Argus II Building • 400 Fourth Street • Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103-4816 • Phone: 734-665-9135Fax: 734-665-4370 • E-mail: glc@great-lakes.net • Web: www.glc.org

Irene Brooks, Chair; Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D., Executive Director

The Great Lakes Commission is an eight-state compact agency established in 1955�to promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin.�

• The ADVISOR is published bimonthly by the Great Lakes Commission •

A D V I S O R Vol. 12 No. 3 May/June 1999

Inside

Around the Lakes.......10

In this issue

Semiannual MeetingHighlights.....................2

Water is a powerful symbol: Perspectives fromour new Associate Member

Guest editorial

By the Hon. Paul Begin, Minister of the Environment,Government of Québec

Binational Great Lakes Commission *Overview of the Semiannual Meeting *Mayors Conference * Water quantitymanagement

Seaway Symposium * Farmlandpreservation

Register now for theCommission's Annual Meetingin Pittsburgh, Sept. 13-15

ANS Update�Model guidance on ANSlegislation, regulation andpolicy: A step forward forANS prevention andcontrol

Calendar......................12

Water is our most precious renewable resource. It is omnipresent in ourlives; in fact, human activity depends on it. Water is vital to our survivaland that of all living things, and it is essential to our quality of life.Moreover, water is inextricably linked to the economy, as it is the driving

force behind many agricultural, industrial and commercial activities. In Québec, as in theGreat Lakes region, water is a powerful symbol as it is intimately related to the exceptionalbeauty of our grandiose landscape.

Protection and restoration efforts in the St. Lawrence

For 10 years, the governments of Québec and Canada have worked together on the implementa-tion of an action plan—St. Lawrence Vision 2000—aimed at protecting and restoring the quality ofthe St. Lawrence and its environment. Thanks to the efforts of both governments, municipalities,industries, farmers and citizen groups, the overall quality of the mighty river has greatly improved.In June 1998, Phase III of the plan (which will end in 2003) was launched.

Over the five years of this phase, the government of Canada will invest $123 million and Québec$116 million for a total of $239 million for a number of projects: sediment decontamination; shorestabilization and protection; wetland acquisition and development; soil fertilization and phosphorusreduction plans; and protection of natural environments rich in biodiversity.

In June 1998, Canada and Québec also agreed on the creation of a marine park comprising thewaters of the Saguenay fjord and the waters of a major segment of the St. Lawrence River immedi-ately north and south of the Saguenay’s mouth. Several species of whales and marine mammalsspend the summer in the area. The park, managed on a joint basis, is intended to protect this uniqueecosystem, and the executive committee includes local representatives in the decisionmaking process.

Water export and interbasin transfer issues

Because of the abundance of water in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, we have long thoughtthat the resource was inexhaustible, that it could serve a huge variety of purposes in support to ex-panding populations and economic development without nearly any limit. But that is not the casetoday. Given the scope of present and future demands throughout the basin, we have all come to re-alize that we are faced with an increasingly limited resource.

As a result, we have given thought to the issue of water collection for exportation and interbasintransfers. This issue raises a wide range of questions and underscores the need to maintain a balancebetween present and future demands. Perhaps there is no real difference between the situation of alarge drainage basin and an aquifer. Recently, for example, the government and population wereforced to decide if it was reasonable to let a firm collect all of the surpluses from the renewable re-serve of an aquifer not used by local farmers, knowing that these surpluses could easily meet thecommunity’s future domestic and agricultural needs.

This situation could easily arise at the scale of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, forcing us tomake decisions or agree to procedures aimed at ensuring a balance between present water uses, the

Excerpt from Paul Begin’s remarks at the Great Lakes Commission’sSemiannual Meeting, May 18, 1999

continued on page 5

Commission Briefs........7

Aquatic nuisance species conference *Commission web site's new look *FY2000 budget * Great Lakesgauging stations * Commissionadvocacy work * GLIN hydrologysection * New Commissioners andObservers * Ratza scholarship recipient *Great "Legs" Commission

Page 2 ADVISOR

The Great Lakes Commission, an eight-statecompact agency founded in state and federallaw and dedicated to the use, management andprotection of the water resources of the GreatLakes basin, provides leadership in theimplementation of principles of sustainabledevelopment throughout the basin. Inpartnership with the Great Lakes states, theCommission addresses issues of resourcemanagement, environmental protection,transportation and economic development byserving as an accurate and objective source ofinformation; an effective forum for thedevelopment and coordination of public policy;and an active and committed advocate of basininterests.

Executive CommitteeChair Irene B. Brooks (PA)Vice Chair Nathaniel E. Robinson (WI)

Frank L. Kudrna (IL)Larry D. Macklin (IN)G. Tracy Mehan, III (MI)Thomas E. Huntley (MN)John P. Cahill (NY)J. William Moody (OH)Nathaniel E. Robinson (WI)

Executive DirectorMichael J. Donahue, Ph.D.

Program ManagersThomas R. Crane, ResourceManagement and Environmental Quality

Stephen J. Thorp, Transportation andEconomic Development

Julie R. Wagemakers, Communicationsand Information Management

Project ManagersMatthew Doss, Katherine Glassner-Shwayder, Christine Manninen,Thomas Rayburn

Program SpecialistsMorgan Anderson, Stuart Eddy, RichardGarcia, Karl Geil, Ric Lawson, DerekMoy, Victoria Pebbles, Jennifer Read,Michael Schneider, Lara Slee

Director of Research, Emeritus Albert G. Ballert, Ph.D.

Administrative StaffCappy Bilakos, Pat Gable, Marilyn Ratliff,Rita J. Straith

Research AssociatesKate Hackett, Erica Mirich,Elizabeth Repko

The Great Lakes Commission is an equalopportunity employer and complies with applicablefederal and state laws prohibiting discrimination. It isthe policy of the Commission that no person, on thebasis of race, gender, color, religion, national originor ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or priormilitary service status, shall be discriminated against.

Great Lakes Commission

Semiannual Meeting Highlights

Commission News and

ViewsBy Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.Executive Director

Sometimes, we need to look to our pastto see our future.

Forty-five years ago, our Great Lakesgovernors and legislators had an epiphanyof sorts. They realized that cooperation—not competition—was the key to unlock-ing the economic potential of NorthAmerica's heartland.They realized that col-laboration—not coin-cidence—was neededto ensure that environ-mental protection pro-grams were appliedconsistently. And, per-haps most importantly, they discoveredthat the dotted line down the middle ofthe lakes didn't really exist. In fact, theycame to realize that the only thing moredifficult than managing an entire basinwas managing half of one.

The outcome of this enlightenedthought, of course, was the Great LakesBasin Compact of 1955. It envisioned anorganization that would look beyond geo-political boundaries—even internationalones—and focus instead on watershedboundaries. States and provinces wouldbe co-equal partners in the endeavor.And, the organization would be some-thing of a Great Lakes ambassador, mov-ing comfortably among all levels of gov-ernance to strengthen binational relationsand, ultimately, to promote the economicand environmental well-being of the ba-sin and its people.

Any student of Great Lakes governance,of course, knows that the U.S. Congressand the federal administration of the timeshared only part of this vision; congres-sional consent language did not include aprovincial membership provision. Conse-quently, for the first three and a half de-cades of its existence, the Great LakesCommission focused largely on interstaterelations and U.S. domestic issues, withonly informal ties to Ontario and Québec.

The Great Lakes Commission of the1990s, however, has not been one to per-petuate the status quo. Its members revis-ited the intent of the Compact and vowedto see it realized. The Commission

adopted a provincial membership initia-tive that was subsequently endorsed byevery Great Lakes governor and premier.The Commission's Strategic Plan em-braced a binational focus, and Canadianfederal and provincial involvement inCommission activities (and vice versa)

increased exponen-tially. And, theCommission's legalcounsel determinedthat U.S. Congressionalconsent legislation wasnot a necessary pre-con-dition to securing full

provincial membership.A truly significant milestone was

reached in Montreal on May 18 with thesigning of a "Declaration of Partnership,"establishing an Associate Member pro-gram for the provinces "as an importantstep toward the goal of a stronger partner-ship as provided for in the Great LakesBasin Compact." The Government ofQuébec joined officials from every GreatLakes state in signing the declaration,and, with positive signals received fromOntario, a 10th and final signature is an-ticipated.

To be sure, there's more work to bedone as we move toward the kind ofstate/provincial partnership that onlyfull membership can bring; the kind ofpartnership envisioned by our foundingfathers. We'll be working hard to inte-grate state/provincial and related bina-tional considerations into our programsand priorities. We'll be demonstratingthe value added of this new arrange-ment to the entire Great Lakes-St.Lawrence community. And, we'll con-tinue dialogue with our U.S. and Cana-dian federal colleagues to ensure thatthe benefits of a strengthened state/pro-vincial partnership, via full provincialmembership, are fully applied tostrengthen binational programs andpolicies.

The foundation has been laid, andwe're well on our way. Welcome to thenew binational Great Lake Commission!

Introducing the binational GreatLakes Commission

May/June 1999 Page 3

Semiannual Meeting Highlights

Policymakers and opinion leaders fromthroughout the binational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region convened on May17 in Montreal, Québec, for a fullagenda of business at the Great LakesCommission’s Semiannual Meeting.More than 140 Commission delegates,Observers and friends met to discuss legis-lative and appropriations priorities, part-nership opportunities with the govern-ments of Ontario and Québec, new re-source management initiatives, and mea-sures to enhance and promote maritimetransportation on the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence system.

The meeting was followed by a SeawaySymposium on May 19 (see story on page9) and the 13th annual International GreatLakes-St. Lawrence Mayors’ Conference onMay 20-21 (see story on page 5).

The day-long meeting began with awelcome from Montreal Mayor PierreBourque and opening comments fromMichel Robitaille, director of the U.S.Division of the Ministry of InternationalAffairs and Québec's Observer to theGreat Lakes Commission. Paul Begin,Minister of the Environment for the gov-ernment of Québec, was on hand to key-note the event.

“The choice of Montreal to host thismeeting is an eloquent testimony to therole the city has played since the verybirth of the Americas as the point of en-try and departure for the heart of the con-tinent,” said Begin.

Begin also discussed Québec’s watermanagement policy, a policy that toucheson both water quality and water quantitymanagement issues.

The luncheon keynote address wasgiven by Hugues Morrissette, DirecteurGeneral, Secretariat a la mise en valeurdu Saint-Laurent. He extended thanks toall who have had a positive influence onthe development of the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence system, and stressed that geog-raphy should prevail over politics whenit comes to taking care of water resources.

“We are here because of water,” saidMorrissette. “We are here because weneed each other to preserve and developthis unique and wonderful asset that is

U.S. and Canadian leaders address environmental protection, maritimetransportation issues at Commission�s Semiannual Meeting

the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system.”Morrissette also received the

Commission's "Outstanding Service"award in recognition of his leadership inpromoting strong state/provincial rela-tions within the Great LakesCommission's structure.

Selected policy actionsFederal legislative and appropriationspriorities. The meeting featured presen-tation and discussion of the Commission’srecently released legislative and appro-priations priorities for the 106th Con-gress, First Session. The Commission, in a34-point policy position, is urging theGreat Lakes Congressional Delegation,the entire Congress and the Administra-tion to support institutions, programs,laws and appropriations vital to the in-formed use and management of the re-source. The full-text version is availableonline at http://www.glc.org/projects/congress/strategy/approp99.html.

Strategic Plan review process. TheCommission membership, with inputfrom the larger Great Lakes community,developed and adopted a Strategic Planin 1995, which has proven to be an in-valuable guide in shaping theorganization’s priorities. A thorough re-view will be initiated in 1999 to ensurethat any prospective revisions are devisedand approved in the year 2000. The pro-posed review process, which was unani-mously approved by Commission del-egates, will include solicitation of com-ments from the entire community ofGreat Lakes interests to review planprogress, assess plan relevance to futureopportunities and challenges, and iden-tify prospective revisions.

Commission sets agenda for next twoyears. The Great Lakes Commission1999-2000 Work Plan, presented for re-view at the meeting, reflects theorganization’s current actions and initia-tives, and builds upon previous actionsof the Commission and its ExecutiveCommittee. It addresses project-specificinitiatives to be undertaken and/or com-pleted prior to the Commission’s annual

meeting in 2000. The plan is a “livingdocument”; additional detail and pro-gram elements will be added to it regu-larly, and updates will be prepared asneeded.

New Commission priorities, as outlinedin the Work Plan, include: review andupdating of the Strategic Plan; web-basedmapping of beach advisories and clos-ings; development of TEACH GreatLakes, an educators network and website; publication of a reference guide onGreat Lakes funding sources; develop-ment of a Great Lakes Water ResourcesManagement Program; and establishmentof a Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordi-nation Council.

State/provincial partnership. The gov-ernments of Ontario and Québec, as Ob-servers to the Commission, participate inmany Commission meetings, task forces,projects and other initiatives. To bothcelebrate and institutionalize this grow-ing partnership, the member states havepursued full provincial membership, asoriginally provided for in the GreatLakes Basin Compact. A “Declaration ofPartnership” was developed to formallyrecognize the state/provincial partnershipand advance it to a new level.

“This declaration is a non-binding,good faith agreement thatacknowledges our shared stewardshipresponsibility; celebrates a history ofstate/provincial partnership; andacknowledges that partnership with an‘Associate Member’ status,” saidCommission Chair Irene Brooks.

Representatives from the eight Great

continued on page 4

Louise Beaudoin, Québec's Minister forInternational Relations, addressesCommissioners and friends as they departfor a St. Lawrence cruise.

Page 4 ADVISOR

Semiannual Meeting Highlights

Lakes states and Québec signed thedeclaration at the meeting; an Ontariosignature is anticipated in the near fu-ture. The declaration provides fornon-voting associate membership asan interim step toward full member-ship.

New Soo Lock. An important nextstep in the effort to construct a secondlarge lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., isagreement among the Great Lakes stateson the allocation of the nonfederal costshare for lock construction. TheCommission’s Soo Lock Funding Alter-natives Task Force has narrowed downthe funding alternatives, and recom-mended that a formula based on the av-erage of state and port origin and desti-nation tonnages be applied. The Ex-ecutive Committee has been chargedwith endorsing a single alternative on orbefore July 15.

Discharge of waste materials. At its1998 annual meeting, the Commissionagreed to sponsor a workshop to explorethe efficiency of marine sanitation de-vices in protecting Great Lakes waterquality. Wisconsin and Michigan havesuccessfully petitioned the U.S. EPA tohave all sanitary discharge from vesselsprohibited in their portions of the GreatLakes. However, such discharges are au-thorized in many other parts of the GreatLakes, including the Indiana and Illi-nois waters of Lake Michigan. Theworkshop’s draft program was approvedby the Commission, and will featurepresentations on the operation, mainte-nance and inspection of marine sanita-

tion devices from the U.S. Coast Guard,Illinois and Indiana departments of Natu-ral Resources, Ontario Ministry of Envi-ronment and other agencies. Input fromGreat Lakes states and provinces will besolicited to learn if and how they shouldparticipate in discharge regulation, and how“no-discharge” zones might be enforced.

Using technology to promote maritimetransportation and associated economicdevelopment. Electronic communica-tions technology, such as the Internet(i.e., World Wide Web) has had an enor-mous effect on how Great Lakes-relatedagencies and organizations pursue theirmissions. The Commission approved aproposal to use the WWW to market andpromote the Great Lakes-St. Lawrencesystem and its ports. The effort will ini-tially focus on U.S. ports and then ex-pand to include Canadian ports andother maritime system data. The goal isto build upon existing efforts, addressunmet needs and take advantage of theCommission’s ability to employ suchtechnology for publicity and promo-tional purposes. The Commission hasdemonstrated its expertise in communica-tions technology through the Great LakesInformation Network, development andmaintenance of numerous web sites andemail list servs, and GIS applications.

Waterways management. Rear Adm.John McGowan, commander of the U.S.Coast Guard’s Ninth District, discussedthe creation of a regional WaterwaysManagement Forum. The group's mis-sion is to identify and resolve maritimepolicy and infrastructure issues of con-cern in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrencemaritime transportation system. Theforum’s first meeting, convened by theUSCG and U.S. Army Corps of Engineerson March 12, identified dredging andpublic promotion of maritime commerceas leading issues.

Contact: Mike Donahue,mdonahue@glc.org.

St. Lawrence Action PlanThe Great Lakes Commission’s Semian-

nual Meeting concluded with an introduc-tion to Great Lakes-St. Lawrence environ-mental and marine transportation issuesfrom Québec’s perspective. Representatives

from the St. Lawrence Vision 2000 (SLV2000) group introduced Phase III of the St.Lawrence Action Plan, which is the culmi-nation of discussions between many govern-ment and nongovernment partners. VariousCanadian and Québec departments, to-gether with representatives from the SLV2000 Consultative Committee, StrategiesSaint-Laurent, and the Areas of Prime Con-cern (ZIP) committees have reached con-sensus on priority areas for environmentalaction over the next five years.

This third phase of the St. Lawrence Ac-tion Plan seeks to achieve three major ob-jectives: protect ecosystem health, protecthuman health, and involve riverside com-munities in the process of making the St.Lawrence more accessible as it recoversfrom its former uses. Phase III emphasizes in-stituting voluntary measures, adopting goodenvironmental management practices, andfocusing on education and consciousness-raising as means to protect the health of thepublic and the St. Lawrence ecosystem.

Strategies Saint-Laurent is a nonprofitorganization that coordinates the activi-ties of the 10 active ZIP committees inQuébec. Each ZIP committee consists oflocal and regional representatives fromenvironmental groups, communities, in-dustry, recreational tourism organizationsand educational institutions, among oth-ers. The mandate of these groups is to de-velop an Ecological Remedial ActionPlan for their respective territories.

Information on the St. Lawrence Ac-tion Plan can be found at http://www.slv2000.qc.ec.gc.ca.

Speakers from SLV 2000 at theCommission's semiannual meeting in-cluded Francois Duchesneau, GeorgeArsenault, Jean-Pierre Gauthier, JeromeFaivre, and Gervais Bouchard. Contact:SLV 2000, quebec.slv2000@ed.gc.ca.

continued from page 3Meeting overview

Commission Chair Irene Brooks presentsMichel Robitaille with a plaque recognizinghis leadership in hosting the meeting andsponsoring the St. Lawrence River cruise.

Québec's Michel Robitaille, representingthe Commission's new Associate Member, iswelcomed by Commission ExecutiveDirector Mike Donahue and Vice ChairNathaniel E. Robinson.

May/June 1999 Page 5

Semiannual Meeting Highlights

Thirty-seven mayors of shoreline com-munities on the Great Lakes and St.Lawrence River, along with representa-tives from many other communities, con-vened in Montreal on May 20-21 for the13th annual International Great Lakes St.Lawrence Mayors’ Conference. Theevent was hosted by the Montreal UrbanCommunity, a government entity com-prised of the many municipalities on theisland of Montreal.

This year’s program featured mayorsserving as presenters and session modera-tors. Water and its connection to commu-nities was the major theme, with an em-phasis on jobs and quality of life.Montreal Mayor Pierre Bourque set thetone for the meeting by describing“Montreal Bleu,” a project in which thecity and surrounding communities are re-focusing on their waterfronts and the ar-chipelago nature of the region.

A topic of discussion included theplanned reopening of the Lachine Canalin 2002 following remediation of con-taminated sediments and redevelopmentof old, adjacent industrial areas. The ca-nal, which was closed when the seawayopened in 1959, eventually will becomea recreational waterway through the heartof the urban area. The Lachine reopen-ing and the related redevelopment willinclude new open space and expandedpublic access to the canal’s waterfront.

A maritime session addressed the issueof public relations in its broadest sense.For example, Michel Turgeon, commu-

Water and its connection to communities

Montreal welcomes Great Lakes mayorsnications director for the port ofMontreal, described how the port hasmodified some of its operations to reducenighttime noise. Also, Erman Cocci,chief operating officer for the SaintLawrence Seaway Development Corpo-ration, talked about how the Massena,N.Y., office is involved in area schoolsthrough presentations, financial sup-port and enhancement of recreationalfacilities.

A session titled When Water Becomes aThreat: Managing Emergencies and Disas-ters focused on the ice storm of January1998 that struck portions of the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence region with such fe-rocity that its aftermath is still visible onthe landscape. The result of the stormwas a renewed appreciation for emer-gency preparedness and a realization ofhow dependent modern life is on trans-portation and electricity. In Montreal,1.4 million households were withoutpower and phones. Even gas stationscouldn’t pump gas. The mayor ofKingston, Ontario, described how everyroad in the city was blocked by fallentrees. The city now has a blueprint foraction detailing how city employees willrespond if a similar crisis occurs again.The mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y., re-counted how his community’s morale wasboosted when residents organized a 100-truck convoy that delivered firewood toa neighboring community.

As part of the annual business meeting,resolutions were considered and adopted.

resource’s natural rate of renewal and thepossibility of retaining surpluses, if any,for future demands.

Maintaining water levels in the GreatLakes and St. Lawrence River

For Québec, maintaining water levelsin the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Sys-tem is vital. We must not only keep theseaway open to navigation, but also pro-tect the sensitive ecosystems used by birdsand aquatic species to migrate, rest andreproduce. If we are to preserve the natu-ral ecosystems that border the system, suf-

ficient quantities of water for life cyclesto occur will be required. People, too,have great expectations regarding theprotection of shores and banks, and theywant access to the river to carry on watersports, hunting, fishing and other outdooractivities.

The Great Lakes Charter clearly de-scribes our common concerns as well asthe goals and principles that must guideus as trustees of the basin’s natural re-sources. For its part, the Ecosystem Char-ter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Ba-sin offers a series of principles of which

one is sure to become the basis of all ourcurrent and future actions. This principlestates that “Ecosystem integrity and theeconomic well-being of human commu-nities are interdependent; achieving andprotecting ecosystem integrity is, there-fore, an essential part of economic activ-ity within the basin.”

The topics addressed at the Commission’sSemiannual Meeting and the Seaway Sym-posium show just how much ecosystem in-tegrity and the economic well-being ofcommunities are interdependent and essen-tial to our future actions.

One resolution objected to the possibleshipping of radioactive material on theGreat Lakes for use at Canadian nuclear en-ergy plants. This material, which is abyproduct of the process to neutralize weap-ons-grade plutonium, is proposed to be fur-ther deactivated through use in nuclear re-actors.

Another resolution addressed water levelmanagement policy and urged the Interna-tional Joint Commission, along with othergovernment entities, to consult with GreatLakes-St. Lawrence waterfront communitiesbefore making decisions regarding waterlevels and flow control. Other resolutionsaddressed grain transportation and infra-structure investment, as well as encourage-ment for private industry to control toxicdischarges at the source.

Next year’s Mayors’ Conference will behosted by Scott King, mayor of Gary, Ind., inMay. Contact: Steve Thorp,sthorp@glc.org.

Guest editorial, continued from page 1

When Water Becomes a Threat panel (l. tor.): Gary Bennett, mayor of Kingston,Ontario; Clyde Robideau, mayor ofPlattsburgh, N.Y.; Denis Lapointe, mayor ofSalaberry-de-Valleyfield, Québec; Jean-Bernard Guindon, Montreal Urban Commu-nity Emergency Preparedness Center; andPeter Yeomans, mayor of Dorval, Québec.

Page 6 ADVISOR

A scientific perspective on water levels

The water is falling, the water is falling!Precipitation drives the hydrologic sys-tem, and precipitation has dropped con-siderably throughout the basin. With in-creased temperatures, as has been the casein recent years, evaporation is fairly high.Less precipitation and more evaporationresults in lower lake levels. Between1996 and 1998, Lake Superior’s precipi-tation has decreased by 23 percent. Pre-cipitation on Lake Michigan-Huron isdown 16 percent, while Erie has de-creased by 5 percent and Ontario by 6percent.

Dr. Frank Quinn, a scientist at NOAA’sGreat Lakes Environmental ResearchLaboratory, introduced a session on levelsand flows on the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence River system. He discussed thelow Great Lakes water levels, with LakeOntario the lowest it has been since themid-1960s. Even though most of the sys-tem is low, however, Lake Erie still isabove its mean.

NOAA and Environment Canada pre-dict that dry conditions are likely to con-tinue through at least July, which meansthere is a probability (5 to 6 percent) ofrecord low levels on Lake Superior.There also is a high probability that LakeErie water levels will be low, althoughthere only is less than a 3 percent chancethat record lows will be reached.

Often tied to discussion about lake lev-els is the issue of climate change. As partof the Great Lakes regional componentof the U.S. National Climate Change As-sessment Program, an assessment will beundertaken of the potential impacts ofthe changed climate on Great Lakes wa-ter management. Impacts on variousstakeholders will be analyzed and poten-tial options for future Great Lakes watermanagement strategies for Lake Ontariowill be suggested. The U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (Buffalo District) will serveas the lead for this effort.

“You have to have water managementpolicies that are robust enough that theywill stay in force if the levels are like this[low] or if they might be a little higher

Water quantity management issues: Regulating levels and flowson the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system

than what we’ve had in the past,” saidQuinn. “We’ve noted that for these stud-ies, the regulation plans on both Lake Su-perior and Lake Ontario cannot meet theInternational Joint Commission’s criteriaunder climate change scenarios.”

The International Joint Commissionand its role in water level regulation

The U.S. and Canadian federal govern-ments have presented the IJC with a newreference on water diversion, consump-tive use and removal. Established by theBoundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the IJChas two major responsibilities in the areaof water quantity management: adjudi-cate on applications from either or bothcountries for projects that are built inboundary waters and affect levels andflows; and conduct studies and respondto questions that arise between the U.S.and Canada regarding water level regula-tion. Dr. Murray Clamen, secretary of theIJC’s Canadian section, was on hand todiscuss the IJC and its role in water quan-tity management issues.

The IJC’s International St. LawrenceRiver Board of Control ensures that out-flows from Lake Ontario meet the re-quirements of the IJC’s regulation plan,which went into effect in 1958. Theplan specifies weekly outflows based onthe water level of Lake Ontario andtrends in water supplies to the lake. Theplan has a number of flow limitations toprotect various interests in the St.Lawrence River that may be affected byextreme flows or levels. These includeadequate flows for hydropower produc-tion, minimum depths for navigation andprotection against flooding.

“The IJC recognizes that the St.Lawrence Board can’t always operate onplan,” said Clamen. “Deviations from theplan are sometimes necessary to deal witha number of existing or emerging condi-tions. The Board also has some limiteddiscretionary authority to deviate if itcan provide beneficial effects or relief toone interest without appreciable adverseeffects to others.”

Clamen recognizes that there are limi-

tations in the IJC’s regulation policies inthe St. Lawrence River area and through-out the basin. “Climate change is a bigissue,” said Clamen. “We have to makethese regulation plans a bit more resilient,yet still adaptable.”

This February, the two governmentsasked the IJC to examine and report onconsumption, diversion and removal ofwaters along the common border.

“The first assignment is to focus on thepotential effects of bulk water removal inthe Great Lakes basin,” said Clamen,“and to provide interim recommenda-tions in August of this year. The effortwill build on our 1985 report and our ex-tensive experience in the Great Lakes.”

The biological side of changingwater levels

Thomas Brown, a consultant to theNew York State Department of Environ-mental Conservation, concluded the ses-sion on water quantity management is-sues with a discussion of the biologicaleffects of water level manipulation.

Brown mentioned that environmentaland recreational interests are not explicitlyaddressed in current regulation plans. Hy-dropower, navigation and riparian interestsare the only ones mentioned in the IJC’s or-ders of approval and regulation criteria.The regulation plan for the St. LawrenceRiver system from the 1950s predated theenvironmental sensitivity of today.

Prior to the regulations, levels on the St.Lawrence River could range 8 feet betweenmaximum and minimum values. Today,with the current regulation, this range hasbeen compressed to 4 feet. This reductionhas damaged the ecology of Lake Ontarioand the upper St. Lawrence River. The im-pacts include a decrease in biodiversity anda loss of spawning habitat for many fish, in-cluding the northern pike.

“In my view, the option that holds themost promise is to update the 1958 regu-lation plan to better reflect all of theneeds of today and to incorporate the en-vironmental and recreational criteria andinterests,” said Brown.

Semiannual Meeting Highlights

May/June 1999 Page 7

The Great Lakes Commission is pleasedto announce that its web site, http://www.glc.org, has a new look, greater con-tent and improved navigability.

The new site features an issue-orientedmenu to guide visitors efficiently throughthe Commission’s wide variety of programinitiatives. A section devoted to “What’snew @ the Commission” provides links topress releases, a calendar of Commissionevents, the ADVISOR newsletter and otherbreaking news items.

The site provides an overview of theCommission, including its five program ar-eas and more than 40 projects. Policy posi-tions on issues of importance to the GreatLakes region are outlined in depth, andsoon visitors will be able to place orders forCommission publications online. The sitealso features the photography of John andAnn Mahan and is searchable from everypage, so visitors will be able to find whatthey are looking for easily and quickly.

Currently, more than 100,000 visitors per

Executive Committeeadopts record budget

The Commission is well-positioned tomeet the challenges of FY2000, thanks to arecord budget of $4.34 million and an un-precedented 43 programs and projects sup-ported by grants, contracts and other outsiderevenue sources. The new budget, adoptedJune 24 by the Commission’s ExecutiveCommittee, reflects a 2.1 percent over thecurrent fiscal year. It is expected to increaseover the course of the year as anticipatedgrants and contracts are received.

Approximately 16 percent of the totalbudget is directed at coordination and ad-vocacy work, while the balance goes toproject-specific initiatives consistent withthe Commission’s Strategic Plan.

“Our goal is to serve as a strong advocatefor the region, while applying technical andpolicy expertise to member priorities,” ex-plains Mike Donahue, Commission Execu-tive Director. Contact: Mike Donahue,mdonahue@glc.org.

Commission Briefs

Prevention and control of exotic spe-cies were the focus of the Ninth Interna-tional Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nui-sance Species Conference, held April 26-30 in Duluth, Minn., and hosted by theUniversity of Minnesota Sea Grant Pro-gram.

Commission Executive Director MikeDonahue discussed efforts of the GreatLakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Spe-cies to develop an action plan for ANSprevention and control in the GreatLakes. Since it was convened in 1991,the Great Lakes Panel has helped estab-lish a regional framework for ANS re-search, policy development and programimplementation in the Great Lakes.

“Despite the impressive progress alreadymade by the panel, the region still lacks aformal vehicle for interstatedecisionmaking and a mechanism for fa-cilitating prompt, collective action onANS prevention and control,” saidDonahue.

The action plan, a regional policyagreement comprised of principles, goalsand objectives, articulates a collective

Strong presence by Commission at ANS conference

Taking action to prevent and control aquatic nuisance speciesvision for the region and a means toachieve it. The plan will enhance the ef-fectiveness of current prevention andcontrol efforts, strengtheninterjurisdictional consultation anddecisionmaking, and promote actionsthat reduce or eliminate future ANS in-troductions. The Great Lakes governorsand premiers will be invited to sign theaction plan’s principles, with the fulldocument signed by members of theGreat Lakes Panel.

The role of consensus in developing re-gional policies for ANS prevention andcontrol was the focus of a presentation byKathe Glassner-Shwayder, project man-ager at the Great Lakes Commission.Glassner-Shwayder profiled the consen-sus-based approach that the Commissionused in developing two Great LakesPanel products: the Model ComprehensiveState Management Plan for the Preventionand Control of Nonindigenous AquaticNuisance Species and the Model StateGuidance on Legislation and Regulations forPreventing the Introduction and Dispersal ofNonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance in the

Great Lakes Region.On April 28, the Great Lakes Panel

sponsored a day-long symposium titledBallast Water Management and AquaticNuisance Species: Setting a ResearchAgenda for the Great Lakes. More than 70participants drawn from the research,management and maritime communitiesassessed current approaches to ballast wa-ter management and identified promisingtechnologies and research approaches forpreventing new ANS introductions viaballast water. This fall, the Panel will re-lease a proceedings document presentingfindings, conclusions and recommenda-tions in the area of ballast water researchneeds; and options for strengthening link-ages between the scientific, policy anduser communities. This initiative is sup-ported by the U.S. EPA's Great Lakes Na-tional Program Office.

Next year’s ANS conference will behosted by Fisheries and Oceans Canadaon Feb. 14-18, 2000, in Toronto,Ontario. Contact: Elizabeth Muckle-Jeffs,profedge@renc.igs.net, www.zebraconf.org.

New face on Commission web site

month access the site, a figure expected toincrease substantially with enhancements incontent and navigability.

"We've worked hard on the site rede-sign to promote usability and quick ac-cess to project information," said Com-mission Executive Director MikeDonahue. "We are striving to make oursite among the very best."

Comments or suggestions regarding thenew site should be directed to MorganAnderson, anderson@glc.org.

Page 8 ADVISOR

Commission Briefs

Advocating sound public policy onenvironmental quality and economicissues in the Great Lakes region is a toppriority of the Great Lakes Commis-sion. Representing the interests of theeight Great Lakes states on legislativeand appropriations issues before Con-gress, the Administration and relevantfederal agencies, the Commission is theleading voice for the region in shapingpolicies that affect the Great Lakes.

The Commission’s congressional ad-vocacy strategy for FY2000 includestargeted correspondence to legislatorsin the appropriate committees and sub-committees. Since January, letters ad-vancing the Commission's 34-pointpolicy position have been directed,among others, at the following:

Brownfields redevelopment,greenfields preservation and “smartgrowth” strategies. The Commission

In May 1999, NOAA’s NationalOcean Service (NOS) released a reportproposing the elimination of 13 of 49water level gauging stations on theGreat Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.Budget constraints, combined with theneed to upgrade stations for Y2K com-pliance and automation purposes,prompted the downsizing plan. Theproposal took many Great Lakes inter-ests by surprise and, in recent weeks, aGLIN announcement posted by theGreat Lakes Commission elicited lettersand calls of concern from many con-stituency groups. The Commission ex-pressed its concern via correspondenceto NOAA and every member of theGreat Lakes Congressional Delegation.

Fluctuations in water levels can dra-matically affect commercial navigationand recreational boating, bothmultibillion dollar economic sectors inthe Great Lakes basin. Also, GreatLakes jurisdictions are faced with manycomplex issues associated with lakelevel regulation, dredging needs andpriorities, and issues of water with-drawal, consumptive use and removal,

Bad timing: Commission opposes plan to reduce number ofGreat Lakes gauging stations

including export. NOAA data pro-vides a basis for sound decisionmakingfor Great Lakes states regarding these is-sues, and reducing gauging capabilitywill compromise their ability to makesuch decisions.

“Operational budget constraintsnonwithstanding, we believe the pro-posal is ill-advised,” stated CommissionExecutive Director Mike Donahue in aletter to Nancy Foster, assistant admin-istrator at NOAA. “We believe theeconomic consequences of this dra-matic reduction in gauging capabilitywill far outweigh the modest savings tothe National Ocean Service.”

In response to growing concerns, aJune 15 meeting between NOS officialsand various constituents was held atNOAA’s Great Lakes EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory (GLERL) in AnnArbor, Mich. Extended discussions re-sulted in a compromise agreement thatappears to meet the interests of all par-ties over the short term (i.e. 12 months)while a long-term solution is devel-oped. (Approximately $390,000would be required for the upgrading

and maintenance of the 13 stations.)The following outcomes resulted fromthe meeting:

• The 13 stations proposed for elimi-nation will be maintained at a basiclevel, as resources permit, for a mini-mum of 12 months.

• To fund this, upgrading of 1-2other stations will be delayed.

• GLERL and the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (Detroit District) will assistwith processing station data from the13 stations.

• The broader Great Lakes-St.Lawrence constituency will be con-sulted over the course of the next 12months concerning the 13 stations andtheir future status. The Great LakesCommission agrees to lead/assist withconstituency notification and the con-duct of hearings, a survey or associatedmechanism.

• Based upon results of constituentinput, recommendations will be di-rected to NOAA and the Congress toensure the upgrading and maintenanceof stations of interest. Contact: MikeDonahue, mdonahue@glc.org.

Commission leads advocacy efforts for Great Lakes regionsupports the U.S. EPA Brownfields Pro-gram, the Administration's proposedBetter America Bonds initiative, theFarmland Protection Program and theDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment’s Regional ConnectionsInitiative.

Improvement of water quality andagricultural productivity. The GreatLakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion andSediment Control is a key component ofthe region’s conservation efforts, and theCommission is advocating for an increasein its program funding.

Promotion of Great Lakes researchagencies. The Commission has sentletters in support of funding forNOAA’s Great Lakes EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory, U.S. EPA’s GreatLakes National Program Office, theGreat Lakes Fishery Commission, theInternational Joint Commission, Sea

Grant College Programs and the WaterResources Research Institute program,among others.

Monitoring, assessment and reha-bilitation of the Great Lakes ecosys-tem. The advocacy strategy targets ini-tiatives such as the National InvasiveSpecies Act, U.S. Geological SurveyWater Resources Investigations, USGSNational Park Service Water QualityPartnership, and Great Lakes Fish andWildlife Restoration Act.

Recipients of the Commission’s advo-cacy correspondence include Senateand House committee and subcommit-tee chairs, ranking minority membersand members of the Great Lakes Con-gressional Delegation. Copies of theletters are available from the Commis-sion. Contact: Mike Donahue,mdonahue@glc.org; or VictoriaPebbles, vpebbles@glc.org.

May/June 1999 Page 9

Commission Briefs

Great Lakes water levels have de-clined dramatically over the past year,and public interest is high for levels,precipitation and outflow data and in-formation. The Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Hydrology section on theGreat Lakes Information Network(http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/water/hydro.html) provides a centralizedmeans to access all this data from themany different agencies responsible forits collection and distribution.

On June 9-10, NOAA’s Great LakesEnvironmental Research Lab in AnnArbor, Mich., hosted an Internet Coor-dination/GLIN Hydrology Workshop,organized by the Great Lakes Commis-sion in cooperation with the Coordi-

Effort underway to improve quality, quantity and accessibility of lake levels data

The Commission welcomes two newCommissioners, Michigan AttorneyGeneral Jennifer Granholm andMinnesota Rep. George Cassell.

Granholm isMichigan's first newattorney general in37 years followingthe retirement ofFrank Kelley, thefirst and onlyrecipient of theCommission's

Lifetime Achievement Award. She isMichigan's first female attorney generaland also serves as astate barcommissioner.

Cassell is a statelegislator involvedin the followingcommittees:agriculture andrural development,jobs and economicdevelopment, higher education financeand education policy. He is a retirededucator and school administrator.

New Observers include Janet Oertly,state conservationist for the USDA—Natural Resources ConservationService; and Jim Nicholas, districtchief of the Water Resources Division,U.S. Geological Survey.

Granholm

CassellThe Great Lakes Commission participated in �AJoint Parade,� a walk benefiting the nationalArthritis Foundation, April 17 in Ann Arbor, Mich.Commission families and friends took part in thewalk-a-thon in memory of Carol Ratza, alongtime staff member who was lost to thedisease in 1997. The Great �Legs� Commissionteam, joined by colleagues from U.S. EPA andthe International Joint Commission, raised $1,500to support the fight against arthritis.

Commission walks to support theArthritis Foundation

nating Committee on Great Lakes BasicHydraulic and Hydrologic Data.

Other regional data providers repre-sented were the U.S. Army Corps of En-gineers (Detroit and Buffalo districts),Environment Canada, Department ofFisheries and Oceans (Canadian Hy-drographic Service), U.S. GeologicalSurvey, NOAA National Ocean Serviceand the Midwestern Climate Center.

The workshop focused on the nextphase of the GLIN Hydrology sectionand current and future Internet needs ofthe Coordinating Committee.

Among the tasks already completed iscreation of a new email listserv (glhydro)for electronic broadcasting of water lev-els news, publications and meeting

schedules (see http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/glhydro/glhydro.info).

The Coordinating Committee advisesthe U.S. and Canadian agencies respon-sible for collecting and compiling GreatLakes and St. Lawrence hydraulic and hy-drologic data.

Distribution of this data through onecoordinated web site on GLIN isstrengthening the collaborative effortand making outreach more cost effective.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (De-troit District) is providing financial sup-port to the Commission for this initiative.Look for new updates and features on thesite in coming months. Contact: Chris-tine Manninen, manninen@glc.org.

Karyla Trester isthe winner of the1999 Carol A. RatzaMemorial Scholar-ship. A master’s stu-dent in Environ-mental Communi-cations at the Uni-

versity of Illinois at Springfield, Tresteris producing a video on declining am-phibian populations in the Midwest.

“I hope by documenting the currentstatus of amphibians in an engagingway, I can create an awareness aboutthe need to preserve what makes ourbackyard so precious and unique,”Trester says.

Trester holds undergraduate degreesfrom Knox College in Galesburg, Ill.,

Scholarship awarded to environmental communications majorNew Commissioners andObservers welcomed

and Highland Community College inFreeport. She was one of 60 studentsnamed nationally as a Watson Fellowin 1997-98. Through this fellowshipshe studied waste policy and practicein the Pacific Rim, which involved ex-tensive travel in Australia, Fiji,Singapore and New Zealand. Currently,Trester is an environmental policy in-tern at the Illinois Environmental Pro-tection Agency in Springfield.

The Commission's scholarship isnamed for the late Carol Ratza, whomanaged its Communications and In-formation Management Program andpioneered the Great Lakes InformationNetwork and the application of elec-tronic communications technology toGreat Lakes management.

1999 Carol A. Ratza Memorial Scholarship

Page 10 ADVISOR

Around the Lakes

This year marks a milestone for the GreatLakes-St. Lawrence maritime community:the 40th anniversary of the St. LawrenceSeaway. As part of the Great LakesCommission’s Semiannual Meeting, a Sea-way Symposium was held to help com-memorate this anniversary. Since 1959, theSeaway has provided a vital link betweenthe industrial and agricultural heartland ofNorth America and markets throughout theworld.

The Commission was a seaway advocateeven before it was built. In fact, planningfor the binational seaway, and its economicdevelopment potential, was a major reasonthe Commission was established in 1955.The organization has played an importantrole through lobbying activity in retiring theU.S. seaway construction debt and virtuallyeliminating U.S. seaway tolls. More re-cently, the Commission has advocated forthe elimination of Canadian seaway tollsand the creation of a single, binational sea-way operating entity to trim administrativecosts between the two countries.

The Seaway Symposium focused on theseaway’s future, with only an occasionallook back. The dynamic and global mar-ketplace, combined with technological in-novation and modal competition, raises notonly uncertainties but opportunities to dobusiness more efficiently and profitably. Thesymposium brought together more than 130decisionmakers who have a stake in thesystem’s future.

The following are excerpts from selectedsymposium presentations.

Transforming the transportation business

For the St. Lawrence Seaway, last year’snavigation season was one of our best.Cargo transiting through the system was val-ued at more than $7.5 billion and generalcargo volume increased by more than 42percent. The number of ocean vessel transitsgrew by some 35 percent and our toll rev-enue was the highest in seaway history at$80 million.

We’re sufficiently competitive to retainmany old and valued customers and to at-tract some new business each year, but are wecompetitive enough? It doesn’t seem sosince our market share has been steadilyeroding. Things have been changing rap-

Symposium commemorates 40th anniversary of St. Lawrence Seawayidly in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence trans-portation arena.... Free trade, a truly globalmarketplace, and technological progress aretransforming the transportation business. Itis an era of lean and mean competitors, andthe seaway has no choice but to keep paceor, even better, lead the pace. If we are go-ing to compete successfully, we have to pro-vide the kind of service customers want anddo it efficiently at low cost.

— Guy Veronneau, President,The St. Lawrence SeawayManagement Corporation

Keeping pace with shippers'competitive needs

Forty years later, what do we have to showfor the initial vision demonstrated by thedesigners and builders of the seaway? Quitea lot! Although the seaway system has hadmany ups and downs over the decades, itnow adds $3 billion dollars annually andup to 17,000 jobs to the Canadianeconomy, and $2 billion annually and49,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.

With a total tonnage of approximately50 million tons moving annually throughthe seaway system, the flow of trafficthrough this truly international waterway isexceeded only by the Panama and Suez ca-nals. And it is now commercially managed,with input from experienced, dedicatedcarriers and shippers who are determined tomaintain the economic viability and com-petitiveness of the trade....

In the last 40 years since the building ofthe seaway, innovation has taken place inthe marine transportation industry to keeppace with shippers’ competitive needs. Thedevelopment of technologically sophisti-cated self-unloading ships, advances in in-formation technology and employee train-ing, and investments that optimize fleet effi-ciency through retrofitting, renovation andnew buildings, are examples of how bothlakers and deep-sea shipping companieshave responded to these challenges.Greater efficiency, therefore, is achieved inthe first place by the use of better, newer,more economically viable vessels. Over-all, well over $500 million is being in-vested by shipping companies in the fu-ture of the seaway.

— Laurence G. Pathy,President and CEO, Fednav Ltd.

Assuring greater customer satisfaction

Working together over the past 40 years,we have extended the maximum allowablesizes for vessels using seaway navigation fa-cilities. We have incrementally lengthenedthe shipping season. We have invested innavigational technology to increase thesafety and reliability of our vessel trafficmanagement systems. And we haveadopted the highest international standardsof quality management to assure greater cus-tomer satisfaction.

When the seaway opened in 1959, theshipping season was only 223 days. Lastyear, the shipping season was nearly twomonths longer. This change in length hasserved to increase the volume of businessmoving over the entire season. The maxi-mum dimensions of vessels allowed to enterthe seaway when it opened were 730 feet inlength, 76 feet in beam, and 26 feet in draft.Today, those vessel dimensions are 740 feetin length, 78 feet in beam; and 26 feet, 3inches in draft.

While these changes may seem small, theyadd up to substantial increases in capacityand profitability. For example, every inch ofincreased draft allows seaway-sized vessels tocarry an additional 100 metric tons of cargo.It is estimated that within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system, each inch ofdraft increases annual cargo capacity by ap-proximately a quarter of a million metrictons. Together with the changes we havemade in maximum beam and length dimen-sions, the deeper draft has increased cargorevenue for seaway-sized vessels by as muchas 6 percent.

— Albert Jacquez, Administrator, SaintLawrence Seaway Development Corporation

The St. Lawrence River near the CornwallBridge, circa 1975. Photo by Dr. Albert G. Ballert.

May/June 1999 Page 11

Around the Lakes

Between 1981 and 1997, the bina-tional Great Lakes region lost more than11 million acres of its farmland, an areagreater than the size of lakes Ontario andErie combined. Between 1992 and 1997alone, the U.S. side of the Great Lakesbasin lost over 650,000 acres of farm-land. Much of this loss can be attributedto the expansion of urban areas in theform of urban sprawl, which often over-takes highly fertile agricultural land.

As metropolitan areas expand, devel-opers are willing to pay farmers highprices for nearby agricultural land. Asoutlying agricultural lands are devel-oped, the unique character and quality oflife of rural areas is compromised by traf-fic congestion, cookie-cutter housing,roads, car dominated boulevards, parkinglots and strip malls. Meanwhile, innercities and older suburbs become caughtin a cycle of degradation and abandon-ment, which further encourages new de-velopment to locate, literally, in “greenerpastures.” Together, the loss of prime agri-cultural land and increase in urbansprawl threaten the future of our region’sagricultural economy, environment andquality of life.

Over the past few decades, each of theGreat Lakes states has developed numer-ous tools to protect their agriculturallands and economy. However, all recog-nize that more needs to be done. Re-cently, several Great Lakes states have de-veloped stronger, more comprehensivepolicies and programs to help alleviatethe financial burdens of farmers, encour-age greater land use planning efforts andcultivate agricultural land protection.For example, the governors of Ohio, In-diana and Illinois have recently createdland preservation task forces to examineand report on the causes of agriculturalland loss and urban sprawl. Several ofOhio’s recommendations released in June1997 already are in place, including anew state Office of Farmland Preserva-tion, the family farm program and a pur-chase of development rights (PDR) pro-gram. The family farm program, targetedat young farmers who may not have the

New initiatives in farmland preservation

resources necessary for capital-intensiveprojects, helps young family farmers se-cure loans for developing new operationsor expanding existing ones. The statehopes this program will help family farmsremain active and productive despite ris-ing capital costs and increasing develop-ment pressures.

One tool used by several states is thepurchase of development rights. PDRprograms are voluntary and allow theland to remain in private ownership.They help reduce the pressure to sell todevelopers by allowing farmers to sell de-velopment rights to state or local govern-ments. These programs have claimedmoderate success in minimizing farmlandconversion in the region. For example,115,000 acres of farmland have beenprotected under Pennsylvania’s statewidePDR program since mid-1998.

The first local PDR program in theGreat Lakes basin was established on OldMission Peninsula, a 17-mile strip of landthat juts out into Grand Traverse Bay(Mich.). In 1994, residents passed a 15-year millage to finance a local PDR pro-gram to protect approximately 2,000acres of scenic farmland.

Another example of farmland preserva-tion tools is tax credits for farmers. Threeyears ago, New York state passed legisla-tion creating an innovative tax incentivethat allows farmers to receive an agricul-tural tax credit for their school taxes, sav-ing farmers an estimated $60 millioneach year.

Loss of agricultural lands to urbansprawl is a national as well as regionalproblem. The Administration’s FY2000budget includes several specific federalprograms that promote and enhancefarmland preservation, such as an expan-sion of the federal Farmland ProtectionProgram. Since 1996, this program hashelped protect more than 24,000 acres offarmland in the Great Lakes region. TheAdministration also proposes $50 mil-lion for open space planning and $700million in revenue-neutral bonds thatcan be used for farmland and other“greenfields” protection.

State and federal agencies recognizethat effective agricultural land preser-vation and land-use planning initia-tives require local leadership and sup-port. Accordingly, they also are in theprocess of developing support systemssuch as GIS mapping and federal fund-ing alternatives to assist local govern-ments. Low-density and leap frog ex-pansion of urban and suburban areascontinues to pose serious threats to theregion’s agricultural land base and theregion as a whole. Although manychallenges remain, the increasing atten-tion to urban sprawl and adoption ofmore coordinated and comprehensivestrategies among Great Lakes states holdpromise for preserving the agriculturalland base of the Great Lakes region.

Information presented in this articlehighlights some of the ongoing research be-ing undertaken by the Great Lakes Com-mission as part of the Building Bridges forSustainable Development in the GreatLakes Basin (BRIDGES) project.BRIDGES is a collaborative effort of theCommission, the Council of Great LakesIndustries and the National Wildlife Fed-eration-Great Lakes Natural ResourceCenter to promote and link brownfields re-development and greenfields protection inthe Great Lakes basin. Contact: VictoriaPebbles, vpebbles@glc.org.

Source: Census of Agriculture

���������,OOLQRLV ������,QGLDQD �������0LFKLJDQ ���������0LQQHVRWD �������1HZ�<RUN ���������2KLR �������3HQQV\OYDQLD ������:LVFRQVLQ �������727$/ ���������

FARMLAND LOSS: U.S.Great Lakes Basin (acres)

By Victoria Pebbles and Kate Hackett, Great Lakes Commission

Address Correction Requested

This calendar is a compilationof selected events of interest to theCommission. Further details and amore extensive calendar are availableonline via the Great Lakes InformationNetwork (www.great-lakes.net). Weencourage your input to the calendar.If you know of an event you’d like usto include, please contact Lara Slee,ADVISOR editor, at 734-665-9135;lslee@glc.org.

ADVISOR BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT No. 112

ANN ARBOR, MICH.

Argus II Building400 Fourth StreetAnn Arbor, MI 48103-4816

Printed on recycled paper.

Basin events

Commission events

Great Lakes Calendar

Time to update your ADVISOR subscription?If you have moved, changed jobs or no longer wish to receive the ADVISOR, let us know! Contact Marilyn Ratliff at 734-665-9135; orsend updates via fax (734-665-4370) or e-mail (mratliff@glc.org). Remember, you can read the ADVISOR online via the Commission�shome page, http://www.glc.org.

September13-15 Celebrating Interstate andInternational Cooperation in WaterResources Management: Annual Meetingof the Great Lakes Commission andSpecial Session with the InterstateCouncil on Water Policy. Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania. Contact: Mike Donahue,mdonahue@glc.org.

October19-20 Great Lakes Panel on AquaticNuisance Species. Chicago, Illinois.Contact: Kathe Glassner-Shwayder,shwayder@glc.org.

August18-20 8th Annual U.S./Canada Work-shop on Great Lakes OperationalMeteorology. Ann Arbor, Michigan.Contact: Dick Wagenmaker, NWS Detroit/Pontiac, 248-625-3309 ext. 766; or Dr.Peter Sousounis, University of Michigan,734-936-0488.

Changes ahead for theADVISOR

The ADVISOR soon will have anew look, format and content, and weneed your input! Please take a mo-ment to respond to the online surveyat http://www.glc.org/docs/advisor/survey.html.

You also can send your general com-ments by fax to 734-665-4370, or bye-mail to Lara Slee, lslee@glc.org.Thank you for your input!

These are some of the questionswe'd like answered:

• What do you find most infor-mative and/or interesting in theADVISOR?• What would you like to see thatis not already there?• Do you read the electronic ver-sion of the newsletter (http://www.glc.org/docs/advisor/advisor.html)?

Save trees and money!If you prefer to read the electronic versionof the ADVISOR, let us know! We'll can-cel your print subscription and help theCommission save materials and mailingcosts. This means we'll have more moneyto spend on keeping the lakes great!

September1 8th Annual Ohio Lake Erie Confer-ence. Bowling Green, Ohio. Contact:Ohio Lake Erie Office, 419-245-2514,oleo@www.epa.state.oh.us.

16-17 Improved Decisionmaking forWater Resources: The Key to Sustain-able Development for MetropolitanRegions. Chicago, Illinois. Contact: UICGreat Cities Institute, 312-355-1276.

24-26 International Joint Commission's1999 Biennial Forum on Great LakesWater Quality. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Contact: Jennifer Day, IJC, 519-257-6733 inCanada, 313-226-2170 ext. 6733 in U.S.,dayj@windsor.ijc.org.

24-26 Great Lakes EnvironmentalExpo. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Contact: Chuck Stoffle, 888-366-0357,info@epsglobal.com.