4.1 0 5.8 1.8 4.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC St LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 MINING 0 n n.n n n n n n.i n.i THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 18.6 6.2 0 24.8 10.9 3.6 0 14.5 43.9 14.6 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.9 0.6 0 1.5 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.9 0.9 o.7 2.5 1.1. 1.1 1.0 3.2 0.8 0.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.2 0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.2 1.5 1.3 0.1 SHORELAND EROSION 1.0 0 3.8 4.8 0 0 0 a 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.0 a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.0 0.4 0 0.4 0.1 0.5 0 0.6 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.8 1.6 0 2.4 1.3 2.3 0 3.6 2.5 4.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 24.1 11.9 6.7 42.7 16.5 11.8 6.0 34.3 50.5 24.3 TABLE 1-396 Pennsylvania, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,0 1971-1980 1901-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fod Private Total Fedwal Non-Fed Privato Total fedwal Non-Fed Pr WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 1.6 0 1.6 0 11.2 0 11.2 0 21.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 12.4 12.4 0 0 2 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 9.0 0 9.0 0 24.0 0 24.0 0 40.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.2 0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0 0.2 0.1 0.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.5 1.9 o.4 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.1 0.4 0 0.5 0.7 3.0 0 3.7 1.7 6.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 0.5 11.2 2.2 13.9 1.3 38.2 18.7 58.2 2.2 68.3 3 TABLE 1-397 Pennsylvania, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 65 8.3 8.3 100 24.7 24.7 100 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 147 17.0 17.0 100 68.0 68.0 100 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3 . 0 0 --- 1.2 1.2 100 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 3.3 3.1 3.1 100 7.8 7.8 100 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 1.8 0.5 0.5 100 1.8 1.8 100 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 144 0 --- --- 0 --- --- NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 46 91.0 91.0 100 103 103 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 147 139 139 100 97.0 97.0 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS NA --- 337 --- --- 502 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 1,058 278 278 100 427 427 100 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 44.0 35 11 31 37 29 78 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT IWO ACRES 71.7 71.7 12.1 17 71.7 34.5 49 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 23.6 23.6 0 0 23.6 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 134 134 14 10 134 40 30 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 38 38.0 6.0 16 38.0 6.0 16 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 157 157 0.4 <1 157 1.2 1 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1.8 1.8 0.1 4 1.8 0.2 13 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 0 0.3 0.0 0 0.3 0.1 33 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 8.5 0.2 2 14.6 2.6 18 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 0 2.0 0.0 0 2.0 0.0 0 -RURAL $10DO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 0 10.7 0.0 0 13.7 0.0 0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES NA 3.6 4.5 over 17.5 9.5 54 1000 USER DAYS NA 33.8 4.8 14 52.5 12.1 23 AESTHETIC IN CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECkEATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 0.1 --- --- 0.2 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA --- 0.6 --- --- 1.0 --- TABLE 1-398 Pennsylvania, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 1.0 2.2 0 3.2 1.7 4.1 0 5.8 1.8 4.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 4.1 4.1 0 0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 C 0 3.0 G.0 G 0 6.1 &.-1 U U THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 390.8 130.2 0 521.0 124.5 41.5 0 166.0 po. 6.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.9 0.6 0 1.5 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0.9 0.9 0.7 2.5 1.1 1.1 1.0 3.2 0.8 0.8 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 14.0 0 0 14.0 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 17 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.8 0.0 0 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.3 2.0 1.6 0.1 0. SHORELAND EROSION 1.0 0 3.8 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0. FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.0 0.4 0 0.4 0.1 0.5 0 0.6 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 0.8 1.6 0 2.4 1.3 2.3 0 3.6 2.5 4.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 396.3 135.9 6.3 538.5 144.5 49.7 5.9 200.1 27.1 16.5 6. TABLE 1-399 Pennsylvania, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,00( 1971-1900 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedwal Non-Fed Private Total Fedwal Nqn-Fed prlym Taal Fedwal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 1.6 0 1.6 0 11.2 0 11.2 0 21.3 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 1.2 1.2 0 0 12.4 12.4 0 0 28. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0. IRRIGATION 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.1 011 0 0 0. MINING 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 1.1 1.1 0 0 2. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 62.8 0 62.8 0 238.6 0 238.6 0 821.8 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC, --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.3 0.2 0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0 0.2 0.1 0.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 3.1 3.1 0 0 5. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 1.0 6.0 0 0 6.0 8.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0. SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0 1.5 1.9 0.4 0 1 . STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION -INTENSIVE 0.1 0.4 0 0.5 0.7 3.0 0 3.7 1.7 6.9 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 1.5 65.0 2.2 68.7 7.2 253.0 18.5 278.7 10. p 850.0 39. TABLE 1-400 Wisconsin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Normal Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 N 0 % WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 152 39.9 26 407 118 29 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 135 --- --- 304 --- --- RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MI LLION GALLONS PER DAY 10.3 8.6 83 26.3 20.7 79 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 89.0 63.9 72 171 127 74 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 27.1 11.4 42 65.0 25.7 40 THERMAL POWER COOLING MI LLION GALLONS PER DAY 1,150 1,150 100 3,900 3,900 100 .9 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 461 461 100 688 688 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 515 515 100 511 511 100 HYDROELtCTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 1000 RECREATION DAYS ___ 5,800 --- 13,800 --- 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING IODO ANGLER DAYS 4,410 4,140 94 8,710 8,340 96 12 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 831 337 41 1,730 817 47 2 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES St PROBLEMS AORIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,250 217 7 3,250 651 20 3 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 667 118 18 667 145 22 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,350 529 12 4,350 1,580 36 4 SHORELAND EROSION MILES 278 7.8 3 278 23.4 8 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,310 52.3 4 1,310 157 12 1 $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 221 34 15 221 102 46 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN 1000 ACRES 16.6 1.7 10 17.9 5.6 31 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 3,530 275 8 6,470 1,790 28 12 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 665 99.0 15 664 198 30 --RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 1,810 423 23 2,300 832 36 2 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES 443 706 over 1,340 1,770 over 2 1000 USER DAYS 2,220 79.7 4 3.560 167 5 4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 2.3 --- --- 6.7 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES 10.3 --- --- 39.8 --- TABLE 1-401 Wisconsin, Capital Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Fedmi Non-Fed priym TOW Fedwal Noti-Fed P&M Total Fedwel Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 3.3 7.6 0 10.9 6.1 14.1 0 20.2 8.9 20.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 16.3 16.3 0 0 23.8 23.8 0 0 4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 235.5 78.5 0 314.0 151.5 50.5 0 202.0 202.5 67.5 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.7 2.1 0 3.8 0.7 1.5 0 2.2 0.9 1.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 14.6 14.6 12.6 41.8 15.8 15.8 13.4 45.0 8.3 8.3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 25.1 0 0 25.1 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 2.4 0 6.3 8.7 4.9 0 12.6 17.5 2.9 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 9.3 0 16.8 26.1 2.3 0 5.3 7.6 2.5 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 15.9 1.0 3.0 19.9 32.3 2.0 6.1 40.4 31.2 2.0 SHORELAND EROSION 1.0 0 3.8 4.8 1.9 0 7.6 9.5 1.9 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.5 0 1.3 1.8 1 .5 0 3.9 5.4 2.5 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 6.8 0 2.3 9.1 5.2 0 1.8 7.0 20.4 0 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.9 17.3 0 19.2 3.5 31.3 0 34.8 3.6 32.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 22.3 41.3 0 63.6 21.1 39.3 0 60.4 24.6 45.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 315.2 164.4 104.0 583.6 272.0 159.3 169.6 600.9 310.3 188.8 28 TABLE 1-402 Wisconsin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Normal Framework (in $1,000,0 1971-1990 1981-2m 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY FWMI Non-Fed POW TOM fedmi NO-Fed pfbm Tgal Fodmi Ng.-Fd I'd WATER WITHDRAWALIS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.8 0 518 0 48,6 0 48,6 0 11211 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 9.1 911 0 0 60'0 solo 0 0 14 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 9.1 911 0 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 013 0 0 118 I's 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 512 512 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 o's 919 10A 0 4.6 66, 5 9111 0 12A 23 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER UK$ MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER 01WHARGES 0 16612 0 166.2 0 417,13 0 417.8 0 55912 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCIRARGES ... ... --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER ... --- ... --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC, ... --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 018 110 0 I's 115 4,0 0 5.5 2.6 610 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 9.3 9.3 0 0 59.1 5911 0 0 9 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- ... --- --- --- - COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 6.0 0 0 6.0 12.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROOLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 216 3.6 0.7 1.5 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.8 0 3.0 3.8 i's 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0.0 0.9 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.9 11.6 0 14.5 22.4 89.7 0 112.1 40.1 160.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 3.9 176.2 32.5 212.6 31.1 567.5 223.3 821.9 56.9 853.6 52 TABLE 1-403 Wisconsin, Needs, Outputs, and Percent Needs Met, Proposed Framework 1970 1980 2000 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY UNIT SUPPLY N 0 % N 0 % N WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 305 152 39.9 26 407 118 29 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 595 135 --- --- 304 --- --- RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 68.9 .10.3 8.6 83 26.3 20.7 79 3 IRRIGATION MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 106.6 89.0 63.9 72 171 127 74 MINING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 14.4 27.1 11.4 42 65.0 25.7 40 THERMAL POWER COOLING MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 2,044 1,150 11150 100 3,900 3,900 100 9 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 308 461 461 100 688 688 100 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES MILLION GALLONS PER DAY 631 515 515 100 511 511 100 HYDROELECTRIC POWER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY NA 0 --- --- 0 --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. 10DO RECREATION DAYS NA --- 5,800 --- ___ 13,800 --- 101100 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1000 ANGLER DAYS 13,412 4,410 4,140 94 8,710 8,340 96 12, 1000 ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- RECREATIONAL BOATING 1000 BOAT DAYS 5,113 831 337 41 1,730 817 47 2, 100D ACRES WATER SURFACE NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL FISHING MILLION TONS PER YEAR NA --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MILLION TONS PER YEAR --- --- --- --- --- RELATED LAND USES III PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 3,250 3,250 476 15 3,250 1,360 42 3, -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1000 ACRES 667 667 99.9 15 667 205 31 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1000 ACRES 4,350 4,350 854 20 4,350 2,560 59 4. SHORELAND EROSION MILES 278 278 7.8 3 278 23.4 8 STREAMBANK EROSION MILES 1,310 1,310 52.3 4 1,310 157 12 1, $11WO AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 221 221 34 15 221 102 46 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN 1000 ACRES 12.2 16.6 1.7 10 17.9 5.6 31 1 -URBAN $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 2,414.9 3,530 275 8 6,470 1,790 28 12 -RURAL 1000 ACRES 202.1 665 99.0 15 664 198 30 -RURAL $1000 AVE ANNUAL DAMAGES 358.8 1,810 423 23 2,300 832 36 2, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1000 ACRES NA 443 706 over 1,340 1 770 over 2, 1000 USER DAYS NA 2,220 79.7 4 3,560 167 5 4 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL 1000 ACRES NA --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 1000 ACRES --- 2.3 --- --- 6.7 --- -EXTENSIVE 1000 ACRES NA --- 10.3 39.8 --- TABLE 1-404 Wisconsin, Capital Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOU13CE USE CATEGORY Foderal Non-Fed Priveft Total Fedwal NowFed Privets Toul Federal Non-Fed Pri WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 3.3 7.6 0 10.9 6.1 14.1 0 20.2 8.9 20.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 16.3 16.3 0 0 23.8 23.8 0 0 4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.0 0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 IRRIGATION 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 2.2 2.2 0 0 0.7 0 6 6.V U.y U U 0 0.7 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 2.0 38.3 40.3 0 4.8 91.5 96.3 0 10.4 19 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 228. 8 76.9 0 305.0 270.0 90.0 0 @;60. 0 306.0 102.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.7 2.1 0 3.8 0.7 1.5 0 2.2 0.9 1.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 14.6 14.6 12.6 41.8 15.8 15.8 13.4 45.0 8.3 8.3 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAC NAVIGATION 25.8 0 0 25.8 58.7 0 0 58. 7 0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT ". z 0 13.5 18.7 9.6 0 25.1 34.9 5.9 0 1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 4.0 0 9,4 13.4 4.4 0 10.4 14.8 3.3 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 26.2 1. 7 4. 9 32.8 52.6 3.3 9.8 G5. 7 51.4 3.2 SHORELAND EROSION 1.0 0 3.8 4.8 1.9 0 7.6 9.5 1.9 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.5 0 1.3 1.8 1.5 0 3.9 5.4 2.5 0 FLOOD PLAINS-UR8AN --- --- --- --- --URBAN 6.8 0 2.3 9.1 5.2 0 1.8 7.0 20.4 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.9 17.3 0 19.2 3.5 31.3 0 34.8 3.6 32.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 22.3 41.3 0 63.6 21.1 39.3 0 60.4 24.6 45.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 342. 1 162.8 105. 7 610.6 451.4 200.1 190.9 842.4 437.8 224.5 3 TABLE 1-405 Wisconsin, Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs, Proposed Framework (in $1,000,0 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Federal Non-Fed Private Total Federal Non-Fed Private Total Fedeml Non-Fed Pf WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0 5.8 0 5.8 0 48.6 0 48.6 0 112.1 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 50.0 50.0 0 0 14 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 1 IRRIGATION 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0 MINING 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 5.2 5.2 0 0 1 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0.5 9,9 10.4 0 4.6 86.5 91.1 0 12.4 2 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES j .514. 6 0 514.6 0 1,230.2 0 7, 930. 2 0 1,875.9 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 0.8 1.0 0 1.8 1.5 4.0 0 5.5 2.6 5.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 0 0 9.3 9.3 59.1 59.1 (!1 1) COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 1.0 0 0 1.0 10.0 0 0 -10.0 16.0 0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0 4.3 4.3 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.4 2.4 0 0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 0. F 1.4 5.1 7.2 i. 2 2.3 SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0 0.4 0.5 0.8 0 3.0 3.8 1.5 0 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0.2 0.2 a 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0 0.3 0.0 0.9 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.9 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.9 11.6 0 14.5 22.4 89.7 0 112.1 40.1 160.6 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 4.9 534. 7 32.7 572.3 35.4 1,380.6 228.0 1,644.0 61.4 2,171.1 5 TABLE 1406 Illinois, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY _-Ep-ital OM&R TUTAL T 0 TA_L_ Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 93.0 52.8 145.8 93.0 52.8 145.8 446.7 1,250.8 1 697.5 446.7 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0.7 0.4 1.1 o.7 0.4 1.1 48.4 151.1 199.5 48.4 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRRIGATION 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.9 0.1 1.0 2.3 1.9 4.2 2.3 MINING 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 THERMAL POWER COOLING 29.1 7.5 36.6 29.1 7.5 36.6 594.4 545.4 1,139.8 594.4 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 6.3 0.3 6.6 6.3 0.3 6.6 11.5 2.7 14.2 11.5 RECREATIONAL BOATING 19.2 4.4 23.6 19.2 4.4 23.6 56.4 74.4 130.8 56.4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 9.9 1.0 10.9 0.6 0.6 1.2 66.3 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SHORELAND EROSION 1.7 0.2 1.9 1.7 0.2 1.9 8.4 4.2 12.6 8.4 STREAMBANK EROSION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FLOOD PLAINS--URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION--INTENSfVE 13.7 2.4 16.1 13.7 2.4 16.1 82.3 57.2 139.5 82. -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 164.6 68.1 232.7 174.5 69.1 243.6 1,251.0 2,088.5 3,339.5 1,316. TABLE 1407 Indiana, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 5.6 3.3 8.9 5.6 3.3 8.9 69.5 156.3 225.8 69. SELFSUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 3.5 2.0 5.5 3.5 2.0 5.5 125.5 354.6 480.1 125. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 11.4 12.3 0. IRRIGATION 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.9 2.8 2.1 4.9 2. MINING 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 5.5 6.6 1. THERMAL POWER COOLING 3.9 1.0 4.9 3.9 1.0 4.9 112.1 99.6 211.7 112. -NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 18.9 49.0 67.9 273.0 294.0 567.0 186.8 399.0 585.8 722. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 4.0 1.9 5.9 4.0 1.9 5.9 6.7 8.6 15.3 6. RECREATIONAL BOATING 8.7 2.0 10.7 8.7 2.0 10.7 58.7 54.4 113.1 58. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 7,7 1.0 8.7 11.2 8.4 19.6 24.9 RELATED LAND USEi & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 4.8 0.0 4.8 10.5 0.2 10.7 20.1 2.9 23.0 42.5 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 5.4 0.1 5.5 8.6 0.2 8.8 30.8 3.1 33.9 34.6 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.7 0 1.7 6.3 0.8 7.1 7.6 SHORELAND EROSION 2.1 0.2 2.3 2.1 0.2 2.3 10.4 5.2 15.6 10.4 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 2.7 0.1 2.8 2.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -.URBAN 101.8 o.2 102.0 101.8 0.2 102.0 158.2 3.2 161.4 158.2 .-RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 1.5 0.1 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.6 5.8 0.3 6.1 5.8 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 164.5 12.4 76.9 64.5 12.4 76.9 146.3 207.7 354.0 146.3 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 227.6 72.8 300.4 498.5 319.1 817.6 955.9 1,323.2 2,279.1 1,532.3 TABLE 1-408 Michigan, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OMSIR TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 253.2 102.1 355.2 253.2 102,1 355.3 1,018.8 1,642.3 2,661.1 1,018.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 7.7 13.9 21.6 7.7 13.9 21.6 146.5 950.9 1,097.4 146.5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 1.5 4.8 6.3 1.5 4.8 6.3 5.9 96.3 102.2 5.9 IRRIGATION 14.3 2.1 16.4 14.3 2.1 16.4 35.4 29.8 65.2 35.4 MINING 2.4 3.7 6.2 2.4 3.7 6.1 20.8 118.8 139.6 20.8 THERMAL POWER COOLING 76.9 19.8 96.7 76.9 19.8 96.7 1,221.4 1,214.4 2,435.8 1,221.4 NON-WIT"ORAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 965.2 663.8 1,629.0 987.0 1,671.9 2,658.9 2,393.5 4,874.8 7,268.3 3,163.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ... --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FIS14ING 13,4 7,2 20.6 13.4 7.2 20.6 47.0 70.3 117.3 47.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 81.9 19.8 101.7 81.9 19.8 101.7 387,0 434.7 821.7 387.0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 10816 14,0 122.6 340.6 258,6 599.2 940.4 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 33.4 0.8 34.2 64.7 1.4 66.1 139.9 19.5 159.4 258.9 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 47.1 1.2 48.3 59.0 1,5 60,5 151.1 20.4 171.5 221.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 58.6 1.5 60,1 86.4 2.1 88,5 292.9 32.7 325.6 439.0 SHORELAND EROSION 9.6 0.9 10.5 9.6 0.9 10.5 48.4 24.2 72.6 48.4 STREAMBANK EROSION 13,7 1.5 15.2 13.7 1.5 15.2 123.6 50.9 174.5 123.6 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 320,0 0.7 320,7 320.0 0.7 320.7 459.8 8.8 468.6 459.8 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 65.6 3.2 68.8 65.6 3.2 68,8 229.7 11.5 241.2 229.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 290.8 47,2 336.0 290.8 47.2 338.0 968.8 1,066.6 2,035.4 966.8 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - TOTAL 2,255.3 894.2 3,149.5 2,456.7 1,917.8 4,374.5 8,031.1 10,925.5 18.9@C. 6 9. 7 i@. 5 TABLE 1409 Minnesota, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) - 1971-1990 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTA-L Capital OM&R TOTAL Capit WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.3 6.3 16.8 23.1 6. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.5 3.6 7. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.8 0. IRRIGATION 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.9 0. MINING 1.4 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4 2.8 4.8 25.3 30.1 4. THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.2 63.5 127.7 64. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 8.0 10.0 18.0 32.0 62.7 94.7 16.6 180.0 196.6 69. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.6 2.2 5.8 3. RECREATIONAL BOATING 19.1 5.2 24.3 19.1 5.2 24.3 46.7 91.3 138.0 46. COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 33.6 6.0 39.6 17.8 12.0 29.8 51. RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 3.2 0.4 3.6 2. -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1.2 0.0 1.2 0 0 0 1.7 0.3 2.0 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 14.3 0.3 14.6 26.5 0.7 27.2 72.8 9.0 81.8 135. SHORELAND EROSION 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.4 1.1 0. STREAMBANK EROSION 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 1.8 0.8 2.6 1. FLOOD PLAINS.-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 3.2 0 3.2 3.2 0 3.2 5.1 0.5 5.6 5.1 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 2.0 0.1 2.1 2.0 0.1 2.1 21.0 1.0 22.0 21. AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 31.1 3.1 34.2 31.1 3.1 34.2 47.2 66.5 113.7 47. -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 84.4 21.7 106.1_ 152.7 80.8 233.5 315.2 474.6 789.8 461. TABLE 1410 New York, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 _F NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY __ETP tat ON&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capita WATER. WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 22.6 11.1 33.7 22.6 11.1 33.7 187.5 421.8 609.3 187. SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 12.7 11.5 24.2 12.7 11.5 24.2 101-.8 382.7 484.5 101. RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.6 15.4 17.0 1. IRRIGATION 1.6 0.3 1.9 1.6 0.3 1.9 6.4 4.2 10.6 6. MINING 0.9 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.6 1.5 6.4 17.6 24.0 6. THERMAL POWER COOLING 137.1 35.2 172.3 137.1 35.2 172.3 467.0 546.7 1,013.7 467. NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 268.0 168.0 436.0 1,785.0 711.6 2,496.6 621.0 768.0 7,389.0 2,657. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 17.8 7.7 25.5 17.8 7.7 25.5 59.4 37.5 96.9 59. RECREATIONAL BOATING 49.6 12.1 61.7 49.6 12.1 61.7 150.4 221.9 372.3 150.4 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 92.0 10.0 102.0 0 0 0 412.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT IU.4 0.3 10.7 15.1 0.3 15.4 44.2 6.2 50.4 61.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 20.2 0.5 20.7 6.5 0.2 6.7 34.0 6.5 40.5 26.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 22.2 0.7 22.9 31.0 0.9 31.9 111.1 14.2 125.3 147.0 SHORELAND EROSION 3.2 0.3 3.5 3.2 0.3 3.5 15.8 7.9 23.7 15.8 STREAMBANK EROSION 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 17.7 6.8 24.5 17.7 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- 254.6 --URBAN 36.4 0.1 36.5 36.4 0.1 36.5 254.6 4.6 259.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 14.2 0.7 14.9 14.2 0.7 14.9 79.2 3.9 83.1 79.2 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATiON-INTENSIVE 121.2 39.6 160.8 121.2 39.6 160.8 451.2 740.0 1,191.2 451 .2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 740.4 289.5 1,029.9 2,349.2 843.0 3,192.2 2,609.3 3,205.9 5,815.2 5,102.2 TABLE 1-411 Ohio, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 RESOURCE USE CATEGORY NORMAL - PROPOSED NORMAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 29.3 14.8 44.1 29.3 14.8 44.1 210.0 441.6 651.6 210.0 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 15.2 15.4 30.6 15.2 15.4 30.6 166.0 688.5 854.5 166.0 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK M 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.0 0.9 17.5 18.4 0.9 IRRIGATION 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.2 6.7 4.2 MINING M 1.2 2.2 o.7 1.3 2.0 9.3 42.1 51.4 2.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 593.3 528.5 1,121.8 593.3 NON-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 325.0 513.0 881.0 791.1 1,672.1 1,048.1 2,355.0 3,403.1 1,928.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 23.3 1.6 24.9 23.3 1.6 24.9 37.0 10.6 47.6 37.0 RECREATIONAL BOATING 49.2 9.6 58.8 49.2 9.6 58.8 210.6 218.9 429.5 210.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 18.0 2.0 20.0 0 0 0 88.7 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT Ib.b 0.5 17.1 36.5 0.9 37.4 69.8 9.7 79.5 147.1 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 1313 0.3 13,6 33.1 0.8 33.9 117.7 12.3 130.0 132.4 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 3,7 0.2 3.9 8.6 0.3 8.9 20.7 2.7 23.4 43.3 SHORELAND EROSION 1.5 0.1 1.6 1.5 0.1 1.6 7.3 3.7 11.0 7.3 STREAMBANK EROSION 1,2 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.3 10.9 4.4 15.3 10.9 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- .-URBAN 76.9 0.2 77,1 76.9 0.2 77.1 135.7 4.5 140.2 135.7 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 18.3 0.9 19,2 18,3 0.9 19.2 130.7 7.0 137.7 130.7 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION.-INTENSIVE 135.1 27.5 162.6 135.1 27.5 162.6 393.6 472.4 866.0 393.6 TOTAL -EXTENSIVE 572.8 398.2 971-.0-- 1 32;. 86;.@ 2,195.5 3,166.@ 4,[email protected] 7,98;.@ 4,242.0 TABLE 1-412 Pennsylvania, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R T UT-A _L Capital OM&R TOT@i_L Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 3.2 1.6 4.8 3.2 1.6 4.8 14.9 34.1 49.0 14.9 SELF--SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 1.4 1.2 2.6 1.4 1.2 2.6 10.5 42.1 52.6 10.5 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 IRRIGATION 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 MINING 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 4.1 4.4 0.3 THERMAL POWER COOLING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 NOW-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES 24.8 9.0 33.8 521.0 62.8 583.8 97.8 73.0 170.8 714.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.9 0.8 2.7 1.9 RECREATIONAL BOATING 2.5 0.5 3.0 2.5 0.5 3.0 8.0 8.9 16.9 8.0 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 14.0 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND--TREATMENT U. j 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.3 0.7 ---CROPLAND DRAINAGE 0.5 0.0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.6 0 FOREST LAND--TREATMENT 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.0 0 1.0 3.9 0.5 4.4 5.0 SHORELAND EROSION 4.8 0.5 5.3 4.8 0.5 5.3 4.8 4.3 9.1 4.8 STREAMBANK EROSION 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATION-INTENSIVE 2.4 0.5 2.9 2.4 0.5 2.9 13.1 12.8 25.9 13.1 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 42.7 13.9 56.6 538.5 68.7 607.2 158.2 181.6 339.8 788.6 TABLE 1-413 Wisconsin, Comparison of Total Costs NOR and PRO Frameworks (in $1,000,000) 1971-1980 1971-2020 NORMAL PROPOSED NORMAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORY Capital OM&R OM&R TOT@@_L Capital OM&R TOTAL Capital TOTAL C WATER WITHDRAWALS MUNICIPALLY SUPPLIED 10.9 5.8 16.7 10.9 5.8 16.7 60.8 166.5 227.3 60.8 SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL 16.3 9.1 25.4 16.3 9.1 25.4 81.9 201.1 283.0 81.9 RURAL DOMESTIC & LIVESTOCK 0.4 1.3 1.7 0.4 1.3 1.7 1.5 26.3 27.8 1.5 IRRIGATION 2.2 0.3 2.5 2.2 0.3 2.5 6.6 5.3 11.9 6.6 MINING 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.4 2.8 16.8 19.6 2.8 THERMAL POWER COOLING 40.3 10.4 50.7 40.3 10.4 50.7 343.8 348.5 692.3 343.8 NOIY-WITHDRAWAL WATER USES MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES J114.U 156.2 470.2 305.0 514.6 819.6 786.0 1,133.2 1,919.2 1,073.0 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- HYDROELECTRIC POWER --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WATER ORIENTED OUTDOOR REC. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- SPORT FISHING 3.8 1.8 5.6 3.8 1.8 5.6 8.4 14.9 23.3 8.4 RECREATIONAL BOATING 41.8 9.3 51.1 41.8 9.3 51.1 110.6 162.9 273.5 110.6 COMMERCIAL FISHING --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION 0 0 0 25.8 1.0 26.8 25.1 18.0 43.1 84.5 RELATED LAND USES & PROBLEMS AGRIC. LAND-TREATMENT 8.7 0.3 9.0 18.7 0.6 19.3 36.4 5.0 41.4 74.8 -CROPLAND DRAINAGE 26.1 0.7 26.8 13.4 0.4 13.8 42.1 7.6 49.7 39.1 FOREST LAND-TREATMENT 19.9 0.5 20.4 32.8 0.8 33.6 99.3 11.4 110.7 162.8 SHORELAND, EROSION 4.8 0.5 5.3 4.8 0.5 5.3 23.9 11.9 35.8 23.9 STREAMBANK EROSION 1.8 0.2 2.0 1.8 0.2 2.0 16.3 6.4 22.7 16.3 FLOOD PLAINS-URBAN --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --URBAN 9.1 0.0 9.1 9.1 0.0 9.1 43.3 1.2 44.5 43.3 --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --RURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 19.2 1.0 20.2 19.2 1.0 20.2 90.3 4.7 95.0 90.3 AESTHETIC & CULTURAL --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OUTDOOR RECREATIONANTENSIVE 63.6 14.5 78.1 63.6 14.5 78.1 194.2 327.3 521.5 194.2 -EXTENSIVE --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- TOTAL 583.6 212.6 796.2 610.6 572.3 1,182.9 1,973.3 2,469.0 4,442.3 2,418.6 REFERENCES 1. Lyle W. Craine, cited by Maynard M. Huf- 7. Robert Einsweiler, Michael Gleeson, and Ian schmidt and Karl Elfers, Water Resource Ball, "Comparative Descriptions of Selected Planning in the Urban-Metropolitan Context, Municipal Growth Guidance Systems," in (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, process of publication by the Urban Land In- 1971), p. 2. stitute. 2. Hufschmidt and Elfers, pp. 260-261. 8. Ian L. McHa@rg, Design with Nature, (Phila- 3. The Advisory Commission on Inter-govern- delphia: Falcon Press, 1969). mental Relations, Special Revenue Sharing: An Analysis of the Administration's Grant 9. William K. Reilly, ed., The Use of Land: A Consolidation Proposals, (Washington, D. C.: Citizens Policy Guide to Urban Growth, (New ACIR, December 1971), p. 5. York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1973). 4. Many works could be cited. See for example 10. See, for example, Land Resources of the Lake Charles E. Lindblom, The Policy-Making Tahoe Region: A Guide for Planning, Tahoe Process, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Regional Planning Agency, 1971, or Guide- Hall, 1968), or Charles Lindblom, "Incremen- lines for Preparing an Environmental Infor- talism and Environmentalism," Final Confer- mation Report as Required for Submittal of ence Report for the National Conference on Applications to the Tahoe Regional Planning Managing the Environment, (Washington, D. Agency, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1979). January 1973. 5. Darwin G. Stuart, "Rational Urban Planning: Problems and Prospects," Urban Affairs 11. Joachine Tourbier, "The Christina Project: Quarterly, December 1969. Environmental Protection in Urban Growth Areas," Urban Land, Volume 31, No. 8, Sep- 6. Personal interview, October 1973. tember 1972, pp. 14-20. 469 GLOSSARY Accelerated Growth objective (ACQ-the term liquid flow. (See water measurement conver- adopted in this Framework Study to denote the sions.) Regional Development objective (RD), as stated by the Water Resources Council, for water and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)-the quan- related land resource planning. tity of oxygen consumed by microbial life while assimilating and oxidizing the organic matter acre-foot-the volume of water needed to cover present. It provides an index of the degree of one acre to a depth of one foot. (See water organic pollution of water. measurement conversions.) capital costs-first time costs, including installa- activity day-the participation by one person in tion costs and such related nonstructural pro- one outdoor recreational activity during all or gram costs as technical and financial assistance, any part of one day. Thus, one person partici- i.e., labor, materials, equipment, rights-of-way, pating in several activities during a day could water rights, relocations, contingencies, and the account for several activity days. costs for engineering and administration. ADSUN (Alternative Demand, Supply, Needs)- cfs-cubic feet per second. (See water measure- acronym for the computer program used in this ment conversions.) study for projecting various rates of economic channelization-the process of mechanically al- and demographic growth and deriving antici- tering natural stream characteristics to increase pated levels of resource supply and demand. the water-carrying capacity by clearing, exca- advanced waste treatment (AWT)-the selective vating, enlarging, realigning, lining, and reshap- application of usually uncommon physical and ing a channel and its banks; also known as chan- chemical processes to remove organic and inor- nel modification. ganic contaminants that remain after secondary combined sewer-a sewerage system that carries treatment. Sometimes known as tertiary treat- both sanitary sewage and storm-water runoff. ment, it is the "polishing stage" of wastewater During dry weather combined sewers carry all treatment and produces a high-quality effluent. wastewater to the treatment plant. During a angler day, boat day, and hunter day-all have storm the plant cannot always handle the entire similar meanings. (See recreation day.) flow; some of it bypasses the plant and goes untreated to the receiving stream. average annual damages (AAD)-the weighted comprehensive coordinated joint plan (CCJP)-a yearly average of all flood damages that would be specific document composed of elements ap- expected to occur under specified economic con- proved and adopted by the Great Lakes Basin ditions and development. Such damages are Commission, identifying those water and related computed on the basis of the expectancy in any structural and nonstructural projects, programs, one year of the amounts of damage that would and other measures designed to enhance the result from events throughout the full range of economic, environmental, and social conditions of potential magnitude. Average annual damages the area. from streambank and gully erosion, among other things, are also expressed as a uniform estimate conservation needs inventory (CNI)-a study of annual damage. made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine the amount of land needing conserva- bank-mile-length of streambank on one side of tion treatment to preserve long-term values. The stream channel. There are two bank-miles in report was prepared in 1958 and revised in 1968. each mile of stream channel. The inventory was based upon sampling from soil surveys of soil, slope, erosion, land use, and bgd-billion gallons per day, a unit for measuring other factors. Needed conservation practices 471 472 Appendix 1 were also recorded. A given percent of an area, which is covered with water when the river generally a county, was sampled and the data overflows its banks at maximum flood stages. expanded to the entire area. flood plain zoning-adoption of ordinances by local consumption (depletion) (consumed water)-the or State governments that recognize the hazards loss of water through use, measured indirectly as inherent in flood plains and restrict the allowable the difference between the volumes of water uses of the flood plains to uses which are com- intake and water discharge. It is primarily the patible with these flood hazards. result of evaporate losses, but includes seepage flow-through cooling-a method of condensing the from holding ponds, water incorporated into steam in a steam-electric power plant after the manufacturing processes, water consumed by steam has passed through turbines. In flow- people and animals, and similar, unaccounted through cooling, water is continually diverted losses. It is representative of a depletion of a from an outside source and continually dis- water resource to the extent that the water charged back into the source. (See supplemental consumed may be transferred out of a particular cooling.) watershed and to the extent that the water may be relocated to the vapor phase of the hydrologic forest land-land at least 10 percent stocked by cycle. It is water that is not immediately avail- forest trees of any size, or formerly having had able for planned reuse. (See water withdrawal.) such tree cover, and not currently developed for nonforest use. The minimum area for classifica- criterion-a quantifiable constraint or assumption tion of forest land is one acre. Roadside, stream- which assists the planner in selecting programs side, and shelterbelt strips of timber must have a responsive to a specified subobjective. crown width of at least 120 feet to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, critical erosion-lakeshore erosion conditions in streams or other bodies of water, or clearings in which the loss of land, economic losses, and other forest areas shall be classed as forest if less than considerations appear to justify protective mea- 120 feet in width. sures. framework study-a preliminary investigation in- dissolved oxygen (DO)-the amount of dissolved tended to provide broad-scaled analyses of a set oxygen present in water, expressed in parts per of related problems in the field of water and million by weight or milligrams per liter. related land resource use, and to provide a gen- eral outline of the nature, extent, and timing of effluent-the discharge from an industrial plant or their solutions. (See Subsection 4.1.) any sewer into a receiving body of water; often the treated water discharged by a wastewater GLEPS-Great Lakes Environmental Planning treatment plant. Study. Environmental Quality objective (EQ)-enhance- goal-the end to which a plan is directed. The goal ment of the quality of the environment by the provides a specific direction or bearing by which management, conservation, preservation, cre- the ideal condition is approached, but is not nec- ation, restoration, or improvement of the quality essarily attainable. In the plural, goals are the of certain natural and cultural resources and aspirations that people have for their social, eco- ecological systems. nomic, and environmental well-being. existing projects-water or land resource devel- gpcd (gallons per capita per day)-water use ex- opments completed, under construction, or pressed in gallons used per person per day, ob- funded for construction as of fiscal year 1972. tained by dividing the total water use per day by the population served. (See water measurement extensive recreation land-land developed for low conversations.) density recreational use, such as trails, open Great Lakes Basin-In connection with the areas, bicycle paths, v@getative screens, etc. Framework Study, the area defined by the drainage areas in the United States of Lake flood plain-that portion of a river valley, adjacent Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake to the river channel, which is built of sediments Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River during the present regimen of the stream and to the point where the river ceases to be the Glossary 473 Canada-New York international boundary line, including bodies of water less than 40 acres and and including all closed basins within the topo- streams of less than 1/8 mile wide. graphic divides separating the Great Lakes Basin from adjacent major drainages. Often referred Limited Growth objective (LIM)-the term to as the Basin. adopted for this Framework Study to denote the Environmental Quality objective (EQ) pre- Great Lakes Region-the area approximating the scribed by the Water Resources Council for Great Lakes Basin bounded by selected county water and related land resource planning. lines so that statistical data may be gathered and economic analyses made more easily. Often re- linkage corridor-an environmental system that ferred to as the Region. links urban areas. green belt-a form of buffer zone. A belt of land mgd-million gallons per day. (See water mea- around a city or town where the erection of surement conversions.) houses and other buildings is severely restricted and the open character of the country is pre- moderate erosion-streambank erosion in which served in the form of woods, commons, fields, the losses or damages do not warrant protective farms, etc. measures. gross national product (GNP)-the market value National Economic Development objective of goods and services produced by the nation in (NED)---enhancement of national economic de- one year before deduction of depreciation velopment by increasing the value of the nation's charges and other allowances for business and output of goods and services and improving na- institutional consumption of durable capital tional economic efficiency. goods. national income (NI)-the aggregate earnings of gross water used-the total quantity of water labor and property from current production. needed in a process, including both new water and any other water recirculated or reused. need-a quantifiable present or projected demand exceeding supply of a water or related land re- ground water-water in the ground in the zone of source. A need is thus a m6asurable deficit in saturation, from which wells, springs, and resource commodities or related services avail- ground-water runoff are supplied. able to meet total demand at a specific time, ground-water runoff-the part of stream runoff location, and price. derived from ground-water seepage. noncritical erosion-lakeshore erosion conditions in which losses do not justify protective mea- high risk erosion area-a lakeshore physically sures. prone to erosion where there is a high probability of lake conditions that will cause such erosion. nonpoint source pollution-pollution processes that tend to be nondiscrete and diffuse, and intensive recreation land-land developed for in- create discharges to the environment not ame- tensive, high density recreational use, such as nable to treatment. An example is sediment en- picnic areas, playgrounds, etc. tering a stream from agricultural activities, for- estry, or construction. interceptor sewers-sewers used to collect the flows from main and trunk sewers and carry Normal Framework (NOR)-the set of programs them to a central point for treatment and dis- for development of water and related land re- charge. sources in the Great Lakes Basin formulated in the Framework Study to meet the Normal irrigation-the controlled application of water to Growth objective. lands to supply water requirements not satisfied Normal Growth objective (NOR)-the term by rainfall. In the Great Lakes Basin Framework adopted for this Framework Study to denote the Study, golf courses as well as cropland are in- National Economic Development objective cluded in irrigation. (NED) prescribed by the Water Resources Council for water and related land resource land area-the solid portion of the earth's surface planning. 474 Appendix 1 OBERS-acronym for population and economic point source-a discrete location or origin of a projections prepared for the nation by the Office specific polluting discharge. It may emanate from of Business Economics, now Bureau of Economic a single origin or from a group of origins dis- Analysis, Department of Commerce, and the charging to the receiving water at a common Economic Research Service, Department of location. Agriculture. preliminary waste treatment-the conditioning of objective-an attainable step to be taken or point an industrial waste at its source prior to dis- to be emphasized on the way toward meeting or charge, to remove or to neutralize substances attempting to meet a goal. The objective imple- injurious to sewers and treatment processes ments the goal. In the plural, objectives are and/or to effect a partial reduction in load on the groupings of subobjectives related to each other, treatment process. This term also refers to unit which collectively define one of the four catego- operations in the treatment process which pre- ries of objectives of water resource planning- pare the liquor for subsequent major operations. social well-being, national economic develop- ment, regional development, and environmental primary wastewater treatment-the first major quality. process or group of processes in sewage treat- ment. It usually consists of screening, shredding, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs and sedimentation. It is designed to remove a (OM&R)-the total annual cost of operating, high percentage of suspended matter but little maintaining, and repairing a plant or facility to colloidal and dissolved matter. It removes ap- keep it at its original operating capability. This proximately 35 percent of the biochemical oxy- includes labor, material, utilities, rent, etc., but gen demand (BOD). not any amortization of the investment cost. problem-an unsatisfactory situation connected opportunity-a chance for the enhancement of a with water and related land resources. Some resource, the extension of the possibilities for its problems, like erosion and flooding, are physical use, or the solution of a related problem. The and quantifiable, while many others, such as term opportunity describes resource develop- conflicts in legal or institutional arrangements, ment, while the term requirement describes re- are qualitative and not directly measurable. (See source use. Subsection 4.5.) personal income-see total personal income. program-a deliberate undertaking or series of undertakings intended to accomplish one or more phosphorus-phosphorus is the nutrient chemical chosen objectives. given the most attention in the Great Lakes, not only because it is often implicated as the key nutrient involved in the eutrophication of the project action-cooperative action for improve- Great Lakes, but also because it is the essential ment of agricultural land that can be effected nutrient whose input is most easily controlled. only through formal organizations having the Phosphorus in Great Lakes waters may result authority to raise funds and allocate monies to from leaching of rocks, runoff from soils and install, operate, and maintain works of improve- urban areas normal decomposition of organic ment. material, sewage, and industrial effluents. Proposed Framework (PRO)-a set of programs plan area-a division of the Region for planning for development of water and related land re- purposes using county lines as boundaries to sources in the Great Lakes Basin, formulated in approximate as closely as possible the hydrologic the Framework Study, and based on meeting boundaries of a Lake basin. There are five plan needs projected for the Normal Growth objec- areas in the Great Lakes Basin, one for each tive, but using solutions reflecting desires of Lake. (See Figure 1-1.) specific interests or groups in the Basin, and generally trending toward a greater emphasis on planning subarea (PSA)-a division of the Great environmental considerations. Lakes Region for planning purposes using county lines as a boundary to approximate the hydro- pumped storage power plant-a hydroelectric logic boundary of a river basin group. The 15 power generation system whereby water is PSAs are named and numbered to correspond to pumped to a reservoir above the generating site, the 15 RBGs. (See Figure 1-2.) and then released through turbines to generate Glossary 475 electricity. Pumped storage systems are used all floating and settleable solids and approxi- principally to meet peak power demands. mately 90 percent of both BOD and suspended solids. Customarily, disinfection by chlorination recreation day-a visit by one individual to a rec- is the final stage of the secondary treatment reation development or area for recreation pur- process. poses during a reasonable portion or all of a 24-hour period. It is assumed that the average 7-day, 10-year low flow-the minimum 7-day person participates in 2.5 activities during an average flow at a given point in a given stream average visit to a recreational area. Therefore, that is likely to occur once in 10 years, as deter- 2.5 activity days equal one recreation day. mined by probability analysis. Regional Development objective (RD--enhance- severe erosion-streambank erosion in which the ment of regional development through increases losses or damage are of a magnitude to warrant in a region's income; increases in employment; the cost of protective measures. and improvements of its economic base, environ- ment, social well-being, and other specified com- shore zone-the environmental system that paral- ponents of the regional objective. lels or encompasses portions of the shorelines of the Basin's lakes, streams, and wetlands. requirement-a desirable or essential demand for a particular water or related land resource, Social Well-Being objective (SWB)-to enhance usually quantifiable. Requirements, whether ac- social well-being by the equitable distribution of tual or projected, measure total demand, in con- real income, employment, and population, with trast to needs. special concern for the effects of a plan on per- sons or groups; by contributing to the security of resource cluster-grouping of similar or dissimilar life and health; by providing educational, cul- resource features that is considered important tural, and recreational opportunities; and by enough to be identified either as part of the contributing to national security. (Has some- environmental systems or separate from them. times been called "Quality of Life".) Individually these features might not be impor- tant, but when four or more are close together standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)- they warrant special planning and management a county or group of counties containing at least consideration. one city of 50,000 inhabitants or contiguous cities with a combined population of 50,000 or more. In river basin group (RBG)-one of the 15 hydrologic addition to the county containing such city or subdivisions into which the Great Lakes Basin is cities, contiguous counties are included in an divided for planning purposes. Each RBG is SMSA if they are metropolitan in character and made up of individual river basins and com- are integrated socially and economically with the plexes. The latter consist of small stream basins central city. The criteria of metropolitan charac- lumped together for data gathering and planning ter relate to the attributes of the outlying county purposes. (See PSA in Glossary and Figure 1-2.) as a place of work or residence for a concentra- tion of nonagricultural workers and stipulate that runoff-that amount of the precipitation that ap- at least 75 percent of the labor force in a county pears in surface streams. must be nonagricultural and, usually, that the county must have 50 percent or more of its salmonid species-a family of fish that includes population living in contiguous minor civil divi- groups such as salmon, trout, char, whitefish, sions with a density of at least 150 persons per and grayling. square mile. sanitary sewers-sewers that carry only domestic storm sewer-a conduit that collects and trans- or commercial sewage. Storm water runoff is ports rain and snow runoff back to the ground carried in a separate system. water. In a separate sewerage system storm sewers are entirely separate from those carrying secondary wastewater treatment-wastewater domestic and commercial waste. treatment beyond the primary stage in which bacteria consume the organic parts of the wastes. subobjective-an action that allocates human and This biochemical action is accomplished by use of natural resources and/or utilizes other programs trickling filters or the activated sludge process. to move toward a defined goal. Some subobjec- Effective secondary treatment removes virtually tives are general in nature, while others are quite 476 Appendix 1 specific in terms of either geographic location or cooling waters from a thermal plant, with re- program content. (See Subsections 2.1, 2.2.) sulting adverse effects on other uses of the water, for example, by aquatic life. supplemental cooling-any power plant cooling system that provides for dissipation of the heat total personal income-income from wage and in condenser cooling water, and usually reuse of salary disbursements and other labor income, the water, before it is discharged into a stream or proprietor's income, property income (interest, lake that is not a part of the system. (Supple- dividends, and rental income) and government mental cooling techniques may include cooling and business transfer payments, which may also ponds, evaporative (wet) cooling towers, and be called total income. convective/conduetive (dry) cooling towers.) (See flow-through cooling.) urban buffer zone---environmental system that because of its proximity to existing urban con- suspended solids-small particles of solid pollu- centrations serves as a natural buffer to urban tants in sewage that contribute to turbidity and expansion. that resist separation by conventional means. Examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the two main determinants for water measurement conversion- water quality performed at waste water treat- mg x 3.0689 = acre-feet ment facilities. efs x 1.9835 = acre feet/day X 724 = acre feet/year tertiary waste water treatment-See advanced mgd x 1.5472 = efs waste treatment. X 1120 = acre feet/year gpcd x population = gpd thermal plant-a generating plant that uses heat to produce electricity. Such plants may burn coal, water-oriented activity-an all-inclusive term em- gas, oil, or use nuclear energy to produce the bracing water-dependent, water-enhanced, and necessary thermal energy. The common types of any other outdoor recreation activities in which heat engines used to drive generators are steam water augments or is essential to the recreation turbines, gas turbines, and internal combustion experience. engines. water pollution-the addition of any material or thermal pollution-rise in water temperature of a any change in quality or character of a body of receiving water body due to heat released by water which lessens suitability for a desired use.