DRAFT September 2009 White House Council on Environmental Quality 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

U.S. Department of State 

U.S. Department of the Army 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

Action Plan 

FY2010 – FY2014 

Draft December 3, 2009 

This plan is draft and subject to change. Nothing in this revised 

document is meant to, or in fact does, affect the substantive or 

legal rights of third parties or bind EPA. It is currently available 

for public comment, and EPA is working with other federal 

agencies to refine and finalize the plan. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

2 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... 3 

A National Treasure.................................................................................................................................... 6 

The Great Lakes Restoration Challenge ..................................................................................................... 7 

What is “Restoration”? ............................................................................................................................... 8 

Taking On the Challenge: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative............................................................. 9 

The Path Forward: The Action Plan ......................................................................................................... 10 

Lake Superior wave .............................................................................................................................. 10 

Plan Overview....................................................................................................................................... 10 

Building on Past Progress, Integrating with Current Programs............................................................ 11 

Federal Integration and Coordination ................................................................................................... 13 

Implementing the Action Plan .................................................................................................................. 13 

Tracking Progress and Using the Best Available Science.................................................................... 13 

Project Selection ................................................................................................................................... 14 

Funding and Grants Cycle .................................................................................................................... 15 

Focus Areas............................................................................................................................................... 16 

Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern....................................................................... 17 

Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................17 

Long Term Goals ...............................................................................................................................18 

Interim Objectives..............................................................................................................................19 

Measures of Progress .........................................................................................................................19 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............................................................................................20 

Focus Area 2: Invasive Species ............................................................................................................ 21 

Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................21 

Long Term Goals ...............................................................................................................................21 

Interim Objectives..............................................................................................................................22 

Measures of Progress .........................................................................................................................23 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............................................................................................24 

Focus Area 3: Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution ........................................................ 25 

Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................25 

 Long Term Goals ..............................................................................................................................26 

Interim Objectives..............................................................................................................................26 

Measures of Progress .........................................................................................................................27 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............................................................................................28 

Focus Area 4: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration........................................................... 29 

Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................29 

Long Term Goals ...............................................................................................................................29 

Interim Objectives..............................................................................................................................30 

Measures of Progress .........................................................................................................................31 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............................................................................................32 

Focus Area 5: Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships

............................................................................................................................................................... 33 

Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................33 

Long Term Goals ...............................................................................................................................35 

Interim Objectives..............................................................................................................................35 

Measures of Progress .........................................................................................................................36 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress ..............................................................................................36 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 38 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

3 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Executive Summary 

The lands and waters of the Great Lakes are like no other place. In a world where fresh surface water is 

increasingly in demand, the region contains some 20 percent of it. At a time when people are not looking as much 

too faraway places for respite, the Great Lakes offer some of the most majestic natural shorescapes on the planet 

to accommodate them. As a result, people are reconnecting to their beaches, wide-open waters, petroglyphed 

bluffs, dune ranges and tumbling tributaries like never before. Likewise, these same resources have served as the 

raw material to build some of the Earth’s most legendary cities, create jobs to support families, and contribute to 

the largest economy in the history of the world. 

Still, our expectation that the Great Lakes will continue to meet these needs has resulted in lost flora, fauna, soil, 

and air and water quality to the point where the ecosystem is showing signs of severe stress and its ability to keep 

up with these demands is in doubt. 

While in the past we have worked to minimize harm, public demand for a new standard of care is surging. That 

standard of care is that we must leave the Great Lakes better for the next generation than the condition in which 

we inherited them. We must continue to go beyond minimizing harm to proactively rehabilitating the Great Lakes. 

Only then will they be able to keep providing jobs, recreation and sanctuary. 

The Great Lakes states and the Great Lakes Basin boundary.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

4 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Understanding this, U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Administrator Lisa Jackson, in collaboration with 15 other federal agencies, have made restoring the Great Lakes 

a national priority. Signaling a commitment beyond measure of past promises, in February 2009, President 

Obama proposed $475 million for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Initiative). This Action Plan describes 

how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 through 2014. 

The Initiative is not intended to be another grand statement about the Great Lakes; it is intended to operationalize 

those statements. It builds on countless hours by elected, agency, business, public interest and other leaders, 

which resulted in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy 

provides a framework for the Action Plan. As such, the Action Plan is just that: an action driver. It articulates the 

most significant ecosystem problems and efforts to address them in five major focus areas: 

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, including pollution prevention and cleanup of the most polluted 

areas in the Great Lakes 

• Invasive Species, including efforts to institute a “zero tolerance policy” toward new invasions 

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, including a targeted geographic focus on high priority 

watersheds and reducing polluted runoff from urban, suburban and, agricultural sources 

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration, including bringing wetlands and other habitat back to 

life, and the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the entire 530,000 acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands 

for the purpose of strategically targeting restoration and protection efforts in a science-based manner 

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships, including the 

implementation of goal- and results-based accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and 

strategic partnerships 

The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable ecological targets, and specific actions for each of the 

five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in the development of the 

federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond. As such, it will serve as guidance for 

collaborative restoration work with participants to advance restoration. The Action Plan will also help advance the 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada. The Initiative is not the only tool in the toolbox, however. 

Traditional infrastructure financing under Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, and Superfund 

cleanup enforcement, for example, represent work outside the Initiative’s scope. This work, however, continues to 

be essential to Great Lakes protection and restoration and EPA is working with States and Tribes to ensure that 

these high priority activities are properly targeted whenever possible to help further clean up the Great Lakes. 

Under the Initiative, EPA will administer funding individually and with other federal agencies. Funds will be used 

to implement priority federal projects as well as other programs undertaken by nonfederal entities that support the 

Action Plan. Funding will be provided through grants and cooperative agreements or through interagency 

agreements that allow the transfer of funds to other federal agencies for subsequent use and distribution. Most 

grants will be issued competitively. Annual reports to the President, beginning in 2011, will describe 

accomplishments to date, action planned for the upcoming year, and progress toward meeting ecosystem goals 

and targets. These efforts will underpin the Action Plan’s operating principles: 

1) Accountability: The Initiative is an unprecedented opportunity to heal the ecosystem. With this 

unprecedented opportunity comes unprecedented responsibility, however, for all of us to demonstrate we 

are achieving the results intended in the Action Plan. We will use transparent means of demonstrating 

how public dollars are being invested. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

5 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

2) Action: This distinguishes the Initiative from so many other efforts in the past. For the most part, we 

know the problems facing the Great Lakes. The Initiative supports our resolve to solve them. While there 

is a place for monitoring, sampling, surveying and planning under the Initiative, these activities must have 

a bias for action, that is, real on-the-ground and in-the-water project work that will breathe new life into 

the ecosystem. Projects ready to go with existing plans will receive preference over efforts that require 

extensive new planning. 

3) Urgency: Study after study shows the health of the lakes is in jeopardy. While we have been working 

heroically to hold the line over the years to prevent their further decline, we have been entrusted with 

powerful new resources to rehabilitate the lakes: leadership at the highest levels demanding action, policy 

tools, and the promise of significant financial resources. With these, there are no more reasons for delay. 

After all, the Great Lakes have endured some 150 years of abuse. Though it will take time for the 

ecosystem to respond to our actions today, there is not another minute to lose in restoring these 

magnificent waterways for tomorrow. 

This Action Plan – including the funding and other policy tools that will be used to leverage its outcomes – is 

intended to realize our goals: that the fish are safe to eat; the water is safe to drink; the beaches and waters are safe 

for swimming, surfing, boating and recreating; native species and habitats are protected and thriving; no 

community suffers disproportionately from the impacts of pollution; and the Great Lakes are a healthy place for 

people and wildlife to live. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

6 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

A National Treasure 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

The Great Lakes – the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth – are true wonders of the world. An important 

part of the physical landscape and cultural heritage of North America, the Great Lakes hold 95 percent of the 

United States’ surface fresh water. Shared with Canada, these “freshwater seas” boast more than 10,000 miles of 

magnificent coastline and 30,000 islands and provide drinking water, transportation, power and a wide array of 

recreational opportunities. The region’s four-seasons climate, uniquely influenced by the Great Lakes, supports 

boating, fishing, diving, beach enjoyment and other forms of recreation that support the region’s proud outdoor 

heritage. 

The environment of the Great Lakes region is blessed with wide swaths of forest and wilderness areas, rich 

agricultural land, hundreds of tributaries and thousands of smaller lakes, and extensive mineral deposits. The 

region’s sand dunes, coastal marshes, rocky shorelines, lakeplain prairies, savannas, forests, fens, wetlands and 

other landscapes contain features that are globally unique or best represented within the Great Lakes basin. For 

example, the world’s largest freshwater dunes line the shores of Lake Michigan. 

The region’s glacial history and the influence of the lakes themselves create unique conditions that support a 

wealth of biological diversity, including over 200 globally rare plants and animals and more than 40 species that 

are found nowhere else in the world. Rare species making their home in the Great Lakes region include the 

world’s last known population of the white catspaw pearly mussel, the copper redhorse fish and the Kirtland’s 

warbler. The Great Lakes environment supports a world-class fishery, with an estimated 180 species of native 

fish, including small- and large-mouth bass, muskellunge, northern pike, lake herring, whitefish, walleye and lake 

trout. 

If the Great Lakes region were its own nation, it would house the largest economy second only to the United 

States itself, providing transportation for raw materials and finished goods; fresh water for our industries; drinking 

water for our communities; and recreation for the basin’s more than 30 million citizens. The 4.3 million 

recreational boats registered in the eight Great Lakes states generate nearly $16 billion in spending on boats and 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

7 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

boating activities in a single year. That spending directly supports 107,000 jobs, a figure that grows to nearly 

250,000 when secondary impacts are taken into consideration.

The Great Lakes Restoration Challenge 

Pigeon River kayaking

The Great Lakes impact our way of life, as well as all aspects of the natural environment, from weather and 

climate to wildlife and habitat. Yet for all their size and power, the Great Lakes are not as resilient as they look. In 

the past, their fragile nature was not recognized and the lakes were mistreated for economic gain, placing the 

ecosystem under tremendous stress from our activities. Today, we understand that our health and our children’s 

future depend on our collective efforts to wisely manage this complex ecosystem. 

History has shown us that the Great Lakes are highly sensitive to biological and chemical stresses. While 

restoration progress has been made through years of concerted effort and expenditures on the part of federal, state, 

tribal and local governments and other stakeholders, that progress is slowing or even reversing. The Great Lakes 

face a number of serious challenges. The most significant of these include toxic substances, invasive species, 

nonpoint source pollution and nearshore impacts, habitat and species loss, and a need for better information to 

guide decision making. 

Although releases of toxic pollutants have been reduced significantly over the last 30 years, there is a legacy of 

contamination in sediments and continuing inputs through rivers and air. Excessive levels of contaminants are still 

found in fish throughout the system. As a result, all Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario issue annual 

fish consumption advisories. Mercury and other pollutants continue to enter the Great Lakes from nearby and 

global sources through air deposition. Newly recognized chemicals of concern are also being identified as 

potential threats to the chemical integrity of the Great Lakes. Thirty toxic hotspot “Areas of Concern” (AOCs) in 

the United States are still in need of cleanup after more than 20 years; only the Oswego River has been removed 

from the AOC list. 

Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species continue to cause ecological and economic damage, and greatly 

complicate efforts to restore the Great Lakes. New aquatic species of invaders have arrived at the rate of about 

one every eight months, adding to the more than 180 already established in the basin. In recent years this rate has 

slowed but the door to new arrivals has not yet been shut. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

8 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Pollution from nonpoint sources contributes to impaired water quality and excess nutrients. Many of our coastal 

areas also suffer from sewer overflows that contaminate the water and close the beaches. 

Habitat destruction and degradation due to development, competition from invasive species, alteration of natural 

lake level fluctuations and flow regimes, poor coastal development planning and land management, and habitat 

fragmentation have negatively impacted habitat and wildlife. This has led to altered food webs, a loss of 

biodiversity, and poorly functioning ecosystems. Yet, opportunities for the protection and restoration of critical 

habitat exist throughout the basin. 

While the Great Lakes region has been a leader for innovative science and advances in natural resource 

management, there are still significant gaps in knowledge about ecological processes and key indicators of 

ecosystem health. Efforts must be strategically chosen in order to obtain the additional information needed to 

inform implementation activities, assist tracking and reporting of progress, and to identify adaptive management 

actions. The Great Lakes also face new and emerging problems such as the effects of climate change, including 

potentially changing long-term Great Lakes water levels and the timing and duration of ice cover. 

Collectively, these problems have seriously compromised the environmental health of the Great Lakes. As a 

result, there is a new sense of urgency for action to address the highest priorities for restoring and protecting the 

Great Lakes. This document outlines a strategic multi-year approach to address these urgent problems. 

What is “Restoration”? 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or 

destroyed. For purposes of this Initiative, restoration includes ecosystem protection, enhancement, rehabilitation 

and remediation. A restored ecosystem is resilient; chemical, physical, and biological functions and processes 

provide the requisite conditions for life. A restored ecosystem contains sustainable populations of native plant and 

animal species and their habitats. Potential threats or further damage have been eliminated or reduced as much as 

possible and the restored ecosystem is able to withstand future threats. Restoration is not the attempt to change the 

ecosystem to pre-European settlement conditions. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

9 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Taking On the Challenge: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

Nelson Point State Park

When running for president, Barack Obama issued a campaign promise to protect and restore the Great Lakes. 

The pledge built upon a May 2004 Executive Order that created the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to 

coordinate federal restoration efforts. In 2005, some 1,500 stakeholders created the Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy) that outlines challenges facing the lakes, a framework for restoration and 

protection, and a common set of recommended solutions across eight priority issue areas: 

• Aquatic Invasive Species 

• Habitat/Species 

• Coastal Health 

• Areas of Concern (AOCs)/Sediments 

• Nonpoint Source 

• Toxic Pollutants 

• Indicators and Information 

• Sustainable Development1

Released in May 2009, the President’s FY 2010 budget included $475 million for a new Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative (Initiative), strategically targeting programs and projects to address the most significant problems in the 

Great Lakes ecosystem to demonstrate measurable results. EPA, in concert with its federal partners on the Task 

Force and other stakeholders, is leading the development and implementation of this Initiative and will administer 

the funding. Building upon the extensive planning and collaboration that was done by the Task Force and a wide 

 

1 The Initiative collapses these eight focus areas into five. A ninth focus area, concerning water quantity issues, was excluded from the 

GLRC Strategy because it was being addressed through a separate process: the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources 

Compact. The Sustainable Development area also identified a $13.75 billion need over five years to update old water infrastructure in the 

Basin, which is deteriorating, thereby increasing risks to human health and the environment. Drinking water infrastructure is in similar need 

of repair and upgrade. Infrastructure needs are not being addressed by GLRI but through increased funding for the State Revolving Funds 

through EPA’s Regional offices.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

10 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

variety of stakeholders and non-governmental partners in development of the GLRC Strategy, the Task Force 

developed a plan for FY 2010.2

The Initiative presents an unprecedented opportunity to systematically tackle the environmental challenges that 

have persisted for decades. In July and August 2009, EPA held a series of public meetings with agencies and 

stakeholders in the Great Lakes states to get public feedback on the highest priority issues in each focus area, both 

basinwide and locally, and to get suggestions for how to address these issues to maximize results under the 

Initiative. This Action Plan incorporates those basinwide and local priorities into a five year time frame for action. 

Federal agencies will begin implementing that FY 2010 plan upon appropriation of funding by Congress. 

The Path Forward: The Action Plan 

Lake Superior wave 

Plan Overview 

This Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan (Action Plan) outlines methods and actions to advance implementation 

of the Initiative through FY 2014 and will help protect and restore the chemical, physical and biological integrity 

of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. 

Five principal focus areas have been identified which encompass the most significant environmental problems in 

the Great Lakes (other than water infrastructure) for which urgent action is required. These include3

: 

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern 

• Invasive Species 

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution 

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration 

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships 

Each focus area in this Action Plan includes a problem statement, goals, interim objectives, measures of progress 

and targets, and the principal actions in support of the objectives. On an annual basis, federal agencies are 

expected to identify the specific actions they will take to implement the Action Plan. Federal agencies also will 

minimize overhead in carrying out the Action Plan and, to the extent feasible, will use existing staff. EPA will 

 

2 The FY 2010 plan, together with documents describing Agency actions therein and the programs and projects to carry it out, are posted to 

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri/index.html. 3 Regional goals for water and sewer infrastructure improvements, which would be supported by funding under the Clean or Drinking

Water State Revolving Fund programs, are being addressed through other processes and are not part of this Action Plan.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

11 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

assure that the Action Plan’s goals, objectives, and targets are aligned with those of Great Lakes state, municipal 

and tribal governments. 

Within the five focus areas, the Action Plan will address the highest priority projects. It is the intent of the 

Initiative’s federal agencies to target efforts and funds to these high priority projects in a way that maximizes 

results. Targeted, cooperative efforts are necessary to ensure meaningful progress on many of the complex and 

costly issues that have plagued the Great Lakes for decades. Some issues exist basinwide (e.g., invasive species, 

nonpoint source pollution,) and require broad, expansive action, while others are more localized (e.g., Areas of 

Concern, habitat) and will have site-specific remedies. 

In each focus area there are efforts which will be given special attention. 

• In the focus area of Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, efforts will be targeted to remediate 

contaminated sediments and to address other major pollution sources in order to restore and delist the 

most polluted sites in the Great Lakes basin. 

• In the focus area of Invasive Species, efforts will be targeted to institute a “zero tolerance policy” as a 

long term goal toward new invasions, including focuses on the development of an early detection and 

rapid response capability, and the development of ballast water technology. 

• In the focus area of Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, efforts will be targeted 

geographically to focus on watersheds of extreme ecological sensitivity (such as the Green Bay/Fox 

River, Genesee River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River, places where environmental 

problems and their solutions have been clearly identified). 

• Efforts will target implementation of lakewide biodiversity conservation blueprints and restoration of 

important species such as the Lake Sturgeon and the Piping Plover. 

• In the focus area of Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships, 

efforts will include the implementation priority Lakewide Management Plan projects for restoring the 

lakes, as well as establishment of quality goal and results-based accountability measures, learning 

initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships. 

Additional information about these efforts is included in the focus area descriptions which follow in a subsequent 

section of this Action Plan. 

Building on Past Progress, Integrating with Current Programs 

This Action Plan includes many elements of the Strategy and draws upon the ecological priorities, goals and 

objectives of numerous pre-existing issue or area-specific plans and programs that have been developed by 

federal, state, local and non-governmental stakeholders, such as:

• Plans under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including Lakewide Management Plans and 

Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern 

• Comprehensive Management Plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair 

• Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy 

• State Wildlife Action Plans 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Fish Habitat Action Plan 

• A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries 

• Plans under the U.S. - Canada Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries 

• Partners in Flight North American Land Conservation Plans 

• North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

• U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

12 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

• Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Monitoring Plan 

• Great Lakes Fishery Plan 

• Endangered Species Recovery Plans 

• Coastal Management Plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act 

• Plans under the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

Boats along Lake Huron

This Action Plan takes a step toward integrating and aligning these and other plans, including individual states’ 

Great Lakes restoration plans. Our goal is to minimize the duplication of effort while using the Initiative to do 

high priority work that has already been identified or that may be incomplete, under other programs. As such, the 

Action Plan represents our best attempt to capture the broad consensus of the Great Lakes community’s collective 

commitment to advance Great Lakes protection and restoration. This broad consensus is the result of years of 

planning finally capped by 18 meetings in summer 2009 with representatives of states, tribes, cities and other 

stakeholders. We expect that these representatives and others will be able to continue providing input to federal 

agencies for implementation of priority Great Lakes actions by participating in these and other ongoing planning 

efforts. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will support the National Policy and Implementation Plan being 

developed in response to the President’s memorandum on a “National Policy for the Oceans, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes.” 

In addition to new federal funding through GLRI, the Initiative will rely on partnerships to leverage and harness a 

wider set of resources for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. In many instances, the most effective 

solutions to the challenges facing the Great Lakes will require effective use of: non-GLRI baseline federal 

funding, federal regulatory or other policy tools, and the tools and resources of non-federal partners. 

• Non-GLRI baseline federal funding. For example, construction of water infrastructure for treatment and 

conveyance of drinking water and wastewater. 

• Federal regulatory or other policy tools. For example, national rulemakings and permitting that reduce 

the risk of future invasions of ANS; or regulatory means to reduce atmospheric mercury deposition to the 

Great Lakes. 

• Tools and resources of non-federal partners. For example, land acquisition by a state or tribe for the 

purpose of enhancing habitat protection or connectivity. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

13 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Federal Integration and Coordination 

The primary means for ensuring that the Action Plan is developed and implemented in an integrated manner is the 

Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA. 

Created by presidential Executive Order in 2004, the Interagency Task Force (Task Force), through the efforts of 

the Regional Working Group (RWG), coordinates federal Great Lakes efforts, including some 140 federal 

programs that address Great Lakes issues. The Task Force includes 11 of the agency and cabinet organizations 

which manage those programs: EPA, State, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, 

Transportation, Homeland Security, Army, Council on Environmental Quality, and Health and Human Services. 

Implementing the Action Plan 

Though a national treasure of magnificent grandeur, we know the Great Lakes are still vulnerable to misuse and 

exploitation. Degradation of the lakes and their supporting ecosystem happened over the course of more than a 

century. Even with nature’s resiliency, discernable widespread improvements will likely also take time. The 

goals, objectives, measures of progress and other efforts identified in this Action Plan will help ensure 

quantifiable annual outputs are in place that will lead to long-term restoration outcomes, even if such outcomes 

will not be immediately measurable on an ecosystem scale. 

Tracking Progress and Using the Best Available Science 

The Task Force will implement an accountability system to routinely track, measure and report progress pursuant 

to the Action Plan. Recipients of Initiative funding will be required to provide routine progress reports, at least 

semi-annually, on their individual projects as well as progress toward the goals, interim objectives, and measures 

of the Initiative. EPA will collect that information and report on overall progress toward attaining the goals and 

interim objectives of the Action Plan. EPA will work with the Task Force to identify adapt and modify activities 

in future years based on performance and newly identified needs. These will be included in the development of 

funding plans for subsequent years. 

Beginning in March, 2010, EPA will provide annual reports that provide funding allocations by Federal Agency 

and that identify any adjustments from annual requests. In addition, starting in 2011, EPA will work with its Task 

Force partners to provide an Annual Report to the President on accomplishments in achieving the Action Plan’s 

outcomes and measures. The report will also compare funding allocations among participating agencies from 

fiscal year to fiscal year. 

Scientific integrity at all levels is critical to the success of Great Lakes restoration. Therefore, the Initiative will 

use the best available science to prioritize and implement actions, as well as to track progress. To do this, EPA 

and the Task Force will take all appropriate steps so that the Action Plan and its programs and projects optimize 

the likelihood of successful restoration at relevant scales. This will include engaging an independent scientific 

review panel to review the scientific credibility of the Action Plan so that the best available science guides efforts 

to restore the Great Lakes. Some of the distinct programs and projects in this Plan may also require a more 

specific peer review. These scientific reviews will be scaled as necessary to establish the scientific justification 

and credibility for the Action Plan’s goals, objectives, and measures and actions The GLRI will also ensure that 

the rate of progress is scientifically validated, and scientific research will guide any revisions to restoration 

priorities as well as enable the Initiative to adapt and modify activities when necessary. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

14 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Flowing stream near the Chicago River 

Project Selection 

The following criteria and principles will guide selection of programs4 and projects pursuant to this Action Plan. 

All agencies and prospective grant applicants should consult the respective Requests for Proposals (RFPs) issued 

each year to solicit grant proposals, as project selection criteria and principles may change from year to year. 

• Ability to strategically achieve measurable environmental outcomes linked to the highest priority issues 

• Ability to advance applicable ecological priorities of existing plans, such as Lakewide Management 

Plans, Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern, as well as other relevant national and regional 

coordinated strategic planning efforts, as mentioned above 

• Feasibility of prompt implementation, including a bias for projects that are both ready-to-go and will have 

results soon (however, some funding will be used for planning and design to ensure cost effective 

implementation and for monitoring, particularly where it is needed to establish baseline conditions and/or 

to better understand environmental problems to inform implementation actions) 

• Observable local impacts, especially for projects at the “field” level

• Strong bias for interagency/inter-organizational coordination and collaboration

• Support new work, or enhance (but do not replace) existing Great Lakes base activities 

• Public support 

• Ability to leverage non-federal resources 

• Promotion of long-term societal, economic, and environmental sustainability 

• Minimization of transaction costs 

Projects and activities must also meet standards for: 

• best available science 

• experience, ability, and authority of the funding recipient to properly perform the work; 

• reasonableness of project costs; and 

• measuring progress and success. 

 

4

 Note that these funds will not be directed toward water infrastructure programs that are addressed under the Clean Water or Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund program. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

15 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force used the criteria above to develop the focus areas of the Initiative, 

evaluate programs and projects, and create provisional funding allocations. 

Work within each focus area will be accomplished through federal interagency cooperation, and by working 

closely with states, tribes, local government, academia, NGOs, and other stakeholders in the Great Lakes basin, as 

well as Canadian representatives. As this Action Plan encompasses numerous national and regional coordinated 

strategic planning efforts and their associated plans (see footnote below), participating agencies must assure that 

they continue to support their existing base program activities in the Great Lakes and that added Initiative support 

will not be used to supplant their existing base funding. As a starting point for identifying their base funding, 

agencies have been asked to use the 2009 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative Crosscut Budget Report to Congress. Final funding allocations are dependent upon actual 

appropriations. 

Funding and Grants Cycle 

Through this Action Plan and collaboration among EPA and the other agencies on the Great Lakes Interagency 

Task Force, and with input from Great Lakes stakeholders, the distribution of funds will be directed to maximize 

Great Lakes restoration and protection. Resources will be directed to the most significant issues and 

opportunities. 

To be positioned to fund projects through grants5

 as soon as possible after an appropriation is made, EPA 

proposes to collaborate with the Interagency Task Force to do as much up-front work as possible, including 

issuance of a RFP as soon as possible each fiscal year. The planning process assumes that an appropriation for 

grant funding for states, tribes, local governments, and other organizations can be available early in each fiscal 

year. 

Most EPA grants will be issued competitively pursuant to RFPs addressing the five focus areas. These 

expressions of needed work are included in numerous issue-based and geographically focused plans as referenced 

above. Should significant problems and issues need to be addressed outside of the five focus areas, a competitive 

grant program would be used to fill gaps, cut across or overlap focus areas, address unanticipated areas, or 

facilitate innovation. Important criteria for grant selection will include a demonstration of the ability to commence 

work expeditiously to connect the project to Great Lakes priorities. 

Following appropriations, EPA will act upon expert recommendations and will select proposals and issue grants 

for EPA programs. Upon routine implementation of the Initiative, EPA believes that if it were to receive an 

appropriation by October 1 of a given fiscal year, the first grants could be issued early in the new calendar year, 

with others issued in the course of the year. One or more additional RFPs would be issued as needed throughout 

the year. 

Several other members of the Interagency Task Force are also expected to select proposals, issue grants, and 

provide other assistance with funding from the Initiative. Each agency would provide assistance following its 

own applicable procedures, but would require special Initiative reporting provisions that will be outlined in the 

Interagency Agreement. EPA would be given the opportunity to review other agencies’ Requests for Proposals 

(RFPs) and proposed project selections. Likewise, EPA would share its RFPs and proposed project selections to 

avoid duplication. To assist stakeholders in finding assistance opportunities pursuant to the Initiative in a single 

location, EPA will develop and update the Task Force’s Funding Guide. Grant issuing agencies will ensure that 

appropriate results and accountability information is incorporated into public reports and provided to oversight 

groups. 

 

5

 The term “grants,” as used in this document, includes both grants and cooperative agreements.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

16 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

Focus Areas 

The following describes the five focus areas around which significant ecological stresses and efforts to address 

those stresses will be organized: 

• Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern 

• Invasive Species 

• Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution 

• Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration 

• Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships 

Each focus area includes subsections that provide a problem statement to describe stresses, long-term goals6

 for 

addressing those stresses, interim objectives, measures of progress to ensure efforts are on track for implementing 

long-term goals and principal actions to achieve that progress. This section is also helpful to prospective grantees 

and others who might receive Initiative funds to ensure what they plan to propose is in keeping with overall 

Initiative efforts. 

Some priorities cut across focus areas. For example, the Task Force will “geographically target” activities, such 

that federal, state and other stakeholders can leverage efforts to restore areas that are highly degraded and of high 

ecological importance in the Great Lakes. Geographic targeting across the focus areas is expected at places such 

as the Genesee River, Green Bay/Fox River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River watersheds. 

Another cross-cutting priority will be environmental justice and work to reduce disproportionate ecological 

impacts. Environmental justice, as a priority, will be handled under some of the individual focus areas (e.g., 

cleanups in Areas of Concern, which may correspond to areas of potential environmental justice concern). While 

we do not anticipate creating a separate funding source for work in this area, special consideration will be given to 

efforts that address these important priorities. 

 

6

 Long-term goals are aspirational and may not be achieved within the time span of this action plan.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

17 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern 

Problem Statement 

Although many point sources of pollution – discharges from discernible, often end-of-pipe conduits – have been 

reduced, legacy contamination remains. “Legacy contamination” is pollutants largely left over from past practices, 

but that continue to recirculate through the ecosystem. Such legacy pollutants, often persistent toxic substances 

(PTS) continue to be present at levels above those 

considered safe for humans and wildlife, warranting 

fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes, 

connecting channels, and Midwestern and New York 

interior lakes. Urban communities living in or near 

these areas and indigenous communities that still live 

off the land in the basin are particularly at risk from 

disparate impacts on health from pollution in these 

areas, and from consuming contaminated fish. 

Continuing sources of persistent toxic substances 

include releases from contaminated sediments; 

industrial and municipal point sources; nonpoint 

sources including atmospheric deposition, 

agricultural and urban runoff, and contaminated 

groundwater; and cycling of the chemicals within 

the lakes. Efforts to restore degraded conditions in 

Grand River plume entering Lake Michigan at Grand Haven, Michigan. 

Photo: NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL). 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

18 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

the 30 U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern 

(AOCs) are underway using a variety of 

funding sources including those under the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act, Superfund and 

other tools, but much more needs to be done, 

including the remediation of an estimated 43 

million cubic yards of contaminated 

sediments, which are the main cause of 

beneficial use impairments in the majority of 

the AOCs. 

In addition to the well-known toxicants like 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury 

and banned pesticides, there are chemicals of 

emerging concern that have been detected in 

the Great Lakes over the past several years, 

which may pose threats to the ecosystem. 

Some such chemicals may include flame 

retardants, surfactants, pharmaceuticals and 

personal care product constituents. To protect 

human and ecosystem health against future 

threats, these substances must be better 

understood with respect to their potential 

risks to human health and the environment. 

Long Term Goals

• Goal 1: The release of toxic substances in 

toxic amounts is prevented and the 

release of any or all persistent toxic 

substances (PTS) to the Great Lakes 

basin ecosystem is virtually eliminated. 

• Goal 2: Exposure to toxic substances 

from historically contaminated sources is 

significantly reduced through source 

reduction and other exposure reduction 

methods. 

• Goal 3: Environmental levels of toxic 

chemicals are reduced to the point that all 

restrictions on the consumption of Great 

Lakes fish can be lifted. 

• Goal 4: The health and integrity of 

wildlife populations and habitat are 

protected from adverse chemical and 

biological effects associated with the 

presence of toxic substances in the Great 

Lake Basin. 

• Goal 5: Areas of Concern are cleaned up, 

restoring the areas and removing the 

beneficial use impairments. 

Action Illustration: 

Cleaning Up Areas of Concern 

Thirty of the originally identified 31 toxic hotspot “Areas of 

Concern” (AOCs) have been on official lists for cleanup for 

more than 20 years. In all that time, only the Oswego River 

AOC has been delisted and only the Presque Isle AOC has 

attained a “recovery” status. In both cases, local governments 

implemented pollution control programs and a strong local 

citizenry developed community-based volunteer programs to 

assess, monitor and improve environmental conditions. 

AOC cleanup is complex for several reasons - due to the 

nature of jurisdictional issues among multiple levels of 

government, the complexity of the many environmental 

programs that are being brought to the task, and the immensity 

of the environmental issues being faced. For example, prior 

analyses have placed the costs for sediment clean-up alone 

across all AOCs in the Great Lakes basin on an order of $1 – 4 

billion. In addition to sediment cleanups, AOCs face other 

costly and intractable environmental problems, such as 

agricultural and urban nonpoint source pollution, combined 

sewer overflows and other manifestations of aging water 

infrastructure, wetlands loss, and others. Solutions to these 

problems often require decades of work, all the time 

coordinating among multiple partners and authorities to 

harness and synchronize the significant resources that are 

necessary over several years. 

Action Illustration: 

Electronic Waste and Unwanted Medicines 

During the 2008 Earth Week Campaign U.S. EPA held an 

electronic and unwanted medicines waste collection campaign 

with the goal of collecting 1 million pounds of e-waste and one 

million pills of expired and unused medicines in the Great 

Lakes basin. Approximately $500,000 in grants were awarded 

to states, tribes, and local governments. Over 100 entities 

participated in the week-long campaign across the basin. The 

campaign goals were far exceeded with approximately 5 million 

pounds of electronic waste and 5 million pills collected. With 

funding and support from the GLRI, over the next two years, 

we anticipate broad participation in similar collection events 

throughout the Great Lakes basin, resulting in at least 20 

million pounds of electronic waste and 20 million pills of 

unwanted medicines collected and kept safely out of the Great 

Lakes environment. Beyond the collection events, the principal 

goals in this effort include raising awareness in Great Lakes 

communities regarding the importance of safe disposal of 

electronic waste and unwanted medicines, and continuing to 

cultivate the development of ongoing and sustainable 

hazardous waste collection programs within the Great Lakes 

basin, as well as making communities and businesses aware of 

existing collection programs. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

19 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Interim Objectives

• By 2011, 20 million pounds of electronic waste and 20 million pills of unwanted medicines will be collected 

or their release will have been prevented. By 2014, 50 million pounds e-waste, 50 million pills of unwanted 

medicines, and 5 million pounds of household hazardous waste in the Great Lakes basin will have been 

collected or their release will have been prevented. 

• By 2014, delist five Areas of Concern. 

• By 2014, 50 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) will be removed in Areas of Concern. 

• By 2014, 9.6 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be remediated. 

• Through 2014, an annual average of up to 5% annual decline will be maintained or improved for the trend 

(year 2000 and on) in average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples. 

Measures of Progress 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative will significantly accelerate pollution prevention and reduction in the Great 

Lakes ecosystem. The measures by which progress will be evaluated in this focus area are:

Measure Baseline/ 

Universe7

2010 

Target 

2011 

Target 

2012 

Target 

2013 

Target 

2014 

Cumulative 

Target 

1. Number of Areas of Concern 

in the Great Lakes where all 

management actions necessary 

for delisting have been 

implemented (cumulative). 

Baseline: 1 AOC 

Universe: 31 AOCs 

1 AOC (no 

change) 

3 AOCs 4 AOCs 5 AOCs 6 AOCs 

2. AOC BUIs removed 

(cumulative).8

Baseline: 11 BUIs 

Universe: 261BUIs 

20 BUIs 30 BUIs 35 BUIs 45 BUIs 50 BUIs 

3. BUI delisting project starts 

at AOCs (cumulative).9

Baseline/Universe: 

30 national and binational AOCs 

Universe: 261BUIs 

60 projects 90 projects 120 projects 150 projects 200 projects 

4. Cubic yards (in millions) of 

contaminated sediment 

remediated in the Great Lakes 

(cumulative).10 

Baseline: 5.5 

million cubic yards 

(2007 ) 

Universe: 46 

million cubic yards 

6.3 million 

cubic yards 

7.2 million 

cubic yards 

8.0 million 

cubic yards 

8.8 million 

cubic yards 

9.6 million 

cubic yards 

5. Pollution (in pounds) 

collected through prevention 

and waste minimization 

projects in the Great Lakes 

basin (cumulative). 

Baseline: 0 10 million 

pounds 

20 million 

pounds 

30 million 

pounds 

40 million 

pounds 

50 million 

pounds 

 

7 Baseline represents the starting point for the measure. Universe represents all that is likely possible to protect, restore, enhance, etc. 8 This is an existing measure under the Government Performance Results Act. 9

 These projects represent on-the-ground actions that are being implemented in order to remove BUIs. For example, sediment removals, 

Superfund cleanups, habitat projects and others. 10 This is an existing measure under the Government Performance Results Act.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

20 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

6. Cumulative percentage 

decline for the long term 

trend in average 

concentrations of PCBs in 

Great Lakes fish.11

Baseline: 2000 

Concentrations at 

U.S. stations in L SU 

[0.71 ppm], MI [1.5 

ppm], HU [.78 ppm], 

ER [1.2 ppm] and 

ON [1.2 ppm]. 

5% decline: 9.75% 

decline 

14.26% 

decline 

18.55% 

decline 

22.62% 

decline 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress 

New actions for FY 2010 to 2014 to protect 

the Great Lakes from toxic substances, 

clean up sediments and restore Areas of 

Concern include: 

• Restore Areas of Concern/Remediate 

Contaminated Sediments – Accelerate 

the rate of sediment cleanup in AOCs 

throughout the Great Lakes basin 

through programs such as the Great 

Lakes Legacy Act, Water Resources 

Development Act, Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment, and Superfund. 

Restore and delist AOCs through 

strategic actions identified in Remedial 

Action Plans to restore individual 

beneficial uses. EPA will develop an 

enhanced management structure and 

ultimately increase our effectiveness in 

managing sediment remediation in 

AOCs. As other sediment sites may be 

identified, we will explore opportunities 

and authorities to address remediation 

at those sites. 

• Strategic Pollution Prevention and 

Reduction Projects – Prevent toxic and 

potentially toxic pollutants from 

entering the Great Lakes through a 

variety of new strategic actions, 

working closely with state, tribal and 

local governments. Initiate expanded 

Clean Sweep, and other collection 

programs and prevention practices to 

promote the safe disposal and 

elimination of toxic and other substances, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals and other waste stream 

pollutants that can cause impairments. 

 

11 This is based on an existing measure under the Government Performance Results Act. The annual decline is 5% each year.

Action Illustration: 

Beneficial Use Impairments 

AOC cleanup actions are directed toward restoring beneficial 

uses that have been impaired. A Beneficial Use Impairment 

(BUI) is defined in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 

with Canada as “a change in the chemical, physical or 

biological integrity of the Great Lakes System sufficient to 

cause any of the following: 

1. restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; 

2. tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; 

3. degradation of fish wildlife populations; 

4. fish tumors or other deformities; 

5. bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems; 

6. degradation of benthos; 

7. restrictions on dredging activities; 

8. eutrophication or undesirable algae; 

9. restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and 

odor problems; 

10. beach closings; 

11. degradation of aesthetics; 

12. added costs to agriculture or industry; 

13. degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; 

14. and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.” 

EPA cooperates with States to ensure actions are taken to 

address the BUIs in each AOC. When monitoring data shows a 

beneficial use is no longer impaired, the State and EPA can 

delist that BUI. When data shows all identified beneficial use 

impairments have been eliminated, then EPA can submit a 

proposal to the International Joint Commission (IJC) for 

removing the designation of AOC in its entirety from the area. If 

the IJC concurs that all BUIs have been restored, the parties, 

public and IJC can agree to delist the AOC as a whole. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

21 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Sea lamprey. Photo: by Dave Brenner, 

courtesy of Michigan Sea Grant. 

• Protect Human Health through Safer Fish Consumption – Increase protection of Great Lakes fish consumers 

with sound and sensible advice provided through enhanced and expanded state and tribal fish advisory 

programs. Work closely with the Great Lakes medical and health communities to educate the general public 

regarding the benefits and risks of Great Lakes fish consumption.

• Measuring Progress and Assessing New Toxic Threats – Measure progress in cleaning up toxics in the Great 

Lakes environment through comprehensive monitoring and assessment. Coordinate with efforts to update the 

Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure national programs take into account threats developing in the Great 

Lakes. Identify significant sources and impacts of new toxics to the Great Lakes ecosystem through robust 

surveillance as well as laboratory and field studies, in order to devise and implement effective control 

strategies. 

Focus Area 2: Invasive Species 

Problem Statement 

Progress toward restoring the Great Lakes has been significantly 

undermined by the effects of non-native invasive species. More than 

180 aquatic nuisance species (ANS) now exist in the Great Lakes. 

The most invasive of these, including the well known zebra mussel, 

reproduce and spread, ultimately degrading habitat, out-competing 

native species, and short-circuiting food webs. Prevention is the 

most cost-effective approach to dealing with organisms that have not 

yet arrived and could potentially threaten the lakes. New invasive 

species can be introduced into the Great Lakes region through 

various pathways, including commercial shipping, canals and 

waterways, trade of live organisms, and activities of recreational and 

resource users. Once invasive species establish a foothold in the 

Great Lakes, they are virtually impossible to eradicate; however, 

invasive species still need to be controlled to maintain the health of 

the Great Lakes ecosystem. Given that commercial shipping is a 

proven vector for invasive species transfer, advancing the 

development and use of ballast water treatment systems that are 

protective of fresh water is a high priority. Promising technology 

and innovative management practices that can significantly reduce 

the cost of control are under development. Control efforts will be 

accelerated in order to prevent the further spread of the organisms 

to inland lakes, the Mississippi River watershed, and beyond. 

Long Term Goals

• Goal 1: The introduction of new invasive species to the Great 

Lakes basin ecosystem is eliminated, reflecting a “zero 

tolerance policy” toward ANS. 

• Goal 2: The risk of introduction of species, which are imported 

for various uses, into the Great Lakes is minimized. 

• Goal 3: The spread of invasive species, by means of 

recreational activities and connecting waterways, beyond their 

current range is prevented. 

Action Illustration: 

Managing ANS already in the Great 

Lakes 

While efforts to date have been unable 

to eradicate the sea lamprey from the 

Great Lakes, an ongoing program 

coordinated by the Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission has been able to 

control their populations. In 2007, the 

Sea Lamprey Control Program 

focused on nearly 50 streams in the 

basin, using a lampricide to eliminate 

over 5.5 million larval sea lampreys. 

Each parasitic phase sea lamprey has 

the capability of killing upwards of 40 

pounds of lake trout during its year in 

the lakes. The successful control 

program continues to ensure sport fish 

rehabilitation and protects a fishery 

valued at over $4.0 billion in annual 

direct and indirect benefits.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

22 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

• Goal 4: A comprehensive program for detection and tracking newly identified invasive species in the Great 

Lakes is developed and provides up-to-date critical information needed by decision makers for evaluating 

potential rapid response actions. 

• Goal 5: An effective, efficient and environmentally sound program of integrated pest management for 

invasive species is developed and implemented, including program functions of containment, eradication, 

control and mitigation.

Interim Objectives

• By 2011, eight state ANS management 

plans that include rapid response 

capabilities will be completed. By 2014, 

eight state-based, multi-agency rapid 

response plans will be implemented and 

25 mock exercises to practice responses 

carried out under those plans and/or actual 

response actions will be completed. 

• Six technologies that prevent the 

introduction of invasive species and four 

technologies that either contain or control 

invasive species will be developed or 

refined and piloted by 2011. Ten 

technologies that prevent the introduction 

of invasive species and five technologies 

that either contain or control invasive 

species will be developed or refined and 

piloted by 2014. 

• By 2011, methodology and protocols will 

be piloted for the coordinated monitoring 

Action Illustration: 

“Zero tolerance” for new invasions 

Once invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels 

are established, it is difficult, if not impossible, to extirpate 

them. Nevertheless, GLRI provides funding opportunities 

to investigate possible control methods for invasives. In 

the case of mussels, their biological traits make any 

significant control unlikely. Instead, efforts are 

concentrating on the need to understand their nutrient and 

foodweb effects and how to manage the Great Lakes with 

them in it. 

While we remain open to innovative ideas and approaches 

to dealing with invasive species that are already 

established, and while we will undertake actions to 

manage existing populations of select ANS, our principal 

emphasis will be on prevention. New efforts will address 

vectors of introduction, including ballast water, canals and 

waterways, and spread by recreational boats. Support for 

community projects will help on-the-ground prevention 

efforts throughout the Great Lakes basin. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

23 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

methodology and shared protocols for basinwide invasive species surveillance. By 2014, a basinwide 

surveillance program with shared sampling protocols and methodologies to provide early detection of nonnative species will be operational. 

• By 2014, a 40 percent reduction in the yearly average number of ANS newly detected in the Great Lakes 

ecosystem will be achieved, compared to the period 2000-2009. 

• By 2014, invasive species populations within the Great Lakes Ecosystem will have been controlled and 

reduced, as measured in populations controlled to a target level in 7,000 acres of managed area and by 

removing 5,000 pounds of invasive species from the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

• By 2014, 10 million recreation and resource users will be educated on best practices that prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive species. 

Measures of Progress 

The Initiative will significantly advance efforts to prevent new introductions of ANS in the Great Lakes basin and 

to stop the further spread of ANS in the Great Lakes basin. Great Lakes Interagency Task Force agencies will 

work to further develop the initial set of measures by which progress will be evaluated in this focus area. The 

measures by which progress will be evaluated in this focus area are: 

Measure Baseline/ 

Universe 

2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 Target 2013 Target 2014 Target 

1. Number of 

nonnative species 

newly detected in the 

Great Lakes 

ecosystem. 

Baseline: 1.3 

species per year 

Universe: 181 

species 

1.3 species per 

year 

1.1 species per 

year 

1.0 species per 

year 

1.0 species per 

year 

0.9 species per 

year 

2. Acres managed for 

populations of invasive 

species controlled to a 

target level. 

(cumulative) 

Baseline: 0 acres 1,000 acres 2,000 acres 3,500 acres 5,000 acres 7,000 acres 

3. Number multiagency rapid response 

plans established, 

mock exercises to 

practice responses 

carried out under those 

plans, and/or actual 

response actions. 

(cumulative) 

Baseline: 0 acres 4 rapid 

response 

exercises/ 

actions 

10 rapid 

response 

exercises/ 

actions 

15 rapid 

response 

exercises/ 

actions 

20 rapid 

response 

exercises/ 

actions 

34 plans 

implemented 

(8) and/or 

rapid response 

exercises/ 

actions (25) 

4. Number of 

recreation and resource 

users contacted on best 

practices that prevent 

the introduction and 

spread of invasive 

species. (cumulative) 

Baseline: 0 users 1,000,000 

users 

2,000,000 

users 

5,000,000 

users 

7,500,000 

users 

10,000,000 

users 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

24 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress 

Principal actions for FY 2010 to 2014 to prevent new introductions of ANS in the Great Lakes basin and stop the 

further spread of ANS include: 

• Develop Ballast Water Treatment that Protects 

Freshwater Ecosystems – Develop a coordinated 

approach to the development of ballast water 

treatment suitable for freshwater ecosystems, 

though the use of laboratory, land-based and/or 

ship-board testing, and verification of treatment 

technologies in coordination with the maritime 

industry. Support work to reduce ship-mediated 

introductions through hull and anchor chain fouling. 

• Implement Early Actions to Address Water 

Pathways Vectors – Identify key waterways that 

could introduce ANS to the Great Lakes and 

implement actions such as ecological separation to 

reduce this risk. Existing canals and extreme storm 

events can form hydrological connections that may 

introduce invasive species into the Great Lakes. 

Models and analysis of hydrological connections under different weather conditions are needed to identify 

and minimize risks of these connections. 

• Prevention by Broad Stakeholder Outreach and Education – Promote actions, including coordinated 

education and outreach, which will prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species through 

recreational uses such as hunting, fishing and recreational boating. 

• Develop and Demonstrate Innovative Control Technology – Promote the development and use of new control 

technologies, which will significantly reduce the cost and/or increase the effectiveness of invasive species 

control measures. 

• Support States’ Role in Invasive Species Prevention and Control – Support the development and on-theground implementation of ANS Management Plans for each of the Great Lakes states. 

• Control Key Invasive Species and Investigate Causal Mechanisms by which ANS impact Native Species – 

Develop a better understanding and models of ecosystem interactions and management options for 

minimizing the impact of ANS, including new treatment or control methods. 

• Establish Early Detection and Rapid Response Capability – Work with government agencies to initiate 

surveillance activities to detect new ANS and establish the capacity, methods and contingency plans for a 

rapid response. Joint planning will allow the mobilization of shared resources to create the best opportunity 

for eradicating species before they become established. 

Action Illustration: 

Early Detection and Rapid Response 

In summer 2008, a mock rapid response exercise 

for aquatic invasive species was conducted in the 

Pennsylvania waters of Lake Erie. Local, state 

and federal partners responded to a simulated 

report of a Snakehead fish by a member of a 

local fishing club. This mock exercise allowed 

agencies to test the effectiveness and further 

refine their multi-jurisdictional rapid response 

plan. This work will be greatly expanded to all the 

Great Lakes to enhance coordination between 

management agencies. A basinwide surveillance 

program will also be established by natural 

resource management and environmental 

protection agencies. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

25 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Focus Area 3: Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Problem Statement 

Nearshore and open waters provide drinking 

water for municipalities and habitat for 

numerous species of birds, fish and other 

aquatic life. This is the area in which most 

residents and visitors experience the Great 

Lakes through swimming, boating and other 

forms of recreation. Nearshore water quality 

has become degraded, as evidenced by 

eutrophication.12 The environmental stressors 

causing these problems include excessive 

nutrient loadings from both point and nonpoint 

sources; bacteria and other pathogens 

responsible for outbreaks of botulism and 

beach closures; development and shoreline 

hardening that disrupt habitat and alter nutrient 

and contaminant runoff; and agricultural 

practices, which increase nutrient and 

sediment loadings. Additional shoreline 

stresses can be traced to failing septic systems, 

grey water pipes (pipes containing non-hazardous household substances like soap), inadequate pump-out stations 

for recreational boats, and even invasive species. 

Nonpoint sources are now the 

primary contributors of many 

pollutants to the lakes and their 

tributaries. Although some nonpoint 

sources act on a whole-basin scale 

(e.g., atmospheric deposition of toxic 

substances), many smaller scale 

sources contribute to degraded water 

quality in Great Lakes tributaries and 

nearshore waters. Sediment is a 

significant nonpoint pollution 

problem facing our lakes, rivers and 

streams. When soil gets washed into 

our waterways, it can smother fish 

habitats and also can carry pollutants 

that threaten water quality. The 

complexity of pollutants and their 

presence in soil, water and air make 

pollution abatement for nonpoint 

sources particularly difficult to 

address. Control strategies to date 

have been inadequate to deliver the 

 

12 The process by which a water body is enriched by nutrients such as phosphorus, resulting in excessive growth of algae, depletion of 

dissolved oxygen, and other impacts, including beach closings. In the nearshore zones of the Great Lakes, eutrophication has sometimes 

been manifested by harmful algal blooms; the green algae Cladophora washing ashore to make unsightly, odiferous rotting mats on 

beaches; and avian botulism.

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore along Lake Michigan. Photo: Tom Gill. 

What is the “Nearshore”?

The aquatic nearshore can be considered to begin at the shoreline and 

extend offshore to the depth at which the warm surface waters typically 

reach the bottom in early fall, generally 20m - 30m deep, and terrestrial 

nearshore areas range from narrow beaches to inland features 

influenced by Great Lakes processes. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

26 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

degree of stream and lake restoration necessary for the protection and maintenance of the Great Lakes. However, 

implementation of agricultural, urban stormwater and other watershed best management practices can have 

multiple benefits, including simultaneous reductions in runoff of soils, nutrients and pesticides. 

 Long Term Goals

• Goal 1: Nearshore aquatic 

communities consist of healthy, 

self-sustaining plant and animal 

populations dominated by 

native species. 

• Goal 2: Land use, recreation 

and economic activities are 

managed to ensure that 

nearshore aquatic, wetland and 

upland habitats will sustain the 

health and function of natural 

communities. 

• Goal 3: The presence of 

bacteria, viruses, pathogens, 

nuisance growths of plants or 

animals, objectionable taste or 

odors, or other risks to human 

health are reduced to levels in 

which water quality standards are met and beneficial uses attained to protect human use and enjoyment of the 

nearshore areas. 

• Goal 4: High quality bathing beach opportunities are maintained by eliminating impairments from bacterial, 

algal and chemical contamination; effective monitoring for pathogens; effective modeling of environmental 

conditions, where appropriate; and timely communications to the public about beach health and daily 

swimming conditions. 

• Goal 5: A significant reduction in soil erosion and the loading of sediments, nutrients and pollutants into 

tributaries is achieved through greater implementation of practices that conserve soil and slow overland flow 

in agriculture, forestry and urban areas. 

• Goal 6: High quality, timely and relevant information about the nearshore areas is readily available to assess 

progress and to inform enlightened decision making. 

Interim Objectives

• By 2010, EPA will compile and map the highest priority watersheds for implementation of targeted nonpoint 

source pollution control measures. 

• By 2014, remediation, restoration and conservation actions in at least one targeted watershed in each Great 

Lake basin will control erosion, reduce nutrient runoff from urban and agricultural sources, and improve 

habitat to protect nearshore aquatic resources. 

• By 2014, a baseline will be established for total suspended solids loadings from targeted tributaries. 

• By 2014, a measurable decrease will be achieved in soluble phosphorus loading from 2008 levels in targeted 

tributaries. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

27 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

• By 2014, the causes of nutrient-related nearshore 

biological impairments will be better understood, and 

following local or watershed remedial actions, the 

number and severity of incidences of harmful algal 

blooms, avian botulism, and/or excessive Cladophora

growth will be significantly reduced from 2008 levels. 

• By 2014, a comprehensive nearshore monitoring 

program will have been established and implemented, 

including a publicly accessible reporting system, based 

on a suite of environmental indicators. 

• By 2014, 50 percent of high priority13 Great Lakes 

beaches will have been assessed using a standardized 

sanitary survey tool to identify sources of 

contamination. 

• By 2014, 20 percent of high priority Great Lakes 

beaches will have begun to implement measures to 

control, manage or remediate pollution sources 

identified through the use of sanitary surveys. 

• By 2014, rapid testing or predictive modeling methods 

(to improve the accuracy of decisions on beach postings to better protect public health) will be employed at 

33 percent of high priority beaches. 

• By 2014, the area of agricultural lands in conservation and/or utilizing conservation tillage practices will 

increase by 50 percent over 2008 levels. 

Measures of Progress 

The Initiative will significantly improve the health of Great Lakes nearshore areas and will advance the reduction 

of nonpoint source pollution to levels that do not impair nearshore waters. The measures by which progress will 

be evaluated in this focus area are: 

Measure Baseline/ 

Universe 

2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 Target 2013 Target 2014 Target 

1. Five year average annual loadings 

of soluble reactive phosphorus14

from tributaries draining targeted 

watersheds. Watersheds expected to 

be targeted for actions include the 

Maumee, Fox, Saginaw, St. Louis 

and Genesee Rivers. 

Baseline: 2003-

07 

Fox River: 212 

Saginaw R: 133 

Maumee R: 623 

St. Louis R: **15

Genesee R: ** 

0% reduction 

Fox: 212 

Saginaw: 133 

Maumee: 623 

St. Louis: ** 

Genesee: ** 

1% reduction 

Fox: 210 

Saginaw: 131 

Maumee: 617 

St. Louis: ** 

Genesee: ** 

2% reduction 

Fox: 208 

Saginaw: 130 

Maumee: 611 

St. Louis: ** 

Genesee: ** 

3% reduction 

Fox: 206 

Saginaw: 129 

Maumee: 604 

St. Louis: ** 

Genesee: ** 

5% reduction, 

Fox: 201 

Saginaw: 126 

Maumee: 592 

St. Louis: ** 

Genesee: ** 

2. Percentage of beaches meeting 

bacteria standards 95% or more of 

beach days. 

Baseline: 86% 

(2006) 

Universe: 100% 

86% 88% 88% 89% 90% 

3. Extent (sq. miles) of Great Lakes 

Harmful Algal Blooms.* 

Baseline: 2008 

estimate TBD 

0% reduction 5% reduction 8% reduction 10% reduction 15% reduction 

 

13 Beaches states identify as most frequently used and/or that have the highest risk. There were 356 high priority beaches (in 

2008) out of a total of 1,411 total beaches in the U.S. Great Lakes. 

14 Metric tons per year. Total phosphorus will also be measured. Targeted watersheds will receive focused efforts toward restoration 

activities, e.g., agricultural best management practices. 

15 **Calculations in progress, to be delivered 2010.

Action Illustration: 

Targeted Geographic Initiatives 

Because some Great Lakes 

subwatersheds show severe signs of 

stress, targeted geographical areas will 

receive focused efforts toward restoration 

activities, e.g., agricultural best 

management practices. Watersheds for the 

Genesee River, Grand Calumet River and 

Harbor, Green Bay/Fox River, Maumee 

River, St. Louis River, and Saginaw River, 

for example, are places where long term 

environmental problems have been clearly 

identified, and they are expected to be 

among those targeted for Initiative efforts. 

Watersheds associated with other AOCs 

may also be targeted to demonstrate more 

immediate results of actions to restore 

beneficial use impairments.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

28 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

4. Annual number of days U.S. 

Great Lakes beaches are closed or 

posted due to nuisance algae.16

Baseline: 200 

beach days 

(estimate) 

0% 

improvement: 

200 days 

5% 

improvement: 

190 days 

8% 

improvement: 

184 days 

10% 

improvement: 

180 days 

15% 

improvement: 

170 days 

5. Annual volume of sediment 

deposition in defined harbor areas in 

targeted watersheds (cu yards).17

Baseline: 2008 

Toledo Harbor: 

1 million cubic 

yards 

0% 

improvement: 

1 million cubic 

yards 

1% 

improvement: 

0.99 million 

cubic yards 

1% 

improvement: 

0.99 million 

cubic yards 

2% 

improvement: 

0.98 million 

cubic yards 

3% 

improvement: 

0.97 million 

cubic yards 

6. Acres in Great Lakes watershed 

with USDA conservation practices 

implemented under Farm Bill 

Programs to reduce erosion, 

nutrients and/or pesticide loading.18

Baseline: 

165,000 acres 

2% increase 

168,300 acres 

15% increase 

189,750 acres 

30% increase 

214,500 acres 

40% increase 

231,000 acres 

50% increase 

247,500 acres 

*Biological responses to nutrients loadings are also dependent on other factors such as water temperature, timing and 

intensity of precipitation, and hydrologic features. Year-to-year variability in these features may mask local improvements in

nutrients management. Satellite imagery may provide data for days during which Harmful Algal Blooms are reported by 

shoreline observers or boaters. 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress 

The principal actions to improve the health of nearshore areas and reduce nonpoint source pollution to levels that 

do not impair nearshore Great Lakes waters include: 

• Place-Based Watershed Plan Implementation. Significant progress has been made nationally and in the Great 

Lakes basin in addressing soil erosion and in reducing nutrient or other contaminant loads to tributaries to the 

Great Lakes through the existing state and federal programs. Water quality problems still exist, however, with 

loadings of sediment and nutrients still unacceptably high in a number of areas and degraded watershed 

conditions linked to impaired nearshore biological communities. This results in increased costs for navigation 

dredging of harbors, and in localized environmental problems such as mats of rotting algae on swimming 

beaches and along the shore. Initiative efforts in this area will address high priority watersheds, performing 

scientific analyses to strategically target where on-the-ground actions can be most effective, and providing 

supplemental funding to implement those actions. This will involve close collaboration between state 

programs, Great Lakes Native American Nations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), 

Department of Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and 

EPA. 

• Identify sources and reduce loadings of nutrients and soil erosion. These activities will contribute to the 

reduction or elimination of the number and severity of incidences of ecosystem disruptions, including 

Cladophora, harmful algal blooms (HABs), botulism and other issues associated with eutrophication. 

Activities will include: applying research and modeling to identify the most effective actions to prevent 

incidences of Cladophora, HABs and botulism; enhancing or implementing watershed practices to reduce 

export of nutrients and soils to the nearshore waters; and establishing and implementing total maximum daily 

loads (TMDLs) for phosphorus, scaled from river reaches to watersheds. 

 

16 This metric will be added to national surveys for beach managers for 2010. Nuisance algae can include Cladophora, HABs or other 

species, all of which are believed to be aggravated by elevated levels of phosphorus in the water. 17 USACE dredges the federal shipping channel at Toledo Harbor each year. This area receives the highest rate of sedimentation in the 

Great Lakes, coming from the Maumee River watershed. Even small improvements in the rate of sedimentation here would reflect 

considerable efforts in the watershed to reduce erosion and farm runoff. Alternately, USACE conducts bathymetric surveys of commercial 

harbors each year, from which the volume of new fluvial sediment can be calculated for targeted watersheds. Because USACE does not 

dredge every location of every harbor each year, the estimated accumulation from a designated area over time will reflect the relative 

amount of sediments deposited from the tributary. This approach is currently in development. 18 This measure reflects annual (not cumulative) implementation of conservation practices (from the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program and Conservation Technical Assistance program) that will contribute to long term improvements of the listed outcomes.
DRAFT December 3, 2009

29 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

• Improve Public Health Protection at Beaches. Humans are put at risk when exposed to pathogenic bacteria. 

These activities will reduce risk to human health at swimming beaches by reducing the abundance of 

pathogenic organisms to levels below established criteria, increasing the effectiveness of monitoring for 

pathogens, modeling environmental conditions likely to result in elevated levels of bacteria, or enhancing 

communications to the public about daily swimming conditions. 

• Generate Critical Information for Protecting Nearshore Health. The nearshore environment of the Great 

Lakes is highly varied, including relatively unspoiled shorelines, highly urbanized reaches, tributary mouths, 

bays, wetlands and other environmental features. These activities will promote the collection of data about 

nearshore conditions and stresses, the assessment of information and management implications, or the 

dissemination of information to all potential users in the Great Lakes community. 

Focus Area 4: Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration 

Problem Statement 

The health of Great Lakes habitats and wildlife depends upon the protection and restoration of ecosystems: the 

Great Lakes, the coastline, wetlands, rivers, connecting channels and watersheds. Humans benefit from healthy 

ecosystems. Healthy Great Lakes, for example, provide us with clean drinking water; rare wildlife populate a 

variety of unique coastal habitats; wetlands help control floodwaters; rivers transport sediments, nutrients and 

organic materials throughout the watershed; forests provide oxygen while reducing erosion and sedimentation; 

and, upland habitats produce topsoil and habitats for pollinators and bio-control agents. Fully resilient ecosystems 

buffer the impacts of potential problems such as climate change. 

A multitude of threats affect the health of Great Lakes habitats and wildlife. Habitat destruction and degradation 

due to development; competition from invasive species; the alteration of natural lake level fluctuations due to 

artificial lake level management and flow regimes from dams, drain tiles, ditches, and other control structures; 

toxic compounds from urban development, poor land management practices and non-point sources; and, habitat 

fragmentation have impacted habitat and wildlife. This has led to an altered food web, a loss of biodiversity, and 

poorly functioning ecosystems. Many opportunities exist to protect and restore critical elements of the Great 

Lakes ecosystem even as we strive to improve our understanding of emerging issues and their impacts. 

Long Term Goals

• Goal 1: Protection and restoration of 

Great Lakes aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats, including physical, chemical, 

and biological processes and ecosystem 

functions, maintain or improve the 

conditions of native fish and wildlife. 

• Goal 2: Critical management activities 

(such as stocking native fish and other 

aquatic species, restoring access of 

migratory fish species at fish passage 

barriers, and identifying and addressing 

diseases) protect and conserve 

important fish and wildlife populations. 

Menominee River lake sturgeon. Photo: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

30 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

• Goal 3: Sound decision making is 

facilitated by accessible, site 

specific and landscape-scale 

baseline status and trend 

information about fish and wildlife 

resources and their habitats. 

• Goal 4: High priority actions 

identified in strategic plans (such as 

state and federal species 

management, restoration and 

recovery plans, Lakewide 

Management Plans, Remedial 

Action Plans, and others) are 

implemented, lead to the 

achievement of plan goals, and 

reduce the loss of fish and wildlife 

and their habitats. 

• Goal 5: Development activities are 

planned and implemented in ways 

that are sensitive to environmental 

considerations and compatible with 

fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

Interim Objectives

• By 2014, 3,000 miles of Great 

Lakes rivers and tributaries will be 

reopened and 500 barriers to fish 

passage will be removed or 

bypassed. 

• By 2014, 79 percent of Great Lakes 

federally listed threatened or 

endangered species will be 

stabilized or improved. 

• By 2014, 57 percent of populations 

of native aquatic non-threatened and 

endangered species are self 

sustaining. 

• By 2014, 125,000 acres of wetlands, 

wetland-associated uplands, and 

high priority coastal, upland, urban, 

and island habitats will be 

protected, restored or enhanced. 

• By 2014, data will be collected on 

the health of 2,000 U.S. coastal 

wetlands and 500 critical spawning 

areas to support continuing habitat restoration actions. 

• By 2014, 34 habitat-related beneficial use impairments will be delisted across the Areas of Concern. 

Action Illustration: 

Lake Sturgeon Recovery 

A resident of the Great Lakes for 10,000 years, the prehistoric 

lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) is more than a holdover 

from the distant past—it is a barometer of the health and diversity 

of the entire Great Lakes ecosystem. The largest fish in the Great 

Lakes, sturgeon can grow to be eight feet long and weigh more 

than 200 pounds. Remaining populations represent only a fraction 

of their former numbers and are now protected in most waters of 

the Great Lakes. Only 5 rivers basin-wide have an annual 

spawning run of 200 or more adults and only one river exceeds 

the minimal viable population spawning run target of 350 adults. 

Major contributors to the sturgeon’s decline are historical overharvesting and habitat loss resulting from the damming of 

tributary waters, siltation resulting from deforestation, poor 

agricultural practices and dredging. Pollution from nutrients and 

contaminants have also reduced water quality and hindered 

reproductive success. The sturgeon's late maturity and infrequent 

spawning has also contributed to its limited recovery. 

Over 40 partnerships have been operating throughout the Great 

Lakes to conserve, protect, and enhance lake sturgeon 

populations through numerous cooperative efforts. Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative funding will now accelerate sturgeon 

rehabilitation in the basin through on-the-ground habitat 

enhancement and restoration projects, such as restoring fish 

passage to historical spawning areas, as well as supporting the 

rearing, stocking, and assessment of sturgeon populations. 

Initiative funding will also support a coordinated, multi-agency 

investigation of environmental contaminants in sturgeon and will 

improve evaluation and prioritization of habitat restoration 

projects. 

Of the 26 tributaries that support sturgeon in the Great Lakes, 16 

of these will benefit from either initiation of stream-side rearing 

facilities to enhance recruitment or habitat enhancement through 

the GLRI. As a result of enhanced sturgeon management and 

rehabilitation efforts through the GLRI, a basin-wide total of 

25,000 fingerling lake sturgeon will be stocked to enhance 

existing small but remnant populations. A boosted stocking effort 

through FY2014 is expected to promote lake sturgeon spawning 

success and will promote populations toward self-sustaining 

levels. Habitat assessment and enhancement projects will be 

implemented on 20 existing sturgeon streams, and fish passage 

will be provided on 2 barriers that limit sturgeon access to 

upstream habitat. Improvements to the health of lake sturgeon will 

be captured in the fourth measure of progress below: “Percent of 

populations of native aquatic non-threatened and endangered 

species self sustaining in the wild.” 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

31 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Measures of Progress 

The Initiative will significantly accelerate Great Lakes habitat and wildlife protection. The measures by which 

progress will be evaluated in this focus area are: 

Measure* Baseline/ Universe 2010 Target 2011 Target 2012 

Target 

2013 

Target 

2014 Target 

1. Miles of rivers 

reopened for fish 

passage. 

Baseline: 0 

Universe: 20,000 miles 

1,000 miles 2,000 miles 3,000 miles 4,000 miles 5,000 miles 

2. Number of fish 

passage barriers 

removed or 

bypassed. 

Baseline: 0 

Universe: 5,000 barriers 

100 barriers 200 barriers 300 barriers 400 barriers 500 barriers 

3. % of federally 

listed threatened or 

endangered species 

stabilized or 

improved. 

**Baseline (2009): 79% 

22/28*** species 

Universe: 28 listed 

species 

79% 

22/28 listed 

species 

78% 

21/27 listed 

species19

tbd tbd 80% 

20/25 listed 

species20

4. % of populations 

of native aquatic 

non-threatened and 

endangered species 

self-sustaining in 

the wild. 

**Baseline (2009): 27% 

39/147**** populations 

Universe: 147 

populations 

33% 

48/147 

populations 

39% 

57/147 

populations 

45% 

66/147 

populations 

51% 

93/147 

populations 

57% 

84/147 

populations 

5. Number of acres 

of wetlands and 

wetland-associated 

uplands protected, 

restored and 

enhanced. 

Baseline: 0 

Universe: 550,000 acres 

5,000 acres 10,000 acres 15,000 acres 20,000 acres 25,000 acres 

6. Number of acres 

of coastal, upland, 

and island habitats 

protected, restored 

and enhanced. 

Baseline: 0 

Universe: 1,000,000 

acres 

15,000 acres 30,000 acres 50,000 acres 75,000 acres 100,000 acres 

7. % of U.S. coastal 

Great Lakes 

wetlands assessed. 

Baseline: 0 

Universe: 100% 

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

8. Number of 

habitat-related 

BUIs removed from 

the 27 U.S. AOCs 

so impaired. 

Baseline: 4 

Universe: 75 so 

impaired 

9 BUIs 

removed 

14 BUIs 

removed 

20 BUIs 

removed 

28 BUIs 

removed 

34 BUIs 

removed 

* Out year targets for these measures are cumulative. The Universe represents all that is likely possible to protect, restore, enhance; 

baseline represents the number of acres etc. that are already protected, restored, enhanced. All measures of progress included here are 

interim figures until final baselines are established. 

** Baseline and target performance information represents regional species and population data from the greater Midwest geographic area, 

including the Upper Mississippi River. 

*** Numerator: # of species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are stabilized or improving. Denominator: # of listed species 

(U.S. listings only). 

**** Numerator: # of populations of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate species that are self-sustaining in the wild. Denominator: 

total # of native aquatic non-T&E and non-candidate populations. 

 

19 Lake Erie Watersnake delisted, so both the numerator and denominator decrease 20 Gray wolf and Pitcher's thistle delisted; American Hart’s tongue fern stabilized, so both the numerator and denominator decrease
DRAFT December 3, 2009

32 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress 

The principal FY 2010-2014 actions to protect and restore habitat and wildlife include the following. Agencies 

will work together with states, tribes, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and industry to: 

• Improve Aquatic Ecosystem 

Resiliency – Protect and restore 

aquatic habitats for fish and wildlife 

populations by reconnecting habitats 

through corridors to enhance 

biological diversity, reducing 

sediment and nutrient inputs, 

restoring natural hydrological 

processes, improving water quality, 

restoring ecosystem services, and 

increasing populations of native fish 

and wildlife through coordinated 

management actions. 

• Maintain or Improve the 

Population Status of 

Threatened, 

Endangered, Rare and 

Migratory Species – 

Enhance native species 

populations by 

implementing restoration 

actions identified in 

species recovery and 

management plans, 

quantifying habitat needs 

for depleted migratory 

bird species, propagating 

lake trout, coaster brook 

trout, lake sturgeon and 

other similar fingerlings 

for suppressed fish 

populations, assessing 

fish populations, and 

protecting and restoring 

culturally significant 

species. 

• Enhance Wetlands, 

Wetland-Associated 

Uplands, and High 

Priority Coastal, Upland 

and Island Habitats – 

Protect, restore, or 

enhance habitats by 

acquiring properties that 

are important to sustain 

fish and wildlife 

populations, restoring 

Action Illustration: 

Great Lakes Piping Plover Recovery 

The Great Lakes population of piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is one of 

the region’s most critically endangered species. As a result of long-term 

management and protection activities, reproductive success has improved, 

total population numbers have increased, and breeding pairs have increased 

from 17 in 1986 to 71 in 2009. However, the Great Lakes piping plover 

remains extremely vulnerable to extinction from threats including breeding 

site disturbances, habitat loss due to shoreline development and recreational 

use, adult mortality from predation and disease, and environmental events 

such as severe weather and oil spills. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

currently leads a multistate, binational recovery program that includes 

partners from other federal and state resource agencies, non-profit 

organizations, universities, zoos and volunteers. Funding through the GLRI 

will effectively boost partner participation with recovery efforts, as well as 

support the following goals over the next five years: 

• Identify, protect and monitor each breeding area with a goal of increasing 

population levels approximately 15 percent, while sustaining wild 

reproductive success levels at 1.5 or more fledged chicks per adult pair. 

• Implement population augmentation strategies including a salvage captive 

rearing program for abandoned eggs and chicks to increase overall 

reproductive success to greater than 1.7 fledged chicks per adult pair. 

• Develop and implement an adaptive approach to predator management in 

an effort to sustain adult survival rates of 75 percent or greater. 

• Conduct invasive species control efforts at 8-10 sites over a five year 

period to improve/preserve piping plover breeding habitat. 

• Work with other agencies and non-profit organizations to secure 

conservation easements on three to four important piping plover breeding 

sites on private land. 

• Support scientific research on plover ecology, population demographics 

and genetics. 

These efforts will significantly improve the chances for long-term recovery of 

the piping plover in the Great Lakes. Improvements to the health of piping 

plover will be captured in the third measure of progress below: “Percent of 

federally listed threatened or endangered species stabilized or improved.” 

Piping plover. Photo: Alice Van Zoeren. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

33 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

natural hydrological regimes, improving water quality, and restoring the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of ecosystems in each Great Lake basin. 

• Identify, Inventory, and Track Progress on Great Lakes Habitats, Including Coastal Wetlands Restoration – 

Assess progress toward restoring Great Lakes habitats by establishing baseline conditions and tracking trends; 

highlight the importance of coastal wetland conservation and restoration by implementing a long-term coastal 

wetland monitoring program and enhancing the National Wetlands Inventory. 

• Restore Habitat Functioning in Areas of Concern – Improve habitats in degraded urban environments and 

Areas of Concern where beneficial use impairments limit ecosystem functioning by restoring habitats for 

native species populations and removing or isolating contaminants. 

Focus Area 5: Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, 

Communication and Partnerships 

Problem Statement 

The Action Plan requires 

additional oversight, 

monitoring, assessment, and 

coordination to succeed. 

Although the initiative benefits 

greatly from the years of 

scientific effort in the Great 

Lakes, there are still gaps in 

efforts to measure and monitor 

key indicators of overall 

ecosystem function, to evaluate 

restoration progress, and to 

provide the information 

decision makers need. This 

information needs to be based 

on best available science, and 

compiled and communicated 

consistently to decision makers 

to allow them to assess 

ecosystem conditions and to track 

restoration progress. Efforts under 

the Initiative will establish the foundation for routine and consistent comprehensive ecosystem assessments. A 

comprehensive and efficient accountability system and well-defined metrics must be established to track progress 

under this Action Plan. This system needs to track progress of individual grant recipients and partner-led 

initiatives, as well as overall progress in meeting the short- and long-term goals and objectives of the Initiative as 

a whole. 

This focus area is the necessary backbone for success in the others. The lack of investment over recent years in 

research and monitoring has led to gaps in knowledge and an inadequate understanding of complex and emerging 

issues such as nearshore dynamics and climate change impacts. This means new investment is needed, 

particularly in the first year of the GLRI, to set up the systems and tools necessary to understand, coordinate, 

teach, direct progress and capture results. Once these systems and tools are developed and in use, we anticipate 

that this focus area will decrease in significance as implementation increases in the other focus areas. 

The R/V Lake Guardian. Photo: U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

34 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Outreach and education are also crucial in the effort to restore the Great Lakes. If the change we seek is to leave 

the Great Lakes better for the next generation than the condition in which we inherited them, then we must 

educate upcoming decision makers so tomorrow they are capable of learning from and extending today’s 

restoration efforts. The growth of service learning programs is an encouraging sign that school systems are 

placing an increasing value on stewardship of and hands-on learning about the Great Lakes. A handful of Great 

Lakes curricula exist that satisfy state and other relevant learning standards, yet these rarely find their way into 

core education objectives for Great Lakes schools. 

We must continue to reach traditional classroom 

teachers and nature centers, but also reach nontraditional education outlets such as homeschoolers, 

national lakeshore and state park visitor centers, 

zoos, aquariums, and museums. Moreover, while 

there will always be some demand for the 

development of new curricula, alarmingly few 

resources are available today by the funding 

community for executing existing high-quality 

education specifically centered on the concept and 

practice of Great Lakes “restoration” that can show 

demonstrable results. Additionally, current 

education efforts often lack coordination, duplicate 

efforts and fail to move the Great Lakes education 

community toward collaborative best practices 

supportive of Great Lakes restoration. Support is 

especially lacking for the sustained implementation 

of existing high-quality standardized curricula 

through, for example, teacher training, funding for 

field trips, support for teachers’ professional 

development opportunities and efforts focused on 

underserved communities, among other activities. 

The Great Lakes span many different government 

jurisdictions along with their regulatory agencies 

and authorities: two countries, eight U.S. states, two 

Canadian provinces, 83 U.S. counties, thousands of 

cities and towns, 33 U.S. tribal governments and 

more than 60 recognized First Nations in Canada. 

Through the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty with 

Canada, the related Great Lakes Water Quality 

Agreement, and a host of other institutional 

arrangements, this region has a long history of 

governments at all levels working in partnership to 

protect and restore the Great Lakes. Federal 

coordination efforts have been greatly improved 

through efforts of the Great Lakes Interagency Task 

Force and its Regional Working Group. Binational 

efforts continue through the Binational Executive 

Committee which oversees the U.S. and Canada’s 

actions to implement the provisions of the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These partnerships 

must continue and be further strengthened to 

address the complex issues faced by the Great 

Lakes. 

Action Illustration: 

Comprehensive Great Lakes Coastal 

Assessment 

The nearshore environment of the Great Lakes is 

highly varied, including relatively unspoiled 

shorelines, highly urbanized reaches, tributary 

mouths, embayments, wetlands and other 

environmental features. Regular, comprehensive 

monitoring has been difficult because there are over 

10,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and effective 

technologies have only recently been developed. 

This has inhibited the ability to track issues 

impacting human and ecological health. In keeping 

with national efforts to provide statistically valid 

assessments of water resources, a nearshore 

monitoring program in the Great Lakes will be 

implemented, which builds on ongoing long-term 

efforts and initiates new efforts focused on poorly 

characterized areas or elements. The nearshore 

monitoring program will provide the necessary 

scientific basis to assess the physical, chemical and 

biological integrity of the nearshore environment and 

to target restoration and protection efforts. The 

assessment will establish baseline conditions of 

environmental quality and variability of the 

nearshore waters, bottom substrate and biota. 

The nearshore monitoring program will utilize a 

probability-based design for site selection, as well 

as for shipboard surveys targeted for specific 

purposes. It will also utilize remote sensing and 

other observing tools to help monitor the coastal 

areas. The program will include rivers that flow 

directly into the Great Lakes and drain watersheds 

greater than 250 square miles. River monitoring will 

allow calculation of seasonal and annual loadings 

from the watersheds to the Great Lakes. 

EPA’s National Coastal Condition Assessment will 

provide the basis for the initial effort by supplying a 

framework to which additional monitoring can be 

added. The additional monitoring will be an 

expansion of sites in the open waters, nearshore 

areas, and rivers using a probabilistic sampling 

design which allows statements on the overall 

quality of the Great Lakes coasts and also of the 

nearshore areas of individual lakes. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

35 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Long Term Goals

• Goal 1: A cooperative monitoring and observing system provides a comprehensive assessment of the Great 

Lakes ecosystem. 

• Goal 2: The necessary technology and programmatic infrastructure supports monitoring and reporting, 

including Great Lakes Restoration Initiative project deliverables by all agencies and participating 

stakeholders. Data and information are provided in reports that are public friendly, timely and available on the 

Internet. Reports present integrated and scaled data from watersheds to lakes to Great Lakes basinwide. 

• Goal 3: Increase outreach and education for the Great Lakes, and provide ongoing K-12 education for 

students to understand the benefits and ecosystem functions of the Great Lakes so they are able to make 

decisions to ensure that restoration investments are enhanced over time. 

• Goal 4: Accessible mechanisms provide a range of opportunities for Great Lakes stakeholders and citizens to 

provide input to the governments on Great Lakes issues and concerns. 

• Goal 5: Work under the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is coordinated 

between the U.S. and Canada through Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) and other binational processes, 

programs, and plans. 

Interim Objectives

• By 2011, opportunities for collaboration, planning, data accessibility and accountability will be increased 

through the expanded use of internet-based technology. 

• By 2011, an Accountability System will be developed and implemented for the Initiative. The system will 

integrate and make transparent strategic planning, budgeting and results monitoring. 

• By 2011, a satellite remote sensing program will be implemented to assess Great Lakes productivity and 

biological (algal bloom) events. 

• By 2011, outreach and education efforts are increased, including identifying and revising existing curricula to 

incorporate sustainable education needs for the Great Lakes that meet state and other relevant learning 

standards. 

• By 2011, a refined suite of science-based indicators for development of a comprehensive assessment of Great 

Lakes ecosystem health will be identified, monitoring programs for those indicators will begin to be 

implemented, and restoration and protection actions tied to those assessments and programs assured. 

• By 2011, social media access opportunities for basinwide public involvement in the Initiative will be in place. 

• By 2012, education efforts under existing curricula that meet state and other relevant learning standards will 

be coordinated across states, and a system for tracking student and teacher outreach (quantitatively and 

qualitatively) for their use. 

• By 2012, improved coordination with Canada will take place for programs under the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement, particularly under the LaMPs, which will result in the achievement of 5-10 priority LaMP 

goals and actions. 

• By 2014, a statistically valid and comprehensive assessment, using a probability-based design, of Great Lakes 

water resources, will be established. The system will integrate shipboard monitoring, remote sensing, 

automated sampling, and other monitoring or observing efforts. By 2016, the system will be in place for all of 

the Great Lakes and capable of providing a scientifically justifiable assessment of Great Lakes water 

resources. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

36 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

• By 2014, timely data and information will be provided to decision makers at multiple scales within a 

framework of established baselines, targets, indicators of progress, and monitoring. 

Measures of Progress 

The Initiative will significantly improve collaborative Great Lakes decision making, transparency, and 

accountability for Great Lakes information. Representatives of the federal agencies below will work together to 

determine which existing agency inventory and monitoring data can be used to establish baselines for the various 

performance goals and to identify needed additional research and monitoring, outreach, and implementation. The 

measures by which progress will be evaluated in this focus area are:

Measure Baseline/ 

Universe 

2010 

Target 

2011 

Target 

2012 

Target 

2013 

Target 

2014 

Target 

1. Improvement in the overall aquatic 

ecosystem health of the Great Lakes 

using the Great Lakes 40-point 

scale.21

Baseline: 

20 points 

Universe: 

40 points 

23 points 23.4 points 23.9 points 24.3 points 24.7 points 

2. Number of priority LaMP projects 

that are completed. 

Baseline: 0 

projects 

10 projects 12 projects 15 projects 18 projects 20 projects 

3. Number of educational institutions 

incorporating new or existing Great 

Lakes protection and stewardship 

criteria into their broader environment 

education curricula.22

Baseline: 0 0 institutions 2 institutions 6 institutions 10 institutions 16 institutions 

Principal Actions to Achieve Progress 

The principal actions for FY 2010 to 2014 to achieve significant, measurable objectives include: 

• Develop Great Lakes Restoration Accountability System – Develop and implement a transparent 

accountability system for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, including easy access to information and 

linkages to planning, budgeting, and results. With our new accountability system, partner agencies will report 

quality controlled information regularly on Initiative progress in meeting the objectives and targets of this 

Action Plan. Progress will also be reported with and through the LaMPs on the Great Lakes as a whole, as 

well as on each of the Lakes and Connecting Channels, and public forums will be harnessed to assist with the 

transfer and dissemination of information to the public. 

 

21 This is an existing measure under the Government Performance and Results Act. The Great Lakes Index uses select Great Lakes 

ecosystem indicators (i.e., coastal wetlands, phosphorus concentrations, AOC sediment contamination, benthic health, fish tissue 

contamination, beach closures, drinking water quality, and air toxics deposition) and is based on a 1 to 5 rating system for each indicator, 

where 1 is poor and 5 is good. Improvements in the index and measures would indicate that fewer toxics are entering the food chain; 

ecosystem and human health is better protected; fish are safer to eat; water is safer to drink; and beaches are safer for swimming. 22 Educational institutions include: state departments of education, primary and secondary school districts, colleges, 

universities, zoos, aquaria, museums, and nature/resource centers. Curricula will meet relevant official standards. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

37 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Deployment of towed sensor array on U.S. EPA research vessel. Photo: U.S. 

EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. 

• Measure and Evaluate the Health of the 

Great Lakes Ecosystem using the best 

available science – Enhance existing 

programs that measure and assess the 

physical, biological, and chemical 

integrity of the Great Lakes, including the 

Connecting Channels. Develop and 

implement a statistically valid assessment, 

using a probability-based design, of Great 

Lakes water resources, coinciding with 

intensive cooperative science and 

monitoring efforts for the Lakes. 

Implement strategic components relevant 

for Great Lakes decision making of the 

U.S. contribution to the Integrated Earth 

Observation System and the Integrated Ocean 

Observing System as part of the Global Earth 

Observing System of Systems. Develop a 

coordinated federal approach to address on the key scientific priorities needed to fully assess the impacts 

climate change may have on the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem and better manage those impacts. 

Promote the development and implementation of science-based indicators that will better assess and provide a 

better measure of accountability of actions to improve the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

• Support Great Lakes restoration education – 

Develop coordination mechanism(s) for Great Lakes 

restoration education efforts that meet state and 

other relevant learning standards. Identify the suite 

of participating educators and facilities (e.g., formal 

classroom teachers, homeschoolers, public and 

private community service learning programs, nontraditional education outlets such as nature centers, 

national lakeshore visitor centers, zoos, aquariums, 

museums, and urban community centers, etc.). The 

number of educators who participate in teacher 

trainings and, as a result the number of participating 

students, is increasing. These trends should be made 

to translate into more institutions incorporating 

Great Lakes lessons into their curricula. Ensure 

metrics are included the Great Lakes Restoration 

Accountability System. 

• Enhance Partnerships – Enhance coordination and 

collaboration among Great Lakes partners to help 

ensure that actions, projects and programs under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative are efficient, effective 

and in furtherance of the U.S. - Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Partnerships will be advanced 

and resources and capabilities leveraged through existing collaborative efforts such as the U.S. - Canada 

Binational Executive Committee, the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, the U.S. - Canada Great 

Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Lakewide Management Plans, Four Agency Agreements, the Coordinated 

Science Monitoring Initiative, and Great Lakes Fisheries management. 

Action Illustration: 

What is a LaMP? 

A Lakewide Management Plan, or "LaMP", is a 

plan of action to assess, restore, protect and 

monitor the ecosystem health of a Great Lake. It is 

used to coordinate the work of all the 

governmental and non-government partners 

working to improve a Lake’s ecosystem. A public 

consultation process helps include attention to 

public concerns. Priority projects, such as 

sampling tributaries for chemicals, developing 

watershed plans, restoring habitats, conducting 

hazardous waste collections, and many others, are 

implemented in pursuit of LaMP goals and 

objectives. Many such projects are complex and 

time consuming, involving many partners and 

logistical concerns. 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

38 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Conclusion 

If we care for the Great Lakes, they will continue to care for us – economically, ecologically and socially. Study 

after study, however, shows a Great Lakes in peril. These studies point the way to how we can work to make the 

ecosystem more resilient over time by reducing toxic pollution and cleaning up Areas of Concern, instituting a 

zero tolerance policy toward aquatic nuisance species, rehabilitating fish and wildlife habitat, shielding nearshore 

health from polluted “nonpoint source” runoff, and enhancing these efforts through proper accountability 

mechanisms, education and other measures. By declaring Great Lakes restoration a national priority with the 

proposal for significant new resources to address these issues, President Barack Obama is encouraging federal, 

state, municipal, tribal and civic representatives – all of us – to unify for leaving the Great Lakes better for the 

next generation.

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 
DRAFT December 3, 2009

39 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 

Acronyms 

ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species

AOC Area of Concern

BUI Beneficial Use Impairment

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

GLRC Great Lakes Regional Collaboration

GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HAB Harmful Algal Bloom

LaMP Lakewide Management Plan

RFP Request for Proposals

SRF State Revolving Fund

Photo Credits 

Cover/Page 1: Satellite imagery of the Great Lakes, © National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Page 6: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, Indiana, © Tom Gill.

Page 7: Pigeon River kayaking, Gaylord, Michigan, © Rich Evenhouse. 

Page 8: Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Empire, Michigan, © dailyinvention/flickr. 

Page 9: Nelson Point State Park, Door County, Wisconsin, © James Jordan. 

Page 10: Lake Superior wave, © Jerry Bielicki. 

Page 12: Boats along Lake Huron, © John Menard. 

Page 14: Flowing stream near the Chicago River, Illinois, © James Jordan. 

Page 16: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, Indiana, © Tom Gill. 

Page 17: Grand River plume entering Lake Michigan at Grand Haven, Michigan, © NOAA Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL).

Page 21: Sea lamprey, © Dave Brenner, courtesy of Michigan Sea Grant.

Page 25: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, Indiana, © Tom Gill.

Page 29: Menominee River lake sturgeon, Wisconsin, © U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay.

Page 32: Piping plover, © Alice Van Zoeren. 

Page 33: The R/V Lake Guardian, © U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. 

Page 37: Deployment of towed sensor array on U.S. EPA research vessel. © U.S. EPA Great Lakes National 

Program Office. 

Page 38: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Munising, Michigan, © mtsn/flickr.