Great Lakes (North American)
Experience and Lessons Learned Brief
Jon MacDonagh-Dumler*, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, jonmacd@glc.org
Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
John Gannon, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada* Corresponding author

1.

Introduction

shores of Lake Superior to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 2). The
lakes provide daily drinking water to two-thirds of the basin’s
40 million residents. Domestic and commercial uses of lakewater consume nearly four trillion liters daily. Water dependent
industries—such as heavy manufacturing, agriculture,
recreation and tourism, and sport and commercial ﬁshing—are
all multi-billion dollar-a-year industries (Table 1).

The North American Great Lakes constitute the largest systemof fresh surface water on the face of the earth (Figure 1) andare linked to the Atlantic Ocean by the St. Lawrence River. The
Great Lakes cover over 244,000 km2 of surface water; 520,000
km2 of drainage area; and a combined volume of nearly
23,000 km3. Individually, the ﬁve Great Lakes are among theﬁfteen largest freshwater lakes in the world. With more than
17,000 km of shoreline, including its thousands of islands,
this ecosystem extends some 3,500 km from the westernmostL5

The proﬁle of the human geography and economy of the Great
Lakes region is quite signiﬁcant and serves to underscore
its numerous management challenges (Kling et al. 2003).

*5($7/$.(6/$85(17,$1 %$6,1

7KH2JRNL5LYHUVXEEDVLQDQG
WKH/RQJ/DNHVXEEDVLQDUHGLYHUWHG
LQWRWKH*UHDW/DNHV%DVLQE\KXPDQLQWHUYHQWLRQ2JRN'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\
6WDWH%RXQGDU\

1
DN
H

/DNH
1LSLJRQ

/R

'R

QJ

/

5LYHU
/DNH
6HOHFWHG&LW\

J5

3LF5

7KXQGHU%D\86$


:KLWH5

JS

&$

5
DO
WU H
0RQ

DQ


WHL5


QLVK56SD(V
F

0LVVLVVDJL5

DE

0H
QR

1
$'
6$ $

DS L
DQ
:

8

'XOXWK

2QW DU LR/DNH6XSHULRU

0D

5
LV
RX

6W


/

NPLH

0 LQ Q H VR W D

5

&$1$'$

5
D

P

0LFKLJDQ/DNH1LSLVVLQJ

HH
LQ
5

0DJQHWDZDQ
5 

D\

$X
6DE
OH5


/DNH
6LPFRH0LFKLJDQ0LOZDXNHH

6DJLQDZ5/DNH
6W&ODLU,OOLQR LV&KLFDJR6'HWURLW

K5
VHS
-R
W

&OHYHODQG

Figure 1. The North American Great Lakes Basin.

HV
DN

U/

JH

Q
)L

1HZ<RU N



QG5

*UD

5
N\
GXV
6DQ

,QG LD QD



H5

PH

0DX

,/(&1:5RFKHVWHU/DNH(ULH
7ROHGR

7KHIORZRIWKH&KLFDJR5LYHU
ZDVGLYHUWHGRXWRIWKH
*UHDW/DNHV%DVLQ
LQZLWKWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKH6DQLWDU\DQG6KLS&DQDO

HV

P

D
7K

1LDJDUD)DOOV%ODFN5/DNH
2QWDULR%XIIDOR5*UDQG5

7RURQWR

5

6D
J*UDQG5

J
NH

XV

0

HHQ5

LQ

5


RQ

HH

DZ

%

XJ

*H
QH
VV

D\

LJD
Q

%

LFK

HH
Q

*U

5

WHH

QLV

0D

86$

/DNH+XURQ
6D

)R
[

5

6W

UH

DZ

/

6WUDLWVRI0DFNLQDF

/DN
H0

:ROI5

: LVFR QV LQ

*UHHQ
%D\

5

H

QF

&$1$'$*HRUJLDQ%D\&X\DKRJD5

2K LR

3HQQV\OYDQLD%RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYHResiding within the political jurisdictions of the eight Great
Lakes states and province of Ontario are more than 60 million
people with more than half of them located in the Great Lakes
drainage basin itself. This in-basin population comprises 20%of the U.S. population and 60% of the Canadian population.
Population growth was nearly 9% in the Great Lakes states andover 12% in Ontario in the last decade. There are many major
cities located on Great Lakes shorelines, including: Buffalo,
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Hamilton, Milwaukee, Toledo,
Toronto, and Windsor.
The regional economy is quite large and diversiﬁed with
manufacturing, services (including tourism and recreation),
agriculture, forestry, and government sectors. The Great Lakes
binational region forms the industrial heartland of North
America with total production in 2000 of nearly US$2 trillion,
which is only exceeded by the gross domestic production of theUnited States and Japan. In 2000, Canada derived more than
50% of the value of manufacturing shipments from Ontario
alone and, in the U.S., six of the Great Lakes states contributed
greater than 25% to the total manufacturing value added.
Signiﬁcant industrial growth began about 1850 and relied
upon resource extraction through mining, harvesting timberand low-cost shipping on the lakes. For example, the hugesteel mills of Gary (Indiana), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), andCleveland (Ohio) obtained iron ore from northern Minnesota
that was shipped down the lakes. These same commercial
shipping routes carried steel products to Detroit and Chicago
for further processing into ﬁnished consumers goods, suchas automobiles and farm equipment. With this infrastructure
in place, the region maintains signiﬁcant shipping ports thatserve large freighters carrying goods and commodities, such as
grain, soybeans, coal, iron ore, from both in-basin and out-ofbasin areas of the U.S. Midwest and Canada. These shipments
are worth billions of dollars; in addition, the businesses that
service this activity generate US$3 billion in yearly businessrevenue and employ more than 60,000 people.

More recently, diversiﬁcation into a variety of service sectors
has created one of the largest components of the regional
economy, which includes many tourism, recreation, andenvironment-related enterprises. Water-related amenities
on and near the Great Lakes represent the major recreationand tourism attraction in middle America. For example, morethan two million tourists visited the Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore(Michigan) in 1999. In 2001, provincial parks in Ontario drewa total of more than 11 million visitors from Point Pelee (onLake Erie) to Lake Superior. In addition, smaller inland lakes
attract many in northern Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario, andWisconsin. And in winter, downhill and cross-country skiing,and snowmobiling draw large numbers of visitors. On the U.S.
side more than 15 million people engage in ﬁshing, hunting, or
wildlife watching activities bringing in US$18.5 billion annually.
Similarly, travel and tourism in Ontario generated more than
CAD20 billion in 2000.
More broadly, the Great Lakes region must be seen andunderstood in terms of numerous competing socio-economic,
political and environmental characteristics and issues. All who
live in the region are stewards of a ﬁnite resource that must

6W&ODLU 'HWURLW
5LYHU
5LYHU

6W0DU\V
5LYHUIW

Agriculture ﬁgures prominently in the Great Lakes region
producing more than 25 percent of the total value of U.S.
agricultural products, which includes about half of thenation’s corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Canadian side of theGreat Lakes basin produces nearly 25% of total agricultural
output with aggregate economic value in Ontario exceeding
all other provinces except Alberta. Forestry operations are
signiﬁcant in some locations but overall contribute lessregionally. For example, in the last decade the Ontario forest
products industry employed more than 90,000 people while
generating more than CAD15 billion. In 2000, Wisconsin alone
employed 74,000 workers in pulp, paper, and wood products
manufacturing which generated more than US$18 billion.

IWIW/DNH
6W&ODLU/DNH
6XSHULRU/DNH+XURQ
IW

1LDJDUD)DOOVIW

IWIW

/DNH
(ULH

6W/DZUHQFH5LYHU

1LDJDUD
5LYHU

IW/DNH6W/DZUHQFH*XOIRI/DNH6W)UDQFLV
6W/DZUHQFH/DNH6W/RXLV
0RQWUHDO+DUERXU/DNH2QWDULR$WODQWLF
2FHDQ/DNH0LFKLJDQIWIW

1RWHPL NP
IW P'LVWDQFHLQ0LOHV










    





PL

Figure 2. North American Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System Proﬁle (Source: Based on GLIN (2003) and U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (Detroit District) information).
180

Great Lakes (North American)

be managed sustainably. In a certain sense, the residents
are also participants, directly or indirectly, in a very large
scale institutional experiment reconciling economic andgeo-political boundaries with hydrologic ones. Though theexperiment began little more than a century ago, the successes
and failures in governance and resource management thatare learned in the region will likely have global applications.
Therefore, the Great Lakes might also be described as thelargest freshwater laboratory for institutional experimentationon the face of the earth.

2.

The Evolution of Regional GovernanceExperimentation with government institutions is an ongoingprocess with a long and storied history for both Canada and theUnited States. By way of proxy for both, the following outline isprovided to reveal the major features of evolving government
institutions that affected resource management; in this outline
ﬁve successive eras are described (Donahue 1996).
Since the founding of the nation in the late 1700s waterways
have provided vital transportation routes to compensate for alack of roads. The very ﬁrst commercial canal project was led
by George Washington, the ﬁrst president. Competing stateinterests between Maryland and Virginia initially indicatedlimits to state sovereignty and began to frame federal/state
relations.

Table 1.

2.1

The “Resource Development” Era—circa 1780-1850

Water resource projects were development oriented, withtransportation as a major emphasis and were generally
designed to overcome the limitations of the physical system,
such as with the poor road system. In 1797, a rudimentary lockwas constructed at what is now Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
This project was followed by the Erie Canal in 1825; theWelland Canal in 1828; and the Chicago River locks in 1848.
These projects had a single objective: structural development
and so comprehensive planning was the exception rather than
the rule during this era.

2.2

The “Transition” Era—circa 1850-1900

Permanent, multi-jurisdictional institutions were establishedwhich had expansive water resources development
responsibilities. For example, the Federal Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1852 created regional institutions for navigation
improvements, bank stabilization and ﬂood control. Structuralchanges and development of water resources systems largely
characterized this era through federal legislation that createdgovernment institutions with broad powers. In the Great
Lakes region, health crises along with economic opportunities
accelerated the development toward this new paradigm ofresource management. For example, outbreaks of typhoidand cholera in the late 1890s in Chicago resulted in a projectthat reversed the ﬂow of the Chicago River from Lake Michigan
southwest into the Mississippi River basin.

North American Great Lakes Physical Features and Population.
Superior

Michigan

Huron

Erie

Ontario

Elevationa (m)**

183

176

176

173

74

Length (km)*

563

494

332

388

311

Breadth (km)*

257

190

245

92

85

Average Deptha (m)**

147

85

59

19

86

Maximum Deptha (m)*

406

282

229

64

244

Total

Volumea (km3)*

12,100

4,920

3,540

484

1,640

22,684

Water Area (km2)*

82,10057,80059,60025,70018,960244,160

Land Drainage Areab (km2)*

127,700

118,000

134,100

78,00064,030521,830

Total Area (km2)*

209,800

175,800

193,700

103,700

82,990765,990

4,385

2,633

6,157

1,402

1,146

17,017d

Shoreline Lengthc (km)*Retention Time (yrs)**

191

99

22

2.6

6

Population (persons)607,121

10,057,026

2,694,154

11,682,169

8,150,895

St. Marys River

Straits of
Mackinac

St. Clair River

Niagara River/
Welland Canal

St. LawrenceRiver

Outlet33,191,365

Notes:a) Measured at Low Water Datum.
b) Land Drainage Area for Lake Huron includes St. Marys River; Lake Erie includes the St. Clair-Detroit system; Lake Ontario includes
the Niagara River.
c) Includes islands.
d) These totals are greater than the sum of the shoreline length of the lakes because they include the connecting channels (excluding
the St. Lawrence River).
Sources: Fuller and Shear (1995).
*
Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, Coordinated Great Lakes Physical Data, May 1992.
**
Extension Bulletins E-1866-70, Michigan Sea Grant College Program, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1985.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

181

2.3

The “Federal Leadership” Era—circa 1900-1950

This era was characterized by strong federal legislation,and consequently federally-dominated water management
institutions, an acceptance of comprehensive planning, andmuch debate on the role of regional governance in the U.S.
system of federalism (vis-à-vis sharing power over water
resources with the states). The 1920s and 1930s saw thefederal government embrace and dominate the practice ofcomprehensive basin planning. For example, in the Great
Lakes region the U.S. Federal Government negotiated theInternational Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 with GreatBritain. A new institution was created to implement theterms of the treaty: the International Joint Commission which
reﬂected the multi-objective, multi-jurisdictional emphasis on
governance.

2.4

The “River Basin” Era—circa 1950-1985

A fourth era emerged with still greater federal powers andunprecedented institution building at the river basin level.
But it also asserted federal/state partnerships and state
stewardship responsibility for water resources through theestablishment of river basin commissions, such as the Great
Lakes Basin Commission. It also emphasized environmental
protection and resource management, as opposed todevelopment. The shift from federal dominance to stateempowerment also continued with the 1954 creation of
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a binational agency
with strong state and provincial involvement, and the 1955
creation of the Great Lakes Commission, an interstate compact
agency founded in both state law and Congressional consent
legislation.
This era began to end in 1981 by an Executive Order of the
President of the U.S., which dismantled the institutions
established under earlier federal legislation—the Water
Resources Planning Act. In addition, federal power overwater resources was becoming further entrenched with
implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972. Counterbalancing these developments, however,
the Council of Great Lakes Governors was formed in 1982
indicating that, at least in the Great Lakes, there was a newstate stewardship ethic emerging.

2.5

The “New” Era—circa 1985-Present

The present era of resource management has seen thetransition from a top-down, command-and-control,
government-dominated approach to a bottom-up, partnershipbased, inclusive one.
A number of developments, which have sometimes been
contradictory, appear to explain this transition. Thesedevelopments include:•

182

The “new federalism” philosophy of the Reagan
Administration which viewed water resources issues
Great Lakes (North American)

largely as concerns of the states either singly orcollectively;•

The current downsizing and “re-invention” of the federal
government, prompted by efﬁciency concerns andbudgetary constraints;•

A “kinder and gentler” federal government that has
tempered its regulatory emphasis with voluntarycompliance and partnership characteristics;•

A rising ethic of self determination, stewardship andcollaboration among states; and,•

Relentless efforts of “grass-roots” non-governmentalorganizations to empower communities and individuals.

Collectively, these inﬂuences have had a profound impact onregional water resources management.

3.

Sustainable Use Vulnerabilities“There are two basic and quite different bilateral Great
Lakes issues: lake levels and water quality.” In 2003, many
Great Lakes managers and researchers would agree with thisstatement, which was in fact published twenty years ago(Caroll 1983). Notwithstanding progress in addressing issuesof water quality and lake levels over the past two decades,
water quality and lake levels continue to dominate the Great
Lakes policy and management arenas. Anthropogenic andnatural ecological processes that degrade water quality or
stymie its improvement and those that do or potentially can
result in changes in the quantity of water sustained in each of
the ﬁve lake basins and their connecting channels continue tothreaten the sustainable use of the Great Lakes.

3.1

Threats to Water Quality

3.1.1 Point Source Discharges
Historically, the primary threats to water quality came frommunicipal and industrial “point source” discharges. Sewage
from residences, shops and workplaces was discharged
untreated or minimally treated into Great Lakes tributaries
and the lakes themselves. Paper, steel, automobile and othermanufacturing industries that have historically dominatedthe regional economy released their leftover chemicals andsludges, into the land, water and air.
A suite of federal environmental legislation on both sides ofthe border was part of a maturing environmental movementthat began alongside other social movements in the 1950s
and 60s.
On the U.S. side, major federal laws were established tocontrol pollution from these point sources to the water directly
and indirectly from the air and land. These included the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (known as
the Clean Water Act), the Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1977 andthe Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976. Canada
similarly passed federal environmental laws, including theCanada Water Act of 1970, albeit with a very different approach(Caroll 1983).
Programs to address point source discharges have met withrelative success over the past several decades (particularlyin the area of phosphorous, but also due to sewage treatment
plants and other control measures), exposing the signiﬁcanceand ubiquity of non-point sources of pollution (runoff andair deposition) as well as historic contamination. Today, thebiggest threats to Great Lakes water quality come from avariety of non-point sources of pollution.

3.1.2 Nonpoint Source Discharges from Land Use
Activities
Urban Development and Runoff. One of the most signiﬁcantland use issues in the Great Lakes region is the continuing
growth of major metropolitan areas and sprawl of residential
areas and other development (Pebbles 2001). Since World War
II, the human footprint on the land around the Great Lakes
has been transformed by a major shift in land development
patterns from high-density urban development to low-density
suburban development. This shift reﬂects that of the nation
at large and has happened at a rate unparalleled in American
history. Over several decades, the Great Lakes went from beinga region of distinct cities, towns and rural areas to one of
metropolitan areas dominated by suburbs comprised of strip
malls and segregated bedroom communities connected byvast amounts of wide-lane roads and boulevards.
The causes and consequences of sprawling development are
the subject of much discourse and debate. Several aspects ofurban runoff contribute to it as a threat. One is erosion fromconstruction activities that involves removal of vegetation,soil compaction/grading and development. The impacts ofdevelopment are exacerbated by the extent of impervious coverthat occurs with sprawling development patterns that result in
extensive impervious land cover in the form of roads, parking
lots, sidewalks and rooftops. Impervious cover threatens water
quality by preventing rain and snow from slowly ﬁltering into
the ground and instead redirecting it rapidly and directly todrains and streams, increasing the frequency and severity of
ﬂooding and erosion along the way and degrading stream andriparian habitat. Although all development results in someimpervious cover, the low-density nature of sprawl resultsin the need for more roads, rooftops and parking lots toconnect shops, homes and workplaces and house automobiles
necessary to get there. The “green” areas around these lowdensity developments rarely compensate for the impervious
cover as the land is compacted, and where revegetation
occurs, it usually involves lawns and selected ornamental
shrubs and trees that have much less water absorption andﬁltering capacity than the grasses, trees and shrubs thatexisted on the land prior to development.
Pollutants from urban and suburban activities that end up
in runoff are as varied as the types of human activities. They

include oil and grease from automobiles, surface decay,
pesticides and herbicides from home yard care, householdcleaning products and pet wastes. The threat of thesepollutants is exacerbated with high levels of impervious
surface that block inﬁltration—one of nature’s foremost
abilities to deal with pollutants.
Agricultural Runoff. Agriculture is a leading economic activity
in all of the Great Lakes states and its footprint around theGreat Lakes basin is signiﬁcant, representing 24% of thebasin or 25% of the land base (Thorp et al. 1997). Althoughseemingly more benign than industrial manufacturing, theimpacts from agricultural practices are more insidious andcan stake a signiﬁcant claim in the degradation of Great
Lakes water quality. The shift from agriculture to agribusinessthat also occurred during the middle of the 20th century
was characterized by heavy use of chemicals and nutrientsto fend off pests, resist disease and ensure the highest
possible yields. There was little-to-no regard to the impacts
of indiscriminate use of pesticides—in the home or on theﬁeld—until the release of “Silent Spring” in 1962, the seminal
book which challenged and ultimately changed the way
pesticides and other chemicals are used and managed in the
U.S. The impact of agriculture is related to the type and extent
of agricultural land uses and management practices. About
65% of the basin’s farmland is cropland (Thorp et al. 1997).
While cropland uses its share of chemical and nutrient inputs,
and contributes to soil erosion and sedimentation, there isincreasing attention to threats from livestock operations.
Although livestock operations occupy a signiﬁcantly smaller
footprint, the growing concentration of animals per farm,inadequate manure management and the potential forwaterborne pathogens from concentrated livestock operations
is a growing concern. Regulations have recently emerged toaddress nutrient management from livestock operations, but
their impact on ecosystem or water quality improvement is still
uncertain. While agricultural practices happen on the groundin the region, international trends in agricultural production
and commodity pricing inﬂuence local practices.
Farmland Conversion. Although agricultural practices can andoften do degrade water quality, agriculture also has attributes
that can contribute to and enhance ecosystem integrity. This is
an important consideration in light of other major competing
land uses, particularly urbanization. In contrast to urban
development where the impacts are essentially irreversible,
agriculture holds promise for practices that have stewardshipand productivity in mind. Contour farming, conservation
tillage, the use of buffer strips, integrated pest management
and other methods that reduce agriculture’s negative impact
on the environment hold promise for agriculture as an industry
that can preserve land and open space where the hydrologic
cycle can occur unimpeded. The same cannot be said for urban
development. Once land is developed for roads or housing, it
may change function or form, but it remains essentially urban.
Actively farmed orchards and crops allow water to ﬁlter into
the land and provide cover for some animals, functions which
are enhanced by the practice of employing buffer strips orExperience and Lessons Learned Brief

183

conservation easements. Importantly, farmland left fallow will
eventually revert to a natural state with little-to-no long-term
consequences for ecological integrity.
The expansion of metropolitan areas referenced above goes
hand-in-hand with farmland conversion. This phenomenon isparticularly signiﬁcant in the Great Lakes Basin where nearly
two-thirds of the farmland is located within 50 km of medium
and large cities (GLC 1996). As urban areas expand, surrounding
agriculture and open space lands pay the price. Farmland loss
in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin between 1982
and 1997 was more than 1.6 million hectares, representing
nearly 49% of the total farmland loss for the eight Great
Lakes states during this period. The rate of loss is disparate
across the region and the basin, since some jurisdictions (e.g.,states/provinces) have relatively small basin land areas (e.g.,
Illinois) and others have less farmland in their portion of thebasin (e.g., Minnesota). Whether looking at ﬁgures speciﬁcto the basin or the broader 8-state, 2-province region (which
includes the St. Lawrence River basin), the trend of farmland
conversion over the last two decades is staggering. Between
1981 and 1997 more than 5.1 million hectares of farmland wereconverted to other uses—a surface area larger than the size oflakes Erie and Ontario combined period (Pebbles 2001).
The urbanization and farmland conversion cycle places the
agriculture at serious risk. Remedies must not only reduce
urban sprawl, but also maintain viable agricultural economies
at the local and regional levels.
Combined Sewers and Storm Sewer Overﬂows. Older urban
areas built with combined sanitary (household sewage andindustrial wastes) and storm sewer systems allow untreatedsewage to bypass treatment and go directly into surface
waters when treatment facilities are inundated during storm
events. This “combined sewer overﬂow” is a serious threat
to water quality and the sustainability of coastal areas from
ecological and socio-economic standpoints. Separate sanitary
sewer systems can also experience untreated discharges
related to wet weather events, known as “sanitary sewer
overﬂows” or SSOs. These can be caused by excessive inﬂow
and inﬁltration, inadequate maintenance, and insufﬁcient wet
weather transport capacity. SSOs and untreated CSOs cancontain pathogens that lead to beach closures and humanhealth concerns, as well as oxygen demanding substancesthat can lead to low dissolved oxygen levels. Untreated CSOs
discharges may also contain industrial pollutants (USPC 2002).
Toronto still has 71 CSOs that remain and is developing a Wet
Weather Master Plan and Wet Weather Flow Management
Strategy for the City that will include by-laws, policies,
projects, programs, a monitoring plan, an implementation
plan and funding mechanisms to eliminate CSOs and SSOs,
and institute a number of other water quality improvement
measures (Toronto 2003). Milwaukee is also meeting thechallenge of reducing CSOs and SSOs. Since 1994, bothsanitary and combined sewer overﬂows have been reduced
from an annual average of about 70 to about 2.5 occurrences
largely due to the construction of Inline Storage, or the Deep
184

Great Lakes (North American)

Tunnel System. The system combines horizontal and verticalcircular shaft constructions; since its inception in 1994, it
is credited with preventing more than 227 overﬂows andcapturing about 152 million m3 of diluted wastewater (MMSD
2002). While circumstantial evidence indicates that CSOs andSSOs continue to be a problem in other parts of the Great
Lakes, there is no basinwide assessment of the threat.
Contaminated Sediments. Contaminated sediments from
historic economic activities are perhaps one of the unique yet
most serious ecological threats to the Great Lakes. Even after
serious cleanup efforts began in the late 1960s, little attention
was paid to the toxics concealed on the bottom of the lakes andtheir tributaries. The ﬁrst priority was to stop the discharge of
new contaminants, and little concern was paid to sediments.
It was not until the early 1980s that environmental problems
caused by sediment contamination began to generate interest.
Decades worth of heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals
mixed with the particles of rock, soil, and decomposing woodand shell have collected in the sediments of the rivers andharbors in the Great Lakes Basin. US EPA’s Great Lakes program
identiﬁes polluted sediments as the largest major source ofcontaminants to the Great Lakes food chain, including eachof the 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) designated under the U.S.Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (see below).
Over 20% of the Great Lakes shoreline is considered impaired
because of sediment contamination and ﬁsh consumption
advisories remain in place throughout the Great Lakes andmany inland lakes. On the U.S. side of the border, sediments
have been assessed at 26 Great Lakes locations and almost 1
million m3 of contaminated sediments have been remediatedover the past 3 years. However, the challenge is so great that
sediment remediation is not yet complete at any US AOC(USEPA-GLNPO 2002). In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed theGreat Lakes Legacy Act, which authorizes US$270 million overﬁve years from ﬁscal years 2004 to 2008. The Act authorizes
US$50 million per year for “Projects” which may include: sitecharacterization, assessment, monitoring, remediation, and/or pollution prevention, US$3 million per year for technology
research, and US$1 million per year for public information
programs.

3.2

Threats to Water Quantity and Lake Levels

The hydrology and water balance of the Great Lakes basin
has been altered by human diversions, regulatory structures,
urbanization, dredging, ﬁlling and other human activities overthe last 200 years or so. Major diversions have shifted some
ﬂows from the Lake Michigan watershed to the Illinois River/
Mississippi River drainage system. Another diversion brings
water from the James Bay/Hudson Bay watershed into theLake Superior basin. Also, the International Joint Commission
oversees regulatory structures at the outﬂow of Lakes Superior
and Ontario to help control water levels in those lakes. Various
large-scale proposals to remove water from the Great Lakes
have been around for almost a century, but received little
attention. Heightened interest in Great Lakes basin diversions
resulted in two policy responses in the 1980s. First, in 1985

the Great Lakes governors and premiers signed a binational
good faith agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter, which
established a series of principles and procedures for managing
Great Lakes water resources. In 1986, the US Congressincluded a provision in the Water Resources Development Act(Section 1109) that prohibits any new or increased diversion
of Great Lakes water without the approval of the Great Lakes
governors.
Due to changes in regional leadership, uneven public interest,and inconsistent support for water management programs,
the binational management framework called for in the Great
Lakes Charter never fully matured (GLC 2003). The deﬁcienciesof the framework came to light in the late 1990s when an
Ontario-based company was issued a permit to withdraw Lake
Superior water with the intent of establishing an overseas
market for bulk water export. The Great Lakes community
was caught by surprise, renewing a ﬂurry of regional interest
and activity in water resource management. In 2001, Canada
amended its Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit bulk water
removals from the Great Lakes and set in place a licensing
regime for dams and other public water works projects (GLC
2003). Basinwide, the Great Lakes governors and premiers
signed the Great Lakes Charter Annex in 2001 to reafﬁrm theircommitment to the 1985 Great Lakes Charter and set forth arevised set of principles for Great Lakes water management.
The Great Lakes Commission engaged in a two-year basinwide
collaborative effort to assess Great Lakes water resource
information and management and develop a framework for a
Water Resources Decision Support System (WRDSS) for thebinational Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system.
The ﬁnal WRDSS report released in June 2003 (Toward a
Water Resources Management Decision Support System
for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System) provides adetailed assessment of data and information needs—a criticalcomponent for a completed decision support system—andsuggests next steps for a complete WRDSS. It is now up to thegovernors and premiers to take the necessary next steps forestablishing the legal and institutional mechanisms necessary
for a functioning and effective Great Lakes water resourcesmanagement framework and decision support system.

3.3

Threats to Ecosystem Integrity

To be sure, activities and events that threaten water quality
and/or quantity are also threats to ecosystem integrity.
Fortunately, the Great Lakes region has beneﬁted from an
institutional and legal focus on water quality and quantity as
part of ecosystem integrity. The variety of other ecosystemstressors and threats and responses to them lists in thedozens, from soil erosion and sedimentation to air depositionof toxic compounds, to oil spills and information gaps,
insufﬁcient funding and institutional inertia. However, no
discussion of threats to the Great Lakes system would be valid
without mentioning the ongoing threat and impact of aquatic
invasive or nuisance species.

More than 140 non-indigenous, or invasive, species havebecome established in and around the Great Lakes sincethe 1800s (IAGLR 2002). Due in large part to increases in thevolume of shipping trafﬁc, the introduction of new invasive
species has increased dramatically over the past 50 years.
More than 87 non-indigenous aquatic species have been
accidentally introduced into the Great Lakes in the 20th
century alone. Once introduced, invasive species must be
managed and controlled, as they are virtually impossible toeradicate.
In a recent study, the U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁce lookedat economic impact of invasive species in the U.S., themanagement plans of the National Invasive Species Council,
efforts of the U.S. and Canadian federal governments toprevent introductions in the Great Lakes via ballast water ofships, and, ﬁnally, coordination of Great Lakes management
efforts between the two countries (USGAO 2002). The study
found that current efforts are not adequate because: (a) someships entering the Great Lakes carry residual water in theirballast tanks that later become mixed with, and subsequently
discharged into domestic waters; and (b) ballast waterexchange procedures do not appear to be effective at removing
or killing organisms in ballast tanks and there no standards nor
fully effective technologies available to ensure protection ofGreat Lakes waters.

4.

Policy, Legislative and Institutional
Responses

Binational cooperation on the issue of water began well before
the U.S. national environmental movement of the 1960s withthe 1909 U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. The Boundary
Waters Treaty established the International Joint Commission(IJC)— a binational body to prevent and settle disputes overthe use of waters shared by the U.S. and Canada and wasa landmark in Canada-U.S. cooperation, paving the way
for Great Lakes-speciﬁc efforts. The IJC is comprised of six
commissioners, three U.S.-appointed and three Canadaappointed. It is supported by a complex organizational
structure of more than 20 boards and reference groups madeup of experts from the U.S. and Canada, including the Great
Lakes. While the treaty includes a provision to protect theboundary waters from pollution, it was not enough to address
the growing water pollution problems in the Great Lakes.
In 1964 the two governments forwarded a reference to theInternational Joint Commission (IJC) requesting it to determine
whether the Great Lakes were polluted and what could be done
to remediate them. An important outcome of the reference was
the recognition that federal legislative efforts to address water
quality on either side of the border were inadequate to deal withthe multijurisdictional complexities of the Great Lakes (and theSt. Lawrence River basin) as a binational resource shared by
two federal governments, eight states, and two provinces andthousands of local governments. In 1972, the U.S. and Canada
signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which callson the Parties (the U.S. and Canada) “to restore and maintain
Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

185

the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of
the Great Lakes ecosystem.” Signed by President Nixon andPrime Minister Trudeau, the Agreement does not have treaty
status, but is a binational executive agreement that commits
Canada and the United States to speciﬁc actions to protect andenhance water quality.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement not only addressed
the water quality issue, but perhaps equally important, theissue of multiple fragmented jurisdictions. To this end, theAgreement established the IJC Great Lakes regional ofﬁce(the only IJC regional ofﬁce) which has speciﬁc responsibilities
for providing technical support, coordinating programs andmonitoring implementation of the two federal governments
under the Agreement. The IJC has established a Great Lakes
Water Quality Board and a Science Advisory Board to carry out
its mandate under the Agreement.
Prior to 1972, the IJC investigations only held public hearings
on speciﬁc topics; otherwise, these were carried out in private
because only the governments could give permission torelease “internal communications” by boards and committees.
Under the 1972 Agreement, public involvement increased;
the Research Advisory Board (RAB) of the IJC sponsored aworkshop to consider means to enhance public participation.
The RAB’s Standing Committee on Social Sciences, Economic,
and Legal Aspects met in 1975 and established 17 public
advisory panels for the Pollution from Land Use Activities
Reference Group study (PLUARG). The PLUARG study followed
up the 1964 Lower Great Lakes Reference on the lower Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence River; the latter study led to the Great
Lakes Agreement of 1972. Eventually, PLUARG resulted in over
100 published reports. Hundreds of citizens and local ofﬁcials
were involved in the 17 advisory panels. The involvement of
the public during the course of PLUARG generated three longterm results: (a) those involved brought diverse backgrounds
and interests from across the basin; (b) local involvement
developed the outline of a framework for the Remedial Action
Plan process; and (c) recommendations from the public
advisory panels shaped the decision agenda of the IJC itself(Botts and Muldoon 1983).
In addition, PLUARG enhanced scientiﬁc understanding of
nonpoint and land-based sources of pollution to the Great
Lakes by showing that the problem originated from manysources; in other words, Great Lakes water quality problems
were an air problem, a land runoff problem, a contaminatedsite problem, and possibly a human health problem. It also
provided the basis for the ecosystem concept of water
resource management and stewardship which was eventually
incorporated into the GLWQA.
The Agreement was revised in 1978 to establish morecomprehensive and stringent water quality objectives witha greater ecosystem focus. It was amended again in 1983
and further in 1987, the latter amendment committing thetwo governments to develop and implement Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) for 43 Geographic Areas of Concern (AOC) within
186

Great Lakes (North American)

the Great Lakes where beneﬁcial uses were threatened or
impaired. Though the Agreement is an executive agreement
between the two federal governments and does not havetreaty status, it has been incorporated into federal, stateand provincial law on both sides of the border. Cleaning up
AOCs and developing Lakewide Management Plans to reduce
pollutant loadings for each lake with a binational shoreline(i.e., not Lake Michigan), has become a major focus ofbinational ecosystem management efforts in the Great Lakes(Hildebrand et al. 2002).
Complementary binational program responses have emerged
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including:•A biennial ecosystem conference to report on the Stateof the Great Lakes based on a series of establishedecological indicators;•

A binational toxics strategy to address persistent toxic
substances;•

A framework to coordinate relevant federal, state andprovincial agency activity in cleaning up AOCs shared by
Ontario and Michigan; and,•A program to eliminate point source discharges of
persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances into Lake
Superior.

Canada and the U.S. have also been working cooperatively
on Great Lakes ﬁsheries issues since 1955 through the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), which was establishedunder the Canada-U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
The Convention is an international treaty that has been
incorporated into federal law on both sides of the border.
The Fishery Commission is focused on ways to improve andperpetuate ﬁsheries resources of the lakes, develop andcoordinate ﬁshery research programs, and develop measures
to manage the parasitic sea lamprey (Great Lakes Panel
1996). The Fishery Commission’s Strategic Vision for the First
Decade of the New Millennium (2001 through 2010) focuseson three areas: (a) Healthy Great Lakes Ecosystems; (b)Integrated Management of Sea Lamprey; and (c) Institutional/Stakeholder Partnerships (GLFC 2001).
The eight Great Lakes states themselves have been working
collaboratively on basinwide ecosystem management issues
through the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) since 1955. The
GLC is an interstate compact agency founded in state andfederal law and comprised of state ofﬁcials, legislators andgovernors’ appointees from the eight Great Lakes states.
The GLC was established to guide, protect and advance thecommon interests of the eight Great Lakes states in areasof regional environmental quality, resource management,
transportation and economic development. The status ofCanadian provinces Ontario and Quebec (the latter is part of
the St. Lawrence River Basin but not directly part of the Great
Lakes basin) was elevated from observer to associate memberin 1999, reﬂecting the GLC’s anticipated evolution to a fully
binational state-provincial agency. The GLC staffs over a dozen
issue-speciﬁc task forces and advisory committees to address
the variety of ecosystem priorities and special projects being
undertaken by the Commission at any given time. Dredging,aquatic nuisance species, soil erosion and sedimentation,
wetlands monitoring, oil spill prevention, air toxics and online
information sharing are just some of the ongoing task forces
and regional initiatives managed by the GLC.
Also concerned with basinwide issues on the U.S. side is theCouncil of Great Lakes Governors, a non-proﬁt organization
whose members include the governors of the 8 Great Lakes
states, which was formed in 1983 to coordinate stewardshipof the region’s economy and environment. Among the Council’s
most notable cooperative binational ecosystem management
initiatives is the 1985 Great Lakes Charter. The Great Lakes
Charter is a good-faith agreement of the Governors andPremiers in the basin to express their shared concern overwater supply and use issues, which sets up the Council tooversee implementation of a binational process to review
water use patterns and consider diversion and consumptive
use proposals under the terms of the Charter.
A series of programs to reduce discharges from point sources
has allowed both countries to claim success with controlling
pollution from the most prominent sources. The region’s
simultaneous decrease in manufacturing (Testa 1991) thatreﬂected larger national and global economic trends might
have resulted in fewer active industrial polluters. By the late
1990s the major threats to the Great Lakes water quality
were not point source discharges, but non-point sources andhistoric contamination.

5.

Lessons Learned

5.1

Research

5.1.1 Formality and Informality
Research on the Great Lakes has beneﬁted from the lakes
being binationally shared between the U.S. and Canada.
The formal agreements, including the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement and the Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries, provide binational communication mechanisms forthe development of research needs and recommendations.
These functions are performed by the Science Advisory Boardand the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Boardof Technical Experts under the Convention on Great Lakes
Fisheries. Research needs and future directions are developed
through panels, conferences, and workshops organizedby the Great Lakes Commission, or by funding agencies,
including the National Science Foundation (Johnson 2003),
the Great Lakes Protection Fund, or by private foundations.
The multidisciplinary International Association for Great
Lakes Research (IAGLR) performs an important function incommunicating research results on the North American Great
Lakes, and other large lakes of the world, through its annual

Great Lakes Conferences and Journal of Great Lakes Research.
Recognizing that scientiﬁc information is often too technicalfor decision-making, IAGLR is currently engaged in a project tostrengthen the connection between Great Lakes science andpolicy with initiatives on urban nonpoint source pollution andaquatic invasive species (see http://www.iaglr.org/scipolicy).
In addition to these formal arrangements, it is important torecognize the role of informality to the vitality and relevanceof Great Lakes research to resource management issues andproblems. A secondary beneﬁt of the conferences, workshops,
and task forces created by the above-mentioned and otherformal institutional arrangements is the role they provide
as a communication forum for researchers to get to know
one another. Collegial relationships are developed and often
evolve into collaborative research between individuals whoshare expertise, enjoy each other’s company, and look forward
to working together. Another strength of Great Lakes researchis that researchers often informally call meetings among
themselves, outside of the formal institutional arrangements
and without directives from program administrators. For
example, when the zebra mussel invaded the Great Lakes in
the 1980s, U.S. and Canadian scientists met and developed a
research needs document that later evolved into the work ofGreat Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species Panel. More recently,
the informal Lake Erie Millennium Network was formed by U.S.
and Canadian researchers and managers to develop researchplans and share research results through conferences andworkshops on the rapidly changing Lake Erie ecosystem.

5.1.2 Academia and Government
Research programs are conducted by academic institutions andState, Provincial, and Federal Government laboratories both in
the U.S. and Canada. There is no strict division of responsibility
between academic and government research on the Great
Lakes. In general, academia is better adapted to conduct
pure research and more quickly respond to new and emerging
issues. While government programs give more emphasis toapplied research focused on resource management, policy
needs, and long-term research and monitoring. On the surface,
there is a complementary and mutually reinforcing relationshipbetween academic and government research on the Great
Lakes. In reality, reductions in funding and personnel has
resulted in academic and government research spending aninordinate amount of time competing for shrinking Great Lakes
science funds. Under these circumstances, the weaknesses
in Great Lakes research coordination become more apparent,
resulting in calls to strengthen the Great Lakes research
agenda (Thomas and Cooley 1996; Krantzberg 1997; Matisoff
1999).

5.1.3 Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary
Much of Great Lakes research has been driven by environmental
crises. Research focused heavily on single issues including
eutrophication during the 1960s and 1970s; toxic contaminantsin the 1980s; and invasive species during the 1990s (McNaught
1993). There will always be a need for more research emphasis
in some disciplines research, for example, more researchExperience and Lessons Learned Brief187

is needed into the economic valuation of environmental
beneﬁts (Cangelosi 2001). The greater challenge facing theGreat Lakes research community is to plan, coordinate, andconduct multidisciplinary research to better understand thestructure and function of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem inthis new millennium. Environmental conditions in the Great
Lakes are rapidly changing and it is becoming increasingly
difﬁcult for research to provide information useful for guiding
Great Lakes resource management and policy towards
environmental protection, restoration, and sustainable usesof the Great Lakes region. In particular, there is need formore multidisciplinary research interaction in the Great Lakes
between limnology and ﬁsheries; water and watersheds; andenvironment and economics. The Great Lakes community
has been a leader in espousing an ecosystem approach toresearch and management but is still challenged to advancethe ecosystem approach from concept to practice (Christie etal. 1985; Hartig et al. 1995).

5.1.4 Monitoring
Environmental monitoring is extremely important for detecting
emerging issues, assessing the effectiveness of regulatory
and resource management programs, assessing progressin restoration efforts and determining status and trends inecosystem health. Yet, monitoring is often criticized for notmeasuring the right parameters and for collecting too muchdata without sufﬁcient attention to synthesis and reporting.
Many of the aforementioned lessons learned on Great Lakes
research also apply to monitoring.
Governments and academia are both involved in monitoringin the Great Lakes with the majority conducted by the former.
Formal binational monitoring agreements, such as the Great
Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP) under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, are necessary but have
faced serious shortcomings in implementation. In addition
to formal monitoring plans, it is important to recognize more
informal data sets that have been maintained by academic
and government scientists; such data sets become invaluable
in monitoring and interpreting ecosystem changes often
unrelated to the purpose for which the data were originallycollected. A shift in emphasis is well underway in Great Lakes
monitoring from water and sediment chemistry (pollutants
and algal nutrients) to more integrative, multidisciplinary
approaches, including atmospheric deposition and biologicalindicators of ecosystem health (Gannon et al. 1986). Resultsof monitoring efforts in the Great Lakes are reported at thebiennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC;
see http://www.binational.net) for the environmental
management community and at annual lake committee
meetings for the ﬁshery management community (see http://www.glfc.org). Currently, there is considerable interest fromGreat Lakes researchers and management to improve planning,
integration, and coordination of Great Lakes monitoring tobetter understand the status and trends of ecosystem changes
and responses to stressors. As for research, there is a historyof good binational communication and cooperation on Great
Lakes monitoring, but a new level of improved coordination
188

Great Lakes (North American)

is required to advance scientiﬁc understanding and inﬂuenceenvironmentally sustainable economic development of theGreat Lakes basin ecosystem in this new millennium.

5.2

Institutions and Governance5.2.1 Institutional Arrangements for Advancing
Sustainability
Lake resource management in the Great Lakes basin, as
practiced by early European immigrants, focused on single
resource extraction activities, such as timber. Throughsuccessive eras, these practices have evolved to multiobjective, multi-media and multi-disciplinary planning andmanagement that strives to balance environmental andeconomic prosperity goals (Donahue 1996). Innovation inecosystem management is now guided by “sustainability”
concepts, such as that advocated by the Brundtland
Commission: a state at which today’s society is able to meet its
needs without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). Indeed, much has beenlearned regarding environmental and economic sustainability
within the framework of Great Lakes institutions. There are
now recognized (presented below) critical actions which could
help to ensure that further evolution within institutions is
encouraged for the advancement of sustainable management
practices (Donahue 2002). These actions include thefollowing.
Characterize the roles, relationships and gaps on the“institutional ecosystem”. Continued evolution of thisvery complex system of institutions will be enhanced
through understanding the interactions of the multitude ofgovernment and non-government entities, organizations andother interests. Ongoing study of the roles and relationships
among these stakeholders is one of the essential elements tosustainable basin governance.
Creative use of informal institutional arrangements. As
noted earlier, much of the “institutional infrastructure” forGreat Lakes resource management has been created throughlaws, treaties, conventions, compacts and formal agreements.
These formal institutions are costly to create and maintain.
Other alternative relationships, in the form of non-binding,“good faith” agreements among the relevant parties should
be carefully explored where advantages, such as ﬂexibility, aredesirable.
Design institutions that “learn”. Once an institution has
been established to address a crisis or problem it becomes
vulnerable to problems, such as irrelevance or inefﬁciency as
the problem is ameliorated or eventually solved. However, if
the institution is designed to “learn” and adapt to its changing
context then it is capable of responding to emerging issues,
such as aquatic nuisance species, climate change, water
export, energy transmission infrastructure, or the assertionof stewardship by First Nations and tribal authorities. Lakemanagement institutions must be designed not only fora “crisis response” but also to “anticipate and prevent”
emerging problems.

programs are lacking performance benchmarks for theirprocesses.

Translate regional governance lessons to other international/
global contexts. Great Lakes management institutions canlearn from the successes and failures of other regions of North
America and the world (e.g., Baltic Sea). Science provides
a model for translation and sharing of knowledge on such
issues as air deposition of toxic substances, the introduction
and spread of aquatic nuisance species, and the origins
and impacts of climate change. Applying this model to thegovernance arena would be helpful.

Expand mechanisms of accountability among regional
institutions. To enhance efﬁciency, effectiveness andresponsiveness of regional, multi-jurisdictional institutions,mechanisms of accountability should be expanded, including
the use of performance measures, benchmarks, and enhanced
public proﬁle and interaction.

Integrate science and policy throughout lake management
institutions. Related to the recommendation just discussed,
the science community appears to lack relevant knowledge
that could be applied to resolving policy issues. Moreover,institutional managers appear to ignore or discount scientiﬁc
evidence in establishing their policies. Thus, there is a need tostrengthen communications between scientists and decision
makers regarding relevant and helpful knowledge while also
providing feedback on solutions that do or do not work.
Develop an ecosystem view of the impact of institutionalchange. As lake management institutions evolved in the
Great Lakes basin they often did so in response to a crisis or
singularly-focused objective. Other needs went unmet or wereignored. There is a need to carefully consider the Great Lakes
institutional ecosystem to achieve a more orderly, objective
and reasoned approach that addresses long-term governanceneeds.
Develop a clear, coherent and consensus-based understandingof “sustainability”. As a concept, “sustainability” provides
a point of reference for many decision makers in the Great
Lakes. While the broad deﬁnition provided by the Bruntland
Commission is instructive, a coherent understanding islacking which compromises its applicability and usefulness.
A consensus-based working deﬁnition is needed to informmanagement and policy processes.

5.2.2 Benchmarks and Audit Processes of Institutional
Performance
In order to gauge progress toward ecosystem management
goals it is necessary to identify indicators, or benchmarks ofecosystem health. For example, in 1993 the International Joint
Commission established an Indicators for Evaluation Task
Force (IETF 1996) to identify ecosystem indicators for assessing
progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The
IETF also extensively documented similar efforts by others(Appendix A of IETF 1996). In particular, the USEPA and
Environment Canada have jointly sponsored and coordinatedthe State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC 2002)
that serves their agencies program needs as well as those ofmany resource managers throughout the basin. Clearly, these
efforts are fundamentally important to ensure that ecosystem
restoration and protection programs are properly focusedand effective. However, many institutions and government

Incorporate an audit process into basin governance initiatives.
Audit procedures that thoroughly assess management
program activities can realize two important beneﬁts. First,
audits enhance efﬁciency and effectiveness by identifying
and correcting problems with the program approach or
implementation. They also document accomplishments inachieving the priorities of resource managers and the public.
These procedures should be included in basin governanceinitiatives, including post-audits to identify lessons learned for
management future initiatives.

5.2.3 Research on Institutions and GovernanceMoving the notion of sustainability along the path from concept
to application requires research on in the past, the nexus
between Great Lakes institutions and regional governanceissues have not been examined closely. Progress on developing
sustainable approaches to ecosystem management requires
more attention to research on these problems including thefollowing.
Enhance understanding of the institutional and governancerelationships affecting the physical and socio-economic
dimensions of the Great Lakes ecosystem. A recurring
need of government policies is to integrate environmental
and economic goals in a manner that is sustainable for the
ecosystem and also transparent in the design and operationof institutions. The physical characteristics of the basin havebeen extensively studied and incorporated into institutional
design whereas socio-economic characteristics have not.
Further research into both the physical and socio-economic
dimensions, and how their characteristics translate into
institutional practice, is clearly needed.
Careful research of existing governance mechanisms, therelationships among them, and their role in advancing
ecosystem management goals. Any research program thatwould aim to strengthen or otherwise revise the roles andresponsibilities of institutions must not only examine thosealready in place, it should identify unmet needs for new
institutions and characterize the differences between them.
The ﬁrst step is “mapping” the institutional ecosystem, as
recommended above.
Evaluate the contributions and potential roles of First
Nations/tribal authorities. Current basin governancesometimes includes tribal authorities in a variety of planningand policymaking mechanisms. At the same time, First Nations
are increasingly asserting their role in these activities. Their
Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

189

formal representation on basin institutions is presently limited
at best, as is their status as signatories to basin agreements.
Thus, it is clear that policy research on these emerging First
Nations/tribal authority interests in basin governance isneeded.

6.

References

Botts, L. and P. Muldoon. 1996. The Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement: Its Past Successes and Uncertain Future.
Institute on International Environmental Governance,
Dartmouth College: Hanover, NH. Available online at: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/glwqa/glreport-3-e.html
Cangelosi, A. (ed.) 2001. Revealing the Economic Value ofProtecting the Great Lakes. Northeast-Midwest Institute:
Washington, D.C. and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Caroll, J.E. 1983. Environmental Diplomacy: An Examination anda Prospective of Canadian-U.S. Transboundary Environmental
Relations. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Christie, W.J., M. Becker, J.W. Cowden and J.R. Vallentyne. 1986.
“Managing the Great Lakes Basin as a Home.” J. Great Lakes
Res. 12: 2-17.
Donahue M.J. 1996. “A New Era for Regional Water Resource
Management: A Great Lakes Case Study.” Paper presented
at the Wayne S. Nichols Memorial Lecture, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio.
Donahue, M.J. 2002. “Toward Economic and Environmental
Sustainability in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin: The“CUSIS” Initiative.” Tol. J. Great Lakes L., Sci. & Policy 4: 311322.
Fuller K. and H. Shear (eds). 1995. The Great Lakes: An
Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. Third edition.
Government of Canada: Toronto, Ontario and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Ofﬁce: Chicago, Illinois. Also available online: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/gl-fact1.html
Gannon, J.E., C.J. Edwards, T.B. Reynoldson and J.H. Hartig.
1986. “Indicator Approaches Used in the Great Lakes
International Surveillance Program.” IEEE Oceans 1986
Conference Proceedings, p. 894-900.
GLC (Great Lakes Commission). 1996. An Agricultural Proﬁleof the Great Lakes Basin: Characteristics and Trends in
Production, Land Use and Environmental Impacts. Great Lakes
Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
GLC. 2003. Toward a Water Resources Management Decision
Support System for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System.
Great Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.

190

Great Lakes (North American)

GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission). 2001. Strategic Visionof the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the First Decade of
the New Millennium. GLFC: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
GLIN (Great Lakes Information Network). 2003. Map courtesyof U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, Detroit,
Michigan. Available online at the GLIN Map Gallery: http://www.great-lakes.net/gis/maps/
GLP (Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species).
1996. Biological Invasions: How Aquatic Nuisance Species
are Entering North American Waters, the Harm They Cause
and What Can Be Done to Solve the Problem. Great Lakes
Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Hartig J.H., T. Copae-Arnold, T.S. Crockard, K. Fuller, J.E.
Gannon, S. Gerritson, N.L. Law, G. Mikol, K. Mills, L. New,
A. Richardson, K. Seidel and M.A. Zarull. 1995. Practical
Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach in Great Lakes
Management. Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Wayne State University, and International
Joint Commission: Detroit, Michigan.
Hildebrand, L.P., V. Pebbles and D.A. Fraser. 2002. “Cooperative
ecosystem management across the Canada-US border:
approaches and experiences of transboundary programs in the
Gulf of Maine, Great Lakes and Georgia Basin/Puget Sound”
Ocean and Coastal Management 45: 421-57.
IAGLR (International Association for Great Lakes Research).
2002. Research and Management Priorities for Aquatic
Invasive Species in the Great Lakes. Available online: http://www.iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/index.php
IEFT (Indicators for Evaluation Task Force). 1996. Indicators
to Evaluate Progress Under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. International Joint Commission: Windsor, Ontario.
Johnson, T.C. (ed.). 2003. The SOFIS Report: A Report of theWorkshop on the Science of Freshwater Inland Seas. Technical
Report, 2003-1. Large Lakes Observatory, University of
Minnesota: Duluth, MN.
Kling G.W., K. Hayhoe, L.B. Johnson, J.J. Magnuson, S. Polasky,
S.K. Robinson, B.J. Shuter, M.M. Wander, D.J. Wuebbles,
D.R. Zak, R.L. Lindroth, S.C. Moser and M.L. Wilson. 2003.
Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region: Impacts
on our Communities and Ecosystems. Union of Concerned
Scientists: Cambridge, Massachusetts and Ecological Societyof America: Washington, D.C.
Krantzberg, G. 1997. “Research Priorities for Great Lakes
Rehabilitation.” J. Great Lakes Res. 23: 239-240.
Matisoff, G. 1999. “A New Environmental Agenda for a New
Millennium.” J. Great Lakes. Res. 25: 591-593.

McNaught, D.C. 1993. “IAGLR: Who Are We Today and How Did
We Evolve?” J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 183-193.
MMSD (Milwaukee Municipal Sewage District). 2002. Deep
Tunnel Information. Available online: http://www.mmsd.com/
deeptunnel/deeptunnel.asp
Pebbles, V. 2001. Linking Brownﬁelds Redevelopment andGreenﬁelds Protection for Sustainable Development. Great
Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
SOLEC (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference). 2002.
SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, OH. Environment Canada: Ottawa,
Ontario and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Chicago,
Illinois. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/solec/2002/
index.html

Disclaimer
The ﬁndings, interpretations and conclusions expressedin this report are the views of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the views of The World Bank and its
Board of Directors, or the countries they represent, nor dothey necessarily represent the view of the organizations,
agencies or governments to which any of the authors areassociated. Also, the colors, boundaries, denominations, andclassiﬁcations in this report do not imply, on the part of The
World Bank and its Board of Directors, or the countries they
represent, and the organizations, agencies or governments towhich any of the authors are associated, any judgment on thelegal or other status of any territory, or any endorsement or
acceptance of any boundary.

Testa, W.A. (ed.). 1991. The Great Lakes Economy: Looking
North and South. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: Chicago,
Illinois and Great Lakes Commission: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Thomas N. and J. Cooley. 1996. “Improving the Effectiveness ofGreat Lakes Research.” J. Great Lakes Res. 22: 125-126.
Thorp S., V. Pebbles and R. Rivers. 1997. “Impacts of
Changing Land Use. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
Background Paper.” In EPA 905-R-97-015d (ISBN 0-662-260341). USEPA and Environment Canada: Chicago, Illinois andBurlington, Ontario.
Toronto, City of. 2003. Wet Weather Flow Management
Master Plan. Toronto, Ontario. Available online: http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/wws/
wwfmmp/index.htm
USEPA-GLNPO (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Ofﬁce). 2002. Key
Sediment Problem Areas in the Great Lakes Basin. USEPA:
Chicago, Illinois. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
sediment/gpra/index.html
USGAO (United States General Accounting Ofﬁce). 2002.
Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment
Needed to Effectively Manage the Problem. GAO-03-1. USGAO:
Washington, D.C.
USPC (United States Policy Committee for the Great Lakes).
2002. Great Lakes Strategy 2002: A Plan for the New
Millenium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Ofﬁce: Chicago, Illinois. Available online:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/gls2002.pdf
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development—
Brundtland Commission). 1987. Our Common Future. United
Nations, New York.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

191