PUBLIC POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL INTERACTION PROJECT GREAT LAKES SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE First Progress Report by..J. W. Bulkley, Project Director;..' and A:. P. Mathews, Research- Assistant March, 1972 Sea Grant Technical Report No. 25 MICHU-SG-72-203 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SEA GRANT PROGRAM

TU 1-Uii o 'M, The University of Michigan Sea Grant Program is a part of the National Sea Grant Program, which is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U. S. Department of Commerce.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES iv INTRODUCTION 1 ON-GOING ANALYSIS 4 Highlights: One-Way Frequency Distributions 4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: CROSSTABULATION 16 OBSERVATIONS 23 APPENDIX 1. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 25 APPENDIX 2. ONE-WAY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 35 iii

LiS'T' 01' IABLAD I Table;e 1. Variable VAR002 LAKE 2. Issues Relating to the Destruction of Resources i 3. Issues Relating to the Utilization of Resources 7 4. Issues Concerned with Problems of Planning for the Wise Use of Resources 5. Effect on the Maintenance of Water Quality 10 6. Possible Solutions to the Problem of Deteriorating Water Quality iL 7. Benefit of Certain Factors Under the Present Social and Economic Conditions 1s 8. Effect of Certain Factors on Future Water Quality 14 9. Controversial Issues in Water Quality Management Expected to Arise in the Next Five Years 15 10. Lake by Water Quality 17 11. Lake by Population Density 18 12. Population Density by Water Quality 19 13. Destruction of Resources Due to Inadequate Municipal Sewage Treatment Facilities by Water Quality 20 14. Water Quality by Additional Wastewater Treatment Plans as a Solution 21 iv

INTRODUCTION In January 1971, personnel from a number of Michigan Sea Grant research projects assisted in the preparation of a survey questionnaire (Appendix 1). The objective of this questionnaire is to collect data related to the utilization of resources along the shoreline of the Great Lakes. The survey questionnaire is designed to obtain data related to the following major categories: (1) Issues concerned with the destruction of resources (2) Issues concerned with the utilization of resources (3) Issues concerned with problems of planning for the wise use of resources (4) Rating (by respondents) of the quality of the inshore waters and the shoreline and beaches along their area of jurisdiction of the Great Lakes (5) Identification of government agencies responsible for protecting the quality of shoreline (inshore) waters (6) Identification of the role of different groups in either aiding or hindering maintenance of water quality and quality of shoreline and beaches along the Great Lakes (7') Identification and ranking of solutions to the problem of dleteil:rating water quality (8) Identification of certain factors of growth under current economic and social conditions and the effect of these growth factors on future water quality In February and March, 1971, the survey questionnaire was sent to over 6T0 units of government in the United States and Canada. These units of government included townships, cities, counties, and regional governments. The 1

recipients of the questionnaire all have jurisdiction over shoreline,an(/or, waters of the Great Lakes and the connecting waterways. By September, 1'71, over 200 questionnaires had been returned. 177 of the returned questionnaires contained information requested. During the period of September-December 1971, all of the information received from these 177 questionnaires was prepared for analysis. The questionnaire contained eight questions; however, as shown in Appendix 2, these eight questions represented 196 variables. As a result, nearly 35,000 units of information were coded into computer cards for preliminary analysis. This first progress report is intended to provide an initial indication of the results obtained from the preliminary analysis of the data collected. The major goal of this research effort is to provide a realistic indicatior of the range of resource problems and issues perceived by units of government along the Great Lakes shorelines. The nature of these problems and issues as reported by the units of government may indicate where research efforts neel to be concentrated in order to alleviate identified problems. Furthermore, the questionnaire provides an opportunity for identification of new issues or problems which may have important implications for resource utilization in the future. Finally, while the authors of this report are primarily concerned with water quality and factors which influence water quality, other groups at research centers and universities in both Canada and the United States have been advised of the availability of the data collected. It is anticipated thata personnel from these research centers and universities may desire analysis of data related to other areas of interest. Accordingly, 2

this research project of the University of Michigan Sea Grant Program will make every effort to respond effectively to special requests for additional data analysis.:5

ON-GOING ANALYSIS HIfGll, IGI1TS: ONVE-WAY l':EUhI\JCY '1S1 IBUTIIONS One-way frequency distributions provide statistics related to each of the 196 variables as specified in Appendix 2. Table 1 shows the one-way frequency distribution for the responses received by lake. From Table 1, it is clear that the greatest number of respondents reported upon conditionsr in Lake Michigan and Lake Erie. 70 per cent of the respondents indicate the source of water pollution to be either within their own area, or from both within and outside of their area of jurisdiction. 92 per cent rated the water quality along their shoreline to be of medium quality or lower than medium quality. 40 per cent statets that the water quality in their area should be considered to be of low or very low quality. State agencies were identified as being primarily responsible for the protection of water quality in the Great Lakes. The rated importance of the various issues that need to be considered in planning for water (uality and resource management are shown in Tables 2,, and 4. While each issue may be of some relevance to the particular area concerned, it is now possible to differentiate the more prevalent and important problems from the remaining. Of the issues in the destruction of resources, inadequate municipal and industrial sewage treatment appear to be the most common factors contributing significantly to the deterioration of water cuality. Beach and slope erosion are of some concern in the deterioration of shoreline quality, while at the same time it is seen from Table 3 that 4

TABLE 1 VARIABLE VAR002 LAKE Lake Frequency Lake Absolute Adjusted Ontario 14* 8. Erie 42 26.8 Huron 19 12.1 Michigan 63 40.1 Superior 19 21.1 157** 100.0% *14 of the 177 questionnaires returned were from units of government which have shoreline jurisdiction along Lake Ontario. **20 of the 177 questionnaires returned were not lake specific. For example, certain of these responses came from federal agencies in Washington, D.C. which are responsible for all lakes; others represent units of government on the connecting waters between the lakes. 5

TABLE 2 ISSUES RELATING TO THE DESTRUCTION OF RESOURCES Adjusted Relative Freqa e,.c.Issues Unimporta Somewhat iImportant I r Water pollution due to inadequate rmunicipr) sewage facilities 19. O/ 18. 27/0 Wa.ter pollution due to iradequate in(dustrial sewage facilities 335 13.6 2. Water pollution due 'to agricultural runoff 56.1 26.8 17. Pollution of both land and water due to disposal of solid waste materials 47.4 26.7 Beach and slope erosion 31i8 24.5 4- Sedimentation due to poor land use practices 60.8 24.1 1. Alteration of' shoreline by filling or dtre(tdinrlg 55.6 15.9 2:.5 The tlhreat of thermal pollution 61.6 18.4 2G. 6

TABLE 3 ISSUES RELATING TO THE UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES Adjusted Relative Frequency Issues Somewhat Unimportant Important Import ant Inadequate accessibility, both functional and visual, to the waters edge 30.2- 30 2% 359.6% Conflict over land use by competing users 41.7 25.6 34.7 Poor quality development adjacent to shoreline 32.7 27.4 39.9 Decreasing land available for public use 24.7 14.0 61.3 Congestion and inferior facilities in recreation developments 31.0 24.5 44.5 Reduced enjoyment of shore areas due to erosion prevention structures 67.7 20.5 11.8 Lack of proper marina facilities 34.9 26.4 58.7 Lack of proper port facilities 51.8 20.9 27. Inconsistency of contrasting land use characteristics within the shore zone 51.8 26.3 21.9 Ina.dequate adaption of transportation to the shore zone 49.6 20.9 29.5 7

TABLE 4 ISSUES CONCERNED WITH PROBLEMS OF PLANNING FOR THE WISE USE OF RESOURCES Adjusted Relative Freqc ei-. Issues S omewhat Un import ant Inpo r t A-i Important Ina.dequate emphasis on waster-oriented environmental planning by all levels of government 24. 20 31 9o 4" 9 Lack of inter-agency cooperation with regard to this matter 34.5 28.5 7. A piecemeal a.pproach to planningsolving of immediate problems with no long range comprehensive planning 27.0 27.6 4,.0 Need for state or province-wide zoning of shorelands 40.7 17.2 42. Lack of resource information 45.6 22.5 31.) Inadequate zoning and building reguLa tions 38- 3 21.5 4C.2 [ack of planningrl methods, goals, policies, and identification of user values 30.2 26.3 45.) 8

erosionprevention structures are not considered to have any significant effect on the enjoyment of shore areas. The issues in planning that may/ be relriterd to the degradation in water and shoreline quality are inadequate emphasis on water-oriented environmental planning, and lack of long range comprehensive planning. Table 5 summarizes the significant data received, with regard to the effect of different groups on the maintenance of water quality in the particular shoreline areas represented by the respondents. The respondents have indicated that state agencies have the greatest effect on the maintenance of water quality in their area, which supports information reported earlier. Furthermore, in terms of net effect, state agencies, federal agencies, and conservation groups are positive forces in the maintenance of water quality. The other groups, namely, real estate developers, industrial corporations, and utility companies are observed to exert net negative effects on the water quality. Homeowners appear to be essentially without major capability of either aiding or hindering maintenance of water quality. Table 6 summarizes the results obtained from question number six vwhich requested information regarding possible solutions to the problem of deteriorating water quality. The two solutions which were ranked highest by the respondents to date are (1) more funds to build additional wastewater treatment plants, and (2) stricter enforcement of existing water quality regulations. Following the two solutions noted above, the next strongest support is directed toward increased coordination of the activities of the exiactiong agencies in water quality management. It should be noted that the solution which received 9

TABLE 5 EFFtECT ON THE, MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY (, iii each category) Influence Influentce Groups Aid ~d Hinder GroupHardly Great Hardly Great Any Deal Any Deal Conservation Groups 99.3 26.8 37.7 07 0.0 0.0 Real Estate Developers 35.5 61.3 12.9 64.5 14.3 46. Homeowners 62.7 24.6 15.9 37.3 24.4 34.2 Industrial Corporations 40.0 42.9 22.9 60.0 13.4 55.7 Utility Companies 57.1 43.5 28.2 42.9 12.2 54.5 1('e(Ier al Agencies 90.6 30.1 40.9 9.4 44.4 33.3 State Agencies 94.9 16.7 4.6 5.1 40.0 20.0 10

TABLJI' 6 POSS-TBL) SOLUTIONS TO THI)l: PROB-I,',lM OF DI1',TIERIORATTNG WAT1:R QUALIJTY Very Issues Yes Important More funds to build additional wastewater treatment plants 89.99 71. 6F Stricter enforcement of existing regulations 89.2 73.0 New regulations to further restrict the sources of pollution 83.8 53.6 Redistribution of responsibility for pollution control among existing government agencies 63.5 38.1 Creation of new agencies with responsibility for water pollution control 60.5 22.8 Increased leadership from public officials in water quality 74.9 59.4 Increased coordination of the activities of the existing agencies in water quality management 82.0 65.0 11

the least support is the one which involves the creation of new agencies.ith responsibility for water pollution control. The benefit of certain growth factors under the current social and economic conditions and the effect of these factors on future water qualit:are shown in Tables 7 and 8. The respondents favor growth under controllei development conditions overwhelmingly to a strictly "no growth" policy. 94 per cent of the respondents indicate that industrial development.roulcd the benelicial Ito -he are., under the current social and economic condiition:-, and this effect is considered to be detrimental to the future water qualit-4 in the area by 42 per cent of the respondents. Nuclear power plants; are perceived to be more beneficial and less detrimental to the water quaility in the area than fossil fuel power plants. Some of the controversial issues that are expected to arise in water and shoreline quality management in the next five years are shown in Table /. Financing for sewer construction, curbing industrial pollution, zoning, and land use planning seem to be issues already emerging into focus at the prevent time. The information presented in Tables 1-9 is an indication of the type of results which may be obtained from an examination of the one-way frequency distributions for each of the 196 variables represented in the questionnaire. 12

TABLE 7 BENEFIT OF CERTAIN FACTORS UNDER THE PRESENT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Adjusted Relative Frequency Issues Issues -Not Somewhat Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Urban growth 44. o 21.3% 347 Recreational growth 11.4 15.8 72.8 Industrial development 23.2 23.1 53.7 Protection of water quality 2.6 4.4 93.0 Preservation of existing natural shoreland areas 5.7 7.6 86.7 More control of development 13.8 20.6 65.6 "No growth" policy 74.2 13.8 12.0 The construction of nuclear power plants 57.4 21.0 21.6 The construction of fossil fuel power plants 75.4 19.7 4.9 Agricultural development 34.6 33.9 31.5 Mining operations 83.1 6.8 10.1 13

TABLE 8 EFFECT OF CERTAIN FACTORS ON FUTURE WATER QUALITY Adjusted' Relative Frequency Issues Not Somewhat Detrimental Detrimental Urban growth 42.4L0 24. 33 Recreational growth 57.2 20.2 22. 6 Industrial development 29.8 27.9 42. The construction of nuclear power plants 33.3 18.9 47.8 The construction of fossil fuel power plants 29.3 17.0 53.7 Agricultural development 65.4 22.5 12.1 Mining operations 44.4 10.4 45.2 14

TABLE 9 CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT EXPECTED TO ARISE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS Adj usted Issues Relative Frequency Financing needed, sewer construction 38.4~0 Storm drain construction 4.0 Industrial pollution 7.3 Solid wastes 5.1 Thermal pollution 3.4 Erosion control 5.1 Construction of recreational facilities 9.0 Zoning 15.3 Land use planning 5.1 Regional planning 2.8 Marine sewage discharge 3.4 15

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: CROSSTABULATION Crosstabulation displays the interaction between two or more variable-. The preliminary crosstabulation analysis conducted upon the Great Lakes survey questionnaire data has been designed to investigate relationships between water quality and certain other variables. This preliminary analysis, which is displayed in Tables 10-14, reveals certain interesting relationships, and some descriptive but tentative statements can be made from an examination of the information shown. For example, Table 10 is the crosstabulation of lake by level of water quality (variable 002 by variable 032). The information in Table 10 indicates that the water quality of Lakes Erie and Ontario as reported by the respondents is perceived to be much lower in water quality than the upper Great Lakes. Lake Superior is perceived to have the highest quality of all of the Great Lakes. Given the information which has been collected, it is feasible to utilize crosstabulation as a means to identify relationships between variables. From Table 10, it is observed that Lake Erie has the lowest quality water, followed by Lakes Ontario, Michigan, Huron, and Superior. Table 11 is a crosstabulation of lake by population density. Lakes with low quality water tend to have the largest percentage of high population density areas. On the other hand, the areas characterized by high water quality tend to have low population densities. Accordingly, as population density increases, it may be expected to be associated with lower quality water. Table 12 tests this hypothesis. In Table 12 the water quality has been aggregated into two categories - (1) High-Medium 16

TABLE 10 LAKE BY WATER QUALITY Row Water Quality Tota Lake Total High Medium Low Very Low Count Erie 2.4%* 24.4%* 58.o* 14.6%* 41 Ontario 0.0 38.5 61.5 0.0 13 Michigan 9.8 62.3 26.2 1.6 61 Huron 15.8 63.2 21.1 0.0 19 Superior 10.5 84.2 5.3 0.0 19 Column Total 12 81 53 7 153 Count *Column per cent. 17

TABLE 11 LAKE BY POPULATION DENSITY Population Density (Persons/Square Mile) Lake Total LT20 20-49 50-99 100-999 GTl000 Count Erie 0. 0o* 9.8%* 9.8%* 48.8%* 31.7%* 41 Ontario 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 14 Michigan 14.3 33-3 22.2 23.8 6.3 63 Huron 21.1 31.6 26.3 21.1 0.0 19 Superior 31.6 47.4 5.3 53 10.5 19 Column Total 19 40 24 49 24 156 Count *Column per cent. 18

TAB1. 1, [2 POPULATION DENSITY BY WATER QUALITY Population Density Water Quality (Persons/Square Mile) - - High-Medium Low-Very Low Count LT20 100.0 000* O.%* 20-49 78.0 22.0 41 50-99 62.5 37.- 24 100-999 46.8 53.2 47 GT1000 25.0 75.0 24 Column Total Count 93 61 14 *Column per cent. 19

TABLE 13 DESTRUCTION OF RESOURCES DUE TO INADEQUATE MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES BY WATER QUALITY Row Inadequate Municipal Water Quality Total Sewage Treatment High Medium Low Very Low Count Unimportant, Your Area 50.0o* 14. 0* 18. 6o* 22.2%* 30 Somewhat Important, Your Area 33.3 19.5 16.9 0.0 29 Important, Your Area, 16.7 66.3 64.4 77.8 98 Column Total Count 12 77 59 9 157 *Column per cent. 20

TABLE 14 WATER QUALITY BY ADDITIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS AS A SOLUTION Additional Row Water Qualilty Wastewat eater Quality Total Treatment High Medium Low Very Low Count Unimportant, Your Area, 70. o* * 5.6%* 12. 0* 21 Somewhat Important, Your Area 10.0 13.3 18.5 0.0 21 Important, Your Area. 20.0 73.4 76.0 87.- 109 Column Total Count 10 75 54 8 147 Count *Column per cent. 21

quality and (2) Low-Very Low quality. As the population density increases, the percentage reporting high-medium water quality falls and the percentage reporting low-very low water quality increases. Finally, it is of interest to examine the relationship between factors which are perceived to lead to the destruction of resources due to inadequate municipal sewage treatment facilities by water quality. A significant break in the perceived importance of inadequate sewage treatment facilities occurs when one moves from high quality to medium quality water. 50 per cent of the high quality respondents indicated that inadequate municipal sewage treatment facilities are unimportant in their area of jurisdiction. Only 17 per cent of the respondents from high water quality areas perceived inadequate sewage treatment facilities to be important in destruction of resources in their area of jurisdiction. However, the respondents from medium water quality areas more than reversed the trend. In the latter case 66 per cent perceived inadequate municipal sewage treatment facilities to be important in the destruction of resources in their area while only 14 per cent perceived the factor to be unimportant. This information together with the data shown in Table 14 suggests that the inadequacy of existing wastewater treatment facilities or the need for additional wastewater treatment facilities is not perceived to be important until the water quality in the area has deteriorated to some degree. 22

OBSERVATIONS The vast quantity of data collected will require a continuing effort to analyze and refine. However, it appears that several trends are evident which may have significant information value for the Sea Grant Program as a whole. One of these trends is the perceived need for additional wastewater treatment facilities coupled with the shortage of funds available to build such facilities. One implication which follows is the importance of assuring that each dollar invested in such wastewater treatment facilities is being utilized in the most productive manner possible. Such a condition requires application of advanced wastewater treatment techniques throughout the Great Lakes. Second, the importance of state agencies in the actual control of water quality has been identified. Means should be devised to assist and assure that Sea Grant is providing appropriate assistance and information to such agencies throughout the Great Lakes to assure that these state agencies avail themselves of the latest techniques for advanced wastewater treatment. Third, the actual effectiveness of implementing water quality may not rest with creation of new 'super' agencies, but rather with improving the effectiveness of coordination between and among existing organizations. The researchers involved in the analysis of this data welcome feedback from all the Sea Grant projects regarding elaboration or more detailed analysis of specific variables which may be of particular interest to the individual projects. 23

APPENDIX 1 SURVEY QUESTI ONNA IRE 25

No. It will be appreciated if you can take the time to answer the following eight questions and return them in the enclosed, stamped return envelope. Your answers will help us gain a general insight into local perception of problems concerning the quality and management of the shoreline waters of the Great Lakes. We realize that in many cases your answers will be of your own opinion, but we ask that you attempt to make them as representative as you can of the agency that you represent. 1. A previous request for information was sent to your agency and to numerous others along the shoreline of the Great Lakes early in 1970. The results of that survey identified that following primary issues confronting those concerned with managing and planning for this area. Could you rate the importance of each issue for your particular area of jurisdiction by circling the appropriate number. ISSUES CONCERNED WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF RESOURCES Not Very Important Important Not in your area in your area Applicable a) Water pollution due to inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 municipal sewage facilities b) Water pollution due to inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 industrial sewage facilities c) Water pollution due to agricultural 1 2 3 4 5 runoff d) Pollution of both land and water due to 1 2 3 4 5 disposal of solid waste materials e) Beach and slope erosion 1 2 3 4 5 f) Sedimentation due to poor land use 1 2 3 4 5 practices g) Alteration of shoreline by filling or 1 2 3 4 5 dredging h) The threat of thermal pollution 1 2 3 4 5 26

ISSUES CONCERNED WITH THE UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES Not Very Important Important Not in your area in your area ApplicaL a) Inadequate accessibility, both functional 1 2 3 4 5 and visual, to the waters edge b) Conflicts over land uses by competing 1 2 3 4 5 users e.g. developer/conservationist c) Poor quality development adjacent to 1 2 3 4 5 shore li ne d) Decreasing land available to public use 1 2 3 4 5 e) Congestion and inferior facilities in 1 2 3 4 5 recreation developments f) Reduced enjoyment of shore areas due to 1 2 3 4 5 erosion prevention structures such as breakwaters or retaining walls g) Lack of proper marina facilities 1 2 3 4 5 h) Lack of proper port facilities 1 2 3 4 5 i) Inconsistency of contrasting land use 1 2 3 4 5 characteristics within the shore zone j) Inadequate adaption of transportation 1 2 3 4 5 systems to the ihoreline zone ISSUES CONCERNED WITH PROBLEMS OF PLANNING FOR THE WISE USE OF RESOURCES a) Inadequate emphasis on water oriented 1 2 3 4 5 environmental planning by all levels of government b) Lack of inter-agency cooperation with 1 2 3 4 5 regard to this matter c) A piecemeal approach to planning- 1 2 3 4 5 solving of immediate problems with no long range comprehensive planning d) Need for state or province wide zoning 1 2 3 4 5 of shorelands e) Lack of resource information 1 2 3 4 5 f) Inadequate zoning and building regulations 1 2 3 4 5 g) Lack of planning methods, goals, policies 1 2 3 4 5 and identification of user values 2T

2. Of the issues concerned with the destruction of resources which you rated as important, could you indicate where the source of this problem is: in you area outside of your area of jurisdiction (specify) 3.a) How does your agency rate the quality of the waters along the shorelines of the Great Lakes in your area of jurisdiction? High quality - no pollution at any time of the year Medium quality or generally high quality but some indications of pollution at certain times of the year. This does not restrict human use however. Low quality or polluted to the extent that human use of the waters is occasionally restricted. Very low quality or seriously polluted to the extent that human use of the waters would pose a severe health hazard. 3.b) How does your agency rate the quality of the shoreline and beaches of the Great Lakes in your area of jurisdiction; High quality - no deterioration has occurred Medium quality - some minor deterioration has occurred Low quality - deterioration has occurred to the extent that human enjoyment of the shorelands is somewhat reduced Very low quality - deterioration is excessive and consequently human use and enjoyment of the area is severely limited 4. Which agencies and/or groups are charged with protecting the quality of these waters along the shoreline in your jurisdiction? Federal offices or agencies (specify) State/provincial agencies (specify) Regional agencies e.g. special purpose agencies such as a water supply or sewer district? Local agencies (specify) 28

5.a) Have attempts in your area to improve and maintain the quality of the waters along the shoreline been aided or hindered by the following types of groups and to what degree? Check aid or hinder and circle the appropriate number. Hardly any A great deal of influence of influence Not Aid Hinder in your area in your area Applicable Conservation groups 1 2 3 4 5 Ecology activists 1 2 3 4 5 Rod and gun clubs 1 2 3 4 5 Professional planners, landscape 1 2 3 4 5 architects, engineers etc. Other civic associations 1 2 3 4 5 (specify) Student groups 1 2 3 4 5 Real estate developers 1 2 3 4 5 Homeowners 1 2 3 4 5 Industrial corporations 1 2 3 4 5 Utility companies 1 2 3 4 5 Federal agencies and 1 2 3 4 5 regulations State agencies and I 2 3 4 5 regulations Others (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 29

5.b) Have attempts in your area to improve and maintain the quality of the shoreland and beaches been aided or hindered by the following types of groups and to what degree? Check aid or hinder and circle the appropriate number. Hardly any A great deal of influence of influence Not Aid Hinder in your area in your area Applicabi Conservation groups 1 2 3 4 5 Ecology activists 1 2 3 4 5 Rod and gun clubs 1 2 3 4 5 Professional planners, landscape 1 2 3 4 5 architects, engineers etc. Other civic associations I 2 3 4 5 (specify) Student groups 1 2 3 4 5 Real estate developers 1 2 3 4 5 Homeowners I 2 3 4 5 Industrial corporations 1 2 3 4 5 Utility companies 1 2 3 4 5 Federal agencies and 1 2 3 4 5 regulations State agencies and 1 2 3 4 5 regulations Others (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 30

6. If your agency feels that the water quality in your area is deteriorating what does it consider to be possible solutions to this problem? How important are these solutions rated? Circle the appropriate number. Not Very important Important in your area in your area More funds to build additional 1 2 3 4 5 waste water treatment plants Stricter enforcement of existing 1 2 3 4 5 regulations and standards New regulations aimed at 1 2 3 4 5 further restricting the sources of pollution RedistribJtion of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 for pollution control among existing government agencies The creation of new agencies 1 2 3 4 5 with responsibility for water pollution control Increased leadership form public 1 2 3 4 5 officials in the field of water quality Increased coordination of the I 2 3 4 5 activities of the existing agencies who have responsibility for managing the water quality in your area ____ Other (Specify) 1 2 3 4 5 7. In regard to water quality and shoreline protection in your agency's jurisdiction what controversial issues, if any are expected to arise in the next five years? For each of these can you indicate the extent to which your agency has jurisdiction over the problem and what the agency's position might be. Issue Position Jurisdiction No Complete responsibility responsibility Example: Financing needed Pro. 1 2 3 4 Q Sewer constrution 1. 1 2 3 4 5 2. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I 2 3 4 5 4. 1 2 3 4 5

8. The last question is in two parts. The first part pertains to the effect of certain factors upon economic and social conditions in your area. The second part pertains to the relationship between certain factors and the water quality along the shoreline in your area. a) Does your agency feel the following factors would be beneficial to your area in light of the present economic and social conditions there? If so how benefical would they be? Circle the appropriate number. Not Very beneficial beneficial Urban growth 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational growth 1 2 3 4 5 Industrial development 1 2 3 4 5 Protection of water quality I 2 3 4 5 Preservation of existing natural 1 2 3 4 5 Shoreland areas More control of development 1 2 3 4 5 "No growth" policy 1 2 3 4 5 The construction of nuclear 1 2 3 4 5 fuel power plants The construction of fosil fuel 1 2 3 4 5 power plants Agricultural development 1 2 3 4 5 Mining operations I 2 3 4 5 Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 32

b) Does your agency feel that any of the following factors will prove detrimental to the future quality of the waters along the shoreline in your area? If so how detrimental do you feel they will be? Circle the appropriate number. Urban growth 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational growth 1 2 3 4 5 Industrial development 1 2 3 4 5 The construction of nuclear 1 2 3 4 5 fuel power plants The construction of fosil 1 2 3 4 5 fuel power plants Agricultural development 1 2 3 4 5 Mining operations 1 2 3 4 5 Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 33

APPENDIX 2 ONE-WAY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 15

The variables VAROO1 to VAROO5 define property characteristics of the system, and information on these were obtained from the Great Lakes Wlater 11sc rrmlp prepared by the Pepartment of Fisheries and Forestry, Ottawa, (Caniada. The rest of the variables VARO06 to VAR196 were defined based on the material in the questionnaire. Property Characteristics: VAROO1: Location; USA or Canada VAR002: Lake; Erie, Ontario, Michigan, Huron, Superior VAR003: Land Use; industrial, residential, residential and industrial, argricultural, recreational, wild VAROO4: Governing agency; township, county, city, state, regional VAR005: Population density; persons/square mile Issues concerned with the destruction of resources: VAROO6: Water pollution due to inadequate municipal sewage treatment facilities VAR007: Water pollution due to inadequate industrial sewage facilities VAR008: Water pollution due to agricultural runoff VAROO9: Pollution of both land and water due to disposal of solid waste materials VAROO1: Beach and slope erosion VAROll: Sedimentation due to poor land use practices VAR012: Alteration of shoreline by filling or dredging VARO13: The threat of thermal pollution 36

Issues concerned with the utilization of resources: VARO14: Inadequate accessibility, both functional and visual to Ice water's edge VARO15: conflicts over land uses by competing users VAR016: Poor quality development adjacent to shoreline VARO17: Decreasing land available for public use VAR018: Congestion and inferior facilities in recreation developments VARO19: Reduced enjoyment of shore areas due to erosion prevention structures such as breakwaters and retaining walls VAR020: Lack of proper marina facilities VAR021: Lack of proper port facilities VAR022: Inconsistency of contrasting land use within the shore zone VAR023: Inadequate adaption of transportation systems to the shoreline zone Issues concerned with the problems of planning for the wise use of resources: VAR024: Inadequate emphasis on water-oriented environmental planning by all levels of government VAR025: Lack of interagency cooperation with regard to this matter VAR026: A piecemeal approach to planning-solving of immediate problems with no long range comprehensive planning VAR027: Need for state- or province-wide zoning of shorelands VAR028: Lack of resource information VAR029: Inadequate zoning and building regulations VAR030: Lack of planning methods, goals, policies, and identification of user values VARO31: Source of the problem, causing destruction of water resources — within, or outside your area of jurisdiction 37

VAR032: Water quality along the shorelines of the Great Lakes in your area of jurisdiction VAR033: Quality of the shoreline and beaches in your area of jurisdiction VARO34: Agency protection of water quality along the shoreline in your area of jurisdiction Effect of certain group or socio-economic activities on the maintenance and improvement of water quality along the shoreline: VAR035: Conservation groups VARO36: Conservation groups, aid VAR037: Conservation groups, hinder VAR038: Ecology activists VAR039: Ecology activists, aid VARO40: Ecology activists, hinder VARO41: Rod and gun clubs VARO42: Rod and gun clubs, aid VAR043: Rod and gun clubs, hinder VARO44: Professional planners, landscape architects, engineers, etc. VAR045: Professional planners, landscape architects, engineers, etc., aid VAR046: Professional planners, landscape architects, engineers, etc., hinder VAR047: Other civic associations VAR048: Other civic associations, aid VAR049: Other civic associations, hinder VAR050: Student groups 38

VAR051: Student groups, aid VARO52: student groups, hinder VARCO53: Real estate developers VARO54: Real estate developers, aid VARO55: Real estate developers, hinder VAR056: Homeowners VAR(57: Homeowners, aid VAR058: Homeowners, hinder VAR059: Industrial corporations VARO60: Industrial corporations, aid VAR061: Industrial corporations, hinder VAR062: Utility companies VAR063: Utility companies, aid VAR064: Utility companies, hinder VAR065: Federal agencies and regulations VAR066: Federal agencies and regulations, aid VAR067: Federal agencies and regulations, hinder VAR068: State agencies and regulations VAR069: State agencies and regulations, aid VAR070: State agencies and regulations, hinder VAR071: Others VAR072: Others, aid VAR073: Others, hinder 39

Variables VAR074 to VAR112 are defined in the same manner a.s the above variables from VAR035 to VAR073, and describe the effect of the groups and socio-economic activities referred to above, on the maintenance and improvoment of the quality of the shoreland and the beaches. Possible solutions to the problems of deteriorating water quality and the importance of these solutions: VARl13: More funds to build additional wastewater treatment plants VAR114: Importance of more funds for additional wastewater treatment plantss as a solution VAR115: Stricter enforcement of existing regulations and standards VAR116: Importance of stricter enforcement of existing regulations and standards as a solution VAR117: New regulations aimed at further restricting the sources of pollution VAR118: Importance of new regulations aimed at further restricting the source of pollution as a solution VAR119: Redistribution of responsibility for pollution control among existing governmental agencies VAR120: Importance of redistribution of responsibility for pollution control among existing governmental agencies as a solution VAR121: The creation of new agencies with responsibility for water pollution control VAR122: Importance of creation of new agencies with responsibility for water pollution control as a solution VAR123: Increased leadership from public officials in the field of water quality VAR124: Importance of increased leadership from public officials in the field of water quality as a solution 40

VAR125: Increased coordination of the activities of the existing -gencies who have responsibilities for managing water quality in your area VAR126: Importance of increased coordination of the activities I'.!e existing agencies who have responsibility of managing t.ter quality, as a solution VAR127: Other solutions VAR128: Importance of other solutions Benefit of certain growth factors under the current social and economic concitions: VAR129: Urban growth VAR130: Recreational growth VAR131: Industrial development VAR132: Protection of water quality VAR133: Preservation of existing natural shoreland areas VAR134: More control of development VAR13i: "No growth" policy VAR136: The construction of nuclear fuel power plants VAR137: The construction of fossil fuel power plants VAR138: Agricultural development VAR139: Mining operations VAR140: Other factors The effect of some of the above factors on the future water quality in the area: VAR141: Urban growth VAR142: Recreational growth 41

VAI)1'5: I n('ustr1nil develop-ment VAR144: The construction of nuclear fuel power plants VAR145: The construction of fossil fuel power plants VAR146: Agricultural development VAR147: Mining operations VAR148: Other factors Controversial issues expected to arise in the next five years in regard to water quality and shoreline protection in the agency's jurisdiction, the agency's position on the issues, and the extent of the agency's jurisdiction over the problems: VAR149: Financing needed for sewer construction VAR150: Financing needed for sewer construction, pro VAR151: Financing needed for sewer construction, con VAR152: Financing needed for storm drain construction VAR153: Financing needed for storm drain construction, pro VAR154: Financing needed for storm drain construction, con VAR155: Industrial pollution VAR156: Industrial pollution, pro VAR157: Industrial pollution, con VAR158: Present solid waste treatment methods VAR159: Present solid waste treatment methods, pro VAR16O: Present solid waste treatment methods, con VAR161: Thermal pollution VAR162: Thermal pollution, pro VAR163: Thermal pollution, con 42

VAR164: Marine sewage discharge VAR165: Marine sewage discharge, pro VAR166: Marine sewage discharge, con VAR167: Erosion control VAR168: Erosion control, pro VAR169: Erosion control, con VAR170: Industrial development VAR171: Industrial development, pro VAR172: Industrial development, con VAR173: Marsh land development VAR174: Marsh land development, pro VAR175: Marsh land development, con VAR176: Cluster development VAR177: Cluster development, pro VAR178: Cluster development, con VAR179: Construction of recreational facilities VAR180: Construction of recreational facilities, pro VAR181: Construction of recreational facilities, con VAR182: Construction of nuclear power plants VAR183: Construction of nuclear power plants, pro VAR184: Construction of nuclear power plants, con VAR185: Zoning VAR186: Zoning, pro VAR187: Zoning, con 43

VAR188: Preservation of natural shoreline VAR189: Preservation of natural shoreline, pro VAR190: Preservation of natural shoreline, con VAR191: Land use planning VAR192: Land use planning, pro VAR193: Land use planning, con VAR194: Regional planning VAR195: Regional planning, pro VAR196: Regional planning, con 44

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 1I111111 lr113 901 1111111111115 02652 7518 3 9015 02652 7518