great lakes commission 2013 annual meeting · 2019-10-29 · 2805 s. industrial hwy., suite 100 ann...

2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791

ph: 734.971.9135 fx: 734.971.9150 www.glc.org

September 9, 2013 8AM - 5PM CDT Hilton Milwaukee City Center

In conjunction with GREAT LAKES WEEK

Great Lakes Commission 2013 Annual Meeting

1 Great Lakes Week

Agendas

2 Minutes

3 Action Items

4 Speaker Topics

5 Workplan Update

6 Reference

AGENDA – (DRAFT August 22, 2013)

Great Lakes Commission 2013 Annual Meeting Hilton Milwaukee City Center • 509 West Wisconsin Avenue; Milwaukee, WI 53203

Sunday, September 8

All times are CDT

2-6 p.m. 7-9 p.m.

Field trip to Sheboygan River Area of Concern (optional) Opening Reception Light appetizers and cash bar

Group transportation will be offered from the Hilton Milwaukee City Center Monarch Lounge, Hilton Milwaukee City Center

Monday, September 9

7:00 a.m. Registration, Continental Breakfast

Crystal Ballroom

8:00 a.m.

Call to Order, Opening Remarks Ken Johnson (WI), Chair

8:05 a.m. Roll Call

Tim Eder, Executive Director

8:10 a.m.

Report of the Chair and Executive Director Approval of final agenda Approval of minutes from 2013 Semiannual

Meeting

Ken Johnson, Chair Tim Eder, Executive Director

8:45 a.m. Waukesha Water Withdrawal Proposal Update Moderator: Ken Johnson, Chair

Dan Duchniak, General Manager, Waukesha Water Utility

9:30 a.m. State/Provincial Roundtable

Innovative programs and experiences dealing with clean water and nutrient management

Moderator: Kelly Burch (PA), Vice Chair

State and Provincial Representatives - New York - Illinois - Michigan

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Water Levels and Living with the Lakes Fluctuating levels and living with change St. Clair River options

Moderator: Jon Allan (MI)

Scudder Mackey, Ohio DNR Office of Coastal Management Deborah Lee, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Roger Gauthier, Restore Our Water International Dan Injerd, Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources

12:15 p.m. Lunch

Regency Ballroom Keynote Speaker, Governor Scott Walker (invited)

1:30 p.m. State/Provincial Roundtable, cont.

Innovative programs and experiences dealing with clean water and nutrient management

Moderator: Kelly Burch, Vice Chair

State and Provincial Representatives - Wisconsin - Ohio - Ontario - Minnesota

3:00 p.m.

Break

3:15 p.m. Observer Comments GLC’s Official Observers

4:15 p.m. Business of the Great Lakes Commission Resolutions

o Navigation priorities in WRDA o Offshore wind demonstration projects o Persistent, bioaccumulative toxic

chemicals o Importance of rivermouths

Action Item: Crude oil transport Elections

Ken Johnson, Chair

4:40 p.m. Invitation to 2014 Semiannual Meeting and Great Lakes Day in Washington March 4-6, 2014, in Washington, D.C.

Tim Eder, Executive Director

4:45 p.m.

Adjourn

Ken Johnson, Chair

Great Lakes Week Agenda - all times in CDT

Lunch registration is included in HOW Conference registration. The Joint Session is free and open to the public.

Sunday - September 8 Great Lakes Commission Annual Meeting (2-9 pm) Sheboygan AOC tour, followed by opening reception Monday - September 9 Great Lakes Commission Annual Meeting (7am-4:45pm) First Binational Public Forum under the new Great Lakes (5pm-9pm) Water Quality Agreement Tuesday - September 10 International Joint Commission Triennial Meeting (8-9:45am) Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition's Great Lakes (7:30-11:45am, 2:30-5:30pm) Restoration Conference Great Lakes Week Joint Lunch (12-1pm) Great Lakes Week Joint Session (1:30-2:30pm) First Binational Public Forum under the new Great Lakes (2:30-5pm) Water Quality Agreement Great Lakes Week Joint Reception at the Milwaukee Art (6:30-9pm) Museum

http://www.glc.org/meeting/

http://www.glc.org/meeting/

http://binational.net/


http://www.ijc.org/en_/greatlakesweek/home

http://conference.healthylakes.org/


https://www.signup4.net/public/ap.aspx?EID=GREA52E&TID=XuIxub4kug5Ny%2b%2fgAq6wEg%3d%3d






Wednesday - September 11 Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition's Great Lakes (7am-5pm) Restoration Conference First AGM, Council of the Great Lakes Region (9:30-11:30am) Walking Tour and Reception: UWM School of Freshwater (5:30-7:30pm) Sciences Great Lakes Cities Initiative Regional Meeting Inter-Agency Task Force Meeting Thursday - September 12 Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition's Great Lakes (7:30-11:50am) Restoration Conference







JOINT EVENTS: Great Lakes Week - all times in CDT

Great Lakes Week 2013 will feature several joint events for the Great Lakes community to come together and discuss some of the most pressing issues threatening the health of the Lakes. The joint events are open to participants of all Great Lakes Week meetings and conferences. Registration is required for all events except the Joint Session. Joint Lunch Tuesday, September 10, 12 - 1 pm; Wisconsin Center, Grand Ballroom C Part of the Great Lakes Week Joint Agenda, the Joint Lunch precedes the Joint Session and gives Great Lakes Week participants an opportunity to mingle and network. Registration Required: Cost: $30 Note: Joint Lunch registration is included in HOW Conference registration Joint Session Tuesday, September 10, 1-2:30 pm; Wisconsin Center, Grand Ballroom A/B The Joint Session will feature a keynote speaker, followed by a cross-cutting panel discussion about climate change and the Great Lakes. The Joint Session is FREE and open to the public! Joint Reception Tuesday, September 10, 6-9 pm; Milwaukee Art Museum Joint reception guests will have the opportunity to tour the spectacular Galleries on the first floor of the Milwaukee Art Museum, enjoy cocktails and hors d’oeuvres in Windover Hall and enjoy the beautiful views of Lake Michigan while reuniting with friends. Registration Required: Cost: $30 Transportation Provided: Buses will leave the 6th street entrance of the Hilton Milwaukee City Center starting at 5:45 pm Walking Tour and Reception - UWM School of Freshwater Sciences Wednesday, September 11, 5:30-7:30 pm The Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Coalition is hosting a Reception and Open House at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Freshwater Sciences that is open to all great Lakes Week Participants. Registration Required, cost: $25 Transportation Provided: Buses will leave the 6th street entrance of the Hilton Milwaukee City Center starting at 5:15 pm

Minutes Attached, for review and approval, are minutes from the Commission’s 2013 Semiannual Meeting, held March 5-6, 2013, in Washington, D.C. Included for your information are minutes of the Board of Directors’ meetings on Feb. 13, April 25, May 16, June 20, and July 18, 2013.

1

Summary of Actions

1. Approved minutes of the 2012 Annual Meeting, held Sept. 10-11, 2012, in Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Approved three resolutions:

• Cooperative and Flexible Nonpoint Source Conservation Programs to Sustain a Healthy Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

• Sustaining Environmental Restoration and Economic Revitalization: Great Lakes Commission Federal Priorities for 2013

• Advancing Phase II of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Passing Comprehensive Great Lakes Legislation

3. Announced dates for the Commission’s Annual Meeting and Great Lakes Week events, Sept. 9-12, 2013, in Milwaukee, Wis.

Minutes

1) Chairman Ken Johnson (WI) called the meeting to order at 1 p.m. on March 5. Johnson welcomed everyone.

2) Senior officials in attendance were recognized including International Joint Commission Commissioners Pierre Trépanier (Canadian Section Chair), Lana Pollack (U.S. Section Chair), Dereth Glance and Rich Moy; and Great Lakes Fishery Commission Commissioner David Ullrich. New GLC Commissioners were introduced. Tim Eder called the roll and confirmed a quorum. Commissioners present were: Illinois Marc Miller, Delegation Chair

Todd Main Indiana Not present Michigan Jon Allan, Delegation Chair Helen Taylor Bruce Rasher

Peter Manning

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Yvonne Prettner Solon Sen. Ann Rest

New York Don Zelazny (via phone) Ohio Karl Gebhardt Ontario Bill Carr, Delegation Chair Sharon Bailey (via phone)

Great Lakes Commission 2013 Semiannual Meeting

Hamilton Crowne Plaza Washington, D.C. March 5-6, 2013

Draft Meeting Minutes

2

Pennsylvania Kelly Burch, Delegation Chair Pat Lupo Herb Packer

Québec Eric Marquis, Delegation Chair Marc Gagnon

Louise Lapierre Eve Joseph

Wisconsin Ken Johnson, Delegation Chair Steve Galarneau

3) Chairman Johnson called for approval of the agenda. A motion to approve was made by Commissioner Marc Miller (IL), second by Commissioner Allan (MI). The agenda was unanimously approved.

4) Chairman Johnson called for approval of the Annual Meeting minutes from September 2012. A

motion to approve was made by Commissioner Miller (IL), second by Commissioner Prettner Solon (MN). The minutes were unanimously approved.

5) Chairman Johnson delivered introductory remarks. He noted Great Lakes success stories including the recent delisting of the Presque Isle Bay Area of Concern in Erie, Pa. Good things are happening in the Great Lakes, but there are still many issues to wrestle with. Nutrients remain a huge issue in many areas including western Lake Erie, Fox River/Green Bay. The Fox River is home to the largest PCB cleanup in the world. Levels of PCBs are falling in fish. Invasive species remain an issue. We haven’t seen a new AIS enter the Great Lakes since 2006 but many are threatening. Ballast water standards are in place from the USCG and standards are pending from EPA. Johnson urged the GLC to establish a task force on this issue to ensure uniform national and state regulations are pursued. Regarding Asian carp, a binational risk assessment has confirmed assumptions that many areas of the Great Lakes are vulnerable to Asian carp invasion. Oil spills are a concern. U.S. federal sequestration is a pending concern.

6) Tim Eder delivered the executive director’s report. Eder introduced the staff who were in attendance. He presented the GLC’s 2013 Federal Policy Agenda, including the GLC’s legislative priorities and a one-page distillation of the legislative priorities, which is co-signed by the GLC and numerous regional partners. This illustrates that the region is able to have a shared vision for the region. Eder outlined specific federal priorities, including funding the GLRI, passing comprehensive Great Lakes legislation, addressing low water levels, funding waste and drinking water infrastructure, the Farm Bill, and prevention and control of Asian carp and other AIS. It’s a strong era for the Great Lakes. GLRI is midway through its five-year timeline. Over $1B has been appropriated to date with more than 1,400 projects underway. Sequestration and the U.S. fiscal crisis, however, are affecting all of us and will be affecting GLRI. It’s important that the GLC and its partners continue to make the case with Congress of the importance of the GLRI. If we don’t clean up the problems now, they will only become costlier to fix in the future. Eder showed examples of GLRI state-specific factsheets that have been prepared by GLC staff. He showed a new website “Great Lakes Restoration At Work” (prepared by the GLC) that maps more than 1,000 GLRI projects underway and includes additional map overlays including congressional districts and state and county boundaries. The map is online at www.glc.org/restore/glrimap. Eder spoke about comprehensive Great Lakes legislation, a bill that will soon be introduced in Congress. It hopes to reauthorize GLNPO, create a Great Lakes Advisory Board and a Federal Interagency Task Force, authorize the GLRI at $475M/year, and reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act at $150M/year. Eder referenced a Dear Colleague letter, which encourages other members of Congress to co-sponsor the legislation. Eder discussed the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The GLC convened regional interests to discuss proposed changes to the Legacy Act, how the Act is currently working, and ideas for improvements. Recommendations included reauthorizing the Act at $150M/year (currently authorized at $50M/year); addressing cost share for “no responsible parties,” and addressing sites nearby but not within boundaries. Legislative intent language may be drafted during the reauthorization process to address these concerns. Eder addressed low water

http://www.glc.org/restore/glrimap

3

levels and dredging issues ongoing in the Great Lakes. Several of the lakes have hit all-time lows in recent months. Three issues the GLC is working on include the RAMP Act and reform of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). Low water levels are a crisis for harbors large and small in the region. There are some significant economic impacts on the line here. The recreational boating industry, for example, brings more than $16M in economic revenues annually to the region. A reduction in draft of one inch in shipping channels causes ships to lighten their load by up to 14 percent per trip. Shippers pay into the HMTF but the revenues are often allocated for other purposes rather than dredging. Reforming the HMTF would go a long way to fund many of the dredging needs in the Great Lakes. Eder referenced a new publication from the Great Lakes Dredging Team (written and produced by the GLC) focused on the beneficial use of dredged materials. Open water placement of dredged material is an issue in many areas. The publication features five cases studies from around the region, including Duluth-Superior, Cleveland and Buffalo, where successful beneficial use projects have been employed. Eder described two other high-priority issues of the GLC and its member states: 1) funding wastewater infrastructure; and 2) passing a new Farm Bill. Lastly, Eder provided an update on the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) project. The CAWS engineers have met with the USACE engineers. The team learned that USACE is taking hydrologic separation very seriously. The GLMRIS report is schedule to be released in late 2013. Physical separation will take a long time. The question now is if an interim approach can be pursued. The locks and gates, for example, could be modified with carbon dioxide used as deterrent to keep carp and other AIS out of the locks. Reforming the Lacey Act is another priority. Legislation (at least on the House side) may be introduced during the week of March 4, 2013. Eder reminded the Commissioners that a GLC workplan update is included under Tab 6 in the briefing book.

7) Vice Chair Kelly Burch introduced the Asian Carp Update panel. Burch noted that Rep. Mike Kelly is hosting an informational session on carp this week in D.C. Burch introduced the two panelists: Asian Carp Coordinator John Goss, White House Council on Environmental Quality and Brig. General Margaret Burcham, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Goss reported that there’s no evidence that Asian carp are yet established in Lake Michigan waters. Canadian partners and resources have been a tremendous addition to the team this year. Eagle Marsh in Indiana is a hot spot of interest. Extensive sampling continues by Illinois DNR. At this point, the barriers seem to be working effectively. A new report illustrates how eDNA can be transported via fishing gear and other vectors. A new lab in LaCrosse, Wis., will be fully functional this year. The USDA-NRCS is helping to design a new ditch berm that will function as a permanent barrier in the Eagle Marsh area. Goss showed a map illustrating the advance of carp in the Illinois and Des Plaines rivers. On the Lake Erie side, some positive eDNA results were collected in summer 2012. The sources of this eDNA are yet to be determined. There’s no sign that there’s an established or reproducing population of Asian carp in this area. Extensive sampling by OH, MI and Ontario continues and will be the focus of increased monitoring over the coming year. Exclusion-Detection-Attraction-Removal is the focus of USGS science efforts. Ideas include water guns, pheromones, carbon dioxide and other approaches. The Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee has a strong network of partners and is making good progress. Brig. General Burcham presented the USACE strategy for dealing with Asian carp and other AIS. A four-pronged strategy: 1) electric fish barriers in the Chicago Area Waterways; 2) monitoring; 3) congressionally authorized efficacy study; and 4) congressionally mandated Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS). The barriers were started in 2002 with a demonstration barrier. USACE added redundancy to the system (barriers 2A and 2B, commissioned in 2009 and 2011 respectively). Permanent Barrier #1 will, ultimately, replace the demonstration barrier. We hope to have Permanent Barrier #1 completed by end of 2013. USACE Telemetry is assessing the efficacy of the barriers. Telemetry capsules have been replaced in more than 250 fish (a variety of species that are swimming above the barrier). Below the barrier, the sensors are actually placed in Asian carp. The Univ. of IL-Carbondale and USFWS have placed similar sensors. All partners work together to share data. None of the fish being tracked have crossed the barrier, which is a good thing. The eDNA Calibration Study (ECALS) is a three-year study currently in year two. A key finding is that the presence of eDNA does not mean that live fish are present. eDNA can come from birds and other vectors. The Efficacy Study is a study of the range of factors that could potentially reduce the effectiveness of the electric barriers. Lastly, Brig. General Burcham discussed

4

GLMRIS, which includes identifying the AIS of most concern and control mechanisms for each. 39 species were originally identified. This number has been reduced to 14. Seven feasible, implementable control mechanisms are being proposed. Rough cost estimates will be included. USACE originally planned to release the GLMRIS study by 2017; December 2013 is the new goal of USACE, based on a recommendation from Congress. There will be no recommended plan. USACE will propose various alternatives. Congress could then make decisions, based on these preliminary alternatives, on which areas to pursue further study on. Environmental and economic criteria will also be supplied to the Secretary of the Army. GLMRIS remains an open and inclusive process. Commissioner Miller (IL), director of Illinois DNR, thanked all the partners involved. Q: How long is the NEPA process likely to take? A (Burcham): 18 months. Jan Miller, USACE Chicago, commented that NEPA and the next level of design for some alternative may take a longer period. Q: What happens when the draft USACE report is released? Will a draft report come out in fall 2013? A (Burcham): The report will be drafted in July 2013 and then go for a technical review within USACE. It will then go to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, then OMB, and then to Congress. The set of “alternatives” will be reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army. Direction will be needed from the Assistant Secretary of the Army on which alternatives should be pursued further. Q: Will additional funding be needed to do the engineering and design work after January 2014? A (Burcham): No. USACE will do everything in its power to expedite the process. Q: Is the Bubble Barrier a good idea to be pursued? A (Goss): Since a redundant barrier has been added, we don’t see the acoustic Bubble Barrier as a high priority at this time. The estimated cost for the Bubble Barrier is $15M/barrier. Burcham said a rumor that USACE will narrow its report to two alternatives is not correct. Q: Will any monitoring efforts be placed on adult fish especially in the Maumee and Sandusky areas? A (Goss): Most resources will be focused on established populations and less on eDNA.

8) Chairman Johnson introduced the various action items that will be acted upon by the Commission on the following morning. • Resolution – Cooperative and Flexible Nonpoint Source Conservation Programs to

Sustain a Healthy Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: This resolution recognizes the importance of agriculture to our region and the problems associated with agricultural runoff and excessive nutrient loadings; calls for a reauthorized Farm Bill including a regional conservation partnership program; encourages support for other programs including the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs) in the Great Lakes basin; and supports enhanced funding to the Great Lakes states under the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program.

• Resolution – Sustaining Environmental Restoration and Economic Revitalization: Great Lakes Commission Federal Priorities for 2013: This resolution endorses the Great Lakes Commission’s suite of federal priorities for 2013; and calls on Congress and the Administration to continue to maintain base funding for Great Lakes programs and strengthen collaboration with the Great Lakes states in the implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). Commissioner Galarneau (WI) suggested additional language on beach monitoring and edits for consideration.

• Resolution – Advancing Phase II of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Passing Comprehensive Great Lakes Legislation: This resolution calls on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with other federal agencies, to lead development of an extended timeframe for a second phase of the GLRI; and calls on Congress to pass comprehensive Great Lakes protection legislation to improve the efficiency of the GLRI, strengthen Great Lakes programs, and facilitate effective long-term management and conservation of the lakes.

5

9) Chairman Johnson opened the panel discussion titled “Federal Priorities and a Shrinking Budget.”

He introduced Ann Mills, deputy under secretary for natural resources for USDA; Cameron Davis, senior advisor to the EPA administrator; and Eric Schwaab, NOAA assistant administrator for fisheries. Mills commended the effective partnerships underway in the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes region is home to more than 125,000 farms. She said we’ll need to increase agriculture output by more than 70 percent in order to feed a growing population. 2.4B more people are expected worldwide by 2050. GLRI is one of 19 Landscape Conservation Initiatives implemented by USDA-NRCS. The GLRI has allowed for significant investments in the Great Lakes region by NRCS. The GLC, through its partnership with NRCS, has made hundreds of grants through the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, making significant water quality improvements. But how do we make sure that we’re investing in the right watersheds to maximize the positive impacts? USDA-NRCS conducts a baseline assessment to assess where the most vulnerable acreages are. This allows NRCS to target its dollars to priority watersheds. Phosphorus Reduction Watersheds, for example, have been identified in the Fox River and Saginaw River, among others. The National Water Quality Initiative has identified four priority areas in the Great Lakes region: two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin and one in Ohio. 82 of the small projects have existing 319 projects underway. NRCS is also investing in Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs) – six in the Great Lakes – which deploy a scientific team to work in the priority watersheds. Water quality monitoring and assessment is a priority to bring greater precision to the outcomes of NRCS projects. Edge-of-Field Monitoring and Evaluation is employed. Ag producers are excited about the program and the data improves their business efficiencies. Ag Certainty is a partnership tool to accelerate voluntary conservation and ensure that the goal lines aren’t going to change. There are numerous benefits to producers. One of the biggest challenges that USDA faces regarding the federal sequester is just the time and spirit-draining element. USDA expects a loss of $232M in the year ahead because of the sequester. This equates to approximately 3.2M acres less conservation practices. And, on top of that, a new Farm Bill has not yet been authorized. The sequester has ripple effects across all federal agencies. Cam Davis quoted David Broder from The Washington Post: “The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as it is called, is a truly bipartisan and binational enterprise, involving leaders and groups from eight states, innumerable communities, the two major U.S. political parties…The 30 million people who live in this region make it a major political battleground. In an age of rampant distrust, I can't think of a better way to show that government can work.” The GLRI is about more than just money. After spirited and vigorous debate, Presque Isle Bay in Erie, Pa., has been delisted as an Area of Concern. These are real results. PA Commissioner Kelly Burch and others in the room received a round of applause. Other positive results: swimming bans and advisories in Chicago and other areas are at a five-year low thanks, in large part, to clean beach practices supported by GLRI, the BEACH Act and other sources. GLRI has had an accelerator effect. In the area of habitat, many endangered species (including Lake Sturgeon) are being brought back to sustaining populations in the Great Lakes. Artificial spawning reefs have been completed in the St. Clair River and other areas. The final GLRI focus area is Accountability. Davis referred to the updated website at glri.us, which involves a mapping tool for all GLRI-funded projects. The GLRI Science Advisory Board agrees the Action Plan identifies the important actions that should be undertaken. A draft science-based adaptive management framework will be released in coming weeks for review by the broader Great Lakes community. Davis closed with a photo of the Buffalo River area where an $8.5M GLRI project has removed over 475,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment. He noted that in some cases, we may not be able to show delisting right away. But in the future we will be able to declare victory on some of the most contaminated places in the Great Lakes. The 2011 GLRI report to Congress will be transmitted in late March 2013. It will show very good progress. We’re basically on target. Davis thanked the GLC and other partners for their support. Regarding sequestration, the GLRI is a multi-agency program. Any reductions to GLRI will be done in consultation with all federal agency partners and key stakeholders. All other programs (e.g., 319, SRF programs) will

6

experience similar cuts due to the sequestration. Eric Schwaab said that NOAA is unsure at this time how the sequestration will affect its specific programs and operations. NOAA thinks explicitly about spreading funding across science, service and stewardship. NOAA conducts valuable scientific research in the Great Lakes region. Translating place-based science into service and stewardship is important. There are many economic returns. NOAA has many Great Lakes regional assets, including the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab in Ann Arbor; and the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, near Alpena, Mich., and others. NOAA also owns/operates six research vessels. A new office focuses on marine debris in the Great Lakes. All the Great Lakes states also have coastal management programs. Regarding low water levels, NOAA is using state-of-the-art visualization tools, including the new water levels dashboard product and other new models. Additional NOAA research is focusing on harmful algal blooms. Q: Do you have a plan for how sequestration will be handled? And if you don’t have a plan, when will you have one and how will we hear about it? A (Davis): With regard to GLRI, prioritizing activities will be important. Across the board line cuts are not necessarily fair. If certain program activities can be deferred, they should be. A (Mills): A lot of work and long hours have gone into planning how to deal with the cuts. A (Schwaab): In the short term, there’s limited flexibility in some areas. Q: Fast-forwarding past the immediate budget crisis, what would a comprehensive monitoring system for the Great Lakes look like? A (Schwaab): Trends in climate and how they’re affecting precipitation patterns and the like will be important. The challenge is taking the monitoring pieces currently in place and applying a gap analysis, if you will, to fill in and plan for the future of monitoring infrastructure. A (Davis): The Science-based Adaptive Framework, referenced earlier, will be important. Through the GLWQA, the two countries are coming up with a binational science agenda, which should help to answer this question over time. Comment: Brown bullhead site impairment studies, conducted as part of the delisting of the Presque Isle Bay AOC, are being shared with partners in Canada to maximize the use of resources. Q: Is there a way we can modify the need for a comprehensive nutrient management plan to get money on the ground to farmers in a more expeditious manner? A (Mills): Thanked for the kind comments about NRCS programs in Ohio. NRCS is a very pragmatic agency and will seek solutions in partnership with Ohio and other jurisdictions. Q: GLRI has been transformative. It also, however, puts communities into a transition. How do we help communities after a 20- or 30-year AOC legacy to move on? A (Davis): Developing a sustainable coastal community plan would be helpful, picturing their water resources as a benefit rather than a liability.

10) Observer Comments: Loren Thomas, U.S. Coast Guard: A new Ballast Water Working Group Summary Report was recently released. Nearly 7,000 ballast tanks were examined. No violations were reported. No new species have been released since 2005. The USCG released its ballast water discharge standard in 2012. Discharges are being examined by a new committee, which includes the Lake Carriers’ Association, Great Lakes United and other partners. Admiral Parks sends his regards. He will be retiring in June 2013. Fred Midgett will replace Parks. Sabrina Dadrian-Kassabian, Canadian Embassy: The GLWQA is now in force and the governments are beginning work on its implementation. The Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) is the Ontario equivalent. A nutrient study will focus primarily on Lake Erie. The renewed agreement includes combating and managing AIS. Last spring Fisheries and Oceans Canada invested $17.5M into a new Asian carp program. Prevention is more cost effective and efficient. Fisheries and Oceans Canada released a Risk Assessment of Asian Carps in 2012. Our two countries must strive to enter an even playing field when it comes to ballast water management. Public comments are welcome on

7

this discussion paper through March 31, 2013. The comments can be submitted to Transport Canada. With regard to low water levels, the IJC’s Upper Great Lakes Study has included extensive public comment periods. The Government of Canada looks forward to receiving this report soon from the IJC.

Andy Buchsbaum, National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Center: Buchsbaum thanked the GLC for its partnership and complimented the GLC on raising its game to meet the challenges facing the Great Lakes. In summer 2013, the Great Lakes governors and premiers will meet on Mackinac Island. This kind of meeting can set the future agenda for the Great Lakes and in-person attendance by all the governors and premiers is encouraged. Buchsbaum highlighted several new NWF reports: 1) Sunken Hazards, which focuses on aging pipeline infrastructure in the lakes; and 2) Doom and Bloom, a follow-up report that examines changes in precipitation patterns that are increasing harmful algal blooms in many areas. Mark Smith discussed the pending Waukesha, Wis., diversion proposal. NWF prepared a report in conjunction with Jim Nicholas (USGS Michigan, retired). Joel Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes: Brammeier commended the show of regional unity during Great Lakes Day in Washington this week. The Alliance and partners hosted a GLWQA Implementation Workshop in Chicago. A new report on emerging contaminants has been published. There’s some good bipartisan discussion going on regarding water infrastructure (especially wastewater infrastructure). New relationships are being built in the Fox River basin. Performance measures for phosphorus removal will be important. A Mind Mixer website has been set up in the State of Illinois, which allows the public to provide input/feedback on coastal restoration in the state. A new Marine Debris Action Plan is being developed for the Great Lakes. Dave Ullrich, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative: Ullrich thanked HOW and GLC for pulling Great Lakes Day together every year. A similar event in Ottawa would be very nice to see. This is a very important gathering and a lot of good work gets done. Ullrich relayed that the Sheboygan, Wis., mayor is very pleased with restoration activities in that area. Ullrich mentioned the continued work on the CAWS and potential movement of the Asian carp. Many GLSLCI member cities are passing resolutions supporting physical separation of the CAWS. The new Mississippi Town and Cities Initiative is also endorsing the separation alternatives. A set of core Great Lakes “indicators” are being drafted. The GLSLCI recently had its 97th member city join. Under the strong leadership of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, 100 members are anticipated by June 2013 when the GLSLCI Annual Meeting will be held in Marquette, Mich.

Gildo Tori, Ducks Unlimited: The GLC has been a “git-her-done” program. Securing permits from state and federal agencies is a challenge for wetland restoration managers. Tori encouraged regulators to streamline these processes to expedite wetland restoration. Key areas on the Great Lakes have lost more than 50 percent of wetlands. Wetlands can help to minimize impacts from climate change. Tori encouraged more emphasis on wetlands protection. Tori distributed factsheets on the economic and job impacts of hunting and angling. Wildlife watching and other activities also contribute to these economic factors. Craig Czarnecki, USFWS: Czarnecki thanked the GLC staff for their hard work and dedication. He introduced GLWQA co-leads from USFWS: Todd Turner (annex 6), Lynn Lewis (Annex 7).

John Bratton, NOAA-GLERL: Regarding the sequestration, a primary goal of NOAA is protecting core staff. Forecasting is another NOAA priority. The Great Lakes Observing System, part of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, has assessed current observing/monitoring assets. This document is serving as a model for other IOOS regions. Buoys, autonomous vehicles, satellites and insitu monitoring are among the infrastructure included. NOAA has been heavily involved in producing the GLRI Science-based Adaptive Framework. NOAA looks forward to partnering with the GLC on addressing water level issues. Industrial water stewardship tools will be piloted soon.

8

Kathryn Buckner, Council of Great Lakes Industries: Buckner acknowledged the benefit of partnering on the one-page statement of shared federal legislative priorities. Buckner appreciated the GLC’s executive director’s report and its summary of the GLC’s priorities. A GLPF-funded project for industrial facilities to address their water stewardship practices has been successful. As in previous phases, an expert panel was convened to discuss water stewardship. About half was industry but water resource managers were also well-represented. In this era of budget cuts, monitoring has been identified by industry leaders as a priority. Establishing process and progress are important to industry. Jan Miller, USACE: Miller acknowledged the support and involvement of the GLC and its staff. The Great Lakes Dredging Team is an important partnership, which is facilitated by the GLC. Miller recognized the Dredging Team co-chairs who are present: Steve Galarneau (state co-chair, State of Wisconsin) and Ernie Drott (fed co-chair, USACE). The Areas of Concern program is another priority for USACE, with support from the GLC to make a regional program work more efficiently. The Great Lakes Tributary Monitoring Program builds tools and then pursues outreach to help implement these tools and share them with the region. More than 1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been removed with the support of GLRI. When financial times get tough, more funds and partnerships need to be leveraged. This helps to convince Congress to continue to support programs even when budgets are shrinking. Kay Nelson, Northwest Indiana Forum: Nelson noted that the timeframe regarding the environmental assessment of separation of the CAWS shouldn’t be shortened. Nelson requested that USACE prepare a document explaining the NEPA process and its perceived length. This may help to minimize negative impressions of USACE.

Mike Moorman, USDA-NRCS: Moorman is the new Great Lakes coordinator for NRCS. With its GLRI dollars, NRCS is focusing on invasive species, nonpoint source pollution (priority watersheds), and accountability. Just under 200,000 acres are under some conservation treatment in the Great Lakes. Phosphorus application is a focus area, along with no-till and other practices. In 2012, high priority phosphorus areas were targeted. NRCS is excited about developing more Edge-of-Field monitoring programs. The SEED program is being revisited. Lana Pollack, International Joint Commission: Pollack posed two questions for the Commissioners and audience to consider: 1) In the 1970s, were the economies of your states bigger or smaller than today? The answer is, by and large, smaller. Pollack reminded the audience how much progress was made in the 1970s. There was political will. 2) A lot of time, fixing the economy is called prevention. Prevention is cheap but cleaning up problems (once established) is expensive. If we, as society, don’t prevent, we’re going to have to pay (and more) after the fact. There is a tension between regulations vs. cost. Good policies save money, they don’t cost many. 3) In the 1970s, had anyone heard of climate change? No, we had not. This is an issue that our children and grandchildren will be dealing with, and how they deal with it will depend on how we deal with it today. We need to focus on adaptation.

Shedd Aquarium: Submitted written comments.

A motion to adjourn for the day was made by Vice Chair Burch (PA), second by Commissioner Miller (IL). A reception, sponsored by Cardno JFNew, followed in the hotel foyer from 5:30-7:30 p.m.

Day Two

11) Chairman Johnson opened the meeting and welcomed everyone to day two of the Great Lakes

Commission Semiannual Meeting.

12) Chairman Johnson opened the business section of the meeting. Three resolutions were considered:

9

• Resolution – Cooperative and Flexible Nonpoint Source Conservation Programs to Sustain a Healthy Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: This resolution recognizes the importance of agriculture to our region and the problems associated with agricultural runoff and excessive nutrient loadings; calls for a reauthorized Farm Bill including a regional conservation partnership program; encourages support for other programs including the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs) in the Great Lakes basin; and supports enhanced funding to the Great Lakes states under the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Lupo (PA); second by Commissioner Gebhardt (OH). The resolution passed unanimously.

• Resolution – Sustaining Environmental Restoration and Economic Revitalization: Great Lakes Commission Federal Priorities for 2013: This resolution endorses the Great Lakes Commission’s suite of federal priorities for 2013; and calls on Congress and the Administration to continue to maintain base funding for Great Lakes programs and strengthen collaboration with the Great Lakes states in the implementation of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).

Motion to approve by Commissioner Prettner Solon (MN); second by Commissioner Allan (MI). An amendment was offered by Commissioner Galarneau (WI). This additional bullet was added at the end of the first Resolve clause: “Reauthorizing and providing funding for the Beach Act to sustain successful efforts to protect and improve nearshore water quality and reduce beach closings.” A motion to approve the amendment was made by Commissioner Galarneau (WI); second by Commissioner Lupo (PA). Discussion followed. The amendment was approved unanimously. The resolution passed unanimously.

• Resolution – Advancing Phase II of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Passing Comprehensive Great Lakes Legislation: This resolution calls on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with other federal agencies, to lead development of an extended timeframe for a second phase of the GLRI; and calls on Congress to pass comprehensive Great Lakes protection legislation to improve the efficiency of the GLRI, strengthen Great Lakes programs, and facilitate effective long-term management and conservation of the lakes.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Gebhardt (OH); second by Commissioner Allan (MI). The resolution passed unanimously.

13) Discussion followed on the GLC’s resolution process. Commissioner Taylor (MI) suggested that a

meeting format change might allow for some more rigorous discussion at the Commission’s meetings. Eder noted that a formal hardcopy meeting evaluation is not conducted, however the staff and board do have discussions following each meeting to discuss what worked, what didn’t and what could be approved. Eder welcomed additional input to these discussions. Taylor suggested bringing more diverse opinions to the table. Eder noted that several states have held delegation meetings recently (MI, MN, IL). He encouraged other states to follow suit and offered that GLC staff would attend, if asked. Chairman Johnson suggested that it would be fruitful for WI, MI and OH to meet on some joint issues of concern (e.g., groundwater, nutrients).

14) To introduce the water levels panel, a video, produced by The Nature Conservancy, was played. The video, titled Great Lakes Water Level Changes: Addressing Risks and Impacts on Coastal Assets is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lvqUzgWXCkY. Commissioner Allan (MI) introduced the panel on “Water Levels and Maintaining Access to the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels.” He provided some brief history of dredging activities in the Great Lakes. President Polk vetoed the River and Harbors Act in 1846. In 1847, the Rivers and Harbors Convention was signed in Chicago. Allan explained that we need to start managing the Great Lakes coastal system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lvqUzgWXCkY

10

Keith Kompoltowicz, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Detroit, referred to a packet on the current water levels forecast that he distributed to all Commissioners. Kompoltowicz explained that the hydrologic cycle feeds the Great Lakes. The three components that drive the fluctuation of waters levels are evaporation, precipitation and runoff. He showed a graphic comparing the historical annual water balance and the skewed scenario in 2012, which showed outflows greatly outweighing the inflows. The precipitation supplies show a clear correlation with rising and falling water levels. The Great Lakes historical water level record shows that there are both short- and long-term water level cycles. The January 2013 monthly mean for Lake Huron was the lowest that has ever been recorded, going back to the early 1900s. Michigan-Huron levels rose slightly in February 2013. More snow data (through a partnership with Canadian agencies) are now being included in the assimilation models. The long-term weather forecast from NOAA shows that there will likely be above-average precipitation in March-June 2013, which should raise water levels. Long-range forecasts illustrate that all five lakes will remain near or below their long-term averages over the next six months. Fred Shusterich, president of the Midwest Energy Resources Company, participated in the panel, representing the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force. He discussed lower budgets, no earmarks, failing infrastructure, more sedimentation and lower water levels. Shusterich played a news video, which included a clip from Glen Nekvasil from the Lakes Carriers’ Association discussing the need for ships to carry lighter loads due to the reduced water levels. Levels have dropped drastically in the last decade. U.S.-flag trade accounts for more than 115 million tons, primarily within the upper four lakes. Approximately $90M is spent annually on dredging. The Great Lakes navigation system’s rate savings are estimated at $3.6B/year. Land-based modes of transportation don’t stack up to ships. One foot of draft loss on a 1,000-foot vessel equates to nearly 70,000 tons of carrying capacity lost. Lost inches equal lost efficiencies. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) involves taxing the cargo value to maintain coastal ports operation and maintenance. But of every $2 collected through HMTF, only $1 is currently allocated for dredging. Ken Alvey, president of the Lake Erie Marine Trades Association, discussed coping with economic impacts on federally authorized harbors. Deep-draft, commercial and shallow-draft (recreational) harbors were described. Harbors are silting in due to chronic patterns of inadequate maintenance dredging from a prioritization policy that disallows USACE to include shallow-draft harbor in their annual dredging plans. Lack of dredging is creating economic hardship and, in some cases, is leading to loss of life and property. Property values will be reduced due to inaccessibility; marina and ferry operators will need to cease operations. The economic recovery of the recreational marine industry and its economic competitiveness depend on this. $9.9B in boater trip spending has direct economic impact on the Great Lakes. Boater craft spending has a direct impact of $4.6B in sales in the Great Lakes states. How do we demonstrate the benefits of maintaining shallow draft harbors? The addition of 15 docked boats equals one additional full-time employee in the marine industry. We face a crisis of harbor survival. Harbors will close without dredging. There have been record low water levels and no significant dredging since 2010. Alvey acknowledged the actions by the State of Michigan. A Small Harbors Coalition has been formed and state funds have been redirected for emergency dredging. Low water levels are also bringing an aggressive decline to infrastructure since many facilities are now out of the water and exposed to the elements. Q: Do we have an adequate system of funding and maintenance for infrastructure and dredging in place or is a total overhaul of the system needed? A (Alvey): We seem to have chronic problems in the Great Lakes. The governors and congressional representation from this region need to stand together on these issues. We need to find a new push. We are ecologically and structurally in a very challenging time. A (Shusterich): The RAMP Acts are great but those basically do not address the longer-term infrastructure questions. I’m not too hopeful. There’s some big work that needs to be done. The RAMP Acts should address some of the dredging needs but won’t address the crumbling infrastructure.

11

Comment: It’s terribly important for the voices of the maritime community to be heard. We have a lot of catch up to do. Comment (Alvey): HMTF was discussed at the recent Great Lakes Marine Community Day. The fear is that HMTF monies will be targeted on the east coast and still not come to the Great Lakes, despite the needs. We need representation on the right committees in Congress. Q: Wisconsin is coming back from drought conditions. Long-term climate changes are predicted. Are there other fixes beyond dredging? A (Kompoltowicz): The Corps seeks to tell the story about why water levels fluctuate and have cyclic variabilities. The climate does seem to be changing. Snow and ice cover patterns are changing and are being tracked by USACE. A (Shusterich): More than 80 dredging projects are on the “to do” list. We can only do what’s physically possible. Letting dredging slide at both commercial and recreational harbors is a dangerous proposition. A (Alvey): Man has always moderated the environment. The entire infrastructure is manmade and has often been driven by need and greed. How can the marine industry continue to keep its efficiencies but still deal with climate change and other environmental fluctuations? Q: Perhaps there’s an opportunity here for the GLC and other partners to address. The GLC might work on a report that documents all the issues that we’re discussing: dredging needs, climate change variability, declining water levels, effects on the maritime industry and ports/harbors, etc. What do you think from a policy perspective that we ought to do about low water levels? A (Alvey): It depends where you come from geographically. If you’re in the mid-lakes (Michigan-Huron), there are different issues (depending on the lake bottom). We have to come up with new funding solutions. Q: There are services that nature can provide to address some of these issues. The GLC might call the question. There’s so much Great Lakes research underway. How do we give voice to what the REAL issues are? How can the states deal with these problems in a more collective way? Dredging is just a unique case of sediment management. A (Shusterich): Lots of studies have been done. What can we glean from the data that already exists? Dredging isn’t an end-all solution. The entire topic needs an all-encompassing workplan. Q: Why do shippers continue to pay the HMTF tax if we’re not getting the benefits? Is there really a $7B budget surplus or has it been expended elsewhere in the treasury? It’s going to take more than just money to solve these issues. Comment (Alvey): Legislators need to change their perspective. Shippers view things water to land. Most people view it the opposite way.

15) Chairman Johnson introduced the panel on Great Lakes legislative priorities. Chris Adamo from Sen. Stabenow’s office discussed the Farm Bill. Several Farm Bill versions have been negotiated. The Conservation Title of the Farm Bill is one of the largest sources of conservation-oriented spending in the government. Prioritizing dollars to specific priority watersheds is the direction the Farm Bill wants to go. The Maumee River, for example, has been a work in progress for several years. The shotgun approach through the Farm Bill is not working. The Farm Bill also hopes to leverage more corporate, foundation and other dollars. We must always have buy-in from the landowners. We need to have incentives in place for landowners to get involved. Looking at the western basin of Lake Erie, for example, there are dozens of academic institutions getting involved but there needs to be an incentive to string together these projects with a more focused approach to solving problems. Sarah Walter, from the office of Sen. Mark Kirk, discussed a brief history of the GLRI and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. The GLRI is the most comprehensive federal Great Lakes program that we’ve had in the last 20 years. However, Congress has never formally authorized the GLRI or the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. Many in Congress see the importance of this formal authorization. Senators Levin and Kirk, therefore, are drafting the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act (GLEPA), which will formally authorize the GLRI, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program office, and other programs. The cooperation has been

12

integral to delisting several Areas of Concern, most recently Presque Isle Bay on Lake Erie. There’s still a lot of uncertainty about the rest of FY13 funding. While the Great Lakes programs will need to be addressed within fiscal constraints, showing the results that these programs have had on a local level will be increasingly important. Emphasizing the economic impacts is critical to illustrate to members of Congress. Alice Yates, from the office of Sen. Carl Levin, discussed better collaboration, partnerships and leveraging. All of these words illustrate using taxpayer dollars wisely and showing results. 139 federal projects are currently underway in the Great Lakes region and more than 100 miles of breakwaters and jetties. Sen. Levin, for the third time, has introduced legislation to reform the HMTF to ensure that fees are used for their intended purpose (harbor maintenance). 32 co-sponsors have so far been secured. More than 75 percent of the Great Lakes delegation has endorsed the legislation. We need to remind people how critical the Great Lakes navigation system is as part of the larger, national network. It’ll be important to increase efficiencies in the WRDA bill. Two hearings have so far been held. Sen. Gillibrand (NY) is on the EPW Committee (the only representative from the Great Lakes). Yates complimented the GLC and its partners on its list of shared legislative priorities. Q: How do we avoid the trap of maximizing our ag acreage to meet future needs? A (Adamo): Market forces will drive farmers. Make sure the folks who are planting have a conservation plan in place. We shouldn’t be paying people to plow up wetlands and other protected areas. It’s a multifaceted solution. We aren’t going to stop farmers from planting. Q: Many don’t want to see dredging as a priority activity of USACE because it will take away from other restoration activities. How do we address this? A (Yates): If the ceiling for USACE isn’t adjusted, there will be problems. The bill does not say that those caps on spending must remain. The USACE ceiling would need to be increased. Perhaps it could be a phased in approach. Signing onto the bill signifies that fairness is needed in how the HMTF revenues are distributed and for what purpose. Comment: Let us know if there are ways the GLC could help to educate your congressional peers. Comment (Adamo): There are lots of ways to advocate. There are many fly-ins in March. The Great Lakes come in once per year. But what’s more important is what happens when you return home. There needs to be follow up with congressional staff to educate them on Great Lakes issues. We need to learn this stuff. Being there and seeing the projects is very important. There’s a difference between a member co-signing a bill and fully engaging with their constituents and being knowledgeable about the needs back home. Comment (Walter): You need to sell the economic impacts. Comment (Yates): The Great Lakes advocates are a powerful force and you are making a difference. Yates congratulated the GLC on the more than 40-year history of the Great Lakes Day events in Washington, D.C.

16) Rep. Slaughter could not attend the GLC meetings in person but sent a video message.

17) Chairman Johnson invited the Commission family to Milwaukee, Wis., for the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, to be held Sept. 9, 2013, in conjunction with Great Lakes Week. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was present and provided a personal invitation to visit Milwaukee for these important events.

A motion to adjourn was made by Illinois, second by Michigan. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim Eder /cm

1

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors

Conference Call Minutes July 18, 2013

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. EDT by Ken Johnson, chair. The following members were present on the call:

Jon Allan - Michigan Jim Zehringer, Karl Gebhardt - Ohio Ranissah Samah (for Bill Carr) - Ontario Lori Boughton (for Kelly Burch) - Pennsylvania Ken Johnson, Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen.

1) Chairman Johnson welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda.

2) Minutes: Chairman Johnson called for approval of the minutes from the Board’s June 20, 2013, conference call. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Boughton (PA), seconded by Commissioner Allan (MI). The motion was unanimously approved.

3) GLRI comments: EPA has thanked the GLC for the GLRI recommendations that it submitted on July 12. Commissioner Steve Galarneau (WI), a member of the Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB), noted that the GLC should persist in its messaging to EPA. Eder has invited Cam Davis to speak at the GLC’s Annual Meeting in Milwaukee to respond more directly to the GLC’s recommendations. Galarneau offered to carry messages to the GLAB on behalf of the states and GLC.

4) Annual Meeting 2013: Chairman Johnson noted that a field trip has been added to the agenda on Sunday, Sept. 8, to visit the Sheboygan River Area of Concern. The trip will be hosted by Wisconsin DNR. The Sheboygan AOC is in recovery and Johnson encouraged all Commissioners to attend. He reminded board members that the Annual Meeting this year will be a one-day event. A discussion on the Waukesha water withdrawal application to the State of Wisconsin will take place. Dan Duchniak of the Waukesha Water Utility will speak. The Waukesha discussion will be interesting to our Commissioners since it will be the first test of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. A water levels panel will feature Scudder Mackey, Ohio Coastal Program Manager; Dan Injerd, Illinois Dept of Natural Resources; Roger Gauthier, Restore Our Waters International (formerly with USACE and GLC); and Wendy Leger, Environment Canada. Commissioner Allan (MI) will moderate the water levels session. This panel will be more discussion-oriented with a lot of Q/A. A final panel discussion will focus on innovative state/provincial programs. For example, the State of Wisconsin is implementing new phosphorus standards, the State of Michigan is doing a lot of groundwater monitoring and modeling, etc. The presentations will be brief (~10 minutes each) and grouped together by theme. Eder asked the jurisdictions to nominate themselves to participate if they have innovative programs to share. Ohio requested to be included in the discussion to discuss agriculture practices. Vice Chair Kelly Burch (PA) will be asked to moderate this session. Commissioner Allan mentioned that another potential topic could be infrastructure issues (drinking/wastewater as well as physical infrastructure, docks, piers, etc). Ontario, apparently,

2

has an innovative program on public financing of infrastructure. Associate Commissioner Samah will check with the Ontario ministries for more details on this. Action: Eder will distribute additional guidance to the Board and ask for speaker nominations. Engaging additional commissioners (non-Board members) is encouraged. Chairman Johnson discussed Observer comments. New guidelines have been drafted and provided to Observers. The idea is to make this session more efficient and informative. Observers are invited to submit written comments (not to exceed two pages) prior to the meeting. Oral remarks for each Observer agency will be limited to three minutes. Recent or upcoming Observer activities that are highly relevant to the priorities of the Commission member states and provinces are welcome. Recitation of Observer agency mission statements, ongoing priorities, programs and projects will be strongly discouraged. Eder reported that a nominating committee will be formed to inform the GLC election process. It is hoped that the current officers will be reappointed, if there is mutual interest. Five abstracts for potential resolution topics and action items were provided to the Board for review.

• Priorities for the Great Lakes Navigation System in the Federal Water Resources Development Act The proposed resolution would articulate the provisions that the GLC supports in WRDA legislation to support commercial and recreational navigation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River.

• Support for Great Lakes Offshore Wind Demonstration (pilot) Project The proposed resolution would encourage the U.S. Department of Energy to continue to fund offshore wind advanced technology demonstration projects and encourage the DOE to direct some of that funding toward a Great Lakes demonstration project. It would also call for measures to ensure that such a pilot project (LEEDCo project in Lake Erie) is implemented to maximize the opportunity for states and provinces to learn from the project when considering future pilot projects or commercial-scale offshore wind proposals. Commissioner Gebhardt (OH) provided more information on the LEEDCo project. The project started with nine turbines and is now down to 4-5. There is a concern that LeedCo might use this resolution as an endorsement of their project, rather than a general endorsement of more research on the potential for offshore wind development in the Great Lakes. The overarching concern is referencing LEEDCo specifically in the resolution. Eder reminded the Board that although offshore wind is controversial, it is being pursued, and demonstration projects are important for the Great Lakes. Given the concerns, the resolution will move forward for further discussion with these suggestions in mind.

• Preventing Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Pollution in the Great Lakes Ecosystem The proposed resolution would: urge the U.S. Congress to adopt comprehensive national legislation aimed at

minimizing human and ecosystem exposure to PBTs that does not preempt measures at sub-national levels that are more protective of human and environmental health;

support additional governmental policy, private sector actions, and research efforts in the United States and Canada aimed at reducing the manufacture, processing, and use of substances that are known or suspected to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and /or toxic; and

3

urge U.S. and Canadian federal, state and provincial governments to expand capabilities to address and/or prevent chemical pollution and support effective implementation of Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol of 2012 (Chemicals of Mutual Concern).

Commissioner Allan (MI) asked which chemicals we are most concerned with. Eder responded that “persistent, bioaccumulative” chemicals are those being targeted here. The resolution is directed at Congress to get moving on Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform and at those implementing Annex 3 of the new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which focuses on Chemicals of Mutual Concern.

• Rivermouths As Focus Areas for Great Lakes Funding, Restoration and Conservation The proposed resolution would explicitly recognize rivermouths as a vital ecosystem type in the Great Lakes basin. It would call for funding that focuses specifically on these special places that are the nexus of ecological and human productivity. It would further call for a more integrated approach that considers the central role of rivermouths to the health and economic prosperity of the Great Lakes. Eder noted that there isn’t a strong policy recommendation here but recognition of a new concept emerging from the scientific community regarding the importance of riverine ecosystems and the Great Lakes. Commissioner Galarneau (WI) commented that one approach might be to direct the resolution at those doing nearshore monitoring efforts and ask that they target riverine ecosystems and mixing/transition zones to increase the knowledge base in this area.

Action: All the abstracts were approved for further discussion. Staff will proceed in drafting the resolutions.

An issue brief was also proposed on the Transportation of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region. Commissioner Galarneau (WI) noted that the issue brief should also obtain input from the economic community and identify the challenges but also the opportunities. Too many negative concepts should be avoided. A third piece could focus on what mitigates the risks. This would help to deflect some of the polarity on these issues.

5) IJC Great Lakes Water Quality Board: Eder reported that the IJC has proposed restructuring its

Water Quality Board (WQB). A proposal has been drafted, which has been shared with the GLC Board. A concern is that the WQB needs to allow the governments to speak freely to each other, however, still retain the inclusivity of having other non-government groups in the room and participating in these discussions. Eder suggested that the eight states become part of the WQB committee of the whole, not just members on the subcommittee level. Commissioner Boughton (PA) supported the concept that the states still retain seats at the table. Commissioner Allan (MI) noted that the states should not be subordinate to others. WI also agreed with these comments. The states are not just “stakeholders” in this process; the states have sovereign rights and responsibilities. Commissioner Galarneau (WI) asked if part of this has to do with trying to strike a numeric balance between U.S. and Canadian reps on the WQB. Eder agreed that this was part of the concern. Action: Eder will draft a letter in response to the IJC’s latest proposal, citing the concerns of the GLC Board.

6) Monitoring: Commissioner Allan (MI) reported that the Council of Great Lakes Governors passed a

“water monitoring” resolution at the governors’/premiers’ recent summit on Mackinac Island. The CGLG has asked the GLC to take on this task, which includes creating a workgroup and developing

4

recommendations for the governors and premiers to consider. The GLC will pursue this research with these questions in mind: 1) what do we need/want to monitor?; 2) what are we monitoring now? and 3) what gaps are there? Eder said the deadline is March 28, 2014, to get this report to the CGLG. Several workshops and focused discussions will be pursued by the GLC. Commissioner Allan suggested that non-environmental organizations and corporations (e.g., Fedex) may offer some views and visions that the Great Lakes discussions may benefit from.

7) Great Lakes legislation: The Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (GLEEPA) will be introduced in the U.S. House on Monday, July 22. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate on June 26. Rep. Dave Joyce from Ohio’s 14th District will be introducing the legislation. A local event will be held in Ohio and the GLC will be issuing a news release on this topic. The legislation would formally authorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act; establish an Interagency Task Force to coordinate federal Great Lakes programs and a Great Lakes Advisory Board to secure input and guidance from regional stakeholders; and authorize U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office.

8) Upcoming Meetings:

• Aug. 15, Board meeting, 10 a.m. EDT • Sept. 9, Annual Meeting in Milwaukee

The meeting adjourned at 11:02 a.m.


Tim A. Eder Executive Director /cm

1


Conference Call Minutes June 20, 2013

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. EDT by Ken Johnson (WI), chair. The following members were present on the call:

Jon Allan - Michigan Jim Tierney - New York Don Zelazny - New York Karl Gebhardt - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Lori Boughton - Pennsylvania Ken Johnson, Chair - Wisconsin Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, and Matt Doss Ken Johnson called the meeting to order and reviewed the agenda. He informed the Board that the

purpose of the call was to review the draft correspondence to EPA on the GLRI Action plan, review the draft agenda for the 2013 Annual Meeting, and discuss the GLC position on proposed Great Lakes navigation legislation and a brief update on federal legislation.

Agenda items:

1) Minutes Chairman Johnson called for approval of the minutes from the Board’s May 16, 2013

conference call. Approval of the minutes was moved by Tierney (NY) and seconded by Allan (MI). One minor amendment to the draft minutes was suggested by Tierney. The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.

2) Draft recommendations on the GLRI Action Plan Johnson and Tim Eder led a discussion regarding

the submittal of draft recommendations on the GLRI Action Plan. Eder provided some background and history on the preparation of the recommendations stating that the staff had reached out to all of the states to provide comments and input on the Action Plan. Eder explained that the recommendations were listed as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The Tier 1 recommendations were those indentified by multiple states and considered the most important. The Tier 2 recommendations were those that were identified by a single state or considered controversial and not easily presented for consensus by the states. Lengthy discussion occurred with the following summary points raised by the Board members: • The Tier 1 comments were generally agreed upon in principal by the Board members present. • A preamble will be written that presents the overarching recommendations and builds a case for

the need for states to be fuller partners with EPA in the implementation of the GLRI. • Several clarifying comments were offered to help strengthen the points raised including building

in the programmatic concepts of climate change and resiliency. • The issue of nutrient management and phosphorus reduction needs to be mentioned and

strengthened in several of the bullet points.

2

• The importance of sustain funding especially for programs related to AIS prevention and control was mentioned.

• The importance of in-kind contributions being part of the nonfederal match was raised. • The LaMPs were mentioned in the context of ongoing implementation of the GLRI. • Wastewater infrastructure and the use of GLRI for hardship needs and to fill gaps not covered

under the revolving loan fund program were considered a priority. Action: Eder and Doss will work with the Board on a revised draft to be sent back out for review by June 28th. Comments will be submitted to EPA by the deadline of July 12th.

3) Review of 2013 Annual Meeting Eder introduced the Board to the 2013 Annual Meeting agenda. Eder mentioned that the meeting will be held over a single day on September 9. Eder presented two topics for discussion. First was a proposed panel session on water levels and living with fluctuating lake levels to include a point-counterpoint discussion on the issues surrounding management options for the St. Clair River. The second item was a proposed state/provincial roundtable focused on innovative approaches to policy and management challenges. Jurisdictions would participate in one or more pre-selected topics to allow the states/provinces to share priorities and lessons learned.

Action: The Board approved both of these suggested agenda items and directed Eder to move

forward in the planning process. 4) GLC position and support for Great Lakes Navigation Legislation Eder provided an overview of a

bill introduced by Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-MI) called the Great Lakes Navigation System Sustainability Act (HR 2273). The bill authorizes the Great Lakes Navigation System (GLNS) as a single integrated system; authorizes ups to $200 million for Great Lakes Navigation needs; and creates a cost-share program for dredging recreational harbors. Eder commented that the bill is supported by the Great Lakes Maritime Task Force, the Great Lakes Metro Chambers of Commerce Coalition, the Lake Carriers’ Association, the American Great Lakes Ports Association and the Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition. He also mentioned that to date, 11 members of Congress had signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Eder recommended that GLC should support the bill and authorize the staff to write letters communicating GLC support. After brief discussion, it was suggested that additional time to review the bill and discuss with the governors’ offices would be helpful to a few of the member states.

Action: Board members will communicate with Eder by June 28 whether their state supports the bill. 5) Legislative Update Eder and Johnson suggested postponing the legislative update as several of the

Board members had other pressing commitments following the call.

6) Next Call and Adjournment The next Board call will be July 18, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. EDT. With no further business, the call was adjourned by Chairman Johnson at 11:00 a.m.

Respectfully submitted, Tim A. Eder, Executive Director /tc

1


Conference Call Minutes May 16, 2013

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. EDT by Ken Johnson, chair. The following members were present on the call:

Todd Main, Stephanie Comer - Illinois Jon Allan - Michigan Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Karl Gebhardt (for Jim Zehringer) - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Eric Marquis - Québec Ken Johnson - Wisconsin Staff present: Tim Eder, Victoria Pebbles, Christine Manninen, Tom Crane, Matt Doss, Joe Bertram (via

phone).

1) Chairman Johnson welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda. Tim Eder suggested adding an agenda item on the governors’ summit, if time permits.

2) Minutes: Chairman Johnson called for approval of the minutes from the Board’s April 25, 2013, conference call. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Tierney (NY), seconded by Commissioner Allan (MI). The motion was unanimously approved.

3) GLC Budget FY 2014: A conference call, open to all commissioners, was held on May 10 to present the draft FY2014 budget. Six commissioners participated. A question was raised regarding the federal sequestration. The GLC’s draft budget, presented today for approval, has been reviewed previously by the Board, the Finance Committee and the larger pool of commissioners. A motion to approve the GLC’s FY2014 budget was made by Commissioner Tierney (NY), seconded by Commissioner Main (IL). The motion was unanimously approved. Eder described a new demonstration farm network project and referred to a memo in the Board packets. USDA-NRCS has additional FY2013 monies and would like to partner with the GLC on creating a network of demonstration farms. WI State Conservationist Jimmy Bramlett is suggesting the Lower Fox River basin as a potential pilot area. Eder advised the board that a GLC budget amendment will need to be made if this opportunity moves forward. As a companion project, Chairman Johnson suggested a forum where best management practices could be shared. Commissioner Tierney noted that significant pollutant reductions can come from best practices being employed on farms. Commissioner Allan said he spent a day in the field last week with The Nature Conservancy in northern Indiana and was highly impressed with the water quality practices being employed there. Tom Crane noted that a regional steering committee will be established to guide the proposed projects so all states will be involved. Within that framework, NRCS will likely be supportive of a regional forum for sharing best management practices. Crane explained that the goal is to push information in both directions. The provinces will also be involved, even though this is a U.S.-led activity. Commissioner Tierney referenced similar, successful partnerships that New York State has with Vermont (Lake Champlain) and Chesapeake Bay. Eder suggested that the GLWQA

2

Annex 4 (Nutrients) would be another way to engage the provinces. The consensus was that this is a rich topic for a workshop. Chairman Johnson noted that there are farmer-led groups in Wisconsin trying to engage the agriculture community in best ideas for nutrient reduction. Engaging the producers themselves is an important way to get buy-in from the community.

4) Chief Information Officer position: Eder provided some history about the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN), which the GLC created and has maintained for the region since 1993. Eder noted that the increasing focus on “big data” is an opportunity for the GLC to be a leader again in this area and augment data integration and mapping services to benefit its Member states/provinces. Eder requested that the board approve establishing a committee to work on planning for filling this senior level position, which has been vacant since the retirement of Roger Gauthier in 2011. The Board voiced support for the idea and provided authorization to proceed. Eder will engage Commissioners Allan, Main and Chairman Johnson in these planning discussions. Chairman Johnson asked for some background on the Friends of the Great Lakes Endowment, which the GLC previously initiated in the late 1990s. Eder explained that when the previous Great Lakes Basin Commission disbanded it passed some reserves to the Great Lakes Commission. Previous GLC Executive Director Michael Donahue, consequently, set up the Friends of the Great Lakes Endowment, shortly after the last dues increase for states. The thought was that an endowment could help to sustain and build GLC reserves rather than continually asking for dues increases. Several years later, Board members reconsidered this plan and ended the endowment.

5) Water levels and IJC recommendations: Eder led a discussion regarding water level fluctuations and how they will likely be a continuing challenge for the region as we experience increasing climate variability. The recent IJC Upper Great Lakes Study recommendations suggest that an investigation should take place to explore the possibility of structures in the St. Clair River to restore water levels on lakes Michigan-Huron. Eder and the staff have been thinking about ways that the GLC can contribute to this dialogue and educating people about the need to live and adapt to changing water levels. Eder suggested that a GLC resolution might be drafted for consideration at its 2013 Annual Meeting. Chairman Johnson said that Wisconsin has been in a continual drought for the past four years. There are a variety of reasons that water levels have declined. Commissioner Allan said that discussing water level variability is important for the GLC to continue promoting and reminding people that one single structure (in the St. Clair River or elsewhere) will not solve all the problems. Commissioner Tierney noted that Lake Ontario is highly regulated but it’s a cautionary tale. Eder suggested that another panel discussion on this topic might be held at the September 2013 Annual Meeting.

6) Update on legislation: Eder reported that the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) passed in

the Senate yesterday. The WRDA bill was very controversial because it sought to streamline the Corps of Engineers’ decisionmaking process. Senator Boxer (CA) came up with ideas for streamlining the environmental review process, which received a lot of pushback from the environmental community. The GLC did not express a position on this matter. Matt Doss discussed the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund amendments, which were debated as part of WRDA. The GLC has been a long-time advocate for using these funds for their intended purposed, including dredging. The GLC also supported a provision that would manage the Great Lakes as a coordinated system. The final bill does increase authorized spending for harbor maintenance to $1B for FY2013, compared to about $875K in FY2012. Doss explained that progress has been made but the battle isn’t won yet. The bill also authorizes a 20 percent set-aside for the Great Lakes for funding above the FY2012 level. The GLC will keep advocating for these provisions in the House version of the bill. The Farm Bill also passed out of the Senate Committee on May 16. Eder and Doss will visit D.C. in early June to continue advocacy efforts.

3

7) GLRI Action Plan – Phase II: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan is going through a public review. Eder would like to conduct an informal poll of the Board and assemble a short list of recommendations, as was previously done with the Legacy Act evaluation. Public comment sessions, hosted by EPA, will be hosted throughout the region. Commissioner Tierney suggested that block grants be again considered since it’s very costly to administer numerous smaller grants. Tierney also said that the GLRI metrics are very arcane and in need of improvement. Tierney suggested that the GLC might try a more forceful method of communicating with EPA. Eder will work with Commissioner Steve Galarneau (WI) who is on the Great Lakes Advisory Board (GLAB) so he can relay the GLC’s recommendations in this forum. Eder will share notes from all the previous conversations that the GLC has had with Cam Davis, Susan Hedman and other EPA officials.

8) Additional discussion on the governors’ summit was tabled.

9) Upcoming Meetings: • June 20, Board meeting, 10 a.m. EDT

The meeting adjourned at 11 a.m.



1


Conference Call Minutes April 25, 2013

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. EST by Ken Johnson, chair. The following members were present on the call:

Todd Main (for Marc Miller) - Illinois Jon Allan - Michigan Jim Tierney - New York Jim Zehringer - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Herb Packer (for Kelly Burch) - Pennsylvania Kerith Iverson-Vosters (for Eric Marquis) - Québec Ken Johnson, Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen, Matt Doss, Victoria Pebbles.


2) Minutes: Chairman Johnson called for approval of the minutes from the Board’s Feb. 13, 2013, conference call. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Carr (ON), seconded by Commissioner Allan (MI). The motion was unanimously approved. GLC Budget FY 2014: Tim Eder reported that the budget must be approved prior to July 1, which is the start of the GLC’s fiscal year. It was reviewed by the Finance Committee (Commissioners Burch and Bennett) on April 9. The budget is substantially higher, due mainly to two new-start projects: a) Partnership with USDA-NRCS to design a phosphorus trading program in the Lower Fox River (approx. $600K), and b) Partnership with NOAA on a new $30M habitat restoration project. Both are three-year projects. Other changes to the budget are minimal, including a 2.5 percent pool for salary increases for staff, a small decrease in office rent, and some equipment budget for a new color printer. A conference call with the Finance Committee and all Commissioners will be held (per the GLC bylaws) to approve the budget in coming weeks. The Board approved this timetable. Commissioner Tierney asked if additional staff will be hired, given the increase in the budget. Eder responded that a second Sea Grant Fellow (one-year position) will be hired but, otherwise, the workload will be managed without hiring additional full-time, permanent staff. Commissioner Allan questioned how the salary increases are accommodated for. Eder and Tom Crane explained that Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increases are built into new project budgets for staff. Commissioner Tierney asked what the GLC reserves are totaling. Eder reported that the reserves total $1.3M as of March 2013. The question arose if state dues might be decreased in the FY2015 budget, given that the GLC’s budget is strong. Eder noted that this will merit some serious discussion. Although the state dues are a small portion of the GLC budget, these funds are critically important to the advocacy and communications functions of the GLC. Commissioner Tierney noted that the GLC’s dues are a tremendous deal for the states based on the return on investment, as compared to other regional commissions. Eder said that the GLC budget has fluctuated a lot during his tenure, but the majority of the GLC budget returns to the states via grants and contracts. Crane reminded the Board that the

2

staff sends out annual “Return on Investment” letters that analyze how GLC dollars are spent and returned to the states.

3) GLC Semiannual Meeting (SAM) & Great Lakes Day: Eder explained the GLC doesn’t distribute a formal meeting evaluation form to its meeting participants, however the staff always evaluates the meetings and looks for ways to improve. One of the perennial challenges is managing the Observer comments. Eder presented the revised copy of the Roles and Responsibilities of Observers. New items have been added suggesting that the Observers who present at the GLC meetings keep their comments brief and on point and provide written comments, if possible. A timer will be used at future meetings in order to limit the length of the Observer oral remarks at the meetings. Commissioner Allan asked if an Observer might petition the GLC if they have a special topic that they would like to speak in more detail on. Eder suggested that this would probably be difficult to manage because many – if not most -- Observers would want to take advantage of this option. Chairman Johnson supported having an auditory beeper/buzzer. He discouraged the reciting of mission statements by the Observers. Commissioner Zelazny said when testimony is given, a timer is always used, so there is a precedent for this. Inviting Observers to submit written comments for the record is ideal. Eder will revise the section on “Observer Comments at GLC Meetings” to reflect and add emphasis to these additional Board suggestions. Eder reminded the Board of Commissioner Helen Taylor’s comments suggesting that speakers at GLC meetings focus their comments and encourage more discussion among the GLC Commissioners. For future meetings, the staff could suggest some questions that Commissioners could ask the speakers to prod the discussion. Eder thanked the Board members for their participation in the GLC’s Semiannual Meeting and Great Lakes Day events in Washington in March 2013.

4) Legislation: President Obama’s budget was released in early April. For FY2014, the President recommended $300M for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, along with more than 30% hits to the Clean ($1B for FY14) and Safe Drinking Water revolving funds. Eder noted that sometimes these programs do get “plussed up” by Congress. Commissioner Allan asked if the states carry SRF balances forward year to year. Commissioner Tierney reported that yes, the funds are definitely carried forward (acts as a bank) but, sadly, the unmet needs are well beyond what is available for loans. Commissioner Main reported that in Illinois SRF funds are bonded out to create more revenue. The Environmental Facilities Corporation in New York is another creative financing option. Commissioner Main suggested that the GLC explore new creative, innovative options for state financing of these programs and paradigm shifts as computer processing costs fall (i.e., big data computations can be done on a desktop). Also, the region isn’t focusing on supporting infrastructure needs as it should. Commissioner Packer noted that Florida has a similar program for their ports as NY does with their Environmental Facilities Corporation. The GLC’s Economic Committee has been focusing more on navigation rather than infrastructure needs. Eder reported that the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is finally getting addressed in the Senate, however, the deep draft ports’ interests are trying to prioritize the HMTF revenues for deep-draft port maintenance. The GLC was asked to weigh in on short notice but declined to support any specific policy position at the time. One amendment that has some merit is designating the Great Lakes as the “Great Lakes Navigation System” and treating the system as a whole rather than interconnected parts. Eder asked for the Board’s guidance on how to proceed. Chairman Johnson suggested that the GLC be aggressive and develop a letter to weigh in on these issues. Commissioner Packer noted that the coastal ports in the U.S. seem to have the most clout, but these ports don’t really have dredging needs. Given this, the GLC should be aggressive on these issues. Eder suggested that the staff draft a letter to the Great Lakes Senate Delegation. The GLC’s Economic Committee and Board will be asked to review it and provide input. Commissioner Packer recommended that Rep. Bill Schuster (PA), chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, should receive

3

the letter, as well. Rep. Candice Miller (MI) who is also providing leadership. Eder will draft the letter and give the Board a week to review.

5) Update on New Funding and Projects: This discussion was tabled.

6) Governors’/Premiers’ Summit, May 30-June 1 on Mackinac Island: Commissioners Allan (MI) and

Main (IL) encouraged GLC Board members to provide input to their governors to encourage attendance. If the governors themselves cannot attend, they need to be helpful in providing a designate to participate and represent their governor’s office. Bill Ford is confirmed as a keynote. Mark Tercek, CEO of The Nature Conservancy, is confirmed. Speakers from Dow and Fednav are also invited.

7) GLRI Phase II: A review/update of the GLRI Action Plan is in process. Eder will be in touch with more details.


• May 16, Board meeting 10 a.m. EDT • June 20, Board meeting 10 a.m. EDT

The meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m.



1


Conference Call Minutes Feb. 13, 2013

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. EST by Ken Johnson, chair. The following members were present on the call:

Todd Main - Illinois Jon Allan - Michigan Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Jim Zehringer, Karl Gebhardt - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Kelly Burch - Pennsylvania Eric Marquis - Québec Ken Johnson, Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin Staff present: Tim Eder, Christine Manninen, Tom Crane, Matt Doss, Victoria Pebbles (via phone).


2) Minutes: Chairman Johnson called for approval of the minutes from the Board’s Jan. 17, 2013, conference call. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Zehringer (OH), seconded by Commissioner Allan (MI). The motion was unanimously approved.

3) GLC Semiannual Meeting & Great Lakes Day: Eder reported that the Waukesha session on the Semiannual Meeting agenda has been deleted. Chairman Johnson said that he expects a three-month delay in the Waukesha diversion proposal review process as the Wisconsin DNR is still working on completing its Environmental Impact Statement, which needs to be forwarded to the Council of Great Lakes Governors. An Asian carp panel has been added to the agenda to replace the Waukesha panel. Rep. Louise Slaughter (NY) is confirmed to deliver the keynote address on Wednesday, March 6. The Great Lakes Protection Fund is again hosting a dinner on the evening of Tuesday, March 5. All Commissioners, Associate Commissioners and Alternates are invited. Commissioners should only RSVP if they can not attend. The Great Lakes Day breakfast this year is being held at the Capitol Visitors’ Center. About a half dozen members of Congress have already RSVPed to attend the Great Lakes Day breakfast. Eder reminded everyone to arrive early at the Capitol to ensure ample time for security clearance. He also noted that visitors can’t bring any luggage or large bags into the visitors’ center so people will need to plan accordingly. The Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition has reserved a church basement nearby where luggage can be stored, if necessary.

4) Resolutions: The Board discussed the final drafts of the four resolutions, which will be considered at the GLC Semiannual Meeting. RESOLUTION #1. Cooperative and Flexible Nonpoint Source Conservation Programs to Sustain a Healthy Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: Chairman Johnson commented on the second Resolve clause. He recommended changing consistent to “innovative” and removing “and cooperative.” The new wording for this Resolve clause will be: Be it Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission is committed to working with its member states and provinces and agricultural interests to develop

2

innovative solutions to the problems associated with agricultural runoff and excessive nutrient loadings. In the last Resolve clause, Chairman Johnson suggested adding: “supports stable or, preferably enhanced, funding.” The new wording for this Resolve clause will be: Be it Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission supports stable, or preferably enhanced, funding to the Great Lakes states under the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program to support the states’ efforts in areas related to technical assistance, financial assistance, education, technology transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. There was some discussion of the proposed federal appropriations sequestration, which may reduce funding by 7-9 percent across the board. RESOLUTION #2. Sustaining Environmental Restoration and Economic Revitalization: Great Lakes Commission Federal Priorities for 2013: Eder suggested changing FY 2014 in the title to “2013” to avoid confusion. For brevity, Commissioner Zelazny suggested deleting the last Whereas clause. Commissioner Gebhardt suggested, in first Resolve clause, changing Fiscal Year 2014 to “2013” so it matches the title. In the first Resolve clause, second bullet: Eder suggested that we not mention the name of a specific piece of legislation or bill number because these things could change. He suggested this wording: “Passing comprehensive Great Lakes legislation that would formally authorize…” Commissioner Allan suggested that language be added that recommends that federal agencies have base funding to support Asian carp control, etc. Eder suggested that this be an added Resolve clause.

The wording of the fifth bullet will be changed to: Providing funding for the Clean Water SRF to repair and enhance collection and waste treatment systems to prevent the release of nutrients that contribute to harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes, and providing support for the Safe Drinking Water SRF.

Chairman Johnson had comments about the fourth bullet related to harbor maintenance. Staff will adjust this language to recommend that revenues from the HMTF be spent for their intended purpose. Johnson also suggested that the HMTF revenues not go to the Corps of Engineers but to an independent grant program for states and local jurisdictions to support harbor maintenance. Related to the same bullet, Johnson noted that many boat access ramps are run by municipalities and, technically, aren’t part of a Great Lakes harbor. Eder explained that the HMTF only provides support for commercial harbors that serve up to 1 million tons of cargo per year. Many of these harbors are also used for recreational purposes. However, it’s probably not realistic to think that the HMTF will be a source of revenue for other municipal access points. Commissioner Allan reported that Michigan is spending $21M this year for grants and aids to communities for dredging projects in lakes Michigan and Huron. The needs are great in many jurisdictions, especially on lakes Michigan and Huron. Eder reminded the Board that this resolution mirrors the content in the GLC’s 2013 federal appropriations priorities document, which was previously approved by the Board. Chairman Johnson asked the staff to consider adding another bullet to this resolution addressing recreational access.

3

RESOLUTION #3. Advancing Phase II of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Passing Comprehensive Great Lakes Legislation: Eder suggested the first Resolve clause be reworded to recognize that EPA is the lead but works in conjunction with other federal agencies. Wording could be: Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Great Lakes Commission calls on U.S. EPA to develop, along with other federal agencies, an extended timeframe for the second phase of the GLRI… Commissioner Zelazny asked whether the IJC’s Science Advisory Board will be consulted. Eder said that they likely will be but the Science Advisory Board specifically mentioned in this Resolve clause refers to the U.S. EPA’s Science Advisory Board. To differentiate, this will be reworded, as follows: …including recommendations from the Great Lakes Commission, the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board and other partners, and that this be done in close consultation with the Great Lakes states, the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation, the International Joint Commission and other regional partners. In the second Resolve clause, Commissioner Tierney suggested that the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act be replaced with “comprehensive Great Lakes protection legislation” (to be consistent with previous edits on Resolution #2). RESOLUTION #4. Advancing Federal-State Cooperation to Reduce Nutrient-related Water Quality Impairments in the Great Lakes: This resolution stops short of calling on the states or EPA to develop nutrient standards. The resolution, essentially, calls for EPA and the states to work together to consider the development of nutrient standards. Eder suggested striking the sixth Whereas clause as it seems very negative with regard to developing nutrient standards. Discussion followed. Chairman Johnson said that this draft resolution has gone in a different direction than he anticipated when he first proposed it. He said a numeric standard (1mg/L) is being used in WI but 0.6 mg/L is probably feasible. He said he supports a call for developing numeric standards in conjunction with biological standards/verification. Site-specific water quality standards should also be recommended. Commissioner Tierney suggested tabling this resolution for now and perhaps even folding in some of the work of the GLC’s Phosphorus Task Force. Eder and the Board agreed with this approach. GLC Program Director Victoria Pebbles, who authored the resolution, suggested that other factors, such as the role of mussels in nutrient processing, should also be considered. Commissioner Allan suggested that we should recognize the binational collaborative approach, as well. He also suggested that we be clear about who the target audience is for this resolution. Are we asking EPA to do something? Chairman Johnson suggested that a subcommittee be formed. Commissioner Allan suggested convening a longer dialogue with the state water quality managers on this topic. The resolution was tabled for further discussion at a future Board meeting.

5) Legacy Act recommendations: Eder reminded the Board that five years ago when the Legacy Act was last being reauthorized, the GLC provided a similar set of recommendations. The recipients of these recommendations would be congressional committees and EPA. These recommendations will likely not get addressed in specific legislation, including the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act. During the drafting process of this document, GLC Policy Director Matt Doss convened representatives from all states to provide input to these recommendations. Doss explained two elements for Board discussion:

• The cost-share requirement can become a significant obstacle. The GLC, in the past, has called on EPA to reduce or remove the cost-share requirement. This may, however, be a tough sell to Congress as they generally encourage cost-share requirements.

4

• Some states are concerned that opening the Legacy Act to non-AOC sites could draw limited funding away from cleanup needs in the existing AOCs. This could also be viewed as inconsistent with the call for a higher funding authorization to address unmet needs in AOCs.

Commissioner Tierney suggested that identifying certain sites as “hardship sites” might be a way to soften the EPA’s cost-share requirement. Commissioners Galarneau and Tierney also noted that sites that are nearby AOCs (but not formally within the boundaries of the federally designed AOC) are often large sources of contaminated sediments. They suggested that some flexibility be built in to the Act language to accommodate for this.

Commissioner Zelazny noted that about $50M of the ~$300M in annual GLRI funding is designated as Great Lakes Legacy Act funding. Doss confirmed that these numbers are correct. EPA may have some latitude to use even more than $50M for Legacy Act cleanups in the future. Given this, Zelazny expressed concern that the Legacy Act funding may further dilute the GLRI funding pot, since some expensive Legacy Act projects are being teed up by EPA GLNPO. Eder reminded the Board that we need to act now if we want to influence the current Legacy Act reauthorization process. We only get this opportunity every five years. Doss noted that increasing the authorized Legacy Act funding to $150M/year is one of the more significant changes that are anticipated. Eder explained that in the Levin/Kirk legislation (GLEPA), this funding would be separate from the GLRI funding. Congress’s intent, at this time, is to have separate authorizations for the GLRI and Legacy Act funding. Eder suggested deleting recommendation #6, which relates to long-term maintenance of remediation sites, as this could draw limited funds away from remaining cleanup needs in AOCs. The remaining board members on the call agreed, pending further discussion with their water quality staff. Doss will let Commissioner Gebhardt know who from the Ohio staff he spoke to. The board will have until Tuesday, Feb. 19, to provide any further comments.

6) GLRI Phase II: This discussion was tabled due to lack of time on today’s call.


• GLC Semiannual Annual Meeting and Great Lakes Day: March 5-7, Washington, D.C. • GLC Annual Meeting: September 9 (in conjunction with Great Lakes Week), Milwaukee, WI

A motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Allan (MI), seconded by Commissioner Tierney (NY). The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.



Action Items

• Resolution – Priorities for the Great Lakes navigation system in the federal Water Resources Development Act: This resolution recognizes the growing dredging backlog on the Great Lakes which is impeding commercial and recreational navigation, causing economic hardship, and increasing risks to human health and safety. The resolution calls on the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation to ensure new WRDA legislation includes provisions that restore, maintain and strengthen the economic vitality of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Navigation System for commercial and recreational transportation, including designation of the Great Lakes Navigation System as a single, integrated system; providing a dedicated authorization for Great Lakes maritime infrastructure; and creating a cost share program for recreational harbors.

• Resolution – Support for Great Lakes offshore wind demonstration (pilot) projects: This resolution recognizes that deployment and operation of wind turbines in the Great Lakes presents unique circumstances that require study and evaluation and research, and a demonstration (pilot) project is the most direct means of assessing potential environmental impacts, and evaluating economic viability and opportunities for job creation involving offshore wind projects.

• Resolution – Preventing pollution from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem: This resolution urges the U.S. Congress to adopt comprehensive national legislation aimed at minimizing human and ecosystem exposure to PBTs through reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and urges the U.S. and Canadian federal governments to develop, in consultation with states and provinces, effective programs to prevent pollution from PBTs through Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol of 2012 (Chemicals of Mutual Concern).

• Resolution – Recognizing rivermouths: Places vital to the Great Lakes basin that deserve focused restoration and conservation: This resolution urges the U.S. Congress and U.S and Canadian federal agencies to explicitly recognize the ecological importance of rivermouths when funding and administering existing environmental restoration programs and when designing and implementing environmental conservation programs; and urges the Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the International Joint Commission to explicitly address rivermouths and the future of rivermouth ecosystems and the communities that depend on them as part of implementation of Annex 1 (Areas of Concern) and Annex 2 (Lakewide Management) of the Agreement.

• Action Item – Preparation of an issue brief on the transportation of crude oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region: The rapid development of the Bakken oil reserves and the Alberta oil sands have created some challenges in areas related to protection of water supplies, the need to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and sewage systems, stresses on government services and especially impacts related to the transportation of crude oil and tar sands from the western fields to the eastern part of the continent. This action item directs Great Lakes Commission staff to prepare an issue brief evaluating the potential economic benefits, risks and options for mitigating risks surrounding the transportation of crude oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region.

RESOLUTION - DRAFT Priorities for the Great Lakes navigation system in

the federal Water Resources Development Act Whereas, there are 140 federally authorized ports and harbors in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River navigation system, 60 classified as deep draft commercial and 80 as shallow draft recreational; and Whereas, some 3.3 million cubic yards of sediment accumulate in U.S. Great Lakes ports, harbors and navigation channels annually that, if not dredged, can impede commercial and recreational navigation, cause economic hardship, and increase risks to human health and safety; and Whereas, current criteria required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for inclusion in its Great Lakes Navigation Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget includes, for commercial deep draft ports, a minimum annual cargo tonnage throughput of 1 million tons; and Whereas, all shallow draft, exclusively recreational harbors are considered not consistent with O&M funding under current Administration policy and therefore are not included in the President’s O&M budget; and Whereas, the above criteria effectively make some 97 of the 140 U.S. federally authorized ports and harbors on the Great Lakes a low priority for USACE O&M funding; and Whereas, an accumulated backlog of some 18 million cubic yards of sediment resulting from over a decade of Great Lakes O&M underfunding has negatively affected operations at nearly all Great Lakes ports and harbors, has closed the Port of Dunkirk, New York, and now threatens closure of additional ports and harbors that depend on safe, reliable navigation access but are unable to meet current criteria for federal maintenance dredging; and Whereas, the dredging backlog is projected to grow to 21 million cubic yards by 2017; and Whereas, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that $200 million is needed to address the dredging backlog and restore Great Lakes harbors and navigation channels to their authorized width and depth; and Whereas, the past practice of seeking congressional adds, or “earmarks,” for individual harbor maintenance projects is increasingly difficult; and Whereas, Congress is developing Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) legislation that will significantly impact federal policies, programs and funding for commercial navigation and water infrastructure for years to come; and Whereas, the Great Lakes governors and premiers recently called on both federal governments to authorize, manage and fund the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Navigation System as a single transportation system for the benefit of the entire region and the national economies of Canada and the United States. Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation to ensure new WRDA legislation includes provisions that restore, maintain and strengthen the economic vitality of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Navigation System for commercial and recreational transportation and their contributions to our regional economy.

Presented for consideration at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, Sept. 9 in Milwaukee, Wis.

Be it Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission supports provisions in WRDA that accomplish the following:

• Reform the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to ensure that all revenues collected are appropriated and directed to their intended purpose – maintaining our nation’s ports and associated infrastructure;

• Provide a dedicated funding authorization for maintaining and operating navigation infrastructure in the Great Lakes;

• Formally authorize the Great Lakes Navigation System as a single, integrated system and direct the Army Corps of Engineers to aggregate the system’s collective benefits when allocating resources for dredging and other needs; and

• Create a cost-share program for dredging recreational harbors.

Be it Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission opposes provisions that put the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region at a disadvantage, including expanding the authorized uses of HMTF revenues or establishing a prioritization scheme.

RESOLUTION - DRAFT

Support for Great Lakes offshore wind demonstration (pilot) projects

Whereas, recognition of the availability of renewable wind energy resources in the Great Lakes is increasing; and Whereas, the Great Lakes basin is home to 25 million people in the United States, representing approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population; and Whereas, all of the states and provinces bordering the Great Lakes have adopted renewable energy targets; and Whereas, planning is underway for several commercial-scale offshore wind projects in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States; and Whereas, existing information indicates that accessibility of Great Lakes offshore wind installations can be limited by locks, port facilities, and fresh water that freezes in the winter; but that there will be less wear and tear on offshore wind components in the Great Lakes because fresh water is less corrosive than salt water, and water levels do not change as frequently and considerably as do tidal waters; and Whereas, a 2013 Great Lakes Wind Collaborative study shows that installation of 2,000 megawatts of offshore wind in the Great Lakes by 2030 would provide more than 3,500 full-time construction jobs and another 1,500 operations and maintenance jobs1; and Whereas, that same study shows that offshore wind projects are expected to result in steady increases in local and regional economic impact over time due to investments in Great Lakes region-based manufacturing and other important industries needed to support the offshore wind supply chain; and Whereas, while much can be learned from offshore wind projects abroad and from future projects in United States marine environments, freshwater deployment and operation of wind turbines in the Great Lakes presents unique circumstances that require study and evaluation; and Whereas, existing studies and other information are not adequate to answer many questions about economic viability of wind energy, environmental impacts of offshore wind on birds, bats, fish, sediment transport, and other ecological features and functions; and Whereas, in late 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded seven advanced technology demonstration awards for offshore wind in various locations around the United States, one of which went to the Great Lakes region; and

Whereas, research being conducted at the Great Lakes offshore wind demonstration project site in Lake Erie complements and builds on related research underway in other Great Lakes states, including the collection of offshore wind, atmospheric, aquatic and avian data by the research buoy Wind Sentinel deployed in Lake Michigan, as well as other regional research efforts; and

1 Loomis, David G. 2013. Potential Economic Impacts from Offshore Wind in the Great Lakes Region.


Whereas, the Great Lakes offshore wind demonstration project in Lake Erie will enable researchers and managers to learn about the environmental as well as economic impacts of offshore wind energy in the Great Lakes; and

Whereas, in 2014 the DOE intends to select three projects in which to invest an additional $46 million each to fund construction and installation of offshore wind facilities for demonstration purposes.

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission believes a demonstration or pilot project is the most direct means of assessing potential environmental impacts, and evaluating economic viability and opportunities for job creation involving offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes.

RESOLUTION - DRAFT

Preventing pollution from persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals in the Great

Lakes ecosystem Whereas, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River are binational treasures and environmental and economic assets of vital importance to the eight Great Lakes states, two provinces, and the North American economy; and Whereas, the environmental and economic viability of the Great Lakes states and provinces is linked to a healthy Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem, which among other benefits, provides drinking water and recreational opportunities including fishing and hunting; and Whereas, pollution associated with persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals, such as dioxins, mercury, PCBs and PBDEs can result in significant ecological impacts (i.e., carcinogenic effects, and adverse effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous or endocrine systems) with potential to impose significant economic and societal costs and potentially compromising the ability of the Great Lakes ecosystem to continue to provide the aforementioned opportunities and benefits; and Whereas, substances such as PCBs continue to cause ecological harm long after being banned; and Whereas, the United States and Canada have jointly signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement, and the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement to control transboundary transport and effects of pollution, and to cooperate on research and development projects to reduce or eliminate the use and release of chemicals of mutual concern; and Whereas, industry, municipalities and users of chemicals have made great strides in reducing the use and release of persistent chemicals, through voluntary and regulatory approaches; and Whereas, largely due to limitations in the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), only a fraction of the hundreds of contaminants detected in the Great Lakes ecosystem has been evaluated for their potential toxic effects on wildlife and human health; and Whereas, governments and industries in Canada, the European Union, and a number of U.S. states have made significant advances to reduce the use of PBTs and promote green chemistry through policy measures, private investments and academic research; and Whereas, there is a growing market demand for safer chemicals; and Whereas, as evidenced by the American Chemistry Council’s policy position on TSCA Modernization, the chemical industry acknowledges the need for TSCA reform in order to promote public confidence in the safety of chemicals and to create a more predictable business environment. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges the U.S. Congress to adopt comprehensive national legislation aimed at minimizing human and ecosystem exposure to PBTs through reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act; and


Be it further resolved, that federal legislation should not preempt measures at subnational levels; and Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission supports additional governmental policy, private sector actions, and research efforts in the United States and Canada aimed at reducing the manufacture, processing, use and release of substances that are persistent and bioaccumulative; and Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges the U.S. and Canadian federal governments to develop, in consultation with states and provinces, effective programs to prevent pollution from PBTs through Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol of 2012 (Chemicals of Mutual Concern).

RESOLUTION - DRAFT Recognizing rivermouths: Places vital to the Great Lakes basin that deserve focused restoration and

conservation Whereas, rivermouths are a class or type of ecosystem marked by the mixing zones that occur at the confluence between Great Lakes tributaries (riverine ecosystems) and the Great Lakes; and Whereas, rivermouths are biologically productive, transitional ecosystems that provide diverse habitats and exhibit dynamic ecological and geo-chemical processes; and Whereas, human development around the Great Lakes has historically centered around these rivermouths, in part because they provide a rich array of services such as transportation, water supply, fish habitat, waste assimilation, water quality regulation, recreation, and storm protection; and Whereas, centuries of intense human activity have led to substantial pressures on, and alterations to, these ecosystems, often diminishing or degrading their ecological functions and associated ecological services; and Whereas, historically, activities to enhance a particular rivermouth ecosystem service often influenced and degraded other services; and Whereas, the link between rivermouth ecological processes and the ecological services derived from them is difficult to quantify and remains an area of active research; and Whereas, the health and condition of rivermouth zones are important indicators of the sustainability of activities higher in the watershed; and Whereas, some degraded Great Lakes rivermouths are the focus of intense restoration efforts: 36 of the active Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) are rivermouths or areas that include one or more rivermouths, such as harbors and connecting channels; and Whereas, restoration of AOCs is an important step toward improving the condition of some Great Lakes rivermouths as well as the economic and social values of the communities that are dependent on these areas; and Whereas, many other rivermouths that are not AOCs should be managed to maximize their ecological health, associated ecosystem services, and economic and social values; and Whereas, once delisted, former AOC rivermouths and the communities associated with them will need ongoing careful management to ensure their continued environmental health and economic prosperity; and Whereas, Annex 2 of the newly amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada calls for the development of an integrated nearshore framework as part of the lakewide management process of each lake; and


Whereas, in contrast to marine estuaries, freshwater rivermouths have not been explicitly recognized as the focus of conservation and management programs.

Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission and its members formally recognize Great Lakes rivermouths as a unique class of ecosystem, the health of which is vital to both the health of the Great Lakes, their supporting tributaries and the communities that depend on them; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission endorses efforts to restore and maintain the ecological health and functionality of these special places that are the focus of ecological and human productivity; and

Be It Further Resolved, that successful long-term restoration and conservation of these unique and vital places should explicitly consider the variety of ecosystem services provided by these places in ways that can support human, social and economic activities while conserving inherent ecological functions that are vital to the health of the Great Lakes; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges the U.S. Congress and U.S and Canadian federal agencies to explicitly recognize the importance of rivermouths when funding and administering existing environmental restoration programs and when designing and implementing environmental conservation programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges the Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the International Joint Commission to explicitly address rivermouths and the future of rivermouth ecosystems and the communities that depend on them as part of implementation of Annex 1 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; and Be It Finally Resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges the Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the International Joint Commission to explicitly address rivermouths as part of an integrated nearshore framework as called for under Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012.

ACTION ITEM - DRAFT

Preparation of an issue brief on the transportation of crude oil in the Great

Lakes-St. Lawrence River region Background: The development of domestic crude oil in both the United States and Canada has become an important part of energy policy in the two countries. Designed to reduce the dependence on imported oil, these developments create economic opportunities for oil companies, transportation interests, local communities where oil is extracted and/or shipped for refinement and export, as well as consumers. Development of the Bakken Oil formation, covering parts of two provinces and two states in the Great Plains and the Athabasca Oil Sands formation in Alberta represent two of the biggest oil formations in North America and have created an economic boom reducing unemployment and creating budget surpluses for local communities and even entire states. However, the rapid development of the Bakken oil reserves and the Alberta tar sands have created some challenges in areas related to protection of water supplies, the need to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and sewage systems, stresses on government services and especially impacts related to the transportation of crude oil and tar sands from the western fields to the eastern part of the continent. In the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region increased transportation of crude oil has created new challenges and some problems. The Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMAR) train of 72 tank cars of crude oil that derailed and burned on July 6 in Lac Mégantic, Québec, was carrying shale crude oil from the Bakken oil reserves for refinement in New Brunswick. The MMAR derailment killed 47 people and released an estimated 5.7 million liters of oil into the environment. This tragic event, along with the July 2010 oil pipeline rupture in Marshall, Mich., and other less-publicized incidents, has created a need for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region to better understand the extent and nature of safety issues surrounding the transportation of crude oil from the west by all modes including rail, vessel and pipeline. In order to transport oil from the production fields in Alberta and the western United States, many pipeline expansion plans have been proposed. However, due to recent concerns about pipeline safety, many of these have been slow to clear the many levels of approval and permitting. One consequence of this has been the phenomenal growth in rail shipments of oil in the last four years. The Lac Mégantic event could be a wake-up call for the region regarding the potential for accidents to occur in transporting crude oil by rail, pipeline and vessels. In December 2012, an oil tanker containing more than 12 million gallons of crude oil ran aground and ruptured its outer hull on the Hudson River in Albany, N.Y. Fortunately, it was a double hull tanker and no oil was spilled in the event. Additional movements of crude oil, as well as planned increases, are occurring throughout the region. A Houston oil company is seeking permission from the State of New York to more than double its shipments of North Dakota shale crude oil through the Port of Albany. Calumet Specialty Products Partners (a pipeline company) is seeking permission from the State of Wisconsin to build a crude oil loading station on Lake Superior in Superior, Wis. The region is in need of more information regarding the extent and nature of the potential risks associated with the increased movement of crude oil and tar sands products. In addition to recent tragic events, the issue of crude oil transportation is especially relevant for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region in light of the upcoming consultations by the Canadian National Energy Board on the inversion (reversal) of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. That project, as well as other projects related to the transportation of crude oil from Western Canada and North Dakota to Québec and New Brunswick, will be the subject of public debate in the coming weeks and months.


Although interprovincial and international crude oil transportation falls under federal jurisdiction in Canada, tragedies such as Lac Mégantic remind us that state and provincial governments will be greatly solicited by their population whenever such an accident occurs, and that the prevention of these accidents involve state and provincial jurisdictions. Action: The Great Lakes Commission staff is directed to prepare an issue brief evaluating the potential benefits, risks and options for mitigating risks surrounding the transportation of crude oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region. The staff is instructed to consult with the Emergency Preparedness Task Force and the Economic Committee in preparing the issue brief. Consultations for the issue brief should also include interested stakeholders and relevant government agencies in the areas of environmental assessment, water policy, decontamination policy and hazardous materials.

Speaker Topics Under this tab are background materials provided to inform the panel discussions:

• “Waukesha charts aggressive course in Lake Michigan water bid,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 10, 2013

• “Does Lake Michigan’s record low mark beginning of new era for Great Lakes?” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 27, 2013. Read more at http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/does-lake-michigans-record-low-water-level-mark-beginning-of-new-era-for-great-lakes-216429601.html

• “Water flushes through a greatly widened drain below Great Lakes Michigan, Huron,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 30, 2013. Read more at http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/water-flushes-through-a-greatly-widened-drain-below-great-lakes-michigan-huron-217472611.html

• July 2013 Great Lakes Water Levels Summary, courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District District

• July 2013 Great Lakes Basin Hydrology Summary, courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District District

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/does-lake-michigans-record-low-water-level-mark-beginning-of-new-era-for-great-lakes-216429601.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/does-lake-michigans-record-low-water-level-mark-beginning-of-new-era-for-great-lakes-216429601.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/water-flushes-through-a-greatly-widened-drain-below-great-lakes-michigan-huron-217472611.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/water-flushes-through-a-greatly-widened-drain-below-great-lakes-michigan-huron-217472611.html

Waukesha charts aggressive course in Lake Michigan water bid

Time line shrinks for meeting deadline to provide radium-free water By Don Behm of the Journal Sentinel June 10, 2013

Waukesha's water utility chief confidently predicts the city's request to switch to a Lake Michigan water supply will be approved by the Great Lakes states in less than 14 months, and he will be providing radium-free water to the city's residents and businesses by a court-ordered deadline of June 2018.

Like an experienced coach, Water Utility general manager Dan Duchniak repeatedly tells his team it will win the championship — multistate approval of the city's request for Lake Michigan water — despite a slow start. All the while, he reminds the team of the urgency of reaching each goal along the way since they are running out of time.

One year ago, Duchniak announced an urgent, fatal forecast: The request would "drop dead" if the eight Great Lakes states had not approved it by June 2013. Five years were needed to build a new water supply and comply with a court ordered June 2018 deadline to distribute radium-safe water, he said at the time.

But the other seven Great Lakes states haven't even seen the application yet and won't for several more months.

Delays to the schedule in the last year came from utility staff and consultants responding to information requests from the state Department of Natural Resources. And the Town of Waukesha decided just last month that all of the town should be in the city's water service area.

So Duchniak stepped to the blackboard this month to draw up a revised urgent timeline to victory in the city's 11-year and $3.1 million quest for Great Lakes water. Only 31/2 years or so are needed to design and build pipelines and pumping stations if state approvals come by Aug. 1, 2014, he said.

He presented his optimistic schedule — Duchniak calls it "realistic" as well as "aggressive" — to the Waukesha Common Council last week. It requires the utility to wrap up several loose ends and finish work on the application by July 8.

If the request can get through a Wisconsin DNR review by the end of January 2014, Duchniak now forecasts it will be approved by the Great Lakes states just six months after that, or Aug. 1.

Precedent-setting bid The city is the first municipality in the United States located entirely outside the Great Lakes basin to request a diversion of water under terms of a 2008 Great Lakes protection compact.

Residents and public officials in all Great Lakes states are watching this precedent-setting application as it plays out because it will set the standard for future requests.

Although the compact prohibits diversions of water outside the basin, there is one exception that fits Waukesha and hundreds of other communities: A municipality outside the basin can ask for Great Lakes water if it is in a county straddling the basin divide.

Waukesha County straddles the line between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins.

Waukesha's application states there is no other reliable water supply option on its side of the divide that is similar in cost or as environmentally sustainable and protective of public health as lake water. Should the city get approval to buy lake water, it would stop using several deep wells pumping radium-contaminated water from a sandstone aquifer.

To protect the lake level, the compact requires a community to return water, as treated wastewater, to the basin.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/waukeshas-quest-for-lake-michigan-water-lagging-e55f6v5-152166985.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/waukeshas-quest-for-lake-michigan-water-lagging-e55f6v5-152166985.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/86103197.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/90324837.html

If his new timeline holds together, engineering and design of the major pieces — a water pipeline from Oak Creek, Waukesha's selected supplier, and a pipeline to discharge treated wastewater to the lake — could be far enough along by March 1, 2015, for construction to begin, he said. The discharge could be routed to Underwood Creek, the Root River or directly to the lake.

Duchniak said the city's preferred discharge location has switched from Underwood Creek to the Root River, since it has an agreement with Oak Creek to be its supplier.

How realistic is Duchniak's schedule?

Eric Ebersberger, the DNR's water use section chief, agreed the department likely could complete work on draft environmental impact studies and technical review documents about three months after the city finishes work on the application.

"We've been going back and forth with the city for two years," he said in explaining why he doesn't expect additional issues to pop up.

After public comments are received, the DNR would consider revising its documents before releasing final editions. The technical review would make a judgment on whether the application meets all criteria in the compact.

If it does, the next step would be forwarding the application to the other seven states, along with the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, by Jan. 31.

Representatives of the eight states and two provinces would schedule a public meeting in Waukesha and ask for public comments, Ebersberger said.

If the other states and provinces agree with the DNR that the application complies with the compact, it would then be up to the eight states to vote on it.

The multistate process could be wrapped up in a total of six months, according to David Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors.

The vote of the states must be unanimous. One no vote would result in rejection of the request.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/oak-creek-signs-off-on-waukesha-water-deal-ra7nm6b-180231041.html

Uncharted Waters | A Journal Sentinel Special Report

Does Lake Michigan's record low mark beginning of new era for Great Lakes?

Despite above-average precipitation, lake has seen below-average water levels for 14 years running. Less ice cover and more dark open water may

explain why. By Dan Egan of the Journal Sentinel staff July 27, 2013 | Part 1 of 2

Patric Kuptz means it when he says he grew up on the Great Lakes.

"I've spent most of my life within 50 feet of here," the 37-year-old said on a sunny May morning, working on a boat near his third-generation family home — a brown brick duplex at the edge of Milwaukee's South Shore Yacht Club.

This is where, as a boy, he Huck-Finned away his summers — chasing perch from the docks, splashing in the frigid surf and making all manner of mischief around the yacht club, news of which often made it home before he did.

Today, Kuptz hardly recognizes the lakeshore as the one he grew up on, pointing to a beach that didn't exist when he was a kid in the mid-1980s, when the water was about five feet higher and yacht club members needed steps to ascend from the docks to their boats. When that record-high water dropped a couple of years later and those stairs were being thrown away, the young Kuptz couldn't believe it.

He knew even back then that lake levels were a fickle thing, so he hatched a plan to stash the stairs in his garage — and sell them back to their owners when the lake bounced back.

Kuptz is glad he never acted on it because the only record water level that has returned in the last quarter century is the record low set this winter. Today it is Kuptz who is convinced the lake isn't coming back, at least not in his lifetime, and now he is the one making plans accordingly.

He sold his sailboat.

"I actually bought a power boat because I'm worried about the draft," Kuptz said of the keel-grabbing water levels. "It's nuts. I'd never seen it this low."

Nobody has.

A great unknown Lake Michigan is no longer just a Great Lake; it is a great unknown.

More ominous than the all-time low the lake touched this winter is the fact that it came after languishing for 14 years below its long-term average — another record. And when it did initially drop below that long-term average, it plunged three feet between 1998 and 1999 — yet another record for water lost from one year to the next.

The lake level, of course, has been in constant flux since record-keeping began a century and a half ago. Tracking it on a graph is like looking at an EKG monitor. Little blips and dips reflect seasonal oscillations that cause the lake, in a typical year, to vary about a foot between summertime high and wintertime low.

In addition to those annual ebbs and flows are larger swings that span decades tied to long-term weather patterns, with Lake Michigan's record high topping out more than 6 feet above the record low set this January.


Draw a red line through the middle of all those highs and lows and you get what was, up until 1999, Lake Michigan's long-term average surface level — 579 feet above sea level.

That year the lake mysteriously took its 3-foot dive, and it has stayed down for nearly a decade and a half — and counting.

Previous drops into low water, in the 1920s, '30s, '50s and '60s, were always followed by a quick and sustained rebound beyond the long-term average. Usually it happened within three or four years, though the slow but steady climb during the Dust Bowl droughts took the better part of the '30s.

But with this ongoing low water, which has never shown an indication that it is on a sustained track back toward average, decades of rhythmic pulses hitched to the red line appear to have stopped, or at least stalled.

Frank Quinn, a retired hydrologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, has been tracking lake levels for more than a half century, and he's heard all manner of crazy theories for the previous lows. Atom bomb testing was a popular culprit in the 1960s, and rumors swirled for years of a secret canal under Niagara Falls channeling flows to thirstier regions.

The truth was always a little drier — the lakes were simply suffering from a lack of rain and snow.

What's going on today is different.

"Based on the precipitation we've had, we would not expect to have the record low lake levels that we have," Quinn said.

Last year was indeed extremely dry. But the past 14 years, on average, have been wetter than usual for Lakes Michigan and Huron, which are actually one body of water connected at the Straits of Mackinac.

Even so, the lakes remain about a foot and a half below their average for this time of year.

So where did all the water go?

This is not a story about climate change.

It is a story about climate changed.

Thin ice After weeks of patiently waiting for ice to slowly build on Lake Superior this winter, Bob Krumenaker finally decided on a chilly Sunday in March to click into his cross country skis and venture out to one of the islands he oversees as superintendent of Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in extreme northwest Wisconsin.

The ice on this St. Patrick's Day felt solid as concrete as Krumenaker and a colleague glided their way out to Basswood Island, 1 mile offshore. Farther out, the lake was dotted with ice fishing shanties and snowmobilers. It appeared one of the world's wildest lakes had again lapsed into a deep wintertime slumber under a blanket of ice.

It was a mirage.

The reality was hidden under Krumenaker's green pullover. He wore a red life preserver.

The frozen white coastline belied a dramatic warming of the lake in recent years. Away from the sheltered shore around the islands, ice gave way to the churning black waves of a body of water that never really went to sleep. It rarely does anymore, its annual hibernation having become more often than not just a catnap.

Even the predictably iced-over shoreline regions have become dicey places to roam. This was the first time Krumenaker wore a life jacket on a ski trip.

Several weeks earlier, a well-known fishing guide who was a former local police officer had plunged through the ice near Bayfield and died.

Less than a month later, two more area residents on a snowmobile crashed through the ice near Madeline Island and died.

"Three local people, who are familiar with conditions, dying...," said Krumenaker, "has definitely rattled this community."

Standing on the iced-over shoreline this winter, it was hard to see the changes. But assistant superintendent Neil Howk pulled up a satellite image showing that even in mid-March, typically the peak time for ice coverage, it was mostly Superior's calm harbors and bays in places like Duluth, Bayfield, Copper Harbor and Thunder Bay that were frozen over.

The rest of the lake was open water, black as the type on this screen.

"Maybe 10% of the lake is covered," said Howk. "Maybe."

Researchers who have been tracking ice for decades say that is now normal. Historically, on average, about a quarter to a third of Lake Superior, an area of lake roughly the size of Massachusetts, froze over each year.

Big ice years still happen — nearly the entire lake froze in 2009 — but they have become increasingly rare, particularly since the late 1990s.

Average ice cover for Superior declined by 76% between 1973 and 2011, according to a 2012 study led by Jia Wang, an ice climatologist at NOAA's Great Lakes research laboratory. A similar phenomenon has occurred across the region, with Wang calculating a 63% drop in average ice cover for all the Great Lakes over the past four decades.

Across the same time period, scientists estimate a 1.6 degree Fahrenheit upturn in the over-lake air temperature for all the Great Lakes — with most of the change also occurring since the late 1990s.

Common sense says the stubbornly frigid inland seas would be immune to such a subtle bump in air temperature.

But it appears the opposite is true.

A thermal avalanche When Jay Austin arrived at the University of Minnesota-Duluth in 2005, he was equipped with a doctorate in oceanography from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, but he had little experience studying fresh water.

"I didn't know anything about lake temperatures, so I thought a good way to learn would be to grab the data, plot it up and play with it for a week and see what happens," he said.

What Austin found happening on Lake Superior was stunning — since 1980 the lake's average summer surface water temperature has been climbing at a rate of about 2 degrees per decade, roughly double the rate of the increase in air temperature over the Superior basin.

"The intuition is that a very large lake like this would be slow to respond somehow to climate change," he said. "But in fact we're finding that it's particularly sensitive."

Austin went looking for the scientific literature explaining what was going on. He found almost nothing.

He eventually determined it's not just warm summer weather driving the increase in water temperatures — it's also what's happening in winter. The air-temperature increase, however slight, has been enough to dramatically reduce Superior's average ice cover.

And without a bright white cap to bounce solar radiation back into the sky, the lake begins to soak up heat in early spring. That jump-start on the annual warming process has a profound effect on peak surface water temperatures during the summer.

The outsized role winter ice has on Superior's summertime water temperatures literally jumped out of Austin's data. The more ice coverage in winter, the cooler the lake is likely to be the following summer; the less ice, the warmer the summer water.

"It's not one of those things that you had to do a lot of statistical analysis to convince yourself of the significance," Austin said. "You made the plot, and there it was."

A similar phenomenon is under way on Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Paul Roebber, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee meteorologist and associate dean of its School of Freshwater Sciences, points to a weather buoy in the middle of southern Lake Michigan that shows a 3.4 degree increase in average summer surface water temperatures since 1997.

One day last summer, the thermometer at the mid-lake buoy 43 miles southeast of Milwaukee recorded a Caribbean-like 80 degrees.

It was only the beginning of July.

"There has been a change in air temperatures. It's not dramatic, but it's just enough to not produce the ice coverage we used to have," explained Roebber. "And that makes all the difference in a system like this."

Sucked into the sky This temperature cascade has made it possible on summer nights for oceanographer Austin to take his young son swimming in Lake Superior, something most people would never do a generation ago.

But the warm water also has significant implications for lake levels because it is driving up evaporation rates — a key factor in the equation that kept water levels shackled to their red-line average during a record-keeping period that stretches back to the mid-1800s.

Federal data show that evaporation on Michigan and Huron has been above average every year since the low-water era started in 1999.

With little to no protective ice cap, chilled air whooshing over relatively warm water leads to more cold-weather evaporation.

The result of this thermal avalanche triggered by just a tiny bump in air temperatures: the surface of the lake is literally going poof into the sky.

"You can see that if it's a really cold day," said Roebber. "You'll see these plumes of steam coming off the lake. It's very graphic and that's an example of the lake just losing water."

The biggest change in evaporation happens when cool winds blow over the summer's ever-warming waters, and during the frigid gales of October, November and December, a time of year when evaporation can sap up to 2 inches of water per weekfrom the still relatively warm lakes.

"That evaporation really kicks in in the fall, when those cool air masses start coming in over the lakes, but the water is still warm, and over the past 10 years the water has been warmer and warmer and warmer," said Drew Gronewold, a hydrologist at NOAA's Great Lakes lab.

Roebber points to data showing how much water Michigan and Huron have lost to evaporation over the last 14 years compared to their historic average. Tally all those numbers together, and it shows evaporation has sucked more than four feet from the lakes. Evaporation is calculated by a model that relies on things such as water temperature, air temperature and wind speed.

Though some of that evaporation loss on Michigan and Huron has been offset by above-normal precipitation, people need to understand something has fundamentally changed in the lakes' historic low-water, high-water cycle, Roebber said.

Quinn, the dean of Great Lakes hydrology, said part of the drop on Michigan and Huron is tied to dry weather over the Lake Superior basin, which means lower flows coming into Lake Huron via the St. Marys River. But he agrees that the big story for Lakes Michigan and Huron is increased evaporation, only a fraction of which falls back into the lakes as precipitation.

"What appears to have happened is the hydrologic regime — the climate — has changed," Quinn said.

"We're getting the precipitation, but we're losing a lot more water through evaporation...and that is what is causing the drop in Lake Michigan and Huron's water levels — the continuing low levels, the part we can't explain."

Quinn isn't saying a change like this hasn't happened before humans started taking meticulous notes of bouncing water levels in the 1800s, nor is he saying that at some point it won't be reversed.

But there is no question that since the late 1990s there has been a profound switch in the way the lakes work.

"The dynamics we have between precipitation and evaporation have changed," said Gronewold. "There are years now when we have a lot more water coming off the surface of the lake than dropping into the lake."

In those years, the sky takes more from the lakes than it gives.

Lakes need 'extraordinary' precipitation

Prehistoric water level records, detected by radiocarbon-dating the ridges of ancient beaches, reveal that about 4,500 years ago Lake Michigan was roughly 13 feet higher than it is today.

Then it underwent a steep decline over a 500-year period before settling near levels closer to what we've known. Climate variability — drought, specifically — is believed to be a factor in the big 500-year drop, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Reconstructed records going forward from there indicate that, beyond our relatively brief recorded history showing annual and multiyear fluctuations, over the past few thousand years there have been larger swings based on roughly 160-year cycles.

It might give some people comfort that the lakes have previously experienced changes even greater than what appears to be happening today.

But it's important to remember that all this is ancient history — before the existence of cities bursting with millions of people and trillions of dollars of subdivisions, skyscrapers, factories, rail yards, roadways, navigation channels and canals, sewage treatment plants, drinking water systems and nuclear reactors, all clinging to the modern shoreline, all needing the water level to stay basically where it has been for the last century and a half.

With a fresh record-low notched in the books and signs of a new era at hand in which increased evaporation will continue, the pressing questions are:

Will Michigan and Huron rebound back toward their historic average?

Have they reached a new normal, albeit one that is significantly lower than what we've become accustomed to?

Or will they continue to drop?

In April, a spokesman for the International Joint Commission stood in front of floor-to-ceiling windows in a Concordia University conference room on a bluff above Lake Michigan and assured a group of lakeshore property owners there was little to worry about.

The Joint Commission oversees boundary waters issues between the United States and Canada.

"That water that you see out there," said John Nevin, a public information officer for the Joint Commission, "is not the new normal."

Warmer temperatures might mean slightly lower-than-average water levels going forward, but "we're going to see levels generally in their historic range," he said.

Others who study Great Lakes water levels and precipitation cycles are less sanguine.

"I don't think you can say that with any certainty, and I think available evidence suggests that it's the opposite," said Roebber, the UWM meteorologist and mathematician.

"The last 15 years essentially really prove that point. You can see it: above-normal precipitation and lake levels dropping substantially — with a loss of ice."

Most scientists agree that warmer water and air temperatures will turbo-charge Lake Michigan and Huron's precipitation-evaporation cycle; more water will be going up into the sky, and more will be coming down.

The question is whether they will balance each other out, and so far they have not.

An alarming piece of research in 2002 predicted a drop of about 4.5 feet in Michigan and Huron's long-term average in the coming decades. It was tempered by a 2010 study based on hundreds of simulations using nearly two dozen computer models. Those computer simulations yielded widely varying results, but the

study concluded Michigan and Huron's average level in the coming decades is most likely to remain somewhere around a foot below the historic average.

Another NOAA researcher said all these calculations underestimate how much rivers and streams will continue to feed the lakes under a warmer air temperature regime, and therefore have exaggerated the potential water loss.

"There is a fair amount of likelihood that (the lakes) are going to drop, but it's going to be a lot less than what had previously been thought, and there is the possibility that they will rise in the long-term," said Brent Lofgren, a scientist with the NOAA Great Lakes lab.

But these are all predictions based on ever-evolving computer models trying to gauge how a warmer globe will affect — in terms of feet, if not mere inches — the hydrologic cycle of our lakes.

It does not take a scientist or a supercomputer to simply look at the Lake Michigan shoreline today and realize that, despite a decade of wetter than normal weather and despite the severely cold and wet spring, our lake isn't as great as it used to be.

And even if we have more record-setting wet months coming, it still won't be.

"It's going to likely take several seasons of above-average rainfall and snowfall and above average runoff to get Lakes Michigan and Huron back to their long-term average," said Keith Kompoltowicz, chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' watershed hydrology branch for the Detroit district.

"What we've seen this spring is what you need to get the lakes headed back. You just need to see it consistently over a number of seasons."

In other words, we now need extraordinary levels of precipitation just to get back to ordinary.

This poses its own set of potential problems.

The torrential rains of April that pulled Michigan and Huron several inches up from their record low had a downside: They triggered massive sewage overflows and unleashed flooding in Chicago. Similar rains on Lake Erie in recent years have sent into the lake plumes of fertilizer-rich soils linked to poisonous algae blooms. A 2011 outbreak covered about 2,000 square miles — three times larger than anything recorded, even in the pre-Clean Water Act days of the 1960s and '70s.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to write off these deluges as a fluke.

Meteorologists refer to the most wicked rain events as "100 year storms" — tempests so severe the odds of one happening in any given year are 1%.

But since 1997, southeastern Wisconsin has experienced six such storms, including two in July 2010.

"We've either had really bad luck," said Roebber, "or something else is happening."

He thinks that something else is a new era in which big storms will become more the norm.

Roebber said that means the focus now should not be on the lakes' historic red-line average because that's not the line he is worried about. He believes that average will continue to decline, but he is more concerned about how increased evaporation and precipitation cycles may push the swings around the average higher and lower than we've ever seen.

Historically, Lakes Michigan and Huron have been tethered to a 3-foot flux above and below their long-term average.

Roebber said it is reasonable to expect that in coming decades the highs and lows will soar and plunge four feet or more from their average — meaning water levels could swing by 8 to even 10 feet over several years.

He worries the record low set in January is just the beginning. © 2013, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.jsonline.com/copyright.html

Uncharted Waters | A Journal Sentinel Special Report

Water flushes through a greatly widened drain below Great Lakes Michigan, Huron

Every time dredging widened and deepened the hole at the bottom of the lakes, the federal government was supposed to engineer a fix to maintain water levels - but it never did.

By Dan Egan of the Journal Sentinel staff

July 30, 2013 | Part 2 of 2

An unprecedented spike in evaporation is not the only reason Lakes Michigan and Huron hit a record low this winter.

If you think of the two lakes that sprawl across 45,000 square miles as one colossal bathtub, then the drain is a mere 800-foot-wide gap at the southern tip of Lake Huron. This is the headwaters of the St. Clair River, a torrent that, in places, runs up to 70 feet deep.

Lakes Michigan and Huron are actually one body of water — two lobes of the world's largest freshwater lake — and this river pulls their waters southward toward Lake Erie, over Niagara Falls and, ultimately, out to the Atlantic Ocean.

This makes the St. Clair River one of the most ecologically sensitive and hydrologically critical places in all the Great Lakes.

It is also among the most ravaged.

Humans have been expanding the size of this drain hole for more than a century, beginning in the 1850s, when shallow choke points in the channel were scraped away so schooners could sail up from Lake Erie.

In the 1890s, profiteers began mining the riverbed for its thick deposits of sand and gravel, an estimated 3.5 million cubic yards of which were hauled off between 1908 and 1925 alone — enough material to fill some 300,000 dump trucks.

Even with the measurement tools available at the time, this had a noticeable impact on lake levels, so in 1926 government officials put an end to the mining.

Yet dredging continued into the 1960s to carve ever-deeper navigation channels for ever-bigger freighters. The engineers doing the digging knew all along their work was dropping the long-term average levels of Michigan and Huron.

That's why each time the government approved a major dredging project in the 20th century it came with a plan to compensate for lake water lost. The idea was to build dam-like structures in strategic areas on the river bottom to slow the outflow yet maintain a channel deep enough to keep the Great Lakes freighter business afloat.

But that work was not done in the early 1900s when the St. Clair's shipping channel was deepened to 22 feet, or in the 1930s when it was lowered to 25 feet. And it wasn't done again in the 1960s, when the channel went to 27 feet.

The federal government's official toll for how much the expanded river channel permanently lowered the lakes is between 14 and 18 inches — enough fresh water flushed out to the ocean to turn an expanse of land the size of Wisconsin into a wading pool.

In the mid-1960s, Frank Quinn was a young hydrologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Detroit when he was dispatched down South to work on a plan to patch the St. Clair's enlarged drain hole and bring the water back where it belonged.


An Army Corps team had built a concrete model of the southern tip of Lake Huron flowing into the upper reaches of the St. Clair River in a sprawling warehouse at the agency's research center outside Vicksburg, Miss. Bigger than a basketball court, the model was a precisely shrunken replica of the river channel. It also reproduced its bathymetry so the engineers could figure out where to put the water-slowing structures.

The crew-cut men also toyed with a 7-foot-long remote controlled freighter, just to make sure they got things right — for the lakes and for the shipping industry.

"They did it right to scale, and then put water down the river to see if it would work and how it would work," said Quinn, now retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"It worked just fine."

But the job was never done.

"What happened then was, starting in about 1966 or so, we started getting a lot of rain and the water levels went up," said Quinn.

As the lake levels climbed back toward their long-term average and then beyond, interest in the project evaporated

"The water levels were high enough that nobody wanted them higher," said Quinn.

So the scale model of the river was junked along with the plans to restore the riverbed.

Until now.

Property values plummet, too Lakes Michigan and Huron have now gone a record 14 years without reaching their long-term average level, and they set a new record low in January.

The water level has since rebounded a bit with the exceptionally wet spring, but it remains about a foot and a half below its average for this time of year. The situation has created havoc for everything from coal boat captains to marina operators to shoreline property owners from Milwaukee's northern suburbs all the way to Georgian Bay at the top of Lake Huron.

Georgian Bay's location less than three hours north of Toronto has made it a prime place for vacation homes, much like Door County is to Milwaukee and Chicago.

It is a place hit particularly hard by the low water because areas of its shoreline are so gently sloping that when the water is down, it doesn't just dip in front of some docks and wetlands. It disappears.

Michael McCartney bought a plot on a 200-acre island in Georgian Bay almost 25 years ago, when the wild blue waters were chest-deep at the end of his dock.

His link to the outside world was a 22-foot yellow Sea Ray motorboat, which he used to ferry building materials from the mainland as he and his wife and children painstakingly built their own home.

Then the water levels started to drop and the McCartneys extended the dock into deeper water. The water kept dropping. McCartney bought a smaller boat, then a smaller boat, and then a smaller one yet.

Now McCartney is at work in his garage building a hovercraft.

The chronically low water has been a financial disaster for McCartney, who four years ago was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer.

"I wanted to sell the cottage so my wife would have money to live on after I died," he said.

He put the home on the market a few years back for its appraised value: $380,000. But he got no nibbles, so he dropped the price to $325,000 and spent another $25,000 dredging a channel deep enough for smaller boats. Still nothing.

McCartney continued dropping the price, to $300,000, to $275,000 and then to $250,000. The water kept dropping too. When McCartney's real estate agent finally told him he couldn't get his boat out to the island, McCartney took his home off the market to wait until higher waters return.

There have been other costs as well. The marsh near his home used to be prime spawning habitat for pike and bass, as well as a staging area for ducks, geese, swans and herons. Those wetlands are now dry.

There are 5,460 miles of shoreline along Lakes Michigan and Huron, every inch of which is directly affected by how much water tumbles through that 800-foot gap at the headwaters of the St. Clair.

Door County's Mike Kahr operates a dredging business that has him scrambling up and down the rocky shores of Wisconsin's most coastal county — a dock doctor tending to the low water epidemic with his barge, excavator and a hydraulic jackhammer, working to buy cottage owners a little more depth.

Today, some docks built for higher water tower nearly 7 feet off the water; others that once harbored sleek sailboats can now be used for only the tiniest of runabouts. And some cases are incurable — it no longer makes sense to try to chase the water downward, into the boulders and through the bedrock.

"Some docks are useless. Totally useless," Kahr said. "It's just not worth sinking the money into them."

Forcing the issue Mary Muter is not the easiest person to deal with. Not when she is pressing for the U.S. and Canadian governments to do something about the low water levels in her Georgian Bay and across the rest of Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Muter's home on an eight-acre island was built by her father in the early 1960s, around the time the water level was at a record low following the Army Corps' last major dredging of the St. Clair.

When wet weather took hold and the water began to climb in the late '60s, Muter's father had to rebuild the dock. Then the water level surged to record highs in 1974, and the family built a ramp on top of the dock.

Despite the inconveniences, the family learned to live with what it considered natural fluctuations, the price paid for living on the world's largest expanse of fresh water.

But Muter doesn't think what is going on now is just nature at work.

She acknowledges that unprecedented evaporation has contributed to lower water levels, but she also blames the St. Clair dredging and what she sees as the government's "irresponsible" decision not to compensate for it.

Muter had been eyeing the river with some suspicion after the water's mysterious 3-foot plunge from 1998 to 1999. She had a vague understanding of the St. Clair dredging history and the critical role it plays in governing lake levels. This made her wonder if something more was at play than just quirky weather patterns, and she finally decided to travel to see the St. Clair's headwaters for herself.

She is not a hydrologist and she already viewed the river as a prime suspect. So, when Muter got out of her black Volvo that day back in 2001, it is probably no surprise that she was stunned at the pace of the current, against which small boats struggled upstream into Lake Huron.

She was also dismayed by the fortified wall that had become the riverbank on the U.S. side of the river, and was amazed that in places along the Canadian side the sandy-bottomed river was only a couple of feet deep. She looked up and saw a freighter gliding by impossibly close.

"I said to myself: how could it get that deep, from where I'm standing to where that ship was," Muter recalled. "The ship was only 100 to 150 feet from me."

Muter went back to Georgian Bay and started digging into the historical dredging records and never-finished plans to compensate for the lost water. Then she helped spearhead a $250,000 fundraising effort by a Georgian Bay group to hire an engineering firm to literally get to the bottom of what was going on in the river. She got the answer she was looking for in 2004, when her group released an alarming study that said unexpected erosion since the dredging in the 1960s had sapped from the lakes far more than what the U.S. and Canadian governments had acknowledged.

The study claimed the total loss tied to riverbed mining, dredging and subsequent erosion was actually more than two feet — and getting worse by the day.

It theorized that the 1960s dredging scraped away a durable layer of cobble and rock, exposing soft material that began to erode in the considerable current, leading to further water loss.

It said the problem was compounded by development along southern Lake Huron's shore and along the St. Clair riverbank that blocked sand and other material from flowing down into the river channel and steadily filling in eroded zones.

The gist of the report: The rock-solid plug that had kept Lakes Michigan and Huron in place for thousands of years had been turned to mush.

The Army Corps acknowledged that something was amiss, pointing to the relative surface levels between Michigan-Huron and Lake Erie.

Because the two systems are connected, when Michigan-Huron drops, downstream Lake Erie historically dropped similarly. But in recent decades the approximately nine-foot difference in "head" between the two had been shrinking — by as much as a foot, according to the Georgian Bay study. This meant Michigan-Huron and Erie's levels were getting closer.

Other explanations for the shrinking difference between the two systems include shifting weather patterns that sent increased precipitation over Lake Erie, as well as the ongoing, uneven rebound of the earth's crust from the last ice age; the land under the Georgian Bay region is rising in relation to areas to the south.

The Georgian Bay group that funded the study maintained the big problem appeared to be an ever-expanding river channel on the St. Clair.

"We've got something alarming going on here," said Rob Nairn, the engineer who was the report's chief author. "We're certain it's Michigan-Huron dropping."

A battle over inches Muter's group launched a ferocious public relations campaign to compel the U.S. and Canadian governments to do their own study on the St. Clair. The International Joint Commission, the board that oversees U.S. and Canadian boundary waters issues, agreed to hire a team of scientists referred to as a "study board" to look into the St. Clair question.

In 2009 the study board released a report that concluded erosion since the 1960s dredging had unexpectedly lowered the lakes by about 3 to 5 inches, though it said the erosion was not ongoing. The report also blamed changing weather patterns and the earth's crust rebounding as two other significant factors behind what it said was a loss of 9 inches in the difference between Michigan-Huron and Erie from 1962 to 2006. That meant the official acknowledged toll on Lakes Michigan and Huron tied to mining, dredging and unexpected erosion since the early '60s was up to 21 inches — nearly two feet.

Muter, a member of the study board's citizens advisory panel, refused to accept the study board's conclusion, sticking by her own group's reckoning that the water loss due to unexpected erosion was significantly greater than 3 to 5 inches, and that the erosion was ongoing. Her refusal to acknowledge the study board’s findings led some its members to cast Muter and her supporters as a self-interested group bent on plugging the river at the expense of others.

"Ultimately, the crisis-mongers will look foolish when the lakes return to normal levels, albeit at somewhat different relative levels than in the past," study board spokesman John Nevin said in an email to the Journal Sentinel in the days after the study board's draft report was released. "That's why they want action now before Mother Nature proves them wrong."

A few months later, Muter was not appointed to a second term on the study board's citizen advisory panel.

A few months later, Muter was not appointed to a second term on the study board's citizen advisory panel.

"They did not like having someone there who knew enough to ask questions they did not want to answer," Muter now says.

The study board leaders said because an ice jam in the mid-1980s likely caused the erosion, the board was prohibited by the Joint Commission from recommending a restoration because the water loss was caused by natural factors.

Under pressure from Muter and others, the study board members scrapped the ice jam theory, acknowledging they actually had no idea what triggered the erosion. Study board leaders also could never produce the directive they claimed prohibited them from recommending a remediation project in the river.

The study board maintained that the situation did not warrant a St. Clair river fix because it would be expensive, could exacerbate flooding if high water returns and have negative impacts on downstream Lake Erie.

But the overwhelming message the Joint Commission heard in public hearings across the Great Lakes basin last year and in thousands of written comments is that some sort of St. Clair remediation must be explored.

That included a group of 3,000 property owners called Save Our Shoreline, which represents cottage owners in places such as Saginaw Bay on Lake Huron and Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan.

The Joint Commission also received a letter last summer from three of the biggest, most influential environmental groups on Great Lakes issues — the National Wildlife Federation, the Alliance for the Great Lakes and Great Lakes United — all urging action.

"We believe that it is essential for the (Joint Commission) to investigate ecological restoration of the St. Clair River bottom in more depth than the Study Board did; the objective of further study should be to make up for dredging activities, especially the major activities that took place in the years of 1958 to 1962."

The Joint Commission also heard from an organization of 90 mayors representing more than 15 million residents in cities across the Great Lakes region that said it was "dissatisfied" with the study board's recommendation to do nothing about the water loss.

In April, the Joint Commission announced it would ask the U.S. and Canadian governments to explore a fix on the St. Clair.

"Although future water levels are uncertain, we cannot ignore the damage from record low water levels," said Joe Comuzzi, Canadian chair of the Joint Commission. "From Georgian Bay to Door County, from shoreline property owners to the shipping industry, we heard calls for action, and we urge governments to act in response to our recommendation."

The Joint Commission is advising that the U.S. and Canadian governments send more scientists back to the river to further evaluate flows and determine how to raise levels enough to compensate for the erosion and the 1960s dredging, something the study board previously estimated could be accomplished for somewhere between $30 million and $170 million.

Some believe that when they do, they will find that the erosion problem is bigger than claimed.

Roger Gauthier, a retired senior hydrologist for the Army Corps, says there was loads of good science in the study board's report. But Gauthier, who wasn't a member of the study board, doesn't agree with the 3- to 5-inch loss due to erosion that the board took to the public.

"There is still considerable doubt about the conclusions they've reached," said Gauthier, who is now working with Muter to push for a St. Clair restoration. "That was their interpretation. If you look at some of the modeling results, you could come up with a significantly higher number."

Army Corps employees have not publicly endorsed the study board's figure.

"I don't think I could say right now one way or the other if we agree or disagree if 3 to 5 inches is appropriate," said John Allis, chief of the Detroit district's office for hydraulics and hydrology.

Retired hydrologist Quinn, who worked on the original St. Clair restoration project for the Army Corps and was hired to do work for the St. Clair study board, is confident in the numbers the study board reached.

But he believes the government "has an obligation" to compensate for the water lost tied to the 1960s dredging.

The Army Corps is ready. Allis said his district this spring determined that the authorization for the 1960s St. Clair project is still valid, and his office has requested funding in its 2015 budget to begin dusting off those plans.

All this leaves Muter gratified, if a little worn out from a role of agitator she says she did not relish.

"As a public health nurse and grandmother of five kids? No," she said. "But as we collected more and more evidence, it just supported the need to stay on this. I could give up easily, and could have many times, but I feel this is a mainly finite resource and whatever I can do to protect and preserve it for future generations, I feel an obligation to do that."

A tough fix As the executive director of the Great Lakes Commission, Tim Eder straddles two worlds. His job is to protect the ecological integrity of the lakes while squeezing as much out of them as is economically possible.

"I accept the fact that we are in a new era and the lakes are likely to continue to go lower," he said of increased evaporation on Michigan and Huron that scientists believe has been triggered by a bump in the region's air temperatures.

But he is conflicted on whether the answer is to restore St. Clair flows — and the lakes above them — to more closely match their historic levels. It could be good for navigation, for recreational boating, for property owners and for a region that has invested untold dollars in energy, sewage, drinking water and transportation systems that depend on the water levels not to move too far from their historic low — or high.

It could also be good for wetlands and the fish and birds and other life they sustain.

But he sees potential downsides, the most obvious of which is the lake levels could rise naturally. A river restoration could then exacerbate flooding and erosion in places such as Milwaukee and Chicago.

Holding back water might also harm downstream Lake Erie, and messing with the river bottom again could harm spawning beds for sturgeon in the St. Clair. Restoration advocates acknowledge both worries are real but insist that they could be addressed.

Eder also frets a control structure could lead to a dial being set on the lakes that would restrict them from their historic swing of about 3 feet above or below their long-term average, a flux critical for wetlands.

"People want the level of the lake to be six inches below the end of their dock," said Eder. "Well, that's not the way the system works."

He points to Lake Ontario, where lake levels have been controlled for more than a half century, since construction of hydroelectric dams on the St. Lawrence River.

In recent years, the U.S. and Canadian governments have tried to resuscitate Lake Ontario's withering wetlands with a plan to periodically hold back more water to raise lake levels, but the governments have suffered severe blowback from property owners accustomed to a relatively steady-state lake.

"I'm damn sure people need to recognize that these are dynamic systems that need to fluctuate and that we need to adapt," said Eder.

Lana Pollack, the U.S. chairman of the Joint Commission, declined to sign the letter from her commission recommending that the governments explore what it will take to bring lake levels up and instead wrote a dissent arguing that a St. Clair restoration offers only "false hope."

She fears the project will detract the public's attention from what she sees as the real issue — climate change causing increased evaporation. Her husband is Henry Pollack, a University of Michigan scientist and member of the team of climate researchers who shared a 2007 Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

While Pollack's fellow commissioners have recommended exploring a system that could allow more water to leave Michigan and Huron in wet years, she said the big lakes are so slow to respond to long-term weather patterns that predicting when to let that water go or when to hold it back could prove impossible.

"Some of the very same people who deny the reality of climate change being caused by our energy choices are the same people who say, 'We want you to fix this,'" Lana Pollack said. "So on the one hand they say mankind is too small to impact Mother Nature — that forces of nature are much stronger than the impacts of man. Yet they somehow turn around and say, 'OK, governments: Put a plug in — engineer something, dredge something, dig out, blow up, modify.' They don't think man is too weak to engineer a fix, but they somehow say we're not responsible for the cause."

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee meteorologist Paul Roebber agrees controlling flows out the St. Clair could be a complex job, but he believes it is one worth exploring, especially in an era when he expects increased evaporation and precipitation cycles to bring unprecedentedly big swings in water levels.

Roebber isn't worried about preserving fluctuations essential to wetlands health.

"It's unlikely to me that the problem is really going to be that we won't have variability in lake levels," he said. "It will be that we still have too much."

Adaptation In addition to exploring a St. Clair restoration, the Joint Commission is recommending the U.S. and Canadian governments pursue a strategy of "adaptive management" to cope with the low levels.

"Adaptive management is a hard sell because by definition it says we don't know what it means," said Lana Pollack, a proponent of the strategy. "It doesn't start out with prescription. It doesn't say build this and dredge that and modify the other thing."

She says what it does say is to start paying attention to the changes that have already happened, learn everything you can to better predict changes likely to come, and be strategic in your decisions on how to cope.

"It is continually measuring, learning, adjusting," she said.

Some of this, of course, is already happening.

At Milwaukee's South Shore Yacht Club, commodore Dave Wehnes is pushing members' boats around the slips like giant chess pieces, trying to find the right match for the right boat so the big ones can buy an extra six inches of precious draft — sometimes the difference between being able to set sail for the summer, or not.

Freighters going through the locks at Sault Ste. Marie are leaving thousands of tons of cargo on the docks, just so they don't scrape bottom.

At the tip of the Door Peninsula, emergency dredging was ordered this winter so the ferry that is a lifeline to the outside world for Washington Island's 700 full-time residents could simply pull into its dock.

Just to the south at the public dock in the village of Ephraim, boat slips earlier this year weren't so much on the water as near it. The water was so low this winter that dredging crews were basically digging a canal, not a channel, out into Eagle Harbor.

The low water has been good business for Door County dredger Kahr, but that doesn't mean he's happy. He knows the work he does is expensive and at times environmentally messy. Then he thinks about how it's happening up and down Michigan and Huron's nearly 5,500 miles of shoreline.

Just chasing the water isn't his answer anymore. He says it is time to at least explore how we might actually catch it.

"We can't just keep dig, dig, digging," he said. © 2013, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.jsonline.com/copyright.html

DETROIT DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CELRE‐HH‐W 477 MICHIGAN AVENUE

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226

JULY 2013 GREAT LAKES WATER LEVEL SUMMARY

LAKE SUPERIOR The monthly mean water level of Lake Superior was 601.61 feet for the month of July, which is a rise of 4 inches from June’s level. The average rise for Lake Superior from June to July is 2 inches. The July level was 3 inches above its level of last year, 6 inches above chart datum, and 5 inches below long‐term average (LTA). Lake Superior continues its 14 year stretch of below LTA water levels, the longest period of below average levels in its recorded history dating back to 1918. Precipitation on the Lake Superior basin was above average in July at 161%. The water level of Lake Superior is forecasted to be 12 to 18 inches above record low water levels over the next six months. The Superior level is expected to be 3 to 10 inches above chart datum through December and at chart datum in January. The water levels are forecasted to be 7 to 11 inches above last year’s levels and 3 to 4 inches below LTA over the next six months. LAKE MICHIGAN‐HURON The average water level of Lake Michigan‐Huron for the month of July was 577.72 feet, which is 2 inches higher than the June monthly mean. The average change for Lake Michigan‐Huron from June to July is a 1 inch rise. The July level was 3 inches above datum, 2 inches above its level of last year, and 19 inches below its LTA. Lake Michigan‐Huron also continues a 14 year stretch of below average levels, the longest in its period of record. Precipitation on the Lake Michigan‐Huron basin was near average in July and has been above average over the last 12 months. The water level of Lake Michigan‐Huron is forecasted to be 4 to 12 inches above last year’s level through January and 11 to 12 inches above record lows over the next six months. Michigan‐Huron is expected to be 1 to 2 inches above chart datum through September, at chart datum in October, and 2 to 6 inches below chart datum for November through January. Michigan‐Huron is expected to remain 16 to 19 inches below LTA over the next six months. LAKE ST. CLAIR Lake St. Clair’s monthly mean water level for July was 574.48 feet, which was 4 inches above June’s level. During July, Lake St. Clair was 6 inches above its levels of a year ago and 3 inches below LTA. Lake St. Clair is forecasted to be 6 to 9 inches above last year’s levels through January. The lake is expected to remain 5 to 7 inches below LTA over the next six months. LAKE ERIE Lake Erie’s average water level was 572.01 feet in July, which was 5 inches above June’s level. July’s water level was 8 inches above last year’s level and 2 inches above LTA. The Lake Erie basin received above average precipitation in July at 149%. Lake Erie is forecasted to be 3 to 9 inches above its levels of a year ago through January. The water levels are expected to range between 4 inches below and 1 inch above LTA over the next six months. LAKE ONTARIO The monthly mean water level of Lake Ontario for July was 246.52 feet, which was 2 inches above June’s level. The July water level was 14 inches above last year’s level and 6 inches above LTA. Lake Ontario received above average precipitation in July at 119%. The total precipitation over the last 12 months has been near average. The Lake is forecasted to be 5 to 13 inches above last year’s levels through January. Lake Ontario’s water level is projected to range between 2 inches below and 4 inches above LTA over the next six months.

Information Recorded water levels in this bulletin are derived from a representative network of water level gages on each lake (see cover map). Providers of these data are the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, and Integrated Science Data Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. The Detroit District, Corps of Engineers and Environment Canada derive historic and projected lake levels under the auspices of the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data. This bulletin is produced monthly as a public service. The Corps also publishes the "Great Lakes, Connecting Channels and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Depths,” weekly, which provides a forecast of depths in the connecting rivers between the Great Lakes and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River. This Monthly Bulletin of the lake levels for the Great Lakes may be obtained free of charge by writing to the address shown on the front cover, by calling (313) 226-6442 or emailing [email protected]. Notices of change of address should include the name of the publication. This information is available on the internet at http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/GreatLakesInformation.aspx. Great Lakes Basin Hydrology July 2013 Most of the Great Lakes basin received above average precipitation for the month of July. The Superior basin received above average precipitation in July at 161%, of average. The Michigan-Huron basin, however, received average precipitation. The Erie and Ontario basins received 149% and 108% of average precipitation, respectively, in July. Overall, the Great Lakes basin received above average precipitation last month. The net basin supply of water to the lakes was above average in July, with the exception of Michigan-Huron’s net basin supply which was below average. The outflows from lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron were below average while the outflow from Lake Erie was near average. The outflow from Lake Ontario was above average. The tables below list July precipitation and water supplies for the Great Lakes basin. The water levels of all of the Great Lakes are starting to round out their seasonal rise. Each of the lakes rose between 2 and 5 inches from June’s monthly mean to July’s monthly mean. A comparison of July’s monthly mean lake levels to long-term average (1918-2012) shows Lakes Superior, Michigan-Huron and St. Clair were 5, 19 and 3 inches below average, respectively. Lakes Erie and Ontario were 2 and 6 inches above LTA, respectively. Boaters should be aware of hazards to navigation due to continued below average water levels on the upper lakes. PRECIPITATION (INCHES)

BASIN July 12-Month Comparison

2013

Average Diff. % of

Average Last 12 months

Average Diff. % of

Average

(1900-2010) (1900-2010) Superior 5.27 3.27 2.00 161 29.08 30.46 -1.38 95 Michigan-Huron 3.03 3.03 0.00 100 33.87 32.44 1.43 104 Erie 5.04 3.39 1.65 149 38.42 35.43 2.99 108 Ontario 3.44 3.18 0.26 108 35.99 35.73 0.26 101 Great Lakes 3.96 3.16 0.80 125 33.30 32.64 0.66 102

LAKE

July Net Basin Supplies1 (cfs) July Outflows2 (cfs)

2013 Average3 (1900-2008) 2013

Average3 (1900-2008)

Superior 225,000 129,000 77,000 81,000 Michigan-Huron 94,000 128,000 168,000 195,000 Erie 38,000 7,000 208,000 209,000 Ontario 28,000 24,000 264,000 261,000

Notes: Values (excluding averages) are based on preliminary computations; cfs denotes cubic feet per second.

1 Net basin supply is the net result of precipitation falling on the lake, runoff from precipitation falling on the land which flows to the lake, and evaporation from the lake. Negative net basin supply denotes evaporation exceeded runoff and precipitation. The net total supply can be found by adding the net basin supply and the outflow from the upstream lake.

2 Does not include diversions. 3 Lake Ontario average water supplies and average outflows are based on period of record 1900-2005

2805 South Industrial Hwy., Suite 100 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-6791

Office 734-971-9135 ▪ Fax 734-971-9150 ▪ [email protected]

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Tim A. Eder

To: Commissioners, Associate and Alternate Commissioners, and Observers Fr: Tim Eder, Executive Director Date: Aug. 15, 2013 Re: Workplan update ______________________________________________________________________ In May 2012, the Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors approved a 2012-14 workplan for the Commission. A workflow diagram, illustrating the six program areas in the new workplan, is shown on the following page. The workplan is the follow-up document to the Commission’s five-year Strategic Plan, approved by the Commission in May 2007. The Strategic Plan addresses how the Commission accomplishes its work through four core programs: Communication and Education, Information Integration and Reporting, Facilitation and Consensus Building, and Policy Coordination and Advocacy. The workplan addresses the kinds of work the Commission pursues, focusing on six broad program areas: 1) Clean Energy and Climate; 2) Water-dependent Economy and Infrastructure; 3) Invasive Species; 4) Water Resources Management; 5) Water Quality and Ecosystem Health; and 6) Habitat and Coastal Management. [Readers will note that the goal statements are intentionally far-reaching and probably beyond the scope of what can be achieved by the Commission’s work alone.] The program areas identified herein seek to address the needs of Member states/provinces, reflect current regional priorities, and identify emerging issues and ways that the Commission can leverage its core programs to address them. The new workplan should allow for grouping of similar projects, more efficient management of work and staff resources, guidance for program development efforts, and streamlined communication of progress to Commissioners, Observers and partners. The workplan itself will be updated on a biennial basis. On the pages that follow, we invite you to read brief updates from the staff on progress in achieving the objectives within each program area.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CHAIR Kenneth G. Johnson

Administrator Water Division

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Madison, Wisconsin

VICE CHAIR Kelly Burch

Regional Director Northwest Regional Office

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Meadville, Pennsylvania

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR James M. Tierney

Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Albany, New York

Marc Miller Director

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Springfield, Illinois

Kari Bennett

Commissioner Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

Indianapolis, Indiana

Jon W. Allan Director

Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality Lansing, Michigan

Thomas E. Huntley

Minnesota State Representative Duluth, Minnesota

Joseph Martens

Commissioner New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation Albany, New York

James Zehringer

Director Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Columbus, Ohio

William Carr Manager

International Relations and Policy Office of International

Relations and Protocol Toronto, Ontario

Eric Marquis

Québec Government Representative Chicago, Illinois

Ensuring environmental and economic prosperity for the Great

Lakes-St. Lawrence region through communications, policy research and

development, and advocacy.


1

Clean Energy and Climate Goal: Promote a regional energy mix that can be sustained over generations and is compatible with other uses of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River water resources and promote policies and programs that provide a high level of resiliency to climate change and its impacts. Objectives and Actions 1) Objective: Convene the Great Lakes states, provinces and other stakeholders to facilitate dialogue and

information exchange around clean energy, energy efficiency and climate change issues; and pursue opportunities to build consensus on technical, management and policy solutions to complex energy issues, particularly as they affect water and other natural resources of the Great Lakes basin. ACTION: V. Pebbles organized and moderated a session at the 2013 National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration (July 2013, Schaumburg, Ill.) on Incorporating Climate Adaptation into Large Scale Ecosystem Restoration with representatives from the Great Lakes, Everglades, Coastal Louisiana and Chesapeake Bay. Staff assisted in the preparation of a Commission resolution related to renewable energy. Staff continues to pursue opportunities as they arise and as resources permit.

2) Objective: Continue to serve as secretariat for the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative (GLWC), a

multistakeholder forum dedicated to advancing the sustainable development of wind power in the binational Great Lakes region ACTION: Staff supports ongoing work for the following projects (funders identified in parentheses): monitoring and mapping pelagic bird distribution and abundance (GLRI, USFWS); the prototype development of a GIS wind siting tool (Sierra Club); and the public perception assessment of offshore wind in Northern Michigan (USDOE). A phase two of the pelagic bird studies was awarded to GLC by USFWS under the GLRI to support continued surveys in fall 2013 and spring 2014. Staff is working with the GLWC Steering Committee to respond to two RFPs; one RFP soon to be issued by the U.S. Dept. of Energy calling for regional wind energy resource centers (modeled after the GLWC) and another RFP issued by DTE Energy and Consumers Energy to design an offshore research agenda for the two Michigan GLOW Council-identified sites in Lake Huron. The GLWC 6th Annual Meeting will be held Sept. 22-23, 2013, in Columbus, Ohio.

3) Objective: Foster dialogue and generate information on climate change adaptation issues with a focus on

how they affect the water and related natural resources of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin ACTION: The GLC serves on the IJC’s Adaptive Management (AM) Working Group. The GLC continues to lead a project to identify and promote best practices for climate adaptation in coastal wetlands (funded by a grant from the Michigan CZM). The project will be completed in March 2014. V. Pebbles developed a paper under contract for the IUCN entitled Great Lakes Governance Case Study: Incorporating Climate Adaptation into Transboundary Ecosystem Management. The paper is expected to be published in late 2013.

2

Water Dependent Economy and Infrastructure Goal: Work with the states and provinces to develop and implement elements of regional strategies for economic growth and development based on the wise use of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence water resources. Objectives and Actions 1) Objective: Promote “branding” of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River region as a domestic and

international travel and tourism destination. ACTION: As part of its support for the Statewide Public Advisory Council (SPAC) for Michigan’s Areas of Concern (AOC) Program, work is underway to help Michigan AOCs prepare for “life after delisting,” to sustain stewardship, and leverage restored waterfront areas to advance economic prosperity. In July, the SPAC convened a workshop in Muskegon, MI, titled “Creating Vibrant Coastal Communities Techniques, Tools and Resources to Advance Placemaking in Waterfront Areas” in which participants were introduced to placemaking as a strategy to fuel economic growth and community revitalization. Placemaking is the process of creating quality places that people want to be in. The GLC, in partnership with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, is also continuing to pursue opportunities to work with a small subset of AOCs interested in assessing the perceptions of their communities and identifying opportunities to leverage water resources. The GLC continues to support the Great Lakes Circle Tour, created by the Commission and its member states and provinces as the premier road travel guide for exploring the coastal regions and communities of the Great Lakes. Current efforts are focused on securing funding support to upgrade the Circle Tour’s website on GLIN with new interactive features. This objective to promote Great Lakes travel and tourism is also supported by the Commission’s BeachCast project, which recently introduced a mobile app to enhance public access to real-time Great Lakes beach and lake conditions information.

2) Objective: Work with other regional institutions and commercial navigation interests (including ports, vessel operators and governmental transportation agencies) to build regional consensus on maintaining and improving the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system as a safe, fuel-efficient, economically important and environmentally responsible marine transportation system serving the North American mid-continent ACTION: The GLC continues to facilitate the Great Lakes Dredging Team (GLDT) with support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to work with state and federal agencies on maintaining navigation access to Great Lakes ports and harbors while pursuing sustainable and environmentally responsible dredging operations and management of dredged material. The GLDT held its 2013 annual meeting on July 16-17 in Dundee, Mich., with more than three dozen state, federal and industry partners attending. At that meeting, the GLDT established a new committee structure to address dredging-related priorities including an Outreach Committee, a Technical Committee and a Legislative Committee consisting of the GLDT’s non-federal members. The Legislative Committee will identify policy priorities related to dredging needs in the Great Lakes. Additional GLC efforts recently undertaken include policy coordination and stakeholder outreach to address future maintenance needs for aging navigation and coastal protection infrastructure. Related to this activity has been communications concerning the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which includes provisions for reforming the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Great Lakes Navigation System Sustainability Act (HR 2273), which authorizes the Great Lakes Navigation System as a single integrated system helping the Corps prioritize operations and maintenance funding for dredging and infrastructure improvement more efficiently. A fact sheet was prepared for distribution at 2013 Great Lakes Day events in Washington, D.C., detailing the GLC’s priorities for navigation, dredging and infrastructure improvements.

3

The GLC, along with the State of Illinois, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is planning and sponsoring an important conference titled Great Lakes ports and regional growth: Integrating environmental health and economic prosperity. Scheduled for Nov. 18-19, 2013, in Chicago, the conference will explore new approaches to modernize ports throughout the region by bringing together local, state and regional stakeholders and international experts for a forward looking discussion on what the future might look like for Great Lakes ports. The GLC has also been engaged in efforts to eliminate ships’ ballast water as a vector for aquatic invasive species, including partnering with the Great Ships Initiative and the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative.

3) Objective: Assist the states and provinces in growing the Great Lakes recreational boating and fishing

industries as important generators of jobs and economic investment ACTION: The GLC continues to collaborate with partners in the recreational boating and fishing industries, including the Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition, to advocate for an ongoing federal commitment to safe, reliable navigation infrastructure in the Great Lakes, and to explore potential new, non-federal strategies for small harbor operation and maintenance. Contributing to the urgency facing the recreational boating and small harbor communities are unprecedented low Great Lakes water levels threatening economic hardship and health and human safety; and current federal budgetary directions that de-prioritize recreational and low-use commercial harbors on the Great Lakes. The GLC participated in a panel discussion on these topics at the Michigan Port Collaborative spring summit, held May 22 in Lansing, Mich.

4) Objective: Build partnerships among state, provincial federal and local entities from governmental,

university, non-governmental and private sectors to build consensus on priority needs for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River regional economy ACTION: Staff supports the Commission’s Economic Committee formed by the GLC at its October 2011 Annual Meeting. The committee’s purpose is to give a voice to the economic development and sustainability components of the Commission’s mission. The committee has convened bimonthly meetings to discuss issues related to transportation and infrastructure, and retaining and expanding business and employment in the region. Currently the committee is surveying the jurisdictions in identifying cross-cutting regional economic priorities. This survey is critical for guiding future efforts of the GLC to ensure that each jurisdiction’s perspectives are accurately represented in future projects.

Invasive Species Goal: Prevent the introduction and spread and, where necessary, promote management and control of invasive species that are or have the potential to negatively impact water resources or the economy of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin through a focus on canals/waterways, organisms in trade and ballast water as major pathways. Objectives and Actions 1) Objective: Prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species from connecting waterways with a focus

on the Great Lakes basin and Mississippi River watershed

4

ACTION: The GLC is working in partnership with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative to advance separation of the Chicago area waterways as a long-term solution to the threat of an invasion from Asian carp or other species, while maintaining and enhancing associated uses of the system. Work is ongoing with a team of consultants to develop a “preferred option” for separation; an interim partial barrier option; a financing study to define mechanisms for paying for separation; and a hydraulic modeling analysis of how separation would affect stormwater and flood management. A stakeholder meeting was convened in April to provide an update on options for an interim, one-way barrier and the financing study; and further investigate transportation challenges and opportunities in the CAWS. A workshop on financing was held in June. The GLC also hosted a summer intern from the Future Public Health Leaders Program at the Univ. of Michigan to help conduct research and outreach to local communities and environmental justice groups in the greater Chicago area. The next project Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Oct. 30 in Chicago.

2) Objective: Advance federal programs to reduce the risk of releases of potentially invasive species through

the trade in live organisms, including plants and animals sold for live bait, aquarium, aquaculture, water garden and horticulture, among other pathways ACTION: Work is underway on a grant from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to develop software and tools to track, identify and monitor the sale of invasive species via the internet. The GLC has hired the software development firm RightBrain Networks to develop the web-crawling software system. A beta version of the system is expected in September. Stakeholders are being engaged to develop a plan for outreach to sellers identified through the project. The GLC continues to engage in activities to support new legislation that would strengthen federal programs to prevent the importation of potentially harmful non-native fish and wildlife. A letter is being prepared for distribution to the Great Lakes congressional delegation to support the passage of the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act (H.R. 996 and S. 1153) introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

3) Objective: Support initiatives to convene states and provinces in collaborative efforts (including Governor

Snyder-led initiative) to develop, advance and fund effective and coordinated approaches to invasive species prevention and control ACTION: The GLC continues to support the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (GLP) and its standing committees. The GLP met in May 2013 in Duluth, Minnesota. Meeting topics included the funding for AIS prevention and control programs, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The GLC is also supporting efforts of the Great Lakes governors and premiers to advance a coordinated regional strategy to address AIS that includes prevention, early detection, rapid response and management. The GLC is convening a task force of officials from the Great Lakes states and provinces to advance a ballast water standard for the Great Lakes. This effort will enable consistency in the rules states impose and confidence that the rules protect the sensitive freshwater environment of the lakes.

4) Objective: Support efforts to manage and eradicate priority invasive species established in the Great Lakes,

such as non-native phragmites and sea lamprey

ACTION: The GLC continues to expand a partnership with the USGS-Great Lakes Science Center to lead communications and research on the invasive plant Phragmites. The GLC established the Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative in 2012 to engage the resource management community, reduce redundancy, link science and management, facilitate adaptive management, and encourage a systems approach to management and conservation associated with this invasive plant. The Collaborative supports an interactive web-hub (www.greatlakesphragmites.net), a webinar series, and related resource

http://www.greatlakesphragmites.net/

5

development and is guided by a regional advisory committee. The GLC also supports the Collaborative for Microbial Symbiosis and Phragmites Management, established in partnership with the USGS to bring together researchers to explore the potential to use symbiotic relationships both to control invasive Phragmites and encourage native plant establishment.

5) Objective: Elevate awareness of AIS issues and solutions among decisionmakers and the public

ACTION: The GLC participated in the 18th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species held April 21-25 in Niagara Falls, Ontario. GLC staff presented on efforts to prevent the sale of AIS over the Internet and to separate the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds in the Chicago area.

Water Resources Management Goal: Support the development of a water resources management regime that protects the ecological function of the resource while supporting the sustainable use and conservation of the waters of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin in order to protect public and environmental health, assure economic well-being and sustain a high quality of life for the region’s residents Objectives and Actions 1) Objective: Compile and disseminate consistent water withdrawal, diversion and consumptive use

information to support requirements of the Water Resources Compact and Agreement. ACTION: The Commission continues to provide annual water use reports to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River states and provinces in support of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact and Agreement. The annual water use report for 2011 was completed in May and is posted on the project website: www.glc.org/waterusedata. The states and provinces will submit data for the 2012 water use report by Aug. 15, 2013, with the report due to be completed by early December. The newly developed project website and online data submission portal will be used for the first time in the submission of 2012 data. Beginning with the 2011 report, the GLC is adding new narrative information to the annual reports to make them more interesting and relevant to the broad spectrum of stakeholders interested in water use activities of the states and provinces. At the request of the Council of Great Lakes Governors in March, the GLC staff prepared a detailed workplan and budget for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Regional Water Use Database as well as some ideas for expanding and enhancing the database. This information was presented to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Council and Regional Body on a conference call on April 19. The GLC also continues to partner with the Council of Great Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes Observing System on a project to integrate foundational data sets to support a cumulative water use impact assessment through a grant from the NOAA Regional Ocean Partnership. A draft report is under review by the project team and will be released in December 2013. An online “dashboard” for comparative data analysis is also under development.

2) Objective: Assist in the development of the Water Resource Agreement’s Science Strategy including identifying and implementing activities to advance water conservation and efficiency within the states and provinces

http://www.glc.org/waterusedata

6

ACTION: The Commission has joined a team led by John Jackson (formerly of Great Lakes United) and other partners on a Great Lakes Protection Fund project to identify and test the environmental and financial rationales for municipalities to pursue water conservation and green infrastructure practices, and evaluate how this information – when combined with effective knowledge transfer techniques – can drive innovation in water management throughout the Great Lakes region. The team is looking at all aspects of water conservation including municipal water supply, stormwater and wastewater management improvements, and other traditional water conservation strategies. The project is piloting these approaches in six communities: the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario; the City of Waterloo, Ontario; the City of Guelph, Ontario; the Township of Lyons, Michigan; the Township of Commerce, Michigan; and Southwest Oakland County, Michigan. The GLC will help administer the project and will be developing and leading a communications and outreach strategy to broadly disseminate project information and outcomes. The GLC continues to work with the Council of Great Lakes Governors to identify other opportunities to advance the science strategy of the Water Resources Compact and Agreement.

3) Objective: Coordinate data and information sharing between the states and provinces to support the understanding of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River physical system and enhance implementation of the Agreement and Water Resources Compact ACTION: The GLC is in ongoing discussions with the USGS science centers from Michigan and Ohio on issues related to water resources streamflow modeling and assessment tools to help states and provinces identify impacts associated with water withdrawals and consumptive use. Program Director V. Pebbles convened a session on issues surrounding the science, policy and management of ecological flow regimes at the 5th National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration (NCER), July 29-Aug. 2 in Chicago.

Water Quality and Ecosystem Health Goal: Improve water quality and ecosystem health in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin through the reduction of pollution loadings into surface and ground waters and the coordination of monitoring, prevention and response strategies Objectives and Actions 1) Objective: Reduce nonpoint source pollution and improve water quality by building partnerships with state,

provincial and federal agencies to improve the efficiency of pollution prevention programs, target them to priority watersheds, and expand public awareness efforts ACTION: The 2010, 2011 and 2012 Great Lakes Basin Program-GLRI grants continued to be active in installing sediment reduction practices in priority watersheds. The 2013 grants (five watershed-scale and seven small-scale grants totaling more than $1.7 million) were selected in July 2013 through funding provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-NRCS under the GLRI. A draft agreement with USDA-NRCS for the 2013 GLRI grant program is completed and awaiting internal review. Site visits to most of the GLRI projects were completed in August 2013. The GLC continued to provide technical and administrative support to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Great Lakes Tributary Modeling Program. GLC staff facilitates communication among the Corps’ Great Lakes districts through participation in bimonthly program teleconferences, as well as the convening of an annual Great Lakes Sedimentation Workshop, which was held in Ann Arbor in May 2013. These annual meetings have provided an opportunity for federal, state, NGO, university and private sector partners to come together to discuss priorities for Great Lakes soil conservation,

7

sedimentation, and NPS pollution prevention, control and planning. To expand partnerships under the program, an informational webinar on the program is being planned for Great Lakes Fishery Commission staff to identify possible connections between the models and special studies developed under the program and ongoing fisheries research. Staff attended a stakeholder meeting in Bryan, Ohio, for the Tiffin River SWAT model currently under development to assess dissolved phosphorus and ephemeral gully erosion loadings within the watershed. A poster featuring in-stream sediment and phosphorus reduction practices was also developed and presented at IAGLR in June and the National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration in July. Updates to the program website are ongoing.

2) Objective: Develop recommendations and assist state and federal agencies in implementing actions to reduce the frequency and severity of harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes by reducing the input of phosphorus and other nutrients through improved clean water infrastructure, research, technical assistance, outreach and education ACTION: The GLC, through a partnership agreement with USDA-NRCS in Wisconsin, has begun a project to develop a phosphorus credit trading program for the Lower Fox River watershed in Wisconsin. This three-year project (known as Fox P-Trade) is designed to help address high nutrient levels and algal blooms in the Lower Fox watershed. Elements of the Fox P-Trade project, which began in March, include 1) determining water quality goals and targets for the Fox P-Trade program based on existing state water quality programs and quantification methods (e.g., Phosphorus rule and TMDL for Lower Fox River); 2) assessing the feasibility for phosphorus trading supply and demand; 3) designing specific program elements that build on Wisconsin water quality trading guidance and other federal and state water quality policies and programs; and 4) developing an outreach and education plan. GLC staff has begun engaging project partners and stakeholders, has visited the watershed, and attended numerous conferences and webinars related to phosphorus reduction and nutrient management in the Fox River basin. A project management team and a stakeholders advisory committee have been formed. A field coordinator was recently hired to represent the GLC locally within the Fox River watershed and serve as a liaison to the GLC on related efforts to manage nutrients and control phosphorus and otherwise support all elements of the Fox P-Trade project. Proposals were also developed and presented to USDA-NRCS to expand the nonpoint program to include increased technical assistance in priority watersheds, developing and establishing a conservation practice watershed demonstration area. A demonstration watershed project, also in the Lower Fox, is in the beginning implementation phase. While the agreement has not yet been signed, preliminary planning meetings have been conducted. A meeting with the project partners, NRCS, USGS and the Land Conservation offices was held in August to develop site selection criteria.

3) Objective: Advance state, provincial and federal efforts to reduce Great Lakes impairments from atmospheric contaminants by supporting necessary research and information collection to drive risk assessment, priority setting and pollution reduction actions

ACTION: Over the past two decades, the GLC coordinated the Great Lakes Air Deposition (GLAD) program and the regional air toxics emission inventories with funding from U.S. EPA and significant support from the eight Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario. However, since the Great Lakes states were unable to reach a consensus on whether to continue this multijurisdictional effort, the U.S. EPA awarded the FY2013 funding directly to each state agency. This decision effectively ended both the regional GLAD research grant program and the regional air toxics emission inventory project; the GLC’s involvement with these projects ended in August 2013. As part of this effort, the most recent inventories have been made available via a newly developed web-based application, the Centralized Air emission Repository On-Line (CAROL; http://carol.glin.net), designed to provide access to the Great Lakes

http://carol.glin.net/

8

regional datasets and to allow the end user to query and map point, area, and mobile source toxic air emissions. Other work related to atmospheric contaminants is funded via short-term grants. The GLC is managing a collaborative project funded by the U.S. EPA via a 2011 GLRI grant to reduce human and ecosystem exposure to brominated flame retardants (particularly PBDEs) and loadings to the Great Lakes environment. Project objectives are to estimate a regional PBDE inventory for the Great Lakes basin, propose metrics to quantify the magnitude of reductions, and recommend a formal approach to finding alternatives to PBDEs. The GLC has also been a partner on a 2012 GLRI grant to organize workshops for industry representatives (i.e., furniture and textile manufacturers and retailers) on the concerns associated with the use of flame retardants and to encourage development of partnerships that could result in expanding the market share of product lines that can be produced without these additives.

4) Objective: Enhance coordination, communication and data management among the many agencies and organizations that conduct or benefit from coastal and nearshore monitoring efforts in the basin ACTION: On June 1, 2013, the Great Lakes governors and premiers adopted a “Water Monitoring” resolution, which calls for establishment of a workgroup to foster collaboration between the various parties involved with water quality and quantity monitoring of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin ecosystem. As directed by its Executive Committee, the Council of Great Lakes Governors has subsequently asked the Great Lakes Commission to create this workgroup and develop recommendations for the governors and premiers to consider by March 28, 2014. The goals of the project will be to promote systemic monitoring vs. transactional monitoring; maximize use of existing resources; and reduce redundancies and inefficiencies. Under a GLRI grant titled “Evaluating and Enhancing Lake Michigan Nearshore Monitoring,” the GLC conducted an inventory of nearshore monitoring projects in the Lake Michigan basin. The first of two project workshops was held April 18-19, 2013, to review the inventory and associated monitoring and data management efforts in the basin. A webinar was held July 24 to further promote the project and review preliminary data analyses and mapping efforts. The second project workshop will be held Oct. 15 Sheboygan, WI as part of the State of Lake Michigan conference. The GLC continues to support the data management efforts of the Great Lakes Observing System, including contributing to development of an enhanced GLOS Data Portal, released in spring 2013 (see http://glos.us/data-access/data-portal). The GLC also administers the Michigan Clean Water Corps program (MiCorps), which funds two volunteer water quality monitoring programs, the collection and dissemination of volunteer monitoring data using standardized methodologies, small-scale stream cleanup events, and educational initiatives related to water quality in Michigan. In 2013, the GLC awarded five volunteer stream monitoring grants totaling over $51,000; supported volunteer water quality sampling at 221 inland lakes under the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program; and awarded 20 small grants totaling over $39,000 to local units of government for river and stream cleanup events. On Oct. 28-29, 2013, staff will convene the 9th annual MiCorps conference at the R.A. MacMullan Conference Center on Higgins Lake, featuring presentations on monitoring and citizen science initiatives as a way to maintain the health of Michigan’s freshwater systems, as well as volunteer training from regional experts. The GLC continues to provide secretariat and web hosting services for the Great Lakes Beach Association. The 2013 Beach Conference will be held Oct. 15-17, in conjunction with the State of Lake Michigan Conference in Sheboygan, Wis.

http://glos.us/data-access/data-portal

9

5) Objective: Help coordinate spill prevention/response programs and build partnerships between state, provincial and federal agencies to improve planning, make response efforts more efficient, and expand public awareness of the risks associated with oil and hazardous material spills ACTION: A statewide Inland Sensitivity Atlas for Michigan was completed and delivered to U.S. EPA. Data development for an update to the Inland Sensitivity Atlas for Ohio is underway. Cartography and atlas production are on hold pending acquisition of sensitive species data from U.S. EPA and hazardous materials handling facilities data from Ohio EPA. Meanwhile, staff continues to support spill response planning for the northern area of Michigan in cooperation with U.S. EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Plan design is being revised with U.S. EPA input and will be transferable to other Region 5 Sub-Areas upon completion. Staff is also assisting with updates currently underway for the Region 5 Oil and Hazardous Substances Spill Contingency Plan. Support has included website design, plan content updates and the creation of online mapping content.

6) Objective: Review the status of state emergency preparedness response programs and regulations and the

adequacy of federal programs through a reestablished Emergency Preparedness Task Force ACTION: In preparation for reconvening the Emergency Preparedness Task Force, staff reviewed and prioritized the recommendations in the Task Force’s 2012 report on oil spill preparedness in the Great Lakes. Particular attention was paid to recommendations the GLC could directly support, including analysis of regionwide oil transport trends, spill trends, and planning and response program resources; advocacy in support of improved interagency communication; and studies of shore-based spill sources, including reporting and response strategies for heavily polluted waterways.

7) Objective: Enhance protection of public health by improving the expediency and reach of communication

mechanisms for broadcasting water quality advisories and beach health information ACTION: On May 31, the GLC released an updated version of its myBeachCast mobile app (http://beachcast.glin.net), which provides real-time information on beach water quality advisories, weather and water conditions for more than 1,800 Great Lakes and inland beaches. The app now features beach hazard statements issued by the NOAA National Weather Service, issued when the potential for strong and dangerous rip currents and waves is medium or high. To further publicize and increase use of myBeachCast, the GLC, in cooperation with regional partners, has also developed a beach safety card that features free applications and safety tips to promote swimming safety. The cards are now available at welcome centers, parks and beaches throughout Michigan and neighboring states. Other partners on the effort include LimnoTech, WeatherFlow and Michigan Sea Grant.

8) Objective: Support regional efforts to plan for and invest in green infrastructure to better manage stormwater and to improve the quality of urban water resources ACTION: The GLC has joined a team led by John Jackson (formerly of Great Lakes United) and other partners on a Great Lakes Protection Fund project to identify and test the environmental and financial rationales for municipalities to pursue water conservation and green infrastructure practices, and evaluate how this information can drive innovation in water management throughout the Great Lakes region.

http://beachcast.glin.net/

10

Habitat and Coastal Management Goal: Contribute to the preservation of diverse habitats and natural communities that sustain populations of desirable species; the restoration of degraded areas, such as the Areas of Concern; and the conservation of coastal resources to support sustainable activities that depend on access to the waters of the Great Lakes Objectives and Actions 1) Objective: Support the work of federal, state and local agencies and advisory groups to develop and

implement restoration projects with a focus on Areas of Concern and place-based restoration that can achieve multiple ecosystem objectives (e.g., climate change, habitat restoration, sustainable water resource management, invasive species prevention and control) ACTION: The GLC continues to provide staff support to the Statewide Public Advisory Council for Michigan’s Areas of Concern Program. Recent actions include coordinating a briefing for state legislators on Michigan’s AOC program, conducting a workshop on placemaking in coastal communities, and administering grants to local Public Advisory Councils to support restoration work. Staff are also leading projects to address climate change in coastal wetlands and improve communication, management and research of invasive Phragmites. The GLC has been recommended to lead a new NOAA GLRI-funded partnership to support habitat restoration in priority AOCs throughout the region.

2) Objective: Advance federal programs that support our habitat and coastal management goal ACTION: The GLC works closely with the states and federal agencies to establish regional positions and priorities related to habitat and coastal management policies and legislative initiatives. The GLC is supporting strong conservation provisions in reauthorization of the Farm Bill.

3) Objective: Ensure that the science needs of state natural resource managers are addressed by federal research laboratories and that environmental managers have access to the latest scientific information ACTION: The GLC partners with federal agencies to facilitate communication and coordination among states and federal research laboratories. The GLC established a Memorandum of Understanding with the USGS to facilitate collaboration. Staff support several projects in this growing partnership, including the Great Lakes Rivermouth Ecosystem Collaboratory, which resulted in a publication in the Journal of Great Lakes Research. Staff also published Great Lakes Rivermouths: A Primer for Managers, written for state and federal resource managers. The Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative is a regional communications strategy targeting the invasive plant Phragmites. Staff lead communication and management components of the Collaborative and also support new research partnerships for Phragmites control through the Collaborative for Microbial Symbiosis. Through a partnership with the USGS, GLC will engage state managers in development of a Coastal Science Strategy to ensure that science is supporting management priorities.

4) Objective: Respond to needs and interests of the states and provinces related to coastal management issues ACTION: The GLC received a second year of funding from the USFWS Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act to survey and map avian resources in the nearshore and open waters of lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan and Ontario. The GLC is working with the USFWS, USGS, Michigan DNR, MSU, the Michigan Natural Features Inventory and the Western Lake Michigan Bird and Bat Observatory to collect bird data that will support decisions regarding offshore siting of wind turbines. Staff are also engaged in a climate adaptation project, supported by Michigan DEQ and NWF, to develop a best practices tool kit to support climate change adaptation in coastal wetlands.

11

Policy Coordination and Advocacy The centerpieces of the GLC’s policy coordination and advocacy program are its annual legislative priorities statement and Great Lakes Day in Washington. The 2013 statement, Sustaining Environmental Restoration and Economic Revitalization in the Great Lakes Region, was released on March 7 – Great Lakes Day 2013 – and is guiding the GLC’s advocacy activities in 2013. Top priorities for 2013 are the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, comprehensive Great Lakes legislation, aquatic invasive species, dredging for ports and harbors, drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, and reauthorization of the Farm Bill with strong conservation provisions. Below are a brief status report and summary of actions to advance each priority. Status of Appropriations for Major Great Lakes Programs The following table summarizes appropriations (in millions of dollars) for selected Great Lakes programs for the current fiscal year (FY 2013); the President’s budget request for FY 2014; and any congressional actions taken to date.

Program Current Fiscal Year

FY 2014 Budget Request

House Action

Senate Action

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory $9.64 $24.4* $25* $26.4*

Dispersal Barrier and Interbasin Study $22.4 $27.6 $26.2 $27.6 Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund $838 $890 $1,000 $1,000 Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) $2.85 $3 $3 $3

Clean Water State Revolving Fund $1,379 $1,095 $250 $1,449 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund $863 $817 $350 $907 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative $284 $300 $210 $300 BEACH Grants $9.3 $0 $0 $10 Great Lakes Science Center $8.3 $8 Not specified Not specified Section 106 Water Pollution Control $238 $258.7 Not specified $242.9 *Represents funding under the Ocean, Coastal and Great Lakes Research category, which includes GLERL a portion of funding for two other NOAA labs. Sustain Progress Under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) : For the third year in a row the GLC prepared factsheets showing the GLRI projects funded in each of the Great Lakes states and summarizing the importance of the Great Lakes and the economic benefits from restoration efforts. New this year is an online, searchable map showing GLRI projects (http://glc.org/restore/glrimap/). These materials were broadly publicized with the Great Lakes Congressional delegation and have been very effective in showcasing on-the-ground impacts from the GLRI. In March the GLC joined with other regional organizations in sending a letter to the House Great Lakes delegation urging members to sign on to a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting level funding of $300 million for the GLRI in FY 2014. Our outreach efforts helped generate a strong turnout, with 38 members signing onto the letter. A similar effort was made in support of a GLRI funding letter in the Senate. In July the GLC wrote to the House Appropriations Committee urging it to restore funding for the GLRI and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund after the Interior and Environment Subcommittee recommended significant cuts to these programs. The full committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. David Joyce increasing GLRI funding from $60 million to $210 million. The Senate appropriations bill for U.S. EPA provides level funding of $300 million for the GLRI. In July the GLC submitted a suite of recommendations to U.S. EPA for updating the GLRI Action Plan and improving the Initiative’s efficiency as it is extended for another five years. The recommendations emphasized the vital role of the states in implementing the GLRI and called for improved consultation and coordination with the states as the GLRI moves forward.

12

Pass Comprehensive Legislation to Enhance and Accelerate Great Lakes Conservation Efforts: In June the cochairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, Senators Carl Levin and Mark Kirk, together with seven other Great Lakes Senators, introduced the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (S. 1232), legislation that would authorize the GLRI at $475 million annually; reauthorize EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office at $25 million annually; reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act at $150 million annually; establish a Great Lakes Advisory Board; authorize a Federal Interagency Task Force; and call for implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Commission staff coordinated with the Senators’ staff in developing the legislation and urged the Great Lakes Senate delegation to sign on as original cosponsors. In July Congressman David Joyce, together with five other members, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives, HR 2773. The two bills are identical except that the House bill reauthorizes the Great Lakes Legacy Act at $100 million annually, versus $150 million in the Senate bill. The GLC urged the House Great Lakes delegation to cosponsor the House bill. The legislation reflects the priorities outlined in the GLC’s legislative priorities statement. To help inform this legislation, the Commission worked with state staff to prepare recommendations for reauthorizing and improving the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which supports contaminated sediment remediation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Establish strong protections against aquatic invasive species (AIS) : The GLC continues to publicize the Restoring the Natural Divide report, released in January 2012, that outlined alternatives for separating the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds. GLC staff are closely following the work of the Army Corps of Engineers on the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS), which is developing options to prevent the movement of AIS between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The GLC serves on the GLMRIS Executive Steering Committee (ESC) and has worked closely with the Corps to ensure full consideration of the GLC’s report and inclusion of a complete hydrologic separation alternative in the GLMRIS study. The Transportation Reauthorization Bill passed by Congress in July 2012 included a provision requiring the Corps to complete the GLMRIS study within 18 months (approx. January 2014). The GLC is currently conducting studies, with support from technical experts, to evaluate options for financing separation; identify interim control options for preventing the movement of Asian carp using existing infrastructure in the Chicago Area Waterway System; and assess flood management impacts from the separation alternatives developed in the original report. Results from these studies will be released toward the end of 2013 along with a response to the GLMRIS study. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have introduced the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act (HR 996 and S. 1153, respectively) to strengthen the screening of non-native fish and wildlife proposed for importation to prevent the introduction of harmful invasive species. The bills provide new policy guidance and regulatory tools to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to modernize and improve the Lacey Act, which governs the importation on non-native species. The GLC and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission sent a joint letter to the House and Senate Great Lakes delegations supporting these bills. Address the Crisis Facing Commercial Navigation and Recreational Harbors in the Great Lakes: In May the Senate passed a Water Resources Development Act (S. 601, WRDA) with several provisions affecting the Great Lakes. The GLC worked closely with key Senators to support provisions that would increase funding for dredging and commercial navigation in the Great Lakes and communicated its position with the Senate Great Lakes delegation and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senate-passed WRDA bill provides the following:

• Sets aside 20% of harbor maintenance funds in excess of FY2012 levels for Great Lakes projects • Sets specific minimum funding levels from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), set as the

lesser of HMTF receipts plus interest collected or $1 billion in FY2014; increases by $100 million

13

each year through FY2019, after which (FY2020 and beyond) the required funding level is total receipts plus interest.

• Establishes the “primary purpose” of the HMTF as maintaining the width and depth of ports and those projects should receive “first consideration.”

• Adds direction for funding low-use and moderate-use ports when high-use, deep draft harbors have been funded, and those lower-use ports have received significant state and local infrastructure investments

• Requires a GAO study of the use of HMTF funds in low-use and moderate-use ports In a colloquy on the Senate floor with the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, several Great Lakes Senators clarified and confirmed the Senate's intent that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should manage the Great Lakes Navigation System as a single system. The GLC also communicated Great Lakes priorities for WRDA to the House Great Lakes delegation, calling for reform of the HMTF; authorization of the Great Lakes Navigation System as a single, integrated system; and creation of a cost-share program for dredging of recreational harbors. It also conveyed opposition to provisions that expand the authorized use of HMTF revenues beyond their primary intended purpose or impose a prioritization scheme that puts the Great Lakes region at a disadvantage. Congresswoman Candice Miller has introduced HR 2273, the Great Lakes Navigation System Sustainability Act, with provisions authorizing the Great Lakes as a single, integrated system and creating a cost-share program for recreational harbors. Provide funding to upgrade aging water infrastructure: As discussed above, the GLC urged the House Appropriations Committee to restore funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund after the Interior/EPA subcommittee proposed a significant funding cut to the program. The president’s FY 2014 budget requests $1.095 for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program and $817 million for the Drinking Water Revolving Fund program. Reauthorize the Farm Bill to Advance Soil Conservation and Water Quality Protections in the Great Lakes Region: The GLC has worked closely over the past year with the Senate Agriculture Committee and regional partners to advance this priority, including a new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) that would take the place of the current Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control and increase funding for priority conservation areas. The GLC supported report language to direct NRCS to continue using the Great Lakes Basin Program to implement the GLRI while the new Farm Bill conservation programs are developed. The Senate passed a Farm Bill in June (S. 954) with the same RCPP provisions as in 2012, and similar report language on the Great Lakes Basin Program is expected to be included. The House passed a pared down Farm Bill in July (HR 2642) without the nutrition title but with RCPP provisions similar to those in the Senate bill.

Reference This section includes:

• Great Lakes Basin Compact

• Commission Bylaws

• Membership lists

- Commissioners, Associate Commissioners and Alternates - Observers - Staff

GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT

(With State & Federal Legislative History)

Reprinted by

Great Lakes Commission Eisenhower Corporate Park

2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #100 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-6791

GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT

The party states solemnly agree:

ARTICLE I The purposes of this compact are, through means of joint or cooperative action: 1. To promote the orderly, integrated, and comprehensive development, use, and conservation of the water

resources of the Great Lakes Basin (hereinafter called the Basin). 2. To plan for the welfare and development of the water resources of the Basin as a whole as well as for

those portions of the Basin which may have problems of special concern. 3. To make it possible for the states of the Basin and their people to derive the maximum benefit from

utilization of public works, in the form of navigational aids or otherwise, which may exist or which may be constructed from time to time.

4. To advise in securing and maintaining a proper balance among industrial, commercial, agricultural, water

supply, residential, recreational, and other legitimate uses of the water resources of the Basin. 5. To establish and maintain an intergovernmental agency the end that the purposes of this compact may be

accomplished more effectively.

ARTICLE II A. This compact shall enter into force and become effective and binding when it has been enacted by the

legislature of any four of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and thereafter shall enter into force and become effective and binding as to any other of said states when enacted by the legislature thereof.

B. The Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec, or either of them, may become states party to this

compact by taking such action as their laws and the laws of the Government of Canada may prescribe for adherence thereto. For the purposes of this compact the word 'state' shall be construed to include a Province of Canada.

ARTICLE III

The Great Lakes Commission created by Article IV of this compact shall exercise its powers and perform its functions in respect to the Basin which, for the purposes of this compact shall consist of so much of the following as may be within the party states: 1. Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, St. Clair, Superior, and the St. Lawrence River, together with any

and all natural or manmade water interconnections between or among them. 2. All rivers, ponds, lakes, streams, and other watercourses which, in their natural state or in their prevailing

conditions, are tributary to Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, St. Clair, and Superior or any of them or which comprise part of any watershed draining into any of said lakes.

ARTICLE IV

A. There is hereby created an agency of the party states to be known as The Great Lakes Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). In that name the Commission may sue and be sued, acquire, hold and convey real and personal property and any interest therein. The Commission shall have a seal with the words, 'The Great Lakes Commission' and such other design as it may prescribe engraved thereon by which it shall authenticate its proceedings. Transactions involving real or personal property shall conform to the laws of the state in which the property is located, and the Commission may by by-laws provide for the execution and acknowledgment of all instruments in its behalf.

B. The Commission shall be composed of not less than three commissioners nor more than five

commissioners from each party state designated or appointed accordance with the law of the state which they represent and serving and subject to removal in accordance with such law.

C. Each state delegation shall be entitled to three votes in the Commission. The presence of commissioners

from a majority of the party states shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Commission. Actions of the Commission shall be by a majority of the votes cast except that any recommendations made pursuant to Article VI of this compact shall require an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the votes cast from each of a majority of the states present and voting.

D. The commissioners of any two or more party states may meet separately to consider problems of

particular interest to their states but no action taken at any such meeting shall be deemed an action of the Commission unless and until the Commission shall specifically approve the same.

E. In the absence of any commissioner, his vote may be cast by another representative or commissioner of

his state provided that said commissioner or other representative casting said vote shall have a written proxy in proper form as may be required by the Commission.

F. The Commission shall elect annually from among its members a chairman and vice-chairman. The

Commission shall appoint an Executive Director who shall also act as secretary-treasurer, and who shall be bonded in such amount as the Commission may require. The Executive Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission and at such compensation and under such terms and conditions as may be fixed by it. The Executive Director shall be custodian of the records of the Commission with authority to affix the Commission's official seal and to attest to and certify such records or copies thereof.

G. The Executive Director, subject to the approval of the Commission in such cases as its by-laws may

provide, shall appoint and remove or discharge such personnel as may be necessary for the performance of the Commission's function. Subject to the aforesaid approval, the Executive Director may fix their compensation, define their duties, and require bonds of such of them as the Commission may designate.

H. The Executive Director, on behalf of, as trustee for, and with the approval of the Commission, may

borrow, accept, or contract for the services of personnel from any state or government or any subdivision or agency thereof, from any inter-governmental agency, or from any institution, person, firm or corporation; and may accept for any of the Commissions purposes and functions under this compact any and all donations, gifts, and grants of money, equipment, supplies, materials, and services from any state or government of any subdivision or agency thereof or inter-governmental agency or from any institution, person, firm or corporation and may receive and utilize the same.

I. The Commission may establish and maintain one or more offices for the transacting of its business and

for such purposes the Executive Director, on behalf of, as trustee for, and with the approval of the Commission, may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property necessary to the performance of its functions.

J. No tax levied or imposed by any party state or any political subdivision thereof shall be deemed to apply to property, transactions, or income of the Commission.

K. The Commission may adopt, amend and rescind by-laws, rules and regulations for the conduct of its

business. L. The organization meeting of the Commission shall be held within six months from the effective date of

the compact. M. The Commission and its Executive Director shall make available to the party states any information

within its possession and shall always provide free access to its records by duly authorized representatives of such party states.

N. The Commission shall keep a written record of its meetings and proceedings and shall annually make a

report thereof to be submitted to the duly designated official of each party state. O. The Commission shall make and transmit annually to the legislature and Governor of each party state a

report covering the activities of the Commission for the preceding year and embodying such recommendations as may have been adopted by the Commission. The Commission may issue such additional reports as it may deem desirable.

ARTICLE V

A. The members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but the expenses of each commission shall be met by the state which he represents in accordance with the law of that state. All other expenses incurred by the Commission in the course of exercising the powers conferred upon it by this compact, unless met in some other manner specifically provided by this compact, shall be paid by the Commission out of its own funds.

B. The Commission shall submit to the executive head or designated officer of each party state a budget of

its estimated expenditures for such period as may be required by the laws of that state for presentation to the legislature thereof.

C. Each of the Commission's budgets of estimated expenditures shall contain specific recommendations of

the amount or amounts to be appropriated by each of the party states. Detailed commission budgets shall be recommended by a majority of the votes cast, and the costs shall be allocated equitably among the party states in accordance with their respective interests.

D. The Commission shall not pledge the credit of any party state. The Commission may meet any of its

obligations in whole or in part with funds available to it under Article IV(H) of this compact, provided that the Commission takes specific action setting aside such funds prior to the incurring of any obligations to be met in whole or in part in this manner. Except where the Commission makes use of funds available to it under Article IV(H) hereof, the Commission shall not incur any obligations prior to the allotment of funds by the party states adequate to meet the same.

E. The Commission shall keep accurate accounts of all receipts and disbursements. The receipts and

disbursements of the Commission shall be subject to the audit and accounting procedures established under the by-laws. However, all receipts and disbursements of funds handled by the Commission shall be audited yearly by a qualified public accountant and the report of the audit shall be included in and become a part of the annual report of the Commission.

F. The accounts of the Commission shall be open at any reasonable time for inspection by such agency, representative of the party states as may be duly constituted for that purpose and by others who may be authorized by the Commission.

ARTICLE VI

The Commission shall have power to: A. Collect, correlate, interpret, and report on data relating to the water resources and the use thereof in the

Basin or any portion thereof. B. Recommend methods for the orderly, efficient, and balanced development, use and conservation of the

water resources of the Basin or any portion thereof to the party state and to any other governments or agencies having interests in or jurisdiction over the Basin or any portion thereof.

C. Consider the need for and desirability of public works and improvements relating to the water resources

in the Basin or any portion thereof. D. Consider means of improving navigation and port facilities in the Basin or any other portion thereof. E. Consider means of improving and maintaining the fisheries of the Basin or any portion thereof. F. Recommend policies relating to water resources including the institution and alteration of flood plain and

other zoning laws, ordinances and regulations. G. Recommend uniform or other laws, ordinances, or regulations relating to the development, use and

conservation of the Basin's water resources to the party states or any of them and to other governments, political subdivisions, agencies of inter-governmental bodies having interests or in jurisdiction sufficient to affect conditions in the Basin or any portion thereof.

H. Consider and recommend amendments or agreements supplementary to this compact to the party states

or any of them, and assist in the formulation and drafting of such amendments or supplementary agreements.

I. Prepare and publish reports, bulletins, and publications appropriate to this work and fix reasonable sales

prices therefore. J. With respect to the water resources of the Basin or any portion thereof, recommend agreements between

the governments of the United States and Canada. K. Recommend mutual arrangements expressed by concurrent or reciprocal legislation on the part of

Congress and the Parliament of Canada including but not limited to such agreements and mutual arrangements as are provided for by Article XIII of the Treaty of 1909 Relating to Boundary Waters and Questions Arising Between the United States and Canada. (Treaty Series, No 548).

L. Cooperate with the governments of the United States and of Canada, the party states and any public or

private agencies or bodies having interests in or jurisdiction sufficient to affect the Basin or any portion thereof.

M. At the request of the United States, or in the event that a Province shall be a party state, at the request of

the Government of Canada, assist in the negotiation and formulation of any treaty or other mutual agreement between the United States and Canada with reference to the Basin or any portion thereof.

N. Make any recommendation and do all things necessary and proper to carry out the powers conferred upon the Commission by this compact, provided that no action of the Commission shall have the force of law in, or be binding upon, any party state.

ARTICLE VII

Each party state agrees to consider the action the Commission recommends in respect to: A. Stabilization of lake levels. B. Measures for combating pollution, beach erosion, floods and shore inundation. C. Uniformity in navigation regulations within the constitutional powers of the states. D. Proposed navigation aids and improvements. E. Uniformity or effective coordinating action in fishing laws and regulations and cooperative action to

eradicate destructive and parasitical forces endangering the fisheries, wildlife and other water resources. F. Suitable hydroelectric power developments. G. Cooperative programs for control of soil and bank erosion for the general improvement of the Basin. H. Diversion of waters from and into the Basin. I. Other measures the Commission may recommend to the states pursuant to Article VI of this compact.

ARTICLE VIII This compact shall continue in force and remain upon each party state until renounced by the act of the legislature of such state, in such form and manner as it may choose and as may be valid and effective to repeal a statute of said state, provided that such renunciation shall not become effective until six months after notice of such action shall have been officially communicated in writing to the executive head of the other party states.

ARTICLE IX

It is intended that the provisions of this compact shall be reasonably and liberally construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. The provisions of this compact shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any party state or of the United States, or in the case of a Province, to the British North America Act of 1867 as amended, or the applicability thereof to any state, agency, person or circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any state, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby, provided further that if this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of the United States, or in the case of a Province, to the British North America Act of 1867 as amended, or of any party state, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

STATE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

Illinois: (69th GA House Bill, No. 983, 1955) Indiana: (Chapter 220 (H. 216, Approved March 10, 1955) Michigan: (Act No. 28, Public Acts of 1955, Approved by Governor April 14, 1955) Minnesota: (Laws of Minnesota 1955, Chapter 691; S.F. No. 1982) New York: (Chapter 643, Laws of 1960) Ohio: (Amended House Bill 415, Effective October 9, 1963, 105 General Assembly) Pennsylvania: (Act of Pennsylvania General Assembly, No. 421, 1955-56 Session) Wisconsin: (No. 294 A, Chapter 275, Laws of 1955)

The Commission was officially organized and established December 12, 1955 subsequent to ratification of the compact by five states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin). The Commission office was established on the Campus of the University of Michigan in early 1956. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT - LEGISLATION All interstate compacts require Congressional consent (Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States) in order to achieve full force and effect. Numerous bills were considered beginning in 1956. In 1968, Congress enacted S. 660 (PL 90-419) giving limited consent to the compact as follows:

"Public Law 90-419 90th Congress, S 660

July 24, 1968

"AN ACT

"Granting the consent of Congress to a Great Lakes Basin Compact, and for other purposes. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the consent of Congress is hereby given, to the extent and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, to the Great Lakes Basin Compact which has been entered into by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the form as follows:

"GREAT LAKES BASIN COMPACT"

(The full text of the State adopted Compact text is included in PL 90-419 at this point.)

"SEC. 2. The consent herein granted does not extend to paragraph B of article II or to paragraphs J, K, and M or article VI of the compact, or to other provisions of article VI of the compact which purpose to authorize recommendations to, or cooperation with, any foreign or international governments, political subdivisions, agencies or bodies. In carrying out its functions under this Act the Commission shall be solely a consultative and recommendatory agency which will cooperate with the agencies of the United States. It shall furnish to the Congress and to the President, or to any official designated by the President, copies of its reports submitted to the party states pursuant to paragraph O of article IV of the compact. "SEC. 3. Nothing contained in this Act or in the compact consented to hereby shall be construed to affect the jurisdiction on, powers, or prerogatives of any department, agency, or officer of the United States Government or of the Great Lakes Basin Committee established under title II of the Water Resources Planning Act, or of any international commission or agency over or in the Great Lakes Basin or any portion thereof, nor shall anything contained herein be construed to establish an international agency or to limit or affect in any way the exercises of the treatymaking power or any other power or right of the United States. "SEC 4. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is expressly reserved. "Approved July 24, 1968." FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: PL 90-419 (90th Congress, S 660) HOUSE REPORT No 1640 (Comm. on Foreign Affairs) SENATE REPORT No. 1178 (Comm. on the Judiciary) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 114 (1968): June 12: Considered and passed Senate. July 15: Considered and passed House. July 24: Signed by the President.

Page -1-

BYLAWS Pursuant to the powers and authority vested in the Great Lakes Commission by paragraph K of Article IV of the Great Lakes Basin Compact, the following Bylaws are adopted and shall remain in force until amended.

ARTICLE I COMPONENT STATES

The states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin having ratified the Great Lakes Basin Compact by act of their legislatures are recognized as the component states of this Compact which has become operative in view of the provisions of Article II, section A of this Compact. The provinces of Ontario and Québec, by actions of their governments through a Declaration of Partnership, are recognized as associate (non-voting) members of the Compact.

ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP

SECTION 1 - The members appointed by and certified to the Commission by the component states shall constitute the members of the Commission. SECTION 2 - Pursuant to the provisions of the Compact, each state shall have a total of three votes on any matters coming before the Commission to be cast in accordance with the applicable laws of such state. Should any Commission or any committee, special committee, or task force member be absent from any Commission or committee, special committee or task force meeting, their vote may be cast by a duly appointed proxy in accordance with Article IV, Section E of the Compact, whose authority shall be in writing and filed with the Chair of the Commission or committee, as the case may be, at the time of or before said meeting. SECTION 3 - Each state or the Commission itself shall be permitted to make use of advisors and consultants of its own choice at any meeting of the Commission or of any committee, special committee or task force. Such advisors and consultants may be permitted to participate in discussions and deliberations without the power to vote. SECTION 4 - The Commission shall be permitted to designate observers representing the United States and Canadian federal governments, regional organizations, or any others it may so designate to advance the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Basin Compact. Observers may be permitted to participate in discussions, deliberations and other activities as approved by the Commission, but shall have no vote.

Page -2-

ARTICLE III

BOARD OF DIRECTORS SECTION 1 - There is established a Board of Directors (hereafter referred to as “the Board”) to be composed of a Commissioner from each component state. The governors of each state, where not inconsistent with state law, shall designate the person who shall serve on the Board. The Chairs of the Ontario and Québec delegations to the Commission shall serve in an associate (non-voting) capacity on the Board. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission shall be elected by the Commission from among the state delegation members and, upon election shall also be members of the Board. The Chair of the Commission shall also hold the title of Chairman of the Board. SECTION 2 - The Board shall evaluate the work, activities, programs and policies of the Commission and shall recommend to the Commission the taking of any action by the Commission relative to such areas. It shall also serve in an advisory capacity to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission and shall perform such other duties and functions as the Commission shall delegate to it or otherwise authorize it to perform from time to time on behalf of the Commission. It shall meet on the call of the Chair. SECTION 3 - The Board shall adopt budget(s) following review by the full Commission in accordance with Article VII. Pursuant to Section 8, Article VII, the Board shall authorize, by majority vote of members present, the adoption of changes to the general operating budget of the Commission. The Board may authorize increases or decreases of the budget by majority vote of members present. Alterations within previously approved amounts of spending categories, not changing the general operating budget amount, may be adopted by majority approval of the Board members present. SECTION 4 - The Board shall, from time to time, review the personnel policies of the Commission and receive recommendations from Commissioners and the President/Chief Executive Officer on these personnel policies. The Board may authorize changes to the Commission’s "Personnel Policies and Procedures" and authorize changes in compensation for the President/CEO and staff personnel within available budget amounts. Compensation includes salary and fringe benefits available to staff. SECTION 5 - The Board shall review proposed policies that are prepared for consideration by the Commission and shall report to the full Commission on the findings of the review and provide recommendations on adoption or suggested changes. SECTION 6 - The Board shall report on all Board meetings at the next regularly scheduled or special Commission meeting. Draft minutes of Board meetings will be furnished to all Commissioners as soon as possible. SECTION 7 - Board meetings will be held as needed, including by conference call or in conjunction with full Commission meetings to conserve travel costs to the extent practical for member states. Board meetings shall be open to all Commissioners as observers. All meetings will be announced to the entire membership. Board decisions will be made on the basis of a majority vote of those present. SECTION 8 - The Board will act on Commission policy and budget matters in accordance with the following guidelines:

Page -3-

a) The Commission at a special or regularly scheduled meeting, refers the issues to the Board for action. All Commissioners may participate in discussions, but only Board members will be entitled to vote on the issue.

b) The Commission is unable to adequately resolve an issue (e.g., additional research, discussion or coordination is required, in a timely manner not available to the full Commission.) The Board may receive a referral from the Commission, or the Chair, and after discussion with the Vice Chair and President/CEO, may notify all Commissioners that an issue has been referred to the Board for action and resolution. Any objections shall be considered by the Chair. Other Commissioners desiring to participate may do so through the Board member representing their state or province.

c) For issues in which circumstances require an immediate decision or action, the Chair, after discussion with the Vice Chair and President/CEO, may refer the issue to the Board when a full Commission meeting is not an option for resolution. The Chair will report on all action taken by the Board to the full Commission by regular mail or equivalent as soon as practicable.

SECTION 9 - There is established the position of Immediate Past Chair to be held by the departing Chair for the period of his/her successor’s tenure as Chair. The Immediate Past Chair may be designated, by the Chair in consultation with the Board, to undertake special activities as deemed appropriate. SECTION 10 - The Chair may designate members of the Board to undertake other special responsibilities as deemed appropriate.

ARTICLE IV OFFICERS

SECTION 1 - Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission shall be made by a nominating committee appointed by the current Chair, and election shall be held at the annual meeting of the Commission. Election to each office shall be by majority vote and each state shall be entitled to three votes. The Chair and Vice-chair shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected and qualified. In the event the office of Chair becomes vacant, nomination and election to fill the vacancy shall be effected at any meeting of the Commission after due notice to all Commissioners. SECTION 2 - Chair: The Chair shall take office immediately following adjournment of the meeting at which elected. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and of the Board from such time until a successor shall take office. The Chair shall appoint, or establish the process of appointing, the members of committees, special committees, and task forces. The Chair shall serve as a voting member of the Board. SECTION 3 - Vice Chair: The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair in the event of the latter’s absence or disability. The Vice Chair shall serve as a voting member of the Board. SECTION 4 - President/CEO: Subject to the general supervision of the Commission, the President/CEO shall be the full time executive officer of the Commission. The President/CEO shall be employed by the Commission and shall hold office at the pleasure of the Commission; and shall:

(a) Carry out its policies; (b) Serve as editor of any Commission publication; (c) Coordinate the activities of all committees, special committees and task forces; (d) Arrange details and facilities, including secretarial and other services for all Commission and

Committee meetings; (e) Serve as ex-officio member without vote for all committees, special committees and task forces;

Page -4-

(f) Cause to be made a record of the proceedings of the Commission and Board and preserve the same in the headquarters office;

(g) Give notice of all meetings; (h) Make recommendations on programs, policies, and activities of the Commission; (i) Exercise general supervision under the direction of the Commission of all the Commission programs

and activities; (j) Have immediate charge of the headquarters office and personnel.

SECTION 5 - Executive Staff: The executive staff of the Commission shall consist of President/CEO and such other staff members as may be designated by a majority vote of the Board from time to time.

ARTICLE V

COMMITTEES

SECTION 1 - The Commission may, from time to time and as deemed necessary, delineate committees, special committees, and task forces to carry out its initiatives. Each committee, special committee, or task force shall consist of persons from each interested state and province, nominated by the Chair of the delegation and appointed by the Chair. Each state shall be entitled to one vote on each committee, special committee and task force. In addition, the Chair of each committee, special committee or task force may arrange for associates or advisors, without payment of compensation or expenses to the same unless authorized by the Commission, to assist the committee, special committee or task force and participate in its deliberations and discussions without power to vote on recommendations. SECTION 2 - The committees, special committees, and task forces shall conduct studies and research, prepare memoranda and reports in their assigned fields and on that basis make recommendations to the full Commission for specific action to be taken in a particular field. Any and all action on legislative recommendations of a committee, special committee or task force other than discussion, study and voting will be made only with the approval of the Commission. SECTION 3 - Each committee, special committee or task force shall meet as needed to conduct assigned duties. Through its Chair, or the Chair’s designee, each committee, special committee or task force shall periodically submit a written report to the Commission at regular annual meetings of the Commission or at other times as deemed appropriate. Recommendations by the committees, special committees and task forces calling for action by the Commission shall be received in writing by the Chair of the Commission and the President/CEO at least one month prior to the date of the meeting of the Commission at which such action is to be sought, unless special permission is granted by the Commission Chair for a late report.

ARTICLE VI MEETINGS

SECTION 1 - Annual and semiannual meetings: The Commission shall meet at least twice annually. The annual meeting normally shall be held during the month of October; the semi-annual meeting normally shall be held during the second half of the fiscal year (January – June). The Chair shall consider recommendations and invitations of Commissioners in selecting meeting locations, and views on conditions which tend to over-ride the normally established meeting dates. SECTION 2 - Notice: The President/CEO shall mail notice in writing of the time and place of each regular meeting of the Commission to each member not later than 60 days prior to the date of the meeting.

Page -5-

SECTION 3 - Special meetings: Special meetings of the full Commission may be called by the Chair to be held at times and places identified in an official call for such meetings. SECTION 4 - Order of business and rules: The order of business which may be developed by Bylaws, tradition or ruling of the presiding officer of the Commission or Board may be changed at any meeting of the body proposing a change in its order of business by vote of a majority of members present, except as otherwise provided by the Compact or the Bylaws. The usual applicable parliamentary rules and precedents will govern all proceedings.

ARTICLE VII BUDGET AND FINANCE

SECTION 1 - All component states shall share equally in the expenses of the Commission. Each individual state shall bear the expenses of its Commissioners at Commission annual, semiannual and Board meetings. and such expenses shall not be paid out of funds in the Commission treasury. SECTION 2 - In the case of committee, special committee or task force programs the Commission may authorize the payment of expenses of committee, special committee or task force members from Commission funds. SECTION 3 - Financial remittances to the Commission by each member state shall be requested for each fiscal year. The amount of each remittance shall be determined by the Commission in accordance with Sections 1, 6, 7 and 8, this Article and Article V of the Compact. SECTION 4 - The President/CEO shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit to the Board a statement presenting the Commission’s financial condition. SECTION 5 - With the approval of the Board, the President/CEO may make transfers of funds within the approved budget of the Commission. SECTION 6 - The budget of estimated expenditures referred to in Article V of the Compact shall be adopted by the Board prior to the relevant fiscal year, and presented at the next meeting of the Commission. SECTION 7 - The budget of the Commission shall consist of two parts:

a) The "general operating budget" shall include, but not be limited to funds remitted by each member state, Commission reserve funds and interest earned. Expenditures will normally include routine operating costs for the Commission.

b) The "restricted fund budget" shall include income from projects, grants and other sources not

considered as a routine revenue. Expenditures will normally be made to fund costs of the projects or grants incurred by the Commission. Transfers to pay Commission operating expenses may be made in accordance with grant or project authorization.

Page -6-

SECTION 8

a) The President/CEO shall prepare a proposed annual budget for review and evaluation by the Board at least 45 days prior to the new fiscal year. The proposal shall include estimated income and expenditures for each part of the budget.

b) The Board will make necessary changes to the proposal, will distribute a draft budget to the full Commission for review, and following consultation with the full Commission will adopt a final budget document. The general operating budget component shall be used to determine the financial remittance required by each member state. Only a majority vote by the full Commission shall authorize a change in a member state’s required financial remittances.

SECTION 9 - Certain changes and alterations are expected to occur within the approved budget. These will be handled as follows:

a) Changes in the general operating budget, not requiring a change in required member state remittances, may be made by majority vote of the Board or by a majority vote of the full Commission.

b) Changes in the restricted fund budget, not amending the general operating budget, may be adopted by a majority vote of the full Board or by a majority vote of the full Commission.

c) Changes in the budget, requiring alterations in the required member state remittance will only be authorized by majority vote of the full Commission.

d) Changes in the budget requiring immediate action, where a Board or full Commission meeting is not possible, may be made by the President/CEO in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair, as available. A subsequent report to, and ratification by, the Board or Commission, as appropriate, will be sought.

ARTICLE VIII

AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS

These Bylaws may be altered and amended at any regular meeting upon the affirmative majority vote of the Commission. However, no amendment may be considered at any such meeting unless the proposed amendment shall have been received by the Chair and President/CEO at least one month prior to the first day of the month of which said regular meeting shall be held. Immediately upon receipt of such proposed amendment the President/CEO shall refer it to the Board and shall send a copy thereof to each member of the Commission within fifteen days after the receipt thereof, together with notice of the date on which the proposed amendment will be acted upon by the Commission. Bylaws as approved December 3, 1962; amended July 23, 1965; December 14, 1966; June 14, 1968; November 20, 1968; June 9, 1970; October 6, 1971; June 19, 1973; May 28, 1982; October 7, 1983; March 13, 1986; March 5, 1993; October 15, 2002 and October 7, 2008.

great lakes commission 2013 annual meeting · 2019-10-29 · 2805 s. industrial hwy., suite 100 ann...

Documents