Great Lakes Commission 2015 Annual Meeting

THE DRAKE HOTEL | CHICAGO, IL SEPTEMBER 28-29, 2015

2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791 ph: 734.971.9135 fx: 734.971.9150 www.glc.org twitter @GLCommission facebook.com/greatlakescommission #GLC60TH 1- Agenda – p. 3

2- Minutes – p. 6

3- Action Items – p. 34

4- Report of the Great Lakes Commission Lake Erie Nutrient Targets Working Group – p. 43

5- Speaker Topics – p. 60

6- Workplan Update – p. 76

7- Reference – p. 95

DRAFT AGENDA Great Lakes Commission 2015 Annual Meeting Sept. 28‐29, 2015 The Drake Hotel • 140 East Walton Place; Chicago, IL 60611

Monday, Sept. 28 All times are CENTRAL

7:00‐9:00 a.m. Registration Foyer, Grand Ballroom

9:00 a.m. Call to Order, Opening Remarks Jon Allan (MI), Acting Chair

9:05 a.m. Roll Call Tim Eder, Executive Director

9:05 a.m. Welcome to Illinois Wayne Rosenthal, Illinois DNR Director and chair of the Illinois delegation

9:15 a.m. Commission Business Jon Allan, Acting Chair . Approval of final agenda . Approval of minutes from 2015 Semiannual Meeting . Report of Nominating Committee Nominating Committee . Presentation of Action Items 9:30 a.m. Special Welcoming Remarks Honorable Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator, Illinois

9:45 a.m. Keynote address Christine St‐Pierre, Minister of International Relations and La Francophonie, Province of Quebec

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Report from the Great Lakes Protection Fund Russell Van Herik, Executive Director, Great Lakes Protection Fund

11:00 a.m. Keynote Address Jeff Malehorn, President and CEO, World Business Chicago Future economic pressures and opportunities for Great Lakes cities

11:30 a.m. Keynote Address Stan Meiburg, Acting Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

12:00‐1:30 p.m. Private lunch for Commissioners Georgian Room, Mezzanine Level Lunch on your own for other attendees

1:30 p.m. Joint Session with the Great Lakes Fishery Introduction of commissioners to the Great Lakes Commission: Invasive Species and the Chicago Area Fishery Commission Waterway System

1:30 p.m. Keynote Address Jo‐Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

1:45 p.m. Invasive Species and the Chicago Area Waterway System

Background and Status Panelists: Kevin Irons, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Paul Dierking, HDR Engineering

2:15 p.m. The Path Forward Panelists: Tim Brown, Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee David St. Pierre, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Ben Brockschmidt, Illinois Chamber of Commerce Joel Brammeier, Alliance for the Great Lakes

3:00 p.m. Discussion with Commissioners of the GLC and GLFC

3:30 p.m. Break

3:50 p.m. 60 Years of Binational Collaboration and Progress, Tracy Mehan, former GLC Commissioner and and Challenges for the Coming Decades Executive Director of Government Affairs, American Water Works Association

4:20 p.m. What’s next for the Great Lakes Commission? A look ahead: Report of the Chair and Executive Jon Allan, Acting Chair Director Tim Eder, Executive Director

Discussion with Commissioners All Commissioners

5:00 p.m. Adjourn for Reception

5:30 p.m. Transportation provided to Shedd Aquarium Buses will depart from the Oak St. entrance on the north side of the hotel at 5:30 pm, 5:40 pm, 5:50 pm, 6:10 pm and 6:20 pm and return from the aquarium at 8:15 pm, 8:30 pm, 8:45 pm and 9:00 pm.

6:00‐8:30 p.m. 60th Anniversary Celebration and Reception with the Hosted by the Shedd Aquarium Great Lakes Fishery Commission Sponsored by: Appetizers and refreshments, business casual attire . The Joyce Foundation . The Great Lakes Fishery Trust . Great Lakes Protection Fund . Lagunitas Brewing Company . AECOM

Tuesday, Sept. 29

7:00 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast Grand Ballroom

8:30 a.m. Opening Keynote Address

Great Rivers Chicago—Reconnecting Chicago and its MarySue Barrett, President, Metropolitan Planning rivers Council

9:00 a.m. Panel: Healing Fractured Water in our Urban Moderator: Bill Carr, Ontario Environments Speakers John Jackson, GLC contract employee – Ontario Christine Zimmer, Credit Valley Conservation Authority Harriet Festing, Center for Neighborhood Technology Aaron Koch, City of Chicago

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Report of the Oil Transportation Committee Eric Marquis, Quebec

10:45 a.m. Observer comments Great Lakes Commission’s official Observers

11:30 a.m. Business of the Great Lakes Commission Jon Allan, Acting Chair  Resolutions Tim Eder, Executive Director  Election of Chair and Vice Chair 11:45 a.m. Invitation to 2016 Semiannual Meeting & Great Lakes Tim Eder Day Events

The Commission’s 2016 Semiannual Meeting will be held Tuesday‐Wednesday, February 23‐24 at the Westin Washington DC City Center Hotel. Great Lakes Day on Capitol Hill will be held Thursday, Feb. 25 (location TBD).

12:00 Noon Adjourn Jon Allan

12:00‐2:00 p.m. Joint Lunch With Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Gold Coast Ballroom Coalition

Minutes

Attached, for review and approval, are minutes from the Commission’s 2015 Semiannual Meeting, held Feb. 24-25, 2015, in Washington, D.C.

Included for your information are minutes of the Board of Directors’ meetings held on Feb. 12, March 19, April 16, May 14 and June 18, 2015.

Great Lakes Commission 2014 Annual Meeting Hamilton Crowne Plaza Washington, D.C. Feb. 24-25, 2015 Draft Meeting Minutes

Summary of Actions

1. Approved minutes of the 2014 Annual Meeting, held Sept. 29-30, 2014, in Buffalo, New York

2. Approved three resolutions:

• Issues surrounding crude oil transportation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin • Sustaining Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization: Great Lakes Commission federal priorities for 2015 • Updating the accuracy of the International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD)

3. Approved the request for Observer status from the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program

4. Announced the dates for the Commission’s 2015 Annual Meeting, Sept. 28-29, in Chicago, Illinois.

Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. EST by Chairman Kelly Burch (PA). The following Commissioners, Associate Commissioners and alternates were present.

Daniel Injerd, Stephanie Comer, Karen May - Illinois Kay Nelson, Steve Fisher - Indiana Jon Allan, Helen Taylor, Peter Manning, Bruce Rasher - Michigan John Linc Stine, Sen. Ann Rest, Sen. Carrie Ruud - Minnesota Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Jim Zehringer, Karl Gebhardt, Mike Bailey - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Kelly Burch - Pennsylvania Eric Marquis, Marc Gagnon - Québec Russ Rasmussen, Steve Galarneau, Dean Haen - Wisconsin

Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen, Matt Doss, Victoria Pebbles, Bryan Comer, Michele Leduc-Lapierre, Gary Overmier, Erika Jensen, Pat Gable.

1) Call to order, opening remarks: Chairman Burch called the meeting to order by extending a welcome to all those in attendance. Burch recognized Dan Injerd (IL) Steve Fisher (IN) and John Linc Stine (MN) as newly appointed Great Lakes Commissioners. David Ullrich (Commissioner, Great Lakes Fishery Commission), John Dickert (Mayor, Racine, Wisconsin), Lana Pollack, Commissioner and U.S. Section Chair, International Joint Commission), Gordon Walker, (Commissioner and Canadian Section Chair, International Joint Commission) and Dereth Glance, (Commissioner, International Joint Commission, U.S. Section) were recognized as being in attendance. 1

2) Roll Call: Executive Director Tim Eder called the roll. A quorum was present and all states were represented.

3) Approval of meeting agenda: Burch asked for a motion to accept the agenda for the meeting. A motion to accept the agenda was made by Wisconsin, seconded by Minnesota. The agenda for the meeting was accepted.

4) Approval of minutes: Burch called for a motion to approve the minutes of the 2014 Annual Meeting held September 29-30 in Buffalo, New York. A motion to approve was made by Ohio, seconded by Michigan. The minutes were approved unanimously.

5) Approval of Observer request: Burch asked for a motion to approve the request by the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program to become an Observer of the Great Lakes Commission. A motion to approve the request was made by Indiana, seconded by Illinois. The request for Observer status was approved unanimously.

6) Report of the Chair: Burch began his presentation talking about the value of the Great Lakes Commission to its member states and provinces. He reported that more than 90% of the Commission’s $15 million budget in FY 2015 is passed through to the states and other project partners through grant programs, cooperative agreements and other mechanisms. These funds are extremely important to the states and he mentioned to his fellow commissioners that they get an outstanding return on their dues investment. He commented that the GLC turns 60 in 2015. One of the real historic strengths of the GLC is speaking with a unified voice for the region. The GLC’s annual federal appropriations priorities are an example of this. The Commission’s role in helping the states and provinces to work together in the best interest of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River is extremely important. The work to protect the Great Lakes from Asian carp is another example of binational cooperation. Understanding the implications of increased oil transportation is another issue of utmost importance and is on the agenda later in the meeting. Burch concluded by encouraging the Commission in its efforts to inform and educate the states and provinces on issues of importance to the region.

7) Report of the Executive Director: Eder provided a report on several Great Lakes Commission activities and referred attendees to Tab 6 in the briefing books for a more detailed update on GLC projects and workplan priorities. Eder highlighted the four-page and one-page federal appropriations priorities, developed by the Board, staff and (in the case of the one-pager), in partnership with six other regional organizations. The one-pager is an example of the power of speaking in unity with other regional organizations. Eder noted that over $2 billion has been appropriated from FY10-15 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. He reported that the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (GLEEPA) introduced by both Houses of Congress would authorize the GLRI. The Senate version of GLEEPA (S. 504) is more comprehensive and also authorizes EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The House version of GLEEPA is H.R. 223. President Obama’s budget includes $250M for the GLRI in FY16. The GLC is advocating for an increase to $300M. Eder highlighted the GLC’s GLRI project database, which includes downloadable project fact sheets. Projects can be searched by geography and congressional district. On the invasive species front, preventing the introduction of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes continues to be a priority. A regional Chicago Area Waterways (CAWS) advisory committee, convened by the GLC and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, is being mediated by conflict resolution specialists who are working with the broad cross section of Great Lakes stakeholders represented on the committee to help develop consensus solutions to the Asian Carp problem. Eder also reported on information technology projects underway at the GLC and reported that the GLC is entering a new era in this area. In 2013 the governors passed a

resolution asking for a better system of monitoring the Great Lakes. The GLC, in response, released a Blue Accounting report in 2014. Mr. Steve Cole was recently hired as the GLC’s first Chief Information Officer (CIO). Eder explained that Blue Accounting initiative will be looking closing at the value of our investments and whether these investments are paying off in terms of quantifiable benefits to the regional ecosystem and economy. Eder also profiled GLDIATR, a new tool that is tracking sales of invasive species via the Internet; and the myBeachCast mobile app, which provides beach conditions information for more than 1,900 beaches in the Great Lakes region. All of these efforts ultimately fit under the framework of Blue Accounting. The GLC is in negotiations with The Nature Conservancy to leverage its powerful software tool, the Great Lakes Information Management and Delivery System (IMDS), to explore its potential to serve Blue Accounting information and its integration into the GLC’s Great Lakes Information Network. Eder concluded by saying that even issues such as safe drinking water and algal blooms is another practical application of how Blue Accounting and better monitoring can be applied to real-world problems facing the Great Lakes.

8) Panel: Strategies for Reducing Nutrients: Russ Rasmussen introduced the panel designed to discuss strategies for reducing nutrients entering the Great Lakes from both point and nonpoint sources. Four panelists, each representing a different sector or discipline, were asked to provide their perspectives on the nutrient problems and possible solutions for solving them. Rasmussen commented that even if all the point sources contributing nutrients to the Lakes were controlled, there would still be a water quality problem due to the nonpoint source contributions. Rasmussen then introduced the panelists.

Mayor John Dickert (Racine, Wis.) discussed the need to collaborate on issues that affect all of us. The algal bloom issue is real and mayors deal with it on a day by day basis. Public health professionals and our kids are depending on us to solve this problem. Dickert mentioned the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative (GLSLCI) as an organization of mayors coming together to help work on issues of common concern. He outlined the membership of the GLSLCI, which he chairs. We must have a singular focus and work toward implementing best practices to reduce harmful algal blooms (HABs). Mayors are on the ground daily dealing with the people and tackling complex problems. We have to deal with the issues at hand. The Cities Initiative is ready to work with other state, provincial and regional organizations to make sure that the drinking water crisis that happened in Toledo in 2014 doesn’t happen again.

Dennis McGrath, with The Nature Conservancy, noted that agriculture is under fire for its role in contributing to the HABs problem. He shared his belief that we can have productive agriculture and economic growth while still protecting the ecosystem. He talked about the complex nature of modern farming. Every farmer is engaged in multiple transactions throughout any given year. For the more progressive farmers, conservation is increasingly being looked at as a business opportunity. The TNC has developed an Information Management and Decision System, which helps farmers to immediately know if they are seeing results from conservation treatment practices. McGrath talked of new partnerships under the GLRI and the USDA-Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). He also spoke of a new partnership with Michigan drain commissioners, who are adjusting their drain assessments for ecosystem service, and in-field, on-farm drain water management. This is a shift from “free flow” to “managed flow” with real-time optimization technology. McGrath concluded by saying that there is opportunity under a variety of programs to begin looking at conservation in new and more innovative ways.

Lara Moody, with The Fertilizer Institute, discussed issues surrounding fertilizer application. In some areas if 120 lbs. of phosphorus are applied, only 1 lb. is being lost per year. This seems like a good thing but it’s a complex issue. Moody discussed 4R Nutrient Stewardship. The 4Rs promote best management practices to achieve cropping system goals while minimizing field nutrient loss and

maximizing crop nutrient update, The 4Rs stand for “right source; right rate; right time; and right place”. Moody said the 4Rs can help landowners be more aware of the need to prevent pollution through good conservation stewardship. We have to think of prevention as well as mitigation. If the nutrients are in the root zone, there’s a better chance that the roots will pull up the nutrients. Moody discussed the Michigan Green Program, which designates retailers meeting specified criteria regarding the 4Rs, water quality and conservation, energy efficiency, etc. Ontario is looking at a program to enhance its 4R implementation. The Ohio/Western Lake Erie Basin is an area of special interest. The 4R Certification Program is now a reality in Ohio. Engaging the industries and growers is a very important part of this process. Growers listen to retailers and their peers. She concluded by saying that we don’t yet have all the answers but agricultural landowners are making progress toward better nutrient management.

Victoria Pebbles, Program Director at the Great Lakes Commission, discussed the GLC’s Fox P Trade project, which involves water quality trading. This tool has been used in other watersheds, including the Chesapeake Bay. Pebbles described the Lower Fox River watershed, which is subject to a TMDL for both phosphorus and total suspended solids. Trading drivers include state trading guidance, state numeric criteria for P, TMDL targets for P and TSS, and the state agriculture performance standard. She mentioned that the Lower Fox is part of a GLRI priority watershed. She then outlined Fox P-Trade project elements including engaging stakeholders, running hypothetical trades, and conducting an economic feasibility study. Pebbles described the concept of a hypothetical trade and outlined some possible trade scenarios. Pebbles then talked about the Commission’s work with the Lake Erie states and provinces and discussed the Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) Working Group, which was formed after the Toledo water crisis in 2014. The LENT Working Group is exploring strategies for reducing nutrients. Deliverables include a joint action plan that identifies areas of improvement; and new, innovative and promising programs and practices that are agreeable to and endorsed by the Lake Erie states and the province of Ontario. The LENT Working Group is coordinating its efforts with the GLWQA Annex 4 Working Group. Lastly, Pebbles mentioned the Lower Fox Demonstration Farms Network, which is working with several farms in the Lower Fox to implement and showcase conservation practices for reducing phosphorus and sediment. The GLC is coordinating this effort in partnership with Brown and Outagamie Counties with funding provided by NRCS through the GLRI.

Several minutes of discussion followed related to topics such as the difficulty in quantifying NPS reductions and the importance models, the need to coordinate and consolidate activities to avoid duplication of effort, especially in western Lake Erie and the need to evaluate BMPs for effectiveness in reducing phosphorus.

Commissioner Tierney (NY) congratulated Wisconsin on its progressive water quality programs and for all the work going on the Lower Fox under the GLRI. Rasmussen acknowledged the importance of the TMDL as a driver for a lot of the work going on in the Lower Fox River.

Rasmussen concluded the panel by thanking the panelists for the good discussion and for bringing these important topics in front of the Commissioners.

9) Report on oil transportation: After the break, Eder introduced a discussion session regarding the Commission’s recently completed report on oil transportation. Eder provided remarks on the completion of the report and explained that this session was an opportunity for the Commissioners to ask questions and provide their views on the importance of understanding the implications of increased crude oil transportation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region. Eder also said that this discussion is important because of divergent views regarding whether the report should be presented now or if additional work and editing of the report needs to occur.

Eder provided background on the report and explained that it is an informational report and is not intended to provide a comprehensive risk assessment of all modes of transportation. He also acknowledged that recommendations are not included in the report. He informed the commissioners that a draft report was circulated at the GLC’s September 2014 Annual Meeting which preceded a 60-day public comment period designed to allow commissioners and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the report. The GLC staff actively solicited comments to individuals and groups from all of the sectors interested in oil transportation. A final draft of the report was presented to the GLC Board in January, which included a summary of comments received and a draft resolution (being presented tomorrow) acknowledging receipt of the report and providing a suggested process for developing recommendations from the report.

Lively discussion followed on the importance of oil transportation issues and concerns of the states and provinces. Burch noted that oil transportation plays a big part in PA’s economy. Oil transportation through the Great Lakes region has increased dramatically in the last five years. Commissioner Taylor (MI) applauded the completion of the report and commented that it is important for the Commission to tackle the real-world issues even if they are controversial. Commissioner Nelson (IN) commented that the timeframe from when the Board received the final revised report materials was very short. She said that some of the stakeholder groups would have appreciated a longer review period. Nelson commented that there were some factual errors in the report and some of the important stakeholders did not respond to the report or submit formal comments on time, despite being asked by numerous people. Commissioner Allan (MI) mentioned Michigan’s newly formed Pipeline Task Force. He commented that this issue is of great importance to the State of Michigan. The GLC’s report has helped to frame the oil transportation issue in a much broader context. What the Commission does and says matters. We want to be as accurate as we can because the GLC’s reports are very important as a way of informing the work and collective wisdom of the states and provinces. It is important for the Commission to be involved in these important discussions. Associate Commissioners Marquis and Gagnon (QC) noted that the process needs to be inclusive in order to understand concerns from all of the different sectors. How the report deals with issues pertaining to shipping are of great interest to Québec. Commissioner Injerd (IL) commented that tackling the issue of recommendations on this topic will be very challenging. Commissioner Ruud (MN) commended the GLC for its work in drafting the report. Associate Commissioner Carr (ON) said that Ontario’s comments were sent to the staff during the comment period. This is a fast-changing issue so, from Ontario’s perspective, it’s a challenge whether to make the report an organic document rather than trying to withhold it until everyone is completely happy with its contents. Ontario supports moving it forward now. Commissioner Stine (MN) noted that timeliness is another important consideration. The states and provinces need to see this information so it can inform additional work and recommendations. Given this, MN feels that it’s important that we move forward and approve the report. Commissioner Tierney (NY) said that the GLC’s report is a useful contribution to the ongoing conversation. NY said the GLC’s report aligned quite well with NY’s state research on the issues, especially within the rail sector. States talking to the federal government independently don’t have as much power as a collective body like the GLC. Commissioner Gebhardt (OH) said now is the time to deal with this issue. This report is not a one- off but is just beginning the conversation and will be a dynamic process. The report is good start. Commissioner Taylor (MI) noted that the resolution (to be considered tomorrow) just asks that the Commission “receive” the report not endorse it. She recommended moving forward with the report which demonstrates good collaborative intent. Commissioner Nelson (IN) expressed her view that the report should not be received now and suggested that staff should continue working on it, with input from stakeholders, before it is released.

Burch closed the discussion, thanking the commissioners for their views and reminded the members that the formal vote on the resolution to receive the report will occur in the morning.

10) Presentation of Resolutions:

Chairman Burch provided information on the three resolutions to be acted on during the business session on February 25.

• Resolution – Sustaining Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization: Great Lakes Commission federal priorities for 2015: The resolution endorses a suite of federal priorities for 2015; and calls on Congress and the Administration to continue to sustain progress and strengthen collaboration with the eight Great Lakes states in the implementation of the GLRI.

Commissioner Nelson (IN) suggested that the population figures for the region be consistent with the number provided in the resolution on oil transportation.

• Resolution – Updating the accuracy of the International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD): The resolution urges the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to prioritize the IGLD update, with anticipated release in 2025, and to partner with states, Canadian provinces and federal entities to extend the accuracy of the new IGLD; urges Congress to provide necessary financial resources to complete the IGLD update and requests that the Canadian federal government provide a commensurate share to ensure timely completion of this important endeavor.

Commissioner Injerd (IL) asked if 2025 was correct. Tom Crane clarified that the year is correct.

• Resolution – Issues surrounding crude oil transportation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin: The resolution acknowledges completion of the final report, Summary of Issues and Trends Surrounding the Movement of Crude Oil in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Region, along with four issue briefs that provide important information regarding oil extraction, movement, risks and benefits of the different modes of transport, and recent legal, policy and regulatory developments. The Commission formally receives the report as written and, to ensure that the report and briefs remain current and accurate, will continue to receive comments from its members and other stakeholders for the record and for consideration to assist the Commission in its future deliberations on next steps in this area.

Burch noted that, in the spirit of building consensus, a substitute resolution has been prepared and will be offered to better outline the process for moving forward with regard to next steps and the development of recommendations. Associate Commissioner Marquis (QC) presented the revised resolution. Marquis suggested that the Commission should strive for a set of recommendations that we can all agree on.

Observer comments:

Chairman Burch moderated a time for the GLC’s Observers to provide comments to the Commissioners. Each Observer was instructed to keep comments to three minutes or less.

Simon Belisle, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative: Water quality concerns are of great concern to the region’s mayors. He thanked the GLC for their work on the oil transportation report.

Jan Miller, USACE: He talked about opportunities to support AOC delisting, Great Lakes navigation and strategic dredging under the GLRI. He commented that as the GLRI has accelerated the delisting of AOCs, 2 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments have removed from federal navigation channels. It is making removal of dredging material a reality. We don’t need to build

6 confined disposal facilities (CDFs) anymore but should discuss ways that these dredged sediments can be used beneficially.

Sabrina Dadrian-Kassabian, Government of Quebec: She was pleased to hear that Canada has been recognized for its efforts to reduce P loadings by agricultural sources. The new Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) identifies specific targets for P loading reductions. The COA addresses Great Lakes agricultural stewardship, and promotes a federal-provincial collaborative. With regard to crude oil transport, she commented that Canada is committed to safety in transportation by all modes. She mentioned that the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards are planning a table top exercise with Enbridge Pipeline to address response actions in the event of a pipeline spill between Port Huron, MI and Sarnia, ONT.

Joel Brammeier, Lyman Welch, Alliance for the Great Lakes: Brammeier thanked the GLC for completing its report on oil transportation and encouraged the GLC to stay active on this issue. He found value in the substance of the report and sees a role for the GLC on this issue. He also mentioned the work of the ballast water management collaboration and encouraged the GLC to continue to seek consensus on this issue. He also mentioned the importance of P reduction and nutrient loadings. He was pleased to hear about some of the solutions and tools being developed by the states. He concluded by saying that we need to get to water quality performance measures in order to reduce HABs.

Frank Zsollosi, National Wildlife Federation (NWF): Zsollosi commented that NWF supports reducing nutrient loadings into Lake Erie by 40%. States are encouraged to set targets. Targets enhance accountability. NWF looks forward to developing recommendations related to nutrient reduction. He mentioned that tomorrow, Andy Buchsbaum, will introduce the new NWF Great Lakes Director Mike Shriberg.

RADM Fred Midgette, U.S. Coast Guard: Midgette announced the 2014 ballast water inspection report and commented that there was 100 percent compliance. Flushing of ballast tanks has been shown to be very successful. No known new species have been transferred to the Great Lakes via ballast water since 2006. Ballast systems are in the works and are applying for approval. The IMO standards should come into effect in 2016. Acknowledged the GLC’s good work on the oil transportation report and confirmed that the USCG did submit formal comments. He concluded by saying that comprehensive response plans are required for all vessels carrying oil.

Russell Strach, U.S. Geological Survey: Referenced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has been in effect between the GLC and USGS/GLSC since 2012. This MOU has guided cooperative work between the two agencies and recently included a staff exchange (involving Victoria Pebbles and Paul Seelbach). Acting USGS Director Kimball will present to the GLC on the following day. USGS brings the science and the GLC brings the policy experience. The Phragmites and Mussel collaboratives are two examples of this cooperative work. These collaborations take advantage of the GLC as a neutral backbone organization and its interjurisdictional experience. Providing science for coastal revitalization is another budding initiative. Other partnerships include projects related to beaches, nearshore monitoring and more.

Mike Moorman, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): NRCS is assisting producers in the region to reduce nutrient loadings to the Great Lakes. This is a primary focus of USDA NRCS. In response to the Toledo water quality situation, USDA provided an additional $3M to the Maumee River basin to implement cover crops programs. The first Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) projects under the new Farm Bill were recently selected for funding.

Kathryn Buckner and Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries: Buckner applauded the work of the Commission in several areas but commented that we all need to look for synergies and avoid duplication of effort. She pointed to all of the work going on in the area of nutrient reductions to stop harmful algal blooms and oil transportation. She said the CGLI really appreciated the balance of the coverage of issues in the oil transportation report. Did not provide written comments, however, did solicit input from CGLI partners. Dale Phenicie commented that traditionally the GLC has dealt with legacy issues. Now we’re seeing a product of that success through the transition into emerging issues. The nature of the subject matter has changed and we’re dealing with more contemporary issues. The process needs to reflect this change. Consequently, those of us who act in the stakeholder role need to take a more active role in responding and bringing the information forward.

Patricia Morris, International Joint Commission: Morris introduced herself as the new director of the IJC’s Great Lakes Regional Office. She highlighted the 2014 Lake Erie Ecosystem Priorities (LEEP) report and said that the IJC expects to release a report on the economic effects of harmful algal blooms in 2015. Morris asked for the GLC’s feedback on this report, when released. An extensive literature review regarding human health effects surrounding HABs will also be released in summer 2015. The new Great Lakes Adaptive Management (GLAM) board will evaluate and examine water levels and regulations of lakes Superior and Ontario-St. Lawrence. A draft report on water exports will also be released for comment later in 2015.

Jim Robinett, Shedd Aquarium: Robinett said that the Shedd conducts research on native aquatic species and also invasive species. The Shedd’s Great Lakes Program is very active in building partnerships and collaborative with other Great Lakes federal, state and local partners. The Great Lakes Network is a Shedd-led network of zoos, aquariums and museums in the region.

Deborah Lee, NOAA/GLERL: Lee introduced herself as the new Director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) in Ann Arbor. She commended the Commission for its work in supporting an update of the Great Lakes Datum. She also commented that GLERL is interested in the oil transportation issue and that NOAA participates in the Regional Response Teams (RRTs). GLERL hosted the first meeting of the new mussel collaborative in February. GLERL is working on more real-time monitoring of harmful algal blooms and their movement in Lake Erie. A 3D model of bloom dynamics will also be developed. She thanked the GLC for leading the three-year new habitat initiative.

Melissa Damascke, Sierra Club Great Lakes Program: Damascke thanked the Commission for approving Observer status for the Sierra Club Great Lakes Program. She mentioned Sierra Club’s interest in the P reduction/HABs issue. She mentioned the tragic situation in Toledo in August when tens of thousands of people were without water. She mentioned the situation in Detroit, where thousands of households have had their water turned off because they can’t afford the water bills. Deteriorating infrastructure is largely to blame as water bills continue to climb.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. A motion to adjourn was made by Indiana, seconded by Minnesota. Attendees were invited to a reception sponsored by Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc., and Cardno JFNew, Inc.

Day Two

11) Call to order: Chairman Burch welcomed everyone back to the meeting and thanked the sponsors who hosted the previous evening’s reception. Burch then introduced Commissioner Jim Zehringer (OH) who then introduced Congressman David Joyce, representing Ohio’s 14th District as the morning keynote presenter.

12) Keynote address, Congressman David Joyce: Congressman Joyce commended attendees for being the true champions of the Great Lakes. He touched on several issues of importance to his constituents including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, aquatic invasive species, nutrient reduction and safe drinking water. He mentioned that the Great Lakes provide drinking water for close to 40 million people. The Toledo drinking water crisis highlighted the great need for safe, potable drinking water. With dedication and with resources, we can cure these problems. We have to consider tourism and all the dollars it brings to our region. On Lake Erie, the congressional delegation works closely together, across the aisle. We want to make sure that we cure our problems.

Executive Director Eder thanked the Congressman for his leadership on GLRI and encouraged the Congressman to continue his excellent work to help protect and restore the Great Lakes.

13) Panel: Maritime Transportation: Associate Commissioner Bill Carr introduced the panel that will present updates on Great Lakes maritime transportation issues. Carr mentioned that maritime transportation has been an important part of the Commission’s agenda and that a lot has been happening in this arena over the past few years.

Steve Fisher, Commissioner from Indiana and executive director of the American Great Lakes Ports Association, discussed a few maritime initiatives including the recent passage of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA). During the WRRDA deliberations, each region of the country was trying to defend its appropriations for dredging and maritime infrastructure improvements. In the Great Lakes a block of 50-55 legislators bonded together to advocate for the Great Lakes. They sought Great Lakes provisions in the bill. The dredging backlog continues to grow due to a constrained USACE budget. The last WRDA was passed in 2007 so the new WRRDA presents a key opportunity to bring more money for dredging into the Great Lakes. The GLC was an important partner in the lobbying campaign. The coalition of partners went into the process wanting to change how the O&M budget of USACE is allocated. Historically, the larger harbors have always received some funding for dredging. The smaller harbors (St. Joe, Waukegon Harbor) really suffer. Another important provision of WRRDA directs the USACE to manage the Great Lakes navigation system as a single system. This was modeled after the Mississippi, a single system, which has many ports. In the past, each Great Lakes ports were evaluated independently and were competing with much larger ports around the U.S. Now that WRRDA is passed, the focus is shifting to the annual appropriations bills. Fisher concluded by talking about a recently published survey of infrastructure improvements and needs for Great Lakes ports. The purpose of this survey is to provide the maritime community, policy makers, and the general public with information on the level of investments being made in Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway navigation system. By quantifying these investments, the survey helps illustrate confidence in the future viability of the navigation system and optimism regarding the region’s economy. We need to move away from calling our region the “rust belt,” to “the opportunity belt.” More than $6.9B is being reinvested in the Great Lakes navigation system right now (including investments in ships, ports, public infrastructure). For every dollar of public money being invested, there are $2 of private sector money being invested.

Dave Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, spoke about the Governors and Premiers Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Maritime Initiative. He noted that when the governors speak with a collective voice, they can tackle difficult issues. At the governors’ summit in 2013, the Maritime Initiative was approved. An early part of the process was to evaluate the assets that we currently have. Alarmingly, it was found that much of the ports and navigation infrastructure was built prior to World War I. Enhancing the infrastructure to keep up with a 21st Century economy is the challenge. A task force was formed to report back to the governors and premiers. An advisory committee is augmenting the process, which includes shippers, carriers, and other navigation interests, etc. The initial recommendations were endorsed by the governors in 2014. An asset

inventory was pursued; a system wide inventory is being compiled. This will be a great resource for prioritizing the needs of the sector. A set of priorities is being developed by the task forces; e.g., growing the economy and creating jobs through the maritime sector. Facilitating collaboration is another priority including leveraging the maritime transportation system to sustain trade. We have a big job ahead of us but we’re optimistic about the future of the Great Lakes maritime industry.

Steve Galarneau, Commissioner from Wisconsin and co-chair of the Great Lakes Dredging Team, spoke of the need for navigational dredging for both large and small harbors. Nature sometimes gives us some acute needs when lake levels fall, for example. The low water levels that occurred through most of the early 2000s created a dredging crisis for many of the states in 2011 and 2012. The GLRI and the Legacy Act have afforded new monies for restoring contaminated sediment sites and Areas of Concern. There may be some opportunities under the GLRI for “strategic dredging” bringing environmental and navigational dredging interests together to solve a problem. However, there are still unanswered questions. For instance, when it comes to dredged material disposal for beneficial use, how clean is clean? The Great Lakes Dredging Team has been engaging its state and federal partners on these issues. A symposium on the “state of science and policy” on sediment quality and dredge material management would be helpful to come up with a common framework, which will enhance decisionmaking across the board. Users have their own needs (i.e., particle size, composition). Invasive species also need to be considered. The Great Lakes Dredging Team is trying to change the conversation from dredged “spoils” to dredged “soils.” Legacy chemicals in dredged materials are still a concern in some areas. Many Great Lakes confined disposal facilities have reached (or will soon reach) their maximum capacity. Galarneau concluded by describing a regional success story; the Cat Island project in Green Bay, which involved restoring an island chain while providing placement for clean dredged material. Dredged disposal opportunities include: educating local partners/agencies, identifying potential beneficial use materials, and creating flexible solutions through partnerships.

Several minutes of discussion and questions from commissioners followed related to topics such as public-private partnerships, the importance of managing the Great Lakes as a single navigation system, marketing the system to increase trade, and promoting more opportunities for the beneficial use of dredge material.

Carr closed the session by thanking all of the panelists for their interesting and thoughtful presentations.

14) Keynote address, Dr. Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Burch introduced Dr. Suzette Kimball, Acting Director of the USGS who gave a brief keynote presentation. She talked about the importance of partnerships and multi-agency collaboration as a way to solve complex environmental and water resources challenges. She talked about the mission of USGS as a science-based organization that provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us and the natural resources we rely on. She talked briefly about how USGS supports efforts related to the impacts of climate and land- use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and useable information. Kimball then highlighted a few things specific to the Great Lakes and the partnership between the USGS and the Great Lakes Commission. She mentioned USGS’s priorities under the GLRI and talked briefly about the collaborative efforts under the nonpoint source impacts on nearshore health priority area. She commented how USGS currently operating 8 field level and 3 stream gages in three states (WI, MI, OH) to support edge of field monitoring in order to gauge success of conservation treatment practices. Success relies on collaboration. On-farm data collected and stored by NRCS, communication between USGS, NRCS, and producers is vital to success. She mentioned the USGS-GLC partnership specifically with regard to Blue Accounting. Blue Accounting

is a basin-wide information strategy which builds upon and complements the extensive data collection programs already in place across the Great Lakes. It supports Great Lakes leaders by providing measures of progress against basin-wide shared goals so they can understand whether we are making progress towards our desired outcomes and receiving the expected returns on our investments. She specifically acknowledged the role of the Great Lakes Science Center in the Blue Accounting effort especially Dr. Paul Seelbach who continues to be involved the Blue Accounting Advisory Committee. She concluded by mentioning several other collaborative efforts including the Phragmites and Mussel collaboratives, urban coast revitalization efforts, the USGS coastal science strategy, beach health initiatives and USGS’s efforts to reduce harmful algal blooms.

The commissioners thanked Kimball for her presentation and her leadership. Alternate Commissioner Gebhardt (OH) said that there are 14 new monitoring stations in the Maumee River basin which have been installed since the Toledo crisis. He thanked USGS for their cooperative spirit in this area. Commissioner Weakley (OH) congratulated USGS on their two new research vessels which were funded through funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Business of the Great Lakes Commission: Burch then introduced the business portion of the meeting and provided background on the process for introducing and approving the three proposed resolutions that were discussed the previous day.

A motion to approve was made by Ohio, seconded by Michigan.

There was brief discussion regarding the discrepancy of the population in the region. A motion was made by Indiana (seconded by Minnesota) to strike the second whereas and insert the second whereas from the oil transportation resolution as follows:

“Whereas, 55 million Americans and Canadians depend on and use the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River for drinking water, recreation, manufacturing of products, power generation, and commercial fishing and navigation, among other benefits;”

The motion to adopt the resolution, as amended passed unanimously.

A motion to approve the resolution was made by Illinois, seconded by Ohio. The resolution was passed unanimously.

Commission formally receives the report as written and will continue to receive comments from its members and other stakeholders for the record and for consideration to assist the Commission in its future deliberations on next steps in this area.

A motion to bring forth the substitute resolution was made by Allan (MI), seconded by Rest (MN). An amendment was made to the substitute resolution (by Rest (MN) (seconded by May (IL)) to add “elected government officials” to the bulleted list of potential subcommittee members.

Burch then entertained discussion on the amended substitute resolution. It was suggested that the intent is to invite members from the various sectors to participate rather than appoint them. Additional discussion followed. Marquis (QC) suggested that we want the Resolve clause to be more general and we should not try to add bullets for everyone organization or type of organization we plan to include. Associate Commissioner Gagnon and Commissioner Allan re-emphasized Marquis’ point.

A motion to adopt the substitute resolution, as amended, was made by Rest (MN), seconded by Zehringer (OH). Commissioner Injerd (IL) asked if the report is received if additional comments cans still be provided. He mentioned that translating findings into recommendations will be a challenge. Commissioner Nelson (IN) noted that Indiana requests a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manning (MI) explained the roll call vote process. A majority of the delegate votes (3 per jurisdiction) will count as the vote for the state delegation as a whole. Therefore, there are only eight recorded votes. The following was the result of the voice vote by jurisdiction.

IL: yes IN: no MI: yes MN: yes NY: yes OH: yes PA: yes WI: yes

The substitute resolution, as amended, passed by a vote of 7 to 1.

15) Staff members Matt Doss and Erika Jensen provided a brief update on Great Lakes Day activities and the Commission’s Great Lakes federal priorities for 2015. They described materials included in the Great Lakes Day folders including a fact sheet on the GLRI project website, maintained by the GLC. The key messages document tracks with the GLC’s priorities and includes talking points. H.R.223 and GLEEPA bill summaries are included.

16) Invitation to 2015 Annual Meeting: Commissioner Comer (IL) invited the Commissioners to the GLC’s Annual Meeting, Sept. 28-29 at the Drake Hotel in Chicago. A joint 60th anniversary celebration, with the GLFC, is planned at the Shedd Aquarium.

A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Commissioner Zehringer (OH), seconded by Commissioner Nelson (IN). The meeting adjourned at 11 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim A. Eder Executive Director

/TC

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors Conference Call Minutes Feb. 12, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. EST by Kelly Burch, chair. The following members were present:

Alec Messina - Illinois Jody Peacock, Kay Nelson - Indiana Jon Allan - Michigan John Stine - Minnesota Don Zelazny - New York Jim Zehringer, Karl Gebhardt, Mike Bailey - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Kelly Burch - Pennsylvania Eric Marquis - Québec Russ Rasmussen, Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin

Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen, Victoria Pebbles, Matt Doss and Michele Leduc-Lapierre.

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: Chairman Burch welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda.

2) Approval of minutes from Jan. 15 Board call: Associate Commissioner Carr suggested some minor edits to the account of the Deep Geologic Repository discussion. A motion to approve the minutes, as revised, from the Jan. 15, 2015, call was made by Commissioner Zelazny (NY)and seconded by Commissioner Galarneau (WI). The minutes were unanimously approved.

3) Oil transportation resolution at the Semiannual Meeting: Tim Eder brought the Board up to date. The draft oil transportation report was presented at the GLC’s Annual Meeting in September 2014; a 60-day comment period followed. More than 30 written comments were received. A suite of recommendations were developed and sent to the Board in January. Some subsequent concerns were expressed by Indiana and Québec. It was suggested that we pull back and deal with the recommendations on a separate track. Staff have has revised the resolution to reflect this. The resolution would only state that the Commission is receiving the final report and would task the Board and/or Economic Committee with using it as the basis for developing any subsequent recommendations. The development of recommendations would involve some serious discussions by the Board. Eder explained that this report raises some important issues about the economy and environment of the Great Lakes region, and helps the region prepare for those.

Discussion followed. Commissioner Peacock said that Indiana’s concern is that all affected stakeholders have a voice. In its current form, Indiana has concerns with the report, including that very few industry representatives provided comments. Some of the information appears to be outdated and needs further review. Because of some of the views expressed in the report, Indiana would not be able to accept it without more review and revisions. Associate Commissioner Marquis acknowledged that Québec had concerns after seeing the draft recommendations, which has caused Québec to revisit the report itself. Seeking broader stakeholder input was advised. Having the Economic Committee take a larger role in the review would be useful to help to achieve consensus. Commissioner Allan stated that the report has been out for public comment for more than four months. Specific organizations were asked to comment and chose not to. The report was widely publicized and did receive more than 30 comments, many from the environmental community.

Segregating the recommendations and accepting the report does not denote advocacy by the Commission. Eder explained that we don’t have to or plan to issue a news release when the report is accepted. We appreciate that there’s sensitivity about the report. The Board would need to sort through these issues. Commissioner Peacock asked what industry representatives and oil companies were consulted in review of the report. Tom Crane explained the process. A request went out to all Commissioners and Observers after the 2014 Annual Meeting, asking for their help in soliciting comments from their jurisdictions. Staff connected with specific state agencies and regional response teams, federal agencies, NGOs, industry representatives and many others. Marathon Oil commented. The American Petroleum Institute was invited but did not comment. The responses from industry were all generally positive. The environmental community thought the Commission was portraying oil in too positive a light and that we didn’t go far enough in portraying the environmental risks. Four of the Great Lakes states and provinces chose to provide written comments; the other six chose not to. Overall, the GLC reached out to thousands of people through its email lists, websites, regional blogs and other resources. From Illinois’ perspective, Messina said because of the gubernatorial change in Illinois, this report wasn’t on their radar screen until recent weeks. Associate Commissioner Marquis noted that there are written comments and there are reactions. Once the draft recommendations were circulated from the GLC, it generated a lot of new responses and reactions in Québec. Indiana said it has received hundreds of comments from API and other industry representatives. Commissioner Zehringer said that Ohio is ready to accept the report but is open to discussion after hearing the concerns from some of the other jurisdictions. Commissioner Zelazny reported that New York has tried to vet the report through the governor’s office and state agencies but has received limited feedback. Preliminary feedback received did not flag any major issues or any significant factual errors. There’s a lot of great information in the report, which will start to get the debate going within the broader region. New York is actually sorry to see that the recommendations are being separated from the report. Rather than calling them recommendations, Commissioner Zelazny suggested calling them Points for Continuing Discussion. New York would like to see the report move forward. Chairman Burch referred back to the action item from the 2013 Annual Meeting and the considerable staff time that has been devoted to compiling the report. The report as a stand-alone document is extremely well done. To go back and dissect and rewrite the report at this time is wrong. Commissioner Stine said that Minnesota prefers moving forward with the report. Commissioner Rasmussen reported that Wisconsin supports moving forward with approval of the report. Commissioner Allan said that additional input is always welcome and will always be acknowledged to further inform the discussions moving forward.

Commissioner Peacock persisted that Indiana’s comments should be considered. Commissioner Allan said that Indiana can always add to the record. Commissioner Nelson said that she has received 63 comments from API via email highlighting factual errors and editorial suggestions. The flavor of the report is of concern. Words like catastrophic, etc. should not be used in a factual report. Commissioner Messina committed to Illinois working in a timely fashion to review future GLC products and becoming active participants from this point moving forward. Commissioner Allan noted that in the past Illinois (under previous Administrations) has been a very active participant in the Commission deliberations over the years. Commissioner Nelson said when she got to the right people within API, she advised them that API could be represented on a workgroup on this report moving forward. Commissioner Nelson said that no Indiana interests are advocating that this issue not be pursued but only that additional input be considered. Commissioner Peacock reported that an oil transportation summit is being held in Chicago in April by the Council of the Great Lakes Region, being convened at Wingspread. Chairman Burch noted that we are never going to appease all audiences. If industry is given additional time to comment, then the environmental community should be given the same opportunity. Commissioner Nelson suggested that she work with API to cull down their comments to the most important.

Eder encouraged the board to consider a path forward. We always want to seek consensus. But it’s challenging to open up the discussion to one or two sectors and not others. Associate Commissioner Marquis asked if the Commissioners were to accept the report and approve the resolution at the

Semiannual Meeting, how the process would be handled in developing the recommendations. Eder outlined this process, as described in the revised resolution. It could be that, in the end, the GLC might not move forward with very many recommendations if there isn’t consensus. Eder also noted that the original action item did not request that the Commission develop recommendations so the GLC is not obligated to do so.

Commissioner Zehringer moved to accept the report, seconded by Commissioner Allan. Ontario suggested that we strive for consensus. Commissioner Peacock asked if the Board could accept the report on one of its monthly calls rather than waiting until September 2015. Eder said the full Commission would need to accept the report. Chairman Burch said that he’s not comfortable with one sector making edits to the report unilaterally and not giving the same opportunity to other sectors. An amendment was offered by Commissioner Allan. The amendment says that the GLC would accept and/or incorporate into the record additional comments after the report is accepted. Pennsylvania seconded the amendment. Commissioner Peacock said that Indiana would still not accept the report and would want to offer significant comments. Commissioner Nelson asked if the issue briefs are being considered as part of the “full report.” Eder responded that yes, the issues briefs are part of the report package. Associate Commissioner Carr said that this seems like the best process to move this forward. A vote was called on the amendment; seven yes, one opposed (Indiana). The amendment passed. Vote on the main motion, as amended: Six yes. Indiana opposed. Illinois abstained. Québec and Ontario technically do not have a vote, but their comments and concerns were noted.

4) 2015 Federal Priorities: Eder presented this resolution, which blesses the GLC’s federal priorities. Since the last board call, there were some concerns expressed by Indiana about the invasive species section. As a result, language was revised.

Minnesota had to leave the call so expressed support for moving the resolution forward.

5) Semiannual meeting and Great Lakes Day plans: Tabled.

6) Update on federal legislation: Tabled.

7) Upcoming Meetings:

o Feb. 24-26 – Semiannual Meeting and Great Lakes Day in Washington; Washington, D.C.

The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim A. Eder Executive Director

/cm

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors Conference Call Minutes March 19, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. EDT by Kelly Burch, chair. The following members were present:

Dan Injerd - Illinois Jody Peacock - Indiana Jon Allan - Michigan John Stine - Minnesota Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Jim Zehringer, Mike Bailey - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Kelly Burch - Pennsylvania Eric Marquis - Québec Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin

Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen, Steve Cole, Matt Doss, Victoria Pebbles.

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: Chairman Burch welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda. Burch thanked everyone for their time in Washington, D.C., and the successful GLC Semiannual Meeting and Great Lakes Day events.

2) Minutes: Commissioner Injerd asked about the Council of the Great Lakes Region event, scheduled for April. Eder clarified the event will take place at Wingspread in Racine, Wis. A motion to approve the minutes from the Feb. 12, 2015, call was made by Commissioner Allan (MI) and seconded by Commissioner Zehringer (OH). The minutes were unanimously approved.

3) Recommendations from oil report: In follow-up to the discussions prior to and in Washington, D.C., Eder reported that a schedule has been prepared proposing how the recommendations will be developed. The Board will lead development of the recommendations; an advisory committee will be assembled to assist the Board. The resolution was vague as to whether this process will be completed by the September 2015 Annual Meeting. Depending on how much progress is made, all the issues may not be resolved in sufficient time to finalize the recommendations for presentation to the full Commission in September. The memo and schedule were outlined in a memo. Commissioner Allan asked how the slate of advisers will be compiled and reviewed. Eder explained that the staff will compile a list and look to Chairman Burch and Vice Chair Allan to make the final decisions. The Board will still have full review of all materials and the advisory committee will not supplant this. 18 members or less are anticipated for the committee to make it a manageable number. Every jurisdiction does not need to be represented. It’s expected that the committee will meet by phone and/or webinar, if necessary. Associate Commissioner Marquis commended the staff for their work on the schedule; he encouraged limiting the advisory committee to 12-15 members, if possible. The Board voiced no other objections. Eder explained that a call for nominations to the advisory committee will be sent out in the next week.

4) Feb. 24 dinner discussion and follow up: Chairman Burch noted the rich discussion at the dinner on the evening of Feb. 24 in Washington, D.C. Eder outlined a few key items of discussion, which included 1) holding similar sessions as part of future Commission meetings was encouraged; 2) Commissioners (non Board members) would benefit from more frequent communications from their delegation chair so they can stay more engaged in GLC activities between the Semi and Annual meetings; and 3) the “on-boarding” procedures and materials for new Commissioners should be

reviewed and enhanced. Eder suggested that the delegation chairs be empowered to distribute the approved Board minutes to the other members of their delegation. Commissioners agreed with this approach. Eder will circulate the updated document “Roles and Responsibilities of Commissioners” to the board. Eder encouraged delegation chairs to convene delegation meetings and said the staff is open to attending these meetings if the delegation chairs feel that this would be useful. Commissioner Allan said that having staff present has been tremendously helpful in the past.

5) GLC protocol for news releases and letters to Congress: Eder explained that this concerns recent objections voiced by Indiana regarding a GLC news release that was distributed in support of legislation on Feb. 26. Eder explained that news releases are prepared with guidance from resolutions that the GLC has previously approved. If it’s an important policy matter, quotes are always sought from the board chair and vice chair. The same goes for letters to Congress, which are signed by the board chair. Occasionally joint letters, with multiple agency signatories, are pursued. In these cases, Eder may sign, depending on who the other signatories are. Commissioner Peacock explained his concerns. If Indiana doesn’t agree with resolutions that are passed, they ask that some consideration be given to the fact there may not always be clear consensus from all jurisdictions on all issues. Commissioner Allan asked if Indiana is requesting that their dissention be annotated or whether he is asking that the GLC not issue any statements or news release if consensus is not reached on a specific topic or policy position. Commissioner Allan said that we should strive for unanimity but this may not always be absolute consensus. Consensus is always the goal but there are times when one or more delegations may disagree and voice some level of dissention. If, however, a resolution is approved, then the staff should have the ability to move forward with follow-up communications. Commissioner Peacock requested that on the specific example cited, regarding invasive species movement through the Chicago Area Waterway System, Indiana requests that the Commission not continue to voice its support for this legislation. Commissioner Injerd asked if there’s any periodic review of past policy resolutions and whether they still have merit. Eder explained that occasionally legislation is proposed that doesn’t fit strongly with the GLC’s previously approved resolutions. If the resolutions don’t provide sufficient guidance for the staff, then the issue is revisited with the board. Commissioner Allan suggested that the board needs to trust the staff and give them autonomy to act accordingly.

6) GLRI capacity grants to states: Eder reported that he has heard from several states that capacity grants from U.S. EPA are being held up in some cases. Eder voiced the state concerns to Chris Korleski, EPA-GLNPO director. Eder suggested a call with Susan Hedman, EPA Region 5 Administrator, so the states could discuss their concerns with her before any final decisions are made on EPA’s end. Commissioner Tierney noted that these capacity grants are very important to the states. A lot of the administrative work is pushed onto the states. If EPA were to reduce the capacity of the states on GLRI activities, EPA and GLRI would also feel these impacts. Commissioner Galarneau agreed and suggested that all state jurisdictions be represented on this call. Commissioner Zelazny said that the state capacity coordinators need to be well organized for this call. In a sense, the states are competing with the federal agencies, which are also vying for GLRI funding. The states need to make sure that they’re on equal footing. Eder suggested that the GLC staff convene a preparatory call. Commissioner Allan said that there is some concern that the states aren’t spending their funds fast enough. Funds may already be committed. Eder confirmed that Cam Davis will also be invited to be on the call with Hedman and Korleski. The states want to be consulted before EPA makes these types of decisions in the future.

7) Development of GLC budget – FY16: Eder said that he’ll be working with Chairman Burch on composing a Finance Committee; volunteers are welcome. Eder presented a budget memo, which outlines the schedule for budget review and approval.

8) Memo of Understanding re: Blue Accounting: Eder presented a memo asking the board’s authorization to negotiate an MOU related to Blue Accounting and a pending partnership with The Nature Conservancy. The MOU is a good-faith agreement between GLC and TNC to merge its

information systems, GLIN and IMDS. Commissioners Allan and Tierney supported moving ahead with the MOU. The board voiced no objections. Eder will move forward with finalizing the MOU.

9) Upcoming Meetings:

o April 16 – GLC Board call o Sept. 28-29 – Annual Meeting, Chicago

Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Allan (MI), seconded by Commissioner Tierney (NY). The meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim A. Eder Executive Director

/cm

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors Conference Call Minutes April 16, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. EDT by Jon Allan, vice chair. The following members were present:

Dan Injerd - Illinois Jody Peacock, Kay Nelson - Indiana Jon Allan - Michigan John Stine - Minnesota Don Zelazny - New York Jim Zehringer, Mike Bailey - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Eric Marquis - Québec Russ Rasmussen, Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin

Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen, Joe Bertram, Steve Cole, Matt Doss.

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: Vice Chair Allan welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda. Kelly Burch sent his regrets. Eric Marquis added an agenda item related to the GLC’s Annual Meeting.

2) Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Allan to approve the minutes from the March 19, 2015. No changes were suggested. The minutes were unanimously approved.

3) Review draft of GLC FY16 budget: The Finance Committee reviewed the budget on April 10. The budget must be approved at least 45 days prior to the start of the GLC’s new fiscal year (July 1). The overall budget is being reduced due to the fact that the GLC has several large-scale federal grants that are not being drawn down as quickly as was originally projected. Joe Bertram, the GLC’s financial manager, noted that if the grants and contracts line does increase this will all be pass- through monies. The large grants are about 2/3 NOAA and 1/3 USDA-NRCS. Vice Chair Allan opened the floor to comments or questions from the Board. No questions were asked. Eder said that the next step will be setting up a teleconference with all Commissioners in the next 2-3 weeks. After that input, the final budget will be returned to the Board for approval on its next call.

Commissioner Allen noted that the Finance Committee did suggest that the GLC become more proactive in managing its reserve funds. Approximately $1.2M is currently in the GLC’s reserve fund for long-term strategic investments, including a dedicated building, if and when that opportunity may arise. The investment strategy has been primarily to invest in a mix of SP 500 index funds and CDs. Eder said that consulting with a financial adviser would be helpful, probably every few years rather than on retainer.

The second item was discussion of a state dues increase. An increase is not being proposed at this time, however, the dues haven’t been raised since 2002, which is eroding the states’ buying capacity. Vice Chair Allan said that an evaluation of what the dues are buying, what they should be buying, what value the states are getting from the dues, etc. is advised. Commissioner Injerd said that the current budgetary climate in Illinois would make a dues increase difficult for them. Vice Chair Allan suggested that if other board members have questions or opinions, please send them to Tim Eder.

4) Finalize letter to EPA – GLRI capacity grants: Eder presented a letter to Susan Hedman regarding the current plight of GLRI funding and state capacity grants. Commissioner Zelazny asked if

Commissioner Stine’s comments had been addressed. Eder reported that Stine is comfortable with the letter, as drafted. Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana cited support for the letter. Eder suggested another discussion with EPA in 10 days or so. A congressional strategy is also being considered. Indiana requested another opportunity to alert their delegation if any congressional action is going to be pursued. Vice Chair Allan thanked board members for all their time and contributions to the effort.

5) Status report on CAWS Advisory Committee: Eder referred to a CAWS map that was distributed and items that are under discussion with the CAWS Advisory Committee. The GLC’s resolution, adopted in 2014, requested near-term action at Brandon Road Lock and Dam, and recognized that Brandon Road is not the long-term solution but that an advisory committee should work toward a long-term solution. GLRI funding (approx. $300K) helped support an advisory committee and secure a skilled facilitator/mediator who specializes in conflict resolution. Three long-term scenarios are under discussion: 1) two ANS lock systems; 2) one ANS lock system and one physical barrier; and 3) two physical barriers. All of these scenarios also include the ANS lock system at Brandon Road. Eder reported that the reality is that the current advisory committee will not be able to reach consensus on the two-barrier scenario. The engineering firm HDR has examined options and the potential risks of each scenario. Above 75 percent effectiveness is the minimum goal. Eder noted that the GLC needs to step up its action on the Brandon Road piece to expedite its implementation. That’s where the Great Lakes will be getting its near-term protection. Commissioner Zelazny asked why the two-barrier option will likely be taken off the table. Eder said it’s because commercial transportation would be impeded. Commissioner Peacock clarified that the physical barriers would shut down barge routes, which is a critical concern. The priorities are not out of alignment on either side of this argument. They don’t need to be exclusive arguments. Commissioner Injerd suggested that Illinois DNR and others in Illinois need to re-engage on this issue with its state’s new Administration. Eder clarified that Illinois EPA and DOT both have ex-officio status on the advisory committee and have been quite active. Vice Chair Allan suggested that this item be revisited on future board meeting agendas. Commissioner Zehringer requested that the Board receive a current list of the CAWS Advisory Committee members. Commissioner Nelson noted that the Brandon Road solution has many physical and financial challenges. It could be decades-long solution.

6) Oil Report Recommendations Advisory Group: Tom Crane explained the list of nominees for the advisory group has been compiled and distributed to the board. Keeping the group to a manageable size is a concern. Limiting it to one agency representative from Illinois is recommended. Also recommended is inviting the oil companies to be represented first, rather than the American Petroleum Institute. On the current list, industry is slightly over-represented and a more equal balance is being sought. Formal invitations are going to be sent out to the group this week, if the board concurs with the staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Peacock asked who suggested that BP be represented. Crane explained that Québec made this suggestion and one of Tom’s colleagues at BP recommended Mr. Barnett. Indiana’s delegation is suggesting API be on the committee, which has a broader knowledge about these issues than a specific oil company representative within the region. Crane agreed that API will be invited. Commissioner Zelazny asked if the railroad industry will be represented. Crane explained that Illinois EPA has been helpful in providing some railroad representation. The American Association of Railroads was suggested by Commissioner Peacock.

7) Lake Erie nutrients: Eder reported that the Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) workgroup has been very active. A draft/interim report will be presented to the GLC Board in the next 3-4 weeks, prior to the governors’/premiers’ summit in June 2015. A reduction target will be proposed, recommended policy changes to get us there, and a feedback loop. The goal is to get the governors and premiers something that they will be proud to announce at their summit in Québec. Mike Bailey (OH) noted that there has been an effort to coordinate with Annex 4 efforts. Ohio has signed a “no fertilizer applied to frozen ground” bill. Commissioner Nelson asked when the report will be ready to review. Eder explained that the LENT committee is already reviewing the report so it can and is being shared with the states now.

8) Legislative update: tabled.

9) GLC Annual Meeting: Associate Commissioner Marquis said that a minister from Québec might be considered as a keynote speaker. Eder will prepare an agenda for review on a future board call.

10) Upcoming Meetings:

o May 14 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o June 18 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o July 16 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Aug. 21 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Sept. 17 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Sept. 28-29 – Annual Meeting, Chicago

The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim A. Eder Executive Director

/cm

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors Conference Call Minutes May 14, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. EDT by Kelly Burch, chair. The following members were present:

Dan Injerd - Illinois Jody Peacock - Indiana Jim Tierney - New York Jim Zehringer, Karl Gebhardt - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Kelly Burch - Pennsylvania Eric Marquis, Kerith Iverson-Vosters - Québec Russ Rasmussen - Wisconsin

Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Christine Manninen, Joe Bertram, Steve Cole, Matt Doss, Victoria Pebbles.

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: Chairman Burch welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda.

2) Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Tierney (NY), seconded by Commissioner Injerd (IL) to approve the minutes from the April 16, 2015, board call. No changes were suggested. The minutes were unanimously approved.

3) GLC FY16 budget: The Finance Committee consisted of Commissioners Allan, Stine, Carr and Injerd. Tim Eder outlined the process for the budget review. The Finance Committee had several calls to discuss the budget over the last two months. The open call for all Commissioners was held May 11 but no other Commissioners chose to participate. No subsequent changes have been made to the budget. Eder reported that Eder and Crane are the trustees of the GLC’s John Hancock retirement portfolio for staff. The annual meeting of the trustees was held May 13 and staff were provided with an annual overview of the plan. There is a very high rate of participation in the plan by staff and no changes were made to the account portfolio at this time. Eder also noted that the GLC’s new budget includes a slight increase for health insurance costs, but Financial Manager Joe Bertram is still waiting to receive the insurance provider’s quotes. Commissioners Carr and Injerd reinforced Eder’s confidence in the budget. Injerd noted the lack of involvement/interest in reviewing the budget by other Commissioners. Eder said that this could just show that Commissioners have a high level of trust/faith in the Board and defer to the Board for the appropriate oversight and accountability. Commissioner Tierney asked whether the Finance Committee feels that the GLC’s reserve funds are adequate. Eder said, although the reserves seem substantial, given the size of the GLC’s total budget and staff, the reserves are appropriate. Per a recommendation from the Finance Committee, Eder is consulting with a financial adviser to receive further advice on this. A motion to approve the budget for FY16 was made by Ohio, seconded by Wisconsin. The budget was unanimously approved. Eder thanked Bertram and Crane for their excellent work in preparing the budget and its year-round oversight.

4) Briefing on Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) report: The LENT Working Group was an outcome of actions taken at the GLC’s 2014 Annual Meeting in Buffalo, N.Y., on the heels of Toledo’s drinking water crisis in August 2014. The LENT working group plans to publish an interim report in coordination with the governors/premiers summit in June 2015 in Québec City. Eder presented the draft report to the board, and reported that Craig Butler, Ohio EPA, is on the summit agenda to

discuss nutrients and Lake Erie algal bloom issues. A 40 percent reduction in phosphorus loadings is the reduction target outlined in the report. Commissioner Gebhardt has been working with Butler to prepare his remarks for the summit. The LENT working group has made every effort to coordinate with the related Annex 4 discussions. A 1-2 page executive summary will also be prepared in advance of the summit. Victoria Pebbles, lead GLC staff for the LENT effort, said that the LENT working group members will be offering comments on the draft report by Tuesday, May 19. Chairman Burch asked if there’s consistency among Annex 4 and other groups with the 40 percent reduction target. Eder confirmed that there is consistency.

5) Discussion of EPA-GLRI Capacity Grants: Eder reported that the last communication with EPA was that they’ve received the GLC’s April 17 letter and would be consulting with the other recipients of capacity grants (e.g., federal agencies, tribes) to get their perspectives. Eder hasn’t received any further updates. Commissioner Tierney noted that these efforts, thus far, have been very important and that we need to keep the heat on to remind EPA of the states’ positions.

6) Legislative update: Policy Director Matt Doss provided updates on some key legislative items. GLRI appropriations: neither chamber has taken action yet. The GLC is advocating for level funding of $300M. 51 members in the House signed on to a bipartisan letter in support of the GLRI, which is encouraging. The Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (GLEEPA), was introduced in the past couple of Congresses. This legislation would formally authorize the GLRI. It has been reintroduced in the Senate, authorizing the GLRI at $475M/year. A “GLEEPA-light” version, introduced in the House and Senate, would authorize the GLRI at $300M. A new Government Accountability Office report on the GLRI is pending and will be considered as these pieces of legislation move forward. The GLC is cautiously optimistic that one or both of these bills will move forward in the current Congress. Allocations of $1.2B for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund were made through an amendment on the House floor. Plussing up the Great Lakes Fish & Wildlife Restoration Act is also on the table. More adequate funding for the Brandon Road (Asian carp) project is still needed. The Energy & Water appropriations bill that passed in the House prohibits open water disposal of dredged material in Lake Erie. The Defending our Great Lakes Act would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to move forward on Brandon Road; introduced in both House and Senate. Eder noted the leadership from the Obama Administration over the past six years on GLRI. Given that the Administration will change soon, now is a critical time to get the GLRI authorization legislation passed.

7) Other Business: Commissioner Injerd asked if there has been any further action on the oil transportation report. Eder reported that the advisory team invitations have been issued, many have accepted and an initial call was held on May 11.

The next CAWS Advisory Committee meeting is June 3.

Injerd offered to assist with planning for the GLC Annual Meeting in Chicago. Eder will convene a call soon with members of the Illinois delegation.

Associate Commissioner Marquis reported that planning for the governors/premiers summit is shaping up nicely. Nine of 10 jurisdictions have confirmed their attendance.

8) Upcoming Meetings:

o June 18 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o July 16 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Aug. 21 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Sept. 17 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Sept. 28-29 – Annual Meeting, Chicago

th o Sept. 28 – Reception to celebrate our 60 anniversary with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission at the Shedd Aquarium o Sept. 29 – Joint luncheon with Healing Our Waters, Chicago

The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim A. Eder Executive Director

/cm

Great Lakes Commission Board of Directors Conference Call Minutes June 18, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. EDT by Kelly Burch, chair. The following members were present:

Dan Injerd - Illinois Jody Peacock - Indiana Jon Allan - Michigan John Stine - Minnesota Jim Tierney, Don Zelazny - New York Andy Ware - Ohio Bill Carr - Ontario Kelly Burch - Pennsylvania Eric Marquis - Québec Russ Rasmussen, Steve Galarneau - Wisconsin

Staff present: Tim Eder, Tom Crane, Matt Doss, Victoria Pebbles.

1) Introductions and Call Objectives: Chairman Burch welcomed everyone to the call and reviewed the agenda. He announced that he will be retiring effective June 26. He has requested to stay on doing Great Lakes work with the state, and remain as GLC chair. Vice Chair Allan will step in as acting chair in the interim until this is approved.

2) Minutes: A motion was made by Commissioner Allan, seconded by Commissioner Tierney to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2015, board call. No changes were suggested. The minutes were unanimously approved.

3) Asian Carp Population Status and Draft Correspondence to the President: Tim Eder, executive director, referred to a slide showing monitoring data from IL DNR and USF&WS showing the Asian carp population in the Illinois River. Previously, the message has been that the population hasn’t advanced closer to Lake Michigan over the past nine years. However, there is recent information that young fish advanced 33 miles further north in 2014. This has caused a great deal of concern, even if the leading edge of adult population hasn’t moved. Coupled with the four year timeframe for the Corps of Engineers to complete the Brandon Rd. study, this has caused concern about how to prompt quicker action. Thus, we are proposing a joint letter with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to the President urging quicker action, and expressing concern about the President’s FY 2016 budget requesting only $500,000 for the study. The letter urges the Administration to include a higher level of funding in the FY 2017 budget request. Commissioner Peacock referred to language in the GLC federal priorities statement about maintaining commercial transportation and asked that this be included in the letter. He asked about the term “smart channel.” Eder clarified that work at Brandon Rd. won’t affect water quality and flooding, and likely will have minimal impact on transportation. It was agreed to include the language from the GLC legislative priorities statement. In his comments on the letter, Commissioner Injerd suggested a replacement for the second paragraph to minimize the sense of alarm. Commissioner Allan responded that more time is needed to resolve these issues for the letter, noting that his governor is not happy with the Corps’ timeframe for completing the study. Commissioner Tierney noted that the four-year timeframe for the study is longer than that called for by current policy, which calls for three years for feasibility studies. Even after completion of a feasibility study, there will still need to be congressional authorization and appropriation for construction. Eder suggested that we form a subgroup to work on revised language for the letter. Commissioners Allan, Galarneau and Peacock agreed to help with a revised letter. Eder will follow up to schedule a time for more discussion next week.

4) Annual Meeting and Great Lakes Week Plans: Eder reviewed plans for the Commission’s annual meeting and invited Commissioner Injerd to review details. He reported that IL Gov. Rauner will be invited to

speak; there will be a panel on Asian carp; a panel to provide a historical perspective on the GLC as it celebrates its 60th anniversary and a look forward; a panel on water in urban environments; and a joint reception with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission at the Shedd Aquarium. Eder added that he planned to have a private lunch for Commissioners, similar to the dinner at the GLC semiannual meeting in Washington in February. The Healing Our Waters coalition’s meeting starts Tuesday afternoon and we are planning a joint luncheon, with Mayor Emanuel invited as a keynote speaker. Eder invited input on speakers, resolutions and other details. Commissioner Stine suggested someone from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to speak on the Asian carp panel. Commissioner Injerd suggested working with Joe Deal in the Chicago mayor’s office for input on the meeting, in addition to the other IL commissioners. Eder said he will update the GLC meeting agenda and encouraged further input from the Board.

5) Harmful Algal Blooms Collaborative, Science, Information and Monitoring: Eder invited Victoria Pebbles to report on the development of a harmful algal bloom (HABs) collaboratory in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-Great Lakes Science Center as part of the five-year MOU between our two organizations. This is an opportunity to better coordinate science and related information about HABs. This will not be “all-things” for HABs, but an opportunity to better synthesize, translate and deliver science-based information on HABs to managers, and conversely, to solicit input from the management community on science-based decisions related to HABs. The HABs collaboratory will be focused on conveying science-based information and will also initially focus on the three GLRI priority watersheds: Maumee/Western Lake Erie Basin, Lower Fox River/Green Bay and Saginaw River/Bay. We have two years of funding beginning in July. We will invite Commissioners to identify the appropriate managers in their jurisdiction to participate on the collaboratory.

6) Discussion of LENT Report & Governors’/Premier’s Western Basin Collaborative on Lake Erie: Commissioner Allan reported that Michigan, Ohio and Ontario agreed in Quebec to a 40% reduction in phosphorous loadings to Lake Erie and set a path forward on state and provincial plans to meet this goal. The LENT process also included New York and Pennsylvania. Quebec was the opportunity to make a strong statement about moving forward in a collaborative and urgent manner. Eder emphasized the importance of having the chief executives of the two states and the province to make this commitment publically. Eder said he thinks we can do a better job of synchronizing the various efforts underway on nutrients and Lake Erie. He noted that the states have gotten in front of the federal governments on this issue. We have more work to do and he urged the Board to review the nine actions steps outlined in the LENT report.

7) Outcomes from Quebec Meeting of Governors and Premiers: Commissioner Marquis reported that the summit in Quebec was a tremendous success. Since the meeting on Mackinac Island, the governors and premiers have continued to add new building blocks to work on regional priorities, with collaboration with the GLC. Key parts of the regional maritime strategy were rolled out; options for infrastructure investments were discussed; and water was highlighted as the potential focus of clusters of economic activity. It was more than just a nice meeting; it was a productive meeting. Commissioner Allan said that Quebec was a marvelous host and his governor was impressed. He came home with many important followup actions to address.

8) Update on Legislative Priorities: Matt Doss, policy director, reported that the House and Senate appropriations committees have approved funding bills for U.S. EPA, with both providing $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). This reflects level funding from the current year and $50 million above the President’s budget request. This is a major achievement and reflects strong support in Congress for the GLRI. The appropriations bills provide less funding for the Clean Water and Safer Drinking Water state revolving fund programs. A recent attempt to add the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act to the Senate defense authorization bill failed.

9) Status of State Capacity Grants: Commissioner Galarneau reviewed the status of discussions with U.S. EPA-GLNPO about state capacity funds for Great Lakes programs. Many states began discussions with U.S. EPA as much as two years ago about new capacity grants and the importance of these grants for advancing the GLRI and other Great Lakes programs. Continued congressional support for the GLRI demonstrates the success of the states in implementing projects to meet GLRI goals. Wisconsin is disappointed by the proposed reductions in state funding and the lack of adequate or timely consultation

with the states. He invited continued input from the other states on the status of their negotiations with U.S. EPA, and options for next steps. Commissioner Stine echoed these concerns and suggested that other steps may need to be taken with U.S. EPA. Eder noted that a letter to Congress or appropriations report language could be considered. Eder suggested this be discussed at the Great Lakes Executive Committee meeting next week.

10) Michigan Water Strategy: Commissioner Allan noted that a 30-year water strategy for the state of Michigan was released recently following two years of work. (It is available online at http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3677_64891---,00.html.) It takes a systems approach and he invited the Commissioners’ review.

11) Upcoming Meetings:

o July 16 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Aug. 21 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Sept. 17 – GLC Board call, 3 p.m. EDT o Sept. 28-29 – Annual Meeting, Chicago o September 28 – Joint Reception at Shedd Aquarium with GLFC o September 29 – Joint Luncheon with Healing Our Waters o September 30-Oct. 1 – Healing Our Waters Conference

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tim A. Eder Executive Director

/md

Action Items

 Resolution – Support for listing new species as injurious under the Lacey Act: The resolution acknowledges the upcoming proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list eleven new species as “injurious” under the Lacey Act; acknowledges the recent FWS risk assessment screening of approximately 2,000 species; reiterates the Commission support for strengthened federal laws for screening species and preventing the importation of those with a high risk of causing ecological and economic damage; and supports the FWS’s proposed listing.

 Resolution – Support for revitalizing coastal communities through federal legislation and programs: The resolution recognizes the importance of waterfront communities and the need to clean up and restore many coastal areas previously used for industry; supports environmental cleanup and economic development; acknowledges the regional interest in revitalizing waterfront areas for multiple beneficial uses; and urges federal agencies to align programs and provide funding to support these revitalizations. It also calls on the Commission to support these efforts and advance the “Blue Economy.”

 Resolution – Support for integrated water management: This resolution acknowledges that aging water infrastructure and poor land use planning threaten freshwater resources; encourages policies that restore the natural hydrology within urban areas; and calls on the Commission to work with regional partners to support sustainable water use and management.

 Resolution – Support a joint action plan for Lake Erie: The resolution acknowledges the work of the Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) Working Group to develop a final Joint Action Plan; supports actions for reducing sources of nutrient pollution in Lake Erie; and endorses the final LENT Joint Action Plan.

RESOLUTION – DRAFT

Support for Prohibiting the Import of Harmful Aquatic Invasive Species

Whereas, the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region are threatened by the ongoing introduction and spread of harmful aquatic invasive species; and

Whereas, invasive species, once they become established, are usually impossible to eradicate and costly to control, as demonstrated by the more than $75 million in federal funding spent annually in the U.S. to control only two invasive species: Asian carp and sea lamprey; and

Whereas, prevention is the most cost-effective method of protecting against the harmful impacts of invasive species and the Great Lakes Commission has consistently advocated for strengthened federal laws and programs to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species through multiple pathways, including ballast water, canals and waterways, and the trade in live organisms; and

Whereas, the U.S. and Canada are leading import markets in the global trade of live organisms, with more than 2,200 species of non-native wildlife being imported into the U.S. over the last decade, including more than 300 species that pose risks as potential invaders; and

Whereas, the existing federal regulatory system in the U.S. for preventing the importation and trade of injurious wildlife is the Lacey Act (18 USC 42) as administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); and

Whereas, the Government of Canada recently announced new regulations to prohibit the import, possession, transport and release of high-risk species; and

Whereas, existing procedures too often result in prohibiting species only after they have been imported and begin spreading in the wild, as occurred with Asian carp, Northern snakehead and the Burmese python, which are disrupting ecosystems where they are established and costing millions of dollars annually to control; and

Whereas, the FWS, through a science-based screening process, has proactively identified 11 non -native species with both a high invasive potential and a high climate match for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region and is now planning to list those species as injurious under the Lacey Act in order to prohibit their importation; and

Whereas, the Council of Great Lakes Governors included four of these species in its list of “least wanted” species that pose the greatest threat to the basin and require preventative action; and

Whereas, in other countries these species are known to compete with native fish for food, prey on native larvae and juvenile fish, carry infectious diseases, alter habitats, contribute to algal blooms, and disrupt local economies.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission supports the listing of additional species as “injurious” under Title 18 of the Lacey Act to proactively prevent their introduction and potential harm to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region, including 11 to be proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Presented for consideration at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, September 28-29, 2015 in Chicago, IL.

 Fishes: Amur Sleeper (Perccottus glenii), Crucian Carp (Carassius carassius), Eurasian Minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus), European Perch (Perca fluviatilis), Nile Perch (Lates niloticus), Prussian Carp (Carassius gibelio), Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Stone Moroko (Pseudorasbora parva), Zander (Sander lucioperca) and Wels Catfish (Silurus glanis)

 Crayfish: Yabby (Cherax destructor)

Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to use their authorities to also prohibit the importation of these 11 high-risk species; and

Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges federal agencies in the U.S. and Canada to continue using existing authorities to expedite the identification and restrict the importation of non-native species that pose a high risk of being harmful to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region ecosystem and economy; and

Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission recognizes that preventing the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species through all pathways is critical to protecting the economic and ecological well-being of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region.

RESOLUTION – DRAFT

Advancing Coastal Community Revitalization Through Strengthened Federal Legislation and Programs

Whereas, the Great Lakes are a vital environmental and economic asset for the eight states and two provinces of the Great Lakes region, where waterfront areas historically have been centers of economic activity for coastal communities, supporting industries with fresh water, energy, and access to waterborne networks for shipping raw materials and finished goods; and

Whereas, the industrial era left a legacy of contamination and habitat degradation in many shoreline areas and the decline in heavy industry in the Great Lakes region has left many waterfronts vacant or underutilized; and

Whereas, many coastal communities are working to clean up and reclaim waterfront areas and align them with new plans for economic development, public access, recreation, habitat restoration and other uses, along with continued support for commercial navigation; and

Whereas, the U.S. and Canadian federal governments have recognized the importance of Great Lakes coasts in their shared commitment to a Great Lakes nearshore framework under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; and

Whereas, progress in cleaning up and restoring degraded shorelines has accelerated significantly in recent years with support from the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other state, provincial and federal programs, particularly in Areas of Concern designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, where cleanup work has been completed in seven U.S. AOCs and five Canadian AOCs with another fifteen AOCs scheduled for completion over the next five years; and

Whereas, regional leaders have recognized the economic potential of fresh water and the “Blue Economy” in the Great Lakes region and there is significant interest in understanding challenges and opportunities in this area; and

Whereas, multiple state, provincial and federal programs support healthy and sustainable coastal development, such as the Coastal Zone Management Program as implemented by the states, and Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement; and

Whereas, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (WI) has introduced the Waterfront Communities Revitalization and Resiliency Act of 2015 (S. 1935) that would create a voluntary Resilient Waterfront Community designation, authorize funding for developing and implementing resilient waterfront plans, establish a Resilient Waterfront Communities network, and provide preferred status for Resilient Waterfront Communities in other U.S. federal grant and loan programs.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls for legislation that supports federal, state and local efforts to clean up, restore, and revitalize waterfront areas in the Great Lakes region, including provisions that strengthen federal policies, programs and funding; facilitate state leadership; promote the exchange of best practices; emphasize sustainability and resiliency to impacts from climate change; and balance multiple benefits such as recreation, fish and wildlife, commercial navigation, and water-dependent industries; and

Presented for consideration at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, September 28-29, 2015 in Chicago, IL.

Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges U.S. and Canadian federal agencies to align existing programs, policies and funding to support coastal communities in revitalizing waterfront areas and attracting water- dependent industries, including funding incentives for community-based leadership and planning; and

Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission urges its member states and provinces, in collaboration with appropriate partners, to explore opportunities to advance the “Blue Economy” and support and strengthen efforts of coastal communities, including research, policy development, technology transfer, and information exchange.

RESOLUTION – DRAFT

Healing the Fractured Urban Water Cycle through Integrated Water Management

Whereas, water management across the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River ecosystem is often characterized by aging water and wastewater infrastructure that can pose a risk to a healthy and safe water supply and to thriving economies, animal and plant communities that symbolize and depend on this freshwater treasure; and

Whereas, in many urban areas, the natural hydrological cycle that provides services such as flood control, aquifer recharge, water treatment, and clean and reliable water supply has been fractured by a legacy of poor land use planning, wasteful water use, and a disjointed approach to water management generally; and

Whereas, in the Great Lakes region, municipalities have primary responsibility for water supply, wastewater management and stormwater management and these programs are often fractured within local government institutions; and

Whereas, federal, provincial and state agencies in the U.S. and Canada provide policy guidelines and funding to support municipal efforts to manage water supply, wastewater and stormwater; and

Whereas, integrated water resource management—which joins decision-making related to water supply, water use, wastewater treatment and disposal and stormwater management—can help to restore the fractured water cycle and improve the efficiency of programs to enhance the quality and quantity of services provided by this freshwater treasure; and

Whereas, water efficiency and green infrastructure are also core aspects of municipal infrastructure and can augment the economic, environmental and social outcomes of integrated water management; and

Whereas, through the Greater Lakes project, which was supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund, the Great Lakes Commission has learned that there is broad agreement among municipal, provincial and state experts on the need to integrate water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure on a watershed basis; and

Whereas, the full benefits of integrated water management can be boosted by stronger partnerships with federal, state and provincial governments that will inform, educate and improve local decision making.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission calls for U.S. and Canadian federal, state and provincial agencies with responsibilities related to water supply, wastewater management and stormwater management to work with municipalities to develop and promote principles of integrated water resource management for application within the Great Lakes region; and

Be it further resolved, that federal agencies in the U.S. and Canada, in partnership with states and provinces, utilize funding incentives, such as low cost/low interest loan programs, that will encourage local units of government with direct responsibility for water infrastructure improvements to apply the principles of integrated water resources management that includes measures for water efficiency and green infrastructure; and

Presented for consideration at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, September 28-29, 2015 in Chicago, IL.

Be it further resolved, that Great Lakes states and provinces should pursue enhanced coordination among their respective agencies with responsibilities related to water supply, wastewater management and stormwater management; including integration of programs when working with municipalities; and

Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission should explore the establishment of a project and/or working group with municipalities, other agencies and landowners to:  identify and promote sustainable water use and management policies, programs and practices  recommend and establish reliable long-term funding to design, build, operate and maintain water infrastructure and to ensure that these funding mechanisms include water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure as core components of the infrastructure mechanisms  explore and advance the establishment of an information platform to enhance the development of shared goals and metrics for sustainable water supply; and  explore and advance regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to advance integrated water management on a watershed basis, including market-based and other cost-effective incentives.

RESOLUTION – DRAFT

A Joint Action Plan for Lake Erie

Whereas, Lake Erie provides drinking water to more than 11 million Canadian and U.S. residents, supports a $1.5 billion sport fishing industry and is a vital resource for the five states and Ontario that surround the lake; and

Whereas, the Great Lakes Commission adopted a Lake Erie Water Quality resolution in September of 2014 that called for the establishment of a Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) Working Group to develop and refine new and existing practices, programs and policies to achieve pollutant reduction targets and/or improve water quality in Lake Erie; and

Whereas, the LENT Working Group was established in December 2014 with representatives from Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, New York and Pennsylvania; and

Whereas, the LENT Working Group released an Interim Joint Action Plan in June 2015 and a final Joint Action Plan for Lake Erie in September 2015, which establishes a “collective goal of a healthy Lake Erie system that supports biological, social, economic and cultural values of the region and is free from nuisance and harmful algal blooms and minimizes hypoxia” and

Whereas, the Joint Action Plan calls for a 40 percent phosphorus reduction target (from 2008 levels) phosphorus for western and central Lake Erie by 2025, and a proposed interim phosphorus reduction target of 20% (from 2008 levels) for western and central Lake Erie by 2020; and

Whereas, the phosphorus reduction targets outlined in the LENT Joint Action Plan align with the Western Lake Erie Basin Collaborative signed by the Ohio and Michigan Governors and the Premier of Ontario, the 2012 Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force Report and the proposed phosphorus reductions identified by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Nutrients Annex (4) Subcommittee; and

Whereas, the Joint Action Plan demonstrates a shared commitment among the five jurisdictions bordering Lake Erie to solve the nutrient-related problems facing Lake Erie; and outlines ten joint actions that provide a framework for collective action toward achieving the nutrient reduction targets; and

Whereas, the four Lake Erie states and the province of Ontario have agreed to consider the joint actions as they formulate their individual plans and programs to achieve strategic nutrient reductions based on each jurisdiction’s needs, authorities, capacities and constraints; and

Whereas, the Joint Action Plan for Lake Erie can also inform the development of GLWQA Domestic Action Plans for Lake Erie to be released in 2018; and

Whereas, the Joint Action Plan serves as a model for lake-based, interjurisdictional cooperation and collective action on nutrient reduction strategies for other lake and sub-lake basins—within the Great Lakes region and beyond; and

Presented for consideration at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, September 28-29, 2015 in Chicago, IL.

Whereas, additional efforts to implement actions outlined in the report are underway by the jurisdictions and will be continued, and would be complemented by an information platform to track progress, identify information gaps needed from research, modeling and monitoring to support the adaptive management framework that underlies the plan and which is necessary to ensure that these and other actions are sufficient to achieve the goal of a healthy Lake Erie.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission endorses the Joint Action Plan for Lake Erie and commends the members of the LENT Working Group from Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, New York and Pennsylvania for their collective efforts to address a critical issue facing the region; and

Be it further resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission is called upon to assist with implementation of efforts to reduce pollution problems in Lake Erie by developing, in cooperation with governments, academics and others, a common platform of information on pollution sources, progress to reach pollution reduction targets and information gaps to be filled to support a decision-making framework based on adaptive management; and

Be it further resolved, that Great Lakes Commission request the governments of the U.S. and Canada to consider the joint actions in the development of Domestic Action Plans pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and that there be formal consideration of such by the Annex 4 Subcommittee convened pursuant to that Agreement; and

Be it finally resolved, that the Great Lakes Commission recommends that the federal governments provide continued and additional support for pollution reduction and drinking water protection efforts for Lake Erie through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the U.S. Clean Water Act, the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health and additional sources to supplement programs and funding provided by the states and Ontario.

A Joint Action Plan for Lake Erie A Report of the Great Lakes Commission Lake Erie Nutrient Targets Working Group September, 2015

A 2014 Great Lakes Commission Lake Erie Water Pollution resolution committed the Lake Erie states and the Province of Ontario to form a working group to develop new and refine existing practices, programs and policies to achieve pollutant reduction targets and/or identify additional remedies to improve water quality in Lake Erie. This report is a product of the Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) Working Group that formed following that resolution.

It is envisioned that this Joint Action Plan will drive further actions, consultations and discussions that the states and the province can advance in the near term as longer-term efforts are underway through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Nutrients Annex (Annex 4) process, including release of final Lake Erie nutrient targets in 2016 and Domestic Action Plans in 2018. The actions described here complement and expand on the commitments made by the Governors of Ohio and Michigan and the Premier of Ontario in their Western Basin of Lake Erie Collaborative Agreement signed in June 2015.

PREAMBLE Lake Erie is the eleventh largest lake on Earth by surface area.1 Of the five Laurentian Great Lakes, Lake Erie is the southernmost, the smallest by volume, the shallowest, and also the warmest. It is the most biologically productive, supporting the largest Great Lakes sport fishery. Lake Erie has three distinct sub-basins: a very shallow western basin and related islands; a deeper central basin; an even deeper eastern basin that drains into the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. The lake provides drinking water to more than 11 million residents and supports a $1.5 billion sport fishing industry. Lake Erie is a vital resource for the binational Great Lakes region.

Eutrophication is a serious global problem that has re-emerged, resulting in harmful algal blooms2 in the western basin of Lake Erie, offshore anoxic zones - also known as dead zones - in the central basin, and nuisance levels of Cladophora in the eastern basin. All of these problems are linked to excessive loading of nutrients, particularly phosphorus. The primary sources of phosphorus to Lake Erie are urban point and nonpoint sources, and agricultural nonpoint sources. Urban area loadings are associated with municipal and industrial facility point source discharges, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) as well as stormwater runoff containing nutrients from the land, including residential fertilizers. Agricultural nonpoint source pollution occurs primarily in the form of farm and field runoff, which results mainly from fertilizer and manure applications.

1 Great Lakes Atlas, 1995, Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 Harmful algal blooms are overgrowths of algae or cyanobacteria that can occur in both freshwater and marine systems. Some species can produce dangerous toxins.

As shown in Figure 1, point- source contributions have dramatically declined over the past several decades while the relative contribution of nonpoint sources to overall loading has increased. The impacts of excessive nutrients are affected by multiple factors such as climate change, temperature, weather, hydrology and aquatic invasive species. Following extensive phosphorus reduction efforts initiated in the 1970s, harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie were Figure 1: Annual loading of Total Phosphorus to Lake Erie by major largely absent. sources. Excerpted and modified from Ohio Lake Erie Task Force II Final Report; original data provided by Dr. David Dolan, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. May 2013.

However, blue‐green algae (cyanobacteria) blooms began to reappear in the western basin of Lake Erie in the mid-1990s. Monitoring data indicate that since the mid-1990s, total phosphorus has been declining while dissolved reactive phosphorus, or DRP, has been increasing. DRP is the fraction of dissolved phosphorus that is easily absorbed and available to plants and is now widely accepted as the primary nutrient of concern in Lake Erie.3 The actions called for in this document aim to address current nutrient loading challenges associated with total phosphorus as well as DRP. This Joint Action Plan offers a common roadmap for the Lake Erie states and the Province of Ontario to guide shared activities to help solve nutrient-related problems in Lake Erie.

3Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force II Final Report, November 2013 http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/lakeerie/ptaskforce2/Task_Force_Report_October_2013.pdf International Joint Commission. A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms – A Report of the Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority, February 2014 http://www.ijc.org/files/publications/2014%20IJC%20LEEP%20REPORT.pdf Great Lakes Commission. A Summary of State and Provincial Programs in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Region. September 2012. http://glc.org/files/main/news/FINAL-NutrientManagement-Sept2012.pdf “Detroit River – Western Lake Erie Basin Indicator Project.” EPA. 2009 http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/maumee-p.html

GOAL FOR LAKE ERIE The citizens of the Lake Erie basin and the governments that represent them share a collective goal of a healthy Lake Erie system that supports biological, social, economic and cultural values of the region, is free from nuisance and harmful algal blooms and minimizes hypoxia. To achieve this goal, the LENT Working Group has identified a target of reducing phosphorus loads into western and central Lake Erie by 40 percent (from 2008 levels) by 2025 to achieve this goal. The 40 percent reduction target was identified by the Ohio Task Force in 20124 and the International Joint Commission (IJC) in 20135. It has been endorsed by the Governors of Ohio and Michigan and the Premier of Ontario in the Western Basin of Lake Erie Collaborative Agreement signed in June 2015. The 40 percent reduction is also consistent with the proposed phosphorus reductions identified by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Nutrients Annex Subcommittee.6 The LENT Working Group further proposes an interim phosphorus reduction target of 20 percent by 2020. The interim target is intended to focus Figure 2: Lake Erie showing western central and eastern basins. and support early actions by jurisdictions as they work toward the longer term reduction target. These proposed interim and longer term reduction targets are aspirational and set forth a broad framework for actions that will help reduce cyanobacteria (blue-green) blooms and it is hoped the occurrences of harmful toxins produced by cyanobacteria. The targets do not mean that every source will need to reduce phosphorous by the same amount. Rather, they represent overall reduction targets for Lake Erie that can drive action in the near term as longer-term efforts are underway through the GLWQA Nutrients Annex (Annex 4) process, including release of final Lake Erie nutrient targets in 2016 and Domestic Action Plans in 2018. The U.S. and Canadian Domestic Action Plans will apportion load allocations by country and identify priority management actions that will meet the phosphorus loading targets. The GLWQA further requires that the U.S. and Canada report on progress toward meeting those load reduction targets every three years. In this way, the Domestic Action Plans have the potential to serve a function similar to large watershed-scale Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the United States. 7

4 Id. Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force 5 International Joint Commission, supra note 5 6 The Annex 4 Subcommittee presented the recommended Phosphorus load reduction target for Lake Erie on May 29, 2015 to the Great Lakes Executive Committee. 7 A TMDL determines the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive (pollution load) and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that pollutant load among the various sources of that pollutant. The U.S. Clean Water Act requires that states develop TMDLs for all the waters listed as impaired on their “303(d) list”. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overviewoftmdl.cfm

The targets and timelines herein will be pursued using an adaptive management approach whereby they may be revised based on regular monitoring, new information, discussions and knowledge of the system (see Joint Action number VIII). Importantly, they may be modified and revised to align with the recommendations coming out of the Annex 4 process. Ontario actions would also be aligned with commitments and actions under the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health, 2014 (COA).

JOINT ACTIONS The following joint actions provide a framework for collective action among the four states bordering Lake Erie and the Province of Ontario toward solving the nutrient-related problems facing Lake Erie. Toward this end, they reflect a shared commitment to use these actions to formulate individual total phosphorus loading reduction plans (or other policy or programmatic efforts) to achieve strategic nutrient reductions. The Joint Actions presented here were identified through a consultative process with the LENT Working Group and through interviews with experts working on nutrient reduction strategies across North America.8 Though not an exhaustive list, the joint actions presented here are known or have shown promise to reduce nutrient loads into receiving waters and contribute to improved water quality. If implemented, these actions will make important progress to achieve phosphorus load reduction targets and the goal of a healthy Lake Erie free from problems associated with excessive nutrients. These actions may be refined and adapted as new information arises about nutrients or the efficacy of various practices and their effects on nutrient- related problems. These joint actions will be pursued collectively by the Lake Erie jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction’s needs, authorities, capacities and constraints.

I. Reduce nutrient applications on frozen or snow-covered ground Description The action calls for effectively managing or restricting manure, fertilizer and biosolids applications under the following conditions: on frozen or snow-covered ground, on saturated soil, or when the weather forecast calls for a severe rain event. To support this action, agricultural producers are encouraged to develop and follow plans that include best management practices that will be implemented to prevent excess manure and fertilizer nutrient loss and properly manage nutrients. Best management practices should include using crop-specific agronomic rates for nutrient applications and soil testing to ensure proper implementation.

Rationale Spreading nutrients, especially liquid manure, on frozen or snow-covered ground can significantly increase the risk of runoff. Frozen soils have virtually no infiltration capability so nutrients are not able to permeate the soil, and there are no growing crops to absorb the nutrients. If applied under any of the above conditions, fertilizer, manure and biosolids can be washed away by spring snow

8 Additional Options for Lake Erie Nutrient Reduction is a related document that includes additional actions identified by experts interviewed but are not included in this Joint Action Plan because they require further research and exploration. This document can be downloaded at http://glc.org/projects/water-quality/lent/.

melt and other heavy precipitation events. Not only does this contribute to excessive loadings into nearby receiving waters, it also wastes the nutrients and does not benefit field health.

Benefits and Challenges Effectively managing or restricting nutrient applications on frozen ground will reduce or eliminate unabsorbed excess nutrients from running off fields and polluting nearby waterways. It also has the potential to save producers money by not paying for fertilizer for which there is no real farming benefit. Adhering to nutrient management plans, manure application risk assessments and certain application standards will help minimize the risk of nutrient runoff before and during the growing season.

One challenge to this action may be for livestock farms that produce more nutrients than may be agronomically required for their fields or for those farms where manure storage capacity is inadequate for the operation. Options for this group would be to install larger storage facilities, which may also involve moving to a liquid manure storage system. The spreading of liquid manure may pose a greater risk for nutrient runoff via field tile during the growing season. Producers need to empty their manure storage facilities in the fall to ensure storage capacity for the coming winter months. However, depending on the timing of harvest and the onset of winter weather, this may not be possible without some spreading on frozen ground or transporting the excess manure offsite, which can be very costly.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements A phased approach to restricting nutrients on frozen or snow-covered ground will enable the agricultural sector to adapt to improved best management practices and adhere to nutrient management requirements prescribed in each jurisdiction. Any new approaches will be developed in consultation with the agriculture sector. Progress toward reduction of nutrient applications on frozen or snow-covered ground should be reviewed periodically.

II. Adopt 4Rs Nutrient Stewardship Certification program or other comprehensive nutrient management programs

Description The 4Rs Nutrient Stewardship Certification program is a voluntary agricultural retailer certification program focused on nutrient stewardship. The program offers a special designation to retailers and crop advisors who assist producers with the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that optimize the efficiency of fertilizer use, including  Right fertilizer: Select fertilizer products based on the nutrients required for optimal plant growth, soil conditions and delivery mechanisms.  Right rate: Determine the correct application rate at which fertilizers should be applied.  Right time: Time the application of fertilizer to optimize fertilizer application rates and plant uptake. Apply fertilizer at times when the plant needs it most and that will minimize the amount of nutrients lost to runoff or leaching.  Right place: Proper placement of nutrients maximizes plant uptake and can reduce erosive losses.

Rationale The objective of the 4Rs program is to match nutrient supply with crop requirements and to minimize nutrient losses from fields. These practices support efficient and effective crop production that is more environmentally sound and can improve soil health while controlling costs. This approach allows crop consultants and producers to adapt proper nutrient management to a particular operation or type of cropping system, and supports improved soil health and water quality. Although technology gives producers better control of nutrient delivery, use of any of the 4Rs BMPs may not require extensive investments.

Benefits and Challenges The 4Rs concept offers enhanced environmental protection and sustainability, as well as increased production and profitability. With better soil and crop management come higher yields. Coupled with optimized nutrient management, producers are in a position to maximize profits.

To ensure that voluntary approaches are having the desired effect on reducing phosphorus to the Lake Erie basin, 4Rs or other nutrient management and stewardship programs (public and private) should implement appropriate metrics to measure progress and assess effectiveness. For example, progress can be tracked by measuring phosphorus losses before and after BMP implementation. Edge-of-field monitoring, however, is costly and will likely need to be coupled with other data and/or modeling to assess performance. Soil testing, as recommended by the program, can help in determining the best fertilizer for a farm.

Although engaging agribusiness can sometimes be a challenge to implementing 4Rs, in the western Lake Erie basin agribusiness has been very engaged and supportive in part due to early and frequent outreach. The Tri-State Western Lake Erie Basin Phosphorus Reduction Initiative project, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Regional Conservation Partnership Program (Western Lake Erie RCPP), will be promoting the 4R Nutrient Stewardship program in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana between 2015 and 2019. Crop consultants and agronomists will play a key role in educating producers about proper nutrient treatment and the application of the 4Rs.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements The Western Lake Erie RCPP is a five-year program that will begin in 2015 with a focus on cropland and incidental land, which collectively makes up 76 percent of agricultural land in the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB).

III. Reduce total phosphorus from seven key9 municipal dischargers in the western and central Lake Erie basins by phasing in growing season (April-September) average effluent limits of 0.6 milligrams total phosphorus per liter by 2020. Conduct optimization and upgrade studies to evaluate costs and compliance options for reducing point source discharge of nutrients.

Description The 0.6 milligram phosphorus per liter (mg/l) limit by the seven facilities should be in place by 2020, or during the next permit renewal, whichever comes sooner. Optimization and upgrade studies provide facilities with information on the anticipated costs to achieve total phosphorus effluent limits that enable them to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of compliance options (e.g., optimizing existing operations, investing in facility upgrades or pursuing alternative compliance options). Optimization and upgrade studies are a priority for the seven key municipal dischargers identified here, but this should not preclude individual jurisdictions or facilities from conducting additional studies to help determine costs and compliance options. In addition, this action should be pursued with ongoing implementation of long-term correction programs for CSOs and possible acceleration of long-term CSO control plan implementation schedules for combined collection systems that discharge to Lake Erie or its tributaries.

Rationale The Nutrients Annex (Annex 4) Subcommittee, convened pursuant to the GLWQA, has determined that these seven key U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) plus the City of Fort Wayne, IN, deliver a significant portion of the point-source total phosphorus load to the western and central basins. Although all point and nonpoint dischargers play a role to improve water quality in Lake Erie, short-term point-source reduction efforts at these key facilities is a strategic approach that should result in load reductions and water quality benefits. Optimization at the facilities, for example, involves fine-tuning plant operations to minimize total phosphorus in the treated effluent and generally requires only minimal capital expenditures. Upgrades generally require facility expansions or other larger capital investments. Operational changes through optimization can be implemented in a shorter timeframe. However, in some cases, facilities may not be able to meet effluent limits through optimization alone. Studies that assess costs of achieving a reduction target or discharge limit optimization, upgrades and alternative options provide facilities with information to make cost-effective decisions (e.g., compare costs among optimization techniques, capital improvements and upgrades, or offsite conservation investments) and thereby support an adaptive management approach. Short-term investments may focus on optimization, while longer-term investments enable cost-effective solutions in light of evolving policies and markets. U.S. and Canadian efforts to reduce untreated CSOs will also further reduce total phosphorus loads into the Lake Erie basin.

9 Key municipal dischargers to the western and central basins include the City of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (MI); the Wayne County-Downriver WWTF (MI); Ypsilanti Community Utility Authority (MI); City of Toledo WWTF (OH); and three WWTFs in the Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District (Easterly WWTF, Southerly WWTF, and Westerly WWTF).

Benefits and Challenges Benefits include potentially significant load reductions at lower costs, because existing facilities that contribute the greatest point-source loads to the western and central basins will be optimized. In addition, achieving these reduced loading targets could happen in a relatively short timeframe. Currently, federal and state funding is not available to finance optimization and upgrade studies, so facilities will need to find new sources of revenue to cover these costs, which may prove difficult. However, armed with information about cost effectiveness, these studies may build political support for longer-term solutions and help avoid investments in less cost-effective options.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements As an example, the Detroit WWTF was issued a revised discharge permit10 in 2013 that called for optimization of total phosphorus removal and compliance with a growing season average of 0.6 mg/l. As a result, the facility is now typically discharging 0.2 – 0.45 mg/l total phosphorus, which has already reduced the nutrient load by a few hundred metric tons. Determining the timing for ecosystem improvements is difficult due to the variety of factors that affect water quality in Lake Erie (e.g., invasive species and meteorological trends)11. IV. Encourage and accelerate investments in green infrastructure for urban stormwater and agricultural runoff, including ecological buffers for rivers, streams and wetlands.

Description Green infrastructure can provide multiple ecosystem service benefits, including improved water quality, habitat, recreational amenities, carbon sequestration, and flood protection. Rainwater harvesting systems collect and store rainfall for later use or release. Green infrastructure includes structural best management practices (BMPs) such as detention basins and filter strips, as well as non structural BMPs such as erosion control ordinances and buffers/setback zones to protect natural features like community water supply wells. In this way, ecological buffers are a type of green infrastructure that can be designed to interrupt or slow runoff water and help keep it and associated pollutants from entering nearby waterways. In the U.S., acquiring land or access to land for ecological buffers and BMPs generally occurs through outright purchase, purchase of special easements, or leases, though other arrangements are possible.

In contrast to traditional “gray” infrastructure (e.g., storm sewers and stormwater management ponds), where natural ecological processes are replaced with hard structures and engineered systems, green infrastructure is designed, constructed and maintained to enable or enhance certain ecological processes. A common example of green infrastructure in urban environments is permeable surfaces that allow natural infiltration to occur. In agricultural and other rural settings, ecological

10 The permit was issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which has authority to administer the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program in the State of Michigan pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The monthly average permit limit for total phosphorus is 0.7 mg/l, year round (each and every month). 11 Michalak et al. (2013). Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved from www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1216006110

buffers, restored wetlands, and naturally designed stream channels, such as two-stage or multi- staged ditches, are other examples of viable green infrastructure options.

There are several ways to encourage and accelerate investments in green infrastructure. Implementation can occur through regulatory programs where green infrastructure requirements are incorporated into permits for effluent discharge (e.g., wastewater facilities and stormwater systems) or into permits for development projects that receive federal or state funding. Alternatively, projects that incorporate green infrastructure could receive a stormwater fee reduction credit on their stormwater fees or local taxes. Other ways to fund green infrastructure include federal, state and local grant programs; water utility incentives for developers and homeowners; and rewards and recognition for innovation and increased awareness of green infrastructure by the public and decisionmakers.

Rationale Green infrastructure can harness natural processes to infiltrate, recharge, evaporate, harvest and re- use stormwater. Designed properly, green infrastructure delivers superior water quality benefits along with the specific functions for which it is built, such as flood control, water delivery, and water treatment. Green infrastructure also provides ancillary ecological and/or societal benefits, such as aesthetic improvements, recreation opportunities and/or other environmental benefits like enhanced wildlife habitat. Some green infrastructure, such as green roofs and walls, can also improve air and water quality while reducing energy costs. Over the long term, green infrastructure is more likely to be a cost-effective solution to address multiple ecological and societal challenges related to water quality.

Benefits and Challenges While funding and regulatory options are available, they are generally insufficient and often are confounded by poor coordination and integration into water management programs. The lack of funding is the most cited barrier for implementing green infrastructure.

Creative solutions are needed to finance green infrastructure, which may be costlier in the short term, when compared with traditional gray infrastructure. In the U.S., innovative financing mechanisms have emerged from the building retrofit experience, such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) and third-party Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)-type models. In these third-party financing models, a third-party investor makes funds available to owners to make changes to their property to reduce stormwater runoff. In exchange, the property owner enters into a contractual relationship with the third party (a public or private entity or a public-private partnership) to share the stormwater fee for a term of years until the third-party capital provider has attained repayment or the desired financial returns. 12 Innovative uses of the U.S. Clean Water Act’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) may also support watershed protection and green infrastructure projects. To access these funds for this purpose, specific watershed protection and/or green infrastructure activities must be spelled out in each state’s 319 (nonpoint source) program as well as in the state’s CWSRF “intended use plan.” Using the CWSRF as a loan guarantee instead of a direct loan offers the potential to greatly increase the amount of funds available for green infrastructure/watershed

12 Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013. Creating Clean Water Cash Flows. Developing Private Markets for Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Philadelphia. January, 2013. http://www.nrdc.org/water/stormwater/files/green- infrastructure-pa-report.pdf.

protection programs. However, there must be a reliable and dedicated funding stream to use CWSRF as a loan guarantee.13

Initial capital investment costs can be expected to go down as demand for green infrastructure increases and marginal costs decrease. Green infrastructure can require additional land or space that may be costly or is not readily available for purchase; or funding may not be available to acquire the land or waterway access needed to create/install the green infrastructure. Consideration of the full life-cycle costs of green infrastructure, including the multiple ecosystem services it can provide compared to gray infrastructure costs, can help leverage investments toward this greener approach.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements Once it is built or installed, most green infrastructure begins delivering ecosystem benefits within a relatively short time period. Public and private programs to finance, incentivize or otherwise encourage green infrastructure should be available so that these stormwater management systems can contribute to water quality improvements quickly. 14

V. Work with federal partners to develop plans to reduce the open- water disposal of dredged material and to advance beneficial re-use of dredge material as an alternative.

Description States are concerned that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) policies regarding open-water disposal of dredged material may result in altering the movement, cycling, timing, re-suspension and recirculation of nutrients to the lake. Ohio has recently adopted legislation (Senate Bill 1 of 2015) that provides for the elimination of open-water disposal by 2020, except in limited circumstances, which can include use of sediment as beach nourishment and the creation of in-lake habitat. Pennsylvania law prohibits open-lake disposal of dredged material unless it is classified as clean. Michigan effectively prohibits open-water disposal in Lake Erie as state law does not allow disposal in waters less than 30 meters deep (the western basin is shallow, so open water disposal is not allowed).

Rationale Operation and maintenance of ports and navigation channels in Lake Erie is vital to the economies of the states and Ontario. However, concern has existed for many years over the practice of open-water disposal, especially in the western basin. Legislation adopted in Ohio sends a clear signal to federal agencies on the importance of finding alternatives to the practice in the near future.

13 Curley, Michael, 2014. Financing watershed protection under the Clean Water Act: Loan guaranties could unlock millions for project funding. Viewpoint. January 2015, WE&T Magazine; Vol. 27, No.1. Water Environment Federation, Washington, D.C. 14 “A Business Model Framework for Market‐Based Private Financing of Green Infrastructure”, S.K. Sinha, J. W. Ridgway, J.E. Edstrom, J. Andersen, P. Mulvaney, M. Quigley, and E. Rothstein, Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc., Report, 46 pp, December 2014.

Benefits and Challenges The USACE, which maintains ports and harbors through dredging the federal navigation channel, will need to exercise flexibility in its interpretation of the federal standard defining dredge disposal options. States will need to work with the Corps to help identify and promote beneficial re-use of dredged materials, which can include the creation of habitat and use as building or fill material.

VI. Pilot innovative performance-based and/or market-based nutrient reduction projects.

Description Performance-based incentives, or “pay for performance,” are payments based on the achievement of specified environmental outcomes. The performance outcomes may be based on goals or targets set by a policy, regulation, or voluntary stakeholder group.15 With performance-based incentives, producers can earn the largest incentive payments from choosing the most effective actions for their specific farm or fields. This approach provides flexibility for producers to find the most appropriate and cost-effective solutions for their specific farming operation or resource concern.

Performance-based incentive projects have been and are currently being successfully implemented in portions of the WLEB (e.g., The Stewardship Network’s Cooling Hotspots: Motivating Farmers to Reduce Nutrient Losses, 2014 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant). Water Quality Trading (WQT) is an example of a performance-based approach that is also a market-based approach. With WQT, water quality credits are calculated and traded based on the amount of pollution reduced and the payment comes from a permitted facility that is required to reduce pollution. WQT projects are underway in Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania (as part of Chesapeake Bay states’ TMDL implementation). Another innovative performance-based approach is Wisconsin’s Adaptive Management Option, which allows permitted facilities to develop and implement pollution actions across an entire watershed to comply with their permit. The Wisconsin Adaptive Management Option has some similarities to WQT in that conservation occurs on the land throughout the watershed (instead of only at the regulated facility) and that there are generally co-benefits (the conservation practices usually do more than reduce a single pollutant).

Rationale Current programs for controlling nonpoint source pollution from agriculture lands largely rely on financial assistance programs (e.g., Farm Bill and the Canada-Ontario Farm Stewardship Program) that compensate agricultural producers for their conservation practices based on the costs they incur related to specific practices and not necessarily based on whether ecological conditions improve (i.e., environmental performance). Although these programs are important tools, outcome-based approaches have greater potential to inspire new and innovative solutions because they provide incentive payments based on the achievement of farm or site-scale environmental performance outcomes. Site or farm-level performance assessments should be linked to broader watershed-scale

15 Vermont and Winrock International. (n.d.). “Developing Stakeholder-driven, Performance-based Incentives for Agricultural Pollution Control.” A National Facilitation project implemented by The University of Vermont, supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, National Integrated Water Quality Program, under Agreement No. 2006-51130-03668.

goals and objectives, (e.g., watershed plan, TMDL). Water quality trading and other market-based approaches have the potential to offer a cost-effective, flexible option for meeting wastewater treatment facilities permitted nutrient load limits while encouraging the installation of conservation practices in rural and urban areas.

Benefits and Challenges Focusing on environmental performance at the watershed scale brings diverse or multiple stakeholders together to collaborate toward common goals and objectives, either through market forces or regulations, or a combination of both. The “multiple stakeholders” can be all point-source permit holders, or all point-source permit holders with a certain effluent volume, such as is being done with the San Francisco Bay area watershed based permit.16 Alternatively, it can focus on all Municipal Separated Storm Sewer System (MS4) nonpoint-source permit holders in a watershed as is done with Michigan’s watershed-based permitting.17

Implementing pilot programs using innovative approaches, like “pay for performance” incentives, can complement and help promote alternatives to traditional cost-share approaches. These alternative programs have proven to reduce phosphorus loss from agricultural land by providing flexible, performance-based outcomes that benefit both the producer and water quality. In the case of WQT, the payment comes from effluent discharge permit holders who opt to pursue WQT as a less costly compliance option. Strict or stricter discharge limits on existing facilities, TMDLs and other policies can help drive this “demand” for market-based approaches. Without adequate demand, however, market-based approaches may be less viable and the actual payment for performance would likely still rely on federal and state agency programs or private foundations. Pay for performance also offers ancillary environmental benefits from the installation of conservation practices. For example, the desired “performance” may be reductions in phosphorus, but many conservation practices do more than just reduce phosphorus. With any performance-based approach, robust, well-vetted and agreed-upon quantification methods are needed for quantifying reductions in nutrient loadings. Time and resources are also needed to develop and test associated methods and protocols.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements A pilot nutrient reduction performance-based incentive effort may take approximately one to three years to implement. In the case of a WQT program, if the results indicate adequate demand exists and protocols have been agreed to by stakeholders, then a multijurisdictional trading program could be considered to achieve long-term reductions.

16 San Francisco Bay Nutrients Watershed Permit (California Order R2-2014-0014) sets forth a regional framework to facilitate collaboration on studies that will inform future management decisions and regulatory strategies for nutrient reduction. This 2014-2019 permit cycle is the first phase of what is expected to be a multiple permit effort. This first phase aims to: track and evaluate treatment plant performance, fund nutrient monitoring programs, support load response modeling, and conduct treatment plant optimization and upgrade studies for nutrient removal. (excerpted from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2014/R2-2014-0014.pdf) 17 Michigan’s watershed-based permitting case study. Downloaded 7-20-15 at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/wq_casestudy_factsht3.pdf

VII. Phase out residential phosphorus fertilizer application within five years.

Description Residential fertilizer can be over applied or wrongly applied to lawns and can run off into nearby waterbodies; contributing to excessive nutrient loadings. Unless turf is being newly established in an area, a fertilizer with high levels of phosphorus is usually not necessary because soils are often nitrogen limited. Thus, established lawns do not typically need extra phosphorus, and any extra that is applied may enter a surrounding waterbody.

Rationale Michigan and New York have laws that prohibit phosphorus fertilizer application unless the lawn is new or has a proven phosphorus deficiency. A Michigan-based study18 has shown an average 25 percent reduction in phosphorus runoff into a river in southeast Michigan as a result of the phosphorus ban. Some states outside of the Lake Erie basin have more detailed regulations, but the underlying principle is the same. Several fertilizer companies in Ohio and Ontario have also voluntarily eliminated phosphorus in commercial brands. No restrictions are currently in place in Pennsylvania.

Benefits and Challenges Fertilizer companies may need to change their chemical ratio for fertilizer mix that is sold for residential use and/or may also need to change their product for specific markets in the Lake Erie basin states and the Province of Ontario.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements A phasing out of virtually all phosphorus in residential fertilizer is recommended by 2020, except under circumstances where compelling information is presented that confirms a need for phosphorus. Water quality benefits will accrue as phosphorus runoff from turf grass and associated pollution loads into receiving waters is drastically reduced.

VIII. Target Conservation at the Watershed Scale. Description Targeted agricultural conservation is the idea of directing conservation activities to those areas known to be contributing relatively more pollution in a given watershed or where the relative contribution (e.g., due to location, nearby land uses, and/ or hydrogeomorphic conditions) is known to have particularly negative impacts on water quality. Understanding where the most important loads of phosphorus are can help focus scarce resources to those areas where conservation investments will yield maximum ecological improvement.

Targeting can be done at multiple scales. For example, watersheds within western Lake Erie can be targeted, and then sub-watersheds and even lands within those subwatersheds can be further targeted. Targeted conservation in urban settings might focus on investments in green infrastructure

18 Lehman, John T., Douglas, W. Bell, and Kahli E. McDonald. “Reduced River Phosphorus following Implementation of a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance.” Lake and Reservoir Management 25.3 (2009): 207-12.

that reduce urban runoff, combined and sanitary sewer overflows. In rural communities, conservation may have the greatest impact by focusing on managing home sewage treatment systems with an eye on watershed-scale impacts. Home sewage treatment systems are generally managed by municipalities to protect human health, but given the increasing number and footprint of homes and communities on private septic systems, watershed-scale impacts are also an important consideration. On rural agricultural lands, targeted conservation focuses on those watersheds and subwatersheds that are most prone to high rates of soil loss and pollution runoff in light of the current agricultural uses of that land.

Rationale Conservation dollars are consistently oversubscribed and there rarely is adequate funding to meet all conservation needs. Targeting conservation within a watershed enables limited funds to be used for conservation activities that will have the greatest impact on improving water quality and other ecosystem services.

Benefits and Challenges Federal and state/provincial conservation priorities are not always consistent. Some federal programs are designed to address a particular problem in a way that does not align with a state or provincial conservation priority. This can make it difficult to target limited financial resources to a geographic area. A clear expression of state/provincial conservation priorities and their communication to federal agencies can help. Likewise, federal agencies can build flexibility into their program priorities to support conservation in priority areas identified by the state or province.

It is critical to include affected stakeholders from the outset and build partnerships with them to support the targeted approach. The affected stakeholders may be different in urban, suburban/exurban, and rural agricultural settings. How this conversation is crafted is important. Using words like “targeting” or “focusing” that are positive and collaborative can encourage people to work together. Adequate data to support the location and sources of loadings and their relative contributions is fundamental to the targeted conservation approach.

There is extensive opportunities implement this approach across the Lake Erie basin. The tri-state RCPP project and certain projects being implemented by The Nature Conservancy exemplify this targeted approach.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements The timing of ecosystem improvements will vary depending on the location and type of conservation. Ecosystem improvements are likely to be greater and occur more quickly with a targeted approach.

IX. Within five years, validate or refine the reduction targets and timelines using an adaptive management approach.

Description An adaptive management approach will be used to track the progress made under the Joint Action Plan and will be used to adjust the targets and actions based on new science and knowledge. Information to track progress and a forum to adjust targets and actions will be essential. The GLWQA Annex 4 Subcommittee process will be one forum and source of information for refining domestic actions using adaptive management. Additional information sources and a forum for

continued state and provincial collaboration will be needed. Possible topics warranting further research that could affect the targets, timelines, or action items herein include  examining the relative contribution of various sources of nutrients into Lake Erie (including internal cycling of phosphorus once it enters the lake) and targeting actions that are likely to have the greatest impact on reducing of nutrient-related ecological problems in Lake Erie, such as harmful algal blooms, nuisance algal blooms and abundance of toxic bacteria;  investigating the role of zebra and quagga mussels and their relationship to algal blooms and their toxicity;  developing and testing of mussel management techniques;  measuring the performance of BMPs at increasing nutrient uptake and reducing nutrient runoff, as well as the cost effectiveness of pollution reduction steps;  understanding harmful algal blooms and toxin production; and  studying the impacts of climate change on algal bloom production in Lake Erie.

Rationale New data, tools and technologies will inevitably illuminate our knowledge of excessive nutrients, their sources, relative contributions and impacts on Lake Erie. This information should be periodically assessed and adjustments to this Joint Action Plan should be made accordingly.

Benefits and Challenges The collaborative process that created this Joint Action Plan will need to be maintained or re- instated to accommodate new information and make any changes to implement actions in this document. This requires leadership—an entity to manage that collaborative process—and a commitment of time and resources by the leading entity and all those that need to be engaged in the process.

Timing and Anticipated Ecosystem Improvements The Lake Erie jurisdictions will continue to collaborate on water quality challenges including implementation of the Western Basin of Lake Erie Collaborative Agreement, LENT, the GLWQA Annex 4 Subcommittee process, and the binational Lake Erie Lakewide Action and Management Plan. Among other items, Annex 4 proposes to develop a science plan for Lake Erie that can identify science priorities and, when implemented, can be used to validate or refine the reduction targets. Updates to this Joint Action Plan will be considered to align with the GLWQA and reporting on related domestic arrangements (e.g., COA).

X. Collaborate toward an integrated monitoring, modeling, tracking and reporting network for the Lake Erie basin by 2020.

Description A multi-sector collaboration to build an integrated, outcome-based monitoring and modeling network for Lake Erie by 2020 can help solve the identified problems in Lake Erie, including nuisance and harmful algal bloom production and associated catalysts (e.g., invasive mussels and climate change). Such a network would be implemented using an adaptive management approach and would likely include efforts to measure nutrient losses at the edge-of-field, as well as load reductions of TP and SRP in streams and rivermouths. This includes development and application of consistent methods for quantifying load reductions at edge-of-field as well as refinements to

watershed models that are calibrated to incorporate edge-of-field data with other data to assess in- stream loads and water quality trends. This information should be reported to, or linked from, one central portal. An integrated tracking, accounting and reporting system would include processes and mechanisms for identifying, tracking and reporting on progress toward achieving the reduction targets proposed here (40 percent by 2025 and 20 percent by 2020), including specific sources and reduction potential of phosphorus and nitrogen from different locations. It would also identify underlying drivers/causes that contribute to those sources and their relative contribution, to the extent known, using the best available science. Both regulated and unregulated point sources and diverse nonpoint sources would be tracked, including agricultural feeding operations, manure/fertilizer management systems, and home septic systems.

Rationale Different tools are needed to analyze the effectiveness and impacts of conservation practices and investments at different scales. Information technology tools can complement on-the-ground monitoring to analyze trends and progress toward achieving environmental goals at multiple scales. Coupling in-stream monitoring with monitoring at rivermouths of Lake Erie tributaries as part of a network allows for tracking and measuring changes in pollution loads and progress toward achieving water quality improvement goals across major sub-watersheds within the Lake Erie basin. Additionally, an integrated tracking, accounting and reporting system will provide a framework for using monitoring and modeling results to assess progress toward interim and long-term targets. It will provide a benchmark from which changes and improvements can be measured. Designed properly, the tracking and reporting should allow implementers to assess which efforts are working and where adjustments need to be made. In short, it will enable an adaptive management approach to refine, adjust or modify actions so that they are designed and pursued in ways to maximize their ability to solve nutrient-related problems in Lake Erie. Chesapeake Bay’s integrated accounting program—chesapeakestat.com—is noted as being integral to the success of that multi-jurisdictional effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Annex 10 (Science Annex) of the GLWQA calls for similar measures to enhance coordination of science and supporting activities for the entire Great Lakes basin.19 This action supports the Annex 10 process with a specific focus on Lake Erie.

Benefits and Challenges Public policy and the public at large increasingly demand to know whether public investments in restoration are resulting in ecological improvements. Answers to questions such as “how many pounds of phosphorus will this restoration project keep from going into nearby waterways?” are expected at multiple scales—ranging from individual farms to the Lake Erie basin as a whole. There are a multitude of tools and methods for estimating environmental improvements, but most were designed to assess specific types of actions or ecosystem components, or at a specific scale, and cannot be integrated with others. Monitoring can show whether a stream, river or lake is improving, but only in limited circumstances can monitoring results be linked to specific restoration actions. Monitoring is costly and implementing monitoring of every farm, stream and river is not feasible. Models can help fill in the gaps. Development of common and accepted protocols for appropriate models that integrate monitoring data and can be adapted over time is foundational to a robust system that can predict and account for ecosystem outcomes and trends. An integrated network

19 Annex 10 to the 2012 Protocol of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for “enhancing the coordination, integration, synthesis, and assessment of science activities…. including monitoring, surveillance, observation, research, and modeling….”

leverages existing monitoring and modeling efforts to be mutually supportive in assessing progress toward improved water quality and in making strategic conservation and restoration investments. Dedicated staff is needed to coordinate the development and, ultimately, operation of integrated monitoring and tracking systems. Agreement must be reached on the science used to track progress and systems need to be put in place that enable data and information sharing via a common platform. This takes time as well as staffing and financial resources. The framework for Chesapeakestat.com, for example, has taken more than a decade to implement and it will take years before the parent site and suite of supporting web products that track progress and accountability are fully functional.

Timing and Ecosystem Improvements A fully integrated monitoring and modeling network for the Lake Erie basin is likely to take many years. Interim steps can be taken to enhance collaboration among those agencies and organizations engaged in monitoring and modeling that can improve collective the assessment of water quality trends and inform more effective protection and restoration activities. Any monitoring and modeling under this Joint Action Plan would not duplicate efforts being undertaken under the GLWQA. A tracking and accounting system is critical to assessing progress, understanding effectiveness of certain actions, and adapting to allow for improvements.

Speaker Topics

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

Invasive Species and the Chicago Area Waterway System

 Update from the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee on the location of Asian carp in the Illinois waterway system  Joint letter from the Great Lakes Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to President Obama regarding FY 2017 funding for Asian carp monitoring and control efforts  Letter from the Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee to President Obama regarding FY 2017 funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Brandon Road Feasibility Study

Healing Fractured Water in our Urban Environments

 Factsheet: Healing Fractured Water Systems through Integrated Water Management  Factsheet: Municipalities Helping to Reconnect the Great Lakes Water Cycle Home The Problem Newsroom Current Actions About Us Contact Us

Asian Carp Response in the Midwest

UPDATE: Six-inch silver carp found in Starved Rock Pool, Illinois River

September 11, 2015

As part of a comprehensive monitoring plan for assessing location and populations of Asian carp on the Illinois Waterway, crews have detected silver carp less than 6-inches in length in the Starved Rock Pool of the Illinois River, just a few miles downstream from Marseilles Lock and Dam near Ottawa, Illinois. Complete details of the 2015 Monitoring and Response Plan (Plan) for Asian carp in the Illinois River and Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) can be found online at www.asiancarp.us.

In April 2015, fish less than 6-inches were found as far upstream as Peru, Illinois. These fish were likely spawned in 2014. Focused monitoring through June 2015 did not detect any of these small fish in the Starved Rock, Marseilles, or Dresden Island Pools of the Illinois River, despite historically high sampling rates. From July 2015 to early September (Sept. 7, 2015), 99 silver carp less than 6-inches have been collected, all within the Starved Rock Pool.

Monitoring for young-of-year Asian carp in the Illinois River, Des Plaines River, and the CAWS takes place through sampling identified in the Plan by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and research organizations from throughout the state. Most notably, USFWS targeted these smaller fish with standard and experimental gears to increase detection of these sizes of Asian carp, concentrating on the historical locations and identifying any upstream movement. This sampling targets a segment of the Asian carp population typically missed with adult sampling gears and provides information to help determine where Asian carp are successfully recruiting young.

Several conventional and experimental gears were deployed to locate smaller fish throughout the Illinois River, and inform the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) about small Asian carp occurrence and movement upstream. Spawning of Asian carp in both 2014 and 2015 has been noted with high success in the lower Illinois River by these monitoring efforts, with small fish detected below Henry, Illinois in both years.

“This information allows us to update our risk map and show that small fish have now been detected within 91 miles of Lake Michigan,” said Kevin Irons, IDNR Aquatic Nuisance Species Program Manager. “Efforts to detect these fish farther upstream are ongoing and to date have not resulted in the capture of any small silver carp upstream of Starved Rock Pool.”

Other ongoing efforts by the IDNR include removal of 3.5 million pounds of adult Asian carp by contracted commercial fishing crews, telemetry studies identifying the movement of Asian carp throughout the Illinois River, and assessments of Asian carp populations. Hydroacoustic assessments have documented reduction in populations of Asian carp within the river at all locations, with consecutive and significant declines in successive years (2013- 2014) near the leading edge of the Asian carp population (Dresden Island Pool).

Since 2001, USACE has operated an electric dispersal barrier system in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Romeoville that has proved a significant deterrent for fish movement. No silver or bighead carp of any size has been observed or captured near this barrier since one bighead was taken in the Lockport Pool below the barrier in 2009. The closest adult Asian carp found in the Illinois River are approximately 55 miles from Lake Michigan, and no small Asian carp have been observed closer than 91 miles from Lake Michigan. The overall leading edge of the Asian carp population in the Illinois Waterway has not changed since 2006.

Contact: Chris Young, Communications Director, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, (217) 557-1240 or [email protected] As of September 2015, small Asian carp were found in the Starved Rock Pool of the Illinois Waterway. The location is 54 miles downstream from the electric dispersal barriers. Small Asian carp are now 91 miles away from Lake Michigan. This marks a 52 mile upstream increase in where small Asian carp were found in 2014.

General Information Great Lakes Ohio River Upper Mississippi River

The Problem Current Actions Current Actions Current Actions Newsroom About Us About Us About Us Multimedia Waterway Users WRRDA Report WRRDA Report Get Involved Found an Asian Carp? Control Technology Toolkit Contact Us Partner's Corner

AsianCarp.us

July 20, 2015

Honorable Barack Obama President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to ask that your FY 2017 budget include adequate funding to support a robust and aggressive program for protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp. Such a program would include actions currently being coordinated by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee as well as continued work under the Army Corps of Engineers’ Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study, with a focus on control technologies that could be implemented at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam to prevent the one- way, upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species. This is a top priority for our organizations and other regional stakeholders, and we hope your budget will reflect our sense of urgency for protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp and other aquatic nuisance species.

We have made progress in recent years in safeguarding the Great Lakes from Asian carp and are pleased that monitoring in the Illinois River shows that the leading edge of the adult Asian carp population has not changed in nine years. We remain concerned about the continued risk of small fish farther downstream due to a reproduction event that occurred in the lower Illinois River in 2014. In light of this continued risk, we are concerned about the Army Corps of Engineers’ four-year timeframe for completing the Brandon Road Feasibility Study. We hope that elements of this study can be accelerated to enable us to immediately implement control technologies that will reduce the risk of Asian carp moving toward the Great Lakes while long-term solutions are developed.

It is vital that we sustain and fully fund current Asian carp monitoring and control efforts; develop and implement technologies to impede their expansion; and improve control measures on all potential pathways into the Great Lakes basin. The annual Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework guides this vital work, which is being conducted by a number of federal and state agencies. Efforts of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to design and evaluate control and capture technologies, monitor carp populations in the Illinois River, and reduce populations through focused netting operations; and work by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to test and monitor the effectiveness of technologies to deter and halt the movement of carp are especially critical. We ask that the FY 2017 budgets for these and other relevant federal agencies include full funding for their work in these areas. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) has supplemented agency budgets to sustain this work, further underscoring the importance of maintaining level funding of $300 million for this comprehensive restoration program for the Great Lakes.

We ask that $3 million be provided annually to the Army Corps of Engineers to support near-term implementation of new control technologies and the timely completion of the Brandon Road Feasibility Study, and that these funds be included as part of the agency’s budget, not the GLRI. We believe that control technologies can be deployed at this location to significantly reduce the risk of Asian carp and other species passing into the Great Lakes while not resulting in net adverse impacts on flooding, water quality, recreation and barge transportation. This location should become a national proving ground for various organizations in the development and deployment of technologies to manage aquatic nuisance species, including Asian carp. Consistent and adequate funding is necessary to combat aquatic nuisance species and we were disappointed that your FY 2016 budget included only $500,000 for the Brandon Road study. We hope that future budgets will support fast and thorough evaluation and implementation of effective control technologies.

We ask that your FY 2017 budget provide the Corps with the support and direction it needs to accelerate the Brandon Road Feasibility Study as much as possible. We have and will continue to offer suggestions for how the study might be managed to identify near-term actions that can be advanced more quickly while other more complex aspects take more time.

We appreciate your Administration’s unprecedented support for restoring the Great Lakes and ask for your leadership in ensuring the resources are provided to develop and sustain effective protections from the spread of aquatic nuisance species.

If your staff has questions or wishes to discuss this matter, please contact Tim Eder, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Commission (734-971-9135, [email protected]) or Bob Lambe, Executive Secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (734-662-3209, [email protected]).

Sincerely,

Jon W. Allan Dr. Bob Hecky Acting Chair Chair Great Lakes Commission Great Lakes Fishery Commission

cc: Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Senate and House Great Lakes Task Forces

Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee

August 31, 2015

Honorable Barack Obama President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

This letter is written on behalf of the Advisory Committee for the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS). The committee urges you to recommend that Congress provide the necessary funding for the Army Corps of Engineers’ FY 2017 budget to conduct engineering and design activities to complete the Brandon Road Feasibility Study. This study will assess the viability of establishing a single control point at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam to protect against the one-way, upstream transfer of aquatic invasive species (AIS) from the Mississippi River into the Great Lakes Basin.

The committee includes representatives from 30 public and private stakeholders that benefit from and have responsibilities related to the CAWS, as well as regional stakeholder groups representing commercial, recreational, and environmental interests. The committee is working to find a long-term solution that prevents the inter-basin transfer of AIS between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins while also maintaining or enhancing maritime transportation, reducing flood risk and the impact of combined sewer overflows in Illinois and Indiana, and protecting or improving water quality in the region.

The Committee requests that you direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete the study as quickly as possible, consistent with the 3X3X3 project preconstruction, engineering and design reforms enacted in the Water Resource Reform and Development Act of 2014. We ask that the Feasibility Study result in a decisionmaking Record of Decision and Chief’s Report to Congress.

Given the challenges and lengthy timeframe associated with a long-term solution for two-way interbasin transfer, advancing work at Brandon Road should be one of the Corps’ top priorities for achieving greater protection from AIS in the nearer term. Not only is Brandon Road an important control point for the movement of AIS such as Asian Carp, it also presents an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of control technologies and how to ensure their compatibility with transportation, the natural environment, and other important factors on the waterway.

These requests reflect the consensus of the Advisory Committee. We appreciate your support for the resources and actions needed to achieve the strongest possible protections against the movement of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes.

Sincerely, Chicago Area Waterway System Advisory Committee

Alliance for the Great Lakes Healing Our Waters–Great Lakes National Wildlife Federation Joel Brammeier, President and CEO Coalition Marc Smith, Policy Director, Great Lakes Ph: 312-939-0838 Todd Ambs, Campaign Director Regional Center [email protected] Ph: 608-692-9974 Ph: 734-887-7116 [email protected] [email protected] American Waterways Operators Lynn Muench, Senior Vice President – Illinois Chamber of Commerce Natural Resources Defense Council Regional Advocacy Benjamin J. Brockschmidt, Executive Meleah Geertsma Ph: 314-308-0378 Director, Infrastructure Council Staff Attorney, Midwest Program [email protected] Ph: 312-983-7100 Ph: 312-651-7904 [email protected] [email protected] Chemical Industry Council of Illinois Mark Biel, Executive Director Illinois Farm Bureau The Nature Conservancy Ph: 217-522-5805 Kevin Rund, Sr. Director of Local Dave Hamilton, Senior Policy Director [email protected] Government, Illinois Agricultural Assoc. Ph: 517-316-2222 Ph: 309-557-3274 [email protected] Chicago Metropolitan Agency for [email protected] Planning Northeast Ohio Mayors & City Alex Beata, Associate Policy Analyst Illinois International Port District Managers Assoc. Ph: 312-386-8706 Frank Kudrna, Principal Water Resources Mayor Debbie Sutherland [email protected] Engineer, URS Corp City of Bay Village Ph: 312-596-6727 Ph: 440-899-3415 Council of Great Lakes Industries [email protected] [email protected] Kathryn Buckner, President Ph: 734-663-1944 Illinois River Carriers Association Northwest Indiana Forum [email protected] John Kindra, President, Kindra Lake Kay Nelson, Director of Environmental Towing Affairs Environmental Law and Policy Center Ph: 773-721-1180 Ph: 219-763-6303, ext.186 Howard Learner, President and Executive [email protected] [email protected] Director Ph: 312-673-6500 Lake Erie Charter Boat Association Ontario Federation of Anglers and [email protected] Rick Unger, Executive Director Hunters Ph: 216-401-6231 Matt DeMille, Manager, Fish and Wildlife Friends of the Chicago River [email protected] Services John Quail, Director of Watershed Ph: 705-748-6324, ext. 249 Planning Metropolitan Mayors Caucus [email protected] Ph: 312-939-0490, ext. 20 Mayor John D. Noak [email protected] Village of Romeoville Passenger Vessel Association & [email protected] Wendella Sightseeing Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Michael Borgstrom, President, Wendella Initiative Mayor Domingo Vargas Boats Dave Ullrich, Executive Director City of Blue Island Ph: 312-205-4044 Ph: 312-201-4516 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Metropolitan Planning Council Prairie Rivers Network Great Lakes Commission Josh Ellis, Project Manager Robert Hirschfeld, Water Policy Specialist Tim Eder, Executive Director Ph: 312-863-6045 Ph: 217-344-2371 x205 Ph: 734-971-9135 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Metropolitan Water Reclamation Save the Dunes Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic District of Greater Chicago Nicole Barker, Executive Director Nuisance Species David St. Pierre, Executive Director Ph: 219-879-3564 x 122 John Navarro, GLP Chair Ph: 312-751-7900 [email protected] Ohio Department of Natural Resources – [email protected] Division of Wildlife Sierra Club - Illinois Chapter Ph: 614-265-6346 Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Jack Darin, Director [email protected] Resource Association Ph: 312-251-1680 Bobby Wilson, MICRA Chair [email protected] Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Ph: 615-781-500 [email protected] Reconnecting the Great Lakes Water Cycle

Healing Fractured Water Systems through Integrated Water Management Greater Lakes Project | September 2015

All across the Great Lakes basin, the natural water cycle has been fractured—and in some cases completely broken. Our built environment inhibits infiltration and increases runoff and the gathering and pushing of pollution into nearby surface waters. The impacts are ecologically destructive and socially and economically damaging. Through an integrated approach that treats all our water services – water supply and wastewater and stormwater management - as part of the hydrologic cycle, the Greater Lakes Project aims to help heal these fractures. We hope to do so by reconnecting the Great Lakes water cycle through more integrated, sustainable management of our water uses in ways that restore and support the natural water system and our watersheds. This requires shifting from a paradigm where water is just something to be used and gotten rid of to one where water is valued and its essential ecological roles are appreciated. It also requires integrating water conservation and efficiency and green infrastructure into our standard ways of handling water. Fortunately, many municipalities in the Great Lakes basin are now taking actions to heal the fractured water systems. But we have much further to go.

The Natural Water Cycle In the natural water cycle, when rain or snow falls onto the ground, part of it infiltrates into the groundwater where it replenishes ground water supplies critical for habitat and human uses. Some of the water runs off the surface of the ground into streams, rivers and lakes. And some of it evaporates into the atmosphere where it again contrib- utes to precipitation. The extent to which the water takes each of these paths in an undeveloped area varies according to natural conditions (weather patterns, slope, soil type, etc.). Under typical natural conditions, as shown in Figure 1, approximately half of the precipitation that falls infiltrates the ground, while about 40 percent evaporates back into the atmosphere, and approximately 10 percent immediately runs off into streams, rivers and lakes. Under Figure 1. Source: Credit Valley Conservation

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 1 natural conditions, water that falls on the ground infiltrates into the soils replenishing groundwater supplies. These groundwater supplies are critical because they gradually release water into marshes, streams, rivers and lakes, sustaining life over the long- term as well as sustaining water supplies for human uses.

The Fractured Water System However, most of the Great Lakes basin is no longer in a natural condition. The paths that water travels have been substantially disrupted and/or modified by urban development and attendant water infrastructure.

Impervious Surfaces Between 30 and 50 percent of the land in urban areas is typically covered with roads, roofs, parking lots and heavily compacted lawns that have no or low permeability. This traditional type of urban development interrupts or disrupts the natural flow of precipitation, which would otherwise allow infiltration to occur slowly in the location where it falls (Figure 1). Instead, impervious surfaces create massive surface runoff that picks up pollutants from streets, parking lots and rooftops and flows either directly into streams and rivers or goes into drains that discharge into rivers and lakes (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Source: Credit Valley Conservation

Pipes and Drains We withdraw water from the ground, rivers and lakes for our use, but rarely return it to the place from which we withdrew it. Once used, water is treated as a waste to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible through drains and pipes that discharge to streams, rivers or lakes. Likewise, we catch rainwater or snowmelt in storm sewer systems and send it away from where it fell as quickly as possible. Negative impacts of the fractured urban water cycle are significant. Receiving waters are easily overwhelmed by the rapid delivery of large quantities of storm and wastewater discharges causing stream scouring (e.g., cutting away of banks that sta- bilize streams and hold vegetation in place). Too often, the receiving waters simply cannot handle the vast quantities of water, and often nearby floodplains no longer exist to provide much needed backup. Pipes back up, resulting in the flooding of streets, homes and businesses. As shown in Figure 2, in this urbanized system, about 30 percent of the water that falls is moved through pipes to major discharge points This is three times more water being rushed out into rivers and streams during a rainfall or snowmelt. While the amount of water moving over the surface is tripled, the amount of water infiltrating and recharg- ing groundwater is reduced to about two-thirds of what it would be under more natural conditions, resulting in more vulnera- ble groundwater supplies.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 2 In addition to too much water, the quality of storm and wastewater is variable. Many Great Lakes urban areas have combined sanitary and storm systems that overflow during storm events releasing untreated sewage—a problem that occurs even where sanitary and storm systems are separated if the systems are not designed with adequate capacity. As we invest millions to move water away as quickly as possible, we are creating million dollar problems as we deprive habitats and aquifers, in the areas where the water was taken, of the water needed to thrive and recharge. These problems are exacerbated by aging and failing water infrastructure, poor land use planning, wasteful behaviors toward water use, and divergent and disjointed approaches to water management. This scenario is amplified in a climate-changing world where more frequent and severe storms are predicted for the Great Lakes, and are already occurring.

Reconnecting the Water Cycle To mend the fractured water cycle, we must develop a more integrated, holistic approach to water management that explicitly recognizes that all water is part of a single hydrologic cycle. We need to eliminate the separate concepts of “source water”, “wastewater” and “stormwater.” It is one water. Then, we need to restructure our governance institutions and decisionmaking processes in ways that maximize the natural water cycle and its attendant ecological, social and economic benefits. Ecological benefits include aquifer recharge, improved aquatic and riparian habitats, the associated ecosystem services of a more safe and secure water supply and improved recreational opportunities, including fishing, and even improved fisheries as a source of food supply. Social benefits include reduced economic disruption due to loss of life and property as a result of flooding or exposure to untreated or poorly treated water. Economic benefits include reduced capital expenditures on gray infrastructure and minimized economic losses due to flooding. We must also make our decisions based on restoring the natural water cycle for the diversity and health of all life within the ecosystem – not just for human purposes. Restoring the water system to a more natural condition will better serve both human needs Figure 3. Source: Healthy Waterways (www.healthywaterways.org) and the needs of wildlife and other parts of the ecosystem. We should make decisions about water supply, waste water and storm water in an integrated way that ensures that all decisions have positive impacts on the entire water system (See Figure 3). Unfortunately, our current decisionmaking process with respect to water management is often disjointed, usually being carried out within departmental or sub-departmental silos within each level of government.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 3 What We Can Do

Set up strong source water protection programs to protect the waters of the watershed for both natural and human purposes;

Engage in water efficiency and conservation programs to reduce the removal of water for human consumption;

Set up waste water reuse systems to further reduce water consumption, instead of our now standard “use once and throw away” approach to water use;

Use heavily treated (and consequently the most costly) drinking-quality water only for uses that require that level of purity. That means, for example, do not use potable water for most outdoor uses, for flushing toilets and washing clothes;

Redesign our urban areas to reduce the use of impervious surfaces to allow for more infiltration where the water falls;

Actively design for water infiltration of storm water by implementing green infrastructure systems to reduce the need for the standard water piping systems. Green and grey infrastructure systems need to become part of one integrated, mutually supportive system;

Set up systems such as cisterns and rainbarrels to capture stormwater for outdoor purposes and for indoor uses such as toilet flushing and clothes washing to reduce the mining of water sources.

An integrated water management approach with a focus on water efficiency and conservation, and on green infrastructure as core components of the water system enhances the environment, avoids potential problems such as flash floods and water supply scarcities and decreases government costs.

Fortunately, many municipalities are now adopting these kinds of solutions. The Greater Lakes: Reconnecting the Great Lakes Water Cycle Project is working with municipalities to find solutions to the barriers that sometimes arise when municipalities try to implement these solutions.

For information on the lessons that we and others have learned, check out our website at http://glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 4 Reconnecting the Great Lakes Water Cycle

Municipalities Helping to Reconnect the Great Lakes Water Cycle Greater Lakes Project | June 2015

Sustainable management of human activity in the Great Lakes and St. Law- rence River system is critical to protect and restore significant ecosystems, The project focuses on maintain the economic health and vitality of the region, and ensure the liveli- six communities: hood of the millions of people who live in the region. Challenges continue to Lyon Township, Michigan threaten the quality and quantity of this freshwater treasure, including a broken water system characterized by aging water and wastewater infrastructure, Southwest Oakland Township, Michigan a legacy of poor land use planning, wasteful behaviors toward water use, and Commerce Township, Michigan a siloed approach to the management of water in many municipalities. City of Guelph, Ontario Municipalities are on the frontlines when it comes to the Great Lakes and St. City of Waterloo, Ontario Lawrence River, and are uniquely positioned to have a positive effect on this Region of Waterloo, Ontario ecosystem through a shift in their approach to water management.

The Greater Lakes: Reconnecting the Great Lakes Water Cycle project, supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund, is exploring and testing environmental and financial rationales for municipalities to adopt water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure measures. The project focuses on six communities: Lyon, Southwest Oakland, and Commerce townships in Michigan; and the cities of Guelph and Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo in Ontario (visit http://glc.org/files/projects/greaterlakes/ GreaterLakes-About-Factsheet-2015-March.pdf to learn more).

This fact sheet provides an overview of key lessons learned thus far from the project. We are confident that these will be useful for all municipalities and concerned citizens to evaluate how water is managed in their communities and to work toward improvements. Perhaps the most significant take-away from the project is that we must develop a more integrated, holistic approach to water management in order to restore the water system to a more natural condition that will better serve both human needs and the needs of wildlife and other parts of our ecosystem.

By quantifying the full range of environmental benefits and financial outcomes, and employing innovative knowledge transfer strategies, we will be able to encourage support from key decisionmakers and community leaders for innovation in water management both at the water withdrawal and use stage and at the sewage disposal and stormwater management stages.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 1 We need to rethink the water system The current approach to water in many municipalities does not recognize how the disruption of the natural water cycle through our withdrawal and piping systems has many negative consequences. The following are examples of the negative impacts of this disrupted water cycle on both the local environment and on our urban communities:

1. Contamination of the quality of the receiving waters 2. Lower groundwater levels, which may affect the water supply for municipalities and farm operations 3. Pumping in deeper groundwater wells, which increases pumping costs 4. Increased energy use and costs to pump and distribute water 5. Reduced levels and flows in streams with disruption of habitat 6. Flash floods that cause major disruption in urban areas 7. Sudden large discharges of water into streams and rivers, which cause erosion problems 8. High capital expenditures on water infrastructure to increase capacity or repair/replace overused systems

Water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure best practices can help reduce negative impacts of water uses and withdrawals, and of storm and waste water dis- Using regional rainfall data, charges. This will lead to more sustainable management of our essential freshwater sys- ECT calculated that a one- tems. The key for decisionmakers throughout the region is to place confidence in the mile long piece of road ability of water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure measures to help com- that is 24 feet wide diverts plement existing gray infrastructure and defer or substantially reduce large capital proj- approximately 65,000 ects aimed at increasing capacity or repairing worn out systems. Many municipalities in the region are already making significant steps along this path. gallons of water in a one- inch rain through pipes or An excellent example of how water conservation measures can help defer capital in- hardened ditches to distant frastructure projects is from Waterloo, Ontario. Despite a growing population, as a re- streams. This translates to sult of a focus on water efficiency measures, the Region of Waterloo has deferred $100 between one million and million in water-related capital expenditures to date and is likely to be able to avoid a $1 billion pipeline project to Lake Erie that officials thought was going to be essen- 1.5 million gallons of water tial to increase drinking water supply. To learn more about Waterloo’s water efficiency per road mile per year. measures, please visit www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes.

The benefits of green infrastructure on our water resources and the environment are evident in an analysis that Environmental Consulting and Technology (ECT) carried out for the Greater Lakes project. ECT developed a tool to compare the potential retention capacity available in various green infrastructure measures on a per-acre-of-BMP-implemented basis.

The Storage Capacity of Different BMPs Volume Captured Volume Captured Management Practice Proposed Area Area (square feet) (cubic feet) (gallons) Urban Reforestation 1.00 43,560 489 3,659 Forest Retention 1.00 43,560 6,850 51,932 Wet Meadow 1.00 43,560 43,560 325,872 Native Prairie 1.00 43,560 339 2,539 Agriculture 1.00 43,560 339 339 Rain garden 0.01 218 1,234 9,233 Bioswales 20.00 linear feet 420 3,142 0.01 420

Table 1. Note: These estimates are for scoping and comparison purposes only. Prepared by Environmental Consulting and Technology.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 2 In our work, it has become evident that many municipalities are operating within a broken or partially broken water system. Our water supply, wastewater and stormwater management processes have fractured the natural water system through a focus on piped conveyance that moves water unnaturally over great distances. An integrated approach to water management, one in which all water operations in a municipality are considered part of one system, will help us restore some of the natural water cycle and more sustainably manage our freshwater resources. A focus on both water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure programs will be necessary for success.

The water/energy nexus is real

Pumping, treating and distributing water over long distances, and then treating wastewater and piping it away, results in higher energy use and costs for municipalities as well as greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than in systems with aggressive water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure systems. Work for this project by the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) shows this. In Lyon Township, Michigan, which is groundwater dependent, there is increased drawdown of the groundwater sources during the summer as a result of more watering for outdoor purposes. As summer goes on, water is pumped from deeper and deeper levels and more energy is used by the utility. AWE’s work showed that enlisting water conservation measures can help reduce the drawdown by wells and reduce energy needs for pumping.

Further evidence of the water/energy connection can be seen when analyzing electricity savings and GHG emission reductions associated with water conservation, as illustrated in part of the AWE cost/benefit analysis of water conservation measures. The detailed analysis is available on the Greater Lakes project website at http://glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes/ greater-lakes-resources.

The first graph demonstrates the annual and cumulative electricity savings over a 20-year period for the Region of Waterloo if particular water conservation measures are implemented (Figure 1). Similarly, the analysis of water conservation measures in the city of Guelph, Ontario, resulted in the following representation of cumulative GHG emission reductions (Figure 2). This piece of AWE’s analysis illustrates the connection between water conservation and emission reductions and operating cost savings.

Waterloo Region Annual and Cumulative Electricity Savings

Cumulative Savings Customer Programs Customer Codes Utility Programs Utility Codes

8,000 100,000

90,000 7,000 80,000 6,000 70,000

5,000 60,000

4,000 50,000

40,000 3,000

Annual Savings (MWh/Yr) 30,000 Cumulative Savings (MWh/Yr) 2,000 20,000 1,000 10,000

0 0 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

Figure 1. Prepared by the Alliance for Water Efficiency

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 3 Cumulative CO2 Emission Reductions

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Cumulative Reduction Tons) (Metric Cumulative 0 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025

Figure 2. Prepared by the Alliance for the Water Efficiency

When considering water conservation measures to implement, it is critical that municipalities take into account, among other things, energy and GHG emissions impacts. An understanding of the water/energy nexus can help lead to more impactful and often times more economically beneficial decisions about how a municipality uses water conservation in their water management approach.

We can still make gains on water conservation After analyzing the communities’ water conservation measures, and analyzing potential additional measures, the project found that even communities Analysis in Oakland County, MI – which that have been engaged in water conservation for some time can still make includes Lyon Township, Commerce additional gains on water conservation. The Region of Waterloo, for exam- Township and SW Oakland Township ple, has been actively implementing water conservation measures since at – reveals high peak season water least 1985 and has made dramatic progress. Nevertheless, in their benefit/ use. Piloting outdoor water efficiency cost analysis, 11 of the 17 measures examined had a benefit/cost ratio greater than one, meaning project benefits outweighed costs. If all 11 measures programs would be a start to helping were to be implemented, the projected water savings between 2015-2020 reduce this peak water use. would be approximately 3,223.81 megalitres.

Many municipalities in the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence region have implemented water conservation measures to some degree. The Region of Waterloo example is encouraging because it emphasizes the fact that water conservation can and should continue even after targets or milestones have been met. Ever increasing water conservation should become normal behavior.

The Region of Waterloo is exploring many next generation water conservation efforts, like greywater and rainwater harvesting systems that are plumbed for indoor non- potable use and new technology, while also relying on fundamental water conservation efforts like education-focused programs and a toilet flapper replacement program.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 4 There are barriers to progress Communities are facing a number of obstacles as they work to better manage water and implement water conservation and green infrastructure measures. These barriers and the solutions to them include:

1 Multiple and often siloed municipal departments are involved in water supply, wastewater and stormwater management processes: A more centralized, more integrated approach to water in the municipality is necessary. All the departments that touch water operations should be communicating with one another regularly and planning together so that capital projects can include elements that have positive impacts on the entire water system.

2 Green infrastructure usually does not move beyond one-off pilot projects to impactful system-based installations: Cities need tools, resources, best practices and financial support to break out of the one-off green infrastructure project cycle. Effective green infrastructure needs to be located in the place of greatest need (chronic flooding, for instance), be of the appropriate scale, and integrated into an overall green-infrastructure plan.

3 The benefits of water conservation in conjunction with green infrastructure are often not considered: Too often water conservation is seen as contributing only to water use needs and green infrastructure only to stormwater management needs. A more integrated approach to water highlights that water conservation and green infrastructure can work together toward the same goals and at the same time help restore the natural water cycle. For example, green- infrastructure projects can return water directly to the recharge area, thus helping increase the water supply. Likewise, decreased water use means less demand on the wastewater treatment plants.

4 There is a lack of sustainable funding for water conservation and green infrastructure efforts: Much like the one- off green infrastructure pilot project cycle, funding for green infrastructure and water conservation in the United States and Canada has been fractured and of the one-off nature. Municipalities need support from their federal, state and provincial partners to implement water conservation/efficiency and green infrastructure measures, and there needs to be a sustainable funding source to support these efforts.

5 There is a lack of trust in water conservation and green infrastructure: Municipalities need to gain confidence that water conservation and green infrastructure and water conservation measures, working with existing gray infrastructure systems, can have a substantial impact on avoiding the water-related problems that municipalities confront. At the same time, the environment will be restored to a more natural system, and municipalities will find a return on investment through energy savings, deferred or avoided capital infrastructure expenditures, and avoided costs to address water- related crises.

It is imperative that the Great Lakes region mobilize and work to identify and implement solutions to these barriers in order to restore the natural water cycle and more sustainably manage the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River system.

The Greater Lakes: Reconnecting the Great Lakes Water Cycle project is ongoing. We encourage municipalities and other stakeholders to continue checking back for updates at http://glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes. Join our email list to be notified of updates and events: http://www.great-lakes.net/forms/subscribe.html?listname=greaterlakes.

www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes 5

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

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Memorandum

ACTING CHAIR Jon W. Allan Director Office of the Great Lakes To: Commissioners, Associate and Alternate Commissioners, and Observers Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Lansing, Michigan From: Tim Eder, Executive Director

IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR Kenneth G. Johnson, Retired Date: September 16, 2015 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Re: Workplan update Wayne Rosenthal ______Director Illinois Department of Natural Resources On the following pages are updates prepared by staff on the Great Lakes Commission’s

Jody W. Peacock programs and projects, organized according to our current workplan priorities. A workflow Vice President diagram, illustrating the six program areas in the workplan, is shown on the next page. Ports of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

John Linc Stine The workplan is a companion document to the Commission’s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Commissioner Plan addresses how the Commission accomplishes its work through four core services: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency St. Paul, Minnesota Communication and Education, Information Integration and Reporting, Facilitation and Consensus Building, and Policy Coordination and Advocacy. The workplan addresses what Marc Gerstman Acting Commissioner projects and activities the Commission pursues, focusing on six broad program areas: 1) Clean New York State Department of Energy and Climate; 2) Water-dependent Economy and Infrastructure; 3) Invasive Species; Environmental Conservation Albany, New York 4) Water Resources Management; 5) Water Quality and Ecosystem Health; and 6) Habitat and Coastal Management. The program areas are intended to address the needs of Member James Zehringer Director states/provinces, reflect current regional priorities, and identify emerging issues and Ohio Department of opportunities for the Commission to utilize our core services to address them. [Readers will Natural Resources Columbus, Ohio 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.] Kelvin Burch Executive Director Oil and Gas Operations Pennsylvania Department of The workplan will be updated beginning in 2015 to reflect current regional priorities and Environmental Protection emerging issues. As begin this process, input from our Commissioners and Observers is Meadville, Pennsylvania always welcome. The Commission continually seeks to leverage our core services to address Russ Rasmussen the needs of our Member states and provinces and the broader regional community. Administrator Water Division Wisconsin Department of We also invite you to visit the www.glc.org website, which mirrors the organizational Natural Resources Madison, Wisconsin structure of the workplan, to stay up to date on the Commission’s work throughout the year.

William Carr Senior 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.

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.

ACTION: In July, the GLC, in conjunction with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), delivered a letter to President Obama urging funding for Asian carp prevention and control efforts in the FY 2017 federal budget. These efforts include actions currently being coordinated by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee as well as continued work under the Army Corps of Engineers’ Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS), with a focus on control technologies that could be deployed at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam to prevent the one-way, upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species.

The GLC continues to work in partnership with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative to investigate solutions to the threat of Asian carp and other aquatic invasive species (AIS) passing through the Chicago Area Waterways System (CAWS) while maintaining current uses of the system. Specifically, the GLC is supporting and serves on a 32-member advisory committee that is the primary regional stakeholder forum seeking solutions to the problem of AIS transfer through the CAWS. The committee entered a new consensus-seeking phase in 2014 with support from an experienced facilitation team (Gail Bingham, president emeritus of RESOLVE, and Tim Brown, founder and president of Wabashco LLC) and is developing consensus on short- and long-term recommendations. The committee has met eight times since beginning the current phase, most recently on August 26. The most promising areas of discussion and research are how to achieve the highest level of AIS risk reduction from modifying a navigation lock (e.g., the “GLMRIS lock”) and the evaluation of a conceptual framework involving three control points in the CAWS (at Brandon Road, near Alsip on the Cal-Sag Channel, and near the Stickney wastewater plan on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) that would create an AIS-free buffer zone. This framework, including the technologies or structures that could be deployed at the control points, is currently a focus of discussion and is not a formal recommendation. It is being used as a basis to analyze impacts to water quality, flooding, and transportation. Substantial research has been conducted in these areas by the committee’s technical consultant, HDR Inc. In addition, the committee continues to support the evaluation of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam as a control point to prevent Asian carp and other species moving from the Mississippi River into the Great Lakes basin. The committee recently wrote to Congress and the President urging adequate funding in FY 2017 for the Corps of Engineers’ Brandon Rd. feasibility study, similar to the GLC-GLFC letter discussed above. The committee is aiming to finalize its recommendations by December 2015. Options for maintaining the Advisory Committee or developing other approaches to continue work in this area will be considered in coming months.

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 wrapping up on a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative-funded project to develop software and tools to track, identify and monitor the sale of invasive species via the internet. The web-crawling software system – the Great Lakes Detector of Invasive Aquatics in Trade (GLDIATR) – is complete and in the initial stages of operation. A stakeholder workshop was held in March to share findings, provide participants an opportunity to use GLDIATR, and gather input on next steps. In July the GLC conducted outreach to 160 online retailers identified using the software in an effort to limit the availability of AIS for

sale online. Staff are evaluating responses and behavior changes as a result of this outreach. Staff also continues to provide informational presentations on the project to interested stakeholder groups.

The GLC continues to support federal efforts to prevent the importation of potentially harmful non-native species. The GLC responded in support of a recent move by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list eleven new species as “injurious” under title 18 of the Lacey Act. As the GLC is previously on record calling for more effective pre-import screening efforts, staff undertook several activities to communicate GLC support for this action, including a letter to the Service submitted through the public comment process, a press release, and a new resolution for consideration at the Annual Meeting.

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: Working in partnership with USGS, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and NOAA, the GLC is supporting the Invasive Mussel Collaborative, which is providing a framework for communication and coordination among scientists, managers and others to share information and lessons learned, guide supporting research, and inform management actions related to control of zebra and quagga mussels. A steering committee for the Collaborative has been convened and has met twice via conference call since its first in-person meeting in February 2015. The first in a series of webinars on issues of interest to the steering committee was held July 22, focused on lessons learned from recent open-water applications and field trials of Zequanox®, a newly approved biocontrol for zebra and quagga mussels (a recording and more information is available at www.invasivemusselcollaborative.net). Staff is also developing a more comprehensive web “hub” (modeled after greatlakesphragmites.net) of invasive mussel information, to be released later this fall.

The GLC is working with a Ballast Water Task Force of the states and provinces to assess current ballast water standards and develop a common platform for the region from which to advance a future ballast water management regime. The Task Force met via conference call in February 2015. The task force has identified research topics that will be addressed through one or more white papers to its work. The GLC is coordinating with the Great Ships Initiative, the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative and the Council of Great Lakes Governor’s AIS Task Force in this effort.

The GLC continues to provide staff support to the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species (GLP) and its standing committees. More than 70 people attended the joint GLP and Mississippi River Basin Panel meeting held April 14-15 at the University of Wisconsin. Joint session topics included common efforts among Western states to prevent the transfer of zebra and quagga mussels; activities to address the movement of AIS between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins; reauthorization of the National Invasive Species Act; Grass carp; and organisms in trade. The GLP meeting focused on lessons learned from efforts to control invasive crayfish and several invasive aquatic plants. A meeting summary, presentations and other items are posted on the GLP website (http://glc.org/projects/invasive/panel/glp-meetings/).

The GLP also finalized the document Grass Carp Priorities for the Great Lakes. The document is intended to elevate awareness of the risks and management needs associated with preventing new introductions and establishment of Grass Carp in the Great Lakes basin.

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 non-native plant Phragmites. The Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative,

established in 2012, engages the resource management community, reduces redundancy, links science and management, facilitates adaptive management, and encourages a systems approach to management and conservation associated with this species. The Collaborative supports an interactive web hub (www.greatlakesphragmites.net), webinar series, social media presence and email list, 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 symbiotic relationships to both control non-native Phragmites and encourage establishment of native plants. These collaboratives use the principles of Collective Impact to address this natural resource challenge and staff are developing a manuscript to showcase this approach as a novel strategy to align priorities and resources for complex issues. Several products have been completed or are being developed, including an herbicide quick guide reference, best practices case studies and adaptive management decision tool. Staff also gave presentations at the Society of Wetlands Scientists conference and the Midwest Invasive Species Conference.

The GLC, in collaboration with the GLFC, released a new mapping application that allows users to visualize the geographic impact of adding or removing sea lamprey barriers on rivers and streams in the Great Lakes region. The application is available at http://data.glfc.org. Enhancements are being added to further improve the search, inset map and user interface. Staff are also working to integrate information that will show how far up a given waterway sea lamprey larvae have been found historically to add context to barrier removal options, and to develop fact sheets for individual barriers. Building on this work, the GLC has secured a new grant from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust to build a barrier removal collaboration tool that will allow stakeholders to collaborate on barrier removal decisions.

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

ACTION: GLC staff attended the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force meeting in May 2015 and presented on the new AIS web-crawler tool and other GLC AIS-related initiatives. As discussed above, the GLC has is supporting the recent move by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list eleven new species as “injurious” under title 18 of the Lacey Act.

The GLC’s GIS and data management teams are collaborating with the Michigan departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources under a U.S. EPA Exchange Network challenge grant to develop a data integration tool for citizen-scientist observations of invasive species. The project is a test case for a larger regional data integration tool that will allow data from multiple species identification and tracking programs to be consolidated into a central database. The programs will maintain information specific to their needs, but species, location, observation date and other general information will be searchable and viewable for use as a regional reference. Currently, data transformation protocols are being finalized to allow incorporation of data from multiple monitoring programs. The database will be housed at Michigan State University. A user interface and online map to view the data will be housed on GLIN when the project is complete.

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 GLC 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 GLC is compiling state and provincial water use data for the 2014 annual water use report. The GLC and the Council of Great Lakes Governors convened two recent webinars for the state and provincial water use data managers. The first webinar focused on comparing estimated and reported water use data in the thermoelectric water use sector for the purposes of improving data quality. During the second webinar GLC staff demonstrated the new online metadata forms. The states and provinces completed these online forms along with the submission of 2014 water use data in August 2015. The online metadata forms automate the process for documenting data quality and tracking water use trends.

2) Objective: Support the Regional Body and Compact Council to track and share information on regional trends, policies and progress toward implementation of the Agreement and Water Resources Compact.

ACTION: The GLC is in dialogue with the U.S. Geologic Survey to explore a project to assess trends in water use in the Great Lakes thermoelectric sector. Additionally, the GLC, Michigan Technological University and Michigan State University expect to receive a Michigan Sea Grant grant to develop sustainable, residential water use metrics. Work will begin in early 2016.

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

ACTION: The GLC continues to support the Greater Lakes project led by John Jackson (formerly of Great Lakes United) to identify and test the environmental and financial rationales for municipalities to pursue water conservation and green infrastructure practices, and to evaluate how this information can drive innovation in water management throughout the Great Lakes region. The project team is working with its advisors to develop the next phases of the project. The GLC is also leading the co-branding efforts of the project, in cooperation with Issue Media Group, a regional online media partnership. Three online news stories and a video have been produced and released. These and other project publications are available online at www.glc.org/projects/water-resources/greater-lakes.

GLC staff presented highlights of the 2013 Great Lakes regional water use data report at the International Association of Great Lakes Research Conference on May 28, 2015, in Burlington, Vermont. The presentation was part of a session sponsored by the Council of Great Lakes Governors to advance the Water Resources Agreement’s Science Strategy. The GLC continues to work with the Council to identify other opportunities to advance the Science Strategy.

4) 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 continues to work with the USGS science centers from Michigan and Ohio to explore new methods to coordinate data and information sharing and to help enhance the regional data reporting process.

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: 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: As noted in the Habitat and Coastal Management section under Objective 4, since the last update the GLC completed phase two of Monitoring and Mapping Avian Resources over Selected Areas of the Great Lakes and received a $260,000 grant from USFWS for a third phase of this project. This project was catalyzed as a result of the need to assist with the siting of offshore wind energy infrastructure. As noted in the last update, there is no funding to continue support to the GLWC. The GLWC website and listservs remain operational, but the website now notes that it is inactive.

2) 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: Currently there are no active GLC projects related to climate change adaption. Staff continues to stay abreast of relevant policy and management developments as time and resources allow. V. Pebbles was hired under contract by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to develop a case study on climate adaptation and transboundary water governance. The case study is titled Great Lakes Governance Case Study: Incorporating Climate Adaptation into Transboundary Ecosystem Management. The article is part of a larger compendium on transboundary water governance and is available online at https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/IUCN-EPLP-no.075.pdf. Additionally, staff will attend a kickoff meeting of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network in early October. This group is developing a binational Great Lakes subgroup focused on climate adaptation.

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: With the development of the Lake Michigan Trails Network now underway, the GLC will be working with the Network’s member states – Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin – along with participating canoe/kayak and cycling organizations, to identify potential partnerships and synergies with the long-established Great Lakes Circle Tour for motorists. The Lakes Michigan Trails Network is seeking to create a connected set of nearshore routes for open-water kayakers and canoeists circling the lake, along with a corresponding route for bicyclists on land. Initial meetings involving the GLC’s Circle Tour and the Trails Network have explored cross-promotional marketing ideas and other potential cooperative approaches to boost overall interest in Great Lakes travel and tourism. With regard to the Circle Tour, trademark applications have been completed by the GLC and filed with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, with a final determination expected by the end of the calendar year.

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 serves as secretariat to the Great Lakes Dredging Team (GLDT), which works with state and federal agencies and industry partners to maintain navigation access to Great Lakes ports and harbors while pursuing sustainable and environmentally responsible dredging operations and management of dredged material. The GLDT’s 2015 annual meeting was held June 3-4 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The semiannual webinar meeting will be held Nov. 17.

The GLDT is working on developing new products. In 2014-2015 the team prepared a poster on beneficial use of dredged material that was presented at the Great Lakes Waterways Conference and at the annual conference for the International Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR). In June 2015 the GLDT launched its newsletter, The Great Lakes Dredging Dispatch, which will be published twice a year. In May 2015 the GLDT held a topical webinar on the Cat Island Restoration project in Wisconsin. The team is also continually updating its website. To help frame the discussion and clarify issues related to open-water placement of dredged material, the team has been working on a briefing paper on open-water placement policy with plans to release the paper in fall 2015. A State of the Science and Policy Symposium is also being planned.

The GLC is partnering with the University of Wisconsin’s National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education to conduct detailed characterizations of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) at three Wisconsin commercial harbors (Milwaukee, Green Bay and Superior) to assess its suitability for uses such as habitat restoration and construction fill. The data produced will be used to enhance the existing GLC web tool (see http://projects.glc.org/rsm).

The GLC is working with a Ballast Water Task Force of the states and provinces to assess current ballast water standards and develop a common platform for the region from which to advance a future ballast water management regime. The Task Force met via conference call in February 2015. The task force has identified research topics that will be addressed through one or more white papers that will support their work. The GLC is coordinating with the Great Ships Initiative, the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative and the Council of Great Lakes Governor’s Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Task Force in this effort.

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: Efforts to support harbor maintenance programs in the Great Lakes are ongoing, with a particular need to support the efforts of those ports currently receiving little or no financial assistance for dredging as a result of ongoing federal budget constraints. The GLC continues to support the efforts of the Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition, whose aim is to restore and increase federal harbor maintenance support for recreational harbors in the Great Lakes. Federal budget constraints and prioritization of deep- draft commercial ports in the Great Lakes have severely affected the federally authorized small, primarily recreational, harbors that historically have been dredged and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The GLC, through its annual legislative priorities and through the Great Lakes Dredging Team’s legislative committee, continues to look for ways to support small harbor maintenance dredging.

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: The GLC continues to explore how it can engage in and support efforts to advance coastal revitalization and leverage the “Blue Economy” in the region. Staff are exploring the potential to collaborate with U.S. EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecology Division lab in Duluth, Minn., which has hired a three-year postdoctoral position to investigate how environmental restoration can contribute to community revitalization. This likely will review the results of cleanup work in the Areas of Concern and restoration efforts under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Several important recent reports have stimulated further interest in this topic, including Michigan BLUE ECONOMY; Making Michigan the World's Freshwater and freshwater Innovation Capital from the Michigan Economic Center at Prima Civitas and the Grand Valley State University-Annis Water Resources Institute (http://michiganblueeconomy.org/); and Sustaining Michigan’s Water Heritage: A Strategy for the Next Generation from Michigan’s Office of the Great Lakes (www.michigan.gov/waterstrategy). In August Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced the Waterfront Community Revitalization and Resiliency Act to support community-led efforts to enhance waterfront resiliency. In response to these recent events, a resolution will be considered at the GLC annual meeting to advance coastal community revitalization through strengthened federal legislation and programs.

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: Support regional efforts to secure investments in water infrastructure to end sewer overflows and safeguard drinking water supplies.

ACTION: The GLC is seeking collaborators and programmatic support for the Great Lakes Blue Accounting pilot to establish goals and metrics for the desired outcome of “a safe and sustainable domestic water supply” (see Objective #5 below for general information on the Blue Accounting project). GLC staff is engaging water system managers, industry experts and municipal leaders from across the region to define the scope of the pilot and to create appropriate goals and metrics. Topics under consideration include source water quality and available quantity; energy use in supplying domestic water; needs for water supply infrastructure repair and replacement; and public perception of the value of water and the willingness to pay for it.

The GLC continues to track progress and convey to Congress the critical need to support level or enhanced funding for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.

2) 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 GLC administers the Great Lakes Sediment and Nutrient Reduction Program (GLSNRP), formerly known as the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, which is currently supporting 62 active projects from 2010-2014. The GLSNRP is funded by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. GLSNRP grants are awarded to local and state entities to install phosphorus and sediment reduction practices in priority watersheds throughout the Great Lakes basin. Semiannual reports were developed and submitted to NRCS for each of the program years. The conservation practices

being implemented range from cover crops to streambank stabilization to applying gypsum to reduce erosion and phosphorus runoff. The emphasis for the current year changed to include phosphorus reduction. Twelve projects totaling more than $1.7 million were selected in June to be initiated in the fall of 2015.  The GLC continues 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 May 20-21, 2015. These annual meetings provide an opportunity for federal, state, NGO, university and private sector partners to come together to discuss priorities for Great Lakes soil conservation, sedimentation and NPS pollution prevention, control and planning. GLC staff also assisted the Corps’ Buffalo District in the organization and publicizing of training classes for the program’s online modeling tools. The GLC successfully completed its efforts with the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment master’s student team project to compare the costs, benefits and policy issues related to various approaches to implementing conservation practices in the western Lake Erie basin. The students made several presentations of their findings to Great Lakes professionals, including the annual Great Lakes Sedimentation Workshop. GLC staff are beginning an effort to redesign the program website and anticipate launching the redesigned site by December 2015.

3) 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 the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in Wisconsin, is in the third of the Fox P Trade project, which is developing a phosphorus credit trading program for the lower Fox River watershed in Wisconsin. Water Quality Trading (WQT) can provide a cost-effective means for permit-holders to achieve compliance and holds potential to help address high nutrient levels and algal blooms. Stakeholder engagement continues through monthly management team calls, periodic meetings and webinars. The project received a $122,000 budget amendment in early 2015 to address several outstanding needs. Staff continues to work with WI DNR and other partners to clarify load reduction quantification methods and other program elements. Staff also continues to test the state WQT policy guidance through hypothetical trades among farmers and permit holders in the lower Fox River. Documents and other forms have been completed to support point-to-nonpoint-source trades (trading contract template, trading plan, credit certification, verification, and reporting forms, etc.). In early 2015 the project determined that a bilateral brokered trading structure was preferred for the lower Fox River. Staff is trying to find eligible buyers for known credits. Efforts have begun to negotiate formal pilot trades, but the market demand is softening due to other policy developments. Alternative buyers are being explored. The project is scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of 2016.  The Lower Fox Demonstration Watershed Project, or Demo Farms Project, began in December 2013 and is in its second season of operation. The $1 million, five-year agreement is a partnership between the GLC, USDA-NRCS, and Brown and Outagamie counties in Wisconsin. The Demonstration Farm Network objectives are to establish sites within the lower Fox River to test the effectiveness of innovative conservation systems. In addition, the project provides for the transfer of technology and conservation system effectiveness to land management agencies, producers and the public. Four core farms are participating in the Network. The Network also has one satellite farm site involving a paired edge-of-field monitoring station. The conservation practices implemented for 2015 include the planting of multiple types of cover crops with different planting equipment at various times throughout the growing season. A field day was held on June 16, 2015 to

showcase the cover crop program. Over 50 people attended. Signage, with the project’s name, logo, partners and owner, have been erected at each farm site. Several outside organizations have submitted proposals to demonstrate innovative phosphorus reduction practices on the sites and will be evaluated for future participation in the network.  A GLC Lake Erie Nutrient Targets (LENT) Working Group was formed in response to the GLC’s 2014 Lake Erie Water Pollution resolution. The LENT Working Group released an Interim Joint Action Plan on June 16. Copies of the plan were also made available at the Governors and Premiers Leadership Summit in early June in Quebec. The plan echoes targets proposed by the GLWQA Annex 4 process: 40% reduction in western and central basins by 2025 and with an interim target of 20% by 2020. The Interim Joint Action Plan further identifies nine joint actions that each of the LENT jurisdictions have committed to pursuing as they formulate their individual policies and programs to address excessive nutrient-related problems in Lake Erie. A final Joint Action Plan is expected to be released at the 2015 Annual Meeting. See: http://glc.org/projects/water-quality/lent/  A HABs Collaboratory is being established as one of several joint initiatives under the GLC-USGS five-year Memorandum of Understanding. The HABs Collaboratory will focus on improving linkages among scientists and between scientists and management needs in the three GLRI prioritiy watersheds (Maumee, Saginaw, Lower Fox/Green Bay). Funding from USGS has been secured to support the collaborator for two years.  The GLC is a subcontractor on two GLRI grants awarded in the FY 2014 funding cycle. Both are five-year projects that will run from 2015-2019. o Targeting Outcome-Based Sediment Reduction in the Lower Fox Watershed is being led by the Fox Wolf Watershed Alliance. The GLC will hold workshops and webinars to coordinate among GLRI grantees in the three GLRI priority watersheds and will conduct training on credit and cost quantification in the Lower Fox. o Accelerating Outcome-Based Ag Conservation in Saginaw Bay is being led by The Nature Conservancy. The GLC will work with the Delta Institute to explore market-based mechanisms to support conservation after federal funding is exhausted.  The GLC has applied to USDA for a Conservation Innovation Grant to explore a framework for WQT in the Western Lake Erie Basin. If funded, the effort would begin in late 2015 and go for three years.

4) 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: The GLC has no active projects in the area of atmospheric contaminants.

5) 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:  The development of Blue Accounting – an information monitoring, strategy and delivery system that supports achievement of the region’s priority water “outcomes” – has been initiated by the GLC in response to a 2013 request from the Great Lakes governors and premiers. The full report, Great Lakes Blue Accounting: Empowering Decisions to Realize Regional Water Values, is at http://bit.ly/BlueAccounting. In May 2015 the GLC signed a Memorandum of Agreement with The Nature Conservancy that formalizes a partnership between the two organizations with the purpose of collaborating to develop a new, regional online information management and delivery platform. This platform will combine the strengths of GLC’s Great Lakes Information Network and TNC’s Great Lakes Information Management and Delivery System. A Great Lakes Blue Accounting Advisory

Committee has been formed to support the initiative, with representation from state, federal and local governments, business, academia and NGOs from the Great Lakes basin. The committee’s inaugural meeting will be held on September 29, 2015, in Chicago immediately following the GLC annual meeting. The GLC and a working group have initiated a Blue Accounting pilot project focused on the outcome: “safe and sustainable domestic water supply” (see objective #1 above). The GLC’s work in building the Blue Accounting initiative and the domestic water supply pilot is funded in part by grants from the Great Lakes Protection Fund and the Joyce Foundation.  The GLC has previously served as Secretariat for the Annual Great Lakes Beach Association (GLBA) Conference, an event that attracts close to 200 participants and features more than 60 professional papers. The next conference is being held Oct. 28-30 near Traverse City, Michigan in conjunction with the State of Lake Michigan Conference. It is being organized by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The GLC is assessing its role as Secretariat, which is currently unfunded.  The GLC’s myBeachCast mobile app (http://beachcast.glin.net) increases the safety of beachgoers by providing real-time information on beach water quality advisories, weather and water conditions for more than 1,900 Great Lakes and inland beaches. For the 2015 beach season the GLC partnered with LimnoTech to deliver an Android and iPhone version of the app and maintained a flag status database, which allows local beaches to report their flag status and related conditions for inclusion in the mobile app. Funding for the app is currently through a grant from the NOAA Coastal Storms Program.  The GLC administers the Michigan Clean Water Corps (MiCorps) program that 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 2015 the GLC awarded nine volunteer stream monitoring grants totaling nearly $69,000; supported volunteer water quality sampling at 230 inland lakes under the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program; and awarded 13 small grants totaling nearly $25,000 to local units of government for river and stream cleanup events. On Nov. 4-5, 2015 staff will convene the 11th annual MiCorps conference at the Kettunen Center in Tustin, MI, 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. GLC staff are redesigning the program website, hosted by the GLC, and anticipate launching the redesigned site sometime this fall.  The Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (LMMCC) continues to bring together agencies and organizations involved in environmental monitoring on Lake Michigan and the data they collect. Recent efforts have focused largely on collecting monitoring information through the LMMCC’s 2015 survey that will update the council’s monitoring inventory. In addition, a second questionnaire was distributed to LMMCC and other Lake Michigan partners to assess and revise the current LMMCC Charter. In July the LMMCC executive committee met with the new U.S. EPA Lake Michigan Manager and other Great Lakes staff to strengthen relationships and develop a mutual understanding of roles among the players involved in lakewide management and monitoring. Discussion centered on the mission, goals and objectives for the LMMCC, including its position and work relative to the new Lake Michigan LAMP Partnership, the Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI), and the GLWQA. Planning is underway for the LMMCC fall meeting, which will take place in conjunction with the State of Lake Michigan Conference in Traverse City, Mich. in October. A presentation will be made at the conference on the outcomes of the 2015 monitoring inventory.  The GLC continues to support the data management efforts of the Great Lakes Observing System, including development of an enhanced GLOS Data Portal (see glos.us/data-access/data-portal). GLC staff is part of a larger Data Management and Communications team, which supports the maintenance and enhancement of GLOS’ databases and ensures access to GLOS data.  The GLC wrapped up the Coastal Science Strategy—one of several joint initiatives between the GLC and the USGS-Great Lakes Science Center under the five-year MOU. The final document, Practioners’ Views of Science Needs for the Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystem, will be available on the GLC web

site and copies will be available at the 2015 Annual Meeting. The overall effort aims to build more effective communications between managers and scientists working on coastal issues/science in the Great Lakes region.

6) 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: GLC staff continue to work with U.S. EPA to support spill response preparedness in the Great Lakes. This includes maintenance of statewide Inland Sensitivity Atlases (ISAs) for the states in the U.S. Federal Region 5 area, updates and new content development for the Region 5 Regional Response Team, and development of area-specific plans and response strategies in cooperation with U.S. EPA, U.S. Coast Guard, and tribal, state and local response agencies. GIS map creation is under way for the Ohio ISA and data updates for the Indiana ISA will begin shortly. Support for the Regional Response Team is an ongoing activity. Priority areas of the Great Lakes region where the GLC will be providing planning support over the next six months include northern Michigan, where response coordination plans are nearly complete; northeast Ohio along the Cuyahoga River; and southeast Ohio in several Ohio River watersheds. A new contribution in this topical area being developed by staff will provide a reference library drawn from the reports, research articles, legislation and other materials gathered by staff as part of work conducted over the past year on oil transportation issues.

7) 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: Emergency preparedness and response continues to be a high priority for the GLC. Building on the 2012 report of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force on the status of state and provincial spill preparedness and response programs, staff prepared a report in 2015 on issues and trends surrounding oil transportation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region. This report summarized key issues surrounding oil transportation and included a series of findings to inform continued discussion. The report was accepted by the Commission at the 2015 Semiannual Meeting in Washington DC. Staff were directed to form an Oil Transportation Advisory Committee consisting of members from both inside and outside the GLC with representation from key sectors involved with oil transportation. The Committee was formed in May and charged with working with staff and the GLC Board of Directors to identify themes and issues to inform the preparation of recommendations and next steps. The Committee has met monthly via conference call since May and has developed a series of guiding principles that, when completed, will help build consensus on key issues and guide the development of recommendations and next steps in the area of oil transportation. A status report describing the draft guiding principles will be provided at the 2015 Annual Meeting.

8) 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: See the discussion above under Objective 5 about the GLC’s work on the myBeachCast mobile app, which provides real-time information on beach water quality advisories, weather and water conditions for more than 1,900 Great Lakes and inland beaches (http://beachcast.glin.net).

9) 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 is leading the Greater Lakes project, in collaboration with John Jackson (formerly of

Great Lakes United) and other partners, 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. (See the Water Resources Management section, objective 3, for additional details.)

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 is leading a regional partnership, funded by NOAA under the GLRI, to support habitat restoration in priority Areas of Concern (AOC). Since 2013 more than $27 million has been allocated for restoration in the St. Marys River AOC in Michigan, Buffalo River AOC in New York and Muskegon Lake AOC in Michigan. Additional funding for all three sites is expected through the end of 2015. The GLC is working with state and local agencies to implement these projects over the next several years.  St. Marys River AOC: $9,441,749 for the Little Rapids Restoration Project restoring 70 acres of river rapids and aquatic habitat, in partnership with the Chippewa County Road Commission.  Buffalo River AOC: $4,681,053 for eight restoration and design projects restoring 2,212 linear feet of river habitat, 2,832 linear feet of shoreline habitat, 4.66 acres of riparian habitat and 3.31 acres of invasive species management in partnership with the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper.  Muskegon Lake AOC: $13,414,612 for three projects restoring 4,272 feet of shoreline, 11.8 acres of emergent wetland, 44.6 acres of open water wetland, and 22.6 acres of fill (242,328 tons) removed in partnership with the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission.

The GLC provides staff support to the Statewide Public Advisory Council (SPAC) for Michigan’s AOC Program. Recent actions include the SPAC’s spring and summer meetings and legislative briefing, held May 4-5 in Port Huron and June 3-4 in Lansing; administering grants to local Public Advisory Councils to support restoration work; and assisting with the 2015 annual conference for the U.S. AOC program, held March 11-12 in Toledo, Ohio. The latest issue of the Commission’s Advisor newsletter focused on progress in cleaning up the AOCs.

2) Objective: Advance federal programs that support our habitat and coastal management goal.

ACTION: The GLC sits on the steering committee of the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative and participates on the Coastal Conservation Working Group. With support from the Army Corps of Engineers, the GLC has completed development of the Great Lakes Restoration Database (http://habitat.glc.org) to showcase projects implemented under GLRI Focus Area Four (restoring habitat and native species). This searchable database was developed to increase awareness and improve communication on the accomplishments of the GLRI.

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:  As reported under the Habitat and Coastal Management section, the GLC completed Practioners’ Views of Science Needs for the Great Lakes Coastal Ecosystem. This document is intended to inform science and monitoring priorities with the USGS-Great Lakes Science Center and potentially other federal science agencies working in the Great Lakes.  The GLC is partnering with federal agencies to facilitate communication and coordination between states and federal research laboratories. o In April, the GLC convened a meeting with directors and deputy directors of the three principal research laboratories working on Great Lakes issues: USGS-Great Lakes Science Center; NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, and U.S. EPA Midwest Ecology Division Laboratory. o GLC staff, in cooperation with USGS staff, updated the third annual joint workplan under the five-year Memorandum of Understanding between USGS-GLSC and GLC. The joint worklpan has three funded initiatives and four unfunded initiatives as listed below. 1. Phragmites (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative and Collaborative for Microbial Symbiosis and Phragmites Management) 2. Nutrients and Harmful Algal Blooms 3. Invasive Mussels Collaborative 4. Coastal Science Strategy 5. Urban Coast Revitalization 6. Beach and Coastal Health 7. Coastal Infrastructure and Nearshore Habitats 8. Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (2014-2015 funding from the GLC- USGS MOU and 2015-2016 funding via Michigan DEQ)

Those in bold are funded. The other initiatives are not yet funded but identify joint priorities and prospective actions around which funding can be pursued.

4) Objective: Respond to needs and interests of the states and provinces related to coastal management issues.

ACTION: The GLC completed the second phase of Monitoring and Mapping Avian Resources over Selected Areas of the Great Lakes and received a $260,000 grant award from USFWS for a third phase. During phases 1 and 2, the GLC coordinated aerial bird surveys over selected areas of lakes Michigan, Huron, St. Clair and Erie, with more than 1.8 million bird observations collected from 2012-2014. In Phase 3 the phase 1 and 2 data will be used to develop a set of over-lake models for individual bird species. Data and information products derived from the models will be relevant to wildlife and natural resource managers. Phase 3 work began in September 2015.

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 2015 statement, Priorities for Sustaining Great Lakes Restoration and Economic Revitalization, was released on February 26 – Great Lakes Day 2015 – and guides the GLC’s advocacy activities in 2015. The top priorities for 2015 are:

 Sustaining progress under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative  Passing comprehensive legislation to strengthen and accelerate Great Lakes conservation efforts  Protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp and other invasive species

 Helping communities upgrade aging water infrastructure and safeguard drinking water  Ensuring Farm Bill conservation programs target watersheds contributing polluted runoff to the Great Lakes  Providing resources for dredging and infrastructure improvements to maintain the Great Lakes Navigation System

Below is a brief summary of actions taken on these federal priorities since the 2015 Semiannual Meeting, as well as reports on other policy and advocacy issues affecting the Great Lakes that have come up since that time.

Status of appropriations for major Great Lakes programs

The following table summarizes appropriations (in millions of dollars) for selected Great Lakes programs for Fiscal Year 2015, the President’s budget request for FY 2016, and any Congressional action to date.

FY 2016 Congressional Action Program FY 2015 Budget Request to Date House passed: TBD Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory $9.8 $9.9 Senate committee: TBD House passed: $28 Dispersal Barrier and Interbasin Study $49.7 $28 Senate committee: $28 House passed: $1,214 Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund $1,100 $915 Senate committee: $1,254 Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study House passed: $.5 1 $.5 $.5 (GLMRIS) Senate committee: $.5 House committee: $1,018 Clean Water State Revolving Fund $1,449 $1,116 Senate committee: $1,047 House committee: $757 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund $907 $1,186 Senate committee: $776 House committee: $300 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative $300 $250 Senate committee: $300 House committee: $0 BEACH Grants $9.5 $0.0 Senate committee: $9.5 House committee: TBD Great Lakes Science Center $8.5 $8.7 Senate committee: $TBD House committee: $230.8 Section 106 Water Pollution Control $230.8 $249 Senate committee: $230.8 House committee: $21 Great Lakes Fishery Commission $25 $20 2 Senate committee: $24.6 House passed: $10 Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration $0 $0 Senate committee: $0 House passed: $62.8 National Sea Grant College Program $62.8 $68.5 Senate committee: $62.8 House passed: $65 Coastal Zone Management Act (grants only) $71.2 $116 Senate committee: $75 1An additional $2.6 million is being provided from the GLRI for the Brandon Road feasibility study in FY 2016, which is being conducted under GLMRIS.

2 This includes the Senate committee’s recommendation for $3,450,000 for sea lamprey control and water quality improvements in Lake Champlain and $1,177,000 for additional sea lamprey control and fishery research for the Great Lakes Basin.

Sustain progress under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)

Congressional support for the GLRI continues to be strong, as evidenced by Congress providing level funding of $300 million for the Initiative in FY 2015, a $25 million increase from the president’s budget request. The President’s FY 2016 budget requests $250 million for the GLRI. Both the House and Senate Interior-EPA appropriations bills provide $300 million for the GLRI, making it highly likely that FY 2016 funding will continue at this level. The GLC continues to devote substantial efforts to urging Congress to fully fund the GLRI, including factsheets showing GLRI projects funded in each state and showcasing economic benefits from the Great Lakes, and outreach to the states and local stakeholders urging them to convey support for the GLRI to their congressional

14 representatives. The Commission has urged the Great Lakes congressional delegation to sign on to several letters to appropriations committees urging continued funding for the GLRI in FY 2016.

In July the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the GLRI focused on the expenditure of funds, how the Interagency Task Force identifies funding priorities, and information made available on GLRI projects and results. Generally, the report was positive on progress in these areas. The report noted problems with the Great Lakes Accountability System (GLAS) for reporting on GLRI projects; these issues have been widely recognized by the Great Lakes states and others involved in reporting on GLRI projects. In May 2015 U.S. EPA stopped using GLAS and began using a new Environmental Accomplishments in the Great Lakes (EAGL) system for collecting GLRI project information. The GAO reported that this new system addresses many deficiencies associated with GLAS. In summary, the GAO report is a positive review of the GLRI and a mostly “clean bill of health.” The full report is available online at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671543.pdf.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment is holding an oversight hearing on the GLRI on Wednesday, Sept. 30.

Pass comprehensive legislation to strengthen and accelerate Great Lakes conservation efforts

Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate formally authorizing the GLRI. Rep. David Joyce and Sen. Mark Kirk have introduced the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act (H.R. 223 and S. 1024), which authorizes the GLRI at $300 million annually. Sen. Tammy Baldwin has introduced the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (S. 504), which authorizes the GLRI at $475 million annually; reauthorizes EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office; reauthorizes the Great Lakes Legacy Act at $150 million annually; establishes a Great Lakes Advisory Board; and authorizes a Federal Interagency Task Force. Rep. Joyce’s GLRI authorization bill passed the House in late 2014 but was not taken up by the Senate.

Securing formal authorization for the GLRI is a top priority for the GLC to provide the program with a stronger legislative foundation moving into the next administration. In July the GLC and six other regional organizations wrote to House and Senate leaders urging them to take up legislation authorizing the GLRI. As discussed above, a hearing on the GLRI will take place on Sept. 30 in the House, after which the sponsors of the legislation hope the bill will be taken up for consideration. GLC staff are monitoring this closely and will communicate with the Great Lakes Congressional delegation in support of the legislation when it is taken up by the House and Senate.

Protecting the Great Lakes from Asian carp and other invasive species

The GLC continues to work with Congress and regional stakeholders to advance measures to prevent the movement of Asian carp and other invasive species through the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS) and other pathways. Following release of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS) in January 2014, there is significant interest in Congress and among regional stakeholders to develop and implement short-term actions to reduce the risk of Asian carp movement while a long-term solution is developed. Commission staff have communicated with congressional leaders on funding and legislative priorities in this area, consistent with the resolution adopted at the Commission’s 2014 Semiannual Meeting. The Commission continues to convene the CAWS Advisory Committee, discussed in detail above in the invasive species workplan update.

In July the GLC and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission delivered a letter to President Obama (copied to the Great Lakes Congressional delegation) urging funding for Asian carp prevention and control efforts in his FY 2017 budget request, including actions being coordinated by the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee as well as the Army Corps of Engineers’ Brandon Road feasibility study, which is focused on control technologies that could be deployed at this location to prevent the one-way, upstream transfer of aquatic nuisance species. The GLC is urging that the study be accelerated and that near-term actions be identified that can advance more quickly. For FY 2016, the Corps will have $3.1 million for the Brandon Road study, which is adequate for their capacity. This includes $500,000 from Congressional appropriations and $2.6 million from the GLRI. The Corps projects the study will cost $8.2 million and be completed by early 2019.

The GLC has also expressed support for bipartisan legislation, the Defending Our Great Lakes Act, introduced in late February in the House and Senate authorizing the Corps and other federal agencies to construct measures at Brandon Road to prevent the upstream movement of invasive species with a focus on Asian carp. It also called for continued efforts to develop a long-term solution and directs federal agencies to work with the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago and the Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation District to address impacts resulting from actions to prevent aquatic invasive species transfer through the CAWS. Discussions continue with Congress and the Administration on additional authority that may be needed to support efforts in this area.

Helping communities upgrade aging water infrastructure and safeguard drinking water

As shown in the table above, final FY 2015 funding for the Clean Water and Drinking State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs was level with their FY 2014 levels of $1,449 and $907 million, respectively. The President’s FY 2016 budget requests $333 million less for the Clean Water SRF, but $279 million more for the Drinking Water SRF. According to U.S. EPA’s FY 2016 budget justification, the increase for the Drinking Water SRF is “to support the higher documented needs for drinking water infrastructure, greater needs for smaller communities, and its lower revolving levels nationally compared to the Clean Water SRF.” Appropriations bills developed (but not passed) by both the House and Senate provide funding well below FY 2015 levels and below the President’s request. A continuing resolution (CR) is likely at least until later this fall; a full-year CR that maintains funding at FY 2015 levels would be beneficial for these programs by sustaining the higher funding levels.

Ensuring Farm Bill conservation programs target watersheds contributing polluted runoff to the Great Lakes

The 2014 Farm Bill established a new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) that designated the Great Lakes as a Critical Conservation Area (CCA) with a goal to manage nutrients and sediment to reduce algal blooms and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Nearly $400 million was provided under the RCPP for FY 2014 and 2015, with $138 million for the eight designated CCAs. In January 2015 NRCS announced RCPP funding decisions, with two projects funded under the Great Lakes CCA (Saginaw Bay Watershed Conservation Partnership, $10 million; and the Tri-State Western Lake Erie Basin Phosphorus Reduction Initiative, $17.5 million). In the state funding category 10 projects were funded in the Great Lakes states with combined funding of approximately $11 million. The national funding category includes seven projects affecting one or more of the Great Lakes states. A complete list of funded RCPP projects is available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/farmbill/rcpp/.

A key outstanding question continues to be how the Great Lakes CCA can target priority watersheds and generate outcomes for water quality and habitat. The RCPP will be a major source of funding for conservation efforts and ensuring its effectiveness and strong coordination with the Great Lakes states will be an ongoing priority.

The GLC is involved in numerous projects to prevent or reduce nutrient pollution to the Great Lakes, including heavily impacted areas such as the Western Lake Erie Basin. Details on these activities are provided above in the Water Quality and Ecosystem Health workplan update.

Providing resources for dredging and infrastructure improvements to maintain the Great Lakes Navigation System

In 2014 Congress passed and the President signed a new Water Resources Reform and Development Act with important benefits for the Great Lakes, including increased funding for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF); funding authorization for operating and maintaining the Great Lakes Navigation System; and direction to the Army Corps of Engineers to manage and allocate funding for the Great Lakes Navigation System (GLNS) as a single, comprehensive system. Since that time funding for the HMTF has increased each year, reflecting the legislation’s provisions directing incremental increases in expenditures until they reach 100 percent of the fund’s receipts in 2025.

Efforts are underway to support the reprogramming of $1.3 million in the Corps of Engineers’ budget to complete an Economic Re-evaluation Report on constructing a new large lock at the Soo Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

The new report would update a previous cost-benefit analysis that may have used incorrect assumptions about the capability for rail and truck infrastructure to move cargo if the locks become unavailable. There is also interest in securing public release of a Department of Homeland Security report on the impact of an unexpected closure of the Soo Locks on the nation’s economy. Concern over the reliability of the Soo Locks was heightened after both operational locks were briefly closed this summer for maintenance.

Other policy and advocacy issues

Ballast water

The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (S. 373) was introduced by Senator Marco Rubio (FL) in February 2015 and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It was recently attached to the Coast Guard authorization bill, which could be considered by the Senate this fall. The bill is largely similar to legislation introduced in 2014 and impacts federal and state ballast water discharge requirements, including setting the 2012 U.S. Coast Guard ballast treatment regulations as the uniform standard nationwide, with the U.S. EPA in a consultation role, among other provisions. The current bill was amended to require vessels entering the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence River to conduct saltwater flushing.

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.

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 -1-

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 -2-

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 -3-

(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 -4-

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 -5-

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.

Page -6-

Eisenhower Corporate Park 2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite 100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791 Ph: 734-971-9135 • Fax: 734-971-9150

September 17, 2015 Board of Directors Jon W. Allan, Acting Chair, Michigan Kelvin Burch, Retired, Immediate Past Chair, Pennsylvania

Wayne A. Rosenthal, Illinois James Zehringer, Ohio Jody Peacock, Indiana Bill Carr, Ontario Jon W. Allan, Michigan Vacant, Pennsylvania John Linc Stine, Minnesota Eric Marquis, Québec Marc Gerstman, New York Russ Rasmussen, Wisconsin

ILLINOIS INDIANA Alternate Commissioners John Davis Commissioners Commissioners Deputy Director, Land Management Team *Wayne A. Rosenthal *Jody W. Peacock IN Dept. of Natural Resources Director Vice President 402 W. Washington St., Room W256 IL Dept. of Natural Resources Ports of Indiana Indianapolis, IN 46204 One Natural Resources Way 150 W. Market St., Suite 100 Ph: (317) 232-4025 Springfield, IL 62702 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2845 [email protected] Ph: (217) 785-0075 Ph: (317) 233-6225 [email protected] [email protected] Bruno Pigott Assistant Commissioner Benjamin J. Brockschmidt Thomas W. Easterly IN Dept. of Environmental Management Vice President of Policy Commissioner Office of Water Quality Executive Director, Infrastructure Council IN Dept. of Environmental Management 100 N. Senate Ave., IGCN 1255 Illinois Chamber of Commerce 100 N. Senate Ave., IGCN 1301 Indianapolis, IN 46204 300 South Wacker Dr., Suite 1600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Ph: (317) 233-2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Ph: (317) 232-8611 [email protected] Ph: (312) 983-7112 Fax: (317) 233-6647 [email protected] [email protected] MICHIGAN

Stephanie Comer Steve Fisher Commissioners Comer Family Foundation Executive Director *Jon W. Allan 939 W. North Avenue, Suite 850 American Great Lakes Ports Association Director th Chicago, IL 60642 700 12 Street, NW, Suite 700 Office of the Great Lakes Ph: (312) 274-0546 x 1203 Washington, DC 20005 MI Dept. of Environmental Quality [email protected] Ph: (202) 625-2102 525 West Allegan Street Fax: (202) 625-2104 P.O. Box 30473 Joe Deal [email protected] Lansing, MI 48909 Chief Operating Officer Ph: (517) 284-5035 Office of the Mayor Kay L. Nelson Fax: (517) 335-4053 City of Chicago Director of Environmental Affairs [email protected] 121 North LaSalle, Room 509 Northwest Indiana Forum Chicago, IL 60602 6100 Southport Road Ian R. Davison, Ph.D. Ph: (312) 744-0208 Portage, IN 46368 Interim Vice President for Research Fax: (312) 744-2324 Ph: (219) 763-6303 College of Science & Technology [email protected] Fax: (219) 763-2653 200 ET Building [email protected] Central Michigan University Dan Injerd Mount Pleasant, MI 48859 Manager Chris Smith Ph: (989) 774-1918 Lake Michigan Mgmt. Section Deputy Director, Regulatory Team [email protected] Office of Water Resources, IN Dept. of Natural Resources Ill. Dept. of Natural Resources 402 West Washington St., Room W256 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Chicago, IL 60601-3117 Ph: (317) 232-1557 Ph: (312) 793-3123 [email protected] Fax: (312) 793-5968 [email protected]

-1-

Hon. Bill Schuette Hon. Paul Torkelson OHIO Attorney General State Representative G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor 381 State Office Building 525 W. Ottawa St. St. Paul, MN 55155 Commissioners P.O. Box 30212 Ph: (651) 296-9303 *James Zehringer, Director Lansing, MI 48909 [email protected] Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ph: (517) 373-1110 2045 Morse Rd. Fax: (517) 373-3042 Hon. Jennifer Schultz Columbus, OH 43229 [email protected] State Representative Ph: (614) 265-6879 215 State Office Building Fax: (614) 261-9601 Helen Taylor, State Director St. Paul, MN 55155 [email protected] The Nature Conservancy Ph: (651) 296-2228 101 E. Grand River Avenue [email protected] Hon. John Eklund Lansing, MI 48906 State Senator Ph: (517) 316-2261 Hon. Bob Gunther Ohio Senate Fax: (517) 316-9886 State Representative Room 128 [email protected] Minnesota Legislature Columbus, Ohio 43215 277 State Office Building Ph: (614) 644-7718 Hon. Rebekah Warren St. Paul, MN 55155 [email protected] State Senator Ph: (651) 296-3240 State of Michigan [email protected] Craig W. Butler, Director 415 Farnum Bldg Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 30036 P.O. Box 1049 Lansing, MI 48909-7536 NEW YORK 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 Ph: (517) 373-2406 Columbus, Ohio 43215-1049 Fax: (517) 373-5679 Commissioners Ph: (614) 644-2782 [email protected] *Marc Gerstman Fax: (614) 644-3184 Acting Commissioner [email protected],gov Alternate Commissioners Office of the Commissioner S. Peter Manning, Division Chief NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation James H. I. Weakley, President Environment, Natural Resources, and 625 Broadway Lake Carriers' Association Agriculture Division Albany, NY 12233–1010 20325 Center Ridge Road, Suite 720 Department of Attorney General Ph: (518) 402–8540 Rocky River, OH 44116-3508 G. Mennen Williams Building, 6th Floor Fax: (518) 402–8541 Ph: (440) 333-9995 525 W. Ottawa Street Fax: (440) 333-9993 P.O. Box 30755 Philip Reed [email protected] Lansing, MI 48909 Jefferson County Legislator 42424 NYS Route 12 Ph: (517) 373-7540 Alexandria Bay, New York 13607 Fax: (517) 373-1610 (1 Vacancy) Ph: (315) 836-7187 [email protected] [email protected]

MINNESOTA James M. Tierney Alternate Commissioners Assistant Commissioner Michael Bailey, Commissioners Div. of Water Resources Chief * John Linc Stine NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Division of Soil and Water Resources Commissioner 625 Broadway Ohio Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Albany, NY 12233-1010 2045 Morse Rd., Building B-3 520 Lafayette Rd. Ph: (518) 402-8545 Columbus, OH 43229 St. Paul, MN 55155 Fax: (518) 402-9016 Ph: (614) 265-6618 Ph: (651) 296-6334 [email protected] Fax: (614) 262-2064 [email protected] [email protected] Donald E. Zelazny Hon. Carrie Ruud Great Lakes Program Coordinator John D. Baker State Senator NY State Dept. of Environmental President - Great Lakes District Council State Office Bldg., Room 25 Conservation International Longshoremen's Association, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 270 Michigan Ave. AFL-CIO St. Paul, MN 55155-1206 Buffalo, NY 14203-7134 103 Erieside Avenue Ph: (651) 296-4913 Ph: (716) 851-7220 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 [email protected] Fax: (716) 851-7226 Ph: (216) 781-7816 [email protected] Fax: (216) 781-7818 Hon. Ann Rest [email protected] State Senator Senate Office Bldg., Room 105 St. Paul, MN 55155-1209 (1 Vacancy) Ph: (651) 296-2889 [email protected]

-2-

Karl Gebhardt Alternate Associate Pat Lupo, OSB Deputy Director Commissioners Benedictine Sisters Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 355 E. 9th Street Brian Nixon 50 West Town Street Suite 700 Erie, PA 16503 Director P.O. Box 1049 Ph: (814) 490-3108 Environmental Intergovernmental Affairs Columbus, Ohio 43215-1049 Fax: (814) 480-8942 Branch Ph: (614) 644-2782 [email protected] Climate Change and Environmental Policy Fax: (614) 644-3184 Division [email protected] Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Alternate Commissioners

Climate Change Lori A. Boughton ONTARIO 77 Wellesly St. W – 10th Floor Environmental Program Manager Toronto, ONT M7A 2t5 Watershed Management Associate Commissioners Ph: (416) 212-1340 PA Dept. of Environmental Protection *Bill Carr Fax: (416) 212-3296 230 Chestnut Street Senior Manager [email protected] Meadville, PA 16335 Office of Intern'l Relations & Protocol Ph: (814) 332-6984 The Cabinet Office Eric Boysen, Director Fax: (814) 332-6117 1075 Bay Street, Room 830 Biodiversity Branch [email protected] Toronto, ONT M5S 2B1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ph: (416) 325-8552 & Forestry th QUÉBEC Fax: (416) 325-8550 300 Water St., 5 Floor, North tower [email protected] Peterborough, ONT K9J 8M5 Associate Commissioners Ph: (705) 755-5999 *Eric Marquis Rosalyn Lawrence Fax: (705) 755-2901 Assistant Deputy Minister [email protected] Québec Government Representative in Natural Resource Management Division Chicago Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Jill Hughes Government of Québec 99 Wellesley St. West Director, Transportation Policy Branch 444 N. Michigan Ave. Toronto, ONT M7A 1W3 Policy and Planning Division Suite 1900 Ph: (416) 314-6132 Ministry of Transportation Chicago, IL 60611 Fax: (416) 314-1994 777 Bay St., 30th Floor Ph: (312) 645-0392 [email protected] Toronto, ONT M7A 2J8 Fax: (312) 645-0542 Ph: (416) 585-7177 [email protected] Robert Fleming Fax: (416) 585-7204 Assistant Deputy Minister [email protected] Daniel Richard Integrated Environmental Policy Division Directeur Ontario Ministry of the Environment Ranissah Samah Direction des relations 77 Wellesley Street Block Senior Policy Advisor, USA intergouvernementales Toronto, ONT M7A 2T5 Office of International Relations MDDELCC Ph: (416) 314-6352 675, boul. René-Lévesque Est and Protocol e Fax: (416) 314-6346 The Cabinet Office 5 étage, Boîte 33 [email protected] 1075 Bay Street, Suite 830 Québec, QC G1R 5V7 Toronto, ONT M5S 2B1 Ph: (418) 521-3828 ext. 4604 John Lieou Ph: (416) 325-9739 [email protected] Assistant Deputy Minister Fax: (416) 325-8550 Policy and Planning Division [email protected] Nathalie Camden Ministry of Transportation Sous-ministre associée aux Forêts, à la 77 Wellesley Street West Faune et aux Parcs 3rd Floor, Ferguson Block PENNSYLVANIA Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Toronto, ONT M7A 1Z8 Parcs e Ph: (416) 327-8521 Commissioners 880, chemin Sainte-Foy, 10 étage Fax: (416) 327-8746 Québec, QC G1S 4X4 [email protected] *VACANT Ph: (418) 627-8652 Fax: (418) 644-9727 [email protected]

Robert W. Light Marc Gagnon Senior Associate Dean Director, Penn State Erie Government Affairs The Behrend College Fednav Limited 4701 College Drive 1000, rue de la Gauchetière Ouest Erie, PA 16563 Suite 3500 PH: (814) 898-6160 Montréal, QC H3B 4W5 Fax: (814)898-6461 Ph: (514) 878-6470 [email protected] Fax: (514) 878-7670 [email protected]

-3-

Josée Hallé Stephen G. Galarneau Directrice Director Direction du transport maritime, aérien et Office of the Great Lakes ferroviaire WI Dept. of Natural Resources Ministère des Transports du Québec 101 S. Webster St. 700, boul. René-Lévesque Est, 24e étage P.O. Box 7921 Québec, QC G1R 5H1 Madison, WI 53707-7921 Ph: (418) 643-1864 Ph: (608) 266-1956 Fax: (418) 646-4904 [email protected] [email protected] Dean Haen Alternate Associate Director Commissioners Port of Green Bay 2561 S. Broadway St Eve Joseph Green Bay, WI 54304 Secrétariat au transport maritime et à la Ph: (920) 492-4950 mise en valeur du Saint-Laurent [email protected] Ministère des Transports du Québec

700, boul. René-Lévesque Est

24e étage Québec QC G1R 5H1 GLC Executive Director Ph: (418) 644-2908, ext. 2266 Tim A. Eder Fax: (418) 646-6196 Executive Director [email protected] Eisenhower Corporate Park 2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #100 Jérôme Faivre Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791 Direction des relations Ph: (734) 971-9135 intergouvernementales Fax: (734) 971-9150 MDDELCC [email protected] 675 René-Lévesque Boulevard, East 5th étage Box 33 * denotes State/Province Delegation Chair Québec, QC G1R DV7 Ph: (418)-521-3828x4135 Fax: (418)643-0001 [email protected]

Frédéric Lecomte Direction générale de l’Expertise sur la faune et ses habitats, Ministére des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs 880, chemin Sainte-Foy, 2nd Floor Québec, QC G1S 4X4 Ph: (418) 627-8694x7121 Fax: (418) 646-6863 [email protected]

WISCONSIN

Commissioners *Russell Rasmussen Natural Resources Manager WI Dept. of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster Street – AD/8 P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53703 Ph: (608) 261-7599 Fax: (608) 266-6983 [email protected]

Lynn Dufrane Senior Vice President Nicolet National Bank N1420 Shore Drive Marinette, WI 54143 Ph: (715) 732-2695 [email protected]

-4- OBSERVERS Eisenhower Corporate Park 2805 S. industrial hwy., Suite 100 Sept 10, 2015 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791 Ph: 734-971-9135 Fax: 734-971-9150

U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation John Krummel Martin Sterkel Service Director Midwest Region Terry Cosby Environmental Science Division Associate Regional Director, Natural State Conservationist Argonne National Laboratory Resource Stewardship, Science, and 200 North High Street, Room 52 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 240 Partnerships Columbus, OH 43215 Argonne, IL 60439-4847 601 Riverfront Drive Ph: (614) 255-2472 Ph: (630) 252-3269 Omaha, Nebraska 68102 [email protected] Fax: (630) 252-6090 Ph: (402) 661-1536 [email protected] Fax: (402) 661-1982 Alternates Cell: (402) 616-6114 Garry Lee, State Conservationist U.S. DEPT OF HOMELAND [email protected] 3001 Coolidge Road, Ste. 250 SECURITY East Lansing, MI. 48823-6350 U.S. Coast Guard U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Ph : (517) 324-5277 RDML June Ryan St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. Fax : (517) 324-5171 Commander Craig H. Middlebrook [email protected] Ninth Coast Guard District Deputy Administrator 1240 East Ninth St., Room 2081 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Michael Moorman Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 Suite W32-300 National GLRI Coordinator, NRCS Ph: (216) 902-6001 Washington, DC 20590 1400 Independence Avenue SW Fax: (216) 902-6059 Ph: (202) 366-0091 Room 5213-S [email protected] Fax: (202) 366-7147 Washington, D.C. 20250 [email protected] Ph: (202) 205-7703 Alternate Cell: (202)690-2257 Lorne W. Thomas Maritime Administration [email protected] Government Affairs Officer Floyd Miras, Director Ninth Coast Guard District Great Lakes Gateway U.S. DEPT OF COMMERCE 1240 East Ninth Street 500 West Madison Street, Suite 1110 NOAA/GLERL Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 Chicago, IL 60661 Deborah Lee, Director Ph: (216) 902-6022 Ph: (312) 353-1032 Great Lakes Environmental Fax: (216) 902-6027 Fax: (312) 353-1036 Research Laboratory [email protected] [email protected] 4840 South State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48108-9719 U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Ph: (734) 741-2244 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service AGENCY Fax: (734) 741-2055 Craig A. Czarnecki Chris Korleski, Director [email protected] Assistant Regional Director Great Lakes National Program Office Science Applications Midwest Region NOAA/OCRM 77 W. Jackson Blvd. – G17J 2651 Coolidge Rd., Suite 101 Chicago, IL 60604 Jeffrey L. Payne, Acting Director East Lansing, MI 48823 Ph: (312) 353-2117 Office for Coastal Management Ph: (517) 351-8470 Fax: (312) 353-2018 1305 East-West Hwy. Fax: (517) 351-1443 [email protected] Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Ph: (301) 713-3155 x123 Fax: (301) 713-4012 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT U.S. Geological Survey (FEDERAL) [email protected] Russell M. Strach Center Director Program Officer, Environment and Energy SEA GRANT Great Lakes Science Center Canadian Embassy Robert W. Light 1451 Green Road Ambassade du Canada Sr. Associate Dean Ann Arbor, MI 48105 501 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Penn State Erie Ph: (734) 214-7200 Washington, D.C. 20001 The Behrend College Fax: (734) 214-7238 Ph: 202-448-6313 4701 College Drive [email protected] Fax. 202-682-7792 Erie, PA 16563 PH: (814) 898-6160 Alternate GREAT LAKES FISHERY FAX: (814)898-6461 Norman G. Grannemann, Coordinator COMMISSION [email protected] Great Lakes Program Bob Lambe U.S. Geological Survey Executive Secretary U.S. DEPT OF DEFENSE 6520 Mercantile Way, Suite 5 2100 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 209 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lansing, MI 48911 Ann Arbor, MI 48105-1563 Jan Miller Ph: (517) 887-8936 Ph: (734) 669-3209 Environmental Engineer Fax: (517) 887-8937 Fax: (734) 741-2010 Great Lakes and Ohio River Division [email protected] [email protected] 231 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60604-1437 Ph: (312) 846-5347 [email protected] -1- INTERNATIONAL JOINT GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL THE NATURE CONSERVANCY COMMISSION LAW CENTER Richard Bowman Trish Morris Nick Schroeck, Attorney Michigan Chapter Director 4444 2nd Avenue Director of Government Relations Great Lakes Regional Office Detroit, MI 48201 Policy Lead, Great Lakes Project 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Flr Ph (313) 820-7797 101 E. Grand River Avenue Windsor, ONT N9A 6T3 [email protected] Lansing, MI 48906 Ph: (519) 257-6715 Ph: (517) 316-2267 Fax: (519) 257-6740 GREAT LAKES OBSERVING Fax: (517) 316-9886 [email protected] SYSTEM [email protected] Kelli Paige (U.S. mailing address) Executive Director NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION P.O. Box 32869 229 Nickels Arcade Mike Shriberg, Director Detroit, MI 48232 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 213 W. Liberty #200 Ph: (313) 226-2170 Ph: (734) 332-6101 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Fax: (734) 332-6120 Ph: (734) 887-7100 COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES [email protected] [email protected] GOVERNORS David Naftzger JOHN G. SHEDD AQUARIUM GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE Executive Director Michelle Parker CITIES INITIATIVE 20 North Wacker Dr., Suite 2700 Vice President David Ullrich, Executive Director Chicago, IL 60606 Great Lakes and Sustainability 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Ph: (312) 407-0177 John G. Shedd Aquarium Chicago, IL 60606 Fax: (312) 407-0038 1200 S. Lake Shore Drive Ph: (312) 201-4516 [email protected] Chicago, IL 60605 Fax: (312) 407-0038 Office: (312) 692-3191 [email protected] COASTAL STATES [email protected] ORGANIZATION NORTHWEST INDIANA FORUM Mary Munson Alternate Kay L. Nelson Executive Director Jim Robinett Director of Environmental Affairs Hall of the States, Suite 322 Senior Vice President Northwest Indiana Forum 444 North Capitol St., N.W. External and Regulatory Affairs John G. Shedd Aquarium 6100 Southport Road Washington, D.C. 20001 Portage, IN 46368 Ph: (202) 508-3861 1200 S. Lake Shore Drive Fax: (202) 508-3843 Chicago, IL 60605 Ph: (219) 763-6303 [email protected] Ph: (312) 692-3235 Fax: (219) 763-2653 Fax: (312) 939-4312 [email protected] ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT [email protected]

LAKES SIERRA CLUB GREAT LAKES Joel Brammeier NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROGRAM President and CEO CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Allison Horton 150 N. Michigan Avenue 2727 Second Avenue, Suite 112 Suite 700 VACANT Detroit, MI 48201 Chicago, Il 60601 Ph: (231) 922-2201 Ph: (312) 445-9727 Fax: (313) 962-1129 [email protected] [email protected] CHIPPEWA/OTTAWA RESOURCE COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES AUTHORITY INDUSTRIES Mike Ripley. Environmental Coordinator Kathryn Buckner Albert LeBlanc Bldg. President 179 W. Three Mile Rd. 3600 Green Court, Suite 710 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ph: (906) 632-0072 Ph: (734) 663-1944 Fax: (906) 632-1141 Fax: (734) 663-2424 [email protected] [email protected] HELSINKI COMMISSION DUCKS UNLIMITED Monika Stankiewicz Gildo M. Tori Executive Secretary Director of Public Policy Katajanokanlaituri 6 B Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office FI-00160 Helsinki, Finland 1220 Eisenhower Place Ph: +358 207 412 649 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Fax: +358 207 412 645 Ph: (734) 623-2000 [email protected] Fax: (734) 623-2035 www.helcom.fi [email protected]

-2-

GREAT LAKES COMMISSION Eisenhower Corporate Park 2805 S. Industrial Hwy., Suite #100 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6791 Ph: 734-971-9135 – Fax: 734-971-9150

STAFF

Tim A. Eder, Executive Director

Directors Stephen J. Cole, Chief Information Officer Thomas R. Crane, Deputy Director Matt Doss, Policy Director Victoria Pebbles, Program Director

Program Staff Laura Andrews, Design Manager David Betcher, GIS Program Specialist Heather Braun, Senior Project Manager Sarah Cook, Program Specialist Lisa Denys, GIS Program Specialist Stuart Eddy, Project Manager Katherine Hollins, Program Specialist Erika Jensen, Project Manager Michèle Leduc-Lapierre, Program Specialist Elizabeth Lillard, Program Specialist Jeff McAulay, Web Development Manager Gary Overmier, Senior Project Manager Rebecca Pearson, Project Manager Michael Schneider, Senior Program Specialist Guan Wang, GIS Programmer/Analyst

Administrative Staff Joe Bertram, Financial Services Manager Pat Gable, Administrative Assistant Laura Kaminski, Grants and Contracts Manager Marty Morrice, IT Manager

Research Associates/Interns/Fellows Mélanie Adam, Government of Québec Intern Sam Molnar, Sea Grant Fellow

Contract Staff John Hummer, Lake Michigan Nearshore Monitoring David L. Knight, Great Lakes Dredging Team and Special Projects Devra Polack, Web Design and Communications Anne Sturm, Michigan Clean Water Corps