DOCSLIB.ORG

General Charter Fishing 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Charter Fishing 2002 The Great Lakes Charter Fishing Great Lakes Network Ohio Sea Grant College Program Industry in 2002 Frank R. Lichtkoppler, Introduction Ohio Sea Grant Extension; Table 1 Chuck Pistis, In the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003 the Great Lakes Sea Ownership and Organization of Great Lakes Michigan Sea Grant Extension; Grant Network conducted a comprehensive survey of the Charter Boat Fishing Businesses and Diane Kuehn, charter fishing industry of the Great Lakes. The survey is an New York Sea Grant Extension effort to provide an update on the status, characteristics and Percent of Number of economics of the charter fishing business in the Great Lakes Characteristic Respondents Respondents This publication summarizes and is modeled after a similar survey conducted in 1994. the findings of the Great Lakes All data reported here are for the year 2002. Business Ownership 773 Sea Grant Network study on Sole proprietor 84% 647 the charter industry in the Great Methods Partnership 4% 29 Lakes. Individual fact sheets Corporation 10% 76 have been developed in Lead by Ohio Sea Grant, the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network conjunction with the Great Lakes programs surveyed the Great Lakes charter-fishing captains Other 2% 21 Fisheries Leadership Institute during October 2002 to April 2003 using a modified Dillman Business Organization 855 for the following regions: Illinois- mail survey technique (Dillman 1978). Non-respondents Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, were sent up to three reminder letters. In 2002, there were Owned own boat 88% 755 New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, an estimated 1,932 Great Lakes charter captains representing Leased or rented boat 1% 10 and Wisconsin. The goal of a decline of over 24% from the estimated 2,547 captains Salaried employee 1% 12 the Great Lakes Fisheries Freelance hire per trip 7% 57 Leadership Institute is to provide in 1994. A total of 1,767 captains were surveyed and 868 the next generation of fisheries captains returned surveys with usable data, a response rate Other arrangement 3% 21 leaders for the Great Lakes of 49%. Of the responding captains, about 16% were from region with the skills they New York, 1% from Pennsylvania, 41% from Ohio, 24% need to effectively interact with from Michigan, 3% from Illinois-Indiana, 13% from fisheries management agencies. Wisconsin, and 2% from Minnesota. Table 2 This document was produced Reasons for Entering/Remaining in the Great Lakes by the Ohio Sea Grant College Business Charter Fishing Business Program as a part of the 868 Respondents were asked to check all items that applied. Great Lakes Fishery Leadership The typical Great Lakes charter-fishing captain in 2002 is a Institute project of the Great composite of all of the data from all of the lakes. The captain Percent of Lakes Sea Grant Network. has been licensed for 13.4 years. Business organization and Reason Respondents boat ownership patterns are presented in this summary Produced by the Ohio Sea (Table 1). About 90% of the responding captains operated their Help people enjoy fishing 72% Grant College Program as a own charter firm. An estimated 42% of the Great Lakes char- Like the work 68% part of the Great Lakes Fishery ter captains had their homeport on Lake Erie/St Clair, 33% Secondary source of income 54% Leadership Institute project of on Lake Michigan, 15% on Lake Ontario/Niagara River/St. Primary income source 18% the Great Lakes Sea Grant Lawrence River, and 5% each on Lake Huron and Lake Other 7% Network. The Great Lakes Sea Superior. Most businesses (89 %) operated one boat, over 8% Grant network is a cooperative program of the Illinois-Indiana, operated two boats and just under 3% of respondents operat- Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ed three or more boats. Charterboats were typically 28.8 feet Ohio, Pennsylvania and long, almost 16 years old, and powered by an inboard (76%), Table 3 Wisconsin Sea Grant programs. inboard/outdrive (16%) or outboard (8%) motor. Benefits of Membership in an Ohio Professional Through its network of extension The average replacement cost for a Great Lakes charter Charter Boat Association agents, researchers, and vessel is $72,693, and the replacement cost for onboard busi- 847 Respondents* were asked to select the top three reasons. communicators, the Great Lakes ness-related equipment is, $12,523. About 33% of the respon- Sea Grant Network supplies Percent of dents use a vehicle for towing their boat and other charter- Benefit Respondents the region with usable solutions related business. The average replacement cost of the vehicle to pressing problems and pro- was $26,533; for the trailer it is $3,982. The vehicle is used Drug testing 50% vides basic information needed Advertising 36% to better manage the Great for boat towing over 18% of the time and for other charter Lakes and inland waters for both business about 36% of the time. Industry representation to state, federal, 34% present and future generations and local authorities (www.greatlakesseagrant.org). Captains Education on current issues and regulations 30% Over 97% of the responding captains were “six-pack” opera- Increased business 16% OHSU-TS-039 tors, licensed to carry no more than six passengers. Notably, Can share charters 14% June 2003 less than 18% of the captains rely on the charter business as Obtain business operation ideas and advice 14% their primary source of income (Table 2). Group insurance 12% About 69% of the 847 responding captains are members of Get tips about fishing 12% a professional charter captains association. The top four cited Can obtain pricing information 7% benefits of membership in a professional charter captains Other benefits 5% association are drug testing, advertising, and industry repre- * 69% are members of a professional sentation to state, federal and local authorities and education charter captains’ association. © The Ohio State University on current issues and regulations (Table 3). Table 4 Trips Estimated Trips and Revenues* for the Great Lakes Charter Industry Responding captains average 28.3 full-day and 25.1 half-day 689 Respondents paid charter trips per year. Just over 50% of these trips are for Number Average No. Average Revenues lake trout and salmon. Almost 26% of the trips are for walleye, Fish Species of Trips Trips/Business Charge/Trip Earned 12% are for steelhead, over 6% are for small mouth bass and not quite 6% are for yellow perch. Applying the response data Walleye to the total population of active captains yields an estimated Full day 18,857 10.8 $ 401 $ 4,334 93,209 charter trips of which 53% were full day and 47% were Half day 5,290 3.0 308 935 half-day trips (Table 4). Lake trout and Salmon On average, 7% of Great Lakes charter captains fished on a Full day 16,709 9.6 453 4,334 Half day 29,944 17.2 328 5,622 Great Lake other than the one on which their homeport a was located. Of those captains that fished on another waterbody, Steelhead Full day 5,954 3.4 424 1,445 about 33% of their charters were conducted on the other lakes. Half day 5,290 3.0 317 961 In the Great Lakes an estimated 25% of the total trips con- Smallmouth bass ducted are run in August, 24% in July, 20% in June, over 12% Full day 4,679 2.7 380 1,018 in the September, 12% in May, over 3% in October, 3% in Half day 995 0.6 269 153 April and less than 1% in March. Yellow perch Charter fees vary according to lake, state, target species, Full day 3,195 1.8 337 617 length of the charter, and services offered. The most popular Half day 2,287 1.3 278 364 trip was the half-day lake trout and salmon charter; its cost Subtotals across the region averaged $328 per boat (range $25 to $560). Full day 49,394 28.3 $ 11,748 Half-day trips were defined as trips lasting less than seven Half day 43,807 25.1 8,034 hours. Totals 93,209 53.4 $ 19,290 Services and Provisions * The numbers of trips are an extrapolation of respondent trip rates applied to Most charter businesses provide tackle, ice, bait, and fish the total population of Great Lakes charter captains (Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, cleaning as part of their standard charter trip service. Some Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior). Revenues are calculated from captains also offer fish cleaning, trip photos/videos, or lodging the average number of trips/business multiplied by the average charge/trip. and food for an additional fee (Table 5). Costs and Returns Table 5 For boat owning captains, the largest annual operating expens- Services Offered by Great Lakes Charter Boat Operators es were for fuel and oil, dockage, hired labor, and equipment ------- Percent of Respondents ------ repair (Table 6). Boat loan payments are a high cash outlay but Service or Provision Included in Base Included for Number of are not part of operating costs. Charter Fee Additional Fee Respondents The average cash requirement to operate the charter firm includes the operating expenses plus the boat loan payments. Tackle 97% 2% 797 Average annual boat loan payments including principal and Ice 93% 2% 743 interest are $4,041. The average annual cash needed to operate Bait 88% 5% 755 a Great Lakes charter firm is $15,484 for those making boat Fish cleaning 65% 18% 752 loan payments and $11,443 for those who do not (Table 7). This Photos/Video 35% 14% 601 means that the typical charter firm that owns and operates a Lodging/Food 8% 33% 545 single vessel must generate sales of either $15,484 or $11,443 just to meet the cash needs of the firm.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Great Lakes Water Agreements
    water brief 2 Peter Schulte The Great Lakes comprise the largest surface freshwater system on Earth, containing Theroughly 84 Great percent of the Lakes freshwater inWater North America Agreements and about 21 percent of the world’s total freshwater supply (see Figure WB 2.1). The Great Lakes Basin is home to more than 30 million people in the United States and Canada and accounts for 7 per- cent of American farm production and 25 percent of Canadian farm production (US EPA 2008). Freshwater is among the region’s most valuable and important resources— economically, ecologically, and culturally. In the last century, however, these resources have been subjected to heavy pollution and increased withdrawals and diversions often leading to adverse ecological and community impacts. In response, many have called for more effective and coordinated management of the Basin’s freshwater resources. The Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (not to be confused with the Great Lakes Basin Compact of 1968) is the most recent and comprehensive in a long series of legislative actions to strengthen and coordinate basin water management while protecting it from use by interests outside the region. Water management concerns in the Great Lakes Basin have for decades been largely centered on concerns about pollution and diversion of the water resources and how best to protect those resources from out-of-basin interests. Given the location of the basin at the border of the U.S. and Canada, many of these problems—and the policies Historydesigned to addressof Shared them—are Water transboundary Resource in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Governance of the Great Lakes
    LAW AND GOVERNANCE OF THE GREAT LAKES Noah D. Hall and Benjamin C. Houston* INTRODUCTION The Great Lakes are vast. The five lakes that make up the sys- tem—Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario—comprise the largest freshwater system on Earth and contain approximately one- fifth of the world’s water supply.1 The Great Lakes provide water for consumption, highways for trade and transportation, fuel for power, and natural beauty for recreation.2 Approximately 35 million people live within the Great Lakes Basin, and 23 million depend on the Lakes for their drinking water.3 The Lakes are more than 750 miles wide and have a surface area greater than 300,000 square miles; there are 25,000 square miles of connected smaller lakes, hundreds of miles of navigable rivers, and 10,000 miles of shoreline.4 Simply put, the Great Lakes are enormous in their physical size and quantity of water. The enormity of the Great Lakes is matched by a governance and legal regime that can overwhelm attorneys and policymakers. The system is shared and governed by two countries, eight states,5 two provinces, and numerous Indian tribes and First Nations, in addition to a multitude of American, Canadian, and international agencies, as well as thousands of local governments.6 This “patchwork” of Great * Noah D. Hall, Associate Professor, Wayne State University Law School; J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1998; B.S., University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Envi- ronment, 1995. Benjamin C. Houston, LL.M., Lewis & Clark Law School; J.D., University of Michigan Law School; B.A., Kalamazoo College.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Agreement: What Happens in the Great Lakes Won’T Stay in the Great Lakes
    THE GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BASIN AGREEMENT: WHAT HAPPENS IN THE GREAT LAKES WON’T STAY IN THE GREAT LAKES Kelly Kane This article provides a discussion of the current protections provided for the Great Lakes, and calls for an international binding agreement to ensure their continued protection. All past agreements between the United States and Canada to protect the Lakes have been purely good faith, and have no binding effect on the parties. The Great Lakes states and provinces have committed themselves to a good-faith agreement that bans all major withdrawals or diversions, subject to three exceptions. This Agreement has no legally binding effect on the states and provinces. The states, however, have created a legally binding Compact that does not include the Great Lakes provinces. The Great Lakes states have the power to make decisions regarding major withdrawals or diversions of Great Lakes water without the consent of the provinces. Although the current protections are morally binding, they will not provide enough protection for the Lakes given the increased concerns over water quality and quantity issues across the world. The federal governments of the United States and Canada should enter into a legally binding agreement to ensure the long-lasting enjoyment and protection of the Lakes. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 430 PART I: BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 432 A.Federalism and Water Management Approaches in the United States and Canada ........................................................................ 432 B.Legal History of Protections Placed on the Great Lakes ............. 433 C.Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement .................................................................. 438 D.The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Colorado Law University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2006 Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Citation Information Mark Squillace, Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact, 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347, available at http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/ articles/380/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347 2006 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Mar 28 15:59:48 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information RETHINKING THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT Mark Squillace" 2006 MICH.
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Great Lakes Strategy Steers Ahead
    GREAT LAKES INSERT:Layout 1 11/12/08 12:18 PM Page 1 WISCONSIN’S GREAT LAKES STRATEGY STEERS AHEAD. The Spiritof Collaboration GREAT LAKES INSERT:Layout 1 11/12/08 12:18 PM Page 2 A national treasure GREAT LAKES PROTECTION AND RESTORATION. ave you ever dipped your toes into Lake Superior’s clear, icy waters? Experi- enced the excitement of a Great Lakes charter fishing Htrip? Enjoyed a Lake Michigan sunrise or a sunset on a Door County beach? Nearly all of us in Wisconsin live within a short distance of a world- class water resource. To the west flows the mighty Mississippi River. To the east Wisconsin is bordered by Lake Michigan. To the north lie the vast wa- ters of Lake Superior. Aside from their stunning beauty, these two Great Lakes are critical to our health and welfare. “The Great Lakes define this re- gion and their waters sustain our recreation, our way of life and our U.S. EPA economy,” says Wisconsin Gov. Jim ROBERT QUEEN Doyle. “From the majestic shores of Lake Superior wetlands provide great places to canoe and bird watch. Lake Michigan hosts an active charter fishing trip business. Lake Michigan to the brutal and beau- tiful waters of Lake Superior, the Great Lakes are not just part of our hangs on careful management. brings the message home and ad- heritage, but part of who we are.” “As Governor, I’ve taken aggres- dresses the Collaboration’s priority is- The five Great Lakes make up one- sive action to protect these resources,” sues in Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here?
    Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Legal context • Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 -Attempt to prevent or resolve United StateslCanada water disputes over boundary levels and flows -Created International Joint Commission • Great Lakes Charter of 1985 -Voluntary, primarily non-substantive collective management agreement among Great Lakes states and Canadian provinces • Water Resources Devetopment Act of 1986 -Federal statute subjecting approval by Great Lakes standard • Great Lakes Charter Annex of 2001 -"Agreement to agree" contair binding agreement with decision-making standard Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? Late 1970s - proposal to construct coal slurry pipeline from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to Duluth using Lake Superlor water to suspend |he coal Early 1980s - U.S, Army studies the feasibility of using Great Lakes Water to replenish the O, Great Lakes Compact- How Did We Get Here? 1998 - "Nova Group" proposal to ship Lake Superior water to private customers in Asia approved by Ontario Great Lakes Agreement Great Lakes Compact Great Lakes-St, Lawrence River Basin Great Lakes-St, Lawrence River Basin Water Sustainable Water Resources Agreement Resources Compact • Good-faith, nonbinding policy agreement between . Binding and legally enforceable agreement the American member states (lllinols, Indiana, administered primarily under the regulatory Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, authority of individual Great Lakes states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) and Canadian member consented to by Congress provinces (Ontario, Quebec) • Embodies same principles as Agreement with * Governed by Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Canadian provinces Basin Water Resources Regional Body • Became effective after final consent from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2006 Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact Mark Squillace University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Citation Information Mark Squillace, Rethinking the Great Lakes Compact, 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347, available at http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/380/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1347 2006 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Mar 28 15:59:48 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information RETHINKING THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT Mark Squillace" 2006 MICH.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Great Lakes States' Implementation of the Water
    An Assessment of the Great Lakes States’ Implementation of the Water Management and Conservation Provisions of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact By the University of Toledo College of Law’s Legal Institute of the Great Lakes Kenneth Kilbert Aubrey Merkle Forrest Miller October 2019 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498342 Legal Institute of the Great Lakes Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 3 II. Compact’s Water Management and Water Conservation & Efficiency Provisions 4 III. State-by-State Analysis 7 Illinois 8 Indiana 16 Michigan 25 Minnesota 35 New York 44 Ohio 53 Pennsylvania 63 Wisconsin 73 Appendix: Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact About the Authors The Legal Institute of the Great Lakes is a multidisciplinary center within the University of Toledo College of Law. Kenneth Kilbert is the director of the Legal Institute of the Great Lakes and a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law. Aubrey Merkle is a second-year student and Forrest Miller is a third-year student at the University of Toledo College of Law. Acknowledgments The authors thank The Joyce Foundation for the generous grant that funded this research project. Special thanks to Elizabeth Cisar, senior program officer for the environment at The Joyce Foundation, for her valuable input and guidance. i Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498342 Legal Institute of the Great Lakes Executive Summary The Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact, which took effect in December 2008, ushered in a new era of water management for each of the eight Great Lakes states -- Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Compact: a Policy Guide for State Implementation
    REALIZING THE PROMISE OF THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT: A POLICY GUIDE FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION Midwest Environmental ADVOCATES pro bono publico REALIZING THE PROMISE OF THE GREAT LAKES COMPACT: A POLICY GUIDE FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION Primary Authors Melissa K. Scanlan, Executive Director, Midwest Environmental Advocates Jodi Habush Sinykin, Of Counsel, Midwest Environmental Advocates James Krohelski, Hydrologist, United States Geological Survey* Reviewers Steve Born, Professor Emeritus, UW-Madison Mary Ericson, National Wildlife Federation Noah Hall, Assistant Professor, Wayne State University Law School George Kraft, Director, Center for Watershed Science and Central Wisconsin Groundwater Center* James Krohelski, USGS Peter McAvoy, 16th Street Community Health Center and Policy Consultant to Brico Fund Cheryl Mendoza, Alliance for the Great Lakes James Olson, Partner, Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C. Leigh Thomson, Polaris Institute Saul Wolf, Law Clerk, Midwest Environmental Advocates *Water supply section only Research Sources Douglas Cherkauer, Ph.D., Professor of Hydrogeology, UW-Milwaukee Steven Crandell, City of Waukesha Community Development Director Dan Duchniak, Waukesha Water Utility Doug Koehler, City of Waukesha Department of Community Development Planner Chuck Ledin, DNR, Chief, Great Lakes and Watershed Planning Section Thanks Midwest Environmental Advocates thanks the Brico Fund for funding this publication, the Mesa Refuge for providing the initial inspiration, our reviewers for new insights into the subject, and our research sources for filling in the information one cannot find in books. © 2006 Midwest Environmental Advocates, Inc. Community organizations, government entities, Midwest Environmental and other nonprofit organizations may make and distribute reproductions of this report for non-commercial purposes. ADVOCATES This notice of copyright must appear on each copy.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Year Plan for the Great Lakes Basin
    25 Year Plan for the Great Lakes I Executive Summary 1 The Great Lakes - Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan and Superior - together form the largest body of fresh j surface water in the world. In New York State, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers are key resources, with approximately 80 percent of the state's fresh surface water and more than 700 miles of mainland coast. In their drainage basins, which comprise about 40 percent of New York's total land area, the ecosystems of the two lakes sustain natural life, provide recreation and support local and regional economies. The 25-Year Plan Recognizing the importance of this resource, Governor Mario M. Cuomo directed the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to prepare a Great Lakes Management Agenda and 25- Year Plan for the region. The ~ volume summarizes e the recommendations of the 25-Year Plan, and sketches the information and policies from which the recommendations are derived. Representatives from 12 New York State agencies responsible for managing aspects of the Great Lakes ecosystem and the Governor's Great Lakes Basin Advisory Council participated in preparation of the Plan, which was reviewed in public meetings during summer, 1991. The Plan will serve as the management framework to promote the long-term vitality of the New York Great Lakes ecosystem. The 25-Year Plan recommends programs to assist in achieving six goals; which pertain to specific issue areas as well as processes: Goal 1: Formulate a "Shared Vision" Ensure that the quality of life and standard of living of people are improved by developing a shared vision of the Great Lakes ecosystem, so that society's actions and attitudes strengthen the viability and sustainability of this ecosystem's unique and valuable resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Water Management Chronology Key Events
    GREAT LAKES WATER MANAGEMENT CHRONOLOGY KEY EVENTS 1848-1985 1. 1848-1899. Chicago River reversed (“Illinois Diversion”) diverting water from Lake Michigan down the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and eventually to the Mississippi River to reverse flow of untreated domestic sewage into Lake Michigan and Chicago’s drinking water intakes. 2. 1899. Initial lawsuit filed before the U.S. Supreme Court by the States of Wisconsin, (et al.) challenging the Illinois Diversion. 3. 1909. International Boundary Waters Treaty signed between Great Britain (on behalf the Dominion of Canada) and the United States. Created the International Joint Commission (IJC), made up of three U.S. Commissioners (appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate) and three Canadian Commissioners (appointed by the Prime Minister) charged with responsibility for arbitrating disputes involving diversions and construction projects that affect the level and flow of boundary waters (does not include tributary or groundwater). 4. 1939-1943. Water begins to be diverted into Lake Superior from the Long Lac and Ogoki watersheds (Ontario) in the amount of 5580 cubic feet per second (3.6 billion gallons per day) for hydropower generation to support Allied armament manufacturing for WWII. 5. 1940-1950’s. The IJC establishes the Water Control Boards for St. Mary’s River, Niagara River, and Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River, charged with implementing water level and outflow control plans for run-of-river diversions to meet needs of hydropower and commercial navigation.) 6. 1967. Initial U.S. Supreme Court Consent Decree entered into regarding the Illinois Diversion, limiting the amount of the Diversion to 3,200 cubic feet per second (2.06 billion gallons per day).
    [Show full text]
  • Orlelnp MA PO LI C I EE
    ORlElNp MA PO LI C I EE CANADIAN SECTION I. INTERNATIONALJO~NT cOMMlB8lON INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION HANDBOOK ON ORIGIN, MANDATE, FUNCTIONS, STRUCTURE, PROCEDURES, POLICIES, PRACTICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SEPTEMBER 2000 © International Joint Commission, Canadian Section TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND ORIGIN .................................1 III. MISSION STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES .........................3 MISSION STATEMENT ....................................................4 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ....................................................4 IV. MANDATE AND FUNCTIONS .............................................5 THE BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY OF 1909 ...................................5 OTHER BILATERAL TREATIES, CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS ................15 The Lake of the Woods Convention and Protocol of 1925 ...............15 The Rainy Lake Convention of 1938 .................................16 The Treaty on the Diversion of the Niagara River of 1950 ...............16 The Columbia River Treaty of 1961 .................................17 The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 ...................18 The Agreement for Water Supply and Flood Control in the Souris River Basin of 1989 ...................................................27 The Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement of 1991 ..............28 ALERTING FUNCTION ....................................................29 V. RULES OF PROCEDURE .................................................30
    [Show full text]