| "I think together we were able to show the benefit of investing in the entire Great Lakes basin, rather than each of us just showing our piece of it." | |
| Catherine Cunningham Ballard, Michigan Coastal Management Program |
|
When Congress gives money to a state, region, or national program, the hard part often is communicating back to legislators about the good work that was done. By coming together to report on a single issue, Great Lakes coastal resource managers are showing they're getting more bang for their buck.
"We need to report on our successes," says Jim Langdon, director of the Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations for the Wisconsin Department of Administration. "We do so much good work, and too frequently the word isn't getting out to the right people. Communication is almost as important as the on-the-ground and on-the-water work that we're doing."
The region's first progress report to Congress is on the Great Lakes Restoration Project, a 2001 federal appropriation of $30 million to acquire and restore critical habitat, implement storm water controls, and clean contaminated sites along the five Great Lakes.
The eight participating states were required to provide matching monies at the rate of 25 percent of the total. By reporting as a region, they were able to show that $42 million of state and local match was committed—a rate of 58 percent—to produce $72 million in restoration work along Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Superior.
"The number and quality of projects that we were able to show is pretty impressive," says Catherine Cunningham Ballard, chief of the Michigan Coastal Management Program. "I think together we were able to show the benefit of investing in the entire Great Lakes basin, rather than each of us just showing our piece of it."
The idea for the report came out of the 2002 regional meeting of Great Lakes coastal resource managers. "We were all comparing notes on our [restoration project] activities and found that there was a significant demand for resources—much more than we were able to fulfill with the original allocation," Langdon says.
Wisconsin volunteered to coordinate the states' efforts to write a regional report to Congress illustrating the project's success, as well as the need for additional funding. Langdon and his staff set the deadlines, edited the state-submitted pieces for consistency, worked with a professional graphic designer to lay out the report, and handled the printing.
The report is an attractive 20-page glossy, color publication. Each state provided high-quality project photographs and followed a template provided by Wisconsin to write a brief overview and easy-to-read list of projects. The total cost of the report was less than $7,000 for 5,000 copies.
"We pulled the whole thing off in 90 days," Langdon says. "I think we did it economically and effectively."
When the report came out in March, each state was given copies to distribute according to its own objectives. While Congress was central to each state's plans, Langdon says, "each state had different needs for promoting the program and the use of these funds."
States report they also have distributed the publication to local stakeholders, grantees, media, and state legislators.
"These monies were made available on a regional basis, and there is value in reporting on a regional basis," notes Langdon. "There is strength in showing a coordinated effort to restore the Great Lakes."
For more information on the Great Lakes Restoration Project report to Congress, contact Jim Langdon at (608) 261-7520, or James.Langdon@doa.state.wi.us. To view the publication, point your browser to coastal.wisconsin.gov.
