Great Lakes Restoration Project - Ohio Department of Natural ...

ARENAC, BAY & TUSCOLA COUNTIES. BALLOU CREEK. BEAVER ISLAND STATE PARK. BLUE HERON LAGOON NATURAL AREA. BUCKEYE POINT. BUFFALO RIVER. CARRIERE PROPERTY.CASCADE CREEK. CATTARAUGUS CREEK. CAYUGA LAKE. CAZENOVIA LAKE. CHICAGO COASTAL. CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE. CLARK AND PINE EAST. COMBINED DISPOSAL FACILITY. CREEKRIDGE COUNTY PARK. CREEKSIDE PARK. CRYSTAL RIVER OXBOW PROPERTY. DAN’S POINT. DEEP RIVER HEADWATERS. SUPERIOR DETENTION POND. DETERIORATING SOLID PIERS.DETROIT RIVER STURGEON HABITAT. DUNES AND MARSHES. DUNES CREEK. EASTERN LAKE ONTARIO DUNES. EIGHTEENMILE CREEK. ELIZABETH PARK NORTH POINT. FITZSIMMONSROAD WOODS. FOSS BEACH PARK BLUFF. GARY GREEN LINK. GRAND BOULEVARD LAKE. GRAND MARAIS/COOK COUNTY STORM WATER. GREAT SODUS BAY. GROUT BROOK. HAMMONDBIRD SANCTUARY. HEGEWISCH MARSH. HOOSIER PRAIRIE NATURE PRESERVE. HOUGHMASTER PROPERTY. HUIRAS LAKE. ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK. IMAGINATION GLEN PARK.IRONDEQUOIT CREEK. KILBOURN LANDING. KUKAY PROPERTY. LAKE MICHIGAN DUNE. LAKE MICHIGAN WETLANDS AND STREAMS. LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN OUTREACH. LAKE SUPERIORDUNE. LAKE SUPERIOR SOUTH SHORE. LAKESIDE INDUSTRIAL. LION’S DEN GORGE. LITTLE BLACK CREEK. LOWER GRAND RIVER. LUDINGTON PARK. MAPLE BAY PARK. MAUMEE BAY.MEADOWBROOK. MILLER CREEK MILWAUKEE RIVER. MISSION FISH RACEWAY. MORAINE NATURE PRESERVE. MUD BROOK PRESERVE. GREAT LAKESMUDDY CREEK.NAPLES CREEK. NEWTON CREEK. LAKE, PORTER & LAPORTE COUNTIES. OAK CREEK WETLANDS. OATKA CREEK. OLIVER MARSH. OWASCO INLET. PARK WETLANDS. PARMA COASTALFOREST. PIKE RIVER. POINT CREEK. PORTER COUNTY JAIL STORM WATER. PRESQUE ISLE STATE PARK. RESTORATIONPROJECTRANSOM LAKENATURAL AREA. RAVINE RESTORATION. RED MILL COUNTY PARK. REISS COAL. RESORT BLUFFS. RUNOFF AND HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION. SALMON RIVER. SARGENT’S CREEK.SAUGATUCK DUNES STATE PARK. SCAJAQUADA CREEK. SCIENCE CENTER STORM WATER. SENECA BLUFFS. SHIAWASSEE RIVER. SILVER CREEK. SIX MILE CREEK. ST. CLAIR FLATS &ST. JOHNS MARSH. ST. CLAIRE AVE STORM WATER. STERLING STATE PARK. STIMSON DRAIN. SUCKER BROOK. SWEDETOWN CREEK. TAMARACK STAMP MILL. TRAIL CREEK FORKS.TUG HILL PLATEAU. TWO HARBORS OLD CITY DUMP & STORM WATER. UPPER MACATAWA. WARD CREEK. WARREN DUNES. WEST CREEK. WEST SHORE. WHITE DITCH.

ContentsIllinois Great LakesRestorations 2-3ProtectingIndiana’s CoastalResources 4-5Great Lakes Restoration ProjectA Progress Report to Congress by the Great Lakes StatesAcquisitions andRestorations to BenefitMichigan’s CoastalResources 6-7Restoring Minnesota’sLake SuperiorCoast 8-9Protecting andRestoring New York’sGreat Lakes 10-11Great LakesCoastal Restorationin Ohio 12-13Pennsylvania’sGateway to theGreat Lakes 14-15Great Restorationson Wisconsin’sGreat Lakes 16-17Letter from the GreatLakes Commission 18Letter fromthe Coastal StatesOrganization 19Directory ofGreat Lakes RestorationAgencies 20ILLINOIS | INDIANA | MICHIGAN | MINNESOTA | NEW YORK | OHIO | PENNSYLVANIA | WISCONSINMARCH 2003

Great LakesThank You, Congress!America’s Great Lakes are more than waterbodies.They are a vast, complex system ofinland seas that provide fresh water tomillions, access to world markets and diverserecreation for residents and visitors alike.In 2001, Congress appropriated $30 million toacquire and restore critical habitat, implementstorm water controls and clean contaminatedsites along Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontarioand Superior.Thus began an unprecedentedpartnership between the federal government andthe eight Great Lake states to restore andclean the world’s largest fresh water resource.The federal commitment required states toprovide match at a rate of 25%. Instead, theGreat Lake region has thus far committed $42million of state and local match – at a rate of58% – to produce $72 million of restorationwork along the Lakes and their tributaries.Federal State/LocalState Allocation Match TotalIllinois $1,750,000 $3,100,825 $4,850,825Indiana 1,750,000 591,875 2,341,875Michigan 7,000,000 16,646,000 23,646,000Minnesota 1,938,000 1,054,000 2,992,000New York 4,727,000 10,592,000 15,319,000Ohio 4,489,000 1,686,000 6,175,000Pennsylvania 1,846,000 1,582,000 3,428,000Wisconsin 5,686,000 6,962,000 12,648,000Other (fed.) 814,000$30,000,000 $42,214,700 $72,214,700The projects supported by this partnershipare so significant – and the need to restore theGreat Lakes is so profound – that this is thefirst time the eight Great Lakes coastalprograms have come together to report on asingle issue.Together with our local partners,we are creating a cleaner, more sustainableGreat Lakes region.However, more work is needed along thecoasts of our Great Lakes!State and community response to the 2001federal appropriation was overwhelming ascoastal managers proposed more qualityprojects than could be funded. Now is thetime to build on our momentum and supportnew Great Lakes’ restoration efforts.Thankyou, Congress, for recognizing the importanceof the Great Lakes and providing criticallyneeded resources for their restoration.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [1]

Illinois Great Lakes RestorationsImproving Illinois’ Public ShorelineThanks to the legacy of open space advocates like Montgomery Wardand Daniel Burnham who called for Illinois’ lakefront to remain open,clear and free, today more than 50% of the state’s sixty miles of LakeMichigan shoreline is in public ownership.This legacy enables millionsof our residents and national and international visitors to enjoy the manyrecreational opportunities that living along the Great Lakes provides.It also creates tremendous pressure – in terms of overcrowding andstress on both terrestrial and aquatic habitats – which demand constantattention and commitment of limited state resources.Restore and Protect the Lake Michigan Coast.The provision of Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants is making adifference along the Illinois shoreline, providing the incentive toundertake a variety of projects to preserve, restore, create and maintainunique coastal habitats.While the funded projects are diverse, they allshare a common objective to restore and protect our coastal areas forfuture generations.In Illinois, Coastal Restoration funds are being used in a variety ofways including acquisition of valuable property in an area undergoingtransformation from industrial to open space, the restoration of nativevegetation in Illinois’ only coastal state park, reduction of contaminatedrunoff, the protection of a shoreline area containing wetlands and therestoration of a dune area adjacent to a public beach.A common thread running through all the projects is a desire toprovide additional recreational and educational opportunities that willshowcase the benefits – both tangible and intangible – of a healthycoastal area.Only a Start. The projects funded with the first Great LakesCoastal Restoration Grants are only a start. Much remains to bedone.The State of Illinois – and our local units of government alongthe shoreline – support continuing the good work that this programhas initiated.[ 2] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Project name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Cook CountyHegewisch Marsh.City of Chicago.$651,840/$3,500,000.Acquire 100 acres of wetlandsand natural areas to preserveand place into public ownershipone of the most importantcoastal wetland bird habitats ofthe region.Chicago Coastal Restoration.Chicago Park District.$192,000/$240,000.Create a natural dune areaadjacent to a public beach andprovide habitat for rare coastalplant species and the five millionmigratory birds that pass throughChicago each year.Illinois Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsLake CountyLakeside Industrial Cleanup.City of Zion.$207,200/$259,000.Return an old industrial site togreenfield status.Restoration of CoastalTerrestrial & WetlandEcosystems at Illinois BeachState Park.Illinois Department of NaturalResources.$45,900/$57,375.Restore plant and animal speciesdiversity and the health of nativeplant communities on 90 acres ofparkland through the reduction ofexotic and invasive brush.Habitats will be improved for thefederally endangered whiteprairie-fringed orchid and theKamer Blue Butterfly.Coastal Interpretation atIllinois Beach State Park.Illinois Department of NaturalResources.$32,000/$40,000.Construct a visitor friendlyinteractive display of LakeMichigan in the lobby of the newpark office that will educatevisitors on the unique ecology ofthis coastal area.Ravine Restoration.City of Lake Forest.$382,560/$478,200.Develop a ravine storm watermanagement system that willreduce pollution in LakeMichigan and restore naturalravine hydrology.Foss Beach Park BluffRestoration.North Chicago, Foss ParkDistrict.$151,000/$188,750.Emergency bluff restoration toprovide protection to a recentlyrestored wetland and dune areaby using a combination of nativevegetation and stone revetment.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [ 3]

Protecting Indiana’s Coastal ResourcesRestoring Indiana’s fragile Lake Michigan coastal resourcesIndiana’s Lake Michigan coastal region supports an amazing array ofplants and animals and provides recreational retreats for more than twomillion visitors annually.The coastal region is a mixture of sand dunes,rivers and streams, forests, wetlands, cities and towns, industry andagriculture. All have an impact on the health of Lake Michigan.Hoosiers recognize the importance of this Great Lake and are takingsignificant steps to restore and protect threatened coastal resources. InIndiana, the congressional appropriation of $1.75 million through theGreat Lakes Restoration Grants Program leveraged eighteen state andlocal projects that together contributed an additional $560,000 toprotect and restore coastal resources.Native Habitat Restoration. Indiana’s coastal regionsupports many rare and endangered natural communities, includingdune and swale, fens, savannas, and prairies.The degradation of thesenatural communities affects the ecological health of the region.Plant and animal diversity, a critical component of Indiana’s coastalecosystem, is threatened by invasive species that crowd out native plantsand animals.Great Lakes Restoration grants will assist in the acquisition of over 100acres of quality stream and forest habitat.These new parks will buffer astream important for migrating salmon, protect key areas adjacent to anature preserve and establish a new greenway park for a coastal town.Water Quality Improvements. Water quality is one ofthe most important issues facing Northwest Indiana. Lake Michigan isvalued as a drinking and recreational water resource. Although pointsource pollution continues to be reduced, non-point source pollutionis still a challenge. Improving the quality of Lake Michigan starts withmaking improvements in the watershed.The Great Lakes Restoration Program will make possible several waterquality improvement projects in Indiana.These projects will preventbacterial contamination at a public beach, reduce excess sediment in aLake Michigan tributary stream, plan for resource management andpublic access, improve fish and wildlife habitat and manage storm waterrunoff through best management practices.Indiana Great Lakes Restoration grants will restore approximately 400acres of native habitat.These restoration projects will eliminate invasivespecies, re-establish native plant species and implement resourcemanagement principles – such as prescribed burning – that will havesignificant long-term benefits to the Lake Michigan region.Resource and Greenway Protection. Land is valuablein Indiana’s coastal region. Rural areas are quickly becoming developedand forests and greenways are threatened.The protection of coastalforests and greenways along rivers and streams will ensure that publicnatural areas exist for future generations.[4] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Project name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Lake CountyHoosier Prairie NaturePreserve, SavannaRestoration.Indiana Department of NaturalResources (IDNR) Division ofNature Preserves.$98,790/$124,204.Reduce invasive species and oakresprouts to restore 70 acres ofnative savanna and prairie.Clark and Pine East (Bongi)Dune and Swale Restoration.IDNR Division of NaturePreserves.$100,000/$125,000.Restore 37 acres of dune andswale by eliminating invasivewoody species and reducingcover and shrub/tree stemdensity.Indiana Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsDeep River HeadwatersSavanna, Wetland and PrairieRestoration Project.Lake County Parks andRecreation Department.$100,000/$125,000.Restore 100 acres of degradedsavanna and agricultural fields tonative habitat conditions.Hammond Bird SanctuaryRestoration Phase I.City of Hammond ParksDepartment.$100,000/$125,000.Restore a section of a 9.25-acremigrant bird sanctuary located onthe shores of Lake Michigan.Gary Green Link.City of Gary.$100,000/$125,000.Create a master plan for naturalresources management withinthe boundaries of a 30-milegreenway corridor.Grand Boulevard LakeRestoration andEnhancement.City of Lake Station.$100,000/$125,000.Remove exotic species andimprove public access foran urban lake.Porter CountyWetland Restoration in theDunes Creek Watershed.IDNR Division of State Parksand Reservoirs.$100,000/$125,000.Restore wetland habitat andevaluate its efficacy in reducingloadings of e.coli into IndianaDunes State Park beaches onLake Michigan.Moraine Nature PreserveProtection.IDNR Division of NaturePreserves.$106,170/$274,500.Acquire 42 acres of land adjacentto Moraine Nature Preserve.Restoration of Samuelson Fenand the Salt Creek Corridor atImagination Glen Park.City of Portage Parks andRecreation Department.$100,000/$125,000.Restore and enhance naturalcommunities associated withSalt Creek.Stimson Drain StormwaterManagement Design Project.City of Valparaiso.$100,000/$125,000.Produce a stormwatermanagement design that willpromote best managementpractices in a 600-acre StimsonDrain Watershed.Porter County Jail AlternativeStormwater ManagementDemonstration Project.City of Valparaiso.$100,000/$125,000.Reduce and manage impacts ofstormwater on Stimson Drainwatershed through an on-sitedemonstration project.Phase 2b Creekside ParkDevelopment: Park Passages.City of Valparaiso Parks andRecreation.$100,000/$125,000.Develop trails and anenvironmental management planfor a 70-acre undeveloped parkand restore and maintain nativeupland habitat, wetlands, fensand the Salt Creek corridor (asalmonid stream).Phase 2c Creekside ParkDevelopment: Connectionsand Restoration.City of Valparaiso Parks andRecreation.$100,000/$125,000.Restore up to 40 acres withnative vegetation and assist indeveloping boardwalks and abridge.LaPorte CountyCreek Ridge County ParkProtection.LaPorte County Parks andRecreation Board.$85,000/$110,000.Acquire 35.6 acres of landadjacent to an existing parkincluding a salmonid stream.Trail Creek Forks Restoration.IDNR Division of Fish andWildlife.$63,760/$85,558.Stabilize and restore erodingstream banks in Trail Creek, asalmonid stream.Red Mill County Park WetlandRestoration.LaPorte County Parks andRecreation Department andFoundation.$100,000/$130,550.Develop an engineeringfeasibility study and design torecommend the best method toremove the existing dam andrestore wetlands.White Ditch Greenway:Phase I.Town of Michiana Shores.$41,496/$52,525.Acquire 52 acres along WhiteDitch to become a greenwaypark.RegionalStudy of Rare andEndangered Mammals inNorthern Lake, Porter andLaPorte Counties.Indiana State University.$67,283/$85,483.Survey various endangeredmammals in the Indiana Coastalregion.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [ 5]

MichiganAcquisitions and Restorations to BenefitMichigan’s Coastal ResourcesFederal funds leverage state and local supportMichigan’s 3,288 miles of shoreline offer exceptional natural andcultural amenities. Natural areas strengthen Michigan’s economy byinviting visitors and residents to enjoy the beauty and ecologicaldiversity found here.Great Lakes Acquisitions and Restorations. Highquality natural communities and rare species in Michigan will find safehaven in land acquisitions and habitat restorations accomplished withGreat Lakes Coastal Restoration Grant funds. Michigan’s projects willpreserve rocky shores, sand dunes, beaches, woodlands and wetlands;improve coastal water quality; and enhance greenway efforts.Federal funding provided through the Great Lakes Restoration Grantsis being put to great work in Michigan, and the need for additionalfunding is well demonstrated.With the statewide announcement offunding availability, over $25 million worth of project proposals weresubmitted to the Michigan Coastal Management Program. Michigan’s$7 million federal allocation leveraged over $15 million of habitatimprovements, natural resource restoration and land acquisition.Numerous state and local initiatives stand ready to acquire and restoreadditional threatened areas.[ 6] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Project name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Allegan CountySaugatuck Dunes State ParkRestoration.Michigan Department ofNatural Resources (DNR).$94,000/$155,000.Initiate dune restoration work ina state park designated naturalarea along Lake Michigan.Alpena CountyHoughmaster Property.Alpena Township.$500,000/$2,116,150.Acquire 140 acres with 10,000feet of Great Lakes shoreline,wetlands and unique geologicalfeatures.Benzie CountyRansom Lake Natural AreaAcquisition.Almira Township.$58,500/$1,170,000.Acquire 220 acres of wetlandsand woodlands at theheadwaters of the Platte River.Berrien CountyMichigan Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsInvasive Species Control:Warren Dunes, Grand Mere,Warren Woods.DNR.$105,000/$140,000.Initiate invasive plant controlmeasures in three state parks.Charlevoix CountyLake Michigan Wetlands andTributary Streams.Little Traverse Bay Band ofOdawa.$250,000/$333,000.Acquire 55 acres with 2,400 feetof frontage on Susan Creek, atributary to Lake Michigan.Emmet CountyResort Bluffs.Emmet County.$500,000/$625,000.Acquire 6.3 acres with 600 feetof frontage on Little Traverse Bayand a steep bluff 120 feet aboveLake Michigan.Delta CountyLudington Park WestShoreline.City of Escanaba.$122,000/$152,500.Remove a dilapidated seawall,restore beach and create ashoreline buffer with nativeplants.Grand Traverse CountyMaple Bay Park and NaturalArea.Grand Traverse County andAcme Township.$500,000/$9,212,000.Acquire the Maple Bay Farmproperty with 2,583 feet of EastGrand Traverse Bay shoreline,sand dunes, wetlands, rare andendangered species and over 400acres of undeveloped land.Houghton CountyTamarack Stamp Mill.Osceola Township.$53,500/$66,875.Conduct an environmentalinvestigation, remediatesediment and remove debris atthe township’s historic mill site.Swedetown Creek NatureCorridor.City of Hancock.$443,000/$553,800.Acquire 184 acres along theSwedetown Creek gorge as itmeanders to Portage Lake.Keweenaw CountyDunes and MarshesAcquisition.Eagle Harbor Township.$240,000/$300,000.Acquire 360 acres of dunes andmarshes near the Lake Superiorshoreline.Dan’s Point.Houghton KeweenawConservation District.$258,700/$323,900.Acquire a 24-acre wooded parcelwith 623 feet of rocky LakeSuperior frontage.Leelanau CountyCrystal River Oxbow Property.Glen Arbor Township.$230,000/$345,000.Acquire a wooded dune andswale complex with endangeredspecies and over 1,000 feet ofCrystal River frontage.Marquette CountyLake Superior DuneRestoration and PublicAccess.Chocolay Township.$78,000/$97,500.Restore a sand dune andconstruct a scenic overlook andpedestrian access to the LakeSuperior shoreline.Monroe CountySterling State ParkRestoration.DNR.$531,500/$683,500.Restore and enhance 152 acresof rare lakeplain prairie and 350acres of Great Lakes marsh.Muskegon CountyLake Michigan DuneAcquisition.City of Norton Shores.$124,000/$166,000.Acquire a 3.5-acre parcel with800 feet of Lake Michiganshoreline adjacent to a city park.Oakland CountyShiawassee RiverHeadwaters Preservation.Springfield Township.$145,000/$229,500.Acquire a 37-acre parcelspanning one half the shorelineof an inland lake at theheadwaters of the ShiawasseeRiver, with prairie fen, southernshrub carr and southern drymesicforest.Ottawa CountyUpper MacatawaConservation AreaAcquisition.Ottawa County Parks andRecreation Commission.$500,000/$3,215,000.Acquire a 325-acre parcel alongthe Macatawa River with 1.9miles of river frontage, over amile of wooded ridges andravines and 160 acres of farmedfloodplain.St. Clair CountySt. Clair Flats Wildlife Area-StJohns Marsh, Algonac StatePark and Harsens Island.DNR.$50,000/$62,500.Restore coastal marsh andlakeplain prairie by implementingcontrol methods for the exoticnuisance plant Phragmites.Wayne CountyBlue Heron Lagoon NaturalArea Restoration.City of Detroit Parks andRecreation.$250,000/$350,000.Restore habitat in a 9-acrenatural area on Belle Isle in theDetroit River, control exotic plantspecies and install interpretivesignage.Detroit River Sturgeon HabitatRestoration, Monitoring andEducation.University of Michigan, SeaGrant.$309,300/$504,800.Restore Detroit River lakesturgeon habitat.Elizabeth Park North PointCoastal Restoration.Wayne County.$475,000/$1,000,000.Replace hard edge shoreprotection structure with bioengineeredstabilization, createfish habitat and improve access.Multiple CountiesArenac, Bay and TuscolaCounty ConservationEasement Acquisition.Michigan Department ofAgriculture.$482,400/$1,144,400.Purchase permanentconservation easements forwetland restoration on propertiestotaling 236 acres.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [ 7]

Restoring Minnesota’s Lake Superior CoastCaring for streams and their watershedsMinnesotans recognize that the health of Lake Superior depends onthe quality of the water that flows from its watershed.Storm water, wastewater and trash in contact with streams all threatenthe health of Lake Superior by carrying garbage, excessive sedimentand other pollutants. In 2001, Minnesota’s Lake Superior CoastalProgram worked with a variety of natural resource managers toleverage a federal commitment of restoration funds to protect andrestore Lake Superior streams and shorelines.Managing Storm Water. Streams dominated by surface waterrunoff drain much of Minnesota’s Lake Superior watershed.The healthof these tributary streams – and consequently Lake Superior – dependson the quality of the water that enters after storms and spring snowmelt.Improving the quality of water draining into tributary streams enhanceshabitat for aquatic communities by reducing excessive sediment loads,reducing peak flows, maintaining base water flow throughout the yearand reducing erosion.Local organizations and communities used Great Lakes Restoration grantsto create detention basins and sediment traps, provide information tolocal decision makers on water quality and quantity, manage watershedsto reduce storm water impacts and control erosion.Restoring Streamsides and Shorelines. A historyof human use and activity in Minnesota’s coastal region has leftchallenges for managing streams and lakeshores. Old dumps, abandonedbuildings and other waste threaten stream and shore habitats, limitpublic recreation opportunities and jeopardize public health and safety.Projects funded by Great Lakes Restoration grants are being used toclean up old dumpsites along eroding stream banks and acquireshoreland for restoration where unsafe, abandoned buildings remainhazards.These efforts will reduce erosion, prevent waste from enteringstreams and provide safe shoreline recreation opportunities.Providing Wastewater Treatment Options.Ensuring homeowners have effective alternatives for managingwastewater is important throughout Minnesota’s coastal area sincesanitary sewers do not serve much of the area.The geography and soilconditions of the area often make conventional septic systemsineffective. A Great Lakes Coastal Restoration grant is building on amulti-year effort to test, maintain and demonstrate alternative systemsto treat household and commercial property wastewater and provideeducation and training about alternative technologies.The Future of Great Lakes Restorations.Federal Great Lakes Restoration grants are working in Minnesota.The first allocation leveraged $3 million of restoration work on elevenprojects and successfully mobilized a wide variety of local, statewideand federal partners.Caring for streams and their watersheds has become an important andaccepted way of improving the condition of Lake Superior.Communities and local partnerships continue to identify projects thatprotect and restore water quality.[ 8] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Minnesota Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsProject name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Cook CountyGrand Marais StormwaterManagement – ErosionControl Restoration inCreechville Area.County of Cook.$213,120/$284,220.Reduce erosion and preventsediment from entering LakeSuperior.Grand Marais and CookCounty StormwaterManagement Plan – WaterQuality & Quantity Monitoring.County of Cook.$10,500/$14,000.Provide baseline information toevaluate implementation of planand to reduce flooding.Grand Marais StormwaterManagement – ErosionControl Restoration on VillageCreek.County of Cook.$127,335/$169,780.Provide baseline information toevaluate plan and reduceflooding.Grand Marais StreambankStabilization andNaturalization.City of Grand Marais.$10,310/$14197.Restore eroding stream banks inthe popular City Park andCampground with bioengineeringmethods.Lake CountyCarriere Property Acquisitionand Restoration.Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources.$195,750/$446,600.Acquire, restore and protectcoastal lands.Two Harbors Old City DumpSite Restoration.City of Two Harbors.$118,980/$175,680.Remove waste from contact witha stream and correct an erosionand sedimentation problem.Detention Basin Construction– Two Harbors Storm WaterManagement Plan.City of Two Harbors.$144,000/$192,000.Reduce peak flows in SkunkCreek resulting in less erosionand sedimentation and betterwater quality entering LakeSuperior.Acquisition of LighthousePoint.City of Two Harbors.$104,230/$1,800,000.Assist the city with the purchaseof a 51 acre property, home tothe Two Harbors Lighthouse,walking trails and a public boataccess.Reserve Mining Ground andSurface Water ContaminationControl.Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency.$104,230/153,000.Investigate an old scrapyard anddiesel range organics plume siteto define nature, extent andmigration of ground watercontamination threatening theCity of Silver Bay water supply.St. Louis CountyManaged Onsite WastewaterTreatment Systems in theLake Superior Basin:Outreach and Education.Natural Resources ResearchInstitute, University ofMinnesota Duluth.$32,253/$40,316.Operate and monitor alternativewastewater treatmenttechnologies at a test facility.Remediation of Sargent’sCreek Dump Site.City of Duluth.$341,262/$515,000.Restore habitat at a formerneighborhood dumpsite, removewaste from contact with acoastal stream and eliminatehuman exposure.Miller Creek Restoration:Watershed Coordinator.Miller Creek Joint PowersBoard.$59,000/$68,600.Hire a watershed coordinator tomanage restoration projects.Miller Creek Restoration:Easement Acquisition.Miller Creek Joint PowersBoard.$203,000/$276,733.Protect riparian land andwetlands through purchase ofconservation easements.Miller Creek Restoration:Sediment Trap.Miller Creek Joint PowersBoard.$60,000/$80,000.Remove sediment from MillerCreek through the construction ofan in-stream sediment trap.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [ 9]

New Protecting and Restoring New York’s Great LakesFor Now and the FutureAll people, including future generations, deserve clean and safe water.There is a strong environmental awareness in the Empire State and adeep commitment to preserve our cherished land, air and water.Within New York’s Great Lakeswatersheds, clean water supportsabundant fisheries, wildlife andagriculture, is the source ofdrinking water for urban and ruralpopulations, provides a broad rangeof recreational activities and isimportant to local economies.The Great Lakes are economicallyand environmentally vital to thepeople of New York State.Restoring impaired habitats andchanging practices that result in thedischarge of polluted municipal andindustrial runoff into streams, rivers and lakes are important goals forthe state, its communities, and its citizens. Progress has been made incleaning our Great Lakes and their contributing watersheds, but muchremains to be accomplished.An Array of Projects. Congress made a valuablecontribution to a healthier environment in and around the Great Lakesby providing resources for coastal restoration. In 2001, New Yorkreceived $4.5 million in federal funding to protect and restore coastalresources and water quality in communities throughout its Great Lakeswatershed. Using these funds, New York State’s Coastal ManagementProgram worked with other state agencies and environmental groupsto leverage an additional $10 million in needed improvements.Twenty-four projects were competitively selected from those proposedby state agencies and local governments. Selected projects preventcontamination through erosion control, debris removal, and treatmentof storm water runoff. Otherprojects include stream restoration,improved fish passage, andestablishment of buffer zones ofnative vegetation around waterbodies to minimize infiltration ofpollutants and improve wildlifehabitat. Projects to purchaseconservation easements and parcelsof land will preserve existingpristine water quality and habitats.The funds also support coastalhabitat and watershed managementplanning projects.The Future of Great Lakes Restoration.The Federal Great Lakes Coastal Watershed Restoration Grant Programis making a difference in New York. However, the fight to protectthese majestic waterways and address the detrimental water qualityand habitat impacts of the past is far from over. Many more excellentprojects wait to be advanced to restore New York’s Great Lakes.[ 10] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

YorkNew York Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsProject name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Cayuga CountyOwasco Inlet StreambankStabilization.Cayuga County Soil & WaterConservation District.$374,050/$748,100.Assessment, management plan,implementation of bestmanagement practices toimprove the Lake Ontariowatershed.Cortland CountyErosion Control on GroutBrook.City of Syracuse.$100,000/$200,000.Benefits water quality in GroutBrook and Skaneatles Lake,within the Lake Ontariowatershed.Grout Brook Fish Passage andStreambank Stabilization.Department of EnvironmentalConservation (DEC).$37,700/$75,400.Erie CountySeneca Bluffs Wetland &River Corridor HabitatRestoration.Erie County Dept. ofEnvironment and Planning.$100,000/$423,000.Improves Lake Erie watershed.Beaver Island State ParkWetlands Restoration andProtection – Niagara River.Office of Parks, Recreationand Historic Preservation.$450,000/$903,000.Buffalo River WatershedRestoration.Erie County Soil & WaterConservation District.$18,308/$39,616.Streambank stabilization.Scajaquada CreekStreambank Stabilization andErosion Control.Erie County Soil & WaterConservation District.$15,930/$31,894.Improves Lake Erie watershed.Erie County andCattaraugus CountyCattaraugus Creek ErosionControl and StreambankRestoration.Erie County Soil & WaterConservation District.$20,025/$40,050.Lake Erie watershedimprovement.Franklin CountySalmon River Dam Removaland Fish Restoration.Town of Fort Covington.$100,000/$200,000.Restores stream flow andimproves anadromous fishpassage. Improves St. LawrenceRiver watershed.Genesee CountyOatka Creek StreambankRestoration.Village of Leroy.$43,560/$87,120.Benefits trout habitat in lowerGenesee River watershed of LakeOntario.Lewis County45,000 Acre Land andConservation EasementAcquisition on the Tug HillPlateau.Tug Hill Commission.$1,500,000/$8,500,000.Protects Lake Ontario watershedsand habitat.Livingston County, Ontario,Seneca and TompkinsDeveloping Local Laws toAddress Storm Water Runoffand Hydrologic Modification.Division of Coastal Resources.$224,693/$224,693 (matched intotal leveraged funds).Implements Canandaigua,Conesus and Cayuga Lakemanagement plans, improvingthe Lake Ontario watershed.Monroe CountyLittle Black Creek StreamRestoration.Town of Gates.$12,100/$24,000.Benefits Little Black Creek andLake Ontario.35 Acre Parma Coastal Forestand Wetland Acquisition andDevelopment of aManagement Plan.Monroe County.$251,125/$852,250.Benefits Braddock Bay residentand migratory bird populationsand protects Lake Ontario waterquality.Irondequoit Creek ErosionAbatement.Town of Penfield.$200,000/$400,000.Benefits critical Lake Ontariospawning habitat.Madison CountyCazenovia Lake NativeShoreline Vegetation.Village of Cazenovia.$33,898/$71,526.Lake Ontario watershedimprovement.Niagara CountyEighteenmile CreekRestoration.Niagara County.$392,000/$989,150.Reduces sedimentation andimproves habitat along a LakeOntario tributary.Ontario CountyNaples Creek Aquatic HabitatRestoration.DEC.$50,000/$100,000.Benefits trout spawning nearCanandaigua Lake, within theLake Ontario watershed.Ontario Countyand Yates CountySucker Brook StormwaterRetrofit.City of Canandaigua.$26,500/$53,000.Stormwater remediation anddevelopment of a model lawprotecting forested areas withinthe Lake Ontario watershed.Oswego CountyEastern Lake Ontario DunesManagement Plan.Oswego County Soil & WaterConservation District.$45,616/$91,232.Tompkins CountyImplementation of the CayugaLake Watershed Restorationand Protection Plan.Town of Dryden.$230,845/$461,690.Design and construction oferosion control project andstormwater workshops for localgovernments within Great Lakeswatershed.Science Center Storm WaterReduction Project.City of Ithaca.$48,500/$98,300.Reduce pollution to CascadillaCreek and Cayuga Lake, a LakeOntario watershed improvement.Six Mile Creek RiparianHabitat Restoration.City of Ithaca.$153,000/$343,000.Lake Ontario watershedimprovement.Wayne CountyImplementation ofComprehensive WatershedManagement Plan on GreatSodus Bay.Wayne County Soil & WaterConservation District.$63,000/$126,000.Mini-grant program addressingstorm water runoff, septic systemmanagement and boatpump-outs.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [ 11]

OhioGreat Lakes Coastal Restoration in OhioProtecting natural areas and improving water qualityOhio’s Lake Erie coastal region – like coasts around the world – stirsthe hearts of those that live and work within its reach and drawsvisitors from afar for rest and recreation along its shores.The Ohio coastal region is highly developed with 2.65 million peopleliving in the eight counties that border Lake Erie. Historically a focalpoint for commerce, industry and agriculture, Lake Erie and itswatershed are also Ohio’s leading destination for outdoor recreationand nature tourism. In learning to balance diverse economic andenvironmental interests, Ohioans place great value on protecting thecoastal region’s remaining natural areas and enhancing public access.The Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants appropriation is helpingto make significant strides towards protecting Ohio’s critical coastalareas and restoring water quality for present and future generations.Protection of Critical Coastal Areas. The Lake Erieshoreline and its remaining areas of natural habitat are under increasingpressure from development. Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants arepreserving shoreline adjacent to the Marblehead Lighthouse, acherished Ohio landmark and the oldest continually operatinglighthouse on the Great Lakes. Restoration grants are also protectingmore than 240 acres of wetlands, floodplains and riparian corridorsthroughout the Lake Erie watershed, a benefit to local communitiesdirectly and the state in general.Water Quality Protection and Restoration.One of the most significant threats to Lake Erie and its tributaries ispolluted runoff from urban storm water and agriculture. Protection andrestoration of riparian wetlands and floodplains can result in significantbenefits to water quality and wildlife habitat. A healthier environmentleads to an improved quality of life and a stronger economic base.More than 4,000 linear feet of riparian habitat along seven Lake Erietributaries in Ohio are protected and restored through Great LakesCoastal Restoration Grants. Erosion and sediment transportdownstream into Lake Erie are reduced using Best ManagementPractices, stream restoration and bioengineering principles. In addition,the demonstration of these measures creates educational opportunities.Sustainable Development Initiatives. In order toachieve and sustain a healthy coastal region, Ohio seeks to balance theuse and preservation of Lake Erie and its watershed. Sedimenttransport mapping in the Maumee Bay and Toledo Harbor shippingchannel is accomplished through Great Lakes Coastal RestorationGrants.This mapping will be crucial for planning the site location anddesign of new sediment disposal areas, improving channel maintenanceand other management measures.Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants in Ohio.Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants have enabled progress towardpreserving shoreline habitat, protecting and restoring riparian corridorsand increasing public access.These efforts ensure diverse wildliferesources, reduce pollutants in Ohio’s streams and facilitate theenjoyment of coastal and Lake Erie resources.Further steps are needed to protect, restore and enhance Lake Erie andall of the Great Lakes. Ohio welcomes additional, innovativeopportunities to cooperate with federal initiatives that leverage stateand local resources to continue the enhancement of Ohio’s mostvaluable resource.[ 12] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Project name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Cuyahoga CountyWest Creek Land Acquisitionand Stream Restoration.City of Parma.$206,000/$349,000.Acquire 23 acres and implementa plan improving 1,200 linearfeet of stream providing habitatrestoration, enhancement anderosion abatement.OhioOhio Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsGeauga CountySilver Creek Restoration.Geauga Park District.$190,000/$300,505.Restore stream integrity andnatural floodplains, reducenonpoint source pollution andestablish educationalopportunities on streamrestoration and bioengineeringprinciples.Mud Brook Preserve-Sensitive Wetland Addition.City of Hudson.$149,000/$186,250.Acquire 29+ acres including 16acres of existing sensitivewetland and more than 2,600linear feet of Mud Brook andPowers Brook, tributaries to theCuyahoga River.Lake CountyLower Grand River FloodplainAcquisition.Lake Metroparks.$125,920/$157,400.Acquire 14.5 acres of Grand Riverfloodplain wetland. The parkdistrict will preserve the site as anatural area and allow passiveriver access. Protect and enhancewater quality by maintaining thenatural floodplain.Ward Creek Riparian CorridorAcquisition and PreservationProject.City of Eastlake.$368,520/$608,356.Acquire 15.5 acres of woodedland along Ward Creek and placea conservation easement on anadjacent 31 acres. A total of 46.5acres will be preserved reducingerosion and protecting habitatand stream quality.Lucas CountySediment Trend Analysis inMaumee Bay Lake Erie.Toledo-Lucas County PortAuthority.$65,530/$96,530.Complete an analysis resulting inmapping for planning newsediment disposal areas andimproving shipping channelmaintenance.Ottawa CountyBuckeye Point LandAcquisition.Put-in-Bay Township.$888,000/$1,110,000.Acquire nine acres on theeastern tip of South Bass Islandknown as Buckeye Point.Preserve over a quarter mile ofshoreline accessible for hiking,fishing and bird watching.Meadowbrook AcquisitionProject.Danbury Township Trustees.$154,150/$308,300.Acquire 30 acres to preservewildlife habitat, a natural areaand open space. This area isadjacent to 33.5 acres presentlyowned by Danbury Township.Kukay Property Acquisition.Ohio Department of NaturalResources (DNR).$2,000,000/$2,500,000.Acquire 10 acres of Lake Erieshoreline property adjacent toMarblehead Lighthouse StatePark.Sandusky CountyMuddy Creek CorridorAcquisition.Sandusky County ParkDistrict.$216,400/$278,213.Acquire 120 acres of floodplainand riparian corridor on MuddyCreek to improve water qualityand wildlife habitat and provideeducational opportunities bydemonstrating Best ManagementPractices.Multiple CountiesAquatic Nuisance SpeciesControl in State NaturePreserves.DNR.$20,000/$175,000.Document invasive plant speciesinfestations and effectiveness ofcontrol measures using a GISdatabase.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [13]

Pennsylvania’s Gateway to the Great LakesRestoration in coastal Erie CountyOur country’s birthplace of independence, pristine hardwood forests,bountiful fishing streams, superb agricultural lands, railroads andfootball, rolling ridges and diverse natural beauty; these are the imageswe associate with Pennsylvania, America’s “Keystone State.”However, we Keystoners are blessed with another pearl in this naturalresourcenecklace, the 60-mile coastline in Erie County, our “Gatewayto the Great Lakes.” Formedmany millennia ago, this regionmeets the southeastern edge ofLake Erie to form a unique areanoted for its rich culturalheritage and traditions, fishingindustry, maritime trade andcommerce, vineyards, outdoorrecreation and manufacturing.Ironically, the same activities that made this region great have alsostretched its natural resources and put pressure on its ecosystems.Pennsylvania has had an active Coastal Zone Management programsince 1980. As with other Great Lakes states, the program focuses onmonitoring vital coastal ecosystems by providing technical assistanceand grants to governmental and non-profit organizations that carryout program goals.Restoration Funding Meets Critical Needs. In2001, additional funding for Great Lakes states was appropriated byCongress to supplement its annual allocation to support the CoastalZone Management program. Pennsylvania was fortunate to receive$1.85 million that leveraged additional local funds in support ofhigh-priority projects throughout coastal Erie County.Restoration funds were used toacquire additional open space toensure public access to the coast.Thefunding preserved vital wetlands andriparian buffer areas. It linkedgreenways with Presque Isle StatePark, one of the country’s mostheavily used outdoor recreation sites.Other funds were used to construct a fish raceway to support a veryactive local sport fishing industry.The program stabilized the banks of avital watershed tributary. Restoration grants reclaimed and restored adredge-spoil confinement facility to provide more recreationopportunities for public access to the lake.More Work to be Done. These and other on-goinginitiatives along Pennsylvania’s Lake Erie coastline are restoring thewater quality of the lake and its tributaries as well as bringingeconomic and cultural vitality back to the region. As responsiblestewards for our abundant natural resources and as inhabitants of thisbeautiful Great Lakes region, we stand ready to work with ourcoalition partners to ensure a lasting legacy for those that follow.[14] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Pennsylvania Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsProject name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Erie CountyGreenway Acquisition.North East Township.$322,375/$646,250.Acquire 27 acres of lakesideproperty including more than 800feet of beachfront.Greenway Acquisition.Harborcreek Township.$187,500/$250,000.Acquire 8.2 acres of lakefrontproperty to preserve open spaceand habitat.Park Wetlands Acquisition.Erie County ConservationDistrict.$37,750/$50,700.Acquire 32 acres of wetlandsadjacent to an existing countypark.Mission Fish Raceway.Erie County PlanningDepartment.$15,000/$20,000.Construct a 6’ x 200’ fishraceway at a fish nursery site toenhance sport fishing.Cascade Creek WetlandsRestoration.Erie Port Authority.$29,375/$54,375.Develop a detailed plan, removeinvasive plant species andrestore native plant species.Streambank Erosion Control.Lawrence Park Township.$54,000/$72,000.Remove debris along the creek,add bank stabilization and extendthe retaining wall.Presque Isle State ParkGreenway Acquisition.Pennsylvania Department ofConservation and NaturalResources (DCNR).$1,000,000/$2,000,000.Acquire 47 acres of property tolink Presque Isle State Park tolocal attractions.Combined Disposal FacilityReclamation.Western Pennsylvania-EriePort Authority.$200,000/$335,000.Fill, cap and grade a sitecontaining dredge spoil toprovide a recreation venue.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [15]

Great Restorations Wisconsin’s Great LakesHabitat and public access on Lakes Michigan and SuperiorClean water and pristine shores. Healthy and abundant wildlife. Bluewater recreation.Wisconsinites set high standards for their Great Lakes.However, pressures from a burgeoning population threaten fragile coastalhabitats and prized tracts of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior shoreline.In 2001, Congress recognized its responsibility to the Great Lakes bywisely directing resources for coastal restoration.Wisconsin coastalmanagers leveraged the federal commitment with local resources andstrategies to protect Wisconsin’s Great Lakes coasts.The Public Shoreline. Wisconsinites value their time spenton the coasts of Lakes Michigan and Superior. However, unspoiledshorelines are increasingly subdivided for residential and commercialpurposes. Once coastline is developed, it islost to the public forever.Great Lakes Restoration grants preservedseveral pristine shorelines, buffers andwetlands in perpetuity. In addition to theirobvious ecological benefits, coastal naturalareas enhance the overall character of theircommunities and the state. Preserved coastalareas strengthen Wisconsin’s economy byenticing tourists and relocating families andbusinesses to visit and invest in the state.Improved Habitat for Healthy Wildlife.Wisconsin’s coasts support diverse aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. GreatLakes Restoration grants will improve degraded habitats from Kenoshato Bayfield. For instance, purple loosestrife plants supplant indigenousflora and threatens wildlife in fragile wetlands. Great Lakes Restorationgrants will restore wetlands and reduce the effects of land-based invaders.Unfiltered storm runoff increasingly harms water quality. Great LakesRestoration grants will relocate a storm sewer discharge to control thespread of lakebed contaminants. A wet detention basin and streambank project also reduce the impacts of runoff in Lakes Superior andMichigan.Reduced Contaminants for Safer Water. Wisconsincontends with an unwanted legacy from its industrial past.Contaminated lands and sediments threaten drinking water, habitat andrecreation along the coasts.Great Lakes Restoration grants will fund removal of contaminatedsediments in a troubled Lake Superior tributary. Major projects inSheboygan and Milwaukee will cleancontaminated waterfronts and provide publicaccess at former industrial sites.The Future of Great LakesRestorations. Federal Great LakesRestoration grants are popular inWisconsin.The first allocation will leverage$12 million of habitat improvements alongWisconsin’s coasts. Numerous localinitiatives stand ready to restore morethreatened areas.Wisconsin citizens and visitors want access to more – not fewer –miles of coastline and acres of wetlands. Many excellent projects arepoised to provide vital habitat, clean water and access to LakesMichigan and Superior.The wise investment of federal resourcestoday will ensure a healthier, more sustainable Great Lakes forgenerations to come.[16] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

Wisconsin Great Lakes Restoration ProjectsProject name.Grantee.Grant amount/total project cost.Brief description.Ashland CountySt. Claire Ave. Storm Sewer.City of Ashland.$112,462/$149,950.Improve a storm sewer dischargeto Lake Superior.Ballou Creek.Town of Morse.$37,275/$49,700.Restore habitat, reducesedimentation in a Class I troutstream.Bayfield CountyLake Superior South Shore.Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (DNR).$200,000/$267,000.Acquire and protect 178 acresof coastal lands and 350’ ofLake Superior frontage.Door CountyDeteriorating Solid Piers.DNR.$125,000/$166,667.Restore aquatic habitat throughpier removal.Douglas CountyNewton Creek.DNR.$300,000/$510,000.Remove contaminants, restorehabitat and protect humanhealth.Detention Pond.City of Superior.$150,000/$2,420,000.Reduce pollutants and sedimentsentering the Namadji River.Oliver Marsh.Douglas County.$90,000/$120,560.Protect 3,820 feet ofundeveloped St. Louis Rivershoreline.Kenosha CountyChiwaukee Prairie.DNR.$100,000/$133,334.Protect a large ancient prairieand coastal wetland.Manitowoc CountyPoint Creek.Manitowoc County.$800,000/$1,900,000.Acquire 39 acres of estuary,bluffs and 1/2 mile of beach.Milwaukee CountyKilbourn Landing.City of Milwaukee.$1,168,016/$3,363,042.Remove contaminants along theMilwaukee River.Fitzsimmons Road Woods.City Franklin.$155,000/$310,000.Acquire, preserve a criticalwetland.Oak Creek Wetlands.Milwaukee MetropolitanSewerage District/City of OakCreek.$28,488/$56,976.Acquire wetlands alongenvironmental corridors.Ozaukee CountyLion’s Den Gorge.Ozaukee County.$404,000/$1,280,000.Acquire 3/4 mile of LakeMichigan shoreline.Huiras Lake Wetland.DNR.$127,830/$181,426.Acquire 70 acres and restore 90acres of a drained wetland.Racine CountyPike River.Mount Pleasant Storm WaterDistrict.$387,375/$516,500.Restore a stream and wetland.Sheboygan CountyReiss Coal.City of Sheboygan.$101,250/$135,000.Remediate a contaminated40-acre lakeside industrial site.Milwaukee River Basin.DNR.$80,000/$150,000.Acquire a 35-acre woodedwetland, spring at Mink Creek.Multiple CountiesWest Shore HabitatProtection and Restoration inMarinette, Oconto & BrownCounties.DNR.$501,493/$668,658.Restore habitats and protectlands critical to threatened andendangered species.State Natural Area Wetlandsin Bayfield, Door, Kenosha,Ozaukee & SheboyganCounties.DNR.$202,404/$269,872.Restore 332 acres of degradedwetlands with a focus onremoval of invasive plants.GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [17]

March 2003Honorable Members of the United States CongressUnited States CapitolWashington, D.C. 20515Dear Senators and Representatives:The Great Lakes are the lifeblood of our eight state region; their water and related naturalresources are fundamental determinants of environmental health, economic well-being andquality of life along the nation’s “fourth seacoast.” Unfortunately, a legacy of misuse andabuse has compromised the potential of the resource. And, while we’re starting to “turnthe corner” and move toward a cleaner and more sustainable environment, much workremains to be done.Thanks to Congressional leadership in FY 2002, $30.0 million was invested in coastalrestoration projects including contaminated site cleanup, stormwater controls, wetlandsrestoration, buffer/greenway acquisition and related pollution control prevention activities.Leveraged by significant state investment (58% of total project costs), this coastalrestoration initiative showcased the tremendous potential for state/federal partnership andthe attendant environmental and economic benefits.The Great Lakes Commission, an eight state compact agency founded in state and federallaw, has voiced its enthusiastic support for a large scale, consensus-based restoration planfor the Great Lakes ecosystem. Coastal restoration project priorities identified by the GreatLakes states will undoubtedly be an important part of such a plan. The state commitment isin place and additional projects are ready to begin. We urge your leadership in securing thefederal partnership necessary to proceed.We at the Great Lakes Commission applaud your commitment and invite you to work withthe Great Lakes states to move these restoration efforts forward. Indeed, the greatestsystem of freshwater on the face of the earth deserves no less!Sincerely,Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.President/CEO/rjs[18] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

March, 2003Honorable Members of the United States CongressUnited States CapitolWashington, DCDear Senators and Representatives:The Coastal States Organization (CSO) was founded in 1970 to represent the interests of theGovernors of the nation’s 35 coastal states and territories, including the Great Lakes. CSO commendsCongress and the Great Lakes states for their recent commitment to the restoration of Lakes Superior,Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario.The Great Lakes have long suffered from industrial, commercial and nonpoint pollution. Today morethan ever, the fresh water resources of the Great Lakes are fragile and of vital importance to allAmericans. The initial $30 million federal appropriation in FY2002 to restore the lakes is an investmentin the health and economic well being of the entire Great Lakes region and the nation. Of course, morework is needed to fully restore the vitality of the Great Lakes. CSO has long supported coastalrestoration and conservation activities.On behalf of the states, we are especially pleased, that the eight Great Lake states and their localpartners have demonstrated their commitments to the restoration of lakes and coastal communities byexceeding their matching funds obligations by tens of millions of dollars. Instead of providing onlythe required 25 percent of project costs, the states combined to provide 58 percent of project funding.Each Great Lake state reports that additional restoration work is poised to begin. CSO asks thatCongress join the states in supporting restorations throughout the Great Lakes. Again, thank you foryour commitment to the Great Lakes and all of America’s coasts.Sincerely,Tony MacDonaldExecutive Director, CSOGREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT [19]

Great Lakes Restoration AgenciesIllinois Department of Natural ResourcesDan Injerd, Chief310 S. Michigan Avenue, Room 1606Chicago, IL 60605312-793-3123312-793-5968 (fax)dinjerd@dnrmail.state.il.usIndiana Lake Michigan Coastal ProgramLaurie Rounds, Program Manager402 W.Washington, Room W265Indianapolis, IN 46204317-233-0132317-233-3882 (fax)lrounds@dnr.state.in.usMichigan Coastal Management ProgramCathie Cunningham Ballard, ChiefPO Box 30458Lansing, MI 48909517-335-3456517-241-0858 (fax)cunningc@michigan.govMinnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal ProgramTricia Ryan, Program Manager1568 Highway 2Two Harbors, MN 55616218-834-6625218-834-6639 (fax)tricia.ryan@dnr.state.mn.usNew York State Coastal Management ProgramGeorge Stafford, Program Manager41 State StreetAlbany, NY 12231518-474-6000518-473-2464 (fax)coastal@dos.state.ny.usOhio Coastal Management ProgramDave Mackey, Chief105 West Shoreline DriveSandusky, OH 44870419-626-7980 x 224419-626-7983 (fax)david.mackey@dnr.state.oh.usPennsylvania Coastal Zone Management ProgramJim Tabor, Program ManagerPO Box 2063Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063717-772-5626717-783-4690 (fax)etabor@state.pa.usWisconsin Coastal Management ProgramDea Larsen Converse, Chief101 E.Wilson Street, PO Box 8944Madison,WI 53708-8944608-267-7988608-267-6917 (fax)dea.larsenconverse@doa.state.wi.us[ 20] GREAT LAKES RESTORATION PROJECT

PhotosPhotos published with permission of KatherineArdizone, Don Breneman, Charles Shabica & Associates,Inc., City of Chicago, Chicago Park District, MichaelFriis, Karl Gross, Geoffrey Gyrisco, Illinois Departmentof Natural Resources, Indiana Department of NaturalResources, Michigan Coastal Management Program,Michigan Travel Bureau and U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, New York Department of State, OhioDepartment of Natural Resources, PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection, RobertQueen, Carol Reschke,The Nature Conservancy,VetterDenk Architects,Wisconsin Department ofAdministration,Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources, City of Zion. Cover by Princely Nesadurai.The Great Lakes states thank the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean andCoastal Resource Management for funding of thispublication under the Coastal Zone Management Act,grant number NA170Z1144.